HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-18-2020 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Chris Bollis, Bob Erickson, Matt Gettman, Dennis Libby, and John
Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners
Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden.
Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to approve the Agenda for the February 18, 2020, Planning
Commission meeting, noting that Item 2 needs to be moved to be considered before Item 6. VOTE:
Ayes 6, Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 21,
2020
Libby moved, Gettman seconded, to approve the January 21, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting
Minutes. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
2. LA20-000001 WEBER ARCHITECT & PLANNERS, 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY,
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This item was considered before Item 6.
3. LA20-000005 GORDON JAMES CONSTRUCTION, 2665 CASCO POINT ROAD, AFTER -
THE -FACT VARIANCES, 6:02 P.M. — 6:45 P.M.
William Haack, Gordon James Construction, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Mr. William Haack, Gordon James Construction, 5159 Main Street, Maple Plain, said the company built
a new home for the client who had an old, rundown boathouse which the client wanted to bring up to the
standards of the new home. The company was aware because of the variance earlier granted for the
hardcover on the property of keeping it within the hardcover amount. They also were looking at the
massing, not the volume, and did not consider the gable to be anything outside of the norm of just
freshening up the building. They freshened it up and improved the esthetics. He requested the structure
remain the way it was built. When looking at the hardcover calculations in the as -built relative to the
boathouse and the rest of the land separate from the decking, the builders were under by 74 square feet of
hardcover. The approximately 11-12 square feet of hardcover represented in the area around the sliding
door has not negatively impacted the approved hardcover for the property. He said the deck is an
extension of the dock. It was on the original survey that the original deck was to be removed but it was in
consideration that it was a removable docking section and considered a dock rather than a deck. The
homeowner built the metal frames and the building company put the dock sections on top of it. This
spring they can remove the dock sections and set them aside. They are under the hardcover from the
Page 1 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
original variance that was approved but would be over with the dock section if it is not considered dock.
He stated both the homeowner and neighbor are present. Improving the esthetics, the neighbors would
say, helped their area. Their experience in building on the point is these are favorable improvements
along the shoreline. It's 12 square feet and a gable that doesn't increase hardcover. The intention was to
compliment the house, and they feel they've done that.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:10 p.m.
Karl Freiemnuth, 2659 Casco Point Road, said the renovations to the exterior of the boathouse don't have
a big impact on anything except it makes it look a lot better. From the north you can see the boathouse
behind it is a lot larger. There is also a lot of drainage that comes down from that lot to the south and he
understands the need for a deck on the lake side because it will get pretty muddy. If there was a foul, it
should have been brought up in the original variance. The hardcover is an issue, but the boathouse
esthetics are a lot better than they were before.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m.
Thiesse asked if the window where the door used to be has the original header and whether it would be
wide enough to accommodate the door again.
Mr. Haack said the header is just enough for the window. The original door was a single -man door; it
wasn't the width of the sliding door that was installed.
Thiesse clarified whether it is still the original header from when the door was there.
Mr. Haack indicated they put in a new header for the window.
Libby asked if the claim is the new replacement deck is essentially a starter for the dock to go out from
the land side, the first portion of a portable seasonal dock that would start the extension of the dock out
into the lake for a dock and for the boat.
Mr. Haack stated he does not know that terminology.
Libby asked if the decking surface was essentially a pipe and bracket and tube replacement for what was
previously there.
Mr. Haack indicated there were dock sections there before.
Libby asked if the replacement deck there now is essentially a like -kind: Pipes driven in the ground and
brackets and deck top that sits on top, similar to the rest of the extension that would go out into the bay
and water.
Mr. Haack referenced a picture showing the original boathouse/dock and said the structure was metal
posts. The homeowner had them replaced with other metal posts. Because of ice heaving from the lake,
there had been a lot of shoreline creep back and bent/broken tubes.
Page 2 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Libby noted the replacement decking is like -kind to what was there originally, which is galvanized piping
and brackets with deck tops sitting down on them rather than plinth blocks and footings suspending a
deck surface.
Mr. Haack stated he was correct, they are dock materials.
Libby said in dock terms, that would be considered to be the starter of a portable dock that goes out on the
lake that needs to be removed because of seasonal heights.
Ressler asked if the deck was affixed to the house in any way.
Mr. Haack said it is floating, sitting on the rails, and not attached to the house.
Gettman referenced the photo of the original deck and said other than the one post, he does not see any
other posts and there are steps to the left of the post not attached to the post.
Mr. Haack said the posts were low and all the way across. He thought there were posts around the steps
that came down. He has a picture of when the sections were off showing just the original metal posts,
although he did not have it with him.
Gettman asked if there was a foundation or just posts.
Mr. Haack said it was just posts.
Curtis said Staff isn't looking at if it is like/in-kind construction. Rather, it's the hardcover and location.
In Staffs opinion, if there is a like/in-kind replacement, it needs to be what was there from the hardcover
standpoint and change in elevation of the deck. It functions as a deck so she is calling it a deck. Whether
it is built out of concrete or metal posts is irrelevant because it is hardcover and it is not in-kind when you
look at the elevation changes. Just like the building, there is a volume increase from grade of the surface.
Mr. Haack referenced a photo and indicated the stone was brought down. He does not have an elevation
to say whether it's up or down, but it's quite possible that the stone is slightly lower.
Curtis said she can see that it is different. The hardcover that was there is something the owner can have
because they had it before. The level of hardcover on the property today with the deck isn't allowed
because it wasn't approved to be at the level with what the square footage of the deck accounts to. The
builder says he's under if the decking is taken away, and she's suggesting if there's to be a deck transition
from the door to the dock, it can be fitted into the remaining hardcover. The rest of it was not accounted
for in the approval and it needs to be addressed at some level.
Mr. Haack stated that could be removed. The posts were in place when the as -built survey was done.
Curtis said the surveyor would not have surveyed dock posts, which is why Staff did not know they were
there until the inspection. Starting from scratch, if there is a dock which needs to transition to the shore,
Staff would consider whatever dock width that's allowed by the LMCD at the lake and it would not be
counted against the hardcover, Staff would call that dock. She stated it is clearly a landing, a deck. If he
wanted to call it a dock, it's larger than the minimum dock width allowed.
Page 3 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Thiesse said he is struggling and is irritated with what happened. He cannot see leaving the deck there
when the owner requested a variance for the rest of it and told the City they were going to remove it. He
cannot tell them to take off their siding and make it look like it used to because it is an improvement to
the neighborhood and there is no benefit for anybody other than to penalize them for doing something
they should not have done. He does not know what the answer is. He does not consider the deck a dock
starter. A dock starter is down at the water that you leave in the bank. He does not think he would vote to
put it back to where it was but is struggling with what it should be.
Ressler noted if it's not affixed to the house, there's an argument that it is a dock, not a deck. He asked if
the City has any governing rules or regulations regarding the size of the dock.
Curtis said it's landward of the 929.4' elevation, which means the ordinary high-water level of the lake. It
becomes the City's jurisdiction; and they don't allow decks or large, wide docks on land.
Thiesse noted typically you don't have a dock above the high-water level landward of it.
Curtis added it doesn't matter if it's freestanding or affixed to the building.
Gettman said he was trying to see whether it was reasonable to narrow the decking area to the dock width
to bring it up to the door and then, in essence, have non -decking similar to what they had before.
Bollis said he tends to agree with Staff. It is clearly not a dock because of the location and the width of it
regardless of how it is built. Cosmetically, it looks much better than it did. He asked what the definition
of "in-kind" is and whether it's the gable that is determining that. He would be okay with leaving the
design of the building like it is but eliminating the deck structure.
Erickson said looking at the facts brought him back to 1979, when he bought his first house on the lake in
the City of Woodland. He relayed his experience when making changes to that house. In the existing
dock regulations, a seasonal dock is defined, and part of the definition is if you can remove it without
power tools or heavy equipment, which is the case in this situation. He has shared Thiese's concerns
about people doing things that are different than what they said the first time, but in this case it's a small
cosmetic improvement which is endorsed by the neighbors and also a justifiable argument for a seasonal
dock use. He noticed in the application they have offered to pull it up when it's not in use, which also
demonstrates its ability to do that. He referenced an area in a photo and indicated they may have used
non -dock construction methods there but that the commission does not know for sure. It is clear the
entire section that faces the lake uses dock construction. He is comfortable with calling it that, and he
would support a variance to allow for that.
Libby stated he would like to come up with a constructive remedy for something that is obviously a
problem. He tends to agree with Staff, the variance should not be granted according to Section 78-123.
There were missteps or misjudgments that were made by the contractor and property owner, and these
situations could have been avoided if the original plan had not been amended and had been abided to.
Ressler said he appreciates the clarification as far as how that structure gets viewed based on the water
table and elevations. He is not a proponent of approving it as applied today. He noted the roof redesign
was not higher than the preceding roof and is esthetically pleasing. The chimney exceeds the roof line.
The decorative pillars in the entryway encroaches farther lakeward and he is not in support of that. They
have denied less encroachments than this. The deck/dock was initially approved with it to be removed,
Page 4 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
and that would have been a good time to have this discussion and deliberation to clarify things. In
retrospect it makes it more difficult. If the structure that is more lakeward were to be removed and
exceeding the previous roofline height as far as the actual building is concerned, he would be more
supportive. If the footprint of the deck were to be reduced as is defined today, he could be agreeable. He
looked at the LMCD standards for sunpads, which is the closest thing he could come up with if it was in
the water elevations, and that is defined as 8 by 12, 96 square feet. A 25.4 width which is 3 3/4 - 4 feet
out, that may be something that would make it more agreeable. He is opposed to how it is applied today,
but he would be in support if those things were being amended.
Erickson stated he felt he and Ressler were on similar paths as far as some reduction in the deck area
might make it work.
Ressler noted his feedback is the deck area reduction as well as a not -encroaching structure lakeward and
exceeding the previous roof line. The gable is not adding square footage and is not living quarters; it is
more decorative and is not encroaching on any viewpoint from the previous structure.
Thiesse asked if Ressler wanted the motion to deny and the feedback to be just the deck, or if the
projection of the door and gable into the lakeward area should be removed also.
The Commissioners and Staff discussed the location of the gable and whether it was encroaching.
Ressler said the motion could include to not exceed roof line or structure and to not exceed any structure
above the previous elevation and also a reduction in deck but allow some sort of use ability for that deck.
Erickson asked if the Chair would consider a motion to grant the variances subject to the limitations.
Ressler said Staff could help entertain that.
Barnhart said Staff would prefer the Commission would make a recommendation based on the
application. The comments made reflect the thought process which will be helpful to the City Council but
the motion should reflect the application.
Ressler asked Staff what the next steps would be, if the Commission were to deny the application with
that feedback, for the applicant.
Barnhart said the Commission is acting on the application they have been shown. The applicant could
hear the commission's feedback in terms of concern with the chimney, concern with the gable that
encroaches lakeward, the size of the deck or hardcover level. They could propose modifications to the
City Council to see if they could gather some approval from that standpoint.
Ressler said the cleaner, easier way no matter how it goes to the City Council is to deny it as applied with
the feedback that's been given unless there's a different opinion.
Erickson noted his feedback would not include any concern about any of the cosmetic improvements
made to the structure. The stone added to the bottom, the gable, the chimney represent both structural and
cosmetic improvements and he does not have any concern about granting variances for those items. He is
ready to support the necessary variance to extend the dock out to the lake.
Page 5 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Libby asked Staff if, as previously approved, the deck had been completely removed, as indicated in the
plan, would it have met the hardcover and the setback so the Commission would not be dealing with a
variance at this point.
Curtis said the Commission would still be dealing with the boathouse expansion.
Libby stated there would still be a third element they would have to deal with even if the dock/deck were
removed.
Curtis said if the deck had been eliminated, they would still be talking about the boathouse expansions.
Ressler asked if there is anyone that does not agree that the Commission should keep structure no further
lakeward. In other words, the Commission should keep structure where it was on the application.
Thiesse indicated Erickson was willing to accept it where it is.
Erickson said he is comfortable with the gables and the entryway decorative pillars.
Barnhart indicated it was not necessary to consolidate the comments for the applicant and that the
applicant can take or ignore anything stated. He indicated it would be appropriate to call for the vote and
move forward.
Ressler indicated it is helpful for the Commission to understand how people feel.
Barnhart stated Staff would do that in their memo.
Gettman moved, Bollis seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. LA20-000005 Gordon
James Construction, 2665 Casco Point Road, After -the -Fact Variances. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1
(Erickson).
4. LA20-000007 REVISION LLC, 1030 TONKAWA ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:46
P.M. — 6:54 P.M.
John Daly, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Libby asked for clarification of the portion of the covenant that has to do with rental.
Curtis stated that it is prohibited.
Libby asked if rental would still be prohibited if there was a permitted license.
Curtis stated that this was correct.
Ressler asked if Community Developer Director Barnhart had any input.
Page 6 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Barnhart stated that it is a two layered approach with the covenant that notifies the property owner as well
as future property owners of the issue and then there is the City standard and City Code that will regulate
it and noted that he believes the City has covered the bases.
John Daly, Revision, 153 East Lake Street, Wayzata, stated that the property owners were unable to
attend tonight due to previous vacation plans. He explained that the intent for this project started out
additional storage and parking space since there is no on street parking on Tonkawa Road. The plans then
moved to include a recreation space as well as a place for a home office. He noted that the property to the
north has a very similar structure and was built about a year and a half ago. He stated that the plans also
include reducing the hard cover on the property to bring it back into compliance. He stated that they are
well aware of the covenants and the property owners are in agreement with them.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m.
Ressler noted that there are several homes in Orono that have a similar layout and structure and stated that
he does not see anything egregious with the presented plans.
Gettman asked if there was any information on how many carriage homes have started to be used in this
area.
Curtis stated that there are a lot throughout the City. She stated that many of them have been used for
things such as a pool house or other office or recreational space.
Gettman asked how many had been used as rented space.
Curtis stated that she cannot speak to that, but knows that there have not been a lot of complaints.
Barnhart stated that Staff does not know of any that have been converted into second dwellings.
Ressler stated that he believes that some have been utilized as what is referred to as a Grandmother's
Attic or a space used for older children to have a separate quarters or entertaining space. He stated that he
does not see an epidemic of approving things for use as an Airbnb.
Thiesse stated that his understanding is that the Commission is only discussing the shower and not the
building.
Gettman stated that he believes that adding the plumbing triggered the need for a CUP.
Curtis clarified that it was adding a shower or a bathtub that triggered the CUP because plumbing is
allowed.
Libby stated that he agrees with Staffs assessment and believes this is a practical use matter and feels
showers are useful.
Page 7 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Erickson noted the Staff recommendations listed on page 3 of the packet were an excellent
recommendation and were well drafted. He stated that this leads him to be totally comfortable with the
application.
Thiesse moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA20-000007 Revision
LLC, 1030 Tonkawa Road, Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
5. LA20-000008 HANS FREES, 505 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, WETLAND ALTERATION
PERMIT, 6:54 P.M. — 7:42 P.M.
Hans Frees, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Bollis asked if there is a current buffer on the wetland.
Oakden asked that the applicant answer that question and noted that if there is it would have been
established by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and not the City. She explained that
when there is not an established buffer, the City defaults to a 25 -foot setback. She stated that to her
knowledge, the MCWD would require an established buffer.
Thiesse stated that the e-mail received from Mr. Carlson seemed to imply that the Technical Evaluation
Panel (TEP) change some things and asked if the Commission would see this again or if the Commission
would simply vote to accept anything they say.
Oakden stated that it is fairly common that the Commission and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed review
run concurrently. She noted that the TEP has made some comments but it is still being evaluated and
they are asking for a frill meeting in order to create comments in time for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
Board meeting on March 27, 2020.
Thiesse asked what impacts this is causing.
Oakden stated that hydrology and ecology of wetland reviews are conducted by the MCWD
Thiesse stated that he understands that but the Commission is supposed to be discussing mitigation to
impacts, however he is not clear what the impacts are.
Barnhart stated that any impacts that are observed, anticipated, or any that are shared by the public, are
what need to be considered.
Ressler stated that some of the feedback from homeowners has been surrounding a concern about what
the actual impact and usage will be and whether it will be used for recreational purposes. He stated that
whenever a body of water is created it turns into a lake and his understanding is that this application does
not include any additional request for dockage.
Oakden explained that this is correct and the scope of the application is to fall under the wildlife habitat
exemption under the WCA so there is not a proposed dock or recreational type use included in the
application. She stated that the applicant is present and can definitely speak to that question.
Page 8 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Ressler asked for clarification that adding a dock or recreational area would be disrupting that wildlife
habitat and that request would require a separate application and further deliberation by the Commission.
Oakden confirmed that adding a dock to an open wetland would create an additional review through the
City Council's public hearing process. She noted that she also believes that any damage to this wildlife
habitat would be a violation of the WCA permit with MCWD as the regulating body in charge of
enforcement.
Thiesse stated that one thing that may not be covered as a disruption to the neighborhood would be a
lighted skating rink.
Ressler noted that is a good point, but accessing the rink would again be a disruption of the wetlands.
Oakden agreed that any type of use that would damage the wildlife habitat would be a violation of the
permit.
Thiesse stated that during the winter, he is allowed to walk through any wetland that he would like.
Oakden stated that the MCWD regulates the wildlife habitat, so if they hear there are concerns or perceive
that there is damage it would be under their purview to regulate and protect it. She explained that this
application is asking for that exemption.
Ressler stated that he assumes this is something that has been dealt with before in this State and may be
something for neighbors to bring up at the February 27, 2020 MCWD Board meeting. He noted that this
repurpose of habitat that is supported by the MCWD, currently meets the criteria and asked if the
Commission simply follows the lead of the MCWD as the governing authority and allow them do the
heavy lifting.
Oakden stated that this is correct because the MCWD looks at the wetland and the proposed alterations
and conducts a technical evaluation. She stated that they are still working through the evaluation but have
indicated their support.
Ressler stated that where the City's Code comes in above and beyond that is where there is fill added to
create more buildable area.
Oakden noted that this application was unique in that it doesn't pertain to changes to the boundary of a
wetland which is what the City Code addresses for creating buildable space or changing boundaries.
Thiesse asked if the City Engineer would take a look at the berm.
Oakden agreed that the City Engineer would look at the berm and noted that they have provided some
preliminary comments regarding the grading plan, but will also review the land alteration permit before
and grading or berm work can happen.
Hans Frees, Outdoor Escapes, 2345 Daniel Street, explained that the property owners were unable to
attend tonight's meeting because of President's Day weekend. He explained that the goal of this project
is to get it back to its native state and make it friendly for the wildlife. He stated that the property owners
Page 9 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
were former farm kids and bought this property to be able to enjoy the wildlife. He stated that to address
the earlier comment about a skating rink, there is currently a pond shared with 3 neighboring lots. He
stated that they do not have, nor do they plan to have, any skating activity on the pond. He explained that
the property owners have several other properties that they utilize for water recreation and assured the
Commission that fishing or other dockage is not their intent for this property.
Bollis asked if there was currently a buffer on this wetland.
Mr. Frees stated that he is not 100% sure and noted that they have had extensive discussions with MCWD
and the DNR. He stated that they were asked to reach out to the Mosquito Control Agency who informed
him that they are currently treating this wetland, will continue to treat it, and expressed their willingness
to alter treatment, as needed. He stated that he believes there is a 25 -foot buffer and noted that the
proposed buffer is stricter and more governing that what is currently in place.
Libby asked for clarification of his understanding that these are private property owners, on private
property that are intending to do a fairly substantial alteration to the existing natural habitat for their own
private enjoyment.
Mr. Frees stated that this is correct and noted that it came to Outdoor Escapes as a two-phase project and
included the property to the south that shares a berm with this property.
Libby confirmed that this is not a capital improvement for neighborhood enjoyment and is strictly for
private property. He stated that there is an existing natural habitat and is sure that the MCWD and the
DNR will be very conscientious about this fact. He stated that he has a higher comfort level with this
project because there are the other authoritative bodies that will be looking at this project beyond the City.
Mr. Frees reiterated that it is their private property and the goal is to get more wildlife such as ducks and
birds to the area. He stated that he was told that previously there was open water on the wetland and this
project will help restore that feature.
Erickson stated that he agrees that if this goes well it is likely to attract water fowl that is not currently
there which would be a positive. He stated that he assumes the flood storage capacity will be increased
through the dredging process which may help during heavy rainfall. He stated that he is also comfortable
with this process.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
Maria Marks, 2580 Fox Street, asked if the Commission had read all of the material in the packet
pertaining to this application, including the ones from today.
Libby stated that he had thoroughly reviewed them earlier as well as the additional information.
Thiesse stated that he did not read Attachment A or the Aquatic Source Impact Summary.
Barnhart stated that he has read all the material.
Ms. Marks stated that she has concerns about this project and noted that the other neighboring properties
also have concerns. She stated that since many of the Commission members have not read all the
Page 10 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
materials, she suggested that she read aloud the letter expressing their concerns regarding the impacts of
the potential change. She stated that this project deserves a lot of careful thought and noted that some of
the agencies involved have shown a lack of coordination and have omitted some of the features that
would be expected in a project of this magnitude. She asked that the Commission consider the vision,
values and goals of Orono as they make their decision. She read aloud the letter sent to the Commission
by the neighborhood. She noted that the neighborhood already has concerns about the use of the
property, to date, including the addition of foot bridges in buffer areas without permission. She stated
that she also does not think there is data that can show whether this plan is really viable and if the soils
will percolate as expected. She stated that the surrounding neighbors feels as though there are too many
questions that have not been thoroughly studied. She stated that they feel this project could set a
precedent and is too important to rush through and are asking the Commission to consider the materials in
the packet fully and completely.
Ressler reminded the audience that public comments need to be limited to about a 5 -minute maximum.
Ressler stated that in the application there are a lot of comments and concerns that are very valid. He
stated that he believes the footbridge has been addressed and noted that type of thing would be a concern
for the City as well if it were to be added to the wetland. He stated that he disagrees with the implication
that the DNR and the MCWD are not capable of adjudicating this application. He stated that the entire
project is above and beyond the City's code and the City will lean heavily on the governing authorities to
regulate this type of project. He recommends that the comments and concerns of Ms. Marks and the
neighborhood be shared at the MCWD Board meeting on February 27, 2020.
Ms. Marks stated that she was not questioning the capability of the DNR but they are not a governing
body and thinks generalized comments were taken as approval by the DNR. She stated that through Ben
Carlson's comments, the Commission can see that the DNR is opposed to having been put into the role of
seemingly giving their approval for this project. She stated that she is requesting that there be some
science around the possible changing of this ecosystem. She stated that this is a cattail wetland and the
neighborhood feels that there are already ample sources of other open water areas and asked the
Commission to consider whether this is an appropriate use of the space.
Ressler stated that this is a fluid project and at the end of the day, he believes it is the City's intent to
follow the direction of the MCWD when their meeting occurs at the end of the month. He reiterated that
he strongly recommends that Ms. Marks and other concerned neighbors attend that meeting and listen to
people that can speak more intelligently about their concerns.
Libby thanked Ms. Marks for her passion and concern about conservation and preservation. He stated
that all the residents of Orono appreciate that and it is part of the mission statement for the City. He
commended her for stepping up and speaking for something that she is so passionate about and noted that
the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. He stated that he does disagree with
some of Ms. Marks opinions, however, because for the last 30 years, he has had substantial opportunity to
work with other governing bodies and has a great deal of trust in their wisdom, vision, and their empirical
understanding of nature. He explained that the decisions are really outside the scope of the Commission's
decision-making ability.
Ms. Marks stated that this could have been a closed conversation with the MCWD if no public comment
had been expressed. She stated that they feel that a number of the typical considerations have not been
observed for this process, which she assumes is because it is a relatively rare circumstance.
Page 11 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Libby noted that it may be rare in Orono, but the agencies being discussed are State level agencies and
this type of thing is not as rare to them.
Ms. Marks stated that she would also like to ask for the City to be transparent throughout this process.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Ressler stated that he thinks the Commission has had a lot of good discussion on this application and
shared his belief that a lot of the decisions will hinge upon the State governing bodies determinations.
Gettman asked about the benefit of approving this subject to the decision made by the MCWD on
February 27, 2020 versus tabling or denying this application because there are issues that need to be
addressed by experts that are not actually here. He stated that for all intents and purposes, this is out of
the Planning Commission's lane. He explained that he struggles with pushing it through because there
may be an implied recommendation for approval that may be considered by the other bodies.
Ressler stated that he is not sure if the MCWD will weigh their decision based on the Commissions
support or lack thereof. He stated that at the end of the day, the Commission will not be in support of this
project, unless the MCWD is in support of it.
Erickson stated that his recommendation is to follow the Staff recommendation on page 3 of the packet
and read aloud the recommendation. He stated that the Staff recommendation has been well prepared and
he is prepared to support it.
Erickson moved, Bollis seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA20-000008 Hans
Frees, 505 Willow Drive South, Wetland Alteration Permit, subject to conditions listed on page 3 of
the packet, as presented. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1 (Gettman opposed).
2. LA20-000001 WEBER ARCHITECT & PLANNERS, 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY,
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, 7:42 P.M. — 8:01 P.M.
Neil Weber, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Ressler stated that this is 56 units, but asked Barnhart to clarify his statements regarding the guest
apartment.
Barnhart stated that the final plan shows 2 guest apartments, one on the third floor and the other on the
second floor. He noted that these units will not have kitchen facilities, just a bedroom and bathroom.
Ressler asked if the plans then eliminated 2 of the previously planned units to keep the total at 56 units.
Barnhart stated that they are not because the City does not consider the guest apartments units, similar to
the guest unit CUP earlier today.
Ressler confirmed that the City is asking them to keep it below 30 feet so they will be modifying the
roofline.
Page 12 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Barnhart stated that Staff is recommending this and has provided feedback to the applicant that the
building should be kept below 30 feet. He noted that this information was included in Staff's comments
so it will be incorporated into the motion.
Libby asked if there were any changes made to the parking arrangements.
Barnhart answered that the number of parking stalls remained the same but there were some minor
modifications made to the layout.
Libby asked for the total number of parking spots.
Barnhart stated that the requirement is 2 spaces per unit. He stated that there are 73 parking spaces
underground and 52 spaces above ground. He noted that there are some parking spots that are earmarked
for the medical office space next door.
Thiesse asked if the City still had the mansard roof requirements and if the peak is taken off the entrance
whether that will become one.
Barnhart stated that Staff is comfortable with the change they are making.
Neil Weber, Weber Architects, Long Lake, explained that as they were making the plans, they found a
spot on the third floor that would work for the guest apartment. He explained that there is a high demand
for this type of accommodation especially at Christmas time. He noted that they are altering the
landscape plan and explained the reason the entrance would be moving because of some of the
requirements from the MCWD. He stated that they have been working with staff on these changes.
Gettman asked why the plans went well above the 30 -foot height requirement when 29 feet was the
original planned height.
Mr. Weber stated that when they moved from preliminary to final, they tweaked the design because they
thought it looked better, but were willing to change their design based on feedback from Staff.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m.
Ressler stated that he feels the Commission should discuss that the application started with 56 units and is
ending with 56 units, however they are adding 2 additional units as guest quarters.
Barnhart stated that it is adding 1 unit because the original approval was for 56 units and 1 guest unit and
this is asking for 56 units and 2 guest units.
Thiesse stated that if the applicant came back and stated that they would be having one more two-
bedroom unit and one less one -bedroom unit, he doesn't think the City could even have a comment on
those plans.
Page 13 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Ressler stated that is what he was thinking too but wanted to input of the Commission
Bollis stated that it is an accommodation for guests and will not be used full-time. He explained that his
mother lives in a building similar to this and the guest units are used quite frequently and are quite
convenient.
Ressler confirmed that the guest spaces will not have kitchen facilities so it is similar to a hotel room. He
stated that he thinks it is a nice touch for residents to be able to have these available.
Bollis stated that he is fine with the plans as presented and noted that he would also be fine with the gable
on the roof and feels it will look a bit silly without it, but understands that it doesn't meet code.
Thiesse stated that on the other hand, the Commission is a recommending body and noted that the
applicant could run the idea of keeping the gable by the Council for a final decision.
Libby stated that he had just noticed something or he would have asked the question of staff earlier. He
stated that he liked the original idea of there being an 8 -foot bituminous trail and sees a comment where it
says "not necessary" and asked what that means.
Barnhart explained that the City has learned that the Wayzata Boulevard project will have a bituminous
trail within the right-of-way, so it will not be necessary for this application to include the trail. He stated
that Staff is recommending a connection to that trail from the parking lot.
Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA20-000001 Weber
Architect & Planners, 2745 Kelley Parkway, Master Development Plan, per staff recommendations
and conditions. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
6. LA20-000003 JOHN NEWELL, 1485 6TH AVENUE NORTH, SKETCH PLAN, 8:01 P.M. —
8:32 P.M.
John Newell, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Ressler asked for clarification of the conservation design requirement and why the Commission would
discuss a waiver in lieu of identifying substantial trees.
Oakden stated that she believes it is relatively common on smaller plats like this where only 3 lots are
created to identify substantial trees, which are over 6 inches in diameter rather than going through an
entire conservation design process.
Ressler ask if this is a cost savings as well as an efficiency.
Oakden stated that was correct.
Thiesse asked if the City had any regulations that will allow it to protect the trees once they are identified.
Page 14 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Barnhart stated that what the City looks at with the conservation design requirement includes more than
just the trees, such as slopes. He stated that while there isn't anything in the Code, he gave the example
of a stand of significant oaks. He explained that the City could say to the developer that this is an
important feature of the lot and should be protected, so the City may not approve a pian that shows a road
cutting directly through that area. He gave another example of the conservation design identifying the
mature oak in Basswood Forest. He explained that the conservation design is used to help guide the
developer in areas that the City is trying to protect from a character standpoint.
Ressler asked if the City had reviewed the proposed well and septic plans.
Oakden stated that she thinks the applicant has just recently coordinated their septic testing, so she does
not think the City has reviewed this yet. She noted that the applicant has received feedback that they have
viable septic sites.
Barnhart stated that the City is not looking for a final report at this stage, until the City has determined the
layout is acceptable, but to just know that there are viable sites. He gave an overview of how the sketch
plan process works in this situation.
Thiesse asked if there was sanitary sewer in this area around Highway 6.
Oakden stated that there isn't and would connect over on Brown so the applicant would have to explore
through private lots in order to connect.
Erickson asked if that may be feasible for the southernmost location.
Oakden stated that she believes the City Engineer has provided comments for the applicant to look into
this possibility.
Erickson stated that he has own homes that had septic and others than had sanitary sewer. He stated that
personally, he recommends that if you are in MUSA that it be used, if it can be used.
Ressler asked what the alternative to the cul-de-sac would look like.
Oakden stated that there is no alternative. She explained that the applicant is proposing the cul-de-sac
option and hoping for Commission feedback. She stated that if the Commission did not support this
layout it would be up to the applicant to come up with an alternative.
Libby stated that he understands that this the sketch plan phase, but noticed that two of the lots has visible
evidence of new driveway turn arounds. He questioned whether, in new construction, there is a current
requirement that the driveway have the ability to have a turn around to go back out again for an
emergency vehicle.
Oakden stated that there is not necessarily a requirement but noted that the City does require there to be
turn around avenues on tighter lots.
Curtis noted that it was not for emergency vehicle turn around, but rather that these homes could front out
on a busy road.
Page 15 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
John Newell, 1485 County Road 6, stated that he has been involved with this property since he was 21
years old and knew the previous owners. He explained that he cut the driveway into this house as well.
He stated that he now owns the house and the property. He stated that he had spoken with Staff quite a
few times before he put pen to paper to try and get as much information as possible, however some things
have transpired since they put pen to paper. He stated that one of the neighbors that adjoins the property
have expressed interest in purchasing Lot 3 and not developing it. He stated that if that happens, then
they probably wouldn't need to bring in a cul-de-sac. He stated that ideally, he would keep this area rural
if at all possible. He stated that they are planning to release the wetlands to the DNR. He explained that
they have not received a written offer, but if Lot 3 is sold, the property will stay exactly as it is.
Libby asked if Mr. Newell had any interest in using the existing infrastructure with the sewer connections
rather than going with private septic and well systems.
Mr. Newell stated that his understanding was that there was no connection possible because of the private
properties and the creek. He noted that he didn't believe there is a lot of significant material on the lower
2 lots and explained that most recently it was mostly buckthorn. He stated that the previous owners hayed
this property. He stated that were the original house is there are maples, basswoods, and oaks and this
would not be affected by Lot 1 and Lot 3. He reiterated that he does not see a way to connect to the
sanitary sewer system in a way that would be approved by the DNR.
Ressler stated that he thinks the layout is sensible and noted that one thing the City looks for is the width
of the roads and ensure that the cul-de-sacs are adequate in order to easily provide turn around for
emergency and other vehicles. He stated that as Commissioner Libby noted, it is nice to see the turn
arounds included in the individual properties which he feels is a nice touch.
Mr. Newell explained that was just him putting lead to mylar. He stated that there are no actual proposals
for the housing, he just wanted the Commission to be able to see where they might go on the site.
Erickson stated that he is in favor of allowing the flexibility for the three homes to use the cul-de-sac as
outlined in the staff report. He stated that is also comfortable with the allowing flexibility in identifying
the front lot for Lot 3 along the Outlot A. He noted that he would also support a waiver of the
conservation design requirement in lieu of identifying substantial trees. He stated that if there is a way for
the southernmost lot to be able to hook up to sanitary sewer, he would encourage that because it would
help avoid the problem of crossing the creek.
Mr. Newell reiterated that he does not see how he can get a City sewer line hooked up without creating
some major problems with his neighbors.
Thiesse stated that he believes Commissioner Erickson was referring to a low-pressure line which has
nothing more than a 2- or 3 -inch diameter line and could probably be trenched in. He suggested if that is
considered, he gets easements for Lots 1 and 3 because someday they will need to get there too.
Libby explained that there is a precision guided laser boring installation protocol that has been shown to
be extremely accurate.
Barnhart suggested that the Commission move on from discussion regarding the sewer design in order to
discuss other comments.
Page 16 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Ressler stated that the Commission discussion are the items that Commissioner Erickson outlined from
the staff report. He stated that he would also support of all three issues for consideration from the staff
report.
Bollis stated that he likes the overall layout and feels it makes sense to him. He stated that conservation
design is the only thing that he would object to not going through.
Thiesse asked if he would support doing conservation only on the front two lots.
Bollis agreed that would make sense.
Thiesse stated that Mr. Newell is improving the first part of the driveway and asked if the City had any
jurisdiction on him changing the existing driveway since it is already there.
Barnhart stated that it is already there, but generally, what the City tries to do with subdivisions is
improve existing conditions and non -conformities, so they do look to make these types of improvements.
Thiesse stated that the City are sticklers for this type of thing and encouraged Mr. Newell to be prepared
to defend his decision.
Mr. Newell stated that he is a landscape architect from Lake Tahoe so he has experience with watersheds
and collection. He explained the reasons for the cul-de-sac placement to allow for a silt pond.
Thiesse stated that he understands, but reiterated that it doesn't meet the City standards so he will need to
be ready to defend it when the time comes.
Ressler noted that this discussion may be moot if Lot 3 ends up being sold, but hoped that the feedback
from the Commission was helpful to Mr. Newell.
Mr. Newell stated that the discussion was very helpful to him.
7. LA19-000102 KEVIN CLARK, SAMBATEK,135 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH,
SKETCH PLAN, 8:32 P.M. — 9:18 P.M.
Kevin Clark, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Bollis asked for details of the lot width for Lot 2.
Barnhart stated that it is measured at the building setback line.
Bollis asked if the City encountered this type of thing frequently with pie shaped or cul-de-sac lots.
Barnhart stated that is true and the City has approved some subdivisions that have reduced width because
of the nature of the cul-de-sac. He stated that he is not too alarmed by it, but wanted to call it to the
Commission's attention.
Page 17 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Ressler stated that he is relieved to know that there is no filling or excavation of wetlands on this
application.
Libby noted that Barnhart had mentioned an easement for City sewer but noted that there is also mention
of site locations for subsurface septic treatment. He stated that to him it would make more sense to
utilize City sewer and negate the idea of subsurface sewer.
Barnhart stated that the applicant will appreciate that type of comment. He stated that this was a pretty
substantial issue when this was discussed in 2016. He stated that based on the City's goal for where the
boundary is for the MUSA system, they did not want to expand it into this property.
Thiesse asked if the existing easement was being used.
Barnhart stated that he believes so because right across the street is a lift station.
John Quinlivan, Gordon James, 5159 Main Street, Maple Plain, stated that the YMCA no longer owns
this property. He explained that they purchased the property in December of 2019. He noted that he did
not think the sanitary sewer easement has anything in it.
Barnhart explained that the City can do some research, but the survey indicates an easement in place.
Mr. Quinlivan stated that he is hard pressed to see why they would push septic for this site when there is
literally water and sewer in the roadway. He stated that the cost will be the same, but noted that it doesn't
pass the smell test for enviromnental purposes. He stated that they tried to keep the integrity of the area
and kept the road in the same place as the existing road. He stated that Lot 5 has a house on it which may
be left in place.
Ressler reviewed the items the Commission was asked to consider. He stated that his initial thoughts are
that Lot 3 is tough.
Mr. Quinlivan stated that if there is a sewer easement that will never be used, he asked how the City
would propose to remove it.
Barnhart stated that he believes the sanitary sewer easement is not for Mr. Quinlivan's property but for
other properties and just goes through this property.
Mr. Quinlivan questioned whether that meant that if it is there it would run through the property but that
would also mean that they could not use it. He asked if it wasn't there whether it would stay in order for
someone in the future to run sanitary sewer through the property.
Barnhart stated that he does not know the founding principals of that exact easement but he believes it is
in use and that it serves other areas. He explained that Mr. Quinlivan's property is not in the MUSA area
so it is not eligible to be connected to sanitary sewer.
Mr. Quinlivan asked if the easement didn't feed future properties and there wasn't anything in there what
the proper protocol would be to remove easements.
Barnhart explained that there is a process to vacate easements.
Page 18 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Thiesse asked if it would be possible, if there is nothing in the easement, to rearrange it so it is in his road.
Barnhart stated that may be possible.
Thiesse suggested that he may also be able to do something different with Lot 3 so there is a more
developable lot.
Barnhart stated that the City did something similar with Bracketts Point road a few years ago.
Libby stated that Barnhart has mentioned the Council several times when talking about MUSA and asked
for clarification from him on which Council he was referring to and whether he meant the City Council or
the Met Council.
Barnhart stated that the City Council established the land use map which includes the boundaries for the
MUSA. He stated that the Met Council established minimum density for the sewered areas which for the
City has to be an average of 3 units per acre. He stated that there are a lot of large lots along the lake and
in the 60s and 70s it was decided that the City wanted to serve those with sanitary sewer in order to assist
with water quality goals. He stated that the density goals are way off, so the City took a look at other
areas of the City where there can be higher density growth to get the average closer to 4 units per acre. If
this development was added, that would mean that the density would be lowered in the City and they
would have to find more density someplace else which is why the City Council determined it was best to
keep this area out of the MUSA system.
Libby asked if the applicant could appeal to the Council in a circumstance like this because there is sewer
reasonably close. He stated that he is asking for informational purposes on behalf of the applicant.
Barnhart stated that the applicant can definitely try an appeal in this circumstance.
Mr. Quinlivan stated that they have been down that road a bit and noted that they had proposed more lots
in the area to help with the density, but they did not want it to be part of MUSA. He expressed his
surprise that there isn't a way to exempt this piece of property from the density requirements since it
seems to make so much sense to hook it up with the system because it is so close.
Ressler asked if the Commission had any feedback regarding the general lot layout.
Libby stated that he lives in a neighborhood that looks very similar to this with a dead-end cul-de-sac that
is served with a mix of City sewer and private systems. He stated that he is very comfortable with the
layout. He stated that he can't seem to let go of that fact that the applicant will have to make some
significant ground surface sacrifices in order to have a second septic site.
Erickson stated that he has no concern about the layout.
Ressler stated that he feels Barnhart covered the concerns about the road intersection fairly well, but, in
his opinion, he doesn't think there is a better way to get it over there.
Bollis asked if they would adjust the tiny piece on Lot 1 to make it an Outlot so a variance for width
wouldn't be needed for Lot 1.
Page 19 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Ressler stated that is a very good idea.
Thiesse stated that it may also require tweaking the lot line between Lots 1 and 2.
Ressler asked for Commission feedback regarding the buildable area for Lot 3. He stated that they have
already touched on this point and believes it is worth doing a cost -benefit analysis on the possibility of
relocating or vacating the sanitary sewer easement. He stated that as it is presented, he doesn't see a
better way for it to put it.
Erickson stated that he had no concerns.
Ressler stated that the next point is whether the Commission has concerns with the lot width. He stated
that he does not have any concerns and thinks they are all good-sized lots and are best used with what is
available.
The Commission had no concerns about lot width.
Ressler stated that he is always for ways to hook up with City water and sewer for environmental reasons,
so if there is a way to do that, he thinks it would be great. He asked if the Commission had any other
useful feedback for the applicant.
There was no additional feedback for the applicant.
Commissioner Gettman left the meeting at 9:01 p.m.
Chair Ressler recessed the meeting at 9:01 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:06.
Chair Ressler noted that there is a member of the audience that would like a chance to offer public
comment on the previous agenda item.
Jaime Lowe, 105 Orono Orchard Road, stated that his home is adjacent to Lot 1. He stated that they have
heard nothing about this project so they have significant concerns. He stated that Mr. Quinlivan built the
carriage house on their lot and appears to have discovered the opportunity to develop this area of the City.
He stated that he appreciates the recommendation from the Commission that Mr. Quinlivan pursue
sanitary sewer and water rather than septic because that has been an ongoing long conversation in this
area. He stated that they went through a major remodel of their home and construction of the carriage
house and even though the City sewer is directly across the street, they were denied that permit. He stated
that the boundary is an odd shaped lot so Lot 1 would significantly impact them. He stated that when
they bought the property, they knew the land had been gifted to the YMCA and would eventually be
developed over a period of time. He stated that they had no problem with that and they did ask that there
be intense cooperation with the builder and the local neighbors. He stated that he hopes that there would
be a spirit of how the boundaries are formed, proper tree planting, and noise mitigation during
construction. He reiterated that this project will have a significant impact on his property. He asked the
Commission to do what they can to ensure that the builder is a good partner, cooperative, thoughtful and
remember that it is their home and that they have invested a significant amount of money in it to enhance
its livability and the City of Orono.
Page 20 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Ressler assured Mr. Lowe that the Commission appreciated his comments. He stated that if this becomes
a formal application, Mr. Lowe will be notified and encouraged him to show up and speak to the items
that he has concerns about. He stated that at the sketch plan level, Mr. Quinlivan is simply seeking
feedback from the City regarding things like what is buildable and what isn't as well as potential building
placement. He stated that the Commission has done the best they can to give that feedback and
encouraged Mr. Lowe to come back to future meetings and provide his input.
Mr. Lowe asked what the next steps will be in this process.
Barnhart explained that this is the first of a three-step process. He stated that if the applicant chooses to
move forward after hearing feedback regarding the sketch plan, they will move forward with a
preliminary plat which will include all construction, grading and landscaping plans. He stated that there
is a public hearing process at both the Commission and the City Council level. He stated that if the
Council approves the preliminary plat, the applicant will come back with a final plat which will fine tune
all the drawings, grading and utility information and will also have preliminary review by the County at
this point as well. He reminded Mr. Lowe that the public hearing process will take place during the
preliminary hearing and noted that he could bring forward concerns about construction noise at that time.
Thiesse explained that the Commission looks for compliance and can look at things like noise and
setbacks. He stated that the Commission cannot ask for much beyond compliance. He stated that a
question Mr. Lowe could bring forward during the public hearing process was whether Mr. Quinlivan did
a good job on their carriage house.
Mr. Lowe asked about the proposed timeline for the preliminary plat presentation.
Barnhart stated that he does not know. He noted that if Mr. Quinlivan applied in April that would mean a
review by May or June. He stated that typically the time period from sketch plan to preliminary plat is
several months because there is quite a bit of detail needed for the next phase. He stated that usually once
the preliminary plat is approved it is also typically another few months before the final plat is presented.
Ressler suggested that Mr. Lowe stick around for more of the meeting because #9 on the agenda talks
about grading and land alterations.
Thiesse asked how much notice Mr. Lowe would receive for the preliminary plat review.
Barnhart stated that the City will send out a postcard between 10 and 20 days before the hearing date to
all property owners within 500 feet of the application. He noted that the notification goes to the property
owner so someone who rents a home would not receive anything.
Ressler noted that Mr. Lowe does not have to physically be present in order to provide comments and
noted that, for example, he can provide an e-mail that will be put on record commenting on the
application.
Barnhart encouraged all residents to subscribe to the public hearing notices option that can go directly to
e-mail rather than just their mail box.
Libby stated that he understands how frustrating this process can be because a short time ago he recused
himself from discussion about an infill construction project. He stated that he could not take part in the
Page 21 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
voting or discussion, but stood at the podium and offered his input from a resident perspective. He stated
that he found that the relationship with the builder was a key element in how well the project went. He
stated that the City records are all transparent and are considered public record and residents are welcome
to come in and review the documents. He encouraged Mr. Lowe to try to find some common ground with
the builder because that will be key to whether this project goes well or not. He noted that the
Commission and City Council really won't be able to do anything outside of the things already outlined
by Commissioner Thiesse.
Mr. Lowe thanked Commissioner Libby for his comments. He stated that he wanted to recognize and
thank Mr. Barnhart for his outstanding service and work as a liaison on this matter and thanked the
Commission for their time and attention.
8. LA20-000009, DON GAMBLE, 2480 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN, 9:18 P.M. — 9:53
P.M.
Don Gamble, Property Owner, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Ressler asked when the last time the City was able to do a subdivision with an inferior lot size
requirement.
Barnhart stated that he cannot remember one especially along the lake. He stated that he believes there
may be one on Leaf Street but does not think the Council has done one in the 5 years he has been with the
City.
Ressler asked about the total combined lot size for these two lots.
Barnhart stated that the size would be a little over 3 acres and on the surface, it looks like there should be
able to be 4 lots however, the inlet is at a bad spot.
Thiesse stated that would just mean the north lots would not have Lakeshore access.
Ressler stated that is the point he was trying to get at.
Barnhart stated the land areas are not contiguous, which raises some challenges.
Libby stated that he has a fairly long history and knowledge of this property. He noted that there was a
historic fire station where the townhomes are now located. He stated that he and his wife looked at this
lagoon as an attractive alternative to being located on the main part of the lake. He stated that for a very
long time, these parcels, because they are intersected by the access to the lake and the lagoon is that they
have been historically perceived as 3 separate entire parcels. He stated that because there is a body in
between the two free standing lots separated from the front lake shore lots, he believes there is a logic that
cannot be denied about how these things have been geographically laid out by Mother Nature. He noted
that this is a sketch plan and discussion of the feasibility of what the applicant is trying to do. He
reiterated that this has historically been portrayed as 2 different parcels including the larger rectangular
and the one on the south side of the lagoon that abuts Lake Minnetonka.
Page 22 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Ressler stated that he believes that deliberation can happen with the applicant.
Don Gamble, 10704 Water Lily Lane, Woodbury, gave a brief description of his history in the City. He
noted that he sold property that was discussed earlier tonight at 505 Willow and noted that he graduated
from the high school across the street and helped build the first condominiums in downtown Wayzata in
the 1970s. He stated that he has been working with the separate land owners for a while trying to find the
highest and best use. He explained that they found that separating through the water the north lots
become non -conforming even though they are bigger than everything around them. He stated that he had
suggested bringing in more dirt in order to create larger lots and was told that probably wouldn't work.
He stated that other than that there is no way the lots can be anything other than what they have been
forever. He stated that the City of Navarre has identified the north portions of the lots and have included
them in their 2040 plan as separate lots in their urban plan. He agreed with Commissioner Libby's input
that historically this has been looked at as separate lots with separate zoning. He stated that he does not
understand how it happened if the intent was not for it to be separate. He noted that there is curb cut
access to the north but you cannot get there from the south houses other than by using Shoreline Drive.
He asked if he was correct in thinking that the County wanted wider easement.
Barnhart stated that he believes the County wants additional right-of-way.
Mr. Gamble stated that there is no point in looking at flood plains or other details if they cannot subdivide
the south homes as they exist. He noted that representatives of the different land owners are also present
tonight if the Commission has questions.
Ressler stated that he recognizes this property because when the Commission was looking at the
Comprehensive Plan, he remembers discussion of whether something different could be done with this
property. He stated that he wonders if it is zoned separately because the structure to the south preceded
the changing of how this was guided. He stated that he has never seen one lot that has two guided uses.
Barnhart stated that it does not happen very often and does not always line up with property lines as is the
case here. He stated that in terms of the Navarre area and connecting it to the lake, the consultant
planners saw that there was vacant property and lake frontage so they felt it was a great idea. He stated
that when it was rolled out to the public, the consultant planners learned that it was not quite the great
spot that they had imagined. He explained that this is why is shows up in their Comprehensive Plan and
noted that connection to the lake was studied, but the Navarre plan ended up going in a different direction,
Thiesse asked if it could be construed that the City was expecting this to be separated since it was guided
in 2 different directions.
Barnhart stated that he thinks that assessment would be a stretch.
Curtis stated that she thinks the zoning was based on distance from the street.
Barnhart agreed that was possible and noted that he was not part of the discussion of where that line was
drawn.
Bollis asked if the property was zoned differently or just guided differently.
Barnhart stated that it is zoned differently.
Page 23 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Libby stated that the reason he shared his historical perspectives earlier is because of the comments that
the northerly lots did not have lakeshore access. He stated that it is actually quite the contrary, because if
you actually go into the lagoon, with a watercraft, and look at the way the docks are situated, there is not a
depravation of lake shore access to those northerly lots.
Thiesse stated that he cannot get behind separating lots to create substandard lots. He stated that the
Commission could spend all day talking about it because it is a great idea, but it is creating substandard
lots. He stated that he feels the Council will probably say no to this plan.
Libby stated that the 2 front lots are owned by different parties and if they were combined then the front
lot would be conforming so there could be 3 lots.
Mr. Gamble stated that he sees Commissioner Thiesse's point that it becomes nonconforming by drawing
a line through the pond and yet they are more conforming than any of the neighbors.
Thiesse stated that he is not arguing that point, but it is not just up to him or the Commission.
Mr. Gamble stated that he cannot see another way to make this more conforming. He is asking for
guidance from the Commission on what he can do.
Bollis stated that his only suggestion is to try to combine the 2 southern pieces.
Libby asked if these lots were seasonally wet.
Mr. Gamble stated that there was a type of soil that was identified as having sat under water at some
point. He stated that he spoke with the County who put in a culvert that changed the drainage of the
property in the area. He stated that the County told them that it is not their water after it comes out of the
pipe.
Ressler stated that the biggest thing the Commission has regarding feedback is that variances exist for
mitigating reasons. He stated that he wants Mr. Gamble to know that his points have been heard. He
stated that he cannot discourage Mr. Gamble from applying, but historically speaking this type of thing
has been opposed and denied. He stated that this will ultimately be at the discretion of the Council.
Erickson stated that he and Commissioner Thiesse have come to the exact same conclusion for exact
opposite reasons. He stated that he is not concerned about the 2 homes to the south continuing to be 2
homes to the south. He stated that he is very concerned about the traffic levels on County Road 15 and
creating another access there and agrees with the County transportation department's statement regarding
access. He stated that he thinks the problem with access is why this land has been for sale for so many
years and nobody bought it because people most likely do not want to build a new home on a road that
has 20,000 cars a day driving by. He stated that even if Mr. Gamble could get this approved, he thinks it
would be a property that would be forever discounted and does not feel this is suitable for privately
owned single-family home. He stated that he sees this being more suitable for a multi -family rental or
small office building use but would still need a way to deal with the access issues.
Libby stated that the Hennepin County plan for Shoreline Drive and the intersection at 19 and 15, will
have the right-of-way changed significantly as well as the construction and reorientation of the
Page 24 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
intersection will dramatically change the traffic flow. He stated that might be useful information for
planning for this lot in the long run.
Barnhart asked if there were any new comments from the Commission.
Mr. Gamble stated that he has heard lots of ideas for addressing the north side of the lot but cannot
subdivide the south lots because they will become non -conforming. He stated that has been the minor
part of the conversation and he would like that to become the primary part of the conversation because if
they cannot cut the line there then the rest of it doesn't matter.
Ressler stated that he agrees that the rest of the discussion doesn't matter if that line cannot be cut.
Barnhart stated that Mr. Gamble has received feedback from the Commission and thinks it is appropriate
to hear feedback from the Council and then see about moving forward to the next option.
Mr. Gamble asked when this would come before the Council.
Barnhart answered that the Council will discuss this on March 9, 2020.
9. LA19-000091 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO GRADING AND
LAND ALTERATIONS, INCLUDING SLOPE FAILURES, 9:53 P.M. —10:21 P.M.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Libby asked if this was specifically referring to the lake shore envelope 75 feet from the ordinary high
water.
Barnhart stated that this is referring to all grading and land alteration in the City.
Thiesse stated that now that he understands it, he would like to put back in the number of inches of trees
for a tree that is removed for convenience.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 9:56 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 9:56 p.m.
Ressler asked Commissioner Thiesse to reiterate his feedback.
Thiesse stated that now that he understands the inches of trees, he would like to see that information put
back in.
Ressler stated that on the tree side of things, replacing the same diameter of what your cutting down is
something he agrees with and is in the spirit of what the City should have done.
Thiesse stated that he may add a minimum diameter to the language.
Page 25 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Libby stated that was how he first pictured it but there are tree companies out there that have equipment
that is capable of replacing very large trees.
Bollis stated that it would be difficult to get that equipment in within 75 feet of the lake.
Libby stated that when the equipment is capable of accessing the area, they can replace the large trees.
Ressler likes the idea of putting a minimum diameter size and asked what size he would propose as the
minimum.
Thiesse suggested 3 inches.
Barnhart stated that he would suggest 1 inch in diameter because some trees, like oak trees, transplant
better when they are smaller.
Libby asked if a 1 -inch tree was larger or smaller than a sapling.
Barnhart stated that it was larger than a sapling.
Bollis asked if anyone was in favor of a less than 1:1 ratio. He expressed concern about over foresting the
area.
Barnhart stated that there is language in the ordinance regarding Staff approval.
Ressler stated that if Staff has the ability to intervene then perhaps the Commission doesn't need to be put
in minimum diameter standards.
Curtis stated that the ordinance needs to have a starting point which is doesn't currently have.
Bollis reiterated his question on whether anyone was in favor of a less than 1:1 replacement. He stated
that he could argue in favor of a 50% caliper inch replacement in order to ensure the trees planted will
thrive. He gave the example of cutting down a 30 -inch tree and the replacement would be the equivalent
of 15 inches.
Barnhart stated that what he has seen in the past is a tiered system which if it is over a certain amount, the
requirement would be decreased. He stated that he thinks that type of system could be worked into the
ordinance.
Libby asked if Staff could consult with an arborist to make sure they are pursing the correct replacement
level.
Barnhart stated that he would prefer a tiered system as discussed. He stated that this is only talking about
healthy trees that are removed based on convenience.
Libby noted that Staff cannot be an expert in every area and feels that an arborist may be needed.
Barnhart stated that they could contact an arborist, but explained that it is likely that they would not. He
stated that it becomes more of a space issue and he doesn't necessarily want to spend taxpayer money on
Page 26 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
an arborist to help with a free permit. He reiterated that he feels a tiered or sliding scale system may be
the direction to go.
Ressler stated that he agreed with a tiered system. He noted that he did not want to spend a lot of time on
this issue because there is a lot of ground to cover, but noted that some thought should be given to
whether it is a nuisance tree as well. He gave the example of taking down a cottonwood and not having to
replace it with a cottonwood.
Curtis stated that may lead to people clearing their lots of large, mature buckthorn which can create
problems from an aesthetic point and it would qualify as clear cutting.
Erickson noted that Plymouth, at one time, had a full-time forester on staff, so it may be helpful to take a
look at some of their ordinances to see what they have done in some of these situations. He stated that
may be a way to gather information for free without having to consult an arborist.
Ressler stated that he is in favor of a sliding scale of some sort, in lieu of a 1:1 replacement.
Libby stated that he doesn't think any of the ideas are bad, but when it is exposed to scrutiny from
property owners, they may want to know how the City came to these standards without consulting the
experts. He stated that he is concerned that this will expose the City and things will be determined by the
City Attorney rather than an arborist because the City has a rule that was set up arbitrarily by people
simply guessing.
Ressler stated that he feels the spirit of this whole thing is trying to eliminate some of the applications that
the City is receiving that require variances and things of that nature. He stated that if there can be a
language change that helps reduce those applications and not expose the City to other issues such as those
raised by Commissioner Libby, because there will be circumstances where it will not make sense to do
any of the things being put into place.
Libby stated that he is not objecting to Barnhart's proposal but sees a potential avenue for residents
contending this.
Thiesse stated that residents are free to get their own arborist and come in and tell the City how it should
be.
Ressler stated that he thinks that is good feedback for this portion of the ordinance. He suggested moving
the discussion to the process for when there is slope failure. He stated that the discussion that took place
at the work session was that there should be some discretion given to the City Engineer and give the
option of expediting directly to City Council for a hearing, discussion, and ruling for mitigating that
situation. He asked if anyone on the Commission had a different recollection of the work session
discussion.
The Commission agreed that this was what was discussed.
Barnhart stated that the goal of this from the beginning was to address slope failures and try to avoid the
interim use permit process. He stated that the earlier discussion was about the identifying the emergency
slope failures that would skip the interim use process and go straight to Council, possibly without the
Page 27 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
public hearing process, because that is time consuming. He stated that the draft ordinance does not
include this alternate language yet, but he will try to find a way to fit that in.
Ressler stated that the other thing discuss was the amount of grading and what can be used for
import/export and stockpiling. He read aloud the language from the draft ordinance and noted that he is
fine it is as proposed.
Bollis stated that he would suggest having another column for rural areas or agricultural areas.
Barnhart stated that the earlier discussion was lot size and noted that he will work on making those
changes.
Ressler stated that he has notes about haul route standards and noted that discussion was about adding
language about using City roads in lieu of County roads whenever possible.
Oakden noted that it should be County roads in lieu of City roads.
Ressler stated that he would supports that change.
Barnhart asked if he would prefer that over the language that is currently written on line 390.
Ressler stated that he thinks it just clarifies that the City would prefer that people use County Roads rather
that City or private roads when possible and helps clean up the text.
Thiesse noted that there are other types of roads too such as State Highways.
Barnhart stated that he will make changes based on what he heard from discussion. He explained that
Staff is requesting approval subject to the comments made this evening and noted that his goal is not to
have the Commission review this information again, however, the Commission could table it and discuss
it again next month if they would like. He noted that after the Commission has reviewed this, the Council
will review it and also provide feedback. He stated that then he will submit it to the DNR for their review
in a "near final" form.
Libby stated that he understands this is an attempt the simplify the language. He asked what the average
high-water level is.
Oakden stated that it is 929.4 for Lake Minnetonka.
Libby stated that having seen alteration projects in and around Orono there is one component that is
influential and not mentioned. He stated that the DNR has been mentioned on a number of occasions
where the alterations are applicable, but the MCWD has way more governance than the DNR.
Barnhart stated that generally the City asks, for example, the MCWD to give verification that they don't
need an erosion permit or that they do.
Libby stated that this document is guidance for the City, but also guidance for the consumer so things can
be done by the book. He stated that the DNR is mentioned and he doesn't understand why the MCWD is
not mentioned.
Page 28 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Curtis explained that their governance is different that the City's and the purpose for their rules are
different.
Libby stated that he feels the same can be said for the DNR. He stated that he doesn't understand why the
City would not impart to the public that both the DNR and the MCWD have governance and authority.
Barnhart stated that he feels the City does impart this information in handouts, but doesn't necessarily
think it should be put into the Code. He stated that the DNR has shoreland regulations that pertain to
many of the things included in the ordinance. He stated that he needs to send a copy of the draft to the
DNR because the City was proposing changes to the regulations as it applies to the Shoreland Overlay
District. He reiterated that the MCWD is referenced in information that is available to people that some
permitting may be required.
Oakden explained that the MCWD doesn't regulate the City's Code like the DNR does and requires the
City to have certain language included for protection of the waterways. She explained that this is why
this document references the DNR so much.
Libby thanked Oakden for that clear explanation.
Oakden stated that the City does notify the public that the City coordinates with the MCWD, but noted
that she does not feel it needs to be included in the Code.
Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000091 City of
Orono, Text Amendment related to Grading and Land Alterations, including slope failures, subject
to the changes identified at the work shop and public hearing, as discussed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
10. LA19-000103 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO LICENSING FOR
MARINAS AND JOINT USE DOCK AND DOCK PERMITTING 10:21 P.M.- 10:31 P.M.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Ressler asked for clarification if the City was striking the requirement for permitting.
Barnhart explained that Lines 11-15 of the draft ordinance clarify the permitting. He stated that the
language is a little clunky right now and he plans to ask the City Attorney to modify the language.
Ressler stated that he likes the gist of the changes.
Libby clarified that most docks are seasonal, and asked if new installations would require a permit, but
then when they need to put their dock back in again in a new season, they would not require another
permit.
Barnhart confirmed that right now people only need a permit to put their dock in for the first time. He
stated that for seasonal docks for homeowners with lakeshore property a permit is not required every year.
He stated that there are 11 joint use docks throughout the community that currently requires a permit
every year. He stated that the suggestion is that the City remove the requirement for a permit in those
situations, but if you were to initiate a joint use dock then a permit is required.
Page 29 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
6:00 p.m.
Libby stated that this seems to be in the spirit of simplification and asked if it would change any of the
controversial issues that the City has had where there is enforcement for a permit for a dock.
Barnhart stated that he didn't think so because those issues weren't related to the permit process but to
dock rental which is a separate issue.
Ressler stated that he thinks this is giving up something that is a formality but not giving up any of the
regulatory rights. He asked if this same situation applied for Lines 66-68 and whether there would be a
financial impact of not having the annual licensing.
Barnhart stated that Lines 66-68 simply removes the requirement for licensing and later on in the
document it lists the standards that are still in place.
Libby left the chambers at 10:28 p.m.
Barnhart noted that for a variety of reasons, the City has not issued licenses since about 2005. He stated
that most of the business standards are listed on Line 111.
Ressler clarified that he supports cleaning up this language, as suggested.
The Commission agreed.
Libby returned to the chambers at 10:29 p.m.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.
Libby moved, Erickson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000103 City of
Orono, Text Amendment related to licensing for Marinas and Joint Use Dock and Dock Permitting,
subject to feedback provided to the Staff. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
11. UPDATE ON MARCH 9, 2020, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Ressler noted that Commissioner Bollis will be the Commission representative at the March 9, 2020
Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Thiesse moved, Bollis seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10:31 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
Jon Ressler, Chair
Page 30 of 30