Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16-2019 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 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,Mark McCutcheon, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Matt Johnson and Mayor Dennis Walsh were present. Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gettman moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the Agenda for the September 16,2019,Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 19,2019 Erickson moved,Gettman seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of August 19,2019, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 1. LA19-000060 TIM DRUK,3348 BAYSIDE ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:32 P.M.—6:40 P.M. Tim Druk,Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for grading and filling within the floodplain and mitigation of the 100-year floodplain for construction of a new two-car detached garage. The site is substandard in size, width, and has a protected tributary along the northern property line creating a limited building envelope. In order to meet all the required setbacks,the detached garage is partially located within the 100-year floodplain. The garage will be elevated out of the floodplain with fill. Placing fill in the floodplain requires a conditional use permit. The 26' x 26' is proposed to be raised approximately two feet. The DNR has been notified of the request and the public hearing must remain open until the City Council meeting due to the notification process. Staff finds the proposed plans meet the conditions for filling in the floodplain. The applicant is mitigating the work by creating more floodplain area within the property. They are also raising the floor of the garage to place the building above the floodplain elevation. The applicant is working to place the building within the required setbacks leaving them minimal options to work outside the floodplain. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and had the following comments: 1. Sediment erosion control measures should include a double silt fence. Page 1 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. 2. The applicant will be required to obtain Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval and permitting for their erosion control and floodplain alteration rules. A copy of any approvals or permits required should be submitted prior to issuance of the permit. 3. Any materials deposited or shored in the floodplain must be protected from erosion by vegetative cover,mulching, riprap or other acceptable method while under construction. No public comments have been received. Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the City Engineer's recommendations. Ressler noted it meets all side setbacks, hardcover, and that the conditional use permit is required because of the grading and fill within the floodplain. Oakden indicated that is correct and that they will be raising the grade by approximately two feet. Gettman asked if there is an existing garage. Oakden indicated there is no garage but there is an existing residence with a parking pad. McCutcheon asked if there is currently water in the ditch east of the proposed garage. Oakden stated there is some water currently in the ditch. The protected tributary runs to the north and there is a 75-foot setback from that. The 100-year floodplain is what is being encroached upon. Erickson asked what the sea elevation is for this property. Oakden indicated the garage will be 942' at the slab and the 100-year elevation is 940'. Tim Druk,Applicant, stated it is actually his son who purchased the home and that he has nothing to add to Staffs report. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. The public hearing was continued to the September City Council meeting. Thiesse commented a garage is not a luxury in Minnesota but a necessity. The garage appears to be pretty modest and is situated as best as it can be on this property. Gettman indicated he concurs and that this appears to be the best location for it. Bollis stated he also is in agreement and that a garage is pretty practical. Would recommend approval. Erickson concurred with Commissioner Thiesse that in Minnesota the lack of a garage is a hardship and he would support Staffs recommendation. Page 2 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. McCutcheon stated if the applicant will be taking the fill from the property,that may be pretty tricky since the lot is already pretty flat. Druk stated to his understanding they will be taking out poor soils and bringing in good soil. Ressler noted a building in a floodplain triggers floodplain insurance. As far as the location goes, it is not encroaching on any setbacks and is pretty straight forward. Thiesse moved, Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000060, Tim Druk,3348 Bayside Road,Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 2. LA19-000067 KATHRYN ALEXANDER,3129 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCE,6:41 P.M. —7:30P.M. Kathryn Alexander,Alexander Design Group, and Mark and Kristie Ties,property owners,were present. Curtis stated the applicant has designed a replacement residence for this property with a new single- family home. The existing home and guest house will be removed, and the boathouse will remain and may be refurbished. Due to the shape of the property,the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance. The new home will be in a similar location with relation to the lake as the existing house and guest house on the property. The existing house is approximately 59 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. The proposed home will be approximately 10 feet further from the lake or 49 feet lakeward of the setback. The proposed home has been designed to reduce the impact to the adjacent property owners' views of the lake from the existing condition. The applicant is proposing to reduce the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback by ten feet and reorient the home to pull back from the lake and away from the neighboring lots in the average setback area. There is a difference of approximately 124 feet of separation between the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback line on the property. Situating the home behind the average lakeshore setback would essentially put the house behind the two neighboring homes and would impact their view of the lake. All other zoning requirements will be met. Staff finds that the applicant's choice to build a replacement home in the general location of the two existing buildings, while improving the lake views from adjacent homes, is sensitive to the unique character of the property. The location of the neighboring homes creating the average lakeshore setback impacts the building area creating difficulties. The proposed home will be situated 10 feet further from the lake than the existing home and guest house, improving views. Public comments have been received and have been included in the Commissioners' packets. Planning Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Kathryn Alexander stated they are requesting a variance because this lot does not fit into the norm of the average lakeshore setback. They have attempted to work with the views and have pulled the new house Page 3 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. away from the adjoining property. The two buildings that are close to the property line are five feet and eight feet away. The closest point of the new residence would be 17 feet. The foremost portion of the porch would be 59 feet away from the side setback. The new house will be the same distance from the lake as the current house. The existing home and the two buildings will be removed. Ressler asked if there is an illustration of the average lakeshore setback. Curtis pointed out the average lakeshore setback line. Mark Ties stated they attempted to fit the new house in as best as they could and that they are trying to be as accommodating as possible. Staff visited the property and they pointed out what trees in the area are dead and can be removed. Kristie Ties stated the goal is to be where the current house is and not to block anyone's views. Ressler stated by going in the middle of the two buildings,they will be softening the impact to the neighbors. Alexander stated after looking at this today and after speaking with one of the neighbors, it was suggested that they shift the house a little bit further, which they will try to do. That property owner currently can see over the boathouse. Kristie Ties stated today was the first time she stood on Stacy Marks' deck and currently the entire boathouse is visible. Ms. Marks requested they spin the house or move it back a couple of feet so she maintains her view of the entire boathouse. Thiesse asked if they are amenable to that. Kristie Ties indicated they are. Ressler asked if there is anything in writing to that effect. Alexander stated the only thing she has is the survey. Kristie Ties noted the red line shows the neighbor's view of the boathouse. The proposed house cuts off a corner of the deck and they can spin it or move it back slightly to protect that sight view. Ressler noted the Planning Commission does not have the exact distance of the new residence given the change. Bollis asked if that would impact the side setbacks at all. Kristie Ties stated she does not believe so, but until she can get a surveyor out there, she does not have the exact measurements. Curtis noted they have room to move on either side of the lot line. Kristie Ties stated there is a tree on the other side that they were trying to stay away from. Page 4 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Alexander noted there is 17 feet on that side and the required setback is 10 feet. Ressler asked if the only variance being requested is to the average lakeshore setback. Curtis indicated that it correct. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. Stacy Marks, 3127 Casco Circle, stated the reason she is here tonight is to say that while it is not in the packet, her view is very much impacted by the new residence. One of the things to note is the current view over on the right side of the boathouse. A number of photographs have been taken and she would be happy to share those with the Planning Commission. Marks stated as a homeowner on the lake, she is interested in preserving her sightline, which is basically 180 degrees, and that she would not expect anything different. Having an entire house in front that does affect my view so three sides of that house can have full views of the lake is not very equitable. Only asking for views from one side of her house. Several things have been misstated or overstated,such as the lot would be unbuildable without the variance. Casco Point and Casco Circle have a number of lots that are unbuildable. This lot is 125 feet at the roadside down to the lake, and to call that lot unbuildable does not meet the muster test for how that has been used here. Marks stated one of the other things she has done is attempted to come up with a solution. The survey showing her property and view is marked with a highlighter. The portion that is impacted,which Kristie mentioned, would be this corner. Given the limitations of the survey,the perspective is lost. The existing cottage is a 1940s cottage and at the corner it is nine feet tall. Marks stated from the main level of her house,that currently does not obstruct her view and neither does the shed behind it. The concern with seeing the plans would be the corner of the house that impacts her lake view since the new structure would be much higher than what exists. If the house could be pulled back to free up that corner,that would improve the situation,and instead of needing a variance for 100 percent of the house,which will have three sides of lake view, a more equitable solution would be to allow an existing adjacent homeowner maintain their current view. In looking at the Casco Circle neighborhood and in keeping with the character, Marks indicated she used some tracing paper over the survey and actually turned the structure and brought it all the way up into the pocket. Marks stated she is not asking for that but that she is asking to preserve her current sightlines. At the last meeting one of the biggest statements that was made was that the goal and planning mission is to preserve sightlines. This is a very important issue not only for herself but for other homes on the lakeshore. Currently the City appears to have a very loose definition of what an unbuildable lot is, and as an existing homeowner,granting this variance will allow the homeowner to enjoy the right to have adequate sunlight, have views of the lake, and to maintain the property as it is currently being used, but she has those same rights too. Ressler indicated he would agree with that and that the Planning Commission will take that into consideration. Page 5 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. McCutcheon asked if the existing house impedes her view of the lake. Marks stated she has views all around the structure and that it is a perspective issue. The new home is farther away and is towards the lot on the other side,but she has a second-story deck that she uses daily and currently she can see to the right and left and around that structure. Part of the concern is related to the height of the new structure. McCutcheon asked where that aligns with the existing structure. Marks stated the line from the existing structure at the non-lakeside front of the home intersects it on the corner. Most of the homes on Casco have a front/back design. Marks indicated she did make a circle on the survey and in her opinion keeping to that circle is very important. With 125 feet from the roadside to the lake,that seems very adequate for being able to place this house with room on either side. Penny Saiki,2874 Casco Point Road, suggested they flip the house and come into the garage on the other side. While it is a new house and they should be able to enjoy their lot,there should be a happy compromise. Barnhart stated the comments should be based on the proposal and not be directed at a redesign. Saiki suggested the bulk of the new structure go down to where the existing house is. When the City Council votes on the ordinance amendment next week, it talks about grandfathering what is existing. Instead of going back to what it was originally,those are now grandfathered in as existing. Saiki stated in her view that is shortsighted because everything gets further and further from the existing zoning. Everyone likes the lake,and when the City starts allowing changes to the zoning, each little step is fine, but when you take it as a whole,it has an impact. Casco currently has a 10-foot setback on each property, and that area has to handle all the runoff. Any variance changes the ability to hold the water off from the lake. Saiki stated she is concerned about grandfathering all the variances. Ressler noted there were some comments about side setback requirements, which is not being addressed tonight, and the Planning Commission has to take into consideration all the rules dealing with lake setbacks. Those are complicated issues and the City is always looking at ways to simplify it without creating new vulnerabilities. Saiki stated a new home with no deck or patio gets approved,gets built,and then the deck gets built with a variance. The same thing happened with a house. The person built a deck that is within the sightline of the existing house because the contractor said he forgot it. If you saw the deck,there is no way you can forget it. It is in the view of the neighbor. Ressler stated if someone is adding structure,that has to come back before the Planning Commission. Saiki encouraged them to go back to the original zoning when they consider granting a variance and that the beginning point should not be from the variance. Barnhart stated there seems to be a number of comments or questions about the average lakeshore setback ordinance the City Council will be reviewing next Monday. At the last City Council meeting,the Council gave Staff direction to come back with an ordinance that will be reviewed on Monday. While it is not Page 6 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. noticed as a public hearing,the Mayor typically invites comments on applications. That amendment is outside of this application,which is based on the ordinance as it is written today. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. McCutcheon stated for this lot to maintain a 180-degree view, it would be easier if the shoreline was straight. The Planning Commission has to consider the existing house, and in some aspects the applicants are accommodating and moving the house back. The builder has done a pretty good job at moving it and in some sense increasing the lake view for the neighbor. Setbacks are tough, but you have to look at each side. McCutcheon stated in his opinion it is actually better, but he understands that is subjective. Ressler asked how far the structure is going to improve the average lakeshore setback from the existing structure. Curtis indicated it is an improvement of ten feet but not in the same location. The distance is measured from the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed side setback would be 17 feet from Ms. Marks' property to the closest point, which would be the garage, and 59 feet from the lot line on the other side. McCutcheon commented there is a little corner that appears to jut out more than the existing corner. Curtis stated the porch is a new piece and some of the proposed house is within the footprint of the other buildings. Ressler noted a friendly amendment by the applicant is the red line which goes through the tree. Curtis stated there should be time between this meeting and the Council meeting to update the survey and meet with the neighbors. Erickson noted the new structure is further back from the lake by ten feet and also further away from the neighbor to the north by eight or nine feet on the side setback. Many times a proposal does not meet all of the City standards but it moves in a positive direction toward meeting those standards, which is what is happening in this situation. If it came to that or nothing, he would support it as it was proposed. Tonight they have the unusual situation where the applicant is considering some adjustments, which might possibly make things more acceptable to others in the neighborhood. If the applicants are truly willing to do that,then he certainly would not want to get in their way, but it really is difficult to try to do this on the run here. If adjustments are to be made,then perhaps the Planning Commission might need to table it tonight. Curtis asked if there is something in particular he is looking for in addition to the red line. Curtis stated if there is consensus on the direction to the applicant, it would not be necessary to table it. Ressler stated tabling it is a last resort and that he would prefer they get it in front of the Council to make a decision. If they are identifying a sightline of 62 degrees from the existing structure,that would be a measurable request, if that is agreeable. Bollis stated he likes the red line plan. The proposal in 2D looks like an improvement but in 3D that structure is also getting a lot taller. There is nothing in the ordinance that talks about height but just linear setbacks. If they can accommodate the neighbors,he would be supportive of that. Page 7 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Ressler noted no variance to height is requested or required. Gettman stated the red line is not sufficient enough for him to say that he would support it and that he would be against the red line as proposed. The question the Planning Commission should be asking themselves is, if the variance is granted,would it impact the neighborhood. A couple of neighbors have indicated it does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The houses to the right are more narrow and those property owners have worked within their lot. Thiesse stated he agrees with most of what is being said and that this would be a no-brainer if it was equal height. The height is a game changer and the view of the neighbor on the other side is the limiting factor. While he is not sure what the answer is, he would definitely recommend they go in the direction of the red line. Ressler noted the code allows someone to build in like,kind, and quality, but building in same location would be closer to the property line and would be higher than the existing structure. When the Planning Commission considers these variances,they want to make sure the situation is improving. The applicants are improving side setbacks and lakeshore setbacks. The question is whether the Planning Commission is comfortable with the height. As much as the Planning Commission may look at this as a difficult application,the meandering of the lakeshore and the existing structure makes him in support of this application. Ressler stated he certainly appreciates the friendly amendment by the applicant and that he would certainly be in support of approving this application contingent upon that measurement being 62.5 degrees or better as part of that same spirit of improving the difficulty. Anything less would be worsening the situation. Ressler stated he would like to see a motion based on that 62.5 percent so the application can move forward to the City Council. Thiesse commented that seems reasonable but the applicant could negotiate and come up with a better number. Ressler stated that would be the minimum. Thiesse stated he would like the parties to get together and come up with a number and plan that works for everyone. If the Planning Commission chooses a number,the problem is that one side already has a number. Curtis stated Ms. Marks noted the tree and that might be a better marker. If there is some way the surveyor could identify that specific tree from Ms. Marks' view, that could be something they could build off of. Curtis indicated she is hesitant to put a number on it when that number has not been determined specifically. Thiesse suggested a survey be completed. Ressler asked if they would be proposing to improve it to the red line. Page 8 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Curtis stated it would be a positive move to have the applicant and the neighbor work together as they revise their plan. If the applicant is willing to make that change, that is where it should be. They can use the tree as a reference point in the field and go from there. Ressler asked how Staff would propose to make that amendment. Curtis stated the Planning Commission could make a motion consistent with the spirit of the red line and not approve a specific number at this point. The City Council will be getting that direction and the applicant is getting that direction tonight. Erickson stated they could approve it as amended by the applicant. Ressler asked if the applicants would be agreeable to the Planning Commission approving it based on the red line. Mr. and Mrs. Ties stated they are. Gettman commented he is not sure if all the neighbors are comfortable with that red line. Curtis noted there is only one neighbor that is affected. Erickson moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000067, Kathryn Alexander,3129 Casco Circle,average lakeshore setback variance,based on the information as reviewed by Staff but also including the red line that runs through the tree as proposed by the applicant. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Gettman opposed. 3. LA19-000068 ERIC JOHNSON,580 ORCHARD PARK ROAD,VARIANCE,7:31 P.M.— 7:38 P.M. Eric Johnson,Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a front yard setback. The property is located in the RR-1A zoning district,which is a 5-acre district, and has a 100-foot front yard setback. The property includes an existing farmhouse that is being remodeled. It sits entirely within the required front yard setback. According to Hennepin County,the home was built in the1940s. The applicants are proposing to enclose the existing deck on the back side of the home as a screened-in porch and add a landing for a back door from the home. Due to the location of the existing legal nonconforming home,there is no conforming building space to allow for additions since the home sits entirely within the100-foot front yard setback. The proposed improvements will fit within the existing setbacks. No new setbacks are proposed. The property is outside the Shoreland regulations and has no hardcover limits. To date no public comments have been received. Three neighbors have signed off on the project. Planning Staff recommends approval. Ressler asked if the garage would be actually intensifying the use. Page 9 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Oakden stated the garage and deck are existing and they are proposing to screen in a porch over the deck and add a rear landing off of the back of the house. Alicia Cozine, 580 Orchard Park Road, stated she would be happy to answer any questions. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Thiesse stated he has no concerns with the application and it is a reasonable request. The property is large enough and the project will not be visible to anybody and is a great amenity to the house. Gettman and Bollis indicated they have no issues with the application. Erickson commented similar to a garage, a screen porch in Minnesota in the summer is an asset and he would support the application. McCutcheon stated he supports the application. Ressler indicated he is in support of the application. Bollis moved, Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000068, Eric Johnson,580 Orchard Park Road,variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. LA18-000069 JOHN QUINLIVAN,3315 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES, 7:38 P.M.— 8:37 P.M. John Quinlivan, Gordon James Construction; Andrea Swan,Architect; and Dale and Jonmari Olsen, Property Owners, were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a number of approvals in conjunction with redevelopment of the property. Due to the property's small size and small deck, redevelopment will require the following variances: -Lot area; -Hardcover within the 75-foot setback; -Building and structure within the 75-foot setback -Driveway width within the 75-foot setback; -49 percent total site hardcover where 25 percent is allowed; -30 percent building/structural coverage where 20 percent is the maximum allowed; -Rear yard setback; -Front(street)setback; and -Side yard setback. An interim use permit for export of approximately 1120 cubic yards of material to be hauled from the property within 75-foot setback and off site is also being requested. Page 10 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. The applicant's redevelopment plan includes some subsurface stormwater improvements to offset the proposed hardcover levels. Due to the property's small size and depth, its location on Crystal Bay Road, the proximity of the lake,the road, and the Dakota Rail trail to the rear,there are many challenges to redevelopment. The property is approximately 150 feet wide but only 95 feet deep. When the average lakeshore setback is applied to the property, in addition to the 75-foot lake setback and the 30-foot rear yard setback,the property is completely unbuildable. The new home,while proposed to meet the average lakeshore setback, includes hardcover within the 75-foot lake yard. The proposed hardcover level of 49.6 percent is a 1,843 square foot increase from the existing conditions. Existing structural coverage is 11 percent and the applicant is proposing 31.1 percent. As with most other Crystal Bay lots,this calculation is based on an adjusted lot area excluding Crystal Bay Road. The applicant's proposal exceeds what would be allowed even if the road area was included. The existing detached garage encroaches approximately eight feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line but the house is currently conforming. The applicant's proposed building improvements are shown to meet the average lakeshore setback. There are walls proposed within the average lakeshore setback which are for the most part at or below 42 inches. After meeting with Staff,the applicant has verbally agreed to remove the walls. Staff does find practical difficulties inherent to the size and shape of the property in addition to the location of the roadway and lake to justify some level of variances for redevelopment. However,the applicant is proposing redevelopment on this property at a scale which is unsupported by practical difficulties and is far beyond what is reasonable for the property and neighborhood to support. The City Engineer's comments are included in Staff's memo. After a thorough review, Staff is recommending denial of the plan. Staff met with the property owner and their design team on a number of occasions to review the plan as it was being developed to reach a level of variances that would be more appropriate. The resulting plan does not follow Staff's guidance. The applicant should be directed to submit a revised plan which reduces structural coverage to a conforming level and reduces the hardcover. The building footprint should be modified and the use of retaining walls should be re-evaluated. The existing fence and any other encroachments on the HCRAA property should be eliminated. Ressler asked what the existing side setback is and what it is proposed to be. Curtis indicated there are some retaining walls that are on the side. Based on the proposed height,those will likely need variances. Staff's guidance was for a revision of the plan and a thorough review of the retaining walls was not done. The side yard setbacks far exceed the required 10 feet. The rear setback is at 6'13"where a 30-foot setback is required. Generally a 10-foot setback in this neighborhood is recommended. Ressler asked if 6.3 inches is proposed,the code is 30 feet, and the general neighborhood characteristics is 10 feet. Curtis stated the character of the neighborhood is all over the map. When redevelopment occurs in this neighborhood, Staff is looking for a minimum setback to allow for a rear yard. The property does have Page 11 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. the benefit of this adjacent green space before the trail location but it is not their property. While that 6.3 foot setback may not seem onerous as a setback, it is narrow. Gettman asked what the average hardcover is in the neighborhood. Curtis stated many of the homes in the neighborhood are 40 or 50-foot lots so they will have a greater percentage of hardcover. Ressler stated the biggest issue right now is that the existing structure is 11 percent of the lot and 20 percent is allowed, but what is being proposed is 31 percent. Curtis indicated that is correct. Many of the encroachments would be reduced if the structural footprint was reduced. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission should talk about the fence. Curtis stated HCRAA has asked that it be removed. Mr. Olsen indicated that is not right and that nobody has asked for the fence to be removed. Curtis stated if the property is to be redeveloped,HCRAA has indicated removal of the existing driveway encroachment and the fencing would be appreciated. John Quinlivan, Gordon James Construction,noted he has submitted a project narrative. There are currently 28 properties on Crystal Bay Road,with 24 considered lakeshore. All 28 properties have a unique challenge by having the Dakota Trail in their back yard and Crystal Bay Road on the lakeside. Of the 24 properties with lakeshore,this property is the widest property at 150 feet. There are approximately 11 lots that are 50 feet or less width, four lots have 60 feet or less in width, five have 90 feet or less in width,and three lots are over 100 feet in width. While the trail is owned by the Hennepin County Railroad Authority, it is managed by the Three Rivers Park District. Although there is approximately 50 feet from the center of the Dakota Park Trail to the properties on Crystal Bay Road,the park district only manages three feet from the edge of the trail. That has left the remaining 41 feet to be managed by the homeowners. There are currently lawns,fences, patios, driveways, sheds, and other structures that encroach into that 41 feet. To his knowledge none of them have had to be removed as part of redevelopment. If not for the homeowners managing the HCRRA property, it would be unkempt. There are also seven homes today that rely on the HCRRA land as the primary access to their homes. The homeowners have been working with Swan Architecture, TVL Studio,and Gordon James to come up with a plan that is compatible with what you would see in the neighborhood. The plan they came up with is not compatible because it has side yard setbacks of 30 and 32 feet. There are no properties all the way along the road that can come close to those setbacks. If this is approved as proposed,they would see that there are huge setbacks on both sides of this house. To bring structural coverage down to 20 percent, there would be approximately 50-foot setbacks on each side. If you look west, all of those lots are 50 feet wide. Page 12 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Quinlivan stated there is a reason why there are not neighbors opposing this, and that is because the project fits within the neighborhood. As it relates to hardcover,they are proposing to capture nearly 100 percent of the runoff through cisterns that would capture as much water as possible. The driveway and other exterior hardcover will use pervious pavers and the gutters will direct water to the buried cisterns. The homeowners are very involved with the newly proposed Lake Improvement District on Crystal Bay and have taken every effort to eliminate runoff from their proposed plan. The variance process was put in place when unusual circumstances make it difficult for a property owner to comply with local ordinances. In his opinion, he cannot think of a variance situation better than what they are seeing today. Overall the project would improve the lakeshore setback, improve the side yard setback to 31 and 32 feet, and improve the rear yard setback. The property next door has a 1.7-foot setback that was approved in 2017. In their opinion they felt that five feet was good and improves what is there today. Most of the properties in the neighborhood are at 50 to 60 percent structural coverage because they fall within the 10,000 square foot exemption. This lot does not fall under the 10,000 foot and it also has the largest road surface on Crystal Bay,which causes a hardship. Within approximately 1,069 feet west of the proposed home,there are 19 homes,or one for every 56 feet. Within approximately 625 feet to the east,there are eight homes,which is approximately one home every 75 feet. This home has 150 feet and goes above and beyond what fits in the neighborhood. The project has wide support in the neighborhood, makes sense for this property, and fits into the neighborhood. If the side yard setbacks are increased to 50 feet,that does not make sense and would look out of place with the rest of the neighborhood. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. There were no public comments on this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Ressler commented this is a tough lot, and whenever you have a really odd shaped lot, which is fairly common on the lake,you have to identify whether you are improving or intensifying a difficulty. While he can recognize the merits of the proposed side yard setback,the way the City's regulations are,it is a percentage, and the proposed structural coverage is not a little bit of a leap but it is a tripling of the structure. The lot is very shallow, and one could argue it is not a buildable lot. Every single lot in the neighborhood requires variances. The Planning Commission always tries to do the best they can with what is in front of them and they attempt to make something work. The Planning Commission, however,has a difficult time when a proposal makes something worse. Thiesse stated he came into this thinking that it was not consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the developer just re-enforced that. This lot is the widest lot in the neighborhood. Three lots combined is not in character with the neighborhood and side yard setbacks of 30 to 50 feet is not in character with the neighborhood. As it relates to practical difficulty, state law is very specific that you Page 13 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. have to use it in a reasonable manner,which they are, and none of the practical difficulties were created by the owner, but the project has to not alter the essential character of the locality. Thiesse stated in his view he does not believe the practical difficulty is being met. Gettman stated he believes it does meet the characteristics of the neighborhood but that he struggles with overcoming the practical difficulty. Gettman stated he does not know what is driving that additional 50 percent of covered area except by looking at the rest of the neighborhood and seeing that is what everybody else has done. Gettman commented he is inclined to figure out how to get to yes but that he is not seeing it right now. Bollis noted what is improving are the front yard setback and side yard setbacks. It is also true most of those lots have 50 percent hardcover,but they are smaller lots. Bollis indicated he struggles with that because there are three lots there, and while some aspects are getting better,there is room for improvement. Andrea Swan,Architect, stated the house is 50 percent more than the current house because the existing house is a cabin. Dale Olson,property owner, stated the short story is that they purchased the property in 2012. The house was built in 1920 and was uninhabitable. The property was bought with the initial intention of flipping it. which has been his thinking for the last six and a half years,but that over the years he has gotten to know the neighbors and was put in charge of the LID to eradicate the milfoil. Every single person on that street says that they do not want that lot to be split into three lots. Since the time of purchase,he has decided to stay because he likes the lake and the neighbors. Olson stated he does not want to sell it to somebody who has the intention of putting three homes there and that they want to do what they think is good for the property. Olson indicated they are open to suggestions on what to do and that they want to better the environment and the neighborhood in general. Andrea Swan stated it is a small house with a small garage. The existing garage is almost on the street. The proposed garage is a detached garage. Someone sought a variance tonight for a screen porch and someone on the Planning Commission commented that it is an asset. The property owner would like to have a screened-in porch and it seems reasonable for a new home. The biggest issue is that the property owners would like to grow old in this house. Ideally they would like to have the master bedroom on the main level as well as the garage that they can access from the main level. The garage requires a longer driveway and Orono requires the entire driveway to be part of the hardcover calculation. The footprint of the house is scalable to the neighboring lots. A lot of the homes on the street are front facing, which allows the driveway to be shorter,but the proposed footprint of the home is actually not large. Swan commented she is perplexed that it was denied in this case because it feels like the right thing for this lot. Ressler noted the Planning Commission has not denied it yet and that it is open for discussion. Erickson asked how many tax statements are involved. Page 14 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Curtis indicated there is one PID. Erickson asked if someone could subdivide this property. Curtis indicated they would need to request a subdivision, and since it is located in a half-acre district, it is not eligible to be subdivided. Erickson stated he recalls an application where they were requesting a 1-foot setback, and the end result was that it was not approved. At that time Staffs report said that many of the homes in that area were at a seven or eight-foot rear setback. This report suggests a 10-foot setback,which may be appropriate since this is new construction. Erickson stated his difficulty would be trying to support the 6.3-foot rear setback. While that might be okay in a really high-dense area,that is not appropriate for this lot. McCutcheon stated the house is big, has retaining walls, and is close to the trail. While he can understand the frustration that everyone else in this neighborhood has maximized their lot,this lot is shallow. The setback to the rear is pretty significant and does not seem to fit the character of the neighborhood. Ressler stated the building envelope is probably the main issue. Ressler noted he lives on Crystal Bay and that he personally received five variances for his house. The one thing that was told to him at the time was to improve his position because then it is easier to mitigate. While he loves the design of the house, he worries about the precedent it sets by going beyond the 20 percent for a similar sized lot, and that sometimes it is easier to build up than out. Ressler stated growing up in this area he knows that Crystal Bay Road has evolved a great deal and a lot of that new development has been up rather than out. Having the neighbors in support of the project is helpful. Quinlivan stated when they do the calculation for structure and you take the road out, it brings it down to the mid 10's. The road could be considered a hardship and it seems to penalize the homeowner because the lot is so wide. Curtis stated it would bring the lot down to approximately 11,000 square feet. Quinlivan asked whether there would be consideration for that. Ressler stated when someone is requesting variances and there are other moving parts,they need to have some mitigating factors to improve the situation. The difficulty the Planning Commission has is going outside the boundaries of what the structural coverage limits are. Thiesse noted last year it was 15 percent structural coverage and the City has increased that to 20 percent. Bollis asked if anyone sees a road going through the lot as a practical difficulty. Curtis indicated the road is not included. Quinlivan noted that also drops the square footage of the lot. Page 15 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Thiesse stated there are other people who want to include the public right-of-way but that gets counted out. Quinlivan stated that is a practical difficulty because most properties do not have a county road or a lakeside road and making exceptions for that is what the variance process is for. Thiesse noted he misspoke earlier when he said he was of the opinion that two or three homes on that lot would be better for the neighborhood, but the City does not allow this lot to be subdivided. Ressler stated part of the job of the Planning Commission is to provide feedback to the applicant. Overall this is a tough lot to build on,and the feedback he has heard is that if the structural coverage is reduced to 20 percent,that would help reduce the other encroachments. Quinlivan asked if they would consider the road to be a practical difficulty. Ressler commented there might be some on the Planning Commission that think it is Gettman stated he would consider it a practical difficulty and he would include that in the equation. Bollis stated he feels the same way. McCutcheon asked whether they are planning on building the retaining wall. Quinlivan indicated it was something that was drawn in on the site plan and they would be willing to eliminate that. McCutcheon stated the driveway difficulty is gaining steam and having a turnaround is desirable from a safety standpoint. This property consists of three lots and they are proposing to maximize the envelope, which makes him somewhat uneasy,but that the developer has made some valid points. Erickson stated one of the practical difficulties is that the difficulty cannot be one of the applicant's own making. In this case this is new construction and it is entirely of the applicant's own making. In that situation, a big increase in hardcover is not justifiable under that standard and in his view state law requires the Planning Commission to follow those standards. Ressler stated the shallow lot makes it difficult and that they should consider making their proposal a little less intense. Olson stated it has never been his intention to split the lots. Other homes in the neighborhood are literally on the back line, and to hear that their proposed setback is not good enough, is surprising. Olson stated they attempted to do what they thought was the most amenable to everybody and it is interesting to hear the comments on the setback. The neighbor next door has a 1.7-foot setback,which was authorized last year, and they are talking 10 feet. Ressler noted that was a very minor adjustment on the neighboring house. Pulling the garage back in this situation is a step in the right direction and helps mitigate the need for variances. Page 16 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Swan noted they are improving the rear,the front, and the side yard setbacks and that the issue seems to be the structural coverage. Ressler stated it is 100 percent. Swan stated they will need some variances for this lot no matter what and asked what would be reasonably agreeable. Ressler stated the road to some degree will likely be considered a practical difficulty,which addresses hardcover,but the structural coverage should be reduced. While he appreciates the improvements they have made,the City does not like an application exceeding the 20 percent. Thiesse noted just a year ago the City raised it to 20 percent, and for the Planning Commission to consider 31.1 percent would be a huge departure from that. Swan asked if that isn't what variances are for. Thiesse stated it has to do with massing and staying within the character of the neighborhood. Swan asked why they have to comply with the 20 percent if the lot is nonconforming. Curtis indicated it is based on a percentage of the lot to keep the percentages equal on different sized lots, which is why Staff encouraged them to meet 20 percent since that is a hard stop. Quinlivan stated if the road is a practical difficulty,they are asking if they can be at 20 percent coverage on their lot. Gettman stated 20 percent would be the 2,900 square feet. Thiesse stated he believes that still comes out over the 20 percent but that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council and that they make the final decision. Ressler stated that is quite a difference in footprint and he would love to see something that is better than what is currently being proposed. Erickson stated if they build a new house that is way bigger than anything else on that street,the question is whether that alters the nature of the neighborhood. Ressler noted there are a couple of big houses on that street but they are not as close to the street. Ressler asked whether they would like the application tabled. Quinlivan indicated he would prefer they vote on the application. Erickson moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend denial of Application No.LA19-000069, Gordon James Construction,3315 Crystal Bay Road,variances. Page 17 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Thiesse stated he would like to provide some reasons why it was denied and some rationale for where the Planning Commission would like to see it go. Thiesse stated he would like to see the structural coverage improved and that they can include the road in their'practical difficulty. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2, Gettman and McCutcheon Opposed. 5. LA19-000070 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB,430 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA(MUSA) EXPANSION,8:37 P.M.—8:45 P.M. Kent Carlson appeared on behalf of the Wayzata Country Club. Barnhart noted last month the Wayzata Country Club appeared before the Planning Commission requesting approval to replace two maintenance facilities on their property. One of the buildings will house a locker room and other services requiring water. The property is outside of the MUSA system and is not eligible to be connected to the sanitary sewer system without the MUSA boundary being amended. The cost of the connection will be the responsibility of the property owner and not the City. There is no proposal to change the zoning of the property or the guidance. This property will not be developed with the change and the change will not impact the City's density calculation. The property consists of approximately 148 acres. Areas guided for park and recreational uses are not included in the City's density calculation. Ressler commented the application seems pretty straight forward and that it is just an amendment to add the Wayzata Country Club to the MUSA area. McCutcheon asked whether they are just extending it for one building. Barnhart stated there is a sewer line in the general area already and that it would be the applicant's expense to connect to that. McCutcheon asked whether there is not room for a septic tank. Barnhart stated there is,but the applicants would prefer to connect. Ressler asked whether the City also prefers that they connect to the municipal sewer system. Barnhart stated based on the proposed use of the building, it would be preferable for the building to be connected. Thiesse asked whether the expansion would include just one building. Barnhart indicated the whole property is proposed to be within the MUSA, but the applicants have proposed just one new connection to the maintenance shed at this time. If the property were to be subdivided or the zoning changed, the applicant would need to come back before the Planning Commission. Kent Carlson, Wayzata Country Club,stated all they are doing is constructing a new maintenance facility and as part of that building they would like to have showers and other amenities for staff. In their opinion it would be best to hook up to the line that is immediately adjacent to the club. Page 18 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Ressler stated anytime there is the opportunity to go to a sewer connection versus a septic field or holding tank,it is better situation. Feel it is pretty straight forward. McCutcheon stated he always gets concerned about density, but if the property were subdivided, it would have to come back before the Planning Commission to allow that additional density. While I have some reservations, it would be better to hook up to municipal sewer. Erickson and Bollis indicated they are in support of the application. Gettman and Thiesse stated they do not have any reservations with the application. McCutcheon moved, Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000070, Wayzata Country Club,430 Old Long Lake Road, Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Expansion. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. LA19-000071 MARTHA HEAD,2090 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCE,8:45 P.M.— 8:49 P.M. Martha Meyers Head, Applicant,was present Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to conduct some additions to the existing home. The additions will be located outside the 75-foot setback but they will require an average lakeshore setback variance. Based on the structures located at 2165 North Shore Drive,the structures on the subject project must be at least 170-plus from the lake. The improvements to the existing home will be approximately 93 feet closer to the lake. Staff finds that the peninsula configuration of the property functions much like an island. This lot and the lot at 2165 North Shore Drive share a 6-foot connection across the bay, which establishes the average lakeshore setback requirement. The existing or proposed improvements on the subject property do not block views of the lake from the home at 2165 North Shore Drive as it is across the water from the home. Staff finds this satisfies the practical difficulty requirement for the average lakeshore setback. To date, no public comments have been received. Planning Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Laurel Ulland,Architect, stated the original house was constructed before 1900 and was added on a couple of times. The present property owner would like to renovate it. The house is located on a very unique piece of property. The portion of the property that is buildable is a very small spot in the middle Page 19 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. of the land. The property owner would like to maintain and renovate the improving house where it stands. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Thiesse stated he has no questions,concerns or comments. Gettman and Bollis stated they have no issues with the application. Erickson stated he supports approval of the application. McCutcheon indicated he also supports it. Ressler commented the application is pretty straight forward. Gettman moved,Erickson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000071, Martha Head,2090 Shoreline Drive,variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 7. LA19-000072 BRANDON LAWRENCE,4265 FOREST LAKE DRIVE,VARIANCE, 8:49—8:56 P.M. Michelle Brandstetter was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in order to construct two decks onto the existing home. The deck on the lakeside of the home is 16 x 20 feet and will attach to some already existing narrow decking. The second deck is located on the rear(street side) of the property as an entrance to the home and for curb appeal to the property. The proposed new decks are conforming to all other setbacks and zoning requirements. The neighboring property to the south is vacant. The abutting northern neighbor sits over 340 feet back from the lake. The existing property sits entirely forward of the abutting northern neighbor eliminating any conforming locations. Due to this configuration,the subject lot is not buildable without an average lakeshore setback variance. The grade of the land is sloped down toward the lake. The current home sits roughly ten feet below the northern neighboring property. The existing hardcover is 17.5 percent and with the new proposed decks it will be 19 percent,which is well below the maximum of 25 percent. Staff finds due to the nature of the lot and the applied setbacks,there are practical difficulties supporting granting the average lakeshore setback variance. The neighbor to the north has submitted an e-mail in support of the project. Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Page 20 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Michelle Brandsetter stated she is here tonight representing the property owners and that she has nothing to add to Staff's report. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. McCutcheon stated he does not have a problem with the application. Erickson indicated he supports Staff's recommendation. Ressler stated it is a minor change and he would be in support of it. Bollis stated he supports it. Gettman and Thiesse indicated they have no issues with the application. McCutcheon moved, Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000072, Brandon Lawrence,4265 Forest Lake Drive,variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 8. LA19-000062 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT,ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS, 8:56 P.M.—9:08 P.M. Barnhart noted earlier this summer the Planning Commission reviewed a variance request for an accessory building where the applicant wanted to add on to an existing oversized accessory structure. With the addition,the accessory building would have exceeded the maximum square footage for a single building allowed under the ordinance, but the total square footage fell within the maximum allowable for the property. The Planning Commission ultimately recommended denial of that variance because they did not determine there to be a practical difficulty. Some of the comments from the Planning Commission were that the ordinance did not make sense and those comments were forwarded to the City Council and they agreed. The City Council directed Staff to make an amendment to the City Code by adjusting the regulatory table by removing the maximum for an individual building. Staff has drafted an ordinance that adjusts the existing table and removes the current maximum for a single building and the current maximum cumulative total based on the size. It should be pointed out for the Commission's understanding that the column on the right is now the maximum for a single building simply because a property owner could elect to construct a large single building. Staff also noted during its review that the current ordinance allows for a maximum cumulative total for 13.01 acres or more of 8,000 square feet,which is also the same for 14.01 acres or more. Staff is proposing removing the hard cap of 8,000 square feet for lots 14 acres or above and making that 1.30 percentage. Staff used that percentage because that is the pattern established by current code. Staff is proposing adoption of the ordinance as drafted. Page 21 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Gettman stated he believes the table is off by one decimal point in the fourth column. Barnhart indicated he will re-examine the table and verify the numbers. Gettman stated he understands the maximum, but he does not know why there is a minimum. Barnhart stated the minimum acres is 3.01 and the maximum acres is 3.5. If you are allowed a 2,800 square foot oversized accessory building and have the minimum amount,that person would have 2.14 percent of the lot covered by the oversized accessory building. Gettman stated other than the misplaced decimal point,the table is very clear. McCutcheon commented this table makes more sense. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. Thiesse asked whether the maximum amount or the cumulative square footage is what applies and that the City does not care about how many buildings they have. Barnhart indicated that is true. Thiesse stated he believes this revision was based on one request for a variance and there was confusion about the practical difficulty in that situation. The state is very specific on what a practical difficulty is, and the applicant was not going to meet it because he created the problem himself. The criteria are whether the area is going to be used in a reasonable manner, if the person did not create the practical difficulty, and if it fits within the character of the neighborhood. If someone meets all of those,they have met the practical difficulty. Orono is considered a lakeshore city and a rural oasis. Thiesse stated when he thinks of a rural oasis,that means a house,a barn, a grainery, and maybe a couple of sheds. Those buildings were located and constructed for function,but they became the City's motto for massing and is symbolic of a rural oasis. The new ordinance goes from a cluster of buildings to a possible singular large building,which is changing the meaning of a rural oasis. Gettman commented he likes the new language. Bollis stated he also likes the new language, it makes sense, and it will help eliminate some issues. Erickson indicated he would support Staff's recommendation. McCutcheon stated in his view this makes more sense and he would support it. Ressler stated if you look at the corresponding acreage to allowable cumulative building footprint area, those numbers do not seem alarming and he is in support of it. Page 22 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Barnhart noted the table will not be part of the code and is intended for illustrative purposes. Boils moved,Erickson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA19-000062, City of Orono,Text Amendment,Accessory Building Size Regulations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 9. LA19-000064 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT, GARDENS AS PRINCIPAL USE REGULATIONS,9:08 P.M.—9:11 P.M. Barnhart stated current City Code allows gardens in many residential zoning districts. This amendment was created to allow the development of a community garden on city-owned property. No definition of garden has been included in the ordinance amendment. Since gardens are a permitted principal use,a principal structure is not required and the allowed accessory uses include docks, sheds, etc., which may defeat the purpose of the zoning district. Staff has prepared an ordinance that strikes the reference to gardens as a principal use in eight of nine residential zoning districts. In the zoning district that houses the community garden, Staff proposes defining community garden and allowing community gardens while striking the general term of "Garden". Community gardens are allowed with a license. The Planning Commission should discuss whether this change is appropriate. Without the alternative text in the proposed amendment,the community garden could not be expanded or relocated. In these situations, a variance is not a remedy as state statute does not permit"use"variances. To date, no public comments have been received. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as drafted. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. Bollis asked if they are removing gardens as a use without a principal structure. Barnhart stated they are. Bollis asked if they are not defining garden at all. Barnhart indicated they are not. Bollis commented he is a little confused because it is not defined. Page 23 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 16,2019 6:30 p.m. Barnhart stated the language removes gardens as a permitted use without a principal structure with the exception of community gardens. The draft ordinance incorporates the use of community garden on city- owned property and requires a license. Thiesse moved, Gettman seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000064,City of Orono,Text Amendment,Gardens as a Principal Use Regulations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 10. UPDATE ON SEPTEMBER 9,2019,CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported on the following actions taken by the City Council: • The variance for a porch at 140 Leaf Street was approved • An interim use permit was approved for 855 Old Crystal Bay Road • The interim use permit for grading at 3345 Fox Street was approved • A conditional use permit and variances for the Wayzata Country Club were approved • The variance for 1080 Heritage Lane was approved The City Council did not follow the Planning Commission's recommendation for the average lakeshore setback regulation and instead directed Staff to draft some new language carving out an exception on those rare occasions where the average lakeshore setback line goes through the principal structure of the adjoining property. The draft ordinance will be reviewed on Monday. Thiesse asked if that will trigger some sort of public hearing. Barnhart stated the City Council will likely accept public comment,but they did not elect to send it back to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT Erickson moved,Gettman seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:13 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. ATTEST: Jon Ressler,Chair Page 24 of 24