HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-2016 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bruce Lemke,Denise Leskinen, 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 Member
Lizz Levang was present. Mayor McMillan arrived at 6:55 p.m.
Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Chair Thiesse noted Item No. 4 has been removed from tonight's agenda at the request of the applicants.
NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 15,
2016
Leskinen moved,Olson seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of August 15,2016,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
2. #16-3851 PETER BLUTH,2413 CARMAN STREET,VARIANCE,6:32 P.M.—6:35 P.M.
Peter Bluth,Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the City Council recently approved variances allowing a second story addition over the
existing detached garage,which is a nonconforming oversized accessory structure. There were a number
of plan revisions between the initial submission and final plans for approval. In the revision process,the
bathroom fixtures originally proposed in the detached garage upstairs were inadvertently removed from
the plans. Staff also missed this omission. The applicants do wish to install a half bath in the upper level
of the detached garage.
An oversized accessory structure must meet a minimum of a 30-foot setback from all property lines.
Plumbing may be installed within a conforming accessory building via an administrative plumbing
permit,but because the required 30-foot setbacks are not met, a variance is necessary to permit plumbing
within the structure.
Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the oversized garage constitutes a practical difficulty with
respect to making any typical residential improvements such as plumbing.
The Planning Commission may wish to discuss the practical difficulty analysis contained in Staff's report.
Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Staff would also suggest the applicant apply a
recorded covenant which states that the accessory building will not be:
1 Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by this Code.
Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained.
Page 1 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances.
Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of
title of the property.
Thiesse asked whether the City has a standard form relating to the covenant.
Curtis indicated standard language would be included in the language of the resolution.
Peter Bluth, Applicant, stated they removed the bathroom due to cost and then put it back in. Bluth stated
they would like to improve the functionality of the garage.
Thiesse asked if the size of the room is the same.
Curtis stated the room size is consistent with what was originally shown but the bathroom fixtures had
been removed.
Thiesse commented it appears the room is large enough for a bathtub. Thiesse asked if the applicant
plans to come back later to request a bathtub.
Bluth stated that is just the way the room fits in the building and that he has no intention of putting in a
bathtub.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Schwingler moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3851,
Peter Bluth,2413 Carman Street, granting of a setback variance and to allow plumbing within the
existing nonconforming oversized accessory structure subject to Staff recommendations.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
3. #16-3859 ROBERT GUMNIT AND FRANCES GRAHAM, 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY
ROAD SOUTH,CONITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:36 P.M.—6:39 P.M.
Robert Gumnit,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the owners of the property would like to modify the existing two-story tack building to
include a full bathroom so that it can serve as a caretaker's quarters. According to the code, it would be
considered a guest house. The property consists of over nine acres in area, so therefore a guest house is
permitted via a guest house conditional use permit.
The lot is considered a lakeshore property. Therefore the location of the tack building between the home
and the street is conforming. The guest house would be within the 999 square foot building footprint and
the required setbacks are also conforming.
Page 2 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Staff would also request the applicant apply a
recorded covenant which states that the accessory building will not be:
1 Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by this Code.
2. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained.
3. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances.
Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of
title of the property.
Curtis noted the property is served by city sewer,which is how this building will be served.
The City has received no public comments regarding this application.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Robert Gumnit, Applicant, stated the application speaks for itself and that he thanks the Planning
Commission for their consideration.
Thiesse asked if the building will be changed.
Gumnit indicated the building will not change at all. Gumnit stated the room currently has a toilet in it
and they are simply adding a bathtub.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3859 Robert
Gumnit and Frances Graham, 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road South,granting of a conditional use
permit subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #16-3861 DUSTIN AND CASIE KINDL,2649 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCES
This item was removed at the request of the applicant.
5. #16-3862 ROBERT LUND, 2732 CAROLINE AVENUE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCE, 6:39 P.M.—6:43 P.M.
Robert Lund,Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to permit a guest house on
the property. The guest house will be constructed above an existing detached garage with a footprint of
1,164 square feet. The footprint includes a deck and a stair on the exterior. A variance is required
Page 3 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
because the existing detached garage is nonconforming because it exceeds,by 164 square feet, the
permitted 1,000 square foot maximum OAS size for the 1.25 acre property.
The detached garage does meet the required principal structure setbacks. Lot coverage,the overall
hardcover levels are conforming, and the property is served by city sewer. Plumbing is permitted in
accessory structures provided the structure is conforming. The variance is necessary because the garage
is nonconforming because it is too large.
According to the plans, it appears the existing deck will be extended. Staff would ask for clarification on
that and recommend that that not be permitted.
Properties within the LR-1C zoning district require a minimum of one acre per lot for a guest house and
this property meets that requirement.
The Planning Commission may choose to review the practical difficulty criteria within Staff's report.
Staff finds the criteria permitting a guest house conditional use permit have been satisfied. It is not
feasible to reduce the garage's footprint to gain compliance as the building itself without the deck is 13
square feet above what is permitted. Staff finds the variance reasonable.
Curtis noted Staff's report regarding the neighbors' signatures was in error and the City did not receive
any comments from the neighbors regarding the application.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for the guest house use and variance
permitting the guest house as proposed. Staff recommends there be no expansion of the deck or footprint
during the remodel which results in additional structure. Approval of the conditional use permit for the
guest house will also require the guest house and OAS covenants be recorded against the property.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Robert Lund, Applicant, stated he has nothing to add to Staff's report but would be available to answer
any questions.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m.
Thiesse stated he did speak with one of the neighbors who indicated he thought it was a great idea.
Lemke moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3862,Robert Lund,
2732 Caroline Avenue,granting of a conditional use permit and variance subject to Staff
recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
6. #16-3864 PETER ESKUCHE ON BEHALF OF GRAHAM MERRY,500 WILLOW
DRIVE SOUTH,VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:43 P.M.—6:49 P.M.
Page 4 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday,September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Peter Eskuche,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the owners of the property at 500 Willow Drive South wish to construct a new residence and
guest house on the property. The property is within the two-acre RR-1B zoning district and is just over
4.0 acres in area. Therefore a guest house is permitted via the guest house conditional use permit.
The owners wish to construct the guest house prior to construction of the main residence and have
planned to construct the main residence farther from the street than the guest house. Therefore, in
addition to the conditional use permit for the guest house use,the applicants are requesting a variance to
allow the guest house streetward of the principal structure..
Because the guest house is proposed to have an approximate 1,450 square foot footprint,it is considered
to be an oversized accessory structure. The property is over 4.0 acres and is permitted one oversized
accessory structure up to 1,600 square feet. An OAS must meet principal structure setbacks.
The property has been tested and viable septic sites have been located. The applicant is still developing a
final plan to be reviewed by the building official.
The Planning Commission may choose to review the practical difficulty criteria contained in Staff's
report.
Staff find the criteria permitting a guest house conditional use permit have been satisfied. Regarding the
variance for the location of the guest house to be closer to the street than the principal structure, Staff
finds that the location of the guest house makes sense. While technically the proposed use for the
undeveloped property can be accomplished in keeping with the Code,the location shown is potentially
the least impactful to adjacent neighbors.
A list of signatures of supporting neighbors as well as supporting comments from both of the adjacent
neighbors have been provided and have been included in the Planning Commission packet.
In accepting this conditional use permit,the property owner will be required to agree to the filing of a
covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be:
1 Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by this Code.
2. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained.
3. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances.
Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of
title of the property.
The Planning Commission may consider the following motions:
1. Approval of the conditional use permit for the guest house and variance permitting the guest
house in the location proposed.
2. Approval of the conditional use permit for the guest house; denial of the setback variance.
Page 5 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
3. Denial of the conditional use permit and variance.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Peter Eskuche,Architect, stated he is here representing the property owner and will be available to answer
any questions.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
Thiesse commented the application appears reasonable and that the guest house will not be very obvious
from the road.
Schwingler stated the proposed location is a logical spot for the building.
Schoenzeit asked if the two buildings will be compatible aesthetically.
Curtis stated that is the plan.
Leskinen commented the request is reasonable.
Lemke asked if there is a basement.
Curtis stated it is a tuck-under garage.
Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3864,Peter
Eskuche on behalf of Graham Merry,500 Willow Drive South, granting of a conditional use permit
and variance permitting the guest house in the location proposed subject to Staff recommendations.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
7. #16-3855 ERIC AND ANDREA LARSON AND SCOTT AND JEANNE MABUSTH,690
BROWN ROAD NORTH AND 740 BROWN ROAD NORTH, SKETCH PLAN, 6:50 P.M.—8:10
P.M.
Tom Goodrum,Westwood Engineering; Rose Lorsung,Recreate Real Estate; and Andy Nelson,
Westwood Professional Services, were present.
Gaffron stated this is a request for a sketch plan review regarding a 27-acre property consisting of two tax
parcels. The proposal is to develop the site into 25 single-family residential lots ranging in size from
15,000 square feet to just over two acres. All lots are proposed to be served by municipal sewer and
water and an internal road system. The proposed plan would require rezoning and an amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan, as the properties are within Orono's defined Rural Area in which the minimum lot
size for new development is two dry buildable acres.
In reviewing this sketch plan,the Planning Commission should consider the following:
Page 6 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
1. The property has been zoned and guided for 2-acre single-family development for many decades.
The current Land Use Plan guiding for Low Density Residential Use by suggesting a density
range of 0.5-2.0 units per acre was established to reflect the various historic densities of
development within the defined Rural Area but was not intended to direct that land historically
zoned for 2-acre lots should be changed to higher densities.
The City specifically guided certain carefully selected properties for higher density in 2010 to
meet Metropolitan Council goals. This was not one of those properties. Therefore,the proposed
development is a significant departure from the historic planned development pattern for this site.
The proposed RPUD element of the proposed subdivision would not appear to be similar in
character to surrounding development. To the immediate west is the Sugar Woods residential
neighborhood, to the immediate south of the property is a single-family residence on a 2.9 acre
lot. Beyond that, in the City of Long Lake are the West Shore Townhomes and the Lake
Community Bank. To the southwest is the Orono Woods Senior Housing residence.
2. If higher density for a portion of the site is deemed to be acceptable, is the Planning Commission
comfortable with the 15-000-20,000 square foot lot sizes generally proposed in the RPUD portion
of the site? Do these lot sizes provide a reasonable transition between the rural 2-acre lots to the
north and the variety of development types to the west and south?
3. Portions of the property located less than 250 feet from the creek or less than 250 feet from the
ordinary high water level of Long Lake are not eligible to be rezoned to RPUD nor are they
subject to flexibility in terms of lot standards. The applicants are requesting that these areas be
included in the RPUD rezoning in order to allow flexibility due to the physical limitations o the
site.
4. Due to the number of units to be served,the proposed overall density of development and the use
of municipal sewer and water systems, it could be argued that the road system should be public.
Applicants are prepared for the road to be private. The Planning Commission should discuss the
merits of this being a public or private road.
5. The Planning Commission should discuss whether this development should be required to create
the RPUD standard 10 percent private recreation area and whether the proposed internal trail
system would satisfy that requirement.
Gaffron noted the topography is very rolling in this area, with some wetlands along the north in the creek
area,a linear wetland centrally located, and along the lakeshore. Gaffron pointed out the location of the
existing house on the overhead.
Gaffron indicated the applicants have a presentation they would like to give to the Planning Commission.
Tom Goodrum, Westwood Professional Services, stated this project has been three years in the making
and that they have spent a lot of time and effort designing the development. Goodrum noted their team
has worked in the area for a number of years developing properties.
Page 7 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Goodrum stated they do not see the proposed development as a significant change to a lot of what
currently exists in the City. Goodrum commented this is a very unique and gorgeous piece of property
consisting of 27 acres. Long Lake is located on one end of the parcel, Brown Road is on the other side,
there are large residential lots to the north, and to the south are apartment buildings, a senior living
facility, downtown Long Lake, and about a two to three acre residential area. Goodrum stated the plan
they are proposing tonight complements all of it and hits the policies of the City.
Goodrum stated the second unique feature on the site is the natural areas consisting of Long Lake, the
creek,wetlands, and woods surrounding the perimeter of the site and internally. Goodrum indicated they
spent a lot of time and effort reviewing the features of the site and fitting the development in.
The last unique feature is the transitional character of the property. Goodrum noted this property
transitions from downtown Long Lake, lakeshore property to the north,residential areas, and basically
mirrors what is down Brown Road. Goodrum stated the only way someone would know there is a
development located on this site is if a hot air balloon goes over it and that externally a person will not see
anything different from the road.
Goodrum stated the sketch plan is a time to look at a plan to determine if it makes common sense,meets
city goals, and provides discussion on the design. The key points of the sketch plan include the
following:
-A design based on careful environmental analysis
-Conservation and restoration of natural features
-Maintains the integrity of Long Lake by incorporating large lots along Long Lake and the north lot line
-Complements the neighboring development to the west and south
-Will be served by existing sewer and water services
-Incorporates a low impact design
-Enhances the wetlands on the site
Goodrum stated their development goals include high quality design/high quality homes, compliance with
the City's zoning standards, environmental protection,preserving the character of the neighborhood,
stormwater/phosphorus reduction, and a rural designation/density. Goodrum stated their main objectives
for designing the development included environmental protection,preserving the character of the area,
and use of existing sewer/water services.
Goodrum stated the environmental protection plan looked at wetland restoration, cleanup of Dickey's
Creek, conservation of trees for view sheds, shoreland enhancement, lake water quality improvement,
buckthorn removal, wetland invasive species removal,tree cleanup, and phosphorus removal.
In keeping with the character of the area and transition of uses,the city code,the Rural Oasis,the
proposed density is .93 units per acre.
Pictures of the parcel from Brown Road and the interior of the site were displayed.
Goodrum noted someone driving down the road will not see the homes and that they are proposing a low
visual impact entrance into the site. Goodrum indicated they will work with the topography in developing
this site.
Page 8 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Goodrum stated their plan has the following conformance to city policies:
-The character of the area will not be altered due to the project.
-The site abuts an urban area designation.
-The site is within the MUSA and easily accessible to existing sewer and water.
-The site is within the low density designation of Orono's land use plan.
-There are several subdivisions within the Rural Area that are developed as similar densities.
-The plan will provide better stormwater and phosphorous control than 2-acre buildable area.
Goodrum indicated they also met the City's zoning standard checklist and that one of their goals is to
meet the City's standards. Goodrum noted there is nothing in the zoning standards they are proposing
that the City cannot accept. Goodrum commented they have the ability to move lot lines,to maneuver
driveways, and create a site the City really wants.
Goodrum stated their request to utilize the RPUD is simply to create a transitional and environmentally
improved development. An RPUD would allow them to effectively develop a 27-acre site to match the
surrounding area. It also provides the ability to create complementary but individually unique lots within
one site and keep the entire site under the Rural designation. The RPUD also allows them to utilize
existing sewer/water services and effectively incorporate a stormwater plan that reduces phosphorus
runoff.
RPUD plan improvements for the entire site include the following:
1. Lots 4, 5, and 6 improved building pads/create average buffer.
2. Preserving existing home and pool.
3. 50-foot wide roads with rural ditch.
Goodrum indicated they are comfortable with the road being either public or private and that they are not
looking for a lot of flexibility under the RPUD. Goodrum stated this parcel is similar to other RPUD
areas within the City and is located within MUSA and the Rural Area but with smaller lots.
The development also complements the Sugar Woods development,uses conservation principals,rural
density within the site, utilizes existing urban services,and improves runoff and water runoff.
Andy Nelson, Westwood Professional Services, stated the goals of the stormwater plan are to meet the
requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,runoff rate control,runoff volume control, and
treatment of runoff. In order to accomplish those goals, a conservation stormwater design was created to
exceed the goals of the MCWD. The tools used were a stormwater pond with irrigation reuse, sand iron
filtration bench, rain gardens and pervious paver driveways.
The stormwater pond will be a large basin that provides stormwater control and treatment, an amenity for
neighborhood, and to provide water for reuse in sprinkling. The sand iron filtration bench provides
additional phosphorus removal in addition to the wet ponds. The rain gardens will provide runoff
treatment and serve as an amenity to the neighborhood. The pervious pavers will provide runoff
treatment and volume control by allowing it to infiltrate into the driveway and ground.
A layout of the pond and the different elements of the stormwater design were displayed.
Page 9 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Nelson stated with their plan they are able to exceed the goals of the MCWD and will reduce phosphorus
by 87 percent over existing conditions and 25 percent over required MCWD design.
Examples of single-family home styles proposed for the development were displayed.
Goodrum stated due to the different size lots, they can have different style homes. Property owners
would have three different types of homes to choose from. Goodrum indicated they are creating a
neighborhood within a single property.
Goodrum stated in conclusion, this is a very large lot that allows transition of housing type, maintains
rural density,provides for phosphorus reduction with their stormwater plan, improves and enhances
existing environmental features,maintains the character along Long Lake, maintains the character along
Brown Road, is similar to existing rural neighborhoods, and utilizes existing sewer/water services.
Goodrum stated the rural designation with sewer would provide a reasonable use for this type of
development and use of the RPUD.
Schoenzeit asked what type of research the applicants have done to determine the type of demand for this
product and the number of units.
Goodrum stated they have talked with a number of developers and in their view this is a doable project.
Rose Lorsung,Recreate Real Estate, stated she does quite a bit of business in the west metro area and is
the real estate agent for this project. Lorsung indicated they have a number of very Orono friendly
custom builders that are excited about the site given the uniqueness of the site,the many natural
amenities,the close proximity to businesses and the highway.
Lorsung stated they are very excited to make sure this is a high-end development by requiring covenants
as well as incorporating future architectural requirements to preserve the values of all the lots. Lorsung
stated the development will be something that Orono can be very proud of.
Thiesse asked if Staff has any concerns about the access not lining up with Sugar Woods.
Gaffron indicated Staff has not reviewed that at this point.
Lemke asked if Sugar Woods has a private road.
Gaffron indicated it is a private road with approximately one-acre lots.
Olson asked how these lots are better than 2-acre lots with regards to stormwater control.
Goodrum stated by using the pervious pavers,they are capturing the water and directing it back into the
pond rather than into the lake. Goodrum stated everything they are proposing prevents stormwater from
entering the lake. The rain gardens will also capture the runoff. Goodrum indicated they are
incorporating five or six different techniques that will improve the runoff by 85 percent versus the 25
percent required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Nelson stated typically only one or two of these stormwater techniques are used on a 2-acre lot and that
they are utilizing four or five of them to exceed the requirements.
Page 10 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday,September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke asked what percentage of the rain water will be contained on the property.
Nelson stated they are required to contain the 1-, 10-, and 100-year storm events. Nelson stated they will
be well below the existing conditions that come off the site currently.
Thiesse asked if there is a concern about the small wetland near the proposed road and whether it has to
be mitigated.
Goodrum stated that wetland is considered incidental and current laws allow it to be removed.
Schwingler asked what the impact would be of removing the wetland.
Goodrum stated it would be mitigated through the stormwater plan they are proposing and that whatever
improvement the wetland is doing will be compensated by their stormwater plan.
Rose Lorsung stated Mr. Ullom,the wetland delineator,was not able to attend this evening. Mr. Ullom
has submitted an application to the MCWD for the delineation and a full restoration plan. Lorsung
commented this is a huge opportunity to improve the wetlands on the north abutting the creek. Currently
the wetland is highly degraded. Lorsung stated when the small incidental wetland on the south side of the
property is removed,they will actually be doing some restoration work to the wetlands along the creek
but also the wetland in the middle of the site.
Lorsung stated when they met with the Watershed District onsite, it was obvious there was a lot of
opportunity for improvement. Lorsung indicated they will also have a tree preservation plan,perform
wetland restoration and management class enhancement. Lorsung stated the goal will be to get all the
wetlands enhanced and that what they are proposing is a stormwater plan that is called a low impact plan.
The goal of the plan is to treat the water where it lands instead of creating stormwater ponds everywhere
and then utilize native plants to help absorb the water.
Thiesse asked whether they have had luck with the pervious pavers after a few years.
Nelson stated it depends on how much sand is placed under the pavers. Nelson stated if it is designed
right, it will last a number of years.
Lemke asked whether the project would still be economically feasible if they go with a lower density.
Goodrum stated we can't do it financially at a two-acre subdivision.To make this a doable project, we are
going to be meeting the higher density, smaller lots,RPUD. If we could shave a couple lots, it would be
part of the discussion with the property owners.This is a design we felt very comfortable with presenting
to you.
Lorsung stated one of the obvious benefits of the property is that it can be rezoned to an RPUD. Lorsung
noted RPUDs act as a zoning district in Orono with very specific setback requirements and that they
could massage some of the lot lines. Lorsung stated they wanted to present a plan that meets code and
that they are open to those conversations subject to not losing any lots. Lorsung stated in their view this
is the right number of lots. Lorsung noted the entire site could support 40 lots but that they do not want
that many and that they feel 25 is highly reasonable.
Page 11 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated in her view it is a nice looking development for the location. Leskinen stated in looking
at the aerial photos of the parcel and the surrounding areas,the development appears to fit in there nicely
and that she does not have any huge concerns with the density. Leskinen stated the site transitions well
and the applicant has put a lot of thought into their proposal. Leskinen stated she also likes the
stormwater management and that overall the plan is promising.
Thiesse stated he agrees that a lot of thought has gone into the development but that he is not completely
sure on the density.
Schwingler commented he is also struggling with the density and the impact of the development on the
lake given its current situation. Schwingler stated he likes the stormwater designs but that he struggles
with the density
Lemke stated he also feels the same way about the density and that it seems to be an abrupt change from
what is on the other side of the road. Lemke noted right across the street is extremely low density.
Lemke stated he understands the applicants are trying to echo what is on the other side of the road but that
in his view it is too jammed in there.
Goodrum stated they shared the same concern but that they are not just looking at Sugar Woods.
Goodrum stated as someone comes out the driveway,they will see a three-story senior apartment
building, and then next to that are the townhomes and then Long Lake after that. Goodrum stated in their
view they blend in with Sugar Woods and the other areas.
Olson asked whether any traffic impact studies have been done.
Goodrum indicated they have not done a full-blown traffic study. Goodrum noted Westwood
Engineering has traffic engineers on staff and they do not believe there will any significant impacts.
Goodrum stated they can look into it further.
Thiesse stated he questioned what the right density was for the property and that he arbitrarily eliminated
four lots but that it really did not change the character of the property since there will still be the road and
the cul-de-sac. Thiesse stated he is leaning more towards liking it than disliking it at this time.
Thiesse asked about private versus public road.
Schoenzeit stated the road should be made to public road standards.
Lemke asked why Staff prefers public if Sugar Woods is private.
Gaffron stated part of that relates to the proposed density and that Staff considers this to be an urban
density project. Gaffron stated in two-acre and five-acre developments, the City has almost exclusively
gone with private roads. Gaffron stated it is a departure from the characteristics of Orono's rural density
and that he would suggest it be a public road.
Thiesse stated he dislikes giving recommendations without knowledge of what the neighbors think.
Thiesse asked whether any of the neighbors have been approached regarding the project.
Page 12 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lorsung stated they are fine with public roads but they would like to maintain the 50-foot right-of-way
rather than paving it. Lorsung stated in terms of density, Sugar Woods has 30 acres with 25 lots and they
have 27 acres with 25 lots. Lorsung stated when you look at the average density for both sites,they are
about the same.
Lorsung stated the Larsons and Mabusths are very well connected to the community and that part of the
reason why there are two acre lots being proposed for around the perimeter of the site is to be sensitive to
the neighbors. Lorsung indicated the property owners wanted to ensure there is enough buffer between
the neighbors and the development but that they did not approach any neighbors specifically since this is
still at the sketch plan stage.
Chair Thiesse asked for public comment at 7:44 p.m.
Paul Muldoon, 1801 West Farm Road, stated the devil is in the details and that he has had three days to
review it.
Muldoon read the following statement into the record:
"My wife and I reside in the Orono community. Our home is located in the West Farm Road
subdivision,which is immediately adjacent to the applicant's property.
We understand that this is a preliminary hearing intended to solicit both neighborhood and
community feedback on the applicant's proposal. We have read the applicant's proposal and
reviewed the commission's preliminary review.
Tonight's forum is time limited and does not permit our full commentary on the Commission's six
items under consideration. Instead we will limit our remarks to Items 1-3,which are the baseline
rezoning and variance requests. We respectfully request that these remarks be entered into the
record. A written copy will be provided.
Let me begin by saying that we are interested in the applicant being able to develop their site in
accordance with the applicable, existing ordinances and zoning as they stand today and have stood
consistently since the applicant purchased this property in the year 2000.
These historical ordinances are both old and new, in the sense that they were in place before
applicant's arrival and affirmed by the community for decades. They were adopted formally as The
Community Management Plan in 1980, and have been reaffirmed via our current 2010-2030
Comprehensive Plan as recently as 9/13/2010.
By our understanding of the Planning Commission's minutes, under current zoning, the applicant
would be entitled to develop up to 10 residential parcels and be able to build on all land other than
that currently designated as protected wetlands.
The permitted scale of a 10-unit single-family development with 2-acre lot minimums, is common,
profitable and fits our community's existing, stated land use and buildable area restrictions. We
support the applicant's rights to this level of development. Importantly, it is compatible and
consistent with the Planning Commission's past decision making,practice and preservation
philosophy.
Page 13 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The applicant's proposal is to rezone their specific plot to an RPUD, with, in many cases, lot sizes
less than 25 percent of the minimum required standard, and setbacks over 25 percent shorter than
minimum required standards.
This request has no compelling justification by the owner and goes against the general welfare of
the applicant's other residential neighbors. It greatly threatens to impair the purposes and intent of
our ordinances that are specifically drafted to preserve the essential and irreplaceable character of
our community's wetlands, and as importantly,the overall health and water quality of Long Lake,
which should be noted is already under great stress.
It is clear to us residents that the proposal for urban zoning in a historically designated wetland area
will clearly adversely impact the environment,the immediate neighborhood, as well as the broader
Orono community,which relies heavily on the stability and consistency of the Planning
Commission's enforcement of current preservation regulations.
It is well established that building area standards that are significantly less restrictive than those
otherwise commonly present in an area threaten the essential character of that neighborhood. In
addition,relaxing land use standards on wetland areas through selective variances can threaten the
long-term viability of all community wetlands through precedent.
We, along with many of our neighbors here tonight, believe the applicant's request for rezoning and
variances is a threat to the essential character of our neighborhood and community.
Many of us have selected to live in our neighborhood based on its low density character. We abide
by the current regulations and expect our neighbors to do the same. We see no compelling reason
as to why these neighbors should be granted an exception to do otherwise,especially when it is a
privilege to them and a detrimental impact to us and the environment, especially including the
water quality of the lake.
The applicant will incur no hardship in development within the existing zoning rules and allowing
us to continue to enjoy the neighborhood in its current character. The same cannot be said to be
true otherwise. The applicant bought this parcel with full knowledge and understanding of its
development limitations. There is no hardship associated with having them abide by current
regulations.
We view the rezoning application as an attempt to obtain special privilege and maximize profits on
their land sale. The only thing clear about their intent is increasing the zoning density to make it
more attractive and valuable to a third party buyer.
In our opinion, any commentary on the applicant's sketch plan appears premature,as site layout,
configuration,and building character can change dramatically depending on the end beneficiary of
this request. The only thing certain, however, is the new owner's ability to demand future
variances,based on their purchase of a site that,by description, allows density far in excess of this
application.
In closing, I will say that my family and many of the immediate neighbors are in very strong
opposition to this proposal. It is unjustified. It will negatively impact the rural nature of our
Page 14 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
neighborhood. It will harm the environment and the water quality of Long Lake. It presents
density and building standards far less desirable than that in place both within our neighborhood
and similar zoned wetland areas in the broader Orono community.
For us residents,this sketch plan is much more than a simple departure from the consistent
protective zoning that has been in place for several decades.
Thank you for the time in listening to these remarks."
Muldoon stated at another time he will specifically address each of the opinions and representations made
previously since in his view there are significant factual misstatements.
Tim Adams, 1810 West Farm Road, stated he has resided in Orono for 47 years. Adams indicated he
served on the Planning Commission and the City Council for seven years from 1979 to 1986 and was the
developer of the Farm at Long Lake.
Adams noted he only had 24 hours to review the material and that he will say that Staff has progressed
tremendously in terms of the quality of the material presented to the Planning Commission.
Adams commented he was amazed to see Jeanne Mabusth, who would fight for ten feet of hardcover
reduction, on the application. Adams stated he was also surprised to see Mike Gaffron's name since he
championed Orono's septic system program which made it possible to keep high density from Orono.
Adams noted that has been the City's goal the entire time he has lived in.
Adams stated maybe some of the new technology can overcome the hardcover issue, but if it doesn't,
Long Lake suffers.
Adams stated he also remembers the discussions surrounding the Sugar Woods development and the
City's concerns about the trees. At that time the City Council went out and marked all the trees that
would remain. Adams stated a person will find very few of those trees still there. Adams stated the
problem with runoff and hardcover, if the technology does not work,the lake is ruined and it will be hard
to recover. Adams stated he is concerned about the density issue,the hardcover,and the threat to Long
Lake.
Adams stated if the Planning Commission recommends some restrictions, he hopes they are enforceable
and realistic and based on sound engineering practices. Adams noted Orono has always been tough on
restrictions. Adams stated with the Farm at Long Lake they had 550 feet of lakeshore and the
requirement in the zoning book said 200 feet for lake access. Adams stated they were only allowed two
accesses because they did not have 600 feet. Adams stated the Planning Commission should not be
fearful of being tough when it comes to something that is significant.
Ted Schultz, 744 Brown Road North, stated he has resided here since 1992. Schultz stated it has been
exactly three hours and five minutes since he first heard about this project and that he is concerned about
the lack of transparency. Schultz stated he recognizes that the owners have a right to develop the property
but that in his view it needs to be done with a certain amount of planning so it meets the objectives of the
City. Schultz stated he would like to see more transparency in this process.
Page 15 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse noted this is a sketch plan review and that there is no formal application at this time. Thiesse
indicated the matter will be coming back at some point and there will be a public hearing at that time.
Schultz stated a lot of thought has gone into this project and he does not understand how some people can
hear about it but yet he has the longest property line immediately adjacent to it but only just heard about
it. Schultz stated he and Mr. Hutter will be impacted the most by this development.
William Dunlap stated he has resided in this area since 1981 and has been very involved with the water
quality of the lake in line with the vision of the Council and the Planning Commission. Dunlap
commented he respects the quality of the presentation but that the notice was very short to the neighbors
around the lake. Dunlap indicated there are 50 property owners around the lake that are in the process of
forming a lake association and that only four of them were made aware of it.
Dunlap stated he is very concerned about the wetland. Dunlap asked who will have the final decision
making authority over the wetlands and what is approved and not approved. Dunlap asked what role the
Planning Commission and the City Council have in the final determination in a project like this.
Gaffron stated there are multiple agencies that have jurisdiction in this matter. Gaffron indicated the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is the Local Government Unit in charge of administering the
Wetland Conservation Act ordinances and will be involved in wetland restoration or mitigation. Gaffron
stated in some developments a technical evaluation panel involving agencies like the DNR and the Board
of Water and Soil Resources will be utilized but that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will have
the major oversight. Gaffron noted there will be a considerable amount of review of a project like this.
Dunlap asked if the Watershed District has been involved at all at this point.
Gaffron indicated the developers have had a professional person delineate the boundaries of the wetland
which has been submitted to the MCWD. Those boundaries will need to be agreed to by the MCWD.
Gaffron stated he would like everyone to understand that this is a sketch plan review and that the public is
not specifically notified. Gaffron stated this is a chance for the developer to speak with the Planning
Commission and then the City Council. Gaffron noted the code does not direct Staff to provide notice for
a sketch plan. Gaffron stated he appreciates the fact the neighbors are here since it gives the developer an
idea of what the neighbors think about the proposal.
Dunlap asked what impact a decision on the wetlands in this case would have on the other wetlands in the
area.
Gaffron stated that is something that will be taken into account and that there is not necessarily any
precedent setting in this case.
Thiesse stated it is an agency above and beyond the City that will be reviewing the whole system.
Sam Hamer, 1770 West Farm Road, stated he is very concerned about the water quality of the lake and
that this summer there was a publication that stated the water quality of the lake has gone down. Hamer
stated in his view this is a chance for the City to limit density on this site in order to improve the lake
quality.
Page 16 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Hamer stated in regards to the traffic,his sons wait for the bus on that road and introducing 25 new
homes, 50 some cars that make a couple trips a day, will result in hundreds of more car trips on the road.
Hamer stated the sidewalk is located on the west side of the road and there is no crosswalk in the area.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m.
Thiesse stated this development needs to fit in with the neighborhood as well.
Goodrum stated it was very helpful to have the discussion with the Planning Commission and the
neighbors. Goodrum noted his background is in city planning and that he was there when they first
introduced the wetland laws and that he was the local government unit for Carver County and
Minnetonka. Goodrum indicated he also wrote the first wetland buffer ordinance. Goodrum stated the
reason why he is on this team is because of his passion for environmentally sensitive designs. Goodrum
stated he wants to assure everyone that that is the goal and that they are not proposing any experimental
designs. Goodrum stated what they are proposing will improve the water quality of the lake and that he is
willing to speak with the neighbors about the plan.
Olson noted he received two messages today from Orono residents regarding this application and that it
would be very worthwhile to discuss the project with the neighbors.
Schwingler stated since it was not a public hearing,there are no transparency issues,but that going
forward he would encourage the developer to communicate with the neighbors.
Schoenzeit stated in general the Commission has heard a lot of comments about notification and that it
might be government speak that this is not considered a public hearing. Schoenzeit stated it looks like a
public hearing since everyone is here talking about it and that notification might be a good topic for a
work session. Schoenzeit stated he heard from the residents that the next revision needs to incorporate the
feedback of the Planning Commission and the neighbors.
Lemke stated in his view the developer has addressed the water quality and runoff in a good way but that
he has concerns about the proposed density. Lemke recommended the developer discuss the project with
the neighborhood. Lemke noted the City had a situation concerning the Lakeview Golf Course where
initially there was quite a bit of concern expressed from the neighborhood but by the end of the project
everyone was on board.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
(A recess was taken from 8:10 p.m.to 8:16 p.m.)
8. #16-3863 STEVE BOHL ON BEHALF OF NORTHSHORE MARINA,3222 NORTH
SHORE DRIVE, SKETCH PLAN,8:16 P.M.—8:58 P.M.
Steve Bohl, Developer, and Kathy Alexander,Architect,were present.
Gaffron stated this is a sketch plan for a 29-unit residential development. The units will consist of seven
single-family villas and 22 units within a 3-story condominium type building. The property is served by
municipal sewer,but would require private well or wells for water supply. Access is from North Shore
Drive.
Page 17 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday,September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The proposed plan would require rezoning and an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, converting the
property from commercial use to residential use. Development of the property also requires re-platting.
The property consists of five tax parcels. The easterly three parcels are currently zoned B-2 and have
been operating as North Shore Marina for many decades. The two adjacent parcels to the immediate west
are zoned LR-1C-1 which is a half-acre zoning district that allows up to three units per acre. To the south
and east is the LR-1B one-acre zone. The developer is exploring the opportunity to redevelop the entire
site, converting the marina site to residential.
Gaffron noted his report outlines the issues to be discussed by the Planning Commission and that at this
time he will turn it over to the applicant to make his presentation.
Steve Bohl,Applicant, stated he would like to talk about their concept for this particular property and that
he would like the opportunity to talk about the interest on the part of the community for changing density
and uses for a particular site.
Bohl stated as a developer,he is constantly chasing the market and that they have experienced a
tremendous amount of demand for different lifestyle uses and for multiple-family projects, especially in
the west metro area. Bohl stated the goal with the project is to meet market demand, and that in his view
if something like this was available on Lake Minnetonka, it would immediately be sold.
In designing the sketch plan,Bohl indicated they looked at the topography of the site, stormwater issues,
and the types of services available. The thing that came to the top was that the current use is basically a
big gravel parking lot with no stormwater management,which has an impact on the lake. Bohl noted
more significantly is the current use zoned for the site,which is a marina with a large number of boats.
Bohl stated he believes the stormwater improvements they are proposing would have a huge impact for
this site.
An aerial picture of the parcel looking from the southeast was displayed.
Bohl pointed out the topography drops pretty dramatically from North Shore Drive quickly down the
driveway to the parking lot. There is a pretty significant visual buffer along North Shore Drive. Bohl
stated given the drop in elevation and the height of the proposed building as it sits in the bottom of the
bowl,the image that drivers along North Shore Drive would have would be some rooftops of the most
southerly building. Bohl indicated they chose to go with a lake style type architecture and layered in
some townhomes as it approaches the lake. Bohl noted they located the buildings 150 feet from the
lakefront.
Pictures of the front of the proposed buildings from different angles were displayed.
Bohl explained this picture provides a front view picture from North Shore Drive. The plan would be to
improve the water quality and maintain a green space between the lake and the back of the townhomes.
Also being proposed is a pool house where the current buildings are located.
Gaffron asked about the difference between the units closer to the road and the bigger building.
Page 18 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Bohl stated the building that is closest to North Shore Drive is a 3-story condominium building. The first
floor consists of at-grade parking, with two stories of 10 units each above that. In front of that
condominium building toward the lake are six townhome style homes and one detached unit. Bohl noted
they are trying to maintain a significant buffer between the lake and the townhomes,with the
development being layered back up to North Shore Drive.
Bohl noted the uses around the site currently are primarily residential single-family with the exception of
one twin home directly to the west. Because of the topography and the soil conditions,the townhome
style is slab on grade, one level living.
Bohl stated they would be reducing the number of dock slips on the property by approximately 50
percent,with the intent for each unit owner to have one dock slip. Bohl stated in his view the impact will
be significantly less use during the summer than what is currently there. Bohl indicated they also have
had preliminary discussions with Hennepin County regarding turn lanes and access points, which needs to
be pursued further.
Gaffron noted under the City's Shoreland Ordinance,the first 250 feet is not to be used for RPUD. In this
case the Shoreland Ordinance also talks about tiering,which determines how many lakeshore lots there
would be based on the underlying zoning. In this case,based on current zoning,the developer would end
up with very few lots under current zoning and this proposal would require rezoning. Gaffron stated the
information on the overhead is specifically geared towards helping to illustrate that the Shoreland
Ordinances under a 'h acre zoning similar to the properties to the west would allow them just three units
on the entire site.
Bohl commented this development does not fit within the box and is a higher density property located on
an aged commercial site,but that does not mean it is a bad plan. Bohl stated in their opinion it will
absolutely meet market demand for people who would like to live next to the lake. Bohl stated he hopes
to get some direction from the City to see whether they are interested in seeing this in Orono.
Thiesse stated in his view the residents are probably ready for it but that the City may not be ready for it.
Schoenzeit commented the City had a hard time putting three or four units per acre on a dump site and
that this is roughly seven units an acre on the lake. Schoenzeit stated the development looks cool and will
probably sell well but that it will probably be an uphill battle. Schoenzeit stated he is not sure what the
neighbors will say about it.
Bohl stated he is not sure if there is a way to move the discussion forward. Bohl indicated they have not
met with any of the neighbors yet and that is always an issue. Bohl stated they do not know what kind of
feedback they will get until they try and whether there will be a tremendous amount of opposition. Bohl
asked if the City would be ready to take the next step if they can show there is a demand and not an
opposition by the community.
Thiesse stated the people on the lake will probably say they want the marina to stay. Thiesse stated the
standards are fairly low for this site currently and that he knows the developer will have higher standards
but that this might be a bit too much all at once.
Page 19 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit commented there might be other spots on the lake that would be more suitable for this
development. Schoenzeit stated even though there are a lot of boats, it is virtually silent through the year
with the 4th of July being the peak. Schoenzeit commented boats are relatively quiet.
Thiesse noted there was a marina up on Stubbs Bay a number of years ago that was redeveloped into
higher density.
Gaffron stated Stubbs Bay Marina was converted from a marina to residential in approximately 1980.
That property was rezoned to 2-acre zoning but then given the ability to have three single-family lots on
roughly half-acre lots. Gaffron stated it is one of the few times the City varied from the underlying
zoning standards. Gaffron stated given the boat traffic stirring up the bottom sediments and the fact that
Stubbs Bay has low water quality partially due to internal loading,the City thought it made sense to get
rid of that marina. Gaffron indicated there are other marinas that have disappeared as well, with one
being redeveloped into a DNR access on Maxwell Bay with a number of stormwater improvements being
installed.
Gaffron pointed out that the lagoon at this site had a cribbed area that was intended to take all the `crud'
from the parking lot and hold it there within a baffle system. Gaffron indicated that worked for a few
years and then quit working. Gaffron commented there has never really been any stormwater
management on this site and that he is encouraged by the idea of changing the hardcover on this site.
Gaffron stated he is concerned about losing 70 or 80 boat slips that allows non-lakeshore-owners to have
access to the lake. Gaffron noted the City is down to five marinas currently from six or seven.
Leskinen asked what the residential lake access would be.
Bohl indicated each resident would have a boat slip and that there would be 29 slips total. Bohl indicated
they would remove the end portion of the current dock configuration and keep probably six guest dock
slips. Bohl noted there would not be a public ramp or public access down there and that it would be just
specifically for the owners.
Lemke commented he likes the concept and that it allows a number of people to live on the lake. Lemke
stated the development fits that area because it is somewhat secluded and that he likes the design and the
visual buffer from the road. Lemke stated in his view it makes a lot of sense.
Bohl stated there are a couple of other examples of this type of development in the metro area,with one
being located at St. Albans Bay which has higher density than this right next to the lakeshore. Bohl stated
if the City is looking for higher density,this would be one way to accomplish that.
Schoenzeit asked whether Mr. Bohl has any budgetary numbers for the cost of a condominium unit and
the homeowner association fees.
Bohl stated he would prefer to set the market values at an acceptable range and then let the market take it
from there. Bohl stated the units will probably run between$800k to $1.5 million and that buyers tend to
do upgrades to the units that increase the cost.
Thiesse asked if it will be a stick frame on top of precast.
Page 20 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Bohl indicated it is and that it would be framed above that. Bohl stated he understands the importance of
the height restriction but that they have the peak height of the building at 35 feet instead of 30 feet given
the 16-foot drop from North Shore Drive. Bohl indicated every resident would have two parking spaces
along with some guest parking on the center driveway through the buildings. Bohl noted sanitary sewer
is available but not city water and that they have researched into how a well system could be brought to a
multi-family building to make sure fire safety requirements are met. Bohl indicated they believe they
have an idea of how to accomplish that.
Thiesse asked if there is anywhere else in the City where there is an innovative pond like that proposed.
Gaffron noted it would be a question for the DNR as to whether they would consider the existing lagoon
as part of the lake and whether it could become a stormwater pond.
Thiesse asked if the three townhome units could be tiered back further from the lake and still retain the
views.
Bohl stated in his view they could.
Thiesse commented the property is full,which is something to keep in mind.
Schoenzeit stated the issue is to sell the neighborhood and the City but that he believes the demand is
there. Schoenzeit noted there are big houses on large properties next door to this.
Schwingler stated there will probably be a density issue in addition to the neighbors' concerns.
Lemke commented it is such a radical change that it is difficult to provide direction but that the City
Council should be able to provide some good feedback.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
9. #16-3865 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO APPEALS,
8:58 P.M.—9:08 P.M.
Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance is a housekeeping measure based on the advice of the City
Attorney and formally consolidates and clarifies the appeal process for a number of decisions made by
City Staff,the Board of Appeals, and the City Council.
The City currently has a number of areas in the Code where it lists appeals. In each situation, an
opportunity to appeal that decision is allowed. The City's ordinance is somewhat cloudy since the
different appeals go to different boards. As a result, Staff reviewed the appeal process allowed in the
ordinance and developed an ordinance that would send the appeals to the Planning Commission first and
then the City Council. On any appeal decision made by the City Council,that would be through the court
process if the person wishes to pursue it further..
Barnhart noted Staff did not add any new opportunities for appeal but just clarified them and that the
changes are summarized in Staff memo. The draft ordinance also establishes the Planning Commission as
the Board of Appeals for appeals to the subdivision process. In addition,the ordinance does require an
aggrieved person to file an appeal within 10 days. Currently the ordinance is open-ended and technically
Page 21 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
someone could appeal a decision made ten years ago. Barnhart stated in his experience ten days is pretty
common and gives people the right to appeal, which is a fundamental right.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as written based on the advice of the City Attorney.
Schoenzeit asked if everything goes to the City Council.
Barnhart stated some appeals go to the City Administrator, such as false alarm penalties,permit
revocations, special permits, and some business license appeals. The Planning Commission will review
appeals relating to zoning issues and subdivisions.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:05 p.m.
Gaffron asked if a neighbor can appeal the decision.
Barnhart stated any person that is aggrieved can appeal and Staff can appeal a decision. That appeal
would now need to be made within 10 days of the decision.
Schwingler asked if the neighbor next door to the marina could appeal.
Barnhart stated they could appeal but they would have to prove that the approval was not following City
ordinances.
Thiesse asked if this would change the timing on when paperwork is sent out.
Barnhart indicated Staff is implementing a 10-day waiting period.
Schwingler asked if the City sees many appeals currently.
Barnhart indicated on variances the City does not.
Olson moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3865, City of
Orono,Text Amendment Related to Appeals. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
7. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON AUGUST 22,2016,AND
SEPTEMBER 12, 2016
Barnhart reported on the following City Council actions:
• Approved the Nyquist application.
• Approved the Peter Bluth variances on Consent.
Page 22 of 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING
Monday, September 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
• The City Council reviewed the sketch plan for Aggarwal and made comments about whether
there is a need for the memory care portion. Overall the City Council seemed supportive of the
density.
• Approved the Patrick's Bakery application. The applicant added additional parking on the back.
It was recognized that there are 18 parking stalls on either side of the property line that both
properties can use and property owners were encouraged to work closely together on the parking.
• Approved final plat for George Funk for a 2-lot subdivision
• Approved on Consent a final plat for Crystal Bay Estates.
• Approved the application from Michael and Michelle Shields on Consent.
Gaffron noted the Tom Gonyea project will be installing the silt fence and importing fill to the site in the
very near future.
8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:14
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
ATTEST: )
:17
John Thiesse, Chair
Page 23 of 23