Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2021 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 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,Bob Erickson,Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner,Dennis Libby, and Mark McCutcheon. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart and City Planner Laura Oakden. Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Gettman moved,Libby seconded,to approve the Agenda for the January 19,2021 Planning Commission meeting.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF Planning Commission MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16,2020 Libby moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of November 16,2020 as submitted.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 1. LA20-48 WHITTEN AND ASSOCIATES, O/B/O I JACOBS/A JACOBS REVOCABLE TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT(STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Tim Whitten, Whitten and Associates on behalf of the Jacobs Family Trust,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information and noted this is the second time the Planning Commission has reviewed this project. Previously the plan was for a 7-lot single-family subdivision. To address some concerns with the length of the road and Average Lakeshore Setback(ALS)issues,the Applicant revised the plans. Regarding ALS,which was a major issue during the review at the Council level,this project is based on existing ALS. However,as it impacts these lots after platting is not known at this time and is not proposed;those will be established at the time based on the existing code and where the existing homes are. Barnhart said the ALS does impact this project because lots 1, 2, and 3 and the home sites envisioned for them, are based on the existing ALS line. Once this project is platted,the existing ALS line will go away and will not apply in part because of lot configuration with the lake;they are not proposing any artificial ALS for this project. Staff is recommending approval of this subdivision subject to engineer comments they expect in the next day or so in relation to road design,utility design, erosion control, and storm water management. Staff recommends approval subject to the Watershed District approval which will look at wetland buffers and storm water management. They are recommending approval of the project subject to Hennepin County approval of any improvements required associated with a new road off of Shoreline Drive. Currently the County is recommending a turn lane for west bound traffic into the subdivision. Staff has included some comments in the packet and many of them incorporate the comments identified previously and is a catch all to be sure that the project conforms to City code. Late this afternoon the Planning Commission received an email from a representative of a neighbor to the east and those comments were directly forwarded and a paper copy was provided. During their review they raised a number of concerns:they have asked for an opportunity to comment from both the representative and the neighbor and as a public hearing this would be appropriate for them to comment. A comment was in concern to overcrowding and a concern that six lots Page 1 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. would overcrowd the site; as mentioned before the six lots conform to the lot area requirements,and even though some of them are right at 2 acres they all meet the minimum requirement. Regarding the ALS issue,many comments were based on the location of a potential house on lot 3 of Tanager Estates. When Tanager Estates was developed,they identified 3 sites that could be used to build a home so they could prove that a home could be built. This is not an approval of a footprint or final approval of a location;this is just a general location. Earlier drafts last fall based on the proposed house pad showed an ALS line, and Barnhart said that line should not be there now because there is not a lot here and they are not creating an artificial ALS. The ALS for lot 5 is only based on the distance of 1100 Millston which is the lakeshore lot to the east. He noted this ALS should really be ignored or labeled"existing ALS." The neighboring property made a comment about the lot widths—lake lots are measured at the lake and at 75 feet back. If they are not lake lots,they are measured at the building setback line for the given zoning district so lots 1,2,and 3 currently,the argument is made are not lake lots because Outlot C,B,and A would be combined at the time. He said the lots were designed to accommodate that future consolidation. Lot 1 and 2 currently meet the requirements based on the building setback line and lot 3 is a bit short based on the building setback line. The decision was made early in the review process to anticipate this as a lake lot because that is what they intend it to be,however County roads prohibit the combination at this stage. The neighbor made a comment about the cul-de-sac length and Barnhart showed onscreen the distance of exactly 1,000 feet. The County recommends a turn lane for westbound traffic and Staff recommends engineering would be completed as a condition of plat approval. It is not uncommon for engineering issues or comments to be deferred until final plat approval because this is an opportunity for the community,Planning Commission, and City Council to provide comment on the preliminary plat and make any changes necessary from an engineering standpoint.The traffic was raised as a concern with five new lots onto this property and the County has not suggested that five additional lots will generate traffic issues. The neighbor has suggested some impact to the neighboring trees along the new road and Staff has asked for a landscaping plan to see how those trees would be replaced and some comments will come out as part of the engineering review of the street plan. He noted they have made modifications to try to shift that road over as far as possible to minimize impact to the wetland in that location. Staff recommends approval,this is a public hearing,and Barnhart invited comments. Bollis asked if Barnhart can touch on the combination of those outlets with 1,2, and 3. Barnhart explained the County does not allow these lots to be platted together,meaning they have to be platted separately and then combined in a second action. He said this has always intended to be a lake lot for lots 1,2,and 3 so they have created a corresponding outlot that would be combined at the time of plat. There are no size requirements for outlots so there is no review necessary in terms of width or area for those. The intent is to combine those. Chair Ressler said the County has weighed in as far as instructing a turn lane and the developer is okay with the feedback. Barnhart said that would be a good question for the developer and the comment came out right before the Planning Commission's review in August for the County improvements;they recommend the turn lane and require a permit. He does not know how strong they are on a turn lane. They would also support any condition on the City to require any additional turn lanes or additional improvements. Chair Ressler noted Staff's feedback and support of this application as submitted is contingent on the Applicant's supporting the feedback requested for the turn lane. Page 2 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said if it is a requirement,yes,the Applicant has to finish those projects. It is not just County, it is the City Engineer and the watershed district. Chair Ressler said the County was recommending but not requiring the turn lane. Barnhart said yes,they are recommending it at this time based on the letter in the packet from August. Kirchner asked regarding the conservation design and subsequent attachment, Barnhart mentioned the tree removal and replacement.Kirchner is not familiar with a tree replacement ordinance in Orono and asked if as part of a plat is there any way to require tree replacement. Barnhart said they certainly can,as a condition of the plat approval,impart some sort of standards for tree protection. In the City code there is not a tree protection ordinance per say,there is prohibition against tree removal in wetlands in the 0-75 or in the bluff. Those areas are protected by ordinance from a neighborhood character standpoint and the Planning Commission could suggest certain areas be preserved or replaced. They are not proposing any of that from a Staff level but the Planning Commission could certainly add that as a comment which would in essence be a recommendation to the City Council. Kirchner believes Barnhart mentioned replacement specific to where Shoreline Drive would intersect with the roadway and asked if there is a wetland that would be impacted with tree removal for that roadway. Barnhart said there is a road between the road and the property line;the neighboring property owners expressed some concern about the potential impacts to the existing vegetation along the east property line. There is a tree planting requirement as part of the subdivision that is 1 tree per 40 feet and Staff put in comments that those trees be more clumped versus linear to be more of a natural aesthetic. If the Planning Commission wants to go beyond that in terms of concern for an impact,they should make that comment. Gettman said he did not see Outlot D on some of the documents and asked if that will be for parking or a potential dock. Barnhart replied that is a good comment and good question. Right now, it is on its own and is not tied to anything in particular;he thinks there was concern from the Planning Commission in the initial review that there be a parking area, so he recommended that either be tied to Outlot C to make that one bigger as that is probably the cleanest way and they don't want a remnant out there. Chair Ressler called the Applicant forward for a presentation. He noted Libby will excuse himself a little early from the meeting; also because this is an irregular time to meet Staff wants everyone to know at 6:30 p.m.the alarm is supposed to be set. They think they have mitigated it but if an alarm goes off it will be turned off. Patrick Steinhoff,an attorney at Malkerson,Gunn,Martin is representing the Applicant. He also has Tim Whitten and Mark Gronberg with him this evening. He knows that Planning Commission's do not like to listen to attorneys and he usually likes to sit in the back and keep his mouth shut. They recall that the Planning Commission heard about this application in August and they have made some changes to the plan since then which are largely driven by legal objections so he will explain the changes. In August,the Applicant had proposed a solution to a potential issue with the ALS as it is a moving target and can be in one place today and tomorrow someone builds a house and the ALS is somewhere else. To address that, Page 3 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. they initially proposed to establish a set ALS within the plat that would apply to all lots regardless of when they were built;the idea was that would create some predictability and would not depend on when houses were built. It is not something that the Applicant invented and as Mr. Steinhoff understands the City has done that before in other plats. The problem is that the ordinance does not allow that unless there is unanimous consent from all involved. He understands from the City Attorney that in those prior plats it was something that was requested jointly by the Applicant and neighbors and supported by the City. After the Planning Commission's August meeting there was some vigorous pushback on the entire concept of an artificial ALS and there was not the unanimous consent needed so the Applicant went back to the drawing board and redesigned the plat so all of the lots can be buildable without establishing an artificial ALS line. That resulted in a few changes;there is one less lot,6 instead of 7 lots,and in order to make all 6 lots buildable behind the current ALS they needed to be reconfigured. Finally,there was an objection to design of the cul-de-sac in the first plan so in the new plan it is shorter at 997 feet and is designed differently. Apart from those changes everything is more or less the same as in August. There are a lot of issues raised by the neighbor's attorney such as access off Shoreline Drive,traffic, and trees, and all of those things were discussed at the previous Planning Commission public hearing. After the Planning Commission heard about those,they recommended approval by 7-0. The only real issues are a different number of lots and lot configuration to address the ALS issues and the new cul-de-sac. Mr. Steinhoff just received the neighbor's attorney letter a short time ago and will quickly address some of the issues in the letter. He noted that Attorney Dean said that they will need variances to build on these lots because of the ALS and Mr. Steinhoff said that is not true. Every one of these lots is buildable right now; the only one that is even worth talking about is lot 5 because they know the ALS will change for that lot as there is a house that will be built on the adjacent plat, lot 3 of Tanager Estates. The picture the Planning Commission is looking at is where they will put the house assuming that house is built on the adjacent lot. If that house is not built it is still a buildable lot under the current ALS and he has an exhibit that shows it. All 6 lots are buildable and are all configured so there can be a house pad behind the ALS; they do not need variances and the whole point of revising the plan is to give the Planning Commission a plat that can be approved without variances. Mr. Dean's letter raises the issue of the cul-de-sac and the Applicant has shortened it up so it is less than 1,000 feet. The letter also raised the issue of the turn lane access onto Shoreline Drive;the County's letter dates back to prior to the last Planning Commission meeting and there is nothing that has changed since they recommended approval. The Applicant is fine with a turn lane as recommended by the County and it is something they intend to do. Traffic is the same as it was previously except there is one less lot to generate traffic so all the comments about emergency vehicle access are things the Planning Commission already heard in August when they recommended approval. Mr. Steinhoff knows from listening to public comments at the last hearing there are a lot of people who want this parcel to remain the same forever—it is a big parcel with lots of open space and one house. He understands that but the owner,the Jacobs Family Trust, has the right to develop this,they are not asking for variances or anything special but are proposing a conforming plat so Mr. Steinhoff asks that the Planning Commission recommend approval as they did the last time. Tim Whitten said they have an exhibit that overlays the proposed 6 lot application over the 7-lot application previously approved so people can understand-blue is the previous application and red is the current proposed application. Starting from the south on Lots 1,2, and 3 the blue position of the houses has now shifted up to the red position to honor the ALS line and pulls those house pads farther away from wetlands and the lake. With the 6 lots instead of 7 it allowed them to reconfigure and shorten the cul-de- sac and made it a more efficient plan as for getting a street in there. As for the design of the cul-de-sac they were able to pull away from the property to the east and save some more of the trees on that side. The lots to the north have also been pulled away—in looking at the previous blue lot 6,which was really the lot that"went away"they now have lot 5 that is farther back. As a point of reference,these lots of the Page 4 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. house pads are over 10,000 square foot footprints,they are never going to be that big on one level. They wanted to oversize it so people could see just how lush it might be and also wanted to show they honored all the setbacks on the perimeter and the setbacks on the interior. Gettman asked about Outlot D, how did it come about as it looks like it is brand new and actually overextends onto the other property east of the estate. Mark Gronberg of Gronberg and Associates said there was some extra land there just opposite the road right-of-way;A,B,and C have enough width and it was just an extra area possibly used for people walking down to the lake or parking to carry things down. He said it could be combined with lot C and then they would have an easement over it for multiple usage or it could be Outlot D for lake access purposes. Gettman said as they were considering the outlots and potentially adding Outlot D,traffic seems to be one of the major concerns and he asked how they planned on having people utilize lots A through D. Mr. Gronberg has walked that road and it is very busy, so he thinks it would be wise to have an easement come down across from the main road into D and then have an easement to walk to A, B, and C rather than having people walk in the right-of-way. Gettman noted Outlot D would become more of a parking lot. Mr. Gronberg replied in the affirmative. Libby said traditionally all of these outlots that are lakeshore are subject to be a part of another property. Hennepin County has typically added a separate PID identification to each of those lakeshore lots. He asked in this case that they will end up with a tax ID number for each of these A,B, C, and D outlots. Mr. Gronberg knows those outlots will be combined with the other lots so it is possible they would just assign it one PID. Libby said that would be unusual and that is why he asks. Mr. Gronberg noted because the road separates those lots from the outlots,the County will not allow them to plat them as lots 1,2, and 3. Libby noted Outlot D as indicated could possibly be developed into some type of parking or drop off access. Even though lots 1,2, and 3 appear to be physically relatively close to the thoroughfare and where potential dockage would be that is a significant length of area to come down with something like a golf cart. He stated that is a very narrow portion of the lakeshore land and it really would not be suitable or feasible to actually have a vehicle there or vehicles coming in and out as it is a very heavily trafficked County Road. He thinks there would be substantial danger to pedestrians crossing,but it does not really seem feasible that D is a place for a car can pull in and out. Chair Ressler said this portion of the application is just for questions and they may be able to provide some feedback. He asked to table that until they get through the public hearing and they can circle back. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Page 5 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Attorney Aaron Dean, 5900 Mount Normandale Drive,Bloomington, is representing Barbara Burwell, and submitted a 12-page letter earlier in the afternoon along with several exhibits. He recognizes the importance of the work that the Planning Commission does and sometimes with a municipal Planning Commission the idea is to kick the can down the road, issue an approval with certain conditions and hope that the City Council operates as the final say. He asks that this Planning Commission resist that;there are a number of problems with this particular proposal and he wants to outline about 6 of them because once they understand the problems with the proposal, he thinks the proposal has to be rejected. Mr. Dean asked for the earlier exhibit with the red and blue overlay and pointed out how the road enters the new development and they will see the access is off Shoreline Drive. When Mr. Dean spoke with Barnhart last week,he was told the County was now requiring,not recommending,a right-hand turn lane for west bound traffic. This is important because all of the questions asked so far to the Applicant are"Do you care?"Mr. Dean said of course they don't care. The Applicant could care less about a right-hand turn lane because it is not their property that will be impacted, it is Barbara Burwell's property that will be impacted and nothing shows it better than what is onscreen. Ms.Burwell owns two Millston Road properties and the only way to put in a right-hand turn lane is to take a portion of her property—why would the Applicant care? They could care less if Barbara Burwell is impacted and that is why they don't care. Ms.Burwell cares and she doesn't want any portion of her land taken for a right-hand turn lane that the County now requires,not recommends. What Mr.Dean saw earlier today via email was a statement from the County's representatives that actually the right-of-way is sufficient and no portion of her property will be required to be taken. He asked where are the engineer drawings,where are the plans that actually show this? Until they have those plans approved by the County,this Planning Commission cannot approve this plan. All that will happen is that they will invite a lawsuit because his client's property will be taken to accommodate other private property with a right-hand turn lane. This is the first and biggest problem. The second problem is that the road or private drive that exists is being moved over to the east to the inch,as far as possible to the Burwell property line and will take down all of the trees. Some of the trees that will be impacted are on Burwell property and they cannot do it. The Applicant has had months to develop a landscaping plan that would show what trees will be taken down and what will not. Now they are in the middle of winter with snow cover and they cannot actually see which trees will be taken down and the roots that will be impacted...he said isn't it convenient to be having the meeting now. When Mr.Dean spoke with Barnhart last week,he asked specifically and said he needs to see the measurements for this private road and the cul-de-sac, and Barnhart said it is right at 1,000 feet. Mr. Dean asked 1,000 feet"from where to where?" Barnhart told Mr. Dean if they measure from the road up to where the private road starts to turn,basically if they go straight up and where it starts to turn,they take that measurement and then where it goes off about 45 degrees and measure to across the cul-de-sac. Those two measurements are 1,000 feet;they are not measuring the actual distance of travel as it takes farther to go around the circumference of the circle than the diameter of a circle and Mr. Dean said they are over 1,000 feet. He asked to show the black and white drawing and show the proposed house pad on lot 3 of Tanager Estates. Once they have this down,this proposed subdivision falls apart. The placement of the proposed house pad of lot 3 of Tanager Estates can never be built there,never. That is the anchor point for the ALS line that is going from lot 3 of Tanager Estates and going all the way in a southeasterly direction to the Burwell house. They can look at this particular plat and see why it does not work; first, he pointed out the sectioned-off area where it says"bluff'throughout lot 5 and said that bluff goes into lot 3 and noted how close that bluff line is to the proposed house plan. If they now go down and look just underneath the bluff to where the house pad is on lot 5,it says 30-foot bluff setback,he said now compare it to the area of lot 3 of Tanager Estates...it is not 30 feet. He asked to pass around a sheet with highlighted areas. Barnhart said if there are other exhibits,they can scan those and put them onscreen. Page 6 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler asked to do that. Mr. Dean said the reason he thought that was important,they can see that by anchoring that proposed house pad on lot 3 will not work as it does not obey the 30-foot setback and the bluff designation that was drawn is only to show the bluff that is already on lot 5 but extends into lot 3. They can tell from that proposed house pad designation that it is already on a bluff—that house can never be put there. Once they take that proposed house pad on lot 3 of Tanager Estates and bring it down to where the correct and only location is,they will wipe out the whole house on lot 5. It cannot be built there. One of the problems with this proposed subdivision is they basically have a 19-acre parcel of land and less than 60% of the land is buildable. Mr. Dean included a table he cut and pasted from Barnhart's presentation to explain why this is such a difficult parcel of land. Less than 60%is buildable,there are two lakes so there are two ALS lines,there are bluffs,wetlands, and existing neighbors. This all makes for a very challenging situation to be able to build on this particular parcel. The problem they have is the Applicant is asking for too many lots,noting they went from 7 down to 6 but that is not enough. Mr. Dean said they have to drop it down more. It is not the Planning Commission's or City Council's job or Mr. Dean's job or Ms.Burwell's job to do the Applicant's job. Their job is to propose a plan that works and noted this does not work and Mr. Dean has given several examples why. When they take out the anchor spot of the proposed house plan on lot 3,the whole subdivision falls apart and Mr.Dean asks that the Planning Commission does not approve but instead rejects the plan and they do not take the easy way out of approving the plan with many conditions. He said no,make the Applicant come back with an actual plan that works and then come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dean said when he talked the previous week with Mr. Whitten and Mr. Steinhoff,they were actually pretty accommodating and got more accomplished in a 30-minute zoom call than they did in the last six months. He said"here is what you do, you say we're not ready to act because what we've heard so far tells us that there are problems with this proposed subdivision. Go back and talk to your neighbors." Mr. Dean said they can do it via a Zoom call and get their measurements and engineer drawings and once they are ready and can actually provide a plan that works,then they should come back to the Planning Commission but that is not today. Chair Ressler noted they ask people to limit their comments to five minutes and he knows this is a big project but asked Mr. Dean to try to condense. Mr. Dean said lot 5 of the subdivision is not buildable in its current location and that is the whole problem. Once they don't have lot 5,they have to reject the whole thing. He asked if the Planning Commission can think of another project where there is a requirement for a residential turn lane where the Applicant's land is not being used but rather a neighbor's land is being use. Mr. Dean said the Planning Commission is being asked to approve the taking of Barbara Burwell's land and why would they ever do that? It is just going to put the City in a bad position. The cul-de-sac still is not less than 1,000 feet and he has confirmed that with Barnhart,they have no calculations. He does not need someone to come up here and say it actually is 1,000 feet,he needs to see the calculation that shows it is less than 1,000 feet. Traffic with 6 homes is not just one car and noted he had four vendors come out to his house today working on appliances,snow removal,and everything else. He said to think about what that will be like for 24 homes and these will not be 2 car garages but will be 3 and 4 car garages and there will be way too much traffic. In looking at lot 3 of Tanager Estates,not only does it meet that 30-foot setback on the bluff, look right underneath it there is a wetland buffer monument;they have a bluff problem and a wetland problem and are asking the Planning Commission to approve their problems and foist their problems on Barbara Burwell. He asked the Commission,please don't do it. Page 7 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barbara Burwell of 1100 Millston Road approached the podium. She looks back at the August meeting and thinks boy,has she gotten a lot smarter than when she was first before the Planning Commission. At that time, she did not even understand what an ALS line is and the ALS line is certainly of importance to this whole project. She said there are challenges and it has been said that there was no challenge back in August and the vote was unanimous; they will have to forgive her,but she said she was pretty ignorant and very wet behind the ears at that time and did not know what she was talking about. Ms.Burwell noted the Planning Commission educated her and she thinks there are some very serious problems with this parcel and she asks that they take a serious look at the concerns Mr.Dean has brought forward. Not the least of which is the traffic and as she mentioned before,she believes Mr. Erickson lives on Heritage and she noted they have had a couple of serious accidents since that time and noted she is the mother of three grown sons. She asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration the traffic issue regarding a school bus and the fact that they don't make left hand turns coming out of Ms.Burwell's driveway or the Breck school;then children are standing on Highway 15. She made a comment regarding the little Outlot D which she did not notice until tonight and stated she has a little bit of a parcel that goes down to a dock on an outlot and it is very skinny. Ms.Burwell knows from living there for close to 40 years that Outlot D is not a parking area or a place for a pedestrian picnic table; it is not a sliver of land to put a car or a golf cart without it falling into the lake as it is not a level piece of land. She thinks they are looking at a ridiculous application of those outlots. They could wish that it would work but she says that is a serious challenge and an accident waiting to happen,especially in lots 3,4, and 1 of outlots. Mr. Burwell concluded by saying Mr. Dean has brought up some important points as to why she is standing before the Planning Commission and that is because she needs to protect her property. She has lived there for almost 40 years and the house has been there for 83 years; she needs to make sure that she has a sound,appropriate neighbor that is not of such a high density and trying to put a square into a circle. She noted she is not very articulate as this is not what she does for a job but she said she has lived there a long time and thinks the changes being proposed are not appropriate and do not necessarily fulfill what the vision of Orono is representing. Ms.Burwell does not believe that Barnhart is a resident of the Orono community and she appreciates the fact that he is doing his job and advising the Planning Commission but noted that she lives here,works here,and raised her children here and she is against this plan. Steve Burns, 1025 Heritage Lane, approached the podium and noted he was watching from home and did not realize it was an in-person meeting so he came in late. Fortunately, he was able to get to the meeting quickly. He said this has been a project going on for many years and they have had many discussions about this as well as Tanager Estates. As a representative of Fox Hill,the road right past this property,he wants to be clear and go on the record saying they strenuously object to using Heritage Lane as an entrance point for construction. In the August 2020 letter from Hennepin County,they suggest using Heritage Lane as the entrance point and Mr. Burns has been in conversation with Mr. Whitten, Mr. Stedman,members of the Planning Commission over the years and again said they are very much opposed to Heritage Lane as the entrance point. When Tanager States was developed, he believes Mr. Gronberg is on record as stating access to that property up above would not be admissible because of the bluff. The Hennepin County recommendation in August 2020 caused them concern and as he listened from home tonight about the turn lane—and he completely respects Ms. Burwell's position and agrees with her position—they do not want to see that turn lane but they also do not want to see access through Heritage Lane. That is a statement from one citizen on Heritage Lane that would also be impacted. Michael Kuhlman, 1760 Shoreline Drive,would like to thank the Planning Commission for the time tonight and also has serious concerns about the way this is laid out and a lot of the points raised by Ms. Burwell's attorney, including traffic and trees. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:56 p.m. Page 8 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler asked regarding one of the definitions of the cul-de-sac maximum of 1,000 feet,is the measurement that is being used in these plans how the City requires it to be measured or is it linear or straight distance. Barnhart replied the City code does not define how that is measured, so they measured straight line and said yes,they do go through the cul-de-sac bulb and that is the 997 or 1,000 feet depending on how close his cursor can get in the electronic measuring tool they have. He said they asked the Applicant to provide an exhibit where he showed increments of 100 feet to demonstrate where the measurement comes to. He noted the tick marks on screen and counted out 9 marks and pointed out the determination. Kirchner said the measurement that was used is not outlined in City code and asked if the method used to measure in this instance is standard practice across recent developments of cul-de-sacs within the City and how they would have been measured. Barnhart said it is and the only difference he could point out is that they don't do a lot of cul-de-sac bulbs, so that is a relatively unique feature they have looked at. While the distance is regulated by the Code,the method of how that is measured is not so they apply the distance to this type of configuration. If the Planning Commission and City Council had some concern about how that measurement came to be, one remedy is to remove the cul-de-sac bulb. Barnhart asked to comment on the question of Outlot D and the use for that; Staff has some concerns with that being used as a recreational area or a parking area and would not recommend that be a separate use. Perhaps it is an easement for access,but Staff would not support a different use for Outlot D knowing what they know about traffic. They would recommend it be absorbed into Outlot C or something like that. Chair Ressler noted that. He asked regarding the ALS measurement in these plans; is that defined in the City code and is it measured with some degree of misinterpretation, based on the CC's feedback in the public hearing. Barnhart clarified if Chair Ressler is asking is ALS defined and how they measure that. Chair Ressler asked if it is being correctly used in the proposed plat. Barnhart said there is some nuance here that is important to comment on. As proposed,the ALS for lot 5 today,the only neighboring lakeshore property that is improved is 1100 Millston. Therefore,the ALS for lot 5, if lot 5 was platted today, is the distance of 1100 Millston from the lake. Lot 3 comes into play only when that property is developed and that will form one of the two points that ALS is drawn. This drawing or this proposal shows lot 3 as a carryover when they were talking about creating the artificial ALS and the way to provide some expectation for improvements. He noted they have gone away from that and Staff's comment letter to the Applicant suggests that anything labeled ALS—because they do not know what the ALS is upon platting—any reference to ALS today should be relabeled. Barnhart does not want to give a false sense of expectation that this is the ALS for lot 5,as that will change upon platting, as will the ALS for lots 1,2, and 3;those will change upon platting. He does not want to confuse the issue any more than they already have so the line shown between lot 3 of Tanager Estates and points to the east which is 1100 Millston should really be removed. Chair Ressler asked the surveyor,Mr. Gronberg to come up to the podium,and noted during the public hearing there was a question about the bluff setbacks and there seems to be a misunderstanding or disagreement as far as what that is. Page 9 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Gronberg clarified lot 3 was approved during Tanager Estates, and went over all those bluff lines with Mike Gaffron and there is not a side setback for a bluff, it is at the top of the bluff which is 30 feet. That was an approved pad and, in his office,they have a house plan for lot 3 coming in that will make this whole thing moot. Once that house gets established,the line over to 1100 Millston will be way lakeward of where lot 5 is going to be built. They did have an exhibit that showed the 1100 Millston is 398 feet from Tanager Lake and when measuring 398 on lot 5 there is still a 60x90 building pad there. He said between the red line and yellow lines on screen there would still be room to build a house,even if nothing is built yet on lot 3 Tanager Estates. He noted regarding the turn lane,he looked at it and scaled it off and noted it is about 25 feet or so from the road to the property line and there is enough room to get a turn lane in. When looking at Heritage Lane,there is a turn lane there and the same amount of right-of-way. Kirchner's initial thought is there is some concern from the neighborhood and the second thought is for all intents and purposes this appears to be a conforming plat. With that being said,to Mr. Dean and Ms. Burwell's statements regarding the right-hand turn lane,he does believe that should be explored to a definitive point to understand if it can be done with the right-of-way that exists there without taking additional land. It sounds like Mr. Gronberg has already done some work on that but prior to the City Council seeing this plan that may be very beneficial for all parties involved to understand. Regarding the ALS,that seems to be one of the sticking points and they just had it demonstrated that there is still a building pad there and may not be as large as what is shown on the plat,but as Mr. Gronberg has shown there is still a buildable area there in the event that lot 3 of Tanager Estates is not built at the time of lot 5 of this one is. At the end of the day,he said it is a conforming plat,the buildable area and provided areas meet City code and requirement. He does think some things need to be explored, such as the right-of-way for the turn lane but those are all things that can be done between now and the City Council meeting with a professional survey report done to demonstrate and illustrate those points. Libby thinks Mr. Gronberg clarified one important point that had to do with Mr.Dean's objections and that is the bluff conservation ordinances in the City were very focused on preservation of the bluff. They have a zenith, a top, and a peak and then there is the lower level or bottom of the bluff. So,blending those two measurements or setbacks is not necessarily appropriate. His remaining question is,they do have a definitive verse and chapter for bluff conservation ordinance and it is attached to that; does the current lot 5 building site satisfy the necessary setback of 30 feet from the top or zenith of the bluff. Barnhart replied yes it does. They expect that the new house plan may differ from the footprint shown on screen and they will certainly do a review for that new home,but they have demonstrated there is a house site available for that lot. Libby said in looking at this from a linear house size versus dimensional distance that there is anything less than 30 feet even in this drawing. He deals with building size and setbacks on a regular basis during new construction, and this looks very easily perceptible to him to be at 30 feet if not slightly more than that. They'd be 40 feet from where the bluff drops. He is trying to understand where Mr.Dean gets the perception that this is less than 30 feet, not to discount his perception but Libby thinks it is important to establish that is 30 feet if that is what the City's requirement is. Barnhart thinks Mr.Dean's comments were more related to the situation on screen where the proposed house site for lot 3 is near the bluff. Libby stated they outlined two areas,one at the setback from lot 5 from the bluff and also from Tanager Estates lot 3. Page 10 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said he is confident and comfortable that there is adequate house site. Libby noted that is really what he was trying to define. The bluff conservation was repeatedly addressed and utilized by the Tanager Estates development previously in order to make sure the actual egress and access from County Road 15 was not used to deliver construction materials and do any of the construction on Tanager Estates. He said isn't it interesting how these things can come around full circle again as this second phase of development is in its fruition. The City's conservation of the bluff is really used a little bit differently than when the first part of the development started. Erickson asked regarding the new road with the cul-de-sac, apparently adjoining the property to the east, does that create double-frontage situation in regards to the neighbor's property. If so,what is the City's policy,regulation, or ordinance regarding double frontage lots. Barnhart clarified it does not create a double frontage situation,but creates a corner lot situation,then he noted onscreen there is perhaps a right-of-way situation on the other side. He said there is right-of-way impact setbacks to this existing lot,he believes it is 1125 Millston, so yes,this will abut right-of-way so there will be impacts from a setback standpoint there. Erickson commented that his sense in regards to the heavy traffic on County Road 15,that in addition to a right turn lane as has been suggested for those entering the subdivision,he would like to see exploration of a blend lane for those leaving the subdivision and contemplating going west. There should be something similar to a right-turn lane but is often referred to as a blend lane or acceleration lane to allow people to get up to speed. He thinks that would be a safety enhancement if it were incorporated and realizes ultimately it would be up to Hennepin County to look at that. Chair Ressler noted this is a preliminary plat so this will not be voted on and decided tonight and asked if that is correct. Barnhart said it is a preliminary plat and they are asking for a recommendation to take it to the City Council who will make the final decision. The final plat is the step after that,the City Council will approve that after finding that the final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat and any conditions imposed. Chair Ressler thinks there are a few things the Planning Commission needs to address. It is hard for him to recall back to August and he does not recall unanimous support for the previous plat;he thinks there was some feedback provided that they would like to have seen changed. All-in-all it seemed like a pretty reasonable application. Some of the things brought up, Chair Ressler does not think have been addressed in this particular application,one of which is parking for us of the homeowners for boat use. There was discussion about parking being located on the property side not on the lake side, after one turns into the proposed cul-de-sac for guests and homeowners to park, knowing that they will not walk all the way from their house. Chair Ressler does not think that has been properly addressed and for practical use that seems to be lacking some detail as it is. Kirchner asked regarding the wetland located right when one turns into the neighborhood;he assumed an additional square or rectangular parking area could be added to the west off of the driveway or is that not allowable into the wetland area. Barnhart noted there are buffers and setback requirements associated with the wetland. He thinks Kirchner's comment would be"the Planning Commission recommends that some sort of parking plan be Page 11 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. fleshed out for review"by either the Planning Commission or the City Council at an upcoming meeting. Rather than solve the problem,the Planning Commission is trying to identify the problem and then have the City Council solve it. Chair Ressler is not sure the Planning Commission has the ability to table and revisit some of the things being dealt with in detail or if they want to allow the City Council to take this feedback, allow the Applicant to make revisions and go straight to the City Council on that. Barnhart clarified the Planning Commission can table action and ask for some responses to their comments. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend either approval or denial allowing the project to keep moving forward, and are bumping up against the review deadline and moving it forward allows the City Council to see it twice. Chair Ressler noted if the Planning Commission tables it, it stops time for 30 days; if the Planning Commission declines it, it can still go on to the City Council even with the recommendation of a decline. He clarified why that is being discussed. McCutcheon stated Chair Ressler is correct,the Planning Commission did talk at length in August about the safety concerns. The Planning Commission proposed certain ideas and they were going to think about it. The Planning Commission offered that feedback and he does not see the Applicant addressing it here except for the comment on Outlot D. He said in looking at the Hennepin view and looking at it closely, regarding the outlot in front of lot 2,he does not know how to even get to Outlot 3. He noted sometimes they see a wetland area and they do a swap, and asked if there is an opportunity to take some of that wetland just for safety—he does not know if there is a culvert under Shoreline Drive. Another thing that would help the Planning Commission understand all the risks associated with citizen safety is not only the people that cross the road but also people driving. McCutcheon would like to understand if there will be a single dock,three docks,or is every lot going to have access to these outlots. Chair Ressler agreed and noted that was one of the things the Planning Commission had provided for feedback and they are not seeing that detail in this application. Kirchner thinks Mr. Gronberg mentioned an easement across Outlots C and B,for instance,to get to A however that is not part of this proposal but is just a thought as he understands it. Chair Ressler said that is correct. Kirchner said to that degree he would almost think something like that would have to exist; where individuals could come down the private driveway, access Outlot D, and those having Outlots B and A would have an easement to cross over C to access their areas. Libby asked Barnhart: would he state that Hennepin County has mandated or just recommended a right turn lane coming from the east. Barnhart answered in re-reading their comments from August, Hennepin County does not require it in their comment letter,but they recommend it. The only thing they require is a permit, so they can anticipate,perhaps a requirement for a turn lane,but they do not come out and say they require a turn lane at this stage. Page 12 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby thinks Kirchner made a very good point and that is there is very little shoulder here and there actually is a significant amount of Hennepin County right-of-way beyond the pavement and beyond County Road 15. If a turn lane is coming from the east going west on Heritage Lane which is just a block over,the amount of distance over and above what was already the right-of-way would be relatively insignificant on the private property. Having dealt with Hennepin County right-of-way acquisition as he just did with the Tanager Bridge,Hennepin County is obligated by law to compensate fully even small portions of partial takings and he thinks that if there was a possible consequence of having to have that land for safety, if any portion of a private property needs to be taken, it is relatively small. It would be very difficult to realize it being more than a couple of feet beyond the right-of-way that Hennepin County already owns and has the right to use for a right turn lane. Barnhart understands the comment and noted the property owner has made it very clear that she does not want to give right-of-way. He thinks that the onus is on the Applicant to come up with a plan that does not require any additional. Bollis asked if Staff has any opinion on whether or not the Planning Commission should be requiring that turn lane. They have heard plenty about what Hennepin County thinks but asked do they think from a Planning Commission position they should be requiring that as a body. Barnhart said that would probably be the first one that the Planning Commission has required in many, many years; he cannot think of another situation where they required an improvement on a County Road right-of-way. While this seems like a big subdivision, it is a 5-6 lot subdivision and is not a huge number- generator;yes, recognizing that Shoreline Drive already has an uncomfortable level of traffic,he does not think from a solely clinical examination of the impact that they would normally require a turn lane here. Chair Ressler knows the Planning Commission has talked about this but he is hearing that what starts out as a recommendation from the County may turn into a requirement at the time of permitting; however, that is not something that is usually fleshed out at the time of discussion. Barnhart thinks in this situation with the comment about the turn lane, it is appropriate for the Applicant to examine that and work with Hennepin County with this type of scenario, and would their solution be sufficient rather than waiting to the final step which is the permit. What they are recommending from a Staff level is that the City Engineer's comments,the County comments,the watershed district approvals; those are all subject to the approval of this. If any of those fall apart,the preliminary plat goes away. He can appreciate Mr. Dean's comment that they want all of this nice and tidy in terms of finishing all the engineering and that is ideal. Typically,that does not happen and they do a lot of these through the approval and he is constantly amazed by the engineering committee and how they can solve problems creatively. While the County has an idea in their mind of how this works, Barnhart looks forward to any solution that the Applicant's team puts together. Chair Ressler noted the feedback he is hearing from the Planning Commission is that he doesn't think anyone is opposed to having a turn lane in place. The proposed plat as it stands right now does not have it so they have it on the record and it is noted as such. He stated they have understood that Orono City code does not define the 1,000-foot cul-de-sac measurement as a straight line or a total road line, whatever they want to call that linear,and perhaps that is something they want to look at defining. He knows they do not do a lot of developments but that could be viewed two different ways. Chair Ressler's personal feedback on that would be it probably would be a straight line if there were not wetlands there so that Page 13 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. would be a difficulty to do it in a straight line and that would be the only reason why it is exceeding 1,000 feet if they look at it on the map. Bollis said it seems pretty clear to him that the cul-de-sac is 976 feet, or the road is,just the way it is measured on there. He does not see any other way and it is very consistent with every other project he has seen come through the Planning Commission regarding how the measurement is. Chair Ressler agreed. Erickson's recollection is they have approved variances in the past on other locations and they have exceeded 1,000 feet with the variance and that is not a terribly rare occurrence in Orono. Chair Ressler asked if there is any other feedback for the construction on Heritage and while this is something that will come later down the road, it is good to have on record. As a City they always want to be the least disruptive as possible for neighbors and he assumes that is probably what the City Council will feel as well;to make sure that the traffic is minimized. Kirchner said if he recalls from the August meeting City Staff said they also do not support the use of Heritage Lane for the development of this project and asked if that opinion has changed. Barnhart said no, it has not. He pointed out that the connection for the sanitary sewer will connect to the bulb at the end of the Heritage Lane cul-de-sac. They are not proposing any use of Heritage Lane for construction access;they would have to go through another private lot to get to this subject property so they do not anticipate that as an issue but can clarify that as a clarifying issue in the resolution if need be. Chair Ressler noted that feedback is what they would recommend adding. McCutcheon asked about the background on why they proposed to use Heritage Lane. Barnhart clarified he was asking about the County;he said they would like the traffic to go on City roads versus County roads. Chair Ressler noted it affects the County less. McCutcheon said it is dangerous going through the existing way and Heritage is a much safer approach so the request for that shows a bit of the problem they are dealing with. The wetland,the access to the entry of the lots,there are a lot of barriers here and he thinks going forward those need to be addressed. He said that entry is difficult and it is a small subdivision but he does not know the history of this lot; was there ever a dock used across lots 1,2, and 3. He said maybe not because of the safety concerns, access to Tanager, and it is just too dangerous to use that. He thinks there are a lot of things to consider here and he is taking them quite seriously as safety concerns. McCutcheon noted in the summer months,that road gets crazy busy and he is in a similar situation as he lives in a back lot and has access across the road; when people have young kids, and are filling coolers,and putting the cover on the boat,there are a lot of things that can go wrong so he is pretty sensitive to this issue. Chair Ressler believes the previous owner used Tanager for boat use and there was a small dock with a float plane there but that was one homeowner using it with two different lakeshores. He does not think that would be a different usage in this case. Chair Ressler does not think he is satisfied with the Page 14 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. explanation or what has been proposed here as to how that has been mitigated;he thinks they are all in agreement there. He appreciates the Applicant addressing the ALS and it is helpful as to how that has been repositioned and he does not think anyone disagrees with that as it seems to be in compliance with the ALS, side yard setbacks,etcetera. He said they are not creating an artificial setback, it is conforming to lot requirements,the Staff support and Planning Commission support would likely be contingent on the County for the turn lanes;the exchange of buffer proposed would need to be actual rather than artificial. He said what is not addressed is the parking for neighborhood boat use and how that is proposed for concern over safety and traffic. Libby noted a piece of information to set to rest a bit some of the public concern about the Heritage Lane being used now that lot 3 of Tanager Estates is privately owned. It would require that egress be granted by the private property owner and was previously decided per another Council that both conservation prohibits the use of access to this development from the bottom of the bluff. The reason is because the frontage that would access the lakeshore from the top of the bluff was deemed not feasibly usable and in violation of the conservation for the bluff conservation. The people from Heritage Lane that are concerned about the use for construction traffic can probably rest at ease that the private property owners are not going to allow significant intrusive to go through their million dollar or$300,000 lot to access the new development. He thinks the concern is taken seriously and they will not have to worry about Heritage Lane used as a construction road. Bollis said Outlot D is a concern for him and he does not like to see that sitting out there. His main concern is that would be used for some sort of dock for the inland lots or something like that. He would like to see it go away and just become Outlot C as it becomes a little bigger and would be a lot cleaner. He would not be in favor of leaving an outlot out there with no definition on it. Chair Ressler thinks he is hearing that the Planning Commission does not quite have enough information to approve this,but instead of tabling it allows it to go to Council with the feedback they have provided if they were to make a motion to approve or deny it. Tabling would cost time and would be a hindrance to the Applicant. Chair Ressler thinks that would be inappropriate in this circumstance because the feedback the Planning Commission has provided should be helpful for the City Council to weigh in. Barnhart noted if a motion to approve was to move forward, Staff would recommend that Staff's recommended conditions would be applied which is watershed district approval,City Engineer approval, County approval,and the Staff comment letters, as well as any other comments or conditions the Planning Commission would like to impose. Kirchner moved to approve LA 20-48, 1700 Shoreline Drive,Preliminary Plat with the recommendations from City Staff that Mr. Barnhart just outlined and adding additional comments from the Planning Commission: Outlot D is a serious concern,the parking area has not been addressed,use of Heritage Lane traffic concerns from neighbors,and putting it back on the Applicant to explore the right-of-way for the right turn lane to occur without Ms. Burwell's property. Chair Ressler asked to clarify that it would be contingent on a turn lane being placed without encroaching on private property. Kirchner will not go so far as to say to not place it there,but it is a concern and he thinks a qualified and certified surveyor would be able to determine if that can or cannot happen. They can then provide that to Page 15 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. the City Council if there is not enough room for that turn lane as exists today with the County right-of- way without taking anything additional. Libby seconded the motion. Chair Ressler asked for further discussion. Erickson wonders if there is a way the Planning Commission could specify a neighborhood meeting prior as there was comment from the neighbor's attorney that quite a bit of progress had been made in one meeting and he kind of suggested that a second meeting might be more helpful. Barnhart thinks it is appropriate and the Planning Commission can certainly recommend that but cannot make that as a condition of any motion. He thinks it is appropriate after the Planning Commission acts on this motion and second that they recommend the Applicant continue the dialogue with the adjacent property owners. Chair Ressler asked if Barnhart finds the conditions of this motion specific enough to get where they need to go after this. Barnhart replied that he does. Chair Ressler clarified Kirchner has a motion to approve and is contingent upon satisfying concerns over turn lanes,concerns over construction traffic on Heritage Lane,detail for parking for boat use among the homeowners. He asked if he is missing anything. Kirchner replied yes, Outlot D is a concern that frankly does not serve a purpose and would likely be much cleaner added to Outlot C. Chair Ressler said based on the feedback,they should take a closer look at Outlot D for a removal. Kirchner answered in the affirmative. He added another part of the motion is all four of the Staff recommendations as well,on top of his additions. Chair Ressler clarified inclusive of the Staff recommendations that have been set out in the application. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1 (Gettman). Barnhart said this will go to the City Council on February 8, 2021. Chair Ressler said the Planning Commission would take a five-minute recess at 7:38 p.m. Commissioner Libby left the meeting during the recess. Chair Ressler resumed the meeting at 7:41 p.m. 2. LA20-73 ALL ENERGY SOLAR O/B/O BRIAN O'CONNELL+LYNNE RASMUSSEN,3145 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE(STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Page 16 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Brian O'Connell,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart showed on screen a view of the house near the lake and noted the portion of the roof is right over the corner and said it is fairly well screened by the neighboring house to the side. Staff reviewed this proposed variance for solar panels and this is not dissimilar to the variance the Planning Commission saw in November or December of 2020 where that property was asking for approximately 85% solar roof panel coverage where 70%is allowed. Barnhart showed on screen a very complex roof system with many relatively small roof planes;the goal here from a solar panel array is to provide southern exposure and this house works out well in that the largest roof plane is towards the south which provides good exposure. He pointed out the large stands of trees that block view from the lake and pointed out the neighboring property onscreen. The Applicant provided some practical difficulty statements,they are in attendance tonight and the Planning Commission should ask them for additional statements. From Staffs perspective the goal of solar panel regulations is to minimize an aesthetic impact and the difference between 75%and 70%lot coverage is relatively minor from a distance. Barnhart said close to the property the visual impact of the additional arrays is very negligible. Given the building code standards in terms of safety issues to make sure there is access into the solar array and access around the edges, it is probably appropriate that they examine their solar regulations as it applies to roof coverage. Barnhart noted some of the Commissioners made that statement last November. From Staffs perspective,they found there were practical difficulties. In particular,the State has a practical difficulty for lack of adequate sunlight; from a State statute perspective this is not a carte blanche that someone can automatically get a variance for roof panels. Staff thinks the intent of the State legislature when they made that regulation is that existing trees and vegetation block the ability for a property to access the sun. In those situations,the remedy is to cut down those trees and that is not the goal of Orono's Comprehensive Plan, nor the goal of many neighborhoods where they want to protect established vegetation, and they certainly want to protect vegetation within the lake. In lieu of cutting down the trees to provide maximum solar access,the Applicant is requesting the variance. The Applicant is present tonight and Staff is recommending approval of the variance as proposed. Bollis asked when calculating the 70%, are they calculating just the garage roof or how are they coming to that number. Barnhart noted they just calculate that portion of the roof where there are panels,that plane. They do not calculate the other side,they just calculate"this side"(referencing on the screen). Bollis asked if that is spelled out specifically in the code that it is just that plane. Barnhart replied yes. He said if it was the"roof system"then they would be at approximately 14%. Kirchner noted Barnhart mentioned this was not entirely different than November. If he recalls,that one was adding an accessory structure in an open area. Barnhart clarified there was an existing accessory structure and they put the panels on that. The argument for that one was one could not see that structure from anywhere. He noted this one can be seen from other places but if the analysis is variance or no,they are allowed 38 panels and are just asking for 2 extra ones,that difference is relatively negligible from a Staff perspective. Page 17 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler thinks it is laid out very well with the screening and the findings from the November meeting is a good lesson for the Planning Commission to know there was not necessarily a safety reason they had that limitation. A lot of the weight of the decision goes upon proper screening. Barnhart pointed out late in the afternoon the Planning Commission received a forwarded email from the neighboring property owner to the south supporting the proposal. Chair Ressler welcome the Applicant to the podium. Colin Buechel, 18 West 15th Street,Minneapolis approached the podium representing All Energy Solar, the company doing the installation on the property. He summarized the practical difficulties on this project—at first glance it looks like there is plenty of space on the roof to put these panels, and they can see the garage roof facing south is by far the best option for panels. The difference was two panels between getting that 70%coverage and what the proposed design is currently. As Barnhart mentioned there are a lot of hills and valleys and the Planning Commission can see that on the bird's eye view on screen. On top of that,there are some mature trees southeast of the residence that also provides further shading on the roof structure. This is not a residence built by the current owner and he did not design this residence to maximize solar and meet the City code,rather he purchased the property and is hoping to add solar to the property. If they were to remove two panels and move them to a different roof structure,he is not sure the concern on that limitation is visual but they would likely have to move those two panels to a completely different area of the house further north and it would just be two panels sitting out on a roof plane. If it is a visual impact concern,putting them all on the garage roof with very little visibility versus putting those two panels on the other side of the house with more increased visibility.He also mentioned the elevation of the garage is pretty high where one cannot even see the shingles from the adjacent property so this seems like a far-and-away the ideal location for these panels. Moving those two panels would also include conduit and electrical to run to service back to the original array,which complicates the electrical and cost proponent. Gettman noted the elevation and the neighbor to the south and asked if they can see those panels. Chair Ressler thinks what is onscreen is illustrating the height as well as the screening between the houses makes it pretty well-hidden from the neighbor. Gettman thinks it is just the opposite as they can almost see the neighbor's house to the right. He said they would be looking directly at the panel and asked if that is correct. Brian O'Connell, 3145 North Shore Drive,Applicant, said his neighbor's house has a lot of windows but the photo shown onscreen is looking at the lake. Around the side of the house where the mouse onscreen is waving is where the panels would be; if they were in the neighbor's house looking at that roof plane, it is 3 stories up and the neighbor has maybe two windows that are foyer windows on that side of the house. To be in the neighbor's front yard and look up, one cannot see that roof plane. He said the neighbor is fine with the variance, and Barnhart went out and visited the property and took some photos.He asked to show the side view of the garage onscreen and noted the roof plane at the very top if they put a panel on that roof, it cannot be seen from the ground. Gettman thanked Mr. O'Connell and said that clarifies. Page 18 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner asked on the photo they are looking at of the neighbor; is that Mr. Mandell who they provided an email of support earlier today. Mr. O'Connell replied that is correct. Bollis asked why not just build to 70%and drop the two panels. Mr. O'Connell would like to maximize the amount of solar energy he can get on the house. There is a state code and although he is not well-versed in State code,from a safety perspective they must have a 3- foot access way. So,the maximum number of panels he can put on that roof,given where roof vents are is 30. He can get a permit approved for 28 as that is the 70%. As outlined,he could put a single solar panel on a bunch of other roof planes,run conduit,but those would be visible from the lake, from the backyard, and more visible from the street if he put it on the front side of the house. He noted he could comply with the 70%and put two more panels on and he thinks that would be aesthetically unpleasing as he wants to minimize if not completely eliminate this array from the lake. This is a way for him to maximize his solar usage and put it on the same plane. He asked to show a picture of the 28-panel design versus the 30-panel design. He pointed out two squares on an aerial image that he would like to add. Mr. O'Connell said it is reasonable to ask for a variance as there is a variance process in place; one was granted with 80-some%and he said granted it was on an outlying structure,and he thinks the visibility is de minimis on this side and his neighbor his fine with it. Mr. O'Connell could add those two panels somewhere else but he does not think that is practical given the negative aesthetic appearance of the panels on other roof planes. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Chair Ressler noted they just had one of the applications in November and is interested in finding out the outcome from that. Something that came from that is perhaps they need to revisit the code for the percentage that the roof occupies. Seeing that it was approved and passed,normally he would say practical difficulty is not exactly met but considering the previous application was approved, he does not see any reason why this one would not be. The practical difficulty is identified as accessibility to sunlight so by definition that roofline if it were to continue on would meet the criteria. It is not as egregious of an overreach from the allotment of 70%as currently written in the City code. Kirchner feels this one is slightly different from the one in November;the application in November was in a large open area without trees obstructing it and he felt in that case there was not a lack of adequate sunlight;the roof structure just was not as big to accommodate the number of panels they wanted. He noted in this application there are some trees providing blockage and with that said, in viewing previous decisions the Planning Commission has made(not specific to solar panels but hardcover)they have stuck pretty certain to a percentage—only 1%versus"this"percent is an overage. In this case he struggles with the slippery slope of"well it's only 5%, it's only 15%." With that being said he does believe there is some wind behind the sails here to evaluate this ordinance in the future as to what the intent of it is and what percentage should truly be allowed to circumvent variance applications such as this. Erickson thinks there are a couple of factors at work in favor of the Applicant. One is that he is really just filling in the middle of the area of the"donut hole"and not expanding outward;therefore, it is not Page 19 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. changing the character of the neighborhood. He noted it would be a negative change if they had to cut down trees. Erickson is in favor of this. Bollis is having a hard time seeing the practical difficulty to allow the additional 5%; not saying that he thinks it might be silly to not allow that,he just does not see it on this project. He thinks the Planning Commission should look at that code and decide,rather than just granting variances when they do not apply and meet the practical difficulty. His basis for that is asking what percentage of electrical use do they allow. He noted everyone putting solar up wants to maximize their solar but that should not be considered in the practical difficulty when looking at whether or not they are encompassing 70%. Chair Ressler thinks the main thing is that the Planning Commission could move to deny and say it needs to meet the percentages allowed and then the application could go to City Council and they could approve it as applied. The Planning Commission's reasoning would be that it does not meet the practical difficulty to exceed the allotment of percentage which is a technicality and he does not know if Staff has a comment on that.He asked if there is really a difference one way or the other. Barnhart hears Bollis' comment because they do have this conversation quite a lot where someone is allowed 25%hardcover and they are asking for 26%hardcover,and what is really the big deal. He gets that, but the challenge here is the State statute says that lack of adequate access is a practical difficulty. However,that does not give the credit card for someone to just do whatever they want.He noted the City has taken steps to address concerns they had in 2003 and 2012 and they put standards in place such as no ground-mounted solar systems,probably because of a hardcover issue and from a screening perspective. Barnhart believes the 70%is mostly an aesthetic issue so the variance process allows the Planning Commission to review options and as the Applicant said,he has option to put the panels elsewhere on the roof and the conduit will be seen. That is a balance from the Planning Commission and City Council perspective: is what they are proposing more consistent with the goals of the ordinance and goals of the City than the alternate where the practical difficulty cannot be met because of X, Y, and Z reasons. Staff recommended approval because looking at the fact they are allowed solar and the difference is negligible from a visual impact. Staff believes the alternative would be to put it elsewhere on the roof that may require removal of trees over time; it does not show in the drawing very well but Barnhart noted there are quite a few trees in this area that impact the other large expanse of roof for the solar panels. Staff recommended approval because they felt that the goals of the ordinance were satisfied by granting a variance versus not granting. Chair Ressler said fundamentally the goals that Staff is marking is the aesthetics more than anything else. It is not a safety concern and asked if that ship has sailed. Barnhart replied no,there is still a safety concern but the concern is managed by the building code regulations. They are not suggesting variances from that,but from Staff perspective,they believe that the 70%regulation at this day and age is likely more tied to aesthetics than it is to other safety issues. Chair Ressler noted it is the Staffs opinion that those aesthetics have been satisfied. Barnhart also pointed out while the Applicant suggested that these are the two new panels, it is really the last two. Kirchner said if they are looking at the practical difficulty side of this from a lack of adequate sunlight, whichever two panels it is he finds it hard to say the practical difficulty had been met for those two panels Page 20 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. because apparently it has not been met for the other panels. Those two panels somehow then do not have adequate access to sunlight and yet the rest of the roof does;he does not believe that would then meet the practical difficulty. Mr. O'Connell commented that they can pick any two panels they want; if he was to build it with 28 panels,the design would remove those"donut hole"ones. In the big roof plane that Barnhart pointed out to the lower right,it is shaded in the summer and he could take two panels and find a roof plane more northerly,but he personally believes that would be terrible aesthetically because it would be seen from the lake or from the neighbor's backyard. All the other roofs are lower and he wanted to put those two panels on that same roof plane as the other ones and butted up against the 70%challenge. The maximum number of panels that can go on that roof is 30 and he could put two somewhere else but it will be difficult to wire them to that array and have it not be visible from the lake or the neighbor's house. Chair Ressler noted with Mayor Walsh and Councilmember Seals present,they can speak to the issue. Mayor Dennis Walsh, 1354 West Point Circle,approached the podium and said this is a great opportunity as they see things like this at the City Council. When the last one came before them the first question,he asked Barnhart and the City Attorney is"why do we have 70%?" He needs to understand that before he can assess what is going on. The answer was"we have no idea why we have 70%." Mayor Walsh noted they just had a boat discussion at the last City Council meeting and asked where did they come up with a 30-foot boat rule...someone remembered 25 years ago they made it 30 feet because there was a Councilmember who had a 30-foot boat and he wanted to be able to put it in his yard so they changed it to 30 feet. He appreciates Bollis saying he does not see a practical difficulty for 70%; however,the problem is why the City even has 70%and nobody knows. Is it a fire code requirement? No. He asked what is the real issue? Then as Mr. O'Connell said he could move the panels somewhere else and then there are practical difficulties of connecting it in and what if they eventually have to replace the roof;nothing else really faces south that is anywhere close. Mayor Walsh noted they can always come up with a good practical difficulty but it begs the question of "why do we have it?" He said at the City Council they look at what ordinances they should try and attack or change because there are 20 of them and they only have so much time to rewrite with the Attorney,go through them, and bring it through the public process. He noted it gets them thinking. When they start to get to those"why"questions and they do not get answered, that is when the Planning Commission and City Council starts saying they recommend approving or disapproving but they also recommend that the ordinance needs to be looked at and changed to reflect the real issue of why there is a percentage and what it should be. There needs to be a rationale so the City can explain it to an Applicant; when they cannot explain it that becomes a bigger issue. Mayor Walsh said over time they try and fix as many of these as they can but sometimes,they do not know they have them until situations like this come up. Then after talking about them they say"why is this here?" Gettman said to the Mayor,the way Gettman was looking at this was perhaps completely backwards,but looking at the 70%it is obviously applicable for each roof face. So,the practical difficulty is the fact that the Applicant is trying not to use all of these other faces and is stuck with just using one of these ten faces. The practical difficulty is then trying to utilize that one space. Mayor Walsh answered that is absolutely a practical difficulty as well. Gettman asked if he is missing something because the Applicant could literally have 70%of each and every one of those roof faces and asked if that is correct. Page 21 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart replied that is correct. Gettman noted the Applicant is trying to minimize the aesthetics. Mayor Walsh said that is a good point,they could do the entire roof Gettman stated the 70%initially sounded like the safety as there has to be the perimeter around for the firemen to be able to walk. Mayor Walsh said the practical difficulty is they also need to face it south as they are not going to face it north and there are only so many planes facing south. If that is the only thing they can use and they could put 500 panels on but they really only want 30 panels and they need those two more. Mr. O'Connell said he has some shade issues on some of the south facing roofs but he could put all those triangular shapes covered with 70%solar panels. He personally does not like that aesthetic and in Orono it is not the intent to have that look. Given the aesthetic obligation he feels he has,he would like to maximize the solar on the one aesthetically available,the biggest south facing rectangular plane. Chair Ressler thinks the fundamental of inadequate access to sunlight is the best way to define this. It is being met by definition and the Planning Commission needs to decide if they can rest their laurels on this because they know that aesthetics is probably the biggest concern that ties around it based on the discussions. Gettman moved,Boils seconded,to approve LA 20-73,3145 North Shore Drive,Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Barnhart asked if the Planning Commission would find it appropriate to suggest the City Council consider a change to the code. Chair Ressler replied yes,absolutely. 3. LA20-76 CHRIS MOE,2425 THOROUGHBRED LANE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Chris Moe,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant wishes to install full bathroom facilities in roughly a 1,500 square foot accessory building with a garage on their property which includes a recreational space. A conditional use permit(CUP)is required due to the proposed shower. Staff is recommending approval contingent upon the property owner's agreement to filling out those covenants with the four standards which they see often including it will not be used as home occupation, dwelling, rented/leased, etcetera. The Applicant submitted a letter of support from the abutting neighbor. Chair Ressler noted the City code does not allow short-term lease in its current code and asked if that is correct. Ms. Oakden replied that is correct. Page 22 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler said that is one question that often comes up when there is an accessory building adding plumbing and it is a little silly that it comes up every time someone adds a shower as that is really the only trigger to this. Perhaps that is also something to consider rewriting the code for although he may speak for himself. He has seen this a few times,he does not have any questions as it seems pretty straightforward. Chris Moe,2425 Thoroughbred Lane,Applicant,approached the podium and welcomed questions. There were no questions from the Planning Commission. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Chair Ressler summarized and noted the Planning Commission has approved applications similar to this in the past and he does not see a reason they would not approve this. He asked if the Planning Commission agrees or disagrees. The Planning Commission agreed. Kirchner moved,Erickson seconded,to Approve LA 20-76,2425 Thoroughbred Lane,Conditional Use Permit as applied for with the four provisions recommended by Staff.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4.LA20-77 PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION LLC,2967 CASCO POINT ROAD,VARIANCE (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Timothy Oare, Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is asking for an average lakeshore setback to allow for a chimney for a wood burning fireplace to be constructed lakeward of the average lakeshore setback(ALS)along the north side of the new home. Staff finds practical difficulties are not met and Planning Commission should determine if the ALS variance is supported by the submitted practical difficulties and make a recommendation. This property received an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in 2019(LA19-000048)to construct a new home. At that time a chimney was anticipated on the south side of the property behind the average lakeshore setback. The Applicant has received a building permit for a new home(RPS20-000142)with the chimney removed from the plans, which meet the approved variances and city codes. They are now asking for this chimney and it is not necessarily the footprint of the chimney but the height as the ALS has a 42-inch height requirement. The Applicant submitted neighbor acknowledgement signatures from the two abutting neighbors. Staff finds practical difficulties are not met with what was submitted and that the chimney would act as a convenience and not necessarily for reasonable use of a single-family home for the property. Chair Ressler asked if it is a gable that it is supposed to be limited to. Ms. Oakden replied the ALS is limited to 42 inches in height so they technically can construct things lower than that. Because this was not shown on the original plans for the variance,this height issue of the Page 23 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. chimney was not anticipated and not reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council when the variance was granted. So,this chimney is a new visible sightline expansion within the ALS so it triggers the need for a re-review or a new variance to allow it. Chair Ressler said not only is she saying it is a height concern but it is also encroaching on side yard setbacks. Ms. Oakden replied no,just the ALS. The original house the Planning Commission saw in 2019 for the variance showed a 12-foot setback and when the building permit came in and this house,they have proposed they pulled the house back to 14 feet. This footprint of the chimney always anticipated house massing in that space. The actual footprint of the chimney being lakeward is not necessarily the concern but it is the height of the chimney in that new sightline expansion that is triggering the ALS variance. Bollis asked if the overall footprint of the house is getting smaller. Ms. Oakden noted they just pivoted the house so the overall footprint of the house and hardcover from 2019 is the same. Robert Schmidt of Premium Construction approached the podium is here on behalf of the Oares and noted Tim Oare is here today. When they originally submitted this application,the original house was on the property and was torn down. They submitted a plan for a variance to place the house where it is shown. The biggest difficulty was that down the line was the ALS because of the carriage house that sat way up by the road. During the discussion to get the variance, and the other line shown,they basically said it doesn't make much sense to use the one up front and rather they should reestablish it and set the house using that setback. That is basically why the house is where it is at. Mr. Schmidt said they did not have the chimney on the plan when submitted the first time and all the talk about this variance was the sightline, how far away they were,how close to the lake,and nobody talked about the roofline, shingles, or anything else. They went ahead and put the chimney on and it triggered the variance that it technically did not meet requirements. What Mr. Schmidt is saying is if they would have originally had the chimney on the proposal to get the variance,he does not think anybody would have even brought it up. At this point it seems a little strange and the house is not even built but they are in the process of building the house now. He stated the chimney is lower than the highest peak of the roof, and he gets it,but as a technicality it is a little moot. He said they are looking for the Planning Commission to consider the fact that if they had the chimney on previously, would the Planning Commission have approved it;the fact that the other lakeshore setback to set the house puts the chimney behind lakeshore access. He noted they are using two lakeshore setbacks to determine what to do on this property and he asked to pick one or the other. Chair Ressler is not familiar with height requirements for wood burning versus gas as far as chimneys go. He asked if there is a minimum they need to have for it to be a wood burning chimney. Mr. Schmidt said all chimneys need to be two feet higher than any ten foot; he clarified if they go ten feet horizontal,the chimney has to be two feet over that roofline. In other words, he has to raise the chimney two feet higher than the point it hits the roof. Chair Ressler clarified in order for this to function it has to be this tall. Mr. Schmidt replied that is correct Page 24 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. McCutcheon thinks Mr. Schmidt has a point and does not think the Planning Commission would have said anything previously. The main thing to him is that it is in the building envelope and he hates to split hairs but asked if the neighbors complained or had comments. Ms. Oakden noted the Applicant submitted signatures from the neighbors with the neighbor acknowledgement form. McCutcheon said in hindsight,the chimney is very tall and is at the closest point to the neighbor and maybe the Planning Commission would have said something. He is interested in the rest of the discussion; it is in the building envelope so the main question here is the sightlines from the neighbors and they did not submit any comments. He thinks the main thing is the neighbors being able to view the lake and if they do not have an opinion on the matter,he thinks he would favor the Applicant for the variance. Kirchner related this one back to the garage or accessory structure where the roof trusses would go above and beyond into the ALS the Planning Commission saw within the last 4-5 months. He distinctly remembers the Applicant was asking for more than what the building code was requiring of those trusses; in this case as demonstrated by the Applicant,the height of this is to satisfy the building code requirements being a 10-foot distance away and a two-foot height from that ten-foot mark of other roofing structures. Based on that, as well as McCutcheon's statements,Kirchner would likely be supportive of it. Chair Ressler agrees with Kirchner and that is where his line of questions came from: whether this was a vanity choice or a necessity of function. It is unfortunate they are in the place they are in but when he looks at whether he would have declined the application if this was in there in the first place,that is not how they like to do it but it is a good validator for his conscience. He does not see any problem with it. McCutcheon moved,Gettman seconded,to approve LA20-77,2967 Casco Point Road,Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. LA21-01 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO APPEALS(STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart noted any resident has the right to appeal the decision by any member of the City Staff and any board decision. That does currently apply to those that are facing action through code enforcement process and that is not the appropriate mechanism to review those. This proposed text amendment clarifies that if one is going to appeal a decision from a zoning code enforcement official,the process to do that is through the legal system,working with a prosecuting attorney and if necessary,the County court system. This ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney and he recommends approval. The only change is it clarifies the appeal process for those actions related to code enforcement. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Page 25 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Chair Ressler said it seems pretty straightforward,a bit of a housekeeping item, and seem like a good way to tidy up the code. He asked if anyone is opposed to this change. Erickson moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve La21-01 City of Orono Text Amendment Related To Appeals. 6. LA21-02 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DRY BUILDABLE DEFINITION(STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart said during the course of the review of the subdivision code last fall,a question came up at the City Council level about the definition of dry buildable. At the time it was 18%and one of the Councilmember questioned why it is 18%. In a review of the City codes and history they could not really find any basis for the 18%so the Council directed Staff to draft an ordinance amendment to change it to 3-to-1 slope or 33.33%. To try and keep things easy to communicate, Staff is recommending the definition of dry buildable be changed to 30%. The Planning Commission will note it is in two different sections, one is in the zoning code and the other is in the subdivision code;they will see more of the dry buildable as it relates to the development of plats in subdivisions than they will in the zoning ordinance but both sections reference dry buildable as 18%so they are changing it in both locations. Staff does not see this as a big issue and it will have a potential impact on lots that have marginal or extra steep slopes where more of those parcels can be used at the calculated dry buildable. However, Staff does not think it will be a huge issue. Gettman asked what percentage the neighboring cities are running with. Barnhart replied he summarized his research in the attachment and he does not recall what others do. Dry buildable is a relatively unique Orono-ism,other cities have"usable"or something like that,but he does not know the percentages off the top of his head. Gettman noted 30%is significant and 18%is a decent slope and he is trying to understand the jump. He asked if anyone else has any experience as when he thinks about a 30%slope that is really steep. Barnhart stated part of the argument made during this subdivision review was when Mr. Gronberg,a surveyor, commented that a slope from the front yard to a walk-out basement is about 23%. That may be true and they do not apply that level of detail for the zoning review. In subdivisions it will be seen when they have steep slopes like they saw in the Shoreland Estates project earlier this evening. Barnhart is not too worried about the 18-30%because they care about dry buildable if one can fit a house site and septic locations. Regardless of the slope,the septic locations follow their own regulations so it is really a question of what the City is comfortable allowing and the Council suggested 30%is fine. Gettman said it is basically an arbitrary number. Page 26 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart does not have any mechanisms to stay at 18%, 3-to-1 is a pretty common,maintainable slope and they generally do not suggest grading steeper than that if they want to maintain that. He thinks 3-to-1 is a reasonable number. McCutcheon asked Barnhart what was the number for the average walkout. Barnhart said going off memory it is about 23%or something like that. Gettman said it will vary depending on the depth of the house. Barnhart said of course. Bollis asked what they consider a bluff percentage-wise and he thinks it must be more than 45 degrees. Barnhart said the bluff is several things;there is a steepness, length,and height. A bluff also has to terminate at the shoreline;there are several factors that apply and are specifically established by the State in terms of bluff definition. He clarified they are not proposing to change that and they do not want to increase it to a really steep level because they are trying to establish buildable minimums. If it is a really steep slope,for example, 135 Orono Orchard Road is really the only time it has come into play since Barnhart came here and it had a very pronounced peninsula in the middle and was surrounded by wetlands. He noted steep slopes came into play there. This change is not going to add a lot to that but Barnhart thinks 30%is a good suggestion for a maintainable slope. Chair Ressler said 30%is slightly"flatter"than 33%. He noted that 18%is probably not enough and based on the feedback of Staff and City Council it is something that has probably been researched well enough and they must pick a number. He said it seems like a reasonable text amendment in his opinion. Bollis would be in favor of removing this from the code altogether and not having a percentage towards dry buildable at all. However,they are clearly picking an arbitrary number here. Barnhart thinks it is important that they have a dry buildable number—if they do not,for example,the subdivision they reviewed earlier tonight is in the sewered area and City code requires the gross land area for the east lot be 2 acres minimum and because it is sewered, it had to be '/2 acre of dry buildable. He does not know the origin but that is the requirement for sewer parcels. For non-sewer parcels they need a minimum of 2 acres of dry buildable to site a house and two septic sites. That is why the dry buildable is important in non-sewered areas. He clarified for sewered area they do not have to worry about the septic issue and just need a site for the house. That is why he would recommend they still keep a dry buildable minimum,because removing that introduces a lot more analysis that will be necessary to be sure they are not opening up Pandora's box. Bollis said in that case the septic would be the key to the whole thing and there would be no reason for this calculation. If they can't fit a septic there,they would not be able to subdivide it and that would be dictated by the steepness of the lot. He feels like this is just going way above and beyond and clarified he has always been against the 18%as it made no sense because they were creating bigger slopes to create walkouts than the 18%and that is clearly buildable. Chair Ressler noted this is a step in the right direction. Page 27 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,January 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis agreed but he still thinks they could do away with it; however,perhaps they want to take baby- steps in that direction. Chair Ressler said this is a good start and they can always take the feedback and entertain a change later on. He knows the City Council wants to be cautious to make sure there are not positions being created that would make it more difficult to measure. He asked if anyone is opposed to the 30%as being too large. Erickson moved,Gettman seconded,to approve LA 21-02 City of Orono Text Amendment Related To Dry Buildable Definition as applied.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Barnhart asked if they had a public hearing. Chair Ressler did not and noted there is no one in the room but he will do a public hearing and they can go back to that motion. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Erickson moved, Gettman seconded,to approve La21-02 City of Orono Text Amendment Related To Dry Buildable Definition as applied.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 7. Planning Commission Liaison to City Council Meetings Barnhart tried to publish the liaison assignments through March 2022 as the Planning Commissioner's terms end in March every year so rather than try to scramble to figure out the last three months,he created it this way. If there are any changes or issues, he asked the Commissioners to let him know. He does not think it is critical if one must miss a meeting;they should let Barnhart know and he will alert the Council. Chair Ressler asked if they can note who the next liaison is on the agenda it would be helpful. Then after the meeting they can find out if that Commissioner has a conflict and find a replacement. Barnhart does not have an update on the previous Council meeting as they have not reviewed planning items since December. ADJOURNMENT Kirchner moved,Bollis seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commiss'on meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m. ATTEST: Jon Ressler,Chair Page 28 of 28