Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-2002 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, Janice Berg, J. Mark Fritzler, Liz Hawn, and Jeanne Mabusth; The following City Staff were present: Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Zoning Administrator Paul Weinberger, City Administrator Ron Moorse, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and recorder Kristi Anderson. City Planning Consultant Wally Case of DSU, Inc. was also present. Commissioner Cynthia Bremer and Zoning Administrator Bottenberg were absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M. in order to address two items tabled from the Monday night Planning Commission meeting. NEW BUSINESS (continued from July 15,2002) (#1) #02-2805 CARSON ERICKSON, 3415 EASTLAKE STREET,VARIANCES 5:30 p.m. - 5:43 p.m. Carson Erickson, Applicant, was present. Planning Director Gaffron stated that, as suggested during the Monday night Regular Planning Commission Meeting,the applicant revised his application to increase the setback to the street by decreasing side yard setbacks, maintaining the 50' setback from the house to the creek bank, and reducing the deck to approximately 300 s.f. He stated that the revised proposal accomplishes everything that had been asked of the client. Although the Applicant had no additional comments to make with regard to the proposal, he informed the Commission that his architect, Bruce Hellier, who presented on Monday night was admitted to the hospital with chest pains. Mr. Erickson indicated that Bruce was doing well and had tried to revise the proposal to meet the Commission's suggestions. Smith asked Mr. Erickson to relay best wishes for a speedy recovery to Mr. Hellier. There were no public comments. Smith reiterated that the requested variances include lot area, lot width, hardcover variance, front yard setback, side yards setback, and rear yard setbacks. Rahn suggested that the deck dimensions remain undetermined and that the applicant simply adhere to the 300 s.f. coverage. PAGE 1 OF 22 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#1) #02-2805 CARSON ERICKSON, Continued Hawn moved, Berg seconded, granting approval of Application#02-2805, Carson Erickson, 3415 Eastlake Street,variances for lot area, lot width, front yard setback, side yard setback, and both 0-75' hardcover and 75-250' setback variances, noting that the structure is within the 1,500 s.f. allowed and the deck size is no more than 300 s.f.. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING FROM MONDAY JULY 15,2002 CONTINUED FOR DISCUSSION (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, 2550 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD,REVISED PLAN FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW, GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL AND REZONING FROM RR-1B SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. 5:44 p.m. - 8:14 p.m. Gaffron stated that the applicant had worked through a few of the line items from the staff memo on Monday night in which the Commission had started their discussion with regard to the housing types, layout, and functionality. He questioned whether the Commission had addressed their concerns with regard to item 5 of the staff punchlist,the proposed housing types, site layout, functionality, etc. Smith indicated that she felt other comments relative to housing still needed to be heard. Once again, she asked the Commission to give the applicant as detailed suggestions as they could, in order to supply them with adequate direction. Gaffron noted that the applicant had already addressed several of the suggested changes from Monday evening's discussion and wished to hand out a revised plan. Johnston highlighted the changes, noting that the most significant change was that the new plan contained actual dimension between the townhomes for the Commission to look at. As shown on the revised plan, Johnston pointed out that the closest townhomes are 11' apart, while many are as much as 23'. Smith felt the revised plans reflecting the dimensions were very helpful. Johnston indicated that they had also taken out three of the rambler style townhomes and replaced those with five smaller two story townhome units in an effort to open more space behind them. Johnston pointed out that they had removed the third level loft units from the end of the first building as well, creating a softer two-story look near public works. He suggested that PAGE 2 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued building a berm near public works would help greatly in screening the end units. Other than those few changes, the unit count was still at 168, and Johnston stated that they would like to get past this planning level and address the r.o.w. issue with MnDOT as soon as possible in order to continue in a timely fashion. Johnston shared board sketches, which reflected the relative heights of the various unit types. Based on the existing grade, all three buildings were similar in height, including the loft units depicted at 32' with a flat roof, which he stated could be readily changed to a low-pitched roof. Krall pointed out that the grade varies 1-'/2 feet to 2 feet along the loft building. Gaffron inquired what the elevation of the loft units was in the garage level in comparison to the wetland. Johnston stated that the garage is located approximately 2-3' above the wetland. With regard to the relationship between public works and the development, Gaffron noted that, relative to height, Kelley Parkway is at 1022' elevation, and the lofts parking would be at approximately 1019'. The finished grade on the south side would be approximately 1025', which allows for a 3' face of the garage showing, followed by three stories, and the drawing by staff assumes a 4/12 roof pitch. Krall stated that they had hoped that no more than 2' to 2 '/2 ' of the south basement wall would show. Gaffron asked the Commission for their comments regarding a flat roof or pitched roof design. While the design with a flat roof would be relatively near the peak height of public works, a pitched roof could be an extra 10' higher. Rahn asked if the elevator doghouse could extend into the 30' roofline. Gaffron stated that because this is a PUD the City could allow the doghouse to extend higher than the 30' limit. Rahn stated that he believed a sloped roof would look much better than an exposed elevator shaft on a flat roof. Krall stated that 3/12 is the lowest pitch they can give to a sloped roof. Whereas the base building height of the loft unit building is just above 30', the other buildings are below 30'. She added that the loft buildings cannot be three stories tall and fall under 30'. PAGE 3 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Bremer asked how much above 30' the loft unit building would be. Krall felt the loft building would fall within a 31-32' range for height if it had a flat roof, however, a parapet would need to be added so that people do not fall off the edge. On the other hand, if there is a sloped roof you gain an extra 9-10' of roof height without the parapet. Smith stated that she could not imagine a flat roof Gaffron noted that the numbers being discussed were based on the finished grade as the starting point for measuring height, although City code would normally use existing grade for height determination. Krall stated that, assuming the Commission would prefer a sloped roof, the slope would start at about 31' above finished grade. Gaffron presented a drawing showing the amount of fill needed to make this happen in the front. In the back, Gaffron was concerned that a great deal of fill would be necessary near the wetland to ease the transition from existing grade to the 1st story dwelling units. Johnston stated that, based on the grading plan, they would come out to the same grade relationship that is proposed in the front with sidewalk and retaining wall at the wetland. Gaffron felt that this suggestion made sense, because in order for the garage level to avoid being considered as a story, about a half of its wall area must be below grade. Krall stated that they wanted ground floor units to possess easy grade level access off the porches. Gaffron noted that a large retaining wall would be necessary in relation to the wetland since they are so close to the wetland buffer. If this proves to be too great a challenge, forcing the building to move forward, Gaffron acknowledged the applicant might have to deal with other issues. Krall stated that the applicant would be prepared to make the building 1-2' narrower if need be. Gaffron stated that he drew his sketches in order to compare what he saw, to what the applicant was proposing on Monday evening. He agreed with the applicants' comments that, with a flat roof, they are close to the height requirement. Rahn asked if Gaffron had noted how far it was to the peak of his illustration with the potential sloped roof PAGE 4 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Gaffron stated that his sketch reflected a peak height at 1066' for a 4/12 pitch at the lofts and 1053' on the public works peak, or about a 13' difference. Rahn asked what the total height of the building would be with a 4/12 pitch. Gaffron stated that the total height of the building, measuring from existing grade to the midpoint of the highest gable as required by code, would be 40'. The visual perspective would probably be 40-41' total height as viewed from Highway 12, or up to 47' as viewed from the backside. Krall stated that there will be fill to offset the height in certain areas. Gaffron indicated that fill will help, however, one will see the retaining wall on the backside. Smith stated that apparently, in order to get a pitched roof, the Commission would need to allow an additional 10'. Mabusth stated that she would like to see, for design purposes, a pitched roof. Prior to their discussion, Mabusth stated that she had only considered a flat roof, however, now believed that a pitched roof would conform better to the design. Hawn and Smith stated they preferred a pitched roof. Rahn stated that, while he was not thrilled with the height, he preferred a sloped roof to an exposed elevator. Krall indicated that they might come back with a design combination. She stated it was their desire to keep the design elements of all the housing types similar. Berg had no comment. Gaffron asked if the Commissioners could support a three-story building. Mabusth could accept the three-story design with the tapered end two-story units. Hawn asked how many fewer units the tapered design meant to them. Krall stated they lost two units. Berg stated that she would still like to see them remove 6 units. Smith asked if there were comments regarding housing diversity. PAGE 5 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Mabusth stated she liked the diversity. Smith was concerned by traffic and transportation issues. She believed the parking still was inadequate, especially during the winter months when people would want to park near their destination. She added that there would be the chance they would lose stalls due to snow storage. Mabusth asked precisely how many stalls the rambler units were allotted. Johnston stated that it was pretty clear to see which units had 2-3 car garages, supplemented by a driveway space outside the garage. He acknowledged that some driveways were longer than others, with the exceptions of units 11 and 12, and 29 and 30, who were wide enough for three car garages but had driveway access to only two of the stalls with added storage. Johnston indicated that they allowed for ample parking within the extra designated parking areas located throughout the development. In fact, Johnston pointed out that code merely requires 336 parking spots, whereas they have provided 672 on their plan. Smith was concerned that the two story ramblers were not supplied with enough adequate parking nearby. She felt large parties could not be served. Johnston stated that it was not a supply issue, but a distance question. The parking servicing those homes was the furthest away in the development. While she understood there was a delicate balance between parking and greenspace, Smith believed people would not want to walk great distances to their cars. Hawn stated that without sidewalks, people would be forced to walk in the road during the winter. Rahn reminded the Commissioners that the three car garages are supplied with an additional three spots for parking and questioned why this would not typically be enough. Smith asked what it would take to put parallel parking near the townhome units 17 and 18, on West Lane. Johnston stated that, once the street width issue is resolved, you might have potential parallel parking along Kelley Parkway. Smith asked for the proof of parking figures. Johnston pointed out that the applicant could add an additional 10-15 stalls, if needed, near the lofts. PAGE 6 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Smith asked where these proposed spaces would be added. Johnston noted that residents of the lofts have two stalls of underground parking, which could be bumped up if necessary. Krall explained that everyone who enters the loft units do so by one main entrance, so the parking should be convenient to the main entrance. Hawn asked how much outdoor parking was provided for the lofts, not including on-street parking. Counting them up, Johnston indicated that in the lofts area, there were 41 spaces, including the proof-of-parking spaces. Mabusth asked how wide they viewed Kelley Parkway. Johnston stated that they had allowed for 28' driving lanes, accompanied by 8' bump-outs for parking. With regard to punchlist item#5, Smith noted that complaints would be unavoidable since the lofts are so close to the public works facility. While they could not be lost altogether, she asked if they could be moved to the north end of the property. Mabusth cautioned against this scenario since the City had promised the residents to the north that the City would avoid any such circumstance. Rahn reiterated that the loft unit entrance road is only 20' from the Public Works Facility. Mabusth stated that if proper berming was to be achieved to screen the public works facility,the City would need to cooperate in providing a shared berm, fenced and landscaped by the developer. Rahn inquired how wide the base of the berm would need to be. Johnston indicated that they would propose coming off of the public works slope, broadening it by 5', and rolling back down into the ditch. Gaffron asked for Commissioner comment with regard to this proposal. While the plan would not impact the City's operation, Gaffron stated that it would require use of City property. Smith asked if it would ever impact operation. PAGE 7 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Gaffron indicated not. He asked how removing the entry to the underground parking from the end to the south side would impact the development. Johnston stated the entry is hidden at the end versus the front, and because of noise, it is typically put at the end to avoid additional problems. Rahn asked what might be put on top of the berm. Johnston indicated that a rough poured concrete wall with climbing plants and additional landscaping would sit atop the berm. Rahn stated that those things would need to be placed on the applicants' side of the berm. Johnston argued that, in order to achieve maximum height, the wall etc., would need to be placed on the City side. Rahn stated that he clearly had issue with the wall and landscaping on the City side of the hill and would not want this to become the City's problem or maintenance responsibility. Gaffron noted that the top of the wall would be ceiling height of the first story. Mabusth added that the end units would only be two story loft units. Hawn suggested they plant tall mature trees. Berg maintained that the loft unit building was still too tight, necessitating removal of additional units. She felt it was too cramped and additional room from the property line was necessary. She stated that she would not support the underground door in the middle of the building. Krall asked if the applicant were able to narrow up the building to obtain additional room, whether the Commission would find that to be adequate, rather than losing additional units. Berg stated that she didn't feel the City was asking too much for them to remove an additional 4 units. The magnitude of the project and tightness they propose were too much in her estimation. Smith stated that, according to Commissioner comment,the berm would need to be on the developer's side of the property. She asked for comment regarding City property. Hawn asked why it should even be considered to be put on City property at all, no hardship exists to compel it. She reminded the Commission that if this were a regular property owner they would not permit them to build on City property. PAGE 8 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Gaffron asked where the property line fell with regard to the berm. Johnston stated that the property line falls along the ditch. Gaffron suggested letting the applicant extend the berm, to avoid an up and down hill appearance. While she would support allowing them to extend the berm, Berg stated that everything that happens on the berm would need to happen on their side of the concrete fence. Krall felt this could be accomplished. Rahn stated that the applicant was already borrowing square feet from the street, and now would be encroaching on City property in order to meet density, which was already at six units per acre. He questioned whether there were too many units being proposed for this site. Johnston stated they understood the City's perspective. Gaffron asked Berg to clarify her request to remove units. Would she accept them moving the building further from the property line. Berg stated that she thought removing 4 units would give the City more space from the lot line. Gaffron clarified that the setback from the lot line would be 80' versus 60'. With respect to greenspace and separation between buildings, Berg stated that she would not find it acceptable to simply move the building down, in lieu of losing 4 additional units. Smith appreciated the clarification, stating that the Commissioners would not like to see the building moved. Mabusth stated that the removal of units would be more appropriate and asked which would go. Berg stated that she had suggested they remove a whole block of units, 6 to be exact. They already removed two by tapering the end units to 2-story's, and she suggested they remove those units as well. Thereby the end units go back to 3-stories,just moved in one set. Gaffron stated that the City would obtain an 85' setback by requiring those units to be removed. Krall asked if they could address the City's need to expand the 60'setback to 80', and separately address, how many units the city believes the property needs to lose overall. She stated that she PAGE 9 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued would rather not have the City determine the details of how wide the units should be, or take a certain number of units off an end, when she can work within parameters set by the City to achieve the desired setback goal. Smith felt she would be more comfortable giving the applicant that direction. Her thought was, if they could figure out a way to keep it tiered and still achieve setback, she thought that would be acceptable with everyone. Rahn stated that the removal of four more units made the most sense. Mabusth asked the applicant if they felt they could do all that they've discussed with the berm and wall using an 80' setback. Johnston insisted that simply removing units would not necessarily solve some of the problems. In fact, he believed less costly solutions could be accomplished without the removal of additional units. Smith asked how many feet could be lost to make a difference. Krall stated that mass or height has a greater impact than moving the structure back 10'. She suggested that the roofline be designed to deflect sound. Berg maintained that sound or noise was not her only issue and that she was more concerned with obtaining setback. To her an 8' wall wasn't of interest. Hawn disagreed, stating that an 8' wall could be appropriate. Smith reminded the Commission that the applicant was looking for direction with regard to setback to the lot line only. Rahn stated that a 30' setback for parking and an 80' setback for the lofts were what they would like to achieve. Mabusth stated that as a group, the Commission is aware that they have a public works facility currently located very close to where a proposed loft unit will be and were worried about the complaints regarding lights and noise coming from public works. She continued that it is important that the applicant know that whatever they are proposing with regard to landscaping, they have to do on their side and the City should not be brought into trying to solve those issues. Smith clarified for the applicant, that the City would like at least 10', or better yet 20', additional setback. PAGE 10 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2)#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Moorse suggested that the Commission look at the space allotted for the proof of parking north of the units and consider making the setback space wide enough to add one lane of parking along the edge. Parking there, would suffice to meet the proof of parking and avoid the removal of the trees to the north, if the building were pushed back far enough. Krall stated that, while this parking location may not be as preferable to residents,this suggestion would work and allow the applicant to keep the line of trees intact where the proof of parking had been proposed. Smith indicated that, Commissioner Hawn had suggested,the proof of parking be relocated to the side lane, thus improving the views for those units on the north backside. Mabusth reiterated that the Commission was requesting an additional 20' setback. Smith recapped and asked if item 5 had been covered in great enough detail. She stated that, as Johnston pointed out, the development is at merely 4 units per acre when the loft units are taken out of the equation. Although she would have liked to have seen more greenspace and parking, she stated that this is an innovative and new concept to Orono. She added that she still needed convincing that this was the right spot for a development with this many units, and wondered why truly walkable communities like Wayzata or Edina had not been considered. Smith stated that she was getting closer to viewing the development as a 4 unit per acre site, if the applicant could meet some of the City's other issues. She stated that she could support the lofts where they were and the diversity of the rest of the development, once other items were addressed, such as sidewalks, west lane and north lane, etc.. Krall stated that the current plan did reflect 4 units per acre excluding the lofts. Berg reiterated that other than losing the aditional 4 loft units, she was okay with the development. Rahn stated once again, that the code allows 6 per acre and this property is slated 6. Although he felt this to be rather dense, if it was slated for 6 then he didn't have a problem with that. Gaffron explained that this piece of property was slated for 6 because the City could meet the Met Council and housing diversity requirements. According to the Comp Plan, there were few other places in Orono, beside this location, that warrant this kind of development. In order to meet our housing goals and satisfy Met Council, 6 units per acre made the most sense here. Gaffron reiterated that there were no other places in Orono this would work,Navarre would not PAGE 11 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2)#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued work due to traffic issues and tightness. The only other land guided for higher density is southwest of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road which is surrounded by railroad tracks, Highway 12, and industrial uses. Rahn stated that he felt better knowing that there wasn't any other location guided for this type of development. Smith stated that this site was one of two or three sites within the entire City where this development would be allowed, therefore one would not see this running up and down Highway 12. Krall pointed out that, when you look at the level of amenities that you have so close around this site, the way it's placed, the way you have retail placed, and the way you have City facilities and school facilities placed, when you look at the comp plan this is the one place where it makes sense for Orono to meet some of the housing needs. It provides a unique situation, and offers the only place that functions that way within Orono. Smith added that this does not mean that there are not issues surrounding parking, Kelley Parkway,traffic, and its impact. Hawn stated that she needed to leave soon and wanted to address a few concerns. She stated that, initially, what she thought was driving the higher densities for this location was the need to set up spaces for affordable housing, and this isn't it. She indicated that affordable housing was something that mattered to her. With regard to the proposal, on one hand the applicant has asked Orono to make some concessions for their planning, on the other hand Orono would like to see their help in addressing the area of affordable housing. Johnston pointed out that the affordability issue was difficult. The units that could meet the affordability number were the loft units, and the way that they can do that is through a finance program through the federal government. The City has to be a partner in requesting that financing, but once it is put in place, it is essentially a buy down of the interest rates that makes those affordable units. Mr. Dahlstrom added that, initially, the first plan that they had provided with 235 units had the potential for more of the affordable housing units, than the current proposal. By removing 60 units, pricing flexibility is greatly impacted. He stated that they are not opposed to working with the City on the affordable housing issue and trying to do accomplish some cost shifting to meet the need. Smith stated that considering price points today, the whole issue of affordable housing is a very difficult subject to try to do a good job at. PAGE 12 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2)#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Dahlstrom pointed out that by incorporating affordable mortgage programs and funding more can be done to accomplish the task. Berg asked if they could incorporate this request for funding from the federal government into their plan. She insisted that City's are very much on the forefront of asking developers to come to them with affordable housing. She found it hard to believe that these price points would meet affordable housing standards. In fact, Berg asked to see lower priced units or townhomes as part of the proposal. Johnston stated that the homes they had provided meet the medium range of affordability. Hawn added that, with regard to affordable housing, she would like to see the data that makes this possible or not possible. Krall stated that the Met Council provides data with regard to affordable housing standards on a region wide basis, as well as,the west metro area, and for differing levels of income in different places. They may find that they are unable to meet some affordability standards, but able to meet others. She pointed out that write downs, grants, and TIPS offer one way to help meet standards. Smith indicated that the applicant seemed to be creative, innovative, and open enough to pursue further exploration of affordable housing. Krall stated that they could compile the information, and perhaps, schedule a separate discussion on what constitutes affordable housing, identifying a regional goal, and how to accomplish it. Hawn stated that she was hesitant to dictate how many units per acre would be required, but instead preferred that the needs of the design drive the plan. She stated that she would like to see sidewalks along the townhome streets, more parking, more greenspace, and look at market research. Hawn felt the one story townhome price points were quite steep for the area, and wanted to see the data to support those, as well as, data supporting the overall location. She believed that Orono could not provide the local amenities to attract adequate buyers. She would not want to see them build a development that wasn't going to succeed, therefore she was curious to see the data to support that. She argued that, there are developments in other locations with more amenities and similar price points out there, and questioned why buyers would buy here. Fritzler stated that he could support the development, if enough distance for the loft building could be found. Fritzler continued that he was satisfied with the amount of greenspace and did not see the need for a playground. Gaffron asked for opinions with regard to tot lots versus picnic tables. PAGE 13 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Rahn stated that, in his view, he would support congregation areas or smaller sitting areas stylized after the main entrance. Mabusth asked if the Park Commission would preview the plan. Gappa suggested they take a look at the proposal briefly on July 29, 2002,prior to their annual Park Tour. Smith indicated that she would like to get the Park Commission involved in the process sooner than later. Since the City Council will likely ask for their comments, having them weigh in on the design might be useful at this point. Gaffron stated that they would not be making a judgement, but merely previewing the trails etc. since the project is not public parkland. Gaffron agreed that Council would likely want to hear their thoughts. Mabusth asked that Gappa make sure the Park Commission understand that this is private open space. Mabusth stated that she could support the 6 units per acre, since the wetlands and the amount of dry usable space, limit the applicant. In her view, Mabusth liked to look at the project as 4 units per acre plus the lofts. She was pleased with the amount of diversity and wished to see the wetland delineation report soon. Johnston stated that the fieldwork on the wetland delineation had been completed, however, he still awaited the paperwork. To his knowledge, the boundary itself had not changed. Smith asked what further needed to be discussed this evening. Virtually, item 6 had been addressed, however, questions regarding item 4 remain. The transportation,traffic, and development of Kelley Parkway were areas for discussion. Gaffron stated that in terms of traffic generated by this development, and how it effects intersections on the north side, were issues to be addressed with development. As the planning progresses, Gaffron noted that direction will need to be obtained from the Engineer's report before deciding on internal road widths, addressing turn lanes, considering the widths of Kelley Parkway, and parallel parking, etc. Currently, Gaffron noted that the applicant had proposed widths of 20' for Kelley Parkway with 8' bump outs for parallel parking. Hawn left the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Johnston noted that the widths would be 22' back to back on most of the private roads. PAGE 14 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2)#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Gappa stated that code requires 28'; however,the Commission would be trading valuable greenspace for wider roads. He agreed that 28' widths were not necessary on the internal spaces, and could find 22-24' acceptable, with the exception for the 28' parking bump outs. Krall repeated that studies had shown narrow streets tend to slow traffic down. Smith felt that 22' to 24' would be acceptable. Johnston pointed out that there are many rural roads, like Crystal Bay Road, within Orono who carry very high volumes currently and are merely 24' wide. He asked the Commissioners to take into consideration the amount of traffic these rural streets are able to handle versus the level of traffic that would take place in the cul-de-sacs. Mabusth asked if school buses or emergency vehicles would need to travel through the development, would there be room. Gappa stated that school buses would likely pick up at the entry to the development, much like other developments in Orono. He stated that fire code is 20' and all that is required for access by emergency vehicles. For comparison purposes, Gappa pointed out that County Road 6 is 24' wide and is a high-speed road. He believed 20-22' would be adequate. Rahn agreed the wide roads would be promoting speed. Smith asked where the issue of sidewalks fit into the discussion. Krall stated that if the roads could be kept more narrow, sidewalks could be considered. Mabusth indicated that she would support sidewalks in order to keep people off the roads and encourage a truly walkable community. Johnston stated that the traffic study of Willow View, where he resides, estimated 260 trips per day and no thought was put into sidewalks there. There are two cul-de-sacs without sidewalks and a wide road. He questioned the need for sidewalks when the trips per day would be even less than Willow View. He did not want to pave more than needed at a loss of greenspace. Case stated that there are hundreds of miles around Orono where there aren't sidewalks. He believed it to be a convenience issue, that sidewalks encourage social organizing, and suggested that a single sidewalk would not be a bad idea for a way to lead guests to their cars in the winter. Mabusth agreed, suggesting a sidewalk be run on one side of the street. PAGE 15 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Fritzler pointed out that a sidewalk would adversely impact many driveways. They would virtually be taking away parking by adding a sidewalk in the cul-de-sacs. Fritzler stated that sidewalks were no big issue to him on the north or west cul-de-sacs for this reason. He maintained that people would prefer to walk in the street, uninterrupted, than to continually dodge bumpers in driveways. Rahn stated that his first inclination was to require the sidewalks; however, if they affect car stacking and greenspace, he could not agree. Gaffron asked Rahn if 50' lots and no sidewalks worked for his neighborhood, which has many similarities to the proposed cul-de-sacs. Rahn stated that he lives on a narrow road and it works for them. Mabusth indicated that she too had supported sidewalks, but cannot do so in lieu of the additional problems they will create. Krall stated that she supported sidewalks, however, not if they impact other areas. She indicated that the applicant would do their best to work them in, if possible, but understood the Commission would be satisfied if they were not a part of the plan. Fritzler stated that new issues arise with having to plow the sidewalks. Mabusth stated that she could support a compromise on Kelley Parkway as well. Gappa indicated that 41' would be necessary at Willow and other intersections, and recommended that striping be used to delineate the entire Parkway. He favored the flexibility a 41' parkway would allow. Fritzler asked if Johnston had included the parallel parking spaces on Kelley Parkway in his parking calculations. Johnston indicated that he had not included those spots in their required parking estimates. Fritzler felt the parallel parking spots provided on the city street could adequately serve the development as well. Johnston argued that speed would not be slowed down effectively by striping. He suggested that each end of Kelley Parkway remain 41', and something less along the rest of the parkway. If turn lanes needed to be added later, he pointed out that the applicant would need to do so. Johnston PAGE 16 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued also suggested that the parking along Kelley Parkway be delineated to give the visual impression of a more narrow road. Gappa asked how the parking spots could be plowed. Krall indicated that, in other communities, standards exist in order to addess that question, and the applicant would help to research those Rahn asked if ther Parkway could have a true parkway feel with a middle berm and landscaping at a mere 41' width. Case pointed out that it is more complicated to plow; however, makes for a nicer street. With regard to the Parkway feel,the trees and landscaping would need to be 5-6' off the road, require 7' +feet for growth. Although the City could easily have no parking on one side of the street and retain a 16' berm median, Case indicated that there would be maintenance issues and costs associated with these medians. Mabusth asked whether the Commission wanted to encourage this kind of median on public roads. Krall explained that there are typically two ways to achieve the parkway look. The first, which they had been discussing is comprised of two lanes with a 15' green space between them, mostly found in suburban areas, thus eliminating parking. The other, would be streets lined by trees and landscaping on either side between the street and sidewalk. Smith stated that, to her, the later of the two made the most sense for Kelley Parkway, especially since the middle green space would require heavy maintenance. Case added that these middle berms do not normally provide much usable space. Krall suggested adding a bituminous bike trail next to the sidewalk. For review, Smith indicated that the Commission seemed to be moving away from the required 41' and divided parkway, and moving toward a lesser width and canopied parkway. Rahn asked if the parking spaces should be defined. Gappa stated that he could see that he would not get a 41' road; however, wanted to retain enough right of way. PAGE 17 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Gaffron stated that a 60' right-of-way would be tight but workable in a residential/commercial area. Since this was not designated as a collector street in the code, Johnston believed 70' to be excessive. In the code, collector streets require 70', there is nothing in the code with regard to commercial industrial. Gaffron noted that it was originally platted at 60'. Gappa stated that they normally take 50' and if he is given 60' he would find that acceptable. Smith asked if all the Commission had asked for could be achieved with less than 60' of roadway right-of-way. Gappa indicated that with merely 10' on either side of the road,there would not be much separation with an 8' trail on both sides. Krall stated that the 8' trail might not be necessary on both sides. Mabusth suggested the bike trail be located along Kelley Parkway and not along Highway 12. Gaffron indicated that, originally, they had discussed that sidewalks along Kelley Parkway would be concrete sidewalks, and bituminous trails would run along Highway 12 and considered bike trails. To now change, and add bituminous along Kelley would be a new twist. Gappa stated that with a 40' roadway, you could have a 5' sidewalk and 5' boulevard on either side. Gaffron stated that the Karl Berg medical office project had already been required to add sidewalk along Kelley Parkway and trail along Highway 12. He maintained that the Commission needed to be consistent with what had been previously approved. Mabusth asked when the trails were slotted for construction. Gaffron noted that, as in the Berg case, the segment of trail would be built at the time of construction of the medical office. Berg questioned whether the trail would be built over the commercial outlot as well. Gaffron indicated that it should be. PAGE 18 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday,July 17, 2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2)#02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Johnston suggested, as a resident, that a trail along Highway 12 would be a waste of time. In his view, Johnston wondered why anyone would bike along the highway when they could bike along the Parkway instead. He suggested an 8' bituminous trail on the south side of Kelley Parkway and a 5' sidewalk be placed on the north side for walking. If a standard 28' roadway were used, there would still be an additional 8-10' for parking (at a 37-39 back to back ratio). Gappa agreed that many would prefer to bike along the Parkway versus the highway. Smith asked if there would be a connection to Willow. Berg noted that the proposed bikeway would run along the commercial side of the parkway, and asked if safety were a concern. Would individuals heading to the commercial area be competing with bikers, cars, or people. Gaffron stated that he would recommend an uniterrupted solid bike trail along Highway 12. Johnston inquired as to the logic of three proposed trails within 300' of one another. He wondered whether resources should be committed to such an effort and suggested removing the sidewalk from the south side entirely. Krall indicated that, likely, the commercial areas would supply their own on-site parking and would not require notched parking along the south side of Kelley Parkway. Case pointed out that, depending upon the commercial use of the outlots on Highway 12, the trail along the highway may be limited. Gappa agreed that less conflict exists to the south where it is currently wide open. To review, Krall stated that the Commission had identified a more narrow street within the 60' platted area, notched parking along the north side of Kelley Parkway, a trail on Highway 12, sidewalks on both sides of Kelley Parkway or simply along the south side, and that additional work be done with regard to the widths of the roadways. Smith inquired about the proposed bus stop. Johnston stated that they have proposed a bus stop at the main entrance across the street, if allowed by MnDOT, which would consist of a widened out sidewalk and benches. Fritzler asked about the need for a shelter. PAGE 19 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Krall indicated that they had merely proposed benches in the design, but that a shelter could be added. Smith pointed out that the wetland delineation report would need to be provided. Gaffron stated that the plan in a few areas shows a 20' wetland buffer, where the Orono ordinance requires a 26' setback. Smith questioned utilities. Gaffron asked if power lines could be buried. Gappa indicated that it is extremely expensive and cost $100,000 on the Dunbar project. Johnston stated that it would not be cost effective. Gappa stated that the east lane cul-de-sac was very long and an emergency access would need to be designated. Fritzler asked what the water main recommendation was. Gappa stated that they will be recommending 8"for utility pipes. Fritzler asked if this would be adequate. Gappa indicated that a larger trunk main will be necessary and looked at closer during development. He recommended 8"throughout the development and 12" along Kelley Parkway. Johnston stated that they would not argue with 8". Gappa indicated that the applicant may need to bore a connection loop under the wetland. Johnston felt this would be difficult. Smith asked for discussion with regard to the proposed landscaping and signage. Gaffron stated that dollar amounts will be determined; however, the City would like to see the applicant beef up the landscaping plan similar to what was shown early on. Mabusth asked who would decide the character of Kelley Parkway. PAGE 20 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued Smith indicated that it would start with the Planning Commission. Johnston stated that if the Commission agreed, they would be happy to put together a proposal for the parkway, its street lights, etc. He promised not to disappoint the Commission. Gaffron stated the design would need to meet standards. Smith asked if anything further should be discussed. Gaffron stated that the Commission had hit all of the items on his punchlist and that he would like to be given time to put on paper what had been discussed. Within a week's time, Gaffron would circulate the report for their review, ask for comments, and then take the recommendation to Council for consideration on August 12. Krall asked if the results of his analysis could be shared with them to ensure they had not missed any key issues. Smith stated that the traffic study would need to be performed soon, and a review of the market study would be interesting to ensure that the development will succeed. Johston agreed. Smith asked the applicant to compile a list of other places, somewhat similar to their proposal, which the Commissioners could visit on their own time. Gaffron inquired as to the type of lighting proposed within the development. Johnston stated that they would light the main drive, and use security lighting along the other roads. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Fritzler seconded, recommending the approval of Application#02-2789, Dahlstrom Development LLC, 2550 Wayzata Boulevard, based on the discussion of July 15 and July 17,2002, and preceding, and based upon approval of the written report that Planning Director Gaffron will be preparing, the Commission would like to recommend based on that report a recommendation to the City Council that they would move forward on this application as presented in the write-up. Recommending Concept Plan Approval subject to final documentation. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to close the Public Hearing at 8:14 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PAGE 21 OF 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, July 17,2002 5:30 o'clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Berg moved, Smith seconded,to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 P.M. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M. andra Smith, Chair PAGE 22 OF 22