HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-17-2013 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
MEETING DATE
❑ COUNCIL
n PLANNING COMMISSION
❑ OTHER
Assistive Listening Device available upon request.
PRESENT FOR(from agenda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER
1. '` '''�`j 4 , (11.54141 :12) 7L , t t i
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
V:\(LEGAL FORMS)\(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 June 17, 2013; 6:30 PM
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Council Representative: Cynthia Bremer
Audience Members:
Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the
lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet – located in the lobby near
the sign in sheet.
Items on the Consent Agenda, including (*) asterisk items, are reviewed in total by the Planning Commission and
may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Planning Commission. Any items may be
removed by any Planning Commission Member, staff member or person from the public for separate
consideration. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and
description of the item.
Applicants will be asked to move to the podium to answer questions after staff presents the application.
The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda,
they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting.
Consent Agenda
* 1. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 20, 2013.
New Business
2. 13-3604 Eskuche Associates on behalf of Neil & Barbara Goodwin, 2975 Casco Point Road,
Variances and Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie Curtis)
3. 13-3610 City of Orono, Amend City Code Section Lots of Record 78-72 (Staff: Mike Gaffron)
Planning Commission Comments
4. Report from Planning Commission representatives on City Council meetings:
May 28, 2013 and June 10, 2013.
5. Other issues for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 25
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners John Thiesse, Bruce Lemke, Kevin Landgraver, Loren
Schoenzeit, and Jaye Ann Bennett. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term
Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item No. 5 was added to the Consent Agenda.
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing for Item No. 5 at 6:31 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this item.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:31 p.m.
VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 15, 2013
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning
Commission meeting of April 15, 2013, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #13-3603 CHERYL CORYEA AND RICHARD DEVLIN, 385 CASCO POINT ROAD,
VARIANES, 6:33 P.M. – 6:47 P.M.
Cheryl Coryea and Richard Devlin, Applicants, were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting setback variances in order to connect the existing detached garage
to the existing principal structure and to reorient and raise the roof of the garage. In 1978, the City
approved variances allowing the detached garage in its current location. As approved, it was to be ten
feet from the front and ten feet from the side lot lines. It was constructed slightly closer to both lot lines
and exists today 6.8 feet from the front property line and 9.5 feet from the side.
The applicants would like to connect the detached garage to the home with an addition and raise and
reorient the garage roof. Connecting the garage to the home results in a change in the nature of the garage
as it would be considered to be the principal structure. Principal structure setbacks for the district are 10-
foot side yard and 30-foot front yard. The property is not a lakeshore lot, so the provision allowing a side
loading detached garage ten feet from the street is not an option.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 1 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 25
Approval of the requested variance to connect the detached garage to the house would make the now
conforming principal structure non-conforming with respect to the front and side yard setbacks. The
garage roof changes will result in a further encroachment into the required 10-foot side yard setback for
the one-half foot at the north corner of the garage and a slight change in the encroachment on the front.
The garage is situated at an angle so that only a small portion, a corner, encroaches into the side setback.
Staff has visited the site and took a number of photos to document how the garage was located with
respect to the road, the vegetation, and the topography of the site. While the garage is only set back 6.8
feet from the front property line, Casco Point road is not centered within the right-of-way, which results
in a 34-foot setback from the paved roadway.
The applicants are proposing to rotate the orientation of the roof and to raise the peak of the roof ten feet
higher than existing. As proposed, the neighboring property owner will see a garage wall and gable end
of the garage roof as opposed to the garage wall and portions of roof as they do today.
It is unclear from the plans if the applicants are planning windows or other architectural features in the
north-facing gable. There does not appear to be adequate space to install trees or other screening, at least
at the northern corner, to minimize the views of the garage. The south-facing gable has a vent at the peak.
Inclusion of architectural features or windows along the north wall may break up the view from the
adjacent property. there is space available to screen the proposed addition connecting the home and
detached garage from the neighboring property.
If this were a lakeshore lot, a detached garage would be permitted generally in the location of the existing
garage. The existing home on the property currently conforms to the required setbacks set forth in the
LR-1C district. Approving the requested variances will make the home’s location non-conforming. If, in
the future, the property owner wishes to replace the existing home in kind, the location of the existing
home would be considered a legal in-kind rebuild.
If the Planning Commission concludes the applicants’ request is reasonable and meets the practical
difficulty criteria for granting a variance, a recommendation for approval should be considered.
Bennett asked if this is the same applicant that requested the original variance.
Curtis asked if the applicants were the owners of the property in 1978.
Coryea indicated they were not.
Devlin stated they would like to improve the appearance of the house as well as make the roof of the
garage match the house. Landscaping will also be done around the garage to help improve the
appearance. Devlin stated they would also like to construct an addition between the house and the garage
to allow for a mud room and bathroom to help accommodate them as they grow older. The master
bedroom will also be relocated downstairs.
Leskinen asked if the applicants are proposing to re-side the garage as well.
Devlin indicated they are.
Schoenzeit asked if the garage has frost footings or if it is slab on grade.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 2 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 25
Devlin stated to his knowledge it has a foundation underneath the garage.
Thiesse stated there are masonry walls on the back and along one side, so it is his assumption it goes
down into the ground.
Landgraver asked if the applicants are intending to incorporate any type of architectural features on the
structure that faces the neighbor to the north.
Devlin indicated they would like to make the structure architecturally please and so they would likely
incorporate a window on the first floor of the garage or some kind of architectural feature near the peak of
the roof. Devlin pointed out they will be raising the ground level of the dirt two or three feet up on the
garage to help hide some of the massing and then have landscaping around the garage.
Landgraver asked if the City has heard from the neighbor.
Curtis indicated they have not and that the neighbor has been given notice of the application.
Landgraver stated his concern was whether the neighbors to the north were opposed to the project since
that is the most impactful view.
Devlin stated they would like to make the structure look attractive from the road.
Lemke asked whether any trees would be damaged as a result of the construction.
Devlin stated to his knowledge there is one tree and the tree is located slightly higher than the garage so
the construction should not impact it.
Leskinen asked where the landscaping will be located.
Devlin indicated it will be on the front of the garage as well as the backside which faces the neighbor’s
property.
Leskinen asked if that will include some taller vegetation.
Devlin indicated they probably will have to have some taller shrubs in that area.
Thiesse asked if they plan on re-grading the area between the house and the garage.
Devlin stated they have been observing the drainage for the past week and that they will be addressing
that.
Leskinen asked whether the City Engineer has reviewed the plans in terms of the drainage.
Curtis stated the survey does not include the drainage and will need to be added prior to the building
permit being issued. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has not made any recommendations at
this point. Once the survey has been updated, the City Engineer will review it for any possible changes
that may need to be made to the drainage.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 3 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 25
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.
Thiesse stated his main concern was also whether the neighbor objected to the plan and that the proposal
appears to be a nice use of the property. Thiesse commented drainage may be difficult but that the City
Engineer will be reviewing the proposals regarding the grading.
Schoenzeit commented re-siding the garage would also be a benefit to the neighborhood.
Landgraver recommended something be incorporated to help break up the massing affect.
Leskinen stated in her view the Planning Commission could require some vegetative screening.
Schoenzeit stated the applicant could work with Staff on incorporating some type of architectural feature.
Landgraver asked if they are agreeable to landscaping and an architectural feature.
Devlin indicated they are planning on doing it anyway so it will not be a problem.
Bennett asked if this would set a precedent and that any structure could be rebuilt within these guidelines
Curtis indicated that is correct.
Bennett asked if any restrictions could be placed on that.
Curtis indicated approval would result in a legal conforming structure and that it could be rebuilt in kind.
Schoenzeit stated it is important to note that the right-of-way is large and the view from the street gives
the appearance that the house is more than 30 feet away from the pavement and that this type of lot allows
that type of variance.
Schoenzeit moved, Theisse seconded, to recommend approval of Application #13.3603, Cheryl
Coryea and Richard Devlin, 3085 Casco Point Road, granting of setback variances, subject to the
addition of vegetative screening and the incorporation of architectural features on the north side.
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
3. #13-3605 BRIAN AND REBECCA HENNING, 245 TONKA AVENUE, VARIANCE, 6:47
P.M. – 7:05 P.M.
Brian and Rebecca Henning, Applicants, were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a rear yard setback variance to allow construction of a deck 30
feet from the rear where a 50-foot setback is required and a 30-foot setback currently exists.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 4 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 25
In 1994, a variance was granted to allow construction of the existing hoe 30 feet from the rear lot line
where a 50-foot setback is required. A door was constructed on the south side of the upper level which
was required by building code to be blocked off for safety reasons. In 2012, a permit was issued to allow
a minimal landing and stair for egress at this door location.
The current property owners are requesting a setback variance in order to construct a 14’ x 14’ deck (plus
stair) in this location, 30 feet from the rear lot line where a 50-foot setback is required and a 30-foot
setback currently exists for the home.
The applicants’ property has only 125 feet in depth making the 50-foot front and rear yard setbacks
difficult to meet. The existing home meets the required 50-foot front setback and was granted a variance
for the location 30 feet from the rear.
Staff finds the applicants’ request for a setback variance is reasonable considering the nature of the small
lot neighborhood and the location of the existing home. There are trees between the applicants’ property
and the property to the rear which offer some screening. The deck is not proposed to encroach closer to
the rear lot line than the existing home and it does not appear that it will limit the light, air, and open
space between the properties. It also does not alter the character of the immediate neighborhood.
The Planning Commission should note that there is an 83 square foot shed located between the home and
the front lot line. The shed is 19.6 feet from the front lot line. This shed was constructed by a previous
property owner and not the applicants. No permits exist for this shed and it exists in an illegal location.
The Planning Commission should discuss whether or not it would be appropriate to require the applicants
to relocate the shed to a conforming location.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the rear setback variance for the proposed deck.
Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission should address the shed.
Curtis stated in her view it should be addressed. Currently the shed is illegal but it is new enough that it
could either be removed or relocated. The applicants are allowed the shed but in a different location.
Landgraver asked if the shed is attached to the ground somehow.
Curtis indicated it appears to be just set on the ground.
Brian Henning, Applicant, stated they would like the Planning Commission to consider the fact that they
are located on a dead-end road and are the second to the last house from the end. There is very little traffic
on the road so not very many people will see the shed. The shed is also sided and contains two double-
hung windows with a shingled, peak roof that matches the house. The lot has quite a bit of slope to it
which limits the areas where the shed could be located. Henning indicated if it is located up in the corner,
it would be quite a walk from the house.
Henning distributed pictures of the property.
Henning stated in their view it is a nice looking building and that it has been there for quite some time.
None of the neighbors have complained about it. Henning requested the Planning Commission consider
allow the shed in its current location.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 5 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 25
Bennett asked what the purpose of the shed is.
Henning indicated it is a little garden shed and houses some garden tools.
Leskinen asked when the shed was put up.
Henning indicated they are not sure but that it has been there for many years.
Landgraver asked if the shed is attached to the ground.
Henning stated there is a foundation underneath it consisting of 4 x 4 treated lumber set on some concrete
blocks that have been placed in the ground.
Thiesse asked if there is a risk to having an illegal building location.
Curtis stated typically in a situation like this the City would send them a letter notifying them that it is in
an illegal location and that they can either apply for an after-the-fact variance, remove it, or relocate it.
Thiesse asked if, at this point, they would require an after-the-fact variance.
Gaffron stated the City has not taken any action to notify them about the shed at this time.
Curtis stated it was noted at the time this application was filed and that there are also a couple of
differences on the survey, such as the configuration of the driveway and the shed.
Thiesse asked if the shed could be approved as is as part of this variance.
Curtis stated the shed was not part of what was noticed for the public hearing tonight.
Gaffron stated the fact that it was not noticed means there is a need to provide notification to the
neighbors about the shed. Gaffron stated the requirement that you not have an accessory structure
between the street and the residence has been in place at least since the early 1980s and perhaps back to
the 1960s.
Henning noted there are properties near them that have bus structures for children that are located in front
of their residences.
Leskinen asked if there is anything the Planning Commission can do at this point about the shed.
Gaffron stated it is more difficult when they have purchased the property with that in place to require it be
removed or relocated.
Thiesse commented the additional variance process would also be a burden.
Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission feels a variance should be pursued, Staff could publish it for a
City Council meeting in June and hold the public hearing at the City Council level.
Bennett stated the neighbors should have the opportunity to comment on the shed.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 6 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 25
Leskinen stated the Planning Commission does not have the authority to allow the shed but that they
could make a recommendation that it should be considered by the City Council. Since the applicants
purchased the home with the shed it that location, it makes it a difficult situation, but that they have to
deal with the constraints placed on the Planning Commission.
Schoenzeit suggested the Planning Commission address the deck.
Henning stated they were merely looking for a 14’ x 14’ deck.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
Landgraver commented this application has morphed into something different and that in his view the
Planning Commission should approve the deck as proposed and separate the deck from this application.
Landgraver stated there is a variance process that needs to be followed for the shed.
Schoenzeit stated the deck as proposed looks fine, and that if there is the opportunity to make a
recommendation to encourage notice for a public hearing so the applicant can deal with both situations at
the same time so they do not have to come back a separate time, he would be in favor of that.
Lemke indicated he would like to know whether any of the neighbors have any comments regarding the
shed.
Schoenzeit stated he would suggest that the public hearing for the shed be held at the City Council
meeting so the applicants can deal with both issues at the same time.
Leskinen noted it is not within the Planning Commission’s authority to approve the shed at this time and
that notice to the neighbors must be given.
Thiesse stated the unfortunate part of it is that the neighbors now have a chance to object to it after the
fact even though it has existed in that location for a number of years. Thiesse asked if the applicants also
have a driveway expansion that should be added to the application.
Curtis noted they were issued a permit for the driveway but the hardcover did not match the survey.
Thiesse moved to recommend approval of Application 313-3605, Brian and Rebecca Henning, 245
Tonka Avenue, granting of a 30-foot rear yard setback to allow construction of the 14’ x 14’ deck
and the stairs, and to recommend that the shed be allowed to remain as is.
Landgraver stated he is looking at the application only in the sense of the deck and that it is difficult to
make a recommendation to approve a variance on an illegal structure even though the applicants
purchased the property with the shed in that location
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 7 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 25
Thiesse amended his motion to recommend approval of Application 313-3605, Brian and Rebecca
Henning, 245 Tonka Avenue, granting of a 30-foot rear yard setback to allow construction of the
14’ x 14’ deck and the stairs.
Leskinen recommended Staff consider noticing a public hearing for the shed to allow the City Council to
consider reviewing a variance for the shed.
Schoenzeit seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
4. #13-3606 LUKE KUJAWA OF YOUR BOAT CLUB ON BEHALF OF M.G. KAMINSKI,
1444 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, 7:05 P.M. – 8:17
P.M.
Luke Kujawa, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing conditional use permit granted in
2011 for Your Boat Club in order to increase the number of boat club boats from 20 to 30 boats.
The only standard for boat club conditional use permits within the zoning code is demonstration that
adequate parking is available on the property. The pertinent B-2 parking standards require that off-street
parking facilities for a marina operation be sufficient to eliminate any traffic or parking congestion likely
to be caused by the business conducted. The parking areas do not need to be paved but must be provided
with appropriate stormwater runoff quality/quantity controls.
The parking analysis conducted for the original conditional use permit review in 2011 is still valid. At
that time it was determined that based on the number of total slips, the retail use, etc., the number of
parking stalls required was 70 stalls. The available stalls exceed the requirement by 11 stalls and is
conforming.
The boat club is moving the boat club parking and dock location from the Tanager side to the middle
docks on the Brown’s Bay side. This and the boat club’s use of the gazebo as the base/office will reduce
the number of pedestrian crossings of County Road 15 by boat club users. The parking areas on the two
adjoining residential lots are the subject of the 2011 parking contract and are to be used only for overflow
The City did receive a couple of phone calls regarding these parking areas as the areas appear to being
used to store equipment and other items. The original conditional use permit stated that use of these
residential lots is to be for occasional parking of boats or equipment during transitional periods only. The
applicant should address how this issue can be addressed moving forward.
In addition, the applicant is currently working with the state marshal and City Stall to find a suitable
location for their fuel tank.
The Planning Commission should discuss the issues with the applicant concerning the items outlined in
Staff’s report. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendment to increase the
number of boats associated with the boat club from 20 to 30.
Leskinen asked whether the City has received any complaints since the original conditional use permit
was granted.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 8 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 25
Curtis indicated they have not but there might have been a couple of issues on a busy day where the
police department may have tagged someone for parking illegally.
Thiesse asked if the parking discussed by Staff concerns both the marina and boat club combined.
Curtis stated it is combined parking.
Thiesse asked if it was determined whether there was a greater density as it concerns boat clubs.
Curtis indicated there was no change to the code regarding density for boat clubs.
Landgraver asked what the required number of stalls is.
Curtis indicated it is seventy.
Landgraver asked if there are currently 81 parking stalls available.
Curtis indicated that is correct.
Landgraver noted for 20 boats, it was felt 70 was the right number, and to increase to 30, seventy stalls
are still felt to be adequate.
Curtis indicated 81 stalls are available. The boats on site are not increasing but the boats used for the boat
club are increasing. Curtis stated there will be no more slips than before. Additionally, the retail user is
using a greater number of slips for display boat/demo boat purposes but there will be no additional boats
on site.
Bennett asked whether the change in what the slips are used for would put more pressure on where the
permanent fuel tank will be located.
Curtis stated the location of the permanent fuel tank is an issue that will need to be resolved with the fire
marshal, and once that happens, a change in the parking stalls may need to occur. Staff will be
monitoring the situation to see if any changes are required.
Lemke asked if the Planning Commission is just addressing the use of the slips.
Curtis indicated they are marina slips currently and they are proposing to change them to boat club slips.
Bennett asked what the difference between a boat club and a marina is.
Curtis indicated a marina boat may have one or two owners who will spend less time on the lake in their
boat. A boat club boat would have repeated users throughout the day.
Bennett asked if there are different users for the same boat in the club.
Luke Kujawa, Applicant, stated boat clubs have been around for a long time and basically it is a shared
boating situation. A lot of people refer to it as boat rental, which is a permitted use in the City’s code.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 9 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 25
Kujawa stated they could have as many rental boats as they want. Whereas, a boat club is pulled out from
that code and requires a separate conditional use permit.
Kujawa indicated they have a number of members throughout the metro area and they have access to
boats at eight different locations throughout the state of Minnesota. The members can go online, reserve
a boat, and take the boat whenever they want.
Schoenzeit asked whether the gas that is sold has a road tax on it.
Kujawa indicated it does have a road tax on it. Kujawa stated they do not sell any retail fuel but simply
replenish the boats.
Bennett asked if there is any place for people to come in off of the lake and fill up.
Kujawa indicated there is not. Kujawa indicated they have had conversations with the City and the
DLMC where down the road they may put a more permanent underground tank and a retail gas dock, but
at this time that is not on the table.
Landgraver asked how the change from the marina usage to the boat club usage would impact traffic in
the area.
Kujawa stated there will be some impact but no more than what other uses are permitted in the B-2
District. If there was a facility that had a rental fleet consisting of 20 boats and those boats were rented
every single day, there would people showing up to use those 20 boats. That is no different than the boat
club. The boats typically go out on a morning session. When they are brought back, they are cleaned up,
filled up with gas, and then in the afternoon they go out again. A boat club will allow more people access
to the water and access to the boats but it is not of a higher use than a boat rental facility would be.
Kujawa stated on a busy weekend, such as a holiday weekend, people are out using their boats anyway.
There will be a slight impact on the traffic but there are also a lot of things that are assisting the parking in
the area. The retail tenant will be taking a lot more slips for display so that will result in fewer people
driving boats. In addition, the boat club will be moving into larger slips that are designed for larger boats
than what the boat club has. The larger boats are being replaced by 23 and 25-foot boats that do not
accommodate as many people, which results in fewer people and fewer cars.
Leskinen asked what is being done to alleviate the fear of pedestrian crossing.
Kujawa stated it is a challenging spot and that the area is busy. One of the main reasons they would like
to move to the side is when they have all of their boats on the Taniger Bay side as well as the retail
business being on that side, parking got congested and the other side was not busy. The relocation of the
boat club will allow the parking to be more balanced. Kujawa indicated there may be busier times when
people have to park across the road but there is a crosswalk. Kujawa stated in his view there will be a
definite net decrease in how often boat tenant users will have to cross the road.
Leskinen asked if all of the boat club boats park on the side where the gazebo is.
Kujawa indicated they are and that last year they were on the other side.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 10 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 25
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Matt Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive, stated they are the only residential property that directly abuts this
situation. Johnson indicated he did prepare a letter that he can forward to the City and that he has also
e-mailed some photographs for their review.
Johnson stated they purchased the property last year. Prior to purchasing the property, they contacted the
City and spoke with Melanie to make sure there was a residential buffer between their property and the
marina operation. Johnson indicated they were told that area was zoned residential and it was made clear
to us that the house that is on there is not to be used for commercial purposes.
Johnson indicated they have two main concerns with this proposal. The first concern is the use of the
residential property for commercial use, such as the parking and vehicle storage, the boat club accessory
storage, and the use of the residential home. The second area of concern is the increase in required
parking and pedestrian traffic.
Johnson stated prior to moving in last summer, the situation, as described by Ms. Curtis, was that it was a
residential area and there was only overflow parking allowed. As the summer progressed, the commercial
use flowed right into our property and they were utilizing the entire gravel area for parking. The other
piece is that the house is vacant and is in a terrible state of repair. There are windows that have been left
open and fascia missing.
In addition, the boat club staff uses the house during business hours for breaks and to store the goods of
the boat club. Most concerning is the after-hours party house. The house has had Christmas lights up all
year long and people shoot BB guns and paint ball guns on the property. On several occasions the parties
have lasted all night, with the people leaving in the morning. Johnson noted there was one instance last
year where they called the police after they heard what they thought were two gun shots in the middle of
the night. The people at the house throw fire crackers and do other juvenile things. Johnson stated it was
a very alarming situation that was quite intimidating.
Johnson stated they noticed this spring that the residential properties are being used to store the boats and
that they are not sure who even owns the property at this point. Johnson stated he did contact the bank
that as their name on the deed and it is his understanding the parties have not purchased the property at
this point. Johnson stated they are not aware of who to call to help rectify the situation. So at the present
time there is the commercial use of a residential property. Johnson stated on top of that, the commercial
activities are close, if not encroaching on their property line, which gives them full exposure to what is
happening on that property.
Susanne Johnson indicated they have had to relocate their pre-teenage daughter, who was in a bedroom
that faced that house, to a more interior bedroom.
Mr. Johnson illustrated the side of the house. Johnson stated the deck is also full of garbage.
Susanne Johnson indicated it is industrial junk and there are also holes in the decking and snow fencing
still on the property.
Matt Johnson stated as it relates to the second point of contention, which is the increase in pedestrian
traffic. Johnson noted he did receive a copy of Mr. Kujawa’s letter saying that there were zero parking
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 11 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 25
issues. Johnson stated they are in this unique spot where they are quite aware of the issues that happen.
Inevitably what happens is people go to park in their parking lot and there is no room so they end up
backing out on to County Road 15. Johnson stated they can hear the horns and the screeching of tires on
a fairly frequent basis. There are also no defined parking stalls in the parking lot.
Susanne Johnson noted it is a dead end and they have nowhere to go but to back up.
Matt Johnson stated the crosswalk is down by North Shore Marine, and people take the shortest route and
not the safest one and cross CR15. In addition, cars park on the shoulder. Tickets have been written there
because it gets very full. The idea that the boat club will generate less traffic is not consistent with our
observations. Johnson stated they have observed many times multiple families getting on one boat and
the idea that there will only be one car for a boat with an 8-person capacity is not realistic.
Susanne Johnson noted there is also more turnover of the boats during the day with the boat club.
Matt Johnson stated they are against any changes to the boat club by increasing the number of boats
allowed. Johnson encouraged the City to really evaluate if the marina and boat club are in current
compliance with their conditional use permits. Johnson noted the adjoining lot is supposed to only be for
overflow parking but that it is an everyday occurrence. There are boats currently on there today and
being stored. Johnson stated with the marina actually selling boats, which is a change in the use, the
boats take up more than one parking spot.
Richie Anderson, 1449 Shoreline Drive, asked if there is any way Staff can display the pictures that he
sent to the City last year.
Anderson asked if anyone on the Planning Commission went down to visit the property.
Leskinen indicated she was in the area.
Anderson asked what they thought about all the boats and the congestion where they will be parking.
Landgraver commented it was a little crowded when he went through there.
Anderson noted there is a gas tank placed in a floodplain and that he is not sure why Staff approved this
in the first place. Anderson stated the City required him to have off-street parking for his marina and that
the City has a different requirement for a boat club than they do for a dock slip. The average use of a
dock slip is approximately six times per season. Anderson stated he is guessing he still has a conditional
use permit for a boat club.
Gaffron indicated he does, but noted the Sailor’s World site was very short on the number of stalls it
needed for the number of slips and was required to have offsite parking with a shuttle.
Anderson stated that should be revisited because he does not want to be jeopardized due to some issues
with this boat club. Anderson stated clearly there is a boat club permit in place for his operation but he is
not using it right now since he does not have off street parking available.
Gaffron stated Staff can look into it but that his guess is that there was no difference in the amount of
parking required for the boat club than for the dock slips.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 12 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 25
Johnson stated the City should look into it.
Curtis indicated she is not able to find the pictures Mr. Anderson requested.
Anderson stated he sent three pictures last year that depicted cars parked on the road. In addition, the no
parking sign was removed. Not only were people parking on the side of the road, but they were also
parking going the wrong way on the road.
Anderson noted the adjoining lot to the Johnsons is a residential lot and that he always understood it to be
overflow parking when he owned it. Anderson stated he knew it was residential and that he never had
any commercial operations in that building.
Anderson stated as the neighbors have testified, the building is ready to fall down and is still being used
by the boat club guys. The gazebo cannot store all the gear they need and that the marina had four
employees there the other day working the docks. Anderson indicated he is not sure where the employees
park.
Anderson stated in his view there should be a requirement to have offsite parking with a shuttle bus since
there is a parking problem in this area. Anderson stated in his view this application is null and void given
the parking situation.
Anderson noted Taniger Bay, LLC, is listed on the application and at one point they were a friendly
partner to M.C. Kaminski, which is no longer the case. Crown Bank has taken over the property and it is
in foreclosure. The main piece of property that the applicant is operating on is in receivership so what
you have is a receiver and there is not an owner like the neighbors were saying. There is no one to go to
to get satisfaction. There is a receiver and no owner. Some guy from Minnetonka Boat Works rents out
the dock slips, so there are at least four parties involved.
Anderson stated there are also cars parked in the green area located in front of the building. Anderson
stated the retail person has a $30 million retail operation and sells boats out of there. Anderson stated he
can safety say there will be boats in that parking lot. The retail person supposedly has 14 slips but he will
sell 100 boats out of there. This spring there were two trailers parked going the wrong way on the side of
the road. Anderson stated in his opinion there will be higher use there than there ever has been in the past
for the retail guy.
Anderson stated in his view the City should at least table it and look into the ownership since two
residential parcels are involved with parking. Anderson stated clearly this property is not even close to
being used a residential property. Anderson commented only one person from the Planning Commission
went and visited the site, which is disgusting.
Leskinen stated she did drive by but it was pouring rain and did not get out of her car.
Bennett commented she drives through that area almost every day.
Anderson noted the boat club customers, when they park on the street, cross between the Johnson house
and the crosswalk. When people get out of their car, they will take the route with the shortest distance.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 13 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 25
Anderson indicated he would like to see parking permits required and that the City required them at his
property.
Anderson stated the City of Orono is allowing this overuse to happen. The City is going backwards
because they have allowed this little piece of property to have all this retail. Anderson stated a boat club
is okay, but the use of a boat club is far superior to the general public coming out and using their boat.
Anderson reiterated the Planning Commission should table this application.
Tyler Olson, Oppenheimer, Wolf, stated his office represents Thrivent Financial. Olson indicated he is
not here to either support or raise any issues with the requested change in the conditional use permit, but
that he would like to make it clear to the Planning Commission that Thrivent Financial did request a
receiver be appointed because the party who owned the property was in default under the mortgage.
Olson indicated it has been approximately three weeks since the receiver was appointed and it is an
independent third party. The receiver has engaged a different manager for the property and they are
attempting to figure out the best way to manage it. Olson stated to the extent there are questions or issues
that come up, they can be brought to the receiver via the property manager.
Leskinen asked if he is referring to the residential property.
Olson stated he is referring to the commercial property and that he is not sure whether the residential
property has been closed on at this point. Crown Bank was the original lender on the property and that he
is not sure whether the foreclosure has been completed at this point. Olson indicated he is not sure of the
exact status of it right now.
Landgraver asked if Thrivent has any affiliation with the residential properties.
Olson indicated they do not except for an easement of record and a parking agreement for the commercial
property.
Bennett asked if the City has reviewed that agreement.
Gaffron indicated the City helped draft it and that it is a permanent parking agreement that goes with the
land and not the owner. The agreement is between the commercial and the residential properties.
Schoenzeit asked Mr. Olson whether he has provided any of his contact information to any of the
neighbors.
Olson indicated he has not.
Schoenzeit suggested that he provide his contact information to the neighbors.
Kujawa stated he agrees with the Johnsons that the view from their property to the back side of the house
is not ideal. The house is an absolute mess and that he has discussed that for a couple of years with the
owner of the marina. The back side storage area is also a mess and there are snow fences back there
currently. The deck does have holes in it and the foundation and roof of the house are drooping. There is
also siding and fascia missing from the house. Kujawa stated he is in agreement the property should be
cleaned up.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 14 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 25
Kujawa stated one of the big reasons they want to switch sides is to utilize the gazebo and not operate out
of the house. The house is basically used to store tubes at this point.
Schoenzeit asked if the gazebo has bathrooms.
Kujawa indicated it has separate restrooms for the men and women. Kujawa stated he concurs the house
needs to be cleaned up or torn down.
Landgraver asked if his employees are using the house.
Kujawa stated they have stored some tubes in there and do occasionally eat lunch in there. There are no
commercial activities operated out of there.
Leskinen asked how he has access to the interior of that property if he does not own it.
Kujawa stated in their initial lease and initial agreement, they were allowed to use that house. The plan
all along was to move to the other side and be able to function out of the gazebo.
Leskinen asked if they lease or rent that space or any accountability for the building.
Kujawa indicated there is none at this point.
Bennett asked who would have insurance that would cover his staff in the event something happened in
the house.
Kujawa stated M.C. Kaminsky used to carry the insurance but currently Crown Bank has the insurance on
the property.
Leskinen asked if Crown Bank is aware of the condition of the property.
Kujawa stated they are aware of it and that they currently have a signed purchase agreement with Crown
Bank on the residential properties.
Bennett asked what their plan is for the residential properties.
Kujawa indicated their plan is to work with the City on what can be done with the property and either use
it as rental lake property or remove it and expand the parking area.
Bennett asked if they are allowed to have that much hardcover on those two lots.
Gaffron stated what is there for hardcover was essentially what was approved back in the late 1980s.
Gaffron stated if you were to start over today, there would likely not be an marina at that site or some
significant changes made in the operation.
Bennett asked if it has a CUP.
Gaffron stated property has a conditional use permit to allow certain uses, such as the boat club. The
marina itself is an allowed use and has an approval for a total rebuild on that site. There used to be larger
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 15 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 25
buildings on the east side and different buildings on the west side. The boat club has a conditional use
permit and the two houses have remained essentially the same for the past 20 to 30 years.
Kujawa pointed out one of the houses was remodeled and is currently being rented out. Kujawa stated he
did not know about the partying going on currently but that the previous tenant had a lot of parties.
Kujawa noted the commercial property is a marina and that boats come in late at night, which is one thing
you do not get with the boat club. Kujawa stated the boats come in at dusk, they are cleaned up, and then
the employees are out of there.
Bennett asked what time the boats need to be back per their agreement with their customers.
Kujawa indicated the boats must be in by sunset. If the boats come in before dusk, they will get cleaned
up and then the employees are done for the day. If a boat is brought back late, the boat club member
could lose their privileges. Kujawa noted the regular marina tenants come and go at different hours.
Schoenzeit asked if the boat club employees ever have parties in that house or spend the night there.
Kujawa stated to his knowledge his employees have never slept in that house.
Leskinen asked if the employees have access to the house after business hours or whether someone has
the responsibility to lock up that property before they leave.
Kujawa stated two of his employees have keys to the house. Kujawa stated he is not aware of his
employees being in there after hours.
Lemke asked if he anticipates redoing the house if it is purchased.
Kujawa stated something needs to be done with the house and that it cannot stay in its current state.
Lemke asked how he would respond to the concerns raised about the wrong way parking along Shoreline
Drive and that type of thing.
Kujawa stated they did discuss parking with the police chief a couple of weeks ago and he indicated that
there were not issues. Kujawa indicated he is aware of two times where there were cars parked on the
street and they were ticketed. The previous tenant of the retail operation had a lot of boats staged in the
parking lot which took up a lot of space over a very busy holiday weekend and there were cars parked on
the street. Kujawa stated he is aware of one other time where people parked on the street and they were
informed not to park there. The parking lot has been striped which has helped improve parking
substantially. Kujawa stated as far as the comments about pedestrians crossing the road outside of the
crosswalk, that is one of the things they are attempting to mitigate.
Kujawa noted Anderson was in here last year regarding the boat club’s conditional use permit and he was
arguing that it should not be allowed because Anderson owned the only marina that had a conditional use
permit in an attempt to increase the value of his property. Kujawa indicated he is not sure why he is
against it this time. If you look at the parking lot located at 1444 Shoreline Drive, people for his marina
are parking in here all the time and walking across the street. People also park in this lot. Kujawa
indicated he spoke with Anderson’s son and he said they should be ticketed and towed. Kujawa stated
rather than be contentious, his employees will direct them to the proper spot. Kujawa indicated there are
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 16 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 25
times when their members are not aware of where to park and they do pull into Anderson’s lot, but that
his employees immediately direct them to the proper spot.
Leskinen asked where his parking is located. Leskinen asked if it is located on both sides of the gazebo.
Kujawa stated the calculable parking is 81 stalls. Kujawa pointed out on the overhead the available
parking.
Leskinen asked if the overflow parking is included in the 81 spots.
Kujawa indicated it is not included.
Schoenzeit commented the area is like a giant curb cut.
Kujawa noted this year the parking has been impacted due to the late spring and everybody attempting to
get their boats in the water on one of the few nice days. Kujawa indicated he did sit down with a tenant
from River Valley and discussed boat storage outside. Their plan was over the Memorial Day weekend to
move all the boats. The retail operation is also planning on using their 14 boat slips to store boats for
sale.
Leskinen asked if a retail operation would generate more traffic.
Kujawa stated there is a very specific allotment of parking for the retail operation that has already been
counted for.
Bennett asked where that parking is located.
Kujawa stated the exact location is not specified in the agreement but that in all likelihood it will be
located against the building. In addition, the Planning Commission has to look at the heaviest uses, which
are the weekends, and those are not your typical retail hours. The retail operation also is geared towards
people coming to look at 40, 50,000 dollar boats, so it is a smaller retail operation than a typical boat
dealer.
Lemke asked where the boats are stored during the off season.
Kujawa indicated all of his boats are stored in some large sheds that are located approximately one hour
from here.
Leskinen asked if the additional ten boats for the boat club will generate more traffic.
Kujawa stated there will be a marginal increase in traffic. Kujawa stated at the time of his original
conditional use permit application, he requested a larger number of slips at that time and the answer was
to start with 20 and then look at increasing it.
Leskinen commented it appears the City is just learning about potential problems tonight and that she has
concerns with the increase. Leskinen noted she drove by there yesterday but did not get out and walk
around due to the rain. Leskinen indicated the area was busy in the middle of a thunderstorm.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 17 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 18 of 25
Kujawa commented some of that is likely due to people still getting their boats in the water.
Bennett stated she has a concern that the gazebo does not have the square footage to allow the coming and
going of people with the ten additional slips.
Kujawa stated the gazebo would be the largest office facility they have out of their eight locations.
Kujawa indicated the gazebo would be used almost like a concession stand where people can walk up to it
and check in but there would not be any retail operation being run out of it.
Bennett stated she really means the restroom facilities.
Kujawa stated he is not aware of any issues with the restrooms.
Bennett indicated she has a great concern with allowing any increase in the usage without knowing more
about the situation with the residential house and the bank. Bennett stated she is very hesitant to allow
them access to a building that is about to fall down in a residential area and allow them to use it for
storage when they do not know who carries the insurance on it. Bennett stated in her view they should not
even have the 20 they are currently allowed.
Schoenzeit stated before this goes forward, the residential property needs to be under lease or they need to
discontinue its use. Schoenzeit stated there needs to be some accountability to the neighborhood
addressed before there is any expansion.
Anderson stated the least the Planning Commission should do is protect the residential neighbor since the
house was never intended to be used for commercial activity. All they should be allowed on that site is
overflow parking. Anderson encouraged the Planning Commission to protect the neighbor since they
were not expecting this type of usage.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated he is surprised and concerned at the discrepancies in the perceived activity level. The
police chief is saying everything is thumbs up but the zoning of this residential property or the condition
of the house is concerning. Schoenzeit stated if the neighbor is making those types of complaints, they
are not getting registered and filtering back. Schoenzeit encouraged the neighbors to obtain police reports
and to report incidents to the City. If the City does not hear there is a problem, Staff would accept it at
face value.
Schoenzeit stated before this use expands, if they are using the residential property for commercial
activities, it needs to be under lease or their ownership. Schoenzeit stated he would not be in favor of
expansion until the residential situation is greatly improved.
Lemke indicated he is in agreement and that there are too many conflicting reports. Lemke stated in his
view part of it is a management problem, and if they cannot manage 20 slips now, how would they be
able to handle an additional ten.
Bennett pointed out ten more slips is a 50 percent increase in the use and that there will be multiple cars
coming and going. Bennett stated the pictures speak for themselves. If the property is residential, why
would you have a commercial ice cooler sitting in the back. Bennett stated in her view they should have
used the conditional use permit in an outstanding manner to be allowed another ten slips.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 18 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 19 of 25
Landgraver asked if Staff has participated in any discussions with the police department regarding
complaints on this property.
Curtis stated Staff was not provided any information
Gaffron stated what they have heard tonight is significantly different than what they have heard in the
past. Staff has not heard from the adjacent neighbors about these issues, which concerns Staff. Gaffron
stated the things that have been mentioned tonight are not what they expect for the site.
Landgraver stated title to a property can be in flux, and asked if there is a conditional use permit attached
to the residential property that allows for parking.
Gaffron indicated the conditional use permit is issued to the main site and there is a parking contract that
goes with the property that specifies that the gravel parking areas on the two residential properties can be
used for marina overflow use. That agreement was put in place a year or two ago because it had been
informally in place during the ownership of Jim Rivers’ family, who owned both houses and the marina,
lived on the site and was essentially the owner/operator.
Gaffron stated this is the one site in Orono in the last 30 to 40 years that has not been owned by the
person who operates the marina, which has been a struggle. The fact that Crown Bank apparently owns
the two residential properties does not negate the parking agreement but it brings into question who has
control. The fact that storage and other activities are happening on the residential properties that are not
related to someone living or renting there is a problem that needs to be resolved.
Landgraver asked if someone could purchase the residential property and then choose not to renew the
parking contract.
Gaffron noted the parking contract is a permanent contract and would require the City and the other
parties to reach an agreement to extinguish it. At the time Crown Bank started to take over ownership of
the properties, they contacted the City and they were provided with a copy of the agreement.
Bennett asked if it is residential property, whether the only thing they could do with it is to restore it and
rent it.
Gaffron indicated that is correct. There has been discussion in the past on whether those two properties
should be rezoned. If they are not rezoned, the question becomes what is the logical residential use for it,
and the only logical use is one or two homes. Gaffron noted the two residential properties continue across
CR 15 to the east and part of the property east of County Road 15 that is part of the residential property is
actually zoned commercial.
Landgraver stated the fact that there is a purchase agreement in play and the boat club has an interest in
purchasing the residential property, the outcome of that is significant. If the boat club purchases the
property, the City is then dealing with a single entity and the owner can be held to certain standards. If
there is bifurcated ownership, it gets more complicated.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 19 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 20 of 25
Gaffron pointed out the boat club does not own the main site and it operates out of the main site with a
lease. If the boat club purchases the two residential properties, they would not be able to use the
residential properties for business until it is zoned commercial.
Schoenzeit stated they would also have a responsibility to the City to keep the residential properties in
shape and used appropriately.
Bennett stated in her view the Planning Commission should not allow an increase in the use until the
ownership is figured out.
Bennett moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend denial of Application #13-3606, Luke
Kujawwa of Your Boat Club on behalf of M.G. Kaminski, 1444 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use
Permit Amendment.
Leskinen indicated she is more inclined to table the application until further information can be obtained
regarding the residential property. Leskinen encouraged the applicant to address some of these issues
following the Planning Commission meeting and that she cannot, in good conscious, approve an increase
in use when there are these large neighborhood issues on the table.
Thiesse asked what she would be looking to gain by tabling the application and what would be the
weighing factor in possibly approving the application.
Leskinen stated she would like clarity on the ownership, what that means in terms of who is legally
responsible, and if there is any legal issue with the parking contract. Leskinen asked if it matters whose
name is on the lease as it relates to the parking agreement.
Gaffron indicated the parking agreement is attached to the property.
Thiesse asked if the difference between denying the application and tabling it is the cost to re-file an
application.
Gaffron stated a tabled application could be brought back at some point if the issues are resolved, as
opposed to a denial, which would take it before the City Council where they can either table it, send it
back to the Planning Commission, or deny it.
Lemke noted the applicant could also withdraw the application.
Schoenzeit stated even if the ownership issue is resolved, he would be inclined to deny the expansion
until the applicant has a track record of properly using the residential property and the neighbors gave the
application even lukewarm support.
Thiesse stated he cannot support it given both neighbors’ complaints. Thiesse stated he also cannot, in
good conscious, table it until the ownership of the residential property is resolved given the other issues
that have been raised.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Landgraver opposed.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 20 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 21 of 25
Landgraver stated he was opposed to the motion since the applicant went through a process of discussing
this with the appropriate officials and then he finds out there is some kind of communication or public
relations shortcoming. The neighbors are frustrated but the operator of the boat club was not aware of
those concerns, which is an issue.
Matt Johnson stated he is getting the impression that he should have had more involvement with the City.
What is happening is that someone is running a commercial business next to a residential property and
that the manager of the business has to know the condition of that building. He should also know that
there are parties going on in there since they happen every night during the summer. Johnson stated there
is also a substantial amount of debris around the property.
Johnson stated when he hears Commissioner Landgraver say that they should have let the City know, the
onus is on the owner of the commercial property to resolve these issues. Johnson indicated they have
never been approached by that group and that they are reasonable people who have lived in Orono for a
long time.
Anderson commented that is why there is a public hearing.
Landgraver stated there needs to be a public relations issue that needs to be addressed and open lines of
communication between the parties. Tabling the application would facilitate that.
Bennett stated her concern with the property is not necessarily what the neighbors are saying but the fact
that they are using a residential property for commercial uses. The concern deepens when he says he does
not know whether he has a lease to do that or not and who would be liable if someone was hurt.
Gaffron noted this item will go before the City Council sometime in June.
*5. #13-3602 CITY OF ORONO, AMEND HARDCOVER REGULATIONS IN 78-571
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend approval of Application #13-3602 City of
Orono, Amend Hardcover Regulations in 78-571. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
6. #13-3601 CITY OF ORONO, WETLAND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, 8:17 P.M. - 8:34
P.M.
Gaffron noted the City has spent some time reviewing their wetland ordinances. One of the key elements
that came out of those discussions was that the biggest issue with the wetland ordinance is enforcement
and administration of a buffer requirement, which is fairly new and was adopted in 2005. The City had a
26-foot setback requirement going back to 1974 or 1975, which was adopted when the City was entirely
rezoned and a number of other requirements were put into place. In 2005, that was changed from a
buffer setback to the required establishment of buffers that were triggered by a significant number of
activities that someone might do to their property.
As a result of the discussions, Staff has looked at an ordinance amendment that removes the buffer
requirements from the code and provides the Watershed District with authority for managing buffers.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 21 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 22 of 25
There are some differences between the City’s current code and how the Watershed operates. In
particular, currently the City has in their code the requirement for existing residences that when they meet
certain triggers, a person is required to do a delineation in most cases and create and establish a wetland
buffer anywhere from 16 feet to 50 feet plus. The City also put in place at that time a requirement for a
20-foot setback from the edge of the buffer, which may result in as much as a 70-foot buffer from the
edge of wetland.
Those buffers were established from a functional assessment of wetlands, which was a process where all
of the wetlands within the City consisting of a quarter acre or larger were reviewed and analyzed by the
Watershed District. The City ultimately ended up with different widths of buffers and a set of standard
for how they were to be created, requirements for legally establishing it with a legal description and filing
of documents, etc.
Staff has had a number of discussions with the Watershed Staff. Staff is confident, following those
discussions, that for nonresidential situations, their requirements and the way they administer them will
be equally if not more protective of the wetlands than the City’s codes. For residential situations, the
Watershed District has likewise experienced some frustration in how they administer the regulations. The
Watershed District does not have any requirements for establishing buffers when someone is just doing an
addition to their house or doing some work on the property. The only time they would require a buffer as
part of someone’s project is if they are rebuilding the house in its entirety and there is a net increase in
hardcover. If there is not one of those triggers, they do not require a buffer be established.
Going forward in the future, the Watershed District is looking at reducing their requirement for buffers to
25 feet for all new residential development. In addition, they would not have a setback from the buffer.
From the perspective of residential properties, the City historically has had a 26-foot setback. The
Watershed District, if they take over all of the buffering for residential housing, will require a 25-foot
buffer as a minimum but not much more.
Staff would like to propose that in order to keep a 10-foot gap between the edge of whatever buffer the
Watershed District might require and a building, the City should require a 35-foot setback from the
wetland for any structure.
In addition, Staff would not be proposing a buffer requirement for the City. In some situations where the
City would like to have a defined setback, there would be a delineation process and there is a potential for
having two levels of delineation. A level one delineation would mostly be done in the office based on
maps and aerial photos or whatever information is available. Staff would then determine if there is or is
not an issue. Whether that is done in-house or whether the consulting engineer would do it is still a
question mark at this point. Gaffron noted this would reduce the costs from requiring a full-blown
delineation.
A level two delineation would be where someone would go out and examine the soils and topography,
etc., and require that it be placed on a survey. If someone is proposing an addition that looks like it is
close to a buffer, the concern is if the City does not have a setback requirement and the Watershed does
not have a requirement to do a delineation, someone could construct an addition right up to the wetland,
which is why Staff is proposing to have a 35-foot setback.
Based on Staff’s report and the discussions with the City Council and Planning Commission, Staff has put
together a draft ordinance which strikes out most of the references to buffers and, in some places,
incorporates new language. Section 78-1605, as an example, adds language about setbacks. Also, there
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 22 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 23 of 25
were a couple of tables in the code that talked about the protection classification, which is related to the
functional assessment. Staff attempted to put the two tables that were in the code into one and
acknowledge that the Watershed District is going to require buffers in certain situations and in keeping
with the City’s Surface Water Management Plan.
Gaffron stated Section 1605(c) establishes the new structure setback requirement from wetland edges and
provides the City with authority to require wetland boundary delineation subject to the Planning
Director’s determination of whether a Level 1 or a Level 2 delineation is required. Sections 1605 (d), (e)
(f), (g), (h), and (i) are deleted as these all relate to buffer establishment and maintenance, which will now
fall under the Watershed District’s jurisdiction.
Section 78-1607 is slightly revised to eliminate references to conditional uses in wetland buffers except to
address impacts on existing established buffers. Section 78-1608(2) establishes that wetland buffer
protection will be under the Watershed District’s jurisdiction and Section 78-1608(3) is revised by
addressing existing buffers in (a) and by deleting (c) and (d) which pertain to avoidance of future
nonconformities and buffer flexibility.
Gaffron stated the proposed revisions to the wetland ordinance functionally transfer the authority for
requiring wetland buffers in Orono to the Watershed District. Staff believes that this code revision is
neither in conflict with the provisions of the 2011 Orono Surface Water Management Plan nor the
provisions of the 2008-2030 Community Management Plan.
The Watershed District buffer rules will not apply to existing single-family residential properties, which
should eliminate the primary issues the City has encountered in enforcing the current ordinance. The
ability to conduct a relatively inexpensive and less time-consuming Level 1 wetland delineation in
specified situations will make administration of the wetland setback ordinance more efficient.
Thiesse asked if the City is doing any injustice to the wetlands by revising their standards.
Gaffron stated in his opinion they are not. The ordinance establishes a 35-fot setback, which will provide
a greater level of protection. Gaffron stated buffers are a good thing, but would avoid forcing them on
people in situations where a private homeowner simply wants to do a small project that then evolves into
something much more extensive than they had any expectation of. In addition, some of the regulations
are difficult to administer and it is expensive for the property homeowners.
Gaffron stated in his view the Watershed District is going to do a good job enforcing their regulations and
that he is comfortable with where the City is headed with this.
Lemke and Schoenzeit commented it is a nice job by Staff.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m.
Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application 313-3601, City of
Orono, Wetland Ordinance Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 23 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 24 of 25
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
7. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS APRIL 22, 2013, AND MAY 13, 2013
Schoenzeit stated he attended the April 22 City Council meeting where there was a presentation on a
proposed Eagle Scout project. Schoenzeit commented the project looks interesting and is an aggressive
project, but at the same time the City Council did a good job of encouraging and requiring protection of
the existing memorials.
The other item that was discussed was the Eskuche application that was denied by the Planning
Commission. The City Council ended up approving the application based on the input by the neighbors.
Curtis stated from the perspective of the neighbors, she has been changing the way she discusses setbacks,
but she would not rely too much on a neighbor not commenting.
Schoenzeit stated the fact that the neighbors were supportive of the project had an influence on the
application getting approved.
Thiesse stated if the City does not hear from the neighbors, he assumes they are not opposed to the
project.
Schoenzeit stated the City Council also discussed the 2013 budget numbers.
Gaffron stated at the May 13, 2013, City Council meeting, the Bowman application was approved on
consent and the after-the-fact application on Creek Ridge Pass was approved. There was a significant
amount of discussion at the Council level about the process followed by Staff and the impacts it would
have on future applications. In the end the City Council approved after-the-fact variance as well as the
request to waive the application fees because they concluded the situation was not created by the
applicant. Staff concluded they would handle it differently in the future and make the City Council aware
of a situation like that sooner rather than later.
The Kallas average setback variance received approval. The City Council also had a lengthy discussion
on accessory uses and structures. The City Council provided some good direction and Staff expects to
bring it back to them at next Monday’s meeting. Gaffron indicated revisions have been sent off to the
City Attorney today and he is hopeful he will be able to put together a final draft for the City Council.
Once the ordinance is approved, it will allow the City to get rid of the moratorium on accessory
structures.
The City Council was also provided with an update on Navarre and the bid was awarded for the Willow
Drive street reconstruction project. There was also a discussion involving the proposed 2014 LMCD
budget.
8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Curtis stated Jon Schwingler requested that Staff provide reminders on who the council representative is
for the upcoming City Council meetings.
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 24 of 25]
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 20, 2013
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 25 of 25
ADJOURNMENT
Leskinen moved, Landgraver seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
8:50 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
________________________________
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Item #01 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 05/20/2013
[Page 25 of 25]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #02 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3604 [Total Pages 41]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]
Item #03 - PC Agenda - 06/17/2013
File #13-3610 [Total Pages 23]