HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
, ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,September 19,2005
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 Roland Jurgens, Jim Leslie, Cynthia Bremer, J.Marc Fritzler,Ralph
Kempf, and Travis Winkey. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie
Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 1 was removed from the Consent Agenda. Item No. 2 was added to the Consent Agenda.
*2. #05-3095 MINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING ON BEHALF OF GREGG
STEINHAFEL,2265 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:01 P.M.—
6:02 P.M.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3095,Minnetonka
Portable Dredging on behalf of Gregg Steinhafel,granting of a conditional use permit subject to
Staff's recommendations outlined in the Planner's Report dated September 16, 2005.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0
OLD BUSINESS
1. #05-3115 WJM PROPERTIES,LLC,2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:02 P.M.—6:12 P.M.
Peter Johnson,WJM Properties,was present.
Gaffron stated the request tonight is for a review of the building materials proposal for the Morrie's site.
The Planning Commission in June approved the conditional use permit amendment and revisions to the
industrial site plan for an expanded parking area south of the existing main lot and construction of an
addition to the existing accessory building south of the principal structure. The applicant subsequently
reoriented the building north-south rather than east-west,which was reviewed at the July Planning
Commission meeting and approved subject to the siding materials of the accessory building addition and
existing accessory building be of matching materials and colors and final grading and further subject to
the drainage plans being submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3115 WJM PROPERTIES, CONTINUED)
Gaffron indicated the accessory building would have a 10-foot separation from the existing accessory
building rather than being attached. The building height will be 20 feet all around,now with a flat roof
rather than the low-pitched roof previously reviewed. From Staff's perspective,these changes create no
additional visual impacts from off-site.
The applicant is proposing to revise the building materials from steel construction to a pre-cast concrete
construction,with tip-up pre-cast panels with aggregate face. The Planning Commission should address
whether the new building and the existing detached garage should still be required to have matching
façade materials and colors.
Johnson had nothing to add to Staff's report.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Leslie stated he has a concern regarding the third façade that would be present on the site.
Johnson pointed out the facility is screened from every direction,with a seven acre pond on the east side
and a slope on the west side,with 394 on the south side. Johnson stated they look at the change from a
steel sided building to a concrete building as being an upgrade. Johnson noted that the steel sided
building has just been re-sided and it would not be economically feasible to tear down the steel sided
building. Johnson indicated the price of steel has also been increasing.
Rahn inquired whether the concrete panels would be exposed aggregate.
Johnson stated the panels would be exposed aggregate and that color photographs have been submitted to
Staff depicting the proposed materials.
Rahn stated he would like to see a color match.
Johnson stated they have selected an aggregate color that they feel closely matches the steel sided
building. Johnson indicated they would be agreeable to a recommendation from the Planning
Commission that they match the steel siding as close as possible from the samples submitted.
Bremer inquired whether Staff has visited this site recently.
Gaffron indicated he has not visited the site recently,but noted that a photograph is available that shows
the condition of the site.
Bremer stated she would recommend that the aggregate be matched as closely as possible.
Leslie inquired what the construction of the main structure is and why the main structure could not be
imitated.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
r L ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19, 2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3115 WJM PROPERTIES, CONTINUED)
Johnson stated there are a variety of surfaces on the main building,with cinder blocks on the backside as
well as brick trim. Johnson stated to his understanding it is a pricing element that is dictating the use of
the pre-cast concrete panels. Johnson pointed out the facility would house trucks and is not visible from
the street.
Kempf stated he is not opposed to the concrete since it is completely screened.
Leslie stated he would like the color to match as close as possible to the other structures.
Leslie moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3115,WJM Properties,
LLC,2605 Wayzata Boulevard West,granting of a conditional use permit,provided that the finish
material selected is the closest available match to the existing structure,and further subject to
Staff's recommendations outlined in the September 14,2005 Planner's Report. VOTE: Ayes 7,
Nays 0.
3. #05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON,3382 SHORELINE DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,6:13 P.M.—7:35 p.m.
James Anderst and Cindy Sudheimer, Applicants, were present.
Gaffron noted two letters from the public have been received in support of this application
Gaffron reviewed the application,noting that this matter has appeared before the Planning Commission
twice before,with the applicants requesting an amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow
a 50' by 44' interior expansion of the bar/restaurant into the spaces previously occupied by the dry
cleaner and Jul Ann Hair Fashions as well as an 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 837 square feet in area or approximately 32 additional seats. Gaffron
noted this is a reduction of 28 seats. The applicants are also proposing some landscaping in this area and
a wood fence approximately five to six feet in height. The patio area would only be accessible from
inside the restaurant.
The kitchen and vestibule additions have been incorporated into the existing building, eliminating the
need for front and side yard setback variances, and the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive has been
eliminated. The set of doors along Shoreline Drive adjacent to the stage and dance floor area are
proposed as emergency exit only doors,which should be fitted with alarm system and panic hardware to
avoid having them propped open.
The applicant is also proposing to turn the trash enclosure located on the north end of the building parallel
to the building for easier access. A gate would be placed on the front so as to screen the trash receptacles.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON,CONTINUED)
Gaffron stated the revised plans reduce the off-street parking by 13.5paces,based on the reduction of the
outdoor seating in the rear and elimination of the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive. The applicant
retained Benshoof&Associates, Inc.,to conduct a parking study in response to the recommendation of
the Planning Commission at the July meeting.
The parking study addressed the following two key parking questions:
1. Is the existing number of parking spaces in the public parking lot sufficient to accommodate the
increased demand associated with the proposed saloon expansion.
2. Will sufficient spaces remain available in the public parking lot to serve users of other properties
that rely upon this parking lot.
The study reviewed the existing available parking and noted that 129 spaces are available in the municipal
lot with 30 additional spaces available on private property. The study also reviewed existing peak
parking demand as well as future parking demand during the same peak times. The peak times reviewed
were the Friday noon period, Saturday noon period,and Saturday evening. The existing peak demands at
these noted time periods are 65 vehicles during the Friday noon period, 59 vehicles during the Saturday
noon period, and 67 vehicles during the Saturday evening period. The future demand of this area was
also taken into consideration and was projected at 115 parking stalls during the Friday noon period, 93
stalls during the Saturday noon period, and 122 stalls during the Saturday evening period. The parking
study found that adequate parking would be available with the following additional conclusions:
1. There are 30 parking stalls available on private property that were not included in the study but
remain available for users of the businesses,now and in the future; and
2. The peak parking demand for the Narrows will be Saturday evenings,when a very low parking
demand is experienced for the other businesses.
Gaffron indicated the City's traffic consultant has reviewed this parking study and has provided a number
of findings and conclusions. Of most importance,the study did not address the parking required by code,
which is based on the square footages of particular uses. Rather,the study focused on peak times. Also
lacking was the potential parking demand the other businesses might generate should they re-develop and
how that correlates to the parking demand needed by the Narrows.
Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission should review both the study conducted by Benshoof &
Associates as well as the findings and comments made by Shelly Johnson,the City's traffic consultant
and determine whether adequate parking is available.
Gaffron stated the applicants have addressed a number of concerns of the Planning Commission raised at
the July meeting and have submitted revised plans reflecting those changes and have also submitted a
parking study.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON, CONTINUED)
Gaffron noted the City Council has adopted an ordinance establishing a moratorium with respect to
development in the Navarre area since the July Planning Commission meeting. Gaffron pointed out the
Narrows application is not subject to the moratorium since the moratorium was adopted after the Narrows
application was received by the City.
Staff finds that the applicants have substantially addressed the recommendations and requests of the
Planning Commission, including reduction of the outdoor seating in the rear, elimination of the exterior
kitchen and vestibule additions, elimination of the outdoor seating along Shoreline Drive, and provision
of the results of a parking study conducted by the applicant's consultants.
The Planning Commission should consider whether the issues identified at the July meeting have been
adequately addressed and whether any issues need further consideration. Specifically, it is recommended
that the Planning Commission review the following:
1. Has the parking study provided sufficient information to conclude whether adequate parking will
be available for the proposed use or for future uses of the municipal parking lot? Should this business be
limited in its expansion if its expansion might affect future expansions of other businesses or business
spaces?
2. Has the outdoor seating component of the application been sufficiently reduced to a level that is
reasonable and that minimizes the negative impacts of the greater expansion of this area?
3. Has the outdoor seating been adequately screened? Are the methods of screening aesthetically
acceptable and in keeping with the neighborhood?
4. With regards to the placement of limitations on the applicant's use, does the Planning
Commission wish to suggest any parameters for hours of outdoor operation or propose any guidelines for
its limited trial basis?
5. The Orono Police Department has been requested to have a representative at the September 19
meeting if possible. Are there any specific issues that the Police Department should address?
6. Have the noise issues been adequately addressed?
If the Planning Commission concludes that no further plan revisions are necessary and that any remaining
issues should be addressed by the City Council,then it would be appropriate to forward a
recommendation on this application to the Council.
Anderst noted a noise study was also completed.
Gaffron stated the noise study is included in the Planning Commission packets,with the consultant also
being available at tonight's meeting to answer questions.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON,CONTINUED)
Sylvia Frank,Architect,indicated the plan is to eliminate the center vestibule completely and to make an
emergency exit near the stage.
Leslie inquired whether the layout of the doors has been finalized on any of the plans submitted to the
City.
Frank stated the code does not require those doors to be there and they could be closed off and made into
windows.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
Lois Hudlow, 3438 Lyric Avenue, stated the noise study specifically addresses the south side of the
building and that she resides on the north side of the building. Hudlow stated in her opinion a noise study
should have been completed as well on the north side,noting her residence overlooks the parking lot.
Thomas Lowe, 3295 Carman Road, displayed a transparency depicting the stage and how noise could
emanate through the building and exit through the doorway. Lowe expressed a concern that the doors
would be left open. Lowe stated the patio slopes down for drainage and that the adjoining neighborhood
is located up a hill. Lowe stated in his opinion the fence is too short to block the noise that would be
generated from the patio.
Lowe stated due to the differences in elevation,the second floor level of a residence in the area would
have a straight view of the bar over the fence. Lowe noted if the fence is higher than six feet,the patio
would be considered structural coverage and would bring the structural coverage to over 45 percent on the
lot,which would require a variance.
Lowe stated in his view restrictions on the hours of operations should be placed on this establishment.
Lowe expressed a concern that when smokers access the patio through the folding doors,noise could
leave the building.
Lowe stated in relation to the parking problem,there is a good chance that more parking should be
devoted to the park-n-ride in the future due to the rising cost of gas and the increased demand. Lowe
noted Gaffron's memo contains six items that the applicant was requested to address, with two items not
being addressed.
Gaffron noted the City's parking consultant did raise those issues.
Lowe stated he finds it curious that the City of Orono has allowed the substandard parking stalls in the
municipal parking lot and that the lot should be brought up to code as part of this application. Lowe
pointed out the number of parking stalls would be decreased if the stalls were in compliance with the
code.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON, CONTINUED)
Richard Meyers, 2195 Bayview Place, stated he does concur that parking is a problem in that lot and
pointed out that as part of the building moratorium a parking study will be completed. Meyers stated the
City should consider the possibility of expanding other parking areas, including the park-n-ride,rather
than focus solely on the municipal lot. Meyers stated the City could do something proactive as it relates
to the parking in this area and explore other parking options.
Marsha Freese, 2914 Casco Point Road, stated the applicants' proposal appears to have shifted the noise
to the north side. Freese stated she would like the Planning Commission to ask why Navarre and the
community needs this expansion. Freese stated simply because this application is outside the moratorium
does not mean that the question of whether this expansion is needed should not be asked.
Sam Marfield,2455 North Shore Drive, Orono, stated he has shopped in the Navarre area for 37 years
and that it is infrequent that a business owner wants to expand and stick money into this area. Marfield
encouraged the Planning Commission to make it easy for business owners in Navarre to expand and to
invest money into the community.
Chuck Nadler,2509 Kelly Avenue, stated the noise study did prove conclusively that the noise was okay
for one hour but that the residents have concerns with the noise level should an outdoor seating area be
added.
Nadler noted the support petition submitted by the applicants contain no addresses and that the Planning
Commission should give more weight to the concerns expressed by the neighbors who live in close
proximity to the Narrows Saloon.
Nadler indicated it is his understanding the moratorium allows for an appeal to the moratorium if
someone wants to develop in this area. Nadler stated the expanded parking needed for this establishment
would take up all the parking available for future development and that the City needs to address the
parking needs for this area at this time in conjunction with this application.
Nadler noted there were a number of concerns raised in the July 18 Planner's memorandum and that
Items 1,2, 5, and 6 have not yet been addressed by the applicants. Nadler stated the Planning
Commission should require the applicant to address all the issues that were raised at the last Planning
Commission meeting before to receiving approval.
Candace Nadler, 2505 Kelly Avenue, indicated they have resided in this neighborhood 22 years. Nadler
distributed pictures of motorcycles parked on the sidewalk and in close proximity to the Narrows Saloon.
Nadler indicated approximately 100 people were crowded into a small area for a special event held at the
bar. Nadler stated she does not want to have to listen to people partying outside the bar, especially if an
outdoor seating area is added.
Nadler stated in her opinion the need for an expanded park-n-ride for Navarre is real given the amount of
traffic currently in this area. Nadler encouraged the Planning Commission to listen to the concerns of the
residents who live in close proximity to this establishment.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON,CONTINUED)
There were no further public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing. Rahn noted a letter was received September 15, 2005, from Patsy
Kiesow, Executive Director of the Lake Minnetonka Chamber of Commerce, and a letter dated
September 17,2005, from Alisa Butler,President and Owner of The Sign Age, Inc., indicating they are in
support of this application.
Rahn stated in his view the applicants have addressed the majority of the concerns raised,but noted that
there are a few outstanding issues that still need to be addressed.
Leslie inquired of Sergeant Erickson what concerns should be addressed with any outdoor seating area
that may be approved in the community.
Sergeant Erickson stated the main concerns would include the noise and the ability of people to take
alcohol out of the area.
Leslie stated he is sensitive to the residents' sense of wanting to retain the character of Navarre and how
they would like to continue to enjoy Navarre as it currently exists. Leslie noted the applicants have taken
great steps to address the concerns raised at the previous Planning Commission meetings and that he
would look favorably upon the application.
Bremer indicated she also is in agreement with the comments of Leslie,but that she does have some
questions for the parking consultant. Bremer stated the Planning Commission is only able to deal with
the application that is before them tonight and not the overall possible future development of this area.
Bremer commented historically the area of Navarre has not seen a lot of redevelopment and that in her
opinion this expansion is right for Navarre. Bremer stated in her opinion once an application is pending, a
law cannot be imposed on that application and would be subject to the laws that exist at the time the
application is submitted. Bremer stated the moratorium is important in her mind but that it does not apply
in this situation.
Bremer stated she would be in agreement with increasing the height of the back wall to eight feet if that
would help address the noise concerns. Bremer stated the parking problem cannot be ignored but in her
view it is not enough to stop this application from going forward to the Council.
Jim Benshoof,Benshoof&Associates, stated the basic question of parking adequacy is very valid and
that there are three ways to approach that question. Benshoof stated one approach is to ask whether this
proposal makes sense, and the second approach is to ask whether the parking study addresses the current
and future parking needs of the area. The third approach would be to rely more specifically on a code
review. Benshoof indicated he would be able to speak to that question,but he would prefer to speak to
the intuitive approach to the parking.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
` ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON, CONTINUED)
Benshoof stated according to City Code,this expansion would require 63 spots. Benshoof stated the
greatest demand for parking from this establishment is in the evening hours and that the study
demonstrated at peak demand times that the Narrow's Saloon would require less than half of the parking
that is available in the area. Benshoof stated in his view this expansion does make sense in terms of the
parking. Benshoof reviewed the peak demand times for parking for the Narrow's Saloon and pointed out
that their study does account for an increase in the park-n-ride of six parking stalls as well as an increased
demand for the Narrow's Saloon. Benshoof stated the demand is below the 129 stalls that are available in
the City-owned lot.
Benshoof stated it is their conclusion that there is adequate parking to handle the expansion and to
accommodate the future needs of parking in this area.
Bremer inquired whether the size of the current parking stalls would have any impact on their study.
Benshoof noted that was an item that was included in Staff's initial report but was not addressed in this
study since it tends to be a city-issue, and if the city has concerns about the layout of the parking lot,the
city should investigate that issue. Benshoof stated it was their approach to count the number of available
stalls and that he did not notice anything so contrary to standards that would render the parking lot
nonfunctional.
Winkey questioned whether the adequacy of the lot should be addressed based on what the code requires.
Benshoof stated it is typical to base a study like this on the number of lots that are configured.
Winkey stated a new parking lot would be required to conform with the City's requirements and that
perhaps this lot should be required to meet those same standards as part of the parking study.
Benshoof stated he based his study on the number of existing parking stalls and that he did not see
anything that would make the lot nonfunctional or hazardous.
Rahn stated if the City decides to restripe the parking lot in the future,there would be fewer parking stalls
available.
Benshoof stated if the layout of the lot is studied,the parking spaces may increase or decrease and would
require a separate study.
Leslie inquired whether there has been a higher rate of incidents in this lot compared to other lots related
to its nonconforming striping.
Sergeant Erickson stated he is not aware of any problems having occurred in the lot.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON,CONTINUED)
Leslie stated the capacity study related to the municipal lot assumes that all customers of the existing
businesses would be parking in the parking lot. Leslie inquired whether the on street parking was taken
into consideration or whether it would be in excess of the amount of parking calculated in the study.
Benshoof stated they did not account for the street parking in their study.
Fritzler stated initially this project raised some major concerns,which have since been eliminated from
the plan. Fritzler commented this is a unique situation in that the applicant is requesting a conditional use
permit, which brings with it an understanding that if the applicant is not able to meet those conditions,
that the use or a portion of the use could be terminated. Fritzler stated if noise and traffic does become a
documented problem and is proven to be true,it could affect the applicant's conditional use permit.
Fritzler stated the police department does have more latitude with the ticketing and tagging of cars parked
in this lot since it is city-owned. Fritzler noted he has observed a number of trucks with trailers and other
vehicles parked in a way that they occupy a number of stalls and that it would behoove the applicant to
caution his customers to park in only one spot.
Fritzler stated he is unsure whether the restriping of the lot would change the overall concern with the
parking in this area.
Kempf stated his concern from the beginning has been the noise generated from this establishment and its
impact on the neighborhood. Kempf stated he would be in favor of a higher wall if it would decrease the
noise experienced by the local residents.
Kempf stated he does feel this business is an asset to the community. Kempf pointed out the motorcycles
belong to the customers of this establishment and that the Planning Commission is not able to regulate
that issue. Kempf stated he would like to see the outside seating area closed at 10:30 p.m. at the very
latest so the neighbors are able to open their windows at night and are able to sleep without hearing a lot
of noise. Kempf suggested a trial period of one year be tried for the outdoor seating area. Kempf stated
he would also like to see a further reduction in the number of outdoor seating, and suggested the number
be reduced to 28.
Winkey stated he does support the application and that the applicants have done a good job at addressing
the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Winkey stated he is not totally clear on the parking
issue but that it does appear there is adequate parking to accommodate this expansion.
Winkey stated in his view a 10:00 p.m.restriction is reasonable and that he would be in support of a
higher wall if it helps to reduce the noise, which would be justification for a variance. Winkey indicated
he does not feel that a one-year trial period would solve anything in that in one year a discussion similar
to tonight's discussion would be taking place. Winkey stated he would be supportive of the application if
some restrictions are placed on the outdoor seating area and a higher wall is constructed.
Fritzler inquired whether speakers or amplifiers would be located in the outdoor area.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON,CONTINUED)
Sudheimer indicated there would not be music playing outside. Sudheimer stated the smokers are
currently walking around in the parking lot and that they are proposing to locate them behind this wall.
Leslie stated the point with the folding doors is a genuine concern and suggested that a requirement of the
conditional use permit be that the doors are closed during the times there is live music.
Leslie inquired whether alcohol would be served outside in the outdoor seating area.
Anderst stated customers would be served drinks in that area but that the outside bar has been eliminated.
Leslie indicated he also recalls a 10:00 closing time for the outdoor seating area.
Sudheimer stated it was their understanding of previous discussions that the patio would be closed when
the kitchen closes. Sudheimer stated the kitchen closes at 10:00 p.m. during the week and 11:00 on the
weekends.
Jurgens stated he would be in favor of those hours.
Winkey stated he would prefer to stick to 10:00,even on the weekends.
Sergeant Erickson stated one of the problems experienced in the parking lot is that the city ordinance does
not permit parking from 2:00 a.m.to 5:00 a.m. Erickson indicated this does tend to be a problem because
patrons of the Narrows do leave their vehicles in the parking lot at times. Erickson stated they have
received a number of calls from residents asking that those parking ordinances not be enforced,but that
since it is a city-owned lot,the police department would be enforcing those ordinances.
Sergeant Erickson indicated he does have a concern with glass being served in the outdoor seating area
and that he would recommend all drinks be served in plastic containers.
Sudheimer stated she is planning on having a sign made asking motorcyclists not to park on the sidewalk
and that she would also be willing to erect signs in the parking lot regarding the overnight parking.
Rahn inquired whether the conditional use permit is reviewed by the city annually or whenever there is a
complaint.
Gaffron stated a conditional use permit allows the city to place relevant conditions on the property that
the applicant needs to comply with,but that generally there is not an annual review of the property unless
it is required in the conditional use permit. Gaffron stated the neighbors have the ability to request that
the conditional use permit be reviewed. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission would like this
reviewed on a regular basis,then that should be included as a condition.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON, CONTINUED)
Jurgens suggested the folding door adjacent to the pool table or bar be turned into a vestibule,which
would still allow them to maintain the open feel of the bar,but would allow for the double doors to be
closed.
Bremer inquired whether a subcloser could be utilized.
Jurgens stated a subcloser cannot be put on a folding door. Jurgens stated if food is not allowed to be
served after 10:00 p.m. in the outdoor seating area,but people are allowed to go out there to drink and
smoke, some type of airlock or vestibule should be constructed to contain the noise.
Sudheimer stated to the left of the back vestibule there could be a wood fence door constructed.
Kempf inquired whether that door would be used to go into the outside area from the vestibule area.
Jurgens stated from the standpoint of containment, a vestibule makes the most sense, and recommended
the applicants look at that option.
Anderst commented with the ten-foot high fence and the vestibule,the area should almost have a roof on
it. Anderst stated in his opinion the noise study should alleviate the concerns of the Planning
Commission.
Jurgens stated they do need to listen of the concerns of the residents and encouraged the applicants to be
sensitive to the local residents.
Anderst stated they have listened to the concerns of the residents but that there does not seem to be an
ending to the discussion.
Rahn inquired whether patrons would be allowed to take drinks out on the patio after 10:00 and suggested
that no drinks be allowed after a certain hour as one of the conditions.
Sudheimer stated they do currently enforce no cups be taken outside.
Gaffron noted a gate is proposed for the outdoor seating area and inquired what the purpose of the gate is
for.
Anderst stated it is his understanding an emergency exit must be provided.
Gaffron stated the building inspector would need to look at emergency access to this area.
Anderst stated he has looked at other seating areas and that they are not required to lock the gate. Anderst
stated there has to be an unlocked gate or some type of exit for the outdoor patio area.
Frank stated due to the number of occupants, another exit would be required.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3121 THE NARROWS SALOON, CONTINUED)
Rahn stated he sees a number of building code issues with this application that will need to be addressed
by the applicants.
Frank stated they would meet the code regarding egress and ingress.
Sudheimer stated she did have every business owner review their plans and they have indicated they are
in favor of the expansion. Sudheimer stated there was one business owner who indicated he is in favor of
the expansion but did not want to sign the petition. Sudheimer stated Alisa Butler, owner of The Sign
Age, Inc.,has indicated she does not have a problem with the noise.
Rahn stated it is the intent of the Planning Commission to reduce the noise as much as possible.
Meyers suggested the City look at erecting a higher fence on the city lot rather than placing the burden on
the business owner.
Kempf stated the Planning Commission has to focus on the noise generated from this establishment at
tonight's meeting.
Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3121,The Narrows
Saloon,3382 Shoreline Drive, granting of a conditional use permit,subject to the following
conditions: One,that the outside seating area not exceed 837 square feet,with a maximum of 32
seats; two,that the hours of operation for the outdoor seating be limited to 10:00 p.m. during the
week and 11:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights,which are the current hours of operation that
the kitchen is open; three,following that time people would only be allowed in that area to smoke
and no alcohol is to be allowed in the patio area after those hours; four,no speakers or amplifiers
are allowed on the patio area; five,a self-closing door out to the patio area will be installed to
minimize the noise; and six,the conditional use permit is subject to a one-year review. VOTE:
Ayes 7,Nays 0.
(Recess taken at 7:35 p.m.—7:43 p.m.)
4. #05-3131 STEVE BOHL OF BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT,INC., 190 WILLOW DRIVE
NORTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT,7:43 P.M.—8:32 P.M.
Steve Bohl,Applicant, and Mark Gronberg, Surveyor,were present.
Gaffron noted this application has appeared before the Planning Commission previously, with Bohland
Development purchasing a portion of the Calvin Presbyterian Church property and a portion of the Keith
Williamson property. Gaffron reviewed the revised plan submitted by the applicant,noting the following:
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3131 STEVE BOHL,CONTINUED)
1. The proposed cul-de-sac public road has been shifted to the northeast to accommodate additional
buildable area within Lot 8,which contains a small wetland. This layout leaves the church with a 60-foot
setback to the road, still meeting its minimum 50-foot setback requirement.
2. The lot adjacent to the Williamson residence has been converted to an 11,230 square foot outlot,
which satisfies about half of the RPUD 10 percent private recreation area requirement.
3. Wetland mitigation within the Church parcel (now lot 2)has been eliminated and the plat
proposes 1600 square feet of wetland filling within Lot 8,which requires MCWD approval.
4. Each of the proposed lots includes at least 14,000 square feet of area as recommended by the
Planning Commission.
5. Each lot except for Lot 5 has at least the required 90 feet of width as measured in a straight line at
the proposed 30-foot front setback line. Lot 5 has approximately 88'.
Gronberg noted Lot 5 has been revised slightly and now meets the 90-foot width.
Gaffron noted Item 6 states: All lots but Lots 4 and 7 meet the minimum RPUD lot depth requirement of
125 feet. Lots 4 and 7 are restricted due to the dimensions of the site and the location of the cul-de-sac,
leaving them slightly short at about 115'-120' in depth. The wetland in Lot 8 places some significant
restrictions on the functional depth of that lot.
7. The RPUD minimum rear yard requirement is 40 feet or 20 percent of lot depth,whichever is
less. Plans propose a 30 foot rear yard on Lots 3,4, 5,6, 9, and 10,which appear to substantially meet
the requirement, and 35 feet—45 feet on Lots 7 and 8,where this greater setback allows the potential to
retain or establish a buffer in keeping with the Conservation Design goals. The 45-foot rear setback for
Lots 7 and 8 also reflects the "Manage 2"wetland protection classification established for this wetland in
the new Wetland Ordinance,requiring a 25 foot buffer and a 20 foot buffer setback.
8. Each lot appears to have a buildable envelope of 75 feet by 40 feet or greater as shown on the
submitted plat drawing.
9. Stormwater ponding is proposed within Outlot A adjacent to Willow Drive, and a smaller pond at
the rear of Lot 6.
Gaffron indicated the City Engineer has provided comments on the revised plans,which include the
standard request for pavement design and geotechnical reports, drainage calculations, and level of detail
required in final design plans. In addition,the City Engineer has noted that the walkout elevations on
Lots 8, 9,and 10 will need to be raised and that some revisions to the street grades are necessary to
prevent water from damming on the church property.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3131 STEVE BOHL,CONTINUED)
Gaffron stated the City's new Wetland Ordinance designates this wetland,including its extensions into
Lots 8 and 10,as being a"Manage 2"protection classification,requiring a 25 foot buffer plus 20 feet
structure setback from the buffer. In Staff's discussions with the MCWD,it was pointed out that the
MCWD would treat the wetland extensions as part of the main wetland body for buffer purposes. Gaffron
stated this will have a significant impact by reducing the buildable area within Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10,which
has not been accounted for in the current plans.
The Park Commission has reviewed this plat at their September meeting and has recommended that a
ten-foot trail easement be established within the property along Willow Drive. This easement would
allow flexibility in the development of trail connections to Hackberry Park.
Gaffron stated the applicant has been informed that the City would like this project to incorporate
elements of Conservation Design, as this are adjacent to Willow Drive was the subject of a specific
ecological analysis by DSU as part of the Rural Oasis Study. The preliminary plat and
grading/drainage/utility plans provided to date do not specifically provide the level of information to
adequately address the visual impacts of this development.
Gaffron stated the remaining issues to resolve include the following:
1. The Applicant must provide suitable plans and elevation views showing how development of the
site can meet the City's Conservation Design goals.
2. The plan must be revised to show the 45 foot combined wetland buffer/setback as it impacts the
defined buildable envelope of Lots 6 through 10. If, as a result, one or more of these lots becomes
functionally unbuidable,revisions will have to be made to accommodate that. Alternatively,the applicant
could take the appropriate steps to challenge the wetland's management classification and hope for a
lesser buffer requirement.
Gronberg stated there is an unnatural waterway that was created by the church,which has a huge impact
on the amount of buildable land that would be available if they are required to have a 45-foot buffer from
questionable wetlands. Gronberg stated having the same buffer zones for Type I and Type II wetlands is
going to have a great impact on a number of properties throughout the City.
Gaffron noted the City has recently adopted the Wetland Ordinance. Gaffron stated if the City is going to
be consistent with the Watershed District, those areas would be considered as one type of wetland.
Bohland inquired what the Watershed's buffer would be.
Gaffron indicated it would be 25 feet. Gaffron stated there is a buffer and a setback from the buffer.
Bohland stated in his view the regulations governing wetlands has become unreasonably restricted and
that mitigation of wetlands on site is no longer being allowed. Bohland stated the fact that they are not
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3131 STEVE BOHL,CONTINUED)
able to mitigate that wetland on the site, in addition to the setback buffer,has made it very difficult to
develop a number of properties. Bohland stated the restrictions are making good plats become
unworkable.
Rahn stated the problem is that the Planning Commission cannot disregard that requirement.
Bohland requested a 25-foot variance.
Gaffron stated the ordinance is untested and has not been applied to any project. Gaffron stated there are
some methods to help deal with this situation, such as buffer averaging,requesting certain variances, and
challenging whether it should be classified as a Type I or Type II wetland. Gaffron stated Staff and the
applicant could perhaps explore some options to see if a solution can be arrived at.
Bohland indicated the homeowners association would be managing Outlot A. Bohland stated he would
prefer Lot 6 not be an outlot and that maintenance be done through the association.
Gronberg noted that is not a stormwater pond on Lot 6.
Bohland stated he sees this area as more of an urban setting than a rural setting.
Fritzler inquired how much vegetation is on Outlot A currently.
Bohland stated there is a line of trees that would be maintained along the roadway and then a berm would
also be created. Bohland indicated there are not very many trees located in the wetland area.
Gaffron noted there is a tree delineation contained in the Planning Commission packets.
Jurgens noted creation of the pond would pretty much eliminate any trees in Outlot A. Jurgens stated a
significant amount of time was spent on the wetland ordinance and that there are some pieces of land that
will be affected by the ordinance but that the regulations in his opinion are not overly restrictive.
Jurgens inquired how the applicant proposes to grade within the 1600-foot wetland area.
Gronberg stated they could come back a little further with their grading and that the plans will be revised.
Jurgens stated in his opinion the developer is proposing too much for this lot and that perhaps additional
land needs to be acquired in order to make this plat work. Jurgens stated in his view the wetland
regulations are not too restrictive as they relate to the City as a whole.
Gronberg commented that other cities have greater flexibility in their setbacks.
Jurgens reiterated that the developer is attempting to do too much with this site.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3131 STEVE BOHL, CONTINUED)
Rahn stated the City's Conservation Design Goals allow the City to deviate somewhat. Rahn suggested
the developer,discuss that issue further with Staff.
Bohland stated it is up to the City to look at the requirements,but that in his opinion this is a very nice
plat with a cul-de-sac that would be approved by a number of cities. Bohland stated in his view this is a
reasonable site plan and that the natural characteristics add to the value of the site. Bohland stated he
would like to see some adjustment in the setbacks.
Kempf stated he believes the Conservation Design Goals do allow some flexibility if the developer's
goals are similar. Kempf inquired whether the applicant has been provided the information relating to the
Conservation Design Goals.
Gaffron pointed out the study took approximately one year to develop and that it created some specific
guidelines for this area of the City,which were discussed with the applicant early on in the process.
Gaffron stated currently there is no ordinance that implements those specific conservation design
requirements. Gaffron stated the existing subdivision code allows the Planning Commission to look at
vegetation and other items that have not typically been reviewed in conjunction with applications
previously.
Gaffron stated the developer has not applied for any variances and have not submitted any landscaping
plans. Gaffron stated in his view the applicant needs to submit those plans as the next step.
Winkey inquired whether other cities look at a 25-foot buffer.
Bohland stated a number of cities look at the Watershed District requirements.
Winkey inquired whether this lot would be buildable even if the buffer were reduced.
Bohland stated he would request a 25-foot buffer and not a 25-foot setback to the buffer.
Winkey inquired whether the City has the ability to reduce that setback to the buffer.
Gaffron stated the reason for the buffer and setback to buffer is to ensure that houses are not constructed
right next to an area that is supposed to be left natural. Gaffron stated the setback could possibly be
changed in certain areas,but that given the amount of thought that went into the ordinance,the Planning
Commission should be careful to deviate from that with the first application that falls under the ordinance.
Gaffron stated some formal discussions need to be held and a plan developed on exactly what is desired
for this property.
Gaffron suggested the applicant make a proposal and submit justification for why they want it to be that
way. Gaffron requested the review period for this application be extended.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
" ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3131 STEVE BOHL,CONTINUED)
Bohland stated they would be agreeable to an extension.
Rahn stated in his view the applicant needs to discuss this application further with Staff and arrive at more
specifics concerning the proposed development.
Leslie stated this ordinance was developed to help preserve the look and character of Orono and it is not
intended to make Orono like other cities.
Rahn stated as time goes on,there will be less and less desirable land and the wetland ordinance will have
a greater impact.
Bohland stated he is aware of that but that there are times when some flexibility should be given.
Jurgens inquired where the trail would be located.
Gaffron stated the RPUD ordinance specifically states that the 10 percent private recreation area is in
addition to the other park dedication. Gaffron stated the RPUD is the logical way to develop this parcel
of land but that there might not be enough land available in one spot to make a useful recreational area.
Jurgens inquired whether amenities could be swapped for the 10 percent private land.
Bohland stated if an open space is created for no purpose,it becomes mainly a maintenance issue and is
not really functional. Bohland stated there are opportunities to extend a trail north and/or a sidewalk over
to the church property.
Rahn suggested the applicant explore viable locations for sidewalks and trails.
Jurgens stated he would prefer something that is functional rather than just a piece of land set aside.
Jurgens stated it would be a good idea to set that easement aside for future possibilities.
Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to table Application#05-3131, Steve Bohl of Bohland Development,
Inc., 190 Willow Drive North and 177 Glendale Drive,to allow for further revisions.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
Williamson noted it is 190 Willow Drive North,not south.
The public hearing was closed.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
5. #05-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:33 P.M.—8:47 P.M.
Troy Broitzman,Applicant,was present.
Curtis noted this application was discussed at the August 15t meeting. At that time the application was
tabled and the applicant was directed to work with the City Engineer to achieve a grading and drainage
plan that was acceptable to the City. The applicant has submitted a revised plan for review based on the
City Engineer's comments. The applicant is requesting a lot width variance in order to construct a new
home on the property as well as a conditional use permit due to the grading proposed to create walk-outs
on the front and the back of the home.
Curtis stated the applicant has not changed the plans with respect to the walkouts but has reworked the
site grading in an attempt to satisfy the City Engineer's comments. The applicant has indicated that the
engineered plans for the retaining walls exceeding four feet in height will be submitted with the building
permit application per the City Engineer's recommendation. In addition,the applicant has indicated to
Staff that the adjacent property owners support the application and are willing to allow a temporary
construction easement in order for the applicant to construct the retaining walls, some of which are
located five feet from the property line.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance.
The applicant is proposing to export approximately 5,400 cubic yards of fill from the site,which is the
equivalent of approximately 500 to 550 truckloads of material to be hauled off of the site. Curtis stated
the existing home on the lot does have a walkout design and another walkout home could potentially be
constructed on the lot. Staff feels,however,that the current plan could be the result of forcing two
walkouts and contrived site grading on the property inconsistent with the immediate neighborhood.
If the Planning Commission feels that the grading as proposed is appropriate for the site and the adjacent
neighborhood and the site is suitable for a home with a walkout basement on the front and rear,then the
conditional use permit should be granted. However, should the Planning Commission find that the site
grading is too extreme,creating a contrived walkout that will be out of character with the neighborhood
and will have a negative impact on neighboring properties,the proposed plan should be denied.
If the Planning Commission finds that the grading plan is suitable and recommends approval, Staff would
recommend that the retaining wall engineered plans be submitted prior to the issuance of a building
permit and the temporary construction easements be submitted prior to Council review.
Rahn inquired whether the elevations have changed since the last meeting.
Curtis stated the elevations did not change.
Broitzman indicated the elevations did change to make it appear as a lookout. Broitzman indicated he
included a retaining wall across the front of the house. Broitzman stated the drainage has been worked
out to comply with the City Engineer's recommendations.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3136 TROY BROITZMAN,CONTINUED)
Rahn inquired how far the retaining wall is from the lakeview.
Broitzman stated the deck and wall are 14 feet away. Broitzman indicated he did calculate the difference
in capacity for a lookout versus a walkout and that the difference amounts to 174 yards.
Rahn noted that elevation is different from the last proposal. Rahn stated whenever fill is being imported
or exported,the comments of the City Engineer need to be relied upon by the Planning Commission.
Broitzman stated the amount of fill being proposed has been reduced by approximately 1,900 square
yards.
Rahn inquired whether the temporary easements have been worked out.
Broitzman stated one neighbor was present earlier tonight,who is in support of the proposal, and that the
other neighbor is also in agreement with it. Broitzman indicated he does have a letter from both
neighbors indicating their support and that he will be hiring an attorney to work on the paperwork for the
easements.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
There were no comments relating to this application.
Jurgens stated in his view this is an immense amount of dirt being hauled off of this property for one
house,which just does not make sense.
Fritzler stated he is in agreement with Commission Jurgens and that typically most people try to match
the contour of the property when they construct a residence and not move massive amounts of dirt to
create a walkout. Fritzler stated he does not see anything in this application to justify that amount of fill
to be moved and that he is opposed to the proposal.
Winkey stated he is fine with the application given the changes made by the applicant.
Broitzman stated the difference between a walkout and a lookout is 174 yards,which is minimal.
Broitzman stated the lot is approximately two acres in size, and suggested that the amount of fill be taken
into consideration with the size of the lot.
Bremer stated she does like the changes the applicant has made and that in her view the residence is set
back far enough from the road not to have a major visual impact. Bremer indicated she does not have an
issue with it since the neighbors are fine with the proposal. Bremer stated she would prefer access to this
property be off of Heritage.
Rahn inquired whether the basement elevation was lowered.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3136 TROY BROITZMAN, CONTINUED)
Broitzman stated he is not removing any dirt in that area.
Jurgens inquired if the area off the garage is eliminated,how much fill would be required. Jurgens stated
in his opinion the applicant is not working with the natural features of the land and that he does not
understand the rationale for the amount of fill being moved. Jurgens stated there is a reason why the City
has a 500 cubic yard limit on the amount of fill that can be hauled onto a site and that this application
goes way beyond that and that he does not see a reason why the conditional use permit should be granted.
Rahn stated the revised plan is an improvement over what was previously submitted.
Bremer moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3136,Troy
Broitzman, 1860 Shoreline Drive,granting of a lot width variance and a conditional use permit to
allow grading in excess of 500 cubic yards,subject to the retaining wall being engineered prior to
the application appearing before the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 4; Opposed Jurgens,
Leslie,Fritzler,Kempf. MOTION FAILED.
Jurgens moved,Leslie seconded,on Application#05-3136,Troy Broitzman, 1860 Shoreline Drive,
to recommend approval of a lot width variance in order to construct a new home on the property,
but to recommend denial of a conditional use permit to allow for grading in excess of 500 cubic
yards in order to create walkouts on the front and rear of the home. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3.
MOTION CARRIED
SUBDIVISION
6. #05-3152 BORLAND DEVELOPMENT ON BEHALF OF JAMES D.MACKINNON,ET
AL,"3500"WATERTOWN ROAD,PRELIMINARY PLAT,8:47 P.M.—9:29 P.M.
Steve Bohl,Applicant, and Mark Gronberg, Surveyor,were present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is proposing to subdivide this 17-acre parcel to create six single-family
residential lots. The property is located in the RR-1B,two-acre zone. A new private road extending 700
feet northward from Watertown Road would serve five of the six lots. The sixth lot would access directly
to Watertown Road. All lots would be served by private septic systems and wells.
Gaffron stated because certain information was not submitted,he reviewed this application as a sketch
plan rather than as a preliminary plat.
Gaffron stated the proposed single-family development with two-plus acre lot size is consistent with
existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. Developed two-acre single-family lots exist west
and southeast of the site. The property to the immediate north is a larger parcel with a single-family
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3152 BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED)
residence and the property to the immediate east of the site is developed with a residence near Watertown
Road and open land including substantial wetland to the rear.
Gaffron reviewed the location of each lot,noting that the houses are essentially in a line. The proposed
road layout meets the corridor standards of a 50-foot road right-of-way and 100 foot cul-de-sac diameter.
Gaffron noted Lot 4,Block 2 has a number of issues that need to be addressed. First,the dry buildable
area southeast of the wetland is 1.67 acres, which does not meet the minimum contiguous two-acre
requirement. Second,the proposed house site is located at the most southeasterly corner of the lot,tucked
up against the front and side setbacks,in a location that will tend to block the long views the Rural Oasis
study contemplates protecting. Third,the septic sites appear to be too near the side lot line and the
alternate site is oddly shaped. Fourth, in order to make the driveway functional, it parallels the front lot
line for 200 feet before it enters Watertown Road. This driveway requires a retaining wall approaching
ten feet in height just outside the required wetland buffer.
Gaffron stated Staff would normally require that all lots in a subdivision be served with driveways from
the new local road rather than from the arterial. Lot 4 is proposed to access directly to Watertown. The
alternative would be to create a driveway connection across the entire width of Lot 4 to connect with the
private road. This would impact the wetland buffer area.
Gaffron indicated the proposed development would be required to provide stormwater management
systems including ponding. A stormwater pond is proposed near the east end of Lot 3,just above the
wetland, and a lengthy storm sewer is proposed leading from the southwest corner of the property to the
pond, in order to collect storm drainage from the entire private road. An easement for the existing
drainageway through the site was granted when the property was subdivided as a part of the Kintyre plat
in 1983. Wetlands on the site will be subject to the standard Flowage and Conservation Easement as well
as the City's new buffer requirements.
Gaffron indicated the Orono Comprehensive Trail System Plan does not show any future trails along this
segment of Watertown Road. The six new lots would be subject to the standard eight percent park
dedication. It is likely that this will be in the form of a fee rather than land dedication; although the Park
Commission will be reviewing this.
Gaffron recommended the developer familiarize himself with the City's proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment with regards to Conservation Design, as this property is being reviewed in terms of the Rural
Oasis goals and policies soon to be formally adopted.
Bohland stated he has had the septic sites tested but the report has not yet been submitted.
Gaffron noted he only has the boring information.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
-- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3152 BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED)
Bohland stated he has met with the neighbors to the north and have spoken with them regarding the future
use of their lot. Bohland stated they are looking at how that lot can eventually be brought into this
development at some point in the future.
Bohland stated if the wetland on Lot 4 were mitigated,the extra 2000 feet would make it a contiguous
two-acre site.
Gronberg stated the Kintyre plat stated there was a drainage ditch,but since that time the wetland
definition has expanded considerably.
Bohland stated for Lot 4 they would prefer to have the access off of Watertown rather than access off the
new road. Bohland stated they feel Lot 4 would be a nice site for a home with a workable driveway.
Bohland stated the driveway access off of Watertown for the property to the west would be eliminated
and they would gain access off the new road.
Bohland stated Lot 3 could be revised slightly to accommodate a house
Leslie inquired about the elevation of the new road and how it would be blended with Watertown Road.
Gronberg stated it would get filled four to five feet down in the lull,with a retaining wall along the west
side.
Rahn inquired whether there are any bluff setbacks on this site.
Gaffron stated they would not considered bluffs since they do not drain into a lake.
Leslie inquired whether the road would go down from Watertown and then go up towards the back end of
the property and cut into the slope.
Gronberg stated Exhibit E shows the cross-section of the road.
Leslie inquired how high the road is above the wetland at its highest point.
Gronberg stated it is approximately six to eight feet above.
Bohland pointed out there would be some trees remaining along the edge of the roadway as well as some
new open area.
Jurgens inquired whether the City has the ability to look at clustering for this property.
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3152 BORLAND DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED)
Gaffron stated the City does have that ability, and that the question comes down to whether individual
septic sites would work with clustering. Gaffron stated shared septic sites present a number of issues that
the City has not dealt with previously.
Jurgens stated in his opinion clustering should be seriously considered for this property.
Bohland stated the market would not accept a common septic system. Bohland stated they reduced the
size of the lots and have put land in common areas to accommodate septic sites. Bohland stated in his
experience there is a concern by homeowners with sharing a septic site.
Gronberg stated individual septic sites could also be located on outlots.
Jurgens inquired where the city sewer currently ends.
Gaffron stated this development is not close to the sewer line.
Jurgens suggested some research be done on grinders
Gronberg inquired whether this area is located in the MUSA District.
Gaffron stated it is not located in MUSA and would require a comprehensive plan amendment.
Winkey inquired whether that spot in front of Lot 4 is still needed.
Bohland stated it is necessary.
Winkey stated in his opinion Lot 4 does not fit with the rest of the development and appears to be
crammed in.
Kempf stated one of the major outcomes of the City's Rural Oasis was the preservation of views,which is
one reason for clustering. Kempf indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Winkey that Lot 4
does not appear to fit.
Bohland stated they would be looking at getting the six lots up on top and possibly foregoing Lot 4 along
Watertown Road.
Bremer inquired whether the private road could be relocated.
Gronberg stated in his opinion it is not possible unless the road comes from the west or the north.
Bremer commented a large number of trees would be lost with construction of the road.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3152 BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT,CONTINUED)
Gary Demele, 3400 Watertown Road, indicated his property is to the east of this development and that he
applauds the Planning Commission's thoughts on this application. Demele stated in his opinion Lot 4
does not work, citing eight-foot retaining walls and a limited back yard.
Demele stated the trees make this site attractive and that he would like to see if those mature trees could
be preserved. Demele presented a picture of the site to the Planning Commission.
Demele stated the site is not level and the layout of the houses really gives the appearance of a vertical
perspective. Demele encouraged the Planning Commission to keep in mind what he has to look at also.
Steve Gagne, 3505 Watertown Road, stated if Lot 4 is retained,he would like to see the driveway off of
Watertown to help preserve the trees. Gagne stated he is undecided on the proposal.
Bohland stated the retaining walls are depicted if it is accessed off the private road rather than off of
Watertown Road.
Gaffron stated up to 12 percent vertical curve is allowed for private roads.
Kempf encouraged the applicant to take the initiative on the clustering option.
There were no additional public comments regarding this application.
Jurgens recommended the natural features of the property be identified on the map. Jurgens stated in his
opinion the driveway is good as proposed and that he likes the canopy of trees over the roadway.
Gronberg stated if Lot 4 is eliminated,the road could perhaps be relocated somewhat to preserve some
additional trees.
Gaffron commented the City has an existing ordinance which requires a vegetation preservation and
protection plan and another ordinance that discusses the character of the land which could limit
development on the site if the site is found to be unsuitable by the Council for subdivision or development
due to flooding, improper drainage, steep slopes, etc. Gaffron stated there is enough language in existing
codes to require that the existing wooded areas and trees be identified. Gaffron stated a tree survey would
be useful in this case.
Leslie stated he would find a post-development elevation from Watertown Road extremely helpful.
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to table Application#05-3152,Bohland Development on behalf of
James D.Mackinnon,et al, "3500"Watertown Road,Preliminary Plat. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
7. #05-3145 ICO LANDSCAPE LLC ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND VICKY NELSON,679
MINNETONKA HIGHLANDS LANE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,9:29 P.M.—9:35 P.M.
Robert Nelson, Applicant, and JD Nelson, ICO Landscape,were present.
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow land alterations consisting of
retaining wall replacement within 75 feet of the ordinary high water of Lake Minnetonka and a hardcover
variance for the 0-75' zone to permit 7.7 percent hardcover where 0 percent is normally allowed and 14.5
percent exists.
Gundlach indicated the previous property owner in the 1980s constructed a number of retaining walls
without first obtaining a conditional use permit. This previous owner was required to go through the
after-the-fact permit process and ultimately obtained approval for the retaining walls constructed within
75 feet of the lake in 1983. The current owner has now expressed the need to replace a number of these
walls as they are beginning to deteriorate. Staff,the City Engineer, landscaper and owner have met on
site and in the office to discuss the scope of work and to develop an appropriate plan for replacement of
these existing walls.
Gundlach indicated the City's Zoning Ordinance establishes evaluation criteria for a conditional use
request, which requires that a planting and vegetation plan be submitted in conjunction with the retaining
wall replacement plan. Gundlach stated the timber stairwells are proposed to be replaced with keystone
and the bottom tier of the retaining wall on the north side of the lake yard is proposed to be eliminated.
The applicant is also proposing replacement of the walls running parallel to the staircase on the south side
of the lake yard and removal of the large deck and staircase. Gundlach stated vegetation consisting of
hostas and daylilies are being proposed to help screen the walls.
Staff finds that based on the 1983 approval of the walls and the City Engineer approval of the replacement
plan,the requested conditional use permit should be approved subject to the City Engineer
recommendation regarding erosion control. The applicant is also planning to eliminate all unnecessary
hardcover within the 0-75' zone. Gundlach indicated a review of the proposal against the evaluation
criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance indicates no negative impacts will result with the proposed
plan.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the application per the City Engineer recommendations noted in
the letter dated September 12, 2005, and also in accordance with the hardcover removals proposed by the
applicant.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant understands the recommendations of the City Engineer.
Robert Nelson indicated he does understand the comments of the City Engineer.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3145 ICO LANDSCAPE, CONTINUED)
Bremer indicated she is fine with this application.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3145,ICO Landscape,
LLC,on behalf of Robert and Vicky Nelson,679 Minnetonka Highlands Lane,granting of a
conditional use permit subject to staff recommendations and granting of a hardcover variance for
the 0-75' zone to permit 7.7 percent hardcover where 0 percent is allowed and 14.5 percent
currently exists. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
8. #05-3149 TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH,2060 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,9:35 P.M.—10:00 P.M.
John Thiesse,Trinity Lutheran Church, was present.
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow construction of additions to
the existing church operating under the controls of several conditional use permits,which also includes
re-paving,reorientation, and enlargement of the existing parking lot.
The proposed improvements consist of a great room, conference rooms,bathroom,nursery, and
administrative offices additions and repaving, expanding, and reorienting of the existing parking lot.
Also, as part of the improvements proposed under this application,the church will be hooking into city
sanitary sewer and will be abandoning the existing mound septic system in the southwest corner of the
property.
Gundlach indicated all side and rear yard setbacks have been met,but a front yard parking setback
variance would be required in order to construct the expanded parking located in the southwest corner of
the site as the front yard setback proposed is 14 feet where 50 feet is required. Staff finds that due to the
extensive right-of-way width along the north side of Sixth Avenue North and the topography of the lot
relative to gaining more level stalls,there may be a hardship to warrant approval of a variance for
construction of this parking area. The total amount of parking stalls provided on the proposal is 221
stalls,which is adequate to support the preschool program and church activities on Sunday. Gundlach
noted the City Engineer did raise some issues with the size of the proposed stalls.
Gundlach indicated the exterior building materials as proposed consist of a light brown brick to match the
existing exterior building materials on the church. The applicant is not proposing any new lighting within
the parking lot. The current parking lot does not contain any pole lighting nor would the building code
require any. The applicant has indicated that only security lighting is proposed,which would be located
at the entrance locations, and some minimal lighting necessary to safely illuminate the sidewalks.
Gundlach indicated there are three entrance points shown on the proposed plan,with the main entrance
facing Sixth Avenue North and two secondary entrances off the parking lot,which face east. Staff does
not anticipate that any new building mounted lighting would be near enough to adjacent residential
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(05-3149 TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, CONTINUED)
property to cause any negative impacts. Should the applicant decide to add parking lot lighting in the
future,an additional conditional use permit must be reviewed.
The applicant is not proposing any new signage as part of this proposal. The applicant has also indicated
they are in compliance with the 30-foot height limitation,with a proposed height of 27 to 28 feet.
Gundlach stated the applicant has submitted a grading and drainage plan illustrating how the expanded
parking and rate control pond will impact the existing topography. The City Engineer's preliminary
comments are included in the Planning Commission packets. Gundlach noted the City Engineer is
recommending that the pond be modified to include water quality treatment for the entire site and should
satisfy NURP requirements.
The nearest adjacent property to this site is to the west at a distance of approximately 250 feet. This site
is a group home and would not be negatively impacted by the proposed expansion as most of the
improvements are on the east side of the property. Staff also does not foresee any negative impacts to the
properties to the east or south.
Staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the recommendations of the
City Engineer and further subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Commission should determine if a viable hardship exists to allow the expanded
parking in the southwest corner of the site as a front yard parking setback variance would be required.
2. Prior to City Council review of the application,revised plans must be submitted incorporating the
preliminary recommendations of the City Engineer. The applicant will also be required to comply with
any other forthcoming comments from the City Engineer.
Thiesse had nothing to add to Staff's report.
Rahn asked for public comment.
Gladys McClennan,Woodsland Group Home, stated she has questions regarding the pond,noting that she
does house six developmentally disabled adults and that she has a concern regarding the safety of those
people. McClennan stated there currently is a dilapidated fence between the two properties and that she
was wondering whether that fence would need to be replaced.
Paul Phillips, President of Woodsland Group Home, indicated he is a neighbor of the church on the west
side and that he has concerns regarding the lighting and ponding. Phillips inquired where the current
driveway is located and whether it would remain the same.
Gundlach stated the driveway would remain the same.
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3149 TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH,CONTINUED)
Phillips indicated he drives that route every day and that he periodically turns into the church parking lot
for safety reasons if a large truck is tailgating him. Phillips inquired whether that would be an option in
the future. Phillips stated he also has a concern with the lighting and that he would prefer it remain as it
currently is. Phillips noted there are bedrooms located adjacent to the parking lot.
Rahn inquired whether the city has any specifics regarding the ponding to be constructed on the site.
Gundlach stated the applicant was not aware that the City Engineer has recommended that the pond meet
NURP standards until tonight's meeting.
Thiesse indicated he was told initially that it would be rate controlled and that the pond would be dry at
times. Thiesse stated the pond was never meant to be a quality treatment pond and that he was only
informed today that a NURP pond is required. Thiesse stated a NURP pond requires four-feet of water
standing at all times,which he is opposed to due to the liability issues it creates. Thiesse indicated he
would like to discuss that issue with the City Engineer.
Rahn stated the application could be moved forward with the stipulation that that issue be resolved with
the City Engineer. Rahn commented that perhaps the existing fence located on the group home's property
should be repaired.
Thiesse stated the four-feet of standing water is a concern for him as it relates to safety and liability,
noting that a preschool is also located on the property as well as the adjacent group home.
There were no additional public comments.
Jurgens expressed a concern regarding the size of the parking lot and the size of the building,which will
tend to change the character of the neighborhood. Jurgens noted there are no islands and trees being
proposed for the parking lot. Jurgens questioned the need for the parking lot on the southwest side,which
increases the encroachment.
Kempf indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Jurgens and that he prefers the trees and open
space rather than such a large parking lot,which gives the appearance of trying to cram as many parking
stalls in this area as possible.
Winkey inquired whether the 221 stalls are required.
Gundlach stated 108 parking stalls are required. Gundlach stated they would need to examine the parking
situation when the preschool and sanctuary are in use at the same time.
Winkey stated it appears that there is more than enough parking, and suggested that the current islands
remain. Winkey inquired why the church feels they need 221 parking stalls.
PAGE 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3149 TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, CONTINUED)
Thiesse stated the requirement is a minimum and that the 108 parking stalls is not sufficient, especially
when there are special events held at the church. Thiesse stated they currently have 183 stalls and that is
not sufficient at times.
Winkey stated the bigger demand for the parking appears to only occur on a few occasions throughout the
year.
Fritzler indicated he does not have a problem with the application.
Bremer stated she also does not have a problem with the application but that she does have a concern
regarding the pond. Bremer stated at the very least some type of safety fencing should be installed.
Thiesse stated Orono does have other NURP ponds and that they are not fenced, even when they are
located near elementary schools and preschools. Thiesse stated he would prefer a dry pond and that he
would like to discuss this further with the City Engineer.
Thiesse also stated the City's parking requirements add nine more feet to the parking lot. Thiesse stated
he could look at some slanted parking,but that the City Engineer has recommended expanding the
parking lot by nine feet.
Gaffron stated the City's code does not specifically say a 24-foot driving lane,but that is typically
required by the City to accommodate some of the larger vehicles.
Rahn stated he does not have any issues with the application.
Bremer moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3149,Trinity
Lutheran Church,2060 Sixth Avenue,granting of a conditional use permit to allow construction of
additions to the church and also to allow repaving,reorientation and enlargement of the existing
parking lot as proposed,subject to City Engineer approval of the parking lot prior to the City
Council meeting, and further subject to City Engineer approval of the pond and verification of
whether a NURP pond is still required. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Jurgens opposed.
9. #05-3150 TIM POWERS ON BEHALF OF KEVIN GRELL, 1945 FAGERNESS POINT
ROAD,VARIANCE, 10:01 P.M.—10:09 P.M.
Tim Powers,Applicant,was present.
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting the following variances in order to replace a deck on the west
side of the home with a smaller deck:
1. A rear yard setback variance to permit a rear yard setback of 13.6 feet where 30 feet is
normally required and 13.6 feet currently exists.
PAGE 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3150 TIM POWERS, CONTINUED)
2. A hardcover variance to permit 26.3 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where
25 percent is normally allowed, 31.7 percent currently exists, and 28.6 percent was
permitted by variance in 1997.
Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance with the condition that no stair access be
permitted into the rear yard in an effort to eliminate unnecessary further encroachment.
Staff finds there may be a hardship to allow replacement of a deck at the non-conforming setback of 13.6
feet where 30 feet is normally required. The existing home currently maintains the same setback and the
previous deck encroached to within 8 feet of the lot line. Also,the variance resolution from 1997
indicates that in 1980 the deck was conforming and City records show a permit was obtained for a deck in
June of 1981. Gundlach noted the west side of the residence contains a door for access onto a deck.
With regard to the 75'-250' hardcover variance request, Staff finds that the findings of the 1997 variance
remain in place,which permitted 28.6 percent hardcover. However, some of the conditions on the
property have changed since then and the deck square footage has been reduced. The applicant is
proposing a hardcover percentage of 26.3 percent. Staff finds that there may be alternatives to decrease
hardcover on the property that the Planning Commission may want to consider.
The Planning Commission should discuss what level of hardcover is appropriate within the 75'-250' zone
given the following facts:
1. A reduction of 225.5 square feet of deck hardcover could place the property into conformance,
still leaving 306.5 square feet for construction of a replacement deck;
2. A variance in 1997 permitted 28.6 percent;
3. The proposal results in a net reduction of 396 square feet from the 1997 approval.
Tim Powers had nothing to add to Staff's report.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant would be agreeable to removing the stairs off the rear of the deck.
Powers stated there is a barbecue that has been constructed near the air conditioner and that it may be
difficult to access that area if that portion of the deck is eliminated.
Rahn noted the stairs increase the encroachment and would probably not be approved.
Powers indicated he could possibly locate the stairs off to one side.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
PAGE 31
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3150 TIM POWERS, CONTINUED)
Eric Thompson, 1940 Concordia Street, stated he is in favor of the small structure and that he is agreeable
to the proposal.
There were no further public comments.
Kempf inquired whether the sliding patio door currently exists.
Powers stated it is a 36-inch door that currently exists from the four-season porch,not a sliding door.
Leslie noted there is a significant reduction in hardcover with this proposal.
Powers inquired whether the shed,which was required to be removed in 1997, still has to be removed.
Powers indicated the shed is still in good condition.
Bremer indicated it does need to be removed.
Kempf moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3150,Tim Powers on
behalf of Kevin Grell, 1945 Fagerness Point Road,granting of a rear yard setback variance to
permit 13.6'where 30' is normally required and 13.6' currently exists, and granting of a hardcover
variance to permit 26.3 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is normally
allowed,31.7 percent currently exists,and 28.6 percent was permitted by variance in 1997,subject
to the removal of the shed in the corner of the lot and with the understanding that no stair access
will be allowed to the rear of the deck. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
10. #05-3151 GARY AND SANDRA BARON,3619 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,
10:09 P.M.—10:18 P.M.
Gary Baron, Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting lot width, lot area, side yard setback, lake setback and
hardcover variances in order to construct a new single family home on the property. The lot is
substandard in width and area and the application of the 75' lake setback allows for only 20'-24' of
buildable area depth. The applicants are proposing a 1,472 square feet home and minimal hardcover.
The applicants' property is 50 feet wide and consists of 6,561 square feet in area where 100 feet in width
and 21,780 square feet in area are required within the LR-1C zoning district. The applicants' home is
proposed to meet the 10-foot side yard setback on the western lot line. The applicants are proposing an
8.5-foot side yard setback on the east where a 10-foot setback is required.
Staff finds that the lot area and lot width variance requests are reasonable as are the lake setback and
hardcover variances. With respect to the request for an 8.5-foot side setback where a 10-foot setback is
PAGE 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3151 GARY AND SANDRA BARON,CONTINUED)
required, Staff feels that although the lot is narrow and the property is located in a neighborhood with
small,narrow lots,there is not a valid hardship by which to grant a side setback variance. Further,the
granting of a reduced side yard setback will have a very negative impact on the light, air,and open space
in this neighborhood.
Planning Staff recommends approval of lot width,lot area,lake setback and hardcover variances as
requested. However, Staff recommends denial of any side setback variance.
Baron had nothing to add to Staffs report.
Rahn inquired how the applicant feels about the 1,472 square feet and whether they could reduce that
somehow to meet the side setback.
Baron stated this home is designed to be their retirement house and that they have designed the house to
have three-foot doorways and sidewalks. Baron noted they would like to go a foot and a half into the side
setback,noting that there is sufficient room between his house and the neighbor's.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Kempf stated the adjoining neighbor will likely maximize his lot at some point in the future and that sight
lines are important to maintain. Kempf indicated he is opposed to the side yard encroachment.
Leslie stated he also does not feel a side setback variance is necessary.
Rahn indicated he believes the applicant can revise his plans to meet the side setback. Rahn inquired
whether the applicant would like this application tabled.
Baron stated he would like to proceed forward. Baron indicated he would try to revise his plans to meet
the side setback.
Jurgens stated he would like to see the hardcover further reduced.
Winkey inquired if the rain garden would help with the hardcover.
Curtis stated the rain garden would slow the water runoff.
Baron stated the rain garden is a collection point for runoff on the property and allows the water to drain
into the soil and not into the lake.
Winkey inquired whether the applicant would be constructing a rain garden in connection with this
application.
PAGE 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3151 GARY AND SANDRA BARON,CONTINUED)
Baron stated he did meet with an engineer recently who has indicated that the soils on the lot are not
conducive for a rain garden. Baron stated he would like to do some plantings that would be similar to the
type used in a rain garden to help filter and slow down the runoff.
Jurgens indicated he would be amenable to the hardcover if the applicant is agreeable to doing the
plantings. Jurgens noted there are limited options on this lot for reducing the hardcover.
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3151,Gary and Sandra
Baron,3619 North Shore Drive, granting of lot width,lot area,lake setback and hardcover
variances,but to recommend denial of any side setback variance,with the understanding that the
hardcover calculation will be reduced by 22 square feet. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
11. #05-3153 CITY OF ORONO,78-1577 EXTERIOR STORAGE,ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT, 10:19 P.M.— 10:24 P.M.
Curtis stated with the latest revision of the current Exterior Storage Ordinance, language was added
regarding storage of oversized vehicles. 78-1577 currently addresses mostly vehicles,recreation vehicles,
utilities, and trailers. Chapter 58 addresses outdoor storage of junk, debris,inoperable vehicles,and other
materials. Staff feels it is necessary for the Zoning Ordinance to be revised to maintain consistency with
the existing language in Chapter 58-1 and 58-3. One of the goals of this new ordinance is to further
define within the Zoning Ordinance the types of violations that are currently being enforced by Chapters
58-1 and 58-3.
Curtis stated at the September 7th work session,the Planning Commission discussed the draft amendments
to the ordinance. Following the Planning Commission work session, Staff met with City Attorney Tom
Barrett. At that time changes to the draft language the Planning Commission reviewed on the 7th were
made. The current draft language reflects those attorney suggested changes. The goal is to have the draft
ordinance before the Council for approval in October.
Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold the public hearing, consider the amendment,
and make any appropriate revisions, and forward an approval recommendation of the draft ordinance to
the Council for approval in October.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn inquired what changes have been made to the draft ordinance amendment.
Curtis stated language referencing a public nuisance has been removed at the recommendation of the City
Attorney.
PAGE 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
Leslie moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3153,City of Orono,
78-1577,Exterior Storage, Ordinance Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
12. #05-3154 CITY OF ORONO RURAL OASIS STUDY,AMENDMENT TO THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE, 10:24 P.M.—10:39 P.M.
Gaffron noted the Planning Commission has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment language at a
work session held on September 7, 2005, and suggested the following revisions:
1. Remove the editorial comment at the top of page six.
2. At the top of page seven,reverse the order of Goals#1 and#2 to reflect that preservation and
enhancement of the existing"rural character"of the city should be the primary goal.
3. On page nine, include "views of powerlines"in the list of Negative Views.
4. On Page 16,with regards to the creation of a Master Planning Requirement,revise the language
to require that"...any subdivision or multi-unit development greater than five acres or guided for urban
density to follow the parameters of the Conservation Design Ordinance."The intent of this revision is to
clarify that construction of a single-family residence on a lot larger than five acres should not trigger
Conservation Design.
5. On page 17,with regards to Applications and Procedures,reorganize and re-word the bullet
points as follows:
a) Review and respond to the Orono Natural Resource Systems Master Plan. This
Master Plan(CPA Figure 16)was prepared...
b) If the site exists adjacent to a document corridor in the Rural Oasis Project,review
and respond to the existing analysis.
c) If the site is not adjacent to a documented corridor,have a qualified consultant
prepare a similar analysis and submit it to the City for review. This analysis should
include the documentation of views, corridor enclosure, and landmarks through a
plan analysis and photographs. Pay a standard fee(possibly pre-acre)to be
established in the City Fee Schedule)to cover the expenses of the City in hiring a
consultant to review the ecological site analysis.
d) Additionally, submit a natural resources inventory of the site, including a tree survey,
a wetland inventory, and a survey of existing drainage patterns."
The intent of the revision as shown in Item c) is to establish that the City intends to review the ecological
analysis of applicants' consultants,rather than having the City prepare such analysis.
PAGE 35
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3154 CITY OF ORONO RURAL OASIS STUDY, CONTINUED)
The Planning Commission should consider whether this CMP Amendment should be further revised.
Gaffron stated that upon Planning Commission recommendation,the amendment would be forwarded to
the City Council for consideration and preliminary approval and then forwarded to Metropolitan Council
for review and acceptance. The amendment will also be forwarded to adjacent cities for comment, and is
not expected to be controversial, so Metropolitan Council approval would be anticipated relatively
quickly.
Planning Staff recommends holding the public hearing, accept public comments on the proposed
amendment, and subject to the above-noted revisions and any other changes you conclude are warranted,
recommend that the City Council adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing.
Jurgens indicated he did not have the benefit of being at the work session, and inquired whether the issue
of preserving the corridors was discussed. Jurgens commented this amendment addresses development
and inquired whether there is any language designed to protect corridors.
Gaffron stated within a new subdivision every lot would be subject to this amendment but that individual
lots under five acres being developed are not anticipated to be part of this amendment.
Rahn stated he did inquire at the work session whether this would affect a single-family home and the
language was changed to only impact developments greater than five acres.
Jurgens inquired whether there is a need to protect those corridors even with single-family homes.
Rahn commented that this amendment is the beginning stages of the process and that the City could look
at that in the future.
Gaffron indicated part of the discussion at the work session involved a definition of development.
Gaffron stated a master plan requirement would be incorporated for any subdivision or development
greater than five acres or lots guided for urban density,
Jurgens suggested the issue of protecting corridors be looked at in the future.
Leslie moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3154, City of Orono,
Adoption of the Rural Oasis Study,Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 36
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,September 19,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
13. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS AUGUST 22 AND SEPTEMBER 12,2005.
Leslie stated he attended the August 22nd Council meeting and that a number of the applications were
placed on the Consent Agenda.
Rahn stated he did attend the September 12, 2005 Council meeting,noting that there were only three
applications on the agenda that night. Rahn indicated the appeal regarding gate height was tabled was
tabled to allow for further discussion by the Council.
Gaffron stated the Council would be discussing at their next work session whether it is appropriate to
have gates that are higher than the fence.
Gundlach stated the City now has an entrance monument ordinance and that the gate issue may come
before the Planning Commission as an amendment ordinance in the near future.
14. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
15. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 15,2005
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to approve the minutes of the August 15,2005 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
16. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
SEPTEMBER 26 AND OCTOBER 10,2005
September 26—Jurgens
October 10—Winkey
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved,Kempf seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:43 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
/ /
David Rahn, Chair
PAGE 37