HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/2013 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
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 Aaron Printup was present.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE:
Ayes 7, Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16,2013
Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of September 16,2013,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 over the past spring and summer has been reviewing an
amendment to the zoning code regarding alternative energy systems. The Planning Commission has met
in July,August, September and also October 2 to discuss various elements of an alternate energy systems
ordinance, including solar energy systems, ground source heat pump systems,hydronic furnaces such as
wood-fired boilers, and wind energy conversion systems.
At the October 4 work session,the Planning Commission arrived at some conclusions to help guide the
discussion at the November work session, and it is Staff's goal to complete the review at the November 6
work session so that a recommendation can be made to the City Council at the regular Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for November 18.
Gaffron indicated the key points arrived at by the Planning Commission regarding wind energy
conversion systems would be to limit those systems to large lots, at least 10 acres in area; to require
substantial setbacks for those systems from property boundaries,while at the same time needing to be
located relatively the principal residence they would serve; and that the height, flicker, and noise are
aspects that need special attention to limit impacts. In addition,the systems would need to be in place and
functional or dismantled and removed.
Gaffron noted the Planning Commission does not need to formally make a recommendation on the draft
ordinance tonight.
Leskinen asked if the application has been noted for a public hearing tonight.
Page 1 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron indicated it has been.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Landgraver moved, Lemke seconded,to table Application No. 13-3616, City of Orono,Amendment
of Zoning Code Chapter 78,Add Section 78-1379,Alternative Energy Systems,to the November 18
Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
3. #13-3615 JAMES ANDERST,3384 AND 3386 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW, 6:41 P.M.—7:25 P.M.
James Anderst, Applicant,was present.
Gaffron noted the Planning Commission reviewed the initial sketch plan at their August meeting. The
applicant is the owner of the Narrows Salon.
The applicant is requesting a variety of approvals in order to establish and operate a new restaurant
adjacent to the existing Narrows Saloon in the westerly half of the building. The new use is proposed as
being a separate restaurant use with separate kitchen and dining facilities and will not have direct
connections to the saloon but will share an entryway and restroom facilities with the saloon.
The following approvals are required:
1. Conditional use permit for establishing and operating a Class II restaurant with liquor. The
restaurant would be located on the left side of the building.
2. Approval to allow outdoor seating at the rear of the new restaurant, adjacent to the City-owned
parking lot but within the applicant's property. The applicant has amended his plan to also
include an outdoor seating area or patio at the rear of the saloon operation. The applicant is
proposing to have eating service out on the outdoor seating area. The building is essentially
one building with a row of windows.
The concept of a smokers patio was approved on a one-year trial basis in 2006 but was never
followed through with by the applicant. A variance would be required to the 30-foot setback.
3. The application is subject to the site plan review process established via Ordinance No. 68,
Third Series, in February of 2010.
Gaffron displayed color depictions showing the proposed layout of the exterior of the front and rear of the
building.
The revised survey indicates a 7' x 22' trash enclosure extending eastward from the west property line
near the northwest corner of the property. The original sketch depicted a 3-sided brick dumpster
enclosure with sliding gates and with walls just over seven feet high.
Page 2 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron pointed out the location of the easement toward the back of the property. The currently proposed
improvements and uses of the site do not appear to interfere with and are not impacted by those
easements.
The interior of the restaurant will have seating for approximately 86 people if the interior and exterior
seating is included. The applicant's architect has calculated that the shared restroom facilities would meet
building code requirements for the occupant load of the building and this has been confirmed by the city
inspector. As you enter the rear doorways, you can go either to the saloon or the restaurant. The
applicant is also proposing to have a special event area in the basement for parties and meetings and
would accommodate 20 to 30 occupants. In addition,the applicant is proposing a stairway or a lift down
to the basement.
Gaffron noted a number of evaluation criteria must be satisfied in order to approve a site plan review.
Gaffron indicated Staff finds the following:
1. The use is compatible with the surrounding commercial district.
2. The site contains no unique natural features which would be impacted. There is no increase
in hardcover proposed.
3. The proposed aesthetic improvements would complement the area and improve the visual
character of the immediate commercial neighborhood.
4. The impacts of the proposal on vehicular and pedestrian circulation would be potentially
magnified if parking demand exceeds supply due to success of the proposed use.
5. The potential new demands on services and infrastructure might include added demands on
sewer system as well as added demands on parking availability.
6. The proposal would generally be in conformance with City plans for parks, streets, and
walkways.
7. The proposed restaurant use is located in one of the few areas of Orono where a Class II
restaurant would be allowed under the CMP.
8. The proposed use has a potential if wildly successful to place some strains on parking
convenience.
9. The Planning Commission should review the proposed exterior design and landscape
plans for the patio area, including a dumpster location.
10. The Planning Commission should give consideration as to how or whether the proposed
use might impact adjoining commercial uses as well as nearby residential uses.
11. The potential variance needs are outlined in Staffs report.
Staff finds that the proposed steak house restaurant use would appear to be consistent with the intent of
the Comprehensive Plan to provide for commercial businesses that serve area residents.
Page 3 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated the Narrows Saloon currently operates under a conditional use permit issued in October of
2000 for a Class II restaurant serving liquor and with live entertainment. That conditional use permit
contains a number of conditions related to the liquor and live entertainment aspects of that use.The
proposed steak house is not proposed to have live entertainment but that may or may not be impacted by
the saloon use. Staff feels there may be some issues relative to noise levels other impacts given the close
proximity of the two uses.
As it relates to lighting,the proposed exterior lighting for the building is depicted as conical hood fixtures
above a lighted globe. To the extent the source of the light is shielded from off-site view,these fixtures
may be appropriate for the proposed use and locations. It would be the City's intent to ensure that the
lighting has no negative impacts on the residential neighborhood to the north.
The applicant would be required to apply for and obtain a separate liquor license for the steak house
restaurant use. Expansion of the saloon to include outdoor food service seating may require a review of
the existing saloon liquor license. Gaffron noted that the Orono Police Department completed a records
search and found no noise or parking complaints regarding the Narrows Saloon since 2006.
Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission discuss the following in regards to this application:
1. Is the proposed location of the use in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the
purposes of the B-1 District and the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Will the location of the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it will be operated
or maintained be detrimental to the public health, safety welfare, or be materially injurious to the
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. Is the proposed use compatible with the surrounding business district and residential
neighborhoods. If not,what aspects of the use make it incompatible and what methods are
available to mitigate those aspects.
4. Is the proposed use supported by adequate infrastructure,primarily access and parking
availability.
Staff recommends the following:
1. The Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed landscaping plan at the
rear of the building is acceptable as a barrier or buffer to the parking lot and/or the
residential neighborhood to the northwest, if such barrier or buffer is needed.
2. The Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed exterior seating at the
rear of the building is appropriate for the B-1 District and under what standards or limitations
such use should be allowed.
Potential limitations or conditions could address appropriate numbers and location of seating
in relation to lot lines, easements,building walls,hours of allowed outdoor seating use, lighting
or outdoor seating, fencing for outdoor seating,the use of umbrellas or other amenities,
whether and where such outside seating may be appropriate for liquor service,how such
service is controlled, and any other aspects of outdoor seating that should be reviewed.
Page 4 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. The Planning Commission should consider whether expansion of lot coverage by structures
from approximately 38.6 percent to approximately 39.1 percent(where 15 percent is allowed)
is justified by the commercial use and/or by the off-site parking.
4. The Planning Commission should consider whether parking for the proposed use is adequate;
and if not,what plan revisions/reductions or use limitations might be needed to make parking
work.
5. The Planning Commission should consider whether limits on hours of operation are
appropriate or necessary for the restaurant as well as the outdoor seating.
6. The Planning Commission should review any written and oral public comments received to
determine if there are other issues not identified that need to be addressed.
Gaffron noted the City has received one comment from a neighbor on Kelly Avenue regarding noise
coming from the Narrows Saloon when there has been live entertainment and the doors have been left
open. The neighbor has not called the police department to complain. The neighbor also encouraged that
the neighbors be more fully advised of the proposal and be given an opportunity to comment on the plans.
Gaffron noted the City did send notices to all affected property owners within 350 feet of the building.
That notice area was not widened for this application.
Lemke asked if the outdoor patio area is being considered for the saloon as well as the restaurant.
Gaffron indicated it is and that it is a new proposal since the last review by the Planning Commission.
McGrann asked if the bathrooms comply with all regulations based on the capacity of the building.
Gaffron stated the bathrooms do comply with the capacity requirements.
Leskinen asked if there are any ADA requirements that would need to be met as it relates to the basement.
Gaffron indicated the basement would need to comply with what ADA requirements are applicable but
that an in-depth review has not been completed at this time.
Leskinen noted with the addition of the second outdoor seating area,there is a loss of one handicap
parking stall.
Gaffron stated that parking stall would be pushed out into the city-owned parking lot,which is not
currently designated by signage and would need to be taken into account.
Landgraver asked if the parking analysis includes the basement.
Gaffron indicated it does include the basement.
Page 5 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Anderst stated he has been speaking with Staff on the application and that he is confident Staff has
covered all the aspects of his application. Anderst noted the basement would require a lift in order to be
ADA compliant.
Landgraver asked whether the residents located to the rear of the parking lot were provided notice of the
application. Landgraver stated with the addition of the outdoor seating areas for both the saloon and
restaurant,the noise may be an issue for those residents.
Gaffron indicated there are approximately four residents that were notified to the north and west of the
parking lot.
Leskinen asked what the hours of operation for the steak house would be.
Anderst stated he is anticipating closing earlier during the week and then staying open the same hours as
the Narrows Saloon on the weekends.
Leskinen asked whether he is planning to be open for lunch.
Anderst indicated it would be primarily opened during the evenings and that he is considering offering
breakfast and lunch on the weekends. Anderst stated at this time the restaurant would not open until 3:00
p.m.
Leskinen stated she is attempting to gain some understanding of the parking demands during the busier
times of the day.
McGrann asked if he finds the saloon at 50 percent capacity during the lunchtime hours currently or
another percentage.
Anderst stated he would estimate the capacity to be approximately 20 percent.
Lemke asked whether there would be any music out on the patio.
Anderst stated there would not be live entertainment out on the patio areas but that they might have some
speakers located on the ground in the bushes playing very soft background music.
Landgraver asked if deliveries to the saloon and restaurant would still come through the alleyway.
Anderst indicated they would and that there is still ample room for trucks with the expansion.
Landgraver asked if the deliveries would be made through the vestibule.
Anderst illustrated on the overhead how the deliveries would be made.
Gaffron stated there appears to be a discrepancy between the survey and the sketch as it relates to the
fence. Gaffron asked if the intent is to keep that doorway open.
Anderst stated it is.
Page 6 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked if there is going to be a wall around the dumpsters.
Anderst indicated there will be.
Gaffron noted Exhibit G depicts the dumpster enclosure and that it appears to be a five to six foot high
decorative block wall on three sides with a sliding fence.
Leskinen asked about the handicap stall in the back of the saloon
Anderst stated he erected the sign for one of his patrons, who has since moved to Florida,and that he does
not have any current customers who require it.
Leskinen stated a handicap stall would likely still be required and asked where it would be located.
Anderst stated it would likely be located at the end of the parking lot near the gas station.
Leskinen asked if all the parking is in the city-owned parking lot.
Anderst indicated the majority of it is.
Gaffron displayed the layout of the parking lot on the overhead. Gaffron indicated there are three parking
stalls in the area where the patio will be located and that the expectation would be that the nearest stall
within the city-owned parking lot might need to become a handicap stall if no other space is found.
Gaffron asked if the door for the dumpster enclosure would allow access for the garbage truck.
Anderst indicated they would be able to pull straight up to it and that the gate rolls towards the hardware
store.
Gaffron stated as it is shown on the survey,the dumpster is right up against the wall of the hardware store
and that the gate may need to roll to the right.
Anderst illustrated on the overhead how the gate would roll and that they are planning on having smaller
dumpsters.
Gaffron commented it might be necessary to tweak that part of the plan slightly.
Anderst stated he will measure it out to see if it fits.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Leskinen stated the first issue for discussion listed in Staff's report would be a good place to start and
asked whether the Planning Commission feels the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the
Zoning Code and the purposes of the B-1 District and Comprehensive Plan.
Page 7 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver commented that has been an area of focus in the past.
Leskinen noted she was not at the meeting the last time this application was discussed and that she does
not want to be redundant. Leskinen stated in her view the location of the proposed use and the proposed
conditions under which it will be operated or maintained is not detrimental to the public health and safety.
Landgraver asked if the saloon needs to be closed by 1:00.
Gaffron indicated that is correct
Landgraver asked when the music is supposed to stop.
Gaffron stated the music stops at 12:30.
Landgraver stated one of the issues the Planning Commission should consider is how late the patio should
be open.
Schoenzeit stated there should not be live music out on the patio.
McGrann stated if there is going to be more people outside,the City needs to be cognizant of the
neighbors but noted that there are already smokers outside and that has not been a problem. McGrann
indicated he does not have an issue with the patio area as long as people are being respectful. McGrann
asked how many people would be able to be out on the patio.
Gaffron indicated there is space for 25 near the saloon and 30 by the restaurant.
McGrann stated the question to ask is whether it is appropriate to have upwards of 50 people potentially
at 12:00 p.m.
Anderst stated if there is not a patio area,they will then use the front door and stand out there.
Leskinen asked whether the food service would quit earlier than the bar service.
Anderst indicated food service stops at 10:00 during the week and on the weekends it goes until 11:00.
Leskinen asked whether the patio should close at the same time the food service stops.
Anderst commented the smokers would then stand out in front. Anderst noted the patio is hidden.
McGrann stated it goes towards the noise question and that perhaps patio service could be stopped at
11:00 for meal service and only allow cigarette smoking.
Anderst stated if any complaints are received,they could readjust things.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission feels the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding
business district and residential neighborhoods.
McGrann stated in his view the proposal is an improvement.
Page 8 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated her only concern at this point is the parking.
Schoenzeit stated the main competitor is the hardware store and that the hours do not overlap a lot.
McGrann stated if they do not anticipate a big lunch business during the week, it would probably not
conflict with the businesses in the area.
Leskinen asked if there are any specifics the Planning Commission should discuss relating to the lighting
and specifics on the plan.
Gaffron stated the lighting and signage would be handled as part of the issuance of the building permit.
The liquor license is a separate issue that would be dealt with by the City Council.
Thiesse stated he is wondering whether there will be screening of the patio.
Gaffron stated the artist's rendition of the plan shows some nice landscaping and some minimal plantings
that would be in tubs of some sort.
Anderst stated those will not be in tubs.
Landgraver noted the hardcover will be reduced.
Leskinen commented there is only so much planting that can be done in the area.
Thiesse questioned whether it would be better to provide screening along the patio or whether there
should also be some landscaping near the city park to help screen the area from the residential
neighborhood.
Gaffron stated the residents that would be most affected would be to the west and that he is not sure there
is anything within city property that would help. Gaffron stated any plantings in that area would need to
occur on city property.
Thiesse commented landscaping in that area would help the neighbors.
Gaffron stated the City can explore that possibility.
Anderst noted the hardware store goes further back and that it would not be visible from the west.
Landgraver asked if it would be consistent with what Commissioner Thiesse was proposing to request a
landscape plan.
Thiesse stated he was just throwing it out as an issue to discuss.
Lemke commented in his view it would be a vast improvement.
McGrann asked if the steps are to approve with conditions and that the other specifics of the plan would
be addressed at the time of the building permit.
Page 9 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron indicated the application would go before the City Council and that the Planning Commission
could provide some direction on items the Planning Commission feel should be addressed. Gaffron stated
he is unsure whether the applicant can provide the exact fixture that will be used at this time.
Anderst stated the light bulbs are 250 or 400 watt light bulbs and are not recessed.
Thiesse noted there are lighting requirements that will need to be met.
Landgraver stated it is reasonable on the part of the applicant to ask for the maximum number of hours for
operation and that it is reasonable to adjust them,but from the City's viewpoint, it might be more
reasonable to come up with specific hours.
Anderst asked what the City would gain from that.
Landgraver stated in his view at 11:00 the outdoor eating activities should be shut down.
Anderst stated if people want to go out on the patio and have a smoke,that should be allowed. Anderst
stated he is just trying to make it a pleasant place for people to go outside.
Landgraver moved to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3615,James Anderst,3384 and
3386 Shoreline Drive, granting of a conditional use permit,subject to the City's lighting and noise
ordinance and getting clarification on the ADA requirements.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission would like to see any more defined parking plans.
Schwingler stated the parking is what it is and that they are not going to be able to create any more
parking spaces.
Schoenzeit stated the other piece would be to request a landscaping plan prior to Council approval.
Schoenzeit stated he would make that friendly amendment.
Landgraver indicated he would accept the friendly amendment.
Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3615,James
Anderst,3384 and 3386 Shoreline Drive, granting of a conditional use permit,subject to the City's
lighting and noise ordinance, getting clarification on the ADA requirements,and subject to the
submittal of a landscaping plan prior to the City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
4. #13-3623 CLAIRSON DUTRA ON BEHALF OF LIN YAN, 1330 CHERRY PLACE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, 7:27 P.M.—7:30 P.M.
Clairson Dutra and Lin Yan,Applicants, were present.
Curtis noted this application was before the Planning Commission at its September meeting. The
applicants are requesting a 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. At that meeting the applicants
Page 10 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
were directed to revise the drainage plan and yet be respectful of the City's desire for a natural,
unchanged shoreline.
The Consulting City Engineer and Staff met with the applicant and homeowner on site to work towards a
solution. Alternatives were discussed for the shoreline and the results of that discussion are depicted on
the overhead. The revised proposed grading within the 75-foot setback takes into account the
preservation requirements within the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. In addition, Staff believes
the proposed stair system within the 75-foot area has been revised to better allow for vegetative screening
and will have little impact on the surrounding lands.
The applicant has revised his plan to take advantage of the natural slope,which also allows screening to
help mitigate the view from the lake.The stairway is in approximately the same spot. The proposed
hardcover for the entire site will be 19 percent where 25 percent is allowed. The applicants' revised
proposal results in 209 square feet of hardcover within the 75-foot zone. The existing staircase will be
removed that is located within the City's right-of-way. The new stairway will be located in
approximately the same area but will be located entirely on the applicant's property.
Due to the stair design being set into the existing slope and to avoid additional grading, it exceeds the
maximum allowable hardcover and cannot be approved administratively. The existing vegetation of the
new stair, and if it is deemed necessary,the applicant should provide a plan to screen the stair with
additional vegetation. Staff is not sure whether that is needed based on what is on site currently
Staff finds that the revised grading plan achieves the goal of positive drainage away from the home and
yet preserves the slope consistent with the City's goals. The Consulting City Engineer has reviewed and
approved the most recent plan.
Staff recommends approval. Curtis noted a cross-section has been provided illustrating the slope as
requested.
Lin Yan stated he does not have anything to add to Staff's report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Leskinen stated she has no issues with the revised plan.
McGrann commented the plan makes sense.
Schwingler moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3623,
Clairson Dutra on behalf of Lin Yan, 1330 Cherry Place,granting of a conditional use permit and
variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Page 11 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
5. #13-3631 LANDSOURCE,LLC,REPRESENTED BY TODD HOLMERS,3700 NORTHERN
AVENUE, SUBDIVISION,7:30 P.M.—8:09 P.M.
Todd Holmers,Applicant,was present.
Gaffron stated what is before the Planning Commission tonight is a two option revision of what the
Planning Commission reviewed at their September meeting. Initially the applicant was proposing a site
plan that included some back lots,which was problematic in that they did not meet the code standards and
they forced development to occur near the back of the property.
Gaffron indicated the slide on the overhead shows the evolution of the plans that reflect an attempt from
Staff's perspective to normalize the lot lines but it still resulted in back lots with the development of the
north part of the property. The next slide depicts a concept that creates six lots,each of them having
equal width but they also have some issues with the center lot having some land across the wetland,
which really serves no purpose.
Gaffron stated Staff did discuss with the applicant the six lots and it was suggested by the applicant that
they have enough acreage that could support seven lots but the lots would not have enough width to
support the district standards. If the 100-foot width is required,the applicant would only be able to create
four or five lots.
Gaffron stated the next slide illustrates Option 1,which essentially locates all the homes up front but still
has issues with access to the rear. This option also brings up the question of preservation of the northerly
portion of the site. One of the goals that the Planning Commission set for the applicant was to look at
clustering the development to the south and creating a conservation easement over the rear of the property
as much as possible.
Option 2 is what Staff would recommend. This plan proposes approximately two-thirds of the property to
be covered under a conservation easement to the north with individual lots that are approximately 76 feet
wide. The lots range from very small to reasonable sized and range from .18 up to .43 acres. Gaffron
noted this property is located in the LR-1C one-half acre district.
Gaffron noted Option 2 would be a PRD,which would allow the density that is proposed but allows
smaller lot sizes and narrower lot widths. It would be Staff's recommendation that the subdivision be a
PRD. One of the concerns inherent in attempting to locate six houses in here is it will have the
appearance of a row of houses. In this situation,the residents of the neighborhood indicated at the last
meeting that they would prefer the back of the property be preserved and there appeared to be general
approval of the houses being located to the front of the property. The question remains as to whether the
development can occur at the front of the property and yet still avoid the appearance of a row of houses.
The buildable envelope requirements are difficult to meet for the lots at the center of the property due to
the setback from the buffer. Gaffron indicated Lots 4 and 5 will have some challenges in designing a
house that would meet the setbacks. The standards of the RPUD would not be met but the PRD standards
could be varied to allow this type of development.
Gaffron stated another option would be to reduce the number of homes from six to five and allow the
center lots to be combined and allow some different shaped houses. The Planning Commission could
Page 12 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
require differing setbacks for each side of the lot and still leave at least 20 feet between the homes.The
Planning Commission could also require that the homes on the deeper lots be set back further than those
on the restricted center or the Planning Commission could establish appropriate"lot coverage by
structures" standard for the individual lots based on lot size.
Gaffron stated from a hardcover and structural coverage standpoint,the center lots are restricted and the
hardcover and structural coverage standards would need to be varied to build the homes that are proposed.
One option would be to limit the middle homes to a 1,500 square foot footprint instead of the 2,500
square feet that are being proposed.
Gaffron noted the City received one concern today from the neighbor to the direct west that the driveway
for the house at the left end of the development would be close to his house. The proposed driveway is
currently shown at about a 10 to 15-foot setback. The neighbor is suggesting that perhaps the driveway
could shift to the east side of that lot. Gaffron stated in his view that issue can be worked out with the
developer since specific house designs have not been established at this point.
Gaffron noted there would be a conservation easement over the north portion of the property under
Option 2.
Staff would recommend the following:
1. Process the subdivision as a PRD,which will allow for a defined relaxation of lot area,width,
hardcover, lot coverage, and other applicable standards.
2. Staff recommends site plan Option 2,which preserves the northerly portions of the property in a
single outlot subject to a Conservation Easement. Ownership of the outlot would be established
within a homeowners association that will be responsible for any management of the site,rain
garden maintenance, et cetera.
3. If visual density is a concern,the Planning Commission could require one or more of the methods
mentioned in Staff's report to reduce the crowding effect.
4. A recommendation for approval should be subject to the standard platting requirements including
park dedication, stormwater trunk fees, granting of appropriate easements, etc.
Lemke asked if the conservation property would be open to the public or owned by the homeowners
association.
Gaffron indicated that would be an item for discussion. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission heard at
the last meeting that the public values that area as natural space for wildlife and vegetation. Whether the
neighbors would be allowed to walk in that area is something the developer should address as the
covenant easement could be drafted either way.
McGrann asked if the house on the westerly lot can be located further back.
Gaffron stated Lots 1 and 2 both could have the homes situated further back.
McGrann asked if the house on Lot 6 could be pushed back further.
Page 13 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron indicated there is not that much room on Lot 6 before it affects the trees in that area but that it
could go back approximately 20 to 25 feet.
Thiesse noted at the last meeting the neighbor located next to the proposed driveway had expressed a
concern about the house being too far back on that lot given the close proximity of the driveway to his
home.
McGrann asked where the existing home is located.
Gaffron indicated the existing home is more towards the front of the property.
George Stickney stated he represents the Slechta family, and that they have attempted to really listen to
the Planning Commission's suggestions from the prior meeting. Stickney stated as a developer,the
creation of an association for the entire back portion of the property would be somewhat of a headache
since these would be individual lots with their own driveways that would be contained within a different
homeowners association.
Stickney stated he has found in the past that they could create a development that would restrict that land
to each homeowner to the point that it is their property and it is theirs to maintain but they would have a
covenant that is filed with the deed to preserve the trees. As a result,the development would have a
maintenance agreement to cover dead trees but yet still allow the property owner the right to walk in that
area. Stickney commented that arrangement would result in the best of both worlds since no one wants an
association where people from the public are allowed to walk around and then pay association fees on top
of that for that area. Stickney stated under the right guidance, he would suggest the Planning Commission
consider that option.
Stickney stated as mentioned before, out of the 37 properties that are located around this property in all
directions, 20 of the properties were under 100 feet in width already and ranged in width from just over
84 feet in width and then 66, 56, 80 and 50 feet. Given the ten lots that are near this site,the proposed
lots would fit into the area. In addition, a number of the neighboring homes are close to the road and over
50 percent of the properties have less than a half acre. The proposed lots on the subject property are on
average 0.63 acre when the total dry acreage is taken into consideration. In total the site consists of 4.8
acres of land. Stickney stated in his view the density works for this property and Option 2 solves some of
the issues of the neighbors.
Leskinen asked what the difference would be if they went with the long narrow lots versus platting the
entire back portion as an outlot and putting a conservation easement over it and including it with the
association. Leskinen asked what the difference if the back parcel would be an outlot and not platted as
part of the individuals. Leskinen stated in her view that would help avoid the issues that the long narrow
lots would present.
Stickney stated it would allow the homeowners to control their own destiny and it would be an
enhancement to help sell the land.
McGrann asked if he is proposing Option 1 without a homeowner's association.
Page 14 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Stickney indicated he would not need one but that there would be an agreement that would regulate tree
maintenance and provide for no build zones.
Schwingler asked how enforceable that type of situation would be.
Gaffron stated Staff would prefer the outlot situation. Gaffron stated people will want to erect fences and
maintain past the line of what they perceive the easement to be. Markers could be erected but the
association would be somewhat self-limiting since each property owner would own a portion of that back
parcel. Gaffron stated under that situation there are potentially more issues with enforcement when the
land is under individual ownership that may be more difficult to deal with than with ownership by the
association.
Lemke asked whether that land could be dedicated or given to the City as an option.
Gaffron indicated the City normally does not do that. Gaffron noted there is no access to the back portion
of the property under this scenario. Normally the City would require maintenance of the storm water
ponds by the association and it is not something the City would like to maintain control of.
Thiesse indicated he agrees with the applicant that the individuals should own that piece of land all the
way back since the same standards could be applied. Thiesse asked whether there would be an access
easement for Lot 4 around the pond to access their back yard.
Stickney stated it would be a no build zone so there would not be fences.
Thiesse stated in his view the City can control the rear portion of the property and that it is easier to deal
with a single homeowner.
Stickney stated the property would be held to a higher standard in that situation but the individual
property owners would be in control of the land.
McGrann asked whether all of them would have access to walk around the pond.
Stickney stated the neighbors would have access to the area but could not build back there.
Gaffron indicated there is precedent for doing what Mr. Stickney is suggesting. Gaffron noted the
Creekside subdivision located off of Brown Road has a tree preservation area within two individual lots
which is not part of a homeowners association.
McGrann asked if someone could landscape in that area or whether other limitations would be placed on
the land.
Gaffron stated the City would expect under the conservation easement is no mowing,no cutting, no
fences, no accessory structures and virtually no use of it. The area would need to stay natural. If the
neighborhood would like to create paths,that could be allowed,but the conservation easement would
basically require that the natural features remain as natural as possible.
Stickney stated that type of arrangement works nice and there would be stipulations and penalties for not
following the covenant.
Page 15 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked when he is talking about easements for people to walk back there, if he is speaking of the
homeowners and not the public.
Stickney indicated the homeowners and neighbors would likely be allowed in that area but that it would
need to be looked at as to who can use the property.
Leskinen stated if the area is under private ownership,there could be some liability issues associated with
allowing the public in that area.
Lemke asked if he would be developing the property himself.
Stickney indicated he is merely selling the property and that he was asked by the developer to help guide
the development.
Landgraver asked if the applicant would be amenable to pushing some of the houses back.
Stickney indicated it would be and that they have attempted to listen to the concerns expressed by the
neighbors.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
John Quam, 3760 Northern Avenue, indicated he is very much opposed to the layout of the development
especially as it relates to Lot 1. Quam illustrated how the proposed driveway would be located next to his
bedroom and that it would also create runoff issues. Quam noted his property is lower than the adjoining
property with the natural drainage going towards his house. Quam indicated there will also be issues with
snow piling and runoff in the springtime. Quam stated he currently has problems with the current grading
and runoff and that he would like to see the driveway moved to the east side of the lot to minimize the
disruption to his family with the lights and noise.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m.
Leskinen indicated she prefers the PRD versus the RPUD and Option 2 with the outlot scenario.
Leskinen stated she has a concern with access to the back of the property if they were single lots going all
the way back. Leskinen noted neighbors do not always get along.
Thiesse indicated he has a problem with associations and that he would prefer ownership of that area be
held by the individual property owners.
Landgraver stated the outlot is a solution that is not really solving anything.
McGrann stated the purchase agreement will spell out the fact that Lot 3 will have a creek in the back
portion of their property and that easements will be required to gain access to that area.
Landgraver stated he envisioned a path going all the way around the wetland.
Thiesse stated he would like to see the house on Lot 1 moved forward to accommodate the house to the
west of the development.
Page 16 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21, 2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke noted this is not a final plan and that the Planning Commission is attempting to determine which
direction to go.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission could recommend certain things they would like to see
happen with the development.
Landgraver stated he thought more neighbors would express concern regarding the density. From a
development standpoint, it is more advantageous to have the homes closer together. Landgraver stated
given the concerns of the neighbor to the west,perhaps the City Council should look at moving the house
on Lot 1 forward. Landgraver indicated he is in favor of the PRD and Option 1 with accommodations for
the neighbor to the west as well as an easement around the pond.
Thiesse asked if the path could be located within the buffer.
Gaffron indicated that question would need to be directed to the Watershed District. Lot 4 will have a
house that is tight up against setbacks in the front and the sides and right up against the setback to the
wetland, which will not leave much room to the rear for a path unless it is located within the buffer.
Gaffron recommended the developer explore that with the Watershed District.
Landgraver noted Staff brought up the point about a rain garden under Option 1 but Option 2 does not
appear to contain a rain garden.
Gaffron stated the rain gardens are depicted in both options.
Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3631,
Landsource,LLC, as a PRD under Option 1,with the recommendation that there be a community
path allowing access for all six lot owners under an easement, and with the development being
subject to accommodations being made to Lot 1 as it relates to driveway location and house
placement to minimize the impact to the neighbor to the west. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
6. 13-3634 STONEWOOD,LLC,ON BEHALF OF JAMES O'ROURKE,3227 CASCO
CIRCLE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE,8:10 p.m.—8:15 P.M.
James O'Rouke,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to construct new lake yard
retaining walls and lake access stair in conjunction with an in-kind rebuild of the boat house structure and
new home construction on the property. No variances are required for the residence.
Curtis stated as part of the redevelopment,the applicant is proposing to rebuild the existing boathouse.
The boathouse is an existing legal nonconforming structure. As part of its in kind replacement,the
applicant is proposing to eliminate the open space and retaining wall which created an unsafe void behind
the boathouse. New retaining walls and lake access stairs are proposed,which retaining walls and access
stairs. The plan as shown within the 75-foot setback requires a conditional use permit and hardcover
variance. In place of the walls and the hardcover removals,the applicant is proposing to fill in the void
Page 17 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
and install two separate stair segments and retaining walls around the boathouse. The applicant is also
proposing a landscape plan to screen the walls and the stairs.
Including the boathouse,the applicant's current plan reflects a variance to allow 703 square feet of
hardcover within the 75-foot setback zone where hardcover is normally not allowed. A conditional use
permit is required prior to engaging in the activities,which include fill to elevate or alter the natural
grade.
With regard to this application, several of the criteria are applicable. The conditional use permit and
hardcover variance requested within 75 feet of the lake appears to be reasonable. The landscape plan
provides screening of the hardcover improvements and the hardcover reductions are consistent with the
City's goal to reduce hardcover near the lake. The reductions result from removal of a retaining wall and
a large concrete sidewalk that extends room the existing home almost to the lake.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and hardcover variance for the work
within the 0-75 foot zone including the walls, grading, and stairs.
Leskinen asked whether there is a sidewalk from the new home being proposed.
Curtis indicated there is not but that there is a retaining wall that wraps around which stops at the 75-foot
setback. There is also grading proposed in that area.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:14 p.m.
Leskinen stated she did visit the site and in her view the proposal will be an improvement. Leskinen
stated she does not have any issues with the application and that the request is reasonable.
Thiesse and McGrann indicated they are in agreement with Chair Leskinen.
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3634,
Stonewood,LLC,on behalf of James O'Rourke,3227 Casco Circle,granting of a conditional use
permit and hardcover variance for the work within the 0-75 foot zone,including the walls, grading
and stairs. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
7. #13-3635 DALE PETERSON AND GAIL LEDSTROM,3515 AND 3465 SIXTH AVENUE
NORTH,VACATION OF ROCKY KNOLL DRIVE,8:16 p.m.—8:21 P.M.
Dale Peterson and Gail Ledstrom, Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting vacation of the undeveloped road. In 1971,the property known
today as 3465 Sixth Avenue became the plat of Rocky Knoll. This plat created the 50-foot right-of-way
for Rocky Knoll Drive. The property is located on the east side of Rocky Knoll Drive.
Page 18 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
This plat created a 50-foot right-of-way known today as Rocky Knoll Drive. 25 feet were platted on the
3465 property and the other 25 feet of right-of-way was accomplished with a road easement over 3515 to
the west.
In 1980,the property platted as Rocky Knoll, Lots 1 through 3,were combined and replatted as
Lot 3,Block 1, of Craddock Ledstrom Estates. The property at 3515 to the west was not subdivided.
There have been residences on the two properties since 1969. Since that time,Rocky Knoll Drive has
served as a private, shared driveway.
Curtis indicated Dale Peterson is the owner of 3515 Sixth Avenue, and on behalf of himself and Gail
Ledstrom,the owner of 3565 Sixth Avenue to the east,requests that the City vacate this 50-foot platted
right-of-way. The right-of-way is undeveloped and functionally serves as a gravel driveway between the
Peterson and Ledstrom properties. There does not appear to be a formal established homeowners
association or recorded document detailing maintenance responsibilities.
The public utilities serving this area have been contacted regarding their potential use of the right-of-way.
Each of the utilities has responded that they have no utilities in the right-of-way and that they are not
opposed to the vacation.
Curtis stated the required 50-foot RR-1 B side street setback from the edge of the right-of-way is causing
an undue burden on both property owners,particularly considering the location of the home on the
Peterson home. There are no public or city utilities located within the right-of-way and there is no need
for access to the city-owned park to the south. There are only two homes served by this driveway.
For those reasons, Staff recommends approval of the vacation and extinguishment of the 25-foot right-of-
way over 3515 Sixth Avenue North. Staff also recommends the establishment of cross-access easements
addressing access to both properties over the existing driveway. The Petersons and Ledstroms should
also consider formally entering into a driveway easement.
Landgraver asked if there is any downside to approving this.
Curtis indicated it is Staff's opinion there are none.
Thiesse asked whether the City can require the maintenance agreement.
Curtis indicated Staff is recommending one.
Gaffron stated in a shared driveway situation,the City usually requests cross-easements and that in his
view the Code would require it.
Thiesse commented it makes absolute sense but that he was not sure whether it was within the Planning
Commission's purview to require the cross-easements.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Page 19 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen indicated she has no issues with the application.
Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3635,Dale
Peterson and Gail Ledstrom,3515 and 3465 Sixth Avenue North,vacation of Rocky Knoll Drive,
and to recommend cross-easement be required. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
8. #13-3636 LIXIAO WANG,3059 FARVIEW LANE,VARIANCES,8:21 P.M.—8:38 P.M.
Lixiao Wang, Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a 12' x 34' one-level garage
addition to the home. The applicant recently purchased the subject property and wishes to make some
structural additions to better accommodate vehicle parking.
Curtis noted there is a small portion of the southwest side of the home that currently encroaches into the
75-fot setback. The retaining walls located at the entry and the northeast corner of the home currently
encroach into the required 30-foot setback. The applicant's home is situated entirely ahead of the average
lakeshore setback line.
The garage addition is proposed to be constructed over existing driveway hardcover resulting in 36 square
feet of additional hardcover for 11.8 percent total for the site where 25 percent is allowed. The proposed
garage addition at 19.7 feet will encroach ten feet into the required 30-foot side yard setback. The garage
portion of the home currently meets this setback. The existing retaining wall and access stair are set back
only 13 feet from the side lot line and a corner of the home also encroaches 1.4 feet into the side setback
area.
The proposed garage addition is to be constructed by extending the lakeside wall of the home toward the
east. Due to the angle of the home and the lakeshore,the resulting setback for the addition will be 72.1
feet from the lake where a 75-foot setback is required. Approximately 42 square feet of additional
structure within the 75-foot setback is proposed.
Due to the large wetland on the property,the entire home is situated ahead of the average lakeshore
setback. Curtis stated it seems apparent that the additions or modifications that were done over the years
were done in an attempt to be respectful of the side yard setback and lake.
The proposed addition results in more massing within the east side yard setback area and within the
average lakeshore setback, which may impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent owner.
Staff finds that the applicant has failed to demonstrate a reasonable practical difficulty supporting
additional structure within the 75-foot setback area. In addition,the applicant has failed to demonstrate
that enforcing the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive them of the reasonable use of the
property. For these reasons,Planning Staff recommends denial of the variances.
Andy Schrader, Schrader&Companies, stated he is here to answer any questions the Planning
Commission may have.
Lixiao Wang stated the current structure is 18 feet deep and was built many years ago. Wang indicated
the garage does not accommodate their vehicles and that he has to leave his truck and SUV outside.
Wang stated he also owns three cars and that he only has a two-car garage. Wang stated those are the
Page 20 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
reasons why he would like to extend the garage. Wang noted they are not extending the height of the
garage but just the length.
Wang stated in his opinion the proposal will not affect anyone's view on the east side. Wang stated he is
requesting the encroachment into the 75-foot setback area since the proposal would not work otherwise.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m.
Thiesse stated in his view an 18-foot garage is a practical difficulty but that he is not sure whether
extending the garage 12 feet is the answer and that perhaps six feet would be more reasonable. Thiesse
noted a pickup or a Suburban will not fit in an 18-foot garage.
Leskinen indicated she visited the site and that in her view 12 feet is too much. Leskinen stated she is not
sure if there is any spot for a detached garage on the property but that is one option that could be
considered.
Thiesse noted the existing garage is not practical in his opinion and that extending the garage would help.
Landgraver asked whether a detached garage could be located on the property.
Curtis indicated the wooded area is dry buildable area and that the applicant could locate a detached
structure between the street and the house. Curtis stated there is ample room to locate a 1200 square foot
detached garage on the property.
Lemke asked if Staff would be fine with a 6-foot extension and whether that would solve the problem.
Curtis stated in Staff's opinion it would not.
Leskinen stated the issue she is struggling with, given the fact that this is a new owner of the property, is
that perhaps the applicant should have thought of that prior to purchase the property. Leskinen stated she
is not sure how a person would be able to turn around with that large of an addition on the garage.
Curtis stated with the way the property is currently situated,the applicant does have a driveway easement
that extends onto the property to the east. Curtis stated even with the extension of the driveway, it would
be difficult to back up and turn around with another car in the driveway. Curtis noted the garage addition
does take up a portion of the driveway and reduces maneuverability. Curtis stated it is a long driveway to
back out of.
Thiesse commented it is also a long driveway to walk up to the garage.
Schoenzeit stated given the fact that the garage is a single-story,there is some reasonableness in the
request,but that he agrees 12 feet is too much. Schoenzeit concurred that an 18-foot garage is not
functional and that perhaps an acceptable solution could be reached.
McGrann asked if the City has received any comments from the neighbors.
Page 21 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis noted there is one comment from a neighbor included in the packet.
Leskinen asked how large of an addition could be constructed and still meet the setbacks.
Curtis indicated no matter what the property owner does,he would encroach further into the average
lakeshore setback,which would require a variance. Curtis noted there is a portion of the garage addition
that would meet both of the other setbacks. Curtis stated the applicants did not have the 75-foot setback
reflected on the survey and that she has outlined it as best she could.
Thiesse asked if a garage located anywhere along the driveway would meet the 30-foot setback.
Curtis stated it would not.
Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission will not reach unanimous consent on the
application and that there is no simple solution. Landgraver stated he likes Commissioner Schoenzeit's
suggestion that there could be a compromise but that 12 feet is not realistic.
Curtis stated the only solution that would meet all setbacks and not require a variance would be to take up
some of the interior room of the home.
Schoenzeit noted the property is large enough to replace the living space somewhere else if the applicants
would like.
Curtis stated variances would be required.
Leskinen stated she is not in favor of the application as proposed but that she is not in a position to
redesign it.
Thiesse asked if there is a number Chair Leskinen would be willing to extend the garage.
Leskinen indicated there is not.
Lemke stated he understands the practical difficulty and that he likes Commissioner Schoenzeit's
suggestion of going six feet rather than 12 feet.
Thiesse noted that would result in a 24-foot garage, which is a reasonable expectation for a new garage.
Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission would like to table the application to allow the
applicant the time to revise his plans. Leskinen stated it appears it would not be approved as proposed.
Schoenzeit stated he would suggest the applicant bring back a more moderate proposal.
Leskinen asked how the applicant feels about tabling the application.
Lixiao Wang indicated that would be fine. Wang noted at an earlier time they had a three-car garage on
the property but that there is now an elevator taking up approximately one-third of the space in the garage
and that he cannot take out that element.
Page 22 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schrader stated the third stall could by extended 12 feet and that the 18 foot depth is on the double side.
The single stall extends maybe 9 feet,which is not shown very well on the overhead. The right-hand
corner has an elevator in it,which is why the 12-foot was proposed.
Leskinen stated that may also not be achievable but that a detached garage is another option.
Wang indicated he will make sure their next car will be smaller.
Lemke moved,Thiesse seconded,to table Application No. 13-3636,Lixiao Wang,3059 Farview
Lane. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
9./10. #13-3639 AND#13-3638 SOURCE LAND CAPITAL,LLC, ON BEHALF OF GRANT
WENKSTERN,405 NORTH ARM DRIVE,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,8:38
P.M.—10:55 P.M.
Leskinen asked whether the applications should be discussed separately.
Gaffron stated the comprehensive plan amendment portion of the application should be discussed first.
Leskinen commented the public hearing will likely involve both applications.
Steve Grittman,NAC, stated this application involves the conversion of the Lakeview Golf Course into
single-family residential. Grittman noted there are five parcels that are depicted on the overhead,
including one parcel that is not part of the proposal. That parcel includes the current owner's home.
The proposal will convert the golf course into a rural residential development. The current status of the
property from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint is guided for park,recreational, and open space. The
property is currently zoned RR-1B,which is the zoning district in Orono that allows for two acre sized
lots in a rural residential pattern. The property is located outside the MUSA district.
The formal approvals necessary to take this project from its current proposal to an eventual end include a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment that is under consideration this evening as well as a preliminary plat,
final plat, and possibly a zoning action depending on the nature of the proposed plat that is presented. A
Planned Residential Development is one option that could be pursued depending on the nature of the
design.
Grittman noted the process will also require a series of reviews and applications over a number of months.
A number of other agencies will be part of the review process. Hennepin County will be involved in
various aspects of transportation improvements as part of the project. Grittman noted Hennepin County
has authority for review as it relates to access to county roads. There are two county roads that abut the
property, County Road 19 on the west and County Road 151 located to the south. The Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District will also be involved as they have review authority on stormwater management and
are also involved in revegetation and landcover restoration that will potentially be part of this project.
In addition,Metropolitan Council will be involved in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to make sure
that it is consistent with the regional plans that the Metropolitan Council has developed.
Page 23 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Grittman stated the applicants are proposing to redevelop the current Lakeview Golf Course to a single-
family residential neighborhood. The process will require a series of reviews and applications over a
number of months. The first application consists of two parts:
1. An amendment to the Orono Comprehensive Plan that would change the land use designation
of the Lakeview Golf Course from Park,Recreation, and Open Space to Rural Residential. This
portion of the application requires a public hearing scheduled for the October 21 Planning
Commission meeting.
2. With consideration of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,the second part of the application is
a sketch plan review of a conceptual subdivision, converting the golf course to residential use.
The applicants have provided two alternative layouts,with the applicants' preferred layout
comprised of 59 single family lots of about one acre each,with the remainder of the property,just
under half of the subject land area,including wetlands,reserved for common open space. A
second alternative illustrates a 59 lot subdivision of 2-acre parcels.
Grittman noted there will be a series of public hearings regarding this application as the sketch plan
becomes more developed.
The Lakeview Golf Course is currently used for commercial recreational purposes as a private owned golf
course open to the public for daily fee play. The owners of the course have notified the City that the
operation of the golf course is no longer economically feasible and they need to put the property to
another use. The owners have entered into an agreement with Source Land Capital to convert the
property to residential use.
Grittman stated the overall Comprehensive Plan process is to look through and to set the land use and
overall development pattern for the community. The Comprehensive Plan is the basic document guiding
development within the City and the change being proposed needs to be reviewed to ensure that it is
compatible with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
Grittman stated in considering a change in the land use designation,the City should consider the
following factors:
1. Compatibility of the proposed change with both the general and specific intent of the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. Compatibility of the proposed land use with other existing and proposed land uses in the area.
3. The ability of the proposed land use to be served by existing public services.
4. The ability of the proposed land use to be served by existing transportation facilities.
5. Changes in conditions since the adoption of the current Community Management Plan
suggesting that a change in land use policy and objectives is in the best interest of the community.
Grittman noted to the south and east of this property,there is low to medium density residential land uses
that are common. These properties are served by sanitary sewer with densities of up to three units per
acre.
Page 24 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Grittman noted the Comprehensive Plan deals with land use density and not lot density. The overall
residential pattern is one unit per two acres of developable land generally and lot sizes may vary if the
applicant chooses a plat process that will accommodate that. The other rural land use pattern that is
common within Orono is a rural land use consisting of one unit per five acres,which is a category in the
Comprehensive Plan that was established for the northwest portion of the community. Grittman indicated
the map shows the existing land uses for the surrounding area as well as the golf course.
As one of the factors that were identified as part of the amendment process, Grittman stated it is apparent
the pattern of a rural environment is a major goal of the Community Management Plan,whether it is open
space or residential development. Rural residential is a prominent land use in the existing neighborhood
around the golf course except for the MUSA portion. Urban land uses within the MUSA exist to the east
and to the south. Most of the proposed development services are proposed to be private so there should
be relatively minimal impacts on general city public services as a result of the change.
One of the most prominent issues that was raised by the project relate to transportation. Grittman stated
the project is likely to change the transportation pattern. There are already existing concerns with the
roadways in the area. As a result,transportation issues have been identified as one area that needs to be
looked at closer.
Grittman noted there have also been changes in the economy that would compel the City to consider a
land use change. Grittman stated to elaborate on that a little bit,the golf course designation or parks and
open space designation restricts the private use of this property to an open space category. One of the
restricting factors for the City, when you look at land use regulation, is the City is allowed to regulate
land use but the City has to create a viable,beneficial use of the property for a private property owner.
The City cannot regulate it in a way that takes beneficial use away from private owners. Grittman noted
that factor is applicable to other developments as well. Grittman noted an open space district provides
very few opportunities for the property owner to make beneficial use of the property.
Grittman stated the City's land use regulatory authority is also limited in a way that the City cannot place
burdens on individual property owners that are not in proportion to their impact in the system. In this
particular case, open space preservation as a goal of the City cannot be borne by a single property owner
and it crosses the line in that cities are not allowed to require that of private property owners in dealing
with land use.
Grittman stated from a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, the surrounding land uses are predominantly rural
residential. The current zoning is RR-1B,which allows rural residential development at one dwelling unit
per two acres of dry land. The roadways in this area are definite issues and are factors that any
development would have to consider. Grittman recommended a traffic study be considered but noted that
rural residential would likely have the least amount of impact as compared to other residential uses.
Grittman noted retaining the current open space designation is not economically viable for the private
land owner. The City cannot compel a single property owner to provide public space out of the scope that
the individual property owner contributes to that cause. Grittman stated he would recommend the City
consider a change to the land use for this parcel and that the question becomes what the scope of the
change will be and what the development may look like.
In addition,the applicant has prepared a sketch plan to illustrate what they propose to do with the
property. Grittman noted sketch plans are done before a lot of the supporting data is known and is
Page 25 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
intended to show a concept and not a detailed development. The developer at some point will be required
to supply more detailed information. Grittman noted the Planning Commission will not be making a
formal approval or denial of the sketch plan.
The proposal is based on 118 acres of dry buildable land,which will need to be verified. The proposal
consists of two possible alternative layouts, with one of those offered as the preferred alternative for the
property and is depicted in Exhibit B. The applicant has also provided a second option depicted in
Exhibit E. Exhibit E shows a sketch layout that is based on the allowable density under the proposed
amendment and follows the current zoning. Exhibit E illustrates a development of 59 single-family lots,
each of two acres in area. This alternative is based on preliminary site data and the lot count would need
to be verified.
The first plan illustrates an alternative that would utilize the threshold unit count under the zoning and
land use plan,then cluster those lots to the higher portions of the site. By reducing the lot sizes and
clustering them as shown in the exhibit,the applicants would propose to retain a significant portion of the
site for open space. Much of this preservation area is shown around the perimeter of the site.
Grittman noted the layout in Exhibit B also shows a clubhouse amenity and a series of trails through the
project's common open space.
Grittman stated the applicant's preferred layout utilizes lots that are less than the 2.0 acre requirement.
Such a layout would be possible but requires the project to be reviewed as a Planned Residential
Development. That project clusters those lots into one acre lots with common open space that surrounds
the development sites.
Grittman stated the layout contained in Option 1 is a traditional layout with full development of the
property except for the wetlands. Under that scenario,there would be approximately 6,500 lineal feet of
roadway. There are four road connections to existing roadways in the sketch which include two roadways
to North Arm Drive and two road connections to West Branch that are shown to provide access to the lots
within the project. Grittman noted there are four lots in that project design with direct access to existing
street,with the remaining lots having access to the new street within the development. There are no other
significant amenities as part of the development that are outlined in the sketch plan.
Grittman stated under Option 2 there is approximately 5,800 lineal feet of roadway being proposed. The
lots would be clustered under a PRD at slightly less lot area than the standard subdivision layout. There
are two road connections under this scenario,with both of them going to North Arm. Six lots rather than
four provide direct access to North Arm and the remainder of the lots rely on new streets created as part
of this project. Grittman indicated the plan also depicts approximately a mile and a half of private trail
and shows a community building that would be under the control of the homeowners association.
Approximately 62 acres would be common open space. Grittman noted Option 2 has the same number of
lots as the standard subdivision but with a different development concept.
Grittman stated the threshold question for the City is subject to verification of lot development capacity
and the developer would be required to submit all the data that would be required under a full plat.
Preserving nearly half the site as common open space is a concept the Planning Commission should
recommend the developer pursue.
Page 26 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Grittman noted the intent of tonight's sketch plan application is not to approve or deny either of the
proposals but it would be helpful from the Planning Commission's standpoint to give direction to the
development group so they can prepare plat drawings that would meet the City's expectations. Grittman
stated the number one issue is probably the best way to address traffic issues in the area as well as
pedestrian issues and how they would be impacted by additional development on the site. Grittman noted
there are already pedestrian issues with the traffic and the design of North Arm and how they might
interrelate to these two projects.
In addition, stormwater issues would also need to be addressed given the lay of the land and how
development might impact those and how they might be managed. Grittman noted stormwater
management is largely the purview of the Watershed District but the City has a large interest in making
sure it does not impact other portions of the community and that it is developed in a way that it would
eliminate any other storm water issues.
Grittman noted finding suitable septic sites would be a restricting factor on the number of developable
lots that could be proposed.
In summary, Staff is recommending approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The reason for
that is Staff believes there are very few options under the existing land use category to develop this
property and the City has limited authority to require that continued land use.
Staff has made the following findings:
a. The existing land use designation no longer provides a viable use of land for a private property
owner.
b. The land use designation,in this case,unreasonably restricts the owner's use of the land in an
economically viable way.
c. The restriction to the current designation places an inordinate burden on the landowner to provide
public open space.
d. The surrounding land uses are dominated by rural density residential uses, along with some urban
residential uses.
e. The area is not within the MUSA, in which public sanitary sewer would be available for urban
densities.
f. The area is within the northwest portion of the City, in which road uses and densities are
designated
g. The most appropriate use for the subject project is Rural Residential,reflecting the policies of the
Community Management Plan and the existing zoning of the property.
McGrann asked whether the one-acre lots would support the two septic sites.
Grittman stated the developer's burden is to show they have a house site and a primary and secondary
septic site. Given the slopes and soils, it may be difficult at one acre sizes and it might also be difficult at
Page 27 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
two acres. Grittman noted the City does not have that data yet but it will be a requirement as part of the
plat process.
Gaffron stated the applicant has a presentation and it may be appropriate for the applicants to make that
presentation at this time.
Pat Hiller, Source Land Capital, stated they are asking for guidance on whether the clustering is preferred
versus the two-acre lots. Hiller noted a neighborhood meeting was held last Tuesday with approximately
60 people in attendance. At that neighborhood meeting Mike Gehr went through what is being proposed
point by point and the objective was to hear some commentary from the neighbors. The majority of the
residents' comments centered on the access point onto North Arm Drive.
Hiller stated based on those comments,they have changed the layout and are now proposing to focus the
traffic onto West Branch.
Mike Gehr stated he is currently under contract with five golf courses, including this one,to redevelop the
land. This parcel consists of approximately 130 acres of land. It is bounded by North Ann on the
northeast,North Shore on the west, and West Branch on the south. Gehr presented a map of the property
and noted that the type of information shown on the map informs a developer on how to lay out the
project so a plan can be developed that will conform reasonably well with the land itself.
Gehr noted the lightest colors on the site map are plateaus or platforms situated throughout the 130 acres.
The lake on the property is at about a 920' or 930' elevation. As you work your way down 30 feet to the
next plateau,there is a 50-foot elevation change from one plateau to the next plateau. Gehr commented
the site is very dynamic and is a wonderful piece of real estate to develop.
The blue lines illustrate the drainage on the site. In the northwest corner of the site,the water enters the
site from County Road 19 and from a drainage swale that runs along the western edge of the property.
The additional blue lines show drainage swales or valleys that feed into the main drainage system. Gehr
stated in addition to the interesting series of elevation changes,there also is an interesting pattern of
surface drainage through the site.
Gehr stated the orange areas depict the slopes that separate the plateaus. Separating the fairways are
meadow areas,and within those three fairways are wooded meadows or savannah grasslands or trees,
which is the fourth feature of the site that will be attempted to be utilized in the development plan.
Gehr stated one of the first steps was to understand how the site flows and operates. The next step was
the preparation of the 2-acre subdivision plan. The plan includes 200-foot lot widths, with approximately
6,000 lineal feet of roadway to access the homes. Gehr noted from the north to the south and from the
east to the west,with the exception of the wetlands,the property would be consumed by platted lots.
Gehr stated in their view the better use of the real estate is to cluster the development into pods and
protect or set aside and conserve approximately 32 acres of the site into open space. In addition to
clustering the development, also being proposed is the utilization of cul-de-sacs to further micro-cluster
units around the cul-de-sacs. Every residential home site on the plan has direct rear yard or side yard
access to the open space system. There is approximately 1.5 miles of trail that will link the residential
home sites throughout the entire area. The majority of the existing woodland is intended to be left
untouched and is included within the green open space.
Page 28 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gehr stated the drainage pattern will remain as is and noted that the Watershed District may require some
revegetation of those areas as well as enhancement of the wetlands to enrich the habitat.
The majority of the home sites are wrapped in a contiguous perimeter of open space under the cluster
proposal. These areas will be encumbered by an easement and protected in their natural state. The
physical attributes of the land are generally respected. Gehr stated the cluster plan provides open space
and an opportunity to enhance the ecology, is a low impact use of the property,provides valuable open
space corridor and a 1.5 mile walking path. The cluster development also takes it further with the micro-
clustering and the lots are separated by open space. The cluster development intends to produce a
beautiful neighborhood on a great site and will be a source of pride for the residents and neighbors in the
area.
Gehr noted City Staff has fairly well covered the issue of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that
they would like the Planning Commission's input on the development itself.
Gehr noted under the previous plan there was an access point off of North Arm,with the road meandering
through the development and then exiting onto North Arm. The revised proposal eliminates the access
out to North Arm and focuses the access to the property off of West Branch Road.
Gehr pointed out the location of the pool and clubhouse on the overhead. Gehr noted the road will
extend to the north and northeast to access the homes. Being proposed at this time are 59 home sites.
While a fair amount of work has currently been undertaken, additional work such as wetland delineations
and survey work needs to be completed before there is a final lot count and a preliminary plat submission
to the City.
Gehr noted they held a meeting last week with the neighbors and that he is sure they have concerns and
issues they would like to address with the Planning Commission. Gehr stated in their view,with the
access now being located off of West Branch, some of their concerns have been alleviated. Gehr stated
he was also encouraged by the neighbors to walk the site. Gehr indicated he did walk the site and that he
understands that sections of North Arm are dangerous since there are no shoulders. Gehr indicated the
decision was made to eliminate access onto North Arm for that reason and other reasons expressed by the
neighbors.
Hiller stated they would like the Planning Commission to consider the PRD.
Lemke noted 59 is the optimum number based on the two acre lots and asked how many realistically the
site will accommodate.
Gehr indicated they are working their way through that and that the soils and topography of the property
are currently being looked at as well as some percolation work being done on the site. Gehr indicated at
the present time they are looking at 59 lots.
Thiesse asked if the developer would just need to identify two septic sites per lot or whether percolation
tests are required.
Gaffron stated the developer would need to conduct percolation testing on each of the lots.
Page 29 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated at this time she would open the public hearing. Leskinen requested each resident limit
their comments to two minutes or less and that the audience should refrain from applause or other noise
and otherwise be respectful of the person who has the floor. Leskinen requested each speaker state their
name and address for the record and to also attempt not to repeat the same comments that have already
been expressed.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:38 p.m.
Donna Hager, 4580 West Branch Road stated tonight is the first time she and her neighbor have heard of
a double lane road doing between their two homes and that they would object to that.
Hager indicated her property, as well as the Eastman property, in the spring and throughout the summer,
whenever there is a torrential rain,there are literal lakes in the front yard. Hager stated she has already
been told that area is unbuildable for a road by Mike Gehr who said it was not feasible to put a road
through there because of the water table and standing water,which eventually drains into Lake
Minnetonka and Forest Lake. Hager commented it takes a long time to drain that area. Hager stated in
her view it is not a good place for a road and that she objects to it being right next to her property where
she has lived for over 50 years.
Hager stated she has a vested interest in the neighborhood and in the idea of open space, which is very
vital to the Orono community and the reason why they chose to live there. This would be open space for
generations to come and that she wonders if this plan is the only plan they can envision for this kind of
space. Hager indicated she is also wondering whether Orono has thought about or looked into the idea of
making it a park with activities year-round since the area would be ideal for that. Hager stated if it is not
kept as a golf course,there are lots of other options that should be considered for the benefit of the whole
community. Hager indicated she does not want to place that burden on the Wenksterns but perhaps
Orono or Hennepin County could purchase it.
Terri Eastman, 4520 West Branch Road, stated her biggest concern is the water runoff in the spring.
Eastman stated when the water drains, it goes down the site and finally makes it through a small culvert
underneath her driveway. In the springtime and following major rains,you can literally hear a waterfall
coming through the woods and approximately a two foot waterfall coming down from the golf course.
Eastman stated there is too much water runoff currently, and if they add a roadway,that would be a
bigger issue. Eastman indicates she is in agreement with Donna Hager that the neighborhood would hate
to see the green space go away.
Bryce Johnson, 580 North Arm Drive, stated there are a number of folks that have a similar opinion as
what he is going to present tonight. Johnson noted last Friday afternoon a petition addressing the
proposal was delivered to Orono City Offices. The petition contains the signatures of over 60 residents
who signed it within a few hours and who represent a large percentage of the neighboring properties. The
petition is meant to be constructive but yet responsive to everyone's ultimate interests.
Johnson stated Lakeview Golf Course is a unique property since it rises above Lake Minnetonka and is
perfectly framed by trees,ponds,wetlands. Johnson stated to those who look at it,it brings a sense of
peace,history, and a fond enjoyment of nature. The property contributes a substantial amount of green
space to the whole western lake area.
Page 30 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Johnson stated after reviewing the City's 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan,he and many others were
struck at how perfectly this property reflects the Community Management philosophy that seeks to
preserve and protect the City's many natural resources, open spaces, land patterns, dark skies, local
character and identity. Johnson noted those are values that have caused many of the neighbors to live in
this area.
Johnson stated the neighbors would also like to ask the Planning Commission to listen to what folks have
said in the petition but also to what has not been said. Johnson stated the people who have signed the
petition do not deny Lakeview the right to sell a property that is not economically viable. The signers
have nothing but understanding and good will towards the present owners and everything they have done
over the years. The neighbors are also not criticizing the intended developers who,to their credit, have
proposed to protect and preserve as much of the green space as possible.
Johnson stated the petition also does not jump to the conclusion that the only alternative is for Orono to
purchase the property. What those who have signed the petition are asking for is to delay the change in
land use guidance until a committee group that consists of concerned citizens have a chance to study
those alternatives. Johnson stated it could be done a number of ways within a reasonable time period.
Johnson noted the petition does raise a concern for the unintended consequences of this development on
the nearby residences. Johnson noted some of those concerns are being addressed by the developers but
many more concerns will come up. If the result of the delay is that there is not a feasible alternative,the
time spent on that effort will give all involved additional time to look at the development and address
those other concerns. The final result will be the best compromise for the City of Orono,the developer,
the neighbors, and the future occupants of the development.
Johnson stated in summary they are asking the Planning Commission to stop the immediate, irrevocable
guidance change, look at the unique asset, and listen to the reasonable expectations of the people and then
proceed with caution. Johnson stated the City owes it to future generations who may ask how the open
spaces disappeared.
Michael Flannery, 525 Park Lane, stated he would like to thank the Wenkstern family for the tremendous
asset the Lakeview and Red Oak Golf Courses have been to the community. Flannery indicated he and
his extended family have played golf in Orono for many years and that in his view these two golf courses
have been and can continue to be,at least in the case of Lakeview,viable options for the City of Orono.
Flannery noted he happened to see Grant Wenkstern's letter on the counter of the Lakeview Golf Course
and that he had no idea of the financial difficulties the Wenkstern family was facing.
Flannery stated this application has prompted him to wonder if there would not be some way for the
community to maintain Lakeview as a public golf course. Flannery indicated he is not a real estate
developer,but that it occurred to him the City has the 9-hole golf course that receives a lot of play and
that that golf course could be an excellent site for development. Flannery stated one option that could be
considered is the City could sell the 9-hole golf course for development,use those funds to purchase this
golf course, and then run it as a municipal golf course with an eye toward expanding its scope somewhat
on the order of the St. Louis Park Recreational Center. Flannery stated he agrees that it would be a
terrible shame to lose this wonderful resource and that he would encourage the City to delay any action to
allow them time to consider other options that would enhance the quality of life here in Orono.
Page 31 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Carol Pass,215 North Arm Lane, stated she would challenge the Planning Commission and City Council
to look at other options. Pass stated she does development in Minneapolis and that sometimes there are
pieces of property that are very special. Pass stated if the City does not try to come up with something
creative and be willing to spend some money and make a big effort,the City would have no parks. Pass
noted there is always pressure to sell off the parks in Minneapolis but that they have an independent park
board that refuses to sell them.
Pass stated in her view Orono has a City Council that has been at times very creative and that in her view
propelling this application forward this quickly does not allow the City time to look at other options. Pass
stated she does not want to see the Wenkstern family suffer financially but that the City should be willing
to look at their options to preserve this area. Once the property is developed,the green space will never
come back. Pass indicated she has not heard anything from the City to respond to the concerns that open
land should be preserved,which is the job of the City.
Pass stated her second concern is that North Arm Bay is a lake area that has been hard to keep clean. The
water quality of the bay is below that of other lakes and the City would be adding 59 septic systems in an
area that is extremely porous with multiple creeks and water rivulets that ultimately go into North Arm
Bay. Pass commented the whole area is squishy and is like a giant sponge. The water does not stay in the
creeks but is all over the place. This development would add an enormous burden on North Arm, which
is already struggling for decent water quality. Pass stated this development would really add a huge load
on that lake by putting so many septic systems on this site.
Pass stated she would like to hear some concern on the part of the City about the water quality and
retaining the natural areas that are still left. Pass stated this development will change the character of
Orono and that the City needs to do something creative to help preserve this area.
Robin Johnson, 4730 North Ann Drive, stated she does not have much to add to what has already been
said,but that she would like to say that everyone truly understands the difficulties the Wenksterns are in
and that they are supportive of them.
Johnson stated at the same time she has a passionate love for this land. Johnson indicated she moved here
in July of 2003 and that she has two small children. Johnson stated she walks this land every day and that
they can all agree the community is better because of this area and the family business. Johnson stated
the air quality is better because of the open space and that in her view there are environmental issues that
have not been considered as well as aesthetic issues.
Johnson stated she moved to Orono specifically because of the rural character of the area with one house
per acre or more as well as the beautiful hills,trees, and rolling open space. Johnson stated this land is a
premium and it is going away. Johnson commented she likes how the community is coming together to
encourage the City to look at other options for this land. Johnson stated before the City rushes to micro-
clusters,they should talk about the possibility of keeping some of the space open.
Brenda Johnson, 520 North Arm Drive,noted she attended the work session earlier this evening and read
the consulting engineer's report. Johnson stated she would encourage the Planning Commission to table
the application and not change the use of the property. The City needs to evaluate the alternative uses of
the property as it relates to community goals. Johnson stated the City took a long time to develop the
long-range plan with input from the community and that it seems like overnight there is a
recommendation to change the use of the long-range plan as it relates to the use of this property.
Page 32 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Johnson noted the time frame to come up with reasonable alternative uses that are economically viable for
the property owners has been very short. Johnson indicated the post card she received said it was mailed
on the 11`h and that when she came home on Tuesday night, it said that there was a public meeting and
that any public comment was due that day. Johnson noted the majority of the neighbors did not know
anything about it before then and that the time frame has not allowed meaningful public input as it relates
to finding alternatives that really respect the long-range goal that the City and residents have worked on
over the years.
Johnson stated she understands the Planning Commission is charged with evaluating alternatives but that
in her view the City has not received adequate data for properly evaluating the impact on the whole City.
Johnson acknowledged a property owner has a right to reasonable economic use of their property but that
there is a question over what is reasonable. Johnson stated she knows everybody has this American
dream of great wealth,and questioned if the owners are able to sell it as a golf course,is that reasonable
compensation for that property. Johnson stated the question is whether that is reasonable and whether
someone really has to maximize the property for income. Johnson stated she does respect their right to
sell the property but that it does impact the whole city,particularly those that live around the golf course.
Johnson stated she heard at the work session that it was not economically viable to continue it as a golf
course and questioned whether the City really knows that. Johnson stated there might be better ways to
manage it so that it can be more viable economically or perhaps sell it to another entity that wants to
purchase it as a golf course.
Johnson stated she would encourage the Planning Commission to table the application until the City has
time to research other options that do not violate Orono's principles.
Grant Wenkstern stated in response to the question about whether the golf course is economically viable,
his books of business are open to anyone who wants to see them.
Don Winter, 420 North Arm Drive, stated several years ago he had to drill a new well because the water
level dropped 10 to 15 feet. The addition of 59 houses will take more water. Winter stated he read in the
Minnesota Conservation magazine that the average person uses 80 to 100 gallons of water per day.
Winter indicated he is afraid of what is going to happen to the aquifer and that it is his understanding his
property is using the same aquifer the golf course is using. Winter stated that is another concern, similar
to septic systems,which should be addressed.
Winter stated as it relates to accessing North Arm, when he exits his driveway, he has to look up towards
the clubhouse. Winter stated he typically does not see anything coming until it crests the hill. County
Road 19 is an uphill road and it is very difficult to see oncoming traffic until after it comes over the hill.
Dan Iverson, 4640 North Arm Drive,noted his sons and daughters have worked for Grant Wenkstern.
Iverson stated he agrees with everything that has been said already.
Iverson noted he has lived there approximately 20 to 25 years, and when it rains,the area turns into a
lake. Iverson stated he would challenge the developer,if they want to break it into two acre lots,to come
up with 15 lots due to the water table. Iverson stated the better question to ask is whether the land can be
preserved.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:00 p.m.
Page 33 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit asked what the land valuation is for one to two acres or one to five and how much it is worth
as a golf course. Schoenzeit asked which one would be more valuable.
Hiller indicated they have not made that evaluation since it is not their intent to continue it as a golf
course. Hiller noted the golf course is currently a failing business and that the underlying asset is the
land. Two acre lots would be more valuable versus the five are zoning but that he does not have the exact
numbers. Hiller stated from a pure mathematical standpoint, it would be more valuable with higher
density. The highest value to the landowner is the two acre density and the clustering on the site from a
developer standpoint might not have much difference in value.
Schoenzeit asked if it is worth 25 million as a cluster, 10 million with five acre sites, or 2 million as a
golf course.
Hiller stated anybody who looked at the property would have a different answer depending on how they
envision it. Hiller stated he would prefer to keep how they value the property private.
Schoenzeit asked if it has less value as a golf course than a developed site.
Hiller indicated that is correct.
McGrann asked Staff for clarification on when notice of the public hearing first went out.
Gaffron stated the standard notice is mailed out on the Friday a week ahead of the Monday meeting to
meet the 10-day requirement. Quite often those notices show up on a Saturday. In this case, if it did not
show up on Saturday, it would have been Tuesday. Gaffron noted the notice is mailed out to residents
within a 350-foot radius and that there was quite a list of people who were notified.
Leskinen asked how the Planning Commission feels about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Landgraver asked if this is a conditional purchase based on a change in the zoning.
Hiller stated the property is under contract and that it is conditioned upon receiving approval since it
would not be practical to purchase it without a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Hiller indicated they do
have a time line to follow in order to move it along based on the decision tonight.
Landgraver asked if there is a right of last refusal. Landgraver asked if the people who believe there is
another alternative have the ability to beat that price.
Hiller indicated there is no language of that sort in the contract.
Thiesse stated in his view the application should be tabled.
Leskinen noted the underling zoning is the RR-1B ,which would be the Comp Plan Amendment.
Leskinen asked if this proposal is subject to the 60-day rule.
Gaffron indicated it is and it would expire on November 26. The City has the ability to extend that for
another 60 days upon notification to the applicant,which would take it up to approximately January 24.
Thiesse requested an outline for reasonable uses of open spaces in the City of Orono be provided.
Page 34 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron indicated he would need to provide that infoimation later since it would be difficult to define a
possible list of uses for open space tonight.
Landgraver asked what are the current uses.
Gaffron stated when you look at the existing properties in the City that are guided for open space,they
consist of city parks,Hennepin County parks,DNR wildlife or natural areas,and four golf courses.
Gaffron stated that is essentially it.
Schoenzeit stated he is not sure how the land is held on Big Island and whether it could be sold or if the
community would be interested in a referendum of A versus B. Schoenzeit stated in his opinion the City
is not going to gain enough revenue from the sale of the 9-hole course and that this is land that is more
attractive for open space use that can be accessed without a boat.
Gaffron asked Mr. Grittman if he is aware of a city that has put a tax on all its residents in order to
purchase recreational open space property.
Grittman stated that was a question in Mendota Heights. In that case they had to pass a referendum to
approve the city purchasing the property,which did occur.
Schoenzeit stated he is not necessarily talking about taxing residents but that the City may own a piece of
property that could perhaps be sold to purchase this.
Leskinen noted that Three Rivers Park owns part of the land on Big Island.
Gafffron stated the City owns approximately 60 acres of the land on Big Island,Three Rivers Park
District owns a portion of it, and the rest is in private hands.
Lemke stated he understands the desire of the residents to keep this land as open space but that he does
not see the City's ability to deny the property owner the right to develop his land since it fits within the
City's guidelines.
Leskinen stated she also does not know if it is reasonable to require the City to maintain the open space
and that it likely does not have the resources. Leskinen stated she would have a difficult time denying the
Wenksterns the opportunity to sell their property.
Leskinen noted the City does have an opportunity to change the zoning to rural residential and they also
have the opportunity to take the time and be cautious in how they should proceed on this application.
Leskinen stated in her view the initial, out of the chute plans have been very respectful in attempting to
maintain as much open space as possible but that the plans are a long way from where they will end up.
Leskinen stated the chances of ending up with 59 lots are pretty slim by the time all the soil testing and
other issues are addressed and that the development might end up being quite nice.
McGrann asked if the reguiding is something that will go forward in perpetuity or whether it be changed
at a later date.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission's recommendation on the Comp Plan Amendment would be
presented to the City Council on November 12. The Council could either approve, deny,table, or send it
Page 35 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
back to the Planning Commission. Gaffron stated at any point in the future the City may reguide the
property,but noted that since 1980 the City has had opportunities to change it but it was not changed.
Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission is going down a dangerous path and that once it
is guided in one direction,to say that the City can go back and reguide it later might be opening up a can
of worms. Landgraver stated in his view there is a practical consequence that will occur if this area is
reguided.
Gaffron stated once the property is developed,it would be very difficult to change it to one acre zoning
from two acre development.
Lemke asked what the implications are of passing the amendment and whether that means it has to be
developed.
Gaffron stated a golf course is a conditional use in a residential zone. Gaffron asked whether it could be
left as a golf course even if it is guided residential.
Grittman stated in his view the City could do that and that he does not feel there is a conflict if the City
zones it that way. Grittman stated the developer's right is vested typically at the time of preliminary plat
approval and that a Comprehensive Plan change does not mean that the City is done with the property.
Once the developer obtains preliminary plat approval,at that point they would have a property right in a
development of some sort.
Leskinen stated if the Planning Commission were to go ahead with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
there are still some possibilities for alternatives. Leskinen stated she does take it to heart that the
residents are challenging the City to come up with something,but that there is only so much the City can
do. Leskinen stated if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment would still allow that possibility to exist, she
would be okay with it.
Grittman stated if the Council approves the Comprehensive Plan change on November 12, it would still
have to go through Metropolitan Council review before it becomes a final change, and even that does not
foreclose the City from taking different actions. If the applicants are seeking a modified plat design
through a PRD,the City still has a lot of flexibility even within the development scenario to negotiate
some other design opportunities.
Landgraver stated in his view it is great that so many citizens have come out to participate in this process
and that he would like to thank the Wenkstern family for being great citizens but that it does not seem fair
to ask them to delay selling their land in the hope that something else might happen.
Schwingler stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver. As landowners in Orono, a person
has certain rights. Schwingler stated part of the process is hearing what the citizens have to say but at the
same time the Planning Commission has to consider other issues. Schwingler noted the Planning
Commission is a recommending body and not the final say,but there are other issues that need to be
addressed to keep it moving forward in fairness to the landowner.
Thiesse asked whether Three Rivers Park District or Hennepin County knows that this land is available.
Gaffron indicated he does not know the answer to that.
Page 36 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated he likes the plan that has been presented,but until he knows that it cannot be left as open
space,he would like to table the application. Thiesse noted the residents had less than a week after they
knew what was being proposed and that there are a few questions that perhaps can be answered in the
next month and then the application would be back on track.
McGrann stated he agrees with the comments of Commissioner Thiesse and that it is difficult to turn
around once you start going down a certain path. McGrann stated in his view 30 days will not make that
much of a difference and there might be more of a consensus once those answers are obtained.
Schoenzeit asked if they are suggesting tabling it for 30 days with a Planning Commission
recommendation to City Staff to formally make sure that Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County
know this land is available.
Leskinen questioned whether that would be within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction.
Lemke stated if Hennepin County is not aware of it,there is something wrong.
Leskinen stated she is not sure whether it is the City's place to notify other people that a certain piece of
land is for sale.
Schoenzeit stated it is very clear that the property owners have rights and that they should get their
Comprehensive Plan amendment so they can properly market their property. At the same time,the
residents have asked that the application be tabled. Schoenzeit stated the question is whether the Planning
Commission should table this application for 30 days.
Lemke stated in his view the owners of the property have probably already looked at other alternatives
and that another 30 days will help. Lemke stated he does not want to simply kick it down the road and
kick it down the road.
Landgraver stated it sounds like there is either a motion to table for 30 days or a motion to approve, which
the dissenters can vote against.
Schoenzeit stated in his view there is not any dissent on the property rights but the question is whether the
Planning Commission can make a recommendation that someone spend a little time thinking about open
space.
Thiesse stated he is very much in favor of property rights,but the only reason this property was guided in
the Comprehensive Plan as open space is that it was probably guided that way right from the beginning.
Gaffron stated that is probably the case. Gaffron indicated the last two Comprehensive Plan reviews were
probably more defmitive than the 1980 plan based on statutory changes. The 1980 plan was probably
more of a land use plan that showed what was existing and the last two Comprehensive Plans have had to
show what the City's plans are for the future, so it holds more weight than in 1980.
Leskinen stated she is in favor of moving it forward and that there are still a number of things that have to
be done before the development can be approved.
Page 37 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse noted there is still approximately 50 percent of the property that is proposed to remain as open
space.
Leskinen stated she has trouble of delaying it on the back of an individual property owner.
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3639, Source
Land Capital,LLC,on behalf of Grant Wenkstern,405 North Arm Drive,granting of a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on Staffs recommendations outlined as A through G on
Page 9 of Staffs report. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,McGrann Opposed.
Grittman stated if the Planning Commission has some specific design direction,they should provide that
to the applicant.
Leskinen noted the motion was just on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that the Planning
Commission will next discuss the sketch plan.
Lemke stated he likes the clustering option but that he has some issues with the road being too close to
the two property owners. Lemke stated in his view it is likely some of the water issues would be
mitigated with the construction of the road.
Thiesse asked if the cul-de-sac to the right could accommodate a road and that that area seems to be a
better location than running it through the two properties.
Gaffron indicated there is a 1,000 or 1,100 lineal foot limitation on cul-de-sacs and that he is not sure
whether that area could accommodate it.
Hiller stated they would be open to exploring options and that they wanted to present an option that took
into account the neighbors' concerns. Hiller indicated it was their understanding that there needs to be
two entrances/exits to the development.
Thiesse asked if it is possible to bring the six lots to the northwest into the project with a cul-de-sac so the
development is totally contained. Thiesse requested the developer explore that option.
Hiller noted this is a low area which is why they laid it out the way they did.
Leskinen stated she was happy to see the change in the relocation of the entrance off of North Arm, which
was a big concern for the neighbors.
Schoenzeit stated unfortunately the City Code in this process does not require the developer to discuss the
digital infrastructure. Schoenzeit pointed out this part of Orono has a very weak communications
infrastructure and that it is likely the expectation of these homes in the $600,000 to the $2 million range
will be that they will have Internet access or the ability to make a cell phone call. Schoenzeit stated he
would encourage the developer to show how they have reached out to Verizon to perhaps bring in a cell
tower or otherwise develop some type of digital plan. Schoenzeit stated while the City has done a lot of
work getting the wire to people's houses,the Internet service is slow and the phone lines get tied up.
Hiller stated they have not gotten that far in the process but they will see what they can do.
Page 38 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann stated he prefers the clustering plan and that maintaining at least half of the property as open
space is preferred and ultimately would be an attractive part of the development.
Leskinen stated she also would prefer the PRD layout versus the straight two-acre lots. Leskinen stated
she does not necessarily prefer this exact layout but that she prefers the PRD concept. Leskinen asked
whether the developer has considered some kind of trail or trail easement along North Arm or some of the
other areas for walking.
Hiller indicated the dotted lines are proposed natural paths and are more or less located within the
development. Hiller noted they did discuss a trail along North Arm at the neighborhood meeting but
certain sections of the road do not have any shoulders.
Lemke asked if they would entertain an easement around the whole property in the case the City would
like some sidewalks.
Hiller stated beyond that natural path,they have not considered that at this time.
Thiesse asked if the City would require that.
Gaffron stated the City might not necessarily require a perimeter trail in a development like this and that
the City would only require an easement if it is part of the City's comprehensive trail plan. Gaffron stated
to his understanding North Arm is not part of that plan.
Landgraver asked if the trail would be open to anyone who wanted to walk through there or just open to
residents of the development.
Hiller stated the common area would be owned by the association and the trails would be owned by the
association and so as such it would not be public per se. Hiller stated from a practical standpoint,if folks
wanted to walk on the trails,he is not sure what objection there would be.
Landgraver stated from a goodwill standpoint,providing access to the neighbors might be good to allow
them to continue to enjoy the area.
Hiller stated they have not thought a lot about that.
Grant Wenkstern noted a gentleman brought up a concern about the aquifer. Wenkstern stated the
developers have talked to him about bringing in water from Minnetrista and have also talked about using
his pumps to irrigate the housing development,which makes sense. Wenkstern stated in his opinion not
having the golf course would put less stress on the aquifer. Wenkstern noted he currently has two big
wells at 120 feet and has never had to move them in 20 years.
Lemke asked how much water they use every month.
Wenkstern stated it is in the millions of gallons but that he does not have an exact number.
Hiller stated one of the things they are working on is they will be bringing water down 151 and going
south into Red Oak in the City of Minnetrista. Hiller indicated it is potentially possible to continue that
down and bring water in from Minnetrista if an agreement can be reached. The early comments from
Page 39 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Minnetrista are that they may be amenable to do that and that they feel there is water capacity. From a
development standpoint, it is desirable to get city water in there, especially if there is a concern about that.
Hiller stated if there is positive feedback,they will continue to pursue that.
Landgraver stated in terms of the sketch plan,he prefers the PRD concept since it seems to be more
cognizant of the neighbors' concerns. Landgraver stated in his view the one-acre lots will be challenged
once there is more scientific feedback and that there will likely be some give and take.
Hiller stated some of the early indications are that some of the slopes are not conducive to septic and that
they are exploring different options. Hiller stated in his view this exact sketch will not be the final plan
and that the lots could be spread out more. Hiller stated they will keep exploring the PRD option if that is
the direction of the Planning Commission.
Schwingler recommended they also look at other alternatives for access in and out of West Branch.
Schoenzeit stated the area where there is a semaphore seems more conducive to access.
Thiesse asked if there is any possibility to have the second septic site in the commons area.
Gaffron stated the City has only allowed that at a site on Big Island due to an existing building that did
not have sites within their property but the neighboring site did. The City typically has not approved
septic sites outside of a lot. Gaffron stated it is worthy of discussion but that it is not something the City
has routinely done.
Hiller stated they do not have enough information at this point but that the septic testing is being done
right now. The wetland delineation work has been done and a report is being prepared. In addition,the
site survey and tree survey work is almost done. Hiller stated within the next two to three weeks they
should have a lot more information.
Leskinen asked if they are prepared for the possibility that they will have something less than 59 lots.
Hiller stated they realize that and that this is an optimum design at this point.
Lemke asked when they anticipate bringing a formal application back to the City on the design.
Hiller stated they will be bringing the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the sketch plan to the City
Council on November 12. Once the septic testing and survey work is complete,work will begin on
preliminary plat.
Landgraver asked where it is being left on the traffic situation.
Thiesse indicated the developer is going to look at alternative access points.
Gaffron stated other than saying that the City does not want access directly onto North Arm, the access is
still undetermined at this point. Gaffron stated a second access off of County Road 19 has not been
discussed. Currently there is only one way in and out and it is likely there will need to be a secondary
access.
Page 40 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse commented the embankment next to County Road 19 will be difficult to overcome but that they
need to consider a second access.
Gaffron noted a number of public comments have been received via e-mail and were distributed to the
Planning Commission tonight. Gaffron stated Staff will continue to keep a tally of those.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on the sketch plan.
Mike Schulte, 4640 West Branch Road, asked whether there will be a public hearing for the sketch plan.
Leskinen stated the public hearing earlier this evening was for both applications.
Mike Schulte stated the first item discussed was regarding the rezoning and then they discussed the sketch
plan. Schulte stated the Planning Commission made a motion to change the zoning.
Leskinen stated a motion was made to change the guiding in the Comprehensive Plan and that they
combined the two presentations. Leskinen stated the first presentation was related to the Comprehensive
Plan guidance and the second was related to the sketch plan. Leskinen stated the public hearing was on
both items.
Schulte stated his question relates to a number of items Mr. Grittman brought up. Schulte requested the
Planning Commission do their due diligence on this application. Schulte stated there are issues about
bringing water in from another city and that the county will need to look at it. In addition,there are also
issues with sight lines,water runoff, and traffic.
Leskinen noted this is a very preliminary sketch plan and is designed only to give some basic parameters
of the development and an opportunity for the Planning Commission to provide direction to the
developer. Leskinen noted there will be future meetings as the data is compiled and that those issues will
be looked at more closely. Leskinen stated having a discussion regarding the specifics of those items is
very much putting the cart before the horse at this point and that there will be more opportunities to
discuss those items in the future.
Schulte stated his concern was the Planning Commission making a motion prior to getting any public
comment.
Leskinen noted no motion associated with the sketch plan was made and that the motion related to the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
11. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 23,2013,AND OCTOBER 14,2013
Landgraver stated he attended the September 9 Council meeting. All Planning Commission items were
placed on the Consent Agenda. There was some discussion had regarding the Navarre streetlights and the
Orono Golf Course. Landgraver indicated the volunteers are still improving that property and were
requesting additional funds. Landgraver stated some of the Council Members were hesitant about
advancing more money toward the golf course when it was not making money.
Page 41 of 42
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday,October 21,2013
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated he attended the September 24 meeting and that the items the Planning Commission had
placed on the Consent Agenda were questioned by the City Council. The Thomas Potter application,
which was consented by the Planning Commission,was denied by the City Council. The Council said the
oversized accessory structure would be allowed as long as they met the setbacks.
Curtis stated they have withdrawn their application but they are considering constructing a 900 square
foot building. Curtis indicated a formal application has not been submitted at this point.
Lemke stated he attended the October 14 meeting and that Jan Callison provided an update of what was
going on in Hennepin County. Callison had indicated that library hours are being expanded and the
wheelage tax has been approved. Lemke stated Hennepin County's levy was increased due to employee
contracts and the LMCD will be providing some boater safety courses. Lemke stated the only thing that
was not placed on the Consent Agenda was the Ryan and Stacy Alness application and that was denied.
12. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
McGrann moved,Leskinen seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 11:08
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
// OP
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Page 42 of 42