HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/16/2015 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Janice Berg, Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Christopher
McGrann, Loren Schoenzeit, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Senior Planner Michael
Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Lizz Levang
was present. Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:36 p.m.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17,
2015
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning
Commission meeting of February 17,2015,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #14-3686 JOHN BESSESEN AND TOM WASMOEN ON BEHALF OF DAVID
DELANEY, "2500"KELLY AVENUE/PID 20-117-23-11-0032,RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT REZONING,6:33 P.M.—7:58 P.M.
Gaffron stated the proposed twinhome use at this site was originally reviewed as a five twinhome
development in the spring of 2014. The applicants originally proposed a 5-twinhome sketch plan in the
spring of 2014 and received generally favorable comments from both the Planning Commission and
Council. The Council indicated the twinhome use would likely be a good transition between the
commercial or mixed use area to the immediate north and east and the twin and single-family residential
uses to the west and south. The Council also suggested that the number of units be reduced to four
twinhomes and indicated that an alternate access to Shadywood Road be explored.
In August of 2014,the applicants formally requested an amendment of the Community Management Plan
to re-guide the property on Kelly Avenue to allow for multi-family residential development where the
current guide plan is for single-family residential use at a density of two to three units per acre. The
Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal on September 15, 2014, at which time
members of the public commented on the proposed development concept. The public comments are
documented in the September 15 Planning Commission minutes and additional written public comments
are included in Exhibit D. After discussion,the Planning Commission tabled the application.
On December 11,the applicants held a neighborhood informational meeting for the purpose of providing
an opportunity for the community to review and comment on the proposal. As a result of that meeting,
the applicants chose to reconsider their options. The applicants subsequently met with Staff and have
revised their plans. The revised proposed use of the site is four twinhomes with eight dwelling units,
which would require a subdivision and concurrent rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development
District. The new proposal would have a single shared private road/driveway access onto Kelly Avenue,
with the future potential to eliminate access to Kelly and gain access to Shadywood Road upon
development of the adjacent property.
Page 1 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The Planning Commission should consider some factors for development of this property. The property
is 4.59 acres in gross area of which 0.57 acres is delineated as wetland, leaving a net dry buildable area of
4.02 acres. A flowage and conservation easement exists on the property, which encompasses the
delineated wetland area, adjacent areas not within the delineated wetland, and a portion of the steep slopes
on the property. This easement contains an approximate total of 1.6 acres, nearly three times the area of
the wetland, which places further development encumbrances upon the site. The easement was created at
a time before there were formal delineation processes in place.
The applicants will likely be requesting a revision of that existing easement boundaries based on the
current delineation. As it stands today,the proposal is for eight dwelling units on three developable acres
if it is assumed that the area of the existing easement is not buildable. The conditions of that easement
currently do not allow the developer to do very much within that area. At such time that the easement is
reduced in area,this density would decrease slightly but it is still at a density with the eight units of 2.7
units per acre,which is within the range of two to three units per acre that the site is guided for.
The property is currently guided for two to three acres in the 2008-2030 Community Management Plan
for residential uses and is zoned LR-1B, one-family lakeshore residential district,which is a district that
requires one acre and 140 feet of width. The City Attorney has indicated that a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment is not necessary because the guide plan merely establishes an allowable density range for this
portion of the Navarre area an does not specify the requirement that the development be limited to single-
family uses.
An analysis of the potential zoning options for development of this site was conducted just prior to the
September 15 meeting. The conclusion at that time was that there is a need for rezoning to residential
planned unit development. Exhibit F describes the process that was undertaken in analyzing the
development. The RPUD district is available for properties with a minimum of five acres of dry
buildable. There are a number of criteria that the Council would have to find exist prior to allowing a
change.
The four criteria for an RPUD are as follows:
1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that
development as an RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the
neighborhood or community.
2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been
developed previously as an RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as
and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. Gaffron noted that is
not the case in this application.
3. The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between
a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal
arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could be
preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by
the existing zoning district.
Page 2 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron noted the Council will need to find that this proposal meets at least one of those criteria in order
to develop the property as an RPUD.
This application is before the Planning Commission tonight for a recommendation regarding the rezoning
to RPUD. Once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation,the application will be forwarded to
the City Council for final action. If the conceptual rezoning is approved by the City Council, the
applicants' next step would be to apply for preliminary plat and Master Development Plan approval. This
step would involve preparation and submittal by the applicants of more detailed development plans, a
formal preliminary plat drawing, and engineering plans for site grading, stormwater management, etc.
The actual rezoning to RPUD would take place concurrently upon final plat and Master Development
Plan approval.
Gaffron stated as it relates to site planning considerations, the existing site is undeveloped. A wetland
delineation study was prepared for the property and is reflected on the survey. The wetland as delineated
extends along approximately half of the site's Kelly Avenue frontage. The existing flowage and
conservation easement extends from the northern boundary of the site to within 60 feet of the southern
boundary and extends an average of approximately 130 feet northeastward from Kelly Avenue.
The site contains a very substantial mature tree canopy, including a large variety of deciduous trees and
substantial undergrowth. The upland areas of the site are categorized in the Orono Natural Resources
Inventory as Maple-Basswood forest. Wooded areas contained within the flowage and conservation
easement are protected by covenants that prohibit cutting or removal of vegetation except by the written
consent of the City of Orono.
The above characteristics and circumstances directly impact the potential development of the site and
support the concept of a RPUD development scheme which allows flexibility in site layout in order to
preserve important natural features.
The underlying zoning of LR-1B would allow the division of up to four single-family lots with direct
frontage onto Kelly Avenue if the flowage and conservation easement was not in effect. Such a
development under existing zoning requirements would very likely fail to preserve the natural state of the
southwest portion of the property along Kelly Avenue and require each site to have long individual
driveways running up the hillside to access homes on one acre lots. This would not only result in much
greater destruction of the mature tree stand canopy coverage and reduce the screening of individual
dwellings as viewed from Kelly but would also result in a much higher net hardcover percentage of the
property.
Gaffron stated such a development scheme would require extinguishment of most, if not all, of the
flowage and conservation easement set up originally by the land owner and City to protect this area of the
property from future development. This is a compelling reason, in Staff's opinion, which supports the
more compact, clustered development approach for the proposed development plan.
The Planning Commission is requested to consider whether the proposed development of four twinhomes
is appropriate for this site and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a future rezoning to
RPUD. Since a rezoning action is highly discretionary, the zoning code does not specify criteria by
which a rezoning should be considered. The code merely suggests that rezoning is appropriate if the
Council finds it to be in the best interest for the physical development of the City.
Page 3 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
It is Staffs opinion at this time, in conjunction with that of the City Attorney,that an amendment of the
Comprehensive Plan is not strictly required in order for this property to be developed at the proposed
density with four twinhomes. A rezoning of the property, however, is required.
The Planning Commission is requested to consider whether the proposed development of four twinhomes
is appropriate for this site and then make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a future
rezoning to RPUD. Since a rezoning action is highly discretionary,the zoning code does not specify
criteria by which a rezoning should be considered. The Code merely suggests that rezoning is appropriate
if the Council finds it to be"in the best interest for the physical development of the City."
Gaffron stated in order to provide the Planning Commission with potential findings to make a
recommendation,they should answer the questions outlined on Page 5 of Staffs report.
Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission decides to approve the application,they should include the
following recommendations of Staff in their motion.
1. Landscape plan must provide a substantial coniferous planting plan along the south side of the
new twin home structures.
2. The twin home structures shall be located no closer than 40 feet to the east property line and the
private drive shall be located no closer than 20 feet to the east property line.
3. The final development plan should preserve to the greatest extend possible all existing mature
trees and underbrush on the property and maintain all undisturbed land not approved for site
grading and improvement in its natural state.
4. The development shall be prohibited from any type of subdivision entryway signage on Kelly
Avenue, except for an approved private street name sign.
5. The dead-end turn-a-round design at the end of the private street shall be subject to final design
approval of the Fire Chief.
6. Final road design shall be established in a manner that can be converted to readily gaining access
from Shadywood Road if that becomes feasible in the future, and provisions for future
elimination of the access to Kelly Avenue should be a consideration in the initial road design.
7. If a reduced private street improvement width is proposed and approved for less than the standard
28 feet minimum, and which includes available off-street bump-out visitor parking areas,then on-
street parallel parking shall be prohibited along both sies of the private roadway. Signs restricting
such parking shall be installed and maintained by the homeowner association if needed to assure
full access to all dwellings by emergency personnel.
8. All pertinent requirements of the Orono Subdivision Code and RPUD District standards shall be
adhered to during the development review and approval process. Particular attention shall be
paid to stormwater management within the development site to ensure the development does not
have negative impacts downstream.
Page 4 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron noted the public comments received regarding this application have been included in Exhibit F.
In addition,the City has received three more letters that have been placed in front of the Planning
Commission tonight for their consideration. There is also a letter of request from the applicants, which
was received late today.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Tom Wasmoen, Firm Ground Architects &Engineers, stated they had a very well attended meeting with
the neighbors and that in the end their comments about the five twinhome project were taken into
consideration,which led to the reduction in the number of twinhomes. Wasmoen indicated at that
meeting John Bessesen was emotionally driven to say that they would construct four individual single-
family residential homes. Wasmoen stated the site, however, does not lend itself well to four homes, and
the property owner would prefer to see this site developed to its highest and best use,which means that
the existing tree canopy will be protected as much as possible and as much of the conservation zone as
possible will be preserved.
Wasmoen stated the diagram that is on the overhead is the current proposal showing four units with a
single drive lane and a single access onto Kelly Avenue. Wasmoen stated they are basically looking to
stay out of the conservation zone as much as possible and developing the buildable part of the site, which
is located on the high side of the hill. Wasmoen stated what is interesting about the site is that in the fall,
given the trees,the homes across Kelly Avenue are not visible from this site. Wasmoen stated one can
only assume that if proper care is taken to preserve that vegetation,the twinhomes will not be particularly
visible to the existing neighbors as well.
Wasmoen stated the other thing that is important to note is that there will be a homeowner's association
involved,which will maintain the landscaping, protect the undeveloped portions of the site and take care
of gardening, plowing, and oversee the development in a professional manner.
Wasmoen indicated he also sent Staff a couple of color renderings earlier today depicting the twinhomes.
Wasmoen stated in their view the twinhomes will blend well with the more expensive homes in the
neighborhood. The twinhomes will vary from a lookout to a walkout depending on how the house sits
with the existing grades. The top elevation would be the entry level and the garage entries will be turned
to make them less impactful. From the back, the twinhomes may have a two-story appearance from Kelly
Avenue. Wasmoen stated with the color renderings,they are suggesting some architectural details and
palettes that will blend well with the other homes in the neighborhood.
Wasmoen stated they wanted to make sure people were comfortable with the architectural style and have
them understand that they are attempting to do a low-impact development. Wasmoen stated this type of
development is something that is very popular with empty-nesters and that they are looking for people
who want to stay in the Navarre community but do not want to care for a larger property.
Wasmoen stated it is their hope that the local residents will learn that they have listened and taken their
comments into consideration in designing this development. Wasmoen indicated their intention is to be
respectful to the property owner and also be good stewards of the existing environmental conditions of the
site. Wasmoen noted the conservation zone would be avoided and that they would only disrupt the area
where the buildings and driveway will be constructed. Wasmoen indicated they do have some flexibility
in the layout and that the driveway could be moved slightly one way or the other.
Page 5 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver asked how they envision relocating access to Shadywood at some point in the future.
Wasmoen stated the hammerhead that is being shown as a turnaround could become the access point that
would continue out to Shadywood. Wasmoen indicated they cannot do that now since that property is
privately owned and they do not have the ability to create an easement over the property.
Landgraver asked if they would consider abandoning access to Kelly Avenue at that point.
Wasmoen stated they would be receptive to it but it would need to be based on the fire chief's
recommendations.
Lemke asked what price point they are considering for the units.
Wasmoen indicated it would be $500,000 plus.
McGrann asked what the width is between the units.
Wasmoen indicated it is 20 feet.
Leskinen asked what the current width of the driveway lane is. Leskinen indicated she has a concern with
the driveway as it relates to emergency vehicles and their ability to turn around.
Wasmoen stated they are showing a 22-foot wide driveway and that there would be no parking on the
driveway. Wasmoen indicated they have provided parking space in terms of the driveways at each unit
and also some additional visitor parking. In addition,the hammerhead at the end would be able to
accommodate an emergency vehicle. Wasmoen indicated the plan will be adjusted per the fire marshal's
recommendations but that the driveway would be similar to a driveway to a single-family home.
Leskinen noted there are more units that would need to use the driveway than single-family homes.
Wasmoen indicated 22 feet allows two vehicles to pass by each other.
Lemke asked if there would be a curb along the driveway.
Wasmoen indicated it would likely be a surmountable curb so rain gardens can be constructed on either
side of the road. Wasmoen noted they will manage all of the water on the site so it does not drain to the
southeast.
McGrann asked if the units were more staggered and facing different directions under the earlier plan.
Wasmoen indicated they will be looking at the grade a little more closely and that with four twinhomes
instead of five,they have more room to move things around. Wasmoen stated currently they are set up so
two units can share a driveway access to help limit hardcover.
Wasmoen stated this is a model that has been used over in Blaine very effectively and would allow them
to provide more rain garden across the front. Wasmoen stated the units could be turned a little bit based
on the grading but that they need to get to the next step before fine tuning that.
Page 6 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if there is any benefit to the development as well as the neighborhood in creating
something more unique that would be more in line with the upper-end single-family homes.
Wasmoen stated they could change the materials and shapes of the gables. Wasmoen indicated the gables
are decorative and that they could perhaps add an octagon room on some units and not others.
Schoenzeit stated given the price point,the developer could be a little more creative. Schoenzeit stated in
his view it appears to have a cookie-cutter appearance.
Wasmoen stated there could be adjustments made in the plans and that some will have decks or other
features and some will not. Wasmoen stated there is also the ability to use different stone and brick on
the twinhomes.
Lemke asked if the vegetation would be basically removed on the upper portion of the site.
Wasmoen indicated a vegetation and landscape plan is required as part of the next step. Wasmoen noted
they will be providing a buffer to the northeast side of the drive. Wasmoen stated as it relates to the tree
canopy that extends onto the other property,they will attempt to preserve that and it will be part of the
consideration for how that gets developed.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m.
Judy Fredrickson, 2507 Kelly Avenue, noted she was in attendance at the last meeting when this was
discussed and that she is disappointed they have to appear again in order to defend their neighborhood.
At the September 15 meeting,the neighbors expressed their dissatisfaction with the proposal.
Fredrickson stated the neighbors also attended a neighborhood meeting held at the Freshwater Institute in
December. At the end of that meeting John Bessesen said, okay, we will build four single-family homes
with two roads off of Kelly Avenue at the north and the south ends with two houses at the top.
Fredrickson stated she thanked him for listening to their concerns and that she was surprised and
disappointed to read that Staff did not hear anything about that meeting.
Fredrickson stated the bigger picture is to think about the City overall and that every City has to look at
what is important to the City and what is unique about the City. The Planning Commission is about
protecting what is unique about the City of Orono. Fredrickson indicated she looked at the City's
website and it talks about protecting and preserving Lake Minnetonka, preserving distinct urban and rural
land patterns and lifestyles, and preserving Orono's local character and identity.
Fredrickson stated in looking at this particular project, in her view what they are doing here today is
talking about all this because the property owner, David Delaney, wants to build multi-family on this site.
The applicants have not presented one compelling reason for doing multi-family. Fredrickson stated the
only reason they are talking about it is a return on investment for Mr. Delaney, who will make more
money if he builds four twinhomes than he would on single-family. Fredrickson stated the neighbors are
not asking for a transition and that she has not seen anybody around the age 55 walking around looking
for a place to live. Fredrickson stated that is not what this is about and that it is about a return on
investment for Mr. Delaney.
Page 7 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Fredrickson stated she would like to first talk about the Community Management Plan, which is the guide
for the City. CMP Part 3C says multi-family developments will generally not be considered appropriate
for lands within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Fredrickson noted this lot is less than 1,000 feet from
Lake Minnetonka. Fredrickson stated the Community Management Plan is a very long document that
took hours and hours to create which says that multi-family should not be put within areas that are less
than 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka.
Fredrickson noted that this particular project is just phase one to what was laid out by the applicant and
that what is going to go on the backside of this is a bunch of retail and condominiums along Shadywood.
Additionally the Community Management Plan states: County Road 15, which is the key roadway
serving these urban areas, and particularly the Navarre area, is far over capacity. It is not practical from
an economical or environmental standpoint to expand County Road 15 to increase its capacity.
Therefore, additional housing options will be primarily developed along Highway 12.
Fredrickson noted the Community Management Plan absolutely does not recommend multi-family.
Fredrickson stated they are now hearing tonight that they want to change it and rezone it to RPUD. The
next step with an RPUD requires the area to be rezoned. The first requirement is that it has to be a
minimum of five acres,which this development does not meet.
Fredrickson stated since the property does not meet the minimum requirement of five acres or the
guidelines in the Community Management Plan,the applicants are now trying to make it work another
way. One of the criteria is that the property is located in an area where the proposed development
provides a transition between commercial or industrial area. Fredrickson stated she would like to say that
there has been no proof presented at this time that would suggest that single-family homes in this location
do not provide a transition to the commercial property and there is nothing to suggest that somebody
would not buy a single-family home there. Fredrickson stated as a matter of fact,there are single-family
homes right up adjacent to this property. Fredrickson stated nobody has said there has to be multi-family
in between here and that none of the neighbors are asking for it. Fredrickson stated the neighbors have to
look at this development and that the question to ask is why can't single-family be the buffer.
Fredrickson stated she does not understand why they are trying to insert that and that in her view Item C
is not justification for this development.
Item D says the property contains steep slopes and steps should be taken to save trees. Fredrickson stated
in her view this is the one thing they would all agree to, that whatever happens on this property,they
should try to minimize cutting down trees. Fredrickson stated nobody has ever asked Mr. Delaney and
his developer why they cannot take that same road and extend it. Fredrickson noted Staff talks about the
fact that there has to be four roads,which is a silly example since they cannot do it because there is no
easement. Fredrickson stated that is not an option and that it should not have been included in the
document.
Fredrickson asked why they cannot simply drive up there and put single family homes up there on a cul-
de-sac. Fredrickson questioned why four twinhomes need to be built. Fredrickson noted the design calls
for two-car garages, which adds up to eight two-car garages. Fredrickson noted nobody from the City has
asked for a diagram with four single-family homes.
Fredrickson stated they also are not Blaine but Navarre. There are two,three and four million dollar
homes across the street. Fredrickson stated they do not want half a million dollar multi-family homes
across the street from them to devalue their properties. Fredrickson stated they purchased their properties
Page 8 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
knowing that area was zoned single-family. Fredrickson noted that Mr. Delaney also purchased the
property knowing it was zoned single-family and that they are not asking him to live with something he
did not know when he bought the property. Fredrickson stated she does not understand why one property
owner gets to trump the rest of them.
Fredrickson stated the question to ask is, what is the big community development that will be achieved
with this proposal. Fredrickson stated no park is going to be built and no beautification project is going to
happen to save something. Fredrickson questioned why they are spending all this time on a project for
one person. Fredrickson stated the answer is so Mr. Delaney can get a better return on his investment and
that the neighbors are asking the Planning Commission to stop the madness and just say no.
Fredrickson stated she has a 17-year-old daughter who is good about asking over and over for the same
thing, which is true of the applicant. Fredrickson stated sometimes you just have to say no, enough is
enough.
Ken Heimbach, 2525 Kelly Avenue, stated what really concerns him is that Tom Wasmoen is glossing
over the meeting that was held in January. Heimbach indicated he was here in September and it was the
same thing. The Planning Commission told the applicants to have a neighborhood meeting. The
neighbors attended that meeting. At that time the applicants had another plan that would face Kelly. The
neighbors were opposed to that. Finally John Bessesen said, okay, we understand,we know you do not
want twinhomes, we will go with four single-family homes. Heimbach stated the neighbors thought it
was all over at that point. In the interim months the applicants have been back discussing this project
with City Staff and the first the neighbors knew of any change was a postcard in the mail six days ago.
Heimbach stated it was his understanding Andrew Mack was going to be in attendance at the
neighborhood meeting and that he then wrote him a letter saying that because there was no one from the
City there, he wanted to put in writing what happened. Heimbach stated the neighbors were given the
impression that this multi-family project was over. Heimbach stated somebody has used the term that it
was disingenuous, but that in his view it was a lie. Heimback stated Bessesen wanted to get the neighbors
out of there so they did not need to deal with them anymore.
Alex Ware, 2587 Kelly Avenue, stated in September the neighbors raised a number of issues and there
were over two dozen neighbors that were in attendance that spoke or wrote in comments. Ware stated in
his view many still feel that same way but they are not able to be here tonight. Ware stated he would like
their comments that were made earlier to be reviewed and taken into consideration.
Ware stated the developer has chosen not to take the neighbors' comments into consideration. The
primary issues that need to be addressed are erosion and flooding. This property is very unique, is very
steep, and causes significant issues with flooding. The drainage study cited a number of 100-year events.
Ware noted this area of Kelly Avenue has flooded dozens of times in the past few decades. Ware
indicated there have been steps made to clear out some of the culverts and improve the drainage, but that
he would call attention to the final point of the drainage study,which says that this area is very sensitive
to any increase in runoff. Any additional development should be required to maintain or reduce existing
runoff rates or volumes. Ware noted that comes from the City study.
Ware stated while the improvements suggested in the plan will cost several hundred thousand dollars of
taxpayer money, they will not likely address the concerns. The increase to hardscape in the area started
Page 9 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
with the development of the Lund parking lot that has created a cascading effect down the hillside. Ware
stated adding more hardscape will only be a detriment.
Ware indicated he is in agreement with Judy Fredrickson's comment relating to the driveways with four
single-family homes is not a possibility given the wetland crossing that would be required.
Ware stated he would like the Planning Commission to take into consideration the drainage study,the
cost of improvements, and the increased hardscape leading to increased runoff. In addition, safety issues
should also be considered at the intersection of Kelly and County Road 15. Ware stated it is likely the
traffic counts will more than double. Ware stated the number of vehicles from this project would more
than double those that received postcards about this development. Ware stated the increased density and
traffic will only lead to increased safety issues. Ware stated if this project gets any traction, a thorough
traffic study needs to be done.
Ware stated as it relates to the impacted property values, in his view this will have a significant detriment
to their property values. Ware stated if this application is approved,Mr. Delaney will win economic
value and the rest of those in the neighborhood,who bought into the current zoning,will lose. Ware
stated he would ask the Planning Commission to take those items into consideration.
Chuck Nadler,2509 Kelly Avenue, stated he wants to talk about the safety and the traffic. Nadler stated
the intersection of County Road 15 and Kelly is already overloaded. Nadler stated he supports Mr.
Delaney developing this property as it is currently zoned but that he does not see any rationale for this
development.
Nadler stated when the developer presented tonight, as he talked about all the things that would be
required of him, such as how the drainage will not spill to the south,the landscape, and lots of other
commitments, the reality is that their integrity is not very good. Nadler stated he would be very
concerned about whether they would meet all of these commitments that the City puts on them.
Elizabeth Sedgwick, 4182 Arrowhead Drive, Medina, noted she is not a resident in Orono and originally
had no intention of speaking this evening. Sedgwick stated when she was walking through the parking
lot, she saw a truck door open and some books spill out. Sedgwick indicated she went over to help him,
during which time Mr. Bessesen took the opportunity to let her know that he felt threatened by her
presenting any ideas or comments on this development since she was not a resident of Orono.
Sedgwick stated she is not here tonight representing anybody on Kelly Avenue but that she owns a
landscape company that is internationally published. Sedgwick stated the only comment she would like
to make on behalf of herself as a resident of Medina is that she would like to seek out the City of Orono
as a place for her new home. Sedgwick stated having reviewed this particular development as potentially
a possibility, she finds it architecturally unsound and very unappealing. Sedgwick stated she is frightened
for the local residents as they will now see the existing flooding conditions that have impacted 2605 Kelly
Avenue in the past now be partly impacted by this new development.
Bob Ponzetti, 2545 Kelly Avenue, stated he supports everything that has been said by his neighbors.
Ponzetti indicated they bought their house 20 years ago, and when the first bought the house,they had a
lawn between Kelly Avenue and their house. Ponzetti indicated they have let that area basically become
naturalized because they like the idea of privacy and intimacy of Kelly Avenue as it now stands. Ponzetti
Page 10 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
stated it is like you are in the city, but the moment you drive around the corner of County Road 15, it
becomes another area. Ponzetti stated he hopes it can continue to be that way.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
McGrann asked what would be required if the applicants move forward with four single-family homes.
Gaffron stated he would suspect they would require a number of variances and easements across
properties for access. Gaffron indicated Staff has not looked at a four-lot plan, but there would be a
number of DNR and shoreland standards that would require certain minimum widths, etc. Gaffron stated
there may be any number of considerations that have to be taken into account that would affect how this
would lay out. One of those considerations is that based on the existing easement,which is much greater
than the delineated wetland, the applicants only have three dry buildable acres. Gaffron stated there
would need to be some discussion about whether or not there is any interest at all in changing the
easement, which there likely is on the developer's part.
Lemke asked what the maximum number of single-family homes that would be able to be constructed.
Gaffron stated in his view it would be three since they would not receive credit for the wetland and there
is a question mark on whether they would get credit for the area that is in the conservation easement since
it is very restricted. Gaffron indicated there are a number of questions that would need to be answered
and they have not been part of this review.
Schwingler noted single-family is not before the Planning Commission tonight.
Schoenzeit asked whether multi-family is not allowed within 1,000 feet of the lake.
Gaffron stated the actual wording is as follows: Multiple family developments generally will not be
considered appropriate for lands within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka, nor for areas that have limited
public transportation access to outside employment or shopping facilities. Additionally, County Road 15,
which is the key roadway serving Orono's urban areas,and particularly the Navarre area, is far over
capacity. Gaffron noted in 1980 the City built McCulley Road as a bypass to keep traffic from Mound
and points west heading north so people would not have to take CR15. Gaffron stated it further states that
it is not practical from an economical or environmental standpoint to expand County Road 15 to increase
its capacity. Therefore, additional housing options will be primarily developed along Highway 12.
Gaffron stated if you read all of the language, it does not prohibit it but says these are the City's general
goals and intent.
Schoenzeit asked if there was a meeting with the neighbors where the applicant shook hands and said four
single-family homes.
Wasmoen stated there was a neighborhood meeting and John became emotional at that meeting because
his professionalism was called into question and their intent was called into question. Wasmoen indicated
John came to the podium and was literally in tears. Wasmoen stated he is not standing up here telling
untruths. Wasmoen stated John did become emotional and said that he would put four family homes on
the site.
Page 11 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if he shook hands.
Wasmoen stated he shook hands with people and that he is not denying any of that. Wasmoen stated after
that meeting,John Bessesen reviewed that with David Delaney and that was not Mr. Delaney's desire.
Wasmoen stated what that does not do is does not put aside the fact that they were listening that night and
made some changes to this plan based on what they heard. Wasmoen stated they are basically putting up
four twinhomes that are the size of four single-family homes that would potentially be built in this
neighborhood. Wasmoen stated in their view they were improving the ability to build on the site without
some of the issues that would arise with four single-family homes.
Leskinen requested the gallery to please let whoever is up at the podium to have the floor. Leskinen
noted they already had a public hearing and that she understands there is a lot of passion associated with
the issue. Leskinen indicated the Planning Commission is happy to hear everybody out but that having
this bantering back and forth will be very unproductive.
Wasmoen stated John did tell these folks that he would do four single-family homes in there and that they
are not denying that. Wasmoen stated they have taken the thoughts that came out of that meeting and
have incorporated them into a plan that they thought was a compromise based on the feedback they
received from the City. As it relates to whether this development will significantly increase the traffic
over four single-family homes, Wasmoen pointed out that most million dollar homes will have four-car
garages and that this development will have four cars per unit.
Berg stated if you go to a meeting with the neighborhood and you make a comment that you are going to
build four single-family homes and yet you come back with a plan for four twinhomes,that is kind of
disingenuous. Berg stated the concern is if you say that and then you come before the City with a
different plan that gets approved,the concern is what people can expect for this development and how
the City is going to guarantee that it is going to be done the way the City would like to see it happen.
Berg stated she is against this project. Berg stated in her view if they can have three single-family homes
on that site,then that is the route that should be taken.
Lemke stated based on hearing about the meeting, it was probably not a good decision to come with four
twinhomes, but that really does not have anything to do with what the Planning Commission is charged to
do.
Berg indicated she does not agree.
Landgraver asked if there is already multi-family housing across the street that is within 1,000 feet of the
lake.
Gaffron indicated there is.
Landgraver asked what process occurred that allowed that to happen.
Gaffron indicated that development was done before 1992,which is when the Shoreland ordinance came
into effect. Gaffron stated to his knowledge that was done as a Planned Residential Development.
Gaffron stated he cannot tell the Planning Commission what the code read in 1986 or whenever it was
Page 12 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
when those units were developed. Currently the language suggests that a PRD is only for single-family
development,which shows up on Exhibit F.
Leskinen stated her first inclination in September was to be against the five units and to be in favor of
four, but that her major concern is the traffic given the conditions of County Road 15 and Kelly Avenue.
Leskinen stated the flooding is also a major concern.
Leskinen stated as far as it relates to multi-family homes in that neighborhood, if there were not any there,
that might be a more compelling argument, but since some already exist there,that does not hold as much
weight. Leskinen reiterated she does have serious concerns about the traffic capacity.
Berg pointed out this development would also send more traffic back into the Kelly and Lydiard
neighborhoods and then over to County Road 19, which is also very difficult to get on.
Schoenzeit stated the fact that multi-family housing already exists in the neighborhood is significant and
that he has concerns that somebody says one things and then comes back with something else. Schoenzeit
stated if the lot supports three single-family homes, maybe the cooperation with the neighborhood is to
actually get four. If there are going to be eight units,that would be 16 cars versus eight cars, and it is not,
clear even at a million dollars, whether there is enough land to allow four car garages and the rest of it.
Schoenzeit stated in his view the developer has to work with the neighborhood and stick with the
handshakes. In most circles that is the most important thing. Schoenzeit stated whether it is three or four
buildings or six or eight units,then that is where it goes, but the neighborhood and the developer have to
be in sync. If they are not,the Planning Commission is able to help the developer follow the code and
construct three units.
Schwingler stated what is before the Planning Commission is the multi-family twinhomes, and the
rezoning action is highly discretionary on the part of the City. Schwingler stated from what he is hearing
and reading,this lot does not support the number of units being proposed. Schwingler stated the traffic is
also a consideration and the question is what that will add in terms of traffic.
Schwingler stated the property owner has rights and what can be done in the City is what the Planning
Commission tries to allow. Schwingler stated what is being presented tonight, however, is something he
cannot support.
McGrann stated in his view anytime the City tries to change the play book after the game has started is a
problem. McGrann stated the neighbors knew what could someday be across the street and that he has a
problem changing that. McGrann stated he initially thought the Planning Commission could get behind
this proposal if the neighborhood got behind it, but that it feels like the Planning Commission has already
had this conversation and that it just took the last hour to go through it again. McGrann indicated he is
not able to support the current proposal.
Leskinen suggested the Planning Commission go through the list of questions outlined in Staff's report to
make sure the Planning Commission fully looks at this issue and comes up with appropriate findings.
Leskinen stated the first question is whether the proposed use is consistent with the guided density for the
site in the Community Management Plan. Leskinen stated as it relates to guided density, it does meet that
criteria.
Page 13 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron noted it is guided two to three units per acre and it does not specify single or multi-housing. At
three acres with three acres,that would be 2.7 units per acre.
Leskinen pointed out that what is it guided for and what it is zoned are two different things. The second
question is whether the site meets the criteria for development via RPUD of a site less than five acres in
area. Leskinen stated based on the criteria for the development,the only item that was a possibility was
that it provides a transition. Leskinen stated potentially due to the topography of the site,the clustering of
the buildings would make it a candidate, but not necessarily so close to the lake.
Schoenzeit stated the topography meets the criteria.
Leskinen stated the third question is whether the proposed twinhome use and clustered layout allow for a
development that is no more intense in potential impacts than development under a single-family concept.
Leskinen stated in her view this development will increase the neighborhood impacts on traffic and
flooding.
Landgraver stated he does not know whether it would impact the flooding but that it would definitely
impact the transportation and safety issues.
Lemke stated from a visual impact, this development does not make that much difference since there
could be large residential homes on that site.
Leskinen stated the impacts to the neighborhood or general area are traffic, flooding, and safety.
Schoenzeit stated he would be in agreement and that this development might have a bigger impact than
single-family homes.
Leskinen stated question number four is whether the proposed development provides for a suitable
transition between the abutting residential and commercial uses that exist or are likely to be developed in
the future. Leskinen stated while it is a transition, she is not convinced that it is necessary to be this type
of a development. Leskinen stated any type of a development can be a transition.
McGrann stated he would consider it a transition if there was a road from Kelly up into the commercial
area. McGrann stated if you look at it as a traffic transition, he would say no.
Landgraver stated if the City knew that the area near Shadywood was going to be guided toward multiple
use,that would be one thing.
Schoenzeit stated it is a potential transition.
Leskinen stated it could be a suitable transition.
McGrann questioned whether a group of buildings makes it a transition as someone is going from
Shadywood onto Kelly Avenue.
Leskinen indicated she is reading it as the development as a whole and the type of use.
McGrann stated he thinks of the transition from commercial to multi-family to residential.
Page 14 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated Question No. 5 is,will the site be adequately served by existing police and fire services
and are existing roads and utility infrastructure sufficient to serve the development. Leskinen stated in
her view the development will be adequately served by existing police and fire services but that in her
view this question might relate more to the density.
Leskinen stated Question No. 6 is, will the proposed development be expected to generate excessive
demand for public services at public cost.
Berg stated it possibly could.
Leskinen stated it possibly could but that she does not know if she fully agrees with that.
Berg stated there is a greater chance the area could flood, which would create a greater demand for public
services.
Leskinen stated Question No. 7 reads, is the proposed development of the property compatible with the
surrounding area and neighborhood. Can sufficient existing site vegetation be preserved on the property
and maintained in its natural state so as to have minimal negative impacts. Is the developer willing to
plant coniferous trees along the south side of the twinhome dwellings to minimize the dwelling exterior
elevation massing impacts of views from the south and to establish covenants for permanent preservation
of that screening.
Leskinen stated visually it may possibly be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Schoenzeit stated the development should blend in.
Berg stated as it looks currently on the plans, it does not appear to.
Lemke stated if there was vegetation superimposed on the drawing,the development would not have as
much impact.
Schoenzeit stated four buildings exactly alike do not fit in the neighborhood.
Leskinen asked how the Planning Commission feels about Question No. 8,which reads: Will the
developer agree to restrictions with regard to subdivision entryway signage along Kelly Avenue in order
to minimize any negative visual impacts to the existing single-family detached residential neighborhood
character. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has not gotten into the specifics of that.
Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission is comfortable with their findings, Staff would be fine with the
Planning Commission making a recommendation.
Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 14-3686,John
Bessesen and Tom Wasmoen on behalf of David Delaney,2500 Kelly Avenue,for rezoning based on
this evening's discussion and the plan as presented.
Leskinen asked if Staff needs specific findings included in the motion.
Page 15 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated during the discussion the Planning Commission has addressed a number of the questions,
and based on that, Staff could put together a set of findings. Gaffron noted the Council will need to have
a set of findings in order to adopt a resolution of denial.
Leskinen asked if Staff needs a certain number of findings.
Gaffron indicated they do not. Gaffron stated it is up to the Planning Commission to exercise their best
judgment and make a recommendation based on that.
Leskinen stated in her view the Planning Commission's discussion noted a couple of things that are
strong findings but they may not been articulated very clearly.
Schwingler stated No. 11 would be a reason for denial.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Lemke Abstained,Landgraver Opposed.
Lemke stated he would have liked some additional information, such as a traffic study and the impacts on
runoff, and that he does not feel comfortable with denying it at this point.
Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission should be more specific in their reasons for
denial.
(Recess taken from 7:58 p.m. to 8:02 p.m.)
3. #15-3718 CHRISTOPHER PERRY, 1125 HUNTER DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,8:02 P.M.—8:10 P.M.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit in order to install a full
bathroom, including shower or tub, within a detached accessory structure(barn)on the property.
With only 2.68 acres,the subject property is not large enough to be eligible for a guest house conditional
use permit. The zoning district requires a total of four acres in order to permit a guest house.
Approval of the conditional use permit shall be granted only when the following criteria are met:
1. The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with a bathtub or shower will
not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighbor. In the opinion of Staff,the
bathroom facilities will be used by the property owners for personal purposes and will not be
detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood.
2 The Council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the
accessory building. The use of the accessory building is residential in character and in the
opinion of Staff the installation of plumbing fixtures, including a shower or bathtub,will be in
keeping with the residential use of the building.
3. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. It is Staff's opinion it is.
Page 16 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the
accessory building will not be 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; or rented, leased or otherwise prohibited for use as a dwelling under any circumstances.
The existing septic system serving the home on the property is an elevated seepage bed which requires
annual service and monitoring contract with the installer by the City. The owner is proposing to install a
1,000 gallon pump tank to be installed near the barn which will pump into the existing system. The
City's septic inspector has reviewed the plans and has made additional recommendations for approval,
which include additional monitoring and restrictions.
Staff recommends approval of the application subject to the following conditions:
1. The septic system must be monitored twice per year for the life of the system.
2. The monitoring reports shall be copied to the City within two weeks of each monitoring
inspection;
3. If the monitoring is discontinued, it shall be considered a violation of the conditional use permit
and the plumbing facilities must be removed from the barn within 60 days of notice from the
City;
4. The barn shall not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City;
5. The barn shall not be used as a dwelling or guest house; and
6. The barn shall not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any
circumstances.
Landgraver asked if Staff will be ensuring that the reports are received twice a year.
Curtis indicated there currently is an annual monitoring and inspection submittal system set up and that is
done by the building department.
Landgraver asked if that system is flexible enough to ensure the reports are received every six months.
Curtis stated it is.
Schwingler noted the property owner has two weeks to submit the report.
Curtis indicated the reports are typically faxed in or e-mailed in by the inspector.
Christopher Perry, Applicant, stated he concurs with the recommendations and that he will work within
the guidelines.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Page 17 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has seen similar applications in the past and that she does not
have any particular concerns with this application. Leskinen noted they would not be able to use the barn
as a dwelling.
Lemke noted Staff's report says there should be no public use of the barn but that the list of Staff's
recommendations does not contain that.
Landgraver asked if he is suggesting that No. 5 read that the barn shall not be used as a dwelling or guest
house or for providing any public purpose.
Lemke stated he is.
McGrann noted No. 6 prohibits the renting or leasing of the dwelling.
Schwingler stated in his view that is already covered.
Curtis stated the fact that they are talking about a residential property precludes it from being used as a
public venue.
Landgraver noted in order to reach the barn, someone would have to go through the property.
Berg stated she would be concerned if it was a commercial property or used for horseback riding.
Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3718 ,
Christopher Perry, 1125 Hunter Drive,granting of a Conditional Use Permit in order to install a
full bathroom within a detached accessory structure. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
4. #15-3719 MARC & KARI NEWELL,3015 WATERTOWN ROAD,VARIANCE,8:09
P.M.—8:18 P.M.
Curtis stated the applicants have requested approval of a variance to permit construction of a 105' x 36'
sport court between the front, street lot line and the principal structure.
The applicants' property is uniquely shaped and oriented such that the bulk and the buildable portion of
the property is located over 600 feet from Watertown Road. The house is located near the rear portion of
the lot. The septic system,tree stands, and existing pool and driveway improvements prevent the sport
court from being located in the rear yard or western side yard of the home. The applicant has identified
an existing clearing area to the north of the home beyond the septic drain field areas where they have
proposed to locate the sport court. This location will be screened from adjacent properties by existing tree
stands.
City Code prohibits the sport court from being located nearer to the front or street lot line than the
principal building on that lot. Staff finds that the shape of the property and the distance from Watertown
Road will lessen any visible impacts from Watertown Road. The sport court will be screened by existing
trees from the most impacted property owner at 2995 Watertown Road.
Page 18 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated due to seasonal limitations at the time of the survey field work,the septic system areas are
not clearly identified on the survey and neither are the wetland areas. As a result,there may be a need for
minor adjustments in the location of the sport court upon receipt of more accurate field data at the time of
the building permit. It appears that all other setback requirements can be reasonably met. Staff
recommends the Planning Commission allow for some field adjustments of the location provided any
approval conditions, such as screening, are still able to be met.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow construction of the proposed sport court
streetward of the principal structure in the approximate location shown on the survey with the following
conditions:
1. The sport court shall be screened from view from the adjacent properties;
2. The sport court location may be adjusted within the approximate construction area as needed
within the allowed setback parameters and to assure that it is adequately screened;
3. The survey submitted with the building permit application shall accurately identify location of the
primary and alternate drain field locations as well as the wetland boundary if within 150 feet of
the proposed sport court;
4. The lighting for the sport court shall be directed downward and not into adjacent residential
properties. Additionally,the light source or"light bulb" shall be shielded so as not to be visible
from adjacent properties.
Leskinen asked what type of fencing materials are proposed
Curtis stated the applicant will need to address that.
Lemke asked if there is any grading report or whether Staff knows how much fill will be required.
Curtis stated the submitted survey depicts an approximate location and no grading is shown at this time.
The applicant has indicated it is more of a level area and it should not require a significant amount of
grading.
Marc Newell,Applicant, stated in terms of the grading,the particular location of the sport court is rather
level.Newell indicated the sport court would go into the mowed area depicted on the left of the picture.
As it relates to the fencing material,Newell indicated they have not decided yet. Newell stated they are
currently thinking of a softer type of net structure with posts but that if there is a preference,they would
be fine with that.
Leskinen stated she was wondering if it would be a solid wall.
Newell indicated it would either be a very soft net similar to a tennis net or a chain link fence.
Lemke asked if he will be cutting into the grade at all or whether they are considering a retaining wall.
Page 19 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Newell stated if need be they may have to construct a retaining wall versus going into the grade. Newell
stated they will get a better sense once the contractor comes out and assesses the site.
McGrann asked if any of the neighbors have commented on the proposal.
Curtis indicated one neighbor did come in and look at the proposal and was satisfied with the location.
Newell stated he did obtain signatures from the two adjacent neighbors.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
Leskinen stated given the size of the property and the proposed location, she is not opposed to it.
Leskinen noted the sport court would be located at pretty much grade level.
Schoenzeit stated the proposal looks fine.
Landgraver noted the neighbor most impacted has signed off on the project.
Leskinen stated the fact that it is in front of the house is a nonissue since you cannot see it from the street.
Schwingler moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3719,Marc
and Kari Newell,3015 Watertown Road,granting of a variance to permit construction of a sport
court between the front,street lot line and the principal structure. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
5. #15-3720 BPS PROPERTIES,300 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW,
8:18 P.M.—9:17 P.M.
Curtis stated before the Planning Commission tonight is a sketch plan for a 92-acre parcel proposed to be
divided into 11 single-family residential lots as well as two large conservation outlots. Nine of the eleven
lots would be served new private roads with cul-de-sacs extending northerly from Sixth Avenue. The
remaining two lots would be accessed directly off of Hunter Drive. All lots would be served by onsite
sewage treatment systems and private wells.
No formal action needs to be taken this evening. Staff's memo and tonight's discussion will help
highlight potential issues when the formal preliminary plat application is submitted.
Curtis displayed a sketch of the overall property. Curtis stated the proposal appears to be in conformity
with the guiding for this area for single-family rural residential at a density of one unit per two acres. The
proposed development will be required to conform to the two-acre, 200-foot width standards of the RR-
1B zoning district.
Approximately half of the property is within the Shoreland Overlay District. Large single-family lots
surround the site on the north in Medina and in Plymouth to the east. The property abuts Mooney Lake
with a contiguous portion of over 40 acres of native Maple-basswood forest located in the northern
Page 20 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
portion of the property. The southern portion of the property consists of established prairie with scattered
wetlands.
Proposed Lots 1 and 2 will be accessed off of Sixth Avenue via a private road contained within a 50-foot
wide outlot and a 100-foot diameter cul-de-sac. A 50-foot wide outlot with a 100-foot diameter cul-de-
sac with a 50-diameter island will serve as access to Lots 3 through 9. The road serving Lots 3 through 9
appears to require significant grading. Lots 10 and 11 will have access directly off of Hunter. Street
design and information is required at the time of preliminary plat application for City Engineer and Fire
Marshal review.
The 30-foot access corridors shown for Lot 2 and Lot 9 would function as the access to the back lots.
According to City Code, a front/back lot configuration would result in both lots utilizing the 30-foot wide
outlot for driveway access to avoid two curb cuts on the roadway.
Curtis stated Mooney Lake has a 100-foot structural setback requirement from the lake for lots served by
private septic systems. Average lakeshore setback restrictions will apply to each of the lakeshore lots,
which are Lots 1 through 7. A lot by lot analysis was provided in Staff's report. All of the lots appear to
meet the RR-1B standards. However, a complete Conservation Design Study and the necessary analysis
of steep slopes, wetlands, and septic sites are still outstanding.
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that a proposed future trail along County Road 6 is to be contemplated
and an easement along the roadway for trail purposes should be explored. Payment of the standard park
dedication fee for ten new building lots would be appropriate. Subdivision approval would be reviewed
by the Park Commission once a preliminary plat application is filed. The property will also be subject to
stormwater trunk and drainage fees.
Curtis stated the subdivision will be subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. The
preliminary plat application should include a complete conservation design analysis of the entire site for
review. Outlot A and Outlot D are proposed for preservation of large established prairie areas. The
owner of the property intends to donate Outlot areas to the Minnesota Land Trust for perpetual
preservation.
Staff's memo outlines a number of items for consideration with the proposed plat and should provide
direction to the developer regarding this plat. The Planning Commission should review each topic and
identify any issue to which the developer should pay special attention. In addition,the Planning
Commission should note comments received from Hennepin County and neighboring property owners
which have been included as exhibits.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
George Stickney, Applicant, stated he has done a number of projects in Orono and that their last project in
Orono was Graham Hill Preserve. Stickney stated he was asked to sit down and take a look at this
property on behalf of the Dayton family. Stickney stated he also did a project in Medina where there was
a large tree canopy and that a significant portion of that wooded area was preserved.
Stickney noted half of the acreage will be donated to the Minnesota Land Trust with a conservation
easement that will take care of this property forever. The other half of the property can handle more than
11 lots not using any of the Land Trust property for its calculations relating to density or conformity to
Page 21 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Orono's zoning codes. Stickney indicated he has been working since last fall with the Dayton family and
the Minnesota Land Trust to try to preserve this corridor so that the prairie land,which was planted in
1969,will remain intact.
Stickney stated out of the 39 acres that those 11 lots consist of, he has further restricted Lots 8 and 9 with
a preservation zone on the south border, which would result in a 250-foot border. Stickney stated he
would also be planting additional trees to help increase that border. Stickney stated there is also
approximately 200 feet of woods that will be preserved and that they are proposing to have 150 feet of the
prairie land restored. Stickney indicated close to two acres of prairie grass will also be planted on the
Medina side. Stickney stated the landscape plan also shows the planting of a number of trees,which will
also help preserve the sacred visual of the family as it relates to this land.
Stickney stated most people would take the 92 acres and develop it as much as possible, but that they are
limiting the number of lots to eleven as well as creating two large conservation areas.
Stickney noted the driveways and/or septic sites are depicted in green on the overhead. Stickney stated
they will take steps to make sure that corridor is protected. The road will have a 6.28 percent slope and
that the ordinance is approximately 8 percent. Stickney stated in addition there will be a tree buffer that
will help preserve those trees and hide the road. Stickney stated there is also another 40 feet of trees on
the northern boundary that will be preserved. Stickney stated if any trees are removed, they would
propose two trees be planted,which will result in a net gain of trees on the property.
Stickney stated overall they are taking enormous steps to help preserve the trees and canopy as much as
possible to ensure that this development is unique and special.
Schoenzeit asked if there is that much demand for high-end homes in Orono. Schoenzeit noted the
Lakeview Golf Course is being redeveloped with high-end homes and that with these two projects, Orono
is looking at approximately 60-plus $2 million houses in Orono,with the majority not being located on
Lake Minnetonka.
Stickney stated if you do something really well,the buyers will come. Stickney noted he redid 15 acres
on Fox Bend with five acres lots and that in his view these lots are really special,which will attract
buyers. Stickney noted he is allowed 36 lots on this property but that he is attempting to preserve as
much of the natural area as possible and create a very unique and special development.
McGrann asked if he is thinking$2 million a lot.
Stickney stated the homes may range from slightly less than $2 million to much more. Stickney stated the
people who purchase the lots will also be required to pay homeowner association fees, which will help
preserve these areas. Stickney noted they will be planting hundreds of trees, which does not include the
landscaping plan. Stickney stated when you look at the covenants that will be in place to protect this area,
it will be fabulous and unique.
Schoenzeit asked if it would be Orono schools.
Stickney indicated it would be. Stickney pointed out the boundaries of the development.
Page 22 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if anyone has spoken with the superintendent about the number of homes being built in
Orono. Schoenzeit stated the City talks about other infrastructure issues but that he has not heard anyone
mention the impact on the school system.
Gaffron stated the school districts have copies of the City's Comprehensive Plan so they know what the
density will be. Gaffron stated when you are looking at 46 units for Lakeview plus that many or more
across the road, it will have an impact on the local schools.
Stickney stated Orono has a great school district but that in his view this development will not
dramatically change the number of students.
Schwingler asked how he has addressed the issue with the Big Woods.
Stickney stated this development is just a fraction of the total property. Stickney noted the Spring Hill
Golf Course was located in the Big Woods. Stickney stated the property is sacred to the family and that
they are not proposing to locate a house in the woods. Stickney stated the family is being very charitable
by donating a significant portion to the Minnesota Land Trust and about not developing it to the
maximum.
Landgraver stated the concern is the age and stature of the existing trees. Landgraver asked how he is
proposing to limit the amount of damage and reduction in canopy when this development is first being
built and how does that carry on in the covenants.
Stickney indicated they will be performing a tree inventory and identify how many trees will be removed,
which will be submitted at the time of preliminary plat. Stickney noted there are a lot of trees in the Big
Woods that are fallen or dead. Stickney stated he will also have Prairie Restorations go through the area
and monitor it.
Landgraver noted there will be a gifting of the prairie to the Minnesota Land Trust and then the
commitment to have Prairie Restoration maintain the prairies. Landgraver asked if the homeowners
association will have any say in it.
Stickney stated the property owners will have no say in it and that they will have to accept the covenants
and pay the monthly association dues, which will cover the cost of maintaining the prairies. Stickney
stated as developers they will pay to get it in pristine condition but then the homeowners will take over
the cost of maintaining it.
Landgraver stated he appreciates all the work that Mr. Stickney has done to preserve the beauty of the
site, but that when you look at the plan and the long driveways,the property owners of Lots 10 and 11
may wonder at some point in the future why they are footing the bill for maintaining such a long
driveway. Landgraver stated given the way it is laid out,that may create some future tension.
Stickney stated the property owners will be able to use the prairie but they will not be able to do any
building in the conservation easement. Stickney stated there could be a continuation of the grass trails as
well as trails through the woods.
Lemke asked if the trails would be open to the public.
Page 23 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Stickney stated it sounds like there will be a public trail along County Road 6 but that the trails in this
development would be private and not advertised.
Schwingler asked if the tennis court will be part of the homeowner's association.
Stickney indicated it will be. Stickney stated in his view the route of the road is good since currently
there are a lot of dead trees in its path. Stickney indicated they may change the pathway a little bit as they
go through it and that they will be identifying the trees in a couple of weeks.
Schwingler asked where the current driveway is proposed.
Stickney pointed out the location of the proposed driveway. Stickney stated the current driveway goes
right down the middle of the development and that they are planning to cut through an area where there
are few or no trees. Stickney stated the reason for the center island is to provide a better visual for the
property owner.
McGrann asked if he has thoughts about coming in off of Hunter for Lot 9.
Stickney stated he has a 30-foot corridor and that he will verify it with surveying. Stickney stated the idea
of the corridor is to meander the driveway.
Lemke asked if it will be gated access to the main road.
Stickney indicated it will not be.
Berg asked if signage will be erected denoting it as a conservation area.
Stickney stated he does have some preservation signs that will be erected. Stickney stated the prairie will
continue into the individual lots and will be signed. Stickney stated when the prairie is burned,the signs
will be removed and then put back.
Berg stated the reason she asked is if the public sees those signs,they may want to walk through it.
Stickney stated they should not see the signs from the trail or road. Stickney stated the property is due for
a bum and that he will see whether Wendy Dayton is comfortable with doing that. Stickney noted there
will be no debt against the development and it will be paid for by this fall.
Schwingler asked if the number of builders will be restricted.
Stickney stated they would like more than one builder but that they will be looking at every plan to make
sure the style of homes are different and meet the covenants. Stickney indicated those covenants should
be finalized by the time of preliminary plat.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m.
Liz Weir, Medina, stated her interest in this development is purely from an environmental standard but
that they live two houses to the north of the Dayton property. Weir stated these are specialized woods
where hawks nest, great horned owls nest and other birds next. Currently there are 15 acres of unopened
Page 24 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
canopy. Weir stated while some of the trees are dead,every healthy Big Woods has dead and diseased
trees, which provide food for the native woodpeckers and insects.
Weir stated while the plan does help preserve the prairie, it punches a hole in the Big Woods along the
site's northern border and in the center of the woods. Weir stated the Big Woods in this area are more
significant because of the contiguous canopy to the north. In addition,the neighbor to the immediate
south has put his land into permanent conservation, which makes these woods even more significant.
Weir stated she was hoping that they could avoid the big cul-de-sac in the woods by utilizing the old
driveway and perhaps dropping the homes down somewhat. Weir stated once the woodlands have been
cut,they will not be of great ecological value. Weir stated while replanting is very nice and will fill it in
with lots of trees, it is likely they will plant pines and spruce,which are things that do not belong in a Big
Woods.
Weir stated she also looked at some of Orono's Codes, specifically Section 78-1631, Conservation
Design Ordinance, Purpose and Intent. Weir noted that section describes what a significant tree stand
means and that this 15-acre section exceeds this standard. In addition, Section 78-1635 covers the basic
conservation design master plan requirements and evaluation criteria. Weir noted that section requires the
protection of significant tree stands and woodlands that support scenic and/or ecological goals, including
mitigation of any such stands to be impacted by development activities. Weir stated it is impractical to
mitigate a maple/basswood Big Woods by planting hardwood tree saplings since the mitigation would
have to be extensive, managed for invasives, and protected from development for a minimum of 100
years.
Weir stated most people, when they build a house, like light and they cut trees to achieve that. Weir
stated there needs to be justification and mitigation of any negative impact. Weir stated this development
would have a significant impact to an ecological community.
Section 78-1635 lists the basic conservation design master plan requirements and evaluation criteria.
Among other requirements is that the development results in no negative impact of ecological
communities of Ecological Management Categories 1 and 2; results in no negative modification of any
ecological communities as described by the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System; and
establishes, maintains and improves native ecological communities, including natural and semi-natural
areas to provide wildlife habitat and support natural ecological functions such as drainage, filtering, and
buffering.
Weir stated she would like to point out that the Big Woods were the original land cover prior to white
settlement and that the prairie lands were found in the drier lands further to the west and south. Section
78-1637, Performance Bonus Requirements, states under No. 3 that one of the requirements is to improve
the ecological grade of existing communities. Weir stated the development sketch does not show an
improvement in the ecological grade of existing communities since it clears the heart of the specialized
ecology of a 15-acre significant stand of Big Woods. No. 5 states that major preservation or enhancement
of existing landmarks should be performed. Weir stated while the landmark of the prairie is preserved, it
is entirely at the expense of the more ecologically significant landmark of the 15-acre Big Woods.
Weir indicated she is an interested neighbor and that it is hard to see change happen to this area. Weir
asked whether the homes will be single-family walkouts.
Page 25 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Stickney stated it will be single-family homes but that they are not required to have a walkout.
Weir noted walkouts tend to require additional grading, which will further impact the woods. Weir asked
where the septic systems go.
Stickney stated in the wooded lots,the septic sites will have to go in the woods. Stickney indicated they
have made some of the lots wider to help accommodate the septic sites. Stickney stated where Ms. Weir
would like the cul-de-sac relocated has over an eight percent slope.
Madeline Link, 1762 Morgan Road, Medina, stated she is familiar with the development on Willow and
that she was there both before and after the development. Link stated there is a definite opening and
fragmentation of the woods after the development.
Link indicated she has a degree in wildlife, is an avid bird watcher, and is very active with local
environmental organizations. Link stated Liz Weir is absolutely right about the impact to the Big Woods
that would occur. Link noted Hennepin County is the land of Big Woods and not the land of prairie.
Link stated her main concern is fragmentation, which has been done a great deal in Hennepin County.
Link stated she is an advocate for wildlife and that small woodlots with driveways going through them are
not conducive to wildlife. Link stated big homes with big windows means big kill of birds. Link stated
while there may not be any endangered species of wildlife that live in the Big Woods, there are a number
of important native bird species.
Link stated in her view this development should impact the woods less and that driveways and septic
systems will ruin it for the wildlife. Link stated dead, old trees are more important to the wildlife than
newly planted trees. Link noted it will take over 100 years before any of those trees become significant.
Link stated she would like to point out that they need to think about the Big Woods and the fact that there
is not much left in Hennepin County. Link stated she would encourage the developer to move those
houses out of the Big Woods. Link stated prairie does not take too long to restore and that typically
within 10 to 12 years it is fully restored.
Link stated she would really like to see the family protect as much of the woods as possible with less
fragmentation. Link stated once it is gone, it is gone, and that they need to think ahead to future
generations. Link stated she would strongly encourage the Planning Commission to think of ways to
preserve as much of the Big Woods as possible.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.
Leskinen noted no formal action is required by the Planning Commission tonight. Leskinen commented
she appreciates the efforts to preserve as much as they are.
Stickney noted Lots 8 and 9 are three acre lots but that they are taking 1.7 acres out of the equation that
will not be touched. Stickney stated that might leave an acre of opening for a yard and a house. There is
also another 150-foot border on some of the other lots that will be minimally touched. Stickney indicated
the meandering driveway is done for specific reasons and that given the amount of woods that will remain
untouched, people will not see those homes in the summer.
Link asked how big the driveway has to be.
Page 26 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Stickney stated the road will have a 150-foot cul-de-sac and that it will meet the City's standards.
Lemke stated he would like to see a little more public access to the prairie area. Lemke noted the prairie
is located on the end and that in his view this would be a great opportunity for the public to enjoy it.
Stickney noted the Minnesota Land Trust has their regulations and it cannot be public land.
Landgraver stated he would encourage the developer to explore ways on how to minimize the reduction in
canopy. Landgraver stated the covenants can help direct the owners of the lots on how to preserve the
area and that hopefully they will respect the heritage of what they are buying into and preserve it.
Landgraver stated he is in agreement that the developer is trying to preserve a significant portion of the
site as well as come up with a marketable product, but that he would recommend the developer look at
ways to shrink the destruction of the canopy.
Stickney stated they will definitely do that.
Berg stated the concerns expressed about the Big Woods are right, which is her concern as well. Berg
stated while people may want to get rid of the dead trees, it would be beneficial if some of them stayed.
Stickney stated they will verify the routing of the road and see how they can minimize the removal of
trees.
McGrann asked if there is some way to route Lot 9's driveway in front of Lot 8. McGrann stated it
appears there will be a fair amount of hardcover that could be eliminated if they went off the left side of
the driveway.
Stickney stated he will come back with a better idea of the driveway after the tree survey.
Gaffron stated 15 years ago or so the City did not have any code to prevent the destruction of Big Woods
or a Conservation Design ordinance. Gaffron stated as soon as you open up the Big Woods, the whole
idea of a canopy with darkness below it is gone. Gaffron stated that unfortunately has been virtually
destroyed by the Spring Hill Golf Club development. If you drive by that development, in the past there
would have been vegetation all the way through, but now, as you go in further,there is no undergrowth.
Gaffron stated he has a concern with pushing Lots 8 and 9 as far into the woods as they are proposing
since it will be creating a discontinuity of the Big Woods area. Gaffron stated he would recommend
pushing Lots 8 and 9 further south, which would still maintain some of the backdrop that can be seen
from the intersection of Hunter and County Road 6. Gaffron stated the homes would still be hidden but
would be further south. Gaffron stated in his view that would be one of the City's goals and that he
suspects the Conservation Design report will support that.
Stickney stated it is not the size of the lots that they are concerned about but the fact that they are going
into the woods.
Gaffron stated if the development is in the middle of this 35 or 40 acres,the further the homes are pushed
into the woods,the more impact they will have. Gaffron stated he would rather not see houses in there,
and that if the homes are moved further away from the woods, a person could still go from Ferndale
Page 27 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Road all the way north without seeing any houses. Gaffron stated a goal would be that someone heading
east or west on County Road 6 would not see houses at all during the summer. Gaffron stated he does not
want Mr. Stickney to bring them into the prairie, but that he could move them closer to the prairie.
Stickney stated he has a 50-foot buffer on the south side of the property and that he can make more of a
buffer on the north end. Stickney indicated he went through months and months of designing to not have
the houses seen and that he can possibly pull the building envelopes farther down.
Leskinen asked if he could pull the lots down and have the driveway traversing the edge of the preserve
area.
Gaffron suggested a 150 to 200-foot buffer be left, relocate the homes further down, and then preserve the
top 200 feet. Gaffron stated the covenants can restrict the area where the homes can be built. Gaffron
stated he would also bring the cul-de-sac back, which would shorten the road.
Gaffron asked if he has some flexibility with the Minnesota Land Trust in terms of the defined
boundaries.
Stickney indicated he does not have much flexibility but that he can perhaps move the envelope down and
preserve the top.
Gaffron stated if he is stuck with the boundaries, he would move the houses as far south as possible,with
a buffer to the north, which would help minimize the impacts to the Big Woods area.
Lemke asked if the reason why he does not want to put a house below Lot 11 is because that area is
preserved.
Stickney stated that will not happen since that area is preserved. Stickney stated the family is going well
beyond what would be expected.
Landgraver asked if the island is needed.
Stickney indicated it is not needed and that it was done for visual reasons.
Landgraver stated if the concern is the disruption or the breaking of the canopy, then a smaller cul-de-sac
might be worth considering.
Stickney stated he can just do the regular 100 feet and that it would be an easy change. Stickney stated if
he brought the lots down,the cul-de-sac would get smaller, but that in his view that is a good spot to have
the cul-de-sac.
Gaffron stated he would like to get an idea of how far north into Medina the Big Woods goes. Gaffron
asked if 50 percent or more of the untouched Big Woods is located on the Dayton property.
Liz Weir stated Dayton's property consists of 15 acres of Big Woods but that she is not sure about the
acreage of Charlie Crosby's land. Weir noted Peter Recklebockel owns this parcel but is moving out
because of this development. Weir indicated that land is not permanently conserved but the woods are of
the same high value. Weir stated she believes it is 35 to 40 acres of contiguous Big Woods.
Page 28 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron noted there is a difference in the coloration of part of the canopy than the canopy to the west but
then it is pretty uniform down to the Dayton property. Gaffron asked if she knows what the difference is
from.
Weir stated to her knowledge that is older growth. Weir stated a portion of the land has been preserved
for maple syrup but is regrowth so it is of less value. Weir stated the property owned by Charlie Crosby
is high value.
Stickney stated there might be some possibilities for tweaking the plan and that he will take a look at the
best possible way to do it.
Gaffron stated he will be bringing this sketch plan to the City Council for their input since it is a fairly
significant proposal.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
6. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON FERUARY 23,2015 AND MARCH 9,2015
Leskinen stated she attended the February 23 Council meeting and that a couple of the planning items
were placed on Consent. The City Council had a lengthy discussion about retaining walls but eventually
adopted the ordinance by a 3-2 vote.
Gaffron stated the City Council elected to go with 20 cubic yards of fill and five feet from the property
line but that a permit would be required once someone reaches the 20-cubic yard threshold.
Leskinen stated she informed the Council of the discussion the Planning Commission had regarding
videotaping of their meetings and ultimately there was a motion to approve and the motion failed.
McGrann stated he attended the March 9 City Council meeting and that the park on Big Island is doing
very well but there is still some vandalism going on. Hennepin County will be replacing Boy Scout
bridge on Tonkawa this summer between Maxwell and North Arm. In addition,the bridge on Brown
Road will be replaced in the summer of 2016.
The City Council also discussed the Navarre banner project. McGrann stated a local artist is working on
designing the banner. In addition,the Council heard an update on the Fire Department. McGrann stated
the Broadway Group had requested the Council allow them to make some adjustments to structural lot
coverage but the Council was not in favor of that. The developer for the Northern Oaks project requested
a revised grading plan, which was tabled.
Gaffron stated the developer for Northern Oak is still working on the layout and the ramifications of
changing the grading plan.
Curtis stated the application for1340 Fox Street was approved.
Gaffron noted the ordinance on wind energy was tabled as well as the fencing amendment. The Council
approved going ahead with an engineering study on Baldur Park and Watertown Road. The City Council
Page 29 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 16,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
also removed Chevy Chase and Cygnet from the park list and appointed Jan Berg as co-chair of the Park
Commission.
7. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:30
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
ATTEST
Denise Leskinen,Chair
Page 30 of 30