Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-2021 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 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 (arrived at 6:27 p.m.), Bob Erickson, Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner, Dennis Libby, and Mark McCutcheon. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Laura Oakden, and City Planner Melanie Curtis. Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Libby moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 19 2021 Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 2021 as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 1. LA20-000074 EDWARD CALDWELL, 746 TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCES (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Edward Caldwell, Applicant, was present. Curtis presented a summary packet of information. The Applicants are requesting hardcover, lake setback and average lakeshore setback (ALS) variances in order to construct a new, more functional, and larger lakeside deck. They are requesting the variances in order to expand their deck by approximately 150 square feet. The existing deck is situated partially lakeward of the Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS); 79.6 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHL), and the property's hardcover currently exceeds 25%. The new deck, shown in blue on screen, is proposed to be 73.8 feet from the lake and will encroach approximately 3 feet more into the ALS than the existing deck. The proposed survey showing the new deck was not submitted until last Monday; upon review it reflected the unintentional encroachment of the deck into the lake setback. Today Staff spoke with Mr. Caldwell regarding the recommendation in the Staff report for denial and he has agreed to reconfigure the deck so that it does not encroach into the 75 - foot setback. Tonight, the Planning Commission should focus on the ALS and the hardcover variances as the Applicant is prepared to provide a new deck configuration. The property currently exceeds the hardcover limitation by approximately 1,400 square feet and in order to avoid a hardcover increase with the project, the Applicant is proposing to offset the new deck hardcover with reductions resulting in a total net decrease of 47 square feet. Included in the removals are a 77 square foot lakeside concrete patio, parking area, and paver steps indicated in red hashed areas on the survey. Staff finds due to the existing home location, the shared driveway easement with the neighbor to the north, and the location of the neighboring homes with respect to the lake, there may be practical difficulties supporting the additional minimal encroachment in to the ALS and the hardcover variance requested to allow construction of a slightly larger deck. Supportive comments have been received from neighbors on each side of the property. Staff recommends approval of an ALS variance and a hardcover variance with reductions as noted. Staff further recommends denial of the two variances resulting in the deck within the 75 -foot Page 1 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. setback which the Applicant has agreed to resolve. Plans for the deck should be reconfigured prior to City Council review so that it does not encroach into the 75 -foot setback. Ressler asked what the elevation of the proposed deck is. Curtis replied it will come off the main floor of the rambler home; she does not know the actual height but showed a drawing on screen of the home and proposed deck. Ressler thinks it is about 7.5 feet. Edward Caldwell, 746 Tonkawa Road, approached the podium and said he has been an Orono resident for 29 years. He said the property was in disrepair when they bought it 29 years ago and they have made vast improvements to the house and the outside grounds. He noted they love living in Orono, and his wife is somewhat incapacitated due to medical reasons. Mr. Caldwell has been a caregiver for his wife for almost 3 years; his oldest daughter Angie came with him tonight and he has four daughters who all went to Orono High School. When the Orono Activity Center went in, his family purchased a brick that was sold to help finance the project which read "The Caldwell Family — Spartans Forever" and it showed Angie '84, Amy '85, Aundie '87, and Anne '92. His oldest daughter Angie was the first member of the girl's golf team in 1984 to be chosen to go to State. Mr. Caldwell's daughter Angie said from her perspective, her parents live on the lake and the family goes there for dinners and the kids come when everybody is in town. The reason they are trying to enlarge the deck a couple of feet is because the Caldwell's have a small table and if everyone is seated around the glass table on the porch, one cannot get through the walkway to get down the stairs. It is such a small little area so they are hoping to add a couple more feet and noted her sister did the plans for it, so it is a more livable deck. Angie noted it is in such disrepair right now that something has to be done as it is not safe and needs to be improved to make it functional for her parents. They love sitting out there and it is a great view. Mr. Caldwell said his second daughter Amy is a Vice President for the Architecture Division of Hy -Vee and did the plans. Gettman asked if right now the deck depth is around 11 feet and the proposed deck is around 13. The Applicant replied yes. Gettman asked if they have looked at potentially moving the deck so the square footage would potentially allow for the table to go to the right. They would then have the ability to not have to navigate around the table to go to the stairs. The Applicant said it is on the right. Gettman noted he was flipping it and clarified to the left. Angie stated the doorway that comes out of the house is on the left and the grill is right in front of it next to the railing. When her father comes out to cook on the grill, he walks right out the door and it is a permanent grill which is hardwired so they could not put the table there. Frankly anywhere they put it along that area, it is still not wide enough to get around it. She said another thing that may need to be Page 2 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. taken into consideration is on the house side of the deck, there is an asphalt roof part that comes out and takes up a little portion of the deck. Mr. Caldwell noted it takes up about a foot and they could probably remove that and possibly remove the permanent grill and replace that. Angie clarified it is still just a really narrow, tight area. Mr. Caldwell said moving the stairs to go back instead of down towards the lake will also help make room for a table and some chairs. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. Karen Weathers, the Caldwell's neighbor next door approached the podium and wants the Planning Commission to know they are supportive and it is a very narrow deck. She hopes the Planning Commission will approve it. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. Ressler asked Curtis for a clarification, as it looks like the stairs that were mentioned are in compliance and that is not what is in question right now; generally, they are speaking about the lakeshore setback of 75 feet. Curtis replied in the affirmative and said the side setback on this property is shown at 10 feet which is the district setback. However, the lot is narrower than the district standard so they have that flexibility. Although it is shown that there is a slight encroachment, that is not accurate; it meets the setback. Ressler said the rest they need to deliberate is whether or not the Planning Commission feels comfortable encroaching further in to the lakeshore setback inside the 75. He asked if he is reading it correctly that right now, they are at 79.6. Curtis replied yes that is correct. The existing deck is shown in the dotted rectangle within the proposed deck. Ressler said it undulates because of the shoreline. Curtis said the 75 -foot setback does, yes. Libby said the idea that Orono has a standard for the setback always becomes more complicated when they have a meandering Lakeshore. Being this already had an existing encroachment into the ALS, he does not see any practical difficulties involved in this, but there are practical matters of use that have been explained. He tends to agree with Staff, he thinks this is something that is workable, especially with the willingness to offset some of the hard surface issues. If Kirchner understands correctly, Staff's recommendation is to approve average Lakeshore and hardcover but denial of the variance within the proposed deck area, which would then be the extension or addition of the deck area. As discussed previously he always struggles to further an encroachment and go beyond it Page 3 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. even further; if they are going at, to, or scaling back he is usually okay with it but struggles when adding additional encroachment, especially regarding the lakeshore. Ressler noted regarding the irregular shoreline, the policies generally call for that to not be a straight line but to follow the Lakeshore. If he looks at it and draws a straight line, there is no place to measure based on these plans. He asked if the measurement is based on the closest of the movement of that shoreline. Curtis said that 75 -foot measurement is the closest point to the lake, the red setback indicated. She said the Applicant's surveyor provided an updated survey showing the 75 -foot setback as a line that cuts across the property and said they plan to adjust the deck to conform to the 75 -foot setback. Ressler asked if that is how the application is right now or if that will be amended. Curtis clarified they have not provided the updated plans but are willing to do so. Ressler said it appears that the Applicant has agreed to stay within that 75 -foot setback, make the amendments to hardcover, and the City does not have a problem with the stairs. He noted they could entertain a motion to approve as applied with the amendment that the structure stays within the guidelines of the 75 -foot Lakeshore setback. Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA20-000074, 746 Tonkawa Road as applied with the amendment that the structure does not encroach upon the 75 -foot lakeshore setback. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 2. LA20-000075 BRIAN HUISMAN, 1121 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VACATION (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Brian Huisman, Applicant, was not present due to a conflict. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart stated the property owner at 1121 North Arm Drive is requesting a vacation of an unimproved alley that is adjacent to their property. The alley is shown on a survey on screen. A portion of the alley to be vacated is hashed in; approximately 75% of the alley is underneath the surface of the water and only about 430 feet is above the surface of the water. The Applicant proposes to vacate the entire area and the reason for this process is that this lot is the owner's property and they technically do not have lakeshore frontage. The City owns about an acre parcel as part of an original plat from 1880 and that forms the lakeshore in the area he indicated on screen. He said the alley associated with a separate plat forms the other portion of the lakeshore. The property owner is taxed on lakeshore and uses the property as lakeshore, but technically does not have lakeshore access and the owner is looking to clean up his title in that regard. Barnhart noted the process to vacate unimproved alleys is described in the City code. The Planning Commission and City Council have to determine there is no public access or public benefit to the property to be vacated. This alley, while it is lengthy around the boundary of that plat, does not connect to any other public land access to the lake. As the alley continues further north, it is owned privately by previous action so there is no City access being lost by this proposal. As part of the process and State statute, they are required to submit a public hearing notice to the DNR for their comment and have not received any comment for this application — the DNR's 60 - day review period expired the previous day. Barnhart said it is not uncommon not to get comments from the DNR; generally, their comments are against vacation, but the City did not receive any such comment for this application. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation of this alley only, the portion that is Page 4 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. hashed in to facilitate lakeshore access for this parcel. Barnhart noted the Applicant is not present at the meeting due to a conflict and if the Planning Commission would rather speak with him before making a decision it would be appropriate to table action until Mr. Huisman can make it to a meeting. Staff does recommend approval even with Mr. Huisman's absence. McCutcheon said is not clear if the alley really touches the land or if it is all underwater. In the Hennepin County picture, it does not look like it, although he is splitting hairs. Barnhart replied that is a question Staff had also. In looking at Hennepin County it looks like this alley is well into the lake and it really would not impact anything at all and why go through this process. The County aerial photo has a disclaimer that it is not 100% accurate and is not used for surveys. The survey is much more accurate City Staff does rely on the survey in this case and according to the survey, he pointed out the boundary of the water when the survey was done last year. There is a portion of the alley that is landward of the ordinary high-water line. McCutcheon asked about the land parcel the City owns to the south, as it seems like a weird piece of land. Barnhart stated it is a unique portion of the community in terms of platting of Forest Lake and there is a neighborhood platted in that area of lots and right-of-way and just old remnants from when the area was platted in 1880. Kirchner asked if the lot the City owns is between the alley and Applicant's property. Barnhart replied in the affirmative and said the Applicant is also requesting a boundary line adjustment for a portion of the property that is City owned, which is typically an administrative action on part of the City Staff. They would basically move the boundary line from here down to here, so they would have lake frontage the width and breadth of their lot. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. Ressler said this seems to be pretty similar to some of the other vacations they have seen that the City Council seems to be in support of. He does not see anything unique that would drive the Planning Commission in a different direction. Barnhart agrees and noted this is actually different than the others; the others actually provide lake access from a public way to the lake. This one is parallel, essentially, to the shoreline and does not provide any connection and is a pretty cut-and-dried case from a Staff perspective. Ressler agrees and asked if any of the Commissioners are opposed. McCutcheon said it seems that they are righting a wrong as the Applicant is paying the taxes, it is right in front of their property and he thinks it makes good sense. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA20-000075, 1121 North Arm Drive, Vacation, as applied. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 5 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 3. LA21-000004 STONEWOOD LLC, 1150 PINE VIEW DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) John Daly with Stonewood LLC, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis said the Applicant is proposing to install a full bathroom within a proposed 884 square foot pool -house building. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required due to the proposed shower within an accessory building. Additionally, if the survey looked a little odd, there is an administrative boundary line adjustment in process, so the property is changing shape but it does not affect the application before the Planning Commission. Curtis noted they are adding a portion of the neighboring property to their own. Staff has not received any public comments on the CUP request; Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the property owners' agreement to the filing of a restrictive covenant in the title of the property which addresses the plumbing and the use providing that the pool house will not be used for home occupation, used as a dwelling, rented, leased, or otherwise used as a dwelling under any circumstances. Ressler noted this seems very similar to many, many others that the Planning Commission has approved and really seems to be pulled in front of them because of the additional toilet and shower. Curtis clarified it is because of the shower. Ressler noted there is nothing exotic that he is not catching. Curtis replied no, it is very straightforward. John Daly with Stonewood LLC, 153 East Lake Street, said this is pretty procedural and the structure being built is a pool house and that is the intent with the shower. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Kirchner believes it has been summarized well and is very similar to many others the Planning Commission has approved. He does not see anything as an issue and the only reason it is before them is because of the indoor plumbing in an accessory structure. Staff is recommending the standard restrictive covenants. Beyond that he does not know there is much discussion to be had. Ressler agrees. Gettman asked regarding the Keller Road, is there the potential or concern that the road would be extended in some way to have that accessory building tied in. Curtis replied no, Keller Road is in Medina and there is no connection planned. Ressler thinks it is laid out that it cannot be leased, the City already has covenants about short-term leasing and all the bases seem to be covered. He asked if there was any opposition. Page 6 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA21-000004, 1150 Pine View Drive, Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 4. LA21-000006 CITY OF ORONO, 365 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT — METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) EXPANSION (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart said the City of Orono is considering relocating its public works facility and to do so it needs to amend the Comprehensive Plan specifics to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and needs to amend the CUP to expand sanitary sewer into an area that is not served by sanitary sewer. He showed a map of the City and showed the proposed expansion into a parcel of land just south of Highway 12 shown in red, off of Old Crystal Bay Road. The Planning Commission may recall this property was for sale by MnDOT for a couple of years and the City purchased it last summer for the purpose of a public works facility. When considering an expansion of the MUSA they are generally concerned about impact to the existing system and if the system can support that type of improvement. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed/anticipated volume of water to be generated and treated on the site and feels comfortable that the existing system can support it. He said there will be necessary expansions to that system, a sanitary sewer line and a new lift station will likely be necessary to pump the waste from the facility into the system just north of Highway 12. The project will likely include a normal kitchenette or breakroom, some restrooms, and perhaps 1-2 wash bays. Barnhart noted the final plans have not been determined but that is what Staff anticipates. In terms of impact to the system, the main increase will likely be the future use of the existing public works facility which is directly to the east. They have not identified a use for that and the zoning of that property is the same as the zoning of the subject property, which is a residential -type property and does allow City public works facilities as a permitted use. He noted there is an extra public hearing requirement but it is not technically a CUP. Staff has reviewed the standards for expansion of the MUSA which is contained in the Comprehensive Plan, which does anticipate expansions of MUSA from time -to -time. There are basically 6 priorities where the City Council could support a change or an amendment. For this project, there is not a failing system on the property, it is not adjacent to other property that needs to be served, it does not fit the top five criteria for priority, so it is a lower priority in terms of what the Comprehensive Plan spells out. Barnhart pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan established those priorities based on private residential use primarily, and private other development secondarily; public development for public services was not considered in terms of drafting the priorities. As with any proposed expansion of MUSA, Staff's worry is whether this is creating or establishing a precedent — does it just snake the argument easier for anyone else to expand the MUSA boundary into their property? As the Planning Commission knows, the goal has been since the 1980's to keep urban densities around specific areas such as Navarre, Highway 12, but also more importantly, keep density away from the lakeshore but also provide sanitary sewer along the Lakeshore to help preserve the water quality of the lakes. Barnhart noted they wanted to avoid expansion into the area shown on screen as those are lower density rule areas and did not want to extend sanitary sewer into those areas. He does not think this expansion, while it is into a more rural area, is precedent setting because it is for a public use and public service for the community. Staff is recommending approval as proposed. Bollis asked if this decreases the sewer density with this proposal. Barnhart replied that this has no impact on the sewer density because it is not a residential use. Kirchner said regarding the City Engineer's comments, does that opinion include if there were a wash bay and vehicle washing or is that specific to restrooms and a kitchen. Page 7 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said it does include the wash bay because they have one now. Gettman asked if they have received any comments from neighbors. Barnhart said as of today, no, he has not received any comment for or against the proposal. Gettman noted there would presumably be an increase in the number of trucks and utility vehicles in the area. Barnhart said perhaps, yes. He imagines a fair number of traffic comes down Old Crystal Bay Road from the current facility, but Gettman is correct, if all of the trucks leave that site there will be more traffic on that section of road. McCutcheon assumes there is a need for it and asked regarding the purchase, was it because this was relatively close or there were limited choices. Barnhart does not know the history as to why this site was chosen, but from a planning perspective, the City Engineer suggested a 25% increase in size necessary to accommodate the future public works needs of the community. McCutcheon clarified the zoning would stay the same except for that one lot. Barnhart said that is correct, the zoning would not change, nor would the guiding land use change. The only change proposed is to expand the MUSA into that subject property. He showed the MUSA map on screen and pointed out the subject parcel and would add that as an addition to the MUSA map. Bollis asked if it is possible to do this without expanding the MUSA and doing an on-site system. Barnhart replied possibly, they could build an on-site septic system and chances are they would need to incorporate some additional land because the land itself is not sized enough to accommodate that service plus the outdoor storage that will be required. He noted they do own a portion of land to the west. Ressler asked if owning the land to the west could be an opportunity for expansion in the future to avoid a whole new facility. Barnhart said it could; they did not include it into the MUSA boundary expansion proposal here. While the City does own this and perhaps the City Council could consider some outdoor storage in that area, that area is not included in the MUSA expansion as proposed. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Ressler likes the fact that the City already owns the property, it is nice that the adjacent property is owned as that allows for expansion in the future without having to start all over again. The need is there, the City has provided analysis with support and asked if any other Commissioners have comments. Page 8 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon said since it is a rural zoned area, they are always tentative, but as long as the zoning remains and will not be extended - his worry is that the 2040 Comp Plan becomes "oh, we have septic here, we could chop up these lots and have a house every 1/3 acre." That is his worry, but they are not doing that and as the City has the current plan of green space and keeping it rural, it is up for the community to maintain that. He noted the City already owns the land, there is a need as the City is growing and the infrastructure has to grow as well, so in that case he is supportive. Ressler appreciates those comments and thinks the City and Staff have done a nice job of explaining that they are not setting themselves up for any precedent because this is for City use not residential. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000006 City of Orono, 365 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. S. LA21-000007 PILLAR HOMES, 3220 NAVARRE LANE, VARIANCES (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) K.C. Chermak of Pillar Homes, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis noted the home on this property is currently undergoing a renovation with a partial second story addition. There is a small conforming location on the property and that is where the addition has gone; as part of the project, the Applicant would like to extend their existing rooftop deck area. Currently they have a deck and the diagonal line on screen is the setback from the rear of the lot, they would like to expand the rooftop deck to allow for additional space. It is proposed to be a black aluminum metal railing. Due to the location of the home, rear and side street setback variances are requested. The home is located on a substandard lot and is situated almost entirely within all of the required yard setbacks. The new railing will be set in from the edge of the home slightly: 6 feet 8 inches from the edge of the Navarre Lane side of the building, 6 feet from the west building edge and 1 foot off the north side of the building. They are trying to maximize their outdoor living space, and massing impact to adjacent properties will likely be minimal as it is an open metal railing. The signed neighbor acknowledgement forms were received but no public comments have been submitted. Curtis spoke with a neighbor on the phone today that had questions and upon clarification she made no comment on the application. The lot's size, lack of outdoor living space, and the existing structure size seem to support the requested variances of the practical difficulties on the lot. Staff is recommending approval of the setback variances to allow the railing to be installed within the setback areas. Ressler clarified they are not adding footprint, this is merely an extension of the existing structure and they are still staying a little over 6 feet from the edge of the existing structure on two sides. Curtis said that is correct and this portion of the building where they are within one foot of the edge of the building, they are conforming to an extent until they get over to the side. K.C. Chermak with Pillar Homes approached the podium and noted this is quite a project and he does not know if anyone has driven by the home. In the Staff report it is noted that the building has been here since 1940 and has been quite an eyesore; he said it has been a wonderful challenge to improve this site. He noted they could not believe how much fun they have had. Turning the building into a residence is pretty exciting; however, due to the unique situation here, they did ask the adjacent neighbors and both have signed and understand the improvements that are taking place. In their words, they are grateful that Page 9 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. the site is being improved. In Mr. Chermak's world, he believes they are asking for a vertical variance because the structure really does not go towards any of the other buildings or neighbors. As the remodel has gone and the access to this rooftop has been developed, to get some more outside space on this site because of the unique shape and setting, this is really the best use for the space in the request. He said it has been fabulous and will be quite a project when it is done. He welcomed questions. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Ressler's observations are that it is not lakeshore or waterfront, thank goodness for that as it is a bit easier to look at. He said it is always easier to consider these applications when they are not further encroaching structure rather than building up from existing. He does not see anything to note on this application that makes it appear there is any sort of variance requested to violate height restrictions. That is his initial reaction and he asked for further feedback from the Planning Commission. Bollis has no issues, the structure already exists within those setbacks and this seems to be a practical use for this lot to expand that outdoor space where they cannot into the yard. Ressler asked if anyone is opposed as applied. Erickson has a comment which is not directly related to the variance request — he expects to vote in favor — but as a side comment, in looking at the original, existing structure, it prominently shows an existing utility pole in front of the building, which is not a thing of beauty. Hopefully there is a plan to possibly eliminate that and perhaps go underground or use some other means of making it more attractive that would be wonderful. Ressler said reading the body language of the Applicant, yes, he is planning on burying that. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000007, 3220 NAVARRE LANE, VARIANCES as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 6. LA21-000008 BRAD BARINSKY, 1825 LAKESIDE TRAIL, VARIANCE (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Brad Barinsky, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart said this property was platted in 2019 and during the process there was some discussion at the Planning Commission and City Council level to establish a new average lakeshore setback (ALS) line which they had done in the past when subdividing lakeshore property. The reason why they often do that is to preserve or protect the views of the neighboring properties; they do not know when the lakeshore lots of the new development would be platted so they identify a new ALS so that both the neighboring property owner and the sellers of the lots can have some understanding and some comfort of where the houses may be located. He said there was some discussion at the time of the preliminary plat for this project but that was never codified into the development agreement or into the resolution for the final plan. Technically, there is no "new" ALS; therefore, the ALS for this lot is the distance that the neighboring lot 770 Brown Road North is from the lake which is 343 feet. Per code, this is the ALS line and Barnhart has noted it as line A in the Staff Page 10 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Report and on this exhibit. The Applicant has designed the home based on his understanding of Line B, which was the "new" ALS identified during the preliminary plat which is based on 770 Brown Road North and 1925 Lakeside Trail to the south and west. Barnhart noted this property used to be addressed as 690 Brown Road which is the parent parcel for the subdivision. They developed the house based on Line B, but during the course of developing the plans, they recognized that the property 770 Brown Road North added a lakeside deck to their property which brought the ALS closer to the lake which is Line C. The Applicant proposed to apply his house to the new Line C. Barnhart noted onscreen a vacant parcel and the former 690 Brown Road which is now 1925 Lakeside Trail. Basically, the argument the Applicant is making: he is proposing to use this new adjusted ALS line and that can be done by variance because it is not written into the development documents. To satisfy the argument for a variance, the Applicant has noted there is a large tributary running right through the property, which was known during the project. This tributary requires a 75 -foot setback, so basically his buildable pad is right here (noted on screen). Staff, in reviewing the history and the unique aspects of this parcel, does see a practical difficulty due to the tributary and its inherent setback and also the extreme distance that the neighboring lot is from the lake of 343 feet. The normal setback for a sewered property would be 75 feet off the lake, so Staff is supporting a variance request as proposed. He clarified Staff is recommending a variance so as not to encroach above or lakeward of Line C. Bollis asked how this affects Lot 5 when looking at a house to be built there. Barnhart replied assuming this house is built, he showed two points on screen and noted where Lot 5 would be. Their new ALS would be Line C. Bollis said it is approximately where it was supposed to be if it was recorded with the plat. Barnhart replied yes, perhaps 10 feet closer. McCutcheon noted this just shows how complicated this gets; the house of Lot 4 is fighting the tributary and these lots are so long, it is kind of a shame if they are stuffed up to the street. He said when they build a house on Lot 5, will they come to the Planning Commission and say "hey, this is kind of a small space." Barnhart said they might, but thinks they are marginally different than what was originally anticipated. He noted anyone could come forward with a variance but the practical difficulty is a little harder to prove in those situations. Based on the facts in looking at this one, the tributary is unique and they do not see a lot of those in a side yard situation. McCutcheon also mentioned the depth of the lot requires a relatively limited portion of the lot for development. Brad Barinsky, the owner of 1825 Lakeside Trail, approached the podium. He said Barnhart did a good job explaining the situation and some of the history and he thinks some may have been on the Planning Commission for the Willow Bay development approval. He is here for any questions and said regarding Bollis' questions about Lot 5 or 1875 Lakeside Trail, they do have a survey that also shows that lot now is unbuildable without an ALS variance. Approval of Mr. Barinsky's house position would make the code work for that lot as the line could be drawn directly across the property. It would be the same if a house was on another lot (noted on screen), the line could be drawn across Mr. Barinsky's property connecting it to 770 and he would not be before the Planning Commission this evening. He noted there are a lot of moving parts, it is a really beautiful property and when he bought it he knew that was the area he would have to build the house in. He was not anticipating going any closer to the lake but just tried to readjust Page 11 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. the history and draw the line across the properties based on the current situations of the neighbors next door. His house is actually 360 feet away from the lakeshore on his property, it is how they apply the code, the Lakeshore meanders around the corner, and the line is drawn from 343 feet that goes to the neighboring property. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Ressler's initial observations are the Planning Commission has been flexible in situations where the ALS is bringing the difficulty partly because of the other properties and vacant lot next door. He thinks the Applicant is doing what he can with what he has, which is hard to say when one is sitting 300 feet away from the lakeshore as it is. From what Ressler is seeing, and historically the Planning Commission has been generally flexible in situations like this one, he agrees with Staff's recommendation. Gettman agrees with that. Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA21-000008, 1825 Lakeside Trail as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 7. LA21-000010 CHAMBERLAIN FINE CUSTOM HOMES, 133 CHEVY CHASE, VARIANCE (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Michael and Catelyn Nelson, Applicants, were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Oakden noted the application is for a rear yard setback and she emailed and printed out some additional public comment that was received over the weekend. The planning Staff has determined that practical difficulty standards have not been met and the Planning Commission should review those standards when reviewing this application. She noted the Applicants are looking to add a covered screen porch to the rear of the home. The home sits on a curved road with neighbors on either side, and the Wayzata Country Club to the northern property line, which is the rear of the home. For a practical difficulty analysis, the Applicant identified the location of the existing home being placed from back from the front yard required yard, as well as a substandard lot for the area. Staff finds that the submitted practical difficulties are not met and the proposed addition would have a minimal impact to the neighbors, and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. However, the property owner has adequate use of the lot for a single-family home and there are other locations for conforming additions on the property, such as side or other locations within the rear of the home. The proposed additions act as a convenience to the property and the lot analysis was done; again, Oakden reiterated the property has a 30 -foot rear setback and currently sits 32.4 feet and the Applicant is requesting a 17.8 -foot setback. Neighbors have submitted letters of support as Exhibit E, additional letters were sent to the Planning Commission today. McCutcheon noted in the application, they stated the property is .53 acres and that it is non -conforming; he asked if that is correct or if this development is conforming to the zoning. Oakden replied the property is substandard, it is .53 acres and the zoning is a 1 -acre zoning district. It is a substandard lot and the width is 125 feet measured at the front yard setback where a standard would be 140 feet in width. It is substandard to width as well as area. The front yard setback required in this Page 12 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. district is 35 feet and the existing home is sitting 69.5 feet back from the front yard; the existing home does sit pretty far back meeting that front yard standard. A representative from Chamberlain Fine Custom Homes approached the podium with the home owners. He looked at the lot as being substandard because it is in a 1 -acre zone and has a 30 -foot setback in the rear yard, based on an acre. This is now a %2 acre lot so it is a little bit incumbent on this property to have to have 30 feet. As opposed to being shoved up towards the street like the previous Applicant's house was, this house is pushed back. It was 35 feet from the front setback, so it is way back in the back and is turned slightly to make it difficult to utilize that yard given that the topography in the back includes a hill and a boulder wall. The difficulty is really the fact that the house was built so far back on the property. The setback on the back being 30 feet seems to be onerous on a property that is only 11/2 of an acre. Michael Nelson, homeowner, noted he has lived at 102 Chevy Chase on the same street for the last five years and has a growing family with two small children. With that, they outgrew their rambler and upgraded to a 2 -story home. They purchased the house in September and since then have been in the planning phases of the next remodel. Between the two 1950's homes, they have significantly invested in this neighborhood and the community in hopes of finding their forever home. He said they absolutely love the area and couldn't be more excited about raising a family here. Mr. Nelson said they have made some very close friends and have become acquaintances with almost everyone in the neighborhood. He hopes their letters of support are a testament to the Nelson's place in the community, including the approval of Chad Olson, previous member of the Orono Planning Commission. Mr. Nelson said they have explored many options over the course of this remodel and have always come back to this exact same spot for two reasons: one, to safely monitor their children while they are in the backyard, and two, it is in the best interest of neighbors because it is not visible to most of them. He noted their youngest daughter has a skin condition which does not allow her to be in the sun. Having a screen porch like this will allow her to still be with the other kids when playing in the backyard for recreation. The screens can be opened and she can still feel that she is part of the action; this is the main reason they would love it to be there to watch the whole back yard and safely monitor their kids while they play. Another reason is for neighbors, and both neighbors have given letters of approval. As mentioned, there are other places it could go, one being on the side of the house, but that would basically be sitting on top of the neighbor's driveway. As mentioned, this is not a Lakeshore or waterfront, they are not encroaching any structure and he asks for the approval of this variance with the community's support, to safely monitor their children as they use the backyard. Ressler noted Mr. Nelson illustrated some other proposed options inside the building envelope, he asked to understand a bit more, as typically when the Planning Commission entertains these applications there is just nowhere else for it to go. As noted in the other application, they were not adding additional footprint but just going up from existing footprint. Mr. Nelson said one area they looked at, which looks like an obvious area, is right in the middle of the house. That effectively splits the backyard in two and does not allow them to monitor safely, and there is also a retaining boulder wall right there. For future recreational purposes of homeschooling, there is not enough room for their physical education and activity. It would also block the view of the kitchen to the backyard. He noted the garage is on the left side and cannot really access the porch from the back of the garage. Another practical difficulty is that the buildable land is on the right side and the non -buildable land is on the left side where they actually could build something. Page 13 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Catelyn Nelson noted if they were to put it on the side, it eliminates the safety factor of having the whole family in the backyard. One of their daughters cannot be in the sun, so to give her an equal shot at being a kid is something they are really focused on. Libby asked for an idea of the elevation of the screen porch. Mr. Nelson said the backyard goes way up and showed on screen that it goes way up; from the golf course's perspective they will be below that and those on the golf path will not really be able to see it. He noted there is also about 70 feet of woods behind them, and there is also a berm and a hill that protects it from the neighbor on one side; on the other side of the house, they cannot even see that neighbor's house. He stated it is private and he believes that is also why the neighbors are in such high support of this. Libby asked if there are any future plans to have egress from the screen porch to the exterior of the yard. Mr. Nelson asked what he means by egress. Libby said an access to get in and out of the screen porch into the backyard. Mr. Nelson replied it would be right where the door is shown on screen, and he thinks that would still be inside of the variance. Libby is hearing loud and clear about safety as he is a great-grandfather. Ressler said while they are on that slide, he sees a proposed stoop. Oakden believes those are the existing doors from the house to the back yard. Mr. Nelson said that will actually be removed. Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Ressler said in lieu of the public hearing they always have the letters of support on the application. McCutcheon thinks that breaks a record as there are a lot of them. Kirchner said these seven letters of support are the most he has seen on an application. McCutcheon thinks the Applicant laid it out pretty well; the 30 -foot setback is meant for 2 acre lots, so being an acre lot, in his eyes is it a practical difficulty and the Planning Commission has ruled on that in the past. With the boulders, the steepness, and moving the porch to the middle, that would cut their yard in half. He said it is a bigger proposed screen porch but as the Applicant laid out with their child it is necessary for them. McCutcheon remembers when the golf course built a garage and they wanted to go closer to the residence setback and the Planning Commission allowed that. If they can go towards the neighborhoods, he does not have a problem with the neighborhoods going towards the golf course. He is in support of it. Page 14 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner agrees with that. He pulled up an aerial photo while listening, and it is a very wooded area to the rear and appears that there is quite a bit of privacy there, as well as the pictures submitted from the Applicant. It shows that people on the cart path would not even see the structure. Erickson said most of the time when the point is made that there are other alternatives within the zoning ordinance that is certainly one of the strongest arguments. However, looking at this situation there are also some strong arguments in favor of the application. One of them, as McCutcheon mentioned, was about a year ago they had a discussion on rezoning for the Wayzata Golf Club and had built up close to their neighbors with a berm and a change in elevation, etcetera. Along with that they also had a number of neighborhood meetings and neighbors were all pretty much in favor. The other thing Erickson sees looking at the site plan is the uniqueness of the shape of the lot; if it were not fronted with this curved Chevy Chase, it is considerably wider in the back and narrower in the front. It is close to being a triangular lot, which is a textbook case for justification for a variance because it limits what can be done. The Applicant mentioned part of the issue is that the house is set back as far as it is. The reason the house was put there is because the front yard is narrow and about all one can do is put in a horseshoe drive, which they have done. Again, this leaves a constricted backyard and when people have children, those backyards are important. Erickson is tempted to go in favor of this one. Gettman's one concern is the fact that as they look at the paver patio area — and to the left is a lot more space — but the paver patio itself looks like it would accommodate an even larger proposed screen porch but not enter into that restricted area with the setbacks. He said absolutely with all the issues and concerns they have heard; he is just not hearing the practical difficulty as to why it should be there; especially with the majority of it over that line. Ressler's personal perspective on this is very difficult. He recognizes that it is a tough building envelope and where the property sits right now, if this were a brand-new construction it would be an easy fix and they would just move it up. Of course, the property was marketed for sale as it was built, and that makes it difficult to approve because it could arguably be unjust enrichment to build on something that is not a buildable addition. With that being said, something to note he thinks it is helpful to see the elevation of hill in the backyard as it provides a bit of screening and buffer to some of the reasons for these rules being put in place— such as not encroaching on neighbors or adjoining property and their enjoyment and use. For right or for wrong he finds that to be a mitigating circumstance. He appreciates the explanation as far as the placement. Initially his first response was to put it in a place that it fits into, and he thinks Erickson makes some really good points about the triangular shape being a textbook standard for situations like these. There is also a garage that makes it difficult; being able to use what is in place seems reasonable to Ressler. It looks like there is a bit of a discrepancy from the plans and illustrations from what is shown on screen because it looks like there is a one -foot encroachment further about 4.5 feet in — he asked Staff if he is reading that correctly. The drawings in the illustration show it just being a square. He does not know if the Applicant would like to comment on which one the application is for because of that discrepancy. Mr. Nelson said it will not be the square one, it will be the other one and there is a proposed fireplace that will go back there and that is where the fireplace box. Ressler clarified that the one -foot jog in that is 6 xI feet is what they are applying for. Mr. Nelson replied that is correct. Page 15 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler said it is difficult and it is nice to see the support from the neighborhood, although they cannot always carry a lot of weight behind those. He thinks there have been some strong points both ways. Bollis noted this is a tough one because there is all of this overwhelming neighborhood support, but traditionally it looks like it would be a no-go. However, looking at the floor plan, he sees why it would not necessarily work where everyone thinks it would work. Where the paver patio is existing, it looks like access would have to be through a bathroom which is not very practical for a screen porch. He is leaning towards liking this location and supporting this because of the access, the safety issue, and by putting it in the middle, he can see how that would basically cut the yard in two, and based on the rear slope coming down to the house, that would be a practical difficulty. Ressler asked the Applicant if they have entertained any plans of making that a little bit smaller so it is not quite as encroaching upon the setback. He asked if they could make it work by going to 14 feet instead of 16 feet. Mr. Nelson said he thinks they can if that would be viewed as favorable to the Planning Commission. It was proposed in this way for a reason, but not necessarily as practical; it is to be able to recreationally enjoy it by having a dining table and a chair to sit there as well. At 14 feet it makes it difficult to do that and at 16 feet it allows for that. Ressler asked for feedback and if anyone has a problem with the dimensions and would it change their opinion for or against if the dimensions go from 16 to 14 feet, or if that 1x6 foot in the middle goes back to a square. Kirchner said for one or two feet, considering the size of the encroachment on the setback, he does not think a simple adjustment of one to two feet would make much of a difference for him as it is still a fairly large encroachment into the setback. Bollis would agree with that. McCutcheon said it is hidden, it is a steep incline and wooded. If this was out with no trees and all the neighbors could see it, that would be a much harder pili to swallow; he thinks it is well thought out and maintained his support of it. Ressler thinks either way there is a lot of good feedback for the City Council. McCutcheon moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA21-000010, 133 Chevy Chase, Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1 (Gettman). 8. LA21-000011 JASON FISCHER AND KARA HONEBRINK, (3416) 3420 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Jason Fischer, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis said the Applicants are the owners of Lulu's Pizzeria, a delivery and takeout restaurant in Navarre and are requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to expand the existing restaurant into an adjacent vacant space in order to enlarge their kitchen and prep space and add some take -and -bake cooler space. There is no dine -in service at this restaurant; Page 16 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. restaurants are conditional use in the B 1 district and a conditional use is required to expand the restaurant into this new space. The expansion will also add a new employee breakroom, coatroom, office, and second restroom, in addition to a small retail space. The customer entry will move to the Shoreline Drive side and the existing western entrance off the parking lot will serve as the driver delivery access. City code states that restaurant use requires at least one parking space per 80 square feet of public restaurant space. The existing restaurant requires three spaces and with the proposed changes the existing public space will primarily be used for delivery ins and outs but may still be accessible to the public for takeout pickups, and there is a restroom available in that area that is a handicap area. The additional space requires 4 parking stalls for a total required of 7; the customers will park in the private lot to the west in 5 spaces or with available on street parking. Applicants have identified 5 parking stalls for customers and parking location in the rear of the building down the stairs in the back for employees and overflow. The lower -level parking lot and adjacent public parking lot will also provide additional overflow. The Applicant has provided a narrative regarding the parking which is in the packet, she has not received any public comments as of today. Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP to facilitate expansion of the restaurant into the adjacent vacant space as proposed. Bollis asked regarding the existing space they are taking over, what is dedicated to that space as it sits today. Curtis replied she does not know the conditions of the parking dedication as far as what is available on the private lot space. The Applicant has summarized who parks where and what is dedicated to whom. The City parking lot does not have specifically allocated spaces per uses. Bollis asked if that space is conforming as retail right now to the parking, or do they just not know. Curtis said she has no idea. If Ressler recalls, one thing to note about that space whether it is part of the property or not, there is adequate parking on the street, as well as some parking out back, and that is certainly helpful as part of the deliberation. Curtis said it is relatively unique that they have a small parking lot dedicated just to their use. Jason Fischer, Applicant, approached the podium. He addressed the question regarding parking and said there are 12 additional spaces behind the building and those are not specific to any one tenant in the building so it is parking available to essentially anyone. As Curtis mentioned, they also have the City lot behind that; therefore, they have 5 dedicated spaces for the existing business, street parking off Shoreline, and 12 additional spaces in the back of the building, and the City lot beyond that. Generally speaking, customers are in and out within a couple of minutes, they try to do curbside as much as possible for customer safety. Mr. Fischer said they are proposing to expand into the vacant space to add additional capacity for cooking. Right now, in the existing space they only have 450 square feet and one pizza oven, which is not adequate for purposes right now during peak time, so they would like to add an additional pizza oven, and some additional cooler space. Libby asked Mr. Fischer if they are required to have any additional Department of Health licensing to prep the dough and do that on site or are they getting it from a third -party vendor. Page 17 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Fischer replied currently their dough is made off-site. Another reason they want to do this is that they would have a significant cost savings by making the dough in-house. Any construction done in the new space would be done under the guidelines of the Hennepin County Health Department; they have walked through the space and have their construction health guidelines that the new space would be inspected for. Mr. Fischer said they would follow all health department guidelines and would be inspected before they would start producing dough on that side. Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Ressler asked if anyone has problems with this plan. Bollis likes it; he only brought up the parking because it was in the staff report. He feels like in looking at the new addition piece as retail, it falls under a different parking code requirement and it is actually less. He thinks the 5 spaces actually is conforming 100% with what they are asking for and he likes everything about it. Ressler said furthermore it is mitigated by having some public parking that seems to be well supporting the space that exists. It has been a successful business from everything he has observed and the space that is existing there makes it difficult to grow and sustain as that is how restaurants survive. He loves it, thinks it is great, and said they are always trying to create more vitality for that area. McCutcheon moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA21-000011 Jason Fischer And Kara Honebrink, (3416) 3420 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 9. LA21-000012 CLAIRMONT DESIGN BUILD, 1260 SPRUCE PLACE, VARIANCES (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Rick Severson of Clairmont Design Build, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is looking to construct a second story addition to an existing home which is located on a substandard lot. The footprint of the home is not proposed to change; the existing home encroaches in the side yard setback, 75 -foot lake yard setback, and the average lakeshore setback. The proposed improvements are all vertical and the property is currently over in hardcover and there are no proposed changes to the existing footprint or the setbacks to the property. The red shown on screen is the footprint of the existing home, so the white is identified as that proposed second story. The Applicant identified the substandard lot and existing home location as the practical difficulty for supporting the request. Staff finds there are a number of property characteristics making improvements to this lot challenging. The substandard lot is 50 feet wide and '/4 of an acre, where 1 acre and 140 wide are the standard, leaving little area for modest expansions. The existing home footprint currently has a 6.5 -foot side yard setback in the northeast; she noted the setback on screen where the current home sit 6.5 feet and 7.5 feet is required. The existing house footprint is also roughly a foot into the 75 -foot lake yard setback at 74.3 feet, and the property abuts an unimproved right-of-way to the north. The average lakeshore setback (ALS) is established solely by the house to the south which is set 83 feet back from the ordinary high-water level (OHL), making the existing house footprint encroach approximately 11 feet into that ALS. She said the proposed second story addition encroaches in those three ways, and are all vertical encroachments. These are practical difficulties to support the requested Page 18 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. variances. The southern neighbor at 1270 Spruce submitted a letter of support included in the packet. Staff is recommending approval. Gettman asked if Staff has any picture of the neighboring houses and how they sit on the lots. Oakden showed an aerial photo with some neighbors, but does not have any street views. Libby is not seeing in any dimensions or illustrations what the maximum two peak roof height is with the added addition. Oakden believes she did an analysis on height and they were not proposing to be above the 30 feet. Ressler noted there was a change in the last few years as to how they measure that 30 feet and asked if that is true. Oakden stated they clarified the building height definition and they now measure from the midpoint of a gabled roof. They used to take into account some windows on the second story and do a midpoint from there. Rick Severson with Clairmont Design Build approached the podium. He noted it is not on the drawing but the height at the maximum is 23 feet 4 inches. Going back to the aerial photo, the lay of the land is the lot to the south is the highest, 1260 is midway, and then it drops again. The roofline on the south lot is substantially higher than the 23 feet 4 inches at the highest point, and it is from the main floor not from grade. However, grade in this house is very close to the main floor. Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Ressler stated they already had one of these, and the previous one was not adding as much for structure, but reusing the existing structure. By definition this is not the same, however, in looking at this historically the Planning Commission has not been opposed when one is building on the existing envelope that is already there. Gettman noted it has been the line of sight they have had concern with. Ressler said that is correct. Kirchner said it is a great summary and he agrees with that. McCutcheon moved, Bollis seconded, to approve La21-000012, 1260 Spruce Place, Variances. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 10. LA21-000013 BOB JOHNSTON, 2190 WAYZATA BLVD W, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Bob Johnston, Applicant, was present. Page 19 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a CUP to allow a day nursery and Planning Staff recommends approval. The Application is requesting a CUP to utilize the property for a day nursery for a children's workshop, which is the City Code words for a daycare center. The proposed business will occupy the entire building. Other than signage there are no proposed changes to the exterior of the building. The application proposes a fence in the rear of the building to establish the required dedicated play area. This will remove some existing parking space and the available parking remaining meets the minimal requirements outlined by City code. The building is currently vacant and directly abuts a greenhouse with outdoor storage to the west, and commercial businesses and gas stations to the east. There is a residential development to the north of the parcel and the Applicant is proposing a 72 -inch -tall perimeter fence along the rear property line. An administrative site plan review is required and will be done prior to issuance of a building permit and to ensure conformity to the CUP. Setbacks and structural building coverage have no proposed changes. With the B 1 zoning district, day nurseries are listed as a CUP needing the outdoor play space requirement. The day nursery would operate 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday with no weekend use; they currently have 54 students enrolled with capacity of 110 students. The business is operating with 13 staff members but could potentially have 21 on rotating shifts. Day nurseries generate traffic at peak times during morning and evening rush hours — access to the site is a single drive to Wayzata Boulevard which goes through the City of Long Lake. The County has installed turn lanes to support this intersection within Wayzata Boulevard. Multiple neighbors at 2160 and 2173 Wayzata Boulevard have signed acknowledgement forms included in the packet. The City of Long Lake was notified of the CUP because of the access lane that cuts through their city and they have no additional comments regarding this application. Items to consider: does the Planning Commission find it necessary to impose any conditions in order to mitigate any impacts for the proposal, or are there other concerns. Ressler clarified there is adequate parking off a busy road and that seems like a good spot for something like this. He said there are no plans of changing or reducing some of the parking spaces besides what is noted for the outdoor play area and asked if that is correct. Oakden replied that is correct. Ressler said part of the Staff recommendation includes a site study that would include the parking spaces being adequate. Oakden said correct, that was reviewed and an analysis is included in the packet. Ressler stated it is supported as applied. Oakden said yes, they are meeting the minimum standard of 24 spaces. Bob Johnston, 9348 Quinn Road in Bloomington, is a commercial broker representing the interest and filed the application on behalf of Children's Workshop, Children's Workshop is currently leasing space in an office property in Plymouth and as a tenant of many years there, they have obvious limitations. Mr. Johnston stated they look at this building with excitement for the future and become their own landlord and grow their business. Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Page 20 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler noted it is a daycare facility and that is needed, it is a vacant building, parking is adequate, ingress and egress is adequate. McCutcheon said it is a pandemic and there will be more kids. He said in all seriousness, he thinks it would be a great asset to the community. Ressler agreed and asked if there is any opposition. Libby does not have opposition but reading the licensing and the accreditation and the fact that this is a vetted organization it seems that it would be a sensible proposal for them to become their own landlord. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000013, 2190 Wayzata Blvd W, Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 11. LA21-000014 MARK RAUSCH/AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS, PID 33-118-23-11-0060 (NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BLVD) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - SITE PLAN; ZONE CHANGE; AND PRELIMINARY PLAT (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Aziz Saddiqui, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. This application involves four different actions that Barnhart is looking for responses on tonight: a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a zone change, a preliminary plat, and a master development plan proposal. These are all related to re -guiding and rezoning the property for a residential planned unit development to support a 37 -unit townhome development. The Planning Commission saw this project as a sketch plan last September and at the time the project was 43 units and there was some comment or concerns with the external setbacks of the site. There was also a density issue. Barnhart said the Applicant has responded to the comments made by the Planning Commission and City Council and has come back with a 37 -unit project. The project will be 37 units in 9 separate buildings, all of the buildings would be shared by municipal water and sewer, and storm water management plans have been provided to manage water on site. Eventually all storm water will depart the site and enter the larger regional pond immediately to the west of the site. Access to the project is via a single road off Kelley Parkway, this road will be private. There are no proposed or supported intersections with Willow Drive or Wayzata Boulevard. The Applicant proposes a unique feature as a sidewalk that connects to all the front doors throughout the development, with a larger external sidewalk or trail system. The Applicant also shows a decorative fence along the west, south, and east boundaries of the property to define the space between the public and private areas. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment, generally the City of Orono tries to keep density low and only introduces higher density where it absolutely has to happen or there is no impact on neighboring properties. Barnhart said this project is proposing a reduction in density from what is guided for in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which guides this property for urban high density which is 20-25 units an acre. This project came in at right above 10 units an acre which requires a formal approval for that amendment through the Met Council. There has been comment during the sketch plan process of why they cannot make it less dense; in analyzing this project, when they start dropping below 10 units an acre, they start having repercussions in requiring to add density elsewhere in the community. Barnhart said if they go below 37 units, it would require them to re -guide it for urban medium density which is a 3-10 unit/acre range. When dropping to the 3-10 unit/acre range, the Met Council only considers the lowest number of that range (3 units/acre). Page 21 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. With the guidance of 3-10 units/acre the Met Council expects to see about 9 units — with that difference between 9 and 37, they must identify sewered land elsewhere in the community or higher density to accommodate that additional growth. The City Council reviewed that as part of the sketch plan and recognizes the give-and-take associated with that type of density transfer and supported at least 37 units/acre for this property. Barnhart stated that is important because some of the comments he will make later he wants to make sure they will not reduce density from that number. Gettman asked what the initial proposal was. Barnhart believes the Planning Commission saw 43 units. From a Comprehensive Plan amendment, Staff supports the change down to 10 units/acre, as anything further than that would require more work on the City Council and Planning Commission to identify higher density and sewer properties elsewhere. The zone change to the Residential PUD, the master development plan, and the preliminary plat are all connected; the zone change does meet most of the criteria of an RPUD and there are a couple waivers identified. The first is the minimum lot area for an RPUD zone is 5 acres and there are exceptions, such as being adjacent to another RPUD zone and it could be considered as an extension of that. Barnhart thinks the Applicant has approached it as the overlying feature. He said these buildings will not be identical to Stone Bay but they will have the same characteristics; Staff does suggest and support the zone change to RPUD. The memo talks about the waivers identified, those waivers included setbacks from Willow and from Wayzata; predominantly they address both the Planning Commission and City Council comments during the sketch plan. At the time, the buildings were very close to Kelley Parkway and Wayzata Boulevard, and these buildings did not conform to the minimum setback requirements as proposed by the City ordinances with the exception of Lot 4. He showed a unit on screen that is a little too close to Willow Drive and clarified the Applicant needs that waiver to keep to the 37 units on this project. Barnhart pointed out a road on screen and said the setback adjacent to Willow for the road itself should be 20 feet and this shows it at 10 feet. Staff supports the waivers as shown to keep an appropriate amount of area for open space and also provide 20 -foot separation between the building and the street so one can park without blocking the street. Barnhart said one comment that the City Engineer raised was the City standard for roads that serves this many units, a private road should be 28 feet. These roads are shown at 24 feet; at 24 feet there would be no on -street parking as part of the fire code. At 28 feet they may be able to have parking on one side and to address that, the Applicant showed 10 guest parking spaces adjacent to the open space to accommodate some guest parking. Barnhart said the parking will be satisfied with a 2 -car garage and parking stalls in the driveway area off the street, so technically each unit will provide 4 spaces, two of which will be covered. One thing Staff typically looks for in a townhome development is the distance between the buildings and distance between the back of the building and the street. This project shows 10 feet between buildings which is a little less than Stone Bay at 14 feet on the smallest measurement; they show 20 feet here (on screen) and Stone Bay's smallest measurement was about 18 feet. He said it is similar but not exactly the same. The Applicant has provided drawings of the proposed buildings and Barnhart noted this is one of the areas the City has received comment from the neighboring community. As mentioned before the Applicant has taken heed of the Planning Commission and City Council's comments during sketch plan review and at the time were concerned about setbacks and preserving external setbacks. One thing Staff has a slight concern with is Block 5, 6, 7, and 8 — the face of those buildings face out to Willow or Wayzata Boulevard. He said this is the garage side of the building, which is often the more private space but is also where a garbage can is stored and they do not usually want that at the front entrance. Staff has some concern with this orientation and would suggest flipping these buildings so they face Willow or Wayzata. To do so and maintain the same number of units they would have to reorganize this road here (on screen) to provide access to all of the lots. They would also need the support from the Planning Commission and City Council for waivers for the setback. Page 22 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart thinks they can achieve the same number of units fronting Willow and Wayzata in just these three blocks if they have a 30 -foot setback off of Willow and a 35 -foot setback off of Wayzata. He said that goes against what the Planning Commission and City Council talked about earlier. The Applicant seems receptive to that but has been leery to change the plan knowing the Planning Commission and City Council had commented opposite of that. Barnhart would like to hear some feedback on that type of change. The Applicant shows landscaping along the exterior of the project, and a row of arborvitae to show some screening as well as the decorative fence which will not block view but will provide a decorative edge to the public and private space. The Fire Chief has provided comment and he absorbed it into his Staff comment letter — basically his main issue was the fire hydrant is shown on the east side of the new road intersection and he would prefer it on the other side. Staff is recommending approval of the four applications subject to the five conditions included in the memo. Staff has received 6-7 comment letters and most of them seem to be focused on the location of the driveway and its potential impact from a headlight perspective with the residential units on the other side. He also noted quite a few comments with concern about the design of the building, not so much what they are, but want to make sure the materials are hardy plank rather than vinyl siding, and wanted some variation in the color or texture of the building. Staff is looking for some feedback on the architecture and whether the Planning Commission would like to see any changes. Regarding the driveway location, the City standard is relatively minimal; it is 100 feet away from an intersection. Barnhart pointed out 100 feet on screen and said a bigger issue is there is a turn lane and generally they would look for 300 feet on the turn lane and pointed it out 300 feet on screen. He pointed out the building across the street that would be impacted by headlights and said there is not a lot of opportunity to provide screening on the other side of the street because where this road intersects Kelley Parkway on the other side from the Stone Bay Development is an unimproved fire access, so trees and plantings are prohibited in that area in favor of maintaining an access for emergency vehicles. He noted the Applicants are here. Staff recommends approval and is looking for feedback on any changes to the plat, any comment for the architecture of the buildings, and anything else the Planning Commission has identified as a concern. Ressler said seeing how it is proposed and how it is guided, what was going to go there, was it supposed to be an apartment complex. Barnhart thinks the 20-25 unit would have almost required an apartment building and there was an apartment building proposed for that property that did not require any wavers, met all the setbacks, with all the parking, etcetera. The City Council felt that was too dense at the sketch plan level about a year ago so their direction at the time was to look at something a little more consistent with the Stone Bay Development and that is where they are at now. Bollis said regarding the driveway or road, it appears that it correlates directly with the cul-de-sac to the property to the north and asked if that is correct. Barnhart replied yes. Libby asked for a clarification on the five conditions; the orientation Staff is recommending versus what the Planning Commission received in the original drawings, are they recommending that there be no garage and driveway facing to Wayzata Boulevard or Willow and asked why. Barnhart is suggesting the driveway and garage door side of these four blocks, they face interior to the site so there would be a road roughly here (on screen) and the "public" front door portion of the property would face Willow Drive and Wayzata Boulevard. Page 23 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby asked what is the metric or premise that is based on. He noted there was a mention of garbage and recycling, and in most residential neighborhoods that do not have this kind of density would actually be street side because of the size of the vehicles that come in for waste management. He noted trying to compress vehicles into that interior would seem to be really restrictive. He wonders if they are borrowing from other metrics or reasons to do that, as these large vehicles are better off in the larger thoroughfare and in the front. Ressler noted this may be better suited for the discussion. Libby apologized and said he was asking a question so he had clarity. Ressler said it is natural for it to turn into discussion. Aziz Saddiqui with David Weekley Homes, Applicant, approached the podium. He is responsible for overseeing the entitlements and development for the Midwest and western pant of the country. He thanked the Planning Commission for all their feedback and perspective last September. He noted three major takeaways for him and were very important; first, the density count and how sensitive that issue was, as that conversation went on for about an hour and there was difficulty figuring out from 75 or 85 units versus 37 or 35 or 40 units. He said the magic number is 37 and they managed to get that, and that unit count contributed to the setbacks — he thinks the main one was Wayzata having 50 feet because the rest of the units along the stretch were 50 feet. With Willow and Kelley, he thinks they were able to achieve the 36. Addressing these three setback scenarios, the unit count, and to the comment about bringing the open area/play structure area to the internal part of the development and make it more warm and secluded for the community. He said they achieve many of the major bullet points they received and they continued to communicate with Barnhart. To further enhance — although the City did not push for it — they wanted to fence this community with ornamental fencing and provide perimeter landscaping around the entire area. He noted the company did consult with their landscape architect in regards to a comment about the large amount of snow, wind, and salt, and how that would impact the arborvitaes along Wayzata Boulevard. With the kind of setback in being more than 30 feet from the pavement, their architect believes the arborvitae will do well. Mr. Saddiqui said they are open to any suggestions or comments, and if that needs to be changed, they would love to accommodate that. He showed on screen a street -view from Wayzata and what one would be looking at while driving as they are 10 -foot arborvitae with a five-foot fence. To Mr. Libby's point about the reasoning behind why they need to flip the units — the company is not opposed to that — they felt for the homeowners, why not give them that sense of enclosed, one community if they are all facing that open area. He noted they are not opposed to flipping those units and it is open for discussion; they did provide one concept of that plan. Mr. Saddiqui said the company feels very strong because they improved the plans from the last meeting and are continuing to work on it. He thinks their elevations are very attractive today and noted they added a bunch of gables and character to the garage door, and are still trying to improve them. If they go back to the color scheme setup, they had an excellent call with the neighborhood and there were about 15-20 guests and many had questions. A majority of them wondered how the color schemes would work, if the entire community would be all grey, beige, etcetera. He showed a color drawing on screen and noted it helps everyone understand how the patterns and character of the buildings will work. He noted all windows are surrounded with the hardy board, the siding, and trim boards, with stone surrounds; he said it will support and compliment the neighborhood and they are feeling good about how this would turn out. As he said last September, they are introducing this product in June in Burnsville, and want to bring the same product to Orono. He added from the neighborhood comments, there was one person who felt very strong about where they were coming in and out on Kelley Parkway and Mr. Saddiqui feels they chose a very Page 24 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. ideal spot. After the call, the company went back to the traffic engineer and spoke with him about it, looked at the grades, and that is the highest peak on the street. For traffic purposes, when coming out, it has a proper visibility to avoid any accidents in that area; the traffic engineer felt good about it and wrote a memo based on his study relating to the intersection of Kelley and Willow versus where they are today. If the company was to move that location and get closer to Kelley — and he believes they did try that with the engineer and planner — Mr. Saddiqui is fearful that they might end up losing one or two units because of the way it curves at the bottom. Ideally it worked out for the unit count and they did play around with it but felt that this is the best option. He believes they have put all the points together for the Commissioners to look at. Gettman asked with the parking situation, he likes everything the company has done, and said with the latest concern about the headlights, have they considered a right -turn only coming out that would eat into some of that space on Kelley. It would literally angle the folks and prevent the headlights from going directly into the house. Mark Rausch, with Alliant Engineering, approached the podium and asked to share a graphic of the site plan on screen. He wants to show how the road aligns with the cul-de-sac across the street; if they do turn the traffic to the right, they will actually start to angle the headlights right at the home. Right now, the elevation of the intersection is at 27 feet and the house and garage on the east side of the cul-de-sac is 30, so it is about 3 feet higher and the house on the other side is actually 34 so it is actually 7 feet higher. He noted they have some grade separation. He showed another photo from Google Maps on screen of what the headlights look at today. Mr. Rausch said as Mr. Barnhart noted it is a tough spot, they have looked at it, and there is an intersection to the east they are trying to stay distanced from. They are on the outside of a curve so it is actually really good from the horizontal location; the vertical curve is exactly where it is set and actually stubbed water and everything like it was set up to be a road connection. There has been a lot of thought about it and it is ideal for the site plan as well, and the Commissioners have seen a couple of different iterations. He asked if Gettman would like to see something that is angled to the east. Gettman replied no, he is asking if they have considered a right -turn only lane out of it and actually eat in to some of the park or sidewalk area they have and that would force people to not have to have the headlights while waiting to turn right or left facing straight in there. It would literally have them guided to the right and it would also guide the traffic — instead of cutting through the rest of the neighborhood — it would actually guide them directly onto Willow Drive, rather than cutting through the back area. Mr. Rausch said they have not looked at a right -in, right -out. They could look at how the headlights aim, noting they would have to aim them quite a bit to the east. Libby wants to let the Applicant know how much he appreciates their willingness to discuss the idea of flipping the front to the back, and so on. In all respect for the planner, that may be something that needs to be done. From an engineering standpoint, he has dealt with a lot of these developments that build this type of row house. He asked if they were to move the driveways to the rear, they would really need to move the entire front of the row houses closer to the street; he does not know how much sidewalk they are willing to lose but the idea of a walkway around the front is very popular and common in the newer developments. However, they would end up having to move the entire row towards the street side, sidewalk, and road, and lose a substantial amount of area in the back where they must have driveways even as short as they can make them. Page 25 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Saddiqui noted that is one reason Mr. Barnhart made a comment that if the company was willing to do that, there might be more exceptions for the setbacks on Wayzata Boulevard because that will be shrunk quite a bit. Libby understands and said from an engineering standpoint his point is valid, they will have to move all the townhouses closer to the sidewalks in the front to accommodate the driveways in the back. They are then going to have to accommodate pick-ups for waste and recycling and will lose a substantial amount in the rear. Mr. Saddiqui said talking about the trucks coming in for service purposes, he is not opposed to the other suggestion, but this particular plan will eliminate the aesthetics in the neighborhood by keeping the internal part of the neighborhood clean. It will be on the outside and will be all screened, so it will be less optical aesthetic. From a practical standpoint, this is a good flow as a development and is what they would like to leave behind; however, they are not opposed to the other idea. McCutcheon asked if the garages are 21 feet deep. Mr. Rausch believes they are 22 feet. McCutcheon noted this is truck country so they just need to be sure a truck will fit. Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Ressler noted he cut off Libby's comments so brought the discussion back to him. He said he was not second-guessing or criticizing their planner's suggestions; he has been on-site, boots on the ground on both of these designs before and there is always a give-and-take, especially with a limited lot size, even at the density they are at now. Some utility providers are willing to work with smaller vehicles, but they have to come back more often because they don't have the capacity to take the entire neighborhood at once. Barnhart asked to comment and clarify, his proposal is that Road A, instead of looping to the outside of Blocks 5, 6, 7, and 8, would loop around the center feature and provide frontage or access to these lots. He noted Willow Drive and Wayzata Boulevard will not provide any access to any of the lots from a service standpoint. The reason his comment was made about flipping the lots is to provide a front door appearance to this neighborhood onto those public streets, which are pretty important public streets in the community. If a utility truck or FedEx truck can access Road A for Blocks 1-4 here, they will be able to do it for these other blocks. Libby understood that and the handout with a drawing looks exactly how he pictured it, if the net effect was having to move all of the townhouses closer to the front, sidewalk, walkway, and exterior service road, which is exactly what his point was. Mr. Saddiqui said from a developer and builder's perspective, or more importantly, if he is a buyer in this neighborhood, would he want to be in his home with the front door looking at Wayzata or Kelley every morning. That would be the question he would ask ... or would he rather park his car and be looking at an Page 26 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. open space internally. From the marketing aspect, he is not sure which one will sell and how the market will receive it, but it is something to think about. Barnhart commented that the Planning Commission and City Council made it very clear they want to see setbacks of a certain dimension during the sketch plan review. His proposal "ignores" that recommendation because it does require waivers against what they had discussed earlier; he thinks the tradeoff is beneficial to the City in the long-term, but it is completely up the Planning Commission if they want to support those types of waivers. Kirchner said one of the feedback questions was specific to the orientation and he would agree with Libby, not so much for the service vehicles, but for the exact reason the Applicant has just mentioned. He has the floor plans up and a walk-up unit that feeds directly into an outlot with a family room that would be next to those walk-up unit doors. They spoke earlier about a family in a backyard and he sees that as a way for this community to do that; one could be in the family room and have kids out in the greenspace. He has concerns if they were to put Road A across and flip the orientation, he feels they lose greenspace in the center which he believes is important to Orono residents and is something they value. He also then sees children walking across the street to get to the park where right now they can walk out a door and are on a sidewalk. He actually prefers this design and thinks Wayzata Boulevard is a major thoroughfare with a speed limit of 50 mph, there are gas stations, a McDonald's, and he does not know that people will care too much that they are looking at garage doors when driving by. He does not know about Willow, but again said he appreciates this design and thinks it creates a bit of a community within this development. If Erickson imagines himself as a potential buyer for one of these, he would prefer the one on the screen over this one. The reasoning is by having the garages facing Willow Drive and Wayzata Boulevard, it creates a better community feeling in the interior. The "backyard" is a relatively private recreational area which gives a backyard feeling in sharing with the neighbors. With the high traffic on Wayzata and Willow, that is where the garage is; to him it would be much more inviting and that would be a much easier sell. He also wants to commend the Applicant for making a tremendous improvement over what they were looking at last year, which was not terribly bad, but was not as good as this. He recalls in the Planning Commission meeting garages backing up to each other and if someone backs up and there is a car there it could be a conflict; that has all been eliminated by this loop road which is a wonderful improvement. Another comment made, originally the recreational area was over on Kelley and again, in creating a community with an element of privacy but still shared with neighbors, these are all improvements and he really likes it. Bollis agrees with Staff about the orientation, as aesthetically he thinks it would look more pleasing driving along Highway 12 or on Willow in looking at fronts of units similar to Stone Bay. Most of those units along Kelley are looking at the front of the unit or the "pretty" face of the house. As a resident of the community, he thinks it would look better, but he tends to agree with the Applicant that the flow and engineering -wise isn't quite there if they flip them. Mr. Saddiqui did complement that by having the fronts on Kelley to Stone Bay. Bollis said in looking at the two plans, he would prefer the one on screen if he were going to be living there. If he was not living there, he would prefer the aesthetics of the secondary plan. He said it is just a comment and he does not know how he feels one way or the other for a vote on that. He asked if the Page 27 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Applicant has explored staggering the blocks a bit instead of having them in a straight line, particularly Blocks 8, 7, 6, and 5. Mr. Rausch said they could definitely stagger 6, 7, and 8; 7 could sit back and obviously it gets tighter between 5 and 6 and they are trying to keep a separation there. He noted 8 gets a little tight, but maybe there could be something done with 7 to create some relief from Wayzata Boulevard. Bollis said he is not in love with that view from Wayzata Boulevard of the backs of the units and a big straight line of units. Mr. Saddiqui said the goal is, it is almost like a gridlock, as they are locked with the setbacks of 50 feet from Wayzata Boulevard and that is the line they need to work with. Anything they do gets pushed and cramped into the back area. He noted they are really in a tight spot from all corners in there. He said given what they have, the company thought this is the best they could come up with, but are open to suggestions to improve and make it better. Bollis said on the landscaping plan, he appreciates what was done on Highway 12 with the idea of fencing and screening. Personally, he would prefer something more like they are doing on Kelley where it is a little more of a natural look, rather than a fenced line with arborvitaes. McCutcheon thinks this is a lose -lose instead of a win-win, so they must compromise somewhere; he noted he could look at this next week and have a different opinion. From a safety point of view and flow, Amazon is such a big part of everyone's lives now and he tends to agree with the builder's design, as it is safer and flows better. He thinks of kids trick -or -treating and the sense of community, and said they deserve that right, too. He understands on Willow Drive it will be different, but he thinks it is a compromise. Ressler has looked at this three times now and always tries to come up with constructive criticism because just saying one does not like it doesn't work. He said they want to make this work and need to provide feedback on what they think works. The Commissioners have done a nice job of providing that constructive feedback and he thanked them for that. Some of Ressler's concerns, he recognizes they have an issue here where if they reduce the density any further, they have to now reallocate that somewhere else, and that is a real problem. The other hard part is whether they are creating a problem by avoiding another; regarding snow removal, when they have those setbacks or cushions there is relief, but when they tighten those boundaries it can create problems. He noted it does not look like there are a lot of places to put snow. As far as where the traffic goes, it is a tough spot because any of them who have spent time in that area during school times, it is a really tough area to get in and out of. Psychologically, it is difficult to think about adding another 37 homes to an area that can already be congested at different times. He said that is difficult because what is his constructive criticism about that; they add more traffic to Kelley Parkway and it is guided to. He does not think there is a better place to put the entrance, if they put it out on Willow it relieves Kelley Parkway but now there is a problem on Willow. He recognizes that and does not have a better idea. He has concern over the setbacks and agreed that Wayzata Boulevard is the identity of the community and he recognizes that things like McDonald's and gas stations are also part of that as it is an urban area. What the Planning Commission cannot do is change that, but they can provide feedback on what the future will look like, if there is proper screening being provided. Ressler said one of the illustrations provided was hard to tell the scale because it did not look like 9 feet unless it was a 3 - foot man and a 2 -foot dog. His constructive feedback would be to better understand the scale to help the Planning Commission and City Council feel more comfortable about what that really is. His question is if Page 28 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. this is the minimum without having to change how they guide a lot of things in this area, where were they planning on going when they guided it ... because how do they add more? Knowing the traffic that goes in and out, knowing the area, knowing how difficult it is to egress and ingress. He thinks okay, what would they rather see here, an apartment complex at 3-4 stories? He does not know and said that does not solve the traffic. Ressler still does not like that small of a buffer between Wayzata Boulevard and the proposed development; he does not have a constructive answer about what would do it without reducing the number of units. Knowing that they need to add massing and housing, he noted they had a proposal further west that they kicked around that also would have helped with that exchange and that is not what this application is. He does not know, but if they asked him, he would rather see a taller structure that has more greenery to provide some clearance for enjoyment and less pavement and massing of structure than one -level living. However, one -level living seems to be more in alignment with the community and that is where he struggles. For whatever it is worth that is his perspective. Libby said to add merit and credence to the planners and several other members perception about that front -facing Wayzata Boulevard and the impression of the community, there is great validity to that. Being the only person here other than the developer that has sold hundreds of units like this over the course of 30 years and listening to the voice of the consumer in a year than most people in the room deal with in a lifetime, he can tell them that they are conjecturing on what the garage side of these would look like. He said they have not really looked at it or seen a perspective and how attractive, like a single- family home, the garage side entry to an architectural design can look. It is not as unwelcoming as the Commissioners are proposing and they have not even seen the design of the garage side of one of these units. Again, there is another serious concern he has regarding the change to Road A, and he thinks the developer was very open-minded and had an ear to the environmental aspects of moving a gathering place for children or kids to the center from the outside. What do they do then? They take an area that now is kind of a safe spot in the middle of the living center of the community and by adding Road A, they intensify noise pollution, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide pollution into an area where they will disturb everybody every time. Whether a UPS truck, a garbage truck, or a recycling truck going on to that road; they may not disturb the people on the backside on Kelley, but certainly will have a high concentration of just about every kind of pollution as long as they have high combustion engines delivering packages and picking up garbage. They are moving all of that to the inside versus having it dispersed widely on the outside. He noted they can make a garage approach architecturally very attractive and look very nice from the street side. That is Libby's perspective and he said they are exacerbating a problem that they have already kind of solved by turning these around and flipping them to the other side. Ressler said until they go to the next generation of electric powered heli -taxis, they are all in this conundrum together. He said again, he is trying to be constructive here because it is kind of a tough one. Libby said they can do the environmental metric fairly easily as they have the capacity to do that, engineering and design people do that all day. Ressler does not think environmental is necessarily the biggest concern here, that is a personal opinion. He struggles with buffering to a busy road and traffic; he does not know how they fix that. He is not going to recycle the same comments he has already made in essence of efficiency and wants to clarify he is not arguing, either. Erickson made a comment on traffic, and would like to make a little historical background as he first looked at this area in 1971. He said it was 80 acres for sale between Willow and Old Crystal Bay Road and many years before the City showed any interest in building this building. They were occupying the Page 29 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. same building that Mr. Gronbuig the surveyor has, that was City Hall in Orono. Eventually the guide plan developed into something other than 2 acre lots and it first became commercial, because Long Lake had commercial, on the south side was the Harvest Moon, and Otten Brothers before that. So, they figured if they have commercial on 3 corners, they must have commercial on the 4"' corner. The first proposal that came along was a Cub Foods store and that did not develop but was seriously discussed for some period of time. In thinking about traffic, think about how much traffic would be generated by a Cub Foods store; as it turned out, that was not approved. Erickson said one that was approved was 2 office buildings, with one of the office buildings having a bank with a drive-in teller. Apparently somewhere in the process the prospective banker changed his mind about it and it never happened; again, thinking about a couple of office buildings with a bank, how much traffic would that be? More recently in the last few years, in talking about a medium density residential on that corner, they are talking about less traffic than other alternatives might be. Granted, they can take some units out and there will be a little less traffic, but where do they stop with that? The most impractical statement Erickson has ever heard in this room (and this was many, many years ago) was from a Councilman who suggested they can have 2 acre lots on the whole frontage of Wayzata Boulevard. Erickson had done a lot of work in other cities such as Long Lake, Minnetonka, Wayzata, and that was before there was even any discussion of a bypass and State Highway 12 was right there. To his mind, 37 units here is moderate density and is moderate traffic compared to anything else that might be there. He said it works for him. Gettman asked the Applicant, regarding the targeted prices, especially as compared to across the street, so Stone Bay versus this new development; with the 43 properties there was one price range they were targeting. With the 37, has that price range changed for each of the homes. Mr. Saddiqui said the labor and the material has gone up significantly in the last 6 months and that is one impact, and also the unit count. He said the kind of elevations they are doing and the cost related to that; they are targeting $430,000 or $440,000 to $470,000, and said again, it is in the works and is not set. Gettman understands and just said for the City Council. Ressler said this was good feedback from everyone and unlike some applications that are very clear and concise as to the direction they are going. Gettman asked if they want a motion for each or if he is comfortable with one motion. If Gettman has a suggestion, Ressler is all for it. Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA21-000014, PID 33-118-23-11-0060 (NW Corner of Willow and Wayzata Blvd) Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Site Plan, reducing the density; Zone Change to the Residential PUD; the Preliminary Plat and Master Plan approval of the development as applied with Staff recommendations. Barnhart asked to confirm the five conditions Staff put in the memo. Met Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, City Council approval of the Zone change to RPUD, City Staff comments Exhibit G, City Engineer comments satisfied Exhibit H, and MC -WD approval of storm water. He asked if those are correct. Gettman replied yes that is correct. Page 30 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler clarified all criteria that Staff recommends as a contingency. He asked Kirchner if he could clarify that he seconds that. Kirchner said he does. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1 (Ressler). Commissioner Gettman excused himself and left the Planning Commission meeting. OTHER BUSINESS 12. LA21-000015 WILLIAM STODDARD O/B/O MILLER LIVING TRUST, PID 34-118-23- 32-0002 (SE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 12 AND WILLOW DRIVE), SKETCH PLAN (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Bill Stoddard, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. He noted this is a sketch plan or concept review and is the first step of a residential planned unit development. The proposed project is for 12 residential units in 6 twin -home style buildings; all buildings will face south in the linear configuration as shown on screen. The use and density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan does guide this property for urban medium high density which is the 3-10 units/acre range. The 2030 Comp Plan had this property as higher density with 10-20 units/acre, and the committee suggested reducing the density because it did not seem appropriate to put that much density on a relatively small piece of property with no other density around it. Access to this project is via public road that terminates at the southeast corner of the fire station lot; they are proposing a private road that connects there and feed the new private road that runs along the front of the buildings. This is one issue Staff wanted the Planning Commission to provide feedback on. Barnhart pointed out a parcel called outlot H which is a City owned property and currently houses a community garden. The City Council had expressed concern from encroaching development on that issue previously and extended the license agreement for the community garden. This proposed road will not impact the garden other than that it will be a road nearby, and will require Council authorization for an easement; they are looking for Planning Commission and City Council feedback on that issue as it impacts the development of this site. The alternative to this driveway route is a direct access onto Willow Drive. Staff has concerns from an engineering and planning perspective because a driveway here is relatively close to a bridge over the railroad and Highway 12 and there is some concern from a sight/visibility standpoint. They are trying to keep that intersection away from the bridge as much as they can and that is why Staff supports the configuration as shown. An easement will be necessary through the City property. Typically, when transitioning from a public road to a private driveway or road they look for some sort of cul-de-sac so they can prevent people from driving on the private road; they also look for feedback on that. Putting a cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Redinger Drive it will impact more of the City lot there and feedback would be appreciated. Barnhart said this property is 1.7 acres and is not big enough to be considered its own RPUD, so the City Council and Planning Commission would have to support waivers from the very beginning for this to be developed as an RPUD because it does not meet the 5 -acre size requirement and none of the adjacent properties are zoned RPUD so this could not be considered an extension of that. The other option is to create a zoning district for this parcel; they could create their own standards for a project of this scope on the property and Staff looks for feedback on that. The benefit of creating a new zoning district is they can create all their own standards, establish the setbacks, establish things from a regulatory standpoint. Barnhart would not recommend tailoring or adjusting the standard of an existing zoning district and rezoning it to the same RRIA, for Page 31 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. example, as it introduces problems down the road for those existing subdivisions. He does not recommend the third option that he outlined in the memo. He provided some preliminary comment on the RPUD analysis on page 3 of the memo and mentioned the minimum size for the project is not 5 acres. The uses, multi -family residential is permitted only when consistent within areas of the City designated as urban in the Comp Plan. Regarding the project before, that property was originally guided as commercial; this property has not been guided for commercial, nor is it on Highway 12 so some of the other options are not available. The property is anticipated to be sewered but do not expect it to be designed at this stage. The floor ratio has to be above .5 and no higher than land Staff has not done the calculations as they do not have final plans but anticipate it to be less than the ratio of 1. RPUD requirements are 35 feet from the local street, 50 feet from a railroad, 35 feet from the exterior side lot lines, and parking and driving lanes are to be 20 feet from the exterior lot lines. Barnhart said this lot is very long and narrow so meeting those setbacks is somewhat challenging, therefore waivers will be necessary for any type of development of any scale. The property shows 21 feet from these buildings to the north property line and the drive is 10 feet where it is supposed to be 20 feet. The RPUD zoning district requires 10% private recreational area and none is shown on this project and that will factor in to how this project lays out and Staff will look for feedback on that. A private road is proposed along the front of the buildings and will serve each unit; the road shows a termination into a cul-de-sac, which is really just a widened area of the road and not wide enough to be considered a cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission should provide feedback on the cul-de-sac size and right-of-way width. The end of each of these is driveway and there is really no opportunity for Amazon trucks or other utilities to turn around within that private driveway. The Applicant has requested feedback on the expectation for storm water management; the preliminary plan shows 3 ponds on the property that are intended to provide for storm water management. Barnhart said the site drains to the east and to the south so it seems like a potential for a regional storm water pond on the City property. Staff's expectation of storm water management is that it would occur all on-site, but look for feedback as requested by the Applicant. The developer has provided elevation of potential buildings which suggests two-story buildings with residential -style pitched roofs. The Planning Commission is asked to provide feedback regarding expected design styles. Barnhart said this is kind of an early stage of an RPUD project and normally they will review a project 2- 3 times before something really sticks in terms of a proposal so they really understand the Planning Commission and City Council's goals for that property. This is the first application Barnhart is aware of for this property since 2012 which was a high-density subsidized project which the Council did not support. Barnhart is anxious to hear the Planning Commission's feedback on the zoning, the access, the storm water management, the use of the property, and the design standards. The Planning Commission can either provide the Applicant the feedback and invite him to move forward to the City Council, or ask him to address those comments in a new plan that the Planning Commission would review at a sketch plan level. MCCutcheon asked the current zoning. Barnhart replied RR1B which is the 2 -acre zone. MCCutcheon asked what it is guided for. Barnhart noted urban medium density, which is 3-10 units/acre. A change to the zoning must occur to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. MCCutcheon asked for the history on the high density and what the complaint was. When he looks at it, it is right against the highway, why wouldn't they consider a high-density apartment building in this spot. Page 32 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart does not think this site is big enough to support a higher density than that. To do an apartment building it would likely require use of the City outlot A, and whether it was intentional or not, the City Council did not want to include development of the City lot for that. He said it is still guided for that, but not guided for high density. McCutcheon does not know if the community garden has a high utility but if it does, he can see the City Council's reluctance to put high density there. Bill Stoddard, 440 3`d Street, Excelsior, approached the podium. He appreciates the Planning Commission's time in giving feedback on this application and noted it is a very unique site; he is a smaller developer than some of the other parties seen today and he has done things such as a 172 -unit apartment building, assisted living facilities, and in downtown Excelsior the 10 -brick row -houses, and the 18 twin villas. He has heard some historic comments and has lived in Orono for 20 years and is still in the same zip code in Excelsior, he was on the Planning Commission for 7 years in the 1990's. Barnhart told him he could remind the Planning Commission of the times in the past, but not keep them here until, 1:00 a.m. like they did with Spring Hill. He noted this is a very funky site and he has it under purchase agreement, he has talked to a number of builders, some said no way, it's right on the highway, guided for residential. He said Barnhart laid out some of the comments and feedback and Mr. Stoddard noted it is right on the highway and looks at boat storage. To make the site even have a chance of working, they first proposed having the access right off of Willow Drive, and that was massaged and changed with City Staff. That doubles the length of road they have to put in, and still may probably be a deal breaker for the Planning Commission. Another comment is having a cul-de-sac and two 90 -foot cul-de-sacs at each end of the property line, which are designed so fire trucks can turn around. He said this is right on the fire station property and they have worked with fire departments in the past to see where they can place fire hydrants; this project cannot support three 90 -foot cul-de-sacs. Mr. Stoddard was told when the fire station went in there, their storm water was designed for the size of their building. However, he would ask the City to allow them to engage that ownership to see if they can enlarge that storm water and pipe some of it to that site. That would leave some drier land for him to have some recreational land. He requested some green light/red light about talking to neighboring properties about increasing that. Bollis looks at this and prefers the access to be off of Willow Drive; he recognizes it is close to the overpass but he would be favorable of a variance for a side yard setback for that road so it could be closer to the fire station and farther from the overpass. That way they don't have to use the really nice vacant City lot for access of this private development. In fact, that vacant lot looks like it might be a good place for a municipal building instead of across the highway on Old Crystal Bay Road. He believes the access should be within its own site and they have less storm water to worry about. The cul-de-sac issue, the City has required cul-de-sacs for two private homes on 10 acres, so it is hard to say they would not require a full cul-de-sac for this. Regarding storm water, Bollis feels it should be on site, especially if the road can be on site. He feels like extending fire station road through kind of ruins this lot where the community garden is for any potential future use the City may need it for. Ressler asked Barnhart if they have any feedback from the City Council as far as what the eventual use of that City lot will be. Barnhart said it is the Community Garden and he thinks if they asked the City Council today, they would say the future use of that property is a Community Garden; he does not think there are plans or support to change that. Page 33 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler asked if this creates an opportunity to provide a roadway that makes it a little more accessible where there might be some street parking for people who actually go visit the Community Garden ... he said it is an open-ended question. Is there a place they could have a water feature that could give some relief to storm water. He was born and raised in Orono and he doesn't know what he has even visited the Community Garden, but if there is street parking maybe it makes it a bit more approachable. He sure likes this location a lot better than the last application they were trying to circumvent. Ressler agrees with Bollis, he is not entirely against going directly on to Willow Drive, because of the number of units and he knows any road gets busy during certain times of the day but Willow Drive certainly has a lot less traffic than the other side. Kirchner said specific to the zoning, he thinks they get into the weeds a bit to create their own individual zoning district for this specific parcel. He thinks it would be easier to find a plan they agree with and then grant the waivers for that plan as proposed rather than trying to create specifics for one parcel and zone it differently. Barnhart appreciates that comment, and said they have to give some guidance; when the project does not fit any zoning district, what guidance can they give. He said they should find something they like and create an ordinance for it. That opens them up to big problems down the road so he wants to give them some guidance on what they are working towards. Kirchner said that is understandable. As far as access, he agrees that there is a bit of a burden to extend fire station drive to the Applicant across the City parcel. He agrees that Willow Drive is perhaps suitable, although traffic engineering and study counts would need to be done. He has a bit of concern for the twin -home use and asked if the driveways are 10 feet instead of 20 feet. Barnhart clarified it is the setbacks. Kirchner said in looking at the drawing he has some concern for turn around with the service vehicles, he would imagine snow gets pushed to those two end cul-de-sacs which could cause issues for larger vehicles to turn around in the winter months. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission supports access off of Willow Drive, this one cul-de-sac goes away so now they would just have one at the far side. Ressler asked the Planning Commission how they feel about the zoning. Do they feel the massing is the right density? He has heard comment about considering a higher density that creates some opposition and was addressed by Staff. He asked if anyone has a problem with the density here assuming they can meet all the standards for parking requirements. McCutcheon noted it is guided for urban medium and asked what that is defined as. Barnhart replied it is 3-10 units/acre. McCutcheon asked what this is proposed. Barnhart replied 7 units/acre. His question on zoning is more related to the mechanism to provide guidance for setbacks, design standards, and things like that. He asked if the Planning Commission is Page 34 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. open to the number of waivers identified through the RPUD analysis included in his Staff memo or would they prefer to pursue creation of its own zoning district. He believes Kirchner suggested the RPUD is probably the way to go rather than creating its own zoning district. Kirchner clarified that was his feedback — he believes the RPUD is better than the Planning Commission trying to carve out their own zoning district for one specific parcel in the City. Bollis agrees with RPUD, as well. He said Barnhart is comfortable with this even though it is not allowed to be an RPUD because of acreage, is there a mechanism where the Planning Commission can make it an RPUD. Barnhart replied yes. Ressler asked if there is any opposition to the RPUD. He is hearing none. He asked to talk about access. Barnhart has heard pretty consistently that they are open to an access directly off Willow Drive. Ressler does not have a problem with that and asked the Planning Commission if anyone has a problem. Erickson does. He has walked that from his office to chamber meetings at the fire station and when you are that close to the bridge, there are sightline issues. He can understand why that was problematic previously and thinks it is much safer to do the way it is shown. Similarly, to backtrack on density, he does not have any problem with it as shown here; however, he does have some concerns about all three of the cul-de-sacs that are substandard. He would be more comfortable if at least the middle one was closer to a standard size. He does not know how it will work out with storm water, either. Adding a cul-de-sac and digging for storm water may result in losing a unit. McCutcheon said as far as setbacks, his guidance would be to reduce hardcover as much as possible. He does not know if there is an opportunity to move the street closer than they normally would to a property line, especially since there is a fire parking lot right there. Anything they can do to achieve space and save hardcover. As it is drawn on screen besides the cul-de-sac, he asked what the setback is from where the road is. He clarified his question is how far is the road from the property line. Barnhart said it is about 10 feet. He has heard pretty consistent feedback with the exception of Erickson on the access location. He noted these five questions guide further refinement of the plan. If the Planning Commission can agree that access off Willow is preferred, great. He has heard from most of them that storm water should be managed on site. Ressler noted there is one Commissioner opposed to access via Willow and asked if anyone else feels that way. None of the other Commissioners felt that way. Ressler said regarding the storm water situation, he does not feel qualified to answer that. Bollis' opinion on storm water would be if they are accessing through the site on Willow Drive, it should all be within the site. If they demand that they access through a City lot and there is a lot of hardcover on Page 35 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. that road, they may be able to use storm water on that City lot, as well. He said that is one more reason tc have access on Willow. Libby said in looking at the available area at the Willow Drive access, if that is properly radiused with an apron in either direction, he thinks there is more than adequate safety. He just drove by today and did not have any visibility problems during the day. He asked the developer if he has any plans for a Home Owners' Association (HOA) within this development. Mr. Stoddard replied yes, this would be HOA controlled, so storage and lawn care will be regulated by the HOA. Libby's main reason for asking is to find out how snow removal would be handled, not only on the thoroughfare to access the radiuses to turn into the garages, but if this other proposal for an access road. How would that be maintained with snow removal? Mr. Stoddard said they will have to prove that they can store the snow there or will have to prove them have a storm management plan to remove the snow in the events of large snowfall. He said they have been successful at doing that in their projects. The feedback received to extend across Willow Drive is wonderful, which gets them down to one cul-de-sac that meets those conditions. Libby thinks the access to Willow Drive would be the most practical from a management standpoint, whether it is an association with owners paying for snow plowing as part of their HOA dues. It sounds like Mr. Stoddard has plenty of track record at managing snow removal. He would be in favor of the Willow Drive access. Ressler said regarding storm water it sounds like it could be managed on site, especially if it is proposed to access on Willow. He moved on to use and said the Planning Commission has already covered it and thinks it is reasonable for the twin homes, especially as they have talked about finding ways to increase some density in different parts of the City. He is completely in support of that. He asked if anyone is opposed. No Commissioners were opposed. Ressler moved on to design standards and noted they are on a preliminary sketch so they have not gotten into a whole lot of detail. He does not think anyone is offended by how the design would be. Libby asked the developer if he has considered a development of detached townhomes rather than the twin home design and is it because of the economics of building two houses at one time. Mr. Stoddard noted their first go was detached HOA town homes and they could not get the density to make it work. He said it is very preliminary on the twin homes designs. He added regarding storm water that the Planning Commission would like to keep it on site, noting they have not done all the calculations and knowing how much that is going to be. He would like to ask the Planning Commission and Barnhart to keep an open mind as he has had discussions with the water shed district and they are absolutely fine if they brought it off site, for example, to the fire station. It is the ownership of that who would have to permit and it is all about the quantity of the storm event. He asked the Planning Commission to keep that crack open in case 1/3 of this needs to be for storm water if that is what the calculations show. Page 36 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler noted this early on, he does not see anyone opposed to the design standards. He asked for feedback again regarding Willow Drive as the access point. McCutcheon had to make a compromise because he wants to reduce the hardcover and having huge cul- de-sacs everywhere; as long the City Engineers or whoever approves it says it is safe to turn on Willow, he is fine with it. Whatever the utility garden space will be 10 years from now, not having a road there is nice as it opens up options. Ressler has not walked the property but wonders if there is the possibility of future access to Holbrook Park there. McCutcheon wonders if the Parks Board should chime in on access to that lot as that is great feedback. Mr. Stoddard said the interesting thing is the little bit of property above the subject site and above the park is owned by MnDOT. He has a request in to purchase that and they like the request but it will take about 18 months to get back with a decision. It was extra, leftover land and the thoughts were to connect the site to the park through there. He noted they could always do one on the south, as well, and will propose it in one or the other of the areas. Libby asked if they would create a rain garden or what the methodology with the storm water will be. Mr. Stoddard said the storm water will take a significant area and that is why he is asking for openness to see if they can get access to do more on the south. They had three storm water/rain gardens on the site plan already and would like some kind of central feature and having a water feature around that. He noted in Village Lane there is a road with a T and all driveways and sidewalks are paver bricks, and there is a 50 -foot roundabout in the middle that is authentic cobblestones. They were thinking about some kind of feature similar on this project, as well. He thanked the Planning Commission for their feedback. Ressler thinks Mr. Stoddard's request for the Planning Commission to keep an open -mind on the storm water has been heard and he does not think anyone has a strong opinion one way or the other. Bollis said if they are talking about using a City lot for a portion of the storm water, they should be thoughtful of the future development of the City lot for City purposes and what sort of storm water management they would need for that lot. That is why he would be hopeful that it could all stay on site, either by reducing hardcover or density. Barnhart noted they are just looking for very high-level comments. Every time there is a sketch plan, the Planning Commission provides their wishes and goals. The Applicant chooses whether to apply those to a new plan or not. Barnhart's final question is does the Planning Commission prefer to see the resulting sketch plan based on the comments given regarding access, storm water, use, before moving it forward. Ressler said the majority is open-minded to looking at what it would be as proposed from Willow Drive and they probably do not want to move forward yet as it is pretty preliminary, but to see a proposed plan that shows access from Willow, and a storm water plan. Barnhart said the Planning Commission can comment on it and move it forward and the City Council will see the sketch plan based on their feedback. Or they can suggest the Applicant apply the Planning Commission's comments as another review for the sketch plan. Page 37 of 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Personally, Bollis is fine moving this to Council as a sketch plan with the feedback. Ressler is not opposed to that. Erickson would be comfortable moving it on to the City Council. 13. UPDATE ON FEBRUARY 8, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart shared applications the Planning Commission reviewed in January were all reviewed by the City Council on February 8. The preliminary plat at 1700 Shoreline (recommended approval 6-1), the Council directed Staff to draft a resolution of approval with a vote of 4-0. Roof coverage variance at 3145 North Shore Drive (PC recommended approval) and the City Council approved that on consent 4-0. CUP for plumbing at 3425 Thoroughbred was approved. The variance for Average Lakeshore Setback at 2967 Casco was recommended to deny by Staff, Planning Commission recommended approval, and the City Council approved it 4-0. Text amendment related to appeals was approved and the text amendment related to the dry buildable definition was approved by the City Council. Ressler asked if the City Council approved the proposed plat for the Jacobs Estate. Barnhart said the City Council directed Staff to draft a resolution for approval and they have not technically approved it yet. The main issue the City Council had was the turn lane requirement and requested some additional feedback from the County in terms of what is required and he received that earlier today. He thinks that question has been answered and there will not be any impact to the neighbor's property. Bollis asked if the County requires a turn lane. Barnhart replied yes for westbound traffic. ADJOURNMENT Kirchner moved, Erickson seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. ATTEST: Page 38 of 38