HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-2016 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Cammission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Keven Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Christopher McGrann, Loren
Schoenzeit, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy
Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Council Member Jim Cornick, Jr.,was present.
Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
JANUARY 19,2016
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning
Commission meeting of January 19,2016,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
2. #16-3799 INTEGRITY REMODELING & DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF
MATTHEW AND JAMIE HANSON,2060 SPATES AVENUE,VARIANCES, 6:32 P.M.—6:44
P.M.
Ray Topalof, Integrity Remodeling,was present.
Gaffron noted this application was before the Planning Commission at its last meeting where the
applicants were proposing additions to the rear of an existing detached accessory structure which
functioned as a garage in the past. The structure is located nearer to the street than the principal structure
and is nonconforming. Based on Planning Commission direction,the applicant has revised his plans to
reduce the size of the building additions and the extent of the required variances. The applicants have
removed the side overhang, reduced the size of the rear porch, and pulled it back so it does not conflict
with the existing sewage ejector pump system.
Gaffron displayed a sketch of the proposal on the overhead. Gaffron noted the proposed addition is an
open porch. The septic inspector has reviewed the plans and has indicated that the septic setback is not
required since it is an ejector pump system. The applicant has also provided some building elevations
showing the views from various directions.
As a result of the changes, the applicant is no longer requesting a variance for an oversized accessory
structure. The applicant is still requesting front/street and side setback variances for the rear addition. The
structure still does not meet principal structure setbacks since this is a through lot and there is a road
toward the back portion of the lot. Gaffron noted hardcover and structural coverage are not issues in this
proposal.
The Planning Commission had no questions for staff.
Ray Topalof, Applicant, indicated he had nothing to add to Staffls report.
Page 1 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked if this has been noticed for a public hearing.
Gaffron stated it was noticed the first time for a public hearing and that Staff typically does not notice an
application a second time unless major changes are being proposed.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
Thiesse commented the applicants have done a good job revising their plans.
Leskinen stated she likes the revisions the applicant made, especially relating to the size, and that she is
okay with the proposal as presented. Leskinen stated she would like to understand a little more about the
practical difficulty and that she is not 100 percent sure the applicant meets the criteria. Leskinen noted at
the last meeting the primary discussion centered on the fact that this would be a nice improvement to the
area.
Thiesse asked if she would consider the need for a covered entry to the building a practical difficulty.
Leskinen stated she might but noted that this is an accessory structure and not a principal structure.
Schoenzeit stated part of the practical difficulty is the fact that it is an existing structure and cannot be
relocated. Schoenzeit stated they are merely bringing it up to the maximum size allowed for an accessory
structure independent of its location. Schoenzeit stated the applicant took the direction of the Planning
Commission and made some revisions to address the setback and septic issue.
Thiesse stated they are upgrading an existing structure and staying within the confines of the requirements
as much as possible.
Lemke stated the problem he had last time was the extension to the side and reducing the access point
near the driveway.
Leskinen stated her only question is if the building can have the same functional use without the addition
but that this is a practical addition to the structure. Leskinen noted if the building was located somewhere
else on the property or if it was not a through lot, it would be a nonissue.
Gaffron pointed out the location of the road toward the back on the overhead. Gaffron stated since this is
a through lot, it becomes questionable where they could locate the structure and still meet the required
setbacks, but that it does appear they could find such a location.
Thiesse commented it is a covered porch and deck, which seems reasonable.
Landgraver noted the structure has a bathroom in it and is used as a studio and that it would be nice to be
able to step outside onto a covered porch. Landgraver stated the addition is away from the street and not
Page 2 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
really in the sightline of the neighbor. Landgraver stated the applicant has demonstrated good faith by
reducing the proposed addition.
Schoenzeit noted the addition follows the City's code requiring architectural features being compatible
with the main building.
Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3799,
Integrity Remodeling & Design Group on behalf of Matthew and Jamie Hanson,2060 Spates
Avenue,granting of front/street and side setback variances in order to construct a covered open
porch to the rear of the building,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
3. #16-3805 JOHN ADAMS ON BEHALF OF NORTH SHORE MEADOWS,2455 NORTH
SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE, 6:44 P.M.—7:12 P.M.
John Adams, Applicant,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting variances to allow additions and improvements to the existing
residence under the standard LR-lA District setback requirements rather than the 150 percent back lot
standards. The property originally had its address on Scotch Pine Lane. Lots 1, 3, and 4 were platted as
individual building lots and Lot 2 served as lake access for Lot 4. The three building lots were served by
a short public road and cul-de-sac known as Scotch Pine Lane.
The residence was constructed originally under the R-1C standards, which at the time included side
setbacks of ten feet. In 1975,the zoning in this area changed to LR-lA, requiring two acres and 30-foot
side setbacks. In 1979, a variance was granted for the property to revise the driveway layout and add a
detached garage ten feet from the west side lot line. In 1994, hardcover and east side setback variances
were granted in order to construct an elevator addition.
The road was vacated in 1995 at the request of the three property owners and Lot 1 was designated as a
back lot accessing North Shore Drive by a 25-foot wide outlot. Since the house on Lot 1 already existed,
it gained status as a legal nonconforming use and variances were granted to the back lot standards of lot
area, lot width, and setbacks for the existing structures and existing improvements on Lot 1.
The property has recently been sold and the new owner is requesting that a blanket variance be granted to
the back lot side setback standards for potential future additions and/or home reconstruction. The specific
request is to allow future principal structure side setbacks of 30 feet as per the LR-lA standards rather
than the 45-foot side setback required under the back lot standards. The applicant has not submitted any
plans for a specific addition or reconstruction at this time but would like to establish the standards under
which a design process can be commenced.
Gaffron indicated one of the issues the Planning Commission should consider is whether there would be
any impacts on the views of the surrounding residences with the new setbacks. The new owner now owns
2455 and 2445 and has removed the house and any future property owner would be aware of the new
setbacks at the time of purchase.
Gaffron displayed some aerial photographs depicting the lots and the existing homes.
Page 3 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Staff does not believe changing the setbacks is a problem and that an argument could be made in favor of
granting the variances. The front lot/back lot relationship established during the 1995 re-plat has
technical flaws. The existing shared driveway configuration has not caused any of the potential conflicts
envisioned by the ordinance. Due to the shape of the lots,the actual separation between the homes at
2445 and 2455 exceeds 200 feet,which is far greater than the 125-foot separation that would be required
in a standard front/back lot configuration in the 2-acre zone.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. If the Planning Commission determines that the
practical difficulties test is met and the requested variance is justified,then a recommendation for
approval would be in order.
Schoenzeit asked if there is any reason why the why the paperwork could not simply be modified if the
current property owner owns both properties.
Gaffron stated the City could possibly do that but that he would need to check with the City Attorney.
Leskinen stated it would basically be retroactively creating compliance.
Schoenzeit stated they could be made "through" lots and would stand alone without any variance.
Schoenzeit stated the future owner would be aware of what they are getting and there would be no impact.
John Adams stated he does not have a problem with changing the paperwork. Adams stated the purpose
of the re-platting was to get rid of the cul-de-sac, and in the findings there were 13 different findings that
were positive reasons listed for the re-platting. The property owners at that time and the neighbors
wanted to eliminate the cul-de-ac. Adams stated this lot getting reclassified as a back lot was an
unforeseen consequence.
Adams noted Item No. 3 of Reso(ution No. 3653 states that a variance is hereby granted to the back lot
width and lot area standards for Lot 1. Further, a variance is granted to the back lot setback standards for
all existing structures and improvements. Adams stated if it had read all existing"and future structures"
and existing"and future improvements", it would have been clear that that was meant to be the setback to
the LR-lA standard similar to the surrounding properties.
Adams stated he is not sure whether the City Attorney would be in favor of changing the language in the
resolution.
Gaffron stated at the time of the replatting he believes the intent was that existing structures and existing
improvements would not be subject to the back lot standards, i.e. it would not make them non-
conforming. Gaffron stated to his knowledge it did not mean that future improvements could be done
without adherence to the back lot standards; but it may not be problematic to grant the request as long as
everyone agrees that the standard 30-foot side setbacks are reasonable for this site.
Adams stated back then it was a relatively new house and they were probably not thinking about future
improvements to the property. Adams stated had the language read both existing and future, then it
would have been covered. Adams stated if it makes more sense to modify the resolution,they would be
fine with it.
Page 4 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Gaffron stated there likely would be a new resolution drafted rather than modifying the existing
resolution.
Thiesse asked whether the house would still be encroaching if the 45-foot line is moved to the 30-foot
line.
Gaffron indicated it would be. Gaffron noted they would need a variance if they do not build in kind in
the same location.
Adams noted where the house is currently located is the flatter portion of the lot.
Thiesse asked if he will be rebuilding the house.
Adams indicated he will not be and that he is the realtor representing the owner.
Gaffron stated Staff has had a number of discussions with the applicant regarding what the future plans
are for the house and that the applicant and owner appear to have a good understanding of what would
and would not be allowed in terms of the setbacks.
Leskinen stated if this property is no longer a back lot and the LR-lA standards are adopted,the building
envelope would be made larger.
Gaffron concurred that that would be the result.
McGrann asked if the current owner is looking to rebuild the house.
Adams stated the current owner is in the process of deciding what to do and that they are not in a hurry to
do anything at this point. Adams stated he is not sure what their future plans are but that it usually is
more cost effective to tear the existing structure down and rebuild rather than remodel. Adams noted the
30-foot setbacks would also allow them to center the house on the lot. Adams stated currently one side of
the house is at the 10-foot setback and the other side is at a 40-foot setback.
Gaffron noted a small portion of the house has a 40-foot setback from the west lot line and the other side
is at the 10-foot setback.
Adams stated the house could be shifted over 15 feet and they would still be about 20 feet into the
nonconforming area but that it would be better than the 10-foot setback.
Lemke asked if hardcover would be an issue if they wanted to rebuild.
Adams stated if they go outside the footprint,they would be required to bring the hardcover into
compliance.
Gaffron noted it is currently at 29 percent and would need to be reduced to 25 percent.
Adams indicated the owners are aware of that. Adams stated in his view there is a lot of blacktop on the
property that could be eliminated. Adams stated cleaning the lot up and centering the house on the lot
makes sense and would make the lot look better.
Page 5 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Leskinen stated in her view the request is more than reasonable.
Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission would deny the variance and instead request the definition
of the lot be changed.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has the option to refer this matter to the City Attorney for the
most appropriate means of approval.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commissions appears to be in favor of changing it to the LR-lA setbacks.
Landgraver asked if there are many other similar situations in the City.
Gaffron indicated there are not and that this is a unique situation. Gaffron stated back lots are not that
common and that the regulations regarding back lots were passed sometime in the 1990s. The idea was
that typically back lots are not lakeshore lots. Gaffron stated typically there is a corridor that goes past
the front lot,which essentially creates the back lot, and has certain impacts such as the front lot's rear
yard abutting the back lot's front yard.
Thiesse asked if the City has definitions of back yard and front yard.
Gaffron stated technically on a lakeshore lot they have a lakeshore yard and a rear yard.
Thiesse noted they would have a rear yard facing a rear yard in this case.
Gaffron stated in the normal 2-acre zone situation,they are required to have 200 feet. At the time the
original plat was completed, it was done under the one-acre zoning, with side setbacks of 10 feet.
Gaffron indicated at the time the City Council apparently felt it was appropriate to have three lots with
lakeshore access given the amount of lakeshore frontage,but that it would not be allowed today. Gaffron
stated the lot with the narrow corridor to the lake is a bonafide lakeshore lot since it extends from the lake
to the road. At the time the re-plat was done to eliminate the cul-de-sac,there were already three lots with
lakeshore access and they were grandfathered in.
Landgraver asked where the average lakeshore setback line is located.
Gaffron stated because the one house has been removed, the average lakeshore setback line is defined by
the lake setback of the adjacent home to the west. Gaffron illustrated the location of the average
lakeshore setback line. Gaffron stated whatever additions are done,they need to be at least 84 feet back
from the lake.
Landgraver commented there must have been some compelling logic to define it as a back lot back then,
but that if you look at this property and the adjacent properties, it would be best to change that.
Landgraver stated this is an opportunity to help clarify for both properties what the setbacks are.
Page 6 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated it would also make the setbacks consistent in the area and within this plat.
Schoenzeit moved, Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3805,John
Adams on behalf of North Shore Meadows,2455 North Shore Drive,subject to Staff
recommendations,and with the further recommendation that the City Attorney review the
application to determine the appropriate procedure to apply the LR-lA setbacks.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #16-3806 PILLAR HOMES ON BEHALF OF MIKE LADD AND CAROL
STAINBROOK, 660 TONKAWA ROAD,VARIANCES,7:12 P.M.—7:20 P.M.
K.C. Chermak, Pillar Homes, was present.
Curtis stated the owners purchased this property in 2005 and would now like to construct a new home.
The existing detached garage will remain. The applicants are proposing to construct a new home with a
lakeside deck at a similar setback to the existing structures on the property. The new home is proposed to
encroach approximately 48 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and the deck is shown as
much as 50 feet into the setback. The existing encroachment of the home and deck is approximately 55
feet, resulting in the new home being slightly further back.
The property is nearly conforming with respect to lot area and lot width. However, the request for an
average lakeshore setback variance results in the property's inability to fully conform to the
administrative approval criteria for substandard lots of record. Therefore, lot area and lot width variances
are also required to rebuild on the property.
The most affected neighbors on either side of the property have written statements in support of the
application. Staff has conducted a practical difficulty analysis that is included in Staffls report.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
K.C. Chermak indicated he used Mark Gronberg as a surveyor and that the site does have some grade to
it. The lake is approximately 20 feet lower than where the house currently sits. If the house is relocated
too drastically, it would impact the slope and would not be advantageous. Architecturally the house has
been pulled further away from the lot lines and setbacks to make it as appealing as possible for the
neighbors.
Chermak stated the lot is just under one acre and sits in a nice position on the lake. The majority of the
homes to the south are roughly in line with this house or closer to the lake. There is a significant jump
away from the lake for the property to the north. Because of that, Chermak indicated they met with that
neighbor to ensure that they were in support of the project. Both neighbors have submitted letters in
support of the project Chermak indicated there will be a fair amount of vegetation and privacy for both
neighbors, especially the neighbor to the north.
Chermak stated they have taken into consideration the grades and water runof£ The house is proposed to
nestle into the hillside to minimize the grading. The roof will be low pitched to minimize the height.
Page 7 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked where the 75-foot setback line is located.
Curtis illustrated the average setback line on the overhead. Curtis stated it is located quite a bit down the
slope.
Leskinen stated in her view the proposal is reasonable and would be an improvement over what is
existing. Leskinen stated eXcept for the encroachment on the average lakeshore setback, it could be
administratively approved. Leskinen stated as it relates to the average lakeshore setback, it does not
appear that it would impact the neighbors' views,which is usually the biggest concern and is the reason
for the setback. Leskinen stated she does not see any issues with the application.
Thiesse and McGrann indicated they are in agreement with Chair Leskinen.
Lemke moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3806,Pillar Homes
on Behalf of Mike Ladd and Carol Stainbrook,660 Tonkawa Road,granting of lot area, lot width,
and average lakest►ore setback variances in order to construct a new residence on the property.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
5. #16-3807 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP ON BEHALF OF SCOTT FREDRIKSEN,
425 AND 595 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH AND PID 33-118-23-24-0002,REZONING
TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,PRELIMINARY PLAT AND
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,7:20 P.M.—9:20 P.M.
Tom Gonyea with Estate Development Group and Ian Peterson with David Weekly Homes were present.
Gaffron noted the Planning Commission has reviewed this property as a sketch plan last summer. The
property is located at the southwest quadrant of Wayzata Boulevard and Old Crystal Bay Road. Gross
acreage is approximately 18.5 acres. By the time the wetlands, wetland buffers, and rights-of-way are
removed from the calculation, approximately 12.6 acres remains.
Immediately east across Old Crystal Bay Road is the Orono industrial park; to the immediate south is the
Highway 12 and Burlington Northern Railroad corridor; to the immediate west is the Dumas property,
and to the immediate north across Wayzata Boulevard is the Orono Schools campus. The property across
the intersection to the northeast is guided and developed for office use. The proposed density on this site
is three to seven units per acre.
The applicants are proposing a 39-lot single-family residential subdivision. The property consists of three
separate parcels totaling 14.1 dry buildable acres and 12.6 net developable acres. An amendment of the
Orono Comprehensive Plan is required to allow development of the property at a density of
approximately three units per acre for this property which is guided in the CMP for development at a
density of seven to ten units per acre.
Page 8 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Staff has discussed this development, as well as other proposed developments, with the Metropolitan
Council. Development of this property and others guided for medium density at a lower density will
trigger the requirement for formal amendment of the CMP. With that amendment,there will be an
expectation that other developable properties will be reguided for higher density to offset the decrease.
The Metropolitan Council guidelines require an overall new sewered development density of at least three
units per acre.
The applicants are also requesting rezoning of the property from RR-1 B to a Residential Planned Unit
Development. The current zoning has been in place since the 1975 rezoning. The RPUD district contains
detailed development standards with regards to lot size and setbacks, building design, landscaping,
screening and buffering, and trails and recreation. The RPUD district offers some flexibility to those
standards.
The third part of the application is a preliminary plat review process. Page 4 of Staffls report contains a
table that shows the minimum lot size and other minimum requirements. The proposed lots range from
7,500 square feet, which is approximately half the standard,to as much as 66,000 square feet. The larger
lots include a portion of the wetlands. The applicants are proposing that the wetlands be included as part
of individual lots, which is not an unusual situation. As a result, a homeowners association would not be
required to maintain that area. The majority of the lots are in the range of 15,000 square feet.
The minimum RPUD-required lot width at setback line is 90 feet, with the majority of the proposed lots
being at 65 feet. Some lots are at 45 feet due to their location on the cul-de-sac. All the lot depths are at
125 feet, which meets the RPUD standards. The minimum required front building setback is 25 feet. The
applicant is proposing 20 to 25 feet setbacks. The minimum rear or side setback to Wayzata Boulevard is
50 feet, which the applicants will meet.
As it relates to the side yard setbacks, the RPUD standard is 10 feet. The applicants are proposing for
most of the lots a side setback on one side of five feet and ten feet on the other. Gaffron noted there will
be situations where there will be a 5-foot setback against a 10-foot setback or a 10-foot setback against a
10-foot setback or a 5-foot setback to a 5-foot setback. The 65-foot lots will generally have a 10-foot
setback and the 45-foot lots will have a 5-foot setback.
Gaffron stated as it relates to minimum rear yard setback, the applicant is proposing rear yards that are
roughly 20-plus feet in depth. Gaffron stated he does not anticipate it being an issue but the Planning
Commission may wish to discuss that. The applicant will also meet the wetland building setback as well
as the building height restriction.
A letter from the neighboring property owners has been submitted with the request that it be included in
the resolution. The intent is to ensure that the future property owners are aware of the potential
consequences of living next to a working farm. The farrr►work involves the use of heavy vehicles,
sprayers, pruning compressors and other metal working equipment. Machinery is parked along the east
property line,which is essentially the west boundary of this development. The trees are sprayed every ten
days from May to October. The farm operation involves production of potentially objectionable odors
and noise. Gaffron stated the Dumas family believes those are factors that the developer and future
property owners need to understand and that those are pre-existing conditions that could remain for many
years to come.
Page 9 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Gaffron stated the site is generally open,with a majority of it being former cropland. There are a few
mature trees located at the southeast and northeast corners where single-family homes once stood. The
properly is very flat. The property also contains three distinct areas that have been delineated as wetland.
Two of the three are proposed for preservation, while the third,which is a smaller depression and is
delineated as a lower quality wetland, will be filled due to its location needed for the internal roadway
system. Wetland mitigation will (ikely occur offsite but a final determination has not been made at this
point.
The applicants have also submitted a Conservation Development report. The runoff will be managed by
creating two ponds and a filtration basin, with each discharging to the existing wetlands and then draining
naturally westward per the existing area drainage pattern. The rate,volume, and sediment control are
addressed in the applicant's plans.
The applicant is proposing to remove all dead, damaged, and diseased trees. Any buckthorn on the site
will be required to be removed. Any significant trees will need to be preserved where feasible. The
landscape plan indicates 226 trees will be planted as mitigation and for screening purposes throughout the
site.
In order to prepare home sites for the proposed walkouts, lookouts, or full basements, a significant
amount of excavation and filling will be necessary, including soil replacement for stability as well as
adding significant amounts of fill to ensure adequate site drainage and to elevate homes above the high
seasonal water table.
The internal road system serving the development is proposed to be public. Due to the number of units to
be served both initially and potentially in the future,the road system is intended to be public and has been
designed to public road standards. The proposed road layout consists of a horseshoe configuration with
two access points onto Old Crystal Bay Road. Each access point will be located directly across from the
existing road/driveway accesses of the Orono Industrial Park. The two westerly ends terminate at the
boundary with the Dumas property, with the intention being to provide access for future development of
the Dumas property.
Gaffron noted temporary cul-de-sacs will be constructed which can be removed at such future time the
roads are extended. To avoid future neighborhood confusion, Staff recommends that the actual road
construction extend past the temporary cul-de-sacs to the west property boundary and that barriers and
signage be erected indicated the road potentially will be extended in the future.
The applicant is proposing preliminary buffers. The Planning Commission should review the proposed
berming and vegetative screening along the north, south, and eastern lot boundaries. The buffers are
intended to provide screening from the adjacent roadways into private yards and mitigate tree loss on the
site.
As it relates to lot layout and lot standards,the layout is such that it takes into account the wetlands and
the roads on three sides, the need to locate access points, and provide for future road extension to Dumas
property. All of those factors have impacted the layout of the lots, which resulted in the horseshoe layout.
Staff feels the latest plan is very refined and makes a lot of sense.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and did not identify any issues that could not be resolved as
part of the review process and final plat process.
Page 10 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
As it relates to parks,trails and sidewalks,the applicant is proposing a sidewalk along the west side of the
internal horseshoe road, then continuing along the northeast cul-de-sac and connecting to the signalized
intersection of Wayzata Boulevard and Old Crystal Bay Road. The Planning Commission should discuss
whether a segment of sidewalk should be extended to the east along the southerly access road to allow for
more direct access to the trail on the east side of Old Crystal Bay Road.
RPUD standards require that 10 percent of the development site be provided as a private recreation area
or open space to serve the residents of the development. This site is located across from the school
campus. Gaffron stated from a staff perspective, it may not be necessary to require that 10 percent when
there are school facilities directly across the road. Dedication of that 10 percent would result in the loss
of a lot or two.
The property will be subject to a park dedication fee which will be between $3,250 and $5,550 per lot.
There will also be a stormwater and drainage improvement fee at approximately$7,200 per acre.
Location of utilities has been a point of discussion between the applicant and Staff. Municipal sewer and
water utilities are planned to be extended westward from the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and
Wayzata Boulevard in 2016 to serve development at this site and properties further west. The property
has not been previously assessed for sewer and water. Sewer and water connection charges have been
preliminarily determined based on the estimated costs of construction of the extensions and the
apportionment between the three properties is expected to be developed in the future.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the issues identified in Staff's report as it relates to
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the rezoning, and the preliminary plat review.
Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the caveat that the City should
identify alternate sites for higher density development.
Staff also recommends approval of the rezoning to RPUD, to be formally approved at the time of final
plat approval.
Finally, Staff recommends preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Flexibility being granted for the lot area,width, and setback standards of the RPUD District.
Hardcover will be limited to the assigned Tier 4 level of 50 percent on each individual lot. The
0.50 FAR shall be adhered to on each individual lot.
2. Development shall be subject to adherence to the proposed Basic Conservation Design Master
Plan as well as subject to removal of buckthorn on the site.
3. Approval of filling of Wetland#3 as proposed will be subject to mitigation as required by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Wetland#3 is to be removed from the Wetlands Overlay
District. Wetlands#1 and#2 are subject to standard City Flowage and Conservation Easements
as well as MCWD buffer requirements and City wetland setback requirements.
4. Significant trees to be preserved to the extent possible and as shown on the landscaping plans.
Page 11 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
5. The applicant is to confirm with SHPO that there are no archeological sites within the property.
6. The internal road system is to be public streets. At the two westerly temporary cul-de-sacs, the
road shall be extended to the west boundary line of the property and suitable permanent barriers
and signage installed to indicate future road extension is intended. Internal streets road width
shall be increased to 32 feet back-of-curb to back-of-curb.
7. Preliminary plat to be reviewed by the Park Commission and Fire Chief for comments and
recommendations prior to Council review of the preliminary plat.
8. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the sidewalk should be extended along the
south entry road and crosswalk established across Old Crystal Bay Road.
9. Ten percent private recreational space requirement will not be enforced.
10. Park dedication fees and storm water and drainage trunk fees, as well as municipal sewer and
water connection charges will be required and collected in full at the time of final plat approval.
11. Acceptance of the conceptual house plan and elevation as proposed.
Gaffron indicated he and/or the applicant would be able to answer any questions the Planning
Commission may have.
Schoenzeit stated he had the opposite take on the Dumas letter and that it would be important for the City
to confirm the Dumas operation is in compliance with city and state code. Schoenzeit stated it is even
more important that they follow the rules now that they will have neighbors and that any recommendation
should include the City noticing this property owner that this is not a license to behave in a way that is
contrary to code.
McGrann stated they need to obey the code but that this development does not give the City a license to
inspect their property. McGrann noted the Dumas farm has been in operation for decades and that there is
no reason to believe they are not in compliance with state and city codes.
Thiesse noted the City will likely receive complaints if they are over-spraying.
McGrann stated the question is whether they have the right to spray with homes 30 or 50 feet away.
Schoenzeit stated it needs to be checked out.
Landgraver stated in his view it is overstepping the Planning Commission's charter to all of a sudden say
that the City is going to come in to inspect a neighboring property.
Schoenzeit stated it would help to ensure they are in compliance even though they have been there for a
long time.
Leskinen stated her impression was very different and that they were attempting to convey that this is
what they have been doing and that they will be continuing to do it even after this property is developed.
Leskinen stated the future property owners need to understand what a working farm property is.
Page 12 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated if they start at 4 a.m. in the morning,that is not code compliant.
Leskinen stated she is not sure if the City should just go out and start checking and that it can be
addressed at the time a complaint is received.
Schoenzeit stated the letter is notice to the developer.
Landgraver commented he is not sure the City can compel a home purchaser to certify that they have
received the letter.
Schoenzeit stated the letter or notice to the developer does not give them the right to break the ordinances
even if that is what they have been doing over the years.
Leskinen stated the properly owners will need to understand what is there.
Thiesse stated the City has the right to stop activities that are outside of the law and that property owners
have the right to complain if something becomes a problem.
Schoenzeit stated this type of letter is trying to give notice to the future property owners.
Lemke indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Schoenzeit.
Lemke asked if the temporary cul-de-sacs meet code.
Gaffron stated in the past the temporary cul-de-sacs end up with an easement over the properties at the
corners. At the point those cul-de-sacs are no longer needed, they would then be vacated, removed, and
the easements vacated.
Lemke asked if they are big enough to turn around.
Gaffron indicated they are.
Lemke asked if the length exceeds the City's maximum.
Gaffron stated one of the reasons for the two access points onto Old Crystal Bay Road was because
without them, the cul-de-sacs would exceed the 1,000 foot limit. At this point they do not.
Lemke asked whether two accesses onto Old Crystal Bay Road would be allowed.
Gaffron noted Old Crystal Bay Road is a city-owned road and that the City will allow it. The access
points would be required to be placed across from the Orono Industrial Park access points.
McGrann noted traffic by the school is fairly heavy at times. McGrann asked whether Staff has any
thoughts about the increased traffic and the impact from this development.
Gaffron indicated he asked the City Engineer if there is a need for turn lanes,which gets to the question
of whether there should be sidewalk access for pedestrians at the corner. Gaffron stated there needs to be
the ability to walk across the road with the light and that there should be four-way crosswalks so people
can cross at each corner.
Page 13 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated from the standpoint of what is happening with the school traffic, there have been ongoing
discussions among school personnel regarding potential improvements or changes to that road to address
the concerns about traffic. Gaffron indicated he has not been part of those discussions and that he does
not know what is proposed or being contemplated.
McGrann stated he just wants to make sure this development is part of those discussions.
Gaffron stated one of the early discussion points was whether there should be a sidewalk connecting the
neighbornood to the signalized intersection. Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing a sidewalk along
the internal road to the intersection. Gaffron noted there is currently no sidewalk except for on the east
side and that the Planning Commission should discuss whether there should also be added sidewalk built
as part of this development.
Thiesse asked when that intersection will be reconstructed.
Gaffron indicated he is not sure when it is scheduled and that it could be three or four years out.
Schoenzeit stated the traffic light controls are not the most ideal as it relates to timing.
Leskinen asked what wou(d happen if the two potential temporary cul-de-sacs are not built.
Gaffron stated in his view the temporary cul-de-sacs need to be built. Gaffron stated in addition to the
cul-de-sac at the end of the road,there needs to be something erected that lets people know this road is
intended to be continued at some point in the future.
Thiesse asked if there will be surmountable curb.
Gaffron stated there could be some sort of wooden barrier at the end and that he is not sure if the
developer is proposing a berm curb or something else.
Lemke asked if the swamp or wetland area was included whether that would increase the density.
Gaffron indicated it would not change the density either way and that the wetland areas as well as the
required wetland buffers have been excluded from the density calculation. Gaffron noted Staff normally
has not excluded wetland buffers in the past but the Metropolitan Council does when they make their
calculation.
Gaffron stated if the wetland is within a single outlot, the question would become how it could be made
an amenity. To accomplish that,the City could require some sort of pathway through the buffers, such as
a walking trail. Gaffron noted the Northern Avenue project allowed the lots to go through the wetland but
that it did not have a walking path. Gaffron indicated there are two ways to do it and that there will be
trade-offs no matter which way it is done.
Leskinen asked if the City has an alternate location somewhere in the City for higher density.
Gaffron stated Staff has been discussing that for the past month or two and met with representatives from
the Metropolitan Council at the end of January. The first question asked was whether a Comprehensive
Page 14 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Plan Amendment would be required and the answer was yes. The second question was whether they
would allow lower density at this site without the City identifying other land for higher desnity.
Ultimately the city would have to reguide additional land.
Barnhart stated the Navarre mixed use area is guided for four units an acre and that could be increased to
four to six units an acre, which is what Staff's recommendation will be to the City Council.
Thiesse noted the City is not even at half the lowest number and if the City were to try to meet that
density, they would be looking at 90 houses on this site.
Barnhart stated they can get there if the density in the Navarre mixed use area is increased to six or seven
units per acre. Barnhart stated the Metropolitan Council wants to see opportunity for higher density
guided in the Comprehensive Plan.
Landgraver asked if that Navarre solution includes the property adjacent to this property and the Dumas
property.
Barnhart stated it assumes the same density. Barnhart noted the Dumas property is around 56 acres and
the Eisenger property is around 15 acres.
McGrann stated in his view the City could not get to the density requirements simply by using Navarre.
Leskinen stated she likes this plan much better than the plan they looked at last summer, but that there are
not that many areas in Orono that are conducive to higher density. Leskinen noted this site was
earmarked for higher density because it was located across from the school and the industrial zone.
Leskinen indicated she has real concerns about the City running out of room to accommodate higher
density and that they might then be forced to use a less desirable place for higher density. Leskinen stated
she is not sure what the answer is.
Thiesse commented the City could keep kicking the can down the road until there is no land available.
Gaffron stated the Metropolitan Council could require the City to have higher density at some point.
Leskinen stated if that happens,the higher density could occur on a more prime piece of land.
Lemke stated he looks at the proposed density for this site and it feels right. Lemke stated in his view he
does not feel the higher density is justified.
Leskinen concurred that what is proposed looks nice but that she does not know where the density can be
made up.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission can make a recommendation on the Comprehensive Plan
amendment but that they do not need to specify where the higher density should be located.
Barnhart stated it is not necessary for the Planning Commission to identify that and that the Planning
Commission's concerns about kicking the can down the road or finding other higher density areas will be
relayed to the City Council.
Page 15 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann stated if this application goes forward, people might become more comfortable about having
higher density on the Dumas property. McGrann stated he would prefer to evolve into it rather than going
right to seven units per acre right now.
Schoenzeit asked what the consequence is of not meeting the required density.
Gaffron stated it is possible future Comprehensive Plan amendments would not get approved by the
Metropolitan Council. Gaffron stated if the City goes below the three units per acre,the Metropolitan
Council may not allow the City to develop a particular property at a lower density.
Schoenzeit stated if the City is serious about meeting that higher density, part of it has to be a
recommendation to the City Council that they have to accept the next higher density proposal. Schoenzeit
stated the City has to have the attitude that they are going to actually build higher density because so far
the City has not been interested in it. Schoenzeit stated if the City has an obligation to approve a higher-
density development, then they need to do it.
Thiesse asked what it is zoned for.
Gaffron indicated it is guided for seven to ten units as well as the Dumas property. The Eisenger property
is guided for l 0 to 15 units per acre. Gaffron noted there are some properties that could be re-guided for
higher density, which might involve taking some commercial sites and turning them into residential, but
that the City has a limited number of vacant properties.
Gaffron indicated one of the things that was discussed was whether a multi-family building could be
located in the corner and it was felt it would be an oddity in the neighborhood of single-family homes.
Thiesse noted the developer has done exactly what the Planning Commission recommended and reduced
the density.
Schoenzeit stated perhaps the City needs to be willing to look at buildings with higher height and
investing in the appropriate fire protection equipment.
Gaffron stated the Stone Bay Lofts development is similar to what it will take to get to 15 units per acre.
Doing a building or two like that on smaller lots will do a lot for getting the City towards the three unit
per acre standard.
Barnhart stated he put together a model of the growth areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan and
what has happened in those areas. If the Navarre area is changed from four to six,the City would be at
3.07 units per acre, which is slightly above the three units per acre threshold. Barnhart stated if the
Dumas property is developed at seven units and the Eisenger property is developed at a lower density
than what it is guided for,the City will need to identify other properties for higher density even if the
Navarre area is guided for eight units per acre.
McGrann asked if the Met Council is appointed or elected.
Gaffron indicated they are appointed by the governor.
Page 16 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
McGrann asked if Staff knows for a fact what they will do.
Gaffron stated Metropolitan Council staff and board members change over time and it has become more
difficult to meet some of their goals. Gaffron stated as long as the Metropolitan Council continues to say
the City needs to provide opportunities for higher density, the City is okay, but that the Metropolitan
Council could decide one day to require the higher density be actually developed. Gaffron stated the
number of developers who are willing to do that higher density are few and far between and that the
higher density should be market driven.
Landgraver asked when the next Comprehensive Plan update is required to be completed.
Barnhart indicated it is due in 2018.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission could recommend approval of the lower density with the
recommendation that other sites be identified for higher density.
Thiesse commented this might be the ideal property for the City to catch up on its density.
Landgraver asked if the City has had a lot of developers inquiring about higher density on this property.
Gaffron indicated it has been a number of years.
Landgraver asked for additional detail on the sewer system.
Gaffron stated at the sketch plan review last summer, it was known that there was sewer and water
available at the corner. The question has become what is the most efficient way to provide those utilities
to this property as well as the Eisinger and Dumas properties. Gaffron stated within the last six months
the Public Works Director has worked with Bolton & Menk to discuss the connection and to determine
how the extension should be built and who should pay for it. The idea was to have a single pipe from the
Eisenger property to the corner of OCB & Wayzata Boulevard.
Gaffron stated at the time this plan came in initially,the discussion centered around connecting it into the
corner. Since then the Public Works Director has come up with a formula for paying for the costs, with
the costs being allocated to the three properties. Council has stated they would absorb the costs for the
Dumas property initially and then collect that amount when the property develops. Gaffron stated when
this property and the Eisinger property become developed,their portion of the costs would be collected.
Gaffron indicated they know there will be a lift station at the low point between Eisinger and Dumas,
pumping uphill, and then potentially be gravity flow east of the Dumas property. If it is gravity pipe, it
could make use of the proposed gravity pipe throughout the neighborhood. Gaffron indicated he would
prefer the neighborhood to connect to the main extension rather than running the main through the
neighborhood since there are implications for maintenance and/or replacement if it goes through the
neighborhood.
Tom Gonyea, Estate Development Corporation, stated in his view they have come up with a pretty good
plan following discussions with both the Planning Commission and the City Council on a few occasions.
Gonyea indicated he did speak with Marilyn Dumas and that she wants the future property owners to
understand that they are moving in next to a farm. Gonyea stated he also shared with her that it is
Page 17 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
probably a good idea to erect a sign at the end of the cul-de-sacs notifying the residents that this road will
be developed at some point in the future. Gonyea stated he feels it is a good idea to put people on notice
for whatever that land could be used for.
Gonyea stated they basically came up with this plan based on the feedback of the Council and the
Planning Department, and that the issues with the Metropolitan Council are not within his control.
Gonyea noted the focus of the Metropolitan Council tends to change over the years depending on the
governor.
Schoenzeit stated in seeing the varying setbacks, it seems like it will cause a lot of confusion and issues
with the homeowners. Schoenzeit asked if there is a happy medium.
Gonyea stated some cities allow different setbacks on the garage side. Gonyea indicated they would be
willing to make it seven and a half on each side so there would be 15 feet between the homes,with the
only exceptions being a couple of areas where there is a little larger easement.
Ian Peterson, David Weekly Homes, stated he spent a lot of time down at the legislature discussing
various items, including the Metropolitan Council. Peterson stated the Metropolitan Council does change
over the years with each council having a different focus. Peterson stated the Metropolitan Council is
looking for the providing of higher density opportunities.
Peterson noted during the boom years up unti12006 to 2007, nearly 60 percent of the housing constructed
was attached townhomes. Over the years some law firms came in from California and Colorado
representing homeowner associations. The condo laws favored these law firms and the law firms slapped
the builders with potential lawsuits. Peterson indicated the builders collectively have been at the
legislature the last three or four sessions asking for some change to that legislation and that today there
are very few builders who are building large attached condo buildings. Peterson noted apartments do not
fall under the same laws.
Peterson stated as it relates to this development,the 65-foot wide lots will start in the upper$500,000
range and go into the upper$600,000 range. The 45-foot lots would be more of an empty-nester product
and will range in the$400,000 to $500,000 range.
Peterson stated all of the two-story plans range from 2,600 square feet above ground to around 3,150
square feet above ground. Peterson indicated they played around a lot with the floor plans. All of the
homes will accommodate three cars. The general theme is to break up the garage fronts with the tandem
garages and the courtyards.
Peterson indicated the exteriors will be constructed with Hardy Board siding. Each home will come with
a deck, full basement, outdoor patio, 10-foot main floor ceilings, and 9-foot basement ceilings.
McGrann asked if there will be any walkouts on the site.
Peterson indicated there will be some along the wetland. Peterson stated they attempted to make a
landscape berm around the perimeter to create a buffer from the high school and the industrial park.
Peterson stated they have been very successful in other developments at creating that landscape buffer
and that it allows for a nice berm with some trees.
Page 18 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke asked if there is enough demand for these types of homes in Orono.
Peterson stated there is due to the Orono address and the schools in the area.
Schoenzeit asked if this is similar to what is at Red Oak.
Peterson indicated it is not and that these homes will be slightly above those homes. Peterson stated to
his knowledge the homes in Red Oak have vinyl siding and the architectural finish is a little different.
Size-wise they will be fairly similar. Most of these homes have 10:12 roof pitches.
Landgraver recommended they include some layouts they like before they proceed to the Council.
Landgraver asked if they have any thoughts about having a sidewalk on the south side.
Peterson stated in his opinion it is a good idea but that his concern is how they will get across the street
once they reach the corner. Peterson indicated they have attempted to channel pedestrians to the main
intersection through the neighborhood but that there would need to be some type of inechanism to get
pedestrians across the street. Peterson stated the homeowners will probably want a crosswalk.
Landgraver asked what his thoughts are regarding the sewer extension.
Peterson stated they have worked quite a bit in the past with Bolton& Menk and that they always attempt
to avoid parallel lines or one in front of the home and one behind the home. Peterson noted this sewer
will not serve a huge area and will not require an 18-inch pipe. In addition,the layout allows the Dumas
property to have direct access to sewer and water. The pumping mechanism can go into the last manhole
at the end. Peterson indicated he would not be opposed to whatever Bolton & Menk comes up with.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m.
Leskinen asked if there is a sidewalk to the south entrance.
Gaffron illustrated the potential layout of the sidewalk. Gaffron stated there would need to be a striped
crosswalk to get to the trail if a south access sidewalk is added with the intent to provide a mid-block
crossing of OCB Road.
Leskinen commented there is a fair amount of traffic on Old Crystal Bay Road and that she has some
safety concerns.
McGrann stated he would rather walk through the neighborhood and go to the intersection. McGrann
stated he has some concerns with crossing Old Crystal Bay Road and that having the sidewalk go through
the neighborhood is a good idea.
Thiesse stated he would direct them to a controlled intersection. Thiesse stated he is not inclined to
approve a crosswalk at the south entrance.
Page 19 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Gaffron stated if people want to use the trail system, the question is how they will get there.
Thiesse noted there is a bike path or a widened shoulder on the west side as well.
Leskinen stated crossing at the lighted intersection is the best way to go.
Gaffron asked how the units differ on the 45-foot lots from the 65-foot lots.
Gonyea stated the idea was to try to add a little more density and a little more variation. The units on the
45-foot lots will have a 5-foot setback rather than ten and five.
Peterson stated those units would have main level living with a basement,two-car garage front load with
a tandem deep. The house will be 35 feet wide and 75 feet deep. Peterson indicated typically there are
two bedrooms on the main level with a study and that the product will be marketed to people looking to
downsize and stay in the area.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is in favor of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Thiesse stated he would recommend that the Comprehensive Plan be amended with strong language that
the City get in line with the Metropolitan Council's density requirements. Thiesse stated he is not sure a
solution exists and that it likely will get kicked down the road again. Thiesse stated the next development
could be two to three times denser than what is being proposed but that he is not sure how those will get
approved.
McGrann and Leskinen indicated they are in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Leskinen stated the City cannot do anything if someone does not propose developing it at a higher
density.
Thiesse moved,Lemke seconded,Application No. 16-3807,Estate Development Group,to
recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment from seven to ten units per acre to
something greater than three units per acre. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Leskinen stated as it relates to the rezoning to RPUD,the rationale is laid out well in Staff's report and
makes sense for this particular property. Leskinen stated the RPUD does provide some flexibility and
keeps the development from looking like a cookie-cutter development.
Lemke moved,McGrann seconded,Application No. 16-3807, Estate Development Group,to
recommend rezoning of the property to RPUD. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the conditions recommended by Staff as
it relates to the preliminary plat.
Schoenzeit stated he would encourage the developer to keep equal setbacks.
Gonyea stated the only caveat may be where there is a wider easement.
Gaffron stated the sewer will likely be worked out prior to final plat approval.
Page 20 of 30
I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron asked if the applicant is proposing any onsite mitigation of that small piece of wetland.
Gonyea indicated they are not and that they will use wetland banking credits to mitigate it.
Thiesse stated in his view a wetland should be mitigated on its property.
Gaffron stated what is generally being found is that mitigation onsite for wetlands is less than desirable
and does not usually work. Gaffron noted this is a low grade wetland and that in general the City has very
seldom required wetland mitigation on site. Gaffron stated in his view the City will Likely find that the
Watershed District is more interested in doing credit situations rather than onsite wetland mitigation.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission should make a recommendation on the 10 percent recreation
requirement.
Gaffron stated the City has some flexibility on the 10 percent land dedication since this will be part of a
RPUD. The Park Commission has a meeting on March 7 and Staff will have them take a look at this and
comment on whether there should be an additional trail along the north or east side.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is comfortable with the house plans.
Schoenzeit recommended the applicant bring their best package before the Council since they did not
have the exact layouts for this development.
Landgraver moved,Thiesse seconded,Application No. 16-3807,Estate Development Group,to
recommend approval of preliminary plat subject to Staff recommendations and subject to wetland
credits being provided by the applicant,with the recommendation that the developer even out the
side setbacks as much as possible and that the 10 percent land dedication be waived,subject to the
applicant submitting his best house plans prior to the Council meeting,and subject to the City
finalizing intersection and sewer and water improvements. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
6. #15-3759 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT, SHORT-TERM VACATION
RENTALS,9:20 P.M.—9:46 P.M.
Barnhart noted at its February 3 workshop, the Planning Commission heard from seven property owners
commenting on the proposed vacation rental ordinance. Those seven property owners are among the 12
vacation rental owners identified by Staff after searching through the various vacation rental websites.
Most of the comments received respected the need for regulation, with the owners indicating that they are
more protective with their own home and property than the City would be, but they did not want overly
restrictive regulations. They also did not support a total ban on vacation rentals.
Staff has prepared a basic draft ordinance. There was some discussion at the workshop about removing
certain criteria included in the draft ordinance. Barnhart noted the draft ordinance has not been modified
and that he would like to hear some more input from the Planning Commission tonight. At the workshop
Barnhart stated he heard from the Planning Commission that there should be some regulation, such as a
license, but not a prohibition. The draft resolution includes 15 criteria and Staff report includes an
analysis of that criteria.
Page 21 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Barnhart noted language that appears elsewhere in the Code is in italics and can be removed if the
Planning Commission feels it is redundant.
Barnhart stated he would like to get some more feedback from the Planning Commission tonight and then
move it forward to the City Council.
Lemke asked if he received any rental agreements.
Barnhart indicated he did not.
Lemke asked if the draft ordinance was set at a minimum of three nights.
Barnhart noted some people at the workshop felt a maximum was more appropriate and some felt that
three was too much of a minimum. Staff feels three is appropriate since most people will rent the home
for a long weekend. Barnhart stated the issue is with one group of people renting it for one night and
another group the next night. Barnhart stated requiring a minimum of three nights helps to respect the
neighborhood.
Thiesse stated in his view three nights are a little too much and that some of these will be weekend
rentals, which is only two nights.
Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Thiesse.
Schoenzeit stated to his knowledge the City has yet to hear from one person who has been the victim of
the noise and has only received one complaint that was actually from the homeowner. Schoenzeit noted
the City has no actual documented abuse cases and that they chose to do nothing about the rooster lady
due to the low volume of complaints. Schoenzeit stated in his view this is an ordinance in search of a
problem that does not exist.
Landgraver noted there is a letter in the packet from a resident that says they are against rentals.
Thiesse stated this is the ground floor and similar ordinances are popping up in a number of cities.
Thiesse stated Orono is not asking the property owners to do anything more than what some of them are
already doing.
Schoenzeit stated the real issue is who the City can call on short notice to deal with a problem.
Schoenzeit stated the draft ordinance has a pretty good overlap with existing ordinances and that in his
view this ordinance encroaches on property owners' rights.
Lemke noted Item No. 3 says that short-term rentals may be permitted at the owner's principal place of
residence only. Lemke noted one person at the workshop mentioned she had another property a few
doors away and that she does not live there. Lemke stated she also indicated that if she cannot rent it
would be a financial hardship.
Barnhart stated there was another gentleman who raised the same concern as well regarding a cabin on
Big Island. Barnhart stated he understands their point but that the City needs to be careful to make sure
the neighborhood retains that residential character. Barnhart stated he looks at it as a situation similar to a
home occupation and that the person needs to live there to have a home occupation. Barnhart stated in his
Page 22 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
opinion that was an important characteristic of this industry and that it needs to be their primary
residence.
Lemke stated he still has some concerns with that. Lemke noted the two off-street parking spaces do not
apply to the cabin on Big Island. Lemke stated the third item he had some concern with was the
requirement that the owner must be a natural person and not any type of corporation or partnership.
Thiesse stated he would agree with that on the license.
Schoenzeit stated dictating who can apply for a permit is way out of bounds and that in his view the City
needs to accept that entity as the license applicant. Schoenzeit stated the reason why the property is
owned by a corporation could be because of a tax structure. Schoenzeit stated in his view it is a slippery
slope.
Barnhart stated it could be as simple as changing the language to say,the licensee shall be.
Thiesse noted Item No. 4 requires that the owner be available to respond to issues within 60 minutes to
complaints. Thiesse stated no one at the workshop said they couldn't be there within 30 minutes and that
60 minutes is a long time to wait if someone is experiencing problems.
Schoenzeit commented the City should be just as responsive to residents' concerns.
Thiesse noted No. 11 requires two off-street parking spaces. Thiesse suggested some language be
included so people know they cannot park on the yard.
Barnhart indicated parking spaces are defined already in the Code and that it is not necessary to add more
language.
Thiesse noted Item No. 1,third line, states they should not violate provisions of the City of Orono Code
or any state law. Thiesse suggested incorporating the language, "including those pertaining to." Thiesse
recommended Item No. 2 say"comply with all applicable codes, including those regarding fire"rather
than regarding fire.
Thiesse asked if the City wants the trash collection concealed.
Barnhart stated it would be no more than what is already required. Barnhart noted during the discussion
there was some thought about removing Articles 3, 6, 9 and 13. Barnhart indicated he did not remove
those yet to help facilitate the discussion tonight.
Thiesse asked if Item No. 13 would be changed to licensee.
Landgraver stated it would still result in the same problem since the City does not know if someone has
set up a living trust and they have transferred the title to a corporation. Landgraver stated a living trust is
clearly for the benefit of the person living there and the City is saying that isn't allowed. Landgraver
stated in his view corporations perhaps should not be allowed but that there are probably properties in
Orono that are in a living trust.
Thiesse stated he does not want someone to have to call the number for a corporation.
Page 23 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit noted liquor licenses require the listing of a manager or a live person that should be contacted
in the event of a problem.
Leskinen recommended the requirement for the owner's name be taken out since the deed on the property
could say the name of a trust. Leskinen stated for homestead purposes there needs to be a whole separate
document filed in order for a trust to be listed.
Schoenzeit stated the owner's representative needs to be identified.
Lemke asked if anyone else has problems with No. 3.
Thiesse stated he does since the City has at least two people that are complying with everything else but it
is not their primary residence.
Landgraver stated in his view there are two situations,one on Big Island and then everybody else.
Landgraver noted if you are on Big Island, is it considered recreational property.
McGrann questioned how the City can stop someone if they want to buy a property in Orono as a rental.
Barnhart stated the City could simply require a license.
Schoenzeit noted the Your Boat Club rents out two homes already and they are not registered. Schoenzeit
stated in his view this is a slippery slope and that the City should simply enforce their nuisance
regulations.
Leskinen stated if they strip everything out of the draft ordinance that they know is already addressed in
City Code to some level,they would essentially be asking potential people to register their property as a
rental property so that the City is aware the property could potentially be rented. Leskinen stated in her
opinion it is more of a registration than a license.
Barnhart stated the primary benefit is that the City has a responsible party that can respond to complaints.
McGrann indicated he is fine with the license requirement as long as it is something the City can revoke if
need be. McGrann stated the City has not had any issues and that they need to respect everyone's
property rights but that the person renting out his or her property also needs to respect everyone else in
the neighborhood.
Leskinen asked if he is more comfortable with a periodic rental.
McGrann indicated he is not sure of the exact number of nights that should be required or allowed.
McGrann stated in his view people who are coming to Orono are coming to the community for the
neighborhood and the environment. McGrann stated the character of the neighborhood could change if
there are a number of rentals.
Landgraver stated the City should at least put a process in place to identify the persons responsible for
rental properties, and if complaints are received,the City would have the licensing process in place and
could then start attaching conditions. Landgraver stated they are requesting they tell the City they are
Page 24 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
doing this and in return the City will remind them of the regulations. Landgraver stated the license could
be renewed once a year and at that time any problems could be addressed.
Leskinen stated the renewal piece can become the enforcement mechanism.
Landgraver stated the code is also an enforcement piece.
Lemke noted at the workshop the residents indicated they had even more restrictions than what the City is
proposing.
Schoenzeit stated he would rather see strong and consistent nuisance enforcement by the City rather than
just identifying rental properties. Schoenzeit stated the enforcement should be consistent across the City.
Leskinen asked if Commissioner Schoenzeit feels the police department or City would respond quicker to
a complaint regarding a rental versus a general nuisance complaint.
Schoenzeit stated regular residents are not under the same enforcement rules.
Landgraver stated the draft ordinance is the framework and that the question is what the requirements
should be. Landgraver stated the consensus appears to be that there should be some type of licensing or
registration.
Thiesse stated he likes the registration or licensure requirements. Thiesse stated he recalls the Planning
Commission talking about boats and how only the owner's boat can be at the dock.
Barnhart stated based on tonight's discussion so far, it sounds like Items 2 through 15 could be removed,
with Item No. 1 being left in since some criteria is required if a license is to be revoked or not renewed.
Lemke stated he likes No. 9, which limits it to a minimum of two nights; requiring a 30 minute response
time instead of 60 minutes; and then also Nos. 8, 11, and 15.
Barnhart noted 15 and 4 are very similar and that he would suggest keeping Item No. 4 and removing 15.
Lemke stated he likes the ordinance and what it is attempting to accomplish.
Leskinen stated she is not sure if it does any good to keep No. 2 if Item No. 1 is staying. Leskinen stated
it sounds like Items 1, 4, 6 8, 9, 15 are being kept in.
Thiesse noted Items 4 and 15 were similar and that 15 was going to be removed.
Barnhart stated he heard that Items 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11 should remain.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:45 p.m.
Jim Cornick, Council Member, stated he would like some discussion on Item No. 8. Cornick suggested
the Planning Commission give some consideration to raising it to 21.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:46 p.m.
Lemke stated he likes that idea.
Page 25 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 d clock p.m.
[t was the consensus of the Planning Commission to raise the age of the rent to 21.
Landgraver moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3759,City
of Orono,Text Amendment: Vacation Rentals as amended,with Items 1,4,6, 8,9,and 11
remaining in the ordinance and the other items being stricken.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1, Schoenzeit
opposed.
Schoenzeit stated the ordinance is redundant with City Code, infringes on property owners' rights,and is
regulating something that is not an issue.
Thiesse noted everything left in the ordinance is specific to the licensure.
7. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: LIGHTING,9:46 P.M.—9:50 P.M.
Barnhart noted at its February 3�d workshop, the Planning Commission discussed a proposed lighting
ordinance modeled after a similar ordinance for Homer Glen, Illinois. The Planning Commission at that
time agreed to further discuss the ordinance at its next work session scheduled for March 2.
This item has been noticed for a public hearing and the Commission is asked to receive any public
comments and then continue the discussion to the workshop.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:49 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:49 p.m.
McGrann moved,Schoenzeit seconded,Application No. 15-3784, City of Orono,Text Amendment:
Residential Lighting,to table it to the March workshop. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
8. #16-3809 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES,9:50 P.M.—9:56 P.M.
Barnhart noted the City Council and Planning Commission identified the issues of accessory structures,
including hot tubs and detached decks, as items that should be required to be built ten feet from a house as
the third highest ranking issue to be discussed in an ordinance amendment during their annual review of
the ordinances last November.
The proposed ordinance removes the words"or structure." The 10-foot setback requirement between
accessory structures and the principal building is intended to address massing and crowding. A building
is a structure with a roof and a deck would be considered a structure. Barnhart stated in theory someone
could have a patio with a hot tub on it closer than ten feet to the house but could not have an accessory
building within ten feet of the principal structure.
Barnhart stated if people choose to do things that are not necessarily the wisest, he is not sure it is the
City's duty to regulate that.
Page 26 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Staff recommends approval of the ordinance.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 9:54 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 9:54 p.m.
Leskinen commented the ordinance is pretty straight forward.
Thiesse stated he is unsure what integral means.
Barnhart stated a patio or a driveway would be considered a structure which is integral to the house.
Those features are allowed to be within ten feet of the principal structure.
Schoenzeit asked if the City has ever considered requiring frost footings on detached garages.
Barnhart stated it cannot be more restrictive than the Building Code.
Curtis stated as it relates to the structure that is integral to the principal building, it would be something
that is not physically attached to a home.
McGrann moved,Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3809,City of
Orono,Text Amendment: Accessory Structure Setbacks, per staff recommendation.
Schoenzeit stated usually text amendments are word changes and that he is a little uncomfortable with the
Planning Commission getting new text amendments at the Planning Commission meeting. Schoenzeit
stated he would like to see the proposed text amendments at a work session. Schoenzeit noted lighting is
clearly not a text amendment and will be discussed at a work session and that in his view a text
amendment means a housecleaning amendment. Schoenzeit stated he is not sure the Planning
Commission should see them for the first time at a Planning Commission meeting.
Curtis stated this text amendment is pretty straight forward.
Barnhart stated Staff felt this was a fairly simple text amendment and that the Planning Commission
could table it if they are not comfortable with it. Barnhart indicated Staff will make it a point to introduce
major text amendments at work sessions.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
9. #16-3810 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC HEARINGS,9:56 P.M.- 10:13 P.M.
Barnhart noted the City Council and the Planning Commission at their November ordinance review
meeting felt there was some confusion with Section 78-98. It was felt that Section 78-98 suggests a six-
month window to acquire land. There was also a question relating to the notice of 350 feet for a
conditional use permit and 150 feet for variance and that those two should be consistent.
Page 27 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The draft ordinance removes the 150-foot notification boundary for variances and expanding the
boundary to 350 feet. Going forward, all properties within 350 feet of a subject property would receive a
notification. The advantage is consistency with all notification boundaries.
The draft ordinance also removes the portion of Paragraph B that discusses the acquisition of the land. It
implies a 6-month period in which no permit is issued in the event the City wants to purchase the land.
Staff is recommending approval of the ordinance as drafted.
Thiesse stated variances a lot of times are on small properties that are 40 or 50 feet wide. In those
situations, Thiesse stated 350 feet is too far. Thiesse questioned whether they can give notice to up to
three properties, which does not specify a distance. Thiesse stated he is not sure what the answer is, but
in his view up to seven properties is too far away.
Schoenzeit commented more notice is good and gives people the opportunity to participate in the process.
Schoenzeit asked whether there is any penalty Orono has if someone removes the sticker to prevent
someone from receiving notice.
Curtis stated the City receives a page of labels and a page of printed addresses.
Schoenzeit stated he has seen examples where people who should have been notified were not notified.
Curtis indicated the City gets a printout of those addresses. Curtis stated usually the labels are not
removed and is a full sheet.
Leskinen stated the person doing the mailing has to certify it, and if a label is missing, the City can rectify
it.
Schoenzeit stated he favors the increased notice area.
McGrann stated he also is in favor of it.
Barnhart noted the ordinance only expands the boundary for variances. Barnhart stated Staff can take it
off the table if the Planning Commission is not comfortable with it. Barnhart noted the notice would also
be published in the City's legal newspaper.
Schoenzeit stated in his view this is a good change but noted there are other conditions that also do not
have good notice coverage, such as fire lanes. Schoenzeit asked if those notice distances can also be
expanded.
Barnhart stated the City follows state statute in those instances.
Landgraver stated he initially had the same reaction as Commissioner Thiesse and that he became
comfortable with it because it puts the burden on the Planning Commission to place certain weight on the
complaint depending on how far away the property is located but it avoids the public's complaint that
they did not know about it.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:10 p.m.
Page 28 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:10 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked for clarification of Item B.
Barnhart stated the Council has six months to initiate action to try to acquire the property if a variance is
granted. If that action is not started within that time period,the building permit can be issued. Barnhart
indicated Staff is proposing to remove that language on the advice of the City Attorney since it is
inconsistent with the 60-day rule.
Lemke moved,McGrann seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3810,City of
Orono Text Amendment: Public Notice Requirements Associated with Public Hearings.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
10. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: JANUARY 25,2016,AND
FEBRUARY 8,2016
Barnhart reported at the January 25 meeting, the Kieffer variance was approved; the Schnell variance was
approved but the Council did not approve the stepping stones within the 0-75 foot zone; and the Wozinski
variance was approved. The Hanson variance was tabled by the Planning Commission at its January
meeting and reviewed tonight. The City Council will see that application on the 7�'. The McMillan
easement vacation was approved and will be before the Council on Monday.
Barnhart noted the TCO Design application was denied by the Council because they had concerns with
the operation of the building and how it fits into Navarre. Barnhart stated it might be a good idea to look
at the Navarre area and come up with an overall plan or vision.
Schoenzeit stated if they want to steer Navarre in a certain way,the City Council may need to consider
community development funds.
Barnhart stated it is an opportunity to relook at the City's vision for that area.
Schoenzeit commented the City is not in financial partnership with the property owners and that they
might want to relook at providing community development fund if a building sits vacant for a period of
time.
Barnhart noted the Council tabled the Tufaas application and directed the applicant to revisit their
application.
Barnhart noted as was discussed briefly at the workshop,the City Council is considering purchasing
tablets for the Planning Commission possibly sometime in the summer in an effort to go paperless.
11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
Page 29 of 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,February 16,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
10:20 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
�
ATTEST: ,.�
;-- %�
�.
.� / ��r� ____...�-
.�
� .,� �� __. .
` Denise Leskinen, Chair
Page 30 of 30