HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/16/2013 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver,Bruce Lemke, Christopher McGrann, Loren
Schoenzeit,Jon Schwingler, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of
Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder
Jackie Young. Council Member Kristi Anderson was present.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos. 3, 5, and 6 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing for Items 3, 5, and 6 at 6:33 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding these items.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m.
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE:
Ayes 7,Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF AUGUST 19,2013
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning
Commission meeting of August 19,2013,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. 13-3616 CITY OF ORONO,AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 78,ADD
SECTION 78-1379,ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS
Gaffron noted the Planning Commission has been working on the City's alternative energy systems for
the past few months. The alternative energy systems the Planning Commission has been reviewing
include ground source heat pumps, solar energy systems, wind energy conversion systems, and
potentially hydronic furnaces or outdoor wood boilers.
At the July 15 meeting, the Planning Commission meeting had their initial general review of the draft
ordinance, and at the August 7 Planning Commission work session the Commissioners again reviewed the
draft ordinance and a discussion was held regarding ground source heat pumps. At the August 19
Planning Commission meeting, the draft ordinance was tabled to the Planning Commission's September 4
work session. On the October 2 work session agenda is wind energy systems.
Gaffron noted this is a public hearing tonight and a copy of the draft ordinance is available in the
Planning Commission packet. Staff recommends that the draft ordinance be tabled following the public
hearing.
Page 1 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver asked if the draft ordinance is available to the residents.
Gaffron indicated it is available on the City's website as part of the Planning Commission packet.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
Leskinen moved,Thiesse seconded,to table Application#13-3616,City of Orono,Amendment of
Zoning Code Chapter 78,Add Section 78-1379,Alternative Energy Systems to the October 2
Planning Commission work session. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
*3. #13-3618 EDWARD AND JULIE LAGERSTROM,2248 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCES
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3618,Edward
and Julie Lagerstrom,2248 Shadywood Road,granting of hardcover,structural coverage,and rear
setback variances as proposed subject to the submission of a revised plan addressing the City
Engineer's comments,submission of a revised landscape plan showing screening of the southeast
side of the new garage and retaining wall,and inclusion of the top and bottom elevations of the new
retaining wall on the survey. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
4. #13-3623 CLAIRSON DUTRA ON BEHALF OF LIN YAN, 1330 CHERRY PLACE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, 6:40 P.M.—7:10 P.M.
Claison Dutra and Lin Yan,Applicants, were present.
Curtis stated the applicant has applied for two separate applications regarding 1330 Cherry Place,
including a zoning permit for land alterations and new hardcover which includes changes to the driveway,
door landings, retaining/landscape walls and patios outside of the 75-foot zone; and a land use application
for conditional use permit and variance approvals in order to conduct land alterations within 75 feet of the
lake and construct a new lake access stair.
Curtis noted the applicants have provided a revised plan on Friday which is shown on the overhead. The
dark line depicts the 75-foot setback. The Planning Commission should determine whether all proposed
conditionally permitted uses are or will be consistent with the criteria contained in City Code Section
78-916. Staff's report outlines those criteria, and in regard to this application, Items 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and
13 are generally applicable.
The proposal results in 137 square feet of additional hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. The proposed
stairs are approximately four feet wide, but with the retaining walls,the stair system becomes six feet in
width. The applicant is proposing to remove an existing stair where a portion encroaches into the City
right-of-way. Since the proposed stair exceeds the minimum, it cannot be approved administratively.
Page 2 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff finds some of the proposed grading appears to be an attempt to achieve positive drainage away from
the house. However, the grading on the lake side slope area seems to be an attempt to create a larger
outdoor patio living area and better view from the walk-out area of the house. According to the City's
Comprehensive Plan and City Code Shoreland Zoning regulations, grading should be limited within the
75-foot setback area to only that which is minimal and necessary, and any changes or modifications to the
lakeshore which result in a significant change in vegetation,topography, etc., are to be discouraged.
Staff would suggest the applicant redesign the grading plan to reduce the amounts and the impacts of the
grading. An administrative permit for grading will not be issued until the grading within the 0-75 foot
area is resolved and approved by the City. Staff would also suggest that the applicant consider
redesigning the lake access stair to either meet the minimum 4-foot width requirement or meander the
stairs to increase the opportunities to screen the stairs with plantings.
Staff met with the applicant this morning and discussed the revised plans and the challenges with regard
to stormwater on the property. The applicant's revised plan appears to address the majority of the City
Engineer's concerns. However, those changes have not been fully reviewed by the City Engineer. The
issues regarding changes to the shoreline still need to be addressed.
Curtis stated an onsite meeting with City Staff and the applicant's engineer will be scheduled to review
the issues the applicant is identifying regarding the stormwater on the property and to discuss their
erosion concerns on the adjacent City right-of-way.
Based on the revised plans,a permit will be issued for the driveway work and the retaining wall near the
house to correct the grading prior to the winter snow. However,the grading within the 0-75 foot area
must be resolved satisfactorily prior to the grading permit and the conditional use permit being approved
by the City.
Staff recommends tabling the application tonight and the Planning Commission should provide guidance
to the applicant regarding the grading within the 0-75 foot setback and screening of the stairs. If the
applicant is not amenable to tabling the application, Staff would recommend denial of the conditional use
permit and variance as proposed.
Thiesse asked if the beech wood tree was removed in the 0-75 foot setback.
Landgraver noted only the stump remains.
Lin Yan indicated the roots of the tree were damaged in the last storm and that they had obtained a permit
to remove it.
Landgraver asked if there is any hardcover increase related to the driveway.
Curtis indicated there is and that the new hardcover being proposed for the 0-75 and outside of that zone
is 1,360 plus square feet for a total of 19 percent.
Landgraver asked if the slope would fall within the definition of a bluff.
Dutra stated it would not be considered a bluff since it is only 15 feet above the lake.
Page 3 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis noted it would need to be 25 feet or higher to be considered a bluff.
Lin Yan, Applicant, indicated they just purchased the house May 30, and shortly thereafter there were a
number of storms which led them to discover a couple of problems with the property. The first problem
relates to the back yard and how it is laid out. Whenever there is a heavy storm, basically the property
turns into a riverfront and is not a lakefront. The second problem deals with a large amount of erosion
that is occurring on the easement adjacent to the property. Lin Yan noted his property is the lowest point
on Cherry Place, which results in a lot of water runoff to his property.
Lin Yan stated after the storms, they noticed a number of roots around the trees were exposed and mud
was washing into the lake. As a result of the runoff, Lin Yan indicated his shoreline is no longer sandy
but full of mud.
Lin Yan stated they are attempting to come up with a solution to manage the stormwater and help
decrease the runoff into the lake. One option is to open up 40 to 50 feet in the back yard and have
landscaping in that area to help slow down the runoff. Lin Yan indicated they did meet with City Staff
this morning and that it sounds like there is an agreement with the City Engineer to come up with a plan
for better management of the stormwater in the back yard and on the easement. Lin Yan stated if the
erosion continues, it will significantly impact his property.
Clairson Dutra stated that he would like the Planning Commission to understand that they are not
attempting to improve the view since the house already has a good view but that they are trying to fix the
drainage. There is already a good view from the first and second floors of the home and the Yans do not
anticipate utilizing the basement very much.
Dutra pointed out on the overhead the area that experiences the runoff and has accumulation of water.
Dutra stated the water in that area could create instability in the hill and that they are attempting to divert
the water away from the house and keep the mud out of the lake.
Lin Yan commented Cherry Place is very steep, and that given his observations, it appears a majority of
the water comes from the street. The land erosion goes up to North Arm Drive and is also occurring in
the area near the lake. Lin Yan indicated he has counted four dead trees in that area already. The plan is
to regrade that area and let the water go through the grass,which will help slow down the stormwater that
flows into the lake.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:52 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:52 p.m.
Leskinen commented this is a challenging site and that the back yard does slope down to the basement.
Thiesse asked what the reason is for Staff's recommendation that the application be tabled.
Curtis indicated the applicant has provided some additional information but that their survey still reflects
a similar grading plan to what was originally proposed for the 0-75 foot zone. Curtis requested the
Planning Commission provide some direction on what they would like to see happen in that area. If the
Page 4 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Planning Commission feels the grading plan is appropriate in light of what the comprehensive plan and
code requires,the Planning Commission can recommend approval of the application and move it before
the City Council.
Leskinen asked if the circular area is a big concrete paver patio area.
Curtis stated that was depicted on the previous plan as well.
Lin Yan indicated the patio is outside of the 75-foot setback.
Curtis indicated the heavy black line is the 75-foot setback and that some of the patio is new.
Leskinen questioned whether that patio would contribute to the runoff.
Thiesse noted the applicant is below the 25 percent hardcover limit and that the patio is outside of the 0-
75 foot zone.
Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission is strongly encouraged to prevent grading
changes that close to the shoreline. Judging by the size of the tree growing on top of the ridge, it appears
that the ridge has been there for a number of years and has not been heavily impacted by heavy rains.
Landgraver stated because of that,he would not recommend approval and that he would prefer the
application be tabled.
Lin Yan noted there was a beech tree in that area and that they had received permission to remove it.
Landgraver stated he understands that but that the point of his comment was that the hill has been there
for a number of years.
Lin Yan commented the soil in that area is loose and that the roots were exposed in the last storm which
necessitated the removal of the tree.
Thiesse stated it should not be the homeowner's problem to take care of the City's water coming off the
easement but that he is not sure the landowner should divert his runoff into the lake.
Leskinen stated that was the purpose behind her questioning the patio area. Leskinen asked if the patio
will carve into the hill area.
Curtis indicated that area is already flat and is the area where the water pools.
Dutra noted the darker area around the house is not all paver and consists largely of mulch. The patio is
only the circular area.
Schoenzeit stated until there is agreement between the City Engineer and the applicant's engineer, it
seems premature for the Planning Commission to move the application forward.
Thiesse commented he would not argue with that. Thiesse asked whether the City allows a maximum of
four feet width on the stairs and whether the walls are intended to protect people from falling off the stairs
or what their purpose is.
Page 5 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated they are sitting alongside the stairs.
Thiesse asked whether the stairs can be constructed without the walls.
Dutra indicated the stairs can be constructed without the walls at the four foot width.
Schoenzeit recommended the grading plan be approved by the City Engineer and that the stairs not
exceed a four-foot width.
Lin Yan stated if the walls along the stairs are not necessary,they do not have to construct the walls.
Dutra stated the biggest concern they have is the hill. If a portion of the hill cannot be removed,the slope
will be too steep for stairs. Dutra stated they would like to divert the water from the neighbors and the
back yard through the grass and away from the area that currently floods. Dutra noted the tree that was
removed had been there for approximately 200 years but that about two feet of roots were exposed and it
was dying. To prevent the tree from falling into the house, it was removed.
Thiesse stated he was completely against the application until he walked the property. The intent of the
ordinance is to protect the lake view of the house. If six feet is removed from the bluff, it will still remain
a flat area and people will not be able to tell dirt was removed from that area a year from now.
Schoenzeit commented it appears the area was incorrectly graded at one time.
Curtis indicted prior to the current house being constructed,there was another house on the property that
was located in the lower area of the property. That area was not completely filled in at the time the house
was demolished.
Schoenzeit stated typically most homeowners will construct a swale along one or both sides of the house
but that this property seems to have a slope toward the basement that appears to be incorrect.
Dutra stated the plan on the overhead shows the cross-section of the back yard and how much dirt will
need to be removed and the area that will need to be filled in. Dutra indicated they are trying to take a
little bit of the slope out to make sure that the water that comes from the street is diverted.
Leskinen asked if the entire width of the property would be graded flat.
Lin Yan indicated it would only be a portion of the back yard.
Dutra stated it would be approximately half of the property. Dutra indicated the arrows show the
direction of the runoff.
Lin Yan stated he owns 183 feet of lakeshore and that in his opinion it will only be about one-third that
will need to be graded.
McGrann stated at this point the Planning Commission can table it, deny it, or move it forward. It is the
recommendation of Staff that the application be tabled until further comments are received from the City
Page 6 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Engineer. McGrann stated in his view the Planning Commission should table the application to get more
clarity to what is being proposed.
Curtis stated a meeting on site with the applicant's engineer will resolve the issues and that Staff would
like to get the recommendation of the City Engineer.
Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission has provided enough direction to the applicant on the
other aspects of the application. Leskinen recommended the stairs be limited to four feet in width.
Curtis stated she would like the Planning Commission to provide direction on the lakeshore and slope
issues as far as appearance and whether vegetation should be included on the slope.
Schwingler commented a rain garden might be one option to help handle the runoff.
Thiesse noted the property has been clear cut and the ground is showing on top of the berm. Thiesse
pointed out there is also no silt fencing.
Dutra stated in what they have received so far from the engineer,there is nothing saying that they cannot
do something due to technical issues. Dutra stated they are not attempting to create a better view from the
walkout but that they are attempting to divert the water from the back yard and correct the erosion issues.
Landgraver recommended the applicant limit the amount of removal in the 0-75 foot zone as much as
possible.
Schwingler stated if the Planning Commission looks at the issues for consideration outlined in Staff's
report, a variance being granted would not alter the character of the neighborhood. The issue that needs
to be dealt with is the water runoff that is caused, in part, by the city-owned easement.
Schoenzeit commented the City should help him resolve that issue.
Schwingler stated there are options they can consider to help mitigate the water, such as a rain garden or a
swale.
Curtis stated the direction she is hearing from the Planning Commission is to have the City Engineer
review the situation and arrive at a solution that disturbs the 0-75 foot zone as little as possible and then
mitigate or screen the area from the lake as best they can.
Landgraver noted they should also comply with the four-foot width on the stairway.
Schoenzeit requested they also provide an updated cross-section showing the 75-foot setback.
McGrann moved,Landgraver seconded,to table Application $13-3623, Clairson Dutra on behalf of
Lin Yan, 1330 Cherry Place,conditional use permit and variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
*5. #13-3627 RICHARD ETRHEIM AND REBECCA SHABAZ,2216 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE
Page 7 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application #13-3627,Richard
Etrheim and Rebecca Shabaz,2216 Shadywood Road,granting of an average lakeshore setback
variance for an in-ground spa. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
*6. #13-3628 THOMAS POTTER ON BEHALF OF RODNEY AND BARBARA BURWELL,
1100 MILLSTON ROAD,VARIANCES
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application #13-3628,Thomas
Potter on behalf of Rodney and Barbara Burwell, 1100 Millston Road,granting of a setback
variance for the detached garage and a variance to allow a second oversized accessory structure on
the property subject to the standard covenants,with the understanding that an as-built survey with
hardcover calculations will be required for the property following completion of all active projects
prior to the release of the escrow. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
7. #13-3629 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS, 1169 NORTH ARM DRIVE, SUBDIVISION,
7:10 P.M.—8:02 P.M.
Ryan and Stacy Alness,Applicants,were present.
Gaffron noted before the Planning Commission are two additional public comments received since their
packet was delivered regarding this application.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting subdivision approval to extinguish a Special Lot Combination
Agreement that was executed between the City and the then property owner back in 2001. That
agreement formally established that the lake parcel and the off-lake parcel will not be used, conveyed,
sold, leased, or otherwise encumbered except together as if they were a single parcel. The applicants are
requesting the lake parcel become a separate buildable lot.
The lake parcel and the off-lake parcel have been commonly owned since 1969. In 1971,the owner at
that time applied for variances to make the lake parcel buildable, suggesting that the assessed value was
too high for an unbuildable lot. The intent in purchasing the lot was to have a dock. Those variances
were denied. In 1981, a variance application was again applied for by the same property owner, and after
the Planning Commission recommended denial,the application was denied.
In 2001, a third variance application was submitted by the new property owner and the variances were
again denied. In order to legitimize the use of the lake parcel for a dock, which is considered an
accessory structure and not allowed on a property without a principal structure,the property owner was
required to execute a Special Lot Combination Agreement. The agreement established that the lake
parcel and the off-lake parcel will not be used, conveyed, sold, leased, or otherwise encumbered except
together as if they were a single parcel. That agreement is binding and goes with the property
permanently.
The applicants have applied for a subdivision in order to extinguish the Special Lot Combination with the
intent of making Lot 7, the vacant lake parcel, into a separate buildable lot. This process is required due
to the following condition of the agreement:
Page 8 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
"The terms and conditions of this indenture may be modified, amended, or extinguished and thereafter
Parcel A and Parcel B may be subdivided, sold separately or reduced in part only upon application by
Grantor to Grantee for approval of a `subdivision' in accordance with the platting code of the City in
effect at the time of such application."
Gaffron noted this condition was carefully and purposely worded to establish not only that it would
require a subdivision process to undo the agreement, but that such a subdivision must adhere to the
platting code in effect at the time of such application. These requirements were specifically put in place
to ensure that such a future subdivision could only occur if the new lots conformed to the dimensional
requirements of the code. Lot 7, as a separate lot, is substandard in width and area. It is approximately
one-quarter in acre and 50 feet in width,which is far from meeting the 1.0 acre and 140 foot width
minimum standards of the LR-1B zoning district.
The applicants' attorney has submitted a letter which suggests that because the City has allowed other
similar-sized lakeshore lots to be built on in recent years,that the applicants should be treated equally.
The letter also cites the"practical difficulty" standards for variance review. It is further suggested that
this parcel should be subject to the shoreland provisions of Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subd. le, and that
the provisions of Condition 7 of the agreement were intended solely to allow for a dock on the lake parcel
and not to prevent its future development.
Staff disagrees with the characterizations and offers the following:
1. It cannot be construed that the City recently has simply allowed development of small lakeshore
lots. The City has, by action of the MN Legislature, been forced to permit residential
development on certain classes of existing lots of record in the shoreland that meet very specific
conditions. It is important to remember that the statute applies to existing lots and not the
creation of new lots.
2. It is the City's position that the applicants' property by virtue of the Special Lot Combination
Agreement is not similar to other lakeshore lots which do not have this binding covenant that
allows the City to limit their development.
3. The practical difficulties standard relates to variance applications involving the zoning
ordinance. The applicants are not applying for a variance. This is a subdivision that is
governed by City Code Section 82-48 and Minnesota Statute 462.358. Additionally, the
argument that the agreement was not agreed to by the applicants is erroneous, as it is a
document of record and binding on all future owners of the property.
4. The lake parcel cannot be considered as a nonconforming single lot of record by virtue of the
Special Lot Combination Agreement which permanently makes it functionally combined with
the off-lake parcel. It no longer retains status as a separate lot and is therefore not subject to or
benefitted by the cited statute provisions.
5. As noted earlier,the argument that the agreement was intended to"be extinguished in the
event the City allowed development of lots with similar characteristics in the future" is
misplaced. In the event the City Code allowed for the creation of nonconforming lots,which
it does not,this argument might have some merit. If it Staffs position that establishment of
such an onerous process as subdivision approval in accordance with City Codes at the time of
Page 9 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
such application to merely extinguish a covenant in itself indicates the intent and spirit of the
agreement. The purpose of the agreement was to ensure that the applicant understood that they
were combining two lots into one lot.
Gaffron noted there are a variety of site factors which make development of the property difficult and are
as follows:
a. Location of existing municipal sewer lines within the property and the likelihood of existing
sewer easements that would impact the allowable locations of retaining walls;
b. The sanitary sewer lift station centered in the narrow 20-foot right-of-way abutting the
southeast corner of the property which limits access and likely requires easements from
adjoining property owners or the establishment of a new driveway within the right-of-way
entering from the north;
c. The need for an encroachment agreement to allow the driveway in the right-of-way of a
street that has not been opened to public use;
d. Steep topography and the need to manage runoff.
In addition,the lake parcel was never assessed for the sewer unit charge, and such charge would be due at
the time of issuance of a building permit if the subdivision is approved. The revised survey received on
September 9 relocates the proposed driveway to within one foot of the lift station,which is unacceptable.
Staff would recommend denial of the requested subdivision on the basis that to approve it would violate
the provisions of the subdivision code with regards to lot area and lot width.
Schoenzeit asked if the property was not encumbered by the Special Lot Combination Agreement,
whether the property, with its current parameters, would be allowed by state code to be built on.
Gaffron stated if the Special Lot Combination Agreement was not in effect, this lot likely would be
buildable under the state statute if it meets certain criteria as a separate lot. Since it consists of
approximately 10,600 square feet, it would meet the standards as a single, separate lot.
Gaffron stated if this lot was owned in common with the lot directly to the north,which is also vacant,the
City would require that the two lots be combined as one lot. The lot to the north is not in common
ownership and is owned by the house to the very east of it, so that no longer would apply. Gaffron stated
in his view the strange configuration of the lots led to the ownership by someone with an off-lake parcel
of a lot that is offset by 100 plus feet from their property in order to gain lakeshore access. Since then,
that lot has been considered unbuildable at least twice by resolution and once by withdrawal after
recommendation of denial. From a Staff's perspective,there is no basis to change that finding.
Schoenzeit asked what would happen if they left the lot combination in place but put the house on the
lake lot and left the other off-lake parcel empty.
Gaffron indicated it would require the terms of the Special Lot Combination Agreement to be revised,
which the applicants have not proposed. Gaffron commented it would be an interesting concept, but at
this time no one is proposing that.
Page 10 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Morgan Kavanaugh,Attorney-at-Law, stated it is a unique circumstance to have a Special Lot
Combination Agreement and that he hopes the Planning Commissioners have had a chance to review the
terms of that agreement. Kavanaugh stated there is a disconnect between their interpretation of what that
agreement was supposed to do and what it means and Staff's interpretation.
Kavanaugh noted this is not a true subdivision application but rather they are requesting the agreement be
terminated. The history of denials is interesting to look at, but as Staff pointed out,there have been
changed circumstances since 2001. In addition, Staff acknowledges that but for this agreement,the
property owners would be able to build on this lot.
Kavanaugh noted there are two separate PID numbers for these lots and they are considered separate for
tax purposes. The lakeshore lot has been a lot since 1933 and it is clearly separate in that it is divided by
a road. Since the 2001 denial,the MN Legislature has decided to change the standards for lakeshore
properties, and in the 2001 denial, the reason why it was denied is because it was not a buildable lot that
the applicant wanted to build on. Kavanaugh stated in his view essentially that property owner was
strong-armed into signing the agreement in order to keep their dock because they could not have a dock
without a structure. Since those circumstances have changed, if this agreement was not in place,the
property owners meet all the requirements and they should be able to build on the lot.
Kavanaugh stated as it relates to the Special Lot Combination Agreement, Paragraph 7 talks about how
the agreement can be terminated. It does not say in the agreement that the only way the agreement is
terminated is if you can meet the lot size requirements. The agreement references generally that the
property owner would have to make an application to the City for a subdivision in accordance with City
Codes or the plat codes. Kavanaugh concurred that the lot size is not met, but everything else in terms of
setbacks and the other items outlined in his letter are met.
Kavanaugh stated if the MN Legislature had decided not to change the standards for lakeshore lots, it
would be a different situation, but since those standards have been changed,the circumstances
surrounding these lots have changed. The intent of the agreement at the time was simply to allow the
dock to stay there.
Kavanaugh stated he would also like to point out the fact that there are buildings on similar sized lots
throughout the City. Kavanaugh noted there is a lot just down the street that was just recently sold off
with 50 feet of lakeshore that will be built on. In addition,there are other 50-foot lots in that
neighborhood and there are other lots in the City that someone has built on and that they are simply
asking to be treated equally.
Kavanaugh stated he is not entirely sure of the background of the lift station, but it is one of those things
that can be worked through as it relates to access. Kavanaugh stated he is not sure why that lift station
was put in that location and it is something he would like more information on.
Gaffron indicated he did go through some boxes of archives but he did not find any documents that would
provide any clue as to why it was specifically put in that location and not somewhere else. Gaffron stated
he can only speculate that due to the depth of the lift station,that was where they chose to place it instead
of placing it on an easement. Gaffron indicated it is only a 20-foot right-of-way in that location and they
did not have a lot of space to put it off to one side.
Page 11 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Kavanaugh noted the lift station is in rough condition and asked whether it is scheduled to be replaced at
some point in the future. Kavanaugh asked how difficult it would be to move the lift station in order for
them to gain access.
Gaffron stated in his view it would be difficult to move given the 30-foot depth of the lift station and that
it would likely cost tens of thousands of dollars to relocate.
Kavanaugh stated that obviously the big issue tonight is the Special Lot Combination Agreement and that
Staff has brought up some points relating to the sewer line, the lift station, the encroachment,and the fact
that the property has never been assessed a unit and footage charge. Kavanaugh stated those items can be
resolved and that they would like some feedback on the Special Lot Combination Agreement.
Gaffron stated in his view the only reason those reasons were raised is in deference to the fact that the
property owners have put a lot of effort into some of the details of site planning. Gaffron stated he
understands the issues that surround the attempts to obtain easements from the neighbors, but given the
fact that the lift station is in that location, it is an issue, and in order to gain access to the property, it is
imperative that they obtain those easements. Gaffron stated those factors, however, really have nothing to
do with the fact that there is a Special Lot Combination Agreement in effect that combines these two
parcels as one for zoning purposes.
Lemke asked if Staff is aware of other similar Special Lot Combination Agreements in effect.
Gaffron indicated the City has Special Lot Combination Agreements that are typically directly across
rather than offset by 100 feet plus. This situation is unique but it is not unique in that the City has Special
Lot Combination Agreements that tie non-lakeshore parcels directly across from the lake. Cherry Avenue
is one example where there is a wetland situation and an undeveloped right-of-way by the Hennepin
County boat launch at County Road 19 and North Shore Drive. In that situation there is land located
across from a wetland that is considered to be a separate parcel. Gaffron stated to his recollection the City
has completed approximately a dozen of those agreements over the years.
Lemke asked if any of those Special Lot Combination Agreements have been terminated.
Gaffron indicated they have not and that this situation is unique.
Schoenzeit asked if there is any lakeside combination that is as large as this one.
Gaffron stated he does not believe so, which again makes this situation unique.
Kavanaugh indicated they did speak to the prior owner of the property and she confirmed that the only
reason she entered into the agreement was to preserve her dock. The intent was not to forever bar
development on this lot. If the Planning Commission looks again at Paragraph 7, it does not say that to
terminate this agreement the lot must conform to the dimensional requirements of the code. It states if the
agreement is terminated, it must be done so in accordance with the City's platting code, which specifies
the process of applying for a subdivision and the variance standards. Kavanaugh stated the intent of the
parties to this agreement was not to prohibit development on the lot.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Page 12 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Stacy Alness, Applicant, stated she would like to make a couple of points. Alness stated they did not
know it was even possible to build on this lot until their neighbor sold their property. Alness stated their
understanding was that you could not build on a 50-foot lot and that they were told by Staff that there was
a new statute in place that allows people to build on 50-foot lots. Alness commented they would like to
be treated equally and that they would like to extinguish the agreement since it was entered into only for
the purpose of allowing a dock.
Stacy Alness stated a house on that lot would not be out of character with the neighborhood since there
will be a brand-new house being constructed on 1161.
Ryan Alness noted 1161 is also a 50-foot lot.
Stacy Alness stated the neighbors at 1153 are working with them to create an easement to gain access to
this lot. The road that was originally proposed is not the actual road and their driveway and part of their
garage is in the proposed road. Alness pointed out the proposed road on the overhead and the driveway.
The actual road is in a different location, which necessitates the need for an easement. The people at
1159 have indicated they would grant them an easement. Alness stated they are willing to work on the
issues relating to the lift station to see if a resolution can be arrived at.
Ryan Alness stated the property at 1161 used to be combined or in common ownership with 1179. The
homeowners of 1135 North Arm Drive also own the 50-foot lake parcel next to this property and they
were never required to execute a Special Lot Combination Agreement as the previous property owner was
for this lot. Alness stated they are allowed to have a dock.
Stacy Alness stated prior to the Special Lot Combination Agreement being signed,there were docks on
other parcels in that area. Surveys show that there have been docks out there for 30 plus years and they
were not required to have a Special Lot Combination Agreement. Alness stated in her view they are
being treated differently since they were required to have this agreement.
Renae Meerkins, 1135 and 1137 North Arm Drive, noted she did submit a letter previously objecting to
this request. Meerkins indicated this would result in an encroachment on their property since the
applicants would have to cross their property to gain access. In addition,they would encumber their
property by restricting their view of the lake should a house be built on that lot and that they would be
opposed to any use of their property for an easement.
Meerkins stated they also have concerns regarding water runoff and that they currently experience water
issues on their lakeside property.
Schoenzeit asked if the easement the applicants have arranged to gain access to their lake property would
also require an easement over the Meerkins' property.
Meerkins indicated it would.
Stacy Alness stated that is due to the road not being built in the proposed location.
Schoenzeit asked if that is because the easement they have arranged does not cover 100 percent of the
access.
Page 13 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Stacy Alness indicated that is correct and is due to the lift station.
Mrs. Meerkins stated she would like it to be clear that she opposes an easement on her property.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m.
Landgraver noted there have been additional comments received.
Gaffron stated the City has received two letters that arrived after the packet was delivered. The first letter
is from Glenn Solie and reads as follows: "Melanie, per our conversation, we(Nancy and I)oppose the
request for 1169 North Arm Drive to be separated into two buildable lots. I agree with all comments
already expressed by Claus Weiler and Renee Wilkins(sic) in the attached document. In addition, I have
concerns about the impact of storm water drainage. These are issues that already exist and additional
development would only make this situation worse."
The other letter received is from Jennifer Adams and reads as follows: "I am writing to you in regards to
the proposal to remove the special combination that was applied to the 1169 North Arm Drive property
that combined it with a lakeshore lot on Elmwood Avenue. I am a resident at 1180 Elmwood Avenue and
my property adjoins their property in the backyard. I am unable to attend the meeting this evening due to
a family obligation out of town. I fully support Ryan and Stacy's request to split their lakeshore lot from
their 1169 North Arm Drive property. As I recall,one of the previous owners of the property(Christie)
had wanted to build on the lakeshore lot. At that time, a building was not allowed. So when her request
was denied, she was required to combine the two properties together. Now that the lakeshore lot is
legally a buildable lot and other neighbors have been allowed to sell their lots with the intent to build, I
expect that Ryan and Stacy Alness would be allowed the same consideration. Their subdivision request
should be approved. The lots are still separate lots with separate property taxes and were only combined
by special agreement. Please correct this situation for this family so that they may make full use of the
properties that they own."
Leskinen indicated she is completely opposed to extinguishing the Special Lot Combination Agreement.
Leskinen noted the agreement is a legally binding combination and the previous owner was not required
to sign it. The previous landowner requested approval by the City in order to be able to make the dock
legal and that was the only option the City had to make the dock legal. The parcel had been deemed
unbuildable a number of times prior to the previous property owner's request and the agreement was
entered into and is now part of the chain of title. Leskinen stated it is not a situation where the City is
picking on any particular landowner and that the agreement was fully available to any subsequent buyers.
On that basis, Leskinen indicated she cannot find any good reason to extinguish that agreement in order to
create a substandard lot in Orono.
Lemke noted at that time the lot was deemed to be unbuildable, but since then circumstances have
changed and it would not necessarily, according to Staff, be a substandard lot at this time.
Gaffron stated had there not been a lot combination that makes this entire group of parcels one lot,that lot
likely would be allowed today to be a building site such as the one just to the south,which includes
property across the street from it. Gaffron stated there is no question that but for the Special Lot
Combination Agreement,that lakeshore lot likely would be allowed to be built on.
Leskinen asked if it would be a conforming lot.
Page 14 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated due to the Special Lot Combination Agreement and the requirement that a person can only
extinguish it by subdividing it under the current platting standards,they would not be allowed to create a
substandard lot. Therefore the City would be approving a subdivision that would not be compliant with
City Codes if the agreement is extinguished,which is the basis for Staff's recommendation of denial.
Leskinen stated a similar situation is if there were two contiguous lots where there was not a special lot
combination but merely a lot combination and they wanted to split it into two nonconforming lots,the
City would not approve it. These properties are not contiguous lots and, as a result, a Special Lot
Combination Agreement was entered into and they are now legally combined.
McGrann asked what property the 1161 was subdivided from.
Gaffron indicated it was not subdivided recently but was originally subdivided in 1885 or thereabouts.
Gaffron stated it was a stand-alone lot that was also owned in common with 1179. Those two lots are
100-foot lots and not 50-foot lots and were combined a number of years ago. 1161 was kept separate and
the lot to the east was also kept separate.
Gaffron indicated Staff is currently working with the owner of 1161 to see if a plan can be created
without the need for variances. Gaffron noted 1161 meets the standards for a single lot in a group of
contiguous lots under MN Statutes because it was contiguous and owned in common but not combined
with 1179. Gaffron stated in that situation the City is bound to allow them to build on that substandard
lot. If the smaller piece is combined with it to help make additional acreage, it will not have a Special Lot
Combination Agreement.
Lemke asked whether 1169 North Arm Drive would be a conforming lot if it was subdivided.
Gaffron stated the lakeshore lot is approximately one quarter of an acre where a minimum of one acre is
required. Any new lots that are created in that LR-1B zoning district are required to have a full acre and
140 feet of width. To suddenly split off that from the 1169 parcel would create not only one substandard
lot but two substandard lots.
Lemke asked if 1137 to the north is substandard.
Gaffron indicated it is a substandard lot as it currently sits and is owned by the people directly across
from it. Gaffron stated to his knowledge they have not entered into a Special Lot Combination
Agreement and they are considered separate tax parcels.
Thiesse asked if the two properties before the Planning Commission tonight are separate tax parcels.
Gaffron stated they are separate tax parcels. Gaffron indicated Hennepin County will allow a lot
combination for tax purposes if the land is directly across the road but that they normally will not do that
if the property is offset by 100 plus feet.
Landgraver asked whether 1137 could be built on.
Gaffron stated it would be subject to whatever standards are in place at the time.
Page 15 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated he has a difficult time withholding approval based on the previous denials since the two
variances were denied previous to the Special Lot Combination Agreement being entered into, and as a
result,this would technically be the first time that it has come forward. Thiesse noted the City did not
reject the combination but they rejected the fact that it was a buildable lot. If the state had not said that
that was a possible buildable lot and the property owners came in and said they would like to get rid of it,
Thiesse stated he would tell them good luck but that it would be very difficult to get a house on it.
Leskinen noted it is no longer a stand-alone parcel but that it is a separate tax parcel because Hennepin
County will not merge the PID of two noncontiguous properties.
Schoenzeit stated the fact that they are non-contiguous is another anomaly of why they should not be
combined. Schoenzeit noted the only way the original property owner could have a dock was if they
entered into the agreement since a person cannot have a dock without a structure. Schoenzeit stated
currently the City would allow a structure on that lot and that in his opinion the City should severe the
connection between the two lots. Schoenzeit noted the property owners are really not creating a new lot
but are simply restoring what is there,which is an important distinction, and that there are a number of
lots throughout the City that are nonconforming, which may not be the best reason for denial.
Schoenzeit stated the one thing that concerns him is whether the applicants would be able to obtain all the
necessary easements to access the property. Schoenzeit stated access cannot come within a foot of the lift
station and that there should really be ten feet of clearance. If access could be resolved through the
appropriate agreements, Schoenzeit stated in his view the City should allow the property owners to
reseparate the two parcels since the state has already said that a person can build on a substandard lot.
Lemke asked if the lift station is a problem that was created by the City and whether it was put in the
wrong spot.
Gaffron stated in his view the City did not put it in the wrong spot and that it was likely a choice made by
the engineers who designed it in 1970. The City Council apparently approved the lift station knowing
that there was not need for access in that 20-foot right-of-way.
Schoenzeit stated obviously the lift station should be considered a neighbor that this property owner has
to deal with.
Landgraver noted that issue is not before the Planning Commission tonight and that the Planning
Commission has to deal with the Special Lot Combination Agreement.
Schoenzeit stated if this was a clean sheet,the City should not be creating substandard lots but that this is
reseparating something that at one time existed. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is not
picking the boundaries and that the lot has a sewer connection and a separate tax ID number.
Leskinen commented the same logic could be used for two adjoining lots that were combined. If the
property owner at some point down the road wanted to reseparate them in order to build a new house,that
would be creating a subdivision.
Schoenzeit stated the other piece in that is the fact that 50-foot lots are still in character with this
neighborhood.
Leskinen commented in her view that would set a dangerous precedent.
Page 16 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated at some point the property owner has to have some rights. The state has said that this
type of lot is sufficient to build on, which is different from the first two denials.
Schwingler stated what is in front of the Planning Commission is a request for a subdivision and whether
the subdivision should be approved.
Schoenzeit noted it would be a nonconforming subdivision since it requires 140 feet lot width and
minimum one acre lot size and by that definition it makes the agreement undoable.
Thiesse noted the agreement requires a subdivision application to be filed.
Schwingler stated the Planning Commission has to deal with the facts as presented and cannot be drafting
legislation or changing City Code.
Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission is going to consider the idea that this lot is typical with the
neighborhood,they should look at what the actual lot sizes are in the neighborhood. Gaffron noted the
exhibits in the Planning Commission's packet show all the lot combinations and that a 50-foot lot is not
as common as the wider lots. Gaffron stated in his view a 50-foot lot is not typical of what exists in the
neighborhood.
Stacy Alness stated there are 50-foot lots on Forest Lake that are being built on and that it is not just these
lots in the area around their house.
Gaffron stated the City experiences the rebuilding of a dozen or so lakeshore homes every year, and those
consist of people who have a house on the property and have the ability to replace their existing house.
Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend denial of Application#13-3629,Ryan and
Stacy Alness, 1169 North Arm Drive,on the basis that a subdivision would create a nonstandard lot
which directly conflicts with the City's subdivision ordinances that are currently in place.
Landgraver asked what the next step in the process would be if the application is recommended for denial.
Gaffron indicated the application would go before the City Council for review and formal action.
Schwingler commented the job of the Planning Commission is to make a recommendation based on the
current City Code.
VOTE ON THE ABOVE MOTION: Ayes 4,Nays 3,Lemke,McGrann,and Schoenzeit opposed.
8. #13-3630 BILL COFFMAN ON BEHALF OF ERWIN WACHMAN,BAYSIDE
MEADOWS,8:02 P.M.—8:28 P.M.
Bill Coffman, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the Bayside Meadows subdivision received final plat approval in June of 2013. Upon final
review by the City Council,the applicant was asked by the Council to consider a reduction in the number
of proposed boulevard trees and to consider a more rural/natural placement in the spirit of the rurally
zoned development. City Code Section 82-226(b)(1)directs developers to plant one shade tree along the
Page 17 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
new roadway every 40 feet. The result of such uniform spacing may appear to be contrived rather than a
more natural variation.
The road for the Bayside Meadows plat results in 2,270 linear feet of frontage requiring 57 trees. The
approved plan reflects the code required number and placement of the boulevard trees. The applicant has
provided a revised plan at the Council's suggestion reflecting a more thoughtful placement of 42 trees.
Curtis noted this is not a variance request as noted on the agenda and more of a waiver of the requirement
since the applicant was asked by the City Council to review this issue. The Code allows for the City
Council to waive certain requirements as deemed appropriate. Staff finds the placement and number of
proposed boulevard trees to be a better fit for a rural design and recommends approval.
Bill Coffman, Applicant, stated he is here tonight on behalf of Shelly Wachman,the owner of the
property for the past 20 years. Coffman indicated they concur with Staff's recommendations.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m.
Carolyn Meyers stated she owns the property behind this new development. Meyers stated she has a
concern because Bayside Meadows is above the wetlands and having fewer trees is not to the advantage
of any kind of runoff or water absorption. There is now 1.65 acres that is now impermeable and that
adding trees, not subtracting trees would be more advantageous since they would help absorb the water.
Pat Thull, 210 North Shore Drive, stated she has a couple of issues. Thull indicated their property is
located on the south side of the development and look down on the site.
Thull stated when she was in attendance at the last meeting,the application was pretty much in place and
that there were two acre lots being proposed,which is not really typical for this area. The area is more
rural and consists of woods, waterways, and wetlands. Thull stated she does not have an objection to
development of the property but that she would have had issue with the number of houses being built on
the site.
Thull stated the plan depicted a buffer along one area of trees and currently there is not a single tree in
that buffer line. That issue was discussed in the last meeting and it was agreed that trees would be placed
in that area. Thull stated the five trees being proposed are not adequate because it was agreed by the
Planning Commission that the tree line in the buffer area should replicate the general current tree line and
that it should be conducive to the natural environment and look of the area. The layout of the homes is
not natural and appears odd looking.
Thull stated the other issue deals with the wetland. The wetland was reclassified which allows for closer
infringement in the wetland area and takes away from the natural environment. Thull stated removing
additional trees does not make sense, does not retain the natural environment and that she would prefer to
see more trees rather than fewer trees. Thull indicated she agrees with Caroline Meyers as it relates to the
additional runoff going into the wetlands.
Carol Pass, 235 North Arm Lane, stated their property is probably the one that is most impacted by this
development. The whole southern and eastern border with the exception of one area is connected to their
property. Pass indicated they created a conservation easement across their southern border of their
property in an effort to help maintain the wildlife and natural environment. Pass commented this area is
Page 18 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
an incredible area as it relates to the wildlife and that it should be preserved. Pass indicated she has had
the DNR out to her property and that they have helped her with the conservation of the area. There are a
number of deer, wood ducks, and unusual birds in the area that should be protected.
Pass stated she has a concern with the fact that their property overlooks four large septic systems and
there is no tree buffer. Pass stated she agrees with Pat Thull and that they both would like to see the
natural character of the area preserved as much as possible. The septic systems are clustered around the
creek. At times that area is filled with standing water. Pass stated they have worked hard to make this
area a beautiful spot and to preserve it for generations to come. Pass stated she does not want to see a
grassy lawn right next to the forested area and that she does not see any trees being proposed for that area
at all.
Pass stated she is unsure how to keep this area more natural looking and that at times it is overrun with off
road vehicles and kids riding bicycles. In addition,there are a number of springs over the hillside. Pass
indicated she made a Power Point presentation and played it for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
because she was concerned about the flowage of water. The hydrology in this area is very intense and has
taken out the back of their garage and house.
Leskinen stated she appreciates the neighbors' comments but that she would like to point out that what is
before the Planning Commission tonight is a proposal to reduce the number of boulevard trees. The other
aspects of this development have already been approved by the City Council. What is now before the
Planning Commission is simply a reduction of approximately 15 trees in the boulevard because there was
a concern raised by the City Council that the new boulevard would look too contrived.
Pass asked if there is any opportunity to discuss the elimination of the trees to the edge of the
development.
Curtis indicated that is not what the application relates to that is before the Planning Commission tonight.
Leskinen reiterated the application relates only to the reduction of trees along the boulevard.
Pass asked if the tree berm along the southern edge is a concern.
Leskinen noted it is not part of this particular application but that it had been discussed prior under the
original subdivision application.
Landgraver stated this specific issue will go before the City Council and that the City Council might be
the forum where the neighbors can express their concerns.
Pass asked if there would be an opportunity to address these items of concern at the City Council. Pass
noted the meeting at the City Council would not be a public hearing.
Leskinen stated the public hearing for the items that are being raised tonight by the neighbors was already
held several months ago and the application was approved by the City Council.
Pass asked what she can do to raise these issues.
Landgraver suggested she attend the City Council meeting and raise her concerns there.
Page 19 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis asked if she would like additional information on the plan that was approved. Curtis noted this
plan relates to buckthorn removal and a reduction in landscape trees along the boulevard.
Pass stated she heard there would be a reduction in trees and that she was unaware of where those trees
would be removed.
Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the property. Additional trees were planted at the request of Mrs.
Thull. As it relates to the southern end of the property, a conservation easement was created to protect the
existing trees in that area. Additional trees were planted along the western lot line.
Pass noted the property line is located in this area and that this is supposed to be woods.
Curtis indicated this plan does not show those trees specifically since the plan is merely addressing the
removal of buckthorn and the boulevard trees. Curtis reiterated there is a conservation easement along
the southern edge of the property.
Pass asked if those trees would be removed.
Curtis stated there will be some trees removed to the extent the lot will be developed.
Pass stated when she walked through that area, it appeared there were an awful lot of trees removed.
Curtis indicated the green area depicts the conservation easement and that the trees in that area would
remain. The hashed area depicts the area of the buckthorn removal. Curtis noted the applicants have an
approved landscape plan and there were additional trees put there at the request of the property owner to
the south.
Lemke pointed out the four septic sites are optional and that there will only be two actual septic sites.
Curtis stated there will be one septic site developed per lot and that the other one is an alternate site.
Curtis stated those sites are merely suggested sites and that the developer had to show to the City that
septic systems could be provided for each home. Curtis noted the septic sites could be put in a different
location depending on the homeowner's preference.
Pass asked whether the neighbors would be notified of any changes going forward.
Curtis stated the application tonight is requesting a reduction in the boulevard trees. The plan relating to
the subdivision has been completed and approved.
Pass asked if the septic systems are changed, whether they would need to talk with the City.
Curtis stated if they meet the septic code standards and the city zoning requirements,they would not need
to come back before the City. What the developer is showing with the preliminary plat is that they can
develop lots that meet the City's requirements. The homes depicted on the plat are intended to show that
a home of a reasonable size can meet the City's septic requirements, size requirements, and setback
requirements.
Pass asked if the area around the wetland would be changed.
Page 20 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the wetland will not be touched. The setback, as determined by the Watershed District and
the City, required the developer to grant the City easements protecting that area. In addition,the
conservation easement also helps to protect the area. The developer will be conducting some buckthorn
removal in that area but it does not allow him to clear-cut the area. Curtis pointed out the entire perimeter
of the site has a conservation easement on it as well as a wetland buffer area.
Brad Pass, 235 North Arm Lane, stated if the City is concerned about the contrived appearance of the
boulevard and are considering cutting down a number of trees because the appearance might be contrived,
they should consider the appearance of having a treeless area in the middle of a wooded area, which is
what is contrived.
Pat Thull stated she misunderstood what the purpose of tonight's meeting was because she did not have
the background information relating to the application. Thull stated her understanding was that it related
to a reduction in trees. Thull asked whether those trees could be relocated to another area.
Leskinen noted what is at issue this evening is not trees that will be cut down but relates to how many
trees the builder will be required to plant.
Thull asked if 15 trees will not be planted along the boulevard,whether they can be relocated elsewhere.
Leskinen stated the Planning Commission can discuss that option.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated based on what he has heard,the neighbors would prefer that the trees that are being
proposed to not be planted along the boulevard be planted elsewhere on the site.
Curtis noted the placement of the trees on the boulevard is land that is not considered private and that
there would have to be some additional protections built in to assure that the tree that was planted by the
developer in a different area will be sustained for two years. The trees would need to be placed in an area
that the developer controls. Curtis stated she understands wanting to incorporate additional trees on the
property but that it needs to be pointed out that an additional step would need to be taken if that happens.
Lemke asked if there are supposed to be 42 trees.
Curtis indicated the revised plan shows additional trees along Bayside Road. The circled areas depict the
trees and the type of tree is listed on the lower right of the plan.
Landgraver noted a number of the neighbors have expressed concerns about protecting the beauty of the
area but that it sounds like the developer has taken those things into consideration. Landgraver noted the
City Council has also weighed on this application. What the Planning Commission has before them
tonight is responsive to the concern raised by the City Council that the boulevard area be made more
natural looking.
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to approve Application#13-3630,Bill Coffman on behalf
of Erwin Wachman,Bayside Meadows,granting of a reduction in the number of trees to be planted
along the boulevard. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Page 21 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
9. #13-3631 LANDSOURCE,LLC,REPRESENTED BY TODD HOLMERS,3700
NORTHERN AVENUE, SUBDIVISION,8:29 P.M.- 9:48 P.M.
Todd Holmers, Applicant, and George Stichney, Developer,were present.
Gaffron stated this is a request for a subdivision for property located on Northern Avenue. The property
consists of 4.89 acres and is located in the LR-IC, one family lakeshore residential district, which
requires one-half acre and 100-foot lot width.
Gaffron stated the drawing that is on the overhead shows the lot sizes in the surrounding neighborhood. It
also depicts the Dakota County Trail,Northern Avenue, and Togo Road. The property is surrounded
pretty much by developed residential property.
The proposed subdivision proposes six lots consisting of two back lots with a narrow corridor leading to
the rear of the property and then four lots located across the front of the property. The developer is
showing the two driveway corridors on either end of the property. Gaffron noted the lots are rather
strangely shaped and is probably the result of the applicant's surveyor attempting to make sure that each
lot contains the required half acre of dry buildable. The two back lots are required to be comprised of at
least three-quarters of an acre of which at least one-half acre dry buildable.
Gaffron noted this property is unique in that it has significant wetlands of approximately one acre in the
middle of the property which results in very narrow areas around it in which to build. Gaffron stated the
first page of Staff's report shows that the wetland consists of approximately 0.83 acre and that there is
4.89 acres of dry buildable. A portion of that dry buildable area is located alongside Northern Avenue.
Gaffron stated 101 years ago, back in 1912,Northern Avenue had been platted as a 66-foot right-of-way
paralleling the railroad. The railroad has a 100-foot right-of-way. In 1912, the town board,for unknown
reasons, elected to vacate Northern Avenue,which resulted in all the properties abutting it to gain some
acreage.
The Regional Railroad Authority currently owns the right-of-way, and in the last ten years, it has exerted
its influences over properties that have encroachments in their right-of-way and they have actively tried to
remove any encroachments in the right-of-way. Approximately half of the existing paved road of
Northern Avenue is located within the railroad right-of-way and half of it is located in the private
properties.
Gaffron stated in the initial discussions with the applicant and their surveyor, it was suggested that there
be a dedication of 30 feet of right-of-way adjacent to the railroad right-of-way so that the City can
accommodate the existing Northern Avenue as it is traveled and paved and the existing water and sewer
lines. Gaffron noted that 30 feet actually matches a prior subdivision done approximately 30 years just to
the west in which the City gained back some of that right-of-way that was vacated in 1912.
One of the factors in looking at development of this property is that the City is going to be looking for
dedication of the right-of-way and whether 30 feet is correct or whether more should be required is
questionable. One of the questions Staff has is whether the City will be required by the Regional Rail
Authority to relocate that road, which would be difficult with a 30-foot right-of-way. The City standards
Page 22 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
for a local road is a 50-foot corridor and so Staff is questioning whether the City should request 50 feet of
right-of-way or 30 feet of right-of-way.
Gaffron noted this property has been zoned for half-acre lots for at least the last 40 years and it has been
guided in the City's Comprehensive Plan for development of half-acre lots. Any subdivision would be
expected to meet those minimum standards for lot area, lot width, setbacks, etc., and the idea of creating
substandard lots is one that the Code does not allow. In this particular situation the land is completely
vacant and consists of one parcel.
As it relates to the conformity of this proposal with the City's Comprehensive Plan, at 1.6 units per acre,
it would meet the Comprehensive Plan standards for up to two to three acres. Each of the lots as
contrived and strangely shaped as they are meet the acreage requirements for the LR-1C zoning district.
However, the subdivision does not meet a number of the standards established in the code in regards to
the use of back lots. The code states that in general front/back lot divisions may be used for individual
lots but may not be used when subdividing a larger parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is
merely a convenience to the developer rather than supported by unique site factors. Gaffron stated one of
the questions for the Planning Commission to consider is whether or not this configuration is using two
back lots as supported by the unique factors of the property.
In regards to the requirements for back lots,the code states that a side lot line shall be at right angles to
street lot lines or radial to curving street lines unless a variation of this rule will give a better street or lot
plan.
Gaffron illustrated the layout of the lots on the overhead. Proposed Lot 1 is a back lot and does not meet
the minimum width requirement of 100 feet at the rear of the required 45-foot front yard. The minimum
back lot area requirement of 0.75 acres is met. Proposed Lot 2 abuts Northern Avenue and will be 050
acres in area and 102 feet in width, meeting the LR-1C area/width requirements. Proposed Lot 3 abuts
Northern Avenue and will be 0.50 acres in area and 102 feet in width, also meeting the LR-1C
requirements. Proposed Lot 6 is a back lot and does not meet the minimum width requirement of 100 feet
at the rear of the required 45-foot front yard. The minimum back lot area requirement of 0.75 acres is met
but only by including the land north of the wetland.
Gaffron noted both of the back lots are required to meet a 100-foot width at the required setback. Since it
is a back lot, in each case they must have 150 percent of the standard acreage, which requires three-
quarters of an acre instead of a half-acre and they must also have 150 percent of the side, rear, and front
setbacks. The normal setbacks are 30 feet front and rear and 10 feet on the sides. The width of the lot is
measured at the rear of the front setback. Gaffron stated the bottom line is that both of those lots do not
meet the width requirement at the rear of the front yard, which may be a technicality but should be
discussed.
Gaffron stated whenever you dedicate 30 feet for a corridor that is going to be the driveway for a back lot,
it requires that there be a separation distance of 30 feet from the neighbor's house. The neighbor's house
in this case is 18 feet away. That neighbor has submitted comments suggesting that he would not support
the idea of having a driveway that close to his bedroom window. Since it is not supported by code, Staff
would argue that that location for a 30-foot corridor to gain access to the back lot is not in an appropriate
location.
Page 23 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron noted each lot meets the required acreage but they have been laid out in odd shapes. There is a
wetland by everyone's estimation at this point going to require a buffer. The Watershed District will be
requiring a 40-foot buffer. The City Code requires that whatever buffer the Watershed District requires,
you will need an additional feet of setback. So from the boundaries of that wetland, no structure can be
less than 50 feet from it.
As it relates to the hardcover being proposed for this subdivision,the project will meet all the hardcover
standards and is considered a Tier III, which is allowed 30 percent. Individually each lot will be
approximately 20 percent or less.
Gaffron stated as it relates to the driveway layout,the two back lots at either end will share a driveway
with the house located next to them. There will be two shared driveways and then two other driveways in
the middle of the site. As a result,you will end up with a total of four driveways in about a 460-foot
width along Northern Avenue, which is not unusual for this neighborhood. Easements will be required
over those two narrow corridor outlots so each property owner has the right to utilize that driveway.
The Comprehensive Plan does not talk about the need for a park in this area. There is an existing regional
trail located across the street. Staff would be recommending a park dedication fee at this point. If a
dedication of land is recommended, it would amount to 8 percent and would be approximately 50 feet.
Gaffron stated in his view there is not a need for park dedication and there is no demand for it in the
Comprehensive Plan or City Code.
Stormwater and drainage improvements have been reviewed by the City's engineering consultant and
those comments are included in the Planning Commission's packet. The engineer has noted that it is
likely the Watershed District will not require a stormwater management plan. In the plan that has been
submitted by the applicants, on either end of the pond is shown a rain garden type drainage structure.
That structure is an attempt to accumulate the drainage off the properties to the southwest before it enters
the wetland. On the east end of the wetland,there would also be another rain garden that would collect
the runoff. The development would be subject to stormwater and trunk fee of approximately$28,000 per
City Code.
City sewer and city water are available for this development. The property was provided with water in
1970 and they were charged for three water units at that time. Any additional units would require a$2800
per unit water connection charge. The property was provided with sewer in 1982,which was assessed for
2.0 acres and four units. The developable acreage for this property would be calculated at 3.74 acres net
of wetland and road, leaving 1.74 acres not assessed. Any additional units above four units would incur a
$600 per unit trunk charged for a total of approximately$7000.
The developer has provided a Conservation Design Report, which includes a tree survey, natural
resources inventory, and conservation design master plan. The Planning Commission should review the
report and discuss with the applicant his plans for adhering to the recommended provisions for site
management. Gaffron noted the only conservation easements recommended by the consultant are for the
wetlands and wetland buffer. Although the report recommends that the tree border adjacent to Northern
Avenue be preserved as a buffer to the development, it does not recommend a conservation easement be
established in that area.
The City Engineer, in his comments, suggests that such an easement would be appropriate. With or
without an easement, Staff is skeptical that this area can realistically be preserved during construction.
Page 24 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Tree preservation within the remainder of the site will potentially be the areas immediately abutting the
wetland as well as at the southeast corner of the wetland and the areas north and northwest of the wetland.
Exhibit M reflects Staff's estimation of the areas of the overall site that would potentially not be disturbed
as part of the development process. The areas not hashed are very likely to be denuded as part of the
development process based on the grading plan.
Gaffron noted the plan also shows generally where significant trees six inches or greater are located. The
applicant has indicated that there will be a large area along the east border that will not have any of the
existing trees left. In the area by the houses, there will also not be any trees remaining. Gaffron indicated
the hash marks show the area that will potentially be preserved.
Gaffron indicated there are two existing houses on the site as well as a garage and maybe one or two other
outbuildings on the property located in the southwest corner. Staff would expect that those buildings
would be removed prior to final plat approval.
As it relates to road dedication,the question in Staff's mind is whether or not the City should require 30
feet or 50 feet. The extra footage would be required in the event Northern Avenue has to be moved out of
the railroad right-of-way. Gaffron indicated this is one opportunity the City can gain right-of-ways for
roads and that Staff would recommend 50 feet be required.
The City has received a number of comment letters from the neighborhood, including one additional one
that was received tonight. Gaffron noted there are a number of concerns being expressed by the
neighborhood. The neighborhood feels this is a beautiful, natural area and it will end up being developed
unless the neighbors purchase the land. Gaffron stated in his mind the City will not be able to find the
resources necessary to purchase the property and convert it to park land.
The final question is whether or not the development that is proposed is the best development for this site
or are there options where the site could be developed differently and more of the property is preserved.
The proposed plat has a number of flaws as drawn and does not meet certain standards contained in the
subdivision code. Whether it can be reworked to meet all of the subdivision requirements is unknown and
that the property more ideally should be developed as a planned residential development or other type of
development that allows clustering along Northern Avenue or is somehow able to preserve large portions
of the property.
Gaffron indicated one of the disadvantages to that type of development includes the possibility that you
will end up with a number of houses up against the road. Gaffron indicated he prepared some sketches to
give the Planning Commission an idea of what might be possible on this site. The sketch on the overhead
depicts five houses. The lot with the X does not meet the City's area and width requirements but the
other lots meet those standards. Gaffron indicated you would also have back lots that meet the three-
quarters of an acre but overall you would only have five conforming lots.
The next sketch depicts six lots that would be located up next to the roadway. Each of those lots is only
77 feet wide and do not meet the 100-foot standard. Gaffron noted all of the lots would have the required
acreage but the layout would potentially preserve more of the back property.
The third sketch is designed under a planned residential development. Under this plan there is a
possibility of creating pads where each building would be situated, putting conservation easements over
Page 25 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
the northern two-thirds of the property, and still ending up with a number of lots based on the actual
acreage that is available for dry buildable.
Gaffron noted these are merely options for consideration and are not perfect. In each case you will either
end up with a bunch of houses up against the road or long, skinny lots. The question is what is more
appropriate for the neighborhood and for the City to have.
Gaffron indicated he has treated this application almost more as a sketch plan review than a preliminary
plat. The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
1. Use of back lots for a multi-lot plat;
2. Lack of adherence to back lot standards;
3. Level of natural areas preservation proposed;
4. Right-of-way width to be dedicated;
5. Merits of platting as a PRD.
The Planning Commission's options for action are to make a recommendation for approval with
appropriate conditions, recommend denial, or table the application. In Staff's opinion it would be
appropriate to table the application and to allow the applicant time to reconsider the options for providing
a layout that would meet City Code requirements.
Gaffron noted there are a number of neighbors in attendance at tonight's meeting who would like to speak
in regards to the application.
Landgraver stated as it relates to the right-of-way, it appears that there would be a number of homes that
would be impacted if the road were shifted over and some would be located on the road itself.
Gaffron concurred that there would be a negative impact. The houses would potentially end up not
having conforming front yards. If the lot line is moved back and the setback changes, some of the houses
potentially would end up being nonconforming.
Landgraver commented there is not much the Planning Commission can do about it at this time but that
the comparison should be made with the adjacent properties and how it would impact the neighborhood.
Gaffron stated the wetland would be in the middle of the property and there would be houses to the east
located fairly close to the railroad right-of-way and the paved road.
Thiesse asked what the small parcel is in front of each of the properties.
Gaffron indicated there is a 17-foot or a 20-foot strip of land in front of each of the properties to the east
but not the end property. Gaffron stated that strip of land was apparently dedicated as road at some point
because some of the surveys show that they have lost an additional 17 or 20 feet in that area. Gaffron
stated he does not have a clear understanding of where that came from or why that occurred.
Thiesse asked if it would be appropriate for the City to ask for more right-of-way dedication than what
other properties have been required to do.
Gaffron stated it becomes a question of whether the Railroad Authority decides to require the City to
move the City out of their right-of-way. In that case,the City would prefer to do that without the need for
Page 26 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
condemnation. In this particular case,the City would be obtaining some right-of-way, but with only 30
feet, it would be a tight feet. The additional 20 feet would make it less difficult to achieve.
Gaffron noted in the Planning Commission packet there is a survey of the property to the east which
shows the right-of-way dedication along Northern Avenue. Exhibit J shows the 66 feet that was
originally dedicated and vacated and then the approximate 20-foot strip that then was dedicated at some
point. Gaffron stated to his understanding that strip continues along the road for all properties except for
the most easterly lot at the northern end. If there is a 50-foot dedication, it would put the line right up
against the front door of that house, which would definitely be an issue at some point in the future.
Gaffron stated it is also likely the City does not have to relocate Northern Avenue but that at this point it
is undetermined.
Leskinen asked if the 50-foot roadway was required, whether the City would recapture what had been
vacated in the past or whether there would be an additional amount.
Gaffron stated the City would recapture 50 of the 66 feet that was originally dedicated and vacated.
Thiesse asked what the City would need for a road in an area like this practically speaking.
Gaffron indicated 30 feet would probably work but that it would be a tight fit. The standard road width
would likely be 24 to 28 feet and that 30 feet would leave very little on either side for a shoulder if the
road complies with the code.
Leskinen asked whether the proposed homes on Exhibit C take into account the wetland setbacks.
Gaffron indicated it does except Lot No. 4 in the very northwest corner would be very close to the 50-foot
setback that is required from the wetland. Gaffron stated the lots may have to be tweaked somewhat but
that generally all of them reflect a 40-foot buffer plus a 10-foot setback from the wetland.
Leskinen asked if the lots meet the other setback requirements.
Gaffron stated the lots are pushed right up against the setbacks. The back lots are required to have a 15-
foot setback on both sides and the front lots only have to have 10 feet on the sides.
Leskinen asked if they meet the City's back lot standards.
Gaffron indicated the issue with the back lots is where you measure the lot width. In the normal back lot
situation,the portion of the 30-foot outlot, which is the corridor for the driveway,the front lot line would
be the extension of the end of that 30-foot corridor. If you angle that so it forms a V,you would still
measure from the end of that outlot. The code also requires a measurement of the lot width at the rear of
the 45-foot setback. Gaffron stated if you measure across that, it would be 60 feet and the requirement is
100 feet.
Thiesse asked whether it is possible to balance the lot that is less than a half-acre in order to make it
conform.
Page 27 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated in his view it would be difficult. If you look at the lot that has the X on it, only the
contiguous dry buildable would be counted. Gaffron indicated it would require someone to spend some
time redesigning the lots to see whether it could be done.
George Stickney, Developer, stated he is here tonight representing the Slechta family. Stickney indicated
he does have a fair amount of background in subdivisions. Ownership of this property started in 1937 and
has remained in the family for a significant number of years. The property consists of over four acres in
dry buildable.
Stickney indicated he likes the second option, which he calls the smiley face plan, in that the
configuration provides greater widths to the lots and protects more of the natural features of the property.
Stickney stated he also looked at the overall area and the typical lot sizes. The general area on the north
side of Togo Road consists of 37 properties. Out of those 37 properties, 20 of them do not have 100 feet
of width and 18 of the properties are less than a half-acre. Stickney indicated he did not separate dry
buildable in that estimation. Stickney reiterated that the second option created by Mr. Gaffron is very
workable and would be compatible with the neighborhood. Stickney stated the family is very sensitive to
the neighbors' concerns and that Staff would likely support option two.
Todd Holmers, Applicant, stated he is here tonight representing Landsource, LLC. Holmers stated he
would be in agreement with everything that Mr. Stickney has said and that they are not attempting to do
anything other than developing this property as much as possible with the six lots. Holmers indicated he
is fine with preserving the back part of the property as long as it meets the requirements of the City's
PUD.
Lemke asked if it was reduced to five lots whether that would be a deal breaker.
Holmers stated in his view it probably would be.
Stickney stated in his view the development can conform in a number of ways and still maintain the six
lots. Stickney stated the layout of the lots in the smiley face option works pretty well and is a reasonable
option in relation to the rest of the neighborhood.
McGrann stated it sounds like there would be a better return for the property owners under the smiley face
option. McGrann asked if that would be preferable over reducing it to five lots.
Stickney indicated he did look at six lots with a couple of small cul-de-sacs that would be conforming but
it is likely the neighbors would not prefer that layout. Stickney stated in his view option two would be an
ideal way to preserve the back portion of the site and that in his view it is very appealing.
Stickney stated as it relates to the right-of-way, the 30 feet that was dedicated a number of years ago is an
adequate scenario. If the Planning Commission is worried about the Railroad Authority denying it, Staff
should point out the fact that there would need to be additional right-of-way dedicated from the other
properties along Northern Avenue which is probably not going to happen.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:08 p.m.
Jon Knollenberg, 3775 Togo Road, stated his property is located next to this property and that he has
lived there for 25 years. Knollenberg stated part of the reason he and the neighbors appreciate this area is
Page 28 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
the quiet, almost rural feel even though the homes are close together on Togo Road. Knollenberg
indicated the green land and the open areas help create that feel.
Knollenberg pointed out on the overhead the nature area that extends from the park down to Shadywood
Road. Knollenberg commented a number of wildlife live in this area and that the development in the
back portion of the site would change the nature of the neighborhood. In addition,there is a wet area on
the property and is approximately 25 feet lower than Northern Avenue. Knollenberg noted that area
floods regularly in the spring and that any driveway in that area will further impact the flooding.
Knollenberg stated as it relates to the current plan,the survey shows three separate parcels and that he is
wondering why there has been a change in the platting. Knollenberg noted Mr. Gaffron had difficulty
fitting in six lots on his own sketches and having them meet all the requirements.
Gaffron stated it becomes a question of whether the City is going to give credit for all of the dry buildable
area,which would support six or seven lots, but noted all of the other standards cannot be met on each
individual lot. Gaffron noted the land has been combined in the past and is acting as one site rather than
three separate parcels.
Knollenberg stated the one house will be located right next to his if the proposed plan is approved.
Jeff Zell, 3680 Northern Avenue, pointed out his property on the overhead. Zell stated every spring and
every time it rains more than two inches,the swamp drains on his property and the woods remain wet for
two or three weeks. Constructing a driveway in that area will only compound the problem. Zell noted he
has hauled in over 140,000 pounds of rock for his driveway and it keeps sinking in. Zell stated the area in
the back would likely be even softer.
Zell stated there is also a substantial amount of wildlife in the area as well as mature trees which would be
nice to preserve but that he is more concerned with the water runoff and the impact that will have on his
property.
Ralph Kempf, 3675 Togo Road, pointed out the location of his property and Jeff Zell's property. Kempf
noted there is approximately 66 feet between his property and the subject property.
Kempf stated in his view this is a very special neighborhood and is a very valuable asset to the
neighborhood. A number of different types of wildlife live in this area and it is truly a natural preserve.
Kempf stated the neighbors would hate to see that altered in any way.
Kempf stated the 66 feet that Mr. Zell owns does totally fill up with water and slowly drains every time it
rains. In the spring the land is under water for quite some time. The area from Sunset to Shadywood
drains to this property and needs to be taken into consideration as it relates to the overall drainage of the
neighborhood.
Kempf stated the PRD proposal of having the houses more clustered along the front as compared to the
back makes more sense since it will help preserve the wildlife habitat and the drainage area. Kempf
stated he would encourage the Planning Commission to deny the current proposal.
John Quam, 3760 Northern Avenue, stated he is the property that abuts this property. Quam stated he is
very much opposed to the original proposal and that he has already submitted his concerns in writing to
the City Council and the Planning Commission.
Page 29 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Quam noted under the current proposal there would be a driveway put in right next to his bedroom, which
is ridiculous, and that he does not want to hear cars drive in and out during the day and at night. Quam
noted a driveway that close to his property would also result in his property losing value, which is a major
concern for him. Quam reiterated he is very much against the original proposal for this property.
Quam stated as it relates to the lots in the back,they do not conform to the neighborhood and that all of
the rest of the houses in the neighborhood face Northern Avenue. Quam indicated the smiley face option
is probably more conducive to the neighborhood and would have less environmental impact.
Quam indicated he also has concerns regarding runoff from the driveway and the property adjacent to his.
Joel Zelkowski, 3705 Togo Road, stated he would like to confirm what Ralph Kempf said about the
drainage. Without a storm sewer system or a collection area, the amount of water would be increased and
then diverted to a different area. Zelkowski indicated he is also opposed to Lot 6,which is directly
behind his garage.
Linda Peterson, 3710 Togo Road, stated she would also like to concur with the statements made by Ralph
Kempf. Peterson indicated she has lived in this area for 30 years and that there is a variety of wildlife that
also live in this area.
Peterson commented she is not so naïve as to think the property would not be sold someday and
developed,but that she has a concern regarding the amount of homes being proposed as well as the back
lots. Peterson stated she would prefer the smiley face option but that she still has a concern amount the
number of homes. Peterson stated in her view they should conform to the 100-foot width standards.
Peterson indicated she would be opposed to the plan proposed by the applicant.
Lisa Vinje, 3670 Togo Road, pointed out the location of her property on the overhead. Vinje stated she is
very concerned about the runoff and the impact that will have on her property, which is low. Vinje
indicated every spring they get flooded out and that she agrees with what everyone else has said regarding
the property.
Ralph Kempf stated he would also like to indicate that he agrees with what Linda Peterson said in regards
to maintaining the 100-foot width. Kempf stated as it relates to the back lots,they would require long
driveways going past the other homes, and instead of a natural back yard,they would have another house.
Kempf stated the reason there are a number of stipulations on back lots is because back lots are not good
for anybody but the developer who is trying to squeeze in another lot. Kempf stated he would encourage
the Planning Commission to retain the 100-foot width as well.
Alex Gonzales, 3720 Togo Road, stated he is opposed to the project and that he is also concerned about
the biodiversity. There are a number of deer in the area and over 20 kinds of bird species. In the
wintertime you can see the deer trails over the entire property.
Gonzales stated his other concern relates to the drainage and that this area acts as a natural filter.
Gonzales commented he likes the way his neighborhood is currently and that he does not feel the
development is appropriate as proposed.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Page 30 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann asked what the width of the lots is to the left.
Gaffron indicated they are approximately 85 feet.
McGrann asked if one of the lots is 103 feet wide.
Gaffron stated there is one lot at 99 feet and one at 101 as you go west into Spring Park. Gaffron stated
there is a variety of lot sizes.
Stickney stated approximately 60 percent of the lots do not contain a half-acre dry buildable.
Landgraver stated while there is a variety of lot sizes,the range is basically 120 feet on the high side and
70 feet on the low and that these lot sizes appear to be in that range.
McGrann stated he appreciates all the commentary from the neighbors. McGrann stated the ideal
situation would be that the neighborhood purchases the lots so the area can remain the same but that does
not seem to be the situation. McGrann stated in his view it is very likely this site will be developed at
some point,which is the right of the property owner, and that it becomes a matter of determining what
works best according to City Code. McGrann asked if they require the 100 feet width, how many lots
would be allowed.
Gaffron stated if six lots are created,the width of the lots would be approximately 77 feet. Under a PRD,
there would be a waiving of the standards in order to create a better layout. Under a PRD concept, it is
likely that a number of building sites would be identified and the rest of the area would be commons area.
One of the advantages to doing a PRD is that the City has the opportunity to preserve more of the
property and perhaps place a conservation easement over portions of the site.
Stickney commented a tree preservation agreement would also be an option.
Gaffron agreed that that would be another option. Under a PRD,there would be opportunities to preserve
areas that are outside of the individual lots and those would become common areas that an association
would help maintain.
Leskinen asked what the lot widths are under the smiley face option.
Gaffron indicated there would need to be a discussion with the developer about what type of homes
would be constructed. Gaffron indicated his sketch is more conceptual and that it would also depend on
the topography. Gaffron stated the bowl shaped area near the wetland might be more conducive to
walkouts.
Landgraver asked if each lot would have their own driveway to the street.
Gaffron stated that is one option or perhaps they could share a driveway.
Landgraver stated a number of the neighbors expressed a concern about the water runoff and the
additional hardcover.
Page 31 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated shared driveways would be one way of reducing the amount of hardcover.
Thiesse commented that the smiley face option appears to be a good solution, especially in light of the
concerns raised by the neighbors.
Leskinen stated she would be more in favor of a PRD since there would be an opportunity to preserve the
back of the site. Leskinen commented the site is a beautiful parcel, but as it has been pointed out earlier,
the Planning Commission cannot stop development if it conforms to the City codes. Leskinen indicated
she is very much opposed to the back lot scenario with the long driveways and even the shared driveways
under that scenario since shared driveways have been problematic in the past.
Lemke suggested the applicants revise their plans more in accordance to what has been presented in the
smiley face sketch.
Leskinen stated the Planning Commission also needs to address the issue of the right-of-way.
Landgraver commented requiring 50 feet might be an issue since the other properties along Northern
Avenue have not been required to dedicate that much.
Gaffron stated Staffs recommendation for the 50 feet rather than the 30 feet has come about very
recently. While it is possible to relocate the road with 30 feet, it would be difficult, and that 50 feet would
meet the code.
Leskinen commented that 50 feet might be too much of a luxury if they also want to go with the PRD
scenario and preserve the back portion of the site.
Thiesse stated it could be 30 feet with a utility easement off to the side.
Landgraver stated in his view the back lots on this development do not work and that pulling the
development forward under the PRD scenario would help preserve a lot of the natural area as well as
assist with the drainage.
Schoenzeit stated leaving somewhere around 40 percent of the property untouched is a win/win solution
and helps demonstrate to the neighborhood that a lot of things will not change as a result of the
development.
Landgraver noted the lots would not be 100 feet wide and that the homes would be more compacted
together.
Leskinen noted a planned unit development does allow for some flexibility in the width of the lots and
clustering of homes,which is a compromise in order to preserve more of the natural areas. Leskinen
commented she appreciates the level of passion the neighbors have shown regarding their neighborhood
and that the City will take those comments into consideration.
Gaffron recommended the application be tabled if the applicant is okay with that.
Landgraver asked if the applicant is amenable to tabling the application.
Page 32 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Holmers indicated he is.
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to table Application#13-3631,Todd Holmers on behalf of
Landsource,LLC,3700 Northern Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
10. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS ON AUGUST 26,2013,AND SEPTEMBER 9,2013
Schwingler reported he attended the City Council meeting on August 26 and that an update was provided
by the City Engineering on the lighting options for Navarre.
Landgraver stated he attended the September 9 City Council meeting wherein the Orono Golf Course and
the efforts of the volunteer group were discussed. Landgraver noted a special anniversary of the golf
course is coming up next year and the volunteer group has made a request for additional funds in order to
continue to make improvements to the facility. The City Council approved that request. Also discussed
at the September 9 meeting was the City's preliminary budget and levy for 2014. Landgraver indicated
the City's finances were basically holding steady and that the City is not proposing to raise the City's tax
rate for 2014.
11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Curtis asked whether the Planning Commission would be able to go on the boat tour of Lake Minnetonka
and Big Island on September 30.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to meet on September 30 for the boat tour at 3:00 p.m.
Daniel Schultz,4325 Chippewa Lane, stated he is attempting to obtain a variance for a deck and that he
was supposed to be on tonight's agenda. Schultz stated he changed his vacation plans so he could attend
tonight's meeting because he was told he would be on tonight's agenda.
Schultz indicated he initially was told that he met all the requirements and then received a letter on
Wednesday of last week regarding his application. Schultz stated he would like to get his permit and
have the matter resolved.
Leskinen noted this item is not on the Planning Commission's agenda for this evening and that because
there is not a formal application before the Planning Commission, they are not able to act on it. Leskinen
asked if there was a reason given for the application not moving forward.
Schultz stated he was informed that he needed an updated survey which is different than what he was
initially told. Schultz stated he received the letter on Wednesday and was planning to leave town on
Thursday. Schultz stated he is not happy with the way things are going and that he is very upset.
Leskinen stated without an application before the Planning Commission, there is nothing they can do
tonight.
Page 33 of 34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,September 16,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schultz stated he hopes the Planning Commission understands he is extremely upset about it and that he
will not be putting up with it. Schultz indicated Melanie Curtis' assistant has been very standoffish with
him and that they should not be allowed to do that with the taxpayers. Schultz stated he hopes he will be
on the next agenda.
Curtis stated Mr. Schultz will need to provide an updated survey before being placed on the agenda.
Schultz stated he was told by her assistant that the survey was fine and that they hand delivered all the
information that was requested. Schultz stated someone could have informed him that he was not on the
agenda. Schultz noted he called City Hall five times and none of his phone calls have been returned.
Schultz indicated he will also be attending the City Council meeting and raising his concerns.
ADJOURNMENT
Thiesse moved,Landgraver seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
10:02 P.M.
ATTEST:
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Page 34 of 34