Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/20/2007 Planning Commission Minutes �`� ' � . ` . � 1VIINUTES OF THE . ORONO PLANIVING COIVIMISSION , . Tuesday,February 20,2007 �6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL . The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members . present: Chair David Rahn, Commissioners Ralph Kempf,Dick Kroeger,Jaye Ann Zullo,Michelle _ � � Winer,Tess Rice, and Kim Kang. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Evelyn Turner and Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. � . Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. • . � APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. PLANPTING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 16,2007 Kempf moved,Winer seconded,to approve the Planning Commission minutes of January 16, 2007, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. CONSENT AGENDA � � . • � � Item No. 9 was added to the Consent Agenda. � Krueger moved,Kang seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. �, VO�'E: Ayes 7,Nays 0. *2. #07-3263 CONCEPT LANDSCAPING FOR MITCH OLSON,3275 CARMAN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT � Krueger moved,Kang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3263, Concept Landscaping,3275 Carman Road,granting of a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. . � OLD BUSINESS 3. #06-3232 SHARRATT DESIGN FOR MARY AND MICHAEL DRAZAN,3546 IVY . PLACE,VARIANCE This item was tabled to the March Planning Commission meetin�at the request of the applicants. PAGE 1 . �� MINUTES OF THE , . � � ORONO PLANNTNG COMMISSION " Tuesday,February 20,2007 � 6:00 o'clock p.m. 4. #07-3250 PHILIP CARLSON,2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,PUD, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN,SUBDIVISION,6:06—6:31 P.M. Gina Carlson,Applicant, and Jeff Shopek,Loucks &Associates,were present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting the following in order to construct ten units of office condos on five lots and one common lot,to be lmown as Amber Woods Office Centre: 1. B-6 PUD General Concept Plan approval; . 2. Preliminary Plat approval in order to create five unit lots and one common lot; � � ' 3. Commercial site plan approval in order to obtain building permits; 4. Easement vacations in conjunction with dedication of new easements. This application was reviewed at the January Planning Commission meeting, with the applicants being directed to do the following: � • 1: Redesign the access layout to enable it to be functional for all potential turning movements. 2. .. Dumpster locations should be reconsidered to be more functional for all users. . � 3. Plantings are needed above the retaining walls abutting adjacent commercial site. 4. Retaining wall design submitted is only sufficient for the site rear walls,and for those walls it indicates excavation will be needed onto the adjacent property,which is unacceptable. Additional wall details are also needed for the other wall systems on the site. The new site plans and grading plans show the entrance driveway has been revised to incorporate standard turning movements while providing direct straight-through access to both of the adjacent properties. This is being accomplished by lowering the rear of the site by about one foot and the front of the site by about two feet and relocating lost parking stalls to the south end of the lot facing Highway 12. The parking remains at 102 stalls,meeting the 100-stall requirement. As a result of the access changes,the rear three buildings will be slightly lower at one-half foot and the most southerly building will be as much as two feet lower than the prior plan. The building designs have not changed;the buildings are merely dropped along with the finished grade. In addition, retaining walls along the southwest boundary of the site will be reduced in height or eliminated. Retaining walls along the north and east boundaries will be 1-2 feet higher than previously indicated. . An additional wall east of the most southerly building will be added, and the open faced facing the � senior housing building to the east will be more obscured. Building locations have shifted slightly in a few instances,but not more than a few feet and all meet required setbacks. PAGE 2 �i;- � • t�•- , 1VIINUTES OF THE , � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3250 Philip Carlson, Continued) The retaining wall bordering the `welding shop' property will be moved slightly further into that � property leaving a full five feet of space for screening plantings. A permanent easement will be required for that wall, and its ultimate ownership and maintenance responsibility should be spelled out. The landscape plan now includes a Dwarf Korean Lilac hedge bordering the parking lot,providing screening from headlights. Staff would recommend that such a screen also be established along the south side of the five parking stalls facing Highway 12 near the entrance. • The plan for the boulder retaining walls has been forwarded to the City Engineer for his review. If both boulder and keystone walls are now proposed,the applicants should provide a site plan indicating . which walls are to be keystone and which are to be boulders. Further,the applicants have relocated the dumpster to the southwest corner.of the north parking lot, making it somewhat more accessible for the tenants. A proposed dumpster enclosure design was provided at the last meeting. The preliminary plat has been revised from earlier versions and now creates five building pads instead . , of ten. The reason for this is that the building code requires firewalls when buildings are in close . proximity to lot lines. With the original plat proposal,the shared open space within each building would be straddling,the lot line, eliminating the possibility of firewalls.The option for the developer is to plat each building as a single unit,then convert them to condos by describing spaces for � lease/ownership that end at party walls within each building,the remainder becoming part of the .. commons area. . Gaffron stated the City Engineer has recommended that the applicants address the following items: 1. Will the applicants agree to provide a 50-foot wide easement over the southerly connecting driveway rather than the 25 feet shown? 2. Can the applicant provide written consent c�f the adjoining property owner to allow the walls to be built on the welding shop property? , . 3. Can the applicant gain temporary construction easements over the adjoining properties for retaining wall construction? 4. . The road connection to the west stops short of the lot line—will the applicants make this drivable to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal? 5. Are there any line items in the City Engineer's comments that applicant believes cannot be satisfactorily addressed? � Gaffron noted the latest plans have not yet been reviewed by the Fire Marshal. Plans will also be forwarded to Miz/DOT and Hennepin County Public Works for review and comment. Staff believes the following issues remain to be discussed by the Planning Commission: PAGE 3 . � , _ MINUTES OF THE ' � ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION � � . . Tuesday,February 20,2007 ' � � - 6:00 o'clock p.m. . (#07-3250 Philip Carlson,Continued) 1. � Is the landscaping plan adequate to provide screening where necessary7 � � 2. Is the Planning Commission satisfied with the site layout and building design/materials? 3. Are there any aspects of the prior approvals (Documented in Resolutions 5296 and 5387)that � . . the Planning Commission believes should be revised? 4. -biave engineering concerns been adequately addressed? 5. Are there any other issues with this proposal? � � The Planning Commission should address the various issues raised in this memo and determine whether there are any other issues that need further consideration. If all Planning Commission concerns are satisfied,then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Approval conditions similar to those found in Resolution Nos. 5296 and 5387 will become part of the approval. Rahn inquired whether the applicants have had time to address the concerns of the City Engineer. Shopek stated they are looking at upb ading the boulder walls but they would be willing to go back to the keystone walls if the boulder walls are not approved. � Rahn commented the boulder walls tend to look more natural but may take up more room. Carlson indicated there is enough room on the site to construct a boulder wall and that they would . prefer to construct the boulder walls rather than the keystone walls. Shopek stated they would have an issue with the 50-foot wide easement centered over the southerly connecting driveway since it would come within 10 feet of one of the units and would eliminate the � ability to erect a monument sign within the easement,construct a sidewalk,and have some handicapped parking stalls in that area. Shopek stated there is also the possibility that that lot would become nonconforming with a 50-foot easement. . Rahn inquired whether the 50-foot easement is being required in the event there is expansion in this area. Gaffron stated he is not necessarily in agreement with the City Engineer that there should be 50 feet and that since this is not a platted corridor, it could perhaps be constructed at a width less than 50 feet. � Rahn inquired whether an easement has been granted for the retaining wall by the welding shop property. Carlson stated they had received a permanent easement from the neighbors in the previous application and that they do not anticipate any issues with obtaining the new easement. � PAGE 4 t - � . 1WIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSI.ON � Tuesday,February 20,2007 . 6:00 o'clock p.m. ' (#07-3250 Philip Carlson,Continued) Kroeger inquired whether the plantings would all be located on the Amber Woods site. Shopek stated all the plantings would be located on the Amber Woods site. Rahn stated the applicants have adequately addressed his concerns. Rahn inquired whether the _ � applicants have any samples of the building materials. Carlson stated she did not bring along samples but displayed a colored rendition of one of the units. Carlson stated all of the units would be constructed of the same materials. Kempf stated in his opinion the rock surface would be a better choice. Kempf inquired whether the , , area by the sign located below the entry driveway would be surrounded by trees. Carlson indicated there would be three deciduous trees planted in that area which are located further away from the sign that what is depicted and that the trees would also be higher than the sign. . Shopek stated they would add some screening along the wall. , Kroeger noted a neighbor had requested at the previous meeting that the hill not be tampered with. • Kempf noted the applicants are using up almost all of their signage allonnent with the monument sign, which would only leave approximately one square foot of signage on each building. Kempf suggested the applicants consider revising the size of the signage on each of the buildings. Carlson stated the end part of the monument is really a column with a light on top and that she is not considering that as part of their signage allotment. Carlson stated they were plannin�on numberin� the buildings rather than having a big sign denoting the business on each building. Kempf inquired whether Staff is okay with that type of signage on the buildings. Curtis stated that is fine. Zullo inquired whether there are any issues with the drainage since the elevation has been lowered. Gaffron stated the City Engineer did not specify any particular drainage and/or grading issues and that he does not anticipate any problems with the drainage. Gaffron stated the entire parking lot drains to a storm sewer system. Zullo inquired whether there are any concerns with drainage along the back of the retaining walls. Gaffron stated that is a gradual slope. PAGE 5 r 1VIINUTES OF THE _ ORONO PLANNiNG COMIVIISSION Tuesday,February 20, 2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3250 Pliilip Carlson,Continued) - . Zullo�stated,the height of the boulder walls may be the reason for the concern and inquired whether any consideration has been given to incorporating both boulder walls and keystone walls. . Carlson stated the boulders would have a longer longevity and would be very low maintenance. Zullo cornmented if the boulders are not installed correctly,there could be drainage and seepage. Carlson stated she did discuss that with their engineer to ensure that'the walls were constructed � • correctly. � Rahn inquired whether the applicants have detennined if the retaining walls would be boulder walls. � " Carlson stated boulder walls would be preferred. Gaffron stated if the City Engineer is not agreeable to anything less than 50 feet,the applicants would need to construct the keystone retaining walls Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. There were no public comments concerning this application. � � Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. . Rahn moved,lKroeger seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3250,Philip Carlson of Interspace-West,Inc., granting of a B-6 PUD General Concept Plan approval, preliminary plat approval, commercial site plan approval,and easement vacations in conjunction�vith dedicatian af new easements. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays Q. � 5. � #07-3254 METROBUILDING CO.,940 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCE,6:31— 6:58 P.M. Joe Leintz,MelxoBuilding,was present. . � Curtis stated this application was tabled by the Planning Commission at its January meeting in order � for the applicant to address a number of issues. The applicant has provided a revised plan in an � attempt to address those issues. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has provided comments. Curtis noted a letter has been received from John and Alexa Horoshak, 880 Windjammer Lane,listing some of their concerns with the project. PAGE 6 . 1VIINUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION � Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3254 MetroBuilding,Continued) _ The existing home is situated almost entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. It appears that due to the unique lot shapes, existing vegetation,and orientation to the lake and the topo�aphy of the homes,there may not be much lake view impact from the existing home. The proposal includes removing the existing home down to the cap of foundation and rebuilding on that existing foundation. The applicant has revised rooflines of the northern portion of the home in an ' effort to reduce the impact the home will have on the views of the lake enjoyed by the neighbors to the . north. In addition,the applicant has reduced the lakeside decks so that there will be less of an impact on the existing substandard lake setback. The proposed new structural additions are on the street side of the home with the exception of the proposed deck and the proposed porch. Staff feels that the applicant's desire to reuse the foundation,keep the location of the home the same, and keep the large in-ground pool is driving the request for the variances.While the applicant has proposed to remove what appears to be a great deal of concrete within the 0-75 foot and 75-250 foot zones,their proposed hardcover removals are not significant enough to justify the additional structural and nonstructural hardcover being proposed. Staff also feels that the excessive hardcover levels within the 75-250 foot zone on this property, existing and proposed, are unreasonable. There are a number of additional hardcover(and structural hardcover)removals which could result in a conforming 75-250 foot zone. Additionally, Staff feels . tliat as the existing home is essentially being rebuilt from the foundation up,there may be merit in � � building an entirely new home in a conforming location. The applicant has two garages,a large driveway, and the parking area adjacent to both,a very large pool, and considerable paved areas around the home. While the removal of the plastic under the � landscape rock is an improvement, it is a required compoiient of hardcover review and cannot be considered a net reduction. Staff feels that there are more opportunities for hardcover reductions both within the 0-75 foot and in the 75-250 foot zones. Further,the existing home encroaches up to seven feet into the 75-foot zone. While there is little to be done about this encroachment, staff does not feel that it is appropriate to allow further encroachment. Rahn inquired whether there is more hardcover being proposed now than what was proposed in January. � Leintz stated the new hardcover numbers should be less and that the surveyor did not include some � hardcover that was removed. Leintz stated the hardcover should be 985 square feet. Leintz stated since the last meeting they have reviewed what was required to make the house functionable. On the north side there is a deck with a spiral staircase and screen porch. The porch and deck have been reduced and a portion of the concrete removed. Leintz pointed out there is also some other existing concrete that would be removed. Leintz stated raising the elevation of the house would help to reduce the grade of the driveway. The rock and plastic has been removed. Leintz stated the owners have indicated if the application is not approved, they would basically just remodel the interior of the house and leave the outside as is. PAGE 7 �:.. .. � �ti..... • . � MINUTES OF THE • � ORONO PLANIVING COMIVIISSION - : Tuesday,February 20,2007 ' . . •- 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3254 MetroBuilding,Continued) . Leintz stated he is in the process of talking with the owners of the property regarding removal of the pool,which would also greatly reduce the hardcover on the lot. � Kroeger inquired what the garage would be used for. � Leintz stated it would be used for storage and that they would also be doing some aesthetic � improvements to the garage. Leintz indicated they would not be putting in a hard paved surface to that �. . garage. Curtis noted the path to the garage would still be counted as hardcover whether any hard surface is . actually installed in that area. Leintz stated he did speak with the neighbor who had expressed some concerns and erected a pole to demonstrate the height of the structure. Leintz stated in his view the neighbor did not really � understand what they were proposing and that there would be less height with the hip roof than with a gable roof and that they are actually opening up the neighbor's view. Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. . Rahn closed the�ublic hearing at 6:39 p.m. Rahn read the letter from the Horoshaks,which � enumerated their concerns and their agreement with Staff's recommendations. Leintz reiterated that in his view the neighbor may not entirely understand the project and that they are . not blocking his line of sight. , � . � Rahn noted this is a one-acre lot that is close to being in compliance but that there is an excessive . amount of hardcover on the lot. Rahn stated he personally would not be in support of hardcover that is in addition to what currently exists. Rahn stated if this were new construction,it is unlikely there would be any variance5 granted for hardcover. Kang inquired how much hardcover would be eliminated if the pool were removed. Leintz stated approximately 1400 to 1600 square feet would be eliminated. � � Kempf inquired whether the foundation is being raised. Leintz stated the house is being raised by 12 inches to enable them to have an eight-foot high basement. � PAGE 8 _ . MINUTES OF THE � ' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION A-° Tuesday,February 20,2007 �.: 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3254 MetroBuilding, Continued) Kempf noted the City Engineer has stated the basement could use some repairs to make it more useable. Kempf indicated he is in agreement with Chair Rahn's comments and that the house should probably be rebuilt in a more conforming location. Zullo stated she also is in agreement with Commissioners Kempf and Rahn and that she does not see � the need to have an encroachment. Zullo stated she is not comfortable with the current location of the house. Leintz stated the concrete walls and floor in the basement are in good repair. Rahn noted the new peak height would be higher than the old roof. Leintz indicated it would be four feet higher in the area of the chimney only and that a small portion of the house would be removed, which would open up the neighbor's view. Rahn stated generally the Planning Commission would consider this a rebuild rather than a remodel given the extent of the improvements. Rahn recommended the applicants do further hardcover and � structural coverage removals. Rahn expressed doubts the City Council would support this proposal. Rahn inquired whether the applicant would like to have the application tabled to allow them to review their options. � Zullo stated she would not be able to vote in favor of the application given the encroachment and the fact that this appears to be a rebuild rather than a remodel. Winer inquired whether the City has a definition of a rebuild versus a remodel. Gaffron stated there has been considerable discussion in the past on how to quantify a rebuild versus a remodel but that there is no clear consensus on what numbers should be used to determine when it is a rebuild versus a remodel. Rahn stated in his view this is a rebuild since they are basically removing the entire house and just leaving the foundation. Rahn stated he would prefer to see the house located out of the setback, and if that were done,he might be more lenient on the hardcover. Leintz stated the foundation is solid and in good condition. Leintz stated he would need to speak with the owners on how they would like to proceed. Kempf moved,Rice seconded,to recommend denial of Application#07-3254,MetroBuilding Company on behalf of Guardia Development Group, 940 North Arm Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1,Winer opposed. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF TAE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION - Tuesday,February 20,2007 . 6:00 o'clock p.m. . Winer stated she voted in opposition of the motion because she does not have a problem with utilizing the existing foundation as long as a structural engineer verifies its condition. NEW BUSINESS 6. #07-3251 MANDEEP SODHI,4080 DAHL ROAD,VARIANCE,6:58—7:30 P.1VI. Mandeep and Leisa Sodhi,Applicants,were present. Turner stated the applicants are requesting after-the-fact setback variances to allow the existing deck to remain as constructed with a 0.7 foot setback from the side property line when a ten-foot setback is required,to allow the patio under the deck to remain as consixucted with a 1.7 foot setback from the . � side property line when a two-foot setback is required,and to have 27 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone when the maximum is 25 percent. � In the suinmer of 2005,the applieants were found to have replaced their deck without a permit. Further investigation revealed the deck had been constructed 9.3 feet into the required 10-foot setback. The survey and hardcover calculations submitted with the variance application also show a grade-level patio 1.7 feet from the side property line when the required setback is two feet and hardcover.in the 75-250 foot zone in excess of 25 percent. It is unclear whether the amount of hardcover is less with the new deck and the applicants are attempting to work with the surveyor to see if they can provide a breakdown of the hardcover from 2001. The house was constructed in 1973 with a deck that extended about halfway across the back of the house. Because of a variation in the back wall of the house,that deck extended eight feet from the family room and nine feet from the dinette area. The deck conformed to the 10-foot setback requirement. At some point the portion of the deck off the family room was converted to a room. In 2001,the applicants received a conditional use permit for retaining walls in the 0-75 foot zone. The survey submitted with that application showed an irregularly shaped deck that encroached into the ten-foot required setback. That deck appears to have been constructed without a permit by the former owner. The Building Official has determined that the building code would require a minimum of a three-foot setback from the property line for the deck. Walls within three feet of a property line must be constructed to achieve a fire rating that is impossible to achieve with a deck. Tumer noted a municipality cannot grant a variance to a building code requirement. Turner requested the Planning Commission consider the following issues: 1. Was the situation that necessitates the variance not created by the applicants? If the Planning � Commission can establish that the variance would have been granted if it had been requested before the deck was reconstructed,this requirement would be satisfied. 2. Will the deck alter the essential character of the locality? The deck is located about 100 feet from the adjacent house. There is a wooded area between the two homes. PAGE 10 � MINUTES OF THE �� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION . - � Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3251 Mandeep Sodhi, Continued) 3. Without the variance is there reasonable use of the property? Exhibit 1 shows the size of a deck at this location without a variance and how a deck of equivalent size to the existing deck could be constructed elsewhere within the required setbacks. The applicants should be asked why the deck was consixucted in its current location and configuration. . Turner stated the hardcover on.the properly includes extensive planting beds with weed control fabric . and patio areas at the front and back entry. The surveyor did not include the areas with weed control fabric in the hardcover calculations so the actual amount of hardcover is greater than 27 percent. The applicants have indicated these patios and fabric are necessary to keep water out of the basement. • Staff recoinmends denial of all the variances based on there being a reasonable alternative to the proposal and on the failure of the applicant to demonstrate a hardship would be created by not granting the variances. Rahn inquired whether the applicants constructed the deck. � Mr. Sodhi"stated they did construct the deck. They were replacing the windows when a worker fell � through the old deck. A permit was obtained for the windows but not the deck because they needed to immediately replace the deck for a large party scheduled for the next day. Sodhi stated essentially they replaced the deck with a similar deck and that it is actually smaller in size than the original deck. . Sodhi noted they do have surveys showing the old deck and the new deck and that they are willing to work with the City on modifying the deck if necessary to make it conforming. � � Turner noted Exhibit E is the 2001 survey and that Exhibit F is a site plan from a 1993 building permit: The applicants purchased the properly in 2000 and the old deck was in place at the time of purchase. Sodhi stated the old deck was larger and also encroached into the side yard setback. Mrs. Sodhi stated the dirt under the old deck was also causing some drainage problems,which they corrected when they constructed the new deck. Sodhi stated there was no drain tile in the house when they purchased it and that they have been making improvements to the exterior and interior of the house since acquiring it. Sodhi stated they have corrected the drainage and have also installed drain tile. Sodhi stated the original house was not constructed parallel to the property line so it makes it difficult to add on to it. Zullo stated the concern is the portion of the deck that is against building code and that the ' encroachment is not acceptable. Sodhi pointed out a portion of the house was constructed within the 10-foot encroachment. PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSTON Tuesday,February 20,20U7 � 6:00 o'clock p.m. {#07-3251 Mandeep Sodhi, Continued) Mrs. Sodhi stated if the dirt had not been removed to correct the water in the basement,the deck. would have been three feet off the ground in that section. � Rahn inquired whether the size of the patio increased. . Sodhi stated it has not and that they have planted shrubs all the way around the house. . Kempf asked how the deck would have been three feet off grade with the dirt removed. Mrs. Sodhi stated the previous deck was multi-tiered and they would have had to construct that portion of the deck higher due to the dirt. Kroeger inquired whether the applicants have attempted to acquire some additional land on that side. Sodhi stated that option is not the easiest to execute and that the deck was deteriorating and needed to be replaced. Sodhi stated if the deck were reduced enough to be out of the setback,they would end up with a walkway and they would not have any room to sit. � Rahn stated it appears from the�ichires that the deck lines up with the corner of the norch. Rahn stated the Planning Commission has to look at this application as if the deck does not exist. ' ICempf stated it is a unique lot,with a poorly placed house, and that those two factors do create some hardship for the new properly owners. Kempf stated one of the main values of the property is the view of the lake and that the applicants should be allowed more than just a walkway on the lake�side of the house. Kempf noted the lot is wooded and that he would be in favor of reducing the size of the deck to comply with the building code. � Winer indicated she is in agreement with Commissioner Kempf. � Zullo stated the deck could be extended further in the other direction. Mrs. Sodhi indicated the larger portion of the deck is located near the kitchen and more easily accessible at that location. Mrs. Sodhi stated if they were to add deck going in the other direction,it would also obstruct their view. Sodhi distributed some photographs of the properiy,noting that the lot is heavily wooded. Sodhi stated there really is only one area of the deck that has a view of the lake. Zullo inquired why a permit was not obtained for the work. Sodhi stated the deck broke on Friday,the day before his son's first birthday party was scheduled, and that he asked the workers who were installing the windows to build a new deck right away. PAGE 12 - �-�.._. � MINUTES OF THE �' ORON�O PLANIVING CON.[MISSION . Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3251 Mandeep Sodhi, Continued) � Zullo stated she would like to see the portion of the deck that is in violation of the building code be removed. Mrs. Sodhi stated it was not their intent to violate any building codes and that they were just attempting to replace what was there previously at a slightly reduced size. Rahn stated he would be in support of the five foot rule. Sodhi asked whether they would be allowed to construct a seating place in another location if the deck were pulled back five feet. Rahn stated Staff would have to review the plan to determine whether it is acceptable. � Zullo inquired whether hardcover would be an issue if the deck was expanded in another location. Kroeger stated it appears they are slightly over in the 75-250 foot zone. Turner stated the hardcover may actually have been reduced with the new deck and that the applicants are in the process of clarifying that. Turner stated one reason for the narrowing of the deck was to gain additional light in the lower level. • Zullo stated she would be in favor of reducing it to five feet. Rahn opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. � There were no public comments regarding this application. Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Zullo moved,Kroeger seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3251,Mandeep and Leisa Sodhi,4080 Dahl Road, granting of a five foot setback variance,subject to the deck being reduced to meet a five foot setback. Kroeger recommended the applicants seriously consider acquiring some additional land from the neighbor and do a lot line readjustment,which would resolve the issues. �OTE: Ayes 7,l�iays 0. , PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. 7. #07-3259 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS FOR GARY AND KATHRYN GANGSTEE, 1374 REST POINT ROAD,VARIANCE,7:30 -8:13 P.M. Peter Jacobson and Ryan Smolik on behalf of Lake Country Builders were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting certain variances to allow modification and expansion of the existing house and garage,including removal of the wing of the house closest to the street, a 40 square foot addition to the house,reconstruction and expansion of the second story of the house, the addition of dormers to the garage roof and construction of a two-story link between the house and garage. The variances being requested include the following: 1. Street setback for the house of 18 feet where a 12-foot setback currently exists and a 30-foot setback is required. 2. Maintain a side setback for the existing garage of 9.1 feet when a 10-foot setback is required. 3. To have 29.8 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone when 25 percent is allowed and 30.3 � percent currently exists and to allow the 0-75 foot zone to remain with 9.0 percent hardcover. The applicants are proposing this as a remodel,not a rebuild. One of their goals is to be able to retain the nonconforming pool which is partially within the 0-75 foot zone and contributes to excess . hardcover on the site. � Staff recommends the Planning Commission table this application after providing the applicants with direction regarding the following issues: 1. Whether this should be considered a total rebuild; 2. VJhether there is justification based on the extent of the project to require a conforming 30- foot street setback instead of allowing a second story at the 18-foot setback; � 3. Whether the applicants should be granted a hardcover variance to be allowed to keep the pool, given that it is nonconforming and partially in the 0-75 foot zone, and that it is the primary � reason for excess hardcover on the site; . 4. Whether a hardcover variance should be granted for the 75-250 foot zone,given that this is a total rebuild on a lot�hat is nearly conforming in width and has a substantial hardcover allotment for the 75-250 foot zone; 5. VJhether there is any issue with attaching the house to the existing garage that is slightly too close to the lot line. The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues: 1. The proposal is to keep the basic house footprint location intact,but removing the wing near the PAGE 14 , ,,�t•�� MINU�ES OF THE � � � � ORONO PLANn�ING COMMISSION � Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3259 Lake Country Buildings, Continued) street,fill in the NE corner, and replace the existing half-story with a full story. This will • result in a new second-story encroachment massing within 18 feet of the street lot line where a 30-foot setback is required,but will eliminate the one-level wing that encroaches as close as 13.5 feet to the street lot line. 2. The new two-story connecting link will not have a basement connection to the garage,but will attach the garage-to,the house with new foyer and living space above it. 3. The detached garage will become attached, and the applicants gain livable space within its roofline; dormers are being added to maximize the usability of that space. Access to the storage area below the garage will remain via an exterior door on the lakeside. 4. The bonus room appears to have the amenities to serve as a guest apartment(half bath with shower; closets; a separate sink with undefined possible.stove/refrigerator slot next to it)with the exception that the plans do not show a stairway from the main garage level to it. Applicants should advise what the intention is for this space and whether access to it from the garage is intended. Depending on the proposed use and access, a guest apartment CUP could be required. 5. The applicants have indicated the foundation has a variety of flaws. They have provided some . initial design work from a structural engineer that suggests most of the existing house foundation will be replaced. This appears to conflict with the demo plan elevation views which indicate existing foundation to remain. The structural engineer's plan suggests that the � portion of the foundation that is nonconforming in terms of setbaok will remain in place,but its load-bearing capacity will be taken over by new pier footings and beams; i.e.,the � foundatioii becomes a non-load bearing enclosure. Gaffron stated according to the demolition plans,it appears that most of the exterior first floor walls are intended to remain,but they will have new window and door openings. It also appears from the plans that the existing second-story floor will be raised about two feet, and portions of the second- story walls are to be saved. The architect notes that due to the existing house being balloon framed, the upper story walls can be saved and added onto. Staff believes that this project is following in the footsteps of dozens of others we have watched through the years where very little of the existing home will actually be saved and it will become a complete rebuild. The only difference between the current plan and the one reviewed last summer is that the general footprint of the base home is in the same location as the existing home. 6. Because the remodeling project extends outside the existing walls of the house and includes an addition,hardcover clearly comes into play. The current proposal results in less hardcover than what currently exists on the site,but the pool still constitutes excessive hardcover on the property. The pool was constructed via building permits issued in 1984 that required the pool and all hardcover to be at least 75 feet from the lake. The survey presented at that time indicated it would be 77 feet from the lake. For whatever reasons,the pool today is 67 feet PAGE 15 MINUTES OF TIiE ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION _ � Tuesday,February 20, 2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3259 Lake Country Builders,Continued) � • from the shore and its patio is 63 feet from the shore. The pool extends past the average lakeshore setback. It is Staff's assumption that grade level.pools at that time were not considered as an average setback encroachment but today they are. � Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicants and then table the application for appropriate revisions and/or additional information. . Smolik stated he did spend some time discussing with Planner Gaffron options for remodeling the house and whether that would be feasible. Smolik pointed out the mechanical room currently is difficult to reach during the winter months,which would be rectified with this project. Smolik stated they are attempting to remodel the structure to comply with existing codes and to reduce the hardcover on the lot. Smolik stated they have considered a number of different approaches to this project and that he has reviewed the project with both neighbors. Smolik stated by leaving the footprint where it is,it keeps the houses in line and is not out of character . with the rest of the neighborhood. Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. There were no comments regarding this application. � Chair Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Zullo stated she would like to see the house located further back from the road to get it closer to the 30-foot setback. Winer inquired what happened with the previous proposal. Gaffron stated the original proposal for a new house was tabled by the City Council and that the applicants have chosen to go with a new developer and remodel the existing siructure. Kempf noted the previous developer had requested the Planning Commission to deny the application so he could proceed forward to the City Council to gain their input on the proposal. 7acobson stated the pool was there at the time the Gangstees purchased the property and that at the time the poo] was originally installed,it could very well have met the setbacks and that the laws on how the setback is measured from the lake could have changed. Jacobson stated the Gangstees would like to retain the pool since it is an important feature of their property. . Jacobson commented he is not fully aware of everything that went on in the previous application and that what was proposed earlier was a new house and not a rebuild. Jacobson stated what they are PAGE 16 � �. . . :., . . . � NIINUTES OF THE , ORONO PLANI�TING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 20,2007 � 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3259 Lake Country Builders, Continued) � proposing is,in part, a remodeling project and also a rebuild,and that it is somewhat a matter of semantics. Jacobson stated in attempting to retain the exterior footprint,a sincere effort was made to reduce what was proposed before and that they did reduce the square footage of the house. Jacobson stated approximately 40 percent of the wood structure of the existing house would remain but that the foundation is old and raises some issues. Jacobson indicated they have designed a portion of the residence to have a new foundation and a new mechanical room. ' Jacobson stated they are attempting to comply with the spirit and intent of the law. Kempf asked whether fiom Staff s perspective there is some possibility that the 75-foot setback was measured differently back then. Gaffron stated the shoreline probably has eroded and that it is also probable the setbacks were measured parallel to the lot lines and not to the lake. Gaffron stated the building inspector at that time did accept the 75-foot setback. • Rahn stated if the applicants would like the pool to remain,they would need to construct a smaller � home and that it is a matter of choices. Rahn stated it is not logical to leave the old foundation under � the portion of the house that is noncompliant and to construct a new foundation under a different portion of the house. Rahn stated seldom has the Planning Commission allowed a developer to add on to the front of the . house that is noncompliant as well as increasing the height. Jacobson stated a second floor is being added on to that area but they are not adding out. Kempf stated going up matters when there is an encroachment. Zullo stated regardless of whether this is a rebuilt or a remodeling project, additional structure within a setback is not appropriate. Smolik stated the setback at its narrowest point is 18.6 feet and that there is a greater setback as it goes further back. Smolik stated they are attempting to honor the site lines of the neighbors. � Rahn stated the issues in his mind are the garage setback, the front setback, and the hardcover. Kempf stated in order to have a large house and a swimming pool on Lake Minnetonka, a large lot is necessary. Kempf stated�he would like to see the house pulled further back. Winer noted this is the fourth time a proposal for this property has come before the Planning Commission and that perhaps better direction should be given to the applicants. PAGE 17 ' MINUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION � � Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3259 Lake Country Builders, Continued) Rahn stated he would like to see further reductions in the hardcover and that he is not in favor of the front yard setback. Kroeger stated when hardships are demonstrated,the City has granted variances to hardcover. Jacobson stated if the addition is moved to the back or to the side,they would end up with a footprint that is similar to what exists. Jacobson inquired�whether there would still be a discussion of rebuild, new construction or remodel if they relocate the addition. Jacobson stated he would like better direction from the Planning Commission on that item. - Rahn stated if a new builder is hired each time the plan changes,there likely would be a lot of round- about and that he understands the builder would like to have consistent direction. Rahn stated the Planning Commission has provided direction to the previous builder. Kroeger noted this is the first time a front setback and a side setback have been requested and that previously it was largely a hardcover issue. . Kempf stated the City's review of lakeshore rebuilds shows that for lots consisting of 16,000 to 24,000 square feet, only two of six properties were granted variances in excess of 25 percent. Kempf stated if the foundation is relocated away from the road,the question is whether the applicants would be held to the 25 percent hardcover or whether they would be allowed 28 percent. Jacobson stated that is what he would like to know. Jacobson stated in his experience as a former planning commissioner,variance requests are not predetermined by previous variances and that they stand alone on their merit. Jacobson stated it is tempting to look at other properties and what has been approved but that is not always productive. Jacobson stated in looking at this project on its own merit, � the hardcover will more than likely end up at 28 percent. Rahn stated he might be willing to allow the 28 percent if the front setback encroachment is removed. Zullo stated there are other areas that hardcover could possibly be reduced. Zullo stated in her view the setback from the road is one of the main issues. Rahn inquired whether the applicants would like the Planning Commission to vote on the application or to table the application. Jacobson stated he would like his application to move forward in the process as efficiently as possible. Gaffron stated if there is going to be a redesign,unless it is very basic,it should come back before the Planning Commission and that in his opinion there are other areas where the hardcover could be removed. Rahn stated there are a number of design issues that could be considered. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3259 Lake Country Builders,Continued) Jacobson stated there are a number of factors that have gone into the design..One,the existing garage � is a sound structure with a good foundation; two,the house in its current location;three, access from the garage to the house. Rahn commented the square footage between the house and the garage could be moved or lessened, which goes to the design. Kathy Gangstee stated the piece they took off the back was the same square footage and that the hardcover is being reduced with their proposal. Gaffron stated page five of the staff report addresses the hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone. Gaffron stated this proposal is really requesting a total of 34.7 percent and that the other lots referenced were not granted hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. Jacobson stated there are certainly other approvals that have been granted that are similar to what is being presented here today without requiring the house to be relocated further back. Jacobson stated this property is fundamentally different than other properties and should be judged on its own merits. Rahn suggested the application be tabled for redesign. Rahn recommended the variance to the front � yard setback be eliminated. Kempf stated he also has an issue with the pool being as close to Lake Minnetonka as it is. Jacobson inquired what the timing would be if the application is tabled. Gaffron stated the next Planning Commission meeting is March 19`�'and that he would like to receive the plans at least two weeks prior to that date. Rahn moved,Zullo seconded,to table Application#07-3259,Lake Country Builders for Kathy and Greg Gangstee,1374 Rest Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 8. #07-3262 ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP,INC.,FOR JAMES AND CORRINE BECK, 3820 CHERRY AVENUE,VARIANCE,8:13 P.M.—8:55 P.M. Kathy Alexander,Arclutect, and 3ames Beck,Applicant,were present. , Curtis stated the applicant is requesting the following in order to construct extensive additions to the existing home: 1. A lake setback of 41.3 feet for the house and 29 feet for the deck where 75 feet is normally required; PAGE 19 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION . � Tuesday,February 20, 2007 � 6:00 o'clock p.m. ' (#07-3262 Alexander Design Group, Continued) 2. A side setback variance to allow a five foot side yard setback where a ten-foot setback is normally required and five feet currently exists; 3. Hardcover variances to allow 17 percent hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone where 0 percent is normally allowed and to allow 32.1 percent within the 75-250 foot zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 27.3 percent cunently exists; 4. Technically a height variance is required as the lowest level is by definition the first story and the additions make this a three-story house where only 2-1/2 stories are allowed. � The hardcover was calculated not taking into account the 0-75 foot zone on the eastern portion of the property. Based on the presence of the 929.4 OHWL contour elevation found in the wetland and the integral connection between the wetland and Lake Minnetonka, Staff would apply the 75-foot lake setback to this area as well. However, Staff has not adjusted the applicants' submitted hardcover number to reflect this new information. Curtis noted the hardcover numbers listed in the table are incorrect and that the correct hardcover figures are found on page one of the report. Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission determine whether or not it is reasonable to allow expansion of this residence to increase the magnitude of the existing nonconformities. Some level of setback encroachment and hardcover overage may be reasonable. The height variance to technically make this a three-story home should be carefully considered. Beck stated when they discussed this application with Staff, it was noted that if all of the normal setbacks are taken into consideration,the building area would be very small and would be impossible to deal with,which constitutes a.hardship. Alexander stated it is important to note the small buildable area of the lot and that their proposal does not go closer to the lake. Alexander stated since the basement in the house is only seven feet tall,it does not meet the six foot requirement. � Curtis stated the Uasement definition was just revised by the Council at the last meeting and it does not meet either the old definition or the new definition of a basement and that is why it is being considered a story. Curtis stated it does currently exist as a story and the top story is a half-story. Alexander stated it is more than 50 percent. Alexander stated the basement is not finished area. Curtis stated Staff would look at that level as being defined a story. Alexander inquired whether it would be defined a story even if it is not eight-feet tall. PAGE 20 e . MTNUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3262 Alexander Design Group, Continued) Gaffron stated they would consider it a basement for zoning purposes even if it does not meet a reasonable head room standard for a basement. The issues are whether the structure meets the 30 feet height standard or the three story height requirement since the basement is an oddity, does it fit into the neighborhood and is there a reason to grant a variance. Curtis stated the structure does meet the 30-foot height limitation. Alexander stated tfie intent is to remodel the house and that they are actually adding garage space with a flat terrace over it. Alexander stated the need for the variance is because the house,as is sits,is closer to the lake than 75 feet. Alexander stated the house currently sits five feet from the side lot line. Alexander indicated they have submitted letters from the neighbors expressing their support of the project. Alexander stated there is not a problem with drainage on the property. � Beck stated the drainage runs back towards the street. Rahn inquired whether the five foot setback is the bump-out on the side. Alexander stated it is and that it is existing. Rahn inquired whether they are going up at that location. Alexander stated they are going up at that location. Rahn stated he would have an issue with adding to a nonconfornuty. Kenlpf stated the house is located too close to Lake Minnetonka and that this is one of those times the applicant would be creating a substantial structure on top of a bad foundation. Kempf stated in his opinion this is a hardship lot and there is little room to construct but that he would hate to see more structure added on to the existing foundation. Zullo stated the owners purchased the properly as it is and that the Becks were aware of the hardship when they acquired the property. Gaffron inquired how long the property has been in the family. Beck stated since 1946. Gaffron stated in this case this is not a new buyer since it has been in the family for many decades. Alexander stated the owners specifically wanted to retain some of the rooms on the main level, such as the fireplace,the sunroom and the living room, and they went to great lengths to design around that. PAGE 21 . . � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION ` , _ Tuesday,February 20,2007 . 6:00 o'clock p.m: (#07-3262 Alexander Design Group,Continued) Rahn inquired what the new peak height would be. _ Alexander indicated she is not sure. Rahn stated he understands the small building area but noted that basically everything is expanding in the 0-75 foot zone. �Kempf inquired whether the basement is seven feet high. Alexander stated it is. ' Kempf inquired whether the addition would start from the existing cap. Alexander stated the basement would stay as is and that based on the City's code, she is not able to do anything to adjust the grade around the basement. Kempf commented that this is another instance where a new addition is being"added onto an existing older foundation. . Alexander stated they do have a letter from a structural engineer saying the foundation and basement are sound. Zullo stated she does not necessarily see a hardship to construct the additions to the house and that not every lot on Lake Mimietonka needs to be a buildable lot. Alexander stated Mr.Beck owns the house on the property now and it cannot go to an empty lot. Zullo stated a house akeady exists and does not need to change. Gaffron stated the house can remain as is. Gaffron noted all the changes being proposed are in a nonconforming location. Kempf stated he is of the opinion that within boundaries the lot is a hardship lot and that a person does � have the right to improve their property to some degree and not just have it remain the same. Curtis suggested the Planning Commission discuss the merits of applying the wetland buffer requirement to mitigate what might potentially be seen as negative impacts from the existing structure . and the proposed additions. Curtis stated the applicant is not increasing the hardcover but questioned whether there should be some consideration of the runoff into the wetland. � Gaffron stated the proposed work on the property does not trigger the creation of a wetland buffer,but since there are a variety of variances being requested as part of this application,there is a question whether some buffer requirement should be included to mitigate the runoff into the wetland. PAGE 22 � K , ,.�: . . � _ . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAI�TNING CONlMISSION Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 dclock p.m. ' (#07-3262 Alexander Design Group, Continued) Rahn inquired what the hardcover would be. . Curtis stated based upon the applicants' latest submittal,the hardcover would remain at 27.3 by removing soine driveway and reconfiguring their proposal. Rahn stated the proposed building additions totally max out the height and that, in his opinion,is not a good idea to do that this close to the lake. Rahn indicated he would like to see a side elevation of the existing house and the proposed house. Rahn stated it appears the first floor would be higher and the roof would be higher but that he would like to see a drawing depicting how much taller the new addition would be as compared to the existing roofline. Kempf stated he is in agreement with Chair Rahn and that it would have a visual impact from the lake. Kempf stated he would like to see the house pushed back, which probably is not going to happen. Zullo inquired whether the deck would be reconstructed. Alexander stated the deck would be left as is and that they would not be adding to it. Gaffron noted there was a variance granted for the deck a number of years aga Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 8:38 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Rahn closed the.public hearing at 8:38 p.m. Alexander inquired if the height were decreased,how the Planning Commission would deal with Staff de�ning it as three stories. Gaffron suggested the roof be reduced slightly,which would help to decrease the visual massing of the structure. Rahn stated he is not sure how the seven feet ceiling height impacts the six foot in the ground. Gaffron stated a seven-foot ceiling height would be considered substandard by most people. Gaffron stated the new ordinance deals with what percentage the new perimeter is exposed six feet or more, and b.y that definition,not enough of the basement is in the ground for this to be considered a basement and would therefore be considered a story. Rahn inquired whether this is a walkout. . Alexander stated it is not. PAGE 23 �,' :. . . _ MINUTES OF THE , � ' ORONO PLAI�TNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 20,2007 � ' 6:00 o'clock p.m. . ' (#07-3262 Alexander Design Group, Continued) Zullo stated it is the bulking above that is the issue. Rahn stated he would like to see a minimal increase in the height. Beck stated they possibly could reduce the height of the structure. Alexander stated she has a concern with redesigning the plans and then having to request a variance for the three stories under the new ordinance. Curtis stated Staff has been looking at a few applications that were submitted prior to the adoption of . the new ordinance and that it is not fair to require cunent applications to adhere to the strictest definition of the new ordinance. � Gaffron stated the applications thaf are filed with the City prior to the new ordinance being published would be subject to the old ordinance. Gaffron pointed out two of the four sides of the house have at least six or seven feet exposure for the entire length and the other two sides have less exposure. Staff's conclusion was that more than 50 percent of the basement was exposed and would then be considered a story. Gaffron stated in the Baldur Park area there would be no basements and that they would be held to the defmition of two and a half stories. Kempf inquired whether direction could be given to lower the peak height and then have the application go forward to the Council for their input on the variance to the three stories. Rahn stated it was his understanding it would be tabled to allow them to redesign their plans. Gaffron stated it might be beneficial if the Planning Commission gives some direction to the applicant on the issues raised in the report. Rahn stated he would like to see the height of the main structure reduced closer to what currently exists. Alexander pointed out the house currently is stacked on the lakeside. Kroeger inquired what the impacts of buffering the wetland would be. Gaffron stated a conservation easement would be required over that portion of their property that is abutting the wetland and that the owners potentially would be required to change the vegetation in the area of the wetland and maintain it as a natural area. PAGE 24 . � . . • � . . . � . . . .' 1VIINUTES OF TI3E � � _. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION . : � � „ . Tuesday,February 20,2007 � � 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3262 Alexander Design Group,Continued) Curtis suggested the City's wetland consultant,John Smyth,review the lot and make a determination on the 50-foot buffer. Curtis stated Staff would not be suggesting a 50-foot buffer since it would eliminate a large portion of the yard but that there should be some type of buffer. � Rahn stated he would like to see the peak height that exists within the side setback remain fairly close to what currently exists. Rahn moved,Winer seconded,to table Application#07-3262,James and Corrine Beck,3820 Cherry Avenne. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. Curtis requested clarification on the direction being given regarding the wetland buffer. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have John Smyth review the property and to make a recommendation on the wetland buffer. *9. #07-3267 BOHLAND DEVELOPMENT FOR CALVIN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 177 GLENDALE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Krueger moved,Kang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3267,Bohland Development for Calvin Presbyterian Church,177 Glendale Drive, granting of a conditional use permit and setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 PLANNdNG CONlMISSION COMMENTS 10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS JANUARY 22 AND FEBRUARY 12,2007 Kempf stated he attended the January 22"a meeting and reported that a large number of the items went on consent agenda. Kempf stated the Leaf Street sketch plan was discussed and that the developer had changed some of the lot sizes. � Zullo reported on the February 12`h City Council meeting and noted that the Dampier application was approved after a lengthy discussion. PAGE 25 � . . . . `. �'Yx��. . MINUTES OF THE �,. � ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION Tuesday,February 20,2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. 11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Kempf inquired whether there would be a trail connection to the Luce Line with the new trail that is being created in Navarre. Gaffron stated there would be and that there will probably be a connection up by Orono Orchard Road to the Luce Line and that he is unsure whether there would be any other trail connections. Kempf stated he visited a Spring Park Planning Commission meeting and that they were attempting to get 39 parlang spaces by the trail and that they were allotted six spaces by Three Rivers and six spaces not being utilized by Minnetonka Beach. Gaffron stated the Three Rivers website probably contains information regarding what is being proposed for the trail. Gaffron stated the City Council has been discussing this project but has not involved the Planning Commission at this stage. 12. SELECTION OF REPRESENTAT�S TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 26 AND MARCH 12,2007 February 26—Dick Kroeger March 12—Kim Kang . . EiDJOURNMEN'P Zullo moved,Kempf seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ....-� � David Rahn, Chair PAGE 26