HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE
❑ COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. l� C 1-1-L ►) 1�` :i c 5 tie e to g ( U
2. EC' / r 3 C)_ A:72 : p/2_,`U o
3. -iTCr c e J IJL- ,6
4. IN /ip ' G rA,s: ,n.0 L-.' vt; �� ,,r ,� /
5. ���. t>��. 1 TE'✓rz�:y+. La Ail
C:::}t Co-r, z,elb--;) —01 :37,cntexilwt.
7. t iL1\ J \
(I'3 .> pi 0 ru a
8.
9. 1-e —3--irc 3s G,o/ 4./0.17 L - 7-f77-c
10. 1--/ 3 e)ct_ _>c�; /�� //77 7/, w/c)oda? .
11. �' t � -)�. - z) -3,41(Lcc
12.
13.
14.
15.
W:\Administrative Support\(Forms)\publc Attendance.wpd
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, J. Mark Fritzler, Jeanne Mabusth,
Cynthia Bremer, Liz Hawn, and Stephanie Zugschwert. Representing staff were Planning
Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Foth and Janice Waataja, Recorder Kristi
Anderson and City Council liaison Jim White.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1)#03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HUTTON, 1835 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE
Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded,to table Application #03-2935, Scott and Kara
Hutton, 1835 Shadywood Road,to the October meeting at the request of staff.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#2) #03-2939 PETE AND MAXINE THORKELSON, 440 BIG ISLAND,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2939,
Pete and Maxine Thorkelson, 440 Big Island, a request for a Conditional Use Permit
to allow septic system improvements in street right of way provided the following
conditions are met: The applicant acknowledges that placement of septic system
connection pipes within the right-of-way is at their own risk and the applicant shall,
prior to placement of improvements within the right-of-way, execute a hold harmless
agreement which releases, indemnifies and holds harmless the City and the public
from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the
platted right-of-way by applicant and their invitees. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#3) #03-2949 DOUG OLSON AND BARB BOWERS, 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE
ROAD,VARIANCE
Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2949,
Doug Olson and Barb Bowers, 2601 West Lafayette Road, granting an average
lakeshore setback variance for construction of a 2nd story addition above existing
living space on a home situated approximately 90' into the average lakeshore setback.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
PAGE 1 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #03-2941 PAUL CADY,465 TURNHAM ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT
This application was removed from the consent agenda for discussion.
Ray Miller,the builder and applicant's representative, was present.
While the applicant had submitted plans showing a proposed pool and barn to be located
on the property, the barn did not meet the 75' setback required by code. Waataja reported
that the applicant has requested a conditional use permit to construct only the pool on the
`through' lot at this time and would be submitting new plans for a CUP at a later date
showing the revised location for the barn. She indicated that staff recommends approval of
the CUP subject to the pool being constructed in the location shown on the submitted
plans.
Miller stated that it was their intention from the beginning to include the barn as part of the
original application; however, through a misunderstanding the barn was omitted from the
application. He indicated that they would work with staff to meet the setback requirements
for the barn and file a follow-up application for its placement. He believed it would be no
problem for them to redesign to meet code.
Tim Otten, the adjacent neighbor at 425 Turnham, stated that he was curious to hear about
the proposal, the requirements, and the number of horses allowed.
Miller stated that it was not their intent to house any more horses on the site than they were
allowed, and that he would answer any of the neighbor's questions.
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2941,
Paul Cady, 465 Turnham Road, granting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a
pool on a `through' lot subject to approval of the pool location in the submitted plans.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#5) #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, 995 WILDHURST TRAIL,VARIANCE, 6:10—
6:40 P.M.
Scott Nagel, representative for the Applicant,was present.
Gaffron stated that the applicants have down-scaled their requests for variances to exclude
the garage addition and the lakeside deck bumpout, and to now just enclose a slightly
smaller portion of an existing second story deck as screen porch, and construct an enclosed
entryway at the front door. The variances include:
1. Average setback encroachment by decks and screen porch.
PAGE 2 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, Continued)
2. While hardcover is not increasing with this proposal, it is noted that the 75-250' zone
remains out of compliance with the 1995 hardcover approvals for this property.
Applicants propose to remove two areas of existing concrete - an apron behind the garage,
and an unused walkway/apron between the front porch and the driveway.
Gaffron reported that staff's recommendation would be to approve the enclosure of the
screen porch per the revised plan over a portion of existing 1st story deck, approve the
extension of roof to cover the portion of the front porch per the revised plan, and that, in
addition to the 225 s.f. of hardcover removals proposed, that an additional 75 s.f. of
hardcover be removed to reduce the site to the 4,910 s.f. limit of the 1995 approval. He
suggested that the removal consist of a 1 1/2' width of driveway its entire length.
Chair Smith questioned whether removal of driveway hardcover would be the appropriate
answer due to safety concerns and, since oftentimes, it returns in time.
Gaffron acknowledged that, at times, the removals return without permit.
Rahn pointed out that it was the structural cover percent that disturbed him most. as
opposed to hardcover.
Zugschwert questioned whether the removals of hardcover the applicants have achieved,
without an increase in hardcover, warrants approval of their request.
Nagel pointed out that their lot is approximately 1 1/2 acres, although a portion of their
property is swamp land across the street. He believed they were limited by the buildable
area of the lot and the 8' easement taken by the road which,with an additional 2'-3' fails to
be acknowledged in the lot survey. He indicated that what's been referred to as a second
story `deck' would actually be an enclosed great room.
Chair Smith asked what the applicant thought of the staff recommendation.
Nagel stated that, he believed, they had reduced the hardcover as much as possible without
losing more of their driveway which is already been narrowed near the third garage stall.
Gaffron indicated that, originally, the applicants had requested additional hardcover;
however, have revised the application to scale back any increase and provide additional
removals.
After inheriting problems with purchase of the home, Nagel pointed out that they had gone
to considerable lengths to work with staff at reducing hardcover. He maintained that
PAGE 3 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, Continued)
reducing the driveway further would make access to the third car garage difficult, since the
driveway is not excessive now.
There were no public comments.
Although an inherited problem, Hawn stated that she failed to see a hardship to justify the
excessive hardcover.
Mabusth stated that the variance request provides the Commission with the opportunity to
bring the lot back into conformancy.
Bremer asked what the length of the driveway was and whether other areas of hardcover
could be removed.
Gaffron stated that the driveway was 53' long and that the applicants had made reductions
to other areas to achieve the 225 s.f. removals. As nothing exists in the 0-75' setback zone,
Gaffron maintained that he could see no other areas to remove hardcover than the
driveway.
Fritzler stated that driving on grass does not constitute a hardship and that now is the time
to demand compliance for present and future owners of the property.
Rahn noted that, in reality, the lot is already 10% over its 25%hardcover limitation and
that what is being asked is typical of what's has been required in the past.
There were no public comments.
Based on Commission feedback, Chair Smith urged the applicant to find an additional 75
s.f. to remove. She asked the applicant how the Commission should proceed.
Nagel asked the Commission to vote on his application.
Rahn moved, Zugschwert seconded,to recommend Approval of Application #03-
2905,Heidi B. Nagel, 995 Wildhurst Trail, granting approval of an average lakeshore
setback variance to allow the enclosure of the great room per the revised plan over a
portion of existing 1St story deck, and an extension of roof to cover the portion of the
front porch per the revised plan, subject to the additional removal of 75 s.f. of
hardcover identified prior to City Council action. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Fritzler as
the dissenting vote did not believe the driveway removals would not return.
PAGE 4 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6) #03-2929 JEFF MARTINEAU, 2565 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, 6:40—7:24 P.M.
Jeff Martineau, the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for plumbing in an
accessory structure, to allow installation of a half bath(toilet, sink and shower) in a
proposed detached garage with upper level exercise and sitting room. The proposed plans
include a kitchenette with range, sink and refrigerator, and could easily function as a small
guest house as designed. However, the property does not contain adequate acreage for a
guest house CUP (would need 4 acres in this 2-acre zone).
The proposed structure and its associated driveway are all within the 75-250'zone. This
building will replace a smaller existing storage building located northeast of the house.
Significant portions of the existing residence are within the 0-75' zone. The new accessory
building and driveway would increase hardcover beyond the hardcover allotment for the
property absent any removals. Applicant has submitted a hardcover removal plan that
would result in the overall hardcover limit on the property being met, so that no hardcover
variance is required. The structure will meet all pertinent setbacks.
Gaffron indicated that the applicant proposes to construct a detached 844 s.f. 2-stall garage
with adjacent shop area, and a second level with a sitting room, exercise room, screen
porch plus half-bath and kitchenette (range, sink and refrigerator). As depicted in the plans,
the proposed structure contains all the features that would make it functional as a guest
house. However, the property is in a 2-acre zone and is only 1.5 acres in area, so it does
not qualify for a Guest House CUP which requires double the zoning district acreage, or 4
acres. Gaffron noted that the applicant has indicated he is willing to remove elements of
the kitchenette necessary to disqualify this as a guest house.
The criteria or conditions for a CUP for accessory structure plumbing include:
1. The Council must find that the proposed use of the accessory structure with
plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood.
2. The Council must find that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the
intended use of the accessory building.
3. The property must be 2.0 acres in area or larger.
4. The accessory building must be conforming in location, size and height.
5. The property owner must agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the
property providing that:
a. the accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless
specifically approved by City or if allowed by City code.
b. the accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest
house CUP is obtained.
c. the accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise
provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances.
PAGE 5 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6 #03-2929 JEFF MARTINEAU, Continued)
While Gaffron acknowledged that Conditions 4 and 5 were met,he indicated that
Condition 3 was not met. He recommended that the Planning Commission review
Conditions 1 and 2 with the applicant to determine whether they were also met. In
addition, Gaffron believed it should be noted that the Council has granted a number of
Plumbing in Accessory Structure CUPs for properties less than 2 acres in recent years, and
as recently as last week.
Gaffron explained that staff recommends approval of the CUP for plumbing in an
accessory structure, subject to the code restrictions on use of that structure:
- cannot be used for a home occupation unless allowed by home occupation
ordinances
- cannot be used as a dwelling unit unless Guest house CUP is obtained
- cannot be rented, leased, or otherwise provided for use as dwelling.
In addition, staff recommends that concurrent removals of excess hardcover be required as
proposed, to result in a final hardcover not exceeding the site's hardcover allotment of
7530 s.f. for the area between 0-250'. Note that the unused hardcover allowance in the
250-500'zone cannot be transferred to zones closer to the lake.
Rahn questioned whether the proposed bathroom constituted a '/2 or 3/4 bath.
Gaffron felt the code defined it as a half bath configuration.
Chair Smith asked the applicant to explain the purpose of the building.
A self proclaimed `career remodeler', Martineau stated that his family arrangements had
recently changed and required him to create more livable space in his home. He noted that
the lower level living area has ceiling heights of merely 6' and that the 2 bedroom home
does not offer adequate room for a family. He stated that the proposed addition workout
room would be for his use to free up the small bedroom in the home. He indicated that,
unfortunately, he was misinformed by what constitutes an accessory space versus a guest
house and would be more than willing to omit the kitchenette from the design. As if trying
to piece together a puzzle, Martineau admitted that he has undergone numerous
construction projects over the years in an effort to improve his property. He stated that he
would remove the circle driveway in order to meet hardcover restrictions, which would not
be necessary as part of the new design and driveway setup anyway.
Chair Smith reiterated that limitations exist to prohibit the addition from becoming an
apartment for his children in the future. She felt this would not be inconsistent to what has
been allowed in the past.
PAGE 6 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6 #03-2929 JEFF MARTINEAU, Continued)
In an effort to establish grounds for the Planning Commission recommendation,
Zugschwert questioned whether the code defined a dwelling or guest house as containing a
fridge, microwave/range, and half bath.
Gaffron admitted that the terms were not well defined within the existing code, citing the
fact that, while the addition of lower level wet bars are allowed uses in homes, accessory
buildings are quite another matter. He agreed that the code should be modified to reduce
the number of allowable fixtures in a guest house, which in turn, limits use.
After meeting with staff, Martineau believed that it was the term `tub' which defined the
guest house use from accessory structure use. He indicated that based on discussion this
evening, he understands there are further limitations.
Chair Smith indicated that the Commission, too, during discussions has found it difficult to
determine the difference between a dwelling and accessory structure; however, she felt
limitations such as kitchens etc. helped to define those differences.
Rahn stated that whether written in the code or not, the Commission could place conditions
on the CUP.
Hawn stated that,while it was clear to her from this discussion what restrictions the
Commission wished to place upon the applicant, she felt a future owner might decide to
turn the structure into a guest house.
Chair Smith indicated that it was her hope that eliminating the kitchenette would deter this
action.
Ed Callahan, the southeast neighbor residing at 2545 North Shore Drive, made light of the
fact that Mr. Martineau's home has been under continual construction since he moved in.
Although Orono is very restrictive, Callahan acknowledged that the applicant is also well
versed in City codes and continues to make changes to changes already made. He stated
that, while it would presumptuous of him to object to the application, he wished staff
would put a note on his own property, as well as the Woodhouse property on the other side
of Mr. Martineau, to advise future owners of the ongoing construction chaos. As he
pointed out that the Woodhouse property was now on the market and alluded to the fact
that he would be doing the same by spring,he urged the city to mandate the applicant not
proceed with his work until June of 2004 in order to allow them time to move on. He asked
that the applicant be forbid to remove the hardcover until June 2004 to avoid the continual
noise of construction as the two neighbors market their homes. Although he felt the
applicant had always been very attentive to his property and what is allowed, once again,
Callahan asked that no further activity, no prep,no removals, no commotion, be allowed
until 6/04.
PAGE 7 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6 #03-2929 JEFF MARTINEAU, Continued)
Chair Smith asked the applicant to try to comment upon the neighbors requests.
Martineau admitted that he was a motivated, hyper, and creative homeowner who was
always trying to improve his property. While he has continued to renovate his home over
the years, Martineau indicated that he was sorry to have had such a negative impact upon
Mr. Callahan. With regard to the other neighbor, Martineau stated that he had just listed
Mrs. Woodhouse's home for sale. He indicated that the nature of the Ordinances is to
allow someone to renovate their home to meet their needs,which he maintained he had
been attempting to do with his substandard property all along. While he wished to be good
neighbor and cooperate with the request to wait until June 2004, Martineau indicated that
he would have to make some adjustments and speak to his contractors. He added that, he
too, would love to avoid removing the hardcover; however,believed the Commission
would have a different view of that request.
Chair Smith thanked the applicant for his cooperation and flexibility in handling the
situation with the neighbor. She suggested Callahan add any notation he chooses to his
own address file for future owners to view. Since the applicant agreed to potentially
postpone additional construction until June, she asked if the applicant had any active
permits on record to fulfill.
While he had no permits that he was currently working on, Martineau maintained that he
has always strived to take care of his property.
Chair Smith reiterated that the garage accessory structure limitations would include a half
bath, no kitchenette, and removal of driveway hardcover to ensure it not be turned into a
guest house.
Rahn stated that he had no issues with the application and complimented the applicant on
the design, as it will look like a garage with attic space. He felt that it would not be a good
idea for the Commission to place limitations on the application restricting him of when he
could actually begin his work. While he could decide, on his goodwill, to delay work until
June 2004, Rahn felt the City should not mandate that timeline to the applicant.
Bremer, Zugschwert, Mabusth, and Fritzler agreed that it was not in the City's authority to
mandate the dates for construction.
Hawn asked the neighbor if he had had issues with the hours of construction the neighbor
had been working under.
Callahan acknowledged that the applicant had always been very considerate of his requests
and not begun construction work until after 8:00 - 8:30 A.M.
PAGE 8 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#6 #03-2929 JEFF MARTINEAU, Continued)
Bremer moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2929,
Jeff Martineau, 2565 North Shore Drive, granting a Conditional Use Permit for
plumbing in an accessory structure for a 3/4 bath, including shower/stool/sink,
(excluding a kitchenette) subject to concurrent removals of excess hardcover to result
in a final hardcover not exceeding the site's hardcover allotment of 7530 s.f. for the
area between 0-250' and code restrictions on use of that structure including that it:
- cannot be used for a home occupation unless allowed by home occupation
ordinances
- cannot be used as a dwelling unit unless Guest house CUP is obtained
- cannot be rented, leased, or otherwise provided for use as dwelling.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0
NEW BUSINESS
(#7) #03-2938 SANDRA S. LARSON, 540 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH,
VARIANCES, 7:24—7:44 P.M.
Kelly Perry, daughter and representative for the Applicants, was present.
Foth explained that the applicants request side yard and street setback variances in order to
construct a 10' x 28' addition to the north side of the existing home. The proposed
addition would not encroach further into the street setback than that of the existing home,
however, would make a conforming side yard setback non-conforming. The proposed
addition would encroach 10' into the currently conforming side yard setback,while there is
ample area on the west side of the home to add 282 s.f. of additional living space.
Since the property is split down the middle by a public alley right of way, this results in the
necessity for a rear yard setback in the center of the property. A fence exists on the alley
right-of-way approximately 20' north of the property line between 540 and 550 (property
to the south). The alley has historically served only the 540 and 500 Orono Orchard Road
properties; however, a recent home addition and garage reorientation at the 500 address has
changed the use of the alley. In summary the alley now serves 540 Orono Orchard Road
exclusively.
While the Planning Department Staff recommends the following:
1. Approval of the street setback variance, since staff finds that a hardship exists to
allow the decreased setback to the rear yard due to platted right of way which splits
the property in half
2. Denial of the side yard setback variance, since staff does not find a hardship to
support the side yard encroachment thus making a currently conforming setback
non-conforming
PAGE 9 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2938 SANDRA S. LARSON, Continued)
Foth asked the Planning Commission to consider these questions as they form their
recommendation:
1. Does the nature of the alley's use primarily as a driveway serving only the
applicants' residence support granting of a variance from the requirement of
meeting a rear yard setback?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that a hardship exists to justify making a
currently conforming side setback non-conforming?
Chair Smith asked why the applicants wished to pursue the side yard setback variance
when there was an suitable conforming location that exists elsewhere on the property.
Perry stated that her parents wish to enclose the walkway that already exists next to the
home in order to construct facilities on the main floor where there are none. She indicated
that if the addition were to be placed west of the home the applicants would need to
remove five large old pine trees on the property and a bank of windows. They felt this to
be an environmentally friendly alternative and one that was more in character with the
homes style.
While sensitive to the loss of trees, Chair Smith stated that trees cannot constitute the only
hardship.
Hawn stated that she did not, for one, have much problem with the proposal. She indicated
that upon visiting the property, she found the design to be consistent and in character with
the neighborhood. She believed the cottage style of the home would be lost if the
applicants were forced to put the addition on the other side.
Bremer concurred, stating that the she felt the character of the neighborhood and the large
pine trees were worth preserving.
Mabusth agreed, stating that the neighborhood has nice size lots and separations, and that
she had no problem with the proposal.
Fritzler disagreed, indicating that the trees should not be an issue and that by allowing
them to expand the footprint in a nonconforming location, new owners might push the
envelope at a later date. He stated that he was on the `fence', cautious with regard to the
hardship question and worried the home might `spread'.
Chair Smith agreed that she would not wish to set a precedent by allowing this proposal.
Rahn too, was on the `fence', although he acknowledged that the home lined up nicely
with the others in the neighborhood and added to the character of the street; whereas, the
alternate location would protrude dramatically.
PAGE 10 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2938 SANDRA S. LARSON, Continued)
Lissa Harvey, 1199 Elmwood Avenue, complimented the Commission for considering the
character of the neighborhood as relevant to the discussion. She was pleased that they
viewed the aesthetics and floorplan as an important element of the proposal.
Perry stated that her parents had no plans to build up or further out, since they wished to
avoid stairs if possible.
Hawn questioned whether the City had granted other similar variances in the neighborhood
which would not make this precedent setting.
Gaffron stated that, the fact is, other variances in the neighborhood had been granted,
including the adjoining neighbor's property.
Zugschwert asked how the other neighbors felt.
Perry stated that they were in support of the proposal and had signed off on that regard.
Bremer moved, Zugschwert seconded,to recommend approval of Application #03-
2938, Kent and Sandra Larson, 540 Orono Orchard Road, granting street setback
and side yard setback variances in order to construct a 10'X28' addition to the north
side of the existing home based on the finding that the hardship is in keeping with the
character of the neighborhood, environmental concern over the loss of 5 large pine
trees, and that it is consistent to what has been done in the past in that neighborhood.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Chair Smith and Fritzler dissenting.
Fritzler recommended denial based on his earlier comments, and Chair Smith felt the
approval went too far over the edge, setting a precedent.
(#8) #03-2940 SCOT AND LISSA HARVEY, 1199 ELMWOOD AVENUE,
VARIANCES, 7:44—8:13 P.M.
Scot and Lissa Harvey, the Applicants, were present.
Waataja explained that the applicants request the following variances to reconstruct a deck
on the lakeside of the home:
1. Hardcover variance for the 0-75' zone to allow 4.56%hardcover when 0% is normally
allowed and 4.56% currently exists.
2. Hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone to allow 38.6%hardcover when 25% is
normally allowed and 38.2%currently exists.
3. Lake setback variance to allow the south west corner of the deck to encroach 3' into the
75' setback.
PAGE 11 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8 #03-2940 SCOT AND LISSA HARVEY, Continued)
Waataja stated that the applicants have submitted plans to reconstruct a deck that is
currently rotted; however, the configuration of the proposed deck is slightly different than
the deck that currently exists. Currently, the staircase for the deck extends towards the
lake off the end of the deck creating safety problems when exiting the house onto the deck.
The applicants are proposing to construct decking in the corner to fill in where the stairs
currently exist so there is more space on the deck when exiting the home, and relocating
the stairs to the front of the deck facing south so as not to encroach into the 75' setback.
This results in a 33 square foot increase in hardcover in the 75-250' zone.
Staff recommendations:
1. Denial of the hardcover variance for the 0-75' zone to allow 15 square feet of the deck
to encroach into the 0-75' zone.
2. Approval of the hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone allowing 38.6%hardcover
when 38.2% currently exists and 25% is normally allowed. This includes approval to
allow the deck to increase in size in the north west corner by 33 square feet which consists
of enclosing the corner where the stairway currently exists and moving the stairway to the
front.
3. Denial of the lake setback variance to allow the south west corner of the deck to
continue to encroach 3' into the 75' setback.
Chair Smith asked why the applicants should be given the additional 33' of decking.
Waataja indicated that if the applicants redesigned their current deck to remove it from the
0-75' setback, staff felt the additional 33 s.f. was warranted.
Hawn agreed that the stairs current location was dangerous and that they should be moved.
Waataja noted that additional issue of the nonconforming shed.
Mr. Harvey asked why and when the shed became nonconforming and why it should be
removed as part of this application.
Ms. Harvey indicated her astonishment by all the problems that face them in an attempt to
merely rebuild the rotting deck. She indicated that they were willing to move the steps in
an effort to make the situation more safe; however, might be forced to leave them in their
existing unsafe position to merely get what they had all along. She was hesitant to cut off
or step in the deck as staff suggested, since it currently sits over cement and landscaping,
and would look absurd. With regard to the shed, she stated that the shed is not noticeable
where it currently sits, and if they were forced to move it, the shed would be an eyesore
relocated next to their patio, as well as their neighbor's patio/deck. She noted that the deck
sits up off the ground, allowing for drainage, and could not be moved to the other side of
the house due to the steep slope.
PAGE 12 of 25
,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#8 #03-2940 SCOT AND LISSA HARVEY, Continued)
Chair Smith stated that different zoning requirements apply to different things.
Rahn stated that, typically, the Commission has approved reconstruction of existing decks
in like size and kind. While he understood the additional 33' deck plan, he suggested the
deck be slid down 2'-3' to make the door more accessible. He felt comfortable allowing
the applicants to redesign the deck to fall within the same square footage as the original
deck, acknowledging that the building code will mandate a landing at the top of the stairs.
Ms. Harvey indicated that it would be their desire to replace the deck in kind, in order to
cause the least amount of disturbance, if they were not going to be granted their request.
The applicants felt the deck could not be slid down far enough to offset the effect of both
sets of doors.
Hawn indicated that she would like the applicants to be allowed to redesign the current
deck square footage to incorporate an interior stairway and safer access situation.
Chair Smith summarized by stating that the applicants may replace their existing deck with
a deck of no more square footage than currently exists.
Mr. Harvey indicated that they would make an attempt to slide the deck over 1' to 1 1/2'.
Mabusth asked how the Commission felt about the shed.
Gaffron suggested that the applicants be allowed to keep their shed in its current location,
no closer to the road than the current home, in a location that has served them well, until
such time that it should need to be replaced.
Will Piper, resident, commented that moving or sliding the deck over can impact the
integrity of the current slab and footings below.
Hawn recapped, noting that while the hardcover cannot increase, neither can the deck
encroach any further into the 0-75' setback than it currently does.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2940,
Scot and Lissa Harvey, 1199 Elmwood Avenue, granting the applicants the ability to
replace the existing deck with a deck of equal square footage, resulting in no
hardcover increase or additional encroachment into the 0-75' setback, in addition,
allowing the applicants to keep their shed in its current location until which point it
should need to be replaced and a variance application filed at that time. VOTE: Ayes
7, Nays 0.
PAGE 13 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9) #03-2942 GEORGE AND MARILYN MILEUSNIC, 3243 CASCO CIRCLE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:13 —8:36 P.M.
George and Marilyn Mileusnic, the Applicants, and Jim Smith of Concept Landscaping,
were present.
Foth reported that the applicants request a conditional use permit to construct a 4' retaining
wall which will be situated between 6' to 12' from the OHWL, within the 0-75' zone. The
applicants are also proposing to repair a landslide where a failed 8' retaining wall existed
approximately 16' to 20' from the OHWL and to stabilize a 2:1 slope with an erosion
control blanket and plant material.
Foth explained that the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit in order to
continue with their plan to repair a lakeshore hillside and failed retaining wall. Upon
removing an existing rotten wooden stair system a hillside landslide was uncovered
beneath overgrown grapevines. The existing 8' retaining wall had partially collapsed and
the applicant has proposed to construct a retaining wall 4' in height and import
approximately 25 cubic yards of fill to maintain a 2:1 (horizontal : vertical) slope. The
applicant proposes to stabilize the slope with an erosion control blanket, mulch and
dogwood plantings. The proposed wall will be constructed further lakeward than the failed
8' wall. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has been obtained for the
installation of 60' of rip-rap and a 6' x 10' sand blanket.
City Engineer, Tom Kellogg,has reviewed the site and provided staff with a
recommendation, which Foth summarized as follows:
• The landscape plans should show a proposed slope not to exceed 2:1.
• The proposed wall should not exceed 4'in height.
• Installation and maintenance of a silt fence throughout the duration of the project and
vegetation be established.
Foth indicated that the Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the conditional
use permit with the following conditions:
1. Retaining wall must not to exceed 4' in height, and the hillside must be maintained
at a slope no greater than 2:1.
2. Plant material must be installed lakeward of the retaining wall to screen views of
the wall from the lake.
While the Applicants knew there were problems after purchasing the property this spring,
they had not known to what extent the erosion has occurred and believe this to be a great
improvement.
Smith, of Concept Landscaping, shared photos of the hillside, failed retaining wall, and
landslide area after removal of the grapevine cover. He indicated that the new stairway
system also matched a 2:1 slope, and that it was his intent to restore the hillside, wiped out
PAGE 14 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2942 GEORGE AND MARILYN MILEUSNIC, Continued)
after the mudslide, with vegetation and establishing a new root system as soon as possible.
Smith explained that he would be building a rock retaining wall in an arc shape,
maintaining a 2:1 slope on the hillside using a P300 filter system to cover the new soils,
deter erosion, and allow growth of new vegetation.
Hawn asked if the filter fabric would degrade.
Smith stated that, eventually, the fabric would virtually disappear; however, in the
meantime, the fabric would help to establish root growth and preserve new soil. He
maintained the importance of preserving the new soil and planting dogwoods in the mulch
area as soon as possible to encourage root growth.
Chair Smith questioned if dogwoods would be used to fill in the entire hillside with
groundcover or whether a variety of natural plants might be used.
As they fill in and spread, Smith stated that the mass planting of dogwoods provides the
best hillside ground cover there is.
While he felt there was no problem with the proposal, Gaffron offered the Commission the
opportunity to comment on the plant variety. He questioned whether the Commission
might prefer a tree to break up the expanse of the hillside in meeting with the intent of the
comp plan goal to maintain a natural shoreline.
Smith indicated that they would be planting a maple tree at the lakeshore, acknowledging
that the dogwoods grow to 4-5' tall as well.
While attractive, Hawn questioned whether the proposal was `natural' lakeshore
vegetation.
Chair Smith agreed, stating that she would prefer to see a bit of variety planted amongst
the hillside.
Ms. Mileusnic questioned how multiple groupings would look on the hillside and whether
they would fulfill the mission of restoring and preventing additional erosion. She felt the
dogwoods would provide a more natural hillside than an expanse of lawn up the hillside.
She pointed out that they also have two large trees at the top of the hillside.
Zugschwert stated that she believed the dogwoods would provide a natural landscape plan
when they fill in. She had no problem with the proposal.
Rahn concurred.
PAGE 15 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2942 GEORGE AND MARILYN MILEUSNIC, Continued)
Mabusth questioned whether a tree planted on the hillside might, in fact, cause additional
erosion control problems.
While he was intent on establishing a root structure on the hillside, Smith indicated that
sumacs or trees inhibit undergrowth by shadowing the undergrowth from taking root.
Fritzler stated that he believed they had presented the best option for what they face.
Chair Smith asked for more than one tree.
Bremer moved,Hawn seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2942,
3243 Casco Circle,Jim Smith of Concept Landscaping on behalf of George and
Marilyn Mileusnic, granting a Conditional Use Permit to repair a landslide,
construction of a 4' retaining wall situated 6' to 12' from the OHWL,within the 0-75'
setback zone, and maintenance of a slope no greater than 2:1, subject to a minimum
of one maple tree planted lakeward of the retaining wall. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Ms. Mileusnic complimented Foth for her assistance and willingness to work with them.
(Recess was taken from 8:36—8:41 P.M.)
(#10) #03-2943 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT,3202 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,
VARIANCE, 8:41 —9:00 P.M.
Robert and Janet Labalt, the Applicants, were present.
Waataja reported that the applicants request the following variance to construct an
addition, approximately 515 s.f., to the existing home.
1. Hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone to allow 37.6%hardcover when 25% is
normally allowed and 50.5% currently exists.
2. Hardcover variance for the 250-500' zone to allow 42.7%hardcover when 30% is
normally allowed and 55% currently exists.
3. Side yard setback variance to allow a setback of 2.8 feet when 10' is required and 2.8'
currently exists.
4. Structural coverage variance to allow 19.4%when 15% is required
Waataja explained that the applicants are proposing to build an addition to the existing
home over existing driveway hardcover and to add a two-story deck adjoining the
proposed addition to the existing home. The applicant is proposing an additional 15 square
feet of hardcover for the living addition and an additional 81 square feet for the deck with
significant driveway removals. The nature of this lot requires a shared driveway for the
lakeshore lot to the north. Currently, the applicant is not using the shared driveway and is
PAGE 16 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10 #03-2943 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT, Continued)
accessing the property from the adjacent marina. This lot is currently substandard with
respect to hardcover and side yard setback.
Waataja stated that, in fact, when calculating hardcover percentages for the 75-250' zone
the area within the shared driveway easement(490 s.f.)was taken out of the lot area so as
not to either help or hinder the hardcover percentages. This is because this portion of the
shared drive does not benefit the applicant. The area of the shared driveway within the
250-500' zone was added into the calculations for hardcover because the applicant benefits
from this portion of the drive. The dramatic decreases in hardcover amounts for the
proposal are the results of the applicant eliminating the drive access through the marina
and utilizing the existing shared drive. This includes a net decrease of approximately 413
square feet of hardcover or 13% in the 75-250' zone. In the 250-500' zone there would be
a decrease of approximately 754 square feet or 12%.
Although Planning Department staff is encouraged by the proposed decreases in hardcover
and the existing drive through the marina being eliminated, Waataja stated that the overall
proposal doesn't fit within requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,because the proposal
puts the property over on structural coverage. Staff does not find a hardship which would
allow the applicant to increase their structural coverage from a percentage which meets the
Zoning Ordinance to a percentage which would become non-conforming, 14.9 to 19.4
percent. Allowing this increase in structural coverage would also not fall within what has
consistently been approved by the Planning Commission as structural coverage
requirements are strictly followed.
Waataja also stated the current side yard setback in this location is 2.8', and although the
applicant isn't proposing to get closer to the property line, the deck would extend
diagonally from the 2.8' setback to an 11' setback where it attaches to the proposed
addition.
Waataja reported that staff would recommend:
1. Denial of the proposal due to the increases in structural coverage beyond what is
allowed by Ordinance. No unique hardship has been presented which would justify
expanding the current home's footprint, given alternatives for an addition exist.
Chair Smith asked the applicants what they wished to accomplish with the addition.
Mr. Labalt explained that they have a pretty small home and small lot and would like more
room to accommodate their family. He noted that hardcover is the level it has always been
and he was attempting to decrease the amount of hardcover on the site.
Hawn indicated that the issue she found most difficult was that of structural coverage.
PAGE 17 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10 #03-2943 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT, Continued)
Gaffron stated that the substandard lot allows 1,500s.f. of cover; whereas, the applicants
have proposed 1,883 s.f., which is over by about 383 s.f. He suggested that one option
might be for the applicants to create a design that would incorporate a tuck under garage or
second story on the home.
Ms. Labalt felt a two story home would be out of character and stick out like a sore thumb,
versus adding out which would be more attractive.
Rahn stated that the lot is allowed 1,500 s.f of structural cover, which is virtually where it
stands currently, and encouraged the applicants to reconfigure the home to maintain 1,500
s.f.
Mr. Labalt asked if the size of the home was about as big as it could get.
Mabusth suggested they consider a second story addition and/or tuck under garage for their
design and work with staff to achieve their goals.
Chair Smith indicated that they could table for redesign or vote for denial and send them to
Council.
Mr. Labalt asked that they be sent forward to City Council with a recommendation.
Mark Finney, 3210 North Shore Drive,who shares the driveway access with the Labalts,
stated that he would like his 10' driveway easement back. He maintained that the Labalts
had placed stakes along the driveway narrowing up his access and making almost
impassable for delivery trucks etc.
Mr. Labalt stated that he placed the stakes along his property line in an effort to reclaim his
property that has been overdriven for years. He stated that the neighbor has been
encroaching further and further onto his property and the only way for him to reclaim what
is rightfully his was to place the stakes on the property line.
Gaffron asked if the residents held surveys of their property rights and suggested they
contact their own prospective lawyers to determine the property line.
Labalt stated that he had a recent survey in his possession that backed up his claim.
Finney stated that he did not have a survey; however, stated that the trees prohibit him on
one side from driving further over. He asked if the gravel driveway was grandfathered in
one way or another with or without a survey.
PAGE 18 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#10 #03-2943 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT, Continued)
Gaffron stated that the stakes appear to be on the easement line and property disputes
cannot be determined by the City.
Mabusth moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend denial of Application #03-
2943, Robert and Janet Labalt,3202 North Shore Drive, denying the proposal due to
the increases in structural coverage beyond what is allowed by Ordinance. VOTE:
Ayes 7, Nays 0.
(#11) #03-2944 JONATHON MENTH, 2930 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCES,
9:00—9:26 P.M.
Jonathon Menth, the Applicant,was present.
Waataja reported that the applicant requests the following variance to reconstruct a 26 x
10' deck on a property that is currently over the allowable hardcover amounts.
1. Hardcover variance to allow 48%hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 25% is normally
required and 48.5% currently exists.
The applicant submitted plans to rebuild an existing deck; however,prior to submitting
plans for a variance the existing deck was removed. Waataja stated that there was no
building permit for the deck and therefore staff is unable to confirm the decks size. The
survey submitted shows a proposed 26 x 10 foot deck. The latest assessor's records show
a 26 x 6 foot deck. The applicant has stated that he will be replacing the deck that was torn
down and the new deck will be the exact size and shape as the old deck with the exception
of a staircase that will be moved within the footprint of the deck to reduce hardcover.
Because the deck is being replaced over existing patio staff will assume the applicant is
merely replacing the 26 x 10 foot deck, not anything larger.
The applicants are required to apply for a hardcover variance because the existing property
is over on hardcover. A patio currently exists under where the deck is proposed and
therefore hardcover amounts will not change on the property. The deck that was there
prior to demolition included a staircase that extended towards the side property line. The
new plans for the deck replacement show the stairs moved within the footprint of the deck.
Because the previous staircase was not over the patio, hardcover is being reduced by 40
square feet with the relocation of this staircase.
Waataja indicated that staff recommends:
1. Approval based on the condition that the deck is replaced in the exact location of the
previous deck(26' x 10'), with the exception that the staircase be moved within the
footprint of the deck and not extend towards the southwestern property boundary and the
patio existing beyond the footprint of the deck be removed.
PAGE 19 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2944 JONATHON MENTH, Continued)
Menth stated that his parents bought the home in 1991 and that he believed the original
deck, as built in 1967 was 6'X26', however had been enlarged over the years. He
acknowledged that the deck he removed was in poor condition, rotting, and unsafe,while
the patio below was a poured slab and footings in fine shape. He stated that it would be his
desire to replace the deck he tore off and keep the lower patio as is, since he was unsure
whether removal of the footings around the edge of the patio might jeopardize the integrity
of the whole slab.
Zugschwert inquired what size the deck was that the applicant tore off.
Menth stated that it was probably closer to 8'X26' than his proposed 10'X26'. At the time
he removed the deck, Menth pointed out that he also had removed railway ties in the 0-75'
setback zone in an effort to reduce hardcover and clean up the shoreline.
Rahn stated that he was confused by the size of the lower patio, as well as, the upper deck.
Menth stated that the lower patio was surrounded by a pea gravel type rock which made
the edge somewhat undefined.
Rahn questioned whether the deck and patio should be reduced to the original 8'X26'.
Bremer empathized with the applicants concern that if the slab patio was cut back and the
footings removed, it might jeopardize the integrity of the whole patio.
Upon doing some soil correction himself, Menth made note that the perimeter of the patio
slab seemed to have a foundation of sorts under it.
Hawn too, believed the patio should be cut back unless it compromised the integrity of the
slab and questioned how they would determine this.
Bremer stated that she could support the proposed 10'X26' deck.
Hawn asked where the 10'X26' proposal came from.
Mabusth pointed out that the proposed 10'X26' deck does not cause any encroachment
problems, or increase hardcover; however, there is already excessive hardcover.
Gaffron suggested they cut off the slab, if the integrity of the slab is in tact, to equal the
amount or size of the above deck.
Hawn suggested they table the application to answer the integrity question.
PAGE 20 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#11 #03-2944 JONATHON MENTH, Continued)
Menth indicated that he would prefer to move forward this evening in an effort to complete
his project before winter.
Bremer reiterated that she would support the staff recommendation.
Mabusth agreed, reminding the Commission that the applicant does not exceed his
structural coverage allowance, even though his hardcover might be excessive.
Chair Smith stated that whatever the dimensions of the deck, the patio must be cut back to
be in line with the deck.
Bremer and Zugschwert felt 10'X26' was acceptable, while Rahn, Chair Smith, and Hawn
felt 8'X26' was more acceptable. Fritzler recommended a 6'X26' deck based on assessor's
records.
Mabusth reiterated that the application was not a structural question; therefore, there
should be little to deter approval of the 10'X26' deck, and reduction in kind to the patio
below. She questioned what other hardcover could be removed, since the applicant had
already removed railroad ties in the 0-75'.
There were no public comments.
Mabusth moved,Bremer seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2944,
Jonathon Menth,2930 Casco Point Road, granting approval of a 10'X26' deck based
on the finding that the applicant had removed 512 s.f. of railroad ties from the 0-75',
subject to the patio beneath being removed to be in line with the new deck, thus
resulting in a hardcover reduction, per staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays
1, Fritzler dissenting.
Fritzler referred to his earlier comments for denial.
(#12) #03-2946 CLIFFORD L. OTTEN,2350 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:26—9:30 P.M.
John O'Rath and Will Piper, representatives for the Applicant, were present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant has requested an amendment to PUD-1 commercial
site plan approval to allow construction of a greenhouse roof system over a small portion
of the property between the existing principal structure and the greenhouse roof system
approved in 1998.
PAGE 21 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#12 #03-2946 CLIFFORD L. OTTEN, Continued)
Planned Unit Development No. 1 (PUD No. 1)was approved in 1990 for Otten Brothers
Nursery and Landscaping for a commercial development at this site and the property was
subsequently so developed. In 1998 the City adopted Amendment No. 1 to PUD-1 to
allow a greenhouse roof system to be constructed over a 19,000 s.f. area just east of the
main building. This construction left a 20'x 92' (1840 s.f.) open corridor between the
greenhouse and the main building, which the applicant now wishes to cover with
greenhouse roofing in a similar manner.
Building Official Lyle Oman has noted that the existing greenhouse has a fire sprinkler
system which would be extended to include the new roof area. The additional greenhouse
roof will have no impact on traffic circulation for the site. While the enclosure of the
current space with a greenhouse is not intended by the applicant to change the use of that
space, it is meant to provide it with climate control that allows its use to be extended in the
spring and fall.
Gaffron reported that staff recommends approval of an amendment to the PUD-1
Agreement to allow construction of the greenhouse roof addition as proposed.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Mabusth seconded,to recommend Approval of Application #2946,
Otten Brothers Nursery, 2350 West Wayzata Boulevard—Amend Commercial Site
Plan (PUD-1) to allow construction of the greenhouse roof addition as proposed.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(#13) #03-2948 WJM PROPERTIES,LLC, 2605 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXTENSION, 9:30—9:40 P.M.
Peter Johnson, Applicant's representative, was present.
Gaffron reported that WJM Properties requests a 16-month extension of the approvals
granted in Resolution No. 4845. The applicant also requests that a 5' fence no less than
50% opaque,be substituted for the screening berm and plantings required at the north and
northeast end of the east parking lot.
To recap, Gaffron stated that, in August 2002 the City Council adopted Resolution No.
4845 granting Industrial Site Plan Approval and a CUP per Zoning Code Section 10.50
Subd. 3(A) to permit use of the property for a wholesale distribution facility, repair,parts
warehouse, and fleet sales and leasing lot. Due to delays caused primarily by conditions
imposed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District related to wetland buffer and
easement requirements, WJM Properties has now applied for an extension of the approvals
granted in Resolution No. 4845 to December 31, 2004, or an extension of 16 months.
PAGE 22 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13 #03-2948 WJM PROPERTIES,LLC, Continued)
Staff finds no apparent issues with an extension of the prior approval, noting that Morries
has been making revisions to the interior and exterior of the building and has complied to
date with the conditions of the Resolution.
While staff believes the fence should be allowed, Gaffron indicated they believe it should
only be an interim screening solution, and that a condition be established that the berm and
plantings shall be required at such time that the applicants' issues with the MCWD are
resolved. It should be noted that all improvements resulting in the creation of additional
impervious surface have been put on hold. These include the new display lot at the north
end of the building, the driveway along the west side, and the new parking areas south of
the building. However, use of the existing east parking lot will eventually commence, and
its screening is necessary regardless whether the remaining elements are constructed.
Staff recommends approval of extension of the timeframe for applicant to meet the
conditions of approval of Resolution No. 4845 to December 31, 2004; and recommends
approval of an amendment of the existing CUP to allow for interim use of fencing in lieu
of berms and vegetation along the north and northeast sides of the parking lot,per
applicants stated amendment language subject to the following condition:
1. The berm and plantings shall be required at such time that the applicants' issues
with the MCWD are resolved.
Johnson explained that the site was an environmental contamination site,which Morries
had no connection with, but might be forced to mediate. Since the time of the original
approvals, MCWD has identified 5 new wetlands on the south side which were original
drainage ditches and must be mediated. While Monies had hoped they would not have to
excavate and disturb the contamination site, they plan to work with the MCWD to resolve
the issues and complete their site plan work within the next 16 months as originally
envisioned.
Hawn asked if the proposal would be revised to include the berms at that time.
Johnson stated that they had hoped that, if they followed the letter of the code by installing
the opaque fencing,they might be relieved from the requirement to install the berms.
Chair Smith asked what the timeline for completion might be.
Johnson stated that it was their intention to pull permits by December 31, 2004.
Gaffron stated that, as part of the CUP,the City gave Monies permission to put in lots in
particular places if they put in the landscape berms and screening. While he agreed that
the fencing offered an interim solution, Gaffron suggested that the applicants be required to
PAGE 23 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13 #03-2948 WJM PROPERTIES, LLC, Continued)
construct the berms once they have worked out their problems with the MCWD, especially
since the Planning Commission had gone to great lengths to screen the site in the original
application.
Rahn agreed, stating that screening was a critical piece of the proposal.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved,Mabusth seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2948,
WJM Properties, LLC, 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard, granting a Conditional Use
Permit Extension of the timeframe for applicant to meet the conditions of approval of
Resolution No. 4845 to December 31, 2004; and recommends approval of an
amendment of the existing CUP to allow for interim use of fencing in lieu of berms
and vegetation along the north and northeast sides of the parking lot,per applicants
stated amendment language subject to the condition that the berm and plantings shall
be required at such time that the applicants' issues with the MCWD are resolved.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#14) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF AUGUST 25,AND SEPTEMBER 8, 2003
Gaffron reported that, during the August 25th Council meeting, John Jones, of North Shore
Drive, spoke during public comments with regard to his application and the lack of a half
story ordinance. City Council directed staff to work with Mr. Jones to come to a reasonable
conclusion on his application; however, Gaffron stated that they have been unable to work
out agreeable terms to date.
Zugschwert indicated that the only item on the Council agenda for September 8th was the
Thompson application request for oversize accessory space, which the Council denied by
unanimously supporting the Planning Commission recommendation.
(#15) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron reported that, as of last Saturday, the new Code was codified and adopted.
Rahn suggested that, in the future, when the Commission discusses an item on the agenda
and feels the need to `tweak' the language in the code, if this could be done in a Planning
Commission rather than holding an additional work session on the item.
PAGE 24 of 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 15, 2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#15 OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION, Continued)
Gaffron stated that, in the past, the Planning Commission has chosen to schedule a work
session to allow them to discuss and adjust the appropriate language for the code. He
agreed that the Commission could use a regular meeting to suggest that new language be
added to the code on a specific item, allow Gaffron the time to collect and review the
suggestion, and present it at a work session.
(#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 18,
2003
Hawn moved, Fritzler seconded, approving the Minutes of the July 21,2003,
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER
3,2003 WORK SESSION
(#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON SEPTEMBER 22,AND OCTOBER 13, 2003.
September 22—Bremer with Fritzler as back-up October 13 —Mabusth
ADJOURNMENT
Hawn moved, Chair Smith seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
9:51 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
„5"-- ve,
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 25 of 25