HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-2002 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE L i
❑ COUNCIL
a PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
I=1 PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. —ate.,,, 5 y y•r'cs ,.t.%.5.547 - - a L
2. Lin 3 t N o 'f‘cc4- L 4 • � i. 2.19
3. „iii` ? — 1({'--F� i% = 1 402 _ 270
,50 ski NPt
4. 6P-te/ � �� PirehAk Amp 2-2783
5. 'Se vcc, `tet,. v Fc-)A R(J5e
6. c 50 (�r 3 0 a- 011
7. • t ,(21-)3 2 5 3 6 [ h "'t- s piS
8. roc ct R tt .. +1 it
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
X:\Data\Administrative Support\(Forms-Old)\FORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair
Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, Cynthia Bremer, Janice Berg,J. Mark Fritzler, and Alternate
Maureen Bellows. The following City Staff were present: Planning Director Michael Gaffron,Zoning
Administrator Paul Weinberger,Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg, and recorder Kristi Anderson.
Commissioners Liz Hawn and Jeanne Mabusth; and City Council Representative Jim Murphy were
absent.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1) 02-2792 PAUL T.AND KAY K. STUDEBAKER,250 RUANN ROAD,VARIANCE
(#2) 02-2794 CHRIS AND GAIL BOLLIS,200 STUBBS BAY ROAD,VARIANCE
Smith inquired whether there were any public comments regarding these two applications.
There were no public comments.
Fritzler moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2792 Paul T. and Kay
K. Studebaker,250 Ruann Road,granting a variance to construct a new residence on the property
subject to height requirements,setbacks,and grading requirements per the permit process.VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Fritzler moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2794,Chris and Gail
Bollis,200 Stubbs Bay Road,approving a variance to allow placement of a 20' x 22' accessory
structure between the principal structure and the street per the proposed plan.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#3)#02-2769 MARK AND PAM PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE,VARIANCE
Smith delayed this item for later discussion as the applicants were not yet present.
(#4)#02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY,3880 SHORELINE DRIVE,RENEWAL VARIANCES
Due to lack of representation this item was tabled.
PAGE 1 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#5)#02-2786 JOHN R.JONES,3490 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES
6:45 p.m.-7:25 p.m.
John R. Jones and Charlotte Lipa,Applicants,were present.
Weinberger stated that the applicant was looking for general site plan approval based on the site plan as
presented at the May Planning Commission meeting. Required variances included lot area, lot width,
building height, and hardcover.
As reviewed by Weinberger, the building height ordinance consists of two elements: 1)a limit on the
measured height of a structure, and 2) a limit on the number of stories. According to residential zoning
districts,both the 2 '/2 story limitation and 30' maximum height apply.
Weinberger continued that in the past, it has been City policy to measure building height differently than
basing the upper measuring point as the average of peak to eave when the entire space located within the
roof area is used as living space. When living space is located within the roof, if there are any windows
to that space such as dormer windows or gable-end windows (not merely skylights),the height then is
measured at a point half way between the top of the living space (or ceiling height of the uppermost
level)and the peak.
With regard to the 2 1/2 story definition, Weinberger pointed out that the Planning Commission reviewed
and generally accepted a definition of a half-story taken from The Illustrated Book of Development
Definitions(Moskowitz&Lindbloom,Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, 1981)
which defines the upper story as a half story when both these conditions are present:
a)the portion of it with headroom 5' or lower is at least 40% of the floor area of the story below
b)the roof intersects with the building outside wall at a point no more than 3' above the floor of
the upper story.
Weinberger maintained that this definition was consistent with definitions used by other cities to
determine a half-story and cited Edina as one such example.
The current City policy on building height treats a space meeting the proposed definition of half story, as
a full story if it has windows. From an administrative standpoint,Weinberger stated that this could be
problematic if a half-story without windows and used as living space later has windows added and
becomes a full story. Thereby the building becomes a three story residence. He questioned whether the
Commission believes allowing windows on a half story gives a house the visual appearance of a full
story.
With regard to the three other requested variances, Weinberger stated that the Lot Area and Lot Width
variances are not unusual for a lot of this nature, and the amount of Hardcover proposed is the minimum
amount of hardcover required to serve a house with a 1,500 s.f. foundation and provide a suitable
driveway.
Mr. Jones questioned the new definition with regard to windows. While he had received confirmation
which would allow livable space on the half-story during the May Planning Commission meeting, Jones
PAGE 2 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2786 JOHN R.JONES, Continued)
stated that at no time during that meeting was he told anything about window usage. He added that as he
looks around Orono it is clear to him that numerous half-stories with windows exist on both old and new
construction.
There were no public comments.
Bellows stated that, as an architect, it would set a bad precedent to sway from existing City rules. While
the half-story topic may be an issue to address in the future, she believed that the sum of all the pieces in
need of approval amount to too much for this space. Bellows stated that,in her opinion, it seemed that
too much is being stuffed on a lot of this size,which in turn creates too much bulk on this site. She
added that she could support the approval for some of the variances but not the height issue.
Smith asked the Commission if they could support the variances for lot area and lot width.
Bellows stated once again that the issue revolves around the height problem mostly and visually the
windows make it look like a three story building.
Berg concurred with Bellows, stating that she was opposed to massing in height. She pointed out that,
unfortunately,Mr. Jones could probably not have everything he wants on that lot.
In reference to the overhead of the proposed residence with dormer, Weinberger questioned when the
Commission felt the plan becomes a third story versus a half-story.
Mr. Jones reiterated that neither during the meeting one month ago,nor since,had either the Commission
or staff ever mentioned anything about not allowing windows to him.
Rahn questioned the roof hips on the overhead.
Jones stated that the hipped roof line not only softened the look but brought down the roofline rather than
extending it further. In an effort to meet the definition as proposed at the May meeting,Jones said that
they took the floor plan from the second floor line and brought the roofline down to no more than three
feet above the floor plane and brought it in to cut out 40%of the space at the five foot point.
Bellows stated that the overhead elevation plan clearly reads as a three story in her view.
Mr. Jones argued that he had met the 2 %2 story definition as provided to him at the last meeting,he has
not exceeded 30' in height nor has he exceeded the half-story definition provided by The Illustrated Book
of Development Definitions.
Bremer stated that Mr. Jones was correct in his recollection that windows had not been a part of the
definition or discussion at the last meeting, it simply was never addressed.
Gaffron stated that there is no definition in place that has been adopted by the City currently that defines
a half-story, let alone windows on a half-story; however,what is being proposed has been treated as a
third story in the past.
PAGE 3 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2786 JOHN R.JONES,Continued)
While he acknowledged that varying definitions exist,Rahn stated that the general definition agreed upon
by the Commission dictates that the 30' height point be taken from the midway point between the ceiling
joist to the peak, which is assumed to be halfway up the roof, thus, this clearly exceeds the 30'
requirement.
Rahn supported staff's general policy that the 30' building height be based on the average height between
the ceiling and the peak.
Mr. Jones suggested that he cut off the roof,by making it a flat roof in order to meet the 30' and 2 '/2
story house standard.
Bellows reiterated that this proposal is still too much for this site and the suggestion put forth by Mr.
Jones would merely make the structure appear even more massive.
Mr. Jones stated that if the Commission looks at the sites next door they would see that on either side of
him, they have both been granted variances allowing much more lot cover than he is proposing.
Bellows stated that neither of these homes have the bulk he is proposing.
Mr. Jones insisted that both properties do have bulk, in fact,his first and current proposal is smaller than
the home built recently next door.
Bellows asked if the lot sizes were similar.
Mr. Jones stated that the dimensions are the same.
Bremer questioned if the neighbor in question is the same neighbor who spoke to the Commission last
month.
Mr. Jones stated that she was.
Bellows believed the drawings looked like much more bulk.
Mr. Jones stated that the figures in the drawing are not done to scale and look tiny in the sketches.
Bellows stated that they should be drawn to scale in order to give the City a true representation.
Gaffron pointed to figure E.2, a photo of the Jones and the two neighbors properties. The house on the
right shows a two story home four feet above grade, while the one on the left is lower and consists of a 2
'/2 story home. Gaffron felt that in order to squeeze this house in between the other two,you would see
what appears to be in effect a three story home with a flat roof,which would be taller and somewhat
overwhelming to its neighbors.
Smith clarified, with the Commissions support,that there is no problem with width and area variances;
however,there is objection to the height and concerns pertaining hardcover. She continued by referring
PAGE 4 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2786 JOHN R.JONES,Continued)
to, staff report Exhibit A, the bold face print which describes the general measurement for height and
encouraged Mr. Jones to scale back his application to meet the description therein.
Mr. Jones asked what the height would need to be scaled back to.
Weinberger reminded the applicant that any added windows would be deemed a full third story and if the
living space can be contained within the half-story with a typical roof style it will likely meet the 30'
height requirement.. It is how the top story is used which changes the definition.
Assuming the applicants want windows,Bremer asked Weinberger to clarify for Mr. Jones whether
windows can be used at all.
Weinberger stated that in this case,the use of windows at all designates a third story.By allowing people
who typically just have attic space the opportunity to add windows to create additional living space for
themselves,allows the third story scenario that we want to discourage.
Mr. Jones asked Weinberger to explain why some of the current new construction in Orono on Crystal
Bay have windows on the half-story.
Gaffron indicated that many of the homes Mr. Jones refers to under construction are walkouts and will
appear to be three stories from the lake. He did point out that some 20-30 year old homes like those on
the end of Casco Point are classic examples of three levels plus windows up into the roof space, which
look like castles towering out there. Today, Gaffron noted,he could not recall any homes constructed
recently that reflect this four story effect.
Bellows pointed out to the applicant that in some of those instances he may be referring to,the site may
simply offer more elbow room for that bulk than is at this location. She stated that Mr. Jones was simply
asking for too much house for his lot. Bellows continued that it was irrelevant for him to cite other
houses unless there was one or more in particular that had the same kinds of constraints that his offered.
Mr. Jones indicated that while his situation and piece of real estate might be unique, once again,he asked
the Commission to define for him the parameters,which will allow him to get as much house as he can
get.
Bellows stated that the Commission was attempting to work with Mr. Jones and, in fact,they had
indicated that the lot area and width variances were acceptable. She did state however that the
Commission was not satisfied with the height variance requested and had some concern over hardcover.
Bellows continued that the Commission will not be satisfied until the applicant meets the definition as
was outlined in Weinberger's recent memo.
Mr. Jones took issue with and reiterated his need to understand what would be acceptable with regard to
height. He repeated that up until this evening he had never heard anything about window restrictions and
fully believed that he had met the definition as discussed in the last meeting. He felt that precedent had
already been established all over the lake with windows on a half story and noted that during the last
meeting,he specifically asked the Commission if he followed the 60%requirement as defined for a half
PAGE 5 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2786 JOHN R.JONES, Continued)
story at that meeting would that be acceptable, to which, everyone nodded in agreement. He continued
that after the last meeting he revised his application to meet the definitions as discussed only to come
back and find once again that he is being denied based on a new definition.
Berg stated that, in her opinion, the roof line is simply too high. The lot won't sustain this level of
massing and it needs to be brought down. Although absent from the last meeting, she stated that her
position has always remained the same,that the City needs to get control of the massing on the lake and
therefore that is the direction they are giving to Mr. Jones.
Mr. Jones acknowledged that, in May,the Commission determined that their reservations were not based
on height but were rooted on the half story question, so at that time a definition was found and has since
been met. Mr. Jones added that in order to meet the definition the roof line could be changed, and he
agreed it was too high. He continued that, as it stands now,he can redesign the plan in order to bring the
height down by changing the roof line.
Bellows reiterated that the rules state both conditions apply, 21/2 stories and 30' must be met and he is
not doing that.
Mr. Jones stated that, in fact,he had met those requirements, only to find that the rules had now changed.
There was never any discussion about, or has ever been as far as he could tell, any discussion on record
with regard to windows except for this new recent memo. He asked to be told why he has not met both
conditions.
Bellows maintained that Mr. Jones was not meeting both requirements because by the definition that he
had accepted if one takes the average height as half the distance between the ceiling height and the ridge
the design, it is over thirty feet.
Mr. Jones maintained that the proposal is at 30' and does not exceed it.
Bellows did not believe the picture reflected what he was stating.
Gaffron stated that the issue is that the upper measuring point is between the ceiling of the third level and
the peak and not between the lower gable and the peak. Historically, and consistently, Gaffron stated that
if the windows did not exist on the third level they would treat it as a half story.
Rahn felt that the new elevation clearly reflects a third story. He maintained that if you took a poll of
people they would say that this is a three story home with three sets of windows. More time needs to be
devoted to the definitions than has been allowed at this juncture and much of what is going on is
subjective and opinion based. He encouraged Mr. Jones to bring in more clear elevations than have been
presented this evening in order to obtain a clear definition and understanding by the Commission.
Mr. Jones stated that this type of unique situation has come up in other jurisdictions that he has looked
into. In none of the cases were windows mentioned. In California,they eliminated the subjective and
opinion based conjecture by strictly focusing only on height. If this isn't a 21/2 story, Mr. Jones asked
once again,that the Commission define to him what constitutes a 2 1/4 story with livable space.
PAGE 6 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2786 JOHN R.JONES, Continued)
Bellows directed Mr. Jones to lower his house so the highest point half way between the ceiling height
and the ridge is no higher than the 30' height requirement and story definitions.
Mr. Jones asked if he could simply lower the roof line.
Smith stated that his suggestion still constitutes a third story. She indicated that once Mr. Jones complies
with a two story structure and a half story storage space, in her mind,that will qualify as a 2 '/z story
home. It would function as a three story if there is livable space on that third story.
Bremer stated that, as discussed last month,there can be living space and still constitute a half story, and
she hoped that they were not going to go back to regale that point once again.
Ms. Lipa, applicant, stated that there seems to be some confusion now whether living space is allowed in
the half story at all and asked the Commission to tell them one way or the other in order to avoid any
future miscommunication. She indicated that it seemed to her the focus had shifted from a height
condition to the issue over their usage of the house. Ms. Lipa maintained that if usage has become the
issue, the Commission needs to tell them that they do not want to have living space in the half story on
this lot.
Berg stated that this is a ground level home,not a walkout, and she did not want to set the precedent of
allowing three stories by allowing a half story with windows that people can occupy as living space.
Mr. Jones questioned then if he researched the permits granted over the past year whether he would find
any with living space on a half story.
Bellows acknowledged once again that each property is unique, and stated that Mr. Jones property will
not support this much bulk.
Mr. Jones maintained that he has reduced the bulk and asked how much bulk could be supported by his
property.
Bellows stated merely two stories and an attic.
Bremer indicated that the home still reads as a three story. She stated that even though she was present
last month when the initial discussions took place, and empathizes with Mr. Jones' frustration,this is a
more constructive discussion,which will give him the direction he desires. She explained that in her
estimation the measurement of the story has been misunderstood as Mr. Jones has reviewed the half
story. Bremer reiterated that the height is measured as the average from the ceiling of the third story to
the peak,which in this case indicates they are higher than 30'.
Weinberger asked, since there seemed to be general agreement on the other variances the applicant had
requested, if there were parameters set by which they have to meet could they have a recommendation for
approval provided they meet those.
PAGE 7 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2786 JOHN R.JONES, Continued)
Smith indicated that this could be one direction the Commission takes and asked for comment on the
hardcover request.
Rahn stated that his original inclination would have been to push the ewa} out pa-the street which
would not increase the amount of hardcover but potentially give the applicant more usable living space;
however,the structural coverage would increase thereby creating a new dilemma. He stated that he did
not have an issue with the hardcover amounts as proposed and did not see any excessive use of
hardcover. Rahn indicated that his only issue is with the height as designed and he would be reluctant to
send anything forward to Council without first reviewing new elevations.
Smith questioned whether any additional comments with regard to hardcover needed to be added to the
discussion.
Ms. Lipa stated that due to the unique nature of the lots along this street,both of their neighbors had
received overages on the back lot hardcover restrictions just because of the lots. In the original plan,they
had designed a detached garage in the back,but in order to make a house work for that lot, under
Weinberger's guidance, they designed a tuck under garage on the home even though it used up valuable
square footage and did not match the character of the neighborhood.
Smith asked Weinberger relative to the neighborhood how much over is the hardcover on this
application.
Weinberger stated that this lot is fairly consistent in size to its neighbors but the overall hardcover
proposed is slightly lower than the others.
Gaffron noted that most of the homes built along Baldur Park Road in the 80's were built with 35%to
45%hardcover and this is not out of character with those.
Smith asked whether, given the opportunity to reduce the levels of hardcover in this neighborhood,the
Commission would do so.
Bremer stated that she had no issue with the level of hardcover proposed and that it is consistent with the
surrounding lots. She continued that it would be extremely difficult to build on those lots any other way.
Smith clarified that it is obviously consistent with the neighbors and asked if the Commissioners agreed
the level of hardcover is acceptable. There was general agreement. As it stands, Smith stated that the
height issue is all that remains and asked for direction as to whether to table the application in order to
allow the applicant time to address the height requirement or vote now.
Fritzler indicated that the City Council would want to see the issues resolved before moving it forward.
Ms. Lipa asked for clarification over whether the Commission is adamantly opposed to any living space
whatsoever or if a playroom scenario could be proposed.
Smith indicated that living space such as a playroom would be acceptable without windows.
PAGE 8 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2786 JOHN R.JONES,Continued)
Bellows suggested the use of skylights or ceiling lights in exchange for windows.
Mr. Jones accepted tabling discussion until the July 15,2002 meeting.
Bellows moved, Smith seconded,to table Application#02-2786,John R.Jones,3490 North Shore
Drive, at the applicants request in order to allow them time to redesign the proposal to meet
building height restrictions.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#3)#02-2769 MARK AND PAM PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE,VARIANCE
7:26 p.m.-7:37 p.m.
Mark Palm,Applicant,was present.
To review,Weinberger reported that the applicant had applied for a variance requesting setback and
hardcover variances to permit construction of a 35'x24' two story garage, to replace an existing garage.
The proposed garage was intended to be constructed 1.3' from a property line where a 15' setback is
required. Weinberger reminded the Commission that a 15' setback is required for all accessory buildings
between 750-1,000 s.f. in size. The proposed building is 840 s.f. The current size of an existing garage
and lean to structure is 900 s.f.
Based on direction provided by the Planning Commission to design a building that would be built 750 s.f.
or less,thus requiring less setback, and to build the structure with a minimum setback to the property line
of 5', Mr.Palm had submitted a revised plan.
Weinberger stated that the revised plans reduce the size of the garage to 22' X 34',which reduces the
overall size of the garage to 748 s.f. The garage is also proposed to be relocated to meet the 5' setback as
recommended by the Planning Commission. Weinberger continued that the design is to have one-double
stall garage door and one-single stall garage door with some storage located above the garage that would
be accessed by an interior stairway. The total height of the garage from the ground level to the peak of
the roof is 20'. The roof style chosen is to architecturally match the house, including dormer windows on
the building.
Weinberger explained that the garage requires a variance to permit the garage to be located 5' off the side
property line where 10' is required. The property owner agreed to resize the garage to allow a side
loading garage and avoid the need for excessive fill.
Based on his report, Weinberger stated that staff recommends the application for variances to permit
alterations to 75-250' setback, 250-500' setback and side yard setback be approved allowing a garage 22'
X 34' to be located 5' from the adjacent side property line. The orientation of the garage takes advantage
of the site topography and the overall size of the garage is being reduced as compared to the existing
building.
Mr. Palm requested that the Commission allow him to construct dormers on the garage but turn them 90
degrees in order for them to better parallel the look of the house.
PAGE 9 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2769 MARK AND PAM PALM, Continued)
There were no public comments in reference to this application.
/Rafinsati✓d that he preferred that the dormers be rotated as it will better reflect the look of the home.
Bellows complimented Mr. Palm for the idea and felt by doing the rotation the massing effect would be
significantly reduced.
Smith moved,Rahn seconded, approving Application#02-2769,Mark and Pam Palm, 1447 Park
Drive,granting of variances for replacement of existing garage to be located 5' from the adjacent
side property line. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#6)#02-2793 REVIS L. STEPHENSON III, 1850 FOX RIDGE ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE/CUP 7:38 p.m.-8:58 p.m.
Weinberger reported that in November, 2001 the Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for land
alteration on the property over 500 cubic yards. The project required clear cutting the slope and
depositing 3,280 cubic yards of fill, the purpose was to create a gradual slope rather than the existing
steep drop from the immediate back yard of the house. The source of the fill was the Orono Woods
apartment building located at the northwest corner of Highway 12 and Brown Road.
At the time of the approval,Weinberger explained that the property owner stated that some existing less
mature trees would be removed with the intent to replant once the fill was placed on the hillside.
Additional trees were to be added to the property where existing trees could not be used. The hillside
was not to be a maintained lawn area that is mowed,but was to be left to restore itself naturally.
Weinberger noted that during routine inspections of the property it was determined that the amount of fill
placed on the hillside had exceeded what was allowed by the Conditional Use Permit. The City of Orono
requested the property owner have a new survey completed to indicate where the land elevations had
changed and by how much. The new survey completed by Gronberg and Associates, dated 6/6/02,
confirmed the land alteration not only encroached beyond the project area,but went beyond the property
lines onto adjacent properties. Staff also identified areas where the fill had been added within 26' of the
protected wetland.. Weinberger continued that staff sent correspondence ordering Mr. Stephenson to
correct the work; however,the May 16, 2002 deadline was not met. MCWD also had issued a stop work
request. Instead, Mr. Stephenson requested the opportunity to apply for an after-the-fact conditional use
permit to permit additional land alteration beyond the previous approval, combined with a joint
application including neighboring property owners, and an after-the-fact variance to permit the deposit of
fill within 26' of a wetland.
With regard to land alteration, Weinberger referred to Exhibits B, C, and D that illustrate what the land
alteration conditions are comparing the pre-existing, approved, and actual elevations of the hillside. The
elevation of the backyard is 966',with the lowest wetland elevation of 938'. The total drop of the
hillside is 28'.Weinberger stated that the approved plan indicated an overall slope would be decreased to
PAGE 10 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON III,Continued)
a 4:1 slope,pointing out that typically the City requires grading projects to have a finished slope of no
greater than 3:1.
Since the City of Orono requires a 26' setback to wetlands, Weinberger stated that the proposed grading
plan did not impact the wetland or wetland setback. Currently however, the fill is located as close as 17'
to the edge of the wetland, with an average distance from the hill to the wetland boundary of between 20-
25'.
Weinberger expanded on the three recommendation proposed by staff.:
1)The variance request to allow encroachment of the base of the hill to within 26' of the wetland be
denied.
2)The portion of the after-the-fact permit for the existing grades is not consistent with the City's general
recommendations that newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. In essence the applicant had
extended his back yard an additional 38'.
3) Staff has requested that Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in this application
since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines.
-Comments from the adjacent neighbor to the north,Toby Dayton, state that he has no issues with
the project and is in full support of it. He views it as an improvement to the property with regard
to safety and believed the drainage was improved. A late fax submitted by neighbor Robert Hare
supported the results of the project.
Weinberger then cited 6 conditions in his report that should be included as part of any recommendation.
Mr. Stephenson questioned Weinberger whether his intention was to approve the sideyards as long as
neighbors voiced their support.
Weinberger indicated that with neighbor support, it would create a better scenario; however, questions
remain regarding allowing the slope to be less than 3 to 1 and fill to remain within 26'of the wetland.
Mr. Stephenson maintained that the land alteration on the overhead slide had been corrected. The
existing grade is currently 2.9, since much of the fill tends to settle by one third over time. He believed
the silt fencing in place as of late had worked effectively in containing the fill. He asked if the sides
could be approved if the current slope is 3:1.
Although feedback from the City Engineer had not been collected,Weinberger stated his desire was to
schedule the issue for this evening in order to prevent any further delays.
Mr. Stephenson stated that, early on,the construction people did not have adequate silt fencing and
dumped more dirt than he had originally intended. Mr. Stephenson questioned their motives to get rid of
as much fill as they could and new silt fencing was constructed to replace the old after going over it. In
PAGE 11 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON III,Continued)
conclusion,Mr. Stephenson argued that more damage would be incurred by the wetland if the City
required him to change the new buffer zone that had been created. The new buffer zone has cleaned out
much of the buckthorn and other undesirables and been replaced with native grasses and trees.
Mr. Stephenson added that the seeding he had done was necessary in order to avoid erosion problems
during April and May rain showers.
Smith asked Mr. Stephenson to help her understand how all of these errors evolved. She questioned
whether he was there giving the crew direction or if someone else was the general contractor.
Mr. Stephenson replied that at the outset,there had not been the wetland delineation that came later,nor
did he feel the crew listened to his direction. He maintained that they had a copy of the plan in their
possession but just did not listen to his requests for silt fence installation and fill limits.
Smith stated that the project was under his direction and he should have managed it as such.
Bellows pointed out that in any construction project, if the silt fencing is not up,they don't dump. She
maintained that the City was very clear from the start that they were not pleased. She stated that it was
obvious to her that the applicant thought he would get away with it, and even went so far as to plant trees.
More than simply erosion control was done. She felt the applicant was not being totally upfront with the
Commission,the area was once a densely treed spot, and now the applicant had created a grade almost as
steep as before with no trees on the slope.
Dave Peltin, 1950 Fox Ridge Road, a current eleven year resident and childhood resident,believed the
project to be a vast improvement. Mr. Peltin stated that the drop off created a scary scenario, even as a
child himself there years ago. He disagreed that the removal of the old vegetation created a more
dangerous situation, stating that previously the only thing to catch one from falling off the cliff were
stumps. He felt the newly created buffer was 100 times more valuable than what was there before.
Eric Galatz, of Leonard, Street, and Deinard, was in attendance representing Richard Chalfen of 350
Brown Road South. In addition to information provided to staff and the comments by Commissioner
Bellows,Mr. Galatz asked to add a few remarks.He reminded the Commission that since no hardship
previously existed,Mr. Stephenson had only created a hardship for himself at this time. On Jan. 4, 2002
Mr. Stephenson was notified by MCWD to install double silt fencing. On February 22, 2002 the City of
Orono asked Mr. Stephenson to stop work on the project until conditions improved, furthermore,Mr.
Stephenson was responsible for obtaining a wetland delineation prior to commencing his work as
required by the original permit. Through their unauthorized grading and filling project,Mr. Galatz
pointed out that the Stephenson's have added nearly 40 feet to their back lawn area, as well as,built a
new deck and driveway. Mr. Galatz maintained that these facts disclose the Stephensons' failure to
follow terms and conditions of existing permits and prior stop work orders.
Mr. Galatz continued,that his client Mr. Chalfen, greatly appreciated his natural setting and privacy,
which have now been significantly impacted. He stated that the City had granted variances that would
have preserved that natural setting there originally, only now that has been compromised. Mr. Galatz
PAGE 12 OF 29
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON III,Continued)
encouraged the Commission to require that the applicant restore the landscape. In fact,Mr. Galatz stated,
the applicant has not made any apologies to his neighbors or the City for his indiscretions.
Mr. Stephenson asked to respond to each of Mr. Chalfen's issues independently. First,with regard to the
driveway and deck,Mr. Stephenson stated that he had received a permit for the deck and has not changed
his driveway in any way. Second,he indicated that he is apologetic to both his neighbors and the City.
He questioned the need to file permit for his neighbors overflow fill amounts which are less than 100
cubic feet of fill therefore not requiring permit. Finally,Mr. Stephenson stated that he disagreed with the
view issues as put forth by the neighbor due to his proximity to the property.
Bellows questioned if Weinberger could provide the Commission with a survey of existing conditions
since the completion of the work.
Gaffron noted that by comparing Exhibits B and D this is displayed well.
Bellows felt that the two exhibits were dramatically different and asked if it would be possible to
quantify the amount of extra fill that was used.
Smith inquired about the typical amount of settling one can expect.
Weinberger stated that over a short period of time a little settling is somewhat common.
Bellows reminded the Commission and applicant that the quantity of fill that is approved is for an
amount only,not that which is needed to maintain a certain level after settling.
Mr. Galatz stated that by extending the ridge out 38 feet, Mr. Chalfen's side hill view is now blocked by
an 8 foot tall filled in hill, which obstructs his view to the woods beyond.
Rahn felt it would be pertinent to obtain the City Engineer's opinion before making judgment and
believed that when an applicant goes way beyond what has been permitted,there are additional issues to
consider.
Mr. Galatz urged the Commission to take action now since Mr. Stephenson has already been on notice
for six months.
Rahn expressed his empathy to the neighbors who would be subject to a new series of trucks disrupting
their lives this summer, who, of course, feel it is an easier course of action to let it all go.
Smith asked for Mr. Stephenson's feedback regarding page 3, of the staff recommendations.
Mr. Stephenson stated that item#3 of page 3 had been addressed by providing adjacent property owner
support. Item#2,with regard to the grade,Mr. Stephenson maintained that the 2.9 grade is extremely
close to the 3:1 slope that was approved and should be allowed. In reference to item#1, wetland
encroachment, Mr. Stephenson stated that he would be more than happy to remove the fill that had
overflowed into the wetland area without having to shave the whole hill back.
PAGE 13 OF 29
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON III, Continued)
Fritzler questioned if the applicants crew was running equipment beyond the silt fencing and why.
Mr. Stephenson indicated that small machinery had been used.
Fritzler then asked how far into the wetland the applicants property extends and what he removed.
Mr. Stephenson stated that his property extends 100' into the wetland and that he removed much of the
buckthorn at his own expense.
Smith referred to page 4,the remedies to settle the issues, and asked for comment.
Weinberger reiterated that the entire project exceeded the approved 500 cubic yards of alteration and in
order to maintain the required 3:1 slope the entire slope will need to be shaved in order to pull the hill
from the wetland. Weinberger questioned how the Commission felt about the encroachment into the
wetland.
Mr. Stephenson asked what could be done to keep the restored wetland buffer intact.
Weinberger repeated that the City protects wetlands within 26' thus ensuring that citizens do not disturb
the wetland.
Mr. Stephenson stated that MCWD had indicated to him that permits are available which allow fill back
to a wetland as long as the natural buffer is restored,much like the golf course had done.
Since the variances Mr. Stephenson referred to were never obtained,Mr. Galatz repeated that the
hardship was his own doing and the edge of the ridge must be moved back.
With regard to the neighboring properties, Gaffron stated it was his opinion that each will need to apply
for their own permit to have the fill remain,Mr. Stephenson cannot apply for permits on behalf of his
neighbors.
Bremer questioned whether the letters and correspondence that have been received are enough to satisfy
issue#3 for the City.
Bellows maintained that no letter can suffice to support the CUP.
Fritzler voiced his opinion, stating that the crest of the hill needs to be backed up to what was originally
approved in the CUP. Too much has been done and it is on the onus of Mr. Stephenson to correct the
problem. Fritzler maintained that the integrity of the 26' wetland setback needs to be restored. He added
that, in his opinion,he would vote to deny the variance, deny the CUP, and require the applicant to move
the slope back..
Bellows requested that item#6 of the conditions on page 4 of the report be stricken since the neighbors
are not co-applicants in this request.
PAGE 14 OF 29
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON III,Continued)
Smith stated that she concurred with the thoughts laid out by Fritzler.
Rahn indicated that in his view the applicant had been negligent of what was originally approved and
agreed with removing item#6.
Berg concurred.
Bremer stated that it was unfortunate that the applicant would need to destroy the work he had done;
however, he had created this for himself.
Bellows agreed with Fritzler and struck item#6.
Mr. Stephenson stated that had he known the neighbors would need to apply for the permits themselves,
he would have had them do so.
Smith asked staff if anything could be done to minimize the disruption to the neighborhood.
Bellows pointed out that none of this disruption would have had to occur if the applicant would have
followed the letter of the law right from the start.
Weinberger stated that, in the applicants defense,he had asked for neighbor consent to the co-
application.
Mr. Stephenson expressed his disappointment and referred to the Orono Mission Statement which he felt
encouraged the City to do what's best for the environment and the majority of its citizens support. He
stated that he did not mean to create this mess and could pull the overflow fill out of the wetland buffer
rather readily and reseed at his expense. Mr. Stephenson maintained that it did not make sense for the
City to order him to do something to the neighbors property now after they have recommended their
support of the project.
Berg stated that the project needs to revert to what was originally approved. What he has done was not
part of the original plan, and therefore needs to be removed. Even if the neighbors love what he has
done,they did not file an application or join in the application.
Mr. Stephenson questioned the purpose for an after-the-fact application in the first place if the City does
not approve them.
Berg stated that they are available in order to allow the City to correct what was done improperly.
Mr. Stephenson stated that had he not filed for the after-the-fact application he would be continuing his
work today.
Rahn clarified that by not filing the application,Mr. Stephenson would not be excused from correcting
the problem,in fact,the City had sent him notice to do so.
PAGE 15 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2793 REVIS STEPHENSON III, Continued)
Mr. Stephenson argued that the reasoning behind his denials are not due to the fact that they are not
reasonable,but that they were not approved ahead of time. He questioned if he had come to the
Commission with his neighbors to apply for a CUP to clear and fill the area originally would he have
been granted approval,he argued yes.
Smith disagreed, and stated that the Commission likely would not have approved the way it was done.
Rahn stated that the approval had required a 15' setback to the sides, and he is currently in his neighbors
property,which already reflects a 30' encroachment without ever going to the neighbors. For this, and
other reasons,he argued that the Commission would not have given approval to the variances as Mr.
Stephenson believed.
Bellows moved,Fritzler seconded,to deny the After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit and Variance
for Application#02-2793,Revis Stephenson III, 1850 Fox Ridge Road,for additional fill to be
added to his property at slopes beyond what was recommended and the placement of soil on
neighbors property. It is further recommended that all three staff recommendations are followed
and items#1 -5 of the subsequent staff conditions. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:58-9:05 p.m.)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING-8:00 P.M.
(#9) #02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS,250 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST,PRELIMINARY
PLAT 9:05 p.m.- 9:42 p.m.
Brad and Carol Pass,Applicants, and Chuck Alcon, Project Manager, were present.
Weinberger explained that the applicants have applied for a preliminary plat of the 14 acre property at
250 North Shore Drive West allowing it to be divided into two building sites, shared driveway, and
conservation outlot. While the property owners own 20.5 acres immediately east of the property, for a
total of 34.5 acres, if the potential exists for future development a right of way should be considered.
The general site plan meets all requirements for a front lot/back lot subdivision. Weinberger continued
that the shared driveway also meets the minimum requirements. He added that Outlot B is planned to be
part of a much larger conservation easement area that will be dedicated to the Hennepin Conservation
District. The Hennepin Conservation District would maintain and manage the conservation area.
While Hennepin County has requested a land dedication totaling 60' from the center line of C.R. 19,the
City has not always required the land dedication for additional right of way. In fact, Weinberger
explained,that no other areas along this right of way are dedicated more than 33', and this might infringe
on the current wetland area.
Weinberger stated that a variance is required to permit land alteration in a designated wetland for
driveway construction. Dave Zetterstrom, Entrance Permit Coordinator for Hennepin County,has
PAGE 16 OF 29
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS, Continued)
reviewed the plans and noted in his letter dated May 21,2002 that the proposed driveway entrance is the
only location along the roadway frontage where access can be permitted for the property.
With regard to staff recommendations,Weinberger recommended approval of the preliminary plat and
wetland alteration variance for the shared driveway based on six findings and 9 recommended conditions
as cited in the staff report.
Weinberger read a letter received from the neighbors Lisa and Tom Buettner, 325 County Road 19,
which expressed their concern over the proposed use of the property. They noted that the land
designated for"conservation"has been over run by minibikes and ATV's and cautioned the Commission
to investigate the proposed use of the land.
Attorney Chuck Alcon,representing applicants Brad and Carol Pass, offered comments pertaining to the
staff report. He stated that with regard to the second driveway for a neighboring property located at the
north end of the Pass property,the applicants will be asking the neighbor to relocate their driveway
access onto their own property rather than granting them an easement.
Mr. Alcon continued that his clients are confused by Hennepin County's request for 60' from the center
line when the City Engineer's earlier report recommended 33'. Unless this is intended to be a very large
trail at some point,they don't understand the need for the additional 27'. After speaking with Dave
Zetterstrom this afternoon,who stated that he was unsure why the request was for 60' was made since the
City has no trail planned there,Mr.Alcon recommended they stay with the 33' standard. He believed
that this would have less impact on the wetland.
With regard to the staff report on Page 4, item 4,Mr. Alcon stated that the Pass' are currently working
with the Hennepin Conservation District for the conservation documentation for Outlot B,with the
access to Outlot B from the east. He requested that the Commission allow the Pass' to complete the
process with HCD and present this to City Council with the final plat.
Mr. Alcon stated that there are virtually three things going on with this overall property acquisition; first
there is a 1031 "like exchange"process taking place on a portion of this property; second, Mr. Alcon
noted that, in his opinion,the Pass' are attempting to do something wonderful for the City of Orono by
providing this conservation easement over this critical piece of property,there are tax ramifications
included in these discussions; lastly,the conservation easement that will be place over outlot B precludes
any right of way going from left to right, and the City has approval rights with regard to the property to
the right should it ever develop to a buildable lot. Mr. Alcon requested in reference to item 7,page 4,
that the Pass' be allowed to record the conservation easement over outlot B with access from the right of
the overhead at the time of the final plat and hold the recording of the conservation easement of the
second piece in order to comply with the 1031 exchange and IRS tax concerns.
Mr. Pass stated that it is not he or his that are riding their ATV's and minibikes on the property and he
will continue to look into the problem. They do not plan to build anything on the wetland.
Outraged by the activity on Outlot B,Mrs. Pass stated that this has always been a problem. Even with
posted signage, snowmobilers and others feel free to utilize their land with no regard. She continued that
PAGE 17 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS, Continued)
her wish is to work with Hennepin Conservation District and County to restore this piece of property
utilizing native plantings. Mrs. Pass explained that they don't approve of the many changes that have
happened to the lake and want to do their part to retain this nice piece and make it a public conservancy,
which will require some legal work.
There were no public comments.
Bellows questioned if the conservation easement on the second lot will be filed or granted.
Mr. Alcon stated that the applicants request the conservation easement over the second 20 acre site not be
tied to this application and filed concurrently in order to protect themselves.
Gaffron questioned if the applicant could provide the City with a written commitment stating the intent
for the 2nd conservation easement.
Mr. Alcon maintained that this condition could be stipulated,but he believed there needs to be a little
good faith here as well.
From what he believed he had observed this evening, Mr. Pass indicated that if anything were to be
proposed for the second conservation easement site, other than what's been discussed,the Commission
would be able to guide the development.
Berg noted that it would be difficult for the Pass' to supply a written agreement until the"like exchange"
1031 would be filed.
Gaffron suggested leaving the agreement issue to the City Attorney and tax attorneys to determine the
order for the process.
Mr. Alcon maintained that his job is to protect the Pass' and cannot promise more until the tax attorneys
say it is o.k., and suggested the Commission brief the City Attorney and have both parties consult one
another.
With regard to the 60' right of way request, Gaffron asked the Commission for their comments as this
was unusually in excess of what had been required elsewhere.He added that while it would seem
unlikely the City would put a trail in this location,the Commission could leave it to the City Council to
decide if it were really necessary, or consult the Park Commission as well.
Mr. Pass maintained that this is a deeper requirement than proposed anywhere else, and suggested that if
the Commission deemed it unnecessary to require it, to just forget it.
Bellows moved to approve preliminary Plat and wetland alteration variances for Application#02-
2788,Brad and Carol Pass, 250 North Shore Drive West,subject to staff recommendations with
the exception of condition 6,to be modified to 33', and that condition 7 be met in a manner
acceptable to the City Attorney in terms of coming to some written agreement which allows the
PAGE 18 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2788 BRAD AND CAROL PASS,Continued)
applicant to do what they need to do in terms of purchases while still providing the City with some
written assurance.
Mr.Alcon asked if proceeding to City Council to present the final access of conservation at the
time of final plat could be added. Bremer seconded. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#7)WJM PROPERTIES,260 WAYZATA BLVD.WEST,COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN/CUP
9:43 p.m.- 11:20 p.m.
Attorney Peter Johnson and Steve Fichtel were present representing the Applicant.
Weinberger reported that WJM Properties has applied for a Commercial Site Plan Review for changes to
the use of the property located at 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard(formerly Washington Scientific). The
request is to locate a wholesale distribution facility primarily serving the retail automotive operations
under the Morries automotive sales group. The building is proposed to be used for auto prep, a body
shop, storage, a central parts warehouse, offices, and a 32,800 s.f. indoor auto sales showroom for fleet
sales and leasing to corporate customers.
Weinberger noted that a conditional use permit is required for outside storage of vehicles that would be
located in the south and southeast parking lots. The outside storage would be damaged cars and cars"in
process". The outside storage area would include the parking areas south and southeast of the existing
building. A second conditional use permit would be required for an"open sales lot"the outside
storage/display of vehicles for the fleet sales and leasing operation. The intent of which is to have these
vehicles available for fleet or business customers for demonstration or test drives.
Weinberger reminded the Commission that the Orono zoning ordinance does not permit"retail sales"in
the I, Industrial zoning district. Retail use of the property for general customer visits for the purposes of
purchasing a vehicle or parts, is not permitted on the property. However,proposed uses such as the body
shop, auto processing, and wholesale of cars and parts are permitted uses in the district. The I district
lists"automobile and truck painting,major repair,body and fender work,upholstering,tire recapping and
sales when completely enclosed within a building.
Weinberger noted that the body shop would be in an area of approximately 45,000 s.f. and the auto prep
area would occupy 18,300 s.f.,both within the building and permitted within the I zoning district.
Mr. Johnson indicated that the property would not be used as a dealership and parts would be sold only
as wholesale at the eastern portion of the building consisting of approximately 62,700 s.f.
Weinberger referred to the outside storage and the proposed use of berming,plantings, and many existing
trees along the north side of the parking section to give screening to that area.
With regard to signage,while retail use relies on advertising signage to attract customers,wholesale
operations normally provide signage to identify the site. Weinberger maintained that the proposed
signage did not suggest that the building was a retail auto dealership,but rather identified the user of the
facility.
PAGE 19 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES,Continued)
Weinberger indicated that the proposed lighting was not consistent with what had been approved as part
of site plans for properties along the Highway 12 area. Staff encouraged lighting similar to that of City
Hall,with poles that stretch no taller than 25-27' and diffuse light to the ground.
Weinberger stated that staff recommends approval of the commercial site plan based on the 5 findings on
page 5 and subsequent conditions 1-7 on pages 5 and 6 of the staff report.
Mr. Johnson shared a revised section drawing based on earlier conversations with staff that afternoon
which reflects revisions in lighting and berming. He reminded the Commission that Morries is an
independent user who will maintain a professional appearance and provide the architectural lighting,
screening, and berming that the City is looking for.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Smith asked to be given a sense of the level of traffic to be generated by this property.
Mr. Johnson pointed out that the interior sales floor only makes up 20%of the whole building. While
there needs to be a small outside display area for potential buyers to test the vehicles,Monies will not be
marketing a specific brand of automobile and rely less on advertising. He added that the buyer they will
be focusing on will be the commercial or fleet buyer, or commercial leasing customer.
Smith inquired whether an individual could stop in to buy or lease a car.
Mr. Johnson stated that while the individual could purchase a car, the City could monitor this and
reminded the Commission that these are not the concentrated market.
Bellows questioned why the building needs cars placed front and center if the object is not to attract
customers from the street. She asked if this parking area could be eliminated altogether and the cars
moved to the back,thus eliminating the need to be lit up at all times.
Mr. Johnson contested that Monies wants to put their best face forward and these cars are placed near
the front door where desired customers will enter. If reversed,the body shop would be in front,rather
than screened and situated along the lower west boundary. He reiterated that this will be a post sale,car
sales operation,but very much a sales operation whose goal is to sell or lease automobiles.
Bellows stated that she didn't believe the screening wrapped around the sides of the building adequately.
She continued by voicing her concern over how the building sounds more and more like retail sales. If it
looks anything like a car dealership, she maintained that Orono does not want it here.
Mr. Johnson indicated that Monies had proposed a 5' high screen and reduced the level of lighting, after
meeting with staff to determine how the lights should be situated and directed. He insisted they've made
an effort to create a clear professional appearance for the site on Wayzata Blvd.
Berg inquired over the lit signage and hours of operation.
PAGE 20 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued)
Mr. Johnson stated that the sign will be lit from behind and in preparation for this proposal the hours of
operation were not required.
Berg noted that as a shopper,this looks like a sales operation to her. The hours of operation are going to
tell us if this is truly a retail or wholesale operation.
Mr. Johnson reminded the Commission that they have the ability to dictate this since the applicant needs
their approval.
Smith believed that if she could be provided with the hours of operation, she and the Commission might
gain a better understanding of which this is geared for.
Mr. Johnson asked for clarification over what it was that was triggering the concern that the building is a
retail sales operation versus wholesale,was it the outdoor display.
Bellows maintained that the display is triggering a use that they don't approve of, and in addition to,
hours of operation, the Commission needs to determine if this will result in a destination operation.
Rahn inquired where transports would be unloading vehicles.
Mr. Johnson indicated that cars would be unloaded on site outdoors.
Berg inquired over the number of cars on site in the eastern parking lot at any given time.
Mr. Johnson stated that no changes would be made to the existing parking lot size,which currently holds
340 parking spaces, including 40 employee stalls.
Bellows asked how many cars would typically be on site at one time.
Mr. Johnson estimated that an average of 250 cars would be on hand in the overnight storage area,with
upwards of 400 on site at any given time.
Mr. Fitchel interjected that due to fluctuations in excess inventory this is a difficult number to predict.
Rahn questioned whether the proposal skirts the retail zoning ordinance and in essence still is retail. He
stated that the Commission obviously has little objection to the other uses, such as,the automotive shop,
prep etc.
Bellows maintained that the original intent, as indicated in the letter Exhibit D, still is to provide a retail
sales operation.
Berg questioned the loading and unloading distractions near a residential area at all hours. She went on to
inquire who the customer is specifically.
PAGE 21 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES,Continued)
Mr. Johnson reiterated that the operation is designed to attract the commercial customer who shops for a
company.
Smith noted that according to the information provided by Morries, on average 10 visitors a day will stop
by the showroom.
Berg asked if the average sole buyer would be referred out to this location in order to obtain a specific
model
Mr. Johnson indicated that, in fact,the opposite would happen, the car would be sent out to the buyer's
dealership location.
Rahn inquired whether this would be the centralized location for all of the dealerships as their off-load
location. He could envision an awful lot of transports were this the case, and asked how many typically
arrive per month.
Mr. Fitchel indicated that they average 10 transports offloading per month, adding that the furthest
locations would not use this for their centralized drop off site.
Bellows questioned whether the proposed berming and landscaping were in lieu of fencing.
Weinberger stated that the City will almost always prefer landscaping to a 6' high fence.
Bellows then questioned the safety issues that might arise with transports turning at the traffic light.
Weinberger stated that the City reserves the right to look into a future service road for the area.with a
light.
Mr. Johnson explained that access issues have been discussed at length and Morries is willing to respond
to proposals when they are made. It is their intention to work with the City to provide better access.
Smith clarified the figures, 10 customers a day, 10 transports a month, adding that all that is left to be
determined is the hours of operation. She asked how the Commission could manage this application
further to ensure that six months from now,the applicant has gone beyond what is been pictured.
Mr. Fitchel stated that in his estimation, the fleet sales hours of operation may require some evening
hours,while the wholesale hours may be more broad.
Rahn stated that fleet sales could feasibly operate like normal business hours, 9AM to 6 PM typically,
with a Saturday 9AM to noon schedule as a reasonable addition.
Fritzler maintained that the body shop industrial operation would need to be open later.
Bellows argued that if the parts and body shop are wholesale, it should not be necessary for them to be
open at odd hours.
PAGE 22 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES,Continued)
Fritzler inquired where trade-ins would be staged.
Mr. Johnson stated that the body shop cars would be staged in the fenced in area.
Bellows reminded the Commission that if 120 cars are coming in, and another 120 are going out, along
with the body shop, it seemed to her to be a more intense use than they had assumed.
Bremer stated that the numbers of cars on site didn't concern her, due to the fact that the facility was
built to hold that many cars, cars for the employees coming and going twice daily. These cars will not be
coming and going with that frequency. With regard to the body shop, it is an allowed use which she had
no issue with either.
Bellows repeated that she could not support a retail trade and asked for the definition of that term.
Gaffron distributed a series of definitions, which defined retail trade as "establishments engaged in
selling goods or merchandise to the general public for personal or household consumption and rendering
services incidental to the sale of such goods". In addition to the hand-out, Gaffron stated that, if the
Commissioners were concerned over the traffic and noise level, this is the middle of an industrial area.
He added that a mere dozen transports per month is low in comparison to other trades and reminded
everyone that far less traffic is being proposed than was there before. To Gaffron,the remaining issue
the Commission seemed to be wrangling with was whether the general public might come in off the street
to buy a car or part.
Rahn stated that as a conditional use,the Commission could monitor the operation.
Smith suggested adding an opportunity to revisit the conditional use after an amount of time if what was
pictured today is vastly different six months from now.
Bremer reiterated that the parking lot was built to adequately hold the proposed number of cars sitting
there.
Gaffron asked the Commissioners to give thought to the other uses they could get into this industrial area
that could be worse. He questioned where this type of use should be located within a city if not the
industrial area.
Bremer cited the"comment"section below the retail trade definition that identifies the important
characteristics of retail trade, including; the establishment is usually a place of business engaged in
activity to attract the general public to buy and sells to customers for their own personal or household
use. Neither of which fit this operations intentions as they've discussed it.
Bellows asked if the applicant could de-emphasize the display function as retail even further by
increasing the screening or moving the vehicles. She stated that she would be more comfortable with the
proposal if the hours of operation could be limited, lighting altered, and screening increased.
PAGE 23 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES,Continued)
Bremer maintained that the Commission was presented with a legitimate application, which fulfills the
City's desire to get people into the industrial area.
Mr. Johnson stated that the applicant is well aware that huge restrictions will accompany approval of this
site and they are willing to work with the City to come to an agreement.
Berg asked if the applicant would be opposed to more screening.
Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission would find the screening acceptable if the berm were one foot
higher and wrapped the corner.
Smith asked the Commission to further define the findings and work through the parameters.
With regard to item#2,the planting islands,Mr. Johnson pointed out four islands detailed in his initial
hand-out.
Smith again asked how many cars would be on hand at a given time.
Mr. Johnson stated that 250 would be an approximate overnight figure.
Smith believed that an additional two islands, for a total of six planting islands in the eastern lot,would
be acceptable.
Item#3, Smith asked staff to work with the applicant to devise an effective screen of berm and
vegetation.
In reference to#4, Gaffron maintained that light posts do not need to exceed 25'.
Bellows suggested a height of 20' in the display area and 25' in the overnight parking lot.
All found item#5 acceptable.
Gaffron stated that item#6 in regard to future access, it will need to be acknowledged that the applicant
has committed to work with the City on revisions.
Bellows stated that item#7, conversion to a sales dealership,will not be allowed any time ever.
Bremer added condition#8,which limits the number of display spots to 40.
With regard to#9,hours of operation,Fritzler stated that he had no problem allowing 9 AM to 9 PM as
general hours of operation.
Gaffron suggested requiring the applicant propose their hours of operation to the City Council for their
discretion.
PAGE 24 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2795 WJM PROPERTIES, Continued)
Since hours set the stage for the operation,Rahn felt it important to be specific.
Smith suggested a guideline of Monday-Friday 9AM to 6PM, Saturday 9AM to 12PM be sent to
Council.
Mr. Johnson maintained that restricting the hours of operation for the body shop and parts would reduce
and limit the efficiencies.
Bellows reiterated that the idea is to limit the retail or walk in business.
Mr. Johnson was asked to address the hours of operation as they pertain to the showroom or auto sales
only.
Gaffron advised the Commissioners, while they probably cannot limit the hours for the industrial side of
the business,they certainly are within their jurisdiction in limiting the retail aspect of the showroom side.
Bellows inquired whether the City Engineer has reviewed the area to ensure access for semis loading and
unloading freely within the site and in order to avoid standing on highway 12.
Mr. Johnson stated that if parking spaces need to be eliminated in order to allow for easier access they
will.
Smith inquired what if any changes to the exterior would be made.
Mr. Fitchel pointed out that exterior paint will be completed after the roof repairs are made to eliminate
the moisture problems. The brick and panel will remain on the east facade.
Gaffron stated that all parties would like to see a higher quality than has been there to date.
Smith asked if the City would like to limit transports.
Weinberger noted that this would be too difficult to monitor.
Bellows repeated earlier suggestions to review the entire operation after a certain amount of time. By
reviewing the application for compliance at the City's discression at a certain point in time.
Smith moved,Bellows seconded,to accept Application#02-2795,WJM Properties,2605 West
Wayzata Boulevard,a conditional use permit for outside storage and open sales lot, having
reviewed the staff recommendations on page 5 and found them acceptable,having reviewed,
modified and added to the suggested conditions for approval on pages 5 and 6 as noted in the
minutes. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 25 OF 29
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8)MARK AND GINA KOSEK, 1875 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE 11:21p.m.-12:00 a.m.
Gina Kosek, Applicant,was present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant had applied for a variance to construct two lakeside decks and a
walkway. The variance request is to allow hardcover of 5,882 s.f. (34%)where 3,745 s.f. (22.13%)
exists and 4,230 s.f. (25%) is allowed. There will be two decks, one at ground level and the other being a
second story. Currently there are three patio doors on the lake side of the home with no means of exiting.
The second story has a 9' door and the ground level has a 9' and 6' door. The second story deck will be
over the lower deck and slightly smaller thus resulting in no additional hardcover.
In 2000, Bottenberg explained,the applicant removed the old residence and built the current residence.
At that time the applicant applied for a variance to allow a deck to be located within 75' of the lake.
Bottenberg noted that the Planning Commission denied the application and the applicant withdrew the
application.
At the time,the hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone appeared on paper to leave 485 s.f.unused.
However, since the house was completed,Bottenberg stated that the driveway and retaining walls have
been constructed. The driveway is larger than what was shown on the original survey and the retaining
walls did not show up either. Additional retaining walls were constructed to aid the change in grade for
the driveway and as edging that the applicant did not realize added to hardcover totals.
Bottenberg stated that staff recommends denial of this application for hardcover. Even if the applicant
removed the old south driveway(as required to by the original permit), all rock/retaining walls except
one row around the north driveway it would still be over by 357 s.f. at 26.5%. If denied,the question
regarding the patio doors remains, as well as, the requirement to remove the unapproved hardcover.
Ms. Kosek stated that the driveway has not been enlarged from the original plan because it has always
been there. The driveway may not have shown up on the survey,but it has been there all along,it has not
been changed. With regard to the lakeside retaining walls, Ms. Kosek maintained that they also have
been there since they purchased the home, and no one said anything about them. Prior to August 2000,
there was an old existing deck. As she redesigned the home she moved the deck design out of the 75'
setback area in order to add it later utilizing the additional 400 s.f. of hardcover they believed to have had
remaining.
She stated that even in conversations with Weinberger, she was not aware that the retaining walls around
the driveway used up this precious square footage until she filed a permit for her deck.
Smith asked the applicant how they could help to make things right in order to obtain the variance.
Ms. Kosek maintained that what she has proposed currently would hardly constitute a deck, it is more
like two sidewalks with a spot for a chair,not even a table. She stated that originally two separate
building sites,they combined them to one in order to create a home.
There were no public comments.
PAGE 26 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2796 GINA KOSEK, Continued)
Smith questioned how the applicant could get back closer to what was approved and why the 2nd
driveway was not removed. She inquired about the retaining walls.
Ms. Kosek stated that their intention was to remove and sod the old driveway after finishing their
landscaping. She and her husband had done much of, if not all of the work themselves, from the design
to the construction, and it takes time to do this on your own. Ms. Kosek maintained that she had been
told that no permit was required for retaining walls under 4' in height,but never was she told that they
counted toward her hardcover when she made the inquiry. She added that if the retaining walls were
removed near the driveway the grade would wash away, as would the side retaining wall if it were
removed.
Smith asked about the patio doors.
Ms. Kosek stated that the plan was to slide the doors out of the 75' setback,which would have worked
with the excess 400 s.f.they had allowed if it weren't now used up.
Smith inquired how the hardcover could be brought down to compliance.
Ms. Kosek found it difficult to accept that she could be denied the 28%hardcover variance she was
requesting with a conforming lot,when earlier in the evening a nonconforming lot was granted a variance
to allow 37%hardcover. She questioned the rationale and indicated that if hers were a nonconforming
lot it might be easier to obtain the variance she so seeks.
Rahn stated that he had visited the site and spoke to the applicants about getting rid of an old shed within
the 75' setback,removing the stone borders in front, and any nonessential retaining walls, although the
majority are serving a need, and obviously the old south driveway.
Bellows stated that she did not like the issue with the patio doors and believed the applicant had brought
the hardship upon themselves. The original deck was denied.
Ms. Kosek indicated that the patio doors were not added intentionally to cause trouble,they were moved
with the thought the square footage was available.
Bremer indicated that she did not have a problem supporting the request based on what had been
suggested by Commissioner Rahn. The nonessential rock and old driveway need to be removed. She
agreed that it was difficult to allow a 37%variance for a nonconforming smaller lot and not allow this
more reasonable request.
Berg concurred.
Rahn believed the driveway could not be reduced and safely allow the applicants to access Highway 19,
he was in support of the application and believed it to be a minimal request,
Frtizler indicated that he did not wish to see additional hardcover on the property and believed the
retaining walls should have been built into the original request.
PAGE 27 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2796 GINA KOSEK,Continued)
Smith felt more concessions needed to be made before she could support the application.
Ms. Kosek concurred with Commissioner Rahn that the old shed ought to be removed, in fact, she had
suggested to him herself.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to approve the hardcover variance for Application#02-2796,Gina
Kosek, 1875 Shadywood Road,on the condition that the old shed be removed,all stone borders and
nonessential boulder walls be removed,and the original south driveway as required by the first
permit. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2. With Fritzler and Bellows dissenting for reasons expressed
earlier.
(#4)#02-2776 HENNEPIN COUNTY,3880 SHORELINE DRIVE,RENEWAL VARIANCES
Smith moved,Bellows seconded,to table Application#02-2776 Hennepin County,3880 Shoreline
Drive,as no representatives for the Applicant were present. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#12)PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 20,2002
Smith moved,Fritzler seconded,to approve the Minutes of the May 20,2002,Planning
Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0,Berg abstained.
(#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron reported that the Dahlstrom Development proposal was denied by City Council. Gaffron
requested that the Planning Commission hold an additional work session the week before the next
meeting to discuss the future of that site and upcoming proposals being formulated by Dahlstrom.
Smith mentioned that Long Lake is currently seeking grocery store bids.
Gaffron added that the medical clinic proposal by Dr. Berg was approved.
Fritzler reported that during the May 28, 2002 City Council meeting he attended the Croutteau revised
plan was approved with a cantilevering revision and detached garage to be planned at a later date.
(#13) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JUNE 24,
2002 AND JULY 8,2002.
June 24 -Berg July 8 - Smith
Gaffron scheduled July 10, 2002 for the regularly scheduled work session.
PAGE 28 OF 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 17,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Bellows moved,Berg seconded,to adjourn meeting at 12:22 A.M.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 12:22 A.M.
Sandy Smith, Chair
PAGE 29 OF 29