Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-2016 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 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 Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, and Loren Schoenzeit. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Lili Tod McMillan was present. Commissioner Chad Olson arrived at 6:33 p.m. Chair Thiesse 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 OCTOBER 17, 2016 Schoenzeit moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of October 17,2016,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 2. #16-3877 GEORGE STICKNEY ON BEHALF OF BPH PROPERTIES,930 AND 970 PRAIRIE VIEW LANE,AND 1020, 1050, 1100, 1160 AND 1180 MOONEY LAKE DRIVE, VARIANCE,6:32 P.M.—7:04 P.M. George Stickney, BPH Properties, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant, on behalf of the owners of the seven lakeshore lots abutting Mooney Lake, requests a variance to exempt the properties from the average lakeshore setback regulations. The plat was approved last year. An item brought to Staff's attention by one of the builders on the site was that the average lakeshore setback was not addressed in the plat approval resolution. The average lakeshore setback line is predicated on the relationship of the home locations on the immediately adjacent lots. Since Staff does not process very many subdivisions on the lakeshore, it was something that was not addressed as part of the Mooney Lake subdivision review. Gaffron stated the areas depicted in yellow are the locations of the proposed homes. These locations were approved at both preliminary and final plat approval. What was not recognized at the time is depending on the timing, certain homes could be built before others and they could have an impact on the lakeshore setback for a new home going in. Under the ordinance as currently written, administration of the average lakeshore setback is completely reliant on the location of the existing homes on the two adjacent lakeshore lots. When there is no home on one of the adjacent lakeshore lots,the required average setback is defined as the lake setback of the home on the opposite adjacent lot. When neither adjacent lot contains a home, the average setback is undefined, and the applicant's home may be placed at the required lake setback for that zone. Gaffron stated the language could result in some unacceptable scenarios. As it relates to Lot 1,the average setback line is defined by the point of the house on the two adjacent lots closest to the lake. The neighboring house is in the City of Plymouth. The house on Lot 1 will not have an issue if they construct on the proposed location. To build any closer to the lake would be problematic given the steep slope heading down to the lake. Lot 1 in its proposed location will be more than 200 feet from the lake. Page 1 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. With regard to Lot 2,the proposed house site is just below the top of a steep slope about 30 feet above the lake and 200 feet from the shoreline. Placing the house any further lakeward would start to encroach on the average setback line and would require extensive grading or filling of the slope. Septic sites are also a limiting factor. It is not likely that this house would move nearer the lake, but if it did,there could be a slight impact on lake views enjoyed by Lots 1 or 3. The proposed house location for Lot 3 is about 150 feet from Mooney Lake and is quite restricted due to the wetland in the southwesterly half of the lot as well as by septic site locations. If the home on Lot 3 was pushed up against the 100-foot lakeshore setback line, there would be no impact on the adjacent lots' views of the lake. The proposed house location on Lot 4 is very near the road and approximately 400 feet from Mooney Lake. The relative distance between the homes and the shape of the lakeshore in this area means that no lake views enjoyed by Lots 3 or 5 will be affected. Although it is not likely, moving the house as far forward as possible toward the lake would not impact the neighbor's views unless the house on Lot 3 is moved far westward. On Lot 5 the possible house locations are very restricted by a wetland, a stormwater pond,topography, and septic sites. Moving the house eastward would require a different grading plan and potentially impact the wetland pond. The house could not move substantially westward, but angling it differently could negatively impact the average setback line for Lot 6. It would have minimal, if any, impact on adjacent homes' lake views. The proposed house location for Lot 6 is approximately 130 feet from Mooney Lake and lies westerly of the previously existing home on this site. If the home on Lot 7 moves west,the average lakeshore setback encroachment for Lot 6 will increase. There would be no impact on the neighbors' lake views even if the home moves forward. With regard to Lot 7, the proposed house location is about 150 feet from Mooney Lake and sits on a terrace just above a 15-20 percent steep slope. If the home on Lot 6 moves lakeward,that reduces the average lakeshore setback encroachment for Lot 7. Moving the house on Lot 7 westward increases the average lakeshore setback encroachment for Lot 6 but has no view impacts. The following unacceptable scenarios could result from strict enforcement of the ordinance: 1. If the first home to be built in the subdivision is on Lot 4,then if Lots 2 or 6 are vacant at the time someone wants to build on Lots 3 or 5,the average setback for Lots 3 or 5 would be established at the 400-foot setback of Lot 4, making Lots 3 and 5 unbuildable. 2. If a home is built on Lot 7 further west than depicted, which would still be conforming,that would potentially make Lot 6 unbuildable because the house on Lot 6 could not be moved further west due to topography and septic constraints. Similarly, because the home site on Lot 5 is relatively inflexible, if the first house goes in on Lot 5 as proposed with no house on Lot 7 when Lot 6 is ready to build, Lot 6 cannot meet the required 200-foot setback established by the house location on Lot 5. Page 2 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated the bottom line from Staff perspective is, regardless of where the homes are built,there is no impact to the views. It is also very likely the homes will be built as shown, but if one is relocated even slightly,there could be an impact on the average setback line for others. Gaffron stated the way to resolve this is to grant a blanket variance over each of the seven lots that establishes conditions of approval that will ensure an appropriate review process in the event of a potential view encroachment. Staff would propose the following variance language and conditions: "The proposed house or possible house site location depictions for Lots 1 through 7, Block 1, as shown on the attached drawings which were established during final plat approval are approved for house construction in the locations depicted. Any substantial relocation of homes lakeward of said depictions, which, in the opinion of the Orono Community Development Director, might impact lake views of one or more adjacent lakeshore lots, may require an average lakeshore setback review by the Planning Commission and City Council." Gaffron stated an encroachment should not occur unless one of the building pads is dramatically altered. In that situation,the application would be brought back before the Planning Commission and City Council for review. Landgraver asked if the timing of when the homes are built is also a factor. Gaffron indicated it is. Gaffron stated if the house on Lot 4 was built first,technically the house on Lot 3 and Lot 5 would need to meet that 400-foot setback. Gaffron stated it is not reasonable to expect those two homes to meet that setback and that a variance should have been approved as part of the plat approval. Lemke asked if the existing house encroaches into the 100-foot setback. Gaffron pointed out the location of the original Dayton house on the overhead and noted that house is no longer there, but did have a slight encroachment. Leskinen asked if this would only come back to the Planning Commission if there was a potential impact on the lake views. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Thiesse asked if it would only come back if it impacts a view of anything that has lakeshore. Gaffron stated it would be the views of the lake. Gaffron noted currently the views of the lake are a function of the shape of the lakeshore. Thiesse asked if Orono's Community Development Director will determine whether there is an impact. Gaffron stated every time a building permit comes in on this development, Staff would review it to see if there are any view impacts. Given the existing layout,there are no view impacts,but if one of the homes does suddenly move to a point where they could impact somebody's view of the lake, it would need to come back before the Planning Commission. Page 3 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked if that would also be for the second and third go-around of building 15 to 20 years from now. Gaffron stated he has not looked at that. George Stickney, BPS Properties, stated the situation is a little unique given the new seven lakeshore lots and the fact that Orono's ordinance was made to address existing homes. Stickney stated on a new subdivision, if the seven lots were in a straight line, it would be easier to deal with the average lakeshore setback ordinance. Stickney stated a couple of builders mentioned the average lakeshore setback line to him and Staff and it was felt that this should have been addressed at the time of preliminary and final plat. Stickney noted they have a very strict covenant and architecture review committee for this subdivision and that they will not be allowing any homes to be constructed in the Big Woods. Stickney stated he can come up with some extreme examples, but that it is very unlikely those scenarios will occur. Stickney stated the only lot that might get within 150 feet of the lake with a pool or something may be Lot 3 and that all the homes were planned to be 150 to 200 feet back from the lake. Stickney noted Lots 1 and 2 will probably not get built on for a number of years since they were purchased by the adjacent property owner and that the house pad on Lot 4 is even further back from Lake Mooney. Stickney stated in his view they can handle it on a staff level and that they will also be managing it through the architecture review committee to make sure no one is harmed. Stickney stated it is his understanding the City of Medina does not have an average lakeshore setback ordinance. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Leskinen stated in her view a blanket variance is a reasonable solution to a potential problem. Landgraver commented he is in agreement with Commissioner Leskinen and that there should be some termination date for the variance once all the homes are built. Schoenzeit suggested if an average lakeshore setback line is established, they should no longer be exempt. Gaffron stated there still could be potential issues. If Lots 5 and 7 are built exactly as shown, Lot 6 would need an average lakeshore setback encroachment to build where proposed. Thiesse stated the intent of the ordinance is to eliminate any surprises for the neighbors, and if everyone knows where the building pads are to start with,the surprise has been taken away. Thiesse stated his biggest concern is that the variance is shown to someone who wants to purchase a lot and then the owner of the lot next door would not be aware of that since he purchased his property before the variance was granted. Page 4 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Stickney stated they will govern that with the architecture review committee to make sure the houses are placed correctly and that the correct number of trees are cut in the Big Woods. Stickney noted the homes are proposed to be approximately 500 feet away from each other and that it really should not matter. Stickney noted when he was the developer for Brackett's Point,this same problem came up because they could not adhere to the ordinance and a blanket variance was recommended. Stickney stated with proper oversight and control by the homeowners, it should not be a problem. Stickney noted Lot 4 has to stay away from the septic sites and the owners desire a big yard. Stickney stated once those homes are built and the average lakeshore setback is established, it would be very difficult to deviate from that. Schoenzeit commented it is the second generation house that is the concern. Stickney stated given the price range of the homes, it is very unlikely that anyone will be tearing any of them down in the foreseeable future. Thiesse asked if there is a concern with having the neighbors make the determination of who can build closer to the lake and who cannot. Gaffron stated the City still has various other setbacks that would need to be met, in addition to the topography, and that the situation with the average lakeshore setback would be pretty much self- controlling. Gaffron stated based on a lot by lot analysis, he does not feel there are significant issues. Lemke asked what would happen if someone wanted to add on to the house, install an 8-foot fence,or construct an accessory structure lakeward of the house sites. Gaffron indicated someone could put in a pool, which would not obstruct anyone's view, but that they would likely not be allowed to place a building there that obstructs views. A property owner also would not be able to have a fence that is higher than 42 inches lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and no fence would be allowed within 75 feet of the lake. Lemke asked if the blanket variance would only pertain to the principal structure. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Stickney stated there is really no great need for any of the homes to move back or forward and that some of the lots are very limited. Stickney stated the location of the homes will be controlled through the homeowners, staff,the taxpayers, and him. Landgraver noted the City Council approved the final plat and that this is a technical amendment to take into account the timing issues. Landgraver stated his only reservation is that the blanket variance has a termination date, and following completion of construction,the normal rules and regulations would apply. Gaffron stated the only reservation is that Lots land 2 have been purchased by the adjacent neighbor to the east and that it is likely they will not be built on for a number of years. Leskinen asked if it possible to add language in the blanket variance that this variance applies to the original homes in this plat so that subsequent redevelopment would not have the ability to take advantage of the blanket variance. Page 5 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron concurred that type of language would probably make the most sense. Schoenzeit stated in many ways the expectations with this development are that the yellow pads will be the building pads. Thiesse asked if Mr. Stickney is okay with the blanket variance only applying to the original homes in the development. Stickney stated the building pads would still get reviewed and they will have to comply with the covenants. Landgraver noted the blanket variance would supersede the covenants. Stickney stated given the nature and size of the properties, they will have enough room to build and have a yard. Stickney stated he will not allow anyone to be 100 feet from the lake. Landgraver noted the suggested language by Staff states the community development director will make the determination and that he would suggest the language also include"or a similar staff person"since titles could change. Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3877,George Stickney on behalf of BPH Properties,930 and 970 Prairie View Lane,and 1020, 1050, 1100, 1160, and 1180 Mooney Lake Drive,granting of a blanket variance as proposed to exempt the seven lots from the average lakeshore average setback regulations,subject to making the variance applicable to the original homes only,and subject to the language being revised to say the community development director or similar city agent. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 3. #16-3879 SCENIC SIGN CORPORATION ON BEHALF OF LUNDS REAL ESTATE, 3333 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCE, 7:04 P.M.—7:22 P.M. Mike Edreti, Scenic Sign Corporation, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant proposes to construct a pole type style sign 18 feet high, 0.0 feet from the property line. A monument style sign, no higher than ten feet, set back at least ten feet from the property line is permitted in the business zoning districts. Barnhart stated the notification area included properties within 350 feet, with the large majority of the properties being commercial. Barnhart noted an email comment was received late this afternoon expressing a concern regarding the visibility of the sign. Barnhart stated the proposed sign is 18 feet, two inches tall and 36.22 square feet. The original pylon sign was 43.5 square feet and 8 feet, 2 inches from grade to the top of the sign and was removed in May of 2015. The proposed sign will be located at the property line in the northeast corner of the site. A portion of the right-of-way juts into the Lund's property to accommodate some traffic control devices. The proposed sign will also include two brick veneer columns. The veneer will match the veneer used in the principal structure. The sign structure will include a standing seam metal roof over the sign face, which will be green and backlit. Page 6 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart displayed pictures of the proposed sign and the existing sign. Barnhart noted there is an opening space between the two legs of the sign to allow for some visibility under the sign provided no cars are parked in that area. Staff does not have a concern with visibility for cars traveling along Shoreline Drive. Barnhart stated the proposed sign appears to meet the intent of sign regulations and provides opportunities for clear commercial communication in a way that does not impact the traveling public. The subject property, due to its development pattern established over the past several decades, has limited locations for freestanding signage that would not remove parking stalls. The planned two pole structure attempts to emulate the design goals of the monument sign regulations while preserving its functionality by elevating it above the parked cars. Staff supports the variances as requested. Thiesse asked if Staff has an idea of the height of the canopies and other signs in the area. Barnhart indicated he did not measure them but noted that there are two Holiday gas stations on the east side. Barnhart displayed pictures of the nearby signs. Landgraver commented this sign appears to be taller based on the view perspectives. Barnhart stated the ordinance requirement talks about how the accessory structure should not be taller than the principal structure and this would be lower than that. Landgraver asked how the sign is lit. Ross Elenkiwich, Lunds, stated the sign is lit internally and that the only part of the sign that would be lit up is the white part. Lemke asked if the parking spaces would be reduced. Barnhart displayed an aerial photo of the site and pointed out the location of the sign. Barnhart stated the parking lot presents some challenges and that the site has been maximized from a parking perspective. Barnhart stated Staff was unable to find any additional parking spaces. Thiesse asked if the 0.0 foot setback is from the recessed area and not the real right-of-way for the road. Barnhart indicated that is correct. Lemke asked if permission needs to be obtained from the highway department or any other governmental agency for the sign. Barnhart indicated Staff did submit the proposal to the Hennepin County Transportation Department but they have not yet commented. The sign will be located entirely on the Lund's property and there should not be any additional approvals necessary. Thiesse asked if any construction would occur within the right-of-way. Page 7 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted the overhang of the sign would be at the property line and that no construction should occur within the right-of-way. Elenkiwich stated some construction occurred back in 2015 when the original permit was issue but the construction was stopped. There is currently some plywood over the hole. Thiesse stated his concern is whether any portion of the sign would be within the right-of-way. Elenkiwich stated it would not be. Landgraver asked if the sign would be lit 24 hours. Elenkiwich indicated the sign would be on 24 hours as well as the lights in the parking lot but that the sign is not very bright and is low voltage signage. Elenkiwich stated there is no down lighting within the canopy. Elenkiwich stated they are excited to do this project. Lunds has recently completed a big addition on the front of the building as well as a small addition for a seating area. Elenkiwich stated they have updated the appearance of the store and they are glad they are able to help redevelop the area. Landgraver commented it has always been the intent of the City to upgrade the Navarre area and Lunds' efforts are appreciated and within the spirit of what the City would like to see in Navarre. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Thiesse stated he was questioning the need for the sign until he saw the photographs. Thiesse pointed out the sign may or may not be seen if a van is parked next to it, which raises a practical difficulty. In addition,the Holiday sign appears to be higher than this sign. Landgraver noted the email raised some objections to the sign but that the Planning Commission has discussed the lighting and the visibility. Schoenzeit stated the lighting is very point specific, and from a height standpoint, the addition is higher than the sign. Elenkiwich indicated it is. Landgraver stated in his view it addresses the concerns expressed in the email. Thiesse stated since it is set back on the other piece of the right-of-way, he is comfortable with the location. Lemke asked how large the island is. Page 8 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Elenkiwich stated it appears to be about 30 feet wide. The original intention was to landscape that entire area. Elenkiwich stated they would like to add more greenscape to that area to help soften the appearance of the corner. Landgraver moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3879, Scenic Sign Corporation on behalf of Lunds Real Estate,3333 Shoreline Drive,granting of a sign variance and a sign height variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. #16-3880 EVERLAST ENTERPRISES,INC.,230 TONKA AVENUE,VARIANCES, 7:22 P.M.—7:28 P.M. A representative from Everlast Enterprises was present. Curtis stated the property owner is proposing to demolish the existing structure and construct a new two- story residence on the property. The applicant is requesting the following variances in order to do so: 1. A setback variance for a 30-foot setback where a 50-foot setback is required from Tonka. 2. A setback variance for a 40-foot setback from the undeveloped Brook Street on the north side where a 50-foot setback is required. 3. Because the property is a nonconforming lot of record and does not meet the area and width standards, lot area and lot width variances are also required. All the other zoning standards will be met. Staff finds that there are practical difficulties supporting the requested variances to redevelop the property. The setbacks proposed are consistent with the neighborhood and offers a greater separation from the home to the south. Staff recommends approval of the variances conditioned upon compliance with the City Engineer's comments relating to the grading site plan at the time of building permit. No public comments have been received. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. The Applicant stated he is here to answer questions. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Thiesse asked if it is possible to position the house north and south to eliminate the side yard setback. Curtis indicated that is correct. The applicants felt by positioning the house as proposed they have more distance between them and the neighbor to the south. The area to the north is likely to never be Page 9 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. developed since it is a platted alley. The other piece that separates the alley from the Luce Line is not available land to make a cul-de-sac since both streets are very tight dead-ends. Curtis stated for all intents and purposes, the applicants are meeting the 30-foot setback but they do technically require a 50-foot setback on the north. Thiesse stated he agrees with that but that he felt the issue needed to be discussed. Lemke moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3880,Everlast Enterprises,Inc.,230 Tonka Avenue,granting of lot area,lot width,and setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. #16-3881 CHARLES CUDD,2525,2535,AND 2545 SHADYWOOD ROAD,EASEMENT VACATION,7:28 P.M.—7:32 P.M. The Applicant was not present. Barnhart stated the developer has been working on final plat for this development. The Planning Commission has reviewed this development on a number of occasions. On the overhead screen is the final plat, which is very similar to the preliminary plat. One of the things noted during the final plat review is that this property was originally platted as Leach Addition, which consisted of two lots on Shadywood and one lot fronting Kelly Avenue. At that time drainage and utility easements covered the property lines. There is also a conservation flowage agreement over the wetland. The action being requested this evening is to vacate those easements. Replacement drainage and utility easements will be provided by the applicant to correspond with the new lot configuration. The conservation flowage easement will be replaced to cover the wetland. In the view of Staff, this is a housekeeping measure and accommodates the new final plat. Schoenzeit asked if there is no erase function for the underlying easements from a County standpoint when an existing property is replatted. Barnhart stated that is correct and that the applicants need to go through this process. Barnhart noted not all plats have easements and not all plats require vacation of easements, but in this particular situation the easements do not correspond with the new lot lines. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3881, Charles Cudd,2525,2535, and 2545 Shadywood Road,granting of an easement vacation,subject to the easement vacation being recorded as part of the platting documents for Shadywood Villas. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Page 10 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. #16-3882 JON RESSLER,3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,7:32 P.M.—7:35 P.M. Jon Ressler, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to add an elevator dormer to his home which is under construction currently. The location of the elevator dormer will be approximately 70 feet from the lake where a 75- foot lake setback applies. The dormer will result in a bump-out upwards from the roof on the northeast side approximately four and a half feet wide and a 6.5 foot wide roof. A lake setback variance is required. The 10-foot side yard setback will be met. Staff finds that the location of the property as it is tucked in below the county road and served by a private frontage road, combined with the 75-foot setback, has practical difficulties in the limited buildable area. In addition,the footprint of the existing home has nonconforming setbacks on three sides. The proposed dormer for the elevator is a minimal addition to the approved home in this location. The improvement on the landward side of the home will likely not be visibly intrusive from the lake. Planning Staff recommends approval of the lake setback variance to permit the elevator dormer as proposed. Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Jon Ressler stated he would be able to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Landgraver asked where the bump-out would be. Curtis displayed a sketch of the house and illustrated the elevator dormer. Thiesse asked if the shaft is already constructed. Ressler indicated it is. Thiesse asked if the shingles will be taken off and the dormer added. Ressler stated they were initially not planning on having an access there but that the third floor access became important as kind of an afterthought. Ressler indicated the elevator will be added later when they can afford it. Thiesse stated since the shaft is already there, he does not have any concerns. Landgraver stated in his view it will not be visibly intrusive. Page 11 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend Application No. 16-3882,Jon Ressler,3683 North Shore Drive,granting of a lake setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 7. #16-3884 JEFF AND PIA SCHUTT,2750 CACO POINT ROAD,APPEAL, 7:35 P.M.— 8:07 P.M. Michael Schutt, son of Jeff and Pia Schutt,was present. Curtis stated the applicants have constructed a narrow pergola or arbor over an 11-foot long retaining wall. The retaining wall is located less than two feet from the side lot line and is detached from the home adjacent to a patio. Because pergolas are not specifically outlined in the Code, Staff reviewed the pergola against the accessory structure and non-encroachment standards. Accessory structures less than 750 square feet are addressed in the non-encroachment provisions and are permitted no less than five feet from a rear lot line and ten feet from a side lot line. In an effort to find an appropriate regulation, Staff alternatively looked at the fencing regulations as the pergola is lineal similar to a fence. In the encroachment section regarding fencing, the pergola in the current location would need to be reduced to no greater than six feet in height to meet the fence maximum. In order to close out their permit and receive a certificate of occupancy for the new home on the property,the pergola issue must be satisfactorily resolved. The applicants have opted to appeal the decision of Staff on this matter. The appeal process provides an opportunity for an applicant to present facts and prove that the City official erred in applying the Code. The applicants contend that Section Al under the non-encroachment section is applicable. Staff would note that that section relates to building elements which are attached to the building and are permitted to encroach up to two feet into a required side yard setback, still requiring on this property that the structure needs to be at least eight feet from the lot line. The pergola is approximately two feet from the property line. The Planning Commission should review the application and make a decision regarding the appeal. Thiesse asked if there is any City ordinance that would construe that the structure is in the right spot. Curtis indicated Staff was not able to find any. Landgraver asked if a landscape plan was submitted. Curtis stated this is new construction and there was a landscape plan submitted. Curtis noted there was a French drain shown on the landscape plan in the approximate location of the pergola. The builder assured Staff that the French drain is there but that is one of the features Staff has requested be shown on the revised as-built survey. Landgraver noted the Planning Commission did review a landscape plan and to his recollection the pergola was not included. Page 12 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Michael Schutt stated he is here tonight to answer questions on behalf of his parents since they are out of the country at the present time. Schutt stated given the fact that there is no structural integrity to the feature, the question is whether it should be defined as a pergola, an arbor, or a fence. Curtis displayed a picture of the structure. Schutt noted the retaining wall was needed for the drainage from the neighboring property and that the structure is an enhancement. Schutt indicated the adjacent neighbor is very much in favor of it and believes it adds to the aesthetics of her property as well. Schutt stated they would like to get some clarity on it. Thiesse asked if any public comments were received. Curtis indicated Staff did not receive any comments but that this was not noticed for a public hearing since it is an appeal and the neighbors were not specifically notified. Lemke asked if the retaining wall was included in the original plan. Curtis stated there was a patio and the French drain included in the plan but to her recollection the retaining wall was not included. It is Staff's belief that it is not a retaining wall but rather a sitting wall. Thiesse noted there is also a boulder wall that is adjacent to it but that this is more of a sitting wall. Curtis stated they are different. Thiesse asked if this would have required a variance if the Planning Commission had seen this originally. Curtis stated the wall at its current would likely have been allowed but it is the height of the structure that is at issue. Schoenzeit stated in some ways this is semantics, and that if it were a trellis with some type of plant growing on it, it would not be an issue. Schoenzeit stated the City would also want to make sure it does not expand. Schoenzeit stated the fact that there is not a lean-to on the house currently helps the situation. Lemke asked if a trellis would be allowed in this location. Landgraver noted the issue is the height of the structure. Schoenzeit asked if it being classified as a fence because of its length. Curtis stated Staff is not necessarily calling it a fence but were merely attempting to find a regulation that would apply to it. Leskinen noted it would not be allowed as a fence given its height. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission should look at the code and determine whether Staff misapplied the code to this situation. Barnhart stated while it might be a nice addition to the area, Staff could not find any code to allow it. Barnhart noted a stone wall is permissible up to 42 inches high depending on its location, but once the wood structure is added, the height is restricted. Page 13 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked as part of the appeal process whether there is any way to test whether the code was misapplied versus whether an after-the-fact variance is more applicable. Barnhart stated the applicants could apply for an after-the-fact variance. Thiesse noted that would be a separate process. Schoenzeit stated the issue is whether the code was applied incorrectly. Thiesse noted he asked if there is any code or regulation in the City that would allow it and the answer was no. Thiesse stated every time a different name is given to it, something else comes up prohibiting it. Schutt stated one of the issues is that no one has been able to apply a name to it since it is merely there for aesthetics. Schutt stated they are asking for some lenience on the structure given the fact that it is more or less an aesthetic structure. Schutt noted the wall was needed for drainage purposes and that they added the structure on top of it as an enhancement. Thiesse stated no matter what it is called, it is too high and the wall, since it serves as the foundation, is too close to the property line. Curtis stated the accessory structure regulations are pretty all-encompassing and allows a number of different structures but require five feet at the rear and ten feet into the side for the setbacks. Curtis stated from the standpoint of not calling it a fence but applying the fence standards to it, Staff was attempting to find a little leeway. Lemke stated in his view it serves the same purpose as an arbor and that he would call it an arbor. Leskinen noted even as an arbor, it would be considered an accessory use. Leskinen commented it is too high and too close to the property line no matter what it is called. Schutt stated it was included in all the original plans and was there when the property was inspected on different occasions. Schutt stated the difficulty was to depict it adequately on the plans given its height. Schutt indicated it was not until the final inspection that it caused concern. Schoenzeit asked if the circumstances would be different if it was a purchased sculpture and placed there with a forklift. Curtis stated it becomes a question of whether it is furniture, like a lawn chair or umbrella, or something that is seasonal. Curtis noted this was constructed onsite and is permanent. Thiesse stated it comes back to no matter what you call it, it is not allowed. Thiesse stated the role of the Planning Commission tonight is to verify whether the code was applied correctly, and if the applicants are not satisfied with the outcome,they could apply for an after-the-fact variance. Olson asked if the property owners were misguided and they were led to believe it was approved. Curtis stated to her recollection the original plan did not show a wall but depicted a patio in that location. Page 14 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schutt stated it has been a part of the plan from the beginning and it was not until the final inspection that it became an issue. Curtis stated City inspectors are normally called out to look at a specific feature, such as plumbing or framing. The inspectors are onsite for a limited amount of time and are there to look at a specific thing. Curtis noted this is a small feature, did not cause a drainage problem, and the neighbors have not complained about it. At the time of the final as-built inspection,the inspector walks the site, he takes photographs, and then meets with Staff to ensure that the project complies with the plans. Curtis stated Staff realizes there will be changes to landscape plans because they are somewhat,which is why that was not called out by any of the inspectors. Thiesse noted the role of the Planning Commission is only to discuss whether the code was applied correctly and that it appears the code was applied correctly. Landgraver stated as a service to the community, he would not want to say that all the applicants need to do is apply for an after-the-fact variance since that may not be approved. Landgraver stated he remembers discussing the patio since it was close to the edge of the property but that he does not remember discussing anything vertical in that area. Landgraver stated had there been something like this discussed, he probably would have had a concern about it. Landgraver indicated he tends to agree that Staff has attempted to find a way to say yes but that the height is the issue. Landgraver stated he is inclined to think the criteria used by Staff was correct and that he would tend to deny the appeal. Landgraver stated he also is concerned whether it will get a variance if it is at six feet. Curtis stated at that point Staff would probably apply the fence standards again. Schutt indicated it is 7.5 feet high and lines up exactly with the roofline on the house. Schutt stated bringing it down to six feet would result in it being directly in the line of sight from the house. Schoenzeit asked if this arbor was included in any of the elevations that were submitted to the City. Schutt stated he does not feel comfortable answering that question at this time. Curtis stated Staff could look at that. Curtis indicated she does not remember that being included and that typically landscape elements are not included in the building plans except for perhaps an egress window or a change in grade or where a retaining wall is necessary. Schoenzeit stated if it were included in the approved elevations at 7.5 feet, that would change the discussion. Curtis stated if it was not something that was called out in Staff's plan review or permitted, she is not sure that it would be approved by default. Curtis stated she is relatively confident it was not included in the building plan and that it is more of a landscaping element. Curtis stated the house is also right at the limitation for structural coverage and that this would have been an issue given its height. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,Application No. 16-3884,Jeff and Pia Schutt, 2750 Casco Point Road,to recommend denial of the appeal. Page 15 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Olson stated if the applicants were misguided at all in building this structure,they now have to tear it down and incur costs. Olson stated he is not sure if that is the case, but if it is the case, he has an issue with the applicants incurring costs to do that, especially if it was not their fault. Thiesse stated what he is hearing is that Staff did not tell them any one thing but that the applicants understood one thing but it was not on the plans. Thiesse stated if the applicants can come up with any documents that show it was included in the plans that were reviewed,they could bring it back. Right now the Planning Commission is talking about whether the existing code was applied correctly Schoenzeit stated if the applicants want to attempt to keep it,they can apply for an after-the-fact variance. Landgraver asked how much time the applicants would have to appeal the Planning Commission decision. Curtis indicated they would need to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within ten days. Thiesse asked if an after-the-fact variance would be necessary if they can show it was included in the plans. Barnhart stated if it is denied at the City Council level,the applicants will have exhausted their appeals, and another avenue might be an after-the-fact variance request. Thiesse asked if they would have to apply for an after-the-fact variance if the plans show the structure on it. Barnhart stated if Staff told them they could keep it during the review process, the remedy is not that Staff erred in applying the ordinance but rather the fact that they were misguided could be considered a hardship. Barnhart noted as-built surveys are required because things are sometimes fluid and typically it is not an issue. Curtis stated that is one of the reasons why a landscape plan is required. Curtis stated Staff requires the landscape plan to be shown on the survey. When the applicants came in for a building permit,they had a survey and a landscape plan that should have been incorporated into the survey. Curtis stated Staff is not interested in plantings but rather interested in hardscape. Curtis stated what Staff is approving is the survey. Schoenzeit stated if the applicants had provided elevations for the structure,this would be a different discussion. Landgraver asked if he would able to find documentation within ten days. Schutt indicated his parents should be back within the next ten days and that it is his belief they have all the appropriate documentation. Schutt stated he appeared tonight to show that they are willing to work with the City. Curtis stated Staff will also take another look at all the materials that were submitted. Page 16 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schutt stated if there is documentation showing that,they would be willing to submit that. Lemke asked what would happen if it was depicted on the plans. Curtis stated even if it was on the plans and somehow it appears to have been approved by Staff by omission, Staff still does not have the ability to grant a variance. Leskinen noted what is before the Planning Commission right now is whether Staff applied the ordinance correctly based on the information they have before them tonight. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 8. #16-3878 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT EMERGENCY DOCKS, 8:07 P.M.— 8:45 P.M. Barnhart noted last April the City Council adopted an ordinance that allowed docks controlled by Hennepin County to allow boats to get in and out of Lake Minnetonka in a rapid manner. Discussion centered around what protections should be in place. The issue is that there is a dock that does not have a principal residence. The Planning Commission and City Council also expressed a concern about the aesthetics of the dock and nearby area and use of the area for unintended purposes. As a result of those discussions,the Planning Commission proposed an added clause that there be a fence and gate. Since it is a permitted use in the LR-1A, there was a site plan review. Also reviewed at that time was parking at the site. Ultimately the City came up with a new ordinance amendment that identified a county dock that would be owned and operated by Hennepin County solely for the purpose of facilitating lake to ground transportation of patrons in emergency or law enforcement situations. The original allows this as a permitted use in the LR-1A zoning district. The five criteria directly connected to this use included that it would need to be directly connected to Hennepin County right-of- way, no overnight boat storage, no canopies blocking visibility from lakeshore properties,the dock must be secured by a fence and gate,and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District also needed to approve the dock. Barnhart stated late this fall members of the Long Lake Fire Department approached the City requesting the ability to store a boat on Lake Minnetonka to facilitate emergency response. The Long Lake Fire Department does have a boat that they can use. The City Council suggested an amendment to the ordinance be considered that would allow the Long Lake Fire Department to use the dock and store its boat there during the overnight hours to allow for quick access to the lake. This would be an alternative to trailering the boat to various locations. Staff's recommendation is to eliminate the no overnight boat storage clause from the ordinance. The other four clauses would still remain. It would remain Hennepin County's dock but they would allow the Long Lake Fire Department to use it if they approve the ordinance amendment. Barnhart stated the City wants to avoid opening it up to other entities having docks on the lake and that the ordinance has been very narrowly tailored to these two outside agencies. Barnhart noted Fire Chief Van Eyll is present tonight to provide some feedback to the Planning Commission. Page 17 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke asked why overnight boat storage was not allowed originally. Barnhart stated to his knowledge part of the concern was that the City wanted to avoid Hennepin County using this dock as kind of a satellite office versus the one in Spring Lake Park. Thiesse stated it is a fairly prevalent non-developed property and that it does not need to have a number of boats. Lemke asked how many boats can be accommodated. Barnhart indicated it largely depends on the depth of the water but perhaps three or four. Some of the issues initially raised will be reviewed again as part of this ordinance amendment. The City did receive site plan approval for the dock, fence, and gate. Barnhart noted this would be a modification to the site plan if approved and that the City will have to review all of those same issues. Thiesse asked if the fence and gate will be removed. Barnhart stated the fence is there. Fire Chief James Van Eyll stated the fence and gate were added once the dock was put in place after the 4th of July. Gaffron stated it is a clerical error that it was not included in the draft ordinance. Thiesse asked if Long Lake trailers their boat now and whether there is a reason why it could not be stored at a marina. Van Eyll stated there is one marina they have been speaking with and some of it relates to cost and the other part is traffic. Lemke asked if the Long Lake Fire Department is the responsible agency for any emergencies on Big Island. Van Eyll indicated they are the responding agency to any emergencies that happen on Big Island. Landgraver asked if this would limit them in any way in responding to other bodies of water. Van Eyll indicated it does but that they also utilize a smaller Zodiak boat that they use on the smaller lakes. Landgraver asked if by putting the larger boat at this site whether they are limiting their responsiveness to other bodies of water. Van Eyll stated they would be slowing the response time but not limiting it. Schoenzeit asked if the boat is tarped. Page 18 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Van Eyll indicated the boat is exposed. The boat does have a small canopy or small top over where the captain sits but the rest of it is exposed to the elements. Schoenzeit asked if it will be left that way. Van Eyll stated it will be left that way similar to the way it has been left for the past nine or ten years. Van Ey11 indicated the majority of the surface of the boat is diamond plated and that exposure to the elements is not a big deal. Van Eyll stated they do have some seat covers that need to be replaced every few years. Landgraver asked if the Long Lake Fire Department have had discussions with Hennepin County regarding this. Van Eyll stated Council Member Walsh approached the sheriff about it and they came back and said that the City Council needs to discuss this and allow overnight boat storage before any other discussions can occur with Hennepin County. Landgraver asked if they believe Hennepin County will agree with this. Van Eyll stated he is hopeful that they will. Landgraver asked what would happen if Hennepin County does not agree to it. Barnhart stated the City could amend the ordinance back. Thiesse suggested that they phrase it as a singular Long Lake Fire Department boat. Barnhart stated he typically attempts to avoid situations where ordinances are so specific because it can cause issues later on down the road. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Richard Crosby, 2705 Walters Port Lane, Orono, stated as a retired firefighter, he realizes response time is extremely important and that trailering a boat to a rescue does not work and basically adds 15 to 20 minutes to that time. Crosby stated this is a perfect spot for a fire boat and that he has had personal conversations with Sheriff Rich Stanek, who is behind this idea 100 percent. Crosby commented this is a perfect location and would allow them to serve the north bays, Crystal Bay, and Lake Minnetonka. Crosby stated in his view this is a terrific idea and the only caveat right now is the restriction on overnight boat storage. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Thiesse commented he has mixed emotions over this and that he is concerned about safety but he also is concerned about scope creep. Thiesse noted Bederwood Park was going to have a temporary ball park and 15 years later it is still there. Thiesse noted Orono does not allow residents to share a dock but that issue has come up numerous times. Page 19 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated on the other hand, while safety is important, if the boat is at this location, they would be decreasing the response time to other lakes. Van Eyll noted in ten years they have had one rescue on another lake other than Lake Minnetonka. Thiesse stated asked if they would need to go up to Maxwell Bay. Van Eyll indicated that is correct. Thiesse stated in his mind there is risk, there is scope creep, and other issues that need to be addressed before changing the ordinance. Lemke stated safety is the most important factor and that it would be quicker to go anyplace on Lake Minnetonka from this location than to launch the boat from Maxwell Bay. Thiesse concurred that safety is the number one issue. Schoenzeit stated he does not see a problem with this spot and that safety takes precedent over some of the other issues. Schoenzeit stated if it becomes a problem, the City can revisit it, and that the Planning Commission should not stand in the way of safety. Lemke asked if Commissioner Thiesse is concerned about the aesthetics as well. Thiesse stated he is. Thiesse stated things tend to creep along and that sooner or later they will be asking for a canopy. Olson stated it sounds like there are ongoing conversations with a couple of marinas. Olson asked if the Planning Commission could table this to see how those conversations end up and what the costs might be. Thiesse stated that is an option. Schoenzeit stated there also is the issue of the boat rocking with the waves. Schoenzeit asked if there is a light at this location. Van Eyll stated to his recollection there is not power at that location. Schoenzeit stated in his view a request for a canopy will be next if they are to store a boat there. Landgraver asked how much the response time would improve. Van Eyll stated since July of 2006 to July of 2015,the Long Lake Fire Department responded to 66 calls for service for Boat 11. The average response time to put the boat in the water was eight minutes and the average response time to arrive at the scene was 13 minutes. Van Eyll noted it was necessary to respond to only 43 of those 66 calls with the boat since the other calls were cancelled in route. Van Eyll stated since the boat has not been docked on Lake Minnetonka, they have had to respond to five calls where they had to put the boat in the water. The average response time to go into service was 17 minutes for the boat and the average on scene time was 32 minutes. Page 20 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked how they deal with the no wake zone near Maxwell Bay. Van Eyll indicated they have been told by Hennepin County Water Patrol that they can exceed the no wake restriction but that they have to yield the right-of-way. Schoenzeit commented going through the channel at Maxwell is probably one of the most dangerous issues they have under the current system. Van Eyll pointed out the majority of the calls come from north of Big Island or in that area and that Hennepin County is responsible for all calls in the water. Van Eyll stated Long Lake is the responding agency out to Big Island but that they do assist Hennepin County periodically depending on the location of the call. Thiesse asked if safety will not necessarily be at risk since there is another agency out there. Van Eyll sated when the Water Patrol is out there,that would be correct. Thiesse asked how often the Water Patrol is out there. Van Eyll indicated he does not know their schedule and would not be able to answer that question. Leskinen asked if the Water Patrol keeps a boat on the lake. Van Eyll stated they have some boats on the lake but that he is not sure how many at any particular time. Thiesse asked if the Water Patrol dock would be a good place to keep the Long Lake Fire Department's boat. Van Eyll indicated the Water Patrol is allotted so many boat slips and those are filled. Van Eyll noted the Water Patrol did allow the DNR to dock a boat there but then disallowed that. Thiesse stated he would like them to check other locations. Crosby stated every major fire department has a boat on the lake except for the Long Lake Fire Department and that they cover more lakeshore than any other city. Crosby stated he does not care about the aesthetics and that aesthetics are not really in play here. Crosby noted last year two people drowned on Lake Minnetonka and others were rescued and that safety is a major thing. Crosby stated it is about quick response time, accessibility, and response to the residents on the lake. All the agencies work in tangent. Thiesse stated he will not argue with that but that the two people who drowned would have been the responsibility of Hennepin County. Thiesse asked if their boat is going to be in the way. Crosby stated they would not be in the way since there are several sides to the dock. Crosby stated Long Lake would be assisting Hennepin County and that the more boats and apparatus there is on the lake,the more effective they are as a unit. Crosby stated trailering a boat to a rescue does not work and that this would make a tremendous difference. Page 21 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated it appears this is a perfect spot for everybody and last year the City allowed Hennepin County to have a dock there. Thiesse stated now Long Lake wants to have a boat there and he is wondering who will be next. Thiesse stated he is asking them to also look at different spots. Crosby noted this area is still within the City of Orono. Crosby asked why the City would prohibit it as long as the sheriff's department does not have an issue with it. Crosby stated he would like to move forward with this. Thiesse commented he is not ready to do that yet. Lemke asked where the other fire departments store their boats. Crosby stated Wayzata stores theirs at the Wayzata city dock. Van Eyll stated Mound has a dock just down from their fire station. Crosby stated to his understanding St. Bonifacious has one at the far western edge of the lake. Van Eyll stated he is not sure whether they do or not. Gaffron asked how many vehicles show up when they respond and how the parking situation will be. Gaffron asked whether there will be three or four vehicles responding. Van Eyll stated the response consists of the duty officer going directly to the dock to start readying the boat and then there is a dual response from both stations. Van Eyll stated they would go there,drop the people and equipment off if it is a Big Island fire call, and then leave the area. Gaffron stated one of the early discussions revolved around parking potentially becoming an issue. Schoenzeit commented there will definitely be a gawker slowdown on the road. Van Eyll stated there was one situation where they ended up having to direct traffic to keep people moving along. Lemke asked if the majority of the problems occur on the weekends. Van Eyll indicated most of the problems occur over the 4th of July holiday, with the rest mainly occurring on the weekends. Lemke asked if it would make sense to store the boat there just on the weekends. Van Eyll stated from a volunteer standpoint, it would be difficult to get someone to put it in the water on Friday afternoon and then take it out on Sunday evening. Crosby commented it is a very large boat and all steel. Leskinen asked if the boat would be on the water May through November. Page 22 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Van Eyll stated it was be during the boating season,which typically starts when the buoys go out. This year was an extended boating season and the last few boats have just been pulled out of the water Lemke stated his preference would be to table it and that they do not need to do anything at this time of the year. Lemke suggested the Long Lake Fire Department perhaps explore some marinas in the meantime. Schoenzeit stated he is not seeing the same issues and that in his view this should be rubber stamped given the safety issues. Leskinen commented there are probably details about boating that she is missing but that she does not see it being needed this minute. Leskinen agreed that safety and quick response time is important. Van Eyll stated the issue with tabling it is that they also have to go before Hennepin County and that they would like to put the boat in the water in March. Van Eyll stated it will probably be at least February before they get a decision from Hennepin County. Schoenzeit commented the City's hesitation also sends a bad message to Hennepin County. Crosby stated the problem with tabling the discussion is that it will delay the process. Crosby stated in his view this will get done but that they do not want to look at it after another death. Thiesse stated he does not want to see it tonight for the first time and have two people telling him that it is the best thing in the world because he has other people who are saying there are issues. Crosby stated this is the first step that lets them move ahead and that it is not just rubber stamping it. Thiesse stated he would like them to research response times from marinas, storing the boat there from Fridays to Sundays, and a little more effort put into this rather than just saying it is a great idea and let's do it. Landgraver stated he also fears stealth creep with this. Landgraver stated to the extent that it is not an undue burden, he would like to see an overall plan. Landgraver suggested they look at other marinas,this spot,trailering the boat, and then present the different response times. Landgraver stated the safety issue is a compelling case but that they need to research whether this is the best spot. Schoenzeit commented it is probably the nicest dock for egress given the wide, sloping dock. Crosby stated they can compare marina fees but that they probably cannot be at the old Sailors World since marina fees are around $5,000 a year. Crosby noted this dock would basically service the north area and that this is literally the perfect place for it. Crosby stated if they just went to North Shore Marina and Maxwell Bay, they would have to come all the way south to where the action is and that would be a problem. Crosby commented it is more fiscally responsible,the best location available, and allows the best access time to where the action is. Landgraver stated he is hearing that now, but if they were to present this to the Council, they need to have a compelling case for why it makes sense. Page 23 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Van Eyll stated he agrees, and that the first step in the process is to request to remove the language prohibiting overnight boat storage from the ordinance. Thiesse stated he would like more information and that they need to show him that it is the best place. Barnhart stated there are two parts to this application. The first part is to amend the ordinance so discussions can be had with Hennepin County. The other part is the formal approval of the site. The draft ordinance removes the overnight storage issue, which is an issue that the Planning Commission is struggling with. Barnhart indicated the Planning Commission could add overnight storage as a conditional use, and those issues in terms of parking, access, durability of the boat, those could be reviewed as part of a conditional use permit. Schoenzeit commented that would allow for additional discussion and they could prove that it is the best location in the interests of public safety. Barnhart stated that would also address the concern of the City with Hennepin County wanting to store their boat there at some point. Thiesse commented that is a brilliant suggestion.' Landgraver stated part of the role of the Planning Commission is to vet applications and that the requirement for a conditional use permit forces the discussion on some of the details. Barnhart suggested Item B read that overnight parking would be permissible by a conditional use permit. Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3878, City of Orono,Text Amendment,Emergency docks,with the draft ordinance being amended to allow overnight parking subject to a conditional use permit being granted and adding the language relating to the fence and gate. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 9. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON OCTOBER 24,2016,AND NOVEMBER 14,2016 Barnhart stated he is presently working on a summary of all the applications handled by the City Council this year. Barnhart stated he should be able to provide that over the holiday break. Barnhart reported on the following actions by the City Council: • Approved vacation of Hill Street next to 290 Crestview and the front yard setback variances on Consent. • The application for variances at 1175 Willow Brook was approved on Consent. • The Tim and Amy Sullivan application at 440 Brown Road was approved on Consent. • The Ryan and Natalie Blackwell application at 80 Smith Avenue was approved on Consent. • On the Lyle and Gretchen Shaw application at 750 Shadywood, the Council approved the lot area and width variances as well as the structural coverage variance but had issues with the hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. The applicant is revising their plan to avoid hardcover in that area. • The Windmiller and Blasko application at 3295 Crystal Bay Road was approved. Page 24 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. • The Beltnik application at 1380 Orono Lane was approved on Consent. Barnhart noted the Council followed the Planning Commission's recommendations for the most part. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON SCHEDULE Barnhart stated included in the Planning Commission's packet is a draft of the council liaison schedule for 2017. This schedule is shorter than in years past. Barnhart stated he is proposing that a Planning Commission liaison only be present for the first meeting of the month. Staff will be attempting to keep zoning items to the first meeting of the month, with the second meeting focusing primarily on engineering, finance and other issues. Occasionally a zoning item will carry over but with not enough frequency to require attendance by a Planning Commissioner. Barnhart stated the schedule can be rearranged if the person designated to attend is going to be out of town. Landgraver stated in his view it is healthy to interact with the City Council but that he would agree by simply going there and watching them agree with the Planning Commission recommendations is not the best use of time. Lemke commented the reduced schedule is a good idea. Barnhart indicated he will propose the reduced schedule at the next City Council meeting. 11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Barnhart noted a joint Planning Commission/City Council work session has been scheduled for next Monday, November 28, at 5:00 to review ordinances. Barnhart indicated he will be sending out a working summary of the 51 ordinances identified by Staff for review. A vote on the top 15 priorities will be taken similar to what was done last year. The work session will be held in the police training room. Thiesse asked how many building permits are issued in a month. Barnhart stated through October, the City issued building permits for 35 new homes and 1,350 new permits, which also includes plumbing, which consists of approximately a third of the permits. Barnhart noted plumbing, roofing and siding permits amount to approximately 50 percent of the total permits issued. Barnhart stated the number of overall permits was a little higher compared to last year but last year 68 new home building permits were issued. Schoenzeit asked how the Lakeview development is going. Gaffron indicated six or seven building permits have been issued to date. Gaffron stated in his opinion the building is going much slower than what Staff anticipated but the homes that have been built have been a success. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Page 25 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. None ADJOURNMENT Landgraver moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:56 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse,Chair Page 26 of 26