Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-20-2016 Planning Commission MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, Chad Olson, and Loren Schoenzeit. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron,City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Members Lizz Levang and Dennis Walsh were present. Chair Thiesse opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS 1.APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 16,2016 Leskinen moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of May 18,2016,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 2.15-3763A CHRISTOPHER W. BOLLIS,200-350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH, REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT, 6:32 P.M.—6:56 P.M. Christopher Bollis, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated this is a proposed revision of the seven lot subdivision layout that received preliminary plat approval in September of 2015. The revision is to reduce the number of lots from seven to five. Access to the three southerly lots will be via a private shared driveway extending north from Kintyre Lane. The two northerly lots will access from a shared driveway extending from the existing driveway corridor serving 350 Stubbs Bay Road North. All lots will be served by individual onsite sewage treatment systems and private wells as was originally proposed in September of 2015. Gaffron displayed the current layout of the plat on the overhead. Each of the lots was just over two acres of dry buildable and had acceptable house sites. The proposal is to reduce the number of lots down to five, with the access being relocated. Rather than having an extension of Kintyre Lane, the applicants are proposing an outlot that wou(d have a shared driveway that would serve Lots 1, 2, and 5. Also being proposed is a shared driveway outlot that would serve the existing house at 350 Stubbs Bay Road North as well as a new house on Lot 4. Gaffron stated one of the advantages with this layout is that the lots are now larger, which will likely result in more septic sites being available. For instance, Lot 1 now has four possible septic sites, Lot 2 has four, and the septic system for Lot 3 is now located completely within its property lines. Lots 4 and 5 are just barely two acres of dry buildable. The applicant is attempting to preserve the grouping of trees at the north end of Kintyre Lane. There is an existing house that will be removed and the applicants would like to construct a shared driveway that will skirt the trees and preserve as many of them as possible. Gaffron depicted the grove of trees on the overhead. Rather than extending the existing private roads,the applicant's proposal would simply extend shared driveways to serve proposed homes and would not Page 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. provide cul-de-sacs. Gaffron stated per City Code, only one back lot is allowed to be served, but in this situation three lots would be served by the driveway. The Code requires 150 percent of the lot area and 150 percent of the required setbacks for this zoning district if a back lot is created. In Staffls opinion,the applicant's proposal is inconsistent with the letter and intent of the subdivision code. Gaffron stated in the 2-acre and 5-acre zones,the City only rarely deviates from the code provisions requiring a cul-de-sac when serving three or more homes. Where such deviations have occurred, identification of unique site factors have been critical in order to support the granting of variances. The applicant's proposed shared driveways appear to be only 12 to 15 feet in width. The driveway serving Lots 2 and 5 would be in excess of 400 feet in length. As proposed,these driveways would not be sufficient to provide suitable access for emergency and service vehicles. The applicant should be asked to provide a basis for the narrow shared driveways. In Staffls opinion, outside of the grove of trees,there are no other unique factors about this site that justify the narrow roadway and elimination of cul-de-sacs. Staff would recommend that the road design include cul-de-sacs. Gaffron stated the other items that are listed in Staff's memo preriy much follow the conditions that were established with preliminary plat approval last fall. The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues: L The proposed lot configuration does not meet minimum code requirements for access because it does not include private roads and cul-de-sacs meeting City standards. Does the Planning Commission find any justification for variances to allow the layout as proposed? 2.The proposed configuration results in the creation of back lots, some of which do not meet minimum back lot code standards with regard to lot area. 3.The proposed configuration creates back lots which require 150 percent of the RR-1B setback standards. The result is that for some lots the proposed house locations will not meet those setback requirements. Staff does not support the proposed configuration and recommends that the applicant be advised to consider revising the plan to provide for conforming roads and cul-de-sacs. Staff would further recommend that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to address the issues. Another option would be to forward this application to the City Council to determine whether there is any Council support for the proposed configuration. Thiesse asked if the Applicant is aware of Staff's recommendation. Gaffron indicated the applicant has had Staff's report since last Friday and likely has some comments on his proposal. Schoenzeit stated the impact on Kintyre Lane is virtually identical under either proposal. Gaffron stated the impact on Kintyre Lane is purely the number of lots that will access off of Kintyre Lane. Page 2 _ I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit noted that existing Kintyre Lane would not change in dimension. Lemke asked how long the cul-de-sac would be under staff's proposed sketch.. Gaffron indicated the southerly cul-de-sac would extend Kintyre Lane over the 1000-foot maximum but not nearly the 1500-foot length approved previously. Lemke asked if the applicant could use the same layout they had proposed previously with the one cul-de- sac and eliminate the access off of Stubbs Bay. Gaffron stated they could by extending the road up to the point where all five lots abut the cul-de-sac. As a result, none of those lots would be considered as back lots but it would require some shifting of lot lines. Leskinen asked if it would still be possible to realize the objective of the applicant to bypass the trees by doing that. Gaffron stated revising the location could result in eliminating some of the trees. Thiesse noted the majority of the trees are 20-year-old evergreens. Thiesse asked what the intent of the back lot ordinance is. Gaffron stated when a back lot is created,the normal situation is that there is a front lot that abuts the one lot behind it. If there is a long, narrow piece of property that does not lend itself to being split side by side but does lend itself to being split front to back, rather than create a flag lot, a 30-foot outlot is created that goes up the side,which ends at the back lot. The issue with back lots is the ability for emergency vehicles to access that lot. The impact on the back lot would be greater setback requirements. The front lot is normally required to access from the outlot. Thiesse asked if the applicant could include the dry buildable out of Outlot A. Gaffron indicated the applicant could move some lot lines around. Schoenzeit asked why the applicant cou(d not reverse the cul-de-sac and then not go through the tree stand, but come in from Stubbs Bay Road. Gaffron stated there is no obvious reason why it could not come in off of Stubbs Bay Road and that is something the applicant would need to address. Christopher Bollis, 350 Stubbs Bay Road, stated their intent with this plan was to come up with something that is more environmentally friendly by not crossing the wetlands and preserving the trees and open space. Bollis noted the changes do not necessarily meet the Conservation Design Code but that they were attempting to save the trees. If the cul-de-sac is done with a 50-foot corridor, most of the trees will be gone and there will be a wetland that would need to be mitigated. Schoenzeit stated the app(icant will need to do it with a standard road width and not with outlots. Page 3 --_._ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Bollis stated it is their intent to go with the plan that has already been approved if this plan is not approved. Bollis indicated they are attempting to be neighborly and environmentally friendly with the proposed revisions. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Cheryl Miller, 195 Kintyre Lane, stated she is here tonight to express her support for the plan being proposed tonight. Tom Fleming, 300 Stubbs Bay Road, stated his house is screened by trees from the northerly outlot driveway corridor trees and that his concern is going from a 12-foot driveway to a 24-foot road may negatively impact the tree buffer. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Leskinen stated historically the City does not create substandard lots or back lots,which will result in the need for variances. Leskinen stated in her view it will set a dangerous precedent. Schoenzeit stated it seems odd on the surface that fewer lots is less compliant but that it is being done at the cost of the substandard roads, which is really the problem with the new proposal. Schoenzeit noted this is a clean sheet and that there is no reason to approve a large number of substandard lots. Schoenzeit stated the original 7-lot plan is not broken and that they don't need to fix it. Lemke stated he understands the desire to preserve more trees but that it will create more problems. Olson indicated he is in agreement with what has been said. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission can either table the application or vote on it and send it to Council. If the Planning Commission is going to recommend denial, Gaffron suggested the applicant be asked if he would like to redesign it or whether he would like to proceed forward to the City Council. Gaffron noted regardless of the action tonight,the original approval is still valid, and if this application is ultimately approved by Council, it would be prudent for the City to negate the original approval. Thiesse asked Bollis whether he would like to table or move on to council. Bollis indicated he would prefer to move on to Council.. Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 15-3763A, Christopher Boliis,200-350 Stubbs Bay Road North. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 3.16-3833 JOHN BOWLSBY, 1025 SPRING HILL ROAD,VARIANCES,6:56 P.M.— 7:02 P.M. John Bowlsby, Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the property owners are seeking variances in order to construct an in-ground pool within the average lakeshore setback and within the required 100-foot setback from Long Lake. The average Page 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. lakeshore setback line runs pretty much halfway through the center of the house and portions of the home are within the 100-foot structural setback. Neighboring homes are over 400 feet away and are separated from the applicants' home by existing vegetation and topographic differences. The proposed in-ground pool will have minimal visual impact from the lake and to adjacent homes. Staff provided an analysis of the practical difficulties within the Staff report. If the Planning Commission wishes,the individual criteria can be discussed tonight. Curtis noted the proposed hardcover listed in the staff report reflects the corrected hardcover on the property, including the previous approvals for the additions under construction. No other hardcover is being requested. Staff finds that the location of the existing home, which currently encroaches into the 100-foot setback, makes it difficult to make modifications or additions to and around the home. The property is large and wide, with a 23-foot elevation difference between the lake level and the home. The applicant's proposal to construct an in-ground pool on the west side of the home where previously an octagonal portion of the home existed will be 25 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and nine feet into the 100-foot setback. Due to the elevation change from the lake level to the home level,the in-ground pool will not be visually apparent when viewed from the lake. It also does not appear that the adjacent property owners will be adversely impacted by the pool. Staff finds there are special conditions relating to the existing home and property which support granting the requested lake setback and average lakeshore setback variances for the pool. Staff recommends approval of the variances for the pool. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Bowlsby stated he would be available to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Leskinen stated her understanding is that the pool is only a couple of feet into the setback but that she is not sure whether it can be pulled back any further. Leskinen stated she has no issues with the variance to the average lakeshore setback since it goes through the middle of the home. Thiesse asked how long the pool is. Bowlsby indicated it is 42 feet in length. Lemke stated the application appears to be pretty straight forward. Thiesse asked whether the septic system requires capacity for a pool. Page 5 --- MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 dclock p.m. Curtis stated it is based upon the number of bedrooms in the home and that she is not sure where the new septic system will be located. Curtis indicated the properly has ample space to locate the septic system. Thiesse asked how they will drain the pool. Bowlsby stated the water will be left in the pool. Leskinen moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3833,John Bowlsby, 1026 Spring Hill Road,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance and a structural setback variance from the ordinary high water level. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 4.16-3834 NED AND MICHELLE DAU,220 NORTHGATE ROAD,VARIANCES,LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT,EASEMENT VACATION,7:02 P.M.—7:11 P.M. Ned Dau, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing a lot line rearrangement for Lot 1, Block 7,Northgate Two, and part of Outlot C,Northgate Two. Northgate Two was platted as a Planned Residential Development in 1979. As a result,the standards for setbacks, lot sizes, etc., are established within the plat resolution. The original plat created seven single-family building pads, plus two recreation outlots, a road outlot,and a commons open-space outlot. The building pads were established with the intent that new homes could be constructed within the confines of each pad without any setback or lot coverage limitations. The applicants would like to swap approximately 120 square feet of their property for an identically-sized portion of the Northgate Two commons outlot in order to allow construction of an addition to the existing residence behind the garage. The addition also requires a variance for structural lot coverage. The applicants are further requesting the vacation of a portion of an existing open space easement granted to the City over Outlot C. The covenants for Northgate Two established an open space easement over the entirety of Outlot C in favor of the City of Orono. The easement prohibits construction of"signs, billboards, accessory buildings, hardcover or roads of any nature whatsoever, or any other structure or improvements inconsistent with the natural state of the Affected Lands." In order to avoid future issues for the property Owners,this lot line rearrangement process includes the vacation and rededication of the open space easement, vacating it from the portions of Outlot C being acquired by the applicants and adding to it the portion of Lot 1, Block 7. This lot line rearrangement does not result in new lots and therefore no park fees and no stormwater trunk fees will be due. Further, the homeowners association has been advised of the proposal and no objections have been expressed. Staff recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement, lot coverage variance and easement vacation subject to the applicants granting a new open space easement over the portion of Lot l, Block 7, being transferred to the homeowners association under the identical provisions of the existing easement. Page 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. In addition, new proposed legal descriptions will be required for each property. As part of this approval, the applicants will be required to file new deeds based on the new legal descriptions. Staff will work with the property owners and the City Attorney to ensure that the necessary documents are prepared and filed. Schoenzeit asked how this is different from the situation at Lakeview. Gaffron stated the lots in Lakeview are bigger, with the easement area encompassing approximately half of each individual lot. In that situation,the owners are allowed to have a septic system but virtually nothing else within that easement area. Gaffron stated this situation is different since the easement area is essentially as large as the house. Schoenzeit stated it makes perfect sense in this case since there is plenty of land,but that there is the potential that a person in Lakeville could do a build and give as well. Thiesse noted this is only the building footprint and not a wetland. Leskinen asked if Lakeville was a PRD. Gaffron indicated it originally was not but then became a PRD. Gaffron stated at Lakeville they are still required to meet the setbacks of the RR-1B district. Leskinen stated she sees this as a different circumstance in that Lakeville is a PRD and this lot is located in a 1-acre zone but they do not own one acre of land. Leskinen stated the PRD was set up to preserve the open space and that she sees it as a practical difficulty for the owner since they only have the dimensions of their home. Ned Dau stated he can answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3834,Ned and Michelle Dau,220 Northgate Road,granting of a lot line rearrangement,a structural lot coverage variance,and an easement vacation. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5.16-3835 MICHAEL GALLUS CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF GUY MILLIREN, 1991 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,VARIANCES,7:11 P.M.—7:15 P.M. Michael Gallus,Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is making changes to the roof on the home to improve the ventilation. In the process,they plan to modify the roofline to enhance the aesthetics. The eaves will be shortened by approximately nine inches from existing and the overhangs on the gables will be extended by 18 inches. The extension of the eaves into required yards up to two feet is allowed provided the building meets the Page 7 ------- MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. required setback. However, because the majority of this home is lakeward of the 75-foot and average lakeshore setbacks, variances are required. Curtis noted the home is located approximately 23 feet from the OHWL and not 12 feet as stated in Staff's report. No other variances are being requested with this application. Due to the property's location at the point of Fagerness Point Road,the home is almost entirely within the average lakeshore setback and well within the 75-foot setback from the lake on all sides. The corner portion of the northeast house extends up to seven inches into the side yard. The applicant's plan to expand the overhangs on the gable ends by 18 inches requires variances because of the nonconforming location of the existing home. The survey and building elevation exhibits have been color coded to il(ustrate where the expanded overhangs will be located. Staff provided an analysis of the practical difficulties within the Staff report. If the Planning Commission wishes,the individual criteria can be discussed tonight. Staff recommends approval of the variances. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Michael Gallus, Applicant, stated he would be available to answer any questions. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at p.m. Lemke commented the application is preriy straight forward. Olson stated it is improving the aesthetics of the house. Schoenzeit stated it also improves the functionality of the home. Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3835,Michael Gallus Construction on behalf of Guy Milliren, 1991 Fagerness Point Road,granting of a 75-foot and average lakeshore setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 6.16-3836 RICK ANDERSON AND DAVID LIND,3585 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:15 P.M.—7:45 P.M. Rick Anderson and David Lind, Applicants, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting approval of a conditional use permit in order to install a full bathroom, including shower or tub, within the existing accessory barn structure on the property. City Code Section 78-1437(3)b allows for the installation of plumbing fixtures, including a bathtub or shower in an accessory building subject to conditions and a restrictive covenant. Due to the lack of suitable drain Page 8 __ MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 dclock p.m. field sites meeting all setback requirements,the applicants are also proposing to use a holding tank for sewage disposal. This site is a very unique situation in the 2-acre rural residential district. Prior to construction of the Highway 12 bypass, a single-family residence existed north of the barn. In order to construct the CR6 approach to the Wayzata Boulevard interchange,the portion of property containing the house was acquired by MnDOT and the house was removed. The barn remained on a lot of 2.4 gross acres, being considered as a nonconforming accessory structure without a principal structure. The City did not have the legal authority at that time to require its removaL The applicants purchased the property and have been remodeling the barn for use as a man barn. The City has been issuing permits for the improvements to the barn. The applicants were required to provide septic testing information and a wetland delineation in order to establish the ability or non-ability to install a conforming septic system to serve the proposed bathroom facilities. The wetlands in the eastern half of the site, as well as areas of compacted disturbed soils, preclude the ability to install a conforming septic system meeting setback and soil Condition requirements. Staff is recommending approval of a holding tank subject to certain conditions. While formal Council approval is not specifically required for holding tank use, it has been Staff's policy to bring those requests forward to the Council as a notification process. In accepting this conditional use permit,the property owners will be required to agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory barn building will not be(a)used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by this Code;(b) used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained; and (c)rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for plumbing, including a bathtub or shower within the proposed accessory barn structure. Staff further recommends approval of the use of a holding tank for the proposed use in lieu of construction of a septic system, subject to the conditions outlined in Staff's report. Approval is further subject to the applicants executing a covenant to be filed in the chain of title establishing the following: 1.The accessory barn building shall not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City; 2.The accessory barn building shall not be used as a dwelling or guest house; and 3.The accessory barn building shall not be rented, leased, or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Lemke asked what home occupation means. Gaffron stated a home occupation is typically when someone lives in the house and there is some sort of business being run from the house. Normally it would require a license or City approvals if that type of occupation brings in traffic to the site or utilizes outside storage. Gaffron indicated the City has a whole code section that talks about the criteria that must be met to not require a license. Page 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted a dwelling means a building or a portion of a building designed or intended to be occupied exclusively for residential purposes. Thiesse stated if this building is not designed for residential purposes, it can have a bathroom. Gaffron stated this is considered as an accessory building. Thiesse stated he is a little concerned about the City's definition of a dwelling. Schoenzeit questioned if there is a barn with a bathroom without a principal structure if it would be, by definition, a house. Gaffron stated those are all questions the Planning Commission can raise as concerns. From the perspective of the definition of a dwelling, Staff would look at it as an accessory building because the City's definition of dwelling does not require certain features. Gaffron stated this application is unique and the barn remained since the City could not require its removal at the time the road was redone. Leskinen asked if it possible to clarify that or alleviate the concern as a condition of the conditional use permit. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could recommend that and the City Attorney could ensure that it is enforceable. Leskinen asked if the building could be rented out for gatherings or parties. Gaffron stated as soon as it starts being rented out, it becomes a commercial use, which is not allowed in the RR-1 B zone. Thiesse stated if the alarm goes off and the owner is not present, it could become annoying to the neighbors. Gaffron stated the alarm for the septic system will likely be inside the building and that he is not sure there is any need for the light or sound to be outside the building. Olson asked if there is a way for the owners to be alerted if they are off site, especially if they are going to be off site for weeks at a time. Gaffron stated there might be technology that would allow that to happen. Gaffron stated if this is installed in a normal manner, in his view leaking would be unlikely, but that the City does has a system that provides a signal off site through the phone lines. Thiesse stated the owner also has a vested interest in the septic system not overflowing into the building. Lemke asked if there is any parking being proposed. Gaffron stated the applicant will need to address that. Gaffron stated the compaction of the ground has to do with the past use of the property but that there are no hardcover issues on the site. Page 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted the City did receive some written comments that were provided to the Planning Commission this evening and that many of those comments were addressed in Staff's report. Dave Lind,Applicant, 3585 County Road 6, stated they had concerns about leakage and that they have an electrician involved and there will be a switch on the wall for the pump so it can be turned off when they leave. Lind indicated they both have houses and cabins and that this will be a retirement place where they can putz with things. Lind indicated they looked a long time for a barn and they luckily found this one. Lind stated as far as the tank is concerned, they felt that putting a whole blown septic system did not make sense and that they were told a holding tank would work. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission expressed some concerns about overnight guests. Thiesse asked if the shower is absolutely necessary. Lind indicated it is not but that they put it in their plan in the event they got dirty so they could get cleaned up prior to leaving. Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Laura MacLachlan, 3565 County Road 6, asked if the holding tank alarm will be strictly in the barn, and if that goes off,how they will get notified of that. Gaffron stated a lot of people have septic sites and are gone for the winter. Gaffron indicated there usually is an alarm system that is located in the house and it will sound some sort of alarm when it reaches a certain level. Gaffron stated a security system is also a potential way to deal with this but that Staff has not proposed any specific technology. Gaffron noted the Planning Commission could add that to their recommendation. Thiesse stated it sounds like there will be a switch on the water source so that will help alleviate some of the concern with leakage. MacLachlan stated her other concern was the potential for changing the zoning on this site. MacLachlan stated in her view once this has a full bathroom in it and there is no home on the property, it essentially becomes the house even though technically it is an accessory structure. Gaffron stated the covenant that is required will go with the property and that the intent is that it not be used as a dwelling. Gaffron indicated Chis is not a property that will be rezoned to commercial or other nonresidential use, but that it is odd that it is an accessory building without a principal residence. MacLachlan asked if potentially down the line they could add a kitchen. Gaffron indicated the City's building code does not allow it to be a dwelling, and if the applicants want to use it as a dwelling,they would need to come back before the City and apply for a conditional use permit. Gaffron stated in his view Staff can write those covenants so that anyone who purchases the property will know it cannot be used as a primary residence and is purely an accessory building. Page _ 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. MacLachlan stated with a shower,the holding tank will fill up faster. MacLachlan stated if they are not there that often,there is the potential for that filling up and the owners not knowing about the alarm going off. Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing a 1,500 gallon,two compartment holding tank with a visual alarm, and that he expects there will be a sound alarm within the building as well. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission can also recommend remote notification. Lemke asked if the property owners would receive a notification from the City that their tank needs to be pumped out. Gaffron indicated they would not and that how often it needs to be pumped out will depend greatly on how often it is used. Gaffron stated he can see it lasting a month or two if someone is there a couple times a week and that it is likely the applicants will have a pumping contract or maintenance agreement. It is Staff's expectation that the applicants will likely have a contract with a licensed pumper to pump X number of times. Gaffron noted the City has not had any specific problems with holding tanks in the past but that there are only a handful of them in the City. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Lemke stated he likes the fact that the applicants are preserving a barn since not too many of them exist anymore in this area. Lemke stated he does not have too much concern with the proposed usage. Leskinen stated she is okay with the proposal but would add the condition that there be remote access notification. Leskinen stated in her view that would be in the owners' best interests. Leskinen stated it is a nice use of a barn and a very unique situation and that she does not have a problem with the shower. Leskinen noted the barn can never be a principal structure. Gaffron noted the paperwork just says visual alarm but that it is easy enough to make it remote notification. Thiesse asked what would be allowed to be stored inside and outside. Gaffron stated the outside storage would be the same as for any other residential home site. Gaffron stated if the site becomes junky and someone files a complaint,the City would go after them to clean it up. Olson stated it is a great idea and that Staff has already addressed most of the concerns. Leskinen noted the conditional use permit goes with the property and all the conditions would apply to any new owner. Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3836,Rick Anderson and David Lind,3585 Sixth Avenue North,granting of a conditional use permit,subject to the conditions outlined in Staffls report,with the additional condition that remote notification regarding the holding tank be required and to tighten up the language with regard to the definition of a dwelling.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 7.16-3837 JOHN BRUNELLO,LLC,570 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, VARIANCES, 7:45 P.M.—7:59 P.M. John Brunello, Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting lot area, lot width, and side yard setback variances in order to redevelop their property. The property owner is proposing to demolish the existing building and construct a 2,300 plus square foot home with an attached three-stal( garage. The property is a nonconforming lot of record with just over a half an acre in area and approximately 100 feet of width. The property is located in the RR-1B zoning district,which requires 2.0 acres in area and 200 feet of width. The applicant is requesting side setback variances from both the north and south lot lines. Therefore, lot area and lot width variances are also required. The proposed two-story home will be situated 17 feet from the north side lot line and 15 feet from the south lot line. Front and rear setbacks will be met as will hardcover and structural coverage limits. The home will be approximately 64 feet wide and will be situated 17 feet from the north side lot line and 15 feet from the south lot line. The property could possibly conform to the lot of record provisions set forth in Section 78-72. However,the applicant's request for side setback variances results in the property's inability to conform. The City's engineer briefly reviewed the proposed plan and made a recommendation to require the plan to be updated at the time of the building permit to include any proposed gutters and downspouts. Staff finds that there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the lot area and lot width variance as well as the side setback variance requests. No public comments have been received. Staff recommends approval of the variances conditioned upon compliance with the City Engineer's comments regarding the site drainage at the time of building permit. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Jeffrey Jaglo stated he is here representing J. Brunello,LLC. Jaglo stated they are seeking the variances in order to redevelop the property for a new home in place of the existing structure that is not a candidate for either upgrading or remodeling. In order to place the new structure within the existing property boundaries, they will need Council approval of a variance that would allow them to build beyond the setbacks in the city ordinances. The lot is 100 feet wide and the required setbacks are such that a suitable sized house with an average sized garage would make it difficult to redevelop the site. Jaglo stated in their view redevelopment of the site would greatly enhance the neighborhood, bring a new family to the City, and contribute to the overall success of the City and the schools. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Page __ 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse asked if the adjacent property to the south is a back yard. Curtis indicated it is. Thiesse stated he is assuming that property is also a candidate for redevelopment. Curtis stated it does appear that Fox Street would be the frontage for that property. Olson noted the proposal is below the City's structural coverage and hardcover limits. Schoenzeit moved,Leslcinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3837,John Brunello, LLC, 570 Orono Orchard Road South,granting of lot area, lot width, and side yard setback variances,subject to Staff and City Engineer's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 8.16-3838 AL MUSECH ON BEHALF OF THOM AND LAURA CLAPP,215 HOLLANDER ROAD, EASEMENT VACATION,7:59 P.M.—8:04 P.M. Al Musech, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting vacation of a drainage and utility easement that remained after a boundary line adjustment was made so ne years prior. The applicant proposes to replace the vacated easement with a10-foot drainage and utility easement along the property line. There are no known utilities within the easement. Barnhart displayed the existing easement on the overhead and pointed out how the existing easement goes right through the property. Originally the property consisted of two lots. Typically in new subdivisions easements are platted along the property line. Barnhart illustrated the location of the new easement. Staff recommends approval of the easement vacation as proposed and does not see it as having any negative impacts on any property in the area. Lemke asked if an easement is required to be provided on that property. Barnhart stated it is not, but generally it is not known when an easement will be needed so the City will typically ask for it up front. Thiesse noted the easement goes from 10 feet to 5 feet but that it has to transition at some point. Thiesse indicated he is comfortable with the location. A1 Musech, Applicant, stated as Staff has stated,the purpose of the easement swap is to put in a septic system to replace the failing septic system. Musech stated at the time he purchased the property,they knew the system was failing and the perc tests found a suitable site in the front yard. The new mound system will blend in somewhat with the existing topography. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Page 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Leskinen stated the application is as straight forward as it gets. Leskinen moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3838,A1 Musech on behalf of Thom and Laura Clapp,215 Hollander Road,granting of an easement vacation subject to a 10-foot drainage and utility easement being granted along the north property line. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 9.16-3832 CITY OF ORONO,3580 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,VARIANCES,8:05 P.M.—8:40 P.M. Barnhart stated in April of this year,the City Council approved a plan to develop a portion of Lurton Park as an off-leash park. The City is requesting setback variances from the lake and wetland boundaries to facilitate construction of fencing within the park. Other improvements approved by the Council include expansion of the parking lot, additional benches and tables within the park. Barnhart noted the plan presented in May differs from the plan being presented now. The proposed fence has been pulled back from the wetland buffer on the west side and has been pulled back from the private residential property to the north. The fence has mainly been pulled back from the wetland boundary on the east side of the property. Variances are necessary because the fence crosses mapped wetlands just to the east of the parking lot and is within 150 feet of the edge of Lake Classen. The fence within the wetland near the parking lot replaces an existing fence. Barnhart stated a fence is a normal part of a park and the proposed fence is the primary improvement to the park. When Staff looked at applying the practical difficulty standards in this situation,they looked at the fence as being the primary structure. In Staff's analysis, it was felt the fence does meet the requirements and goals of the ordinance in trying to minimize the impacts to the neighbors and the goals of the City. A letter of concern was received by the City regarding the change of the park to an off-leash park. During the public comment period at the Council meeting, neighboring property owners spoke in opposition to the conversion of the park to an off-leash park. The neighbors noted concerns that the fence would impact wildlife movement and habitat, and a fence adjacent to their property would negatively impact their property. The fence has been pulled back from the property line to allow for wildlife movement and to prevent interaction from the park to the private property. The comments received to date center more on the presence of fencing versus the location of the fencing. Lemke asked why the Planning Commission did not see this application previously. Barnhart stated the application was originally presented to the City Council,with the City Council having the opportunity to waive review by the Planning Commission and hold a public hearing if they deem appropriate. Barnhart stated because the City was under time constraints with bidding the project and had an opportunity to hire a contractor in May, Staff felt it should go before the City Council. The City Council, however, felt a review by the Planning Commission was appropriate. Page _ _ 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke asked how big a dog park typically is. Barnhart indicated they vary in size and can range anywhere from one acre to a number of acres depending on the community. Barnhart stated the city he lives in has a 5-acre dog park. Schoenzeit stated the notes from the resident say that the City will be selling permits. Schoenzeit asked if it will cost money to use the park. Barnhart stated there are some policy issues that the Council is considering and that his understanding is that they are looking at charging for parking at the park. Schoenzeit asked who is paying for the fence. Thiesse stated it is the City. Barnhart stated his understanding is that it is coming out of park dedication fees. Schoenzeit stated it is coming from the City and not the people who donated the land. Lemke asked if the well is part of the proposal. Adam Edwards, City Engineer, stated the size of dog parks vary from less than an acre up to 30, 40 acres. Edwards stated the intent of this park is that it will be an off-leash park as opposed to a little piece of Astrotur£ People will have the ability to walk on trails through the woods or through the prairie with their dog off leash. Edwards stated the intent is to maximize the use of the land. As it relates to funding, the Council did elect to fund the construction of all the real property improvements out of the park dedication fund. Edwards stated the Lurton Park Fund is being preserved to continue maintenance of the prairie and there is an opportunity, if the family so chooses,to do small improvements such as adding more benches or similar items. Schoenzeit asked what the budget is for the project. Edwards stated to his recollection the overall budget was around $115,000. The well was deferred to a later date until sufficient interest in the park was demonstrated as well as some other items. The two main items that were approved were the fence and the expansion of the parking lot in addition to some signage. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is only looking at the variance for the fence and that they do not need to discuss the merits of an off-leash dog park. Thiesse stated the only reason this is before the Planning Commission is that Council Member Walsh voted not to waive the review by the Planning Commission. Thiesse asked why there is no wetland delineation or survey. Barnhart stated Staff felt it could site the fence properly without impacting the wetlands and that Staff elected not to spend City resources on a survey. Page 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated he understands that,but his feeling is that he would treat it more like the coach's kid who gets a higher vision because they do not want to show any favoritism. Thiesse noted the City typically requires it from absolutely everybody and that it would have been nice to have one as he was walking the site. Edwards noted the City has a GIS system, which has fairly accurate data, and that the City also has access to all the wetland data from the DNR, which was used to place the fence. Schoenzeit stated he disagrees that the discussion is limited to the fence and that all questions should be allowed. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission does not have any say into whether a dog park is desirable at this location. Schoenzeit asked whether there were any studies done on the amount this park will get used. Schoenzeit stated typically this park is empty when he goes by it and that to justify a$150,000 investment seems crazy. Thiesse noted that is not the choice of the Planning Commission. Schoenzeit commented he is an Orono taxpayer. Thiesse stated he will need to attend the City Council meeting to discuss that. Edwards stated the City does not keep attendance records at the park but that it is not a heavily used park, which is one of the reasons why it became a candidate for a dog park. Edwards stated the donating family brought the idea to the City. Thiesse noted it was the family of the donors and not the actual donors. Lemke asked whether the residents can tap into that same information bank that the City used in order to do the wetlands. Edwards stated the City did not do a wetland delineation but that they used the GIS data base to look at where the wetlands were plotted and then backed off from that. Edwards stated the topography in this area includes a fairly steep drop-off and it is not a gradual slope. Lemke asked if that same data could be made available to the residents if the City is confident with their wetland de(ineation in this case. Curtis stated it is not a delineation by WACA standards and that it is a delineation that is required by City Code. Curtis noted the Watershed District has authority over what is and is not a valid wetland delineation and that this application does not trigger the Watershed District's wetland delineation requirements. Gaffron stated while the general public may have access to specific parts of the City's data, it would be unusual to exempt them from doing a wetland delineation based on using that data. Page 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 dclock p.m. Lemke commented the City is exempting themselves and that he agrees with Mr. Schoenzeit's comments. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Thiesse noted this request is for a variance to allow a fence and not about the merits or needs of a dog park. Dianna Mi(ianta, 3515 Sixth Avenue North, stated she does not repeat a lot of what she said at the City Council meeting and that she will summarize some of what she said. Milianta stated the intent of the park was to be left as a wildlife park per the wishes of Susan Lurton. Milianta stated the placement of the fence will make it difficult for wildlife to travel freely through the park. Milianta noted the fence is still within 150 feet of the lake as well as being close to the residential properties. Milianta pointed out the 150-foot line. Milianta stated she would suggest moving a portion of the fence back since it would leave access to the lake open for the wildlife. Milianta stated the other item she would like to discuss is the practical difficulties document. Item No. 3 states the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Milianta stated if you take that very literally,the fence is intended to blend into the environment, but it should not be taken out of context. Milianta noted the fence will hold dogs in and the dogs will alter the essential character of the locality. Milianta stated the fence and the dogs together will really change the character of the locality around the lake and around that corner. Milianta stated the fence and the dogs will impact the value of their property. Milianta noted they have a very nice horse barn and that there will be problems with the noise and having the dogs that close. Milianta stated moving the fence down will still give a lot of space for the dogs and provide enough space between the dogs and the horses. Laurel MacLachlan, 3565 Sixth Avenue North, stated the original intent of the park was to keep it passive so all the animals would be able to live there without any obstruction. MacLachlan stated she is in agreement that the fence should be moved further back. MacLachlan stated in her view most dog parks are in that 1 to 7 acre range and not 30 or 35 acres. MacLachlan stated if the dog park encompasses a lot of acreage, it will impede on some of the wildlife, and when the dog park is that big and the dogs are off leash, it will be difficult to pick up after them. MacLachlan stated she would like to see the dog park restricted further. MacLachlan stated she also is not sure that a 4-foot fence is not jumpable by a number of larger dogs, and if a dog does jump that fence, it is a risk to the other animals that may or may not be there. MacLachlan noted she did write some comments down and submitted those about how the change to the park came about and about the lack of public notice. Thiesse asked what the height of the fence is. Barnhart indicated it is 47 inches. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Thiesse asked specifically what the Planning Commission is being asked to address tonight. Page 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart illustrated on the overhead the location of the fence and the areas where a variance would be required. The fence will be located within 150 feet of the lake and 35 feet of the wetland. Lemke stated his feeling is that by not granting the variance,the park still works perfectly well. Lemke stated the fence could be moved back to the proper line and it would still be a very valuable and viable park. Thiesse stated he thought so, too, at the beginning until he heard the comments of the neighbors. One of the comments was if the fence is pulled back, it would open up half that area for lake use and preserve the wild(ife corridor. Barnhart stated this part of the fence is not accessible without a variance based on the wetland and the GIS information. Barnhart stated there really is no other method to get through that area since the fence would block that finger-shaped piece off. Schoenzeit asked if the City plans on using a survey when locating the fence. Barnhart stated the City plans on field locating the fence with the contractor and the Watershed District. Schoenzeit commented the City should follow its own advice and obtain a survey since it helps to prevent problems with neighbors. Olson stated he does not necessarily like the fence as it stands right now but that he does not want to debate the necessity of the dog park. Olson asked if there is a way for pedestrians to use the park without going through the area being used by the dogs. Barnhart stated a person would not need a pet to use the park but that they would need to pay to park there. Barnhart noted there are no trails adjacent to this park that provide access to it. If someone wanted to walk through the park, they can still do that since there likely will not be very many dogs using the park. Barnhart stated currently people will let their dogs off leash even though it is clearly posted that dogs must be on a leash. Barnhart stated he does not expect it to be wall to wall dogs and that it is just more of an opportunity to use the park for an alternative use. If a pedestrian wanted to get through there,they would have to go through the fenced area but there will be gates that someone can walk through. Thiesse stated he is in agreement that the principal use has to include the dogs, and putting the fence where it is,the use behind the fence does create an impact. Leskinen noted No. 4 of the practical difficulties states that economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists. Leskinen stated the question is whether someone can make reasonable use of a dog park if the fence is in a conforming location. Thiesse indicated he did do a little research with Three Rivers Park and to his knowledge there are nine parks within the area that allow dogs off leash and they range from three acres to 49 acres. At 13 acres, this would be about a median size. Page 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated the dog park can still be reasonably used if the fence is pulled away from the lake. Leskinen stated if there is no other way to use that finger-shaped area, she has less issue with that portion of it, but that she does have an issue with the area higher up along the lake. Leskinen stated as a whole it is an awful lot to fence in for a dog park. Barnhart stated the idea here is that there is some investment in time and energy already made with the clearing of the trails and trees. Barnhart stated the City does not want to have to duplicate that up the hill, which is part of the rationale for the location of the fence. Barnhart stated some other improvements have already been made that they are trying to incorporate into it. Thiesse asked if there is some way to add a gate to access the trails on the east side. Barnhart stated he is sure the Park Commission and City Council would take any advice the Planning Commission would like to offer. Schoenzeit stated he was at the Council meeting when the family donated the land to the City and the discussion centered around controlled burns and re-establishing the prairie. Schoenzeit stated fencing it in and charging money to park was completely outside the scope of the plan. Schoenzeit stated there is also the lack of transparency of the planning process and the fact that the City actually wants to push this through without a public hearing. Thiesse noted that is not true and that the public hearing would have taken place at the City Council if it had not been referred back to the Planning Commission. Schoenzeit stated it also appears they are using City privilege to shortcut the survey process and the wetland delineation. Schoenzeit stated it is a great example of bad government and that he is strongly opposed to putting a fence on the property. O(son stated without having all the information, in his view they can still do the dog park without granting the variances. Olson noted someone else is going to decide if there is going to be a dog park and that the Planning Commission will not be deciding that. Olson stated in his view the City can get to that end result without granting the variances and that he has not seen a very substantial hardship demonstrated. Lemke stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Schoenzeit and that he does not see much thought having gone into the concept of a dog park. Leskinen stated she would be okay with the variance on the smaller portion that is not accessible without it, but that along the larger section, she is having trouble seeing enough practical difficulty to be able to grant the variance. Schoenzeit stated by granting the variance,they are giving the City permission to spend $150,000 to get into the dog park business. Schoenzeit stated he hears all the time how the City does not have the resources to do various things, and that anything the Planning Commission can do to slow that down would be their duty. Page 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 dclock p.m. Thiesse stated he is ambivalent to the dog park, but that in his view the park can function with the fence in a legal position. Thiesse indicated he is more willing to accept the variance for the small part. Thiesse noted Three Rivers has nine dog parks and that he hopes someone has checked to see whether Baker Park will be included in that in the near future. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 16-3832,City of Orono,3580 Wayzata Boulevard West. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 10. #16-3840 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS,8:40 P.M.—8:49 P.M. Barnhart stated during the 2016 Legislative session,the Minnesota legislature enacted a law allowing temporary family health care dwellings" in Minnesota. These dwellings are 300 square feet,usually on a trailer,that are connected to the houses' electivity and water sources, contain a sewage tank for pumping and can be placed anywhere on the property. The legislature noted that these drop houses provide a viable housing option for patients needing care provided by others but not necessarily in a hospital or nursing facility. The statute allows a city to opt-out of the requirements of this statute. To alleviate possible confusion and to avoid situations where a property owner may place a temporary family health care dwelling as a guest house,the proposed ordinance opts out of the statute. Staff recommends approval of the text amendment. Barnhart noted this was not on the City's list of priorities but it was identified by the Council in early May that this should be moved to the top of the list prior to the statute becoming effective in September. Schoenzeit asked if it is like a blood mobile or a library mobile. Barnhart stated there is actually a company out there that provides this service. The dwelling basically consists of 300 square feet with a holding tank for the septic. The dwelling can be hooked up to water and electricity from the main house and is essentially an addition that is parked in the yard. Thiesse asked if this is something the City might want to allow. Thiesse stated he can understand the concern about maintaining some control over it but that it might be something the City would want to discuss a little bit more. Barnhart stated the mobile dwellings are designed to provide avenues for people to get healthcare and that Mr. Thiesse raises a very valid point. Barnhart noted the City's ordinance already prohibits it and that he did not want to have an ordinance that prohibits it and then have a statute that allows it. Barnhart stated the purpose of the text amendment is to clarify it and that perhaps later in the year the City can discuss it further. Leskinen stated adopting this does not shut the door on it permanently but simply just clarifies what is already on the books. Leskinen stated the City could choose to allow it at some point. Barnhart stated in his view it would be worthwhile to revisit it. Page _ 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 dclock p.m. Lemke asked what the definition is of a guest house and whether a trailer would be considered a guest house. Barnhart stated a trailer is specifically listed as those that are not allowed for dwelling units. Curtis stated the definition of a guest house is an accessory separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants, including their domestic employees or the nonpaying guests of the primary dwelling. All regular lot requirements will be met by the guest house. Barnhart stated under 1372 in the draft ordinance it says: no cellar, basement,tent or accessory building shall at any time be used as an occupied building. Barnhart indicated he added the words"unless otherwise approved as a guest house." Barnhart stated the City allows guest houses as an accessory building and a tent and a trailer are expressly listed as those that are not appropriate for a dwelling. Planning Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Leskinen moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3840, City of Orono,Text Amendment,Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 11. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 23,2016,AND JUNE 13,2016 Barnhart reported on the following actions of the City Council: Approved the text amendment regarding subdivision exceptions. Approved the CUP for grading on 895 Tonkawa on Consent. Comments were provided on the Denman sketch at 2525 Shadywood for seven units. The Council did not have the same concerns with density but will likely discuss that at some point. Council approved on Consent the conditional use permit and the rezoning of the wetland for the City of Medina's application. Approved on Consent the lot line rearrangement for 2465 and 2485 North Shore Drive. Approved variances for 1255 Dickinson Street. The Planning Commission approved it 5-1. A question was raised regarding structural coverage,with the Council approving it 2-1. Cornick voted no. 12. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Rick Meyers, Park Commission Chair, stated some things were said that were not correct during the discussion on the off-leash dog park. Meyers stated he does not want the record to show there was not a process that was followed. Meyers noted the only reason this came before the Planning Commission was Page . 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. the need for a variance for the fence and that otherwise a review by the Planning Commission was not necessary for the dog park. Meyers stated he makes it a point at the Park Commission meetings not to talk about the Planning Commission and disparage what they da Meyers stated the concept of an off-leash dog park was investigated by the Park Commission and that the family approached the City and suggested it. Meyers stated it is also not right to say that the City is wasting money since park dedication money is being used for this project. Park dedication money can only be used for capital improvements, such as to purchase parks or improve parks. Schoenzeit stated there should be a bigger discussion before having the City get involved in the dog park business. Meyers stated the Park Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend approval of a dog park and the City Council voted 5-0 to approve a dog park. Schoenzeit commented it is not a good idea. Meyers noted the Park Commission also had public hearings and that the representation that this was done in some kind of slipshod manner was not accurate. Thiesse noted he did state during the meeting that this was done in accordance with the City's policies. Thiesse stated to his recollection he has not ever had a variance not come to the Planning Commission, but that he appreciates what the Park Commission does and that they have done what they were supposed to do. Meyers stated he was not part of the discussion about whether a variance is required. Meyers stated as part of the Park Commission's fiduciary duty,they try to save money wherever possible,and if the GIS data can get them within the intent of the rules,that is something that should be used. Meyers noted they are talking about a fence, which tends to be a very low impact thing. Meyers stated the Park Commission researched dog parks,visited a number of dog parks, and that this was not something that they pulled out of their hat. Meyers noted the family approached the City wanting to see more use of the park. Meyers stated the City also has 24 parks in the system and that people can go to a park specifically designed for the recreation they would like to do. Meyers noted the Park Commission can actually recommend spending money and that they set it up with the public good in mind and what would serve the most good in the City. Meyers stated it makes the Park Commission look bad to be dragged through the mud at one of the Planning Commission meetings and that he would not editorialize on the Planning Commission's job at one of the Park Commission meetings. Schoenzeit asked if there was a Council line item to invest$150,000 in a dog park. Meyers stated it was $115,000 and not$150,000. The bid for the fence was$70,000. Schoenzeit asked how the public is supposed to weigh in on it. Page 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated the Park Commission had a public hearing. Council Member Levang stated the Park Commission went through months of planning regarding the dog park and that the Park Commission was brought back by Mayor McMillan and herself for the purpose of shoring up the City's assets in the City. Levang stated the Park Commission has worked tirelessly and has looked at every park in the City and has taken a number of steps to bring them up to a beautiful condition. Levang indicated she also worked with the soccer girls to lay the chips on the trai(s at Lurton Park, which is a wonderful asset that is not being used. Levang stated the Lurton fami(y asked the City to expand the use of the park. Levang stated the Park Commission worked hard to identify the needs of the City and the dog park was one of the needs. Levang stated the Park Commission did their homework and did everything they were supposed to and that there was no behind closed doors action here. Levang stated the process has all been transparent and the Park Commission has worked very, very hard to come up with a good plan. Levang noted Commissioner Schoenzeit does not have to agree the City needs a dog park and that he was not asked to weigh in on that. Levang stated it is the responsibility of the City Council to make that decision. Levang stated the Park Commission worked very hard on this and that she does not appreciate being told there was some behind closed doors' action when there was none of that. Bryce Johnson stated the Park Commission worked very hard on this project and spent a lot of time investigating dog parks independent of anything having to do with Lurton Park. The Park Commission came to the conclusion that an off-leash dog park was a very important need for Orono and the community. Johnson stated they had the discussion at a Park Commission meeting that was open to the public. In addition,the Lurton family approached the City and requested it be used as a dog park. Johnson stated there was no discussion from the beginning or any indication that the City would conduct this as a business. Johnson stated the Park Commission was not interested in whether there would be money made on this park and that the intent was only to try to bring some order to the concept. Johnson stated the concept of people purchasing a parking permit was studied by the Council and Staff and the Park Commission had nothing to do that. Johnson noted the City's park dedication fund has hundreds of thousands of dollars in it and it got there every time there was a new development in the City. Johnson stated in his view the park dedication fees should be used in the general area where developments have occurred and that a couple of developments are now being considered in the area of Lurton Park. The park dedication fees are only allowed for park investments and not maintenance. Johnson stated an off-leash dog park was identified as an important thing to have. The Lurton family has indicated they would still continue to support the dog park but that they would like to see the City put some money into it. Schoenzeit stated often in the Planning Commission meetings it is stated that they cannot talk about certain things, and in general that is wrong. Schoenzeit stated there should not be some prearrangement to squash comment. Page 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,June 20,2016 6:30 dclock p.m. Thiesse stated there is a time and a place for that comment and that comment would have been wasted at the Planning Commission because it does not hold any water in this context. Thiesse stated the proper time would have been at the Council meeting. Schoenzeit stated to stifle comment is wrong. Olson stated if the Park Commission is making a decision along these lines, it would have been very helpful to hear the comments that were just made prior to the Planning Commission making their decision. Olson stated he was looking at it from a different perspective than what has been explained and that it would have been very beneficial to have that information. Meyers stated he would have been glad to have done that had he been invited to speak. Meyers stated it was his understanding that the Planning Commission was only going to be discussing the variance and that he did not feel it was proper on his part to go into the background. Meyers indicated he spoke to Mr. Thiesse on the phone and provided some background information but that Mr. Thiesse indicated he would keep his decision on the variance and not on the broader package. Schoenzeit stated the fact that he is not sure he could speak on or off topic is a problem with the way the hearings are being run. Schoenzeit stated this is a public forum and people should feel free to add to the discussion. Lemke asked if the Planning Commission will be going paperless. Barnhart indicated he has added that to the proposed budget for 2017 and that he is optimistic but not 100 percent confident it will be approved. Barnhart stated in his view it would be a benefit to go that route. ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Olson seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:16 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. r ATTEST: C Zat,Chair C' l.V C q,-;,r, c Page 25