HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/20/2004 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE ( -..)-C) T OrT1----/
0 COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
0 PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
0 OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
PI,ci i32 ,t, 44
1. c3FI.INg--- a--sKfiLyP)t)IL.1.‘) IN:-' 7t,:-,1 'i' <
2. -> N L- (/'-'1*-/"''''t --- :".cz, 7 (,-.),[4-4: c (;-*. 1)617 6 tjittlif 74-
filoclia .),kei-
3. Laki0-,, 01--i 3te- t cl 410 0 c &
Or D ic t
11 16 oi (-_-1_ 2C-3-17) Kc-,11
-1\t- 0(-- ,. con-1T Y ' e Ga :X(--_,.
4. 1.2( k I net), Ma./IC . 1-1-0V7 /C-tpli (19 AI;e_ DC(3,1-3 Ke,L
OY ilcia
5. —r),ti..--cij-,,1 ,V)-2 C:4J,-),()J, ._›i 6i 5 Rol ly-,4r4eiw #,3
6I...rt'. ...'' . ..i. .-• ,,--, , , _pi* i,'04_20 ,1„---,-44,
lialliV
7. - ‘— v.- ,i ...:, Iv A------- / t?:)/ L /C--s-
8.
i
9. ill Ii/f, Ccriul c, //6A) /(11(lit A-1
10. \ g■ -)---1.6 . 1.4 ', , - i ).)
_
11. L- c.,4: , SZ' 411,1/1L, S-,.,\, ,71 7 .(5,--r ,,-17-' ijt4,?.. LA, Li -3- ') 16, -)
12. Ac-,-6_,;„- ( r. -y) .„. ,ic ) - ( 1,1›f R;p 64:: () i-f - 77y
13. il,.3; r0 ( ?).lit-11
td-C 02{11 r/L) EP 03
14. IVA I'lA),IA . IV-14 tkiit -7 „:-L
157)2 ......2 '
53'770 Ll 2 -7;-7
; i11111p....,
eatilliolirForme syPu Att n.a Te.wpd " '
V,A woo, ,ill 54: +-4
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE
❑ COUNCIL
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
❑ PARK COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. W.i., IL,, ' - k 4_
2. ar !�(�Cdti JQ 7CLe/// 4ve . /(,LA.,.
3. ,,,,.,,,,„.:43 ,,,,--t-4.r, 4,00 r/.,/ ,&262,, , _ ,„_ /,
, .
4. I L�Cc '- ('(ze '.,5 3 K4LG_(rdd-A-t 4- /(•
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
W:\Administrative Support\(Forms)\Pubuc Attendance.wpd
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present:,
Acting Chair Jeanne Mabusth; Commissioners Cynthia Bremer, David Rahn, J. Mark
Fritzler, Liz Hawn, and Alternate Jules Hannaford; City Council liaison Lili McMillan;
Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Curtis and
Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Kristi Anderson.
Chair Sandra Smith and Commissioner Stephanie Zugschwert were absent.
Acting Chair Mabusth called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.
While Item #17 was added to the Consent Agenda, Item #1 was removed for further
clarification.
CONSENT AGENDA
*(#2)#04-2975 REVEREND LOREN D. DAVIS ON BEHALF OF THE GOOD
SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH,3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
Hawn moved,Acting Chair Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of
Application#04-2975,Reverend Loren D. Davis on behalf of the Good Shepherd
Lutheran Church,3745 Shoreline Drive, granting a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment in order to change the roof structure from flat to pitched on the existing
classroom portion of the church.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
*(#3)#04-2980 ORFIELD DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION INC. ON BEHALF OF
MARILYN MCCLASKEY,2693 KELLY AVENUE,VARIANCE
Hawn moved,Acting Chair Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of
Application#04-2980 Orfield Design and Construction Inc. on behalf of Marilyn
McClaskey, 2693 Kelly Avenue, granting a front yard setback variance in order to
add a 2nd story addition on the existing home 20' from the front property line where
35' is required.VOTE: Ayes 6,nays 0.
*(#17) #04-2979 DR. DONALD RISTAD AND KENT CASSIDY, 1005 OLD LONG
LAKE ROAD,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Hawn moved,Acting Chair Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of
Application#04-2979,Dr. Donald Ristad and Kent Cassidy, 1005 Old Long Lake
Road, granting a lot area variance, conditional use permit to allow the pool to remain
on a through lot, and a variance to allow the existing pool to be setback 28' from
Highway 12 when 50' is required as the pool has existed since 1978, no complaints
PAGE 1 of 53
•
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
*(#04-2979 DR. DONALD RISTAD AND KENT CASSIDY, 1005 OLD LONG LAKE
ROAD,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
have been received by the City, and the pool is sufficiently screened from Highway
12.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#1) #04-2970 ROBERT P. MACK, 1525 BAY RIDGE ROAD, VARIANCE (6:07-
6:15 P.M.)
Robert Mack, the applicant, was present.
Planner Gundlach briefly explained that the applicant had requested a side setback variance
to allow a side setback of 18' at the southeast corner of the home when 30' is normally
required and 18' currently exists; an average lakeshore setback to allow an encroachment
of approximately 50' in order to construct a pitched roof where a flat roof currently exist;
and a hardcover variance to allow 27%hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 25%is
normally allowed and 28% currently exists.
Gundlach reported that staff would recommend approval of the side setback as the existing
setback is nonconforming and no additional living space is being proposed; approval of the
average lakeshore setback variance as the home was constructed in 1950 according to all
zoning ordinance regulations,because the proposal doesn't include any expansions of the
current footprint, and the raised roof will not affect any sightlines as an existing tree line
currently covers the southern property boundary. Staff is also recommending approval of
the hardcover variance due to the square footage of removals being greater than the square
footage of additional hardcover bringing the lot closer to conformance.
Rahn inquired whether a hardship was necessary to allow the construction of 14' high
ceilings as proposed.
Mr. Mack stated that the existing flat roof was leaking, and it was their intent to raise the
roof to repair the damage, let in more light,balance the rooflines, and improve the
aesthetics.
Bremer moved,Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application#04-2970,
Robert Mack, 1525 Bay Ridge Road, granting a side setback variance to allow a side
setback of 18' at the southeast corner of the home when 30' is normally required and
18' currently exists; an average lakeshore setback to allow an encroachment of
approximately 50' in order to construct a pitched roof where a flat roof currently
exist; and a hardcover variance to allow 27% hardcover in the 75-250' zone when
25% is normally allowed and 28% currently exists.VOTE: Ayes 6, nays 0.
PAGE 2 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4) #03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER,3609 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL
SITE PLAN REVIEW (6:15-6:25 P.M.)
Stevan Wagner, the applicant, was present.
Planner Curtis reported that in September 2003 the applicant submitted an application for a
building expansion and remodel in the B-1 Zoning District. As per City Code Section 78-
642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the
Planning Commission and City Council. As such, the applicant has requested the
following:
1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and
expand an existing 2,310 s.f. concrete block building on the property to a 4080 s.f.
building, a 1,770 s.f. total expansion.
2) A setback variance in order to re-use the existing sign pole which is setback 8'
from the front property line where 10' is required. The signage itself will extend an
additional 4' into the setback area for a sign setback of 4' when 10' is required.*
3) Hardcover variance to allow existing driveway hardcover to become structural
hardcover.*
*Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review
Curtis continued, stating that the application was presented at the October 2003 Planning
Commission meeting and the November 2003 work session. The following information
was requested by the Planning Commission at the October meeting for the applicant to
provide for their review:
1. Storm water management plan(indicating drainage and grading).
2. Detailed landscape plan including any vegetative screening.
3. A lighting plan.
4. Existing and proposed exterior storage plan, including any equipment staging area.
5. Exterior building material detail.
6. Hazardous waste management solutions
During the November work session Planning Commission asked the applicant to provide
more detailed information and receive approval from other jurisdictional permitting
authorities such as the Hennepin County Environmental Services, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency(MPCA) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD).
Curtis indicated that to date the applicant has complied with Hennepin County
Environmental Services hazardous waste generator requirements, applied for a MPCA
Industrial Waste Water Permit and received a permit(for Rule B: Erosion Control and
Rule N: Stormwater Management) from the MCWD. The Rule B permit states that
erosion control consisting of a silt fence and a gravel construction entrance have been
approved, and the Rule N permit states that the applicant's project requires Best
Management Practices (BMP) and rate control in order the fulfill the stormwater
management practices of Rule N. The MCWD has determined that stormwater runoff rates
PAGE 3 of 53
y ,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER, 3609 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
will not increase as a result of the proposed project. The applicant has proposed to the
MCWD that he will convert a 3' wide area along the west property boundary from gravel
to Minnesota wild grasses and will install a rock drain with a skimming structure(PIG) for
the proposed equipment wash site as BMPs.
Curtis stated that staff performed a site visit with Hennepin County Environmental
Services staff and addressed the issues Planning Commission brought up during the work
session. Those issues were: the appropriateness of curbing, paving the west parking area
vs. gravel, and how effective the proposed waste trap and skimming structure would be.
Hennepin County did not feel that the existing site would require extensive improvements
regarding the afore mentioned items and felt that they would best be addressed, if
necessary,by the MCWD. Additionally, during this site inspection it was noted that the
area behind the building to the rear had an accumulation of scrap, scrap metal, inoperable
trailers, tires, and general debris.
Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the following
conditions being met:
1. City Engineer's recommendations must be implemented.
2. Compliance with all other jurisdictional controls is maintained.
3. Compliance with City Code 58-1(a) Maintenance of Private Property prior to being
placed on the City Council agenda for final review
Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that the current debris behind the building would have to
be removed prior to addressing City Council.
Mr. Wagner stated that he had done his best to comply with the Planning Commission
recommendations, and worked with staff to come up with a plan which works for the City,
as well as, fits his needs. While he is awaiting specific direction from the City Engineer
with regard to plant material,Wagner indicated that he would be planting a 3' buffer of
Minnesota wildflowers. He requested that, if recommended for approval,his application
not be heard until the February 20 City Council meeting which would allow him adequate
time to remove the debris behind the building.
There were no public comments.
Hawn thanked the applicant for supplying the City with all the necessary information;
however, questioned how the hazardous waste exposure would be contained and washing
of equipment handled.
Wagner indicated that he had been instructed by the MPCA to continue to use the waste
trap system both inside and outside for washing, which is later removed by a licensed
PAGE 4 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2923 STEVAN WAGNER,3609 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
hazardous waste hauler.
With regard to the proposed diagram of the site, Hawn questioned whether Wagner's intent
was to add more to the site and expand his operation.
Wagner maintained that he had no intention of expanding the operation, and in fact,
believed he had maxed out his facility. He stated that it is his intent to beautify the whole
site and make it more comfortable.
Hawn asked whether additional hardtopping of the surfaces was intended.
Wagner indicated that he had no intent to blacktop the lower area, and believed this would
not be feasible.
Curtis interjected that, during the site walk, Hennepin County did not feel blacktopping the
lower area was necessary at this site. She pointed out that further discussion will take place
between the City Engineer, Applicant, and the City with regard to stormwater management
before being heard by the City Council.
Acting Chair Mabusth voiced her concern that the `use' of this site would be increased.
She agreed with Hawn that the site use had been maxed and suggested that the City take an
inventory or record the specific items that exist on the property currently.
Rahn stated that the renovation would hopefully alleviate the concerns expressed by the
Commission, since some of the pieces of equipment could be stowed away more readily.
He recommended the City use the plan as a record to track increased use.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved,Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of
Application#03-2923, Stevan Wagner,3609 Shoreline Drive, granting approval of the
proposal subject to the following conditions being met:
3. City Engineer's recommendations must be implemented.
4. Compliance with all other jurisdictional controls is maintained.
3. Compliance with City Code 58-1(a) Maintenance of Private Property prior to
being placed on the City Council agenda for fmal review
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#5)#03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY,RENEWAL
VARIANCE (6:25-7:05 P.M.)
Judd Dayton, the applicant, was present.
PAGE 5 of 53
7 A
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL
VARIANCE—Continued)
Gundlach explained that the applicant requests a renewal variance to allow the existing
oversized accessory structure to remain on the lot and for it to be relocated to a conforming
location in the rear of the lot. She indicated that the application was originally heard at the
October 20, 2003 Planning Commission meeting. At that time, the Planning Commission
encouraged Mr. Dayton to combine parcels and move the barn to make it conforming.
Doing this raised questions about whether or not the parcel would be conforming as to the
amount and size of accessory structures on a single property. Therefore, the application
was tabled so staff could research the existing accessory structures and whether or not
moving the barn would alleviate the current situation.
With regard to the option of combining the Lots and the Feasibility of Adding the Barn,
Gundlach noted that to combine 2885 Little Orchard Way to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road, or
simply moving the barn to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road would require the following
planning actions:
[Barn(48' x 24')= 1,152 square feet]
Variance: To allow the accessory building total to exceed 6,000 square feet
(5,168 + 1,152 =6,320 s.f.)
Variance: To allow more than one oversized accessory structure on the lot due
to the existing barn/stable.
Since the chart in the accessory structures section of the Zoning Ordinance only extends
out to 9.01 acres or more, this brings into question the feasibility of the above planning
actions. The Ordinance sets the limit to 6,000 square feet of total accessory structures
allowed for any property 9.01 acres or more. The chart starts as 0— 1.99 acres allowing a
maximum of 2,000 square feet of accessory structures and increases by approximately 400
square feet with every additional acre. If this chart were extended out to include the
applicant's property, which is 21+ acres, it would allow for 10,800 square feet of accessory
structures and the applicant could conceivably add the barn to his parcel and be within the
allowable limits of square footage, should the Planning Commission deem this appropriate.
On the other hand, Gundlach pointed out that the same section of the ordinance states that
a property is only allowed one oversized accessory building(any building in excess of
1,000 s.f.). This requires that an additional variance be granted to allow more than one
oversized accessory structure.
The Planning Commission should discuss whether there are any hardships to grant two
variances; one to allow more than one oversized accessory structure per property and also
to allow more than 6,000 square feet of accessory structures.
PAGE 6 of 53
I ,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL
VARIANCE—Continued)
In light of these considerations, Gundlach stated that it is staff's opinion that there are no
convincing hardships to allow the barn to remain at its existing size requiring two variance
approvals. The "Little Orchard"subdivision has eliminated any context the barn
previously had in relationship to its surroundings. Further, the barn has already been
reduced in size, further lessening is historical significance. The barn could still be allowed,
without any planning actions, if it were reduced to 832 $.f and either moved to 825 Old
Crystal Bay Road or if 2885 Little Orchard Way were combined with 825 Old Crystal Bay
Road and the barn is moved to the location shown on the plan.
Gundlach suggested that the Planning Commission discuss the following options:
1. Require that 2885 Little Orchard Way be combined with 825 Old Crystal Bay
Road if the applicant wishes to keep the barn. This action would also require
the barn be moved to the location indicated on Exhibit B and the following
planning actions:
a. Variance to allow the total of all accessory structures to exceed 6,000 s.f.
b. Variance to allow more than one oversized accessory structure on a single
parcel.
2. Same as above but requiring the barn to be reduced to be under 1,000 s.f. to
alleviate the need for a variance to allow more than one oversized accessory
structure. A variance may still be required to allow for the accessory structure
total to exceed 6,000 s.f. if the barn isn't reduced to 832 s.f or less.
3. If the applicant doesn't wish to combine 2885 Little Orchard Way with 825 Old
Crystal Bay Road, the barn must be reduced to less than 1,000 square feet and it
must be moved to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road in a conforming location. If the
barn isn't reduced to 832 s.f. or less a variance would still be required as noted
above.
Gundlach explained that it would be staff's recommendation to require the barn be
reduced to 832 01 or less to alleviate the need for any planning actions, and if the parcels
are combined the barn must be moved to the location indicated on Exhibit B and if they are
not combined then the barn must be moved to a conforming location on 825 Old Crystal
Bay Road.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked how the large the existing barn was.
Gundlach indicated that the barn was 1152 s.f.
In an effort to do the responsible thing, Dayton explained that their original request was to
simply move the barn to a better location, which was soon complicated by other issues. He
PAGE 7 of 53
T i
■
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL
VARIANCE—Continued)
stated that even though the building may not be considered historic any more, it provides a
lot of history about the area before development came to the area. While he indicated that
he had spoken to his attorney's about the possibility of combining the parcels,he wished to
explore his options. Having also spoken to many of his neighbors',he believed that many
liked the 100 year old barn, with some repair and maintenance.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked what further historical significance the barn held.
Dayton stated that the barn was part of the early Carpenter estate, and stood for what made
up the early landscape of the area before construction. He noted that all of the accessory
structures have been in their present locations for over 100 years, acknowledging that it
was the Ordinances that have changed.
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked if there were any formal letters in support of the application
or in opposition to it.
Hawn asked if the applicant would consider reducing the size of the barn.
Dayton stated that, while some work needs to be done to repair the structure, he would
have to do further study to determine whether reducing the size of the barn would
eliminate its character altogether. He asked that he be given a date to meet the staff
recommendation,by mid July for instance, while he investigates the options.
Gundlach reiterated that the barn needs to be moved as a principal structure doesn't exist.
She pointed out that if the barn is moved to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road that the parcels
would not need to be combined; however, if moved to any other location the parcels would
be required to be legally combined so that a principal structure exists.
Dayton asked whether the Commission might be amenable to allowing him the variances
to move the structure without legally combining the properties.
Hawn repeated that she believed the parcels must be combined if he wished to keep the
barn, adding that a reduction in its size would also alleviate some issues. Hawn noted that,
unless it was turned into a principal structure, the barn could not exist without one.
Dayton stated that it made little sense to him to move it to 825 Old Crystal Bay Road and
asked to be given a date to conform or determine how to proceed.
PAGE 8 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL
VARIANCE—Continued)
Rahn stated that, short of a hardship, he would expect the barn to be moved to a compliant
location and size. He indicated that the Commission does not have the authority to say
otherwise and suggested the applicant be given a deadline.
Gaffron indicated that the Commission could grant the staff recommendation with a
timeline attached, which might differ from the standard year.
Dayton stated that he would request to be given a deadline of up to a year, if customary, in
order to determine if the barn could be moved, combined, or turned into a principal
structure.
Gaffron stated that a mid July timeframe would be a reasonable amount of time to comply.
He stated that the Commission could deny the renewal variance application and accept that
no action be taken until the deadline date for compliance has been met. In addition, grant
the variances that would accompany the options presented.
While she wished someone would have already evaluated the relocation of the barn,
Bremer stated that, as a neighbor to the site, she liked the barn and would prefer to see it
remain on the main property. With renovation, she indicated that she would allow it to be
kept the same size and moved to a new location to preserve its charm.
Hawn agreed, stating that she did not see how reducing it in size added anything to the
application.
Bremer suggested that the Commission extrapolate from the table what is allowed at 21+
acres, which would allow the barn to remain as large as it is,but moved to a new location.
Rahn disagreed, stating that he failed to find a hardship, and would require the barn to be
reduced and moved.
Acting Chair Mabusth concurred with Rahn.
Hawn stated that she had been swayed by Bremer's comments.
Fritzler stated that he could consider the size of the barn in a new location.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of the
request by the applicant in Application #03-2958,Judson Dayton,2885 Little
Orchard Way, that the barn be allowed to remain at its current size of 1152 s.f. if the
lots are legally combined with the homestead parcel and the barn moved to a
conforming location.VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. Fritzler and Rahn dissenting.
PAGE 9 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2958 JUDD DAYTON, 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY, RENEWAL
VARIANCE—Continued)
Rahn reiterated that he saw no specific hardship to allow the structure to remain at its
current size.
While he could accept the lack of hardship, Fritzler believed that the combination might be
subject to subdivision at a later date.
Gundlach reminded the Commission that they would also need to consider granting a
variance for accessory structures in excess of 6,000 s.f. and the addition of a second
oversized accessory structure, if they wished to follow this course of action.
With regard to the potential for subdivision, Gaffron pointed out that the applicant would
need to sign covenants for oversized structures which could require the removal of the
structures if the parcels were subjects of a future subdivision. He felt the future potential
for subdivision could be addressed at a later date with reference to the oversized structures.
Mabusth added to her motion, moving that the combination deadline of July 20, 2004,
be noted and that a second variance is granted to allow for 2 oversized accessories
structures on the legally combined parcels in excess of 20 acres. Hawn seconded.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2. Rahn and Fritzler dissenting.
Rahn and Fritzler referred to their previously noted rationale for denial.
(#6) #03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE (7:05-7:24 P.M.)
Robert and Joanne Switz, the Applicants, were present.
Gundlach reported that the applicants request the following variances to construct a new
home:
1. Lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size when 0.50 acres
is normally required.
2. Hardcover variance to allow 38.6%hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 38.8%
currently exists and 25%is normally allowed.
Gundlach explained that the project was originally heard at the November 17, 2003
Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the application was tabled due to the
excessive structural coverage and hardcover. The applicant chose to continue on to the
City Council. At the January 12, 2004 meeting the applicant chose to have the project
tabled as new plans were being prepared. Subsequently, the City Council and Planning
Department staff brought the applicant back to the Planning Commission for a new
recommendation.
PAGE 10 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE—Continued)
The applicant has submitted new plans for a house that meets the 15%requirement. Also
included is a conservative driveway of 1,000 s.f., a 53 s.f. stoop, 60 s.f concrete walk
bringing the proposed hardcover to 36.4%. Gundlach stated that the applicant had also
indicated that a 12' x 12' patio/deck would be incorporated into the new plan; however that
is not shown on the new survey. If a 144 s.f. patio/deck were incorporated the hardcover
would rise to 37.6%. If the proposed 16' x 16' patio/deck is added instead, it rises to 4,409
s.f. or 38.6%.
The applicant is proposing to remove all hardcover in the 0-75' zone, including the boat
house which isn't reflected in the revised survey. The shed that exists in the 75' —250'
zone is also proposed for removal. The applicant is proposing 4,409 s.f. of hardcover, or
38.6% in the 75-250' zone. These numbers include a 16' x 16' patio/deck which is not
shown or calculated on the revised survey. A hardcover variance must be granted in order
to approve the 38.6%hardcover in the 75' —250' zone.
Gundlach relayed that some hardships exists that could support approval of a hardcover
variance. The lot is quite shallow if you consider its depth. This is limiting when
calculating hardcover. To quantify the impacts of lot shape on hardcover, a lot with the
exact same lot area(0.473 acres) would have an optimum 75-250' hardcover allotment if
its dimensions were 250' x 82.5' which would yield a 25%hardcover of(175 x 82.5 x .25)
= 3,609 s.f. Therefore, the lot shape hardship could justify a hardcover level of 3,609 s.f,
800 s.f less than what the applicant has proposed.
Also,because the lot is located on Shadywood Road, a hardship exists in that more
driveway than normal is required in order to allow for a back-up apron. The applicant has
proposed a 1,000 s.f. driveway. This is essentially a 3-stall wide driveway that tapers
towards the road. It should be noted that other similar lots have been held to much
narrower driveway tapers to meet the hardcover limits for rebuilds. The Planning
Commission should discuss to what extent a hardcover variance should be granted, and
what hardships allow what level of hardcover excess.
Gundlach indicated that staff would recommend the following:
1. Approval of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is 0.47 acres in size
when 0.50 acres is normally allowed.
2. Approval of a hardcover variance as the shallowness of the lot and the need for a back-
up apron provide hardships inherent to the property.
Acting Chair Mabusth inquired as to how much hardcover existed in the 0-75' currently.
Gundlach stated that 2050 s.f. currently exists in the 0-75' zone, which would be entirely
removed in the new proposal.
PAGE 11 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2962 ROBERT AND JOANNE SWITZ, 1740 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE—Continued)
Mr. Switz indicated that they planned to work in the equivalence to a 16'X16' deck along
the lakeside of the residence in a meandering fashion so as not to infringe on the 0-75'
setback zone.
Acting Chair Mabusth complimented the applicants on redesigning their proposal to more
closely adhere to much of what the Commission had requested.
Rahn stated that he liked the revised application and did not see any excessive areas to
further reduce hardcover.
Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that she was willing to accept the hardships set forward in
the application which would warrant the variance requests.
Hawn questioned, even with the hardships, whether the hardcover could be reduced an
additional 800 s.f.
Gundlach pointed out that the back-up apron is virtually accomplished by the construction
of a three stall wide apron at the garage access.
Switz stated that, as it stands today, the property is dramatically out of conformance. He
maintained that it is their intent to create a better situation than what exists, even beyond
the mathematics.
Rahn concurred that by adding more driveway for a three car garage; the applicants have
given themselves a ready made back-up apron.
Bremer agreed, stating that given the reductions made, the tight lot parameters, she could
support what has been proposed for the appropriate zones.
Hannaford moved,Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of
Application#03-2962,Robert and Joanne Switz, 1740 Shadywood Road, granting a
lot area variance to allow a rebuild on a lot which is .47 acres in size when .50 acres is
normally allowed, and a hardcover variance to allow 38.6% hardcover in the 75-250'
zone as the shallowness of the lot and the need for a back-up apron provide hardships
inherent to the property.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
PAGE 12 of 53
r ,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#7) #03-2965 SENNES DESIGN BUILD INC. ON BEHALF OF FRANZ AND
KERSTEN JEVNE, 819 BROWN ROAD NORTH,VARIANCE (7:24-7:38 P.M.)
Scott Sennes, the Applicant, was present.
Curtis explained that the applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance in order to
remodel an existing home on the existing foundation and to allow a garage within 24.1'
feet of the side yard where 30' is required. The existing home is on a 1.0 acre property
within a 2 acre zone. The applicants are proposing an extensive remodel of the home,
adding additional living space while utilizing the existing foundation. Initially, the
applicants were requesting a 10.7' setback from the side lot line where 30' is required.
After discussions with staff, the applicants have revised their plan to extend no further into
the side setback than existing resulting in the request for a 24.2' setback where 30' is
required. The requested side yard setback variance of 5.8' is in order to utilize the existing
foundation on the south side of the garage and continue the plane of the garage toward the
rear yard to change the 3-stall front loading to a 2-stall front loading and a 1-stall side
loading garage. The applicants have proposed this change as the result of the meetings
with staff and their hope to minimize hardcover on the lot.
Curtis laid out additional issues for consideration:
1. Is an upward expansion to create a garage with a '/2 story bonus room above more
intrusive in the substandard setback than the mere rearward expansion of a low
one-story garage? Will either expansion have negative visual impacts?
2. Should this project be viewed as a remodel or a rebuild? If viewed as a rebuild,
should it meet all zoning requirements, including setbacks? Under the proposed
ordinance this would be considered a total rebuild.
3. Is the applicants' desire to reuse the existing foundation with a substandard setback
considered a hardship?
Curtis stated that the Planning Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, to
allow a side setback of 24.1' where 30' is required, in order to construct an expanded one-
story garage with bonus room, on the existing foundation with the following stipulations:
1. All construction within the substandard setback shall be within the height and bulk
envelopes shown on the attached plan.
Mr. Sennes stated that it would be their intent to reuse the existing 12' concrete block
foundation.
Jim Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road, interjected that the proposed improvements would be
an enormous upgrade than what's currently there.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the applicant was aware of the position of the
most affected neighbor.
Sennes stated that he had spoken to them and their feedback was favorable.
PAGE 13 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#03-2965 SENNES DESIGN BUILD INC. ON BEHALF OF FRANZ AND
KERSTEN JEVNE, 819 BROWN ROAD NORTH,VARIANCE—Continued)
Acting Chair Mabusth noted that the existing west side of the house is buffered by pines
and she questioned where the driveway to the north would be placed.
Gaffron pointed out that the northerly drive would likely be close to the north boundary
line.
While she did not have a difficult time accepting the proposal, Hawn stated that she viewed
it as a total rebuild, and asked if the Commission would be setting any precedent by
allowing them to reuse the existing foundation.
Fritzler concurred.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she could endorse the proposal, since the northerly
driveway next door will be along the applicant's north property line.
Gaffron pointed out that if the applicants find that they can't save the existing foundation,
the basis for the proposal is gone, and they will have to adhere to the zoning for new
construction.
Acting Chair Mabusth indicated that the Commission would need an engineer's report to
confirm the stability of the foundation before proceeding, in order to be consistent. She
stated that the approval could be based upon the engineer's report.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved,Hawn seconded,to recommend approval of
Application#03-2965, Sennes Design Build Inc. on behalf of Franz and Kersten
Jevne, 819 Brown Road North, granting approval of the side setback variance,to
allow a side setback of 24.1' where 30' is required, in order to construct an expanded
one-story garage with bonus room, on the existing foundation with the following
stipulations: All construction within the substandard setback shall be within the
height and bulk envelopes shown on the approved plan and that an engineer's report
will be completed to confirm the stability of the foundation before proceeding to City
Council.VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#8)#04-2967 SHARON RAE GUIMOND,2900 WATERTOWN ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (7:38-7:48 P.M.)
Sharon Guimond, the Applicant, and her son, Matthew, were present.
Curtis explained that the applicant requests a variance to allow an oversized accessory
structure 1500 s.f., (30'x 50' pole barn) where 1200 s.f. is allowed on a 2 acre lot and a
conditional use permit to construct the oversized accessory building on the through lot. She
PAGE 14 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2967 SHARON RAE GUIMOND, 2900 WATERTOWN ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE—Continued)
reported that, in June of 2003, a 2,616 s.f. barn on the property was destroyed by arson.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the Oversized Accessory Structure limit to
replace the barn that was destroyed with a 1,500 s.f. barn. The maximum size for an
oversized accessory structure on a 2 acre lot is 1,200 s.f. Additionally, the nature of the
property is a through-lot. Accessory structures constructed on through-lots are a
conditional use. The purpose of the conditional use permit in this instance is to assure
minimal visual impact on neighboring properties and views from the road.
Curtis indicated that the Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance
and conditional use permit as requested with the following provisions:
1. Density of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the visual impact from Wear
Circle is minimized.
2. No access to Wear Circle for proposed barn.
Hardship: Staff finds a hardship exists in that the situation which destroyed the barn was a
situation not created by the applicant.
Ms. Guimond stated that it is her wish to replace the barn that had burned down with a
smaller,but similar, style barn garage.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked how large the original barn had been.
Curtis indicated that the original barn had been 2600 s.f. and 40' tall.
Hawn recommended the applicant remove some of the cement and remaining damaged
property from the fire.
Guimond stated that these would be removed with the new construction. She indicated that
she would like to retain the barn look and roof line.
There were no public comments.
Fritzler maintained that the applicant could reuse the original concrete slab and reduce the
size of the structure to 1200 s.f. and still have a barn style building.
Hannaford pointed out that the original structure was almost twice as large as what was
being proposed.
Hawn moved,Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of
Application#04-2967, Sharon Rae Guimond,2900 Watertown Road, granting
approval of the variance and conditional use permit as requested with the following
provisions: Density of the vegetation on the lot is to be kept such that the visual
PAGE 15 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2967 SHARON RAE GUIMOND,2900 WATERTOWN ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE—Continued)
impact from Wear Circle is minimized, there will be no access to Wear Circle for
proposed barn, and the new barn is not to exceed the height of the 2-story home on
the property, since the situation which destroyed the barn was not one created by the
applicant.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1.
Fritzler dissenting as mentioned earlier.
(#9) #04-2968 CUSTOM STRUCTURES LTD., 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT (7:48-7:53 P.M.)
Lane Moore of Custom Structures Ltd, the Applicant, was present.
Curtis reported that the applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create 2 lots on one
block at 440 Stubbs Bay Road to be known as Stubbs Addition. She explained that the
existing home and outbuildings on Lot 1 are proposed to be removed upon approval. The
proposed lots meet all Zoning Ordinance regulations with respect to area, width, and
setbacks.
Curtis noted that staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the following
stipulations:
1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer prior to placement on a
City Council agenda.
2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
3. Submission and approval of the final plat.
4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements.
5. Demolition of the existing house and any outbuildings prior to any site grading.
6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review.
Mr. Moore had nothing further to add.
Curtis added that the wetlands would not be disturbed.
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of
Application#04-2968,Lane Moore of Custom Structures Ltd,440 Stubbs Bay Road,
granting Preliminary Plat Approval with the following stipulations:
1. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer prior to placement
on a City Council agenda.
2. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
PAGE 16 of 53
1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2968 CUSTOM STRUCTURES LTD., 440 STUBBS BAY ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT—Continued)
3. Submission and approval of the final plat.
4. Subject to standard fees and dedication of required easements.
5. Demolition of the existing house and any outbuildings prior to any site grading.
6. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#10) #04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE (7:53-8:21 P.M.)
Gretchen Blount,the Applicant, was present.
Gundlach explained that the applicant requests the following variances in order to
construct a new residence on an existing lot:
1. Lot area variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 0.527 acres in
size when 1 acre is normally required.
2. Lot width variance to allow construction of a new home on a lot which is 105' in width
when 140' is normally required.
3. Side setback variance to allow a 2nd story deck to be setback 8' from the south side
property line when 10' is normally required and 25' currently exists.
4. Hardcover variance to allow 8.41%hardcover(653 s.f.) in the 0-75' zone when 0%is
normally allowed and 11% (860 s.f.) currently exists.
5. Hardcover variance to allow 35%hardcover(5,321 s.f.) in the 75-250' zone when 25%
is normally allowed and 40.45% (6,149 s.f.) currently exists.
6. Conditional use permit to allow restoration of an existing railroad tie wall in the 0-75'
zone which consists of a boulder outcrop area.
Gundlach pointed out that the applicant has met with staff to discuss the proposed plans
and whether or not the proposal would be viewed as a renovation or a rebuild. The
applicant is proposing to tear the existing house down to the cap, replacing flooring as
needed and keeping the wall on the south side of the house in order to reuse the fireplace.
The applicant has stated the intention to reuse whatever the builder is able to, although the
cost of a renovation to retro-fit plumbing and electrical work is higher than if she were to
do a rebuild. After review of the submitted plans and further discussions with the
applicant, staff has concluded that the project will be reviewed as a rebuild.
The existing hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 40.45% or 6,149 s.f. The applicant is
proposing to tear down the detached garage that sits on the street property boundary, add
two large additions to the existing footprint, add two decks, reduce the existing driveway
by 1,379 s.f., construct a 92 s.f stoop, and to keep the existing keystone walls and steps.
This brings the proposed hardcover to 35% (5,321 s.f.), well below the existing hardcover
but still requiring a variance.
PAGE 17 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE—Continued)
In the 0-75' zone, Gundlach indicated that the applicant is also proposing a conditional use
permit and variance to replace a large railroad tie retaining wall, concrete stair system, and
railroad tie stairs which comprise 11%hardcover. The applicant is proposing to keep both
sets of stairs and replace the railroad tie retaining wall with a boulder out-crop, which
reduces the hardcover to 8.41%,requiring a variance.
While staff finds that there may be some hardships warranting some amount of a hardcover
variance for the 75-250' zone, Gundlach questioned the 35%that is currently proposed.
The topography of the rear of the lot, and how the existing walls, which the applicant is
proposing to keep, tie into the existing foundation make it difficult to shift the house
further towards the road requiring a substantial amount of driveway. Staff has reviewed
the proposed driveway and finds that it, as proposed, is a minimum and isn't an area for
potential reductions. However, Gundlach stated there are potential areas for additional
hardcover removal. The applicant has proposed two decks totaling 578 s.f. of hardcover.
The applicant is also proposing a porch totaling 283 s.f. The decks and porch together
comprise 5.6%hardcover(861 s.f). The applicant's plans also are proposing what appears
to be a 4-car garage totaling 904 square feet. The applicant has stated that their real need is
only for a two-car garage but with a work shop attached to it. The applicant has
demonstrated no real hardships to allow excessive decks, porch, and garage.
Gundlach urged the Planning Commission to discuss with the applicant the need of the
proposed decks, porch and 4-car garage and determine if a re-design incorporating a
smaller porch and deck, and smaller garage area is warranted. The Planning Commission
should also consider that a full 2nd story isn't proposed and could potentially be an ideal
way to reduce hardcover on the property.
As proposed, Gundlach stated that staff would recommend:
1. Approval of a lot area variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot
which is 0.527 acres in size when 1 acre is normally required.
2. Approval of a lot width variance to allow construction of a new residence on a lot
where the width is 105' when 140' is normally required.
3. Denial of the side setback variance to allow a setback of 8' when 10' is required.
The proposal should be re-designed so as not to encroach into the required setback.
4. Table of a hardcover variance to allow 8.41%hardcover in the 0-75' zone when 0%
is normally allowed. The applicant shall submit more detailed restoration plans for
review by the City Engineer
5. Table of a hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone. The applicant shall further
refine the proposal in an effort to reduce hardcover.
PAGE 18 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE—Continued)
The applicant should consider re-designing the plans to incorporate the following:
1. Re-design the southern deck to meet a 10' setback.
2. Reduce the amount of decks/porch on the property.
3. Reduce the amount of garage space, and if possible, driveway connected to it.
4. Consider a second story in an effort to reduce the footprint and hardcover.
5. Revise the plans for the 0-75' zone to only allow one access to the lake.
6. Submit more detailed plans for the railroad tie retaining wall restoration.
Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that it would be difficult to pass the application on to
City Council for review until further reductions were made and more detail supplied with
regard to the 0-75' zone.
Gundlach stated that the applicant did not wish to send the 0-75' improvements and the
rebuild to Council separately,but hoped that the Planning Commission might be able to
discuss the 75-250' zone and supply her with some direction.
Blount stated that the current retaining walls in the 0-75' need to be replaced, since the
railroad ties are failing. She explained that they had purchased the home with the intent to
use it for their retirement home and preferred to keep the master bedroom on the main
floor. Blount indicated that the additional garage space was necessary to house her
husband's workshop and hobby area. In addition, she pointed out that the decks were
intended to be kept within the setback zones.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the driveway could be reduced to accommodate
the two car garage excluding the workshop area. She asked the applicant whether they had
considered building a new structure, as the costs of upgrading plumbing and electric can be
excessive.
Blount indicated that they had hoped to reuse the existing foundation,but would consider
this.
Rahn stated that he would like to see further reductions in hardcover, noting that the home
meets setbacks in the current location. Although he would allow a stairway to the lake and
retaining walls to help with drainage, he maintained that more details were necessary. In
fact, Rahn questioned whether further reductions might be found in the 0-75' zone, if the
slope was altered in order to potentially eliminate the need for the retaining walls.
Gundlach suggested the Commission table this section of the application in order to allow
the applicant to discuss their options with the City Engineer.
PAGE 19 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE—Continued)
Blount stated that the most critical items to them would include the main floor master
bedroom, sun porch, and workshop.
Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged the applicant to meet with her architect and bring the
Commission revised drawings, which would include one stairway access to the lake.
Blount asked the Commission whether what they were requesting was within the realm of
feasibility.
While she was hesitant to supply the applicant with specific percentages, Bremer asked
why the applicant wished to keep 2 walls in the first place. She questioned whether the
applicant felt keeping the walls would be helpful to their case. Bremer pointed out that,
while keeping the foundation might be possible, the applicants might be better off pulling
the home back and starting over.
Blount stated that she hoped to keep the fireplace on one of the walls.
Rahn encouraged the applicant to question their architect, as to how they might benefit the
most, for instance by pulling the home back and constructing a front loading garage could
reduce the hardcover closer to 25%.
Bremer moved, Fritzler seconded, to table Application#04-2969, Terry and Gretchen
Blount, 1390 Cherry Place, for the purpose of redesign.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(#11) #04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC.,3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN
ROAD, LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT (8:21-8:43 P.M.)
William Henderson, the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated that this is a proposed 2-lot residential re-plat of property located adjacent to
Stubbs Bay Creek. In August 1990, the City of Orono approved the plat of Senn Orono
Addition, creating Lot 1 (3240 Watertown Road), Lot 2 and Outlot A (combined as 3220
Watertown Road). The property contains protected wetlands and a protected tributary
creek. The plat was approved two years before adoption of Orono's Shoreland Ordinance
(Zoning Code Section 10.56) and one year prior to enactment of the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act(WCA). Gaffron noted that both of these subsequent regulations are
applicable to the future development of the properties, and each has significant impacts on
their buildability. Neither lot has ever been built on.
As a result, applicants are proposing a complete lot line rearrangement to allow relocation
of the proposed driveway(which was never built and now would not be approved in its
PAGE 20 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC.,3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD,
LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT—Continued)
1990 configuration due to Shoreland restrictions) and to allow for slight revisions in
potential house locations. The new plat is subject to `front lot/back lot' area and setback
standards which were also not in effect in 1990.
Gaffron pointed out that the application is incomplete pending a grading plan and design
for the driveway and creek crossing, which requires a number of variances. It is staff's
intent to review the variances and subdivision concurrently, as they rely on each other for
viability.
Gaffron explained that, prior to adoption of the Shoreland Ordinance in February 1992,
Orono did not have a specific setback requirement from tributary streams or creeks, and at
best a 26' wetland setback was likely the only setback enforced for structures.
Furthermore, the City had no hardcover limitation applicable to tributaries. The City had
enforced a 75' septic system setback from creeks and wetlands since the late 1970's; tested
sites for Lot 1 were accepted at less than a 75' setback.
Since the original subdivision was created prior to the 1994 adoption of"front lot/back lot"
standards (Sections 78-1370 and 82-256), the existing lots aren't subject to these special
setback and area requirements,but because new lots are being created, the subdivision will
be subject to those standards. The impacts include:
- Lot 1 as a back lot must meet a 3 acre minimum(it does);
- Lot 1 is subject to 150% of the standard setbacks.
-Access to Lot 1 must be via a 30' driveway outlot(as proposed)
- Lot 2 is subject to a 50' side street setback from the driveway outlot, rather than a
30' side setback.
Gaffron summarized the Regulatory Impacts as follows:
1. The 968' OHWL along the creek is the contour from which setbacks should be
measured for this property. The key OHWL setbacks that affect development of the site
are:
- 100' structure setback from OHWL
- 75' septic setback from OHWL
- no hardcover allowed within 75' of OHWL
Areas below the OHWL will not count toward lot area calculations.
The lot dry/wet areas and the OHWL setbacks as shown by the surveyor appear to
be acceptable.
Wetland delineations and the OHWL determination have established boundaries which
have a somewhat limiting effect on the buildable area, especially of Lot 1, due to non-
buildability of wetland and the 26' setback requirement.
PAGE 21 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD,
LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT—Continued)
4. The original approvals to construct a driveway within existing Outlot A paralleling
the creek, and to construct a creek crossing, are no longer valid,because the driveway and
creek crossing were never constructed and new, more restrictive regulations have since
been adopted which would make such construction a violation of current codes. A number
of variances are required to allow the creek crossing. The specific issues with the
driveway are:
a) Portions will be within 75' of the OHWL of the creek where no hardcover
or grading is allowed except by variance per Section 78-1286;
b) Portions will be within a delineated wetland or within 26' of the wetland,
requiring variances from the City(any variance for this work granted with
the final plat approval would by definition have expired within one year of
that approval if not used).
c) Grading and filling in or near a wetland, and crossing of the creek, are also
subject to WCA regulations administered for Orono by the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District, and variances to their regulations would likely be
required.
As a related issue, Gaffron noted that the 1990 subdivision approval required that there be
only one access to Watertown road for the two lots, i.e. a shared driveway is required.
Gaffron pointed out that a primary issue for development of Lot 1 is access. The proposed
access along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 has impacts on the shape and development
potential of Lot 2. The current proposal correctly assumes that variances would not be
granted to allow the driveway to parallel the creek within the 75'hardcover/grading
setback. Assuming that a wetland/creek crossing within Lot 1 would ultimately be
approved, then the proposed 30' corridor along the east boundary of Lot 2 and skirting the
hillside in the south half of Lot 1, is a reasonable plan. However, in order for the driveway
to skirt the hill and not encroach into Lot 2, Outlot A is shortened and Lot 1 extends
southward past the base of the hill. This is the hardship basis that supports the lot width
variance for Lot 1. As a design for the driveway has not been submitted and such a design
would entail variances which cannot be quantified without such a design for review, the
application remains incomplete and the driveway information will have to be provided and
reviewed before preliminary plat approval can be granted.
Furthermore, Gaffron explained that a park fee of$200 was paid for the existing Lot 1
when it was created in 1990 per the ordinance in place at that time, and no park fee was
paid for Lot 2, on the basis that Lot 2 previously had a house on it. Thirteen years later,
the structure on Lot 2 is still there but has not been lived.
PAGE 22 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC., 3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD,
LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT—Continued)
Since both lots drain directly to a creek which flows to Stubbs Bay, from a water quality
standpoint, they function as lakeshore lots. There is little ability to collect significant
amounts of stormwater runoff from either lot before it reaches the creek. Therefore,
Gaffron maintained that Stormwater treatment provisions should be added to the plan in
the form of required substantial buffer strips along the creek, which must remain vegetated
with high grasses and not be fertilized.
As with the park fee, there is some question as to whether this subdivision should be
subject to the Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee established by City Ordinance. The fee
is established at $2,700 per acre, with a cap of 4.0 acres to be charged per lot. For this
property, Lot 1 would be charged the maximum 4.0 acre fee($10,800) and Lot 2 would be
charged for 3.47 acres ($9,369). However, a case can be made that Lot 2 already exists as
a viable building site, and the real intent of the subdivision is to make Lot 1 buildable. An
argument can be made that only the fee for Lot 1 should be required.
With regard to septic, Gaffron noted that Septic Systems Inspector Matt Bolterman has
reviewed the submitted septic testing and confirms that each lot has suitable sites for
adequately-sized septic systems.
While the proposed plan appears feasible and appropriate based on the information
submitted to date, Gaffron reiterated that the lack of a requested proposed driveway and
creek crossing plan, and the lack of proposed house locations to help in determining the
feasibility of house development on these somewhat limited sites, suggests tabling may be
appropriate until that information is submitted for review. He recommended that the
Commission briefly review, provide comment, and then table pending receipt and City
Engineer review of requested driveway and creek crossing plans.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the applicant had begun the process with the MCWD.
Henderson indicated that this had begun.
Gary Roller, 3280 Watertown Road, the neighbor on the west side, stated that he had a
difficult time seeing the building site on the back lot.
Gaffron pointed out that the buildable site was tucked in against a 45' setback from the
west lot line,between the creek setback and wetland.
Mark Summers, 75 Crystal Creek Road, pointed out that his home fell 60' north of
Watertown Road and 75-100' west of the property and he, too, was concerned with the
placement of a home on lot one.
PAGE 23 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC.,3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD,
LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT—Continued)
Steve Koehler, 35 Crystal Creek Road, questioned the site on the hill, claiming that this
location would be much closer to his property than the alternate home site.
Henderson stated that the most attractive building site for any potential homeowner would
be the site in the back versus the one up front on the hill.
Gaffron pointed out that the location of the septic site would likely drive where the house
building site would be. He agreed that the hill side site would be difficult, as the septic
lines would have to run a long distance and across the creek bed. While he felt this to be an
unlikely building site, he noted that the applicant could feasibly build there, or agree not to
build on the steep slope.
Henderson agreed, stating that the hillside location would not likely be a desirable one, and
indicated that they would consider the suggestion.
Koehler asked what the location for the outlot and setbacks for the driveway were being
proposed at.
Gaffron stated that the outlot would be a 15' wide driveway corridor that narrows. He
noted that the driveway was placed merely 5' from the lot line and questioned whether the
outlot should be wider or whether the driveway within the outlot offset.
Summers stated that the driveway outlot was of great concern to him, since the driveway
would run the entire length of his property.
Although one option might include moving the driveway further west by widening the
driveway, Gaffron noted that widening too much would impact the septic sites and house
size.
Koehler pointed out that drainage issues might also be a concern for the future homeowner
as the runoff tends to move towards this site and under Watertown Road via a culvert.
Gaffron thanked the neighbor for his concern, and acknowledged that the City Engineer
would need to evaluate the drainage issues, and how these might impact construction. He
mentioned that some buffers would be likely to manage treatment near the creek, and noted
that the applicant hopes to have these issues resolved by the February meeting.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned how the applicant would plan to cross the creek.
While the City would need confirmation from the MCWD, Gaffron stated that a 48"oval
culvert with fill on either side was proposed to accommodate flow. He noted that MCWD
PAGE 24 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2971 HICKORY FINE HOMES INC.,3220 AND 3240 WATERTOWN ROAD,
LOT LINE RE-ARRANGEMENT—Continued)
may even take the position that the applicant can't build over the creek bed.
Henderson stated that,having spoken with the MCWD, he had been led to believe that they
would accept this proposal.
While Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would find it difficult to require additional
park dedication fees and stormwater trunk fees being charged to the applicant, she would
defer this to the legal department.
Hawn concurred.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved,Bremer seconded,to table Application#04-2971,
William and Roslyn Henderson,/Hickory Fine Homes, 3220-3240 Watertown Road, a
proposed Preliminary Subdivision and Lot Line Re-Plat pending receipt and City
Engineer review of requested driveway and creek crossing plans.VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
(#12) #04-2972 ROBERT KNUTH AND MARY THOMPSON, 2700 WHITE OAK
CIRCLE,VARIANCE (8:43-8:53 P.M.)
Robert Knuth, the Applicant, was present.
Curtis explained that the applicants are requesting a front yard setback variance and a side
street(right-of-way) variance to allow a porch with pergola 45.1' from the front lot line
where a 50' setback is required and 35' from the street right-of-way where 50' is required
and a 40' setback exists currently. Curtis pointed out that the applicants home is situated
nearly at the front yard setback line of this expansive 2.1 acre property. In order to avoid
encroaching the approved alternate septic system soil treatment site when the home was
first built in 1978, the home was constructed 56.1' from the front property line, 5' from the
required 50' setback. Along the western property boundary between 2700 and 2715 White
Oak Circle a continuation of the road right-of-way exists. This right-of-way is currently
and indefinitely not used as a traveled road, and is open space. The home is currently
located 40' from this street side yard where a 50' setback is required. Due to the angle of
the home on the lot, the proposed porch addition would extend 5 additional feet into the
required side street yard.
Curtis pointed out that the property is located on a cul-de-sac and the property owners wish
to create a"neighborly feel"to their home with the addition of the covered front porch.
Due to the close proximity to the front yard setback, any modification greater than 5' off
the front of the home requires a variance to front yard setback requirement.
PAGE 25 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2972 ROBERT KNUTH AND MARY THOMPSON,2700 WHITE OAK
CIRCLE,VARIANCE—Continued)
Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the 5' front yard setback variance and
the 15' street side setback variance due to the location of the existing house with relation to
the front lot line with the stipulation that the covered porch shall not be enclosed.
Knuth stated that they wished to open up the house to the neighborhood and add a front
entry feel to the currently blank wall. He pointed out that they began speaking to neighbors
about their intent a year ago and gained much support for the action.
There were no public comments.
Acting Chair Mabusth acknowledged that many neighbors had indicated their support for
the improvement.
Rahn asked if the stoop would be considered a legal encroachment.
Gaffron stated that the stoop is not an encroachment as long as it is at grade level and not
covered. He believed the applicant should be allowed some leeway for a covered
entryway.
While the stoop itself was allowed, Rahn was hesitant to make it nonconforming and urged
the applicant to accept the 6' to the setback for a covered stop.
Hawn did not feel this was an obtrusive addition and noted that most of the affected
property owners had voiced their support.
Acting Chair Mabusth concurred.
Bremer moved,Acting Chair Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of
Application#04-2972,Robert Knuth and Mary Thompson,2700 Willow Oak Circle,
granting approval of the 5' front yard setback variance and the 15' street side setback
variance due to the location of the existing house with relation to the front lot line with
the stipulation that the covered porch not be enclosed. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Commissioner Hawn left at 8:53 P.M.
(Recess taken from 8:53-9:04 P.M.)
PAGE 26 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#13) #04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC., 4753 NORTH SHORE
DRIVE,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(9:04-9:35 P.M.)
Steve Saxton, of Minnetonka Custom Homes, was present.
Gundlach stated that the applicant requests the following in conjunction with a previously
approved project:
1. After-the-fact variance to allow 49%hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 44%was
previously approved and 25%is normally allowed.
2. Conditional use permit to allow retaining walls to be constructed within 5' of the
property line.
Gundlach explained that the applicants received a number of variances in April of 2003 in
order to construct a new residence on the property located at 4753 North Shore Drive.
Hardcover variances were received for the 0-75' and 75-250' zones of 9.34% and 44.85%
respectively. During the building permit approval process it was concluded that the City
Engineer needed to review the grading plan and that to result in proper drainage on the
property the site plan and grading plan required minor revisions. The changes included
raising the house approximately 2 feet and installing gutters directing all the water to the
driveway and into the right-of-way of North Shore Drive. Also, approved was a short
retaining wall on the west side of the home to allow for a side entrance.
Following construction of the home and prior to a final inspection, the City's Building
Inspector noticed a number of retaining walls were constructed in the 75-250' zone in an
effort to control the drainage on the property. Also, repair of an existing wall at the top of
the bluff and a second wall at the top of the bluff were also constructed all of which were
not approved with either the building permit plan or the plan approved in April of 2003 by
the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff informed the applicants that this work
was not approved, that the walls should be removed, and that the approved grading plan
should be followed or an after-the-fact hardcover variance to allow 49.2%hardcover when
44.85% was originally approved would be required if the walls were to remain. A
conditional use permit is also required in order to allow retaining walls within 5' of the
property boundary.
Gundlach pointed out that, at the time of building permit review, the applicants proposed
less hardcover in the 75-250' zone than was approved by the original plan. This occurred
because the applicants went from a footprint of 1,500 s.f. to 1,451 s.f. and a smaller
driveway/walk (525 s.f. to 481 s.f.). At the time, the applicants were also approved to
construct a retaining wall on the west side of the home in order to construct a side entrance,
which added 8 s.fl of hardcover,bringing the total hardcover to 44% (when 44.85%was
approved by the Planning Commission and City Council).
PAGE 27 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC.,4753 N. SHORE DRIVE,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—
Continued)
Gundlach explained the analysis of the As-Built Plan as follows, along with the City
Engineer's comments regarding the necessity of the walls:
East Wall & Steps: Neither the steps or retaining wall were approved with any of the
plans. The City Engineer has determined that a smaller wall is
necessary to provide a transition from the driveway elevation to the
elevation of the side yard, which achieves the same results and is not
within 5' of the property boundary.
West Walls: The only wall that was approved is the wall that protects the side
entryway. The original plan was designed to grade a swale leading
to the lake. Further, these walls encroach onto the neighbor's
property, which isn't allowed by City Code. The City Engineer has
stated that an extension of the existing wall protecting the entrance
may be warranted,however, the rest of the walls and fill should be
removed and a swale should be re-graded as shown on the approved
plans at approximately the original site elevation.
South Walls: The wall that was approved was the pre-existing wall, which has
since been repaired. The applicants also constructed a second tier to
this wall and brought in fill in an attempt to create a larger lawn and
to avoid a 1'-2' step down from the walkout level to original grade.
It should be noted that these walls are within the bluff impact zone.
The City's Building Inspector authorized the applicant to improve
the pre-existing wall in an effort to protect the bluff. The applicant
did improve the wall but also constructed a new, second tier which
extends onto the neighbors property. It is of the City Engineer and
Building Inspector's opinions that this second tier wall was not
necessary. The second tier wall and the fill should be removed and
re-graded as originally approved. The second tier wall and fill raises
the walkout yard to an elevation higher than the neighboring yards.
Gundlach stated that, in addition to the acceptance of the City Engineer's comments, staff
would recommend:
1. The wall on the east side of the property be relocated westerly onto the
applicant's property to provide a 5' setback to the easterly lot line.
2. The steps on the east side of the property be removed.
3. The wall following the property line on the west side of the lot be moved
easterly to a point 5' of the west lot line and its length be cut in half.
PAGE 28 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC.,4753 N. SHORE DRIVE,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—
Continued)
4. Reduce the replaced existing wall on the lake side of the home to the previous
height.
5. Remove the northerly wall on the lake side of the home.
6. Removal of fill along the side and lake side of the home and require the
construction of swales.
7. Approval of the steps on the lake side of the home as they are needed due to the
steep grade of the slope(once the fill is removed).
8. Grant a minimal additional hardcover variance to allow the above
The above recommendation shall be implemented prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. This house is intended to be in the Parade of Homes and the revisions need to
be completed ASAP to avoid buyer surprises.
Mr. Saxton stated that after being given approvals for the original home, and during the
permitting phase, the City Engineer indicated that he had not ever seen the plans. He
indicated that they ended up with a two-tiered wall versus one 10' high wall, and a side
entrance with wall which directed the water flow to the street, unlike the original plan
which directed water towards the lake. Saxton maintained that the understanding was that
the side access would be on the east side, which had been overlooked during the permitting
phase. In addition,he noted that he was unaware a conditional use permit was necessary
for the walls and indicated that a landscaper would fix and move the walls over.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned why the walls were added to the west side and a second
tier down below.
In an effort to try to avoid one very high 10' tall wall, Saxton stated that they chose to tier
the walls for safety, as well as, facilitate drainage. He indicated that it would have been his
preference to create a swale versus going to the added expense of building retaining walls,
had he felt they would suffice.
Gundlach stated that the City Engineer, in his review, acknowledged that a second tier wall
was necessary.
Rahn asked when the plan was changed to reflect a side entrance and how they went over
on their hardcover levels.
Saxton stated that they lost hardcover when the side entrance was mandated by the City
Council which made the house more narrow. He maintained that, while some increases in
hardcover were necessary to keep the retaining walls, he acquiesced that they would be
PAGE 29 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2973 MINNETONKA CUSTOM HOMES INC.,4753 N. SHORE DRIVE,
AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—
Continued)
willing to work with staff to make things right.
Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged the applicant to work with staff and the City Engineer
to go forward.
Fritzler asked if this was the first house they had ever built.
Saxton replied that this was the first home he had built.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the retaining walls could be cut off on the west
side.
City Engineer Kellogg interjected that he had visited the site over the past week and
believed the side retaining wall could be moved closer to the sidewalk. He also indicated
that several of the retaining walls could be removed in lieu of grading, including removal
of the retaining wall on the south west side to redirect drainage onto this property.
Gaffron suggested that an alternative to the 3:1 slope might be to dig down 2' at the grade
level to allow the homeowners a small walkout area with a flatter lakeside yard.
Kellogg agreed that this would be an acceptable alternative.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved,Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of
Application#04-2973 Minnetonka Custom Homes Inc.,4753 North Shore Drive,
granting approval of necessary minimal hardcover variance and conditional use
permit, subject to the applicant working with the City Engineer and staff to
develop a plan which creates swales in the side yards and removal of retaining walls.
Since the home will be shown during the Parade of Homes, Gaffron pointed out the
importance to rectify the situation so that a potential owner will see the required removals
prior to purchasing the property.
VOTE: Ayes 5/0.
PAGE 30 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#14)#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP,NW CORNER OF
WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT,AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW (9:35-10:20 P.M.)
John Trautz, Reliance Development, and Vickie VanDel, the Applicant's Representatives,
were present.
Gaffron explained that the applicants propose a commercial retail/office development on
Outlot A of StoneBay. The proposal requires an amendment of the Community
Management Plan(CMP)to allow freestanding retail uses that are not directly associated
with supporting an office use on the site. The proposal includes a rezoning via the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) process from RR-1B (SFR, 2 acre minimum) to B-6 PUD
(Highway Commercial District).
The proposed development includes a subdivision of the 3.69 acre site into 3 separate
building lots as follows:
Lot 1: 1.53 acres - 10,000 s.f. office/retail building
Lot 2: 0.86 acres - 5,000 s.f. bank building
Lot 3: 1.30 acres - 14,490 s.f. Walgreen's retail/pharmacy building
Since the proposal is not in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, in that it includes
freestanding retail not specifically associated or supportive of an office use on the site, the
applicant requests an amendment of the CMP. Gaffron noted that the amendment would
"allow retail uses in this area when approved as part of a PUD, based on the finding that
the amendment would comply with the spirit and intent of the City's Community
Management Plan, would allow development of this vacant site, would provide limited
retail to serve the neighborhood, and would allow development of the mixed use StoneBay
development as originally proposed." The amendment would apply only to Outlot A of
Stonebay.
Gaffron indicated that the City Council has informally reviewed this proposed amendment
to the CMP in the context of its impact on development in Long Lake, in full knowledge of
Orono's stated intent to not take actions which would be counterproductive to Long Lake's
efforts in maintaining a vital, viable downtown retail area. Council's general conclusion
was that the magnitude and types of retail proposed will have minimal impact on Long
Lake's ability to move forward with its Downtown Master Plan. If done correctly, the
proposed mix of neighborhood service/retail and office can provide the business locations,
services and quality employment opportunities the Orono City Council envisioned for this
area in the 2000-2020 CMP.
Gaffron cited additional factors which might come into play in terms of this proposed
amendment including:
PAGE 31 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP,NW CORNER OF
WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT,AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW—Continued)
- The other three quadrants of this intersection are devoted to retail uses.
- The Long Lake Downtown Master Plan does not at any location provide for
the Walgreen's model of a building set back from the street with parking in
front. The Long Lake Plan provides for buildings at streetside with parking
in the rear. It is highly unlikely that Walgreen's would locate in Long
Lake's Downtown area.
- From a staff perspective, Walgreen's is an amenity that would be welcomed
by the public in this area.
- Having service retail uses within walking distance of both StoneBay and
our senior housing less than %2 mile east, provides a positive amenity.
- The location on Highway 12 will enable certain types of retail uses that can
serve the Stonebay development that we would otherwise probably not
attract to the area without the Highway 12 traffic.
- Review of the traffic study completed for the Highway 12 area as part of
the general Stonebay PUD in 2002-2003 indicates that the traffic
generated by the proposed retail uses would be very similar to the traffic
generated by office uses at this site. The upgrades to surrounding roads
required as part of the Stonebay PUD approvals will still be applicable
if the amendment is approved.
Gaffron pointed out that, procedurally, this CMP Amendment requires approval of the
Metropolitan Council; however, it is expected this will be viewed as a minor amendment,
will have no new or unplanned-for impacts on metropolitan facilities, and is not expected
to be met with any resistance by Met Council. In addition, Gaffron added that a copy of the
plans had been provided to the City of Long Lake, although no comments have been
received as of yet.
With regard to permitted uses in the B-6 District, Gaffron stated that these include business
and professional offices; banks and financial institutions; libraries; and motels &hotels. In
addition, retail uses are allowed in B-6 only via the PUD development process. Rezoning
this site to B-6 PUD is allowed under the"Special Requirements for Rezoning in the
Highway 12 Corridor Study Area"of zoning code Section 78-1065, and was anticipated
PAGE 32 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP,NW CORNER OF
WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT,AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW—Continued)
during the approval of the Stonebay plat. B-6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed
use. Sections 78-1061 thru 78-1067 additionally contain a number of development
standards applicable to this site:
Gaffron continued, stating that the proposed site plan meets the City's established standard
for no direct access to Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road. The
applicants are proposing a right-in, right-out access to Willow Drive and a full access to
Kelley Parkway, which will be further discussed as the review process moves forward.
Trail links are provided as called for in the City's plans and in the Stonebay approvals.
Gaffron acknowledged that interior site circulation is a major concern which requires
additional discussions between staff, applicants and consultants.
Gaffron pointed out that City Engineer Tom Kellogg and the City's planning consultant,
Phil Carlson of DSU, Inc., have been asked to comment on the engineering and planning
aspects of the proposed site plan. He encouraged the Commission to review their
comments. Since the site plan has a number of significant issues which should be worked
through at the staff/developer/consultant level before Planning Commission spends any
time on a detailed site plan review, Gaffron stated that the plan details were not included
this evening.
Gaffron indicated that a public hearing would be scheduled for this proposal at the January
20 meeting. Gaffron encouraged the Planning Commission to identify any specific
concerns they believe need to be addressed with the site plan. Topics for comments
included:
1. Site orientations, relationship to Stonebay residential neighborhood, relationship to
12/Willow intersection,relationship to stormwater pond as an amenity
2. Site access and circulation patterns, impacts/pros/cons of drive-thru's
3. Building materials and building design
4. Pedestrian access and circulation
5. Signage, lighting, and landscaping
6. Other topics of concern or interest
PAGE 33 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF
WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW—Continued)
Gaffron stated that staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the rezoning to
B-6 PUD. Staff recommends tabling the preliminary plat and commercial site plan review,
to allow applicants to meet with City staff and consultants to work through the variety of
identified site plan issues. The intent would be to present Planning Commission with a
revised site plan for a comprehensive review at their February 17 regular meeting.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked what type of amendment would result from this proposal. She
acknowledged that this proposal has the ability to provide both for office and residential
needs of the area. She questioned whether added CUP's would be necessary for drive-
thrus.
Gaffron indicated this would reflect a text amendment for this outlot only. He explained
that the drive-thrus are set apart in the CUP and PUD development, which gives them the
ability to move things around to improve traffic routing. Gaffron believed the routings
could be worked out at the staff/consultant level.
While the plans were in need of some `tweaking', Mr. Trautz indicated that it was their
intent to distribute drawings to the Commission for initial comment. He stated that the
retail would happen first followed by the office use and noted that this development would
complete the 4in quadrant at Willow and Highway 12.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether there would be pedestrian trails within the site.
VanDel pointed out that the pedestrian ways had been identified.
Trautz maintained that the drive-thrus were low use, with stacking unlikely.
Although staff had asked the applicant to provide them with an alternative plan in case a
bank chooses not to lease the space, Gaffron indicated that nothing has been presented at
this time.
Although he believed the space could serve as office, service retail,medical, or
multi/single use tenants, Trautz indicated that it is their intent to pursue banks at this time
until that avenue has been exhausted.
Gaffron encouraged the Commission to address the five issues for consideration presented
for their consideration.
PAGE 34 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP, NW CORNER OF
WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW—Continued)
While Hannaford believed the concept was attractive enough, he pointed out that the
corner is already a grab bag of uses, though the Commission needs to give consideration to
whether they wish to see those uses continue.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she liked the renderings and exterior materials presented.
VanDel asked for further direction before they present their final plan to the Commission
at the February 17 meeting and, hopefully, move on to Council.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would prefer minimal signage and felt that the traffic
flow was critical.
Along with a 6' high sign at Highway 12, Trautz indicated that the plan proposes one 10'
sign per lot for the commercial uses all made of the same masonry style.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the site would contain any community seating area. In
addition, she asked who would maintain the common areas.
Trautz pointed out that the coffee retailer would allow some outdoor seating. With regard
to the common areas, Trautz stated that interconnection is a common way of developing
properties, guided by easement agreements which regulate the common areas.
Rahn stated that he wished to see the final draft.
Gaffron stated that the Commission could wait until after the February work session, take
action this evening, or table the application.
There were no public comments.
Bremer stated that she was concerned about the possibility of bringing in a Walgreen's, so
close to the Snyder's in Long Lake. She indicated that she was surprised the City Council
would change their position on retail, given their past position on redevelopment of the
Long Lake business district. She believed it would not promote healthy competition to
allow a Walgreen's to come in and likely displace the Snyder's.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether the City had been supplied with any comments
from Long Lake.
Gaffron stated that he had not heard any specific or general comments from Long Lake. He
PAGE 35 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LLP,NW CORNER OF
WILLOW DRIVE AND HIGHWAY 12, PUD REZONING, COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT,AND COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW—Continued)
explained that the City Council did not feel that this magnitude of development would
specifically harm Long Lake's plan to revive their downtown. He questioned how others
felt this corner might impact Long Lake.
Bremer disagreed, stating that she believed it would have a huge impact on the health of
Long Lake Bank and Snyder's. She believed the City of Orono should support those
businesses, although she did not disagree these new services might be necessary once
StoneBay is complete. While she believed it was for the City Council to decide, Bremer
was reluctant to support Walgreen's as a potential tenant. In addition, she felt allowing a
24 hour operation like Walgreen's into the community would take the City to a whole
level.
Fritzler disagreed, stating that the flip side to Bremer's argument was that allowing
additional businesses into the community was a good thing. He maintained that Orono just
can't sit by and wait indefinitely for Long Lake to do something. Although he did not
disagree that Long Lake may risk some loss due to competition,he also believed they need
to step up their commitment to their business district.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to table Application#04-2974,
StoneBay Marketplace, NW Quadrant Hwy 12/Willow Drive, a Proposed
Commercial PUD Development,in addition, when the final Comprehensive Plan
Amendment, PUD Rezoning, Commercial Site Plan Review, and Preliminary
Subdivision is presented,that they be accompanied by a progress report of where the
original StoneBay development project is at currently. VOTE : Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#15) #04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (10:20-10:53 P.M.)
James Pierpont, the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron explained that the property at 1801 West Farm Road contains a principal residence
and a guest house originally approved via CUP Resolution No.2854 in 1990. During the
recent lot line rearrangement review, it was confirmed that the legal combination condition
of Resolution No. 2854 had never been fulfilled. It was also confirmed that the applicants
at this time do not want to combine the properties (1801-1849) and the Planning
Commission and Council confirmed that the 3 ac. dry/1 ac. wetland area of 1801 West
Farm was not sufficient to meet the intent of the Guest House ordinance regarding lot area.
Based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission, Council conditioned lot line
PAGE 36 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
rearrangement approval on successfully obtaining a CUP for Plumbing in an Accessory
Building, with the understanding that the kitchen in the guest house would have to be
removed. Because the City will not accept continuation of the Guest House use without 4.0
acres of dry buildable land, applicant has chosen to pursue a Plumbing in Accessory
Building CUP. Discussions at the Council level established that removal of the kitchen
facilities from the existing guest house structure would be required, but the plumbing
would be allowed to remain subject to applicant successfully obtaining a CUP. The lot
line rearrangement approval does not take effect until the Plumbing in Accessory Building
CUP is obtained.
Gaffron pointed out that 1801 West Farm Road has been confirmed to have a site for
construction of a 5-bedroom mound system should the need arise to replace the existing
system serving the house and accessory building. However, the City Council has received
and acted on a petition by this neighborhood for municipal sewer, and it is anticipated that
the property will be served by municipal sewer in the relatively near future.
While the accessory building is conforming as to height, it is nonconforming as to size and
location. The structure consists of two buildings - an old stable and a newer garage,
connected by a circular room. The total square footage is approximately 1075 s.f., which
would place this building into the category of an `oversize accessory structure' subject to
principal structure setbacks (50' front, 30' side) and not nearer the street than the principal
residence structure. However, this building is located approximately 49' from the cul-de-
sac where a 50' setback would be required, and it sits between the house and the street.
Further, its location ranges from 1.5'to 6' from the north side lot line.
Gaffron indicated that the building today is screened from the north by vegetation existing
on the adjacent property. Staff believes the neighborhood visual impact today is as
minimal as it was in 1990.
Gaffron stated that it is assumed that the property owner will agree to the covenant
requirements, including:
-the building will not be used for a home occupation;
- the building will not be used as a dwelling; and
-building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling.
In order to approve the CUP, Gaffron explained that the Council must make the following
two findings:
- the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental
to the residential character of the neighborhood.
PAGE 37 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
- the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the
accessory building.
He encouraged the Planning Commission to ask the applicant to confirm the intended uses
of this building once the kitchen is removed, to ensure that the above findings are satisfied.
Kitchen removal should include the following, in the opinion of staff:
1. Remove stove and microwave oven, if any.
2. Remove refrigerator.
3. Remove kitchen sink and associated plumbing.
Planning Commission should confirm that these are the appropriate fixtures to be removed
to result in the conversion from a `guest house' use to an `accessory structure with
plumbing' use. The fixtures to be removed will be documented as `not allowed to be
reinstalled' in the CUP resolution.
Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP for plumbing in the accessory
structure, subject to the following:
1. Applicants to execute standard `use limitation' covenants as required by City
Ordinance.
2. Conversion from `guest house' status to `accessory building with plumbing' status
will require removal of existing kitchen facilities including stove and microwave oven, if
any; refrigerator; and kitchen sink and associated plumbing.
While Mr. Pierpont agreed with staff's conditions, he questioned whether what he used for
a kitchen sink, which was an antique piece of furniture housing a sink, could be
differentiated from a kitchen sink. In addition, he pointed out that the guest house provides
a small refrigerator and cook top. Pierpont pointed out that it was their intent to divide the
properties into 4 acre and 2 acre sites. He argued that due to the change in code, the %2 acre
wetland has diminished their property to the point at which they cannot have their guest
house. He maintained that the wetland has always been on the site, as has the stable and
guest house, and only the Ordinance change has changed disallowing these things. He
asked for an exception.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked whether the applicant found the subdivision necessary if they
planned to hook up to City sewer when available.
Pierpont stated that they are trying to correct a flaw in the property and make a second
stand alone parcel.
PAGE 38 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
While the sink as it exists was small, Gaffron questioned the Commission whether they felt
the covenants would limit its use.
Pierpont stated that he was willing to sign any covenants.
Acting Chair Mabusth did not believe the small sink enclosed in the antique piece should
have to go.
Fritzler disagreed, stating that he felt a cook top and sink constituted a kitchen in his mind
and would have to go.
Rahn concurred with Fritzler, stating that the concept allows a bathroom facility but stops
short of a kitchen facility.
Gaffron suggested this be revisited in the code at a future date, as the original intent of the
code was to allow a bathroom facility in the garage.
While she believed the sink housed in the piece of furniture was lovely, Bremer was
concerned that the Commission has denied similar requests in the past and could not allow
this request.
Pierpont reiterated that the only thing that has changed over time is the law. He maintained
that he had not changed a thing to his property and been given approvals from the original
construction decades ago, as well as, as recently as 1990, and now they are being told they
need to remove this amenity. He again repeated that plumbing had always been a part of
the stable and merely upgraded over the years,just as the wetland has always been a part of
the property. He felt this should be a non-issue, since his guest house was approved 14
years ago in a previous application.
Rahn reminded the applicant that the previous approval was based on the legal
combination, which was not performed.
Pierpont maintained that he was unaware, until beginning this process to uncombined
them, that they were never combined in the first place.
Rahn stated that the dilemma facing the Commission is that there is no hardship to support
this request; therefore, they must stick to the Code.
Hannaford disagreed, stating that in his opinion, there was a hardship, the application
before the Commission had been approved in the past, and now they are asking him to
remove something that he was already granted approval of. Hannaford stated that the
PAGE 39 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2976 JAMES AND JUDITH PIERPONT, 1801 WEST FARM ROAD,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
Commission has the ability to exercise some judgment here, in addition, to satisfying the
code without setting a precedent.
While Acting Chair Mabusth stated that the City Council will be given the opportunity to
hear the applicant's rationale, she believed the Commission would be remiss in approving
the application.
Rahn moved,Acting Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of
Application#04-2976,James and Judith Pierpont, 1801 West Farm Road, approving
the lot line rearrangement, subject to staff's recommendation that the applicant
execute the standard `use limitation' covenants, and the conversion from a `guest
house' to `accessory building with plumbing' status requires the removal of kitchen
facilities including the sink and cooktop, and associated plumbing. VOTE: Ayes 4,
Nays 1, Hannaford dissenting.
Hannaford deferred to his earlier comments.
(#16)#04-2977 MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY
REV. TRUST,3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW (10:53 P.M.-12:20 A.M.)
Mike Keaveny, the Applicant, and Paul Ode, the potential restaurant lessee, were present.
Gundlach explained that the applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use
permit in order to operate a restaurant and an associated commercial site plan review in
order to conduct improvements in conjunction with the restaurant use. As per City Code
Section 78-642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by
the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant has requested the following:
1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to construct new
entrances at the rear of the building and to convert an existing garage area into a
restaurant.
2) Conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant.
3) Hardcover variance to allow 90%hardcover on the site. The improvements
associated with this application will not increase the hardcover above what is currently
existing.*
4) Structural coverage variance to allow 16% structural coverage when 15% is
allowed and 15% currently exists. It is not unusual for commercial properties to
need a variance to this requirement, and variances have been approved for
structural coverage at 20% or 30% in the past.*
*Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review
PAGE 40 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
Gundlach continued that the applicant's intended restaurant lessee originally contacted
staff in early September inquiring about needed approvals in order to operate a restaurant
out of the existing building which is currently known as Navarre Lanes bowling alley and
The Crib. It was indicated at that time that restaurants needed a conditional use permit.
Following that initial telephone conversation, Planning Department staff met with the
building owner, Michael Keaveny and the intended restaurant lessee, Paul Ode to discuss
the proposal. Staff was given a tour and explained the extent of the restaurant use and the
proposed improvements associated with the restaurant. Following that meeting staff sent a
memo indicating the required submittals and approvals needed in order to operate the
restaurant, which would require a conditional use permit and a commercial site plan
review. The applicant has now submitted application for a commercial site plan review
and conditional use permit in order to conduct building improvements and to operate a
restaurant. The property is located at 3425 Shoreline Drive in the Navarre area of Orono.
While the proposal doesn't include any new hardcover, the major changes that should be
noted are the entryways and awning which will be placed over existing hardcover. The
non-hardcover areas of the site are a small area of grass along the southern boundary of the
site facing residential property and a smaller, un-kept landscape area between the retaining
walls separating the lower parking lot from the upper parking lot.
Gundlach pointed out that Section 78-1403 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that all
properties in all zoning districts be subject to 15%maximum structural coverage. The only
changes the applicant is proposing which affect the sites structural coverage is two
entryways and an awning. The applicant has stated that these entryways are proposed to
help control heating and cooling costs and to provide safer and more inviting entrances to
the building. The intention of the awning is to provide for a covered walk. The eastern
entryway is proposed at 600 square feet(50' x 12') and the western entryway is proposed
at 36 square feet (6' x 6'). The proposed awning will extend along the south elevation of
the building to cover the current sidewalk. The structural coverage ordinance allows for
overhangs to be included in the building square footage when they are 2' or less in width.
The awnings proposed are 4' in width and extend 97.5 feet, adding 292.5 square feet of
structural coverage(2' of awning x 97.5'). This is a total of 928.5 square feet(1% of total)
of additional structural coverage, or 16%where the existing percentage is 15%.
Gundlach indicated that it isn't out of the ordinary for structural coverage variances to be
granted for commercial properties. In fact, variances in the past have been granted to
allow for up to 20% or 30% for commercial properties.
Gundlach encouraged the Planning Commission to consider requiring the gravel parking
area to meet the required setbacks of 20' to Shoreline Drive and 10' to Kelly Avenue in an
PAGE 41 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
effort to increase green space on the site. The 20' required front yard along Shoreline
Drive is perhaps the most critical in terms of visual impacts for Navarre. The number of
parking spaces will be affected, should greater setbacks be required than the minimal
setbacks the applicant has proposed or than what currently exists. The advantages of a
greater yard (green space) should be weighed against the disadvantages of losing parking
spaces, which is discussed below.
Required Number of Parking Stalls.
Restaurant Use: 1,890 s.f. @ 1 space/80 s.f. =24 spaces
Bowling Alley Use: 10 lanes @ 6 spaces/lane=60 spaces
Lounge (w/in bowling alley): 535 s.f. @ 1 space/80 s.f. = 7 spaces
Total Required Parking= 91 spaces
Total Proposed Spaces= 84 spaces (includes 8 parallel spaces and 76, 9' x 20' spaces)
As proposed, Gundlach noted that the applicant is 7 parking spaces under the parking
required by Section 78-1516: Off Street Parking Requirements. Staff feels that with the
existing demand for parking, coupled with the proposed restaurant use, a shared parking
arrangement of these 84 spaces would be adequate if not excessive.
On the other hand, Gundlach explained these numbers do not take into account the 15
parking stalls that exist at the front of the building or the 15 spaces that exist facing the
road at the front of the building. Assuming a net floor area of about 8,000 s.f. for the upper
level, its parking requirement at one stall per 150 s.f is about 53 stalls, as compared to the
30 stalls that exist. Because the upper level businesses are primarily retail uses that occupy
the front of the building and offer prime-time day hours, a shared parking arrangement
would provide adequate overflow parking between the restaurant and retail uses, should it
ever be needed. However, it should be noted that during times when all businesses
occupying the building are at prime business hours (possibly Saturday afternoons), parking
could be short by about 20 stalls based on Code requirements. The parking required by the
zoning ordinance should be discussed against the actual need of parking on site.
With regard to pedestrian access, Gundlach stated that sidewalks currently exist along the
front of the property providing pedestrian connections to the properties east and west in the
Navarre area. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing stair system which
connects the top gravel parking area to the lower parking area, which is how the bowling
alley and restaurant is to be accessed. A new stairway system is proposed with a small
sign and minor lights at the top of the staircase providing a safe pedestrian connection from
PAGE 42 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
the upper parking area to the bowling alley and restaurant. The City Engineer found no
causes for concern with this plan,however, the applicant will be subject to any building
code requirements at the time of building permit with respect to the staircase and proposed
walls. Gundlach noted that staff finds this connection to be aesthetically pleasing and a
functional connection for the upper gravel lot to the lower parking lot, bowling alley, and
restaurant entrances.
Gundlach reported that the subject property is allowed 529 s.f. of signage, based on City
Code standards, Section 78-1468. Additionally, no individual sign may exceed 50 s.f. The
applicants proposed signage meets all the city code requirements.
While the applicant has not provided a landscape plan, Gundlach pointed out that there are
three potential areas for landscaping:
1) The area between the 2-tier retaining wall system separating the upper gravel
parking lot from the lower parking lot
2) The planter boxes proposed at the top of the proposed stairway system, and,
3) The planter box proposed for the signage at the northeast corner of the lot.
She recommended the Planning Commission discuss requiring implementation of some
type of landscaping in these three areas in an effort to provide additional green space on
the property. Additionally, as noted previously, the provision of 20'/10' green space yards
along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue should be considered for the gravel lot. This area
has been functionally a"no-man's land" and overflow parking for many years, and its
formalization as a parking facility should trigger establishment of green space that,
approaches City Code Standards.
With regard to lighting, Gundlach stated that the applicant has provided a written
description of the proposed lighting. The lighting for the current lower parking lot seems
adequate, although it may need some repair, which the applicant has proposed to do. Staff
would not recommend any further lighting in this area as the lot abuts residentially zoned
property.
In addition, the City's Public Services Director has requested that a 100 s.f. easement be
granted to the city to allow the current bus shelter near D'Vinci's restaurant to be relocated
to the northeast corner of the applicant's site. A 10' x 10' easement in the northeast corner
of the site is proposed. While the City Council has authorized re-location of the shelter,
Gundlach suggested the Planning Commission determine whether this should be included
with approval of the commercial site plan review, and how this will impact the applicant's
signage or parking plan.
While the Zoning Ordinance doesn't specifically outline conditions which the proposed
PAGE 43 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
restaurant must meet, other than items which protect the health, safety and general welfare
of the surrounding community, staff would recommend that the Planning Commission
consider"Hours of Operation" conditions for a Class II restaurant that serves alcohol,
keeping in mind that the restaurant is adjacent to a residentially zoned area. Gundlach
submitted two additional neighborhood inquiries into the record.
Since the applicant is also proposing a trash receptacle be used in conjunction with the
proposed restaurant, Gundlach reminded the applicant that it must be setback 10' from the
south lot line and located further west than east, or against the building in an effort to keep
it away from the residential dwelling adjacent to the property. It should also be
sufficiently screened.
Gundlach presented 9 issues for discussion amongst the Planning Commission:
1. Should greater setbacks be required for the existing gravel parking lot to allow
establishment of a formal green-space yard? If so, what is appropriate? How many
parking stalls are needed to adequately serve the site?
2. Should the City require that the existing gravel parking area be paved and striped?
Should the existing lower parking area be re-striped?
3. Should the Planning Commission require specific exterior building materials for the
proposed entrances, or should the applicant be free to submit plans for a building
permit using any of the materials outlined in Section 78-646 (B)?
4. Should any additional screening be implemented along the southern property line?
Should trash facilities be located adjacent to the building rather than near the
residential lot line?
5. Should the sign located in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated in exchange
for a larger sign at the northeast corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, which
would incorporate all the businesses occupying the building?
6. Is the lighting plan appropriate?
7. Should the proposed sign at the northeast corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue
be required to be a monument style sign rather than a pole style? Should it be oriented
perpendicular to Shoreline Drive, or is the angled orientation proposed acceptable?
8. Should"Hours of Operation"be specified for the restaurant? If so, what hours are
appropriate?
PAGE 44 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
In conclusion, Gundlach stated that the Planning Department staff recommends the
following:
1) Approval of a commercial site plan incorporating the following:
a) The upper gravel parking lot be further refined in accordance with the
Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the amount of green
space to be established and the number of new stalls to be constructed.
b) The building materials match the existing south facing façade and the roofs
be shingled.
c) If the applicant chooses to erect a sign in the northeast corner of the site, the
existing pole style sign in the Kelly Avenue right-of-way be eliminated. A
directional sign meeting setbacks could be erected in its place.
d) All lighting used shall not have exposed bulbs and not overlap onto the
residential property to the south.
e) The sign proposed at the corner of Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue be
monument style rather than pylon style(no poles) and not higher than 8'.
The applicant shall have the corners of his property staked to ensure the
sign meets a 10' setback. The sign is also limited to 50 s.f.
2) Approval of a hardcover variance to allow 90%hardcover when 35% is normally
allowed, stipulating the following:
a) A planter box be integrated into the sign proposed for the northeast corner
of the lot,
b) The landscaping between the retaining walls shown in Exhibit 04 be
maintained and additional landscaping be added where possible.
c) The green space be maintained along the southern property boundary.
3) Approval of a structural coverage variance allowing 16% structural coverage in
order for the proposed entrances and awning to be constructed.
4) Approval of a conditional use permit in order to operate a restaurant.
5) The applicant grants an easement to allow re-location of the bus shelter to a
10'X10' northeast corner of the site.
Mr. Keaveny stated that the bowling alley has been closed since summer and this new
proposal allows the applicant to incorporate the current bowling alley with a restaurant and
lounge.
PAGE 45 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST, 3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
Austin Evans, 2497 Kelly Avenue, the nearest neighbor to the south of the bowling alley,
voiced numerous concerns:
1) As Kelly Avenue is a residential street, he found the additional traffic
worrisome within a residential neighborhood.
2) The fact that the restaurant and lounge would have a liquor license was a
concern, especially since the neighborhood is kept up at night from the commotion at the
Narrows currently.
3) He questioned whether there was adequate space for restaurant use and the
parking to accompany it.
4) The City cannot ensure how long the Pizza Factory will remain, and the
City would lose control of what type of restaurant or lounge occupies this space in the
future by allowing this today to go forward.
5) The traffic exiting onto County Road 15 would make a dangerous situation
and intersection worse.
6) Evans cautioned that re-location of the bus shelter at the junction of Kelly
Avenue and County Road 15 would be far more dangerous than where it is currently.
Encouraging pedestrians to cross 2-4 lanes of traffic between cars stacked up for the light
would be hazardous.
7) What would the impact be to Lake Minnetonka from this additional
development merely 200' from the lake. Might people try to snowmobile or obtain boat
access to the restaurant.
8) 68% of the little proposed landscaping at all is located primarily in the rear
where few see it. In fact, no landscape plan has been provided. Reminded of the Navarre
Town Meeting a year ago, during which residents asked for additional landscaping along
County Road 15 in Navarre.
9) The proposed parking facilities are incomplete and inadequate. While 53
spaces are required, contrary to zoning regulations, the proposal offers a mere 30 spaces
for a 75 seat restaurant. The additional use requires 91 total spaces, short 7 in the proposal,
with no setbacks or greenspace provided.
10) This approval would increase the use of the lot to 16,000 s.f. of retail space,
which required by zoning should assume 1' of lot area per 4' of retail space. Evans
maintained that by approving this request the City will continue to perpetuate an
unacceptable planning state of affairs for Navarre.
11) In the Navarre Town Meeting several points were echoed by the residents.
Since Navarre is considered Orono's town center, why not make it more like Wayzata or
Excelsior with additional landscaping, street lighting, and updating facades of the
businesses in the area.
Evans encouraged the Planning Commission to give serious consideration to denial of this
applicant's request and recommend the owner address alternative uses for the site. He
PAGE 46 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
maintained that Orono is at a crossroads of determining which direction to take the Navarre
business district.
Sylvia Bertagnoli, 2499 Kelly Avenue, a resident of 10 years, asked whether it was too
much to expect to have a nice home and quiet street to live on. She did not wish to see the
additional noise and traffic this proposal would allow at all times of the day and night.
Barb Ward, 2503 Kelly Avenue, asked if the Planning Commission were familiar with the
proximity of the homes to this business location. She stated that the current level of noise
and smells from the Navarre area is horrendous and feared this would only perpetuate with
this application. Ward encouraged the Commission to demand a new face be put on the
Navarre town businesses which started with Rick's and should continue with this site. In
addition, she stated that it would not be appropriate to have this business facing a
residential area.
Mike Kellen, 2503 Kelly Avenue, questioned what sort of element the City would like to
promote in the Navarre area. He suggested the Commission focus on fixing up the
buildings and the overall appearance of Navarre. Kellen discouraged the Commission from
allowing a business to go in facing this residential area.
Paul Ode, franchisee of the Pizza Factory, stated that it was his intention to improve the
area, make significant upgrades to the buildings, and dress it up with this proposal. He
indicated that the Pizza Factory would be a restaurant for families to gather in Navarre.
Acting Chair Mabusth inquire whether a full liquor license was necessary. She asked
whether improvements were going to be made inside.
Ode stated that the combination of full bar,bowling alley, restaurant is what makes the
operation successful. He indicated that bowling alleys have not kept up with what clientele
want and have since failed across the nation. He noted that the restaurant would be added
to the east side of the bowling alley, replacing the current garage storage area.
Acting Chair Mabusth questioned whether additional parking could be placed above the
garage.
Keaveny stated that he was unsure whether additional parking could be added above the
garage. He stated that improvements would include painting the back of the building,
repairing lights, improving or repairing the stairwell, and overall cleaning the place up.
PAGE 47 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
Bertagnoli interjected that the Navarre area provides family restaurants via Culvers, the
coffee shop, and D'Vinci's.
Fritzler asked if the upper lot would be paved.
Keaveny stated that this could be done.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that any approval would include upgrades and asked how the
City would deal with the applicant's desire to upgrade and renovate the site.
Keaveny indicated that he would wish to add retaining walls,plus additional green space
along Shoreline Drive.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked if the City Engineer had seen the proposed parking plan.
Gundlach stated that the City Engineer felt the plan was adequate with paving and striping.
Keaveny reiterated that the retaining walls would be repaired, more green space could be
provided, and the brick work would be repaired and matched to the front of the building.
Bremer asked what the proposed hours of operation would be.
Ode stated that, generally, the hours would run until midnight or bar time of 1:00 AM.
Acting Chair Mabusth asked how the City doles out liquor licenses.
Gaffron stated that the City has the ability to dole out 7 licenses in the Orono area;
however, to date has only one. He indicated that Mr. Ode was currently going through the
review process of obtaining a liquor license. Gaffron stated that, since the application is a
CUP and backs up to residential neighborhood, the Commission can put reasonable
standards on the application.
While she was sympathetic to the traffic concerns on Kelly Avenue, Bremer was also
concerned about the proposed re-location of the bus shelter at Kelly and County Road 15,
closer to the dangerous intersection.
Gaffron stated that the police department has been looking into moving the crosswalk, and
felt this location might be a safer alternative for the shelter. He indicated that, new
discussion of this subject this evening, had caused him to think twice about moving the
crosswalk to Kelly Avenue.
PAGE 48 of 53
� r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
Keaveny mentioned that he'd suggested to the metro transit authority they actually pull
into the park and ride to pick up and drop off on Shoreline Drive to avoid having
pedestrians cross traffic.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she agreed with the neighbor's comments that the City
needs to take this opportunity to get the upgrades in Navarre as the opportunities present
themselves. The rest of the Commission concurred.
Gundlach indicated that they are uncertain exactly how much square footage of retail exists
in the building until doing further examination. She pointed out that the site would lose an
additional 10 spaces if the City requires 10' and 20'green space yards along Kelly Avenue
and Shoreline Drive respectively.
Gaffron cautioned the Commission from allowing too little green space, as had occurred
on the Snyder's site which required only 10' setbacks.
Gundlach agreed that little opportunity presents itself, reiterating that the establishment of
yards will cost the loss of 10 spaces; whereas, this plan provides 40 stalls.
Rahn stated that it was difficult to gauge what the balance between parking and green
space might be with the lack of a landscape plan. He noted that he would like to see more
green space, and acknowledged that the plan requires additional parking.
With regard to the issues for discussion, item 2, Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she
believed the existing upper gravel parking area should be paved and striped.
Hannaford pointed out that the access to the bowling alley has always been off of Kelly
Avenue.
Ward asked if the proposed size of the striping on the top lot would match the stall size
below.
Gundlach stated that the stalls are the same size on the top or bottom of the lots. She added
that signage would be added on the upper lot near the stair to direct patrons down the steps
to the restaurant.
Gaffron suggested that the applicants make it more inviting for people to park above and
use the covered stairwell versus parking below. He asked what type of screening was
proposed near the trash enclosure near the south end.
PAGE 49 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
Keaveny indicated that the receptacle was proposed for the southeast corner and would be
fenced.
Gaffron believed the applicants could find a better location for the trash receptacle, further
away from the access and neighborhood.
Keaveny stated that he would propose placing a monument sign and planter box directing
people on Shoreline Dr. to the Pizza Factory and bowling alley off Kelly Avenue.
Gundlach pointed out that the sign located in the right-of-way of Kelly Avenue would be
removed in conjunction with a new sign to be erected in the northeast corner of the lot.
Smaller directional signs would be placed below to mark the access.
Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged the applicant to talk to the Public Works department
about the proposed location of the signage and monument sign as they might interfere with
sight lines.
Gundlach noted that the lighting plan would include illumination for the stairwell and staff
would recommend that all lights be shielded and directed downward elsewhere on site.
Acting Chair Mabusth stated that she would support a monument sign at the northeast
corner of Kelly Avenue and Shoreline Drive versus a pole sign.
Fritzler pointed out that a pole light would interfere less with sight lines at the corner.
Keaveny agreed that a pole sign with a planter and signs on it would be less obtrusive.
Gaffron acknowledged that a monument sign would have the potential to cause problems.
In reference to the `hours of operation', Bremer questioned whether delivery would be
envisioned in the plan.
While he anticipated it could be planned for at a later date, Ode was unsure at this time
whether delivery times would be an option. He indicated that his preferred hours of
operation would be noon— 1:00 A.M.
Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that there were many other open issues as well,
including resolution of the bus shelter location.
Fritzler acknowledged that patrons may decide to use Kelly Avenue to cut over the County
PAGE 50 of 53
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
Road 19 versus trying to access Shoreline Drive to reach County Road 19. He maintained
that Kelly Avenue was not designed to handle a lot of traffic.
Bremer asked if the proximity to Lake Minnetonka was a concern.
Fritzler stated that he could envision people trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to access the
restaurant via boat or snowmobile.
Rahn asked how the City would be able to deal with the additional noise levels once the
license has been issued. He noted that this is the same type of issues faced by residents
living near Al &Alma's and admitted it is a conditional use which is allowed. He believed
more thought needed to be devoted to the consideration of hours of operation.
Fritzler stated that it is difficult to regulate how loud the use is, since the violations follow
the individual and not the facility.
Gaffron indicated that the negative impacts can be reduced with a CUP. If it is allowed, the
City can place certain limitations upon it up front, and then have to live with their decision.
Keaveny reminded the Commission that it is not their intent to attract the same audience as
that of the Narrows Saloon.
Gaffron asked if bowling would be available during other hours than the restaurant.
Ode stated that the two operations would have separate entrances and closed off from one
another.
Bremer referenced the old adage, `in for a penny, in for a pound', referring to the fact that
if the City wishes to improve the site it must also be willing to accept what comes with it.
Evans asked what provision for parking of delivery trucks and what procedures would be
followed in the proposal.
Keaveny stated that he had referenced where the delivery trucks would be allowed in his
proposal.
Evans pointed out that the lane provided for delivery trucks should be revised, since the
plan also identifies these as parking spots as well.
Keaveny mentioned that the loading area could be in the back near the storage to the west.
PAGE 51 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(MIKE KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. TRUST,3425
SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COMMERCIAL SITE
PLAN REVIEW—Continued)
Evans questioned whether the parking ratios as laid out were accurate.
Rahn stated that the plan doesn't reflect what's precisely required for parking and
landscaping to determine whether these are adequate and requested further information.
Evans noted that staff has merely estimated a reduction of 11 spaces to allow for green
space. He reiterated that 94 spaces below, and 53 spaces above for a total of 147 spaces is
what is required by zoning ordinance.
Acting Chair Mabusth maintained that a further detailed study would need to be provided
to determine specific amounts, which would enable the Commission to base its judgment.
While not uncommon for commercial property, Gundlach recognized that a parking
variance may be required, especially, in light of the differences in the hours of operation of
all the individual businesses on site.
Although a parking variance might be found acceptable now, Evans encouraged the
Commission to consider what the future use of this site might be. For instance, if used as
retail the site might require even more additional parking. He maintained that, when he and
his neighbors purchased their homes, there was simply a bowling alley with limited use
which resided at this location, he never would have imagined a full liquor licensed
restaurant use would move in next door.
As the next door neighbor most affected, Bertagnoli asked where the venting for the
restaurant would be.
Keaveny stated that he would work with the franchisee and the City on the ventilation and
air conditioning placement.
Ode reiterated that, in order to be successful bowling alleys need this combination of
services; restaurant, liquor license, and bowling alley.
Acting Chair Mabusth moved,Rahn seconded, to table Application#04-2977,
Michael Keaveny,3425 Shoreline Drive, a Commercial Site Plan Review and
Conditional Use Permit., subject to receiving a complete site plan,parking plan and
analysis of needs, locate loading areas, type of lighting, signage locations, minimum
green space of 10' along both avenues,landscaping plan, staircase repair,type of
exterior materials and elevations,proposed improvements to the structure, and
exhaust fan location. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
PAGE 52 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(#18) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 8, 2003 AND JANUARY 12,
2004
While there was nothing to report from the December 12, 2003 City Council meeting,
Gaffron reported that the Resolution was adopted for the Wildman Application during the
January 12, 2004 City Council Meeting.
(#19) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Acting Chair Mabusth encouraged staff and the City Council to appoint new permanent
Planning Commission members as soon as possible on behalf of Commissioner Hawn and
Chair Smith.
The next Planning Work Session will be held on February 4, 2004.
(#20) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER
17,2003
Bremer moved, Acting Chair Mabusth seconded,to Approve the Planning
Commission Meeting Minutes of November 17, 2003 as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
(#21) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON JANUARY 26, 2004 AND FEBRUARY 9, 2004.
January 26—Lili McMillan February 9—Mabusth
ADJOURNMENT
Acting Chair Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the Planning
Commission meeting at 12:40 A.M. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12:40 A.M.
a• m_44,,,t,
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 53 of 53