Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-15-2020 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Jon Ressler(arrived at 6:06 p.m.), Vice-Chair Bob Erickson, Commissioners Chris Bollis,Matt Gettman (arrived at 6:03 p.m. electronically), Scott Kirchner, and Dennis Libby. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden. Vice-Chair Erickson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. OATH OF OFFICE- SCOTT KIRCHNER Barnhart stated Kirchner was appointed as a Planning Commissioner effective April 1, 2020. Kirchner was sworn in and welcomed. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 18,2020 Gettman arrived electronically at 6:03 p.m. Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of May 18,2020,as submitted.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Barnhart reminded Vice-Chair Erickson that there needed to be a roll call vote. Erickson noted he would put in his hearing aids during a break. Libby moved,as a Point of Order,to re-vote by name call on the previous vote. Erickson asked for a clarification. Libby asked for a re-vote on the last item by having a roll call vote. Erickson clarified that it was regarding the minutes. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 5(Libby,Bollis,Kirchner,Erickson, Gettman),Nays 0. Barnhart noted there were five ayes for the minutes on the last motion. He stated the next item is the agenda. Ressler arrived at 6:06 p.m. Barnhart stated Chair Ressler would be taking over the meeting; and since one Commissioner was participating electronically, a roll call is needed on each vote. He noted the minutes are approved and the agenda needs to be approved. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Page 1 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded,to approve the Agenda for the June 15,2020 Planning Commission meeting.VOTE: Ayes 6(Gettman,Kirchner,Bollis, Erickson,Libby,Ressler),Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA20-000037 TIM HANSON,2645 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCE, 6:08 P.M.-6:34 P.M. Tim Hanson,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Mr. Tim Hanson and Ms. Carrie Noble,2645 Casco Point Road,thanked the Planning Commission for consideration of the variance request. Mr. Hanson said it has been a long-time dream and goal to live on the lake. He has been a member of the Orono community for 11 years; he lives by the Crystal Bay Post Office. He stated Ms.Nobles has two young daughters and they are joining families. He said a few things they have done to hopefully alleviate things is,they are six feet back from the setback to the lake. They did that so they can give the neighbors the views they are looking for and to be considerate of the neighbors. They are going to work with a drainage company to make drainage similar to their neighbor's. They have also adjusted the house so it does not fill the whole structural surface that they could put in. He noted the street is pretty busy with a lot of pedestrians walking, and with the possibility of jockeying cars around in the driveway and having a car in the street,that may create blind views for other cars coming down the street. He distributed a picture to the Commissioners of Ms.Nobles mowing the lawn of the lot and noted that is a fairly recent Sheriff sign or City of Orono sign which was placed as you take a left into Casco Point Road and drive about 1 '/2 blocks; it is on the right side where the park starts and one block before their house. He does not know if there have been safety issues in the past or why the sign had to be put up,but that they've thought about whether the proposed driveway is a need. They could narrow it down,but with girls that are about to have a license,that would be jockeying cars around in the driveway. They already had the architect make a skinny three-car garage so they can drive directly out of the driveway. They have also moved the house back from the lot line six feet. He called attention to the walkway up to the front entrance and said they are installing 140 square feet of pervious pavers and will get 100 square feet of credit. He stated there is no curb at the previous driveway apron/street at the lot line. Even with the three-car straight driveway down,there will still be no curb for about 3-4 feet to the right. They are proposing to fix that curb all the way up to the driveway. As far as landscaping design, they are going to look for the types of plants and bushes that are going to be more deep-rooted bushes and have a wider root system to help with the drainage. Erickson asked what the width of the proposed driveway is. Mr. Hanson said it is the width of the garage,which is 28 feet. Ressler asked if the garage would be 28 feet wide and 30.5 deep. Mr. Hanson stated he was correct. He noted that the apron at the bottom of the driveway extends out farther because that is the way it is currently. They are proposing to fix the area so that the curb goes right up to the driveway. Page 2 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ms.Noble said if you park on the street on Casco Point Road, it is pretty much a one-lane, and people have to stop to let other cars go by. The kids next door are 8 and 10 and constantly riding their bikes around, and it gets pretty dangerous with the blind spots. With the bike path being close, walkers and runners are also in the community. The variance would allow them to keep cars in the driveway. Ressler stated,when looking at the application, it appears that it fits in with the spirit of the neighborhood and it does not seem like they are overbuilding. The Staff seems to be in support of everything. The hardcover is where the deliberation begins. Bollis asked if there is a limit for the credit they can get with the pervious hardcover. Curtis said the hardcover code allows Staff to take 100 square feet of pervious pavement off of their calculation if they build it that way. The Applicant is proposing additional pervious pavers to offset their overages. Ressler asked if the calculations from the survey take into consideration the 100 square feet of credit. Curtis stated the Staff report provided hardcover calculations; she corrected them. They are proposing 3,136 square feet of hardcover, including the credit. Ressler noted it would be 3,096 if the full 140 would be credited. Curtis said initially they were taking off the entire walkway;the surveyor misinterpreted the credit. Ressler asked if the City's guidelines call for a maximum of 2,872 of hardcover. Curtis stated that number was accurate. Libby noted it was nice that Staff expressed the overage in a percentage, but he was trying to figure it out in square feet. He said it would appear that 264 square feet is roughly the equivalent of the difference of the allowable hard surface and what the homeowner would like to go with. He felt that was the equivalent of a one-car garage. The handicap is the idea of building a three-car garage, and the Applicant is creating their own circumstances by adding another single-car garage. He said he loves large garages as he collects old cars;the more garage stalls,the better. The difficulty that is arising is from building a third garage stall;the practical difficulty is invented by the desire to have the three-car garage. The 264 is roughly the square footage difference between the allowable and what the Applicant would like to be able to build on. Curtis confirmed Libby's comments. Ressler said the Applicant stated one of the practical difficulties for use is the two teenage drivers. The Commission's deliberation also is that if there are two vehicles parked,they would probably not get two cars parked in front of each other in 30 feet without hanging over the road. You would not be able to get around them side-by-side, either. Libby commented that he did not mean to be insensitive about that issue. He is a grandfather with three daughters, eight granddaughters, and many of them have transitioned through the life cycle of learning how to drive and getting a driver's license and a car.He said it can be touchy as they learn to drive, Page 3 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. whether it is a boy or girl. He is talking about factual metrics of the practical difficulty which is created by adding another garage stall. Erickson,referencing the Applicant's photograph,said it shows the width of the street appears to be quite narrow. He asked if Staff knew the pavement width at that location. Curtis said she did not know the width at the particular location. She stated there are varying widths of pavement on Casco Point Road; she could provide the answer,but not today. Erickson stated that from the photo it appears narrow, and he is willing to believe the Applicant's statement that it is very narrow and limited for thru-traffic. With that in mind,it affects his opinion as far as the variance for the driveway, because what they are doing by having an adequate driveway provides an opportunity for off-street parking. On-street parking does not appear to be a very good option in the location. He is leaning towards supporting all of the variances, including the hardcover. The 2%over the recommended limit is a relatively small price to pay for the public benefit of off-street parking. Bollis said he tends to echo Erickson's opinion in this case and is in favor of approval given the safety aspect of it.The Applicants have gone above and beyond to mitigate the hardcover as much as they can with the pavers and the consideration of moving the house back from the lake and the lot lines,etc. He thinks it is a pretty reasonable request. Kirchner stated he agrees with Bollis as far as the appreciation the Applicants have made in regards to reducing some of the hardcover with the paver pathway and pulling the house back six feet from the line. He struggles because of the Applicant's own admission that it is a matter of convenience; he does not know that it falls into the City's practical difficulties then. He noted at the last meeting a family was denied the convenience of a third stall based on hardcover;the Commission recommended denial. The Commission seems to be stuck on the hardcover being for the driveway or for the third stall; he thinks it is important to consider that the hardcover is all-inclusive. The variance is not for the driveway;the variance is not for the third stall;the variance is for the project in general and all aspects of the project. He does not know if hardcover can be reduced elsewhere throughout the project. Based on his thoughts, he does not believe he would support the hardcover variance but would support the lot width and lot area variance. Gettman commented that the hardcover is the real question, and whether or not having the third stall is overcoming the practical difficulty of having a narrow road in front of their house. He is still struggling with it and will listen more to everybody to decide how to vote. Ressler stated structure is really difficult to overlook versus hardcover, which is a little easier to understand. He recalled there were Applicants on North Shore Drive where the Commission was looking at denying the garage stall but they were able to give hardcover for parking, allowing the ability to park versus adding a stall. He thinks part of the practical difficulty is on the onus of the public; it becomes a public practical difficulty if the parking spills over into the street,with the element of Casco Point Road probably not being in a position to expand anytime soon. He is in support of the application for that reason, inclusive of the hardcover. Regardless of the outcome,the Commission has made some good notes for the City Council to consider. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Page 4 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Heath Burris, 15535 52nd Place North, Plymouth, said he is the builder and has built a few homes on this lake and other lakes in the metro area. In other cities around Lake Minnetonka,they have come up with a joint engineered plan with the watershed, like Minnehaha Watershed District,to help offset the additional hardcover. He said he would like the Commission to take into consideration, in trying to offset the additional 2%,they have come up with joint engineering plans to make a french drain/french garden, where they are taking a certain percentage of rainwater off of the roof and putting it into a french drain/garden, which offsets some of the additional stormwater because they are going over the 25%total hardcover. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA20-000037 Tim Hanson,2645 Casco Point Road, Variance,and noted he would approve all of the variances.Roll Call Vote: Ayes 6(Libby,Erickson, Bollis,Kirchner, Gettman,Ressler),Nays 0. 2. LA20-000039 JOHN& SHERRY GORMAN,3585 FREDERICK STREET,VARIANCE, 6:34 P.M. - 6:50 P.M. Sherry Gorman,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Ms. Sherry Gorman, 3585 Frederick Street, said she and her husband bought the house 11 years ago. When they were looking for a house on the lake,they were not looking for a pool,although this house did have a pool, which has its own significant hardcover requirements.They loved that the house sits on a hill,the view is amazing, it is on the far end of Carman Bay,and has a southern exposure. They saw the size of the house being relatively small to be able to still fit their needs as they moved into retirement. She stated there are several things that make the lot unique, one of which is the lot itself is a triangle. They own 23 feet at the lake and 130 feet by the street. Their house is built up on the hillside which requires retaining walls, sidewalks, and walkways. The driveway is very long and loops around in a circle.A couple of things that make the house unique is that it was built in 1966, when most families were one-car families. It is currently a two-car garage. It also has limitations in terms of the ceiling height in the garage. The back half is only six feet and nine inches and the front half is only nine feet,so it does not allow for a lot of storage. Their practical difficulty is the lack of storage. They have a need to store patio furniture, ladders, and paddleboards.They currently rent a storage unit at Metro Storage in Spring Park for$200 a month/$2,400 a year. It is not the dollar amount that is prohibitive. However, each year they have to rent a truck,go to and from the storage unit 3-4 times. They load up the cart,pull the cart to the truck, load up the truck, drive home,unload the truck, and carry it to the back yard. The bottom line is,they are getting kind of old. She referenced the plan for the three-car garage and said they would basically lay it on top of the current driveway and would give back the rest of the leg of the driveway so they can reduce their hardcover, which was over when they purchased the house. She referenced a close-up view of the six-nine area of the garage and said they are looking for that area to be the area for the new storage unit. They would wall off the area with the six-nine ceiling, put their patio furniture there, and add a backdoor access to be able to carry things to and from the backyard. The three-car garage would sit on top of what the current driveway is today. She discussed the elevation drawing. She said on the neighbor's side they tried to make it appealing to them by adding rock all the way around to make it look consistent with the front of the house and then add unique windows,etc., in the back so it did not look like they were adding a wall that would be facing them. Their neighbors have indicated they are very pleased with what they see. She Page 5 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. stated they would do some things with landscaping as well. She referenced the existing hardcover calculations displayed and the loop driveway. She indicated they are at 34.3%existing today and the proposed hardcover is putting the three-car garage on the driveway and taking off the leg, which is a little over 1,000 square feet of hardcover,taking them down to 29.62%. She noted the current hardcover is 34.4%and proposed hardcover is 29.4%, a reduction of 5%. Orono has the ruling of 25%, and they are still over what they are supposed to be and are asking for a variance of 4.4%. They are hoping the Commissioners can view it from the standpoint that they are decreasing their hardcover and also increasing the property value of the house by adding the three-car garage. They think they are improving the street appeal of the house. For their neighbors, it will help because then they will not have to put anything extra outside on the lawn or driveway. She thanked the Commissioners for their consideration. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Mr.John Daly, Revision, LLC, 153 East Lake Street, Wayzata, said he has been working with the Gormans on the design and layout of the structure. He stated if the Commissioners had any questions regarding the construction or design, he would be happy to answer them. He pointed out that the house being original to 1960 and the Gormans being interested in keeping the home,the existing garage width is just under 22 feet. It does not work very well to get two vehicles into the garage. When they were designing the plans of what should be done,they were trying to capture some of the existing garage space for the new garage space but realizing they needed some of the width to be able to store their everyday vehicles. From a design standpoint, a sideload was a way of reducing hardcover. It was also consistent with other homes on the street;the four properties to the east all have sideload garages. They reduced hardcover but allowed for off-street parking. He noted Gormans are on a curve of Frederick Street. He said the first time he pulled up to the property, he wasn't quite sure if he could even park in the street. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Ressler stated some things to note is they are meeting other setback requirements,they are reducing their hardcover by 900 square feet, and they are not going lakeward. Their rear setback is 99 feet where it is required to be 30;that definitely identifies the long driveway which is demonstrative of the pie-shaped lot. Kirchner said some additional things he appreciates in the application is that the Applicants are reducing their hardcover.Not only are they reducing it, but the proposed addition is over an already-existing hardcover, and they are taking it a step further and removing additional hardcover beyond that, about 4 '''/%. He thinks they are getting as close to compliance as possible without the City saying part of their house would have to be taken down. He does not know how else the City would get them in compliance. Bollis stated he agreed that it is a thoughtful plan, perfectly placed hardcover put over existing hardcover, and remove what is not necessary to get it as conforming as possible. He also likes that they went a step above and considered the neighbors and the back side of the garage and made sure it doesn't look like the back side of a garage. He is in favor of the variance. Erickson noted there are two factors that he thinks speak very positively for the variance: first,they are making a significant step in the right direction in reducing what was previously existing; second,the Applicants have unique factors that speak strongly for the variance,which is the triangular lot. Page 6 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby said he tends to agree with the other Commissioners, in particular Erickson's observation of the quickly narrowing triangular lot to the lakeside. Unless there is something that would be egregious to its eventual decision by the Council,he is also in favor of approving the variance. Gettman stated he is in favor of the proposal for all of the reasons stated. Ressler said with Orono being so heavy with lakeshore property, pie-shaped lots are almost textbook situations for a lot of the applications. He thinks this is not as unique per some of the other applications; they have approved them under similar circumstances.As noted,they always like to see the improvement of conditions which has been demonstrated in the application. He supports the application. Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve LA20-000039 John& Sherry Gorman,3585 Frederick Street,Variance.Roll Call Vote: Ayes 6 (Libby,Erickson,Bollis,Kirchner,Gettman, Ressler),Nays 0. 3. LA19-000065 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: SUBDIVISIONS,6:50 P.M.- 7:56 P.M. Barnhart noted this is the first review of the subdivision code. Staff and the City Attorney have reviewed the subdivision code the last 5-6 months to make the ordinance easy to understand and apply for the users as they look to subdivide their property. He stated that subdivision is the act of creating a new lot. A plat is the document that shows that new lot. People often use the terms interchangeably, so the modification will try to correct that issue. State statute identifies what a subdivision is, so Staff looks at what those are and provides a review process for those types of scenarios. There are definitions in the zoning ordinance and the subdivision ordinance,which are both part of City Code. They don't always match, which is maddening for both Staff and the public. Staff looked to combine those where they could. State statute talks about the Community Management Plan or the Comprehensive Plan. When the Comp Plan was approved last year,they created and identified a Community Management Plan, so a definition was created in the code which links the Community Management Plan which, in effect, is a Comprehensive Plan; and they made it link to their subdivision code. He said they removed the classification of subdivisions. The Class 1, 2, 3 designations were based on if there were any public or private improvements. The vast majority were Class 3.Now there is one classification and one process. He noted that State statute allows a minor subdivision process,where you are creating four or less lots and no public improvements, and it is a simpler process to get a subdivision improved. In those situations,the Planning Commission meeting is skipped and it goes straight to the Council for review. He does not recommend doing that because most of our subdivisions are four or less lots and would fall within that criteria. Also, some of the 1-2 lot subdivisions create a considerable amount of public interest, and he would prefer to keep that at the Planning Commission level for the public hearing. He is open for comments on that issue. This draft requires all subdivisions to be done as part of a plat,trying to avoid a metes-and-bounds description which creates challenges down the line for the future owner and the City if there are any modifications to the property line or any easements. It may not pay dividends immediately but will do so going down the road. The draft also adjusts the security for plat improvements. If someone has a subdivision and is required to build a road or do a stormwater management plan,they incur cost. Currently,the security requirement is 150%of the improvement cost; Staff is recommending it drop down to 125%,which is more in line with industry requirements. Staff has a proposed removal of the different requirements for non-residential subdivisions. 99.9%of the subdivisions are for residential. He also pointed out the code prohibits flag lots but does not define what a Page 7 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. flag lot is. Usually a flag lot means the buildable portion of the lot is in the shape of a flag and the flagpole is often the access point. The proposed ordinance defines what a flag lot is. The Conservation Design Plan is required for most subdivisions that are over three acres or have a density of more than one unit per acre. Staff is proposing redefining what the triggers are. If someone is doing a residential subdivision more than five acres in area and guided for urban density or is more than three units an acre, a Conservation Design Plan is needed. He thinks they are more reasonable in terms of impact to the natural environment. They did not change what is involved in a conservation design,just the triggers. He referenced recent subdivisions such as the YMCA property and 690 Brown Road would still trigger a Conservation Design Plan. He noted it would apply to subdivisions that have an impact to the natural environment or are part of the character of a given neighborhood. Many 1-2 lot subdivisions likely would not require a Conservation Design Plan. Ressler asked if this document is amending things so it would not be required but the Planning Commission could still request/require it during deliberations. Barnhart said this requires it in situation A or B; situation C allows the Council to waive it, which would likely be part of a sketch plan. He stated there is not a mechanism to require it if one of the triggers are not met. If that is important to the Planning Commission and/or City Council,the trigger can be lowered or provide an avenue where, if it is a defined unique feature, it would be worked into the area. He reiterated that A and B establish triggers, and C allows the Council to waive those in situations where a Conservation Design Plan does not necessarily add to the subdivision review process. He noted that anything that is added as a requirement translates to cost for the developer and end-users, and the Comp Plan tried to address/identify ways to avoid unnecessary expenses if possible. Some situations, such as those listed,translate to a requirement;the other ones probably do not. He noted that Erickson commented on the cul-de-sac question, and he would look into that more. One line suggests cul-de-sacs are prohibited;the next line says if you have a dead-end street,you have to have a cul-de-sac. There is a distinction. There is the temporary dead-end street and eventually the road will continue, or a permanent dead-end street or permanent cul-de-sac. Staff will clarify that in the future drafts.He does not recommend adopting the minor subdivisions changes, but it could be revisited over the next couple of years. He noted there is an appeal process in the code.The Planning Commission is the body to listen to appeals from the zoning ordinance; he recommends the Planning Commission also be the appeal process for the subdivision code. Gettman noted the conservation design goes hand-in-hand with the park requirements. He said Barnhart mentioned looking at the Plymouth model and asked if Barnhart was able to expand on that. Barnhart stated the comment about the Plymouth model was made by the City Attorney. There is going to be a point in the near future where the City will need to review/revise the mechanism for how park dedication is extracted,as it should be reviewed every 7-10 years. He is not proposing changes to park dedication at this stage. That requires quite a bit of study. In addition, he asked if the City Council/Planning Commission wished to define appropriate street tree types, that some cities have a list of allowable trees they want planted in their right-of-way. He noted if the Planning Commission has a strong opinion either way, he would be happy to incorporate that into the document. Bollis noted, in Section 82-83,the 120-day language is being removed. He is curious what that reverts to. Page 8 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said it is the City Attorney's opinion that if it is in the State statute,the City does not need to restate it.The City has 120 days to act on a preliminary plat application. For a final plat,it is 60 days;the final plat can be extended another 60 days by notice before the first 60 days expires. That is written in the State statue and the City is purposely not restating what the State statute says. Bollis said, in Section 82-84, Line 623, it is saying the City Administrator shall classify the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 82-15 but that the City is doing away with the classification. Barnhart thanked Bollis for catching the error. Bollis asked, in Section 82-112, Line 727, Item c, if he was correct that that is currently not in the code but is additional. Barnhart stated if the information is underlined, it is not included in the code. Bollis said he is not in favor of adding additional requirements upon Applicants. Barnhart referred to the language: "Where the subdivider is the owner or intends to attempt to acquire the property adjacent to that property which is being proposed for the subdivision,the Planning Commission may require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and any future subdivision,"and stated the idea is more of a comprehensive planning approach to a piecemeal subdivision as far as how it fits together so the City knows where roads should continue through or if they should, how stormwater is managed, etc., to get a sketch plan. Kirchner referenced the language, "Where the subdivider is the owner or intends to attempt to acquire," and asked how the City determines that someone has submitted their sketch plan and gotten approval for the lot and now the person bought the lot next door, but at the time they submitted that application and got approval,they were not intending to purchase the other one. He said it seems difficult to enforce or have guidance. Barnhart stated it is more for the situations where the property owner comes forward and says, "I own this property and am going to try to acquire the next-door property and this is my subdivision,"rather than doing a subdivision and five years later you buy the neighboring property. The intent is for when a property owner is looking to add to it and then subdivides the first property. Ressler asked Bollis if he could expand his position. Bollis said it is personal to him because it came up in an application he had--multiple lots next to each other, no intention of subdividing one--but the way it is written, if someone applies to subdivide a lot, the City can require them to produce a sketch plan for a piece of property they have no intention of subdividing,which does not seem to make any sense and could possibly pigeonhole the property owner into a sketch plan for that piece of property which has no intention of ever being subdivided.He noted it is appropriate to ask that of an Applicant but it should not be a requirement. Barnhart clarified that it is a"may require"versus a"shall require." Page 9 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15, 2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis stated with the current language the Planning Commission could say, "We see that you own adjacent property over here; we want to see a plan for that property." Barnhart said that would only be if the property owner indicated an interest in acquiring the property. Bollis noted it is written as"or currently own it." He does not agree with it; it does not make sense to him. Ressler asked if, as currently written,they would have the ability to mandate it in the deliberation of the application in the event of subdivision, so at least that could be a trigger if the subdivision application came in. Barnhart said the Planning Commission does not have the authority to require it. The Council would have to ultimately say yes,they need to see the plan. The language gives the Commissioners more power to look comprehensively at changes occurring in the neighborhood. If the language is not included,the Commission does not have the right to ask for the additional information. Ressler clarified that he meant the City,not just necessarily the Commissioners. Barnhart said it could be misused by Commissioners that try to overreach, but he thinks that is where it is a check-and-balance. If the Planning Commission requires it because of what the Commission is seeing as an application,the Council could ultimately say they do not need that type of information. Libby commented that his reading of the language,having dealt with a number of circumstances like this hands-on,the expression of the intention,as it is stated, is essentially also an expression of intent with the idea that there are so many variables that can happen in these circumstances practically that this leaves it open for the Planning Commission to look at a number of different circumstances in cases. It is not a simple block of lots. He said there was an example recently before the Planning Commission where an Applicant was talking about a similar situation. He has seen it happen so many times that he likes and favors the language, because it gives enough latitude to the Applicant and how they state what it is they are trying to accomplish through the sketch plan, and it gives the Commissioners the ability to have that same sort of flexibility from an advisement and decision-making to advise the Council. He thinks it is appropriate and prudent language. Barnhart stated a sketch plan is looking at a comprehensive idea of what could happen in the area and provides some additional information;the preliminary plat will not include property that you don't own. Libby said the reason he brought it up and stated it the way he did is because he's had numerous circumstances where there have been non-buildable outlots that still contributed to the ability to be able to do a subdivision. Ressler noted he appreciates the discussion and thought Barnhart did as well. One thing he likes about the "may"is that it does not make it a requirement and it looks like the discretion falls on the Planning Commission, which allows the Commission to have discussion over the feasibility of it. He appreciates that as well because it becomes a collective vote rather than one discretionary Staff member having to make the decision. Bollis asked,with the way the language is written, if the Planning Commission is expecting the Applicant would submit an entire new process for the additional piece/lot. He reads it that way,that they must Page 10 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. submit a sketch plan for the remainder. It would be another application for a piece of property they have no intention of doing anything with. Barnhart said that was not necessarily the case. He sees it happening one of two ways. Scenario one, through Staff discussion, it will be noted there is a logical extension of whether it is a stormwater treatment or a road network that ends at the hard property line and the property owner has indicated their intention to acquire that property. Staff might advise them to include as a sketch or concept the other property so Staff can better understand how everything works together. Scenario two,the Planning Commission,knowing more about a given neighborhood/property than maybe Staff does, may note that it looks like an opportunity for a larger park or natural environment retention type of scenario,and the property owner has indicated an interest in purchasing the property. The Planning Commission could say they really would like to see that portion of it incorporated in the sketch plan and will table action until they can see that, and move forward from there. Ressler stated that is what he was thinking of as well. He tries to not table things because it freezes time for 30 days. The Planning Commission can provide feedback based on the information they have. If the Applicant wants to provide a sketch plan because they think they can influence the Commission's feedback, it gives them that choice as well. He thinks the spirit of the language is trying to avoid unnecessary costs and hassle. In those circumstances, it probably would not be necessary nor required unless as a voting body the Planning Commission decides it is. Bollis suggested a tweak to the language so it is not saying they have to actually submit a sketch plan. He said it could be interpreted that they'd have to submit a separate sketch plan for a piece of property which would really slow up the application process.He understands it is important if there is a tract of property someone is trying to subdivide in multiple ways. He understands the intent of it; it is maybe the wording that he is not okay with. Barnhart asked if replacing the word"submit"for"prepare"would work. Bollis said that wording could possibly work. Barnhart stated, "The Planning Commission may require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan"could be changed to, "The Planning Commission may require that the subdivider prepare a sketch plan"of the remainder of the property. He said it is a subtle distinction but he understood Bollis' point.He reiterated the idea with the sketch is to prepare an idea of what someone is thinking for a reaction from the Planning Commission and Council. This tells the Applicant to think about the other issues,which he thinks is reasonable. Ressler said he thinks the spirit of it makes sense. Hopefully, Staff is there to give guidance as well if they are approached to give clarification if there is anything unknown. Kirchner noted, if the ordinances are held 7-10 years before reviewal,there will likely be a change in some/all of the members of the Planning Commission at some point and does not want to lose the intent of the Comp Plan in which they are trying to minimize some of the additional costs. He agrees changing "submit"to"prepare"gives more leniency. He wants to make sure 4-5 years down the road the Planning Commission is not requiring the information more often than not and causing additional expense for developers. Page 11 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler said that regardless of who sits in the Commissioner's chairs, it is to the Commissioners' discretion to decide,and they are here to represent their community. He noted perhaps that is a cultural change that goes along with the change, and hopefully that represents what Orono wants. Hopefully, it follows in suit, or otherwise amendments would have to be made again. Libby noted he wanted to give kudos to the City of Orono for adopting a sketch plan protocol and an avenue for developers to pursue rather than many communities who do not have a sketch plan protocol. People then have to expend tremendous amounts of dollars to come up with very highly detailed plats and surveys to bring those to the Planning Commission/City Council. He sits at the podium as a developer and builder in many communities and has to talk to the Planning Commission,and they have no avenue for a sketch plan to proceed through the planning process.He said Orono deserves a vote of great confidence to its citizens and developers for adopting that protocol and they do a nice job of it. Ressler commented that the City is going in the right direction as they continue to clean up some of the Text Amendments, etc. Bollis referenced 82-50, Line 528,and stated he is curious why that is being stricken, since it seems like it gives protection not only for the City but also the public. Barnhart said the City Attorney commented he had not seen that before and recommended it be removed. He said he does not believe it belongs in the subdivision code. Bollis stated he was next to a subdivision that was in violation of this, and the only way to keep them in good standing would be to hold back a building permit while they were still in play. He said he did not know if the exact section was used, but he feels like it offers some protection and does not know why it would be struck. Barnhart said that would be a question for the City Attorney; he did not recommend the language to be in the document. He said he could have his notes reflect that Bollis suggested 82-50 be reviewed closer. Bollis commented that would be great. Ressler asked, if there is a violation of that application, is it in the form of a legal opinion or a known fact that is in violation,as the permit would be halted from issuance if there was a violation. Bollis stated the concern is, once the property is developed and nothing has been built out yet, if the developer is in violation of something that needs to be corrected,there needs to be some sort of a vehicle so they can correct it; withholding building permits would be the only vehicle available. He said it looks like it is pertaining to some other laws,not just the local law,but in violation of the actual subdivision code that they applied for or the specific subdivision. He noted if that is the case, it may be a moot point and it shouldn't be in there. He wanted to make sure the City has control if they are in violation of something. Barnhart said that he thinks the City Attorney will say the solution is not through the subdivision code. He stated the City can't flat-out revoke a CO if they have granted one. If the City has granted a building permit under Item(b)for a lawfully-to-be-constructed building,the City can't revoke that just because they are in violation of potentially some other consumer protection legislation. He stated Bollis' comment is noted and he will ask for additional information. Page 12 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner asked if a simple Restraining Order could be applied for to prevent further development or construction on the site to stop the process. He stated that may be another avenue to pursue if there is a concern that taking the language out gives the City no leverage/opportunity to do something. Court- ordered Restraining Orders happen sometimes in civil cases, and a judge could bar any further construction/development until different criteria are met or a Court date is set. Barnhart noted that could be done regardless of what the document says and that it has happened in Orono and it was not that long ago. Bollis asked if"cul-de-sac"could be defined. Barnhart stated they could try and thought they did. He said he knows they had that definition in the language. There isn't a really good one, but he thought there was one in there. Most of the time when you see a definition of"cul-de-sac,"you'll see the"turnaround"that is a key component of a cul-de-sac. That doesn't quite get Staff where they want to go, because the Fire Code allows a hammerhead-style turnaround, which is great for the Fire Code, but not necessarily for Staff's purposes, so he added the word"circular"turnaround.There are requirements in terms of radius and things like that in the code; they have added that. Bollis said he sees that is the Minnesota cul-de-sac definition, but the City has changed it to say"circular turnaround"instead of"appropriate terminal." Barnhart said City Staff does not want an "approved turnaround,"they want a"circular turnaround."For an approved turnaround,the Fire Code allows a hammerhead. He stated there are developers who will argue for weeks on what the appropriate turnaround is. Historically,the City has required a circular turnaround;the language codifies that. Kirchner asked if there was a definition of"circular turnaround" as far as the dimensions and things Barnhart was referencing. Barnhart stated if you look for the definition of"cul-de-sac,"you do not see the word "circular,"you see "appropriate terminal." It could be a circular turnaround; it could be a hammerhead; it could be any number of things. In his experience,what works for the Fire Department,who may need a turnaround once every five years, does not necessarily work for the garbage truck who needs it weekly, or the FedEx truck that uses it almost daily. They put"circular"in the language for those types of users. Kirchner asked if there are specific dimensions outlined somewhere that reference back to what a circular turnaround is, dimension-wise. Barnhart stated the dimensions are in the subdivision code. Bollis said he would be in favor of the language being the State definition, "appropriate terminal." He feels if the City is making people go through the conservation design process,there is a great argument that a hammerhead or a"Y"is better for the environment than a circular cul-de-sac, and so it should say "appropriate terminal"for that piece of property. Otherwise,there is hardly a point of making Applicants go through all the design process if they are not picking the piece that is appropriate for that property. He does not think a circular turnaround is the answer for every piece of property in Orono. Page 13 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler commented that he remembers that application and being in support of it, but the reason why he was in support was because the code seemed to demonstrate for a larger development than what the Applicant's subdivision was. He thinks the difficulty is getting this into a box when there are so many variables that can contribute to it. The Planning Commission usually entertains applications as to what does not fit in the box. In particular,the way it is proposed is the safe approach,which is circular,but if the application is for the alternative,then it would come in front of the Planning Commission, if he was not mistaken. He noted he was not giving a position; he was clarifying how it works out in regards to how it is written. Barnhart stated there are standards in the section where it outlines the minimum width and the minimum paved width for roads based on the number of units it serves.Any Applicant or subdivider coming forward could ask for waivers or flexibility from that,just like they do for lot width standards, because if the lot width lined up within a wetland,the lot width measurement is pushed farther back and then it meets the requirement. He noted they did that for the YMCA property a month ago, where the lot width didn't meet the strict reading of the requirement. The Planning Commission felt comfortable granting flexibility for that type of situation because it was on the cul-de-sac road. Applicants can ask for waivers or flexibility for any of the standards, and the Planning Commission can judge them as the recommending body.Now there is a better definition of what the expectation is from the Council. Historically,at least recently,there have been circular cul-de-sacs. He reiterated the Planning Commission can still support waivers if a project comes forward that can be justified. Bollis said that the definition is being narrowed. Barnhart agreed and said the expectation is being better defined based on more recent activity from the Council. Bollis asked if Barnhart was expecting approval tonight. Ressler noted it was guidance, if he was not mistaken. Barnhart stated it was the first reading and he is asking for approval, but if the Commissioners were uncomfortable and would like another month to review it,there is no rush. It could be put on the next meeting and reviewed again. Erickson referenced Line 1618,which talks about trees, and said he is fully prepared to argue both sides of the coin. He thinks the question is well-raised as far as if the Council feels it may be needless, unnecessary, and so on. His other point is that if the Council should decide they want to continue regulating trees,he has a couple of suggestions as to how to do it better than what has been presented.The paragraph beginning with Line 1618 discusses shade trees,which the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) uses the term"deciduous,"and also,they specify being planted within five feet of the right-of- way.He has a concern about that,because subdivisions typically have drainage and utility easements in the first five feet, and he asked if trees should be planted on top of that if there are underground telephone and electric lines. He suggested going out as far as 15 feet from the right-of-way and then they can put in a big tree spade and will not hit any wires. Also, starting on Line 1623,there is a fairly short list of allowable trees which could be longer. He suggested, instead of a limited number of trees, it could say, "Oak, honey locust,maples, hackberry, birch,hickory, or other deciduous trees recommended by the DNR for Central Minnesota."He said the DNR has recommended trees in different parts of the state Page 14 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. according to climate, etc. He noted the whole regulation begins with the word"may" so it is not a requirement,but he would be willing to go either way on it. Ressler asked Erickson if it would be prudent, instead of listing the species,to clean it up and allow it to point towards the Minnesota DNR acceptable species;therefore, if there was some reason that it was amended,the City would not have to change the language. Erickson stated however the Commission wanted to do it. Kirchner said he is not an arborist and the City should defer to a professional source,being the DNR, in his opinion. Libby asked Barnhart if the City of Orono has a credentialed arborist. Barnhart stated he is sure there is one that resides in town, but not on Staff. Libby clarified that he should have said municipality of Orono. He asked,referencing the other Commissioners' recommendations, where the language came from. He noted the language was from someone who felt there might have been a level of expertise at the City and that perhaps now the language needs to be more general with authoritative expert opinions getting involved. Barnhart said that part of the code is in place currently. The only change is removing"ash" from the list. Libby asked if it was old code that has probably been around for a long time. Barnhart said that is probably the case. He stated he would find a resource for appropriate street trees and will work that into the next draft, because there may be trees that are appropriate in the Central Minnesota region that are not appropriate in a street/right-of-way environment. For example,you don't want evergreens right next to the street to create vision issues. Libby stated the DNR's credentialed arborists are quite astute at making those recommendations. Barnhart said he would find the reference and include it in the next draft. Bollis commented that they should refer to the soil conditions on the site; for instance, an oak thrives in sandy soil but is not going to work well in clay or black dirt. He has seen where they will put in 200 oaks on a hillside in Orono and they die within the first year. Libby noted a credentialed arborist would understand the soil combination. Ressler stated,as far as having specific trees,if somebody plants a honey locust and it develops a disease, then the City has to amend the text. If the City's code is simplified to have it redirected to someone that is an expert that is going to be keeping up with the different species that can be added or subtracted,that is something the Planning Commission can be mindful of. Libby noted it can cost$4,000 to take down a cottonwood tree that has lived out its life expectancy to 90 feet tall and is ready to come across the community's power lines. Page 15 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler said he is not in favor of tabling the matter. The feedback provided has been documented and hopefully useful for Barnhart and the City Attorney at their discretion for review at the Council. The Planning Commission can leave it up to the Council if they deem it necessary to come back to the Planning Commission. Bollis referenced Line 1746 requiring additional frontage specifically for outlots or lots. Barnhart stated lot frontage is measured for lake lots at the lakeshore and 75 feet back. That is how you get to the lot width.There is no minimum requirement for that access on the public street, creating some problems, notably at Casco Point. The language allows for 18 feet minimum. This is an eight-foot wide driveway and five feet on either side,the minimum setback for hardcover in most residential zoning districts. Bollis asked whether the current minimum is nine or eight feet. Barnhart said there is no minimum currently. He stated this is one of the items that they wanted to correct, because on a lake lot,the City only cares about the width at the lake and 75 feet back. There is no minimum at the street,and there should be a minimum at the street. Bollis asked if it only pertained to the Shoreland District. Barnhart stated it is for each lot. Most of them are going to be above that because their width will be measured at the building setback line, but mostly this will be applied in lake lots. Libby asked if the setback line would be started from the center of the right-of-way roadway or from the edge of the right-of-way roadway. Barnhart said it is at the property line, so usually at the edge of the right-of-way. Bollis asked if it could be moved to the Shoreland Overlay District. Barnhart noted he could but he is not amending the zoning code now. He added that this is where it is going to come up, because a new lot will be created in the shoreline,and this is where the City would want it to apply. Bollis asked about Big Island, where there are platted roads. Barnhart stated, at Big Island,the minimum lot area is five acres so you are not going to see a lot of those. Bollis said 18 feet would still be needed onto a roadway. Barnhart agreed, noting that it would be on a public or private street or access outlot. Bollis said he is not in favor of adding the language. Barnhart asked if it would be better if it said"except for the RS zoning district." Page 16 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis said if it will only apply on a lake lot,he believed it should be specific to that. He asked why it would be a problem if he wants to access 20 or 50 acres that are not on the lake and have 18 feet of width to do it. Barnhart asked Bollis what his minimum width would be. Bollis stated if there was a triangular-shaped lot, it could be 16-18 feet at the street and 50 feet wide at the setback, and he thinks the City is creating an issue. Barnhart said Bollis is certainly welcome to his comment,but he thinks the City is solving a problem for at least a minimum to get access without encroaching from a setback standpoint or encroaching on the neighboring properties. He said he would include Bollis' comment, but he thinks it is a good section that should be included in the ordinance as a minimum level of requirement. Ressler asked if it would be redundant to ask for 18 feet due to setback restrictions and minimum road widths, using the example of eight-foot driveway/five-foot setbacks. He asked whether that would trigger a variance application if it did not meet those. Curtis stated there is not a current standard. City Staff provided feedback for that application based on those pieces. She said Barnhart is suggesting to create a standard and it may be bigger than 18 feet. Oakden added that if someone wants to create a new lot and it is a lake lot and asks how wide they need to be at the road,right now they don't know because there is not a standard. Bollis asked, if this was only going to apply for the lake lots, could there be exempt zoning district areas, where 18 feet could be the right width for the lots. Barnhart stated that could be the language; however,he would not feel comfortable with that other than for the RS zoning district because there is no road. He would apply it to all zoning districts where there is a road situation. Curtis said that on a lakeshore lot the City does not allow flag lots, so she does not know how the City would get there, creating a new lot that has the narrow corridor on the road, if that is the only access point. Bollis noted it could have a pie shape of 10-16 feet. Barnhart stated City Staff would recommend to not approve that. That would likely require some waiver because,to get to the setback, it would be an irregular pie-shaped lot. Bollis said it would be a standard pie-shaped lot that fell under the 18 feet. Barnhart stated, from a Staff perspective, 18 feet is the minimum. Bollis noted it is currently allowed. Barnhart agreed that it is currently allowed and that is why they want to put a regulation in place. Page 17 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis said that is why he is not in favor of the additional language,because he does not think it is causing a problem right now. He would not be in favor of making it harder and doing 18 feet, especially if the City is really only concerned about the lake lots with this, because he understands the width could be 50 feet at the lake and taper down to less at the street. He added that it does not make sense to him. Barnhart commented that he could have his notes reflect that Bollis does not support 1746. Ressler stated he thinks the 18-foot minimum is reasonable for the calculations and numbers that have been put in place. If there are situations such as Bollis mentioned and Staff recommends approval, it would allow the Planning Commission to entertain that as a variance to allow that to be placed. His understanding of the City Code is to capture as much but not everything as far as situations. If everything was captured,there would not be a need for a Planning Commission. Barnhart noted there are processes for variances. It is different from the process for variances through the zoning code. Bollis stated he does not believe the Planning Commission should be adding additional code that is going to create variances if it is not an issue today. He does not see that it has become an issue. He has not seen a variance request for it. Barnhart said Staff has been able to suggest that they do not apply for one and fix the issue. Staff would be helped with having standards in place in those discussions. Bollis stated he feels that anytime a number is put on something, someone is going to come in and ask for something different, such as 25%hardcover and someone coming in to ask for 26%. It says 18 feet;they are going to come in and ask for 17 feet, 16 feet, etc. He said an issue is being created by adding it in. He does not see the issue of"snow piling" on current subdivisions and is not in favor of it. Gettman stated he supports the 18 feet. Ressler noted, as Barnhart mentioned,the text amendments regarding subdivision is not urgent and could be tabled. He does not think it would be unreasonable,and noted that is what the deliberation is currently. Kirchner commented that Barnhart asked for the Commissioners' opinion on minor subdivisions and lot splits. He said he agrees with Barnhart that the Commission should not allow for those to happen without this process and protocol, especially if the vast majority of what Staff is seeing would fall into that criteria. He thinks it is prudent to keep that in place. Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to table LA19-000065 City of Orono,Text Amendment: Subdivisions. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 3 (Erickson,Bollis,Kirchner), Nays 3(Libby,Gettman,Ressler). Motion failed. Barnhart stated Staff is not opposed to bringing this back with some of the changes made. It is an important document in the development of the community, and he does not want to rush it. He does not have an Applicant coming in and ready to apply this. He will incorporate the changes that he can incorporate and call out the areas he cannot; the Commission can review it again at the next meeting. Ressler asked if it was an option to leave it as-is and not make a motion. Page 18 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,June 15,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Staff would recommend it be tabled and to come back in July. Ressler stated, based on the feedback,the motion should be re-entertained. Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to table LA19-000065 City of Orono,Text Amendment: Subdivisions. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 6(Libby,Erickson,Bollis,Kirchner,Gettman,Ressler),Nays 0. Motion carried unanimously. 4. UPDATE ON JUNE 8,2020 COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart stated he did not have an update but he would send the information under separate cover to the Commissioners. He noted things have been disjointed lately and hoped to get back to regular meetings next month. ADJOURNMENT Libby moved,Erickson seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 7:57 p.m. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 6(Libby,Erickson,Bollis,Kirchner,Gettman, Ressler),Nays 0. ATTEST: Jon Ressler, Chair Page 19 of 19