HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-2014 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE w / K I
❑ COUNCIL
i ---'PLANNING COMMISSION
❑ OTHER
Assistive Listening Device available upon request.
Please complete the following information for City records.
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
7k-c- (.4fiertbi-ih Pod L7
3. f41,6 lc i Lt I r l-%'Ccc:IM H 7
4. C—s-\1`•l1 \l? ;,lC_e. 2> I;Y V( �t re-- 1)1 -7> i 4 ' 4.%it
5. `y j) LOsi1��- ilv t ,t_y S (Ll
6. ;;..�{ i t �_ � `� i ( � 7 ~ `,>t{7 , L 1Y— 3
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
V:\(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC
•
KUTAK ROCK LLP ATLANTA
CHICAGO
SUITE 1750 DENVER
OINES
U.S. BANK PLAZA SOUTH DES FAYETTEVILLE
220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET IRVINE
KANSAS CITY
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 5 5402-4 51 1
LITTLE ROCK
612-334-5000 LOS ANGELES
FACSIMILE 612-334-5050 MINNEAPOLIS
OKLAHOMA CITY
www.kutakrock.com OMAHA
PHILADELPHIA
RICHMOND
TIMOTHY J. KEANE SCOTTSDALE
ttmothy.keane(putakrock.com June 16, 2014 WASHINGTON
(612)334-5000 WICHITA
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
Re: Rezoning Application
1440 & 1442 Shoreline Drive
EOF Investments LLC
Dear Chair Leskinen and Members of the Planning Commission:
This letter is offered on behalf of our clients Matt and Susanne Johnson, Rich Anderson
and Drs. David Feldshon and Archelle Georgiou in opposition to the proposed rezoning of the
two lots located at 1440 and 1442 Shoreline Drive (the Subject Property) from LR-1A,
residential to B-2, commercial. Our clients are owners of the surrounding property in closest
proximity to the proposed rezoning.
Background
The Subject Property is a portion of the marina recently acquired by EOF Investments,
LLC d/b/a Your Boat Club (YBC). YBC currently operates 1444 Shoreline Drive together with
the Subject Property as a commercial marina consisting of dockage, boat slips, insufficient
parking facilities and a commercial building for retail boat/motor sales and marine repair.
Additionally, the Subject Property has two structures. The structure to the south is a residential
building that is occupied for rental purposes. The structure to the north is a dilapidated
residential structure that is not suitable for habitation or occupancy of any kind. Currently, the
primary use of the Subject Property is parking for YBC, its employees and customers. The
Subject Property is also frequently used for boat storage in violation of its existing conditional
use permit.
The Zoning Request is in Conflict With the Comprehensive Plan
The underlying comprehensive plan designation for Subject Property is residential.
Minnesota Statutes require conformity between the municipal comprehensive plan and the
zoning ordinance and land use map designation implementing the comprehensive plan. Minn.
4834-8370-0763.1
KUTAK ROCK LLP
Chairman John Doe
June 16, 2014
Page 2
Stat. §462.357 Subd. 2. In the presence instance, the city should not consider or undertake a
zoning amendment without first considering and approving the underlying comprehensive plan
amendment. The consistency requirement between the comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinances is to ensure the planned, orderly, and staged development/redevelopment of property.
This zoning amendment is premature and not even properly before the planning commission
without first consideration of a comprehensive plan amendment.
Land Use Considerations
The applicant's request would only further exacerbate unacceptable land use conflicts
and incompatibility with existing infrastructure. County Road 15 serves as a major north/south
collector with high traffic speeds, high traffic volumes, significant truck traffic, and poor
geometrics for safe site lines and visibility. The narrow strips of land abutting County Road 15
and the lake shore result in over intensity of use in the current condition. Rezoning to allow a
change to commercial designation of the residential lots would only further contribute to the
incompatible intensity of the land use pattern in and around the Subject Property.
With the current residential designation the Subject Property serves as a buffer
between the surrounding commercial uses to the west and south with the residential properties to
the north. The zoning amendment of the Subject Property to commercial would simply allow
further intensification of the buffer and create an additional hard edge between the highway uses
and the residential uses to the north.
Additionally, the rezoning of the Subject Property would allow the relocation of the dock
slips from their existing location on Tananger Lake approximately 200 feet to the north and
closer to the residential uses to the north. The proposed change in zoning would run contrary to
sound planning both as a matter of land use and surface water usage.
The introduction of the boat rental businesses into the existing marina has dramatically
changed the character of the use of the marina. Boat renters utilize water craft in half day
increments in the morning and afternoon. This results in a significant increase in the traffic
generated, parking required, number of users, and employees servicing the turnover of boat
rentals. All of this new activity has contributed to the greater intensification of use in an area
already poorly suited to accommodate the current existing uses.
Finally, the current residential property owners purchased their properties in reliance of
the existing surrounding zoning patterns. There have been no changes to the land use pattern
that would justify a dramatic change in zoning at this time.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, and on behalf of the property owners herein referenced, we
respectfully request the zoning amendment application be denied in its entirety on the basis of
4834-8370-0763.1
KUTAK ROCK LLP
Chairman John Doe
June 16, 2014
Page 3
sound land use planning and lack of conformity of the comprehensive plan. Should you have
any questions you may contact me at(612) 334-5015.
Sincerely,
,most%rionligitogaimommim_________.0
Timothy J. Keane
cc: Matt and Susanne Johnson
Dr. David Feldshon
Mr. Rich Anderson
4834-8370-0763.(
Orono City Council Meeting Report / May 27, 2014
6:59 Meeting got started a bit early with the following Council Members/Staff present;
Mayor McMillan, Council Members Anderson, Bremer, Levang and Printup.Staff
included City Administrator Loftus, Finance Director Olson,Assistant City Administrator
of Long-Term Strategic Planning Gaffron, soon to be ex-PublicWorks Director Struve,
City Attorney Mattick, Consulting City Engineer Martiniand Recorder Young.
Conspicuously absent was Planning Coordinator Curtis. Because there was no
explanation for her non-attendance there was a considerable buzz/concern in the
audience regarding her well being.
The meeting was called to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
7:02 Dedication Plaque Honoring Chief Joseph Orono
Council Member Printup (a member of the Sons of the American Revolution) Introduced
the president of the SAR, Larry Sisk, who talked about the role of the organization in
promoting patriotism and keeping American history alive.With the 125th anniversary of
Orono to be celebrated this year Mr. Sisk talked about Chief Joseph Orono, a leader of
the Penobscot Tribe in Maine who had a French father and an Indian mother. Chief
Orono gallantly supported the Americans during the Revolutionary War and had the
Penobscot River Valley named after him and the town of Orono Maine. For some
reason people came to the shores of Lake Minnetonka and in 1889 named the new
township Orono. 2014— 1889 = 125 years (for the math challenged). Other people
spoke representing Daughters of the American Revolution and Children of the American
Revolution but I didn't take very good notes because a few of us in the audience were
discussing Melanie's absence.The most puzzling aspects of the presentation to me was;
a) why there are Sons of the American Revolution, Daughters of the American
Revolution and Children of the American Revolution and 2) these people are not that
old to be considered sons, daughters and children of an event that happened over 235
years ago (again 2014— 1776 = 238). Wouldn't it be more efficient and accurate to have
one organization called Descendents of People of the American Revolution?
7:15 Police Explorer Program Recognition
Chief Farniok talked about the Police Explorer program and Officer Szczepanik
introduced the award winning explorers. I couldn't hear very well because the
microphone wasn't turned up enough so my notes are not very good. Jesse fixed the
microphone but it was too late for my notes.
7:21 Agenda
The minutes from the May 12th Council Meeting were approved and items; 9. dump
truck purchase, 10. North water tower repainting project, and the City Administrator's
report items; 13. Public Works Director/City Engineer, 14. Community Development
Director appointment and organization chart, 15. Performance evaluation for the City
Administrator, 16. Mediacom Internet service agreement, 17. Licenses and Permits and
18. Claims/bills were added to the consent agenda.
7:23 Sale of General Obligation Bonds / Resolution No. 6405
Nick Anhut of Ehlers &Associates discussed Orono's AAA rating (Moody's) and talked
about the bonds. The City evidently received five bids and the lowest came in at about
1/2% below the projected rate.There were other discussions about stuff I didn't
understand. A vote for Resolution 6405 awarding sale of$ 5,380,000.00 General
Obligation Bonds, Series 2014A passed unanimously.
7:31 2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Dennis Hoogeveen and Michelle Hoffman from Clifton, Larson Allen presented the
financial audit and although there were pretty charts the only thing I got out of it was
that Orono's tax rate is very low compared to other local cities. I may have dozed a bit
during this presentation so if you want more information it is on the City's website.
7:45 Long Lake Fire Department
Chief Van Eyll presented a number of interesting facts and general information that I
found much more interesting than the Bonds and the Financial Report. Some highlights;
- current membership consists of 48 active members (2 on military leave and 2 on
personal leave).
- last year Orono had 324 (including 11 fire calls) total calls up from 313 in 2012.
-the response time last year was 6:29 down from 6:34 in 2012.
- 70% of the calls happened during the day.
-total calls amounted to 6753 hours with Orono accounting for 4757 hours/70.44%
A payment of$ 2673.00 was approved for Orono's share of the budget overage.
•
8:11 Planning Commission Representative
I was in attendance reported nothing but was available for questions. There were no
questions.
8:12 Public Comments
No public comments.
8:13 Planning Department Report / Long Lake No-Wake Restriction
Long Lake no wake restrictions were discussed. Three people spoke in the public hearing
part of the discussion and the general consensus was that the ordinance that Long Lake
adopted of enforcing a no-wake restriction when the lake level was above 944.15 was
too low. One resident thought that 945.5 would be a more realistic level for the no-
wake restriction. Another concern was that the no-wake restriction was only posted at
the launch and it should be posted on the respective Cities' websites. The public hearing
was closed after 20 minutes and the Council unanimously voted to table the regulation
pending more information about the proper height.
8:41 Planning Department Report / Joint Use Dock License
A resolution was proposed to grant a joint use dock license for Pirates Cove. Two
lawyers spoke at the public hearing and talked about `riparian property owners'. Not
being totally familiar with the term I looked it up and decided to test the Planning
Commission's knowledge. Does riparian mean;
A) a local service group like the Kiwanis or Rotary Club
B) a prehistoric bird of prey
C) a dwelling on a body of water
The resolution was voted on at 8:57 and was approved by all Council Members.
8:58 Still no sign of Melanie.
8:59 Watertown Road and Stubs Bay Road feasibility Study
David Martini from Bolton & Menk discussed two options for improving Watertown
Road —an overlay of the existing road and a full depth pavement reclamation. He
showed graphs and presented financial considerations. The studies will be posted on the
City's website and the options will be revisited by the Council in August.
9:24 Mayor / Council Report
The Mayor and Councilmember Levang attended a Nonpoint Education for Municipal
Officials workshop. The workshop is designed to help government officials understand
water quality.
There was discussion regarding docks at public beaches that will be discussed at the
Park Board meeting in July.
9:30 City Administrator's Report
The designation of a Lake Minnetonka Scenic Byway was discussed. It appears that there
would be minimal benefit to Orono. The Council directed staff to draft a letter talking
about Orono's historic commitment for preservation of scenic pathways and requesting
that Orono be kept updated on developments.
The docks on Big Island have been installed.
Our Public Works Director/City Engineer has resigned and a replacement will be
recruited.
Andrew Mack will be the new Community Development director starting in Mid June.
Lastly in a move, that will undoubtedly bring a smile to Loren's face, the City Hall will
have a new fiber connection that will provide 20 times the bandwidth at a slight cost
savings.
9:49 Meeting Adjournment
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notifications
AGENDA
City of Orono Planning Commission Meeting for June 16, 2014; 6:30 PM
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Council Representative: Cynthia Bremer
Audience Members:
Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the
lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet – located in the lobby near
the sign in sheet.
Items on the Consent Agenda, including (*) asterisk items, are reviewed in total by the Planning Commission and
may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Planning Commission. Any items may be
removed by any Planning Commission Member, staff member or person from the public for separate
consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and
description of the item.
Applicants will be asked to move to the podium to answer questions after staff presents the application.
The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda,
they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting.
Consent Agenda
* 1. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 19, 2014.
New Business
2. 14-3666 Luke Kujawa on behalf of EOF Investments, LLC, 1440 & 1442 Shoreline Drive,
Rezoning (Staff: Mike Gaffron)
3. 14-3672 Revolution Design and Build on behalf of Kelly & Melodee Marx, 3135 North Shore
Drive, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis)
4. 14-3673 Justin McCoy on behalf of Orono Public School ISD 278, 685, 765,795 and 800 Old
Crystal Bay Road North, Variance and Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie Curtis)
5. 14-3674 Lori Gherardi on behalf of Wolverton Place, LLC, 4570 Wolverton Place, Vacation of
Conservation Easement (Staff: Melanie Curtis)
Planning Commission Comments
6. Report from Planning Commission representatives on City Council meetings:
May 27, 2014 and June 9, 2014.
7. Other issues for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 31
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Christopher McGrann, Jon
Schwingler, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term
Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:34 p.m.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Landgraver moved, McGrann seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE:
Ayes 6, Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2014
Landgraver moved, McGrann seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning
Commission meeting of April 21, 2014, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #14-3664 DAVID SCHMID AND ANGELA CILIBERTO, 3309 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,
VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:34 P.M. – 7:28 P.M.
David Schmid, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting variances in order to construct a new residence on the
property. The existing residence extends over the rear lot line into the Regional Railroad right-of-way.
The applicants are proposing to construct the new residence 1.7 feet from the rear lot line where a 30-foot
setback is required. The applicants are also requesting a 57-foot setback from the OHWL where a 75-foot
setback is required. Gaffron noted the footprint is not changing dramatically. A hardcover variance to
permit 35 percent hardcover where 25 percent is normally allowed is also being requested.
A conditional use permit is also requested in order to conduct grading which exceeds ten cubic yards
within 5 feet of the OHWL and retaining walls in conjunction with removal of the existing home and an
existing garage and construction of the new home. Lot area and width variances are required because the
proposed use of the existing lot of record will not meet the 25 percent hardcover limitation and will not
meet required LR-1C and Shoreland setback standards. The lot is 52 feet wide and 100 feet is required.
Gaffron stated Crystal Bay Road is unique in that the street was never platted but exists by prescription
between the homes and the lake and was never dedicated on a past plat. The rear of the lots abut the
HCRRA railroad right-of-way. Gaffron indicated many of the lots along the road are not very deep and
therefore a number of properties have been granted variances to the lake setback over the years. The
applicants’ property and the homes to the east gain access via a shared driveway that exists within the
HCRRA right-of-way under a 2007 easement agreement between HCRRA and the City. Gaffron noted
the area of the traveled road is not included in the hardcover calculations.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 1 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 31
The majority of the subject property is unbuildable since all but the rear 26-40 feet is located within 75
feet of the OHWL. This creates a practical difficulty for redevelopment of this property. Gaffron noted
that a number of the lots in this area are actually smaller than this lot. However, the applicants do have
the right to replace the existing residence in-kind if they choose to do so. From a footprint perspective,
the existing house and proposed house are nearly identical at around 1,400 square feet. The proposed
house will be two full stories rather than the existing 1-1/2 story structure. While the applicants’ proposal
will not increase hardcover, it will increase the visual bulk and massing as compared to the existing home.
The proposed low-pitch roof will help to keep the new house from visually towering over the neighbor to
the west.
In terms of the conditional use permit analysis for the grading, Staff looked at 15 elements. The proposed
retaining walls and grading improvements are residential in nature and are compliant with the zoning
code. The criteria in 6, 7, and 8 asks whether the proposed improvements are appropriate and in character
with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes the proposed new residence located partially within
the 75-foot setback area will have little impact on the surrounding lands. Drainage patterns for runoff
leaving the site will be altered with the intent to significantly improve them.
Gaffron displayed an overhead showing the drainage around the back of the house. The applicants have
noted that the driveway as you head west along the trail is heading downwards and experiences runoff
from the trail as well as the shared driveway system. Part of the proposed new home construction
includes raising the elevation of the garage approximately one foot to alleviate the drainage issue. The
drainage will be diverted down the west lot line so no drainage will be added to the house to the west.
Item No. 12 of the conditional use permit criteria requires that the grading activity and its results will not
cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets or parking needs that cause a demonstrable
inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access. While the proposed grading is
not excessive and will not be time-consuming, a neighboring property owner has indicated that access of
construction equipment and vehicles from the rear easement driveway area has the potential to disrupt the
condition and functionality of that driveway for other users. The applicants and their contractors will
need to be vigilant in ensuring construction activity does not impair other driveway and Crystal Bay Road
users and that any damage is repaired.
Item No. 13 requires that the grading be designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic
features of the area and to minimize environmental impact. The proposed grading on this lot is minimal
and will have few, if any, environmental impacts.
The applicants have indicated they plan to relocate a small 5’ x 9’ shed onto the property that is partially
on the HCRRA right-of-way. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission have the applicants discuss
the use of that shed. There has also been some discussion as to whether the existing decorative and
functional retaining walls adjacent to Crystal Bay Road should be removed. Staff’s conclusion is that
these walls likely provide some measure of stability to the slope and their removal might cause erosion
problems.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed area, width, setback and hardcover variances for construction
of a new home on the site on the basis that hardcover will be made conforming and the encroachment of
the HCRRA right-of-way will be eliminated and the easterly substandard setback will be made
conforming. The setback from the lake and from the street will be reduced in order for this to occur. The
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 2 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 31
proposed residence will not be out of character with other homes in the neighborhood. Gaffron noted the
proposed garage will be approximately one foot higher to alleviate the drainage concerns.
Staff also recommends approval of a conditional use permit and variance for grading/excavation/fill
within the 0-75 foot zone subject to a final grading and drainage plan that addresses any concerns of the
City Engineer regarding slope stability and retaining wall design; subject to adherence to the City’s
erosion control regulations as well as the permitting requirements of the MCWD. Timely re-vegetation
and stabilization will be a requirement of the permitting process.
The applicants will also be required to take all necessary precautions to ensure that the mature oak and
ash trees within the 0-75 foot setback zone are not affected by construction. In addition, the applicants
should be aware of street and shared driveway parking and access limitations during the construction
process. Gaffron stated approval should be subject to all recommendations of the Consulting City
Engineer.
Leskinen asked if the shed is included in the hardcover and structural calculations.
Gaffron stated to his knowledge it is.
Leskinen asked if the removal of the underground garage will result in an open parking area to the depth
of what the current garage is.
Gaffron stated to his understanding the applicants will be removing approximately half of the
underground garage area, which extends close to 20 feet, and put a retaining wall with fill in that area.
McGrann asked if that will result in a reduction in hardcover.
Gaffron stated there is always a question of whether the portion of the garage located underground should
be considered hardcover. The proposed driveway consists of 32 square feet and the parking area is 279
square feet, which equates to approximately 15’ x 20’. Gaffron stated in the proposed hardcover
calculations, the applicants are excluding the portion of the garage that will be filled in.
Thiesse asked if the intent is to remove the whole front garage and build new retaining walls.
Gaffron stated it appears the side walls are intended to remain and the proposed wall is depicted by the
dashed lines on the overhead.
Thiesse stated the applicant should take into consideration that when the top deck of the garage is
removed, a retaining wall will likely be needed.
Gaffron stated once you change the nature of that area, there will be approximately a 10-foot drop and
will likely require some type of railing for safety reasons.
Leskinen asked if the ability to rebuild in-kind includes accessory structures.
Gaffron indicated it does.
Lemke asked if the underground garage is included in the hardcover calculations.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 3 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 31
Gaffron stated to his knowledge it is.
Angela Ciliberto, Applicant, stated the detached underground garage is included in the existing hardcover
and is listed as Item No. G. As it relates to the shed, the garage will be made bigger, but with two people
living in the house, additional garage space is needed. Ciliberto indicated the shed is utilized for storage
of lawn and dock equipment currently. Ciliberto stated they are eliminating the underground garage
which they have been using to store some of those items and that they would prefer to keep the shed.
As it relates to the trees, there is one larger oak tree on the right-hand side that pinches up against where
the proposed house will be. Ciliberto stated they have concerns about the root system being damaged
during the construction process. Ciliberto indicated they would like to retain the tree, but that they are
aware that it is a mature tree and that damage of the root system could be an issue.
Gaffron pointed out the oak tree on the overhead.
Ciliberto indicated the ash tree on the other side is in great shape.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m.
Mark Geer, 3215 Crystal Bay Road, stated he is here tonight representing himself and William Wolfe,
who submitted a letter to the City. Geer stated he is in support of Mr. Wolfe’s comments.
Geer noted the road, especially in the spring, takes a lot of abuse from trucks and that the applicants
should be cognizant of not damaging the roadway. Geer noted the homeowners currently maintain the
road and that it would be helpful if the City takes steps to ensure that the road is repaired if it should be
damaged during the construction process.
Mark Zagaria, 3295 Crystal Bay Road, stated in his view the plan is a good improvement and that some
setback issues will be resolved by relocating the house. Zagaria stated in his opinion the construction
activities can be managed and that he is in support of the project.
Richard Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, stated as it relates to the character of David Schmid, he is a
person who drives slow through the neighborhood and is helpful to his neighbors. Anderson stated when
the trail went in, a culvert was put in there and for years all the water has run onto the subject property.
Anderson indicated Mr. Schmid never complained about that and has been a wonderful neighbor.
Anderson stated in his view this will be a nice addition to the neighborhood.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
Leskinen stated in her view the proposed location of the house and removing the encroachments to the
trail are good, but that she does have concerns about whether the shed is necessary as well as whether the
applicants should retain the underground garage rather than retaining the shed.
Lemke stated he is concerned about the area acting as a retaining wall and eventually collapsing. Lemke
stated from an aesthetic point of view, the railing would not look great.
Gaffron noted the proposed house is being pushed forward by approximately ten feet and may be close to
touching the new structure. Gaffron stated he does not know whether that is an issue but that the City
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 4 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 31
typically requires a 10-foot separation between structures Gaffron indicated the retaining walls will be at
least four feet high but that the retaining wall near the east property line could be as high as nine feet high
and possibly need to be engineered. Gaffron stated if the roof system and back wall are supporting that
side wall, it will require some support since the applicants will be removing three to six feet of the roof
support structure.
McGrann asked if the underground structure is kept, whether there will be foundation issues with the new
structure or what the exact concern is.
Gaffron indicated he does not have the answer to whether there are risks to having the two structures
close together, but that from a code standpoint it typically requires a 10-foot setback.
Leskinen asked if Staff suggested the underground garage removal or whether it was in the applicants’
original proposal.
Curtis indicated she initially met with David Schmid and that it was a discussion point raised by Staff as it
relates to hardcover. Curtis indicated Staff was not aware of the close proximity of the two structures
during that initial discussion. Curtis stated Staff felt that retaining a portion of the driveway with a
parking spot would be beneficial.
Leskinen asked even though the underground garage is covered by dirt, whether it would be considered
hardcover.
Gaffron stated it is included in the hardcover numbers.
Leskinen asked if there is even a semi-conforming location for the shed.
Gaffron stated it would have to be located ten feet off the side and rear lot lines, which would then place it
within the swale or up against the house if the oak tree is retained.
Thiesse stated a 22’ x 22’ garage is not very large and that storage space is likely needed.
Gaffron stated an option may be to widen the garage and eliminate the shed.
Leskinen stated her concern is removal of the underground garage since it seems to create other issues.
McGrann stated the new structure will appear to add more hardcover than the underground garage did.
McGrann indicated he would prefer to have them retain the underground garage and eliminate the shed
but that he is not opposed to making the new garage larger.
Gaffron asked what the condition of the underground garage is.
Ciliberto sated the underground garage is partially in the ground and partially above ground. Ciliberto
stated she believes the wall closest to the stairs is cracked and will have to be replaced or repaired.
McGrann asked if they would prefer to keep the underground structure.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 5 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 31
Ciliberto stated in her view it would look better without the underground structure. Crystal Bay Road is
very narrow and has parking issues. Ciliberto stated an argument could also be made that retaining walls
do not look very nice but that in their view it might improve it slightly. Ciliberto stated they are willing
to go either way.
Landgraver commented the Planning Commission may be attempting to redesign the proposal too much
and that perhaps they should focus on what is being proposed. Landgraver stated he would like to make
sure the retaining wall is engineered appropriately. Landgraver stated in his view the lot is a hardship lot
and the shed should be permitted.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is okay with the proposed new residence.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the proposed residence and setbacks are fine.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission should recommend an escrow as it relates to the maintenance
of the shared driveway and roadway or how that is typically handled.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission’s motion should include a recommendation that the shared
driveway and roadway be addressed. Gaffron stated the City does have some oversight of that road.
Leskinen stated she is comfortable with the application except for the shed, but with the absence of the
underground garage, there is enough of a practical difficulty to justify the shed given the proposed size of
the new garage. Leskinen stated the removal of the underground garage will improve the parking
situation on Crystal Bay Road.
Schwingler stated his biggest concern was Item No. 12, but noted that other construction work has been
completed in that neighborhood and they have worked around that.
Leskinen concurred the Planning Commission should consider a recommendation in their motion relating
to the roadway.
Schwingler stated in his view the biggest obstacle to construction traffic is the roadway.
Thiesse commented it would be difficult for the City to regulate construction traffic.
Schoenzeit stated care for the road during construction should be included in the motion.
Gaffron stated a pre-inspection of the roadway could be conducted as well as a post-construction
inspection.
Leskinen asked if there are any other hardcover items that could be eliminated other than the shed.
Gaffron stated since the location of the shed is unknown at this point, that should be determined prior to
the application going to the City Council since a variance for the shed will likely be required.
Leskinen asked whether that would require a separate application or whether it can be included in this
application.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 6 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 31
Gaffron indicated he would prefer to not have a separate application for the shed.
Thiesse commented expanding the garage by two feet would make it a more standard garage and would
be about equal to the square footage of the shed.
Schoenzeit noted only approximately 25 percent of the shed is located on the property currently.
Gaffron noted the rest of the shed is not counted towards the hardcover number.
Schoenzeit stated he would like to see a new application with regard to the shed, which would encourage
the applicant to perhaps think about moving the square feet of the shed to the garage.
Leskinen stated the motion could include either moving the shed to a conforming location or adding the
square footage of the shed to the proposed garage and eliminating the shed.
Ciliberto stated currently the shed is located on the railroad property and that they would not be opposed
to adding that hardcover on to the proposed garage rather than submit a separate application for the shed.
Ciliberto indicated they were attempting to relocate the shed off of the Railroad Authority’s property.
Gaffron noted they are allowed 1,500 square feet of structural coverage. Gaffron indicated they could add
another 45 square feet and still be below the 1,500 square feet, which is the standard for this size lot.
Thiesse stated the extra square feet will not make the house out of character with the neighborhood.
Thiesse stated the intent of the ordinance is to reduce hardcover and elimination of the shed is a more
practical way to accomplish that.
Lemke asked if there is a particular side of the garage that should be expanded given the setbacks.
Gaffron stated if two feet is added at the north end of the garage, the structure will be approximately eight
and a half feet from the lot line.
Leskinen stated the applicants could be given the option of locating the shed in a conforming location or
adding the square feet to the garage.
Schwingler asked if the Planning Commission would need to see the application again.
Gaffron stated if it requires a setback variance, the Planning Commission should address that tonight or
the application should come back to the Planning Commission. Gaffron indicated it will not meet the 10-
foot setback on the east side but the garage will be conforming for the most part.
Leskinen asked if the only conforming location for the shed would be within the swale.
Gaffron indicated it is.
Landgraver stated in his view the increase in garage space should be allowed and that the Planning
Commission should recognize that the applicant may need to come back with a request for a variance if
they decide to relocate the shed.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 7 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 31
Leskinen stated she does not believe it would increase the hardcover if the shed is removed.
Schoenzeit stated the walls of the garage do not have to be made square.
Leskinen stated she would like to have a motion covering all the issues to avoid the applicant having to
come back but that the issue of the shed needs to be addressed. Leskinen stated the applicant can either
put the shed in a conforming location or increase the size of the garage. Leskinen stated she is not sure
whether the application would need to come back if the applicants can redesign it in such a way that it
will be conforming.
McGrann asked if the Planning Commission can approve a variance on the east side without notifying the
public.
Gaffron stated technically the Planning Commission should not approve it without providing notice.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission could approve adding the space if it meets the setback but if
it encroaches, the application should come back to the Planning Commission.
Schoenzeit moved to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3664, David Schmid and Angela
Ciliberto, 3309 Crystal Bay Road, granting of a conditional use permit; granting of lot area and
width variances; granting of a hardcover variance; granting of lake setback and rear setback
variances, subject to Staff’s and the City Engineer’s recommendations, with the applicant being
given the option to either relocate the shed in a conforming location or to add the equivalent
amount of square footage on to the house or garage in a conforming location, with the
understanding the application will need to come back before the Planning Commission if the
additional square footage is not in a conforming location; and subject to City Staff conducting a
pre-inspection and post-inspection of the roadway.
Landgraver suggested Staff’s recommendation that all necessary precautions are taken to ensure that the
mature oak is not impacted by the construction be amended to say all reasonable precautions. Landgraver
stated in his view that is a fairly restrictive condition given the fact that it is a large oak tree, the new
house is being moved forward, and the old house is being removed.
Thiesse asked if the tree is outside the 0-75 foot zone.
Gaffron indicated it is within the 0-75-foot zone. Gaffron stated the applicants could be required to
replant if the oak tree is removed or dies as a result of the construction.
Landgraver concurred with that recommendation.
Schoenzeit amended his motion, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No.
14-3664, David Schmid and Angela Ciliberto, 3309 Crystal Bay Road, granting of a conditional use
permit; granting of lot area and width variances; granting of a hardcover variance; granting of
lake setback and rear setback variances, subject to Staff’s and the City Engineer’s
recommendations, with the applicant being given the option to either relocate the shed in a
conforming location or to add the equivalent amount of square footage on to the house or garage in
a conforming location, with the understanding the application will need to come back before the
Planning Commission if the additional square footage is not in a conforming location; and subject
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 8 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 31
to City Staff conducting a pre-inspection and post-inspection of the roadway. The applicant will
also be required to take all reasonable precautions to ensure that the mature oak and ash trees
within the 0-75-foot setback zone are not affected by construction, and in the event the trees are
either removed or die as a result of the construction, the applicants will be required to plant a
replacement tree.
Leskinen asked if the applicant is clear on what the motion is with respect to the shed and the garage.
Ciliberto indicated she understands the motion. Ciliberto asked if she could leave the shed where it is.
Leskinen indicated it would need to be moved to a conforming location or removed.
Ciliberto stated they would like the shed be conforming; but if it is not, they would likely go forward
without it.
Thiesse asked if any additional engineering information should be submitted regarding the retaining
walls.
Leskinen noted that was covered under the City Engineer’s comments.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
3. #14-3665 GLADYS McCLENDON ON BEHALF OF ORONO WOODLANDS, INC., 2100
SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, VARIANCE, 7:28 P.M. – 7:31 P.M.
Gladys McClendon, Applicant, was present.
Leskinen noted this application is pretty straight forward and asked whether the Planning Commission
would like to hear Staff’s report.
Landgraver stated this is a very reasonable application and that Staff’s recommendations are appropriate.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to forego Staff’s formal report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m.
Mark Wolf, 2670 Kelley Parkway, stated he is supportive of Orono Woodlands and that he would support
this application.
Gladys McClendon, Applicant, stated she is the Administrator at Orono Woodlands and that her goal is to
construct an attached garage for the residents for safety reasons. McClendon stated the residents currently
have to walk outside to access the garage and in the winter there are snow and ice concerns. McClendon
stated she represents six clients who are in need of this attached garage.
Debra Bowerman, Business Manager of Orono Woodlands, stated the garage is needed by the residents
for their safety. Bowerman noted that the area between the house and the garage will be an enclosed
breezeway and not an open breezeway.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 9 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 31
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Leskinen asked what the size of the proposed garage is.
Curtis indicated with the breezeway it is 48 square feet and that the garage itself is 38 square feet.
Leskinen stated this is a straight forward application and that there is a practical difficulty given the
winters in Minnesota.
Landgraver moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3665,
Gladys McClendon on behalf of Orono Woodlands, Inc., 2100 Sixth Avenue North, granting of a
side yard setback variance to construct a garage and enclosed breezeway subject to Staff’s
recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
4. 14-3666 LUKE KUJAWA ON BEHALF OF EOF INVESTMENTS, LLC, 1440 AND 1442
SHORELINE DRIVE, REZONING, 7:32 P.M. – 8:44 P.M.
Luke Kujawa, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting rezoning of two parcels at 1440 and 1442 Shoreline from LR-
1A, single-family residential, to B-2 commercial business. Staff did advise the applicants early on in their
redevelopment process that a conceptual proposed site plan should be submitted in support of the
rezoning request. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should define what specific elements need to
be addressed on the overall site.
Because the two properties that are zoned residential are also guided in the Comprehensive Plan for
residential use, the applicant will technically need to do a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which is not
part of this application. Gaffron stated in his view the site plan is merely conceptual at this point and that
it is to generate some discussion for what would be appropriate uses for this site and the layout.
The applicants now own all properties that have been associated in one way or another with the marina.
On the marina site is an existing marina building and a parking lot next to it. The house at 1442 has been
there for a number of decades and at one point in time used to contain a smaller pizza place, which was
later converted into a bait shop. As early as the 1970s the City was looking at these two residential lots
for parking for the marina. At that time the properties were under single ownership and parking on the
two residential lots was approved by the City Council. In the 1980s, the City did a rezoning for the two
pieces of 1440 and 1442 east of County Road 15. Also rezoned to B-2 at that time was the small
lakeshore strip on Browns Bay east of 1432.
Gaffron stated in 1989 portions of the marina zoned B-2 were approved for a total reconstruction that
involved removal of all buildings and construction of the current main marina building at 1444 as well as
the gazebo east of County Road 15.
Currently the marina exists in nearly all respects as it was approved in 1989. It has gone through a
number of ownership changes, and for a time the residential properties were owned via a separate LLC
for the marina, all with one owner. At the present time all five parcels with ties to the marina use are
owned in common by EOF Investments, LLC, and the two southerly parcels that make up 1444 are in the
process of being combined per the recent approval conditions for the fuel storage facilities.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 10 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 31
Staff has the following concerns related to the site:
1. The location of facilities and operations on both sides of heavily traveled Shoreline Drive cause
vehicle access difficulties and forces pedestrians to cross either at an unmarked location or at a
crossing point that serves the adjacent marina well but is not as convenient for users of the
applicants’ facilities.
2. The geography of the site, being relatively narrow strips of land between CR15 and the lakeshore,
yielding limited site operational functionality and difficulty addressing the City’s environmental
standards, with little visual or actual separation between the flow of traffic and the marina
operations.
3. The history of commercial use of the site going back many decades, and the various approvals in
the 1970s and 1980s that attempted to provide a rational set of site and operational conditions that
would balance the concerns of safety; demand for use of the site to serve not only slip customers
but also boat repair and boat sales operations at various times; environmental protection; and a
respect for the residential neighbors.
4. The limits imposed by the current zoning on LMCD defined dock use areas, resulting in docks on
Tanager Lake that are nonconforming with LMCD codes.
5. Past zoning approvals that perhaps unreasonably inhibit the single-family residential use of the
1440 and 1442 properties by establishing their use for customer parking for the marina do not
allow for improvements that could be made to allow for more efficient site functionality and
management.
City Staff requested that the applicant provide a conceptual site plan for discussion as part of the rezoning
request. The basis for the rezoning is closely related to the dysfunctional aspects of the current residential
zoning, which has been mutated by the provisions allowing commercial parking but no other commercial
uses. Without strong site management practices, the current situation has the potential to be abused and
to require additional attention by City Staff. It is possible that many of the ongoing concerns regarding
activity and condition of this site can be alleviated by a complete redevelopment of the 1440 and 1442
parcels.
Staff believes the following aspects should be included in the redevelopment of the Tanager Lake portion
of the site:
1. Consolidation of vehicle access points to 1440-1442-1444 into one curb cut.
2. Combining the parking into one lot with adequate circulation to minimize backing movements,
especially with regard to vehicles with trailers.
3. Provision of substantial buffering to the adjacent resident property, which should include
separation by distance as well as by vegetative and/or other screening.
4. Provision of a green space landscape area between the lake and any hard surface areas. In the
past the City has strived for at least a 10-20 foot green buffer at the shoreline, with City Code
requiring a minimum of 10 feet for the B-2 zone.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 11 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 31
5. In conjunction with the green space noted above, installation of stormwater management systems
such as swales, rain gardens, et cetera, should be incorporated into the green spaces to allow for
filtration of runoff and sediment/debris containment.
6. Separation of parking from the traveled right-of-way of County Road 15, preferably with the
landscaping of some sort.
The site plan submitted by the applicant accomplishes some of the above goals but does not address
others. Site access is consolidated into one curb cut at the approximate location of the existing access
serving the main marina building. The internal circulation of the site allows for a continuous loop but the
parking stalls are substandard at 18’ x 9’ rather than the required 20’ x 9’. Gaffron noted this is likely due
to the fact that there is not sufficient room between County Road 15 and the lake to provide for standard
depth stalls while maintaining a 24-foot drivable corridor between opposing stalls as well as required
landscaping along County Road 15 and along the lakeshore.
Gaffron stated the proposed parking does meet the required 10-foot setback from the adjacent residential
property. Whether ten feet is sufficient to allow for adequate landscaping and screening to the adjacent
residential property is worthy of discussion.
As it relates to the rules of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the number of boat units allowed
for marinas has historically been based on shoreline length and the two residential zoned properties have
historically been included in the countable shoreline for the marina.
In addition, the southerly Tanager Lake dock system for this marina has extended outside the allowed
dock use area for a number of years based on extended lot lines. Both dock systems on Tanager are
currently non-compliant. Because 1440 and 1442 are zoned residential, LMCD rules require extra side
setbacks for slips that open toward residential property. The applicants have submitted a revised dock
proposal that would maintain a 56-foot setback to the zoning boundary if the rezoning occurs. The down
side to this is that it would potentially result in additional boat traffic in front of the residential property at
1432.
Gaffron stated the proposal does not meet the required 10-foot lakeshore landscaping requirement, which
in turn does not provide for the desired stormwater management facilities which potentially could be
parallel to the shoreline. The proposal does provide landscaping and separation between County Road 15
and the parking areas. The right-of-way for the 1440 and 1442 parcels is reduced, allowing for greater
separation between the road and parking.
The Planning Commission should review the request for rezoning, hold the public hearing and accept
public comments. The Planning Commission should consider whether acceptance and adherence to the
conceptual site plan is critical to a rezoning decision and the expected, potential, and unanticipated
impacts of rezoning in attempting to reach a recommendation to the City Council.
Schoenzeit asked if the rezoning could be joined with possible improvements on the marina site.
Gaffron stated he had a discussion with the City Attorney as to whether a rezoning is possible and he
indicated it is something the City generally should not do. The City Attorney did state that at the time the
City is looking at a site plan, a rezoning, and a comprehensive plan amendment, one of the options is to
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 12 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 31
do those as a single review process. Another option is to create a transition commercial district that
establishes a certain set of conditions or standards that are different than the B-2 District.
Schoenzeit stated he would strongly be in favor of any recommendation that combines other aspects of
site redevelopment rather than simply rezoning.
Leskinen asked if the sub-district could be accomplished with this application.
Gaffron stated it would be a separate process. Gaffron noted the rezoning process will not occur
immediately and that the LMCD issues also need to be resolved. Gaffron stated in his view it is a bigger
process than what was initially anticipated and would need to go through a number of different elements.
Leskinen asked if a sub-district would affect any other property unless it was rezoned the same.
Gaffron indicated that is correct.
Landgraver asked if these parcels are rezoned and a sub-district is not created and simply rezoned to B-2,
if the activities currently allowed in a B-2 District would be allowed.
Gaffron stated the uses allowed in the B-2 District include rental of boat slips, sales of boats, motors,
trailers and marina accessories, repair and servicing of boats, on-land storage of boats, winter and
summer, marine fuel sales, and bait and fishing tackle sales. Conditional uses include boat clubs, public
boat launching on demand launching of customer-owned boats stored on the business site, public boat
launching-transient boating, charter boat port-of-call, and a caretaker dwelling unit. Gaffron stated the
City has had a couple of marinas that have had a caretaker dwelling unit.
Schoenzeit asked if out of water boat storage would fall into the B-2 District.
Gaffron stated on-land storage of boats is allowed during the summer and winter and could be dry-
stacking of boats.
Schoenzeit asked if there is a height restriction on dry stacking.
Gaffron stated to his knowledge there is a 30-foot limit.
Schoenzeit commented that might be one of the unintended consequences of the rezoning. Schoenzeit
stated dry stacking of boats might be acceptable at most marinas but not one that is located next to a
residential house.
Thiesse asked if the City allows a smaller angle for one-way traffic circulation as it relates to the parking
lot dimensions.
Gaffron stated there is nothing in the Code, but if there is angle parking, it can be reduced somewhat if it
is a one-way situation.
Thiesse stated he would prefer one-way traffic.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 13 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 31
Schwingler stated when he drove by the site yesterday around 4:00, it was fairly crowded. Schwingler
asked what other unintended consequences there might be.
Gaffron stated a lot of it has to do with what is currently allowed in the B-2 District. Gaffron indicated he
does have a concern that with the additional hardcover there will be some negative environmental and
visual impacts. The current proposal does not include any interior trees or vegetation that would break up
the parking area. The site currently has a parking area that is approximately half a football field.
Gaffron stated as it relates to the neighbor, there could be additional noise and glare from headlights.
Gaffron stated in the winter the site likely will be quieter, but in the summer there will be cars coming in
early in the morning and leaving later in the evening as well as boat storage during the winter. Gaffron
stated without screening, those items could have a greater impact. Gaffron stated in his view those are
some of the unintended consequences that need to be considered.
Luke Kujawa, Applicant, stated four years ago they started their operations and it was made clear at the
beginning by Staff that this is an extremely complicated site. Some of the issues raised right from the
start were multiple ownership of sites that were considered, for practical purposes, as one site in
determining the amount of shoreline, the number of allowable dock slips, and parking. Staff had
indicated it is very rare to have lots that were zoned residential on one part of the lot and commercial on
the other portion and they would like to get that cleaned up as much as possible.
Kujawa indicated since beginning operations at the site, they have been working through the various
issues on the site. The first issue was obtaining a conditional use permit for operation of the boat club.
Your Boat Club has operated out of there for three years now. Other issues were looking at common
ownership of all of the sites and the fueling situation, which has been resolved. Kujawa stated they are
now looking at issues dealing with the multiple access points to the road and the zoning issues.
Kujawa stated having these two lots zoned residential does not make sense since they are considered
commercial by the LMCD and the City as well as by the previous owners. The residential lots have
commercial on one side with an easement by the marina to utilize the property, there is a permanent
easement on the other side, and a sanctioned permanent lease to allow commercial parking in the middle.
Kujawa stated there really is no way to clean up the blighted property unless it is rezoned. Kujawa noted
the properties have already been used for commercial and the empty house was used as some type of club
house at one point and does not appear to have been used as a normal residential house.
Kujawa noted the rezoning will increase his taxes substantially but that the rezoning makes sense
functionally for the site. The site has been considered commercial for approximately fifty years and that
they are probably the first owners of the property that are attempting to deal with some of these issues.
Kujawa stated their site plan attempts to meet the requirements of the City as much as possible, including
eliminating one of the access points to the county road. The site also contains a boat dealership and a
marina, which means there will be trucks and trailers pulling in. Kujawa stated at times they pull into the
residential lots since that is the biggest lot to turn around but that their plan would solve that.
Kujawa stated in response to the comment that the area was quite busy, it should be noted that there is
currently undergoing construction on part of the site, which has contributed to the congestion.
Kujawa stated approximately seven days after the closing they were made aware that the dock was out of
compliance and that they were told it needed to be corrected immediately even though the situation has
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 14 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 31
existed for approximately 30 years. Kujawa stated he was also made aware that the neighbors have
known about that for quite some time.
McGrann asked what the applicant’s thoughts are regarding the number of parking stalls and if the
requirement is 72 parking stalls.
Gaffron stated the requirement is 72 and that there is a potential for 85 parking stalls if the triangle area
across the road is included in the calculation.
McGrann asked if there is any flexibility on the number of parking stalls.
Kujawa stated he is open to looking at that and that one of the main issues raised over the last four years
is the availability of parking. Kujawa stated the current retail boat dealer is doing more business than
other dealers on the sit in the past and that they are attempting to maximize the parking. Kujawa stated
they have an opportunity with this application to add parking in excess of what the City Code requires
and that in his view maximizing the parking makes the most sense.
Kujawa noted they will also be removing two income generating houses but that in their view it is best for
the overall functionality of the site. Kujawa stated due to the commercial easement on both sides and
commercial parking all around it, it would be very difficult to rent the house given the current situation.
Lemke asked what type of surface the parking lot would have.
Kujawa stated the majority of the marina parking lots in the area are gravel but that they will be looking at
asphalt at some point. Kujawa stated they do have to take the costs into account at this point since they
did just purchase the properties. Kujawa stated he did speak about the different pervious surfaces that
would be allowed with the Watershed District and the LMCD.
Kujawa noted currently behind the houses there are parking spots right up to the lot line, which has
basically been sanctioned by the lease, and that will all be moved back under this proposal. Kujawa
stated he understands the concerns of the residential homeowner next to a commercial site.
Lemke asked what he envisions for winter use of the site.
Kujawa stated he envisions storage of boats during the winter as is currently occurring and that it is fairly
normal for marinas to have boat storage. Kujawa noted boat storage is not their core business but that
they have made a substantial investment in the property and that they will be looking at ways to recoup
some of their costs.
Landgraver noted there were six items listed by Staff that the site plan should address, and asked what
steps will be done relating to stormwater management. Landgraver asked if additional information will
be forthcoming on those items.
Kujawa indicated they will be providing additional information and that the Watershed District has best
management practices relating to the fuel that they will be incorporating into their business. Kujawa
noted they would have to comply with the Watershed District and the LMCD’s recommendations and
requirements for the site.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 15 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 31
Schoenzeit asked what the rough anticipation of the time frame is for implementation of their overall site
plan.
Kujawa stated he is not sure at this point since he does not know how long this process will take. Kujawa
noted they currently have a tenant in one of the houses, which will need to run out, and that it will likely
be a couple year process to implement the plan.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m.
Leesa Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, noted she and her husband owned this marina previously.
Anderson stated the plan reminds her of someone who buys land for a golf course adjacent to a pig farm,
builds the golf course, and then wants the pig farm to go away after a while. Anderson stated this
property has always been this way and that the previous owner lived in one of the houses and the other
house was rented out. Anderson stated at the time they owned the marina, their marina manager lived in
one of the houses. Anderson stated up to eight years ago this site never had any kind of boat club or
storage.
Anderson stated the previous applicant before the Planning Commission tonight had to meet a number of
requirements. Anderson stated this site goes right up to the water and that they will be adding more
hardcover. As a resident and business owner of Orono, Anderson stated it does not make much sense.
The parking lot does not have enough room to back a car out and the site will be packed in the winter with
boats. The retail boat dealer will eventually have a showroom. Anderson stated if the City is okay with
that, this proposal will likely get approved, but that in her opinion the City does not have any idea what
will occur once it is rezoned commercial. Anderson noted the next door neighbor purchased his house
thinking the property next to his was residential property and that the expanded use is a lot for the area
and will greatly impact the neighbor.
Matt Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive, stated he lives next to the marina and that the plans for the property
have gone from bad to worse. Johnson stated as it relates to the history of the property, there has been a
repeating theme for the site. In 1976, the City said no commercial use on the Tanager side, automobile
parking only. In 1980, it was found that the expansion is an immediate threat to the public health and
safety of Orono and the site was to be used for overflow parking only. In 1983, the City said no ingress
or egress from the two residential sites should be added but now there is complete access. The City also
said no further encroachments, which has also not occurred.
Johnson stated in 1989, the City indicated there should be less intense use of the site. Johnson stated he
does not want there to be confusion between cleaning up the site and expansion of the use. Johnson stated
in order to support the number of docks, the retail space, and employee parking, the applicant needs 70
parking spots. The applicant’s proposal has 62 on the marina site, with 27 on the Browns Bay side, and
up to seven in the triangle area adds up to 95 stalls. Johnson stated that is expansion of the site.
Johnson noted prior to purchasing his property, he did the due diligence of contacting the City of Orono
to confirm that there was a residential buffer between his house and the marina, and it was confirmed that
there was. Johnson stated instead of that area acting as simply overflow parking, boats are still being
parked on there every day. Johnson indicated there has been a boat parked on the grass for the last week,
which is not overflow parking but rather taking advantage of the situation. Johnson stated he is the
residential neighbor who has to put up with it.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 16 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 31
Johnson stated when he was approached by the applicant with the plan, his immediate response was that it
will be ten feet from the property line, which is the code minimum, and is not showing consideration for
the neighbor. Johnson stated there is some potential to put some screening in but that it is not included in
the applicant’s plan.
Johnson stated he can appreciate the fact the City would like to come up with a long-term solution and
that he would suggest that one of the lots serve as a buffer. Johnson stated he is willing to have that
discussion even if it not in his best interests. Johnson noted the applicant said no to his suggestion since it
would not give him his expanded parking.
Johnson stated there is a history of this site having numerous issues and there is also a history of people
from the City saying that they will not allow expansion of the site and that it should remain residential.
Johnson stated if this property is included in the commercial district without stringent controls, it will be
necessary for him to be before the City Council all the time. Johnson stated the proposal is not close to
meeting the requirements for approval and that the applicant should resolve the outstanding issues before
this application proceeds forward to the City Council. Johnson indicated he is attempting to protect the
value of his home and that any changes to the site should be done at a world-class level. Johnson
reiterated that he does not believe the City is anywhere close to being in a position to approve the
application.
Schoenzeit asked when he purchased his house.
Johnson indicated in 2012.
Schoenzeit asked if the docks on Tanager Bay were there when he purchased the property.
Johnson stated they were. Johnson stated the applicant is talking about moving the docks closer to his
house and that all the boats going to those docks will come right by his house into the slips. Johnson
stated the closer the docks are to his house, the more it will directly impact him.
Schoenzeit asked if there are more than two docks in that area currently.
Johnson indicated there are two.
Gaffron displayed an aerial photograph of the area.
Schoenzeit noted there is another dock that belongs to another marina.
Johnson stated his line of sight is not that impacted at the present time but that the relocation of the docks
will directly impact their line of sight, not to mention the increase in the number of boats and vehicles.
Michael Gelish, EOF Investments, indicated they are interested in making the property the best for
everyone involved. Gelish stated he can identify with what Mr. Johnson said but that he did purchase a
home next to a commercial marina that was in operation. Gelish indicated he would love to work with
Mr. Johnson to figure out a way to make it work for everybody but that Mr. Johnson will not work with
them and that he is basically against doing anything with the site.
Gelish stated the other thing that is important to note is the City has a vested interest in getting the
property cleaned up since part of it is zoned residential and part is zoned commercial along with
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 17 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 18 of 31
easements to allow the parking. Gelish stated this is their opportunity to come up with a plan that the City
and the neighbors will like. Gelish stated other marina owners will generally be against this proposal but
that they willing to improve the property for the City, the neighbors, and the public.
Richard Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, stated he owns the marina located next to this marina and that
in his view the dock layout is not legal. Anderson stated as it relates to the club house, that was owned by
Jim Rivers and the City shut him down because he was attempting to make a club house on residential
property. Anderson indicated the gazebo was probably built as the club house for the marina. Anderson
stated the gazebo was not originally intended for commercial activity and was not always used for
commercial activity because it was shut down since it was located on residential property.
Anderson noted at the previous Planning Commission meeting regarding Your Boat Club, one of the
commissioners recused their self from the discussion, but they have not recused their self from tonight’s
discussion. Anderson stated Orono is a member of the League of Cities and they say that city officials
who have conflicts of interest, in contractual and non-contractual situations, should consult the City
Attorney; disclose their interests as soon as possible, orally or in writing; not attempt to influence others;
and when possible, leave the room when the governing body is discussing the matter and refrain from
voting.
McGrann indicated he will be recusing himself from voting and that he would be glad to leave the room if
Mr. Anderson would like.
Anderson stated the chair should decide.
Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has not had any discussion yet and that they are still in the
public hearing part of the application. Leskinen stated as a member of the public, Mr. McGrann could
stay in the room if he so chooses.
(Mr. McGrann recuses himself from the application)
Anderson noted the site consists of 1.08 acres between all four parcels. On that parcel there was the
largest Yamaha retail boat dealer in the country last year, 98 boat slips, and 20 boat club members.
Anderson stated he owns three acres across the street and has 114 slips. Anderson indicated he is
required to have controlled parking at that site. Anderson indicated he also owns four acres of land in
Maxwell Bay and that he has to regulate parking there for 75 boat slips in the water and 30 racks.
Anderson stated the applicant is putting that amount of volume onto one acre of land.
Anderson stated as it relates to Mr. Johnson’s comments, his personal opinion is that the compromise
should be that one of the residential properties remains as residential. The other option the City would
have would be to issue a conditional use permit and then see how it works out.
Anderson stated the applicant also told the Planning Commission that there would be no obstruction of
parking when the gas pump was put in. Anderson stated the vent pipe is located right in the middle of the
parking lot.
Anderson stated given the amount of activity that they are proposing for one acre of land, it would be an
abuse if it is allowed to go through.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 18 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 19 of 31
John Wooden, River Valley Power & Sport, stated the only point he would like to make is that the City of
Orono has been very receptive to his dealership and that he has been able to work with Staff to make their
boat dealership work on a small piece of property. Wooden stated they have been working with the boat
club, and with the implementation of managed parking, there were very few complaints about the parking
or the operation of the businesses last year.
Wooden stated in terms of the volume and the complexity of his business, he does sell a number of boats
at three other locations. Wooden indicated ninety percent of the sales come out of Red Wing and
Rochester and that the Orono location is retail only. Wooden stated this site is very important to him and
has been well received.
Schoenzeit asked if the dock is compliant.
Greg Nybeck, Executive Director of the LMCD, stated approximately one year ago prior to the boating
season it was brought to the LMCD’s attention that the south dock may not be in compliance. The
approved variance from 1985 defined the dock use area from the south of the property where the building
is to the north side of the parking lot dock on 1444. It was communicated to the applicant that as part of
the LMCD’s dock inspection, the LMCD would go out and check to see whether it did comply. Nybeck
stated the dock on the south side is supposed to parallel the dock by the parking lot, and that he is
guessing that what probably happened at some point is that the dock may have been put in at the correct
location but the inner slips were having problems with access and so it reverted back to a different
location so the boats could access on the other side.
Nybeck stated once it became known that the dock was out of compliance, one of the challenges the
LMCD faced was how to communicate that to the owner of the property. Nybeck stated at that time the
bank owned the property. Once EOF purchased the property, it was brought to their attention after they
closed on the property. Nybeck stated the LMCD is attempting to set some guidelines to get the dock into
conformity with LMCD’s code.
Nybeck stated he is not here advocating for approval of the rezoning since the rezoning is an issue the
City will need to decide based on their planning process. Nybeck indicated the two south properties that
are currently zoned commercial will have the ability to redo the dock within that area. Nybeck stated he
was hopeful going into this year’s boating season that this issue would be resolved but the LMCD is not
at that point. Nybeck indicated the current property owner is willing to resolve the issue and the LMCD
Board wants to work with all parties to come up with a reasonable solution. Nybeck noted the LMCD has
not issued a multiple dock license for the 2014 boating season for the property on Tanager Lake.
Schoenzeit asked if the proposed dock is in compliance.
Nybeck stated with regard to the dock use area, if it were expanded to the two rezoned properties, because
those slips on the current site plan are 20 feet opening to the south, LMCD code says they would need to
be equal to the depth of the slip. Nybeck stated since it is abutting a multiple dock, it has a single side
setback requirement. To the north with the 28-foot long slips opening, because that is a multiple abutting
a non-multiple, the code requires a doubling of the side setback. Nybeck stated if there is 55 feet between
those slips, there may be some compromise on that in order to bring the north dock further to the south.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 19 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 20 of 31
Nybeck stated there actually is an ordinance that was adopted by the LMCD last month for qualified
commercial marinas. Nybeck stated it appears that the applicants could qualify for that if they apply for it
in the near future but that the LMCD is waiting for the City to work through this process.
Nybeck stated one of the requests of Staff was to go through the rezoning process. Nybeck stated it is his
belief that the dock at the left side is out approximately 130 feet and the dock to the north is out 160 feet.
Prior to the adoption of the ordinance, docks could only go out 100 feet in a legal manner, but because
those sites were in existence and variances were approved back in 1985, they can be extended beyond the
100 feet. Nybeck stated he is hopeful as part of the process that it can be resolved in the near future.
Nybeck indicated the LMCD will also hold a public hearing on this issue once an application is received
and that he is hopeful by winter this will be resolved.
Lemke asked if the top 55 or 56 feet is in compliance.
Nyberg indicated it is and that they are 28-foot long slips opening to the north. Nyberg indicated the
LMCD has had meetings with City Staff on a docking plan as part of the rezoning request since it will
have implications for the property. Nyberg stated the first plan did not meet the double setback to the
north and adjustments were subsequently made.
Leesa Anderson stated the marina owners on Lake Minnetonka work very well together and that no one is
out to get the next guy. Anderson stated everyone would like to see them be successful but that they have
to do it in a respectful manner. Anderson stated in her view it feels like the applicants bought it as it is
but then they put in gas and additional parking. Anderson stated she is not sure what else will be
approved for the property and that she feels for the residential neighbor. Anderson stated the City needs
to be aware of the implications in the future.
Rich Anderson stated when the 200-foot line was adopted for conforming commercial marinas, 80
percent of the dock slips were required to be available to the renting public. Anderson stated this marina
has 98 dock slips and 20 of them are for the boat club. In addition, this site likely has some boats for sale
in the water. Anderson stated he did bring that question to the LMCD and they are reviewing it.
Anderson stated in his view it will be 100 feet instead of what the applicant is proposing.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
Leskinen stated there is clearly a lot of passion about this issue and a lot of details that need to be
reviewed with this application.
McGrann stated he will recuse himself and that he would be happy to leave the room if Staff feels it is
appropriate.
Leskinen stated her understanding of what is appropriate is that he recuse himself from the dias, but that
since he is an Orono resident, he can remain in the room.
Landgraver stated fundamentally the application is a zoning request and that the City has expressed a
desire that there be a single ownership and management of these properties. Landgraver stated the City
needs to have an understanding of what the applicant’s end game is for the property. Landgraver noted
the Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the rezoning and not deciding
whether the dock will be allowed as proposed.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 20 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 21 of 31
Leskinen stated the Planning Commission should consider whether rezoning is appropriate and not get
caught up in the little details of the other issues.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is also being asked to consider a transitional zoning area for
the residential properties.
Schoenzeit stated the transitional zoning area would afford additional opportunities for the land and that
any future action should incorporate the details such that the zoning or other adjustments to the
Comprehensive Plan go hand-in-hand with all the expected improvements. Schoenzeit stated he would
recommend that the end game be identified as part of this process.
Lemke asked if this can be handled through a conditional use permit and not rezoning.
Gaffron stated technically it cannot be since there are specific things that are allowed on the residential
properties and specific things on the commercial properties. Gaffron stated he does not feel it is possible
to create a conditional use permit for these properties and that the Planning Commission is looking at a
rezoning.
Schwingler stated if you look at the history of the property, the site is always evolving. Schwingler stated
there are consequences to what happens and that those details are critical to a rezoning decision.
Schwingler stated the Planning Commission should look at all the components that need to be corrected
with the properties and that there are some advantages to the rezoning but that there are also unintended
consequences.
Lemke stated he has a concern with the buffer on the north end and pointed out that if six parking stalls
were removed, an additional 20 feet could be gained resulting in a 30-foot setback, which would help
protect the residential area.
Thiesse stated it is in the applicant’s best interests to have the properties rezoned but that the neighbor to
the north purchased residential property next to residential property, which is important. Thiesse stated
the plan is good start and that he commends the owners for working with the City over the past four years
but that there is a lot of work left to be done.
Leskinen concurred that it is just the beginning of the work, and asked whether the Planning Commission
should discuss all aspects of the rezoning request and whether the one residential property should be a
transitional property. Leskinen stated in her opinion it is in the best interests to rezone the properties and
that she likes the idea of a sub-district but that she would like to make sure the City looks at every part of
this.
Leskinen asked if it is practical to leave one property as residential and possibly have a blighted,
unoccupied property.
Gaffron stated he is in agreement that there is not enough buffer from the parking lot to the residential
property to the north. Gaffron stated whether it makes sense to just rezone 1442 and not 1444 is another
question. Gaffron noted there are parking agreements that would need to be redone and that he would
rather see both parcels zoned commercial of some sort. Gaffron stated it may make sense to create a sub-
district in order to place limitations on those properties.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 21 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 22 of 31
Leskinen asked if a sub-district would allow the City to incorporate some of the B-2 standards with
certain restrictions, such as greater setbacks.
Gaffron indicated it would and that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment would also accompany this.
Gaffron stated the two residential properties could be re-guided to allow certain commercial aspects and
not others.
Schoenzeit stated when the City looks at certain things in the City, whether it is hardcover or rezoning,
those are pretty consistent promises to the residents. Schoenzeit stated in his view this property was
clearly some type of hybrid and that it would be unreasonable for the resident to the north to consider it as
purely residential. Schoenzeit stated it would also be unreasonable to rezone it to purely commercial and
that in his opinion the solution needs to strongly respect the residential border.
Landgraver stated the rezoning cannot be done in a vacuum and that there needs to be some type of
hybrid. Landgraver stated the City should take this opportunity to put something in there that
accommodates both parties.
Schoenzeit stated the comment about how someone will line up to access the dock should also be taken
into consideration.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission were to recommend this for rezoning, even if it is sub-
district, whether the City has the authority to put any docking parameters in that zone.
Gaffron stated the City has for a number of decades taken the position that unless the LMCD is doing
something the City finds unacceptable, that they defer to the LMCD. Gaffron stated the City does not
have codes addressing the size of docks and other elements.
Leskinen asked if that also covers location of docks.
Gaffron indicated that has also been left to the LMCD. Gaffron stated there are resolutions going back a
number of decades that speak to that issue and that the City will assert whatever authority is necessary to
protect its jurisdiction.
Schoenzeit stated it is important that all parties have an active role in the creation of this hybrid district.
Thiesse asked if there is any benefit to a herringbone pattern to the docks to avoid the 90-degree angle.
Rich Anderson stated in his view 66 feet is sufficient room to turn into the docks.
Thiesse stated his biggest concern with the dock is boats coming in at 2 a.m.
Anderson commented the lake has gotten quieter over the years. Anderson stated the original drawing
that was submitted by Jim Rivers would not fit there and that in order to get the correct distance in
between, he came out over to the side. Anderson stated while he took steps to make sure he was
compliant on his property, his understanding is that Mr. Rivers obtained a special variance from the
LMCD but that it was illegal when it was first put in.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 22 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 23 of 31
Gaffron asked if over the years the type of boats that are docked at this marina have changed
significantly.
Anderson stated that is true. Anderson stated with the provision of a zero line setback, the boats cannot
overhang the dock.
Leskinen stated she is attempting to find common ground within the Planning Commission.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should consider the impacts of rezoning, and if the Planning
Commission finds it cannot make a firm recommendation to the City Council to either approve or deny
the application, they could direct Staff to consider standards for a sub-district.
Thiesse asked if a sub-district could consist of parking only.
Gaffron stated the district could be whatever the Planning Commission feels is appropriate. Gaffron
stated most cities will have some small districts or sub-districts dealing with one or two properties.
Thiesse asked what would happen if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to rezone the
properties commercial and a parking lot is created for the first five years and then later the applicant
wants to construct a building on the site.
Gaffron stated they would need to come in for a commercial site plan review and they would have to
comply with the appropriate standards. Gaffron stated there are some B-2 standards that the marinas do
not comply with, such as hardcover.
Thiesse stated if they construct a building on one of the sites, they would then be short of parking
elsewhere, which would be a reason to deny the application.
Schwingler stated the natural progression of the property has been to expand.
Leskinen stated she likes the idea of a sub-district with stronger standards than the B-2 District. Leskinen
stated she would like to know if anyone on the Planning Commission is vehemently opposed to rezoning
the two residential properties.
Thiesse stated in his view it is in the best interests of the City for it to become commercial but that there is
a lot of work yet to be done.
Lemke indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse.
Landgraver stated rezoning 1444 to commercial is a no-brainer but that the property at 1442 should have
some special consideration. Landgraver indicated he also has concerns about stormwater management
and that a very detailed plan needs to be submitted.
Leskinen stated if the Planning Commission is not interested in creating a transitional district, then some
of the issues being discussed will be different. Leskinen stated a transitional district in her view would
afford the Planning Commission additional leeway to impose strict conditions on the use of the property.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 23 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 24 of 31
Schoenzeit stated what is before the Planning Commission is incomplete at this point and that it appears
this is headed towards a transitional sub-district.
Schwingler stated the rezoning is in the best interests of the City since it will help clean up this site but
that the Planning Commission does need to closely look at the unintended consequences.
Leskinen stated the Planning Commission can either delve further into the details or direct Staff to look
into the creation of a sub-district and discuss that further at a work session.
Gaffron stated in his view it would make sense to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of a sub-
district at a work session. Gaffron stated if the City desires that a sub-district should be created, there
would be additional public hearings held.
Leskinen stated in her view that is the logical way to go and that the application should be tabled.
Schoenzeit moved, Lemke seconded, to table Application No. 14-3666, Luke Kujawa on behalf of
EOF Investments, LLC, 1440-1442 Shoreline Drive, and recommend that Staff investigate
development of a sub-district and to discuss it at a future Planning Commission work session.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
5. 14-3667 TAMMY MADDREY & STEVEN SABES, 3435 EASTLAKE STREET,
VARIANCES, 8:45 P.M. – 9:36 P.M.
Tammy Maddrey, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting rear/street, lake and side yard setback variance approvals in
order to construct a second story over the existing home 13.9 feet from the east side and 15.7 feet from
the west side lot lines where 30 feet setbacks are required. Also being requested is a setback 52 feet from
the OHWl where a 75-foot setback is required; and 19.8 feet from the street where a 50-foot setback is
required.
The existing residence has existed on the site for a number of years. The lot is very small, consisting of
approximately 4,975 square feet and 50 feet in width. The existing structure is a 20’ x 28’ one-story with
some attic space and no basement. Gaffron stated the second story would be consistent with a number of
other additions approved for home expansions on the south side of Eastlake Street in the past.
Because the lake OHWL contour extends a few hundred feet up the creek based on surveys on file, the
majority of the subject property is unbuildable as all but the front 25 feet is located within 75 feet of the
OHWL. This creates a practical difficulty for additional development of the property. The applicants do
have the right to replace the existing structures in-kind if they choose to do so but they are proposing to
add a second story.
The applicant’s submitted information correctly indicates that because the required side, front and
rear/lake setbacks overlap, the site has no functional buildable envelope. The only opportunity they have
for expansion without additional footprint encroachments would be above the existing structure. The
applicant’s proposal will not increase hardcover but it will increase the visual bulk and massing within the
substandard setbacks but not to the extent that it will be out of character with the neighborhood.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 24 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 25 of 31
Gaffron stated one of the concerns is that the foundation was originally constructed in 1981 and may not
support a second story. The applicant has been asked to provide certification from a structural engineer
that the foundation will support a second story but that information has yet to be submitted.
The applicant has indicated they have removed a small shed from the property and at this time do not plan
to remove the garage, patio, deck, or driveway. The garage, deck, and driveway appear to constitute legal
nonconforming hardcover and/or structure. In other similar situations, the City has encouraged the
owners to consider building tuck-under garages and removing the lengthy driveways and backyard
detached garages that are near the creek. In this case, the existing home is barely larger than a typical
tuck-under garage and the second story addition may be more appropriate than a total tear-down/rebuild
that likely would result in a larger footprint. Gaffron stated one of the issues involved in this situation is
that the survey indicates the neighboring home to the immediate west is encroaching on the applicants’
property by as much as 1.7 feet.
Gaffron noted the property owner across the road to the north has submitted comments in opposition to
the variances that is included in the Planning Commission’s packets. The neighbor has expressed
concerns regarding the house being too close to the power lines and the impacts a second story blocking
their lake view. Gaffron noted City Code does not protect the views of that neighbor.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed setback variances for addition of a second story on
the basis that hardcover and structural lot coverage will not increase, the second story will maintain the
existing first story setbacks, and the proposed addition will not be out of character with other homes in the
neighborhood.
Schoenzeit asked if this house has an average lakeshore setback.
Gaffron indicated it does and that it meets the average lakeshore setback. The detached garage does not
meet the average lakeshore setback.
Thiesse asked if it should be conforming.
Gaffron stated since it is existing, it is not an issue for consideration.
Schoenzeit stated the issue is whether the second story encroaches into the average lakeshore setback and
impacts the neighbors’ views, which it does not appear to do.
Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission discuss the issues for consideration outlined in Staff’s
report.
Gaffron stated any approval should be subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to Council review, the applicants shall provide a corrected survey showing the correct lot
dimensions and showing the accurately depicted average lakeshore setback line. The applicant
should also provide corrected hardcover calculations to confirm to Staff’s calculations.
2. The approval is based on the preliminary floor plans and elevation view submitted, which depict a
second-story home of approximately 26 feet in peak height. Gaffron noted the existing garage
floor is at the 931.5 floodplain elevation and the main floor of the house is at 933.5, which is two
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 25 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 26 of 31
feet above the OHWL. Gaffron stated as long as just a second story is being added, the
floodplain is a non-issue, but if they were to expand the house footprint, there will likely be
some filling of the floodplain that will need to be mitigated.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants shall provide certification from a structural
engineer that the foundation can support a second story or provide plans for a suitable foundation.
Leskinen asked whether the applicants would need to come back to the Planning Commission if the
foundation is not certified.
Gaffron stated they would not and that the Planning Commission should address what is being proposed
tonight.
Schoenzeit stated if the foundation needs to be rebuilt, it will likely result in the house being torn down.
Schoenzeit asked if the variances would apply to any new residence.
Gaffron stated if there are any changes to the plan, it would need to be a separate application and come
back before the Planning Commission unless they rebuild the house in-kind. Gaffron stated the Planning
Commission is only being asked to approve a second story above the existing house.
Schoenzeit stated the applicants will probably find that constructing a new residence will cost
significantly less than replacing the foundation and building a second story.
Tammara Maddrey, Applicant, stated she had nothing to add to Staff’s report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:28 p.m.
Amy Sullivan-Teele, 3515 Eastlake Street, asked for clarification regarding the 1912 survey indicating
that the property does not go across the creek.
Gaffron stated in 1912 the plat showed there was 100 feet of depth from Eastlake Street. Gaffron
indicated every survey for the last 50 years along Eastlake Street have shown the lots at 100 feet deep.
Based on that information, Gaffron stated in his view this current survey is incorrect since the legal
description talks about the west X feet of the east X feet of Lot 1 from the original plat. Gaffron noted
Lot 1 did not extend past the creek by 30 feet in any manner on the plat.
Teele asked who owns the land on the other side of the creek.
Gaffron indicated it would be the person on Oxford Road.
Teele stated there are metal stakes staking out the up-pass on the other side of the creek.
Gaffron stated those metal stakes do not mean much and that legally and technically there is no ownership
by this property owner across more than the 102 feet of depth from Eastlake Street for any of the
properties on that side of the road.
Teele asked if the 102-foot depth would go to the creek.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 26 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 27 of 31
Gaffron stated it appears to go to the center of the creek.
Teele indicated her survey looks like the applicant’s.
Maddrey stated this is the first time she has heard of this.
Gaffron stated there is nothing in the legal description that is shown on the survey that matches the
original plat lines.
Teele asked why the 1912 survey is correct and not the more recent one.
Gaffron indicated there have not been any changes to the plat other than the lots were split off, which was
done without including any property past the 102 feet. Gaffron stated there is no evidence in the record
that shows those properties extend past the creek.
Thiesse noted the stakes were placed by the surveyor according to the survey.
Curtis stated the aerial photo does not appear to directly match up but it represents the dimensions of each
of the properties.
Teele asked why so many surveys are incorrect.
Curtis stated the City is only aware of two incorrect surveys, which were done more recently.
Gaffron stated all the other surveys show the depth of the lots as 102 feet and not 132 feet.
Teele asked how much higher the new structure would be versus the existing structure.
Gaffron indicated it would be 26 feet to the peak and would be perhaps 50 percent higher than the current
structure.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Leskinen stated it is pretty clear that there is a practical difficulty and that constructing a second story is a
reasonable request. Leskinen stated if the foundation becomes an issue, that will be something the
applicants will need to deal with.
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3667,
Tammara Maddrey and Steven Sabes, 3435 Eastlake Street, granting of rear/street, lake, and side
yard setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
6. 14-3668 CHARLES CUDD DENOVO ON BEHALF OF THE MARY J. BOWMAN
TRUST, 1165 FERNDALE ROAD WEST, RENEWAL OF VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT, 9:36 P.M. – 9:39 P.M.
Mary Bowman Rae, the Owner, was present.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 27 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 28 of 31
Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has previously discussed this application multiple times and
that the applicant is merely asking for a renewal of his prior approvals.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to forego Staff’s report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:37 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:37 p.m.
Curtis noted the wetland regulations changed since the original approval and that currently no variance is
required to the wetland buffer. In addition, the reporting of the hardcover has also changed and the
applicant has updated his information with the City.
Leskinen asked if the changes are stricter.
Curtis indicated they are not and that the change merely modifies how those numbers are reported.
Schwingler moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3668,
Charles Cudd DeNovo on behalf of Mary J. Bowman Trust, 1165 Ferndale Road West, renewal of
variances and conditional use permit, per Staff’s recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
7. 14-3669 DALE GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF MARK AND KRISTEN ANDERSON,
3850 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:39 P.M. – 9:45 P.M.
Dale Gustafson, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to conduct land alterations on
the property resulting in approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill material. The applicant is proposing to
create a level paddock and pasture area for their horses west of the barn. The disturbed area will be
planted with a pasture mix. Because the amount of fill exceeds 500 cubic yards, a conditional use permit
is required.
As it relates to the conditional use permit criteria, Staff has found that the proposed grading is consistent
with the permitted uses for the property and is compliant with the zoning code and comprehensive plan.
Staff believes the grading on the property will have no impact on surrounding lands and the grades, once
vegetated, will blend into the rest of the pasture acreage. The proposed grading will also not change the
intended residential use of the property so there should be no change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent
properties.
The applicant will be required to keep debris off of the public roadways. In addition, the grading project
has been evaluated by the City Engineer and Planning Staff and should not create a nuisance situation.
The proposed project will not impact the wetland and will have minimal, if any, environmental impacts.
The applicant has proposed a re-vegetation plan resulting in a continuance of the pasture area. The
project will be monitored to prevent erosion from the site.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 28 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 29 of 31
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as requested. The applicant will need
to comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer and the requirements of the MCWD. An
administrative zoning permit for land alteration will be required prior to commencement of grading work
following any approvals granted by the City Council.
Schoenzeit asked if there should be a bond for the road required given the amount of fill being brought in.
Curtis stated with any construction project, if there is damage to the public roadway, the City attempts to
hold the applicant and the builder responsible. Curtis asked whether this road is a 4-ton road.
Gaffron stated there are some sections that are not capable of 4-ton.
Curtis noted the City Engineer is recommending that the haul routes be inspected prior to and following
completion of the work, with the applicant being held responsible for any necessary repairs.
Thiesse stated he is assuming compliant trucks will be used.
Schwingler stated a street sweeper could also be utilized.
Schoenzeit stated he would like to make sure the road is fixed if any damage occurs.
Leskinen recommended the recommendations of Staff and the City Engineer be included in the motion.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:44 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:44 p.m.
Lemke asked how the soil will be stabilized.
Gustafson stated it will be stabilized with immediate reseeding and the animals will not be allowed in that
area for a period of time.
Lemke moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application 14-3669, Dale
Gustafson on behalf of Mark and Kristen Anderson, 3850 Watertown Road, granting of a
conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
8. 14-360 DALE GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF BARBARA BURWELL, 1100 MILLSTON
ROAD, VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:45 P.M. – 9:48 P.M.
Dale Gustafson, Applicant, was present.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to forego Staff’s report.
Thiesse stated his only concern with the application is that the stabilization walls might be coming up at a
greater than a 2:1 ratio and might require engineering.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 29 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 30 of 31
Curtis suggested the recommendations of the City Engineer be incorporated into the motion.
Gustafson stated he would be available for questions.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:47 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:47 p.m.
Schwingler moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3670, Dale
Gustafson on behalf of Rodney and Barbara Burwell, 1100 Millston Road, granting of a conditional
use permit and hardcover variance, subject to the recommendations of Staff and the City Engineer.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
9. 14-3671 ROBERT VON EDESKUTY ON BEHALF OF CALVARY MEMORIAL
CHURCH, 2420 DUNWOODY AVENUE, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 9:48 P.M. – 9:53 P.M.
Robert Von Edeskuty, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to add a 12’ x 18’ pergola at the south
main entrance to the church building. The original application was for an external enclosed vestibule, but
due to estimated construction costs, the applicants now plan to create the vestibule within the existing
building and just add an open pergola at the main entrance. The applicants are also planning to make
minor interior space revisions near the vestibule area.
Staff finds the proposed pergola is relatively non-obtrusive and is compliant with the zoning code. There
are no impacts to the neighborhood and the pergola does not change the nature of the site or how the site
is used. The applicant will need to relocate two of the three existing handicap parking stalls but parking
availability on the site appears adequate in order to make this revision.
Staff is recommending approval subject to a pergola design being submitted prior to Council review of
the application and replacement of the handicap parking stalls that will be eliminated by the pergola.
Landgraver asked if the structure will be located over the existing blacktop.
Gaffron indicated it will be partially over the existing asphalt driveway and sidewalk.
Von Edeskuty, Applicant, stated he had nothing to add to Staff’s report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:52 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:52 p.m.
Leskinen stated she visited the site and that in her view this will be a nice addition to the building.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 30 of 31]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19, 2014
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 31 of 31
Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3671, Robert
von Edeskuty on behalf of Calvary Memorial Church, 2420 Dunwoody Avenue, granting of a
conditional use permit and approval of a commercial site plan. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
10. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON APRIL 28, 2014, AND MAY 12, 2014
Thiesse stated he attended the April 28 Council meeting and there was a presentation by Rick Meyers
regarding a donation of lilac trees and the installation of a recognition plaque. The City Council directed
that the Park Commission review the donation and make a formal recommendation.
Curtis stated the Shadywood application was approved with the condition that an equal amount of
hardcover be removed from the at-grade paver area.
Thiesse stated on the Stonebay application, the developer requested the number of lots be reduced from
six to five.
Landgraver stated he attended the May 12 Council meeting and the majority of the Planning Commission
items were approved on the Consent Agenda. The application on Kelley Avenue was approved with a
revised retaining wall. The City Council also discussed a special event permit for the Rowing Club.
Action was deferred on that matter until the applicant had an opportunity to speak with the Long Lake
City Council. The Joint Use Dock License for Pirates Cove was also approved.
11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
McGrann moved, Landgraver seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
10:03 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
_________________________________
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
Aproval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/19/2014
[Page 31 of 31]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #02 - PC Agenda 06/16/2014
File #14-3666 [Total Pages 72]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3672 [Total Pages 31]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3673 [Total Pages 20]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]
Item #05 - PC Agenda - 06/16/2014
File #14-3674 [Total Pages 36]