Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-2018 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bob Erickson,Kevin Landgraver,Bruce Lemke,Dennis Libby, Chad Olson, and Jon Ressler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Thiesse noted Item No. 4 has been removed from tonight's agenda. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20,2018 Lemke moved,Ressler seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of August 20,2018,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 2. LA18-000071 DAN MULRENNAN,2655 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRADING,6:31 P.M.—6:37 P.M. Steven Kleineman, SKD Architects, and Dan Mulrennan, Contractor, were present. Oakden reviewed her Staff report dated September 17, 2018, regarding a request for a conditional use permit for grading over 500 cubic yards and creating a new engineered grade for the property. A permit was issued to demolish the existing home. During the demolition, it was discovered the existing soil was not suitable to support a home and would need to be replaced, which resulted in 2,046 cubic yards being removed from the site and 1,648 cubic yards being used for fill for the property. In addition, the applicants propose a grading plan that converts the flat lot into a walk-out lot. This transformation, in addition to the grading being done independent of a building,triggers the need for a conditional use permit. The plans were designed to conform to all of the applicable zoning requirements. The property consists of approximately 1.9 acres in area. The grading of the site does not appear to result in a home which would be out of character in the neighborhood or create drainage concerns. Staff finds the requirements for a land alterations conditional use permit are met. The owner needed to correct existing poor soils on the site. This created the need for excess fill. The applicant is working to create a walkout lot for the property,which is cohesive with the neighborhood. A new engineered grade was created as well for the property allowing the proposed home to meet the height requirements per City Code. The applicant was able to use some of the removed soil to fill in various areas to create areas to create a new walkout style lot limited the amount of hauling needed for the project. The applicant has received a Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit for the proposed new home. To date no public comments have been received. Page 1 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Planning Staff recommends approval. Thiesse asked if Exhibit B shows the proposed contours. Oakden stated to her knowledge they are. Steven Kleineman, SKD Architects, stated the site itself is quite flat, with a slight roll. The grading being done on the property will help blend the topography together. The home to the west sits up a little higher and the grade will be blended very comfortably with the adjacent property,primarily on the northern part, with the back yard remaining essentially the same. There will be very little grade change on the east side of the property and once the entire project is completed,the grades will look very natural, especially after it has been landscaped. Lemke asked what was wrong with the soil that was there. Kleineman indicated the soil was very soft and the existing home on the property had issues over the years. Currently the high-water level is 929.4 and the grade runs from 930' to 939' at its high point. Soil borings were done and they came back very soft. The recommendation from the engineer was to excavate and come back with a properly engineered fill,which is what is being proposed. Thiesse asked how much additional soil will be brought in. Mulrennan indicated it will be approximately 500 cubic yards. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October 8 City Council meeting. Thiesse commented the application is pretty straight forward. Ressler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000071, Dan Mulrennan,2655 North Shore Drive,granting of a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 3. LA18-000072 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF BILL AND SUE DUNKLEY,2709 WALTERS PORT LANE,PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:37 P.M.—6:52 P.M. Paul Vogstrom, Contractor,and Sue and Bill Dunkley,Applicants, were present. Curtis noted the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed this application as a sketch plan back in June and July of this year. The applicants are now requesting preliminary plat approval for a new lakeshore lot between their Walters Port Lane home located at 2709 Walters Port Lane and the neighboring property to the east. The proposal involves creation of two lots with over 1.0 acres in dry buildable area each within the area guided for low-medium density. Page 2 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lot 1,which is where the Dunkleys' home is located,consists of one acre. Proposed Lot 2 meets the one acre size requirement and the 140-foot width at the lake and at the 75-foot setback line. Based on the configuration,there is an approximate 90-foot buildable envelope at the average lakeshore setback line. No variances are being requested. The proposed 20-foot wide frontage connection to Walters Port Lane is proposed for the street frontage of Lot 2. The applicants are proposing to solely use the Walters Port access as they have been. Lot 2 will access using the existing Pence Lane shared with the Huelers. Lot 2 provides for a generally flat house pad to support a reasonable home without encroaching into the side yard setbacks,the lake yard, or the average lakeshore average. A delineated wetland near the center of the property impacts the buildable area and limits flexibility for development of the lot. The delineated wetland does require a buffer as required by the Watershed District. The lots will be served by city sewer and water. Over the past year and during the construction of the addition to the Dunkleys' home,there has been unaccounted and unpermitted movement of dirt and grading. This grading has impacted the"existing grade"necessary to apply height regulations to the new home. The applicant is attempting to capture and gain approval of the topographic changes to the property with the proposed plat. There is an area between the wetland and the driveway where approximately 300 cubic yards of fill was placed. This filling was not part of the permits for the demolition of the home on 2710 Pence Lane, nor was it included in the home addition permits. The applicants are also showing an approximate 200 cubic yard stockpile on Lot 1. This material is also proposed to be utilized along the west side of the driveway. Material has been added to the stockpile as part of the pool excavation today. A number of trees have been removed from the property outside of the 75-foot zone. The City will require the standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries in the plat and drainage easements over the wetland area and drainageways. Outlot A should also include the perimeter drainage and utility easements. The final plat drawing should include the drainage and utility easements. The preliminary plat should reflect the limits of the existing driveway easement for clarity in the future. Additional evidence of a driveway maintenance agreement and easements for access to Lot 1 and the Huelers will be required at the time of final plat. A park dedication fee is recommended per City Ordinance. The Park Fee is determined as 8 percent of the fair market value of the land being subdivided but must be between a minimum of$3,250 and a maximum of$5,550 per residential dwelling unit. The City's assessor will be consulted to determine the market value of the land for establishing the amount of the fee. The developer should contact the MCWD and provide confirmation regarding the permits or approvals they will require for this subdivision. The City's engineer is in the process of reviewing the proposed plat drawing and comments will be provided prior to being placed on the City Council agenda. The development is also subject to the 2018 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee of$5,250 per acre. Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Page 3 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Paul Vogstrom,Contractor, stated they have worked extensively with Staff and that he believes everything has been ironed out with the lot. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Greg Hueler,2715 Pence Lane,noted he and his wife have never stated that they would be opposed to a lot that conforms to the City's regulations and that they are happy to see the applicants are proposing a lot that meets City Code as well as a driveway with only two homes on it. Hueler stated he appreciates those changes and that he has no other comments. Bill Griffith,Attorney-at-Law appearing on behalf of the Huelers, stated they are happy the applicants are proposing a conforming lot,and in looking forward to the future,the Huelers will not support any type of variance since the home can be developed fully in conformance with City Code. In addition, since the new property and the Huelers' property accesses off of Pence Lane,there should not be a variance granted to add a third house to that driveway since there is legal access from Walters Port Lane currently. If this developer or applicant requests that variance,the Huelers will oppose it. Griffith stated the best way to protect everyone's rights is to construct a conforming home on this conforming lot. Mike Jorgensen, Pheasant Road, stated his property adjoins the subject property. Jorgensen indicated he has known the Dunkleys for a number of years, and when he found out they were going to develop this property,he knew it would be first class because everything they do with their property is first class. Jorgensen stated the Dunkleys are really wonderful people and that he hopes the Planning Commission approves all their requests. Sandra Keegan,2707 Walters Port Lane, noted the Dunkleys' landscape plans have changed since they proposed the addition on to their house. Originally their driveway access was going to be off of Pence, which is no longer the case. Keegan stated they have experienced some runoff from the Dunkleys' house that was rebuilt ten years ago. With the new addition and the increase of hardcover where the new driveway is going to connect to the existing driveway,which is right where her property starts,Keegan stated she is concerned there will be more issues with runoff into her lot. Keegan stated this is the first time they have seen this landscape plan and that she and her husband would like to go on the record that they have concerns about the runoff due to the amount of hardcover concentrated in that area. Bill Keegan,2707 Walters Port Lane,noted the Dunkleys and their landscaper have indicated they will take steps to address that but that they just wanted to express their concerns. Sue Dunkley,Applicant, stated she has reviewed the City's documents for the past 40 years concerning the drainage in that area and that their developer will also be looking very closely at that. Dunkley indicated they want the landscaping to look beautiful everywhere and that they will work diligently to figure out how to solve an age-old problem as it concerns the runoff. In addition,the driveway covenants say whoever is using the road has to do the maintenance, snowplowing,and pay the real estate taxes. Dunkley stated they will need to work together to find out who will improve it and that they will certainly not going to stop whatever is an improvement. In regards Page 4 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. to the dirt movement,there was a drop from the road down to the swamp, which was filled in. The original intention was to widen the road and the last thing they wanted was a drop down to the swamp. Dunkley stated she is not sure what happened there but that they certainly did not do anything intentional other than improve the area. Dunkley noted the road has not been paved in 34 years and that something will need to be done after construction is completed. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October 8 City Council meeting. Thiesse asked what direction Staff has on the fill. Curtis stated the City's engineer is currently reviewing the grading plan and that she has spoken to Mr. Gronberg about the fill,who was trying to reconcile what changes were made with the previous surveyor's information. Staff is hoping to have a plan that the City Engineer will approve prior to the Council meeting and that Staff is hoping to work with the applicant to resolve any runoff concerns onto the Keegan property. Libby commented it is encouraging that Gronberg&Associates is taking a look at this and that the applicants are amenable to remediating any problems to the neighbors, which gives him a very strong vote of confidence. Ressler stated he appreciates the efforts by the applicants to make this a conforming lot, which makes it easier for the Planning Commission and everyone else concerned. Lemke moved, Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA18-000072, Paul Vogstrom on behalf of Bill and Sue Dunkley,2709 Walters Port Lane,preliminary plat. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4. LA18-000075 BLAKE SWANSON,3017 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE This item was removed at the request of the Applicant. 5. LA18-000077 JOHN KNOBLAUCH, 1335 ARBOR STREET,VARIANCES,6:52 P.M.— 7:03 P.M. Jeff Martineau, Developer,was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting side street setback and interior side setback variances. This site was the subject of an earlier variance application in January that the Planning Commission subsequently recommended denial on due to the request for a structural coverage variance. In February,the City Council tabled the application and asked the applicants to redesign the home to meet the structural coverage standards and bring the application back through the public hearing process. In April,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval. The City Council then reviewed the application on May 14,2018, and approved variances for lot area, lot width, front yard,side street, and interior side yard setbacks. The original applicant sold his interest in the project and a new builder has applied for a building permit and is proposing two new encroachments: Page 5 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. Expand the house footprint over the approved window well on the interior side of the home; expanding the structure and volume within this setback. 2. Creating a new bump-out within the side street yard setback outside of the approved house footprint; expanding the structure and volume within this setback. These alterations of the building plans are significant enough to warrant additional public. The new home will eliminate the approved window wells and will bring the home 9.5 feet from Prospect Street when 8.5 feet is approved. The applicant is also showing the chimney bump-out at 6.5 feet on the interior side yard. This was not shown on the approved survey but was included as part of the approved house plans. Depending on the roofline,roof overhang or small areas for drainage,water may be able to be mitigated with a gutter system. The applicant must ensure the roof and surface runoff are not directed toward the neighboring property Staff finds there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot area, lot width,and proposed setbacks. Due to the size of the lot located within the two-acre RR-1B zoning district. The lot is also unique in that it has street which is abutting three sides of the lot. Public comments were made at the January 16,2018, Planning Commission meeting in favor of the proposed project. A major concern that came up from the neighborhood was the proposed height of the building and for it to remain a one-story home as to not overshadow the street,which will help the home maintain the character of the neighborhood. This was a discussion by the City Council as well. The new redesigned home is a one-story home with no windows above the first floor. If the Planning Commission has sufficient findings for the requests, Staff would recommend approval of the requested variances. Oakden displayed an aerial photograph of the area and pointed out the location of the existing house. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Jeff Martineau, Developer, stated he has been shepherding this property since the first application and that the owner of the property and the original applicant have not changed. Martineau indicated he has been working with the purchasers to help them design a plan that would work with the City and their requirements. Since then a builder has reviewed the plans and is recommending some changes. One of the changes was to make the setback variance 9.5 feet on the back of the house. By straightening the wall of the house out, it substantially shrunk the window well area and created a better use of the area between the properties. The party that is building the house will be guttering that side of the house and will do whatever is necessary to carry the water away from there. Martineau stated in his view these are small changes that truly make sense and do not change the structural coverage or hardcover. Page 6 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October 8 City Council meeting. Thiesse stated he would consider these to be minor changes. Thiesse asked if there are any conditions for protecting a window well that is over four feet deep. Oakden stated to her knowledge the City does not have any regulations requiring covering of window wells. Olson moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000077, John Knoblauch, 1335 Arbor Street,granting of a side street setback variance and interior side setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 6. LA18-000076 REVISION,LLC, 1725 BOHNS POINT ROAD,VARIANCES,7:03 P.M.— 7:19 P.M. Kevin Schultz,Revision, LLC; and Sven Gustafson, Stonewood,LLC, were present. Curtis stated the owner purchased the property in the fall of 2017 and has begun to make improvements. One area they wish to upgrade is the existing boathouse on the western portion of the lakeshore. The applicants have provided plans which contemplate an in-kind rebuild of the existing failing structure but wish to expand upward to allow for a covered porch-like roof over the top portion of the structure which is currently a dock. They also propose to reorient the stairs but are keeping the two existing patio areas at the lake and up on the hill. Due to the proximity of the boathouse to the lake,variances are requested. The applicants plan to rebuild the foundation of the 150 square foot boathouse which is permitted as a legal nonconforming structure with respect to setback. It is currently set back 16 feet from the OHWL where a 75-foot setback is required and entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. They also plan to increase the height by adding a porch roof over the top which expands the structure within the substandard average lakeshore and lake setback. The hardcover variance is requested due to the reorientation of the existing stairway to the lake. A lake access stair is permitted hardcover. However,with the addition of the other existing improvements in the 75-foot setback,the hardcover on the site exceeds the minimum permitted. The applicant's proposal results in a hardcover reduction in the 75-foot setback area of 40 square feet due to the reorientation of the stair and a variance is still required. The applicant has completed a practical difficulty form and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. The boathouse was constructed prior to today's lake and sight protection rules. The owners intend to keep the existing footprint yet wish to make improvements to better suit their family's needs and to modernize the structure. Page 7 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission should review the practical difficulties analysis provided and determine if they support granting the requested variances to improve the boathouse and lake access stair. The Planning Commission should carefully consider whether the applicant has satisfied the practical difficulties standard for their proposed accessory structure expansion and consider a motion to approve or deny the requested variances as appropriate. Thiesse asked if the encroachment would be from the top of the railing up since there is currently a railing. Curtis indicated it would be. Kevin Schultz,Revision, stated the existing vegetation hides the structure almost entirely from the lakeside. All of the foliage that is seen is intrinsic to erosion control, and if it is cut back or destroyed,the slope would be in danger of failing. Even with the height of the roof being raised,the roof peak height would still screened from behind. Sven Gustafson stated the roofline is essentially level with the back yard. Landgraver asked if it is screened on all four sides. Schultz indicated it is screened on all four sides,with the back side being accessible from the walkway. Gustafson indicated they are retractable screens and would only be visible when they are down. Thiesse asked if the L-shaped retaining wall currently exists. Curtis indicated it does. Gustafson noted the current stairs are made out of timber. Schultz stated the stairs are currently in poor condition. Libby commented despite all of the prohibitions about buildings being located along the lakeshore, boathouses are historic characteristics of lakeshore living. Libby stated in his view a porch above this structure would be very beneficial to the owner and would look complimentary to the lakeshore. Gustafson stated they are doing two of these in the City of Minnetrista at the present time in areas where the structures do not currently exist. Gustafson stated if they are called water oriented accessory buildings, 160 square feet of structure is permitted Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October 8 City Council meeting. Thiesse stated the boathouse is not that large and is tucked in nicely. Thiesse stated in his view porches in Minnesota without screens could be considered a practical difficulty. Page 8 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke noted it is a nonconforming structure and can be replaced in-kind, but that this structure is not being replaced in-kind since they are adding to it. Ressler agreed the applicants are adding structure and that replacing it in-kind is different than adding to it. Ressler asked whether Staff has any recollection of other similar structures being added on to. Curtis stated she cannot come up with an identical scenario but noted the City does allow expansion of a nonconforming structure. Generally the structures the City has looked at in the past are not located directly on the lakeshore,and the Planning Commission should look at any expansion of a nonconforming structure by considering the practical difficulties and how the request is balanced out. Thiesse stated he would also look at the intent of the ordinances,and in his view the intent is to protect views from the lake and for the neighbors. Thiesse commented he is not sure if the neighbor could even see it with a roof on top of it since it is tucked in nicely from the lake. Landgraver stated he usually is against massing on the lake, but that this structure is proposed to go straight up instead of expanding the footprint. Given the slope and shielding,he would be comfortable with it. Libby asked if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has weighed in on this application. Curtis noted they are above the floodplain. Ressler stated his only other concern is if the City approves this, it likely will set a precedent for other similar applications and that he is not in favor of it. Thiesse stated in his view a precedent is not necessarily being set since each site is looked at individually. Landgraver moved, Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000076, Revision,LLC, 1725 Bohns Point Road,granting of variances. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3,Lemke, Erickson and Ressler opposed. Erickson stated he is a little bit concerned with the proposal given that Item No. 12 says that the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. Staff notes that providing a more comfortable viewing opportunity could be viewed as a convenience, which he tends to agree with that. Obviously if the structure is failing, it is in everyone's interests to improve it,but an expansion of use beyond what was there could be considered not a practical difficulty but a convenience. Thiesse noted it says merely serves as a convenience but that what the applicants are proposing is more than that. 7. LA18-000065 JIM KOCH ON BEHALF OF CHRIS MORGART, 1003 WILDHURST TRAIL,SKETCH PLAN,7:19 P.M.—7:58 P.M. Jim Koch,Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated this is a sketch plan for an 8-lot single-family subdivision at the north end of Wildhurst Trail. The subject property consists of four parcels and an unimproved right-of-way. Page 9 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The first policy question for the Planning Commission and the City Council is to determine whether they would be amenable to vacating some or all of the right-of-way necessary to support the development. The right-of-way forming the north portion of planned Lot 5 and the eastern portion of Lots 5,6, and 7 may connect to Lake Minnetonka. Generally the City avoids vacating rights-of-way that serve as lake access. In this situation, Staff feels some portion of the right-of-way could be vacated but that access to the lake should be preserved. The west side of the development is a 2-acre zone and is outside of the MUSA. On the east side it is a 1-acre minimum zone and is eligible for MUSA. Each lot on the east side is greater than the 1.0 acre required but some of these lots appear to have a 924' contour, which would make them lake lots and subject to the lot width measurement at the lake and at the 75-foot setback. If they are deemed lake lots, it does not appear that the lot width requirement can be met. West of the extended road four lots are proposed. These lots exceed the two-acre lot minimum gross lot size but some of these lots have slopes greater than 18 percent. Those areas cannot be included in the lot area calculation. The width requirement is 200 feet as measured at the street. At this time the lots should be considered conceptual since all lots will need to be confirmed that they can support two septic sites. The developer should be aware that this subdivision is subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. The project will be reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies that have been approved by the City Council. The Conservation Design will provide further insight on the impact of the development and the developer's plan to minimize and mitigate these impacts. Lemke asked how the sewer would come into the property. Barnhart indicated it would likely come from Wildhurst but that a feasibility study has not yet been performed. Lemke asked whether it would make sense to serve both sides. Barnhart stated that argument could be made. One advantage to that would be to save some trees,but that it would be a pretty significant departure from past practice in regard to expanding the MUSA boundary. In addition, it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the rest of the Wildhurst Road neighborhood. Lemke asked whether there have been any soil tests done that demonstrate the lots will support a private septic system. Barnhart stated to his understanding there was some septic testing done in the late 1990s but that he does not have that information available tonight. Libby stated a consideration for the property owners and developer is that if city sewer is allowed, each lot will gain a substantial amount of land since they will not have to dedicate a second site for septic. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission supported that change, it is likely the applicant would welcome that,but that expansion of the MUSA boundary would be a departure from what has normally been done. Page 10 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked if this is an isolated right-of-way. Barnhart stated this whole area has been platted in the past and that is what is left on the eastern three parcels that the property owner owns. Thiesse asked if there is an alley easement down Wildhurst. Barnhart stated it would be a right-of-way and not an easement. If it is a platted right-of-way, it would need to be addressed by the applicant. Jim Koch,Applicant, commented this is a unique piece of property with an intervening view of the lake. The parcel consists of almost 15 acres with two different zoning classifications. The 10-acre parcel is zoned RR-1B and the 5-acre parcel is zoned LL-RB. There have been some applications in the past that have created more lots than what is being proposed right now and required rezoning. Koch stated they attempted to come up with a plan to stay within the existing zoning guidelines and have designed lots that are similar to the surrounding area. Koch noted this plan requires a variance to the frontage,which they felt was the least impactful. The lots are well over the 2-acre minimum on the RR-1B side and are within the requirements for lot sizes on the east side. The plan is to follow engineering guidelines and environmental recommendations. Koch indicated they have met with the Watershed District on the wetlands and a stormwater plan and that they are attempting to be the least impactful that they can. The parcel consists of four different PIDs and the proposal is to take those properties and combine them. An analysis was done on the engineering and environmental impacts and Conservation Design requirements will be followed. Koch stated they would welcome the opportunity to add city sewer to the lots in the RR-1B district and that they would certainly explore the engineering to add that side of the road to city sewer. As it relates to the extension of Wildhurst Trail,the other designs that have been proposed have had multiple roads going into the property, which did not meet the environmental guidelines for the property. This proposal has one road coming in off of Wildhurst and follows the zoning line. Koch stated the two things they would like support from the Planning Commission on is to vacate the rights-of-way and for some flexibility on the lot widths. Koch stated they were not able to provide the 200-foot lot width but that they are very close. The intent of the 2-acre minimum was to make sure the lots were bigger, which this proposal meets, and that the proposed lots are very similar to much of the surrounding platted property. Lemke asked what will happen north of the property. Koch indicated Saga Hill is in the area,which has been included in the MUSA boundary, and that one option might be to swap out a portion of the Saga Hill site. Lemke asked why the cul-de-sac is located so far up. Koch indicated they did that because of the potential right-of-way to the lake but that they could move it back. Page 11 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted it is pretty much all wetland to the north and that Saga Hill is to the south. Thiesse asked if the right-of-way pretty much goes into Saga Hill. Barnhart indicates the unimproved right-of-way goes into Saga Hill. Thiesse stated he would like to retain some of the right-of-way into Saga Hill and have some sort of right- of-way between Lots 6 and 7. Koch stated that is a good recommendation. The lots are a little over an acre and it would be a matter of where that access could be provided but that would be one possibility. Thiesse asked if it would still be a viable project if it was reduced down to three lots. Koch stated they have already reduced the number of lots from 11 and that they feel this is a good number of lots. Thiesse asked if Lot 4 is buildable. Koch stated it likely is. Landgraver stated the lots on the left could get more into conformance,which would mean three lots. Koch noted Lots 1 through 4 are significantly bigger than the other lots in the neighborhood. Libby asked if he has any metrics on the water quality or depth of the water in that area. Koch stated they have been working with the Watershed District and that in 1991 maintenance dredging had been done at ten feet but that it is kind of a floating bog in some of the area. Koch indicated he is trying to do a little more research about dredging with the Watershed District and that they can dredge it out to the original size. Libby asked how many docks would be available. Koch stated they have not really explored that at this time but to his knowledge there were two docks listed with the City under a joint dock use agreement. Landgraver stated historically the City has not yielded on rights-of-way to the lake and that if the developer could maintain some form of right-of-way, it would be a win-win situation. Thiesse recommended the right-of-way into Saga Hill be maintained. Koch stated that would be very difficult due to the elevation. Thiesse commented they would not have to do anything with the right-of-way but that they could trade the right-of-way to provide someone else the opportunity to do something with it if they wished. Thiesse noted the only variance they are proposing is to the lot width. Page 12 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Erickson noted he served on the Orono Comprehensive Plan Committee and that they reviewed the lake access points listed in the Comprehensive Plan. In reviewing the list, it was discovered that over half of the access points have been closed. Any further discussion about the lake access should refer to that inventory to see whether this access point is on that inventory. Erickson noted some of the lake access points that are available to the public are restricted, such as no snowmobiling, which is how it should be due to the different topography. Erickson stated there is also the issue of neighborhood concerns regarding the access. Landgraver stated he has a concern with reducing the width of the lots in order to get four lots in there on the west side. Landgraver indicated he would be willing to give some compromise on the lake lots if the west side is brought more into conformity. Thiesse stated it appears the Planning Commission is okay with some type of right-of-way being maintained but they have some difficulty with the width of the lots on the west side. Thiesse asked if the new road is proposed to be private or public. Barnhart stated currently Wildhurst is a public road. Barnhart stated what he has heard so far regarding what is important to the Planning Commission is access to the lake, access to Saga Hill from the west, meeting the requirements for lot width,particularly on the west side, but that they are open to some flexibility on the east side. Barnhart noted the lot sizes are based on the gross area and the wetlands and slopes of 18 percent may impact that. Koch commented they have received a lot of interest on lots that are over two acres and that the 4-lot number is pretty important to them on that side. Libby asked if Haddy Street is built to city standards. Barnhart indicated he has not done that measurement. Koch stated to his knowledge their engineer did take that into consideration. Barnhart noted a lot of details are not usually included on a sketch plan and that Staff was looking for some direction on the three policy questions. Lemke stated the width of the lots does not bother him as much as it does some of the other Planning Commissioners. Thiesse stated once the wetlands and slopes are taken into consideration,the lots will likely shrink. Lemke recommended the developer pursue city sewer for the other lots. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 8. LA18-000079 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,SKETCH PLAN,7:59 P.M.—8:25 P.M. Curt Fretham and Peter Ryan, Lakewest Development,were present. Page 13 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated this sketch plan proposes an apartment building on the vacant, former landfilled property on the west side of Orono and south of Eisinger Meadows,which was a preliminary plat for a townhome development. The site includes 13.6 acres of wetland, 5.2 acres of developable land, and 10.2 acres of buried construction materials. The application in 2016 contemplated future development of an apartment site to the south of the townhome development. However,those approvals did not include any specific plan and were not included in the calculations for density for the Comprehensive Plan, were not included in the preliminary plat,and were not included in any detail for the General Concept Plan. Approvals to complete this project will include a plat of an outlot for the building, a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and RPUD zoning. The applicant proposes a 4-story structure for 192 apartments/senior living. The building will be U-shaped,with the opening to the north. The height of the building has not been calculated but four stories typically exceed 30 feet in defined height. The notable feature of the site is a former landfill in the location of the proposed apartment building. Access to the site will be from the north and Wayzata Boulevard. A new street is proposed to serve both Eisinger Meadows and the proposed Eisinger Flats. The preliminary plat for Eisinger Meadows contemplated a new north-south public street. This street should terminate in a cul-de-sac meeting subdivision standards. A surface parking lot for 92 cars is proposed to the north of the building. City Code requires two spaces per apartment unit. Assuming 192 units, 384 spaces will be required. The sketch plan does suggest underground parking but the number of stalls has not been illustrated. As a proposed RPUD,the hardcover limitation would be 50 percent. The project is located within the MUSA. The sketch plan does meet most of the RPUD requirements. The private recreation has not been developed but it is anticipated to include the two areas shown on the sketch plan along with a network of trails. The proposed density of 19.8 units per acre exceeds the 2030 Land Use Planned density of 10 to 15 units per acre. Raising the density to 20 units per acre will be consistent with other apartment/senior living projects in the City and will add to the City's numerical buffer necessary to serve lower density areas with sanitary sewer. The Planning Commission should discuss the following: 1. Does the Planning Commission support the use of the property for a high-density residential use at densities greater than 15 units per acre? 2. Does the Planning Commission support a building higher than 30 feet in this location? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposal? Staff sees the value of a high-density development in this area since it offers the City the opportunity to provide other lower density areas with sanitary sewer. It is likely the neighbors in the area,however, would be opposed to high density in this location. In addition,the site will access directly onto Wayzata Boulevard. Page 14 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Additional review by Hennepin County,the MPCA, and the Watershed District will be necessary. Landgraver asked whether the Village townhomes were two-story. Thiesse indicated they were two-story. Barnhart stated he knows they were in a slightly different configuration originally and that the developer is making some modifications. Lemke stated to his understanding they have approximately the same number of units. Landgraver stated to go from one story to four stories will make the apartment building appear high. Thiesse noted it is also downhill from those. Erickson stated this particular location strikes him as probably the best location in all of Orono that would lend itself to higher density and maybe a little extra height,keeping in mind that it will be highly regulated as far as the wetland and the former landfill. Also within those constraints there is the Highway 12 bypass on one side and a county road on the other side, which will soon be upgraded beyond what it is today. For neighbors this site has Baker Park,the Lurton Dog Park, and another parcel of land planned for multiple use. Erickson stated if it all gets built as dense as possible,the traffic will still probably not reach the peak levels of Old Highway 12. Erickson indicated her could endorse 20 units per acre, a building four stories high, and underground parking. Lemke noted last time two access points were proposed onto Wayzata Boulevard and now there is only one. Barnhart stated one of the access points was removed by Hennepin County because there were some challenges from a sight visibility standpoint. Landgraver stated this is the one place where four stories might work, and whether it is 19 or 20 units per acre,this is a good spot for it. Perry Ryan, Lakewest Development, stated they are unsure of the 10 percent recreational space that was listed in Staffs report and that they will work with Staff on that. In the narrative some of the rationale has been listed for higher density. This is a good spot for that since it is sandwiched between two roads and it is somewhat remote. The other item regarding density was meeting the Metropolitan Council's goals, which this project will do and provide the City with some buffer. Overall this is a very unique and interesting site. Mitigating factors for the height is the fact that the building will sit between six or eight feet lower than both Wayzata Boulevard and Highway 12. Also being proposed is a berm around the site as well and visually passersby will only see two to two and a half stories from all sides. The closest part of the building is 450 feet from Wayzata Boulevard,which is one and a half football fields away and 100 to 200 feet away from Highway 12. Ryan stated they added a graph to the sketch plan to show the site's environmental density. The site consists of 35 acres and approximately 18.92 percent of the site will be developed in hard surface such as roadways,parking and building. The other reason for the four stories is to keep the footprint as small as Page 15 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. possible in order to stay further away from the wetland and the wetland buffer. In addition, the smaller footprint allows for a bigger recreational area. Ryan stated some of the positives for the development are the 18 percent environmental impact,the higher density to meet the Metropolitan Council's goals,the existing infrastructure, and the cleanup of a landfill. Ryan indicated they are working with the MPCA on that. Landgraver asked how he envisions the senior housing to integrate with the overall building. Ryan stated whether it will be apartments or senior housing has not been determined yet. One of the things that has changed is that four units have been shifted over and Outlot B will be a full public right- of-way. Staff has suggested placing a cul-de-sac in that area, which will provide a good separation between those two products. Thiesse asked if there will be adequate parking. Ryan stated in their view there will be and that there will be underground parking. Lemke asked whether there are any concerns with water issues related to the underground parking. Ryan indicated they do not have any concerns based upon the soil borings they have taken. Lemke asked about traffic. Ryan stated Hennepin County is going to be redesigning that road and lowering the hill to make it safer. In addition,they will be looking at incorporating a turn-in lane or a bypass lane. Ryan noted the development is at the western boundary of the city, so the amount of traffic should not be that much. Libby noted there are a number of varying models for senior housing and that he would encourage them to embrace some of the different ideas. Libby stated the vacancy rates for senior housing are at an all- time low. Ryan indicated they will be updating their market research and taking a closer look at that. Erickson encouraged them to be open to the idea that a majority vote might come more easily if they stick to the 30-foot height. Thiesse commented the neighborhood might not be ready for a tall building but that this is a good location for this type of project. Libby asked where he sees the rents being and what type of apartment units there will be. Ryan indicated they do not have the layout yet but generally it will be a mix of one and two-bedroom units. Thiesse asked if there are any provisions for a trail along the roadway. Page 16 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated he will have to look into that. Barnhart stated the original preliminary plat can either be amended or there can be a separate one for this development. The final plat can either reflect this as a single buildable lot or simply the townhome units or both. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 9. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT—ACCESSORY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS,8:25 P.M.—8:55 P.M. Curtis noted this is a continuation of a discussion that started back in June regarding proposed changes for Accessory Building and Structure setbacks. The changes discussed so far have been regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code and whether or not adjustments to the existing setbacks are needed. Staff took the feedback given at the August meeting and continued to develop the remainder of the residential tables based upon the previously agreed-upon philosophy. The RS District has some additional complications and Staff is seeking guidance on how to proceed regarding accessory building/structure setbacks in that district. The Planning Commission should review the additional tables and the setbacks contemplated within those tables. In addition, Staff asks that the Planning Commission provide direction on the following: 1. RS Seasonal Recreational District—Big Island/Deering Island. The current minimum side yard setbacks for all structures and buildings are based on the width of the property. 2. Staff has proposed to allow for Accessory Buildings to follow the nonconforming lot width flexibility for side setbacks but does not provide the same for Oversized Accessory Buildings and Accessory structures. Does the Planning Commission wish to discuss this further or to explore other setback flexibilities? 3. The current City regulations would prohibit an Accessory Building/Oversized Accessory Building to be located streetward of the principal building. Staff would like Planning Commission feedback on this requirement. If an AB or OAB meets the required principal building setback and the principal building itself is set back further than the minimum, is it appropriate for the AB/OAB to be closer to the street? What are the impacts, if any? 4. Some of the proposed changes,where setbacks have been increased with this amendment, may result in a significant number of existing buildings in the City becoming legal nonconformities which would limit their expansion, etc. There is no inventory of the accessory buildings so an accurate number is not realistic. The Planning Commission should discuss the potential impacts for property owners. 5. Private recreational facilities may warrant their own discussion for clarification. Private recreational facilities are defined and are listed in the zoning code as allowed accessory uses within each residential district. However,the definition and subsequent district regulations may leave too much up to interpretation. To date no public comments have been received. Page 17 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission should reopen the public hearing and receive public comments. The Commission should discuss the items listed in the Staff report and provide Staff with direction. Following discussion,the Planning Commission should table the application to the October meeting. Libby asked where the base measurement of 1,000 square feet comes from. Curtis indicated it is a number that the Planning Commission and City Council felt would be a good base for a large accessory building and was arrived at a number of years ago. Libby stated as the City is trending towards more accessory buildings, 1,000 square feet can be limiting for a lot of people. Curtis noted larger lots can have larger buildings. Libby stated he might be missing some component as it relates to the setbacks and how it will impact the size. Libby asked whether it has to be a pretty good size lot to have a 2,000 square foot building. Curtis stated there is a table in the code currently that outlines how large the building can be. There is a cap on how big the oversized building can be,but for a building under 1,000 square feet, a person could have ten buildings if they choose. Since the current chart stops at nine acres, Staff may consider expanding the chart but that can be discussed at a later point. Curtis noted the City currently limits the square footage but not the number of buildings. Libby asked whether an addition to an existing residential structure could actually be considered an accessory structure. Curtis stated if there is a weather-tight connection, it would be considered an addition to the principal structure. Libby asked how that would affect a second accessory structure. Curtis indicated it would not matter, and that the only time the house size is going to limit the accessory structure size is when the lot is reaching 20 percent structural coverage. Thiesse asked what Staff is looking for on Item No. 1. Curtis stated she would like to know whether the Planning Commission feels there is a comprehensive way to look at the width rather than saying 10 percent or another actual number. Thiesse stated since there are two islands within the seasonal recreational district, he would like to accommodate them somehow, but if the current way is working for Staff, he would not change it. Olson asked whether these are arbitrary numbers. Curtis stated those are the numbers currently in the code. Curtis asked whether Commissioner Thiesse feels 200 feet is reasonable. Thiesse indicated he does and that he would like to keep the structures as far apart as possible. Page 18 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver indicated he is also in agreement. Curtis stated the Planning Commission can change the side setback requirements for an accessory structure on Big Island if they would like but that on a 200 foot wide lot it currently has to be 50 feet away from the lot line no matter what size the shed is. Or the Planning Commission can proceed with the current setbacks if they feel they are acceptable. Ressler stated unless Staff is receiving a lot of questions about it, he would leave it as is. Barnhart indicated Staffs goal is to reduce the need for variances that can be anticipated, and if they follow the setback based on the width of the lot,that provides some flexibility and separation in the development that is already there. Currently lot width is measured at the lake and measured at the 75-foot line, and the question is what happens if those numbers are different. Curtis stated currently they give the property owner the benefit of the doubt with the smaller number in this situation. Thiesse stated the intent is to keep the structures away from the property line and that he would measure it from the location of structure. Curtis stated the LR-1A District currently has a 200-foot minimum and allows a principal structure to be 30 feet from the side. Staff is proposing to allow an accessory building at 15 feet and an oversized accessory building at 30 feet. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission would like Big Island to have different requirements. Thiesse noted the City has not received any feedback from residents of Big Island and that he would leave them where they are. Erickson stated in his view it is good to minimize density on Big Island since they do not have sewer and that he would encourage them to combine lots whenever possible. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 2 in Staffs report. Curtis asked whether the Planning Commission would like to apply the nonconforming lot widths to accessory buildings and allow buildings under 1,000 feet to follow the same flexibility given to the principal structure on those lots,which in some cases would be 7.5 feet. That flexibility would not be extended to oversized accessory buildings or to accessory structures. Olson asked what methodology Curtis stated currently a 50-foot lot would be allowed to have a 7.5 foot setback for a principal structure but a 10' x 10' shed would need to meet a 10-foot setback. Staff is looking for direction on whether that accessory building should be allowed at the 7.5-foot setback but are not proposing to extend the flexibility to the oversized accessory building. A 900 square foot building could be 7.5 feet but not a 1,000 square foot building. Olson commented he is good with that. Page 19 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ressler and Thiesse agreed. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 3. Curtis stated if the home is extremely far from the front lot line, an accessory building could be located at the principal structure setback. Thiesse stated the intent is to keep structures away from the road, and if there was an accessory structure in front of the house,the architecture should match the house. Thiesse commented he is not sure why the City would preclude people from putting the structure in front of their house as long as it is meeting the setback and architectural standards of the principal structure. Olson indicated he is in agreement with that. Lemke stated it is hard to determine what architectural standards are. Barnhart stated they would look at materials since Orono does not have an architecture review committee. Staff can draft some language and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Landgraver stated the word accessory implies it is the subordinate building, which should not be the first building someone sees but sometimes the only place that is buildable is the front of the lot. Curtis asked if there are some zoning districts where it would be more appropriate to consider. Libby stated having some kind of architectural uniformity would be nice, but since the uses will vary,it is difficult to mandate whether they are located in the front, side,or back. Curtis stated if the City allows an accessory building ahead of the principal structure,the City already has a provision that talks about exterior finishes and that can be incorporated into this. Barnhart stated the benefits should outweigh the challenges and that the goal of the zoning districts is to preserve open spaces and yards. There may not be a big difference if the first building you see is an accessory structure if the materials are addressed. Lemke commented they might be assuming that the accessory building will be ugly. Barnhart indicated Staff will come back with some language for the Planning Commission to review. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No.4. Erickson stated another way of looking at it is whether it changes the character of the neighborhood. Thiesse asked if it would be a practical difficulty if someone came in with a nonconforming structure that they would like to modify if it was constructed before the code changed. Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis stated an example would be an old garage with a 6:12 roof which is now halfway into the setback. The owners would now like to reroof it and make the roof pitch higher, which would be an expansion into the setback. Currently those are considered for a variance. Curtis indicated she is not sure how many conforming buildings may become nonconforming with the changes. Page 20 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated in his mind they should be able to expand on that building since it was a conforming structure when constructed but now they have to pay$275 to apply for a variance if they want to change the roof pitch. Barnhart stated the goal is to reduce the need for variances, but that the Planning Commission should recognize that some new nonconformities will likely be introduced due to the changes. Barnhart stated there are some areas where the setbacks have been increased but generally they have been kept the same. Barnhart stated while the goal is to reduce the need for variances, it will not completely eliminate them. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 5. Curtis stated her suggestion would be to delete the existing language. The list of private recreational facilities includes things that are affixed or not affixed, such as a portable basketball hoop or a fire pit. Staff feels relatively confident that most of those things can be covered by considering it an accessory structure. Libby asked why they don't just call it a private recreational accessory structure to keep it separated from more of a storage related structure. Curtis indicated the definition of accessory structure is anything that is built, constructed, erected, etc., like a hot tub or sport court or patio,but is not a building. Barnhart stated he sees private recreational facilities as not adding a lot of value because it is an accessory structure. Thiesse suggested they delete private recreational facilities and leave it as an accessory structure. Curtis indicated she will have some language and tables to review at the next meeting. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October Planning Commission meeting. 8. UPDATE ON SEPTEMBER 10,2018,CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported the City Council approved the sign ordinance at their September 10 meeting. Upon discussing it further with the City Attorney, it was verified that a resident cannot advertise a business that is occurring on another property since that would be considered a billboard,which is not allowed. A resident, however, can advertise a business that is occurring on the property. The City Council also approved a grading conditional use permit on Crystal Bay Road. Due to timing issues,that application was not reviewed by Planning Commission. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Page 21 of 22 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Thiesse moved,Olson seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:00 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. ATTEST: /' 9/ John Thiesse, Chair Page 22 of 22