HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/20/2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair David Rahn, Commissioners Cynthia Bremer, Roland Jurgens,Jim Leslie, and Ralph Kempf.
Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach,
and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Bob Sansevere was present.
Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
CONSENT
Item No.4 was removed from the Consent Agenda.
There were no public comments on Items 1,2, or 3.
1. #04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY STREET,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-2969,Terry and
Gretchen Blount, 1390 Cherry Street,granting of a conditional use permit to allow land alterations
within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka subject to the recommendations
of the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
2. #05-3116 MINNETONKA POWER SQUADRON,INC.,510 BIG ISLAND,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application 305-3116,Minnetonka
Power Squadron,Inc.,510 Big Island,granting of a conditional use permit amendment subject to
compliance with the City's building and septic codes. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
3. #05-3120 CALVARY MEMORIAL CHURCH,2420 DUNWOODY AVENUE,VARIANCE
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application 305-3120, Calvary
Memorial Church, 2420 Dunwoody Avenue,granting of a sign variance to permit a monument style
sign 61 square feet in area and granting of a hardcover variance to permit 53.8 percent hardcover
within the 250'-500' zone. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
4. #05-3122 DAN-BAR HOMES,LTD., 1001 WILDHURST TRAIL—VARIANCE,
6:02 P.M.—6:10 P.M.
Dan Bartis,Dan-Bar Homes,was present.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
Chris Morgart, 1003 Wildhurst Trail, stated he does not want the adjoining property owner's driveway or
mailbox on his property and that he also does not want to have to pick up any construction debris on his
property. Morgart indicated he would also like an assurance that anything that gets wrecked during
construction would be fixed.
Rahn inquired whether the adjoining property owner's driveway is platted across Morgart's lot.
Gaffron stated the proposed driveway is to be located approximately 10 to 15 feet from the existing
driveway,with the existing driveway being removed, which does encroach Morgart's property. Gaffron
stated the City's building inspector would be keeping an eye on the project and would watch for
construction debris.
Morgart stated he would like his property restored if anything is wrecked during construction.
Gaffron indicated Staff would be checking the project periodically.
Rahn closed the public hearing.
Leslie stated it appears that relocating the mailbox is outside the scope of the application.
Gaffron stated the location of the mailbox is typically within the right-of-way and that relocation of the
mailbox may need to be approved by the post office. Gaffron indicated the property is offset,which may
give the appearance that the mailbox is located on the adjoining property,but that in his opinion the
mailbox could be positioned in a location where it does not appear to be on the neighboring property.
Bartels stated the mailbox has existed in that location for approximately 30 years but that he does not
have a problem relocating it.
Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3122,Dan-Bar Homes,
Ltd., 1001 Wildhurst Trail, granting of a renewal for a lot width variance originally granted via
Resolution No.4983. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0,Berg Abstained.
PAGE 2
ti r
• ' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
5. #05-3097 HASHEM ABUKHADRA, 1745 FOX STREET, SUBDIVISION,6:10 P.M.—6:36
P.M.
Haskem Abukhadra,Applicant,and Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, were present.
Gundlach noted this applicant appeared at the April Planning Commission meeting to discuss a
preliminary plat application in order to create six lots on one block, including construction of a private
roadway. The total acreage is approximately 58 acres,with slightly over 20 acres of dry buildable. The
zoning district requires a minimum of two dry buildable acres. The application was tabled in April to
allow a full engineering and septic review. Gundlach noted revised plans have been submitted and
reviewed by the city engineer and septic inspector.
Gundlach indicated there are ten issues outlined on pages two and three of the Planner's report that should
be discussed.
Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with the following five stipulations:
1. The existing accesses onto Fox Street be eliminated at the time the new road is completed.
2. Proposed lot 6 be considered a back lot for zoning purposes.
3. The top of bluff and 30-foot setback be corrected on final plat plans.
4. Revised plans meeting the City Engineer's expectations be required as part of the final plat.
5. Subdivision approval is subject to the standard park dedication and storm water and drainage
trunk fee.
Gundlach requested the Planning Commission review whether the existing guesthouse should be allowed
to remain on the property.
Gronberg stated the city engineer has recommended that access to the guesthouse be connected to the
road serving the main house. Gronberg indicated the garage doors on the guesthouse face north to Fox
Street and that it would be necessary to put a sharp bend in the driveway and eliminate some trees in order
to connect it to the road serving the main house. Gronberg stated the property owners have utilized this
entrance for approximately 30 years and they would like to retain the current access.
Gronberg questioned why Lot 6 should be considered a back lot given the amount of frontage on Fox
Street.
Gundlach indicated there are potential safety issues on Fox with a future access and that if the access is
going to be off the private road through the outlot, Lot 6 would have the configuration of a back lot.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued)
Gundlach stated it should be determined by the Planning Commission whether Lot 6 is functionally a
back lot.
Gronberg indicated they are not opposed to having access off the outlot but noted the setbacks may be
affected for Lot 6 if it is considered a back lot.
Gundlach pointed out back lots require 150 percent of the setback requirement of the zoning district,
which means 75-foot front and rear setbacks would be required as well as 45-foot side setbacks.
Gundlach noted the existing house appears to meet those requirements.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
Duncan MacMillan, 1820 Fox Street, indicated he has resided on Fox Street since 1920, and expressed a
concern regarding the future development of this lot. MacMillan stated his family is in the process of
arranging for a permanent easement on their land to restrict construction on their property.
MacMillan indicated the Fox Street area has always been a rural area and it should be considered a rural
area on the Rural Oasis Study. MacMillan stated in his opinion the moratorium on developments affected
by wetlands should be applicable to this property.
MacMillan expressed a strong concern regarding the location of the driveway onto Fox Street,noting that
there is not a 400-foot visibility. MacMillan stated his concerns relate to the amount of traffic and that
the driveway should be relocated on the other side of the pond. MacMillan stated he would like to know
why the driveway could not be relocated as he suggested.
MacMillan noted the speed limit on Fox Street is 35 miles per hour but that cars readily exceed that limit.
MacMillan expressed concerns that the rate of travel on this road and the location of the driveway could
contribute to accidents.
Rahn stated the Planning Commission has discussed the location of the driveway on a couple of occasions
and that they are relying on Staff and the city engineer regarding the sight lines and visibility.
Gundlach illustrated the existing grade of the road on the overhead,noting that there is approximately 400
feet of stopping distance from the crest of the hill to the new access. Gundlach stated it is her
understanding that 300 feet is needed for a 30 mile per hour road. Gundlach stated Lot 6 is located at the
crest of the hill.
MacMillan stated in his view the proposed location of the driveway is dangerous and requested the
Planning Commission take his concerns into consideration.
Rahn stated the Planning Commission has discussed the location of the driveway numerous times and that
the driveway in its current location has been found to be safe. Rahn stated the property owner does have
PAGE 4
• ' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra,Continued)
a right to configure the driveway as he wishes as long as it is in compliance with the regulations and that
the Planning Commission probably does not have a right to ask that the driveway be relocated.
Gronberg stated they would review the driveway to see if more distance could be achieved for greater
speeds.
Abukhadra stated they located the driveway as far west as possible and that they would relocate it further
west if at all possible.
There were no further public comments regarding this application.
Rahn stated it appears that the applicant has addressed the majority of the issues raised by the Planning
Commission at its prior meeting. Rahn indicated it was his understanding from the last meeting that the
consensus of the Planning Commission was that the guesthouse could remain until that particular parcel
was redeveloped. Rahn questioned whether any Planning Commission members had any concerns
regarding the items outlined in the Planner's report.
Abukhadra concurred that it was agreed that the guesthouse could remain until Lot 6 was redeveloped.
Rahn stated it was his understanding,though, that the current access would need to be eliminated.
Abukhadra indicated a final decision was not made on the access at the last meeting,noting there are a
number of trees that would need to be removed if the driveway is not allowed as proposed. Abukhadra
stated the guesthouse is minimally used. Abukhadra noted there would need to be a sharp steep bend if
they are required to relocate the driveway. Abukhadra stated the guesthouse and its driveway would be
removed if that lot is developed.
Kempf stated the Planning Commission cannot assume that the guesthouse is temporary and that it is
possible it will still exist 50 years from now.
Rahn stated any nonconformance issues would need to be dealt with at the time the main house is razed.
Gaffron stated at the time of subdivision,nonconformities are usually dealt with.
Kempf inquired whether the guesthouse has to be removed at the time the main house is removed.
Gaffron stated on a total rebuild, the City's code requires that all accessory buildings be removed or be
made conforming.
Kempf questioned whether the issues concerning relocation of the driveway deal with the amount of trees
needing to be removed as well as access to the garage.
Abukhadra indicated they would need to put a sharp bend in the driveway if they have to relocate it.
PAGE 5
• • MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra,Continued)
Kempf inquired whether it is possible to access the garage from the other side.
Abukhadra stated it is not.
Gaffron noted it is a tuck-under garage.
Rahn inquired whether the subdivision increases the nonconformity of the guesthouse.
Gundlach stated a variance to two lot lines would need to be granted.
Rahn stated if the guesthouse does not increase in nonconformity,he would not have an issue with the
guesthouse remaining.
Gronberg stated if it is not considered a back lot,it would meet the side setbacks.
Gundlach stated the guesthouse would need to meet a 30-foot setback even if it was not considered a back
lot,which it currently does not meet.
Gronberg stated the subdivision does not increase the nonconformity.
Gundlach concurred that the nonconforming setback to Fox Street is not being increased with the
subdivision.
Bremer indicated she does have a concern with having two accesses to this property. Bremer stated the
compromise in her view to allowing the guesthouse to remain is to eliminate the access onto Fox Street.
Jurgens indicated he also has a concern with the two access points but would allow the guesthouse to
remain.
Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission members have any concerns regarding Lot 6 being
considered a back lot. Rahn inquired if the building pad would be affected significantly if Lot 6 were
considered a back lot.
Gundlach indicated the house would need to be located an additional 15 feet from the lot line.
Gronberg inquired whether the amount of frontage on the street is taken into account in determining
whether a lot should be considered a back lot.
Gaffron stated the reason the back lot code exists is to reduce the impacts of the front lot, and in order to
reduce those impacts, greater setbacks for structures are required on the back lot from the shared lot line.
Gaffron stated regardless of whether the frontage is 300 or 600 on Fox Street, the lot with the existing
house acts as a back lot in relation to the lots to the west of it and that in his view it should be considered
a back lot.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3097 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued)
Rahn noted the proposed public road improvements have been taken care of.
Abukhadra expressed concern that the building pad would be reduced for Lot 6 if it is considered a back
lot.
Gundlach indicated the approximate same building pad would remain as what currently exists.
Rahn noted Item 7,Rural Oasis Study,would need to be determined by the City Council.
Leslie pointed out that if the driveway is required to be located off of Fox Street, a number of trees would
need to be removed, which would detract from the guidelines of the Rural Oasis Study.
Abukhadra noted eight to ten trees would need to be removed.
Rahn stated that issue could be eliminated if the guesthouse were removed.
Jurgens suggested a detailed plan of that area be provided to the City Council.
Gronberg stated they would review the location of the trees and use of retaining walls.
Rahn suggested the applicant consider a plan that reduces the need to eliminate trees. Rahn inquired
whether the current pad is located 30 feet from the top of bluff.
Gundlach illustrated the location of the bluff and the existing house, and pointed out that the existing
house does not meet the 30-foot setback from the top of the bluff and that any future house would need to
be shifted to the west and north. Gundlach noted the applicant's interpretation of the top of the bluff is
incorrect.
Rahn stated it appears the consensus of the Planning Commission is to remove the two existing access
points off of Fox Street.
Leslie moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3097, 1745 Fox Street,
approval of preliminary plat subject to,one,the elimination of the existing access onto Fox Street at
the time the new road is completed; two,proposed lot 6 be considered a back lot; three,the top of
bluff and 30-foot setback be corrected on the final plat plans; four,revised plans meeting the city
engineer's expectations are required as part of the final plat; and five,subdivision approval is
subject to the standard park dedication and storm water and drainage trunk fee. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
6. #05-3100 LARRY AND SHERYL PALM, 1146 WILDHURST TRAIL,VARIANCE,6:36
P.M.—7:02 P.M.
Larry and Sheryl Palm,Applicants,were present.
Gundlach stated this application appeared at the May Planning Commission meeting requesting lot area
and lot width variances as well as a conditional use permit to allow construction of a new residence.
Gundlach indicated the application was tabled to allow the city engineer to review the various submitted
drainage and grading plans.
Gundlach stated the city engineer and building inspector met on site to discuss an appropriate grading
plan that would benefit the neighbors,protect the interests of the City, and be somewhat of a compromise
of the four different plans submitted by the applicant. Gundlach stated the city engineer and building
inspector concluded that a retaining wall extended slightly over the lot line would be the best solution,
with an easement being granted by the neighbor for the encroaching wall to allow future maintenance. In
addition, the city engineer is recommending that a rain garden or similar feature be included in the plan at
the point where the two swales meet on the lakeside of the home. Gundlach indicated the purpose of the
rain garden would be to dissipate the energy of the runoff in an effort to prevent erosion into the lake.
Gundlach noted the applicant has agreed to extend the retaining wall onto the adjoining property slightly
but is opposed to the rain garden. The applicant has submitted a maintenance/owner agreement relating
to the retaining wall that has been signed by both parties. Gundlach indicated it is her understanding the
adjoining property owner does not want to grant an easement.
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances and approval of the
conditional use permit to allow retaining walls and grading within five feet of the lot line. However,the
plan submitted and attached to this report as Exhibit A must be revised prior to Council review pending
conclusions by the Planning Commission regarding the following:
1. Requirement of a rain garden or an alternate graded landscape feature that will spread water out over a
wider area where the swales converge on the lakeside of the walls,rather than concentrating the water at
the end of the swales to a single point;
2. The wall design should be revised on the grading plan whereby the tail end of the wall extends over
the lot line. The length of this wall should be minimized;
3. Agreement with the adjacent property owner on the ownership and maintenance of the wall
constructed over the lot line;
4. Screening of the walls from the lake.
Rahn inquired whether Staff has a grading plan that has been reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer.
PAGE 8
• ' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm,Continued)
Gundlach indicated they do not have a revised plan reflecting the tapered retaining wall. Gundlach stated
the recommendations of the building inspector and city engineer were verbally given to the applicant and
the applicant has submitted a revised grading plan reflecting some changes. Gundlach stated it is her
understanding the applicant is in agreement with the retaining wall being tapered onto the adjoining
property but is opposed to the rain garden.
Rahn inquired whether any elevation drawings have been submitted depicting the walls and the screening.
Gundlach stated those have not been submitted.
Palm stated they incorporated the recommendations of the city engineer and building inspector into their
grading and drainage plan that is now before the Planning Commission. Palm stated he has spoken with
the neighbors and that they have a signed agreement that allows them to construct the retaining wall
without an easement. Palm indicated he would prefer the retaining wall to be tapered off towards the
neighboring property.
Palm indicated he does have elevation drawings available tonight.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
Maggie Erikson,4455 Forest Lake Landing, stated they are in agreement with the tail of the wall but that
they are not in agreement with the retaining wall running the length of the property line at a zero setback.
Erikson stated the retaining wall running the length of the property was not discussed at the previous
Planning Commission meeting. Erikson indicated they signed the agreement with the understanding that
the wall would tail off towards their property line.
Palm stated they are not in agreement with the retaining wall running the whole length of the property line
either.
Gundlach stated none of the plans that were submitted depict the retaining wall tapering off towards the
adjoining property.
Bruce Vang indicated he did meet with the property owner and that the plan illustrated on the overhead is
not what they had intended. Vang stated they would like the water from the garage area to be diverted
along the top end of the wall and for the wall to be extended onto the Erickson property slightly. Vang
stated it was not their intention that the wall be located closer to the property line.
Erikson inquired whether the plan shown at last month's meeting could be displayed.
Palm indicated it was an overhead that was discussed at the previous meeting.
PAGE 9
• - MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm, Continued)
Gundlach stated she does not have that overhead available tonight; however, she does have a paper copy
of the plan. Gundlach stated this revised plan is found as the last page of the report. Gundlach stated it
would be plan number four.
Rahn stated it is the understanding of the Planning Commission that the wall would not run the length of
the property and would taper off towards the Erickson property. Rahn indicated a plan depicting a
tapered wall would need to be reviewed by the city engineer.
Palm stated it is his intention the wall would be tapered approximately three feet.
Rahn noted the city engineer and neighbor are in agreement with the tapering of the wall and that he is
unsure why the miscommunication occurred.
Leslie pointed out the issue of the rain garden still remains.
Palm stated he is not in favor of the rain garden due to the potential for mosquitoes. Palm indicated they
currently have approximately 60 feet to handle the runoff. Palm stated the pond would need to be located
in the easement area and that there will be an issue with the pond washing out. Palm stated he has not
seen any calculations for the pond from the city engineer demonstrating the pond would be manageable.
Jurgens inquired whether the applicant has any stormwater calculations of his own. Jurgens stated in his
view the applicant should provide the calculations showing that the pond is not necessary.
Palm stated he would also like to see calculations from the city engineer.
Gundlach stated the issue is the amount of water that will be diverted from the swales and that there is a
concern with the amount of water converging into one spot and the potential for creating a gully in that
area. Gundlach indicated the pond is an attempt to stop erosion into the lake.
Palm stated they currently do not have a pond and that they have sufficient green area to handle the
runoff. Palm indicated at the present time there is no erosion into the lake.
Jurgens noted the proposed house and garage are going to be substantially bigger than what currently
exists and that the amount of runoff needs to be addressed in some fashion.
Rahn stated the applicant and city engineer have to get on the same page as far as the drainage and
grading. Rahn stated he is fine with the wall tapering towards the neighbor's property but that the
Planning Commission needs a plan that has been approved by the city engineer that demonstrates how the
runoff will be handled on this property. Rahn indicated he expects a plan depicting a wall tapering
towards the property line to be submitted for review and approval by the city engineer. Rahn inquired
whether this application should be moved forward before the Council without an approved plan.
PAGE 10
• - MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3100 Larry and Sheryl Palm,Continued)
Bremer stated she is in agreement with moving this application before the Council provided that a plan
approved by the city engineer is submitted prior to the council meeting. Bremer stated it appears that the
remaining issue is the rain garden and that the applicant needs to discuss the necessity for a pond with the
city engineer.
Jurgens noted the retaining wall system approaches 14 feet in height on the lakeside of the home and that
this will have a visual impact on the lake and could have significant impacts on the property to the east in
the event the wall fails. Jurgens noted the city engineer states the wall height could be minimized if the
house footprint is moved northwesterly towards the road 10 to 15 feet. Jurgens inquired whether that was
done.
Palm indicated it was not.
Gundlach stated that comment was based on an old grading plan. Gundlach noted the meeting with the
city building inspector and city engineer occurred after that.
Rahn inquired whether the pilings would be just above grade.
Palm indicated they would be.
Jurgens inquired whether the materials to be used for the wall should be discussed.
Rahn indicated he would prefer the City Council address that issue. Rahn inquired what the height of the
tallest tier is.
Palm stated it is approximately eight feet.
Rahn inquired whether it would be appropriate to place a limitation on the height of the wall.
Gaffron suggested the wall be adequately screened.
Palm noted he would need to place a fence on top of the retaining wall for safety reasons.
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3100,Larry and Sheryl
Palm, 1146 Wildhurst Trail,granting variances to lot area and lot width and a conditional use
permit to allow retaining walls and grading within five feet of a lot line,with the understanding that
the wall plan will be revised to depict that the tail end of the wall ends up on the adjacent property
no more than three feet and that adequate screening of the wall from the lake is provided, and
subject to a signed agreement with the adjoining property owner being submitted concerning the
retaining wall; and further subject to the City Engineer viewing and approving the grading and
drainage plans to determine whether a rain garden or other type of landscaping is required.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 11
' MINUTES OF THE
. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
7. #05-3104 DAVID AND RENEE MACK, 1978 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
7:03 P.M.—7:21 P.M.
David and Renee Mack,Applicants,were present.
Curtis noted this application was tabled at the April Planning Commission meeting, with the applicants
being directed to redesign their plans to meet structural coverage limits. The applicants have submitted a
revised proposal and are requesting a number of variances to remove a detached garage, construct a
garage attached to the house, footprint additions to the house,and a second story addition over the house
and the new attached garage. The following variances are being requested:
1. A rear yard setback variance for a 28-foot rear setback where 30 feet is required for the attached
garage;
2. A hardcover variance for 27 percent within the 0-75' zone and 56 percent within the 75'-250' zone;
3. A structural coverage variance for 21 percent structure where 15 percent is normally allowed and
16 percent currently exists;
4. A lake setback variance to expand the house footprint six feet further into the required 75' lake
setback.
Planning Staff recommends approval of an attached garage and second story additions above the attached
garage and existing footprint but recommends denial of the hardcover variances, lake setback, and
structural coverage variances in order to expand the house footprint square footage.
David Mack indicated they would be willing to consider a reduction to the addition of the house to avoid
the lake setback variance.
Rahn stated he would not be in favor of increasing the structural coverage on this lot.
Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application.
There were no public comments.
Rahn stated the street side setback could be alleviated by stepping back the right overhead door. Rahn
suggested eliminating the need for a variance wherever possible.
Curtis stated the lakeside addition consists of 180 square feet, and if that were eliminated,the structural
coverage on the lot would be 19.6 percent.
Bremer noted the lot is very narrow.
Leslie indicated he also is not in favor of the structural coverage increasing on this lot.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3104 David and Renee Mack, Continued)
Jurgens concurred with the need to limit the structural coverage and pointed out that by reducing the
structural coverage, the need for the setback variances may be eliminated.
Rahn stated items one and four could be eliminated by stepping the garage back slightly,but that in his
opinion the Council would not approve structural coverage over the allowed 15 percent.
Jurgens indicated he has a concern regarding the amount of hardcover within the 75'-250' zone and noted
there appears to be plenty of room to park a number of vehicles without the turn.
Rahn stated the two access points are also an issue.
Jurgens stated he would like the hardcover reduced in the 75'-250' zone by removing a portion of the
driveway.
Bremer noted the lot is very narrow and somewhat shallow.
Rahn inquired whether the applicants would prefer the three-car garage or the house addition. Rahn
pointed out the garage would increase the hardcover on the lot since additional hardcover would be
required to access the garage. Rahn suggested the structural coverage be reduced to 16 percent and the
second access point be eliminated.
Bremer noted the structural coverage would be reduced to 19.6 if the lakeside addition were removed.
Rahn recommended the structural coverage be restricted to what currently exists.
Leslie noted structural coverage currently is at 16 percent.
Mack indicated he would prefer a portion of the garage be eliminated rather than the house addition.
Jurgens moved to recommend approval of Application#05-3104,David and Renee Mack, 1978
Shadywood Road,with the condition that the hardcover in the 0-75' will be reduced by the amount
of structural coverage that will be reduced in the 0-75', and subject to the hardcover within the 75'-
250' zone being reduced by the amount of structural coverage removed in that area, and further
subject to the removal of the looped driveway,with the understanding the structural coverage will
not exceed 16 percent,and to recommend denial of Items 1 and 4.
Curtis noted a variance to the lake setback would still be necessary to expand the second floor.
Jurgens recommended approval of the lakeside variance for the second story over the existing
structure. Rahn seconded the motion.
Bremer indicated she does not understand the motion. Bremer inquired whether the entrance would be
allowed to remain.
PAGE 13
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3104 David and Renee Mack,Continued)
Jurgens stated the garage and front entrance could remain but that the structural coverage is to be limited
to 16 percent. Jurgens indicated the applicants would need to decide where to reduce the structural
coverage.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
8. #05-3112 LOREN AND STACEY SCHOENZEIT,4480 FOREST LAKE LANDING,
VARIANCE/SUBDIVISION,7:21 P.M.—7:34 P.M.
Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit,Applicants, and Brad Larson, 1090 Wildhurst Trail,were present.
Gundlach stated this application was discussed at the May Planning Commission meeting, with the
applicants requesting a number of variances in order to construct additions onto the existing footprint and
to remodel. The application was tabled at that time to allow the applicants time to revise their plans to
eliminate the need for a structural coverage variance and also the need for a hardcover variance in the 75'-
250' zone. Gundlach stated it was also recommended that the adjacent property owner be brought into
the formal application process.
The applicant has completed those revisions and Staff is recommending approval of the application with
the following stipulations:
1. Submittal of a favorable engineering report regarding the existing foundation and its ability to
withstand the proposed improvements,.
2. Dedication of a 20-foot sewer easement centered over the existing sewer lines. This easement should
be dedicated by both owners(1090 Wildhurst Trail and 4480 Forest Lake Landing). Staff is willing to
negotiate the language of the easement to protect existing encroachments and other potential interests.
3. Dedication of a five-foot drainage and utility easement by both property owners, to exist on each side
of the revised common lot line.
Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission consider whether a lake yard deck off the main level
of the home should be included and also whether a secondary recommendation can be made should the
engineering report on the existing foundation be unfavorable.
Mr. Schoenzeit indicated he is in agreement with Staff's report.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
Maggie Erikson,4455 Forest Lake Landing, indicated she does not have a concern regarding the building
but that she does have a concern with the possible runoff and dirt into the street during construction.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3112 Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit, Continued)
Erikson noted she did experience four inches of dirt as a result of today's rains and that this is a frequent
occurrence whenever it rains.
Mrs. Schoenzeit noted they also experience the same problem as a result of a steep curve in the road and
that a lot of water runoff goes down the street from Wildhurst Trail. Schoenzeit stated the city would
need to address that runoff but that they are agreeable to installing a silt fence during construction to
prevent any further sediment flowing into the street. Schoenzeit noted that problem has existed since at
least 1991.
Mr. Schoenzeit pointed out they are also eliminating a portion of the driveway located in the right-of-way
and converting it into a grassy area,which should help to catch some of the runoff.
Jurgens inquired where the proposed driveway is located.
Gundlach illustrated the location of the proposed driveway on the overhead.
Mrs. Schoenzeit stated they currently have a circular driveway. Schoenzeit stated there would be a
sidewalk going up to the front door.
Jurgens inquired if the drainage around the area in front of the house would be diverted to the back of the
house.
Mr. Schoenzeit stated the runoff would drain down both sides of the property.
Jurgens inquired whether a majority of the water runoff goes on the Erikson side of the road.
Mrs. Schoenzeit stated it does.
Rahn inquired whether the lakeside deck would be removed.
Mr. Schoenzeit indicated they are removing the deck.
Rahn stated he would prefer not to do a dual application and that he would rather not review an
application that is not before the Planning Commission. Rahn stated he would like to see the application
again if it is determined the foundation is not adequate and it needs to be replaced.
Mr. Schoenzeit stated he is not worried about the foundation and the ability to correct any defects but
rather about the economic impact that a deteriorated foundation would have on their project.
Rahn stated if the engineer determines that the foundation cannot be repaired,he would prefer to see the
application again.
Larson, owner of 1090 Wildhurst Trail, indicated he does not have anything to add.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3112 Loren and Stacey Schoenzeit,Continued)
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3112,Loren and Stacey
Schoenzeit,4480 Forest Lake Landing,granting of a lot line rearrangement,rear/street yard
setback variance, and hardcover variance for the 250'-500' zone,subject to the three conditions
outlined in the June 20,2005 Planner's report. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
9. #05-3113 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS CORP. ON BEHALF OF DENNIS AND
AMANDA WALSH, 1354 REST POINT CIRCLE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:35 P.M.—
7:54 P.M.
Dennis Walsh, Applicant, and Terry Sanders,Natural Environments,were present.
Gundlach stated a variance application was before the Planning Commission at its November 2004
meeting,with the applicants requesting approval of a hardcover variance for an addition to their home.
At that time Staff discovered that the bluff area had been clear-cut. Staff had recommended approval of
the hardcover variance with the condition that a restoration plan be submitted and approved before to the
final inspection of the addition.
The applicant has submitted a conditional use permit application in order to conduct land alterations
within 75 feet of the shoreline consisting of, one,a bluff restoration/preservation plan due to clear-cutting;
and two, construction of a new lake access stairway. This application is necessary in part to correct a
violation of Section 78-1285 (b)of the Zoning Code and because of a condition placed on a hardcover
variance approval noted in Resolution#5259 approved in December of 2004.
The city engineer has reviewed the plans and has indicated additional information is needed in order to
verify the structural integrity of the existing walls that the applicant would like to retain. The applicant
was notified of the city engineer's request for additional information but would rather proceed with the
plans as submitted. Staff has a concern that the plan is labeled a schematic design and was not drafted for
construction purposes.
Staff recommends denial of the plan as currently submitted.
Walsh stated they are coming before the Planning Commission simply for the bluff restoration plan and
not for approval of the staircase. Walsh indicated they did not clear-cut the bluff area but rather removed
the buckthorn and the underlying brush in the area as well as old Christmas trees,potted plants, six tires,
and approximately 1000 logs.
Walsh stated as a result of the removal of those items,there is actually more vegetation growing in that
area than what was originally there. Walsh stated they have submitted a plan for restoration of the area.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3113 Natural Environments Corp.,Continued)
Walsh noted the root structure from the buckthorn is already growing back and that he is unsure why it is
being considered clear-cutting.
Walsh stated he would like to deal with the stairway at another time. Walsh noted they have removed all
of the hardcover that was required as part of their hardcover variance approval.
Sanders stated they came to the decision to leave the existing stairway to help maintain the integrity of the
slope and that the plan they are proposing calls for more vegetation than what was originally there.
Sanders pointed out the root structure for the buckthorn is still in place.
Rahn stated it appears that the plans before the Planning Commission show construction of a stairway
rather than restoring the lakeshore.
Sanders stated based on the city engineer's recommendations they decided not to proceed with rebuilding
the stairway. Sanders stated they are only proposing at this time to restore the vegetation.
Gundlach stated she did speak with the city engineer about removal of the staircase and whether it should
remain, and the city engineer indicated that his comments remain the same.
Rahn inquired whether the city engineer typically reviews a restoration plan.
Gundlach stated he does.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant has any document indicating that the city engineer has reviewed the
restoration plan.
Walsh stated the city engineer has indicated that he looks to Terry to come up with a plan to restore the
shoreline, which is what they are proposing.
Rahn stated it is his understanding that the plan is not detailed enough.
Gundlach stated Staff's concern is the fact that the plan is labeled schematic and is not for construction
purposes. Gundlach stated the city engineer did relay a concern about erosion into the lake during
construction and that the proposed plan does not address that.
Sanders indicated they are not constructing anything but merely restoring the vegetation.
Walsh indicated they would prefer to deal with the construction of a new stairway at another time and that
they would address the city engineer's comments at that time concerning construction and runoff.
Jurgens stated the biggest concern is the word schematic and that it is a representation that is subject to
change. Jurgens questioned whether this application should be tabled to allow the applicant time to
prepare a detailed plan and have it reviewed by the city engineer.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3113 Natural Environments Corp., Continued)
Walsh stated they have submitted a plan.
Berg stated the plan is a rough draft of what might be done and needs to be revised.
Leslie noted the city engineer has indicated he has not had the structural people at his office review this
plan. Leslie stated in his view the City does not have a plan that has been approved by the engineer.
Sanders stated they have not received any information from Staff as to what is required.
Berg stated normally landscape plans are very definitive and specify the types of plants to be planted.
Sanders stated it is a mass landscaping plan and that they have specified the areas that plantings will be
done. Sanders stated the plans were originally submitted as part of the proposed stairway and that there
may have been a miscommunication with Staff.
Walsh stated the slope is very steep in this area and that it is questionable whether the plantings will be
able to be put in.
Leslie indicated it is difficult to proceed forward without having the city engineer validate the plan.
Walsh commented they have not gotten much feedback from the city engineer except that he is looking to
a landscape architect to determine what is appropriate for the area.
Jurgens stated it is not the city engineer's job to design the applicant's plan.
Sanders stated his original understanding was to respond to the alleged clear-cutting and that he was not
aware that a city engineer's approval was needed on the type of plants to be planted.
Rahn stated a landscape architect within the City Engineer's office would be reviewing the plans.
Curtis stated the last two applications she handled with Natural Environments were in conjunction with
stairs and an engineer did review and approve the plans.
Sanders inquired whether it is necessary to have an engineer stamp the plan.
Jurgens indicated that is not necessary.
Walsh stated they would like the application to proceed before the council subject to the city engineer
approving the plan.
Jurgens inquired what is being required as far as bluff restoration.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3113 Natural Environments Corp.,Continued)
Gaffron stated the City's code currently does not address the type of plantings and that the City has the
plans reviewed by a landscape architect to determine whether the type of plantings being proposed are
appropriate and suitable for the area.
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3113,Natural
Environments Corp. on behalf of Dennis and Amanda Walsh, 1354 Rest Point Circle,granting of a
conditional use permit in order to conduct land alterations within 75 feet of the shoreline,with the
understanding the stairway depicted on the plan will not be constructed at this time, and with the
further understanding that prior to the council meeting a more detailed plan will be submitted for
review and approval by the city engineer. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Jurgens Opposed.
(Recess taken at 7:54 p.m.—8:03 p.m.)
10. #05-3115 WJM PROPERTIES,LLC,2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD,CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT,8:03 P.M.—8:14 P.M.
Peter Johnson,WJM Properties,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit amendment and approval of
revisions to their industrial site plan approval for the following:
1. Construction of an expanded parking area south of the existing main lot.
2. Construction of an addition to an existing accessory building south of the principal structure.
Gaffron stated the applicants never constructed the 20' by 75' detached garage addition and have
determined that WJM's current needs are for a slightly larger(50' by 100')addition located at the west
end of the existing garage. This addition will be served by a driveway extending from the proposed new
parking lot to be located at the south end of the large main lot.
In addition,the applicant is proposing a new 200' by 200' parking lot to the south of the existing main
parking lot lying east of the main building. This new lot takes the place of the 200' by 200' parking lot
originally approved at the southwest corner of the building but never constructed. The area at the
southwest corner might be used for a main building expansion in the future,but that is not proposed at
this time and is not part of this review.
Gaffron stated the city engineer has reviewed the project and his comments are attached as Exhibit F.
The city engineer's comments relate generally to drainage and stormwater runoff concerns associated
with the parking lot expansion.
Staff recommends approval subject to the Planning Commission's determination as to whether the
proposed 5,000 square foot addition should be finished to match the principal building and subject to
approval of final grading and drainage plans by the city engineer.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3115 WJM Properties, Continued)
Johnson stated at the time the building upgrades were originally proposed, a new face on the north side
and the east side was put on the building,but because there were significant grade changes and screening
on the south and west side,those areas remained painted block exterior walls. Johnson indicated the
language of the code does not fit perfectly in this situation because it talks about the architect's original
design concept. The design concept that was originally conceived was to put a new face on the front or
public side of the building. Johnson indicated the building is essentially an industrial building and that
the rear of the building is essentially screened from the public.
Rahn inquired whether the steel siding would continue to make the two buildings look like one.
Johnson stated that specific matter has not been discussed with his client and that he is unsure at this time
whether it is his client's intent to reside the entire building.
Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn stated at the very least he would like the buildings to match.
Bremer inquired whether paint would be acceptable.
Rahn stated he is unsure whether paint would be sufficient and that he would like the buildings to match.
Kempf noted the back of the building is rather run-down and inquired whether customers are ever in that
area.
Johnson stated the rear of the building is not designed as a public area but that there are circumstances
when customers could be in that area. Johnson stated that area is designed for wrecked cars. Johnson
stated the truck garage would be accessed from the south and the existing building has its doors located to
the north.
Jurgens inquired what type of fence would be installed in the secured area.
Johnson stated it is his understanding it is a six-foot semi-opaque fence that is required in the conditional
use permit.
Gaffron illustrated the existing fence on the overhead.
Johnson stated the existing conditional use permit does not allow them to store wrecked cars in the
eastern lot. Johnson indicated they are willing to stipulate that the new lot would not house wrecked cars.
Kempf indicated he would prefer to see the new siding material on the new portion of the building
continue around the existing portion for aesthetic reasons.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3115 WJM Properties,Continued)
Rahn noted the Council would make the final determination on the siding.
Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3115,WJM Properties,
LLC,2605 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of a conditional use permit for construction of an
expanded parking area south of the existing main lot and construction of an addition no greater
than 5,000 square feet to an existing accessory building south of the principal structure,with the
recommendation that the siding on the existing building match the new addition, and subject to
review and approval of the grading and drainage plans by the city engineer. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
11. #05-3117 JEFFREY AND ETHEL GUSTAFSON, 1310 SPRUCE PLACE,VARIANCE,
8:14 P.M.—8:20 P.M.
Jeffrey and Ethel Gustafson, Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting lot width and lot area variances in order to construct a new
single-family residence. The lot consists of approximately 20,800 square feet and is 61 feet wide at the
shoreline and 125 feet at the 75-foot setback where one acre and 140 feet are required. A conditional use
permit is also required due to the need for grading within the 0-75' setback upon the removal of the
existing home.
Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance,lot area variance, and conditional use permit in
conjunction with the City Engineer's recommendations. Curtis noted the city engineer has reviewed the
revised plan and has provided comments on the project. Curtis stated the applicants were given a copy of
the city engineer's comments.
The applicants had nothing to add to Staff's report.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Jurgens noted this is a new rebuild and inquired whether the existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone should
be reduced.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to remove the boathouse.
Gustafson stated it is his understanding he is allowed a four-foot wide stairway and that currently he has a
three-foot stairway. Gustafson stated it is his intention to hire an architect in the future to address that
situation and that he will be removing the boathouse.
Rahn noted landings are typically required with a 12-foot vertical drop.
PAGE 21
' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
•
Monday,June 20,2005
- 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3117 Jeffrey Gustafson, Continued)
Leslie moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3117,Jeffrey
Gustafson, 1310 Spruce Place,granting of lot width and lot area variances in order to construct a
new single family residence, and the granting of a conditional use permit for grading within the
0-75' setback upon the removal of the existing home subject to the recommendations of the City
Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0,Berg Abstained.
Berg indicated she has a conflict of interest and would not be voting on this application.
12. #05-3118 MARK AND JULIE PARTEN, 1310 VINE PLACE,VARIANCE,8:20 P.M.—
8:43 P.M.
Mark and Julie Parten,Applicants, were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to construct an attached garage
addition to the existing home. Curtis stated a hardcover variance within the 0-75' zone is required to
allow 5.7 percent hardcover where 0 percent is normally allowed and 11.4 percent currently exists. In
addition, a hardcover variance in the 75'-250' zone is required to allow 29.5 percent hardcover where 25
percent normally is allowed and 24.1 percent currently exists,and a variance for a rear yard setback of 28'
is required. The applicants are also requesting a variance to the average lakeshore setback variance.
Staff recommends approval of the rear yard and average lakeshore setback variances in order to construct
an addition to the existing home but recommends denial of the hardcover variance request for the 75'-
250' zone for hardcover exceeding 25 percent.
Mark Parten stated they are attempting to reduce the hardcover as much as possible and noted they have
reduced the hardcover overall on the lot. Parten stated they have removed a deck and are willing to
remove the numerous miscellaneous hardcover items located throughout the lot.
Rahn noted the 75'-250' zone is a relatively small area.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Jurgens inquired whether the garage space located within the right-of-way is being included in the
hardcover.
Curtis stated she is unsure if that portion is included. Curtis noted the plastic and rock areas have been
removed and that what exists minus those areas ends up being 24.1 percent.
Parten stated their proposal does reduce the overall hardcover on the lot even with the exclusion of the
plastic and rock.
PAGE 22
•
MINUTES OF THE
. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3118 Mark and Julie Parten,Continued)
Jurgens indicated he would like to see the hardcover reduced further and inquired what the miscellaneous
items consist of.
Parten stated they consist of stepping-stones for the most part and have already been removed.
Curtis stated the driveway within the right-of-way is not included in the hardcover calculation.
Jurgens noted they are 611 square feet over the allowable amount and recommended a reduction in
hardcover.
Rahn stated he has a concern with increasing the hardcover within the 75'-250' zone given the fact that
the property is currently conforming within that zone with removal of the poly and rock. Rahn noted the
hardcover in the 0-75' zone is being almost cut in half.
Parten inquired how the hardcover is not being reduced with their proposal.
Rahn stated the poly and the rock was not included in the hardcover calculations originally.
Parten stated the front 22 feet would be garage and the rest is a master bath addition.
Jurgens stated a portion of the sidewalk could be eliminated.
Rahn indicated he is in agreement with Staff's recommendations.
Gaffron stated the driveway could be reduced somewhat as well as the garage.
Parten noted the garage is only 22 feet,which is a small garage already.
Leslie commented it would be difficult to reduce the garage any further.
Bremer pointed out the location of the cul-de-sac restricts the lot somewhat. Bremer indicated because of
the restrictions of the lot, she could possibly support a hardcover variance of 27 or 27 percent.
Parten stated the portion of the garage over the right-of-way is not included in the calculation and neither
is the green area. Parten stated the area within the circle depicted on the overhead consists of grass.
Bremer indicated that removal of the concrete walk could possibly reduce the hardcover by another
percent.
Parten stated he was hoping to get some consideration for reducing the hardcover in the 0-75' zone,
noting he has removed a deck and a shed in that zone.
PAGE 23
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3118 Mark and Julie Parten,Continued)
Leslie inquired whether the Planning Commission would be agreeable with no increase in overall
hardcover. Leslie stated if another 170 feet were removed in the 0-250' zone, there would be no increase
in the overall hardcover.
Bremer stated in her view this is an oddly shaped lot and does limit the amount of structure that can be
put in that zone. Bremer commented it is difficult to consider a second garage a hardship.
Parten indicated he would be willing to reduce the hardcover by another 170 feet.
Bremer stated the driveway could be slightly reduced.
Leslie moved to recommend approval of Application#05-3118,Mark and Julie Parten, 1310 Vine
Place,granting of a rear yard setback variance,an average lakeshore setback variance, and
hardcover variances for the 0-75' and 75'-250' zone per the application,subject to the total
hardcover in the 0-250' zone not exceeding 4368 square feet.
Jurgens stated he would like to see the existing garage, if it should be remodeled in the future,be required
to be relocated off the city right-of-way.
Rahn indicated he would like to see if there is a second to the current motion.
Leslie indicated he is not sure whether he wants to modify the motion.
Bremer seconded the above motion.
Jurgens reiterated his concern regarding the existing garage.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
13. #05-3119 RAY NEWKIRK, 1489 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
8:43 P.M.—8:47 P.M.
Jim Smith, Concept Landscaping,was present on behalf of Ray Newkirk.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit in order to repair a washout area on the
lake yard slope caused by the removal of a dead tree. The applicants are proposing a series of
subterranean walls to remediate and repair the washout area while maintaining a natural looking slope
without retaining walls.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the city engineer's recommendations.
Curtis noted the city engineer has not reviewed the most recent revised plan.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
•
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3119 Ray Newkirk,Continued)
Smith stated he received a call from the property owner today who indicated that he had stored leaves and
other debris in that area for years,which was removed along with the tree,and in the property owner's
opinion the removal of the leaves caused the washout rather than the removal of the dead tree.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Bremer moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3119,Jim Smith.of
Concept Landscaping on behalf of Ray and Nylene Newkirk, 1489 Shoreline Drive,granting of a
conditional use permit in order to repair a wash-out area on the lake yard slope subject to the
recommendations of the City Engineer. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0
14. #05-3121 NARROWS SALOON,JAMES ANDERST AND CINDY SUDHEIMER,3382
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW,
8:47 P.M.—11:06 P.M.
James Anderst and Cindy Sudheimer,Applicants,were present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting an amendment to their conditional use permit in order to
expand the existing Class II bar/restaurant into the spaces currently occupied by the dry-cleaner and Jul
Ann Hair Fashions,to permit a kitchen addition and to permit outdoor seating at the front and rear of the
building. The property is zoned B-1,Retail Sales Business District, with a Class II restaurant being
allowed as a conditional use. The applicants received their conditional use permit in 2000.
Gaffron stated in terms of the proposed expansion of this business,the following questions should be
addressed:
1. Do the proposed physical facilities meet applicable zoning code standards?
2. Do the proposed physical facilities meet applicable building code standards? Gaffron noted
building code issues would generally be addressed by the Inspections Department prior to issuance of
building permits.
3. Does the use of the property meet applicable zoning and municipal code standards?
4. Because the proposed use is a conditional use in the B-1 District,what conditions or restrictions
should be placed on the use to ensure that it is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The applicants are requesting the following:
1. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow a 50' by 44' interior expansion of the
bar/restaurant into the spaces currently occupied by the dry cleaner and Jul Ann Hair Fashions.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon, Continued)
2. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow outdoor seating at the front of the
building along Shoreline Drive measuring approximately 532 square feet in area or approximately 30
additional seats,which would require that the existing sidewalk easement in favor of the City be
encroached upon by approximately 4.5 feet.
3. Amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow outdoor seating at the rear of the
building adjacent to the City-owned parking lot but within the applicant's property, measuring 1,666
square feet in area or approximately 84 additional seats.
4. Interior side yard building setback variance(east side)to permit a 13' by 16' kitchen addition
approximately 8.2 feet from the side lot line when 15' is normally required and 8.2' currently exists.
5. Front yard building setback variance to permit a front yard setback of 9' when 35' is normally
required and 16' currently exists to allow construction of a vestibule. The vestibule addition would
encroach 4.5' onto the sidewalk easement and have a 0' setback from the highway easement).
6. Front and rear yard variances would be required as a front yard of 20' is normally required and an
unobstructed rear yard of 30' is normally required where proposed vestibule and planter boxes would
encroach on these yard requirements.
Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing to construct a 13'by 16' kitchen addition to the northeast
corner of the building. The eastern side lot line requires a 15-foot setback where the existing building and
the proposed addition are only 8.2 feet from the lot line. The kitchen addition would be solely located on
the applicant's property where it would not encroach on any of the many easements currently restricting
the property in some way. The property consists of.31 acres or 13,656 square feet where a minimum lot
area of approximately 20,000 square feet is required. Gaffron noted this is an existing lot of record and
lot area is not an issue. Gaffron stated hardcover on the site is virtually 100 percent and would normally
be allowed 35 percent. Gaffron stated the applicants are not proposing any change to the hardcover
except for possibly incorporating some small green areas in the front. The applicants are proposing
increasing the structural coverage on this lot from 35 percent to 38 percent.
Gaffron stated a kitchen addition at this location would reduce the existing 25.5 foot wall-to-wall
separation between the corner service station and the Narrows building to just under 21 feet, adding to a
more congested situation both visually and from a traffic standpoint. The access driveway easement
corridor into the City parking lot at this location is 15 feet wide,within 0.7' of the existing Narrows
building and within four feet of the service station. Given that the access driveway has a bend in it just
north of the Narrows building, further restrictions by a kitchen expansion in this are would be
inappropriate. One option to consider would be to offset the kitchen addition at least five feet westward
along the north side of the building so that the visual and functional constrictions are minimized and the
separation between the Narrows and the service station does not decrease.
Staff finds that a side setback variance to allow the kitchen addition as proposed would not be
appropriate. A side setback variance of about two feet for the northeasterly corner of an offset rectangular
PAGE 26
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
•
Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon,Continued)
kitchen addition would maintain the existing level of separation between the Narrows and the service
station.
In addition,the applicant is proposing a vestibule entrance approximately 7' by 13.5' at the front of the
building along Shoreline Drive. The proposed vestibule would allow for a double door system at the
front entrance in an effort to contain interior noise. The vestibule addition shows six doors; a double set
of entrance and exit and two single doors opening to each side of the proposed outdoor seating. The B-1
zoning standards require a front yard of 20 feet depth and a building setback of 35 feet from the front lot
line. The existing building is located 16.5 feet from the front lot line, and therefore already encroaches on
both the front yard and building setback minimums. The proposed vestibule would protrude an additional
seven feet street-ward,requiring variance approval. Additionally,the vestibule would be a permanent
obstruction encroaching five feet into the City's sidewalk easement.
Gaffron stated the off-street parking requirement is approximately 80 stalls,which is based on all of the
outside seating and inside seating. The businesses existing on the north side of Shoreline Drive, west of
Shadywood Road,have historically shared the City-owned parking lot located to the rear of all the
businesses. This is out of necessity as limited on-street parking exists along Shoreline Drive. Gaffron
indicated in 1964,the Navarre municipal parking lot was acquired and improved. The businesses that
back up to the parking lot were originally assessed for the improvements to it based on their amount of
frontage on a traveled street. The Narrows site was assessed for 104.5 feet of frontage or eight percent of
the total frontage assessed. At the time of assessment,no commitments were made that would apportion
specific numbers of parking stalls to specific properties.
Gaffron stated without detailed floor plans of all existing businesses,City staff cannot calculate with any
accuracy how much parking is technically required by City Code for all the businesses having rights to
the lot.
Gaffron noted there are several easements affecting how the applicants can use this property. An ingress
and egress easement exists to provide access from Shoreline Drive to the City-owned parking lot. This
exists along the eastern 7.5 feet of the property, and while not encroached upon by any of the proposed
improvements,its functionality may be impacted by the kitchen addition as proposed. In addition, a
highway easement approximately ten feet wide exists along the front lot line. This easement is in favor of
Hennepin County and will not be encroached upon by any of the proposed improvements. An additional
easement for sidewalk purposes approximately 4.5 feet wide exists along the north side of the highway
easement and is in favor of the City. The edge of this easement is about two feet from the front wall of
the building and is encroached upon by the existing roof overhang. An underground utility and electric
distribution easement also exist.
Gaffron indicated the applicants are not proposing any additional signage. With the proposed expansion
into the remainder of the building,the applicant would now be permitted 112 square feet of total signage
with a single sign not to exceed 50 square feet.
Gaffron noted the applicant has not indicated on the plans that any new lighting is proposed. The lighting
in the City-owned parking lot will remain unchanged; however, the applicant should be asked to address
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon, Continued)
whether any new lighting will be proposed for the outdoor seating areas.
Gaffron stated the 2000 conditional use permit required the following:
1. The applicant shall install a two-door system at the rear entrance to meet all State Building and
Fire Code standards. The purpose of the doors would be to allow customers to enter and exit the building
without allowing noise to leave the building. They should be spaced so one door would close before the
second door is opened. All doors shall remain closed at all times, except when entering or exiting the
building.
2. Live entertainment will end at 12:30 a.m. each night and the saloon shall close at 1:00 a.m. each
night.
3. The front door shall not be used as an entrance during the period of time the building is used for
live entertainment. A one-year time period is required for the applicant to monitor the use of the building
and the front entrance. After one year the City of Orono will review the use of the building in relation to
the live entertainment and noise levels generated by the live entertainment use.
4. The property is subject to the sign ordinance for temporary and permanent signs. No signs can be
located on or outside the building without receiving a permit from the City of Orono.
5. Noise shall be held to a level as to not be in violation of the Noise Ordinance.
6. The sale of intoxicating liquor requires the business to have a valid liquor license with the City of
Orono.
Gaffron noted the above conditions with regard to changes to the physical elements of the building have
been complied with. The property has continued to have a valid liquor license. The operational aspects
(conditions 2, 3, and 5)have generally been complied with, although the City is aware of ongoing
concerns expressed by various area residents about the noise and late-night traffic associated with the
Narrows operation. The City has received complaints that the doors have been open for extended periods
on occasions, creating a noise impact for the surrounding neighborhood.
Gaffron noted a letter has been received from Orono's police chief expressing their concerns regarding
the expansion and the impact it would have on noise, accidents, litter,parking and safety.
Gaffron requested the Planning Commission consider the following with regards to this application:
1. Is the proposed location of the use in accord with the objectives of the zoning code and the
purposes of the B-1 district and the Comprehensive Plan?
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon,Continued)
2. Will the location of the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it will be operated
or maintained be detrimental to the public health, safety welfare, or be materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity?
3. Is the proposed use compatible with the surrounding business district and residential
neighborhoods? If not,what aspects of the use make it incompatible? What methods are available to
mitigate those aspects?
4. Is the proposed use supported by adequate infrastructure,primarily access and parking
availability? Should studies be done to determine whether parking demands on the lot by all users are
actually compatible based on varying peak time usage needs for the various businesses? Do the proposed
additions and uses have any potential negative impacts on functionality of the parking lot,the sidewalks,
or access to neighboring properties? If so,what changes might be made to minimize those impacts?
Gaffron stated the City's Comprehensive Plan states that"limited commercial areas will be provided for
neighborhood service businesses. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide
those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and
rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services,including
municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a
regional nature which would increase traffic,particularly on collector streets serving low density
residential development, will be discouraged." In addition, commercial and industrial development will
not be permitted to adversely affect neighboring residential property.
Gaffron indicated the City's Land Use Plan regarding urban commercial land use makes the following
statement regarding Navarre: "The major commercial center of Orono will continue to be the crossroads
center of Navarre. This area will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service
businesses,plus adequate professional offices,to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory
functions such as offices and owner-occupied living units or limited multi-family developments will be
considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. The scale and type of retail uses in a
pedestrian-friendly environment is the most important development parameter for the Navarre
commercial area. The City will encourage redevelopment of individual commercial sites in Navarre to
allow for an expanded range of neighborhood services and local small business opportunities."
Gaffron indicated Staff feels the possible regional draw of the entertainment aspects of the expanded use
should be considered in determining whether the proposed use has the potential to become incompatible
with the City's goals for Navarre or with the surrounding residential development. The expansion may
push the size or magnitude of the use beyond the scale that is compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood.
Staff recommends the following:
1. The proposed use should be required to incorporate a two-door system for all entrance and exit
points, along with operational requirements that such doors remain closed during times of musical or
PAGE 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon, Continued)
other noise producing entertainment, to minimize or eliminate noise impacts to the surrounding
neighborhood.
2. The proposed vestibule that would extend into the City's sidewalk easement should be denied,
and a similar vestibule should be developed within the walls of the existing building.
3. The proposed kitchen expansion at the northeast corner of the building should be redesigned to be
offset at least five feet westward along the north side of the building so that the visual and functional
separate between the Narrows building and the adjoining service station does not decrease.
4. The proposed decorative walls surrounding the rear patio area should be acceptable subject to
confirmation by the applicant that they will not violate any existing easements. The proposed planter
boxes require a variance as they are considered an encroachment of the required 30 foot rear yard. Other
than the walls and planter boxes,the proposed small vestibule and the relocated kitchen addition,no other
permanent structures should be allowed to the rear of the building. The Planning Commission should
consider whether the proposed landscaping plan at the rear of the building is acceptable as a barrier or
buffer to the parking lot and/or the residential neighborhood to the northwest, if such barrier or buffer is
needed.
5. Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed exterior seating both to the front and
rear of the building is appropriate for the B-1 District, and under what standards or limitations such use
should be allowed. Potential limitations or conditions could address appropriate numbers and location of
seating in relation to lot lines, easements,building walls, etc.; hours of allowed outdoor seating use;
lighting of outdoor seating; fencing for outdoor seating; the use of umbrellas or other amenities; whether
and where such outside seating may be appropriate for liquor service, and how such service is controlled
(this may be a more appropriate function for the liquor license approval process); and any other aspects of
outdoor seating that should be reviewed.
6. The Planning Commission should consider whether expansion of lot coverage by structures from
approximately 36 percent to approximately 38 percent(where 15 percent is allowed)is justified by the
commercial use and/or by the off-site parking.
7. The Planning Commission should consider whether parking for the proposed use is adequate, and
if not,what plan revisions/reductions or use limitations might be needed to make the parking work. The
Planning Commission may wish to consider requesting that the applicant hire a consultant to provide a
detailed parking study to show whether parking is an issue.
8. The Planning Commission should review whether the proposed signage, lighting and trash
handling/screening facilities are adequate.
9. Planning Commission should consider whether the current limits on hours of operation are
appropriate under the expanded use.
PAGE 30
- MINUTES OF THE
. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon, Continued)
10. Planning Commission should review the written and oral public comments to determine if there
are other issues not identified that need to be addressed.
Rahn inquired whether the applicants would like to make any comments at this time or proceed with the
public hearing.
Anderst indicated he would like to proceed with the public hearing.
Rahn opened the public hearing and requested that individual's comments be held to a minimum of five
minutes.
Brad Hoyt, 2523 Kelly Avenue, stated the lot does not comply with the City's setback requirements
and the hardcover,with the outdoor seating added in the hardcover calculation,increases the structural
coverage to 53 percent. Hoyt stated the norm is probably 20 percent for most cities for retail
development.
Gaffron stated because the fence is less than six feet,the outdoor seating areas would not be counted as
structural coverage.
Hoyt commented that is merely a technicality and should be considered structural coverage. Hoyt
indicated he was in attendance at a meeting presided over by Mayor Jabbour where it was stated that there
would be a policy of no tolerance on variances. Hoyt noted that a number of variances requesting smaller
hardcover increases were denied by that council and that they pale in comparison to this application.
Hoyt expressed concerns regarding the limited parking in this area. Hoyt pointed out the lot is currently
32 stalls short and that this expansion would further reduce the amount of parking available on the site.
Hoyt stated this expansion would severely restrict the ability of another restaurant to come into this area.
Hoyt stated with regard to the existing conditional use permit, Item No. 6 is in compliance,but at other
times during the year the other conditions are not in compliance. Hoyt indicated the doors are open
periodically and that there is an issue with the noise coming from the bar and from people revving their
motorcycles. Hoyt stated they have been unable to open their windows since they have constructed their
residence.
Hoyt stated in his opinion this amendment is directly contrary to the City's Comprehensive Plan and that
the City needs to take an overall view of the Navarre area.
Sherie Blevins, 3695 Lyric Avenue, stated she resides to the rear of the building and noted that a bar has
existed in this area for a considerable number of years. Blevins stated in her opinion the operation and
expansion of the bar would be a financially boost for the Navarre area and would not negatively impact
the traffic in the area. Blevins stated she would prefer to look at an outdoor dining area rather than the
dumpsters.
PAGE 31
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
•
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon,Continued)
Mark Peterson, 2341 Shadywood Road, stated he has never called to complain about the bar but noted
that the noise has increased over the years since Anderst has taken over the operation of the bar. Peterson
stated in the summer months the noise is intolerable. Peterson stated he would prefer to look at the
dumpsters rather than having a large number of people partying close to his back yard.
Rahn inquired whether the increase in noise is coming from the live music.
Peterson indicated it is largely during the summers and it comes from the bikers.
Chris Johnson, 1200 Phillips Drive, indicates he owns and operates the hardware store that is located next
door to the Narrows Saloon and that in general he is in favor of business and improvements to business.
Johnson indicated he has a major concern concerning the parking in the area and that the parking behind
his store starts to fill up around 5:00, which greatly impacts the ability of his customers to park in close
proximity to his store. Johnson stated he is unsure what impact the expansion would have on the parking
during the day and at night.
Johnson inquired whether there would be a buffer between his building and the outdoor seating area.
Chuck Nadler,2509 Kelly Avenue, stated he represents approximately 16 families who live around Kelly
Avenue. Nadler indicated approximately one year ago they formed Neighbors for a Better Navarre and
that they feel a moratorium is necessary in order for Navarre to address future development in this area.
Nadler stated if this project is approved, it would greatly restrict the future development of other
businesses in this area.
Nadler stated the current proposal is oversized given the parking and lot restrictions and that there is no
hardship that can be found inherent with the land to grant the variances. Nadler stated a vestibule area
could be constructed within the existing structure. Nadler stated in his view the outdoor seating is
permanent and should be considered as such by the Planning Commission.
Nadler stated the kitchen could also be expanded within the existing building.
Nadler indicated he concurs with the concerns raised by the residents and staff concerning the parking.
Nadler stated to his understanding this proposal more than triples the size of the building and does not fit
in with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Nadler stated the owner should be made to deal more effectively
with the complaints and issues that currently exist prior to expanding. Nadler concurred with the issues
raised by the police chief, and suggested the Planning Commission deny the application and direct the
applicant to revise his application to avoid the need to request any variances and be more in compliance
with City Codes.
Sam Marfield,2455 North Shore Drive, stated he likes to frequent the Narrows Saloon and is in favor of
the sidewalk café being proposed.
PAGE 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20, 2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon, Continued)
Alisha Butler, indicated she is the owner of the signage business located near the Narrows Saloon and that
the Narrows Saloon has raised an awareness of the other businesses in the area and should be considered
an asset to the community. Butler stated Jim and Cindy have raised thousands of dollars for the
community that they should be applauded for.
Butler stated she works sometimes until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning and that the noise at that time of day
from the Narrows Saloon does not equal that created by rush hour traffic. Butler stated in her view the
expansion would not impact the parking in the area,noting that the busy time for the bar starts at around
7:00, 8:00 p.m. Butler suggested erecting some signs restricting parking in certain spots for the hardware
store.
Butler stated in her view the patio would enhance the building and the area. Butler stated currently the
building is an eyesore.
Lois Hudlow, 3438 Lyric Avenue, stated she does not appreciate the noise generated from the Narrows
Saloon and that she has a concern the expansion will result in parking along Lyric Avenue,which is
already quite narrow. Hudlow indicated she does object to the outdoor seating area due to the noise that
could be generated. Hudlow raised a concern regarding the safety of children in and near the Navarre
Park with the increase in traffic.
Rick Rice,2700 Kelly Avenue, stated he did recently attend a neighborhood meeting and that there was a
lot of exaggerated negative comments. Rice stated he routinely does a neighborhood cleanup and he has
not had to pick up any garbage from the Narrows Saloon.
Rice indicated he also did an informal parking study at various times of the day and that he has not
noticed any problems with parking. Rice stated the traffic in the area would drown out the music from the
bar. Rice indicated the Narrows Saloon cannot be assigned the blame for the noise coming from
motorcycles and that a very small number of motorcycles actually are stopping at the Narrows Saloon.
Rice stated a moratorium is a stall tactic and is intended to stop the expansion of the bar/restaurant. Rice
commented the Comprehensive Plan could be improved somewhat for this area.
Rice noted a number of non-Navarre residents do spend their money in Navarre and that this expansion
would financially help the Navarre area and help lay the foundation for improving the Navarre area.
David Hardten, 2515 Kelly Avenue,indicated he would like to commend the owners of the Narrows
Saloon for attempting to improve the area but that he has a concern regarding the potential increase in
traffic caused by this expansion, which is not in the best interests of Navarre.
Hardten stated he would like to see the area improved but that he is not in support of what is currently
being proposed and that indoor vestibules could be added to help with the noise situation. Hardten noted
the doors are left open occasionally during the summer and that there is very limited room for outdoor
seating in front of the building.
PAGE 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon,Continued)
Sue Schmidt,2585 Kelly Avenue, stated her family has resided at that location since 1948 and she has
seen many changes to this area over the years. Schmidt stated in her mind one of the best things to come
to the Navarre area has been the Narrows Saloon and that she is in favor of the expansion.
Geri Hardten,Watertown, stated the amount of traffic on Highway 15 and 19 is not due to the Narrows
Saloon but is just general traffic in the area. Hardten stated in her view a lot of the noise is actually being
generated by Lord Fletchers and not the Narrows Saloon. Hardten stated the rules and regulations of a
city need to be adapted as an area changes and grows.
Christine Valerius,indicated she is in the process of renovating the Marcel Dittrich house and that in her
•
opinion the Narrows Saloon has been a great addition to the City of Navarre. Valerius stated Navarre is
in need of other businesses and that she is in support of the expansion because it will help keep business
in Navarre.
Valerius stated she has conducted her own parking study and that a lot of people who utilize the Park-N-
Ride in the neighborhood tend to park in the main customer area rather than parking in the west corner.
Steve Parente,2684 Lydiard Avenue, stated he moved to the area approximately two years ago and that
the Narrows Saloon is a nice asset to the area. Parente indicated the expansion would help increase the
economy of the area and would help lay the foundation for improvement to this area.
Parente stated their residence is located higher than most of the other buildings in the area and that the
noise generated from the bar is not an issue. Parente stated the noise generated from the traffic in the area
is more of a nuisance than the noise from the bar.
Shawn Reese, County Road 19, stated he has resided in this area since he was a young child and that there
have always been motorcycles in the area. Reese stated he is in favor of the expansion and that the
business has done a lot for the area. Reese stated Jim and Cindy should be commended for all they have
done for the community.
Richard Meyers, 2195 Bayview Place, indicated he does not hear noise from the Narrows Saloon but
rather noise from the traffic in the area. Meyers stated the Narrows Saloon is a major improvement to
Navarre and pointed out that Jim Anderst has generously donated money over the years to the City's
parks. Meyers stated the Narrows Saloon is a neighborhood bar and has helped to revitalize the
community and that the owners should be given credit for the good that they have done.
Thomas Lowe, 3295 Carman Road,noted Orono's police chief had outlined a number of concerns that the
police department has with the Narrows Saloon. Lowe stated a majority of the neighbors resided in the
area prior to the Narrows Saloon being there and that the expansion of the bar would have a negative
impact on the neighborhood. Lowe raised a concern regarding the close proximity of the Navarre Park
and children playing in the area.
PAGE 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
•
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon,Continued)
Tamera Walmar,Mound, stated the Narrows Saloon has great food and great music. Walmar indicated
she does bring her child to the bar for lunch and that they visit the park and she has not experienced any
problem with crossing the street. Walmar stated the beautification of Navarre has to start with some
business and that the Narrows Saloon has probably been the main the business to help revitalize this area.
Dan Hessberg stated he has resided in this area since 1968 and he has seen how the Narrows Saloon has
helped to revitalize the community. Hessberg stated in his opinion the bar has helped to expand not just
Navarre but the lake area in general and that he is 100 percent in support of the project.
Mike Cummings, 10 Woodpecker Ridge Road,Tonka Bay, indicated he has worked law enforcement and
corrections for the past 35 years and that he likes to visit the Narrows Saloon. Cummings stated the
Narrows Saloon is one of the few places he can visit and feel comfortable.
Jane Cameron stated the Narrows Saloon has helped to bring the community together and has helped the
economy of the Navarre area.
Mark Schmidt, 3499 Lyric Avenue, stated in his opinion there is some exaggeration concerning the
amount of noise from the Narrows Saloon and the lack of parking in the area. Schmidt noted the highway
is already busy and that the expansion will not significantly raise the amount of traffic in the area.
Schmidt stated he fully supports the expansion.
The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed at 10:13 p.m.
Sudheimer pointed out they are not expanding the bar area but rather the restaurant portion of the
building. Sudheimer stated they would like to accommodate the families that like to frequent the Narrows
Saloon as well as create a banquet area,which necessitates the need to expand the kitchen.
Anderst stated they are willing to revise their plan somewhat.
Sudheimer stated the outdoor seating area would be contained and sheltered somewhat. Sudheimer stated
they would like to work with the City to arrive at a plan that works for everybody.
Rahn inquired whether alcohol would be served in the outdoor seating area.
Sudheimer stated they currently have 17 tables and that they would like to expand the seating area.
Sudheimer indicated they would like to serve alcohol in that area.
Anderst stated there would not be music in the outdoor eating area.
Kempf stated he is in agreement with a majority of the comments expressed tonight and that the Narrows
Saloon is an asset to the Navarre area. Kempf indicated he would like to see an interior expansion of the
facility. Kempf noted he does reside in the area and has not noticed a great deal of noise from the
Narrows Saloon. Kempf commented the neighbors in close proximity to the Narrows Saloon do have to
PAGE 35
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon, Continued)
be taken into consideration and that he has a concern with the outside seating area. Kempf stated he
would like to see both vestibules and the kitchen constructed within the existing interior space.
Sudheimer inquired whether the outdoor seating area would be acceptable if it is reduced in size and
screening is provided.
Kempf indicated he still has a concern with the noise that could be generated from the outdoor seating
area. Kempf stated by eliminating the outdoor seating area a number of the issues dealing with the
parking are eliminated.
Leslie stated he understands the traffic noise issues and pointed out that traffic and motorcycle noise is a
problem in a number of areas. Leslie stated in his opinion the vestibules should be interior as well as the
kitchen expansion. Leslie stated he has a concern with the outdoor seating during the nighttime hours but
not necessarily during the daytime. Leslie inquired if the rear seating area could close earlier than the rest
of the facility and whether the outdoor seating could be limited to the front rather than the rear.
Sudheimer stated the patio is a new concept for the area and that they are willing to consider different
options.
Anderst stated currently there are approximately 20 people outside on the curb smoking and talking and
the amount of noise generated by some people sitting at this outdoor seating area is minimal compared to
the noise generated from the traffic. Anderst stated people like to be outside. Anderst stated this is a
business district and that he did not allow the houses to be built next to this area. Anderst stated he
cannot control the noise generated by the motorcycles and other traffic in the area.
Hoyt recommended Anderst purchase additional land if he wants to expand.
Anderst indicated he would be willing to revise his plans to expand the kitchen inside as well as the
vestibule.
Bremer stated in her view the outdoor seating in the front might be more dangerous than the rear given
the traffic in the area and the limited amount of space. Bremer indicated she is not supportive of the
vestibule as currently proposed. Bremer stated she would like to see the outdoor seating combined into
one area, screened, limited hours, and done on a trial basis.
Bremer stated she does have a concern regarding the parking in this area and that the signs designating
parking for the hardware store may not work.
Rahn stated he is opposed to the vestibule and that it should be constructed on the interior. Rahn stated he
would be supportive of a trial basis for a reduced outdoor seating area and recommended the Narrows
Saloon do a lot of self-policing of the area to avoid problems.
PAGE 36
- • MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon,Continued)
Rahn stated he also has an issue with the parking in the area and how that may impact future businesses
that may want to come into the area. Rahn indicated he likes the idea of a banquet room.
Jurgens stated in his view the number one issue is the parking in the area and the number two issue is the
noise. Jurgens indicated he is supportive of the outdoor seating area but has some reservations about
seating in the front. Jurgens recommended a parking study be conducted for this area.
Jurgens recommended the rear outdoor seating area be enclosed so it can only be accessed from the inside
of Narrows Saloon.
Jurgens stated he is in agreement that there needs to be some type of catalyst to help rejuvenate the
Navarre area and that stifling growth is not the answer.
Berg indicated she has resided in this area for the past 26 years and has periodically frequented the
Narrows Saloon. Berg stated during the time she has sat on the Planning Commission there has not been
one person who approached the Planning Commission to help rejuvenate this area. Berg indicated she is
a strong supporter of revitalizing Navarre and that the Narrows Saloon is a benefit to the community.
Berg stated she would like to see the vestibule constructed on the interior and restrictions on the outdoor
seating area.
Rahn concurred that there needs to be some restrictions placed on the outdoor seating area. Rahn inquired
what function the rear folding doors would serve.
Sudheimer stated that is to access the outdoor seating area.
Rahn stated he would like to see double doors to help reduce the noise.
Jurgens stated a vestibule to the patio area is necessary in his opinion.
Anderst stated they do attempt to keep the door closed, especially when there are live bands in the bar.
Sudheimer pointed out with the expansion that door would become an emergency door only and the
vestibule would help capture the noise from the new entrance.
Jurgens inquired whether the heating and ventilation for this building should be reviewed.
Anderst stated a lot of it had to do with the cigarette smoke and is not as big of an issue now.
Rahn stated as it relates to the plans of operation, some thought should be given to the outdoor seating
area and recommended that some restriction on the hours be placed on the outdoor seating area.
PAGE 37
- - ' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon,Continued)
Sudheimer suggested restricting the hours on the outdoor patio to 10:00 or 11:00 with no eating or
drinking in that area after 10:00 but allow people to go out there to smoke.
Rahn stated he would not be totally opposed to two-seat tables along the front of the building but that he
would not be in favor of an encroachment.
Bremer pointed out there could potentially be alcohol in that area.
Sudheimer stated they are willing to restrict alcohol in that area.
Bremer stated in her view she would prefer an expansion that is done in stages.
Leslie indicated he is leaning in that same direction.
Sudheimer stated they would need to revise their plans to reflect the kitchen expansion in a different
location and the front vestibule on the interior.
Rahn concurred there should be a parking study done for the area.
Bremer inquired whether the City has received any complaints regarding the narrow width of the parking
stalls in the parking lot.
Gaffron stated he is not aware of any.
Jurgens inquired whether the parking lot could be reconfigured and if the property owners that utilize the
lot could be assessed.
Gaffron stated the parking lot needs to be taken into account and the options considered.
Anderst indicated if the existing kitchen is eliminated,the amount of seating in the bar/restaurant would
be reduced, which would affect the amount of parking needed.
Anderst inquired whether the trees in the front are an issue.
Berg stated she is not opposed to the trees.
Sudheimer stated they have $4000 in an account that was raised from Dog Days that was going to be
designated for trees in Navarre.
Gaffron stated there are a number of issues surrounding the planting of trees in Navarre that need to be
worked out.
PAGE 38
- • MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 Narrows Saloon,Continued)
Anderst stated they received a quote for$5000 to plant one tree. Anderst stated he would like to install a
sprinkler system and electrical outlet by the trees.
Leslie stated there are some issues that need to be considered with planting of trees along the street and
concurred that Staff will have to research the issue further.
Rahn inquired whether the hours of the outdoor seating area would change on the weekends.
Sudheimer stated their kitchen hours do change on the weekend.
Kempf noted the residents in this area do reside there seven days a week and that he does have a concern
for the neighbors with an outdoor seating area. Kempf stated in his opinion 10:00 is a reasonable hour for
the weekends and weeknights.
Nadler inquired whether there would be further opportunity for the public to comment on the revised
plans.
Gaffron stated normally a second notice is not given on an application, and recommended that the
residents call city hall to see whether this matter is on the July agenda.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to table Application#05-3121, Cindy Sudheimer and James
Anderst on behalf of the Narrows Saloon,3382 Shoreline Drive,to allow the applicants time to
revise their plans. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
15. #05-3123 MICHAEL AND KRISTIN HART, 1005 LINDEN LANE,VARIANCE, 11:07
P.M.— 11:38 P.M.
Michael Hart,Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting the following variances in order to construct an addition to their
existing home:
1. A hardcover variance for the 0-75' zone for 16 percent hardcover where 0 percent is normally
allowed and 17 percent currently exists;
2. A hardcover variance for the 75'-250' zone for 43.5 percent hardcover where 25 percent is
normally allowed and 54.6 percent currently exists;
3. A hardcover variance for the 250'-250' zone to allow 45 percent hardcover where 30 percent is
normally allowed and 57 percent currently exists.
PAGE 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3123 Michael and Kristin Hart, Continued)
4. Lake and average lakeshore setback variances for portions of the second story addition;
5. Side setback variance for a second story addition 9.4 feet from the side lot line where a 10-foot
setback is required.
Curtis noted two letters have been received from neighbors concerning this application.
Staff recommends approval of some level of hardcover variances in order to construct a second story and
a reduced size garage addition,but recommends denial of the setback variances in order for portions of
the second story to encroach into the lake, side and average lakeshore setback areas.
Hart noted he did not see the second letter received from the neighbors.
Curtis provided a copy of the letter to the applicant.
Hart stated they are applying for a variance because the lot is uniquely shaped and is set to one side and is
240 feet long. Hart indicated the existing house is partially within the 75-foot setback and one corner is
also partially into the setback. Both conditions were pre-existing.
There were no public comments concerning this application.
Rahn read a letter from Nancy Bloms dated June 17,2005, indicating she is not in support of this
variance.
Rahn stated he basically is in agreement with staff's recommendations and inquired whether there would
be less hardcover if the garage faced straight rather than to the side.
Hart stated he did verify the hardcover and that the hardcover would not be decreased with the garage
facing straight and would be less with a side-loading garage.
Bremer inquired whether the average lakeshore setback variance could be reduced.
Hart stated if the average is taken, it is over by eight inches
Rahn inquired whether that would have any negative impact on the neighbors' sight lines.
Hart stated he has attempted to minimize the impact on the neighbors as much as possible and that the
two adjacent neighbors to his property have not expressed a problem with the proposal. Hart noted the
existing shed would be removed as well as two sets of stairs. Hart stated he has reduced the driveway by
two feet in width.
Rahn stated typically further encroachments are not allowed into the setbacks. Rahn stated by
constructing up,there would be further encroachment into the setback.
PAGE 40
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3123 Michael and Kristin Hart,Continued)
Curtis stated 88 square feet would encroach.
Rahn inquired whether there are hardcover reductions in all zones.
Hart stated the hardcover is reduced in all zones.
Rahn noted the structural coverage on this lot is in compliance.
Hart stated they did revise their plans to comply with the 15 percent structural coverage limit.
Jurgens stated he is not in support of the encroachment. Jurgens inquired whether the issues raised by the
city engineer have been addressed.
Curtis stated the city engineer's comments received on Friday have been given to the applicant. Curtis
stated to her knowledge some of the items have been addressed.
Bremer indicated she does not have a problem with the size of the garage being proposed or the hardcover
numbers but that she does have a problem with the encroachment into the lake and average lakeshore
setback and side setback.
Hart stated the lot is oddly configured. Hart indicated he would like to revise his plans to eliminate the 88
square feet and proceed forward to the Council.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3123,Michael and
Kristin Hart, 1005 Linden Lane,granting of hardcover variances as outlined in the application
summary,and to recommend denial of the lake and average lakeshore setback variance and denial
of the side setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Leslie Opposed.
Leslie indicated he would prefer to see the revised plan before approving it.
16. #05-3125 CHRISTINE VALERIUS,2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
11:38 P.M.— 12:14 P.M.
Christine Valerius,Applicant, and Phillip Fisk were present.
Valerius indicated she has brought a copy of the new plan.
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow an office use in the upper
level of the new addition currently under construction and a side street setback variance to allow a second
story stairway to be set back 21.5 feet from the side street lot line when 35 feet is required and 24 feet
currently exists. The applicant is now requesting to operate her personal office out of the second story.
PAGE 41
- MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3125 Christine Valerius,Continued)
Staff finds there is no real hardship inherent to the land to allow a further encroachment on the side street
of Lyric Avenue and feels the existing construction plans could be revised to allow for an interior access.
Another alternative is to incorporate a door on the northern side of the addition, at the main level,where
the zoning ordinance would permit a stoop as a non-encroachment.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment to allow the upper level of the new
addition to be used as office of a general nature as no negative impacts result with that use. Staff is
recommending denial of the side street setback variance to allow a further encroachment of the side street
of Lyric Avenue, as there are alternatives to the proposed exterior staircase.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission determine hardship in deciding the side street setback.
Valerius displayed the north side of the building,noting a stoop and doorway are located on the north
side. Valerius stated they have decided to locate the air-conditioning, garbage dumpster, and gas meter
on the north side of the building and remove the stoop and doorway and three windows.
Valerius stated they have had to follow the ADA requirements for access and they are unable to relocate
the stairway on the interior at this time. Valerius indicated they would prefer a secondary access to the
upstairs.
Leslie inquired whether two accesses are required by code.
Rahn indicated it would be based on the number of occupants.
Rahn inquired whether this building is going to be multi-tenant or whether the upstairs office is an
accessory to the coffee shop.
Valerius stated there would be three tenants in the building and that they have been accessed for parking
lot use.
Gundlach noted the council eliminated parking on the site with the previously approved conditional use
permit.
Valerius stated they are allowed to use the parking lot and that there is some limited parking on the street.
Jurgens inquired whether the parking is still applicable given the increase in the number of tenants.
Rahn questioned the need for an exterior stairway given the amount of interior renovations that have been
done and the safety issues that are involved with an exterior staircase. Rahn indicated in his opinion there
is also a visual impact that needs to be considered as well.
PAGE 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20, 2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3125 Christine Valerius, Continued)
Valerius stated they have attempted to keep as much of the original building intact as possible. Valerius
indicated the building inspector informed her that an outside staircase would not be a problem.
Fisk stated the handicap ramp that has been constructed is twice as big as the staircase that is being
proposed. Fisk stated they are attempting to add an egress/ingress for the person who would be on the
second story.
Rahn stated the issue is the side setback.
Fisk indicated they are attempting to keep the building as close to the original look as possible.
Bremer inquired how people would be restricted from accessing the stairway.
Fisk stated signage would be erected to notify people that the staircase is for private use.
Rahn noted the handicap ramp only serves the first floor and that the stairway would be visible above the
ramp.
Valerius indicated a limited number of stairs would be visible and that a decorative door and light would
be visible.
Fisk pointed out there is no one in attendance that has raised any concerns regarding the appearance of the
exterior staircase.
Rahn inquired what was removed from the original structure.
Valerius stated a screen porch and shed were removed that were encroaching into the side yard setback.
Jurgens inquired whether the staircase could be relocated just inside the north wall.
Valerius stated it cannot be relocated in that area because of a beam and that there is not room anywhere
else on the interior of the structure.
Leslie inquired why the exterior staircase is required.
Valerius stated they would not be able to access the second story without the exterior stairway.
Gundlach stated the applicant was informed that the proposed office and stairway would be an issue and
that another conditional use permit would be required.
Gaffron stated the need for the conditional use permit is a self-created hardship and that they are now past
the point where they can do an interior renovation without major modifications.
PAGE 43
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3125 Christine Valerius, Continued)
Bremer commented needs of individuals do change over time as well as uses. Bremer stated she probably
would have supported the exterior staircase at the time the application was before the Planning
Commission the first time since the other two encroachments were removed.
Rahn inquired why they would not be able to access their space from the interior space. Rahn stated with
a change of occupancy,the building should be updated to meet code.
Valerius indicated the building inspector informed her that an exterior staircase would not be a problem.
Rahn stated to his recollection the upper level was discussed in terms of an accessory space and that the
space is no longer going to be used as an accessory space.
Bremer stated the Planning Commission is wondering why they were allowed to leave the existing
staircase since it is not compliant.
Berg stated the City does not allow an encroachment into the side setback.
Fisk stated the handicap ramp sticks out twice as far as the staircase.
Valerius stated there already is an encroachment with the handicap ramp.
Berg noted the use is changing and that she is not in support of the staircase.
Fisk stated they have put a considerable amount of time and money into the handicap ramp.
Kempf stated he does not prefer an exterior staircase to a second story in Minnesota and that the staircase
really should be located inside.
Leslie stated in his view this is a self-imposed hardship and that the original interior staircase would have
had to be changed to accommodate the upstairs level. Leslie noted the handicap ramp does extend over
and that a minimal amount of the stairway is visible. Leslie indicated he is unsure how he would vote on
this application.
Fisk stated they are anticipating a wrought iron staircase that would be painted the exact color of the
siding to blend in as much as possible.
Rahn stated the old structure was within 15 feet and that they have reduced the side setback by 12 feet.
Jurgens moved to recommend denial of Application#05-3125,2377 Shadywood Road,granting of a
conditional use permit. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND.
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3125,2377 Shadywood
Road,granting of a conditional use permit to allow the upper level of the new addition to be used as
PAGE 44
I .. MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3125 Christine Valerius, Continued)
office of a general nature and granting of a side street setback variance to allow the second story
stairway with the understanding the stairway will be a wrought iron staircase painted identical to
the siding.
Berg inquired whether the porch and shed encroached previously.
Gundlach indicated the porch and shed did encroach by 15 feet,with the proposed staircase encroaching
1.5 feet.
Leslie inquired whether the mechanical equipment could be located under the stairway.
Valerius stated the equipment would be located under the stairway with the exception of the gas meter.
Valerius indicated they are willing to screen the base of the staircase.
Fisk stated they are planning to also landscape the front of the handicap ramp.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Jurgens Opposed.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
17. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS MAY 23 AND JUNE 13,2005
Kempf stated he attended the May 23rd meeting,with most of the items being placed on the Consent
Agenda. Kempf stated Interspace West did express some concern that they were not on the agenda.
Gundlach stated the Navarre Congregation application was approved,with the Boyers receiving a
variance for 28 percent hardcover.
Gaffron stated the Gustafson application was put on the Consent Agenda and that the Hogan application
was tabled to allow the applicant time to submit a revised plan.
18. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
PAGE 45
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 20,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
19. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 16,2005
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
May 16,2005,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0,Berg Abstained
20. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JUNE 27
AND JULY 11,2005
June 27—Jurgens
July 11 —Leslie
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 12:22 p.m.
/_57.
David Rahn,Chair
PAGE 46