HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE 51 /7- 2 004
0 COUNCIL
gPLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
0 PARK COMMISSION
0 OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. frilltkAr 511esk4 (c)7S-C)i(k Lto(i Lt4kf 1U Cl ti - Zni
2. prii)r.t,a---rykz..,\%Ag, )_5-1 :c- clit f;e2-.. ,2,4 o( - 2 =41
,,..
3. 'i -•-• /A-0--- (Y.--- 114,4-C d 6 c-;1: '.--Ve , tii- ;(- (
A,L& )- N ,,{0. --i'-'6\-c_DA- C,( 1 . .-.,(-•
4. 2_4-S4 -v ,
...., ' ---)
5. CI:otcp( / o il I( 5 -6) 04" C. 4/ /5 ,,,, C 50 Oit.:30/ 3
/i , 1,-(
7. Jr) ii e- (L) fA:,_ )a. kACI; '-') I C-0 Kkivl i4),:2:-.c A GI)cul cq .-?'6.'I y
,
- I
8. Cs- Illit ail/1/‘ -t'f f 1X' 17 r[-11/1X- (c.-v e t,.) 1/1kX 46'1 3 ee e
9. 7"-(D og-&--T Li/A/0 ..(p '.? e6---. fr- . 7_tif-R-A-,6.--- -1- Pk , a Yiref)
Ai,./ 5
•L /4 i, , /1-:/-7 3,..t*9 :, ,' ,/,,j
10.
11.7firesk, 40($)44i%44 ged4A4e /2.&P )311COld440-07N Pr-
12 ..... /6'7i) S ial,4 11 ejS Dir/1/1/4-12, X //17/1)7
i / 1
13. 1.72,17--- "-- /
14. -77-e":17-f'„)-1! Lid%V 61 Virl-Si/l/Hi 0 7/ 2-
15. c__(--‘ Us, 4-
W:\Adrninistrtivc SupporA(Forms)TublIc Attendance wpd
PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE
El COUNCIL
❑ PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ PARK COMMISSION
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. 5141 Y c � t� ,OV‘Ai-
/ S. d��� � Y�r✓
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
W:Wdministrative Support\(Forms)\Pubtic Attendance.wpd
MINUTES OF THE
` ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 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, Jim Leslie, David Rahn,Ralph Kempf,Roland Jurgens III and
J. Marc Fritzler; City Council Liaison Mayor Barbara Peterson, Representing staff were Planning Director
Mike Gaffron and Planner Melanie Curtis and Recorder.
Glenda D. Spiotta.
Chair Jeanne Mabusth called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chair Mabusth asked for public comment to withdraw any matter from the Consent Agenda. There was none.
Chair Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if there was any interest to withdraw or change the Consent
Agenda. There was none.
*1. #04-3011 THAD AND DANIELLE STEELE,4050 BAYSIDE ROAD,VARIANCES,PUBLIC
HEARING(6:04-6:05 p.m.)
Leslie moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3011,Thad and Danielle
Steele,4050 Bayside Road,granting variances in order to construct a detached 24' x 32' garage closer to
the front lot line than the principal structure and 75'from the front lot line where 100' is required.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
*2.#04-3018 KEVIN AND MICHELE KROLCZYK,65 CYGNET PLACE,VARIANCE, PUBLIC
HEARING(6:04-6:05 p.m.)
Leslie moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3018,Kevin and Michele
Krolczyk,65 Cygnet Place,granting a lot area variance in order to construct a new single-family
residence on an existing lot 1.17 acres in area where two (2) acres is the required minimum.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
*3. #04-3013 GEORGE FUNK,540 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,PUBLIC HEARING(6:04-6:05 p.m.)
George Funk, applicant,was present.
Leslie moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3013, George Funk,540
Old Crystal Bay Road South,granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow plumbing to be installed,
consisting of a bathroom with tub,shower and sink,within an existing detached garage.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
4. #01-2671 ALISTAIR AND KAREN JACQUES,645 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD,VARIANCE,
PUBLIC HEARING(6:05-6:27 p.m.)
Alistair Jacques, applicant,was present.
Gaffron introduced the application for lot area variance to permit construction of a new residence on an
existing lot which is 1.022 acres in area when 2.0 acres is normally required. Originally submitted in early
Page 1 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(4.#01-2671 ALISTAIR AND KAREN JACQUES,Continued)
2001, the application was delayed when septic sites could not be located. In 2003 City sewer became available
to the site and, subsequently,the applicant activated the application for a new home construction.
Gaffron indicated the property is not located within the Shoreland Overlay District and therefore is not subject
to hardcover restrictions.
Gaffron reported the proposed plans meet all other zoning requirements except for lot area,referring to the Lot
Analysis Worksheet included in the agenda packet. He concluded that a valid hardship exists and that the lot
is a legal lot-of-record, that a home existed there for many years prior to its demolition in 2001, and that there
are other properties along the same stretch of Old Long Lake Road which are under the 2 acre requirement so
it is in keeping with the neighborhood lot sizes. Gaffron stated staff supports the lot area variance.
Gaffron explained access to the house is from Old Long Lake Road with a proposed second access,requiring
the Public Services Director's approval. The garage is facing the side lot line with a 30'setback required,
leaving about a 25' apron upon a slope that is a potential concern,perhaps needing a retaining wall which by
code must be at least 5' from the side lot line, and there are some existing trees to contend with if moved to the
left. Gaffron advised drainage would have to be controlled in this area as the neighbor's house is near-by.
Gaffron encouraged the Planning Commission to consider shifting the house site to the west to make the
easterly side lot less of a difficult area. In addition and not part of this application,the applicant is proposing
to construct a 30' x 18' pool to be located 15' from the east and south lot lines which meets code requirements.
The pool plan includes a terrace/patio that will require retaining walls ranging from 1' to 6' in height, 5' from
the lot line. He indicated a screening or safety fence above the walls will probably be placed by the property
owners resulting in a potential visual impact equivalent to a building wall as much as 12' high, 5' from the rear
lot line,though not required by City code. Gaffron advised that the City does not have established setbacks
from the Luce Line right-of-way and the proposed pool location is only 40' from the Luce Line. He pointed
out that a greater side lot setback and less-visual impact to the neighbors would occur with a site plan that was
shifted to the west.
Chair Mabusth invited the applicant, Alistair Jacques,to comment.
Mr. Jacques advised that the house's position is not yet finalized and they are considering a number of factors,
including the neighbor's interest relative to the driveway location.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments.
Matt Sherek, 625 Old Long Lake Road, advised he is the easterly neighbor to the subject property and is not
opposed to the residential construction, and has reviewed the applicant's plans. He explained his residence
was built in 1956 and was situated to maximize nature enjoyment, open space and to ensure proper surface
water drainage to meet code. It is located on a rise in the NW corner of the 1.5-acre lot, sloping down to a low
marsh on the east. Mr. Sherek stated the applicant's plan for the garage and driveway encroaches into the 30'
side yard setback in the very corner closest to his residence rendering his home and garage almost to town
home status,not to mention serious questions about effects of water and drainage to his home and the marsh.
He concluded that the applicant's house/garage/driveway location would destroy the ambience and seclusion
of the land enjoyed by he and his family as well as lowering the re-sale value of his home and property by
situating the most highly traveled,noise-producing portion of any home,the driveway and garage, directly
upon his property line.
Page 2 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(4. #01-2671 ALISTAIR AND KAREN JACQUES,Continued)
Mr. Sherek explained he reviewed the Orono Community Management Plan and read several paragraphs into
the record that he felt captured the core values expressed throughout the entire CMP:
Section 3,Environment Protection Plan,The Natural Setting, " ...the foremost goal."
CMP,Foundation,re: Rural Densities, "...no new development encroaches upon its neighbors open
space activities."
Harza Study,Wetland Definition,re: concern that it is not a wetland, "...no development will be
permitted to adversely impact its neighbors or the City by changing drainage patterns or
otherwise adversely impacting storm water drainage."
Mr. Sherek asked the Planning Commission to view the proposed variance application in light of the
Community Management Plan and planning goals in the above-cited excerpts. In his opinion,the application
goes against those core values, would negatively alter the drainage patterns to his property and the marsh
located on his property by increasing the hardcover on the subject property as well as impacting his family's
enjoyment of natural amenities which they currently enjoy.
Mr. Sherek asked why the garage and driveway must be placed directly on the property line and within the 30'
side yard setback when there are other location alternatives. Mr. Sherek restated that he is not opposing the
variance and welcomes a residential building but has a problem with the garage and pool located on the lot
line.
Planning Commissioner Bremer arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments.
Ms. Susan Thompson, 685 Old Long Lake Road, the property just to the west of the subject property,indicated
she reviewed the applicant's plan and,as shown, it does not affect her property at all but in a broader
perspective, she felt there is so much negative effect to the neighbor to the east of the subject property,that she
would welcome the subject house/garage/driveway to be moved westerly in order to maintain neighborhood
relationship. She commented that it insinuates an impact on the neighbors to the east in such a significant
way,noting spring run-off can affect their basements and knows it would more significantly affect the easterly
neighbors. Ms. Thompson recommended the applicant move the house site to the west to relieve significant
negative impacts to the easterly neighbors.
Chair Mabusth asked for additional public comments. There were none.
Rahn asked if the applicant had any comments after hearing Mr. Sherek's and Ms. Thompson's concerns.
Rahn acknowledged the application is for a lot area variance but if it does in fact result in drainage issues,the
Planning Commission is not compelled to recommend approval of the application. He stated it would be
beneficial to all to have a site plan of exactly where the pool and house would be constructed and then to get
accurate neighbor comments.
Mr. Jacques repeated that no exact house site has been selected yet and explained they were trying to
accomplish the lot area variance first, followed by the building permit process. The house was situated as
easterly as it is shown on the variance application because when planning was started they did not know if
there was a wetland to the west. Subsequently,tests were conducted and Mr. Jacques advised that there are no
wetland impacts to the west of the proposed house site. He offered to move the house site westerly to more
centrally locate it on the lot and stated they had no objection to moving the proposed house site.
Chair Mabusth opened the discussion to Planning Commission members.
Page 3 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(4.#01-2671 ALISTAIR AND KAREN JACQUES, Continued)
Fritzler asked who did the wetland testing. Mr. Jacques replied it was done about 1 '/z years ago and did not
remember the name of the testing company,but that an accredited wetland tester did it and that he thought a
report was submitted to the planning staff.
Gaffron responded he did not recall seeing a wetland report in the city's file. Using Exhibit G.,he pointed out
an apparent drainage way mid-way between the existing house site on the property and the neighbor to the
west, and, if in fact,the area was not wetlands,then there would be no issue of wetland impact. If,however,
there is wetland up to the 968' contour,there appears to be substantial room to move the house site westerly.
Gaffron concluded he did not see a potential wetland impact and concurred it was logical to more centrally
locate the proposed house site.
Jurgens asked for clarification of the required wetland set back dimension and it was pointed out the wetland
set back is 26'. He also asked if the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources must review the application
due to the proximity to the Luce Line Trail.
Gaffron advised the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources received Orono Planning Commission
agendas and notifies city staff when they have questions or comments on any applications. He advised no
comments were received from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources on this application.
Jurgens questioned the process following granting of a lot area variance and reviewing the proposed house
location on the lot.
Gaffron explained site drainage issues are reviewed when the applicant applies for a building permit. He
suggested the Planning Commission could add a condition in recommending approval of the lot area variance
that centrally locates the house. However, Gaffron noted that if the applicant were not agreeable to that
condition, it would not be enforceable.
Mr. Jacques stated that he was willing to accept the condition of centrally locating the house and pool.
Chair Mabusth summarized that centrally located the house and pool location results in a larger setback than
the proposed location at the 5' side yard setback and 15' pool rear yard setback.
Chair Mabusth called for further public comments. There were none.
Jurgens moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#01-2671,Alistair and Karen
Jacques,645 Old Long Lake Road, granting a lot area variance to permit construction of a new
residence on an existing lot which is 1.022 acres in area when 2.0 acres is normally required,with the
condition that the proposed house/garage/pool is more centrally located on the lot than that shown on
the variance application.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Fritzler inquired about a trailer that may be on Jacques' property. Mr. Jacques indicated he was not aware of
any trailer behind his shed. Ms. Thompson responded that it was on her property.
Gaffron advised Application#01-2671 will be scheduled for the June 14,2004 City Council session.
Page 4 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, "STONEBAY MARKETPLACE,"
NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD DEVELOPMENT,
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING(6:28-6:59 p.m.)
John Trautz,Reliance Development,Vickie Van Dell, Landform Engineering and Mike Spina,Amcon
Construction,the applicant's representatives,were present.
Gaffron reported the receipt of the Waiver of Further Review of the Orono Comprehensive Plan Amendment
for the proposed Commercial PUD Development from the Metropolitan Council on May 17,2004, completing
that part of the application. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be brought to the City Council for final
action.
Gaffron advised revised plans were submitted to the City on May 7, 2004 subsequent to recommendations
made to the applicants by the Planning Commission on April 19, 2004. He outlined several facets of the
revised commercial site plans,referring to the Staff Report,dated May 13, 2004:
1. Conformity with Comprehensive Plan—Staff believes the current proposal generally meets the
parameters established in the CMP amendment for development of this site.
2. Conformity to B-6/PUD Standards
A. Allowed Uses. The proposed buildings and site layout would reasonably
accommodate many of the uses on the proposed list of allowable uses.
B. Lot Area and Width. Required area and width for B-6 are 2.0 acres and 100'. The
proposed preliminary plat creates two lots: Lot 1 = 1.98 acres / 370', and Lot 2 =
1.71 acres and 135'. Both lots are slightly undersized in area; however, the site at
3.69 acres is limited by having no additional land available. Staff recommends
approval of the lot area and widths as proposed.
C. Setbacks. Setback requirements and conformity were included in the April 15
memo, indicating that all setback requirements are met except for the west side
setback for the westerly retail building, which is proposed at 20'rather than 35'.
Staff recommends approval for this 20' setback as discussed in the April 15
memo. The setback variance allows additional green space on the east end and
also does not cause the crowding effect because there are no buildings to the west
to have visual crowding impacts.
D. Drainage. The drainage plan is in place as part of the Stonebay subdivision with
all drainage from the site going to the adjacent regional pond.
E. Building Heijht. B-6 height limit is 30'. The Walgreens building has a roof peak
height of 28'3" for the bulk of the building, and 32'6" for the entrance corner
`parapet' roof peak. The retail buildings have a basic height of 24'-8" with gable
peaks extending to 33'-4.5" high. Staff recommends acceptance of these heights as
proposed as they substantially meet expectations.
F. Landscapinji. Gaffron illustrated the building layout and referred to Exhibits
L2.1 and L7.1,the landscaping plans and details for this property. These plans
meet the general B-6 guidelines in terms of required information detail. The
applicants indicated in their revised narrative that the proposed landscaping
exceeds the requirements of the B-6 District. Gaffron stated the building layout
accomplished a number of city goals, including improved landscaping areas inside
the parking lot with a changed number of green spaces. He commented that a
Page 5 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, Continued)
critical landscaping area is behind the buildings because of the existing and under-
construction town homes across Kelley Parkway. The landscape plans were
submitted to Phil Carlson of DSU,Inc. for review and comment. His comments
are attached as Exhibit K and are summarized as follows:
2. Plans appear to meet the B-6 landscaping requirements.
3. Irrigation of all landscape areas will be required and must be shown on
final plans.
4. Performance bond(letter of credit)will be required.
5. Loading area screening at rear of buildings is adequate but could be
beefed up.
Gaffron pointed out boulevard trees as well as shrubbery,with substantial areas of low berming and
vegetation. He referred to the agenda packet materials containing cross-sectional views to give a sense of what
the neighboring properties to the north will view.
6. Ground and roof mounted mechanical equipment appears to be
adequately screened.
7. Parking area island just outside Walgreens entrance doors should be
vegetated(flowers or shrubs)rather than simply concrete.
8. Add sidewalk connection from Willow/12 intersection to Walgreens
entrance.
Gaffron explained that while there are a number of variable-pavement style connections,Phil Carlson of DSU,
Inc. points out the advantage of having a pedestrian connection that does not force movement across the
Willow entrance but would bring pedestrians across the parking lot in a more direct path. It would result in a
loss of one parking stall to make the pedestrian crossing but parking space calculations are actually+1 parking
space above the requirement.
Gaffron illustrated the additional detail provided regarding screening of trash facilities at the rear of the
buildings shown in Plan Sheet L2.1 and the two Cross-Section Exhibits. He expressed that staff believes the
screening looks adequate but it could be beefed up a bit.
G.Architectural Standards.Applicant has advised that he will work with the City to provide
a face brick color acceptable to all parties. Applicant has provided samples of building exterior
material samples for review and approval, incorporating darker colored brick. Revised
elevations of the two westerly retail buildings have been submitted, and they appear to
incorporate a variety of architectural features in common with the Walgreens building.
3. Additional Site Plan Elements
A. Pedestrian Access. Gaffron reiterated the recommendation for a more direct designated
pedestrian connection to the Walgreens main entry from the Willow Drive and should be
incorporated into the plans.
B. Vehicle Circulation. Gaffron reported that Sheldon Johnson, Orono's traffic consultant
with Bonestroo and Associates,reviewed the latest revisions and indicated to staff that the
layout is acceptable and that his prior recommendations regarding traffic circulation have
been incorporated into the plans.The right-in,right-out access to Willow has been refined
to meet turning radius standards, and should function adequately. He recommends, and
staff concurs,that signage be installed warning drivers entering the Walgreens drive-thru
from the west to yield to, and watch for, incoming vehicles at the right-in,right-out.
Page 6 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP,Continued)
C. Required Parking. Gaffron pointed out that in accordance with past Planning
Commission discussions,the proposed 150-stall number exceeds by one stall the
requirements established for the site in terms of accepting Walgreens 60-stall need and the
remaining retail at the City requirement of 1 stall per 150 s.f. of net retail space. Even if a
stall is lost to provide the suggested pedestrian connection from Walgreens to the
Willow/12 corner,the parking needs will be met. Staff recommends approval of the
parking plan as designed.
D. Lot Coverage. Gaffron referred to numerous prior Planning Commission discussions
regarding where there is a substandard lot created and applying the 15%lot coverage
requirement as required by Code Section 78-1403 which limits lots of 0-1.99 acres in area
to 15% lot coverage by structures. The subdivision of the subject property results in the
following:
- Lot 1 (86,268 s.f. or 1.98 acres)is proposed with buildings totaling 13,930 s.f. or 16.1%
coverage.
- Lot 2(74,428 s.f.) is proposed with buildings totaling 14,820 s.f. or 19.9% coverage.
-Overall coverage of the 3.69-acre site is proposed at 17.9%,not including freestanding trash
enclosures.
Gaffron supplied information on the small number of developing or redeveloping commercial sites in Orono
that were subject to the 15% lot coverage requirement. These include:
Service 800 on Hwy 12 (0.96 acres, 26.1%lot coverage) -pre-existing site
Culver's in Navarre(1.52 acres,20.2%lot coverage) -pre-existing site
Snyder's in Navarre(1.9 acres, 14%lot coverage) -pre-existing site
Wagner Rental in Navarre(1.2 acres, 12 %lot coverage) -pre-existing site
The dental office on Kelley Parkway was a pre-existing 2.0-acre lot and not subject to the lot coverage limit. It
has about 18%lot coverage.
Gaffron stated that from staff's perspective the overage above the 15%is not an issue here and appears to be
reasonable given the limited amount of site. He recognized the Community Management Plan references
holding to the 15% limit but saw few potential problems as the City has so few sites zoned for commercial
uses that he recommended maximizing rather than underutilizing the site. He spoke of a `balancing act' and
needing to have balance when applying requirements with the Community Management Plan's goals and
policies.
E. Green Space. Under the current proposal with the elimination of`proof-of-parking',
green space on the site will be 26%,which meets the 25%goal.
F. Loading Berths and Trash Enclosures. Location and details for loading berths and trash
handling facilities, including cross-sectional views,were provided and shown on the
plans.
G. Sipnape. The two primary monument signs are proposed at a dimension of 10'high and
14'-8" wide, exceeding the 10'width recently adopted for monument signs (See Exhibit N,
Ordinance No. 6,Third Series), including the pillars.
The building wall signage appears to be consistent with what would be expected for a
Walgreens and a small retail center and meets code standards. The Stonebay Monument at
the corner of 12/Willow is acceptable to staff as designed.
Page 7 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP,Continued)
• Message Board. Orono codes prohibit the use of illuminated scrolling or flashing
reader boards such as that proposed for the Walgreens monument. Staff early on
suggested to the applicants that the Walgreen signage not include a manual reader
board, as they tend to be poorly maintained. Since then, it has been suggested that
an illuminated message board such as that proposed,but with only one message
change per day and no flashing, scrolling, etc. would be more attractive than a
manual board.
• Gaffron commented that the problem with allowing the illuminated board as
proposed is that it could require ongoing monitoring, and that once it goes up,
every other retail business in town will want one,but without the limitations.
Approval of this one would set a negative precedent. He stated it would be an
enforcement issue and potentially could see many other applications for an
illuminated reader board sign from the Navarre area and Hwy 12. At this time
staff recommends that the illuminated board not be allowed, and that if a message
board is proposed that it be a manual board.
H. Lijihtinp. Gaffron referenced the exterior parking lot lighting plan shown on Sheet E2.1
in the packet. It shows the standard box-type, downcast lighting fixtures but does not
specifically show whether any building-mounted lighting is proposed. Staff recommends
asking the applicant for this information. Also, Gaffron observed there is a fairly
standardized lighting style for Stonebay Development and here at the commercial corner
there is a question of whether to have a more decorative fixture given this is intending to
set the tone for the Stonebay residential development.
I. Enjineerinj Matters. City Engineer Tom Kellogg provided his comments in Exhibit G
dated April 28, 2004. He has also reviewed the May 7,2004 plan set and his comments
remain unchanged. His recommendations relate primarily to matters that will be
addressed during the final plan stages of development.
4. Preliminary Plat
Gaffron illustrated the two-lot layout resulting from the lot subdivision with separate
ownerships,Walgreens' parcel and the parcel with the other two retail buildings.
5. Rezoning
Gaffron advised that the draft rezoning ordinance for the site has yet to be prepared by staff,
but will be prepared for Planning Commission review at its June work session prior to final
Council action.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission had about 8-9 remaining issues to address:
1. Address approval of the lot area and widths as proposed, as well as the lot coverage issue.
2. Address approval of the west side setback for Retail Building A.
3. Address acceptance of the 150-stall parking proposal.
4. Address any remaining landscaping issues or concerns.
5. Address the signage issues and flexibility request.
6. Address height of buildings.
7. Address any concerns regarding facade coloration or materials.
8. Address whether building-mounted lighting is proposed.
9.Any other issues for consideration.
Page 8 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP,Continued)
Gaffron recommended approval of the proposed Commercial Site Plan subject to the various recommendations
in the text of the May 13,2004 Staff Report. Any motion to recommend approval should address the
remaining issues,and provide clear direction to the applicant. Gaffron believed the application is ready to be
forwarded to the City Council subject to Planning Commission recommended conditions for approval.
Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if there were any questions to staff,to Shelley Johnson, Engineer or Phil
Carlson, DSU.
Mr. John Trautz stated they are in agreement with just about everything identified by staff as outstanding
issues. He accepted the 10' wide requirement for the monument signs and the manual reader board.
Mr.Trautz asked the Planning Commission to consider not identifying the space in front of Walgreens'
entrance as a landscaped area but as a walkway to the building's access point.
He indicated landscaping features would make it more difficult for patrons to enter the building and proposed
some other treatment, such as painting.
Kempf asked if this area was raised above the parking lot level.
Fritzler asked if a curb is proposed.
Mr. Trautz explained the area is flush to the parking lot surface and could be constructed with colored asphalt
or stamped concrete. It provides an easy way for pedestrians to get to the Walgreens front doors.
Fritzler asked for clarification that it would not become a space for promotional `sandwich' boards.
Trautz stated that there would be no signage in this area.
Jurgens stated he assumed the area is not raised because of handicapped parking requirements,but a raised
area could help guide traffic. He asked for information about how the transition occurs from parking lot to
pedestrian walkway.
Ms. Vicki Van Dell, Landform Engineering, explained the area is flush to the ground with vertical bollards at
the front.
Gaffron illustrated the Walgreens' access point and the 20' x 20' area in question.
Jurgens clarified the area will not be raised and will have no curb along the face of the building and questioned
if there will be bollards all the way down the length of the building.
Ms.Van Dell explained there would be two bollards in front of the handicapped stalls, another one on the next
stall over, and transitions into a full curb along the rest of the building length.
Bremer commented that she had no problem with the proposed access area.
Rahn concurred stating it makes it easier to traverse into the access point for Walgreens.
Mr.Trautz exhibited the finished palette of exterior colors and distributed the samples to the Planning
Commission.
Page 9 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, Continued)
Mr. Mike Spina,Amcon Construction, explained their goal was to be consistent but not identical among the
buildings. The brick will match the Walgreens building, fascia colors will be similar to Walgreens but the
awnings will not match Walgreens. He stated their goal was to keep the building scale down to residential-
type scale with the gable grooves and some other building features.
Chair Mabusth summarized that the two retail buildings will have different exteriors than Walgreens.
Mr. Spina agreed somewhat, clarifying they will look different enough but not identical so it would not look
like one big broad development.
Kempf asked where the blue color would be used.
Mr. Spina tried to explain where the blue would be used and pointed out areas on the building elevation where
the awnings are above the windows and doors.
Rahn asked for information about if the brick extends up to the gables.
Mr. Spina showed on the building elevation where masonry or brick will be used,pointing out the blue awning
above the glass, clarifying roof and fascia colors,too.
Chair Mabusth provided a copy of the Metropolitan Council letter, dated May 14,2004,regarding the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Stonebay Outlot A—Waiver of further review to the applicant.
Chair Mabusth asked for additional Planning Commission comments concerning the exterior. She asked for
their opinions if it does meet the established criteria.
Rahn and Kempf concurred that it does meet the established criteria.
Mr. Trautz referred to the issue of whether building-mounted lighting is proposed. He stated it is intended to
have building-mounted lighting but had not provided the City with any samples.
Mr. Spina interjected that it was generically described in the submitted drawings/elevations. It will be more a
decorative lighting, it will be completely cut-off and shielded with no projection of horizontal light.
Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if they heard Gaffron's comments concerning the type of lighting proposed
for the light poles as not being warm and residential as in the rest of the Stonebay Development.
Gaffron clarified that the office area in the Stonebay Development does use box-type lighting. He brought up
the matter for discussion of whether to match commercial lighting with the residential area, or to match with
what is along the street or the site interior.
Chair Mabusth asked for information on the approved lighting for Kelley Parkway.
Gaffron described it as somewhat screened but more visible and decorative.
Ms.Van Dell clarified the lighting is spaced every 15' which is more residential and uses smaller scale,
residential-type fixtures.
Page 10 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, Continued)
Mr. Trautz added that commercial lighting needs are different from residential and require more light intensity
for safety. Because they want a higher light level in the commercial area,they proposed the box-type lighting
as installed on the medical building.
Leslie agreed with Mr.Trautz' comments, explaining his office is in a situation where lack of lighting creates
employee concerns.
Jurgens asked if box-type lighting is proposed for the office buildings and suggested differences in lighting
styles might be desirable.
Bremer commented that with Walgreens being open 24 hrs/day there is a need for more light and perhaps
different styles of lighting could be proposed, one for the residential side and one for the commercial.
Kempf stated that function comes first and the box-type lighting is the most appropriate type throughout the
parking areas. However,he asked the applicant if they could tie in the lighting style from the residential area
along Kelley Parkway and possibly around the edge of the parking area. Kempf further commented it is not
necessary for the office area to be similar to the retail area,as the office area is with the City Hall area.
Ms. Van Dell observed that upon review of the lighting plan that once building lights are shown on the rear of
the buildings and actually show the locations of the Kelley Parkway fixtures,rear lights may not be needed at
all. She advised they would review this again.
Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if it does not work, did they have a problem with using a more
complementary,residential-type light fixture on the north side of the property.
Mr. Trautz pointed out that if the goal is to match what is on Kelley Parkway and it is a residential-type light,
many more lights fixtures would be necessary to get the correct light level. He commented he was not sure
how to answer Chair Mabusth's question yet.
Leslie pointed out there is a fair amount of screening between this development and the street, assuming the
combination of the berm and taller trees, and he advised he will request more trees to be included,that there
will not be a direct,visible conflict between box-type lighting and the Kelley Parkway lighting fixtures.
Kempf asked staff where the lights are located on Kelley Parkway, one or both sides of the street.
Gaffron confirmed the lights on Kelley Parkway are on both sides of the street with regular spacing.
Fritzler asked for clarification that if the Kelley Parkway lights were sufficient,no new lights would be on the
buildings.
Ms.Van Dell clarified that building lights will remain but there may not need to be additional lot lights.
Bremer asked for information about the location of employee entrances.
Mr.Trautz explained the service entrances are on the rear of the buildings.
Gaffron recommended that functional lighting is needed at the rear of the building but does not have to be
nearly as intense as the parking lot lights. He indicated he expected to see downcast box lighting fixtures on
the rear of the buildings.
Page 11 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, Continued)
Chair Mabusth invited public comments at this time. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m.
She asked if the applicant had any further comments at this time; Mr. Trautz indicated there were none.
Chair Mabusth directed discussion to the Summary of Remaining Issues to Address as outlined earlier by
Gaffron.
1. Address approval of the lot area and widths as proposed, as well as the lot coverage issue.
Chair Mabusth indicated this matter had already been fully discussed in prior discussions. She extended a
thank you to Ms.Van Dell who prepared the Stonebay Marketplace Narrative.
2. Address approval of the west side setback for Retail Building A.
Chair Mabusth asked for confirmation from staff that the adjoining property to the subject property's west side
currently is owned by MnDOT and therefore is considered a side street requiring a 35' building
setback. Gaffron confirmed this information and added that in the future the MnDOT property with the storm
water pond may become County or Orono property,which would make the subject property line an interior
side instead of a side street,reducing the required setback from 35' to 10'.
Chair Mabusth asked who would be responsible for maintaining the sitting areas proposed for Outlot B.
Gaffron replied that the applicant/property owners ultimately are to be responsible as it is actually a part of the
Stonebay Marketplace development, even if the improvements are on public land, and recommended the
responsibility be stipulated in some form of written agreement.
Chair Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if there were any problems with the proposed 20' side yard
setback. There were no objections.
3. Address acceptance of the 150-stall parking proposal.
Chair Mabusth stated she was satisfied with 144-stalls as the applicant has demonstrated they have met the B-i
standard of 1 stall per 150 s.f. of net retail space, acknowledging that one stall may be lost with the pedestrian
walkway proposed by Phil Carlson,DSU. There were no Planning Commission member objections.
4. Address any remaining landscape issues or concerns.
Leslie pointed out comments from Phil Carlson, DSU, including `beefing up' vegetative screening of loading
areas,Exhibit K.
Ms. Van Dell responded that there are existing deciduous trees along Kelley Parkway and where there are
trash enclosures very large evergreen trees are proposed to screen from the street,both on the west and middle
retail building, as well as for the back of the pharmacy. With the proposed screening,Ms. Van Dell stated they
think this is adequate.
Mr. Trautz indicated he did not oppose landscaping in the back to screen from residential.
Leslie stated his principal concern was to screen the residential from the commercial.
Rahn commented the goal is to 100% screen Kelley Parkway from the trash dumpsters.
Page 12 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, Continued)
Ms.Van Dell explained that are some smaller shrubs with smaller deciduous bushes with spacings of
evergreens, and also some smaller shrubs with deciduous trees proposed. She acknowledged there would be a
few spaces to see through but not in the areas of the trash enclosures.
Chair Mabusth inquired what will be the finished elevation and how many feet will it be raised, commenting
that the site is so level now.
Ms. Van Dell explained that the ditch will be filled in and sodded, and building's final elevation will be about
24' with a final elevation of about 19' at Hwy 12. This will result in some gradual rise in elevation. On the
west side behind Retail Building A there is a drastic drop, down and around the curve and there will also be
some retaining walls on the southwest corner.
Chair Mabusth asked if there was still standing water in the ditch. Ms Van Dell stated there was and explained
that the development proposal includes a storm water pipe to move the storm water faster to the pond.
Chair Mabusth invited further questions, comments or requests from the Planning Commissioners. There were
none on this issue.
5. Address the signage issues and flexibility request
Chair Mabusth asked the applicant to explain their request for flexibility.
Ms.Van Dell explained the request is for 62 s.f. sign face area compared to the 50 s.f. maximum requirement
in a typical B-1 District. It will allow their sign face to be 10' wide and adequate space for up to three tenants
on the retail sign and an illuminated message board on the pharmacy sign.
Chair Mabusth confirmed that 62 s.f. area request is the same for the Walgreen's sign with the reader board.
Mr.Trautz stated their signage request is substantially below the total signage allowed. Chair Mabusth
concurred.
Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if they would reduce the sign width to 10'.
Mr. Trautz and Ms. Van Dell agreed the sign width would be reduced to 10'.
Gaffron pointed out the new sign ordinance allows a 10' maximum width and also requires it to be framed. He
asked Mr. Trautz how they proposed to design the sign within the 10' maximum width.
Mr. Trautz stated it was important for the sign panel itself to be 10' x 6'and the sign cabinet itself could be
mounted on a base, or framing could be added beyond the 10' x 6' area.
Gaffron pointed out the new ordinance requires the framing and cap to be incorporated in the maximum sign
width.
Chair Mabusth asked the Planning Commissioners for their opinion on recommending approval of a sign
width variance for the two monument signs,because the StoneBay sign,totally 40 s.f.,meets requirements.
Rahn stated as long as the sign proposals meet the total aggregate square footage requirements he would rather
see something more appealing like the proposed sign. He also stated he preferred the illuminated reader board
Page 13 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, Continued)
as it is more modern looking as long as there is an agreement it will not scroll,blink or flash and only be
changed once/day.
Chair Mabusth asked if there had been an illuminated reader board approved in Orono for a church.
Gaffron advised that there was no approval for a church to have an illuminated reader board. He expressed his
concerns for allowing an illuminated reader change with capability for changing as a continual enforcement
issue, as well as training needs for subsequent Walgreens' managers, and that other businesses may seek to
have this type of reader board, too. Gaffron stated,though, he believes an illuminated reader board does look
better than manual reader boards with loose lettering.
Bremer asked Mr. Trautz if Walgreens would consider a manual reader board.
Mr. Trautz replied that most Walgreens stores have manual reader boards currently.
Jurgens conveyed his reservation with manual reader boards in relation to vandalism, as the signs are often low
to the ground.
Gaffron and Curtis indicated in their concurrent review of the new sign ordinance requirements that the 14'
width will be fine with expected revisions in the way it will be framed,the total of 10' maximum height to the
top of it should be maintained, and the sign copy face can not be greater than 75%of sign square footage.
They clarified that the previous reference to max width was incorrect. The maximum height is 10',there is no
maximum width. He asked for direction on whether to permit the illuminated reader board and what
conditions may be appropriate.
Chair Mabusth invited public comments and acknowledged there were some audience members nodding in
agreement with the illuminated reader board discussion.
Rahn agreed with allowing an illuminated reader board with a message change once/day and does not move,
scroll,blink or flash.
Chair Mabusth suggested a condition to add to limit its frequency of change or limits of lines of text.
Fritzler questioned Gaffron if there is any problem to set a condition that permits an illuminated reader board
in relationship to the square footage of the lot, such that a property may be too small to permit such a sign.
Curtis confirmed that sign square footage per site is determined by each foot of frontage now by Code,but the
prohibition is for flashing illuminated signs.
Gaffron added that in Navarre there are large sites with multiple tenant buildings. He suggested that the
condition of sign changes restricted to only one time/day could be added to subsequent sign approvals. He
emphasized it would be a difficult enforcement issue if allowed. Gaffron mentioned the issue of visual impact,
pointing out that currently in the Hwy 12 Orono/Long Lake area there is only one illuminated reader board and
about 8-10 manual reader boards.
Leslie observed that he saw a Walgreens store in Eden Prairie that had an electronic,illuminated reader board
that seemed not to be changing so frequently as to unsafely divert drivers' attention. He stated he would
support an illuminated reader board sign but it should meet the new sign code.
Mr. Trautz stated the 10' x 6' dimension was important and asked if it could be 4' off of the ground.
Page 14 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, Continued)
Gaffron responded that he thought it would be possible but asked the Planning Commission for direction if
sign variances became necessary. Staff stated that with a PUD application, flexibility could therefore be
addressed.
Chair Mabusth asked for information about plans for temporary signage and how this will be controlled.
Gaffron explained there is a city code for temporary signage but it is difficult to enforce. He recommended
that temporary signage condition(s)be added to the PUD approval documents.
Mr. Trautz asked if a special permit is required to put up temporary signs, such as a banner.
It was confirmed that a special permit is required from the City. Mr. Trautz indicated that after`grand
opening' banners,they intend to not allow any other temporary signs in the retail center. Gaffron concluded
the city concurred with that approach.
Chair Mabusth asked for any further comments on signage. There were none.
6. Address height of buildings.
Chair Mabusth concurred with staff recommendation to permit the 32'6"height for the entrance corner
`parapet' roof peak, exceeding the B-6 height limit of 30', as well as the retail buildings' gable peaks
extending to 33'4.5"high. She acknowledged allowing such heights as an architectural feature may be done in
a PUD and Orono has allowed similar height increases in the PUD for the office buildings.
Fritzler asked if there is any mechanics housed in the gables. Mr.Trautz advised there were none. Rahn
pointed out the gables are a sloped roof design with shingles.
7. Address any concerns regarding facade coloration and materials.
Chair Mabusth asked Gaffron to clarify if the final approved PUD application should refer to specific building
materials. Gaffron indicated the final PUD documents would refer to the building materials shown this
evening by the applicant.
Mr. Trautz cautioned that the specific buildings materials shown might not be in stock or available when
needed. By consensus, it was agreed to allow use of an `equivalent' approved by a three member city
committee. Mr. Spina stated that all shown building materials are currently available.
8. Address whether building-mounted lighting is proposed.
Chair Mabusth concluded the issue of building-mounted lighting was already addressed.
9. Any other issues for consideration.
Chair Mabusth asked if there are any other issues for discussion.
Kempf questioned if resolution was reached about requiring residential style lighting along the sidewalks
coming up to Hwy 12 on the east side from Walgreens and along the pond area, as it is a more park like
setting.
Chair Mabusth asked what would be the function of such lighting and how much lighting the residences prefer
across the street.
Page 15 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP, Continued)
Kempf stated a box-type fixture would not be wanted there and it would serve an aesthetic purpose,too.
Fritzler stated he support additional or upgraded lighting along the pond area,but did not see a need for it on
Willow Drive.
Ms. Van Dell explained what is shown on the Lighting Plan,concluding there is no need for additional lighting
as it adequately lights the path along Willow Drive to Hwy 12 as well as the trail going around the pond. If the
lighting fixture were required to be changed, it would be only for aesthetic purposes.
Chair Mabusth asked if there would be mounted lights on Retail Building A.
Ms.Van Dell replied there may need to be for the potential patio area on the west end of Retail Building A and
for safety reasons on the path going to Kelley Parkway. She pointed out there are two fixtures,both on the
door and the southwest corner to well light the area. She stated it has upwards of 6-foot candles illumination
and does not go below 1.5-foot candles. Ms. Van Dell advised the lighting would go in as needed, depending
the tenant.
Chair Mabusth asked for any further comments.
Rahn asked Gaffron to explain when structural coverage requirements apply to retail uses, given the dental
office example. Gaffron indicated the dental office site is 2.0 acres and structural coverage requirements only
apply to sites 1.99 acres or less. Rahn stated that compared to the Culver's site in Navarre at the 20.2%and
this application at 17.9% (combined),where Culver's site is usually very crowded as an over utilized site,his
concern is to prevent crowding on the subject site.
Chair Mabusth noted the structural coverage issue is only being applied due to the subject site's subdivision.
Rahn replied that users will cross lot lines between Walgreen's and the other retail buildings and he sees it as
more of a bulk and mass issue. In the structural coverage comparisons brought by staff,Rahn expressed his
concern that it would become a traffic nightmare.
Kempf commented that the Culver's site has a gas station and Snyder's drugstore to contribute to its traffic
issues.
Rahn acknowledged the site layout contributes to traffic problems on the Culver's site. He restated he wanted
to express his concern but may still be in favor of the application.
Chair Mabusth pointed out the staff, consultant engineer and planner appear to be satisfied with the structural
coverage issue.
Chair Mabusth asked for final issues to be discussed.
Chair Mabusth moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-2974"StoneBay
Marketplace,"NW Quadrant Hwy 12/Willow Drive for proposed Commercial PUD Rezoning,
Commercial Site Plan and two lot Preliminary Subdivision of StoneBay Outlot A,acknowledging the
application does not meet the underlying B-6 2.0 acre lot coverage requirements with certain approved
B-1 allowable uses and accepting lot coverage as follows:
- Lot 1 (86,268 s.f. or 1.98 acres)is proposed with buildings totaling 13,930 s.f. or 16.1%coverage.
- Lot 2 (74,428 s.f.)is proposed with buildings totaling 14,820 s.f.or 19.9% coverage.
-Overall coverage of the 3.69-acre site is proposed at 17.9%,not including freestanding trash
enclosures; subject to the following:
Page 16 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,LLP,Continued)
• return of the application to the next Planning Commission work session for further
review
• return of the draft rezoning ordinance for the site to the June 2004 Planning
Commission meeting
• return of the signage agreement to the next Planning Commission work session
• all resolved issues outlined in the Staff Report,May 13,2004 and the preceding Planning
Commission minutes.
Ms.Van Dell questioned if the illuminated reader board was being recommended. Chair Mabusth concluded it
was a consensus to allow the illuminated reader board with no flashing,blinking or moving messages to be
changed only once/day but must meet Code requirements.
Mr. Trautz asked for clarification of the continuing process and if the applicant will need to attend further
Planning Commission meetings. Gaffron explained the process, and that the draft PUD rezoning ordinance
will return to the Planning Commission work session and to the June2004 Planning Commission meeting for
final review and approval.
Chair Mabusth asked staff to provide the Planning Commission with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment text
approved by the City Council.
Gaffron clarified the City Council will review the Commercial Site Plan and Preliminary Plat subdivision,and
that the draft rezoning language will be reviewed at the Planning Commission and forwarded to the City
Council for final approval.
Mr.Trautz suggested the city attorney should review the minute record, draft PUD language with staff and not
to have the agreement returned to the Planning Commission for additional review.
Gaffron stated that if the Planning Commission is comfortable with reviewing the draft rezoning ordinance at
the Planning Commission work session in June 2004,it could be forwarded directly to the City Council for
their first meeting in June 2004.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0
6. #04-3002 G&L LAND INVESTMENT,LLC,740 NORTH ARM DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,PUBLIC HEARING(7:36-7:45 p.m.)
Mr.Tim Guilfoil, G&L Land Investment, LLC, 740 North Arm Drive, applicant,was present.
Gaffron explained the applicants requested amending their original variance request,which was recommended
for denial by the Planning Commission on April 17, 2004 and said denial recommendation was informally
agreed to by the City Council on April 26, 2004, to a conditional use permit to allow land alterations within
75' of the 929.4'elevation of Lake Minnetonka. The applicants will remove the existing boathouse and restore
the existing slope,including construction of boulder retaining walls and vegetative cover.
Gaffron referred to the recommendation included in the Engineer's comments, dated May 12, 2004, and
included in the agenda packet. He emphasized the vegetative screening of the retaining walls is key as without
adequate screening the retaining walls will appear to be 18 feet tall from lakeside.
Mr. Guilfoil stated they have the same goal to minimize the impact of the retaining wall and committed to
vegetation at least 4 feet tall, and will attempt to create four shorter walls, if possible, as it is to everyone's
benefit.
Page 17 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #04-3002 G&L LAND INVESTMENT,LLC,Continued)
Mr. Guilfoil confirmed that the accessory structure near the street has been removed as of this date and agreed
to grant an easement to the City for sewer maintenance purposes.
Gaffron reported the City located and staked the sewer line,which is located approximately 1 foot off the front
line of the boathouse and about 6 to 6.5 feet deep. Due to the close proximity of the line to the boathouse,the
Public Works department has requested that they be informed of the date of demolition and that they be
present on site at the time of demolition. Staff recommends this is included as a condition of approval for
land alterations.
Gaffron indicated staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit application with the conditions
identified on the staff memo,May 4, 2004.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none.
Fritzler asked if there were plans for removal of the concrete and debris on the shoreline to be removed when
the boathouse is demolished and removed. Mr. Guilfoil advised that it is their intention to rip rap the shoreline
area appropriately. Rahn asked to have the ravine area cleaned-up as well. Mr. Guilfoil indicated they would
clean up and remove whatever is on their property, including adding new riprap on the shoreline.
Leslie asked for clarification of when the boathouse is scheduled to be removed,referring to prior discussions
of winter removal to avoid over-land risks to the buried sewer line. Mr. Guilfoil explained the boathouse is
tentatively set to be demolished on May 19, 2004. However,plans for removal of its debris and the existing
shoreline riprap are not complete, and it may be the riprap installers will remove the debris at the same time,
probably in the winter months.
Leslie moved,Kempf seconded to recommend approval of Application#04-3002, G&L Land
Investment,LLC,740 North Arm Drive,amending the original variance request to a conditional use
permit to allow land alterations within 75' of the 929.4' elevation of Lake Minnetonka in accordance
with the submitted plan,recommending more trees be added to the plan; including approval of a
hardcover variance to the hardcover within the 0-75' zone associated with the stairway and boulder
walls per the proposed plan, and incorporating the following stipulations:
1. The existing boathouse be removed prior to commencement of work,
2. A Public Works employee is present at the time of demolition of the boathouse,
3. A silt fence is erected 5' off the staked sewer location where no land alteration activity will
be allowed, except for re-vegetation of the boathouse site. The silt fence shall remain until
the landscaping as been fully installed
4. Implementation of the recommendations of City Engineer, Tom Kellogg regarding the
retaining wall bank restoration project as listed in the letter dated May 12,2004.
5. Current ravine and shoreline debris/rip rap be removed from the site.
VOTE: AYES 7,NAYS 0.
Gaffron advised the application would be forwarded to the May 24, 2004 City Council meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
7. #04-3006 AULIK COMPANY ON BEHALF OF BARTHOLOMEW AND ELIZABETH T.
BUTZER,2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE,PUBLIC
HEARING(7:45-7:54 p.m.)
Betsy Butzer, 2625 North Shore Drive, applicant,was present.
Page 18 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #04-3006 AULIK COMPANY ON BEHALF OF BARTHOLOMEW AND ELIZABETH T.
BUTZER,Continued)
Gaffron summarized Application#04-3006 requesting a hardcover variance in order to construct a new
detached garage with recreation room,to permit 30%hardcover in the 75'-250' zone when 25%is normally
allowed and 33% currently exists. The application also requests a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in
an accessory building.
Gaffron explained the applicants recently acquired the property in November 2003 and wish to remove the
existing building and construct new within all setbacks. The proposal includes a reduction in hardcover and
removal of several structures currently lying with the wetland setback. Although a net reduction in hardcover
is proposed, a hardcover variance is still required due to the transferring back of the 0-75' hardcover bringing
the total proposed hardcover to 29.7%.
Gaffron emphasized that several existing non-conformities will be removed with the existing detached garage.
With the proposed detached garage/recreation room non-conformities are eliminated and hardcover will be
reduced 1,590 s.f. or 3.67%. He indicated staff finds that sufficient hardship exists to recommend granting of
the hardcover variance.
Gaffron indicated that it is staff opinion that the proposed recreation room above the 3-stall garage,which will
include a 3/4 bath and hot tub,met all criteria for granting a conditional use permit to allow plumbing within an
accessory building.
Gary Aulik,representing the applicants,noted the site constraints, including shared drive-way,wetland
setbacks and shoreline setbacks, acknowledged they studied the possibility of eliminating the circle driveway
but to do so would reduce net hardcover less than .5% and net result is a less than attractive visual hardcover,
seeing a lot more hardcover upon approaching the property. He observed there is more hardcover required by
leaving the garage where it is but they think it is `friendlier' to the wetland,more appropriate for the site and
provides better and more usable site storage from what exists today. Mr. Aulik stated the applicant thinks they
have done what they could to reduce the net hardcover percentage with the pre-existing hardships on the site
that are difficult if impossible to overcome.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none.
Chair Mabusth asked if there is a more functional or effective layout for on-site parking and ease for cars to
enter/exit options.
Mr. Aulik responded that in order to retain the circle and reduce hardcover percentage to its lowest a turn-
around would add more s.f.to the hardcover calculation. He advised the egress/ingress was modeled and they
are comfortable with its results for safety and practical factors. Further,he stated the applicant feels strongly
that the circle serves other purposes, including reducing the visual hardcover approaching the property.
Chair Mabusth asked for further comments. There were none.
Rahn moved,Chair Mabusth seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3006,Bartholomew
& Elizabeth Butzer,2625 North Shore Drive,to grant a hardcover variance to permit 30% hardcover in
the 75'-250' zone when 25% is normally allowed and 38% currently exists in order to construct as new
detached garage with recreation room, and to grant a conditional use permit to allow indoor plumbing
in an accessory building with the following stipulation:
1. The applicant agrees to the filing of the covenant regarding the conditional use permit for
plumbing in an accessory building(as noted in the staff report,May 6,2004).
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Gaffron advised the application would be forwarded to the June 14, 2004 City Council meeting.
Page 19 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
8. #04-3007 Harold and Mildred Bower, 1925 Lakeview Terrace,Variance and Amendment to City
Wetland Map.
The applicant was not present.
There were no public comments.
Bremer moved,Chair Mabusth seconded,to table Application#04-3007 Harold and Mildred Bower,
1925 Lakeview Terrace.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
9. #04-3008 Steven Valek and Ralph Palmer,4720-4750 Tonkaview Lane,Lot Line Rearrangements,
Public Hearing(7:57-8:04 p.m.)
Steven Valek, 4720 Tonkaview Lane, and Ralph Palmer,4750 Tonkaview Lane, applicants,were present.
Kempf stated for the record that he has a business relationship with Steven Valek,though it has nothing to do
with the issues at hand,he will abstain from discussion and the vote.
Curtis introduced the application for re-plat approval to create three(3)lots where five(5) lots(four tax
parcels)currently exist. Currently, out of the four existing lots only one meets the area and width requirements
of the LR-1B Zoning District. After the re-plat,two of the three lots will meet Zoning Ordinance regulations
with respect to area and width. The proposed New Lot 2 at 0.8 acre will meet 80%of the lot area and at 132'
wide will meet over 80%of the lot width requirement. Curtis recommended approval of the subdivision of
the re-plat with the stipulation that the existing driveway at 4720 Tonkaview Lane be abandoned and relocated
entirely within the property boundaries of this lot. She advised no park fee or stormwater trunk fee would be
required because the re-plat results in a reduction of the number of lots rather than lot creation.
Steven Valek,4720 Tonkaview Lane, expressed his intention was to straighten lot line between Lots 1 and 2
and using some of Lot 4 and also to get a permit for a garage,though because the driveway would need to be
changed, he is not seeking a garage permit now. He explained that where the existing house sits and where the
current driveway lies appears to be the most attractive to the property. Mr. Valek stated he is trying to get Lot
2 as close to conforming as possible but has no current intention to build on it.
Chair Mabusth asked Mr. Valek what his plans were for Lot 2. Mr.Valek responded he will continue to live
in his house and has no immediate or future plans for Lot 2.
Ralph Palmer,4720 Tonkaview Lane, concurred with Mr.Valek's comments. Mr. Palmer stated it is an
advantage to have the lot lines straightened and to create one lot from the existing two lots.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none.
Bremer asked for information about a similar application before the Planning Commission from about one
year ago. Gaffron advised there one a lot line rearrangement for property across the street that required some
easement revisions. He stated the main concern is at point of property sale because the Lot 2 may become less
valuable with a permanent driveway easement running across it. Gaffron suggested a condition be placed on
the existing driveway at 4720 Tonkaview to be abandoned and relocated entirely within the property
boundaries of the lot upon sale of Lot 2.
Mr.Valek asked how this would affect Lot 3 if he built on Lot 2 and kept the driveway on Lot 2.
Gaffron explained the driveway would need to be abandoned and relocated only if persons other than Mr.
Valek owned Lot 2 or Lot 3.
Page 20 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. #04-3008 Steven Valek and Ralph Palmer, Continued)
Mr.Valek stated he would accept the driveway condition and would deal with the potential of moving the
driveway at a future time.
Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3008, Steven Valek and
Ralph Palmer,4720 and 4750 Tonkaview,respectively,to re-plat five(5)lots(four tax parcels) existing
lots to create three(3)lots with the stipulation that the existing driveway at 4720 Tonkaview Lane
should be abandoned and relocated entirely within the property boundaries of this lot.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0,Abstain 1.
Gaffron advised the application would be forwarded to the June 14, 2004 City Council meeting.
10. #04-3009 JAMES AND DARCY LOFFLER, 1690 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,PUBLIC
HEARING(8:05-8:32 p.m.)
James and Darcy Loffler,applicants, were present.
Gaffron acknowledged receipt of a letter from John and Joan Fitzpatrick, 1710 Shadywood Road, dated May
12, 2004,which supported the variance request to exceed the 25%hardcover requirement.
Gaffron introduced the application for a hardcover variance to construct a new residence on the property.
Other variances that are needed for the proposed plan include:
1. Lot area(0.37 acre where 0.50 acre required; does not meet 80%rule)
2. Lot coverage by structures is proposed at 16.3%where only 15%is allowed as the recent survey work is
showing the lot is actually smaller than the 1986 survey.
3. 75-250'Hardcover(Proposed=4,297 s.f./10,100 s.f. in zone=42.5%where 25%is allowed).
Gaffron noted the site has an older home on it situated within the 0-75' setback, with a detached garage also in
a non-conforming location. The applicant intends to remove all existing structures and the new house will
meet average setback and 75' setback, as well as all other required setbacks.
Gaffron explained that neighboring homes' are located just 55' from the shoreline, so the applicant would
potentially be deprived of lake views as the new home is moved closer to the road to reduce hardcover.
Moving closer to the road also negatively affects the average setback line for both neighbors, changing it to
make their home less conforming.
Gaffron recommended approval of the lot area variance, denial of the lot coverage variance and to approve
some degree of hardcover variance in the 30-31%range rather than 42% as proposed. From staff's
perspective,there is some hardship to support approval of a modest variance based on the lot shape and the
need for a backup apron to allow forward vehicle movement onto Shadywood Road.
Gaffron introduced the Issues for Consideration as listed in the Staff Report, dated May 12, 2004.
He also confirmed that the Planning Commission and applicant received the full set of pages for the May 12,
2004 Staff Report.
James Loffler, applicant,introduced his wife, Darcy, and Jeff Schneider, architect for the applicants, stated
that as of today's surveyor re-measurement the lot area is 16,723 s.f., which is 0.1 acre larger than before. He
expressed appreciation for the opportunity to share their views of the existing property hardships. Mr. Loffler
stated they are trying to build a reasonable property and working with the ordinances,indicating it is not
possible to build a master bedroom on the first floor as the house plan is not large enough and they cannot
build more than a two-car garage due to hardcover restrictions. He illustrated that by moving the house further
Page 21 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(10. #04-3009 JAMES AND DARCY LOFFLER,Continued)
back from the lake to reduce driveway surface produces very restricted lake views due to the shape and length
of the lot.
Bremer asked Gaffron how the newest survey information affects the lot coverage and hardcover percentages.
Gaffron indicated there is a difference of about 150 s.f. for lot coverage. He estimated that hardcover
percentages may be similar to those included in the May 12, 2004 Staff Report which is still about 1100 s.f.
less than proposed.
Chair Mabusth suggested the applicant consider the City's minimum standards for hardcover in order to
reduce their proposed hardcover.
Rahn pointed out the plan shows a 13' driveway width and turn around seems excessive deep like more for
parking use. Both of these features could be reduced to reach the hardcover standard.
Fritzler asked if straightening the driveway would improve the hardcover percentages.
Gaffron summarized the affects of a number of the suggestions such as tapering and narrowing the driveway,
reducing the turn-around area, and moving it next to the garage would reduce the hardcover percentage. It was
discussed whether a detached or attached garage would be a positive hardcover feature; it was a consensus the
attached garage was more in keeping with the neighborhood construction.
Bremer indicated the Planning Commission members are sticklers on maintaining the 15%lot coverage by
structure percentage and asked if the applicant could reduce the structure size to conform to the standard.
Mr. Loffler responded they had already reduced the structure size to the 15%lot coverage standard but the
recent survey measurements reduced the lot size so the lot coverage percentage increased. He indicated they
were willing to reduce the structure size to meet the 15% lot coverage standard.
Gaffron clarified the Planning Commission needed to determine the percentages acceptable for hardcover
based on the need for a back-up apron, for lot coverage based on the lot shape, and if some variance credit
should be given for moving the structure back from the existing house site at about 55' to the 75' lot setback
standard.
Fritzler commented that moving the structure further back by 10' or 15' does not have a big impact.
Rahn stating he believed the house is already sitting far back of the average lakeshore setback. and does not
need to be further back. He summarized that a square footage number is needed,that the lot coverage by
structure percentage should be 15 %with a minimal width driveway before a Planning Commission
recommendation can be made.
Chair Mabusth concurred with Rahn, indicating the matter should be tabled until further information is
returned to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Loffler asked if the Planning Commission would make a recommendation based on the surveyor'
measurement as of today. He stated that based on the surveyor's figures he would accept 15%lot coverage for
the structure and will minimize and reduce hardcover.
Page 22 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(10. #04-3009 JAMES AND DARCY LOFFLER, Continued)
Rahn summarized the Planning Commission was seeking a 15%lot coverage by structure,minimization of all
hardcover to the recommended standards of 3' sidewalk, 8'driveway, 8'x8' turnaround or whatever is
stipulated in the code for a turnaround on a county roadway. Chair Mabusth asked for the standards to be
provided to the applicant.
Chair Mabusth asked for other comments. A public member,Henry Lazniarz,proposed consideration of
allowing a driveway with two hard surface tire tracks to greatly minimize hardcover. Gaffron responded this
option has maintenance problems as does driveway pavers and that property owners become unhappy with
them and pave them over,resulting in full coverage anyway. Therefore,the City's hardcover ordinance does
not permit the option of strips or pavers.
Leslie interjected that the strips can be installed but will result in no reduction in the hardcover percentage.
Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. There were none.
Chair Mabusth asked the applicants if they have received enough guidance to revise the proposal.
Gaffron summarized that based on the surveyor's measurements received at the meeting,the lot coverage by
structure is 2508 s.f. and the direction is to minimize sidewalks and driveways but is not able to determine the
hardcover percentage at this time.
Gaffron indicated the application could be returned to the Planning Commission on June 21, 2004, and with a
Planning Commission recommendation, the matter could likely be scheduled for the June 28, 2004 City
Council meeting.
Bremer suggested the applicants should make the structure even smaller to reduce lot coverage to less than
15%to make an impact on the hardcover percentage.
Fritzler moved,Bremer seconded,to table Application#04-3009,James and Darcy Loffler, 1690
Shadywood Road, requesting a hardcover variance to construct a new residence on the property, and
other variances for lot area and lot coverage by structure.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nay 0.
Chair Mabusth recessed the Planning Commission at 8:32 p.m. for a short break and reconvened at 8:44 p.m.
11. #04-3012 ROGER D. O'SHAUGHNESSY, 1265 BRACKETT'S POINT ROAD,VARIANCES
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,PUBLIC HEARING(8:44-9:37 p.m.)
Curtis explained the applicant's request for three variances and two conditional use permits in order to
construct a boardwalk to the shore ending in a landing,to construct a wire mesh fence along Brackett's Point
Road, to grade, fill and construct a retaining wall in the floodplain and to construct chimneys 40'8"where 30'
is allowed. She noted there was change in boardwalk width from 6' to 4' boardwalk width,which will result
in a reduction in the hardcover percentages from 550' to 438 s.f. yet to be confirmed. Curtis advised that the
city received two letters from neighbors that are requested to be read into the record. She pointed out the
Issues for Consideration outlined in the Staff Report, dated May 3, 2004.
Curtis concluded by recommending the following:
1. Approval of the conditional use permit to allow chimney heights of 40' 8"where a 30' maximum is
normally allowed.
2. Approval of the variance and conditional use permit for construction and fill within the floodplain
incorporating the recommendations of the MCWD and the City Engineer.
3. Denial of the hardcover variance for 438 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone.
4. Denial of the variance to allow a fence within 75' of the lake.
Page 23 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(11. #04-3012 ROGER D. O'SHAUGHNESSY, Continued)
Chair Mabusth questioned if the applicant received copies of the two neighbors' letters and Curtis confirmed
the letters were provided to the applicant. Chair Mabusth read into the record the following two letters:
a. Joann Jundt, Southways, 1400 Brackett's Point Road, dated May 17,2004
b. James&Beverly Nyce, 1280 Brackett's Point, dated May 14, 2004
Roger O'Shaughnessy, 1265 Brackett's Point Road, advised he spoke with Joann Jundt on May 17, 2004 and
told her that his engineer is confident the stormwater runoff patterns will not change,though may change
temporarily during construction and that the design is intended to allow the same amount of flow as currently.
He asked the City Engineer to confirm their storm water calculations.
Curtis indicated the City Engineer has seen the plans but his comments have not yet been returned.
Chair Mabusth asked if this application would be reviewed by the MCWD and Curtis indicated that it is under
MCWD review.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy acknowledged that the neighbors' letters, as well as comments he received from
Pillsbury's, about the traffic at the driveway entrance. He described the heavily overgrown hedge that
currently encroaches onto Brackett's Point Road. He explained their landscape plans will have plantings about
7-10' back from the road and can taper the planned vegetation to create a good view from driveway entrance
for improved safety. He assured the Planning Commission he did not want to construct anything that was not
safe and will rely on his landscape architect and the engineers to create a safe design.
Chair Mabusth indicated the Public Services Director as part of the public roadway would review the new
driveway access.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy commented on the boardwalk idea and his interest in restoring his lakefront to a more
natural environment with tall grasses and other features, including an elevated boardwalk allowing plantings
underneath the boardwalk so as not to be wading through the tall grasses when walking through it. After
reading Curtis' staff report,he asked his landscape architect to consider more mitigating features,including
some spacing between decking boards and less width to reduce the size, and pulling the landing back from the
shoreline to allow some plantings to improve viewability from the lake. He acknowledged he understands the
concept of the boardwalk runs contrary to code and does not claim a hardship due to the flat elevation of his
lot,but expressed his excitement to restore the lakefront to natural vegetation as a lake stewardship project
rather than to mow the lawn to the lakefront.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy explained the purpose of the fence on the road is not to close off the property but mainly
to provide an option to have a dog to help control the large flocks of geese on the property. He pointed out the
proposed mesh fence location intended to be buried instead the vegetation.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy asked the Planning Commission to consider the boardwalk not as hardcover but as an
environmental design feature compatible with the City's ultimate goal to have a community not developed
fully at the lakefront.
Chair Mabusth asked for information about the proposed water treatment beds. Mr. O'Shaughnessy explained
the tall grasses tend to treat the surface water as it flows to the lake and dramatically drops organic material
levels into the lake, and,that the tall grasses do not require herbicides or fertilizers so are environmentally
friendly.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none.
Leslie asked for information about the proposed guesthouse and requirements for a conditional use permit.
Page 24 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(11. #04-3012 ROGER D. O'SHAUGHNESSY, Continued)
Mr. O'Shaughnessy explained they eliminated a detached guesthouse and now are proposing an attached guest
accommodations with no kitchen in it. It is only bedrooms with a family/living room area and a cabinet for a
coffee pot or whatever, and not intended to be a kitchen.
Chair Mabusth stated she did not think the guest rooms meet the City's criteria for requiring a conditional use
permit. Gaffron concurred, as long as there is no kitchen and it is attached to the main residence.
Jurgens referred to the Jundt letter and its concerns about too much drainage and asked for information about
the potential flooding area.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy stated that when he spoke with Ms. Jundt she expressed concern for too little drainage.
Curtis explained Ms. Jundt is concerned about walls or berms blocking surface drainage.
Jurgens asked the applicant to explain the proposed tile collection system.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy pointed out the low point on Brackett's Point Road, at about 931.5' or 931.8',noting the
lakefront elevation is 931.0' resulting in very little slope. He explained the drain tile would assist in moving
water into the permeable soils. There is a break in the berm at a point where the water comes across the road
normally. He stated they will not be accelerating the water at all and the addition of walls and the little berms
will not change the water flow. Mr. O'Shaughnessy advised that he sent copies of his plans to the names on
the Property Owners List attached to his application.
Chair Mabusth indicated the City Engineer and the MCWD would review the applicant's storm water
management plans.
Bremer initiated discussion on the safety issue raised in Ms. Jundt's letter and asked the applicant if he had this
reviewed by his consultants.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy stated he had not had a traffic engineer look at it,though his architect and landscape
architect believe the plans will provide good visibility at the driveway entrance. He offered to move the
driveway if a more safe location is determined,though he would prefer to keep the driveway off the eastern
edge to maintain privacy.
Kempt commented about the traffic created by sightseers traveling on Brackett's Point Road although they
travel slowly, about 5 mph. He also pointed out that the tree trimmers recently had flattened the silt fencing on
the subject property and this needs to be attended to.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy stated he contracted with the firm who removed the former house to maintain the silt
fencing.
Chair Mabusth asked for a description of the proposed mesh fencing material. Mr. O'Shaughnessy
commented that he did not really like the mesh-style fencing anyway and, if the fence were approved,he
would prefer to a more open and accessible style fence. The primary intent of the fence is for a dog and for
privacy and safety.
Chair Mabusth stated her support for the prairie restoration along the lakefront.
Jurgens asked about the purpose of the 40'8" tall chimneys. Mr. O'Shaughnessy explained the chimneys are
for fireplaces but his request to the architect for a `collection of cottages on the shore' was the basis for the
house's contemporary design.
Page 25 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(11. #04-3012 ROGER D. O'SHAUGHNESSY,Continued)
Chair Mabusth opened discussion of the four parts of the application:
1. Conditional use permit request to construct chimneys 40'8"in height where 30' is allowed.
Fritzler commented that the height requirement should be conformed to.
Kempf pointed out the building design is low and very respectful of the neighbors' views.
2. Conditional use permit and variance to allow grading, filling and retaining wall construction within
the floodplain.
3. Hardcover variance for 438 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone.
Chair Mabusth asked how long it would take to complete the planned restoration. Mr. O'Shaughnessy replied
that it took about three(3)years to be established in his previous experience in Menominee, WI.
Chair Mabusth asked the elevation of the proposed boardwalk. Mr. O'Shaughnessy explained the average
elevation is about 2.5' and will be 4' wide with spacing to allow light and precipitation to get through to the
under plantings, acting more like a natural landscape than a hardcover feature.
Rahn pointed out that if the boardwalk is joined to the house and is not considered landscaping and is over 30"
it will require railings according the MN Building Code. It was suggested the boardwalk could be stepped-
down right at the house before it reaches the 0-75' setback and could follow the property's contours.
Bremer stated she liked the idea of the boardwalk but could not support it,referring to prior applications for
walkways to the lakefront,unless it can be shown the reduced width at 4' and there actually will be growth
underneath it.
Gaffron asked the applicant if the nature of the 0-75' zone such that it cannot be walked on due to soils and
moisture. Chair Mabusth advised that boardwalks were permitted if the property owners could not get access
to the lake.
Rahn indicated that an area with tall grass is not a hardship in the way that prior applications were allowed due
to wet soils. He stated he did not support a landing or decking at the lakeshore, as this would be inconsistent
with prior decisions.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy responded that he did not know if it was needed for access over wet soils,but it may be
more an architectural feature for access through the tall grasses and to avoid ticks in the grasses.
Gaffron indicated that the restoration area may be a Type I wetland. He acknowledged that current Code does
not provide any incentives for this kind of proposed restoration and that the Planning Commission should
consider discussing the issue of granting some incentives to encourage such lakeshore restorations and natural,
unfertilized buffers at a future date.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy added that the boardwalk and landing would also have been convenient for his two
handicapped employees.
Ms. Susan Steinwall encouraged the Planning Commission to consider their proposal for a non-impervious
surface as meeting the Code's intent to eliminate hardcover in the 0-75' zone and the gain is tremendous when
restoring lakeshore. She commented that the watershed districts and many cities support natural restorations
and buffers along the lakeshore.
Page 26 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(11. #04-3012 ROGER D. O'SHAUGHNESSY,Continued)
Chair Mabusth responded that the Planning Commission appreciates her position and should be discussing the
issue and encouraging lakeshore buffer zones,but currently the Code looks at a boardwalk as hardcover and
takes into consideration its hardcover calculations.
Jurgens indicated he would support a boardwalk feature with a condition that the natural buffer be maintained
into the future.
Rahn asked the applicants if they considered using a mowed,meandering path instead of a raised boardwalk.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy replied the reason to raise the boardwalk was to allow for vegetative plantings underneath
it in order to minimize hardcover. Ms. Susan Steinwall explained that a mowed path would require a different
type of grass than the proposed natural prairie grass.
Rahn indicated it is difficult to find the hardship to allow the boardwalk.
Kempf stated his support for the architectural, ecological and aesthetic factors of the proposed restoration area.
He would be in favor of the boardwalk with a condition it be maintained into the future,but was not in favor of
the landing. He also noted the general supportive comments from the Planning Commission for the lakeshore
restoration and buffer features.
Ms. Steinwall agreed to accept a proposed condition to maintain the restored area into the future.
4. Variance to allow a fence within 75' of the lake.
It was a consensus to accept staff's recommendation on this variance.
Mr. O'Shaughnessy indicated granting of the fence variance was not that significant to the project.
Leslie moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend the following actions for Application#04-3012,Roger
O'Shaughnessy, 1265 Brackett's Point Road:
1. Approval of the conditional use permit to allow chimney heights of 40' 8"where a 30'
maximum is normally allowed.
2. Approval of the variance and conditional use permit for construction and fill within the
floodplain incorporating the recommendations of the MCWD and the City Engineer.
3. Denial of the hardcover variance for 438 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75' setback zone.
4. Denial of the variance to allow a fence within 75' of the lake.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2.
Chair Mabusth stated she wanted to see the City support property owners in the restoration of lakeshore
similar to the O'Shaughnessy's proposal. She urged the Planning Commission to take up this issue for
discussion. Chair Mabusth remarked her approval of the boardwalk would be conditioned on it meeting the
less than 30"height,4' wide with no landing and only through the portion through the restored prairie area,
and would also deny the fence variance in the 0-75' setback zone.
Leslie advised the applicant to consider returning to seek approval on the hardcover variance in the future.
Chair Mabusth and Kempf explained they concurred with all staff recommendations except for the hardcover
variance/boardwalk, which they would have approved with the conditions Chair Mabusth summarized above.
Page 27 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
12. #04-3014 TIMOTHY POWERS,3210 NAVARRE LANE,VARIANCE,PUBLIC HEARING
(9:37-9:55 p.m.)
Lynn Powers, 3210 Navarre Lane, applicant,was present.
Gaffron presented the application for a 24.5' rear yard setback variance when 30' is normally required and
24.5' currently exists in order to construct a second story above the existing first story residence, and to add
two garage stalls. The application is for a remodeling of the existing structure and not a rebuild, and submitted
an opinion that the existing foundation will support the 2nd story addition. The existing garage is 24.5' from
the rear lot line, and is proposed to be expanded eastward at that same setback. Gaffron advised the applicant
proposed to remove the existing shed in an effort to decrease the non-conforming rear yard. He pointed out
the adjacent lot to the north is the neighbor most affected by the non-conforming rear yard setback,however,
the applicant's rear yard is acting as that neighbor's side year,where a 10' setback would normally be
required.
Gaffron indicated staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback as submitted,including the removal of
the existing shed. He advised there were no hardcover issues to be addressed. Gaffron noted that if in the
future the applicant wants to install the circular driveway it would require the Public Services Director review
and approval.
Lynn Powers, applicant,explained the architectural plans do show a more formal entry with a circular
driveway but that is not being requested at this time. Chair Mabusth advised that three curb cuts on a smaller
property might be difficult to acquire permits. Ms. Powers replied that if the circular driveway becomes
impossible than perhaps a walkway could be considered.
Ms. Powers confirmed they were advised the existing foundation can support a second story addition as it has
good footings.
Chair Mabusth invited the public to comment.
Julie Copeland, 2180 Kenwood Way, stated she is the neighbor to the rear of the subject property. She
indicated she is about 60' from the house and privacy is her primary concern. With a second story addition,
she explained she would be more exposed, and noted that her side yard is where she plays with her dogs. Ms.
Copeland asked for information about whether there will be a fence, what type of vegetation will be used,what
type of rooms will be on the second story and that the property is being improved for investment purposes,but
that she plans to remain.
Ms. Powers confirmed that it is an investment property. She explained they intend to put up a nicer fence than
what is there currently and will try to accommodate any issues of privacy. The second story main view will be
to the front not to the rear yard. Ms. Powers stated the second story would have a master bedroom with bath,
a walk-in closet, another bath and a smaller bedroom. The part of the house facing Ms. Copeland's property
will have smaller windows, about 24-30"in size. She also stated the existing shed and deck will be removed.
Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. There were none.
Fritzler moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3014,Timothy and Lynn
Powers,3210 Navarre Lane,granting a rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 24.5'
when 30' is normally required and 24.5' currently exists in order to construct a second story above the
existing first story,and to add two garage stalls,and to recommend approval of the plans as submitted,
including the removal of the existing shed.
Page 28 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(12. #04-3014 TIMOTHY POWERS,Continued)
Rahn emphasized the applicant's plan results in adding both 3.8' horizontally and vertically to a non-
conforming use into the substandard setback.
Ms. Powers explained that existing garage structure is the 3.8'jog into the non-conforming setback.
Rahn stated that historically the Planning Commission permitted non-conforming houses to go vertically but
may not support the garage extending horizontally encroaching into the non-conforming setback.
Gaffron illustrated that the roof overhangs are shown extending past the wall of the house,referring to Exhibits
F-1 and F-2. It was confirmed that the house walls will be only extended vertically and there will be no stories
above the garage.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Gaffron advised the application will be referred to the June 14,2004 City Council meeting.
13. #04-3015 ROBERT LUND ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND BONNIBEL BYERS, 1389 ORONO
LANE,VARIANCE,PUBLIC HEARING(9:55-10:28 p.m.)
William Byars, 1389 Orono Lane, applicant, was present.
Curtis introduced the application for proposed shoreline alterations to repair and re-vegetate an ice ridge, an
exterior remodel,roofline alteration, driveway relocation and attached garage resulting variances for
hardcover, average lakeshore setback and side yard setback and a conditional use permit for grading and filling
within 75' of the OHWL. The application also includes removal of an existing 20' x 40' detached garage that
is 4.5' over the rear property line into the right-of-way.
She indicated the City Engineer recommended the plan should include more detail with regard to erosion
control and rain garden construction, showing a silt curtain on the plans and other proposed erosion controls.
The applicant's contractor submitted the recommended details and Curtis provided this information to the
Planning Commission. Further, it is recommended the erosion control measures should be inspected and
approved by the City prior to any site work, and that the erosion control measures should remain in place until
vegetation is established and the shoreline is stabilized.
Regarding the average lakeshore setback and the substandard east side setback, Curtis indicated staff does find
a hardship in the current location of the home on the lot, as this project is merely an exterior remodel.
Approximately 75%of the existing home is located between 44' and 66' into the average lakeshore setback.
The existing eastern portion of the home encroaches 3.6' into the required 30' side yard setback. The
applicants are proposing to change this part of the home from pitched roof to a balcony. Portions of the
balcony and railing will be higher than the existing edge of roof,thus slightly enlarging the building envelope
within the substandard side setback of 26.4' where 30' is required.
Curtis reported staff finds that there is not a hardship to justify granting the hardcover variance for 28.31%
within the 75'-250' zone. The existing garage is located at the road and the existing driveway hardcover is
excessive as it is not necessary to access a garage and serves as a parking area. Therefore as the property is
currently over in hardcover within the 75'-250' zone and the proposed driveway could be reconfigured to meet
the required hardcover limit of 25%by removing 880 s.f. or potentially the turnaround, staff cannot support
the hardcover variance.
Page 29 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(13. #04-3015 ROBERT LUND ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND BONNIBEL BYERS, Continued)
Curtis recommended the following approvals:
1. Approval of the average lakeshore setback variances in order to add a balcony to the second story of
the eastern side, and to remove the front deck, change the roofline and add a witch's hat feature to the
western portion of the lake side of the home.
2. Approval of a side setback variance in order to construct an open balcony over an existing sitting room
where roof currently exists 26.4' from the property line where 30' is required and 26.4' setback
currently exists.
3. Approval of the conditional use permit for lakeshore alterations. Heavy duty silt fence with steel t-
posts should be installed along the shoreline once construction begins to protect the exposed slope.
The silt fence should be maintained throughout the construction process and remain in place until the
slope is stabilized and vegetation is established.
4. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer.
With respect to the hardcover variance to allow 28.31%where 29.48%exists and 25%is allowed Curtis
recommended that the Planning Commission deny this variance and ask the applicants to reconfigure the
proposed driveway(or other hardcover)to meet the 25%hardcover requirement.
Robert Lund,architect for the Byars'project at 1389 Orono Lane,illustrated the site's constraints, emphasizing
the following:
a. The existing 4-car garage at the north end of the property on Orono Lane is over the property line and
needs to be removed. He pointed out that if the garage were moved just south of the 50' setback off
Orono Lane it would increase hardcover in the 75'-250' setback zone.
b. The vegetation on the lot's western side effectively screens the western house(neighbor)
from the Byars' property.
c. The topographic features constrain the driveway and parking layout, as there the proposed driveway
leads the level area to be used for parking.
d. The well location is within the level area proposed for parking.
Mr. Lund asked the Planning Commission to review the project as a whole,recognizing that the garage is
proposed for the 75'-250' setback zone and its drastic increase of hardcover burden in that zone. He explained
that currently there is parking for four cars in a garage in the 250'-500'setback zone and surface parking for
four cars within the 75'-250' setback zone. What the applicant is proposing is to reduce the garage from a 4-
car garage in the 250'-500' setback zone to a 2-car garage within the 75'-250 setback zone and reduce surface
parking for four cars to only three cars. To accomplish this, Mr. Lund explained a lot of groundcover would
be removed on the eastern side, on the southern side and the existing driveway and parking along the
northeastern portion. Overall,he stated that hardcover would be reduced in the 250'-500'setback zone by
1,064 s.f.reducing hardcover in the 75'-250' setback zone by 310 s.f. and there is really no hardcover change
to the 0'-75' setback zone. Overall hardcover reduction for the project is 1,374 s.f., structural coverage is
reduced by 109 s.f., and the hardcover for the lot as a whole remains essentially the same by increasing 10.5
s.f.
In addition,Mr. Lund pointed out the owner's strong environmental concerns and proposes to construct a rain
garden to handle surface water run-off in the 0-75' setback zone that should more than handle the extra amount
of run-off brought on by the proposed hardcover increases.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments.
Mr. Byars, applicant, explained their attempts to reduce hardcover by reducing from the four car garage to a
two car garage and removal of the back stoop and front deck. He added there is a need for some surface
Page 30 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(13. #04-3015 ROBERT LUND ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND BONNIBEL BYERS,Continued)
parking,pointing out the proposed driveway is smaller than the existing one. Other than reduce the house size,
Mr. Byars concluded that hardcover had been minimized to the extent possible.
Curtis confirmed there is 29.48 s.f. existing and 28.3 s.f. is proposed in the 75'-250' setback zone, and there
would be removal of non-conforming hardcover in the 250'-500' setback zone.
Chair Mabusth asked if a large tree would be lost with the new driveway. Mr. Lund replied that tree will be
lost.
Chair Mabusth commented that based on her site visit she thought there would be no negative impact to the
neighbors with the proposed average lakeshore setback for the proposed `witch's hat' feature. The proposed
second story deck is being expanded in a substandard setback but she did not think it would be a problem due
to the tall trees and angle of the house. She stated the lakeshore improvements are necessary due to erosion
and the ice ridge.
Chair Mabusth concurred with the staff recommendation to reduce hardcover impacts, such as a proposing a
smaller driveway turnaround area and narrowing the driveway width. She referred to City standards that could
be applied and result in some hardcover reductions.
Fritzler commented that the application is really going from a four-car garage to a three-car garage with two
cars on the upper level and one car down on the lower level. He recommended a condition to allow
installation of a 6' wide door to ensure the lower level does not become a garage stall but used only for
storage.
Mr. Byars responded there is no driveway proposed to the lower garage level and it would be used for storage
of their sailboat. Mr. Lund indicated the lower level currently has a 7' door opening. Mr. Byars indicated he
had no problem with a limitation to the door width for the lower level.
Fritzler stated there needs to be a reduction in hardcover.
Leslie concurred and indicated the driveway should be narrower to reduce hardcover. Also,he supported the
rain garden concept but noted the landscape plan proposed a boardwalk,referring to the prior discussion held
on Application#04-3012, Roger D. O'Shaughnessy, at 1265 Brackett's Point Road and their proposed
boardwalk through a prairie restoration at the shoreline. He stated the Planning Commission needs to be
consistent in their decisions and also it is a reminder about the contemporary need for further Planning
Commission discussions on this issue.
Curtis interjected the landscape plan proposes a stairway and not a boardwalk. Mr. Byars explained it is a
stairway with an existing walkout that attaches to the deck with water; Mr. Lund stated the surveyor missed
that and an addendum was added to the application.
Rahn stated he agreed with staff that further hardcover reductions are necessary.
Curtis confirmed that a total of 880 s.f. is the difference between 25% standard and 28.31%proposed
hardcover.
Chair Mabusth suggested the proposed 10'driveway could be trimmed down to 8' width in the 75'-
250'setback zone with relocation the driveway to still miss the well and still provide some parking but perhaps
not have a driveway loop as means to reduce hardcover.
Page 31 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(13. #04-3015 ROBERT LUND ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND BONNIBEL BYERS,Continued)
Bremer commented the due to the nature of the lot and house site,there results in a long driveway,and
wondered if the 25%hardcover standard can be met on such a property.
Chair Mabusth added that Orono Lane has limited on-street parking resulting in surface parking spaces on the
property.
Rahn asked if there is a possibility for the garage to be pushed closer into the side yard lot line.
Mr. Lund replied that such a shift of the garage would put it in front of the dining room making a darker
interior.
Bremer clarified that Rahn intended the shift to be on the east side to allow more turn around capability in
front of the house.
Mr. Lund indicated the proposed garage location is at the 30' side yard setback.
Rahn expressed that it may be a better situation to allow a side yard variance in order to meet the hardcover
standard.
Mr.Byars commented that the neighbor to the east probably would not like to have the garage moved closed to
the side yard. He agreed to narrow the driveway width but the property needs some surface parking.
Bremer suggested the turn around be relocated and the driveway narrower.
Jurgens asked for information about the lakeshore and wondered if the plan is expanding the area.
Mr. Byars explained the proposal adds 6-8' for the rain garden before the shoreline.
Curtis confirmed the rain garden feature is not part of the current application, except for the grading, filling
and alteration of the ice ridge.
Mr. Byars acknowledged that even with the driveway width reduction it is unlikely the application will meet
the 25%hardcover standard, and that means he may have to refigure the house dimensions. He would prefer
to try to revise his plan to get to the 25%hardcover and not to return to the Planning Commission.
Chair Mabusth moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3015,Robert Lund
for William and Bonnibel Byars, 1389 Orono Lane for the following:
a. Approval of the average lakeshore setback variances in order to add a balcony to the second
story of the eastern side,and to remove the front deck on the lake side of the home and replace it
with a garden and a much smaller deck, change the roofline and add a witch's hat feature to the
western portion of the lake side of the home.
b. Approval of a side setback variance in order to construct an open balcony over an existing
sitting room where roof currently exists 26.4' from the property line where 30' is required and
26.4' setback currently exists.
c. Approval of the conditional use permit for lakeshore alterations within 75' of the OHWL in
order to repair an ice ridge and create sediment catching rain gardens. Heavy duty silt fence
with steel t-posts should be installed along the shoreline once construction begins to protect the
exposed slope. The silt fence should be maintained throughout the construction process and
remain in place until the slope is stabilized and vegetation is established.
d. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer;
Page 32 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
and,to recommend denial of a hardcover variance to reduce the existing 29.48% hardcover
within the 75'-250' zone to 28.31%where 25% is normally allowed and to ask the applicants to
reconfigure the proposed driveway(or other hardcover)to meet the 25% hardcover
requirement.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nay 0.
14. #04-3016 HENRY LAZNIARZ OF WAYZATA DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT, 120 BROWN
ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION,PUBLIC HEARING(10:29-11:02 p.m.)
Gaffron presented the proposed 7-lot residential plat(PRD)of property abutting the Luce Line Trail and Long
Lake Creek. This property was the subject of extensive reviews by the Planning Commission and Council
during the period 1999-2001. A variety of schemes ranging from 4 lots to 7 lots had been proposed,but the
ultimate result was denial based on the lack of suitable access to the site. The proposal includes a private cul-
de-sac road that accesses from Brown Road South. The proposal includes obtaining municipal water and
sewer from the City of Long Lake. Legal actions taken by property owners,the Van Eeckhouts,resulted in
findings filed on May 5,2004. City Attorney Tom Barrett reviewed the findings and concluded they indicate
the existing access easement does not provide suitable access meeting all regular City requirements for
subdivision. However,Mr. Barrett suggests that the City proceed with review of the application through the
preliminary plat approval stage. If the developer ultimately cannot meet the conditions imposed by the City for
final plat approval, final plat approval will not be granted.
In staff's opinion,the property is a candidate for development as a PRD, due the physical nature of the
property. There are only 14 non-wetland, dry buildable acres that are proposed to be subdivided into seven
(7)lots. The seven home sites are proposed to be clustered within an area roughly 300' by 500', on the high
knoll in the westerly quadrant of the property.
Gaffron indicated the proposed individual lot lines will go all the way to the property boundary and
emphasized that no open space outlots are proposed.This is not typical of what the Planning Commission has
seen in prior approved PRD's,where there were outlot open spaces. Gaffron pointed out that with a larger,
open space outlot,the perceptions of trespass are different than when the area is in individual lot ownership.
The issue of individual lot ownership versus larger open space areas owned in common is one that the
Planning Commission needs to determine.
Gaffron advised the proposed PRD for residential purposes would be in conformity with the Community
Management Plan(CMP)as long as density standards are met, that is, a density at 1 unit per 2 acres. He
anticipates the perceived density of the clustered, compact layout of perhaps 2 units/acre with individual lots
that actually range in gross area from 1.05 acres to 3.90 acres.
Gaffron advised the individual lots do not meet all lot size or setback requirements of the R-1B District. The
proposed 35' front and 10' side setbacks are typical of Orono's 1'acre zones.
Gaffron observed that the proposed site layout and lot standards makes more sense than prior submittals as it
no longer proposes long,narrow back lot necks with poor driveway patterns. Now it is a very clustered,
compact development.
Gaffron referred to the MnDNR comments in Exhibit H, supporting the conservation area and expressing
reservations about individual lot's private access to the Luce Line trail.
Gaffron continued he review the significant Subdivision Review points addressed in the Staff Report, dated
May 14, 2004,noting its highlights. Included are 7 Issues for Consideration to be addressed by the Planning
Commission and providing direction to staff and the applicant. Gaffron indicated that any recommendation for
Page 33 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(14. #04-3016 HENRY LAZNIARZ, Continued)
approval should address the Issues for Consideration the staff recommendation, as found on Page 8 and 9 of
the Staff Report,May 14, 2004.
Henry Lazniarz, applicant,conveyed that there is now an easement agreement with the Mary Dunn for road
access to Brown Road. The agreement has been submitted to the Dunn's.
Tom Goodrum, Schoell and Madson,planner for the applicant, explained that in an effort to preserve the
property physical amenities and to create a residential enclave with clustering the homes,the house pads are
50' x 80' and are expecting estate-style homes to built. Mr. Goodrum commented the layout features a massed
relationship and does not now force additional homes next to the two back to back homes on the south. He
expressed the plat layout was redesigned to accommodate the neighborhood and the Planning Commission's
concerns from earlier meetings. Trees loss will occur but is focused into one area with the clustering of the
home sites and are looking to plant boulevard trees and providing perimeter screening with trees looking both
inward and outward. He indicated the 18% slopes though not very long provide a natural setting for walkout
style houses.
Mr. Lazniarz added the road placement is proposed where the existing driveway is now to minimize site
disruption.
Mr. Goodrum concluded by stating the house will be custom-built and sensitive to the site,noting the grading
plan shown probably is exceeding what will occur.
Chair Mabusth asked for information about the final slopes behind the house pads. Mr. Goodrum
explained there is a 6' drop over 50' distance which is a 12% slope. Mr. Lazniarz assured the Planning
Commission that even though the plans indicated house pads 50' x 80' as a conservative example,he expects
no actual house to be constructed to that size. Mr. Lazniarz added their intent is to maximize the space
between homes. It was confirmed that only one principal structure with attached garages are proposed for the
site.
Chair Mabusth invited comments from the public.
Kevin Bigelow, 32 Apple Glen Road,Long Lake, questioned if the plans still propose using their dead-end
road. Mr. Lazniarz confirmed the PRD only proposes the extension of sewer and water from Long Lake.
Chair Mabusth offered Mr. Bigelow a copy of the Staff Report, dated May 14, 2004, for more information.
Doug Coleman, 140 S. Brown Road, Kallestad Acres, asked for confirmation of the proposed rear yard
setbacks. It was confirmed there would be a 50' rear yard setback to the Kallestad Acres lots and at least 75'
setback to creek.
Sandy Coleman, 140 S. Brown Road,Kallestad Acres, asked if the existing home would remain. She was told
that the plans indicated the existing home would be kept on site.
Mr. Lazniarz stated the sewer and water easement will be run down the easement with Dunn's and it will be
provided sewer and water as part of the agreement.
Mr. Coleman asked for more information about the removal of trees and final slopes at the knoll. Mr.
Goodrum explained that from the Kallestad Acres property there is a 50' setback and no grading is expected
within this setback, so that no trees will be affected within 50' of the Coleman's lot line.
Page 34 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(14. #04-3016 HENRY LAZNIARZ,Continued)
Mr. Lazniarz continued that each lot will be custom graded to minimize the loss of trees and he committed to
planting trees along the driveway to make it a tree-lined road and to replace trees lost on house sites. He
repeated their intention to minimize impacts to each site.
Jim Dunn, speaking for Mary Dunn,remarked the agreement has not yet been reached as Mr.Lazniarz stated.
It is under consideration and not yet signed.
Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments.
Mrs. Coleman asked for further confirmation that there the houses proposed will be 50' back from her property
line. Mr. Lazniarz responded that the setback is 50' but the houses will not be positioned at the setback,
resulting in potentially more distance,up to about 100' to the Coleman's property line because the houses will
be closer to the proposed street.
Chair Mabusth closed the public hearing.
Chair Mabusth led the Planning Commission is discussion of the following Issues for Consideration:
1. Does the Planning Commission agree with the use of the PRD subdivision method for this
property? It was a consensus that the PRD subdivision method should be used for this property.
2. Should the areas to be preserved via conservation easements,be in an Outlot,or merely as an
easement within each individual property? Chair Mabusth commented that to be consistent with prior
Planning Commission decisions, outlots owned by a homeowners association were created. Gaffron concurred
and explained that in standard subdivision plats usually individual lots were created with a wetland easement.
He advised that within an outlot the City can put whatever conditions/easements is deemed necessary. Bremer
asked for information about why not have an outlot versus individual lot ownership; Gaffron responded that
with a homeowner's association managing an outlot there is greater recreations use by more people than if it is
individually owned and had potential trespass issues.
Bremer commented that she would not support a path to the Luce Line Trail.
Chair Mabusth concurred with Bremer and thought there may be problems with people trespassing from the
Luce Line Trail into the subdivision area. She suggested the Parks Commission should look at the proposed
plan prior to Planning Commission action to ascertain if they have an interest in a walking access to the creek
and its existing bridge.
Mr. Van Eeckhout interjected that in the winter skiers use the land but in the summer there are very few.
Kempf suggested the Planning Commission focus on one issue at a time. He stated he liked the idea of a large
outlot used as a shared amenity managed by a homeowners association. Kempf noted the matter of pedestrian
access perhaps should be left to the Parks Commission for review and decision.
Jurgens commented that with a large outlot it may create one giant access to the Luce Line Trail.
Gaffron asked Fritzler about his experience with observing winter skiers use on the former Ski Tonka slopes
since he lives across the Luce Line Trail. Fritzler replied there is more snowmobiler use coming off the Luce
Line ridge and running up the hill and not from the owners or residents. It creates a spot where there is no
enforcement. In the summer,there had been some dirt bike use some while ago but not recently. Also,
horseback riders usually stay on the limestone or horse trail.
Page 35 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(14. #04-3016 HENRY LAZNIARZ, Continued)
Chair Mabusth asked Mr. Van Eeckhouts about his experience with the snowmobilers going on the property.
He replied there are very few and it is post No Trespassing.
Mr. Goodrum commented that as an outlot no one will feel ownership of it and believed individual lots
provided more control of the area.
Rahn concurred that individual lot ownership is better than an outlot design.
Chair Mabusth polled the Planning Commissioners; individual lot ownership received 5 supporters, outlot
design received 2 supporters. Chair Mabusth expressed she supported the outlot design to have better controls
and enforcement than individually owned lots.
3. What type of Luce Line access should be allowed(in terms of pathways, etc)?
This issue was referred to the Parks Commission before the Planning Commission would make a decision.
4. Does Planning Commission accept the proposed lot sizes, configurations and setbacks?
Chair Mabusth stated she would not accept the lot lines as shown as she supports an outlot layout. Further, she
commented that she did not think each lot had to a certain square footage area but in an attempt to minimize
impacts on the surrounding areas building pads could be created within the setbacks to adjacent parcels, such
as in the Northgate subdivision. She concluded that the proposed layout looks more like a standard
subdivision than a PRD.
There followed general discussion about whether the proposal should be looked at as a standard subdivision
with individual lot ownership, and what makes the proposal a PRD. Bremer commented that clustering the
houses creates a more environmentally design without huge lawns. Mr. Goodrum indicated that the 12 acres
of conservation and dedication of the area between the creek and the Luce Line Trail are features that make it a
PRD.
Gaffron referred to the PRD standards in Exhibit N-1 and read the standards into the record.
He summarized that a PRD is not required to have an outlot for open space but requires open space dedication
in some form and that a PRD can be done under the Code due to a property unique characteristics. He stated
there is nothing wrong with the proposed layout if structured correctly but it in undoubtedly one of the most
unique subdivisions done in a while because it is proposing clustering of the houses and its physical features
for possible public amenities on this property.
Mr. Lazniarz pointed out that on a plat in another city, they proposed conservation easements described as
drainage/utility easement on each lot with a metes and bounds description and with monuments to mark the
easement crossing each property line. This type of easement would be filed with the chain of title and the
association covenants would stipulate what can and cannot be done within the conservation easement.
Gaffron added the City Attorney should review the various methods for drainage and utility easement and
conservation easement and if these easements meet the open space requirement for subdivision.
Mr. Lazniarz offered to provide easement language from the City of Minnetonka as an example for review.
Gaffron stated the City has standard language for conservation and flowage easements over wetlands and
asked what the Planning Commission would want to allow on the slope or dry areas.
Page 36 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(14. #04-3016 HENRY LAZNIARZ, Continued)
Mr. Goodrum explained his experience with the City of Minnetonka and homeowner association on what is
allowed in the conservation easements. He summarized there is a full range of what may be allowed or
restricted, such as no removal of trees,no removal of dead brush,removal of fallen trees may allowed as well
as buckthorn, foot paths may be allowed and some restricted access as a measure of pure conservation.
It was a consensus that no structures,no fencing,no tree houses,no bridges,no storage,no logging or cutting
of trees,no keeping of animals,no motor vehicles,no boats would be allowed in a proposed conservation
easement.
Gaffron asked for a consensus on the lot sizes. It was a consensus that the proposed lot sizes were acceptable.
5. Does Planning Commission feel that slopes of greater than 18% should be protected from land
alteration for this development? If so, a very different layout might result. Chair Mabusth commented that to
develop this property would require land alterations of the 18% slopes. Mr. Lazniarz reiterated that housing
costs will maintain smaller than proposed house pad sizes and this will minimize slope impacts. It was a
consensus to not prohibit land alteration of slopes greater than 18%.
6. Is Planning Commission comfortable with moving ahead with this review given that the issue of
access to Brown Road is still unresolved?
David McCuskey, Shorewood, attorney for David and Connie McCuskey, 130 Brown Road South, advised the
McCuskey's property had a 10'road and utility easement over it in favor of the City. He questioned if this
easement is proposed to be used for the private roadway.
Chair Mabusth responded that an existing 40' easement granted to an individual for access to the subject
property, and there is also the 10' wide along the 40' easement. Gaffron confirmed the 10' city easement is
proposed to be used in combination with the 40' easement. Mr. McCuskey asked if the City Attorney
concurred with using a public easement in combination with a private road. Gaffron indicated staff will confer
with the City Attorney to confirm these facts and asked for Mr. McCuskey's phone and address to advise him
of the City Attorney's opinion.
Mr. Lazniarz confirmed the proposed 24' private road is situated within the 40' easement within the total 50'
width. Gaffron indicated that normally the City prefers roadways to be centered within the easement due to
snow storages needs, etc. He summarized the question if the 10' public easement can be used by a private
developer for private road purposes and there needs to be resolution of the question. Gaffron introduced a
concept whereby the portion of road from Brown Road to the subject property becomes public road. He
indicated more discussions are needed on this issue.
Chair Mabusth asked to discuss the road width issue, stating that if the spirit of a PRD is to minimize impact,
would more trees be lost with the 24' road width section. Mr. Lazniarz indicated the proposal includes curb
and gutter but stated they are open-minded on whether the road would be an urban or rural road section design.
Gaffron indicated the City Engineer should look at this and provide a recommendation.
Chair Mabusth questioned the Planning Commission is there is enough resolution on the main access to the
property for voting at this meeting. She suggested the Planning Commission wait for the Parks Commission to
comment on the access to the Luce Line Trail.
Gaffron indicated that the Parks Commission may look at this matter at its meeting on the first Monday in June
2004. He also stated the road access issue could be addressed as part of Final Plat approval.
Page 37 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(14. #04-3016 HENRY LAZNIARZ, Continued)
Leslie asked if the Parks Commission recommendation on access to the Luce Line Trail would actually affect
the site lot layout.
Bremer did not support that a point access to the Luce Line Trail be approved with the PRD and therefore it
was not necessary to go through the process of Parks Commission review.
Rahn commented that the access issue is not something needed to be determined but left to the individual lot
owner to determine. Chair Mabusth responded that it is a matter of access control is an individual lot owner
creates an informal path to the Luce Line Trail. It was pointed out there are only three lots abutting the Luce
Line Trail. It was a consensus to not stipulate any point access.
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3016 for Preliminary Plat—
Planned Residential Development(PRD),Henry Lazniarz/Wayzata Design and Development, 120
Brown Road South for a proposed 7-lot residential plat of property abutting the Luce Line Trail and
Long Lake Creek, subject to the following stipulations:
a. Approving the site layout and lot standards,lot configuration and setbacks
b. Requiring a conservation easement to match the utility/drainage easement as shown
c. Requiring no joint access point to the Luce Line Trail
d. Resolving the legal issues resulting from the private road and assuring real access to the
property,including utilization of the 10'public easement
e. Requiring a Phase I archaeological survey be completed prior to Final Plat Approval
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2.
Chair Mabusth expressed her opinion that she agreed with all issues except for the format of the PRD. She
supported designation of an open space outlot with credit for the area based on the outlot area and all of the
dry buildable area instead of individual lots.
Kempf stated he agreed with the entire proposal except that if it were an outlot with neighborhood
responsibility for the area he expected the neighborhood would evolve differently from individually owned
lots.
15. #04-3017 SPRUCE HILL PROPERTIES,INC.,3775 BAYSIDE ROAD,VARIANCES,PUBLIC
HEARING(11:42-11:50 p.m.)
Dave Thorp, Spruce Hill Properties, Inc., applicant,was present.
Curtis explained the application requesting hardcover, lake setback and rear yard(street) setback variances in
order to do an extensive remodel,which consists of renovating the first floor and re-constructing the '/2 story
above. She recommended approval of the application and plans as submitted due to the hardships inherent to
the configuration of the property, in particular,the shallow lot depth and size and location of the existing home
on the lot.
Matt Cookson, Spruce Hill Properties, agreed that the shallow nature of the property makes limited buildable
area,as the lake yard setback and front yard setback overlap. He stated the house now sits on the most
conforming location on the lot meeting the 30'side yard setback. The proposed remodel is on the existing
foundation and slightly reduces the amount of existing hardcover. Further,he suggested they could reduce the
cement patio to the setback of the deck,reducing it about 6' back.
Dave Thorp, Spruce Hill Properties, commented that the deck is essential to the property.
Page 38 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(15. #04-3017 SPRUCE HILL PROPERTIES,INC., Continued)
Chair Mabusth pointed out the existing patio/landing is cracked and suggested it be replaced. The applicants
indicated it is proposed to be replaced.
Chair Mabusth moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3017, Spruce Hill
Properties,to grant a hardcover variance to permit less than 3.8% hardcover within the 0-75' zone
when 0% is normally allowed and 3.9% currently exists(removal of 7.5' x 2.5' chimney shaft) and when
added to the 75'-250' zone allowance yields total hardcover of less than 30% due to the reduction in size
of the patio by about 6',to grant a lake setback variance to permit structure within 75' of the lake and
to grant a street yard setback variance to permit a 22' setback when 50' is normally required and 22'
currently exists. She commented that this is certainly a hardship lot.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comment. There were none.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Curtis advised the applicant to mark up the proposed patio removals on the application and provide the square
footage measurements and return them to the City for inclusion in the approving resolution and site plan, and
that a new survey is not required.
16. #04-3021 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING CODE REVISIONS SECTIONS 78-72,78-281,78-282,
78-283-78-1279(6),78-1405,78-1432,ALLOW ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS AND REMOVE
DUPLICATE LANGUAGE,PUBLIC HEARING(11:51-11:54 p.m.)
Chair Mabusth moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments
for Sections 78-1405 Entrance Monuments,78-72 Administrative Approval,78-282-300 Deletes
Duplicate Language,78-1279(6)Administrative Approval and 78-14342 Accessory Buildings.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
17. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS APRIL 25,2004 AND MAY 10,2004.
Kempf reported on the May 10, 2004 City Council meeting he attended. Gaffron added that Big Island access
application was approved and the MCWD is requiring filing of an easement declaration that is yet to be
determined.
Leslie reported on the April 26,2004 City Council meeting,noting that the Valerius coffee house application
discussion emphasized the need for proof of hardship that was echoed by the Planning Commission discussion
and recommendation. As a new Planning Commission member,he thought this was confirming to what the
Planning Commission's goals are for granting hardship variances.
He explained the City Council action took out the parking spaces on the Valerius application.
Page 39 of 40
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
18. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Chair Mabusth led a general discussion about the Planning Commission starting time of 6:00 p.m. and whether
there was any interest in setting a later starting time as Planning Commission Bremer cannot arrive at 6:00
p.m. due to her work/commute time. Bremer indicated that she generally arrives by 6:15 p.m. There was a
consensus to make no change in the starting time.
Chair Mabusth expressed a need to schedule a general discussion of the code issues with boardwalks.
Chair Mabusth advised a party to honor former Planning Commission chairpersons is tentatively set for early
in September 2004. Following brief discussion,it was a consensus to set the party for the September 19, 2004,
the 3rd weekend.
19. APPROVAL OF APRIL 19,2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Rahn moved,Chair Mabusth seconded,to approve the Minutes of the April 19,2004 Planning
Commission meeting.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0,Abstain 1.
20. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
MAY 24,2004 AND JUNE 14, 2004.
May 24, 2004 - J. Marc Fritzler June 14,2004 - Jeanne Mabusth
Gaffron announced the next Planning Commission workshop is set for Wednesday, June 3,2004 at 5:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 12:04 a.m.
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 a.m.
eanne Mabusth,Chair
Page 40 of 40