Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-21-2020 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 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 Bob Erickson, Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner,Dennis Libby. The following Commissioners were absent: Chris Bollis and Mark McCutcheon. 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Kirchner moved,Libby seconded,to approve the Agenda for the August 17,2020 Planning Commission meeting.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 17,2020 Gettman moved,Erickson seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of July 20,2020,as submitted.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA20-000022,RANDY HAAPALA,HNH HOMES O/B/O WILLIAM& KATHLEEN WANNER 1095 FERNDALE RD WEST,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS. Rick Storlien, RDS Architects, OBO William &Kathleen Wanner,Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Curtis noted this property has a history of variances to redevelopment beginning in 2009,variances were granted, renewed and eventually expired due to inactivity. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties to support the requested lot area, lot width, setback and hardcover variances without generating neighborhood opposition. Staff recommends approval of the recommendation, however the flood plain requirement for a 15-foot elevation bench around the home should be met if there is adequate space on the property and the grading plan can be modified to conform. Chair Ressler asked if the blue line she mentioned onscreen is in compliance and not encroaching on the setback. Curtis pointed out one area of the home and patio that encroach on the setback, noting it is 530 square feet. Rick Storlien, RDS Architects, 10135 47"'Avenue North, Plymouth said Ms. Curtis presented things well and he welcomes any questions. Gettman asked,when considering the actual layout, were there any possible plans that allowed for no encroachment of the 75 foot setback. Page 1 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Storlien replied it's a bit like the chicken and the egg, the issue is that they're trying to maximize the flood plain holding pond area and the closer the house gets to the street, that pond gets smaller and smaller and reduces the capacity. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. Kirchner said he understands the detached garage will be revised and conform to the 15 foot setback, if this is something they vote to approve he thinks it's prudent to recommend to City Council that it be approved assuming these updated certificates of survey and such are in fact complete and finalized with that final application at the Council level. Erickson thinks the Staff report is well done and understands that there are some revisions coming, he is happy to hear that and is willing to support the approval. Libby concurs with the Staff report and supports it. Chair Ressler noted he,too,generally likes to follow the Staff's recommendation. Whenever possible, he likes to see homes not encroaching upon the setback, however, it appears that the Staff is pleased with what has been proposed and he doesn't see anything out of place. Kirchner moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA20-000022, 1095 FERNDALE RD WEST,for all of the Variances requested as well as the Conditional Use Permits,along with a recommendation to City Council that the updated plans reflect the detached garage being in compliance. Ms. Curtis asked for clarification on the motion,that they are recommending approval of all of the variances requested, so they are not recommending the Staff recommendation regarding the 15 foot flood plain elevation bench around the home. Kirchner said the recommendation was that would be met, and asked if that is correct. Ms. Curtis answered that is true. Kirchner said Staff's recommendation is for approval of some but not all. Ms. Curtis replied that is the only exception, approval of all with the exception that the 15 foot bench should be met in Staffs opinion. Kirchner said would like to amend the motion to be in line with Staff's recommendation. Kirchner moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA20-000022, 1095 Ferndale Road West,for all of the Variances and Conditional Use Permits requested,with the exception that the flood plain requirement for a 15-foot elevation bench around the home should be met. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1 (Gettman). 2. LA20-000054,LAKE COUNTRY BUILDERS,3825 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE. STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN. Page 2 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gregg Sutton,Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Staff finds the Practical Difficulties are not met and recommends denial. Chair Ressler said looking at the aerial view, is the deck already in place and they are talking about the porch being added, or is it an extension of the deck as well as the porch. Ms. Oakden replied the porch is being proposed and the deck is existing, as of 2016,the applicant is proposing to add three extra feet to it. There are also existing stairs wrapped around the deck,which she learned about today, so those stairs would also be pushed out. Chair Ressler asked how many feet is it encroaching upon the setback line, as proposed. Ms. Oakden said the setback is 45-feet, and the proposed porch and deck would be 42-feet(roughly a 3- foot encroachment), but with the wrap-around stairs, it would be at 38-feet(a 7-foot encroachment). Kirchner asked where the 3-foot extension of the deck is onscreen. Ms. Oakden noted it is shown as the dotted line(Deck B), pointing out the setback line and noted the deck currently meets the setback, however the proposed three extra feet on the deck, the proposed porch and stairs addition is what is being requested. Patrick Jacobson, 339 2nd Street, Excelsior, of Lake Country Builders reported the existing stair deck is in the setback as it sits today. He thanked Ms. Oakden for her review and stated reasons he believes they should recommend approval of the application. He said Lake Country Builders did their diligence in design and planning, along with the architect to both contact the City six months ago and designed plans around that information, which in the end was clearly not accurate. He said they looked online and couldn't find any designation for backlot on-line, he noted the homeowners are present today, and they can share their own feelings, and he is frustrated by the fact they've spent six months in design planning, the homeowners have spent over$10,000 in fees to find out they cannot do what they were told they could do. He noted the responses to the Practical Difficulties are littered with words like "reasonable use" and"adequate enjoyment." He said he's not a lawyer and will not debate those meanings, but when one looks up the word adequate,they see words such as"good enough, sufficient," and when looking at words like reasonable they see words such as"moderate and fair." He stated the homeowners have a great passion for their yard and the environment, as well as connecting with the environment. The reason they designed the porch as it is, is so they can dine outside in nature; to tell them they can reasonably use their home without this and adequately enjoy it,to him, is inaccurate. He noted they were also told to put it on the East or West side, but on the due-East side is a house and if they'd put the porch there,they'd be looking right into the neighbor's kitchen window. On the West side, it would be the further area from the kitchen and food-preparation area, and there are also some architectural feasibility problems with the roof pitches and roof design that would adversely affect the house,the architectural impact to the neighborhood and the value. Mr. Jacobson said they designed the addition to extend an existing gable which is the most practical position for the space as it is right next to the kitchen. He stated they were told over and over that the backlot setback is not overly burdensome and quite frankly he would argue it is; when looking at the survey, it is a very narrow lot front-to-back, and the backlot designation was unbeknownst to the current owners(they did not know it was a backlot,nor did they know of the different Page 3 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. setback). The 45-foot setback on the front and the back of the property basically makes an addition of any room-size not feasible. One could also say"just make the porch smaller,"but in this case that would mean a seven-foot outside-to-outside dimension which would not allow for any type of seating or dining. Last, Mr. Jacobson added they supplied an alternative design, so if the current application is denied as submitted,they would recommend alternatively considering the second design: moving the stairs back so they are not in the setback, which would improve an existing non-conformity; and not adding the three feet onto the deck. He noted this would clearly not be the ideal scenario for the homeowners, as it would mean a smaller deck, but if the current application is not approved,they would appreciate consideration of the second design for those reasons. Gettman asked regarding the second option which is onscreen,would the three-season porch extend out to the same distance that the existing stairs extend out. Mr. Jacobson replied roughly,yes. Gettman asked in other words, is it a further encroachment. Mr. Jacobson said it is not a further encroachment, noting they are three feet so it would be less. Gettman stated they're coming into the actual setback three feet from the deck. Mr. Jacobson said correct,as the stairs sit now,they can come into the setback three feet. Gettman said the alternate proposal two slides down, is the same three feet that the old stairs would have come down. Mr. Jacobson said roughly half an inch. Gettman said 2 feet 111/2 inches. Chair Ressler noted reading the dimensions are always challenging as the Commissioners can miss things and he doesn't want to get it wrong. He said Mr. Jacobson said seven feet by seven feet outside-to- outside dimension under what would have conformed, he asked if that is seven-by-seven or if it's ten feet from structure. Mr. Jacobson said the proposed addition is ten feet out from the existing structure. Chair Ressler noted he's not reading the plans correctly, and stated the line goes through the existing deck and is ten feet total, so it would be only seven feet out and fourteen feed wide. Ms. Oakden noted the proposed alternative plan would still need a variance for rear-yard setback, and the porch would be roughly three feet into the 45-foot setback,though it is not platted on a survey. Chair Ressler said he understands. His noted if they were building this within the envelope that was acceptable, it would be a dimension of 7-feet out and 14-feet wide and asked if that is accurate. Mr. Jacobson answered,hypothetically,yes. Page 4 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ms. Oakden said the existing deck as shown would roughly meet the 45-foot setback,because the current deck meets it, so if they built it in-line with the existing deck, it should meet that 45-foot setback and wouldn't trigger the need for variances. Libby said not to try to redesign the porch, but looking at the dimensional positioning of the porch, it almost appears to be an atrium or entry space, noting there is a bump-out which looks approximately three feet,then he noted it's actually five feet. He asked if it would destroy the architectural plan in order to come into conformance with the setbacks to be able to move three of the five feet of the porch back into that atrium/opening before going into the porch outside. Mr. Gregg Sutton,the homeowner noted the five foot area is currently dining room and they don't want to delete that space. Libby asked what they would put in there as far as dining. Mr. Sutton said they already have a dining room table in the space. Libby noted he wasn't criticizing,but looking at plans and clarifying. Mr. Sutton noted if anyone goes to the home,they will see that is the best place to put the three-season porch,there is no room on the East side as it's garage and entryway, on the West side is off the living room, so they'd be totally disconnected from the deck-area. Furthermore, the deck is centrally located on the rear of the building,thereby providing the furthest distance from property lines and most space around the yard. He said moving into the East would be overlooking the neighbor's kitchen and the West isn't viable from an architectural standpoint. He said being 2.9 feet over on the design, he would ask the Council to take some of these things into consideration, in addition to the fact that they basically wasted $10,000 and an entire summer based on wrong information from the City. Kirchner said not to redesign the plan, but asked if there was any thought to turning the current deck into the proposed porch,where they would then have approximately fifteen feet of deck. Mr. Sutton said they have discussed it and it is a potential option, but again,that pushed the deck further out to the East and that portion of the property is elevated significantly with respect to the neighboring property, looking down into the property. He said it's not a very viable option. Kirchner asked the way the deck is situated now, does the homeowner see into their kitchen area. Mr. Sutton noted they do, but the further they go out, the higher the elevation and the closer they are to their garage and kitchen. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:31 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:31 p.m. Chair Ressler said there is a bit of confusion, perhaps because the survey was wrong, with the additional stairs that are already encroaching upon the rear-yard setback. He asked Ms. Oakden if those were added after the fact. Page 5 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ms. Oakden replied she is not sure where those came from, on the 2015 As-Built Survey, no stairs were shown so she would assume that the stairs were done after the survey was completed. Libby noted he is having problem with establishing a Practical Difficulty, he thinks that any remedy could come about by another design. Erickson said he has a similar problem,the availability of alternatives which are either in compliance or more in compliance with the City's ordinance leads one to believe there is not a Practical Difficulty and the plan is more to the convenience of the homeowner. Given a choice between a non-compliant plan and a compliant plan, he said it's an easy choice to make. Kirchner agrees with what has been stated, he doesn't believe the Practical Difficulties have been established as required, he agrees with Erickson that there are other viable options that could create a conforming plan that wouldn't require variance. For those reasons, he would not support this. Gettman stated, not to oppose everyone each and every time, but the setbacks are obviously very sacred and that is what they're always trying to ask about. What he is struggling with is the fact that when the homeowner purchased the home, it looks like they, or at least the stairs, were already encroaching on the setback. The initial proposal is further encroaching,which is where everyone is uncomfortable, as opposed to the alternate proposal. The bigger issue for Gettman is back to the Practical Difficulties, it looks like the homeowner has made a concerted effort to apply that same setback with the stairs and clean it up on the West side of the house, and he would be inclined to be in favor of the alternate proposal for that reason. It also comes down to the fact that they have a setback that is 150% of the normal,that in Gettman's mind ends up being a Practical Difficulty because it's not normal to have that additional fifteen foot setback, given the size and the situation of the lot itself. He noted he is inclined to support the alternate proposal but not the proposal that was submitted. Chair Ressler noted the biggest difficulty the Commission has is they have rules that must be followed and then there are amendments or variances to those rules. In this case a variance is applied when there is only an acceptable Practical Difficulty applied and there must be fundamental circumstances that warrant that variance. Usability is an arbitrary word that can be taken in many different lights, but more-so must be proven more than denied. In this case, Ressler thinks it is not ideal to have a seven-foot depth porch, but where the Commission often approves situations which further worsen or encroach upon a setback, it's usually because there is no other alternative. He noted sometimes they see a suitability need,which has partially been discussed with the layout of the home, but sightline being unsavory on the side, although not ideal, is a way to make it work. Gettman moved,Kirchner seconded,to deny application LA20-000054,3825 North Shore Drive, Variance,as submitted. Chair Ressler clarified that Gettman isn't moving to approve the amended because that is not on the table. Gettman replied that is correct,his motion is to deny as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Barnhart said the Commission's recommendation will go before the City Council on October 12, 2020. Page 6 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. 3. LA20-000056 KUHL DESIGN BUILD,3249 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCE. STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN John and Elizabeth Ellenberger,Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Staff finds the applicant does not meet Practical Difficulty standards and recommends a denial. Ms. Oakden noted the neighbor to the South submitted a letter of support and the neighbor to the North submitted comments regarding the application with concerns regarding drainage and gutters be placed on the building, as well. Ms. Oakden noted onscreen she has highlighted the red area where she measured out the 7.5 foot setback and they can see the existing building currently sits about 2 feet from the building. She noted the blue-shaded area of the new roofline/loft is considered the new encroachment within the setback and is what is triggering the variance; the rest of it(outside the blue area) is outside the setback. Chair Ressler said in the spirit of like-kind,the existing structure as applied is to be replaced from where it is today. Ms. Oakden believes they're even proposing to maintain some walls, she thinks they're talking about changing out some windows and doorway, maintaining some walls and foundation, and creating a new upper space. She said they can replace it in the exact same manner if they choose to rebuild it, but the expansion of the roof is what is triggering the need for the variance. Chair Ressler noted they're really talking about just going up. Ms. Oakden answered that is correct. Dan Murphy, Kuhl Design Build, 1515 5th Street South,Hopkins, said what they're trying to do is maintain the slab, sightline and everything that is there. He noted it is essentially a rear garage,not hindering views of the lake, and if one knows the neighborhood,they come around the corner and see an old building sitting there. He said they're trying to leave the building's footprint,North wall, most of the walls will be left, but they're trying to maximize the architecture of the new house with the pitch of the roof. He said as they can see with the elevations,most of that is allowed,they aren't trying to make a bigger footprint or change the location of anything. He said they're more than willing to do the drainage, gutters, and everything; they're really trying to make it something a bit more attractive in the neighborhood as people come around the corner, and make it match the architecture of the house. He noted they could do a flat corner on the roof and still do the rest of it,which wouldn't look very nice. He clarified they are not trying to over-mass anything for the neighborhood and it's not a very big area that they're trying to get the variance on. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. Kirchner noted one neighbor submitted a letter raising concerns over the drainage and asked if they were generally in support but concerned about drainage. Page 7 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ms. Oakden said she believes it's included in the packet, and the neighbor noted that they wished to have gutters/drainage looked at because of the tight setback. They said the renovated outbuilding looks nice and the only concern is the water drainage. Kirchner said he always struggles with setbacks and further encroaching into them. He understands that height is primarily the issue on this application rather than getting closer to the property line,however he feels it isn't quite a like-kind improvement as it's not a rebuild of the existing dimensions including the height; it's an extension of that. Gettman agreed with Kirchner,the only Practical Difficulty seems to be similar to the last application and that it's really trying to avoid the aesthetic issue as opposed to a Practical Difficulty that the Commission would normally consider to overwhelm the variance for height. Libby asked on the design element,what is the existing pitch of the roof, as it almost looks like it's close to a 12/12 pitch. Mr. Murphy said he believes it is a 12/12, but if they were going to do anything to that roof, anything above the existing pitch,which is almost flat right now, no matter what is done on the structure with building code,they will have to do an energy heel, if they build it to comply with City's code. He said no matter what he does it will be above the dotted line on screen which will automatically trigger coming in for a variance. He noted that is what he struggles with: no matter what he does with the building/roof, it's not going to fit within the parameters of what the City is allowing. He noted the structure is old and the trusses might be 2x6, so if he has to build it to code, he will have to come in and get a variance. No matter what they do, it was decided that they should make it architecturally pleasing for the entire neighborhood. He stated it's out of compliance as it is and if he tries to do anything, it will be out of compliance. Libby asked what the pitch is of the existing roof. Mr. Murphy said he is unsure, but it might be a 3/12 or a 4/12 at the most, noting it's pretty flat. Gettman asked what the minimum roof is that the dotted line would have to be raised, as it looks like they've basically raised another story. He said if they need to increase by 6 inches, one foot,two feet,to accommodate an accurate pitch. Mr. Murphy said he can't tell that for sure, if they have to do trusses it will be 16 inches at minimum. Gettman noted the design is more than 16 inches. Kirchner said it is 10 feet. Gettman said that is what the Commission is struggling with,to go the 16 inches,what the Practical Difficulty is that they need to go above a certain amount,but that isn't 10 feet. Mr. Murphy said they're only looking for 5 feet, and everything outside of the blue area is within compliance. He clarified any roof system he puts in will be inside the blue area and will need a variance regardless. Page 8 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson would like to point out the communication from a neighbor concerned about drainage, noting the two foot setback area is currently a wet area, and were concerned that new construction might possibly make that worse. Even if that weren't the case,he has a similar concern with this application in that there is land on the property where a new structure could be built in a different location and would comply with at least the side setback. He noted he considers it a fairly extreme setback down to a two foot variance as compared to one that might be in compliance. He feels the best justification other than the roofline is that they want to use the existing slab,which to him, if they're going to rebuild the entire structure, only costs a little more to pour a new slab. Based on that, his inclination is to deny the application. Chair Ressler asked if the application is not necessarily rebuilding the entire structure, it's just a matter of redoing the roof and going up as long as the existing structure supports it. Ms. Oakden answered yes,the plan shows they are proposing new windows and doors, but most of the structure is maintained and includes a new roofline. Chair Ressler said his perspective is if they were rebuilding,that roofline is probably arguably insufficient as far as runoff. He said it's occupying the same area of runoff with a sharp pitch versus a shallow pitch. In this circumstance, he is in support of it because going up is adding on to existing structure, trying to make it conform to a shallow pitch for 5.5 feet with some sort of weird half wall, go up and carry on...he said it's doing a lot to make not a lot of impact, change or improvement from how the neighbors are going to be impacted by the water runoff. He thinks this is a good opportunity for the neighbors, before it gets to the City Council,the neighbors can get together with the applicant and discuss what a plan is and see if their support can be rallied as that can be an improvement to a situation that right now is apparently a difficulty. Chair Ressler is in support of the application because of those circumstances. John Ellenberger, 3249 Casco Circle, homeowner, said he appreciates the perspectives each of them brought to this project. He said from the start,they've felt it's not so much a rebuilding as it is making it work more effectively for their needs. He said they've been focused on cubic feet versus square feet because what isn't shown is a structure,noting there was previously another 28 feet heading towards the house that was removed during the rebuild of the home. In reading the neighbor's full letters,they are supportive and are just saying if this happens,they want to improve the drainage by putting eaves on the building, which Mr. Ellenberger is fully compliant with. He noted both neighbors are fully supportive. Across the street isn't a home, rather it's the park so they will not be obstructing the view of anyone towards the lake. He said it was those types of things that made them feel it is a relatively minimal change. Gettman noted as mentioned several times,the setbacks are sacred to the Commission. He said the homeowner has done a lot of things and tried to do it all for the right reasons,he asked why the homeowner wouldn't want to pull the building back 4.5-5 feet and then go as high and wide as they want into their land. He said it comes back to the sacred part, as the building is already encroaching, so the Commission is trying to protect a further encroachment. He noted they've had massive arguments, especially close to lakeshore when people have a carriage area or dock that is turned into a home. He asked Mr. Ellenberger to help the Commission understand the Practical Difficulty and what is preventing him—noting again he's done a masterful job in trying to keep the same footprint. Mr. Ellenberger thinks the answer to that question is, in the 2.5 years they've owned the property;they've looked at the structure and how to use it for office, exercise and some storage. He noted the cubic space Page 9 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. was more helpful to them overall,as the driveway is 8 feet wide, and to move the structure anywhere else on the lot would put it in front of the main house, as there is no other place to effectively put the structure. He felt the efficiency of keeping what they could wasn't the key driver,they felt going up is a workable solution. Libby commented regarding the redesign of the roof and pitch, noting he has been involved in many types of roof design with that pitch and he knows the outcome or consequence is with a pitch of that severity. He said in most remedies of the fast and rapid leaving of the rain/heavy water because of the fast velocity that comes with heavier pitch, most of the time they've had to remediate those with very large(5-7 inch width) extruded gutters, heavy downspouts and drain tile to take the water away. Libby can't see the Practical Difficulty to start with and thinks they don't fully understand that they're compounding a problem by asking the Commission to allow the owner to move it closer to the lot line,which compresses the amount of area for drainage and putting a 12/12 pitch which will exacerbate that drainage problem. He thinks they homeowner is far better off to move the building back because the cost incurred in trying to remediate the drainage problems—which neighbors have already expressed concern about—and Libby can say from a factual standpoint,that it will compound the problem by having a 12 pitch roof Ms. Elizabeth Ellenberger, 3249 Casco Circle,homeowner noted they have addressed that drainage is an issue. She noted that Ivy hits Casco Circle at a higher point and according to City Staff, Casco is supposed to be re-done and that problem will be addressed. She said they're in talks to do the entire remediation and the current structure doesn't have gutters on that side, but does have gutters on another side,which are in disrepair. She clarified it is an issue and it is being addressed. Chair Ressler noted that is good feedback and if it goes before the City Council,working directly with those neighbors and stating exactly what they're looking to do may change what is determined, approved or denied. He said getting neighbors comfortable knowing they're improving a situation might get others more comfortable with approval. Kirchner moved,Libby seconded,to deny LA20-000056,3249 Casco Circle Variance as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 2 (Gettman and Ressler). 4. LA20-000057 MICHAEL GALLUS CONSTRUCTION,INC., 1985 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,VARIANCES. STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN. Matthew Briggs, Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Ms. Oakden noted Staff recommends denial as the Applicant has not met standards for Practical Difficulty. Mr. Matthew Briggs, 1985 Fagerness Point Road, homeowner, noted he also had Dan Gallus,the original builder of the home who is working with the current homeowner. He said he appreciates the Staffs input and he's only had a few days to respond; he noted the main driver behind the Practical Difficulty is that they built the home 10 years ago with two kids and no father-in-law. Since then they have three kids and their father-in-law is now a disabled veteran. They relocated from California to Minnesota and the reason they're building it is because it is consistent with the neighborhood and it also meets a need for their family, noting they have three bedrooms on the top floor of the property(built in 2010). He reported they have three children so their boys share a room and they are building a room downstairs to accommodate a father-in-law who will be moving in with them so they can provide him care. Mr. Briggs said they'd be Page 10 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. widening the garage,the doors, making it accessible to their father-in-law, including the bedroom and bathroom space to accommodate him. He said that is the main driving force, however,they also want to point out the neighborhood and the variances they're asking for are consistent with the neighborhood. He noted they tried to be very mindful of that in building the home, stating a home was built at 1973 Fagerness which is the identical design to their home. His understanding is that there were multiple variances given, they have a 20-foot wide driveway and are much closer to the street than what Mr. Briggs is proposing, and that was recently completed. He noted some other examples, regarding the design of his original home and said when looking at the property it is very vertical and feels very tall, almost three stories. He said what they're proposing softens those lines of the home and by his understanding they've received unanimous support in building it from their direct neighbors as well as three other neighbors(information which has been provided). Mr. Briggs said he doesn't know if they necessarily need all the variances they applied for; for example, in the corner, one foot of the stairway is encroaching, and he noted they can move that back. He stated there are no sight-line issues with either neighbor. Regarding parking, they will actually increase their parking, noting that currently one car can be parked in their garage and this will allow two cars in the garage,two cars in the driveway and three cars in their parking spot, which is more parking than any of their neighbors. Mr. Briggs said the Practical Difficulty standpoint is important, as the only place they can build a bedroom that would be accessible, while still accommodating their three children, is where it is proposed. He noted they're willing to be flexible and what is most important is that they're able to accommodate their father-in-law, care for him and still give their children their own bedrooms,while still meeting the neighborhood design. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Chair Ressler noted Mr. Briggs mentioned one thing that might be a friendly amendment is the average lakeshore setback and it appears that the line goes further than what was understood by the Applicant and asked Ms. Oakden if that is correct. Ms. Oakden replied when the application was first submitted,this line(noted onscreen), was not shown on the Survey and is something Staff required as part of the review. Once applied, Staff identified that the average lakeshore setback variance would be required and was published as such. If the Applicant wishes to meet the setback,the entire corner would need to be removed or behind the line. Chair Ressler asked if that is inclusive of stairs. Ms. Oakden responded yes, inclusive of stairs as they'd only allow up to 42 inches to encroach, so if the stairs rise over 42 inches above existing grade, it is seen as an encroachment. She showed onscreen that the stairs rise relatively steeply, so the homeowner would have to provide elevations and show that they meet the average lakeshore setback in any amended plans they may wish to submit. Chair Ressler asked how the stairs are currently. Ms. Oakden showed a current elevation onscreen,noting a relatively flat driveway and that the stairs go up in a curved fashion, noting she doesn't have elevation measurements on the stairs,but they would measure from existing grade per the survey. Page 11 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler said it looks like the current sidewalk and steps are encroaching slightly on the average lakeshore setback. Ms. Oakden responded, potentially, if they rise 42 inches above existing grade. She said they're allowed to have things within the average lakeshore setback if they're low to the ground(under 42 inches). However anything above 42 inches over existing grade triggers the need for a variance and is seen as an encroachment. Chair Ressler said that's interesting,whether hardcover or not. Ms. Oakden said they're allowed to put hardcover in the average lakeshore setback. Gettman asked if there are any pictures of 1973 Fagerness Point Road,the home they're trying to mirror. Ms. Oakden pulled the picture up onscreen and noted it had approved variances in 2019, and they reconstructed an existing garage, changed the shape of it slightly, and she believes they moved it back off the street farther and made it slightly wider to make it more conforming and improved some of the setbacks. Gettman asked if there are any other similar lots,where regardless of the improvement they are still encroaching on the setback. Ms. Oakden replied most of the lots along Fagerness have encroachments, and some received variances, but are all variances based on existing conditions or existing structures. She clarified they are not creating new encroachments but amending existing buildings. Chair Ressler noted the term they refer to often is building like-kind and improving positions, and that jumps out at him on this. Gettman said he is struggling because there appear to be a number of neighbors who, from whatever timeframe or purpose, have been allowed to encroach on that setback. Kirchner said he struggles to encroach further or even in this case to break into that envelope of encroaching into a setback. While he understands there are others in the neighborhood and nearby, he noted it is not a like-kind improvement but a new construction addition to the home and he doesn't believe he can support it. Erickson stated they've been cautioned about designing someone's project for them, but noted it's so basic, and asked if it's correct if the ordinance looks for a 15-foot driveway and the Applicant is requesting a 14-foot driveway to allow the construction of a new 24-foot deep addition. He asked if it was a 23-foot addition,that the driveway requirement would be met. Ms. Oakden answered that is correct, for driveway standards,the City requires a 15-foot space of driveway equal to the width of the garage doors, which is one of the applicable variances for this application. She noted if they made it 15-feet, that variance would then be resolved, but it would not resolve the street-yard setback variance. Depending on how that changes as it pertains to average lakeshore setback, she is not sure if one foot would resolve that setback,they'd need to see how it would be applied. Page 12 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler asked if average lakeshore setback would still be a concern. Ms. Oakden said the homeowner would have to show it, she's not sure if one foot would resolve that setback encroachment. Chair Ressler commented that he thinks it can be done by changing it and not getting into the average lakeshore setback, noting it looks like it's a worsening of a condition looking at the current steps versus the proposed steps. He stated he doesn't think he's in favor of it as it's proposed. Libby agreed with Chair Ressler, noting he's trying very hard to get his head around why Staff would've denied this based on a Practical Difficulty, as he is still trying to look for it. He said he listened to a relatively articulate presentation by the homeowner,who addressed somewhat sensitive and familiar issues that are dear to his heart(having to do with Veterans). However,he still cannot find the Practical Difficulty and tends to agree with Staff and he cannot support it. Gettman asked to confirm regarding the required setback, if Staff could confirm the setback Erickson referred to, if it's 15 feet or 30 feet. Ms. Oakden replied it is both, noting it is 2 variances: one is a 30 foot building setback for the street-yard, and one is a 15 foot driveway standard from the garage doors. Gettman noted there is a third variance which is the lakeshore setback. Ms. Oakden responded yes,the average lakeshore setback. She said there is a fourth variance for a wide driveway in the 75,where they only allow 8 feet so they'd need a variance to allow the construction of a wider driveway. She clarified that as proposed,the Application would trigger four variances. Chair Ressler shared there had been discussion on variances for driveways for different reasons, he doesn't really have a problem with the driveway as proposed, but he's not thrilled about the other three. He noted he thinks there are ways to make the project still conform. Libby noted there was conversation about adjacent and surrounding properties and some standards that were set by that. He said they need to be very careful because they really don't have any empirical data about those setbacks and aren't working with real dimensions, noting it's really opinion, hearsay and conjecture and they can't advise Council based on those standards. He said that's another reason he has compunction to support this. Chair Ressler said,that is not a Practical Difficulty, and one thing the Commission considers is does it conform to the spirit and the scope of the neighborhood; he noted it is up for debate but doesn't think it's part of their discussion. Libby moved,Kirchner seconded,to deny LA20-000057, 1985 Fagerness Point Road Variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. LA20-000058 MARK& MARY ENGER,2697 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCE. STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS. Mark and Mary Enger, Applicants,were present. Page 13 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Ms. Curtis noted due to a calculation error by the Surveyor,the property is currently 43 square feet over the 25% hardcover limit. Staff does not recommend approval of the variance; if the Commission finds Practical Difficulties support granting the variance to accommodate the turnaround requested, and the additional miscalculated hardcover, a recommendation for approval may be appropriate. Kirchner asked if the 10x10 back-up pad was pavers, is there some square footage given credit over and above that it wouldn't then count towards the hardcover. Ms. Curtis said it does not apply to driveways. The credit for pervious pavement applies to a walkable surface(patio, sidewalk), but nothing that is driven on. Mr. Mark Enger, homeowner, 2697 Casco Point Road, said as Ms. Curtis referenced,they are asking for a small turnaround so cars can exit a very busy—and getting busier—road(Casco Point Road). He noted this application is based on safety and all of the difficulties around it are tied to a safety element. He feels the opportunity to exit the property facing the roads reduces the safety risk to the owners and visitors, but also to the general public driving on Casco Point Road. Mr. Enger said Mrs. Enger's parents owned the property and they've been connected to it since the 1970's and noted the property had a different design and they didn't have problems exiting the property many years ago. He said the existing property, previous to the Enger's construction had a hardcover of 30.49%;the proposal with the correction Ms. Curtis referenced that the 100 square feet would bring the total hardcover to 25.7%. The driveway is very long, steep and winding that connects directly to Casco Point Road. Since the Engers have lived there, it seems to be getting busier with construction and service vehicles,and approximately 75% of homeowners are exiting the very long dead-end road. He noted parking is currently allowed on both side of Casco Point Road, which adds to the complexity and the impact on visibility. Mr. Enger said traffic coming from the North to the South creates a particular visibility issue and noted their neighbors to the South have a turnaround and their lot is a similar shape and size. He noted there have been several near-misses backing out onto the road because of the traffic. As Ms. Curtis referenced,they have received many letters of support from neighbors,and have heard from their mailman and service providers, many of whom who have perhaps experienced the effort of backing out on to Casco Point Road. Mr. Enger said when they designed the house, they were living in Oregon and quite frankly expected their designer to identify some of the challenges of the driveway and did not. He also noted they weren't expecting as much traffic as there has been on Casco Point Road, and said the fact that they're only asking for 100 square feet to solve a very present problem hopefully tells the Commission that they're not trying to gain the system. Mr. Enger said they are asking for approval of the variance application. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Chair Ressler asked Ms. Curtis on the right-hand side of the sketch onscreen where some is shaded bituminous and some is clear but noted bituminous, he asked what the cutoff rendering is. Mr. Enger said they have an easement with the neighbor and is a shared entrance to both of their driveways and has been in place for many years. Page 14 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ms. Curtis said she's not sure what the distinction is, it might just be new bituminous as it's an As-Built survey from the home's construction,noting sometimes the surveyors like to get creative with their textures. Erickson asked if Mr. Enger has any comments regarding bicycle traffic or pedestrians. Mr. Enger said there are kids in the neighborhood with bikes and adults who walk regularly and there are many pedestrians that walk past the property every day. Erickson said in reading the Staff report, he finds that the Applicants make a strong argument, identifying safety,the busy roadway,the property's unique design, slope and driveway as Practical Difficulties. He finds that very convincing and there is also supporting documentation. It should be noted the homeowner has significant neighborhood support as well,but to Erickson, it is the Practical Difficulties that he feels are unique to the property; therefore he is inclined to support the variance. Libby said for the same reasons Erickson and the Applicant articulated, he supports this. He noted he is fortunate enough to have a driveway that is large enough to turn around and drive out and his habit is to back out because he has the space and visibility to do that. Because the new development has had such heavy traffic, both from construction and new residents, he tends to turn around and go out facing the street so he has that peripheral visibility in both directions. He supports the Staff's decision on this because he thinks it's very practical and a safety issue. Chair Ressler noted he believes Staff recommended denial. Libby said it was Practical Difficulty. Chair Ressler clarified Commissioner Libby feels Practical Difficulty has been met for approval. Gettman added that the Applicant was kind enough to answer his question,which is"who is to blame," and found out it was the designer when they were out West. Mr. Enger noted he did a good job on the rest of the house. Kirchner said hindsight is always 20/20 and having just built a home 12-18 months ago, it is hard to imagine every minor detail and he understands that within the overall task of building and designing a home, he sees how a driveway may be overlooked. He noted although he is not typically one to support any bit of deviation in making hardcover worse, he believes there are Practical Difficulties here and he can empathize based on his law enforcement career with the safety of backing onto a road. He believes the Applicant has demonstrated line-of-sight issues and for those reasons he would support this one. Chair Ressler said this long lot is difficult to navigate,they can't make the driveway any smaller and they can't take space from the existing driveway to create room for a turnaround, unless they wanted to drive through grass to get to the road. He said he will caution the Applicant the Commission has had these applications before on Casco Point Road in recent memory that have been denied,which is most likely where Staff finds their recommendation because of that. Chair Ressler can see this one is a bit different because in other applications there were ways to make things work and it wasn't a turnaround situation. Therefore, he is in support of the variance application because of the turnaround and he doesn't believe there is another way to do it. Page 15 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gettman moved,Erickson seconded,to approve LA20-000058,2697 Casco Point Road,Variance as applied.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6. LA20-000062 ACCENT HOMES,4780 NORTH ARM DRIVE WEST,VARIANCE. STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS. Ellen Forcier, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Ms. Curtis noted Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to develop the property. Chair Ressler said just to summarize,the 2 acres and 200 feet is what triggers this variance. Ms. Curtis answered in the affirmative. Chair Ressler noted any lot they want to build on that isn't already developed will trigger that. Mr. Curtis replied yes, or to redevelop. Ellen Forcier, 3109 Dakota Avenue South, St. Louis Park, noted the property 4780 North Arm Drive is where she grew up in a home with her mother and two sisters. She noted the home burned in about 1985 and was left to Ms. Forcier and her daughter in the hopes from her mother that they would build on the property at some point. Ms. Forcier and her husband are at the point of looking at one-level living and that is why the property has been empty for as long as it has been. They're asking for the variance, and as Ms. Curtis stated,the house fits within but the septic does not. Ms. Curtis clarified the septic does meet the setbacks. Libby asked if the existing septic or the septic design is in compliance. Ms. Curtis responded the septic design has been approved by the building official. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Robin Johnson,4730 North Arm Drive, is attending to request the Planning Commission hear her concerns regarding the building permit requested by the owner of 4780 North Arm Drive. She noted this is a five-acre lot that has stood abandoned since a home burned on the site in the mid-1980's. Prior to that, it is Ms. Johnson's understanding the site was the original Orono one-room Swedish schoolhouse that's been memorialized by a plaque in Legacy Park. The original fieldstone foundation of the original Orono Swedish schoolhouse is still in-part intact on the site. In July 2020,the neighborhood woke up to the sound of the site being clear-cut, which she understands the owner has the right to do. At the time, the site had completely grown over. Ms. Johnson asked to point out some intricacies about that corner, there's been a lot of new density brought into County Road 19 right there including the Lakeview Development and Red Oak,that corner(19 and North Arm) is very high density and high traffic, moving at about 50 miles per hour. She noted they see a significant amount of accidents and traffic on that corner, especially on a slippery winter morning, she has seen 18-wheelers slide backward at the stop sign on the corner. Because of the extreme overgrowth on the lot, very few people knew that historical site existed,the homestead was abandoned and left in disrepair for over 35 years, leaving burned remnants, an uncovered well cistern, and became the home for lots of overgrowth and wildlife. Ms. Johnson's concern, Page 16 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. as is the concern of many of the surrounding property owners, and her understanding is that the lot is unbuildable and they've been told that over time by the City Planners in decades past. The main reason it's unbuildable is because of the 50 foot setback from County Road 19 and the other issue is the septic system,the City of Orono has benefitted from a 2-acre comprehensive plan and yes,there are some provisions that afford combinations for smaller sites. She thinks she just heard them say it does meet all of the requirements, but she believes this plan doesn't actually meet the 50 foot setback and that it doesn't meet the setback on the North side. Ms. Curtis clarified it is a 30 foot setback from County Road 19. Ms. Johnson also has a concern around the watershed, noting the McKinney development and six homes North of the corner, a peak with elevation, and all of that land drains into a creek which runs into Ms. Johnson's backyard, and then heads South toward the backside of 350 North Arm and ultimately drains in the space between 4780 and 4760, running into a huge culvert that goes under North Arm and creates the river/creek that runs into Lakeview Lake. Ms. Johnson noted there is so much water in the spring, it appears to be a rushing creek, and the backside of 4780 has significant water drainage in a flood plain all spring and she wants to make sure the Minnehaha Watershed has reviewed the owners plan. She asked regarding the new septic system, will the City be setting precedence to allow .5-acre property owners to have a new septic system that doesn't have a mound and doesn't have the requirements under 780200 A and B? She also understands the new septic system must be pumped every fifty days and asked how that will be handled by the owner. Chair Ressler asked to address the questions one at a time. Ms. Johnson asked about the new septic system, as her understanding is everyone who lives in Orono must have a mound. Ms. Curtis answered everyone in Orono doesn't have to have a mound type system, but they must have a compliant system, and there are different types of systems. She noted this is a system that requires a maintenance plan, as it isn't a standard trench or mound system, but has a maintenance component over and above one of those systems. She stated it is an acceptable system and the Building Official has approved the system. Ms. Johnson asked if there are any others like it in the City. Ms. Curtis replied she doesn't know. Chair Ressler believes there is soil testing to see how fast the water percolates. Ms. Curtis said they've done the testing on the site and this is the type of system that has been designed to work and is acceptable. Libby said any design that is done must be by a licensed, credentialed, Minnesota Department of Health design engineer. Ms. Johnson noted many surrounding areas have a mound and have had to update their mound systems at great expense to meet City requirements, and she asked if this will create precedence so other homeowners can look into this system that takes up less space and may be more suitable. Page 17 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ms. Curtis said it is, but this isn't the desired system, it's not cheaper or better, it is more intensive, requires a higher level of maintenance, and isn't something most homeowners would want. She noted a mound system is one step up from a trench system because there isn't a separation, noting homeowners aren't required to have a mound, but are required to meet the standard. Ms.Johnson noted the lot has received zero maintenance for 35 years by the landowner and now they're going to have a 50-day maintenance system on it. According to the City's Comprehensive Plan and City Zoning, its deemed unbuildable unless it meets the planning requirements, and asked if one of the unique requirements will be that is has a specialized septic system. Ms. Curtis replied it is required to have sewage treatment,yes. Ms. Johnson asked if the Minnehaha Watershed has reviewed the analysis. Ms. Curtis isn't entirely sure what Ms. Johnson is asking but noted the Watershed District required the property owner to do a wetland delineation, which showed there was no wetland on the property. There will be drainage over the property, as everyone's home has drainage across the lot. The Applicant will be required to maintain the drainage and are showing they will do so with the grading plan. Ms. Johnson noted it is a very small piece of land and they want to make sure all of the requirements have been reviewed. She said in part,trust has been lost because the site was demolished before grading permitting had been approved and there is concern that the City has been able to take the time and necessary precautions to make sure it won't have a negative impact on the surrounding areas. Going back to the safety issues, she asked how building on that corner will impact visibility on County Road 19, which has very high traffic density, and even having a garbage truck at that point could potentially be a detriment to traffic. She asked if the Commissioners are familiar with the corner. The Commissioners replied yes,they are very familiar with it. Gettman said his concern is someone coming at 50 miles per hour over the hill and down County Road 19 is then blind to that garbage truck, or someone will try to go around them, and it will be a head-on. He understands completely, but it all goes back to the money the homeowner's association/group that was against the Lakeview Development spent on lawyers, and asked if there's been any discussion on buying that property. Ms. Johnson said there are other individuals more suited to speak on behalf of the Lakeview Organization than she is, but once they saw the land was being cleared and that building was teeing up,through discovery, she learned that the Lakeview Legacy Park had approached the last Mayor and City Planning group to see if the City would be willing to sell them the land so it could be attached to Legacy Park and restore the original Orono one-room schoolhouse. She noted they didn't realize it would be built again and they haven't had a chance to mobilize an offer. She reiterated the visibility, safety and the watershed (if impeded, significant flooding will occur on the land behind it,which is Ms. Johnson's property). Ms. Johnson said when the land was clear-cut,the owners chipped all of the trees and used it to fill in ravines around the corner before any watershed had come out, so again trust has been broken and concerns are in place because normal process and procedure hasn't been respected. Page 18 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ms. Curtis said she believes the oversight in the demolition permit was that it was a foundation; she doesn't think they were aware they needed a demolition permit for the pieces of the foundation that were there. She doesn't believe they were trying to subvert any City regulations. Bud Dropps, owner of Accent Homes who will be the builder on the project, stated they have a demolition permit and had permission to cut the trees down,there was a wetland delineation, the Minnehaha Watershed District came out to look at the property. He noted the creek is not on this property. Chair Ressler clarified that whenever there is a situation,the Watershed must weigh in on whether there are wetlands on the property. Ms. Curtis said the Watershed District has reviewed the wetland delineation that says no wetlands are present and that is the official record; it doesn't mean there isn't drainage across the property or seasonal water, but it isn't a wetland. She noted it's in the property owner's best interest to make sure the water that comes to the property moves off the property in the way it has been and the engineer has reviewed the grading plan and approved it. Chair Ressler noted the final grading would verify the proposed grading that has been approved by the engineer is met. Ms. Curtis said the As-Built Survey would confirm that. Mr. Dropps said they will keep the erosion control in place until turf is established. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Gettman said regarding the question of whether or not it's wetlands, it's the runoff,and could potentially have a negative impact with the runoff. The bigger issue he has in looking at the Practical Difficulties is whether or not this is a Taking, as the property is not conducive to be built upon,there are many issues and variances to be able to build on the property. This begs the question if it's not buildable,then it's a Taking, and the City would actually buy it. He understands that the property owner wants to build on it and enjoy it, and he appreciates that, however it is a horrible location for what has been built around it and are causing the Difficulties they're trying to deal with. He doesn't have a magic solution and that is what he's struggling with. As Ms.Johnson noted,there are accidents across County Road(CR) 19, accidents as they're coming down CR 19, and the new people in the Lakeview Development who will fly by the area as they're rushing up the hill to turn right onto CR 19. Gettman said it's a very difficult corner to deal with. He believes everyone should have a right to build on their property with whatever variances that can be accommodated to enjoy that property, and this one he struggles with because of the location as its been left for 35 and many things have happened around the property that has made it very difficult to build on without adverse effects. Ms. Forcier's husband Jeff Anderson said in talking about the issue of traffic, if they don't build,what is the City going to do about it. If it's an issue, it should be addressed but it doesn't have anything to do with the lot and the runoff is off the property and it's not affected by anything on the property. Gettman said that is his struggle,the runoff literally goes right under the road which is where the driveway would be. With respect to the traffic,Mr. Anderson is absolutely right,that traffic isn't going Page 19 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. away whether or not they build,but it will be exacerbated and made potentially worse if someone stops in front of their house, someone will have to pull around and that will be a head-on collision when someone is turning left to go onto North Arm. Mr. Anderson said they would have to do that even if the house wasn't there. Gettman said nobody would be stopping there,whether it's a mailman or garbage collector; currently it's a vacant lot and that's why the question as far as having some workable solution for all parties,he's not being adversarial,but that is the issue they're dealing with. He stated he can't imagine the property owners finally making the decision to build on the property and now this,he doesn't envy that position and he appreciates their patience as he tries to voice some of those concerns. Kirchner respectfully disagrees, he doesn't think it's the Commission's place,nor is it fair to place traffic or highway concerns onto an individual lot-owner; rather it falls on the County to do a traffic study and figure out a re-engineering plan. He said the Applicants have submitted a plan that abides by all of the setbacks and the only reason they're here asking for it, is because when it was originally platted, it was under the size of what Orono has now changed the Comprehensive Plan to. Therefore,that is the only reason there is a trigger for a variance, because when it was originally platted, they didn't have a 2-acre minimum or it didn't apply to this area. He asked Staff if the purple-to-red dot in front of 4760 is where the culvert is and it would not run under the driveway at 4780 North Arm Drive. Ms. Curtis responded that is what the map is indicating. Kirchner said he would approve and support this variance. Erickson doesn't have a comment; he is comfortable with the Staff report. Libby said with all due respect to the public comments and objections, he doesn't find anything empirical in any of that discussion that would prohibit or impede a private property owner that has elected to have a home-site. He said they have agency, plenty of planning and scrutiny by 4-5 different agencies that say the lot is buildable. He noted the discussion about whether or not there is a watershed or wetland and the delineation is a federal delineation, is seasonal and based on 100-year flood plains. If you go to Hennepin County tax information there is an astounding set of resources to be able to see where wetlands are,the meander of stream and creeks, and how frequently they flood. Libby said he hasn't done that, but if the public commenter would look they'd find there is a lot of difference between a wetland and a flood plain. He said the flood plain concerns him very little, he also has just designed 5 sub-surface treatment systems, which is a current term for septic treatment, and he is very involved with the engineering and design of 4- 5 methods and all are under the auspices of the State mandate, regardless of the municipality. They must have an ongoing maintenance and service pumping,unless it was an old system with a drain field,which are all considered failed. He is trying to respect the public comments but he can't find anything in a material fact issue that would really be an objection strong enough to persuade the homeowner not to build their house. He is in favor and would approve it. Chair Ressler noted it's a 1/2—acre lot, it's not little, and he believes the driveway will dump out onto North Arm Drive and immediately allow egress onto CR 19 so the disruption to the neighborhood traffic is minimal. He said it's certainly not ideal but he doesn't have a concern about that. Chair Ressler noted they don't have any other setbacks to consider besides what is triggering the variance, which is that it's Page 20 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. not a 2-acre parcel. He has zero problem with this application as submitted, although he respects differences of opinion. Gettman said he thinks it should be clear that anything he's articulated has nothing to do with an actual clear Staff-driven declination of this application; it is their advisement to the City Council that he is trying to articulate. He noted these are things that aren't as clear and it is a difficult lot and his question is whether the City is willing to make an adverse possession and take it, because it's similar to the discussion they had with the developers of Lakeview wanting to switch some of the lots. Gettman said the Commission has nothing to do to deny it, but it is back to the advisory role. He said he doesn't see a Practical Difficulty that's a required Staff reason for denial, but there maybe the opportunity to meet with some of the other neighbors to see what opportunities there are. He stated that is out of the Commission's purview but comes down to their role in making a recommendation to the City Council. Kirchner moved,Gettman seconded,to approve LA20-000062,4780 North Arm Drive West, Variance,as submitted.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 7. LA20-000052 ALLIANT ENGINEERING,INC.,38,UNASSIGNED/PID 33-118-23-11- 0060, CONCEPT PLAN. STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART Aziz Saddiqui,representing David Weekley Homes, Applicants, was present. Staff presented a summary of packet information. Chair Ressler asked what the setbacks are of the proposed sketch plan. Mr. Barnhart said the setback off Willow is 13.7 feet,another is 14 feet, and one corner of Kelley Parkway is 13.7 feet. Kirchner asked what the requirement would be for Willow Drive. Mr. Barnhart said on all streets, Kelley, Willow and Wayzata,the minimum required setback is 50 feet. Gettman noted the one across the street is 36 feet. Mr. Barnhart said that is correct. Chair Ressler asked if City code calls for 50 feet. Mr. Barnhart answered in the affirmative. Kirchner noted Building 33-36 is an example of an 11.5 foot distance from building-to-building, 30-32 and 33-36, and asked if that is acceptable. Mr. Barnhart replied the only other higher density detached building project in recent memory is the Orono Preserve across the street. The Council landed on a 15 foot separation between buildings, and some of the lots have a 7.5 foot setback and a 7.5 foot setback; on other lots it's a 5 foot setback and a 10 foot setback. Mr. Barnhart suggested something more understandable. Kirchner noted 10% of the gross lot area is for recreation and asked if the outlot as proposed meets that 10%. Page 21 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said based on the actual number calculations,the outlot is a darker green and that portion meets the requirements. However,he pointed out onscreen that it does include the front yard area and the open space. Libby said there are 3.69 acres on the site and it's guided for between 20-25 units per acre, and asked aren't they slightly compact and under what they'd actually be able to build as far as density and units. Barnhart said they're about half, and the reason they're considering it is because the City Council suggested a lower density. Aziz Saddiqui, 12900 Whitewater, Suite 180, Minnetonka, is responsible for entitlements and development for David Weekley Homes, and said they're very excited to bring their second development into the City. He said they feel they've been very successful in the Preserves and are also looking forward to this development. He noted it's a very unique location and layout on the parcel and high density is one of the areas throughout the country where they've been very successful. In looking at this project and the way it's located and the way the buildings are laid out,they've tried their best not to have the exposure on the outer part of the community(Willow and Wayzata). Mr. Saddiqui said the front of the house is towards the back, and serves very well on parcels like this one, and there are many commercial areas around it. He noted he is a little fearful of relocating the outlot as they will end up losing more units and the project wouldn't be as viable as it stands. Looking at the number of units, it makes more sense to have 45-56 units, and came up with the best plan for what the lot is like. The price range will be approximately$360,000 to the low$400,000 range. Libby asked if there is a Home Owner's Association (HOA). Mr. Saddiqui replied yes,the HOA is responsible for everything except sewer and water. Libby asked if they know what the HOA dues would be. Mr. Saddiqui did not know. Libby asked if on other projects,the dues are based on square footage. Mr. Saddiqui responded they are relatively the same, and the units are all mostly the same square footage. He said this is a new product in this market and they need to explore with the Association here. Kirchner said it looks like there are 100 feet of variation on the three different floor plans proposed with the smallest being 1,750 and the largest being 1,850. Barnhart said at the sketch plan level they don't expect a huge amount of detail and things will change and that is why they don't go into depth with the utility planning and things like that. They generally try to call out the high points. Gettman noted Mr. Barnhart brought up the fact that the outlot of the park area might be more open to the public as opposed to trying to gate the community and restrict it and asked if it would be as open if they flipped the outlot with Building 3739, thinking about the younger children who would use the playground and having them not exposed to the Kelley Parkway traffic. Page 22 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Saddiqui said the only reason he proposed fencing along the North with a gate is because people prefer that. He noted another way they could address it is with evergreens to create screening. He said he could look into flipping the buildings and said he's trying to avoid the setbacks and then there is always the fear of losing more units. Gettman said looking across the street and to the left of the circle, it is well within the 15 feet. He noted the perimeter setbacks are sacred for the Commission as opposed to the space between the buildings, because they're already townhomes. Mr. Saddiqui said one of the things they've done is to stay in three and four units, as people get more space, more lights, more windows, and that is what they prefer. He said he would try to look into possibly flip-flopping the buildings. Libby said he's familiar with some of the concepts having to do with playgrounds,parks, and in this case an outlet. He asked if there is any engineering or design rationale that has to do with environment or safety, kind of sequestering the playground within the neighborhood rather than having it on the outside. He said he's dealt with engineers regarding that with frequency, especially when there are two thoroughfares that are quite busy, and noted there are carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide concentrations are extremely high at those intersections. He noted it's much safer for children who are outside playing to be away from that and in the corridor of the neighborhood. Mr. Saddiqui said it's an excellent question, in his 37 years of doing this work this is the first time someone has asked it. He stated he would start paying attention to it going forward and haven't done that particular research with their engineers. Erickson asked regarding the street width between units, it is 24 feet as shown, and when he looks at it as a townhome project,the way it is drawn, it looks like there would be 24 feet of pavement. If compared to residential standards,there might be 24 feet of pavement on a 50 foot right-of-way. He noted outside his house,he has 18 feet of pavement, even though it's a 30 foot right-of-way, and if he is looking at it correctly, he thinks"oh wow, it would be nice if he had 24 feet of pavement." He also noticed they are honoring the 20 foot driveway and that length is good for guest parking and so on. Both of those aspects of the project look pretty good to him. He also agrees with Libby that an internal playground might be more marketable in this unsafe world we live in. Chair Ressler noted right now they're asking questions and asked if they need to open up a public hearing. Barnhart replied it's not a public hearing,but they can open it up for public comment if they'd like. Kirchner shared one thing he struggles with is the setbacks and the density, as it seems they've guided this to be far more units, and knows they went back to the drawing board,reduced the units and they're still struggling with the setbacks. Realistically one could drop a large building in the center, meet the setbacks and go vertical, however historically,the City of Orono doesn't support or appreciate that. He thinks what the Applicants have done here is trying to find a way to accommodate and still make it a viable project for them. He also sees some of the concern of being 15 feet off those major roadways. Kirchner understands it is not official by any means, but he appreciates that the appearance would fit in with the area,neighborhood and location. He also likes the way it's designed with the rear-load garages Page 23 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. towards the rear, so as you're walking past, one would be looking at the front of a home, rather than a big sheet of pavement with a driveway. He noted the top lot seems to be a point of contention, which perhaps echoes Mr. Barnhart's feedback; Kirchner thinks Building 40-43 on the North and South of that building being included in that recreational space, he doesn't know if it's necessary to get to that 10%coverage and if it's there just to get to the 10% coverage, he doesn't really love the idea as it just runs alongside the buildings and there is no definitive line of it being the side-yard versus incorporated in with the recreational area. Mr. Saddiqui noted they do meet the 10%requirement, and the intent of bringing the concept in front of the Commission is to understand and see how they can make the project viable for both the City to accept and what they would leave behind as a David Weekley product. He noted they are extremely proud of what they do and they don't look for cutting corners and just trying to make a buck out of it. He reiterated that is not the intent of David Weekley nor the culture within the company, which is why he was upfront with them that if it didn't work for the Board,they can go down to 35-38 units. Because this is a PUD,they have the luxury to adjust in terms of the setbacks that would give what the original intentions are of the City to achieve as many units as possible,while at the same time can they offset the setbacks and come up with a building layout that is not directly exposed to those two streets(which they did), and in order to enhance and protect the safety of what Mr. Libby said,they have nice ornamental fencing,with nice piers, columns, entry features and brick monuments on all corners of the property. He noted they are respecting conditions by bringing in a product that will support that corner, and they may be able to play with the topline area and bring them inside what Mr. Barnhart is recommending. If they work with the certain setbacks, this project will work;however, if they stick by the book of 15 feet, 50 feet and 50 feet, the project is dead. He noted that is where they are at today, and it would be nice if after the meeting he could go back to the team and say they have some direction. Kirchner asked regarding the side portion along 40 and 43: if they did away with it and did not count it as recreational space,would they still meet the 10%. Applicant's Engineer Mark Rausch said they'd be about 3,000-3,500 feet short. Kirchner said right alongside those buildings, it's not really something the people residing there would view as a public space,but rather viewed as the side to a building or side-yard. He would appreciate a bit more thought as to how they can incorporate a little more square footage that way. Mr. Saddiqui said to open up the thought process of what was initially proposed or thought, as to the very high density...they were very skeptical if it was going to work in this location with the number of units because they were going down to 60% of what was proposed. If they are going to stick with some of those side-yard scenarios, it would shrink significantly. Chair Ressler stated Orono and Burnsville are probably different, and Orono prides itself as a rural area, although it is becoming more dense,which is something requested by the Met Council, and it hasn't necessarily been welcomed. He noted some of the applicants today with single family residence being built 30 feet from a property for one home and having resistance against that. He said density is a valid question and the Applicant is trying to figure out what this will work for and where it will work, and Chair Ressler isn't sure it's Orono. He said the way it was guided was perhaps more units, but also perhaps more centralized and they've seen other concept plans(preliminary)which were proposed and after the Commission's feedback they haven't worked out because it centralizes the units which gives Page 24 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. more green space and softens the approach,which the Commission likes. At the same time, by not centralizing and reducing the number of units, it can also be a burden because in this case they're spreading out the units and the total is less, but the effect is more because they're not centralized. Chair Ressler tries to stay open-minded because this is a new concept and new concepts have followed trends and that is how they get established. He knows it's difficult to see and while looking at the plan, it looks daunting as there is no softening or trees proposed. To summarize, Wayzata Boulevard is a very busy road and represents Orono...he thinks the 50 foot setback is probably his feedback for that area. He noted 36 feet is agreeable on Kelley Parkway and Willow Drive, reluctantly. To summarize, because they're talking about less units but more sprawl, he'd like to see a larger setback and that may be a problem for the development, but that is his personal perspective. Gettman noted what the Applicant is hearing loud and clear is that the concept of setbacks, and he asked if they can put a different type of unit with the other units. Specifically, can they mix a higher density building within there somewhere, especially as they play around with the outlot, and even potentially with commercial on the first floor and units above. Rather than trying to shove or piecemeal things around,he suggests trying to think out of the box as far as literally mixing and matching different things to come before the City Council with. Mr. Saddiqui said with all due respect,they are not trying to shove anything anywhere; they are proposing what they think works best given the parameters they have in Orono. On a parcel of this size,they cannot mix the product...it would have to be substantially larger parcels and this is a very tight amount of acreage to have 2 or 3 different types of product mixed. Gettman noted it's not mixing it just to mix it, but rather to get the most out of the area. Barnhart said he thinks they're giving good feedback in terms of what they'd like to see, but noted they're getting into the weeds a bit. He said now the Applicant takes the feedback and either chooses to make changes for the Council or they want to hear what the Council has to say. He said they should pull back a bit on some of the detail comments because he feels they got the message out in terms of what they'd like to see with the setback. Frankly, it's not suggested to introduce commercial or even a mix of units here, the Council has already suggested that the 20-25 units is too high and they'd like to lower that so that is what the Applicant is trying to do. At the sketch plan level, he feels they've gotten good feedback and they can leave it at that. Mr. Saddiqui said they will use the two setbacks Mr. Ressler mentioned as a guideline and they'll see what they can come up with and try to address the outlot, as well. Libby concurred with Kirchner on the setbacks for the two thoroughfares for Willow and Wayzata, he thinks they need to be set back and they're fortunate to have someone in law enforcement who deals with these issues on a technical basis with cause-and-effect. He said he likes several things he heard and always greatly admires people with a compass of staying for the long-term and people who have a commitment to high fit and finish when it comes to architectural design and style, and he compliments the Applicant for that. He said he'd also like to support Chair Ressler's comment, with all of Mr. Barnhart's hard work on the 20/40 Comprehensive Plan,which brought from a 20 year old plan and kept the integrity of what countless people in Orono believe and enjoy, which is the rural setting versus an urban setting. He noted the plan is different but that doesn't make it bad, and it satisfies something very important: Orono needs housing. If this is quality housing that people like and want to buy, it's Page 25 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. complementary to the community. He noted the more the development can look and feel like a rural community he better off they will all be. Mr. Saddiqui said if anyone is in Maple Grove in the future, he asked them to please visit the Donagal development,where the buildings are detached townhomes which are eight feet apart and it will give a glimpse the product,the aesthetics, mix and multiple elevations, color and materials they have come up with. He said it is a very impressive and well-received landscape of architecture and noted they are selling like hotcakes all across the country, because they are addressing what people are looking for in suburban living with urban looks. Libby said the design is considered to be an urban, medium-to-high density residential mixed use. Erickson said historically, about 15 years ago, he served on a volunteer citizens committee that was a joint committee between Long Lake and Orono and they were looking at alternatives and design features for the County Road 112 improvement. One of his positions was trying to get funding for as much buried utilities along Wayzata Boulevard as he possibly could. He succeeded in Long Lake and it's beautiful and noted he also tried along this part of Wayzata Boulevard from Willow to Old Crystal Bay Road and succeeded only in a little section where the storm-water pond is. He was told by Mr. Barnhart's predecessor that they'd get the developers to do the rest of it, and he hasn't seen that. He said if it could somehow be done, it would beautify that project in that area much more effectively than five more feet of setback. 8. LA20-000060 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO AMENDMENTS TO VARIANCES. STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART. Barnhart said when the Commission reviews a variance,they see the plans attached. When those variances are approved,those plans are attached to the resolution. Occasionally some minor changes need to be made that are identified during the construction process. If those changes are minor but still would require a variance, Staff has taken those through the City Council process and at an open meeting, Council can say this minor change is appropriate and they are going to amend the resolution. If it's a major change,they go through the process of public hearings and all of that. He said that is the practice they've been doing for 15-20 years. The City Code technically doesn't allow that practice, and the City Attorney has suggested they adjust the code to allow that practice just described (Planning Staff makes a determination if a proposed amendment is appropriate or minor, if the Council concurs,they can approve that minor change, if not,they can remand it back through the public hearing process. He noted this ordinance codifies what Barnhart has just described. Staff recommends approval as drafted. Gettman asked Barnhart how they continue to document the minor changes. Barnhart replied they re-publish the resolution with new drawings. He said the reason they're doing this for the variance process is because State statute doesn't require public hearing for variances, it is Orono's own rule, so in the City Attorney's view they can adjust it that way. Chair Ressler noted the scope is two-fold, one is to preserve time,because it seemed to be a minor change, and two being mindful that if there is something the Council would like the Commission's feedback,they can send it back to them. He said it doesn't relieve the Commission of being able to weigh in if the Council has discretion and opinion to do so. Page 26 of 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded,to approve LA20-000060 City Of Orono Text Amendment Related to Amendments to Variance as applied.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 9. UPDATE ON SEPTEMBER 14,2020 COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart noted last month,the Commission reviewed five applications, one was a variance for area, width, structural coverage at 3435 Crystal Bay Road, and the Commission recommended denial. The Applicant, after hearing the Commission's feedback,made changes such that the structural coverage variance was no longer valid or necessary, so the Council ultimately approved that on consent. He noted regarding the appeal for the use on Navarre for the motorcycle storage, that Applicant withdrew his application so it did not go to the City Council. The preliminary plat and comp plan amendment for 135 Orono Orchard Road(Gordon James project),was supported by the City Council, so the comp plan amendment will be moving forward to the Met Council. The preliminary plan at 1700 Shoreline Drive was tabled; Council has some concerns regarding the average lakeshore setback and the views, so they've tabled it until October 12,2020. Libby said he watched the meeting and asked if the tabling was a recommendation of the Applicant. Barnhart replied yes,the Applicant requested it be tabled after much discussion. ADJOURNMENT Libby moved,Erickson seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. ATTEST: Jon Ressler, Chair Page 27 of 27