Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2021 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Chris Bollis, Bob Erickson, Matt Gellman, Scott Kirchner, Dennis Libby, and Mark McCutcheon. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Planner Laura Oakden. City Council representative Matt Johnson was also present. Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Libby moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the Agenda.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16,2021 Kirchner moved,McCutcheon seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of January 19,2021 as submitted.VOTE:Ayes 7,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA21-000016 SCHIMMEL CONSTRUCTION, 1405 REST POINT RD, VARIANCES (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) David&Kathryn Wiemer,Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis stated the Applicant proposes to build a 125 square foot addition on the south side of the home and an approximate 500 square foot deck on the lakeside. The addition is shown on screen in red and the deck is shown in yellow on the survey. The property is non- conforming with respect to area,width,hard cover,and setbacks. The entire home is located within the 75- foot setback from the lake. The proposed addition is shown to encroach within the 30-foot rear street setback and the 75-foot lake setback. The deck is shown within the 75 foot and average lakeshore setbacks. Existing hardcover on the level today is 22.7%with almost all of the hardcover within the 75-foot setback. The 75-foot setback is the line that starts here [noted on screen] and goes diagonally through the driveway. The Applicant is proposing an increase of approximately 604 square feet for 27.2% total site hardcover. Hardcover, lake setback, average lakeshore setback (ALS), and rear street setback variances would be required. Curtis noted the lake and rear street setbacks overlap eliminating the buildable area, creating a practical difficulty for development of the lot. The existing home has an approximate 2,000 square foot footprint which does result in reasonable use of the property. The 500 square foot deck and 125 square foot addition are relatively minimal, however, result in additional encroachments in both the rear and lake setback areas and add to the non-conforming hardcover on the property. The neighboring home to the north is located approximately 30 feet from the lake, determining the ALS which is not shown on the survey but she can provide an aerial photo. The Applicant's proposal results in additional encroachments with the deck proposed at 23 feet and the addition to the home as close as 45 feet to the lake. Staff has received no public comments on the application. The practical difficulty analysis was provided in the Staff report; regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that there are no practical difficulties supporting the current variances to further encroach within the required setbacks to increase the total site hardcover above 25%or to place a deck within the ALS. In summary, Planning Staff recommends denial of the variances as proposed. Page 1 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. David & Kathryn Wiemer, Applicants, moved into this house in November 2019 after 35 years in Minnetonka. They looked at over 35 properties and this was"the one." They have loved living on the lake and have had a little over a year to understand how they live and use both the indoor and outdoor spaces. The goal with the variances is twofold;they would like to convert what is now a small office space into a four-season porch with a door to a patio or a deck. There are also tables,chairs,and a fire ring outside that are regularly used and in the wanner months, the legs sink in to the grass. They are outside a lot to enjoy the lake and the views and look forward to working with the City to respect the interests of the various setback requirements while trying to achieve the goals and dreams of using and enjoying the property.Ms. Wiemer is available to answer any questions. Mr.Wiemer noted a photo with a room in the foreground that is the current office they would like to expand to the south;they can also see some chairs and a grill to wrap a deck or patio around on that side of it. Bollis asked if there is currently any deck or patio out there. Ms. Wiemer said there is nothing, they just have wood chips. They bought the house from the original owners who built the house in 2000 and there is overlap between the two setbacks, so they know there is already a challenge here. The Applicant noted they would like to use more of the outside space because there really is nothing right now. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Ressler noted it is always difficult when there is lakeshore involved in setbacks. Erickson asked who prepared the 3D color graphic. Ms. Oakden said it was the Applicant's contractor. Erickson noted those were very well done. McCutcheon thinks the big thing is the allowed hardcover, it is 25% and the existing is 22%. With the house being built behind the lakeshore setback, he will throw that one out the window because that just makes sense. Then it is a skinny lot so the 30-foot setback from the road seems kind of ridiculous,too. He noted it is a unique situation and that is why they are here. He clarified the hardcover is where he draws the line—they can do things but within the hardcover limits is his initial thought. Bollis tends to agree with McCutcheon as the hardcover is so close at 27.2% for what they are asking for and he feels it could be modified to meet at least the hardcover. He agrees with the setbacks—he thinks they need to throw those out on this one and if they could meet the hardcover it would be a yes for him. Kirchner agrees with the comments that have been said. It is a unique lot and he agrees the hardcover does not seem to be implicated by the shape of the lot,rather the addition and amount of the addition. Ressler said there seems to be support for hardcover and not support for additional structure. Bollis clarified no support for above the 25%hardcover but the setback requests seem to be fine. Page 2 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gettman thinks they are all in agreement that the 25% is really the stickler,but he would prefer to have the reduction of the overage above the 25%come back away from the lake so it is not contradicting everything the Planning Commission has said on everything else. He noted the red area could potentially go away and the yellow area reduced to get under the 25%;he is not trying to redesign but it is back to a preference. Ressler noted that is the difficulty, they try not to change what is there but it is nice to have additional feedback if it goes further to Council. He noted they could make a friendly amendment or make a motion one way or the other with the feedback they have provided. Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded, to deny the application as it exists with the comments the Planning Commission has made. Curtis asked for a point of clarification, noting Gettman mentioned removal of the building addition, the red area. Is the Planning Commission specifying in their recommendation that the hardcover be reduced in a specific way or just pull the hardcover further from the lake and keep in the 25% limitation. Gettman suggested that no comments be added to the denial because the City Council can hear the comments. It is an outright denial of the application as it exists. Curtis is looking for clarification on the discussion point. Gettman replied yes, if the Applicant can pull it back from the lake, it is not necessarily removal of the entire red area. Libby agrees with Gettman. Ressler thinks Staff has already made those comments and he tends to follow the Staff recommendation. This is always one of the tougher ones to find a solution around. He does not have anything that would disagree with the comments already made. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 2. LA21-000017 JOE THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,DOCK PERMIT ON ROW(STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Joe and Sara Thull,Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicants own 480 Big Island which is a non- lakeshore property on the eastern portion of the island. They have owned the property for a number of years and it is located between two platted, undeveloped rights-of-way which connect to the Bay Place right-of-way and connects to the lake on the eastern side of the island. There are many interconnecting undeveloped rights-of-way which are accessible to the public but no developed roads on Big Island and non are open for vehicular traffic. Code section 78-567 provides a mechanism for inland or off-lake property owners to request a permit to install or construct private improvements, such as a dock, on public rights-of-way. A dock would provide access to the Applicant's property and this provision only exists within the RS district which consists of Big Island and Deering Island. Pursuant to this code the Applicants seek a permit to place a seasonal dock on City right-of-way. Two dock permits have been issued in the past Page 3 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 20+years. Resolution 4456 attributed to 220 and 130 Big Island granted in 2000. Resolution 2038,referred in the Staff report as Permit 2038,attributed to 230 Big Island granted in 1986. 230 Big Island is an inland lot and that permit was for a dock that existed on the property on that location in the right-of-way since approximately the 1950's. It was granted subject to a number of conditions including the following verbiage:"should there be any other requests from inland property owners to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties,this permit is automatically revoked."Permit 2038 appears to have remained in effect since that time, and has been transferred to the subsequent owners(Fred Brunjten/Nancy Farnes). Ms. Fames has provided comment on this request,which was emailed to the Commissioners and placed at their seats, in addition to other comments received after publication of the packet. Staff finds the Applicants'request generally meets the criteria outlined in the code for approval. Knowing the subdivision code has recently been changed to allow for easement access as another option for inland lots in the RS district only, the Applicants have attempted unsuccessfully to secure a private easement from neighbors including Three Rivers Park District as detailed in the submittal. They made the permit request in February. As a result of the request and based on the language in the resolution for Permit 2038, it should be considered to be revoked. Staff has concerns that the holder of this permit continues to desire dock access. There are two additional interior lots on the east side of the island,both just to the east of the Applicant's property—they do not have lake access and may in the future request a permit for dock on the right-of-way as well. The City should anticipate requests from these property owners at some point.The other remaining properties on the east side are either lakeshore properties or in common ownership with a lakeshore property,thus providing the opportunity for a dock. Staff recommends the dock access question for inland lots be looked at comprehensively by the City. A number of public comments were received and included in the packet as Exhibit I; most of the comments received oppose the dock. Staff recommends approval of a dock with the following conditions: 1. The location of the installed dock shall be approved by the LMCD, and shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. The permit issued shall be valid for one year, and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the city to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. 3. The approval should identify which property(ies) has rights to use the dock, and each owner shall be permitted one boat slip for use by the owner of the property exclusively. 4. The dock shall be removed for the winter season. A winter storage location should be identified and approved by staff. 5. Dock sections shall not exceed 6-feet in width. 6. No canopy shall be erected Curtis noted most of those comments are from the code section that allows the permit. Staff further recommends that a comprehensive solution to the dock access question be considered. After the packet was finalized last week, Staff received an updated request and narrative from the Applicant in which he addresses some of the comments he received. His updated request includes an alternative to share a dock with the current permit holder for 2038. The Applicant can speak to his request. Kirchner said in reference to Permit 2038,he asked Curtis to note where that dock is situated on screen. Curtis pointed it out and said at the subject location. Ressler noted the way the City's existing permit that is currently granted becomes revoked in the event that another request is made. Page 4 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Curtis replied upon request from another property owner it is automatically revoked. Ressler asked if Staff understands why they would have such language in that approval. Is it because they are trying to be sure they revisit the whole situation all over again rather than an addition of another permit. He asked what it is that they typically see in those situations for such language? Ressler understands he may be asking Curtis to speculate. Curtis noted she cannot speculate.Curtis said they do not typically see that kind of language.The language in the 2000 permit—although it mirrored some similar code-required conditions—did not include this. So, a permit that was issued after resolution 2038 did not include that automatic revocation language. Curtis could speculate a lot of things but she would rather not. Ressler stated it is a landlocked lot so the only access right now is by right-of-way and trails? Curtis replied that is correct. They are pedestrian access but there is no dock access. She thinks the Applicant can better describe the situation but she thinks they have been anchoring and swimming to shore as they have used the property over the years. Ressler commented he knows there is a lot of interest based on the feedback the Commission has seen and there are a lot of voices that want to be heard. He said in the essence of time they want those voices to be heard,but at the same time the Commission requests in the public comment section that people try to limit their comments to 5 minutes or less if they can. If one is in agreement with a previously stated comment, he asked if they could just state that they support the previous comment instead of restating the comment in different words. He noted they appreciate any consideration on that. Joe and Sara Thull, 480 Big Island, showed a few slides on screen to give more context. Ressler is right there has been a lot of feedback and comments regarding his application and he hopes to add a little more color to that. He noted he has owned the property for over 12 years and the intention was always to build a cabin out there. They have approached the City and have a permitted shed and have started construction on that off-site in a modular way and will move that out to the location. Mr. Thull reiterated the intention is to eventually put a cabin out there. As mentioned,they have primarily accessed the location by anchoring near the lot,swimming,and then hiking across the Three Rivers location that abuts the property. Mr.Thull noted they have been members of the Power Squadron in the past but that is probably 8x the distance and really not feasible. He said they have aging parents and kids and they want to find a more permanent way to access the property as they invest in it. They are not developers or property flippers, and have sought multiplied easements, one with Three Rivers, noting that roadway comes just short of the lakeshore and unfortunately Three Rivers denied that. The Applicant has also pursued easements with neighboring properties and has not found a path forward on that. He looks at the property rights and does not think they are asking for what other interior lot property owners have been provided underneath the code. They are seeking,basically,those same rights afforded to others and there is some precedent in terms of the spirit of multiple lot owners collaborating and sharing an access point to create a feasible solution for those interior lot owners. He showed a few sites they identified in working with the City—some are better than others— and they identified the site they felt was most feasible. Some criteria was feedback from the City Planning office regarding location 1,also the site in terms of its level terrain and the low impact in terms of the right- of-way, really the walking path, proximity to the property and that the Applicant is not looking to use the site as a construction access point as that will all be done through the primary access point on the other side of the island. He noted they are really looking at minimal lakeshore disruption and that was the criteria Page 5 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. they looked at. Two additional requests if this would be approved. No 1) if a new permit is granted that the previous permit be noted in that document to show the continuity of this site being used as an access point for many, many years, and he thinks officially a lot longer than that. He asks that it be noted as he thinks there are questions as far as the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD)as far as the access and the rights-of-way. No 2) he asked for a reasonable spot to put a seasonal dock in the winter months within and around the right-of-way. He thinks there is probably a similar thing granted for the other property owners that are not hauling their docks. In looking across the various easements,there are various uses of those to store things currently across Big Island. Mr. Thull noted there was a lot of feedback and addressed a couple of points within his application. Regarding the impact to Ms. Fames and Mr. Brunjten as owners of 230 Big Island,Mr.Thull supports that they should not have something taken away,and thinks that language created a win/lose scenario and that is not fair. As a property owner,he believes their rights need to be withheld within that. Although sharing a dock is not a perfect scenario in a perfect world,this is a unique situation and they are trying to balance each other's rights. Mr.Thull noted there was a question of the use of turning the right-of-way into construction and taking out trees and vegetation. He clarified he has no intent to do that and that would be less convenient. They are looking for a walkway path from the dock up to the inner road that leads to the property through the right-of-way. He stated there have also been some questions about the LMCD and compliance. Does the site comply,should it be grandfathered in? He thinks that is a question for that group. In looking through the code,there are many points within the code itself that lay out different ways that unique situations are addressed. Whether it is pre-existing conditions for permitted use, practical difficulties, a unique situation, setback variances provided. He thinks one of the main points of that is so that docks are not stacked up on top of each other. At this access point,looking to the left, he showed a photo on screen of the neighboring location; in another photo he showed the neighbor's dock and location. Mr. Thull said the use of variances are obviously sprinkled throughout the LMCD documentation so if this property is not grandfathered in, he thinks given the unique situation he would imagine 99% of the issues they deal with are ultimately how one accesses the lake versus this situation which is how one accesses their property. Substantially different in terms of how they are trying to use this going forward. He said it would seem reasonable as it states, reasonable in terms of under the circumstances and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. In conclusion, Mr. Thull thinks his application fits the code,there is already a permitted dock there for a single dock so no material change in terms of should a dock or can a dock be placed there. He is in favor of sharing the dock and also believes the site may qualify as either grandfathered in or a variance as part of that. Mr. Thull noted they have had a long-term dream of building a cabin out there and are now in the position to actually move forward with that. Mr.Thull has one question in regards to the information about the Public Works Director and what it entails getting approval from them. Curtis believes the Public Works Director,being that it is a City right-of-way,would want to have approval of the dock location should it change,or in addition to the dock that is there,and where that storage location would be in the winter. Bollis thinks the Applicant has done a good job of answering the neighborhood questions and asked if they would be interested in adding those as additional conditions to the permit if the Commission gets that far. Such as no modification to the platted rights-of-way, Bollis assumes the Applicant is not using this dock for recreation but just for access,that type of conditions. Mr. Thull said sure. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Page 6 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 • 6:00 o'clock p.m. Jud and Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island (next door), live at 2643 Thoroughbred Lane. He thanked the Staff and Commissioners for doing all this and noted he is kind of surprised that his neighbors Freddy and Nancy are not here, but Freddy has had some health problems the past couple of years and Mr. Champlin guesses the snow storm kept them away. As Curtis will attest,there are very deep feelings going back from them and their belief as to how that dock should be allocated. Mr. Champlin said this is a tough thing because by filing this it automatically takes away Freddy's dock access. He noted it is a very kind thing of Mr. Thull to offer some alternatives and at the same time it gives this quite valuable piece of property to Mr. Thull—Mr. Champlin can certainly understand the predicament. In his reading of the City code, one of the requirements for granting this access is that there are no reasonable alternatives. Mr.Champlin thinks there are reasonable alternatives and they have not really explored them all. Other than being asked for an easement,this is the first he has heard about it and he thinks if they went around the island,usually people team up and help each other and it is generally a pretty good community. It is when this sort of thing starts happening is when some heads get butting. One thing Mr. Thull said is that the primary access point is down next to 460 Big Island and in an email to Mr.Champlin,Mr.Thull also said that is the most convenient access way. One does not have to put a dock there to get access;the requirement of the City's code is not that one access a dock, it is that one has reasonable alternative access. It is very easy to nose a pontoon boat in there, even at the end of the Power Squadron property that is very close. There are other dock locations that could be looked at as well. Having trouble putting in a septic system, a shower,and running water might be good reason to renew the membership to the Minnetonka Power Squadron and as a past commander he can say that would be very good. Mr.Champlin thinks if the Commission went around and asked neighbors,they would find a lot of people helping out. There is a reason that Freddy does not have a dock there: he does not want that in front of his house. This pretty much shows there are reasonable alternative ways to access property on the island. Freddy does not have a dock. He asks his neighbors to dock there,and can use Mr.Champlin's dock any time,he pulls his pontoon boat right up in front and walks right through. Mr.Champlin's other concern is the pathway through the woods—right now it is all wooded —there has not been a survey done recently so he is not quite sure where the boundaries are but he thinks it will either be going over Mr. Champlin's property or Freddy's property or through the woods. If they are familiar with the island it is a big effort to increase ground cover and leave things as natural as possible and Mr. Champlin would hate to see those woods come down. He understands the intent is not to do anything bad there but intent is very hard to put into a permit. Once people start walking up there,who knows what will happen? As another alternative, Mr. Thull is welcome to use Mr. Champlin's dock up to 10 days a year,just shoot him a text and let him know,don't bump the boat into it too hard,but he welcomes that and is pretty sure he would find a lot of other people that would support Mr.Thull as well. They like people on the island and like them doing good things on the island. He appreciates all they have done for Big Island. Aleya Champlin agrees with her husband's comments and asked to go to Exhibit Ito show the pictures that were taken on Big Island on March 6. This is what the shoreline currently looks like and they think there is a property marker with a stake in the ground for 260 Big Island. The rectangle is where the Champlin's think the proposed dock is going to go and there are a lot of trees and native growth there that would have to go and she just does not want to see all those trees gone. Dave Saari,21035 Oak Lane,Greenwood,along with his brother,owns the property at 260 Big Island. The family has been cutting the grass on the City's public property for probably the last 50 years and their grandparents built the cabin that Fred Brunjten now owns. He noted they have been on that property for a while and appreciate the fact that it has not been developed and it is a fine piece of property. The Commissioners heard from the neighbors their enthusiasm for that. He suspects there will be a larger conversation about the use of those access points regarding the interior lots. In his notes to the City (he apologizes for them arriving late) there are east and there are west bay alternatives and he thinks it is a Page 7 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. bigger story than simply accessing the lake via one particular location. To that end, there are a couple of access points on the west bay, four on the east bay and asked how is this all going to look? They certainly do not want to have a marina next to their property and if that becomes the access point for all inland properties on the island,that would be a significant concern. He thinks what would be fair is west going to the west and east going to the east. From a larger standpoint they then discuss the strategy of all the inland owners as opposed to simply one. Suzy and Peter Thiss, 270 Big Island, have thoughts of one land owner, one boat, one slip. She does not understand the wording that Fred and Nancy's dock permit can be revoked;does that mean Fred and Nancy can revoke it from the Thu11 family next year? Ressler noted that is one of his questions, as well. Again, they have to speculate because it was several years ago that it was issued, but he ventures a guess that the reason it is worded that way is because they want the opportunity to revisit that permit at the same time of issuing another one; and that is the trigger for the event. If there is another application for a dock,they want to be able to change the approval or the use of that—that is the only speculation he might have. It will probably come up in the discussion among the Commissioners. Ressler does not think it is a black and white situation where now there has been an application, one loses their rights to a dock. He thinks it becomes more of a situation where it is revisited because of the trigger. Ms. Thiss noted it is a very passive, quiet place with deer, foxes, and all kinds of things in that meadow. She noted everyone enjoys it, and so does nature. The whole idea of making it a multiple dock or dock sharing,Ms.Thiss does not think it is a marina and thinks that the Power Squadron is a super viable option for someone who needs to get to their place,use a bathroom,take a shower, as all those facilities are there. She stated the whole idea that someone can put up a cabin and not cut down trees and make more paths...this past year there were ATVs going around the island with chain saws at night and there were people cutting paths and running the camouflaged 4-wheelers like crazy. She noted that is the kind of stuff she would hate to see because there is so little land in the City, it is important to preserve Big Island and to look 10-15 years down the road and keep it that way. Ted Hanna, 490 Big Island, said his parents have owned the property since 1968 and he got it about 10 years ago. He would be a little concerned about having some access in the future. He lived over in Greenwood until about a year ago so it was mostly just winter ski access for him with a tent platform and a teepee. He noted it would be great to get out there and visit some more—they do not have a family cabin which used to be on the south side of all this for years. He would ask that some kind of solution might be figured out for some kind of dock access. He noted one comment mentioned a piece of land where Three Rivers is—he asked if that would ever be up for imminent domain. Curtis clarified the piece of land that is blocking the right-of-way continuation used to be all one little sliver. Mr. Hanna sees that those pieces are now deeded to the adjacent landowners. Curtis replied that is right and this one is owned by Three Rivers and they have declined—she believes one of those reasons is the funding source that they used to purchase the property prohibits granting an easement or selling it for any of those uses. Mr. Hanna asked the Thulls if they have thought about using something down on that side. He noted he may be in front of the Commission in the future to try to figure something out, as well. Page 8 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Nancy Fames,230 Big Island,approached the podium with an eleventh-hour package she is delivering,but she only brought five and can get more for the following day. She noted her property is directly affected by this application. In the exhibits,she showed that it started off with 7 inside lots back in 1980-something. This application is revoked and given to 484 Meadow because he transferred over about 4-5 different private properties. It also adds five additional inside lots to the three that he says are remaining. So now they are kind of over—going backwards—in 35 years,using this as a solution. Ms.Fames feels that history dictates there is just not lakeside for accommodation to 3 or 7 inside lots. Furthermore,they bought the cabin with the value included at$45,000. If this is taken from them and revoked,that value in 35 years of maintenance, taxes, appreciation,just tanked to possibly $20,000 with a property they cannot use. She noted they have spent substantial time improving it, maintaining it, and in the last ten years they have endured several emergency and physical health crises that have deferred them from enjoying the island as they always have with three generations of family. During that time period, which they are still winding down, their kind neighbors have allowed them to use their dock, have helped maintain the area, and in goodwill have even cut the grass and maintained the permit without Ms. Fames even asking. They have even offered to bring the family out there as time has only allowed for them to go out about twice a year, and that is basically to rake leaves, clean up inside and out, and go home. This is while everyone else is out in June and July on the boat, in swimsuits,enjoying life. She sees an end to this in about a year or two and she finds this is the first time in 35 years anybody has tossed out the words"revoke our permit"and it is very,very disturbing, unsettling, and emotional. Ms. Fames does not find any precedence to do that. Perhaps they revisit the wording on the two existing permits so they do not have to go through this grueling, tumultuous, and emotional process, because there just simply aren't enough and everything has been exhausted, in her opinion, by the City. She will happily work with Ms. Curtis and has boxes of records she can help assist with for clarity to the recommendation of this Board, if necessary and required, if they still feel it warrants a recommendation instead of a permanent solution. Ms.Fames has one final thought: it is assessed at$165 [$165,000] with no lakeshore but the permit. The 480 application bought his property just ten years ago, there was precedence, and it was valued at $9,000. Ms. Fames stated it makes it unsellable, and their investment in real estate, and their retirement,is now gone over one dock permit that was properly secured through the proper channels that had a boat since 1942 with that cabin. Initially it was a handshake on the family to the owners. When Ms.Fames' family bought it, it converted to this permit. The only permit they created for this unique property and unique situation. Ressler thinks it will be difficult to read through the handout on the fly. Curtis believes the materials Ms. Fames has provided were emailed to the Commissioners this afternoon. Ms. Fames said [off microphone]there are photos. Ressler clarified for those watching online, the comments were that the handout included some photos reiterating the difficulty of being inclusive of adding more dockage. Chris Bollis,470 Big Island, is just adjacent to the Applicant's property. He only wants to comment about access on the west side of the island. There is a road right-of-way that comes in—he does not know if it has a name—it is just by 460 Big Island. Curtis pointed it out on screen. Page 9 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Bollis said that is probably the only vehicle access on Big Island where one can drive from the ice or from a barge right up on there. He noted they have used that for septic pumping,well drilling,and in 2005 (he thinks)there was a big fire on the south end of the island and they hauled in fire departments,pumps, food, bobcats, and it was a big problem. He wants to say that the access by 460 Big Island should not be considered as a dockage area because it is the only spot one can get on the island with any size of a vehicle to do the service work that is required. Ted Hanna,480 Big Island, said that however many years ago this thing was platted out—the spirit of the whole plat to allow people access to their interior lots—he thinks that is something that should be considered for future use,as well. As Ms. Fames said,they combined a bunch of lots so it cut it down but there could have been a bunch more people there asking for it. He thinks that was the spirit of the whole thing,to have roads and not just for fire access. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Ressler noted this is a tough one. Kirchner said first and foremost from what they have heard at the public hearing, he does not believe that there is ill-intent upon the Applicant to revoke the existing permit 2038. He does not believe that was the intent but is just an unfortunate wording. Regarding the permit, he noted Staff, City Council, and City Attorney could have further discussion on this - he does see at the bottom it states that the City of Orono further reserves the right to review this permit for any reason as deemed appropriate. Kirchner would say this would qualify as a reason to review it rather than to automatically revoke it. Therefore,that may give some leeway and some time. He agrees with Ressler's remarks that this is not a black and white,just because there has been an application there should be a revocation of this permit. With that said, he appreciates the Applicant's due diligence in exploring options, speaking with City Staff, evaluating those options,asking for easements,and speaking with the Three Rivers Park District. Where Kirchner struggles with this application is that he feels this could potentially create a bit of a ripple effect, in that if the City will allow this for one lot,will it produce other similar applications. In that case,he believes that perhaps there needs to be a larger scale approach to this, to find a solution if a dock is deemed appropriate, rather than try to band-aid this several times over the next many years. That is Kirchner's biggest hang-up, and he is concerned that by allowing one parcel this, it merely kicks the can down the road. He thinks there needs to be a larger evaluation of this to find any potential solutions and work at it on a larger scale. Libby said there was quite a bit of material given to the Commission fairly late in the game so it took him a while to actually read through some of this and it was very interesting. As they were listening to the cases of the property owners,there seems to be a reason for him to ask Staff a question. He noted there was a submission by Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island, which is very detailed. Having had many, many years working with LMCD and MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District), he is quite familiar with their authority and functionality. He does not know how to ask this any other way than to ask Staff if they have known that whether one of the MCWD functional assessments of wetlands has actually been performed on this public access they are talking about. Curtis brought up Hennepin County's wetland map. Libby stated the information provided to the Planning Commission is quite well-delineated and is very specific in the categorical classification. He said he is bringing this up as a point of information. He has about 30 years of living on the lakeshore and having the blessing of having a dock and owning lakeshore, Page 10 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. so he is familiar with properties that have riparian rights where they actually have lakeshore and a lot and are allowed to put it up. He noted the circumstances of these permits are quite unique, pretty much in Orono, Mound, and surrounding municipalities there are common areas and permits that can be lotteried and assigned. However,when there is a landlocked property without any access to the lake,he can see why this is a very sought-after commodity and why it is a point of discussion. He thinks when they see in the City of Orono —particularly within the auspices of the LMCD — one cannot really even have a dock on property that is owned even if they have riparian rights,unless there is a structure there. Libby said this is a different situation because they have landlocked properties that do not have access. If in fact MCWD has delineated this area and has conservation and wetland attributes, he wonders if it could have been an oversight by the City over these many years that people are talking about. He feels it would be prudent before a decision is made by this body to find out whether or not this type of a survey has actually been done by the MCWD because it could actually be appropriate from a conservation standpoint. Curtis does not believe the area identified on the map indicates a wetland. She believes it indicates what the commenter has written here,that it is noted as a MCWD conservation area but not a wetland. Libby said it is a conservation area but does not need to be a wetland to be a conservation area. Curtis noted they do not have any specific protective requirements over that and if there are other regulatory bodies that have input on this application, they will not purport to assume what they will decide. She clarified they have to talk about the City issues. If this issue moves forward,she thinks the Applicant would need to inquire with the Watershed District and the LMCD what regulations and rules they need to follow. The location they are talking about has had a dock so that is what the Applicant is asking for as well. Libby said that answered his question. The idea was that they do not want to overlook anything, many circumstances when talking about variances or applications they have other authority that they have to wait on. If this is something that had perhaps been overlooked,the initiative that the property owner took to put this together and bring it to the Commissioners attention was of great value. Ressler asked to clarify that the existing permit in place and others alike all share something in common which is they are either lakeshore property themselves or common ownership in lakeshore property. Curtis asked Ressler to restate the question. Ressler asked if the existing dock permits have been issued. Curtis replied they are for inland lots. Ressler said for all of those that have been issued. Curtis clarified they are for inland lots and they have two permits. Ressler restated a different way: regarding both inland lot dock permits,do they both share these two things in common. They are either owners of lakeshore property as well or have a common ownership. Curtis replied no. Any of the other inland owners that they have not identified in addition to the Applicants and the two adjacent are the only ones that are not connected to a lakeshore lot, in ownership or actual lakeshore. Page 11 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis stated the Commission has to look at what is in front of them and the code allows provision for inland lots to apply for a dock as long as it does not affect the neighboring properties. The first thing this does is affect the neighbor at 230 Big Island because it revokes their dock permit. He thinks any solution they come up with should really consider 230 Big Island and make sure it is an equitable solution for both. He does not know that they can find a comprehensive solution tonight for all of the inland lots,he thinks they have to look at the permit requests the Commission has in front of them and design the permit so that it is similar to what they did with the original one 2038 and have some language in there that if additional people apply,then that permit gets revisited and looked at again. He knows as a permit holder it is not fun,but it seems like it could be an easy solution right now and the Applicant is being neighborly about this and agreeing to additional conditions on the permit to appease the neighbors. He noted there are endless conditions they could put on it so the neighbors feel comfortable he will use the dock for the purpose he wants to use it for. McCutcheon said he did not hear from Ms.Fames about what she thought of the shared dock solution. Ms.Fames said the information delivered to her was late on Friday and she has spent 24 hours a day trying to pull something together. She said absolutely not. In the packet she delivered, it is not even feasible and the space does not even allow for two boats with one dock and/or two docks. Bollis stated it appears that it would require a variance from LMCD for that dock. Ms. Fames noted all the traffic,the drainage area that has been tampered with, it is full trees there on both sides which she showed pictures in her packet. There will have to be surveys, trees cut down, damage to the island, and it just seems a bit much when there are still so many other empty lots. For 35 years there has been the same amount of empty,vacant lots. Perhaps a lottery when somebody turns it in to amend the language. Bollis clarified Ms. Fames' short answer is no, she does not like it. Ressler is not entirely in disagreement and thinks what the Commission has ahead of them is addressing how the City would like to grant access to all of these inland lots. It is not going to stop here and he thinks there are other considerations here. If they take out the water and were looking at this as if it were a road accessed lot, it would also be difficult to figure out how to provide access because there is no road there. Ressler thinks it is prudent for the City to decide how they want to handle all of these inland lots. One of the public comments was about a fire—the more structure they have out there besides the fact that it would take away trees which the City is generally opposed to—they are also creating a fire hazard with the more habitation and structure there is,the less ability there is to extinguish that structure and the greater risk of losing that structure as well as the rest of the island. These are his concerns as they talk about developing these inland lots which are generally not even accessible and that is probably one of the reasons why the price tag is what it is. He said of course the property owned by Three Rivers would be a great alternative to provide some dockage for inland docks and he understands that Three Rivers is not in support of providing an easement for that. He does not know if that resonates something on its own. Ressler said before they make it easier to access these inland lots,they need to address the additional use and access of the inland lots. He does not know that they will be able to decipher that tonight. Once they get through that,then they have to talk about lot sizes and what the building envelope is. Being able to provide private sewer and septic or well becomes a concern,they have minimum setback requirements, reasonable access requirements, and there is a lot to unpack. He personally feels this is an issue they need to figure out but Page 12 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. he is not sure they can figure it all out today. He noted they rarely do this but he would almost rather table this so they can have a City work session. Curtis noted that is an option. There has been a lot of feedback and public comment tonight and she still believes the City Council is the decision maker and should be holding that conversation between themselves and the issue. She said if the Commission is going to table it, she thinks they need to have a good reason to table it, and a direction to go. Otherwise, Curtis thinks they can provide their feedback and comments and move it forward to the Council for their analysis. Gettman moved,Libby seconded,to deny the application as is. Gettman moved so as to move it along and have the City Council then send it back to the Commission or have a workshop. Barnhart thinks it would be appropriate that the Commission recommend that the Council direct Staff to examine a more comprehensive solution that could be reviewed. Gettman amended his motion. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to deny the application as is, including Barnhart's additional comments and the feedback that has been provided. Erickson is in favor of tabling. The subject matter demands a comprehensive approach and he can think of more things to avoid than to positively strive for at this particular moment. It is a conflict subject,and they have many property owners here,each with their own view. One thing the Commission needs to remember is at the top of the pyramid of priorities for land use is the Comprehensive Plan; in looking at the Plan and many portions of the ordinances as well, the phrase "preservation of property value" comes up over and over and over again. It is a very basic part of the code. Part of that overall, they want to make sure they are not doing or suggesting anything that would detract from someone's value, so the Commission needs to preserve whatever they can. Also, there is often a chance for improvement where property values can be improved. He said they need to be very careful how they do that, keeping in mind that there are some changes and many people are resistant to any change. However,the City is involved in some very positive changes on the east end of Big Island in improving trails,access for the handicapped,and so on. From what Erickson is hearing about these trails, one has to be pretty athletic in order to get there and as one is there they may not even know if they are on the trail or on someone else's property. If some modest improvements were made to mark the trails and some minor grading done to make it more walkable,that would be an improvement to him but perhaps not to everyone. He thinks tabling is important. Ressler noted that was his perspective as well,this one is a little more complex and has a lot more moving parts and he is generally opposed to tabling as well. If they table, that gets them back together as a Commission before going to the City Council. Because there is a motion to deny on the table,if that passes, it would go straight to the City Council. If the Commissioners are comfortable with that,they should vote as such and if they are not,they would need to table it. McCutcheon thinks City Council wants to know as that is the Planning Commission's job. He thinks they are all on the same page in needing to look at this holistically and where they want to go. He does not know the entire history of the island and at first glance there is a property owner who needs access to their lot,he understands that people do not want new docks in front of their lots, some of these lots are very small, and Page 13 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. what can one really do with them. There is a history of all the different access points, and it needs to be looked at holistically to find a long-term vision of where this will be 20-30 years from now so residents do not need to keep going through the emotional—they saw what happened today—there is a lot to unpack here,the Commission should tread lightly and be cautious,and get all the data. McCutcheon would support denying it just to get it in front of the Council and go from there. Ressler asked Staff if the Council decides they want the Planning Commission to weigh in further on the issue, do they have the right or ability to do so. Curtis replied yes. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1 (Ressler),Abstain 1 (Bollis). 3. LA21-000018 GLENN SOLIE, 3500 BAYSIDE RD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Nancy Solie,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a bathroom including a shower in an accessory building to be constructed. Staff recommends approval pursuant to the standard conditions for CUPs for plumbing. Nancy Solie, 3500 Bayside Road,noted her husband Glenn had to catch a flight and the Commission may know more about it than she does. Ressler noted it is pretty straightforward,they have seen it before. Ms. Solie noted they are not planning on renting it out, it is just in the backyard. Curtis clarified it is a gym with a bathroom. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve LA21-000018,3500 Bayside Rd,Conditional Use Permit as applied based on Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4. LA21-000019 TODD ZIESMER, 3440 BAYSIDE RD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Todd Ziesmer,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)to allow honey bees on their property. Planning Department Staff is recommending approval. The definition for farm animals includes honey bees and farm animals require a CUP in the LR1A district meeting City code standards and those conditions are lot size and setbacks. The Applicant is proposing to have 2-4 hives with a maximum of 6. City code is silent on number of hives allowed. The Applicant has Page 14 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. been coordinating with the University of Minnesota bee squad to find the best fit appropriate for their size and location of property. A narrative is included in the exhibits with additional information from the Applicant. Regarding setbacks, one of the conditions for the CUP is that all animal structures are required to be 75 feet from all property lines and 150 feet from adjacent homes. The Applicant submitted a site plan indicating all these setbacks are met with the proposed location. Another requirement of the CUP is that 1 acre of their land is dedicated to dwelling and 1 acre is dedicated for each animal unit. This is just over 2 acres in size so Staff feels this is met. All conditions outlined by the City code are met with no adverse impacts anticipated for the use of hives and honey bees. The Applicant submitted comments of support from the neighbors and the issues for consideration,if the Planning Commission finds it necessary to impose any additional conditions in order to mitigate any potential impacts by allowing this CUP. Ressler clarified this is a CUP, setbacks are being met per code, and there is support from the neighbors. Oakden replied that is correct. Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road, said it is very straightforward, no variances, everything complies, and he is looking forward to his new hobby. He sent out letters introducing the project to 8-9 of his neighbors and has received very positive feedback. One neighbor had just a few questions and the primary concern some have about bees is them being a nuisance. He wants to clarify that honey bees are very different than wasps. Honey bees forage on natural plants, nectar, and pollen, so they will not be bothering the hummingbird feeder, oils,jellies, and when sitting outside honey bees stick to the flowers and the plants. Mr. Ziesmer noted they are amazing and he and his wife have been contemplating it for a couple of years. They are enrolled in the University of Minnesota bee squad online program and it is very fascinating. All neighbors that have responded have said they are looking forward to the bees helping out all of the gardens and flowers. Erickson noted Mr. Ziesmer may want to go up to 6 hives and asked if he would be comfortable with a limitation of not more than 6. Ms.Ziesmer would be fine with that,yes. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. The neighbor two doors down Ms. Solie, 3500 Bayside Rd, noted she received the letter, she is totally in support of it, and thinks it is fantastic. She is very much in favor. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Ressler said setbacks are met, neighbors are in support, and there is a recommendation from Erickson to limit to 6 hives which he thinks is smart because if it turns into a larger operation the Commission can revisit it. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000019, 3440 Bayside Rd, Conditional Use Permit with the recommendation of a cap of 6 hives. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 5. LA21-000020 JACOB BROWN, 4085 WATERTOWN RD, VARIANCES (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Page 15 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Jacob Brown& Stacy Kromenhoek,Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a lot area, lot width, front yard setback, and side yard setback variances to allow for a new home on 4085 Watertown Road. The Planning Staff is recommending approval on these requested variances. Currently the property has a non- conforming single-family home which is outlined on the survey on screen. The property is non-conforming. With respect to area,it is.64 acres and measured at the road is about 93 feet wide. This is the RR1A zoning district which is a five-acre zoning district, and 300 feet in width. The Applicant noted overall height is roughly 35 feet from final grade to peak height, following the City code calculations for defined height, Staff has actually calculated the proposed height of the home to be 28.3 feet so it is meeting the height requirements of City code. Oakden said the Applicant has identified practical difficulties,the overlapping side yard setbacks,as seen on the survey there is a 50-foot side yard setback and she showed from the north side and the south side completely overlapping, eliminating that building envelope. Oakden noted the substandard lot area, lot width, and there is also quite a bit of slope in getting to the narrow part of the property. Staff agrees with the Applicant's findings of the reasons for practical difficulties. The Applicant is proposing to move the house further away from the front yard setback than the existing home footprint and working to bring that home closer into conformity. The existing home sits about 21 feet from the road and the Applicant is proposing a farther setback of 35.4 feet from the road. The required front yard is a 100-foot setback. The Applicant worked to find a narrow house design of 28 feet in width to try and accommodate some spacing and side yard setbacks, closely maintaining that existing house footprint. The proposed home was designed to create as large setbacks as possible and the Applicant is requesting 19 feet to the property line because of the proposed deck stairs, and 23 feet to the west property line and that is measured from the closest point(noted on screen)due to the strange configuration of the lot with the small jut-in on the property line. Lot area and lot width variances are because the lot is substandard in the new house construction. Staff found supportive findings for the proposed variance included in the memo. The Applicant submitted letters of support from the two abutting neighbors. Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area, lot width, front,and side yard setback variances. Ressler noted the zoning is what is making this a bit of a rat's nest as there is 19 for one side setback and 23 on the other;they are going to 35 as proposed to 21 right now for front yard setback. Oakden stated that is correct. 21 was the existing house and 35 is the proposed house, so they are bringing the house slightly farther back away from the road. Ressler said improving the position. Oakden replied that is correct. Stacy Kromenhoek and Jacob Brown, 1025 West Cove Lane. Mr.Kromenhoek thanked the Commissioners for voting for the bees- as future neighbors in that area they are thrilled to hear that. She also thanked the City Planners who were immensely helpful as this is a very difficult process and they really held the Applicant's hands. As the Commissioners see they have a very unique lot, she is difficult but quite pretty and they are trying to make a best attempt at meeting all the setbacks or at least improving their compliance to the setbacks. They chose a very narrow house design that would probably fit within the room they are standing in now and pulled it as far back off the road as possible. They also tried to reorient the house—it was sitting at a funny angle on the lot—so they could get equal setbacks on both sides. They have met with the neighbors and spent a considerable amount of time talking with them and let them know they were trying to make it equal on both sides. She noted it is about 22 feet on the other side except for those stairs Page 16 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. and they were all amenable to that. They also received an additional letter of support from the neighbor across the road,the owner of Dandelion Farms. They also intend to build the home to make it fit the flavor, character, and charm of the neighborhood. It is a very rural, residential area and the home they chose reflects that farmhouse style as well and really complements the neighbors' designs. Ms. Kromenhoek noted they read through the Comprehensive Plan as it was important to her to understand what was expected and she thinks they have made all best attempts to meet the variances and the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Ressler noted they have an existing condition that is being improved as far as front yard setbacks,side yard setbacks are reasonable and are just being triggered because of how it is being zoned. They have support from the Staff. He asked if there is anyone opposed to the application as presented to the Commission tonight. McCutcheon replied no and it is a pretty conservative house footprint to be honest. Ressler agrees and thinks they have approved different things more aggressive than this. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000020, 4085 Watertown Rd, Variances as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 6. LA21-000021 JOHN NEWELL, 1485 6TH AVE N, PRELIMINARY PLAT (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) John Newell,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. In front of the Commission is a proposal for a three-lot subdivision to take the existing 24-acre parcel, split it into three buildable lots and one outlot for a road. This project was the subject of a sketch plan about a year ago and the project is fairly consistent with that sketch plan. Barnhart highlighted the access for the project would be off of County Road 6 and Hennepin County has provided some comment as to what they would like to see in terms of additional right-of-way. It seems to him that they are accepting the location as proposed,though they may require some work near the right-of-way to preserve a site visibility issue. Staff supports the project subject to Hennepin County approval of the access. Staff has also reviewed it from a City Engineering standpoint and provided some commentary in terms of additional changes primarily related to storm water management. Staff recommends approval subject to those conditions also. All three lots will be consistent with the City's zoning ordinance in terms of lot area and lot width; all three lots have adequate sites for a new home in character with the neighborhood,and for two septic sites located for each lot. Staff suggested that approval would be subject to identification of those septic sites. Each lot will be served by an on-site well. During the sketch plan process the Commission had some comments about connecting to the sanitary sewer. Staff does not recommend it as a requirement, although it is certainly feasible, because it is not immediately adjacent to the property. Generally,they require sanitary sewer to be immediately adjacent to the property before instituting a requirement to connect to that. Each lot meets the minimum size requirements for dry buildable area and meets the lot width requirements in terms of the requirements for the zoning district. For Lots 1 and 3, the measurement will be off the new road outlot A, and Lot 2 frontage will be based on the distance at the building setback and does meet those requirements. Staff has asked for confirmation for Page 17 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. that number,as Staff's computation came out above 235 feet and they would like verification for that. The Applicant has provided a storm water management proposal that the City Engineer provided comment on; they also expect the Watershed District to provide some additional comment. There are a number of basins or infiltration areas scattered throughout the development and the unique feature of this project is that throughout the area is Long Lake Creek which is a tributary to Long Lake. That water has been identified as impaired and is part of the strategy of the Watershed District to improve water quality of the Long Lake Watershed District. Barnhart would imagine the Watershed District will have some comments coming in terms of recommended conditions so Staff has tagged on to those and suggests approval subject to the Watershed District comments as they complete their review. The project provides a landscaping plan based on the length of the road. Previously in the City's rural areas,they have tried clumping of trees rather than a suburban, tree every 40 foot on center, and the plan reflects that goal. Planning Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to four conditions: 1. City Engineer comments 2. Hennepin County approval 3. Watershed District approval 4. Confirmation of two conforming septic sites for each lot. John Newell, 1485 County Road 6, stated they have hired someone to come in and verify those two septic locations on both lots and that has been done. There are some hoops to deal with regarding the Watershed District and Mr. Newell is working with them at this point in time. They have requests for an easement across Lot 1 in order to be able to access the pond; he has already given them full access and he thinks it was applied for back in 1995 and never followed through on. Mr. Newell thinks the documentation is already there and he does not believe that will be an issue. Mr.Newell is a landscape architect so the first thing he did when he bought the property was to machine-move trees, so they already have a regimented landscaping appearance to it which he hopes will conform. He knows that will have to be determined once they have that plan in place. Bollis asked regarding lot width for Lot 2,was that a question? Barnhart replied the comment was that Staff just wanted confirmation that it was over 200 feet; his math shows that it is over 200 feet and he just wants confirmation from the surveying company in the final drawing. Bollis assumes the easement for the Watershed District is through Lot 1 at the end of the cul-de-sac. Barnhart replied yes. Bollis asked if that will eat into any of the dry buildable on Lot 1. Mr.Newell replied it shouldn't;there is already an existing easement or entrance there that he planted off as much as he can leaving about a 45-foot path to be able to still get access in, which should allow just about any kind of dredging. He believes that is the reason they want to be able to get back in and clean that pond should it silt-out.Mr.Newell noted they just examined it last year and when he spoke with Heidi there were no plans to do any type of work, except there is one thing up by the dam that they are proposing. Bollis asked to clarify that it is not an access easement, but more of an easement to do work within that wetland. Page 18 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Newell replied that is correct...it is so they can get into that pond. Barnhart said to be clear,he does not know what the full intent is for that property or easement and that is why they are deferring to their comment. Mr.Newell stated their intent, once they clear the mortgage, is to actually donate all the wetlands. So,the property that is directly below Lot 3, those wetlands and the pond would be donated to the Watershed District. Gettman asked to go to the second to last page of the packet showing the lots that border the lake. Mr.Newell noted they do not border a lake. Gettman understands that. He noted on screen the area below the blue line and asked if those are three separate,oversized lots that have houses on them;how will they be affected by the wetlands area. Barnhart does not understand the question. Gettman noted it is for the Applicant and he is trying to make sure he understands what Mr. Newell is talking about regarding the wetlands; is the area that has the house right now below that or south of that or is it the area west of it. Mr. Newell said it would be north of his house, pretty much due north. It is really where the creek runs through the property. He clarified it would be the pond and the entire marsh area. Gettman noted those three properties to the south,those are not Mr.Newell's properties. Mr. Newell replied no, there is an easement driveway-wise to access those two lots, the point and then Megan Dayton's home;those two lots at the point. Gettman was trying to clarify that those two lots will not be affected by this plan. Mr.Newell replied no,they will still have that same access through the same driveway. Ressler noted the application as proposed is not to donate those wetlands so it is still intact based on the application in front of the Commission. He appreciates the color and the clarity as well. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Ressler noted the Commission has seen this before and has feedback from the past they can memorialize if necessary. There were some changes recommended and Staff noted the previous feedback was supportive of City sewer,but that it is not required. Barnhart stated previously the Commission suggested it, Staff notes that it is an opportunity but does not recommend it as a requirement. Page 19 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler noted Staff recommendation is for approval and Lot 2 is the one they wanted to clarify on record as a condition to verify the width is 200 feet. Barnhart replied yes. Bollis moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA21-000021,1485 6th Ave N,Preliminary Plat with Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 7. LA21-000022 ALLIANCE BUILDERS, 15 STUBBS BAY ROAD NO/ PID 32-118-23-34-0006, VARIANCE (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Efim Shukalovich,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Ms. Oakden noted the Planning Commission saw this property not too long ago. The Applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance and Staff recommends approval. This property received lot area, lot width and side yard setback variances in December 2020 (LA20-000071). That application established an 18.2-foot setback to the north, and a 15.5-foot setback to the south property line for side yard setbacks, addressing the neighbor's comment to create maximum setbacks to the north at that time. The Applicant recently purchased the vacant property and is proposing to place the new home at a similar front setback as neighboring properties have and as the previous house footprint had but does encroach into required setback areas not previously approved. She said the Applicant is maintaining the same side yard setbacks but it a new house footprint so it is a new volume and house footprint within those required yards. The Applicant is proposing a rambler style home with a walk out basement. The new application is maintaining the side yard setbacks but a new home footprint within the setbacks is being proposed. That new footprint within the required yard is the trigger for the Commission's re-review and this additional variance. The property is non-conforming with respect to area with 1.22 acres and in width at 123.77 feet,where the RR-1A district requires 5 acres in area and 300 feet in width, so it is substandard. The Applicant has identified the existing lot width as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Staff fmds there are inherent practical difficulties with the substandard lot size and the building envelope of the property. She noted a lot analysis was done as well as an analysis of that side yard setback. Staff has found supportive findings for practical difficulty requirements and is recommending approval of the proposed side yard setback variances with that new footprint. She noted on screen there is an overlay where the yellow is the proposed house footprint and the blue was the original approved; the white is the overlap. Originally there was some approval of house on the side and the front and the new proposed house is pulled back about two feet from the original for the front yard, but they are proposing more massing on the north side and the south side with the wrap-around deck. Most of that additional footprint is to the rear of the house so it should not make too big of an impact from the street. The Applicant also reached out to that neighbor who commented originally and spoke with them about maintaining that setback. Ressler clarified the new footprint of the front yard setback is the trigger and asked if that is correct. Oakden noted it is the side yard setback. Ressler clarified and said they are improving the front yard setback. Oakden replied that is correct. Page 20 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler said it is a substandard lot and makes the building envelope difficult to comply. Oakden said that is correct. McCutcheon said the Applicant reached out to the neighborhood and the neighborhood was fine with it. Oakden believes they reached out to the neighbor and if the Applicant is here,he can speak to that. Oakden did receive an email from the Applicant stating they had reached out and communicated with that northern neighbor. Ressler asked if any neighbor has gone on record with their feedback. Oakden has not received any official statements or signatures. Efim Shukalovich,Alliance Builders,was the initial buyer who provided the plan to the seller when he was applying for the variance. He is looking to build a house for a family, his wife and three girls. They are changing the house a little bit and moving the deck from the back to the side and that is the house they have come up with. He hopes for approval. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Kirchner appreciates that this has been pushed back a bit from the front and it does not look like,where he is assuming a garage would go based on the proposed driveway, looks no further forward than what the Planning Commission had originally approved. While he understands there is additional footprint towards the rear, it still appears to maintain within the original setback. Barring any neighbors concerns or public comment against it, Kirchner does not see an issue with this as it seems to conform for the most part to what they had already approved specific to the side yard setbacks. Ressler agrees and thinks the Staff recommendation of approval is prudent based on the mitigants that have been presented. Kirchner moved, Bollis seconded, to approve LA21-000022 Alliance Builders, 15 Stubbs Bay Road No/Pid 32-118-23-34-0006,Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 8. LA20-000047 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO BOAT STORAGE (STAFF: JEREMY BARN-HART) Staff presented a summary packet of information. The City Attorney has identified challenges to the enforcement of the regulations related to boat and boat trailer storage, in particular the section of the code that deals with inoperable boats and the duration that those are stored on the property. Staff and the City Council have been discussing this over the last 6 months or so to come up with a solution to address the issue of enforceability of the boat storage regulations. It quickly snowballed into whether they should really look at everything. The Council, in the direction of the Staff, primarily focused on the boat and trailer storage, to identify other glaring issues that need to be addressed, but also look at an ordinance with the goal of keeping it simple,making it easy to understand so the residents and constituents can have confidence in what the ordinance says and know they are satisfying that ordinance which is always a goal. Staff has Page 21 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. put together a draft ordinance, he provided the Commission with the entire text of that chapter for context as it includes a lot of storage in the residential area. In the draft ordinance they are just proposing some changes related to boat storage. Barnhart showed the section of the code that deals with the exterior zoning and the residential zoning districts and includes vehicle storage regulations and other things. Primarily they wanted to focus on storage of boats and boat trailers. Staff is recommending some changes that address the City Attorney's goals in terms of keeping it enforceable, removing or suggesting the removal of the requirement that it be operable conditions for the reason that it is hard to prove that, and certainly for a period of more than two years. Staff said as long as the boat is currently licensed to the owner or occupant of the property, that is what the focus is. One is allowed to store a boat on their property as long as it is licensed. Staff also recommended removing the recommended maximum length provisions;currently City code says as long as the boat is less than 30 feet in length, one is allowed to store it on their property. The question is where is that 30 feet measured—on the trailer or the boat specifically? He noted the argument is they are a lakeshore community,people are going to have boats,and it seems reasonable that people will want to store them on their property. If they are licensed,that is the primary goal there. The discussion for the Commission is whether they have any guidance for the Council as to where it is appropriate within one's lot to store a boat. The way it is drafted here is that boats and occupied trailers may be stored in any yard except for the lake yard provided that a 5 feet setback is provided. Barnhart said this is written that one can store it in the rear yard, side yard, front yard, but if there is a lake yard on the property the 0-75, that one is not permitted to store the boat there. Obviously, that would not apply to storing it in the water as the City's jurisdiction ends at the water's edge there. He welcomes feedback to take to the City Council. He noted they also took out the dispute resolution as it seems to be a dicey situation for Staff to resolve disputes in this manner, so Staff suggests removing it. Bollis is thinking about kayaks, paddle boards and things that are registered boats and watercraft that are commonly stored at the lake yard. Barnhart noted some cities have identified what watercraft is, it is not just something that will float but meets certain requirements. It is certainly something they can look at as an issue and he thinks that is a good comment. He stated some of his earlier drafts had a definition of what watercraft is and he thinks it is probably appropriate. Bollis is right, there are a number of kayaks, canoes, paddle boards that people pull up on the shore and it seems a logical location to store those. Bollis is curious as to how that would affect anybody that has a shore slide for a small fishing boat or jet- ski. If the jurisdiction ends at the water line,things that are traditionally on a shore slide instead of a dock. He thinks there might be a conflict on those. Otherwise,he thinks the changes look pretty good. Ressler agrees with Bollis. The term licensed might need to be registered,because he believes registration tabs are how watercraft are identified. He thinks about how some people have fish houses that turn into storage sheds and if they maintain their registration on the fish house, they can keep their storage shed so that becomes a bit of slippery slope with a boat. Somehow,he has an idea of someone that has a giant cabin cruiser that they are using as a guest house all of a sudden. Not a perfect scenario under any circumstances but perhaps something to be cognizant of. He understands that the operable condition is a very difficult thing to regulate and he thinks striking that language eliminates some vulnerabilities and some costs for every complaint that is issued. Ressler would like the Commission to look at some other means to measure, whether it is a timeline of any craft without being relocated or something other than the registration. He again said,picking on fish houses that turn into storage houses or auxiliary buildings. Page 22 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart thinks it is reasonable to suggest from the Commission that the Council consider changes or regulations related to fish houses and the like. Ressler said he cannot speak on behalf of the whole Commission but that is part of his recommendation. Kirchner would be supportive of that. He knows it is a stretch, but for instance someone had a watercraft fire and got it extinguished and it was towed out of the lake on to a trailer and parked in their front yard. Technically, if they went through the registration for a boat that is completely burned out on a trailer it would be acceptable the way this is worded right now. He believes the operable condition is something he would still like to see in there; it would be consistent with junk vehicle ordinances for many cities around and how that is enforced. He agrees there is a neighboring community to the south and every time he drives down a certain County Road Kirchner passes a sailboat on the side of the road in someone's yard that has been there for the last 6-7 years. He is hesitant to do away with the operational condition and is not necessarily supportive of just saying it needs to be registered because there are ways to skirt around that. Ressler thinks so too. He has an idea that may be a happy compromise. Operable versus inoperable for a boat versus a vehicle might be more difficult to prove; perhaps they could strike the language of operable versus inoperable but retain the language talking about a period of time and define that time by whether it is relocating it to a different location or lot altogether. Is there something they can use as a measurement that does not have to do with registration as that seems like an easy work around. Barnhart stated inoperable is nearly impossible to prove. To Ressler's point,the junk car is usually defined as missing key components such as tires,hood,and windshields. He thinks they may expand that to apply to boats with a hole in the hull, etcetera. Barnhart said he cannot prove that something is moved because he does not check every day. The goal is to try to keep it reasonable and simple. McCutcheon is thinking of those who are restoring a boat because it is technically not licensed yet or operable yet. He is sure that is probably a small subset and perhaps even zero but one would hate to take that away from a citizen whose lifelong dream was to retire and build a boat. Barnhart noted they cannot do it and store it outside. McCutcheon noted if one is building a 30-foot boat,not many people can accommodate that. Barnhart understands and that is part of the balance. While one has the right to develop their boat, the neighbors have a right to not have boat construction right next door for an indefinite period of time. Libby can certainly see legal counsel's reticence to do the enforcement and why it is prudent to redact some of these things and get them out of here. He tends to agree with Kirchner in regard to the dilapidated or less than sufficiently functional storage. It will still be difficult to enforce, but that and the safety aspects of setback—he cannot answer the enforcement question but considering that so many of these boat vehicles store a substantial amount of fuels on them perpetually and out of water, as fuel tanks usually do not get drained. He pays dearly to store his boat indoors and he has a couple hundred gallons of fuel in the boat all winter. If he did store it like some people would be able to do,if they redact this and take it out,that setback they are removing is a safety issue that perhaps the Fire Department would chime in on. Libby suggested seeing if they can keep the setback from the principal residence as an element of regulatory compliance so they do not have boats that can have electrical problems start on fire in the winter with a large quantity of fuel destroy a home. Page 23 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis commented on the RS district for the lake yard storage. Not to bring up Big Island, but he knows residents out there that have no other place to store their boat if they are storing on land. It effectively has to be in the lake yard. Barnhart noted to keep in mind this is for residential(R)districts. Bollis clarified this does not have anything to do with the RS? Barnhart will have to look at it closer,but immediately, no. Bollis said they are not talking cabin cruisers but some people keep their fishing boats on the shore slides in the winter. Barnhart said that is a good point and worth exploring. Ressler said it looks like they are proposing to strike the two-year mark as well. Perhaps there is a period of time recognized that says this boat has not moved for 3-4 years and at some point,the City has to have some grounds to require that action be taken. That is not going to be difficult to prove. Barnhart stated it is, actually. He has to document for 365x2 that it did not move. That is the challenge and it is in the code now two years and the intent was to capture people from improving their boat over an extended period of time,but he has to prove it has been inoperable for that two-year period. If one day it worked or floated,it is operable even though there is no engine in it. He said to capture what the main goal is, which is impact to the neighbors, the visual impact, use of property impact, and capture and try to regulate that versus throwing a bunch of rules at people that address some discomfort. That is what he is trying to balance. Ressler asked a different way. He thinks the boats they are referring to that don't move probably wouldn't be removed and floated—at least the ones he is thinking about have not moved for several years and would not even be mobile. But this would at least give some teeth to their language. Whether the City can enforce it or not would be up for debate but at least it gives an argument. He sees Curtis shaking her head. He understands how it could be difficult but if they do not have anything in there it just makes it less difficult to enforce. Barnhart said Kirchner made a point about the junk car regulation and if they somehow expand it into the junk boat, and he thinks there are some avenues there. He thinks that is what he would rather pursue than trying to identify what moving is or those type of regulations. He noted there is a legitimate and pretty well-established junk car regulation and he thinks they can find a way to expand that into a boat or watercraft scenario. Kirchner said from an enforcement standpoint he assumes it would be considered a misdemeanor violation, as most city ordinances are. That puts them into the criminal courts where they need beyond a reasonable doubt; for the City to say it does not look like it moved because the weeds are 8.5 feet tall growing through the bottom of the boat, based on personal experience it will not hold up in court and they will not get a judge to grant based on that evidence. He noted all it takes it someone to come in and say they did move it on this day, at this time, 1:00am in the morning they pushed it 3.5 inches forward. He respects the thoughtfulness that goes into this and how they make it actually enforceable and accomplish the goals. Page 24 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said before they go too far,they could have the public hearing. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Ressler hears Barnhart loud and clear. They are not trying to make it difficult to prove but also provide some protection for neighbors in the community. He thinks the feedback provided is reasonable and he is not sure they will solve it tonight. Whether or not there is a provision of time that says it has to be taken off the site, not just moved 3-4 feet or pulled in and pulled out. He is looking for something that could trigger to at least provide some reasonable doubt—that is all he is after with the time provision. Bollis' feedback is reasonable and he thinks it was heard and there is support for the lake ward setback and depending on what kind of watercraft referred to, for example a canoe,kayak,jet-ski no a rolling slide that brings it on to shore. Setback from principal structure from Libby is worth noting and taking into consideration. Erickson commented regarding vehicle storage in number 3b, item 2 in the amendment it says the vehicle must be set back 50 feet from the property line. He thinks that is generally okay but there might be an exception if there is a vacant lot adjacent to the vehicle, perhaps it might be more desirable for the owner and the neighbors to have it close to the side of the vacant lot. If the lot is vacant and there is no neighbor that will be bothered by it,it might be less objectionable to the neighborhood if it is off to that side. Perhaps if there is some way to allow for that. Barnhart can certainly look into that. He said the Commission is well within their rights to table action on this. He can come back with a revision and they can act on it in April. Ressler thinks the feedback provided is pretty good and inevitably it needs to go to the City Council to decide. He thinks the Commission is all in agreement as to what they want it to say but they do not want to make it complicated and put themselves in vulnerabilities. Based on that,unless anyone feels otherwise, Ressler thinks it prudent to keep it moving and for Barnhart to clean up and present to Council. Bollis has a question on the principal resident required(item 4b) -he is looking for clarification as it says it has to be a principal residence and no boat shall be stored on property or group of contiguously common- owned properties. He noted there are a lot of 50-foot-wide lots that are combined of three different lots and there is a house on 2 of the 3. He asked if they are saying there is no storage allowed on the other piece of the 50 foot. Barnhart thinks that is referring to a situation where it is almost a lot of record type of thing. He is not proposing any changes to that but the primary objective here is that people are not allowed to store on a vacant lot. Ressler asked if anyone wants to approve the item. Bollis would rather move to table than approve so the Commission can see the wording of the feedback. Barnhart clarified if the Commission recommends approval or denial it goes to Council. If they table it, they will see it again. Page 25 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis noted if the push it to Council there would be no public hearing for the language. Barnhart said there will not be an official public hearing,but the Mayor has consistently allowed people to speak at the meeting. Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to table LA20-000047 City of Orono Text Amendment Related To Boat Storage. Ressler is not entirely sure they will all be in agreement as to how they modify this language, but the City Council has enough information going after what the Commission is going after. That would be the only reason he would be opposed to tabling. He thinks cleaning this up sooner rather than later cleans up the vulnerability and puts it in the Council's hand to make this revision live. McCutcheon noted the Commission would probably like to button it up and get it done but since there is not a citizen waiting in this situation,he tends to agree with tabling it. Bollis said the other option would be to move it forward with the comments if they could have an official public hearing at the City Council meeting. Barnhart noted the Commission will not have another public hearing,and he cannot require the City Council to hold a public hearing when the Commission has already had one. He said up front, all 7 of the Commissioners will not like the draft ordinance. The Council has given some direction of what they would like to see and there is certainly debate in some areas, but the breadth of comments he has gotten are somewhat outside of that boundary. If the vote is to table, he will come back with something, but he is prepared to go forward with a recommendation of denial on certain aspects of it, which is fine, that is the process. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2 (Gettman,Ressler). 9. LA20-000053 DALE RICHARDSON O/B/O CBS MN PROPERTIES, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD W,CONCEPT PLAN(STAFF:JEREMY BARNHART) Dale Richardson,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. This is a sketch plan or concept plan review for a propose 40-unit apartment building located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. In 2005 this property was the subject of a proposed office condominium/townhome project. At the time there were 5 townhome office buildings. One was built in 2008 and a foundation for another was poured. The existing building was the subject of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for a daycare center and was the first activity in this project area since 2008. The property owner purchased the property in 2017 and is looking to develop a 3-story apartment structure with 40 units. The property is guided for high density residential and used to be guided for commercial; in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan the property was re-guided to high density residential (20-25 units/acre). The Applicant is working under that guidance from the Comp Plan. The building will be 4 stories including one level of underground parking with 66 stalls plus three above ground apartment floors proposed. The project is being proposed as a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and the Commission may recall last month that they do not have a zoning district for high density residential; most come through as an RPUD of which this is a permitted use. They are operating under that from a guidance standpoint in terms of the final zoning district. Barnhart's memo included analysis of the RPUD zoning regulations. Page 26 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Regarding elevations, he showed on screen access to the underground parking in the south portion of the building and noted there are three levels exposed on the back and a little bit of the fourth story adjacent to the parking garage is shown exposed. The project is proposed as a flat roof building. In Barnhart's analysis of the RPUD zoning district it requires a five-acre minimum lot size for an RPUD zone—this property is at 2.48 and is calculated based on the remnants of the original project less the existing daycare center building at the northwest corner. The Council may find this project conforms to this exception under C;the zoning ordinance has certain exceptions where the Commission or Council can support a re-zoning. The exception here that would apply is the property is located in an area where it is a transition between commercial and existing residential.On the west side of the property is a fertilizer warehouse and gas station and on the east side is a senior housing project. It would meet with that condition in terms of a transition. To the north is single family residential. Barnhart noted the main issues are the roof style,the height of the building, and the private recreational areas. The RPUD zoning district requires 10% of the gross land area of a project to be private recreation. The City has allowed a range of uses for the private recreation. Orono Crossing last month had a tot lot and some open space in the center of that project, and for a senior housing project they had a walking path and a pavilion area,they have also had an outdoor deck for other uses. This plan shows a rooftop deck over the southern portion of the project which could meet some of the private recreation area. He would appreciate any comment the Commission has regarding the private recreation area. Perhaps the biggest issue that Staff and Applicant are looking for is feedback on the building height. Historically the City has kept to a 30-foot maximum limit for building height and there is a mechanism to define that different height. This is a unique situation because the property developed in 2005 and grading occurred for that project so the building is set up for walkout basements and office buildings. Obviously, this project is not that so there is some redevelopment as part of the grading proposal. In both situations, the building is more than 30 feet high. The shortest,most generous way to review it is a 35-foot-tall building and based on existing conditions it is defined as a 41-foot-tall building because of some challenges in terms of fitting within the 30-foot limit. The setbacks are based on a minimum of 35 foot for side yard and rear yard, but also there is a clause that the setback should not be less than the height of the building. If the height is measured at 41 feet the setback should be 41 feet from the side and rear and obviously this project does not do that. The roof is a flat roof and the RPUD regulation specifies residential character by incorporating pitched or hipped roof Barnhart does not know what was predominant in 2002 or whenever the RPUD was created but he thinks the intent with a residential hipped roof is something with a residential- type scale. He looks for feedback from the Commission and noted the challenge is when adding a gable, they add a pitched roof to the building and the height only increases unless they shorten the number of stories. Staff is looking for feedback on this project,primarily site size,building height, and the roof style. Bollis asked if there have been any projects where they have used previous grade to establish the height versus the grade that is there. Barnhart cannot remember any specifically and certainly not with an 18-year difference between them. He noted across the street they did an apartment building and used the grade that is there today,not what it was before it was mass-graded for Stone Bay. He does not want to say they have never done it. Kirchner said it notes a 750 square foot deck on the third floor as well as the 2"d and 3rd floor perhaps have some recreational space. He asked what the overall square footage of amenity space is. Barnhart does not know what amenity means, it could be the lobby and not the recreation space. He is looking for feedback of what the Commission expects out of a project of this scale and they can go forward from there. Page 27 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner clarified they do not yet know if the 10%recreational area is met. Barnhart replied they do not know. Dale Richardson purchased the property in 2015, did the first development in 2017 and the road construction put a halt on the second building project. On the first level there is an exercise room, and the community room will be on the top deck area, also. It will be a rental for parties or a guest suite;he noted there is a little more footage than what they are explaining. They would fill in the back area back in so it will butt up to the original grade that it was at and will actually be lower than what the original was as it was physically cutout to accommodate walkouts because that site was originally a hill. He noted they are just trying to make it work with what they have and this is the minimum number that makes it financially feasible to do the project. The green area from the corner of the building around to the back will be a nice level area and they will use the stone they have to do retaining walls around the property. Gettman said for marketing, what ranges do they have for the different sized units,the 860 all the way up to 2,300. Mr. Richardson said the 2,300 will be a three-bedroom unit and will be a market rate for local families living on the lake who want to keep a presence in the area but do not want to maintain a home. It will be a nicer unit,post-tension concrete construction. Gettman asked if it will be$200,000-$300,000 or$400,000-$600,000 range. Mr. Richardson said bare bones construction on post-tension,the cheapest they can do is about$250,000 a unit. He noted they are not selling but renting these and to keep the style of the building that compact,the price goes way up. Gettman clarified this is an apartment and not condos to sell. Mr. Richardson said that is right, it will be built like a condo, everyone will have their own heat and air conditioning unit and water heater. It will be set up like a condo—style system and metered individually, but will be a market rate apartment. Gettman asked what rates they are anticipating the different sizes. Mr. Richardson noted they have not fully determined that yet but will be comparable to a project off 394 and 494—they range from$2,800/unit for the three bedrooms and charge for parking on top of that. Gellman said the one bedrooms would be what. Mr. Richardson said one bedrooms would be around$1,500-$1,800. Gettman asked with respect to the recreation that it will be geared more towards families. Mr. Richardson said it will be open to anybody; if someone is getting divorced and wants to live in Orono next to the schools, or if someone is moving out of their home, anyone that wants to live there. It is not 55 or older,but they are keeping it to the market rate. Page 28 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gettman clarified the target numbers are based on the 48 units and he knows City Council has pushed back quite a bit on the 3 versus 4 story scenario. Mr. Richardson noted they are basically a 3-story building but they have underground parking. He thinks when they are fully landscaped it will not look like the extra story underneath which would have originally been underground anyways. Gettman asked if they have run numbers to make this still feasible in having two levels of apartments. Mr. Richardson said they would not even consider it; it is not possible. Libby said the ceiling heights can also be a constructive way of dealing with building height and asked if the top floors are any higher ceiling-wise than the lower. Mr. Richardson replied they are trying to keep them uniform at close to 9-foot ceilings, but there are structural beams, sprinklers, electrical, lots of stuff to get in there. Libby said from the grade and elevations, is it conceivable in order to bring the overall building height to a 30-foot maximum, can they do garden levels on the main level and still be able to have the density, rental income, and cash flow they need to do that. Garden level apartments right now are renting for over a thousand dollars a month. Mr.Richardson understands where Libby is coming from. He does not want to make it feel like one is half underground on the main level. He noted the codes have just recently changed to that 30-foot level—they have always been 35 or 36 feet. He said they are not trying to exceed the old code but they were not able to do this project until this point because of the road construction project. He noted he has been in a lawsuit with Hennepin County since 2016 on it and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have gone to development, but he could not develop it when he was having problems with the County. If he could have done this right from the get-go and rolled right into it;the neighboring building Orono Woods is 45-50 feet. He is not asking for the max,but they just want 35. He thinks it is a very reasonable number to ask for, it is not in a high residential area,but right on the end of Orono and the site was elevated another 10 feet as a hill was cut out of there. If they had gone with the original plan and grading,which he did not own at the time, he does not think they would even have had an issue because they are hauling dirt out in massive quantity to get the grade into the hill that was originally there. Ressler wants to clarify the height by definition is not cut and dry,it is not actual, it is how they measure it. He noted they have been 30 feet for at least ten years or perhaps longer. He asked Staff to clarify how they measure that height. Barnhart stated they measure height through a combination of the lowest floor and where the highest adjacent grade touches the footprint of the building and then on a flat roof structure, the top point of that flat roof. For a hipped roof structure, it is usually between the midpoint of the peak and the eave. In his memo, he included some arithmetic sheets and the Applicant also provided their math of how they get to the height. There are two buildings in town that he is aware of,that are more than 30 feet,one is the building next door that was approved in 2002 and that project also received City financial assistance because the Council at that time had certain goals in mind for that property. The other one is the Stone Bay project that was approved in 2002 or 2003;again,that was approved with RPUD and the Council had specific goals for that. With any of the requirements in the RPUD zoning district,the Council can waive certain requirements. Page 29 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. In the 6 years Barnhart has been here and the 15 years before that,the Council has been pretty consistent of staying to that 30 feet. They can waive that but his advice to the Applicant and the Planning Commission is that the Council has pretty consistently held to that 30 feet and he is looking for feedback if they think it is appropriate to change that at this juncture. Libby said obviously the flat roof works in the Applicant's favor and he is interested to hear him speak of runoff and drainage with a flat roof,especially drainage away from the building as it is a different dynamic with a flat roof. He asked if there are engineering designs that have worked well in the past. Mr. Richardson stated they are working with Lux Engineering and they did the original site development on this project and also on Orono Woods. They have the holding pond on Brown Road as part of this project and are working to redesign it so the roof drains will actually go right into the storm drain system, so they will not be any runoff from the roof, at all. Libby clarified storm drain to the ponding. Mr. Richardson replied yes, it will be all internal drainage so it won't have any more impact than the five buildings they would have had. He thinks an apartment is needed here,there has not been market rate for an apartment in Orono for quite some time,he was told over 20 years but he does not know if that is correct or not. Libby noted there are somewhat limited setbacks for the building positioning and they will have limited ability to move that water away quickly, it will all have to be subterranean then. Mr. Richardson replied that is correct, and it is all there now,they have to rework it. All the infrastructure is already in...all the water and sewer. The Applicant is going to reconfigure it to their needs and take some of the surface drains out and put the roof drains right into catch basins. By making that back level, it will give quite a bit of flat area in the backyard. Libby noted there is a fair amount of grade. Mr. Richardson said it is higher behind the building right now,the hill actually goes uphill. Libby stated there is a fair amount of pitch away from the building. Mr. Richardson agreed and said it will still flow around the building and this is just a preliminary. Libby asked where the entrance to the underground parking will be. Mr.Richardson said it is from the existing parking lot,on the top right on screen. Kirchner asked if they plan to allow pets at this property. Mr. Richardson said they are not going to restrict pets, although they will not want Rottweilers in there. Kirchner understands they will have the standard pet addendum that limits breeds to some degree. His question is, looking at the structural and parking lot massing, in a complex this size, has there been any thought to a dog run or something like that. He is assuming they are going with somewhat of a luxurious Page 30 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. market rate and building some of those amenities that typically come with. With the walls in the rear and the structural mass in the parking lot he is struggling to see where there might be that type of area. Mr. Richardson noted they have a partial wrought iron fence on the back of the property and they will probably just carry that around the property. Erickson asked if the existing daycare building is going to stay as is. Mr. Richardson answered yes, and the foundation that has not been built on they will remove. He was not aware that the restrictions were 30 feet,he has built homes in the past and was always told 36 feet. Barnhart thinks the difference is the defined height versus the actual top of the building. Mr. Richardson said from what he saw in the code he did not see it actually isolated. Barnhart clarified it has been there. Bollis said regarding the overall height, he knows they measure from the highest existing grade that there is today,to the top of the roof(because there is not a pitched roof). He said it would be fair to say if they can build a two-story building here with a third story underground with a pitched roof, it may actually measure higher than what he is proposing because this has a flat roof. The reason is because they measure a pitched roof to the midpoint of the pitched roof, so that could be 30 feet and there could be another 15 feet of roofing above that. Barnhart stated the City has approved buildings that have a bigger mass impact because of the pitch of the roof. Bollis said if they throw out the way they measure the code and they were to build these two buildings he just described side-by-side,the one that the code reads measures 30 feet with a pitched roof would actually measure taller than this building and look bigger. Barnhart clarified the peak height would be taller,yes. Bollis noted that is what a person sees driving down the road or standing there—that massing. The way it is proposed,he is okay with that height variance from what the code is just because of that. He clarified he would not be okay with it if it had a pitched roof and they were asking for 5 feet above code. Ressler's only feedback is that it is a different design style, this is more of a contemporary look and they are not here to design it. Bollis makes a good point that the actual or affective height versus the peaked height and how it is being measured could arguably affect the massing and he would like to look a bit closer at that before he can weigh in on whether he would be agreeable to going above the height restrictions they have in place in the code. He knows they have been pretty reluctant to grant any sort of height variances for proposals like these,but it is a reasonable point of view to say that the actual massing is more favorable this way. It is whether or not the Commission feels that is not going to have as much of an impact. Erickson would like to support the existing guidelines that the City Council has acted on a number of times. He thinks they are trying to accomplish an architectural theme and it is a theme that runs the length of Page 31 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. County 112 in Orono and includes a certain height restriction, a pitched roof, and setbacks equal to the height. He is comfortable in sticking with that. Ressler thinks there could be a project here that could be built without having to exceed that measurement and it would certainly be nice to see what that would look like in contrast. McCutcheon noted they should probably talk about the setbacks since it is not a five-acre property, it is much smaller. Is the Commission comfortable putting that much massing on a small lot. They may talk about where those people will walk their dogs,is there any kind of playground area,or anything the people there can enjoy. The rental space was mentioned but it needs to be rented. He would like to see a little more combination towards public space or common areas besides a parking lot. Ressler asked to go to page 9 of the cumulative concept,which shows a backset view of what the building looks like from afar. He thinks that was helpful for him based on setbacks to look at it from that setting. He noted there was a proposal last month and Ressler was very much against it due to the very mild setbacks...he thinks it was 10 feet. This one is proposed at 35 feet and asked if that is correct. Barnhart believes they met the requirements of 50 feet to Wayzata Boulevard and 35 feet to the rear and the side. The proposed plans show 82 feet to Wayzata Boulevard, 36 from the side, and 35 from the rear, so it meets the requirements from a setback perspective. He clarified it meets the prescribed minimum setbacks. There is also a clause in there that the setbacks should be at least the height of the building. If they use the existing grades and measure at 41 feet or so, then they are too close to the property line at 35 and 36 feet. Ressler stated if they were to grant a variance on height that would be an important part that they would need along with that. Kirchner agrees. Erickson pointed out that directly north of this property is the sugar woods neighborhood,a very high-level, professional neighborhood and years ago he saw homes listed in there for$800,000-$900,000 and he is sure they have gone up since then. The owners are professional people and as this moves forward, they will make themselves heard,he is sure. Kirchner said to McCutcheon's point regarding the setbacks,he does have concern over how limited green space there is,with what appears to be potential drainage,manhole cover styles in the back and side yards. He would better like to understand the 10%of recreational space and how that is being accomplished. Todd Mohagen, Mohagen Hansen Architecture and Interiors, clarified they did not really think about the green space at this point. They were very concerned about the height limitation. He noted they have a surplus of parking because of what the design was previously, so they can take out parking stalls and make more greenspace.In the back,the manhole covers are just there to change the direction for the underground system and there are ways to deal with that, also. Mr. Mohagen said from a technical standpoint they can increase green space and deal with the amenity space in a very easy way. To the architects,the big thing is what Barnhart said...the height. With the sloped roof, in looking at the section that is at the bottom, he pointed out on screen the neighboring houses are to scale,it is setback,there is heavy green space in between this project and that. The scale is very appropriate for this type of lot in his experience. Page 32 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby noted they have looked at some similar projects that are different architecturally but have essentially a compound-type structure. He asked if the architect,in order to enhance the green space,to put something recreational,a family-oriented type area in. Mr.Mohagen said absolutely,yes. Libby asked if they have a future vision of screening and tree cover as this is Orono which is a very rural community. Mr. Mohagen said yes, and that is helpful for the project, to have landscaping around the project is imperative. Mr. Richardson said on the back side of the property there is a vacated easement for a future road that will not be going in because they sold Cliff Often the one section of that road. He assumes they will eventually vacate that property. Barnhart would not make that assumption but said they can certainly look into it a little more. Mr. Richardson said it is about a 40-foot section and half would go to Orono Woods and have to tot his project. Barnhart said not necessarily and it is probably something they need to dig into a bit more. Ressler thanked the Applicant and hopes the feedback was useful to the project. 10.UPDATE ON MARCH 8,2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart noted the Commission was fairly busy last month. There were a number of actions the Commission approved and most were done by consent. Approvals by the City Council:the variance at 746 Tonkawa Road, the vacation of the unimproved alley at 1121 North Arm, CUP for plumbing at 1150 Pineview, MUSA expansion for public works facility, Pillar Homes variance at 3220 Navarre, average lakeshore setback variance at 1825 Lakeside Trail, CUP for LuLu's pizza,variance at 1260 Spruce Place, CUP for the Day Nursery, Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Master Development Plan for David Weekley. The Council denied the variance at 133 Chevy Chase on a 5-0 vote. The concern the Council had was it did not seem the practical difficulties were met; Barnhart received some feedback from the Council to really make sure they look at the practical difficulties objectively and critically because that is what approvals must be based on. The Council did not support the 12 duplex buildings next to the Fire Station—they would rather see a density closer to the 3 units/acre versus the middle of that range of 3-10 units/acre. Libby was the liaison between the City Council and the Commission and a remark was made by the Council as a uniform compliment to all the Commissioners who are working hard, solving a lot of problems, and giving a lot of guidance to the Council. McCutcheon noted they do not always have to agree with Council. Ressler agreed and said just because they do not agree does not mean they are wrong. Page 33 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon stated they are still friends. Libby said the Council let him stay the whole meeting. 11.PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR/VICE CHAIR ELECTIONS Barnhart said the Chair and Vice Chair positions generally rotate every two years. The present two-year term for Chair Ressler and Vice Chair Erickson expire after this month. Barnhart is looking for individuals interested in leaving the Commission to volunteer and the Commission moving and seconding a nomination as a recommendation to the City Council. The Council would confirm the proposal or put their own in front of the Commission, similar to how they do recommendations now. Barnhart believes three of the Commissioner's terms expire at the end of March: Mr. Ressler, Mr. Erickson,and Mr.Libby. He will put their names back on for Council reinstatement at the March 29,2021 meeting. Ressler is not going to nominate or vote because of the vacating Chair,he does not want to skew any votes, and thinks it is a strange thing because all of the people on this Commission are certainly valuable for this position. Ressler opened the floor for nominations or volunteers. Libby moved to nominate Kirchner for the new Chair. Kirchner accepted the nomination and thanked Libby for nominating him. Erickson seconded the nomination of Kirchner for the new Chair. Bollis moved to nominate Ressler for Vice Chair. Ressler accepted the nomination. VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays: 0,Abstain 1 (Ressler). Ressler congratulated Kirchner and knows the Commission will be in great hands. He appreciates the recommendations and thinks all of their contributions have been appreciated, clearly by the Council's feedback and he looks forward to continuing in the future. He thanked them all for serving. ADJOURNMENT Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ATTEST:StkPlk ^ ,vr(1` Scott Kirc , Chair Page 34 of 34