HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/21/2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair David Rahn, Commissioners Cynthia Bremer,Ralph Kempf,Travis Winkey, Roland Jurgens, and
Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planner Janice
Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Bob Sansevere was present.
Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
OLD BUSINESS
1. #05-3131 STEVE BOHL OF BORLAND DEVELOPMENT,INC., 190 WILLOW DRIVE
NORTH AND 177 GLENDALE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT AND GENERAL CONCEPT
PLAN APPROVAL,6:01 P.M.—6:30 P.M.
Steve Bohl, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron noted this application has appeared before the Planning Commission a number of times
previously,with the applicant being requested at the October Planning Commission meeting to submit
certain revisions.
Gaffron indicated the applicant has made the following revisions to Lots 8, 9, and 10: One,the
boundaries of Lots 8, 9,and 10 have been shifted slightly; and two,the amount of proposed fill in the
wetland within Lot 8 is increasing from 1600 square feet to 2000 square feet, which is the maximum that
is allowed by WCA rules under the deminimum clause. This revision and a slightly revised house layout
on Lot 8 results in elimination of the variances to wetland buffer/setback width that would have been
required under the prior plan. Gaffron noted there may be other subtle changes in the plans which have
not been identified by Staff. In addition, the City Engineer has not yet commented on the recently
submitted plans.
Gaffron stated the applicant has submitted a revised Wetland Delineation Report,which indicates that the
portions of the road ditch along Willow Drive are incidental wetland; i.e., areas of wetland created solely
as a result of actions by public or private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the
wetland. The applicants are requesting that MCWD declare this portion of wetland as incidental and not
subject to a replacement plan.
The City's wetland consultant,John Smyth,reviewed the plans to determine the potential impacts of the
proposed wetland filling and to determine if there were options to rearrange lot lines to avoid the need for
wetland buffer setback variances on Lots 7 and 8. Smyth concluded that the City should support a
potential revision to the classification of the wetland along the Willow Drive frontage of Lot 10, allowing
the lot lines for Lots 8, 9, and 10 to shift westward. This could potentially allow for reductions,instead of
increases,to the fill in the wetland in Lot 8,which is considered by the City's consultant to be a more
valuable wetland to protect than that in Lot 10 along Willow Drive.
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3131 STEVE BOHL, CONTINUED)
Gaffron stated the applicant and staff met with Adam Arvidson,landscape architect with DSU, on
November 7th to review the Rural Oasis study and its applicability to this site. Gaffron noted Arvidson's
comments are included within the commissioners' packets.
The Park Commission has reviewed this plan on November 7th and is recommending that the trail
connection along the private road and through the church property to Glendale Drive be a public
pedestrian and bike trail. Gaffron noted the Park Commission did not discuss further the issue of
potential wetland conflicts with the trail easements requested along the entire Willow Drive frontage of
the plat. The Planning Commission had concluded on October 17th that the combination of Outlot B and
the proposed trail connection to Glendale would satisfy the RPUD 10 percent private recreation area
requirement,with no park fee reimbursement for either of these elements, even though the trail through
the church property will be public.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
1. Inclusion of a 10-foot trail easement along the west boundary of the entire property.
2. Submittal of suitable landscape plans,tree preservation and augmentation plans showing how
development of the site can meet the City's Conservation Design goals.
3. Submittal of written confirmation that MCWD will accept the 2000 square feet wetland
filling as proposed for Lot 8.
Gaffron indicated the applicant has only recently submitted recommendations from Applied Ecological
Services dated November 18, 2005,with regards to Conservation Design. Staff has only had a chance to
briefly review this material prior to tonight's meeting.
Bohl stated he met with Shardlow&Associates regarding the Rural Oasis corridor and Conservation
Plan. Bohl indicated he has submitted the results of the meeting with Doug Mensing, AES, who has
written a letter outlining his recommendations for the site.
Bohl stated the AES classified the site,which historically has been used for farming, as degraded, and that
ecologically the site, especially Outlot B, can be improved by bringing some of the native plantings back
on the site. Bohl indicated the recommendations of the Park Commission would also be incorporated into
the plan.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant is receptive with the recommendations from AES.
Bohl stated he is and that they would be incorporating the AES's recommendations into the landscape
plan.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant has received a letter from the Watershed District approving the fill.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3131 STEVE BOHL,CONTINUED)
Bohl stated they are required to have preliminary plat approval prior to going before the Watershed
District.
Gaffron stated he has indicated to the applicant that he would be willing to speak with the Watershed
District regarding this application and would make the request that the MCWD make some preliminary
findings on the fill.
Bohl indicated he did receive an e-mail from the MCWD stating they were allowed up to the maximum of
2000 feet of fill on the prior plan.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant would be able to revise the landscape plan as well as include a trail
easement prior to the City Council meeting.
Bohl stated he would be. Bohl stated he has a concern with the trail if he is required to delineate the
wetland near the trail. Bohl indicated if he is required to delineate the wetland,he would not be able to
have the landscape plan approved until the spring.
Winkey inquired if the landscape plan would reflect every item in the report.
Bohl stated the AES recommendations would be included in the landscape plan. Bohl noted this site has
a considerable amount of buckthorn and other invasive species and is recommended be removed. Bohl
indicated he is in agreement with the AES recommendations.
Jurgens inquired whether a developer's agreement would be entered into on this application.
Gaffron stated there would be a RPUD agreement and a separate development agreement that defines
what specific items need to be completed by the applicant.
Jurgens inquired whether the Council would then approve the development agreement.
Gaffron stated the Council would review it and then approve it and that the Planning Commission would
not need to approve it.
Jurgens inquired whether the applicant is opposed to the ten-foot easement.
Bohl stated he is unsure what the City's expectations are concerning the trail, and questioned who would
be maintaining the public trail.
Gaffron stated if the trail is dedicated to the public, the City would likely maintain it similar to the other
trails located throughout the city,but that the Planning Commission could discuss whether it would like
the developer to maintain it instead. Gaffron commented it is likely the trail would not be maintained in
the wintertime unless the trail needs to be accessed.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3131 STEVE BOHL, CONTINUED)
Rahn noted the Planning Commission spoke last time about the trail helping to meet the 10 percent land
dedication and not who would be constructing or maintaining the trail.
Gaffron suggested the Park Commission review this application again to obtain their recommendations on
who would construct the trail and maintain it. Gaffron stated if that wetland area near the trail is
considered incidental, it would not be an issue.
Jurgens stated in his opinion the City should not be purchasing any land or easement for this trail and
should not construct the trail. Jurgens stated he does feel,however,that the City should maintain the trail
if it is dedicated for public use.
Bohl stated in his view it would be fair that he be given credit for the land and the cost of the trail.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
There were no public comments concerning this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing.
Rahn stated he is comfortable with this application, especially since the applicant is receptive to all the
recommendations.
Kempf indicated he is very pleased with the revisions made by the applicant and the steps he has taken to
be ecological conscious.
Bremer moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3131, Steve Bohl of
Bohland Development,Inc., 190 Willow Drive North, and 177 Glendale Drive,granting preliminary
plat and general concept plan approval,subject to the following conditions: One,the Park
Commission recommendations are followed with respect to trail easement and trail construction;
two,the applicant agrees to fulfill all the recommendations outlined in the AES letter; three,
submittal of a landscape plan incorporating the recommendations of the AES and the Park
Commission; four,submittal of written confirmation of the approval from the MCWD,with the
understanding that if approval is not received from the Watershed District,the application would
need to reappear before the Planning Commission. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
2. STEVE BOHL OF BORLAND DEVELOPMENT"3500"WATERTOWN ROAD,
PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:30 P.M.—6:55 P.M.
Steve Bohl, Applicant,was present.
Gaffron stated this application has appeared before the Planning Commission on prior occasions, with the
applicant proposing to subdivide this 17-acre parcel to create six single-family residential lots. Under the
revised plan,the applicant is proposing that a new private road extending 700 feet northward from
Watertown Road would serve all six lots. All lots would be served by private septic systems and wells.
Gaffron indicated the revised plan eliminates the southeast building site near Watertown Road and places
all six home sites in the northwest quadrant of the property, on lots ranging from 1.35 acres to 2.56 acres
in dry buildable area. This proposal would be reviewed as a Planned Residential Development.
The applicant has submitted recommendations from Applied Ecological Services dated November 18,
2005, with regards to Conservation Design. In addition, septic testing information has been submitted,
with the sites as proposed being found acceptable.
Gaffron stated on October 26th, Staff met with the City's wetland consultant, John Smyth, to review the
potential wetland impacts of the proposed stormwater pond design that incorporates part of the wetland,
as well as to consider the pro's and con's of a linear pond that would potentially reduce the amount of tree
removal uphill from the wetland. The applicant is currently attempting to gain confirmation of MCWD
acceptance of stormwater ponding located partially within the wetland.
The applicant has also met with Adam Arvidson,landscape architect with DSU,to review the Rural Oasis
study and its applicability to this site. Arvidson indicated that the current layout has addressed the major
concerns for preservation of the long views and wooded backdrop.
Gaffron stated questions remaining unanswered deal with the following:
1. What are the recommendations of AES and Smyth with regards to ponding options? Will
MCWD accept ponding options that encroach into the wetland?
2. Are the proposed lot sizes and widths acceptable in terms of a PRD proposal? If septic system
sites are confirmed to be viable, is Planning Commission comfortable with the site layout? Does
the Planning Commission have any recommendation regarding development limitations to be
addressed in covenants?
3. Is the Planning Commission satisfied that the layout addresses the City's Conservation
Design goals?
4. Are there aspects of the plan that need further refinement?
Bohl stated their goal is to run a linear pond in Outlot B, which would allow the buffer of trees to remain.
Bohl pointed out the MCWD would need to approve that pond. Bohl stated if the wetland in this area is
disturbed,they would need to create another wetland,which is in an area that is filled with invasive
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(STEVE BOHL,3500 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONTINUED)
species. Bohl stated long-term there could be an advantage if the pond were constructed within the
existing wetland because that would enhance the wetland.
Bohl stated he would like this application to move forward to the Council so he may go before the
Watershed District.
Rahn inquired whether the applicant is receptive with the recommendations of the AES.
Bohl indicated he is agreeable with the recommendations. Bohl stated he is hopeful the Watershed
District will see the benefit of maintaining the upland and enhancing the wetland.
Rahn inquired whether there is a chance to make all the lots the same size.
Jurgens stated the homes would be pushed further down the slope if they were required to be the same
size.
Bohl commented resizing the lots would also create the need for additional grading. Bohl stated they
would be grading for the street and then do site grading at the time the house is ready to be constructed,
which will help eliminate some unnecessary grading.
Kempf pointed out the road is not perfectly straight and that the houses are not evenly set back. Kempf
stated in his view this should not have the appearance of a linear development.
Jurgens commented it is a good idea not to do the mass grading at the beginning of the development,
which will allow more flexibility with the building pads.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn closed the public hearing.
Rahn stated he does not have an issue with moving the application forward to the Council given the
submittal of the septic information.
Gaffron pointed out one of the septic sites appears to be a split system,which is doable.
Bremer inquired whether that is the alternate septic site.
Gaffron stated that would be the alternative septic site. Gaffron reviewed the comments of John Smythe,
noting that the impacts to the wetland are from a proposed treatment pond, which is proposed to be
located within the wetland to preserve the wooded area on the site.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(STEVE BOHL,3500 WATERTOWN ROAD, CONTINUED)
Gaffron noted Smythe made the following recommendations:
1. Shift pond slightly to southwest to further avoid trees and potentially the creek.
2. Currently a pipe from catch basin two and three cut across the wooded area to a manhole and then
the treatment pond. It is recommended that these catch basins be routed along the proposed road
to catch basin seven so only one pipe crosses the wooded area. Realignment of a pipe from catch
basin seven to the pond could also reduce impacts to the wooded area and could be aligned to
discharge at the upstream portion of the pond to provide better treatment.
3. Consideration will need to be made in the pond design and location to insure that the creek
does not flow into the pond and reduce its treatment efficiency by flushing it with clean water.
Gaffron stated Smythe further indicates that it appears that wetland mitigation can be accomplished on the
site within Outlot B along the east side of the wetland where the slopes become more gradual. Currently
this area is an open field.
Gaffron stated what is being proposed does not appear to be contrary to the recommendations of Smythe.
Bremer moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application 05-3152,Bohland
Development,Inc.,"3500"Watertown Road,granting of preliminary plat and general concept plan
approval, subject to approval by the MCWD for the stormwater treatments and linear stormwater
pond; two,compliance with the recommendations of AES as outlined in Doug Mensing's letter;
three, compliance with John Smythe's recommendations; and four,granting of a conservation
easement to preserve the trees on Lots 1,2, and 3 and Outlot B. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
3. #05-3139 HILL SCHOOL,2180 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND VARIANCES, 6:55 P.M.—7:10 P.M.
Merry Beth Hovey, Hill School,was present.
Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing to construct a 30' by 36' addition on the rear of their existing
building to accommodate office space, classroom space, and an additional bathroom. The applicant is
requesting side yard and side street setback variances as well as a conditional use permit amendment in
order to construct an addition to the existing school building closer than 50 feet from both the western
side yard and the side street of Briar Street. The applicant is also requesting permission to utilize a
temporary trailer for offices during construction,which can be achieved through a staff permit that
establishes a timeline for removal of the trailer.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3139 HILL SCHOOL,CONTINUED)
Gundlach stated a number of prior conditional use permits have been granted for this property, with only
the two most recent CUPs being applicable to the current property owner.
Staff finds there may be hardships that warrant variance approval. The western side yard setback
variance is reasonable as the Minnetonka Arts Center,which is also operating under a conditional use
permit, is the adjacent use and not a residential home. The side street yard setback variance may also be
reasonable due to the existence of Briar Street instead of being directly adjacent to a residential home.
Gundlach noted a side street setback variance was granted under Resolution#3424 for the existing gravel
parking area, which is a further encroachment than the proposed addition.
Gundlach reviewed Zoning Ordinance Section 78-916. Gundlach stated although setback variances are
requested, the degree of variance will not increase due to the location of the existing building. Staff finds
no evidence that the proposed addition would be detrimental to the pubic health, safety or welfare, or be
materially injurious to properties or improvement in the vicinity. Further, the City has no record of
neighbor complaints and has determined the use to be in compliance with any and all active conditional
use permits. Gundlach stated aside from the variance discussed above,the proposed addition meets front
and rear yard setbacks, complies with structural coverage limitations, and is not subject to hardcover
restrictions.
Gundlach stated a parking variance was granted to allow parking to be located within the required 50-foot
side street yard.
Gundlach noted the floor plan depicts stairwells on the west of the proposed addition. Gundlach stated it
is unclear from the plans whether the stairways are to be enclosed.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variances and the conditional use permit to allow
construction of the addition as proposed. Staff will also issue a permit allowing the temporary trailer for
the duration of construction.
Hovey indicated she has no comments in addition to Staff's report.
Rahn inquired what the duration of the construction is expected to be.
Hovey stated they are anticipating to be completed by the fall of 2006.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
Terry Morse,2080 Spates Avenue, stated he has resided at his home for 25 years and that in his opinion
the area is vastly improved with the school operating. Morris stated he is glad there are school children in
the neighborhood utilizing the park and that he is supportive of the application.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3139 HILL SCHOOL, CONTINUED)
Roxanne Heaton,Executive Director of the Minnetonka Center for the Arts, stated they also are in
support of the application. Heaton stated they do understand the need for a construction trailer and they
are not opposed to that request either.
There were no further public comments.
Rahn closed the public hearing.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3139,Hill School,
2180 North Shore Drive,granting of a conditional use permit amendment and setback variances to
permit construction of the addition as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #05-3161 LOREN FRITZ,3845 NORTH SHORE/1635 SHADYWOOD,PRELIMINARY
PLAT,7:10 P.M.—7:42 P.M.
Mike St. Martin, Loucks&Associates,was present.
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval in order to create five lots on one
block to be known as Sherri Lakeview Estates. The preliminary plat includes creation of three
conventional one-half acre lots and two back lots, consisting of a minimum of 0.75 acres,with both back
lots served by 30-foot access outlots. The property abuts North Shore Drive to the north and Shadywood
Road to the east. Driveway accesses for the preliminary plat consist of two accesses along North Shore
Drive and one access along Shadywood Road, all in virtually the same location as the existing driveways.
Proposed Lots 2 and 5 contain homes that will remain as part of the plat. Gundlach noted the house on
the corner lot was recently razed and removed.
Gundlach stated the plat is in conformance with the Orono Community Management Plan with relation to
density and is in conformity with the minimum requirements for the Zoning District.
The applicant has depicted 50-foot x 60-foot building pads, with one wetland being located on the
property. The applicant's proposal meets the required buffer and setback to buffer regulations.
The Community Management Plan indicates a future trail along North Shore Drive and Shadywood Road.
The CMP has not indicated which side of the road the trails are planned for but it does indicate the trail
would be on the shoulder or separated. The Park Commission will be asked to review and comment on
the proposed plat with relation to required park dedication and whether cash and/or land dedication will
be required for the two new lots that will be created.
Gundlach stated it is not anticipated that any improvements to North Shore Drive or Shadywood Road
would be required and no new accesses are proposed. Two private access outlots will be platted, with
Outlot A providing access for Lots 1 and 3 and Outlot B providing access for Lots 4 and 5. Hennepin
County is requesting that the City require dedication of an additional seven feet of right-of-way along
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3161 LOREN FRITZ,CONTINUED)
North Shore Drive for a future right turn lane onto Shadywood Road. It has been the City of Orono's
practice to not require these dedications as the property owner could be compensated for the dedication at
the time the improvement is planned. The Planning Commission may want to determine whether an
additional seven feet should be dedicated and how that impacts the proposed plat with respect to required
setbacks and lot areas.
Gundlach stated the City would require standard 10-foot drainage and utility easements along all
periphery property boundaries and five feet drainage and utility easements along all interior property
boundaries, as well as conservation and flowage easements over the delineated wetland on Lot 4.
Gundlach stated the site is located in the Shoreland Overlay District. The applicant has provided
hardcover calculations that show the existing lots with houses will be conforming and the available
hardcover on the remaining lots.
Gundlach stated the driveway within Outlot B is extensive and requires an extensive retaining wall. A
portion of the retaining wall is higher than four feet and in some spots is as high as 10 feet. The City
Engineer is requesting additional information concerning the retaining wall. Gundlach stated the back lot
standards require a 10-foot setback for driveways in outlots when they are adjacent to a side or rear
property line of an abutting residential lot. Gundlach indicated the driveway within this outlot does not
meet a 10-foot setback to the lot to the west and that she is unsure whether or not the necessary retaining
wall would also need to meet a 10-foot setback. The Planning Commission may also want to discuss
screening of the retaining wall.
Staff recommends tabling the application to allow implementation of the City Engineer recommendations
noted in the letter dated November 9, 2005,regarding rate control and water quality treatment.
St. Martin stated he did speak with the city engineer concerning the retaining wall construction and
driveway setback. St.Martin stated they are proposing a 14-foot driveway, which could be narrowed
somewhat to achieve the 10-foot setback. St. Martin stated they would like to maintain some setback
from the road to the retaining wall from a safety standpoint. St.Martin stated they would be submitting
engineered drawings for the retaining wall,which is tentatively planned to be a boulder wall. St. Martin
indicated they could revise their plan and construct the wall in three tiers instead of one.
St. Martin pointed out the exact layout of the houses and trail has not yet been determined. St.Martin
stated they are in agreement with Staff on holding off with the additional seven-foot right-of-way
dedication.
St. Martin stated they are proposing to do a series of rain gardens and swales to help filter the water and
limit the rate of water runoff.
St. Martin stated in his mind the 50-foot landing area suggested by the city engineer is excessive and
might be required for a public street,but since this is proposed to be a private road,they have attempted to
achieve a 20-foot landing area.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3161 LOREN FRITZ,CONTINUED)
Rahn pointed out the Planning Commission does rely on the recommendations of the City Engineer and if
the applicant is able to arrive at a mutually agreeable conclusion with the City Engineer,he would be fine
with that.
Winkey stated he has a concern regarding the adjoining property to the south and how that might be
developed in the future. Winkey inquired whether there would be the potential to expand that driveway to
also serve that property.
Gundlach stated in her view it would make more sense to develop the property to the south at the same
time,but since the two properties are not being developed together and are in separate ownership,the
parcel to the south would need to come before the city in the future and go through an application process
in order to subdivide.
Winkey commented there are multiple driveways coming off of the road in this area. Winkey inquired
whether any thought was given to a central driveway to serve these properties. Winkey stated ultimately
there is going to be a long driveway constructed along the edge of the property.
Gundlach stated Hennepin County has indicated the proposed accesses are acceptable because they are
existing accesses. Gundlach stated if there were an access off of North Shore or Shadywood, there would
need to be a 400-foot separation from the intersection.
Gaffron stated the distance available would be less than 300 feet, and that if both property owners were in
agreement on development of the parcels,the ideal solution would be to do something that solves access
to both parcels. Gaffron stated Fritz has attempted to purchase the southern parcel to no avail.
Gaffron stated the City's subdivision ordinances do contain some language regarding half roads to
property boundaries being provided to serve other adjacent properties but that does not necessarily mean
it is the logical thing to pursue. Gaffron indicated there are topography issues and lot width issues.
Gaffron stated the proposed driveway is not the ideal situation but that in his view there is not anything
the City is able to do unless the other property owner is willing to become involved in this process.
Rahn stated he would like to see a detailed view of what this development would look like from the west.
Bremer stated she has a concern with the retaining walls and that in her opinion the Planning Commission
needs to have something more concrete regarding the retaining walls and the house layout before
approving the application. Bremer stated in her opinion the view of this development from the street
should be considered and that the houses may appear to be cluttered.
Jurgens requested Staff explain the 10-foot setback.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
#05-3161 LOREN FRITZ,CONTINUED)
Gundlach stated Item C says driveways within a back lot shall be located at least 10 feet from the side or
rear lot lines of adjacent lots. Gundlach stated in her view the intent is to require a larger setback for a
residential lot.
Jurgens inquired whether Lot 5 would count as an adjacent lot and whether ten feet would be required on
both sides of the driveway.
Gundlach stated her interpretation is that Lot 5 is part of the plat and that the standards exist to alleviate
concerns dealing with setbacks to parcels not included within the development. Gundlach stated it is not
clear whether the retaining wall should meet a 10-foot setback. Gundlach pointed out other sections of
the code require a five-foot setback for retaining walls to lot lines.
Bremer stated as long as the prospective buyers are aware of the close proximity of the driveway, she
would not be opposed to shifting the driveway all the way over to the eastern edge of the outlot.
Kempf stated in his view the shifting of the driveway toward Lot 5 would be more intrusive than locating
the driveway closer to the western edge of the outlot.
Jurgens stated the lot containing the pole barn could also be redeveloped sometime in the future.
Rahn commented the development would be more widely viewed from County Road 19. Rahn stated
typically the Planning Commission has taken the position that retaining walls are, at a minimum, five feet
from the adjoining property.
Rahn opened the public hearing.
Marlene Fritz, 3845 North Shore Drive, stated they have resided in their home since 1968 and that their
main purpose for purchasing the property was for the trees and privacy and that they would like to
maintain that as much as possible. Fritz pointed out there is a wetland with a pole barn adjacent to it.
Fritz stated in her opinion the neighbor's view would not be affected because their sight would be
obstructed and that the people traveling on Highway 19 would also not be able to see the development
due to the trees.
Mark Dobratz, 3865 North Shore Drive, inquired how the water drainage would be handled off the back
lot.
Mary Dobratz stated that area was not a wetland when they purchased the property approximately 13
years ago and that it was not called a wetland until this area was surveyed. Dobratz indicated at certain
times in some years there is some standing water in the area. Dobratz stated in her opinion the reason for
the standing water this year is the culvert that is adjacent to the Fritz's driveway that runs under North
Shore goes into a bonifide wetland and is continually blocked up. Dobratz stated Hennepin County has
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
#05-3161 LOREN FRITZ,CONTINUED)
cleaned that area out but it continues to back up with sediment. Dobratz stated they are not concerned
about the retaining wall and the view from the road.
Rahn commented the City Engineer would be reviewing the retaining wall and driveway.
Mark Dobrartz stated there are hardwood trees growing in that area that they are calling a wetland.
Gundlach stated wetlands are not always determined on whether they contain water. Gundlach stated
wetlands are delineated based on approximately 10 different factors.
Faith Christine, 3925 North Shore Drive, stated she is delighted that the Fritz's bought and tore down the
eyesore on the corner and that this project will be an improvement to the neighborhood in her opinion.
Angela Williams, 1675 Shadywood Road, questioned the access to the property from Shadywood and
how far back that driveway goes.
Gundlach stated the Shadywood Road access will remain in the exact same location and that there is no
intention to remove the house on that lot.
Williams commented she does not feel this application will be a problem.
The public hearing was closed.
Rahn stated he would like to see a landscape plan for this development at the next meeting.
Bremer inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of the seven-foot easement.
Gaffron indicated a few years ago Hennepin County adopted a trail plan and they concluded that a seven-
foot easement should be granted at the time of platting of properties if a trail is called for in that area.
Gaffron stated if a city does not dedicate the additional right-of-way at the time of platting,the city would
be required to pay a greater share for the acquisition of the easement.
Gaffron stated historically the City has taken the position that easements should be negotiated between
the property owner and the county, with the property owner receiving compensation for that easement.
Bremer commented she generally is in support of that philosophy but pointed out in this case the
seven-foot easement would not impact the size conformance of the lots.
Jurgens stated he is in support of the seven-foot easement.
Rahn stated there might be more of a need in this situation for the easement given the close proximity to
the intersection.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3161 LOREN FRITZ, CONTINUED)
St. Martin stated the easement would only be on Lot 1 in that corner for 40 feet and it would not affect
any building setbacks.
Gundlach stated the seven-foot dedication would still leave the lot at one-half acre. Gundlach noted that
lot is considered a side street and would only require a 15-foot structure setback. Gundlach stated the
plans appear to depict a 30-foot setback without the seven-foot dedication. Gundlach stated the letter
from Hennepin County does not contain any time line or design for the turn lane but is something that
they feel may need to be constructed in the future.
Gaffron indicated Hennepin County's right-of-way is not for 40 feet but it is the width of the right-of-way
from the centerline for the entire length of the road.
Gundlach stated the trail has not been designed yet and that if the seven-foot were dedicated on proposed
Lots 1 and 5,the half-acre minimum would still be met.
Berg stated she would be willing to forego the seven-foot easement.
Rahn stated he would be in favor of tabling the application to allow the applicant to continue to work with
the city engineer.
Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to table Application#05-3161,3845 North Shore/1635 Shadywood.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
5. #05-3162 CITY OF ORONO—ZONING AMENDMENT: GATE HEIGHTS,7:42 P.M.—
7:53 P.M.
Gundlach stated this ordinance amendment is in response to a recent appeal. The attached amendment
includes revisions requested by the Fire Marshall, discussion by the City Council at a September work
session,and also the discussion that took place at the November Planning Commission work session.
Gundlach stated the amendment aims to clarify maximum gate height when attached to entrance
monuments and also to establish revised horizontal widths between monuments for emergency vehicle
access.
Gundlach noted the Planning Commission had discussed at its last work session a maximum height of six
feet, and it was determined that gates the height of the monument would be acceptable. Gundlach stated
the City's current ordinance allows for an eight-foot monument, which would allow an eight-foot high
gate. Gundlach stated the language in the ordinance amendment is that the gate height may not exceed
the height of the monument measured from grade, which means if the full eight-foot height is not utilized,
the gate would be restricted to the height of the monument. In addition, the following language was
added to the amendment: "For all properties, gate height may not exceed the height of the monument,
measured from grade, unless principal structure setbacks are met(if monuments are not proposed,then
gate height shall be regulated in accordance with the fence height regulations of Section 78-1405 (7)."
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3162 CITY OF ORONO, GATE HEIGHTS,CONTINUED)
Gundlach stated in those situations where no monuments are proposed and a gate is to be installed within
an existing fence,they would need to comply with the existing fence regulations.
Gundlach pointed out an opacity level was also discussed, with the Council originally proposing 50
percent. Gundlach stated the conclusion at the work session was an opacity level of no greater than 25
percent.
Rahn stated the eight-foot height was discussed because the majority of the gates in the City can be seen
through. Rahn inquired whether the height should be discussed if you cannot see through the gate or
whether that type of gate would fall under the fence standards.
Gundlach stated fence standards limit allowed height to six feet if you live on a major road and you have
a lakeshore lot. Gundlach stated if you have entrance monuments,you would then be subject to the
opacity standard of the entrance monument section of the code.
Rahn questioned whether the height is defined on a gate that is more solid but is not a lakeshore lot.
Gundlach stated in her opinion the language in the amendment should cover that situation. Gundlach
stated if there is not a fence, the property owner would need to have something to anchor the gate to,
which would subject the gate to the monument standards. Gundlach pointed out the City's fence code
does specify an opacity level.
Rahn inquired if the 25 percent opacity level is not met, whether that is defined somewhere in the City's
codes.
Gaffron stated perhaps language could be added that if the property owner does not want to meet the
opacity limit,they are limited to a certain height.
Rahn stated that language would help clarify it.
Bremer concurred with Rahn.
Gundlach inquired whether language under Item 5 should be added stating that if you meet principal
structure setbacks, a complete privacy gate would be allowed.
Rahn stated language could also be added stating that if the gate is greater than 25 percent opacity,the
gate would than fall under the City's fence regulations.
Berg inquired whether there are a lot of privacy gates in the City.
Gundlach stated the City does have a photograph of almost all the entrance gates and monuments in the
City and that there is only one that would not meet the 25 percent opacity level. Gundlach stated under
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
•
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3162 CITY OF ORONO,GATE HEIGHTS, CONTINUED)
that particular situation, it would fall under the fence ordinance. Gundlach stated because that lot is a
lakeshore lot on a county road, which allows the property owner to have a six-foot fence.
Sansevere inquired if the City clearly defines what a monument is.
Gundlach stated the existing language in the proposed amendment does define a monument in Item a as a
single pillar with a footprint measuring no larger than 25 square feet, with no length to exceed five feet.
Gundlach indicated she also added language regulating the gate per approved driveway access.
Sansevere stated he is in agreement that the maximum height of the gate should be at eight feet to match
the allowed height of the monument.
Gundlach stated you could have a six-foot gate that is solid if you live along the lakeshore and/or live
along a county road if you construct a fence with a gate in it. Gundlach commented it might be helpful if
she distributes some of the information provided by Beaver Landscaping as part of the ordinance appeal.
Gundlach indicated that information basically shows that the majority of the gates manufactured would
meet a 25 percent opacity level.
Jurgens inquired whether he would be allowed to drive in two steel posts six inches in diameter at the end
of his driveway,put a fancy cap on them, and have it be considered a monument.
Gundlach stated that would be considered a monument. Gundlach stated a gate not exceeding the height
of the monument could be installed. Gundlach stated it would not be possible to construct a floating
privacy gate without any monuments,regardless if the monuments are 25 square foot or a single pole.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Bremer moved,Berg seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3162, City of Orono,
Zoning Amendment: Gate Heights, as proposed by City Staff. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
6. CITY OF ORONO—ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT:
CONSERVATION DESIGN,7:53 P.M.—8:00 P.M.
Gaffron noted this is draft number two of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance amendment for
implementing the Conservation Design principles established within the Orono Rural Oasis comp plan
amendment. This draft has been transmitted to DSU, Inc., for review, whose comments have yet to be
received.
Gaffron noted the density bonus standards for urban density development has been deleted in this draft.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
. 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(CITY OF ORONO,ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENT,CONTINUED)
Gaffron indicated he has not received a response from DSU and that in his view there needs to be some
additional work on this amendment prior to it proceeding forward to the Council. Gaffron suggested the
application be tabled until the comments are received from DSU.
Berg moved,Bremer seconded,to table Application#05-3164, City of Orono,Zoning & Subdivision
Code Amendment: Conservation Design. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
7. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS OCTOBER 24 AND NOVEMBER 14,2005
Bremer indicated she attended the October 24 meeting and noted she did report on the meeting at the last
Planning Commission work session.
Gaffron stated the Council did approve the Dayton application.
Sansevere reported on the November 14, 2005 City Council meeting,noting a resident had come before
the Council complaining of a sewer backup into her residence.
Gaffron stated the City's insurer had decided that they would be denying the claim but that the City is
accepting responsibility for the backup.
Kempf stated it would be valuable to educate developers on the City's goals with the Rural Oasis Study,
and encouraged the Council to reward developers who take that initiative.
Gundlach stated the other item approved by the Council was the proposed shed for the
Chapman property at 12' by 12' with the steppingstones.
Jurgens stated the Planning Commission should take into consideration when you are going to build a
home that goes lot line to lot line and a request is being made to approve a lot width variance,that
screening should be provided for the neighbors on the property of the applicant. Jurgens stated he was
unaware in the Broitzman application that that applicant had proposed screening on the neighbors'
property.
Gaffron stated the Council told the applicant that he could go forward on the average setback line. The
applicant has since designed a smaller house with a detached garage,which has resulted in a number of
issues being raised regarding wetland and driveway access. Gaffron indicated it is his understanding that
Broitzman is now looking at other properties.
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,November 21,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to schedule a work session for December.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not schedule a work session for December.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 17,2005
Bremer moved,Jurgens seconded,to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of
October 17,2005,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
10. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
NOVEMBER 28 AND DECEMBER 12,2005
November 28, 2005—Kempf
December 12, 2005 —Winkey
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved,Berg seconded,to djou n the Orono lanning ommission meeting at 8:14 p.m.
David Rahn, Chair
PAGE 18