Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-2019 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Chris Bollis,Bob Erickson, Matt Gettman, Dennis Libby,and Mark McCutcheon. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 17,2019 Gettman moved, Libby seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of June 17,2019,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Libby moved, Gettman seconded, to approve the agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 1. LA19-000046 JOHN KRAEMER,855 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH AND 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY,VACATION OF DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT,6:32 P.M.— 6:37 P.M. The applicant was not present. Curtis stated the applicant is seeking approval of vacation of a portion of a drainage and utility easements along the west lot line of 2885 Little Orchard Way in conjunction with an administrative lot line adjustment between 2885 Little Orchard Way and the property addressed 855 Old Crystal Bay Road South. Both lots are owned by the same party. The utility companies have been notified. To the City's information, no utility or drainage improvements are located in the western 10 feet of the existing perimeter easement to be vacated. Replacement drainage and utility easements will be dedicated along the new boundary with the Boundary Line Adjustment/Subdivision exception as shown in Exhibit B. The homeowners' association has approved access through the 2885 Little Orchard Way. To date, no public comments have been received. Planning Staff recommends approval of the vacation subject to the dedication of new drainage and utility easements as noted at the time of vacation recording with the Boundary Line Adjustment. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. McCutcheon asked where the new location for the drainage easement is. Page 1 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated there is a 10-foot drainage and utility easement and the applicant is proposing to move it to accommodate the different shape of the lots and will be dedicating new easements over Lot 3,the Little Orchard Way property. McCutcheon asked whether this application needs to be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Curtis indicated it does not. McCutcheon stated as long as the utility companies have signed off on it, he would be fine with it. Libby stated he would tend to approve this since the City will still retain the ability to have the easements. Erickson and Bollis indicated they would support Staff's recommendation. Gettman commented the application is pretty straight forward. Ressler stated it appears to be a reasonable compromise and that an easement will still be retained. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Gettman moved,Erickson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000046, 855 Old Crystal Bay Road South and 2885 Little Orchard Way,vacation of drainage utility easement, subject to the dedication of new drainage and utility easements as noted at the time of vacation recording with the Boundary Line Adjustment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 2. LA19-000047 SCOTT GATES,4400 DEERING ISLAND,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,6:37 P.M.—6:52 P.M. Scott Gates,Applicant,was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting modification to the 2040 Community Management Plan to expand the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary to incorporate 4400 Deering Island. This expansion would allow them to be served by municipal sanitary sewer service. The nearest city is Mound,who has indicated they would be willing to provide service. The applicant is working on behalf of the owner, who also owns the adjacent land in the City of Mound, so it would be an easy connection from there to Deering Island. The line would be burrowed under the lakebed and would need to be approved by the DNR. The question that arises whenever the City adds a property to the MUSA is the impact on the City's overall density. The property is currently zoned seasonal residential, which requires a 5-acre minimum lot size. The lot consists of 2.7 acres. This proposal will not increase the density and any subdivision to create additional lots would require a variance, which the City Council has historically not supported. Page 2 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Comprehensive Plan does anticipate expansion of the MUSA boundary and identifies six priorities. The first priority is that the properties abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and all other Orono lakes, which this property does. Expansion of the MUSA on the established priorities outlined in Staff's report will occur only when one of the following conditions is found: 1. When an area of existing homes has failing or non-conforming septic systems and replacement drain field sites are not available for a significant share of the existing homes. 2. When an individual home has a failing or non-conforming septic system,does not have an alternate drain field site, is adjacent to existing sewer lines, and is not part of a neighborhood that could be better served by a neighborhood sewer lateral project. 3. When a new or existing residential development meeting all required development standards is adjacent to existing sewer lines and the developer or homeowners agree to bear all costs of extending municipal sewer to the development, but only when inclusion of such development in the MUSA will not result in a decrease in the City's sewered density as calculated by the Metropolitan Council. The site was determined to be non-compliant in 2001 due to vertical separation with the water table. Replacement septic sites would require significant tree removal. From Staff's perspective it meets the first priority and the condition imposed in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends approval of the request. Ressler asked whether Orono has to govern installation of the line. Barnhart indicated it would be regulated by the DNR. Ressler stated it appears that all the Planning Commission is discussing tonight is modification of the Comprehensive Plan to expand the MUSA boundary. Barnhart stated expansion of the MUSA would help create safe sanitary service near the lake and city sanitary sewer is the preferred option. Just because Orono is expanding the MUSA,that does not mean the City has to provide the service. Erickson stated he is totally in favor of expanding the MUSA. Erickson asked whether consideration has been given to the existing depth of the water and that he does not want this to create a navigation issue. Barnhart stated it is his belief the DNR will be reviewing that. Ressler asked if this approval would be contingent upon those other approvals. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission's recommendation would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan and that any permit would be conditioned upon the requirements of the DNR and the City. Scott Gates,Applicant, stated he is here to answer any questions and that he has appeared before the Planning Commission previously on this application. The pipe will need to go ten feet below the surface Page 3 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. of the water,but that could be subject to change if some type of obstacle is encountered. The pipe basically has to be below the bottom of the lakeshore. Gates indicated there would be a joint operating agreement with the City of Mound and the City of Orono. This will be considered a private service and that basically Mound will allow a connection at the street and the owner will be responsible for the maintenance of the pipe. What is before the Planning Commission this evening is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment asking the Metropolitan Council to amend Orono's Comprehensive Plan. Once that approval is received,the property owner will need to apply for permits. Gates stated long term this is a good solution and that whenever you are on the lake and you can eliminate a septic system, it makes sense. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. Gettman commented it is a pretty straight forward request and that he does not see any issues with the application. Bollis stated he is in agreement and it makes a lot of sense to eliminate a septic system on the lake whenever possible. Erickson stated he appreciates the applicant's willingness to take a long-term approach to this. Libby indicated he is in favor of this because there has been conscientious consideration of the environmental impacts by the applicant and that the technology used nowadays has gotten substantially better over the years. Libby stated he would be in favor of it provided all the other authorities approve of the request. McCutcheon stated he is in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Ressler stated as the applicant indicated,this septic line is very similar to a long driveway and that there is no risk to the City since the homeowner has agreed to be responsible for the future maintenance of the line. Libby moved,Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000047, Scott Gates,4400 Deering Island, Comprehensive Plan Amendment,subject to an agreement with the City of Mound being formally adopted prior to the amendment taking place. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 3. LA19-000048 PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION,2967 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCE 6:52 P.M.—7:15 P.M. Robert Schmidt,Premium Construction,was present. Page 4 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback,hardcover lot area, and lot width variances to construct a new home. As part of the project,the existing home and detached garage will be removed. The proposal also requires lot area, lot width, and hardcover variances. The average lakeshore setback is unique for this property due to the neighboring lot to the north. This lot is flag shaped,with a long narrow finger providing the lake frontage and the buildable portion set much further back. Due to this configuration,the subject lot is not buildable without an average lakeshore setback variance. The current home is nonconforming due to this extreme setback and hardcover. The applicant is proposing to build the new home with more massing forward of the average lakeshore setback compared to what is there today. The proposal also requires lot area and lot width variances. The hardcover will decrease from the current level by approximately 300 square feet under the proposed plan but will still be over the 25 percent maximum. Staff finds that due to the nature of the lot and the applied setbacks, there are practical difficulties supporting granting the lot area, lot width, hardcover,and average lakeshore setback variances for construction of a new home. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and recommends the home have gutters and a drainage plan be developed to ensure no runoff is directed to the neighboring properties or roadway. The neighbors have submitted signatures of support. Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the City Engineer's comments for the lot area, lot width and hardcover variances. The Planning Commission should discuss the applicant's desire to utilize the property for a larger home footprint. If the Commission finds the proposed home meets the practical difficulties, Staff recommends a motion to approve the average lakeshore setback variance. Oakden displayed an annotated site plan and noted the neighboring properties are depicted in purple and the proposed house footprint is in orange. The diagonal red line depicts the average lakeshore setback. Ressler asked if the grade is existing. Oakden indicated the grade is the existing home footprint. The proposed home is a little more forward to the lake and there will be more massing to the property to the north. Ressler asked if Staff has an aerial that shows the shoreline. Oakden pointed out the subject property with the existing home. The property to the north is set further back,which creates an unusual average lakeshore setback. Erickson stated it is really the flag lot next door that creates the situation, and if you look at the other neighbors,that problem does not exist. Ressler asked whether Staff has seen other similar situations where the City has allowed an encroachment further towards the water. Page 5 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Oakden noted that was one of the questions outlined in Staff report. The current house does encroach into the average lakeshore setback, so it is nonconforming as it exists today, and the proposal is requesting to be closer to the lake. The applicant is looking to be more in line with the two other nearby residences, and without an average lakeshore setback variance,this lot would be almost unbuildable. The question is whether the Planning Commission is in favor of the degree to which is being proposed. McCutcheon asked what the side setbacks are. Oakden indicated the property is allowed a 7.8-foot setback and to the south they are proposing an 8-foot setback and to the north they are proposing a 12.5-foot setback. McCutcheon commented drainage is always a concern when the houses are that close, but that will be dealt with at the time of building permit. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Libby commented since there is not that much difference between the existing footprint and what is being proposed on the lakeshore side,this is something that would be worthy of the Planning Commission's consideration and that he would like to hear further discussion. The lakeshore setback is the primary concern due to the possibility of setting a precedent,but under the circumstances,the proposal is not that much more than what currently exists. Libby stated if you look at the alignment for the average lakeshore setback without the house to the north that is further set back,the line would be in a different location. Erickson stated his sense of the average lakeshore setback is to regulate the situation where houses are at similar setbacks. The rules create an issue when there are flag lots and the main house is located quite a bit back from the other homes in the area. A good item to discuss at some point is the City's future treatment of flag lots and whether something can be done with that ordinance to deal with this type of situation. Erickson stated at the present time he would support the application. McCucheon stated common sense-wise,the new house aligns with the other neighbors and will not be extending into the lake setback any more than the neighbors are, so he would support it. Bollis commented he likes the fact the hardcover is being reduced. The intent of the lakeshore setback ordinance is to protect the view shed and it does not appear the view shed would be any different for the house to the north, so he would be in favor of it. Gettman indicated he has no concerns with the application. Ressler asked if structural coverage is being increased. Oakden indicated it is but that it will be within the allowable amount. The current hardcover is at 30.5 percent and they are proposing to decrease it to 29.5 percent, but it is still over the allowable 25 percent. Page 6 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ressler stated it does make sense, but the difficulty he is having is regulating under the current rules. It looks like there is further encroachment to the neighboring property, which is an issue. The neighbor's property will not be able to build that close since their lot is too close. Ressler stated in his view the neighbor is being impacted in two ways and that he has having a hard time mitigating that. It seems like they could maybe move it back a little bit to make it have less of an impact on the neighbor. Gettman asked whether there are a bunch of trees over there. Oakden indicated there are some trees there but that the applicant could better address that. Leslie Oak,2967 Casco Point Road, stated she met with the neighbors regarding their proposal. The previous owners had planted a tree line from where the property line jogs all the way down to the lake. There is a 25-foot elm and probably five or six pine trees that are around 15 feet. The neighbors are in complete support of the new house, but he asked if those trees could be cut down, and they are willing to do that. Robert Schmidt,Builder, indicated he worked with Staff and they suggested they make a design change with the porch,which has been moved to help mitigate as much as they could any massing concerns. Ressler commented the tree screening does make a difference, but that it does not necessarily assist him in approving as much as what is being requested. Ressler stated he can understand the difficulty with the neighboring property but that he is not sure if he would be in favor of encroaching further. McCutcheon commented this application seems similar to one the Planning Commission reviewed approximately a month ago where there was an irregular shaped lot. The fact that the applicants changed the design to accommodate that and that they are willing to cut down some trees to help improve the neighbor's view, he would be in support of it. With the exception of the flag lot, it lines up with the other neighbors. Libby commented obstruction of lake views is a pretty big deal but the removal of the trees kind of makes it a moot point. Libby stated he would tend to favor the side setbacks and the average lakeshore setback. Erickson moved,McCutcheon seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000048, Premium Construction,2967 Casco Point Road,variance, as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1, Ressler Opposed. 4. LA18-000050 ERIC VOGSTROM,2710 PENCE LANE,VARIANCES,7:15 P.M.—7:28 P.M. Eric Vogstrom,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lake setback variance for retaining walls associated with a lake access stair. A new home is currently under construction on the property and the owner is proposing to construct set-in grade lake/dock access stairs. The stairs require some minimal retaining walls due to the slope of the lake yard. The walls would begin approximately 13 feet from the ordinary high-water level. The stairs are a permitted lake setback encroachment for this sloped lakeshore lot,but the retaining walls are not. A 75-foot lake setback variance is required. Hardcover with the proposed improvements would be below 25 percent. Page 7 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15, 2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Stairs are permitted by City Code. In similar situations, property owners have two choices in installing stairs: above-grade deck-type stairs or in-ground stairs. Above grade deck stairs are often more visually impactful, as the entire structure is above ground. These stairs are often used where protection of the slope is of greater importance than preserving the natural shoreline view. In-ground stairs blend into the shoreline more effectively but often require some slope stabilization. These are often used where the slope is minor and helps to better preserve the natural shoreline. Public comment was received and has been included in the Planning Commission packet. Staff finds practical difficulty in the lake yard slope to allow the minimal retaining walls associated with the set-in grade stair system for lake and dock access. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance permitting the retaining walls to support the stairs conditioned upon implementation of a landscape plan which screens the walls from the lake. The applicant has emailed a photograph of a property with a similar landscape design and that will be put up on the overhead. Bollis asked whether the variance is just for the retaining wall. Curtis indicated it is. The stairs are permitted but the walls are not. The applicant could install an above- ground staircase. The walls will be generally screened and will help soften that look. Eric Vogstrom,Applicant,stated he had nothing to add to Staff's report. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Greg Hueler,2710 Pence Lane, stated he is here to support the application,but the issue he has is that the subdivision was supposed to have guidelines for not using the driveway. The Dunkleys are still using the driveway,which was a specific prohibition under the plat approval. Hueler commented he wants the Planning Commission to understand that a lot of people are watching this to see if they will be approving a variance on a property that is not in compliance with what has been approved. Hueler stated due to the lack of consequences of ignoring the direction of the City and the Mayor, he is not sure how the Planning Commission can deal with it. If it is approved, other citizens will expect the same treatment and that they should expect a number of neighbors expecting the same nonchalant concern for the shoreline and the hillside. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Libby stated it is difficult when behavior and conduct of general contractors and subcontractors become an issue. Sometimes, if not properly directed by the general contractor,there may be behavior that the Planning Commission and City Council cannot control. Libby stated he commends Mr. Hueler for coming tonight and expressing concern, but that he does not see any other neighbors expressing concern about it except for Mr. Hueler's letter and his comments tonight. Curtis noted the letter was from a different neighbor. Bollis asked if the property is in compliance with the subdivision approval. Page 8 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated they are frequently out of compliance with the subdivision approval that prohibits the cross traffic of contractors and subcontractors on Pence Lane. Staff,however, does not monitor it on a daily basis. Staff visited the site on Friday and the fencing was down. The fencing is supposed to remain up unless they are moving dirt at that specific time and is designed to keep people from driving across the Pence Lane driveway. As far as the grading,the house, and everything else,they are in compliance. Ressler commented he has visited the site and it is a tight spot. Ressler encouraged Mr. Hueler to continue to bring up his concerns to the City, but that he would have a hard time not making a decision tonight on what would be an improvement. Ressler stated he is sure everyone is looking forward to the construction being done. Erickson stated he is positive about the stairs and retaining walls. In this case there is no height issue so he is very much in favor of it. Erickson stated as it relates to the traffic problem, his understanding of the rules that relate to variances and setting conditions on variances is that the traffic issue is too far removed from the retaining wall issue so the Planning Commission cannot link those in one motion. That being the case, he would support the application for the stairway and retaining walls. McCutcheon commented the retaining wall/stairway looks like a solid solution and that it is a good idea since the stairs have collapsed in the past. Bollis stated as far as the stairway and retaining walls, he sees a practical difficulty with trying to build an above-ground stairway system given the grade. Gettman stated the retaining walls make sense in order to help retain the stairs. Ressler noted everyone is sensitive to limit the amount of structure near the lake. Given what the walls serve,he would be in support of it, but that the Planning Commission cannot govern on the ongoing construction of the home as part of this request. McCutcheon moved,Libby seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000050, Eric Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane, lake setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. LA19-000051 DALE GUSTAFSON, 1905 CONCORDIA STREET,VARIANCE AND INTERIM USE PERMIT, 7:28 P.M.—7:56 P.M. Dale Gustafson,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a lake setback variance and interim use permit to repair a slope failure. During the process of building a new home, foundation work was underway and there were several consecutive rain events. This resulted in the failure of the lower portion of the lake slope on the property. Similar failures have occurred on the property over the years and the previous owners had worked to incrementally repair those failures as they occurred. The applicant is proposing to install a subterranean timber retaining wall grid system to stabilize and repair the slope. Because the walls are not permitted within the lake yard, a 75-foot lake setback variance is required. The grid layout will create boxes to be filled with soil to recreate the slope. Plantings with Page 9 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. deep roots are proposed to be installed on the slope. The applicant's plan has been certified by a professional engineer. Retaining walls are not permitted within the lake yard. However,the hardcover associated with the walls is excluded from the site hardcover totals. Hardcover on the site, with the proposed improvements, will be below 25 percent. No public comments have been received in response to this application. Staff finds practical difficulty in the lake yard slope failure to allow the subterranean retaining wall system to be installed. The retaining wall grid system has been signed by a professional engineer. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance permitting the subterranean retaining wall grid system to repair and restore the lake side slope conditioned upon implementation of a landscape plan which creates a natural vegetated slope over the walls. The applicant has proposed a landscape plan with three varieties of plants. The City Engineer is requesting some additional certification and more plan details. Ressler asked if the further detail can be provided prior to the City Council meeting. Curtis stated that can be included in the Planning Commission recommendation. The City Engineer would require that as a part of any building permit. Ressler asked if there is a survey that speaks to any grading changes. Curtis stated at the time of the survey,the slope had not yet failed, and that there is a general indication of the area on the survey. Some further detail and clarification is what the City Engineer is looking for as it relates to the grid system and its location to the adjacent property. The survey says existing boulder walls in this area and then it says proposed buried retaining walls and refers to the landscaping details. The City Engineer was unclear as to where the start and stop of the failure was and that the City Engineer has an expectation the applicant will be able to put together the detail he is asking for. McCutcheon asked if there were steps in the area where it failed. Curtis indicated there are stairs on one side and some of that was affected. The photo on the overhead is from a previous slope failure showing the general area. The stairs were repaired recently and survived this most recent slope failure for the most part. The repair that was done for the previous failure was tiered retaining walls, and the bottom of that repair is what failed. Bollis asked if there was a permit for the previous repair. Curtis stated the property owner went through a conditional use permit process with the City Council but that she does not believe the actual permits were followed through with. As a result, Staff does not know exactly what was done. Ressler asked if there is any clarity as far as relocating any dirt or bringing in dirt from an outside source. Curtis suggested the applicant address that. Page 10 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Dale Gustafson,Applicant,stated this is a complex piece of property and that it is clear that boulders on the steep slope are generally not going to stay there. The slope has failed twice. This system of subterranean grid creates a network under the soil that will hold the slope from top to bottom. On the cross-section at the top,there are timbers going down that help stabilize against the slide and there are also timbers that go across in rows. The difficulty with this type of project is that they cannot work on it at one time. The contractor has to start at the bottom and dig down, put the first crib in, and then each of the subsequent cribs are connected together by the longer timbers that go through it. Right behind the wall there is a section of drainage rock. The moisture that gets in the ground will come down through the clay, encounter the rock, and instead of just collecting there and creating this mass that has freeze/thaw problems,the water will come up to the wall and rock,then go down to the next level and then the next level, and slowly make its way to the bottom level. That will greatly reduce the rate of the runoff,and over time that will help stabilize the slope. Gustafson noted the contractor has been doing this for 30 years and has not experienced a failure yet. When you look at the details on the survey,the surveyor must provide a one-foot contour of the area next to the lake. When you see lines that are parallel to each other, it will tell you that that section was not surveyed. It was marked on the top and the bottom and then the computer determines the difference. When someone tries to build it,those numbers will not match. As they go through this process,the contractor will accommodate the existing grade as they build it. Gustafson stated they are not able to specify exactly where each crib will be. McCutcheon asked if it will be 60 feet long. Curtis indicated it will be in the bottom half or bottom third of the slope. Gustafson stated the boulder walls that remain will be taken out. McCutcheon suggested the applicant provide as much detail as possible to help ensure this will hold, and that if he was the engineer reviewing this, he would look for rise over run, drain tile, and the amount of gravel. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Eric Thompson, 1940 Concordia Street, stated he has lived across the street for the past 20 years and that Dale has a particularly difficult task on hand. If you visit the property,the slope is extremely steep and the dirt is soft. The previous property owner built a dock there and some stairs a few years ago, which collapsed some months later. Thompson indicated he also owns property on the Mississippi River and the whole entire embankment collapsed and it looks very similar to this. Thompson stated as he was listening to the Planning Commission and how the applicant really does not have a plan, he understands because he has been down that road before and that it is very hard to figure out what to do in a situation like this. There needs to be roots in the soil, and if they are going to start pounding footings in,the City will need a more detailed plan. Right now the slope is very unstable ground. Page 11 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thompson recommended the Planning Commission decline this particular application and Dale should say to his contractor that they are going to revisit this once they get some answers to the type of growth that will be in there to help hold the soil before putting in other structures. The water and dirt are washing into the lake right now since it is really loose soil, and the best thing to do is to apply some pressure on his contractor to get a solid plan. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Libby stated he would agree with Staff's recommendation. Libby commented he is very familiar with this design and that he has seen it on a steeper grade. In 2017,that structure was 80 years old and is still standing. Libby stated in his view this is a practical design, and if the City Engineer is satisfied and the Conservation District reviews it and approves it,he would tend to be in favor of this since this is a long- term correction that is way overdue. Ressler stated the action plan underneath the ground is pretty detailed but the plan for above ground needs some more detail. Overall it appears to be very well thought out. McCutcheon commented he appreciates the neighbor's concerns and that he would again encourage the applicant to have his engineer provide as much detailed information as possible. When there are failure points,there should be some redundancies in place to help prevent future failures. If the desired information is provided to the City Engineer, he would not have a problem with the application. Ressler asked if the Watershed District will look at this. Curtis indicated they would not necessarily review the walls but that they would look at the riprap and floodplain. Staff is working with the Watershed District in parallel with this application. Any further information can be submitted with the building permit application. Erickson commented this is the second time tonight that they have had an applicant step up and go the extra mile to come up with a long-term solution. As a result,he would be happy to support the application. Bollis stated he also is in support of it subject to the information being supplied to the City Engineer and him signing off on it. Gettman noted the Planning Commission is just approving the concept with the caveat that the information is provided to the City Engineer. Ressler stated as long as they are not changing the level of grading,that is what he is after, and that he wants to avoid any sort of approval that would dramatically change the slope. The applicant should stay in compliance with the recommendations of the City Engineer and provide the requested information. If that is done,he would be in support of it. Gettman asked if they should wait until the City Engineer approves the final design before approving the request. Page 12 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated only if there is something the Planning Commission feels would change their recommendation on the variance. Staff is asking for more clarification on location and specifications. The City Engineer will not certify it but he will cross-check their engineer, who will be certifying it. Gettman moved,Bollis seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000051, Dale Gustafson, 1905 Concordia Street,variance and Interim Use Permit,subject to the appropriate information being provided to the City Engineer and subject to the general grading remaining consistent with what currently exists. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. LA19-000052 SVEN GUSTAFSON,385 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, VACATION OF DRAINAGE UTILITY EASEMENT, 7:56 P.M.— 8:00 P.M. The applicant was not present Curtis noted a lot line was recently moved between 385 and 387 Orono Orchard Road. In doing so,the area to be vacated was overlooked and the applicant would like to construct a home in the location that is encumbered by easements currently. A replacement drainage and utility easement was granted along the new boundary between the subject property and the plat of Orono Orchard Hill. According to the City's information, no utility or drainage improvements are located in this existing perimeter easement to be vacated. Staff recommends approval. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Ressler commented the request is reasonable and is rather straight forward. Erickson stated he is in support of the application. Libby and McCutcheon indicated they are in support of Staff's recommendation. Bollis moved,Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000052, Sven Gustafson,385 Orono Orchard Road South,Vacation of a Drainage and Utility Easement. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 7. LA19-000053 CITY OF ORONO,AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK DISCUSSION, 7:56 P.M.—8:30 P.M. Barnhart stated this item is intended to be a discussion on the City's average lakeshore setback and will likely be discussed at a work session. The average lakeshore setback was established in 1992 and was intended to protect the views of lakeshore property owners. Typically,the average lakeshore setback is established by the location of the principal structures on the neighboring lakeshore lots but there are some exceptions for lots adjacent to right-of-way or vacant lots. Page 13 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. The City recently observed a situation where the average lakeshore setback didn't realistically protect a lakeview as the setback line prescribed by ordinance went through the neighboring principal structures. Another example is an average lakeshore setback where it goes right through the house. It is Staff's belief that the following are the goals of the ordinance: 1. Preservation of lake views. Is it the City's intention to preserve a 180-degree view shed,free of structures or reasonable views of the lake given inherent development densities? 2. Accommodates various unique circumstances, including meandering, concave/convex shorelines, and peninsulas. Is it the City's intent to preserve views for homes that are set back more than 200 feet from the lake? Should there be a maximum average lakeshore? Is it the City's intent to preserve views where the homes are orientated over another's property? 3. Clarity. Any resulting regulation should be understandable for the average citizen. This often precludes numerous exceptions. To date, no public comments have been received. Planning Staff requests direction on how to proceed. This direction will be provided to the Council and both will be used to develop regulatory solutions for future consideration. McCutcheon asked if the common rule is 75 feet from the lakeshore. Barnhart indicated he looked at Mound and Excelsior and most of those communities have some regulations to preserve views. Mound does not. Victoria uses a 150-foot setback to preserve the views. The other cities have similar regulations. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Barnhart noted Staff did not notice this as a public hearing. Ressler stated he would like the ordinance to be written so it is understandable by the average person. Some of the issues might be mitigated if an average of two or three neighboring properties is taken into consideration to help understand where that line is represented. Ressler stated one example is of a property on a quasi-peninsula and whether the City should also consider the number of feet to the neighboring structure, so it takes into consideration that shoreline point. Barnhart stated Bohns Point is a peninsula and currently the average lakeshore setback is a straight line, so the setback would be 150 feet. Ressler stated that is kind of what he is getting at and that a straight line does not seem to be fair for that lot,which should be taken into consideration. Page 14 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. Libby stated he tends to agree from the standpoint of how they look at the metrics. When there is something that has irregularities, it is not uncommon to take the measured empirical distance from either the center line of the street or curb, measure back a block's worth of properties, and then divide the number of properties within that block. Instead what the City is trying to deal with is a very static line that does not take into account the irregular shoreline. Barnhart noted Staff does use its average measuring tool for some nonconforming properties but not for lakeshore lots. The problem with the average number for most situations is that the line is logical. The view is established by where the structure is. Libby stated as long as that stays the static purpose,there is no way to do it differently. Preserving the lakeshore is important and is similar to the dock alignments, which is very complicated. The LMCD attempts to have something fair and reasonable so the docks line up but the lakeshore is not linear and does not take into account that the lakeshore differs. McCutcheon stated he agrees it is a problem and that perhaps they could look at having some sort of minimum for the neighborhood. Barnhart stated in his view, if the average lakeshore setback is 219 feet,there should be some sort of maximum lakeshore setback since there are probably some situations where the house is 450 feet back. The question then becomes, is it fair to have that lot set the average lakeshore setback for the neighboring house and should it be protected as much as the homes on Casco Point where they are all lined up. Barnhart stated that type of situation should be part of any discussion since that creates some of the issues. While a new ordinance is not going to eliminate all variances, it could help reduce it somewhat. Bollis stated he would be in favor of eliminating it, which should be brought forward for discussion. Gettman commented they also did not discuss vegetation that can obstruct a view. In the application earlier,there were some trees that were blocking the view and the other neighbor was willing to remove those. Having that as part of the discussion would also be helpful. If one property owner puts in a bunch of trees, it ends up defeating the purpose of having these protections. Barnhart noted the Council did look at regulating landscaping in the lake yard in the past and ultimately discarded any changes because they did not want to get into regulating that. The City is trying to protect the lake but they also want to preserve a natural view. Gettman stated enforcement of the ordinance also needs to be looked at. Barnhart stated enforcement of the ordinance can be discussed at any point. Ressler stated something else to take into consideration is the added cost of surveying the shoreline, which in his view is being utilized in ways it should not be. The City should take into consideration the average lakeshore setbacks of neighboring properties and not just the two adjoining properties. Erickson stated as it regards the 180-degree view,that is really unrealistic, and the idea of reasonable views has more merit. The City has three different lot sizes on the lake,which makes a difference if Page 15 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. someone has a 50-foot lot or 100 or 200 feet of lakeshore, and is the reason why there should be an average. Erickson stated he could probably support some type of upper limit. As it relates to flag lots, Erickson stated he would like to see something that disregards the flag lots. If it was a new subdivision,flag lots would not be allowed,and if somebody next door wants to build a house, they should not have to drastically compromise their layout to accommodate someone whose house is behind them. One way to deal with that is just to ignore the flag lot and go to the next house and use that as the average. In addition, every house has a front yard and a back yard. As far as views are concerned,not many have a nice view out the front door. Instead, it is the back yard where they have their picture window and easy chair to admire the sunset. That situation would favor the back yard more than the front yard. Erickson stated a good point was raised also about vegetation and that he would not want to regulate vegetation too much beyond what the City does now,which is to regulate tree removal within 75 feet of the lake. Erickson stated he would encourage people to plant a tree since it is a good thing. The City also has similar rules on fences because fencing and tree planting are going to happen. Libby asked whether Staff will draft something and bring it back before the Planning Commission. Barnhart stated his plan is to summarize the comments of the Planning Commission and then have the same sort of discussion with the City Council to gain their input. Ressler commented the City typically is for maintaining vegetation and not removing it, and that he does not want to get into regulating that. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 9. UPDATE ON JULY 8,2019,CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported on the following actions taken by the City Council: • Approved the Todd Long variance on Consent. • Approved the Greg Katchmark application at 140 Leaf Street on Consent. • Approved a variance for 951 Spring Hill Road. • The City Council reviewed the Camp Teko application and directed Staff to draft an approval resolution for the conditional use permit but did not support the bluff encroachment for the three buildings or the storage shed. The City Council did support the variance for the five-year limit. • The interim use permit at 3280 Fox Street was approved. • The interim use permit for Fagerness was also approved. ADJOURNMENT Gettman moved,McCutcheon seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:38 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Page 16 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. ATTEST: Jon Ressler, Chair Page 17 of 17