Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-17-2023 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Mark McCutcheon,Commissioners Dennis Libby,Jon Ressler and Bob Erickson. Commissioners Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner and Chris Bollis were absent. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis,and City Planner Natalie Nye. Chair McCutcheon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Libby moved,Ressler seconded,to approve the Agenda.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21,2022 Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of November 21,2022 as corrected to show Commissioner Scott Kirchner was not present. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA22-000065 LESLIE OARE,2967 CASCO POINT ROAD,REQUESTS VARIANCES FROM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item, stating the applicants,along with their neighbors the Abbotts at 2941 Casco Point Road recently purchased the property situated between their lots at 2965 Casco Point Road. This middle property is formerly the Swenson property. The applicants hope to split the property and combine each portion with their lots. They also plan on keeping the existing home and detached garage on their respective halves of the property. She said the administrative boundary line adjustment can be completed by staff and recorded by the owner to combine and move the lot lines. The City Council approved hardcover variances facilitating this split and combination in November. The Abbotts will acquire the Swenson detached garage. The Oares will acquire the Swenson home. They wish to maintain the full functionality of the existing Swenson home to serve as an accessory dwelling unit under the ordinance that was adopted by the council in November. A minimum lot area of one acre is required in order to qualify. Once their lot combination is complete,the Oares' property will be about three quarters of an acre. The ADU performance standards require the principle building and ADU to share utilities. Because the Swenson home was a separate and independent property it is served separately. The Oares are requesting variances from the performance standards for the utility connections and lot area to permit this home to be used as an ADU on their property. The applicants have identified the existing conditions and the elimination of a separate non-conforming lot as practical difficulties supporting the variances. Staff finds the elimination of a non-conforming lot is a positive improvement from the lot size and average lakeshore setback perspectives, as well as the overall reduction of hardcover proposed between the three properties. Although the Swenson home is an existing condition, staff does not find practical difficulties exist which support the requested variances from the newly adopted regulations to permit an ADU. The applicants are legally able to use the Swenson home as an accessory building with plumbing, but not for dwelling overnight use.No comments from the public had been Page 1of13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. received for this application. Staff is able to support the variance addressing utility connections as an existing condition to minimize disturbance to the property and the existing utility connections. Staff recommends denial of the lot area variance for ADU use. Ressler asked if that accessory dwelling was not part of the request,would staff be supportive of the application? Curtis said the staff supports the application to combine the lots but not the accessory use. McCutcheon pointed out the City just changed the ordinances to include performance standards;for ADUs and one of our criteria was the lot has to be at least one acre.He said since it's an existing house, the Planning Commission could probably get past the requirement that the main residence and the ADU share utilities. The big conundrum for us to discuss is are we okay with the not meeting the one acre? Tim Oare 2967 Casco Point Rd. The Swenson property had a 20-foot piece of Lakeshore.When we purchased our house,we had talked to the Swensons and Abbotts and Swensons happened to live in Florida.The Abbots share the driveway with the Swenson property.The guest house is almost touching our driveway.We thought it was a great opportunity to eliminate this lake shore piece. If you look it's a 20-foot piece of lakeshore.You really can't have a dock there.We just thought getting rid of all of this and combining it in the two yards instead of three was going to be an easy solution. The house is existing the way it is.Tearing it down doesn't make sense. We are eliminating a whole bunch of hardcover to try and do this.The stairs of the lake are going away. There's a sidewalk from the house to the garage. That's all going away. So we're getting rid of all this hard cover to get down to our right size hardcover, and we didn't realize this was going to be such a big deal to make the split. When they sold their house and we built our house,we redid all the sewer lines,all the water lines to both houses. So it's all fresh,updated sewer,water lines and to combine them again would be a big,big deal. So all we're asking for is to just use the house as a house.It's not like we're renting it out. We just want to keep it as a house for guest. Right now it's a three-bedroom,three-bath house.To convert it to just a party room or storage facility just doesn't seem to make sense either. McCutcheon asked for clarification on the use of the old Swenson house as a guest house or dwelling. Curtis explained that the lot would not meet the one-acre requirement for an ADU and that the new ordinance removed guest houses and replaced them with the ADU regulations. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon noted this was the first variance request under the new ordinance.It doesn't seem like he's asking a lot but it doesn't conform so that is what we are here to discuss. Page 2 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby said the complication is that there is some precedent by the fact that the house had been used as a dwelling,so that does set somewhat of a standard. On the other hand,the lot is short a quarter acre to conform to the new ordinance. I don't see a remedy for that.He asked if there are other lots in close proximity that would give guidance on the situation. Curtis said prior to the ADU regulation being adopted the code requirement for a guesthouse use was the property had to meet twice the minimum acreage of the district. On Casco the minimum requirement is half an acre. So, anywhere on Casco where there was a property with one acre,they would have been eligible to have a guest house.Although we do have smaller lots throughout the city,a non-conforming lot won't meet that ADU standard. Libby said in the reordering of our comprehensive plan,because the City was seeing more frequency of accessory dwelling units,there had to be some changes made that made more sense. I have a difficult time supporting this because it still has a few too many elements of not being conforming. We're not here to redesign or replat. I just still have difficulty supporting this. Ressler said he thinks the staff has done a good job in laying out the issues.He said he would not support a variance for an ADU that doesn't conform to the new ordinance. But he said there is a second paragraph which may offer a solution and that is the Oares are permitted to maintain the Swenson house as an accessory building with full plumbing facilities. So as the building is currently a fully appointed home, perhaps that does point the way to some sort of pathway. I certainly do appreciate the fact that this was some time ago,this was three different owners, and now it's just two different owners, and that's certainly a step in the right direction.And so if there's something that can be done,to get them to the next step,that would be fine with me. Erickson said he is conflicted on this because he's all for cleaning up weird things on the lakeshore. The hard part is the application is for is there an accessory dwelling unit and that clearly does not meet what is needed to grant that. Even if we combined the Swenson and Oare lots together,we don't quite get to one acre.I can understand staffs recommendations,because it doesn't meet the requirements that have just been revisited and revised. McCutcheon said the hard part of the job is we have to draw a line.And when we have a line,we've got to stick the line in this one,I think,with this ordinance, since it's new.Maybe in a year's time our opinion changes as the public gives us their feedback. But since this is the first one out of the gate,I think we're going to have a hard line here. Ressler moved,Libby seconded,to deny LA22-000065 as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4,Nays 0. 2. LA22-000066 STEVE ISCHE, 3365 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, REQUESTS VARIANCES FOR AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, HARDCOVER AND THE 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating the applicant is proposing to construct a new deck and stairs on the property which will replace the current deck awning and stairs that are in disrepair. Page 3 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. The existing lot is substandard in size and width and the existing deck structure is within the average lakeshore setback and 75-foot lakeshore setback. The proposal is to expand the deck where the awning is currently which will create a new vertical encroachment into the required average lakeshore setback. The new deck will stay within the footprint of the existing deck and awning structure staying at its closest point 69 feet from the OHWL. The property is currently over the required hardcover limit of 25 percent so a variance is required. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable practical difficulties. Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment of practical difficulty being the substandard lot and configuration of the existing home on the property. The proposed deck will create a safe entryway to the home without increasing hardcover and staying within the existing footprint of the improvements.A neighbor acknowledgement form has been included in the packet but no other public comment has been received. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as applied. Ressler asked if this proposal is building like kind. Nye said it is in the footprint but is not like kind. By expanding the deck,there are some new encroachments with these railings and new vertical encroachment.But the footprint doesn't change and staff doesn't believe it would be worsening the view for the neighbors. Brandon Bolduc,3365 Crystal Bay Road said they have a deck that's there by the garage and the awning. Everything is in disrepair.The handrails are not to code. The wood is falling apart and rotting. We're just trying to make it safe and have a front door to the house and preserve without tearing down and like so many others do. We're just trying to preserve and make it practical. Ressler asked about the actual setback including the stairs. Nye said the existing staircase also protrudes a bit. In order to create a staircase that's up to code it needs to extend further. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon commented that the application does not seem like a big ask but rather an improvement. Ressler said he agrees there's not anything that can be done to make this conforming and yet it fits into what is already there.I'm in support as proposed. Commissioners asked additional questions about the design of the stairs in regard to code and how they it with the existing structure. Bolduc said the situation is just as the commissioners stated. The steps are not currently to code as the rise is too steep. Ressler pointed out even with redesigned stairs the design is still within the existing concrete area. Page 4 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA22-000066,3365 Crystal Bay Rd.Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 4,Nays 0. 3. LA22-000067 JON BYINGTON, 1270 WILDHURST TRAIL,REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DECK STAIRS ON AN EXISTING DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the application. The applicant is proposing to construct a new spiral staircase to serve an existing deck. The deck and rear addition on the house were recently approved in 2022 through an average Lakeshore setback variance. The location of the existing home on the property in relation to its northern neighbor creates an extreme average lakeshore setback line with a very limited building envelope. The staircase was not originally contemplated for this location and therefore the addition of the spiral staircase creates a new encroachment into the average lakeshore setback requiring a new variance. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the practical difficulties. Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment of practical difficulty being the extreme average lake shore setback due to the placement of the existing home. Currently,the deck is 126 feet from the OH WL. The proposed location of the stairs stays within that setback and does not create any new encroachments into the side yard.No public comment has been received and staff recommends approval of the requested variance as proposed. Julie Dejong 1270 Wildhurst Trail said the staircase they are requesting is right next to an existing porch. A deck addition was approved last year and the location of that stairway was moved further away from the backyard. The reasoning behind the spiral staircase would to be to provide easier access to the backyard without having to encroach on any of our neighbors. It will not be past the existing setback that we have and neither of our neighbors would be able to see it. It`s not a large,bulky structure. It would be within about five feet width and we are hoping that this would be approved to make the access to our backyard easier. McCutcheon asked if the deck previously had stairs. Dejong explained there were stairs but they had to be moved because of extending the deck to connect to the garage and now the stairs would be too far back. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon said hindsight is 20/20 so he would like to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt realizing that things can change during construction. He noted it is a little bit bigger footprint than they had before but a pretty subtle one. Ressler said he thinks the request is pretty similar to the last one.His feedback would be similar on this application. Page 5 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson said while the commission would like to see applications in advance things happen and he doesn't see a reason to deny. Libby said spiral staircases can be very creative problem solvers and this is a good application of that. I think this is very unobtrusive,and a method of solving what could be a much more complicated problem. I agree with staff. Erickson moved,Ressler seconded,to approve LA22-000067,1270 Wildhurst Trail,Variances as applied.VOTE: Ayes: 4,Nays 0. 4. LA22-000071 JIM HILLIER, 1224 BRIAR STREET AND 1245 ARBOR STREET, REQUESTS LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA VARIANCES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION). City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item, stating the Hilliers owned both properties at 1224 Briar and 1245 Arbor Street. The Arbor Street property is undeveloped. They're proposing to move the common lot outline between the two properties to enlarge the area with their home site on Briar and reduce the size of the Arbor property. Both properties are currently non-conforming with respect to area and width and will remain non-conforming.However,the area the Arbor Street lot is proposed to be approximately 3500 square feet larger than the existing Briar Street property.As proposed the Arbor Street property will have an approximate 2300 square foot building envelope which is reasonable for this neighborhood. On the Briar lot,the proposed change moves the defined front from Briar to Minnetonka. This results in a change to the setbacks on the Briar lot.Because the properties are non-conforming with respect to width, an area variance is required in order to complete the administrative boundary line adjustment.The applicant identified the character of the neighborhood and the non-conforming status of the lots as practical difficulties supporting their request.Regarding practical difficulty staff agrees that the proposed configuration results in a size and orientation which remain consistent with the neighborhood. There are very few properties which meet the RR1B district standards in this immediate neighborhood. Staff received a few calls from the public with questions on the application.However,no formal public comments have been submitted. Staff recommends approval of the lot with lot area variances to support an administrative boundary line adjustment. Libby asked if there are any helpful precedents for approving non-conforming lots in this area. Cutis answered she could not think of one in that neighborhood. The City has done others but they are not common. Jim Hillier 1224 Briar Street said he had no additional comments but would be happy to answer questions. McCutcheon asked about the motivation for moving the boundary line. Mr.Hillier said the motivation is to give them the ability to better utilize the Briar Street lot,because they will gain a little structural coverage and ground coverage. Page 6 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby said the commission has discussed this a couple times before and asked if there was something new, added or different from when this was discussed before. Curtis said the previous application was a subdivision request to create an additional lot. That is no longer the proposal. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Ressler said he remembers the previous request that would have created three lots. This is just re-drawing lot lines to make them two buildable and usable lots. For that reason, I'd be supportive as staff recommends. Erickson said he likes this solution. The new arrangement is clean and rectangular,not a gerrymandered thing. And also,they're a little more balanced in size than the existing. It respects the character of the neighborhood. I'm very favorably impressed with this application. Libby pointed out that the city doesn't typically support new lots that are non-conforming. Ressler agreed with that but said we're not creating a new lot,we are doing a lot line rearrangement of two lots and making two lots. You're generally going to be creating two of the largest lots in that neighborhood where few of the lots are two acres so it meets the merits of what is proposed here. If it was a subdivision,I'd be opposed. If it was trying to create another lot that I would be opposed.But we're not doing a split here.It's a lot line rearrangements. So for that reason,I'm in support. Ressler confiuliied the second vacant lot would be buildable. Libby suggested asking the applicant to comment on their future intent and what their plans might be. Hillier said they own the 1224 house and tore it down and built a new one in 2015. In 2018 they had the opportunity to buy the other lot next door. We don't know what we're going to do in the future yet. When we built the house in 2015 because of the structural coverage and hardcover we actually had to scale the house back from what we wanted to do. We wanted to have a first floor master. We want to have some other things like a patio on the south side of the property off the dining room. The planning group said no, so we shrunk it down, stacked it up put everything upstairs to meet the requirements. We're kind of restricted with the lot being as small as it is. We want to put a patio on the south side off the dining room and hardcover wouldn't meet it. We want to have a shed in the backyard because right now we store our lawnmower and stuff outside covered with a tarp. Ressler moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA22-000071, 1224 Briar Street and 1245 Arbor Street Variances as applied.VOTE: Ayes: 4,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS Page 7 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 5. LA22-000060 JOHN GRZYBEK (MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON P.A.) O/B/O WARD & DONNA EDWARDS,2474 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN. Community Development Director Oakden said the applicants are requesting some informal feedback on a proposed sketch plan for 2474 Carmen Street. Staff recommends the commissioners discuss this proposed application and provide feedback.It is an informal process. It's not a public hearing.2474 Carmen has street frontage on Shoreline Drive to the north.It is a long,relatively narrow piece of property and there is a lagoon or kind of water inlet that divides this parcel. The survey also identifies a wetlands on the northerly portion of the parcel.The parcel is roughly 1.6 acres of land. The lot is improved with a single-family home on the portion of the southern part of the inlet. The portion of the lot north of the inlet is unimproved. The property is unique in that the portion of the southern lot and the inlet is zoned LR1B which is one acre minimum.And the portion on the north side of that kind of lagoon inlet is LR 1 C 1 which is half acre, so it is a split zoning on this parcel. The applicant is proposing to split the lot into two parcels to facilitate a new building site north of the _ inlet. The applicant has not identified how they're proposing to use that northern lot or how they would access it. It is a heavily wooded lot with that wetland and there is a relatively steep grade that drops off from Shoreline Drive.A similar application was made in 2020. That application was contemplating a lot split for both this parcel and the parcel to the east at 2480 Carmen Street.At that time,the Planning Commission and the Council were not in favor because that would create a non-conforming parcel. The existing parcel is non-conforming today. This proposed sketch would create a non-conforming substandard parcel to the south and then a conforming parcel on the northern side.Planning Commission and City Council would have to support variances for lot area and lot width. The City engineer did provide some comments regarding connectivity for utilities and then County permitting requirements. They also noted the wetland in the location on that northerly lot and the potential issues with a buildable envelope.I included comments from Hennepin County from their 2020 review.If a formal application was made we'd get updated comments from the County at that time.No public comment has been made The Planning Commission should discuss if you're comfortable with the proposed variances necessary to create a non-conforming parcel. Do you have concerns with the layout?And then you should discuss the buildable area and the intent with that northerly parcel. The next item on the agenda is a separate applicant but it is the lot right to the east of this one. McCutcheon asked if there is an effort with the two applications to have a combined driveway. Libby said he would like to have the opportunity to look at the illustrations. Oakden scrolled through additional images to show some contours and some slope and potential wetland in the middle,as well as the house to the south on this parcel. There's a shared driveway connecting this property as well as the property to the east, connected off Carmen Avenue. Greg Erickson,business address 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100,Minneapolis and Scott W.Edwards, 2470 Carmen Street,spoke to the application. Page 8 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Erickson said he had done a site visit with Mr.Edwards. The smaller southern parcel is completely disconnected with the northern parcel. There's absolutely no way to access or utilize the northern parcel in any way, shape or form. It's just two parcels and the smaller one is non-conforming,but it's been in use, so it's lawful,and the larger one is conforming consistent with the upcoming changes to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Edwards said the curb cut out exists on the northern portion on County Road 15. It straddles the two lots and when that was put in back in the 50s or 60s it was with the future use of splitting these lots off. Mr.Erickson said they've been in discussions with the adjacent landowner and have absolutely no objection to the adjacent landowner's plan,and to working with them to do something that's acceptable if that's what's necessary in order to move the potential subdivision forward. Mr. Edwards pointed out the wetlands area is not actually holding standing water.It's a peat bog. McCutcheon asked if given the wetland,the lot is buildable. Mr.Edwards said their plan would be if there was a single-family residence it would be between the wetlands and County Road 15. There is over a half-acre of buildable land that is not wetlands,according to our survey, McCutcheon also asked about a grading plan. Mr.Erickson said according to the staff recommendation, there would need to be some sort of grading to get a flatter view of the cross street for safety purposes. McCutcheon said there was no public hearing tonight and asked the commissioners for discussion.He pointed out there would be a non-conforming lot and as a commission,we just said we're not in favor of that. Libby said from a historical perspective these were considered and were platted as two lots a long time ago.It's a very pretty setting. I honestly think that the highest and best use of this would be the divisions that I've seen proposed by the two applicants,I would support that.I know that it doesn't really necessarily conform to the second lot size status that we would like to see.But again,that's that uniqueness. I think we need to look at this as a very unique and unusual circumstance and that we just need to be as open-minded as we statutorily can be to the applicant's desires for the highest and best use of the land. Erickson said the proposal fits the character of the neighborhood.As we have seen in other locations, like Forest Lake and other places, it makes sense to have the lot line even extended into the water,because there are those times when the lake will be low again. In'92,it was down about three feet from the ordinary high water,and then the 1930s,it was down about seven feet below the ordinary high water. Hennepin County's first choice for access to the northern part would be an easement going eastward to County 19,which does not have the huge traffic numbers that County 15 has. So that would be an ideal Page 9 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. solution from their standpoint. He said according to oral history there may have been a lot of debris or junk dumped in part of that north area at some time years ago,but we have not seen any soil tests that would either confirm or deny that. Commissioners discussed whether rezoning the property would be a good recommendation. Oakden said rezoning would require an application process to amend the zoning maps. Libby mentioned the significant changes in grade on the property. Ressler said he thinks the correct approach would be to change the zoning. He does not support creating new lots that are non-conforming. He also questioned whether the city would have jurisdiction because of the wetlands and LMCC's rules and regulations along with the Corps of Engineers and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Libby pointed out this property was discussed as part of the 2040 comprehensive plan but there was never any action. To find the highest and best use,again,it's purely subjective. I think that the highest and best use of this land is to have a lot division. So that there can be I guess,four lots to the north and to the south.But again,that is a subjective opinion, with some extra knowledge of history of the area. McCutcheon said he thinks everyone can agree that Shoreline Drive is very busy.I don't think the citizens would be too crazy about having another entry under that road. He also discussed protecting the wetland on the property. 6. LA22-000069 BRETT LARSON,2480 CARMAN STREET,SKETCH PLAN. Oakden said this application is similar to the previous one. They're requesting to split their lot.Again, it fronts on Shoreline Drive and it's a long,narrow lot with that lagoon. This parcel is slightly larger;it's roughly 1.85 acres of land.The lot is improved with a single-family home on the portion that is currently under construction. In 2020,it was an older home. They have since applied for a new home permit,and that's under construction today. I believe on the survey it's calling out the footprint of the original house to be removed. The northern inlet on the north side of the lagoon is unimproved. The property is unique with,again,the split zoning LR 1 B or a one-acre minimum to the south and LR 1C one half-acre minimum to the north.Again,it's heavily wooded with the grading drops but less impacts of wetland on this parcel.The applicant's goal is to facilitate a new building site on the north of the inlet.And similar to the 2022 application,they are proposing the north lot would be conforming.The southern lot would be non-conforming. The existing parcel is conforming to the zoning district. The proposed northern parcel is the half-acre minimum and would propose to meet all the zoning requirements.The proposed southern parcel in the LR 1 B district would be substandard in area so there still is not enough land to meet the LR 1B zoning district.Planning Commission and Council would have to discuss if they are in support of a lot area variance to create a new non-conforming lot. This one has the same engineer comments as before including the discussion of connectivity and then County permitting requirements with access to Shoreline.Are you comfortable with a proposal that includes variances to create a new non-conforming Page 10 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. lot?And then do you have concerns about any layout regarding Hennepin County and the engineers comments for access?You are asked to discuss and provide feedback to the applicant. Brett Larsen,2040 Carmine Street and Mark Gronberg,Gronberg and Associates,Long Lake, appeared as the applicants. Mr.Larsen said he and his wife are building a home on the southern portion. On the northern portion we've looked at a few different things. We've talked about a few different options,including putting commercial on the northernmost part,and residential on the southernmost part.It is all buildable;there are no wetland issues.After working through the options with Mark,it gets kind of tight when you're trying to create an easement or a roadway between the two. So the plan would be to have one single family home, one lot,one single family home on that lot. Mr. Gronberg said they looked at putting a shared cul-de-sac with both properties but it takes up too much area and the setbacks are onerous.We're certainly in favor of a shared access between the two properties so that there's only one there.And I think like Bob said,right in,right out.It makes a lot of sense on a busy road like that.A couple other things, looking at your 2030 land use plan,it shows that it's two to three units per acre. So we're certainly in favor of doing a rezoning here to get that maybe before the 2030.But another thing I wanted to bring up is back a couple years ago we had a neck going up to a 25 foot strip that went up to the north,just to make the dry land on that southerly lot over an acre.And then the northerly lot was still 100 feet wide.It seems stupid to have a 25-foot strip up there that they could never use,but it did technically meet the requirements. McCutcheon said he appreciated that the applicants are willing to work with the landowner to the west because it really looks like it's going to be a compromise between both parcels. Libby asked if they have pursued looking at an egress from Kelly Ave. Mr. Gronberg said it sounds like a good idea but who knows if those owners would be willing to give up access there. And then Brett would then have to give up access across his property to the right property of the West. Mr.Larsen said they work through the City with building permits, and wanted to be can-do. We didn't ask for a variance. We tried to do everything outside of the setback. We had to scrap the existing house,fill in the foundation and do a new foundation in order to accomplish all that.We did have the same approach here.I've talked to Scott Edwards.We've talked about sharing that curb cut,if that makes this easier to do. Our strong preference would be to work with Mr.Edwards to find a way that we can access 15. And we have spoken with the LMCD,and they are telling us that a dock is doable. Erickson said as a point of information,reviewing the previous comments from Hennepin County a couple of years ago,the question was raised about the right-of-way for County 15.Hennepin County might want possibly another 12 feet of right-of-way,which then in discussing that,they also pointed out that they didn't want to see any retaining walls are along that stretch of 15 for sightline visibility. Page 11 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Oakden said the County had asked for a 45-foot from centerline and now it's 33 foot so they'd ask for additional right-of-way,and that they wouldn't want any structural improvements in that right-of-way, like retaining wall.A new retaining wall would have to go within the parcel itself,not within the right-of- way space. Mr.Larsen said when they had the home design for the new home on the southern portion,they asked that the architect ensure that the hardcover minimums be met, even after the lots are separated. Oakden explained hard covers and structural coverage is commonly accounted by lot total. The applicant is saying that when they rebuilt their house, or when they put in for their application,they made sure that their hardcover and their structural coverage totals would be met with just the southern portion as a standalone parcel. So that if they were to divide off the north,they'd still be in compliance,and they wouldn't be creating new, additional non-conformities regarding hardcover and structural coverage. Libby asked having dealt with turnouts,turn lanes,and driveway aprons as much as you have,would you anticipate them?If there was a feasibility of an egress from County Road 15,that there would be a necessity for two? Mr. Gronberg said usually for two houses,they aren't that particular,but they'd have to work through it with them.They may want a short little deceleration lane and a short little acceleration lane. Ressler said he'd like to answer the applicant's question on the hardcover.We don't want to have three non-conforming lots if we're talking about the adjoining property.In terms of zoning right now are those northern lots even technically also zoned commercial? Oakden said they're zoned residential.LR 1C one is a residential zone. Ressler said if it was for the higher density,then they would still be creating a problem because they'd be asking for one non-conforming lot.The whole idea would be, let's get the zoning corrected to the spirit of the neighborhood and then create conforming lots.And by doing so,then you would be able to do that. McCutcheon asked if we were to rezone the northern parcels as LR 1B, does that help instead of having lots of variances with this one to make it as is it? Oakden said LR 1 B is a larger zoning district, one acre minimum.Right now,with the split the LR 1 C 1 is the half-acre lot minimum.With the split at the lagoon,the LR 1 C one meets the half-acre needed, but then that leaves the southern lots not being an acre in size. So that's the creation of a non-conforming lot on both applications. Libby said he thought the discussion had been very healthy,especially with applicants in-house.I think that bringing this back to us and talking is kind of what we're here for. We can't always do a vote.But we can always give our input. So I feel gratified that we had this time to spend. Page 12 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon said he felt if they're going to change something, let's do it the best fit that checks,the most boxes that we've talked about here,whether it's the access to Shoreline Drive,the buildable areas, wetland, easements,all these sorts of things that we talked about. I guess we'll end the discussion there. OTHER BUSINESS—Update on JANUARY 09,2023 City Council Meeting Oakden updated the Commissioners noting there had been a few City Council meetings since the Planning Commission last met. She said the Council had approved all the applications the Planning Commission recommended for approval that have come to the council so far.In addition,the Council approved a variance for 3830 Cherry that the Planning Commission had recommended denying,but only after the applicants made changes in the proposal based on Planning Commission feedback. She said from an administrative standpoint she will be reaching out to commissioners whose terms are coming to an end to invite them to reapply if they are still interested. ADJOURNMENT Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting.VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. ATTEST: Mark cCutcheon, Chair Page 13 of 13