Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-08-2006 Council Minutes7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING • Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. 0 • ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council members Bob Sansevere, Lili McMillan, Jim Murphy, and Jim White; City Attorney Matt Brokl; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planner Melanie Curtis, Engineei Tom Kellogg, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7'-00 P.M, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve /Amend Items 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 11 were added to the Consent Agenda. Murphy moved, White seconded, to approve Nays 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF Murphy moved, White seconded, to approve VOTE: Ayes 5 Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARING — 7:00 P.M. 3. REVENUE BOND PROJECT ON 5461 Consent Agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, 24, 2006 Minutes of April 24, 2006, as submitted. OF HILL SCHOOL — RESOLUTION NO. Mayor Peterson opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 p.m. Moorse explained that the Hill School had requested the City assist the financing of capital improvements to the school by sponsoring a tax exempt bond issue. He indicated that the bond would not create a financial liability for the City As there was no public input, Mayor Peterson closed the Public Hearing at 7:04 p.m. McMillan asked whether there was a cost to the city to participate in the bond. Moorse stated that the costs were born by the Mayor Peterson stated that the cut - through traffid has become more complicated in the areas surrounding the school, as well as, speeding through this residential neighborhood. She asked the Hill School representative to commit to a conununication process to remind parents not to cut - through the neighborhood and slow down. PAGE 1 of 17 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. . (3. REVENUE BOND PROTECT ONBEHALF OF HILL SCHOOL, Continued) White stated that, from his experience, the City would not be responsible for any financial liabilities and the link to the city is to obtain tax exempt status for the school. He maintained that this is a very common practice. Sansevere asked if other non -profit entities might ask for city support in the future. Moorse stated that the types of services the city can and will support is narrowly defined. Sansevere reiterated to the public that there is no conflict of interest in the City sponsoring this bond. Moorse pointed out that Hill School's land use application was a separate issue that has been resolved and completed. Attorney Brokl stated that this is a standard process that these types of organizations can follow and that this is a defined public interest project. Murphy moved, White seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5461, a Resolution providing for the issuance and sale of up to $800,000 revenue notes, series 2006 (Hill School of Minnesota Project) and authorizing the execution and delivery of documents related to the issuance of the bonds. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. • PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS — Paul Pesek, Representative Pesek reported that the Commission is focused on the Park Survey currently. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS — Ralph Kempf, Representative Kempf stated that he had nothing to report, but would remain for questions. LMCD REPORT - Andrew McDermott, Representative Representative McDermott reported on numerous subjects, informing the Council that a High Water Emergency was put in effect May 4, 2006, mandating minimum wake or 5 mph up to 600' from shore until the water recedes from its current 930.29 level. McDermott stated that the water recedes a mere .02 per day, if there is little or no more rainfall. McDermott reported that a milfoil project is underway in Carmen's Bay, among others outside Orono, which includes spraying, as well as harvesting. The LMCD is hopeful for positive results. With regard to invasive monitoring, McDermott stated that 500,000 boats use the public accesses on Lake Minnetonka each season with a mere 25% of those monitored on a regular basis, but not 24 hours a day. He noted that a company fiom Plymouth, Environmental Century Protection, will be monitoring boats arriving on Lake Minnetonka and photograph each boat as a demo project at Gray's Bay. McDermott stated that the LMCD is optimistic about this somewhat cost effective technique to keep zebra mussels out of the lake. PAGE 2 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 • 7:00 o'clock p.m. • • (LMCD REPORT, Continued) McDermott shared with the Council that the LMCD has sent out its first newsletter, which is slated twice a year to be sent to every household on+ the lake. Inside the newsletter the LMCD identifies its priorities which include the milfoil demos; shoreline inventory project, and the future of the lakes day event. In addition, the LMCD is try'.ing to develop partnerships with marinas and dock installers to avoid rule breaking. The LMCD has also installed new signs at the public access points. McDermott pointed out that a boat density sttidy is typically performed every four years by the DNR and LMCD which measures quantity, density and attitudes of users. From the study, the LMCD has learned that 66% of users come from the surrounding communities within a 15 mile radius. In addition, while peak weekend traffic is higher, the overall average is lower for the highest boat count ever. Boaters also believe the amount of restrictions on the lake is appropriate. White connmented how interesting it was that the average number of boats kept on the lake is merely 7,000 - 8,000; whereas, there are half a!million launches each year. McDermott stated that icing around docks ding the winter months has also posed safety concerns and impacted views of many lake users prompting numerous complaints. Though one exists on Forest Lake, he explained that the LMCD has' typically said no to de -icing machines around docks for these reasons, especially from a safety aspect. In addition, it ruins the entire winter lake experience. McMillan stated that she has seen: pern men t dock requests than in the past and urged the LMCD and Council to remind folks that permits will not be granted to allow them to de -ice around their permanent docks. McDermott informed the Council that a substantial increase for the 2007 budget was slated, roughly a 10 -20% increase as he thanked then for their generous contributions in the past. Murphy asked for a condensed state of the lakes from McDermott McDermott stated that overall the lakes are in' watch for zebra mussels, but a 24 hour watch j PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 4. #05 -3136 TROY BROITZMAN, 1860' condition, although there is an ongoing need to the biggest challenge. DRIVE — VARIANCE Gaffron explained that the applicant had submitted a new grading plan pursuant to a meeting on the site with the applicant, staff, and Engineer Kellogg. The applicant had also provided a proposed landscape plan including the location, size, and species of proposed plantings. While the building PAGE 3 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN,1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) plans /elevations have not been revised, Gaffron stated that the applicant requests final approval for the lot area, width, and average lakeshore setback variances. Gaffron indicated that the grading plan had been revised to create a swale about 20' in from the NE lot line, draining to the front and minimizing impacts on the existing trees between the Charrier and Broitzman homes. Additionally, the driveway now incorporates curbing rather than an inverted crown, so runoff from all parts of the driveway will be directed to the rear. In addition, the side driveway apron will be bordered by a 1 -2' retaining wall in an attempt to minimize impacts on the two existing spruces, although staff is skeptical they will survive. Gaffron continued, stating that as the driveway leaves the garage area and curves towards Heritage Drive, very little of it will be below existing grade. It will remain curbed on both sides all the way to Heritage, where catch basins will divert runoff to the wetland rather than onto Heritage Drive. Gaffron noted that it has been detennined by the Engineer that the added runoff due to the reconstruction on this site will require installation of a culvert offsite, of which there are two options, 1) under the Coward's driveway which was apparently built through a wetland, without installation of a culvert in the 1960's, or 2) under Heritage Drive to the larger wetland to the north. With regard to the landscaping plan, Gaffron stated that all the proposed plantings are on the Broitzman property. From a staff perspective, Gaffron noted that even though the grading plan now makes an attempt to save the trees, there is the potential that all existing trees in proximity to the • applicant's new home are at risk, and he should be prepared to replace those that are damaged during the demolition and construction process. To that end, Gaffron pointed out that a draft resolution with numerous conditions had been drafted for Council consideration and continent with the requirement that all trees and shrubs shown on an approved landscaping plan be in place prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Kellogg stated that he had made a site visit with the applicant and that many of the points had been incorporated into the proposal. He indicated that the applicant had made great strides in retaining water and drainage on his site. Sansevere asked whether the Cowards favored a culvert running under their driveway. Gaffron stated that, for some reason, in the 1960's no culvert was put in and should have been done so at that time. He indicated that staff had no specific preference, though it would be more costly to put the culvert under the road. Broitzman stated that they could install a 12' culvert under the driveway and restore it to its original condition after being placed. Mr. Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, stated that he did not have a strong position with regard to the culvert, though he would prefer not to tear up his driveway to place one there. White stated that, in his personal opinion, the applicant should return to his original request to maintain the driveway off the front of the home onto County Road 15 in order to retain the . vegetation in the backyard. He felt that, in an attempt to help the County out by reducing the PAGE 4 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 • 7:00 o'clock p.m. • • (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860,SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) number of curb cuts on the County road, he vegetation and impact the neighbors to do s Broitzman stated that, at this point, lie Road. McMillan asked how many trees, in his Heritage. Broitzman stated that roughly 6 + trees of 250' driveway to Heritage Drive, and shoe that it made less sense to jeopardize the prefer to run the driveway as proposed off Heritage would be lost to run the driveway from er size would be removed to run the approximately some photos of the staked wooded area. Murphy stated that, he too, had been of the same opinion as Council Member White, since his last site visit. He indicated that he had come to the same conclusion that the driveway might be better off where it is than making so many changes Ito the property to move it. Placed in front, Murphy acknowledged the driveway would have far ess impact on the neighbors as well. Murphy maintained that in his estimation, the proposed screening along the driveway off Heritage Drive was inadequate to screen the at grade driveway. He pointed out that they would be destroying a relatively undisturbed area and creating all kinds of drainage issues to boot. Murphy rationalized that in order to accomplish the elimination of one curb cut, too many other impacts were being raised, plowing through the undisturbed area ,l putting in fill, creating a new culvert, etc. He asked if a culvert would be necessary at all if the driveway were not going in off Heritage Drive. Kellogg explained that the culvert would only be necessary if a driveway were going in. Murphy commented that enough was enough. While he recognized Broitzman for making adjustments to address some of the concerns of the neighbors and City, Murphy maintained that the applicant was not entitled to put whatever he chose on the site. Murphy reiterated that he did not feel it was worth it to plow the back side all up and that he still saw no hardships to allow this proposed plan to move forward. Broitzman pointed out that the current driveway runs along the property line and allows for little screening. He indicated that he believed his hardship to be that his proposed footprint is essentially the same size as his neighbors. I White questioned whether the size of the home was out of scale given the footprint. White however did believe the applicant had overmanufactured the area of the lot. He urged him to reconsider using the current driveway position, pointing bout that this would save him a great deal of money, rather than tearing up the rear and dealing with all of the drainage and landscaping issues. White maintained that the undisturbed back side had value. McMillan stated that the applicant's proposed driveway could be planted more naturally to provide screening and was hesitant to ask to change the road now. PAGE 5of17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN ,1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) Sansevere stated that he would not support the placement of a culvert across the Coward's property, unless they wanted it. He indicated that, he too, would prefer the applicant return to the original driveway but asked at this point if this could be mandated. Gaffron stated that, while the County would prefer fewer curb cuts off the County road, the County must recognize existing driveway cuts. Planning Commissioner Kempf pointed out that, in an attempt to slow the impetus or divert water from running off a long driveway to the lake, he would prefer it be directed thru a wetland. Sansevere asked the Council to consider the width of the home and questioned whether it was still too wide to fit all that the applicant was asking for. Murphy stated that although the home meets all standards to which the City has, the Council has discussed the side setbacks and average lakeshore setbacks. He repeated that, although it does not violate anything, the Council had repeatedly urged the applicant to get the picture and create something with his architect less than what is being proposed, which has not happened yet. Murphy maintained that the City and applicant have been going through an awful lot of trouble to make this all fit, including an intensive landscaping design. While she appreciated the applicant's effort to rethink the landscaping and swale, Mayor Peterson • stated that she was still having difficulty with the massing of the house. She indicated that she was torn between the two driveway accesses and was hoping that the applicant would have tweaked the plan before returning to Council. Broitzman pointed out that the current home is actually wider than the one being proposed. Steven Larson, of the Fox Hill Association, asked about the process which allows for an increase in hardcover by 50 %. Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission will be holding a public hearing to discuss the lot width requirements for non - conforming lot sizes which addresses the need for aggregate setbacks. Larson pointed out that the Association felt that the additional runoff being proposed for their pond may have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and they would object to an increase in water there. Gaffron suggested that the City would need to determine whether the pond contained a closed basin or not. Mr. Coward questioned the landscaping plan which suggested arborvitae, a sun loving shrub, for the rear shady side of the property. He maintained that there was no way to make this plan work in this neighborhood even with the amount of engineering going on, and that it would have detrimental impacts on the neighbors' property values. • PAGE 6 of 17 0 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860 Mrs. Coward pointed out that they have would continue to impact them the full ] rear at grade. DRIVE, Continued) y been impacted by tree removals and that this of their property with the driveway proposed in the Morris Nelson, 1860 Shoreline Drive, stated that he continued to object to the proposal, pointing out that the footprint of his home was 1900 s.£, even if the applicants home was placed over his footprint, the massing would negatively impact him and his neighbors. Broitzman indicated that the runoff along Heritage Drive currently runs onto his property. Mrs. Coward pointed out that based on the origin has always been there and was not simply created White asked what the proposed footprint for Broitzman stated that the footprint would be Sansevere asked whether the Council could the driveway. Since the applicant was asking for three vark certain factors to their approvals if they deerr massing. He indicated that the Council could massing and could word their motion for den Sansevere asked whether the Council massing. al aerials, the wetland on the applicant's property by the Cowards' driveway. new residence would be. s.f., 1419 of which would be garage. it the massing of the structure or the placement of es, Attorney Brokl stated that the Council could tie the lot was too narrow to support the proposed ny the application if they did not support the accordingly. were in agreement that they had trouble with the Mayor Peterson stated that she had difficulty allowing the level of proposed mass, since the lot is so narrow and the proposed dwelling does not fit the character or scale of what exists. She commented that she was disappointed in the clear cutting of the pines out front which might have helped screen some of the proposed massing. White moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to propose that the driveway run from County Road 15 and a reduction in massing by 15' %. While she admitted that massing is a problem, inevitable as massing continues to be a problei something is put on the books about massing, isolated case and say it is massing. She believ( codes, the Council should be consistent, thoug Brokl interjected that there is a motion on the t could not be easily administered. As there was suggested that the Council deny the applicatioi the conditions as the Council sees fit. McMillan questioned how the City could deny the as property values get higher. She stated that, until ie found it difficult to put her finger on just one that if the applicant's proposal fell within the they may not like it, and allow him to do so. ble requiring a 15% reduction as a condition that i draft resolution within the Council packet, Brokl or approve it as requested with conditions or alter PAGE 7 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN ,1860SHORELINEDRIVE, Continued) White withdrew his motion. Coward pointed out that a precedent for lot width had been set within the neighborhood and this house does not fit it as it is far more massive. Murphy stated that it saddened him to see how the proposed mass of the home nearly almost shamed his neighbors in size. Larson stated that it appeared to him that the only hardship the applicant faced had been created by the size of the home that he proposed to put on the lot. He failed to see any hardship whatsoever. Gaffron pointed out that, in a zone that requires 200' widths, any proposed construction would require a variance. In fact, Gaffron stated that all of the homes within Fox Hill would require a width variance to be rebuilt. Moorse indicated that the applicant had met the side setback requirements. Broitzman maintained that the City has a code which addresses the size of the footprint, on a less than 2 acre lot, where a certain percent is allowed for the footprint or is limited by the structural coverage which he stated they are in compliance with. Sansevere asked whether the applicant was willing to reduce the massing. Broitzman stated that he was not. Murphy moved, White seconded, to accept the resolution, moving the driveway to the original location off of County Road 15 and directing staff to compile findings of fact to support the location. Broitzman stated that last fall he was told by the Council to put the driveway out back and now, after 8 months, he would prefer it that way. White pointed out that until he could be supplied with a final plan for either location, he could not be in a position to decide which he would support. He believed that now that he had seen a proposal and all that it entailed, he preferred the driveway off the front. Brokl stated that the Council could direct staff to bring back a resolution and findings of fact to support the driveway off the front of the property. Morris Nelson commented that the water runoff from the front of the yards typically ends up in his yard where there is a culvert and offers a better solution. Broitzman asked the City Attorney if the Council could ask him to rework his efforts after having asked hint to put the driveway in the back previously. PAGE 8 of 17 • 11 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITE' COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 . 7:00 o'clock p.m. • • (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN ,1860r SHORELINE DRIYE, Continued) Brokl stated that the Council does have the right to give conditional approval, which the applicant can choose to accept or not, but the Council must get to their question. With regard to hardcover, Gaffron interjected that he felt there was adequate available hardcover to use for a driveway running to the County Road. In fact, Gaffron mentioned that a credit could be given for unused hardcover in the 75 -250' zone. VOTE: Ayes 2, Nays 3. Mayor Peterson, Murphy moved, White seconded, to deny Brokl stated that if the Council chooses to d months with a different plan. Gaffron reiterated that the applicant cannot Broitzman stated that he would prefer the clarification. He indicated that at the last i application if the applicant addressed the Murphy stated that not only did the Council and scale were in question as well. He suggi different scale. Broitzman stated that he felt the massing and White dissenting. Motion failed. application. the application, the applicant could reapply in 6 back with the same plan for 6 months. not vote to deny and asked for more Sansevere stated that he would approve the which he felt he had done. that drainage was an issue, but that the footprint the applicant return with a house design of a been minimized near the lake. Sansevere interjected that, having quickly reviewed the minutes from the last Council meeting, he had not stated that drainage was the only issue standing in the applicant's way for approval. He read from the minutes his comment that the applicant downsize the footprint of his home and that the applicant at that time continued to use his neighbor's properties to resolve his problems. Broitzman stated that he was not going to go away and that he had every right to build the house he chooses on his property, which he felt he had done to the letter of the codes. He asked for more direction on the massing and footprint. Sansevere stated that it is the Council's charge to hold Orono to a certain standard that exists here and suggested the applicant consider comprorlising or be denied. Broitzman stated that he had compromised from his original design of 19,000 s.f. and asked the Council to table the application. Brokl pointed out that the 60 day extension would run out in June and that the Council would need to vote up or down by then. I - Broitzman acknowledged that he would be willing to sign an extension. PAGE 9 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (4. #05 -3136 TROYBROITZMAN, 1860 SHORELINE DRIVE, Continued) Murphy stated that he would be willing to table the application only if the applicant was willing to take what had been said to heart, and bring back something with less massing than what has been proposed thus far. Sansevere stated that, to him, drainage was still an issue. McMillan pointed out that massing and square footage do not necessarily equate to value. Broitzman asked then, if the Council would prefer all of the water directed at the lake. Murphy stated that, once again, the applicant was taking too literal a position, that, of course, the Council would urge the applicant to work with staff to resolve the drainage issues and not aim the water directly into the lake. Murphy withdrew his motion for denial. Murphy moved, Mayor Peterson seconded, to table the application one more time to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposal. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Murphy urged the applicant and neighbors to continue their dialogue another month. Mr. Coward voiced his frustration at this moving target as things continually change from what the • applicant tells them is to be the case. He cited the example of the driveway which he was told would be cut below grade, so as not to impact them, only to find out that this was not to be the case. 5. #06 -3179 TOM RADKE, 3424 EASTLAKE STREET — VARIANCE Curtis explained that the applicants were requesting a 75' -250' zone hardcover variance in order to construct a new patio with a pergola and covered front entry. In April the Planning Commission voted 4 -2 to recommend conditional approval of the request provided that the applicants further reduce hardcover within the 75 -250' zone to reach 31.7% as approved in 1985. She noted that the two dissenting Commissioners would have allowed 33% hardcover within the zone. Curtis indicated that the planning staff recommends a reduction in hardcover to meet the level which was approved in 1985. Mr. Radke presented a side by side comparison between he and his neighbor's lots built at the same time, with his being slightly larger but allowed approximately 8% less hardcover. He added that his property also contains a lift station to which the City never obtained a signed easement for but the past Public Works Director insinuated in the minutes that good and valuable consideration should be given to the owners by the city if they should apply for future applications. Sansevere pointed out that it appeared to him that the applicant moved ahead with something thinking that at some time the City would give him some additional consideration for allowing them to put an easement on his property. • PAGE 10 of 17 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING onday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (5. #06-3179 TOM RADKE, 3424 EASTLAKE STREET, Continued) Radke stated that he inherited some of the hardships, the placement of the drainfield, lift station, etc. In fact, he indicated that he didn't even know what hardcover was until he attempted to complete some of the items that the original Builder did not complete with the initial approval like sidewalks, patio, etc. Mayor Peterson asked if some of the dri Mrs. Radke pointed out that it is a difficult on Eastlake Street. Sansevere stated that he felt what the apron back -up area could be removed. to maneuver as it is, plus, there is no parking were asking for was not unreasonable. Murphy concurred, stating that he looked at the site and found it interesting that the building inspector approved doors and windows but not steps or the pergola. He questioned why, given the previous permit, the work was never completed. He noted that the footings had been put in with the original construction and the project should be completed. White stated that the percentage is so close to' at they need and there is so little to remove that he did not have a problem proceeding. • McMillan stated that although it looked as if some additional hardcover had appeared over the years, she felt the size of the lot could justify some hardcover allowance as long as some of the hardcover around the house was removed. McMillan moved to direct staff to direct staff to draft a resolution requiring certain hardcover removals around the house such 'as the upper rounded patio and excess front step, with the condition that the City be granted an easement for the lift station. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Mayor Peterson dissenting. Mayor Peterson wished to see further hardcover reductions as the staff recommendation suggested. 6. #06 -3185 WJM PROPERTIES, 2605 YVAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST — COMMERICAVAMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Gaffron explained that the applicant was requi building site additions, site layout changes, an 1) 25,620 s.f. one -story addition to print 2) 250 s.f. addition to connect existing ac 3) Revisions to approved parking layout 4) CUP for two 60' flagpoles 5) CUP Amendment to revise conditions ting Industrial Site Plan approval for various conditional uses as follows: structure sory buildings lend CUP for outside storage) on the outside storage Gaffron stated that a great deal of discussion ensued at the Planning Commission level, during which concerns about the potential for this site to evolve into a retail dealership were again raised. • In the end, the Planning Connnission concluded there are enough conditions in place to keep this PAGE 11 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (6. #06 -3185 WJMPROPERTIES, 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, Continued) from becoming a retail sales lot. In addition, the total storage on the site of `demonstration vehicles, new vehicles, and finished vehicles ready for delivery to dealerships' would be limited to 320. Gaffron indicated that the Planning Commission also concluded that the flagpoles would be limited to a height of 25' based on the height of the building. Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the building and parking expansions /relocation. Staff also recommends approval of the proposed revised language regarding display and demonstration vehicles. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the flagpole height limit. Finally, Gaffron indicated that staff has not reviewed the on -site signage request for a 3'X12' sign on the site and has no comments at this point. Sansevere asked whether the body shop was a retail establishment and if the staff was willing to work with individual buyers. Peter Johnson, Attorney representing the Applicant, stated that if an individual wished to purchase a vehicle, they would be directed to a dealership, rather than this connmercial site. He pointed out that the proposed sign would be placed near the body shop to direct incoming customers. Sansevere asked whether this proposal would be the last retail use on the site. Johnson stated that he thought so for now, but pointed out that things change. • Murphy voiced his concern that as this establishment evolves, it is moving towards a new and used car lot outside the building. Although it is intended for fleet leasing and fleet sales, he questioned what the difference was between that and individual leasing or sales. He did not wish to get into semantics by confusing the language and using things interchangeably that do not work that way and leave the City with a retail sales lot on the front of that building. Johnson stated that this is a low volume body shop business in an industrial area with an enclosed evaluation area inside. Murphy suggested the Council take a tour of the facility as soon as possible to allay any fears members might have. White pointed out that the language in the original approvals guards against this becoming a used car lot. Johnson stated that his client had been told that the City can allow an intensification of the original CUP. Johnson noted that Morrie's intends to be here a long time and to comply with the CUP. He stated that it is in writing in the CUP that retail sales are not in the plan, for instance a dealership cannot show various autos and makes on the same floor, but fleet agencies are allowed to show together, which is what is proposed here with conunercial buyers coming to one location to choose their companies' vehicles. McMillan pointed out that this center operates as a distribution site for his dealerships as well, adding the used car prep to the new car sale. 0 PAGE 12 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING onday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #06 -3185 WTMPROPERTIES, 2605 �IYAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, Continued) Murphy maintained that this is a complex solhisticated business, one that the Council must understand and take the time to learn what impacts it will have on the community. Sansevere pointed out that, according to the website, clients can also rent cars from this Iocation. He indicated that the Council is not ignorant io the veracity that a lot is going in there ever so subtly. Johnson noted that Morrie's is allowed 40 ca adjacent to Highway 12, while additional cars are placed in the rear of the facility. While he acknowledged that they are not trying to cheat, he asked the Council to recognize they are investing a great deal of money to grow a fleet leasing business on this site. I Sansevere stated that he believed the applica I could be more forthright about what's there. McMillan stated that the applicant knew when he first was granted his CUP that it only allowed 40 spaces. Johnson stated that since that time the city has rezoned the property and the applicant no longer has a CUP that is conforming. He reminded the Council that they cannot give a CUP for something that is not allowed as a CUP, i.e. no outdoor sales. • Brokl stated that an existing non - conforming use can be expanded, but doesn't have to be allowed to expand. He suggested the Council review the CUP, as it is the use of this space is up to the Council how far you wish to open up the CUP! to fluctuations. r 1 L_J Murphy asked whether, if granted the 40, they would ever come before the Council again to ask for more. Johnson stated that he did not foresee a need for any more in front than the 40 proposed and will not ask for more. White asked why the flagpole has to be 40' tall. Brokl reminded the Council that if approved, the City cannot tell them what type of flag to wave, i.e. it could be a Morrie's flag. Gaffron questioned whether advertising would Icome into play if the flag was a Morrie's flag. White moved, Murphy seconded, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation amending the flagpole height to 40' with no action taken upon the sign at this time. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Murphy asked that the Council be given a tour ilie next evening in place of their regular work session. PAGE 13 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • (6. #06 -3185 WJMPROPERTIES, 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, Continued) Johnson stated that he would look into it with Morrie's and call Administrator Moorse in the morning to confirm. *7. #06 -3187 CHAD ABRAHAM, 2920 FOX STREET — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — RESOLUTION NO. 5462 Murphy moved, White seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5462, a Resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit for Plumbing in an Accessory Building. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8. #06 -3189 TERRY AND SUZANNE JOHNSON, 543 PARK LANE — VARIANCE Curtis explained that the applicants were requesting a 75 -250' zone hardcover, structural coverage, side yard setback, average lakeshore setback, and lot area and width variances to construct a new residence on the property. She indicated that the Planning Conunission had voted 6 -0 to recommend denial of the variances at the applicants' request. Curtis pointed out that it would be the planning staff recommendation to deny the 0 -75' and 75 -250' hardcover variances, average lakeshore setback variance, structural cover, and side yard setback variances. However, staff would recommend the Council table the application for lot area and width until the applicants submit a revised plan which comes closer to meeting the City's goals. Suzanne Johnson stated that they would reduce the hardcover proposals and concede to meet the • 15% structural cover. However, due to the undersized lot, and the fact that the northerly neighbor is located up on a bluff, which unrealistically impacts the average lakeshore setback for the entire neighborhood, they would continue to ask for this variance. In addition, due to the unique shape of the lot and the placement of the well, which can only be positioned in a certain location to meet codes, the side yard setback variance is necessary. Terry Johnson further explained that the narrow strip in which the well can be placed legitimately, is quite frustrating. Since the current well cannot be rehabilitated, he indicated that the well must be placed at the edge of the driveway and places an undue hardship on the applicants. Kathy Alexander, of Alexander Design Group, added that one neighbor is up on a hill or bluff, while the other neighbor is below them off the hill which further adds to the applicant's hardship. Mrs. Johnson added that it is a pretty unique neighborhood since it is very narrow. Mr. Johnson noted that most of the neighbors along the road must be given shorter setbacks from side lot to side lot. McMillan pointed out that the issues might change once the Johnson revise their plans to meet the 15% structural coverage requirement. Mr. Johnson pointed out that in order to meet the 15 %, they would merely be shaving off an additional 200 s.f. of structure by pulling the house in about 6', which might have little impact on the other issues, especially since they must try to maintain as much parking as possible. • PAGE 14 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 • 7:00 o'clock p.m. • 0 (8. #06 -3189 TERRYAND SUZANNE JOHNSON, 543 PARSLANE, Couthuted) Murphy stated that he could see and support the applicants' hardships; however, he wished to entertain a revised design to reflect the changes to the footprint as discussed. Sansevere moved to table1he application iti order to allow the applicants to redesign the footprint as discussed with staff. Alexander reiterated the need to maintain well on the site and asked for continent. White agreed that staff and the applicant Murphy seconded, VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *9. JOINT USE DOCK LICENSES — CARLSON/NELSON /GAGE — RESOLU' side yard setback variances in order to place the new need to find a compromise for that issue somewhere. ISLAND, INC. & I NOS. 5463 and 5464 Murphy moved, White seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5463 through 5464, Resolutions directing staff to issue joint use dock licenses to Big Island, Inc., and the Nelson, Carlson, Gage Families for the period of January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/CITY COUNCIL REPORT Murphy stated that MnDOT is going to build �a land bridge and propose a redesign of the west interchange of the Highway 12 project because there is a shortfall in funding; therefore, the cities of Orono and Long Lake have enlisted Senator Gen Olson's assistance in keeping this from happening. I Sansevere asked staff to evaluate the applications so that the extremely lengthy ones are placed near the end of the zoning administrator's report. While generally items are placed on the agenda by application number, Gaffron reminded the Council that they have the authority to move items on the agenda at the start of each meeting. CITY ENGINEER'S REPORT *10. FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FARrEW NEIGHBORHOOD SEWER— RESOLUTION NO. 5465 Murphy moved, White seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5465, a Resolution authorizing the preparation of a feasibility report regarding a potential sewer project to serve the Farview neighborhood. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 15 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. • CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *11. PARK SURVEY Murphy moved, White seconded, accepting the proposal from Decision Resources, Ltd. For conducting a park survey at a cost of $12,000. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *12. BIG ISLAND PARK WELL PROPOSAL Murphy moved, White seconded, accepting the proposal from Don Stodola Well Drilling Co., for the drilling of a new well and the abandonment of the old well on the Big Island property, for a base cost of $8,925 for the well drilling and a base cost of $875 for the well abandonment; and authorizing additional expenditures beyond the base costs if conditions require; and to fund the cost from the 2005 Big Island Public Project Fund. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *13. 1997 IMPROVEMENT BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND CLOSE -OUT — RESOLUTION NO. 5466 Murphy moved, White seconded, adopting RESOLUTION NO. 5466, a Resolution to Close the 1997 Improvement Bond Debt Service Fund to the 2004 G.O. Improvement Refunding Bond Fund. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *14. REPLACEMENT OF POLICE INVESTIGATIVE VEHICLE • Murphy moved, White seconded, approving the police department purchasing one unmarked investigative vehicle from Metropolitan Ford for $8,800 using funds from the police forfeiture fund and to approve an amendment to the police forfeiture fund budget to reflect the expenditure. With a second motion to dispose of the 2001 unmarked vehicle through auction at Minneapolis Auto Auction. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT — Brokl Attorney Brokl had nothing new to report. *15. LICENSES GAMBLING — RESOLUTION NO. 5467 1. Applicant: Hope Chest for Breast Cancer Event: Raffle at Minnesota Monthly "Women of Achievement Giving Women Hope" Reception Location: 3850 Shoreline Drive Date: May 17, 2006 Time: 6:00 — 8:00 p.m. n u PAGE 16 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 8, 2006 • 7:00 o'clock p.m. SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT 1. Applicant: Mike Dom Event: Minnetonka Power Location: 510 Big Island Date: August 19, 2006 Time: 4:00 —11:00 p.m. Murphy moved, White seconded, to app *16. BILLS Murphy moved, White seconded, to 5, Nays 0 ADJOURNMENT Birthday Party for Commander the above license. VOTE: Ayes 5 Nays 0. payment of the All Funds account. VOTE: Ayes Mayor Peterson moved, Sansevere seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council Meeting of May 8, 2006 at 11:35 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5; Nays 0. ATTEST: • k Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson, Mayor • PAGE 17 of 17