HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2010 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
� ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Acting Chair Loren Schoenzeit, Commissioners Denise Leskinen,Tess Rice,Linda Feuss, and Alternate
David Rahn. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning
Mike Gaffron,Planning and Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,Planner Evelyn Turner, and Recorder
Jackie Young. Council Member Jim Murphy was present.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 10 was added to the Consent Agenda.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing for Item Nos. 1, 5,and 10 at 6:36 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding those items.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Leskinen moved,Rahn seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NIINUTES OF APRIL 19,2010
Leskinen moved,Rahn seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of Apri119,2010,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0,Rahn Abstained.
2. #10-3459 BARBARA A.AALPER,3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,6: 36 _
P.M.to 7:17 P.M.
, Barbara Halper,Applicant,and Jerry Weiland, Contractor,were present.
Turner stated the applicant is requesting the following variances:
1 A side setback variance to modify the roofline of the dormer on the street side of the house when
part of the dormer is only 8.1 feet from the side property line and a 10-foot setback is required;
2. A variance to the average lakeshore setback to allow a 1.9 foot encroachment for a single-story
addition with a roof top deck in place of the existing grade level deck;
3. A variance to have 28.85 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone when 32.89 percent exists
and 25 percent is allowed to enlarge the steps to the proposed single-story addition.
The house was constructed in 1910. The lakeside deck was constructed in 1989 and replaced a slightly
larger deck. The attached garage with living space above it was constructed in 2001 by a former owner.
The original part of the house has a shed dormer on the lakeside and the street side. The applicant
PAGE 1
- MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANI�]ING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3459 BARBARA A.HALPER,3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,CONTINUED)
proposes to change these to gable dormers. In addition,the applicant is proposing to construct a single-
level addition with a roof top deck in place of a grade level deck on the lakeside of the house and add a
deck and steps. To comply with the side setback,the addition will be 17 square feet smaller than the
deck. The applicant will remove 820 square feet of the driveway that was to have been removed when the
garage was constructed.
When proposing the garage addition the former owner applied for a hardcover variance because his
surveyor's hardcover calculations showed he would have 31.46 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot
zone. In the process of reviewing the application, Staff discovered that the surveyor had neglected to
consider the lagoon at Marina. This increased the area of the 75-150 foot zone. Staff has revised the
hardcover calculations to reflect this change. The revised calculations showed 4482.5 square feet of
hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone. This was only 23.88 percent so a variance was not required. In 2009,
based on these calculations,the applicant was granted a land alteration permit to relocate part of the
driveway.
The proposed encroachment is small and probably would have little to no impact on the lake views of
� adjacent residences. The applicant must demonstrate that a 12' x 23'room addition rather than a 10' x
23' addition is necessary to provide reasonable use of the house.The information supplied by the
applicant on the hardship documentation form does not accomplish that.
In determining the hardcover, Staff calculated how much of the hardcover increase could be attributed to
the larger garage and deck as well as the required sidewalk and turnaround. The adjusted 2001 hardcover
for the 75-250-foot zone is 5,002 square feet or 24.28 percent. Staff then adjusted the 2010 hardcover
calculations by subtracting the amount of driveway that the applicant proposes to remove since it was not
included in the proposed 2001 calculations. The adjusted 2010 hardcover is 5,943 square feet or 28.85
percent. This is 941 square feet more than the adjusted 2001 hardcover.
Turner stated the size of the driveway has increased by 943 square feet. On the 2001 survey,the
driveway scales to eight or nine feet wide. On the 2010 survey, it scales to 10 to 11 feet wide. The larger
front deck,pavers at the rear garage door and a new retaining wall added 79 square feet. These increases
total more than 941 square feet because they were offset by the removal of 175 square feet of hardcover
that was included in the 2001 calculations.
The only additional hardcover proposed is 79 square feet for the new lakeshore deck and steps. If the
average lakeshore variance is not approved,the addition would be 63 square feet smaller than the current
deck. Sixty-four square feet would be enough to provide a small deck and steps.
Staff recommends the following:
1. Approval of the setback variance to change the dormer roof based on the age of the house,the
elimination of insulation and leakage issues,the minor nature of the additional encroachment, and
the improvement to the appearance of the house.
2. Denial of the average lakeshore variance based on the applicant not demonstrating the necessity
for the variance.
. PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3459 BARBARA A.HALPER,3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,CONTINUED)
3. If the applicant agrees,tabling the hardcover variance so that she can determine if the driveway
can be reduced in size to no more than 2,572 square feet and still meet the minimum dimensional
standards for a driveway subject to the other hardcover being reduced in size so that no hardcover
variance is required. If the applicant does not consent, denial of the variance. If this variance is
tabled,the other two would proceed to Council. The setback variance is not related to hardcover.
A final decision on the average lakeshore setback variance would let the applicant know how
mucYi hardcover would be required.
Barbara Halper stated the residence was originally constructed in 1910 and that she purchased the house
last year as a tear down. Since that time,they have decided to remodel the existing house to enhance the
curb appeal of the residence. Because the original house was added on to,the living room ends at the
current deck and the living space is very limited. The additional 1.9 feet would have a positive impact on
the living space and would allow them to reuse the existing materials within the house. By enclosing the
current deck,no additional hardcover will be created. Halper requested the Planning Commission
approve the 12' x 23' addition. Both of the neighbors have signed off on the project and the view for the
neighbor to the right would also be improved by limiting the view of the marina.
Halper stated as it relates to the driveway, it is intended to be wide enough for one car and that the
additional hardcover may have come when the rock that is currently there spread out over time. Halper
noted the hardcover for the driveway was calculated off of an old survey and that she eventually would
like to blacktop it.
Weiland stated the driveway is wider than it is supposed to be,but once the driveway is blacktopped to
eight feet,the width of the driveway will be reduced. One turnaround will be eliminated but that it is
necessary to retain the other turnaround.
Halper indicated her lot is 550 feet long,which accounts for the longer driveway.
Weiland noted the existing deck is 12' x 25.6' and the sun room would be 12' x 23'.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit opened the pubic hearing at 6:53 p.m.
There were no comments relating to this application.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Schoenzeit commented that the Planning
Commission does take into consideration the long lot when considering hardcover.
Rahn stated the survey should have taken into consideration the 8-foot wide driveway.
Weiland stated at the time the survey was completed,it was not known whether the driveway would be
blacktopped.
Feuss asked when the driveway would be blacktopped.
Halper indicated she would like to have it blacktopped at the end of the construction project and before
winter.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAIVNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3459 BARBARA A.HALPER,3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,CONTINUED)
Feuss noted that Staff is recommending the hardcover variance be tabled until all the facts are clarified as
it relates to the width of the driveway.
Halper commented she is already two months behind schedule and that tabling the hardcover variance
until the project is completed would likely mean that the driveway will not get paved this year.
Schoenzeit asked whether the applicant would like the Planning Commission to vote on the hardcover
variance tonight.
Halper indicated she would due to the time restraints.
Schoenzeit asked what a minimum size driveway is.
Turner asked how long the driveway is.
Weiland indicated it is approximately 300 feet.
Halper stated she is willing to reduce the driveway to eight feet wide.
Turner stated 900 square feet of hardcover would need to be removed and that some additional hardcover
could be eliminated outside of the driveway.
Schoenzeit stated the other staff recommendation relates to the average lakeshore setback. Schoenzeit
asked what the applicant's intentions are with the setback.
Halper stated the average lakeshore setback of 1.9 feet makes a huge difference inside the house and that
both of her neighbors are fine with the encroachment.
Rahn commented that the average lakeshore setback is very important and that the City Council seldom
grants variances to that. Rahn stated typically a hardship must be demonstrated for the variance and that
the applicant should consider making modifications to the interior of the residence.
Halper stated the addition will be part of the living room/dining room and will give her additional living
space. Halper pointed out the current deck already encroaches 1.9 feet into the average lakeshore setback.
Feuss asked whether there have been prior average lakeshore setback variances granted in this area.
Turner stated the house to the east is brand-new and met the average lakeshore setback. Turner asked if
the house to the west is brand-new.
Halper indicated it has been remodeled but that there is a house next to the marina that is located right on
the beach. The houses to the right of her property are slightly in her view of the lake.
Schoenzeit stated lakeside of the existing deck the survey shows that the deck is 1.9 feet over. Schoenzeit
asked whether a new deck is being proposed out from the existing deck.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3459 BARBARA A.HALPER,3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,CONTINUED)
Weiland stated there are steps coming off of the existing deck.
Schoenzeit noted the deck already encroaches into the average lakeshore setback.
Weiland stated he was going to construct new footings and enclose the deck. Weiland indicated the
entire deck would then need to be removed if the larger addition is not approved.
Feuss pointed out an enclosed siructure is more intrusive than a deck.
Curtis noted Staff does not discount any of the hardcover for the driveway even with the long lot and that
the Planning Commission could recommend approval of the variance based on a specific width.
Rahn stated the Planning Commission does not have to require the driveway be blacktopped as long as
the width of the driveway is reduced.
Turner indicated 8 feet wide is the minimum width for a driveway.
Rahn asked whether an 8-foot driveway would be acceptable to the applicant. �
Halper indicated she does drive a SUV and that she does not lrnow what the minimum width of a
driveway is.
Weiland pointed out a garbage truck may require an 8.5 or 9-foot driveway.
Turner stated Staff would need a final width for the driveway prior to issuing the permit. Turner stated
the new deck is to function as steps. Turner illustrated the layout of the proposed deck. The deck would
be grade level and have steps all the way around. Staff has a concern that the deck is too large and that it
should be reduced down to the allowable minimum.
Halper stated she is installing sliding glass doors on that side of the house and that the deck will need to
be the full length of the doors.
Weiland stated the landing would need to be a minimum of eight feet wide.
Rahn stated it appears on the survey that the landing is 12 feet wide. Rahn indicated he is okay with the
eight foot width.
Weiland stated the sliding glass doors would be eight feet wide.
Schoenzeit stated the main issue is the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback.
Halper reiterated that she is attempting to reuse some of the existing materials,which the larger addition
would allow her to do, and that she is in need of the additional living space. The 1.9 feet would allow the
current structure to be more useable.
PAGE 5
NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3459 BARBARA A.HALPER,3200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES, CONTINUED)
Feuss commented she has a concern that it does not meet the threshold for a hardship and that there is a
big difference between a deck and an enclosed structure.
Leskinen stated she did visit the property and that the interior of the residence is small but that in her view
it probably does not rise to the level of a hardship.
Schoenzeit indicated a hardship typically is inherent to the land.
Halper commented that both of her neighbors are supportive of the project.
Leskinen stated the Planning Commission has the responsibility of enforcing the City's Code and that in
order for a variance to be granted, a hardship must be demonstrated.
Feuss moved,Rice seconded,Application#10-3459,Barbara A.Halper,3200 North Shore Drive,to
recommend approval of a setback variance for the dormers,approval of a hardcover variance with
the width of the driveway being limited to 8.5 feet,with a minor turnaround,and to recommend
denial of the average lakeshore setback variance.
Turner asked if the applicant will be removing the pavers.
Halper indicated the pavers will be removed.
Turner asked what the size of the steps would be.
Rahn stated the landing should not exceed eight feet by six feet.
Schoenzeit moved,Rice seconded,to amend the motion to also include removal of the pavers and to
limit the size of the landing and steps to eight feet by six feet. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
3. #10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMUNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD
CONCEPT PLAN,7:17 P.M.—8:50 P.M.
Amanda Novak,CommonBond,was present.
Curtis stated CommonBond Communities has made an application for RPUD concept plan and
preliminary plat approval for the properties directly behind and north of Long Lake Fire Station#1. This
application is the precursor to the application for a master development plan,re-zoning from RR-1B to
RPUD and a final plat.
The two subject properties along with the property immediately to the south, 270 Willow Drive,will be
re-guided from Low-Medium Density Residential(2-3 units per acre)to High Density Residential(10-15
units per acre)within the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan revision has been
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
' ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMiTNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
preliminarily approved by the City Council and the next step is to submit it for Metropolitan Council
approval.
A 42-unit community was initially proposed at the April Planning Commission as a sketch plan review.
The plans were reduced to 39-units due to wetland constrictions. The applicant has indicated earlier
today that they have now revised their plan to reflect 38 units.
Outlot A—the City owned property—has been informally contemplated for a higher density development
by the City for a number of years. Over time it has been discussed as a potential site for senior housing
and most recently for higher density housing to meet Met Council's goals. The 2010-2030 CMP has re-
guided these properties to high density residential allowing 10-15 units per acre.In accordance with State
Statute,at the June meeting,the Planning Commission will review the proposed sale of the City property
for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is also required to reach an agreement with
the City of Long Lake on the availability of city water and the cost of the city sewer services as part of the
agreement to purchase Outlot A from the City of Orono. ,_
Curtis stated the purpose of the RI'UD district is to provide a district which will allow for the
implementation of certain residential housing goals established in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The
RPUD district was established to accommodate the densities and types of residential development
contemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of the planned unit development concept.
The current plan reflects variances from 3 code requirements:
1. Wetland Buffer&Wetland Buffer Structural Setback Variances;
2. Northern Side Yard Structural Setback Variance;
3. Drive Aisle&Parking Setback Variances.
Overall,the buildings meet the required property line setbacks with the exception of the northern row of
units. These units encroach 21 feet into the required 35'yard requirement. This encroachment does not
adversely affect an adjacent residence as these units back up to the sound wall for Highway 12 but may
reduce available individual open spaces for these units.
There is an error on the proposed plan which shows a 30-foot wetland buffer. The wetlands on the
property are classified as"Manage 2"and require only a 25-foot wetland buffer and a 20-foot setback
from the buffer. There are three units which encroach into the required 20-foot buffer setback. Wetland
buffer averaging or variances and buffer setback variances will be necessary to develop the roads,parking
areas and units as shown on the current plan.
Two of the private development roadways are set back only 5-feet from the fire station property line
where a 20-foot setback is required. This results in a 15-20 foot wide area of green space between fire
station paxldng lot and these development roads. The limited green space may make it difficult to
establish adequate vegetative screening.
Because the proposal is for a multi-unit residential development guided for urban density(greater than 1
unit per 2 acres)the project is subject to the requirements of Orono's Conservation Design Ordinance.
The developer will be required to prepare a Conservation Design Master Plan for the site.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMUNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
As shown on the Comprehensive Trail System Plan map, a future trail is shown along Willow Drive
which is intended to provide a future connection from Hackberry Park to the Old Crystal Bay Road
Regional Trail. It is not deternuned if a trail connection should be provided from Willow Drive to
Holbrooke Park to the east. The Planning Commission should direct the applicant and staff regarding a
trail connection to the east.
Even with the recent unit reduction, Staff suggests that it may still be necessary to reduce number by two
more units to eliminate wetland buffer setback encroachments and potentially allow for a greater buffer
between this project and the property to the east.
This staff report outlines several issues which require a great deal more time to review and more
information from the applicant in order to understand and evaluate completely. There are a number of
comments outlined within the City Engineer's memos for the applicant to address relating to storm water
and wetlands. The applicant should address any engineering issues or issues identified by the Fire
Marshal which are insurmountable or may have an impact on the overall developability of the site.
Due to the timing of the applicant's grant cycle,they are requesting an action at this meeting in order to
move the application forward to meet deadlines. The Commission should review and discuss the
development standards(page 2 of this report),the RPUD goals(page 5)and the RPUD discussion points
(beginning on page 5) as they relate to this proposal. The Commission should determine whether they
feel the proposal achieves the goals and purpose as defined within the RPUD standards. If there are any
areas of concern they should be addressed with the applicant.
If the Commission is satisfied with the proposal,the application should be forwarded to the City Council
with a recommendation for approval.
If the Commission is not satis�ed with the proposal and the applicant is amenable to changes to make it
satisfactory,the Commission should make a recommendation for approval which includes the desired
changes.
If the Commission is not satisfied with the proposal and the applicant is not amenable to changes to make
it satisfactory,the Commission should make a recommendation for denial listing the specific reasons for
denial. The applicant could then choose to have Council consider the proposal with the concerns of the
Commission as a recommendation.
Curtis stated the Planning Commission should make a motion this evening to recommend approval or
denial of the application.
Curtis noted she does not have the revised plans depicting the 38-unit building.
Feuss asked which of the three units encroach into the wetlands.
Curtis illustrated on the overhead the encroaching units. Even after revising the buffer with the setback,
the buildings still encroach into the 20-foot buffer.
Feuss asked if there would be adequate screening on the west side of the building.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAIVNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMD�IUPTITIES,PRELIlVINARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
Curtis stated the applicant has proposed a landscape plan that reflects trees in this area,which would
overhang the property line and is generally not recommended.
Feuss asked as you drive down Willow and look east past the fire station,whether the town homes would
be visible or whether there would be screening in that area.
Curtis stated they are not proposing any screening for that area and that she is not sure what currently
exists in that area for screening.
Feuss commented there are currently some scrub trees in that area.
Rahn noted the Conservation Design has not currently been performed on this lot. Rahn requested the
encroachments be illustrated on the northern side of the property.
Curtis pointed out the encroachment areas and the setbacks on the overhead.
Schoenzeit noted the land to the north consists of the train tracks and the sound wall along the new
Highway 12 corridor.
Rahn asked if there is a trail proposed in that location.
Curtis indicated there is not and that the Planning Commission should determine the location of the trail.
The parking lot extends slightly into the buffer and there is a requirement that no paving encroach into the
buffer.
Feuss noted the plan does not depict the two driveways being connected as it was depicted in the
conceptual plan. Feuss noted the driveways would dead end rather than connect.
Curtis stated the Fire Marshal has provided some input on that issue in his report.
Tod Elkins,Architect,stated currently there is no wetland delineation and that they believe the wetlands
as depicted are fairly accurate. Once an updated wetland delineation is completed,their intention is not to
have any portion of the building encroach into the wetlands. One of the units consists of of�ce space and
a community room. As it relates to the green space towards Willow Drive,they have attempted to leave
that area as untouched as possible and they are willing to work with Staff on landscaping for that area.
In regards to the two unconnected streets,those are the driveways that the residents would use to access
the site and that they are considering a green grid emergency road that would connect to the driveways
and allow looping through the site.
Rahn asked where that emergency road would be.
Elldns indicated it would be located on the east side and connect the two dead ends.
Rahn asked if it would be located outside of the buffer.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMIJIVITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
Elkins stated they would need to review that to see where the exact location of it would be. As it relates
to the trail,it was originally discussed to locate it along the sound wall,but that they are looking at a
different location to better access the park and Willow Drive. The owner is committed to constructing a
trail on the site but that they are unsure of the exact location at this time.
Schoenzeit noted the number of units has decreased from 42 to 38 and asked whether the smaller facility
would still be economically feasible.
Amanda Novak, CommonBond Communities, stated in terms of financial viability,the three units can be
removed and the project would still be economically viable.
Feuss asked if the connector is included in this application for the two roads.
Curtis indicated that is an issue the Planning Commission would need to discuss.
Rahn stated in his view the connector will not work and that it is difficult for the Planning Commission to
approve the plan without lrnowing the exact details of the driveway situation. Rahn indicated the
Planning Commission will need to lrnow if there are hammerheads proposed for the roads, a turnaround,
and the exact layout of the road. Rahn noted the width of the road should be 28 feet before parking is
allowed on one side of it. Rahn asked if the visitor parking is limited to the spots as shown.
Elkins indicated that is correct.
Schoenzeit pointed out the residents will have two spots available in their driveway in addition to the
garage.
Todd stated in his view the two driveways would have to be connected and that they would like to utilize
a permeable material.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
Gabrial Jabbour, 985 Tonkawood Road, stated he is in total disagreement with the findings of Staff.
Jabbour stated prior to the construction of the new Highway 12 corridor,the City negotiated with MN/Dot
regarding the sound wall. MN/Dot has retained a maintenance easement on the wall and that he
requested to provide a transportation easement on that land to provide for a trail to the park. Orono is
currently not pedestrian friendly and that the City has been attempting over the years to connect to the
Dakota Trail and other trails in the area to make it more pedestrian friendly. Jabbour expressed concern
that that will not occur on this site.
Jabbour asked if the proposed setback is from the maintenance easement or the property line.
Curtis stated it is measured from the property line and that the maintenance easement was not shown on
the plan.
Jabbour stated the City requires its citizens to meet very rigid standards when it comes to variances and
that the Planning Commission and City Council need to find a hardship in order to grant variances.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 dclock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMLINITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
Jabbour stated the argument that the neighbor is a sound wall is a ludicrous argument and that the
Planning Commission's job is to defend neighbors from being at odds with neighbors.
Jabbour stated the City requires a cul-de-sac for developments consisting of two homes or more, and
asked why that is not being required for this development.
Curtis pointed out the applicant is not dividing the lot into separate lots.
Jabbour stated based on that,if there is a commune being proposed,the developer could build 20 homes
on the lot and not be required to construct a cul-de-sac.
Curtis indicated it depends on the type of development that is being proposed. The Fire Marshal's
comments do address those concerns.
Jabbour asked when the standards for the RPUD were adopted.
Gaffron indicated they were adopted 10 years ago.
Jabbour commented he does not see one reason to grant a single variance and that it is a self-imposed
hardship. The developer can reduce the number of units and relocate the buildings. Jabbour stated the
City cannot allow a building to exist without allowing access for a fire truck. Since this is a commercial
development,the driveways should be blacktopped and it should have a 75-foot cul-de-sac. The
developer should also not be given the impression that they can construct this development until they
acquire sewer and water from Long Lake. Jabbour expressed concern that this application is being rushed
through the process.
Alan Arthur, 117 Chevy Chase Drive,Orono,indicated he is in support of the project because it will serve
the people who live and work here. The area needs a broad range of housing types and that he would �
hope as a community everyone will work together to achieve a wide variety of housing. Arthur stated in
his view this type of housing will improve the community,will add to the vitality of the community,will
add to the tax base of the community,and that he strongly supports this project for those reasons.
Kevin Krueger, 2090 Webber Hills Road, Orono,indicated he has served on the Board of Directors for
Interfaith Outreach and that in his view this is a project that Orono should support for a number of
reasons. Currently the City is under a density mandate from the Metropolitan Council and that Orono has
a limited number of parcels available for this type of density. CommonBond has demonstrated in
Wayzata they can do an outstanding job of working with the City and the community. CommonBond has
an outstanding group of people who do quality work and provide affordable housing. Krueger stated in
his view it is a good plan and is located in an affordable area.
Randy Gilbert,Mayor of Long Lake,noted he appeared here two weeks ago on behalf of the City of Long
Lake in opposition to Orono's Comprehensive Plan. This proposal is not consistent with the density in
Long Lake that is adjacent to this proposed development. City councils are holders of a vision, and part
of that vision is that northern Orono will develop out and some institutional land will be required to
expand the fire department. This land is currently guided for that. The City needs to think of future
expansion of the fire department and this area is the perfect spot for it.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMIJIVITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
Gilbert stated in his opinion the infrastructure question should have been answered first. Long Lake does
not have the capacity to provide water and/or sewer service and they will not be able to provide water for
this many units.
Schoenzeit asked what the density is of the existing housing in this area.
Gilbert indicated it is single-family housing at three to four units an acre.
Lorraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, Orono, asked what affordable housing means based on the
surrounding area and what area that consists of. Kaley noted affordable housing was considered years
ago for Hackberry Park and asked if that is another area that could be considered for this project. Kaley
asked exactly what 30 to 60 percent of the area median income means.
Gaffron stated the area east of Willow from Glendale Cove down to Watertown Road is guided for two to
three units per acre in the 2000 Comprehensive Plan and that has not changed. Glendale Cove is
approximately two units per acre. The intent with that guiding was to provide for housing to replace
housing that was lost in both Orono and Long Lake from the freeway corridor.
Kaley commented initially that area was guided for townhomes.
Gaffron stated for the past ten years it has been guided at two to three units per acre and that he is not
aware of it being guided for townhomes.
Dan Vaughan, 3440 Bayside Road, Orono, stated he has lived in Orono for the past 30 years and has also
worked closely with Interfaith Outreach. Vaughan indicated he has been able to visit some of the
CommonBond properties that they own and operate. The properties are well run and orderly. This
project is not for people who are not working and would provide housing to people who work in the area.
Vaughan pointed out the people who would be living here would need to make approximately$50,000 a
year,which would qualify a number of people who work at the school as well as many other people who
currently cannot afford to live in Orono. Vaughan indicated he is in support of the project.
Sam Marfield,2455 North Shore Drive, stated he has resided in Orono for the past 35 years and moved
here due to the low density. Marf'ield commented he is not sure the residents want the higher density.
Marfield stated he is very supportive of the Interfaith Outreach organization but that he is not sure the
residents are here to say whether CommonBond or IOCP is a good organization but rather this application
deals with zoning issues and high density. Ma�eld stated he does not feel the low area densities should
be converted to high density areas.
Siri Sturgis,2230 Grand Avenue,Long Lake, stated they moved into this area approximately eight years
ago. Sturgis commented they like the peaceful neighborhood. Sturgis indicated she did call the
Plymouth Police Department and checked on the number of police calls made to Vicksburg Commons,
which is another project owned and operated by CommonBond. That facility received 50 calls within the
first quarter of 2009. Since that time the staff has changed and supposedly things have gotten better.
This project basically will not affect Orono but will create additional traffic and noise for the residents of
Long Lake. Sturgis stated she would like this project to be constructed somewhere else.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMUNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
Brad Holt,2565 Wood Haven, asked what the median income is for this facility.
Novak stated the area median income is based on the entire Hennepin County. The median income in
Hennepin County is$80,500 and in Orono,based off of the 2000 census,it is$100,000. The income
qualification to live in this facility is 50 to 60 percent of the area median income,which would range from
$25,000 to $50,000 depending on the size of the family.
Schoenzeit asked if that would be scaled as the income goes up.
Novak indicated it would be scaled.
Holt stated typically this type of development is located in other cities that have a number of employers.
There is no bus service or grocery stores close by. In a situation with these income parameters,the
chances are you will not have a car. Holt asked whether these questions been answered. Holt stated the
reality is that there is a higher incidence of crime whenever there is public housing. Holt asked if impact
studies been conducted.
Janet Solheim,234 Harrington Drive,Long Lake, stated she has resided in this area since 1967. The
wetland in this area is a creek and at many times of the year it ends up in Long Lake. Depending on the
snow fall and rain,the creek can be pretty wide. If you look at it following the winter,the wetland is a lot
bigger,which needs to be considered. Solheim stated in her view the City should not give them variances
to construct close to that area. The creek also poses a danger for the children who might live in this
development.
Solheim stated she also has a problem with the proposed parking for the visitors. Long Lake does not
have the facilities for water and sewer to service this. Holbrook Park is located in Long Lake and the
residents of Long Lake will need to pay for the maintenance of this park. Baseball games are visible from
her house until after 10:00 at night. One small play area cannot accommodate all the children that would
be living in this development. The residents of this complex will complain about the lights and noise
from the park and that there has to be a better place to locate this development.
David Soros,284 Dupont Street,Long Lake, stated one of the difficulties that he sees for the community
is the lack of housing for people who are middle class. The community is spread out,consists of good
people, and if this development is put on this lot,residential housing for the middle class will be taken
away. A number of middle class people live in this area. Soros indicated he would like CommonBond to
find another place for this development.
Amelie Kroeger, 65 Stubbs Bay Road,indicated she is in support of this project but that not much has
been said about other properties that may accommodate this. Orono needs this type of housing. This
housing will accommodate workers at Harvest Moon and other stores. The City of Long Lake is
interested in bringing in new businesses. Kroeger stated she knows from past experience that it does not
matter where this type of housing is put, somebody will be in opposition to it. The overall objective is to
provide affordable housing for people who do not make$100,000 a year.
Aaron Printup, 2195 Prospect Avenue, Orono, stated this is not about providing affordable housing but
rather maintaining Orono's rural community. Printup expressed a concern regarding the process that has
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 CONIlVIONBOND COMMUNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
been taken with this application and the Comprehensive Plan. There have been decisions made in 2009
regarding this location,which is when CommonBond was first meeting with City Staff. Printup indicated
he is proud to be part of a coalition of concerned residents and that they are ready to be on the ballot in
the fall to run for the Planning Commission and City Council to redirect the City back to adhering to the
Orono philosophy. The Planning Commission is an important part of maintaining Orono's rural
community. The members of the Planning Commission should not obligated to satisfy certain city
council members or city staf£
Printup stated in his view the Comprehensive Plan was put on a fast track and has pitted neighbors against
neighbors. Printup encouraged the City to slow down on this application. If the Planning Commission
moves too quickly and gives its blessing on this application,it could give Orono another public black eye
similar to the Emily Project application.
Printup noted at the March 9�'City Council work session it was discussed that the Planning
Commissioners are not experienced enough to handle this application. It was further discussed that the
Planning Commission should do as much as they can on this application to move it forward. It was also
noted that Mayor White, Council Member Bremer and Council Member Murphy were in favor of moving
forward on this application at the work session. Printup stated in his view this application was decided
many months ago.
Printup asked if the Planning Commission can guarantee that the city property required for this
development will not be sold at undermarket value or donated and can they also guarantee that the fees
will not be waived. Printup indicated he would like a guarantee that Orono's tax dollars will not used to
subsidize a project like this.
At the January 26"'City Council work session,CommonBond requested the City negotiate a below
marketplace price or donate the property. At the February 9`�'Planning/Council joint work session,
Planning Commissioner Berg stated it comes down to whether the Council wants to provide affordable
housing or not and in her opinion CommonBond is probably one of the better developers. There was also
discussion at the February 9`"joint work session on whether they want to make the city property available
to CommonBond. Printup stated it is not within the responsibility of the Planning Commission or City
Council to donate city land. Printup stated this is not about what the council wants but it is about what
the people want. It is about changing what Orono is about, crime,traffic,parking,and transportation.
These issues need to be discussed and explored very thoroughly prior to moving the application forward
and that one meeting is not enough time to discuss issues of this magnitude.
Kim Edwards,2450 Woodhaven Drive, stated in his opinion the proposed density is way too high for this
area and access is limited. Edwards stated this project could this be constructed across Highway 12 on
the Welch property,the Dumas property, or the Eisinger property. The Eiseinger property is already
zoned high density and the other two properties could be rezoned to high density.
Tor Aasheim,2400 Woodhave Drive, stated he is opposed to this project and that it appears this
development is being forced into an undesirable location. Aasheim commented he does not feel it is a
valid argument that this project should go here simply because there is no other place to put it and that
developments like this belong along Highway 12. Orono is all about wetlands and open spaces. As the
project gets smaller and smaller,that is an indication there is not enough space for it. Aasheim indicated
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMUNITIES,PRELIlVINARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
he moved to Orono for the rural atmosphere. Given the increased traffic of another 30 to 100 vehicles
coming in and out of that development every day,he has concerns about the traffic and the noise.
Aasheim stated he does not feel this is an appropriate area for the development.
Steve Bohl, 300 Stubbs Bay Road,indicated he is a developer and has developed a number of properties
in the area. Bohl stated he is very familiar with Interfaith Outreach and CommonBond. They are both
very reputable organizations and he is in support of this project. Bohl stated in his view this is a good
location given the close proximity to the park,the schools,and the downtown area.
Howard McMillan, 1275 Lyman Avenue, Orono,stated he had the opportunity to work in a homeless
facility in downtown Minneapolis. Work force housing is a nice label but the actual label for which the
grant money that is being acquired is under the label of affordable income. McMillan stated he does not
believe there is technically such a thing as work force housing. McMillan stated the majority of his
concerns have already been raised. McMillan commented he finds it interesting that there has been
discussion about how this will be work force housing,but that he is not sure how long of a walk or bike
ride it will be to get to public transportation,which does not appear to be addressed.
McMillan stated in addition he also has a concern about the wetland buffers. There has been nothing but
drainage issues since the fire department has been constructed and he is not sure whether that has been
addressed in these plans. The plans are incomplete and the Planning Commission has been given less
than 78 hours to digest and process a plan that has been discussed since October of last year. This item is
scheduled for a vote at the next city council meeting. McMillan stated in his view this is a fast track for a
very complicated plan.
McMillan stated he understands the Planning Commission can only vote on the land use issues,but there
are facts coming out from the work session minutes that this has been a long,thought out plan since last
fall but no information being provided to the residents. McMillan noted this application helped drive the
Comprehensive Plan that was recently approved by the City Council. McMillan requested the Planning
Commission to consider tabling the application unless they are completely sure that all of the information
is available to make a good decision.
Kevin Johanson,293 Dupont Street,Long Lake,indicated he moved here from Mound. Johanson stated
he is not here to comment on Interfaith or CommonBond but that what he is hearing is that this is being
forced upon Orono by the Metropolitan Council. This project will become Long Lake's problem as far as
traffic,police,fire,water, sewer, and street maintenance. Johanson expressed a concern regarding the
four different variances are being requested and that the density is too much for this lot.
Anne Mohaupt,269 Inglewood Street,Long Lake, stated she is in agreement with all of the residents who
have spoken against this project and against granting any variances. This application is moving way too
fast and that the citizens of Long Lake have only lrnown about this for the past month. The impacts on
the fire department are many. The increase in crime and traffic are big issues.
Mohaupt indicated the Plymouth site that is owned by CommonBond had 90 calls in 16 months from
November 7`�'of 2007 to February 9`�'of 2009. Those included six assaults,four juvenile runaways,two
criminal damage to property, one controlled substance,one criminal sexual conduct, one theft, one theft
from vehicle,a harassment,ten domestics, and other various calls dealing with disturbances,noise and
PAGE 15
NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAI�TNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMiTNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
suspicion. Mohaupt stated she has resided in the Holbrook Park area for 22 years,and in all of that time,
they have not had anywhere near 90 police calls. Mohaupt requested the Planning Commission take that
into consider.
Craig Reidl,269 Inglewood Street,Long Lake,indicated he has a concern with the so-called close
proximity of public transportation. The bus line is located over on Brown Road,which is actually quite a
ways from this community. Reidl stated he also has a concern regarding the wetland setbacks. The fire
station drive is akeady encroaching on the wetlands and they are proposing three units that would
encroach on the wetlands. The turnaround will require the removal of three additional units to
accommodate fire trucks. The setback on the northern end is supposed to be 35 feet and is proposed to be
cut back to 14 feet. The setback from the fire deparlment is also another issue. Reidl noted the first
application was denied a very small variance and that this applicant is requesting the setbacks be cut in
half. Reidl indicated he is also opposed to it based on the density and the crime issues.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m.
Feuss thanked the audience members for their input and that she would like to focus on the issues that are
before the Planning Commission rather than the City Council. Feuss indicated she does not see the
density as an issue for the Planning Commission since the City Council reguided this area recently with
the approval of the Comprehensive Plan and that the Planning Commission should focus on the variances
from the zoning requirements. Feuss stated in her view there needs to be a compelling reason to approve
the variances,particularly the wetland variance.
Feuss stated she would like to see the three units removed and the impact on the wetlands from the fire
service road. Feuss commented that in her opinion they do not have sufficient facts before them tonight
to understand the impact on the wetland,how those two roads will be connected,and the narrowness of
the road.
Schoenzeit asked if there is a date when the updated wetland delineation report will be received.
Curtis indicated the applicants can conduct a wetland delineation at the present time but that she does not
have very much personal experience with wetland delineations and how long the process will take.
Gaffron stated the previous wetland delineation was conducted in approximately 2002 or 2003 and that he
is certain the Watershed District will require an updated delineation.
Schoenzeit noted they do not have that piece of information and if that line moves further to the west,it
would not help the project.
Curtis indicated a wet or rainy year does not mean that the wetland boundaries will change.
Rahn stated there are a number of unknowns and that he would like to see a plan that would meet the
requirements of the city engineer,the fire chief,the wetland requirements,and Orono's Conservation
Design requirements. The Planning Commission typically reviews this information prior to the
application proceeding to the City Council. Rahn indicated he would like to see a plan that does not
encroach into the wetland buffer and the setbacks. This application should be looked upon as new
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMUNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
construction and that the development should be compliant with as many of the City's requirements as
possible.
Rahn noted this parcel was originally guided for two to three units per acre, and simply because the lot
was reguided to 10 to 15 units per acre does not mean that the site can accommodate that. Rahn indicated
he would like to like to have more information before moving the application forward to the City Council
and have the access road for emergency vehicles resolved.
Schoenzeit noted if this was a commercial plan,the Planning Commission would be looking at parlcing as
well as a number of other issues.
Rahn stated another issue is the lack of a front yard and a 14-foot rear yard.
Schoenzeit pointed out they may also have a trail through their back yard,which will reduce it even
further.
Rahn commented it is difficult to move this application forward given the lack of information.
Feuss asked what the issue is with city sewer and water and whether Long Lake has the right to deny -
them service.
Schoenzeit stated that is an issue that is currently under discussion. City sewer and water has not
approved by Long Lake at this point,which would be necessary before final approval.
Rice indicated she agrees with the comments already expressed.
Leskinen indicated she also is in agreement with the comments and that for all the variances being
requested,the applicant will need to demonstrate a hardship in order for the Planning Commission to
recommend granting a variance. Leskinen stated she would not be comfortable finding a hardship on this
application for a variance to the wetlands and setbacks given the lack of information.
Schoenzeit asked what the specific attraction to this piece of property is versus some of the others that
were also reguided at this similar density.
Novak stated one of the main reasons for their interest in this parcel is the proximity to the downtown
Long Lake and Orono area. CommonBond also felt that this was a great site in the fact that it is an open
piece of land that has been slated for high density. The other areas that have been reguided have been
reguided at a higher density than what they are looking at and the higher cost for those parcels is also a
factor. Public transportation is approximately six blocks away,which they do not feel is too far away.
There is a church nearby and other local amenities that you find in a smaller city, which attracted them to
this site.
Feuss asked what the current status is of the two separate lots.
Novak indicated they do have a purchase agreement for the north lot and for the parcel currently owned
by the City. The city land has been assessed at$470,000 and CommonBond will be paying for the land
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMUNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
and would not be looking for a subsidy from the City at this point. In addition, CommonBond would be
paying all of the required city fees.
Schoenzeit stated that typically more of these questions are answered before the application is moved
forward to the City Council.
Feuss moved,Rahn seconded,Application#10-3460,CommonBond Communities,to table the
application pending the submittal of additional information to address the issues discussed tonight.
Curtis stated the issues that should be resolved include reducing the number of variances. Curtis
requested the Planning Commission give clear direction to the applicant on the variances. Initially the
applicant came to the City with a conceptual plan. Curtis noted this is a tw�step process,consisting of
the RPUD,the rezoning, and the preliminary plat application. In some cases there is a third step,which is
the precursor step consisting of a sketch plan,which was brought before the Planning Commission at its
April meeting.
The applicant was also asked by Staff to provide additional information relating to the final master plan
submittal, and a majority of that has been accomplished. The applicant has submitted the information
required for an RPUD rezoning and preliminary plat application. Typically the additional information is
requested at the final planning stage. Curtis noted the Planning Commission will review this application
again as part of the master plan application and that it is not intended to be a fully complete application
tonight.
Schoenzeit stated based on the public comment and the Commissioner's observations,there are a number
of issues relating to the wetlands,roads,setbacks, and parking that need to be addressed. Schoenzeit
commented there is a lot of inerit to the project but the Planning Commission is being asked to approve
something that is proposing too much for the site.
Rahn commented in his view the Planning Commission has provided sufficient direction to the applicant
on the issues that should be addressed.
Schoenzeit noted it is the decision of the applicant to either have the Planning Commission table their
application or vote on their application.
Curtis directed the Planning Commission to Exhibit H. Curtis noted there are six requirements listed
there for the preliminary plat and 14 requirements for the master development plan. The concept plan
steps asks for approximate building locations,type and square footage of specific land uses, a generalized
grading area, and staging and timing of the development. Staff did request submittal of information over
and above that for this application.
Rahn noted they do not lrnow the exact number of units being proposed,the access requirements for the
fire deparhnent,the wetland buffer encroachments and other items. Rahn indicated he would like to see a
plan that is more compliant with City Codes.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission can discuss the six points.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF T13E
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMUNITIES,PRELIMNARY PLAT AND RPUD,CONT.)
Feuss stated the two discussions points she is not comfortable with at the present time are preservation of
desirable site characteristics and protection of sensitive environmental features.
Rahn noted number one talks about management of surface water. Comments from the City Engineer
reference the fact that retention plans require calculations to be included and that as proposed,the ponds
fall short of City requirements.
Curtis noted that generalized plans are all that are required at this stage of the application.
Schoenzeit stated in his view the Planning Commission has identified issues with the wetlands and that
the wetland delineation needs to be updated.
Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission has discussed page five of the staff report and that they have a
concern with points three, four, and five. The Planning Commission has had substantial feedback that
there is concern with number five. As it relates to number six,the Planning Commission and City
Council may attach such conditions as they determine necessary to accomplish the purposes of City Code.
Feuss stated she would like to see the plan more compliant with the City's zoning requirements to avoid
the need for variances.
Schoenzeit stated in his view there are a number of open issues and that the degree of the request is
unlrnown and beyond what the Planning commission typically approves.
Schoenzeit asked if the applicant would like the Planning Commission to table their application.
Novak indicated they would like it tabled.
VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
(A recess was taken from 8:50 p.m.to 8:56 p.m.)
4. #10-3461 SEIDOU SALON SPA,AMENDMENT OF CODE CAAPTER 78,ARTICLE IV,
DIVISION 16,8:56 P.M.—9:08 P.M.
Lauren Patnode,Applicant,was present.
Turner stated the applicant is proposing an amendment to Orono Code Chapter 78,Article N,Division
16,which is the B-5 zoning district regulations,to allow a therapeutic massage service as a permitted use.
City Staff has added Orono Code Chapter 78,Article N,Division 12,the B-1 zoning district regulations,
and Orono Code Chapter 78,Article N,Division 14,the B-3 zoning district regulations,to the proposal.
The B-1 retail sales business district is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply
commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The district
may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls.
The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer.
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3461 SEIDOU SALON SPA,AMENDMENT OF CODE CHAPTER 78,CONTINUED)
The B-3 shopping center business district is intended to establish provisions for the designating of a
district where a multiple building retail sales and service facility with integrated design and a coordinated
physical plan,appropriately located may be erected. Such district shall be developed as a unit according
to an approved plan as provided in this division. The district shall have immediate access to adequate
highways and public sanitary sewer.
The B-5 limited neighborhood business district is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply
commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood,which
businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The
district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive
controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer.
Because of the location of the B-5 district as contemplate in the area lmown as Navarre,the uses are
limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that
property in that use district.
Turner noted that Staff has attached the regulations for Spring Park,Wayzata, and Plymouth regarding
this type of use. Most communities license either the business or the therapists or both to ensure that the
business is legitimate and the therapist is qualified. Since conditional use permits go with the land and
licenses go with the individual, Staff feels the appropriate manner to handle this is to license the massage
therapists.
Staff is recommending approval of the amendments to add therapeutic massage as a permitted use in the
B-1,B-3, and B-5 zoning districts, subject to adoption of licensing regulations for therapeutic massage.
Lauren Patnode, Seidou Salon, stated she is attempting to create a wellness center. Patnode indicated
they have licensed cosmetologists, licensed massage therapists, and licensed acupuncturists. They are
licensed through the Board of Cosmetologists and the Health Department. Patnode stated she is asking
the City to amend the language to allow her business to qualify for this zoning.
Feuss asked if that is a state board.
Patnow indicated it is a state board. Anybody that is hired has to be licensed through the state board.
Feuss asked if the City of Plymouth has a separate license for massage therapists.
Turner stated the City Attorney could not find any provision for any state licensing. There is no licensing
for a massage therapist or an acupuncturist,which is why many of the communities that allow it require
some sort of license.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing for 9:03 p.m.
Andrea Odenwald, 614 Second Avenue East, Shakopee, stated the City of Plymouth has a certi�cation for
massage,which consists of a criminal background check and a driver's license check. Odenwald
indicated she has been certified through the City of Plymouth.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3461 SEIDOU SALON SPA,AMENDMENT OF CODE CHAPTER 78,CONTINUED)
Schoenzeit commented that it seems like a reasonable activity in the district if the City licenses the
building and the employees are licensed similar to the other cities.
Lesldnen asked if the City's Code has anything dealing with other similar businesses.
Turner indicated there is a general licensing procedure and the City Attorney will need to review that.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission needs to only address the conditional use aspect of the
application and if the details of the licensing will be worked out by City Staff.
Turner stated the City Council will be reviewing the licensing requirements.
Feuss moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3461,Seidou Salon Spa, .
Amendments to Orono Code Chapter 78,Article IV,Sections 12, 14,and 16,subject to the City
Council and City Staff determining the appropriate licensing requirements for both the business
and the providers. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*5. #10-3463 KEVIN SCHULTZ,3980 CHERRY AVENLTE,VARIANCE
Leskinen moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3463,Kevin Schultz,
3980 Cherry Avenue,granting of a lot area variance in order to develop the existing lot with a new
single-family residence. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
6. #10-3466 ANDREA ODENWALD,3384 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,9:08 P.M.—9:20 P.M.
Andrea Odenwald,Applicant,was present.
Turner stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use pernut for a sports and health club in the B-1
retail sales business zoning district. Sports and health facility means a facility where members or
nonmembers pay a fee to use equipment or space for the purpose of physical exercise or training. A
sports and health facility may include aerobics,weight training,muscular exercise programs,yoga,
Pilates, etc.
The Planning Commission may recommend approval of a conditional use permit as the use permit was
applied for or in modified form based on the application and the evidence submitted
Odenwald indicated she has been doing massage in Orono under Dr.Brewer for the last eight years. She
has attended school for Pilates and would like to open up a Pilates studio. Odenwald stated she would
like to keep her cunent massage clients but will not be loolcing for additional massage clients. There will
also be two acupuncturists located in the same building. Odenwald stated this is basically a wellness
business. �
Feuss asked what the hours of operation will be.
Odenwald indicated the hours will be from 6:00 or 6:30 in the morning unti19:00 p.m.
PAGE 21
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3466 ANDREA ODENWALD,3384 SHORELINE DRIVE,CUP,CONTINUED)
Schoenzeit asked if it would be individual instruction or classes.
Odenwald stated there would be classes. There will be four reformer classes and mats classes,which will
have between 8 to 12 people in the class. There have also been some requests for yoga,which may be
added. Mostly the focus will be on the core wellness with Pilates.
Schoenzeit asked what the peak parking demand will be.
Odenwald indicated there is a big municipal parking lot in the back and parldng available in the front.
Feuss asked what the expected occupancy will be at the peak time.
Odenwald stated there will be seven to nine in the morning and five to six in the evening. The
acupuncturist lives across the street. Odenwald indicated she does not plan on adding any employees full-
time.
Turner stated in her view parking is adequate. Some of the parking in the municipal lot consists of private
spaces but the majority of the spaces are public.
Odenwald stated there is also on street parking available.
Leskinen asked if there will be multiple classes running at the same time.
Odenwald stated the space is not big enough to hold multiple classes and that the maximum amount of
room available is for ten people at one time.
Schoenzeit asked if this use is expanded,whether the business would be subject to a business license and
certification of those providing the service.
Turner stated Staff would need to work out those guidelines. The business would be open before the
licensing went into effect.
Schoenzeit stated it appears that the consensus that the business would need to be licensed if massage
therapists are added or expanded beyond a sports and health club facility.
Odenwald noted acupuncturists are licensed through the state but massage therapists are not. Odenwald
indicated she is personally certified by the City of Plymouth. The State of Minnesota does not have a
license for massage therapists,which is why there is city-to-city certification.
Schoenzeit stated he would like to see the business licensed and the providers licensed.
Odenwald asked what a business license would be.
Schoenzeit indicated it would be similar to the last application and that the City would need to develop
some type of license for the massage therapists.
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3466 ANDREA ODENWALD,3384 SHORELINE DRIVE, CUP, CONTINUED)
Turner noted that under the definition of a sports facility,the massage therapy would be allowed.
Leskinen asked if there is hand washing facilities within this space.
Odenwald indicated there is a sink outside of the space she will be utilizing for the classes. There
currently are no state laws governing massage but the therapists are typically certified by the individual
cities. Odenwald stated there is hot running water in the building and sanitizer available.
Schoenzeit asked if there is a bathroom available in the building.
Odenwald stated the bathroom is located downstairs and that there is also a hand washing basin located
upstairs.
Rahn stated it appears to be a change of use and that a building pernut will need to be obtained.
Odenwald stated the contractor has already obtained a building permit to improve the bathroom.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 9:18 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m.
Leskinen moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3466,Andrea
Odenwald,3384 Shoreline Drive,per staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
*7. #10-3467 STEVEN SCHUSSLER, 1935 CONCORDIA STREET,VARIANCE
Leskinen moved,Rahn seconded,to table Application No. 10-3467,Steven Schussler, 1935
Concordia Street,per the request of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
8. #10-3454 CITY OF ORONO,AMENDMENT OF CODE SECTION 78-916 AND
VARIOUS CODE SECTIONS RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USES,9:19 P.M.—9:27 P.M.
Turner stated the zoning code text amendment would revise the criteria to be used when evaluating a
conditional use permit application;two,relocate within the code the additional criteria for service station
conditional use permits; and,three,revise conditional uses in the residential zoning districts.
The Planning Staff would recommend the revision to the conditional use criteria and the relocation of the
additional criteria be recommended for approval and the revisions to residential conditional uses be
tabled.
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(#10-3454 CITY OF ORONO,AMENDMENT OF CODE, CONTINUED)
Turner noted the Planning Commission has reviewed the conditional uses allowed in the residential
zoning districts and have found that some of the uses are out of date,some are difficult to understand,
some are more appropriate as accessory uses, and some are no longer appropriate.
Turner noted the public hearing is required on this and that the public hearing should be continued on the
second part since it would be inappropriate to close it without the text being available.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 9:23 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Acting Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 9:23 p.m.
Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission has reviewed this previously.
Rahn moved,Feuss seconded,Application#10-3454, City of Orono,to recommend approval of the
revisions to the conditional use criteria and the relocation of the additional criteria,with the
revisions to residential conditional uses being tabled. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
9. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS ON APRIL 26,2010,AND MAY 10,2010
Leskinen reported on the Apri126,2010, City Council meeting and noted that Superintendent Borg
provided an update on the Westonka School District. The changes to the zoning code were put on
consent. The other issue discussed related to the Comprehensive Plan update,which was approved as
proposed on a 3-2 vote. The Comprehensive Plan was revisited at the following council meeting.
Gaffron indicated the issue discussed was that it is in the best interests of the City to approve the
preliminary Comprehensive Plan on a super majority vote. The Comprehensive Plan was discussed at a
City Council work session and some minor revisions were made to reduce the density per acre slightly.
The revisions were to remove the Mud property and the bowling alley from the mixed used area. The
revision changed the potential ultimate density for new development from 3.7 to 3.4 units per acre. The
plan has not been sent to the Metropolitan Council at the present time but should be ready to be sent in the
next couple of days.
Leskinen noted the City Council also discussed more vigorous code enforcement.
Feuss reported on the May 10, 2010, City Council meeting, and stated that the major portion of the
discussion involving the Comprehensive Plan was the proposed density.
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,May 17, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
10. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
11. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
MAY 24,2010,AND JUNE 14, 2010
May 24, 2010—Schoenzeit
June 14—2010—Leskinen
ADJOURNMENT
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:34
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
�tJ`0�•�� �J
Loren Schoenzeit, Acting Chair
PAGE 25