HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/19/2004 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE L — I (----/- )1
❑ 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. � hI', � i1 .
it1 r
i 6 ,e,( i� �'-/ - Z`iY7
•2. 15. �'� c i� LO� Ivy-�-� ( x 1sic- Nod Dq -1 t7 viibvi 3. y (..,\Aoci i,k, . %� �,1 v,,,_,\A1,16 . toil
4. , �t ,�, � TL,Li Plc, (
' s - ? i
6. ' !,,4411\ 4 -)1-klity.-_)1/,' , ' . a y/7 ctii‘A..2i - ici:uii__ 0 L1 - -9c__,) T)
7. rit ," )/L'Llii kliAi'vi -ik
'51 14
(A
‘ .,,2_1;0 *. t. ,, , ,,,..,
)(Jii , c , ? ,
_, c 8. •11O f 111, to 11 1`,v f co - Q_ctcict
10. `^h
11. �i Vi 11/�/ L `-A��,/br ( �.� � ' O P7)-14:3 G�ut.�'�
12. 4.-1,- k) '/fz )(Wc.9/A►4 g =5 -)
, )ii
14. 1 3 le6)c e //-4 b zc- 4)04;4 '/>7 I)<;L- a ' -jvo .-z
15. %il- 6;L;14)7 7'-1 A) %. '/L ,.4, 62 y —,31)63-,
I
':Udminist:fil�Sup u{Forms)�Public Attndanc1 pd l C>r& 6/ /';/T,/4:,<. c:/,1 41 1%-,1),:-'11-- U 2)'5. 7
1 ' c K.r‘S Q1.. ,LLn 3--1 <;V 3,;.cL, I-A Cy-2 `I 73
16( ici )r,. r cdy f'c i34; 55l314,.) n1�,der-,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair
Jeanne Mabusth; Commissioners Cynthia Bremer, Roland Jurgens III, David Rahn, Jim Leslie, Ralph
Kempf and Alternate Janice Berg; City Council Liaison Jim Murphy, Representing staff were
Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder
Glenda D. Spiotta.
Chair Jeanne Mabusth called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Chair Mabusth introduced and welcomed the three newly appointed Planning Commission members:
Jim Leslie, Ralph Kempf and Roland Jurgens.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1. 04-3000 Miller Dunwiddie Architecture/Preservation on behalf of Wayzata Country
Club, 200 Wayzata Boulevard, Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Site Plan Review, Public
Hearing (6:01-6:02 p.m.)
Michael Bjornberg, the applicant's representative, was present.
Chair Mabusth asked the public comments. There were none.
Berg moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2986, Miller
Dunwiddie Architecture on behalf of Wayzata Country Club, 200 Wayzata Boulevard,
granting a Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Site Plan Review to amend the original
Conditional Use Permit and approve the submitted site plan to allow two minor additions to the
existing building, all in conjunction with a complete renovation of the main structure.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (6:03-7:15 P.M.)
Vickie VanDell, Landform Engineering Co. and John Trautz, Reliance Development, the Applicant's
Representatives, were present.
Gaffron explained the continued public hearing is for a proposed Commercial PUD Development,
commercial site plan review, Comprehensive Plan amendment, PUD rezoning and preliminary
subdivision on Outlot A, Stonebay Marketplace on the northwest corner of Hwy 12 and Willow
Drive. He summarized the application's status is that on April 12, 2004 the City Council approved
language for a Comprehensive Plan amendment on a vote of 4-0 with minor revisions to draft text
language. The new text generally provides some broad goals to guide Outlot A from office use to
primarily retail use. He also advised PUD rezoning shall occur concurrently with final site plan and
subdivision approvals.
Page 1 of 49
4` MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Gaffron stated the current plan includes three buildings, one for a 14,820 s.f. Walgreens and two
other retail buildings at 8,970 s.f. and 4,960 s.f. with a total of 28,750 s.f. on a site of 3.69 acres, or
17.9% of the site. Green space is 26%, excluding trails, which met the city's 25% goal.
Gaffron reported the building orientations have been revised per Plan#25 to create a friendlier
entrance from Kelley Parkway, the site's primary access, with a right in/right out entrance at Willow
and no access onto Hwy 12. The primary facades and parking areas are not aimed at the residential
portion of Stonebay in keeping with the Stonebay developer's request. Gaffron stated the site
circulation plan vastly improved providing adequate building separation from the intersection to
maintain an open feel while providing substantial green islands within the parking area, concluding
the circulation works very well.
Gaffron pointed out one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and March 1, 2004
letter from Orono to the developer is met with the westerly building now oriented to take advantage
of the stormwater pond as an amenity. The applicant is now proposing landscaped public terracing
near Kelley Parkway overlooking the pond though it is within Outlot B, dedicated by MnDOT for
stormwater pond use. He indicated MnDOT would need to confirm if there is any problem with the
terrace being located within Outlot B.
One setback variance is needed for Revised Plan#25, which is a 20' setback (35' is standard) to the
westerly lot line. Gaffron advised that staff supports the slight encroachment of the westerly building
upon the westerly required setback, as the westerly lot line does not abut a road or an adjacent
building site.
Gaffron explained the site will have two 'drive-throughs' —one for Walgreens and one serving food-
oriented type use in the westerly end unit of the middle building, illustrating these areas on the
overhead map.
Gaffron indicated the application generally conforms to the Council-approved language of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Gaffron summarized the plan's conformity to several B-6/PUD standards:
1. Allowed Uses—proposed buildings and site layout would reasonably accommodate many
of the individual uses on the proposed list of allowable uses.
2. Lot Area &Width—proposed preliminary plat creates two lots: Lot 1=1.98 acres/370',
and Lot 2=1.71 acres/135'. Both lots are slightly undersized in area; however, the 3.69-
acre site is limited and as no additional land is available, staff recommends approval of lot
area and widths as proposed.
3. Setback— Setback requirements conform, noting required setbacks are based on the B-1
retail standards, which are more appropriate than the B-6 office standards for proposed
retail uses.
4. Site Drainage—Drainage plan includes catch basins and storm sewers that will discharge
into the adjacent Stonebay development regional pond.
Page 2 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
5. Building Height—All buildings are expected to meet the B-6 height standard of 30'. The
Walgreens building indicates a roof peak height of 28'3" except for the entrance corner
`parapet' roof peak at 32'6". Staff recommends acceptance of the proposed heights.
6. Landscaping—Plans meet the general B-6 guidelines in terms of the required information
detail. Although it appears likely this requirement is met or exceeded, the plan has not yet
been reviewed in depth for determination if the required valuation of plantings based on
project valuation is met.
All three distinct parking islands meet or exceed the 180 s.f. minimum size.
The standard of one tree required for every 15 stalls is met.
There is substantial landscaping along Kelley Parkway; in addition to boulevard trees
there are also shrubs to screen the residential area to the backs of the buildings.
Site borders abutting Willow Drive and Hwy 12 are not showing much proposed
landscaping, except for some trees in the parking lot. Staff recommended the Planning
Commission provide the applicant direction as to what specific landscaping revisions are
necessary, especially for adequate screening and buffering of trash enclosures.
7. Architectural Standards—Applicants advised they will work with the City to provide a
darker colored face-brick that is acceptable to the City though revised building elevations
of the two westerly buildings have not yet been submitted and will need further review
upon their submittal. All three trash enclosures need to be fully screened; the plan needs
to show full screening.
Gaffron pointed out the following additional Site Plan Elements:
1. Pedestrian Access and Vehicle Circulation—Pedestrian access and circulation has been
refined to a level acceptable to staff.
2. Lot Coverage—Overall coverage of the 3.69 acre site is proposed at 17.9%, not including
freestanding trash enclosures which exceed the 15% lot coverage standard for lots of 0-
1.99 acres in Code Section 78-1403.
3. Loading Berths—Applicant should define the location and detail of loading berths for
Walgreens and the easterly retail building.
4. Trash Enclosures—Applicants must provide detail of how trash handling will be
accomplished on each site.
5. Required Parking—With proof-of-parking stalls included in the proposed stalls total, the
site is short only 6 stalls based on City code requirements; however as the proof-of-
parking stalls are located in landscaped areas it would be preferable to not construct them
until/unless they are needed.
6. Signage—Detailed, dimensioned elevations views for all monument signage and building
signage plans need to be submitted. Staff earlier suggested to the applicants that the
Walgreens signage not include a manual reader board nor use illuminated scrolling or
flashing reader boards.
7. Lighting—Applicant needs to provide a plan for building-mounted lighting for review,
and details on the Gardco fixtures, which must be a boxed downcast lighting with recessed
bulbs.
8. Engineering Matters—As the plan sets arrived on April 15, 2004, the Engineering
comments are not yet available.
Page 3 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Gaffron referred to his staff report comment regarding the characterization on the plans of the non-
Walgreens buildings has changed from a 5,000 s.f. `Bank' and 10,000 s.f. `office/retail' to two
buildings totaling 13,930 s.f. shown as `retail.' He suggested that this is a reflection of the
developers' real expectation of the site will be mostly retail and asked the Planning Commission to
keep this in mind.
Because of the parking limitations imposed by the overall square footage of retail space on the site,
Gaffron noted that the potential for a future family restaurant opportunity is unlikely. He explained
the food uses on the site will likely be `fast casual'.
Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to carefully review whether the 20'-40' separation of the
buildings, and/or the building design detail, is adequate to break up of what might be seen from
certain angles as a single 250' wide strip mall. He emphasized this is a critical factor in the site's
visual impact.
The Preliminary Plat approval with its two-lot layout and separate ownerships is not a problem
according to Gaffron.
In conclusion, Gaffron presented a list of about fifteen(15) Issues to Address for the Planning
Commission to consider at this time.
Gaffron summarized that, while staff is more comfortable with this plan than early plans, there are a
few things missing. He recommended the Planning Commission table the matter until the missing
items are submitted to the City and that the Engineer and Planning Consultant have an opportunity to
complete their reviews.
Chair Mabusth invited the applicant's engineer, Vicki Van Dell, to comment.
Ms. Van Dell presented a summary of issues,beginning with the lot coverage issue. The applicant's
position is that they exceed the greenspace standard, there is more than enough parking from a
retailer's perspective and there is not too much building on this site. Secondly, Ms. Van Dell
explained they had shifted the parking and buildings over to the west and closer to the pond resulting
in more greenspace on the eastside. Previously, the site fit into setback requirements but with the
latest shift to the west to provide more green along Willow, a 20' west side setback for the westerly
building is requested.
Ms. Van Dell stated the trash enclosures will be completely screened and elevations will be
submitted. She indicated the applicant wanted to get several issues in front of the Planning
Commission quickly, and after Planning Commission direction, the applicant will submit perspective
drawings, colored elevations and showing loading berths on the backs of buildings. Ms. Van Dell
stated that adding some more trees along Willow and Hwy 12 will make the site look good and not
impede visibility too much.
Page 4 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Mr. Van Dell expressed their opinion that there is sufficient parking for retail as typically retail needs
require only about 5 spaces/1000 s.f. and the plan exceeds that by providing 6.5 spaces/1000 s.f.
She reported that detailed signage information will be submitted. With the gathering space being on
MnDOT property, she stated she attempted to discuss that with MnDOT but was unsuccessful. The
applicant will gather MnDOT feedback for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. John Trautz, Reliance Development, remarked that at this stage the applicant is looking for more
feedback from the Planning Commission and hopefully all will be presented in final form at the next
meeting. He offered to pass around a rendering with a different brick coloring than on previous
renderings and asked the Planning Commission to look at it.
Referring to the lot coverage issue, Mr. Trautz added that typically their experience is 5 parking
spaces/1000 s.f. to prevent a sea of asphalt in front of buildings. He illustrated that when using the 5
spaces/1000 s.f. standard the site would need 144 parking spaces. They are proposing to construct
145 parking spaces plus the 17 proof-of-parking spaces and observed that 5 parking spaces/1000 s.f.
is adequate for the potential retailers on the site.
Mr. Trautz commented on the proposed two (2) ten foot (10') signs. The monument sign for
Walgreens is proposed to be a static electronic reader board (no scrolling or flashing) to be changed
weekly or whenever it would be changed that one time. He concluded by asking for comments from
the Planning Commission.
Chair Mabusth indicated that the Planning Commission will respond when they review the Issues to
Address section of the staff report.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none.
The Planning Commission was asked by Chair Mabusth to begin their deliberation of the Issues to
Address,beginning with reviewing the list of allowable uses outlined on Exhibit F of the staff report.
Chair Mabusth asked for clarification of the definition of'#7...laundry pick-up stations.' Gaffron
responded this was from the original Code and probably dates back to the 1960's. Chair Mabusth
wondered if this involves traffic, too; Gaffron said it did not necessarily mean a `drive-through'
associated with the use. Further, Chair Mabusth asked if#13. `locksmith' and#15 `newsstands'
would be a viable use in this type of retail space or should these uses be removed from the list.
Again, Gaffron explained that the list goes back to the 1960's and reflects the B-1 District and now
many of these uses are ancillary to another use so should be left on the list.
Bremer concurred with Chair Mabusth's examples, remembering the Planning Commission has
previously reviewed the list on three or four occasions. Chair Mabusth pointed out that if any use
has a drive-up window it will be handled as a Conditional Use.
Page 5 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Chair Mabusth asked if staff had any problem with the lot coverage issue on the site. Gaffron stated
the lot coverage is similar to other commercial properties and is a Planning Commission decision if it
needs to be addressed further. He cited the example of Snyder Drug in Navarre, which is over 20%.
As this is a new use and along Hwy 12, Chair Mabusth inquired if office uses need a lot coverage
variance. Staff reported on recent examples that did need lot coverage variances but cited the dental
office on Hwy 12 and Kelley Parkway did not because it was on a 2.5 acre site.
Rahn expressed his reservations about granting a lot coverage variance because residential lots appear
to be held to strict interpretations and this commercial site may be granted a variance. Also, he noted
that an existing conforming lot is becoming two non-conforming lots, which leads to lot coverage
issues, a little bit less parking and, also, trash enclosures that are an unknown presently.
Chair Mabusth asked if trash enclosures are included in lot coverage calculations. Staff explained
they were expecting an enclosed brick and mortar design with four sides, which would count for lot
coverage accounting for about 100 s.f., less than 1% s.f. and not a significant amount. Gaffron
confirmed the Walgreens structural coverage is at 19.9% and the westerly lot is 16.1%.
Rahn asked for a description of the trash enclosure locations. In reply, Gaffron expects there to be at
least two trash enclosures but it is unknown until the applicant provides this information.
Ms. Van Dell clarified the trash enclosure locations, with three trash enclosures.
Rahn emphasized the need to know the exact dimensions of the trash enclosures as a part of the lot
coverage. He reiterated his reservations about making a conforming lot into two non-conforming lots
and then increasing lot coverage. Gaffron pointed out that applying B-6 standards which are
primarily for office rather than retail uses results in the setback variance with the trash enclosure
within the 35' setback, and, technically, a parking variance being 6 spaces short of the Code
standard, too.
Upon question from Chair Mabusth, Gaffron stated that the total of parking spaces proposed is 167 if
all proof-of-parking spaces are used in the calculations; it results in about 24% greenspace if all
proof-of-parking is built out when the goal 25%.
Bremer commented that she did not have a problem with the lot area or lot widths but questioned
having the trash enclosure too close to residential areas for noise concerns. Gaffron informed the
Planning Commission that is not required by the Orono Code but could be looked at as part of the
reguiding from office to commercial to incorporate trash facilities within a building.
Mr. Trautz responded the applicant prefers not to enclose in the buildings, as having it outside works
easier for the trash hauler. Also, there will be berming and a fair amount of screening to mitigate the
noise to nearby residents. Chair Mabusth indicated it will be very helpful to have the applicant's
elevations for subsequent discussions.
Page 6 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Chair Mabusth commenced polling the Planning Commission members on the Summary of Issues to
Address.
There was consensus the list of allowable uses reflects the Planning Commission's intent for this site.
Chair Mabusth summarized the lot width requirement is met but lot area and lot coverage are not met,
restating the Planning Commission goal of 25% greenspace for the site also is unmet with 24%
greenspace when the proof-of-parking is utilized. Also, the westerly building only meets a
20'setback not the 35'setback requirement.
Kempf asked Gaffron to review the terrace proposal on Outlot B. Gaffron described the terrace or
pedestrian feature is on top with a trail system to be developed above the retaining wall at the pond.
Kempf stated he had no problem with the lack in setback at the pond as it typically protects an
adjoining property or packing buildings in too tightly which is not a problem on Outlot B. He
commented that he felt residential standards should be treated differently for property protection but
if this site works and is functional he found it to be less problematic than in a residential area. Kempf
continued by stating that screening is very important due to the blank building walls, loading docks
and trash receptacles. He supported as much year round screening as possible and noted that due to
the across-the-street housing being higher in elevation than the subject site he supported really
substantial trees put in initially for effective screening in the first years.
Leslie asked staff if their recommendation would change if MnDOT does not approve the terracing
on Outlot B. Gaffron agreed that it would change if MnDOT does not accept the improvement. He
explained the applicant wants to maintain building size and chose to move the buildings closer to the
corner and to the pond. Leslie asked if staff support is conditioned on MnDOT supporting the
terracing and would not approve the setbacks; Gaffron agreed.
Leslie reiterated Rahn's concern about the number of structures on the lot and the reason for the
discussion is because of the building sizes, resulting in too much building and too small of lot size.
Chair Mabusth requested clarification of the ownership of Outlot B.
Gaffron explained the outlots were part of the MnDOT taking for the original regional pond in the
Hwy 12 improvement project. The outlots were expanded with Outlot B and C to account for
accommodating the pond. He stated the initial agreement and approvals included an overlook feature
and trail, therefore, the expectation is that MnDOT will not have a problem with applicant's proposal.
The applicant is trying to contact MnDOT and hopefully will have information for the next Planning
Commission meeting.
Berg asked for clarification of a proposed greenspace area. Gaffron explained it was widening
between buildings with shrubbery but was not the patio, which he indicated on the overhead map.
Page 7 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Rahn asked for confirmation if the overlook was formerly on the applicant's property. Ms. Van Dell
acknowledged that it had been shown on the applicant's property. Rahn emphasized he felt the
overlook was the most important part of the plan and needs to actually see the plan for it.
Berg concurred with the overlook's importance and that in order to obtain the overlook/water feature
the buildings may have to be moved back if unable to extend onto Outlot B.
Rahn indicated that moving the buildings back could resolve a number of issues,pointing out that
when land use decisions are not consistent, it creates a tough job for the Planning Commission.
Chair Mabusth asked Rahn if he remembered that right at the beginning the City knew these two lots
were going to be substandard. Rahn and Berg indicated they knew at least one lot was going to
substandard but not two lots. Rahn stated he felt lot coverage is a more important standard and that
he would really like to see some reduction in building size.
Bremer questioned the applicant regarding the viability of making one of the buildings smaller. Mr.
Trautz responded the limiting factors to a site are greenspace and parking, and they think the parking
is more than their retailers will need, resulting in unused parking if built to the City Code. He
suggested that if they are held to the greenspace requirement of 25% and limited by 60 parking
spaces for Walgreens and then the 1 parking space per 150 s.f. applied elsewhere, then let the
buildings fit in as they do.
Berg remarked that it is the structural coverage/building size not parking space requirements which
the Planning Commission is most concerned about. She acknowledged that greenspace and parking
are part of the issue but repeated Bremer's question if the buildings need to be this size or could they
be smaller.
Mr. Trautz stated he understood the concern but that all the factors work together in determining the
site design, usually with the focus on greenspace, screening, and parking, and the buildings fall into
what space is left over.
Bremer asked what is the level of tenant interest or commitment for retail space. Mr. Trautz advised
that one tenant (coffee) has been lost over time and that marketing is now on hold until there is an
acceptable site plan. He expressed their thinking that the project is more viable at the proposed
building sizes as it will improve the tenant mix.
Bremer further asked what tenant would replace the coffee tenant for use of the drive-through.
Mr. Trautz replied they expect to have another less well-known coffee tenant, although a use like dry
cleaning is possible.
Bremer focused discussion on the traffic patterns and use of the driveways with the Walgreens drive-
through and the access at Willow.
Page 8 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Mr. Trautz indicated that Kelley Parkway would be the primary way to access Walgreens and its
drive-through,with some traffic from Willow. Gaffron explained that the anticipated traffic volume
would be small enough to not create a traffic-crossing problem at the Willow access to the Walgreens
drive-through. He described traffic turning at the Willow access and how it is being designed to
encourage safe vehicle turns.
Mr. Trautz stated that without the right-in and right-out access it would no longer be a viable retail
site.
Chair Mabusth concurred with Berg regarding the interrelationships of lot coverage, parking and
greenspace and that maintaining key requirements for parking and for hardcover at 25%may mean
reduced a building size. This would be key to her approval of the application.
Jurgens stated his primary reaction to the application is that the site is cut-up. Also, he expressed
apprehension with the type of access at Willow, describing his experience observing drivers trying to
make turns not permitted by design. Specifically, he asked if Walgreens absolutely needs the double
drive-through feature.
Mr. Trautz replied that Walgreens builds with a package of requirements but as requirements are not
permitted, such as the front-door parking, it becomes less viable to Walgreens.
Jurgens explained that he asked the questions because with the double drive-through, the turning
radius crowds the building to the west. Ms. Van Dell stated that Walgreens has one large truck
lx/week that will use the Kelley Parkway access on off-peak times but the rest of deliveries should be
able to go to the front door when not busy.
Gaffron also pointed out that because of proof-of-parking there is a need for a larger width for
backing out.
Bremer asked if the applicant considered combining the two smaller buildings into one,
acknowledging that the Planning Commission often comments on preferring smaller buildings but in
this case it may appear to be one longer building anyway.
Mr. Trautz replied that this had been looked into but they heard very strongly from staff that the west
end adjacent to the pond was not to have a drive-through so they decided to split the building as a
compromise for the drive-through and pushing the west building up to the pond property. Further,
placing a drive-through on the east side of the building will create vehicular stacking problems.
Berg reiterated her reservation with the Willow Drive entrance and exit and cross traffic problems.
Chair Mabusth interjected this is a change from the earlier site plan and the City Engineer has not had
an opportunity to review and comment to date.
Page 9 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
_ 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Though a final engineering report is not available, Gaffron advised the City Engineer provided staff
with a preliminary response indicating conceptually the City Engineer has no problem with the
proposed exit/entrance design on Willow Drive and cross traffic, but he does want to make certain the
curve works and that this is a positive right-out with no left turn possible.
Chair stated that Issues to Address #3 and#4 have been addressed in the preceding discussion, so
opened polling discussion on Issue#5 related to proposed building heights.
Gaffron advised the Planning Commission could regard the Walgreens entrance corner feature, at
32'6"that exceeds the 30' building height standard, as a visual design feature like a parapet. He
reminded the Planning Commission that approval was given to the second medical office building for
its similar crenellations.
Chair Mabusth pointed out the Planning Commission already discussed enclosure and screening of
trash facilities in Issue#6 and will await the applicant's submittal of elevations for further review and
comment.
Issue#7 was introduced by Chair Mabusth who stated she was wary of trees getting too near the
intersection and asked what kind of shrubs are proposed for the Willow Drive and Hwy 12 frontages.
Ms. Vicki Van Dell explained the corner feature will be a berm with a sign on top of the berm and
coming off of the berm will be a 3' shrubbery hedge on the west side and along the north on Willow
Drive.
Rahn pointed out he could better respond if he had an elevation to view.
Bremer expressed her opinion to not have too many trees in the frontage and preferred low shrubbery.
Gaffron illustrated the tree locations, sign locations, corner feature with the overhead map noting the
30-degree sight triangles and the trail location.
Chair Mabusth expressed her view preferring to have low-lying shrubbery define the property instead
of many trees in the frontage area.
Leslie asked for clarification of the quantity of signs proposed on site.
Ms. Van Dell and Gaffron confirmed there would be two monuments signs, one for Stonebay
Marketplace and one for Walgreens, and one retail sign for the site, as well as tenant building front
signs.
Bremer asked for confirmation there will be no signage on Kelley Parkway.
Page 10 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Mr. Trautz responded there were no plans for signage on Kelley Parkway because it is a small
development and the size of the entrance point on Kelley Parkway makes it obvious where to turn
into the site.
Chair Mabusth introduced Issue#8 regarding building elevations,proximity/lack of separation
impacts and stated she thought the Planning Commission had covered this issue in the preceding
discussion.
Mr. Trautz referred to the one building elevation drawing he had brought to the meeting noting it is
similar to what has been shown in the past and asked for any comments or guidance.
Jurgens asked why there is a larger gable on the side towards the other building making it appear
unbalanced. He suggested the gable be moved to create an `every other' effect with the gables.
Mr. Trautz observed that was a good point and will provide both elevations for the next meeting.
Chair Mabusth acknowledged the application provided an option for façade coloration for review this
evening and committed to bring color renderings for the next meeting.
Chair Mabusth summarized that staff and the City Engineer will review with the applicant further
refining the right-in, right-out access and the dead-end parking turnaround, and report to the Planning
Commission at the next meeting.
Chair Mabusth summarized that the loading berth issue has been addressed. Bremer interjected it
needs to be shown on the plans.
Chair Mabusth stated the Planning Commission addressed the 6-stall parking shortage (based on City
Code) in the preceding discussion.
Chair Mabusth asked the applicant's representatives to briefly explain the site's signage plan to
address Issue #12, including the proposal for a reader board at Walgreens, which is not permitted
according to City Code.
Gaffron confirmed City Code does not allow a flashing or scrolling reader board. He stated he had a
problem with how the City would monitor the proposed static electronic sign and its periodic
changes, and would rather not set things up to have this type of problem.
Bremer pointed out the City Code does permit an electronic sign with words but it cannot flash or
scroll across.
Gaffron expressed that the intent of the sign ordinance is to have something that will not attract the
driver's eye away from driving although that is what a retailer wants to do. A manual reader usually
has problems with askew lettering, needs daily upkeep and can look unsightly.
Page 11 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Chair Mabusth asked if Walgreens has an electronic sign at every one of their facilities.
Mr. Trautz replied that it is and it could be a manual or electronic sign. He advised that in
discussions with Gaffron of manual reader boards as allowed by Code and Gaffron's reservations
with them, Trautz suggested a static electronic reader board that would not scroll and therefore meet
the ordinance intent.
Bremer inquired about the sign's size as an electronic reader board.
Mr. Trautz described the sign as having a total of 60 s.f. with about half of it as reader board. The
monument sign is 10' tall and 10' wide and the upper 3' is the sign for Walgreens and the next 3' is
the reader board.
Chair Mabusth stated she has a problem with an electronic sign on Hwy 12.
Leslie commented that one big difference between electronic and manual reader boards is how much
light is actually emitted; electronic boards can emit larger amounts of light than the manual reader
boards. He asked the applicant if they are envisioning a reader board that is as bright as a scrolling
reader board.
Mr. Trautz indicated he was not aware of the light level specifications but will find out for the
Planning Commission.
Gaffron interjected it would be helpful if they would provide detailed plans and photos of the
proposed sign.
Bremer asked for the applicant to provide information about near-by Walgreens locations to visit to
see an example of what is being proposed.
Chair Mabusth postponed polling on the signage plan until the applicant provides the requested
detailed signage plan for all building and for site monument signs (issue#13) for the next meeting.
Chair Mabusth stated applicant's plans for building-mounted lighting and parking lot fixture designs
(issue#14) are to be provided for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Mabusth indicated the Planning Commission were already polled on the questions whether the
combination of building proximity visual impacts, the pedestrian terrace amenity placed on the
adjacent MnDOT parcel, the overage in lot coverage, and other site factors suggest the need for
further building down-sizing on the west lot (issue#15).
Gaffron questioned if it was the Planning Commission consensus that if the site plan meets the
25% greenspace standard and the proposed parking plan is adequate with the inclusion of the proof-
of-parking spaces, then it is possible that no building may need to be made smaller,but if the building
needs to be smaller, then so be it.
Page 12 of 49
- MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY
MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD
DEVELOPMENT—Continued)
Bremer concurred but pointed out it all is conditioned on MnDOT's decision regarding use on Outlot
B.
Chair Mabusth moved, Kempf seconded, to table Application #04-2974 Reliance Development
Company, LLP, NW Corner of Willow Drive N. and Hwy 12 (Outlot A, Stonebay), PUD
Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Plat, and Commercial Site Plan
Review until the May 2004 Planning Commission meeting when all of the above-mentioned
items will be provided by the applicant with adequate time for city consultants' review and
comments prior to the Planning Commission's May 2004 meeting.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
#3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV.
TRUST,3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW) CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (7:15-
8:00 p.m.)
Mike Keaveny, applicant, representing the Richard M. Keaveny Trust, was present.
Gundlach reported the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Class II
restaurant (with liquor) and a number of variances in conjunction with the required Commercial Site
Plan review. This application was brought to the Planning Commission at its January, 2004 meeting
where it was tabled so the applicant could work with staff on a number of issues related to the site
plan, including parking, loading areas, signage, lighting, the amount of green space required along
Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, and also, general landscaping. A hardcover variance is also one
component that is somewhat inevitable due to the existing non-conforming conditions. Since January
2004 the application has been on hold pending a public hearing for a liquor license. The liquor
license was denied on March 22, 2004 by the City Council due to a number of issues, including the
liquor license applicant and the proximity to the adjacent residential neighborhood. She advised that
the restaurant operator has indicated that a new partner of his will be applying for a liquor license and
that is the reason for the continuation of the proposal at the Planning Commission.
As stated at the January, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Gundlach reiterated the Planning
Commission's role in reviewing this site as it pertains to alcohol is not whether alcohol is appropriate
or not(as this is a City Council matter) but rather what particular issues are appropriate and how the
site is affected if liquor is served or not.
She referred to the January 20, 2004 Planning Commission minutes and March 22, 2004 City Council
minutes, which were attached to the staff report for reference. Gundlach stated staff's opinion is that
the City Council will not approve a liquor license for a restaurant regardless who applies for it due to
proximity to a residential neighborhood to the south.
Gundlach recommended denial of the CUP request and associated commercial site plan review with
variances primarily based on two factors: 1) City Council will not approve a liquor license for a
restaurant on the site as it is too close to a residential neighborhood, 2) operation of a Class II
Page 13 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV.
TRUST, 3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW- Continued)
restaurant on the site may not be able to handle the additional levels of noise, traffic and activity that
accompany a liquor establishment.
However, she stated it was vitally important to discuss what uses will be appropriate for this site
taking into consideration the exiting lay-out and adjacent residential neighborhood. Several variance
approvals are inevitable because of the existing non-conforming conditions. She referred to the B-1,
Retail Sales Business District standards attached to the staff report that will aid in the discussion.
Gundlach noted the existing townhouse development to the south was an allowed use due to the
location and its proximity to the business district.
In conclusion, Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission discuss the items highlighted on
the staff report as well as the Issues for Consideration section. Also, she notes the neighborhood
comments received by the City were in the Planning Commission agenda packet and represented in
the March 22, 2004 City Council meeting minutes. She suggested Planning Commission comments
pertain to the use of the property.
The Chair asked if Mr. Keaveny wished to add any comments for the record.
Mr. Keaveny stated that Gundlach had been very helpful in getting through all the various aspects of
the application. His one remaining major question related to what can be allowed as a use for the
building, noting that his lower level renter has been vacant since June 2003 representing a large lack
of income for their family. Keaveny explained he did not have a desire to have alcohol on the site but
a restaurant tenant chose to request it. He repeated his interest in finding out what he can actually put
in the building to make it a viable business.
Chair Mabusth clarified that Mr. Keaveny was interested in knowing if a Class II restaurant can be
added to the existing bowling alley use. She asked the applicant to describe what type of license is
held by the bowling alley currently.
Mr. Keaveny responded the license held for over 55 years by the bowling alley is for 3.2 beer and set-
ups. He explained the prospective tenant, Mr. Ode, wanted a full liquor license in order to control the
amount of alcohol consumed there. Mr. Keaveny added that Mr. Ode might still be interested in a
beer/wine license. He repeated his question of whether or not a restaurant is a viable thing to put
with the bowling alley.
Chair Mabusth asked for comments from the public on the Keaveny application.
Mr. Thomas H. Goodman, with the firm of Segal, Brough, Bruckner, Duffy and Foster, was
representing Charles Nadler, Austin Evans and a number of neighbors, some who were in attendance.
He stated he reviewed the application, spoke briefly with staff and the city attorney and looked at
Orono's Zoning Code. In addition to the issues presented by City staff, Mr. Goodman stated that he
had other issues for the commission to consider.
Page 14 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV.
TRUST,3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW- Continued)
Mr. Goodman proceeded to outline his points, beginning with the point that the application assumes a
liquor license that has been denied by the City Council. He commented that the application should be
denied because, as applied for, it cannot be granted.
Secondly, Mr. Goodman pointed out the bowling alley is a non-conforming use and is not permitted
in the B-1 District. According to the January 20, 2004 Planning Commission meeting minutes, he
reviewed a statement by Mr. Ode representing the operation to have a common entrance and to have
the restaurant function with the bowling alley. Mr. Goodman expressed that this situation is the
opposite of what the City intends with its Zoning Code, meaning that the City has legislated against
more bowling alleys. To enable the bowling alley to be more viable or more profitable is not the
intent of conditional uses and, Mr. Goodman continued, this is the opposite of what should be done
with conditional uses. Further, he stated that conditional uses should actually `die' so that a
conforming use will replace it. He emphasized his belief that bowling alleys are illegal in the context
of the Orono Zoning Code.
Thirdly, Mr. Goodman explained the proposal for an integrated use with a common entrance, as a
modernization of the bowling alley is illegal as it is an expansion of a non-conforming use, which is
not permitted under the Orono Zoning Code. Citing Section 78-71, Mr. Goodman read into the
record language regarding `do not extend or intensify' the non-conforming use.
Mr. Goodman advised that his opinion, as presented to the City Council with his letter of March 22,
2004 and included in the Planning Commission agenda packet, is that the expansion of the bowling
alley by permitting a Class II restaurant (with liquor) would be illegal.
He encouraged the Planning Commission to do what the B-1 District allows, i.e. neighborhood
services and retail such as video rental and not to attract others to a destination spot. In summary,
Mr. Goodman stated that to the extent the application requires a conditional use permit and variances,
the application should be denied and not be allowed to expand.
Mr. Goodman continued by adding that the variances being applied for with this application are not
because of the site layout but because of the plan for the site. Citing the Orono Zoning Code, Mr.
Goodman referenced the language regarding granting of variances when `practical difficulties or
particular hardships' exist. He asked where is the difficulty on this site, commenting that he believes
the site is over-designed therefore necessitating the need for variances, emphasizing the plan
therefore needs variances not the site.
Mr. Goodman recommended denial of the application. He emphasized the proximity of residential
neighbors who need to be put at rest regarding the application, referring to Exhibit N in the staff
report to illustrate how close neighbors are to the bowling alley or to a possible new parking lot of a
proposed restaurant.
In conclusion, Mr. Goodman emphasized it was not the Planning Commission's job to see how to
make the proposal work as the B-1 District calls out what uses are permitted and not to expand non-
conforming uses as per the law.
Page 15 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV.
TRUST,3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW- Continued)
Mr. Goodman repeated his recommendation to deny the application and asked if there were any
questions for him.
Chair Mabusth replied there were none and asked for other public comments at this time.
Sylvia Bertagnoli, 2499 Kelly Avenue, advised that she had a petition that neighbors had signed
opposing the application. She reported she walked from the bowling alley parking lot to her garage
corner and, measuring it by steps, found it only 50 ft. in distance, which she considered to be very
close. Also, she commented that she recently heard that Rick's grocery store might become a Lund's,
and if so, what would the reaction be to an expanded bowling alley/restaurant use across the street.
Ms. Bertagnoli relayed her speculation about the improvements really being a bowling alley. Also,
she noted that her property taxes are rising which she accepted but not if her property is next door to
a bar. Lastly, she expressed her concern for children's street safety with traffic increases, especially
with most of the traffic, in her belief, using the Kelly Avenue driveway.
Richard Edwards, 2480 Carman St., relayed that he sees the bowling alley from his house's back
door. In the past he reported having trouble with the bowling alley. Mr. Edwards stated that bands
playing at the Narrows till late at night requires them to keep their windows closed due to the loud
noise. Further, he mentioned that motorcycle patrons also create noise for the neighborhood. He
expressed his concern that more neighborhood noise will be created if the application is approved.
Christine Hardten, 2515 Kelly Avenue, expressed her concern for the additional traffic associated
with the application in addition to what is associated with the Narrows, at a hazardous turn onto Kelly
Avenue, and the continuing trash problem with cans and bottles. She did not think parking is a
hardship. She explained that delivery trucks are a current noise issue, especially from the near-by
town homes, as well as the band and choppers noise, all which would worsen with an expanded
bowling alley/restaurant business. Ms. Hardten repeated her viewpoint that more traffic and trash is
not what their neighborhood wants.
Chair Mabusth referenced the staff report and directed the Planning Commission's attention to the
Issues for Consideration. Chair Mabusth reported that she attended the March 22, 2004 City Council
meeting as the Planning Commission representative and advised that the City Council had a list of
reasons and negative impacts on the neighborhood when denying the liquor license for Mr. Ode. She
reiterated that it is the Planning Commission responsibility to consider a Class II restaurant to be
added to the existing facility. Chair Mabusth asked Mr. Keaveny if he understood the Council's
action.
Mr. Keaveny repeated his earlier statements saying he had no problem without the restaurant liquor
license.
Berg inquired if Mr. Keaveny would keep the bowling alley there and did he understand that there
likely would not be a Class II restaurant approved.
Mr. Keaveny replied the bowling alley would stay there.
Page 16 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV.
TRUST, 3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW- Continued)
Berg expressed her viewpoint that a Class II restaurant would not be approved and that there were
other potential uses for the location. She mentioned there could be less gravel and blacktop and
improved landscape on the site. If there is going to be a bowling alley there, Berg stated she wants
to have the upper area fixed up, including the landscaping. She recommended that if Mr. Keaveny
undertakes improvements, she would expect a `softer' look to the site with improved landscaping.
Mr. Keaveny replied that green spaces, a new retaining wall, striping of the parking lot and building
upgrades had been part of the proposal with Mr. Ode.
Berg repeated her position to oppose a liquor license and restaurant but did not oppose continuation
of the bowling alley use.
Bremer asked Berg if she thought that same about a 3.2 beer license. Berg did not answer, as it is not
the role of the Planning Commission to decide.
Mr. Keaveny asked Berg if she thought a restaurant without a liquor license was a good use.
Berg replied that she did not think of a bowling alley with a destination restaurant but rather had a
snack bar instead.
Mr. Keaveny indicated he has received expressed interest for league bowling in the last nine months.
Berg restated her opposition is not to the bowling alley but with the other use intensification and
other issues with green space, parking, upkeep and site appearance.
Mr. Keaveny commented his whole intent was to get the whole site fixed up acknowledging that it
has been a while since it was well cared for. In the past year he has attempted to get busy with
improvements.
Chair Mabusth inquired if any other Planning Commission members had any comments.
Bremer asked if the Planning Commission should review the parking and hardcover issues.
Chair Mabusth commented that hardcover remains the same at 90% as the application proposed
paving over existing gravel, which is still considered hardcover. Structure is being added with the
new entryway, going up from 15% to 16%. She noted the application does not quite meet the parking
code requirements so a variance is needed.
Chair Mabusth acknowledged that going over any of these issues applies only if this is an application
that will be approved. She concluded that without the liquor license there is no point in going over
the specific planning issues.
Mr. Keaveny acknowledged he received a list from staff listing the conforming uses applicable to his
site and has heard so many comments from the neighbors and would like to hear their suggestions.
Page 17 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV.
TRUST,3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW- Continued)
Chair Mabusth continued that Mr. Keaveny does have friendly neighbors who would be happy to
work with him to have the bowling alley come back but definitely oppose the liquor license.
Mr. Keaveny stated he understood they have major issues with other license establishments but that
this should not necessarily be thrown into his issue, and that there should be a way to deal with the
Narrows.
Having heard from her neighbors, Berg indicated the major issue is that Navarre does not need
another restaurant with liquor. Mr. Keaveny stated he has heard this, too.
Berg concluded that she also would like an upgrade of the building itself and a tenant that is less
traffic intense, with no Class II restaurant.
Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to deny Application #04-2977,Michael Keaveny on
behalf of Richard M. Keaveny Rev. Trust, 3423/3425 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit
and associated Commercial Site Plan Review with Variances for hardcover, structural coverage
and signs for a restaurant with liquor(Class II) based on the negative impact of the operation
opening up onto adjacent residential properties, the additional traffic and activity concerns,
that it is an issue of public health, safety and welfare, and includes the staffs findings of fact.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Chair Mabusth encouraged Mr. Keaveny to work with staff. Mr. Keaveny indicated that he will and
stated the staff was very nice to work with.
4. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 & 39, MORSE ISLAND
PARK(120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,VARIANCE FOR
WETLAND ALTERATION—CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (8:00-8:20 P.M.)
Greg Gappa, Public Services Director, representing the City of Orono, applicant, was present.
Gaffron explained the applicant request was tabled at the Planning Commission's March 15, 2004
meeting to allow for a meeting with Big Island residents to review the proposed access plan and to
allow Greg Gappa, Orono's Public Services Director, to be present for questions and comments. He
illustrated the application's access location, a second access location with steep grades, as well as one
additional potential westerly access location.
Gaffron reported the City Council's position, as identified at last week's City Council work session,
is committed to upgrading the application's access to the level of use as it had in the past until the
adjoining property owner closed off the portion on their property. Further, the City Council was not
interested in reviewing a third access at this time, leaving it for a future determination, noting there is
no budget for it now. The City Council also indicated its intention to limit the number of access lanes
open on Big Island to the minimum number necessary to provide minimally adequate access,
resulting in minimizing the amount and impacts of motor vehicle usage on Big Island.
Page 18 of 49
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(4. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 & 39, MORSE ISLAND
PARK(120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,VARIANCE FOR
WETLAND ALTERATION—Continued)
Gaffron summarized the current proposal is to merely replace the 90' public right-of-way for the
long-established access that was recently eliminated from the adjacent property. The proposed
wetland and floodplain impacts are minimal and the City expects to meet MCWD requirements.
Further, the City recognizes an obligation to re-establish this access with the least impact method
given the limited options. Gaffron indicated the wetland alteration and floodplain impacts were
scheduled for the April 22, 2004 MCWD agenda. The proposed access improvements do not expand
the access nor provide more access to Big Island.
Gaffron recommended approval of the variances and the conditional use permit requested by the
applicant.
Gappa concurred with Gaffron's summary, emphasizing that the request is basically for a
replacement to an access that was there. There is no intent to expand the access from what had been
there before but to leave the status quo of two access points. The access is 10' wide and pushed way
to the south to minimize wetland impacts. Gappa anticipates the MCWD will require mitigation of
the wetland buffer impacts so that a 16.5' buffer around the entire wetland will be put in place which
is fine as the City's intent is only to build the road access with no other development activity on the
site. He emphasized the application is a replacement of an access that for many years was thought to
be on the public right-of-way but recent survey records indicated it was not the City's. The City
Council's intent is to replace an existing access and not to provide more access to Big Island. This
access is needed as it serves several land-locked parcels, too.
Chair Mabusth asked Gappa if he was present at the City Council work session on April 8, 2004.
Gappa responded that he was not in attendance at that work session but has read the meeting minutes
and discussed the City Council's position with Gaffron. He briefly summarized the access issue
background since a Big Island resident meeting in March 2003 and subsequent City Council and
Planning Commission discussions of the matter. He confirmed that the City Council has no plan for
additional access points on Big Island at this time or expanding vehicular use or tree removal, but is
open to future considerations, with the current focus on this particular access replacement location.
Chair Mabusth asked for clarification of efforts to minimize site impacts within the 0-75' shoreline
area and the wetlands with the limitation of a 10' width. She questioned if the City is following all
the MCWD guidelines or if there are other reviewing bodies.
Gappa confirmed that the MCWD is the only other review body.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments.
Cheryl Uran, 120-140 Big Island, stated that last time she was present, the Planning Commission had
listened to them and gave a good solution that would work by getting the Big Island residents
together to decide what to do. She believed that matter was taken out of their hands and returned to
the Planning Commission. She expressed her disappointment in how the process had worked.
Page 19 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(4. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 & 39, MORSE ISLAND
PARK(120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR
WETLAND ALTERATION—Continued)
Ms. Uran repeated her comments from the March 15, 2004 Planning Commission meeting:
1. This is not a replacement access. There was nothing there as people were driving on their
private property sometimes without asking them for permission.
2. The City has looked at no other accesses because they have not been surveyed for cost
comparison.
3. Grading costs versus filling in the wetland via barge costs does not make sense.
4. The work done this winter in the wetland was done by two private citizens, Urans were
not consulted about the impact upon their land.
5. Uran does not like the feeling of having no input in the decision.
6. This access is the furthest point away from the land-locked lots and will result in more
back and forth activity.
Uran concluded that the Planning Commission reconsider the access but expressed her
disappointment that it will be approved anyway. She apologized for repeating her comments and
thanked the Planning Commission for listening.
Rick Parson, 280 Big Island, commented that the access Ms. Uran referred to does not work for their
property but that they could use the Bay Place location. He explained their property has quite a few
steps up from the lakeshore and they have carried 88 sheets of plywood up the steps for their new
building, and carrying construction materials by hand lengthens the building process making it tough
to complete a building project in the two year time permitted by their building permit. Mr. Parson
explained there is no way to get equipment in to build the sewage system coming from the access, as
it does not connect to the access behind them.
David Lovelace, 220 Big Island, indicated he purchased his property on Big Island in the late 1990's
and at that time he understood he did not have lake access but that he had always had legal access.
He was aware he could ask the City for a permit at the end of the platted road, and at that time, Bay
Place was probably the closest. However, there is a dock already at the end of Bay Place public
access and he understood that only one permit is allowed there and if he asked for a permit, the
existing dock permit would be rescinded. Mr. Lovelace believed his option was limited and was not
`neighborly' so he took the one offered him at a greater distance. He acknowledged that he and
others were aware the access used was on Uran's property, and that most of the Big Island residents
have tried to work this out among them, but are here because the informal agreement ended and
requested help to resolve the issue.
Chair Mabusth asked Mr. Lovelace to indicate where he was allowed to put in his dock and if he
received an administrative permit to put the dock there.
Mr. Lovelace replied that he did have a dock permit for that location. However, until he was granted
pedestrian access with the dock permit, he was forced to trespass to get from his dock to get to the
road. He explained that the City advised him to remove an old building on his property before a
building permit will be issued and observed that getting equipment in to remove the building is very
difficult.
Page 20 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(4. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO, ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 & 39, MORSE ISLAND
PARK(120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR
WETLAND ALTERATION—Continued)
Chair Mabusth commented that she remembered the earlier Planning Commission discussion, which
occurred without benefit of much background of this access issue and apologized if the City let them
down. She stated Gappa was present this evening to give them the necessary background on this
application.
Gappa explained that with a City project, discussions often occur first at the City Council level
because of the tax dollars involved. He acknowledged there have been past Big Island meetings and
residential input but the City may not be able to satisfy all the varied interests on Big Island. He
described a potential project on Big Island would have to go through the City's Capital Improvement
Project process for funding and the Planning Commission would then look at the zoning aspects of a
potential project. He concluded that the City Council is now clear on this matter.
Mr. Lovelace asked if a resident could come to the Planning Commission and ask the same questions
with the same process as he did four years ago.
Chair Mabusth explained that a permit for a dock is handled through an administrative permit.
Gappa concurred but explained further that if residents want to do other accesses, such as Bay Place,
they likely involve the Capital Improvement Project process and city funding decisions, which begins
with the City Council, not the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lovelace restated his understanding that there is nothing preventing a resident from talking to
administrative staff, the Planning Commission or the City Council in the future and asking to take
another look at other public access issues on Big Island.
Chair Mabusth and Gappa agreed with Mr. Lovelace's statement.
Gerald Walsh, 180 Big Island, explained their property's location, noting the site is about 65' above
the water level with a 20' drop to the water, making it virtually impossible to access the property
from the water. When their property was purchased there was a recognized access by virtually
everyone on Big Island, even to the extent that Mr. Uran would plow and clear access up to Walsh's
property. About 1 %2 year ago, Mr. Walsh learned it was a private access, held numerous discussions
with Mr. Uran and the city, was given permission to use the access, then later refused permission, and
later was offered to use the access for$2,500 by Mr. Uran. Then the Urans informed him that no one
was permitted to use the access and subsequently Mr. Uran developed it into a grass knoll making it
impossible now to use the property without damaging it. He emphasized that when they used the
property it was for limited access for building materials. Mr. Walsh stated there is no access to his
property from the other side of the island without crossing other private property or without a steep
grade.
Chair Mabusth asked if there was a steep grade also at Bay Place.
Page 21 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(4. #04-2997 CITY OF ORONO,ACCESS BETWEEN LOTS 38 & 39, MORSE ISLAND
PARK(120-140 BIG ISLAND), CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,VARIANCE FOR
WETLAND ALTERATION—Continued)
Mr. Walsh indicated he did not know where the Bay Place access is on the lagoon but it may also
have a substantial steep grade. However, even if the Bay Place access was open, Mr. Walsh stated
there was no way to get to his property without going across Mr. Lovelace's property.
Mr. Lovelace commented the road access coming up from Bay Place currently is wooded and it could
be opened back up but is not drivable now.
Ms. Uran interjected that she thinks there are currently two conditional use permits for docks at Bay
Place.
Chair Mabusth stated the Planning Commission appreciates all the input but the City Council directed
that the access be improved and is underway through the permitting process.
Mr. Uran asked what the existing wetland in the public right-of-way is connected to on the west.
Gappa responded that there may be culverts from up stream and that an ice ridge barrier traps the
water draining down the hill to form the wetland, but acknowledged he did not know exactly what is
to the west.
Mr. Uran indicated the ice ridge or barrier has been there for over 28 years, as long as he has lived
there. He stated that there are culverts on the west side of the lowland but they do not work anymore
due to chunks of concrete being put in the roadway for stability by people who used the roadway. He
commented about the amount of traffic coming off the ice this winter and asked if the right-of-way
has been surveyed and, if not, the city is allowing the public onto Big Island without knowing where
the roads are.
Gappa agreed it was a valid point and that not a lot of road survey has been done on Big Island. He
acknowledged there were many issues with respect to Big Island but the City's intent is to re-
establish an existing access.
Chair Mabusth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2997, City
of Orono,Access Between Lots 38 & 39,Morse Island Park(120-140 Big Island) granting
variances and a conditional use permit to allow wetland alteration and a driveway construction
project, including filling of a minor portion of the wetland, excavation within 26'of the wetland,
and filling and hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone per the revised plan, subject to
establishment of a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetland, and subject to the
MCWD permit approvals prior to commencement of construction activities.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Chair Mabusth recessed the Planning Commission at 8:20 p.m. for a short break and reconvened at
8:30 p.m.
Page 22 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (8:30-9:20 p.m.)
Christine Valerius and Phil Fisk, the applicants, were present.
Gundlach explained the applicants' request for a conditional use permit to operate a coffee
shop/bakery/restaurant at 2377 Shadywood Road. In conjunction with the conditional use permit a
commercial site plan review is required. The application was originally heard at the March 15, 2004
Planning Commission meeting where it was tabled so that the numerous drive-through plans could be
reviewed by the City Engineer and so the architecture of the proposed addition could be further
refined. The applicant submitted two plans, one with a drive-through that has been reviewed by the
City Engineer, and one without a drive-through lane feature. She advised that variances are
inevitable due to the site's existing building and the orientation on the lot to the City-owned parking
lot.
Gundlach summarized that at the Planning Commission's March 15, 2004 meeting support was
indicated for the building setback variance so the applicant can construct an addition. However, the
extent of the requested variances depends on the incorporation of a drive-through on the site.
With the drive-through plan, an additional front-yard parking setback variance and a hardcover
variance are required. Without a drive-through feature, these variances could be avoided.
Gundlach advised the Planning Commission to discuss the two plans, what approvals are necessary
for each and determine what plan to approve or not to approve.
Gundlach reported that the applicant was required to submit more detailed plans of the proposed
exterior finish and was encouraged to incorporate a pitched-roof element to the proposed addition.
The submitted color renderings were displayed for Planning Commission review and comment.
Gundlach advised that the applicant is proposing to keep the brick on the entire front of the façade
and extend the stone along the bottom of the two sides and rear. Two different patterns of hardy
board plank siding are proposed for the rest of the façade finish in a tanish-brown color to
complement the white stone. She advised that a pitched-roof now has been incorporated.
Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission discuss these elevations, the materials and color
scheme to determine if they are appropriate for approval.
Gundlach recommended denial of the plan incorporating the drive-through due to the unnecessary
variances required to achieve it. Staff maintains that a drive-through should be allowed only if the
site could support it.
She advised staff would support the plan without the drive-through; however, the screened porch
should be removed in an effort to decrease non-conformities. With the drive-through plan, Gundlach
noted the applicant is prepared to tear down the three-season porch to facilitate the drive aisle around
the building, but wants to keep the porch if the drive-through feature is not permitted.
Gundlach explained her basis for recommending removal of the screened porch is that the building
will be extended to a non-conforming setback to the property line. In allowing the building extension,
staff believes it is an appropriate trade to remove the screened porch because it adds to the excessive
non-conformity of the side street building setback.
Page 23 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
Gundlach referred to the following Issues for Consideration:
1. Can the site support a drive-through?
2. Should variances be granted merely to serve a drive-through?
3. Is the addition acceptable? Is the roof-line?
4. Are the exterior finishes acceptable?
5. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the on-site parking stalls exiting into traffic?
6. Are there any other issues associated with this application?
In conclusion, Gundlach advised staff is recommending denial of the drive-through proposal. Staff
does support approval of the plan without the drive-through feature, which includes approval of a
conditional use permit, building setback variance and rear yard parking setback variance, if the
screened porch is eliminated in an effort to decrease the non-conforming side street building setback
on the site.
Chair Mabusth asked the applicants if they had any comments to add to the staff report.
Christine Valerius stated they want to keep the three-season porch with the plan with no drive-
through as they are already giving up the shed. They intend to update the porch and make it as nice
as the rest of the house. She asked when she should explain why they think they have a hardship with
the drive-through plan.
Chair Mabusth responded that she thought the Planning Commission had unanimously given the
applicant direction that the Planning Commission was not in favor of a drive-through.
Ms. Valerius replied there was a third plan that needed to have City Engineer review and comment
and following his review, she believes the drive-through plan works, referring to the staff report and
plan illustrations.
Mr. Fisk agreed that they wished to focus on the drive-through plan with the horseshoe, as it does not
hinder traffic at all. He stated a hardcover variance is required and referred to hardcover at adjacent
properties, including the building next door(Dagmars) and across the street (Snyders Drug), and in
the Navarre commercial neighborhood as a whole, which push the limit on hardcover. Mr. Fisk
indicated that even with the proposed hardcover they are proposing greenspace extensions to the rear
property line and are trying to make the most amount of grassed space around the horseshoe design.
He stated the drive-through is vital to the success of their proposed business.
Chair Mabusth inquired of the applicants to explain the removal of the three-season porch and if there
are no parking spaces to be added, where on the plan are the grassed areas proposed.
Ms. Valerius explained two parking spots and pointed out they also have access to the city-owned
parking lot that is behind the property. She indicated that this is enough parking for the business.
Mr. Fisk and Ms. Valerius illustrated their parking and greenspace plans for the site without the
drive-through feature. Ms. Valerius pointed out the plan with the drive-through and the two parking
spaces and a one-space turn-around lane allows vehicles to not have to back into the parking lot. She
Page 24 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
also stated the hardship was created by the loss of property to the city-owned parking lot and making
the lot smaller.
Chair Mabusth expressed her opinion that the property is quite small and difficult to consider a turn-
around.
Chair Mabusth invited public comments.
Mark Pfleghaar, 3509 Ivy Place, asked for information about the percentages for the property, and
secondly, pointed out pedestrian use in the parking lot from city park users. He believed that more
traffic would be in the parking lot when trying to use the proposed drive-through lane or on-site
parking spaces, which will be an increased hazard to pedestrians.
Berg clarified the existing in/out lane and curb cuts will be used at the entrance of the parking lot.
Ms. Valerius acknowledged the property next to them also has parking on site and has about 65%
hardcover.
Rahn asked for information regarding the greenspace, hardcover and structural coverage amounts.
Gundlach advised that both proposed plans meet structural coverage requirements, noting the plan
with the screened porch is about 1%more. The plan with the drive-through is nearly 56%hardcover
when 35% is normally permitted in the 500'-1000' zone, and then assumes the remainder is
greenspace. The plan without the drive-through is 34.4%hardcover and meets the 35%hardcover
requirement. She illustrated the two plans' differences in hardcover and greenspace.
Ms. Valerius requested the hardcover percentage for Snyders Drug across the street from their
property, mentioning that the Snyders Drug site has a very small amount of greenspace with a drive-
through. She also referred to the previous discussion with Reliance Development who is proposing
two drive-throughs with less greenspace as another example of drive-throughs in Orono with smaller
amounts of greenspace.
Chair Mabusth acknowledged that there were structural excesses on the Snyders Drug site but could
not recall the hardcover/greenspace calculations.
Gundlach clarified the Stonebay Marketplace/Reliance Development proposal is not within the
Shoreland Overlay District, which is a substantial reason for the different, comparative hardcover
requirements, as well as meeting a 25% greenspace requirement and that the application is a PUD.
Ms. Valerius stated their application does meet the 25% greenspace requirement.
Chair Mabusth asked the applicants to discuss the plan without the drive-through feature.
Ms. Valerius explained it basically is an alternative plan if the drive-through is not allowed.
Page 25 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
It incorporates a walk-up window on the north side, with three on-site parking spaces and proposes to
keep the three-season porch and make it structurally sound.
Chair Mabusth concurred with staff to support removal of the non-conforming three-season porch
because it needs major structural repair, which would be adding more structure within a substandard
setback.
Ms. Valerius responded that in keeping the three-season porch the plan is 29% hardcover and the
shed will be removed. Mr. Fisk acknowledged they understood the non-conforming setback issue.
He reiterated they prefer the first plan as it meets some of their goals.
Chair Mabusth invited more public comment. There being none, she opened the discussion to
Planning Commission members.
Kempf expressed his belief that the lot does not support a drive-through because of safety issues
about cars turning in from Lyric and stacking up, even out to Co. Rd. 15 and has not seen anything
that addressed the safety issues. Aesthetically, he observed that it would look bad due to the extent of
paved road all around the building, and could not vote to support it. He felt less strongly about the
screened porch but as a non-conforming use it should be removed. Kempf repeated he had not seen
anything that works for the drive-through.
Leslie stated there is no basis for allowing the drive-through feature on the site with many of the
reasons to oppose a drive-through already mentioned in prior discussion. He is in agreement with the
removal of the screened porch if the proposed addition takes place, and referred to Planning
Commission continuity in requiring non-conforming elements to be removed from other applications
that had major improvements or additions.
Rahn agreed with the staff recommendation. He stated he did not think the subject lot is conducive to
a drive-through feature, and also, he supported the removal of the three-season porch.
Jurgens asked the applicants how strongly they wanted the drive-through to work and that he believed
there is always some way to make something work. He did state he did not want to see
curb/gutter/blacktop, as it would look like a giant parking lot extension. Jurgens suggested one
option is a very well built paver system for the drive-through other than using black-top, then it
would not look like a drive-through. He pointed out that was an opening on another building side to
re-locate the screened porch instead of rebuilding it where there are setback issues. Jurgens stated he
had an issue with the asphalt in the rear and asked for information about how it had been paved and if
there is an easement over it.
Gundlach explained the City took easements for the drive-aisles in the parking lot but how the
5' chunk got overlapped on the property line was unclear. Its purpose appears to be for residential
tenant parking.
Ms. Valerius responded that they own the 5' area.
Page 26 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
Gundlach confirmed the city does not have an easement over the 5' area.
Jurgens questioned the depth of parking and relationship to the City's standards. Further, he asked
for a grading plan for stormwater management.
Mr. Fisk reported they had met with the MCWD who indicated no changes were necessary to the
plans as shown. Currently, there is no curb and gutter on Lyric Avenue and all the city water drains
into the subject property now leaving a visible waterway. He reported City staff advised curb and
gutter would be necessary on the blacktopped drive-through, which is what is shown on the plans,
though Mr. Fisk indicated they would prefer not to have curb and gutter.
Jurgens acknowledged the site is very small for a drive-through but sympathized with the applicants
whose plans are very similar to the neighborhood businesses and other sites around it. He believed it
to be in keeping with the nature of the Navarre neighborhood, with its smaller sites and reduced
greenspace.
Bremer concurred with Jurgens, especially the suggestion for using pavers for a drive-through
alternative. Partially she based her viewpoints on the fact that the use is appropriate for the
neighborhood and would like to see the business there and be successful. Bremer observed that a
coffee business with a drive-through is what the city was looking for at the Stonebay
Marketplace/Reliance Development as an attractive concept. She commented the applicants might
have to seriously consider how important the drive-through is to the business or consider a different
location that would support a drive-through. She agreed with Jurgens that the applicants could make
it more tasteful such as using pavers as an alternative to make it look less like a parking lot. Bremer
relayed her opinion that the concern over what is proposed on this site is already what the Navarre
neighborhood looks like, recognizing that going down the slope too far will require stopping it at
some point. She stated she thought the subject property is unique in the sense it would provide the
city the opportunity to stop it right there, making everything from there on to be more responsible and
more environmentally conscious. Further, Bremer noted the greenspace coverage is better than
expected. She concluded she was in favor of the drive-through concept if it is economically
necessary and viable to run the business. Likewise, she agreed that unfortunately when it was
constructed, it now is in a bad location for the applicant. Bremer stated she liked the plan
aesthetically and having a porch in a coffee house is good, supported Jurgens idea to replace the
screened porch on another side of the building and avoid the lot line setback issue.
Jurgens added he viewed this business as being a transition business between the park and residential
area and the business area.
According to traffic studies they conducted, Mr. Fisk explained the intended traffic pattern would
bring cars along the drive-through to the order window allowing for stacking in the drive-through and
not on the street or backing up to the intersection. He also describes existing parking problems
behind the Narrows with cars backing up onto their property. He concluded their plan does address
traffic issues and achieve a steady traffic flow with the drive-through. Mr. Fisk concurred that
pavers was a good idea and could be an aesthetic improvement.
Page 27 of 49
- MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
Chair Mabusth asked for confirmation of the City Engineer's recommendation on the latest drive-
through proposal.
Gundlach stated some of the same traffic issues remain but are less of an issue than on the former
plans. She referred to the City Engineer's comments included in a former letter, explaining the City
Engineer received a fax copy of the final drive-through plan and his comments did not change.
Ms. Valerius and Mr. Fisk noted the staff report indicates that the drive-through layout will work.
Gundlach agreed that it functionally works for vehicle maneuvering but the safety issues at the city-
owned parking lot still exist with this plan.
Chair Mabusth expressed concern about vehicle stacking and asked what the City Engineer's
comments were.
According to Gundlach, the City Engineer did see the plan now being shown to the Planning
Commission. He did not comment further on the stacking issue.
Ms. Valerius expressed her positive interest in pavers and no curb and gutter, as it would fit into what
are the applicants' ideas for the site. She reminded the Planning Commission she had mentioned she
preferred a softer look on the site at the last meeting.
Chair Mabusth observed that the City has not accepted the paver concept to date.
Jurgens advised that interlocking pavers are used on industrial sites where bituminous and concrete
will fail,with a much softer look than a solid hardcover surface. He indicated that pavers are more
expensive and must be correctly designed and installed.
Ms. Valerius stated part of their project is receiving some financial assistance due to the relocation of
their current business in Mound, which may offset some of the pavers' additional costs.
Mr. Pfleghaar asked for further clarification of the traffic flow, stacking issue and parking
lot/pedestrian issue.
Berg explained that the ordering window location should mitigate much of the stacking issue by
providing more drive-through lane.
Gundlach pointed out the primary issue is traffic pulling-out from the site and, according to the City
Engineer, that issue is the same as in previous plans.
Berg brought forward the issue of the two parking spaces pulling into the turn-around space as an
additional hazard compared to just pulling straight back from the two parking spaces.
Rahn concurred and stated cars will likely not use the turn-around space but will pull straight back
from the parking spaces.
Page 28 of 49
- MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
Mr. Fisk illustrated how the Narrows parking patrons back into their property already.
Berg thought this fact creates even a bigger parking problem and expects the apron to not be a
solution because cars will not use it.
Rahn interjected that it may become another parking space instead.
Berg suggested the apron be eliminated.
Ms. Valerius stated they would create more greenspace if the apron was eliminated and the drive-
through granted.
Berg expressed her concerns for approving the site but believed the business may need the drive-
through to be successful and does not know if the business fits there. She acknowledged she liked
what the applicants were attempting to do with site and it looks like the applicants have spent time on
the concept, the building itself looks good,but still has reservations about approving the plan.
Leslie commented that the only reason the Planning Commission is discussing a drive-through is for
the economic viability of the business, with or without a drive-through. He pointed out that
economics are not a reason for hardship, which may mean that this site should not be a coffee shop
with a drive-through. Leslie indicated that the viability of the coffee shop should not be taken into
account in evaluating a drive-through at this location.
Ms. Valerius responded that neighboring businesses have drive-throughs and may even have less
greenspace than proposed on their lot, referring to #8 in the Hardship Documentation.
Mr. Fisk stated they clearly have not tried to use economic reasons. He stated their business is going
to be a coffee house with or without a drive-through, but that a drive-through is a convenience to their
customers. He expressed that the key thing needed is to receive a hardcover variance and that is why
they are pointing out other adjacent sites that exceed hardcover standards. Mr. Fisk emphasized they
never claimed an economic hardship.
Leslie expressed his interest in the business being successful but from his perspective he did not see
any justification for a drive-through other than economic, which is not a basis for granting a variance.
Chair Mabusth commented the Lake Country Coffee business was successful in Long Lake and it did
not have a drive-through.
Ms. Valerius agreed and added their business in Mound is successful with a drive-through. She
stressed they had never brought up economic hardship through the entire process.
Leslie moved, Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend denial of Application #04-2993,
Christine Valerius and Phil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road, Commercial Site Plan Review,
Parking, Hardcover and Building Setback Variances, Conditional Use Permit to convert the
Page 29 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#5. 04-2993 CHRIS VALERIUS, 2377 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT—Continued)
existing residence into a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant as the site cannot support the requested
drive-through which also creates the need for approval of an unnecessary front yard parking
variance and hardcover variance.
VOTE: AYES 4, NAYS 3.
Jurgens indicated he thought the site could still work with a drive-through and that a traffic study is
needed to assess future traffic volumes for safety concerns.
Bremer indicated she thought the plan is consistent with the neighborhood adjacent properties and
even is more environmentally aware than its adjacent properties, like Snyders Drug and the corner
gas stations that are primarily all blacktopped. She could support the plan with the use of pavers for
improved aesthetics.
Berg indicated the plan is like the neighborhood it is in.
Chair Mabusth declared the vote is to recommend denial of the drive-through plan.
Leslie moved, to recommend approval of Application #04-2993, Alternate Plan that does not
include a drive-through, Christine Valerius and Phil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road, Commercial
Site Plan Review, Parking,Hardcover and Building Setback Variances, Conditional Use Permit
to convert the existing residence into a coffee shop/bakery/restaurant, stipulating that the three
season porch be removed in an effort to reduce non-conformities.
Bremer asked for an amendment to the motion to allow the applicants to have their choice of
permanent removal or moving the three-season porch to a conforming location on the building.
Leslie accepted the motion amendment, Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of
Application #04-2993,Alternate Plan that does not include a drive—through, Christine Valerius
and Phil Fisk, 2377 Shadywood Road, Commercial Site Plan Review, Parking, Hardcover and
Building Setback Variances, Conditional Use Permit to convert the existing residence into a
coffee shop/bakery/restaurant, and to allow the applicants to have their choice of permanent
removal of the three season porch or to move it to a conforming location on the building.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Mr. Fisk asked for direction of what information to bring to the subsequent City Council meeting,
such as the paver concept.
Berg suggested a drawing showing less hardcover with no curb and gutter.
Chair Mabusth suggested the applicants ask for the additional comments from the City Engineer.
Mr. Fisk and Ms. Valerius thanked the Planning Commission for time spent on their application
review.
Page 30 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
6. #04-2999 GEORGE AND MARILYN MILEUSNIC, 3243 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE,
PUBLIC HEARING (9:20-9:25 p.m.)
George and Marilyn Mileusnic, applicants, were present.
Curtis introduced the application requesting a hardcover variance in order to rebuild the 483 s.f. deck
which is rotted and to add a screened porch beneath the new deck. The property is located in the LR-
1 C, Single Family Lakeshore Residential district, V2 acre minimum. She stated the applicants are
requesting a hardcover variance for the 75'-250' setback zone, noting that the deck reconstruction
and the addition of the proposed screen porch would not increase hardcover or structural coverage as
it currently exists.
Curtis explained that the current deck is located in the average lakeshore setback from the
neighboring deck setbacks. With the proposal to screen in the area beneath the porch the average
setback would be measured from the neighboring houses rather than the decks, causing the
deck/porch to be slightly ahead of the average setback. However, due to the topography of the lots
and setback from Lake Minnetonka, the deck affects no lake views. Curtis referred to photos 2
through 5 for illustrations of the neighboring lake views.
Curtis recommended approval of the requested hardcover variance as the deck exists currently and
the applicants are requesting to replace it in kind, there is a hardship to justify the variance. The
variance is requested to maintain the square footage that currently exists and to be able to repair the
rotted deck. Also, she noted the proposed deck would meet the average lakeshore setback. Curtis
stated the request is for a hardcover variance of 31.05%where 25% is normally allowed and 31.05%
currently exists.
Further, neighboring lake views are not affected by the proposal, she recommended granting the
average lakeshore setback to allow the screened porch to be built under the deck.
Curtis also recommended a stipulation to remove all of the fabric and plastic liners in landscape beds
that account for about 1% of the hardcover.
Ms. Mileusnic commented that the deck needs repairs as it is not up to Code and that both neighbors
on either side are thrilled the deck is being repaired.
Rahn observed this application is an example of the on-going discussion about decks as hardcover or
not. He recommended this should be a matter for further discussion with the Planning
Commissioners and staff to finally determine whether or how decks should be considered in the
hardcover calculations.
Kempf noted he viewed the property, realizing that crushed rock is going to be replaced with concrete
for the deck. He concluded that the deck is hardcover when compared to greenspace that is visually
more attractive.
Chair Mabusth commented that one might argue that a properly spaced deck is even better; but that
the City takes the position that a deck is 100%hardcover.
Page 31 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
- 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #04-2999 GEORGE AND MARILYN MILEUSNIC, 3243 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCE
—Continued)
Kempf mentioned that the site is a steep lot and the landscaping and sidewalk widths were very
appropriate to minimize run-off toward the lakeshore and the hardcover percentage seems
appropriate.
Chair Mabusth inquired if there were additional comments. There were none.
Chair Mabusth moved, to recommend approval of Application #04-2999, George and Marilyn
Mileusnic, 3243 Casco Circle, granting a hardcover variance of 31.05% where 25% is normally
allowed and 31.05% currently exists to rebuild their 483 s.f. rotted deck and to add a screened
porch beneath the new deck with the stipulation that the applicants remove all plastic and
fabric liners in landscape beds, understanding there will be a very slight encroachment of the
average lakeshore setback as measured from the principal structures.
Curtis advised that it was very difficult to measure the amount of encroachment into the average
lakeshore setback, as it was virtually undetectable from the neighboring properties.
Mr. Mileusnic pointed out the neighbors had signed the Adjacent Property Owners Acknowledge
Form.
Chair Mabusth indicated the information was in the Planning Commission agenda packet.
Kempf asked for clarification if the motion included the stipulation for removal of landscape fabric
and plastic liners.
Chair Mabusth responded she had moved the motion according to staff recommendation that included
the landscape fabric and plastic liners removal stipulation. She asked when the applicants are asked
to remove this material.
Staff replied the applicants are asked to remove it at the footing inspection.
Rahn seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
7. #04-3001 STEVEN AND MARCIA TIFFANY, 1325 REST POINT LANE,VARIANCE,
PUBLIC HEARING (9:25-9:35 p.m.)
Steven and Marcia Tiffany, applicants, were present.
Curtis presented the applicants' request for variances for lot area, lot width and side street setback
from an alley right-of-way in order to build a new, geodesic dome, single family residence. She
referred to her revised report that she distributed to correct errors in the Planning Commission agenda
packet reports.
Curtis reported the subject property is .35 acre in area where 1.0 acre is required, 75' in width where
100' is required and setback is 29' where 35' is required. The applicants are also requesting a 6'
variance from the required 35' required side street setback, due to a platted right-of-way along the
Page 32 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #04-3001 STEVEN AND MARCIA TIFFANY, 1325 REST POINT LANE, VARIANCE—
Continued)
southwest property line, which serves as a private driveway for the property owner to the northwest.
Curtis illustrated the alley location noting that the alley is paved and a wooden retaining wall blocks
the alley from through traffic from North Shore Drive.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances, finding there is a hardship to justify granting a
street setback variance. Hardcover and structural coverage area are considerably under the allowed
limits, and the fact that the lot was assessed for sewer makes the lot width and lot area variances a
formality in this situation, and the lot size is similar to that of many other developed lots in the
neighborhood.
Chair Mabusth invited comments from the applicants.
Mr. Tiffany stated that most of the hardcover location is in the 250'-500' hardcover zone location,
and at 14.9% are not even close to the hardcover limits for the 75'-250' range.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none.
Rahn questioned the applicants if they had 10' side setbacks on both sides would they still have
crowded that side or would they have placed the building differently. Rahn indicated he walked the
site and wondered if a more centrally located building site would help with surface water run-off. He
suggested consideration of not limiting the SW side setback to 29' allowing more encroachment to
improve drainage.
Mr. Tiffany stated they would welcome the option to locate the home more centrally on the lot and
the neighbors on the side opposite the alley would probably like having the building moved more
towards the middle.
Rahn commented that the side yard setback is really adjacent to an alley but it is really a driveway
used by only one property owner. He suggested situating the building within a 10' and 10' side yard
setback.
Chair Mabusth explained that on her site visit she wondered if the alley could be used by the subject
property.
Mr. Tiffany responded that initially they, too, wondered about its use but after observing a vehicle
maneuvering on the steep alley, they were not interested in using it.
Rahn asked Gaffron for his opinion on what recommendation to make to allow the building location
flexibility.
Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission determine a specific dimension to recommend for
approval.
Rahn moved, Bremer seconded, to approve Application #04-3001, Steven and Marcia Tiffany,
1325 Rest Point Lane, granting variances for lot area, lot width, and side street setback from an
Page 33 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
- 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #04-3001 STEVEN AND MARCIA TIFFANY, 1325 REST POINT LANE, VARIANCE—
Continued)
alley right-of-way in order to build a new single family residence on a lot 15,425 s.f. (0.35 acre)
in area where 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) is required, 75' in width where 100' is required and side yard
setback of 20' from the alley where 35' is required, stipulating that there will no other changes
to the residence footprint (with a 36'diameter) when allowed to more flexibly locate the
building between the side yard setbacks.
In discussion, Chair Mabusth asked if a limitation on the footprint is needed, asking the applicant if
they understood there could be not change in the residence footprint, even while allowing it to be
more centrally located.
Mr. Tiffany indicated there would be no changes to the footprint.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCE,
PUBLIC HEARING (9:35-10:15 p.m.)
Gundlach explained the application is for a variance to allow an existing non-confirming 2-level
accessory structure, known as a boathouse and located at 10' from the 929.4 elevation, to remain on
the lot in conjunction with a rebuild of the principal structure. Structures within the 0-75' zone are
not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance nor does the boathouse, acting as structure and hardcover
within the 0-75' zone,meet requirements set forth in the Zoning Code.
In the City's view, Gundlach advised the lot is being rebuilt and is therefore subject to all standards
within the Zoning Ordinance. This requires removal of the non-conforming boathouse that
contributes to excess structure and hardcover with the 0-75' zone. Applicants are proposing to meet
all other standards of the Zoning Code, including structural coverage and hardcover. She explained
the applicants have contributed the hardcover associated with the boathouse to the 75'-250' zone and
meets the 25%hardcover for that zone.
Gundlach stated that during rebuilds staff has consistently recommended these structures be removed,
as it is the only opportunity to eliminate a non-conformity. She recommended the Planning
Commission discuss the hardships presented by the applicant consisting of topography and damage to
the sewer line.
Gundlach referred the Planning Commission to her written staff report in which she addressed the
applicant's hardship claims. She summarized that she did not find that the applicants have any valid
hardships and recommended denial of the requested variance to allow the boathouse to remain.
Further, Gundlach suggested the Planning Commission should indicate if the easement along the
shore should be pursued at this time of ownership transition and in conjunction with a building permit
to construct a new home. She confirmed the Public Works department does need to get down to the
manhole and sewer line that runs along the shore past the boathouse.
Page 34 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE—
Continued)
Chair Mabusth asked for information about the types of public works equipment that are necessary
to service the manhole and sewer line.
Gundlach reported that she spoke with the Public Works Department and was advised there are only
two places where a truck can be brought to clean the sewer line, one of which is on this lot. She
pointed out a defined access pathway from the top of the slope to the bottom of the slope has existed
for many years. The other location on North Arm requires a tow-truck to remove the truck after it is
filled.
Mr. Tim Guilfoil, 740 North Arm Dr, reminded the Planning Commission that they are substantially
reducing the hardcover on this property. He disagreed with the idea that the boathouse, which is 65%
concrete, could be removed without heavy equipment that may not be able to travel to its location.
Mr. Guilfoil stated they will need to get equipment down to the boathouse and cannot work from
above due to its steep slope, requiring them to work on the sewer line that is 6' deep. The boathouse
precedes the sewer line by at least 10 years so it seems heavy-handed to force the applicant to remove
the boathouse and hold them liable for any subsequent sewer line damages that may occur.
Mr. Guilfoil stated the above-mentioned factors are viable hardships. He advised the neighbors are
not opposed to this and that the boathouse is charming, does not block anybody's long view of the
lake and they intend to do some improvement to it.
If the boathouse is allowed to remain, Chair Mabusth asked what improvements are planned for it,
commenting that it is not a very attractive structure now.
Mr. Guilfoil explained the boathouse exterior would match the principal structure. He stated it is a
long way down to the lake if you take the long path or if you take the steps.
Chair Mabusth pointed out the steps are in need of repair.
Mr. Guilfoil indicated they would fix the steps, as they are a safety hazard now.
Chair Mabusth asked Mr. Guilfoil for his opinion about staff's recommendation that a structure could
be built at the top of the 75' setback.
Gundlach clarified a new structure would have to be placed behind the house to meet the average
lakeshore setback requirement.
Mr. Guilfoil remarked that a structure there would not really solve anything. If it could be placed at
the top of the slope but then it would be in the 75' zone.
Chair Mabusth explained that allowing the non-conforming boathouse to remain is against the
Planning Commission precedence with previous applications where new construction occurred and
non-conforming structures were required to be removed. She indicated she appreciated the
applicant's concerns about the underlying sewer line but expects the City would work somehow with
the applicant and review how it would be done.
Page 35 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE—
Continued)
Mr. Guilfoil responded that they cannot reach the structure with equipment without driving over the
buried sewer line and that it is not very economically viable to sit on a piece of property until winter,
unless the City would permit construction on the residence before removal of the boathouse in winter.
Chair Mabusth believed that Mr. Guilfoil's suggestion might be possible.
Mr. Guilfoil stressed they do not want to take on responsibility for potential sewer line damage.
Chair Mabusth pointed out that any damage to the sewer line would be the applicant's responsibility.
Rahn suggested the boathouse removal could be a condition of the Certificate of Occupancy. Mr.
Guilfoil stated he had no objection to this suggestion.
Berg asked if an access easement along the shore should be pursued at this time.
Chair Mabusth indicated the issue would be discussed, too.
Bruce Hagberg, representing Florence and Einer Hagberg who resided on this property for 54 years,
spoke in favor of allowing the boathouse to remain and to be improved along with the site. He stated
the boathouse is and always has been a legitimate structure built with the City's guidance and
comment.
Mr. Hagberg requested a courtesy to allow him to review the significant volunteer involvements of
his parents in the City of Orono. He cited three illustrations of their commitments to Orono:
a. The Hagbergs organized neighbors to donate fill for the approaches to three
bridges.
b. The Hagbergs surveyed a potential roadway connecting North Arm Drive
immediately west of Hwy 151 and Co.Rd.19 that became West Branch and
organized neighbors to sign the petition, which was presented to Orono.
c. The Hagbergs aided the installation of the mandated Orono sewer system by
allowing their legal road to the lake to be used to run the sewer line down to the
lakefront. This road was faithfully maintained by the Hagberg's for over 54 years,
and by allowing Orono to construct the sewer line under the existing boathouse
instead of having to go around it.
Mr. Hagberg stated the applicant is now bringing the property up to the new statutes and is simply
asking for the boathouse to be allowed to remain on site. Mr. Hagberg informed the Planning
Commission that he designed and built the boathouse with a floating,monolithic concrete slab with
reinforced steel and it has survived over time and even through an 11-inch rain. He indicated it
would not be easy to remove it. It also supports the hillside from erosion problems and also protects
the sewer line. Mr. Hagberg advised that removal of the boathouse might be opening a Pandora 's
Box of problems.
Finally, in honor of all the volunteer work done by Florence and Einer Hagberg for the City of
Orono, Mr. Hagberg asked that the boathouse be grandfathered in and allowed to stand in honor of
Page 36 of 49
- MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE—
Continued)
the volunteer work of his parents for Orono. He cited the example of the decision to allow the
Noerenberg boathouse to remain, and as other boathouses have been allowed to remain, he asked for
a decision to allow the Hagberg boathouse to remain, also.
Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. There were none.
Chair Mabusth asked if the applicant had further comments.
Mr. Guilfoil declined to add any further comments.
Chair Mabusth asked for Planning Commission discussion on the matter of the boathouse removal.
Kempf commented that from standing on the lot and looking across the bay and from a boater's
viewpoint, is the best argument for removing boathouses at the water's edge. There is a string of one
after another at the lakeshore. He addressed Mr. Hagberg by saying, with all due respect, the
boathouse and its condition on this property are not worthy as a monument for Hagberg's parents'
contributions to the community, acknowledging that the Noerenberg boathouse has unique
architectural and design elements and he is pleased it is there. Kempf pointed out the boathouse is
actually two parts, one as a block building that is fairly unobtrusive and the second, which is a
protruding feature on top of it that is obvious from the water. Further, he speculated the future
residents will probably use golf carts to travel between the house and the shoreline. Finally, he stated
his support for not permitting boathouses within the 75'zone and indicated he will vote to have the
boathouse removed. Kempf expressed his opinion that the boathouse is not a visual addition and it
will be a small impact to the owners because they will be able to deal with it in another way.
Leslie expressed his appreciation for Mr. Hagberg's comments regarding the contributions made by
Hagberg's parents. As a volunteer body, Leslie stated the Planning Commission understands the
importance of citizen activism and providing contributions on a volunteer basis. At the same time,
given the precedence set by requiring other properties to remove non-conforming structures, Leslie
indicated he would support requiring the removal of the boathouse, not to ignore the Hagbergs'
contributions but from an entirely different context.
Rahn agreed with staff recommendation to require removal of the boathouse, and concurred with the
comments of Kempf and Leslie.
Jurgens concurred with the prior comments, as well, commenting that it is important to adhere to the
City rules and be consistent. He stated he appreciated all the work Hagberg's parents did in the
community and hoped he can make as big of contribution as they did.
Bremer added her concern that removal of the boathouse may create more problems on the hillside.
She observed that by allowing the applicants to wait until winter to remove it will provide enough
time to investigate issues involved with the removal, such as the retaining wall, and find solutions. A
prominent issue for Bremer is access easement for the manholes.
Page 37 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCE—
Continued)
Chair Mabusth and Bremer agreed the Planning Commission can not determine easements but
acknowledged it would be good to have an easement as sewers need to be maintained and access is
needed to the manholes. Chair Mabusth stated she was uncomfortable with making an access
easement a condition of application approval.
Mr. Guilfoil responded the slope is a challenge and without the boathouse, the slope will be even
more of a challenge and suggested some discussion can be initiated that would help the City get to
the manhole and help the property owner keep the dirt out of the lake and maybe a compromise is
there somewhere. With the boathouse, he expressed concern for that end of the lot.
Chair Mabusth advised Mr. Guilfoil of other instances where the City has worked with property
owners with steep topographies.
Berg urged that there be engineering involved in determining if it is more detrimental to remove than
to keep it there.
Noting there is already erosion problems, Rahn agreed that engineering is needed and speculated that
some type of retaining structure may be needed on the steep slope.
Mr. Guilfoil expressed frustration with Orono's position on decks/hardcover calculations, and not
wanting to be penalized by having to remove the boathouse, leading to putting up some retaining wall
to manage the slope, which is then a problem because the boathouse is removed and that it will be
counted into the hardcover calculation.
A public member interjected that there are any number of boathouses that continue to exist and it is
just not true that non-conforming boathouses are not allowed to remain. Also, he stated it is
unconscionable to require the property owners to remove the boathouse and to force them to drive
equipment over the buried sewer line that could be damaged despite their best efforts and hold them
responsible for the damage.
Chair Mabusth asked staff if these issues can be separated and to get engineering advice on the
feasibility of the boathouse removal and impacts on the sewer line.
Gundlach advised that in the past, for example on Casco Circle with a lakeside deck, the City
Engineer was unwilling to make feasibility type recommendations but recommended the applicants
hire an engineer and provide the engineering comments to the City Engineer for review. Her advice
is to hire an engineer to provide comments to the City with the Planning Commission tabling the
matter until May, 2004 or the Planning Commission could go forward with their recommendations
with engineering comments being brought to the City Council meeting for their consideration.
Leslie inquired if there is any precedence for the City assuming responsibility for damage to the
public sewer system in the process of a building removal.
Chair Mabusth responded that staff presented the City's position that the City holds the
person/applicant responsible for sewer line damage.
Page 38 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCE —
Continued)
Gundlach confirmed that was the answer she got from her inquiry with the Public Works Department.
Gaffron agreed with Gundlach's report that the City Engineer will only review another engineer's
report on the risks. He indicated that it is probably not usual for the City to accept responsibility for
damage done by someone else to City property, this might be a unique case and one that ought to be
brought to the City Council for resolution. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission limit
their recommendation to whether or not the boathouse should be removed with some caveats that the
City Council, the City Engineer and others may need to look at what the ramifications and impacts
are of having the boathouse removed, or the Planning Commission could table the matter and await
the engineering information before making a decision on the application.
Chair Mabusth requested the applicant to express his opinion on whether to have the Planning
Commission make a decision with or without the engineering risk assessment report.
Mr. Guilfoil responded that he was not in favor of tabling the matter and would like to keep the
process moving forward. In the meantime he would like to initiate a dialogue with staff and would
like to have input into the final City Council decision.
Rahn mentioned that it is an industry standard for demolition contractors to be insured for
damage/repair issues and provide a bond to the City prior to commencing work.
Mr. Guilfoil noted that two contractors have already passed on providing a quote for the work.
Chair Mabusth asked for information about the condition of the wall that is into the slope.
Mr. Guilfoil explained it was not a freestanding wall but part of the boathouse structure.
Gaffron clarified the Chair's question by asking if the back concrete wall of the boathouse is viable to
support the slope.
Gundlach referred to a photograph that shows how the boathouse sits in relation to the slope bottom.
In her view, a small retaining wall may be necessary after the removal of the boathouse, and staff can
work with the applicant.
Rahn believed there was about four(4') of foundation sticking up beyond the grade.
Mr. Guilfoil asked for a procedural clarification regarding whether staff is empowered to work this
out with them or go to the City Council. Berg indicated the matter will always proceed to the City
Council. Mr. Guilfoil suggested the Planning Commission move forward with the motion on the
boathouse and then he will work with staff to come up with a proposal that could be recommended to
the City Council.
Chair Mabusth asked for any further public comments. There were none.
Page 39 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(8. #04-3002 G & L LAND INVESTMENT, LLC, 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCE—
Continued)
Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend denial of Application #04-3002 G&L
Land Investment, LLC, 740 North Arm Drive, to allow the existing non-conforming accessory
structure, known as a boathouse, to remain on the lot in conjunction with a rebuild of the
principal structure, to support acquiring an easement along the shore from the property
owners as being beneficial, and to have staff work with the applicant in the removal of the
boathouse to insure that the increased potential for environmental damage is assessed and
responded to in a manner consistent with precedence for other severe slope sites.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
The applicant thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration and time spent on the
application.
9. #04-3003 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE W. STICKNEY, 3250 FOX
STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, PUBLIC HEARING (10:15-10:50 p.m.)
George Stickney, the applicant, was present.
Gundlach explained the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to create three (3) lots on
one block at 3250 Fox Street to be known as Maxwell Bay Estates. The lot is currently about fourteen
(14) acres and contains one house with approximately 650' of shoreline. She reported the site was
given preliminary approval by the Planning Commission on November 17, 2003 for 6 lots with a
private roadway. This application was withdrawn due to the neighborhood resistance, however, prior
to its withdrawal, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet review was petitioned and the City
Council determined there were no potentials for significant environmental effects per the resolution
included as Exhibit J of the Planning Commission agenda packet.
Subsequently, the applicants submitted an application for three lots all to be served by a private
driveway and all exceeding two (2) acres, meeting the LR-1A lot area requirement. The lots have
lake access and meet the lot width and at the lake and at the 75' setback line. Gundlach advised the
City Engineer has not yet reviewed the proposed drainage plan specifics although he has approved
the general concept. The City Engineer and staff believe that any of his comments will not change
any lot layouts or their overall functionality.
Gundlach illustrated the proposed two dry pond areas with a small berm and drain tile on both
interior lot lines. She stated the drainage plan achieves the rate control requirement for the new lots,
with the runoff rate control to be the same post-development as pre-development and easements will
be taken over the dry pond areas. The City Engineer comments will be provided prior to City
Council review.
Gundlach summarized the major Issues for Consideration is:
1. Should the applicants be required to use the septic site located on the street side of the
proposed house pads rather than the sites on the lakeside even though they meet state
standards?
Page 40 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. #04-3003 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE W. STICKNEY, 3250 FOX
STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION—Continued)
2. Should proposed lot 3 be required to use the existing driveway that exists outside the private
gates of Fox Street?
3. Should a temporary easement, during the interim period, be permitted for the current mound
overlapping onto proposed lot 1?
Chair Mabusth invited the applicants to comment on the application.
George Stickney, 2590 Countryside Drive, representing Bruce and Kris Paddock, 3250 Fox Street,
expressed their excitement as well as the neighborhoods with the current enhanced application. He
explained they would route driveways through the wooded areas to avoid tree removal in keeping
with the estate-like setting. Mr. Stickney illustrated the septic sites closest to the lake, noting they
were approved on the former 6-lot subdivision application. He stated the applicants do not want
restrictions placed on choice of septic sites as all sites shown meet both City and State requirements.
Mr. Stickney mentioned the existing mound septic system is in good condition and the existing house
will continue to be lived in until a new house on Lot 2 is constructed over the next year or so.
He stated agreements are in place to make sure the transfer of ownership goes smoothly.
Chair Mabusth inquired if the applicants were aware of fees that will be collected. Mr. Stickney
acknowledged they were aware of it.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments at this time.
David Maass, 3175 Fox Street, asked if a house could be sited anywhere on Lot 3 as long as it is
within the 75' setback.
Gundlach clarified a structure must be behind the average lakeshore setback and meet the 30' side
yard setback.
Mr. Maass illustrated the surface water runoff patterns occurring on site and wondered if the drainage
plans adequately address this issue.
Mark Gronberg explained the proposed drainage plan would redirect flow with the construction of a
swale and driveway, thereby reducing the acreage draining on the Maass' property from 4.76 acres to
3.28 acres. Also, there will be drainage that went to the west and are diverting to the other dry pond.
Gaffron recommended the drainage plan should become a covenant to be attached to the property
title.
Maass stated he would like to have his engineer review the proposed drainage plans before the City
Council final approval action.
Gundlach confirmed the scheduled date for approval of this application is the May 10, 2004 City
Council meeting.
Page 41 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. #04-3003 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE W. STICKNEY, 3250 FOX
STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION—Continued)
Chair Mabusth directed attention to the several Issues for Consideration.
Gundlach explained the issue of requiring septic sites on the street side of the proposed house pads
came about through the EAW process.
Leslie asked the applicant to clarify their concern over using the street side septic systems, as they
had been identified for use on the six (6)-lot proposal.
Mr. Stickney responded numerous great septic sites are on the property but they do not want to be
limited to a choice of sites when all septic sites identified meet septic guidelines.
Leslie further asked if the applicants had any specific concerns with the septic fields identified on the
street side.
Mr. Stickney replied there were none.
Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if the septic sites near the street are appropriate for conventional
systems.
Mr. Stickney stated there were two on Lot 2.
Gaffron interjected that the recommendation of Matt Bolterman, Orono's On-Site Systems Manager,
to use septic sites furthest from Lake Minnetonka should be used as a guideline and not as a condition
because all proposed septic sites do meet state standards.
Replying to a question from Mrs. Maass, Gronberg stated that no retaining walls are envisioned on
Lot 3. He explained that the majority of surface water run-off on Lot 3 will be going towards the
Maass property but because of the proposed diversion, the overall amount is less.
Chair Mabusth directed attention to the issue of the use of the existing driveway on Lot 3.
It was a consensus this issue had already been discussed.
Kempf interjected that he would like to talk about the topic of driveways, and at his site visit,
observed long driveways, over 800', through the pristine wooded properties. He recommended using
only one curb cut on Fox Street and one driveway running in for 400' along the lot line, then splitting
at a point further in. It would reduce the amount of pavement/hardcover and disturbance to the area
is less, only one curb cut on Fox Street; it would require the owners to cooperate on driveway
maintenance.
Berg responded that such a driveway design creates a bigger issue for neighbor cooperation,
including association issues, and it still has a long driveway. She believed a driveway weaving
around the property is workable on a small plan such as this, and there are also police and fire
response issues, too.
Page 42 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
9. #04-3003 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE W. STICKNEY, 3250 FOX
STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION—Continued)
Kempf replied that lake areas often have shared driveways.
Rahn concurred with Berg that such designs become an Outlot and can actually create more
hardcover.
Kempf confirmed he would expect the existing driveway that goes down the edge of Lot 3 would
remain. There are two driveways running next to each other on Lots 1 and 2 and these he suggested
could be revised.
Bremer advised that the new property owners could provide easements to each other to accomplish it.
Berg stressed that an Outlot would have to be created with an association for maintenance.
Gaffron indicated there were other examples in Orono where two property owners provide easements
to each other for driveways without the need for an Outlot but the threshold for Outlots and
associations is at three lots.
Leslie asked Stickney if he had any objection to the City restricting Lot 3 to using the existing
driveway.
Stickney stated they had no objection to that requirement.
Kempf asked Gaffron if staff objected to combining driveways in this setting.
Gaffron responded that in cases in the past when there were good topographic reasons, shared
segments of driveways have been approved. He stated he thought it would be up to the developer as
there is nothing compelling from the Code standpoint to require a shared driveway.
Kempf clarified if the applicant proposes a shared driveway, it could be approved.
Gaffron repeated that Code allows for two lots to share a driveway.
Bremer moved, Chair Mabusth seconded, to approve Application #04-3003, Bruce and Kris
Paddock and George W. Stickney, at 3250 Fox Street, recommending Preliminary Plat
approval to create three (3) lots on one block at 3250 Fox Street to be known as Maxwell Bay
Estates with the following stipulations:
1. Only two new driveways are proposed on the private section of Fox Street and proposed
lot 3 must use the existing driveway that exists outside the Fox Street gates.
2. Proposed lots 1 and 2 should utilize the septic sites on the street side of the proposed
house pads rather than the lakeside sites.
3. The average lakeshore setback line shown on the preliminary plat shall be the line used
to determine the average lakeshore setback for all 3 lots, not an average setback that is
determined by when which lots construct houses.
Page 43 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. #04-3003 BRUCE AND KRIS PADDOCK AND GEORGE W. STICKNEY, 3250 FOX
STREET, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION—Continued)
4. If the existing mound is proposed to stay during the interim period, a temporary
easement, expiring at the time of site grading for proposed lot 1, may be permitted but
only by approval of the City.
5. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer.
6. Implementation of the recommendations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
7. Submission and approval of the final plat.
8. Payment of standard fees and dedication of required easements.
9. Review by the Park Commission prior to City Council review.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
10. CITY OF ORONO, CITY CODE SECTIONS 78-1466 AND 78-1468 REVISIONS TO THE
SIGN ORDINANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (10:55-11:00 p.m.)
Curtis presented the application for revisions to the Zoning Code, City Code Sections 78-1466 and
78-1468 to revise definitions for pylon and monument signs, as well as amendments for signs
allowed within the Business and Industrial District. She explained as the Highway 12 corridor is
developing more rapidly than the planned update of the current sign ordinance, the proposed
amendment is an interim solution, or tool, for the City to use when faced with the inevitable
upcoming monument sign proposals.
She reported that at the last Planning Commission work session the Planning Commission discussed
amending the Sign regulations (78-1466). Out of that work session it was determined that the code
sections regarding sign regulations do not address the monument signs which are becoming
increasingly proposed by developers, businesses and sign contractors. Curtis advised she
incorporated the Planning Commission's comments from the last work session into the amendment
language. This proposed amendment will allow the City to provide developers with the City's
standards for monument type signs and provide for a smoother permit approval process.
Curtis recommended the Planning Commission review the attached Zoning Code Revision, make any
necessary changes, and recommend approval in order for staff to bring it forward to the City Council
at their April 26, 2004 meeting.
Chair Mabusth asked if a definition for the three various sign parts be developed for clarity.
Gaffron suggested that a diagram or picture with labeling could be added to the amendment language.
Chair Mabusth accepted that suggestion.
Curtis asked if the Planning Commission wished to see the diagram or picture prior to taking the
amendment to the City Council.
By consensus, the Planning Commission indicated it did not need to see it prior to staff forwarding
the amendment language with the diagram or picture to the City Council.
Page 44 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(10. CITY OF ORONO, CITY CODE SECTIONS 78-1466 AND 78-1468 REVISIONS TO
THE SIGN ORDINANCE —Continued)
Chair Mabusth corrected the proposed amendment language to reflect accurate section numbers, from
(9) and (10) to (10) and(11).
Berg moved, Bremer seconded, to approve Application #04-3005,Zoning Code Revision, City
Code Sections 78-1466 and 78-1468, adding definitions for pylon and monument signs and
amending language for signs allowed within the Business and Industrial District, including a
diagram or photo of sign parts, as follows:
Section 1: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1466 is hereby revised as follows:
(9) Pylon Sign. A sign supported by a post or posts so that the sign and supports are
finished to grade by encasing the posts in a material consistent with the sign and
where the base width dimension is a minimum of 10% up to and including 50%
of the greatest width of the sign.
(10) Monument Signs. One monument sign, limited to two (2) faces is allowed per
frontage per property, with a maximum of two (2). The areas of sign base, the
supporting background structure, and the sign copy shall be combined for
determining the total square footage and the height of the monument sign.
a. The total allowable square footage shall not exceed 100 square feet per side.
The base and supporting material shall constitute at least 25 percent of the
total square footage.
b. The base width dimension is 50% or more of the greatest width of the sign.
c. The sign copy area shall have a minimum clearance of 20 inches above
ground level.
d. The sign copy area shall be completely enclosed within the monument
materials.
e. No portion of the sign or sign structure shall exceed 10 feet above ground
level.
f. The monument sign base shall be constructed of materials similar in
appearance to those of the principal structure and shall consist of brick.,
natural stone, stucco, textured cast stone, or integrally colored concrete
masonry units. The structure surrounding the face of the sign from the base
to the top of the sign must be solid, continuous, and consist of the base
materials or complementary materials that match the appearance and color
of the principal building.
g. The 200 square feet of ground area around the base of the monument sign
shall be landscaped with shrubs or perennials.
Section 2: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1468 is hereby revised as follows:
Page 45 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(10. CITY OF ORONO, CITY CODE SECTIONS 78-1466 AND 78-1468 REVISIONS TO
THE SIGN ORDINANCE—Continued)
Sec. 78-1468. Signs in B and I districts.
Within the B and I districts, ,wall and monument signs
signs are permitted subject to the following regulations:
Section 3: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER
newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication.
VOTE: AYES 7, Nays 0.
Jurgens asked if there are luminance standards in the Sign Codes.
Curtis advised that there are such standards in the Sign Code currently.
11. #04-3004 BERNHAGEN DEVELOPMENT, 1535 BOHNS POINT ROAD, SKETCH
PLAN
Staff advised that the Sketch Plan was withdrawn from the agenda.
Chair Mabusth asked staff to contact the property owners to handle the three dogs on the site if they
want Planning Commissioners to view the site.
Leslie asked if the site required a land use notification sign.
Gaffron replied none was needed.
Gundlach advised she will contact the applicant and determine the status of the application.
12. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2004 AND APRIL 12, 2004
Chair Mabusth reported she attended the March 22, 2004 City Council at which meeting Mr. Ode
was denied a liquor license and Reliance Development/Stonebay Marketplace received Council
approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. She advised that Marc Fritzler attended the
following Council meeting and as he is not present this evening, a report is now unlikely.
Jurgens informed the Planning Commission that he had attended the April 12, 2004 meeting in place
of Mr. Fritzler and reported that the Reliance Development/Stonebay Marketplace application was
reviewed by the Council, as well as the moratorium discussion.
Gaffron reported that on the April 8, 2004 City Council work session there was concern expressed
about the kind of town home developments being built in Orono, such as construction quality and
density issues. There was a consensus to look at the standards in the RPUD for multi-family,
attached developments. He advised that Council has placed a moratorium on all development of
properties for densities of 2 units per acre or greater. Later it was realized that this would include
Page 46 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(12. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2004 AND APRIL 12, 2004—Continued)
most of the %2 acre zone so there will probably be an amendment to the moratorium to revise it to
exclude any development in the %2 acre zone. Gaffron advised it is the intent to spend a few months
establishing some standards, reviewing current City standards and putting new standards in place if
deemed necessary.
Chair Mabusth asked if the Planning Commission would be involved with this effort.
Gaffron indicated that it will be an agenda item at the Planning Commission work session.
Berg asked how the moratorium will affect development on Old Crystal Bay Road.
Gaffron reported the City Council specifically addressed the issue of accepting applications during
the moratorium. It was concluded that no Preliminary Plat approvals or subdivisions will be granted
during the moratorium but the City may take Sketch Plan applications. The Sketch Plan application
for the site of Old Crystal Bay Road site with 4 units per dry buildable area is set for the May 17,
2004 Planning Commission meeting based on contact with the applicant on April 19, 2004.
Berg asked for background on what brought on the moratorium discussion.
Gaffron replied that there had been recent observations about the look and density of recent
construction projects and this led to more discussions of the need to step back and envision the results
of the other areas guided to higher densities.
Berg stated discussions about density occurred in the past discussions for guiding higher densities.
Rahn asked how many potential properties are covered in the moratorium.
Gaffron indicated that about 10—12 properties are guided for the higher densities.
Chair Mabusth questioned if there any of the discussions related to Stonebay and what was approved.
Berg commented that Stonebay is being developed in phases.
Gaffron explained that of the two phases that include the type of units under construction now, the
City has approved one and the other is not final plat approved, and the lofts also will return to the
Planning Commission for final plat approval.
Berg remarked there is an opportunity for Planning Commission input.
Jurgens advised that there is an example in Woodbury of affordable housing with a large wetland that
may be a model for Orono to examine, noting the land there is as valuable as Orono's but there is just
a lot more available.
Page 47 of 49
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(12. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETING MARCH 22, 2004 AND APRIL 12, 2004—Continued)
Berg asked Gaffron for his reaction to the Stonebay Marketplace/Reliance Development's decision.
Gaffron indicated the Planning Commission was clear on its parameters, and MnDOT's decision on
Outlot B improvements will be important to the site decision.
Berg expressed that her concerns for traffic circulation at the entrance of the Valerius application for
the coffee house in Navarre is the same as her concern for the entrance/exit on Willow Drive in the
Stonebay Marketplace development plan. She expressed reservations about the entrance/exit traffic
going into the Walgreens drive-through.
Rahn stated his concern for the Valerius application was that the drive-through exit was twelve (12')
from the paved road or less than one car length.
Berg stated she thought it was a similar issue with the entrance/exit on Willow Drive.
13. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
There were no other issues for discussion.
14. APPROVAL OF MARCH 15, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Rahn asked for three amendments to the Planning Commission Minutes of March 15, 2004:
Page 9, item#4, line 2, paragraph 7, the word"including"was changed to "excluding.'
Page 21, item#9, paragraph 3, the word"and"was inserted between "renovation" and"clearly."
Page 21, item#9, paragraph 3, the word "not"was stricken as follows, "...clearly a re-build."
Berg moved, Bremer seconded, to approve the Minutes of the March 15, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0,Abstain 3.
15. SELECTION OF REPRSENTATIYES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON APRIL 26
AND MAY 10, 2004
April 26, 2004 - Jim Leslie May 10, 2004 - Ralph Kempf
Gaffron announced the next Planning Commission workshop is set for Wednesday, May 5, 2004 at
5:30 p.m.
Page 48 of 49
' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Berg moved, Bremer seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:15 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
' I 44, 61)9 ,Gti'
eanne Mabusth, Chair
Page 49 of 49