The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-18-2014 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE "/ / ,/ ❑ COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1._.1*-re-(41,611.71_,Lak( lir,'cis, .Sicf 1(e fr 36.,,c—D 2. ;''7 ,� :zc a��t 2/705 Gc% 4 , 7r5 /I/- 3 /4-lL,c Gs1/(!ni -J 6.4ervi a 2- 4 ' A' /zi 3 C LL 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:\(LEGAL FORMS)1(FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC 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 TUESDAY, February 18, 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 s tate 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 January 21, 2014. New Business 2. 14-3648 Ben Goodwin, 565 Leaf Street & 550 Oxford Road, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 3. 14-3649 Derek & Kelly Prchal, 4705 Watertown Road, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 4. 14-3650 Jeffrey Davidson on behalf of Donald & Joanne Davidson, 568 Keene Avenue, Variance (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 5. 14-3652 Roger & Nan Hawkinson, 570 Orono Orchard Road South, Vacation of Utility Easement (Staff: Melanie Curtis) Planning Commission Comments 6. Report from Planning Commission representatives on City Council meetings: January 27, 2014 and February 10, 2014. 7. Other issues for discussion. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 26 ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Chair Kevin Landgraver, Commissioners Bruce Lemke, Loren Schoenzeit, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Lili Tod McMillan was present. Commissioner Christopher McGrann arrived at 6:32 p.m., and Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:58 p.m. Acting Chair Landgraver called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Schoenzeit moved, Lemke seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2013 Schoenzeit moved, Lemke seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of November 18, 2013, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #13-3636 LIXIAO WANG, 3059 FARVIEW LANE, VARIANCES, 6:34 P.M. – 7:00 P.M. Lixiao Wang, Applicant, was present. Curtis noted this application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their October meeting. The applicant at that time proposed a 12-foot addition to the attached garage. The Planning Commission recommended the addition be reduced by half the depth and tabled the application. At the November Planning Commission meeting, the applicant opted to propose a 9-foot addition, citing the need to accommodate each of his vehicles. The Planning Commission questioned the applicant as to why the 9- foot addition was proposed when they previously indicated there was support if the garage expansion was reduced to six feet. The Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend denial of the applicant’s 9-foot addition. Curtis stated the applicant appeared before the City Council at their December 13 meeting and was subsequently tabled to allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the applicant’s latest revision. The applicant has since provided revised plans for the garage addition resulting in a 6-foot expansion of the existing attached garage. Variances for hardcover, side yard setback, lake setback and average lakeshore setback are requested. The proposed garage addition as revised will encroach 4.7 feet into the required 30-foot side yard setback. The garage portion of the home currently meets the 30-foot side setback. As revised, the addition will be Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 1 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 26 approximately 72 feet from the lake where a 75-foot setback is required. Approximately 14 square feet of additional structure within the 75-foot setback is proposed. The applicant’s revised plans also better clarify the existing usable space within the garage. However, Staff continues to find that creating a more nonconforming structure is out of character with the neighborhood. The revised addition adds mass within the eastern side setback area and also within the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that enforcing the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance deprive them of the reasonable use of the property. As a result, Planning Staff continues to recommend denial of the variances. The Planning Commission should review and discuss the applicant’s revised request as well as the enclosed comments from the neighbor to the east and make a recommendation to the City Council. If the Planning Commission determines that practical difficulties exist which support granting the variances, those practical difficulties should be clearly stated for the record. Thiesse asked if there is documentation showing the garage at 18 feet currently. Curtis indicated she is not aware if the packet contains that information. Gaffron stated the deepest two stalls are at 18 feet. Lixiao Wang, Applicant, stated he should have taken the Planning Commission’s recommendation the first time, but that he has since revised his plans to six feet when he went before the City Council. Wang stated in his view he would be able to fit a Toyota Corolla or similar type car in that size garage but that he cannot push the car any further forward due to an elevator located in the garage. Schoenzeit asked if the current house is over 7,000 square feet. Wang indicated it is. Thiesse asked what room is located behind the garage and whether the elevator is part of the original garage. Wang stated to his recollection the elevator was installed because the previous property owner was old and sick, which takes up a portion of the garage. Thiesse asked what room is behind the portion containing the two-stall garage. Wang stated there is a furnace and air purification system in that area, which means the garage cannot be extended in that area. Wang stated he may not do anything with the garage if their application is not approved. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Francine Delaney, 3150 Farview Lane, stated the applicant knew what the garage was like prior to purchasing the property and that the previous owner was always able to park her cars inside the garage. Delaney noted the existing easement is not being maximized at the present time and that if the variance is granted and more structure is added, in her view additional driveway will be requested due to the difficulty they will have in turning around. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 2 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 26 Delaney stated the structure would also be in her line of sight of the lake and that a hardship has not been demonstrated. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Wang stated the City Council indicated he could not have any deck on the top of the garage, which he is fine with. As far as backing up, Wang stated he did make sure they would not have to come back again to request extending the driveway. Wang indicated he backed his car up from the area where the addition would be added on to the garage and it was not affected. Wang noted the neighbor’s building is three stories and the garage would be one floor with no deck. Wang stated in his view it would not block her view. Schoenzeit asked if Staff has been able to show a more acceptable footprint in a different location. Thiesse stated it would have to be unattached. Curtis indicated Staff has not done that but that the Code does allow for a detached garage. Curtis noted it would be necessary to locate it more towards the road. Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission could freeze the hardcover variance if this addition is approved. Curtis indicated every resolution includes language that states the approved hardcover level for the property. Curtis stated any changes to the hardcover would need to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council for a variance approval. Landgraver asked if there is additional room in the easement for the applicant to use. Curtis stated the dotted line illustrates the easement and pointed out the driveway is paved with a little jog, which does enter the easement slightly. Landgraver asked if the applicant could come back and request full use of the easement. Curtis indicated that is correct. Landgraver asked if that is being requested at the present time. Curtis stated it is not. Wang stated he does not plan on coming back for that. Thiesse noted the City does not have any regulations preventing people from parking in their driveway. Lemke asked if the existing house is over the 75-foot setback. Curtis indicated it is slightly and that the garage addition would be a slight extension of the encroachment. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 3 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 26 Curtis stated due to the topography, the garage addition would be a slightly bigger encroachment than the house. Landgraver asked what kind of feedback the City Council had on this application. Curtis stated there was a discussion about the need for a reasonable garage space but that the City Council did not feel the deck was necessary. Curtis stated to her understanding there was not unanimous support for the addition and that the City Council instead wanted the Planning Commission to relook at the application. Thiesse asked if he proposed a 9-foot addition at the City Council meeting. Curtis stated the applicant brought forward a 6-foot addition to the City Council and that a 9-foot addition was brought forward to the Planning Commission the second time. Thiesse stated he is conflicted on this application given the fact that the design of a vehicle that the transportation agencies use is 19 feet long, which is a practical difficulty in his mind. Thiesse stated an additional six feet would make it a 24-foot garage, which is a fairly standard garage, and that in his view an 18-foot garage should never have been built. Thiesse stated he does not care if he can park a car in the third stall, but the fact that the back wall contains mechanical equipment constitutes a practical difficulty. Lemke asked if the mechanical equipment is along the entire wall. Thiesse stated he does not know, but that even if it is half of the wall, that would only leave a one-stall garage. Thiesse asked Delaney if the garage would really affect her view of the lake given the trees in the area. Delaney stated when the leaves are down, it would, but in the summer the leaves block it. Thiesse stated if the 6-foot addition is not allowed, the cars will be sitting out in the driveway and blocking the neighbor’s view to some degree. Thiesse stated he does see a practical difficulty. Lemke noted the garage addition is encroaching almost five feet into the 30-foot setback and also into the 75-foot setback, which makes it unacceptable on two different levels. Schoenzeit stated there is a substantial amount of house footprint that could be converted into a garage if so desired. Thiesse noted cost is not considered a practical difficulty. McGrann asked if the applicant would need a variance to expand his use into the easement. Curtis indicated they would since they currently exceed the amount of allowable hardcover within the 0- 75 foot zone. The property currently contains 11 percent total hardcover and the applicant can widen the driveway to some extent, but that he would not be able to widen the driveway very much on the east side. McGrann asked if the applicant could apply for additional hardcover. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 4 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 26 Curtis indicated he could. Thiesse asked if that would just require a permit. Curtis indicated it would require a permit for the hardcover outside the 75-foot area. Gaffron noted Staff has also not seen the language contained in the easement to know what would be allowed. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission should take note of the fact that they had previously recommended six feet, which should be taken into consideration, but that they need to take into consideration the neighbor’s concerns and the increased encroachment. Schoenzeit stated an attached two-car garage that is functional is reasonable use of the property and not having a two-car garage is a practical difficulty here in Minnesota. Landgraver stated the Delaneys have been pretty consistent about conveying their concerns with the application and that the applicant has made attempts to comply with the direction of the Planning Commission. Landgraver noted the applicant could plant a row of evergreens along the property line, which would block the neighbor’s view, and that he is inclined to grant the 6-foot variance. McGrann commented there are no easy answers, but that he would be in favor of the six feet. McGrann indicated he would have some serious issues if the applicant comes back with a request to expand the hardcover, which would increase the amount of outside parking and would be closer to the Delaney property. Curtis noted the Delaneys would need to consent to any expansion of hardcover in the easement area. Lemke stated given the objections of the neighbor, he would not be in support of the expansion. (Jon Schwingler arrives at 6:58 pm.) Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3636, Lixiao Wang, 3059 Farview Lane, granting of a 6-foot addition to the garage without the deck on top, and to recommend no further approval of hardcover in the easement area. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Lemke and Schwingler Opposed. NEW BUSINESS 3. #13-3612 DALE GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND BARBARA CORNESS, 4395 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, 7:00 P.M. – 7:14 P.M. Dale Gustafson, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an amendment to the conditional use permit granted in August of 2013 in order to repair an eroded area on the eastern side of the lakeshore and create a stable drainage swale to the lake on the west part of the lakeshore. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 5 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 26 Following construction of the new home on the property and the commencement of the activity to construct the new lakeshore access stair and landscaping within the 75-foot setback area, the applicant noted a dying/diseased tree and significant erosion lakeward of the tree. The tree can be removed but reinforcement and restoration of the remaining ravine is needed to stop the erosion. The applicant has provided an engineered plan which contemplates the installation of sub-grade walls to support the slope. The area will be graded to result in a more stable slope and vegetated to reinforce the soil. Once the vegetation is established and matures, the restoration area and the reinforcement should not be visible. In addition, the applicant is proactively creating an armored overflow swale on the west end of the lakeshore slope to accommodate the stormwater drainage from the property. This overflow will be screened with plantings and should not be significantly noticeable once the plantings have matured. By code, conditionally permitted uses must be reviewed using the criteria found in Section 78-916. Staff finds that Items 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13 apply in this situation and has found that those items are compliant with the Code. Staff finds that the conditional use permit amendment to allow the ravine repair, restoration, and the overflow swale within the 0-75 foot zone appears to be reasonable and consistent with similar properties in the neighborhood and the landscape plan offers a natural looking slope. The City Engineer has conducted a cursory revise of the plans and no significant concerns were noted. A full engineering review will be conducted at the time of the administrative permit for construction. The Planning Commission should discuss the issues outlined in Staff’s report and determine whether any conditions are necessary to be imposed in order to mitigate any additional impacts created by the work. Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment allowing the earth work within the 0-75 foot setback area. Dale Gustafson, Applicant, indicated he is the landscape designer on this project. Gustafson stated when they were designing this project, they did notice the gully on the east side but discovered, once the work commenced, that the bank was really piles of debris and branches pushed down there and contained little soil. Gustafson stated the approach they feel is the most practical in that case is to use a subterrainian wall made out of timbers to reinforce the entire bank. The wall would then be backfilled with soil, which would be sloped down the top. Vegetation would then be planted on top of that. Gustafson stated that method has been one of the most effective methods used on lakeshore erosion projects. Gustafson stated on the other end of the gully, the idea is to provide a place for additional runoff to go. The silt fence that was placed there was not able to sustain it during the heavy downpour that occurred this summer. Gustafson stated in his view there will still be considerable runoff down the bank and that they would like to slightly adjust the grade prior to sodding the area to allow the water to be diverted to the rock channel. The channel will be filled with boulders with vegetation planted along the sides. The plants will eventually grow over the rocks so in time it will not be very noticeable. Gustafson indicated the water will come down the slope, go through the rocks, and then into the riprap. The additional vegetation will also allow for even more filtering of the runoff. Gustafson stated currently the east half of the lot is graded in such a way to allow some of the water to go to the bank and then down. Gustafson illustrated on the overhead the flow of the runoff. Gustafson stated Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 6 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 26 when the project is all done, the stairway will zigzag, will not be that noticeable from the lake, and will be able to handle a substantial amount of runoff. Lemke asked what type of timbers will be used. Gustafson stated they will be treated landscape timbers but not treated with creosote. Lemke asked whether the timbers will disturb the soil even more. Gustafson indicated the soil will be disturbed where the posts are located but that the soil would be packed in and the other timbers will help stabilize the slope. Schwingler asked whether he has done this type of project before. Gustafson indicated he has done quite a few projects like this. Landgraver asked what the typical life span is of this type of timber. Gustafson stated good data is not available for the life of the posts located under the ground, but that it likely will last 50 to 75 years. Gustafson stated the most critical time is the first few months until the vegetation is established. Once the soil is put back on, there will also be a layer of fabric placed on top of that that will deteriorate over time but will provide some stability. Lemke asked whether the rock swale is considered hardcover. Curtis indicated Staff in the past has not considered that hardcover. Curtis stated the City does have different drainage systems on different properties for stormwater management, but given the way this is constructed, it is not something that Staff would consider hardcover. Thiesse asked if there is a means or methods to control the water runoff on top of the hill, such as a swale to slow it down. Gustafson stated the lawn area will be re-graded to the most natural slope that can be attained on the bank. Gustafson stated the idea is to spread the grade out as much as possible during the final grading, and that the runoff from around the back of the house will drain into a rain garden and go the other direction. Landgraver noted this property is higher than either adjoining property and that it is a difficult property to work with. Gustafson stated both of those properties have been graded substantially to create the gentler slope down to the lake. Lemke asked if the majority of the trees will be preserved. Gustafson stated they should be preserved with the exception of the dead ash tree that has been removed. Lemke asked if the pilings will have any effect on the trees. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 7 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 26 Gustafson stated it should not. Thiesse asked if those vertical pilings are drilled or driven. Gustafson stated the holes would be dug with an auger. Gustafson stated the contractor that will be doing the work will start from the lakeside with a big excavator and then move their way up the slope. Landgraver asked if there are any other regulatory entities that need to approve the work. Curtis stated an erosion permit and a riprapping permit is required and that the applicant has been on top of all the permitting that is required. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Schoenzeit commented it looks like a good plan. Landgraver noted last time one of the neighbors had voiced some concerns regarding erosion, and asked if any additional comments have been received. Curtis stated Staff has not received any additional comments from that neighbor but that the neighbor to the east has submitted a letter in support of the project. Schwingler moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3612, Dale Gustafson on behalf of John and Barbara Corness, 4395 North Shore Drive, granting of a conditional use permit amendment. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 4. #13-3632 DALE RICHARDSON, 4325 CHIPPEWA LANE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE, 7:14 P.M. – 7:21 P.M. Dale Richardson, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance approval in order to allow an 8’ x 8’ deck constructed within the required 50-foot side setback. In April of 2013, the property owner applied for a building permit to construct a rear deck on the home. The property owner was notified that the application was incomplete as a survey had not been submitted. In August, the City building inspector noticed that a new deck had been constructed on the rear of the home without a permit. The property owner was notified and encouraged to either remove the deck or apply for a variance to allow the deck to remain. The property owner applied for a variance in September and submitted the final information in November. The property is located in the RR-1A, five-acre minimum rural residential district. The subject property, however, is approximately one acre in size and has 149 feet in width where 300 feet is required. The substandard area and width, combined with the location of the existing home, make it difficult to Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 8 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 26 construct conforming additions or appurtenances. The deck was constructed 34.4 feet from the west side lot line where a 50-foot setback is required. The applicant’s home is situated as close as 28.2 feet to the east side lot line where a 50-foot setback is required. The 8’ x 8’ deck is located at the rear of the home and is set back 34.4 feet from the property line to line up with an existing patio door. Staff finds that the substandard size of the applicant’s property within the five acre zone is a practical difficulty. The applicant’s home is located within the required side yard setback. The deck is set back further than the edge of the home to be in line with an existing patio door. It does not appear that the deck will have an adverse visual impact on either adjoining neighbor. Planning Staff recommends approval of the after-the-fact variance to allow the deck to remain. The property owner shall be required to apply for and receive approval of a building permit for the deck. In addition, the deck will need to be inspected by the building official. Lemke asked how the building inspector will inspect the footings. Curtis indicated she is not sure exactly how it will be done but that it is likely they will need to be excavated. Curtis stated the building inspectors have done that in the past in other situations. Landgraver asked if there is a shed on the property. Curtis indicated a permit was issued for the shed after the deck was construction without a permit and prior to this hearing. Curtis stated the deck was constructed in a conforming location. Dale Richardson, Applicant, noted this is a replacement deck and not a new deck. The stairs and landing were demolished prior to purchasing the property. The swallow footings for the deck were removed and replaced with full-depth footings. Richardson stated he did take photographs of the footings prior to covering them up, which is standard procedure. Richard indicated he applied for a permit back in March of last year and received no response from the City for over 60 days so he went ahead and finished the work. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3632, Dale Richardson, 4325 Chippewa Lane, granting of an after-the-fact variance in order to allow an 8’ x 8’ deck within the 50-foot side setback, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Thiesse asked whether an existing patio door is a passive statement for allowing something to be there. Thiesse noted there have been a number of buildings constructed with just a patio door. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 9 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 26 Curtis stated it is dependent on the property and the situation. A minimal landing is allowed under the building code. Curtis indicated Staff does their best with new construction to notify the applicant of what the structural requirements, hardcover limitations, etc., are in each case. 5. #14-3646 GEORGE STICKNEY ON BEHALF OF DNA PROPERTIES, LLC, 1535 BOHNS POINT ROAD, SUBDIVISON: PRELIMINARY PLAT, 7:21 P.M. – 7:38 P.M. George Stickney, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to create one new 2-plus acre buildable lots from the original 4.89 acres. There will be two total lots. Lot 1 is proposed to contain 2.6 acres dry, buildable land; and Lot 2 is proposed to contain 2.3 acres dry, buildable lane. The property is located in the LR-1B, One Family Lakeshore Residential District, which allow for single-family lakeshore residential uses with a minimum lot size of one dry buildable acre. The proposed subdivision is in conformity with the guiding of this area for single-family lakeshore residential development at a maximum density of one unit per one acre. The proposed single-family development with two-plus acre lot sizes is consistent with existing development in the surrounding neighborhood where one acre is the minimum lot size. The subject property at 4.89 acres is the largest property on Bohns Point. The surrounding properties on Bohns Point vary in size from 0.45 to 3 acres. The home on the site to be platted was removed in 2009 and the property is currently vacant. The property currently has two sewer stubs serving the property. Other than the approximately 470 feet of lakeshore and a large lagoon near the lake, there are no notable characteristics of the property. The property is situated on the west side of Bohns Point. Each of the proposed properties will have frontage on Bohns Point and both lots are proposed to be served by city sewer and private wells. According to the LR-1B Zoning District standards, all of the lots must contain 1.0 dry acre and meet a 140-foot width requirement at the lakeshore and at the 75-foot structural setback from the lake. The average lakeshore setback as determined by the existing homes at 1595 Bohns Point road and 3265 Bohns Point Lake is closer to the lake than the 75-foot setback due to the location of the lagoon. Both of the suggested new building pad locations meet the average lakeshore setback. Proposed Lot 1 will have 2.60 acres of dry land. This lot is proposed to have 192 plus feet of frontage along the lake and 190 feet at the 75-foot setback. There is a sufficient buildable envelope available, and all of the required LR-1B district lot line setbacks and hardcover standards can be met. Proposed Lot 2 has 267 feet in width at the lake when measured in a straight line at the 929.4 OHWL contour and 270 plus feet in width at the 75-foot setback from the lagoon. This lot is proposed to contain 2.3 plus dry acres in area. All required LR-1B setbacks and hardcover limitations can reasonable be met when this lot is developed with a new home. This subdivision does not require any public improvements. However, the applicant has proposed a suggested grading plan which intends to establish a new base elevation for the properties. This new base elevation is to be considered a new existing grade for the purposes of height and number of stories determination. The Planning Commission should determine whether the character of the area will not be impacted and will tie into the existing grades on neighboring properties in a manner that appears as Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 10 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 26 natural and not contrived. The Planning Commission should also determine whether or not the suggested building pads will accommodate homes at an elevation and with a foundation style which is compatible with the adjacent properties. The subject property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and sewer service is available to these properties. There are two existing sewer stubs currently serving the property and are aligned in such a way that each of the proposed lots can utilize the existing stubs. Planning Staff recommends approval of the subdivision. Schoenzeit asked what the grade change is in feet. Curtis indicated Exhibit C shows the cross-section. Curtis stated on the south lot along the swale, the pre- existing home on the property was quite large and it is not known what the grades were prior to construction of that home. Schwingler asked if the Planning Commission has reviewed this application previously. Curtis indicated it has but that the approval has expired. McGrann asked if any public comments have been received on this application. Curtis indicated Staff has not received any. George Stickney, Applicant, stated he was asked by the sellers to develop this land. The property owner appeared before the Planning Commission previously for a three lot subdivision. The property owner never finalized their plans and never filed the final plat. Stickney stated the lagoon is unique, and with it being split, it made it almost impossible to market. Stickney stated in his view, if they doubled the size of the lot, it would be in keeping with the area and would allow for one lot to have the whole lagoon. Stickney indicated he has attempted to put the grades together to blend in with the adjoining properties and allow for a small walkout on each of the lots. Stickney stated in his view the lots are oversized enough to allow for some leeway on the grading and building pad. Stickney noted this is a one acre zoning area and both lots are over two acres. Stickney stated drainage should not affect either adjoining property and that he has not heard any negative comments from the neighbors. Landgraver asked if any of the neighbors have asked to see the plat. Stickney indicated they have not but they do know what is being proposed. Schwingler commented the application is pretty straight forward. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 11 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 26 Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Schoenzeit commented it is an improvement over what was proposed the first time. Landgraver stated the one concern he has relates to the grading between the two houses that are adjoining Lot 2 and the down slope. Landgraver stated in his view it appears like a lot of soil is being moved, which would create an unnatural looking ravine on the south side. Stickney stated the person that owns that land is his client and that he is aware of what is being proposed and has seen all the plans. Stickney stated given the size of the lots, they do have some room to move everything, but that approving a plan like this gives the new property owner the ability to construct something without going through the whole process over again. Landgraver asked where the lakeshore setback on the north side is located. Curtis pointed out the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis stated the line is based on the lot as it exists today. Stickney noted the property to the north is currently for sale. Landgraver stated if the properties have separate owners, there might be some variations in the grading plan and it could result in a grading plan that is not as symmetrical and smooth. Stickney stated there are no plans at this time to build on either lot but there may be plans down the road. Stickney stated if the average lakeshore setback line is changed, Lot 2 would have to change accordingly. Lemke commented that would likely be the worst case scenario given the size of the lots. Curtis noted the City Engineer suggested there be independent grading plans in case there are two different property owners. Landgraver asked what the next step would be in the application process. Curtis stated the application would go to the City Council at one of their February meetings with a preliminary plat resolution drafted for their review and potential approval. Lemke moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3646, George Stickney on behalf of DNA Properties, LLC, 1535 Bohns Point Road, granting of preliminary plat approval, subject to City Engineer and Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. McGrann asked if there is a setback from the lagoon. Curtis stated there is a lakeshore setback and noted the average lakeshore setback line is ahead of that. 6. #14-3647 LUKE KUJAWA ON BEHALF OF E.O.F. INVESTMENTS, LLC, 1444 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW – FUEL STORAGE, 7:38 P.M. – 9:00 P.M. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 12 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 26 Luke Kujawa, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a mechanical permit to install a 2,000 gallon underground fuel storage tank on the Brown’s Bay portion of the property. Per Orono Zoning Code Section 78-142, “It shall be unlawful to construct a building, enlarge the footprint of a building, or change or intensity the use of an existing building or site in any business or industrial district without approval of a site plan in accordance with this division.” Installation of an underground fuel storage tank and the subsequent activity associated with fuel delivery and dispensing is considered an intensification of the use of the site. Gaffron noted it would be located south of the gazebo, with a fuel line going to the center grouping of docks. A fuel dispenser would be located just off of the shoreline. The question that was raised initially was where the fuel tank could be located. Originally the desire was to install an underground fuel tank on the Tanager side of the road. In 2013, the applicants relocated their boat club operation to the Brown’s Bay side of County Road 15. In May of 2013, the applicants applied for an expansion of the boat club operation to 30 sips from the originally approved 20 sips. That application was subsequently tabled by the City Council in August in order to allow the applicant time to provide additional information and address a number of City concerns, including the fueling situation. Your Boat Club has operated a boat club at this location pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit issued by the City in 2011. During 2011, 2012, and most of 2013, the applicants did not own the property but operated as a tenant. Because they did not own the property, they were not in a position to make certain infrastructure improvements necessary to better support the boat club operation. The applicants have now acquired all four tax parcels comprising the historic marina operation and are in a position to make site improvements. The applicants are now requesting approval for installation of a below-ground fuel tank within the parking lot area just south of the gazebo on the Brown’s Bay side of Country Road 15. At this time the applicants intend to primarily use the fuel system to service club boats. However there is an expectation that this use could expand to fuel sales to the general boating public at some future time. Doing so, however, would likely require relocation of the dispensing facility to an outer slip rather than one adjacent to the shore as is currently proposed. Gaffron noted marine fuel sales are a permitted use within the B-2 Lakeshore Business District. Underground fuel storage tanks are also subject to the provisions of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7150 – Underground Storage Tanks, which regulates the design, installation, operation, and monitoring of underground fuel storage tanks. Other agencies involved or potentially involved in the regulatory process include the MnDNR, the LMCD, and MCWD. Gaffron stated the proposed fueling facility will tend to intensify the use of the commercial site. The applicants have also indicated their intent is to continue review of their overall site plan as part of their boat club expansion request and have met with staff to discuss their future plans. That review is anticipated to be back in front of the City Council in late February or early March. Gaffron noted the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses and is generally in conformity with the criteria for commercial site plans outlined in Section 78-145. Gaffron stated one of the questions yet to be addressed is whether finish grade will be at the existing parking lot grade or above it, in which case there is the potential for a minor reduction in floodplain storage which would have to be compensated for elsewhere on the site. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 13 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 26 Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should consider the following issues: 1. The topographic data and design information available to date is insufficient to accurately determine whether or to what extent filling in the floodplain will be required. The contours of 930’, 931.5’ and 932’ indicate the tank will be buried lakeward of the 931.5 foot contour, but in order to determine the actual decrease in flood storage that may need to be mitigated will require additional survey work. Gaffron noted the actual amount of new fill above existing grade is likely to be less than ten cubic yards. Prior to issuance of a permit for the tank installation, Staff would require the applicants to provide the detail necessary and confirm that any required permits from MCWD have been obtained. 2. The applicants must obtain LMCD permits for the gas dock facility prior to tank installation. 3. If the tank installation will have an impact on the parking layout, the applicants need to address that as part of this commercial site plan review. 4. The tank location proposed will be less than ten feet from the north lot line of tax parcel 11-117-23-22-0007, and the fuel line to the gas dock will extend over tax parcels 0005 and 0006. Staff recommends that these three tax parcels be combined. The alternative is to combine just 0006 and 0007 to avoid the need for a setback variance and establish an easement between the combined 0006-7 and 00005 to accommodate all components of the fuel system. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Combination of tax parcels 0005-6-7. 2. Prior to permit issuance, the applicants should submit adequate data to determine volume of fill below 931.5’ and obtain any necessary permits from MCWD. 3. Prior to permit issuance, applicants should submit LMCD permits for the gas dock facility. 4. Mechanical permit application subject to review of the building official and Long Lake Fire Chief. 5. Installation and operation of the fueling system shall meet all City and state requirements. Schoenzeit asked if the fuel storage tank is just for the boat club or whether it will eventually be available to the public. Gaffron stated the applicants have indicated that initially it will just serve the boat club but that the applicant will need to address the potential for future use. Gaffron stated in his view there will be a benefit of selling gas to the general public, which would likely require the applicants to go through the LMCD process again. Schoenzeit stated the next question would be, if gas is being sold to the public, whether a 2,000 gallon tank will be sufficient and how often it would need to be refilled. Schoenzeit stated he is also not sure where the 932.5’ elevation is and whether the tank would be in the floodplain. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 14 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 26 Gaffron stated one of the reasons for the concrete slab and strapping is to prevent it from floating once the tank starts to empty. Gaffron stated he did discuss this with the DNR regarding the floodplain, and the representative indicated it would be okay as long as it is protected so it does not float and it is sealed so that nothing can flow into the lake should the elevation rise above 931.5’. Gaffron noted it would require approval from the Minnehaha Watershed District if fill is required. Gaffron stated the assumption is that the slab, in the location it is proposed at existing grade, will likely move up to 931.5’, and whether that requires two inches or eight inches of fill remains to be determined. Gaffron indicated Staff will require additional detail before that permit could be issued. Landgraver asked if there are any other installations of this sort in the City. Gaffron indicated there are and have been fuel storage tanks located on lakeshore properties where the tank is below lake level and that the City has not heard about any issues with leaking. Gaffron stated approximately 10 to 15 years ago all of the marinas had to reinstall new tanks based on new state requirements. Lemke asked whether the state requires any sort of containment system. Gaffron noted this is a double-walled tank and that the assumption is that whatever requirements the state has will need to be met prior to issuance of a permit. Schoenzeit noted the Super America located near Lord Fletcher’s has an underground tank. Lemke asked if daily fuel deliveries would impact the flow of traffic on the property. Gaffron stated there is basically only one location on the property for the tank and that it will become an operation issue for the property owner to have the deliveries at a time when it does not cause problems for the business. Thiesse noted this is considered a boat club and not a marina. Gaffron stated it is a marina that has slips for public use as well as a boat club and slips that are being used by a boat sales operation. Thiesse pointed out the boat club is requesting the gas tank and not the marina. Gaffron stated the boat club, who is now the owner of the property, is requesting the fuel storage tank and that there could be a condition that could be placed on the approval limiting the use of the tank only to the boat club. Gaffron stated they would then need to come back later if they want to expand the use. McGrann stated he would be recusing himself from the discussion since he is a member of the boat club. Landgraver asked if one of the residential lots still has a house on it. Gaffron indicated the property located at 1442 extends from lake to lake through North Shore Drive. The portion east of Shoreline Drive is zoned commercial and the portion to the west is zoned residential. If Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 15 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 26 1422 is combined with the two properties to the south of it, there are some implications that need to be addressed. Gaffron stated whenever you combine a marina property with a residential property, one of the issues is whether or not they would be allowed to have multiple buildings and uses on the property. The applicant has suggested that perhaps this spring they would like to rezone the two residential properties on the west side of the road to commercial. Staff has discussed with the applicant that in order to do that, they need to take a look at comprehensive planning of the site and that Staff would like them to provide a plan that either removes or gives some indication of what is going to happen with those two buildings and how parking might be relocated, how stormwater management would be handled as well as other issues that need to be addressed as part of any rezoning. Landgraver commented it would be common sense to require the properties be combined. Gaffron stated the risk of not combining the properties is that they are sold off as separate lots. Thiesse asked if everything on the east side could be combined and the lots on the west side remain as is. Gaffron indicated it would require a subdivision in order to combine the two northerly properties with the west side. Gaffron stated the property technically goes all the way through from lake to lake and if they are going to combine the properties, the east and west side would require separate tax numbers, which can only be accomplished through a subdivision. Luke Kujawa, Applicant, stated it was made pretty clear at the City Council meeting that they should first address the fueling situation, which is what they are doing. Kujawa indicated his understanding is that the top concrete slab will be at grade so no change in grade or fill will be required. Kujawa stated he has also met with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding any changes and in his view he does not feel it will be difficult to accomplish it or have any impact on parking. Kujawa stated in his view the tank could be moved over to allow for a 10-foot setback but that he does not have an issue with combining those two lots. Kujawa noted as far as the fuel line going to the dock, the commercial portion of those two residential lots have a permanent easement already in place and that they will need to look at the easement language to see if it needs modification to allow the fuel line. The ultimate goal is to clean up the properties and make the site better functioning overall. Schoenzeit noted the initial use of the fuel storage tank is planned for the boat club, and asked what the future plans are for retail sale of the fuel. Kujawa stated he does not want to say there will never be retail sales of gas, but the first priority is to have gas available for the boat club. Kujawa indicated retail sales would likely require a major dock reconfiguration and a longer permitting process with the Watershed District and that they are looking for a way to replenish fuel for the boat club boats at the present time. Schoenzeit asked how long the 2,000 gallons would last. Kujawa indicated they currently have a 780 gallon tank but they are only allowed to fill it to 500 gallons. At 500 gallons, it was filled approximately twice a week and a 2,000 gallon tank would probably need to Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 16 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 26 be filled once a week. Kujawa stated the companies they currently utilize have early morning or off hours refilling available. Landgraver asked if the gas tank would be used to fill the marina boats. Kujawa indicated it would not be. Schoenzeit asked if the tank would need to be filled several times a week if there were retail sales of gas. Kujawa stated they would probably fill the tank before the weekend and at the beginning of the week, which is what they are currently doing. Thiesse noted a 4-foot diameter tank by 20-foot long with six inches of sand and concrete on top would be five and a half feet below grade without any fill on top. Thiesse stated if they add another foot and a half of fill on top, the tank will be close to seven to eight feet into the ground. Thiesse asked if there was water found a foot down by the boring. Kujawa stated he expects there will be some water that will need to be pumped out and some mitigation. The contractor has indicated they have done similar projects and that they will comply with the permitting requirements. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at p.m. Matt Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive, asked if the area for the fuel storage tank is currently a parking lot. Gaffron indicated it is. Johnson asked if cars would be able to park on top on the tank. Gaffron stated they would be. Johnson stated before he purchased his property, he called the City to make sure the property next to him was zoned residential, which he was told it was. Johnson stated part of the discussion tonight is the combination of the lots, and that the recurring theme is that there is no master plan but rather a piecemealing of little portions. Johnson stated with the gas storage tank, they are now also talking about rezoning the property next to his to commercial. Johnson commented the process has been going on a very long time and that he has attempted to be involved with it as much as he could, but that there needs to be a master plan to address whether there is enough parking. Johnson stated he understood the last time that there was not proper scaled parking shown for the property, and to say that more parking will not be eliminated is hard to believe since the tank is in the middle of the parking lot. Johnson noted he is the residential property that would be most impacted and that there has to be a master plan before approving little components to make sure this is in Orono’s best interests. Johnson stated other neighbors are present tonight and that they are interested in what is going on with this property, but before anyone makes any commitment, they need to have a better understanding of the master plan for the entire site. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 17 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 26 Johnson stated he would request the City not rezone the residential property next to him to commercial property as part of this application since he does not feel that would be fair or reasonable. Rich Anderson, North Shore Marina, stated he is not opposed to the fuel tank, but that he is opposed to combining the residential properties. Anderson indicated he might be okay with combining them since he own two residential properties down by Maxwell Bay and it would set a precedent. Anderson stated if that is a condition for allowing the fuel tank, in his view that is ridiculous. Anderson stated he would suggest the City grant a variance to move the tank to higher ground since it would have no more impact. At the proposed location, it is likely the tank will be ten feet in the ground. Anderson indicated he has a sump basket on his tank and a rain garden, but that he is not sure if it is watertight once it is under water. Anderson stated the area gets pretty wet when the lake is at 930’ and that he would suggest moving it up closer to the 932’ elevation. Anderson stated he is also not sure why they could not put the dispensing unit on the south dock versus rezoning the whole property to commercial. Anderson stated the reason the docks come out of the back side is that when the LMCD allowed Jim Rivers to redesign this, this was residential property. Anderson stated if it is converted to commercial, the docks may need to be relocated. Anderson stated he also has raised previously the issue with the stormwater management plan. Anderson noted all the other marinas have a stormwater management plan and that he keeps asking if that has been done in this case. Anderson noted he received a $1200 fine for not filing his on time and that he would ask the applicant be required to submit one. Schoenzeit asked how many gallons his tank is. Anderson indicated he has a 5,000 gallon tank and that he fills it once a week. Anderson noted the applicant could not put a 5,000 gallon tank on this site. Anderson stated he does not care if the applicant sells to the public but that is an issue for another day. David Feldshon, 1420 Shoreline Drive, stated he has well water at his property and that he understands they have not had problems with leaking before but that he does have concerns with the applicant putting an underground fuel storage tank in an area that is below grade. Feldshon stated he is not sure why an exception is being considered to the standard building practices. Feldshon noted there has been also been no discussion about rezoning the lots on the Tanager side previously and that he has no interest in seeing that rezoned. Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Landgraver stated the one statement he would like clarified is whether the City is actually talking about rezoning tax parcels 5, 6, and 7. Landgraver stated the issue of commercial zones versus residential comes into play when the upper parcel is included. Gaffron stated it would be parcels 5, 6, and 7. Gaffron stated if there is an existing easement that would allow marina use and facilities across the most northern of the three properties east of the road, then it is probably already covered in the easement. Gaffron stated the bigger issue is the setback of the tank from the north lot line. If the overlay is accurate, there should be a 10-foot side setback. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 18 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 26 Gaffron stated from looking at accessory buildings and other applications not related to this, even if somebody owns both properties, they still need to meet a 10-foot setback from the lot line. Staff would like the tank to meet a 10-foot setback or grant a variance unless the two southerly properties are combined. Landgraver stated the issue is there might someday be two separate owners and that he would like to see the lots combined. Landgraver stated his understanding is that 1442 is residential. Landgraver asked if the eastern portion of it is also residential. Gaffron stated 1440 is a separate tax parcel that goes from Tanager Lake to Browns Bay and the road is an easement going through the middle of that property. Gaffron indicated the portion of the property west of the county road is zoned residential and the portion east of the road is zoned commercial, which results in one property having two different zones. Gaffron noted the applicant has not made an application to rezone the properties, but for the last two years there has been discussion regarding the pros and cons of eventually rezoning those lots. Gaffron indicated that discussion has not occurred because a rezoning has not been proposed. Landgraver sated the other part the Planning Commission should clarify is that as the business has evolved and the use of the property has changed as well as the ownership, the City has arrived at a scenario where the fueling situation is unsafe and needs to be addressed first as opposed to the concern of coming up with a master plan. Landgraver stated the City Council has indicated they would like the situation of the fuel addressed first. Landgraver stated there does need to be an overall plan, but the Council has said there needs to be a solution to the fuel situation. Lemke asked why the applicant chose this location for the pump. Kujawa stated the main reason is that the 20 slips are where the boat club boats are and they would like to keep the fuel tank in the same area. Kujawa indicated it is also the widest dock, and if they switch to retail sales, they would be able to flatten out the end of the dock and make a longer area. Kujawa indicated for future purposes it makes more sense at that location. Thiesse noted Section 78-1121, No. 5a, states: “The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.” Gaffron stated it is floodplain provisional use. Thiesse asked if this is in a floodplain. Gaffron indicated it is, and that from his perspective the intent of that section is, if the fuel storage tank meets all the state and city requirements, that section would not be applicable. Thiesse stated even if you remove the word processing and just take the storage of materials that are, in time of flooding, explosive or flammable, gasoline is always flammable or explosive. Thiesse asked if Staff is taking the position that if it is in the tank and protected, it is not. Gaffron indicated that is correct, and that the other position that needs to be looked at before issuing the permit is if the slab has to extend beyond the 931.5, then it is no longer in the floodplain and no longer Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 19 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 26 subject to the floodplain or flood fringe standards. Staff does not have enough detail at this point to know whether or not that slab will be at existing grade at 930.2’ or where it is going to be. That additional data will need to be submitted before a permit can be issued. Gaffron indicated the applicant will also need to define the parking. If the tank and the slab will reduce the number of parking stalls, that impact will need to be discussed. Gaffron stated all Staff has at the moment is a conclusion by the applicant and no other information to go on that there will not be any parking impacts and that the slab will be at grade. Thiesse asked if it is Staff’s direction that this is only a mechanical permit, it is only for the gas tank, and only for the parking over the gas tank, with the other issues being off the table at this point. Gaffron stated that is essentially correct. Schoenzeit commented if there was an engineering drawing depicting the elevations and it was shown to be above grade, that would change the discussion considerably. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission may want to say that their approval or recommendation is based on this being at grade, and if an engineering drawing is not received, the Planning Commission is no longer approving that design Gaffron stated that would suggest the Planning Commission would need to see it again. Gaffron stated in his view, if there continues to be a lack of information, it is something that should come back before either the Planning Commission or City Council. Thiesse noted there are a couple of months before the installation would start. Kujawa stated all the discussions with the contractor were that it would be at grade and that everything has been designed to make sure it was a concrete slab that would not impact parking. Kujawa stated if it does impact parking, in his view it would be fair to bring it back. If it ends up where there are two or three inches of fill above the current grade, then the Watershed District would need to approve it. Thiesse stated he would prefer to have all the information showing the elevations and everything else rather than the applicant needing to come back in May when he finds out it does not work. Schoenzeit stated in his view the drawing requires an engineer stamp on it to make sure it works the way it is proposed. Schoenzeit stated in his view the Planning Commission needs additional documentation to be sure this can be built the way it is proposed. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission is okay with sinking a gas tank eight feet below the water table near the lake. Thiesse commented the Planning Commission is the keepers of the lake, and even though it appears the Watershed District and the LMCD are saying it is okay, don’t worry, he is worried about the impacts. Thiesse questioned how long the tanks will last and whether they are a potential risk. Gaffron stated the other option is to do an above ground vault system, which would have site impacts in terms of location and visual impacts. Gaffron indicated he does not know whether it would cost more or less than what is being proposed but noted it is not what the applicant is asking for. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 20 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 26 Landgraver stated he agrees with the spirit of Commissioner Thiesse’s comments and that he does not have the expertise to know if this will work. Landgraver indicated he cannot second guess the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District or the LMCD. Schoenzeit stated an engineer stamp would address that and that the Planning Commission could restrict use of the fuel tank to boat club use only and that any other use would need to be revisited by the Planning Commission or City Council. Schoenzeit stated due to the City’s obligations to the lake, he would like to see it more fully designed showing that it is viable before the Planning Commission sends a recommendation of approval forward to the City Council. Schwingler stated there is also the timing issue of getting this done before the boating season. Schwingler noted the LMCD and the Watershed District will also be weighing in on this, and given that, Schwingler indicated he does not have that same concern. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission could approve the concept and then require the applicant submit additional information prior to going before the City Council. Schoenzeit stated in his view the concept is fine but that it requires additional details to determine its viability. Schoenzeit noted this site has had issues with parking in the past and concerns about the lake and that the additional information would help the City Council make a better, more informed decision. Schwingler stated there are a whole lot of issues with the property, but that it comes down to the practicality of what can be done. Schwingler stated obviously underground storage tanks have been done before and that this is not unexplored territory. Schwingler stated the Planning Commission has to deal with what is in front of them. Schoenzeit stated if it consumes five parking spots, the question becomes whether the Planning Commission would approve this concept, and the answer is likely no. Schwingler indicated he would agree with that. Schoenzeit stated a little more documentation would help address that and is a reasonable request. Lemke asked if the City has determined that there is adequate parking for the number of slips. Thiesse indicated that is off the table at this point. Gaffron stated it is part of the previous application that was tabled. Gaffron indicated there has been information supplied but that it has not been fully analyzed at this point and is also subject to revision. Lemke asked if the elimination of three or four parking stalls would make that big of an impact. Gaffron stated all those issues are part of the ongoing discussion with the other application and that it has not been fully resolved at this point. Landgraver stated what he is hearing is that the applicant wants to put an underground storage tank, which will not impact parking in his opinion, but some of the Planning Commissioners would like it verified by an engineer. Landgraver indicated the Planning Commission could approve the concept but require expert verification of its location and any impacts on parking. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 21 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 26 Schoenzeit recommended the Planning Commission approve the concept for boat club use only and any expansion would need to come back before the Planning Commission and City Council. Gaffron stated the applicant has indicated he intends to resolve this issue with the understanding that there are other issues that need to be resolved with the site. Gaffron indicated he agrees with the suggestion that before it is brought before the City Council, the applicant will need to provide additional detail on the impacts to the floodplain and parking. Landgraver noted on Page 7, one of the conditions of Staff is that tax parcels 5, 6, and 7 be combined, and based on discussion tonight, it appears that just parcels six and seven is being recommended to be combined, which would eliminate the 10-foot setback and not get into the zoning issues. Gaffron stated Staff would also need to confirm that the easement that exists will handle the additional portions of the system that are not on those two lots. Landgraver noted another condition is that prior to permit issuance, the applicant will need to submit adequate data to determine the volume of fill below 931.5’ and obtain any necessary permits from MCWD. Schoenzeit stated he would make the additional recommendation that this approval of the fueling system is for boat club boats only, with verification of the impacts on the floodplain and parking, and that any expansion of the use comes back to the Planning Commission and City Council. Thiesse asked whether a stormwater management plan would also need to be submitted and who the regulating authority would be for that. Gaffron stated potentially Watershed District and MCWD permits would be required as well as a SWIFT as part of the mechanical permit. Gaffron asked Mr. Anderson whether he is also talking about an NPDES permit. Anderson stated a stormwater plan would be required and that it might be the MPCA. Anderson noted routine inspections of the underground storage tank would also be required. Gaffron stated training of the operators would also be required in addition to the other requirements. Thiesse stated it sounds like the Planning Commission would like a comprehensive plan showing elevations, limits of excavation and implications to parking. Kujawa asked why they are being limited to gas to boat club customers only. Schoenzeit stated in his view the pump is not in the right location for retail and that it is not set up currently for retail. Schoenzeit stated that additional work should be reviewed by the Planning Commission before that occurs and that the applicant is not proposing that at this time. Kujawa stated the dock reconfiguration would go through the LMCD and that he is looking for clarity on what is being requested. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 22 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 26 Thiesse stated it goes back to the lack of a grand scheme for the site. Thiesse stated if the site is going to be developed on a piecemeal basis, he would like someone to review that. Landgraver stated there are some other unanswered questions, such as who will be fueling the boats. Schoenzeit stated at the same time it allows a stop gate to be put in there so the plan can be developed and shared with the neighborhood and the City. Gaffron stated what he has heard so far is that the Planning Commission would like to see a combination of tax parcels six and seven; a determination that the existing easement covers inclusion of parcel five; a determination of the volume of fill below 931.5’; a requirement that the applicant obtain any necessary permits from the Watershed District and LMCD before issuance of the mechanical permit; a review of the system by the building official and Long Lake fire chief; a condition that the plan meets all city and state requirements; a requirement that the applicant provide proof that the mechanical plan works regarding parking, the floodplains, and elevations; and documentation showing that the appropriate SWIFT and potential MPDCS permits are in place prior to the application going before the City Council. Landgraver asked if the building official and fire chief would approve it or just review it. Gaffron stated subject to review and approval would be fine. Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3647, Luke Kujawa on behalf of E.O.F. Investments, LLC, 1444 Shoreline Drive, Commercial Site Plan Review, subject to the following conditions: (1) a combination of tax parcels six and seven; (2) a determination that the existing easement covers inclusion of parcel five; (3) a determination of the volume of fill below 931.5’; (4) a requirement that the applicant obtain any necessary permits from the Watershed District and LMCD before issuance of the mechanical permit; (5) a review and approval of the system by the building official and Long Lake fire chief; (6) a condition that the plan meets all city and state requirements; (7) a requirement that the applicant provide proof that the mechanical plan works regarding parking, the floodplains, and elevations; and (8) documentation showing that the appropriate SWIFT and potential MPDCS permits are in place prior to the application going before the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0, McGrann Abstained. Thiesse noted one of the citizens has requested a more comprehensive plan be completed. Thiesse asked how that would occur and whether the Planning Commission should require it. Gaffron stated if you look at what was required by the City Council previously, that would need to happen before any rezoning request is submitted. Gaffron stated if you look at the combination of all the questions that the Council has asked, it ultimately gets to that question. Staff has told the applicant that if rezoning is proposed, every little detail of how this site works together will be part of that review process. Gaffron indicated he is not sure how far the City Council wants to take it given the other pending application. 7. #13-3644 CITY OF ORONO, AMEND ZONING CODE CHAPTER 78 REGARDING MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DWELLING UNIT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS, 9:00 P.M. – 9:16 P.M. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 23 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 24 of 26 Gaffron stated at the November 18 Planning Commission meeting, this item was discussed briefly and a public hearing was held. There were no public comments and the item was tabled to the January 8 work session. At the January 8 work session, the Planning Commission reviewed the reasons for the need to have a minimum dwelling size standard in the code. Those reasons include the potential that someone would propose to construct a very small house on a lakeshore lot in order to have a principal residence structure to qualify for a dock. This has not been addressed previously in the zoning code except for the RS District and the RPUD District. In order to address this issue, Staff has reviewed the State Building Code as well as ordinances in effect in other cities. For cities where minimum dwelling size standards exist, a wide range of standards was found. Some cities regulate just the length and width of the building, some regulate the minimum combined floor area of all floors, other cities regulate the footprint without addressing the number of floors, and some have adopted a combination of two or more of those standards. At the January work session, the Planning Commissioners indicated a preference for the Brainerd model, which combines a 1,000 square foot minimum habitable floor area requirement with a minimum width/depth of 20 feet for 60 percent of the structure. The Planning Commission, however, suggested a 75 percent standard would be more acceptable. The draft ordinance language reads as follows: “All single-family detached dwellings constructed after the effective date of this ordinance in the R-1A, R-1B, LR-1A, LR-1B, LR-1C, LR-1C-1, RR-1A, RR-1B, RR-1B-1, and RPD Districts shall meet the following design criteria: 1. At least seventy-five (75) percent of the building length shall be at least twenty (20) feet in width. At least seventy-five (75) percent of the building width shall be at least twenty feet in length. Measurements of length and width shall not take into account overhangs or other projections. Such length and width requirement shall be in addition to the minimum area per dwelling requirements established within this Ordinance. 2. All buildings shall be built in conformance with the State Building Code as adopted in the State of Minnesota. 3. Dwellings shall have a minimum finished habitable floor area of one thousand (1,000) square feet, not including the floor area of carports, garages, utility rooms, or storage rooms.” Gaffron stated the draft language would have the following building design impacts: a. The smallest building dimensions allowed would be 20 feet long by 20 feet wide. This would result in a footprint of 400 square feet. To get to the 1,000 square foot minimum finished floor area, it would require at least two stories plus a partially finished basement or half story above. b. Under the example of a 40-foot wide lakeshore lot, in order to meet the 10-foot side setbacks, the house would be limited to 20 feet wide. Assuming a total house plus garage length of 100 feet, at least 75 feet of that length must be 20 feet wide, leaving a 25 foot end that could be narrower for, say, a porch addition that is less than 15 feet wide. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 24 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 25 of 26 c. A “park model” 12-foot wide by 40-foot long, would not be allowed. Functionally, the ordinance eliminates the establishment of a manufactured home that is less than 20 feet wide for use as a dwelling. Gaffron noted this item has again been published for a public hearing. Staff recommends holding the hearing, taking any public comments that may be forthcoming, and then discuss whether the draft ordinance language meets the goal and intent of establishing reasonable minimum dimensions and sizes for dwellings. Lemke asked what would happen in an octagon situation. Gaffron stated at some point a definition of length or width will need to be created. Thiesse asked if he has a house that is 100 feet wide on the lake but it is only 20 feet deep, if the measurement would go the other direction or whether it would always be the longest direction. Gaffron stated if you have both standards in place, it should not matter because the standard is the same whether it is length or width. Thiesse stated he would like to avoid the situation where someone comes in with a new definition that has not been considered. Gaffron stated using length as opposed to width and depth would help clarify it. Schoenzeit stated there could also be a total number that has to be met. Landgraver stated the question is whether the Planning Commission should address odd shaped structures at this point. Schoenzeit commented at some point those type of structures may require a variance. Landgraver noted the goal of the Planning Commission was to establish a basic framework for minimum dwelling sizes and that they knew they would not be able to address all situations. Landgraver concurred the City would have the variance process to address the unique situations. Gaffron stated to his recollection the other cities’ codes did not define length and width and that he is not sure whether a definition could be crafted that works in every case. McGrann stated in his view a uniquely shaped house will probably tend to be larger rather than smaller. Schoenzeit asked if Staff cares anything about the specs on the inside. Curtis stated the building code would address that. Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 25 of 26] MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 26 of 26 Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 9:14 p.m. McGrann moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3644, City of Orono, Amend Zoning Code Chapter 78 regarding Minimum Standards for Dwelling Unit Size and Dimensions, per Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 8. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD NOVEMBER 25, 2013, DECEMBER 9, 2013, AND JANUARY 13, 2014. Curtis stated at the November 25 meeting, the City Council discussed the Narrows restaurant, the alternative energy ordinance, the plat for 3700 Northern Avenue, the Murphy lot line rearrangement, the Lieberman application, and the Willow application. Curtis stated at the January 13 meeting the Lakeview Golf Course was discussed. Thiesse indicated he attended the January 13 meeting and that the room was packed with people interested in the Lakeview Golf Course application. The City Council formally approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None ADJOURNMENT Thiesse moved, Schwingler seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:18 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. __________________________________________ Kevin Landgraver, Acting Chair Item #01 - PC Agenda - * 02/18/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 01/21/14 [Page 26 of 26] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #02 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3648 [Total Pages 43] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #03 - PC Agenda - *02/18/2014 File #14-3649 [Total Pages 32] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #04 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3650 [Total pages 41] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29] Item #05 - PC Agenda - *02/18/14 File #14-3652 [Total Pages 29]