HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes ��' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
�:.r Monday,Apri117,2006
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 Travis Winkey,Ralph Kempf,Roland Jurgens,Dick Kroeger,and
Alternate Sandra Smith. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie
Curtis and Evelyn Turner, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Lili McMillan was present.
Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
CONSENT
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to add Items 5 and 7 to the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
1. #06-3177 WILLIAM AND ANN MCCRACKIN,4355 CHIPPEWA LANE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:03 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:03 p.m.
Rahn moved,Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3177,William and Ann
McCrackin,4355 Chippewa Lane,granting of a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
2. #06-3187 CHAD ABRAHAM,2920 FOX STREET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:03 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:03 p.m.
Rahn moved,Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3187,Chad Abraham,
2920 Fox Street,granting of a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 1
:l `
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
,- Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
5. #06-3186 NIINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING FOR ROBERT ERICKSON,372
WESTLAKE STREET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:04 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:04 p.m.
Rahn moved,Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3186 Minnetonka
Portable Dredging for Robert Erickson,372 Westlake Street,granting of a conditional use permit.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
7. #06-3190 BRUCE DAYTON AND RICHARD RINEHART,965 AND 985 OLD LONG
LAKE ROAD,LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT
Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:04 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:04 p.m.
Rahn moved,Smith seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3187,Bruce Dayton and
Richard Rinehart,965 and 985 Old Long Lake Road,granting of a lot line rearrangement.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS -
3. #06-3179 TOM RADKE,3424 EASTLAKE STREET,VARIANCE
This item follows Item No. 6.
NEW BUSINESS
4. #06-3185 WJM PROPERTIES,2605 WAYZATA BLVD.,COMMERCIAL/AMEND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
This item follows Items No. 3.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
L Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
5. #06-3186 MINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING FOR ROBERT ERICKSON,372
WESTLAKE STREET,CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT
This item was placed on the Consent Agenda.
6. #06-3189 TERRY AND SUZANNE JOHNSON,543 PARK LANE,VARIANCE,
6:06 P.M.—6:33 P.M.
Terry and Suzanne Johnson,Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a number of variances in order to build a new residence on their
property. T'he following variances are being requested:
1. A 75'-250 zone hardcover variance to allow 54.9 percent hardcover where 25 percent is
normally allowed and 63.7 percent currently exists;
2. A structural coverage variance to allow 1,740 square feet structural coverage variance where
1.505 square feet is normally allowed;
3. A side yard setback variance to allow a 5.2' setback where a 10' setback is normally required;
4. An average lakeshore setback variance for portions of the new residence to be located ahead of
the average lakeshore setback;
5. Lot area and lot width variances due to the existing area and width of the property that are
substandard.
The applicants began the variance process in 2001 and were tabled at their request at the Council's
direction that the redesign some aspects of their proposal. Staff does not find a hardship exists to grant
the structural coverage, average lakeshore setback,and side yard setback variances as proposed. Staff
feels there may be hardships by which some level of hardcover variance for the 75'-250' setback zone are
justifiable,but in Staff's opinion most of the variance could be eliminated by reducing the size of the
proposed home. In addition, Staff feels the 5.2-foot side setback is an attempt to artificially raise the �
height of the proposed home. In order to use the 978' elevation as the low measuring point,the home
would need to be actually located where it touches this elevation,and the only way to accomplish this is
to encroach into the side yard setback.
Planning Staff recommends denial of the 0-75' and 75'-250' hardcover variances, average lake setback
variance, structural coverage and the side yard setback variances. However, Staff would recommend the
Planning Commission table the application for lot area and lot width until the applicants submit a revised
plan that comes closer to meeting the City's goals.
PAGE 3
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
- Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3189 Terry and Suzanne Johnson,Continued) �
Mr. Johnson stated they have lived at this residence for approximately 13 years and have two children.
Johnson acknowledged they did appear before the Planning Commission approximately five years ago,
and at that time they proposed a single level story home,which included a garage located five feet from
the lot line, and was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission. .
Johnson stated the majority of the garages in their neighborhood are located within five feet of the lot line
due to the small lot sizes. Johnson stated the City Council suggested that the plans be revised to go
upward rather than expand the existing footprint.
Johnson indicated following the City Council decision,they consulted with a structural engineer and that
some foundation issues have been discovered and the central part of the house has settled. The structural
engineer recommended at that time that no additional load be added to the top of the house.
Johnson stated a tunnel exists on the north side of the house. Johnson inquired what they would be
allowed to construct on this lot. Johnson noted they have hired an architect who has started some
preliminary designs.
Johnson commented there is no on street parking in his neighborhood and that they would like to have
some extra space to accommodate visitors' cars. Johnson stated the turn-around allows them to avoid the
need to back out on the street,which is a safety concern.
Johnson stated they would like to create as much green space in the front yard as possible. Johnson noted
the neighbor's garage is located less than five feet from their lot line.
Rahn noted that the City did receive a letter from the neighbor at 537 Park Lane indicating their support
of this project.
Johnson stated they feel the proposed plan is the best alternative for this lot and that the only other option
they have is to repair or replace the foundation. Johnson stated a number of their neighbors have
hardcover in excess of 35 percent.
Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:16 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:16 p.m.
Smith inquired whether the City in recent years has approved new home construction with variances
similar to what the applicants are proposing.
Curtis stated the City has not approved structural coverage variances in the past similar to what the
applicant is requesting.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
- Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3189 Terry and Suzanne Johnson,Continued)
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission and City Council have been fairly strict on sixuctural coverage in
the past. Gaffron indicated Staff does not have a neighborhood analysis regarding the hardcover limits
approved by the City for this area,but pointed out the lots in this neighborhood have been granted
significant hardcover variances given the small lots.
Rahn concurred that the City has been consistent on the amount of structural coverage allowed and that
the applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Rahn stated in his view the side yard variance is
required because of the three-car garage and that it is unlikely a variance would be approved since there is
not a hardship. •
Rahn indicated when new construction is being proposed,the applicants start out with a clean slate and
that any nonconformities need to be either brought into compliance or removed.
Smith commented that other residents have constructed lock boxes rather than a shed in the 0-75' zone.
Rahn suggested the applicants have their architect design a footprint that is workable along with a
minimal driveway.
Jurgens indicated he would echo Chair Rahn's comments. Jurgens stated the footprint needs to be
brought into conformity with the structural coverage limit and then the other issues can be addressed if
need be. Jurgens stated complying with the average lakeshore setback might be difficult and that he
would like to see the 10-foot side yard setback complied with based on the visual perception that would
be created if all the lots were allowed a 5-foot setback.
Rahn noted the city engineer has also recommended a 10-foot setback, which was probably to help with
the drainage.
Winkey concurred that the Planning Commission has been fairly consistent with requiring the structural
, coverage to remain within the allowable limit.
Kempf stated a 50-foot lot is a difficult lot to work with but that the City would like the house to be as
conforming as possible. Kempf commented the shed would have to be removed with the new
construction. Kempf recommended the applicants redesign their plans to bring the house into
conformance with the structural coverage limits.
Jurgens stated in his view this project will probably be a rebuild rather than a remodel but that Staff could
give some guidance to the applicants.
Rahn stated in his view it is unlikely the City Council would approve all the variances being requested.
Mrs.Johnson stated in her opinion they do have hardships given the location of the existing house and the
fact that the structural coverage is already over the limit.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- Monday,April 17,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3189 Terry and Suzanne Johnson, Continued)
The applicants requested their application be voted on.
Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend denial of Application#06-3189,Terry and Suzanne
Johnson,543 Park Lane,granting of lot area,lot width,hardcover,side setback, average lakeshore
setback,and structural coverage variances. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
3. #06-3179 TOM RADKE,3424 EASTLAKE STREET,VARIANCE,6:33 P.M.—7:12 P.M.
Margaret Radke,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicants did appear at the March Planning Commission meeting where the application
was tabled with a recommendation that the amount of hardcover of this lot be reduced. The applicants
have made some reductions and are not requesting a hardcover variance in the 75'-250' setback for 34.6
percent hardcover in order to construct a new patio with a pergola and a covered front entry.
Planning Staff continues to recommend denial of the hardcover variance as proposed,and recommends
approval of the existing non-approved hardcover.
Radke indicated they have attempted to reduce the hardcover as much as possible by removing a portion
of the sidewalk and portions of the deck. Radke noted the current home does not have a basement,which
limits their storage. Radke stated in her opinion there is not a way to reduce the driveway except remove
the three large pine trees in the area or by obtaining an easement from her neighbors.
Radke pointed out the house exceeds the amount of structural coverage that was approved in 1985 and
that if they were to meet the requirement set forth in the resolution,they would only be allowed 100 feet
for a patio and sidewalk.
Radke stated they did invite all the Planning Commission members and City Council members to visit
their property.
Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.
Rahn stated it is difficult to approve anything further based on the previous resolution approved by the
City,noting that specific language in the resolution states that no further hardcover would be allowed
unless other hardcover were removed.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- � Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3179 Tom Radke, Continued)
Rahn stated there appears to have been a roof over the stoop at one time and that he would not be opposed
to allowing a covering over that area. Rahn stated he does not see a hardship in having two front doors
and having a roof over both of them that extends 29 feet. Rahn stated in his opinion it is a design issue
and that he has not changed his mind from the first meeting that a hardcover variance is necessary given
the lack of a hardship.
Radke stated if they follow what is allowed in the resolution,they would not be allowed to have a
sidewalk and only a very small patio.
Jurgens inquired whether the 2145 square feet for the house is accurate. .
Radke indicated that is accurate.
Jurgens stated the resolution approves 3572 square feet of hardcover and that the house accounts for 2033
square feet of home,which is a difference of 112 square feet. Jurgens driveway accounts for a good
portion of the hardcover and not just the house. Jurgens stated the driveway is close to the width of two
. cars almost the entire length and that in his opinion the driveway could be reduced. Jurgens pointed out
the driveway consists of 1240 square feet of hardcover.
Radke stated the backup apron accounts for 240 feet.
Jurgens stated the difference might be the patio in the back. Jurgens stated he does not see a hardship to
raise the hardcover on this property.
Winkey stated the applicant is in an unfortunate spot by having inherited 622 square feet of coverage that
was not originally accounted for. Winkey stated the improvements the applicant has made look nice and
that it is probably not possible to straighten out the driveway given the three trees.
Radke agreed the extra hardcover that was not included in the resolution has created a problem.
Radke stated their builder has indicated that the roof over the two front entries is appropriate. Radke
stated they could remove the middle patio,which would reduce the hardcover by 91 square feet. Radke
stated the footprint for their house only consists of 1400 square feet.
Winkey inquired whether the applicants would be willing to remove the three trees and straighten out the
driveway.
Radke stated in her opinion it would be very difficult in addition to the cost associated with creating a
new driveway. Radke inquired what the overage on the hardcover is.
Curtis stated it would be 857 square feet.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3179 Tom Radke,Continued)
Radke pointed out they also have 74 square feet additional feet in the driveway that was not included in
the original calculation.
Gaffron indicated the hardcover overage consists of 112 square feet for the house,74 square feet for the
driveway, 180 square feet for the front walk and stoop,the rear walk and patio is 229 square feet,which
totals 595 square feet.
Radke inquired whether the Planning Commission would be okay with the middle section of the patio
being removed. Radke commented that would leave them no spot for patio chairs and that she would
prefer not to do that if she is not required. Radke noted that area was just recently redone and landscaped.
Radke stated they are requesting to proceed as proposed in their plans,noting that they have made a very
good faith effort to reduce the hardcover.
Winkey stated with the additional removals,the overage in the hardcover would be approximately one-
half.
Rahn stated the 91 square feet for the middle patio is minimal and that in his opinion the applicant should
be allowed a deck or patio of 100 square feet.
Curtis illustrated on the overhead the area of the patio that the applicant is proposing to remove.
Smith inquired whether the paver patio is attached to an entryway into the house.
Radke stated there is a door there. Radke inquired whether Chair Rahn was able to back out of her
driveway without the turnaround.
Rahn stated he was able to back out without using the turn-around but that the problem is that the
driveway is serving a two-car garage. Rahn stated in his opinion that area is different than a turn-
around and just a bump-out.
Radke stated their visitors routinely have difficulty navigating out of their driveway.
Rahn stated he would like to see a reduction in the driveway rather than having a portion of the deck
removed. Rahn stated in his opinion the applicants would get more use out of the patio than the current
width of the driveway.
Radke stated she disagrees with Rahn and that their driveway is difficult to turn around in. Radke stated a
number of cars have backed into their bushes
Kempf commented the applicant is making a good case for rearranging their driveway.
Radke stated a new driveway would cost approximately$10,000.
. PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Monday,April 17,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3179 Tom Radke, Continued)
Smith stated it comes down to a matter of choice and priorities.
Winkey stated if the driveway is reduced somewhat, it would go a long ways to reducing the hardcover
and that in his view the turn-around could be reduced.
Radke commented they cunently do not.have parking for guests and that the turn-around is used for that
purpose. Radke indicated when the city sewer was put in, a lift station was installed on the corner of their
outlot and that whenever it rains the lights come on and that City crews have to come onto their property
to work on the lift station.
Rahn stated the Planning Commission is merely a recommending body and that the applicant can plead
her case before the Council. Rahn stated in his opinion it appears the consensus of the Planning
Commission is to reduce the driveway. �
Radke inquired if the driveway is reduced to what was originally approved in the resolution if that would .
be acceptable. ,
Jurgens stated the Planning Commission is looking at the total amount and that he personally does not
care where it is reduced.
Radke commented they have made a good effort to reduce the hardcover.
Winkey stated where the hardcover is reduced is a choice for the applicant to make,but that the Planning
Commission feels the driveway is a logical place for the reduction.
Radke inquired what the driveway should be reduced to.
Winkey suggested the applicant ask the Council what they feel is reasonable,but that he feels removal of
the majority of the turn-around area would make this application more acceptable.
Kroeger concurred that in his opinion there is room to turn around without the backup portion.
Rahn stated in his opinion some of the present hardcover that is not included in the resolution was added
later. Rahn inquired whether the applicant would like the Planning Commission to vote on the matter or
table the application to allow her�to redesign her plans. Rahn stated in order to grant a variance there
needs to be a hardship and that the present width of the driveway is not a hardship but rather a design
issue. Rahn stated he would like to see the hardcover reduced to 31.7 percent.
Jurgens indicated he would be fine with the 31.7 percent.
Kempf stated in his view the applicants have made a good faith effort to reduce the hardcover and that he
would be okay with 33 percent.
PAGE 9
� MINUTES OF T�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
- Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3179 Tom Radke,Continued)
Radke stated she would be willing to reduce it to 33 percent.
Winkey stated the hardcover would be 3852 square feet with removal of the backup apron,which would
reduce the hardcover to 33 percent.
Jurgens moved to recommend approval of Application#06-3179,Thomas and Margaret Radke,
3523 East Lake Street,granting of a hardcover variance for 31.7 percent.
Radke inquired if 33 percent would be acceptable.
Rahn stated the Council could allow a higher percentage of hardcover over what the Planning
Commission is recommending. .
Rahn seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2,Winkey and Kempf Opposed.
Kempf and Winkey indicated they would allow the hardcover at 33 percent.
(Recess taken at 7:12 p.m.—7:15 p.m.)
NEW BUSINESS � '
4. #06-3185 WJM PROPERTIES,2605 WAYZATA BLVD.,COMIVV�RCIAL/AMEND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS,7:15 P.M.—8:15 P.M.
Peter Johnson,Attorney-at-Law,was present on behalf of WJM Properties.
Gaffron stated this is the third application for improvements to the site in the past few years,with the last
approval being for expansion of the existing parking lot and an accessory garage building. Gaffron stated
the garage building has been constructed but that the parking lot has not been done. The applicants are
now proposing to not pave the entire parking lot.
Gaffron stated the applicant is now proposing to construct a 150' by 175' building addition 20 feet in
height,with a 250 square foot walkway to connect the existing accessory buildings. Gaffron noted this
would be five feet higher than the main body of the existing building except for the northwest quadrant,
which is 25 feet high. Staff has no issue with the connection,with the applicant indicating they will be
using the same metal construction that has previously been utilized on this lot. Gaffron noted color
photographs are included in the Planning Commission packet depicting how the connection would appear
visually.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
. Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3185 WJM Properties,Continued)
In addition,to the south of the 25,620 square foot addition,the applicant is proposing to remove a portion
of the parking lot and relocate it. Gaffron stated with the removal of that portion of the parking lot,there
would be 542 parking stalls remaining on the lot. Gaffron indicated removal of that portion of the _
parking lot is not an issue. The visual impact of losing this buffer is not major since there is only one
house south of the Highway 12 corridor that would have second-story views of the parking area from a
distance of about 850 feet.
The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to allow two 60-foot high flagpoles,with city
code normally limiting such poles to 40 feet. One flagpole would be located directly behind the new
monument sign adjacent to Highway 12 and the second flagpole would be located in the midpoint of the
large easterly parking area,about 450 feet south of Highway 12 and 180 feet west of the east lot line. A
60-foot flagpole would be approximately four times the height of the east fa�ade of the main building.
The power poles along the north side of Highway 12 have been estimated by triangulation to be
approximately 40 feet in height. Staff is suggesting that if a 60-foot height flagpole is allowed,that a
maximum 8-foot by 12-foot flag would be allowed.
Smith inquired what the height of the flagpole in front of the City Council Chambers is.
Gaffron stated that flagpole is approximately 25 to 30 feet in height.
Smith noted the flagpoles in this vicinity are considerably lower than 60 feet.
Gaffron indicated the applicant is also requesting to amend the existing conditional use permit conditions
within Resolution No.4845. The existing language identifies different types of vehicles that will be
stored in the main easterly parking lot as "new vehicles and finished vehicles ready for delivery to
dealerships." The resolution goes on to state that up to 40 vehicles may be parked for"display"at the
north end of the main parking lot and at the north end of the building. The display vehicle language was
originally intended to make a distinction between those cars that are for demonstration purposes as part of
the fleet sales and leasing element of the Morries' operation at this site. In actuality,it is probably
impossible for the public to visually perceive a difference between cars stored for demonstration purposes
or cars stored or parked for other purposes on the site. It appears that the applicant does not want to be
limited to 40 demonstration vehicles and requests that any cars in excess of 40 for demonstration purposes
be allowed on site but be stored in the south end of the east lot.
The applicant is proposing a continuing of the approved lighting plan for the new parking area. Staff
finds this acceptable and does not expect there to be impacts on nearby residential properties that are all
located more than 600 feet distance from the parking area. No additional signage is proposed with this
building addition and parking/storage expansion.
The city engineer has reviewed this project and his comments are attached as Exhibit G. The engineer's
comments relate generally to drainage and stormwater runoff concerns associated with the parking lot
expansion. The engineer finds the plans acceptable,but noted that the pre-existing onsite storm sewer
system depicted on the plans has inadequate capacity but its overflow has no impact on adjoining
properties, and the entire site will discharge to a pond just east of the property.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAN1vING CONIlVIISSION MEETING
. Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3185 WJM Properties, Continued)
Gaffron stated Staff would be working with the applicant,the City Engineer,and the City Attorney to
define what elements of the improvements need to be covered under a development agreement. Gaffron
noted there are eight issues for consideration by the Planning Commission listed in his report.
Johnson stated this application was prepared in part because the City's industrial code was scheduled to
be amended and they would like the front of the site to be fully developed and the back of the lot to be
undeveloped. Johnson stated the issue with the City to date has been retail auto sales and that there are no
plans to have retail auto sales at this site.
Johnson indicated they have had difficulty getting the customers to go to the rear of the building to access
the body shop and that Staff has advised them that signage in the industrial park is not intended to direct
traffic from Highway 12. Johnson stated the purpose of the two flagpoles is to help direct people to the
body shop and not to attract customers off of Highway 12.
Johnson stated the specific language concerning open sales lots and display of automobiles in an open
sales lot is not allowed by conditional use permit under the new ordinance but that the city attorney has
indicated that there is no intention to limit the use that has already been granted a conditional use permit. `
Johnson stated as they grow into this site,it would be inappropriate to be limited to 40 cars that can be
test driven,noting that they have a number of car manufacturers that would like to present cars to
customers and that 40 cars would not allow them to have a variety of product on site.
Johnson stated they would have lots of parking available for employees and cars in process and still be
able to grow on this lot.
Kroeger inquired whether this is the body shop for all of Morries' lots.
Johnson stated the idea is that the retail arm is going to be primarily devoted to marketing and repairing
cars on a day-to-day basis and that bodywork would be referred.
Kroeger inquired whether people would be driving in to obtain estimates.
Johnson stated the monument sign language does make reference to bodywork.
Kroeger inquired whether they would prepare an estimate for someone who drives in off the street.
Johnson stated they would. Johnson stated they are under limitations due to the sign ordinance.
Winkey stated he is,for the most part,comfortable with what is being proposed for the property and that
the site looks like a business rather than a car dealership lot. Winkey indicated he appreciates the
landscaping that has been done. Winkey stated he does not want to have the look of a car dealership
along Highway 12,which is what the poles in his opinion do to the property. Winkey inquired whether
Morries has a problem with people locating their property.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
. Monday,April 17,2006 •
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3185 WJM Properties, Continued)
Johnson stated a number of their customers have driven into Maple Plain because they miss the sign and
that they have tried a number of different landmarks to help direct people to their lot. Johnson stated they
feel the American flag would be easily recognizable by all people and would help people find the right
lot.
Winkey stated a 60-foot pole would stand out compared to everything else in this area and might not be
the right kind of landmark to direct people to the body shop. Winkey stated in his opinion the sign
, ordinance would allow signage on the lot directing people to the body shop.
Johnson stated the Sears flag is approximately 75 feet in width and that the size of their flag would be 12
feet in width. Johnson stated they are proposing 60-foot flagpoles and a normal size flag. Johnson noted
this property is approximately ten feet lower than the road. Johnson requested the Planning Commission
consider their application. Johnson stated if the Planning Commission is not agreeable to 60-feet,he
would like as high of a flagpole as the Planning Commission feels is appropriate.
Rahn inquired whether an address number would be workable to help find the site. Rahn stated he does
not understand the need to have two 60-foot flagpoles to help people locate the lot.
Johnson stated the address is more than likely provided to the customers but that the flags would be a
visual aid.
Jurgens suggested Morries consider printing a map out for people to help find their property and that
internal signage would be fine to direct the customers back to the body shop.
Johnson pointed out the customers pass 16 doors on the way to the body shop.
Rahn inquired what is included in that 25,000 square foot addition.
Johnson stated the northeast quarter is an auto prep shop, car wash,and paintless dent repair. The
northwest quarter is the future interior fleet leasing showroom,which will be a mix of classic cars and
-. fleet leasing vehicles on display. Johnson stated the remainder of the west side is storage space with a
parts warehouse and computer room. The southern section is the body shop,which has two drive-through
paint booths.
Rahn stated it was his understanding that this was going to be a distribution center and not necessarily
leasing and sales. Rahn inquired whether there is a rear entrance for the transports.
Johnson distributed a green space calculation diagram to the Planning Commission members depicting
the entrances/exits to this site. Johnson stated after numerous meetings with Staff,they have attempted to
meet the green space qualification under the new industrial ordinance if there is a public road developed
along the eastern portion of their lot. Johnson stated they are not opposed to improving access to the site
with a public roadway.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO PLANN�NG COMNIISSION MEETING
� Monday,April 17,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3185 WJM Properties, Continued)
Johnson requested full access not be cut off because they do have big trucks coming in and out and they
need the full road access. Johnson stated they do not have a problem with trucks turning around on the
lot.
Rahn stated he feels there might be a problem with trucks being able to maneuver on the site if all the
parking stalls are full.
Johnson stated it is unlikely that all the parking stalls will be full.
Rahn stated he has two issues with this application; one being the flagpoles and the other issue being that
this application was originally sold more as the get ready shop for cars. Rahn stated in his opinion this
use keeps expanding and is getting closer and closer to retail sales, especially with the addition of leasing
sales and the showroom. Rahn stated the retail sale of cars is not an allowed use.
Smith stated she has a similar recollection to Chair Rahn's and that she remembers a commissioner asldng
the specific question about whether a car could be purchased off this lot and the answer was that you
could but that's not our focus. Smith commented it is hard to distinguish between a fleet owner coming
in and purchasing a number of cars and one individual purchasing a car.
Smith inquired how many vehicles a person can test-drive at any one time and why there is a need to have
250 vehicles available to be test driven.
Johnson stated their initial application was for a leasing operation and interior showroom with 40 cars that
would be available for test-driving lined up along the front. Johnson stated the Planning Commission
went around and around with the definition of a showroom but that Morries needs to have a showroom
and cars available for its customers. Johnson noted the vehicles available for test-driving are not readily
visible from the roadway.
Johnson stated their salesmen would refer individual buyers to different Morries' lots to purchase a single
car. Johnson stated the showroom gives them the opportunity to show 15 different vehicles by different
manufacturers and that there would be issues with the various car dealers if they conducted retail out of
their showroom.
Winkey inquired whether they are limiting the number of vehicles
Johnson stated their conditional use permit allows them to have 250 cars for storage and 40 cars for
display and test-driving. Johnson stated additional parking has been added for approximately 100 cars.
The previous ordinance allowed cars to be on display with a conditional use permit. The city attorney has
indicated that Morries can go from 40 to 60 test-drive vehicles two years from now. Johnson stated he is
not sure that is a correct statement by the city attorney and that the city has ordinances that do not allow a
conditional use pernut to be granted for a use that is not pernutted.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
. Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3185 WJM Properties,Continued) "
Johnson stated Staff would be unable to tell which car has been test-driven and that they could test-drive
cars that are in storage. Johnson stated they do not want to do that and would rather comply with the
city's ordinances.
Jurgens stated in his opinion this site is being expanded to accommodate retail sales. Jurgens questioned
the need to have that many vehicles to test-drive.
Johnson stated this issue has been presented to Staff and the Planning Commission previously and that the
conditional use permit granted by the city allows them to establish their business here and that they have
invested millions of dollars into this facility. Johnson indicated there is a problem with a quantitative
limit of test-drive vehicles because under the city's new ordinance it says that this is no longer a permitted
use. Johnson stated he anticipates that if he comes back in five years and they need more than 401ease
cars,the new city attorney will say that they cannot permit a use that is not on the list.
Rahn stated he understands that concern but that he would like Morries to come up with a specific
number.
. Johnson stated the number is inconsistent with the idea that this business is going to grow over time.
Jurgens stated Morries has been in business a long time and that he should be capable of doing a
projection in order to provide some estimated,realistic numbers.
Rahn pointed out the applicant moved forward and invested in this lot with a limit of 401ease spots and
no guarantee from the city that theywould allow more test-drive vehicles.
Johnson stated they had the ability to come back in and ask for an increase in that amount as long as they
met reasonable conditions. Johnson stated they do have rights as a property owner.
Winkey stated he understands why the applicant is hesitant to provide a specific number and that there is
ample stipulation by the applicant that this is not going to turn into retail sales. Winkey stated the
downside is that there would be more cars in the lot than what was in the original proposal because the
leased cars would stay in the lot longer. Winkey stated he feels there are enough restrictions in place to
prevent this lot from becoming a retail sales lot.
Jurgens commented the use would be growing.
Winkey stated the inventory would grow but not the use.
Jurgens stated in his opinion an increase in inventory would equal an increase in the use. Jurgens stated
things tend to evolve and the more that is added,the greater the chance that this site will turn into retail
sales.
Winkey stated the greater number of vehicles would not increase the traffic to the site.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
. Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m. �
(#06-3185 WJM Properties, Continued)
Jurgens stated the city is heading to a situation where neighborhoods will experience a large number of
vehicles being test driven in their area.
Winkey stated he is struggling with how increasing the number of test-driven vehicles would change the
use since the applicant has already been allowed to run a leasing business.
Jurgens stated he anticipates greater traffic being created from the additional test-driven cars being stored
on the lot.
Rahn stated the reality is the City's concern is more of a visual thing with the number of vehicles on the
lot.
Gaffron stated Staff does not care what the mix of cars is but they do have a concern with the visual
impact that this site would have on the area.
Kempf stated his concern is that there would be enough leasing vehicles available in one spot so
whenever a customer walks into any Morries' lot,they would be directed to Orono and it would become a
secondary site for retail leasing. Kempf stated if that becomes the case,the character of that
neighborhood would change. Kempf stated the flagpoles are a way to market a business and that he has a
concern that the customers would be referred to Orono.
Winkey stated the City can control the look and feel of the property and that he personally does not care if
customers are referred to this lot for lease vehicles.
Johnson stated a fleet leasing person would be in contact with a manufacturer's rep about pricing and
financing. Johnson stated the concept of fleet leasing is that it is not built on individual sales and the
representative is buying for a business.
Johnson commented there is no Mazda salesman on another car lot that is going to refer a customer to try
out a number of different vehicles by different manufacturers.
Rahn opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing.
Winkey moved to recommend approval of Application#06-3185,WJM Properties,LLC,2605 West
Wayzata Boulevard—Amendment to Industrial Site Plan and CUP's,subject to the condition that
only two flagpoles will be allowed and further subject to the condition that the height of the
flagpoles is restricted to 25 feet
Gaffron stated that would be a new restriction added to the conditional use permit.
PAGE 16
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
. Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3185 WJM Properties, Continued)
Smith inquired what the size of the flag would be.
Kroeger stated the size of the flag that could be flown would be restricted given the height of the pole.
Kroeger seconded the above motion. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Jurgens opposed.
PLANl�ING COMMISSION COMI��NTS
8. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS MARCH 27 AND APRIL 10,2006
Jurgens reported on the March 27'j' City Council meeting, noting the industrial standards ordinance was
approved. Jurgens gave a brief update on the other applications heard by the Council that evening.
Jurgens noted the Narrows Saloon application was approved on a vote of 3-2,with the rear smokers' patio
being reduced.
Jurgens reported on the April 10`" City Council meeting. Jurgens noted that Broitzman has retained an
architect and that the plans have been revised considerably.
Gaffron stated the Broitzman application would be back before the Council on Monday and that he
anticipates Staff being directed to draft an approval resolution.
Jurgens stated there was a perception based on the discussion regarding the Mikkelson application that
there is something lacking in the City's codes that gives specific direction to Staff regarding what
constitutes a rebuild versus a remodel.
9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron noted a work session has been scheduled for the first Monday in May, with the accessory
structure ordinance being on the agenda.
10. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 20,2006
Rahn moved, Jurgens seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of March 20,2006, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 17
� MINUTES OF THE
. ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
� Monday,Apri117,2006
6:00 o'clock p.m.
11. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
APRIL 24 AND MAY 8,2006
Apri124—Winkey
May 8—Kempf
ADJOURNMENT
Winkey moved, Jurgens seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:35
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
David Rahn, Chair
PAGE 18