HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-19-2016 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Loren Schoenzeit, Jon Schwingler, and John
Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner
Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Dennis
Walsh was present.
Chair Leskinen opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of the Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
NOVEMBER 16,2016
Schwingler moved,Thiesse seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of November 16,2016. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. #15-3792 JOHN AND BEN KIEFFER,2024 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,6:32
P.M.—6:42 P.M.
John and Ben Kieffer,Applicants, were present.
Gaffron stated the applicants initially requested variances to replace the existing detached garage on the
property with an attached garage and living space above it. The Planning Commission tabled the
application on November 16 at the request of the applicants. The applicants have submitted a revised
proposal for a detached garage and are now requesting side setback, hardcover and structural coverage
variances.
The revised proposal includes construction of a 22' x 25' two-stall garage located 30-plus feet from the
street lot line and five feet from the south side lot line where a 10-foot setback is required. This will be an
end-loading garage with a tapered driveway and backup apron allowing for ample off-street parking and a
safe forward access movement onto Shadywood Road. The applicants are also proposing a 3-foot wide
sidewalk from the garage to the house.
Structural coverage is increasing from 18.5 percent to 20.2 percent. Normally 15 percent is allowed. The
lot is approximately 40 feet wide. The increase in structural coverage is a result of the increased garage
size to comfortably accommodate two vehicles plus some level of starage. The increased functionality of
a 2-stall garage versus the existing 1-stall with storage is relatively apparent.
There will be an increase in hardcover from 31.9 percent to 32.85 percent. The increase in hardcover for
the proposed new garage is a direct result of the additional length of driveway needed to serve it. The
applicant has proposed an alternative to attaching a garage and has reduced the magnitude of hardcover
increase as a result. A minimal 10' x 12' backup apron is proposed for safety purposes.
Page 1 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
The City has received a letter from one of the neighbors expressing their support for the application. That
neighbor also has a detached garage and this garage would be roughly set back the same distance.
Staff recommends approval based upon the enhanced safety and functionality provided. Overall, lot
coverage and hardcover are increasing slightly in order to accomplish the goals of having a safe driveway
access situation and a fully functional 2-stall garage. The Planning Commission should review the
standards for granting variances and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Lemke asked if the location of the garage is due to the tree in that area.
Gaffron indicated the side setback variance for the garage will not result in saving the tree that was the
subject of prior discussions. Gaffron illustrated the tree on the overhead.
Lemke asked if Staff feels this is the best option.
Gaffron stated he does.
John Kieffer, Applicant, stated they took the Planning Commission's comments to heart and they have
revised their plans to incorporate those recommendations. Kieffer indicated they did make an attempt to
minimize hardcover and the proposed driveway is the minimum that can be built to provide for a safe
driveway. In addition, the hardcover in the easement would be removed. Kieffer stated when you think
about the neighborhood, this house is already significant smaller than the neighboring homes and that this
proposal would not even make it remotely close to those homes.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
Leskinen stated she likes this plan better than what was originally proposed and that the driveway apron is
required for safety.
Landgraver stated the fact that the adjoining neighbor is in favor of it is a good sign.
Thiesse stated the applicants have taken the recommendations of the Planning Commission to heart and
that the only item that could possibly be removed would be the service sidewalk to the garage.
Schoenzeit stated the plan looks good. Schoenzeit noted removal of that service sidewalk would result in
a decrease of 10 square feet.
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3792,John
and Ben Kieffer,2024 Shadywood Road,granting of side setback, hardcover, and structural
coverage variances to allow the construction of a detached garage. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
3. #15-3795 SOUTHVIEW DESIGN ON BEHALF OF ROBERT AND BETH SCHNELL,
1130 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RAD SOUTH,VARIANCES,6:42 P.M.-6:55 P.M.
Tim Johnson, Southview Design, was present.
Page 2 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the applicant at the November Planning Commission meeting requested four variances in
order to allow construction of decks, a pergola, and an in-ground pool on the lake side of the home
requiring an average lakeshore setback variance, a wetland setback variance, a lake setback variance from
the OHWL of French Lake, and a hardcover variance for hardcover within 75 feet of the OHWL.
In response to the feedback given in November, the applicant modified the proposal and the variances
requested. The applicants have redesigned or removed the pool and pool patio from within the 75-foot
setback area. The applicants are now requesting an average lakeshore setback, lake setback variance, and
structure to structure setback variance for the proposed plan. The applicant has submitted this plan which
results in the design following the setback line.
A portion of the proposed stair and wall on the right side of the structure is within the 75-foot setback.
The applicants are allowed lake access as is any lakeshore lot. The corner of the pool encroaches as close
as six feet to the bottom stair and pergola overhang of the adjacent dining deck. A variance would be
needed to allow this configuration. Curtis noted Staff's report has it listed as four feet, which is in error,
instead of six feet. A 10-foot separation is also required. The pool does meet the setback from the actual
deck surface. It is the stair ad pergola overhang that encroaches.
The Planning Commission should evaluate the practical difficulty criteria against the requested revised
variances and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow modifications to or construction of the
decks and pergola lakeward of the average lakeshore setback and the 150-foot lake setback from French
Lake as well as the variance to allow the less than 10-foot separation between the deck, stairs, and pool.
The Planning Commission should discuss the additional hardcover resulting from the paver walkway
within the 75-foot setback, but Staff recommends denial of that hardcover.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Tim Johnson, Southview Design, stated the major difference in their plan is that they have pulled the bulk
of the overall project to the house side of the 75-foot setback. By doing that, the living space of the house
has been reduced significantly and the size of the pool has been reduced to a 10' x 22' pool area. Johnson
noted the blue line that goes entirely through the majority of the home is the 75-foot line. The only part
that exceeds the 75-foot line is that small sliver or triangle, which would be basically one step and a small
corner of the retaining wall, which is needed in order to provide lake access. Everything else that is
planned is outside the 75-foot line.
Johnson stated the deck area around the sun porch area is existing and that footprint will not be changed
as part of this project. Johnson noted Staff inentioned the setback for the pool and that issue was
discussed previously. The 10-foot setback from the deck to the pool is met with the exception of the step.
Johnson stated that is the point that is approximately six feet from the water's edge to the bottom tread.
Currently the deck does not have stairs to gain access to the pool environment and the property owners
would like to add those stairs so they can access the pool environment versus taking the catwalk.
Johnson stated in his view everything is safe and functions welL Johnson indicated they have reduced
things significant based on the comments made by the Planning Commission at the last meeting.
Page 3 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Johnson noted the walkway lakeside of the 75-foot area is not a structural walkway and that they will not
installing concrete or pavers. Johnson indicated those would be simple flagstone pieces that would be
hand set in the ground to allow someone to walk from staircase to staircase. The project is also outside of
the wetland setback. Johnson stated they feel good about the new plan given the direction by the
Planning Commission at the previous meeting.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
Schoenzeit requested Staff explain the structure to structure setback.
Curtis stated the City has a 10-foot separation setback between structures. Typically that would be to
preserve open space and not allow a structure to be located right up against a house. Curtis stated in this
situation it might not make a lot of sense.
Leskinen asked if the setback is six feet.
Curtis stated it would be six feet to the bottom step.
Leskinen stated in her view six feet would not be too much of a safety hazard, especially since it is a stair.
Leskinen stated she likes this plan better than the original plan but that she is not sold on the stone
walkway. Leskinen stated she does not see a practical difficulty for accepting the flagstone walkway in
addition to everything else.
Thiesse stated if the flagstone is not there,the ground would become compacted anyway from people
walking on it.
Schwingler indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse.
Schoenzeit stated this applicant, as well as the previous applicant, have taken the comments of the
Planning Commission to heart and have done a good job at revising their plans.
Landgraver stated he is hesitant on the flagstone since that will be 100 percent hardcover but the ground
may not be. Landgraver stated otherwise in his view the plan is good and responds to the comments of
the Planning Commission.
Thiesse noted the City requires a driveway in front of a garage or shed since the ground gets compacted
from being driven on and that the flagstone walkway is similar to that.
Schoenzeit stated the project as a whole looks reasonable.
Schoenzeit moved, Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3795,
Southview Design on behalf of Robert and Beth Schnell, 1130 Old Crystal Bay Road South,
granting of average lakeshore setback variance, a hardcover variance,a wetland setback variance,
Page 4 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
and a lake setback variance,subject to Staff recommendations,with the flagstone wallzway being
allowed as shown on the plan. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1, Landgraver Opposed.
Landgraver indicated he is opposed due to the flagstone walkway.
NEW BUSINESS
4. #16-3798 MICHAEL AND HOLLY RUCINSKI,3188 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,
VARIANCE,6:55 P.M.—7:00 P.M.
Michael Rucinski, Applicant,was present.
Curtis stated the applicants are planning a new home on the property and can do so without variances. In
addition,they wish to replace the 422 square foot detached garage with a new structure utilizing the same
footprint and location. The applicants are requesting a variance to permit changes to the volume/building
envelope in order to reconstruct an existing non-conforming detached garage in the same location and
footprint but with a change to the roof. The setback variance is necessary because the proposed shed roof
will encroach into area not currently occupied by roof. The garage is non-conforming because it is
located closer to the street than the home to be constructed. The applicants have provided an overlay to
show the difference in the roof structures.
Staff has provided an analysis ofthe practical difficulties within the report. Staffdoes find practical
difficulties for allowing the new detached garage with a different roof configuration to be constructed in
the location of the existing garage. The high part of the shed roof will be above the entrance to the
garage, which is on the left. As it currently sits, if you see it from the road, it would be lower on the right
side of the garage and a little bit higher on the left because of the configuration and design of the shed
roof. Staff does not believe it will be visible or apparent from the road.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow reconstruction of a new detached garage
streetward of the home on the property subject to the total height of the new garage not exceeding the
total height of the existing garage.
Thiesse asked if the variance is about the location and not size.
Curtis indicated that is correct.
Michael Rucinski, Applicant, stated he has nothing to add to Staff's report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m.
Leskinen stated the application is fairly straight forward and that the proposed garage is being constructed
within the same footprint and location as the existing garage. The only difference is the roof.
Page 5 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Schwingler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3798,
Michael and Holly Rucinski,3188 North Shore Drive,granting of a variance subject to Staff s
recommendation. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
5. #16-3799 INTEGRITY REMODELING & DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF
MATTHEW AND JAMIE HANSON,2060 SPATES AVENUE,VARIANCES,7:00 P.M.—7:30
P.M.
Rick Topalof, Integrity Remodeling, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting front/street and side setback variances in order to construct a
covered open porch on an existing nonconforming accessory building located nearer the street than the
principal residence structure. The proposal also requires variances for individual and total accessory
structure footprint areas since the addition converts the building's status to that of an oversize accessory
structure.
The addition to the building expands its footprint to approximately 47' x 2T or 1,262 square feet, making
it an oversized accessory structure. Under Zoning Code Section 78-1434 regarding accessory structure
footprint area, and since no oversize accessory structures are allowed on lots less than 2.0 acres,the
building will require a variance as it will exceed 1,000 square feet for this 1.3 acre lot. That section also
limits the property to no more than 2,000 square feet of total accessory structures. Because there is an
additional existing 819 square foot detached garage on the property, the added covered deck will bring the
total accessory structure square footage for the property to 2,081 square feet, requiring an additional
variance.
Gaffron stated it is uncommon that the City would approve variances to create an oversize accessory
structure by expanding an existing accessory structure, especially when the existing building is
nonconforming in location and the lot is substandard in size. The existing structure comes nowhere near
meeting the principal structure setbacks required for an oversized accessory structure and its proposed
footprint would require a lot of at least three acres in area.
The existing accessory building was administratively approved far installation of a toilet and sink in 2010
and the owners executed the required covenants limiting the uses of the building. An aspect of that
approval was installation of a sewage ejector system directly behind the building which pumps to the
house sewer system. The ejector tank was required to be located ten feet from the back of the building.
However, the proposed covered porch encroaches over an edge of that tank, potentially making future
maintenance of the ejector system more difficult. If the addition is constructed,the property owner
should be required to relocate the tank to meet the required 10-foot setback.
Gaffron stated this lot is technically a through lot because it has frontage on Spates Avenue and backs up
to undeveloped Grand Avenue, requiring accessory structures to meet principal structure setbacks. In
addition, the addition constitutes expansion of a non-conforming structure and does not meet the zoning
code criteria for such an expansion.
If the Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met and the variances are
justified,then a recommendation for approval may be in order. If the Planning Commission finds that the
practical difficulties test is not met, a recommendation for denial, or tabling for revisions, may be
appropriate.
Page 6 of 30
i
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
No comments have been received from the neighbors.
The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues:
1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
3. If the Planning Commission concludes that the variances as requested or in some other manner or
configuration are justified, does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order
to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the variances?
Gaffron displayed a sketch of the proposal.
Landgraver asked if this addition would impact the gravel driveway.
Gaffron illustrated the location of the gravel driveway and the driveway to the house on the overhead.
Gaffron stated the addition is to the back of the building and not to the front. Based on the survey, there
appears to be three or four feet from the porch to the gravel driveway.
Lemke asked what the height of the proposed building is.
Gaffron stated the building will meet City height requirements and that the applicant could advise the
Planning Commission on whether the height of the building will be raised.
Thiesse noted the practical difficulties statement is blank.
Gaffron noted the applicants did answer the required 12 questions but did not add anything else.
Rick Topalof, Integrity Remodeling, stated they are not raising the roof on the existing structure. Topalof
stated the plan is to tie in below the peak of the existing roof and bring it down across the deck.
Schoenzeit asked if the foundation of the building has been verified.
Topalof stated his company enhanced that structure in 2010. The structure is over 100 years old and was
built in 191 l. There are 2 x 4 constructed walls inside the structure. The majority of the weight of the
roof will be carried to the footings. Topalof stated in their opinion the foundation will be sufficient for
the additional weight.
Schoenzeit stated if the foundation is not viable, the location of the building would come into question.
Thiesse asked if there are frost footings under the rest of the structure.
Topalof indicated he is not aware of that and that he could look into it.
Schoenzeit noted the building has existed for over 100 years.
Page 7 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Thiesse pointed out there may be some differential movement between the existing structure and the
addition.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Regina Lasher, 1360 Railroad Avenue, asked how wide the deck would be on the driveway side. Lasher
noted she lives across the street and that they have some concern about people traffic on the side of the
building with the addition.
Topalof stated the walkway is three feet wide.
Thiesse noted there are 2-foot overhangs as well.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
Leskinen stated in her view the practical difficulty of reasonableness is not met and that this would be
expanding an existing nonconformity. In addition,the structure is oversized and is not near the principal
structure. Leskinen stated if this was the only accessory structure on the property, then there might be a
practical difficulty.
Schoenzeit stated the addition is cute but that he would like to know how this would not set a precedent
for other nonconforming structures to expand without a practical difficulty other than the fact that the
structure exists.
Thiesse stated that was his concern as well and that he cannot find a practical difficulty for the expansion.
Schoenzeit stated it is adding to something that is already over and does not have anything unique to it.
Leskinen stated it is already well beyond what a normal oversize structure would be.
Landgraver noted this structure was built a number of decades ago before the City had any of these
restrictions. Landgraver stated in his view it enhances the building and is an improvement to something
that is already there. Landgraver noted the neighborhood has some other accessory structures.
Leskinen asked what the current size of the structure is.
Gaffron indicated it is 22' x 32' or roughly 770 square feet.
Lemke stated he has a concern about expanding the building on the driveway side and that the massive
size of the building does not fit with what he would like to see.
Leskinen noted the maximum allowed in that area is 1,000 square feet and that it is not the only accessory
structure on the property, which is why it is difficult to find a practical difficulty.
Thiesse asked whether any variances would be required if the building were increased to 999 square feet.
Page 8 of 30
I -
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron indicated they would be looking at a 15-foot side setback as well as the other variances in terms
of its location. Gaffron stated they would be required to have a 15-foot setback from the side lot lines
rather than a 30-foot setback for an oversize accessory structure.
Leskinen asked if it would not trigger the maximum allowed on the structure if it is less than 1,000 square
feet.
Gaffron indicated that is correct since it would no longer be considered an oversize accessory structure.
Thiesse stated if the applicants remove the 2-foot eaves, they would be under the 1,000 square feet.
Thiesse stated in his opinion the proposed addition is too large and that it is difficult to prove a practical
difficulty.
Schwingler stated on the other hand it does enhance the building.
Leskinen asked if there would still be the impact on the sewer injector system if the building would be
brought down to below 1,000 square feet.
Gaffron indicated he does not know the answer to that but that there would need to be a 10-foot setback.
Thiesse asked if the building will or has been used for a business.
Gaffron stated that is a standard boilerplate covenant that the City uses on every accessory structure that
has a toilet and sink.
Topalof stated the property owners would be open to reducing the size of the addition and that it is not
used as a commercial space and is simply an art center for the property owners. The property owners
signed the covenant in 2010 when the structure was remodeled. Because of the age of the structures on
the property and the way the plot for the neighborhood was laid out, none of the structures meet the
required setbacks. Topalof noted this addition would not hurt any of the future developments on Grand
Avenue.
Landgraver stated the adjacent neighbor has not raised an objection about it and that the project does have
some positives about it, especially if the applicants are willing to reduce the size.
Schwingler stated if the neighbors were opposed to it, they likely would have said something.
Leskinen stated if the project is scaled back, she would be more willing to approve it. Leskinen noted the
setback is not really an issue since the building has existed in that location for quite some time.
Leskinen asked if the applicant would be agreeable to tabling the application to allow him to redesign.
Topalof stated he would request the application be tabled.
Thiesse moved, Lemke seconded,to table Application No. 16-3799,Integrity Remodeling& Design
Group on behalf of Matthew and Jamie Hanson,260 Spates Avenue,to allow a redesign and
reduction in the size of the addition,with the sewer meeting code. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Page 9 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
6. #16-3800 WHITNEY AND ELIZABETH MACMILLAN, 1560 FOX STREET,AND
CONLEY AND CAROL BROOKS, 1640 FOX STREET,VACATION OF PERIMETER
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH LOT LINE
REARRANGEMENT, 7:31 P.M.—7:38 P.M.
Conley Brooks, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are in the midst of doing a lot line rearrangement, which can be done
administratively. However, there is an easement that exists along the lot line within the larger property.
That easement was created when a subdivision was done some years ago. There was an existing
driveway at that time and the easement was jogged around it. There is also an artificial lake that was
created and Staff is waiting to hear from the MN DNR on whether the artificial lake abutting the
properties is considered a"public water." Staff does not expect the DNR to have an issue with the
easement vacation.
In order to not have the easement become an issue in the future as these two parcels become one, the
applicants have requested and Staff has suggested that the old easement be vacated and a new easement
be created at the new boundary line. The easement to the lake will remain. Staff is not aware of any
utilities in this area. The utility companies have been advised and one company has stated they have no
objection to vacating the easement.
Staff does not see an issue with vacating the easement and recommends approval of the vacation
application for the easement as identified in the attached materials subject to:
1. Brooks granting a replacement 10-foot drainage and utility easement as shown on the plans.
2. The vacation is to become effective only upon completion of the administrative lot line
rearrangement and receipt of the replacement easement.
Thiesse asked if there is a reason why the existing easement is not being vacated along a portion of the
lower property.
Gaffron stated that was the choice of the two property owners, who did not want to vacate that piece of it.
Landgraver asked what the point is by connecting it to the right.
Gaffron stated there is an existing easement that comes down five feet either side of the lot line, which
provides a connection to the street if it is ever required.
Conley Brooks, Applicant, stated he has nothing to add to Staff's report.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
Leskinen stated the application is pretty straight forward.
Page 10 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schwingler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3800,
Whitney and Elizabeth MacMillan, 1560 Fox Street, and Conley and Carol Brooks, 1640 Fox
Street,vacation of perimeter drainage and utility easements in conjunction with lot line
rearrangement,subject to receiving DNR approval being received prior to bringing it before the
City Council,and further subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
7. #16-3801 CARL AND CAREN BORG,3414 LIVINGSTON AVENUE,VARIANCES,7:38
P.M.—7:49 P.M.
Carl and Caren Borg, Applicants, were present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting variances for front street setback, structure-to-structure
setback, and to allow an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure in order to
construct a new 20' x 20' detached garage.
The applicants have owned the existing residence since 2001 and propose to construct a 20' x 20'
detached 2-stall single-story garage. The property currently does not have a garage. The property is
considered a corner lot. The proposed garage will be located just southeast of the house, 25 feet from the
street lot line where a 30-foot setback is required. The garage would also be located approximately 13
feet nearer the street than the house. The minimal garage size and proposed location allow for the garage
to meet the 15-foot required side street setback from Shadywood Lane. The proposed garage will be
approximately eight feet from the deck platform where a 10-foot setback between structures is required.
Gaffron noted the triangular lot shape, the small size of the lot, and the existing house and deck location
make it difficult to locate a detached garage meeting all required setbacks. Gaffron noted the hardcover
will be at 26 percent, with a maximum of 35 percent being allowed. Structural coverage is also not an
issue. If the garage were to be attached to the house,the deck would need to be removed.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. If the Planning Commission determines that the
practical difficulties test is met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval would
be in order.
Landgraver asked if the garage would be in the same basic location as the parking pad.
Gaffron indicated it would be.
Carl Borg, Applicant, asked if the purpose of the survey to describe the end result of the total project.
Borg stated his understanding was that the survey would show him where a garage could be located.
Schoenzeit stated he would be required to submit two surveys: one survey showing the current conditions
and one after the improvements are completed.
Gaffron noted the applicant has submitted both of those. Exhibit B shows the existing conditions and
Exhibit C shows the proposed garage.
Borg stated the post condition depicted on the survey is not what they envisioned as the final product and
that they were not aware that that was what they needed to do. Borg stated he can describe what they
Page 11 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
would like to do. Borg stated the drawing indicates the existing blacktop, which they would like to
remove. The drawing also shows a gravel driveway that would be replaced with hardcover. The
driveway would be straightened as well so it would go directly from the garage down to Livingston.
Borg pointed out there is a power pole off the end of the block wall which limits their options.
Gaffron stated nothing the applicant has suggested so far would be an issue. Gaffron asked if the garage
location as depicted on the survey is where they would like the garage.
Borg indicated it is.
Leskinen asked whether it would be necessary for the applicant to have a different survey prepared prior
to the City Council meeting.
Gaffron indicated a new survey would not be required but Staff would like an as-built survey once the
project is completed.
Landgraver asked if the hardcover would need to be revised.
Gaffron stated hardcover is not an issue on this property and would, in fact, be reduced as part of this
proposal.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m.
Leskinen stated this is a straight forward application and that there is a practical difficulty since there is
no conforming location for the garage. In addition,the proposed garage is very small.
Landgraver stated the proposal is making the best out of a relatively difficult situation and that he would
be in favor of it.
Thiesse stated he would not be opposed to a larger structure.
Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3801, Carl and
Caren Borg,3414 Livingston Avenue,granting of a front street setback variance,a structure-to-
structure variance, and a variance to allow an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the
principal structure. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
8. #16-3802 TCO DESIGN,2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD,REZONING AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT,7:50 P.M.—8:38 P.M.
Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, was present.
Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a rezoning of the property from B-5 to B-4 and a conditional
use permit to allow the operation of a nursing home facility. The proposed facility would be located
Page 12 of 30
r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
within an existing vacant building previously used for a Snyder Drug pharmacy and retail store. A
condition of the use requires 600 feet of lot area per person to be accommodated as well as a 35-foot
setback from the side property line. The property would allow far 3,762 square feet per patient and the
closest side lot line is 51 feet away to the north.
The applicants are proposing to employ a staff of up to 18 and to provide 24-hour care for up to 22
patients. The Planning Commission should look at what the Comprehensive Plan has to say about the
proposed use for this zone.
The Community Management Plan identifies the subject property as a potential mixed use site, suggesting
density in the 4-15 units per acre range. The plan suggests that senior assisted living is a desirable use for
the B-4 district. The Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed use is consistent with
the CMP.
The property is served by municipal water and sanitary sewer. An existing 6-inch water service from
Olive Avenue will be retained. Sanitary sewer is provided through a 6-inch pipe also to Olive Avenue.
Preliminary estimates suggest the system is more than adequate, but a certified analysis of the sanitary
sewer capacity will need to be completed prior to placing this item on the Council agenda.
The adjoining properties to the north and northwest are residential and commercial to the south and
southwest. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Site improvements include adding new windows to the north, east, and west elevations,the existing
block, brick, and stucco finishes will be retained. Some landscaping will be completed in the spring. A
path between the subject property and Olive Street exists. The applicant is not proposing to remove that.
The applicants are not proposing any additional lighting.
An existing dumpster enclosure is not shown on the plans. The survey should be updated to show this
enclosure, the trail, and all other improvements prior to this item being placed on the Council agenda.
Further, any new roof mounted units should be screened from view from the adjacent intersection of
County Roads 15 and 19 to maintain the screened character of the building.
The site provides 60 parking spaces. The zoning ordinance does not prescribe a number of spaces for
nursing homes. For hospitals,the ratio is one stall per three beds or eight spaces based upon the 22
patients. Portions of the parking lot are shared with the Culvers Restaurant and are frequently used. As a
result, there are approximately 42 spaces available.
Barnhart stated based on Staff's analysis, the proposed use seems appropriate.
Thiesse asked if the City is opening itself up to having something there that the Ciry does not desire if this
business is not successful.
Barnhart stated the property owner has the same concern and that he would be willing to withdraw his
conditional use permit application if it appears the rezoning will not be approved. Barnhart stated
generally a conditional use permit cannot be conditioned upon a rezoning of the property.
Lemke asked if nursing home use is not permitted at all in the B-5 district.
Page 13 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart indicated that is true.
Landgraver asked if the City will not receive credit for the density because there are not individual
kitchens.
Barnhart stated that is the expectation of the City and that will be confirmed with the Metropolitan
Council by the end of the month.
Schoenzeit asked where in the City the correct zone would be to allow this type of use.
Barnhart stated the majority of the City's B-4 district is located in the Navarre area.
Todd Ofsthun, TCO Design, stated this building is a good size for what they are proposing and is in a
good location. Specifically the patients would be assisted living memory care as well as transitional care,
which is basically patients that would require 24-hour care but are not sick enough to be in the hospital.
Ofsthun noted the number of 18 represents the number of total employees and that typically 11 employees
would be on staff during the day.
Ofsthun stated the majority of the parking would all be located in the front along Shadywood and that
they would be very comfortable with keeping the easement there for the Culvers Restaurant. There will
be some deliveries around the back for supplies during the day. The window in the rear would be
removed to eliminate the drive-through service. The added windows will help create a good transition to
the residential area.
Ofsthun noted there was some mention in Staff's report about a path. Ofsthun stated they do not
anticipate doing anything with that. Currently there is some drinking in that area by teenagers at the
present time and that the area will be lighted according to code, which should eliminate that kind of
activity.
Ofsthun stated this type of use is typically very quiet and would bring in people to the Navarre area. The
building has been empty for ten years and will be remodeled. In addition,the property will be landscaped
and the building will be brought up to code and maintained. Ofsthun stated the improvements will help
the overall tax base and will be a nice transition between the residential and commercial areas.
Leskinen asked if TCO Design operates other facilities in the area.
Ofsthun indicated they operate one other facility in Fridley consisting of 23 beds and that they are
working with Dean Blonke on this proposal, who runs Welcome Home Management Company. The
company operates 17 facilities.
Schoenzeit asked if he has any idea of the impact that 22 beds would have on 911 resources.
Ofsthun stated he does not have any estimates on that but that there wil( be staff on duty 24 hours a day.
Ofsthun stated in his view there should not be a big demand for emergency service.
Landgraver asked what the average stay would be for a patient.
Page 14 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Ofsthun stated the memory care would be more long-term and the other component would be four to five
months and up to two to three years. Ofsthun indicated there would be relatively low turnover.
Lemke asked if the ambulance would go around to the rear of the building.
Ofsthun indicated it would go to the front.
Landgraver asked the applicant what attracted them to this location.
Ofsthun stated Todd Holmers contacted them after he noted the empty building, the square footage, and
the fact that it is one IeveL Ofsthun stated generally the building is ready to go with some minor
modifications.
Landgraver asked if they would ever expand this building.
Ofsthun stated he does not envision that, and if they did decide to expand,they would need to bring it
before the City.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Ralph Kempf, 3675 Togo Road, asked if infrastructure would be added to the roof and what type of
screening there would be from the street.
Ofsthun stated there is a heating system there already, and if anything would be added to the roof, it
would mechanical equipment in the middle. Ofsthun stated they would comply with whatever the City
requires. A preliminary look at the mechanical equipment determined it is satisfactory and additional
equipment should not come into play. Ofsthun stated he is not aware of any issues with the view of the
current equipment but that they would comply with whatever the City requires.
Lemke asked if the garbage area would be screened.
Ofsthun stated the dumpster area is existing and at this point they are not proposing any changes to it.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m.
Leskinen stated the first issue would be the rezoning. Leskinen noted there is B-4 zoning just down the
street and she does not know if that would be problematic if this area was rezoned to B-4.
Thiesse asked what wouid preclude someone from using it as a B-5 zone if the City changes the zoning.
Thiesse asked if it can it be a double zone.
Barnhart indicated it would need to be one zone or the other. The City does have discretion with the
Comprehensive Plan in deciding where appropriate uses should go, which is typically based on the
concerns of the neighborhood.
Landgraver asked for an example of other uses that are permissible in B-4 but not in B-5.
Page 15 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated the rezoning should not dramatically alter the character of the area. Barnhart noted there
is some separation between this building and the residential area.
Gaffron stated B-4 is the City's office and professional business district and is intended to provide a
district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of
administrative office businesses and related offices. Office uses are allowed in the district in which there
is limited contact with the public, no exterior display or selling of inerchandise to the general public, and
may include uses such as municipal buildings, professional offices and offices of a general nature,clinics
for human care on an outpatient basis, banks, and insurance offices. Under conditional uses are nursing
homes, hospitals, schools, research centers, veterinarian clinics, libraries, museums, historical buildings,
some restaurants, and off street parking.
The intent of the B-5 business district is intended to provide a district for businesses that provide
commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The
businesses should not be high traffic generators, do not contain a large amount of hardcover, and may
adjoin residential districts. Permitted uses include a wide range of commerciaUretail, offices, municipal
buildings clinics, including art and school supply stores, book stores, and office supply stores. The
conditional uses are a little bit more intense but are similar in character to the B-4. Allowed permitted
uses include dry-cleaning, veterinarian clinics, and dog kennels.
Gaffron stated the only real difference is an office focus with B-4 and service focus with B-5.
Landgraver commented the proposed use appears to be a good fit but that he is not sure whether the
mixed use would have any impact.
Barnhart stated the Comprehensive Plan allows a mixed use but that there are other opportunities in this
area for mixed use.
Landgraver and Thiesse agreed this use is a good fit for this building.
Leskinen commented the rezoning would not be a drastic change and that she would be comfortable with
the rezoning. Leskinen stated the proposed use for this location and building is a good fit and would not
generate a lot of traffic. As far as the specific conditional use permit, Leskinen asked whether the
Planning Commission should go through the list of items contained within Staffls report. Leskinen noted
the use would go with the land.
Thiesse asked if there is adequate water service.
Ofsthun stated that would be evaluated prior to the City Council meeting.
Barnhart stated from the building official's standpoint,the water and sanitary sewer is adequate for the
building, but that the applicants have been asked to evaluate that just to verify that. Barnhart stated Staff
has done a very thorough review of the requirements for a conditional use permit.
Thiesse noted the applicant is not proposing adding any more lights.
Barnhart indicated Staff will ensure that any additional lighting does not bleed over onto adjoining
properties.
Page 16 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Schoenzeit suggested more information on 911 services to the property be brought forward to the City
Council so that a more definitive estimate is available to the Council.
Landgraver noted one thing that is not included in the conditional use permit requirements is the fact that
there should be security for the residents so they are not able to leave the building and wander out into
traffic.
Leskinen asked if there is an outside area for patients.
Ofsthun stated there is a small area, and if the patients go outside,they would be accompanied. Ofsthun
stated at no time would patients be outside by themselves.
Leskinen asked where the outside area is.
Ofsthun pointed out the location of the outside area on the overhead. Ofsthun noted it is located on the
south side and that the other area is fenced and steep and would not be practicaL In addition,the doors
and windows would be locked to help keep the patients indoors.
Leskinen asked if the triangle area would be landscaped.
Ofsthun indicated it would be.
Leskinen asked what pieces of the conditional use permit would follow the land if this business does not
pan out over time. Leskinen asked whether it would have to be strictly a nursing home type facility.
Barnhart stated if a conditional use permit is issued for this property and the property later becomes
vacant,the new user would have to meet all the conditions that are imposed and would have to operate the
same business that is being approved tonight. The conditional use permit would cover the number of
beds, employees, and hours of operation. After a certain period of time, if no one picks up that
conditional use permit, it would expire and any new owner would need to apply for a new conditional use
permit.
Landgraver suggested a not to exceed number relating to the number of patients be one of the conditions.
Leskinen asked if the staff to patient ratio is regulated.
Ofsthun stated a home care license would dictate that. The nighttime staff would be four, with a
registered nurse on duty at all times as well as three other assistants. The daytime employees would vary
depending on meal times.
Landgraver stated the City does not want a subsequent owner to come in and cram another bed in each
one of these rooms.
Ofsthun stated they are more than comfortable with limiting it to 22 patients.
Thiesse moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3802,TCO Design,
2380 Shadywood Road, rezoning from B-5 to B-4. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0
Page 17 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit moved, Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3802,TCO
Design,2380 Shadywood Road, granting of a conditional use permit,with the additional
requirement that a more thorough estimate of 911 resources be compiled prior to the City Council
meeting and the maximum number of beds being restricted to 22. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0
9. #16-3803 STONEWOOD,LLC, ON BEHALF OF TASHITAA TUFAA, 1830
SHORELINE ROAD,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:38 P.M.—9:38 P.M.
Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, LLC, and Tashitaa Tufaa, Applicant, were present.
Curtis stated the subject property is located in the LR-lA two-acre district and consists of 1.6 acres in
area and is approximately 133 feet wide at the lake and 128 feet measured at right angles to the property
lines. The property has been vacant since approximately 1999. The applicant is proposing to construct a
new home on the property and requests approval of lot area and lot width variances as well as a side street
setback variance in order to p(ace the home 30 feet from Heritage Lane where a 50-foot setback is
normally required. The applicant also requests a variance to permit a 6-foot tall fence on the entire
perimeter of the property.
The applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit to remove approximately 2,000 cubic yards of
fill material in conjunction with construction of the home. The excavation appears to serve as an
exaggerated drainage swale and possibly to provide a view of the lake from the lower level of the home.
According to the plans, it appears that approximately 41 feet of the home's 130 foot length will encroach
into the side setback. The property abuts a public street on three of its side perimeter lines and is subject
to the average lakeshore setback requirements for fences, which limit the majority of the property
perimeter to a 42-inch tall fence. The applicant is requesting a 6-foot tall open metal fence. The
secondary access for the driveway is an issue that the Council will review and approve or deny.
Within the staff inemo the Planning Commission has been provided separate reviews of the variances and
conditional use permit against the code requirements. The Planning Commission should review the
criteria listed.
Staff finds practical difficulties exist to support redevelopment of this property, such as the substandard
lot area and width which are not the result of actions by the landowner. The applicant is proposing to
construct a new single-family home which is reasonable and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The lot area, lot width, and side street setback variances do not appear to result in reduction of open space
between homes nor does it appear to be out of character with the neighborhood. The proposed home
appears to be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and does not appear to adversely
impact adjacent properties.
Staff has not identified practical difficulties supporting the request to allow a 6-foot tall fence along
Shoreline Drive, Heritage Lane, and Heritage Drive or within the average lakeshore setback where a
maximum of 42 inches is allowed.
As it relates to the conditional use permit to permit the grading plan as proposed,this would result in the
export of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of materiaL In addition,the resulting grades will potentially
change the views into the site from Shoreline Drive. Approximately 185 truckloads are expected to be
needed to export the fill. In addition to revegetating the property, which is a requirement of the permit,
Page 18 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
careful consideration should be given to protecting the existing mature trees on the property as well as
installing additional landscaping in the lake yard to obscure the contrived swale to be created. This
installed landscaping should not further block views of the lake from adjacent properties.
Comments from some of the neighbors were received this weekend and have been provided to the
Planning Commission. There are also some neighbors in the audience tonight who may wish to discuss
the application.
Planning Staff recommends approval of lot area, lot width and street setback variances as requested in
conjunction with the proposed plan. Noting the absence of identifiable practice difficulties inherent to the
property to support a variance, Staff recommends denial of the variance to permit construction of fencing
exceeding 42 inches in height.
Staff also recommends approval of the conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. A haul route shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval and inspection prior to
commencement of hauling from the site. The property owner shall be responsible for repair to
roadways for any adverse impacts;
2. Submittal of a detailed landscape plan which accomplishes the direction of the Planning
Commission and City Council;
3. Upon completion of the project, an as-built survey shall be submitted reflecting conformance with
the approved plan. The site will be evaluated from an erosion and sediment control risk
perspective prior to release of escrow funds;
4. Existing trees should be protected from grading and trucking through snow fence or similar
measures.
The applicant and properly owner shall also comply with the recommendations of the City Engineer and
the requirements of the other involved regulatory agencies. A preconstruction meeting involving all
relevant parties shall be held following the issuance of the building permit at least seven days prior to
permit commencement of any grading work, following any approvals granted by the City Council.
Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission is not to consider the second driveway issue.
Curtis indicated that is correct.
Leskinen asked if the grading is to improve the view.
Curtis stated the applicant should address that but that in Staffls view that is what it appears to
accomplish. Curtis stated adjacent to the home on the left side, there is a little bit of a build-up and the
applicant has provided some overheads illustrating the elevations. Curtis stated the excavation will not be
visible except from Shadywood.
Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, LLC, stated as it regards the conditional use permit, they would be removing
the earth in order to create a larger walkout on the property. Gustafson stated if the lot was not so deep,
the amount of dirt to be removed would not be so great. At the lakeside of the home, approximately six
Page 19 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
feet of dirt would be cut approximately 50 percent across and all the way down to Shoreline in order to
get the property to drain property. Gustafson indicated in some areas they would need to cut out two feet
of dirt and in other places it would be as much as six feet.
Gustafson stated one of the things that was mentioned to the neighbors was that they hope they can do all
of the dirt moving out onto Shoreline Drive in order to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Some
of the neighbors' bigger concerns were development of the street and the number of trucks that would be
needed to haul out the fill. One thing the neighborhood seemed to appreciate is the fact that all the
construction trucks can be parked on site during construction, which will again minimize the impact on
the neighborhood.
Tom Flint, Architect, stated as it relates to the swale,the trees will remain intact and should not be
impacted by the dirt removal. Flint stated one of the nice things about the site is that most of the trees are
within the undevelopable part of the site and should not be impacted by any of the construction activity.
Flint stated they are only proposing to take down one or two trees as part of this project. One of the trees
to be removed is older and decrepit.
Flint indicated they would also like to landscape the lot more than what it currently is following
construction.
Landgraver stated Staffls recommendation is to reduce the height of the fence but that it is also mentioned
in the practical difficulties statement there is mention of a special needs child. Landgraver stated he
would like to know how a 6-foot fence would provide more safety than a 42-inch fence.
Tashitaa Tufaa, property owner, stated he has five children, two of which are adopted. Tufaa indicated
the 12-year-old is severely autistic and is very tall, which is the reason for the 6-foot fence. Tufaa stated
at their current property they have a 6-foot fence.
Flint stated their proposal is to make the fence visually unobtrusive as possible and that the only purpose
for the fence is to protect the child. Flint stated he understands the lot has been vacant for quite some
time and that the new house and fence would be a big change.
Landgraver suggested the 6-foot fence go partially down the property, run across, and then have a 42-inch
along the side. Landgraver stated it appears people are reacting to the height and the length of it and that
he is wondering whether there is a compromise that can be reached.
Tufaa stated they want to be part of the neighborhood and that they will do everything possible to get
along with the residents.
Gustafson stated there is some flexibility with the fence.
Rossa Tufaa stated he would like to represent his siblings at tonight's meeting and that he would like to
thank the City for the opportunity to live in Orono. Tufaa stated it has been a goal for them as a family to
live in Orono, Wayzata or Medina and that this is where hard work pays off. Tufaa stated his family is
humble and kind and that they will be good citizens of Orono. Tufaa stated they look forward to the
improvement of this property.
Lemke asked if the dump trucks will cause a problem on Shoreline Drive.
Page 20 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Gustafson stated he does not believe so and that they will use the largest dump trucks possible to
minimize the number of truckloads. Gustafson stated there is no way around Shoreline but that the
majority of the concern raise by the residents was related to the traffic on Heritage.
Thiesse asked if they are anticipating a week or a week and a half for the hauling of the fill.
Gustafson stated they are thinking four or five days, and that after the dirt is removed, it would be a
normal construction project.
Landgraver asked if Hennepin County would approve the dump truck access on Shoreline.
Gaffron asked if there is an existing driveway out to Shoreline.
Gustafson stated the address for this property is Shoreline Drive, which they would like to change to
Heritage. Gustafson stated his belief is that there was a previous driveway out to Shoreline.
Gaffron stated if there is an existing driveway, Hennepin County will likely feel compelled to allow
access directly onto Shoreline Drive. If there has not been an access there in the past, Hennepin County
would likely require access onto the side streets. Gaffron recommended he speak with Hennepin County
to confirm access.
Gustafson stated in his view the neighborhood will be okay with it but that they have to look at the safest
route.
Thiesse noted they could go down to the corner of the property to access Heritage.
Gustafson noted there is a monument there that they would need to avoid.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:57 p.m.
Greg Coward, 1950 Heritage Drive, indicated he resides three houses down from this property. Coward
stated in the Comprehensive Plan it talks about preservation of neighborhoods. In addition,there was a
comment about this being a large lot but it is actually substandard at 1.6 acres. Coward stated the
proposed house is larger than the other homes in the area. Coward stated one of the first problems with a
lot this size is that it is not in keeping with the neighborhood. Coward stated driveways, fences,
monuments and gates have nothing to do with this neighborhood and that he would encourage the
Planning Commission to consider that.
Coward stated the residents would welcome the family to the neighborhood but that they cannot welcome
this home as designed. Coward stated in their view no variances should be granted for this development
and that the proposed house does not respect the neighborhood and is not in keeping with the
neighborhood.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:00 p.m.
Gustafson stated they have prepared a couple of visuals illustrating the size of the home. Gustafson stated
the proposed home is a little over 9,000 square feet. The majority of the homes in the neighborhood are
large, sprawling ramblers. Gustafson stated he took the footprint of the proposed house and overlaid it
Page 21 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
�
over some of the other homes in the neighborhood. Gustafson noted this house is very similar in size to
most of the other homes from a footprint standpoint. There will be 2,880 square feet on the main floor,
which is smaller than most of the other homes in the neighborhood. From a width standpoint, it is also
very similar to many of the other homes in the neighborhood. Gustafson stated the proposed house is
similar to almost all of them, including Mr. Coward's house.
Coward stated the proper visual should be looking at the house from the street and not from an overhead
view. Coward noted along Heritage Lane in one section the land rises approximately six feet and a 6-foot
fence would make that a wall of 12 feet. Coward stated the developer has maximized the height of the
house, and because it will be so close to Heritage Lane, it will loom over the street.
Leskinen asked where the grade would be measured from if a conditional use permit was granted and the
earth is moved to make it a walkout.
Curtis indicated it would be measured from existing grade. Curtis stated removal of the material exposes
more of the basement or the lower level of the home and that they are not building up like is typically
done to create a walkout. The walkout is being created by the dirt being cut out. Curtis stated she has not
done a height analysis of the home but that the height will be measured from today's grade and the
applicants will be required to conform to the basement definition and height requirements.
Schoenzeit noted the house will be six feet into the ground.
Landgraver asked if this property is part of the Foxhill homeowners association.
Mrs. Coward indicated it is not.
Landgraver noted the existing homes in Foxhill could someday be two stories tall as well ifthey are torn
down and rebuilt.
Curtis indicated that is correct.
Leskinen asked where the driveway access would be.
Curtis stated the applicant is proposing two driveways, one off of Heritage Drive and one off of Heritage
Lane. Curtis pointed out the two access points.
Leskinen asked if there will be any access off of Shoreline.
Curtis stated there is not for a driveway except for the possible dump truck access, which would be at the
end of the swale.
Schoenzeit stated if this house is compared to the white house that is for sale, they appear to be of similar
size and character.
Thiesse noted the Heritage neighborhood was constructed around this lot and that it once had a Shoreline
address as well as a driveway out to Shoreline. Thiesse stated it is nice to be sensitive to the Foxhill
neighborhood but that this is really a part of the other neighborhood in this area. Thiesse indicated he is
in agreement that the house fits the lot and the neighborhood to the west.
Page 22 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated the variances they are asking for as it relates to lot width and lot size are typically
granted and that in his view the proposed house is very in character for the area.
Landgraver stated it will be a big change for the people who live near this lot.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission has any particular concerns with hauling the 2,000 cubic
yards of dirt.
Thiesse stated if you look at the contours,the grade would be fairly consistent and relatively flat to the
house with a swale up the sides.
Gustafson stated the swale would be walkable and mowable.
Landgraver commented they do not want all the water to run straight across the road and into the lake.
Landgraver stated Staffls recommendation regarding vegetation should also be accompanied by some
type of lift or rain garden.
Gustafson indicated they would be open to that.
Leskinen stated in one e-mail someone likened the proposed fence to a cemetery. Leskinen stated she is
not too gung-ho about the fence being all the way around the perimeter and that she likes the earlier
compromise suggested. Leskinen stated she understands the need for the fence but that she likes the idea
of staggering it and moving it further in.
Lemke stated it could also be broken up with some indentations and plantings. Lemke stated in his view
the impact of the fence could be minimized with some creative design.
Schoenzeit asked if the City has any maximum lengths for fences. Schoenzeit stated he is not
comfortable with a 6-foot fence around the whole perimeter. Schoenzeit stated in his view the fact that
the lot has been vacant for so long goes against allowing a 6-foot fence around the entire perimeter.
Landgraver noted the property is going from a see through lot to a two-story house and a fence and that
the applicant should be somewhat responsive to the neighbors.
Gustafson stated there is definite flexibility with the fence.
Leskinen asked if anyone is uncomfortable with the lot area, lot width, and side street setback variances.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that those variances should be approved.
Landgraver indicated he is okay with the conditional use permit simply because the lot is so far back from
the lake and Staff's recommendation for the shielding.
Schoenzeit stated the purpose is to pusn the house further into the ground, which is a positive. Schoenzeit
noted the intent of the developer is to get the excavation work done in less than a week.
Thiesse recommended best storm water and erosion practices be added as a condition.
Page 23 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 d clock p.m.
Lemke indicated he would like to see a different proposal on the fence
Schoenzeit stated the fence needs to be lower and more creative.
Thiesse noted a lower fence will not solve the situation.
Schoenzeit stated the fence needs to be reconfigured.
Leskinen stated if the Planning Commission is comfortable approving the lot area, lot width, and side
setback variances as well as the conditional use permit,the Planning Commission could do that and then
make a separate motion with regard to the fence.
Leskinen asked if another public hearing�vould be required for the fence if it is redesigned.
Curtis stated the Planning Commission's recommendation will be in the minutes and that the applicant is
allowed to make modifications to the plans reflecting those recommendations.
Thiesse stated he would like the residents to be able to look at the plans and then comment on it.
Curtis stated if the Planning Commission is not in favor of the fence,the application will proceed forward
with the recommendation that the proposed fence be denied but with the recommendation that the other
elements of the application be approved. Curtis noted the Planning Commission would not be able to
separate the application into two parts.
Landgraver stated landscaping will also need to be incorporated, which leads naturally to how the fence
should be configured and that they go kind of hand-in-hand.
Leskinen asked if the applicant has received enough direction.
Gustafson stated the property owner would like to preserve as much of the yard as possible for a play area
but that they would look at the topo�raphy to see how much the fence will drop. Gustafson stated they
will also look at pulling the fence further back from the lake.
Leskinen stated it will come down to aesthetics and reasonableness.
Lemke commented it currently looks like a stockade fence and that he would like it redesigned a little bit.
Landgraver stated the sewer line might be a good line to go with for the fence.
Landgraver asked if this property owns the area where the monument is.
Gustafson stated they do not and that it is owned by the homeowners association. Gustafson indicated
they did look at whether the fence would block the sight lines on Heritage Lane and their conclusion was
that it does not. Gustafson noted there is also quite a bit of tree cover on portions of the lot,which would
help block the view of the fence.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission should address what would happen if Hennepin County does
not agree to the access onto Shoreline.
Page 24 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Curtis stated Staffls recommendation is based on the applicant accessing Heritage. As Staff looks at the
haul routes,they will be looking at Heritage Lane. Curtis stated the City cannot require the County to
allow that access.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission could ask for a primary and a secondary access point.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission does not know what the most desirable access point will be
following removal of the dirt. Landgraver asked if there were restrictions imposed on the development at
the end of the road regarding traffic and hours of construction.
Gaffron stated there were a number of restrictions that the developer agreed to, such as construction
hours, construction traffic and parking. Gaffron stated it would be unusual to place those same
restrictions on the construction of a single-family house. The developer in the Jacobs application agreed
to a minor change to those standards while the homes were being constructed during the summer, but that
the intent was that all construction traffic would be minimized on the neighborhood streets.
Landgraver asked whether those restrictions could be applied in this case.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could let the developer for this application know of those
restrictions but that both of these are public streets.
Thiesse asked if there are some vacant lots on Heritage.
Gaffron indicated there are and that some of the current homes could also be torn down and rebuilt, which
would create construction traffic.
Thiesse asked if those standards are going to be placed on everybody.
Schoenzeit stated it is a dangerous precedent to restrict the use of public streets.
Leskinen stated this is also a single-family house versus a bigger development. Leskinen noted the
hauling of the dirt would be done in less than a week's time.
Schoenzeit stated it is also not clear where the dirt is headed.
Leskinen asked what the dedicated haul route would be.
Curtis indicated it would be to the truck's destination. Curtis stated she would like to know prior to this
application going before the City Council whether the haul route would be onto Shoreline.
Leskinen noted sweeping requirements will also be imposed. Leskinen stated she is not sure if additional
security can be determined by the Planning Commission but that it will be part of the escrow.
Curtis indicated the City collects a$2,500 escrow for a new home, which would cover the costs of the
sweeping and securing the site if necessary. Curtis stated the City Engineer could make a
recommendation on whether the escrow should be increased.
Page 25 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated given the quantiry of earth that is being removed, it is reasonable to require the sweeping
and the additional security. Primarily will be a one-week operation for the earth moving.
Schoenzeit stated there will be a different impact if the traffic is onto a main public road rather than on a
side street.
Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3803
Stonewood, LLC,on behalf of Tashitaa Tufaa, 1830 Shoreline Road,granting of lot area,lot width,
lot size,and side street setback variances; granting of a conditional use permit; and to recommend
denial of the fence height variance with the recommendation that the fence be redesigned; and with
approval subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
10. #15-3759 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VACATION
RENTALS,9:38 P.M.—9:50 P.M.
Barnhart noted the Planning Commission originally discussed this item last fall where the Planning
Commission tabled it for further review.
A work session is planned for February 3 to discuss this text amendment in further detail. Property
owners who own vacation rentals specifically have been invited to the workshop and Staff is hopeful they
will provide some input into the issue. Eight to 12 property owners have been identified by Staff.
The idea of the work session is to receive that input and then have the Planning Commission discuss the
issues related to the rental issue.
Two draft ordinances have been included in the Planning Commission's packet. One is a prohibition of
short-term rentals of less than 30 days and another was a draft ordinance regulating those based on
business licensing. Staff is looking for any issues the Planning Commission might want addressed prior
to the workshop.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:43 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:43 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if Staff has done any research into the number of complaints received in the last few
years.
Barnhart indicated he can look into that more but typically the complaint would be related to noise or
parking and not necessarily related to short-term rentals. Barnhart stated the City did receive a complaint
on two separate properties with the caller suggesting that the people were operating a vacation rentaL In
both of those situations they were not vacation rentals.
Barnhart stated nationally there is a growing trend to regulate short-term vacation rentals and that in
Staffls view it should be discussed since Orono's ordinances do not currently regulate vacation rentals.
Barnhart stated the easiest solution is to prohibit it but that is not always the easiest to enforce. Staff has
heard from the people who are affected by the rentals but not he actual property owners themselves.
Page 26 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schwingler asked how many homes would be impacted.
Barnhart stated Staff has identified 12 properties.
Thiesse asked if sufficient sanitary sewer language is included in the draft.
Barnhart stated if language to that effect is not currently in the draft ordinance, that would be a good
condition to include. Barnhart stated the draft ordinance will also be included on the City's website.
Schoenzeit moved, Landgraver seconded,to table Application No. 15-3759,City of Orono Text
Amendment Regarding Vacation Rentals. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
11. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 78-1 DEFINITIONS
REGARDING RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING,9:50 P.M.—10:05 P.M.
Barnhart stated back in November of 2015,the City Council and Planning Commission identified
comprehensive lighting reform as the second highest goal priority for 2016. At that time Staff had been
developing an ordinance that addressed concerns related to lighting in more general terms.
Based on the direction provided in November, Staff has developed a more comprehensive ordinance
addressing lighting. The draft ordinance regulates total light levels on the lot and the brightness of a sign
in addition to the light levels at the property line. Barnhart noted the ordinance also regulates
architectural lighting in residential neighborhoods, which may pose an enforcement challenge. It was
noted in November that the visibility of the light source caused more concern than merely the light level.
Barnhart noted this draft ordinance is based upon a similar ordinance from Homer Glen, lllinois.
The ordinance limits the total light output from all luminaires used for outdoor lighting on any lot zoned
commercial or industrial zone except for street lighting, open sales lots, lighting installations,commercial
or industrial zone, except for street lighting, open sales lots, lighting installations for non-internally
illuminated signage not exceeding 800 lumens and outdoor lighting of playing fields on public property,
shall not exceed 100,000 lumens per net acre. Motor fuel station pumping areas shall be required to meet
a minimum standard of 10-foot candles and not exceed a maximum of 30 foot candles.
Barnhart indicated 1,100 lumens is approximately the equivalent of a 75 watt incandescent bulb. If
someone exceeds 7,500 lumens, the light must be angled down. Any luminaire with a light output
exceeding 1,100 lumens which is used for outdoor lighting on any residential zone shall have the
necessary shielding and/or beam-angle control and/or shall be aimed so that the direction of all directly
emitted light is at or below horizontaL If a motion-activated sensor that illuminates the luminaire for no
more than five minutes upon activation is used, said luminaire may have a light output of up to 2,200
lumens.
The ordinance also addresses light trespass, permitted hours for outdoor lighting, and luminaire standards.
Barnhart stated the Planning Commission should think about the hours for commercial outdoor lighting.
If there is lighting after 10:00 for security or safety purposes, security lighting is permissible at a total
light output not greater than 25 percent of the total light output from all outdoor lighting located on the lot
during permitted outdoor lighting hours.
Page 27 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Page 4 of the draft ordinance talks about prohibited lighting, such as neon lighting to accent buildings and
the use of lasers. Barnhart noted he has not performed a walk-around the City to determine how many
prohibited lights there are in the City. Language has also been included regarding exempt outdoor
lighting, such as underwater lighting in pools, lighting required by city, state, or federal law, such as
lights on tall buildings for airplanes, decorative fire lights, lighting for a temporary special event for the
City, emergency lighting, and holiday decorating.
Schoenzeit asked if the City has any regulations regarding how long Christmas lights may remain up.
Barnhart indicated the City does not.
Thiesse noted it says temporary lighting.
Barnhart stated at the bottom of Page 4 the ordinance talks about the approval process, which will be
folded into the City's site plan. At that time Staff will determine the lumens, acreage, and maximum and
minimum light levels for all parking areas, entryways, signs, and walkways. Barnhart stated the lighting
could be part of a conditional use permit.
Barnhart noted Section 2 contains new definitions that are used in the ordinance.
Barnhart stated in his view this is a good starting point but that he would also like to discuss this at a work
session and then bring the draft ordinance back before the Planning Commission at its February meeting.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:03 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:03 p.m.
Lemke asked if the change from incandescent to LED would impact any of the language.
Barnhart stated incandescent lights are typically warmer lights, which results in LEDs being perceived as
brighter lights. Barnhart stated the main factor to keep in mind is the perception of the light.
Landgraver asked if the light level is being reduced to 0.1 rather than the 1 foot candle. Landgraver stated
they might want to think about the impact to homes.
Barnhart stated based on the ordinance, existing lights that exceed that level would be nonconforming and
would be allowed to continue. Barnhart stated the amount of foot candles was the issue previously and
that it was looked at from a nuisance standpoint. The way the current ordinance is drafted, it would be
part of the zoning code. Barnhart stated he will be looking into that some more.
Landgraver moved, Schwingler seconded,to table Application No. 15-3784,City of Orono Text
Amendment to 78-1 Definitions Regarding Residential Lighting. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Page 28 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
12. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON NOVEMBER 23,2015,DECEMBER 14,2015,AND
JANUARY 11,2016
Leskinen reported on the November 23 City Council meeting. At that meeting Sheriff Stanek provided an
update to the City Council,the Irwin Jacobs application was discussed and Staff was directed to redraft
the resolution, and the Delaney application was denied. Leskinen stated the Broadway application on
North Shore Drive was approved. The Highway 12 Safety Coalition started the 12 for 12 Campaign.
Schwingler reported on the December 14 meeting. Schwingler noted Jay Nygard appeared at that
meeting and provided some public comment. The Jacobs application was approved with restrictions on
construction hours during the school year, with normal construction hours during the summer. The City
Council also talked about the 2016 budget and possibly eliminating its donation to the Gillepsie Center
and terminating the Wayzata Fire Service Agreement.
13. FUTURE COMMISSION/COUNCIL REPORTS
Barnhart asked whether the Planning Commission would like to keep the council reports on future
agendas. Barnhart noted the information is typically provided at the end of a long meeting and that
perhaps that information could be shared through the minutes. Barnhart indicated Staff can either remove
it from the agenda or keep it on.
Landgraver stated a simple score card of the actions taken by the City Council on the planning items
would be easy to follow. Landgraver stated another option would be to simply highlight the items that
were not approved by the Planning Commission and the rationale.
Barnhart indicated he can forward that request on to the City Administrator. Barnhart stated the purpose
of the Council representative is to provide a basic background on the reasons for approval or denial and
that Staff could perhaps condense the planning commission comments into a short memorandum.
Barnhart stated if that is done, it might not be necessary for someone from the Planning Commission to
attend the council meeting.
Lemke stated he would like that but that in his view it is good to have a representative there.
Landgraver indicated in his view it is good for the commissioners to be there to answer questions.
Schoenzeit stated a summary on the decision discrepancies between the Planning Commission and
Council would be very valuable to have.
Barnhart asked if the Commissioners would like the mayor to call on them to offer any report they might
want to give.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to have the mayor call on them.
14. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Page 29 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 19,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Barnhart noted there are no term limits on chair or vice chair but that the City Council would like a
recommendation from the Planning Commission before they approve the annual appointments.
Landgraver stated he has some travel coming up this year that would impact his participation on the
Planning Commission, and as a result of that, he does not feel he could serve as chair. Landgraver stated
in his view Denise does an excellent job and the City benefits with her serving as chair.
Leskinen stated she would like Chris McGrann to be given the opportunity to serve as chair if he is
interested. Leskinen stated her day job is getting more demanding and that she has given some serious
thought to resigning her seat due to her schedule. Leskinen stated she has been hesitant to do that but that
she would like to know if Chris is interested in being chair.
Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can hold off on any motion until February.
Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to table any recommendation on the Planning Commission
chair and vice chair positions to the February Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
15. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Leslcinen moved,Schoenzeit secondedrto adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
10:35 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
;�
' /.
� , , j -���
... . _
i �rC 6� �C�,..... �
Denise Leskinen,Chair
Page 30 of 30