Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-2006 Council MinutesOCR MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 ' 7:00 o'clock p.m. The Council met on the above - mentioned date ,% White, Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jim M Representing Staff were City Administrator Ron Kellogg and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Peterson was absent. the following members present: Acting Mayor Jim hy, and Lili McMillan; City Attorney Matthew Brokl; >orse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Engineer Tom Acting Mayor White called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 1. APPROVE /AMEND Items 6, 10, 11, and 12 were added to the Consent Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF IsMurphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approv meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS White noted the City Council would be meeting PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS — the Consent Agenda as amended. Y 27, 2006 the minutes of the February 27, 2006 City Council the Park Commission on Tuesday, March 14". BREMER, REPRESENTATIVE Bremer noted that one of the Planning Commissioners would not be asking to be reappointed to the Planning Commission upon completion of his term this year, and requested the City Council authorize Staff to begin advertising for candidates. PUBLIC COMMENTS Harvey Reder, 3596 Livingston Avenue, stated he 'recently had his Minnesota driver's license stolen sometime between February 10 and March 7. Reder indicated he reported it to the Orono Police Department, but that, in his opinion, there could bed improvement in the action taken by the police department regarding lost drivers licenses, and that he would like to make some suggestions on how this process could be improved at a later time. I Reder noted he is unable at this time to comment at great length on his concerns with the police department but would like to reappear before the Council at another time to discuss his concerns and suggestions. Reder requested his written comments be included f in the minutes for tonight's meeting. f PAGE 1 of 27 'I *. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3. #05 -3121 NARROWS SALOON, 3382 SHORELINE DRIVE — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Jim Sanford; Attorney -at -Law; Cindy Sudheimer and James Anderst, Applicants, were present. Gaffron stated this application last appeared before the Council at their October meeting, at which time it was tabled to allow the applicants to make further revisions to their plans. Gaffron noted the applicants have provided extensions on the 60 -day review period, with the most recent extension expiring March 14''. Gaffron indicated the applicants have submitted an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to allow a 50' by 44' interior expansion of the bar /restaurant into the spaces that were previously occupied by the hair salon and the dry cleaner. In addition, the applicants are requesting an amendment of the existing conditional use permit to allow creation of a fenced "smokers patio" at the rear of the building adjacent to the city owned parking lot. This patio would be located within the applicants' property and would consist of 827 square feet in area, with no restaurant or bar service being proposed. Gaffron noted the applicants' plans show that the tables, waitress station and other amenities have been removed from the rear outside area. The only remaining features will be an 827 square foot patio enclosed by a six -foot fence and arborvitae plantings on a low berm. The applicants have indicated there would be no restaurant or bar service to this patio area and access would be through a standard swinging door with a closer rather than bi -fold. Gaffron stated it is Staff's assumption there will be no loud speakers or music in that area. Gaffron stated it is unclear from the plans where the entrance to the patio area will be located. Gaffron illustrated on the overhead the interior layout of the bar /restaurant. Gaffron stated the kitchen expansion would be near the stage and dance floor. The wall along the west side of the bar will be solid, providing more of a barrier between new restaurant expansion area and the saloon area. The pool tables are now proposed to remain in the existing location rather than relocated into the new expansion area. Gaffron noted the City Council at great length previously reviewed the parking impacts on the surrounding neighborhood with the proposed expansion. Gaffron stated the applicants' architect had originally indicated that 72 parking stalls would be required based on code requirements, which has been reduced to 46 stalls due to the complete elimination of the outdoor restaurantibar seating and combined with the expansion of the kitchen into the existing interior space. Gaffron stated the applicants are suggesting that the required parking has decreased with the revisions and that there would be 17 percent of the available parking remaining during peak hours. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has not reviewed these recent revisions but had imposed some restrictions on the conditional use permit when it last reviewed this application. The Planning Commission recommended the following conditions: 1. The outside seating area at the rear of the building be limited to 837 square feet and no more than 32 seats. 2:, Hours of operation for outside seating be restricted to no seating or alcohol to be allowed in outside area after 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday evenings, 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings (open to smoking only after those hours). PAGE 2 of 27 • • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (3. #05 -3121 NARROWS SALOON, 3382 3. No amplification or speakers outside outdoor noise impacts. 4. The easterly access door to the outsic but shall be a self - closing door to elb 5. CUP approval should be subject to a one year of operation. Gaffron noted the liquor license is a separate lice] stated the moratorium for the Navarre area is still scheduled for the end of March to gather input fr( public investment in Navarre. Staff requests the following issues be considered 1 1. Is the proposed location of the use in purposes of the B -1 District and the C 2. Will the location of the proposed use operated or maintained be detrimenta. injurious to properties or improvemer. 3. Is the proposed use compatible with f. neighborhoods? If not, what aspects available to mitigate those aspects? 4. Is the proposed use supported by ade( availability? How will other users of might the expansion affect future dev Gaffron requested the City Council provide should proceed. Sanford stated this current proposal reflects a c area needs. Sanford stated this application is a bar and that the applicants are desirous of expa stated the applicants have made substantial cho previous meeting. Sanford noted the Planning application prior to the further revisions. DRIVE, Continued) building or in the outdoor seating area, to limit any seating area from the restaurant shall not be bi -fold inate direct noise /music impacts to the outside area. )ecific written condition that the use be reviewed after application from the zoning application. Gaffron effect and that there is a neighborhood meeting interested parties to help guide future private and the Council: cord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the nprehensive Plan? d the proposed conditions under which it will be the public health, safety welfare, or be materially in the vicinity? surrounding business district and residential the use make it incompatible? What methods are e infrastructure, primarily access and parking municipal lot be affected by the expansion? How �ment or reinvestment in Navarre? to Staff and the applicants on how this application in the business plan that addresses what the local ing more towards a restaurant type operation than a the restaurant portion of their business. Sanford to the plans relating to the concerns raised at the mission has previously recommended approval of the Sanford noted the applicants have made changes to address the concerns of the neighbors, which includes the elimination of the outside seating area, restricting music to address the concerns regarding the noise, the limited parking in the area. Sanford stated the patio area is designed to be more of a smoking area and that the applicants are proposing screening for this urea to help further reduce any noise that may come from that area. Sanford stated the parking study previously submitted mainly dealt with the municipal lot and concluded that there would be sufficient parking. Sanford pointed out the gas station parking was not included in the parking study nor in the city's calculations. Sanford stated the area to the right of the Narrows Saloon by the gas station provides some parking for the area, which would then bring the available parking to within the city requirements. Sanford stated 37.5 percent of the parking lot would be available during peak times once those extra spots are incorporated into the calculation. PAGE 3 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (3. #05 -3121 NARROWS SALOON, 3382 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Sanford noted the businesses in this area have signed a petition in support of this expansion and that in his view future expansion of this area is not being prevented by this proposal. Sanford noted the area is already being fully used and that there would not be a greater use from the existing properties located in this area unless the City Council determines that it is appropriate. Sanford stated Staff has concluded that this use is compatible with the neighborhood and zoning district. Sanford noted the bar area is being reduced and that the restaurant's menu is being expanded along with the bigger kitchen. Sanford stated this reflects a commitment by the applicants to expand the restaurant portion of the business and that they are looking to provide an attractive restaurant for the community. In addition, the applicants have taken the necessary steps to adequately address the concerns raised previously. Thomas Lowe, 3295 Carman Road, stated after listening to the comments of the attorney about making this business more restaurant oriented, he does not see the need for the patio area and that the patio area is an invitation for drinking and noise. Lowe stated in his opinion this one business will still be monopolizing the parking in the area not only during the off peak times but also during the noon hour when other businesses are in operation. Lowe stated he does not feel the proposed expansion fits in with the neighborhood. Tom Theisen, 4175 Forest Lake Drive, indicated he has resided in this area for the majority of his life and that they are patrons of the Narrows Saloon. Thiesen stated they like to go out and socialize with their neighbors from Orono and Minnetonka Beach and that the Narrows Saloon also provides a place for them to go dancing. Theisen stated he would like to see the restaurant portion expanded, noting this area is lacking in eating establishments. Theisen stated as far as the proposal that is before the City Council, he would like to see the expansion go forward and that the applicants do run a clean house and that this is not a rowdy operation. Theisen indicated he does smoke and that he would appreciate a sheltered area to smoke. Theisen stated as far as the adjacent businesses, he does attempt to shop locally as much as possible. Theisen stated he enjoys the Narrows Saloon and likes them in his community. Cal Thorp, Northwest Tonka Lions Club, noted the Red Rooster does have an attractive outdoor smoking area. Thorp stated the Narrows Saloon provides the largest establishment for their pull -tab operation and that the money generated from this operation is put back into the community. Thorp stated this expansion would help to increase the profits realized from the pull -tab operation, which in turn means that more money would be put back into the community. Thorp indicatedthe smoking area would help to contain the patrons of the Narrows Saloon and that other businesses do not have a problem restricting alcohol in their smoking areas. Thorp stated as a resident of this area, he would be happy to have the Narrows Saloon as his neighbor. Thorp stated he unequivocally feels that the Narrows Saloon is a well -run place of business and that the proposal would help to enhance the community. White inquired what the pull -tab money is used for. Thorp stated they would be completely redoing the little league park by Lord Fletchers, contribute to the local Food Shelf, donate to the individual schools on different promotions, and donate money to different PAGE 4 of 27 • • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, .March 13, 2006 7:00 01, 'clock p.m. (3. #05 -3121 NARROWS SALOON, 3382 eye banks internationally and locally. Thorp money back into the community. Sansevere inquired whether the comments is adequate for what is being proposed. Gaffron stated he does not feel that he knows the available parking is less than what is required by publicly owned and not apportioned to individual businesses and uses. Gaffron stated it is difficult will be adequate in the future and that he is not in situation. DRIVE, Continued) the goal of the Northwest Tonka Lions is to put the the parking are accurate and if Staff feels the parking irking situation adequately in this area and that the de. Gaffron stated the city -owned parking lot is .isinesses and is designed to serve a variety of r Staff to determine whether the parking in this area position to say whether the parking will work in this McMillan stated if the City is not going to dedicate certain parking spaces, it is difficult to determine the future parking needs of the area and that the parking is more on a first -come, first -serve basis. Sansevere inquired whether alcohol would be allowed out on the patio area. Sudheimer stated there would be no alcohol allowed on the smoking area. Sansevere inquired whether there would be a curfew on the hours for the smoking area. Anderst stated they do not want to put a curfew onithe hours that smokers could access the patio. Sansevere stated in his opinion it is unfair to then I ghbors to not restrict the hours that people will be out on the smoking area. Sansevere inquired whether the number of nights of live entertainment would be reduced. Sudheimer indicated they have reduced their entertainment to three nights with only a soloist. Sanford stated the idea of the patio area is to restrict the smokers to a certain area. Sansevere stated in his opinion there would be noise issues from the patio. Sanford stated the smoking situation is already occurring and that this provides a centralized place for the smokers to go. I Anderst stated the point of the smoking area is to allow smokers a place to go outside and smoke due to the change in the laws and to confine them to one area. Sansevere stated in his mind the parking issue is his biggest concern along with the noise that could be generated from the smoking area. Sanford stated with regard to the open patio space, here would be seating for approximately 32 people. Anderst pointed out there are supposed to be tables ldepicted on the plan and not just an open area. PAGE 5 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. _ • (3. #05 -3121 NARROWS SALOON, 3382 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Sanford stated in regard to the parking issue, there are 176 parking stalls available as contained in Staff s report and 167 parking stalls are required. Sansevere stated because this is a public parking lot, he would like to be assured that the other businesses will still have parking available to them. Murphy stated in his opinion the applicants have done a lot of hard work on revising their plan and that he wishes it turns out like it is depicted on paper. Murphy inquired whether the design of the arborvitae and the berm is such that people could come and go between the arborvitae. Anderst stated a wrought iron fence would also be located in that area, which would prevent people from gaining access to the patio area from the outside. Murphy inquired where the door for the kitchen would be located. Sudheimer stated it was not included on the plan. Murphy stated this is similar to the last time where things are not depicted on the plan. Sanford pointed out on the overhead where the doorway would be and that the two pool tables may be eliminated. Murphy stated in his opinion the parking issue remains unanswered. Murphy commented he has visited this area and that finding available parking at times is difficult. Murphy stated it is difficult to determine what the parking needs will be for this business. Murphy stated the minutes of the October 10`h meeting reflect that the liquor license for the establishment is only good for the space that was applied for, and that Orono Police Chief Good has indicated she has not seen any paperwork for a new liquor license based on the additional space. Murphy inquired whether the City Council should be asking for a liquor license renewal first. Brokl stated the general rule is on liquor license applications the space is defined and that if alcohol were to be served on the patio space, it would need to be included in the calculation. Murphy inquired what would be required with the expansion. Brokl stated their liquor license would need to be supplemented. Brokl stated there would be no basis to deny the liquor license based on this application unless there were other issues that were raised. Murphy stated the other main concerns in the past have been the noise and motorcycle traffic in the area but that the main issue in his view is parking. Anderst stated City Staff and their parking consultant have said that there is adequate parking. Sansevere inquired what the occupancy would be increased to with the expansion. Sanford stated the occupancy would be increased to 265. PAGE 6 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006. 7:00 o 'clock p.m. (3. #05 -3121 NARROWS SALOON, 3382 SIYORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Anderst stated the fire marshal has it currently listed at 158. Lowe commented the seating is being more than doubled with the expansion. Gaffron stated the occupant load is based on 15 square foot per occupant and that the storage space is not included. Gaffron stated the occupancy would be 265, which does not include the outside space. Sansevere stated it would have to include the outside space since that area can only be accessed from the inside. Gaffron stated that outside space is not calculated in the occupancy ratio. Sudheimer stated in the summertime there are more motorcycles at Lord Fletchers than what visit their establishment and that their entertainment is the same as West Coast. I Murphy stated the issue with the entertainment is the noise at the late hour. Anderst stated they cannot control the motorcycles { in the area. White stated the City Council also cannot control the number of motorcycles that visit this establishment. . McMillan inquired about the rationale for keeping the size of the outdoor patio area the same as what was originally proposed. Sudheimer stated currently there are park benches and picnic tables and that they would like to place tables in that area. McMillan inquired whether that much space is required and whether it could be reduced. McMillan stated she has a concern that it could change into something else in the future. Sanford stated it was based on the original plan an( Anderst stated the landscaping would also take up Gaffron stated it would be approximately half the s White stated in his view it could be decreased. Sansevere inquired whether the applicants are food could be served out there. Anderst stated that is a possibility if things work Sanford noted any expansion on the use of the Sansevere inquired whether a probationary period outside patio area. that they are still proposing the 32 seats. of the space. of this room. of coming back before the Council to ask whether area would be up to the City Council. be placed on the hours of operation for the PAGE 7 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (3. #05 -3121 NARROWS SALOON, 3382 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Brokl stated this is a conditional use permit and that the City Council is entitled to put certain restrictions on the permit, which can be reviewed at any time. Sansevere commented he would like to be fair to the applicants and to the neighbors. Anderst stated the smoking area is located towards the concrete wall and will keep the smokers away from the front of the building and out of the parking lot. Theisen stated if there are restrictions on the time for when the smoking patio can be used, he would go out to his car and smoke. White inquired where the front door is located. Sanford pointed out the front door and the rear doors have been moved further away from the music to help address the sound concerns. Murphy inquired whether Staff has any suggestions concerning the parking in this area. Gaffron stated the City's parking consultant did question the future use of this area and the impact it would have on the parking. Gaffron stated it is a first -come, first -serve basis with the parking in this area. Gaffron pointed out page nine of the October 60' packet has a parking requirement for this area of 208 • parking stalls. Gaffron concurred that the parking stalls by the gas station were probably not included in that calculation. Gaffron stated the numbers calculated by the applicants' parking consultant, with the additional parking for the gas station taken into consideration, do work within the city's parking requirements. Gaffron stated he does not know how the future parking for this area could be predicted. Murphy stated he would recommend that Staff prepare an approval resolution on this application and that he would-like to see a one -year review of the conditional use permit. Murphy stated he does appreciate the efforts being taken by the applicants to turn this into more of a family -type establishment. White stated he does live in the Navarre area and that the City has been working on this application for approximately 10 months. White stated the applicants have complied with the previous requests of the City. White stated in his view the changes would make it more attractive for older people and that he does like the smoking area. White stated an eating establishment during the noon hour is important for the neighborhood and that he is willing to proceed with the application because the applicants have addressed all of the concerns raised. White stated he also likes the vestibule doors to help mitigate the noise. Murphy stated he is fine with some nice tables being located on the patio area. McMillan stated she is hopeful the improvements will help to address the noise concerns raised by the neighbors. McMillan stated the attractive screening is an amenity to the neighbors and that she also agrees with a one -year review. Anderst stated this is an old building and that the current windows are single pane. Anderst stated the improvements in his mind would make a world of difference on the noise. PAGE 8 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (3. #05 -3121 NARROWS SALOON, 3382 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Gaffron noted the resolution would also address some of the other concerns raised previously that were not discussed this evening. Gaffron requested the"applicants sign an extension of the review period tonight. 1 McMillan moved, Murphy seconded, to table i Shoreline Drive, and to direct Staff to draft an 4. #05 -3136 TROY BROITZMAN,1860 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Troy Broitzman, Applicant, was present. 1 #05 -3121, Narrows Saloon, 3382 resolution. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. DRIVE — VARIANCE AND Gaffron stated the applicant has submitted a revised plan and is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and a lot width variance. Gaffron noted this property is located in a two -acre zone, with the lot consisting of 1.9 acres and being 133 feet wide. I The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their February 20t" meeting and voted 6 -0 to recommend approval of the revised plan, granting lot width and average setback variances, with the condition that the grading be minimized as much as possible to preserve any trees that are existing on the site and conditioned on submittal of a landscape plan depicting the mitigation of the sight line views for the neighbors prior to Council review of the application. • Gaffron illustrated on the overhead the location of the proposed residence and the two adjoining residences. The applicant has located the house so; that its greatest encroachment past the average setback line is 100 feet, defined by the two adjacent lakeshore homes. Based on discussions at the September and October Council meetings, the applicant has located the house to meet an average setback line defined by the immediately adjacent home to the east and the second adjacent home to the west. The property owners at 1910 Heritage have requested that the house be located slightly rearward to line up with their extended front line and avoid impacting their lake views to the right. In addition, the applicant has submitted a screen lot line, with the potential to eventually provide Gaffron stated the applicant has revised his plan si; The proposal now calls for cuts of 1,983 cubic yarc that requires exportation of only 356 cubic yards fr grading plan does not have the negative impacts or current plan could be construed as not rising to the conditional use permit. Gaffron noted the City Enp one acceptable. - plan that would place evergreens along the southwest vy screening of the new home from that side. nificantly since the last time it was before the Council. s and fills of 1,626 cubic yards, resulting in a balance ►m the site. Staff has concluded that the proposed the neighborhood that earlier plans created, and the hresholds that would require a land alteration ineer has reviewed the various proposals and fords this Gaffron stated this application was submitted prior to the new wetland ordinance and that the applicant meets the 26 -foot setback that was required at the time the application was submitted. Gaffron indicated the applicant is proposing to remove the existing driveway to Shoreline Drive and create a new driveway to Heritage Drive at the ream similar to the layout of his two adjacent lakeshore neighbors. The proposed driveway meets the City's 26' wetland setback that was in effect at the time this PAGE 9 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) application was made. Relatively minor grading is required to accommodate this proposed driveway location. Construction of his driveway, as it was part of the application for the rebuild on the site, does not trigger the need for creation of a wetland buffer, which would make its construction more difficult. The applicant has indicated that he eventually intends to replace the existing detached garage at the rear of the property with a new larger detached garage, accessing the new driveway and including a second level storage or workspace. McMillan inquired what impact that would have on the wetland buffer. Gaffron stated since this application was submitted prior to the wetland ordinance being adopted by the ` City, the buffer is not triggered and he meets the 26 -foot setback. Gaffron stated at the time the detached garage is formally applied for, it may trigger the establishment of a wetland buffer if that proposal exceeds 50 cubic yards of earth movement. Gaffron noted that although the design and layout are somewhat unconventional, the zoning code generally does not address the interior design or aesthetics of a single - family residence. There is a kitchen or kitchenette on each of the home's three levels and that the studio above the garage has a high potential from a design standpoint to become a guest apartment as the studio is separated from the rest of the house by a single doorway, has a full bath and closet in addition to a kitchenette, and has a separate entrance to the garage. This property would potentially qualify for a guest apartment CUP if one was • . applied fora Issues for consideration include the following: 1. Is the proposed house location acceptable or should it be moved further rearward? 2. Is the proposed landscape plan acceptable? 3. Does Council have any other concerns regarding this application? Staff recommends approval of the lot width variance and approval of the average setback variance, subject to confirmation of a house location that is acceptable to the Council. Further, Staff finds that the thresholds established in the Zoning Code for requiring a land alteration CUP are not surpassed with this proposal and no such CUP is required. However, if the house is relocated, a revised grading plan should be required to confirm that the 500 cubic yard grading threshold is not surpassed and that building height does not become an issue. Broitzman stated he has spent a considerable amount of time on his plans in an attempt to conform with the parameters set out by the City Council. Murphy inquired on what basis the variance would be granted in this application. Gaffron stated it is based on a hardship and circumstances unique to this lot. Gaffron stated it is considered a variance because the applicant is asking for something that is outside the standards of the code. Gaffron stated there are other criteria that could be used to determine whether a variance is necessary outside of a hardship. Murphy inquired why a lot width variance is necessary in this case at 1.9 acres. PAGE 10 of 27 • • M11 r1j, OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860�SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Gaffron stated the proposed house meets the•30 -foot side setbacks and that the City has a standard that a house can go from the 30 foot to the 30 -foot line and that there is nothing prohibiting a person from constructing a house that would extend that entire width. Gaffron stated in this case the lot is 133 feet wide and there are 30 -foot setbacks. Gaffron pointed out there are a number of lots in this area that are not 200 feet wide. Gaffron stated the Council should conclude whether that meets the intent of the code and whether the applicant is meeting the standard that is in the City's code and whether it is a hardship. Gaffron stated the Council should look at whether the applicant could build on the lot without a variance. McMillan commented that a number of these lots McMillan stated she has a real concern regarding has been artificially created. McMillan stated ba., forward to preserve trees and to reduce the amour be located in a place that was cognizant of the nei house is way too far in front and that she would li apologized she did not indicate that to the applica White inquired where Council Member McMillan McMillan indicated she does not know what the e issues. McMillan inquired what the rationale was Gaffron stated the rationale is based on the line with their house. Broitzman stated it was his understanding from the neighbor's house be utilized for the average lakesh he did contact his three neighbors and that nothing Broitzman stated the property has now been surve} feet was last week Thursday in an e -mail. Charrier stated at the last meeting he did indicate than further back. Charrier stated in his opinion 1 McMillan stated when she reviewed this applicati setback has no basis and that she has to go off the line. McMillan stated there are a lot of reasons to lakeshore setback but that there should be a comn: Broitzman stated he never proposed using the setba4 proposed that. McMillan stated there was a miscommunication Pere platted prior to the establishment of the code. ie average lakeshore setback line in that the new line 3 on the old line, there is a hardship to bring the house of grading, but that she was hoping the building would lbor to the east. McMillan stated in her view the to see the house located further back. McMillan previously. like to see the house located. distance should be without getting in the grading the 15 feet. submitting a letter requesting that the house be put in -vious meetings that it was recommended the other setback. Broitzman stated prior to the final survey, s said about moving the house further back. and that the first time he became aware of the 15 would prefer the houses even with each other rather would be a lot less obtrusive to him. again, she realized the new average lakeshore i line rather than have the house deviate from that ing the house forward from the original average use between both neighbors. to the Coward residence but that Mr. Coward that she is not blaming anyone for the mix-up. PAGE !11 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Broitzman stated there is a maple tree that is lined up with the front of the proposed house and that there are pine trees on both sides of the property. Broitzman stated the house is sitting about even with the maple tree between the two houses. McMillan commented that trees come and go but buildings stay. McMillan stated the reason the house came forward was to protect some of the trees in the back. Broitzman stated it was also his understanding after speaking with Mr. Gaffron that the primary purpose of the average lakeshore setback is to protect the views of the neighbors from the front of the property and that the side views are not necessarily protected by the average lakeshore setback. McMillan stated the average lakeshore setback lines are drawn from the houses directly next to this property and that the line would not normally be drawn from the Nelson's property. McMillan stated she . would like to see the line located 10 to 15 feet further back from that line. Gaffron stated the Cowards are technically the next adjacent lakeshore lot. Gaffron stated the new line was reached at the previous council meeting. Murphy inquired where the 15 -foot line is located on the overhead. Gaffron illustrated the 15 -foot line. Sansevere inquired whether the applicant would like to have his view of the lake from the side blocked. Broitzman stated the entire back portion of Charrier's house is a garage, so the portion closest to the lake has minimal windows, with the road curving, and so there really is not much of a lake view from his deck off to the side but to the front. Charrier indicated that he does have a view from certain rooms of his residence of Mr. Broitzman's house and that they have tried to find the best placement for the house which would have the least impact. Sansevere indicated he agrees with Council Member McMillan and that the adjoining neighbor has a right not to have to look at the side of his house. Greg Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, stated when the original proposal came forward, they were looking at 19,000 square feet, which consisted of 3000 square feet of garage. Coward noted a six to seven foot high retaining wall was also proposed and that he had concerns about a car going off the edge and over the retaining wall. Coward indicated he is in agreement with Charrier in the proposed location of the house. Sansevere inquired whether Mr. Coward is okay with the 15 feet. Coward stated in his view the 15 -foot line is more of a concern for the Charriers rather than himself and so he would go along with what the, Charriers desire. Murphy inquired whether there would be any advantage to locating the house further back than 15 feet. Murphy stated the house does not sit square with the curvature of Shoreline Drive. . PAGE 12 of 27 • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) Gaffron suggested the Council look at Photo C -2, the houses are generally at an angle with the shore generally that means the houses are looking over Murphy inquired whether the house should be set Coward stated if the assumption is that the propos but they might have a different reaction if the foot Murphy stated on paper this footprint meets all of the footprint that is built. Charrier stated locating the house further back resi which would make it more visible in his view. White inquired whether there is a more recent Gaffron stated the plan in Council's packets is proposing a number of tall evergreen trees McMillan inquired why screening is only being Broitzman stated there is already screening on the as much screening as possible on the other side an, at the rear of the property because that is where he located. Broitzman stated he does not want to rem like to protect the remaining trees on the property 1 White inquired how wide the driveway is. rich would help to illustrate the area. Gaffron stated e and not square to the shoreline. Gaffron stated neighbor's lawn out to the lake. further than 15 feet. footprint stays, they would have the same reaction, nt changes. City's standards and that he is assuming that will be in the house ending up on the backside of the lot, plan. t is the current plan submitted by the applicant, which the property line. for one side. ne side and that he has committed all along to provide in the rear. Broitzman noted he did remove the trees iriginally thought the driveway was going to be ve any more trees than necessary and that he would ✓ possibly adjusting the grading. Broitzman stated the driveway is proposed to be 16 feet wide. Coward indicated he was not aware of the width of the driveway and inquired whether that is half the width of County Road 15. Kellogg stated typically the width would be 12 feet; for a driving lane. White stated in his opinion the driveway does not the driveway may help to preserve some trees. Coward commented that perhaps the applicant is to be 16 feet wide and that reducing the width of a two -way driveway. Sansevere inquired how many trees would be lost in the controlled burn. Broitzman stated he was planning to remove the Broitzman stated Charrier did express a concern trees down by the bottom of the driveway. t the removal of those four trees but that they were PAGE 13 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZM4N,1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) able to reach a compromise on that issue. Broitzman indicated the compromise is that the fire department will put a water curtain over the trees to protect them prior to the burn and also move the house away from the trees prior to the burn. Broitzman commented that he would prefer his neighbors come and talk with him directly about their concerns rather than wait until the city council meeting. Charrier stated they did have a substantial issue with the previous tree 'removal and that the applicant did not notify them prior to the removal. Broitzman stated he did leave a message on Mr. Charrier's answering machine but that the fire department had contacted him prior to him receiving his message. Gaffron stated Staff does have a concern that the grading will have a substantial impact on those four trees and that they will require a more detailed landscape and grading plan for that area. White recommended the applicant provide a variety of trees rather than one type in the event of disease and to plant trees of a smaller size that will be more likely to grow. Murphy commented he was initially shocked and amazed at the size of the house being proposed, noting that the applicant has reduced the size somewhat as well as comply with the other concerns raised. Murphy stated he has received a -mails expressing concerns from the neighbors once again regarding the lack of communication by the applicant on this project. Murphy stated in his view this is one of the few pristine lots left on the lake and that the applicant has not employed a professional architect and that people have concerns regarding the appearance of the house. Lenny Dayton, 1980 Heritage Drive, stated the size of their house is approximately 3,500 feet and that there are not too many homes in their neighborhood that double that. Dayton stated the size of this home would contain two or three of the other type of homes in the neighborhood and that it does not make sense to construct such a large house in this area. Coward stated this project has continually gotten worse, with the size of the house only being reduced from 19,000 square feet to 14,000 square feet. Coward stated they found out at the Planning Commission meeting that a detached garage is being planned, which brings the square footage of the house back up to 19,000 square feet. Coward stated they have no idea what this property is going to be used for in the future. Coward stated in this neighborhood there are a variety of houses that have been designed by well -known architects and that he has a concern regarding the architecture of the proposed house. Coward illustrated an overhead of the view from his house of the residence. Coward stated in his view this proposal resembles a Hampton Inn. Coward stated in the 30 years that they have resided in their home, they have worked with their neighbors in planting trees along their respective property lines and that the applicant has removed 50 to 60 year old trees, which the applicant says will be replaced. Coward pointed out those trees will never be replaced in • his lifetime. . PAGE 14 of 27, • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 18607SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Coward stated the applicant indicated to him that house on the lake but that in his opinion, given th building on Smith Bay and Orono. Coward state meets all of Orono's codes but that it does not ha Coward commented there also was an issue on v once it was constructed and that there have been and whether they would be removed or kept. Cc lot and the trees that would be affected by the bu Coward displayed an overhead depicting the view versus what is currently there. Coward have concerns with. Charrier stated he has voiced their concerns with applicant yesterday. its objective is to make this house the most visible proposed design, it will become the most notorious there could be a house constructed on this property that to be the house proposed. r the applicant was going to reside in the house .cting stories from the applicant regarding the trees displayed an overhead of the current house on the ;ed house and the difference it would have on their there are many issues with this application that they trees and that he did discuss the tree issue with the Morris Nelson, 1900 Shoreline Drive, stated he has expressed his concerns all along to the City and directly to the applicant and that he did express a concern that a professional architect be consulted and that he was told by the applicant that that is not going to happen and that he has 15 years experience. Nelson commented the plans have changed a number of times. Nelson stated there are not a large number of trees between his house and the current house but they are not needed because he lives in a one -story house, which fits in with the neighborhood. Nelson stated the proposed house is significantly larger, which raises concerns that the nearby properties would be economically impacted if this house does not sell. Nelson stated a beautiful house could be constructed on this lot and that he does not want to live next to the house that is being proposed. Nelson requested that the application be denied. Murphy stated the numbers used by Mr. Coward a Coward stated he used the numbers off of the plan alcoves or dormers. Coward stated he found 7890 square feet times three for one portion of the hous( 1000 feet for the detached garage. different from what he has seen. that he viewed and that he did not account for the square feet in the main house, which consists of 2630 64 by 30 for the attached garage times three, and Murphy stated they show a footprint of 4600 feet, w; would bring it up to about 14,000 square feet. I Murphy questioned the amount of fill and whether would have on the landscaping. Gaffron stated the fill does not appear to have any the grading and cubic yards is the traffic coming ar. land is left. Gaffron stated Staff does not feel it wi house better on the property than what was original Murphy inquired whether the fill is intended to ere; essentially three levels in the structure, which City determines what impact the grading and fill fect on the drainage. Gaffron stated the impacts of going from the site during construction and how the leave a strange topography and will help to place the i proposed. a walkout in the front. PAGE 15 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Gaffron stated that is part of the reason and also to create a portion of the basement. Coward inquired where the four -foot retaining wall is located. Gaffron illustrated where the retaining wall is located on the overhead. Coward inquired whether the retaining wall is necessary given the amount of fill. Kellogg stated the grades could possibly be manipulated to lessen the height of the wall. Coward noted the Planning Commission made a recommendation that a landscape architect be retained for this project, which he is in support of. Coward indicated he also is unsure of the location of the driveway and what trees might be removed in conjunction with that. Gaffron stated the plan submitted by the applicant does not show the existing trees. Coward indicated there are a couple of trees still left. White stated preserving some of the trees is one of the reasons why he does not feel the driveway needs to be 16 feet wide. White stated the proposed driveway is totally out of character with the neighborhood and is not very attractive. White stated this house does not add any value to the neighborhood and is totally out of character with the entire neighborhood. White indicated he is not in support of this proposal. White stated the plans still have not been totally defined. White stated a professional architect would help the applicant design a house that would help bring forth the vision of the city. Broitzman stated it was his understanding at the last meeting that the Council could not dictate architecture. Sansevere indicated the Council on a previous application did request changes in architecture. White stated the Council normally does not request design changes unless there is a request for a variance. White pointed out a number of the neighbors had also raised concerns about the appearance of this residence. Murphy stated in his view the Council is back to where they were before and that it is very important to the Council that this home contributes to the neighborhood. Murphy stated the Council may not be able to dictate the architecture of a home but that they do have the ability to deny a variance. Murphy stated the Council takes the whole package into consideration and not just the technical aspects of it. Murphy indicated he does not see a big difference in the appearance of the house from the previous plan. Murphy inquired what would happen if the Council denies the lot width variance. Gaffron stated the Council has the ability to deny both variances and that the lot width variance will need to be granted some day, for some project. • PAGE 16 of 27 • • • NIINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. - #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860�SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Brokl stated the Council has the right to review the entire application as a whole in determining whether or a not a variance is appropriate and that the Council can put certain conditions on an application when granting a variance. Sansevere inquired whether massing would apply.. Brokl stated that would apply as well. McMillan stated it is unusual for the Council to hear a lot of comments from the neighbors regarding the massing, which is one reason the Council is taking notice of this issue. McMillan stated she would like some solution to be reached. f Broitzman stated at the Planning Commission Mr. .Gaffron stated two similar applications in the past have been approved and that he would like to specifically address the size issue. Broitzman stated it is his understanding that the Council looks at the overalle'footprint of the house. Broitzman noted there is 15 percent maximum structural coverage allowed on a lot and that his structural coverage is 7 percent, which is not an issue. Broitzman stated his above ground square footage is just over 5,000 square feet because he has a two -story ceiling in the main family room Broitzman stated the size of the garage does not change the size of the house and is not included in 'the calculation for the size of the house. Broitzman stated if the square footage above and below the garage is not included in the calculation, the house would consist of approximately 7200 square feet. I Broitzman stated the current house is a three -level two -story walkout. Broitzman stated the size of tf. very close to the Charriers' house. ome and that he is proposing to replace it with a house has become skewed and that his footprint is Sansevere inquired what the square footage is of the current house. Broitzman indicated it is 2600 square feet with an unfinished basement. Sansevere noted the applicant is doubling the size of the current house. Broitzman stated the current house was built in 1951. McMillan inquired whether there is an attached Broitzman stated there is an attached tuck -under Murphy stated one of the problems he is having neighbors are supposed to agree that something has submitted is going to enhance the neighborh professional architect who could design a structi Murphy stated he has a concern with the plans t] proposal. currently i this application is how the Council and the is going to be built off of drawings that the applicant Murphy recommended the applicant hire a hat would fit in more with the neighborhood. lave been submitted and that he cannot support this PAGE 17 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Murphy commented there was an editorial in the Sun Sailor about how Orono tries to protect the history and heritage of their community. White stated the proposed house has no character and does not add to the neighborhood. Murphy stated the Council cannot legislate the building of bigger homes on the lake, and that his recourse is to start denying applications if they do not add to the neighborhood. Broitzman requested clarification on the average lakeshore setback. Broitzman inquired whether the Council would like the average lakeshore setback line to be at 15 feet. White stated it is the consensus of the Council that there be a 15 -foot average lakeshore setback but that they would need to see the plans before passing a motion approving that. Brokl recommended the Council not piecemeal the issues. Brokl pointed out that the issue of character is one of the elements of whether a variance is granted, and recommended the Council consider the entire application when deciding whether to approve or deny the variance requests. Murphy stated he would propose a resolution denying the variances based on the character assassination for the neighborhood. Brokl stated Staff would be looking for a motion to prepare findings of fact for denial for consideration at the next Council meeting. Sansevere inquired whether the application should be tabled. Broitzman requested his application be tabled. Gaffron stated the applicant has already provided the City with a six-month extension. Sansevere stated since he has been on the Council, he has taken into consideration the concerns of the neighbors and that there are at least a half dozen families who have raised concerns regarding this application. Sansevere stated they have denied applications in the past because they do not fit in with the neighborhood. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to table Application #05 -3136, 1860 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. .Murphy inquired what the protocol is for burning the existing house. Murphy indicated he has concerns about burning the existing residence prior to approval of a new residence. Brokl stated the Council does not need to approve the burn if they are not comfortable with the situation. Murphy inquired whether the applicant is living in the house currently. Broitzman indicated he has moved out and that the utilities are to be disconnected. PAGE 18 of 27 • • • • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7;00 'clock p.m. (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) A representative of the Long Lake Fire Department stated they would like to do some training in the house prior to the burn. Sansevere inquired whether the applicant would like to move back into the house. Broitzman indicated no. The Long Lake Fire Department Representative stated if the wind direction is corning out of the wrong direction, it would not be burned. I Murphy inquired whether the Fire Department is c' f ndent that the trees could be protected. Goman, Long Lake Fire Department, stated they are confident that the trees could be protected and that the house would be pushed away from the trees onlce they have completed the training. Murphy inquired who would be responsible for clearing away the debris once the burn is completed. Goman said that would be the property owner's responsibility. Moorse stated the City would need to have an agreement in place prior to the burn outlining those details. Broitzman stated the practice burn and final burn is scheduled for the ls` of April and that the excavator is scheduled for the following week. Goman indicated all the necessary permits have bi Broitzman inquired whether the proposed drivewe construct the driveway in the near future. White stated he would prefer to get a plan approve Nelson inquired what the typical time frame is for issued from the DNR. is acceptable. Broitzman stated he would like to first before the driveway is constructed. up after a burn. Broitzman stated he would prefer that the excavator remove the house at the time the burn is completed and that he would like the cleanup to be completed within a week. Murphy concurred that the cleanup should be completed within one week. 5. #05 -3161 LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE /1635 SHADYWOOD ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT — RESOLUTION NO. 5434 Mrs. Fritz, Applicant, and Jared Andrews, Loucks Sansevere inquired whether the applicant has r they are in agreement with them. were present. all of the recommendations by Staff and whether PAGE; 19 of 27 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 " 7:00 o'clock p.m. (5. #05 -3161 LOREN FRITZ, 3845 NORTH SHORE DRIVE 11635 SHAD YWOODROAD, Continued) Andrews indicated Staff was proposing a larger setback than what was required by code but that they really do not have a problem with a 30400t setback but that they would rather not put an additional encumbrance on the property. Gaffron stated the rationale for the 30 -foot setback is that there is an intersection of two county roads by this lot and that the lot is highly visible from North Shore Drive and Shadywood. Gaffron indicated there also has not been a final decision on the location of a trail in this area. Andrews stated he understands the rationale but feels that 20 feet is reasonable. Gaffron stated they would like to obtain an easement for the trail in the event it is located on that side of the street. Andrews stated as it relates to the sewer and water fees, in their opinion the fees should be assessed on 1.95 acres rather than the total 3.85. Andrews stated it his understanding they are being brought into a Class H development and questioned whether the fees could be reduced. Andrews stated they started with three legal lots of record and that it is a matter of creating two new lots. Andrews indicated the fees would have a bigger impact on a small development like this and requested the fees be based on the 1.9 acres. Murphy indicated that really is not a negotiable item. Gaffron stated the ordinance says the entire subdivision is charged the water connection fee based on the total acreage of the development. Andrews stated they want to construct this development without the need for a variance and that they were looking for some clarification on the fees. Gaffron stated the water connection charges of $2520 per lot would be paid at the time of the issuance of a building permit. Gaffron stated the City used to collect park fees at the time the lot was developed and that usually the City collects fees upfront. Andrews stated in this particular case the applicant has lived there almost 40 years and that they have purchased the lot to the rear to preserve the trees. Andrews stated the Fritzes are not developers and that the upfront fees would have a significant impact. Murphy stated he has known Mr. Fritz for 25 years and that he would recommend the fees be paid at the time the building permit is issued. Andrews noted the Fritzes do plan to continue to reside on the property. Sansevere moved, McMillan seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5434, a Resolution Approving the Preliminary Plat for Property Located at 3805 and 3845 North Shore Drive and 1635 - Shadywood Road, with the water connection fees being paid at the time of the issuance of the building permit and a 20 foot setback. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 20 of 27 • is C: MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, :March 13, 2006 • 7:00 'clock p.m. *6. #06 -3169 CHRISTOPHER DIESEN, 1100 TOWNLINE ROAD — PRELIMINARY PLAT — RESOLUTION NO. 5435 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt Preliminary Approval of a Class III Subdivisi( VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. #06 -3173 CITY OF ORONO — ORD ZONING STANDARDS Sansevere inquired whether Mr. Johnson had any ESOLUTION NO. 5435, a Resolution Granting for Property Located at 1100 Townline Road. AMENDMENT: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT its or concerns with the revisions. Johnson stated the sound barrier in his opinion is a little overkill. Johnson noted they do not have any plans for erecting any signs facing south but questioned whether that would be ineffective or accomplish anything. Johnson stated they would like to see this amendment completed one way or another and that their main issues have been addressed. McMillan stated after reading the memo from Steve Grittman, she is fine with the recommendations regarding retail. White stated he is also fine with the retail. White inquired about the signage facing south. • Murphy stated he has received more than one comment from the people who live across that area since the cover is gone, but that the comments were not directed at Morrie's. Murphy stated the concern raised had to do with the lights. Johnson stated they are ready to see the ordinance adopted. Greg White, VCI Capital, stated he was not present at the last Council meeting, but that he believes most of the proposed revisions are appropriate and desirable. White stated Section 78 -826, which relates to the building design and architectural standards, is, in their opinion, not appropriate for an industrial park. White stated that section imposes a higher standard of construction than other adjoining districts across the street, as an example, and that the language seems to be quite subjective. White stated they do not believe that the proposed revisions, particularly in that section, reflect the reality of what the industrial park is. White noted the industrial park consists of 44 acres, with 11 acres still buildable. White noted only a small percentage of the industrial park would be impacted by the higher costs and would not be consistent with the other buildings located within the industrial park. White stated the higher quality construction, would also need to attract a higher paying tenant and that he does not feel it is possible to attract that type of tenant. Greg White suggested as an alternative that the design requirements for the industrial district not be more stringent than what currently exists. White noted h I has put his comments into written form. Acting Mayor White inquired whether the concern deals with less massing in the commercial district than an industrial district. i • Gaffron stated the City's existing B districts do not have much in the way of standards and that the same kind of upgrades could be done to the other districts'! Gaffron stated in the early discussions with the City's consultant there was a question on whether the City was going to go with performance standards PAGE 21 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (7. #06 -3173 CITY OF ORONO — ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS, Continued) and objectives. Gaffron stated the people who reviewed this ordinance preferred the more subjective language. Acting Mayor White stated the concern was with outpricing the market. Moorse pointed out the language allows a property owner to come in with a request for a conditional use permit. Moorse stated under'the CUP process, there is enough flexibility to have something that would work within the industrial zone. Murphy stated Orono's industrial area is rather limited and that they have not had standards well developed or defined, which is the reason for this ordinance. Murphy stated he does not want to apologize for doing the best job the City can in making sure the standards set an appropriate tone for what the City envisions for that area. McMillan noted there is residential to the west and to the south, with a highway between, but that the ordinance is being sensitive to the surrounding area, which is another reason to have this standard included. Greg White stated he is not interested in seeing a substandard development in this area but that it may impact potential buyers as well. White stated there are so many uncertainties and ambiguities that it is • impossible to plan for an economic development that makes sense. White stated if the entire industrial district is looked at, the undeveloped 11 acres the architectural standards apply to do not make economic sense for an industrial park. White stated they are the highest standards for a property that typically does not attract the higher paying tenants that an office park would. Greg White indicated this language would put the property owners in a very difficult position of knowing that the written standard is not economically feasible but that a conditional use permit may be something that is economically feasible within the permitted uses of the district but that the city council is the deciding body. White stated in his opinion it is too uncertain and too subjective. Murphy stated he appreciates Mr. White's opinion but that he is comfortable with the language being subjective. Murphy stated the Council should be able to take other things into consideration when making a decision on a particular application. Greg White stated the architectural standards are very specific. Mark Shooney, Ryan Companies, stated they see it as a first -class industrial park but that Greg White has made a valid point and that the site is designed more toward lower -end rent payers. Shooney stated it is a materials issue and that the materials being specified are utilized more for higher payingrenters. Shooney indicated his struggle with the current language is the prescribed materials, which limits a design effort and places economic burdens on the developer. Shooney noted 67 percent of the building has to be made out of brick, stucco or stone, which are typically not industrial materials. McMillan inquired what a reasonable threshold would be. PAGE 22 of 27 • • 1.111. V ORONO CITY Monday, 7:00 (7. #06 -3173 CITY OF ORONO - ZONING STANDARDS, Continued) Shooney stated the developer would be obligated 1 to get the approval of the Council and that the Co is okay or not. Shooney stated page two of the pro improvements are required to a particular site whiff of this District. Shooney stated in his view that is control, but that the 67 percent of the building bell leave much leeway for the developer. McMillan stated she prefers more specific Shooney suggested that what is reasonable is to and perhaps requiring a certain percentage of sr Murphy inquired what an industrial material is. ES OF THE ;OUNCIL MEETING March 13, 2006 'clock p.m. AMENDMENT: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT come before the City Council with a design document cil has the right to say on a subjective basis whether it >sed ordinance, Section A, the City may find that are greater than the minimum standards found as part mply the council's way of saying that they have the constructed out of brick, stucco or stone does not than more subjective language. that the primary materials be industrial materials materials for the accessories. Shooney stated the majority of industrial buildings! are constructed out of precast concrete panels or stamped concrete, which reduces the cost to construct. Murphy stated he thought that concern was discuss ed and addressed in the last work session. Acting Mayor White stated he has the same concern that has been expressed and that the Council should perhaps research the concerns prior to approving the ordinance amendment. Murphy stated he thought those concerns had been laddressed. A representative of the Ryan Companies stated those percentages in their view should be reversed to make it more consistent with how other high -end industrial parks are being built. The representative indicated the higher -end renters would tend to be located more at office complexes or retail rather than an industrial park. Johnson inquired whether the Council feels comfortable with what the industrial materials look like and whether it would make sense to compile a list of three or four places that could be viewed. Murphy stated the tip -up panels were used on both !fire stations and that he does not have a problem with that type of material. Shooney stated only a third of the building can actually be built out of standard industrial materials, which is not economically feasible for a building of this type. Shooney stated he would be quiet if these buildings are accented and that the City would allow, a majority of the building to be constructed out of ordinary industrial materials. Sansevere suggested this item be discussed at the Shooney stated an accent percent of 25 percent Council work session and that it be tabled tonight. be higher than most other industrial parks. PAGE23 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #06 -3173 CITY OF ORONO — ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS, Continued) The Ryan Companies representative noted they have attended three council meetings, two planning commission meetings, and that this item has been tabled each time. The representative indicated they would like to see some resolution to this item. Sansevere suggested taking item No. 8 on the agenda first and then return to this item. McMillan inquired whether it would be helpful to have a list of materials and addresses. Shooney stated he would be happy to provide a list of materials and addresses of projects that he would like the Council to visit. The Ryan Companies representative stated the material issue is the one final unresolved piece and that they would like to have it resolved. White suggested tabling this item and requested that Shooney provide a list of materials and addresses. Greg White submitted his written comments to the Council. Murphy stated the parties somehow need to reach an agreement on this subject and that it was his understanding this issue was resolved at the last work session. Sansevere stated he is open to considering changing that part of the ordinance but that he does not want to decide on it tonight. The Ryan Companies representative indicated that if the code is written restricting the materials, it would be that way for future councils and any building that is up for sale or being remodeled. The representative indicated the uncertainty of whether a conditional use permit may be obtained makes it difficult for a person to purchase, develop, or redevelop property in this district. Murphy stated the reason the City hired a consultant was to get an independent view and that the Council understands their position raised tonight. Gaffron stated the conditional use permit was included as an option to allow the developers to have a mix of materials. Greg White stated that was not an outcome of the work session. White indicated at the conclusion of the work session it was left that Ryan was going to propose some language that was to be reviewed by Staff. Shooney indicated he did provide that language. Brokl noted that language was incorporated. Shooney stated in his view it is reasonable to take a different view and require different percentages. Murphy suggested this item be discussed at the next work session. PAGE 24 of 27 • 0 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #06 -3173 CITY OF ORONO — ORDINAM ZONING STANDARDS, Continued) The City Council took no formal action on this it AMENDMENT: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 8. #06 -3176 MARK GAYLORD AND LORI ANDERSON, 3251 CASCO CIRCLE - VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 5436 Mark Gaylord and Lori Anderson, Applicants, were present. Sansevere stated the only issue outstanding appea s to be the easement. White stated the applicants' sensitivity to the City "s desire to have the design fix the neighborhood should be recognized. McMillan concurred that the applicants took somJ g neighborhood. . McMillan inquired where the easement is located.' Gaffron illustrated the location of the easement on t1. steps to make their proposed residence fit into the overhead. • Sansevere inquired whether the applicants are opposed to the easement. Ms. Anderson stated they are not opposed to it. White moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5436, a Resolution granting variances for the property located at 3251 Casco Circle, with the condition that the City be granted a 20 foot utility easement. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *9. 1331 NORTH ARM DRIVE — REQUEST TO REVISE RESOLUTION NO. 4026 — RESOLUTION NO. 5437 1 • Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt the Conditions of Resolution No. 4026 for pro] VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere requested consideration be given that the agenda and the shorter applications at the top. OLUTION NO. 5437, a Resolution Amending located at 1331 North Arm Drive. applications be placed at the bottom of the Sansevere recommended that the advertising process be waived for the appointment of the Planning Commission and that Dick Kroger be appointed to the Planning Commission. Murphy suggested that the planning commissioner be picked from the list that the City already has and then advertise for alternates. PAGE 25 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 13, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) Murphy stated he has a concern with letting people that are not on the council setting the policy of the city and that in his view there is nothing wrong with asking for higher standards. McMillan stated a meeting regarding the open hauling garbage collection system has been scheduled for next week with the Hennepin County Environmental Services and the Cities of Minnetonka and Plymouth. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT .*10. McCULLEY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT— AUTHORIZE THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to authorize the preparation of plans and specifications for the McCulley Road improvement project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *11. PLANNING COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the reappointment of David Rahn to an additional three -year term on the Planning Commission, expiring on March 31, 2009, and authorizing the advertisement for Planning Commission candidates. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *12. AUTHORIZE SUBMITTAL OF DNR GRANT APPLICATION —RESOLUTION NO. 5438 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5438, a Resolution Authorizing the Submittal of a Grant Application under the DNR Outdoor Recreation Grant Program. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Murphy inquired what the situation with Mr. Floyd is. Brokl stated he would be receiving a letter from him this week and that the county would be writing him a letter also. PAGE 26 of 27 c: • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13, 2006 • 7:00 o'clock p.m. n LJ • *13. LICENSES Sale and /or Storage of Consumer Fireworks . 1. Applicant: Todd Anderson /Snyder Drugstore Location: Snyder Drugstore #5025 2380 Shadywood Road Date: June and July 2006 Time: Monday- Friday, 9:00 a.m. , 9:00 p.m. Saturday, 9:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Sunday, 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p�m. *14. BILLS Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds account. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda . Vee, City Clerk the Orono City Council meeting at 11:05 p.m. G) Ji te, Acting Mayor PAGE 27 of 27