HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/17/2015 Planning Commission Minutes ' , MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members
present: Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Loren Schoenzeit,
Jon Schwingler, John Thiesse, and Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Community
Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis,
and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Lizz Levang was present.
CONSENT AGENDA
Leskinen noted there were a number of items listed in the City's legal notice that are not on tonight's
agenda. That includes the following items: File 15-3735, 4195, 4175, and 4167 Highwood Road;
15-3742, 1100 Millston Road; 15-3769, 3409 East Lake Street; 15-3775, Amendment to Zoning Code
Chapter 78.
Leskinen stated the only item on tonight's Consent Agenda
Schwingler moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 20,2015
Schwingler moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning
Commission meeting of July 20,2015,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #15-3733 SHARRATT DESIGN COMPANY,LLC, ON BEHALF OF JAMES AND
KATHLYN WYMAN, 1185 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCE,6:35 P.M.—7:05 P.M.
Michael Sharratt, Sharratt Design, was present.
Curtis stated the applicants are proposing a two-story garage addition on the west side of the home at a
conforming setback. The new driveway extension to access the garage requires a setback variance from
the wetland. The driveway is proposed to be constructed as close as 12 feet from the wetland where a
35-foot setback is required. A portion of the new driveway is also proposed to be constructed within an
existing sanitary sewer easement.
Staff has provided an analysis of the practical difficulty within the staff report. The Planning
Commission should discuss the criteria if they feel it is appropriate.
Further, Staff finds that the"land locked"condition of the property, the location of the existing driveway
access point and home, and the proximity of the wetland to the driveway and home create practical
difficulties making conforming development of the property challenging. The applicant's proposal to
construct a driveway to serve the new addition within the wetland setback will not extend closer to the
wetland than the existing driveway. It does not appear construction of the new driveway will adversely
affect the stormwater storage and drainage on the properly.
Page 1 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The Planning Commission should discuss the items for consideration listed in Staff's report as well as any
other additional issues or concerns resulting from public comments.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the wetland setback variance to allow construction of the
driveway with the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall comply with all of the permitting requirements of the MCWD, specifically the
wetland, erosion control, and floodplain alteration rules.
2. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer upon submittal of the
application for a building permit for the new addition.
3. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to address the existing
and proposed improvements within the sewer easement.
Curtis stated Staff is aware the neighbor to the west would like to comment on the addition.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Jay Jackley, 1205 Shoreline Drive, stated he is very good friends with his neighbor and that he would like
to work these issues out. Jackley stated he has worked a little bit with a real estate attorney friend on this
matter but that he was only able to see the plans last week and really has not had time to review this
matter in depth. Jackley stated his attorney friend brought up four items within the ordinances that he
suggested be brought to the Commission's attention tonight.
Jackley stated the first issue is that he wants to make sure the plan will not be detrimental to his property
with respect to the risk of flooding. The property currently experiences quite a bit of flooding.
Jackley stated the second issue is, given the potential impact to his property, he would request that he be
given a reasonable period of time to obtain a second set of eyes on this project. Jackley stated he would
like to have his own consultant look at this property in regards to the watershed and flooding potential as
it pertains to the wetland area and driveway.
The third issue is making sure that the delineation that was included in Staff's report is correct. Jackley
noted there was some riprap that was placed on the property a few years ago. Jackley indicated he did
speak with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,who informed him that there was no permit for this
property to place riprap there. Jackley stated as a result, he would like to make sure the delineation was
properly done and that in his view the riprap has changed the drainage.
Jackley stated the fourth item is, if he was given some additional time, in his view Mr. Wyman and
himself could come up with some solutions that would help protect his property from the negative
impacts of this development. Jackley stated in his view these items could be accomplished in a short
period of time.
Jackley indicated he does have a few photos to demonstrate the water damage to his property. Jackley
pointed out the riprap that was placed next to the pond. Jackley noted the MCWD did not know when the
Page 2 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
delineation was done but that the riprap is now there. Jackley stated since no permit was obtained for the
riprap, he is worried whether it was done correctly and that in his view they have experienced water
damage since that was put in.
Jackley stated the next picture shows the water mark on the fence line, which is up about two feet.
Jackley indicated he does store valuable items in the storage shed and that the water will go up a foot or
two whenever there is a seasonal change. Jackley stated he is concerned about this project having an
impact on the water flow onto his property. Jackley noted all the water from County Road 15 flows into
the pond and then has no outlet, which has resulted in the water coming onto his property.
Jackley stated the third picture shows how he has had to resod his back yard due to the flooding and that
in his opinion the existing pond has affected the flow on the property given the riprap. The fourth picture
shows that the neighbors have placed wooden planks down because of the flooding. The fifth picture
depicts how the storage shed is dropping in the back.
Jackley reiterated he wants to make sure that if there is an addition put on the house,that it is not going to
unduly impact his property and that he is worried about future flooding on his property as a result of this
addition.
Jackley stated he is aware Mr. Wyman has hired an engineer and that he is all for improving the property,
but given the short amount of time he has had to review the plans, he would request some additional time
to review the plans.
Schwingler asked how long the additional flooding has been going on.
Jackley stated that portion of his property is now wet all the time. Jackley indicated he was not aware of
the riprap until last week but that he believes it has been placed there in the past few years. Jackley stated
he is aware a permit was obtained for the shoreline. Jackley stated he has lived on the property for 12
years and that the land is very boggy and wet near the storage shed. Jackley stated he would like to have
a study done to find out why that is happening.
Schwingler asked how long Mr. Jackley has noticed his property being wetter than usual.
Jackley stated it has been in the last several years that it has been wetter.
Schwingler asked how far in advance the notice was sent out.
Curtis indicated it was the standard 10 days. Curtis noted the original application was submitted back in
April or May and was followed by this revision. Notice was given both times. The last notification was
given on the revised plan.
Jackley stated he also has aerial photographs of the area going back 50 years. Jackley pointed out the
riprap and his property and the area that is now wetter. Jackley expressed concern about how the riprap
was put in since it was done without a permit.
Jackley asked how the retaining wall will be approved. Jackley stated he is aware the delineation was
completed recently and asked how the delineation and the lack of a permit for the riprap relate.
Page 3 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the permit and the delineation are not related and that the permit is a piece of paper
essentially. Curtis stated the act of placing the retaining wall there may have impacted the edge of the
wetland and that the Watershed District is the governing agency for the Wetland Conservation Act and
would make the determination if a valid delineation was made of that wetland. The City would defer to
their decision on where the edge of the wetland is. Curtis stated the delineation that was done was
submitted and approved.
Jackley reiterated he is worried about the water damage as it relates to the wetland areas.
Curtis noted the City Engineer did comment on that and that there are some things the applicant can do to
help mitigate that, such as buffering.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m.
Lemke asked when this would go to the City Council if the Planning Commission acts on it tonight.
Curtis stated it would be on the September 14 Council agenda. Curtis indicated there are a couple of
items the City Engineer wanted the applicant to submit, such as grading detail, and that the engineering
review is specific to any adverse impacts to neighboring properties.
James Wyman, Applicant, stated his designers have attempted to work within the rules of the City and
conform to the setbacks. The response from the City was that they did have sufficient space on the west
side of the house that did conform so they went ahead and changed the plans accordingly.
Wyman stated it would be his opinion that the significant flooding was caused by last year's high water
levels and that his property actually suffered much more severe flooding than Mr. Jackley's property.
Wyman stated he does not remember Mr. Jackley's property suffering anywhere near the flooding over
the years as it did a year ago.
Wyman indicated he did share the City Engineer's report with Mr. Jackley and that it was the engineer's
opinion the addition would have a negligible impact on the flooding. Wyman stated a majority of the
stormwater that comes into the pond is from the north up by Wooddale Country Club and the Ferndale
Marsh. Following the occurrence of any great rain storm, there is significant flooding that comes from
drainage in that area.
Lemke stated as you go into the new garage and turnaround,there appears to be quite a large arc or circle.
Lemke stated if the large turnaround is not there, it looks like everything could be included outside of the
buffer area.
Mike Sharratt,Designer, stated the turnaround or backup space is needed to allow someone to leave the
garage and go forward.
Lemke asked if the radius could be less.
Sharratt stated a person would not be able to turn a car that fast. The recommended radius is 15 and this
is 12. Sharratt indicated they have tightened it up as much as possible. Sharratt stated the distance from
the purple shaded area to the dotted line is the minimum that someone needs to turn back and go forward.
Sharratt stated the turnaround is necessary because it is dangerous to back down a long driveway.
Page 4 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke asked if the flooding experienced last year was because the pond overflowed onto the lawn.
Wyman stated it was. Wyman stated the drainage comes from the Ferndale Marsh as well as the golf
course. Wyman indicated there is an in-pipe from the Ferndale Marsh and that the other issue is that this
particular wetland runs a considerable distance along County Road 15 to Mr. Jackley's driveway.
Sharratt stated due to the wetlands and the sewer easement,there is only about half of the site that is
available for a structure. The existing hardcover is a little over 11 percent and they are proposing 14.
Sharratt stated they are substantially under the 25 percent allowed.
Sharratt noted the site is designed to take on water, which is what happened last year. Sharratt stated last
year was the highest water level ever recorded on Lake Minnetonka and everyone's yards were soggy.
Leskinen asked if there are any additional public comments.
There were no further public comments.
Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
Leskinen stated in her view the proposal is reasonable with the conditions recommended by Staff and the
City Engineer. Leskinen noted the structure itself is conforming and that the Planning Commission is
only looking at the variance to wetland setback.
Leskinen asked if the setback is a Watershed District or the City's buffer wetland.
Curtis indicated it is the City's 35-foot setback from the edge of the wetland.
Landgraver stated the applicant has done a good job with the revised plan. Landgraver stated to his
understanding Mr. Jackley is raising two issues: The driveway and the flooding issue, which are two
separate issues. Landgraver stated he is not inclined to hold the application up knowing that it will take a
few weeks to get it before the City Council. Landgraver stated in his view that will be sufficient time to
investigate whether there is any increase in the likelihood of flooding.
Thiesse stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver.
Lemke stated the drainage contours appear to drain towards the wetland and away from Mr. Jackley's
property. Lemke stated what happened last year was probably a result of all the rainfall that this area
experienced.
Schwingler stated his major concern was whether this project would alter the essential character of the
neighborhood and that the biggest issue is to take the engineer's comments and incorporate them into the
plans. Schwingler stated the engineer's comments are based on the grading detail and that he will be
making sure it is done properly. Schwingler noted the Planning Commission is only a recommending
body and that the City Council has the option to do something different.
Berg noted one of Staff's conditions says that the applicant shall comply with the conditions of the City
Engineer.
Page 5 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated the way the engineer's report is written and the fact that permits must still be obtained
from the Watershed District, all of the concerns should be addressed. Leskinen stated it appears the
applicant is doing everything that could possibly be done.
Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3733,
Sharratt Design Company, LLC,on behalf of James and Kathlyn Wyman, ll85 Ferndale Road
West,granting of a wetland setback variance subject to Staff conditions and City Engineer
recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1, Schwingler opposed.
3. #15-3767 JON RESSLER,3683 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,7:05 P.M.—
7:27 P.M.
Jon Ressler, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct an attached garage addition and make modifications
to the existing one-level home resulting in a 2-1/2 story home. Side setback, lake setback and average
setback variances as well as hardcover and structural coverage variances are required.
The existing one-level home is situated as close as 35 feet to the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka and five
feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback. At 1,781 square feet,the property currently exceeds the
allowed 1,500 square foot structural coverage allowance by 281 square feet. The hardcover level is
currently at 54 percent where 25 percent is allowed and a slight increase to 56 percent is proposed or 188
square feet of additional hardcover. The applicant's proposal will reduce structural coverage slightly by
nine square feet, resulting in 1,772 square feet of structure.
The hardcover numbers as submitted do not specify the amount of hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. The
applicant should be asked to provide revised calculations specifying the hardcover within that zone prior
to going before the City Council.
Staff provided an analysis of practice difficulty criteria within Staff report. The Planning Commission
should discuss the criteria if they find it appropriate.
Staff finds that the location of the properly, as it is tucked in below the county road and served by a
private frontage road, combined with the 75-foot lake setback, create practical difficulties in the limited
buildable area. In addition,the footprint of the existing home has nonconforming setbacks on three sides.
The neighbors on both sides have submitted letters of support.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the average setback, lake setback, and side setback, hardcover,
and structural coverage variances as requested to permit the construction of the attached garage and 1-1/2
story additions to the existing home with the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall comply with the permitting requirements of the MCWD.
2. The top floor of the proposed home shall comply with the City's definition of"half story". No
height or number of stories variances are being granted.
3. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer and building official
Page 6 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
during the permit review and construction process.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Jon Ressler, Applicant, stated he is the third generation in his family to be living in this residence.
Ressler stated with the guidance of Staff,they have attempted to stay within compliance as much as
possible. Ressler noted this is a pretty small piece of property but that they wanted to do an improvement
to the total structure. Ressler stated in his view the modifications are meaningful while also being
mindful of height giving the existing setback.
Ressler noted the property line that runs to the east does not go parallel with the house and that it was not
the easiest to follow the setback. Ressler stated they have spent a number of years planning in order to be
compliant and respectful to the neighbors.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
Landgraver noted Staff raised the issue of whether the second story should be modified to meet the side
requirement. Landgraver asked Staff to give some context for this regulation.
Curtis indicated the lot is narrow and the house is almost property line to property line. In an effort to
reduce massing and not overshadow a neighboring home, it is not uncommon far the City to allow a
second story. Curtis stated in an area where there might not be sufficient space between this house and
the neighboring properly, it is not unusual to have it jog into the house or the setback to give more space
and less of a feel of massing. Curtis stated architecturally or structurally it is a challenge for some house
conformities but that it was included in Staffls report as a piece for consideration if the Planning
Commission felt it would be appropriate.
Curtis displayed a picture from the lake of the house and property. Curtis noted the two homes at the end
of the road are both two-story homes and the applicant's home is situation between two one or one and a
half level homes.
Leskinen stated her only question related to the hardcover. Leskinen asked if it possible to mitigate the
188 square feet of hardcover by removing some hardcover elsewhere on the property.
Curtis stated there appears to be a large parking area on the side of the garage but noted there is no on
street parking available, which is likely why the parking area exists. Curtis stated there is also a slope that
goes up to the county road, which may be the reason why the applicant has more of a Y driveway.
Leskinen stated what the applicant is proposing is reasonable.
Lemke stated he did view the property and thought that it is a lot of house for the property and that what
they are proposing to be too much.
Page 7 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated that is his concern as well but the trend in the neighborhood is two-story homes. Thiesse
stated he would like the Planning Commission to think long and hard about increasing structural coverage
in the 0-75 foot zone.
Leskinen noted this application is compliant within the footprint.
Thiesse stated the other application the Planning Commission rejected a couple of months ago was also
compliant with the footprint.
Leskinen asked if anyone has any suggestions for mitigating that.
Landgraver asked if Commissioner Thiesse's point goes to the average setback for the second story.
Thiesse stated he does not see any way around this and that the trend of the neighborhood is two-story
homes. Thiesse stated he just wants the Planning Commission to be aware that it is within the 75-foot
setback and it is a huge expansion of that area. Thiesse indicated he is for the expansion but that the
variance has to be unique to this property.
Landgraver stated he did tour the neighborhood and that he felt comfortable that this neighborhood is
changing to two-story homes. Landgraver stated there might be a massing impact that perhaps cannot be
visualized right now since the lot is so small.
Leskinen commented jogging the house in would make it look similar to the home at 3669 where it is
jogged in on each side but that she is not sure that would give the applicant what he is looking for in
terms of space.
Lemke stated he can see how two-story homes might be the trend, but that he still has a concern with the
amount of house being proposed for the lot. Lemke stated from the lakeside it will appear to be quite a bit
of massing and that the stepping back of the house would help to alleviate that. Lemke stated given the
way the house currently sits, he does not like what he is envisioning.
Leskinen noted in Staffls recommendations the applicants must comply with the definition of a half-story.
Leskinen asked if that statement is changing what they are seeing in terms of the plan.
Curtis stated she is not entirely sure that what is shown meets the half-story definition. Staff did a
preliminary analysis with the plans as they were submitted and Staff wants to make sure it is clear to the
applicant that Staff will do another analysis at the time the building plans are submitted. Curtis stated the
bonus room has to meet the half-story.
Leskinen asked if it met it in Staffls preliminary analysis.
Curtis stated in her view it generally met it but that Staff did not have the ability to fully determine that
given the level of detail in the plans at this stage. Curtis stated due to that, she could not be 100 percent
positive it met the half-story definition but that the plans appear to meet the intent of that rule. Curtis
stated any change in the half-story would not necessarily change the exterior profile of the house and
would be more internal.
Thiesse asked if the house on the channel stayed within their footprint but went upward.
Page 8 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis indicated they did with the exception of the garage addition. Curtis stated she is not aware of how
far back it tapers in or whether it meets the 10-foot setback, but that it is her belief it was required to be
offset slightly. Curtis stated at the time of that application there was discussion back in 2007 similar to
what is contained in Staffls report relating to fire code and setback and that the code has changed since
then. Curtis indicted she is not sure if there were any other parameters that played into that decision to
push it back.
Leskinen stated she is inclined to approve it since it is not further encroaching into the 75-foot setback or
further out to the side.
Landgraver stated he tends to agree with Chair Leskinen and that this is similar to what has already been
done down the street. Landgraver noted there is little to no wiggle room given the road.
Schwingler stated he hates to increase the hardcover when it is already way over.
Leskinen stated that is why she was looking for ways to mitigate the hardcover but that in her view there
does not appear to be any place where hardcover can be reduced on the lot.
Berg indicated she does not have a problem with the request.
Landgraver moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3767,Jon
Ressler,3683 North Shore Drive,granting of hardcover,structural coverage,average setback,lake
setback, and side setback variances,subject to Planning Staff recommendations and subject to the
submittal of an accurate hardcover calculation for the 0-75 foot zone prior to the Council meeting.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Lemke Opposed.
4. #15-3768 MICHAEL AND LISA LARSON,AMEND B-1 USES TO ALLOW DOG
KENNELS/DOG DAY CARE, 7:27 P.M.—7:49 P.M.
Michael and Lisa Larson,Applicants, were present.
Barnhart stated the City has received a request from some prospective business owners requesting to
amend the B-1 zoning district to allow dog grooming, dog kennels, and boarding in the retail sales(B-1)
zoning district. The applicants would like to open a dog boarding, day care, and grooming facility at
3596 Shoreline Drive. Under current zoning, those uses are not permitted.
Barnhart indicated he has included a map of the B-1 zoning districts in the Planning Commission's packet
and noted the majority of them are located in the Navarre area.
Barnhart stated if a given business is listed somewhere in the Code, that means typically the City Council
has made the decision to allow that use in that particular zone. If it is not expressively listed, the City
may make a judgment call on whether it is intended or similar to another use. The closest use Staff could
find was dog kennels in the B-5 zoning district. In working with the applicants,they do not feel kennels
is consistent with their use given their business model that they are proposing.
As a result,the applicants are proposing an amendment that defines their business and allows it by
conditional use permit in the B-1 zoning district. The applicants' proposed uses are dog boarding, dog
Page 9 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
care, and dog grooming. The applicants have provided a list of proposed definitions for consideration
tonight.
Barnhart stated the danger in being overly restrictive in defining a use is that if a use does not meet the
restrictions laid out in the definition,the use is not allowed even though it may be appropriate.
Consequently, Staff has drafted a second ordinance that allows kennels and dog grooming as a conditional
use in the B-1 zoning district and defines those since neither of those uses are defined.
The Planning Commission has three options: One, they can support the ordinance amendment as
proposed by the applicants, which is the more narrowly defined dog grooming, dog boarding and dog
care,and allow those as a conditional use in the B-1; two,the Planning Commission can support the more
general one suggested by Staff; or three,the Planning Commission can recommend denial and make no
changes to the B-1 zoning district.
In a review of the request, Staff felt it was consistent of the B-1 zoning district. Barnhart noted pet shops
are allowed or located in the B-1 zoning district and that type of use may sell animals.
Berg stated to her knowledge there was a dog grooming business in Navarre years ago,which has since
relocated to Mound. Berg asked if that was approved or whether it was just there.
Barnhart indicated he is not aware of any other businesses to this being in the B-1 zoning district.
Landgraver asked whether the pets would stay overnight in that situation.
Berg indicated they would not.
Leskinen noted with a pet shop the animals would be there overnight.
Thiesse noted a pet shop would typically have smaller animals.
Landgraver asked if a kennel is defined as three or more dogs.
Barnhart stated that is correct.
Landgraver noted the ordinance says four or more and that the City should maybe be consistent with dog
kennel licenses.
Barnhart stated Staff chose four because it would allow a distinction between dog kennels and this type of
business being proposed.
Landgraver asked if the City notified the public of this proposed ordinance change other than the standard
350 feet.
Barnhart indicated Staff did not because it would impact more than five acres.
Leskinen asked if there is a capacity limit.
Page 10 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated that would likely be a function of the specific site. Barnhart stated there will be a public
hearing and notices sent far the conditional use permit request and that what is before the Planning
Commission tonight is a general text amendment. Barnhart stated capacity will be dictated by parking
and available space in the building for each individual business.
Landgraver asked which ordinance Staff would recommend.
Barnhart stated the applicant has requested the first option, which includes the dog boarding, dog daycare
and dog grooming. If the Planning Commission feels fine with the first ordinance, Staff would be
comfortable with that. Barnhart stated the second option is more general but either ordinance gets the
City to where the applicant would like to be.
Michael Larson, 2829 Spy Glass Drive, Chaska, stated the application is to allow them to conduct
business in the Navarre area. Larson stated they are looking to add definitions concerning dog boarding,
dog grooming and dog daycare. Larson stated there can be certain connotation about kennels and that he
wants to make it very clear that this is not going to be a kennel but is going to be a luxury pet hotel.
Larson stated the impact on the community will be less than a kennel and that all the dogs will be kept
indoors except during relief times.
Lemke asked what capacity they are looking at.
Larson indicated they are looking at 55 suites for smaller dogs under 25 pounds.
Lemke asked if they would have staff there around the clock.
Larson stated they are looking to employ 12 people in the beginning but would likely not have around-
the-clock staff there initially. Larson stated once the business grows,they would have staff there around-
the-clock.
Berg asked where this building is located.
Larson indicated it is to the west of the Dairy Queen and used to be a cabinet shop.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Leskinen stated her only concern with the more general language in the Staff proposed ordinance is if the
City gets a kennel. Leskinen stated it is one thing if an individual wants to limit their business to small
dogs or to a certain number, but questioned whether the City is opening itself up to kennels in this
particular zone with the broader definition.
Landgraver noted there is no cap on the number of dogs and that in his view this is still a kennel even
though they are calling it dog boarding.
Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission has to put a limit on the number of dogs.
Page 11 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated the one proposed by the applicant is more defined in the sense that it is indoor, overnight
boarding. A dog kennel could be outdoors. The draft proposed by the applicant is much more defined in
terms of the concerns of the Planning Commission and neighbors. Barnhart stated the Planning
Commission can increase the number if they are not comfortable with four.
Leskinen asked if the more defined version triggers any concerns that may be unintended.
Thiesse stated he is still looking for a maximum number.
Barnhart stated he would recommend not limiting that since there may be some sites that cannot fit the
number the Planning Commission prescribes and that the maximum number would be site dependent,
such as available parking, size of the building, etc.
Leskinen noted there would still be the conditional use process to place specific conditions on individual
businesses, which will help to alleviate some of the other potential concerns.
Landgraver stated for other zones the City has limits on chickens and goats, and when it is left open-
ended,the burden is on the City to find reasons to limit it later on. Landgraver stated he is inclined to
place a maximum amount on it.
Landgraver asked whether there should be a limit on how long someone can leave their dog there.
Schwingler stated that is a business model decision.
Thiesse commented people can go on vacation for a month and that he does not want to place a two-week
limit on it,especially if there will be dogs there year-round.
Leskinen stated on a use level, it is more than a pet shop but less than a kennel and that it is just a matter
of getting the language right.
Thiesse indicated he is very willing to allowing this to be a conditional use as long as there is a maximum
number of dogs included in the ordinance.
Schwingler stated that again is getting into the business model.
Thiesse stated he would like some guidelines from someone in the City when they receive their first
application. Thiesse stated pounds per square foot might be one option.
Leskinen asked whether parameters for a conditional use be something to be addressed in an ordinance.
Gaffron indicated they can be, and that when they are written into the code,the City has an easier time
comparing what is being proposed to what is reasonable. From Staffls perspective, the more parameters
within a conditional use text amendment, the easier it is to administer that ordinance.
Thiesse noted they could also request a variance at the time they request a conditional use permit.
Leskinen asked if it reasonable to have some form of this type of use within the B-1 district.
Page 12 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that it is.
Landgraver stated he would prefer to tie it in with the kennel license by making it three dogs.
Leskinen asked if it is useful to have a discussion here on the ordinance parameters.
Landgraver stated he would like to see what other communities have done and have Staff submit that
information to the City Council.
Schwingler stated he likes the differentiation between four and three since it helps to distinguish it from a
kennel application.
Thiesse moved, Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3768,Michael
and Lisa Larson, granting of an ordinance amendment allowing dog grooming and boarding in the
B-1 zoning district,changing the number of dogs to three instead of four, and requesting Staff
provide conditional use parameters to the City Council.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
5. #15-3770 JON NORRIS AND CATHERINE MORRISON AND PATRICK AND
MELISSA MULHERN,460 ORCHARD PARK ROAD,PRELIMINARY PLAT, 7:49 P.M.—
8:18 P.M.
Jon and Catherine Morrison and Patrick and Melissa Mulhern, Applicants, were present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing a subdivision to split the existing property into two building
lots to be served by a shared driveway coming off of Orchard Park Road. The property is located in the
RR-lA, Rural Residential District, which allows for single-family residential uses with a minimum lot
size of five dry buildable acres. Both proposed lots contain the required minimum of 5.0 acres of dry
buildable and each include at least 2.0 acres contiguous with the proposed building site. The lots would
be served by private wells and private septic systems.
The property currently consists of a single 23-acre parcel with an existing home, detached garage and a
number of other accessory structures. Proposed Lots 1 and 2, as shown on the survey, are irregularly
shaped, apparently due to the odd property shape,the location of wetlands, and in order to contain
sufficient dry buildable acreage while establishing desirable home sites and incorporating suitable sites
for onsite sewage treatment systems.
The proposed single-family development is consistent with existing development in the surrounding
neighborhood. Developed single-family lots surround this site on the west, south, and east. There is an
undeveloped 10-acre parcel to the immediate north.
The property includes four delineated wetland in four distinct basins, scattered among low hills. Most of
the property is open fields,with scattered trees near the homestead and along wetland edges. One of the
issues Staff discussed with the applicants is that the neighboring lot is so small that it may require
additional land. The current applicants are suggesting that there could be an area they would be willing to
turn into an outlot to make it possible for the neighbor to acquire.
The City Engineer has reviewed this application and has provided a number of general and detailed
comments which the applicants will need to address prior to moving to final plat.
Page 13 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The City's Comprehensive Management Plan indicates no future trails are proposed along Orchard Park
Road, so there is no need for trail easements. Since a house currently exists on the site and one additional
home site is being created, payment of the standard park dedication fee for one new building lot at the rate
of$5,550 per lot would be appropriate.
A wetland delineation has been performed but approval by the MCWD on the wetland boundaries has yet
to be received. Wetlands on the property will not be impacted with the potential exception of the
driveway corridor along the west side of proposed Lot 1. The actual square footage of wetland that will
be filled to create the driveway is not known at this time. The City will require a Conservation and
Flowage Easement over the wetlands. Measures to avoid or mitigate floodplain impacts will be critical in
developing the driveway in this corridor.
This subdivision will be subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. At this time the applicants
are in the process of having that study completed.
The Planning Commission should consider the following:
1. Does the Planning Commission have any concerns about granting a lot width variance for
proposed Lot 1?
2. The driveway serving Lotl will likely have wetland and floodplain impacts that need to be
addressed. There would appear to be no alternatives to this driveway location in order to access
the building site on Lot 1.
3. The creation of Outlot A as potential additional onsite sewage treatment area for the house at 480
Orchard Park is strongly encouraged and supported by Staf£ However,the viability of this
location next to the wetland suggests a reconfiguration of Outlot A should be considered in order
to make this area functional for septic system use.
4. Applicants should consider whether Outlot B can be revised to be narrower in width than the 90
feet proposed.
5. Are the applicants willing to build the shared driveway as part of the subdivision process rather
than waiting until homes are constructed?
6. MCWD approval for the delineated wetland boundaries should be received prior to Council
review of the preliminary plat.
7. A Conservation Design Report has yet to be submitted. Does the Planning Commission wish to
review this report before making a recommendation to Council?
Staff would recommend that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to address the issues raised
by the City Engineer and Staff and allow the Planning Commission the opportunity to review the
Conservation Design report once it is submitted.
Thiesse noted the last time the Planning Commission reviewed this property,the developer was proposing
to vacate the eastern boundary and looking at access from the north.
Page 14 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Gaffron indicated this is a new developer and that the prior review was of a sketch plan that never went
forward. Gaffron stated there are two existing corridors and an existing driveway that services the house.
There is a wetland that would need to be crossed in order to make use of one of the corridors to the north.
The applicants are not proposing to do that.
Thiesse asked about access to the neighboring lot.
Gaffron stated the neighbor to the north has no specific access to it that is viable and that they could
potentially get access from the east through the Jacob Mills property but the homeowners association had
an issue with that. The property owners have spoken to the County a number of times about gaining
access off the county road. The previous review for this property had a 30-foot corridor going up and a
proposed driveway that would also serve that property as well. That is no longer a part of the mix and
there is no proposed solution for that with this application.
Lemke asked if the Planning Commission can incorporate the fire chiefls recommendations.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should incorporate those into their motion. The Fire Chief
stated if there is not a fire suppression system, it would need to be a 20-foot corridor.
Patrick Mulhern,Applicant, stated the property owners have been attempting to sell this land for ten years
and that at one point Charles Cudd was trying to develop it into three lots. Mulhern stated they looked at
that plan and saw the challenges with that proposal given the type of road that would be required, which is
the reason for their proposaL Mulhern indicated there would be one building site on the north side and
one on the southeast side overlooking the wetland. Both homes would be set up on the hill.
Mark Gronberg asked if Outlot B would account for some frontage on the northerly lot.
Gaffron stated technically it is not a road.
Gronberg stated to his knowledge it is a private road for the two lots. Gaffron asked if they are proposing
to meet road standards with that road.
Gronberg stated to his understanding for two lots it can be 20 feet wide with a 50-foot frontage. Gronberg
stated to his recollection the City has done that in the past when there is at least a 50-foot right-of-way.
Gaffron stated the City probably has but that he would rather grant the variance to the lot width for that
lot.
Gronberg noted they do have frontage along the public right-of-way over on the east side as well.
Gaffron stated it is not open to public use. The right-of-way to the east would probably not count towards
the frontage since it is not open to public travel even though it is a public right-of-way. Gaffron stated he
is not opposed to granting a lot width variance since there is approximately three acres of contiguous land
up in this area. Gaffron stated in his view it is a very good solution for this property.
Gronberg stated the applicants also wanted to pull the driveway away from the neighboring property.
Gaffron stated one of the original proposals was to locate the driveway right next to the neighboring
property.
Page 15 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gronberg stated they wanted a wider driveway but that they could also put some jogs in the driveway to
cut it back to 50 feet.
Gaffron stated if there is an issue with the amount of acreage within each lot,that might be a good idea,
but that the lots do have enough acreage currently.
Gronberg stated a jogged road might be more visually appealing. Gronberg stated Jon Norris would also
like to construct a house on one of the lots and that he would like to narrow the road down toward the
house and that he is not in favor of a 20-foot width the entire length.
Gaffron stated if the house is larger than 4,500 square feet, a fire suppression sprinkler system would be
required. Gaffron stated if the road is less than 20 feet, a fire suppression system is something the fire
chief would recommend be required.
Gronberg stated there is a field road in the narrow area of the wetland and that they will attempt to limit
the impacts to the wetland.
Gaffron stated as part of the final plat process, more detail will be required to be provided. Gaffron asked
what the situation is for the outlot for the neighboring property.
Gronberg stated their septic setback is 50 feet from the wetland. Gronberg indicated they did look at that
and it would give an extra 30 feet, with no setback to the property line. As a result,they would be gaining
almost 40 feet, which is usually what is required for the width of a septic.
Gaffron stated from a Staff perspective,they have not analyzed whether that would be useful to them.
Gaffron asked if they have done any analysis on that.
Gronberg stated contour-wise it appears it will work but no one has analyzed that.
Gaffron stated someone should analyze that to see if it turns out that that outlot should move further south
or incorporate additional land.
Norris indicated they would be open to that.
Gaffron stated the City has looked at that issue every time someone has proposed something for this site
and that the City would appreciate the applicants taking a look at that.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:06 p.m.
Lemke commented the lots appear strange but it makes sense.
Landgraver stated it does not sound like the applicant is prepared to go through the discussion items at
this time but that in his view this is a vast improvement over what was previously proposed. Landgraver
stated being a good neighbor to the small lot is always a good move and that they will need to figure a
Page 16 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
way around the wetland. Landgraver stated in his view requiring a 20-foot road may be a little bit of
overkill as long as they comply with the fire suppression system.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission would like to see the conservation report prior to the
application moving forward to Council. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission typically reviews that.
Thiesse stated he is trying to see what there is to preserve.
Gaffron stated this site consists mostly of open fields, with some trees around the existing house. There
are a number of trees that have grown up along the fence line. Gaffron stated the conservation report
may recommend preserving some views. Gaffron stated the views from Orchard Park Road are not long
views and are mainly looking up at the site. Gaffron stated there might be some views from other
properties but in general the views that the public has is not good from any location. Gaffron stated they
will be basically looking at a couple of homes on 23 acres, which is not significant.
Gaffron noted the City Engineer did raise some concerns about drainage, which will have to be addressed
as part of final plat but really are not related to the Conservation Design element.
Leskinen asked if the Conservation Design report is still required.
Gaffron indicated it is due to the size of the property.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is okay with a lot width variance for proposed Lot 1.
Gaffron indicated the variance would be granted at the time of final plat.
The Planning Commission expressed no concerns with the lot width variance.
Leskinen noted Staff's report states the driveway serving Lot 1 will likely have wetland and floodplain
impacts that need to be addressed but that there appear to be no alternatives to the driveway location in
order to access the building site on Lot 1. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission has any concerns,
questions, or input on the driveway serving Lot 1.
Thiesse asked whether Staff expects they will need to mitigate that on this property.
Gaffron stated he expects the Watershed District will require wetland buffers and that he expects there
may be some filling of wetland, which will need to be mitigated and likely occur on the site.
Leskinen stated she does not have a problem with the creation of Outlot A for potential additional onsite
sewage treatment area for the house. Leskinen stated she is happy the developer is willing to speak with
the neighbors but that no one has really looked at that at this point to determine the viability of it.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission needs to require that.
Lemke stated it would be nice but that the Planning Commission probably cannot require it.
Leskinen stated Item No. 4 is the applicants should consider whether Outlot B can be revised to be
narrower in width than the 90 feet proposed.
Page 17 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated in his view it is not necessary but that the applicants can have that width if they would like.
Leskinen stated Item No. 5 is whether the applicants are willing to build the shared driveway as part of
the subdivision process rather than waiting until homes are constructed.
The Planning Commission expressed no concerns regarding Item No. 5.
Leskinen stated Item No. 6 is: MCWD approval for the delineated wetland boundaries should be received
prior to Council review of the preliminary plat.
The Planning Commission expressed no concerns regarding Item No. 6.
Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has already discussed the Conservation Design Report.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission has any other concerns.
Thiesse stated the City Engineer's concerns will need to be addressed.
Leskinen stated those could be included in the motion. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission
would like to move this forward without the Conservation Design Report. Leskinen indicated she is
comfortable with moving the application forward without seeing the report.
Schwingler moved,Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3770,Jon
Norris and Catherine Morrison and Patrick and Melissa Mulhern,460 Orchard Park Road,
granting of preliminary plat,subject to the submittal of a Conservation Design Report prior to the
Council meeting,subject to the City Engineer's recommendations,subject to building the shared
driveway prior to construction of the homes,and granting of a lot width variance for Lot 1.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
6. #15-37'71 JULIE LENSING,3349 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES,8:18 P.M.—
8:29 P.M.
Julie Lensing, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant's home is situated within the 75-foot setback and ahead of the average
lakeshore setback. The applicant is requesting average lake setback and lake setback variances in order to
make modifications to the existing home. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition over the
existing open, roofed stoop and above an existing family room bump-out to accommodate a master
bedroom and bath addition on the upper level of the home. Also requested is approval to add square
footage to an existing nonconforming third story.
The existing home was constructed in 2000 and is a 3-level home with a tuck-under garage. Three sides
of the home have more than six feet of exposure as it sits in the grade. The definition and interpretation
of basement, story and half-story have evolved since 2000. Based on today's analysis, Staff determined
that the lowest level of the home is defined as a story and not a basement. The upper third story of the
home does not meet the half story definition as it exists. As a result,the third story is a legal
nonconformity and cannot be expanded without a variance, which is being requested. The proposed
expansions will not result in any new calculable structural coverage massing.
Page 18 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The submitted hardcover calculations do not differentiate the hardcover within the 75-foot setback area.
In addition, the surveyor has not deducted the traveled bituminous road surface or the area beneath the
road from the hardcover and lot area calculations as is required. Curtis noted that does not change
anything with respect to this application per se and that the hardcover and structural coverage numbers are
not increasing specifically, nor are they the primary subject of the application, but Staff recommends that
the hardcover calculations be updated.
Staff finds that the setback limitations on the property create practical difficulties in identifying viable
expansion opportunities. The applicant has provided a relatively low impact solution to the stated living
space challenges which do not result in an expansion of structural coverage or of hardcover. The affected
neighbor's views of the lake are currently impacted by the applicant's existing entry stair system; and
with a one-story house, they likely do not have views of the lake impacted by the applicant's proposed
bathroom addition.
Staff received neighbor acknowledgement and support of this project.
The Planning Commission should open the public hearing, receive any comments from the applicant and
public, and then make a recommendation to the City Council. .
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff
Julie Lensing stated she has nothing to add to Staffls report but would be available for questions.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:23 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m.
Leskinen asked if Staff could better explain where the expansion is going.
Curtis displayed a picture of the house from the neighboring property. Curtis pointed out the proposed
location of the addition.
Curtis stated the applicant's architect did submit some sketches showing the second floor addition and the
dark black outline depict the proposed new areas. Curtis indicated the bedroom addition will expand into
the cantilevered area.
Lensing stated currently the family room has a vaulted ceiling and the expansion will do away with the
vaulted ceiling. The rounded windows will be removed and will be the start of the new floor. The new
bathroom will be located above the stoop.
Landgraver asked if there is any other way to expand to the sides or backwards.
Lensing stated it is her understanding she cannot go sideways and she is not allowed to go forward.
Landgraver stated a couple of months ago the Planning Commission denied a similar request but that in
his view the small lot size makes this a unique situation.
Page 19 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lensing stated she does not have many options and that she has received the support of both of her
neighbors.
Landgraver stated he finds this case a little more compelling since there already is a vaulted ceiling and
they are squaring off the existing footprint.
Leskinen stated the elevation sheet, Sheet A-5, provides a better illustration of the expansion. Leskinen
stated given the constraints of this particular property, she does not have any problem with the proposal
and it is reasonable.
Schwingler moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3771,Julie
Lensing,3349 Crystal Bay Road,granting of variances, per Staff recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
7. #15-3772 ROBERT MILLER,60 SMITH AVENUE,VARIANCES,8:29 P.M.—9:00 P.M.
Robert Miller, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated this is a property that has an existing house and is located on Smith Avenue,which is just
east of Orono Orchard Road. The property is fairly narrow. The applicant has recently purchased the
property and proposes to remodel and construct additions, including a small addition to square off the
existing house and add a second story over the house, adding a one-story mudroom and laundry, and
attaching a 2-stall garage with attic storage above. The existing detached garage will be removed.
Gaffron displayed an aerial photograph of the area. Gaffron pointed out the location of the existing
house,the neighboring homes, and the Luce Line Trail.
The applicant is requesting front yard and side yard setback variances in order to complete the project.
The existing house is located approximately 33 feet from the street lot line where a 50-foot setback is
normally required. The covered front entry will be slightly relocated at 29.2 feet from the front lot line.
The garage and mudroom will be approximately 38 feet from the front lot line.
At the north end,the house will maintain the existing 17.5 foot side setback where 30 feet is required. At
the south end,the existing conforming detached garage located 13.2 feet from the side lot line will be
removed, to be replaced with an attached garage at 10.1 feet from the side lot line where a 30-foot setback
is required.
The existing small home is proposed to be expanded to include a second story over the existing story and
porch, plus a one-story mudroom/laundry room and attached single-story garage with attic storage.
The front setback of approximately 30 feet will remain generally the same, although additional structure
will be added to the south of the house 35 to 40 feet from the street. Gaffron noted this is a substandard
lot.
Based on the survey and air photos, the adjoining homes at 40 Smith and 80 Smith also are closer to the
front lot line than the proposed home with additions and the remodeling will not visually place this
residence out of line with the neighboring homes. The lot is limited for extending rearward due to steep
slopes and the shallow rear yard directly behind the house is relatively level due to a retaining wall.
Page 20 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The left side setback of 17.5 feet will not be reduced, although the proposed second story adds structure
within the required 30-foot side yard. The adjacent home to the north has an attached garage 11 feet from
the side lot line. The second story addition is anticipated to have little or no impact on that neighboring
property.
On the right side,the existing home is approximately 39 feet from the side lot line while the existing
detached garage is 13 feet from the lot line and set back approximately 23 feet from the front line of the
house. Removal of this garage is proposed and will be replaced by an attached garage 10.1 feet from the
side lot line and about 38 feet from the front lot line. Separation between the existing detached garage
and the neighboring residence is approximately 25 feet. With the detached garage, that separate will
increase to approximately 29 feet. There is a bit of vegetative screening along the lot line which will
likely be reduced due to the new construction.
The Planning Commission should consider 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 variances, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Planning Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variances.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Robert Miller, Applicant, stated they have attempted to keep the expansion within the existing footprint as
possible and still have the attached garage.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:37 p.m.
T.J. Bonnett, 40 Smith Avenue, stated he and his wife used to own this home so he is familiar with the lot
and home and currently live next to it to the north. Bonnett stated he would like to welcome any and all
neighbors to the neighborhood and that they do not want to inhibit improvement in the neighborhood.
Bonnett stated he has a concern with the proposal because he sees something that would loom over his
property. Bonnett stated if someone were to walk the site,they would say that what is being proposed is a
lot when the second story is added, especially in between these two smaller homes and close to the street.
Bonnett stated he attempted to do something similar five years ago but he was basically told by Staff that
it would never get approved. Bonnett stated he values his privacy and that he does not want to feel
encroached upon.
Natalie Blackwell, 80 Smith Avenue, stated she would echo T.J.'s statements about the expansion and
that she has concerns about how big that second story will look compared to the other homes in the
neighborhood.
Page 21 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission has ever seen any formal applications on this property.
Gaffron indicated there was a prior application approximately 10 years ago for a deck off the back left
corner, which was never constructed. Gaffron noted Mr. Bonnett is the person who applied for that.
Leskinen commented it is not uncommon to expand up when there is nowhere else to go.
Lemke noted there is room to expand to the back.
Thiesse stated he was in favor of the proposal initially, but given the neighbors' comments, he is not as
sure,especially when there is room to expand to the back.
Leskinen stated the feeling she gets is the possible massing from the second story when it is located so
close to the street. Leskinen stated she would agree with Commissioner Thiesse that the purpose of
holding a public hearing is to gain public input.
Landgraver asked where does this non-two story zone begin and end.
Thiesse stated it would be difficult not to approve this application since the Planning Commission just
approved a similar application earlier this evening.
Landgraver stated it would set a precedent if they singled this one out and created an arbitrary two-story
zone.
Thiesse stated the two-story addition to this property does not encroach any further to the north and the
encroachment to the south is the garage and not a two-story.
Landgraver noted the Bonnetts raised an issue with screening and that perhaps some vegetative screening
would help take the edge off it. Landgraver stated the screening should be a requirement to help shield it
a little bit.
Leskinen stated she had a similar thought about enhancing the screening.
Landgraver stated based on the feedback from the two neighbors, screening would be appropriate.
Bonnett stated the issue is how close everything is together and if everybody keeps going up. Bonnett
stated the applicants could narrow it and go backwards and not have such a looming presence at the street
and darken the neighborhood.
Berg noted they are using the existing footprint with the addition.
Leskinen stated it also is not encroaching any further toward the street except in that one corner.
Bonnett stated they are adding square footage closer to the street as well as moving the garage up.
Berg stated they are squaring off the residence.
Page 22 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron pointed out the portion of the house that is currently one-story and illustrated the area that would
be squared off to make it two stories. Gaffron stated the garage would be a little bit taller than what
currently is there.
Bonnett asked if the hardcover is going to double.
Gaffron stated hardcover is not an issue since this is not a hardcover zone and applicants are not limited to
a specific hardcover level on the property.
Landgraver stated from a Planning Commission perspective,there are concerns from the neighbors that
this is out of character with the neighborhood and that the Planning Commission can either approve,
deny, or table. Landgraver stated he appreciates the neighbors' concerns about the massing and clarifying
that it is not just the second story but the fact that it is going sideways rather than backwards. Landgraver
stated the Planning Commission is not here to design homes and that in his view there is not a basis to
deny it.
Lemke stated there are other opportunities to construct and they did not take advantage of them. Lemke
stated both neighbors are in opposition to the addition and that he is not very excited about it and would
deny it.
Leskinen noted the actual garage addition is not any bigger than the existing garage except that it is
moving forward a little. Leskinen stated she does not have a compelling reason to deny that. As far as
the addition going up, Leskinen stated she would agree there are places to go in the back but that the
applicants are utilizing the existing footprint, which the City has seen a number of times.
Lemke asked what the advantage is for using the existing footprint.
Berg stated that is up to the homeowner to decide, and if they do not want to add on to the back of their
house,the Planning Commission should not say they cannot add a second floor and require them to build
to the back. Berg stated she personally would not do that since the Planning Commission would be
designing it for them. Berg stated the Planning Commission just needs to look at whether the proposal
can be approved or not.
Thiesse asked if there are any variances required.
Gaffron indicated the addition would require front yard and side yard setback variances. Gaffron noted
the City just passed an ordinance that clarified what the past practice has been regarding expansion of
nonconformities.
Thiesse stated he is struggling with the application since there are a lot of other options they could do but
didn't. Thiesse stated he would be all in favor of it if the neighbors were in support of it.
Schwingler stated he respects what the neighbors have to say but that the Planning Commission is not
here to design it but rather to vote on what is in front of them.
Berg stated the neighbors do not want the second story.
Page 23 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Bonnett stated they would like to see something that fits better with the land. Bonnett noted they require
two variances for what they are proposing. Bonnett stated he would like the applicants to get more out of
the property but with more respect for the two neighboring property owners.
Lon Oberpriller, Replacement Housing Services, stated he represents the people on the other side of the
issue and that he would like to make some clarification here. Oberpriller distributed some pictures
showing the type of house that is proposed to be constructed.
Oberpriller stated he is concerned because he has heard a lot of disparaging comments about two-story
houses but that this is a very unique situation here. Oberpriller stated he understands the neighbors would
like a story and a half but that this house is not a huge house and is not over its square footage.
Oberpriller noted they are talking about an attached garage with a mudroom, which are saleable issues.
Oberpriller stated he also understands the side yard issue. Oberpriller indicated he does a lot of
replacement and tear down work in Edina and that he understands the issues. Oberpriller stated while the
neighbors have an interest in this property because they live next to it,there is 17 feet from the property
line and they are only going up. Oberpriller indicated they even hipped the roof to ease the impact on the
neighborhood. The average height is 26 feet and the peak height is 31 feet.
Oberpriller stated he does not want to appear to be irritated, but that he was hearing a one-sided
conversation with the neighbors interjecting things, which surprised him a little bit. Oberpriller stated the
Planning Commission appeared to be quite concern about what the neighbors wanted but that nobody
bothered to ask the applicants what they want.
Bonnett stated they are great houses in Edina but not in this neighborhood.
Leskinen stated they are going to confine the conversation among the Planning Commissioners and that
the public hearing has been closed.
Berg stated she does not have a problem with the application and that they should be allowed to construct
what they would like.
Schwingler stated in regards to the public comment, laid out in front of the Planning Commission is what
the applicant would like and the information is also on the screen.
Thiesse stated this was also an open meeting and that the public could comment on the application.
Landgraver stated he is hesitant to start making policy and creating an arbitrary zone far where two-story
homes are allowed based on one application. Landgraver stated he is willing to act on what is before the
Planning Commission.
Schwingler noted the Planning Commission is a recommending body.
Gaffron noted one condition discussed was additional screening.
Landgraver moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3772,Robert
Miller,60 Smith Avenue,granting of variances,subject to the applicant enhancing the screening on
both sides of the property. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Lemke Opposed.
Page 24 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
8. #15-3773 BILL BRUEGGEMAN ON BEHALF OF STEVE ELLIOT, 1400 BALDUR
PARK ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,9:00 P.M.—9:10 P.M.
Bill Brueggeman,Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and construct a new single-
family home on the property. The new home must be constructed to conform to all applicable laws and
regulations. In order to conform to the floodplain regulation,the lowest floor of the home must be at or
above the regulatory flood protection elevation(RFPE). The RFPE is one foot above the elevation of the
one percent annual chance of flooding or the 100-year flood elevation and follows the 931.5 foot
elevation contour. The RFPE for Lake Minnetonka is established at 932.5 feet. The Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District requires an additional foot above the RFPE for all openings. The applicant's proposal
contemplates cutting and filling within the property in order to elevate the proposed home to meet the
floodplain regulations.
Whenever floodplain filling is proposed,the DNR and MCWD regulations require the floodplain be
expanded elsewhere so there is no decrease in flood storage capacity. The applicant is proposing equal
mitigation for the impacts on the property.
The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit as the use
permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted,
the City must find that the proposed use complies with the criteria outlined in the Code. Staff provided a
conditional use permit analysis in the Staff report and the Planning Commission should discuss any of the
criteria they feel is appropriate.
In addition to the City's conditional use permit requirement for filling/grading below the one percent
annual chance flood elevation,the activity is subject to a floodplain alteration permit governed by the
MCWD. The applicant has submitted an application to the MCWD along with the required plans and
engineering. The Watershed District is currently reviewing that application. Further,the City Engineer
will assure that the permitting conditions ofthe MCWD are consistent with the 1-to-1 volume mitigation
requirement of the FEMA floodplain regulations which the City enforces. Other than that,there are no
specific additional requirements of the City's conditional use permit review.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold the public hearing, allow any public comments and
then make a recommendation to the Council. The applicant should be required to provide proof of an
approved MCWD floodplain alteration permit prior to placement on the City Council's agenda for
review. The grading plan would also be reviewed consistent with the City's building permit
requirements. The proposed development of the property does meet all of the other zoning requirements.
Landgraver asked if this has any impact or relationship with the road work that will be done on Baldur
Park Road.
Curtis stated the City Engineer is aware of this proposal and has been reviewing it. Curtis stated she is
not sure how this relates to it. Curtis stated any construction that happens at the same time as the City's
road project will need to be coordinated and the applicant is aware of that.
Lemke asked if the cut and fill calculations were reviewed by the City Engineer.
Page 25 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Curtis stated the City Engineer has reviewed them, revisions were made, and the Watershed District is in
the process of reviewing them.
Bill Brueggeman,Applicant, stated in the preliminary application regarding removal of the existing house
and constructing a new home, Staff has advised them on how to proceed. The total amount of cut and fill
required related to the conditional use permits winds up to be 1.6 cubic yards. Brueggeman stated if you
take the entire area from the back of the house to the lake,that amounts to an 1/8�'of an inch over the
whole back yard, so it is a minor amount of soil.
Brueggeman stated they have proposed three different solutions to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District as to where the cut could be done and have accepted their final recommendation.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:07 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this app(ication.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:07 p.m.
Leskinen stated the application is preriy straight forward.
Thiesse asked if they require permission to remove the proposed trees.
Curtis stated the trees are proposed to be removed and will be done in conjunction with the building
permit. Curtis pointed out the 75-foot line on the overhead.
Thiesse asked if the neighboring property is a foot higher than this property.
Curtis indicated it meets the RFPD.
Thiesse asked if this property will be lower than the neighboring property.
Brueggeman stated he does not remember what the current elevation of the neighboring property is. The
existing house on the property is at 932.21'. The new elevation of the garage will be 933.5', meeting the
requirement from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Thiesse asked him if the floor is going to be two to three feet higher than the property.
Brueggeman stated the existing floor of the house is at 932.21'. The new floor level will be 934' and the
garage floor will be 933.5'. The garage floor will be approximately 1.3 feet higher.
Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3773,Bill
Brueggeman on behalf of Steve Elliot, 1400 Baldur Park Road,granting of a conditional use
permit,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Page 26 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
9. #15-3774 IRWIN JACOBS, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT,
9:10 P.M.—10:45 P.M.
Michael Steadman representing applicant Irwin Jacobs was present.
Gaffron stated the proposal is to split off three new 2-acre building sites from the northerly portion of the
31-acre property,to be accessed via an extension of Heritage Lane.
Gaffron stated this property is one of Orono's few remaining large lakeshore estates and consists of
approximately 31 acres, bordered on the north by Tanager Lake and the Dakota Rail Trail on the south by
County Road 15 and Smith's Bay of Lake Minnetonka. The existing residence on the property is located
centrally and is proposed to remain at this time. The portion of the property that will contain the existing
house stays at approximately 20 acres. The other three lots that are being proposed further north will
consist of 2-plus acres.
All three new lots are proposed to be accessed via an extension of Heritage Lake,a public road extending
from County Road 15. The road was platted in the 1960s back during the time when the zoning in this
acre was one acre. The proposed single-family development is consistent with existing development in
the surrounding neighborhood. Similar single-family lots with 2-plus acre lot sizes to the east and
southwest,while the lots within the adjacent Foxhill neighborhood average 1.05 acres.
The property was added to the MUSA in 2001 in order to allow the installation and use of municipal
sewer. All three new lots are intended to be served with municipal sewer and private wells.
The property is located in the LR-lA, Single-Family Lakeshore Residential District, which requires a
minimum lot size of two dry buildable acres and a minimum lot width of 200 feet as measured at the
lakeshore and at the 75-foot setback. All three lots are in conformity with the guiding of this area for
single-family lakeshore residential development at a density of one unit per two acres.
The property slopes downward generally from a central high point toward Tanager Lake to the north and
to a large wetland in the south end. The north half of the property in which the three new building lots are
proposed is heavily wooded and contains two defined bluff areas, one on Lot 3 and the other primarily on
Lot 4. Potential home locations and driveways are shown on the preliminary plat for illustrative purposes
and are subject to revision. The wetlands have been delineated but confirmation of their boundaries by
the MCWD is still pending.
Lot 1 contains approximately 3.6 acres, which is the lot closest to the Dakota Trail, and includes a portion
of a linear wetland adjacent to the trail. The lot is also proposed to contain a stormwater ponding area
resulting in a final dry buildable area of approximately 3.2 acres. The lot width is 350 feet at the lake and
approximately 360 feet at the 75-foot lake setback. The proposed house site sits approximately 8 to 12
feet above Tanager Lake, with a driveway extending 500 feet from the new cul-de-sac.
Lot 2 is approximately 2.2 acres in total area, which includes a small wetland centrally located and about
10 feet above lake level. Lot width is 220 feet at the lake and at the 75-foot setback. The proposed house
site is about 15 to 20 feet above lake level, with a proposed driveway just over 300 feet in length.
Lot 3 is approximately 3.4 acres in area, which includes a sliver of wetland at the southeast corner of the
lot. Portions of the southerly half of the lot are bluffs, and the suggested house site sites on a terrace
approximately 40 feet above the lake,just above a slope that averages nearly 30 percent and may be a
Page 27 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
bluff. The bluff will need to be analyzed further. The proposed driveway extends approximately 275 feet
from the new cul-de-sac.
Lot 4 contains the existing residence and accessory buildings and consists of just over 20 acres in total
area.
Lots 1 through 3 are proposed to be accessed from the west via a public road extension of Heritage Lane.
There are 13 homes located on Heritage Lane,which are governed by a homeowners association. Gaffron
noted two letters have been received from property owners within the homeowners association regarding
this development.
A tree survey has been completed in the area of the proposed cul-de-sac, and a majority of those trees will
be removed. Retaining walls are being shown on either side of the road. The City Engineer has listed a
number of issues that will need to be addressed as part of this development.
The road corridor as proposed is 50 feet in width, which meets the City Code. The extension width is
shown at 24 feet, which matches the existing width of Heritage Lane. Code would require a public road
that serves more than 10 dwelling units to be 32 feet in width. Staff does not believe there is any logic in
suddenly ending a 24-foot wide road and starting a 32-foot wide road, so Staff is expecting the new road
will be at 24 feet width as welL The proposed road extension would be platted as a public road.
In the Conservation Design Report there are a number of things that need to be updated. Gaffron
suggested the applicants be asked to address that. Staffls concern is that there are a number of significant
tree stands that are not addressed in terms of a conservation management plan and it may be prudent to
look at some sort of conservation easement around the perimeters of the property or in certain select
areas.
Although the Park Commission has not reviewed the proposed plat, it is anticipated that no land for a
public park is required. The CMP does not identify any proposed trails along County Road 15 but the
property does abut the Dakota Rail Regional trail. It may be worthwhile to have a discussion as to
whether a trail connection corridor should be dedicated from the new cul-de-sac to the trail for
neighborhood use. The Park Dedication fee for the three new building lots would be $5,550 per lot for a
total of$16,650.
Creation of the public road extension will require stormwater management measures. The wetland
boundary delineation report has been submitted for review and approval by the MCWD and approval has
not yet been received. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over each of the
wetlands as well as impose standard wetland setback requirements.
The applicant has suggested that they would like to establish a joint use dock on Smith's Bay south of
County Road 15 to provide access for larger boats. Whether such a dock could be established is outside
the scope of this subdivision review and a separate application would need to be filed with the City.
The Planning Commission should discuss the following:
1. Does the developer intend to do any grading of individual driveways or building pads as part of
the initial development improvements?
Page 28 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
2. The impact of MCWD required wetland buffers is significant,especially for the potential house
site in Lot 1. If 75-foot buffers are required for certain wetlands,the impact may be more critical.
3. The proposed public cul-de-sac road length of 1,600 feet serving 13 homes exceeds City
standards but is similar to other cul-de-sacs in Orono. Are there any feasible alternatives for this
site?
4. Applicant should address the potential concerns expressed by the City Engineer with the cul-de-
sac design and location. The impact on the adjoining properties of the road extension as well as
what should happen with the existing cul-de-sac need discussion.
5. Should there be covenants or easements established to protect the various significant tree stands
identified in the Conservation Design report?
6. Should a trail connection corridor be dedicated and/or constructed from the new cul-de-sac to the
Dakota Trail for neighborhood use?
7. Wetland boundary and buffer width confirmations from MWD should be submitted prior to
moving this application forward to Council.
8. The Comprehensive Design Report as submitted appears to be incomplete and contains errors. A
complete version should be provided for review prior to Council review of the preliminary plat.
9. Applicant should address the many engineering items of concern noted in the City Engineer's
comment letter.
The Planning Commission should review the staff report and City Engineer's report, as well as the
submitted documentation, hold the public hearing and accept public comments, and then either
recommend approval with conditions or table for further information and/or revisions.
Lemke asked if some of the engineering concerns may not be able to be rectified.
Gaffron stated Page 6 lists the general concerns. Gaffron stated determining where the actual edges of the
bluff can be resolved. The applicant will need to do an analysis of the stormwater system, which would
be required prior to final plat approval. The City Engineer is recommending that it be completed now
since it may impact lot lines. Stormwater ponding near the cul-de-sac is also something the City Engineer
is requesting more detail on as well as the retaining wall design. Gaffron stated in his view the applicant
should be able to address all of the items listed.
Leskinen asked whether Staff has looked at other options outside of extending Heritage. Leskinen asked
if there is a possibility of coming off of Shoreline.
Gaffron stated there is a long driveway going up to the existing house, a large wetland, and the existing
house. Right behind the house it drops off into a bluff area. The difficulty in trying to extend the road to
serve the three homes is being able to navigate the bluffs. Gaffron indicated the slopes in that area range
between 30 to 50 percent. Gaffron stated it would also have huge impacts on the trees and change the
whole concept of what they are proposing. Gaffron stated he is not sure whether the property owner
would share the private driveway. Gaffron stated in his view there are no other viable options for a road.
Page 29 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke asked whether the steep slopes prevent the road from going beyond the tennis courts.
Gaffron stated one area has been defined as a bluff and that further analysis needs to be done to determine
whether the other areas are bluff. A bluff is defined as a slope that is at least 30 percent. There are areas
in there that are at least 30 percent, which would make it pretty difficult to put a road through there that
meets a 10 percent grade.
Landgraver asked if Lot 4 is eligible for further subdivision.
Gaffron indicated it is. Gaffron stated since Lot 4 is south facing and above the bluff, it will likely access
off of Shoreline Drive.
Mike Stedman, Developer, stated this is four lots on 31 acres and that current zoning would allow
between six to ten lots. Stedman stated this subdivision would have a very low impact and that the Jacobs
family has no intention of subdividing the 20 acres where their homestead sits.
Stedman stated it is important to focus on the fact that there is a very natural division consisting of buffer
between the residence and the lots to the north. The bluff has a 20 to 30 percent drop in grade, and a
tremendous amount of tree removal would have to happen if a road was constructed through there.
Stedman stated in his opinion it was good planning in 1965 on the way it was platted.
Stedman noted they did have a neighborhood meeting on July 28 that was very well attended. The
neighbors were interested in finding out whether there is another access point on the property,traffic
concerns were expressed, and the impact of construction traffic was discussed. Stedman indicated they
are very interested in working with them, particularly on landscaping.
Stedman stated it is also important to point out that the building pads are 600 to 700 feet away from the
nearest house. The driveways will be kept away from the trees as much as possible. Stedman stated he
would like to get some input from some custom home builders on whether the house pads should be
graded and that he hopes to have an answer on that in the near future.
Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, stated a bluff analysis was completed when a piece of property was split off
approximately a year ago and that he would be glad to go over it with the City to see whether it needs to
be expanded or subtracted. Gronberg stated they also did a preliminary stormwater management plan and
depicted where the pond might go but it is a little bit dependent on the cul-de-sac and road design.
Gronberg stated the stormwater routing along Dakota Trail is where the drainage goes currently but that
he would be willing to look at something different if the City recommends it. Gronberg indicated they
may have to dig the pond deeper down if the stormwater ponding goes near the cul-de-sac, which has
more impact. Gronberg stated he can discuss that with the City Engineer but that in his view it would be
better if it was a little further away from the cul-de-sac.
Gronberg stated as it relates to temporary street construction easements,that is why they show the
retaining walls, which will help keep the excavator within the 50-foot right-of-way. Gronberg stated he is
anticipating the retaining walls will need to be engineered. Gronberg noted they will not be asking the
neighbors for easements.
The final landscape plan will be submitted prior to final plat and that they are certainly agreeable to
preserving as many trees as possible and are open to some conservation areas near the road.
Page 30 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Gronberg stated a homeowners association will be established and that they are aware of the requirement
for permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Gronberg indicated the maintenance
agreement for stormwater facilities will be taken care of through the homeowners association. Drainage
and utility easements will be provided as well as flowage and conservation easements. Gronberg stated a
lot of these are fairly standard.
As it relates to the wetland buffer widths,the delineation shows it is a Preserve I wetland, which requires
a 40-foot buffer with a 10-foot setback, but that they will confirm that with the Watershed District.
Gronberg noted they actually added the 10 feet on the setbacks already but that they can clarify that so it
is clear where the 40-foot setback is.
Gronberg stated as it relates to the proposed a buffer along the existing driveway for Lot 4,the driveway
was there a long time before buffers were required and that typically the MCWD will require buffer
averaging. Gronberg indicated they will make that up somewhere along the south side.
Gronberg indicated they agree that the street should be public and that they do not care whether the
existing cul-de-sac is removed or not. Gronberg stated one way to do it is to perhaps could take out the
blacktop out and keep the right-of-ways so the easements are intact. Gronberg stated they are in
agreement with the recommendation on the road width.
Gronberg noted they showed the vertical curve data on the road plan and there is just a small little curve.
Gronberg stated the street is pretty much straight and the slight curve should not be an issue. The typical
street sections will also be shown on the drawings.
Frank Svoboda, Svoboda Ecological Resources, stated with respect to the status of the wetland
delineation review, he received an e-mail from the Watershed District approximately one week ago which
indicated that approval will be coming relatively soon. The City's Consulting Engineer raised some
concern about invasive species and the fact that the Conservation Design plan only addressed invasive
species within the buffers. Svoboda stated they can certainly modify it to include the three lots. Svoboda
stated in their review of the site, there was some buckthorn along the lakeshore but it was mostly found in
patches and pockets. The major invasive feature was canary reed grass. Svoboda noted most of the
species of concern were addressed in the report when it spoke specifically about management of invasive
species but that they can modify the plan to address anything else that might be discovered.
Svoboda stated with respect to tree protection, Staff will prepare a covenant that will address the buffer to
protect the maple-basswood forest. Svoboda stated the tees are fairly widely spaced, and with some
creative examination of the site,the driveways can be put in with relatively little to no impact. Svoboda
stated the treed areas that are remaining near the building pads can be dealt with in the covenant
documents. Svoboda stated in his view those were the two key elements that the City's Consulting
Engineer identified.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:47 p.m.
Stephen Byrnes, 1025 Heritage Lane, stated he is the president of the Foxhill Homeowners Association.
Byrnes noted he submitted a letter to the City on behalf of the association. All 14 members of the Foxhill
Homeowners Association have signed the letter in opposition of using Heritage Lane as the entrance point
for construction traffic. In addition,the three neighbors of Fo�chill who are not members of the
association have also submitted letters that are included in the Planning Commission packet.
Page 31 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Byrnes stated he would like to go on the record and state that they do not oppose the development of
Mr. Jacobs' properly and that they believe this will be a fantastic addition to the community. Mr.
Stedman and his team have been very accessible and willing to work with the residents.
Byrnes stated their challenge is the disruption that this will cause to the residents of Fo�chill, which is one
of the older neighborhoods in the City. The homeowners association was incorporated in 1966 and many
of the homes were constructed in the early 1970s. There are 16 school-age children in the area. The
neighborhood is going through a transition currently but it consists of 1-acre lots on a very private road.
There is a hill that overlooks the bluff and down into the woodlands and the marsh.
Byrnes stated the challenge is not the development of the property but the use of Heritage Lane as the
entrance for the construction. Byrnes stated in his letter he asked for the City to consider vacating the
land between 1000 and 1005 Heritage and deed that property back to the homeowners and require
Mr. Jacobs to find an alternative entrance to those homes.
Byrnes stated assuming the City will not vacate that land because it has been platted since the early 1960s
as an extension,the residents would ask the City to find an alternative construction route. Byrnes stated
there has to be a way to mitigate the construction traffic that will severely impact this neighborhood. The
residents worry about the safety of the children. The cul-de-sac is used daily by the kids as a kickball
court, scooters, and people coming and going from various places. Byrnes stated it is very difficult to
turn out onto County Road 15 and that it is an incredibly dangerous road at peak times of traffic. Byrnes
stated if there are dump trucks and cement trucks lined up that need to get out onto County Road 15,that
will infringe on the residents' lives and their obligations. Byrnes stated there has to be an alternative
route for the construction traffic. Byrnes reiterated the entire neighborhood supports the development but
the issue is to find an alternative way to get the construction traffic in and out.
Byrnes noted these will be very large scale homes and that it will likely take two years plus to build each
home. As a result, it could be a five to six year project. Byrnes stated it is an enormous impact to the
neighborhood and the magnitude cannot be totally understood at this point. The residents would ask for
the City's counsel and guidance to find another construction access point.
The residents also have concerns about the joint use docks and accessing docks on Smith and Tanager
Bay. There are concerns regarding the entrance, the monuments, and the landscaping. Byrnes indicated
the homeowners association will reserve judgment on that and that they will work with the applicant on
those.
Byrnes stated with him tonight are eight members of the homeowners association and other residents who
have concerns as well. Byrnes stated the homeowners association also opposes any kind of a common
trail going from the Dakota Trail but that they can work with Mr. Stedman and the City later on that item.
Byrnes stated they were surprised to hear that recommendation from Staff.
Dennis Libby, 1000 Heritage Lane, stated their property is located directly across from the city-owned
access and their longest lot dimension abuts the Jacobs' property. Libby stated in conjunction with their
direct most immediate neighbor,they are the two that are the most directly affected by the City's use of
what it already owns and the access into the Jacobs' property. Libby stated in his view they face the
most dramatic changes that incorporate the loss of a significant amount of tree canopy. Some of the trees
Page 32 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
are close to 100 years old and the loss of those trees will be a dramatic change in how the end of the cul-
de-sac appears and will impact how the residents enjoy the neighborhood.
Libby noted he was a professional real estate broker for 30 years and that he dealt with numerous and
similar projects and developments over those years. From a personal and professional opinion, Libby
stated the potential use of Heritage Lane and, in particular,the cul-de-sac extension as a primary
construction traffic route is shocking, beyond poor judgment, and far in excess of the capacity of the
existing thoroughfare. Libby stated moving the primary construction traffic route to the Jacobs' property
is not only sensible as an alternative but it is one that will be the least disruptive to the least amount of
Orono residents.
Libby stated he has a high amount of respect for the design architects on this project and that he has a
high regard for Mr. Stedman's professionalism and reputation, but they have raised an objection to the use
of the Jacobs' property as an alternative route due to the bluff topography of the Jacobs; property. Libby
stated he has been involved with similar challenges to developers who have designed and who were very
successful at using switch back and temporary elevation alterations to allow the extremely heavy weight
loads the lengths and widths of the excavation and delivery truck type materials to do the job of
development and construction.
Libby stated in his view the human safety element of heavy truck traffic and the risk hazards to local foot
and driving traffic within a mature neighborhood setting should be self-evident. Libby stated you can add
to that the daily physical movement of materials, construction workers,the idling and parking and the
waiting of vehicles that will not be able to maneuver in a bidirectional route on Heritage Lane due to the
limited existing street width. Libby stated this intrusive, impractical and outrageous inconvenience to the
health and balance and synergy of their neighborhood is terrible. The residents will be exposed to diesel
fuel e�aust, braking noises, and asphalt surface damage that are intrinsic to this type of development and
the residents' health and should always be avoided.
Libby stated he is nearly 70 years old and his wife will be 75 in August. Like numerous long-term
residents in this neighborhood, Libby stated they had planned to age in place. This project is really
unacceptable and a rude interruption to those plans. Libby stated if they eventually must embrace several
new neighbors conversing the Heritage Lane neighborhood, so be it, but that he would please ask that the
Planning Commissioners recommend to abandon the potential use of Heritage Lane as a construction
route for this development.
Libby stated he would also like to provide an additional research piece for review by Staff and the
Planning Commission.
Leonard Dayton, 1980 Heritage Drive, stated he is not and never have been affiliated with the
homeowners association. Dayton stated he wants to say that Mr. Jacob's professional advisors have done
a thorough job and that he would commend Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Libby in their messages. Dayton stated
he would ditto preriy much everything they said and that he wants to go on record that he is in agreement
with the position of the homeowners association. Dayton stated he hopes the Planning Commission
respects what it is the residents are asking for here.
Matt Mithun, 1160 Heritage Lane, stated he is part of the homeowners association. Mithun stated they
have three children and that safety is a major factor. Mithun stated a person has to be in the neighborhood
to see how it operates but that it is a very intimate neighborhood. Mithun stated this project will be a very
Page 33 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
big nuisance and that in his view it should be a matter of equity since the residents have to look at this
project. Mithun stated the development sounds like a very nice development but that the City needs to
look at the safety, overall nuisance, and overall equity of the matter.
Kevin Kokesh, 1399 Orono Lane, stated he is representing Dr. Kelly Kromer, who lives in the
neighborhood at the end of Heritage Lane. Kokesh stated most everything has been said already, but that
he would like to stress that this unimproved right-of-way is really stunningly unimproved. Kokesh stated
it looks like no man has ever touched it and that it is full of trees, hilly, and marshy. The trees look like
they have been there for 200 years and it is the most pristine looking property you have ever seen.
Kokesh stated the developer keeps talking about the bluffs on Mr. Jacobs' property and how difficult it
would be to put a road through there. Kokesh stated putting a road through the right-of-way is also not
going to be easy and that he is not sure how they will get around cutting trees down in there. Kokesh
stated he would ask the Planning Commission to try to find an alternative access and that it would be
really disappointing to see that area denuded.
Kelly Rische, 1180 Heritage Lane, stated she has two of the 16 children that reside in the neighbor and
that her son just turned 10. Rische stated her son was going to speak tonight but that he was not able to
make it through the meeting. Rische stated the first thing he said once he heard about the development
was, how is the school bus going to get through and how is that going to affect me getting to school.
Rische stated she would echo the remarks of the other neighbors.
Greg Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, noted he is not part of the association and that their driveway used to
come off of County Road 15. Coward stated he would like to address the impact the construction traffic
will have on his ability to access County Road I 5. Coward stated while the construction traffic will not
be directly in front of their house,the problem is that there is traffic coming from both directions, which
includes large trucks, an that there are blind spots coming from both the east and the west. In addition,
there is a short turn lane in to Heritage Lane. Coward stated a person should not try to get onto County
Road 15 when a car is turning because there is a telephone pole, an electric box, and sometimes tall grass,
all of which can blind a person to traffic coming from the west. Coward noted concrete trucks do not
accelerate very well and will have a difficult time getting out.
Melanie Flessner, 1190 Heritage Lane, stated according to Hennepin County, this area experiences
approximately 30,000 vehicles per day on County Road 15. Flessner stated they do end up with other
situations with the traffic in addition to the difficulty getting in and out and making left and right turns.
The residents also experience people being rear-ended as they enter the neighborhood. Flessner stated
this is a high collision area and that it is very difficult to get in and out with a vehicle, much less a large
construction vehicle. Flessner stated she does not recommend it.
Dennis Libby, 1000 Heritage Lane, stated in addition to the packet he submitted,there is another photo he
would like to draw the Planning Commission's attention to. Libby noted the cul-de-sac is the turnaround
for the school bus. Libby stated as the children are picked up and dropped off on a daily basis,the school
bus backs up into his driveway and then goes back out. Libby stated if there is any removal of that part of
the cul-de-sac, the City will need to figure out how the school bus is going to turn around. Libby stated in
his view they should try to avoid any part of the cul-de-sac being removed.
Libby stated he is also a member of the Wayzata Chamber of Commerce and that they take great pride in
the preservation work that has been done with the Historical Society. Libby stated they helped with the
Page 34 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
preservation of one of the last remaining pieces of big woods in downtown Wayzata and that this is one of
the largest remaining pieces of big woods left. Libby commented the woods in their neighborhood is as
raw and unnatural and unchanged as someone will ever see.
Suzanne Retzler, 1100 Heritage Lane, stated there is a lot of wildlife in the Heritage neighborhood and
that it is the most beautiful, private street she has ever lived on. Retzler stated the neighbors want to keep
it that way. Retzler stated they are asking the Commission to require a construction only road be
constructed from Mr. Jacobs' primary home property so all the construction traffic can be diverted down
Mr. Jacobs' driveway onto County Road 15. Retzler stated it makes sense and that is what should be
done.
Kelly Kromer, 1005 Heritage Lane, stated he purchased his property because it is beautiful, private and
natural. Kromer stated if the road is built right through the right-of-way, they will be tearing down a
couple of basswood trees that are a couple hundred years old. Kromer stated if you drive down the cul-
de-sac, it is an absolutely gorgeous view. Kromer stated only one man bears all the benefit for this
development but the neighbors bear all of the burden. Kromer stated he is strongly opposed to this road
going through the right-of-way.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:13 p.m.
Leskinen stated the development itself will be very nice but that she does not disagree with the neighbors.
Landgraver asked if Staff can recall a situation where the City has asked one of the lot owners to create a
construction traffic only access.
Gaffron stated this situation is unique in that they are going through a neighborhood to create an
extension of a street. The City has had very few situations in the past like it. Gaffron noted they are
talking about a 30-acre parcel and that the normal assumption would be that access will be through that
property and out through the neighborhood. The City does have other neighborhoods that are similar in
density. Gaffron stated the neighbors are probably right when they say they will have to live with
construction traffic for five or six years.
Gaffron state the question then becomes, can a cul-de-sac be built from a different direction and yet still
end up with the extension of the road coming off Heritage Lane. Gaffron stated that is probably
something the engineers will need to look at and that he does not know if it makes sense that these three
lots should have their permanent access off of County Road 15 because of the issue of trying to build a
road there. Gaffron stated constructing the cul-de-sac without impacting the neighborhood would be the
best of both worlds and that the engineers will need to look at it.
Lemke stated the major concern being expressed is the amount of construction traffic. Lemke asked if
there is any way to eliminate that by going internally through the Jacobs' property.
Stedman stated they have looked at all the alternatives. Moving the cul-de-sac closer to the lake would
have a bigger impact on the trees. With the way the right-of-way has been dedicated by the City,there
really is not anywhere else that would make sense.
Lemke stated he does not have any concerns regarding the cul-de-sac eventually servicing those houses
but that he is concerned about getting construction traffic into the property without using the cul-de-sac.
Page 35 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Stedman indicated they are looking at grades of 22 percent to 30 percent. Stedman stated even if a road is
able to be built, getting concrete trucks and bulldozers down to a building pad would be very difficult,
devastating to the land, and likely very dangerous given the grades. Stedman stated he is not sure how
realistic that is and that they do not believe it is feasible.
Kromer asked what the dots on the map represent. Kromer asked if they are all old trees that will be cut
down.
Gaffron indicated those are trees and he is assuming the majority of them would be removed for
construction traffic.
Berg stated they could perhaps divert the construction traffic somehow, but there would still need to be
the road going through to service those three new houses.
Kromer stated they are cutting a swath across the forest and that they are old grove trees found on pristine
land.
Berg stated what she is hearing him say is that he does not want those three houses to be using Heritage
Lane either.
Kromer indicated that is correct.
Berg stated the Planning Commission cannot address that. Berg stated the Planning Commission heard
that it is all about construction traffic but now they are hearing that some of the residents do not want the
new homes serviced by Heritage Lane.
Thiesse stated that is not what he heard and that the homeowners association's representative did not say
that. Thiesse stated he heard it from two people in the audience that they do not want the new homes to
access Heritage Lane.
Byrnes stated the association's position is that they believe the road will be built and the houses will be
accessed via Heritage Lane. The association's request is that an alternative access be found for
construction traffic. Byrnes noted there is an existing road that the property owner uses to access that
land already
Leskinen noted the public hearing has been closed and that discussion among the audience members
should not continue. Leskinen stated if need be, she will reopen the public hearing after the Planning
Commissioners have discussed the application.
Stedman noted that is not a road and is a little pathway with a 22 percent slope.
Leskinen asked what the width of the pathway is.
Stedman indicated it is six to eight feet.
Leskinen stated the question for the Planning Commission is, what the City can do, assuming, for the sake
of discussion, there is no other alternative to getting construction traffic to these potential lots. Leskinen
stated her inclination is to find another way to access these lots for construction traffic.
Page 36 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Melanie Flessner asked who would be looking at it.
Leskinen stated it is easier for the Planning Commissioners to have an open discussion without input from
the public at this point. Leskinen requested the public hold their questions and that she could reopen the
public hearing later if need be, but first the P(anning Commission needs to have a discussion first.
Berg stated if there are alternatives,they need to be looked at.
Leskinen asked if that is something that both the developer and City Engineer can explore.
Thiesse stated the City Engineer could also look at it but that he would hope the developer would be open
to exploring it.
Lemke stated it should be the primary onus of the developer to come up with some alternatives and that it
should not be the responsibility of the City Engineer.
Landgraver stated it seems reasonable for a developer to assume that they could access a public road for
construction. Landgraver stated for the Planning Commission to require them to find another route might
be without a precedent but that perhaps the Planning Commission can still ask for it. Landgraver stated
what they are doing is squeezing the air out of one part of the balloon in terms of County Road 15 and
pushing it down to another part. Landgraver stated they might end of solving it for this neighborhood but
pushing it off somewhere else.
Lemke asked if the pathway is a better alternative.
Landgraver stated they are both bad.
Thiesse noted they would only be driving by one family rather than a number of families and that the
developer needs to look at it to see whether it can be done.
Lemke commented there could also be restrictions placed on the time of construction traffic.
Leskinen stated she is not sure whether that is within the City's authority given the fact that an ordinance
already exists governing that.
Landgraver noted the City dealt with a similar situation on Watertown Road where they limited the time
when trucks could deliver fill.
Leskinen stated there are potentially some options to limit it.
Lemke asked if it would make sense to table the application pending further investigation.
Leskinen stated that goes without saying and that the number one question is an alternative access to these
homes during construction. Leskinen noted Staff's report contains a number of items that need to be
discussed and that the Planning Commission should attempt to go through those before tabling the
application.
Page 37 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission should go through the list given the number of people that
have turned out for this application.
Leskinen stated the Planning Commission is not discounting the access, but until the City finds out if
there is a Plan B, it will all be conjecture. Leskinen stated the Planning Commission will address some of
the other issues in relation to this proposal.
Leskinen noted Mark Gronberg has addressed each of the City Engineer's comments and that it is not
necessary for the Planning Commission to go through those again. Leskinen asked whether the developer
intends to do any grading of individual driveways or building pads as part of the initial development
improvements.
Stedman stated the driveways will be done by the individual owners as well as the building pads.
Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission has any concerns over wetland buffers as it relates to
Item No. 2.
Gaffron stated there needs to be confirmation from the Watershed District on what the buffers will be
befare proceeding forward since there is a chance for potential changes to lot lines. Gaffron stated in his
view it would be helpful to have that information before moving forward.
Leskinen stated Item No. 3 relates to the proposed public cul-de-sac road length if Heritage Lane is
extended. Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission has any concerns with the 1,600 foot road
length.
Thiesse stated the City should consider changing it to 1,600 feet since the City and Fire Department
continually allows it.
Leskinen stated for discussion of this particular development, it appears the Planning Commission has no
concern with the length of the road.
Leskinen stated Item No. 4 relates to cul-de-sac design and location and the impact on the adjoining
properties. Leskinen stated the options wou(d be to keep the two cul-de-sacs or taking out the wings on
one.
Thiesse stated he is a proponent for not having a cul-de-sac in the middle of the street since the cul-de-sac
would encourage people to do a U-turn in the middle of the road. Thiesse stated the school bus would
need to go a block further and then utilize the new cul-de-sac.
Gaffron stated when it comes to the retaining wall situation,the developer is talking about filling a
wetland and having a corridor. The developer is attempting to hold the retaining walls within that 50-fot
corridor but that the City does not know how tall those walls will be and what the visual impact to the
neighbors on either side will be.
Gronberg stated to his knowledge they would be in the four to five foot range.
Thiesse pointed out the profile appears to have them at eight to nine feet.
Gronberg stated there could be some areas where they will be seven or eight feet tall.
Page 38 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse noted those would be visible to the neighborhood.
Gronberg stated they will try to have some type of decorative wall, but if the neighbors would like to have
screening,they could also plant trees along there to hide it.
Leskinen asked if there are any alternatives to the walls.
Thiesse noted it is a 3:1 slope and that the walls are probably necessary.
Gaffron stated it would require having a slope out into the neighboring property if a wall was not
constructed. Gaffron stated there will be impacts to the neighboring property regardless if the wall is
constructed or not.
Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission should recommend conservation easements over the
tree stands identified in the Conservation Design report.
Gaffron recommended requiring conservation easements around different areas that would not impact
people building homes.
Landgraver noted the applicant was open to restrictions over those areas.
Leskinen stated to the extent the Planning Commission could ask for that,that should be done.
Leskinen stated Item No. 6 relates to a trail connection corridar. Leskinen noted the neighborhood is not
in favor of that.
Gaffron stated if the neighborhood is not in favor of it,there is no reason to do it.
Leskinen stated Item No. 7 is obtaining wetland boundary and buffer width confirmations from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has already discussed
that and it should be required.
Item No. 8 stated the Conservation Design Report as submitted appears to be incomplete and contains
errors. A complete version should be provided for review prior to Council review of the preliminary plat.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to require that.
Leskinen stated as it relates Item No. 9,the engineering items, Mark Gronberg has already discussed
those.
The Planning Commission had no other concerns at this time with the application.
Chair Leskinen reopened the public hearing at 10:42 p.m.
Byrnes stated when they talk about the two cul-de-sacs,the challenge is with the buses. If the new road is
going to be class five gravel and there is no final layer of asphalt,the bus company will not turn around.
Page 39 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Byrnes stated if there is any way to preserve the existing cul-de-sac until the final layer is put down,that
would help the buses.
Dennis Libby, 1000 Heritage Lane, stated as a piece of history, his former neighbor, Dr. Larson, and he
made an informal application to Staff in 2004 to vacate the City extension and allow them to purchase it
and then split the extension equally between the two property owners. Libby stated they were summarily
denied from making a formal application because Staff felt this was a very long-term plan. Libby noted
he again submitted that option to Mr. Gaffron about a month ago. At that point in time this application
had not been made. Libby stated he was again reminded by Mr. Gaffron at that time that it would be the
City's intent and responsibility to keep this extension for future development.
Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:44 p.m.
Berg moved,Thiesse seconded,to table Application No. 15-3774,Irwin Jacobs, 1700 Shoreline
D rive.
Gaffron stated his understanding of what the Planning Commission would like to see is an exploration of
alternative construction routes, with review by the City Engineer; confirmation that the punch list of
engineering items have been addressed; submittal of a complete Conservation Design report; and
confirmation from the MCWD on the wetland buffers. Gaffron noted the application will likely be tabled
for a month.
Berg amended the motion,Thiesse seconded,to table Application No. 15-3774,Irwin Jacobs, 1700
Shoreline Drive,subject to the developer exploring an alternate construction route,with review by
the City Engineer; confirmation that the punch list of engineering items have been addressed;
submittal of a complete Conservation Design report; and confirmation from the MCWD on the
wetland buffers. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
10. #15-3776 CITY OF ORONO,AMEND CITY CODE PERTAINING TO TEMPORARY
SIGNS, 10:47 P.M.— 11:09 P.M.
Barnhart stated included in the list of ordinances to be reviewed that were identified last fall were the
temporary sign ordinances. Earlier this year the Planning Commission chose not to make any changes
since there was no specific application. Barnhart stated since he has been with the City, he has noticed
there have been a number of community and charitable events that are not able to advertise as easily as
they would like. Barnhart stated the ordinance would apply to all nonprofit community type events.
Under current code, the City Council can grant a conditional use permit for signs in the right-of-way
under the City's control. Barnhart stated the City Attorney had some issues with a conditional use permit
since it runs with the land and that he recommended it be changed to an interim use. Barnhart noted
interim uses are not included in the City ordinances at the present time.
Barnhart stated most cities do allow temporary signs in the right-of-way. If the Planning Commission
would like to support signage in the right-of-way, Staff would recommend an interim use of 60 days. In
the temporary sign section on Page l, 8a, Staff has changed the language to limit the amount of signage
that a business can have on the property in a temporary fashion to four times a year, with a maximum of
ten days per time. Barnhart stated that is pretty strict compared to other cities.
Page 40 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated if a business was to provide signage for city, community, nonprofit or charitable
organizations,the City would let them advertise for five times per year up to 50 calendar days. Staff
would propose adding a section where a permit can be issued to city,community, nonprofit or charitable
organizations for temporary signage to be placed on another person's property with their permission.
Barnhart stated the idea is to cover some church events, city events, or nonprofits that do not own
property but would like to place signage advertising their event.
Barnhart noted the ordinance does not give the Council the authority to issue an interim use permit if an
interim use permit or temporary sign permit had been issued in the previous 24 months to that property,
with city, community, nonprofit or charitable organizations being exempt from that provision provided
they obtain a permit.
Berg asked how this relates to Parade of Home signs and builder signs.
Barnhart stated the Parade of Homes is a private organization and an argument can be made that it is a for
profit organization. Barnhart indicated they can apply for a conditional use permit every four months.
Barnhart stated the City is becoming more aggressive about illegal signs in the right-of-way.
Lemke stated 60 days seems like a long time.
Barnhart stated Staff felt 60 days was better than 90 days.
Lemke asked if 30 would be better than 60.
Barnhart stated if someone is going through the expense and trouble of an interim use sign, it is not for a
garage sale but something bigger, but that the time limit can be reduced if the Planning Commission felt it
appropriate.
Leskinen asked if another vehicle could be used since the City does not have an interim use.
Barnhart stated it could be a staff issued permit or a permit issued by the City Council. Barnhart stated
the goal of the permit is to gain public input. Barnhart stated interim use permits is an effective tool and
might be worth exploring further.
Leskinen stated the Planning Commission has had some discussions in the past regarding interim uses and
that she likes the idea of creating this exemption or this opportunity to make it easier for the charities and
nonprofits to be able to advertise without having to jump through too many hoops. Leskinen stated in her
view there also needs to be some public input on signs within the right-of-way since there can be sight
line issues, which could create a safety condition.
Landgraver asked if the Navarre Bike Event is a 501(c)(3).
Barnhart stated it is not.
Landgraver noted the ordinance links it to a 501(c)(3). Landgraver asked who will be checking that and
whether it applies to all 501(c)(3)organizations.
Page 41 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated the ordinance limits it to city, community, nonprofit or charitable events. The 501(c)(3)
was an attempt to identify someone who had gone through some steps to attain that.
Berg noted a 501(c)(3) has to be approved by the Internal Revenue Service.
Landgraver stated in his view it would be better for the Council to have that kind of list so the door is not
open to every organization that comes through.
Thiesse asked if they have to define who it is if the community sees it as a benefit.
Barnhart stated there is some benefit to limiting or identifying what the parameters are. Barnhart stated
the idea with the 501(c)(3)was to limit it in some fashion.
Leskinen stated the 501(c)(3) also helps to designate the organization as a bona fide organization.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 11:07 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 11:07 p.m.
Landgraver moved, Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3776,City of
Orono,Amend City Code Pertaining to Temporary Signs with the language in the draft ordinance
with the deletion of the word interim use permit and just have it be a permit basis VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
11. #15-3777 NAVARRE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
SIGNAGE ON PUBLLIC PROPERTY, 11:09 P.M.— 11:12 P.M.
Barnhart stated the Navarre Community Initiative is holding a"Bike Navarre"community event
intended to promote the bike and walkability of the Navarre area. A secondary component of the event is
a re-introduction of the area businesses to the community in the hope that the event may grow and the
businesses flourish.
To promote the event, the Navarre Community Initiative is proposing to place signs within area
businesses and adjacent to the public art they have in area rights-of-way and in city parks. The ordinance
allows placement of signs in the right-of-way under the City's jurisdiction with a conditional use permit.
The signs will be approximately 2'x 4' and are not proposed to be lit. The signs will be either A-frame
type signs or attached to temporary posts. The signs will be removed after the event, which is planned for
September 20, 2015.
Staff finds the placement of signs for less than 10 days in area parks is appropriate and will not negatively
impact the surrounding area.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at l l:ll p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Page 42 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 17,2015
6:30 dclock p.m.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 11:11 p.m.
Leskinen stated she is in favor of this as long as there are no signs blocking visibility.
Lemke moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3777,Navarre
Community Initiative,granting of a conditional use permit for signage on public property. VOTE:
Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
12. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON JULY 27,2015,AND AUGUST 10,2015
Landgraver noted he attended the July 27 Council meeting. A resident on North Shore Drive asked the
City to review ordinances regarding fencing and lighting. Landgraver suggested that item be discussed at
a future work session.
The application for Forest Arms Lane was approved, the preliminary plat for Mooney Lake development
was approved following some lengthy public comment,the Orono Orchard South application was
approved,the Homestead Partners application on Old Crystal Bay was approved, and the Orono City
Code changes were approved.
Thiesse stated he attended the August 10 Council meeting and that a discussion was held regarding the
fence between the Nygard property and Lanpher property.
13. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
11:20 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
,�
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Page 43 of 43