HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/21/2004 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE .:TL1lve I ) 3 J
❑ COUNCIL
O'PLANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED
El
COMMISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
❑ OTHER
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
IC < I
1. `Jir1- tr&1L_o-fe4/ �'�� } nom: I• " di-- 300 1
2. I(thLL 'f e /34.11/ z= C ty
3. / I(�X ilk , J .. f j 3 L� 4/`r'L ' ,�.
4. ,L/ �� � ,w� _ I3(5 Lifl -.t'D('
5. ii M\1Mc r (a C Ir0.ti 12 dkt► 1 01-1 3G)2_:3
6. (1).A.c;t-k I . �t IE I CS 1,t, 6vevt.1/4...- U `3c)
7./_96t4,4449 lJ .�v1 o Vzc i ) Q2.0, Lk) tk),4(1)7 4-i4 Si. Gtf- 3oi('
8. 9(? Y'Ye // W,/ e( Z 2_;4 /-3 S
C �
e- /'i
ltO■1 l,1 11
9. (1 l l/G�d'1 C5 �,U S 1%0'1 elk)O � 04- _3 d1
10.
L&le ilti7Z ,
1
11. 2 'V �^'�'
12.
13.
14.
15.
W:Wdministrative Support\(Forms)\Public Attendance.wpd
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 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 Jim Leslie, David Rahn, Ralph Kempf, Roland Jurgens III, J. Marc
Fritzler and Alternate Janice Berg; City Council Liaison Lili McMillan; Representing staff were
Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planner Melanie Curtis,Planner Janice Gundlach and Recorder
Glenda D. Spiotta.
Chair Jeanne Mabusth called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
1. #04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE, VARIANCE,
PUBLIC HEARING(6:02-6:08 p.m.)
Terry and Gretchen Blount, applicants, were present.
Gundlach explained the applicants received a variance for hardcover and average lakeshore setback
for the deck in March 2004 and that this application is technically an amendment to the March 2004
approvals. The amendment includes a hardcover variance and a variance to allow two structures to
be within 10' of each other, in order to allow a covered entry over the front stoop of the home within
10' of the existing detached garage. The applicant is proposing to construct a roof over the front
stoop in order to achieve a covered entry. Although over existing hardcover, a hardcover variance is
required because the nature of the hardcover is changing to structural. The existing hardcover within
the 75'-250' zone is 39.25%where 25% is normally allowed. No new hardcover is proposed.
Gundlach advised the renovation of the existing house meets all required setbacks. However, with
the addition of the covered entry the separation between the roof and the existing detached garage
would be four(4) feet where normally a separation of 10' is required.
Because the applicant's have chosen to rebuild on the existing foundation and are tied to the existing
hardcover, Gundlach recommended approval of the variances as no new hardcover is proposed and
staff has not determined any negative impacts that would result from the covered entry construction.
Chair Mabusth invited comments from the applicants. There were none.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none.
Rahn commented that it did not appear the front stoop footings were frost-protected. Gundlach
replied the Building Official authorized the front stoop to be moved 6"to the south so that footings
can be built, as well as there being a potential for some required fire proofing.
Chair Mabusth asked for clarification of impacts of structural coverage or hardcover. Gundlach
replied the structural coverage is compliant at 15% and there is no new hardcover.
Fritzler questioned if there is a roof now where the new entry will be built. Terry Blount, applicant,
responded that the current entry is not roofed. Fritzler asked for clarification about the amounts of
hardcover being removed with the roof addition and deck removal as seen on the drawings.
Page 1 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(1. #04-2969 TERRY AND GRETCHEN BLOUNT, 1390 CHERRY PLACE,VARIANCE,
PUBLIC HEARING (6:02-6:08 p.m.)
Gundlach clarified the drawing is from the previous approval where there was a decrease in
hardcover. With this amendment, the applicant is not proposing any new hardcover compared to the
previous approval and hardcover reduction. Mr. Blount explained the previous deck was removed
and new decking was built, but that now the total hardcover footage is less.
Chair Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-2969,
Terry and Gretchen Blount, 1390 Cherry Place, amending the originally approved deck
replacement variance to include approval of the following variances in order to allow a covered
entry over the front stoop:
1. Hardcover variance to permit 39.25% hardcover in the 75'-250' zone when 25% is
normally allowed and 39.25% currently exists and no change is requested.
2. Variance to allow the proposed covered entry to come within 10' of the existing detached
garage.
This approval is subject to the following condition:
1. Should, if under some unforeseen circumstance, the covered entry comes within 3' of the
existing detached garage the construction shall adhere to the pertinent building code
provisions for fire-proofing. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Staff advised Application#04-2969 would be scheduled for the June 28, 2004 City Council session.
2. #04-3009 JAMES AND DARCY LOFFLER, 1690 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE,
REVISED PLAN, PUBLIC HEARING (6:09-6:15 p.m.)
James Loffler, applicant, was present.
Gaffron advised the application was tabled from the May 17, 2004 Planning Commission meeting
and since then an updated survey with grading plan and a revised site plan were received. The
applicant submitted a revised plan with reduced hardcover and eliminated the lot coverage variance.
He stated the applicants drastically reduced the size of the house and driveway with a minimal back-
up apron based on the City's standards. The house meets the average lakeshore setback requirement
and 75' setback, as well as all other required setbacks.
From staff's perspective, Gaffron indicated there is some hardship to support approval of a modest
variance based on the lot shape and the need for a reasonable back-up apron. Also, with moving the
house nearer to the road, it is a potential hardship for a reduction in views and impacts on the
adjoining average setback lines,justifying some measure of hardship variance for the site. Given that
the applicant reduced the house size to meet the lot coverage 15% limit, given the factors of lot
shape, road access and location of neighboring homes, staff believes the proposed plan is reasonable.
Chair Mabusth asked for applicant's comments. There were none.
Leslie remarked the applicant did a great job with the reductions on the revised plan.
Chair Mabusth invited public comments. There were none.
Page 2 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(2. #04-3009 JAMES AND DARCY LOFFLER, 1690 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,
REVISED PLAN, PUBLIC HEARING (6:09-6:15 p.m.)
Leslie moved, Chair Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-3009
James and Darcy Loffler, 1690 Shadywood Road, granting variances needed for the revised
plan:
1. Lot area (0.39 acre where 0.50 acre required; does not meet 80% rule)
2. 75-250' Hardcover (Proposed =3,557 s.f. /10,780 s.f. in zone=33.0% where 25% is
allowed.)
3. Subject to City Engineer acceptance of grading and drainage plan.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Fritzler urged the applicants to adhere to the approved variances and discouraged the applicants from
enlarging hardcover surfaces, i.e. backup apron and deck, in the future.
Gaffron advised the application would be scheduled for the June 28, 2004 City Council meeting.
Mr. Loffler thanked the Planning Commission for their service to the community.
NEW BUSINESS
3. #04-3010 THEODORE L. CAPRA, 3534 IVY PLACE, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, PUBLIC HEARING (6:15-6:32 p.m.)
Theodore Capra, applicant, was present.
Gundlach presented the application for a proposal to tear down the existing house and rebuild,
removing approximately 2,356 s.f. of hardcover, although the applicant is still requesting a variance
to permit 4,676 s.f. of hardcover, or 32.86%. The applicant is proposing to remove 320 s.f. of
existing hardcover within the 0-75' zone and would then comply with the 0%hardcover standard for
the 0-75' zone. The lot meets the %2 acre standard as well as the width standard.
Gundlach pointed out the proposed house plans leave only 349 s.f. for allowable non-structural
hardcover and if the applicant were to construct the proposed 3+stall garage at the road, 1,368 s.f. of
driveway hardcover would not be necessary. In summary, she stated the applicant's property is
conforming in area and width, and the proposed application meets all other setbacks, including
removal of the non-conforming detached garage at the road and the non-conforming shed located at
the lake. She stated staff finds that no valid hardships inherent to the land to warrant approval of the
hardcover variance.
Further, Gundlach advised the applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow grading all the
way down to the shore. Proposed site grading would consist of a substantial fill amount on the street
and side of the home, which does not require a CUP unless it exceeds 500 cubic yards. Gundlach
referred to the City Engineer review comments in Exhibit F of the staff report, dated June 17, 2004.
Page 3 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(3. #04-3010 THEODORE L. CAPRA,3534 IVY PLACE,VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, PUBLIC HEARING - continued)
Gundlach recommended denial of both the hardcover variance and conditional use permit request.
She indicated the applicant has an option to revise his plan to incorporate a smaller detached garage
or reduce the total foot print in order to achieve 25%hardcover within the 75'-250' zone. Also, the
applicant could revise his plan to incorporate minimal grading only as needed to remove the existing
retaining wall, noting the proposed amount of grading is unnecessary to achieve a walk/out style
house.
Mr. Capra, applicant, pointed out his proposal decreases the hardcover from 49%to 32.8%. He
indicated that he thought rock retaining walls were undesirable so, instead, proposed substantial
lakeside grading. If it were possible, he wished to install two rock retaining walls instead of grading
the entire slope. Mr. Capra commented that he believed his new house would greatly enhance the
property instead of the existing old house. He explained he had already installed a shoreline riprap
wall.
Chair Mabusth asked to see Mr. Capra's photos of the shoreline riprap wall. Mr. Capra provided the
photos to members of the Planning Commission.
Chair Mabusth inquired of staff if there were signs of erosion on the property. Gundlach replied that
the proposed retaining walls were not on the applicant's grading plans and she had not observed any
slope failures.
Chair Mabusth asked if lakeside grading would be necessary if the house were moved further back
from the lakeshore. Gundlach explained that the City Engineer and the applicant's architect think the
proposed house can be built without grading in the lakeside yard but fill would be required for the
street and side yard.
Mr. Capra explained that after re-consideration of the substantial amount of lakeside grading
proposed, he now would like to pursue installation of retaining walls.
Chair Mabusth recommended tabling the conditional use permit request for grading in the 0'-75'
zone until Mr. Capra finalizes his grading plan. She stated it was difficult for her to approve of a
hardcover variance on a property that meets the width and area standards for its zoning district.
Rahn concurred with Chair Mabusth's and staff's denial recommendation,pointing out that it is a
conforming site and he did not see any valid hardship.
Mr. Capra commented that Ivy Place is very narrow and has no on-street parking. He also wanted the
larger garage space for inside storage of sports equipment.
Kempf remarked that on-street parking is better than some other streets because Mr. Capra's property
is located nearly at its end. Also, the property has other options like a detached garage or a
reconfigured house footprint.
Jurgens added that Mr. Capra purchased the property as is and therefore the narrow road does not
create a valid hardship.
Page 4 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(3. #04-3010 THEODORE L. CAPRA,3534 IVY PLACE,VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, PUBLIC HEARING—continued)
Leslie moved,Rahn seconded, to table Application #04-3010, Theodore L. Capra, 3534 Ivy
Place. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
4. #04-3019 WENDY SULLIVAN, 325 CRESTVIEW AVENUE, VARIANCES, PUBLIC
HEARING (6:34-6:40 p.m.)
Wendy Sullivan, applicant, was present.
Gundlach presented the application for a teardown of the existing vacant, old and dilapidated house
and to construct a new house. Site remediation would be required prior to issuance of a building
permit. She stated the lot is located within a small neighborhood zoned for 2 acre lots and that many
of the lots on Crestview Avenue and Tonka Avenue are substantially under the required 2 acres and
require variance approval to do virtually any improvement. Gundlach indicated that .5 acre standards
have been applied in the past. When applied to this lot, .5 acre setback standards are met or
exceeded. The applicant's plan meets all other requirements for hardcover and structural coverage.
Gundlach recommended approval of the requested variances.
Chair Mabusth invited comments from the applicant.
Ms Wendy Sullivan asked for clarification of the remediation requirement. Gundlach explained it
was a requirement from the Minnesota State Health Department due to the prior methamphetamines
found there when the property was rented out.
Chair Mabusth asked for any public comments. There were none.
Jurgens requested pool and patio setback requirements from staff. Gundlach provided the
information, concluding the proposed pool and patio are compliant with City standards.
Chair Mabusth inquired if there were any lot coverage issues. Gundlach stated there were none as the
proposed application meets the 15% standard.
Jurgens moved, Kempf seconded, to recommend approval of Application #04-3019,Wendy
Sullivan,324 Crestview Avenue, granting approval of the following variances in order to
construct a new residence on an existing lot:
1. Lot area variance in order to construct a new residence on the existing 0.43 acre lot
where 2 aces is normally required.
2. Lot width variance in order to construct a new residence on the existing 150' wide lot
when 200' is normally required.
3. Front yard setback variance to allow the new house to be setback 30' from the front
property line when 50' normally is required.
4. Side yard (south) setback variance to allow the new house to be setback 19' from the
side property line when 30' is normally required.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Gundlach stated Application#04-3019 would be referred to the June 28, 2004 City Council meeting.
Page 5 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
5. #04-3023 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue, CUP Amendment, Public Hearing
(6:40-8:03 p.m.)
Gaffron presented the application requesting amendments to certain conditions of Resolution
No. 4305, adopted June 14, 1999. Woodhill Country Club requests that Resolution No. 4305 be
amended to result in a relaxation or elimination of various limitations placed on the Club's use of
Woodhill Avenue as a secondary access to the property,particularly, opening the access roadway to
two-way traffic vs. the current one-way, in only. The Club's primary access is from Woodhill Road,
accessing directly to County Road 15. Club representatives advised staff that access onto County
Road 15 is difficult and dangerous due primarily to high traffic volumes on CR 15 with few breaks in
the traffic during peak hours, but also due in part to the access's physical configuration related to the
Dakota Rail crossing, and somewhat related to the configuration of County Road 15. Gaffron
referred to Woodhill Avenue residents' objections during the CUP review process in 1999.
Gaffron reviewed the specific amendments sought by the Woodhill Country Club, referring to the
staff report, dated June 17, 2004. He recommended the Planning Commission address the Issues for
Consideration included in that staff report.
Further, Gaffron cited additional information received from Hennepin County for traffic counts taken
on CR 15. Bob Byars at Hennepin County Transportation Planning provided accident data available
for the 3-year period 1999-2001 at the 15/Woodhill Road and 15/Orono Orchard Road intersections.
For Orono Orchard/l5, 5 accidents were recorded, 4 of which were right-angle collisions of vehicles
southbound on Orono Orchard turning left onto 15, hit by westbound vehicles. For the Woodhill/15
intersection, 9 collisions were recorded of which 5 were weather related, 2 inattentive driving, 1
animal, and 1 no reason given; i.e. no right angle crashes due to turning movements. More recent data
was not available.
Gaffron reported that the City completed traffic counts for the period 12 noon on Friday, June 11,
2004 through 12 noon on Monday, June 14, to provide a brief overview of the traffic entering and
leaving Woodhill Avenue at Orono Orchard Road and also that entering and leaving Woodhill Road
at County Road 15. These counts do not take into account the weather or any special events that may
have been held at the Club on those days. However, they do suggest a relative magnitude of traffic
using the two accesses, and they show to some extent the hourly distribution during the day. Sheldon
Johnson, traffic engineer at Bonestroo, reviewed the Parsons-Brinckerhoff traffic study from 1999
and verbally commented to staff that he agrees with the findings of that study, and that the recent
traffic counts appear to be in line with expectations.
Gaffron pointed out Exhibits to the staff report that provided those record documents which in staff's
estimation provide a balanced overview of all sides of the issue as it was considered in 1999.
Also, he referred to several discussion factors, including:
• Reconfiguration of the Orono Orchard Road connection to Highway 12, and the impact on Orono
Orchard Road traffic patterns, both short-term and long-term.
• Probable increased traffic on County Road 15 in the past 5 years.
• Potential future changes in the Woodhill Avenue neighborhood resulting from acquisitions of
developed and vacant properties along Woodhill Avenue by an area property owner.
Page 6 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-3023 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue, CUP Amendment, Public
Hearing- continued)
In concluding his presentation, Gaffron noted although the amount of traffic proposed to be added to
Woodhill Avenue appears to be within the range of traffic volumes that can be safely accommodated
by the roadway, the current character of the roadway is a low volume street. The additional traffic
would reflect both a significant increase in traffic level and a significant change in the character of
the roadway.
Chair Mabusth asked for comments from the applicant.
Ms. Betsy Massie, President of the Woodhill Country Club, read a prepared statement into the record.
She acknowledged neighborhood concerns for larger traffic volumes and reduced safety,but
explained the Club had worked hard over the past five years to be a good neighbor. Ms. Massie
stated the Club had not received a complaint in a long period of time. She commented that the Club's
demographics remain the same as in 1999 and are limited to 400 memberships, with about as many
Orono residents as in 1999.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments.
Mr. Charles Maile, 1260 Woodhill Avenue, a 13-yr resident on Woodhill Avenue, indicated he had
been involved in the residents' opposition during the 1999 process. He stated that the concerns raised
in 1999 are the same neighborhood concerns now:
• Reduced safety from increased traffic volumes and different nature of the traffic
• Negative impacts on the character of the neighborhood and street
• Concern for alcohol consumption at the Club and then driving through a residential
neighborhood
Mr. Maile acknowledged he had been reasonably comfortable with the compromise reached in 1999
to allow only one-way traffic on Woodhill Avenue. However, he stated the actual experience since
1999,based on his own observation, included violations of every condition of the 1999 agreement:
• Trucks entering
• Vehicles exiting and going the wrong way on Woodhill Avenue
• Vehicles not stopping at the stop sign, which he claimed is violated on a weekly basis
Mr. Maile noted several changes that occurred since 1999:
• Increase in danger potential related to the abandoned railroad right-of-way becoming a
segment of the Luce Line Trail
• Increase in traffic volume on Orono Orchard Road due to the road closures with the Hwy.
12 By-pass construction project over the next 1-2 years
• Fewer numbers of neighbors due to property sales, though no houses have been torn
down.
He concluded that he did not think the character of the Woodhill Avenue neighborhood had changed
or may change since 1999.
Mr. Maile advised that Mr. Bruce Malkerson, attorney at law, represents him in his opposition to
amendments to Resolution No. 4305. Mr. Malkerson advised they had not seen any data to justify
Page 7 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-3023 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue, CUP Amendment, Public
Hearing- continued)
making any changes to the conditions of Resolution No.4305. Mr. Maile concluded by stating the
neighborhood is still residential and the Club is a business with liquor sales.
Mr. Edge Jackson, 1055 Edgewood Hills Road resident for 24 years, stated that the number of near-
accidents on CR 15 is scary, and as a resident, he does use the backway. He would appreciate any
relief from access on the backside.
Ms. Jane Delaney, 1315 Woodhill Avenue, referred to her letter that was included in the Planning
Commission agenda packet. She indicated that she, too, is represented by Mr. Bruce Malkerson. She
expressed her opinion that the issue is not just about residents in the immediate neighborhood but was
more. She stated she believed the City received other residents' letters in 1999 but the letters were
not recognized. Ms. Delaney advised that she had called the city police repeatedly about violations
of the conditions but there was not any police response. She explained the violations were speeding
on Woodhill Avenue and exits from the Club,where she stated there is rarely a car that stops at the
stop sign.
Chair Mabusth called for further public comments and there were none. She closed the public
hearing at 7:07 p.m.
Charles Kelley, Woodhill Country Club member, asked for information about when Woodhill
Avenue was upgraded and if it was built to City road standards. It was thought the road was
reconstructed when the subdivision was built about 1987. Gaffron responded that he doubted if it
was built to city street width standards due to the smaller number of residences on the road at that
time. Mr. Kelley commented that there had been two-way traffic on the road in prior years.
Mr. Kelley added that with the railroad right-of-way converting to a segment of the Luce Line Trail,
he predicted that activity and congestion will increase at CR 15. He speculated that Ms. Delaney
could not see vehicles at the stop sign from her residence, that the two speed bumps in place are the
only speed bumps in Orono and cited the Orono Golf Club and one other as clubs that use public
streets. Mr. Kelley stressed concern for their members' safety at the CR 15/Woodhill Road
intersection, noting speed is an issue on CR 15 as well.
Ms. Massie pointed out the Club is a family club focusing on family activities and that alcohol
consumption is not a priority. She predicted that it is a matter of time until there is a fatality at CR
15/Woodhill Road and the Club wanted to try to improve the members' traveling options. Ms.
Massie indicated the Club would reprimand any member who was known to violate the current
conditions. She stated traffic line-ups at CR 15 would be reduced if some of the Club traffic could go
out the other access.
Mr. Maile repeated his position that diverting vehicles onto Orono Orchard Road would only add to
the problem of significant traffic volumes when there would be only one north/south route open
across the railroad. Gaffron clarified the short-term impacts of likely increases in traffic volumes and
patterns on Orono Orchard Road and Willow Drive during the Hwy. 12 construction work. In the
long term, there would no longer be an access onto Highway 12.
Page 8 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-3023 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue, CUP Amendment, Public
Hearing- continued)
Fritzler asked for information about the road width on Woodhill Avenue. Gaffron explained it was
about 20' but he would need to verify the dimension, however, the road has no shoulders and has
wetlands on both sides. Fritzler commented that with the addition of two-way traffic it would be
tight for emergency vehicles to travel safely.
Leslie asked what would be solved by allowing two-way traffic on Woodhill Avenue, and would it
only be to lessen the anxiety of waiting to turn left onto CR 15. He stated that the CR 15/Woodhill
Road intersection would still be used by members. Leslie observed that the challenge is the `left-
turners' more than the `right-turners' and any solution may not avoid the probability of a fatality at
CR 15. His concern for allowing more and two-way traffic on Woodhill Avenue was the risks posed
by its narrow road width with hidden entrances.
Mr. Kelley advised that he had contacted Hennepin County regarding possible improvements to the
railroad right-of-way and wetland mitigation but no definite plan was developed. There followed
brief discussion about the probability of constructing a road improvement to allow `right-turners' to
move along faster or an acceleration lane.
Ms. Massie commented that it had been five (5) years that the Club has operated under the CUP
conditions and that traffic studies show the Club had not put that much pressure on Woodhill Avenue.
Kempf questioned how much impact the two-way traffic would have on Woodhill Road except at
high traffic volume times of day. He supported opening up the road to two-way traffic as the safety
gains are worth it and there are so few houses on Woodhill Avenue.
Gaffron reported staff had contacted Hennepin County many times regarding the Orono Orchard Rd,
Woodhill Road, and other streets, and their intersections with CR 15,but that no obvious, good
alternatives were identified.
Jurgens asked the Club representatives if the Club was ready and willing to make road improvements
to Woodhill Avenue, such as road shoulders and wetland mitigation. Mr. Kelly responded he could
not commit to that at this time. Jurgens indicated he believed that a road project to improve access on
CR 15 is the best alternative. Chair Mabusth concurred with Jurgens, indicating she believed
allowing changes to the CUP conditions would only re-direct traffic to a more dangerous intersection.
Ms. Massie reiterated that the Club's intention is to provide another safe access for their members.
Rahn asked how it could be prevented to having the secondary access becoming the primary access.
He stated he concurred with Jurgens' comments, indicating that he understands CR 15 traffic is worse
than in 1999 and likely would continue to be more so in the future, but that he was hardpressed to
overturn the CUP conditions set in 1999.
Fritzler summarized that the CR15 intersection is a situation of vehicle v. vehicle accidents whereas
changing the Woodhill Avenue access to two-way is more likely to involve vehicle v. person
accidents due to the residential, wooded character of the street. He expressed that he viewed the
application request as a convenience for frustrated drivers who had to wait in line to access CR 15.
Page 9 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(5. #04-3023 Woodhill Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue, CUP Amendment, Public
Hearing- continued)
Mr. Kelly reiterated that the Luce Line Trail would increase the likelihood of non-vehicle traffic
increases, too.
Fritzler stated he would not support any CUP condition amendments at this time,but maybe
amendments would be warranted after the Hwy 12 construction project is completed.
Chair Mabusth indicated she did not see any benefit yet to making an CUP condition amendments,
but rather supported having the City work with the Club to improve the CR 15 access.
Berg stated she did not support high traffic volumes in residential neighborhoods and pointed out the
Luce Line Trail is on both the Woodhill Road/CR 15 and Orono Orchard Rd/CR 15 intersections.
Kempf remarked that he had been swayed by the Planning Commissioners comments regarding the
narrow road width/safety concerns. He added that Woodhill Avenue would probably need a design
upgrade to handle two-way traffic.
Chair Mabusth concurred, and supported a road improvement upgrade, developed between the City
and the Woodhill Country Club.
Ms. Massie explained there was an improvement at CR 15 and that the Club worked with Hennepin
County,but the Club members still feel at risk at the intersection.
Jurgens suggested that an improvement at CR 15 be looked into, and if the City would open Woodhill
Avenue to two-way traffic, he recommended adding a time limit to then revisit the matter.
He requested information about the City's policy on public roads regarding frontage and access.
Gaffron responded that these issues were the crux of the former lawsuit and that he could provide
background documents to the Planning Commission for review. He acknowledged it was a legal
rights discussion.
Leslie moved, Fritzler seconded,to recommend denial of Application #04-3023, Woodhill
Country Club, 200 Woodhill Avenue, requesting amendments of certain conditions of
Resolution No. 4305, adopted June 14, 1999, which established limitations on the use of the
Woodhill Avenue access to the Club property, and acknowledging that since 1999 there are
increased CR 15 traffic volumes that warrant investigation into the potential construction of a
right-hand turn lane on Woodhill Road/CR 15. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
6. #04-3024A City of Orono, Chapter 78-1431 Zoning Code Amendments, Public Hearing
(8:04-8:06 p.m.)
Gundlach reported the proposed Zoning Code Amendment is the formalizing of policy developed at
Planning Commission work sessions and eliminates the conditional use permit requirement if the
building or structure on a through-lot meets the principal building setbacks.
Page 10 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #04-3024A City of Orono, Chapter 78-1431 Zoning Code Amendments, Public Hearing-
continued)
Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application #04-3024A:
Ordinance Revision Concerning Accessory Buildings and Structures on "Through Lots."
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
6. #04-3024B City of Orono, Chapter 78-1577 (C ) (2A), Zoning Code Amendments, Public
Hearing (8:06-8:29 p.m.)
Gaffron introduced the discussion of an amendment to the City Zoning Code related to the parking of
commercial vehicles on residential property. Chapter 78-1577 (C) (2A)was last amended November
24, 2003 via Ordinance#4, Third Series. The City Council recently asked the Planning Commission
to consider whether it may be appropriate to revise the 5-acre minimum lot size requirement for
storage of large vehicles, under the "Exterior Storage in R Districts"ordinance.
Gaffron related the suggested options from the City Council to make the ordinance less onerous for
those properties with existing large vehicles stored on lots of less than five (5) acres:
a. revising the code to allow such vehicles to be stored on lots of 2.0-4.99 acres in areas
only if stored in a building; or
b. granting a lot area variance for outside storage for pre-existing situations on a case by
case basis; or
c. "grandfathering" existing situations but not allowing new ones.
Gaffron indicated staff was not in favor of the option to allow `grandfathering' of existing situations.
Staff did not have a strong recommendation but encouraged the Planning Commission to discuss
whether the code should be amended, and if so, recommend any appropriate conditions to be
incorporated into the ordinance.
Chair Mabusth invited public comments.
Mrs. Jerry Timm, 2885 Co. Rd. 6, described their business practices of having their large dump truck
parked for 6-7 months and when used, travels to and from the property two times/day. The truck is
parked about 200' away from the Hagen property. She explained the dump truck is important to their
livelihood.
Chair Mabusth asked for information about the number of complaints received at the City regarding
parking of commercial vehicles. Gaffron advised there were about 10-15 existing situations where
building movers or landscape businesses, for example,park their large commercial vehicles on their
properties. However, with more residential development moving closer to these properties, it was
inevitable that complaints would arise. He explained the ordinance was not drafted with all situations
in mind.
Rahn asked for staff's opinion regarding the difference in a two-(2) acre requirement with screening
rather than a five-(5) acre requirement. Gaffron replied that it is less likely a two-(2) acre property
would meet requirements,but it could happen. Gaffron also raised the question about whether the
question of parking a commercial vehicle in a residential district is a use variance as it is a
performance standard consideration.
Page 11 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(6. #04-3024B City of Orono, Chapter 78-1577 (C ) (2A), Zoning Code Amendments, Public
Hearing-continued)
Leslie pointed out there is noise, vibration and smoke associated with large commercial vehicles
besides the visual screening issue.
Rahn reminded the Planning Commission of the prior decision to allow `grandfathering' of parked
boats in residential areas and then it was left to neighborhoods to do the `policing' for compliance.
Fritzler stated he did not support any provision for `grandfathering.' Rahn noted it takes a significant
amount of city staff time to enforce, preferring something that is self-policing if possible. He also
concurred about the significance of noise as a factor on a two (2) acre property. Fritzler added that
vehicles are only stored in the buildings but would be moved outside for starting, idling and
operating.
Chair Mabusth inquired about the consensus of the Planning Commission on this matter at its recent
work session. Jurgens summarized the consensus was that the existing code was satisfactory as it
would eliminate non-conforming uses, recognizing that noise impacts are a big concern even when
the large commercial vehicles are stored inside.
Chair Mabusth expressed her view that the Code should not be amended.
Mrs. Timm stated that the truck idles very slowly when leaving/arriving to the property, and that
there is a lot of other traffic noise along Co. Rd 6, too. She added they had been given permission to
continue to park their vehicle on their property after the last ordinance change. Gaffron explained the
City Council allowed an informal six month grace period after the November, 2003 enactment which
was now expired but no ordinance enforcement was going to be undertaken until the City Council
determined if it was going to amend the Code.
Mrs. Timm reiterated that the dump truck was necessary for their livelihood and not a boat and they
were conforming until the last amendment change
Chair Mabusth remarked that `grandfathering' would be the only method to allow the Timm's to
continue to park their large commercial vehicle on less than five acres unless there was rationale for
amending the ordinance.
Jurgens moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend denial of the proposed Zoning Code
Amendment to Section 78-1577 (C ) (2A)—5 acre requirement for storage of vehicles
>14,000 lbs. GVW. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nay 0.
7. #04-3025 Darrell E. and Karin H. Anderson, 925 Old Long Lake Road, Variance, Public
Hearing (8:30-9:01 p.m.)
Darrell and Karin Anderson, applicants, were present.
Curtis presented the application requesting front yard and side yard setback variances in order to
rebuild a home. She stated the applicants were informed of the required 30' side setbacks and
advised to redesign their plans to meet those setbacks on both side lot lines as the proposal would be
reviewed as a rebuild. The property owners felt that there is a hardship due to the relative narrowness
Page 12 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #04-3025 Darrell E. and Karin H. Anderson, 925 Old Long Lake Road,Variance, Public
Hearing- continued)
of their lot, as compared to the lot depth, and that the proposed house is the most efficient use of the
property.
Curtis stated staff found, with respect to maintaining the nonconforming west side setback and
creating a nonconforming east side setback and a nonconforming front setback, there is no hardship
to support these variances. A reasonable home can be configured to best maximize the allowed
buildable area. The allowed buildable area is 40'x 410'.
Additionally, staff felt that as the applicants are rebuilding their home, there is no hardship to allow
the three nonconforming accessory buildings to remain in their nonconforming locations.
Darrell Anderson, applicant, explained the front yard variance described in the staff report, which
they received only two days ago, was a surprise to them as it had not come up at the pre-application
review meeting with staff. He indicated that it could be dealt with through re-design. He presented a
brief family history of the property, noting that they now are converting from rental property to the
house becoming their private residence.
Chair Mabusth asked for public comments. There were none.
Chair Mabusth opened the discussion to Planning Commissioners.
Rahn asked for confirmation of the lot width; Mr. Anderson replied it was 99.5' wide with a proposed
building width of 40'. Mr. Anderson explained they intended to re-use the fireplace and chimney,
retain the basement well and retain the gravity-flow sewer connection. He emphasized the house
orientation had to be parallel to the road due to the east slope.
Chair Mabusth asked if engineering data was received for the proposed re-use of the existing
foundation. Curtis indicated none was received. Mr. Anderson advised he was a retired Professional
Engineer(P.E.), though not a structural engineer, and pointed out the proposed house would be a
single story building over the existing foundation.
Fritzler commented that with a long, narrow lot and existing building pad, all new construction has to
fit within the existing building footprint, and that he was not in favor of going beyond the existing
footprint.
Kempf concurred with Fritzler. However, he asked the applicants if they had considered new
construction that would orient towards the adjacent MnDNR open space. Mr. Anderson responded
that such orientation would allow for no backyard space, would require a new driveway with more
hardcover. As the house is now oriented, they have the benefit of a nice backyard.
Chair Mabusth indicated that she had a difficult time accepting a side setback of 7.9' where 30' is
required. Mr. Anderson responded that a fencing placement error years ago resulted in the creating
of the 8'side yard,but that they viewed it having no negative neighborhood impact, in fact, it would
be a positive impact returning the home to a private residence with an improved structure.
Page 13 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #04-3025 Darrell E. and Karin H. Anderson, 925 Old Long Lake Road,Variance, Public
Hearing-continued)
Rahn summarized the applicant's proposal to tear down the existing 1 %2 story house off of the
foundation and replace it with a single story house is in reality not a rebuild but new construction.
And as such, compliance with setbacks is a prominent goal of the Planning Commission.
Gaffron interjected that the ratio of volume of new construction to existing in this case is 90%new
construction, therefore from staffs' perspective there is no justification for the hardships as the
application is actually a total rebuild.
Chair Mabusth added that there is no data to confirm that the existing foundation is acceptable.
Gaffron stated that engineering data had not been requested yet but would do so when the application
becomes more viable.
Chair Mabusth stated the setback variances could not be approved when there are other structural
building options for the lot. She recommended the application be tabled to allow the applicants an
opportunity to consider revisions.
Mr. Anderson questioned if acquiring/trading for 30' of property to the west sideyard to help enlarge
the building envelope would benefit the application. Gaffron responded that additional side property
would solve the side yard setback problem, and potentially could clean up the property issue across
the road from the subject property. However, the property to west(which is less than 2.0 acres)
would become smaller, though the aggregate property between the two properties would remain the
same. Gaffron asked the Planning Commission to indicate their position of potentially increasing a
non-conforming lot size while solving a property/road right-of-way issue to the north side of the
property.
Rahn pointed out it is key to know what would be left of the neighboring property and if setbacks
would be compliant after a loss of 30'. It was a consensus that acquiring 30' would allow the
proposed application to meet sideyard setbacks as long as the westerly property remnant conformed
to the 30' sideyard setback, too.
Gaffron asked the Planning Commission for its recommendation about the minimal encroachment of
the existing structure within the 50' front yard setback. It was a consensus to recommend the
applicant remove the old foundation under the existing screened porch. Gaffron indicated then the
application,without variance requests, would potentially meet the new administrative approval
ordinance for lot area and width approval standards.
Mrs. Anderson asked for the procedure if they were not able to acquire additional property.
She was advised the application then would need to return to the Planning Commission with an
option within the buildable envelope and meet setback standards. Leslie emphasized that given the
volume of new construction the property would need to meet setbacks. Gaffron explained that any
construction beyond the existing walls and roofline would require a variance, including adding a 2nd
story. Chair Mabusth summarized that with the proposed property addition of 30', the application
would meet setback standards and would not have to return to the Planning Commission.
Page 14 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(7. #04-3025 Darrell E. and Karin H. Anderson, 925 Old Long Lake Road, Variance, Public
Hearing- continued)
Curtis asked the Planning Commission to address the nonconforming accessory buildings on the
subject property. It was confirmed the number and square footage of accessory structures was
appropriate, but three of the accessory buildings are nonconforming with respect to setbacks.
Chair Mabusth recommended the nonconforming accessory structures be moved to comply with the
10' setback standard or be removed. She recommended the structures would not have to meet
setback requirements until the Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the house.
Mr. Anderson indicated they would agree to tabling of the application to allow negotiations to take
place to purchase/trade for 30' corridor of additional property.
Chair Mabusth moved, Kempf seconded, to table Application #04-3025 for Darrell and Karin
Anderson, 925 Old Long Lake Road. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Gaffron advised that following the proposed property acquisition a lot line rearrangement process
would be required.
Curtis extended staffs' apology to the applicants for not advising them about the need for a front yard
setback variance.
Chair Mabusth recessed the Planning Commission at 9:02 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.
8. #04-3026 Anthony Sequira Co. on behalf of David Pomije, 801 Tonkawa Road,After the
Fact Variance, Public Hearing (9:10-9:11 p.m.)
Chair Mabusth announced that neither the applicant nor his representative was present.
Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded,to table Application #04-3026,Anthony Sequira Co. on
behalf of David Pomije, 801 Tonkawa Road. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nay 0.
9. #04-3027 Brenshall Development on behalf of Thomas James Properties, LLC, SW Corner
of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12, Sketch Plan
The following applicant representatives were present: Steve Johnston, Landform, Bill Coffman,
Brenshall Development, Ben Nelson, architect/designer, and Gene , LeGran Homes.
Gundlach referred to the current City moratorium for any development of 2 units per acre or more
and that no formal application would be accepted until the moratorium is lifted. However, the City
Council indicated that allowing this sketch plan(Old Crystal Bay Villages) to proceed through the
process may help the City better understand what changes need to be made to the Zoning Ordinance
to be prepared for this type of development.
Gundlach introduced the sketch plan for a 50-lot residential plat of property abutting the southwest
corner of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12. The proposal included development of a horseshoe
Page 15 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. #04-3027 Brenshall Development on behalf of Thomas James Properties, LLC, SW Corner
of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12, Sketch Plan—continued)
shaped roadway system with access off of Old Crystal Bay Road. The property is located within the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area and would be served with public sanitary sewer and water. The site
is extremely flat and open with a wetland comprising approximately 4.00 acres of the total area of the
plat. An existing single family residence exists on the 1.811 acre piece, which is proposed to be
removed. The other existing single family residence at the corner, 595 Old Crystal Bay Road, is not
part of the plat.
For more detail and staff recommendations, she referred to her staff report, dated June 16, 2004, and
included in the Planning Commission agenda materials. Gundlach indicated the property is guided
for a mixture of urban single and multi-family residential uses at a density of 2-4 units per acre. She
deferred to the applicant's representatives for a sketch plan presentation.
Steve Johnston, Landform, initiated the sketch plan presentation of Old Crystal Bay Villages,
acknowledging that though the city is currently under a moratorium for any development of 2 units
per acre or more, the proposed project is being allowed to undergo sketch plan review. He described
a brief site history and explained their view of the site and how it would meet a housing market
segment not served in Orono.
Ben Nelson distributed materials to the Planning Commission and staff illustrating the site plan,
cross-sections,perspectives and house types. He conveyed their goal was to create a neighborhood
village feel, blending old and new architectural features with low rooflines to break the scale.
Mr. Nelson stated the exterior house finishes would have stone and color varieties with no "taupe-
town"colors.
Mr. Johnston explained that due to site constraints and design purposes there is some need for small
lots and closeness. The sketch plan proposes 4 units per acre density with 45' building widths and 6'
side setbacks on the garage side and 10' side setbacks on the house side for a combined 16' side
setback. Mr. Johnston stated the appearance of these houses/side setbacks would be better than those
in the recent Stonebay development. He indicated there were no planned impacts to the large wetland
on the site,though a small wetland would be mitigated. It was emphasized the proposed density is
permitted by the Community Management Plan (CMP) and is not at townhouse density levels.
Chair Mabusth asked for information about the house plans. It was explained that the house pads
would be 1800 s.f. with a 600 s.f. garage for 2 or 3 vehicles. Chair Mabusth asked about the
structural coverage calculations. Gundlach advised that there would be about 28% structural
coverage assuming an average building pad and not including the wetland acreage.
Gaffron pointed out the proposed sketch plan does not fit into the average 2.5 optimum unit per acre
density guided by the CMP. He recommended the Planning Commission should view the entire 50-
60 acre area, which would include the Dumas' property, instead of evaluating the properties
separately. Gundlach concurred, indicating that the proposed 4 units/acre on the subject property
may restrict what eventually could be done on the remainder of property guided for 2-4 units per
acre.
Page 16 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
• 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. #04-3027 Brenshall Development on behalf of Thomas James Properties, LLC, SW Corner
of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12, Sketch Plan—continued)
Chair Mabusth commented that the proposed exterior house elevations appeared attractive and there
was general consensus to her comment.
Rahn questioned how average units for density calculations could be determined without penalizing
the remainder property. Mr. Johnston acknowledged the CMP guides for 2-4 units density range with
a 2.5-acre average preferred. He emphasized the proposed sketch plan is in the 2-4 unit range.
When asked by Chair Mabusth for her opinion regarding real estate market issues, Berg indicated she
could not respond as she may have a potential for a conflict of interest with the subject property.
Jurgens requested the applicant's representatives provide the Planning Commission with locations of
housing developments with similar densities for the members to view. Mr. Johnston and Mr.
Coffman suggested two locations in Eden Prairie and Mound.
Chair Mabusth referred to the existing high water table known on this subject property. Mr. Johnston
explained the proposed site plan would require fill from the Hwy 12 construction project or the
houses would need to be built at slab/grade.
Jurgens emphasized it was important for the Planning Commission to be provided with site examples
in order to gain more understanding of the project. Mr. Coffman affirmed that examples would be
provided to the Planning Commission. Also, he advised that about 6-8' fill would be required for the
proposed project and would result in the road being higher than the existing grade. Gaffron
commented that views from Hwy 12 could be problematic, similar to the experience at Stonebay.
Jurgens requested the applicant provide on elevation from outside of the development to illustrate the
back of the buildings.
Chair Mabusth initiated discussion of the Issues for Discussion included in the staff report:
1. Although the plan proposes 4.0 units per acre, are the goals established under the CMP addressed?
It was a consensus that the sketch plan did not address the CMP goals.
2. Could the City benefit from a development such as this? If so, should the entire property be
developed in this manner, or should this 13 acres incorporate more than one style of house?
Chair Mabusth asked why the proposal did not include townhomes on Hwy 12. Mr. Johnston
explained townhomes on this site were not viable as a community. Rahn suggested the site include
twin-home doubles, as an option. Kempf added that he was familiar with a site in Savage that
included views, walkout style houses and had adjacent less expensive housing styles sharing
amenities. Chair Mabusth concurred with their comments regarding the benefits of mixed residential
uses.
3. Is the issue of mixed use of single family residences and townhouses addressed? Should this
property develop under one single use?
Page 17 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. #04-3027 Brenshall Development on behalf of Thomas James Properties,LLC, SW Corner
of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12, Sketch Plan—continued)
Chair Mabusth indicated this issue had been addressed.
4. Should the City allow the property to be developed without developing at least a"vision" of how
the Dumas piece to the west might be included?
It was a consensus there should be some kind of connection between the properties, that it should be
evaluated as to how the fill elevation would impact the Dumas property and existing uses to the west,
such as the orchard, and what sound barriers and buffers would be needed for the development.
Leslie and Jurgens stated they assumed there would need to be cyclone fence adjacent to the Hwy 12
right-of-way.
5. If the Dumas property develops a townhouse use, are there possibilities for negative transitions
through this proposed development?
Gundlach noted the applicant's intention with the dead ends at the western boundary of the plat is to
provide access for the future development of the Dumas property. There is some risk in allowing this
property to develop, specifically the roadway system, without at least thinking how the Dumas
property might develop bearing in mind the intentions with the CMP. The CMP has guided both
properties for the same mixed use at an ideal overall density of 2.5 units/acre. She advised there is a
need to consider transitions and access issues.
Leslie wondered if the developer was concerned with their proposed project's street becoming a
thoroughfare for the Dumas property.
Chairs Mabusth requested Mr. Johnston prepare a sketch plan for the Dumas property.
6. Are the setbacks proposed reasonable? Can the site support 50 single-family lots?
Chair Mabusth stated that with standard setbacks and buffer areas, the site probably would not
support 50 single-family lots. Rahn commented that the CMP guides for 2-4 units per acre,but with
using the maximum of 4 units per acre instead of aiming for the 2.5 average units per acre, he
questioned if it is what is wanted in Orono.
Gaffron remarked that to achieve 2.5 units per acre, it probably would result in a mix of single and
townhouse units. Jurgens added that the single-family homes could become part of the townhouse
association. Mr. Johnston remarked that there were differences, such as exterior maintenance,
garbage collection service, lawn mowing,between single family homes and townhouses that would
negatively affect association management. Also, he noted that the expectation that backyards were
private spaces was a significant difference.
Gaffron pointed out the public area could abut some of the wetland area. Fritzler added that without
the proposed trail, there appears to be no access to the wetland, no outlet for emergency vehicles or
other public vehicles, except across private land.
Page 18 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. #04-3027 Brenshall Development on behalf of Thomas James Properties,LLC, SW Corner
of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12, Sketch Plan—continued)
Fritzler asked about the exterior finish proposed for the houses' sides and rear. Mr. Johnston replied
those sides would be sided with `hardy planks'.
Gaffron remarked that with the moratorium, minimum standards could be developed.
7. Should the developer be encouraged to develop a plan that includes townhouses along the
adjacent right-of-ways and develop single family lots in the interior?
Chair Mabusth stated this issue had already been addressed.
8. Should the wetland be treated as an amenity to be shared with the entire development?
Chair Mabusth stated this issue had already been addressed.
9. With development at a density somewhat new to the City, to protect the aesthetics of the existing
rural development, and also to protect future owner's of these properties, would specific exterior
finishes for the buildings help lessen the density impacts?
There was a consensus that specific exterior finishes for the buildings would lessen the density
impacts.
10. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Gundlach pointed out the current plan shows approximately a 13' front yard setback when measured
from the edge of the right-of-way. Under this setback a large vehicle has the potential to overlap into
the right-of-way by 8'. Staff would recommend that a revised plan incorporate a 30' front yard
setback measured from the edge of right-of-way and/or sidewalk easement.
Mr. Johnston responded that a 30' front yard setback, larger rear yard setbacks, wetland buffers, a
public right-of-way plus a 50' driveway would render the site unbuildable.
As part of the moratorium, there was a consensus that a standard should be included to not allow
vehicles parked in driveways to extend over the sidewalks, as well developing other appropriate
standards.
Rahn questioned the driveway encroachments. Mr. Johnston explained their decision to not use
`zipper' lot lines and that by turning the house pads, it resulted in the encroachment.
Chair Mabusth questioned the proposed structures' rear setback, especially adjacent to Hwy 12.
Mr. Johnston and Gundlach confirmed the proposed rear setbacks would be 50' on existing Hwy 12,
30' on the bypass and 35' on Old Crystal Bay Road, all are typical of.5 acre rear yard setback
standards. Gundlach pointed out the subject property is adjacent to major roadways and encouraged
the Planning Commission to consider if the current minimum standards were appropriate. Gundlach
suggested a buffer yard be implemented to alleviate problems on high traffic areas, such as arterials
and collector streets.
Page 19 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(9. #04-3027 Brenshall Development on behalf of Thomas James Properties, LLC, SW Corner
of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12, Sketch Plan—continued)
Chair Mabusth stated her position that the proposed sketch plan needs to reduce building pad sizes, to
provide areas for the future decks or outside play areas, and asked if the three-stall garage was a
necessity in this density neighborhood. Mr. Johnston replied that often the third garage stall reduces
potential outside storage problems.
Chair Mabusth requested the applicants to show proposed house decks on the sketch plan.
There was consensus to not permit any outside storage at all at this density. Friztler added that there
should be no antennas allowed.
Chair Mabusth summarized that the Planning Commission had serious concerns about the proposed
density for the sketch plan.
Leslie observed that there appears to be an underlying conflict of interest between indicating the City
desires to have higher density housing development and a discussion that is indicating anything but
describing lower density neighborhoods. Trying to establish parameters without context for
appropriate standards,what is marketable or viable could result in a developer agreeing to standards
that result in a failed neighborhood. He suggested that a planning consultant should be hired to
advise the City in the development of appropriate guidelines and standards. Leslie summarized that
he thought the dialogue was more about not knowing what is not wanted, not about what is a viable
plan.
Gaffron added that staff supports the hiring of a planning consultant to assist in the process. Mr.
Johnston mentioned that already two months have elapsed out of the six-month moratorium and
asked what was its status. Gaffron explained the City Council and Planning Commission need to set
a date for a visioning session, hopefully with a planning consultant. He indicated that it is unlikely
the process would be completed by the end of the original 6 months timeline.
Jurgens commented that the housing styles, expanded exterior color range, landscaping and public
gathering spaces were all positives. However, he also was unsure about accepting the proposed
density and did not support the shorter driveways with vehicles extending over the sidewalk. Chair
Mabusth and Rahn concurred with Jurgens' comments.
Chair Mabusth concluded the discussion by repeating the request for a concept design for the Dumas
property when the matter returns to the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS MAY 24, 2004 AND JUNE 14, 2004.
Fritzler reported on the May 24, 2004 City Council meeting indicating that all Planning Commission
matters went on the Consent Agenda. Chair Mabusth reported that the Reliance Development
(Stonebay Commercial PUD) and the O'Shaughnessy shoreland restoration with boardwalk
Page 20 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS MAY 24, 2004 AND JUNE 14, 2004 continued)
applications was considered at the June 14, 2004 City Council meeting. Council Member Liaison
Lili McMillan explained her position on the Stonebay proposal about opposing the traffic layout
between Walgreens and the neighboring retail building. She had concerns about parked vehicles
backing out of parking stalls into the traffic lane, consequently blocking and slowing the traffic lane.
Also, McMillan summarized her position on the O'Shaughnessy application to allow the boardwalk
over the shoreline restoration vegetation as a valid hardship to access the lakeshore over the restored
area.
11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Jurgens referred to a training session he recently attended at which a participant questioned whether a
conditional use permit for height is legal or does it have to be reviewed and approved as a variance.
Gaffron provided the standard definitions of conditional use permit and variances.
Gaffron reported the Lazniarz application for 120 Brown Road South(#04-3016)was tabled by the
City Council on June 14, 2004 in order for the members to conduct a site visit of the subject property.
Further, it appears the City Council supports the designation of an Outlot versus conservation
easement over private property. The matter would return to the June 28, 2004 City Council agenda.
McMillan noted the site's environmental issues with Long Lake Creek taking its waters to Lake
Minnetonka, requirements for shoreland protection and susceptibility of creek bank erosion from run-
off rate and quantity issues. She indicated her support for requiring all roof storm water drainage to
be diverted to the street, which leads to water quality treatment and storage in the proposed storm
water pond.
Gaffron referred to a staff memo, dated June 18, 2004,noting the following three topics:
• Stonebay Townhomes Exterior Appearances—The developers agreed to have their
architect provide drawings of some upgraded exterior design changes (incorporating a
number of PC's punch list features) for staff review, and agreed to incorporate whatever
changes were agreed to.
• Gaffron announced the Planning Commission work session is set for July 7, 2004.
Jurgens and Leslie advised they are unavailable on that date.
• Gaffron acknowledged the recent resignation of Jeanne Mabusth from the Planning
Commission, effective immediately. Chair Mabusth expressed her regrets but indicated
her resignation was necessary due to personal extended family commitments.
Gaffron advised there is no date set for the Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Planning
Commission.
Page 21 of 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MONDAY, JUNE 21, 2004
6:00 o'clock p.m.
12. APPROVAL OF MAY 17, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded, to approve the Minutes of the May 17, 2004 Planning
Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
13. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
JUNE 28, 2004 AND JULY 12, 2004.
June 28, 2004 - Roland Jurgens July 12, 2004 - David Rahn
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
11:17 p.m.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m.
ir.i/tr
sth, Chair
Page 22 of 22