HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-2002 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE
❑ COUNCIL
E PLANNING
COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATIONREQUESTED
` ❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
M
1. u ShL,..0.9 3 49 L 38 l �` l I� ���7∎0 �.►.�: j'\ (� Al��S
2. k).)1;:n-• `��- j i.�1.�YWw'� t "\ o, ri LA (-• /
3. fi nci-1-1 1 '��+�. ., .� '�`+ � � �'���,�kck L kU,J, 7 c.
NEI,sc J 7 32. 5l..wLE-Jot ' 9 L,ve" 02 - 2774-
f-f e.r4c /..e f, C;C , �; 7 n,'6, 0
6. ? (-1S.- Di- 4'L-42)Z
G�
6.. 5 02, 2770
/Y?2._ -.17U.', C,"a c? c��-i ��C r � c3. ;3 c,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
X:\Data\Administrative Support\(Forms-Old)\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present:
Chair Elizabeth Hawn, Commissioners Jeanne Mabusth, Sandra Smith,David Rahn, Janice Berg,
Daniel Kluth, and J. Mark Fritzler. The following represented City Staff: Planning Director
Michael Gaffron,Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg,
And Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Representative Richard Flint was present.
Chair Hawn called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1)02-2770 DAVID AND KATHRYN BIEK,4675 CREEKWOOD TRAIL,CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT
(#2)02-2774 MARK CREE,3120 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding these two applications.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2774,
David and Kathryn Biek,4675 Creekwood Trail,granting of a conditional use permit for
plumbing in an accessory building subject to the property owner filing the appropriate restrictive
convenant on the property for an accessory building with plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2774,Mark Cree,
3120 North Shore Drive,granting of a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory
building subject to the property owner filing the appropriate restrictive covenant on the property
for an accessory building with plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#3) 02-2767 STONEGATE FARM,INC., 2940 COUNTY ROAD 6, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,6:33 p.m.—6:44 p.m.
Susan Seeland,Vice President of Stonegate Farm,was present.
Hawn indicated she would like to discuss this item even though it is on the Consent Agenda.
Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application.
There were no public comments.
Hawn noted approval from Hennepin Parks is required on this application prior to this matter
proceeding forward to the City Council along with a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District for erosion control.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2767 Stonegate Farm,Continued)
Hawn stated it has also been suggested by one of the Commissioners that a time schedule be established
for the movement of the fill. Hawn inquired whether the property owner would be amenable to setting
up a time schedule for the movement of the fill.
Seeland stated at this time they are unaware of the timing for the movement of the fill,noting they are
waiting for excessive fill on a project in the area.
Smith inquired whether a schedule could be given to the City once the property owner becomes aware
of it.
Seeland stated that would be acceptable,but indicated there may be a problem if the fill comes from
more than one project. Seeland indicated she would be willing to work with Staff on the schedule.
Mabusth inquired whether the Planning Commission wants to put a deadline on this permit,with the
property owner being required to appear before the Planning Commission again for another permit if the
hauling of the fill goes beyond a certain time period.
Seeland indicated she has discussed this matter with Mike Gaffron and the appropriate landscaping that
would be required. Seeland stated she was told by Gaffron that once the Highway 12 project begins,
that there should be many places where fill can be obtained.
Hawn stated it is in the best interests of the City to limit the time in which the fill is hauled.
Rahn commented it would be more problematic if the fill is hauled in from a number of smaller projects
rather than one big project. Rahn stated one of the issues to address is the cleanup of the road.
Mabusth indicated the hauler would be responsible for the cleanup, and suggested that Staff be notified
when the hauling will take place.
Hawn inquired whether Seeland would be agreeable to contacting Staff whenever hauling would occur.
Seeland stated she would be, and that they would like to keep the number of projects that the fill would
be hauled from to one or two.
Hawn requested the applicant notify the City whenever a new site is determined.
Smith inquired whether there have been other occasions in the City where property owners have hauled
in fill where it has not occurred all at one time.
Gaffron stated that happens quite frequently,noting Staff would prefer to keep the hauling incidents
down to two or three.
Smith inquired who would keep track of who cleans the roads if there is more than one hauler.
Gaffron stated the cleanup issue would occur the day the hauling occurs and usually is not a problem
unless there are a large number of haulers.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2767 Stonegate Farm, Continued)
Smith inquired why all of the engineer's recommendations were not included in Staff's report,
particularly the one relating to the trail in this area.
Seeland stated they have no need to cross the trail.
Berg noted condition six in Staff's report relates to the trail.
Smith recommended all the recommendations in the City Engineer's report be included as conditions.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2767, Stonegate
Farms,2940 Sixth Avenue North,subject to the six conditions outlined in the April 11,2002
Planner's Report as well as all the conditions outlined in Exhibit C. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#4) #02-2762 TIMOTHY AND MARY SWEEZO,4480 WATERTOWN ROAD,VARIANCES,
6:45 p.m.—7:15 p.m.
Tim and Mary Sweezo,Applicants,were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting several variances to permit construction of a new three
bedroom residence with an attached two-stall garage. The new house would replace the existing house
on the property. Hennepin County tax records estimate a construction date for the existing house to be
around 1900. The location for the new house would be where the existing residence is located.
The property is located in the RR-1A zoning district,which requires a minimum lot size of five acres, a
front setback of 100 feet, and a side setback of 50 feet.
The Applicants are requesting variances to lot area, with the buildable area consisting of 1.44 acres.
Weinberger noted the eastern two-thirds of the lot is wetland,with the wetland area not being counted in
the dry buildable area. A substantial amount of the south portion of the property was also acquired in
1998 for improvements to County Road 6,which significantly reduced the size of the lot.
The Applicants are also requesting variances to the side setback and front setback. The Applicants have
chosen the proposed location for the new residence based on the existing driveway arrangement,
location of buildings on the property, and septic drain field sites. The new residence is proposed to be
located meeting the same setback as the existing house, which is 53.6 feet to the front property line.
The side and rear setback variances are required based on the location of an existing detached garage
that is proposed to remain on the property and based on the fact that the garage and driveway access to
the building would be blocked by the new house if the new residence were constructed to meet all
current setback standards.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2762 Timothy and Mary Sweezo, Continued)
Weinberger stated Staff is recommending approval of the variances based on the hardships
demonstrated.
Staff also recommends approval of the variances that would allow the accessory buildings to remain on
the property until such time as they have reached the end of their useful life. This recommendation
includes the understanding the buildings would not be allowed to expand or have any structural
modifications. Weinberger stated the buildings on the site are currently considered legal non-
conforming because they were constructed prior to the adoption of the current zoning ordinance. The
buildings would remain legal non-conforming and would be required to be removed once they have
reached the end of their useful life.
Mr. and Mrs. Sweezo had nothing further to add to Staffs report.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Smith inquired whether the new residence could be located where the existing barn or garage is,noting
that it would bring the residence closer to conformance.
Weinberger stated that it could. Weinberger stated the Applicants were attempting to maintain the best
location for the house based on existing plumbing for the septic, well, and screening from County
Road 6.
Mabusth stated the garage is relatively new,with the barn being approximately 115 years. Mabusth
stated the barn is in great shape. Mabusth recommended the Applicants be advised what the Code says
about repair of a non-conforming structure. Mabusth noted this lot is a little over three acres,and
inquired how many accessory structures would be allowed.
Weinberger indicated they would be allowed one, with the actual defined area of the lot being
approximately 1.5 acres.
Smith inquired whether the barn is currently being used.
Sweezo stated it is.
Smith inquired what the barn is being used for.
Sweezo stated he has two cows.
Hawn inquired whether the life of one or more of the accessory buildings could be established,noting
that this is new construction.
Mabusth stated she did view this lot and in her view it would be difficult to ask the Applicant to remove
the structures since they are in extremely good condition. Mabusth stated the barn does add a lot of
character to the area.
Smith inquired whether the residence was built to compliance originally.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2762 Timothy and Mary Sweezo, Continued)
Weinberger stated it had been.
Gaffron noted the City does allow accessory structures in a rear yard or a side yard and they do not need
to meet the principal structure setbacks unless they are oversized. Gaffron noted the oversized
ordinance was only put into effect approximately ten years ago.
Hawn commented she has a concern since this is new construction and the precedent that may be set by
granting the variances.
Mabusth inquired whether the Applicant would be agreeable to a deadline in which the buildings be
removed.
Mr. Sweezo stated he does not know how long the barn would remain,noting he has maintained his
buildings in the past. Sweezo noted the pole barn was also constructed prior to when he purchased the
property.
Mrs. Sweezo commented they would like to construct a new residence since it would be easier to
maintain and require less work.
Smith inquired whether the new residence could be built in the location of the two other buildings, with
the barn remaining.
Berg stated she does not like to design the layout of this lot,noting that they do have legitimate reasons
for the proposed location. Berg stated in her view the proposed location of the new residence is fine.
Kluth indicated he is in agreement with Berg. Kluth stated the buildings were constructed prior to the
adoption of the new ordinances and have been grandfathered in.
Rahn inquired whether the residence could be relocated eight feet to alleviate the side setback.
Sweezo stated they would be required to dig a new well if the house is moved further back.
Rahn noted there is very little room for movement of the house.
Hawn stated she still have a concern with the oversized structures.
Smith commented in her view the residence could be relocated slightly,which would lessen the
encroachments into the setbacks.
Mabusth inquired whether the application should be tabled to see if there are other options.
Sweezo indicated they have looked at a number of possible options and this is the best possible location
for the new residence. Sweezo stated he could dig a well and gain a few feet,but noted when the house
was originally built, it was over 100 feet from the road.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2762 Timothy and Mary Sweezo, Continued)
Hawn commented it does not appear much will be gained by tabling this application since the
Applicants have explored other options.
Fritzler noted the new residence has an attached garage. Frizler inquired why the footprint for the house
be angled so the northeastern corner be located closer to the existing garage.
Sweezo stated he was told he needs to be ten feet from the existing garage.
_ Smith indicated she would prefer this application be tabled.
Hawn reiterated she still has a problem with the two oversized structures on this lot.
Smith moved,Fritzler seconded,to table Application#02-2762,Timothy and Mary Sweezo,
4480 Watertown Road,to allow the applicant time to explore other options for location of the new
residence.
Kluth inquired whether the Applicant should be asked whether he would like his application tabled.
Smith stated the Applicant has the option of having his application tabled or voted on.
Kluth and Berg indicated they are in favor of this application.
Rahn stated in his view this house could be relocated to better meet the setbacks.
Hawn stated she has a problem with the accessory buildings.
Fritzler and Mabusth stated they are opposed to granting the variances.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission can either vote on this application or the Applicant can request
the application be tabled in order to allow them additional time to work with Staff on relocating the
house.
Weinberger noted Staff has worked with the Applicant on his options for location of the residence.
Rahn inquired whether the Applicants prefer the proposed location.
Sweezo stated they do,noting they currently have a nice buffer from the road.
Rahn stated he really does not want to see the Applicant have to redrill his well or put in a new septic to
accommodate a different location for the house. Rahn noted Staff has reviewed this application and is
recommending approval.
Mabusth stated that Staff has worked with this Applicant on finding another location for the new
residence,noting there is a rather nice screening from County Road 6 currently.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2762 Timothy and Mary Sweezo, Continued)
Smith stated this might be the time with new construction to contemplate relocation of the residence,
noting that the road will only get busier and perhaps wider in the future.
Weinberger indicated that two-thirds of this lot is wetland,which leaves approximately 1.5 acres dry
buildable. Weinberger stated they are applying five-acre standards to a lot that is approximately 1.5
acres. Weinberger indicated this proposal does meet the setback requirements for a two-acre lot.
Hawn noted the County has taken a significant amount of the land.
Kluth noted the Applicant has not given permission for his application to be tabled.
Smith stated she would withdraw her motion to table the application.
Fritzler indicated he would also withdraw his second to the motion.
Kluth moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2762,
Timothy and Mary Sweezo,4480 Watertown Road,granting of variances to permit construction
of a new residence on the property,with the request that Staff provide the Applicants with
information concerning non-conforming structures. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3,Smith,Hawn, and
Fritzler Opposed.
Fritzler stated in his opinion the proposed residence can be relocated.
Smith indicated since this is new construction, she would like the Applicant to consider his options
further on the location of the residence.
Hawn stated she has a concern with the two oversized accessory structures and the precedent it might
set since this is new construction.
(#5) #02-2772 JOHN AND DONNA CROTTEAU, 1405 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,
VARIANCES,7:16 p.m.7:58 p.m.
Donna Crotteau, Applicant, and Brian Nowak, Architect, were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting variances to permit construction of a 16' by 19'
addition within a defined bluff area, a living space addition and porch, and a garage addition within the
30' top of the bluff setback. The Applicants are also requesting a variance to permit the garage addition
to be located 20.5 feet from the side lot line where a 30-foot setback is required.
Weinberger stated this property consists of approximately 10.5 acres and is located in the LR-1A zoning
district,which has a two-acre minimum. Weinberger noted there is a shared driveway to this lot, with a
large portion of the lot consisting of a peninsula that is protected by a conservation easement.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2772 John and Donna Crotteau, Continued)
The house was originally constructed in 1984,prior to the adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in 1992,
and met all the requirements at that time. To be considered a bluff, the property must have all the
following characteristics: A.,part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; B.,the slope rises
at least 25 feet above the Ordinance High Water Level of the water body; C., the grade of the slope from
the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the Ordinance High Water Level averages 30
percent or greater; and D.,the slope must drain toward the water body. Weinberger indicated this area
is defined as a bluff area.
Weinberger stated there is not another location on the residence where an addition could be added that
would not encroach into the bluff area or 30 foot bluff impact zone. The house,when originally
constructed, met all the requirements,with the house being built prior to the adoption of the current
bluff standards.
Weinberger stated the Applicants are requesting a variance for 9.5 feet. The property line is 20.5 feet
from the edge of the garage where a 30-foot setback is required. Staff recommends the garage either be
built as a detached structure further back from the existing house or be shifted another 9.5 feet to meet
the 30 foot setback. The detached structure would need to meet a 10-foot structure rather than the
30-foot requirement that an attached structure would be required to meet. Weinberger indicated all
variances for the garage could be eliminated if the garage were detached.
Staff recommends approval of variances to permit the residential additions within the bluff setback and
bluff impact zone based on the following findings and hardships:
1. The property is ten plus acres and all but approximately 4 percent of the lot is located either within
wetland,the bluff zone, and the required setbacks.
2. The present home was built in a legal location prior to the bluff ordinance. Any additions to the
house would require variances.
3. The site does not drain directly to the lake but rather to the five acre wetland located at the base of
the bluff.
4. The topography of the lot uniquely restricts the ability to make an addition onto any part of the
building.
5. No addition could be built on the house that would not fall within the impact zone.
6. The area where the proposed lakeside additions are to be constructed is relatively flat with less than
a two-foot drop from the existing exterior wall and the proposed wall of the addition.
Staff recommends denial of the variances to permit the garage addition to be located 20.5 feet from the
side property line where a 30 feet setback is required.
Weinberger noted he did receive a message from the DNR with regards to the bluff impact late this
afternoon,with the DNR indicating they did not support any bluff encroachment. Weinberger indicated
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2772 John and Donna Crotteau, Continued)
he does not have any further details at this time and will be attempting to contact the DNR in the future
regarding this application.
Nowak stated he would like to make one correction,noting the addition extends 13 feet from the
existing house into the bluff area rather than 16 feet. Nowak stated they are only building on area that
was modified when the house was built back in 1984, and will not be touching any virgin soil. Nowak
stated they do not anticipate the need to remove any large trees,noting a few small saplings may need to
be removed. Nowak indicated the water drains to the wetlands and eventually out into the lake.
Nowak stated with the garage addition they are attempting to minimize the impact on the front of the
site,noting there are some older pine trees that they would like to retain. Nowak stated if the garage is
moved to the north 9.5 feet,the two pine trees would need to be removed. Nowak indicated they are
willing to discuss the option of a detached garage.
Nowak distributed photographs of the property.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn noted the surveyor indicated the top of the bluff existed halfway through the proposed rear
addition, and inquired why Staff has located it elsewhere.
Weinberger stated the difference is probably in the way the ordinance is interpreted,noting both are
within ten feet of each other.
Smith inquired what the additional garage would be used for.
Mrs. Crotteau stated it is for additional garage space.
Nowak stated he did visit the site with Weinberger and looked at various sites for a detached garage.
Nowak indicated there does appear to be some merits to a detached garage and they are willing to
explore that option further. Nowak stated there are a couple of options that could consider which would
allow the pine trees to be saved as well as meet the 10 foot setback.
Nowak indicated where the two possible sites for a detached garage are.
Kluth inquired how far the garage would need to be moved to make it comply with the setback.
Nowak stated the detached garage could be moved around 75 feet.
Mabusth inquired whether the existing landscaping would need to be removed in order to construct the
detached garage.
Nowak stated there are some pine trees in that area that could be saved. Nowak stated he has spoken to
the neighbor who indicated they would prefer an attached garage to prevent headlights from shining into
their residence.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2772 John and Donna Crotteau, Continued)
Mabusth noted there is approximately 215 feet of width to this lot, and she does not see a valid hardship
for approving the side yard setback.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they do not approve of a side yard setback.
Hawn indicated she does not have a problem with the front addition either.
Fritzler stated it is an encroachment on the bluff,noting the DNR is opposed to any further
encroachment into the bluff.
Kluth inquired whether the City needs to follow the recommendation of the DNR.
Gaffron stated the DNR does not have any authority to approve or deny this application and are merely
giving their opinion on the bluff encroachment.
Mabusth inquired how drainage from the addition would be handled.
Nowak stated they would be installing downspouts on the addition on the back that will go into a drain
tile system, which should handle the majority of the water runoff. Nowak stated the City Engineer did
not cite any concerns relating to drainage or erosion on the site.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they were okay with the addition to the front of
the house.
Hawn inquired what the Planning Commission felt about the addition to the rear of the house.
Mabusth stated the drainage has been handled as far as the rear addition is concerned. Mabusth inquired
whether there are any drain spouts at the present time.
Richard Flint,previous property owner, indicated there are some drain spouts.
Mabush inquired whether the addition could be reduced somewhat in size.
Nowak stated the addition has been reduced somewhat already,noting that the land they are building on
has already been altered at the time the house was originally constructed.
Kluth suggested that the property owner be restricted from encroaching any further into the bluff
following this project.
Rahn indicated he is uncomfortable with setting conditions for something that may occur in the future,
noting that the Planning Commission does not know the conditions that may exist ten years from now
on this lot.
Mabusth stated a covenant would be filed on the chain of title.
Kluth commented the definition of how the bluff line is determined is somewhat unclear.
PAGE 10
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2772 John and Donna Crotteau,Continued)
Hawn stated it appears the Planning Commission would like to see a different design for the garage,
with the front addition being okay, and with there appearing to be mixed feelings about the addition to
the rear of the house.
Kluth stated he would tend to allow it since the bluff area was previously modified.
Berg indicated she would be in support of the rear addition since the drainage has been addressed.
Rahn indicated he is undecided on the rear addition.
Hawn inquired what hardship exists for the rear addition. Hawn noted there is an overall hardship since
the residence lies within the bluff zone,but inquired what the need is for this particular expansion of the
house.
Nowak stated they both are in the bluff impact zone. Nowak stated the intent of the ordinance is to
control erosion and to protect the naturalness of the site. Nowak stated those two factors are not at issue
in this situation. Nowak stated the hardship is really the site itself,noting this site is 10.5 acres but yet
only 4 percent of the land is available for building. Nowak stated in his opinion the hardship is the
topography and nature of the site.
Rahn inquired how many square feet the existing structure is.
Nowak stated the first floor is approximately 2,200 square feet.
Weinberger inquired whether that included the garage.
Nowak stated it does not.
Hawn commented she would be inclined to approve the rear addition.
Rahn stated if the intent of the ordinance is to control the drainage,he would be inclined to approve the
addition since the drainage has been addressed.
Kluth noted there are two cantilevered bay windows also encroaching on the bluff
Smith indicated she does not see the need to encroach into the bluff area.
Fritzler stated he is not in support of the rear addition.
Mabusth stated she is in support of the rear addition,but that she would prefer the addition be reduced in
size somewhat.
Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend denial of Application#02-2772,John and Donna
Crotteau, 1405 Sixth Avenue North,granting of variances to permit a garage addition to be
located 10.5 feet from the side property line where a 30 foot setback is required.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 11
'
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(##02-2772 John and Donna Crotteau, Continued)
Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2772,John and Donna
Crotteau, 1405 Sixth Avenue North,granting of variances to permit an addition to the front of the
residence within the bluff setback and bluff impact zones. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Hawn moved,Kluth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2772,John and Donna
Crotteau, 1405 Sixth Avenue North,granting of variances to permit an addition to the front of the
residence within the bluff setback and bluff impact zones subject to implementation of the
drainage corrections as proposed by Gronberg. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2, Smith and Fritzler
opposed.
(#6) #02-2773 KURT AND MARY RAKOS,2175 SHEVLIN DRIVE,VARIANCE,
7:58 p.m.—8:02 p.m.
Kurt Rakos, 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 an addition to the
existing garage, close off the existing driveway entrance on Willow Drive South with a berm and move
the driveway entrance to Shevlin Drive. The proposed addition to the garage is 8' by 24.4'. A variance
is required to permit the addition to encroach 9.1 feet into the 50 feet side yard setback requirement.
The garage currently encroaches 3.7 feet into the side yard setback.
Bottenberg indicated the addition to the existing garage is proposed on the side of the house for a
number of reasons; one,the flow of the house; two, the location of the septic system; and three,the
location of the well. The garage is currently on the west side of the residence.
Bottenberg noted the property to the north is currently vacant,with a proposal to construct a new
residence on that lot located approximately 100 feet from the common property line. The Applicants in
this case are proposing the garage be located 52.8 feet from the property line.
The Applicants would also like to relocate the driveway and access to their property from Willow Drive
to Shevlin Drive due to safety concerns. Since the repaving of Willow Drive South, the speed and the
number of accidents on Willow have increased. The Applicants are proposing to close offthe access
from Willow Drive South and relocate it off of Shevlin Drive. The Public Works Director has reviewed
this matter and does approve of the relocation of the driveway.
Staff recommends approval of the side yard adjacent to street setback for the garage addition subject to
the removal of the existing driveway on Willow Drive and relocating it to Shevlin Drive.
Rakos indicated he does not have anything to add to Staffs report.
Hawn inquired whether a conditional use permit is needed for the berm.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2773 Kurt and Mary Rakos, Continued)
Bottenberg stated a conditional use permit may be needed depending on the size of the berm, which has
not been determined at this time.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Mabusth inquired when they would connecting to City sewer.
Rakos stated they are waiting for this project to be completed and are anticipating to hook up sometime
this summer.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2773,Kurt and
Mary Rakos,2175 Shevlin Drive,granting of a variance to side yard adjacent street setback for
the garage addition,subject to the removal of the existing driveway on Willow Drive and
relocating it to Shevlin Drive. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#7)#02-2775 TEMPLE ISRAEL,645 TONKAWA ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
8:02 p.m.—8:06 p.m.
Albert Lindeke,Architect, and Robert Shiff,Building Management Services, were present on behalf of
Temple Israel.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Hawn stated a formal presentation on this item would not be necessary,noting Temple Israel has
appeared before the Planning Commission previously regarding other projects. Hawn stated the
Applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 40' by 76' open-sided pre-
manufactured open-air pavilion on the property.
Shiff indicated they would like to construct a covered pavilion area that would be utilized by the kids on
sunny days. Shiff stated the pavilion would have a concrete floor along with columns and would be
utilized as a central meeting place and activities center for the campers.
Smith inquired whether there were any comments from any of the adjoining property owners.
Weinberger stated the property owners to the north did call and stated they would support the
application if language is included within the resolution that the City's noise ordinance would be
enforced. Weinberger stated they did express a concern regarding speakers or loud music.
Hawn inquired whether there would be a sound system installed at this pavilion.
Shiff indicated there would not be.
Rahn inquired whether there have been any problems in the past concerning loud music or noise.
Weinberger stated there have not been any complaints in the past.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2775 Temple Israel,Continued)
Hawn requested that the proposed projects for this property be consolidated as much as possible.
Shiff stated that was their intent.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2775,Temple Israel,
645 Tonkawa Road,granting of a conditional use permit to permit construction of a 40' by 76'
pavilion subject to the conditions outlined in the April 10,2002 Planner's Report.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:07 p.m.—8:18 p.m.)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING—8:00 P.M.
(#9) #02-2771 ORONO AMBAR,LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT,REZONING,AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,
8:18 p.m.—10:02 p.m.
Frank Dunbar, Orono Ambar, and Bill were present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Gaffron stated Orono Ambar has submitted an application for rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, Orono Ambar,
to allow the construction of a 50-unit senior independent living building. The Applicant is requesting
rezoning from B-6,Highway Commercial District, to Residential Planned Unit Development.
Gaffron stated approximately one year ago the Council approved phase one and two of this
development, with phase one including a senior house building, and phase two proposing the
construction of a 25,000 square foot office building. The developer, after marketing this property for a
year, has concluded that there currently is not the market to proceed forward with the office building
and is now proposing to construct Orono Woods West, which would be a second senior housing
building.
Gaffron stated the proposed residential use of the property requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
because the property is guided commercial use in the 2000-2020 Community Management Plan. The
proposal also requires amendment of the terms and conditions of PUD No. 2 related to Lot 1,and
amendment of the PUD-2A agreement, which is the Development Agreement that governs development
of Lot 1. An ancillary request is also being made to vacate portions of the drainage and utilities
easements that were granted as part of the PUD No. 2 approvals.
Gaffron indicated he would like Frank Dunbar to make his presentation of the project, followed by
a review and discussion of some of the specific site issues, and then open the public hearing.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2771 Orono Ambar,Continued)
Frank Dunbar, Orono Ambar, indicated his concept is to bring forward a senior housing building similar
to what is currently being constructed. Dunbar stated they are proposing to bring this building
substantially forward, noting that the proposed building and parking will cover six percent less on the
site than the office building which will enable them to save some landscaping in the area.
Dunbar indicated they are also proposing to reconstruct the retaining wall that is currently on the
property and replace it with a 4.5 foot retaining wall. In addition, there will be a number of pine trees
placed near it that will also help to hide the garage.
Dunbar reported according to the research conducted by Maxwell Consultants, this area is substantially
undersized in its housing for seniors. Currently 40 percent of the first building is leased, with over 100
other people expressing interest in leasing a unit. Dunbar stated in his view that helps to demonstrate
the need for additional senior housing in this area.
Dunbar indicated the senior housing building will also reduce the traffic impact to this area and will
require fewer parking spaces than the office building. Dunbar compared the differences of the proposed
senior housing building with the office building,noting that the parking and amount of traffic generated
with the senior housing building would be significantly less in his view than an office building. Dunbar
noted the building would also be located 110 feet from the property line whereas the office building
would be located 75 feet. Dunbar indicated the height of the two buildings is relatively the same, with
the senior housing building being 27 feet high.
Gaffron stated within PUD No. 2A the only uses that would be allowed are those uses designated by the
2000-2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The property included in PUD No. 2A had been zoned B-1,
Retail Sales Business District for at least 35 years prior to its rezoning to B-6 PUD in 2001, and has
been formally guided for commercial use since adoption of the 1980 CMP.
In 2001, Orono amended the draft 2000-2020 CMP to reguide Lot 2 for Multi-family Residential use,
specifically for senior housing. Gaffron indicated the impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhoods
are likely to be less intense than most of the potential commercial uses that could be established if the
site remains guided for commercial use. The impacts of residential traffic through Lot 2 are expected to
be less than if Lot 1 is developed commercially. Additionally, the limited direct access to Highway 12
makes Lot 1 a relatively unattractive site for high traffic commercial uses. Gaffron stated there clearly
is a demand in this area for senior housing, and development of additional senior housing will be in
keeping with the City's affordable and lifecycle housing goals as defined in the CMP and is within easy
walking distance of downtown Long Lake. Further, senior housing would provide a reasonable
transition between the single family housing to the north and the commercial/retail uses to the west and
south.
Gaffron stated the proposed 50-unit building on this 2.6 acre site would yield a development density of
approximately 19 units/acre. This density can be allowed only via a rezoning to RPUD. Gaffron noted
phase one of this project was 62 units, with a 15 or 16 unit per acre density. Gaffron stated in order for
the City to accomplish some of its housing goals,higher density is required.
Gaffron stated the developer is requesting essentially the same development parameters that were
previously approved by the Council for phase one of this project. Gaffron stated the units will all be
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2771 Orono Ambar,Continued)
rental units, platted as condominiums so that each unit will have a separate legal description and tax
statement. All units will be owned by a non-profit organization and rented to the occupants under the
agreements established for the building. The developer has also indicated he would like to sell the land
to the City of Orono for$1,with the City leasing the land back to Orono Senior Housing West, LLC at
$1 for 99 years, which would develop a 50-unit apartment building for independent seniors. The lease
would be conditioned on the use remaining senior housing for the duration of the lease. Orono would
issue Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds to finance the project. This would allow the City to require
that a portion of the units be affordable and designated for senior housing for ages 62 and up, for the life
of the bonds.
In addition,the HRA would create and establish a Tax Increment Financing District and contribute
90 percent of the tax increment financing for 20 years back to the development. With TIF in place, the
City would have the ability to eventually recoup its expenditures for infrastructure or deferred/waived
fees related to this development. The Applicant is again requesting deferral of park fees of
approximately $162,500, and sewer and water connection charges of approximately $10,200, which the
City would eventually recoup via TIF proceeds. Those amounts would be payable only in the event the
Developer violates the senior housing restriction. Gaffron indicated these conditions help insure that
this development will stay senior housing for a long period of time.
Gaffron indicated the surrounding land use consists of the Sugar Woods neighborhood to the north,
Highway 12 and the City of Long Lake to the south, the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas station
to the west, and the other senior housing building to the east. Gaffron stated the topography of Lot 1 is
significantly higher than Lot 2, with its high point near the northeast corner of the proposed building.
The land slopes to the northeast, southeast, and southwest from this point. The existing home in Sugar
Woods directly behind Lot 1 is at or slightly above the highest elevation on Lot 1. Gaffron indicated a
very little portion of the foundation/garage wall will be visible from the rear of the building, but a
significant portion of it will be visible from the south, east, and west facades. Gaffron indicated in his
view the elevation of the garage could be lowered slightly, and recommended the elevation of the entire
building be lowered four to six feet.
Gaffron stated the building, as proposed, meets the RPUD District setback standards for the north, east,
and south lot lines. However, the west and south walls are set back only 20 feet from the adjoining lot,
with cantilevered decks extending to within 15 feet rather than the 35 feet minimum required. The
RPUD standards additionally require that the building setback from lot lines be no less than the height
of the building. The defined height of the building will be approximately 38 feet based on the
elevations provided.
Gaffron stated relocating the building 15 to 20 feet further east would require a re-design of the parking
area and possibly elimination of the loop driveway, but would allow for additional green space west of
the building. Moving the building 15 to 20 feet further north would have some impacts on the grading
and vegetation buffer behind the building. Gaffron stated in his view the proposed parking area and
driveway is the best option for this development.
Gaffron stated the intent of the RPUD district is to provide for lifecycle as well as affordable and
moderate cost housing needs. The RPUD ordinance recognizes that housing types needed to
accomplish these goals may require buildings to exceed the 30 foot height standard. For property
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2771 Orono Ambar,Continued)
currently guided for commercial use,the RPUD District does allow such buildings to exceed 30 feet,but
limits them to three stories. Gaffron noted this building does meet the RPUD height standard.
Gaffron indicated Staff does have some concerns about the height of the building, however, since it will
tend to be significantly higher than the existing development on either side of it. The proposed building
would have a peak height ranging from 40 feet to 50 feet depending on the viewer's location. Its lowest
profile will be as viewed from the north. The defined height of the building averages 38 feet based on
the elevations provided. Gaffron indicated the building incorporates a stepping down to two stories at
the west and south ends, which helps to decrease the visual mass.
Gaffron stated the Applicant is expected to submit a detailed drainage and grading plan, but at this time
Staff does not anticipate any significant drainage issues.
Gaffron stated access to Lot 1 was established during the approval process for PUD No. 2, and consists
of a shared right-in/right-out driveway access directly to Highway 12, and a shared driveway access
eastward through the Orono Woods site to Brown Road. Orono's traffic consultant has reviewed the
initial proposal for the office and Orono Woods Phase I in November, 2000, and based on a 70-unit
senior apartment, the building would be expected to generate 120 trips in and 120 trips out per day on
weekdays, less on weekends. Based on the additional senior housing, it is anticipated there will be 192
trips in and 192 trips out on weekdays and slightly less on the weekends. Gaffron noted the anticipated
weekday trip generation from Orono Woods and Orono Woods West combined will be less on
weekdays and more on weekends than the amount of traffic generated from Orono Woods and the office
building combined.
Gaffron stated the developer is meeting the parking standards of two parking stalls per unit for a
multifamily dwelling, with some excess parking being provided. Gaffron reviewed the internal traffic
flow and parking layout. Gaffron stated Orono Woods West features a two-way driving lane along the
east boundary allowing vehicles entering and leaving the underground garage to avoid traversing the
parking lot. This creates a potentially safer parking lot and provides for easy drop-off/pick-up access
without requiring backup maneuvers. In addition, sidewalks are proposed between the parking lot and
the building.
Gaffron noted a landscaping plan at this time has not yet been provided, and recommended the
landscape plan address sufficient screening and buffering between Orono Woods West and the adjacent
Sugar Woods neighborhood as well as to the commercial properties to the immediate west. Gaffron
stated the RPUD ordinance requires 10 percent of the site be devoted to private recreation areas.
Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed senior housing use is
appropriate for this site, then a recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and rezoning to RPUD would be in order. The Planning Commission should also consider whether any
recommendation is warranted regarding use of TIF, City ownership of land, or other proposed
development parameters that may be desired.
Dunbar indicated he does not have much to add to Staffs report, noting that they are not seeking any
approval tonight but would like to gain the input of the Planning Commission regarding their proposal.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2771 Orono Ambar,Continued)
Hawn inquired whether there were any public comments relating to this application.
Scott Mabusth, 740 Brown Road North, expressed a concern about the amount of dirt that has been
dropped into their gutter and onto their boulevard,noting that this proposal calls for the hauling of even
more dirt. Mabusth requested that other alternatives be considered for the removal of the fill.
Mike Shrack, 2004 Sugarwood Drive, stated he has a concern with the height of the building, noting he
had the impression from the first phase that this would be a low-rise structure,which is not the case.
Shrack commented the additional senior housing building is even higher than the first building, which
was not what he had envisioned when he purchased the property. Shrack stated in his opinion this is not
a good use of this property.
Jacqueline Ritz, 2108 Sugarwood Drive, indicated she was aware this property was commercial at the
time they purchased the property, but that she does object to the height of both buildings. Ritz stated
she is opposed to a third story building since there are no other three-story buildings in Orono.
Randy Hogan, 2103 Sugarwood Drive, expressed a concern regarding the height of the building, noting
they were told in the first phase that this would be a low-rise office building. Hogan stated the
developer at that time told the City and residents that this project would only work with an office
building, with no talk of an additional senior housing building.
Hogan stated he has had an opportunity to review the plans for this proposal, noting that the building
would be approximately 70 feet above the road, 100 feet above the intersection, and would look like a
citadel.
Hogan commented in his view the current building is not being built according to the spirit of the plan,
noting that the residents were informed the trees would be protected along Sugarwood, which is not the
case. Hogan stated a large number have been removed. Hogan stated this development has changed the
whole feel of the area and character of the Sugarwood neighborhood.
Roger Olson, 2114 Sugarwood Drive, stated he had the understanding the original building would be
one story near the residential area and then increase. Olson stated he thought the building would be cut
further down into the hill, which is not the case. Olson stated the proposal to construct a second
building on top of the hill will only make the situation worse.
Rick Apple, 2101 Sugarwood Drive, expressed a concern regarding the height of the two buildings.
Apple stated this development is different than what they were informed of originally.
Dunbar stated to his knowledge the building has been built exactly to the engineer specifications that
were presented to the City. Dunbar stated he regrets that there is a sense that they have done something
different than what was approved by the City. Dunbar acknowledged that some trees were removed on
the north side in order to construct some berms in that location, which was done with the knowledge and
approval of the City.
Dunbar noted he did have the engineers measure the building and it has been built to within one-half
inch of the plans.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2771 Orono Ambar,Continued)
Dunbar pointed out that the construction process is a dirty process, particularly in the spring. Dunbar
indicated they have a scooper scheduled every Friday and a caterpillar out there to grade as much of the
dirt away as possible. Dunbar stated in his view once the storm drain system is installed, the site should
dry out,which will help reduce the amount of dirt on the roadway.
Dunbar commented he is concerned that if the residents misunderstood the first phase of this project,
they may be misunderstanding this concept as well. Dunbar stated it would be his preference to delay
discussion on this matter until he has a chance to talk with the residents. Dunbar indicated the office
building would be a much higher structure and would create a larger impact on the neighborhood.
Dunbar stated he regrets the misunderstandings, but it was his feeling the additional senior housing
would be a better use for this property and be more compatible with the neighborhood. Dunbar
indicated he is willing to discuss the issues with the neighbors. Dunbar reiterated he would rather
suspend this discussion until he has a chance to speak with the residents and explain the differences
between the office building and this proposal.
Kluth noted the matter before the Planning Commission tonight is the senior housing facility.
Hawn noted for the record that the City received a letter from Richard and Evelyn Schommer, 2106
Sugarwoods, indicating they are opposed to this project. Hawn noted the City has also received the
same letter from a number of residents in the Sugarwoods neighborhood.
Kluth commented at the time this project was originally presented to the City, the office building
component of the project was said to be vital to the success of this project, which does not appear to be
the situation now. Kluth stated he does have a concern with the height and density being proposed with
this second building and that the developer is trying to recoup his investment by increasing the density
on this property.
Kluth stated the developer has a number of options he can consider for improving the proposal, such as
reducing the height of the building to two stories or relocating the building slightly. Kluth commented
the saving of some trees in the back of the building in his view is merely a sugar coating and is not a
real attempt to address the concerns of the residents.
Berg stated she had concerns at the time the City was reviewing the plans for phase one of this project,
noting she is not pleased with the appearance of the building. Berg indicated she understands the
developer's comments regarding the office building, but noted that the size of the proposed building is
not appropriate for this site. Berg stated the residents of the Sugarwoods neighborhood are being asked
to look at a significant building. Berg indicated she would never approve that height again.
Berg indicated she is adamantly opposed to this proposal and has quite a few concerns relating to the
traffic,building size, and appearance of the building.
Rahn noted he was not on the Planning Commission at the time phase one was discussed, noting that
some of the conditions for phase two were placed on phase one. Rahn stated in his view it would be
unfair to the local residents to construct a bigger building than what was originally proposed,but that he
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2771 Orono Ambar,Continued)
would not be opposed to changing the use of the building. Rahn indicated he probably would not be in
favor of the project as it is currently designed.
Hawn commented she does not expect a developer a construct a building that would not be
economically viable, which is probably the reason why the office building is not being constructed at
this time. Hawn stated she also recognizes there is a need in this area for additional senior housing, but
stated the height of the proposed building is very difficult to approve. Hawn stated she would prefer the
height of the building be reduced to two stories.
Smith stated she would be in favor of the rezoning in order to accommodate additional senior housing,
but noted she does have a concern with the height of the proposed building and would prefer two
stories.
Fritzler noted he also was not here at the time phase one was discussed. Fritzler stated he has a major
concern with traffic at this location and the amount of traffic that would be generated in this area.
Fritzler inquired what Item 2 under the proposed development parameters mean.
Gaffron stated a portion of the units needs to be affordable based on income guidelines.
Hawn inquired what the median income is in the Twin Cities.
Dunbar indicated it is $74,600 this year.
Gaffron inquired of the units that have been currently leased in the first building, what portion of those
are the lower rent units.
Dunbar stated approximately 30 percent out of the 40 percent are the lower rent units. Dunbar stated the
difference is around$116.
Fritzler stated he is not seeing this as an affordable housing project but rather as condominiums for
well-to-do seniors. Fritzler indicated he is not in support of either project.
Mabusth noted the affordable housing units are only for 20 years,with the lease being for 99 years.
Mabusth stated she personally does not have a problem with the rezoning or the senior housing building,
but expressed a concern regarding potential commercial uses for this property.
Mabusth inquired what steps were taken to protect the trees on the outlot.
Gaffron stated under the office use very few trees would have been saved because the entire site would
need to be graded.
Mabusth inquired how it is determined how much senior housing is needed in this area.
Gaffron stated the developer was required to do a market analysis on senior housing in this area, and
based on that research,it was demonstrated that senior housing is needed in this area. Gaffron stated it
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2771 Orono Ambar,Continued)
is his belief another market analysis will be done with the second phase. Gaffron indicated there are
two other parcels within the City that could be used for senior housing.
Mabusth stated she does also have a concern with the intersection and the amount of traffic that is being
added to this area. Mabusth stated in her view a semaphore is needed at this intersection.
Gaffron stated it is the desire that a semaphore be installed at that intersection by the time the first senior
housing building opens this fall. Gaffron indicated Staff is currently working with Mn/DOT on this
issue, with Mn/DOT's position being that this intersection does not have sufficient warrants to justify a
stoplight at this site. Gaffron stated the need for a stoplight is based on the traffic count.
Hawn commented in her view the people are not opposed to the use but rather the height and mass of
the building.
Dunbar stated he does have a concern that there appears to be a misunderstanding concerning the first
senior housing building and the proposed office building. Dunbar stated they have complied with the
requirements of the City and are building the first building in conformance with the approved plans and
specifications.
Dunbar commented it was his belief that the residents would prefer a second senior housing building
rather than an office building. Dunbar stated he would like an opportunity to speak with the residents
regarding this project. Dunbar stated he would like to table his application.
Hawn stated it is her belief the residents have a concern with the length and height of the building that
would face their neighborhood.
Berg commented this type of building is large for this area and perhaps would be better suited
elsewhere, especially in light of phase one.
Hawn inquired how many people from Orono have leased space in the new building.
Dunbar stated he is not aware of the exact numbers but a large number of them are parents of people
who live in Orono. Dunbar stated there also is a large number from the City of Long Lake.
Hawn recommended the developer consider having a three-dimensional model of the project.
Dunbar stated he would be interested in doing that,particularly to demonstrate the differences between
the office building project and the additional senior housing project.
Kluth commented the developer at the time he was requesting approval of the office building concept
portrayed the office building in a very positive light,but now appears to be putting the office building in
a more negative light in order to gain approval for the senior housing project.
Dunbar indicated he did speak with the residents rather candidly regarding the lights and the impact that
the office building would have on the area. Dunbar stated he is willing to table this matter and is also
agreeable to meeting with the residents.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2771 Orono Ambar, Continued)
Kluth indicated he is noropposed to senior housing but he would prefer to see a smaller sized building.
Mike Schrack, 2004 Sugarwood Drive, stated a big part of his concern is with the overall bulk of the
facility and the height of the structure. Schrack indicated he purchased his lot originally because there
were a large number of trees,but now he is faced with a tall building and the possibility of another even
taller building being constructed on this site. Schrack commented he also has concerns regarding the
possible commercial uses that would be permitted on this property.
Jacqueline Ritz stated she is in agreement with Schrack,noting that her understanding of the original
proposal is different than what is being proposed tonight.
Hawn stated Mr. Dunbar has,to her knowledge, taken great steps in the past to listen to the residents
and to work with the City on this project. Hawn encouraged the residents and Mr.Dunbar to continue
to work together on this development.
Hawn pointed out there are many other uses that would be permitted on this property that may not be as
desirable as a senior housing building.
Ritz inquired why this property was rezoned in the first place.
Hawn stated that whole corridor was originally zoned B-1.
Gaffron stated the property was zoned B-1 as early as 1967 and perhaps earlier. B-1 is the City's most
liberal retain business district and would have allowed a fast-food restaurant, a gas station, grocery
stores, a number of retail stores. Gaffron stated the Orono Shopping Center right next to this site is
zoned B-1.
Gaffron indicated the discussion regarding conversion to B-6 started initially in 1987 in conjunction
with a review of the Highway 12. Gaffron stated a new B-6 district was created which allows fewer
uses and makes restaurants a conditional use rather than a permitted use in this district. Permitted uses
for the B-6 district include office use, clinics,banks, and libraries. Gaffron stated typically the City
does not rezone property unless a request is made.
Dunbar stated he would like to table his application. Dunbar commented the construction phase is a
difficult time to discuss future plans with residents,but that he would like to continue to follow through
with the project and address the issues. Dunbar noted he did send a letter back in February regarding a
neighborhood meeting on this project where only two couples showed up.
Hawn inquired whether the residents are interested in meeting with Mr. Dunbar on this project.
A number of residents indicated they would like to meet with the developer.
A resident requested that all the residents of the Sugarwoods neighborhood be given notice of all
meetings regarding this proposal.
Hawn recommended the developer also take additional steps to handle the dirt on the roadway.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2771 Orono Ambar,Continued)
Dunbar stated he is attempting to address that,noting that it is difficult to schedule a sweeper at this
time of year. Dunbar indicated the road conditions should improve once the drain system is installed
and the site dries out.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded,to table Application#02-2771,Orono Ambar,LLC,2060 West
Wayzata Boulevard,at the request of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS, CONTINUED
(#02-2778) MANLEY BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,
VARIANCES, 10:03 p.m.—10:23 p.m.
Kevin Manley, Applicant,was present.
The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted.
Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting variances to raise the existing house from a one and a half
story to a full two story. A variance is required because a portion of the building expansion is located
within the 75' lakeshore setback. The second story addition would raise the building height by
approximately 10 feet. A second variance is required to permit construction of a 14' by 8' deck located
between the garage and house. The deck requires variances to permit the total hardcover to increase
from 27.7 percent to 30.2 percent in the 75-250' setback where 25 percent is allowed. In addition, a
variance is required to allow the total lot coverage by structure to increase from the existing 18.3 percent
to 19.4 percent where 15 percent is allowed.
Weinberger indicated there is an existing interior walkway between the two structures and an above
ground walkway that allows access to an existing deck above the garage. The walkway and deck above
the garage were permitted variances to replace decks last year. The deck in question would allow the
walkway to be widened by constructing a deck to the west side of the walkway. Weinberger noted a
deck had been located in this area prior to being voluntarily removed about two years ago.
Staff recommends approval of the variance to permit the second story expansion based on the fact that
the building was constructed in its current location prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance,no
expansion to the building footprint is proposed, and there would be no further impact within the average
lakeshore setback.
Staff recommends denial of the variances to permit the deck addition between the walkway and garage
since the deck would add additional hardcover and structure to the property.
Manley stated the existing walkway is not very attractive and they would like to construct a deck to
improve the appearance of the front of the house. Manley indicated he is receptive to suggestions from
the Planning Commission on how to improve this situation.
Manley showed the Planning Commission his landscaping plan for the property,noting he is willing to
do more landscaping than what is currently depicted on his plan.
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2778 Manley Brothers, Continued)
Manley stated he is in the process of acquiring some additional land across the front,which would
change the hardcover numbers somewhat.
Kluth inquired what the new hardcover numbers would be.
Weinberger indicated it is approximately 2,200 square feet of additional land,but that he does not have
the new hardcover figures.
Manley noted they did remove the deck off the rear of the residence, which reduced the hardcover in
that area.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith commented she does not have a problem with the expansion to the two story. Smith stated she
would prefer to stay at the 15 percent structure coverage limit, and inquired whether the Applicant can
reduce the structural coverage on the lot somehow.
Manley stated that currently the house consists of 1,200 square feet with a small garage.
Smith noted the Applicant would be permitted to stay at the existing 18.3 percent structural coverage.
Hawn stated the Planning Commission typically is very strict on adhering to the 15 percent structural
coverage as much as possible.
Kluth stated he would not be able to support the deck,but that he could support the addition to the
house.
Manley indicated they have already reduced the hardcover by a considerable amount from what was on
the property.
Kluth stated the hardcover restrictions are designed to help with water runoff to the lake.
Mabusth concurred that it is difficult to approve the increase to the structural coverage,but noted that
the increase may not be as large once the additional land is calculated in. Mabusth pointed out that the
75-250' setback area will always pose a problem since it currently exceeds the hardcover limit.
Manley noted they currently have no parking available on their lot except for their garage.
Mabusth recommended the Applicant speak with Staff concerning what options might be available as
far as parking once the additional land is acquired.
Hawn stated the Applicant needs to demonstrate a need or hardship in order for a variance to be granted.
Hawn noted the City does allow steps down to the lake.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2778 Manley Brothers,Continued)
Hawn moved, Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2778,Kevin Manley,
1973 Fagerness Point Road,granting of a variance to permit the raising of the existing house from
a 1 '/2 story to a full two story, and to recommend denial of the variances for the construction of a
deck between the garage and the house based on the proposed structural coverage.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
(#10) #02-2768 BRAD AND CAROL PASS,250 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST, SKETCH
PLAN REVIEW
Brad and Carol Pass, Applicants,were present.
Weinberger stated the property owners are requesting a sketch plan review for a front lot/back lot
subdivision of property. The property is a 14-acre property to be divided by creating two building sites,
shared driveway, and a conservation outlot. The property owners also own the 20.5 acres located
immediately east of this property. The total lot area owned in common is approximately 34.5 acres over
three separate parcels.
Weinberger noted a sketch plan review is required for this subdivision because the subdivision will
require"flexible zoning". The flexible zoning for this application is a variance for land alteration and
placement of a driveway within a designated wetland area and within 26 feet of the wetland. "The only
land alteration and hardcover that will be located within the wetland is for the crossing. Staff has
reviewed the access issue with the Applicants and has determined the proposed driveway access has the
least impact on the wetland. There is no possible access to County Road 19 without crossing some part
of the wetland.
The proposed site plan meets all requirements for a front lot/back lot subdivision. The lot is in the
RR-1B district,which requires a minimum lot size of two acres. The Applicants are proposing a plan
that would create two building sites on the west property and create conservation land to the east that
would not be developed. The conservation land would consist of five acres on the property being
subdivided and the additional land to the east would be a dedicated conservation easement. The east
parcel is approximately 20 acres in size. There are two dwelling units located on the 20 acre parcel,but
this parcel is only used as one residential site. There is no intent to use the property for two separate
residences.
Staff recommends conceptual approval of the sketch plan subject to the conditions outlined in the
Planner's Report.
Mr. Pass stated it is their intent to preserve the land as much as possible by creating the conservation
land.
Hawn inquired whether the Applicants plan to live in the existing buildings.
Pass stated they would use that land for themselves.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2768 Brad and Carol Pass, Continued)
Mrs. Pass indicated they would like to preserve as much of the land as possible as well as the trees,
which is the reason for the conservation land. Pass stated they would be able to gain access to Lot B
from the east, with no access from Lot 2.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to give conceptual approval of the site plan for a
front lot/back lot subdivision.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS MARCH 25,2002 AND APRIL 8,2002
Hawn stated she attended the April 8th Council meeting,noting that the Twidwell application was
approved by the Council. Hawn stated the discussion centered around that the proposal was better than
what was existing.
Kluth stated he attended the March 25th Council meeting. Kluth indicated they discussed the work
session on home occupations and that he requested some standards be established on rebuild versus
remodel. Kluth stated he also requested the Council consider a sunset provision on variance renewals.
Gaffron stated that item is on the May 1st work session agenda, and that they are considering limiting the
number of times a variance can be renewed.
(#12) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Hawn noted the City is hosting an open house on May 18th, and requested anyone interested in manning
an informational table at this event to contact her.
Smith inquired when Orono's cleanup days are scheduled.
Gaffron stated they are scheduled the weekend before and after May 18`h
Smith reported she attended the Environmental Planning—Choosing the Best Approach for your
Community Workshop sponsored by the Government Training Services. Smith stated the focus of the
workshop was on when an EIS is required versus an EAW. Smith stated she does have materials from
the workshop if anyone is interested in reviewing them.
Gaffron stated there is an upcoming training session scheduled in Shorewood on April 27th from
8:45 to 3:00 p.m., and requested all interested Planning Commission members notify him by the end of
the week if they are interested in attending this work session.
Hawn noted that Daniel Kluth has decided not to renew his term on the Planning Commission. Hawn
thanked Kluth on behalf of the City for his service on the Planning Commission.
PAGE 26
. f.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 15, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(Other issues, Continued)
Kluth indicated he would be staying on as an alternate.
Hawn noted that Marc Fritzler is now a permanent Planning Commission member, and that Cynthia
Bremmer will also a permanent Planning Commission member starting in June.
(#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 18,2002
Smith moved,Mabusth seconded,to approve the minutes of the March 18,2002 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#14) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
APRIL 22,2002 AND MAY 13,2002
April 22—Rahn May 13 - Smith
ADJOURNMENT
Berg moved,Hawn seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 11:06 p.m.
4tk/-—---1://e
/ Elizabeth Hawn, Chair
PAGE 27