HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2015 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June l5,2015
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, Christopher McGrann, 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 Jim Cornick, Jr., was present.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
John Thiesse stated he will be recuzing himself from Application Na 15-3748.
Curtis noted Application No. 15-3733 has been removed from tonight's agenda at the request of the
applicant.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 18,2015
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning
Commission meeting of May 18,2015,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. #15-3739 GEORGE STICKNEY OF BPS PROPERTIES,LLC,300 SIXTH AVENUE
NORTH,PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:35—7:45 P.M.
George Stickney, BPS Properties, was present.
Gaffron noted this is the second review by the Planning Commission of a proposed subdivision for a
93-acre parcel in which 11 single-family residential lots will be created, leaving two large outlots
undeveloped. The application was tabled after discussion, with the applicant being asked to revise his
plan as well as introduce more formal covenant or easement language, depictions and specificity
regarding the proposed non-buildable areas within individual lots; identify with clarity the specific
building zones within each of the wood lots; and better document the limitations placed on future property
� owners regarding clear cutting; and provide more detail regarding the future intent for preservation of the
prairie areas.
The applicant has since submitted a newly revised plan that eliminates the westerly lot within the Big
Woods area and adds a third lot abutting Hunter Drive. Elimination of the westerly lot also eliminates the
need for a driveway and a driveway outlot to access it. A third lot with tested septic sites has been located
abutting Hunter Drive, and the originally proposed lots on Hunter have been slightly reshaped. In
addition,the cul-de-sac serving the main grouping of lots has been moved approximately 100 feet to the
south, which allows for more trees to be preserved, and the proposed lot boundaries in the easterly portion
of the development have been slightly altered to better accommodate drainage and to better preserve
significant trees.
Page i of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The developer has also revised the draft covenants such that he number of significant trees allowed to be
removed from the Big Woods Lots 5 through 8 without requiring 2 for 1 replacement is reduced from 18
to 15.
Gaffron stated the proposed driveway locations are also now depicted on the preliminary plat drawings.
It appears that the suggested driveway locations do not conflict with septic sites or anticipated wetland
buffers, with the exception of Lots 2, 5, and 8. On Lot 5, the proposed driveway is shown in the narrow
gap between the primary and alternate drain field sites on a side slope of 25 percent. This driveway
location likely will require cudfill on either side, which may have negative impacts on the septic system,
and should be reconsidered. On Lots 2 and 8,the driveways appear to have less than the required 10-foot
separation from the sewage treatment mound locations. The applicant should review other options for
those driveways.
The plans also indicate proposed grading for building pads on Lots 3, 4, and 5. The applicant should
confirm that the intent is creation of actual pads that would result in new existing grades for measurement
of house height and number of stories calculations.
Gaffron noted the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has not approved the boundaries of the wetlands
as shown on the preliminary plat drawings. Preliminary plat approval by the City Council should not be
granted until the wetland boundaries have been confirmed.
Gaffron noted the revised plans have not been reviewed by the City Engineer as of this writing. A review
by the City Engineer will be necessary before the preliminary plat goes before the City Council. In
addition, wetland boundaries must be confirmed prior to Council review.
The Planning Commission should review the following issues:
L The revisions to the plan, especially the removal of one of the Big Woods lots, would appear to
be a very positive step. The Planning Commission should decide whether this change is
sufficient and whether there are any additional changes that should be made.
2. Are there any negative impacts related to adding a lot along Hunter Drive that will need to be
mitigated? Should additional screening of that lot be required, given the probable location of
the house in the open field 250 feet east of Hunter Drive?
3. Are the proposed design and preservation measures as proposed in the draft Covenant Document
and its exhibits adequate to protect the site environmental elements of importance? Is the
applicant willing to grant to the City conservation easements within individual lots to allow for a
greater level of protection than simply homeowner association covenants?
4. Has the applicant adequately addressed the requests for additional information as noted in the
notice of Planning Commission action?
Staff recommends that the applicant be advised that further review by the City Engineer may result in
additional items needing to be addressed. The applicant should also address the potential conflicts
between septic sites and driveways prior to Council review. Finally,preliminary plat review by the City
Council should not move forward until or unless documentation is provided confirming that the MCWD
has approved the wetland delineation boundaries.
Page 2 of 53
MItYUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should reopen the public hearing and receive comments from the
public.
Lemke stated there appears to be a flatter area that can accommodate a septic site for Lot 5.
Gaffron stated to his understanding the applicant is proposing a stormwater pond in that area but that it
does appear to be a good location for a septic site.
Leskinen asked when approval can be anticipated from the Watershed District.
Gaffron stated the applicant can probably answer that.
Schoenzeit asked if there has ever been a situation where the City has been a party to a covenant similar
to what is being presented here.
Gaffron indicated there have been a few situations where the City has some authority over the private
covenant documents or changes to a covenant document. The developments of Sugar Woods and Stone
Bay are instances where the City accepted some authority within the private covenants, such as authority
to approve certain changes or to ensure that certain things are done. Gaffron stated the City does not
typically seek to have that type of authority since there is the possibility to miss something as time goes
forward.
Schoenzeit asked if the Conservation Design is an opinion document and not a finding of fact.
Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated it has not been reviewed specifically by the City
Engineer or city consultant to see whether they agree with the report.
George Stickney, Applicant, stated back on May 18,they proposed 11 single-family lots with eight
outlots and that they received a lot of feedback from the Planning Commission and residents. Stickney
noted the plan at that time conformed in every way and the drainage over the site was not being changed.
Stickney stated they also met with Staff over the Conservation Design report and had a positive
discussion.
Stickney stated in his view there were some misconceptions about the driveway on the north end of the
property to access Lot 2, Block 2, which has since been removed. Stickney stated that route was basically
impossible to his standards in that it would have gone through the highest concentration of trees on the
site,which has been avoided. Stickney stated originally he had two septic sites in that area but those have
been relocated to reduce the tree loss.
Stickney indicated he has been tweaking the design to make sure that there is minimal impact on trees,
and whenever a tree is removed,two trees will be planted as replacement.
Stickney stated another option he had was to change the layout to include prairie lots, but that was
unacceptable to the owners of the property. Stickney stated the prairie land is sacred to the property
owners and that they want that area preserved.
Stickney stated on his plan, all the driveways,the septic sites, and the home sites are showing a minimal
loss of trees. Stickney indicated t►e will also be planting additional trees for screening and the roadways
will be lined with trees. Stickney stated the plan is that the lots will be camouflaged and to locate the
Page 3 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
septic sites and driveways in places that will help ensure there will be a zero loss of trees. Preservation of
the trees is one of the major concepts of this development and there is a very strict tree preservation and
replacement covenant to further help preserve the trees. Stickney noted the covenants will dictate where
the building pads and driveways will be.
Stickney indicated he has walked the entire property and that they have identified the invasive species that
need to be removed. Stickney stated the Medina piece will be planted with prairie grasses next spring,
with all of the invasive plants being sprayed as soon as possible. Stickney indicated they will be burning
the prairies on the Orono portion in the spring, followed by a replanting of native plants.
Stickney stated as it relates to the wetlands,the Watershed District walked the site with Frank Svoboda on
Thursday and Friday. A small amount of wetland was added and all invasive species will be taken care of
and managed.
Stickney indicated he made some other revisions to the lots by increasing the size of the outlots. Stickney
noted the average dry building area is 3.1 acres where the City's code requires two acres per lot. Stickney
pointed out he did not add another lake lot even though that could be done.
Stickney noted there are three different classifications of trees depending on age in this area, and that the
number of mature trees that are over 75 years of age that will be lost is 11. Stickney reiterated that he is
doing as much as possible to prevent tree loss, which has been reduced overall to seven percent. Stickney
stated he has avoided the areas with the biggest concentration of trees.
Stickney stated in his opinion there is no reason for a conservation easement since the homeowners
association can monitor the area and that the building pads are not in that area. Stickney indicated they
will continue to make some minor tweaks and revisions but that the layout has been designed to preserve
as many of the natural features and trees on the site as possible. Stickney indicated he would also like to
play an active part in the management of Mooney Lake and that the buffer zones around the lakes and
ponds will be significant.
Stickney stated in his view this is a wonderful development and everything is above the City's normal
acceptable limits. Stickney noted they are not changing any drainage patterns and that they are
attempting to preserve and improve what is there. Stickney stated he is here tonight to ask the Planning
Commission for their approval.
Leskinen asked when the Watershed District approval is anticipated.
Frank Svoboda, Svoboda Ecological Resources, stated they reviewed the wetland boundaries with the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on Thursday and also met with the Army Corps of Engineers on
Friday. One very small wetland was added,the boundary of Wetland No. 10 was changed, and purple
loosestrife was found near Wetland No. 10. Svoboda indicated they are in the process of revising those
numbers and that the information should be ready to be submitted to the Watershed District tomorrow.
Leskinen noted the application will not move forward to the City Council without approval from the
Watershed District.
Stickney stated they are anticipating having that by June 17.
Landgraver asked if he is willing to grant covenants to the City.
Page 4 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Stickney stated he will not do that since there is no need to do it given the covenants that will be on the
properties and the difficulty the City would have in enforcing it going into the future. Stickney stated he
will be involved with the building of each lot. Stickney stated the architectural review committee will
also be monitoring the building.
Lemke asked if 100 percent of the homeowners would have to approve any changes.
Stickney stated they will in the Big Woods.
Lemke asked about the prairie.
Stickney stated the prairie land is not part of that covenant but to his belief it would require eight.
Thiesse noted Item No. 7 say excluded parcels are Outlots A and B.
Leskinen noted if the outlots are ever developed,they would need to come back before the City.
Stickney stated he is spending a lot of money right now preserving what should be preserved.
Schoenzeit asked what would happen if one of the homeowners decides to remove 50 trees and construct
a pool.
Stickney stated they would have to plant approximately$50,000 worth of replacement trees.
Schoenzeit stated he does not see any teeth to prevent that.
Jeff Watson, Attorney-at-Law with Moss &Barnett, stated he is the author of the covenants. Watson
stated he would like to point out that not just the association has the right to enforce any violations of the
covenants but any property owner in the development has that right. Watson stated even if you have a
(ess than active association, it will only take one owner to take enforcement action.
In addition,the covenants have a restoration obligation. Watson stated if somebody violates the
covenants,there are a number of remedies, including planting more trees than what were removed. The
later submitted covenant contains an amendment provision to the declaration that is designed to protect
not just the trees but also the prairie land provisions. Watson stated if anybody wants to amend anything
about the Big Woods,they have to get everyone who does not have a Big Woods lot to also agree with it.
Watson stated Section 9.4 is designed to make sure that that does not happen. Watson stated in his view
the people with the biggest stake in enforcing the covenants are the people who purchase the lots and live
there.
Stickney stated when they sell a lot in the Big Woods,there are driveway location and building zones
with legal descriptions attached to them. Stickney stated everyone in the development will know what
they are doing when they purchase a lot and that it is unlikely that someone is going to buy a lot to go and
violate a covenant since they will have a number of people watching them and penalties that will be
enforced. Stickney stated the only way to preserve a lot like this is to buy it and preserve it.
Page 5 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Stickney noted Orono does not have a tree ordinance and that this is the strictest one Orono has ever seen.
Stickney stated in his view Graham Hill is the second best. Stickney stated there are penalties if trees are
cut down.
McGrann asked what the tree coverage will look like as it relates to Lot 3, Block 2.
Stickney stated the driveway will be beyond the wetland and away from the septic sites. Stickney
indicated he plans on having 16 to 18 oak trees of significant size transplanted in there, which will be
backed up with 25 plus pine trees in two rows. Stickney noted he also transplanted a number of large
white pines on Willow Road approximately 15 years ago and that the development is now well screened.
Stickney stated he will not stop making this development right.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
A resident from Plymouth stated he lives across from the planned development and that many of the
neighbors appreciate the discussion about the trees. The resident stated it is important to have a good
discussion as well about the lake since people move to this area because of the lake. The resident stated
he would like to see sufficient lake protection. The resident stated there is a big difference between the
trees and the lake and that the trees are getting stronger but the lake is getting weaker. The resident stated
in his view the 11 lots will have a big impact on the lake unless there are protections put on the lots.
Peter Rechelbacher, 1242 Hunter Drive, asked if the retention pond will be part of the association.
Stickney indicated it is.
Rechelbacher asked if the association will be responsible for maintaining it.
Stickney indicated they will be.
Rechelbacher asked if that is written into the covenants.
Stickney indicated it is. Stickney stated there will be buffer zones on all of those items and the restored
prairie grasses will better filter the runoff.
Mark Gronberg indicated the stormwater pond will treat all of the new runoff from the road and the front
of the houses. Gronberg indicated they will be working with the Watershed District as it relates to the
back of the houses. Gronberg stated there possibly will be some rain gardens on individual lots to capture
any additional runoff as well as buffer strips along all of the wetlands. The prairie area will be redone and
planted with some native grasses.
Wendy Lonsgard, 1462 Hunter Drive, stated there has been a significant amount of phosphorus that has
entered the lake and that a significant amount of money and time has been spent in an attempt to reduce
that. Lonsgard stated her understanding is that Orono helps protect the lake through the TMDL, with the
implementation by the MPCA. Lonsgard stated she is not sure whether that is a legal or a moral
obligation on the part of the City, but that she would like to see the opportunity taken to really monitor the
lake to make sure it remains as beautiful as it is right now.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:31 pm.
Page 6 of 53
MINOTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen noted Orono has very, very strict regulations as it regards the lakeshore and that the City makes
every effort to protect the lake.
Gaffron stated Orono and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will work together to make sure this
development meets all of the required standards. Gaffron stated he expects the City will do its part to
ensure that whatever required phosphorus management is necessary will be done under the TMDL.
Gaffron stated the key thing to this development is that the City and the Watershed District will do all of
the standard calculations and guarantee to the extent possible that the engineering will handle the
phosphorus and manage the lake properly.
Leskinen noted the applicants anticipate they will be receiving approval from the Watershed District in
the near future. Leskinen asked if Staff requires that before engineer review.
Gaffron stated it would be very helpful to have that information since the buffers affect a lot of the
calculations. Gaffron indicated the engineer will review the preliminary plan to ensure there are no
issues.
Leskinen asked if that needs to be part of any motion.
Gaffron recommended the motion include the requirement that the MCWD permit be received prior to the
application going before the City Council.
Lemke asked when the engineer's review will be done.
Gaffron stated it is likely the engineer's review will take around a week. Gaffron indicated there will be
engineer review of the preliminary plat and then again as part of final plat.
Leskinen stated the changes that have been made are very positive and that she is happy to see the lot on
the upper part removed, which is where a lot of the neighbors' concerns centered around. Leskinen stated
that change has made a huge difference and that she is now more inclined to move forward with the
application.
Leskinen stated she did have one additional comment regarding a concern with the cul-de-sac and having
driveways without the cul-de-sac. Leskinen stated she is not sure whether she agrees with that possibility
since there are four lots coming off of that, which means a cul-de-sac is required.
Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated the situation is that the cul-de-sac was relocated, and the
question is whether it can be moved further down. Gaffron stated if it is relocated,there could be
multiple driveways that do not come off of the cul-de-sac, which is problematic from a code standpoint.
Gaffron stated the other area where the cul-de-sac could be located is in a fairly steep area and will
require cuts or fills. Gaffron stated the question is whether the cul-de-sac should be relocated with long
driveways coming off of it,which would require a variance. It would also possibly require that each one
of the driveways have a loop on Lots 6, 7, and 8 for emergency vehicle access or a wider driveway.
Gaffron asked whether the driveway would require a cut or fill.
Page 7 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gronberg stated the north side will be a cut and the south side will be a fill. Gronberg stated the city
street is 24 feet wide and that the driveway will need to be 24 feet wide. Gronberg indicated it will
require quite a bit of cutting and filling if a driveway is placed there.
Gaffron asked how moving the cul-de-sac further down would impact the stormwater pond.
Gronberg stated the pond could be pushed further to the east.
Gaffron stated he is not sure whether the Planning Commission should try to resolve that tonight since
there are both pros and cons associated with it. Gaffron stated where it is proposed is not an unreasonable
site but that there is a potential it will need to be moved.
Lemke asked how Staff feels about the length of the cul-de-sac.
Gaffron stated the length of the cul-de-sac has been decreased by approximately 100 feet. Gaffron noted
the cul-de-sac will be serving six lots and that the City has a number of private roads at that same length.
Gaffron indicated he is not concerned about it.
Leskinen stated the third item for discussion is any negative impacts related to Lot 3, Block 2, along
Hunter Drive. Leskinen noted the applicant spoke at length about screening in that area and that the
Planning Commission can make that part of a motion if the Commissioners would like to see screening of
that lot.
McGrann stated he would like to see something in the motion regarding screening.
Leskinen stated Item No. 4 is design and preservation measures in the covenant documents. Leskinen
noted the applicant has already stated he is not willing to grant city conservation easements within the
individual lots and that there is pretty strong language within the HOA covenant. Leskinen stated she is
not sure if it has sufficient teeth.
Thiesse commented at some point you nave to trust the human race.
Leskinen stated the City cannot force the developer to grant conservation easements.
Schoenzeit asked if the covenant would allow any homeowner challenging any change to collect fees in
that regard.
Watson indicated it is included in Section 9.2 of the covenants, which provides for injunctive relief.
Watson stated he is not sure how it could be drafted any stronger. Watson stated it is better to have the
right to collect the fees rather than just the right to enforce the covenants.
Landgraver stated he had a little bit of difficulty following some of the language in the covenants.
Landgraver stated Section 8.5 is the uniform rate of assessment and cannot be amended without 100
percent of the homeowners. Landgraver commented this is probably a work in process.
Watson stated Section 9.4 that was added later, in addition to making it very difficult to change Section
8.5, all of the preservation provisions of the declaration require a super majority. Watson stated the
developer, by the terms of Section 9.4, cannot just amend those provisions himself as the owner of all the
Page 8 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
lots,which is evidence of good faith that this is not a charade. Watson stated those are not trivial things
and are things that require a super majority, which makes it difficult to amend.
Landgraver stated the Big Woods has been a very important part of Orono, and that in his view the
Planning Commission has asked about as much as they can from the developer.
Lemke stated the effort made by Mr. Stickney is wonderful and that he appreciates all the preservation
efforts being taken. Lemke stated in his view the developer recognizes that this is an important piece of
property to Orono.
Thiesse stated he would also like to commend Mr. Stickney for listening to the concerns.
Thiesse moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3739, George
Stickney of BPS Properties,LLC,300 Sixth Avenue North,granting preliminary plat approval,
subject to the recommendations outlined in Staffls report dated June 10,2015, and subject to
mandatory screening on Lot 3,Block 2.
McGrann asked if the Planning Commission should include some specific direction about the screening.
Gaffron stated based on the discussion tonight, Staff can draft some specific conditions. Gaffron noted
the City Council will also be reviewing this application.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
3. #15-3716 DALE GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF MARK AND KRISTEN ANDERSON,
3850 WATERTOWN ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:47 P.M.—8:10 P.M.
Mark Anderson,Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated in June of 2014, the property owners received approval of a conditional use permit to import
approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill to the site. During the course of the project,the amount of
material imported to the site exceeded the approved amount by approximately 7,000 cubic yards. The
City stopped the work and required the property owner to apply for an amendment or an after-the-fact
conditional use permit to address the additional fill.
The applicant has provided a revised plan and wetland delineation addressing the additional fill brought to
the site and further requests approval in order to import approximately 3,000 cubic yards more to
complete the project. The project contemplates creating both a level paddock for their horses west of the
barn and a more gradual slope from the barn to the wetland to ease in planting a crop over the newly
graded slopes.
The City Engineer has reviewed and provided comments regarding the revised plan which Staff believes
addresses the concerns raised by the neighboring property owner.
By Code, conditional permitted uses must be reviewed using the criteria found in Section 78-916.
Specifically Staff finds that a number of the criteria are applicable, such as Criteria 6, 7, and 8 in this
Page 9 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
section that relate to whether the approved improvements are appropriate and in character with the
surrounding land and neighborhood. Staff believes the filling and re-grading of the property, once
completed, will have no impact on surrounding lands. The grades, once vegetated, will blend into the rest
of the pasture acreage.
Curtis stated Criteria No. 9 requires that the proposed grading and improvements must not substantially
impair the use and enjoyment of the property I the area or have an adverse impact on the property values
in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses. The ultimate result
of the proposed grading will not change the intended residential use of the property and there should be
no change in the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties resulting from the imported fill. However, it is
Staffls opinion,the prolonged activity of importing the fill and actively grading the property will have an
adverse impact on neighbors, surrounding properties, and users of Watertown Road during the project.
Trucks hauling and equipment working on the site will likely result in additional noise, dust, vibration
and traffic on the haul routes and immediate neighbors. To the degree possible,the adverse impacts
should be limited and mitigated.
Criteria 10 through 12, as well as 15,discuss mitigation of undesirable views and potential nuisances.
The finished grade will be vegetated and crop farmland, which will blend into the property. The project,
once completed, should not result in undesirable views requiring mitigation. Curtis noted the applicant
has planted a considerable number of trees along Watertown Road in order to screen the property further.
The haul routes should be submitted and will be monitored for damage and debris. The applicant will be
required to keep debris off of the public roadways. The resulting noise from the trucks hauling and
equipment moving the material in and around the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The
grading project has been evaluated and will be monitored by the City Engineer and Planning Staff so as to
minimize nuisances during the project.
Criteria 13 is the standard that requires that the project be designed to take into account the natural,
scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact. A wetland delineation has
been submitted and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The material removed from
the wetlands in the previous phase of the project will be returned and the area vegetated as directed by the
MCWD. The project will continue to be monitored by the MCWD, the City, Hennepin County
Environmental Services, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to prevent erosion from the site
and/or sediment deposition into the wetland area.
The Planning Commission should discuss the following:
1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the conditional use permit, if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts
created by the granting of the requested conditional use permit, such as dedicated haul routes,
limited haul days and times, limits to the days and times for equipment activity within the site,
and screening.
Page 10 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. Only clean fill is permitted. The City Engineer shall be allowed to inspect any fill being imported
to the site prior to deposition;
2. A haul route shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval and inspection prior to
commencement of hauling to the site. The property owner shall be responsible for repair to
roadways for any adverse impacts;
3. Hauling activity may occur only Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. as designated in Section 58.121;
4. Equipment activity relating to the grading project within the site may occur only Monday through
Friday between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.;
5. The grading activity should ensure the surface overflow is maintained at existing elevations on
the south side of the wetland;
6. Upon completion of the project, an as-built survey shall be submitted reflecting conformance with
the approved plan. The site will be evaluated from an erosion and sediment control risk
perspective prior to release of escrow funds;
7. The property owner shall submit plans and a permit application to address the retaining walls
constructed on the site without proper City permits prior to the release of the escrow funds;
8. The applicant and the property owner shall comply with the recommendations of the City
Engineer and the requirements of the other involved regulatory agencies. An administrative
zoning permit for land alteration will be required and a pre-construction meeting involving all
relevant parties shall be held at least seven days prior to commencement of grading work
following any approvals granted by the City Council.
Curtis noted the property owner is in attendance at tonight's meeting.
Landgraver asked if the Watershed District has approved the additional 3,000 feet of additional fill being
brought in.
Curtis indicated they approved the wetland delineation and the property owner has obtained the
appropriate MCWD permits.
Landgraver noted Item No. 6 requires the completion of an as-built survey and asked who would do that.
Curtis indicated it would likely be the City's consulting engineer in this situation.
Landgraver asked when Item No. 7 needs to be done.
Curtis stated prior to the release of the escrow funds.
Landgraver asked if a hard date should be put in there.
Page il of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNI1vG COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the Planning Commission could do that if they desire.
Landgraver noted this is an after-the-fact variance application and that in his view a definite date should
be set. Landgraver asked whether Staff prefers 30 or 60 days.
Curtis stated Staff had a discussion with the applicant today to clarify the permitting requirements under
the new City rules and that they should be aware of what needs to be done.
Thiesse asked when the remainder of Watertown Road will be paved.
Curtis stated that portion will be completed next year.
Mark Anderson stated he is here to answer questions.
Leskinen asked how long the project is expected to take.
Anderson stated it should be less than 30 days. The official permit was filed to fix the erosion on the
backside of the barn. Anderson indicated they purchased the property in 2013, and in both the years 2013
and 2014, they lost their crop due to flooding. Anderson stated since then,they discovered the drain tile
was inoperable, and as a result, the drain tile has been repaired, which corrected the drainage.
Thiesse asked where he is planning to obtain the material.
Anderson stated some of the fill will likely be coming from the construction on Watertown Road.
Thiesse asked whether the fill currently on the site came from one spot.
Anderson stated it did.
Lemke asked if he has any problem with Staff's recommendations.
Anderson stated the hours of operation are banker hours and that this is a farm, but that they will do as
required by the City.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
Richard Schmidt, 3980 Watertown Road, stated he is disappointed to find out that they are looking at
hundreds more dump trucks coming into the site and that last year it was thousands of dump trucks all
summer long. Schmidt stated the impact to his property last summer was largely due to the truck traffic
all day and that oftentimes it was on the weekends until the City got after the applicant.
Schmidt stated he mostly is disappointed with the fact that the project went on for so long. Schmidt
stated the meeting tonight would not have had to happen if the City had looked at this project earlier on
last summer. Schmidt stated it was obvious the permit parameters were being exceeded early on in the
project, which triggered complaint calls to the City.
Schmidt stated he does not have a problem with the dirt but that it is the disruption to the neighborhood
that has already occurred under the nose of the City. Schmidt stated he knows it is a little late to whine
Page 12 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
about that now, but that he has a concern about another 300 to 500 trucks. Schmidt stated the other
neighbors have more to lose than he does about potential flooding. Schmidt commented he is anxious to
get this project behind them.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m.
Leskinen asked if Staff has a significant concern about flooding on the neighboring property. Leskinen
asked if any flooding occurred on the neighboring property that Staff is aware of.
Curtis stated the City Engineer has reviewed the submitted plans and the changes to the property in light
of the drain tile being restored. Curtis stated the failed drain tile likely caused some of the flooding and
brought about the concerns. Curtis stated as long as proper maintenance of the overflow is done, it is her
belief the City Engineer is satisfied with the plan.
Schoenzeit asked if the City is satisfied that any significant road damage will be the responsibility of the
applicant.
Curtis noted the applicant did repair a section of the road last year and that the City completed a
secondary repair,which will be billed to the property owner. Curtis noted this section of Watertown
Road will be reconstructed and that she is not aware of what the evaluation will be at that point, but the
other haul routes will be inspected.
Schoenzeit stated in general in other situations the City has not held property owners responsible but that
he would encourage the City to do whatever they can do to ensure the property owner is held responsible
for any damage that might occur.
Landgraver stated given the amount of activity on Watertown Road, it would be difficult to monitor
Watertown Road. Landgraver commented there are dump trucks going down Watertown Road every 10
to 15 minutes as part of the construction, but that he would encourage inspection of the road and that Staff
should take steps to make sure the routes are minimized.
McGrann asked if there is a way to limit the time table of the project.
Curtis stated due to the amount of material to be brought to the site, that would basically be the limit.
Staff has suggested hauling timelines and recommended a limit be placed on the grading work on site.
Staff anticipates having a preconstruction meeting with the applicant and their contractor so everyone is
on the same page, but that she does not know what the right solution is for the length of the project.
McGrann commented the neighborhood would likely want to see a concerted effort rather than have it
drawn out.
Thiesse stated it appears the applicant would like the same thing, and in his view 3,000 cubic yards could
be brought into the site within two weeks.
Leskinen asked if Commissioner Thiesse's primary concern is the amount of fill.
Thiesse stated his major concern is getting the trucks off the roads within a reasonable amount of time.
Page 13 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked if he would like to see a hard date.
Thiesse stated he would like the applicant to set a hard date.
Anderson stated last November through April they pleaded with Staff to be able to bring in soil so the
fields would be ready for planting this spring, but that they have no way of knowing when the green light
will be given. Anderson stated once that green light is given,they would like to do the project as fast as
possible.
Thiesse asked if he has a place to obtain the fill from.
Anderson indicated they have not sourced anything yet because they did not know when the approvals
would be given. Anderson reiterated they will get it done as quickly as possible.
Leskinen stated she is not sure whether 30 days from approval is reasonable or realistic.
McGrann asked if the applicant can say it will be no more than a month once the hauling begins.
McGrann stated he does not want to see one truck a day for 100 days.
Anderson stated he does not want that either and that he has a considerable amount of cost in equipment
and labor.
Landgraver suggested that one of the purposes of the preconstruction meeting be to come up with a target
completion date.
McGrann suggested that date also be shared with the neighbors.
Curtis indicated Staff will be preparing a summary of the preconstruction meeting as well as a list of all
requirements that will be provided to each attendee.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on the screening.
Thiesse commented in his view the site is pretty well screened.
Anderson noted he has purchased almost 80 evergreen trees ranging from 16 to 18 feet in height in
addition to planting maple trees and oak trees.
Landgraver stated he did not see it included in the neighbors' comments.
Thiesse asked if the City has any documentation that it is clean fill.
Curtis stated no documentation has been provided, nor has any been requested.
Anderson stated that is something he can do.
Lemke moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3716,Dale
Gustafson on behalf of Mark and Kristen Anderson,3850 Watertown Road,granting of a
conditional use permit subject to the conditions listed in Staffls Report dated June 8,2015; subject
to the applicant having 60 days to submit an application for the retaining walls; subject to a
Page 14 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
schedule being worked out for the project; and subject to certification of the fill being submitted.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #15-3733 SHARRATT DESIGN COMPANY,LLC,ON BEHALF OF JAMES AND
KATHLYN WYMAN, 1185 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCE
This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
5. #15-3737 RICHARD BRAMA ON BEHALF OF MARGARET M. BUSCHBOM TRUST,
1150 HOMESTEAD TRAIL AND 3020 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,LOT LINE
REARRANGEMENT,8:11 P.M.—8:21 P.M.
Richard Brama, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated this is a subdivision for a lot line rearrangement resulting in an approximate equalization of
the acreage between two existing tax parcels, each of which had or has an existing residence. The
property at 1150 Homestead currently has a house on it. The result of the lot line rearrangement will be
two conforming buildable lots. The applicant owns both subject properties.
Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing to relocate the lot line further north. There were still be two
separate tax parcel, with the existing house being in the south parcel. Gaffron stated the lot line
rearrangement essentially creates a new developable lot. Both the lot with the existing house and the
proposed northerly lot have been tested and approved for primary and alternate septic sites.
Driveway access to the existing residence will not change. Prior to construction of a new home on the
northerly lot, however, a Hennepin County driveway access permit will be required. Gaffron noted there
are a number of locations where that driveway could be located.
Gaffron noted this lot line rearrangement does not result in new lots and therefore no park fees and no
stormwater trunk fees will be due. There are also no wetlands within the property boundaries. A wetland
does exist on the adjacent property to the northwest of the site but does not impact any anticipated future
site improvements. Hardcover is not at issue.
The applicant's surveyor has described perimeter drainage and utility easements proposed to be granted.
Such easements do not currently exist as these properties were never platted. The City Engineer has
recommended that the drainage and utility easement along the north boundary of the north parcel be
expanded to ten feet, as this is abutting Baker Park.
Staff recommends approval. The property owner has provided new proposed legal descriptions for each
property. As part of this approval, the applicant will be required to file new deeds based on the new legal
descriptions. Staff will work with the property owner and the City Attorney to ensure that the necessary
documents are prepared and filed.
The Planning Commission should hold the public hearing regarding the lot line rearrangement and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
Landgraver asked how big the property across the street is.
Gaffron stated to his recollection it is approximately 30 acres.
Page 15 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver commented that someone will likely want to develop that parcel at some point in the future.
Gaffron indicated the City had a proposal to develop that property a five or six years ago but the project
never went forward. Gaffron stated that should not impact what is being proposed tonight.
Landgraver stated he is thinking more of the impact to traffic and the location of the driveways.
Gaffron stated the property in Medina to the north is being proposed for subdivision. Gaffron indicated
the best location for access would be at a right angle. The City Attorney is working with the Medina
attorney and developer to come up with an easement rather than a subdivision of the adjoining property.
Gaffron noted while there may be a road constructed in this area at some point,that road will not serve
any Orono properties.
The applicant had nothing to add to Staffls report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:1'7 p.m.
Melodie Martin, 3050 County Road 6, stated her property is just to the west of 3020 Sixth Avenue North.
Martin stated there were some survey stakes placed in the outlot as well as inside her fence line. Martin
stated to her understanding the outlot belongs to her neighbor to the north and that she is not sure what it
has to do with the parcel that is being discussed.
Gaffron stated he does not have an answer to that yet and that she should speak with the surveyor who did
the work to find out whether he placed additional stakes outside of the property. Gaffron stated the
survey says iron pipe in the corner and that the surveyor may have placed a lath in the ground at that
point.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Leskinen stated in her view this application is pretty straight forward.
Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3737,Richard
Brama on behalf of Margaret M.Buschbom Trust, 1150 Homestead Trail and 3020 Sixth Avenue
North,granting of a lot line rearrangement,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
6. #15-3740 GEORGE FUNK AND JUDY ROGOSHESKE, 540 OLD CRYSTAL BAY
ROAD SOUTH,PRELIMINARY PLAT,8:21 P.M.—8:42 P.M.
George Funk and Judy Rogosheske, Applicants,were present.
Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to create one new 2.01 acre dry
buildable lot from the original 6.85 acres. The existing house, garage, and other structures would remain
on the one lot and the new lot to the north, Lot 1, would be vacant. Old Crystal Bay Road forms one
boundary and Fox Street is the other major road in the area.
The proposed subdivision is in conformity with the guiding for this area and generally conforms to the 2.0
acre dry-buildable and 200-foot width standards of the RR-1B zoning district. The existing septic system
Page 16 of 53
MIIYUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
site that serves the house will be used to provide service to the lot to the north and the proposed
alternative site will be located on the north side of Lot 1.
The main issue Staff has identified concerns a future trail along Old Crystal Bay Road South. The
Comprehensive Plan identifies a trail along Old Crystal Bay Road on the west side. The Planning
Commission should discuss the merits of an easement for trail purposes adjacent to Old Crystal Bay
Road.
Another issue identified is the fact that the existing garage has a 15-foot setback and the ordinance
requires a 30-foot setback. Staff has visited with the properly owner about adjusting that line and it can
be accommodated to meet the setbacks. The applicant has requested some feedback from the Planning
Commission on that item.
The last issue is that the septic system is within the setback line of the property line to the north, and the
applicant has indicated he can adjust that line.
Access will be off of Old Crystal Bay Road. A Conservation Design Plan was completed per City
ordinances and identified tree areas that should be preserved and a couple of wetlands. The Conservation
Design Plan did identify those wetlands and the retention of the drainage ways to continue to feed those
wetlands. The trees largely consist of maple and white pine.
The applicant will be required to pay a park dedication fee and stormwater and trunk drainage fee.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the following issues:
L The proposed separation between the garage and the northern property line.
2. Preservation of trees and natural amenities.
3. The trail along Old Crystal Bay Road.
Lemke asked if there is still plenty of room for the lot if the line is adjusted.
Barnhart indicated there would be.
McGrann asked if there will be an easement for the driveway.
Barnhart stated the driveway would either need to be adjusted to accommodate the setback for the garage
or the line would need to shift to the north in order to accommodate the driveway.
Leskinen asked if there will be a second curb cut for the other lot.
Barnhart indicated there will be.
Leskinen asked if there are any issues with an additional curb cut on Old Crystal Bay Road.
Gaffron indicated it is a city road at that point.
Page 17 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann asked what Staff would like from the Planning Commission in terms of the trail. McGrann
asked if the trail would be on the west side of the property.
Landgraver noted it is on the west side of the road.
Barnhart stated it would be appropriate to discuss the trail in regards to easements if it is going to be
located outside of the right-of-way. The challenge Staff has in terms of requiring it is that there are not
trail sections to the north and south, but in Staff's view it would be appropriate to acquire an easement at
this point.
Schoenzeit stated the City has been pretty consistent in collecting those trail easements.
Thiesse noted there is a trail to the north and the Planning Commission would be amiss if they did not
request an easement.
Judy Rogosheske, Applicant, stated they have a more recent plat that does not show the line going
through the driveway.
Rogosheske stated she would like to speak to the 15 versus 30-foot setback. Rogosheske stated they do
not want to have to apply for a variance and that they were originally told it was 15 feet. Rogosheske
stated it is her understanding the ordinance says if the structure is 1,000 square feet or less, it has a 15-
foot setback.
Curtis indicated that is correct.
Judy Rogosheske stated their garage footprint is 1,008 square feet,which in round numbers would be
1,000 feet. Rogosheske noted it is not a home but a garage and that in her view the 15-foot setback would
be appropriate. Rogosheske stated the other reason it would be appropriate is if the City requires 30 feet,
they then would control the woodlands all along the south facing part of the new owner's lot.
Rogosheske stated they do not have a view to the north, so they would have no issue with the 15-foot
setback. Rogosheske stated in her view it would be far more important for the owner of the new lot to be
able to control the existing trees in that area.
Rogosheske stated they do not want to have to apply for a variance so they will submit to the 30-foot
setback if that is what the Planning Commission determines appropriate, but that they would request the
15-foot setback.
Rogosheske stated they are all for trails, and that when they originally purchased the property 33 years
ago,they actually owned Old Crystal Bay Road because there was never an easement granted.
Rogosheske stated they eventually did give an easement to the City and that they would appreciate a bike
path along the road
George Funk, Applicant, indicated the line would move a little bit if they are required to go with the
30-foot setback. Funk stated the lots would have a cleaner look with the 15-foot setback and it would also
give more flexibility to the homeowner.
Funk stated they will submit a new survey before to the City Council meeting. Funk stated the driveway
access is actually an old farmer's access road. Funk stated that road actually goes down and has a dip in
Page 18 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNWG COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
it. Funk stated access to the north may be an issue, but the elevation of Old Crystal Bay Road was
lowered by two feet. Funk stated if the driveway is put on grade, which their driveway is, it should be
almost the same view, so it should not be a problem. Funk stated they were going to include a split
driveway but Staff said it would have a better chance of being approved if it is not a split driveway.
Lemke asked if the 1,008 square feet was a mistake.
Funk stated that was his mistake, and that they originally took the size of the garage with the siding on it,
and the surveyor said it is the footprint of the concrete block that is measured.
Leskinen asked if they will require a 15 or 30-foot setback.
Barnhart stated anything above 1,000 square feet would require a 30-foot setback.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.
David Harmon, 505 South Old Crystal Bay Road, stated he and his wife are in support of the application
and that in their view another home will have any adverse impact on them. Harmon stated they are
looking forward to having another family in the neighborhood.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m.
Leskinen suggested the Planning Commission start with the garage setback.
McGrann asked what options the Planning Commission has.
Landgraver stated it would either require a 30-foot setback or require a variance application.
Leskinen stated it would be easier to move the line than the building. Leskinen stated since this is a new
lot,the City would not be willing to create a substandard lot, and that the size of the building could either
be reduced or the line changed.
Schoenzeit noted it will be a much sharper angle. Schoenzeit asked if the lot line rearrangement would
impact the septic site.
Barnhart stated if the line is shifted over 15 feet to the north, it would not really impact the septic site in
terms of serving the lot to the north. If the line is shifted to the other side of the septic system, that lot
would become too small.
Landgraver asked where the line would intersect on the right-hand side. Landgraver asked if that is a
wetland in that area.
Barnhart illustrated on the overhead where the line would be.
Thiesse asked if the City has any criteria about a newly created lot having an old septic site.
Barnhart stated the City has a report on the septic system and the septic inspector is comfortable with that
report.
Page 19 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated the other issue is the trail easement and that it is the practice of the City to collect those
at the time of new subdivisions.
Leskinen stated it appears the Planning Commission is in agreement that the line should be changed and
that a trail easement should be obtained.
Thiesse stated he does not see a big need to require conservation of the trees and that the property owners
can preserve them on their own.
Leskinen stated it did not sound like it was a very significant tree stand.
Landgraver asked if the City in the past has required a conservation easement and a prohibition on cutting
down of trees for smaller subdivisions.
Barnhart stated the Conservation Design is triggered by the size of the lot. Barnhart stated his
understanding is that the significant features of a Conservation Design are not usually found on the
smaller sites.
Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3740,George
Funk and Judy Rogosheske, 540 Old Crystal Bay Road South,granting of preliminary plat subject
to Staff recommendations,and to require a 30-foot setback for the garage and the granting of a
trail easement. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
7. #15-3744 JOHN BRUNELLO, 190 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCES,
8:42 P.M.—9:18 P.M.
John Brunello,Applicant,was present.
Curtis noted she placed a revised survey in front of the Planning Commission.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family home on the properly and is
requesting lot area, lot width, and side street setback variances in order to do so.
The property is 1.5 acres in area and has 120 feet in width when measured at the front building setback
where two acres in area and 200 feet in width are required. The applicant is proposing a 30.5 foot side
street setback where 50 feet is required. All other setbacks will be met.
The applicant has revised the driveway location at the direction of the City Engineer. The new location
appears to meet the code requirement and a complete evaluation of the site will be done by the City
Engineer at the time of building permit issuance.
The corner lot is subject to 50-foot setbacks from Orono Orchard Road as well as Woodhill Avenue. A
30-foot setback is required from the north property line and the side street property line is 30 feet from the
edge of the paved roadway. The proposed home will be at least 60 feet from the road. Normally the edge
of pavement is 12 to 20 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. The substandard width of the lot,
combined with the required 50- and 30-foot setbacks result in an approximate 40' x 60' building
Page 20 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
envelope. The sloping topography, wetland, and likely associated poor soils further limit locations for the
house.
The existing home is a one-level rambler with a tuck-under garage and is situated as close as 13.5 feet
from the front and 22 to 26 feet from Woodhill Avenue. The proposed two-story home will be set back
further from both roadways than the existing home on the property, with the attached garage fronting on
Orono Orchard. Both streets have wider than normal boulevard areas which offer greater separation
between the home and the traveled portion of the roadway which results in the appearance of a greater
setback and more open space. The new home and driveway will most certainly result in removal of trees
and
Staff finds practical difficulties exist to support redevelopment of the property, such as the substandard lot
area and width which are not the result of actions by the landowner. The proposed home is reasonable
and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition,the topography and wetland location drive the
building site to the western portion of the property where street setbacks have a greater impact on
building siting.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area, lot width, side street setback variances in
order to redevelop the subject property. A detailed landscape plan should be provided prior to the City
Council's review of the application to assure adequate screening is provided and that the character of the
finished property will be consistent with the neighborhood.
Curtis noted she received a letter from the neighbor to the south across the street,which has been
provided to the Planning Commissioners, as well as a brief e-mail communication from the neighbor to
the north. The neighbor to the north also left a voice mail regarding the proposal since she was unable to
attend tonight's meeting.
Curtis played a voice message from Marsha Rokke, 180 Orono Orchard Road. Rokke stated she just
found out about the project and that they have been out of town since June 3 and will not be returning
until late Monday evening. Rokke stated she would appreciate if nothing is decided Monday night until
they can provide some input.
Rokke indicated she was told by her neighbor that this project would really affect their property,which is
adjacent to 190 Orono Orchard Road. Rokke stated the variance that is being requested seems
extraordinary to her and is way over and above what he should be able to build. Rokke stated they are not
opposed to a building on this site but that they have concerns about the wetlands and the setbacks.
Rokke requested that the application not be approved tonight so they have an opportunity to review the
plans. Rokke stated they have received no notification of the project that they are aware of other than
their neighbor calling them.
Curtis noted the applicant is present tonight and that she has the plans and pictures of the property as it
exists today.
Lemke asked when the notice cards were mailed out.
Curtis indicated they were mailed June 5.
Page 21 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked if the correspondence from the other neighbor is based on the old driveway location.
Curtis indicated that neighbor did not have the benefit of the revised plan since it was only submitted
today but that she is present tonight.
Jeff Jagwell, Builder, stated he has not prepared any formal response to the concerns raised. Jagwell
indicated they recently purchased the property from McGuire within the last 30 days and since then have
prepared a plan for review by the City. Jagwell indicated they have done extensive work in order to
minimize the impacts or the boundaries of the property.
Jagwell stated it is his understanding there is a building pad that is allowed on the property, but given the
setbacks, it will make the building site too narrow,which is the reason for the variance. Jagwell stated
they realized the existing structure was too close to Orono Orchard Road and that the new structure will
need to be relocated. Without a variance, it is unlikely anyone could construct anything on the property.
The existing residence is currently vacant but could probably be inhabited with some updates. Jagwell
stated in his view it will be beneficial moving the house further back from the road.
Jagwell stated the impacts to the neighbors were a great concern and that they have done extensive work
in designing a new structure. Jagwell noted the driveway has been reconfigured and in their view they
have come up with the best solution. Jagwell indicated they looked at a side-loading garage so it would
be a straight shot rather than wrapping around the front of the property but that a variance is still required.
Jagwell indicated they also attempted to preserve certain sight lines that would be of benefit to whoever
resides in the house.
Leskinen asked if the revised plan will have the garage facing Orono Orchard Road with the driveway
coming off of Woodhill.
Jagwell stated in their view that is the best configuration for that structure. Jagwell stated he is not sure
what the width of the driveway is on the survey but that it appears to be wider than what will be
necessary. Jagwell indicated they will narrow it down if possible.
Leskinen asked if the location of the house has changed on the revised plan.
Curtis indicated the house has not changed.
John Brunello, Applicant, noted the Rokkes raised concerns about the impact on their house. Brunello
pointed out the location of the Rokke house and noted that they are not asking for variances to the north
and east setbacks. Brunello pointed out the setback that is being requested and noted that they are
actually moving the house away from their residence rather than towards their house.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.
Jane Delaney, 1315 Woodhill Avenue, stated she has a few concerns regarding this project and that this is
the first time she has seen this plan. Delaney stated one of her concerns is the fact that they are moving
the house within the setbacks required by the City closer to the Rokkes.
Delaney stated it is also difficult to tell where her driveway is in relation to the proposed driveway.
Delaney noted the driveway measures 20 feet wide on the plan and that she is curious to see where the
proposed driveway is. Delaney noted she sent a letter expressing some safety concerns with the location
Page 22 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
of the driveway. Delaney indicated she has a single driveway close to the curb and it is a dangerous
situation since the road is used as a back entrance to Woodhill Country Club and there is a fair amount of
traffic. Delaney stated to add another driveway in close proximity to hers seems like it will create more
problems.
Curtis illustrated the location of the proposed driveway.
Delaney stated she also walked the property with Mr. Brunello and he indicated that they were simply
measuring points from the survey and not from the lot lines. Delaney stated after looking at the plans,
they do appear to be lot lines and that it would be nice to have a better visual of where the house will be.
In addition, Delaney stated there is a city easement of 30 feet that was taken at the time Woodhill Avenue
was widened. Delaney stated she thought she saw something in Staff's report that said that was one
reason why the variance should be granted.
Delaney stated the neighbors are not opposed to a new residence since the existing structure is rundown,
but that the proposed location does not seem to be an appropriate place for a driveway. Delaney stated
she would like to see the driveway more towards the rear of the house and there are more options for the
layout. Delaney stated there is also a significant amount of hardcover.
Delaney asked if a porch or a deck can be added to the Woodhill side.
Curtis stated the two porches and deck are part of the footprint of the house and are included in the
structural coverage number.
Delaney stated in her view the project needs further consideration given the driveway and setback
situation. Delaney stated she would also ask that the Rokkes be given a chance to look at the plans in
person.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:06 p.m.
Leskinen stated the first point she would like to make is that it is an improvement in terms of the setbacks
from what is existing. Leskinen noted the proposed street side setback is a vast improvement since the
existing house is as close as 13.5 feet from Orono Orchard.
Thiesse asked if the engineer has looked at the driveway and whether it is in conformance.
Curtis indicated it is.
Leskinen stated the only issues are the lot area, lot width, and the side setback variances since the other
parts of the proposal meet code.
Schoenzeit stated as it relates to the house to the north, as long as it is out of the setback, the house is
compliant.
Thiesse stated in his view due process is important and that the neighbors should have a say. Thiesse
asked if they would be able to comment during the Council meeting.
Curtis stated the public is usually allowed to speak.
Page 23 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
McGrann stated the Council can choose to table the application based on the neighbors comments or go
forward.
Curtis stated the Council can choose to table,approve, or deny the application.
McGrann stated he is not sure the Planning Commission needs to see it again to hear the neighbor's
concerns if they can address the City Council.
Lemke stated he is not sure it is the obligation of the Planning Commission to make sure it is convenient
for the neighbors to voice their opinion in person. Lemke noted the Planning Commission heard Mrs.
Rokke's voice mail and that they need to make their decision based on what has been presented.
Schoenzeit stated what is being sent forward is very compliant.
Thiesse stated in response to Ms. Delaney's comments,the driveway appears to be where it is allowed
and that it is a vast improvement to what is there now. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is not in
the business of redesigning plans.
Delaney noted there were no elevation plans from the side so they do not know what the grade of the
driveway will be. Delaney commented it would be nice to know where the driveway entrance is proposed
to be and what the elevation will be. Delaney stated she has a concern that headlights are going to be
shining into her house.
Thiesse stated the elevation is 968' and the driveway will be coming downhill just as fast as her driveway.
Thiesse stated it appears there property is lower than hers.
Delaney stated her property is lower than this property.
Thiesse asked if she drives uphill to get to her property.
Delaney indicated she does. Delaney stated she has a concern when they leave the house. Delaney stated
there has never been a driveway there and that it would be nice to see some elevation plans.
Thiesse stated that would not provide any more information as to the location of her house and that the
Planning Commission does have side view elevations in the Planning Commission packet.
Delaney stated she does not know where the driveway is in relationship to her driveway or her house.
Curtis noted this was done late this afternoon, and before the application goes to the City Council,the
applicants will be asked to formally update their plan before the City Council meeting so everyone will
know the elevation change from the garage to the street. Curtis indicated she can ask the applicant to
locate her driveway on their survey so the proximity can be seen as well as the grading.
Thiesse suggested a spot elevation also be depicted for both properties. Thiesse stated she could also go
over there at dusk and shine a flashlight back towards her house. Thiesse stated the proposed driveway is
located where the house is now.
Delaney stated she has a concern where the driveway comes out at the street easement.
Page 24 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLA1vNING COMMISSIOIv MEETING
Monday,June I5,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated that would be too low for headlights to hit her house and is down at the street level.
Delaney indicated there is an incline.
Thiesse stated the incline is going the other way and that the headlights should be shining down on the
street and not into her house.
Delaney indicated the turnaround is at the same elevation as her house.
Jagwell stated the driveway will not be three stalls wide.
Delaney stated the driveway is 20 feet wide.
Jagwell stated their biggest concern is to make sure everybody is happy and that they are not going to do
something on the site that is not allowed. Jagwell stated they intend to meet with the neighbors and show
them the plans.
Delaney indicated she is not opposed to it but that she is expressing her concerns.
Jagwell stated they could make the driveway approach from Woodhill. Jagwell indicated he would be
happy to meet Mrs. Delaney on the site.
Delaney asked what the stakes are for.
John Brunello stated the stakes are for the driveway and are depicted as black dots on the plan.
Leskinen encouraged the applicant to discuss the plans with the neighbors outside of the Planning
Commission meeting. Leskinen noted the driveway is in a conforming location and that the applicant can
meet with the neighbors to address their concerns.
Leskinen stated the question for the Planning Commission is whether the practical difficulty standards
have been met to grant a street side setback variance and in her opinion they have been met and are
outlined sufficiently in Staffls report.
Thiesse noted a detailed landscape plan should be provided.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission feels the practical difficulty standards have been met.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they have been.
Lemke moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3744,John
Brunello, 190 Orono Orchard Road South,granting of lot area,lot width,and side street setback
variances,subject to the submittal of a detailed landscape plan and subject to Staff
recommendations.
Landgraver encouraged the applicant to meet with the Rokkes.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Page 25 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
8. #15-3745 MATT JOHNSON, 1432 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCES,9:18 P.M.—
9:33 P.M.
Matt Johnson, Applicant, was present.
Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting variances in order to remodel the existing home by gutting the
interior, expanding the second floor to cover the first floor footprint, shifting the bay window, and adding
a fireplace cantilever. The exterior changes are located within the side yard setback and within the
required 75-foot setback from Tanager Lake. The property is located on the west side of Shoreline Drive.
Barnhart stated the applicant is proposing to make some minor modifications to the existing two-story
house. The existing setbacks are 24.9 feet from the north property line and 26.8 feet from the lake at the
closest location.
Barnhart noted his Staff report states there is a 43.6 feet setback from the lake when it is actually 53.6
feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 2-1/2 story building within the lakeshore and side
setback. The purpose of the interior modifications is to primarily enhance the livable portion of the
structure, add room for adequate width, hallways, ceiling heights and stairwells. Based on the
configuration of the lot and building, the applicant is not able to make any modifications to the exterior of
the building without impacting some of the setbacks. In the review of the application, Staff is supportive
of the variance.
Barnhart displayed a view of the lakeside portion of the house and pointed out the location of the bay
window and the portion of the structure that would be new. Barnhart displayed pictures of the structure
from different sides of the structure. In terms of adjacent property impact,the biggest impact will likely
be to the property to the south,with minimal impact to the property to the north. The proposed side yard
setback will not be decreased at grade and the subject property provides 97 percent of the separation
between the two buildings.
Staff finds that the location of the existing home, which currently encroaches into the 75-foot setback and
the side yard setbacks makes it difficult to make modifications or additions to the home. The structure is
roughly centered on the property. The age and construction of the existing structure makes full use and
enjoyment of the property challenging. Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow construction
of the addition as proposed.
Schoenzeit asked if Sheet AS depicts a four-story house.
Barnhart stated based on the preliminary review of the plan, Staff believes it meets the height and story
requirements, but that he has not done the final calculations for the building permit. Barnhart stated it is
somewhat challenging to judge the height just based on a review of A5.
Schoenzeit asked if there is a spot on AS where the grade is depicted.
Page 26 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAivNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Barnhart indicated they would need to look at the survey for the location of the grade. Barnhart indicated
the storage area will not have any windows so it will not be considered a floor. Staff is confident that this
will meet the 2-1/2 story requirement.
Thiesse asked how old the existing structure is.
Barnhart stated his understanding is the original portion of the structure was constructed in the 1920s and
added on in the 1990s.
Thiesse stated he is basically wondering about the foundation.
Barnhart indicated he does not know the location of the original structure foundation.
Matt Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive, stated the portion that is being removed from the house was
constructed in 1920. The house underwent a major remodel in 1990 when the north side addition was
done. When that addition was done in 1990,they redid the foundation, and that portion of the house will
remain.
Johnson stated what they are left with on the 1920 portion is a story and a half, with a ceiling height in the
upper level of 6'4". The door jambs go down to 6'2". Johnson stated his son is tall and cannot walk in
the upper level comfortably. Johnson indicated there is not a good way to redo it without starting over.
Johnson stated in his view the picture that was included in the packet might be easier for everyone to see
the grade. Johnson stated the main level above grade does look high in that one picture, but the other
pictures will show that it is approximately four steps to the main joist.
Johnson indicated one story will be added above the 1920s portion and that they will be utilizing the
existing attic trusses. The structure in that area has a flat roof and no insulation currently.
Johnson noted the property to the south is an uninhabitable house that is owned by the marina.
Schoenzeit asked if this investment implies that they have reached harmony with the neighbors.
Johnson stated the reality is that he has to fix the property up to make it more livable and that he has
wanted to do this project for the past three years. Johnson stated given the problems with the marina, he
wanted to be careful, but that they love where they live so they have decided to go ahead with the project.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:31 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:31 p.m.
Leskinen stated the application is preriy straight forward and that she does not have any concerns.
Lemke commented it would be an improvement over what exists.
Schoenzeit commented the project is not extravagant.
Page 27 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3745,Matt
Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive,granting of variances,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
9. #15-3746 JAMES HILLIER AND JULI ANDERSON, 1224 BRIAR STREET,
VARIANCES,9:33 P.M.—9:36 P.M.
James Hillier, Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct a new residence on the property and is requesting rear
and side setback variances to allow the structure to be situated 31.5 feet from the rear lot line where a 50-
foot setback is required. The survey reflects the legal building envelope on the property and is
approximately 15' x 40' without any setback variances.
Curtis noted the property is substandard in lot area and lot width. The proposed hardcover and structural
coverages will meet the requirements of the zoning code.
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area, lot width, side setback and rear setback variances in
order to redevelop the subject property.
Hillier indicated he has nothing to add to Staff's report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:35 p.m.
Leskinen stated the applicant is very limited in what he can construct on this property without variances
and that what is being proposed is reasonable.
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3746,
James Hillier and Juli Anderson, 1224 Briar Street,granting of lot area,lot width, rear and side
setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 9:37 p.m.—9:43 p.m.)
(John Thiesse recuzed himself from the following application.)
10. #15-3748 SHARRATT DESIGN COMPANY,LLC,ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND
SHERRI THIESSE,385 BAYSIDE ROAD,VARIANCES,9:43 P.M.—9:58 P.M.
Mike Sharratt,Applicant,was present.
Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting variances in order to allow redevelopment of the property. The
applicant is proposing to demolish the existing one-story structure with a detached garage and
constructing a new two-story structure with attached garage. The lot is substandard due to size and width,
and the house as proposed encroaches into the average lakeshore, side yard, and street front yard.
Page 28 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Barnhart stated the average lakeshore setback line clips the edge of the existing home, with approximately
72 square feet lakeward of the setback line. The proposed project will be clipped by the line in
approximately the same area. The project attempts to mitigate the encroachment by trading house
encroachment for approximately 58 square feet of deck on each of the top two floors. The neighboring
property most subject to impact is the properly to the south.
Maintaining the required 30-foot side yard setbacks renders the property unbuildable. The proposed
improvements center the garage on the lot and move the living portion of the house marginally closer to
the north neighbor.
Staff finds the lot size and lot area are pre-existing conditions and not caused by the applicant. In
addition, Staff finds that the proposed improvements are consistent with the character of the
neighborhood and the applicant has made an attempt to mitigate or minimize negative impacts to the
adjoining properties. Further, it does not appear that the adjacent property owners will be adversely
impacted by the redevelopment of the property. Staff finds there are special conditions relating to the
existing home and property which support granting the requested average lakeshore, side yard, lot size
and lot area variances.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow redevelopment of the property as
proposed.
Landgraver asked if the applicant is staying within the portion that clips the average lakeshore setback
and not expanding it.
Lemke noted they are moving it back slightly.
Leskinen stated there is a reduction in the encroachment.
John Thiesse, Applicant, stated they did pull the house back and that the original deck was actually ten
feet back from the existing deck. Thiesse indicated they have worked hard to fit the structure in with the
area that is left and that it is a very difficult site.
Mike Sharratt, Designer, stated they have worked very hard on this project and that they did not want to
ask for anything more than what is absolutely necessary. Sharratt pointed out where the deck has been
pushed back ten feet further. Sharratt stated they also connected the garage to the house and left the
existing footprint of the house in the location it was. Sharratt stated the dimensions are the same for the
house and garage. The garage has been pulled further away from the street to 12 feet where it is presently
at approximately 6.5 feet.
Sharratt stated given the constraints of the site,this is a very reasonable proposal.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:53 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:53 p.m.
Leskinen stated the application is very straight forward and that the applicant has taken every measure to
ensure the impact is minimized.
Page 29 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann noted the neighbors have also submitted comments in support of the project.
Schoenzeit asked if 932.5' is the right elevation given last year's flooding.
Curtis stated 932.5' is one foot above the 100-year flood elevation.
Thiesse stated the house next door is a foot lower and they experienced no water in their basement last
year. Thiesse indicated the water came up on their neighbor's yard but did not enter the house.
Landgraver stated the applicant has done a good job at minimizing the negatives.
Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3748 Sharratt
Design Company, LLC,on behalf of John and Sherri Thiesse,3855 Bayside Road,granting of lot
area,lot width,and side setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. (Thiesse recuzed himsel�
11. #15-3749 HOMESTEAD PARTNERS, 185 AND 225 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
NORTH,PRELIMINARY PLAT,9:58 P.M.— 10:33 P.M.
Matt Hanish, Homestead Partners, was present.
Gaffron stated this is a proposed subdivision involved two tax parcels to create a new private road and six
new 2-acare building lots. All lots will be served by individual on-site sewage treatment systems and
private wells.
Gaffron displayed an aerial photograph of the property. The property is mostly open, with a small
wooded area surrounding the wetland at the west border and wooded area surrounding the existing house
site on proposed Lot 1. The land generally slopes downhill from east to west. There are two fairly small
wetlands exist within the property, each carrying a Manage 3 classification. The applicant is proposing to
put buffers around both wetlands per the regulations of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
The property is in the RR-1 B District, which allows for single-family residential uses with a minimum lot
size of two dry buildable acres. All lots meet the 200-foot width requirement with the exception of Lot 6.
Lot 6 is long and narrow, having in excess of 600 feet of frontage along the private road but just over 150
feet in width at Old Crystal Bay Road. This does not impact the buildability of Lot 6.
Lots 1 and 6 are corner lots with their defined front yards abutting Old Crystal Bay Road. The applicant
has depicted both lots as having their front yards as the frontage abutting the private road. Given the
layout of the subdivision, it would be appropriate to specifically and formally define the yards for setback
purposes for Lots 1 and 6 as those proposed on the preliminary plat. The north and south yards will be
considered as front and rear yards. The side yards abutting Old Crystal Bay Road will be considered as
side street yards. The yards abutting the west boundaries will be considered as side yards.
Gaffron stated the developer should be advised that unless site grading to create individual house building
pads as part of the subdivision improvements is proposed,the existing grads for measuring building
heights and number of stories will be the grades that exist today. Raised pads that are created must be
acknowledged in the development approval stage as creating new existing grades.
Page 30 of 53
MINOTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNI1vG COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
All six lots will be accessed via a private road contained within a 50-foot outlot and ending in a cul-de-
sac. All lots are proposed to be served with private wells and septic systems. The driveway for Lot 1
does not meet the required 100-foot separation from th intersection of Lillian Lane and Old Crystal Bay
Road. The proposed private road serving the subdivision is centrally located and approximately 970 feet
in length, which meets the City's 1000-foot maximum length limit for cul-de-sac roads. The road design
has been reviewed by the City Engineer and found to be acceptable. .
It has been past City practice to provide corridors for future connections between private road systems
where feasible in Orono's rural area. The reasoning is that if private roads become public in the future,
City maintenance will be more efficient and cost effective with through roads as compared to multiple
cul-de-sacs.
A second benefit is the ability to have secondary emergency accesses to property should there be
blockage from downed trees, etc. The applicants have not provided such a corridor, and while there may
be some desire on the City's part to establish a connection to the west or south,there is no code mandate
that this occur. Staff is prepared to discuss the pros and cons of such connections. It appears that in order
to make such a connection,the applicant would lose one lot.
The developer has submitted a Conservation Design Report and Master Plan. In general,the development
will maintain the rural character consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Wetlands and drainage
patterns will be maintained, and long views into the site will not be significantly disrupted. A vegetation
management plan lists a variety of actions to be taken with regard to wetland buffer areas, buckthorn, and
reed canary grass. The majority of the site is open and will remain as is.
Gaffron noted a landscape plan has not been included in the packet. One of the City requirements is that
on the boulevards there be a tree located every 40 feet. Within the last couple of years,the City Council
has looked at similar plats with a long road and was not excited about trying to create a parkway concept
similar to what exists on Kelly Parkway. The Council's conclusion was that that does not necessarily
create the rural character the City would like. The applicant has provided a landscape plan that provides
some variety. The Planning Commission should review the landscape plan and determine whether it is
reasonable.
The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues:
1. The potential for making road corridor connections to the west or south.
2. The developer should be made aware that City determinations of building height and number of
stories rely on the use of existing grades. It would be of benefit to the developer to confer with
Staff regarding the potential benefits of establishing new existing grades on certain lots by
creating building pads during the site improvements grading process.
3. The Planning Commission should review the Conservation Design materials and determine
whether there are any potential concerns.
Staff recommends approval, subject to the following:
1. Applicant should be advised to address the items detailed in the City Engineer's comments.
Page 31 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
OROlvO PLANNIIYG COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
2. Final approvals should include clear documentation of the re-oriented yard requirements for
Lots 1 and 6.
3. If the Planning Commission desires to have the developer provide for future road connections,
that will have an impact on the development layout and may require tabling.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and receive comments from the
public.
Landgraver asked what was decided on Stubbs Bay regarding the connecting road.
Gaffron noted that application was a sketch plan and not a preliminary plat. In that case it would have
been an extension of an existing road for the primary access. The need for whether a secondary access
out to Stubbs Bay Road was not totally conclusive at the end of the meeting. Gaffron stated in his view
the Council was generally accepting of the fact there would not be a secondary access point, but given
that there was the potential for a future outlot that was remaining undeveloped, a secondary access point
could be created at some point in the future.
Matt Hanish, Homestead Partners, stated they are proposing creating four new lots, in addition to the two
existing lots, for six single-family lots with a private cul-de-sac street. The development is conforming
with the guiding for the area and the wetland delineation has been approved by the Watershed District.
Buffers will be created around each of the wetlands.
Currently there are three access points off of Old Crystal Bay Road North. The proposed plat reduces the
number of street connections at the existing public street down to one. Each lot will have their own
private well and septic system. The price range for the homes will be between$1.2 to $1.5 million.
Hanish displayed the proposed plat and landscape plan.
Schoenzeit asked if the previous use of the southern parcel off of Stubbs Road has created any
environmental issues.
Hanish stated they are not aware of any environmental issues at this time.
Schoenzeit asked if the City has any requirements for an environmental assessment.
Gaffron stated there are no city requirements, but Staff would suggest the applicants complete a Phase I
review of the site. Gaffron stated compaction of the soil may be the biggest issue from past construction
activity, and if there is anything, it would primarily be materials and not chemicals. Gaffron stated in his
view it is worth looking at but there is nothing specific that stands out as an issue.
Thiesse asked about connecting to the road to the south.
Hanish stated they did look at the idea of connecting the existing right-of-way on the southern property
into the cul-de-sac, but the issue they found is that it would bifurcate the site. Hanish stated they would
still be able to maintain the septic sites and still be able to create a building pad on the site, but the issue is
that it becomes a 1.8 acre lot that does not meet the 2-acre requirement. Hanish stated they would then
require a variance to allow a smaller lot on the site.
Page 32 of 53
MIIYUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke asked what would happen if the cul-de-sac was eliminated and was just a through street.
Hanish stated that will create some issues with one of the lots as far as having road access and lot width at
the road.
Gaffron stated unless that through connection is created and paved,the applicants would still require a
cul-de-sac for emergency services.
Thiesse asked if there is any opportunity to pull it back to the intersection.
Gaffron indicated they would lose the required width for the one lot.
Hanish indicated they did look at that very closely to see if they could make that work but that they
determined it would not.
Landgraver asked if there is access to Wear Lane.
Gaffron indicated there is. Gaffron stated Wear Lane continues out to Watertown Road.
McGrann asked why the City has typically wanted cul-de-sacs.
Gaffron indicated they provide options for the future. Gaffron stated in the event the City assumes
ownership of some of the private roads in the future,through streets are easier for snow plowing and
maintenance.
Leskinen asked if the City has had developments where it has not been practical to have a through road
easement.
Gaffron noted the Planning Commission looked at one earlier tonight where the connection to the Dayton
property to the north was not contemplated because that property is already developed. Gaffron stated if
there is additional land to be developed beyond the cul-de-sac, then it becomes more critical to look at,
but in this situation, everything around the property has already been developed. Gaffron stated in that
respect, it is not necessary to create that corridor. Gaffron noted the corridar was created up to a certain
point with the expectation that when this properiy was developed, it could use that as a potential access
point.
Thiesse asked what the City can do about the fact that it would create a nonconforming lot. Thiesse stated
in his view it is not the developer's obligation to give up a lot for the convenience of a future road.
Thiesse stated if the developer does provide that road corridor, in his view the City should accept a lot
that is less than two acres.
McGrann stated in this situation it would detract having a through street in that area. McGrann stated he
understands emergency vehicle needs, but given the fact that there is no additional land to develop, he
would rather see a cul-de-sac.
Leskinen stated she would be in agreement with that, especially since this is a low density development.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:20 p.m.
Page 33 of 53
MIIVUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
John Winston, 155 Wear Lane North, stated they are the neighbors that would be most impacted by this
development. Winston stated on a previous application, there were a number of people on Crystal Creek
Road and Wear Lane who said they did not want to have this area connected to Crystal Creek. Winston
stated the residents do not want it connected.
Winston indicated he has lived there for 18.5 years and that he has thoroughly enjoyed his experience in
Orono. Winston stated they have had trees go down in that cul-de-sac before, and in one situation,the
fire department removed the tree the next day. Winston stated in 18.5 years, there has never been a
problem with the cul-de-sac and the City was always able to get work crews in.
Winston stated the Stubbs family has been wonderful neighbors as well as the rest of the residents in the
area. Winston stated he would like to support the Stubbs family and the development as it is proposed
without the through connection.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:24 p.m.
Thiesse stated he would agree that the through road is not the thing to have in this case.
Lemke asked if the potential future access could be protected by not allowing a building site in that area.
Gaffron stated the developer would need to look at where the best location for a building on that lot
would be. Currently the developer is showing a house location right where the road corridor would go
through on the preliminary site plan. Gaffron noted there is a wetland to the west.
Landgraver stated it is difficult to impose it on this particular property.
Schoenzeit stated if the City were to impose it,the City would need to allow a substandard lot and that he
does not see it as being necessary.
Leskinen and McGrann indicated they are in agreement the through road is not necessary.
Leskinen asked if the developer will be establishing grade and elevations for the lots.
Hanish indicated they will be.
Gaffron stated it would make sense if the developer could bring something to the City Council showing
grading of the pads as part of the approval.
Hanish indicated that would be fine.
Leskinen stated according to her review of the packet, she did not see any other concerns with the
proposal.
Lemke asked if there will be a homeowners association.
Gaffron stated there will need to be a homeowners association that will manage the road. In addition, any
retention ponds would also be under the control of the homeowners association. Gaffron stated typically
those documents are required before final plat approval.
Lemke asked if there would be surface drainage all the way into the wetland.
Page 34 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIivG
Monday,June I5,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated to his understanding that is correct with the exception of some culverts.
Nate Herman, Homestead Partners, stated currently they are under 20 percent pervious, so it would not
trigger the watershed rule. Herman stated they are abiding with the city ordinance for stormwater runoff.
Herman noted all ditches will provide pretreatment of the runof£ In addition,they are also proposing a
permanent settlement basin for the water to go into prior to entering the wetland.
McGrann moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3749,
Homestead Partners, 185 and 225 Old Crystal Bay Road, granting of preliminary plat,subject to a
Phase I environmental assessment being completed,subject to the recommendations of the City
Engineer and City Staff,and with the recommendation that a road extension is not necessary.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
12. #15-3750 JEFF VONFELDT AND ELAINE WYATT, 1990 SHADYWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCES, 10:33 P.M.— 11:15 P.M.
Jeff Vonfeldt, Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the subject property is located in the LR-1C zoning district, which has a 10-foot side setback
and a 30-foot rear setback. In addition,there is a 75-foot lake and average lakeshore setbacks.
The applicants are requesting a lake setback, side setback, and rear setback variances to allow a second
story addition over the existing home set back 6 feet where 10 feet is required on the north side;
approximately 54 feet from the lake where a 75-foot setback is required and 40 currently exists; and 26
feet from the rear where a 30-foot setback is required. The applicant has have proposed to make changes
to the existing first floor lake side to remove the structure out of the average lakeshore setback and
construct the addition above,yet stepped back from the lake six feet.
There is currently a partial 30—foot deep second story over the central portion of the existing home
currently. The proposal suggests the second story will be enlarged by 18 feet, for a total of 48 feet. The
majority of the additions to the second story are toward the rear and a four foot bump out is proposed on
the lake side. The majority of the addition to the second story is for the rear.
The property is substandard in lot area and width. A large portion of the existing home on the property is
located within one of the required setback areas. The applicant's proposal contemplates additions that are
sensitive to the average lakeshore setback. The applicant is proposing changes to the existing structure to
remove from that setback area. Granting side, rear and lakeside variances to permit the second story
addition may be reasonable as the proposal does not appear to be out of character with the surrounding
area.
However, although the applicant has designed a second story to mimic the positive proposed changes to
the lakeside first floor,they have not provided a practical difficulty which supports additional structure
within the 75-foot setback; primarily the second level bump out. Staff would not support the additional
lakeward additions.
Staff would recommend the following:
Page 35 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
1. Approval of side, rear, and lake setback variances allowing for the construction of the proposed
second story improvements to the home located six feet from the side where ten feet is required;
58 feet from the OHWL where a 75-foot setback is required; ;and 26 feet from the rear where a
30-foot setback is required.
Staff finds no practical difficulties exist which support the additional structural encroachments toward the
lake and therefore recommends denial of the portion of the requested lake setback variance to allow
further structural encroachments within the 75-foot setback.
Curtis noted the green square is the existing second story deck on the house currently. If the applicant
would like to reconstruct that deck,they would be able to do so. The hashed red area is the area that Staff
is recommending be denied. In addition,the additions must conform to the standard height and massing
requirements of the zoning code.
Schoenzeit asked when the original house was constructed.
Curtis indicated she is not aware and that the applicant would need to address that.
Schoenzeit stated he is curious to know how this lot got to 2,300 square feet of structural coverage.
Jeff VonFeldt, Applicant, stated he would like the Planning Commission review the denial element in
more detaiL VonFeldt stated the existing house is a rectangle. The original plan was to construct the
project just over the existing house,which would have required an average lakeshore setback variance on
the front corner. VonFeldt indicated Staff was very clear that they should not do that so a better looking
second plan was created which called for the rounding off of the front of the house to avoid that setback
issue.
In addition, Staff had a concern with the massing of the house on the lakeside, so the idea to reduce the
house footprint on the lake side of the house was developed. In that plan,the corners cut back from the
existing footprint. The current entry has a full roof all the way out to the front of the house. VonFeldt
pointed out the existing portion of the entryway on the overhead and stated the plan was to have the
second story match that and have a small bump out. VonFeldt stated by doing that, they are now able to
do a hip roof to lower the elevation. VonFeldt stated Staff's recommendation of denial included the small
deck off of the bedroom, which also provides a little roof over the entry.
VonFeldt stated the practical difficulties are the small lot and the fact that the original house was built in
1920. VonFeldt indicated different portions of foundation were constructed as the house was expanded
and that they are really just trying to make it one house that is functional. VonFeldt stated there is
currently a 2.5 foot wide stairs up to the second floor.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:43 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:43 p.m.
Schoenzeit commented it is a lot of house for a little lot.
Thiesse stated it is, but that you need to do the project right and take architectural features into
consideration. Thiesse stated a straight wall would not look as nice.
Page 36 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann stated he likes the shape of the house and that the view from the lake will look better.
Schoenzeit stated the applicants have put a lot of time and effort into designing a more efficient space but
that it is still a lot of house for the lot.
Leskinen noted the structural coverage is decreasing. Leskinen stated the biggest question for the
Planning Commission is Staff's recommendation for denial of the portion of the requested lake setback
variance to allow further encroachment within the 75-foot setback.
Schoenzeit questioned whether efficiency or architectural aesthetics should trump code.
Leskinen asked if the house is currently in the 0-75 foot setback.
Curtis indicated the 75-foot setback goes right through the house.
Schoenzeit stated the question is how the Planning Commission feels about how it looks from the lake
and where the addition sits.
Thiesse stated the applicants have rounded off the sightlines on the lower level and that this is an
extension of that design, which goes towards the practical difficulty. Thiesse stated the 75-foot setback
criteria also consists of what it looks like from the lake.
Leskinen stated she agrees it would look better if the rounded design extends upward rather than having it
rounded at the bottom and square at the top.
Thiesse stated it is being driven from the practical difficulty down below.
Lemke stated in his view it is a design element.
Leskinen stated it would be an improvement visually from the lake and would be stepped back slightly.
Thiesse noted that portion actually is being stepped forward and not back.
Landgraver stated in his view the applicants have made a good faith effort on the ground level to
conform, and for consistency and perception from the lake, the second floor is being moved forward and
fol(ows the shape of the first floor. Landgraver noted typically the Planning Commission does not
approve more encroachments in the 0-75 foot zone.
Thiesse stated the portion that is recommended for denial is the existing wall that is being pushed forward
on top of existing structure. Thiesse noted the applicants are not increasing the structural footprint and
are decreasing the structural coverage.
VonFeldt stated if you took off the angled pieces, it would be all the way across. VonFeldt stated they are
proposing the roofline of the first floor be pushed further back than what it currently is.
Thiesse asked if the green portion is the deck.
Page 37 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
VonFeldt indicated it is. VonFeldt noted they cannot continue with this design if the second floor bump
out is denied and that they would have to come back with a plan for a squared front. VonFeldt stated he
is not sure how that process would work and whether his application would need to be tabled tonight.
VonFeldt noted there was an application earlier tonight that requested a lakeshore setback variance that
was granted and that he does not feel like he is asking for too much.
Schoenzeit pointed out the house is growing towards the lake.
Thiesse stated technically he is not since he is cutting the corners back.
Schoenzeit stated the upstairs is growing. Schoenzeit stated simply because someone has a first floor that
encroaches into the average lakeshore setback does not guarantee the second level encroachment.
Schoenzeit commented he is surprised the neighbors have not expressed any concern about that
encroaching into their view.
VonFeldt requested the aerial photograph be displayed. VonFeldt stated the home to the left is what they
are attempting to avoid. The second story of that home is simply a wall and there would be no visual
interruption. The home on the right is a single-story home on a 100-foot lot. VonFeldt stated this project
would impact their view of the other neighbor's wall.
Landgraver asked if Staff is recommending that the second floor addition stop at the setback line.
Curtis stated it should stop where it exists now and allow the expansion within the 75-foot into the green
area on the sketch. Curtis pointed out the new structure in the 0-75 foot zone. Curtis stated Staff is trying
to discourage additional structure toward the lake.
Schoenzeit stated the flip side to the argument is that it may become more acceptable but that it is not
really as aesthetically pleasing or an efficient use of the space.
McGrann asked if the existing deck outlined in green would be removed.
Curtis stated if the applicant chooses to rebuild that, he can since it is an existing encroachment.
McGrann asked if he is requesting the red area and the green area on the bottom.
VonFeldt indicated he is and that the red on the bottom depicts a deck.
Schoenzeit noted that would still be considered structure.
VonFeldt stated he just wanted to make sure it was clear that it was not the house that was sticking out
that far.
Leskinen stated she does not mind the bump out portion or the square deck on the bottom, but that the top
portion is the issue. Leskinen stated she would rather see what is being proposed than a big massive wall,
but that she is not sure the Planning Commission has the grounds to approve it.
Landgraver stated there is a single-story on one side and a two-story box on the other. Landgraver stated
in terms of massing, he is not sure it is in character with the neighborhood.
Page 38 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke asked if there is any benefit to tabling the application.
VonFeldt stated he does not want to table it if the Planning Commission is thinking about approving it.
Landgraver stated the City has a hard line about adding more structure in the 0-75-foot zone.
Thiesse noted even if the Planning Commission denies his application, he can still go before the City
Council.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission could table it for redesign, but that he does not want the
applicant to think that if he does redesign it,that it will necessarily be approved.
Thiesse asked if the rectangle is only the second-story deck.
Curtis stated the red-hashed marks on the south side of the house depict the part that is being
recommended for denial and is the deck.
VonFeldt stated the first floor is the landing coming out of the patio doors and down a set of stairs. The
second floor is just above that.
Thiesse stated the only piece of structure in that rectangle that is not allowed is the deck on the second
story. Thiesse stated if the applicant constructs the deck, the only detriment is the railing since there is
already an enclosed roof.
Curtis stated the deck that is on the house is moved more towards the center.
Schoenzeit stated there is also the potential to enclose that deck off at some point in the future.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission needs to explain why it is a practical difficulty in this
situation. Schoenzeit noted the City sees properties with twice the land area but yet they are allowed less
structural coverage than in this case.
Thiesse noted he is reducing his structural coverage.
Lemke stated he is leaning towards denial of the lake setback variance.
Landgraver stated he comes down on the side of not approving additional structural coverage in the 0-75-
foot zone. Landgraver stated there also is the undefined issue of massing, but that he would recommend
the Planning Commission not approve any additional encroachments.
Lemke stated he feels the same way.
Thiesse stated he would agree that the additional encroachment should not be allowed. Thiesse stated
there are a number of extenuating circumstances but in his view there is no practical difficulty for the
extra four feet. Thiesse stated if a practical difficulty could be shown, he could be persuaded to approve
it.
Leskinen stated she cannot find a practical difficulty to approve it.
Schoenzeit stated the design looks nice but there is no justification for the additional encroachment.
Page 39 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann stated he does not disagree with that.
Schoenzeit asked if he would like his application tabled.
VonFeldt asked what would happen if it gets denied at the City Council.
Schoenzeit stated the City Council could also table it for redesign and send it back to the Planning
Commission.
Curtis stated the City Council could also approve everything but the lake setback variance. Curtis stated
if it appears the City Council is going to deny the application, she would recommend the applicant ask for
direction on what changes should be made. Curtis stated the applicant could also make changes to his
plan based upon the discussion by the Planning Commission.
VonFeldt stated it would likely have to be a complete redesign if that portion is denied.
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3750,
Jeff VonFeldt and Elaine Wyatt, 1990 Shadywood Road,granting of side setback variance,a rear
setback variance, and a lake setback variance; and to recommend denial of the portion of the
application for the requested lake setback variance within the 75-foot setback. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
13. #15-3751 NORTON HOMES, 1105 BROWN ROAD SOUTH,VARIANCES, 1L•15 P.M.—
11:45 P.M.
Pat Hiller with Norton Homes was present.
Curtis stated the property consists of approximately one-half acre and is located within the RR-1B
District, which requires two acres. The property is served by city sewer.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family home on the property and is requesting side
setback variances to allow construction of a new residence to be situated 15 feet from the south side lot
line and 19 feet from the north side lot line where 30-foot setbacks are required. Lot area and lot width
variances are also being requested. The proposed home will meet the front and rear yard setbacks. The
northern driveway and curb cut will be eliminated.
Staff finds practical difficulties exist to support granting lot area and lot width variances allowing for
redevelopment of this property. The substandard lot area and width are not the result of actions by the
landowners, and the applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family home, which is reasonable
and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. According to Zoning Code Section 78-72,the property
could be redeveloped without lot area and lot width variances but for the applicant's request for side yard
setback variances.
The hardcover and structural coverage proposed meet the requirements of the zoning code. The request
for 15-foot and 19-foot side setbacks, in addition to the lot area and lot width variances to redevelop this
property appears to be reasonable. The setback variances appear to be based primarily on aesthetic
reasons. The applicant should demonstrate practical difficulty to support the side yard setback variances.
Page 40 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
The width of the structure of the adjacent parcels varies between 66 feet to 40 feet based on aerial photos.
The proposed home and setbacks appear to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and
do not appear to adversely impact adjacent properties.
The Planning Commission should discuss the practical difficulties to allow side setback variances.
Pat Hiller,Norton Homes, stated the lot is 100 feet wide and the current side setbacks are 30 and 30,
which are consistent with the two-acre zoning. Hiller indicted they are requesting side setbacks of 15 feet
and 15 feet and they are proposing a home that is set back from the front of the street that is consistent
with the other homes in the area.
Hiller stated in his view the proposed home does not overwhelm the lot and is in character with the other
new homes in the area. Currently the home is about 19 feet from the property line to the south and the
garage is approximately 10 feet from the property line. Hiller noted they are proposing 15 feet and 15
feet. Hiller indicated they are trying to construct something that is aesthetically pleasing, does not
overwhelm the lot, and fits in with the new construction in the area.
From a practical standpoint,the existing building pad is 40 feet on a 100-foot lot. Hiller stated from a
practical and marketability standpoint, it does not make sense to remodel the existing home since it is
very old and in disrepair.
Leskinen asked what the practical difficulty is for granting the side yard setback.
Hiller stated the existing building pad would allow a 40-foot wide home, which would be incredibly
skinny relatively to the side. Hiller stated virtually all the new homes in this area have three and four-stall
garages. Hiller stated a 3-stall garage is approximately 36 feet wide and they would end up with all
garage, which is not very saleable and in concert with the new construction in the area. Hiller stated in
his view that is a practical difficulty and that he would like to construct something that is consistent for
the area.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 11:23 p.m.
Robert Berrett, 1085 Brown Road South, stated he is located directly north of the applicant's property.
Berrett stated the applicant mentioned he would like to make the house aesthetically pleasing, and under
the City's criteria, it says that a variance may not be issued to satisfy the economic or aesthetic desires of
the application.
Berrett noted there was never a sign put out in the front regarding the project and that the applicant has
only spoken with himself. Berrett stated in his view they are trying to get this application snuck through.
Berrett stated the biggest issue he has with the project is the variance to the 30-foot setback, especially if
you assume there will be 30-foot high walls on that side. Berrett noted there can be no plantings on that
side that conceal this structure and that it would look directly into his daughter's bedroom. Berrett stated
in his view it is a hardship to him since he will have to do plantings to protect his privacy. Berrett stated
if the applicant is held to the 30 feet, he would be able to plant on his side.
Berrett stated in his view it is important to understand that the applicant just purchased this property a
month ago. The setbacks were understood at that point, and to say there is a new hardship involved is not
Page 41 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
true. Berrett stated in the end he feels there is adequate space to construct the same square footage of
house without the variances, which would be the same situation as what existed a month ago. Berrett
stated he does not have a problem with the lot area and lot width variances but that the applicant has not
demonstrated a practical difficulty for the side setback variances.
Schoenzeit asked if he has a front loading garage.
Berrett indicated his garage is located on the right side of the house and that the original house was
constructed in 1919. The house has since been remodeled.
Schoenzeit asked if the width of the same is the same.
Berrett indicated his lot is 111 feet wide and that the applicant's property is 100 feet wide.
Schoenzeit asked what the setback is on the other side of his house.
Berrett indicated he does not know but pointed out the property line on the overhead.
Schoenzeit stated it appears to be 10 to I 5 feet.
Berrett stated his biggest concern is with what can be planted in that 10 or 15 feet. Berrett noted this is a
spec home and that it is unclear what the future property owners will do with the property. Berrett stated
when the person constructed the house to the north of him,they stated they would construct a swale so his
property would not get the runoff from that property. Berrett noted they never built that swale and that he
had to spend thousands of dollars to keep their runoff off of his property. Berrett stated he has a concern
that what is being stated will be followed through on.
Tim Cooley, 1115 Brown Road South, stated he is directly south of the subject property. Cooley stated
tearing down the existing house is a good idea but that they have not seen any plans for what the new
house will look like. Cooley stated he is concerned that a 15-foot variance will infringe on his privacy.
Cooley noted currently the existing house is a one-story structure and that the applicant is proposing to
construct a two-story house. Cooley reiterated the 15-foot setback would be an encroachment on his
privacy.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 11:30 p.m.
Lemke noted both neighbors are against the variance and that the lot is buildable without the variance.
Schoenzeit noted this would be a clean sheet.
Landgraver pointed out both of the neighbors have I 5-foot encroachments on the other side of their
properties. Landgraver asked how far the existing home is from the two neighbors.
Curtis stated she is unsure.
Hiller indicated the house is 20 feet from the south property line and the garage structure is 10 feet from
the north property line.
Page 42 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSIOIv MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated perhaps a different setback could be considered, such as 20 or 18 feet. Schoenzeit
stated that would be similar to what exists on the other side of the neighbors' homes. Schoenzeit stated it
is unlikely the Planning Commission will approve what is being proposed, especially since this is a clean
sheet and given the comments of the neighbors.
Lemke stated he does not see what the neighbors currently have on the other side as having any bearing
on this request.
Thiesse noted there is an existing structure on the property that is outside the building envelope.
Schoenzeit stated there is also something to the neighbor's comment about this now being a two-story
structure rather than a one-story. Schoenzeit stated he would like to see a bigger side setback.
Leskinen stated when she was going through the packet, she wrote a note that given the current setback
requirements, it would be difficult to construct a practical home consistent with other homes in the
surrounding areas. Leskinen noted the existing home is already encroaching on the neighbors.
Schoenzeit noted this is new construction. Schoenzeit pointed out not everybody is at 30 feet in the
neighbarhood and so there is room for some degree of variance.
Leskinen stated if they rebuild in kind,they would not need a variance, but that she does not see a
practical difficulty or a compelling reason for the variance.
Lemke stated they are able to build a reasonable house on the property without the variance.
Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 5-3751,Norton
Homes, 1105 Brown Road South,for the side yard setbacks, and to recommend approval of the lot
area and lot width variances.
Curtis noted without the side setback variances, Staff could administratively approve the lot width and lot
area variances.
Thiesse encouraged the applicant to speak with the neighbors to see whether a different side yard setback
would be appropriate.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is not approving the specific number requested, but that he
would be open to something other than 15 feet.
Hiller stated they thought this plan was appropriate and that in their view a 45-foot wide house is not
appropriate for this lot. Hiller indicated they would be open to some type of compromise.
Leskinen stated if he is interested in bringing the application back to the Planning Commission,they
could make a motion to table. Leskinen stated he could also choose to proceed forward to the City
Council.
Schoenzeit stated he would be willing to rescind his motion and table the application to allow the
applicant the ability to discuss the matter with the neighbors.
Page 43 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLA1vNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Hiller requested the Planning Commission table his application. Hiller questioned whether the neighbors
will accept something other than 30 feet, and stated that if they are required to build within the allowable
footprint,the neighbors may not like the appearance of the house.
Leskinen stated it may not be something that can be negotiated with the neighbors, but that there are
parameters that the Planning Commission needs to approve an application, such as a practical difficulty.
Leskinen noted the Council may prefer to deny it.
Hiller asked if they are allowed to change the request in front of the Council.
Curtis stated the Council will want something that is representative of what was discussed at the public
hearing. Curtis stated if the applicant follows the direction of the Planning Commission,they likely
would be fine with that, but if the applicant brought back something totally different than what was
contemplated tonight, they might elect to send it back to the Planning Commission.
Hiller asked whether the Planning Commission could vote on it tonight and whether he could then bring a
revised plan before the City Council for something less than 30/30.
Curtis indicated he could.
Leskinen noted a motion and a second have been made to deny the application.
Thiesse stated in his view a practical difficulty is attempting to fit in the neighborhood but the neighbors
do not have setbacks that fit the lots that they have. Thiesse stated the applicant is the new guy in the
neighborhood and this is a clean sheet, but that in his opinion the rest of the neighbors are not showing
that they conform either.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
14. #15-3743 IRWIN JACOBS, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW,
11:45 P.M.— 12:02 P.M.
Irwin Jacobs, Applicant, was present.
Barnhart stated this is a sketch plan review for a 29-acre property comprised of one parcel. The applicant
is proposing to divide the parcel into four single-family residential lots. The new lots will be created on
the portion of the property north of the home and accessed by an extension of Heritage Lane from the
west. The existing home and its accessory structures and buildings will be contained within Lot 4. All
lots are proposed to be served with private wells and City sewer.
The proposed 4-lot subdivision appears to be in conformity with the guiding of this area for single-family
rural residential development at a density of one unit per two acres. The properties are located in the
LR-lA District,which allows for single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size of two dry
buildable acres. The sketch submitted by the applicant appears to meet this requirement. The proposed
single-family development also appears to be consistent with existing development in the surrounding
neighborhood.
Page 44 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
OROlYO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart indicated the property generally slopes downward from a high point in the middle toward
Tanager Lake to the north/northeast and then to the wetland in the south. Barnhart noted the wetland has
not yet been delineated, which will need to occur. The north half of the site is heavily wooded, with two
defined bluffs on the property.
Barnhart noted Lots 1 through 3 will be accessed via an extension of Heritage Lane from the west. The
Planning Commission should consider whether a corridor should be preserved for a possible extension
from Heritage Lane to the south.
Barnhart indicated the applicant is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission on the sketch
plan.
Thiesse asked how long the cul-de-sac is.
Landgraver noted Heritage Lane will be 1,600 feet with the cul-de-sac.
Schoenzeit asked how many units it would serve.
Barnhart indicated it will serve three additional homes.
Thiesse commented that it appears to be longer than 1,600 feet.
Gaffron asked if it is 1,600 starting at the Y.
Barnhart indicated it would be from the Y.
Landgraver stated he was under the impression that the existing property would still connect to Shoreline
and not connect to the cul-de-sac.
Barnhart stated the existing house will connect off of Shoreline via their current access. The three new
lots would be accessed via Heritage.
McGrann stated it meets all the setback requirements and that it is just a matter of whether they enter on
Heritage or coming up Shoreline. McGrann asked if that is a potential.
Schoenzeit stated the developer would need to cut through one of the lots that is being subdivided.
Barnhart stated there are challenges to extending Heritage in that area since it is heavily vegetated,
contains significant slopes, and a wetland, but that it is possible.
Landgraver asked if the Dakota Trail is nearby.
Barnhart illustrated the location of the cul-de-sac,the wetland, and Heritage Lane.
Barnhart indicated it is. Barnhart stated Staff has identified a potential connection to Heritage to get to
Shoreline,which may reduce the length of the cul-de-sac, but would create a slew of other problems.
Barnhart stated the Conservation Design Report will be important in this development.
Page 45 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEET[NG
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Mike Steadman, on behalf of Irwin Jacobs, stated he is a realtor with Coldwell Banker in Wayzata.
Steadman stated they have looked at several concepts regarding this property, and given the impacts to
the bluff,this proposal has less of an impact to the trees. Steadman indicated the building pads are also
strategically placed to allow the driveways to meander through the woods and have less of an impact to
the neighborhood.
Steadman noted the lots consist of two to three acres with City sewer and that they are also hoping for
access on Smith Bay for a slip.
McGrann asked how many lots would be on the lake.
Steadman indicated they have over 700 feet of lakeshore on Smith Bay.
McGrann asked if there are a couple of nonlakeshore lots that would have lake access.
Steadman stated all three lots would have a slip on Tanager Bay. Steadman indicated they would also be
extending city sewer to the main house.
Leskinen stated at first glance it appears to be a nice little development. Leskinen encouraged the
applicant to pay very close attention to the woods and preserving the natural amenities as they go forward
with the development.
Steadman noted the Conservation Design is almost completed.
Lemke stated the only thing he sees is what appear to be some fairly long driveways, especially as it
relates to Lot 1.
Leskinen asked if the final building pads have been determined.
Steadman indicated Mark Gronberg is doing the survey work and that they will be tweaking those.
Steadman stated they also will be working with a landscape architect.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
15. #15-3752 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,475 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
NORTH,SKETCH PLAN REVIEW12:02 P.M.— 12:55 P.M.
Tom Gonyea,Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated this is a sketch plan review for a 17-acre property comprised of three tax parcels proposed
to be developed into 51 single-family residential lots. The property is currently zoned RR-1B and is
bounded on the south by Highway 12 and on the west by the Dumas apple orchard. The density of the
proposed development is four units per dry buildable acre. The 2008 Comprehensive Plan guides this
property at a density of seven to ten units per acre and does not identify single family or multi-family.
The applicant's intent is for the development to consist of single-family homes on individual lots, with
approximately ten feet between units.
Page 46 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron noted the site will need to be rezoned and will likely be rezoned to RPUD. The City's RPUD
Code has a number of standards for single-family lots. Pages 2 and 3 in Staffls report discuss the
flexibility that would be required in order to allow this type of development to be an RPUD district. The
standard for minimum lot size is 15,000 square foot lot and the applicants are proposing around 5,600
square feet. The applicant is also proposing 45 feet as a minimum lot width at the setback line and 11 feet
as the minimum front setback.
Gaffron stated the proposed development is not similar in character to other developments in Orono or in
the surrounding area. Gaffron stated it could be considered somewhat similar to Stone Bay, but as
proposed,these would be individual lots and Stone Bay has twin homes or triples that have a pad that
typically extends a foot outside the building, with the rest of the areas being a common area. Gaffron
stated this proposal is showing virtually no common areas at this point other than the road.
The property consists of three separate parcels totaling 12.7 dry buildable acres, which is proposed to be
subdivided to create 51 single-family lots. The layout of the site is dictated by a number of factors,
including the location of wetlands,the collector or arterial roadways, the need to locate road access points
directly across from those serving the Orono Industrial Park, and the provision for future road extensions
to the Dumas property.
Based on discussions with Staff, the applicants have created a concept plan that takes into account those
factors and results in a site layout with two road entrances onto Old Crystal Bay Road and none onto
Wayzata Boulevard.
Gaffron stated one of the issues with this development is whether or not there are going to be basements
and whether the area abutting the development road will be built up in order to create walkouts. Staff has
asked the applicant to extend the roads going to the west all the way to the property line with a potential
to have future connections to the Dumas property. Gaffron stated at this time Staff does not know what
will happen with that property but at the present time there are no plans to develop it. Gaffron stated that
further raises the question of whether this should be a public or private road.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should discuss the following:
1. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the density of the proposed 51-unit single-family
development? Should the City be striving for more density or less density at this location? Is
single-family housing right for this area?
2. Due to the number of units to be served both initially and potentially in the future, and given the
density of the proposed development, it would follow that the road system should be public. The
Planning Commission should discuss the merits of this being a public or private road.
3. The general design and orientation of dwelling units proposed and the minimal lot sizes and
setbacks as compared to the RPUD standards would indicate the need for a significant level of
development flexibility with this concept.
4. The minimal setbacks proposed result in extremely small yards, front, side and rear. This creates
a scale of single-family detached development not currently existing in Orono. The Planning
Commission should discuss this issue and determine what impacts result with the minimal
Page 47 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
setbacks, both visually and functions. Is this intended to be a family oriented neighborhood or
geared to empty-nesters?
5. Many of the lots propose a building pad that almost maxes out the buildable area of the lot once
the perimeter berms are in place. Many of the lots abutting the wetland in the rear would have
only minimal back yard as the building bumps up to within 20 feet of the wetland buffer. a result
of these two factors in the future is the owner's inability to construct an addition of even a deck in
some cases, as well as providing minimal rear yards for outdoor enjoyment.
6. Planning Commission should consider whether a revised plan incorporating a fu1125 feet front
yard setback measured from the edge of right-of-way should be required.
7. Should the City allow the property to be developed without developing at least a vision of how
the Dumas piece to the west might be included? If the Dumas property develops a townhouse
use, are there possibilities for negative transitions through this proposed development?
8. Should the wetland be treated as an amenity to be shared with the entire development? As
proposed, only lots abutting the wetland will have the wetland as an amenity. The Planning
Commission should discuss whether this development should be required to create the RPUD
standard 10 percent private recreation space.
9. With development at a density somewhat new to the City; to protect the aesthetics of the existing
rural development, and also to protect future owners of these properties,would specific exterior
finishes for the building help lessen the density impacts.
10. Staff recommends that a trail be constructed within the applicant's property connecting as a
minimum from the northerly road access to the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Old
Crystal Bay Road. Should this density of development include sidewalks along the interior
streets?
11. To what extent will developer be altering grades to deal with stormwater management, high water
tables, and development with basements?
12. The extent and nature of perimeter visual and noise buffering should be a point of discussion.
13. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent
City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat. Gaffron indicated Staff will be bringing this
sketch plan to the City Council as well.
Thiesse asked how this differs from the development on the landfill site.
Gaffron indicated these are narrow lots, and from a density standpoint, that development was guided for
10 to 12 units per acre.
Leskinen asked if those were attached units.
Page 48 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANivING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron indicated they were detached units.
Thiesse asked how the Metropolitan Council feels about Orono not continually meeting their density
standards.
Gaffron indicated he does not know how the Metropolitan Council will react.
Landgraver asked if the City has to hit a certain number per acre.
Gaffron stated Metropolitan Council's direction is that the City should guide enough land to a certain
density to accommodate the amount of density that Met Council would like to see.
Thiesse asked if the City has to reguide something else if they do not meet that density.
Gaffron stated he is not aware of a specific requirement that says the City must follow the guided density
but that the City has to at least make it possible by guiding enough acreage in different properties at a
higher density.
Schoenzeit noted they are above three units per acre, so they would be able to get city sewer.
Gaffron indicated that is correct.
Schoenzeit asked if the developer is aware of the RPUD requirement and the 10 percent recreation
amenity. Schoenzeit stated it seems like it would be a nonstarter if the developer does not meet the major
standards required under a RPUD.
Gaffron stated the question is what kind of development can be accomplished with somewhat higher
densities. Gaffron noted a PRD relies on the underlying zoning districts for standards and that City will
need to look at that underlying zoning district and possibly rezone it. Gaffron stated the RPUD district
has a set of standards for multi-family units and a different set of standards for single-family, individual,
detached units, and this layout does not match those standards. Gaffron stated it could be argued that the
RPUD does not allow for this type of density, but it does have a flexibility clause that says the standards
can be changed within the RPUD to fit the density and the type of development the City would like to see.
Schoenzeit asked how many square feet one of those units would be.
Gaffron indicated it would be best if the developer answers those questions.
Tom Gonyea, Estate Development Corporation, stated there are a number of site constraints to this
property with the roads,the larger than normal setbacks, and the wetlands. Gonyea stated in their view
this is a product that fits the market preriy good. Gonyea indicated they have worked with Staff quite a
bit on the sketch plan and that this property is zoned for higher density, which is why they thought this
product would fit good on this site.
Ian Peterson, David Weekley Homes, stated the square footage for a single-level plan,without a
basement, would be in the range of 2,000 to 2,400 square feet. A two-story home would probably start
around 2,400 square feet up to approximately 3,100 square feet.
Page 49 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNIIYG COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit asked what the dollar range of the homes would be.
Peterson stated in general terms they are probably looking at upper fours to mid sixes.
Lemke asked if there is that much demand for that type of housing in this area.
Peterson stated his background and specialty is in specialty projects. Peterson indicated they have done
some market studies and analyses and that they are looking at an empty-nester ar a couple whose children
are in college or the divorcee market.
Schoenzeit stated price-wise it is similar to the Red Oak development.
Thiesse asked if he could discuss the 10 percent amenity requirement.
Gonyea stated they did have some discussions with Staff about the idea of putting a common trail or
something around the wetlands. Gonyea stated it could be done, but with the stormwater requirements
and things of that nature, it becomes a little more difficult. Gonyea indicated he is not opposed to taking a
look at it.
Thiesse asked if the wetland extends out into the orchard area.
Gaffron stated they have not explored that to see whether the trail could be continued down by the Dumas
property but it would be something to look at.
Gonyea stated to his understanding Mn/DOT owns that small corner of property.
Gaffron pointed out the property that Mn/DOT owns. Gaffron stated to his recollection the wetland does
not continue past that area.
Lemke asked what consideration has been given to traffic loading.
Gaffron stated one of the things Staff looked at in conjunction with the JEM property on Old Crystal Bay
Road was achieving enough separation from the OCB/Wayzata Blvd. intersection. Gaffron noted the
engineers have not looked at this development, but that Staff would ask that they look to see if there is
any need for turn lanes and signalization. Gaffron stated if the south access was the only access,there
would be a very long cul-de-sac.
Thiesse asked if Staff could describe a scenario where the City could come close to meeting the density
for this property.
Gaffron stated that scenario would require multi-family units, such as apartment buildings or
condominiums. Gaffron stated at a minimum twin homes would need to be constructed, but more likely
multi-family buildings.
Thiesse stated he prefers this over multi-family units.
Leskinen stated in her view it is too much for the site.
Page 50 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann asked if they have done this type of development before and that he was surprised at the
anticipated point.
Gonyea stated a pretty similar project is located right across from the Wayzata High School. Gonyea
stated at the time they worked with Pulte Homes, who purchased all the lots back in 2009. The lots were
60-foot wide lots with 5-foot setbacks. The price point was approximately$400,000, but in today's
market it would be in the $500,000 range. Gonyea stated that development was very well received and
sold out very quickly.
Gonyea noted the proposed development has 45-foot wide lots but they are a little bit deeper than the
Pulte project. Gonyea noted what they are proposing is below the guided density and that this is the
product that seemed to fit the best for single-family residential on this site.
Schoenzeit stated in his view parking may be an issue and that in his view the developer should have two
plus parking spaces for each residence.
Landgraver asked what the density is on the Dumas property.
Gaffron indicated it is also guided seven to ten units per acre.
Landgraver stated in order to achieve the guided density,they would need to put multi-family density in
there with perhaps some single-family homes. Landgraver stated at first view it appears to be a lot of
stacked housing.
Gaffron asked if the developer anticipates bringing in a significant amount of fill.
Gonyea indicated there are some water tables they have to deal with and that they will likely need some
fill. Gonyea stated lookouts or walkouts are the preferred product and that slab on grade homes are not
very popular.
Gaffron stated that grading for this development might be similar to the Willow View development.
Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission would prefer the wetlands be placed in an outlot. Gaffron
noted the wetlands in this development are included as part of individual lots. In that case, it would be
difficult to construct a trail around the wetlands.
Thiesse asked if the vehicular traffic from the Dumas property would come through this development.
Gaffron indicated there would be at least one direct access point onto Wayzata Boulevard from the
Dumas property.
McGrann stated he would agree with the comments that this appears to be a lot of housing for the
property.
Lemke commented he would rather see mixed use on this property and that this development is not
typically what you see in Orono.
Page 51 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Leskinen stated in her view this is the right spot in Orono for higher density but that in this particular
development the units are too close together and without any yard space. Leskinen stated she is not sure
if the fire chief will approve of how close the units are together.
Schoenzeit stated if the units are going to have all the same architectural features, in his view that will
also be against the typical Orono character.
Gonyea stated in his view twin homes or a similar product could be done on the site, but that most people
do not like to hear their neighbors on the other side of the wall. Gonyea stated given the constraints of the
lot,there is not a lot of room to wiggle around on this site. Gonyea stated he understands this is not the
perfect answer but that this is a tight site and that they are limited on the egress. Gonyea indicated he
would prefer to pursue a plan like this but that he is hearing that it might not be approved.
Schoenzeit stated in his view the developer will need to sell the City on what high density looks like.
Schoenzeit noted the developer is depicting four units per acre and this site is guided for seven to ten
units.
McGrann stated he would be willing to look at other similar developments in addition to the development
in Wayzata.
Peterson stated they did struggle with the density and that they were not interested in 7 to 10 units per
acre. Currently 10 percent of the market is multi-family, and what occurs with that type of development
is a more boxy appearance. Peterson stated the homes in this development are 35 feet wide and 75 feet
deep, which lay out nicely with the wetlands.
Landgraver stated the developer may also want to focus on more than one type of client. Landgraver
stated in his view this looks too monolithic and that he would (ike to see some more texture to it.
Peterson stated they will also be staggering the homes.
Lemke stated some photographs of other similar developments would be helpful.
Thiesse suggested the examples be given to Staff prior to the City Council meeting so they can be
distributed to the Council.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
16. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON MAY 26,2015,AND JUNE 8,2015
No reports were given.
17. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
Page 52 of 53
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,June 15,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Schoenzeit moved,McGrann seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
12:58,}�.�: VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
c;,l,m.
i
ATTEST:
� ---_-------�
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Page 53 of 53