HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-2002 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE , 0- S- 2 C-.
❑ COUNCIL
Er PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUES3'ED
❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME ease print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. `'�(A I (g_dL_ a4-1ALe.) A k. Z C,d I 6-/-L- -.,, at,,,i- ctc,Lk c-1 -2 c Liii__
/41-,,,,..:{-y 7 ( :-/
3. _-\-,6..v._ 'k 4 (.ice .i..) 0 4- 2 .5, 1
1 et' I
5. \) V4 lq 1 . ;c1i:. : \i, , \J miwk,--1- 4..t1A,), 44 l' ts‘°k'''11 c*e °''''.(26)-1- 1;2t;SLI')-41-13
) Z % A-.7.• •• r ••*" - /
6. --z C"Z..-"? I
7. �... /i, r►: 1 pee#7iu:.�.'.-
8. ,1-L-. 73//4,y1-1
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14..
15.
XADatakAdministrative Support\(Fonns-Old)WORMS\PUBLIC.ATT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
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, Janice
Berg, and Jeanne Mabusth. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning
Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, Council Representative Bob Sansevere,
and Recorder Kristi Anderson.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
After neighbors expressed concern, item#3 was removed from the Consent Agenda.
(#1) #02-2832 RANDY ARNESON, 625 DEBORAH DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2832 Randy
Arneson, a Conditional Use Permit for plumbing in an accessory building for the property
located at 625 Deborah Drive subject to the property owner filing the appropriate
restrictive covenant on the property. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#2) #02-2833 G&G HOLDING COMPANY, 1160 LOMA LINDA,VARIANCES
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2833 G&G
Holding Co., 1160 Loma Linda, approving lot area and lot width variances to permit
removal of the existing house and construction of a new house on the property subject to
the conditions noted in the staff recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#4) #02-2835 THOMAS ADAMS, 500 ORCHARD PARK ROAD, RENEWAL
VARIANCES
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2835,
Thomas Adams, 500 Orchard Park Road, approving the renewal of variances that would
permit relocation of the existing house to the center of the property and to permit an
existing accessory building to be closer to the front property line than the principal
residence, subject to the conditions as approved by the original Orono City Council
resolution of 2001. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#5) #02-2836 CHARLES AND JENNIFER PHELPS, 385 TURNHAM ROAD,
VARIANCE
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2836,
Charles and Jennifer Phelps,385 Turnham Road, approving a front yard setback variance
to construct an 11'X 9' mudroom on the residence. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6:35 - 7:20 P.M.
Robert Wiens,the Applicant, was present.
As the item was removed from the consent agenda, Chair Smith asked for public comment.
Norma Godfrey, 2060 North Shore Drive, questioned the appearance of the proposed berm and
what a 3:1 slope would look like. She was concerned about the preservation of a large row of
pine trees which screens her property from the applicants and wondered if the berm would be
maintained on all sides.
Lorraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, indicated that she had many of the same questions as
the first neighbor.
Weinberger explained that the property owner had requested a conditional use permit to permit
land alteration on the property over 500 cubic yards. The project would be to build a berm,
behind the existing row of evergreen trees, along the northern border of the property parallel to
North Shore Drive. The intent of the berm would be to screen traffic noise from North Shore
Drive. Weinberger noted that the proposed berm would be approximately 8' at the highest point
and curve around as shown on the survey. The existing row of smaller evergreens would be
removed and replanted on the berm. He pointed out that the berm and plantings would have no
impact on traffic sight-lines and would appear to have no negative impacts on site drainage.
Weinberger stated that according to the City Engineer, since the property was two lots combined
in 1995 and the portion of the lot where the proposed berm would fall was vacant, there is
merely a sewer stub on the property with nothing connected to it. Weinberger added that the
design was done by an engineer and reviewed by the City Engineer who had no negative
comments or concerns. He stated that the widest width of the berm at 8' tall could be potentially
48' and still would not impact the stand of tall evergreen trees it would be located behind.
Chair Smith reminded the applicant and Commission that the slope must not exceed a 3:1.
Mabusth added that the manhole must be located and marked.
Gaffron indicated that the contours of the design were misleading, and based upon his
calculations the plan reflected a mere 1' scale versus the normal 2'. He questioned whether the
design reflected a 4' or 8' high berm at its peak.
Wiens stated that he believed the design reflected a 6' or 8' high peak, however, indicated his
willingness to redesign the plan in order to address neighbors concerns.
Chair Smith felt it was necessary to determine the true height of the berm with and/or without
trees.
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, Continued
With 6-8' high berm and peaks in the middle and on the ends, Wiens stated that it was his desire
to cut down on the amount of traffic noise he was exposed to.
Weinberger agreed with Gaffron that the plan provided to the City looks to be indicative of
merely 4' high berm peaks.
Wiens stated that the plans were incorrect if they reflect a 4' berm.
Bremer stated that the applicant's summary refers to an 8' high berm.
Weinberger noted that, if the scale is 1',the berm would be required to be far wider than 20'.
In order to maintain a 3:1 slope, Gaffron pointed out that the base would need to be twice as
wide.
Rahn felt the Commission would need to be supplied with a new drawing.
Wiens questioned whether he could proceed with this drawing.
Norma Godfrey maintained that the highest center point of the berm would fall directly across
the street from her residence and she was concerned about having to view a big pile of dirt, as in
other locations in the neighborhood.
Wiens stated that it was his desire to construct a berm and he was willing to work with the
neighbors to do so.
Chair Smith pointed out that the applicant had agreed to accept the 4' high berm in order to move
the application forward, and she questioned whether this lower berm would satisfy the neighbors.
Mrs. Erickson, located across the street on Highway 51, cautioned the applicant that a mere 4'
high berm would do little to eliminate the noise issue. She stated that in order to adjust the noise
level, the applicant would need to construct a much higher berm, hopefully not at the expense of
the large row of evergreens on the property.
Wiens stated that the row of evergreens do provide a fair amount of blockage.
Lyle Godfrey, 2060 North Shore Drive, indicated that his questions pertained to the height of the
berm and how the evergreen treeline would be protected. He encouraged the applicant to use
Bay Ridge Road for the truck traffic.
Wiens stated that he wished to eliminate the light reflecting off the road and enhance the look of
his property in the process.
Page 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, Continued
Lyle Godfrey stated that, as long as the berm was maintained, he had no problem with the
application.
Chair Smith encouraged the applicant to give careful consideration to whether he believed a 4'
berm would help with the sound problem. She asked for staff's opinion.
Gaffron indicated that a 4-5' high berm would not have a huge impact on the noise level and
suggested Mr. Wiens consider additional evergreens. Gaffron stated that a denser row of pine
trees would do more to lessen the impact of noise than this berm.
Mrs. Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, questioned what the applicant would plant on the berm,
since her views would be impacted. She indicated that the proposed curve of the berm near Bay
Bridge Road would block her views of the lake.
Wiens stated that no matter what he proposed in order to improve his current street views, it
would impact Mrs. Kaley's views. Wiens maintained that he has gone to great lengths to
improve his property since moving in and would strive to beautify the project, planting
evergreens atop the berm, surrounded by prairie grass and wildflowers under the trees.
Rahn questioned whether the applicant could truly accept a 4' high berm, when what he was
expecting was an 8' high berm.
Wiens expressed his desire to move the project forward.
Mrs. Kaley reiterated that the row of pines along the top of the berm would impact her views.
Wiens stated that he must do something and again, would be willing to work towards a
compromise with the neighbors.
Mabusth empathized, stating that she could see his goal was to improve his screen both visually
and for noise control.
Wiens stated that the existing trees would block 70-80% of Mrs. Kaley's views of the proposed
berm.
Hawn stated that she was unclear what the issue with the neighbors was, since the trees would
block most of the berm and the applicant has expressed his willingness to work with them.
Wiens stated that there are a number of things he could propose, including building structure
rather than berm, however he has chosen to construct and beautify his property with the berm
and plantings. Wiens stated that he had no idea he would be faced with opposition from his
neighbors when he proposed this application and was willing to try to work with them, but
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, Continued
reminded them he could still go through the proper channels to construct something much more
obtrusive than he has here.
Hawn reiterated that Mr. Wiens has the right to do what he can to improve his property. She
indicated that she was struggling to see how this could be a problem to the neighbors when it
would be mostly blocked anyway.
Chair Smith complimented the applicant on his willingness to cooperate with the neighbors and
stated that, in reality, he could even remove the large row of pine trees on his property if he
chose to. She indicated that instead he is proposing to improve his property.
Rahn stated that, short of the berm issue,the applicant could plant rows of trees along and
around the curve without the City's permission.
Godfrey questioned whether he could continue to come back to the City to request additional fill.
Gaffron stated that the City code does not talk about a maximum per year, but a limit could be
even further defined in the motion.
Wiens stated that he wished to do the project right and invited everyone to come take a look at
his work.
Chair Smith suggested the applicant consider either tabling his application in order to work with
the neighbors, or moving it forward as the application exists currently.
Wiens stated that he preferred to move forward sooner than later and asked for further
discussion.
Mabusth asked how many cubic yards of fill the Commission was being asked to approve at this
time.
Wiens stated that application is for 1500-2000 cubic yards of fill.
Gaffron pointed out that 700 cubic yards of fill would provide a 4' high berm.
Hawn suggested they design a motion that defines the fill as the amount required to obtain a 4'
high berm and not identify a certain number.
While he had hoped to proceed, Wiens stated that he had also hoped for a higher berm along
County Road 15 than the 4' in this proposal. He indicated that he would go back to his engineer
in order for him to redesign the plan. Wiens felt he could stay within the 500 cubic yard
allowance and still construct an 8' berm along County Road 15 and then return next month with
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, Continued
a different proposal for the rest of the landscaping. He asked the Commission to table his
application.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to table Application #02-2834, Robert and Julie
Wiens, 1425 Bay Ridge Road, tabling the applicants request for a Conditional Use Permit
for the purpose of redesigning the proposal. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD,3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES 7:21 -
8:07 P.M.
Ronald Cloud, the Applicant, was present.
Weinberger explained that the applicant has agreed to revise his application to reflect his request
to simply replace the previous 8' X 10' deck, with the only addition being that a stairway access
be allowed off the deck. Weinberger noted that the applicant has withdrawn his request for a
three season porch.
With just the replacement of the previous deck, Chair Smith noted that the applicant still is over
his structural limit of 15%. She asked if the stairway would run off the front or side of the deck.
Cloud noted that the stairway would need to head towards the lake in order to avoid any side
yard encroachment issues. As an ex-firefighter, Cloud pointed out that the home is supposed to
have two exit accesses, which it does not currently have, and he felt the stairway access was a
safety concern.
Mabusth agreed with the safety issue and believed that the deck should have stairway access.
Hawn asked if the City was clear on the original size of the deck.
Cloud pointed out that the original deck was 2' larger due to the overhang and did not have
access stairs.
Chair Smith asked about the removal of the lakeside shed.
Since the structural coverage exceeds the 15% allowance, Mabusth reiterated that this is a key
issue with regard to this property. She indicated that the Commission is looking for a trade off.
Since many things have been stolen in the past near the lakeshore, Cloud indicated that he uses
the shed for storage. He indicated that he had no problem with its removal but questioned where
he could keep his possessions lakeside. Cloud felt he had gone to a great deal of trouble to
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD, 3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued
upkeep the shed and believed the City was using political blackmail in order to force removals of
things they didn't like here and elsewhere.
Mabusth pointed out that the City does not have the authority to simply go out and randomly ask
people to remove things until they come in to ask the City for something, as in this case.
Chair Smith argued that, in reality, the process is a give and take between the City and residents.
Cloud stated that what he really would like is his three season porch, and is willing to give this
concept up, as well as remove the lakeside shed by May 15, 2003, if he could have a large
lockbox.
Weinberger explained that the lockbox size allowed is roughly 5'X4'X4', for a total of 20 s.f.
Cloud stated that he could purchase a premade lockbox 5'X10'X 3.5' if the Commission would
allow it.
Fritzler maintained that the total square footage cannot exceed 20 s.f. and this box would be 50
s.f.
Chair Smith inquired why the removal would not take place until May 15, 2003.
Cloud indicated that he had already removed his dock and lakeside items, which are stored for
the winter inside the shed, and he would prefer to remove the shed after he put the dock back in
the spring. He added that the deck would not likely be built until spring anyway.
Weinberger suggested the Commission recommend that the permit be issued in the spring, after
the removal of the shed.
Chair Smith questioned the status of the rear side shed meeting a 3' setback from the property
line. She asked what the structural coverage calculation would be if the lakeside shed were
removed, the deck replaced, and wondered what would become of the rear side shed.
Since it would not add to structural or hard cover, Cloud suggested that he could put the
5'X10'X 3.5' lockbox under his deck, and remove the lakeside shed altogether.
Weinberger indicated that this would be allowed.
Fritzler asked if the stairway could be incorporated into the deck.
Cloud pointed out that the deck is merely 5.5' off the ground and it would be both difficult to
allow for proper headroom, as well as, it would take away too much square footage from the
small deck.
Page 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD,3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued
Rahn questioned if a diagonal stairway off the deck would interfere with the views from the
lower floor windows.
Cloud explained that the window views would not be obstructed since they are offset to one side.
Mabusth inquired if the deck stairway could run off one side versus off the front.
Fritzler reiterated his desire to see the deck space swapped out for stairway space.
Cloud stated that he felt the Commission was holding him hostage. He indicated that he was
trying to work with the City, bringing the deck up to code by adding a stairway access and
removing the lakeside shed, however he wasn't even being allowed to replace the previous deck
he had in exchange.
Chair Smith questioned whether, if by using the space under the deck for storage, could the
applicant remove the rear shed. Would he prefer to move it or lose it.
Hawn pointed out that there was no place to move the shed on the property.
Cloud stated that the shed could not be moved, it was blacktopped in by the previous owner, and
moving it would destroy the shed and/or block his garage access. He questioned why the City
did not take this up with the previous owner if it were a big concern, the contact letters he had
seen from the City were ten years old.
Gary Marquant, 2617 Casco Point Road, stated that, while he did not know Mr. Cloud, he could
offer an unbiased opinion. Mr. Marquant believed the applicant was trying to work with the
City, and had committed to removing his lakeside shed, only to be told he cannot even get what
he had originally. He questioned if the net gain by removing the shed wasn't worth the
allowance of a stairway access, which improved the safety of the deck.
Chair Smith questioned where the structural coverage numbers were.
Bottenberg noted that the structural coverage would be 22.1%with the stairway, versus 21.2%
without.
Hawn reiterated that the rear shed was nonconforming in so many ways that she would like to
see it eliminated.
Bremer stated that she would approve the application with the original size deck and additional
steps, as long as the lakeside shed were removed.
Berg concurred.
Page 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD,3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued
Rahn stated that while the City had been striving to reduce mass on properties, and reducing lot
coverage overall, he could support Bremer's position, although he too would prefer to see the
rear shed removed.
Hawn stated that, while she too would prefer the removal of the rear shed, she believed the
applicant was entitled to replace his existing deck with the addition of stairs for safety.
Fritzler stated that his position would support the removal of both the lakeside and rear side
sheds, since the applicant exceeds the structural cover allowance, and urged the applicant to
incorporate the stairway into the deck space. He could not support the application as it stood.
Mabusth stated that she could support the replacement deck to meet the existing size,the
addition of the stairway preferably off the side, and the lockbox under the deck. While she had a
hard time pushing for the removal of the rear side shed due to limitations within the garage, she
stated that Mr. Cloud did have excessive structural coverage and asked if he could remove any of
the bituminous hardcover.
Cloud stated that, while he would be keeping the 20' streetside apron, he would remove the
unnecessary black top from the side of the driveway.
Mabusth indicated that she could support the application as revised this evening.
Chair Smith summarized that the applicant would be required to remove the existing lakeside
shed, and would be allowed the replacement deck of the original size with stairway access. She
felt these changes reflected some improvement on this property.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2823,
Ronald Cloud,3460 North Shore Drive, granting variances for structural coverage,
hardcover, and side yard setback in order to replace the lakeside deck with the same
dimensions as the original deck, not to exceed 300 s.f., plus the addition of a stairway
accessing the deck off the lakeside front or side with a 4' landing and 3' stairway widths,
subject to the removal of the lakeside shed at which time the issuance of the permit will be
permitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
(#11) 7:30 P.M. #02-2839 BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, 3320 WATERTOWN
ROAD, SUBDIVISION (8:08 - 8:21 P.M.)
Joseph and John Boyer, the Applicants, were present.
Weinberger explained that the applicants have applied for a Preliminary Plat for a two-lot
subdivision of a 50+ acre site located on Watertown Road. The property is located in a 2 acre
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#11) 7:30 P.M. #02-2839 BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION, 3320 WATERTOWN
ROAD, Continued
zone and will be divided by creating two building sites (Lots 1 and 2) and shared driveway
(Outlot A). Weinberger noted that the general site plan meets all requirements for a front/back lot
subdivision, a 3 acre site for Lot 2 is met. Since back lots are also required to have driveway
access a minimum of 30' in width, Outlot A has been designed much wider than the 30' to allow
the driveway approach to be located at the highest point to provide the best site lines for the
driveway. There is no request for the development for a third property at this time.
Weinberger pointed out that each lot has demonstrated two septic sites which meets local and
state standards. There are wetlands on Lot 1 and Lot 2, which are protected by the City and will
be subject to some minimal impact by this development, however 50% of the site is designated
wetland. Due to Fire Code requirements for a minimum 20' driveway access, including the
portion across the wetland, a variance will need to be granted to allow access to go thru the
wetlands, and WCA guidelines might require additional wetlands be created on the property.
With regard to the stormwater trunk fee, Weinberger indicated that staff believed the City
Council, and not the Planning Commission, would be reviewing the fee structure and impact this
development has on the overall stormwater management process, and make its recommendation.
Weinberger stated that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and a wetland
alteration variance for the shared driveway based on four findings on page three of the staff
memo, followed by five conditions on page four of the staff memo dated October 11, 2002.
Boyer stated that widening the driveway should be possible, as should achieving a 10% grade in
the steepness of the driveway.
There were no public comments.
Chair Smith stated that this was a beautiful piece of property.
Hawn stated that the subdivision seemed pretty clear cut, and other than determining the
stormwater trunk fee,this was a standard subdivision. With regard to the fee, which was created
to promote the kind of stormwater process that will be occurring naturally on these two
properties, Hawn felt the fee to be too steep in this particular case. She viewed it as almost a
form of double taxation, since the wetland was undevelopeable and performing the exact
function that the trunk fee was set up to promote.
Mabusth pointed out that due to the requirement for a wider driveway, they would be
encroaching slightly into the wetland.
Fritzler encouraged the applicant to design the long driveway in a way that would deter a great
deal of runoff from ending up on Watertown Road.
Page 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#11) 7:30 P.M. #02-2839 BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION,3320 WATERTOWN
ROAD, Continued
Chair Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application#02-2839,
Boyer Building Corporation, for a Preliminary Plat review at 3320 Watertown Road, for
the building of two sites and shared driveway, Outlot A, subject to staff recommendations
and conditions as noted in the staff exhibits. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#12 AND #13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO,INC.
2745 KELLEY PARKWAY,REZONING; 8:05 P.M. #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL
PROPERTIES OF ORONO, INC. 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY, FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL 8:22 - 9:01 P.M.
Dr. Berg and Dr. Eberts, Applicants for Orono Professional Properties, were present.
Gaffron explained that the applicants received Revised Concept Plan Approval per City Council
Resolution No. 4860 on September 9, 2002. They have now provided final development plans
and request Development Plan Approval. Because the adjacent parcel is now being used to
provide parking for this site, staff is recommending that the parcel be rezoned B-6/PUD and its
further development be subject to the PUD process. Therefore, the rezoning and medical office
approval hearing have been scheduled concurrently.
No purchase agreement has been signed as of yet between the City and the applicants. Gaffron
pointed out that the primary unresolved issue has been whether a wetland existing on the site will
fall under WCA rules and require mitigation. The MCWD ruling is due by the end of October,
and if mitigation is required, the City Council will have to determine whether the City will be
involved in providing mitigation or leave that to the purchasers.
Gaffron requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council
regarding the following topics: Rezoning of 2745 Kelley Parkway(adjacent parcel)to B-6
Highway Commercial District; acceptability of site plan and layout; approval of architectural
design; approval of lighting and signage; and approval of a landscape plan. In addition, Gaffron
explained that a recommendation for approval should include three conditions:
1) Final approval by Council should not be granted until the following issues are resolved:
a) Wetland existence and mitigation if necessary
b) Stormwater plan satisfactory to City Engineer and MCWD
c) Purchase Agreement to be finalized
2) Approval shall be subject to a Development Agreement to be drafted by the City,
incorporating conditions of development approval as outlined in the Concept Plan Approval
resolution, also including conditions for future development of the adjacent parcel.
Page 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#12 AND #13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 AND #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF
ORONO, INC. 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, Continued
3) City Council should reach a conclusion regarding the streetscape of Kelley Parkway within a
timeframe that allows the applicants to plan for boulevard trees and street lighting consistent
with the remainder of Kelley Parkway.
With regard to stormwater management, Gaffron noted that a back up plan may need to be
adopted in case the Dahlstrom Project stalls, which could include moving the stormwater sewer
pipe further east.
Gaffron pointed out that, because it is unknown at this time whether the Highway 12 shoulder
would be converted from a rural section to an urban section, the exact location and design of the
trail cannot be determined at this time. Presently, the trail is shown south of the power poles,
however,the trail could ultimately end up within the property boundaries,therefore, Gaffron
noted that sign and light pole placement should be such that an 8' clear corridor would be
available adjacent to the lot line.
Chair Smith asked Gaffron if he had any inclination from the MCWD which way they will rule
on the wetland issue.
Gaffron stated that he did not have any clear indication which way the ruling would go.
Dr. Berg pointed out that this was the first he had heard about the potential of moving the bike
trail off the MnDOT property and within the property line.
Gaffron stated that it had been mentioned in a previous memo.
Dr. Berg voiced his concern about being squeezed in on two sides already with sidewalk and trail
and stated that a third side to contend with would be a point of contention with them.
Gaffron indicated that the City may have to require this language as part of the resolution if
MnDOT does not allow the trail on their ROW.
Dr. Berg stated that this was very discouraging for him to hear about this now, as designed, the
trail would barely fit between the building and the proposed sign along Highway 12. More
significantly, Dr. Berg pointed out that these corner rooms would be treatment rooms, which
would be provided with adequate screening, only if the trail lies outside the property boundaries.
Gaffron indicated that these questions will need to be addressed with MnDOT.
Dr. Berg pointed out that it would be almost impossible to move the building at this late date.
Page 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#12 AND #13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 AND #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF
ORONO,INC. 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, Continued
Hawn stated that, while the Planning Commission can approve what is in front of them now,the
City has no control over how MnDOT would respond to their request. She questioned when
MnDOT would provide a ruling on this issue.
Gaffron indicated that this question needs to be explored further, however suggested the
Commission make its recommendation to Council that the easement be ready to be granted.
Mabusth asked if staff had any inclination whether MnDOT would be willing to grant a ROW on
the existing Highway 12 down the way.
Gaffron stated that they are in early discussions.
Dr. Eberts inquired whether MnDOT would be more inclined to accept the ROW easement if it
were defined differently.
Gaffron indicated that the inkling he had gotten from MnDOT was that they look more favorably
upon a sidewalk than a trail.
Rahn questioned how the shared parking spaces would provide the required spaces needed for
the facility.
Gaffron noted that merely 5 of the 15 spaces on the adjoining lot were required, the additional
spaces were simply extra ones the doctors felt could be useful.
Rahn stated that he was unfamiliar with the shared trash receptacle.
Gaffron pointed out that the trash receptacle and additional parking were designed to be shared
by the professional properties building and the future building on the adjacent lot.
Hawn observed that the traffic pattern looked better to her than the one originally proposed.
Lorraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, questioned how the medical waste would be handled.
Dr. Eberts indicated that the medical waste is disposed of separate from other trash in red
biohazard waste bags and would not be tossed in the trash receptacles.
Mrs. Kaley asked about the percent of hardcover.
Gaffron pointed out that this property is not subject to the same shoreland hardcover limits as are
lakeshore lots. He maintained that 36% greenspace was a nice amount for a development like
this, and far above the 25%minimum required.
Page 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#12 AND #13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 AND #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF
ORONO,INC. 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, Continued
Chair Smith suggested the Commission review the five topics for consideration and make their
recommendations. With regard to architectural style, Chair Smith felt the building was
attractive.
Bremer agreed that the site layout was good.
With regard to lighting, Gaffron noted that the applicants could do a bit of tweaking of light
placement to avoid dimly lit areas. He pointed out that the City Hall lot is poorly lit, with mere
14' high light boxes.
Mabusth suggested 25' high light poles.
Chair Smith felt that what was proposed was more in character of the City Hall offices than that
of Otten Brothers highly lit lot. She admitted that hours of operation would impact this as well.
Dr.Berg stated that they would support the Commission's recommendation, it is a medical
facility and they do not wish to see people injured due to poor lighting. He indicated they would
not likely be open late into the evening.
Gaffron stated that he would suggest 20' high poles and a few more additional lights than
proposed currently. He indicated that many communities have more defined lighting codes than
does Orono, and asked if the Commission would like to see this code more clearly defined. The
Commissioners felt this would be useful.
With regard to signage, Dr. Berg stated that he felt the reason they had originally gone with the
68 s.f. size sign was to ensure that people traveling the roadway could make out the different
facilities within the building.
Mabusth felt the size of the sign was justified and it was well done.
Chair Smith stated that the landscaping was well done, in her opinion, with the exception of
enough landscaping around the trash dumpster receptacle.
Dr. Berg pointed out that he would support moving two deciduous trees that could potentially
block the sign to those traveling west on Highway 12.
Mabusth suggested they consider different species of trees for the Old Crystal Bay Road edge, as
suggested in the staff memo, to ensure that what they propose can thrive in wet conditions.
Gaffron suggested the landscaping be extended further to the east to screen the dumpster more
effectively.
Page 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#12 AND #13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 AND #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF
ORONO, INC. 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, Continued
Berg moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2842, for
Professional Properties of Orono, Inc., the proposed rezoning of 2745 Kelley Parkway to B-
6 Highway Commercial District. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Berg moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application#02-2843,
Orono Professional Properties,2765 Kelley Parkway, approving the Final Development
Plan including, the site plan, architectural design, lighting and signage plans, and
landscape plans as presented subject to staff comments and conditions 1-3 as noted earlier
in the Minutes. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Dahlstrom Development indicated that they would allow the Planning Commission to finish
hearing the residential applications before their items.
OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED
(#7) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER,3850 SHORELINE DRIVE,
FINDING OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USE AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW 9:01 - 9:14 P.M.
Barbara and Jay Hensley, Applicants, were present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant, Barbara Hensley, intends to purchase the property at
3850 Shoreline Drive, which is currently operated as "Bay Furniture". The applicant intends to
operate an upscale resale store called"Hope Chest for Breast Cancer". The proposed business
will continue to sell furniture, antiques, crystal/china,jewelry, and home accessories such as
lamps, pictures, and rugs. There will be a limited amount of clothing and accessories.
The application is two-fold: 1) Findings of Similar Use to allow the furniture store to operate as
a permitted or conditional use. If the Planning Commission and City Council deem the proposed
use to be substantially similar to other uses in a specific zoning district,they can allow it. 2) The
second part of the application is the commercial site plan review. The property is zoned B-5,
Limited Neighborhood business District.
Bottenberg reported that the Planning Commission tabled this application in September to
provide additional time for the applicants and the City to determine what impacts the parking lot
expansion has on the property. Secondly, the City had to determine what erosion control
measures were necessary to ensure the parking lot improvements work. The applicant's surveyor
indicates the existing site hardcover is 45%, the proposed parking revisions will reduce it to
43%. Rather than delaying their acquisition, the future owners have agreed to complete the
requirements as suggested by the City Engineer to improve the parking lot and eliminate impacts
to the wetland to the north. Since the applicants would not take ownership of the property until
Page 15
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER,3850 SHORELINE DRIVE,
Continued
mid-November, Bottenberg explained that much of the work identified as I - V in the staff memo
would not be completed until spring, 2003.
Ms. Hensley asked that the Planning Commission make its recommendation and approvals
contingent on the applicants purchasing the property, since she could not guarantee any of the
work until the property was purchased.
There were no public comments.
Hawn complimented the applicants on their willingness to take on the outstanding issues already
present themselves in order to move the process forward.
Mabusth asked staff if there were any items on the list of five outstanding issues that would need
to be completed now.
Mr. Hensley noted that attempts to work with the current owner on the issues were diminishing.
Ms. Hensley added that they would attempt to do whatever they could to install the silt fencing
before winter.
Berg suggested that they consider using bales of straw versus the silt fencing, as it is more
effective during the winter months.
Ms. Hensley stated that straw could be laid.
Chair Smith asked that item Ia be changed to reflect that silt fencing or bales of straw would be
acceptable.
Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2831,Hope
Chest for Breast Cancer,3850 Shoreline Drive, based on the conclusion that the proposed
use is substantially similar to the existing use as a furniture store and to other permitted
uses in the district, furthermore, approval of the commercial site plan be subject to the
applicants completing the items listed as items I -V on page two of the staff memo,
contingent on the applicants purchasing the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#8) #02-2837 JEFF DANBERRY,3545 IVY PLACE, VARIANCE 9:15 - 9:36 P.M.
Mr. Danberry, the Applicant, was present.
Weinberger explained that the property owner has requested a front yard setback variance to
permit a 14' third stall addition to the attached garage. The proposed addition would encroach
Page 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #02-2837 JEFF DANBERRY,3545 IVY PLACE, Continued
12' into the required 30' setback to the front/street property line. Weinberger pointed out that
the applicants' property is a 1 acre lot at the northwest end of Ivy Place with 225 feet of frontage
on Lake Minnetonka and 230 feet of frontage on Ivy Place. The City Code requires a 30'
setback to the street property line (Ivy Place), and at the time of construction the house and
garage met the minimum required setback.
Weinberger indicated that staff does not support the application for a variance to a property with
a conforming structure, on a conforming lot, built after the standards for the zoning district were
established. Although the project would reduce hardcover, staff could not support the change to
a conforming house built after the current zoning standards. Staff was concerned that approving
a variance for this project sets a negative precedent for additions and alterations to conforming
structures on conforming lots, especially since this lot was developed under the current standards
for the district.
Had the lot not had cross-easements on either side of the home, Mr. Danberry stated that he
could have done this addition without a variance and still been conforming.
There were no public comments.
Hawn asked if there would be bituminous driveway by the stall.
Mabusth pointed out that the back up area allowed for the stall would be tight, and indicated that
the addition is a two-story addition.
Chair Smith asked what the third stall was needed for.
The applicant indicated that it would be used for a vehicle.
Mabusth believed the applicant had a hardship based on the presence of the cross-easements.
Weinberger maintained that a one stall detached building could be built, if hardcover would not
be an issue.
Bremer believed the attached garage addition to be the best design for this lot.
Mabusth agreed that a detached garage could be put in the side yard, however the best spot for
the addition would be close to the existing garage.
Although he could build a detached garage in the side yard, Mr. Danberry indicated that the
neighbors would probably have an issue with its placement there since it would infringe upon
their views. Where proposed, the garage addition is tucked into a wooded area of the lot.
Page 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #02-2837 JEFF DANBERRY, 3545 IVY PLACE, Continued
Hawn stated that she could side on the hardship argument, and since the applicant does not
exceed his hardcover, she felt the addition would be better hidden from view where proposed.
Chair Smith inquired about removing the lower portion of the circle drive and questioned what
would be done if the applicant came back to request a third curb cut.
Rahn asked what the plans for the tuck under portion of the garage were.
Danberry stated the tuck under portion would be simply used for storage and he would have no
intention of adding a third curb cut. With regard to removing the lower portion of the circle
drive, Danberry indicated that for safety purposes at the end of the street, he felt the circle
driveway was necessary.
Fritzler pointed out that staff had a valid argument that this could be establishing a precedent,
therefore he could not support the application.
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2837,Jeff
Danberry,3545 Ivy Place, granting a front yard setback variance to permit a 14' third stall
addition to be made to the attached garage, not to exceed hardcover by 25%, and
recognizing that although a conforming lot, the lot is compromised by shoreline on one
side, cross easements, and at the end of the road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2. Fritzler and
Chair Smith dissenting for reasons noted earlier.
(#9) #02-2841 DAVID DICKEY, 4425 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE 9:37-9:41
P.M.
David Dickey, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg noted that the applicant had recently acquired the property and was proposing to
make improvements to it. The applicant had requested a hardcover in 75-250' setback zone
variance to permit construction of an attached garage and foyer to the existing residence. The
addition would increase hardcover to 4,965 s.f. (33%), from 4,565 s.f. (30.8%). She indicated
that staff recommends approval of the variance request.
Mr. Dickey stated that he would like to obtain more living space, greater depth, and better
aesthetics.
There were no public comments.
Hawn had no problem with the application. Other Commissioners agreed.
Page 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2841 DAVID DICKEY, 4425 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued
Bremer moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2841,
David Dickey, 4425 North Shore Drive, granting the hardcover in 75-250' setback zone
variance to construct an attached garage and foyer to the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes
7,Nays 0.
(#10) #02-2844 BRUCE AND CAROL HEDBLOM, 2601 CASCO POINT ROAD,
VARIANCE 9:42 - 9:51 P.M.
Bruce and Carol Hedblom, Applicants, were present.
Weinberger explained that the applicants had requested a hardcover variance to permit alteration
to existing hardcover in the 75-250' setback to permit construction of a residential addition. The
addition would replace an existing three season porch and add another 223 s.f. of living space to
the home. The actual hardcover would not increase on the property. The 19' X 28' addition
would connect the main residence with the garage and be used as a master bedroom suite and
storage space.
Weinberger noted that staff recommends approval of the variance and pointed out that the
applicants request that the removals from the driveway be delayed until after the construction in
order to provide the construction trucks a staging area while they work. In addition, Weinberger
stated that staff recommends the installation of gutters accompany the addition in order to direct
water from the south side of the residence towards the lake and not directly at the neighbor.
Gary Marquant, 2617 Casco Point Road, stated that he supported his neighbors proposed
addition and installation of gutters.
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2844, Bruce
and Carol Hedblom,2601 Casco Point Road, a hardcover variance to permit alteration to
existing hardcover in the 75-250' setback to permit construction of a residential addition,
subject to the three staff conditions as noted in their memo of 11/11/02,with the exception
that the blacktop removals be allowed to occur next spring, by May 30,2003, along with
the installation of gutters. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 9:51 p.m.- 9:58 p.m.)
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
9:58 - 11:50 P.M.
Steve Johnston and Kendra Lindahl, Landform and Dahlstrom Development representatives,
were present.
Page 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Gaffron began with a brief overview of the eight topics that the Planning Commission was
requested to review in order to make recommendations to the Council. The eight issues were as
follows:
1) Acceptability of site layout
2) Acceptability of building styles and proposed materials and color palettes
3) Acceptability of provisions for pedestrian circulation, accessibility, and connectivity
4) Acceptability of recreation amenities, both private and public
5) Recommendations on site lighting as well as Kelley Parkway streetscape and lighting
6) Acceptability of overall landscape plan
7) Recommendations regarding housing affordability
8) Recommendations regarding development covenants
The Planning Commission was encouraged to identify any further issues and recommend
revisions or changes as they saw fit. Gaffron noted that the applicants have requested that the
Planning Commission make their recommendation to Council for Council action on November
12 in order to meet the applicant's schedule. Once again, Gaffron stated that any
recommendation for approval should include a recommendation that the applicants work with
staff to resolve outstanding engineering and other related issues noted in the memo or those that
come to light in the future.
Gaffron pointed out that both Tom Kellogg and Shelly Johnson, of Bonestroo were present to
provide comment on engineering issues and the traffic study.
With regard to streets and trails, Gaffron stated that there were minor revisions for discussion, he
pointed out that there was a separate entrance and exit road at the main entrance, a circular
structure in the middle of the development, a new southeast end access for emergency vehicles,
and that the suggested 15' separation between loft buildings had been achieved for the most part.
He maintained that further discussion would be needed to address the consolidation of the loft
accesses. While they were still working on specific engineering issues, the Fire Marshall did not
have too many concerns other than tweaking hydrant locations. As indicated in the staff memo,
and after speaking to Consultant Case, Gaffron stated that Case's feeling was that this was a nice
landscape plan, which exceeds the general requirements.
Since the Commission was familiar with the application, Chair Smith suggested that rather than
have Gaffron review the entire staff memo, he take questions with regard to each issue.
Chair Smith stated that she was pleased with the plan and asked Johnston if he could identify any
similar housing units elsewhere, that she could preview as representative of Dahlstrom's work or
others.
John Hassler, of Dahlstrom Development, maintained that there would be a variety of different
scenarios within the development, and not strictly one color palette or style to choose from.
Page 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Chair Smith asked for further clarification of sites she could look at with regard to a similar look
or density.
Mr. Hassler indicated that it was most difficult for them to find a similar two story rambler style
townhome for the Commissioners to drive by and compare. The Colt estate development in
Minnetonka would be the closest to this style he could think of, otherwise, he would put together
a list of locations with similar style homes and provide that to the Commission.
Chair Smith asked how soon they could provide the Commission with the representative list.
Hassler indicated that it would be first thing the next morning.
Hawn inquired as to the price points the different designs would be listed at.
Hassler stated that the lofts would be priced in the $225,000 range; the rambler style twinhomes,
in two or three different styles, would approximately run in the mid $400's; and the two story
townhomes would be priced from $300,000 - $320,000.
With regard to the circulation, Johnston clarified that a sidewalk width of 3' was proposed when
it merely was used as the walkway to the front door of a house, the average streetside sidewalks
were approximately 5' wide, which allows for two people walking next to one another. Where
there would be bike traffic, there were separate trails proposed. Johnston indicated that it was
their desire to keep the hardcover at a minimum. He pointed out that the architectural look
would not be modular block, but mostly stacked limestone chunks.
Hawn asked if the limestone look would be similar to that of the airport.
Johnston stated that the placement would be in a more random pattern.
Mabusth asked if the retaining walls would exceed 4'.
Johnston noted that it was their intention to stay below 4', however, in the event the walls were
higher for some reason,the developer would install handrails.
Mabusth questioned the retaining walls proposed for the back loft building.
Johnston stated that the back loft building would be more narrowly defined in the future as the
developer meets with the City to plan that phase of the project. Johnston maintained that this
was merely a preliminary drawing for the building, with a final to be presented to the
Commission likely next fall.
Johnston added that in the near future, street names would likely replace the east, west, north,
and south designations. In general, Johnston pointed out that the Commission could look at the
Page 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
limestone, rock, and color palettes in the back of the room that accompany the architectural style
drawings the Commission had seen previously.
Chair Smith asked what the proposed timeline to complete, C5-1, the various phases.
Johnston stated that Phase 1, which would include the main entrance drive, and some rambler
and two story townhome designs, would be completed first, followed by other phases which the
market forces would direct. Phase 1 would likely be complete next fall and the Commission
would be reviewing the next phase at that time.
Chair Smith asked again for a timeline from ground breaking to completion.
Johnston noted that the developer was anticipating a three year build out, during which the loft
units could be built at any time, and development of Phases A, B, and C would depend on market
forces. Ground breaking would depend on spring weather.
Mabusth asked how many units would comprise Phase 1.
Gaffron indicated that 19 two story units and 23 ramblers were proposed for Phase 1.
Hawn inquired when the trails would be added.
Johnston pointed out that the trails would be built with the construction of the infrastructure.
Berg questioned how the affordability issue had been resolved and wondered what units would
be considered affordable.
Gaffron stated that initially the proposal was for 2 condos and 2 two-stories or 3 two-stories,
however at the last City Council meeting, the Council suggested that neither of these two options
went far enough to accomplishing the desire for affordability. The Council asked that either a
wholehearted effort be done to accomplish affordability or they acknowledge that this isn't the
project to accomplish it. In order to determine this, the Council asked Dahlstrom to provide
financial information from a consultant so that the City Council could consider whether there are
built-in profits that could be used by the developer to do more affordable housing within this
project, or it might be determined that after all that is put into this development it might be
asking enough to be provided with the few units the City has been suggesting. Gaffron indicated
that the Council was not eager to waive any fees to help buy down the cost of affordable
housing, and because of the fee structure for sewer and assessments there is a $7,000
contribution per unit through the entire project by the City that somehow should be accounted for
in affordability already. All of that being said, Gaffron stated that the applicants would be
providing more information to the City Council, through Ron Moorse, on the financial mix for
Page 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
this project so that the Council could come to a decision about what they should be asking for
over the next week or two.
Mr. Dahlstrom interjected that they would be meeting with Administrator Ron Moorse and their
financial people in the near future to see what's available, and discuss the issues of affordability
and how the City could participate with them in order to achieve affordability.
Loraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, stated that, according to her recollection, the last time
the development was discussed, the affordable units were going to run $170,000, she questioned
how these had gone up so considerably since then, at a current price point of $220,000. She
indicated that, according to the papers, the Met Council has been contacting local municipalities
and questioning why they have not been willing to participate in affordable housing initiatives
and cautioned the Council that they could be next.
Dahlstrom pointed out that the $170,000 price point Mrs. Kaley was referring to was likely what
the Met Council had identified as affordable. He indicated his willingness to work with the City
in determining what level of affordability they will use to define this project and keep in check
what sort of income level people have to have in order to qualify for those homes. He added that
he would be attempting to bring in Don Soley, of US Banks, to talk with the City about what is
affordable.
Lindahl agreed that the affordable housing issue is a very complicated subject. She pointed out
that it is difficult to compare Orono to other communities who have housing departments, like
Minnetonka and Plymouth, where people work full time to get funding sources lined up. The
challenge here is to design a program that provides affordable housing that the City says they
want and need, without having the staff dedicated to making the housing affordable and keeping
it affordable over the long term. Although a difficult task, it would be possible to make
affordable homes at $199,000, but Lindahl stated they don't want to see those homes resold the
next year at a huge profit rather than being kept affordable units.
Hawn stated that she had difficulty moving this application forward without the traffic report in
hand. Furthermore, since this was slated for affordable housing, she could not, in good
conscience, support the proposal without a measure of affordability built into the project.
Shelly Johnson, of Bonestroo, stated that he had been conducting the traffic study and apologized
that the actual report would not be available until the end of the week. With this being said,
Johnson indicated that they had defined Kelley Parkway as a mini-collector road. He believed
that once all of the parcels were developed, one would see 2000-4000 trips per day on Kelley
Parkway, easily supported by a 32' roadway and 30 mph. From a traffic perspective, Johnson
stated that it was a nice project with good access, and once the third drive from the loft area was
eliminated, it would work wonderfully. Finally, he noted that they would recommend two
approach lanes to Willow be added.
Page 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Hawn questioned how this might affect stacking problems on Highway 12.
Johnson stated that he did not foresee any stacking or cueing problems at the intersection, in fact,
he pointed out that the new highway redevelopment of 12 would alleviate traffic on the current
highway by 40%.
Berg inquired whether the future commercial development was taken into consideration when
they looked at the traffic that would be created on Kelley Parkway, Willow, and Highway 12.
Johnson indicated that they take everything into consideration when they make their projections.
Gaffron asked what Johnson foresaw for the Highway 12 and Willow intersection.
Johnson stated that they recommend the City widen Willow to make access safer and create a
center turn lane along Willow.
Gaffron questioned the recommendation for the Willow and County Road 6 intersection.
Since the intersection already meets traffic signal warrants, Johnson suggested the City approach
the County to try to get an all way stop sign installed. He agreed this was a hazardous
intersection.
Mabusth asked what the off site needs for this development might entail and how dependent on
the MnDOT improvements, of the sewer lines along the railway and lake, the developer would
be.
Gaffron maintained that the City's expectation is that the MnDOT corridor work is slated for
completion by next summer, at which time, the sewer line upgrades would come between
Highway 12 and the corridor. By the time these units would come on board, Gaffron stated they
would have the capacity to handle them.
Kellogg stated that it has been known for some time that improvements would need to be made,
and until MnDOT completes its work, the temporary lift station could handle some of the
development units temporarily. He believed the timing looked as if it should all work out.
Mabusth reminded the applicant that a stormwater retention pond was necessary, and asked if
any other improvements were needed off site for this development.
While he acknowledged that the applicant had already addressed needed improvements, Kellogg
indicated that the only difficulty is that the discharge from the ponds has to run across Highway
12, take a 90 degree turn to the west, and another 90 degree turn to get to the swales that carries
it back to the railroad tracks, at little or no grade.
Page 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Mabusth asked if the retention ponds were part of development Phase 1.
Johnston agreed that the retention pond and other things would accompany Phase 1.
With regard to the punch list of 8 items in the staff memo, Chair Smith asked for Commission
reaction to the first item, site layout.
Rahn asked if the applicant was receptive to changing the size of the roundabout.
Johnston stated that they would look at the size of the roundabout with Bonestroo, as well as, the
third driveway by the lofts that was added due to the 10' drop in the grade differences.
Gaffron suggested the applicant consider a consolidated side entrance access for both loft
buildings versus the proposed 2-3 accesses shown currently.
With regard to the color palettes, Gaffron stated that the Commission's goal should be to tie
them down to ensure the City knows what they are getting.
Johnston indicated that what they were displaying that evening was a style and a sample of
colors they propose, and he ensured the Commission that what they don't want is a single color
only repeated throughout the entire development.
Gaffron pointed out that the publics view would be more than just the front, and suggested the
applicants consider continuing the front facade around the building since the two story views
would be seen throughout the neighborhood.
Hassler stated that their intent was to install brick on the front and back of the buildings and
provide variations.
Similar to the Renaissance development, Dahlstrom noted that these units would be all brick
with some similarities and variations, and he realized that they need to enhance the rear as well
as the front.
Hassler stated that they would be using materials such as, cultured stone, brick, hardy plank
(which could be painted). He indicated that it was their desire to blend all of the materials so that
they compliment each other but not necessarily duplicate or look like a hodge podge of styles.
Gaffron pointed out that the hardy plank was also used on the new senior housing building.
Fritzler asked if vinyl siding would be used.
Page 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Dahlstrom stated that there would be no vinyl siding. They would be using the natural tones and
lime stones, brick, etc.
Chair Smith asked for comment on the connectivity, safety, and pedestrian circulation.
Hawn suggested they consider a wetland bridge structure as opposed to the jog in the trail along
Willow near the wetlands.
Gaffron recommended they, at least, aim the trail with a `Y' directing users around the triangular
green space.
With regard to recreation, Hawn asked if the applicant would be installing the playground
equipment.
Johnston indicated they would be putting it in.
Gaffron pointed out that there would be family housing potential and recommended the applicant
build the tot lot.
With regard to Kelley Parkway lighting and streetscapes, Gaffron pointed out that the applicant
had provided several suggestions and he asked the Commission for their feedback on the type of
feel they'd like to create and if their desire was for dark skies or highly lit skies like at Often
Brothers. He asked what they found most logical, a subtle box light, or decorative lighting and
whether their goal would be to continue Long Lake's street lamp look.
Mabusth asked what Shelly Johnson,traffic consultant, would suggest.
Johnson stated that he would recommend at least enough light to ensure safe night driving along
Kelley Parkway.
Chair Smith questioned whether they could add interest with lighting.
Bremer pointed out that there were nice suggestions included in the packet.
Johnston stated that, of the three suggestions, he personally preferred the straight poles with any
of the three lamp looks. He did not believe shoe box lights to be the best recommendation.
Fritzler suggested harmonia lights along Kelley Parkway and Nostalgia on the side roads in the
development.
Mabusth and Gaffron agreed that they would prefer staggered irregular lighting along Kelley
Parkway.
Page 26
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Gaffron pointed out that there was nothing in the current code that designates how much lighting
is necessary.
Chair Smith stated that item 6, acceptability of overall landscape plan, and item 7, a
recommendation for housing affordability had been discussed.
With regard to the covenants, Gaffron stated that staff had not looked closely enough at them yet
and the City Attorney would need to review them before making any recommendations. He
asked that the Commission let him know if anything further should be added to the covenants.
Chair Smith indicated that she would prefer that most of the ponds remain natural.
Gaffron asked if the Commission would like to see a fountain running in the NURP pond across
the street from the main entrance.
Chair Smith's first reaction was no fountain, after which she recommended a more natural
looking water feature be planted.
Hawn felt aeration would be good in order to avoid the green scum accumulation on the pond.
Gaffron asked the applicant to explain the water feature.
Johnston stated that the water feature would pump water from the center pool along a shallow
creek bed.
Chair Smith was concerned that children might have access to the water feature.
Johnston stated that the creek feature would not be intended for children and indicated that there
would be a landscaped edge between the traffic and creek.
Mrs. Kaley asked what sort of planting would occur in the northwest and east areas.
Johnston indicated that rain gardens and small landscaped ponds would treat water naturally with
native vegetation. Benches would be placed randomly in those areas.
Gaffron pointed out that where wetland encroachment might occur, retaining walls would be
built.
Intended to be an idealized creek, Johnston stated that the bed would be planted with specific
materials that wouldn't require a great deal of maintenance.
Chair Smith indicated that this would to pleasing to her.
Page 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Mabusth asked if the water would be chemically treated.
Johnston stated that there should be enough movement as to not require chemicals as they've
planned it.
Chair Smith asked if there were additional comments.
Gaffron stated that the application was slated for the November 12, 2002 City Council meeting at
which time he would try to put together a 1st draft of developers agreement and resolution, with
a similar degree of detail as the concept plan. He reiterated to the Commission that if they had
any further comments to speak now.
Fritzler questioned the future bus stop site.
Johnston pointed out that the MnDOT site would be the most logical space for a bus stop.
Fritzler asked if there was fear that people might use this as a park and ride area.
Johnston indicated that the parking time could be limited.
Gaffron stated that there could be a separate space for a future bus park and ride later.
With regard to the drawings, Chair Smith asked what would go at the other ends of the MnDOT
trails.
Gaffron stated that these would be developed sites.
Johnston indicated that the applicants were pretty flexible and went to MnDOT to ask for
everything they might need now rather than going back for more later.
Hawn questioned whether the Commission could take action subject to further information from
the traffic study and affordable housing issues have been addressed.
Gaffron stated that they could make their motion and include a recommendation which gives the
City Council further direction.
Hawn asked if there was a need to make a motion regarding the rezoning and RPUD, or merely
final development plan approval, which makes references to the Commission's feelings..
Gaffron indicated that the rezoning was treated as inherent in the process of the concept plan
approvals. He pointed out that the phasing of fees was also something that the Commission did
not discuss, however, would be included in the final resolution put before the City Council.
Page 28
c
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Gaffron reminded the Commission that this would be the last time the Planning Commission
would see Phase 1, unless a major change were to occur.
Chair Smith moved, to accept Application #02-2789/#02-2840, Dahlstrom Development,
LLC, "2550" Kelley Parkway, recommending the granting of Preliminary Plat and Final
Development Plan Approval which includes rezoning of this property. With regard to site
layout, building styles, proposed materials, and color palettes, pedestrian circulation,
accessibility, and connectivity, recreation amenities both public and private, and overall
landscape plan the Planning Commission would recommend approval. In addition, the
Planning Commission recommends the City Council pursue site lighting, Kelley Parkway
lighting and streetscape, housing affordability, and development covenants, and grants
approval of the phasing concept, and approval for preliminary plat and final platting for
Phase 1, subject to the final traffic report and affordable issues being resolved, and the
applicants work with staff to resolve outstanding engineering and other related issues
either noted in this memo or which may come to light in the future.
Rahn stated that the Planning Commission has awaited the traffic study since day 1.
Chair Smith stated that the Commission would prefer resolution of the affordable housing issue,
traffic study, and consultants plan all take place before City Council makes its final decision.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 23,2002 AND OCTOBER 14,2002
September 23, Mabusth stated that the Welsh application was discussed and approved for a 44'
setback. She reported that the Tidwell Tree on Concordia, the preservation of which was tied to
the approval of a variance there, had died. Which confirmed Attorney Barrett's assertion, in her
mind,that you should not put contingencies in resolutions based on unique situations, such as
tying the variance to the preservation of a tree, or view it as a valid hardship.
Berg disagreed, stating that one never knows when a large tree will die and it is worth the effort
to conserve these natural beauties.
October 14, Berg noted that there was discussion about driveway access. She reported that the
proposed office/condo for Navarre was reviewed and then tabled after the Council decided they
would need to examine the overall Navarre area before going forward with this proposal.
Gaffron added that beyond the Fox Street driveway discussion, the CPUD was also discussed.
Page 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron pointed out that the Planning Commission would need to schedule a work session for
November or December. The meeting will be held December 2, 2002 at 6:00 P.M.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 4,
2002 AND SEPTEMBER 16,2002
Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September 4,2002 Planning
Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Fritzler moved, Chair Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September 16,2002
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
OCTOBER 28 AND NOVEMBER 12, 2002.
October 28 - Fritzler November 12 - Smith
ADJOURNMENT
Berg moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 12:15 A.M.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 A.M.
Sandra Smith, Chair
Page 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
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, Janice
Berg, and Jeanne Mabusth. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning
Administrators Paul Weinberger and Wendy Bottenberg, Council Representative Bob Sansevere,
and Recorder Kristi Anderson.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:31 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
After neighbors expressed concern, item#3 was removed from the Consent Agenda.
(#1) #02-2832 RANDY ARNESON, 625 DEBORAH DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2832 Randy
Arneson, a Conditional Use Permit for plumbing in an accessory building for the property
located at 625 Deborah Drive subject to the property owner filing the appropriate
restrictive covenant on the property. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#2)#02-2833 G&G HOLDING COMPANY, 1160 LOMA LINDA,VARIANCES
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application#02-2833 G&G
Holding Co., 1160 Loma Linda, approving lot area and lot width variances to permit
removal of the existing house and construction of a new house on the property subject to
the conditions noted in the staff recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#4)#02-2835 THOMAS ADAMS, 500 ORCHARD PARK ROAD, RENEWAL
VARIANCES
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2835,
Thomas Adams, 500 Orchard Park Road, approving the renewal of variances that would
permit relocation of the existing house to the center of the property and to permit an
existing accessory building to be closer to the front property line than the principal
residence, subject to the conditions as approved by the original Orono City Council
resolution of 2001. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#5) #02-2836 CHARLES AND JENNIFER PHELPS, 385 TURNHAM ROAD,
VARIANCE
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2836,
Charles and Jennifer Phelps,385 Turnham Road, approving a front yard setback variance
to construct an 11'X 9' mudroom on the residence. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Page 1
t .
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
"
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6:35 - 7:20 P.M.
Robert Wiens, the Applicant,was present.
As the item was removed from the consent agenda, Chair Smith asked for public comment.
Norma Godfrey, 2060 North Shore Drive, questioned the appearance of the proposed berm and
what a 3:1 slope would look like. She was concerned about the preservation of a large row of
pine trees which screens her property from the applicants and wondered if the berm would be
maintained on all sides.
Lorraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, indicated that she had many of the same questions as
the first neighbor.
Weinberger explained that the property owner had requested a conditional use permit to permit
land alteration on the property over 500 cubic yards. The project would be to build a berm,
behind the existing row of evergreen trees, along the northern border of the property parallel to
North Shore Drive. The intent of the berm would be to screen traffic noise from North Shore
Drive. Weinberger noted that the proposed berm would be approximately 8' at the highest point
and curve around as shown on the survey. The existing row of smaller evergreens would be
removed and replanted on the berm. He pointed out that the berm and plantings would have no
impact on traffic sight-lines and would appear to have no negative impacts on site drainage.
Weinberger stated that according to the City Engineer, since the property was two lots combined
in 1995 and the portion of the lot where the proposed berm would fall was vacant, there is
merely a sewer stub on the property with nothing connected to it. Weinberger added that the
design was done by an engineer and reviewed by the City Engineer who had no negative
comments or concerns. He stated that the widest width of the berm at 8' tall could be potentially
48' and still would not impact the stand of tall evergreen trees it would be located behind.
Chair Smith reminded the applicant and Commission that the slope must not exceed a 3:1.
Mabusth added that the manhole must be located and marked.
Gaffron indicated that the contours of the design were misleading, and based upon his
calculations the plan reflected a mere 1' scale versus the normal 2'. He questioned whether the
design reflected a 4' or 8' high berm at its peak.
Wiens stated that he believed the design reflected a 6' or 8' high peak, however, indicated his
willingness to redesign the plan in order to address neighbors concerns.
Chair Smith felt it was necessary to determine the true height of the berm with and/or without
trees.
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, Continued
With 6-8' high berm and peaks in the middle and on the ends, Wiens stated that it was his desire
to cut down on the amount of traffic noise he was exposed to.
Weinberger agreed with Gaffron that the plan provided to the City looks to be indicative of
merely 4' high berm peaks.
Wiens stated that the plans were incorrect if they reflect a 4' berm.
Bremer stated that the applicant's summary refers to an 8' high berm.
Weinberger noted that, if the scale is 1', the berm would be required to be far wider than 20'.
In order to maintain a 3:1 slope, Gaffron pointed out that the base would need to be twice as
wide.
Rahn felt the Commission would need to be supplied with a new drawing.
Wiens questioned whether he could proceed with this drawing.
Norma Godfrey maintained that the highest center point of the berm would fall directly across
the street from her residence and she was concerned about having to view a big pile of dirt, as in
other locations in the neighborhood.
Wiens stated that it was his desire to construct a berm and he was willing to work with the
neighbors to do so.
Chair Smith pointed out that the applicant had agreed to accept the 4' high berm in order to move
the application forward, and she questioned whether this lower berm would satisfy the neighbors.
Mrs. Erickson, located across the street on Highway 51, cautioned the applicant that a mere 4'
high berm would do little to eliminate the noise issue. She stated that in order to adjust the noise
level,the applicant would need to construct a much higher berm,hopefully not at the expense of
the large row of evergreens on the property.
Wiens stated that the row of evergreens do provide a fair amount of blockage.
Lyle Godfrey, 2060 North Shore Drive, indicated that his questions pertained to the height of the
berm and how the evergreen treeline would be protected. He encouraged the applicant to use
Bay Ridge Road for the truck traffic.
Wiens stated that he wished to eliminate the light reflecting off the road and enhance the look of
his property in the process.
Page 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
r -
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, Continued
Lyle Godfrey stated that, as long as the berm was maintained, he had no problem with the
application.
Chair Smith encouraged the applicant to give careful consideration to whether he believed a 4'
berm would help with the sound problem. She asked for staff's opinion.
Gaffron indicated that a 4-5' high berm would not have a huge impact on the noise level and
suggested Mr. Wiens consider additional evergreens. Gaffron stated that a denser row of pine
trees would do more to lessen the impact of noise than this berm.
Mrs. Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, questioned what the applicant would plant on the berm,
since her views would be impacted. She indicated that the proposed curve of the berm near Bay
Bridge Road would block her views of the lake.
Wiens stated that no matter what he proposed in order to improve his current street views, it
would impact Mrs. Kaley's views. Wiens maintained that he has gone to great lengths to
improve his property since moving in and would strive to beautify the project, planting
evergreens atop the berm, surrounded by prairie grass and wildflowers under the trees.
Rahn questioned whether the applicant could truly accept a 4' high berm, when what he was
expecting was an 8' high berm.
Wiens expressed his desire to move the project forward.
Mrs. Kaley reiterated that the row of pines along the top of the berm would impact her views.
Wiens stated that he must do something and again,would be willing to work towards a
compromise with the neighbors.
Mabusth empathized, stating that she could see his goal was to improve his screen both visually
and for noise control.
Wiens stated that the existing trees would block 70-80% of Mrs. Kaley's views of the proposed
berm.
Hawn stated that she was unclear what the issue with the neighbors was, since the trees would
block most of the berm and the applicant has expressed his willingness to work with them.
Wiens stated that there are a number of things he could propose, including building structure
rather than berm, however he has chosen to construct and beautify his property with the berm
and plantings. Wiens stated that he had no idea he would be faced with opposition from his
neighbors when he proposed this application and was willing to try to work with them, but
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
_ .-
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, Continued-
reminded them he could still go through the proper channels to construct something much more
obtrusive than he has here.
Hawn reiterated that Mr. Wiens has the right to do what he can to improve his property. She
indicated that she was struggling to see how this could be a problem to the neighbors when it
would be mostly blocked anyway.
Chair Smith complimented the applicant on his willingness to cooperate with the neighbors and
stated that, in reality, he could even remove the large row of pine trees on his property if he
chose to. She indicated that instead he is proposing to improve his property.
Rahn stated that, short of the berm issue, the applicant could plant rows of trees along and
around the curve without the City's permission.
Godfrey questioned whether he could continue to come back to the City to request additional fill.
Gaffron stated that the City code does not talk about a maximum per year, but a limit could be
even further defined in the motion.
Wiens stated that he wished to do the project right and invited everyone to come take a look at
his work.
Chair Smith suggested the applicant consider either tabling his application in order to work with
the neighbors, or moving it forward as the application exists currently.
Wiens stated that he preferred to move forward sooner than later and asked for further
discussion.
Mabusth asked how many cubic yards of fill the Commission was being asked to approve at this
time.
Wiens stated that application is for 1500-2000 cubic yards of fill.
Gaffron pointed out that 700 cubic yards of fill would provide a 4' high berm.
Hawn suggested they design a motion that defines the fill as the amount required to obtain a 4'
high berm and not identify a certain number.
While he had hoped to proceed, Wiens stated that he had also hoped for a higher berm along
County Road 15 than the 4' in this proposal. He indicated that he would go back to his engineer
in order for him to redesign the plan. Wiens felt he could stay within the 500 cubic yard
allowance and still construct an 8' berm along County Road 15 and then return next month with
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#3) #02-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, Continued
a different proposal for the rest of the landscaping. He asked the Commission to table his
application.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded,to table Application#02-2834, Robert and Julie
Wiens, 1425 Bay Ridge Road,tabling the applicants request for a Conditional Use Permit
for the purpose of redesigning the proposal. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD,3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES 7:21 -
8:07 P.M.
Ronald Cloud, the Applicant, was present.
Weinberger explained that the applicant has agreed to revise his application to reflect his request
to simply replace the previous 8' X 10' deck, with the only addition being that a stairway access
be allowed off the deck. Weinberger noted that the applicant has withdrawn his request for a
three season porch.
With just the replacement of the previous deck, Chair Smith noted that the applicant still is over
his structural limit of 15%. She asked if the stairway would run off the front or side of the deck.
Cloud noted that the stairway would need to head towards the lake in order to avoid any side
yard encroachment issues. As an ex-firefighter, Cloud pointed out that the home is supposed to
have two exit accesses, which it does not currently have, and he felt the stairway access was a
safety concern.
Mabusth agreed with the safety issue and believed that the deck should have stairway access.
Hawn asked if the City was clear on the original size of the deck.
Cloud pointed out that the original deck was 2' larger due to the overhang and did not have
access stairs.
Chair Smith asked about the removal of the lakeside shed.
Since the structural coverage exceeds the 15% allowance, Mabusth reiterated that this is a key
issue with regard to this property. She indicated that the Commission is looking for a trade off.
Since many things have been stolen in the past near the lakeshore, Cloud indicated that he uses
the shed for storage. He indicated that he had no problem with its removal but questioned where
he could keep his possessions lakeside. Cloud felt he had gone to a great deal of trouble to
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD, 3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued
upkeep the shed and believed the City was using political blackmail in order to force removals of
things they didn't like here and elsewhere.
Mabusth pointed out that the City does not have the authority to simply go out and randomly ask
people to remove things until they come in to ask the City for something, as in this case.
Chair Smith argued that, in reality, the process is a give and take between the City and residents.
Cloud stated that what he really would like is his three season porch, and is willing to give this
concept up, as well as remove the lakeside shed by May 15, 2003, if he could have a large
lockbox.
Weinberger explained that the lockbox size allowed is roughly 5'X4'X4', for a total of 20 s.f.
Cloud stated that he could purchase a premade lockbox 5'X10'X 3.5' if the Commission would
allow it.
Fritzler maintained that the total square footage cannot exceed 20 s.f. and this box would be 50
s.f.
Chair Smith inquired why the removal would not take place until May 15, 2003.
Cloud indicated that he had already removed his dock and lakeside items, which are stored for
the winter inside the shed, and he would prefer to remove the shed after he put the dock back in
the spring. He added that the deck would not likely be built until spring anyway.
Weinberger suggested the Commission recommend that the permit be issued in the spring, after
the removal of the shed.
Chair Smith questioned the status of the rear side shed meeting a 3' setback from the property
line. She asked what the structural coverage calculation would be if the lakeside shed were
removed, the deck replaced, and wondered what would become of the rear side shed.
Since it would not add to structural or hard cover, Cloud suggested that he could put the
5'X10'X 3.5' lockbox under his deck, and remove the lakeside shed altogether.
Weinberger indicated that this would be allowed.
Fritzler asked if the stairway could be incorporated into the deck.
Cloud pointed out that the deck is merely 5.5' off the ground and it would be both difficult to
allow for proper headroom, as well as, it would take away too much square footage from the
small deck.
Page 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD,3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued
Rahn questioned if a diagonal stairway off the deck would interfere with the views from the
lower floor windows.
Cloud explained that the window views would not be obstructed since they are offset to one side.
Mabusth inquired if the deck stairway could run off one side versus off the front.
Fritzler reiterated his desire to see the deck space swapped out for stairway space.
Cloud stated that he felt the Commission was holding him hostage. He indicated that he was
trying to work with the City, bringing the deck up to code by adding a stairway access and
removing the lakeside shed, however he wasn't even being allowed to replace the previous deck
he had in exchange.
Chair Smith questioned whether, if by using the space under the deck for storage, could the
applicant remove the rear shed. Would he prefer to move it or lose it.
Hawn pointed out that there was no place to move the shed on the property.
Cloud stated that the shed could not be moved, it was blacktopped in by the previous owner, and
moving it would destroy the shed and/or block his garage access. He questioned why the City
did not take this up with the previous owner if it were a big concern, the contact letters he had
seen from the City were ten years old.
Gary Marquant, 2617 Casco Point Road, stated that, while he did not know Mr. Cloud, he could
offer an unbiased opinion. Mr. Marquant believed the applicant was trying to work with the
City, and had committed to removing his lakeside shed, only to be told he cannot even get what
he had originally. He questioned if the net gain by removing the shed wasn't worth the
allowance of a stairway access, which improved the safety of the deck.
Chair Smith questioned where the structural coverage numbers were.
Bottenberg noted that the structural coverage would be 22.1%with the stairway, versus 21.2%
without.
Hawn reiterated that the rear shed was nonconforming in so many ways that she would like to
see it eliminated.
Bremer stated that she would approve the application with the original size deck and additional
steps, as long as the lakeside shed were removed.
Berg concurred.
Page 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #02-2823 RONALD CLOUD,3460 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued
Rahn stated that while the City had been striving to reduce mass on properties, and reducing lot
coverage overall, he could support Bremer's position, although he too would prefer to see the
rear shed removed.
Hawn stated that, while she too would prefer the removal of the rear shed, she believed the
applicant was entitled to replace his existing deck with the addition of stairs for safety.
Fritzler stated that his position would support the removal of both the lakeside and rear side
sheds, since the applicant exceeds the structural cover allowance, and urged the applicant to
incorporate the stairway into the deck space. He could not support the application as it stood.
Mabusth stated that she could support the replacement deck to meet the existing size,the
addition of the stairway preferably off the side, and the lockbox under the deck. While she had a
hard time pushing for the removal of the rear side shed due to limitations within the garage, she
stated that Mr. Cloud did have excessive structural coverage and asked if he could remove any of
the bituminous hardcover.
Cloud stated that, while he would be keeping the 20' streetside apron,he would remove the
unnecessary black top from the side of the driveway.
Mabusth indicated that she could support the application as revised this evening.
Chair Smith summarized that the applicant would be required to remove the existing lakeside
shed, and would be allowed the replacement deck of the original size with stairway access. She
felt these changes reflected some improvement on this property.
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#02-2823,
Ronald Cloud,3460 North Shore Drive, granting variances for structural coverage,
hardcover, and side yard setback in order to replace the lakeside deck with the same
dimensions as the original deck, not to exceed 300 s.f.,plus the addition of a stairway
accessing the deck off the lakeside front or side with a 4' landing and 3' stairway widths,
subject to the removal of the lakeside shed at which time the issuance of the permit will be
permitted. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
SCHEDULED HEARINGS
(#11) 7:30 P.M. #02-2839 BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION,3320 WATERTOWN
ROAD, SUBDIVISION (8:08 - 8:21 P.M.)
Joseph and John Boyer, the Applicants, were present.
Weinberger explained that the applicants have applied for a Preliminary Plat for a two-lot
subdivision of a 50+acre site located on Watertown Road. The property is located in a 2 acre
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#11) 7:30 P.M. #02-2839 BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION,3320 WATERTOWN
ROAD, Continued
zone and will be divided by creating two building sites (Lots 1 and 2) and shared driveway
(Outlot A). Weinberger noted that the general site plan meets all requirements for a front/back lot
subdivision, a 3 acre site for Lot 2 is met. Since back lots are also required to have driveway
access a minimum of 30' in width, Outlot A has been designed much wider than the 30' to allow
the driveway approach to be located at the highest point to provide the best site lines for the
driveway. There is no request for the development for a third property at this time.
Weinberger pointed out that each lot has demonstrated two septic sites which meets local and
state standards. There are wetlands on Lot 1 and Lot 2, which are protected by the City and will
be subject to some minimal impact by this development, however 50%of the site is designated
wetland. Due to Fire Code requirements for a minimum 20' driveway access, including the
portion across the wetland, a variance will need to be granted to allow access to go thru the
wetlands, and WCA guidelines might require additional wetlands be created on the property.
With regard to the stormwater trunk fee, Weinberger indicated that staff believed the City
Council, and not the Planning Commission, would be reviewing the fee structure and impact this
development has on the overall stormwater management process, and make its recommendation.
Weinberger stated that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and a wetland
alteration variance for the shared driveway based on four findings on page three of the staff
memo, followed by five conditions on page four of the staff memo dated October 11, 2002.
Boyer stated that widening the driveway should be possible, as should achieving a 10% grade in
the steepness of the driveway.
There were no public comments.
Chair Smith stated that this was a beautiful piece of property.
Hawn stated that the subdivision seemed pretty clear cut, and other than determining the
stormwater trunk fee, this was a standard subdivision. With regard to the fee, which was created
to promote the kind of stormwater process that will be occurring naturally on these two
properties, Hawn felt the fee to be too steep in this particular case. She viewed it as almost a
form of double taxation, since the wetland was undevelopeable and performing the exact
function that the trunk fee was set up to promote.
Mabusth pointed out that due to the requirement for a wider driveway, they would be
encroaching slightly into the wetland.
Fritzler encouraged the applicant to design the long driveway in a way that would deter a great
deal of runoff from ending up on Watertown Road.
Page 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#11) 7:30 P.M. #02-2839 BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION,3320 WATERTOWN
ROAD, Continued
Chair Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2839,
Boyer Building Corporation, for a Preliminary Plat review at 3320 Watertown Road, for
the building of two sites and shared driveway, Outlot A, subject to staff recommendations
and conditions as noted in the staff exhibits. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#12 AND #13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF ORONO,INC.
2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, REZONING; 8:05 P.M. #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL
PROPERTIES OF ORONO,INC. 2765 KELLEY PARKWAY,FINAL DEVELOPMENT
PLAN APPROVAL 8:22 - 9:01 P.M.
Dr. Berg and Dr. Eberts, Applicants for Orono Professional Properties, were present.
Gaffron explained that the applicants received Revised Concept Plan Approval per City Council
Resolution No. 4860 on September 9, 2002. They have now provided final development plans
and request Development Plan Approval. Because the adjacent parcel is now being used to
provide parking for this site, staff is recommending that the parcel be rezoned B-6/PUD and its
further development be subject to the PUD process. Therefore, the rezoning and medical office
approval hearing have been scheduled concurrently.
No purchase agreement has been signed as of yet between the City and the applicants. Gaffron
pointed out that the primary unresolved issue has been whether a wetland existing on the site will
fall under WCA rules and require mitigation. The MCWD ruling is due by the end of October,
and if mitigation is required, the City Council will have to determine whether the City will be
involved in providing mitigation or leave that to the purchasers.
Gaffron requested that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to City Council
regarding the following topics: Rezoning of 2745 Kelley Parkway(adjacent parcel)to B-6
Highway Commercial District; acceptability of site plan and layout; approval of architectural
design; approval of lighting and signage; and approval of a landscape plan. In addition, Gaffron
explained that a recommendation for approval should include three conditions:
1) Final approval by Council should not be granted until the following issues are resolved:
a) Wetland existence and mitigation if necessary .
b) Stormwater plan satisfactory to City Engineer and MCWD
c) Purchase Agreement to be finalized
2) Approval shall be subject to a Development Agreement to be drafted by the City,
incorporating conditions of development approval as outlined in the Concept Plan Approval
resolution, also including conditions for future development of the adjacent parcel.
Page 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#12 AND #13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 AND #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF
ORONO,INC. 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, Continued
3) City Council should reach a conclusion regarding the streetscape of Kelley Parkway within a
timeframe that allows the applicants to plan for boulevard trees and street lighting consistent
with the remainder of Kelley Parkway.
With regard to stormwater management, Gaffron noted that a back up plan may need to be
adopted in case the Dahlstrom Project stalls, which could include moving the stormwater sewer
pipe further east.
Gaffron pointed out that, because it is unknown at this time whether the Highway 12 shoulder
would be converted from a rural section to an urban section, the exact location and design of the
trail cannot be determined at this time. Presently, the trail is shown south of the power poles,
however, the trail could ultimately end up within the property boundaries, therefore, Gaffron
noted that sign and light pole placement should be such that an 8' clear corridor would be
available adjacent to the lot line.
Chair Smith asked Gaffron if he had any inclination from the MCWD which way they will rule
on the wetland issue.
Gaffron stated that he did not have any clear indication which way the ruling would go.
Dr. Berg pointed out that this was the first he had heard about the potential of moving the bike
trail off the MnDOT property and within the property line.
Gaffron stated that it had been mentioned in a previous memo.
Dr. Berg voiced his concern about being squeezed in on two sides already with sidewalk and trail
and stated that a third side to contend with would be a point of contention with them.
Gaffron indicated that the City may have to require this language as part of the resolution if
MnDOT does not allow the trail on their ROW.
Dr. Berg stated that this was very discouraging for him to hear about this now, as designed,the
trail would barely fit between the building and the proposed sign along Highway 12. More
significantly, Dr. Berg pointed out that these corner rooms would be treatment rooms,which
would be provided with adequate screening, only if the trail lies outside the property boundaries.
Gaffron indicated that these questions will need to be addressed with MnDOT.
Dr. Berg pointed out that it would be almost impossible to move the building at this late date.
Page 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
L- --
(#12 AND#13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 AND#02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF
ORONO,INC. 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, Continued
Hawn stated that, while the Planning Commission can approve what is in front of them now, the
City has no control over how MnDOT would respond to their request. She questioned when
MnDOT would provide a ruling on this issue.
Gaffron indicated that this question needs to be explored further, however suggested the
Commission make its recommendation to Council that the easement be ready to be granted.
Mabusth asked if staff had any inclination whether MnDOT would be willing to grant a ROW on
the existing Highway 12 down the way.
Gaffron stated that they are in early discussions.
Dr. Eberts inquired whether MnDOT would be more inclined to accept the ROW easement if it
were defined differently.
Gaffron indicated that the inkling he had gotten from MnDOT was that they look more favorably
upon a sidewalk than a trail.
Rahn questioned how the shared parking spaces would provide the required spaces needed for
the facility.
Gaffron noted that merely 5 of the 15 spaces on the adjoining lot were required, the additional
spaces were simply extra ones the doctors felt could be useful.
Rahn stated that he was unfamiliar with the shared trash receptacle.
Gaffron pointed out that the trash receptacle and additional parking were designed to be shared
by the professional properties building and the future building on the adjacent lot.
Hawn observed that the traffic pattern looked better to her than the one originally proposed.
Lorraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, questioned how the medical waste would be handled.
Dr. Eberts indicated that the medical waste is disposed of separate from other trash in red =
biohazard waste bags and would not be tossed in the trash receptacles.
Mrs. Kaley asked about the percent of hardcover.
Gaffron pointed out that this property is not subject to the same shoreland hardcover limits as are
lakeshore lots. He maintained that 36% greenspace was a nice amount for a development like
this, and far above the 25%minimum required.
Page 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#12 AND #13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 AND #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF
ORONO,INC. 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, Continued
Chair Smith suggested the Commission review the five topics for consideration and make their
recommendations. With regard to architectural style, Chair Smith felt the building was
attractive.
Bremer agreed that the site layout was good.
With regard to lighting, Gaffron noted that the applicants could do a bit of tweaking of light
placement to avoid dimly lit areas. He pointed out that the City Hall lot is poorly lit, with mere
14' high light boxes.
Mabusth suggested 25' high light poles.
Chair Smith felt that what was proposed was more in character of the City Hall offices than that
of Otten Brothers highly lit lot. She admitted that hours of operation would impact this as well.
Dr.Berg stated that they would support the Commission's recommendation, it is a medical
facility and they do not wish to see people injured due to poor lighting. He indicated they would
not likely be open late into the evening.
Gaffron stated that he would suggest 20' high poles and a few more additional lights than
proposed currently. He indicated that many communities have more defined lighting codes than
does Orono, and asked if the Commission would like to see this code more clearly defined. The
Commissioners felt this would be useful.
With regard to signage, Dr. Berg stated that he felt the reason they had originally gone with the
68 s.f. size sign was to ensure that people traveling the roadway could make out the different
facilities within the building.
Mabusth felt the size of the sign was justified and it was well done.
Chair Smith stated that the landscaping was well done, in her opinion, with the exception of
enough landscaping around the trash dumpster receptacle.
Dr. Berg pointed out that he would support moving two deciduous trees that could potentially
block the sign to those traveling west on Highway 12.
Mabusth suggested they consider different species of trees for the Old Crystal Bay Road edge, as
suggested in the staff memo,to ensure that what they propose can thrive in wet conditions.
Gaffron suggested the landscaping be extended further to the east to screen the dumpster more
effectively.
Page 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#12 AND #13) 8:00 P.M. #02-2842 AND #02-2843 PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES OF
ORONO,INC. 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, Continued
Berg moved,Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2842, for
Professional Properties of Orono, Inc., the proposed rezoning of 2745 Kelley Parkway to B-
6 Highway Commercial District. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Berg moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application#02-2843,
Orono Professional Properties,2765 Kelley Parkway, approving the Final Development
Plan including, the site plan, architectural design, lighting and signage plans, and
landscape plans as presented subject to staff comments and conditions 1-3 as noted earlier
in the Minutes. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Dahlstrom Development indicated that they would allow the Planning Commission to finish
hearing the residential applications before their items.
OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED
(#7) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER,3850 SHORELINE DRIVE,
FINDING OF SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR USE AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW 9:01 - 9:14 P.M.
Barbara and Jay Hensley, Applicants, were present.
Bottenberg explained that the applicant, Barbara Hensley, intends to purchase the property at
3850 Shoreline Drive, which is currently operated as"Bay Furniture". The applicant intends to
operate an upscale resale store called"Hope Chest for Breast Cancer". The proposed business
will continue to sell furniture, antiques, crystal/china,jewelry, and home accessories such as
lamps,pictures, and rugs. There will be a limited amount of clothing and accessories.
The application is two-fold: 1)Findings of Similar Use to allow the furniture store to operate as
a permitted or conditional use. If the Planning Commission and City Council deem the proposed
use to be substantially similar to other uses in a specific zoning district,they can allow it. 2)The
second part of the application is the commercial site plan review. The property is zoned B-5,
Limited Neighborhood business District.
Bottenberg reported that the Planning Commission tabled this application in September to
provide additional time for the applicants and the City to determine what impacts the parking lot
expansion has on the property. Secondly, the City had to determine what erosion control
measures were necessary to ensure the parking lot improvements work. The applicant's surveyor
indicates the existing site hardcover is 45%, the proposed parking revisions will reduce it to
43%. Rather than delaying their acquisition, the future owners have agreed to complete the
requirements as suggested by the City Engineer to improve the parking lot and eliminate impacts
to the wetland to the north. Since the applicants would not take ownership of the property until
Page 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #02-2831 HOPE CHEST FOR BREAST CANCER,3850 SHORELINE DRIVE,
Continued
mid-November, Bottenberg explained that much of the work identified as I -V in the staff memo
would not be completed until spring, 2003.
Ms. Hensley asked that the Planning Commission make its recommendation and approvals
contingent on the applicants purchasing the property, since she could not guarantee any of the
work until the property was purchased.
There were no public comments.
Hawn complimented the applicants on their willingness to take on the outstanding issues already
present themselves in order to move the process forward.
Mabusth asked staff if there were any items on the list of five outstanding issues that would need
to be completed now.
Mr. Hensley noted that attempts to work with the current owner on the issues were diminishing.
Ms. Hensley added that they would attempt to do whatever they could to install the silt fencing
before winter.
Berg suggested that they consider using bales of straw versus the silt fencing, as it is more
effective during the winter months.
Ms. Hensley stated that straw could be laid.
Chair Smith asked that item Ia be changed to reflect that silt fencing or bales of straw would be
acceptable.
Mabusth moved,Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2831,Hope
Chest for Breast Cancer,3850 Shoreline Drive, based on the conclusion that the proposed
use is substantially similar to the existing use as a furniture store and to other permitted
uses in the district,furthermore, approval of the commercial site plan be subject to the
applicants completing the items listed as items I-V on page two of the staff memo,
contingent on the applicants purchasing the property. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
(#8) #02-2837 JEFF DANBERRY,3545 IVY PLACE,VARIANCE 9:15 - 9:36 P.M.
Mr. Danberry,the Applicant, was present.
Weinberger explained that the property owner has requested a front yard setback variance to
permit a 14' third stall addition to the attached garage. The proposed addition would encroach
Page 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #02-2837 JEFF DANBERRY,3545 IVY PLACE, Continued
12' into the required 30' setback to the front/street property line. Weinberger pointed out that
the applicants' property is a 1 acre lot at the northwest end of Ivy Place with 225 feet of frontage
on Lake Minnetonka and 230 feet of frontage on Ivy Place. The City Code requires a 30'
setback to the street property line (Ivy Place), and at the time of construction the house and
garage met the minimum required setback.
Weinberger indicated that staff does not support the application for a variance to a property with
a conforming structure, on a conforming lot, built after the standards for the zoning district were
established. Although the project would reduce hardcover, staff could not support the change to
a conforming house built after the current zoning standards. Staff was concerned that approving
a variance for this project sets a negative precedent for additions and alterations to conforming
structures on conforming lots, especially since this lot was developed under the current standards
for the district.
Had the lot not had cross-easements on either side of the home, Mr. Danberry stated that he
could have done this addition without a variance and still been conforming.
There were no public comments.
Hawn asked if there would be bituminous driveway by the stall.
Mabusth pointed out that the back up area allowed for the stall would be tight, and indicated that
the addition is a two-story addition.
Chair Smith asked what the third stall was needed for.
The applicant indicated that it would be used for a vehicle.
Mabusth believed the applicant had a hardship based on the presence of the cross-easements.
Weinberger maintained that a one stall detached building could be built, if hardcover would not
be an issue.
Bremer believed the attached garage addition to be the best design for this lot.
Mabusth agreed that a detached garage could be put in the side yard, however the best spot for
the addition would be close to the existing garage.
Although he could build a detached garage in the side yard, Mr. Danberry indicated that the
neighbors would probably have an issue with its placement there since it would infringe upon
their views. Where proposed, the garage addition is tucked into a wooded area of the lot.
Page 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#8) #02-2837 JEFF DANBERRY,3545 IVY PLACE, Continued
Hawn stated that she could side on the hardship argument, and since the applicant does not
exceed his hardcover, she felt the addition would be better hidden from view where proposed.
Chair Smith inquired about removing the lower portion of the circle drive and questioned what
would be done if the applicant came back to request a third curb cut.
Rahn asked what the plans for the tuck under portion of the garage were.
Danberry stated the tuck under portion would be simply used for storage and he would have no
intention of adding a third curb cut. With regard to removing the lower portion of the circle
drive, Danberry indicated that for safety purposes at the end of the street, he felt the circle
driveway was necessary.
Fritzler pointed out that staff had a valid argument that this could be establishing a precedent,
therefore he could not support the application.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2837,Jeff
Danberry,3545 Ivy Place, granting a front yard setback variance to permit a 14' third stall
addition to be made to the attached garage, not to exceed hardcover by 25%, and
recognizing that although a conforming lot, the lot is compromised by shoreline on one
side, cross easements, and at the end of the road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2. Fritzler and
Chair Smith dissenting for reasons noted earlier.
(#9) #02-2841 DAVID DICKEY, 4425 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE 9:37 -9:41
P.M.
David Dickey, Applicant, was present.
Bottenberg noted that the applicant had recently acquired the property and was proposing to
make improvements to it. The applicant had requested a hardcover in 75-250' setback zone
variance to permit construction of an attached garage and foyer to the existing residence. The
addition would increase hardcover to 4,965 s.f. (33%), from 4,565 s.f. (30.8%). She indicated
that staff recommends approval of the variance request.
Mr. Dickey stated that he would like to obtain more living space, greater depth, and better
aesthetics.
There were no public comments.
Hawn had no problem with the application. Other Commissioners agreed.
Page 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #02-2841 DAVID DICKEY, 4425 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued
Bremer moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2841,
David Dickey, 4425 North Shore Drive, granting the hardcover in 75-250' setback zone
variance to construct an attached garage and foyer to the existing residence. VOTE: Ayes
7, Nays 0.
(#10) #02-2844 BRUCE AND CAROL HEDBLOM,2601 CASCO POINT ROAD,
VARIANCE 9:42 -9:51 P.M.
Bruce and Carol Hedblom, Applicants, were present.
Weinberger explained that the applicants had requested a hardcover variance to permit alteration
to existing hardcover in the 75-250' setback to permit construction of a residential addition. The
addition would replace an existing three season porch and add another 223 s.f. of living space to
the home. The actual hardcover would not increase on the property. The 19' X 28' addition
would connect the main residence with the garage and be used as a master bedroom suite and
storage space.
Weinberger noted that staff recommends approval of the variance and pointed out that the
applicants request that the removals from the driveway be delayed until after the construction in
order to provide the construction trucks a staging area while they work. In addition, Weinberger
stated that staff recommends the installation of gutters accompany the addition in order to direct
water from the south side of the residence towards the lake and not directly at the neighbor.
Gary Marquant, 2617 Casco Point Road, stated that he supported his neighbors proposed
addition and installation of gutters.
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #02-2844, Bruce
and Carol Hedblom,2601 Casco Point Road, a hardcover variance to permit alteration to
existing hardcover in the 75-250' setback to permit construction of a residential addition,
subject to the three staff conditions as noted in their memo of 11/11/02,with the exception
that the blacktop removals be allowed to occur next spring, by May 30,2003, along with
the installation of gutters. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 9:51 p.m.- 9:58 p.m.)
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL
9:58 - 11:50 P.M.
Steve Johnston and Kendra Lindahl, Landform and Dahlstrom Development representatives,
were present.
Page 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
r
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Gaffron began with a brief overview of the eight topics that the Planning Commission was
requested to review in order to make recommendations to the Council. The eight issues were as
follows:
1) Acceptability of site layout
2) Acceptability of building styles and proposed materials and color palettes
3) Acceptability of provisions for pedestrian circulation, accessibility, and connectivity
4) Acceptability of recreation amenities, both private and public
5) Recommendations on site lighting as well as Kelley Parkway streetscape and lighting
6) Acceptability of overall landscape plan
7) Recommendations regarding housing affordability
8) Recommendations regarding development covenants
The Planning Commission was encouraged to identify any further issues and recommend
revisions or changes as they saw fit. Gaffron noted that the applicants have requested that the
Planning Commission make their recommendation to Council for Council action on November
12 in order to meet the applicant's schedule. Once again, Gaffron stated that any
recommendation for approval should include a recommendation that the applicants work with
staff to resolve outstanding engineering and other related issues noted in the memo or those that
come to light in the future.
Gaffron pointed out that both Tom Kellogg and Shelly Johnson, of Bonestroo were present to
provide comment on engineering issues and the traffic study.
With regard to streets and trails, Gaffron stated that there were minor revisions for discussion, he
pointed out that there was a separate entrance and exit road at the main entrance, a circular
structure in the middle of the development, a new southeast end access for emergency vehicles,
and that the suggested 15' separation between loft buildings had been achieved for the most part.
He maintained that further discussion would be needed to address the consolidation of the loft
accesses. While they were still working on specific engineering issues, the Fire Marshall did not
have too many concerns other than tweaking hydrant locations. As indicated in the staff memo,
and after speaking to Consultant Case, Gaffron stated that Case's feeling was that this was a nice
landscape plan, which exceeds the general requirements.
Since the Commission was familiar with the application, Chair Smith suggested that rather than
have Gaffron review the entire staff memo, he take questions with regard to each issue.
Chair Smith stated that she was pleased with the plan and asked Johnston if he could identify any
similar housing units elsewhere, that she could preview as representative of Dahlstrom's work or
others.
John Hassler, of Dahlstrom Development, maintained that there would be a variety of different
scenarios within the development, and not strictly one color palette or style to choose from.
Page 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Chair Smith asked for further clarification of sites she could look at with regard to a similar look
or density.
Mr. Hassler indicated that it was most difficult for them to find a similar two story rambler style
townhome for the Commissioners to drive by and compare. The Colt estate development in
Minnetonka would be the closest to this style he could think of, otherwise, he would put together
a list of locations with similar style homes and provide that to the Commission.
Chair Smith asked how soon they could provide the Commission with the representative list.
Hassler indicated that it would be first thing the next morning.
Hawn inquired as to the price points the different designs would be listed at.
Hassler stated that the lofts would be priced in the $225,000 range; the rambler style twinhomes,
in two or three different styles, would approximately run in the mid $400's; and the two story
townhomes would be priced from $300,000 - $320,000.
With regard to the circulation, Johnston clarified that a sidewalk width of 3' was proposed when
it merely was used as the walkway to the front door of a house, the average streetside sidewalks
were approximately 5' wide, which allows for two people walking next to one another. Where
there would be bike traffic, there were separate trails proposed. Johnston indicated that it was
their desire to keep the hardcover at a minimum. He pointed out that the architectural look
would not be modular block, but mostly stacked limestone chunks.
Hawn asked if the limestone look would be similar to that of the airport.
Johnston stated that the placement would be in a more random pattern.
Mabusth asked if the retaining walls would exceed 4'.
Johnston noted that it was their intention to stay below 4', however, in the event the walls were
higher for some reason, the developer would install handrails.
Mabusth questioned the retaining walls proposed for the back loft building.
Johnston stated that the back loft building would be more narrowly defined in the future as the
developer meets with the City to plan that phase of the project. Johnston maintained that this
was merely a preliminary drawing for the building, with a final to be presented to the
Commission likely next fall.
Johnston added that in the near future, street names would likely replace the east, west, north,
and south designations. In general, Johnston pointed out that the Commission could look at the
Page 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
limestone, rock, and color palettes in the back of the room that accompany the architectural style
drawings the Commission had seen previously.
Chair Smith asked what the proposed timeline to complete, C5-1, the various phases.
Johnston stated that Phase 1, which would include the main entrance drive, and some rambler
and two story townhome designs, would be completed first, followed by other phases which the
market forces would direct. Phase 1 would likely be complete next fall and the Commission
would be reviewing the next phase at that time.
Chair Smith asked again for a timeline from ground breaking to completion.
Johnston noted that the developer was anticipating a three year build out, during which the loft
units could be built at any time, and development of Phases A, B, and C would depend on market
forces. Ground breaking would depend on spring weather.
Mabusth asked how many units would comprise Phase 1.
Gaffron indicated that 19 two story units and 23 ramblers were proposed for Phase 1.
Hawn inquired when the trails would be added.
Johnston pointed out that the trails would be built with the construction of the infrastructure.
Berg questioned how the affordability issue had been resolved and wondered what units would
be considered affordable.
Gaffron stated that initially the proposal was for 2 condos and 2 two-stories or 3 two-stories,
however at the last City Council meeting, the Council suggested that neither of these two options
went far enough to accomplishing the desire for affordability. The Council asked that either a
wholehearted effort be done to accomplish affordability or they acknowledge that this isn't the
project to accomplish it. In order to determine this, the Council asked Dahlstrom to provide
financial information from a consultant so that the City Council could consider whether there are
built-in profits that could be used by the developer to do more affordable housing within this
project, or it might be determined that after all that is put into this development it might be
asking enough to be provided with the few units the City has been suggesting. Gaffron indicated
that the Council was not eager to waive any fees to help buy down the cost of affordable
housing, and because of the fee structure for sewer and assessments there is a $7,000
contribution per unit through the entire project by the City that somehow should be accounted for
in affordability already. All of that being said, Gaffron stated that the applicants would be
providing more information to the City Council, through Ron Moorse, on the financial mix for
Page 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
this project so that the Council could come to a decision about what they should be asking for
over the next week or two.
Mr. Dahlstrom interjected that they would be meeting with Administrator Ron Moorse and their
financial people in the near future to see what's available, and discuss the issues of affordability
and how the City could participate with them in order to achieve affordability.
Loraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, stated that, according to her recollection, the last time
the development was discussed, the affordable units were going to run $170,000, she questioned
how these had gone up so considerably since then, at a current price point of $220,000. She
indicated that, according to the papers, the Met Council has been contacting local municipalities
and questioning why they have not been willing to participate in affordable housing initiatives
and cautioned the Council that they could be next.
Dahlstrom pointed out that the $170,000 price point Mrs. Kaley was referring to was likely what
the Met Council had identified as affordable. He indicated his willingness to work with the City
in determining what level of affordability they will use to define this project and keep in check
what sort of income level people have to have in order to qualify for those homes. He added that
he would be attempting to bring in Don Soley, of US Banks, to talk with the City about what is
affordable.
Lindahl agreed that the affordable housing issue is a very complicated subject. She pointed out
that it is difficult to compare Orono to other communities who have housing departments, like
Minnetonka and Plymouth, where people work full time to get funding sources lined up. The
challenge here is to design a program that provides affordable housing that the City says they
want and need, without having the staff dedicated to making the housing affordable and keeping
it affordable over the long term. Although a difficult task, it would be possible to make
affordable is Imes at $199,000, but Lindahl stated they don't want to see those homes resold the
next year at a huge profit rather than being kept affordable units.
Hawn stated that she had difficulty moving this application forward without the traffic report in
hand. Furthermore, since this was slated for affordable housing, she could not, in good
conscience, support the proposal without a measure of affordability built into the project. -
Shelly Johnson, of Bonestroo, stated that he had been conducting the traffic study and apologized
that the actual report would not be available until the end of the week. With this being said,
Johnson indicated that they had defined Kelley Parkway as a mini-collector road. He believed
that once all of the parcels were developed, one would see 2000-4000 trips per day on Kelley
Parkway, easily supported by a 32' roadway and 30 mph. From a traffic perspective, Johnson
stated that it was a nice project with good access, and once the third drive from the loft area was
eliminated, it would work wonderfully. Finally, he noted that they would recommend two
approach lanes to Willow be added.
Page 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Hawn questioned how this might affect stacking problems on Highway 12.
Johnson stated that he did not foresee any stacking or cueing problems at the intersection, in fact,
he pointed out that the new highway redevelopment of 12 would alleviate traffic on the current
highway by 40%.
Berg inquired whether the future commercial development was taken into consideration when
they looked at the traffic that would be created on Kelley Parkway, Willow, and Highway 12.
Johnson indicated that they take everything into consideration when they make their projections.
Gaffron asked what Johnson foresaw for the Highway 12 and Willow intersection.
Johnson stated that they recommend the City widen Willow to make access safer and create a
center turn lane along Willow.
Gaffron questioned the recommendation for the Willow and County Road 6 intersection.
Since the intersection already meets traffic signal warrants, Johnson suggested the City approach
the County to try to get an all way stop sign installed. He agreed this was a hazardous
intersection.
Mabusth asked what the off site needs for this development might entail and how dependent on
the MnDOT improvements, of the sewer lines along the railway and lake, the developer would
be.
Gaffron maintained that the City's expectation is that the MnDOT corridor work is slated for
completion by next summer, at which time, the sewer line upgrades would come between
Highway 12 and the corridor. By the time these units would come on board, Gaffron stated they
would have the capacity to handle them.
Kellogg stated that it has been known for some time that improvements would need to be made,
and until MnDOT completes its work, the temporary lift station could handle some of the
development units temporarily. He believed the timing looked as if it should all work out.
Mabusth reminded the applicant that a stormwater retention pond was necessary, and asked if
any other improvements were needed off site for this development.
While he acknowledged that the applicant had already addressed needed improvements, Kellogg
indicated that the only difficulty is that the discharge from the ponds has to run across Highway
12, take a 90 degree turn to the west, and another 90 degree turn to get to the swales that carries
it back to the railroad tracks, at little or no grade.
Page 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Mabusth asked if the retention ponds were part of development Phase 1.
Johnston agreed that the retention pond and other things would accompany Phase 1.
With regard to the punch list of 8 items in the staff memo, Chair Smith asked for Commission
reaction to the first item, site layout.
Rahn asked if the applicant was receptive to changing the size of the roundabout.
Johnston stated that they would look at the size of the roundabout with Bonestroo, as well as, the
third driveway by the lofts that was added due to the 10' drop in the grade differences.
Gaffron suggested the applicant consider a consolidated side entrance access for both loft
buildings versus the proposed 2-3 accesses shown currently.
With regard to the color palettes, Gaffron stated that the Commission's goal should be to tie
them down to ensure the City knows what they are getting.
Johnston indicated that what they were displaying that evening was a style and a sample of
colors they propose, and he ensured the Commission that what they don't want is a single color
only repeated throughout the entire development.
Gaffron pointed out that the publics view would be more than just the front, and suggested the
applicants consider continuing the front facade around the building since the two story views
would be seen throughout the neighborhood.
Hassler stated that their intent was to install brick on the front and back of the buildings and
provide variations.
Similar to the Renaissance development, Dahlstrom noted that these units would be all brick
with some similarities and variations, and he realized that they need to enhance the rear as well
as the front.
Hassler stated that they would be using materials such as, cultured stone, brick, hardy plank
(which could be painted). He indicated that it was their desire to blend all of the materials so that
they compliment each other but not necessarily duplicate or look like a hodge podge of styles.
Gaffron pointed out that the hardy plank was also used on the new senior housing building.
Fritzler asked if vinyl siding would be used.
Page 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Dahlstrom stated that there would be no vinyl siding. They would be using the natural tones and
lime stones, brick, etc.
Chair Smith asked for comment on the connectivity, safety, and pedestrian circulation.
Hawn suggested they consider a wetland bridge structure as opposed to the jog in the trail along
Willow near the wetlands.
Gaffron recommended they, at least, aim the trail with a `Y' directing users around the triangular
green space.
With regard to recreation, Hawn asked if the applicant would be installing the playground
equipment.
Johnston indicated they would be putting it in.
Gaffron pointed out that there would be family housing potential and recommended the applicant
build the tot lot.
With regard to Kelley Parkway lighting and streetscapes, Gaffron pointed out that the applicant
had provided several suggestions and he asked the Commission for their feedback on the type of
feel they'd like to create and if their desire was for dark skies or highly lit skies like at Otten
Brothers. He asked what they found most logical, a subtle box light, or decorative lighting and
whether their goal would be to continue Long Lake's street lamp look.
Mabusth asked what Shelly Johnson,traffic consultant, would suggest.
Johnson stated that he would recommend at least enough light to ensure safe night driving along
Kelley Parkway.
Chair Smith questioned whether they could add interest with lighting.
Bremer pointed out that there were nice suggestions included in the packet.
Johnston stated that, of the three suggestions, he personally preferred the straight poles with any
of the three lamp looks. He did not believe shoe box lights to be the best recommendation.
Fritzler suggested harmonia lights along Kelley Parkway and Nostalgia on the side roads in the
development.
Mabusth and Gaffron agreed that they would prefer staggered irregular lighting along Kelley
Parkway.
Page 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
r -
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARICWAY,
Continued
Gaffron pointed out that there was nothing in the current code that designates how much lighting
is necessary.
Chair Smith stated that item 6, acceptability of overall landscape plan, and item 7, a
recommendation for housing affordability had been discussed.
With regard to the covenants, Gaffron stated that staff had not looked closely enough at them yet
and the City Attorney would need to review them before making any recommendations. He
asked that the Commission let him know if anything further should be added to the covenants.
Chair Smith indicated that she would prefer that most of the ponds remain natural.
Gaffron asked if the Commission would like to see a fountain running in the NURP pond across
the street from the main entrance.
Chair Smith's first reaction was no fountain, after which she recommended a more natural
looking water feature be planted.
Hawn felt aeration would be good in order to avoid the green scum accumulation on the pond.
Gaffron asked the applicant to explain the water feature.
Johnston stated that the water feature would pump water from the center pool along a shallow
creek bed.
Chair Smith was concerned that children might have access to the water feature.
Johnston stated that the creek feature would not be intended for children and indicated that there
would be a landscaped edge between the traffic and creek.
Mrs. Kaley asked what sort of planting would occur in the northwest and east areas.
Johnston indicated that rain gardens and small landscaped ponds would treat water naturally with
native vegetation. Benches would be placed randomly in those areas.
Gaffron pointed out that where wetland encroachment might occur, retaining walls would be
built.
Intended to be an idealized creek, Johnston stated that the bed would be planted with specific
materials that wouldn't require a great deal of maintenance.
Chair Smith indicated that this would to pleasing to her.
Page 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Mabusth asked if the water would be chemically treated.
Johnston stated that there should be enough movement as to not require chemicals as they've
planned it.
Chair Smith asked if there were additional comments.
Gaffron stated that the application was slated for the November 12, 2002 City Council meeting at
which time he would try to put together a 1st draft of developers agreement and resolution, with
a similar degree of detail as the concept plan. He reiterated to the Commission that if they had
any further comments to speak now.
Fritzler questioned the future bus stop site.
Johnston pointed out that the MnDOT site would be the most logical space for a bus stop.
Fritzler asked if there was fear that people might use this as a park and ride area.
Johnston indicated that the parking time could be limited.
Gaffron stated that there could be a separate space for a future bus park and ride later.
With regard to the drawings, Chair Smith asked what would go at the other ends of the MnDOT
trails.
Gaffron stated that these would be developed sites.
Johnston indicated that the applicants were pretty flexible and went to MnDOT to ask for
everything they might need now rather than going back for more later.
Hawn questioned whether the Commission could take action subject to further information from
the traffic study and affordable housing issues have been addressed.
Gaffron stated that they could make their motion and include a recommendation which gives the
City Council further direction.
Hawn asked if there was a need to make a motion regarding the rezoning and RPUD, or merely
final development plan approval, which makes references to the Commission's feelings..
Gaffron indicated that the rezoning was treated as inherent in the process of the concept plan
approvals. He pointed out that the phasing of fees was also something that the Commission did
not discuss, however, would be included in the final resolution put before the City Council.
Page 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21, 2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#14) #02-2840 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 KELLEY PARKWAY,
Continued
Gaffron reminded the Commission that this would be the last time the Planning Commission
would see Phase 1, unless a major change were to occur.
Chair Smith moved, to accept Application #02-2789/#02-2840, Dahlstrom Development,
LLC, "2550" Kelley Parkway, recommending the granting of Preliminary Plat and Final
Development Plan Approval which includes rezoning of this property. With regard to site
layout, building styles, proposed materials, and color palettes, pedestrian circulation,
accessibility, and connectivity, recreation amenities both public and private, and overall
landscape plan the Planning Commission would recommend approval. In addition, the
Planning Commission recommends the City Council pursue site lighting, Kelley Parkway
lighting and streetscape, housing affordability, and development covenants, and grants
approval of the phasing concept, and approval for preliminary plat and final platting for
Phase 1, subject to the final traffic report and affordable issues being resolved, and the
applicants work with staff to resolve outstanding engineering and other related issues
either noted in this memo or which may come to light in the future.
Rahn stated that the Planning Commission has awaited the traffic study since day 1.
Chair Smith stated that the Commission would prefer resolution of the affordable housing issue,
traffic study, and consultants plan all take place before City Council makes its final decision.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#15) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 23,2002 AND OCTOBER 14,2002
September 23, Mabusth stated that the Welsh application was discussed and approved for a 44'
setback. She reported that the Tidwell Tree on Concordia, the preservation of which was tied to
the approval of a variance there, had died. Which confirmed Attorney Barrett's assertion, in her
mind, that you should not put contingencies in resolutions based on unique situations, such as
tying the variance to the preservation of a tree, or view it as a valid hardship.
Berg disagreed, stating that one never knows when a large tree will die and it is worth the effort
to conserve these natural beauties.
October 14, Berg noted that there was discussion about driveway access. She reported that the
proposed office/condo for Navarre was reviewed and then tabled after the Council decided they
would need to examine the overall Navarre area before going forward with this proposal.
Gaffron added that beyond the Fox Street driveway discussion, the CPUD was also discussed.
Page 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 21,2002
6:30 o'clock p.m.
--
(#16) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron pointed out that the Planning Commission would need to schedule a work session for
November or December. The meeting will be held December 2, 2002 at 6:00 P.M.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 4,
2002 AND SEPTEMBER 16,2002
Hawn moved,Berg seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September 4,2002 Planning
Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Fritzler moved, Chair Smith seconded,to approve the Minutes of the September 16,2002
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
OCTOBER 28 AND NOVEMBER 12,2002.
October 28 - Fritzler November 12 - Smith
ADJOURNMENT
Berg moved,Fritzler seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 12:15 A.M.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 12:15 A.M.
Sandra Smith, Chair
Page 30