Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-2020 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Bob Erickson, Matt Gettman, Dennis Libby, and Mark McCutcheon. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden. Vice -Chair Erickson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved by consensus as presented. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2019 Libby moved, Gettman seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of November 18, 2019. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 2. LA19-000098 JOE HAHS/EVERGREEN CONSTRUCTION, 2385 SHADYWOOD ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:31 P.M. - 6:38 P.M. Joe Hahs, Evergreen Construction, was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Gettman asked if the public comment received today was from True Value. Curtis stated it was. Mr. Joe Hahs, o/b/o Evergreen Construction, said he grew up in Minnesota, graduated from the University of St. Thomas in 2000, and started the business in 2003. He was available to answer any questions. Gettman asked if the applicant has heard any concerns from neighbors/neighboring businesses with respect to the change. Mr. Hahs said he spoke to who he believed was one of the owners of the gas station south of his property. There is a fence somewhat on both property lines. That person said, "If no one messes with the fence, I have no problem." He seemed like a nice guy and is excited to have someone back in the building. Vice -Chair Erickson opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Mr. David Feerhusen, broker with Re/Max Advantage Plus, represents Stephen and Susan Schmidt, the current owners of the building. They wanted to bring to the Commissioners' attention that from 1960 to 1970 it was a real estate office known as Nelson Orr, in'77 it was Christy Realty Office, it was Glen Realty Office in'78, Windward Real Estate from'80 to'97, from 2002 to 2012 it was A La Cart Design, Page 1of14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. and from '99 to '02 it was a gift shop. Other than that, the facility has been used as an office. He said the Schmidts were not able to appear because of an illness in their family. Vice -Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. McCutcheon moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA19-000098 Joe Hahs/Evergreen Construction, 2385 Shadywood Road, Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0, Abstain 1 (Libby). Barnhart noted the item would go in front of the City Council in February. 3. LA19-000101 AL AZAD, 200 BEDERWOOD DRIVE, VARIANCE, 6:38 P.M. - 7:17 P.M. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Gettman asked if there was any history of how the applicant ended up with the two irregular lots. Oakden said she is not sure how the lots were created. They have been in existence for some time, and over time he acquired both of them. Gettman asked whether the applicant purchased both lots at the same time. Oakden said she is not sure if he bought both lots at the same time or if he bought one and then the other. Gettman asked if Staff knew anything about the segregation of part of the lots to create this weird setup. Oakden indicated the lots have been existing as separate parcels for a long time. The applicant did not create the lots. He is trying to establish a driveway easement to serve the back lot. The back lot is two acres in size and conforming in area but the other lot is not. Erickson noted some of the lots of record were established many years ago, long before many ordinances came into effect. Vice -Chair Erickson opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Jeff and Renee Mueller, 222 Bederwood, have lived there over 35 years. Mr. Mueller indicated the property was bought at one time. It used to be owned by Jerry Gustafson. When he sold it, the Azads lived in the existing house, then tore it down and built a new one. Mr. Mueller said it's always been two separate lots, and between his house and their house there used to be another 50 -foot lot with a house that burned down. When Gustafson had the property, he got the sewer for his house and the existing lot. The other lot was too small to build on so it was added to that other lot. When the sewer came in, it went parallel to where the driveway is. His house and their house are both serviced on the back side because it's up on a hill. He asked who would be responsible for repairing the sewer line if a driveway is put in and through the construction the sewer line gets damaged or freezes. He does not want to find out a year later that his sewer line is broken and now there is a blacktop driveway there. Ms. Mueller said initially there was a driveway established through that property that was closer to the house and there was a culvert put in across the creek for access to the back lot. Now it looks like the Page 2 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. applicant is proposing to put a driveway in a different location. She said the survey that was submitted is dated 9-21-17. They have had a dispute with the applicant for 11 years over a property line. They ended up with four feet and the applicant ended up with two feet of the south six feet. The Muellers' lot is very small, and it makes a tremendous difference to them as far as what happens in this situation. McCutcheon asked if any trees would need to be cut down if the proposed driveway went in that location. Mr. Mueller indicated there are two rows of trees and one of them is going to have to go. They're on the applicant's property. Ms. Mueller referenced the map to indicate how close everything is and said that is the only reason for the property line dispute and shelling out thousands of dollars, was to try to maintain some portion of their property. Mr. Mueller said it would not make any difference to Kathleen on the other side of the road because her house is for sale. Libby asked if their primary concern is what might happen to the infrastructure of the sewer. Mr. Mueller said that it was. If a driveway were put in, it means they would be digging out the black dirt and everything else. He was in the construction business for years, and if you keep driving over a sewer line, either something is going to freeze or break, et cetera. Libby stated it was a reasonable question and that he was not questioning its validity. Mr. Mueller said Staff suggested getting an easement from the applicant but that would probably not happen. They have not talked except in court. Gettman asked the Muellers if they were aware of any other use of the lot the applicant is trying to gain access to. Mr. Mueller said Gustafson had a big garden there and it was always an empty lot. Ms. Mueller stated there was a big shed there which ended up being partly on their property that he had to remove after he sold it. Mr. Mueller said Jerry used the driveway and the shed which was on the Mueller property. It has always been a confusing property line. When the applicant bought the lot, Jerry said the creek was the property line and the driveway was the property line. But it wasn't, and then things didn't go very well. Mr. Mueller said when the sewer was put in, there was a red rock driveway going up through the property. They put a concrete culvert in, and the sewer stub for that back lot is right there. They let that grow over and some landscaping has been done, so there is no driveway there anymore and now they want to establish a new one. The feeling the Muellers get is, "We'll get you one more time." He is concerned about the sewer line. Libby said the question about who is responsible is more of an engineering question. It is difficult for the Planning Commission to address because there is private property and a public utility. He suggested the Director may be better to comment than the Commissioners. Mr. Mueller stated his main concern is, if somebody builds a house back there and things get ruined and now there's a blacktop driveway, it should not be up to him to fix that. Libby asked Staff what size the line was there. Page 3 of 14 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. Oakden said she is not sure of the size of the line but thought Mr. Mueller was referring to the service line that is connected to the main line. Mr. Mueller stated he was referring to the service line and thought it was a four -inch line. Libby noted he was referring to the one just serving the Mueller property. Mr. Mueller agreed and said the applicant's house is serviced through the back also. Libby stated it was municipal sewer and asked if it was a pressurized line or a gravity line. Oakden and Barnhart believed it was a gravity line. Mr. Mueller said he thought it was a gravity line and they lined the main part of it this summer. He indicated the City still has to have access to the manhole. Erickson asked if it was the hookup the Muellers were concerned about. Mr. Mueller indicated it was. He said the sewer goes through the middle of the applicant's property, and his line goes to his property and then goes across. It was a different owner before and nothing was said because the other driveway was there and nobody was planning on doing anything back there at that time. Barnhart stated he thought it was a valid concern from the neighbor in terms of impact to the service line and Staff could provide additional information for the Council moving forward. His understanding is the service line goes through another person's property, connects to the sanitary sewer, and is not protected by an easement. The property owners would need to work together to protect the sewer line. He noted the question in front of the Commission is, is it appropriate to grant a variance from the lot size requirements to allow for an access easement to the back. Whether the Commission denies or approves it, there still can be hardcover over the portion of the property that the neighbors are concerned about. Erickson asked if there was anything the City could offer when the driveway is constructed and inspected as far as amount of gravel or insulation, et cetera. Barnhart said it is worth noting the neighbors have a concern about their service line. The City Engineer indicated the service line is a normal depth; it's eight -ten feet deep. Staff can share the concerns with the City Council and the applicant and incorporate those as part of a resolution of approval if that is the direction of the Council. It is a private improvement and an agreement from an easement standpoint between two private properties which the City doesn't normally involve itself in. The City provided the sewer line through the area so the City will likely help as much as it can, but it is not really a City issue. McCutcheon stated the core issue is the two -acre minimum and the lot is getting smaller than two acres with the change. Oakden indicated the lot is currently smaller and the applicant is asking for it to be a little smaller per the City definition and zoning code. The actual lot size won't change, they're not asking to move property lines, but the driveway easement cannot be counted as part of the lot area per the City's definition. Page 4 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ms. Mueller said she thought the applicant consolidated the lots into one lot some time ago. Oakden said that they are two existing lots of record. Ms. Mueller asked if it is normal for the City to put a sewer line on somebody else's property so that they have this issue. Barnhart and Oakden answered that it is not normal. Ms. Mueller asked why it happened. Mr. Mueller stated the original owner of the property is deceased and there is no way to get an agreement. Ms. Mueller asked if anybody wanted to buy their house. Barnhart said he does not mean to give the message that the City will leave the property owners high and dry. There is an issue that the City wants and needs to resolve both in terms of the service line that goes through the property and the service line that connects the sanitary sewer to the commenter's property. He thinks the City wants to help address that issue. The applicant wants to address that issue in terms of access to the back lot. The commenters want to address the issue in terms of protecting their interests. He thinks all three parties need to work together because all three properties want something out of this arrangement and all three properties ultimately benefit. Mr. Mueller asked what he would do if Mr. Azad will not give him an easement. Barnhart said the City will continue to work with him. Ms. Mueller indicated that is what they did for 11 years for four feet of property. Barnhart said that is the posture the City will take. Ms. Mueller commented that Barnhart is lucky he does not live next door to him. Vice -Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 6:57 p.m. McCutcheon said the Commission almost has to wait until the Ordinance allows for smaller lots. It is proposed in the next 20 years that this will happen but it is not there yet, and maybe the Commission should not be in a hurry and the decision should be made years from now. Presently the minimum lot size is two acres, and he thinks the Commission would need pretty good reasons why they would want to have a lot get smaller than two acres. He understands it was under two acres to begin with, but it would make the lot smaller than it is in a neighborhood which normally has two -acre lots. Gettman stated the request as written does not seem to be worthy of approval for numerous reasons, but it comes down to how to get the three groups together so this can be resolved. The permit request is not consistent with the neighborhood. The outlot was clearly not ever a property, and the applicant is trying to set it up to do something else. If the variance is not approved, he is still able to use the outlot but not able to potentially expand. If nothing else, look at what the neighbors have dealt with over the years. On that grounds alone he would have trouble approving this. The Commission has to send this to the Council and Page 5 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. it would be a disapproval but with the recommendation that it not do anything other than allow the City to discuss with both parties how to work the situation out. Erickson clarified that Gettman suggested approval. Gettman indicated he said disapproval and that either way it will go to the Council. The only way it would not go to Council is if the Commission tabled it. Barnhart and Oakden confirmed Gettman's statement. Oakden said she does not believe this is an outlot but that it is a lot of record and so it could be built on, according to Code. Gettman apologized for using that reference and stated there does not appear to be any other access. Oakden agreed and said the applicant is making the request because there is no access. Gettman stated that is why it is appropriate to call it an outlot. For practical purposes it makes sense as far as what the applicant is trying to do, but it does not make any sense to do it over the utility because it is affecting the neighbor and the applicant can still access the other lot from his current lot. Barnhart noted the back lot is an existing lot of record. By not permitting access through a protected easement it could be seen as a regulatory taking, so Staff is trying to correct that. He referenced Gettman's use of the word "practical" and said that is important. That is why Staff is supporting the variance. The property owner has a right to improve the property, and if they can demonstrate to the Planning Commission and City Council's satisfaction that there is a practical difficulty for 200 Bederwood to provide access, that is how the City corrects it. Barnhart said the Commission is welcome to recommend denial because of X, Y, and Z reasons, which he has not heard. The issue with the sanitary sewer easement is an important part of it but is not the only reason. He referenced comments about the easement as shown may impact the existing trees in that area. Trees aren't a practical difficulty. One could make the comment that the easement be shifted to cover the existing sanitary sewer line which kind of addresses two issues: the commenter, and the sewer service line. He stated the property owner did not create the lot configuration. He inherited the problem, and he is trying to correct it in the same manner that a property owner on a lake that is too small that wants to rebuild or build a structure. Gettman said if 3568 purchased the other vacant lot, they would not have access to it. The 200 has direct access to that lot. He is not sure he follows the taking because at this point the 200 has access to the lot, they just don't have access to that lot from a street. Mr. Mueller said when the sewer was put in there, there was a driveway and a concrete culvert going to that lot which the applicant drives their truck through all the time. Gettman said that is their access point. Mr. Mueller stated the applicant wants to move it towards them. He said the applicant does not want the driveway in the middle of the lot, but when he bought it, that was already there. Page 6 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gettman said that was correct, and he was trying to get back to the taking. He stated the three items need to be connected -- the applicant's access to the lot that's vacant right now, the utility easement, and the neighbor's access to that utility -- and discussed by the City, the commenter, and the applicant. Mr. Mueller said from his way of looking at it, the applicant wants the driveway closer to his house because they've had other issues, and then the applicant will have the yard they want. Libby stated Barnhart's additional information was helpful in trying to stay focused on the core question. Based on the information and the City's ordinance, he would tend to favor this and allow the parties that are concerned that are neighbors to stili have an opportunity to speak to the Council and thinks the Council is the body to discuss the issue. There is kind of a lesser of two evils: An ongoing deprivation of City service to a lot that's already identified and/or a neighbor that could be potentially inconvenienced by what may happen to the infrastructure and the sewer during construction. The Commission has one group of empirical information and that's what the ordinance says and how the Commission is guided. What may happen to the infrastructure of the sewer is unknown, and he thinks the Council is the arbiter that should hear that. He would vote in favor of approval and agrees with Staffs recommendation. Erickson said he agrees with Staffs recommendation and Libby's comments. A lot of record indicates a commitment for a buildable lot and that commitment has been there for a long time. The buildable lot will not be saleable or usable unless there's an access to a public street, which the applicant is attempting to provide in a way that follows the ordinances. In the long-term the applicant will have two separate buildable lots, and this is a logical way to provide that access. He thanked the neighbors for coming forward and alerting the Commission about the sewer issue, et cetera. He suggested adding a condition to the motion that would flag that concern or a statement of policy to assure the driveway construction gets done properly so it doesn't affect their sewer. Gettman said two questions he still is struggling with are "why there" and "why now." The "why there," the area where the applicant is proposing to put the driveway is not where the current access is; it is literally on the border with 222. The place they currently are going over is where the utility easement is, unless he misunderstood. Mr. Mueller stated he was correct. Gettman said it looked like the applicant was purposely proposing to move the driveway to minimize any impact on their currently built-up home on 200 and give access to something McCutcheon brought up, which is that today the plan does not allow for the expansion or the building on both lots, that is something for years from now, and the Commission is talking about granting the applicant access. McCutcheon said he believed he was mistaken on that point. McCutcheon asked Oakden if the applicant would be allowed to build on that lot if they wanted to. Oakden said he was correct. McCutcheon indicated hindsight is 20/20, but when the applicant built the new house on 200, it would have been nice to plan for a driveway to get access to the back lot. He asked if where the applicant is driving now, they have the same problem. Page 7 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. Oakden stated she believed the applicant used to have a gravel driveway access near the utility line. It is overgrown and not really there anymore. She thought it was established with the way the old home was set at 200 Bederwood, because they had a side -load garage. Mr. Mueller indicated it was in the same place. Oakden indicated it was overgrown and unused today. There was a gravel driveway there but no easement or secure access space for the back lot. Gettman stated that is the point of the "why there." The applicant owns both of those, so he can work with himself to figure out how to gain access without negatively impacting the commenter/neighbor at 222. Ms. Mueller said the applicant has access to the back lot. It's not totally overgrown, it's grass, and they used it all summer and fall to go to their back lot. Oakden agreed they have access and can drive over their property to get to that back lot. She clarified there is no formal easement established today to access that back lot by anybody else. Libby asked Staff if there were any considerations from the City's standpoint about an impervious surface that would be a requirement, like would the City require a blacktop driveway, or could it be a class 5. Oakden stated the applicant wanted to meet the City's driveway standards, with the first 50 feet being paved. Barnhart indicated the first 50 feet closest to the street needs to be paved but the City allows gravel or concrete for everything else. Libby noted he reread the two issues of consideration and he would have to answer yes to both questions and would be in agreement with Staffs recommendation and in favor of it. Libby moved, McCutcheon seconded, to approve LA19-000101 Al Azad, 200 Bederwood Drive, Variance. Gettman wanted to be clear on why the "yes" would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The current character is a gravel path and the owner on 200 still has access to the other lot. The Commission is preparing to accept the movement of that path to a location that will alter the feel, the look, and the impact to the neighbor. He does not see how one can conclude that that would be a "yes." Libby stated he looks at a neighborhood as a much larger scope than a single lot line and two properties. Gettman understands from an aerial view, but the reality is the Commission has looked at it from the impact of one person's view, not from a neighborhood's view. He is struggling and cannot get to yes. Erickson said in addition to the guide plan there is an existing zoning ordinance which calls for two -acre lots. The current vacant lot fits that in addition to being a lot of record. The easement reduces the other lot by a relatively small amount, but there have been other two -acre zoned lots much smaller than that which have been approved in the past and could possibly be considered a precedent. The applicant is well on his way to having two building sites, and one of them needs an access to a public road which the Planning Commission is attempting to supply. He is in favor of the motion. Page 8 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1 (Gettman). Barnhart noted the item will be reviewed by the City Council on February 10. 4. LA19-000105 JOHN KRAEMER, 855 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCES, 7:17 P.M. - 7:28 P.M. Anthon Ellis, o/b/ Charlie & Co., was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. McCutcheon asked if the previous sauna had a bathroom. Oakden stated she did not believe so. McCutcheon asked if there would be a sewer line to the building. Oakden said there would be a service line from the home, which the homeowner is allowed to do. McCutcheon said that does not make sense to him. He understands it's an accessory building but it is full- fledged plumbing and electric, too. Oakden agreed there would be electricity also. McCutcheon asked how far it exceeds the setback. Oakden said it was 53 feet from the lake. McCutcheon noted, as an accessory structure, it is not too much different than what it is today. Oakden said his statement was true. Gettman asked Oakden to restate her comment regarding the covenant. Oakden said City Code allows plumbing in an accessory building if it involves a toilet. You can have a sink with a plumbing permit. If it involves a toilet, a covenant needs to be recorded about the use of the building, which would be required with the building permit. Mr. Anthon Ellis, Project Architect, Charlie & Co., representing the applicant, indicated he was available to answer any questions. McCutcheon asked if the existing structure had any footings. Mr. Ellis said they do not think so. They believe the floor is 2x4 joists resting on a compacted gravel bed. McCutcheon asked Staff if there was proof that the building was at that location 5-10 years ago. Oakden stated that there was. Page 9 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon commented that it would have been surveyed before as an accessory building and wanted to make sure it wasn't pulled onto the property recently. Oakden said it has been on the property for years, in addition to another cabin structure. The property was recently part of a subdivision; it was held in common ownership with a larger parcel. The two lots, 855 and 845, were broken off of the ownership from the property to the west. Libby asked how much of the structure being replaced would be remaining and whether there was any proposal to continue to use it as a sauna. Mr. Ellis stated there was no proposed use as a sauna. Libby clarified that it was previously used as a sauna. Mr. Ellis stated he was correct. Libby and Oakden discussed the sauna building being taken down and Libby's Finnish ancestry. Libby and Oakden had a discussion that the sauna building would be remodeled/rebuilt and is within the variance. There is another cabin located farther up the slope, with actual logs, which is not part of the application. Mr. Ellis said the homeowners are considering what to do with the other building right now. Libby indicated the new building will have a sink and a toilet and be plumbed to the main house and asked if Staff knew the distance or whether the distance was relevant. Oakden commented that it was not relevant but noted the house is just past 192 feet from the lake. Vice -Chair Erickson opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Vice -Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA19-000105 John Kraemer, 855 Old Crystal Bay Road South, Variances. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Erickson commented that Staff recommendations are well-prepared, specifically Page 5, and his hope is that is part of what the Commission is approving. 5. LA19-000106 TOM LEMMERMAN, 1389 ORONO LANE, VARIANCE, 7:29 P.M. - 7:36 P.M. Tom Lemmerman, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Page 10 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gettman asked to see drawings of the proposed new roof line. Oakden, using an illustration, indicated both the existing and proposed roof lines. Libby asked if the maximum height of the roof line was within the City's 30 -foot number. Oakden answered that it was. Gettman asked if the proposed roof line would only impact the view of the neighbor to the left. Oakden said potentially. She noted the neighbor to the side is set farther back which is causing the shape of the average lakeshore setback. Gettman asked if the neighbor's line of sight to Browns Bay was the only impact Staff was aware of. Oakden indicated that was correct. Oakden used an aerial photograph to show the 1395 location and indicated the house's orientation. She also showed the 1389 location and described the proposed changes on the house. Libby indicated there were not a lot of changes. Erickson said it is a variance but not a big one. Mr. Tom Lemmerman said he is the builder. The exterior of the house is in extreme need of tender loving care. The roof over the master bedroom is lower pitched and having water issues. It was an addition to the house and they would like to raise the vault on it. The wrap-around porch is a definite bonus to the house. They talked to the neighbor to the east, who said the house to the east of him was remodeled last fall and now the house to the west of him is being remodeled, and he thanked the builder for putting pressure on him and his wife to do work on their place. That was the only comments with neighbors. Vice -Chair Erickson opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Vice -Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. McCutcheon moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA19-000106 Tom Lemmerman, 1389 Orono Lane, Variance. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 6. LA19-000099 CITY OF ORONO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT RELATED TO TRAIL PRIORITIES, 7:37 P.M. - 7:42 P.M. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Gettman asked if the cul-de-sac in the 6Smith area was addressed in any of the information. Barnhart stated it was not. Page 11 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gettman asked if there have been any contentious issues on any of the trail access upgrades. Barnhart said he is not aware of any. Barnhart stated the 6Smith issue would not be at this level of a priority because these are more regional/subregional trails and 6Smith is more a neighborhood level trail. Barnhart pointed out that just because a trail is not on the list does not mean it cannot be implemented at any time. These are the trails the Park Commission wants to focus their planning and their resource dollars on, but they can address other needs as necessary. Gettman clarified that he was asking if there were issues surrounding trails the Planning Commission has already dealt with. Barnhart responded that he did not think so. Erikson complimented the Park Commission on their updating of priorities. He believes it is well thought out. His particular favorites are the north -south connections connecting Dakota and Luce Line. People generally consider that the ideal transportation system is a grid which offers east -west movements and north -south movements, although Lake Minnetonka limits north -south movements quite a bit. A lot of the trails are east -west more so than north -south. The City has an opportunity to create or improve trails, and that will improve the function. Vice -Chair Erickson opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Vice -Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. McCutcheon moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA19-000099 City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Amendment Related to Trail Priorities. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. LA19-000091 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO GRADING AND LAND ALTERATION, 7:43 P.M. - 7:55 P.M. Staff presented a summary of packet information. There were no questions for Staff. Vice -Chair Erickson opened the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Vice -Chair Erickson closed the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Libby asked Staff if the scope is within the 75 -foot lakeshore setback or anywhere there would be grading over and above a certain elemental quantity of movement of fill and grading. Page 12 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said this would impact all grading and land alteration activities in the City. The goal is not necessarily to change the regulation but to better reorganize it and, in certain areas, propose change. He referenced Exhibit B which illustrates an existing regulation and also a proposed table attempting to demonstrate the same regulation. Barnhart stated they are proposing to remove the grading and land alteration portion of the shoreline regulations, which includes building height and hardcover and RPUD requirements, and put that in the existing grading and land alteration chapter. That change takes up about 15 pages of a 25 -page document. Libby asked if the ultimate adoption would encompass City parks within Orono. Barnhart answered that it would apply to all property within the City. Barnhart stated he would be happy to meet with any of the Commissioners off-line if they have questions in advance of the workshop but thought a workshop is appropriate for this type of application. Erickson noted there is a new added definition regarding stockpiling, which is defined as ten cubic yards or more of soil/aggregate in a concentrated state. He said ten cubic yards is a small number. If you have a 3x3 foot square of floor space, that is barely enough for a desk chair, which is nine square feet. If it's one foot high of dirt, that's nine cubic yards. When he was a kid, he had a sandbox; that amount is not even a decent sandbox. Libby said 13 cubic yards would be close to a standard dump truck. McCutcheon stated Erickson's example is cubic feet and the amount is three times larger than what Erickson was talking about. He agreed it is relatively small. He asked if that was in line with what the DNR recommends with other communities. Barnhart said the document indicates official stockpiling will require a permit, whether it's a City permit or a Council permit. Anything less than that amount will not require a permit. Staff looked at it from a potential impact. If you have a dump truck that comes in and dumps a load of black dirt on a side property line, the City does not want it sitting there forever and wants a mechanism to keep it moving along. Barnhart said whether it was too small was an appropriate question and the Planning Commission will have that question on a lot of Staffs thresholds which is what he hopes to discuss at the workshop. Gettman asked Staff to bring to the meeting some real examples and how they would apply both to the existing and proposed language and some of the IUPs the Planning Commission has already dealt with. Then Staff could say under the new rule it would or would not work and what the impact would be. McCutcheon referenced a house being built this year and said the huge pile of black dirt was driving him nuts when he drove past it. He noted that would impede someone's shore view and if that was there more than 90 days, it would be frustrating. Barnhart said that is why he is introducing it. He is not comfortable with the current stockpiling regulation. Barnhart asked the Planning Commission to table the action until February 18. Page 13 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 21, 2020 6:30 o'clock p.m. Libby asked if Staff would be sending an additional notice with a response to know what attendance would be like. He will be at the meeting. Barnhart said they will send out a questionnaire. He noted there used to be workshops the first Wednesday of each month. This year workshops are the hour before the Planning Commission meeting. Next month the meeting will be at 6:00; the workshop will start at 5:00. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to table LA19-000091 City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Grading and Land Alteration. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Libby moved, Gettman seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 7:56 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: Jon Ressler, Chair Page 14 of 14