HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/18/2014 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
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, and
John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Andrew Mack, Senior Planner
Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member
Levang was present. Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:34 p.m.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
McGrann moved, Schwingler seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of July 21,2014,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #11-3520 CHRISTIAN AND BETH JOHNSON, 1376 BALDUR PARK ROAD,
VARIANCE RENEWAL, 6:35 P.M.—6:37 P.M.
Christian Johnson, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting renewal of hardcover variance approvals in order to rearrange the
existing driveway.
In 2011, the previous owners were granted hardcover variances in order to relocate the driveway and
change the orientation of the doors on the existing garage allowing for access within their property. The
current driveway exists over property owned by the property owner to the west. The 2011 approval was
extended administratively once until September, 2013. The variance approval was not extended a second
time and has since expired and the work was never started.
The new property owners wish to renew the hardcover variance allowing for reorientation of the garage
doors from a side load to an end load and construct a new driveway entirely on their property. The lot has
lake on both sides and a very small 75-250 foot zone. Hardcover variances are necessary in order to do as
they propose.
The applicants are requesting renewal of the exact hardcover variances granted in 2011 in order to address
a long outstanding issue with access to the property. They have proposed to execute the previous owner's
plan to remove the side-load garage doors and move the doors to the south side for an end-load garage.
This will allow them to change the driveway so that they do not need to utilize the neighboring property
for access. The applicants are also requesting to increase hardcover by 79 square feet in the southwest 0-
75 zone; reduce hardcover by 31 square feet in the northeast 0-75 foot zone; and increase hardcover by
369 square feet in the 75-250 foot zone for a total increase on the property of 307 square feet.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the request to renew hardcover variances.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.
Page 1 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m.
Leskinen stated she remembers discussing this application previously and that she does not have a
problem re-instating the variances.
Lemke moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 11-3520,Christian
and Beth Johnson, 1376 Baldur Park Road, renewal of hardcover variance approvals consistent
with Resolution No.6074. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
3. #13-3622 LANDSOURCE,LCC, 1645 SHADYWOOD ROAD,AMENDMENT TO
PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:37 P.M.—6:43 P.M.
Todd Holmers, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting revision to preliminary plat approval granted via Resolution
NO. 6338 in November of 2013. The front lot originally approved at 1.0 acre in area is now requested to
be reduced to 0.75 acre.
The applicants originally requested a 2-lot plat with a front lot at 0.51 acre and a back lot at 1.86 acres.
After the public hearings, the applicants revised that plan to increase the front lot to 1.00 acres, which
gained preliminary plat approval in November of 2013.
The applicants, in preparing their final plat application, are now requesting a revision to decrease the front
lot to 0.75 acres. Staff's determination of whether the proposal to reduce the size of the front lot
constitutes a"substantial change"took into consideration the following factors:
1. At the July 14 Council meeting, a question was raised as to whether the changes to the Northern
Oaks plat due to the re-defined wetland boundaries would be considered as a"substantial change"
and require it to go through preliminary plat approval again. One of the justifications for that not
being deemed a substantial change was that lot lines weren't changing; and
2. During the preliminary review of the front-back lot split,the level of neighborhood concern was
reduced when the front lot went from one-half acre to one acre and the house location moved
westward. Reducing its size now without an additional public hearing at the Planning
Commission would be inappropriate given the past public comments.
The reduction in area of the front lot from one acre to 0.75 acre also reduces the depth of the lot from just
under 400 feet to just under 300 feet The proposed house location on the front lot has been moved
forward to be more centered on the lot, meeting all setback requirements. The length of driveway that is
shared by Lots 1 and 2 decreases slightly and reduces hardcover as compared to the prior approved
proposal.
Both revised lots will meet the hardcover limits. The revised proposal results in the removal of
approximately four mature trees whereas the original proposal would likely have removed two. The
proposed house location on the back lot does not change as a result of the lot size revisions.
Page 2 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff recommends approval of the revised lot sizes on the basis that no variances are necessary and that
the revisions do not result in any inconsistencies with the Conservation Design Master Plan nor with the
intent or provisions of the LR-1C one-half acre zoning district.
McGrann asked whether the change in the lot line impacts anything else with the lot.
Gaffron stated there are no wetlands on the site and the requirements are still met for the one-half acre lot
size and side setbacks. Gaffron stated the major change is that the lot gets a little bit shorter.
Lemke asked who owns Outlot A.
Gaffron indicated Outlot A would be owned in common by the two property owners and technically both
of them have to have a driveway off of Outlot A rather than a single driveway off of Shadywood Road.
Landgraver stated the two differences noted in Staff's report are two more trees being removed and
hardcover being reduced slightly.
Gaffron indicated that is correct.
Thiesse stated Staff also noted in their report that someone had requested the size of the lot be increased
to one acre.
Gaffron stated initially it was proposed at half an acre. As a result of public comments,the lot size was
increased slightly to one acre.
Thiesse asked if the lots on either side of this lot are also shorter.
Gaffron indicated they are and were created five to six years ago.
Leskinen noted the front lot, even though it is being made smaller, is still a conforming lot.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.
Schwingler moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3622,
Landsource,LLC, 1645 Shadywood Road,granting of an amendment to preliminary plat to allow
the reduction of the front lot from 1.0 acre in area to 0.75 acre. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #13-3637 THE BROADWAY GROUP,LLC,2350 WATERTOWN ROAD,VACATION
OF EXISTING EASEMENTS,6:43 P.M.—6:45 P.M.
Gaffron stated the applicant is the developer of a pending subdivision named Oliver Hill which is a replat
of two existing lots to create seven new building sites and a private road. The preliminary plat was
approved by the City Council in February of 2014. The subdivision will result in the granting of new
drainage easements, drainage and utility easements, and utility easements.
Page 3 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated while the westerly existing lot abutting Willow Drive has no existing easements that would
affect the new subdivision,the easterly existing lot contains a number of pre-existing easements which
will be replaced by the new easements reflecting the new lot lines, revised wetland boundaries, new
utilities, etc. In order to provide a clean slate for the new plat, it is necessary to vacate all existing
easements.
Notification was provided to the four public utilities which potentially have an interest in the existing
easements. CenterPoint, Xcel, and CenturyLink have responded, noting no objection to the vacation.
Xcel indicated they would expect to keep the service lines to the existing home at 2350 Watertown intact
until that home is removed, which is not a problem. That service line is not subject to an easement.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed easement vacation, subject to the following conditions:
1. The vacation shall include all existing easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Hunters Green.
2 The plat of Oliver Hill shall incorporate the replacement easements as shown within the proposed
final plat drawing.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 13-3637,The
Broadway Group,LLC,2350 Watertown Road,vacation of existing easements,subject to Staff's
recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
5. #14-3663 LAUREN PATNODE,3596 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
REVIEW,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT
AND OFFFICE SERVICE USE,6:45 P.M.—7:26 P.M.
Paul Johncox, on behalf of Lauren Patnode, was present.
Mack stated the applicant is requesting approvals of five variances for building and parking setbacks and
maximum site hard cover, a conditional use permit for a Class II Restaurant 3, a conditional use permit
for professional office and service use, and site plan review for redevelopment of the building at 3596
Shoreline Drive. The one-story building housed a former cabinet shop which operated for decades and is
currently vacant.
The project would be done in phases. Phase I involves the remodeling of the restaurant and salon,
removal of the front parking area, sidewalk improvements,new canopy over sidewalks on south and west
sides, painting and new exterior building accents, and a new dining patio with grass and landscaping on
the east side of the front yard.
Mack displayed photographs of the existing building and parking area. Mack pointed out the two access
points that currently exist. Mack noted both access points will be removed and replaced with a new
access point, which will greatly improve traffic flow and safety. In addition,the substandard parking lot
Page 4 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
along the south side of the building will be removed. The applicant is proposing a green space and patio
area in the section of the site where the substandard parking lot is located.
The site is currently developed at 83 percent hardcover. The plan proposes to remove portions of
hardcover in the front yard parking area along Shoreline Drive in the first phase. The parking lot at the
rear of the building will be expanded as part of Phase II. This would result in a net increase of 852 square
feet, which triggers the need for a variance.
Phase II is proposed to include remodeling of the office/service space and reconstruction of the rear
parking lot according to the site plan as presented. Phase II site improvements in the proposal would be
initiated prior to occupancy of the office use in the north half of the building.
Staff recommends approval of the five requested variances, subject to the following conditions:
1. Additional screening shall be installed along the entire east side of the property line from the
building to the north property line. This shall be required upon tree removal for Phase II site
improvements in accordance with the City of Orono Zoning Ordinance requirements for adjacent
residential use screening.
Mack displayed photographs of the rear parking area and pointed out a deteriorated retaining wall and the
area where screening would need to be placed.
2. The retaining wall damage along the east side of the building shall be repaired or replaced and
written consent shall be obtained from the adjoining property owner if any of this construction or
work activity occurs upon the parcel boundary or the adjoining property.
3. Proper erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained during all construction phases
in accordance to the requirements of the City of Orono and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
4. The landowner shall comply with all site improvement requirements of the City Engineer.
Mack noted the findings of Staff concerning the variances are outlined in Staff's report.
Staff also recommends approval of the conditional use permit requests for a Class II restaurant and a
professional office and service use, subject to the following conditions:
1. Phase I site improvements shall be completed, including removal of the existing south parking lot
and driveway approaches along Shoreline Drive and the southerly most approach along Blaine
Avenue prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Class II restaurant.
2. Phase II parking lot site improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the professional office and service use.
3. The landowner shall obtain and comply with all permit requirements of Hennepin County and the
City of Orono for work conducted in the street right-of-way for removal of driveway approaches
and reconstruction of street curbing.
Page 5 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. The landowner shall be responsible for the cost and installation of signs by the City of Orono for
the restricting of parking along the west side of Blaine Avenue between Shoreline Drive and
Lyric Avenue.
5. The proposed patio area, fencing, landscaping improvements, seating, etc., shall not be allowed to
constitute a sight visibility obstruction at the intersection as determined by the City Engineer.
6. The landowner shall comply with all site improvement requirements of the City Engineer.
Mack noted one letter has been received from a resident located on Lyric Avenue. The resident raised
concerns about the proposal in relation to additional traffic being generated in the neighborhood. Staff
believes this concern would be addressed by the required and planned removal of driveway approaches
and substandard front parking area as well as the proposed upgrades and expansion of the rear parking lot
and the restriction of on-street parking for the west side of Blaine Avenue.
Staff is recommending the approximate 260 feet along the west side of Blaine Avenue be designated as
no parking and that the applicants be responsible for installation of the appropriate signage.
Staff further recommends approval of the requested site plan, subject to the following conditions:
1. Full conformity with all lighting, landscaping, signage,trash enclosure, and other applicable
provisions of the City of Orono Zoning Ordinance.
2. Full conformity with all applicable state building and fire code requirements.
3. The landowner shall comply with all site improvement requirements of the City Engineer.
Landgraver asked if there would be no parking on both sides of Blaine Avenue.
Mack stated Staff is recommending no parking along the west side of Blaine Avenue and that customers
of the restaurant and salon could park on the east side of Blaine Avenue.
Mack stated the canopy will extend out and the parking area in the front will be eliminated and replaced
with a sidewalk and green space.
Landgraver asked if there are any parking restrictions on Lyric Avenue currently.
Gaffron stated to his knowledge there are not.
Landgraver stated if the businesses are successful, there is a chance that people could be pulling on to
Lyric Avenue to park.
Mack stated he does not anticipate that since the north end of the site will provide parking once it is
renovated. Mack stated the convenience of that parking will prompt more people to park in that area.
Leskinen asked if the door to the restaurant will be on the Blaine Avenue side.
Mack pointed out the two entrances to the building.
Page 6 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked if both entrances would be considered public entrances.
Mack stated the architect would be able to address that.
Lemke asked if the City has any regulations regarding outdoor patio areas outside of restrictions on
obstructions to traffic.
Mack stated he is not aware of any.
Gaffron stated the City did have a similar discussion on the Narrows application and that he does not
believe there are any specific code provisions that address outdoor patios. Gaffron stated in the Narrows
situation there was no real useable area located within the Narrows property along North Shore Drive and
the request for a patio in that area was subsequently withdrawn. Gaffron stated in this case the applicant
has a fair amount of area available on their property for an outdoor patio.
Mack stated the sidewalk area in this application would remain unobstructed.
Thiesse stated he believes Hennepin County would have some sight line requirements.
Mack stated Staff will look into that further and inquire with Hennepin County on that aspect of the
application. Mack stated the City Engineer will also be reviewing that.
Leskinen asked if there is any parking allowed along that section of Shoreline Drive.
Gaffron stated he did not observe any no parking signs in the photographs.
Mack stated the shoulder in that area is very narrow and would not accommodate a vehicle.
Leskinen asked if that is a bicycle lane or the shoulder.
Mack indicated that is the edge of the parking lane with a narrow shoulder.
Leskinen and Landgraver stated they would like to see no parking signs installed in that area of Shoreline
Drive.
McGrann asked whether the neighbor who submitted the letter also expressed concerns about noise.
Mack stated the concerns were related just related to traffic. Mack noted the letter submitted was not
from the adjacent property owner and that no comments were received from the adjoining residential
property owner.
Lemke asked where the service access to the restaurant would be located.
Mack stated the architect would be able to address that but that there would be limited access in the front.
Lemke stated the green space does not provide any access and that he has a concern a delivery truck may
park too close to the corner.
Page 7 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked if the proposed parking will be sufficient for all the uses on the property once all the
improvements are completed.
Mack stated in Staffs opinion there will be sufficient parking.
Schwingler asked if the lighting will be shielded to limit the impact to the neighboring properties.
Mack stated City Code regulates lighting very specifically and the applicant would need to comply with
those regulations prior to any building permit being issued.
Thiesse asked if there is any excess parking available.
Mack stated the amount of parking available will just meet the needs of the building. Mack stated the
only point he raised with the parking lot was the narrowness of lot which would not allow two-way
traffic. Mack stated there is currently a two-foot area for screening available, which may result in the loss
of one parking space. Mack noted sanitation trucks would also need to be able to access the trash
enclosure.
Leskinen stated the applicant will also need to make sure there is ample room for snow removal.
Eric Reiners, Architect, stated the entrances to the restaurant and salon would be located on the south side
of the building, which is where their respective deliveries will be made. The entrance on the west side
would be reserved for the office tenant. Reiners indicated the trash enclosure will be located on the north
side and that they have provided a driveway loop that will allow sanitation vehicles to pull in up to the
enclosure, remove the trash, and pull out.
Reiners stated they will be providing site lighting at the end of the island parking to best serve the entire
site from a single source. The lighting will be per the City's specifications for shielding and height.
Reiners stated they anticipate deliveries will be made during off hours of the restaurant and that the most
convenient spot to off load will be in the parking lot. Reiners noted no parking is allowed on Shoreline,
which would prevent delivery trucks from parking along there.
Lemke asked what the anticipated time frame is for Phase I and Phase II.
Reiners stated the restaurant owner and salon owner would like to file for permits as soon as the
conditional use permits are approved for their occupancy.
McGrann asked if all traffic to the restaurant will be through the front entrance.
Reiners indicated that is correct.
Leskinen asked if two entrances/exits would be required under Fire Code for a restaurant.
Reiners stated based on the occupant load and the fact that the restaurant would only be 1,200 square feet,
they are required to have one entrance/exit.
Page 8 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Mack stated that is his understanding as well and that the number of entrances/exits is based on the
occupancy load and the finished interior space.
Thiesse asked if there is any concern that the delivery trucks are going to park in front of the building.
Reiners stated the drivers might be tempted to but that the road is very busy, which does not make it very
feasible. Reiners stated he is sure the owners will coordinate with the delivery companies to make sure
that they park in the rear of the building.
Leskinen stated her concern is that the trucks will park near the corner on Blaine to provide closer access
to the front door.
Lemke commented that would block visual access to Shoreline.
Reiners stated the only point they can gain direct access to the site would be at the intersection corner and
that is further up the street.
Landgraver asked if there are bay or garage doors proposed for the office space and where they would be
situated.
Reiners indicated there are two existing overhead doors on the northwest corner.
Landgraver asked if both doors would remain.
Reiners stated one bay door is proposed to remain and that the corner spot would not be an office.
Mack asked the architect to clarify what he meant by the term off-peak business hours. Mack noted the
Planning Commission can certainly put a restriction in the conditional use permit on what hours deliveries
can be made.
Reiners stated the occupant is proposing to have limited service hours for the restaurant and salon and that
they will not be operating from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.
Thiesse noted the conditional use permit goes with the property and that it may eventually become an
issue.
Patricia Dongoske stated she currently owns another full-service salon on Shoreline Drive and that
deliveries are made in the back during off-peak hours. Dongoske stated delivery hours are generally
around 9:30 a.m. and that the delivery people know what time to arrive and where to go.
Dongoske stated with regard to the Blaine side,there will be a 42-inch fence along the patio area,which
will prevent any deliveries being made through that area. Dongoske stated the restaurant will offer lunch
and dinner Friday, Saturday and Sunday and dinner during the rest of the week.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Page 9 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
Leskinen stated she is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse and that the hours of delivery should be
specified in the conditions of the conditional use permit.
Thiesse asked if the City can prevent parking on a Hennepin County roadway.
Mack stated he would need to look into that.
Thiesse commented no parking in that area would be difficult to enforce and that he is not sure including
that restriction in the conditional use permit would help.
Mack stated it sounds like the applicant does not have any objection to imposing a time restriction on the
deliveries.
Leskinen stated the proposal is an improvement over what currently exists but that she has some concerns
regarding access. Leskinen stated she is assuming those will be reviewed by the building inspector and
fire marshal prior to a building permit being issued.
Thiesse stated in his view it is a wonderful improvement to the property and that it is unfortunate there is
a nearby resident who is opposed to the project. Thiesse noted that resident is not an adjoining property
owner. Thiesse stated the more he thinks about it,there should be a restriction on deliveries included in
the conditional use permit.
Leskinen stated specifying where the deliveries can happen would be more restrictive than specifying
what time the deliveries can happen.
Landgraver and McGrann indicated they are in agreement with restricting parking by delivery vehicles to
the back of the building.
Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has previously discussed the other uses in the building.
Thiesse asked if Blaine is a city street.
Mack indicated it is.
Thiesse asked if the City has requirements for curb cuts.
Mack stated the City does and that the contractor would be responsible for obtaining the appropriate
permission for a curb cut from Hennepin County and the City.
Lemke asked when they plan to occupy the building.
Reiners stated to his understanding they plan to occupy within 12 months.
Landgraver stated landscaping is important for the neighbors and that he concurs with Staffs thoughts on
that. Landgraver indicated he also is not opposed to the slight increase in hardcover.
Page 10 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke stated he also is in agreement that it would be an improvement to the site.
Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,Application No. 14-3663,Lauren Patnode,3596 Shoreline
Drive,to recommend approval of the proposed site plan,granting of the five variances and two
conditional use permits as outlined in Staff's report,subject to all conditions listed in Staffs
memorandum dated August 18,2014; to limit parking by all delivery vehicles to the back parking
lot; and subject to the condition that the storage area of the building shall be related to the office
and service use. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
6. #14-3675 RYAN AND STACY ALNESS,XXX ELMWOOD AVENUE/PID 07-117-23-11-
0027,VARIANCES,7:26 P.M.—8:03 P.M.
Ryan and Stacy Alness, Applicants, were present.
Gaffron noted the applicants have formally withdrawn their variance to height request. The applicants
initially were proposing to have a three-story house but have been redesigning their house plans to meet
the 2-1/2 story limit following the July Planning Commission meeting. The applicants are still requesting
an average lakeshore setback variance.
Gaffron displayed the site plan on the overhead. Gaffron pointed out the two houses that set the average
setback line for the subject property, noting the line goes through the middle of the proposed structure.
Gaffron stated the buildable area of the site, after you take into account the 10-foot side setbacks and the
30-foot street setback, leaves approximately a 600- foot buildable area, which is not large enough for a
reasonable sized house. The lot is functionally not buildable for a typical residence without an average
setback variance.
The intent of the average setback ordinance is primarily to protect the lake views a lakeshore property
owner enjoys over their neighbor's lakeshore yard and avoid the"tunnel view"effect of being set back
further from the lake than one's neighbors. In the current situation, lake views enjoyed by the owners of
the neighboring residence to the north at 1135 North Arm Drive are potentially affected by the proposed
location of the applicants' home. The house at 1135 is slightly skewed on its lot, and its existing views of
the lake are slightly angled across the applicants' property. The house at 1135 is set back from the lake a
significantly greater distance than most other lakeshore homes in the immediate neighborhood.
Gaffron stated an additional factor for consideration is that the house at 1135 sits substantially higher in
the topography than the applicants' proposed house. The existing patio-level grade at the lake side of
1135 based on the 1997 survey is approximately 978.5 feet and the deck floor above it is approximately
987.9 feet. The applicants' revised roof peak is at approximately 982 feet. Gaffron stated someone
sitting on the deck of the neighbor's house would likely have views over the top of the house, and if
someone is sitting at the neighbor's patio, they may be looking across the top of the house.
Gaffron stated the applicants have revised their plans to lower the house two feet into the ground. The
wing that would house the garage has not been changed except for lowering the peak by two feet.
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider whether one or more of the above factors, or other
factors, establish a practical difficulty that justifies granting an average setback variance. Staff would
request that the Planning Commission take action tonight either approving or denying the application.
The application would then go before the City Council at their September 8 meeting.
Page 11 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver asked if there are other situations in Orono where there is one house that is further set back as
in this instance and the Planning Commission has approved an average lakeshore setback variance.
Gaffron stated this situation is somewhat unusual than most other homes in the neighborhood. Gaffron
stated they would still be looking at the fact that this lot has a Special Lot Combination Agreement, which
does define the average lakeshore setback. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should find whether
the proposed house impacts the views of the neighbors.
Thiesse asked when the lots were combined.
Gaffron stated the Special Lot Combination Agreement goes back at least 15 to 20 years.
Thiesse asked if the house was there prior to the Special Lot Combination Agreement.
Gaffron stated he is not sure when the house was originally constructed but that it is his understanding it
was.
Lemke asked if the Special Lot Combination Agreement covers the lot right in front of the house.
Gaffron pointed out the two lots that have the Special Lot Combination Agreement.
Morgan Kavanaugh, Attorney-at-Law, stated the height variance request has been formally withdrawn by
the applicants, but their position remains the same that an average lakeshore setback variance is not
required since the line should be drawn from Lot 5 and not the immediately adjacent house,which is Lot
21. Kavanaugh stated even using the immediate adjacent house, the lot is not functionally buildable,as
pointed out by Staff, without an average lakeshore setback variance.
Kavanaugh stated as it relates to the elements of practical difficulty,there are three main components: the
reasonable use element, unique circumstances of the property, and the essential character of the
neighborhood. In regards to the reasonable use element, the applicants are seeking to build a modest,
single-family home that will meet all code requirements. Kavanaugh noted Staff has previously stated
that this is a buildable lot except for the Special Lot Combination Agreement, which is not at issue tonight
and the application should be viewed as noted in Staff's report as if Lot 7 were separately owned.
Kavanaugh stated also not at issue tonight is the prior history of the lot. At prior Planning Commission
and City Council meetings, Staff has stated that building has occurred or will occur on identical sized lots
with 50-foot shorelines. Furthermore, the owners to the south of Lot 9, was recently sold as a separate
parcel for development and building on that 50-foot lot and construction is almost completed. Kavanaugh
stated the proposed use for the subject lot is the same as all other property owners in the City and is
reasonable.
Secondly,the applicants did not create the circumstances unique to the property and had nothing to do
with the Special Lot Combination Agreement that exists between Lots 6 and 21. Kavanaugh stated those
lots are also separated by a right-of-way and a separate identification number and should be considered
separate lots for the purposes of calculating the average lakeshore setback. Kavanaugh stated the
circumstances creating the need for the variance are unique to the property and were not created by the
Alnesses.
Page 12 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Kavanaugh stated finally the proposed house will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and
that the proposed use fits the neighborhood. Kavanaugh noted the next door lot, Lot 8, is also a 50-foot
lot and there are other 50-foot lots located on Elmwood Avenue. Kavanaugh stated the applicants'
proposed use fits the neighborhood.
Kavanaugh stated the applicants meet the elements of practical difficulty and that they would ask for
approval of the variance request.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
James Yarosh, Attorney-at-Law, stated he is here tonight representing Renee Meerkins and Claus Weiler,
who reside at 1135 North Arm Drive, which is immediately north of the subject property. Yarosh stated
before the Planning Commission tonight is a hypothetical question given the Special Lot Combination
Agreement is still in effect and that the application for a variance is premature. In addition, not all the
variances necessary for construction of the proposed house are being requested tonight. Yarosh noted the
minimum lot size requirement for this district is one acre, which this lot does not meet since it is only .24
acre.
Yarosh stated he understands the difficult situation before the Planning Commission and that he would
submit that this is not supposed to be and never was a buildable lot given the Special Lot Combination
Agreement. The same type of use has been denied by the City on four previous occasions. In addition,
the proposal does not meet the minimum lot requirements.
Yarosh stated the intent of the very ordinance that the applicants are seeking to have approved is to
primarily protect the lake views a lakeshore property owner enjoys over their neighbor's lakeshore yard
and avoid the tunnel view effect of being set back further from the lake than one's neighbors. Yarosh
stated the ordinance is there to protect the neighbors and a variance would go away from that.
Yarosh stated the circumstances in this situation have been created by the landowner. The owner knew or
should have known that this lot was not buildable when they purchased their house. The owners were
aware that this lot provided access to the lake. Yarosh stated all property owners are charged with
constructive knowledge of the zoning ordinances at the time of purchase and that the applicants bought a
house that came with this lot governed under the Special Lot Combination Agreement.
Yarosh stated as it relates to the essential character of the neighborhood,the proposal changes the very
nature of the house located at 1135 North Shore. Instead of having a nonbuildable lot in front of them,
they will now have a house and their view of the lake will be changed as a result.
Yarosh noted one of the questions relating to practical difficulty is whether granting the application is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right by the applicant. Yarosh
stated the applicants still have the right to enjoy the house they purchased as well as the lot that provides
them with lake access. Yarosh stated it is not preserving a right but rather enhancing or giving the
applicants more than what was originally contemplated when they purchased the property.
Yarosh stated it is also his belief that the bluff ordinance applies. Yarosh noted Staff has reviewed the
information submitted but still believes that based on the way the ordinance has been interpreted in the
past, it does not meet the bluff ordinance. Yarosh stated if it is wrong in the first instance, it is not
necessarily a justification for applying that in this case.
Page 13 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Yarosh stated the Planning Commission should feel free to discuss the issue of whether it is right to
consider the application at this point given the Special Lot Combination Agreement.
Renee Meerkins, 1135 North Arm Drive, stated they would prefer not to be here tonight and that they
consider themselves friendly neighbors. Meerkins stated after receiving the notice for the public hearing
and knowing that similar requests have been rejected by four other councils,they felt they should attend.
Meerkins indicated they purchased their property in 1993 knowing that that lot was not a buildable lot.
Meerkins stated they have a view that they have enjoyed for 20 years. Currently the view to the north,
when they are on their deck, consists of seeing the top of a rooftop of the neighbor's garage. Meerkins
indicated they are also able to look down to the lake and to the left. Meerkins noted Lot 9 had an existing
house prior to the new house being constructed and that their view to the left now consists of a rooftop,
which does block their view somewhat and creates a tunnel effect. Meerkins stated a house on the
subject property would further block their view of the lake. Meerkins stated they are really concerned
about the impacts this proposal would have on their view and their property value.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m.
Thiesse asked why this application is before the Planning Commission.
Gaffron stated there is a lawsuit pending against the City regarding the un-combination of the Alness'
residential property and this lakeshore lot.
Thiesse asked whether the City should wait until that lawsuit is resolved before deciding on this
application.
Gaffron indicated the City Attorney has suggested that it would be appropriate to get this issue in front of
the City Council.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission votes yes on this application, whether there would still be a
lawsuit.
Gaffron stated there likely will be a lawsuit no matter how the Planning Commission votes tonight.
Thiesse stated he would again raise the question of why this is before the Planning Commission when
there is an unresolved lawsuit. Thiesse stated there is a property owner that wants to construct a house on
a lot that was combined to provide them with lakeshore access and a dock, the neighbors do not want the
applicants to construct there, and the neighbors also have a lot that does not have a house on it. Thiesse
stated neither one of them believed they had a buildable lot at the time they purchased the property.
Thiesse stated given the fact that there is a Special Lot Combination Agreement,he is not sure why the
Planning Commission should be looking at it.
McGrann asked if the Planning Commission has to vote one way or the other tonight.
Gaffron indicated it is Staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission make a motion on the
application tonight. If no recommendation is forthcoming, Staff would like the Planning Commission to
refer the application to the City Council. Gaffron indicated he has not contemplated what the
ramifications would be if no recommendation is made by the Planning Commission.
Page 14 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiess asked how the lot north of the proposed house is identified.
Gaffron indicated Lot 6 has a Special Lot Combination Agreement with the house,which says that those
two parcels have to be sold together and cannot be separated.
Landgraver stated in evaluating what is before the Planning Commission tonight, they have to consider
those two lots as one but that the other lot is a stand-alone lot.
Gaffron indicated that is correct.
Thiesse noted the ordinance says that the distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on
adjacent lots. Thiesse stated that is still a lot.
Gaffron stated that lot is being considered as a separate lot with the same legal rights as other 50-foot lots.
Thiesse asked if they are separate tax parcels.
Gaffron stated they are, and that once there is a Special Lot Combination Agreement,the City looks at it
as having virtually the same legal aspects as if it were legally combined by the county across the road.
Landgraver stated that is why they are able to put a dock on that lot.
Thiesse stated the ordinance says the adjacent lakeshore lot.
Gaffron pointed out the area that would be considered the adjacent lakeshore lot.
Lemke asked if the owner of Lot 6 would be able to construct a house on Lot 6.
Gaffron stated they would have to go through the same process of un-combining the Special Lot
Combination.
Thiesse stated then their average setback is set way back, which does not require a variance.
Leskinen noted the attorney for the applicants stated that this lot is buildable but for. Leskinen asked in
what way, shape or form is this lot buildable except for the average lakeshore setback since it is a
substandard lot.
Gaffron stated the Minnesota Statutes three or four years ago gave special dispensation to existing lots of
record. Gaffron stated if this becomes an existing lot of record, it meets the minimal lot standards
established by the DNR for a lakeshore lot that is in the Shoreland and would meet the area and width
standards. City Code says that this lot, by virtue of the fact that it would be considered a single, separate
lot, does not need area and lot width variances if it meets the minimum DNR standards or a minimum of
them.
Leskinen asked if it needs a sewer stub to meet those standards.
Gaffron indicated sewer is available on the property but there is no easement. Gaffron stated the
Applicants have not paid for the stub itself but they have paid for the footage. Gaffron stated there would
Page 15 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
be a sewer connection charge that would be due but that there is no question that sewer is available on this
property.
McGrann stated if you just look at the applicants' average lakeshore setback and you assume Lot 6 is a
separate lot versus 1135 is not on the lakeshore.
Gaffron stated in the situation where this is a vacant lot,they would look at meeting the average setback
based on the house that is there on the other side.
Schwingler asked if the City bases its average lakeshore setback on what is there and not based on what is
not there.
Gaffron indicated that is correct.
Landgraver stated what is before the Planning Commission is the adjacent lot, which is being considered
as a single lot, and that there is a house there. Landgraver stated in that situation the City has consistently
measured the average lakeshore setback line based on the adjacent lakeshore houses. Landgraver stated
based on that,the proposed house would require a variance.
Landgraver stated the other dimension to consider is height of the proposed structure. Since the existing
house is way up high, one argument is that because the proposed house is lower, it would not obstruct as
much view. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission has not contemplated that dimension before in
their discussions of average lakeshore setback. Landgraver stated even in looking at this as flat land,the
Planning Commission would not grant this.
McGrann stated he tends to be in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that it is hard to make a
decision given the circumstances. McGrann stated given that the two lots are combined, he finds it hard
to take that out of the equation in terms of the average lakeshore setback line and go straight across a
piece of property that is currently legally tied to another lot. McGrann stated he understands the height
argument but that he has a hard time approving an average lakeshore setback variance.
Schwingler stated he also is in agreement. Schwingler stated in dealing with what exists today, the
proposed house is way outside the average lakeshore setback.
Leskinen indicated she would also agree with that.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is not real comfortable about voting on a bunch of
hypotheticals.
Leskinen stated simply looking at just the zoning question alone and not the legal question,what exists
today is that the adjacent lot is a full lot regardless of how it is combined. Leskinen indicated she is in
agreement with the prior comments.
Lemke stated by taking away the restriction on the height, it still impedes the neighbor's view. Lemke
stated they would be able to look over the house but they would still be able to still the house.
Schwingler noted there are also findings of fact that exist from the four prior times it was denied and that
nothing has changed with this request.
Page 16 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated the only difference is that they had all the information before them that they could consider
and that this Planning Commission is being asked to not consider the Special Lot Combination
Agreement.
Leskinen stated in her case the Special Lot Combination Agreement makes it more difficult since it exists
until it has been extinguished, but that it does not impact her decision. Leskinen stated in her view the
proposed house is too much for the lot, is too far in front of the average lakeshore setback line, and
impedes the view of the neighbor.
Schwingler stated the house will impact the entire neighborhood and that the Planning Commission
typically attempts to mitigate those issues with the neighbors.
Leskinen stated she generally is a little more flexible on the average lakeshore setback in certain cases,
but that this is so clearly interfering with the view that it makes it hard to justify it.
Lemke moved,McGrann seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 14-3675,Ryan and
Stacy Alness,XXX Elmwood Avenue/PID 07-117-23-11-0027. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Gaffron noted this will be before the City Council on September 8.
Landgraver asked if the application will be framed the same way.
Gaffron indicated it will be.
7. #14-3678 ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPE DESIGN ON BEHALF OF BRET AND
JENNIFER RIEMENSCHNEIDER,835 FOREST ARMS LANE,VARIANCE,8:03 P.M.—
8:12 P.M.
Laura Westrude, Architectural Landscape Design, was present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to permit the
construction of an elevated deck on the lakeside of the home with a three-season porch beneath and an
entry pergola completely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The existing lakeside grade level
deck will be removed and replaced with a larger patio.
The location of the applicants' home is also partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line, and as a
result, there is no conforming location lakeward to construct structural improvements. With the exception
of the average lakeshore setback,the proposed improvements meet all other required setbacks.
The proposed deck and screen porch will extend 19 feet from the house and as much as 21 feet ahead of
the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis indicated she did speak with the applicants earlier tonight and
they stated they may raise an option to further extend the deck, but the plan as originally proposed has the
deck 21 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line.
Curtis stated the fireplace is proposed to be located below the deck within the footprint of the deck and
screen porch. The patios, grilling station, water feature and sitting walls are less than 42 inches from
grade and are not required to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line.
Page 17 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The subject property fronts on a long channel and is somewhat disconnected from the lake. The
configuration of the subject property along the end of the channel creates a unique situation regarding the
view. The neighboring home to the south at 855 Forest Arms Lane is set back further on their property
than the subject home and has no lake view. The neighbor to the north faces in a more westerly direction
towards the channel rather than over the subject property. In addition there are mature trees separating
the subject property from both neighbors which likely screen most of the view of the improvements and
the home. Comments have been received from the neighbors in support of the application.
Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of the
elevated deck, screen porch, and pergola up to 21 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line.
Laura Westrude,Architectural Landscape Design, stated the applicants may like to extend the deck to a
maximum of five feet closer to the lake,which would encompass the proposed patio.
Leskinen asked if it would be further than what is being proposed.
Westrude indicated it would not be and would encompass the proposed patio.
Leskinen asked if it is the elevated portion of the deck that is being extended.
Westrude indicated it is.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m.
Curtis displayed a picture of the subject property looking towards the house to the house. Curtis pointed
out the location of the proposed deck.
McGrann asked if the additional five feet raises any concerns with Staff.
Curtis stated it does not. Curtis stated it would be a further encroachment to the lake, but based on
personal observations of the site, it should not impact the adjacent property owners.
Leskinen stated it does not appear that the adjacent neighbors would be able to see it given the tree line.
Landgraver noted the trees appear to be all deciduous but that typically people are not out on their decks
in the wintertime. Landgraver stated based on the orientation of the properties, it should not be very
visible to the neighbors.
Curtis stated to her knowledge the windows of the house to the south do not actually face the applicants'
property and are actually located in a garage.
Lemke asked if there were any comments from that neighbor.
Page 18 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated both neighbors have commented positively on the proposal prior to the 5-foot extension
proposed tonight and that she would recommend the applicants obtain a new comment form from the
neighbors prior to the City Council meeting.
Leskinen stated based on the aerial and the tree line, she does not have any problem with the proposal.
McGrann moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3678,
Architectural Landscape Design on behalf of Bret and Jennifer Riemenschneider,835 Forest Arms
Lane,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance with the possible additional 5-foot
extension of the deck,with the applicants updating the neighbors' comments prior to the City
Council meeting per Staff recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
8. #14-3679 THOMAS AND KATHERINE ZIEGLER,2264 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCE,8:12 P.M.—8:47 P.M.
Thomas and Katherine Ziegler, Applicants, were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a 3-foot side street setback variance and a 242 square foot
structural coverage variance in order to construct a 6' x 24' addition to the rear of the existing home and a
12' x 12' shed in the rear yard. Both additions are proposed to have two levels. The addition is proposed
to be in line with the existing garage, and a variance to allow continuation of the existing nonconforming
setback 12 feet from the side street property line of Crystal Bay Road where a 15-foot setback is required
is also being requested. The proposed shed will meet setbacks.
The applicants' current structural coverage level is 14.6 percent, which is 47.5 feet under the allowed
structural coverage level. The addition and the proposed shed result in 16.9 percent structural coverage
where 15 percent is allowed. The applicants have based their proposal of 2,071 square feet of structural
coverage on the total lot area which includes a road right-of-way. The right-of-way adds 1,700 square
feet to the lot area. Curtis stated typically the City bases lot area on the property boundaries and subtracts
areas of dedicated right-of-way.
The applicants have proposed to construct the 6-foot addition in the same footprint. The variance in 2008
included the setback from the road and the applicants are looking to continue that for consistency. The
plan for the shed includes grading and retaining walls which will likely result in the removal of many
mature trees in the rear yard. Staff also notes the proposed retaining wall extends right up to the side
property line where a 5-foot setback is required. If approved,the wall plan should be revised.
Staff does not find practical difficulties supporting the structural coverage variance to allow the shed.
However,the many mature trees on the site will serve to screen additional structural improvements to the
home if the Planning Commission finds there are practical difficulties supporting the structural coverage
variance and the side street setback variances for the 145 square foot home addition.
If the Planning Commission finds practical difficulties exist which support the granting of a side street
setback variance and structural coverage variance, Staff recommends making a motion recommending
approval of the side street and structural coverage variances allowing the addition to the home, and the
following conditions should be considered:
Page 19 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. The applicant shall provide the City with a recorded copy of the corrected utility easement at the
rear of the home prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer.
The proposed shed results in 144 square feet of additional structural coverage over allowed levels and
may result in significant site grading and tree removal. It does not appear to be consistent with the
neighborhood. For these reasons, Staff recommends denial of the structural coverage variance for the
shed.
Leskinen asked when the variances were originally received whether the existing home had a basement.
Curtis stated it did.
Leskinen asked if the subsequent home could not have a basement.
Curtis stated portions of the home were found to be located within a floodplain,with the basement not
meeting the minimum floor elevation. The applicants were advised to reconstruct in the manner that was
done.
Katherine Ziegler, Applicant, stated the improvements will help them address the issues created by the
loss of the basement. Ziegler indicated the issues created by the loss of the basement were the need to
accommodate the utilities upstairs, lost living space, and lost storage space. In addition, any opportunity
for a storm shelter was lost.
Ziegler stated they rebuilt their home according to the recommendations of the City but have since
discovered that the house does not meet their needs. Ziegler indicated they have attempted to sell the
property for the past year but have not been successful. The feedback from the prospective buyers has
been the lack of a family room, lack of storage, and lack of a storm shelter. Ziegler stated four potential
buyers were interested in purchasing the property initially until they learned they would need to request a
variance. Ziegler stated that is the reason why they are requesting the variances now.
Ziegler stated in their view it is a pretty reasonable request. Ziegler stated while the road is considered
hardcover, it does not have a visual impact on building mass, but that they will not argue the exclusion of
it from the total lot area.
Ziegler indicated every property in the neighborhood except theirs has a detached garage near the road.
Many of the prospective buyers have indicated they would like to construct a detached garage as well, but
they were told that would not be allowed. Ziegler stated they have attempted to be reasonable by going
with the 15 percent of the total lot and not asking for an attached two-car garage but are instead proposing
to make the attached garage large enough to allow for the first garage stall to be converted to a family
room since it is the only reasonable space to add more living area. Ziegler stated adding the six feet will
allow a 22' x 24' foot garage.
Ziegler stated the building in the back would serve to replace some of the storage that was lost and the
lower level would serve as a storm shelter. Ziegler indicated there is a significant drop in the grade as
you move from the back of the lot towards the home. There is a natural break in the yard where an old
retaining wall was which they would like to take advantage of. Ziegler stated that area would allow the
Page 20 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
shed to be tucked in so it would appear to be a normal height building. The building would be more of a
walkout.
Ziegler noted the significant amount of grading that is being proposed is to help save the trees. Ziegler
stated they do not intend to cut down any trees as a result of the shed. Ziegler stated they do not know if
the maple tree can be saved but that they will attempt to work around it.
Thomas Ziegler, Applicant, stated the original survey was done five years ago and that a new survey has
not been done. The surveyor was told to take a 12 x 12 footprint and overlay it on the old survey. Ziegler
stated he believes the confusion comes from the fact that there are two large maple trees on the property.
Ziegler pointed out the maple tree that they are attempting to save. Ziegler stated currently there are two
small trees on the lot line, and if they need to be removed as part of the grading, they would be happy to
replace them.
Mrs. Ziegler stated there is a significant drainage issue that also needs to be addressed regardless if they
construct the shed. Ziegler stated there is a significant drop from the surface of Crystal Bay Road,which
is causing a great deal of erosion. Ziegler indicated at the present time they are not able to do much with
the back of the lot since it turns into a river every time it rains. Some of the proposed grading is in an
attempt to mitigate some of that damage. In addition, whenever trucks come around the corner,the slope
is being ground down and that in her view Staff should take a look at that issue.
Curtis displayed some photographs of the property.
Thiesse asked if they have discussed the project with the neighbors.
Mrs. Ziegler stated they have and that the neighbors are very happy with the proposal.
Leskinen asked if the easement dictated where the house would be located when it was rebuilt in 2008.
Mrs. Ziegler indicated the way it was explained to them was that if the footprint was moved at all,then all
of the setbacks would need to be met. Ziegler noted the lot is 45 feet wide at that point, and the building
footprint between the easement and the setbacks allowed for approximately a 900 square footprint.
Mr. Ziegler stated they used the existing footprint.
Leskinen asked if the building footprint could have been moved, whether that would have changed the
level of structural coverage.
Mrs. Ziegler stated they would have ended up in the same situation as they are now in and would have
needed to request a structural coverage variance in 2008. Ziegler indicated that area of the lot is very flat
and that they could not get even a partial basement under it without it being considered a three-story
house.
Leskinen stated the easement, other than the location, would not have affected the structural coverage.
Mrs. Ziegler stated it would have potentially allowed them to have a full second story but that they were
restricted to a story and a half because they were ahead of the 75-foot line.
Page 21 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the applicants had worked with Evelyn Turner on that application and specific directions
were given on how the house could be rebuilt.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Thiesse stated in his view lack of storage is a practical difficulty particularly in light of the lack of a
basement. Thiesse stated the lot appears to be large enough to support the shed and not having a storm
shelter is a practical difficulty. Thiesse noted the other neighbors have detached garages. Thiesse stated
the grading is an attempt to save the trees but that he would recommend they resolve their drainage issues
and submit a landscape plan showing how the trees will be protected.
Leskinen stated she was skeptical about the additional six feet, but that she now has a clearer
understanding on the role the easement played in the reconstruction of the house.
Thiesse stated the visual impact is along Crystal Bay Road and that the structural coverage extends the
width of the lot, which lessens the visual impact. Thiesse stated the difficulty comes from the narrow
width of the lot.
McGrann stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse,especially in light of the positive
comments by the neighbors who are relatively close to this house.
Schwingler stated the comments by potential buyers also should be taken into consideration from a
practical difficulties standpoint. Schwingler indicated he remembers when this was before the Planning
Commission previously and dealing with those prior issues.
Leskinen indicated she is comfortable with the six feet but that she is still a little hesitant with the addition
of the shed.
Landgraver stated he also is struggling with the shed but that he is in agreement with the house expansion.
Landgraver stated in his view it is basically another garage in addition to the existing attached garage.
Mr. Ziegler indicated there would be no driveway to the shed.
Leskinen asked what the dimensions of the shed are.
Curtis indicated it is 12' x 12'.
Leskinen stated the only portion of the shed that relates to a practical difficulty is the storm shelter.
Landgraver asked if the City has a storm shelter requirement in its code.
Curtis indicated there is not.
Lemke asked if the two components could be separated in a motion.
Page 22 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis indicated they can be.
Thiesse stated the practical difficulty was not being allowed a third level, which would have allowed a
basement, and the fact that the front of the house was only allowed to be a story and a half. Thiesse noted
the applicants were not able to create as much square footage as other people typically are allowed.
Thiesse stated if they were to add the family room to the garage, they would be down to a 24 x 22 foot
garage and they would not able to put a lawnmower in there. Thiesse stated in his view the extra 144
square feet is a must or they will be back before the Planning Commission again in a couple of years and
they want additional storage space.
Lemke commented from a visual standpoint the shed appears to be a little disassociated with the rest of
the property.
Mr. Ziegler stated the picture probably is not a good depiction of the shed but that they would make it
appear more conducive to the house.
McGrann stated the shed would likely improve that end of the property and provide additional storage.
McGrann asked if there is any room given the easement to add additional space to the house footprint.
Curtis stated the blue line is the current incorrect easement and the pink line is the corrected easement.
Curtis indicated the applicants are proposing a 6-foot addition with a 2-foot cantilever,which will leave
approximately one foot until the addition. Curtis stated they could eliminate the cantilever and make the
actual footprint of the addition another foot or two bigger.
McGrann asked what the black lines are on either side of the shed and whether there would be any
hardcover going up to them.
Mr. Ziegler indicated those are retaining walls and that there would be no hardcover up against them.
Curtis stated the door would need to be 5'/11"or under without the need for additional hardcover. Curtis
indicated six feet triggers the driveway hardcover. Curtis stated if there is an overhead door and the
building is big enough to park a vehicle in, a driveway must be provided.
Landgraver stated he does not buy the argument that someone in the future will come back and request
additional storage space since by that logic the Planning Commission should allow everyone to build a
shed. Landgraver indicated he is willing to give the applicants the additional footprint on the house but
that he is not quite convinced the shed should be allowed.
Thiesse asked whether he would allow an extra four feet on the garage.
Landgraver noted that is not possible in this case.
Thiesse stated that then results in a practical difficulty. Thiesse noted it is the City's sewer easement.
Thiesse asked how deep the easement is.
Mr. Ziegler indicated it is between eight to ten feet.
Page 23 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann asked if the Planning Commission can separate the two requests.
Curtis indicated they can.
McGrann stated it sounds like everyone is comfortable with the addition to the house but that the
Commissioners are split on the shed.
McGrann moved, Schwingler seconded,Application No. 14-3679,Thomas and Katherine Ziegler,
2264 Shadywood Road,to recommend approval of the 3-foot side street setback variance and the
lot coverage and massing variance in relation to the house addition. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Leskinen asked if there is anything that the Commissioners agree on with the shed.
McGrann commented it sounds like the majority of the Commissioners are fine with the size of the shed.
Schwingler stated it is a practical difficulty, and if the City's easement was not there,they would have
been able to ask for the additional feet.
Thiesse noted they would have been able to add 144 square feet to the house.
Schwingler stated it also factors into the essential character of the neighborhood since other homes in the
area have detached garages.
Landgraver stated it could have been a detached garage when the home was rebuilt, which would have
addressed some of the storage issues.
Mr. Ziegler stated there was a detached garage and accessory buildings that had to be removed.
Leskinen asked if those buildings could have been rebuilt in kind.
Curtis indicated they could have but that it would have factored into their structural coverage and
hardcover.
McGrann stated the shed will be an improvement to what is there and that both neighbors are in
agreement. McGrann stated he would like to ensure that no trees are removed, and if they need to be
removed,that they are replaced.
Schwingler stated he is in agreement with Commissioner McGrann and that it is likely a future property
owner will be back requesting it.
Lemke stated from a safety standpoint the storm shelter makes sense.
Lemke moved,McGrann seconded,Application No. 14-3679,Thomas and Katherine Ziegler,2264
Shadywood Road,to recommend approval of the 12' x 12' shed,with the submittal of a landscape
plan identifying the trees and a grading plan showing resolution of the drainage issues prior to the
City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Landgraver opposed.
Page 24 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
9. #14-3680 NATURAL LANDSCAPE MINNESOTA,INC.,ON BEHALF OF BRAD AND
PAT CLEVELAND,4315 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
VARIANCE,8:47 P.M.—8:52 P.M.
Curtis sated the property owners are in the process of constructing a new home on the site. The applicant
is requesting conditional use permit approval to conduct minor land alterations within 75 feet of the lake
for a redesigned lake access path, including in-grade stairs. As part of the project,the existing in-grade
deteriorated wooden path/staircase will be removed and replaced with a new blue stone and flagstone
staircase and pathway. Including the stair walk, the hardcover on the property will be below 25 percent.
Hardcover calculations include 692 square feet of hardcover existing within the 0-75 plus the proposed
158 square foot portion of the new stair within 75 feet. The total stair hardcover is 813 square feet with
the path up around the patio area.
The City code indicates that a CUP is required to prior to engaging in activities that include fill, elevating
or altering the existing natural grade. The conditionally permitted uses must be reviewed against the
criteria found in Sections 78-916 and 78-1286 of the City Code. Staff has reviewed the application
against the conditional use permit criteria and has provided an analysis within the Staff report of the
relevant criteria.
Staff believes the proposed grading within the 75-foot setback will have no impact on surrounding lands.
Drainage patterns for runoff leaving the site are not proposed to be altered. The proposed grading within
the 0-75 foot zone has been designed to minimize environmental impacts. An engineering review has not
been conducted as of yet for the stairs specifically. Curtis indicated several of the elements on the
property have changed throughout the construction of the new house and the City Engineer has reviewed
the plan a number of times but he will review it again prior to placement on the Council agenda for their
review. Any engineering issues must be addressed with an administrative permit to construct the stairs.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the earth work within the 75-foot
setback area to construct the pathway/stair system conditioned upon the following:
1. A revised landscape plan should be submitted which offers screening of the stairs in a natural
way;
2. Conformance with the City Engineer's forthcoming comments will be required.
Curtis noted the applicant has provided a fairly extensive landscape plan but that it was lacking any
landscaping around the stairs. Staff would like to see a plan that incorporates screening or vegetation
around the stair system to help screen it from the lake.
The Planning Commissioners had no questions for Staff.
Curtis stated she does not believe the applicant is present this evening.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:51 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:51 p.m.
Page 25 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated she has no concerns with the proposal except for requiring a landscape plan for the stair
area.
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3680,
Natural Landscape Minnesota,Inc.,on behalf of Brad and Pat Cleveland,4315 North Shore Drive,
granting of a conditional use permit,subject to the submittal of a revised landscape plan for around
the stairs and subject to any recommendations of the City Engineer.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
10. #14-3681 BY THE WOODS,LLC,ON BEHALF OF DON AND JANE HOUCK, 1535
FAIRVIEW COTTAGE LANE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE,8:53 P.M.—
9:01 P.M.
Laura Wood of By The Woods, LLC, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting a conditional use permit
approval to conduct minor land alterations within 75 feet of the lake. A new house is currently under
construction on the site. The work involves the removal of some existing timber walls, re-grading of the
slope in those areas, installation of a short lake access stair with low walls,a boulder replacement wall
located just above the riprap, replacement of a timber wall, and installation of boulder outcroppings.
During the Staff review a hardcover variance to exceed 25 percent was identified as the hardcover
numbers did not balance out to 25 percent. Staff and the applicant have discussed that item today and the
excess hardcover was not the intent. Hardcover will be adjusted to meet the 25 percent limitation. A
hardcover variance is still required to permit the boulder wall and the boulder outcroppings within the
75-foot zone.
The applicant is proposing to re-grade the areas to eliminate the need for the additional upslope walls.
Curtis indicated one wall runs the width of the lakeshore and will be replaced with an in-kind boulder
wall. A small portion of the slope on the west side requires the use of some boulder outcroppings and
plantings to stabilize the area. The applicant has provided a listing of plants to be installed,which should
result in a natural looking slope.
Staff did review the proposal against the conditional use permit criteria and provided an analysis within
the Staff report. Staff believes the proposed grading within the 75-foot setback will have no impact on
surrounding lands and the proposed grading has been designed to minimize environmental impacts. In
addition, a screening plan has been provided to screen the improvements from the lake.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the earth work within the 75-foot
setback area to construct the lake access stair, install boulder outcroppings, remove the existing timber
retaining walls, and install the boulder wall.
Staff recommends approval of the hardcover variance regarding the replacement boulder wall, stair, and
outcroppings within 75 feet of the lake. All of the hardcover improvements should be screened with
vegetation as proposed. Curtis noted there is not a request to exceed 25 percent hardcover, so a denial
motion is not necessary as indicated in the Staff report. The applicant should provide revised plans prior
to placement on the City Council agenda reflecting the hardcover meeting the 25 percent limitation.
Page 26 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The Planning Commissioners had no questions for Staff.
Laura Wood, By the Woods, stated the intention was not to exceed the 25 percent and that she had
misunderstood that the stairs were part of the riprap so they were not included in the hardcover
calculation. Wood stated she would like to remove the steps and push it out into the riprap. If that is not
allowed, that would add an additional 38 square feet to the hardcover calculations, which would make it
33 square feet over the 25 percent. Wood stated that amount could be removed from the side patio, which
would result in an 8' x 5' patio.
Wood stated at this point the retaining walls that are being removed are in disrepair. The one wall
furthest from the lake is actually tipping over due to the rains that were experienced this spring. Wood
indicated the walls do hold the grade up but that they are all leaning at this point. Wood stated they are
proposing to remove those walls and create a gentle slope down to the lake instead of another retaining
wall in that area, which would create a more natural look. Wood stated in the area by the lake,they are
suggesting boulder outcroppings with natural vegetation.
Landgraver asked if the steps down further to the lake can be pushed into the riprap.
Curtis stated Staff does not count the riprap as hardcover, so if the stairs are able to be incorporated into
the riprap,that portion would not be counted as hardcover.
Lemke asked if the majority of the area would be replaced with grass.
Wood indicated it would be except for the area near the lake. Wood stated their preference would be to
push the stairs into the riprap.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:59 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:59 p.m.
Leskinen stated the request is reasonable and that as long as new hardcover calculations are provided, she
would not be opposed to the application going forward to the City Council.
McGrann moved,Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3681,By the
Woods,LLC,on behalf of Dan and Jane Houck, 1535 Fairview Cottage Lane,granting of a
conditional use permit and hardcover variance,subject to revised hardcover calculations being
submitted prior to the City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
11. LAKEWEST,LLC, ON BEHALF OF HOWARD EISINGER TRUST,3245 WAYZATA
BOULEVARD, SKETCH PLAN,9:01 P.M.—9:57 P.M.
Donald Jensen and Curt Perth with Lakewest, LLC, were present. Rick Harrison with Harrison Site
Design was present.
Gaffron noted this is a sketch plan review and does not require any formal action by the Planning
Commission but that the applicants are looking for some direction on how to proceed.
Page 27 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated approximately three to four years ago, the City improved its 2008-2030 Comprehensive
Plan. One of the City's requirements was to meet Metropolitan Council's goals for density and, as a
result, certain properties generally along Highway 12 and Navarre were re-guided in the Comprehensive
Plan to allow for higher density.
The property in question is the Eisinger property, which is at the very west end of the Highway 12
corridor area. A portion of the property has an encumbrance of a former sanitary landfill, which leaves
part of the property unusable for a number of things but that it is potentially usable for some uses that do
not require foundations. The property generally has five acres that could be used for a housing
development.
Gaffron stated this land was re-guided in the Comprehensive Plan to allow for 10 to 15 units per acre,
which would require City sewer and water. Sewer would be extended from Old Crystal Bay Road along
Highway 12 past the Dumas Orchard property. Gaffron indicated the property was re-guided for higher
density with some specific language about how that higher density should occur. The Comprehensive
Plan suggested that there should be two buildings, but no more than two, and that they should not be
more than 42,000 square feet. The Comprehensive Plan also contemplated a multi-family dwelling
situation.
Gaffron indicated the applicants are proposing something a little different than that which Staff believes
will likely need a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to allow the proposed use. The applicants'
proposed use is considered as detached townhomes. The applicants are prepared to make a presentation
on their proposal.
The Planning Commission has been provided a number of specific bullet points in Staff's report on how it
would conform to the zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan. Gaffron indicated this development
would likely be a RPUD. The primary difference between what the applicants are proposing and what
exists at Stonebay is that these would be detached townhome units, with a small separation between them.
Gaffron stated the only way to get the required density is to have small, minimal setbacks between the
buildings.
Gaffron stated he would like the applicants to make a presentation on their proposal.
(Recess taken from 9:05 p.m. to 9:11 p.m.)
Donald Jensen, Land Development Director of Lakewest, LLC, stated they have met with Staff on this
property and have discussed various options. Jensen stated the 42,000 square feet creates certain
limitations on the layout of the development and that the Comprehensive Plan is basically silent as to
where the garages would go and whether they would be detached or underground parking.
Jensen stated they have looked at what the marketplace is comfortable renting for the square footage and
that they are proposing it at approximately 1,500 square feet. In addition, space for elevators and
hallways would need to be allocated, which would place the units at approximately 1,200 square feet if
the square footage is limited to 42,000 square feet. In this particular case,the units would likely range
between 1,200 to 1,600 square feet per floor plan.
Jensen stated they have worked with Staff on a number of different options and that they originally
proposed access to the site from the west side. That has since been revised and access is now being
Page 28 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
proposed near the current driveway that serves the existing home. For fire department purposes,Jensen
stated they are considering the possibility of using the driveway for the old construction landfill portion as
access for emergency vehicles, which would leave the opportunity for water quality to be in the far west,
south, and southeast portions of the site.
Jensen noted some construction may be allowed on the old landfill site as long as the proper permits are
obtained through the PCA and that they have just started to do some land exploration.
Rick Harrison, Harrison Site Design, stated they are utilizing software that allows a person to view the
development from a 3D perspective to see exactly how the buildings are designed in relation to the
topography. The units are staggered and coordinated to enable everyone to have a panoramic view of the
area. Harrison indicated some of the units will be walkouts and quite a few of the units will have three-
car garages. Harrison stated until the final survey is completed,they are not committed to the number of
units,but that in his view this is probably pretty close to what is realistic for the site.
Leskinen asked if the property parallels Wayzata Boulevard.
Jensen indicated it does. Jensen stated he hopes the access for this property will have some bearing on the
property located on the north side of the highway. There are a number of trees along the edge of the
right-of-way and the idea is to have a walking path along Highway 12 that would connect this
neighborhood to the high school. Jensen stated they see the target market as being people who are either
empty-nesters or people with children in high school but do not have the time to perform yard
maintenance. There will be a homeowners association, irrigation around the perimeter, and various
recreational amenities.
Jensen stated they would like to get the Planning Commission's input on what they feel about a detached
townhome neighborhood. Jensen stated as it relates to the view of the development, if someone is
traveling east on Highway 12, they would probably only be able to see it for two or three seconds and
maybe one to two seconds from the west. There will be a wetland buffer, appropriate setbacks and the
trees, which will also help to decrease the view from Highway 12.
Jensen stated they are looking for input from the Planning Commission on whether density of this type
would be acceptable. Jensen indicated they are looking somewhere in the vicinity of six to eight units an
acre,which is very close to the goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan. Jensen stated this would be a
medium density category in most communities, which would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
but would not be at ten units per acre. Jensen stated they also would like to know whether the garages
would be counted in the square footage calculation since it was not specified in the Comprehensive Plan,
noting that they did count the square footage of the garages for their calculation. Jensen stated in the
Orono market, he would expect that most people would want at least a two-car garage with some storage
space.
Harrison displayed a view of the development from Highway 12. Harrison noted they have 41,063 square
feet of building, including the garages.
McGrann asked if the trees could be added to the software depiction.
Harrison indicated those trees would be added later and that the trees currently being shown are only a
small portion of the trees that would be saved down Wayzata.
Page 29 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Jensen stated a determination has not been made yet on the health of the trees and what trees would be
worth saving.
Leskinen asked if they would all be single-family units.
Jensen indicated it would be a townhome community but single families would be occupying them.
Lemke asked what the anticipated cost would be for a unit.
Jensen stated it would likely be four plus based on the square footage. Jensen stated a typical apartment
building would limit the amount of rent that could be charged.
Thiesse asked how the Metropolitan Council will feel about the lower density.
Gaffron indicated Staff has not explored what the Metropolitan Council's feelings would be with a lower
density. Gaffron stated he doubts that Metropolitan Council will be opposed to the slightly lower density.
Thiesse stated he likes the plan but that he has a concern with what the Metropolitan Council will say
about the density.
Jensen stated in his view the proposed density for the site is very reasonable. Jensen stated they anticipate
sewer and water would also be installed for the property to the north at the same time as this property and
that it may make sense to increase density slightly on that site.
Harrison stated they are asking the City to endorse what they are proposing and then they would approach
the Metropolitan Council.
Jensen stated they would like to hear the thoughts of the Planning Commission and the City Council and
that they have a number of items from Staff that would still need to be addressed.
McGrann stated he likes the concept and that it is attractive. McGrann stated as long as the Metropolitan
Council agrees with the density, it is an attractive development.
Lemke asked if any market research has been done on whether the units will sell.
Curt Perth indicated they have not done any formal market research for this particular development but
they have first-hand experience doing similar developments in a number of other communities and it has
proven to be quite popular.
Harrison stated he has been doing a number of similar projects for other builders in the area and that it is a
very strong market at different price points.
Landgraver asked what the apple orchard is guided for.
Gaffron indicated the orchard is guided for seven to ten units with a mix of single-family and multi-
family house. The orchard area was part of the Conservation Design Study back in 2005-2006, and the
result of that study was that some low density should be done in that area, which was not followed since
Page 30 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
the City needed to offset the areas that are already in the MUSA and zoned for two acre with an
expectation that this area would be able to be developed at a higher density.
Gaffron stated this specific site is perfect for higher density given the location of the highway and the
wetlands to the east, which makes it somewhat of an orphan property. Gaffron noted this property is at
one of the entrances to the downtown area and some thought was given to whether it would be possible to
make it less visible with lower density, which is probably not likely to be approved by the Metropolitan
Council. Gaffron stated one of the options considered at that time was to limit it to two buildings but no
real thought was given to how those two buildings would work on the site.
Landgraver asked if the condominium/townhome development at Stonebay was a template for this
property.
Gaffron stated the template was the senior housing at the corner of Brown Road but that the proposed
concept avoids the visual appearance of two long buildings.
Landgraver stated at Maple Place, the homes are fairly close together, and this concept provides more
visual variety with slightly less density,which is more attractive than the one building at Brown Road.
Thiesse noted there is also more living space in each unit.
Leskinen stated she likes the technology and the ability it gives someone to visualize the development
from different perspectives. Leskinen indicates she does not mind all the multiple buildings because it
adds more interest to the development than a single large building. Leskinen stated she does not believe
that additional density would be possible.
Landgraver asked if they are limited to one access point to the development.
Jensen stated the Highway Department has indicated they might like to add some
acceleration/deceleration points and that they would prefer one access point to this site. Jensen stated it is
his belief the Fire Department is comfortable with the emergency access point.
Jensen indicated they would like to get the City's approval over the winter and then possibly begin
construction in the spring. Jensen stated the big issue to overcome would be the utilities.
Mack stated one of the things he felt was important when he arrived at the City was to implement a new
procedure for initiating these types of discussions at the outset of a project. As part of the sketch plan
process, Mack indicated Staff actually hosted a meeting regarding this development with some of the
outside agencies to review some of the issues and that the PCA and utility companies have been involved
early on. Mack stated getting some of the technical aspects on the table at an earlier stage would help
developers make the decision on whether they still want to proceed.
Jensen stated the site does not appear to have limits on basements since all the wetland is downhill from
the housing units.
Landgraver stated basically people who live in this development will go up Highway 12 rather than
Wayzata Boulevard.
Page 31 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse commented if it is rush hour,they will likely take Wayzata Boulevard.
McGrann asked whether they would be putting limitations on who could reside in the development.
Jensen stated they would not, particularly in light of the close proximity to the elementary, middle and
high schools.
Landgraver asked what the alternative would be if it is determined during phase one that this concept is
not popular.
Jensen stated the detached townhome concept allows the builder to fine tune the buildings by perhaps
shrinking the unit size or changing the floor layout,which would also allow some flexibility on the
pricing.
Curt Ferth stated the concept also provides more flexibility with the units. Ferth noted one big building
would have more infrastructure cost and that there is less risk associated with this concept.
Jensen stated a small cluster of buildings also allows greater flexibility if one of the units needs to be
eliminated.
Landgraver asked what the first phase would consist of.
Jensen stated phase one would be one cluster to the east, phase two would be the center cluster, and phase
three would be to the west. Jensen indicated there would be lookouts on the northern area and more
walkouts going down to the wetland area. Jensen stated they have different pricing opportunities with the
various clusters.
Landgraver stated constructing the buildings with more visibility first would also help sell the
development.
Mack stated there is a very real infrastructure issue with a larger structure, multi-family building. Mack
noted those types of buildings are mandatory fire suppression buildings, and that the ability to deliver
those loads would be very difficult. Mack stated there would be substantial infrastructure costs to deliver
that much water level and that there is not likely going to be a fire suppression sprinkling requirement for
the detached units.
Harrison stated the grading required for a large building would also pretty much eliminate the trees and
that the single units can be fit in more with the existing topography.
Landgraver stated in his view it is a constructive proposal for this site.
Leskinen commented she likes the concept better than a big sprawling building.
Gaffron stated this sketch plan will be brought before the City Council on September 8.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
Page 32 of 33
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 18,2014
6:30 o'clock p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
12. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON JULY 28,2014 AND AUGUST 11,2014
Leskinen stated she attended the July 28 meeting. Leskinen indicated the majority of the planning items
were placed on the Consent Agenda. The Council reviewed a sketch plan presented by Source Land
Capital. The applicant on Wolverton Place requested the amount to be reimbursed be waived, which was
denied, but the vacation was approved. Public comments were received on the Rest Point Road
improvements and the bid award for the new police department addition was discussed.
Thiesse stated he attended the August 11 meeting and that there was a nice presentation by the Westonka
History Museum. The majority of the planning items were placed on the Consent Agenda. In addition,
there was a presentation on the budget. Overall the budget is in good shape.
13. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
10:09 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0./2
ATTEST: f�f
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Page 33 of 33