Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-2023 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Chris Bollis,Commissioners Mark McCutcheon,Dennis Libby,Jon Ressler,Ted Schultze and Bob Erickson. Commissioner Gary Kraemer was absent.Representing Staff were Community Development Director Laura Oakden,City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Planner Natalie Nye. Chair Bollis 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 6,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18,2023 Ressler moved,McCutcheon seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of September 18,2023.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA22-000059 TOM RYAN,2245 WATERTOWN ROAD,REQUESTS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO CREATE ONE ADDITIONAL BUILDING SITE City Planner Curtis said the property owner is requesting preliminary plat approval to combine five separate PIDs into two buildable lots. The combined area of the property is 5.13 acres located within the RR-1B one-family rural residential zoning district. This application is not a subdivision.Rather,it should be viewed as a more formal boundary line adjustment(subdivision exception)due to the need to formally re-plat two of the parcels which are currently classified as"outlots", she said. The wooded site includes a small drainage creek which the property owner is planning to reorient slightly. Work began on the drainage creek in the Fall of 2022 without proper City permits. The work was stopped, and the applicant has been working with Staff to complete the project through permitting. The property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA);the properties will be served by private onsite septic systems. The applicant proposes to retain the existing home on lot 1.Development of lot two is not proposed at this time. The application results in two conforming lots. The City's Engineer has reviewed the plans for the preliminary plat and the applicant's request for City resources regarding the ditch. There were no substantive comments regarding the plat. The City received two comments on this project. The comments were focused on the erosion from the unpermitted land alteration and downstream sedimentation which resulted from the unprotected ditch. Staff supports the approval of the preliminary plat subject to the City Engineer's requirements. Staff further recommends that the applicant be required to remove the downstream sediment and obtain the proper permits for the drainage creek reorientation. Erosion control measures should be installed prior to the work and be maintained throughout the duration of the project until vegetation is established. Tom Ryan,2245 Watertown Road,the applicant, said he thought they had approval to start the preliminary work on the ditch.He stated the erosion was caused by the roadwork done previously on Watertown Road. The addition of curb and gutter resulted in more water flow at that area,he said,adding Page 1 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. he has been there 33 years.He has worked with the Corps of Engineers and the Watershed District to come up with a plan to mitigate the erosion. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Tom Major, 2200 Devin Lane,said he is the property owner to the south of this property so the ditch flows into his property. They have been there 37 years and had no problem until two to four years ago. Sand has raised the bottom of the ditch a foot or more.He asked if downstream effects of the project have been looked at. He said there is also a flood plain below that next to another property. The ditch is along the property line between the two houses. Heidi Hust,2225 Devin Lane,said they have been in the house almost 20 years and the road project up on the corner was a huge disaster. The silt came down and destroyed everything, she said,adding she is a professional gardener and used to take her Girl Scouts down that area and the marsh has changed so much and a delta has formed. They have lost a half a dozen trees due to standing water.It is a deep ditch and has spread out everywhere.More than grass is needed on the side. The DNR should have a list of plants that will stop the erosion. Crawdads and other creatures are gone because of the silt. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. Ressler asked if the DNR is in control of the ditch. Curtis said the area is not identified as protected so it is a City action and a grading permit is required. Staff does recommend that the applicant remove any material caused by the work done last fall. McCutcheon said it seems that when there are big road projects there can be adverse reactions and this seems like one of those situations.He said the residents were looking for more information and asked if details could be posted for the public. Curtis said that is done with road projects but this is a private improvement. The City would not be responsible,but would make sure erosion control measurers were not removed until the plan is executed and vegetation installed. Bollis pointed out the application has the review of the City Engineer and several other agencies. Ressler noted the applicant has submitted a plan that includes everything that staff is recommending. It would be better to leave this in the hands of the engineers,he said. Libby said he is in support of the staff recommendations but is grateful for the extra information supplied by the applicant and the neighbors.He said the Planning Commission does not have the engineering expertise but that this will be reviewed by the experts.There is significant expertise involved in this. Tom Major said the Commission has been mainly talking about the project.He questioned what would happen downstream. He asked who is responsible for maintaining the ditch. Curtis said staff is recommending any sediment that is a result of the work last fall is the responsibility of the applicant to remove with permission of the adjacent property owners to enter their property. She said Page 2 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. all of the sediment is not the responsibility of the applicant. She said the ditch is the responsibility of the property owners unless it has a public easement. Ressler moved,Schultze seconded,to recommend approval of LA22-000059,2245 Watertown Road Preliminary Plat with the conditions recommended by staff including removal of sediment and proper permitting and erosion control measures.VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0. 2. LA23-000050 LUCID BUILDERS,3359 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,REQUESTS VARIANCES FOR LOT AREA,LOT WIDTH, 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK, HARDCOVER,HARDCOVER WITHIN THE 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK,AND REAR YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOUSE City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating the property is substandard in size and width and has a building envelope that cannot accommodate a single-family home. Crystal Bay Road is located within the boundaries of the property. The area of the lot excludes the area of the road bringing the total area to 5,500 square feet. A minimum lot size for the LR-IC zoning district is 21,780 square feet. The width of the lot is 50 feet where 100 feet is the minimum requirement for the zoning district. The existing home on the lot is nonconforming as it relates to the required lake yard setback,side yard setback,rear yard setback and hardcover. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and build a new single-family home. The neighborhood along Crystal Bay Road has experienced many redevelopment projects in recent years resulting in the construction of many new single-family homes.Most of these homes have required variances, she said.The City Council and staff have been strict on the application of average lakeshore setback in order to preserve the uniformity of the street and preserve the neighboring views of the lake. Additionally, a 10-foot rear yard setback has been approved in previous applications. The proposed project meets the average lakeshore setback and maintains a 10-foot rear yard setback. The project also includes the removal of an illegal shed located to the rear of the house on Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority(HCRRA)owned land. The applicant has identified the property's substandard size and width as practical difficulties. The applicant added that the proposal will be in harmony with the neighborhood and the variances will allow for the construction of a modern home in a similar location on the lot. Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment.The property is substandard in size and width and unique in that Crystal Bay Road is located on the property. The existing home on the property is nonconforming and the applicant is proposing to construct a slightly larger home in a similar location. The home is in line with the Average Lakeshore Setback consistent with the neighborhood. The increase in hardcover brings the overall hardcover to over 45peercent of the lot when 25 percent is the maximum allowed,due mainly to including a 2-stall garage where a 1-stall garage exists today and the widening of the driveway in order to support off-street parking for Crystal Bay Road. The project will meet the structural coverage limitations for the site. The proposed home will be built within 10 feet of the rear property line consistent with the neighborhood. Staff finds the request for the new home on the site in character with the neighborhood and reasonable use of the site and supports the variance requests. Planning Staff noted the property cannot use HCRRA corridor for any personal improvements and a shed currently in that corridor will be removed;pervious pavers or similar material must be used for any walkways or patios and stormwater mitigation such as gutters must be installed on the property. Ressler said it looked like the rear setback was improving by 3 feet but lakeshore setback was decreasing by 2 feet. Page 3 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Nye said the City has been strict about the 10-foot rear setback but because of the shallowness of the lots there has been wiggle room on the 75-foot setback. A representative of Lucid Builders,the applicant, showed photos of the existing neighborhood and a slide with the ages of the homes from the early 1900s to 2019 and showing the hardcover in the neighborhood, as well as a photo of the shoreline with the existing home and an artist's rendition with the proposed home.He said the request is similar to other properties and in harmony with the neighborhood. Libby said the roof is about 10 feet higher than would be normal but due to a rise in grade at the back. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Brandon Bolduc, 3365 Crystal Bay Road, said he is in one of the oldest original houses on the road. He said there are several tall houses on the road but this would be the first one that would protrude out and impede the view of the lake. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. Schultze asked how the new house could impede the neighbor's view of the lake. Nye said the average lakeshore line preserves that but there is more mass in the proposed house at the front and could impede some views from the side. The neighbor would still have the same view out of the front of their house. Ressler said he supports the staff recommendations for provisions like gutters and pavers. These lots are tight and building up is naturally going to happen. This application does not need a variance for exceeding height.He said he recognizes there could be a change in how the view is appreciated by the neighbors but it doesn't seem to change the spirit of what is going on in that neighborhood. Bollis pointed out the hardcover is higher but less than the average on that street.He said he agrees with Ressler and also the safety of having room to turn cars around and go out onto Crystal Bay Rd. McCutcheon also said the height jumped out at him but it appears to be in character with the neighborhood.He said it is the toughest area for zoning in the whole City of Orono because of the small size of the lots. Commissioners said they would rather move the house back and not preserve the 10-foot rear setback and have the mass of the house further from the lake and the view of neighbors. Ressler moved,Libby seconded,to recommend approval of LA23-000050,3359 Crystal Bay Rd, Variances as applied with staff recommendations.VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0. 3. LA23-000051 KEPLINGER& KERANEN BUILDERS,INC.,2795 SHADYWOOD ROAD, REQUESTS LOT AREA,LOT WIDTH,HARDCOVER,REAR YARD SETBACK,LAKE SETBACK(LAKE AND CHANNEL),BUILDING ON FILL AND NOT MEETING A 15 FOOT FILL BENCH REQUIRMENTS WITHIN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOUSE Page 4 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. City Planner Curtis said the owners plan to build a new home on the existing footprint with a garage addition as well as other hardcover changes/improvements on the property. Their plans involve elevating the new home on fill to comply with FEMA regulations and bring the home up to modern standards with respect to ceiling heights resulting in an increase of mass within the 75-foot setback.As a result of the required fill and the changes to the structure of the home,the overall height is proposed to increase by approximately 14 feet over existing conditions. The existing home on the property is situated within the 75-foot setback from the Forest Lake Channel. There are hardcover improvements within the 75-foot setback(from the channel and the lake),and the home is nonconforming with respect to FEMA floodplain regulations relating to the low floor elevation and the adjacent grades. The applicant has identified the channel as the primary practical difficulty supporting the requested variances. Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that the existing conditions of the lot(the house elevation and location,the narrow width of the lot,and its location along the channel requiring a 75-foot setback)are practical difficulties supporting variances. Staff finds there are practical difficulties for the requested variances with the exception of the screen porch portion of the home within 13 feet of the channel. The increased height of this porch combined with the extreme proximity to the channel cannot be supported,she said.The applicant has the right to rebuild this portion of the home in-kind but staff does not find practical difficulty supporting the vertical expansion of the porch due to the close proximity to the lake. The applicant should redesign the porch to minimize the massing impact so close to the Ordinary High Water Level, she said. Ressler clarified that it will be necessary for the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to review the plan as well. Erick Hill with Keplinger&Keranen Builders,Maple Plain, and two other representatives of the builder as well as the homeowner,the applicants, said they tried to design something that fit the neighborhood and blended in with the neighborhood. They were required to raise the house because of the flood plain. The lot is on the Narrows Channel and so heavily wooded you would not see the massing.A hedge will be added where necessary,but the massing will be completely hidden by the tree cover. The porch is in about the same place and at the same level of the house as the current home,but the house is being raised because of the floodplain. There is also a peaked roof. Ressler asked if the porch roof could be changed. Libby pointed out the pitch of the roof would result in a fair amount of water flow off the roof.He asked if there were other higher-level views of the location. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Bollis said he is in favor as applied and isn't concerned about the porch. The massing isn't within any neighbor's view of the lake and they have been thoughtful about the design,he said. Ressler said they just had the discussion about going up on narrow lots and he would agree. Page 5 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. McCutchenon said with water, a flat roof would not work out well and the roof line fits the look of the neighborhood. McCutcheon moved,Ressler seconded,to recommend approval as applied,including the porch roof,of LA23-000051,2795 Shadywood Road,Variances.VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0. 4. LA23-000053 PILLAR HOMES PARTNER, INC.,3765 WATERTOWN ROAD, REQUESTS A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED ENTRY City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating the property owner is requesting setback variances in order to construct new covered porch entry and cover two other entries on the existing home. The existing home is nonconforming to the setbacks of the RR-1 A zoning district which requires a 100- foot front yard setback and 50-foot side yard setback. The existing home is situated 70 feet from the front property line and 16 feet from the side property line. The new improvements include a 43 square foot front porch over an existing stoop and two roof expansions over existing doorways.None of the entryways will protrude any closer to the property lines than the existing home. The property is not subject to hardcover or lot coverage limitations. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding practical difficulties. Staff finds the location of the existing home a practical difficulty. The existing home does not conform to the required setbacks and the proposed improvements do not extend beyond the closest point of the house. The proposed covered entries are very minimal and meet all other zoning requirements, she said. K.C. Chermak of Pillar Homes said the changes requested are pretty minimal as there is no foundation work. Water management was one of the driving forces. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Libby said this is pretty straight-forward. Staff has been diligent. Ressler said it was a better use of the property. Libby moved,Erickson seconded,to recommend approval as applied of LA23-000053,3765 Watertown Road,Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0. 5. LA23-000058 TRIPP SNYDER, 1513 BAY RIDGE ROAD, TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS a) An Appeal of the staff interpretation of Section 78-1279 relating to this request. b) After-the-fact approval of setback variances to address expansions to a nonconforming deck Page 6 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. City Planner Curtis explained that in June the property owner submitted a building permit application to rebuild an existing 16' x 24' deck, in-kind. During the construction the City's building inspector noted discrepancies between the previous deck and the deck under construction. The new deck had been elevated from the existing approximately 7-8 inches, so that the deck was even with the door threshold eliminating a step down from the home to increase safety. This small deck height increase within the ALS and side yard setback is considered to be an expansion of the volume of the deck within the setback. The previous deck did not have a guard rail. The newly reconstructed deck requires a guard rail following MN State Building Code Guidelines. The new railings would be an expansion of the existing deck within the ALS.The stair on the north side of the deck was reoriented.The previous stairs were set into the deck at the northeast corner and joined a set of stairs which were set into the grade.Due to the height increase the existing stair configuration would not be able to meet building code requirements.To address this the owner turned the stair 90 degrees toward the lake and widened the treads by 1 foot,4 inches. A second staircase against the home on the south side of the deck was eliminated and the deck was constructed to abut the home. The owner has filed two separate applications,each requiring a public hearing. The first is an appeal of the staff interpretation of the deck stair within the average lakeshore setback(ALS);and the second is an after-the-fact(ATF)approval of an average lakeshore setback and side yard setback variance for the expansion of a reconstructed deck within the setbacks. Staff recommends the Planning Commission uphold the staff. The owner asserts that 78-1279(6)permits all stairs within the average lakeshore setback. Staff position is that because the stair in question is an integral part of the deck connected to the home,and not a stair to access the lake or a dock, it is not permitted within the average lakeshore setback. Bollis restated the facts of the application for verification. He said the first public hearing would be on the appeal process. Tripp Snyder, 1513 Bay Ridge Road,the applicant, said they have owned the house since 2007.His appeal on the staff's interpretation is a reading of the code,which he quoted to the Commission. Staff interprets this section as applying only to stairs go down to a dock.He said the code in his opinion excludes deck stairs. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing on the code appeal at 7:41 p.m. p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Bolllis said traditionally in this section of code stairways attached to decks have been park of the principal structure but he tends to agree code was written to exempt stairways from the average lakeshore setback. If that is the case,they need to clarify but have no way of knowing what the original intent was. He said he intends to agree with the applicant. Ressler said he agrees the language needs to be cleaned up but he agrees with the staff interpretation of it. Libby said there have been many situations where they have applied this code and he cannot agree with the applicants.He supports the Commission's previous decisions which have been upheld by the City Council. He said they have been consistent in advising the City Council on that. Ressler said he was prepared to deny the appeal and move on to the application. Page 7 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis said the language clearly exempts stairways and doesn't say attached. He said it is poorly written as it exempts all stairways. McCutcheon said precedent has been to treat stairs attached to decks as part of the structure. Curtis said the DNR was responsible for that wording. It is meant to refer to stairs going down to the lake. Libby said he still maintains that they have certain precednets they have to work with the language they have in front of them. Ressler moved,McCutcheon seconded,to deny the appeal portion of LA23-000058 and encourage Staff to draft language to clarify the code according to the Staff interpretation.VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 1 (Bollis). The applicant,Tripp Snyder, in speaking of the request for the After-the-Fact variance, said when they purchased the home the old deck was in place with no guardrails,only a bench around the perimeter. Their initial permit application had a different location for the stairs and it would have landed on the pre- existing concrete that the inspector said was not the right size. The landing led to concrete stairs going down to a fire pit. Changing the landing would have meant changing the stairs. They moved the stairs and the new configuration caused the need for a variance.The new stairs are ADA compliant so the safety issues has been mitigated and they come down to a wider landing which is safer than the original,he said. When their neighbor's house was torn down and rebuilt the average lakeshore setback for his home was changed. Their new stairs are two feet closer to the lake than the old stairs. The increased height of the deck was also a safety issue because there was an 8-inch height differential between the threshold of the door and the step down to the deck. He said now you walk straight out onto the deck without any difference in height which is safer for residents in their 70s. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing on the variances at 7:59 p.m. Don Germanson, 1501 Bay Ridge Rd,the neighbor to the north, said they view this as a grandfather situation,not an average lakeshore setback issue. He said they saw this deck go up and it was higher and where there were three steps there are now eight or nine. This is not grandfathered, which means replace like-kind,he said.Everything should have been built in the existing footprint. They would encourage keeping the new deck within the existing footprint. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Bollis said after-the-fact variances are always hard and they need to look at it as what they would have approved if it had come before the Planning Commission as a request. There are safety concerns that he thinks would have brought the Commission to the conclusion of approving the variance if it had been requested in the first place.He said they probably would have had more control over where those deck stairs went if they had seen it in advance.He said he had no doubt they would have approved the safety concerns. Snyder said the stairs are built and attached but the deck is not completely finished.He said both decks were 16 X 24 not counting the stairs. Page 8 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis said he did not think the applicant is asking for much. Bollis moved, Schultze seconded,to recommend approval of LA23-000058, 1513 Bay Ridge Road, Variances.VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0. 6. LA23-000059 PEBL DESIGN,980 TONKAWA ROAD,REQUESTS APPROVAL OF AN AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE SIDE YARD. City Planner Nye explained the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and a side yard setback variance for the construction of a 6-foot screen wall and outdoor kitchen area. The proposed screen wall is considered an accessory structure and not a fence due to the grill, sink,and other elements that are incorporated in its design. The proposal does not meet the 10-foot setback requirement for accessory structures and is 6 feet in height within of the average lakeshore setback line where 42 inches (3.5 feet)is permitted.All other zoning requirements,including hardcover,are met. The applicant has identified the existing conditions of the property as a practical difficulty. Currently there is an accessory structure of a 3-foot-tall wall enclosing a grill within the required side yard setback.The applicant is proposing to recapture this element of the current outdoor space in their new design. The applicant has also identified the topography and extreme average lakeshore setback line as practical difficulties. The current home is within the average lakeshore setback and the neighboring and impacted neighbor is situated at a much higher grade and therefore is not impacted by the proposed 6-foot accessory structure. There is also substantial vegetation between the neighboring properties. There are some practical difficulties to support a variance to the average lakeshore setback. However, Staff does not find that there is practical difficulty to allow a side yard setback variance. Staff does recognize that the proposed taller height of the accessory structure would not impact the neighbor's view of the lake due to the difference in grade,vegetation, extreme average lakeshore setback limits and distance from the lake. However,the property owner has reasonable use of the site for the single-family home. An accessory structure of an outdoor kitchen is not necessary for the use of the property. The proposed location for the outdoor kitchen is out of convenience since there is a conforming building envelope on the site for the proposed project to meet the 10-foot required side yard setback. The applicant,representing PEBL Designs, said they were under the impression that they had removed the outdoor kitchen based on staff recommendation.He pointed out the intent of average lakeshore setback doesn't really apply because of the difference in grade and vegetation. Nye said Staff would be in favor of the variance for the six-foot wall without the kitchen. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Joe Hoffman, 1000 Tonkawa,the neighbor, said they have no problems with what the neighbor wants to do and in fact the six-foot wall would give them more privacy. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. Bollis said he was in favor of the six-foot fence as it does not impede anyone's view. Page 9 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Nye said as proposed it would be about six feet from the property line.The side-yard setback variance is not needed if they drop the outdoor kitchen. Libby asked if there would be space to move the wall so the applicant could still have the accessory kitchen. The applicant said moving it that close to the house doesn't make any sense. Ressler said he would not support a six-foot wall but a fence would be acceptable at a height of six feet. McCutchen moved, Schultze seconded,to recommend approval of LA23-000059,980 Tonkawa Road,Variance for Average Lakeshore Setback removing the outdoor kitchen.VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 1 (Ressler). 7. LA23-000054 TEXT AMENDMENT WITHIN CHAPTER 78 WHICH CONTEMPLATES THE ALLOWANCE OF RETAINING WALLS WITHIN THE SHORE SETBACK ZONES Community Development Director Oakden explained the City Council processes many variances for retaining walls within the lakeshore setback every year.The Council directed staff to review the current regulations relating to retaining walls and determine of if any amendments to the City Code should be considered. City Staff presented information to the Council at the April 24,2023 and May 19,2023 work sessions which included general background information,examples of different types of walls and wall construction,guidance from the Comprehensive Plan,DNR and other lake area communities. Currently, the City Code prohibits retaining walls within the shore setback. The required shore setback for Lake Minnetonka is 75-feet. The strict prohibition presents multiple challenges for residents who are working to repair or replace failing walls or to address erosion issues.The current regulations do not provide any guidance for best practices regarding material, methods, or screening of walls. Staff recommends the Council amend the City Code to create an administrative process and a conditional use permit process to permit retaining walls within the shore setback on properties with specific conditions.Additionally, clarification to the definition of retaining walls and elimination of redundancy within the City Code will be achieved with the proposed ordinance, she said. The ordinance would allow for an administrative permit under some conditions and a conditional use permit process for others.To obtain a CUP it would require a public hearing and professional engineering.This would include new walls or walls with significant changes. Swapping out material on an existing wall up to four feet within the 75-foot Lakeshore Setback could be accomplished with the administrative permit. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing on the proposed ordinance revision at 8:39 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. Bollis said he felt this was a needed change as retaining walls built in the 1970s are beginning to fail and new materials and techniques are now available. It would be good for residents to be able to address more of these with an administrative permit. Page 10 of 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION October 16,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Oakden said there were some additions of definitions including defining the difference between boulder walls and landscape edging. Bollis said he feels the definition needs more work because as written it could cover decorative features or create too many loopholes for walls. Oakden said the definition also includes the requirement that the purpose of the structure is to hold back earth. She said the definitions were pulled from DNR best practices. She said the commission has discussed some options for the definition and asked the Commission members which they favored. Libby said he was comfortable with the ordinance as written since it is required that the applicant use professional design services. Ressler moved,McCutcheon seconded,to recommend approval of the ordinance as drafted removing in the definition the language for two or more boulders.VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays 0. OTHER BUSINESS—Update on October 9,2023 City Council Meeting Oakden updated the Commissioners noting the City Council followed the Planning Commission's recommendations at the last meeting with the exception of reducing the size of a deck on one project at the suggestion of the applicant. ADJOURNMENT Ressler moved,McCutcheon seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. ATTEST: Page 11 of 11