Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-20-2020 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 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, Commissioners Chris Bollis,Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner,Dennis Libby, and Mark McCutcheon. The following member was absent: Bob Erickson. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart and 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. He noted the cameras were not working and the meeting would be audio only. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Libby moved, Gettman seconded, to approve the Agenda for the July 20, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 15,2020 Bollis moved, Kirchner seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of June 15,2020,as submitted.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA20-000043 DAVID& PATTIE JAQUA,3262 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES- 6:02 P.M. -6:12 P.M. David and Pattie Jaqua,Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Mr. David Jaqua, 3262 North Shore Drive, said they appreciated Curtis' help since the purchase of the lot and subsequent design process, as far as how best to fit the home in an irregular lot. They tried to put a design together that took into account a number of perspectives and usage of the lot. Generally,they are in compliance with the exception of this variance. They are materially improving it from the existing house.They are hoping this is a nice, appropriate home that takes into account the City's,the neighbors', their perspectives and generally complies. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:06 p.m. Mr. Richie Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, asked Curtis if she stated she had a letter that was submitted earlier today and whether she could read the letter. Curtis stated Mr. Anderson was correct. She said it is from J.P. Perrill and stated as follows: "Hi there. I live in 3264 North Shore Drive and received a postcard of a hearing tonight for Pattie and Dave's North Shore Drive home. We have received the house plans and have no objections from a neighbor standpoint. I am not sure if that matters, but we thought to represent our opinion as we will not be attending. Thanks." Mr. Anderson said he was just curious if it was an objection. Page 1 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Ressler noted it is not a conforming lot but the hardcover is being reduced from the current number. Curtis said Ressler was correct,the original hardcover of 34.2%would be brought down to 26.9%. Ressler stated 25%hardcover is what is allowed. Gettman noted there is 100 square feet that is allowed to be credited and the remainder ends up going against the percentage. He asked if,when Curtis works with builders and homeowners,that is clearly understood. Curtis said it is understood for the most part. Gettman asked if there was any question about the homeowner understanding that regarding this property. Curtis said there was not and the homeowner is using it in the portion of the patio that is beyond the 75- foot setback. Gettman indicated there were no other restrictions other than the overall square footage just bumping the Applicants over the 25%mark. Curtis said Gettman was correct. Gettman commented they have seen the situation many times and he was wondering if there was some kind of confusion upfront when the Applicants talk to the City as to whether the target is 25%. Curtis stated he could ask the Applicants,but they worked to get to that point. The Applicants wanted to have some lakeside outdoor improved area for use. As a non-conforming reconstruction in-kind,they could rebuild the house as-is. They are opting to utilize some of the existing non-conforming area as patio to capture that. Gettman said the Commission has approved these variances numerous times and did not see an issue. Bollis stated he agreed with Staff,the property is getting better in many ways, and he is fine with it. Kirchner said he agrees and appreciates the reduction in existing hardcover. He noted that the structural coverage is within the allowable limit in a challenging lot with access. Libby stated he tends to also agree with Staff. He said he has a unique circumstance, having previously owned 3210 North Shore Drive and being familiar with the lay of the land,the lots, and unique circumstances with the large-scale marinas in between. The lots are unusual with unusual characteristics, and he thinks the owners have contributed to work out the best options possible. McCutcheon agreed with the previous Commissioners' comments. Ressler said he agrees with Staffs recommendations. He likes to see an improvement being made to the existing conditions, and they have done a nice job of reducing the hardcover from 34.2 to 26.9%. The lot Page 2 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. does not have a lot of room for anything else, and he looks at whether the hardcover is egregious to the lot. It does not look like it is;the hardcover seems to fit the property as it is. Gettman moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA20-000043 David &Pattie Jaqua,3262 North Shore Drive,Variances. Ayes 6,Nays 0. 2. LA20-000042 LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS O/B/O RONALD AND HOLLY ROCCA, 2520 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCE- 6:12 P.M. -6:27 P.M. Ronald and Holly Rocca, Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Kirchner asked which side of the property the neighbor lived on that provided a letter in support of the variance. Oakden stated that the neighbor is on the north side. Ressler asked if the area indicated in red on the display is where the side setback condition is being worsened, from 5.7 to 5.8. Oakden said the current home sits at 5.7 and indicated the location of the existing home. The new proposed addition is 5.8 feet up to a certain point and then the addition is bumped back. Ressler asked if it is 5 feet 7 inches or 5.7 feet. Oakden said it is 5.7 and 5.8 feet, so the difference is 1.2 inches. Mr. Ronald Rocca,2520 Casco Point Road, said he and his wife have lived in the home about 20 years. The original house is almost 100 years old and they have a couple of priorities. The current house has three entrances and all of them are 3-4 steps above-grade, so one of their objectives is to create an entrance that is at-grade so they can stay in the house long-term. They also want to retain the character of the original house as much as they can. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:18 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:18 p.m. McCutcheon stated it is a small area, a narrow lot,the existing stairway is there, and the original house is that way. The neighbor is supportive, it is in line with the envelope of the house, and hardcover is reduced. He is in favor of the variance. Libby said there is a practical application, which is that aging on occasion can cause the need for on-grade stairs. He tends to agree with Staff and is in favor of the variance. Page 3 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner commented that he struggles to come outside of the setbacks that are in place. He understands it is fairly minimal and the practical application,but wonders if there is another way to accommodate it. He asked if what was being proposed is a ramp from the garage into the home. Mr. Patrick Jacobson, Lake Country Builders, said Kirchner was correct. Referencing the plan,he said the existing stairs are at the bottom left which go down. To make it work with a code-compliant landing,they would be extending that. They tried to minimize the impact to the setback by extending the wall that was existing in the setback currently and minimizing that by the length for a landing which is to code. Kirchner noted Orono has a tradition/history of abiding to the existing setbacks and he struggles to extend this one even though it comes back just a slight bit from the existing house. Bollis said he struggles with the application,too. He stated most builders would be asking for the entire garage wall to be extended into the setback like the existing house, so he understands that concession has been made. He sees the intent is only to put it where it has to be, and he could vote for it. Gettman had no additional feedback. Ressler noted whenever someone is beyond the scope of what is allowable for the building envelopes,the Commission generally looks for an improvement of an Applicant's position. He recognizes the mitigants being presented. With hardcover reduction,the structure is one of the most difficult ones to worsen. It does not appear, based on the drawings,the 1.2 number would put something out of compliance. If the 1.2 inches could be brought in and stay within the current setback, he would be much more agreeable. Mr. Rocca said he does not think it is two inches; it is two feet by six feet. Ressler stated it is 5.7 feet existing versus 5.8 feet proposed. Oakden said 5.7 is for the closest point of the existing house.The proposed encroachment would be 5.8, so it is 1.2 inches farther away from the property line compared to the closest point on the existing home. Ressler asked Oakden if it improved the position. Oakden indicated that it was improving it. Ressler noted he was reading it backwards. Mr. Jacobson said the only reason that is the case is because the lot line is not perfectly parallel to the existing house. He stated that is the only stairway down to the basement which is where the mechanicals are. If the landing is not added, it would be abandoning a stairway. Ressler stated all he was looking for is knowing that the Planning Commission is improving the position. He is in support of the application based on the information. Bollis asked how the existing stairway is accessed currently and asked if it was an exterior door. Mr. Rocca said, as someone comes up the stairway from the basement,there is a landing and then a 90- degree turn,three more steps, a 90-degree turn, and four more steps into the house. They would be raising Page 4 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. the entrance from the second landing up the four steps which does not leave the landing to come around the turn, so they have to make the basement access straight. Instead of wrapping around the corner, it will go straight up. Bollis said he was wondering if the existing access could still be accessed but it sounds like it cannot be with the addition. McCutcheon said the addition parallels the original lines of the 100-year-old house. The Applicants could have extended the line all the way to the garage, and they did not. McCutcheon moved,Gettman seconded,to approve LA20-000042 Lake Country Builders o/b/o Ronald and Holly Rocca,2520 Casco Point Road,Variance.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1 (Kirchner). 3. LA20-000044 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTHERAN CHURCH,3745 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT- 6:27 P.M. - 6:34 P.M. Pastor Loren Davis,Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Ressler noted all the proposed sites are in compliance with setback; it is an amendment because of the accessory buildings being added. Oakden agreed and said a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)amendment is required when new buildings are added because it operates as a CUP and has to go through the public process. They are proposing to meet all the setbacks. The sheds will be 68 feet from the property line where 50 feet is required. They will be at least 35 feet from the wetland where 25 feet is required. Pastor Loren Davis, Good Shepherd Lutheran Church,3745 Shoreline Drive, noted the process started 2- 3 years ago. They had a plan to expand the kitchen area which was built in 1959.The proposal would have added an 18x24 space to the south end of the current building and put a kitchen on the upper floor with a handicap-accessible restroom and an office and storage for the daycare. When that turned out to be cost-prohibitive,they went back to the drawing board and are in the process of remodeling the current kitchen. As that project developed,they created a space for a handicap bathroom upstairs, an office downstairs, but they lost storage space in the process. The idea is to have a garage at the south corner of the parking lot,which will be the same 18x24 space, which would be for storage of riding lawn mowers, snowblowers,and other necessary lawn care equipment. Shoreline has bikes and trikes for their kids which used to be stored under steps in the church building that are gone, so those items would be stored in the 18x24 space as well as seasonal items. He indicated the Peace Garden at the south end of the complex is at a higher level, and the people who care for that have wanted their equipment on the same level so they want to replace one 8x10 shed with another one on that level. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Page 5 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner commented that since it is an amendment and all proposed structures being added or removed are within the existing required setbacks,he does not see any issues with the project. Ressler said he agreed with Kirchner. He asked if any members had comments for or against; none were made. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded,to approve LA20-000044 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit Amendment.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. LA19-000065 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: SUBDIVISIONS-6:34 P.M.- 7:57 P.M. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Ressler thanked Barnhart and Bollis for their work and contributions. Ressler asked how the City currently is tracking consumer protection information,number 8. Barnhart said the City does not track it currently. He assumes how it would come into play is if somebody would petition the City that someone is violating the 82-15 clause. He noted the language is struck and there are comments from the City Attorney. He stated he does not see a lot of value in it; it puts the City in a situation where it doesn't need to be,which is between two private owners. He thinks there are other mechanisms to address concerns that impact the City. Gettman clarified the consumer protection clause is 82-50, line 527. Bollis said he completely concurs with the City Attorney's view after reading his comments. Gettman asked Barnhart to explain what the City is not doing/is not interested in doing/is not capable of doing with respect to the consumer protection. Barnhart stated he has been with the City for five years and the language has not been applied for any subdivision that has been done. He referenced section b and said he cannot imagine a situation where the City is going to revoke a Certificate of Occupancy(CO)that has lawfully been issued because of consumer protection legislation. Gettman asked what would happen if someone were fraudulently applying for the application. Barnhart said that would likely be a Court issue versus revoking the CO. Ressler noted that would be an unlawful acquisition of a CO. Barnhart stated that it probably would be and the City would bring judgment against them through the prosecuting attorney, not necessarily just because of the clause. Gettman said he is struggling because there are not good consumer protection laws even at the federal level that are enforced. He asked why Orono would not keep at the forefront a list of contractors and other individuals involved in potentially fraudulent activity for Orono's neighbors to see whether there has been Page 6 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. violations of federal, state,or local consumer protection law for the very same people that are going back to the well,thinking, "We got these people last time. Let's try it again."He stated that just because the City is not doing it today does not mean the City should get rid of the statute. He is looking for whether it is practically impossible to do or troublesome to do; he does not think it is. He said there are people who are violating noise ordinances and other things and there are consumer protection kinds of protections available. He would think the City would want to tell everyone and promote that and have it at the forefront so the City does not continue those people in business doing bad practices. Barnhart referenced the comments from the City Attorney and said it could be left in there,that it does not hurt anything. The goal is to clean up the ordinance that works for the City. They tend to remove things that are not being used or are not likely to be used. Gettman reiterated that just because the City is not using it today is not a reason to get rid of it,although he understands the cleaning up part of it. If there are laws at the various levels, he asked why wouldn't the City protect consumers from a potential contractor doing it again. Ressler said he did not think any rights were being removed because it seems like there is redundancy because an unlawful issuance of a CO is going to be able to be revoked if it was unlawfully acquired whether the language is in the document or not. He stated that it seems like that is what the City Attorney is saying as well. Gettman said it is not just the CO and asked whether it is also the building permit. Ressler stated the end result of a building permit is the CO. He said the Planning Commission's job is to give feedback to the Council and everyone is doing a good job. Barnhart commented he is hearing that Gettman would prefer to keep it.The minutes will reflect that and he can show it as kept in,not deleted. There will be the history of the City Attorney's comments and Gettman's comments, and it can proceed forward. Ressler noted the Planning Commission is giving feedback and not voting for or against. Barnhart said he would be asking for a motion to recommend approval or denial of the ordinance. Ressler asked for additional feedback from the rest of the Commissioners, starting with the consumer protection section. Bollis stated he is in favor of striking it as drafted. He thinks there needs to be a nexus between the City and the party that is committing that fraud. Kirchner agreed with Bollis' remarks. He said there are other instruments in place at the City as well as other municipality groups that consumers have to pursue consumer protection violations,and he does not believe it is in the City's best interests to keep the language and it is redundant. Libby noted there are many different overlays of governance and authority; for instance,the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau(CFPB). There is no harm in having the reference because it is conclusive that there are going to be other agencies that will supersede and have authority over the City governance on the consumer protection aspect.The attorney's point is well-taken in that if they are not guiding the Page 7 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. City, perhaps they do not need a place because of the existence of the other authorities that will have final decisions in that regard. He concurs with the attorney's opinion that it does not have any pertinence in the City's language and easily redacted without causation to the City's governance. McCutcheon said he hoped the language did not need to be at the City level and he would trust the City Attorney. He is fine with striking the language. Mayor Dennis Walsh, 1354 Rest Point Circle, said the City Council deals with language being redundant or putting in specific language but then they say they should refer to the Minnesota Fire Code rather than creating its own code because the City's code would be static and other codes are constantly morphing such as the CFPB. As he looks at this issue, it is more of a legal argument than anything else,and the legal argument is there whether the language is/is not included. It is similar to all the other federal, state, and criminal statutes being there whether the City references them or not. The City Council has taken the approach as much as possible to say, "If we don't need it there, we always have it"as opposed to someone saying, "Oh,they have the language so I can't do fraud." He noted fraud is not permitted no matter what. He appreciates wanting the language included, but the question is where do you end it. The City Council is always trying to make things as simple as possible,knowing the protections are there and a lot of codes can be referenced. Gettman stated at the federal level the Bureau is actually not responsible for taking any action other than reporting. At the state level,the Consumer Affairs division is very similar. Most often they direct a citizen to hire a lawyer on their own. He asked if the City had an obligation to start to drive the process and asked why the City would not promote the fact that a particular contractor/vendor is doing this bad action the City wants to capture and then listing the references for which they are capturing it. He agrees the language is not adding anything, but he would want to add language that the City plans to help its citizens with an issue. Mayor Walsh said he talked to the City Attorney; and some cities say, "Here's our plumbing recommended contractors,"which cannot be done. Gettman clarified that contractors would not be recommended; rather,there would be a list of contractors the City would not recommend. Mayor Walsh stated that could also be a problem. Gettman noted it would not be a problem to do that if the contractors are violating statutes or rules. Mayor Walsh said violating is sometimes in the eye of the beholder because it still has to go to court and someone has to be prosecuted.The steps will always be there, no matter what. He stated the Council also wrestles with this type of thing and he is not saying how the Planning Commission should vote. There will always be ancillary arguments about what more could be done as a City,what is or is not appropriate, who would tell that to somebody and who wouldn't. He noted there are plenty of bad actors in the City that do things from time to time; and the question is,when do you start telling people they have done things that aren't good. They always have to come in for a permit and it's always the City's job to oversee them. He said they have found things in the code that reference specific things that are completely different now, so they will just reference the Fire Code because it constantly changes. They had the book of codes from 20 years ago, and the additions were bigger than the book. Something would get changed and then it would get changed again, and it was hard to find the current code and they had to condense a Page 8 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. lot of things. He commented that, as a City,they have a very broad authority to do lots of things if there are problems. He stated at times the prosecuting attorney has said a code has not been written well enough that they can prosecute someone and that the Council needs to fix it.As a small community, sometimes it takes a long time to run into an issue, as opposed to larger communities. Gettman clarified that the Council is not looking to put teeth to this,because absent the teeth, it is just repeating language and taking up space. Mayor Walsh said he does not know if he said that. He is trying to say the City Council is trying to not add or duplicate language. They want to make sure that if it is a good rule, it needs to be followed or the City will prosecute you. It also has to be prosecutable. If it cannot be enforced,there is no point in having it in the code. He is not saying this language is or is not; it is a very good conversation to have with no right or wrong answer. Ressler stated that having a position that would have more grip to it than the other governing authorities in the matters that would be relevant to this proposed text becomes an expense and Staff has to be employed or found to fight the argument. There are not many situations that would apply to this. He personally knows how many contractors have done wrongful work and have maintained their license, much to his surprise. It becomes a perspective that someone licensed to do their job in the state is not allowed to do their job, and now a can of worms of legal arguments are opened up. He sees both sides of the situation. The merits are there but it does not appear as though it is something communities of Orono's scale have in their language, according to the City Attorney's comments. Gettman's comments have been well-heard and there could be discussion when it goes beyond the Planning Commission. Libby said he is glad the Chair heard and recognized the very valid point the Mayor brought up,which is that there is a judicial system that has different tiers, and depending on the potential of being able to prosecute a violation,there needs to be something that is enforceable. He thinks the current language does not really guide the Planning Commission because there are other authorities from the City Council and beyond that are going to take care of this. He agrees with the City Attorney. In the big picture of things, Barnhart is trying to move the Planning Commission to a vote, and he tends to feel that particular element would do well being removed. Ressler noted the biggest thing that struck him is the simplification. They discussed in a previous meeting species of trees and whether everyone would become arborists and learn what was acceptable about trees or whether the Planning Commission would defer to a governing authority that has the ability to amend that at will when they find out a silver maple causes a brain-eating amoeba. The Planning Commissioners do not have to be experts because they can defer to another expert who only focuses on those things. Libby stated Gettman's point is valid because he is thinking as a good public servant and advocating for consumers and trying to do something that is protective. He also tends to lean more heavily towards legal counsel advice on the fact the language does not guide them enough. It also does not serve the public well enough to keep it in the body of the document. Kirchner commented that the Mayor mentioned a violation is in the eye of the beholder and just because the Planning Commission believes someone has violated, until a court of law affirms that with a guilty conviction or a judgement against someone, it is not affirmed. He has testified in cases that are 4'/2 years old, and trying to remember who he pulled out of a car at 2:00 in the morning is difficult. The cases take a while to work themselves out, and the City would be behind and open itself up to civil litigation if the Page 9 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. City began blacklisting contractors or subdividers prior to a legitimate court ruling affirming that. He also said the language talks about"if the subdivider shall have violated."He might be the subdivider today as Kirchner Construction, LLC, and he has issues and tomorrow he is Commissioner Kirchner Construction, LLC, which is a completely new entity and subdivider and,therefore,there is legal dispute that drags on for another 2-4 years. He understands the spirit of it and that Gettman is trying to do good for the community, but there are other protections and avenues in place. Gettman stated he has been a lawyer for 30 years in Minnesota and is second in charge of the National Guard for legal issues. He is one of the Commissioners for one of the state agencies. He is more than familiar with the law and regs. What he is saying is that the State does not have anything,the Feds do not have anything;the City is it. That is why he put the Mayor on the spot about the teeth. He said he agrees that what exists in the language does not do it. If it is going to have more teeth, great. If it is not,the Planning Commission can get rid of it because it won't do anything anyway. The point is, how is the City protecting its consumers. He noted that when he asks a cop to get on the stand after 41/2 years, he hopes he/she has all the notes from back then. He knows they don't and that is why they have the discussions beforehand. It comes down to, Orono won't tell its citizens if somebody lost their license in Wisconsin because they don't have to. If the City does not want to protect its citizens,take out the language. If the City wants to protect them, it has to be more than the present language. Ressler said he does not know if the City has the financial firepower to add that. It sounds like it is an issue that needs to go higher than the City of Orono. Gettman stated that it has to start somewhere. If the Commissioners are saying they don't want to let citizens in Orono know about the Wisconsin contractor that lost their license, it is good to go. Consumer protection laws suck. They don't do anything at the federal agency. If you call the federal agency,they thank the caller and say they have recorded the information. You might get an Assistant Attorney General to take your case at the State level.A lot of this work happens at the County/City level. If the rule isn't even there, it comes down to who is going to protect the local consumer. He said he agrees that, as-is, it should be taken out. He wanted to make sure the Commissioners knew why he was pushing it. Kirchner said if the language is going to be included, it needs some more teeth and expanded upon. Barnhart noted the Council's information will include that the Planning Commission supported striking the language with Gettman opposed. He asked the Commissioners to keep in mind this is not for the general contractor; it is for the subdivider who violated the rules for this property. Part of the challenge is: year one,they violate the ordinance/rule/law;that same year they get approval of the preliminary plat. Year two,they get the final plat and start construction and it is working its way through the court system. Year three,the private/public improvements are done and the City is issuing building permits. It is four years past the offense; it has worked its way through the court and found that there is a violation. Meanwhile, the City issued a building permit to a new property owner. The rub is,the person being punished is not necessarily the Applicant. The person being punished is the buyer. He stated that is part of the challenge the City has. He said it is fair to provide comment to the Council that the Commission had some discussion on the issue and as it is written the Commissioners generally felt that it needed more teeth, but as written it should be removed unless there is more work done. He stated he would include that information in the memo. He commented the City Attorney can help the Council understand the issue more fully than he can. Page 10 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler stated Barnhart made a valid point that,when revoking a CO,the affected party would be the person trying to inhabit the property and not the subdivider. Ressler referenced number 7, minimum frontage on a street in the event of subdivision. He noted no changes were made and Staff recommends there be a minimum, especially when lot width is measured by the building setback line 30, 50, and 100 feet in some non-lakeshore districts,or at the lakeshore and 75 feet back in lake lots. The 18 feet proposed is the minimum to allow for an eight-foot driveway and five feet for utilities, snow storage, etc., on either side. He said there was discussion about how there might be situations where the snow removal/storage or sanitation can be relocated to other areas. Barnhart noted Bollis had a comment against the proposed addition by Staff. There is an argument that Staff has managed successfully for the last 40 years without it and the true width is measured. Staff added it because it was seen as an issue that comes up occasionally and they know they will see it as a problem, whether it is one,two, or seven years down the line, and they cannot do anything to stop it. The clause attempts to solve the problem. He indicated 3-4 of the proposed lot splits had this kind of configuration in the last five years. When he sees problems seven years in advance,he tries to solve them. His argument is that this is an opportunity to solve it. He would be fine if the Commissioners did not want to include the language, but Staff is addressing a concern that comes up occasionally. Ressler said he was surprised when Barnhart said in the last five years it has come up 3-4 times, that there was an application that was not meeting these widths and would create a problem down the road. Barnhart stated that there were 3-4 times as he recalled. Bollis asked, in the times Barnhart has seen it, if it applied to lakeshore lots or inland lots. Barnhart said it was evenly split.Most of their work is splitting of larger parcels. He hears, "I can almost fit a second lot"if someone does things creatively or logic is put to the side. He commented that it does not make sense for him to not say anything,because a problem will be created down the road. Ressler asked if every proposed subdivision would be going in front of the Planning Commission and they can deliberate whether there is a reasonable amount of area for snow removable or ask the developer what their plan is for sanitation, etc., and then the Commission can rule on the development based on the Applicant's reasonable answer to that. Barnhart said all of the subdivisions will go to the Planning Commission the way it is written. If someone is creating a parcel,they will go through the Planning Commission and City Council. However,the Commissioners cannot say a subdivision is not going to work because it does not look right;they need something in writing of why, which is where the clause comes in. Gettman commented that, as the Planning Commission sees more and more subdivisions for lots that are not really subdividable, Barnhart and Staff are recommending giving the Commissioners ammunition to vote against, which is the language, rather than scratching their heads and trying to figure out how to make something work. Barnhart stated the 18 feet number is not widely supported by Staff. That is what he recommended because that is the minimum based on the City's ordinances today. A driveway needs to be five feet from a property line on either side, which is ten feet; the minimum width of a driveway in the 0-75 is eight feet, Page 11 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. which gets you to 18 feet. Ideally it would be 30 feet,which is the minimum access width requirement. He felt that number was excessive. He is supporting 18 feet as the absolute minimum in order to get a driveway to serve a property and still meet the rest of the ordinances. Gettman commented the Commissioners had a property earlier where the 18 feet was applicable in between the two marinas. Barnhart said that the driveway was 7'/2 feet wide and right on the property line. Gettman asked, if the Commission had the 18 feet set up,why they wouldn't have demanded more rather than squeezing the 7Y2 feet in. Barnhart stated the application was not a subdivision so he could not apply that requirement. If the Applicant had wanted to create the lot,that issue would be raised. Gettman clarified that if the Commission does not have the 18 feet,they are going to end up with more situations like that in the future. Ressler said the application will get in front of the Planning Commission either way. He asked, if there is a five-foot setback from the property line for the driveway to go, whether that is doing exactly what is being proposed,which is creating a minimum eight-foot driveway and a five-foot setback. Barnhart stated the reason it was added in the clause is because it is part of the standards when a subdivision is looked at.A lot of times there will be a driveway within the setback and they are allowed to continue as non-conforming and are either replaced or lengthened in-kind. He felt it was necessary to put something like this in the subdivision code because as a lot is being created,more density is added to an already confined space. This is an extra layer of standard to review. He noted part of the analysis of the Planning Commission/City Council is, does the subdivision create a buildable site.Access is part of that. Gettman asked if there was a minimum frontage. Instead of saying 18 feet, could there be a recommended minimal frontage. Barnhart noted"frontage"is a defined term and it is based on the lake if it is a lake yard or the public or private street for a non-lake yard. The Applicant meets that with the 140 feet. They can taper it down to a pinprick at an access for a lake lot.There is no minimum in those situations. That is why Staff would like to provide a minimum at other places. It might be redundant in other areas of code because the five-foot setback is found in the zoning code also and the width requirement applies to shoreland which is in a different zoning section. Gettman said it sounds like a great opportunity but Staff is doing that already. He does not know the ordinances well enough to say that 18 feet is already stated someplace else. Barnhart clarified that the particular sentence discussed calls up two different sections in the code. Bollis stated he feels it is kind of redundant for most of the lots in Orono but that it may make sense to have it in for the Shoreland Overlay District. He does not know if that term should be used to define everything; maybe it should be specific to the lake lots. Page 12 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner said he is generally in support of keeping it as-is, with an 18-foot minimum. He asked Barnhart if there were any concerns with utility easements, etc.He stated he has power lines on one side of his driveway. If it was reduced beyond 18 feet, could someone potentially have a driveway over a utility right-of-way and the utility company comes to service something underground and all of a sudden someone's driveway is torn up. Barnhart stated the new subdivisions will include a five-foot drainage and utility easement along the side property lines and ten feet along the front and the rear. The power pole example in a new lot that is created will be in that setback but also in an easement. Staff does not have worries from an encroachment. Kircher asked, if it was less than 18 feet,could there be encroachment issues potentially. Barnhart said there could potentially be issues. If there was not a minimum requirement in place in a subdivision and a new lot was created,there would be a five-foot drainage and utility easement on the side property lines and the minimal driveway may encroach into the easement. Libby asked Barnhart whether it would be most intrinsic where developers are trying to carve out as many lots as they can and they end up with a number of pie-shaped alignments so they can squeeze one more lot in. He has seen the pie-shape alignment and assumed that is what Staff is trying to avoid,where it can be narrowed down to way less than 18 feet. Barnhart agreed that that is where it will be seen. They will have the minimum width at the building setback line or at the lake and then they will "pie"the lot away from that. It does not happen all the time, but it happened enough that he felt the issue should be corrected. Libby commented that he would support adding the minimum of 18 feet. Ressler stated it is already kind of covered with the minimum setback from the property line of five feet, the minimum driveway size of eight feet. He is okay with not having the language included. He noted Libby is for it; Bollis is for it in lake yard situations. Bollis said he thinks it makes more sense if the Commission talks about this applying in two different zones for two different reasons because they are measured differently. One is measured from the lake; one is measured from the road. Ressler stated it is specifically minimum frontage on a street, as he reads it. Barnhart said lake yards are measured at the building setback line,which could be 30, 50, or 100 feet back. Staff sees it in subdivisions with a cul-de-sac, where the minimum width at the cul-de-sac boundary is narrow because it pies out to get to the building setback. They have been able to avoid it in recent subdivisions. It is another tool he can use to say there needs to be at least 18 feet at the property line. Ressler asked, since it is just involving a minimum frontage on a street, if Bollis was for, opposed, or something in between. Bollis said he is opposed to it; he feels like it is covered with the other setbacks in the code. Ressler stated Libby is for keeping the language; Bollis and himself are opposed to adding the language. Page 13 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner and Gettman said they would support adding the language regarding 18 feet. McCutcheon stated for him it is a finite number. When a subdivision is made,there is a checklist to go by. When a number is exceeded,there needs to be a threshold so an alarm is sounded. He likes that the Planning Commission is having something,but now they are splitting hairs. It would be nice to point to one minimum setback. Since the Planning Commission doesn't have that,he would be fine with adding the 18 feet language. Barnhart summarized the results: Ressler and Bollis oppose the change and the other Commissioners support the addition which he would call out as a discussion topic for the Council. Ressler noted number 6 discusses sketch plans on neighboring property owned or anticipated to be owned by a property owner. There was some dialogue about the intent and practicality of the requirement. The intent of the language is to review a development comprehensively and not create issues down the road. The intent is preserved later in the code. The City can require the road to extend to the property line,and the language in the sketch plan section can be deleted. He asked Barnhart if it was correct that if the Commission is deliberating a subdivision,the Commission wants to get a good grasp as to what the entire plan is going to be for developing,whether it is applied for now or later. Barnhart said Ressler was correct. He said it could be a goal but not necessarily a requirement. Ressler stated the Commission could request that just like currently. Barnhart agreed and suggested the Planning Commission do it before they saw the sketch plan. Ressler said it sounds like Barnhart is willing to remove the language, knowing the Planning Commission could request it at the time of application. Barnhart stated if the Commission wants to be able to ask for it later, he would remove anything that says "shall"or"should"and draft the ordinance to say that the Planning Commission"may"require the subdivider to prepare a sketch of the remainder of the property. He indicated it is similar to what was done with Baldur Park, where the property owner was looking to subdivide the first couple of portions of the property but also retain ownership of the balance of the property. They are trying to figure out how the road works and how the lots will lay out. Staff has not been successful in requiring them to do that yet, but ultimately Staff wants to see how it will all work together. Bollis asked if it was multiple properties or one property. Barnhart said there are several parcels. Ressler stated his perspective is looking at how it is done now and looking at how it would be done afterwards. Requiring it is difficult because the owner could change their mind on their intent the day after the permit is issued and the City would not have much recourse. He does not know if the City can change what the intent is whether the language is in there or not. He thinks the Planning Commission could ask them as they do now, as far as asking what their intent is, but he does not think it gives the Commission any more clarity than currently. Page 14 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner noted it says the Planning Commission"may require"the subdivider and then it says"prepare"a sketch plan. He noted from the last meeting it indicates the word was"submit"and it was changed to "prepare,"so both"may"and"prepare"leaves it open to the Commission and he supports the language as proposed. Gettman clarified that when Barnhart answered Bollis' question, he was talking about parcels versus one property. What's being discussed is when there is a large parcel that someone wants to subdivide such as in the North Arm area, where someone has four acres they want to subdivide at some point. He gave the example if the owner is parsing out one piece initially and convincing the Commission that this is the best thing since sliced bread and the Commission buys it; and then they come back and say they are now in a predicament that they cannot subdivide the rest of the land,they need a variance. Barnhart is trying to get some of the language upfront and put it on the record so it shows the Commission has given permission for the first of five parcels. Bollis said Gettman brought up a good point. Gettman was talking about a multi-stage development versus the way the language is written, which is if someone owns property next to a property that you are going to develop,the Commission may request the owner to submit a plan for that whether they have a plan or not. That can bring up some negative impacts for the property owner. He gets the intent and thinks it is prudent to ask the owner the question,but if it is a four-acre parcel and the owner comes to the City with a plan to develop half of it, he feels like there should be something in the code that says, "I see you are creating this outlot. What is the intent for the outlot?"When it comes to adjacent properties to the one being developed, he thinks it is an overreach. The question can be asked. And if the owner is willing to show it,that's great;but to him, it is overreaching. He is okay with asking but not demanding,which is how it is written. "Prepare"is better,but it needs something different in order for him to support it. Ressler noted that Bollis and Gettman agree but they were saying it differently. One person is asking for the owner to go on record and say it,which the Commission can already today do. He can see the Commission going back three years later and saying there is no reason to include the language because the Commission can request it without the language. That is why he is opposed to it, because the Commission can ask for it whether it is in the language or not. Saying that the Commission"may"is stating the same thing. The Applicant comes up,the Commission asks for their intent which goes on record,which can be used against them in the deliberation of future developments. Libby stated the key word is"may"because the Commission is not talking about hard and fast numbers as far as requirements. If the Planners feel there is something there that could trigger an issue, it gives them latitude to be able to have the ability to do that without having something that is very rigid and specific that may need to be changed later. He likes the word"may" and thinks it is constructive for the Planners and Staff to be able to have the latitude. Ressler commented the Planning Commission already has that latitude with or without the language. Barnhart agreed with Ressler. Kirchner indicated if an owner is in front of the Commission saying they are going to subdivide property and the Commission asks what they are going to do with the adjacent lot,they can just say, "Well, we think we are going to do"whatever the case may be. The language allows the Commission to ask them to provide a sketch plan rather than the owner arbitrarily talking at the podium. It allows the Commission to have the owner put pen to paper and show an illustrative rather than a general conversation at a hearing. Page 15 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby noted Kirchner said in a different way what he was referring to, because the sketch plan itself is a latitude to the Applicant that is not often allowed in the process. Orono offers to the public in general a very liberal,cost-effective method to bring forward ideas, and for the Commission to ask for that in the form of a sketch plan is fair, equitable,and reasonable.He likes the idea and thinks it should be put in. Gettman brought up the situation where an Applicant wants to do a subdivision but does not even show up. He likes the language because it encourages the owner to put together a plan so the Commission has a concept even though it is not final and subject to change. Ressler stated Staff can ask the Applicant for information proactively before it gets to the Planning Commission whether the language is included or not.That is why he is opposed to adding the language. Gettman said that as long as Staff is thinking proactively, he is fine with it. He referred to his checklist comment, where the Staff could say, "Before this is done,we really encourage you to do this."He does not have a problem if Staff is proactively doing it. Ressler asked Barnhart to comment,when people go to Staff and are looking for feedback on a proposed suggestion, on what their feedback is. Barnhart said Staff asks for as much information as they can possibly get. The rubber meets the road when he asks for something that costs money or time that they don't want to spend.The language is written in the section that details what is part of a complete preliminary plat application. By this time Staff should know what is coming and it gets fleshed out. After the comments he would recommend striking 6c because Staff at this stage would have already anticipated what those needs are. Referring to the display, he stated numbers 1-6 are items required to complete a preliminary plat application. 6 is any additional requirement by himself or the Planning Commission, which is where the rest of the information can be asked. 6c is an example of the information Staff may ask for. He does not think it is worth the discussion as far as what is gained. He stated people come forward with a preliminary plat and have other parcels that they own or they indicate they might be purchasing, Staff is going to make sure the owner has access to those parcels.The clause that the road continues to the boundary of the property is still in there and still maintains access, etc. Ressler clarified Barnhart would like to leave 6 intact but strike 6c because of the redundancy and asked if everyone was in favor of striking c. He indicated he was seeing a lot of yeses. Bollis, in regard to number 5,the cul-de-sac design, said the current definition leaves room for a cul-de- sac that has a different terminal than a circular one. He thinks there are projects in Orono where that makes sense but there are projects where it does not make sense. He does not think the circle is always the correct cul-de-sac. In a development around wetland where hardcover is a concern and it is a 2-lot or 3-lot subdivision and some type of hammerhead could fit,there is 64%less hardcover than a 90-foot circular one and it still meets State Fire Code. He stated he believes the way it was written allowed for flexibility; now the Commission is taking the flexibility away and making it all circular. He said hammerheads have been approved in the City. He thinks for most developments a circular is fine and works, but he would like to keep the flexibility in the language for unique cases. He noted the Planning Commission debates over 200 square feet or 1%hardcover for a house that is being built, but the hammerheads is where hardcover could be saved and still have adequate, safe turnarounds for fire trucks, delivery trucks, etc. He stated he does not know the correct answer. He feels like maybe the definition could be left alone so it Page 16 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby stated Kirchner and he have a mutual neighbor who is a very large-scale school bus transportation operator. That individual and Libby had a conversation about the different engineering and practical aspects of hammerheads vs. circular turnarounds.He said very valid points have been made about emergency vehicles because when they enter into an emergency situation,they need to be able to get in and out. The school bus comes daily during the school year. The owners of those vehicles are not fans of hammerheads because the mechanical stress on the vehicles when having to move through a hammerhead turnaround to get back out again is very impractical and it costs a lot more to maintain the vehicle than if it would be using a circular turnaround. He commented it was interesting to hear the operator's opinion on the wear-and-tear aspect on these large vehicles for hammerheads versus cul-de-sacs. Ressler said that is why the City would like the ideal standard to be the circular turnaround. Libby stated he agreed with Bollis from the standpoint of keeping the flexibility and latitude and that certain developments might have higher needs than others and he would like to keep the language flexible. Ressler asked if any members were opposed to adding the circular turnaround language, knowing there are developments where it may be more appropriate to have something other than a circular turnaround. Bollis stated he would be opposed because it would force the Applicant to go through a variance process for something that could otherwise be conforming. Ressler asked if anyone else was opposed to adding the language. After no response, Ressler said he is for adding the language because the variance allows the Commission the ability to take a look at the development in each application and have the ability to end up at the same place but avoid the possibility of adding a hammerhead where it is not appropriate. Ressler asked if there was any further discussion on number 4: "Conservation Design. Commissioners agreed with the proposed changes to the triggers, starting on Line 2091."There was no response from Commissioners. Ressler read number 3: "Defer review of the park dedication formula. The Commission agreed that this is an issue requiring review,but the focus should be on the subdivision process first."He asked Barnhart for any further comments. Barnhart said he wants to get the subdivision code approved, knowing the parks formula is an important part of it. Ressler asked if the language would be struck. Barnhart said although the language is not great,it is being kept and they will come back later with an amendment to the subdivision code that deals with park dedication. Ressler read number 2: "Does the Council wish to define appropriate street tree types?The Commission removed ash and gingko from the list of permissible street trees, but also added a reference to an outside agency for additional options. The Commission suggested the DNR as the resource, because information from the University of Minnesota Extension was more readily found, staff proposes using that resource." Page 18 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. allows for the Applicant to make a case for a non-circular cul-de-sac. If"circular"is defined,there are additions that describe the minimum radius etc. There are other forms of plain circular cul-de-sacs such as an offset, d-shaped,although he does not know if those would fall under"circular"or not. Each one has advantages depending on the property. He said Orono is unique because it does not have just flat land and you can just draw a road with a big bulge on the end of it. He would like to leave some room for flexibility in the code. Ressler noted there have been applications where perhaps it was reasonable to have something in lieu of a circular turnaround that would take up less hardcover.The City would generally like to see a circular turnaround. What the Planning Commission needs to deliberate on is, do they want to have the ability to decide on whether something other than a circular turnaround in certain circumstances is reasonable or do they want to make that the gold standard. Mayor Walsh brought up Crystal Bay, which has a two-acre minimum but 95%of the lots are 1/8 or 1/4 of an acre. People say it should be converted to 1/2 an acre,but then there are people with three acres that would subdivide all their lots.From a positive standpoint, it forces people to come in for a variance to say if it is reasonable or is a practical difficulty, and then it can be changed. When the Planning Commission says someone has to have 18 feet and they only have 17 feet,there is always an option with the reasonable/practical difficulty scenario. In regard to the cul-de-sac, if the City says they really want a circular turnaround from a safety perspective even if the hammerhead meets Fire Code because of buses and other issues,the Applicant can argue the issue. If it makes sense,that is what the Planning Commission/City Council is there for. Sometimes if you give people too many options, it kind of takes the decision-making out of the Planning Commission's hands. It forces the Applicant to talk to the Planning Commission/City Council about it. Some of the language is to keep areas like Crystal Bay or Baldur Park that have minimum lots in control as far as what is going on in those areas. Ressler noted another way to state it is, it opens the Planning Commission up to liability and the Commission can't do anything about it if it is compliant with Fire Code but it doesn't fit the spirit of the proposed development. He said including the circular turnaround language is stating that this is what the City is expecting as a standard, and anything other than that can be heard. Bollis stated the Mayor's comment makes sense and that is what the language is getting to. He asked if the Planning Commission wants to see circular cul-de-sacs, because that is what the Commission is agreeing to if that is how the code will be changed. Gettman noted it would be the opposite,that what the Commission would see is requests that vary from the ordinance, which is the guideline. If the Planning Commission does not want a guideline,the language should be taken out. If the Commission wants the applications to come before them and see whether or not they are appropriate,there needs to be a limitation in the ordinance, which is circular. Ressler said if somebody has a proposed subdivision and they are to the point of a turnaround and the Commission would like them to have a circular turnaround and they say there is nothing in the dialogue that says they can't have a c-shaped or d-shaped cul-de-sac,there is a problem,because the Commission is demanding something that is not in the code. He stated Mayor Walsh made a good comment when he said the City is not saying they won't allow something else, but the City has to see and understand why it would be something other than what the City ideally wants to see. Page 17 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 20,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. He said he is in complete agreement with number 2 and asked if anyone was opposed.There was no response from Commissioners. Ressler read number 1: "Does the Council want to have a"minor"(lot splits and subdivisions creating less than 3 new lots)subdivision process that could skip the Planning Commission. Some cities do, though Staff is not recommending one for Orono at this time,many of our subdivisions fall under these categories. Commissioners agreed that there should not be a minor subdivision process,at least at this time."He asked if any of the Commissioners were opposed. There were no responses. Gettman moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve the City of Orono,Text Amendment: Subdivisions based on the amendments discussed.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1 (Hollis). 5. UPDATE ON JUNE 8,2020 COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart said the Council reviewed the variances and applications the Commission saw in June.The Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance at 2645 Casco Point Road;the Council denied it. Staff is trying to advise Applicants more carefully to make sure they justify the variance but more importantly to fit within the requirements. They have worked to adjust ordinances in the last couple of years to reduce variances, and he stated Applicants should try to fit within the envelope. The Commission recommended approval of the variance at 3585 Frederick;the Council approved that. Ressler said the City Council had some dialogue that was good feedback as far as how the Council views the hardcover on the Casco Point development. Mayor Walsh said some of these things go back 7-8 years and it is partly Staff's job to know the history of the hows and whys of the hardcover number. He noted it is one thing if there is a house sitting there and you go from 34 to 26, and another thing to have a completely clean slate and it's a 2-car versus 3-car garage question. Staff spent about a year, 7-8 years ago, going through everything, and his house went from 29%to 19%because of the change and it was a huge change for everyone on the lake. It brought Orono more into conformance with everyone else. The structural coverage was also changed because it was too low and didn't make a lot of sense. He said they want to give people flexibility. If there are good rules,people have to play with the rules. If the City doesn't have good rules,they will change or modify them; or if someone has a bad situation,the City will deal with it. Ressler stated in the time he has been on the Commission, a lot of things have been ironed out from the efforts of the people in the room providing feedback who come from a lot of different places of expertise. On behalf of the City, he told everyone it is appreciated and thanked everyone for their contributions. ADJOURNMENT Gettman moved,Libby seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:02 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. ATTEST: Jon Ressler, Chair Page 19 of 19