Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/21/2014 Planning Commission Minutes 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 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, Christopher McGrann, Loren Schoenzeit, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2014 Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of March 17,2014,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #14-3653 PETER JARVIS WITH STONEBROOK DEVELOPMENT,LLC,ON BEHALF OF STONEBAY COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION AND BUILDERS DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE,755,757,759,771,773,AND 775 BRIDGEWATER DRIVE,AND LOT 18 STONEBAY 4TH ADDITION,PRELIMINARY PLAT(REPLAT)AND EASEMENT VACATION,6:33 P.M.— 6:44 P.M. Peter Jarvis,Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for replatting six vacant Stonebay rambler lots into five building lots to allow for slightly larger dwellings. Since the replat also involves a portion of the Stonebay commons area(Lot 18)which is subject to a drainage and utility easement, vacation of the affected portion of that easement is also being requested. The applicant is proposing to replat these six narrow pads into five slightly wider pads to help resolve some of the individual site layout issues that were found in the original platting in 2005. Gaffron displayed the layout of the originally proposed Stonebay development. Gaffron pointed out the location of the wetlands,the retaining walls,and the six vacant lots. Gaffron displayed a layout of the proposed five lots. Gaffron indicated the drainage and utility easement over this area of the development will need to be vacated. Due to the location and orientation of wetlands,these existing lots are slightly narrower than the other rambler lots in Stonebay. This has resulted in long,narrow home designs that extend to the rear of the individual pads,nearly abutting the established wetland buffers, leaving no mowable yard space in which to walk around the house. Reduction from six to five units will result in homes that are wider and not so deep as well as allow for a bit of separation from the wetland buffers that was absent in the original platting. In addition,the replat Page 1 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. will better allow for the required 15-foot separation between the two unit groupings and will eliminate the need for shared driveways. Gaffron displayed a color rendition of the proposed type of house for the development. Gaffron stated the Stonebay Homeowners Association has been actively procuring builders to complete the development and is providing architectural oversight to ensure consistent design through the subdivision and has approved the replat. The previously approved grading and drainage plans,as well as landscape plans from the original approved plat,will remain essentially unchanged as a result of the replat. In addition to the replat,the applicant is proposing to combine two existing building pads,Lots 7 and 8, into one building pad at the north end of Boulder Drive. This will resolve a longstanding site layout issue in which a triple-shared driveway would have been so constricted by wetlands and retaining wall proximity as to make the westerly pad nearly unbuildable. The combination to allow for one home instead of two at this location is supported by the two adjacent neighbors. Gaffron noted this will only require administrative approval and Staff has no issues with the proposal. Staff recommends approval of the replat and easement vacation/rededication as proposed, subject to City Attorney review and approval of the pertinent subdivision and easement documents. Lemke asked if the retaining wall pretty much follows the contours. Gaffron indicated it does and noted the only place that will require retaining walls will be between the three lots to the north and the two to the south. Gaffron stated in general it does not really impact the drainage or landscape plans but will reduce some of the encroachments. McGrann asked if the homeowners association has commented on the application. Gaffron stated the homeowners association has indicated they are fine with reducing the number of lots from six to five. Lemke asked if Staff has the landscaping plan and whether it needs to be updated. Gaffron stated Staff does have a landscaping plan but it does not need to be updated. Gaffron stated the landscape plan is not available as an overhead. Thiesse asked if the homes will be walkouts. Gaffron indicated they will be one-story with a walkout. Gaffron stated one of the problems with the original proposal was that the developer wanted to maximize the land as much as possible. Gaffron indicated this was at the point when the Watershed District reviewed the wetland delineation after the preliminary plat approval. As a result,the Watershed District allowed the buildings to be closer to the wetlands than what is now allowed. Gaffron stated that resulted in the City in 2005 or 2006 to require a 20-foot gap between the wetland buffer and a building,but noted this subdivision was originally developed prior to that. The City has Page 2 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. since gone away with a buffer requirement and has instead implemented a setback requirement. Gaffron stated with this subdivision,the City is honoring the original approvals in terms of the wetlands. Landgraver asked if the yard maintenance is done by the homeowners association. Gaffron indicated it is. Peter Jarvis,Applicant, stated he had nothing to add to Staff s report. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Leskinen commented the proposal is an improvement over what currently exists and that she has no issues with the application. Schoenzeit asked as it relates to the retaining walls, whether they are incorporated into the landscape plans. Gaffron stated they are and that the retaining walls, if built, will consist of the same type of boulders that have been used in the other retaining walls. Thiesse moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3653, Stonebrooke Development,LLC, and Stonebay Homeowners Association,755, 757, 759,771, 773, and 775 Bridgewater Drive,and Lot 18, Stonebay 4th Addition,granting preliminary plat approval and vacation of the drainage and utility easement over Lot 18,subject to review by the City Attorney. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 3. #14-3660 AL AND DONNA HAGEN,3655 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:44 P.M.—6:55 P.M. Al Hagen, Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting lot area,hardcover and lake setback variances in order to construct a new home. The applicant purchased the home from his parents in 1984 and is proposing to remove the current home which has existed on the property since the 1920s. The house has a cracked foundation and the basement sits below lake level, which causes water damage issues. The applicant is proposing to construct a new, similarly sized home. The lot is nonconforming with respect to area and has lakeshore on essentially two sides resulting in a very limited conforming building site. The existing home on the property extends into the 75-foot lake setback area. The demolition of the home does not necessarily result in the need for a conditional use permit but the applicant is proposing to construct the new home into the 75-foot setback and minor grading within the setback is shown. The City Engineer has reviewed the applicant's grading plan and did not identify any significant concerns. The final grading plan will be reviewed at the time of building permit submittal and the applicant will need to comply with all of the City Engineer's requirements at that time. Page 3 of 19 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. The applicant's property is approximately 0.38 acre in size where 0.5 acre is required. The property is also located along the channel between North Arm and Crystal Bay resulting in lakeshore on functionally two sides with a steep slope up to County Road 51 to the rear. The proposed home meets the 10-foot side setback as well as the 30-foot setback from the rear lot line. The majority of the property is located within the 0-75 foot zone. The applicant is proposing a plan which does not result in additional hardcover over what currently exists and is proposing to construct the new home in generally the same location as the existing home. The total proposed hardcover is below 25 percent. However, due to the shape of the lot,much of the proposed hardcover is within the 75-foot setback, which will require a variance. The existing home on the property does extend into the 75-foot lake area as well. Demolition of the home does not require a conditional use permit for the grading but minor grading within the 75-foot setback is proposed with the new home's construction. The City Engineer has reviewed the grading plan and did not identify any significant • concerns. By code, conditionally permitted uses must be reviewed using the criteria found in Section 78-916 and 78-1286 of the Shoreland regulations. With regard to this application, Items 2, 6, 7, 9 and 13 are generally applicable and Staffs analysis is included in Staffs report. Upon review, Staff believes the proposed grading within the 75-fot area is necessary and will have no impact on surrounding lands. Drainage patterns for runoff leaving the site are not proposed to be significantly altered. Additionally,the proposed grading within the 75-foot setback has been designed to minimize any environmental impacts. Staff finds the orientation of the property with respect to the county road,the private access road, and the lakeshore results in a practical difficulty for locating a conforming envelope for a reasonable sized home. The conforming building pad is approximately 45 feet deep and varies between 40 to 12 feet in width as the 75-foot setback cuts through at an angle. The applicant's proposed home is very similar in footprint size and shape to the existing home that is. being replaced. The plans for the new home reflect sensitivity regarding height and massing as the second story portion of the home is located away from the lake. The design and orientation should reduce the feel of massing with the 75-foot setback area,particularly along the channel. Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and variances. Lemke asked if they need a variance if they are replacing exactly in kind. Curtis indicated they do not but that the applicant's proposal is to construct the home beyond what currently exists. The new house will consist of the same square footage as the existing house. Landgraver asked if there will be a basement. Curtis indicated there will not be and that it will be a slab on grade construction. Al Hagen,Applicant, stated he would be willing to address any questions the Planning Commission may have. Hagen indicated they are proposing to relocate the new home ten feet from the property line and that they have pivoted the original footprint on the one corner of the garage. Hagen stated they are also staying away from the county access located in the back as well as the utility easement. The reason for relocating it slightly was to make it ten feet from the neighboring property rather than eight feet. Page 4 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the green line on the overhead depicts the 75-foot setback and that a small corner of the house encroaches slightly into the setback. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Landgraver commented that this application reduces the hardcover and is a well thought out proposal. Landgraver noted the adjacent neighbor has a two-story home and has not voiced any opposition to the proposal. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement and that she likes the idea of eliminating the encroachments and reducing the hardcover. Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3660,Al and Donna Hagen,3655 North Shore Drive,granting of lot area,hardcover,and lake setback variances and granting of a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. #14-3661 BECHLER LANDSCAPE ON BEHALF OF SCOTT AND JILL WINE,2605 KELLY AVENUE,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:55 P.M.—8:20 P.M. Elizabeth Sedgwick,Vice President of Bechler Landscape, was present. Curtis stated the owners purchased the property in 2013. Earlier this year a permit was issued for construction of the new residence on the property and the existing home has been demolished. In addition to the new home,the homeowner is requesting a conditional use permit and hardcover variance in order to reconstruct a lake access stair, correct an erosion concern with stabilizing material on an existing path to the lake and install a new retaining wall within the 75-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. The applicant has provided a plan to rebuild the lake access stair near the boathouse, install a geo block system under the soil on the existing gravel pathway,with the gravel being replaced with grass. The retaining wall is the only new hardcover that is being proposed. All work is located outside or above the one percent chance of annual flood elevation. Curtis stated the hardcover calculations provided do not include an approximate 200 square foot treehouse located at the lakeshore. The hardcover calculations and structural coverage calculations should be adjusted to account for this hardcover. These adjustments will not result in the hardcover or structural coverage being over the allowable limits. Staff has reviewed the application against the conditional use criteria and a detailed analysis of the applicable criteria is included in Staff's report. The Planning Commission should ask Staff about that analysis if they have any questions or concerns. Upon review, Staff believes the grading within the 75-foot setback area to repair the existing pathway and install the retaining wall will have no negative impact on surrounding lands. The new retaining walls will Page 5 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. be hidden behind vegetative screening when viewed from the lake. The installation of the retaining wall will help support the slope and, combined with the geo block and vegetation,the pathway should help improve water quality and prevent further erosion from the site. Staff finds the request for a conditional use permit permitting construction of the retaining wall, the pathway repair,reinforcement and restoration within the 75-foot zone appears to be reasonable. The retaining wall and planting plan will offer a natural looking shoreline from the lake. Staff is also supportive of the hardcover variance allowing the new stair and retaining wall proposed to be constructed. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and no significant concerns were identified. Planning Staff recommends approval according to the submitted plans provided the work is completed in compliance with the City Engineer's recommendations. Landgraver asked if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has reviewed this application. Curtis indicated they have and that they are generally supportive of the application. Curtis stated questions regarding any discussions with the Watershed District should be directed to the applicant. A formal application has not been submitted to the Watershed District at this time but one will be required before the work is commenced. Elizabeth Sedgwick,Bechler Landscape, stated Staff has done a good job of covering the details of what they are proposing. Sedgwick stated their company has been in business for close to 35 years and that they are very cognizant of all the issues that involve complex projects such as this. Sedgwick indicated their business is reliant on word of mouth rather than formal advertising. Sedgwick stated she would like to read her letter she sent to Melanie Curtis prior to their pre-application meeting. The project description for this permit application is for two installations,both in close proximity to the existing boathouse that sits above the 100-year floodplain elevation. The first portion of the project involves replacement of the existing natural stone stairway. The existing stone staircase transcending the slope along the boathouse foundation is constructed out of limestone, which has deteriorated over the years and has been silting down the slope, coming to rest in shard like piles at the base o the slope where the 100-year floodplain delineation resides. Sedgwick stated she has had a discussion with Brandon Wisner of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding this project and that she does have copies of the letter he provided based on that conversation. Even though the fissuring and silting of this particular area is not part of the Watershed District's jurisdiction,Mr.Wisner has indicated they are supportive of the work to stop the continual erosion. The plan involves removal of the existing failed natural limestone steps and then installing natural, dark gray granite stone steps to replace the existing stairway. The granite provides a nice tread for walkers and the dark gray will blend in and be disguised from the lake. Sedgwick stated throughout this process,they intend to comply with the City of Orono, DNR and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's requirements. As it relates to the retaining wall,the purpose is to preserve the same beachfront slope which has been deteriorating. The wall will be constructed out of the same dark gray granite, with plantings above and • below it to disguise it from passing boats. The proposed wall would be just under four feet high and Page 6 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. would start with a return at the base of the stone steps. The wall would then run along the base of the beachfront slope for approximately 40 linear feet and then return into the slope for approximately ten feet. The existing graveled area will be removed and geo block will be installed to maintain stability. Each panel will be completely covered with sod. Sedgwick stated she has drawn a sketch of what the finished project will look like and that the Planning Commission should have that available tonight to look at. Sedgwick indicated they have used geo block on other properties and that it basically is an interlocking panel that is roughly two feet by two inches. In this particular application,the panel will be placed on the existing soil. All the sharp pieces of gravel that exist now will be raked up and hauled away,the geo block will then go on top of the existing soil,the cells of the geo block will be filled with good soil, and the geo block will be covered with sod. Sedgwick indicated the geo block will provide subgrade soil stabilization and will hold the slope in place and prevent erosion down to the shoreline. Leskinen asked if the gravel pathway is where the geo block will be placed. Sedgwick indicated it is and that visually from the lake a person will see a nice path of green since the panels will be covered with sod. Sedgwick stated the geo block can hold up to 80,000 pounds when properly engineered and performs a great soil stability function. Landgraver asked how far down the path the geo block will go. Sedgwick stated it will come down to within 18 to 20 inches of the 100-year floodplain. Landgraver asked if the boulder retaining wall will remain. Sedgwick indicated it will. Landgraver asked if there are any concerns with the boulder retaining wall. Sedgwick stated that wall appears to be sufficient. Sedgwick stated boulders are not an engineered product, and any time a boulder wall is constructed above 30 inches, it should be engineered to prevent failure. Thiesse stated as it relates to the height of the retaining wall,the cross-section shows a three foot level, which means that it does not need to be engineered. Thiesse noted there are nine steps at six inches plus, which equals 54 inches, and that the wall will be very close and may be slightly over four feet. Thiesse stated the applicant should be prepared to have the wall structurally designed given the height. Sedgwick stated she is planning to keep the wall at a 3'/11"height and under four feet. Thiesse asked if a course of block will be buried. Thiesse commented hitting 3'/11" and staying under four feet can be difficult with an 8-inch or 12-inch block. Sedgwick stated the block is two feet in height and that a sub cut will be done to bury the first six inches below the soil. Sedgwick stated she can lower the height of the wall slightly if the Planning Commission feels that is necessary. Lemke asked why they chose this type of block. Page 7 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sedgwick stated there are a number of options available and that they would be open to a different type of block. Sedgwick stated this particular block performs very well for Mn/DOT applications and was chosen for its self-engineering and because it has a great natural look to it. Sedgwick indicated she has seen a similar wall in the Minnetonka area and it looks fabulous. Sedgwick stated they can also color the stone any color they want. Lemke asked if the block sections are mechanically or chemically fastened together in any way. Sedgwick stated they are not and that each block weighs approximately 1,680 pounds,which will prevent the product from moving. Sedgwick stated the engineering value on any retaining wall is based on how the product is core filled and backfilled and that they have specified a clear aggregate with no fines to reduce the hydraulic pressure. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Bob Ponzetti, 2545 Kelly Avenue, stated he is also here representing one of his neighbors who is unable to attend tonight's meeting. Ponzetti asked what the horizontal wall will be constructed out of along the lakeshore. Curtis displayed a picture of the geo block. Sedgwick provided some manufacturer's information on the block to Mr. Hunz. Barbara Ponzetti,2545 Kelly Avenue, stated she understands the applicants are applying for a variance and asked what creates the need for a variance. Curtis stated the variance is for the installation of the retaining wall within 75 feet of the shoreline,which constitutes hardcover. Curtis pointed out the location of the current boulder retaining wall and the proposed wall. Curtis indicated the wall requires a hardcover variance and a conditional use permit is required to conduct the work within the 0-75 foot setback. Ponzetti noted there is a treehouse in that area and asked if it is considered hardcover. Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis noted the treehouse is currently not included in the hardcover calculations,but if the hardcover from the treehouse is included in the calculations,the site is still beneath 25 percent. Ponzetti asked if the treehouse is grandfathered in. Curtis stated it is difficult for the City to document something as a nonconformity if they are not aware of when it first appeared. Curtis noted the treehouse is not a Rainbow play structure and that the City does not require a permit for play structures. Curtis indicated she is not sure if anyone approached the City about constructing it before it was built but that it will be included in the hardcover calculations. Staff will make sure the property is not exceeding structural or hardcover levels but that the treehouse is looked at as being similar to the boathouse. Page 8 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ponzetti stated every single property along that ridge has footings for a boathouse but not necessarily a structure on top of the footings. Ponzetti stated she is attempting to get a feel for how it works if someone wants to improve their lakeshore and what counts as being grandfathered in. Sedgwick stated they are looking for City and citizen involvement on this project and that they are not looking to construct any type of structure without first obtaining the proper documentation from the City. Sedgwick stated she cannot speak to how or when the treehouse was constructed. Mike Miller, 1987 Fagemess Point, asked if the applicant was not putting hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone but simply remediating the slope whether it would be necessary to apply for a permit. Curtis stated they would be allowed to do plantings and limited vegetative clearing in the 0-75 foot zone but that the City does have rules regarding work in the 75-foot zone and clear cutting or cutting down trees over six inches. Miller asked if a permit would be required for a wood stairway system down to the lake if it is replaced. Curtis stated a property owner is allowed to maintain what exists but that a permit would be required if it is replaced. Miller asked whether a permit would be required for a new retaining wall if it was to be made out of something other than the geo block. Curtis indicated a permit would be required. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. McGrann commented it is very hard for anyone who was not involved in any project ten years ago to know what was going on with the property, and that if there are things that are going on within the 0-75 foot area, it is important for Staff to know about it, especially if they are being done without obtaining the appropriate permits. Mr. Ponzetti stated he would like to make it clear that they have no objection to any of the structures but that it was more of a question regarding the process. Thiesse asked if the City has any recourse for the two nonconforming structures. Curtis stated she is not aware if there is a permit for the boathouse but that there is not one for the treehouse. Landgraver asked if the treehouse is nonconforming. Gaffron stated the City does not know if it is a legal nonconforming structure since the City is unable to establish a date for when it was constructed. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission could impose a condition requiring the removal of the treehouse if the City does not know when it was constructed. Page 9 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated she will look into it further to see if there are any aerial photographs available,but that the City is not aware of when it was constructed and that it would be difficult to require its removal without first establishing that. Landgraver commented it would be helpful to know when it was constructed and whether it is legally nonconforming. Curtis stated if someone had called the City two years ago and wanted to put up a Rainbow play structure and asked whether a permit was required, Staff would have told them no but that they should keep it out of the setback. Landgraver stated from his perspective, if there is anything that Staff can do to investigate it further,he would encourage that. Leskinen stated it appears to be a very well-thought out plan and that it is correcting a problem with the silting. Leskinen stated in her view it is a reasonable request since the existing stairway is deteriorating. Lemke asked if the geo grid requires any approval. Curtis stated technically it is the subject of the conditional use permit. Thiesse asked if there is a way to stabilize the slope without the wall. Sedgwick stated the embankment has a fair amount of invasive buckthorn,which will be removed, and that the subgrade root structure is holding the soil as best it can. Sedgwick indicated it is a losing battle due to the hydraulic balance of the upper slope and that it will continue to silt down to the 100-year floodplain even with the root structure that exists. Sedgwick stated they did look at the option of no retaining wall. Lemke asked if a smaller retaining wall could be constructed to reduce the visual impact. Sedgwick stated when you look at the height and percentage of the slope,the wall needs to be at the 3.5 foot mark to hold the grade without erosion problems. Thiesse asked if they will be re-grading back up to the fence or the trees to reduce the slope slightly. Sedgwick stated the re-grading will start at about the midway section. Thiesse stated in his view they are not really repairing anything if they do not correct the upper slope as well. Thiesse stated they will need to plant something else there to help retain the slope if the buckthorn is removed. Thiesse stated part of the problem is that only half of the slope is being addressed and that the upper slope will remain. Sedgwick stated quite often on a slope like this they will regenerate some new vegetation by using a non- photodegradable mesh that would be attached to the soil to allow for new vegetation. Thiesse asked why that would not also work on the bottom portion of the slope. Thiesse stated they are proposing a wall for the bottom half and something else on the top half,which raises a number of Page 10 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. questions. Thiesse commented a wall would look nice and capture the stairs nicely but that it will not correct the problem on the upper slope. Lemke asked how much of the slope will remain. Sedgwick stated the slope will remain basically the same approximately halfway down. Sedgwick stated as it relates to the vegetation, over the decades various root systems have taken root into all the slopes surrounding this body of water but they still succumb to Mother Nature,which is a never-ending issue. Sedgwick stated the wall will help stop it in a more permanent way. McGrann asked if the wall will continue to the end of the post. Sedgwick stated the wall does not go quite all the way and would be tailed into the slope by the post. McGrann asked if that will be natural grading off the wall to the right of that. Sedgwick indicated that is correct and that it will be softened at the end with a natural slope. Sedgwick indicated any fill required would be generated from the excavation that will happen on the site above that area. Landgraver stated Commissioner Thiesse has asked some good questions and asked what he feels about the solutions being proposed. Thiesse stated he likes the layout and that the wall will do everything the applicant says it will do. Thiesse noted since it is located in the 0-75 foot zone,the Planning Commission has an obligation to review it carefully and that in his opinion the geo grid material that is proposed for the upper portion of the slope would also work on the lower portion. Leskinen asked what would happen if there was no wall. Thiesse stated they would need a landscape plan showing how the slope would be stabilized. Thiesse noted this slope is no different than any other slope along the lake. Leskinen asked if slope failure is imminent on this slope. Thiesse stated it is not in his mind. McGrann asked if the proposed work will put any additional pressure on the slope. Curtis indicated the work up by the house should not have much impact on the slope. Sedgwick stated from an engineering standpoint,there will not be any hydraulic pressure from the excavation up by the house. Leskinen asked if the stairs will be between the boathouse and the retaining wall. Sedgwick indicated they will be. Page 11 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen noted the property owners are allowed to replace the stairs. Thiesse stated he does not want to design it for them,but that it is a question of whether the stairs can be constructed without the wall. Leskinen asked if the grading for the stairs will weaken the slope. Thiesse stated it would be nice to have an edge along the stairs, which the wall will provide,but that there are other people in the community that have constructed stairs without a wall. Lemke asked what the negatives are with the wall. Thiesse stated the wall is a good idea but that there might be other ways of doing it that would meet the codes of the City without the need for a variance. Landgraver stated he agrees the Planning Commission has to review anything that is going into the 0-75 foot zone very closely. Landgraver stated without having an engineering background, in his view the geo block provides some further stability and slows the erosion,which is a benefit. Landgraver stated he cannot contrast the wall to plantings and whether that would maintain the existing slope. Sedgwick stated plantings would be able to accomplish the holding or integrity of the slope,but that it is very likely someone else will be at the podium to propose a retaining wall to hold the slope since over time it will encounter the same issues. Sedgwick stated as it relates to the geo block cells, on this application the geo block can be placed directly on the soil and then the cells would be filled with soil. Sedgwick noted one of the comments from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was that a sub cut of roughly eight inches would be good as well as three-quarter clear rock beneath the geo cells. The purpose of that is it then would act as a chimney drain allowing waters that travel all the way up from the new foundation to have a perk rate,which is what the Watershed District was very interested in an. That perk rate would allow the waters to find some relief on the hillside prior to the continual erosion down the hillside. Sedgwick stated if that application were done, it might be possible to keep the finished elevation of the wall lower since some of the erosion would be stopped before it goes down the slope. Thiesse stated he does not have a problem with the height of the proposed wall but that he has a problem with granting a hardcover variance for the 0-75 foot zone. Thiesse stated the question is whether the problem is totally being fixed. Sedgwick stated if they review the adjacent shoreline properties,they will find that one of the properties has a small retaining wall for the same reasons. Thiesse asked if it for the same reason or to create a flat spot down by the lake. Sedgwick stated she cannot answer that. Thiesse stated he does not have a problem with the wall but that the Planning Commission needs to thoroughly discuss whether a hardcover variance should be granted in the 0-75 foot zone. Thiesse indicated he cannot say the wall is not necessary. Page 12 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke asked if Commissioner Thiesse noticed a high degree of erosion when he visited the site. Thiesse stated the photographs show some erosion. Thiesse noted a portion of the gravel road slopes drastically toward the lake. Leskinen stated it appears they could accomplish the same thing without the extra hardcover created by the wall. Leskinen stated Commissioner Thiesse has brought up some valid points. McGrann asked if a similar situation has presented itself in the last few years where hardcover was allowed to correct the problem. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission has allowed hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone previously. Curtis stated each lot is very specific to itself and that she would not necessarily compare something that was done on another property with this property. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to accommodate access to the lake in conjunction with a wall. Curtis stated the City has seen a number of small retaining walls in conjunction with stairs proposed in the last few years. McGrann stated he cannot remember if they were more need based due to erosion or whether they were simply to provide access to the lake. Curtis stated the issue with stair installations is that it results in something that sits at grade. While the stairs can be somewhat screened from the lake,they tend to be very visible even if they are jogged with landings. Curtis stated Staff typically finds that the area beneath the stairs erodes. Thiesse stated the proposal is a good solution for the lower portion of the slope but that in his view more consideration has to be given to the area above the wall before this goes to the City Council. Curtis asked if a detailed planting plan would be helpful. Landgraver stated he is leaning towards asking for that. Landgraver noted the applicant is saying that vegetation will deter erosion but that he has a hard time approving it without a planting plan. Landgraver stated he knows a wall would slow the erosion down. Schoenzeit stated more details are required for use of the geo grid mesh and the soil stabilization up the path. Sedgwick stated this wall will not require geo grid. Schoenzeit stated the upper part of the slope will require it. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission is discussing whether the entire slope should have geo grid, which would then eliminate the need for the wall. Sedgwick indicated she was confused by what he meant by the term geo grid and that in her mind geo grid is an engineered fabric that is used to prevent hydraulic pressure from blowing the face of retaining walls out and is not used to stabilize soil. Sedgwick indicated photodegradable mesh comes in erosion control blankets, straw blankets, and is not thick and interwoven. Sedwick stated geo mesh is usually a clear netting type of plastic that holds the slope. Page 13 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. McGrann stated it is clear from the discussion that they are proposing to do a number of things with plantings above the wall and that the upper part of the slope will be stabilized by the plantings,but that he does not see anything that really addresses that. Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner McGrann and that a plan detailing what will be done with the upper slope would be very helpful. Sedgwick stated there was no disrespect intended by her comments regarding the geo grid and that she was confused about what Commissioner Schoenzeit was talking about. Sedgwick stated she now understands the Planning Commission is looking for the photo degradable mesh to hold the slope. Lemke stated he also is in agreement that additional details need to be submitted showing what will be done with the upper slope. Leskinen asked if an erosion control blanket would be an option in place of the retaining wall. Sedgwick stated an erosion control blanket would only deter the erosion for a period of time and that within six to seven years the same issues would be occurring. Curtis asked whether re-grading the entire slope would be a solution. Curtis asked if there is a non- structural solution to stabilization of the slope. Thiesse stated in his opinion it is possible to stabilize the slope without the need for a retaining wall. McGrann noted the wall will also be covered with some vegetation, and asked if the issue is whether there will be a precedent set or whether Commissioner Thiesse is worried about the visual impact from the lake. Thiesse stated he is looking at it from the way the City Council will look at this application. Leskinen stated it is beneficial to argue every side of the issue since it raises issues that might otherwise be missed. Thiesse stated a wall halfway up is fine since it will fix the problems on the bottom part of the slope but that the upper part of the slope also needs to be addressed. Thiesse noted other applicants have addressed erosion issues with plantings. Lemke noted the slope has existed for quite some time and that there does not appear to be a major erosion problem. Sedgwick stated she would beg to differ with that. Sedgwick pointed out a maple tree that is showing erosion around it. Sedgwick stated her company primarily deals with hydraulic pressure and water issues. Sedgwick stated her sketch shows some plantings but they are merely there for aesthetics. Sedgwick stated she would be willing to create a more detailed plan showing the plantings and that it is their intention to disguise the wall from above and below. Sedgwick noted the one thing that is not shown in the photographs is the root system of the existing vegetation. Sedgwick indicated the buckthorn has been clipped off at the top,which was done to help Page 14 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. better visualize the existing conditions. Sedgwick indicated the engineering value of all vegetation on a slope is the root structure underneath the ground. Thiesse stated then the problem has not been fixed and that they will end up with basically the same slope since it will not be receiving any treatment. Thiesse stated the applicant is basically telling the Planning Commission that the root systems will not fully prevent the erosion problem. Sedgwick stated the geo block at the top of the slope will also provide percolation,which will help with the erosion. Thiesse stated the percolation will go into the ground and will come out at the easiest,weakest spot, which is the face of the slope. Thiesse stated in his opinion the problem has not been resolved and that it might be exacerbated. Thiesse stated he does not want to recommend putting in half a wall without addressing the entire slope. Leskinen stated a number of good points have been raised and that Commissioner Thiesse has a good point about addressing the entire slope before adding hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. Thiesse stated he would not be opposed to adding hardcover if it fully solves the problem and that he would suggest the applicant come back with a revised plan that completely addresses the entire slope. McGrann asked if the Planning Commission can table the application or approve or deny. Curtis stated the application can be tabled but that she would recommend the Planning Commission provide specific direction for what additional information they would like to see. Curtis noted the City Engineer's comments are included in Exhibit H. Landgraver noted the City Engineer did review the plans and did not raise any major concerns. Landgraver stated he is inclined to suggest that the Planning Commission approve what is being proposed but then also require the applicant to provide information on what they are planning to do with the upper slope prior to this application going before the City Council. Sedgwick asked what the Planning Commission's experience is regarding solutions on other slopes. Sedgwick stated in her view her client is not asking for anything out of the ordinary. Thiesse stated to his recollection the walls that he sees in the area are more terraced. Thiesse stated he is merely pointing out that they are only addressing the bottom half of the slope. Thiesse stated it has been suggested that plantings can also stabilize the slope but that the applicant is saying that is a short-term solution. Thiesse stated he would like the applicant to address the upper part of the slope as well in order to solve the entire problem. Curtis asked if the solution is a tiered wall. Thiesse indicated he is not against the wall or the hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone but that he is not going to vote in favor of it if it does not fix the entire problem. Lemke stated the main issue is the upper half of the slope, which has not been addressed. Page 15 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. McGrann stated the applicant may have solutions for the upper half but that the Planning Commission is not seeing anything concrete. McGrann indicated he is a fan of minimizing erosion and that he would be inclined to agree with the wall and then recommend that additional information be provided on the upper portion. Sedgwick noted there is a detailed engineering report from the City's engineering film that should also be considered. Thiesse stated the report indicates the proposed wall should help stabilize the slope but it does not say it will fix the problem. Thiesse stated a four-foot wall will help but it will not address the whole problem. Sedgwick stated in her view having a tiered wall will not be as aesthetically pleasing. Leskinen stated to her understanding Commissioner Thiesse is saying the entire problem should be fixed. Leskinen indicated she does not have a huge problem with the wall,but that she would agree the entire slope should be addressed. Thiesse stated the wall will help but will not correct the entire problem. Schoenzeit suggested the Planning Commission require the applicant bring an engineering plan for the entire slope. Thiesse stated the plans do not need to be engineered but that they should address the upper slope. Leskinen asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit is requesting a landscape plan. Schoenzeit stated the plans should be sufficient to convey what the applicant intends to do in order to obtain the variances. Sedgwick stated she is confused because she was under the understanding that Commissioner Thiesse's question was in regard to the engineering,hydraulic pressure and degradation of the slope,and that now she is hearing she can just draw up a plan showing some plants. Leskinen stated the Planning Commission is discussing the application amongst themselves right now and that they will clearly stated what will be required once.their discussion is complete. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission is discussing what exactly should be required and that an engineered drawing may not be necessary. Sedgwick stated she would prefer an engineer's report. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commissioners have any other issues with the other portions of the application other than the retaining wall. Landgraver noted there was the treehouse issue as well. Landgraver stated in his view the geo block is a good idea. Page 16 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated it appears there is also a consensus to move it on to the City Council but that he is probably not going to support the retaining wall at this point. Leskinen stated Commissioner Thiesse has brought up some good issues and that she is unsure whether the proposed work will be enough to address the entire slope. Thiesse stated the wall will be approximately four feet in height and will go back six or eight feet. Thiesse stated it will provide a way to capture the remainder of the slope that is not being fixed but it will not address all the issues with the upper slope. Landgraver stated he is unsure whether to ask for an engineer's statement or not. • Thiesse stated the slope has been there for a number of years and that he is not sure why an engineered drawing would be necessary. Thiesse reiterated that he is not saying the wall will not help but that it is not addressing the entire slope. McGrann stated whether the applicant decides to use an engineer or not is their choice. Schoenzeit stated in layman's terms it appears the Planning Commission's recommendation is to approve the wall and requiring that the applicant submits sufficient detail to describe how they are addressing the rest of the slope. Lemke stated he has issues with the wall and do not see it doing anything. Schoenzeit stated the wall will do something. Lemke stated the erosion will still occur at the top. Landgraver stated it appears there is not a consensus on the retaining wall but that he would support the application going forward to the City Council. Landgraver stated he also would like to see additional information addressing the upper portion of the slope submitted prior to the City Council meeting. Leskinen indicated she is leaning towards the viewpoint that if the wall is not going to solve the issue entirely and there is no imminent danger of the slope failing,the Planning Commission should question approving additional hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. Leskinen noted the purpose of the discussion by the Planning Commission is to make sure all issues are thoroughly discussed. Leskinen stated on the other hand, the City has approved a number of retaining walls in the 0-75 foot zone. McGrann asked if the applicant should come back before the Planning Commission or the City Council. Lemke stated he would like to see the issue completely resolved. Lemke noted there is not a lot of erosion occurring presently and that the fence has been there approximately 20 years and is only leaning a little bit. Leskinen asked if they would like the applicant to come back to the Planning Commission or whether they can proceed to the City Council. Thiesse stated the applicant is claiming the wall is for slope stabilization and that he would recommend Page 17 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. requesting a plan showing some method of stabilization for the upper portion of the slope. Thiesse stated he does not care how the applicant addresses the upper slope but that they should come before the City Council with a plan. Thiesse moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3661,Becher Landscape on behalf of Scott and Jill Wine,2605 Kelley Avenue, granting a hardcover variance for the retaining wall and a conditional use permit for the grading in the 0-75 foot zone with the caveat that before the application goes to the City Council, a plan is submitted showing how the rest of the slope will be stabilized. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Lemke Opposed. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 5. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON MARCH 24,2014,AND APRIL 14,2014 Gaffron stated at the March 24th City Council meeting,the City Council discussed the Lakeview Golf Course application and determined that further septic site testing is required. The Goodwin application was approved and the Bohns Point application was approved on Consent. Thiesse asked if the golf course will be open this year. Gaffron stated the intent is not to have it open this year but to have some minimal maintenance performed. Thiesse stated he attended the April 14th City Council meeting and that the representative from Mediacom indicated the build-out will be starting by the end of April and that they are willing to expand the build-out by another two miles to meet the 19 miles that was originally agreed to. Thiesse stated all of the Planning items were approved. Curtis stated on the Rangaard application,the comparison of the surveys showed that the 2007 survey was not as accurate as it could be and the new patio would be an increase in hardcover and a further encroachment into the lake setback. The compromise was that the City Council approved removal of an equal amount of square footage to offset the larger patio. Gaffron stated the Reinmann application for Big Island was approved and that Staff is verifying the number of bedrooms and the septic. Thiesse asked if a basement is nonconforming as a bedroom,how that can be counted as a bedroom as it relates to the septic. Curtis stated Staff has only recently learned that a basement needs to be considered as a bedroom for septic purposes regardless of its size as long as it has ingress and egress. Gaffron noted the request by the new developer of Stonebay to access Cascade Lane off of Kelley Parkway was not approved. Also discussed was the addition to the police department and improvements to the parking lot,which were approved. The City's intent to issue bonds for the project was also approved. Page 18 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2014 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron stated he has composed a memo to the City Council regarding the Planning Commission's thoughts on mixed uses and that he has attempted to compile a comprehensive list of what has been discussed previously. Gaffron indicated currently the properties that are guided for mixed use are separated from each other and that there needs to be some financial incentives for the projects to work. Gaffron requested the Commissioners look through the memo and get back to him on whether any changes should be made. Thiesse asked if the City is being required to incorporate mixed use into their land use planning. Gaffron stated they were required by the Metropolitan Council to come up with ways to allow mixed uses in certain parts of the City. Landgraver asked when the Planning Commission and City Council will be discussing mixed uses. Gaffron stated the joint meeting is scheduled for April 28 at 5:30. The City Attorney will discuss a variety of legal issues relating to land use and that this is an issue that potentially will be discussed. Landgraver stated his recollection was that if the City is in the process of hiring someone to deal with land use issues,the Planning Commission felt it should be discussed sooner rather than later. Gaffron stated the committee has interviewed five candidates and has picked three of those for a second interview. The first candidate has already been interviewed and the second candidate will be interviewed on Tuesday. Gaffron stated it will likely be another week or two before a hiring decision is made and that he is not sure if this memo will persuade their thinking. Schoenzeit stated this outlines what the Planning Commission feels is important. Gaffron stated the Mayor has suggested the Planning Commission discuss individual properties in Navarre and how they should be guided for density. Schoenzeit stated in his view the sooner the City Council sees the memo,the better. Gaffron stated he will e-mail it to the City Council in the next few days. Gaffron requested the Commissioners forward any comments regarding the memo to him in the next day or two. Gaffron noted there will not be a May work session for the Planning Commission since there is a joint meeting scheduled for next week. ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,McGrann seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:46 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 19 0119