Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2015 Planning Commission Minutes } �Y � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Loren Schoenzeit, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Lizz Levang was present. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20,2015 Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of April 20,2015,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #15-3735 CHAMBERLAIN CAPITAL,LLC, 10 MYRTLEWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES, 6:33 P.M.—6:38 P.M. Paul Cameron, Chamberlain Capital, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to redevelop the property located at 10 Myrtlewood Road with a new single-family home. The property is located in the RR-1B District requiring minimums of 2.0 acres and 200 feet of width. The municipal boundary between Orono and Wayzata runs through the properly down towards the southern portion of the lot, which results in the property being divided into two separate parcels with separate PIDs. The Orono portion has 163 feet of width along Myrtlewood and 0.89 acre in area. One acre is the threshold for administrative approval of a non-conforming lot size in this zone. Therefore, in order to redevelop the property, lot width and lot area variances are required. The property is an existing lot of record. Because the portion of the property within the City of Orono is less than 1.0 acre, the minimum provisions for nonconforming lots of record within the City's Code have not been met, lot area and lot width variances are required to construct a new home on the property. The portion of the property that is located in Wayzata is not independently buildable but does bring the property over the 1.0 acre threshold. Staff finds practical difficulties exist to support redevelopment of this property, such as the substandard lot area and width,which are not the result of actions by the landowner. The new single-family home is reasonable and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The setbacks and structural coverage proposed meet the requirements of the zoning code. The owner intends to connect to city sewer, so the septic system is not an issue. Granting lot area and (ot width variances to redevelop this property are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The collective area of the property does not meet the intent of the administrative approvaL Therefore Staff recommends approval. Any and all engineering comments will be addressed by the applicant at the building permit stage. Page 1 of 37 � � � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked whether the applicant would be connecting to Orono or Wayzata city sewer. Gaffron indicated it would be Orono city sewer, which eventually to the south discharges to the Wayzata system. The property owner would have to pay connection charges to the City of Wayzata once they connect and the property has been assessed by Orono for the project. Paul Cameron, Chamberlain Capital, stated he has nothing to add at this time. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Leskinen stated this application is preriy straight forward and the only thing that prevents this from being administratively approved is the location of the municipal boundary. Landgraver asked if the applicant has to go through a similar process with Wayzata. Curtis stated to her knowledge they do not since they are not proposing to construct anything on that portion of the property. Schoenzeit asked is there are any detached structures planned for the property. Curtis stated there is a provision in the code that requires the side street setback to be met as well as not allowing any structures between the road and the home. Curtis stated the proposal is depicted on the survey and the house is located on the northern portion of the lot. Paul Cameron, Applicant, stated there will not be any other structures constructed on the properry and that they will be removing the one building that is located on the property line. Lemke moved, Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3735,Paul Cameron/Chamberlain Capital, LLC, 10 Myrtlewood Road,granting of lot width and lot area variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 3. #15-3738 KUHL DESIGN BUILD,ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CYNDY BOWLSBY, 1025 SPRING HILL ROAD,VARIANCES,6:38 P.M.—7:08 P.M. Dan Murphy, Kuhl Design, was present. Curtis stated the current owners purchased this property in 2014 and are planning on making some changes to the home. The applicant is requesting variances in order to construct an addition to the existing home on the east, structural modifications to an existing portion of the west side of the home, and construct a lake yard pool within the average lakeshore setback and within the required 100-foot setback from Long Lake. A variance to permit hardcover within 75 feet of the ordinance high water level is also requested. Page 2 of 37 � T MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis noted the average lakeshore setback line runs through approximately the center of the home. All three of the projects are proposed to encroach partially or wholly ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The property is served by a private septic system and must meet a 100-foot structural setback. The addition to the eastern portion of the home is proposed to be set back 84 feet from the ordinary high water level and lakeward of the 100-foot setback. The addition/modifications to the western portion of the home are ahead of the average lakeshore setback line but will meet the 100-foot setback. The in- ground pool is proposed to be 60 feet from the OHHL and lakeward of both the 100-foot and average lakeshore setbacks and would also consist of hardcover within the 0-75 foot setback. Staff finds that the location of the existing home which currently encroaches into the I 00-foot setback makes it difficult to make modifications or additions to the lake side of the home. The existing home is one-story. One story additions are proposed, which lessen the massing when viewed from the lake. Due to the elevation change from the lake level to the home level,the two additions to the home may not be visually apparent when viewed from the lake. In addition, it does not appear that the adjacent property owners will be adversely impacted by the two additions to the home. Staff finds that 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 additions. There are special conditions that Staff finds relating to the existing home and property that support granting the requested lake setback and average lakeshore setback variances for the two home additions. However,the proposed pool will be located within the average lakeshore setback, within the 100-foot structure setback, and almost entirely within the 75-foot zone where no hardcover or structure is permitted. Staff finds that although the visual impacts of the pool will be minimal from the lake and from adjacent properties,the setback and hardcover variances would serve merely as a convenience to the owners as there are alternative locations where such an amenity could be located on the property. The granting of variances to permit a pool to be located 60 feet from the OHWL of Long Lake is not consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, nor would it be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code. Based on the information provided, it does not appear that the applicant has proven practical difficulties which support the granting of setback and hardcover variances to construct the pool as proposed. The Planning Commission should evaluate the practical difficulty criteria against the requested variances and make a recommendation to the City Council. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow construction of the eastern addition and the proposed modifications to the portion of the home on the west. Staff recommends denial of setback and hardcover variances relating to the pool. Lemke asked if it is an all or nothing application, meaning the pool and the addition. Curtis stated it does not have to be but that she does not know the applicant's preferences regarding a motion from the Planning Commission. Thiesse asked if Staff can identify the primary and secondary septic site locations. Curtis stated the applicant will need to identify those. Page 3 of 37 r � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Dan Murphy, Kuhl Design Build, pointed out the location of the septic sites on the overhead. Murphy indicated the property owners are in the process right now to hook up to City sewer for environmental reasons and that they are just waiting to get an easement from the next door neighbors to go across their property. The line will need to go across three properties and the subject property owners will also need to leave a hookup for the neighbor down the line. Thiesse asked if that would change the setback requirement. Curtis indicated the setback requirement would then be 75 feet. The average lakeshore setback requirement would still apply. Leskinen stated having City sewer would change the setback from an existing septic system and asked if that opens up additional locations for the pool since it will not need to be set back from the septic system. Curtis stated it would and that this property has ample space in which to locate a pool. Murphy stated as it relates to the pool, their goal is to minimize the visual impact of the pool to the neighbors and from the lake. If it is located between this house and the neighbor's house to the left,the pool would be extremely visible from the lake. Murphy stated if that was the case, they theoretically would be able to build a retaining wall by the pool. Murphy pointed out there is a tennis court off in the distance. As it relates to the drainage, the area where they are proposing the pool is very flat with prairie grass on both sides and is a very environmentally strong drainage system. If the pool is located to the left of the house,the pool becomes even more visible from the lake. Murphy indicated they have spoken to both neighbors about the pool and that the location they are suggesting is the preferred one since the pool would not be seen by either neighbor. In addition, the adjacent property owners will not be adversely affected by the two additions. Murphy stated if they have to set the pool 100 feet back, the neighbor will see it and that they would like to leave the open space left open, which is another reason they are proposing to locate it where they are. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Leskinen stated she is less concerned about the pool than about adding hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone, which the City attempts to avoid whenever possible. Leskinen stated given the size of the lot, she does not see justification for it and that she is not convinced there is not another location. Lemke stated from a visibility standpoint, it makes sense to put it in the location they are proposing but that there are other locations available. Thiesse stated the pool is on a high point and that it would drain naturally with a lot of green space all around the area. Thiesse stated the City does not usually allow pools or hardcover in the 75-foot setback which makes it an issue. Page 4 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated in her view the drainage does not rise to the level of being a practical difficulty, which are the parameters the Planning Commission has to operate under. Thiesse stated he would have difficult time arguing that. Lemke stated the City would be setting a precedent by allowing the pool in that location since there are other locations where it could be situated. Lemke indicated he does not have a problem with the home additions. Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with what the Planning Commission has stated so far. Murphy stated there is also a use and safety issue that they would like to address. Murphy noted there will be kids and grandchildren playing in the pool and that it would be safer to have the pool closer to the home. If the pool is placed anywhere, it has to be behind that 100-foot setback, and there are not that many places that are still visible from the house. Murphy noted there is a garage on the right side of the house and the master bedroom on the left side of the house. Murphy stated the pool would be basically nonvisible from the house if it has to be located behind the 100-foot setback. Thiesse stated if they are hooked up to City sewer,they would need to locate it behind the 75-foot setback and not the 100-foot. Curtis noted they would also need to meet the average lakeshore setback variance. Murphy stated they are asking to have the pool where it is proposed because otherwise the house would not have a view of the pool. Murphy stated even though it is a big lot, if it is located elsewhere, it will become very visible to the neighbors and the lake and nonvisible from the house,which creates a safety issue. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is not here to redesign the application and that the project needs to meet certain regulations. Leskinen stated the pool does not meet the standards that would allow the Planning Commission to approve the pool. Leskinen stated an argument could perhaps be made for a practical difficulty as it relates to the average lakeshore setback line, but that in her view it does not meet the practical difficulty standard to approve it in the proposed location. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission would consider tabling it to allow the applicant time to reconsider their options. Leskinen asked if the applicant is interested in tabling the application for potential redesign rather than the Planning Commission making a motion for denial of the pool. Thiesse stated they could also state a more succinct practical difficulty for the proposed location of the pool. Murphy asked if they would be able to split out the pool so they can continue with the additions. Gaffron stated in his view they would have that option as long as the applicant agrees to it. Page 5 of 37 � , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke asked what the advantage would be to tabling that portion of the application as opposed to denying it. Leskinen stated the applicants would have an opportunity to redesign or they could take the motion denying the pool forward to the City CounciL Leskinen asked if it is preferable for Staff to have a recommendation from the Planning Commission if the location of the pool is changed. Curtis stated the Council would have the benefit of the minutes and this discussion. If the applicant elected to make a change in response to tonight's discussion, the City Council could review that. Curtis stated at times the Council wants the Planning Commission to follow through with their analysis if they recommend specific direction depending on the changes. Lemke asked whether they would need to come back if the Planning Commission denies the pool and the applicant then relocates the pool behind the 75-foot setback. Curtis stated the Planning Commission would need to have some direction in the motion that they are accepting of an average lakeshore setback variance but not the lake setback variance. Curtis stated at the time the pool is constructed, if the applicants are able to connect to City sewer, that would be the setback that would apply. Leskinen asked when the properly will be hooked up to City sewer. Murphy stated they are in the process of obtaining the easement signature from the neighbor and that they have already met with the City Engineer. Murphy indicated the City knows what the route is going to be provided they can obtain the signature for the easement to the left of this property. As soon as that is done,then it is just a matter of whenever the City can do the wark. Schoenzeit stated they could also use that time to look at relocating the pool. Schoenzeit stated typically the City does not let people build in front of the setback. Murphy stated if there was a logical place for tbe pool,they would have placed it there,but the other locations will impact the neighbors more and have a greater impact on the environment. The proposed location is the most unobtrusive place on the lot and that they made sure they involved the neighbors in the location of the pool. The neighbars have signed a letter stating they are in favor of the proposed location. Murphy stated locating the pool to the left or to the right is a worst placement for the pool environmentally. Murphy pointed out the ground to the right of the tennis court has a 10 to 15 foot drop and that they could build a 10-foot retaining wall up to the same height but that they do not want to do that since it will have a greater visual impact. Murphy stated if they have to put a 10-foot retaining wall in, it would completely alter the whole environment of that area and have a much greater impact. Murphy stated the goal is to not impact the site. Murphy noted when the house was rebuilt,they pushed the house back further from the lake, which changed the average lakeshore setback. In front of the proposed pool is an old foundation wall of a previous wall,which is where the average lakeshore setback line used to be between the two properties. Page 6 of 37 � , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated based on the discussion of the Planning Commission,they are more concerned about the lakeshore setback than the average lakeshore setback. Murphy stated it would be more detrimental to the lake if it is located in an area other than what they are proposing. Landgraver stated he is not willing to grant a variance to construct the pool in the proposed location since the Planning Commission has been fairly consistent in denying applications for pools being closer to the lake than permitted. Landgraver stated the applicant should consider other locations for the pool. Lemke stated in his view it is more for aesthetic purposes than for environmental purposes. Thiesse stated that is probably an ideal place for the pool but it is located within the 75-foot setback. Schoenzeit stated it is hard to justify it in this case and then tell the next applicant that he cannot have a pool in front of the 75-foot line. Murphy asked what the main reason is for the 75-foot setback from the lake. Schoenzeit stated it relates to hardcover and drainage to the lake. Schoenzeit indicated the pool would be considered hardcover and no hardcover is allowed in front of the 75-foot line. Murphy stated if they move the pool, it would be more detrimental to the lake since they would need to construct a retaining wall. Schoenzeit stated it would then be outside the 0-75 foot zone. Schoenzeit noted the 0-75 foot area is the red zone and no hardcover is allowed in that area consistently throughout the City except when there is a practical difficulty. Thiesse stated stormwater drainage is another reason for not allowing hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. Thiesse indicated someone a long time ago determined that 75 feet is a good number to go with to protect the lake from stormwater runoff and drainage. Murphy stated they would be damaging the runoff if they locate the pool on either side of where they are suggesting it be located. Thiesse stated that would not be the case if they are beyond the 75-foot setback line. Thiesse stated in his view there should be adequate green space to allow for adequate drainage if it is located outside of the 0-75 foot zone. Murphy stated they are going to fundamentally be changing the drainage if they put the pool in a different location. Murphy stated the current drainage works very well on this property and that the pool would be located on the high point of the property. If the pool is relocated, it would be located on a low point on the property, which will impact the drainage more. Thiesse stated unfortunately there is no good option in this situation. Page 7 of 37 � , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Landgraver pointed out a pool is not a requirement and that they have not demonstrated a practical difficulty for locating it in the proposed location. Schoenzeit noted future engineering of the pool will require it to have better or as good of drainage as it has now. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3738,Kuhl Design Build, 1025 Spring Hill Road, allowing the eastern addition and proposed modifications to the home on the west,and to deny the setback and hardcover variances to construct the pool in the proposed location. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 4. #15-3739 BPS PROPERTIES,LLC,300 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,PRELIMINARY PLAT,7:08 P.M.—9:12 P.M. George Stickney, BPS Properties, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is proposing subdivision of a portion of this 93-acre parcel in which 11 single-family residential lots will be created, leaving two large outlots undeveloped. Of the 11 lots, nine will be served by new private roads with cul-de-sacs extending northerly from Sixth Avenue North. The remaining two lots will access directly from Hunter Drive. All lots will be served by individual on-site sewage treatment systems and private wells. The property contains a large area of established prairie and for many decades has announced to passersby that this is the boundary to rural Orono. The property extends further north into Medina and abuts the City of Medina on the north side. The big woods remnant provides a backdrop that is treasured by some of the area residents in equal measurement to the prairie element, which are two natural elements that are worthy of discussion tonight. Gaffron stated the northeast quadrant of the property abuts Mooney Lake and seven of the eleven proposed lots will be lakeshore lots. Mooney Lake is a recreational development lake classification and its shores abut property in Medina and Plymouth. The developer, in creating this plat called Mooney Lake Preserve, has indicated to Staff that the two large outlots are to remain undeveloped and functionally are not part of the development site. In that respect, it may be important to establish, for the portion of the properly that is being developed, what elements are being preserved, how they are being preserved,why they are being preserved, and what the basis is for these decisions to fully preserve certain elements and not others. The property is zoned RR-1B,which allows for single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size of two dry buildable acres. Each proposed lot has two dry buildable and contiguous acres of land. The average dry buildable is closer to three acres for each of the proposed lots. Roughly over half of the property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District. The ordinary high water level of Mooney Lake is 988.0. Based on that contour, all lakeshore lots as proposed meet the minimum 200-foot width requirement at the shore and at the lake setback line. Each lot appears to have a suitable building site meeting the minimum lake, front, side, and rear setbacks of the RR-1B District as well as having two septic sites. Page 8 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. The relationship of this property to the surrounding development is consistent with the existing development in the surrounding neighborhood. Large single-family lots surround tnis site on the north and east. The properties to the north are within the City of Medina and the properties to the east are located in the City of Plymouth. To the west and south, the homes in Orono are generally on 2-plus acre lots. Gaffron stated there is not city sewer available to this property and that private welis and septic systems are planned for this development. Gaffron noted Staff's report contains a brief description of each proposed lot along with the Applicant's comments excerpted from the Conservation Design report. There are two proposed private road corridors serving the proposed subdivision. Both are shown to be 50 feet in width. Both proposed roads are shown with a 100-foot diameter cu-de-sac as required by the Subdivision Ordinance and the CMP for a local private road. The standard paved width for the road in Outlots E and F would be 24 feet with an 80-foot diameter paved cul-de-sac. Proposed Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, will be accessed off of Sixth Avenue North via a private road contained within a 50-foot outlot. Likewise, a 50-foot private road outlot with cul-de-sac will provide access to Lots 3 through 7, Block l, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. Lots 1 and 2, Block 3, will have individual driveway access directly off of Hunter Drive. The total length of the road in Outlot F is about 1,550 feet, which exceeds the code standard maximum length of 1,000 feet. The driveway to serve Lot 2, Block 2, adds an additional 600 feet. The applicant has suggested that use of the existing roadbed is desired and the minimum width for the entire road should be no less than 24 feet. The 30-foot access corridor shown for Lot 2, Block 1, would function as the access to the back lot. For Lot 2, Block 2, the access corridor has been widened to allow for flexibility in driveway placement to avoid tree removal. The City will require a road,drainage and utilities easement over the private roads. The CMP also proposes a future trail along County Road 6. As a result, an easement along the road for trail purposes should be explored. Development of the property would be subject to park dedication fees at approximately$5,550 per new lot. The total fee, excluding the one existing house, would be approximately $56,000. The property is also subject to the stormwater and drainage trunk fee for ten new lots. The City Council is expected to adopt an ordinance that revises the structure so that the applicant would likely be paying for ten lots at roughly$7,700 per lot for a total stormwater fee of approximately$77,000. The lots will be served by private on-site septic systems and private wells. Full soil testing and preliminary system designs have been completed for 5-bedroom homes. Final design for each site will be completed once the specific house sizes are known. The site contains a number of wetlands. The applicant should provide the City with evidence that the MCWD has approved the wetland boundaries, and if any of the boundaries change, significant impacts to the plat layout could result. The MCWD will be involved in establishment of mitigation requirements if needed and will also be establishing appropriate wetland buffers for the development The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over each of the wetlands as well as impose standard wetland setback requirements. Page 9 of 37 � , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. The developer has submitted a Conservation Design report. The City Engineer has indicated that the report is lacking specific elements and should be amended to include those elements. The applicant has submitted a response to that report today but Staff has not had an opportunity to review it thoroughly. The most critical element is the importance of establishing, for the portion of the property that is being developed, what elements are being preserved, how they are being preserved, why they are being preserved, and what the basis is for those decisions to preserve certain elements and not others. The Planning Commission should discuss the following: 1. Has the applicant demonstrated via the submitted Conservation Design report and through other methods that there is justification for the proposed impacts to the Big Woods portion of the property? 2. Are the proposed design and preservation measures as proposed in the draft covenant documents adequate to protect the site environmental elements of importance? 3. Are there any other concerns that need to be addressed? Staff recommends the applicant be advised to address the items detailed in the City Engineer's comments. In addition, preliminary plat should not move forward until or unless documentation is provided confirming that the MCWD has approved the wetland delineation boundaries. Staff further recommends that specific driveway corridors for all nine of the easterly lots be shown on the preliminary plat drawing, as each site has trees, wetlands, or topography that may impact or could be impacted by driveway locations. The Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and receive comments from the public. Following discussion of this application,the Planning Commission should provide the applicant and Staff with direction as to whether or how the proposed plat should be revised. Lemke asked if the correct application number for this application is 15-3720. Gaffron indicated he sent an e-mail to the Planning Commissioners today noting the correct number of the application is 15-3739. Staff's report has been changed to reflect that change. Gaffron stated there were also a couple of other specific changes to the memo relating to the owner of the property not being part of the development process but is merely selling the property. Gaffron stated outside of that,there was not a great deal of change to Staffls memo and that a copy of Staff's revised report has been included in the public packet located outside of the Council chambers. Gaffron noted a significant amount of information regarding this application has been submitted in the last 24 hours. Landgraver asked if there is a precedent for developing or not developing land known as Big Woods from a historical perspective. Landgraver noted there are a number of very important environmental components with this development and that Staff has noted the City does not have a lot of tools for preventing tree removal. Gaffron stated at the time of the development of the Spring Hill Golf Course,everything north of the County Road 6 portion of the property was Big Woods. There were no specific requirements at that time that protected the Big Woods. Gaffron stated after a lot of discussion and a year-long assessment of the Page 10 of 37 , , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. entire site,the Environmental Assessment Worksheet allowed that section of the Big Woods to be segmented by fairways. Gaffron indicated that area was a significantly larger area of Big Woods than this site. One component of Big Woods is the fact that the dense canopy and height level of the trees restricts undergrowth. Gaffron stated the Spring Hill development has changed the nature of the Big Woods in that area as well as change the wildlife in the area due to the corridors that were created through the Big Woods. Gaffron stated there are schools of thought that feel it is very detrimental to segment Big Woods and that it is something for an environmentalist to make a recommendation on. Gaffron stated in general,when you look at areas of the City that have been developed,the City has asked developers to preserve wooded areas. Gaffron indicated this site is unique because it has wooded areas as well as an established prairie. The prairie on this site was probably Big Woods at some point in the past but was established as prairie at some point. Gaffron stated the prairie visually has some significance to the public, and that as someone enters from the west into Orono, it is the first big open field they see. Gaffron stated other than what is in the Conservation Design Analysis process, the City does not have any specific requirements preventing removal of woods outside of 75 feet of the lake. George Stickney, BPS Properties, stated back in 2007,when he last approached the City, he said the Graham Hill property was the last best property in Orono, but that this development will be even better. Stickney stated every attempt has been made to preserve the trees in this area and that his tree preservation plan is more severe than anybody else's. In addition,there is 1,832 feet of lakeshore with only seven lake lots. Stickney stated it is likely that any other developer would try to squeeze in a couple more lake lots, but that his livelihood is selling real estate and making the developments above average. Stickney indicated the average lakeshore for each lot is 262 feet and the average dry buildable is 3.06 acres and not 2-acre lots. Stickney stated there will also be an Outlot C, which wil( be a preserve area. Stickney stated in his view it is important to limit the amount of hard surface on individual lots, which is the reason for the tree preservation. Stickney indicated the street will be lighted. Stickney stated they have performed some soil borings in the first 800 feet of the road and that there is four to five and a half inches of gravel. Stickney stated he is hoping to preserve more trees along the roadway and that the lowest width is 9.5 feet, with the average being around 20 feet. Stickney stated if the City requires a 24-foot roadway, it can be 24 feet wide on the rest of the road. Stickney stated with the help of Staff, they have found the exact place for the cul-de-sac. Stickney pointed out the location of the cul-de-sac on the overhead. Stickney indicated there are five trees in that area that will need to be removed. The cul-de-sac is also 325 feet away from the northern boundary of Medina so it is not visually apparent. As a result of the cul-de-sac, three trees will be lost. There will also be a minimal amount of tree loss associated with constructed of the house. Stickney stated he is considering homes that will be 9,000 or 10,000 square feet. Stickney indicated somebody can wind through the trees with a nice circular driveway. Given the layout of the development, Page 11 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. the property owner could put in an outbuilding and not lose a tree. Stickney stated the layout allows someone to live in the woods and not ruin what is there. Stickney indicated he did the same thing on Lot 7. For the first 400 feet, they will lose only three trees. In addition, the covenants will also protect the trees on top of the tree preservation areas. Stickney stated if the house is removed on Lot 6 and a new home is built, they should not lose any trees on that lot either and that the new house can be built right on the existing hard surface. Stickney indicated he has walked through every proposed lot and that they are locating the septic sites in the best possible locations. Stickney noted Lot 5 will only lose four trees. Stickney stated he has never had a project without a net gain of trees. Stickney indicated installing curb and gutter will help reduce the amount of grading and also help prevent significant tree loss. Another component of the drainage will consist of swales. Stickney noted the City Engineer was not in attendance at the Design Conservation meeting but that he had indicated he wanted the 15-foot boundaries on each property spelled out and the prairie preservation areas identified on Lots 1 and 2. Stickney indicated the prairie grass preservation shall be enforced surrounding the wetland on the southerly boundary of the property and that access will be off of Outlot E from County Road 6. Stickney indicated he wants to preserve what exists today and that there is over 200 feet of woods before the setback. By dropping the cul-de-sac, there will be 100 feet of preservation before Lots 1 and 2. There is also a 150-foot tree corridor that will continue to grow. Stickney stated Photograph No. 5 shows a development he did in Medina with the access coming in off of Willow Road. The cul-de-sac is located in the Big Woods and is not visible on the aerial photograph. Stickney stated they have trees that are within five feet of the road base that are thriving in that development. Stickney noted this is a 180-foot cul-de-sac that is completely hidden, which is the intent with this development as well. Stickney stated the lots will be covered with strict covenants, restrictions, planned tree replacement and landscaping, which will assist in preserving the wonderful view corridor enjoyed by everyone who has driven on County Road 6. As it relates to Lot 1,the prairie grass preservation shall be enforced surrounding the wetland on the southerly boundary of the property with access off of Outlot E from County Road 6. Lot 2 will have prairie preservation area over the southerly 40 feet of this lot. Trees will be planted just north of the preservation zone to preserve the long existing view this property has protected for the last 50-plus years. Lot 3 will have a large pond on the southern portion of this lot, with pine trees to be planted by the developer to protect the view corridor from County Road 6 over the driveway from Outlot F. Lot 3 also includes part of two manmade ponds and a newly to be created drainage pond. Access is off of Outlot F from County Road 6. Lot 4 will have access via a private road within Outlot F as well. Lot 5 has an existing tennis court, a pond, and a portion of the existing driveway crossing the property. The lot will be accessed by the private road shown as Outlot F. The western portions of this lot contain Maple-basswood forest. The existing tennis court will be removed in order to accommodate the proposed stormwater pond. Page 12 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lot 6 contains an existing home and will be accessed via the private road. Lot 7 will also access off of the driveway in Outlot F. Stickney reiterated that every effort is being made to preserve as many trees as possible, and in the event a tree needs to be removed, it will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Stickney indicated Frank Svoboda will address the Conservation Design. Frank Svoboda, Svoboda Ecological Resources, stated he has been doing wetland and wildlife work for Mn/Dot and private entities for a significant number of years. Svoboda indicated he performed the wetland delineation on this particular property. Svoboda noted there were a couple of areas that turned out to be non-wetland, a pond that was dug by Mr. Dayton, and some other wetlands that had been enhanced by excavation at some point in the past. Svoboda pointed out two areas of the prairie. Svoboda stated historically those areas had been agricultural land, and in the mid-1980s it was enrolled in conservation preserve for ten years. After the conservation preserve program expired, it was in conventional agriculture for a few years, and then in 2006, those fields were planted by Prairie Restorations to become a native prairie community. Svoboda noted there was a question earlier by one of the Planning Commissions about what constitutes a Big Woods. Svoboda indicated he had one of his staff people out to examine the woods. In addition, Mark Gronberg's firm performed a comprehensive tree survey and documented the diameter the significant trees as well as the species. The City's Natural Resources Inventory was also reviewed which was completed by Bonestroo back in 2006. Svoboda stated these woods were classified as a maple- basswood community of good condition. Svoboda indicated he also looked at the Field Guide to Native Plant Communities in Minnesota,which is utilized by the MN Department of Natural Resources. According to that guide,this particular area is in the eastern broadleaf forest and has been classified as a sugar maple forest. Svoboda stated in order to gain some understanding of this forest, he looked at a 1937 aerial photo, because when he looked at the distribution of the size of the trees and the inventory that was completed by Mark Gronberg, the trees ranged in size from 8 to 24 inches. Svoboda stated on some of the lots that will have some impact to the trees, those trees were 8 to 18 inches in diameter, which indicates that they are fairly young trees. Some of the other trees were 22 to 24 inches in diameter, indicating they were older trees. Svoboda stated in looking at the 1937 aerial photograph, he observed in the vicinity of the lot to the left of the cul-de-sac a gap in the canopy that showed there was some type of timber management or timber removal at some point in time, which was fairly common in wooded areas. Svoboda stated another thing he noticed in reviewing the property is that there was not much history of grazing, particularly if the area has been left abandoned. Svoboda noted there is some fencing around the property but nothing to indicate that there was any heavy grazing that took place. Svoboda noted the 8 to 24-inch trees seem to be kind of randomly distributed throughout the wooded area. The Field Guide to Native Plant Communities has a description for three different age categories for a maple-basswood forest. Young forests are 0 to 35 years of age,transition forests are 35 to 75 years of age, and mature forests, which are 75 years of age and older. Svoboda stated this forest appears to fall into all three age categories, which is verification of the fact that there had been some selective tree removal in past years. Page 13 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Svoboda noted in the Conservation Design report there is a listing of the tree loss by lot along with the diameter of the trees that are being removed so it is documented. With respect to the wetlands, Svoboda indicated he communicated with the Watershed District this morning. Previous to that the wetland delineation report was submitted to the Watershed District. The Watershed District came back with some comments regarding the technical information that was collected and a response has been provided. Svoboda indicated they will be reviewing the wetland boundaries on May 28. Svoboda stated with respect to some of the wetlands that were excavated,they would have been a Type I or Type II wetland. Svoboda stated the Y-shape on the overhead is an indication that this natural Type II wetland has been excavated. The excavated spoil was deposited on the site. Svoboda indicated there were a number of areas that were excavated. In addition, there is an open excavated pond on the site as well which has quite a bit of canary grass. There is also a swale with drain tile that provides water flow into the excavated pond,which regulates the level of the pond. Svoboda stated to his knowledge that is a brief summary of what has been addressed through the wetland delineation process and the Conservation Design process. Landgraver asked if he could summarize his assessment on what constitutes a Big Woods. Landgraver indicated he is not sure whether Mr. Svoboda is saying they are Big Woods or not. Svoboda stated this is a remnant of the Big Woods. Svoboda indicated there are some Big Woods communities in the City of Minnetrista and other areas that have very substantial trees in the 75-plus category. Svoboda stated there is evidence of some manipulation as far as timber removal, which is typical of a Big Woods community. In terms of understory, it is typical of a Big Woods community, with young maple seedlings regenerating. Svoboda indicated the Community will regenerate over time, and as far as invasion of buckthorn, it is a cleaner community than most. Mark Gronberg, Gronberg&Associates, stated on some of the other subdivisions that he has worked on in Orono, one of the goals was to make the development appear unobtrusive from the road, which is one of the goals with this subdivision. Gronberg stated as someone drives down County Road 6,the prairie will remain as well as the woods. Gronberg noted there will be a 20-foot wide access near the willow trees, but if the City does require a 24-foot width, they could add two feet on either side. Gronberg noted most of the engineering comments are taken care of at the final plat stage. Gronberg indicated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be approached after preliminary plat and that they will be taking care of all of the City Engineer's comments prior to seeking final plat approval. Lemke asked how much control the applicant would have over the building sites. Stickney stated in his view he would have pretty much total control and that they will be reviewing the building plans with City Staff. Stickney indicated he has set some guidelines and covenants for construction. Stickney noted some of the trees that will be removed are not in that great of shape but that they will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Stickney indicated he also went through the property with Rusty Olson on the septic sites and that some of the sites were relocated in order to save some trees. Page 14 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Stickney stated any development he has ever presented has been over and above what is required and that the idea is to make this a beautiful development while preserving as many of the natural features of the site as possible. Stickney noted he even went to the extent of saving some of the pines and willows at the entrance to the development. Stickney stated the road in some areas has 11 inches of asphalt and that the proposed located is a good place for the road. Stickney stated another goal is not to put a lot of trees up in the prairie. Lemke asked what percentage of trees will be removed from the Big Woods canopy. Stickney indicated they would lose 141 trees out of 1,435 trees, with at least 8 percent of those trees not doing that welL Stickney noted there are a number of downed trees and that in his view the tree replacement plan will preserve the wooded area as well as help screen the houses. Stickney stated the idea is to make this development as nice as possible and increase the tax base of this property to over $300,000. Stickney stated Orono is a special place for him and that he would not do anything that would be detrimental to it. Thiesse asked where he is planning to put the additional trees if the tree replacement is two for one. Stickney stated there are some areas on the site where more trees could be planted. Stickney indicated there is a 60-foot side boundary on each side lot as well as a 90-foot boundary and a special outlot to keep things away and preserved. Stickney indicated he also has a no-touch zone where no homes will be constructed. Stickney stated there are also open areas on every lot but that he wants to give everyone who purchases a lot a head start on the trees. Thiesse asked if there is covenant control over whether someone wants a bigger lot at some point in the future. Stickney indicated there is. Thiesse noted some of the replacement trees are listed as conifers. Thiesse asked if that would be allowed in the middle of Big Woods. Svoboda stated part of the nature of maple-basswood forests is that they generate a chemical compound and do not like outside competitors. Svoboda stated when you look at the understory of a maple- basswood forest, all you will see are more maple trees coming in. That is a result of the roots exuding a chemical into the soil. Svoboda stated that may not necessarily be a suitable environment for conifer trees and that the best remedy would be to continue to replant maple and basswood trees to maintain the character and consistency of that community and to continue to propagate the maple and basswood trees. Leskinen stated in the first discussion at the sketch plan phase, there was talk about pulling the cul-de-sac down, which has occurred. Leskinen indicated she has walked the entire property and noticed that where the prairie ends and the woods begin there is a farm road or path. Leskinen asked if there is any particular reason why that was not considered for the road rather than the cul-de-sac going into the trees. Leskinen stated there are some real natural openings in there for those two lots. Thiesse stated it would be the south side of Block 2. Page 15 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated she was wondering whether that was ever considered in order to eliminate the big L of a driveway going off the cul-de-sac to access Lots 1 and 2. Stickney stated back where the road is,there is a tree line that blocks the view of the road coming in. If someone is driving from the west to the east and looking up, he does not want them to see an opening farther up here. Stickney stated there is great camouflage where the road is currently proposed and that when more trees are planted along the road, it will be the perfect spot. Gaffron asked if she is suggesting the road take a left. Leskinen stated she is. Stickney stated he would lose more trees if he did that, and that under his proposal, he would only lose three trees. Stickney indicated once he gets up to the flats,there are natural openings for the driveways and that he has ways to wiggle through the trees with ease without really losing anything. Stickney stated it might be compromising the view if the driveway is put somewhere else and that someone will not see the homes the way it is proposed. Stickney indicated he did look at that but felt the proposed location was better. Leskinen stated her biggest concern is the Block 2 area because there are two big openings where the homes will be located. Leskinen noted Mr. Stickney has done a tremendous job in preserving as many trees as possible, and asked whether he considered a 5-acre lot rather than two big openings. Stickney stated there is always the possibility somebody will purchase two lots, but that what he has opened up is very acceptable. Stickney noted there is no neighbor to this development that has less than a half-acre to six-tenths of open area. Leskinen asked if he will be designating the building pads. Stickney stated the building pads will need to pass the architectural review and that someone cannot simply go into some of those areas and knock down the trees. Leskinen asked if they will be doing any re-grading or whether they will be doing existing grade. Stickney stated if a walkout can be worked out with the trees,they would be allowed to do that. Stickney indicated Lot 1, Block 2, is a natural walkout, but that someone will need to demonstrate that a walkout will work with Lot 2, Block 2. Stickney stated in his view it will not be a full walkout lot on Lot 2. Leskinen asked if there will be architectural control over future homeowners. Stickney stated there will be and that he will likely be involved in every house that is constructed. Stickney stated he wants this development done right. Leskinen noted once someone owns the property and wants to cut down all their trees,the City really does not have an ordinance that prohibits that within 75 feet of the lake. Stickney stated if someone wants to cut down a tree,they will have to replace it with two. Stickney noted the neighbors probably would not like someone cutting down the trees. Page 16 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Peter Rechelbacher, 1242 Hunter Drive, stated he has lived in this area for the past 15 years and that he has gotten to know some of the neighbors that share the same woodland. Rechelbacher stated over that period of time he discussed the forest and the need to preserve and protect it a number of times. Rechelbacher stated one of Doug Dayton's passions and beliefs was not only preserving the woodland but also restoring the natural prairie. Rechelbacher indicated he and his wife are not personally opposed to having any development on this site but that they do have issues with the woodland area. Rechelbacher stated the location of Lot No. 7 is a natural drain area from the upper portion of the middle of the forest down into Mooney Lake. Rechelbacher indicated the location that the applicant is showing a house in is an area where there would be a significant amount of fill that would be required, which would alter the natural drainage of the area. Rechelbacher stated the other concern is the two building sites being located within the middle of the woodland, which would basically destroy the entire ecosystem of this area. Rechelbacher stated the applicant mentioned the removal of dead and diseased trees, but that his understanding from an ecological standpoint is that those dead and diseased trees is a natural process that occurs in a forest, and by removing that, they would be removing a lot of the native plants and insects as well as impacting the birds in the area. Rechelbacher stated there is another area that is closer to the prairie area that could instead be developed. Rechelbacher indicated there is a natural road that was used by the farm and there would be minimal impact if the houses were located closer to that area. Rechelbacher stated there is prairie in this section does rise considerably and there is an opportunity to plant trees to screen the homes and still preserve the integrity of the property. Rechelbacher noted the name of the development is Mooney Lake Preserve and that the definition of preserve means to leave it in its natural state. Rechelbacher stated what he is seeing here is more of a perception of leaving it in a natural state from people's views as they drive down County Road 6. Rechelbacher stated the other concern he has is that Mooney Lake is listed on the state's lakes as an environment for nutrient loading. Last year the MPCA finished putting together the implementation plan for the TMDO. Rechelbacher noted Plymouth, Medina and the City of Orono have a legal obligation to reduce the amount of loading of phosphorus into the lake. Rechelbacher indicated this is the only property that is within the Orono section and that this would be an opportunity to make sure that appropriate stormwater runoff solutions are put in place to help protect and preserve Mooney Lake. Jean Bowe, County Road 6, Plymouth, stated as a resident on Mooney Lake, she would like to understand the rules and covenants regarding the view from the lake. Bowe stated a number of people have cleared out the trees over the years and that it creates a lot of drainage and erosion issues. Bowe stated she would like to know what language is included in the covenants regarding the view down to the lake. Bowe stated another question she has relates to the driveways. Bowe noted a lot of the homes have shared driveways. Bowe asked if there has been some consideration given to having one main road and then have some shared driveways instead of having individual driveways. Bowe stated her final question relates to the 11 lots not being built upon. Bowe asked if there is any legal covenant that says they will not be built on or if it is something the developer hopes not to do. Page 17 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Marty Schneider, 1235 Hunter Drive, asked if Lot 3 will be accessed off of Hunter. Stickney indicated it will be. Schneider asked if it will be a single access point or two. Stickney indicated it will be two. Schneider stated he would echo the comment made previously that it is nice to say that they are looking to preserve the Big Woods and the prairie, but that if the developer is committed to that as he is to other aspects of the development, perhaps there is already a document in the proposal. Schneider stated he has a concern the prairie will be developed at some point. Christian Lonsgard, 1462 Hunter Drive, stated he would echo the comments regarding Mooney Lake regarding the nutrient loading of the lake. Lonsgard indicated the lake association has spent a lot of time trying to preserve Mooney Lake and that their goal is to make sure it does not turn out like Holy Lake due to excessive loading. Lonsgard stated he would be interested in hearing what the plans and covenants are for preserving that. Lonsgard stated he would also like the two homes to be relocated out of the woods and more towards the prairie. Carolyn Ringhoffer, 2265 Walnut Grove Lane, stated it is her understanding that Mooney Lake is a shallow lake and that she would like to see a commitment by the developer to convey that to the buyers. Ringhoffer stated the lake is very fragile and the lake association spends a lot of time attempting to preserve it and improve it. Ringhoffer stated she would hate to see someone come in and have high expectations of using the lake recreationally for things such as waterskiing when that may not be appropriate. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Stickney stated his tree replacement plan requires the planting of two trees for every one tree that is removed and that someone would not be able to take out 50 trees. Stickney indicated there are also view corridors on every lot. Stickney stated as it relates to shared driveways, a shared driveway to Lots 1 and 2 would be wider than normal and that he does not see that two driveways would be injurious to Hunter Drive. Stickney stated they can easily put driveways on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 without any tree loss. Creating the driveway to Lot 3 will result in the planting of 60 new trees. As far as preserving the lake, Stickney stated he understands it is only 10 feet deep and people will not be waterskiing. Stickney stated he knows it is an environmental lake and that it is a peaceful place,which is why he is trying to limit the impact to the area and protecting as many trees as he can. Stickney stated if he relocates the homes near the prairie, he would need to widen the driveways and lose more trees. Thiesse noted on Lot 7 the contours do indicate that is a drainage area. Stickney stated they are aware of the drainage but that in their view no one will construct as big of a house as is depicted on that lot. Stickney indicated he used the size of houses that he did because he did not want anyone from Staffto say that he is proposing to construct little houses. Stickney stated in his Page 18 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. view this size house is probably the largest that someone could build. Stickney stated in their view they can build a house on that lot and avoid the drainage areas. Gaffron pointed out the group of contours that Commissioner Thiesse was referring to. Thiesse noted the drainage area goes up to the cul-de-sac area. Stickney pointed out the lot is 240 feet wide and that there is room to put a house in the area where there are fewer trees. Stickney stated he does not want to jam a house on the north side of the property. Gaffron stated as it relates to the views of the lake, the City's code has a restriction against cutting of trees and no clear cutting within 75 feet of the lake. Gaffron asked if there is any intent to place additional restrictions on how much clearing can be done in the event someone decides to cut down some trees so they can have a better view of the lake. Stickney stated there is an orchard of trees on Lots 3 and 4 and that they will be trying to transplant them. Stickney stated if someone wanted to build on Lot 3 and construct 300 to 400 feet back, that will not happen since they will not see the lake. Stickney noted he does have an architectural review committee that will be reviewing each house plan and that they will not let the canopy go and will not Let the yard extend for 250 feet. Leskinen asked him to address the question about future development of the preserve areas. Stickney noted his application states that he has no plans to develop the balance of the property and that he has no interest in developing the balance of the property. Stickney stated he likes the way the property looks and that Prairie Restoration has been contacted to help with the prairies and forest areas. As part of that,Prairie Restorations will make sure there are no invasive species in the woods and a lot of the trees that are falling down will be cleaned up but it will still be environmentally sensitive. Leskinen asked if the prairie area is in some type of conservation area to prevent future development. Stickney stated he would repeat what he just said. Thiesse noted the City could require it. Stickney stated he is not here to make enemies and that he is here to make the development right. Schoenzeit asked if it will be in writing that Lot 7 will not have a view of the lake given the proposed location of the house Stickney indicated if the person chose to build further up on the lot, he would not have a view of the lake Schoenzeit stated there is a lot of very encouraging discussion, but that the background tone of the neighbors is that a lot of these comments need to be in writing describing the parameters of what will be allowed and what will not be allowed. Page 19 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Stickney stated Example 3 is in his covenants. In that example, the yard space is 0.57 of an acre and that someone will not come in and ask to clear out an acre or else they will spend $50,000 on trees if they do that. Stickney stated that is why there is a strict tree preservation plan, which will protect against that. Lemke asked if the covenant would be a legal document. Stickney stated it is and that it would be filed with the property. Stickney stated every homeowner will see it before they purchase the property and it will be filed at the time of final plat. Gaffron asked who will be enforcing the covenant. Stickney indicated he would be along with the homeowners association. Gaffron asked if the homeowners association can change those covenants in the future. Stickney stated that is a good thought and that could be added. Stickney stated they would be hurting themselves if they did that. Schoenzeit commented covenants typically fail the second time around. Gaffron asked if Mr. Stickney would be willing to put additional restrictions around the perimeters of specific lots. Gaffron noted the development of the Lakeview Golf Course does not allow development of any sort to happen within certain conservation areas. Gaffron stated the concern here is that there is a potential for an individual homeowner to do something different than what is in the covenants, and that if the covenants can be changed at will without input from the City, one of the ways to avoid that issue is to place a provision in the covenant to prevent that which would give the City some enforcement power. Stickney noted his covenants on Lot 5 prevent building in the existing tree area. Stickney stated he could bring to the Council the general building zones for Lots l, 2, 6, and 7. Gaffron noted he did something similar to that on Graham Hill, and that he is suggesting it might be appropriate in this case. Stickney stated he is protecting the trees, which was the intent of the covenant, and that he would need some flexibility in the house pads if that provision is included. Stickney noted he has reduced the building areas since he first proposed the sketch plan. Landgraver stated if the covenants can be changed by a majority vote of the homeowners at a future date, making it specific to each lot would carry a lot of weight. Stickney stated in the Big Woods area that would make sense. Landgraver noted the trees will be relevant to some of the properties and the other properly owners may choose to change that. Landgraver stated nobody wants the trees cut down, so incorporating it in at the lot level makes a whole lot of sense. Stickney stated he is all ears and that it sounds like a good plan. Page 20 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke stated the other concern is with future development of the prairie and that it could be changed by the homeowners association. Landgraver commented that could be a game changer. Landgraver noted when this development was first presented to the Planning Commission, it was proposed as a preserve and now the Planning Commission is hearing that it is not a preserve and could potentially be phase two of the development. Landgraver stated Mr. Stickney must have a legal reason why he is being coy about it, but that if this is just stage one, he would have a concern with that. Stickney stated he is right on a lot of points. Stickney stated if that was the case, he would have submitted a 30-lot development. Stickney stated these are more than conforming lots that contain wetlands. Stickney stated someone could follow all the City's ordinances and have 18 lots within the prairie, which would not look very nice. Lemke stated that could happen at a future date without any legal protection. Stickney stated that is correct. Stickney stated he does not want to see the 18 lots in the prairie. Stickney stated he could also create one more lake lot and easily conform as well as throw nine lots in the prairie but that it would look awful. Stickney indicated he will do some fine-tuning based on the comments tonight. Schoenzeit stated the City has seen some nice plans but at the present time, from a long-term comfort level,there is a little too much hand waving and the details of the covenants, easements, and restrictions are not part of the preliminary plat discussion, which is a concern. Schoenzeit stated in his view the three lots that are in the Big Woods should come closer to the prairie. Schoenzeit stated in some ways the prairie is the red herring of this discussion and that a lot of work has gone into saving that, but it is really the Big Woods that need to be preserved. Lemke noted a prairie is a six-year project and a Big Woods is a 100-year project. Thiesse stated the one problem he has with that statement is that the owner of the property right now is the one who wants the houses up there and the prairie protected. Thiesse noted that is the right of the property owner. Schoenzeit stated it is the City's job to use its clout, influence and regulations to steer the development in the best possible direction. Thiesse stated he would need to be convinced that the current proposal is not. Leskinen stated this proposal has been improved from the sketch plan phase but that there is still some work to be done. Leskinen stated the ordinances in Orono will help protect the view shed for the lakeshore lots. Leskinen stated in her view the City Engineer and so forth will have plenty to say about drainage prior to any permits being issued. Leskinen stated she is less concerned about the layout and that the developer is right in that he could cram another lot in there but he isn't. Leskinen stated she is struggling with the Block 2 portion of it since the holes are kind of in the middle of the woods and that will be hard to get back. Leskinen stated she agrees Page 21 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. with the fact that this is private property and the owner has a ri�ht to develop it, but that she wants to be mindful of this natural resource that exists. Leskinen stated she wants to be cautious about the next move. Leskinen stated she also sincerely believes that George Stickney has no intention of developing the prairie preserve, but that if you go forward 25 years or so,that may not be the case. Leskinen stated she would love to see that in some kind of form where it is truly preserved. Leskinen noted in the initial sketch plan discussion she thought it was going to be put into a Land Trust or a conservation trust of some sort. Leskinen noted she has received a number of phone calls and emails from the residents and that she is taking those into account as well. Leskinen stated she is a staunch supporter of property rights, but at the same time this is a huge asset to the community, which is something she does not take lightly. Thiesse stated the owner of this property has done a wonderful job of preserving the properly for as long as they have but that he does not want to hold them to a higher standard than anybody else in the area. Landgraver stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leskinen and that the bone of contention appears to be the two lots in the middle of the woods. Landgraver stated in his view pulling them south would minimize the impact. Landgraver stated the two for one tree replacement plan might sound good mathematically but that there is not a covenant that restricts someone from cutting something down. Landgraver stated in his view something more descriptive, such as allowing someone to remove dead or damaged trees, would be more in line. Landgraver stated the City tends to have pretty stringent requirements on what happens near the lakeshore and that someone is not able to just go in and build something close to the lake. Landgraver stated in his view the developer has done a good job preserving a number of things, but when the Planning Commission first considered this development, the prairie was proposed to be in a conservation trust or preserve, which provides a lot higher consideration than simply somebody's word. Landgraver stated he can take Mr. Stickney's word for it but he is not immortal. Lemke indicated he is 100 percent in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that he would like to see that preservation piece in place. Lemke suggested the Planning Commission perhaps table the application to a(low the applicant to come back with a little more concrete information based on the discussion tonight. Schoenzeit stated the developer needs to address what some of the future homeowners would be allowed to do. Leskinen stated the Planning Commission would like to see more specifics in the covenants. Lemke indicated he would like to see something more than just covenants as it relates to conservation areas. Schoenzeit stated the Big Woods area deserves a higher level of attention. Leskinen stated she does not know if the applicant would be amenable to this, but that she would like to see the two lots changed. Page 22 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 d clock p.m. Stickney asked how those two lots could be screened if they are relocated. Stickney stated if he look at the elevations, those two homes would be sticking up like on a mountain. Stickney stated in theory that might be a good idea, but if they go up there, it will create an eyesore. Stickney noted they would have to go up a hill and attempt to construct up there in the area that he is attempting to preserve. Stickney indicated they would need to clear cut all that down and it would be an eyesore and unsellable. Stickney stated the reason he is proposing what he is is that it works. Stickney noted every one of the lots is over conforming and passes the Conservation Design. Stickney stated he could add a few more lots but that he likes what he is proposing. Stickney stated if he puts in a 100-foot pad site in that location, he would be clearing out both sides and probably 200 feet of open area where you will see the back side of a 3-story house. Stickney noted most of the lots are losing very few trees. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission can request covenants on the prairie areas stating that they are not buildable. Thiesse stated he would like to have something in the record that restricts development of that area. Thiesse noted the prairie area started out as a trust but has since moved to something different. Schoenzeit stated they are going backwards on that aspect of the proposal but that other aspects are more acceptable. Schoenzeit stated the prairie is clearly an area where there are now concerns. Thiesse stated it is not a problem currently but it could be a problem down the road. Schoenzeit stated it is the City's responsibility to firm that up and that now is the best time to do that. Landgraver stated he has a lot of confidence the City Council will not approve the plat without having an understanding about what the future intent is of that area. Leskinen stated the Planning Commission should clarify what they would like to see as far as these issues. Thiesse stated he is happy with what he sees but that he wants more answers. Leskinen asked if the applicant would like more clarity on the Planning Commission's direction. Stickney stated he can get that from the notes. Stickney stated there are good reasons for what he has presented and that the City does have the right to say no to whatever somebody else will present. Schoenzeit stated while this application is wide open, the City can define the most clarity. Schoenzeit noted whoever owns the prairie in the future would have the same right to develop, which is why the issue needs to be resolved. Leskinen stated the conservation easements will need to be defined and how they will be enforced. Leskinen noted that would help preserve Mr. Stickney's vision for this area as well. Stickney stated he totally understands what the Planning Commission is saying but that he is directed by the first part of his application. Thiesse indicated he likes what has been proposed so far and that the issue is whether the prairie or the woods should be preserved. Thiesse noted the owner has decided she does not want the homes on the Page 23 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. prairie. Thiesse stated he can live with that if the prairie is truly being protected, but right now no one is telling him that the prairie is being protected. Stickney stated he will continue to maintain it and preserve it but that is all he can tell them. Schoenzeit moved to table Application No. 15-3739,BPS Properties, LLC,300 Sixth Avenue North, with the applicant being requested to introduce more formal language in covenants or easements for the non-buildable areas; provide more clarity on the state of the prairie and how that could be part of the conservation plan of this entire project; identify specific building zones within certain wood lots,whether it is size or area or location; and to better document the inability of the future property owners to clear cut. Stickney noted there is a conservation design report for the property and that there will be covenants put in place. Stickney indicated he is not sure how he can get around that. Gaffron noted at their conservation design meeting they had a discussion regarding that and that it would be very hard to go forward without answering that question. Gaffron indicated one of the options that is available with any normal subdivision is that when creating outlots, stipulations would be put in saying that the outlots cannot be developed until they are replatted into lots. Gaffron stated he is not sure whether that accomplishes what the ultimate goal is but that it is standard boilerplate language that is included in a development agreement. Gaffron stated that in effect would put the onus on the next application. Lemke stated there would be no reason to turn it down and it likely would be approved. Stickney commented it is not a slam dunk. Thiesse stated to him this was a slam dunk the way it was but the game has been changed since the prairie area is no longer going to be in a land trust. Stickney stated in his view they are covered by what Mr. Gaffron has suggested. Gaffron noted that language does not guarantee future preservation of the prairie area but would require further review by a future Council before it is developed. Gaffron stated a developer would not be able to touch it until it goes through the process. Schoenzeit stated that is the crux of the issue. Schoenzeit stated the property owner has very strong property rights to be able to develop it and that now is the time to preserve those areas, which is the reason why this should be tabled for additional discussion on that item. Landgraver asked if Mr. Gaffron is saying that it puts another hurdle on the developer before the land can be developed. Gaffron indicated it would say that someone cannot build within the 30-acre outlot until it is replatted. Gaffron stated it essentially pushes future development of the area into the future and guarantees there will be no buildings on it until it is replatted. Lemke stated there will likely be no reason to turn a future development down. Page 24 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated about the only thing the Planning Commission can do at this point is to include a statement in the final plat saying that this is the recommendation for that piece of land. Landgraver stated the other part is who is going to be responsible for that outlot now and into the future and what they will be allowed to do with it. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission would like to see some firm language on that and whether it is going to be in a conservation easement or land trust. Leskinen stated a conservation district is with the City and a land trust is with the state. Gaffron stated given the history of the parcel and the recent discussions, he does not believe the applicant would be willing to give an easement of any type over the outlots at this point. Stickney stated he cannot at this point. Leskinen noted it was presented in the beginning as a land trust but that she is more concerned with protecting the woods. Leskinen noted a motion was made to table the application. Lemke seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. (Recess taken from 9:12 p.m. to 9:17 p.m.) 5. #15-3731 RENEE WIXON,4505 WEST BRANCH ROAD, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW, 9:17 P.M.—9:35 P.M. William and Renee Wixon, Applicants, were present. Gaffron stated this is a sketch plan to create a second 2-acre lot from a parcel that contains 4.71 dry acres, of which 3.90 acres is contiguous and 0.81 acres is separated by a creek and wetland that traverses the property from west to east. The property is located in the RR-1B District, which allows for single-family residential use with a minimum lot size of 2.0 acres and 200 feet lot width. The property does not appear to meet the minimum standards for subdivision. City Code requires two acres of dry buildable contiguous acreage in each lot. The property abuts a creek that enters the site at the northwest corner of the property, winds its way through the southerly portion of the site, and then exits to the east where it enters Forest Lake Bay of Lake Minnetonka. In addition,there is a delineated wetland that extends outside the defined drainage easement. At the point where the creek separates the dry buildable land at the southeast corner of the site,the wetland is approximately 50 feet in width. It would be inconsistent with past City practice to allow credit towards the 2-acre contiguous dry buildable requirement for two areas of land separated by a 50-foot wetland corridor. Gaffron stated under a standard subdivision process, each proposed lot must contain a minimum of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable land. This requirement has to do with septic systems and the City has typically not granted variances to the noncontiguous land. The applicants have provided two conceptual lot layouts for consideration. Neither layout meets the requirement for both lots containing 2.0 acres of contiguous dry-buildable land. In each layout,the proposed new easterly lot contains less than 2.0 acres north of the creek/wetland that traverses the Page 25 of 37 . , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. property from west to east. The easterly two-thirds of the property is within the Shoreland Overlay District. Layout Option A proposes a fairly rectangular-shaped easterly lot with its west line exactly 30 feet from the existing house on proposed Lot 1. Required septic drain field setback from the wetland boundaries is 50 feet and required structure setback is 35 feet from wetlands or the MCWD required buffer plus 10 feet, whichever is greater. Layout Option B has the proposed dividing line angled to place most of the existing driveway in Lot 2 and increases Lot 2's contiguous dry buildable to 1.9 acres, while reducing Lot 1's dry buildable to 2.0 acres. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements will be required along all property boundaries in the plat as well as flowage and conservation easements over portions of the delineated wetlands falling outside the existing flowage and conservation easements. The City's Comprehensive Plan does not show any future trails for West Branch Road so no trail easement is required. The property will be subject to the stormwater and drainage trunk fee. The primary issue for discussion tonight is that the property does not contain 4.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable land. Gaffron stated the City simply does not approve variances for the creation of substandard lots, and by definition the lack of 2.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable in each lot would result in a nonconformity and would require a variance. Only in PRD/RPUD planned development situations has the City allowed the creation of lots less than the required minimum dry buildable acreage. In the opinion of Staff,the property does not have characteristics that meet the criteria for a planned development process for the following reasons: 1. The property does not contain the minimum 4.0 acres of contiguous dry buildable land required to meet the provisions for PRD development. 2. The property does not meet the minimum 5.0 acres of dry buildable land required to qualify for RPUD development, and in Staffls view does not appear to meet any one of the following specified criteria in lieu of the 5-acre requirements: a. Unusual physical features of the properly itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. b. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. c. The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. Page 26 of 37 . , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. d. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could not be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. 3. Layout Option A results in only 1.42 acres of contiguous dry buildable land. While Layout Option B results in 1.9 acres contiguous dry buildable, it is a very contrived layout. In Staffls opinion, the property does not appear to meet the minimum standards for subdivision. It would be inconsistent with past City practice to allow credit towards the 2-acre contiguous dry buildable requirement for two areas of land separated by a 50-foot wetland corridor. Gaffron noted this is a sketch plan review and does not require a public hearing. The Planning Commission should provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat. Thiesse asked if the slopes preclude a septic site. Gaffron stated no septic testing has been conducted at this point. Gaffron indicated the slopes are somewhat steep and that there are areas that meet the setbacks but that there is a question mark as to whether the septic field could be located on a slope. Schoenzeit asked how well the surrounding properties meet the requirements of the RR-1 B District. Gaffron pointed out the two-acre lots and the one-acre lots in the area. Gaffron noted there is also a city park close by as well as a 10-acre parcel that has not been developed at this point. Gaffron pointed out the MUSA line and noted that this property is outside the MUSA and is not eligible for city sewer. Lemke asked if the wetland delineation was performed today whether that would change the wetland boundary. Gaffron stated to his knowledge the delineation shown on the overhead is fairly recent and that the main difference in the delineations goes back 30 years or so to the point where it was before the current methods for defining a wetland were in place. Gaffron stated the recent delineation suggests there will be some additional areas that may need to be within a conservation easement. Renee Wixon,4505 West Branch Road, stated they were hoping to get some direction from the Planning Commission on whether this site is developable. Wixon indicated they would like to construct a retirement home on the property and that they would like preserve the views as much as possible. Wixon stated Mr. Gronberg put together the plan and felt that it was probably doable to do two septic systems but no formal testing has been done. Wixon stated if the Planning Commission's decision hinges on the availability of septic,they would like the application to be tabled so septic testing can be done. Schoenzeit asked if the City has ever made the existing or old lot smaller and the new lot compliant. Gaffron stated the City has not done that and that the Code does not allow the creation of substandard lots. Schoenzeit asked what the total dry buildable is for the site. Page 27 of 37 • . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated it is 3.9 acres contiguous dry buildable. Leskinen stated she is not aware of a time when the City has approved or created a nonconforming lot. Leskinen commented it is unfortunate where the wetland cuts through this site and that they are a tenth of an acre short. Leskinen noted she also is a tenth of an acre short on her own property from being able to subdivide as well. Leskinen stated the City has not done it in the past, City Code does not allow it, and she would not be in favor of creating a nonconforming lot Leskinen noted it has nothing to do with the septic but that it is a slippery slope that she would prefer the City not go down. Lemke stated coupled with the fact that there might not be two septic sites and a slope, it would make sense to make a recommendation that it is not a doable thing. Thiesse indicated he concurs. Leskinen stated she does not want the applicant to incur additional expenses in septic site testing only to find out that the subdivision will not be able to happen. Leskinen stated in the view of the Planning Commission, this is not a dividable lot Gaffron stated the applicants have the option to also bring this as a sketch plan before the City Council to see if they concur with the Planning Commission. William Wixon stated they have approximately one-half acre that is noncontiguous and is located across the wetland. Wixon asked if there is any way to connect or get credit for that approximately one-half acre, such as by building a bridge, in order to make this two lots. Leskinen stated the contiguous dry buildable is the issue and that there is no way to make it contiguous. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 6. #15-3734 CHRISTOPHER BOLLIS,200 AND 350 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW,9:35 P.M.— 10:05 P.M. Christopher Bollis, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant has presented a sketch plan proposing that a 31-acre piece of property comprised of two separate tax parcels be divided into seven single-family residential lots and one larger parcel to the southwest for potential future development. The larger parcel could be served by either Stubbs Bay Road to the north or the extension of Kintyre Lane that is proposed to serve the seven new lots would be served by a new private road and cul-de-sac that would be an extension of Kintyre Lane. All lots would be served by on-site sewage treatment systems and private wells. As it relates to the Comprehensive Plan, it is in conformity with the guiding in this area consisting of one house per acres. There is sufficient dry buildable for each of the seven lots. The site is located in the RR-1 B zoning district. Each proposed lot appears to have 2.0 dry acres buildable. Some of the lots, based on topography and location of wetlands, might be more difficult than others to actually locate Page 28 of 37 Twi � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. houses on. In general the site is surrounded by single-family residentiaL There is a large wetland to the east. The applicant's residence accesses from Stubbs Bay Road under a shared driveway system. Staff's memo outlines each of the individual lots. Lot 1 consists of 2.25 dry acres and a portion of a small open pond at the extreme northeast corner. The lot contains an area of 20 percent slopes with more gradual slopes further east. The lot width is 196 feet at the 50-foot setback,just short of the 200-foot width requirement. Lot 2 contains 0.26 acres of wetland, the larger being along its north boundary, and a portion of a small open pond at the extreme southeast corner. The lot has a dry buildable area of 2.02 acres. The required 35-foot wetland setback to structures will likely force the building to be in the south half of the lot. Lot 3 as proposed has 2.00 acres of dry buildable plus a 0.16 acre portion of wetland at the very east end. Slopes appear to be in the 5-10 percent range. This lot meets the 200-foot width requirement and there should be no problem meeting all required setbacks. Lot 4 is proposed to have 2.00 acres dry buildable plus 13 acres of wetland in the northeast portion. The lot abuts the proposed cul-de-sac with a width of about 60 feet at the front lot line, 150 feet at the 50-foot setback, and 207 feet at the proposed line of the house site. It appears building setbacks can reasonably be met with a home on this property. Gaffron stated based on sketches on file and air photo review, it appears the existing septic system drain field may be bisected by the proposed lot line with Lot 4. It would appear, without the benefit of additional data, that issues with primary and alternate septic sites could be a problem for this lot. Lot 5 contains the existing residences addressed as 350 Stubbs Bay Road and has its driveway access to Stubbs Bay Road. Whether this residence will abandon the existing driveway and access from the new private road is a point for discussion; although,there may not be a strong argument either way. Lot 5 also contains a wetland to the north and east plus a small pond to the northwest. Dry buildable area is shown as 2.68 acres with 3.8 additional acres in wetland and pond. Lot 6 is shaped as a nearly equilateral triangle abutting the cul-de-sac at the southeast corner and abutting wetland along its northwest border. With a dry buildable area of 2.00 acres and 0.66 acres of wetland, the shape of the site,the low topography, and the wetlands will potentially make it difficult to locate a house and septic systems. Lot 7 has exactly 2.00 acres of dry buildable but a 0.56 acre finger of wetland extending through the lot from the northwest is likely to make it difficult to locate a house and two septic sites. The westerly two- thirds of the site is wooded while the east one-third is open. Gaffron pointed out the parcel that is not intended to be developed at this time. The portion of the property not being subdivided to create building sites should be platted as an outlot unless the applicant intends to make it a building site. If platted as an outlot, it will not be buildable until or unless it is related as a lot. If platted as a lot, it will be subject to septic testing as well as the stormwater and drainage trunk fee and park dedication fee. While the property abuts Stubbs Bay Road North,the proposed building sites are more than 300 feet from that road and proposed to be accessed via an extension of Kintyre Lane. The City's standard for Page 29 of 37 �� � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. maximum length of a cul-de-sac road is 1,000 feet. Kintyre Lane, as it currently exists, is 900 feet in length and the proposed extension of 650 feet would bring it to 1,550 feet. While there are a number of private roads in the City extending well beyond 1,000 feet, it has been City policy to establish corridors for possible future development of through roads where the ability exists. The Planning Commission should discuss whether a corridor should be dedicated from the proposed road extending west to Stubbs Bay Road. At the present time the applicant, Staff, and the City Attorney are working with the developer of Kintyre to establish easement rights and responsibilities for the extension of Kintyre Lane to serve this proposed development. The Comprehensive Plan shows a future trail being proposed along Stubbs Bay Road connecting from a conceptual trail along the south side of the Burlington Northern Railroad corridor down to the shore of Stubbs Bay. Whether this traii will ever be completed is unknown at this time, but a 10-foot easement along the west boundary for future trail purposes should be explored. Creation of a new private road is likely to require stormwater ponding and/or other stormwater management measures. Given the general slope to the northeast, it is likely that ponding would occur in the area of one of the four proposed northerly lots. Ponding areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be credited as building area. The anticipated stormwater and drainage trunk fee is approximately$46,800. The wetland delineation report does require MCWD review and approval to confirm the indicated boundaries. The MCWD would be involved in establishment of any wetland mitigation requirements if needed and would also be establishing appropriate wetland buffers for the development. The City will require a conservation and flowage easement over each of the wetlands as well as impose standard wetland setback requirements. The development will also be subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. The Planning Commission should discuss the following: 1. Should a road corridor for potential connection to Stubbs Bay Road North be established? 2. The applicant is advised to carefully review the buildability of the northerly lots in relation to ability to provide for conforming home locations and septic sites. 3. Should the applicant's suggestion of reducing the width of Lots 1 and 2 to 175 feet be allowed? Staff would note that this was only allowed on Kintyre because it was platted via the PRD process and a substantial area of upland was preserved in a conservation easement out which preserved a long natural view from Watertown Road with wooded backdrop that would have otherwise been lost. Staff questions whether similar conditions exist on this property to justify smaller lot widths. 4. What is the applicant's intent for the portion of property not being divided? 5. What is the applicant's intent for the access to the existing house on Lot 5? Page 30 of 37 k ., MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should discuss the proposed sketch plan and provide direction to the applicant. Leskinen asked if the lot next to Stubbs Bay Road is the applicant's residence. Gaffron pointed out the lot that currently has a house on it as well as the applicant's lot. Christopher Bollis, Applicant, 3265 Lafayette Ridge Court, stated he owns 350 Stubbs Bay Road but that he does not reside there. Bollis indicated his parents do live on Lot 2 and have resided there for 41 years with no plans to move at the present time. Leskinen stated the reason she asked about whether that was part of the subject property is because she was wondering whether that particular avenue between that home and the barn could perhaps provide access to Stubbs Bay Road instead of having the connecting cul-de-sacs. Leskinen indicated as she was looking at Exhibit E, she felt there were some other options. Bollis indicated that strip of land is approximately 16 feet wide and is basically for a driveway to 200 Stubbs Bay Road. Leskinen asked if that is the residence that is located by the trees. Bollis stated that is correct. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission should discuss direct access to Stubbs Bay Road. Gaffron stated an outlot would be consistent with what the City has done in similar situations where there is an opportunity to make a through road at some point in the future. The majority of those roads have never been connected up to the present time. Leskinen asked if the wooded area is all dry buildable or whether it is wetland. Bollis indicated it is largely upland. Gaffron stated the low area is the little finger of land. Thiesse stated the problem with the two cul-de-sacs is they both come from the same spot and cut Stubbs Bay Road of£ Thiesse stated the convenience in other similar situations would be for maintenance and access by emergency vehicles, which does not seem to be the case in this situation. Lemke asked if that is all private property where the existing home is located. Gaffron indicated there is a strangely shaped outlot that serves two homes. Lemke asked if that could be the access to the cul-de-sac. Gaffron stated it is a possibility, but to his knowledge it was not platted as a road but rather as a shared driveway. Page 31 of 37 M ., MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Bollis indicated that is correct. Bollis stated if they were to plat a corridor out to Stubbs Bay Road, he would like to discuss what the purpose of the corridor would be. Bollis stated there is zero intent for future development of that parcel, and even if there were a corridor out to Stubbs Bay, it would not serve anything if someone were to develop that. Bollis indicated the potential lots off of Stubbs Bay Road would have access off of Stubbs Bay Road. Thiesse stated eliminating the cul-de-sac off of Stubbs Bay Road would simply force the road further down and then require the road to come back up and around. Bollis noted there would also be a number of trees that would be impacted. Thiesse asked if the roadway coming off the existing cul-de-sac is pretty steep. Bollis stated there is a tiny section of the property that has an 18 percent grade in Lot 2. Bollis stated it would be less than 1,000 square feet. Bollis stated the homes would be walk-outs and very little grading would be required. Thiesse asked if the applicant would be connecting his house to the cul-de-sac. Bollis indicated he would be. Gaffron asked if that potentially eliminates the corridor off of Stubbs Bay. Bollis stated in his view it would stay in ownership to that piece of property and potentially not be used. Gaffron noted between Lots 4 and 5 the property line goes through the septic field. Bollis indicated it would cut off a corner of the septic site. Thiesse noted a new septic system would likely be required if a new home is built. Gaffron stated they would need two sites that could be utilized for septic. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with Gaffron regarding Lots 1 and 2 and to leave the width as is given how the wetland limits the placement of the house. Gaffron stated the wetland could perhaps be split between the two lots, which would leave both lots at 175 feet. Gaffron stated he does not know, however, if there is a justification to vary on that. Landgraver asked how the applicant feels about compressing Lots 5, 6 and 7 into two lots rather than three. Bollis stated the way they have the house pads on the lots currently,they are conforming and it will depend on the septic testing. Leskinen stated it appears to be a reasonable plan but the chain of cul-de-sacs might be a little concerning. Leskinen stated she is not sure what can be done to resolve that. Page 32 of 37 � ., .� MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 dclock p.m. Gaffron stated the parcel that would not be developed likely would be platted as an outlot. If it is not platted as an outlot but platted as a lot,there would need to be septic testing completed and the lot would be subject to stormwater and drainage trunk fees. Gaffron stated there is not a problem with leaving it as an outlot. The other option would be to combine it with the adjoining property. Gaffron stated from Staff's perspective, what has been presented is in general a good layout, and if everything tests fine for septic, he would not have a problem with it. Bollis stated since they have submitted their sketch plan, the onsite review by the Watershed was completed. Bollis indicated the wetland on Lot 2 is actually considerably smaller than what was originally delineated. The first 80 feet of the wetland was determined to be upland, which helps a lot with building pad and septic. Bollis stated the open ponds are proposed ponds for stormwater management and are not natural wetlands. Thiesse asked about the existing cul-de-sac and whether it would be made a through road. Gaffron stated it is platted as an outlot up to a certain point with a separate tax parcel at the end. Gaffron stated one of the discussion points as this plan progresses is whether one of the cul-de-sacs could disappear. Since it is platted,there would need to be a vacation of that outlot and perhaps be combined with one of the adjacent lots. Thiesse stated it could be a nice turnaround halfway there except it could potentially create a traffic problem if someone was coming over the hill. Thiesse asked if there is surmountable curb on the cul-de- sac. Bollis stated there is surmountable curb on the cul-de-sac and that it would be nice to remove that if possible. Bollis noted there is a similar cul-de-sac in Graham Hill approximately 1,500 feet in length. Leskinen asked what the total length of the road is. Gaffron indicated it is approximately 1,500 feet from Watertown Road. An audience member asked if public comment would be allowed. Gaffron noted this is a sketch plan review and that the public is not notified and public comments are typically not taken,but the Planning Commission has the option of accepting public comments. Chair Leskinen stated she would allow public comments. Susan Fleming, 300 Stubbs Bay Road, stated they would be very disappointed if that turned into a road going out to Stubbs Bay Road. Fleming asked whether these homes are going to be walkouts or single- level homes, because they would be looking directly at three level homes if they are walkouts. Fleming stated in her view Lot 6 is a really flat lot and that she is not sure how they could put a walkout there. Dick Stubbs, 400 Stubbs Bay Road, stated they will not want a driveway on the north end since it is really low land that floods out every spring. Gaffron stated he is not sure if there is an answer to define what type of house could go on Lot 6. Page 33 of 37 � � w MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Bollis stated what is being depicted is a boilerplate house pad and is not going to be the exact house in that location. Bollis stated Lot 6 could accommodate a walkout but that it would be up to the builder. Bollis indicated he would like to design the homes according to the topography of the lots. Landgraver stated before the applicant goes before the City Council, he may want to consider some type of landscaping or screening to minimize the impacts to the neighbors. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 7. #15-3732 CITY OF ORONO,AMEND CITY CODE SECTION 78-1 DEFINITIONS,ADD BARBER SHOPS AND BEAUTY SHOP, 10:05 P.M.— 10:20 P.M. Curtis stated the City was recently approached with a request to operate what was described as a high-end nail salon in an existing building in Navarre. Barber shops and beauty shops are permitted uses within the B-1 retail sales business district,the B-3 shopping center district, and the B-5 limited neighborhood business district. Currently there is no definition outlining what services are included in a barber shop or beauty shop within the zoning code. Staff is not proposing a change per se but rather to add a definition and perhaps the types of services to be provided so that when a similar question comes up, Staff would be better to answer it. Curtis noted it is not unusual for the use to be specifically defined, but that this is an opportunity for the City to put some parameters on the use. Staff has done some preliminary research as a starting point for the Planning Commission's review. In Staffls view,the Plymouth definition encompasses a number of the services that would normally be common. Staff is not proposing to change any of the language regarding the City's massage licenses. Curtis requested the Planning Commission look over the options and provide Staff with some guidance. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission went with the Plymouth definition as it relates to nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, whether tattoo replacement and removal would be included in that or construed to beincluded. Curtis stated that is a good question and that the Planning Commission could decide whether it should be included in the definition. Schoenzeit stated if the definition does not specifically exclude that, it likely still would be covered given the broad language in the Plymouth definition. Curtis stated the Plymouth definition is a starting point that the Planning Commission could use. Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:13 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:13 p.m. Page 34 of 37 At �, , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen stated it is probably not possible to include every possible scenario and that sometimes broader language is better. Schoenzeit stated if the City wants to exclude something, they should say that. Thiesse stated he is not advocating to not allow tattoo removal but that the Planning Commission should discuss that. Leskinen stated what service a person receives at a salon is also changing. Gaffron stated it is simple enough in the code to list all the things that are excluded. Leskinen asked if there are any particular services the Planning Commission would like to exclude. Leskinen stated in her view the Plymouth definition covers it very well and that she cannot think of a specific service that she would like to exclude. Leskinen stated the Coon Rapids' definition is broader. Curtis noted the City Attorney recommended the City specifically list the services the City would allow. Leskinen stated in that case the Plymouth example appears to be the most thorough and that she does not see anything in particular that should be disallowed. Lemke noted the Coon Rapids' definition states certified or licensed massage therapist by the city. Curtis stated the state licenses the aesthetician and hair people but that the City licenses the massage therapists. Curtis noted this definition would not change that process at all. Thiesse stated in his view tattoo removal would be allowed under the Plymouth definition. Landgraver stated in his view a tattoo parlor is not something that Orono would want to have but that perhaps the City Council could weigh in on whether it should be excluded. Thiesse commented a person may receive better service if the business provides more than one type of service. Schoenzeit stated the City cannot ask a business to offer multiple services. Gaffron stated he would suggest the Planning Commissioners drive around some strip malls in other cities to see if there is something that stands out. Thiesse asked if someone from Staff could call Plymouth to see what kind of problems they have had. Gaffron indicated Staff could call. Leskinen asked if Staff would like a specific recommendation tonight. Curtis stated that would be ideal, but that if the Planning Commission is not able to make that specific direction,they could table it. Page 35 of 37 tM. . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated he likes the Plymouth definition but that he would like Staff to check with Plymouth and also alert the City Council that in the view of the Planning Commission tattoo replacement and removal would be allowed. Thiesse moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3732,City of Orono,Amend City Code Section 78-1 Definitions,Add Barber Shops and Beauty Shop, by adopting the Plymouth detinition,with the understanding that Staff will check with Plymouth to see if they have had any problems with their ordinance,and with Staff alerting the City Council that in the view of the Planning Commission tattoo services would be allowed under the nonsurgical cosmetic procedures language contained in the Plymouth definition. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 8. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATNES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON APRIL 27,2015 AND MAY 11,2015 Thiesse stated he was unable to attend the April 27 meeting. Gaffron noted the Bessesen rezoning was denied at that meeting. Curtis stated the application dealing with survey requirements was tabled to have Staff look into thresholds that could be incorporated into the ordinance that would not require a survey. Exception criteria would include properties located outside of the shoreland, within the hardcover limit, and a project consisting of 200 square feet or less. Lemke stated he attended the May 11 Council meeting and that the City's annual public hearing for the MS-4 permit was held. The survey requirements were approved on a 4 to 1 vote after a lengthy discussion with the understanding that lots under two acres would be discussed further. The Brooks application was placed on the Consent Agenda as well as the W Landscapes, Inc., application. In addition,the Spring Hill Golf Course request was approved. The City Council also approved a letter to the Metropolitan Council regarding projected housing growth in the area and the bid for the Watertown Road/Stubbs Bay Road project was approved. The Livingston Tower Park improvement plan was approved. Lemke noted Council Member Levang made a nice statement in response to the flyer that came out. Levang stated the Planning Commissioners work very hard and that she did not appreciate the flyer denigrating them. Mayor McMillan also made some comments about the flyer. Levang read her statement given at the City Council meeting. Levang stated she appreciates the work of the Planning Commission. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None Page 36 of 37 �►�. � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 18,2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Landgraver moved, Lemke seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10:39 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ATTEST: / �7 � � � ! � ���/�:'./���L. � :� �--� Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 37 of 37