Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/2014 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 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, Loren Schoenzeit, and Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron, Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Lizz Levang was present. Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:33 p.m. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Schoenzeit moved, Lemke seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2014 Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of February 18,2014, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #14-3655 BRIAN BUTTERFIELD ON BEHALF OF JOE AND DONELLE FELDMANN, 805 FOREST ARMS LANE,VARIANCE,6:33 P.M.—6:43 P.M. Brian Butterfield, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance for an in-ground pool with retaining walls. A variance from the wetland buffer setback is also requested. The applicants have applied for a building permit to construct a 20' x 40' in-ground pool on the lake side of their property ahead of the average lakeshore setback line and within the now required 10-foot setback from the edge of the established buffer. One proposed retaining wall encroaches into the 50-foot established buffer as a quasi-in-kind replacement of an existing wall. In 2011,the home on the property was reconstructed with an addition. The construction of the home triggered the establishment of a 50-foot wetland buffer. At the time the City required a 20-foot setback from the buffer for any structure. In 2013,the City's wetland regulations were amended to eliminate the City buffer requirement and establish minimum setbacks from delineated wetlands and established wetland buffers. The new wetland setback regulations require a 35-foot setback from the edge of a delineated wetland or a 10-foot setback from the edge of an established buffer, whichever is greater. All structure and hardcover must meet this setback requirement. Curtis noted there is no adjacent home on the north so the average lakeshore setback line is determined by the distance between the lake and the adjacent home to the south. The neighboring home at 815 Forest Arms Lane is set back 176 feet from the lake. The proposed pool, pool deck and walls will be constructed entirely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed pool and pool deck are located outside of the required 10-foot buffer setback and the walls will extend into the setback and partially into the 50- Page 1 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. foot buffer. The lower wall, which extends into the 20-foot utility easement, is a replacement of the existing wall in this general location. Due to the height and separation of the proposed walls, an engineered design will be required for the permit. The proposed pool, pool deck and retaining walls will be entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Since the location of the applicants' home is also partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line, there is no conforming location lakeward of the home to construct a pool. The configuration of the subject property along the end of the channel creates a unique situation regarding the view. The neighbor to the south has no lake view per se over the applicants' property but rather a view of West Branch Road. The construction of the applicants' home has prompted the need for establishment of a 50-foot buffer from the edge of the wetland between 9 feet and 22 feet further upslope than the 75-foot setback line. The proposed pool and walls are proposed well outside the 75-foot lake setback. However, the walls encroach into the established 50-foot wetland buffer and the currently required 10-foot buffer setback. One of the walls also encroaches into a 20-foot utility easement on the property. Due to the slope of the applicants' property, the walls are necessary in order to create a flat platform area to construct the pool. The applicants' property is the last lot which fronts on a long channel and is somewhat disconnected from the lake. The neighboring property likely had no lake views to the north over the applicants' property but rather a view of West Branch Road. The existence of the 50-foot wetland buffer,the location of the neighboring home, and the nature of the channel create practical difficulties for the property owner. In addition, there are mature trees separating the applicants' property from their southern neighbor which will likely screen most of the views of the proposed pool. Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as well as the setback variances for the retaining walls. The applicant will be required to comply with the City Engineer's recommendations. If the wall within the utility easement cannot be relocated, the applicants should be required to enter into an encroachment agreement for the walls within the utility easement. Leskinen asked if the applicant was required to obtain permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as well for this project. Curtis stated in her opinion they will require permits from the Watershed District for erosion control but that this is not a project that triggers a buffer per the Watershed District's rules. The applicant had nothing to add to Staff's report. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Leskinen stated she did visit the site and it appears there are not many options where to locate the pool and that she does have a concern regarding the utility easement. Leskinen asked if the proposed retaining walls encroach further into the setback. Page 2 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated the new walls do encroach further into the utility easement. The City Engineer has recommended the applicant look at relocating the walls or minimizing their encroachment. If they cannot be relocated completely out of the utility easement, an encroachment easement would be necessary. Leskinen asked if it is a city easement. Curtis indicated it is a City utility easement. The City Engineer did review whether there are utilities located within the easement and did not find any. Curtis stated it appears the sewer is located in the roadway. Lemke noted the City Engineer also recommended the applicant enter into an encroachment agreement, and asked if the applicant has agreed to that. Curtis stated she does not know that answer but that the applicant would need to enter into that agreement if the retaining walls are not relocated out of the utility easement. Leskinen asked if there are any other risks associated with having the retaining walls encroaching into the easement. Curtis stated she does not believe so, but that the standard language in the encroachment agreement would say that if there is a need for the City to use the easement,whether there are presently utilities there or not, it would be at the homeowner's risk to have that structure there and that the City may need to remove it to conduct repairs. Leskinen stated as far as the average lakeshore setback, given the location of the property and the neighboring views, she does not see that as an issue and that the request is reasonable. Schwingler asked about the neighbor's concerns relating to erosion and drainage. Curtis indicated that information has been communicated to the City Engineer and that the City Engineer will review the plans further to ensure that further impacts to the channel as a result of erosion do not occur. Curtis indicated the neighbor was more detailing his concern so they would be on record and was supportive of the project. The neighbor had the channel dredged in 2002 or 2003,which ended up being an ordeal, and that he wanted to make sure that was not further impacted. Schwingler asked if there is any concern about screening. Curtis stated the structure does meet the setbacks from West Branch and that they are asking for a setback from the average lakeshore setback and a wetland buffer setback. Curtis stated the pool would be visible as someone is driving from the east but that the house is also visible from the road. Curtis stated the applicants may want some additional screening once the pool is installed. Schoenzeit moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3655, Brian Butterfield on behalf of Joe and Donelle Feldmann,805 Forest Arms Lane,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance and a variance from the wetland buffer setback in order to allow construction of an in-ground swimming pool and retaining walls,subject to the City Engineer recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Page 3 of 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3. #14-3656 BRIAN NELSON ON BEHALF OF THOMAS RANDGAARD,2765 SHADYWOOD ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:43 P.M.—7:23 P.M. Brian Nelson, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the property owner was notified by the City last March that construction and/or earthwork within 75 feet of the lake requires a permit from the City. The letter was sent to the property owner as a courtesy in response to the City receiving notification of a Minnehaha Creek Watershed issued permit for rip-rap work. Also in March of 2013, the property owner received a permit from the City to remove a legally non-conforming porch from the south side of the home within 75 feet of the lake. In February of 2014, the applicant met with Planning Staff to discuss City requirements and the various aspects of the project that were already underway. Those projects include constructing two south facing elevated patios to replace an existing deck on the east and an existing porch with an on-grade patio on the west side of the property, both of which have been removed; re-paving the existing sidewalk with paver stones; and installing two rain gardens on the north side of the property. The property owner also received a cost-share grant from the MCWD to install shoreline buffer vegetation on the northern shoreline. The creation of the rain gardens and installation of the elevated patios result in filling and grading within 75 feet of the lake, which requires a conditional use permit. The sidewalk and the patios are not exact in- kind footprint replacements according to Staffs observations. In order to reorient or relocate non- conforming hardcover existing within 75 feet of the OHWL, a hardcover variance is required. The applicant is requesting after-the-fact conditional use permit approvals for land alteration in excess of ten cubic yards conducted within 75 feet of the OHWL to install rain gardens and elevated patios. An after-the-fact hardcover variance is also requested in order to approve the rearrangement of sidewalk hardcover as well as two elevated patios which were constructed in place of an existing porch that has been removed and an existing deck within 75 feet of the OHWL where structure or hardcover is normally not allowed. Because lake exists on both the north and the south sides of the property,the majority of the subject property is unbuildable as it is located within 75 feet of the OHWL. Lakeshore on two sides of a property as shallow as this one creates a practical difficulty. As a result, both proposed patios are located within 75 feet of the lake. The applicant has indicated that both patios are to be constructed in the same footprint as the pre-existing deck and porch. Hardcover within 75 feet of the lake is limited to driveways, stairs, lifts, landings and lockboxes. The applicant intends to replace non-conforming hardcover without increasing the square footage within the 75-foot setback. City Code requires that landowners must obtain a conditional use permit from the City prior to engaging in activities that include fill to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. Of the conditions required to be met, Items 2, 6, 7, 9, and 13 are generally applicable. Staff went through the analysis in the Staff report and Staff can discuss that if the Planning Commission wishes. According to State Statute, an existing non-conforming structure may be reconstructed in-kind provided the permit or request to do so is submitted within one year of removal. The property owner removed the porch in March of 2013 and the land use application was submitted on February 19, 2014, less than one Page 4 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. year after removal. Staff, however, does question the in-kind nature of the replacement since it appears the stair of the west patio is intended to be built lakeward of the extent of the pre-existing porch. It also appears that the elevated west patio will extend into the area of pre-existing on-grade patio. As this and the east patio are to be elevated above grade with decorative walls and/or corner posts, it would be considered an expansion of a nonconformity. There is also a portion of the stair on the west patio that is entirely outside any previously existing hardcover or structure and would be considered new structure. As it relates to the east patio,the submitted plans show a 3' x 8' stair toward the lake on the eastern deck which is not shown on the survey. Staff would discourage the further expansion of either patio area, particularly toward the lake. During Staffs inspection of the property, there was too much snow cover to determine the extent of the patios. The photos taken by Staff of the property show that the short walls and corner posts have not yet been constructed. The applicant should clarify the state of the various elements of this project. The property owner to the west has submitted comments and photographs. Staff recommends after-the-fact approval of the conditional use permit and setback and hardcover variances for two elevated patios, a new paver sidewalk, and installation of two rain gardens with the following conditions: 1. The City Engineer's recommendations should be followed. Curtis noted the applicant submitted a stormwater pollution prevention plan today. 2. The west patio should be limited to the extent of the previously existing porch footprint and not expand lakeward or into the area of the previous on-grade patio. 3. The west patio should be screened with vegetation on the west and south sides to screen the structure from views from the lake. 4. The east patio should not be permitted to expand closer to the lake than the previously existing deck. 5. The east patio should be screened with vegetation as much as feasible on the south side to screen the structure from views from the lake. 6. The eastern rain garden should be revised to meet the required 5-foot grading setback from the property line. 7. Corrected hardcover calculations should be submitted with the administrative permit application reflecting hardcover within and outside the 75-foot setback. Currently the numbers are combined. 8. An after-the-fact administrative permit is required for each of the elements of the project. The Planning Commissioners had no questions for Staff. Page 5 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Samuel Geer, Landscape Designer, stated in terms of the concerns of City Staff, he would like to point out is that initially they were not aware of the need to obtain a conditional use permit since they were utilizing permeable clean rock for fill for the elevated patio deck and it was not fill in the traditional sense. The excavation that would be necessary to construct the rain gardens was below the stated threshold of 10 cubic yards in the ordinance. Upon being alerted of that fact, Geer indicated they have endeavored to comply with all of Staff's requests in terms of additional planning and plan revisions in terms of adding additional screening and completing a detailed stormwater pollution prevention plan, which also includes an inspection component. Geer stated he would also like to point out that overall this project is dedicated to reducing the amount of hardcover presently on the property and instituting stormwater management practices, such as the elevated paver decks, which are actually built to be permeable, as well as the rain gardens and vegetative shoreline restoration on the north side of the property. Geer stated each of these items is intended to offset the new construction. Likewise, it should be noted that on the west patio,the one labeled H, that there was an existing at-grade deck that will be removed and returned to a permeable condition. Geer stated essentially there will be a net reduction in permeable surfaces. The proposed steps located around Patio H were located roughly over the footprint of an existing concrete slab that wooden steps stepped down previously. Geer stated as it relates to the steps coming off of Patio C, they are requesting that the variance basically take into consideration the fact that overall the hardcover has been reduced in a net sense. Geer indicated the steps are critical for the decking to match with the existing architectural interfaces. Geer stated given the exterior elevations of the entrances and exits to the structure, an attempt to not construct a staircase from the existing footprint would be very problematic and add greatly to the cost of the project. It would also potentially present a safety problem by not complying with the Code in terms of a landing. Geer indicated the steps would be inset into the patio. Leskinen asked when he says Patio H is to be returned to a permeable state, whether it is no longer going to be a patio. Geer indicated that is correct. Leskinen asked if that area is going to be grass or plantings. Geer indicated previously this area was a three-season porch but there a brick patio around the exterior of the three-season porch. The proposed paver deck rests within the existing three-season footprint that was there previously. Leskinen asked if there will be paver patio there instead. Geer stated previously there was a three-season porch there and that the brick patio will be removed and replaced with a mulch planting bed that will be permeable. Geer stated the dotted line depicts the existing at-grade deck constructed out of bricks. Brien Nelson, Applicant, indicated that deck was constructed out of pavers and has been removed. The proposed patio will go directly with the walls as seen in the elevations. The walls will go around the patio in the area between the three-season porch. Nelson indicated the patio will not be going any further out. Page 6 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis displayed a photograph of the house. Nelson pointed out the location of the three season porch and the location of the foundation. Nelson stated there will be a raised paver patio in that area. Lemke asked what will happen to the east of that. Nelson indicated there will be plantings in that area. Leskinen asked if that planting area is the only area that will be going back to a permeable state as the way permeable is defined. Leskinen noted permeable pavers are considered hardcover in Orono. Nelson indicated it is, but noted that they are also not adding any other hardcover and will be working within the existing hardcover areas. Lemke noted there are a number of downspouts and asked if those are draining into French drains on the property. Nelson stated those were installed prior to him being involved on this project and that he is not sure where they drain to. Lemke stated it appears that some of those go into drain tiles near the rain gardens. Nelson stated three downspouts will be piped directly into the rain gardens out in front and that there are two downspouts on the western side in the front of the house and one on the farther corner of the garage. Geer indicated he does have a drainage plan if the Planning Commission would be interested in seeing that. Schwingler asked where there would be room for a vegetation buffer around the west patio. Nelson indicated there is a planting design that buffers all the way around both of the paver decks. Schwingler noted the neighbor had expressed some concerns about screening. Curtis displayed the planting design on the overhead. Geer stated in order to comply with Staff's recommendations,they have created a screening plan. The footprint of the west deck would have a hedge to block the view of the adjacent property owner of the new proposed porch. There are also some foundation plantings consisting of a shrub barrier that would basically screen the front of the deck from views from the water and would provide more accented plantings. Leskinen asked if there is a sidewalk that goes around everything. Nelson indicated those would be stepping stones placed in the grass. Page 7 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Geer indicated it would not be a dense flagstone pattern and it is proposed to be single steppers spaced two feet apart. The hardcover calculation for that would comprise approximately 100 square feet and is not necessarily something that would be included in the plan at this point. Curtis noted that hardcover would require a variance. Landgraver asked if there will be vegetation to the right of the west deck. Geer pointed out the areas of vegetation. Geer noted the drawing is somewhat inaccurate and that some elements are no longer planned to be included within the plan. Leskinen stated she is wondering why a permit was not sought when the notification from the City last March was pretty clear that a permit was required for any movement outside of the rip-rap. Leskinen stated she has a question why the permit was not applied for until after the work was started. Nelson indicated when he was brought on to the project in the late fall, he was inaccurately directed on what was applied for and what was not. Since that time the front walkway has been completed within the same footprint as the previous concrete walkway. Work was then started on the larger patio. The walls were constructed as well as the pavers installed. At that point Nelson indicated he talked to Staff about the project and the various things that needed to be done prior to any further work being completed. Geer indicated there was a different project team involved with demolishing the three-season porch and that they did not have any communication with them. Geer stated they were not aware of the stipulations prior to notification from City Staff. Lemke asked if a demolition permit was required. Curtis indicated it is and that a permit had been issued in March of last year. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Jim Zimmerman, 2745 Shadywood Road, indicated he has resided next to this property for approximately 22 years and that Mr. Randgaard has resided there for approximately ten years. Zimmerman stated in his view Mr. Randgaard has been probably the worst possible neighbor that anyone could have. There have been numerous police calls to the property and it has been cited previously as an unruly house. Zimmerman stated when he first met Tom, he was told by him that he is going to have a lot of bashes at the house, which has proven to be true. Zimmerman indicated Mr. Randgaard has lived there a couple of brief occasions, with the house being abandoned for approximately two and a half years with the utilities shut off. In addition, the landscape was left to go wild and the gutters have fallen off. Zimmerman stated this has been a problem property in the past and that at one time Mayor Gabriel Jabbour caught Mr. Randgaard bringing tankers on to the property and the police were called. Zimmerman stated there was never a deck in that area. The two owners who lived there prior to Mr. Randgaard constructed a fully enclosed hot tub room off the master bedroom. Page 8 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Zimmerman submitted some pictures of the property prior to Mr. Randgaard owning the house. Zimmerman indicated there was never a three-season porch or a patio but a room that extended out three to four feet that contained a hot tub. Zimmerman stated the only use of the decks on this property has been as party decks and that large, industrial speakers were placed on them. As a result of the noise, the police were called many times in the early morning hours and that he is totally opposed to creating additional hardcover and putting a deck where there was never a deck previously. Zimmerman commented rain gardens are great and that he is supportive of those as well as the sidewalk since the sidewalk was previously overgrown with vegetation. Zimmerman stated rebuilding the existing deck off the family room is also not a problem but that he would strongly argue against putting another deck onto this house that was never there in the first place. Zimmerman indicated the other neighbor feels the same way but is currently in Florida. Zimmerman stated he would like to get some resolution to the problems. Zimmerman noted he had to call the police a couple of weeks because the door to the house was left wide open in 20 below weather and that he has no idea what is happening with the house. The police informed him that no one was in the house and that they closed the door. Zimmerman indicated this has been a bad situation for a long time. Lemke asked what was under the hot tub and whether there was any support. Zimmerman indicated he is not aware of what was under there and that he is assuming it was built up in some fashion. Schwingler asked what he feels about the proposed buffer with or without the deck. Zimmerman indicated he does not have a problem with the buffer, but that he would not be in favor of creating another deck since it would be close to the property line. Zimmerman stated the decks in the past have been used to hold large parties and that the police records reflect all the calls to that property. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Landgraver stated what he is troubled with is the characterization of the west patio, and asked whether it was permitted for something to be there. Gaffron stated according to the photographs,there appears to be a shed or roof next to the house, and because there is a valley coming down in that area, that is probably why there was a gap there. Landgraver asked if at some point a deck enclosure was constructed. Gaffron indicated there likely was but that he is not sure whether it was approved by the City. Landgraver asked if the issue is that they are not rebuilding an in-kind structure. Curtis stated based on the 2007 survey, it does not appear that it is entirely consistent with the structures on the property. Curtis indicated it is difficult to go back in time to see what was there to see if they are Page 9 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. replacing it in kind, but that the photograph does show a paver patio area. Curtis stated it is not clear from the photograph whether there is anything more than a paver patio. Leskinen stated it appears the enclosure was there. Curtis displayed the 2007 survey. Lemke asked if the location of the proposed deck is actually a covered space on the survey. Gaffron stated the survey is showing it as part of the house footprint. Landgraver asked if the definition of in-kind is merely the footprint or whether it is the whole vertical structure. Curtis indicated it is not. If the structure is taller than what existed, it would not be an in-kind rebuild. Curtis stated since the patio does not extend up as high as the previous structure, it would not be an in- kind rebuild. Curtis noted only a portion of the patio extends outside of what existed. Landgraver stated it appears the neighbor is concerned not necessarily about the footprint but about the role that the patio will have. Lemke asked if they could construct a patio in that footprint. Curtis indicated they could rebuild a room with a roof onto the house in that area. Staff's concern is that it is an elevated patio and is a bigger footprint than what existed. Leskinen stated they are putting their elevated paver patio where the room on the house used to be, and that if it is within that footprint, it would not be an issue. Curtis stated that is correct if it constructed in the area where the porch used to be. Berg stated the issue would be the stairs that extend beyond that footprint. Leskinen stated she has a concern about going beyond anything that was there. Leskinen indicated she does not have a problem with the rain gardens and the sidewalk in the front, but that she does have issues with going beyond what is already there in the back of the house. Leskinen stated in light of the fact that the owner basically ignored the City's letter that permits would be required, she would be less inclined to go beyond an in-kind replacement. Landgraver asked what the calendar issue is that was raised in Staff's report. Curtis stated state statute allows for someone to apply for an in-kind replacement within one year,which has been done. The intent of the state statute is to prevent someone from tearing something off and five years later asking to rebuild it. Landgraver stated in his view there were different presentations and different thoughts about the project and that he is not sure what the hardcover numbers exactly are. Page 10 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated Staff is requesting clarification on the hardcover numbers with the 75-foot setback since a portion of the house is located within the 75-foot setback. Curtis indicated there is some hardcover in a conforming location but it is not separated out from the 0-75 foot zone. Landgraver asked if additional information needs to be submitted on the stepping stones. Curtis stated she would like clarification on whether that is still part of the project since the landscaping plan is from last June. Leskinen stated it appears there is no flagstone walkway being proposed currently. Schwingler stated the outline by Patio H shows what was there before and on the proposed plan the little block is the new elevated stairs. Curtis stated that is what she understands it to be based on the survey and the applicant's plan. Curtis pointed out the larger patio area. Lemke asked if the replacement is not in kind due to the elevated stairs Curtis indicated it is also because they exist in an area that did not previously have hardcover. Geer stated the majority of the stairs are located within the previous footprint of the brick patio and there will only be a little piece that sticks out beyond the edges of where the pavers were previously. Leskinen noted they were not elevated previously. Geer stated they were not and that they are required to get from one elevation to another elevation. Schwingler noted previously that was a wall. Leskinen stated they could accomplish the same thing without encroaching any further and that she is not inclined to increase the encroachment. Schwingler and Berg indicated they are in agreement with that. Leskinen asked if there are any concerns with the conditional use permit aspect of the application. Landgraver indicated he does not have any. Schoenzeit moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3656, Brian Nelson on behalf of Thomas Randgaard,2765 Shadywood Road,granting of an after-the-fact variance and conditional use permit,subject to the conditions outlined in Staff's report and the City Engineer recommendations, and further subject to only allowing the use of the existing hardcover with no further encroachment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. #14-3657 REVISIONS, LLC,ON BEHALF OF LUCAS AND ELIZABETH DETOR, 1065 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCE,7:24 P.M.—7:34 P.M. Page 11 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. John Daly, Revisions, LLC, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in order to conduct improvements to the existing home and roofline ahead of the average lakeshore setback. The property owners are currently undergoing an interior remodel of the home and the builder is requesting approval of the setback variance to allow for primarily cosmetic improvements to the roof of the existing home on the property. Due to the configuration of the lakeshore and the neighboring homes,the existing home is situated almost entirely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Since the property to the west is vacant, the average lakeshore setback line for the subject property is somewhat assumed. The applicants have also proposed to remove the east lake-facing deck and construct a new deck with a screen porch and chimney facing the lake on the east side of the home ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed improvements to the home will be conforming with respect to all zoning district and lake setbacks, height, structural coverage, and hardcover limitations with the exception of the average lakeshore setback. The majority of the new roof with proposed screen porch and deck will be constructed entirely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicant has provided illustrations which highlight the proposed changes to the roof and the home. Portions of the roof will be raised above existing by two feet. The new deck will replace an existing deck which extends approximately two feet closer to the lake. The proposed screen porch will meet the required 30-foot side setback from the east property line but will be considered new structure ahead of the average setback line. A 30-foot tall chimney is also proposed to serve the fireplace to be installed in the screen porch on the east side. Due to the orientation of the lakeshore,the subject property functions as though it is a peninsula. The existing home is located almost entirely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line based on the existing home to the east and an estimated conforming location of a future home on the vacant lot to the west. Even with the nonconforming location of the previous home on the vacant lot to the west,the subject home is well ahead of the average lakeshore setback line and the home to the east is located well to the north of the subject home. It does not appear the views of the lake from the home to the east will be adversely impacted by the applicants' proposed changes to the roof. There is a significant amount of tree vegetation between that property and the subject property. The proposed screen porch, chimney and new deck may be visible from the property to the east, however, as that home appears to be primarily situated to face toward the southeast and does not have significant windows facing the lake over the subject project. Based on the shape and orientation of the vacant lot, it is reasonable to assume that a new residence will orient toward the lake and not over the subject property. Staff has not received any public comments regarding the request. Staff finds there is a practical difficulty in the shape and orientation of the property and lakeshore. In addition,the orientation of the adjacent lots toward the lake and the existing trees on the applicants and neighbor's property help ensure that the views of the lake enjoyed by the neighbors will not be significantly impacted by the proposed screen porch with chimney, new deck, and changes to the shape and height of the roof. If the Planning Commission finds practical difficulties exist justifying the requested variances, a recommendation of approval of the average lakeshore setback variance would be appropriate. Page 12 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked if there are any considerations for adding a chimney on to a porch that the Planning Commission should take into account. Curtis indicated it is something for the Planning Commission to discuss and that it is a part of the application. Schoenzeit asked if the height of the chimney is required to make it work properly. Curtis indicated this chimney is considered a non-encroachment into a side setback and is not a non- encroachment into an average setback. Schoenzeit asked if it would be a building height issue. Curtis indicated this particular chimney would not be and that chimneys are allowed to be higher under City Code. John Daly, Revision, LLC, stated the existing deck is closer to the lakeside of the house, and in removing and replacing that deck, they are going two feet further away from the lake. The chimney will also provide some screening for this residence and the house next door. Daly noted there is also quite a bit of vegetation already between the two homes. Daly noted the shape of this lot and the neighboring lots is unique as well as the fact that the property next door is vacant. Daly indicated Staff has a picture of the old house on what is now the vacant lot depicting how close it was to the lake. Lemke asked if the owner has discussed this project with the neighbor. Daly indicated the property owners have recently purchased the property and that they did attempt to speak to the neighbor but that they are in Florida at the present time. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Leskinen indicated she did visit the property and that this seems like a very reasonable request. Lemke commented the significant amount of vegetation on that side of the property which also helps to screen the project. Landgraver asked if the vegetation on this property or the neighboring property. Curtis stated it appears the majority of the trees are on the applicant's property. Landgraver stated he does have a concern with the use of the chimney during the summer since the neighbor has not weighed in on it. Landgraver noted the chimney is conforming and that it is not unusual for a chimney to be part of a structure. Page 13 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit noted a fire pit would need to be located further off the property line. Landgraver stated that is the only issue that bothers him and that the structure will not add significant massing near the lakeshore. Leskinen stated the issue with the average lakeshore setback is primarily view and that she does not believe this project will obstruct anyone's view. Leskinen noted she did not walk over to the neighbor's property given the snow. Schwingler stated he did not see an issue with that when he walked the property. Lemke moved, Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3657,Revision, LLC, on behalf of Lucas and Elizabeth Detor, 1065 Ferndale Road West,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. #14-3658 SUNCREST BUILDERS-WAUSAU HOMES, ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND ALICE REIMANN, 440 BIG ISLAND,VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:34 P.M.—8:07 P.M. Grant Johnson, Suncrest Builders, was present. Curtis stated in August of 2013,the subject property was involved in a lot line rearrangement to combine three nonconforming Big Island record lots into two record lots. The property currently contains a 700 square foot seasonal cabin. The property owner wishes to construct a new 2,400 square foot seasonal cabin while maintaining the existing 700 square foot cabin as a guest cabin. Guest cabins are a permitted accessory use on Big Island, but a guest cabin which exceeds 600 square feet requires a conditional use permit. Since the property owner wishes to keep the existing 700 square foot guest cabin, a lot area variance is required in order to construct the new seasonal cabin. In addition, it appears the open porch portion of the proposed cabin extends into the average lakeshore setback area and therefore an average lakeshore setback variance is also required. The lot area and width variances granted to the record lots on big Island formalized the existence of properties which did not conform to the area and width standards of the RS-Seasonal Recreational District. The record lot status offered assurances to the property owners that their properties could be developed without variances for uses considered to be a basic right of ownership on Big Island. Not all property owners took advantage of the record lot variance process. The record lot variance, however, did not allow for an intensification of the use of the property without further City review. The applicant's request to construct a new seasonal cabin on a property less than 5.0 acres is reasonable and fits within the parameters of the allowed uses outlined in the record lot resolution. The need for the lot area variance is due to the applicant's desire to keep the existing cabin and convert it to a guest cabin. The proposed hardcover and structural coverage levels are below what is permitted. It does not appear the proposed seasonal cabin will increase the feel of structural massing on the property to any level of significance. The RS District setbacks, bluff setbacks, and lakeshore setbacks will be met with the Page 14 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. exception of the average lakeshore setback. The proposed open porch is shown to be located within the average lakeshore setback and a variance will be necessary. Staff finds the applicant's request for a conditional use permit and lot area variance is reasonable. The subject property is heavily wooded and elevated above lake level approximately 30 to 40 feet making visibility of the new seasonal cabin difficult when viewed from the lake. All required setbacks and zoning standards can be met. However, Staff questions the need to grant an average lakeshore setback variance. The seasonal cabin can be reoriented slightly to meet the setback or redesigned if necessary. By code, conditionally permitted uses must be reviewed using the criteria found in Section 78-916. Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance permitting construction of a new 2,400 square foot seasonal cabin on a substandard record lot. The approval shall be subject to strict adherence to all applicable environmental codes relating to septic treatment and water supply as well as all building and zoning codes. 2. Approval of the conditional use permit to allow maintenance of the guest cabin which exceeds 600 square feet. The existing plumbing and kitchen facilities must be removed from the guest cabin. 3. Denial of the average lakeshore setback variance for the proposed seasonal cabin to extend into the average lakeshore setback. Lemke asked why the existing plumbing and kitchen facilities must be removed from the guest cabin. Curtis indicated that is a requirement within the Code and that a seasonal guest cabin on Big Island is for sleeping only and not independent dwellings. Schwingler noted they could rent it out. Curtis stated it would also add additional septic requirements for bedrooms. Staff is still working through the subject approvals but Staff is confident they will be compliant. The City's septic inspector is currently reviewing the applicant's proposal. Lemke asked whether those bedrooms would count if the plumbing is removed. Curtis indicated they would not. Grant Johnson, Suncrest Builders, stated they generally agree with what Staff is recommending. Johnson stated they did have some questions about the removal of the plumbing. The current septic system was designed for a four-bedroom facility and the new structure will have three bedrooms with a loft area. The guest cabin is a one-bedroom facility. Johnson stated the question is if one of the bedrooms is removed out of the proposed structure, whether the plumbing can remain in the one-bedroom guest cabin. Curtis stated that would need to be specifically included in any approvals since it would be contrary to what the Code would allow regardless of the number of bedrooms. Page 15 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Johnson noted they are also proposing to remove the roof off of the existing deck on the lake side. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Leskinen asked if there is only one structure on the property at the present time. Curtis indicated there is. Leskinen asked if the requirement to remove plumbing in the cabin is because it would be an accessory structure once the new structure is constructed. Curtis stated on Big Island, the Code allows someone to have guest quarters and does not relate to septic requirements. Leskinen asked if it is different than the main land. Curtis indicated it is since a person on the main land would be allowed to have a toilet and a sink in an outbuilding. Berg asked if they go with three bedrooms versus four bedrooms whether that would allow them to keep the kitchen. Curtis stated it would not. Curtis noted septic is a completely separate issue and the plumbing is a zoning issue in this application. Curtis indicated retention of the plumbing facilities is something the Planning Commission can discuss and approve with conditions if necessary. Schwingler asked if the applicant is asking for the plumbing to remain. Curtis indicated it is her understanding that he is. Lemke asked if the basement would count as a story. Lemke noted Staff's report says that the structure cannot be more than two and a half stories. Curtis indicated she has not done an analysis on that but that the applicant would not be allowed to exceed the City's height requirements. Curtis stated it appears that a considerable amount of the structure will be the ground based on the survey. Lemke noted it says no structure shall exceed two and a half stories and shall not exceed 30 feet. Lemke asked if it would be considered three stories. Curtis stated it is her belief the basement in this situation would be considered a basement and not a story. Curtis indicated Staff will conduct that analysis and that the perimeter of the full basement would be what Page 16 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. would be used in that analysis. Anything over 50 percent of that would need to meet the City's definition of a story. Curtis noted the applicant is not looking for a variance from that at this time. Landgraver asked if the removal of the roof on the porch would alter the fact that it still extends into the setback. Curtis stated it would not. Landgraver asked if there are neighboring properties that would be impacted. Curtis stated there is a cabin on each of the adjoining properties which determines the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis stated it is her belief this cabin will not be very visible, and that the inclusion of the porch, deck, carousel or other structure will not be blocking the lake view from the neighboring properties but it is a setback requirement that needs to be addressed. Curtis displayed an aerial property of the subject property and two adjoining properties. Curtis noted there is a significant amount of vegetation between the properties. Curtis stated the elevation of the grade also drops down and that the south side of the applicant's home is located on the high point of the property and then it drops down on either side. Lemke asked if the house could be moved back ten feet. Curtis stated Staff is suggesting that but that the builder would need to speak to the topography of the land and whether that would impact their plans. John Reimann, 21957 Minnetonka Boulevard, Greenwood, stated they are attempting to minimize the impact on the land and any excavation that would be required. Leskinen asked if there is a clearing where the new home could be pushed back into. Reimann stated the lot is very wooded and that they are placing the home in the clearing that currently exists. Reimann indicated there is a number of beautiful maple trees located on the property. Landgraver asked if he would be amenable to excavating a little bit more to locate the house further back which would eliminate the need for a variance. Reimann stated they would be, but that he does not really understand what is meant by an average setback. Reimann noted the current house has existed in that location since approximately 1957 and that they would like to be able to appreciate the lake without the cabin being in the way. Reimann indicated given the elevation of the lot, a person cannot see the water until they are right up to the shore. Reimann stated they would like to minimize any disruption to the land as much as possible but that they would be willing to do whatever needs to be done. Leskinen stated she appreciates the applicant not wanting to further disrupt the land and the trees. Leskinen stated with the roof of the deck being removed, it would be less impactful, but that she is not sure if the desire for minimal disruption of the land is enough of a practical difficulty for an average lakeshore variance. Leskinen indicated she is more inclined to be okay with it under these circumstances but that she is open to other thoughts on the matter. Page 17 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated in his view less disruption would be better and that the variance would be unique to this property. Landgraver asked if the house to the south is in a different orientation. Curtis indicated it is. Landgraver asked if the house to the north is almost parallel with this house. Curtis indicated it is. Leskinen commented the average lakeshore setback line is challenging on an island with a lakeshore that curves. Landgraver noted this is new development, and if there is an opportunity to do it correctly, the Planning Commission should not dismiss it that quickly. Schwingler stated not having the variance would be preferred but that he understands the desire to retain the trees. Lemke stated it appears from the tree survey that they would only be disrupting one 8-inch tree to move the house further back. Schwingler stated given that, he would lean more toward denial of the average lakeshore setback variance provided the tree survey is correct. Curtis stated the survey does depict the trees. Schoenzeit asked if the survey is essentially correct. Johnson stated there are a number of trees that are smaller than what is required to be placed on a survey but that it is essentially correct. Berg asked if the deck would be located within the 0-75 foot zone. Curtis stated the entire back part of the deck would be within the 0-75-foot zone as well as a portion of the screen porch. Berg stated if it is moved back three to five feet, it would not be in the average lakeshore setback. Berg asked if the applicant would be impacted by moving the structure back three to five feet to eliminate the need for the average lakeshore setback variance. Johnson stated he is not sure whether that would impact them and noted the majority of the screen porch is outside the average lakeshore setback but the deck is not. Johnson pointed out the location of the screen porch and that a little corner of it would fall into that setback. Lemke noted the deck encroaches into the setback. Page 18 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Johnson stated in the discussions he has had with the property owners, it appears the further back the house is located,the more impact the cabin would have on the view. Lemke stated the deck is six feet wide and would need to be moved five to six feet. Johnson stated they would not be blocking any views from the one direction, and that if the house on the neighboring property gets rebuilt, it would be oriented a different way. Johnson stated it would not be a desirable line of sight if that house faces this property, especially given the trees. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is struggling with whether the structure should be located behind the average setback line. Johnson stated it can be done but that it is a preference on the property owners' part to locate it there. Landgraver asked if the practical difficulty is the view of the old cabin and the topography of the land. Johnson indicated it is and would result in one tree needing to be removed if the house is pushed further back. Johnson stated there is a small change in the elevation of the grades,which would not be much of an issue if the structure is moved further back, but that part of the challenge is also providing access for equipment. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is okay with the conditional use permit. Gaffron noted the Big Island Code was adopted back in 1983 or 1984 and that this is the first time a question has come up regarding plumbing in a guest cabin on Big Island. The Code talks about guest cabins as a conditional use when they have indoor toilet and/or kitchen facilities. The provision that would need to be met is that it has to be connected. The other provision has to do with the size of the building. Gaffron indicated he would rather let the City Attorney look at this prior to the plumbing being removed from the guest house since it appears the code may be in conflict with itself. Lemke asked what options the Planning Commission has on this application. Leskinen stated the Planning Commission could approve the application, deny it, or ask if the applicants would like to table it to allow them to redesign/relocate the structure. Leskinen stated she does not see any strong reason to table it. Schoenzeit moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3658, Suncrest Builders-Wausau Homes on behalf of John and Alice Reimann,440 Big Island, granting of a lot area variance and a conditional use permit for a guest cabin which exceeds 600 square feet,and to deny the request for an average lakeshore setback variance for a portion of the proposed seasonal cabin to extend into the average lakeshore setback,with the recommendation that the subject building be located behind the average lakeshore setback,subject to a review by the City Attorney on the plumbing requirements for the guest cabin,and subject to Staffs recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. #14-3654 JOHN BESSESEN ON BEHALF OF DAVID DELANEY,2500 KELLY AVENUE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW,8:07 P.M.—8:50 P.M. Page 19 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. John Bessesen, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is representing the property owners and that they are proposing a sketch plan for the property that is located slightly behind the Lund's building on Kelly Avenue. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission did look at a previous sketch plan for this property which did not go forward. The applicants are proposing ten dwelling units in five attached twin homes of two units each. The property is currently zoned LR-1B, One-Family Lakeshore Residential district,which permits single- family residential use with a minimum lot size of 1.0 dry buildable acre and 140 foot lot width. Multi- family attached residential use is not listed as an allowed use in the LR-1B but it would allow as a conditional use a PRD development of single-family detached homes but not attached homes as proposed. The proposed twin home development would require a rezoning to RPUD. The 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for residential use. At the time the Comprehensive Plan was submitted to the Metropolitan Council,this area was historically zoned for one- half acre and one-acre lots. The density was guided under the Comprehensive Plan as low-medium density, which would consist of two to three units per acre. This density is typical of existing development in the Navarre area but does not coincide with the density that would result from one-acre zoning. The property is surrounded by a variety of existing uses consisting of the First National Bank of the Lakes,the Englund Dental Office, Lund's Grocery, and vacant and residentially used sites to the northeast along Shadywood. The property to the southeast at Kelly has been purchased by the International Ministerial Fellowship, which also owns the office/church building at 247 Shadywood. On the west side of Kelly Avenue are four units of twin homes south of the bowling alley and then a number of single- family homes on large lakeshore lots. Gaffron noted the applicants have not presented a preliminary plat drawing at this early stage. The sketch plan presented by the applicants is a concept similar to the layouts of Stonebay and the twin homes on Kelly Avenue behind the bowling alley. A private road would be developed within the outlot as well as stormwater ponding and easements for the existing wetland. The location for access onto Kelly Avenue s limited due to the location of the wetland on the property. The applicants are proposing to create a private road accessing Kelly Avenue at the north end of the site directly opposite the driveway serving the existing twin homes on Kelly. This driveway location would have to be reviewed for sight distance since it is just past the bend in the road and could have reduced visibility. An alternative access point is at the south end of the site. A flowage and conservation easement was granted with the original plat in 1981, placing severe restrictions on approximately 1.6 acres of the 4.6 acre site. No hardcover or structures would be allowed within the area and any vegetation removal would require the approval of the City. In addition, no excavation or filling would be allowed that would alter the natural drainage patterns. One of the questions that remain is whether the area contained within the easement can be credited as dry buildable land. Staff would also note that the site contains a number of steep slopes and in practice the City has allowed development of steep slopes exceeding 12 percent or 18percent subject to appropriate design and erosion control considerations. A question to be considered is whether the flowage and conservation easement can or should be revised. As currently written, it would prohibit the proposed road access location to Kelly Avenue at the north end of the property. Gaffron stated a detailed analysis of the extent of potential flooding in this area would Page 20 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. help determine whether the entire flowage and conservation easement area can be credited as dry buildable. Gaffron noted the City Engineer has not reviewed whether there are any needs for additional right-of-way for Kelley Avenue, which is a City street. Kelly Avenue has a right-of-way with of 60 feet for its north- south leg and widens to 66 feet as it jogs to the southeast. Past issues with stormwater temporarily flooding Kelly Avenue make stormwater management a high priority on this site. The applicant is showing a stormwater ponding area on the sketch plan. The entire property is within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka and is subject to the Shoreland regulations. Although it is currently designated as Hardcover Tier 3, rezoning to RPUD would revise that designation to Hardcover Tier 4. Landgraver asked if Staff could provide some background on the other twin homes on Kelly. Gaffron indicated those twin homes were constructed in the late1970s and used to house the fire station directly to the south of them. The twin homes were developed under a Planned Residential Development and predate the City's current Comprehensive Plan. Berg stated to her recollection they were there in 1979. Gaffron stated this is a similar develop to Stonebay with everything around it being in an outlot owned by an association. A different concept west of the Navarre water Tower has four units with two double pads and yards on three sides, with the rest of the land being owned by the association. Lemke asked if the turnaround would be permitted. Gaffron indicated it is an option as long as the Fire Department approves it. Gaffron stated the City has used T-intersections in the past but it would probably be pretty difficult to construct a cul-de-sac given the slope. John Bessesen, 4500 North Shore Drive, stated he has been looking at this piece of property for quite a while. Bessesen noted he did propose a different concept plan for this lot but the City Council was not in favor of it. Bessesen stated they also have a couple of parcels that the Delaney family owns up at the top of the hill and this property abuts the back of that. Bessesen indicated they are planning on doing something on the commercial side with those properties sometime down the road. The property was surveyed last year and all the utilities and easements on the site have been identified. In addition, an environmental company was hired to take a look at the property and they have presented their report to the Watershed District. The wetlands were identified prior to any frost going into the ground. Bessesen indicated over a period of time the wetland area has decreased in size and the environmental company delineated it according to the 2010 Midwest Region Watershed Plans. Bessesen indicated he does not know what happens with the runoff from all of the hardcover from the retail up on the hill and where that drains to. A retention pond is planned for this site that would flow into the lower area from the upper area. Bessesen stated they wanted to come into Navarre with a plan for senior housing that was a more upscale development. The units would sell between 550,000 and 700,000. The lower level would be for entertaining and the ground level would be for the main living. Bessesen indicated they wanted the Page 21 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. residents to be able to drive into the garage and have all of the living area on the main level. Bessesen indicated two stories are harder to sell since that is not attracted to that age group. Bessesen stated the individual would own the property under the town home but the rest of the property would be owned by an association. The rest of the property would largely be kept in a natural state and would require low maintenance and also screening between this development and Kelly Avenue. Bessesen stated he does not really make any difference where the road comes in, but that he wanted to create a neighborhood feel with this group of townhomes. Lemke asked if he has any concern with the amount of slope. Bessesen stated towards the top it gets a little flatter and that he wanted to keep the walkout design. Each level would have a western exposure, which in his view would be an amenity rather than a disadvantage. Berg asked if a market analysis has been done on that price point. Bessesen indicated there has been one done. Bessesen stated he also had help from Francine Delaney, who is a real estate agent in this area. Bessesen stated for someone who is downsizing from a home on the lake, these units are not that high priced. Berg stated she lives in that area and is very familiar with it. Berg stated in her view the area next to this development is Lund's and that these units might be higher than what would normally be paid. Bessesen noted some of the houses on Kelly are more expensive than what these will be. Bessesen indicated these units will be a brand-new design with cedar shakes and vaulted ceilings. Berg asked if there is a walking trail being proposed. Bessesen stated they would like to construct one up to the commercial area. Schoenzeit asked how many square feet the homes would be. Bessesen indicated they would between 3,000 to 4,000 square feet or roughly 2,000 square feet each level. Schoenzeit asked if that is per side. Bessesen indicated it is. Bessesen stated there would also be a two-car garage since it seems like two people are happy with that. Leskinen stated her biggest concern would relate to the drainage. Bessesen stated they would need to make the appropriate calculations on the drainage based on the hardcover on the lot but that there is room on the site for a retention pond. The Minnehaha Water Creek District has classified the wetland on the site as a Class III wetland,which is a very low grade wetland. Berg commented the area used to be very wet. Page 22 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Bessesen stated there is a huge amount of hardcover up the hill and that water must have been diverted at some time in the past. Leskinen stated another issue she has would relate to the turnaround and whether that would be adequate for emergency vehicles. Leskinen stated she would like to see another option perhaps. Bessesen stated this is similar to other projects they have designed with hammerheads but that they would have to have the fire department review it. Landgraver asked whether single-family homes have been contemplated at all. Bessesen stated he did look at five single-family homes but that in his view an association with the outlots dedicated as open space would offer a better setting. Bessesen noted the current real estate market is more geared towards the 55 and older market. The Navarre business area also provides some attractions and the back of the lot abutting Lund's could be screened. Schoenzeit asked if the homes would have both city sewer and water. Bessesen indicated they would. Leskinen commented she likes the concept of the conservation area and open space. Berg stated she would prefer to see one less town house with more space in between the homes. Bessesen stated he is attempting to keep the lawn maintenance down. Berg stated her other concern relates to traffic. Berg noted the residents would not be going down to 19 and 15 to get to this development but would be coming down Kelly or Lydiard. Berg commented that people think Kelly Avenue is a raceway already and that one less town home would result in less traffic. Berg stated these homes would generate less traffic than single-family homes. Schoenzeit commented the sketch plan is a good starting point but that the drainage is an issue that will need to look at to help determine how much hardcover should be added to the site. Berg noted Kelly has experienced some flooding issues in the past. Gaffron stated the system that was installed a couple of decades ago sometimes does not work properly and that there have been some flooding issues periodically. Bessesen stated he has not done some of the preliminary work yet in order to save costs and that he wanted to get the input of the Planning Commission and City Council first. Lemke stated in his view the concept and density makes sense and that his only concern is with the slope and preserving the natural amenities of the site. Berg suggested he also consider conserving as many trees as possible. Page 23 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Bessesen stated his environmental people will be conducting a tree survey. Gaffron noted this is technically not a public hearing so it is not necessary to obtain public comment at this point. Leskinen stated the concept appears to fit the area but that there are some challenges that will need to be overcome. Bessesen stated he also would be interested in perhaps setting up some work sessions with the City Council on this concept plan. Schwingler commented keeping the money in the community is an attractive piece to the concept and that if there is a way to help improve the Navarre area, it should be explored. Berg commented it hopefully will encourage other people to reinvest in Navarre. Gaffron noted these units will be mostly hidden from Navarre but it will provide a new type of housing in the area. Bessesen stated this type of housing is needed in Orono and would allow people to stay in the community. Schwingler commented housing that will encourage people to stay in the area is also a positive. Landgraver stated in his view the development will be overwhelming to the residents given the massing and that the applicant may want to consider reducing the number of units down to four rather than five. Schwingler stated the people who are attracted to this type of development like that closeness and that they would be aware of the massing before they move into there. Schoenzeit commented the developer is looking to make an investment in the area and that it is important that it is not all take by the City and that the developer needs to realize some economic return on his development. Gaffron asked if the applicant would like to bring this concept plan to the City Council at the first meeting in April. Bessesen indicated he would like to tweak the plan slightly. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 7. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: FEBRUARY 24,2014,AND MARCH 10,2014. Leskinen noted she attended the February 24, 2014, City Council meeting. All planning items went on the consent agenda except for the application at 4705 Watertown Road proposing the oversized accessory structure. A concern was raised about the structure being located too close to the road and was tabled to Page 24 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. allow the applicant to relocate it. The Groupon proposal was approved for the golf course and the new Park Commission was made official. Leskinen noted the City Council went into closed session at the end of the meeting. Gaffron noted the barn was approved at the March 10 meeting. The Goodwin application for an 8-foot fence was also approved as well as the Keene Avenue application. The Orono Orchard Road application requesting vacation of an easement was placed on the Consent Agenda. Gaffron noted John Thiesse was reappointed to the Planning Commission. Also discussed was legislation being proposed to allow cities to advertise and place notices on their website as opposed to the local newspaper. 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron stated a question that has come up is whether or not the Planning Commission would like to have their meetings videotaped. Gaffron requested the Planning Commission think about that and then get back to him on their thoughts. Landgraver asked if there is a demand for it in the community. Levang stated since the City now has the technological capability and the ability to live stream the meetings, it was felt that this would be a move towards greater transparency and allow people to understand the process better. Levang indicated it would not be a significant added expense for the City since the equipment is already here. Leskinen asked what it would cost the City. Levang indicated it would cost the City approximately $1,000 a year. Levang stated the idea has not been discussed yet with the City Council and was a recommendation from the committee. Leskinen stated if there is not a demand for it, the City should think about whether they should spend the money on that service. Gaffron stated the City Attorney would like to schedule a joint work session for April 28 at either 5:00 or 5:30 p.m. Another option is for the City Council to attend the May 1 Planning Commission work session. Gaffron indicated he will send out an e-mail to the Commissioners and they can respond on whether they will be able to attend on April 28. Gaffron stated an entity called Government Training Services puts on planning seminars and that there are some upcoming land use planning workshops that deal with audio, websites,and the basics of planning and zoning in May, June and September. Gaffron indicated Staff will provide information to the Planning Commissioners on those seminars. ADJOURNMENT Berg moved, Schwingler seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:08 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Page 25 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 17,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 26 of 26