HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-19-2002 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE g-/7 ��
❑
COUNCIL
PLANNING COnVIlVIISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUES'1'FD
PARK COMIVIISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. f & /°L�ry ��"o )"4tr -
2. 1;; // S PI ctl j 7C) (z)t'/Zei
3. X%G is L C .0/7— 0a7 tic, / kAYj-y }-%'/'`
4. 66 /S L/ g,,647/4t / .7(3X i✓j 4-L t f i,y
5. ' N /6/ S �.c;z E'. 73/S-
6. AAA/ 4.54//If /9y0 eoun-tyy 28/2..
7.
7
-3T-t-
4-7:5 N 1Z-'c
1,1k6,,\ - L.1 a -
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.°
15.
XAData&Admintstrative Support\(Fonns-Old)\FOR'NS\PUBLIC.ATT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m. ,
ROLL
The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair
Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, Cynthia Bremer, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz Hawn, and
Jeanne Mabusth. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator
Wendy Bottenberg, and Recorder Kristi Anderson.
Absent were Commissioner Janice Berg, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, and Council
Representative Mayor Peterson.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1) #02-2811 DANIEL AND RUTH PARTEN, 1015 TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCE
Mabusth moved,Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2811 Daniel
and Ruth Parten, 1015 Tonkawa Road, approving the average lakeshore setback variance
subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the staff recommendation memo dated
August 5, 2002, in order to make changes to the residence. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#2) #02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY,
REVIEW OF REVISED CONCEPT PLAN 6:35 - 7:20 p.m.
Dr. Karl Berg, Dr. Bill Kotteman, Dr. Eberts, and Bob Ritter, Applicants representing
Professional Properties of Orono, were present.
Gaffron explained that since receiving Concept Plan approval per City Council Resolution No.
4823 on June 10, 2002, the applicants have continued to revise the site plan, whereas a number
of the changes proposed do not change the use of the site they do significantly affect the parking
layout, access location, site circulation, building size and orientation, etc. which staff concluded
require a Revised Concept Plan review and approval.
PAGE 1 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued)
The Applicants also advised the City that they have signed a purchase agreement to acquire the
adjacent 2.5 acre parcel to the east, which in the Revised Concept Plan indicates the potential for
additional parking on that site as well as shared access to Kelley Parkway.
Gaffron continued that, the latest issue with the purchase is that the applicants' environmental
consultant has suggested that the site may contain small pockets of defined wetlands, although
not originally mapped on the site. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer is currently reviewing
the wetland status of the property and will provide staff with additional information soon.
Gaffron reported that, John Smythe, the City wetland delineator, indicated that small pockets of
wetland, approximately 50'X50' exist at the center of the property, although it cannot be
concluded currently by slide analysis whether these have been man made from grading or
naturally occurring. Gaffron implied that the Watershed District may require a small amount of
mitigation off-site if the spot is found to contain wetlands regulated under the WCA rules.
With regard to the Concept Plan, Gaffron pointed out 5 revisions: First, the building is 16,000
s.f. rather than the original 15,000 s.f.; Second, the front entrance of the building has been
revised so that it faces northeast towards Kelley Parkway; Third, the easterly entrance to Kelley
Parkway will be a full access shared entrance with the adjacent property directly across from the
police station access as required by the City; Next, the westerly access from Kelley Parkway will
be "in-only"which provides for easy patient drop-off and pick-up and less stacking backups;
Finally, the easterly parking lots are connected by two "through"corridors to additional parking
on the adjoining property. Based on the applicants' revised plan, 67 stalls are on site and 15 are
provided on the adjacent property to meet the applicants expectation that 83 stalls will likely be
necessary to adequately serve their intended use of the building. Gaffron added that the
proposed parking on the adjoining property can be dealt with either by an easement or moving
the lot line to include these within the property itself.
Gaffron stated that the two options for allowing the required parking and shared access to occur
outside the boundaries of the property are 1)require that parking easements or agreements be
established between the two properties; or 2)require that the lot boundaries be adjusted so that
all parking for the corner lot is within the corner lot. In any case, Gaffron acknowledged that the
shared access location is appropriate to serve both sites, while likely an additional access to
Kelley Parkway would be developed for the easterly parcel.
As far as the trail along Highway 12, Gaffron indicated that there were a number of issues that
should be taken into consideration: i.e., the safety aspect of proximity to Highway 12, as any
trail should be significantly separated from the traveled right-of-way; aesthetic impacts; the
impact of pedestrian traffic near the medical building windows; and topographic issues.
PAGE 2 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued)
With regard to the topographic issue, Gaffron stated that if the trail is to run south of the power
poles, almost in the ditch, discussions will continue with Hennepin County about converting the
ditches along the Willow-OCB Rd. segment of Highway 12 into storm sewers, which would
provide an urban section and allow for a more attractive transition from Highway 12 to the
development along it. Gaffron noted that, while no specific plans are in place, after speaking to
Hennepin County this past week this option could provide the City with an opportunity to
eliminate the ditch.
Gaffron indicated that staff found the Revised Concept Plan to contain a number of elements that
make it superior to the approved plan,primarily in terms of access to Kelley Parkway and site
circulation. He added that a resolution to amend Resolution No. 4828 will be presented to
Council on August 26, referencing the Revised Concept Plan and incorporating any necessary
revised conditions.
Smith inquired why the building size increased to 16,000 s.f versus the original 15,000 s.f.
Dr. Kotteman stated that the potential tenants for the professional building required that much
more square footage once everyone was able to put a pencil to the numbers.
Smith indicated that three issues were under consideration this evening, including, placement of
the lot line,topographical issues, and trail considerations.
Smith agreed that the revised plan was a much better proposal and could support moving the lot
line.
Mabusth stated that she agreed, especially, in light of the possibility of newly defined wetlands.
Hawn preferred the cleaner process of moving the lot line, as opposed to easements etc. She
asked if any unreasonable restraint would be put on the next door property by moving the lot
line.
Gaffron indicated that the size of the adjoining lot would be revised from 2 1/2 acres to 2 acres,
thus reasonable for development.
Hawn stated that she was uncomfortable with the awkward traffic pattern created by the Kelley
Parkway access and islands within the lot.
Gaffron indicated that staff had also struggled with this question, and came to the conclusion that
due to limited volume, generally no one should be stacked up waiting to get out. He indicated
that the proposed plan is a common parking scenario.
PAGE 3 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued)
Rahn asked if the parking design was meant to service the next door property located where it
was.
Gaffron stated that the applicants were required by the City to align the access opposing the
Orono Police Station existing driveway.
Rahn stated that he was in favor of moving the lot line in order to locate the parking within the
property.
Dr. Berg acknowledged that Hawn was correct in her observation that the current flow pattern is
not the best; however, indicated that they may be developing the other property which would
complete the traffic flow and provide a better circular pattern.
Hawn asked the applicants how they felt about the trail located closer to the building.
Dr. Kotteman stated that this was the first he had heard of the potential to fill in the ditch.
Gaffron stated that if the storm sewers can direct the flow underground, the grade would be
virtually flat, allowing the trail closer to Highway 12 with a 6" curb and gutter. He reiterated
that, if the ditch is filled in, the trail can be moved off the encroachment on their property.
Smith asked what might happen to Highway 12 that could impact this area over the next several
years.
Gaffron indicated that, while the City does not plan on one, the City traffic consultant pointed
out that they could have another access point from these properties onto Highway 12. He added
that discussions need to occur between the Orono and Long Lake Park and Planning
Commissions and City Councils with regard to the character of that road. While it would likely
not be much wider, it would offer sidewalks. Gaffron stated no one currently has any idea of the
streetscape plan for the Highway 12 roadway yet, over the next few years, however, this would
need to be determined. Other questions, like buried power lines, would need to be addressed,
however, due to the cost, likely a half million dollars burying the lines from just Willow to Old
Crystal Bay Road, this would be prohibitive.
In terms of patients, Smith asked the applicants how moving the trail closer to the building
impacts the corner.
PAGE 4 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued)
Dr. Berg felt it would adversely affect those patients receiving dental treatments near the
windows at that corner of the building.
Smith asked if landscape screening could offset the privacy of patients.
Dr. Berg believed landscaping would help, but the tenants would not want to hide the signage.
Smith indicated that more could be done with window dressings to assist in screening.
Mabusth asked if the applicants could commence building a permanent drainage pond as
opposed to the temporary solution proposed earlier.
Gaffron noted that this could be resolved later with the development of properties further to the
east. No one had looked at this question yet, but these details would be worked out prior to final
resolution.
Mabusth inquired about sidewalk access along Kelley Parkway.
Gaffron stated that the sidewalk for this property would straddle their property line, be 6' wide,
8' off the edge of the pavement and 20' from parking, meeting City requirements.
Mabusth asked if the applicants would be responsible for landscaping along both Kelley
Parkway and Highway 12.
While they do have landscaping requirements, Gaffron noted that the City would need to give
them better definition of what should happen along Kelley Parkway. They will need to submit a
landscaping plan to meet the requirements. The developers of the Dahlstrom property have
suggested that they would provide the City with some ideas of streetscape for Kelley Parkway.
Gaffron stated that the City would obviously like this to match that proposal,but frankly, the
City hadn't gotten that far yet.
Hawn reiterated that no concrete plans can really be made until the City knows if the County will
fill in the ditch.
Gaffron indicated that discussions with the County are in the early stages, and he would consider
holding off on forcing this trail to be built until some of the County decisions are made.
Mabusth cautioned that this could be a ways off.
PAGE 5 of 28
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued)
Gaffron stated that, if the Commission's recommendation is that the trail situation would be
better resolved once we know whether or not this was to remain a ditch or turn into a storm
sewer system, that would be a reasonable recommendation.
Smith asked about the next five years.
Dr. Kotteman reminded the Commissioners that the trail to the east dead-ends anyway with no
where to go now. He suggested they escrow the funds to build the trail once the property to the
east is developed and the City knows what direction the streetscape and trails will take.
There were no public comments.
Smith inquired what the view from Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road would be. Since the
repositioning places the back of the building along that intersection, she wondered if passersby
would look at trash receptacles or what the view might be.
Gaffron noted the entire building would be of the same material and landscaping would surround
the building.
Dr. Berg stated that while they had not invested in an architects rendition at this point, the
intention would be to make the building as attractive as possible. Berg indicated that the
applicants desire a professional looking building and have even considered a false front with
gable and garden to resemble the front of the building.
Dr. Kottemen added that they would commission the architect to create a false front rendition
once they are confident they've been given the go ahead.
Gaffron noted that the next stage would require the Commission to see the exact particulars of
the design elements.
Dr. Berg indicated that the building will be very traditional looking.
Smith complimented them on the nice design they had chosen which compliments the look of
City Hall.
Gaffron reminded the Commission to consider site plan, layout, trail, and easements versus lot
line at this time.
PAGE 6 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued)
Smith indicated that, it sounded to her, as if the Commission would prefer to defer the trail issue
until they have a better idea of what's going on with Highway 12 and the adjoining property to
the east.
Hawn concurred stating that an escrow would be a good alternative for the applicant.
Gaffron indicated that the existing Resolution No. 4828, section 11, does contain the language
allowing construction of the trail to be deferred until development of the property to the east
occurs subject to the developer posting suitable financial security in the interim for such
construction.
Mabusth asked if the trail should be contingent based solely on the development to the east or if
it should include the final plans for Highway 12 as well.
Hawn inquired what the property to the east was guided for.
Gaffron noted that the immediate property to the east was guided for professional office, while
Dahlstrom would develop the next parcel over with a trail connection to Willow.
Smith asked if the trail issue should be deferred to City Council.
Gaffron suggested that the Commission leave it to City Council to consider when the trail
development should occur and provide them the flexibility to decide.
Dr. Berg questioned where the dumpster should be located within the property. He felt the
dumpster should be located at the northwest corner as opposed to the southeast corner due to
handicapped stalls located in that portion of the lot.
Gaffron stated that either location was acceptable as long as they were totally screened.
Mabusth pointed out that the applicants would lose parking stalls in the northwest quadrant as
well.
Dr. Berg noted that, originally, they had proposed placing the dumpster in a central location
between the two sites for access by either development,but were told they could not propose that
without a development plan for the second parcel.
PAGE 7 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued)
Gaffron stated that if the Commission recommends the lot line be moved, it would be feasible to
put the dumpster in a central location on the property. One enclosure for the two properties.
Smith stated that she could support this alternative.
Hawn stated that moving the lot line would be consistent with what they have done in the past.
Hawn moved,to recommend City Council approval of Application #02-2782, Professional
Properties of Orono, 2765 Kelley Parkway, granting approval of the new site plan,
entrance facing Kelley Parkway,with respect to the trail, City Council work toward
development of the trail in conjunction with the other properties, and the Applicants place
in escrow the funds for its construction.
Mabusth added that City Council be given the options, to develop the trail now if it
chooses, construct it upon development of the easterly properties from Willow to Old
Crystal Bay Road, or with the final resolve and design of the County Road once Highway
12 no longer exists; however, of the alternatives, the Commission would recommend
deferring trail completion until a comprehensive trail plan can be developed.
Hawn moved that, furthermore, the lot line be moved to include the east parking lot, and
the dumpster be allowed to be placed at the southeast corner of the newly created lot; of
particular concern to the Commission is to ensure the backside and southwest corner of the
building be landscaped; and, if possible, the traffic flow be improved by creating another
cut in the adjacent property as soon as possible
Bremer stated that she was concerned that the financial implications to the applicant if the
Commission does not allow them to wait and defer trail construction until a comprehensive plan
can be developed could be a bit onerous. She felt forcing the applicant to remove and change a
trail they were only recently required to construct would place undue burden on the applicant
down the road.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#3) #02-2801 KATHY MELIN,3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES 7:21 p.m. -
7:48 p.m.
Applicant Kathy Melin and Bob Koelfgen, Metro Handyman, were present.
PAGE 8 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued)
Bottenberg explained that the application was tabled at the July 15, 2002 Planning Commission
meeting so the applicant could redesign the proposed three season porch. New plans have been
submitted to staff which reduce the three season porch in size from 12' X 28' to 8.02' X 16.4'
for an additional 136 s.f. in the 0-75' setback zone.
Bottenberg stated that staff again recommends denial of the application due to the entire addition
being located within 75' of the lakeshore. Due to the amount of existing hardcover and building
already within 75' of the lakeshore, variances to allow additional hardcover or structure is not
warranted.
Smith asked if the decrease in the size of the deck and removal of shed were reflected in the
numbers.
Hawn pointed out that the shed is located mostly in the ROW.
Melin stated that she hoped she met the requirements and was under the allowable 1,500 s.f
hardcover, if not she questioned what else to do.
Mabusth asked if she could remove any hardcover within the 75-250' s.f. setback.
Hawn questioned whether the screened porch could replace the side deck.
Smith stated that the lot size was acceptable now at 1,397 s.f.
Rahn stated that the proposed deck was still encroaching into the average lakeshore setback
approximately 4'.
Mabusth questioned what happened to the discussion from the last meeting with regard to
bringing the deck around to the side. The Commission had found that somewhat more
acceptable at the time.
Hawn reiterated that the Commission did not want to see anything additional added to the 0-75'
setback. She stated that she did not see adequate hardship to support the request other than a
small lot. She asked for more information in order to prove to her there was sufficient hardship.
Melin stated that she would consider going to the side, but was limited elsewhere by railroad,
ROW, and the vacated neighboring lot.
PAGE 9 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued)
Mabusth asked why the vacated Kenwood could not be used.
Melin indicated that Weinberger pointed out the vacated Kenwood property belonged to the
neighbor.
Smith suggested bringing the side deck forward a bit and screening it in as a preferable
alternative. By moving the side deck forward to the 75' line and enclosing the whole thing she
would have lake views.
Mabusth pointed out that screen doors already open to that deck and the Commission would
prefer this option, to encroaching any further into the 75' setback.
Melin pointed out that the front steps provide a poor entry to the home and that the wood steps
are unsafe in the winter. She hoped to clean up the appearance and make a nicer entryway with a
bigger access area to the home.
Smith suggested removal of the side deck and simply alleviating the safety of the front entrance
with a better landing and side steps.
Gaffron stated that the current steps offer a 4' landing.
Mabusth asked how the applicant would access the proposed deck.
Koelfgen indicated that steps down would be added.
Rahn stated that even an 8'X8' deck with safe steps built down to the side would require a 3'
landing before the steps. He questioned how the position of the windows would be impacted and
pointed out that a 16' length was proposed to avoid difficulties with regard to the windows.
Smith asked if the applicant were willing to give up the side deck.
Rahn reiterated that what was proposed wouldn't add much, it would virtually add only structure
over hardcover.
Smith asked that if a three season porch is added to the front not exceeding 8'X8' with steps to
the side what would need to be removed to keep the hardcover equal to what it was currently.
Gaffron stated that the applicant would need to remove 50 s.f. elsewhere to keep it equal.
PAGE 10 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2801 KATHY MELIN, Continued)
Bremer asked the client if, in reality, an 8'X8' deck was doable. She questioned whether it was
cost effective to rebuild for this minor increase.
Melin asked if she would be allowed a greater size deck if it were not enclosed.
Rahn stated that the hardcover does not change if the structure is enclosed or not, she would not
be allowed any larger deck.
Smith stated, once again, that the options were an 8'X8' deck on the front or a bit larger deck on
the side.
Melin indicated that she could run decking steps around to the side.
Hawn stated that it was not the Commissions job to redesign the deck for the applicant.
Melin stated that she agreed with Bremer that it would not be cost effective to construct the small
deck out front and was leaning towards enlarging the side deck.
Hawn reiterated that she still found it difficult to see any hardship to support the variance
request.
Mabusth asked how the side deck would resolve the safety issues on the front steps and what
would be removed.
Smith stated that, in her estimation, if the side deck was enclosed and steps were added to join
the side from the front, this would be acceptable.
Rahn reiterated that removals would need to occur if any additional hardcover was added.
Smith suggested the applicant present the Commission with a new sketch plan.
Mabusth moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #02-2801, Kathy Melin, 3309 Crystal
Bay Road,to allow the applicant time to develop a new sketch plan. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays
0.
Commissioner Hawn left at 7:50 p.m.
(Recess taken from 7:49 p.m. - 7:53 p.m.)
PAGE 11 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
(#4) MARVIN AND MARY SMITH, 1940 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD,VARIANCE 7:54
p.m. - 8:05 p.m.
Marvin Smith, Applicant,was present.
Bottenberg reported that the applicant had requested a front yard setback variance to construct a
2 1/2 story addition over the existing garage. The screen porch above the garage would be
removed and the addition would be constructed in its place. While the property was located
within a two acre zoning district, the neighborhood was more in character with one acre zoning
standards.
Staff recommended approval of the front yard setback variance to construct an addition over the
existing garage.
Mr. Smith stated that revised plans from a new architect did not change the peak height of 30'
for the 2 1/2 story structure.
Gaffron noted that since defining a 1/2 story the revised plans should meet the 30' height
requirement and new definition.
There were no public comments.
Bremer stated that she had no problem with the addition and complimented the applicant on the
revised plans.
Rahn stated that as long as the height requirement was met, he had no problem supporting the
application.
Fritzler concurred with Rahn.
Bremer moved, Mabusth seconded, to approve Application #02-2812, Marvin and Mary
Smith, 1940 Country Club Road, a front yard setback variance to construct a 2 1/2 story
addition over the existing garage of the residence. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#5) #02-2813 MARK WELCH,3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE 8:06 p.m. -
8:40 p.m.
Linda Welch, Sister representing the Applicant Mark Welch, was present.
PAGE 12 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued)
Bottenberg explained that the applicant was approved to construct a new residence on the
property in February, 2002. The applicant has not yet built the residence and wishes to make
two changes to the approved plan. Bottenberg reported that the changes to the plan include
shifting the residence on the west side from 8.5 feet to 7.5 feet from the property line,
straightening the residence to run parallel with the property line versus the lakeshore and add 65
s.f to the front of the house by adding a 4.5 foot prow, "v-shape"glass point on the lakeside of
the residence.
The approved variances had not expired and the additional variances would include a side yard
setback to permit the addition to be 5' and 7.9' from the west side property line. Additional
variances for hardcover and structure within 75' of the lakeshore were also necessary. The
proposed residence was originally approved to be 53' from the lakeshore, the addition of the
"prow" extends the house 4.5' towards the lake which now locates the residence 48.5' from the
lakeshore. Bottenberg reminded the Commission that the DNR minimum lakeshore setback
standard is 50' for a General Development Lake property. Although the residence would still be
further from the lakeshore than the two adjacent residences, the average lakeshore setback is not
an issue.
Smith asked what the rationale for the"prow"was.
Ms. Welch stated that the"prow"is aesthetically better and maximizes views of the lake.
Mabusth reminded the Commission that the extension of the eaves count if they do extend into
the setback area, stating that this was something they had cautioned the applicant of back in
February.
Gaffron noted that the drawing with eaves was not approved in the original proposal.
Mabusth stated that the glass structured prow extended 48.5' from the lake, however, this
measurement did not reflect the eaves, which would extend even further into the setback, as
would any steps.
Rahn asked if the glass"prow"was all windows and no doors.
Ms. Welch stated there were no doors.
Rahn questioned how much further the eaves would extend into the setback. It appeared to him
as if the eaves would extend an additional 4-5 feet into the setback area.
PAGE 13 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued)
Mabusth stated that while she had no problem with the alignment, if they are approving the
substandard setback they have to be sure that emergency vehicles could access the side yard and
recommended that no fence line be placed there. She felt the Commission should adhere very
strongly to the lakeshore setback.
Smith questioned whether the"prow" could be set back further into the house to meet the
approved setback area.
Mabusth asked how the Commission felt about holding the applicant to the original 660 s.f.
hardcover that existed before removals.
Rahn stated that he had no issue with the applicant moving further towards the street about 1 1/2'
which would still keep them within the average lakeshore setback.
Gaffron reiterated that the glass structure only could extend the additional 1 1/2',the eaves on
top of that would mean that much more encroachment.
Rahn stated that the design could be revised so as not to encroach within the 50' setback and
asked what would happen if the City goes beyond the DNR 50' setback.
Gaffron stated that Cities are not prohibited from approving encroachments of the DNR
recommended setbacks, and have done so in some instances.
Smith asked how vigilant the City has been to adhere to the 50' DNR setback and uphold this
recommendation.
Gaffron noted that in certain situations they have granted the encroachment.
Rahn stated that he was okay with the 65' s.f. "prow"addition and a 1 foot gable overhang,
which would keep the property well under the 1,500 s.f lot coverage allowed.
Gaffron pointed out that the 1,500 s.f is a limit not an allowance to be met.
Bremer stated that she had difficulty supporting this application since earlier that evening the
Melin application had been sent back to the drawing board when they had proposed encroaching
into the 75' setback with a deck. She indicated that 50' is much too close and she could not
support the application.
PAGE 14 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued)
Mabusth stated that she had no problem with the west lot line realignment but had difficulty with
going beyond the 53' setback. She felt they needed to be consistent with the earlier application.
Rahn agreed stating that the City needs to maintain some consistency in new home versus
existing home construction.
Mabusth indicated that she had a problem with more encroachment and extending eaves.
Rahn maintained that the code did not read the way he felt it was being interpreted.
Gaffron reiterated that property owners may be allowed 1,500 s.f. coverage and hardcover,
however, little lots may never reach that and maintain hardcover restrictions.
Smith stated that she could support shifting the residence,but could not accept the additional 64
s.f.
Bob Liberman, 3635 North Shore Drive, stated that he believed the addition would look very
nice but voiced his concern over what moving the residence closer to the lot line would mean to
his property. Mr. Liberman asked how this might impact him if he ever chose to rebuild, would
he be limited by what his neighbor was allowed to do coming so close to the property line. He
went on to question the possibility of losing the arborvitae privacy hedge that exists between the
two residences. He was concerned that they remain in order to maintain privacy.
Ms Welch stated that she assumed that the wall of arborvitae would remain to maintain privacy.
Smith indicated that Ms. Welch was speaking on Mr. Welch's behalf and could speak to the need
to keep the arborvitae.
Gaffron stated that if the Commission supports the realignment it would not be an unreasonable
condition that the arborvitae remain to maintain the privacy and screening.
Smith asked Mr. Liberman if he could support the shift if the arborvitae remained.
Mr. Liberman stated that he could support the shift if the arborvitae did remain.
Ms. Welch indicated that she believed the applicant could leave the shrubbery or the equivalent.
PAGE 15 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued)
Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to favor the shift but had difficulty supporting the
eaves and"prow".
Fritzler stated that, as proposed,he could not support the extending peak or"prow", he felt the
front either had to be straight across or moved back further into the house.
Mabusth and Bremer felt the applicant needed to maintain a 53' setback.
Rahn stated that he liked the new design.
Smith stated that she liked the "prow"but wanted to see it at 53'. She questioned whether the
Commission could support giving them back the original 660 s.f of hardcover. She indicated
that she could see that three of the Commissioners felt no additional hardcover was warranted.
Ms. Welch argued that this new home application differs from the Melin existing home
application due to the investment being made and the fact that this home would not ever be
allowed any decking.
Bremer argued that this application could support a deck if the home being proposed were
smaller. The similarity to Melin is merely that they both fall under the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage.
Smith suggested the applicants table the application in order to redesign the plan,pulling back
the"prow" a bit to maintain the 53' and coming back again.
Smith once again asked if the Commission were willing to give a little bit on the square footage.
Mabusth stated that the original home had 660 s.f of hardcover and felt it justified to hold the
new residence to that figure, yet she stressed how important it was to maintain the 53' setback.
Smith asked if this meant up to the 50' DNR recommendation.
Fritzler and Bremer stated that they would adhere to the approved 53' and no less.
Mabusth stated that she would like to know how deep the proposed overhang would be.
Rahn stated that he could support the 50' setback.
Ms. Welch asked the Commission to set the parameters for her and she would take them back to
PAGE 16 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2813 MARK WELCH, Continued)
Mr. Welch to redesign and meet those.
Mabusth reiterated that the applicant not exceed the 660 s.f and maintain a 50' setback, and
asked her to have the surveyor mark the eave depth and distance from the lake on the survey the
next time around.
Ms. Welch felt she had enough to go on.
Rahn still questioned the overhang status.
Mabusth pointed out that if a structure meets setback, it is a legal nonencroachment if the eaves
overhang 1 1/2'; however, since this structure does not fall within the legal setback of 75', the
overhangs are counted into the equation.
Smith moved, Fritzler seconded, to table Application #02-2813,Mark Welch, 3625 North
Shore Drive, to allow the applicant time for redesign purposes. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#6) #02-2814 WILLIAM AND SANDRA KEEGAN, 2707 WALTERS PORT LANE,
VARIANCE 8:41 p.m.-8:48 p.m.
William and Sandra Keegan, Applicants, were present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicants have requested a side adjacent street setback variance
to construct an attached garage. The three stall attached garage, 960 s.f., will be on the south
side of the residence. She continued that in 2000, the applicants had applied for a building
permit to construct the three stall attached garage, which was granted without need for a variance
but has since expired. Bottenberg stated that in 2002 the applicants submitted the same plans to
obtain another permit and were told they need a side yard adjacent variance.
Bottenberg stated that staff recommends approval of the side yard adjacent setback variance to
construct an attached garage. Staff also suggested the Planning Commission consider allowing a
turnaround to be constructed with the leftover 208 s.f. of hardcover available, since Walters Port
Lane is such a narrow private road.
Smith indicated that she had no difficulty supporting the application and felt it a good idea to
include the turnaround area as part of the application.
Mabusth agreed, suggesting that even part of the existing pavement be left for additional parking,
but she encouraged the applicants to save the mature trees.
PAGE 17 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2814 WILLIAM AND SANDRA KEEGAN, Continued)
Sandra Keegan indicated that they had no intention of removing any of the existing big trees.
Fritzler moved, Smith seconded,to approve Application #02-2814, William and Sandra
Keegan, 2707 Walters Point Lane, approval of a side yard adjacent street setback variance
to construct an attached garage on the property. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#7) #02-2816 ORONO MONTESSORI,INC., 3800 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8:49 p.m.- 8:56 p.m.
Michael and Lena Kuruvilla, Applicants for Orono Montessori, Inc., were present.
Bottenberg reported that the applicants were requesting a conditional use permit to operate a
Montessori School/Day Care Center for 60 children in a building that was previously approved
for 60 children and 10 day care providers. The previous day care ceased operation in October
2001 and a new conditional use permit is required. Bottenberg explained that the Orono
Montessori School/Day Care Center lost its home in the lower level of St. Edward's Church
when it burned down recently. The hours of operation for the facility will between 7 a.m. and
6:00 p.m.
Bottenberg noted that Mr. Kuruvilla of Orono Montessori School came before the City Council
on July 22, 2002, and was granted a temporary conditional use permit for the purpose of opening
the school pending approval of the formal process.
Since day care facilities are allowed uses in rural residential districts and licensed by the
Minnesota Department of Human Services the zoning application addresses how the facility will
operate as a land use. Bottenberg pointed out that use of the facility would be temporary since
the School plans to move back to St. Edward's when it is rebuilt, and because it is anticipated
that the building will be removed when construction begins on Highway 12.
Access, parking, landscaping, and Signage issues were addressed. Bottenberg indicated that staff
recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions that the applicant
obtain a license from DHS, and the number of enrollees be limited to 60 at one time.
There were no public comments.
Mabusth stated that it was good to see the building being used for what it was intended. She
asked why there had been any issue with the landscaping.
PAGE 18 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2816 ORONO MONTESSORI, INC. , Continued)
Mabusth moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #02-2816, a Conditional Use
Permit for Orono Montessori,Inc., 3800 West Wayzata Boulevard, for a daycare facility
and school subject to the staff conditions that the applicant obtain a DHS license and limit
the number of enrollees to 60 students. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Kuruvilla clarified that he would have 60 enrollees,plus the appropriate staff.
(#8) #02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, 2180 ABINGDON WAY, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
8:57 p.m. - 9:45 p.m.
Jim Robin, Landscape Architect representing the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron explained that the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to alter land in
excess of 500 cubic yards. The applicants are constructing a tennis court on the property and a
conditional use permit is required because the applicant is proposing to move 1,040 cubic yards
of fill.
Gaffron noted that the applicants own the property(Lot 6) and the adjacent vacant property(Lot
5). He pointed out that of the 1,040 cubic yards of fill to be moved, approximately 120 cubic
yards will be trucked from the site to another location, approximately 500 cubic yards will be
trucked to lot 5 and the remaining 420 cubic yards will be used as fill on lot 6 to construct the
tennis courts.
The tennis court will be located southeast of the residence and meets front and side yard
setbacks, the 26' setback from the delineated wetland on the property, and will be 180' from
Long Creek where a 100' setback is required for non-sewered property. Gaffron indicated that it
appeared that the plan did reflect a slight encroachment of fill into the 26' wetland setback area
at the south end of the court, and suggested that modifications be made to the plan which
incorporate a low retaining wall or other method to ensure this area remains undisturbed.
Gaffron acknowledged that recent WCA (Wetland Conservation Act) regulations show that areas
now defined as wetlands are more extensive on the site than those protected in 1983. Since the
subject property is serviced by an on-site septic system, staff reviewed the existing proposal and
found that it would not directly impact the system. Furthermore, the area being used for the
tennis court would likely not be suitable for a future septic site due to its proximity less than 75'
to the wetland.
Gaffron noted that staff did have concern with regard to the proposed "Wetland Buffer
Mitigation"proposed directly downhill from the existing mound system and would recommend
that another buffer mitigation site be located that would not impact the mound.
PAGE 19 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued)
Staff went on to recommend that the area of fill and truck traffic on Lot 5 be reduced to about
half the area proposed, and that the applicant take extra precautions to avoid any disruption
within 50' of tested drainfield sites, to allow for future flexibility.
With regard to the Engineers comments, Gaffron pointed out that it was suggested that heavy
duty silt fencing be installed around the entire site where fill will be moved to.
Gaffron commented that since the"drainage easement" on the survey/original plat define the
boundary of the area originally protected by C&F easement, and new delineations show wetland
boundaries differently than the conservation easement, a question is raised as to whether the
C&F easement should be revised to reflect the new wetland boundaries. Gaffron continued that it
appears to staff from the wetland report many of the wetland areas that weren't defined in 1983
are Type 1/2 wetlands,which the City in recent years has opted not to formally protect by
easement but rather by filing in the chain of title a document notifying current and future owners
that there are WCA wetlands on the site which are regulated. Gaffron stated that several option
exist for the Planning Commission to consider: First, do nothing; Second, require the property
owner to grant the City a revised C&F easement for the portion of the wetland not included in
the easement at the time of subdivision, a costly option requiring a new legal description, survey,
and filing of easement; Or third, acknowledge the non-City protected, WCA-protected wetlands
via a notification document to be filed in the title.
With regard to lighting, Gaffron pointed out that the tennis court was intended to be convertible
to hockey rink use in the winter. The intention was to provide lighting around the rink structure,
which has raised issue with at least one neighbor. Susan Wilson, 325 Brown Road, submitted a
letter voicing her concern with regard to lighting and protected wetlands. She wished to see the
courts moved to the adjoining vacant lot and worried that lighting would disrupt their quiet view.
Gaffron reminded the applicant that ice is light colored and highly reflective and consideration
should be given to use of shoebox downward cast lighting with diffusers or timers to ensure
lights are turned off when not in use.
In conclusion, Gaffron stated that staff recommended approval based on 6 conditions noted in
the memorandum dated August 15, 2002.
Mabusth asked where the new wetland delineation lines were.
Gaffron pointed out that the wetland delineation was positioned somewhat closer into the center
portion of the property than previously noted.
PAGE 20 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued)
Mabusth asked if the wetlands were merely types 1/2 or more.
Gaffron noted that, in general, the newly defined wetlands were extensions of the original
wetlands and not viewed as wetlands themselves in 1983.
Smith asked if there was a list of notified neighbors.
Gaffron stated that the nearest neighbor is Susan Wilson, who lived across the creek to the east
and up the hill.
Mr. Robin stated that he wished to address each of the concerns or conditions noted in the staff
recommendation. He began by stating that the applicant has no intention of compromising any
existing wetland sites and intends to steer clear of any risk to the septic sites. He added that
more heavy duty silt fencing was not an issue and the applicant had already committed to doing
that and more. As far as the delineation and new recording, Mr. Robin stated that the applicant
would prefer to not have to go to the added expense of additional surveys at this time and asked
if there were other options. Mr. Robin indicated that the setbacks to wetlands do vary depending
on the type and size, and he believed the court to be shoehorned in to fit the appropriate
proportions currently. He continued that discussion had taken place with regard to moving the
court to the other site, however, since no residence exists on that site, the accessory structure
could not be supported there. This would also limit future potential sale of that parcel.
Mabusth asked why trees were removed from the shaded area.
Mr. Robin stated that the applicant was trying to eliminate the infestation of buckthorn and was
also forced to remove the box elders that were beginning to fall upon themselves.
Mabusth asked where and if a home were to be placed on the upper lot.
Mr. Robin stated that there were no plans for a home to be built on the upper lot, but they have
merely opened up the play area.
With regard to staff recommendation#5, the encroachment into the 26' setback, Robin explained
that the applicant would be building a concrete curve around the entire court approximately 6"to
12"to avoid spilling of additional fill. He pointed out that approximately 120 cubic yards of soft
soil would need to be removed from that end of the court providing a diagonal support system.
PAGE 21 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued)
Mr. Robin maintained that, with regard to condition#6, the applicant would locate light fixtures
on the east side pointing west. Although the electrical will be built, there were no definite plans
for the type of fixtures proposed.
Smith asked what hours the lights would be lit.
Mr. Robin stated that he assumed they would be lit during the early evening hours in winter,
when it gets darker earlier, to allow the children time to play on the rink. He estimated the lights
would be lit from 7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. He indicated that the lights would not be attached to a
timer,but would be required to be turned on or off manually.
Smith stated that the timer idea was to ensure that the lights did not get left on.
Mr. Robin indicated that the electrical supply could be attached to a timer,but he would still
design the lights to only be turned on manually, and as the electrical supply was cut, the lights
would assuredly be turned off.
Smith asked if the applicant was amenable to working with the neighbor.
Mr. Robin believed that the applicant intended to be good neighbor and allow no light sources to
go beyond the property lines, however,he would want to be able to use the rink in the evenings
as well.
Smith reminded the applicant that the deciduous trees would offer a different lighting perspective
in the winter than they do now.
Smith questioned the applicant with regard to condition#5.
Gaffron asked that the applicant assure the City that it would be removed.
Mr. Robin stated that he would submit a revised plan showing that they have accomplished the
removal of the additional fill within the 26' buffer.
Smith asked Gaffron for his opinion pertaining to condition#3.
Gaffron stated that he would recommend that the Commission support the position that a copy of
the notification document be attached to the file to make everyone aware that they may have to
deal with WCA or MCWD later. He added that this has been done on a number of subdivisions
in
PAGE 22 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued)
the past. He would not require the applicant to obtain a new survey, since the City is not typically
concerned with type 1/2 and their impact on the septic, or the septic impact on them.
Mabusth questioned condition#1, the grading boundary for the septic in the northern area.
Gaffron stated that he was unsure where the silt fencing ran on the northern piece with regard to
the septic site location.
Mr. Robin stated that the fencing runs through the wooded area and the stumper was self
propelled so as to lessen the disturbance.
Gaffron suggested that the applicant leave a 30'-50' buffer uphill and to the side, along with
heavy duty clearly marked fencing up north, to ensure positive controls of where the dump trucks
are driving and putting their fill.
Mr. Robin stated that they will add signage to the silt fencing and communicate in dollars and
cents with the drivers about where, and where not to,place the fill.
Smith asked if any provisions or direction could be given to the applicant, with regard to
lighting, in order to avoid any future issues with neighbors. Either by suggesting the type of
lighting or hours of operation.
Gaffron acknowledged that the Commission felt the need to tighten up the restrictions as a matter
of recourse if the neighbors are unhappy with how things turn out.
Smith maintained that she did not want to be confronted with problems from neighbors' 6
months down the line.
Mr. Robin asked if they were proposing to tie the issue of lighting to grading. He pointed out
that the applicant was committing to meet zoning issues and ordinance requirements with regard
to the visibility of lighting, and they will do their best to make sure they are not creating a
monster, but beyond meeting the City's ordinances they could not commit, in public, to
something they don't know how people are going to react to until the actual thing is finished.
Gaffron concurred, stating that the City cannot always ensure the future happiness of neighbors
and regulate to do so.
PAGE 23 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued)
Smith asked how they could agree that it will be minimal, that it will not operate in the middle of
the night.
Bremer stated that she assumed there were many other tennis courts in Orono who have not been
limited in any way with regard to lighting or noise.
Rahn stated that he was unsure he could support the proposal knowing that the court is already
being shoehorned in to a wetland area, where it may not belong in the first place. He imagined
the noise created from banging pucks on the rink walls at night would be obtrusive and worried
about the complaints that might come back to the City. He didn't feel this was the location for a
hockey rink.
Mr. Robin stated that they have no choice where to place the court and asked Rahn what he
proposed the owner do.
Rahn stated that as far as he was concerned they could use the other lot, however, it was
obviously a monetary issue as far as that went. He acknowledged that there were no regulations
regulating people shooting pucks off the boards at 9:59 p.m. at night,but argued the City would
sure hear about it.
Bremer asked if there were noise ordinances that would be impacted.
Gaffron reiterated that the CUP was for grading and not the use of the court. He continued that
he didn't believe a few kids, some of who would likely be neighbor kids, using the rink would
impact the neighbors all that much. He reminded the Commission that even the nearest property,
the Wilson's, was approximately 500 ft. away. Gaffron stated that it would be difficult to find a
location that is more remote from adjacent homes than the applicant has proposed.
Mabusth asked if there were any way to legitimately deny this application.
Rahn stated that if the delineations and moving of the wetlands is involved they could.
Mr. Robin stated that they were not moving any wetland.
Gaffron pointed out that they are encroaching buffers in a couple of small spots and mitigating.
PAGE 24 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued)
Mabusth interjected that the applicant really had no option of placing the structure on Lot 5
because then he would have to legally combine the lots to get the credit for the principal
structure, and he would not want to do that.
Rahn stated that, in reality, he does have the option to do that but he chooses not to. Rahn asked
if the applicant was encroaching the buffer or not.
Gaffron maintained that he is not encroaching the City's 26' wetland buffer based on the changes
he is going to make to the plan, therefore, there is no variance or hardship needed for this.
Mabusth asked if the City needed a mitigation area for the work.
Gaffron reiterated that the City did not require it,but the Watershed does and what they've
indicated they require is that the applicant merely protecting part of the area from any further
change. Preserving the mound area virtually forever.
Rahn asked for clarification if all that was before the Commission is moving dirt and fill for
grading.
Gaffron stated that because it is over 500 cubic yards being moved they needed to review it.
With regard to the CUP, Smith asked for clarification that soil from one area of the owner's
property is being moved to another area.
Mr. Robin stated that if 300 cubic yards is 1 foot deep, three times that amount is being moved,
half will stay and half will move up to the northern property, with 120 cubic yards of the soft
bored soil likely removed entirely.
Gaffron noted that approximately 10-12 trucks will be leaving the site.
Smith asked, with regard to lighting, if the Commission could make a recommendation.
Gaffron stated that it would be borderline to attach any lighting recommendation to a grading
permit.
Rahn stated that they will be required to meet the existing zoning codes and lighting is already in
the ordinance.
PAGE 25 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#02-2819 TIM DEVRIES, Continued)
Mabusth moved to approve a Conditional Use Permit for Application #02-2819, Tom
Devries, 2180 Abingdon Way, for alteration of 1,040 cubic yards of soil subject to staff
conditions #1-3,#5, and#6, as an advisory to the homeowner.
Mr. Robin inquired if the delineation report would be attached to the file.
Gaffron acknowledged that the copy of the document would be available for future development.
Robin asked if the applicant could continue to manage the buckthorn in the buffer area and how
to handle that.
Gaffron suggested the applicant submit a plan for redevelopment removing either a bit at a time
or all with an instant plan for revegetation.
Mr. Robin stated that they would like to come to the City with a program of how they plan to
manage that zone rather than let it get out of hand.
Fritzler seconded.
There were no public comments.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#9) Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings on July
22, and August 12, 2002.
Smith reported that on July 22, 2002, the City Council tabled the Revis Stephenson application
for further discussion. The Hennepin County application was approved.
Mabusth reported that at the August 12, 2002 Council meeting, Attorney Galatz, for
Stephenson's neighbor,brought in a sample of the size tree being planted on the slope. Which,
in fact, seemed quite adequate to many of the Council members. The City Council incorporated
some of the language from the Attorney's original document and approved the application.
Gaffron added that the Stephenson's were required to plant 35 trees, including maples. The
slope had settled enough by this point, that the slope was no longer an issue.
Mabusth reported that Landform was directed to work with staff to resolve outstanding issues,
draft a resolution, which approves their concept plans.
PAGE 26 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS, Continued)
Gaffron indicated that they will be discussing trail locations,pedestrian safety and circulation,
street widths, loft sizes. etc. with the Landforms experts this upcoming Thursday,with a report
going to Council at their next meeting.
Smith asked if the Planning Commission with regard to the Landform application could have
addressed anything further.
Mabusth stated that Moorse brought up the issues with pedestrian safety,which had not really
been addressed until then.
Gaffron added that Dahlstrom Development has been hesitant to supply the City with
comparative samples of their developments to see what their quality is, no indications of their
financial capabilities, which is necessary,but helps their competition once it becomes public.
Smith indicated that the Planning Commission was still awaiting the market study and analysis
that supports the development as they are proposing.
Gaffron pointed out that they have a consultant that is expected to come in and make some
recommendations regarding affordable housing.
Mabusth reported that a citizens group attended the meeting regarding the issue of affordable
housing and lack thereof in Orono. She stated that Council member Jim White answered there
objections rather eloquently explaining that City's do not have the mechanisms or resources to
pursue that kind of funding to offset housing costs.
Smith encouraged staff to pursue the market analysis, addresses to go visit, studies of the
financials, and the traffic study.
(#10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron apologized for not supplying the Commission with a calendar of additional work session
dates. He indicated that the meetings will likely take place the first Wednesday of every other
month. The first work session was agreed upon to be scheduled for Wednesday, September 4,
2002, at 5:30 p.m.
Smith suggested the next meeting be scheduled for November 6, 2002, the day after elections, at
5:30 p.m.
Smith asked Mabusth to fill the Planning Commission Vice-Chair position.
PAGE 27 of 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 19,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION , Continued)
Mabusth agreed.
Gaffron stated that the two Planning Commission Alternates were selected, and will be Stephanie
Zugschwert and Jule Hannaford.
(#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JULY 15,2002
Smith asked that the other issues for discussion statement be removed.
Smith moved, Bremer seconded,to approve the Minutes of July 15, 2002 Planning
Commission Meeting as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#12) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
AUGUST 26, 2002 AND SEPTEMBER 9, 2002.
August 26 - Fritzler September 9 - Rahn
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved, Mabusth seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 P.M.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M.
rot--G -Y,,,
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 28 of 28