Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-18-2016 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Chair Bruce Lemke, Commissioners Denise Leskinen, Chris McGrann, Chad Olson, Loren Schoenzeit, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Members Lizz Levang and Dennis Walsh were present. Acting Chair Lemke called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 20, 2016 Schoenzeit moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of June 20,2016,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 2. #16-3839 REVISION,LLC, ON BEHALF OF SHARON OLSON-NESBITT,865 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCES, 6:33 P.M.—6:43 P.M. Sharon Olson-Nesbitt, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a 24' x 24' attached garage addition on the north side of the existing home. The original home on the property was constructed in approximately 1938, predating the City's current setback requirements. Due to the proximity of the home to the lake and the east side property line, setback variances are requested. The existing home is situated as close as 20 feet to the lake. Expanding the addition over the existing garage over the driveway will encroach as close as 10.2 feet to the side lot line. The home is situated at an angle with the views oriented toward the lake. Currently it is as close as 10.6 feet from the east property line. Hardcover variances are being requested to permit a slight reduction from 34.73 percent to 34.64 percent. The new garage will be constructed primarily over existing driveway hardcover. There will be some new structural hardcover both within and outside the 0-75 foot zone. The proposed addition has a 7' x 24' portion within the 75-foot setback area. Approximately 15 square feet would be considered new hardcover in an area that is currently pervious. The applicant is proposing to remove and replace the driveway on the property into a more functional configuration. Staff finds the variance to encroach within the 75-foot setback to be minimal. The proposed side setback variance is also reasonable considering the orientation of the home and the resulting 10-foot side setback which allows for adequate open space between the garage and the home to the east. Staff suggests that reductions could be made to the proposed driveway in conjunction with other mitigating measures to encourage stormwater infiltration. Curtis stated a practical difficulties analysis was provided in the staff report and Staff can go over that criteria if the Planning Commission would like. The Planning Commission may consider the following motion alternatives: Page 1 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. Approval of the hardcover, lake setback, and side setback variances as requested; or 2. Approval of the lake setback and side setback variances. Approval of hardcover variances resulting in a specified net reduction in hardcover and/or in conjunction with stormwater management BMPs implemented on site; or 3. Denial of the variances as requested. Lemke asked if the neighbor to the east was notified. Lemke noted they live in a different city. Curtis stated they have been notified. Curtis noted since their primary address is in a different city,that is the reason why it is not listed. Sharon Olson-Nesbitt,Applicant, stated she has resided in the property since November of 2011 and since then she has become engaged. Nesbitt stated the existing garage is too small for a pickup truck, which makes it difficult in the winter to plow the driveway. Nesbitt indicated the garage can fit two little cars but it is impossible to put two full-sized vehicles in the garage. Nesbitt stated she plans to live there for a long time and that she would like to make the property more usable. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. Schoenzeit stated it seems to be a good spot for the garage and is a reasonable request. Schwingler questioned if further stormwater management improvements could be made or whether a further reduction in hardcover is possible. Schoenzeit noted BMPs are nice to have but are not officially recognized. Curtis stated the Planning Commission can require them but that the owner would not receive hardcover credit for them. Leskinen stated not having the looped driveway could perhaps reduce some of the hardcover. Leskinen asked if the center part of the loop is green space. Curtis indicated it is. Leskinen stated it would probably be a wash then. Schwingler moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3839, Revision,LLC,on behalf of Sharon Olson-Nesbitt,865 Ferndale Road West, granting of hardcover, lake setback, and side setback variances per Staff recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Page 2 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3. #16-3845 TIM DRUK, 1240 ARBOR STREET, VARIANCES, 6:43 P.M.—6:50 P.M. Tim Druk,Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting variances for lot area and lot width as well as side yard, side street, and front yard setback in order to construct a new single-family residence on this vacant property located in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The property is less than 100 feet wide and consists of less than one-half acre in size. The front setback variance is for a setback of 20.4 feet for the porch,with the bulk of the house being located 26 feet from the street lot line. This setback is generally in line with the existing house to the immediate north and is typical of many other lots in the neighborhood. The need for the shortened setback may have to do with the topography of the lot and its relation to the `lookout' configuration. Normally a 50-foot setback would be required. As it relates to the side setbacks,the applicant is requesting 25 feet and 23 feet to place the house generally in the center of the lot, which will help avoid visual crowding in the neighborhood. Typically a 30-foot setback would be required. The only issue Staff has with this application is whether or not there should be a greater front setback. In a half-acre zone,normally there would be a 30-foot setback. Part of the rationale for that is to enable off- street parking. In this case,the actual paved road is approximately 45 feet from the front of the garage, so off-street parking would be available. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. Schoenzeit asked if there has ever been a house on this property. Gaffron stated to his knowledge, based on some aerial photographs taken back in the 1930s,there has not been,but that the property was assessed for sewer in 1985 anticipating that it would probably be built on at some point. Lemke stated it looks like on the plan that the proposed house is set back almost the same as the house next door and that there is no reason why it could not be pushed further back. Gaffron stated it is possible that it could be pushed further back but that that is a question for the applicant. Tim Druk,Applicant, stated he had nothing to add to Staff's report. Olson asked if there is a reason why the driveway is proposed in the location it is. Druk stated it was to keep it away from the corner on the left side of the house and to line it up with the neighbor's house. Lemke asked why the house was not pushed back further. Druk indicated they were attempting to line it up with the neighbor's house. Page 3 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Olson commented the application appears to be fairly straight forward. Schoenzeit stated lining it up with the neighbor's house is visually appealing and that there is still plenty of room between the front of the house and the street, leaving a usable back yard. Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3845,Tim and Julie Druk on behalf of Jan and Leonard Kennen, 1240 Arbor Street,granting of lot area,lot width, side yard,side street,and front yard setback variances per Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. #16-3846 GREGG KATCHMARK, 140 LEAF STREET,VARIANCES, 6:50 P.M.— 6:59 P.M. Gregg Katchmark,Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a creek setback variance and a hardcover variance in order to replace the existing elevated deck with a roofed open porch over an enclosed storage area below within 75 feet of the OHWL of the creek which is a Protected Tributary. The property abuts the creek that flows from Lake Classen to Stubbs Bay,which is a protected tributary and subject to a 75-foot structure setback as well as the standard limitations on hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. Portions of the existing house, deck, and patio are within 75 feet of the creek shoreline, which normally has an elevation at approximately the 960' contour. Staff has approached this application from the standpoint that construction of additions which would expand the footprint of this residence in the 0-75-foot setback, or which would increase hardcover within the 5-foot zone, would not be supportable. However,the applicants are proposing to essentially replace the existing deck in its existing footprint, add a roof over it, create enclosed storage under it, and not increase hardcover from the existing levels. Existing and proposed hardcover is just under 16 percent and is well below the 25 percent allowed for the property. No additional hardcover is being added in the 0-75 foot zone so runoff from the site is not expected to increase. The only new structure footprint proposed is the 4-foot extension of the deck southward and the stairway leading to the driveway. This constitutes 46 square feet of added structural hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone,while overall structural coverage on the lot will still be at only 5.5 percent,which is well below the 15 percent limit. The proposed roof over the reconfigured deck would appear to provide functionality while enhancing the architectural styling of the existing residence. Because the proposed deck roof is well below the 30-foot height limit, it is not expected to be visually intrusive from neighboring properties. Staff does not believe the character of the neighborhood will change if the variances are granted. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. Page 4 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schwingler commented it is a great improvement. Gregg Katchmark,Applicant, stated the main objective is to replace the current deck that is old and rotting and that the improvements would help the appearance of the house. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Mark Gronberg, 110 Leaf Street, stated he is in favor of the application and that the Katchmarks have done a wonderful job of fixing up the property. Gronberg noted the house was constructed well before many of these rules were in effect and that the creek used to have a 26-foot setback. The DNR then recommended a 50-foot setback and Orono went to 75 feet. Gronberg stated this situation is not the same as Lake Minnetonka and that the dam downstream acts as a holding pond. As a result, the water quality is not impacted that much, especially when the porch is being constructed over existing hardcover. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Leskinen stated it is a good improvement and that there will be no additional hardcover being added to the property. Lemke indicated he is in agreement. McGrann moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3846, Gregg Katchmark, 140 Leaf Street, granting of a creek setback variance and a hardcover variance in order to construct a larger covered porch over an existing deck,per Staffs recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. #16-3847 CHARLES CUDD,LLC,ON BEHALF OF DDK,LLC,2525,2535 AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD,PRELIMINARY PLAT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AND REZONING, 6:59 P.M.—8:03 P.M. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd, LLC,was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is proposing a new development called Shadywood Villas,which is a 7-lot single-family residential development on 3.67 gross acres. The parcel is located south of Shadywood Road and north of Kelly Avenue in the southeast corner of the community. Total net density for purposes of comparing the proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan is 2.129 units per acre. The development will be served by municipal water and sanitary sewer. There is a lift station on the other side of Shadywood Road and sanitary sewer runs along the south property line. A new extension will go through the new public road that is proposed and will connect with the existing sewer to feed the lift station. City water is also located on the east side of Shadywood Road and will serve all seven single- family units. Barnhart noted the project is likely the lowest density that is eligible for city water and sewer, with three units per acre being the minimum allowed by the Metropolitan Council. Three separate approvals are necessary in order for this application to move forward, and they include a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, rezoning of the property, and preliminary plat approval. Generally the City will review the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the preliminary plat first, and then at the time of final plat the property would be rezoned. Page 5 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. The proposed development incorporates three different parcels. These three parcels are guided differently, with the two eastern lots being guided for mixed use and the western lot being guided for low density residential. The developer proposes to guide all three parcels low density residential; however, the proposed development is slightly higher in density than that classification. The proposed density represents a reduction in proposed gross density from the approved Comprehensive Plan. The area is guided at four units per acre on the east side and overall the density is guided at 10.22 units. To achieve the four units an acre envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan, attached residential units would be expected and could include townhomes or apartments/condominiums. As it relates to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,the Planning Commission should focus on the following topics: 1. The applicants propose development at a density of 3.28 units per acre rather than the 4-15 units per acre for which the eastern half of the property is guided and have requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow the lower density. a. Should the City be striving for more density or less density at this location? b. Is the single-family concept right for this area? Does it match the City's goals in terms of housing type and density? c. Will the City benefit from a development such as this? Should the entire property be developed in this manner or should this site incorporate more than one style of houses? The subject property is considered to be a transition area between the commercial and institutional uses along Shadywood and the residential uses on Lydiard Circle/Avenue to the south and Kelly Avenue to the west. The proposed development will have little to no interaction with the adjacent residential neighborhoods as there are no vehicular connections or trails out of the property to the south, north, or west. The portion of the project adjacent to Kelly Avenue is currently a wetland and the developer is proposing no plans to impact this wetland other than mitigation of invasive plant material. A Conservation Development report has been submitted and includes a Rural Oasis Study, a Natural Resources Inventory, wetland delineations, a tree inventory, and review of existing drainage patterns. The western one-third of the project area is a Manage 3 wetland,which requires a 20-foot buffer. A 35- foot buffer setback is proposed,which is greater than the minimum required. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands being preserved. A significant portion of the eastern half of the project area was clear cut in 2012. Remaining trees can be found along the edges of the project area and on the slope above the wetland. A number of volunteer shrubs or plants can be found in the center of the development area. The developer is proposing to preserve existing significant trees to the extent possible but a number of them will be impacted by the planned road connection. The developer should be required to submit a more detailed landscaping plan. The internal road serving the development is proposed to be public, which is in line with the provisions of the CMP Transportation Plan. The proposed road is approximately 220 feet long and ends in a cul-de- sac. Hennepin County will need to approve the location of the entrance/exit to this development; although preliminary discussions with the County indicate that they are supportive of the proposed location. The proposed road is 28 feet in paved width and will be located within a 50-foot platted corridor,thus meeting the City's standard for a public road system. Page 6 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Based on the number of lots, Staff does not believe a traffic study is necessary,but the Planning Commission could require one if they deem it appropriate. No turn lanes are required or are being proposed by the developer. No accesses are being proposed onto Kelly Avenue. The proposed lots range in width from 50 to 70 feet wide, allowing for 7-foot setbacks on either side. Lots 1-4 are proposed to have 14 feet setbacks between the homes,with greater separation provided between the houses on Lots 5-7. Rear yard setbacks range in depth from 25 feet to over 280, with the average being between 25 to 87 feet. Landscaping and/or berming is proposed along the boundary of the lots. Front yard setbacks are proposed at 20 feet for Lots 1-4 and Lot 7; 58 feet for Lot 5, and 33 feet for Lot 6. No sidewalks are proposed. The 20-foot minimum provides space for cars one deep to be parked on the driveway and not encroach into the street. The applicants have submitted detailed grading and drainage plan and calculations, which the City's consulting engineers are in the process of reviewing. A majority of the runoff will be directed to three stormwater ponding areas,two of which discharge to the wetland. That review will need to be completed prior to review by the City Council. No trails or sidewalks are being proposed in connection with this development. The CMP suggests a future trail along Shadywood. In addition, Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District have talked about adding trails along Shadywood but plans have not progressed to the point where a particular side of the road has been picked. The Planning Commission should also consider whether RPUD is the appropriate rezoning option for this development. Staff believes RPUD is the only viable option for development of this parcel in the manner proposed by the applicants and the CMP. RPUD standards require that 10 percent of the development site be provided as a private recreation area or open space to serve the residents of the development. The wetlands, which encompass a significant portion of the development,act as open space but are not accessible for recreation purposes since the wetlands will be placed within individual lots rather than as a separate commons area. In addition to the creation of a private recreation area to serve the residents of the development,the City requires dedication of 8 percent of the land as public park or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The nearest public open space is the Lydiard Beach area located to the south of the site. The Planning Commission should consider the following in connection with the preliminary plat review: 1. Is the Commission comfortable with the level of flexibility requested,recognizing that RPUD standards require a significant level of development flexibility. Does the Commission have any concerns regarding the lot widths, setbacks, or other RPUD standards for which flexibility is required in this proposal? 2. Is the Commission comfortable moving the project forward, recognizing that the landscaping plan, engineering and storm water management plans have not been fully reviewed. 3. Should trails or sidewalks be provided to connect this neighborhood with the community at large? Page 7 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. Is it imperative that 10 percent private open space be provided by the developer? Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the applications, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The City should identify alternate sites for higher density development if the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved. 2. Rezoning to RPUD,to be formally approved at the time of final plat approval. Preliminary plat approval should be subject to the following conditions: 1. Flexibility being granted for the lot area,width and setback standards of the RPUD District. Hardcover will be limited to the assigned Tier 4 level of 50 percent on each individual lot. The 0.50 FAR shall be adhered to on each individual lot. 2. Development shall be subject to adherence to the findings included in the Conservation Design report, also subject to removal of buckthorn on the site. 3. Significant trees should be preserved to the extent possible and as shown on the landscaping plans. 4. The applicant is to confirm with SHPO that there are no archaeological sites within the property. 5. Preliminary plat is to be reviewed by the Park Commission and Fire Chief for comments and recommendations prior to Council review of the preliminary plat. 6. The 10 percent private recreational space requirement will not be enforced. 7. Park Dedication Fees and Storm Water&Drainage Trunk Fees, as well as municipal sewer and water connection charges are to be collected in full at the time of final plat approval. 8. Vacation of easements as appropriate through the site. 9. Provision of drainage and conservation easement over the wetland. Barnhart stated at this time Staff does not have a formal recommendation given the lack of a review by the engineer and the lack of a detailed landscaping plan. Barnhart noted the City did receive a number of e-mails from area residents in the past few days and that there is quite a bit of interest from the neighborhood. Barnhart stated most of the comments regard concerns about the impact to the adjacent neighbors,the trees,traffic, and things of that nature. Leskinen stated according to Exhibit N, it sounds like Hennepin County is not completely thrilled with the location of the entrance. Leskinen asked whether Staff has a preference. Barnhart indicated County Staff would prefer it to be in the middle. Barnhart stated it is likely that Hennepin County forgot that they originally supported to the proposed location when considering development on the east side of Shadywood and that he has reminded them that across the street is a lift Page 8 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. station. Barnhart stated they seemed comfortable with that and that he could ask them to send a new letter if that would be helpful. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd Company, stated the most important thing he can say is that they have developed a number of neighbors over the years and that this is a smaller neighborhood development aimed at a niche market. Denman noted they have invited the neighbors, City Council, and Planning Commission members to visit some of their other similar models in Medina. Denman noted this site is a transitional area and that they are moving from larger single-family homes to smaller lots. Denman stated the other option would be to construct something that is higher density but that they believe there is a market for this product. Lemke asked if the City has not done the engineering review or whether the applicant still needs to complete that. Barnhart stated the engineering and calculations by the applicant have been received but that Staff has not had time to completely review the findings. Barnhart stated he is confident it will be completed prior to City Council review. Lemke asked if the same issue applies to the storm water management. Barnhart indicated it does. Lemke asked if the applicant will be providing a more detailed landscaping plan. Denman indicated they will be. Denman stated they have not yet determined what type of trees will be planted and in what locations. McGrann asked what the landscaping will look like from Kelly Avenue and how many trees will be removed. Denman stated there is actually quite a buffer area that will remain. From the wetland area,there will be a 35-foot buffer that cannot be touched and will remain natural. Denman indicated there are some trees located in that area. McGrann asked if there is an elevation change from the 35-foot setback to where the development would end. Barnhart indicated it is 930' in the wetland area and the corner of the house is 941 feet, which is 11 feet between the two points. Barnhart pointed out the wetland and the buffer area on the overhead and noted the buffer area is around 933'. Schoenzeit asked if there are any improvements being proposed for the Kelly Avenue piece or whether it is merely being added for the acreage. Barnhart indicated there are some improvements that will encroach onto the Kelly Avenue piece. Barnhart pointed out the existing property lines for the parcels. Page 9 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked whether three homes will be built on the Kelly Avenue piece. Barnhart stated two-thirds of those homes will encroach into the Kelly Avenue piece but that it is important to note that part of the front yards and side yards will be on the Shadywood side. Schoenzeit asked if there is any benefit to calling the wetland area an outlot to show that that is a no-go zone. Barnhart stated historically the Council has asked that the wetlands be incorporated into private property and that the developer is proposing a flowage and drainage easement which would protect it from development. Schoenzeit asked if the stormwater ponds will be draining into the repaired culvert in the Kelly Avenue area. Barnhart stated the runoff would go into one of three ponds and would eventually drain into the wetlands and then offsite. Barnhart noted part of the engineering review is to ensure that the runoff will not leave the site at a rate or volume greater than what currently exists. Schoenzeit asked if Kelly Avenue and the lake is the low point. Barnhart indicated it is. Lemke requested a map depicting the trees be displayed on the overhead. Lemke stated from what he can tell,basically all of the trees would be removed. Barnhart indicated that is correct. Barnhart stated the developer has identified substantial trees, eight inches or greater,within the development area,which are depicted by the green dots. The developer has also identified that some of those trees will be removed as a result of the grading and house construction. Barnhart stated it appears that the majority of the remaining trees will be removed based on the existing plan. Lemke asked whether there will be any buffer along Kelly once those trees are gone. Denman stated the area that will not be touched has not been identified on the map and that there will be a number of trees remaining. Schoenzeit suggested the developer identify the trees that will remain as a different color so the neighbors and City Council will be able to get an idea of what will be left. Denman noted there are only about 15 or 18 trees that are not boxelder or green ash, which are not long- living trees. Denman stated they normally do not protect box elder trees or green ash and that over 80 percent of the trees are either box elder or green ash. Leskinen asked if area one is the setback area. Barnhart stated to his understanding it is. Page 10 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen noted that area cannot be touched. Barnhart stated the majority of the trees that are in the area to be removed are box elder but that those less valuable trees help create the fullness and rural character of the neighborhood. Barnhart stated he does not expect the developer to replant box elder or ash trees and that they will be planting a different type of tree in that area. Barnhart noted the site was clear cut five or six years ago and is now overgrown with the volunteer type trees. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Julie Lonager, 2565 Lydiard Avenue, asked if the density can be raised later from what is being proposed now if the zoning is changed to RPUD. Barnhart stated when the City finally rezones the property, it would be based on a proposed development package, and to change that would require a modification process to amend the RPUD, which would also require a public hearing. Lonager stated there are 28 trees that are not ash or box elder and that on a previous project the Council required a 10-foot setback from the property line for tree removal but that it does not sound like that is the case in this application. Barnhart stated this developer is not proposing a 10-foot buffer to the south or north and that the future connection to the sanitary sewer will have some impact on the trees. Barnhart stated having a detailed landscape plan will help identify some of those impacts and how they can be lessened. Frank Masserano, 2560 Kelly Avenue, stated their residential property directly behind the house goes all the way to Kelly Avenue. Masserano stated he is curious if the City is only requiring seven feet from the road to the church property line. Masserano stated they lived there when the honey oak trees were cut down, and now that they are gone, there is no reason not to go in there. Barnhart stated the proposed project shows 10 feet from the back of curb to the property line. Masserano stated that is probably a historical setback and that he would prefer the road be located on the other side of the property. Masserano stated his concern, apart from the 10-foot setback, is to preserve the trees in the 10-foot area regardless if they are box elders or ash since they provide a nice canopy. Masserano asked who the registered owner of the property is. Barnhart indicated DDK is the registered owner according to Hennepin County. Masserano asked if it would be possible to build an 8-foot cedar fence on their property. Masserano stated they would be interested in doing that to provide a little more privacy. Bob Ponzetti, 2545 Kelly, stated he lives across the street from the proposed development and that he is very much in favor of what is being proposed. Ponzetti stated everyone on Kelly would love to see nothing constructed on this site but that is not realistic. Page 11 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ponzetti noted he has lived there for 22 years and that he saw what happened four or five years ago when they clear cut the site. Ponzetti stated if a commercial operation goes in there,the same thing would happen again with the trees. Ponzetti stated under this plan,Kelly Avenue appears to be minimally impacted with the exception of the trees. Ponzetti stated other than a concern that enough trees are planted or left,he cannot see anything wrong with the project as proposed. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Lemke noted the Commissioners have seen the e-mails that have been submitted. Lemke stated he was not present when the sketch plan was initially discussed but that it appears the developer has incorporated most of the recommendations into his plan and that the Council is in favor of going in this same direction. Schoenzeit commented the City has seen a number of proposals for this site and that this recent proposal is probably the most appealing and has the least impact on Kelly Avenue. Schoenzeit stated as a recommendation going forward, he would like the developer to create a very detailed landscaping plan showing the trees that will remain and that perhaps the church could speak with the developer about perhaps picking up the cost of the fence. Schoenzeit noted the City has the opportunity to control the access point to some degree and get the proper landscaping planted. Lemke noted the Planning Commission is being asked to review a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and asked whether the Commission feels the City should be striving for more density or less density at this location. Schoenzeit commented the City talks a good game on density,but anytime someone proposes high density, the City tends to run away from it. Schoenzeit stated in his view this is a good place for mixed use but that is not the proposal before the Planning Commission. McGrann asked if subsequent changes to the CMP would need to go through a similar process. Barnhart indicated they would and that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment is based upon what is before the Commission this evening. Lemke asked whether the Commission feels a single-family concept is right for this area and whether it matches the City's goals in terms of housing type and density. Leskinen stated she would concur with Commissioner Schoenzeit's comments and that it would be a nice spot for mixed use. Leskinen stated since that is not before the Planning Commission,the next logical use would be single-family residential. McGrann and Schwingler indicated they are in agreement. Lemke stated the next question is whether the City will benefit from a development such as this and whether the site should incorporate more than one style of housing. Schoenzeit commented the number of houses being proposed is limited. Lemke asked if there is a market for this type of house. Page 12 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Denman stated in their view there is a market for it and that the empty nester market is one of the more active markets at this time. Schoenzeit asked what the square footage and approximate cost would be. Denman indicated the homes would cost in the $700,000 range. Lemke asked how the Planning Commission feels about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. McGrann indicated he is in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Schoenzeit stated in his view the lower density reduces the City's options and kicks the can further down the road. Schoenzeit stated in his view the proposal makes sense for this site if they do not take into consideration the City's higher density goals and that it is the best one for this site that has been presented to the City in years. Lemke asked whether the Planning Commission feels RPUD zoning is an appropriate option for this development. Leskinen stated if the site is to be rezoned,the RPUD option provides the City with the highest degree of control over what happens on the property. Lemke stated in his view it is more appropriate for residential rather than commercial since it is some distance from the business district. Lemke asked if the Commission is comfortable with the level of flexibility being requested,recognizing RPUD standards requires a significant level of development flexibility. Schoenzeit stated it allows the best use of the total site,especially given the large wetland on the property. Lemke asked if the Commission is comfortable moving the project forward recognizing that the engineering, stormwater and landscaping plan have not been fully vetted. McGrann stated that is one of his concerns given the number of trees that would be removed. Schoenzeit stated in order for the next step to be taken, additional details on the landscaping are required and that it would behoove the developer to add the category of what is not being taken away in the buffer zone. Schoenzeit stated as it is shown currently, it looks as though the entire treed area is being removed. Lemke noted a detailed landscape plan is the one thing that has not been submitted by the developer. McGrann stated the tree removal will likely be an issue with the neighborhood. Olson asked if there is some way to have a stop gap measure in place to ensure that the trees are not removed without a replacement plan. Barnhart indicated the Planning Commission can comment on their concern in their motion regarding the tree removal if they are comfortable moving the application forward without the landscape plan. Page 13 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission could also recommend that the plan not be approved unless a detailed landscaping plan is submitted. Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission will be seeing this at the time of final plat. Barnhart indicated they will not unless there are some major changes to the plan in the meantime. Denman stated they will be submitting the landscaping plan prior to the application proceeding to the City Council and that they can also provide copies to the Planning Commission for their input. McGrann asked whether the neighbors would have the opportunity to comment on the landscaping plan following this meeting. Barnhart noted this is the public hearing but that the Mayor will probably allow the residents to comment on the plan at the City Council meeting. Barnhart stated the Mayor is not obligated to hold a public hearing and that he does not want there to be the assumption that there will be a public hearing at the City Council meeting. Denman stated he would not mind sending the plan out to the neighbors and that he is not opposed to asking the Mayor to allow public comments. Barnhart noted written comments as well as the minutes are provided to the City Council prior to them reviewing the application. Olson asked whether the neighbors will receive another notice. Barnhart stated he cannot call a public hearing at the City Council level for this application and that if he sends out a notice to the neighbors, it would be considered a public hearing. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission is uncomfortable with not seeing the final plan,the Planning Commission can table any action on the application. Denman stated he would be happy to send out the landscape plan to the residents listed on the notice list. Lemke commented that would be very helpful. Lemke asked the Commission whether trails or sidewalks should be provided to connect this neighborhood with the community at large. Barnhart stated there are no existing trails or sidewalks in this area but that there are plans to put a trail along Shadywood on the north side. Barnhart noted this development is located kind of in the middle of the block and that it may not be the best intersection for a trail. McGrann commented it probably is not necessary. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, noted it would be difficult to fit a sidewalk in that area since the developer is proposing to build a berm and a fence for privacy. Gronberg stated a sidewalk could go in along the right-of-way on County Road 19. Page 14 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated the Council has discussed a similar situation on other recent developments and that they have required an easement but have allowed the easement to be landscaped. Barnhart noted any trail would impact the buffering and berm proposed by the developer. Lemke asked whether the Planning Commission feels it is imperative that 10 percent private open space be provided by the developer. Barnhart stated the developer could pay a park dedication fee instead of a land donation. Barnhart noted the only public space nearby is Lydiard Beach and that there would not be a connection from this property to that area. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission does not feel the need for the land donation,they would basically be waiving that. Lemke asked whether there are any other issues or concerns with the application. Leskinen commented she is still on the fence a little bit but that she is closer to approving it versus some of the other proposals the City has seen for this property. Leskinen stated she does have a concern with removal of so many trees on the site,but that given the work that would be needed on the site, it may be difficult to preserve very many. McGrann stated he is inclined to have the application move forward with the hope that the developer will send out the plans to the neighbors prior to the City Council meeting. Olson commented the proposal is a good use of the site and that the developer is willing to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Lemke indicated he is in agreement with the conditions recommended by Staff. Schoenzeit moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3847, Charles Cudd,LLC,on behalf of DDK,LLC,2525,2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road, granting of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3847, Charles Cudd,LLC,on behalf of DDK,LLC,2525,2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road, granting rezoning to RPUD, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3847, Charles Cudd,LLC,on behalf of DDK,LLC,2525,2535,and 2545 Shadywood Road, granting of preliminary plat approval,subject to a detailed landscape plan being submitted to the City prior to the City Council meeting and with the recommendation that the City Council hold a public hearing on the application. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Barnhart noted the City Council is not legally obligated to hold a public hearing and that the Planning Commission cannot require that one be held. Barnhart stated any public comments could be sent to Staff prior to the City Council meeting. Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3847, Charles Cudd,LLC, on behalf of DDK,LLC,2525,2535,and 2545 Shadywood Road, granting of Page 15 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. preliminary plat approval,subject to a detailed landscape plan being submitted to the City prior to the City Council meeting and with the recommendation that the City Council take public comments from any interested residents in attendance at the meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. #16-3849 ABLE ENERGY COMPANY ON BEHALF OF TOM ROBB, 570 BIG ISLAND, VARIANCE,8:04 P.M.—8:11 P.M. Tom Robb, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a side yard setback and average lakeshore setback variance in order to install solar panels on the roof of the existing cabin on the property. The existing 1950s cabin on the property is situated as close as 1.2 feet from the west side lot line, which is the undeveloped right-of- way to the lake and 64 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback based on the cabin at 560 Big Island. The applicant is proposing to install flush-mounted solar panels on the roof of the existing cabin. City Code allows roof-mounted solar panels on the roof of a structure meeting all the required setbacks. The required setback from a right-of-way on Big Island is 30 feet; therefore,variances are required in addition to the average lakeshore setback variance. Staff finds that due to the code requirement for solar panels and the existing cabin in a nonconforming location, there is not a conforming way for the applicant to install solar panels on the property. Solar panels will not be visually intrusive to the neighboring properties or when viewed from the lake. No public comments have been received to date. Staff recommends approval of the request. Schoenzeit noted it is not expanding the roof area but is putting something on a house in a nonconforming spot. Curtis indicated that is correct. Schoenzeit stated it is an allowed use on a house and it would not be extending over the roof area. Tom Robb, Applicant, stated he is the property owner of 570 Big Island. Robb stated he would like to install the solar panels on the roof of the cabin. Robb stated the reason the cabin is located where it is is because they only owned the one lot at the time it was rebuilt and they acquired the other two lots later on. Robb stated there was a pre-existing cabin in that location that was replaced. Robb stated the solar panels will occupy approximately half of the roof area. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. McGrann moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3849,Able Energy Company on behalf of Tom Robb,570 Big Island, granting of a side yard setback and Page 16 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. average lakeshore setback in order to install solar panels on the roof of the existing cabin, per Staffs recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 7. #16-3841 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS,8:12 p.m.—8:20 P.M. Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance would modify Orono's existing floodplain ordinance to be consistent with the National Flood Insurance Program. The NFIP has updated their model ordinance recently, and in order for someone to be included in the national Flood Insurance Program,the City must adopt floodplain regulations by ordinance. Inclusion in the NFIP allows local property owners to obtain flood insurance,which may be a requirement of some mortgages. Without insurance,property owners would not be able to refinance their mortgage or purchase a home with a loan. The draft ordinance will replace Orono's existing floodplain regulations and would incorporate some additional definitions utilized by the City but follows the DNR recommended ordinance closely. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance, it would then be sent to the DNR for their review, followed by City Council review. Barnhart noted the changes are highlighted in gray and are as follows: 1. Page 3, Lines 25-30, a definition of Lake Minnetonka has been added. 2. Page 4, Lines 17-25, additional information has been included regarding the regulatory flood protection elevation(RFPE). 3. Page 9, the two areas that the DNR has recommended as optional have been highlighted. The first addition concerns the use of methods to elevate structures. The second addition is in regards to alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission has the option of leaving those two items in the ordinance or to remove them. Planning Staff recommends approval. Leskinen noted Page 5, Lines 27-40 under Establishment of Zoning Districts,have the letters AE and A and AE highlighted. Leskinen asked whether there is any significance to the highlighting. Barnhart indicated those areas were highlighted so he can discuss those with the DNR so he can have a better understanding of the zoning districts. Barnhart stated no changes are being made to that section. McGrann asked if there is any concern that this will not be completed by November 4. Barnhart stated the next step is to forward it on to the DNR. Barnhart stated the changes are relatively minor and that Staff does not anticipate any problems receiving approval from the DNR. Barnhart stated if the DNR does not respond or is not in support of them,he will pull those changes out of the ordinance prior to it going to the City Council and that he does not anticipate any problems meeting the November 4 deadline. Lemke asked if the optional ones should remain. Page 17 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated those are optional as identified by the DNR and are not necessarily in the City's Code currently. Lemke asked if Staff feels those options should be included. Barnhart stated it provides more options for Staff. Leskinen asked if any of the optional methods to elevate structures are contrary to the City's ordinances. Barnhart stated the floodplain regulations are an overlay district and overlay the base zoning for that district. The base zoning would contain the height restrictions and other regulations. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Lemke moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3841, City of Orono,Text Amendment,Floodplain Regulations as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 8. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: JUNE 27, 2016, AND JULY 11, 2016 Barnhart reported on the following City Council actions: • Approved the comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary plat for the Eisinger property. • The Bollis application was withdrawn prior to the City Council meeting. • The City Council directed Staff to complete a wetland delineation on the east side of Lurton Park and directed Staff to draft a resolution of approval. Barnhart noted the Council will likely not vote on the resolution until September or October since additional work still needs to be completed on the application. • The Bowlsby application on Spring Hill Road was approved on Consent. • The Ned and Michelle Dau application at 220 North Gate Road was approved on Consent. • The 1991 Fagerness Point application was approved on Consent. • The Anderson application at 3585 Sixth Avenue was also approved on Consent. • John Brunello's application was approved with a modification to the side setback that required 17 feet on each side. • The 215 Hollander application was approved on Consent agenda. Barnhart stated overall the Council's actions were generally consistent with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Schoenzeit asked whether the Planning Commission will be taking a boat trip. Page 18 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July18,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated Staff has not done any work on scheduling the boat trip and that Staff would need to notice a public hearing. ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. ATTEST: Bruce Lemke, Acting Chaff Page 19 of 19