HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-2016 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
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, Bruce Lemke, Laren 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 Lizz
Levang was present.
Chair Leskinen opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
MARCH 21,2016
Lemke moved, Thiesse seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of March 14, 2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #16-3818 SALA ARCHITECTS ON BEHALF OF CHRIS AND LESLIE NEUGENT, 710
BIG ISLAND, VARIANCES, 6:31 P.M.—6:44 P.M.
Dale Mulfinger, SALA Architects, and Chris Neugent, Applicant, were present.
Curtis stated the property owners purchased the property last year and would like to make modifications
to the cabin in order to better meet their family's needs. The changes include expansion of the footprint
on the main level to accommodate a main floor bedroom on the west side of the cabin and a screen porch
addition on the north side of the cabin. The applicants would also like to construct a detached garage
structure on the east side of the lot.
The screen porch is proposed to extend approximately five feet lakeward of the 75-foot setback line to
utilize the existing two 3' x 3' stone foundation footing blocks remaining from the original cabin. This
results in an additional 180 feet of hardcover within the 75-foot setback area. The addition on the west
side will not extend beyond the existing covered porch on the cabin and is set back from the 75-foot
setback. The proposed 25' x 35' storage garage is situated 76 feet from the OHWL. All of the projects
are located lackward of the average lakeshore setback line and variances are necessary.
Curtis noted revised hardcover calculations have been submitted and have been distributed to the
Planning Commission.
The property is situated on the northwestern most point on the western portion of Big Island and the
entire is lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line resulting in no legal buildable area. The existing
cabin was reconstructed on top of the existing building footprint. The cabin sits as close as 76 feet to the
ordinary OHWL. The applicants are proposing an enclosed screen porch to extend into the 75-foot
setback. The porch addition results in an increase of 183 square feet of hardcover within the 0 -75
setback area.
Page 1 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Due to the nature of the lot at the point of the island, there are practical difficulties supporting the average
setback variances for the cabin additions as well as the garage. The applicants' desire to utilize the
existing footings of the old cabin is consistent with the previous owner's plan to keep the historic
footprint of the home. The location of the existing cabin existing right at the lake setback may serve as a
practice difficulty for the owners.
Staff recommends approval of the average setback variances. If the Planning Commission finds practical
difficulties supporting granting lake setback and hardcover variances, a recommendation for approval
would be appropriate. The property must conform to the septic system codes. The building permits are
subject to approval by the building official. The applicant is working to provide the information to ensure
that the septic system is compliant.
Landgraver asked if the City has any record of requiring it to be moved back out of the 75-foot setback
when it was rebuilt in 2004.
Curtis indicated the City did not request that. Curtis noted the cabin was built on the existing foundation
and these footings were outside of the foundation.
Leskinen asked if there was a structure at one time on the existing footings.
Curtis indicated she does not have that information available.
Dale Mulfinger, SALA Architects,noted the expansion on the west side is breaking off a portion of the
living room and converting it into a library. Mulfinger stated they are relocating the bedroom to the main
floor for the property owners' handicapped son and is located within the interior of the home. As it
relates to the piers, none of the old photographs they have depicts what was on those footings. Mulfinger
stated they are assuming there was a porch there are one time.
Chris Neugent, Applicant, stated what appears to be windows in that area are actually doors and open up
to the open air. Neugent indicated they would like to construct a porch in that area.
Thiesse asked if there will a foundation underneath the porch and whether anyone has actually
investigated whether they extend below the frost line.
Mulfinger indicated they do go down to the frost line and that they are planning to span to those. The
footings are 3' x 3'.
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.
Leskinen stated as far as the average lakeshore setback variance, that is relatively straight forward, and
she does not have any issues with the variance. Leskinen asked if there is enough of a practical difficulty
to support the screen porch addition.
Page 2 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated because they are using the existing frost footings and extending to it,it would be nice if
it did not become a 4-season porch.
Landgraver stated he had initially interpreted this to go beyond the 75-foot line,but if it is a seasonal
porch extending out to what appear to be existing substantial footings,it is probably okay.
Lemke indicated he is fine with the proposal.
Thiesse stated his initial thought was that they have plenty of room to the side but that he likes the idea of
using the existing footings.
Leskinen indicated she does not have any problems with the variance.
Schoenzeit stated the recommendation should require that the submitted plans are corrected showing only
those footings and not that a poured foundation will be completed.
Thiesse stated a foundation of that type tends to collect debris and attract rodents.
Schoenzeit stated the consensus appears to be that the applicants can reuse the existing footings but that
they are not in favor of having it be a 4-season porch now or in the future.
Thiesse stated he would like the next Planning Commission and Council to make that decision and that he
is comfortable with the applicants using those footings without any additional stipulations.
Schoenzeit stated they need to correct their plans to show that it is not a solid foundation.
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3818,
SALA Architects on behalf of Chris and Leslie Neugent, 710 Big Island, granting of variances,
subject to compliance with septic regulations and the submittal of a revised plan showing the
expansion to the existing footings not as a solid poured foundation. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
3. #16-3819 KEVIN ANDERSON ON BEHALF OF NORTH ARM FARM,LLC, 800
NORTH ARM DRIVE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:44 P.M.—7:28 P.M.
Mike Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting a sketch plan review for a 4-acre property proposed to
be developed into three single-family residential lots. All lots would be served by a new private road and
would be served with municipal sewer and individual wells. Since this is a sketch plan,the neighbors
have not been notified of the plans and no formal action is required by the Planning Commission.
The property is located on the east side of North Arm Drive near the southeast corner of the Lakeview
development. It has frontage on North Arm Bay. That frontage is on the northeast side and along the east
boundary. The west half of the property slopes gradually to the east, with steep slopes at the east and
northerly shorelines. The area where the north lot boundary nears the lakeshore is likely a bluff by
definition. No structures are allowed within 30 feet of the bluff.
The property is zoned LR-1B, one family lakeshore residential, and is guided in the Orono Community
Management Plan for residential use. The LR-1B District has a number of lots in the neighborhood that
are bigger ar smaller than this one, and it would be fair to say that these lots at 1-acre apiece are
Page 3 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
considerably long and narrow in configuration. The average lakeshore setback can be a potential issue
with these properties and will depend on which lot gets developed first.
The westerly two-thirds of the property is generally open, while the steep slope area along the lakeshore
of proposed Lot 1 is heavily wooded. The area around the existing house contains a number of mature
trees. The shape of the existing property is somewhat of a point jutting into North Arm Bay, and as such,
has shoreline running north, south, and shoreline running east-west. The linear shape of the property
forces the proposed lots to be long and narrow in order far each lot to have at least 140 feet of width.
There are a few small areas of wetland along the northerly shoreline.
The property to the immediate north at 790 North Arm is also a lake lot. The property to the immediate
south includes two off lake lots and a lakeshore lot. The west half of the property slopes gradually to the
east, with steep slopes at the easterly and northerly shorelines. The area where the north lot boundary
nears the lakeshore is likely a bluff by definition. The property contains an existing residence and a
number of outbuildings that are served by a 700-foot long driveway along the south lot line.
A potential issue with the proposed house site on Lot 1 is that no structures are allowed within 30 feet of
the top of bluff. The top of bluff wili most likely be defined as the 960' contour. The 30-foot setback
would likely force the house further west, away from the lake and closer to the cul-de-sac.
Lot 2 contains the existing municipal sewer lines that were installed in 1973. The sewer line crosses the
property from north to south and discharges to a lift station at the very north end of the property at the
shore, which in turn pumps into a parallel forcemain that runs back up the hill adjacent to the gravity line,
discharging to a manhole in Windjammer Lane.
The easement for that sewer line is 20 feet wide and no structures can be built over that easement. That
results in a proposed house location being restricted to the triangle between the sewer easement and the
75-foot setback. In addition, the Public Works Department utilizes a route outside of that easement due to
the topography. It is necessary on a regular basis to bring a truck down to the lift station for maintenance
and that route is used since there is no other way to access the lift station. The City needs to preserve this
non-easement route for future sewer system maintenance.
Lot 3 contains the existing house that was built in 1956. Replacing the house will likely require it to be
moved back from the lake some distance as the 75-foot setback line appears to run through the east side
of the structure. With or without the proposed subdivision, an average lakeshore setback variance would
be required for replacement of this house.
The property is located within the MUSA and is intended to be served with public sanitary sewer and
private wells. The proposed subdivision would generally be in conformity with the 2030 CMP which
guides the property for low-medium density single-family residential use.
Although only a small number of homes will be served by the road, City Code requires a road width of 24
feet paved width in a 50-foot road corridar. Given the one acre urban density of the proposed
development, it would follow that the road system should be public. However, since recent urban-density
developments have been directed by the City Council to be served by private roads, the applicants should
be advised to prepare as if the road system will be private. Staff recommends that the road be a public
road.
Page 4 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The road access onto North Arm Drive is outside of a curve and would not be expected to have any sight
distance concerns. At approximately 375 feet in length, the cul-de-sac meets the City's 1000 foot
maximum length limitation.
A potential issue for discussion is that the proposed cul-de-sac location abuts the rear yard of the existing
residence at 835 Windjammer Lane. While those owners and their predecessors have experienced a
single private driveway at that location since the house at 835 was built in 1969, the driveway at 800
North Arm has existed at its current location since at least the 1940s or earlier. Conversion of the
driveway to a road may have negative impacts to those neighbors and consideration should perhaps be
given to requiring additional buffering or separation of the proposed road from the south lot line. The
cul-de-sac could be moved further north into Lot 1 but that may have additional impacts on the already
linear shape of the lots.
Based upon the density being proposed, Staff would conclude and recommend that the road be publicly
owned and maintained. If the road is deemed to be private, the City will require a road, drainage and
utilities easement over the private road, which should be platted as an outlot and designed and built to
City private road standards. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property
boundaries, as well as conservation and flowage easements over the delineated wetlands will be required.
An additional easement for sewer system maintenance would be appropriate to obtain at the time of
subdivision.
The CMP does not indicate any future trails along North Artn Drive. No sidewalks exist in this area of
Orono and none are contemplated. City Code requires dedication of eight percent of the land as public
park or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The anticipated park fee would be $5,550 per lot, for a
total park fee of$11,100.
The property will also be subject to the stormwater and drainage trunk fee. If the existing residence is
intended to remain,the Code would suggest that the fee would be approximately$10,500. If it is
removed, the fee would be$15,750. The existing sewer connection for the house on Lot 3 runs across
proposed Lots 1 and 2 along the shoreline. Leaving it as is will require establishment of easements
between the properties. Adding sewer stubs to serve Lots 1 and 2 is likely necessary and may be difficult
since the existing gravity line is approximately l5 to 20 feet below existing grade. Municipal water is not
available and not planned to be extended to this area of Orono so private wells will be required.
The property contains a narrow strip of delineated wetland along the northerly shoreline, which would
presumably remain untouched. The City will require a conservation and flowage easement over this strip
of wetland. Due to the need for vehicular access for municipal sewer maintenance,the City will likely
require that buffer widths and locations be established in a manner that will accommodate such
maintenance.
The site is relatively open, with one significant wooded area in the steep slope area directly downhill from
the proposed building site on Lot 1. The developer is encouraged to preserve existing vegetation to the
extent possible. It is likely, however,that connection to the municipal sewer along the shore will require
some disruption to the wooded area. The property will also be subject to the City's Conservation Design
Ordinance. Each of the lots will be subject to Tier 1 hardcover limits.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the issues outlined in Staff's report and provide the
developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat.
Page 5 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke stated in his view there is a fake easement and a real easement across the property. Lemke asked
if the real easement should really be labeled as an easement.
Gaffron indicated the real easement is depicted in yellow and is 10 feet on either side of the pipes. The
area in green is a path and is not an easement. Over the years there has been a good relationship between
the current owner and the City to maintain that sewer. If the sewer cannot be maintained, it likely will
stop working and cause issues.
Schoenzeit stated it would be better for the new owners to have that access formalized so they understand
it is there.
Leskinen noted it clear that the topography dictates that access route.
Gaffron stated the City does not have the option to come in from the other side since it is fairly steep and
that that path has been route that has been used through the years.
Landgraver asked if the path could be extended to the red line.
Gaffron stated he does not believe that Public Works could negotiate that path since it is very steep in a
couple of areas. There is a potential that the driveway to Lot 2 could be utilized.
Lemke asked if there is a reason why a formal easement was never obtained for the path.
Gaffron indicated he is not aware of the reasons for not obtaining that but at some point an exact route
needs to formalized, which could impact the building pads.
Lemke asked how far back the house pad will need to be on Lot 1.
Gaffron stated if the 960' contour is the actual bluff line, it would be back almost to the 955' or 956'
elevation. The house would still meet the setbacks but would be located a little further from the lake.
Thiesse commented he does not envision the lot lines for Lot 1 being a major issue. Thiesse asked if the
cul-de-sac was drawn by the applicant.
Gaffron indicated the original sketch was drawn by the applicant and that he drew out some possible
options to see what the impacts would be on the house.
Thiesse asked if the shortening of the cul-de-sac would impact the frontage.
Gaffron indicated it would not since it would be measured from the shoreline and at the 75-foot setback.
Gaffron stated it would not be measured at the cul-de-sac far lakeshore lots.
Thiesse noted if the cul-de-sac is shortened and the road is a publicly owned street, it would reduce the
City's exposure.
Lemke asked if the average lakeshore setback is based on the setback of the existing house from Lot 3.
Page 6 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Gaffron stated if the existing house remains,then the average setback line for either Lot 1 or Lot 2 would
be drawn from a point on the existing house to the new house on Lot 1 or 2. If they are going to remove
that house, the setback would be drawn from a different point. If the house is removed,potentially all
three homes could be built lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. At that point you would need to
look at the impacts on the views by the adjacent properties. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission is
comfortable with the homes being at the 75-foot line and the Commission does not have any concerns
about the neighbors' views, then that could be the line and it could be made a condition of the
subdivision.
Leskinen stated for a subdivision like this, she is inclined to establish something independent from the
other average lakeshare setback.
Kevin Anderson, Applicant, stated he appreciates the input and that he likes the other possible layouts
drawn by Staf£ Anderson asked what the Planning Commission would recommend for a driveway
layout.
Thiesse indicated he likes the shorter cul-de-sac as depicted in Option A.
Leskinen noted Option A would also provide some flexibility for Lot 1.
Anderson stated in his view it would also not impact the adjoining lot.
Thiesse asked whether the City would be responsible for stormwater treatment if it is a private street.
Gaffron indicated it would likely be located on one of the properties and there would likely be an
easement over it. Gaffron stated it is likely the City will have to maintain any stormwater system in this
area since it is unlikely there will be a homeowners association unless it is a private road. In that case,the
City would put the onus for maintenance of the stortnwater system on the homeowners association.
Thiesse asked if that would impact the dry buildable area.
Gaffron noted there is 1.4 acres for Lot 1 and just one acre each for Lots 2 and 3 so that it could
potentially impact the dry buildable area. Gaffron noted the applicant would gain a little bit of dry
buildable acreage if the cul-de-sac is moved back. Gaffron stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District could also require a rain garden on each of the lots since it could be difficult to divert the
rainwater from one of the lots to a pond on another lot.
Thiesse stated if the City would allow the applicant to lift the cul-de-sac by around two feet to help with
the runoff and eliminate the pond in the middle of one of the lots.
Gaffron indicated that is a possibility.
Schoenzeit asked if the lift station also serves properties from the other direction.
Gaffron indicated it serves approximately eight or ten homes to the north. Gaffron stated it is likely the
gravity line serves the Windjammer area.
Lemke stated he would like to see that fake easement formalized.
Page 7 of 32
. l
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 18,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver asked what the applicants' plans are for the existing house.
Anderson stated ideally they would like to build a new house on top of the existing foundation.
Landgraver noted there will be a number of easements over Lot 2.
Anderson commented that is a little concerning and that they will have to be very creative to get a house
within that small envelope.
Gaffron suggested the applicant consider realigning the property line slightly to push the house further
away from the 75-foot line, especially if the foundation for the existing house is going to remain.
Thiesse stated the City should find out what is needed for a path to service the lift station and then
formalize that.
Schoenzeit suggested a backup generator also be considered, which could reduce the number of trips to
that lift station.
Gaffron commented there is likely a monitoring system of some type that alerts the City when the power
goes out.
Anderson asked if the red dotted line could be moved to the west.
Gaffron stated that is a possibility and that Staff will need to determine how far to the west they can drive
to access the lift station, which would help with the location of the building pad.
Anderson stated they could also consider constructing an end-loading garage on the far west side of the
lot.
Landgraver asked what the applicants feel about the impacts to Lot 1 with the bluff.
Anderson noted he was unaware of the 30-foot setback but that the house would be brought forward if
Option A is used. Anderson stated they could also attempt to put a rambler in there rather than a two-
story.
Thiesse noted anything within the 75-foot setback is regulated by the City.
Landgraver asked if the City mandates that the sewer line far Lot 2 connect to the existing gravity line or
the lift station.
Gaffron indicated that decision cannot be made at this point.
Anderson stated if they are going to construct a house on top of the existing foundation,he would like to
explore the possibility of putting in a lift station in that existing house.
Gaffron stated another option would be to consider individual grinder stations if it is too expensive to
connect into the existing gravity line.
Page 8 of 32
-
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Schoenzeit recommended the drainage be dealt with on each individual property.
Anderson indicated he likes raising the cul-de-sac and moving the stormwater pond as far west as
possible.
Thiesse recommended the developer also take into consideration the headlights from vehicles if he raises
the cul-de-sac.
Landgraver asked what the applicant's thoughts are about a private road versus public.
Anderson stated he would prefer to go with a private road since it would be less costly.
Gaffron noted the costs are fairly similar, with the private road being slightly lower since it would not
need to be 28 feet wide,but that a cul-de-sac would still be necessary. Gaffron stated given the relatively
short length of the road, it is likely the City Council would require the road be private.
Lemke asked if there will be separate driveways for all three homes.
Anderson indicated given the price point of the homes, the purchasers would likely prefer their own
driveway.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
4. #16-3821 TIM AND MARY BECKER, 1565 FAIRVIEW COTTAGE LANE,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 7:28 P.M.—7:35 P.M.
Tim Becker, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting conditional use permit approval far installation of a full
bathroom, including a toilet, sink and a shower/bathtub in a proposed 1,000 square foot detached garage
on the property. A total of 2.0 acres is required in arder to permit a guest house conditional use permit.
The property is 1.2 acres in area and is therefore not eligible far a guest house conditional use permit.
The property is a lakeshore lot with an existing house. There is also a drainageway on the property shared
with the neighbor to the immediate west which likely will not cause any issues.
The proposed detached structure consists of a three-stall garage with a bonus room above it to be used as
a hobby/studio area. While this space will contain the physical features that might make it seem attractive
for use as a dwelling or base for a home occupation, such uses will not be allowed and the property owner
will be required to execute covenants prohibiting such uses. Hardcover and structural coverage will be
within the 25 percent and 15 percent limits.
Gaffron displayed the layout of the second story of the building.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit far plumbing, including a bathtub or
shower, within the proposed detached accessory garage structure subject to the conditions that the owner
execute a covenant to be filed in the chain of title establishing the following:
a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by this Code.
Page 9 of 32
I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained.
c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances.
Leskinen asked if all other setbacks and criteria are met for the home itself and whether this application is
merely for the plumbing.
Gaffron indicated that is correct and that the applicants are only requesting a conditional use permit for
the bathroom in an accessory structure. Gaffron noted the applicants would only be allowed a sink
without a variance.
Tim Becker, Applicant, stated he is here tonight to answer any questions the Planning Commissioners
might have and that he is fine with Staff's recommendations.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Leskinen indicated she does not have a problem with the application as long as the covenant is filed on
the chain of title.
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3821, Tim
and Mary Becker, 1565 Fairview Cottage Lane, granting of a conditional use permit, subject to the
property owner executing a covenant restricting its use as a guest house or used for a home
occupation. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
5. #16-3822 CURT FRETHAM OF LAKEWEST,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
WEST, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING FROM RR-1B RURAL
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO RPUD, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AND CONCEPT PLAN/PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, 7:35 P.M.— 10:00 P.M.
Curt Fretham, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting the following approvals for a proposed 27-lot single family
residential development:
1. Amendment of the Orono Comprehensive Plan (CMP)to allow development of the property at a
density of approximately 5.5 units per developable acre for this property which is guided in the
CMP for development at a density of 10-15 units per acre, and to allow single-family dwellings in
place of the multi-family dwellings currently guided in the CMP;
2. Preliminary plat approval far a 27-lot single-family residential subdivision; and
3. Rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD).
The property is the former Eisinger site and is located on the south side of Wayzata Boulevard, north of
the new Highway 12 corridor. This is an area of the City that in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was
Page 10 of 32
MINUTES OF TAE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
reguided for higher density at 10 to 15 units per acre. The City Council agreed to the higher density and
put in place a plan that would allow one or two multi-tenant buildings in the area of the property that is
not within the former landfill.
The area that is not being developed at this time is the former landfill site that was operated back in the
1960s and 1970s. The landfill has been capped and the applicant has spent quite a bit of time determining
the boundaries of the landfilled area.
The portion of the site proposed for development at this time is high ground overlooking the wetland and
sitting 10 to 15 feet above Wayzata Boulevard. The site being developed is a former homestead and the
site contains a number of mature hardwood trees surrounded by areas of low vegetation formerly
maintained as lawn. The southwesterly portion of the property used to be a landfill for a number of
decades and is currently open space with volunteer tree growth at its perimeter. The existing trees near
the south side of the property provide some measure of visual and sound buffering to the Highway 12
freeway.
The southerly two-thirds of the property contain a significant area of wetland, a portion of which was
filled as a demolition and/or general landfill during the 1960s-1990s. While no existing wetlands are
being impacted by the proposed development,the applicants are proposing substantial areas of wetland
buffer to be preserved or established along the entire wetland boundaries of the property. Wetland buffers
are shown at 40 feet in width along the portion of the property being developed. Where the 40-foot
buffers are proposed building setbacks are shown as meeting the City required 10-foot setback from the
edge of buffer. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over the wetlands being
preserved.
It is likely a majority of the mature hardwood trees will be removed in order far the development to occur.
The existing trees along Wayzata Boulevard are also at risk of being removed and quite likely to the point
where the existing level of screening between the highway and the proposed development will disappear.
In its place, the applicants are proposing to provide vegetative screening but no berm or other
visual/traffic noise screening is proposed.
It has been the City's practice to rezone properties in the Highway 12 corridor area at the time an
acceptable development plan is approved. Because this property has never been rezoned to match the
CMP-guided density, the current application includes a request for rezoning. The application will be
processed as a rezoning to RPUD and review will be guided by the RPUD standards. 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 also offers flexibility
as a planned unit development process in that variances from the standards are considered as elements of
the RPUD zoning rather than as variances.
The property does meet the minimum acreage standard established within the Zoning Code to be eligible
for RPUD rezoning and exceeds five acres in area. Proposed Lot 1, Block 3, is approximately 200 feet
from the estimated OHWL contour. The Planning Commission should discuss whether Block 3 should be
reconfigured so that no parts of the proposed building lots are within 250 feet f the OHWL. This likely
will require additional survey work to establish the location of the OHWL on the north side of Wayzata
Boulevard.
Also for discussion is whether to rezone the entire site to RPUD or just the area being developed.
Although the approvals being requested at this time do not include development of homes in Outlot A,
Page 11 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
stormwater facilities to serve the area being developed will be within Outlot A. If a future multi-family
development of a portion of the landfill site occurs, it likely will require RPUD rezoning at that time.
The proposed development concept will require a significant departure from the RPUD District lot
standards for individual home sites. Flexibility will be required for minimum lot size, minimum lot width
at the setback line, minimum lot depth, minimum front building setback, minimum rear ar side setback to
Wayzata Boulevard, minimum side setback to internal streets, minimum side yard setback, minimum rear
yard setback, and building height.
The proposed single-family development is not similar in character to surrounding development. To the
immediate north across Wayzata Boulevard is mostly undeveloped. To the east is the Dumas Orchard
which is guided for medium-high density residential at 7-10 units per acre. To the south is Highway 12
and Burlington Northern Railroad corridor. To the west is wetland and the Highway 12/CR 6
interchange. To the northwest across Wayzata Boulevard is Lurton Park.
The applicants have submitted a Conservation Design report. The report appears to be limited to an
inventory of vegetation types with a relatively minimal level of analysis. The City's consulting engineer
has provided some comments on the plan and has recommended the plan be revised to include more
complete recommendations and direction to address invasive species,protection of significant tree stands,
and protection of wetlands.
The applicants have submitted grading and drainage plans and calculations. The City's consulting
engineers have determined the plans generally meet the City's requirements. A majority of the runoff
will be directed to a stormwater ponding area located west of the site in Outlot A which ultimately
discharges to the wetland. The storm sewers and stormwater management facilities will be subject to
standard drainage and utility easements. Municipal sewer and water utilities are proposed to be extended
westward from the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and Wayzata Boulevard to serve development at
this site and properties further east.
The CMP does not indicate any future public trails along Wayzata Boulevard at this location. The
property is southeast of Lurton Park, which is accessible to the property primarily by vehicle. Pedestrian
access to Lurton Park is not being proposed by the City or Hennepin County at this time.
The City Code requires dedication of eight percent of the land as public park or payment of the equivalent
value in cash. The CMP does not indicate any future public trails along Wayzata Boulevard at this
location. This proposal is scheduled to be reviewed by the Park Commission at its May meeting.
The layout and shape of the lots being proposed far this site is driven by a number of factors,including
the following:
-Location of wetlands and the narrow linear nature of the high ground;
-The busy arterial roadways to the immediate north, south, and southwest;
-A desire to provide single-family homes at a density that necessitates minimal separation between
homes;
-A desire to orient the homes in a manner that provides views from multiple angles rather than the
standard front/rear views of conventional row homes;
-The need to accommodate off-street parking.
Page 12 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,Apri118, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The site layout shows two road entrances onto Wayzata Boulevard,plus a segment to the southwest for
potential additional parking areas and to provide future access to a possible multi-family building. The
angled or z-shaped lots allow for additional outside views from within the dwelling units. As a result of
the lots being angled,the driveways can become more elongated to allow for off-street parking of at least
two vehicles within each lot. A potential downside is that the driveways directly abut the neighboring
residence parcel and aim headlights into windows likely to be located on the ends of some of the homes.
Eleven of the 27 units will have their rear yards facing Wayzata Boulevard. Most of these homes have
been located to have a 40-foot setback from the right-of-way of Wayzata Boulevard where the RPUD
standard is 50 feet. Traffic noise may be an issue with just the vegetative buffer. The homes facing the
wetlands appear to be set so that each would have at least a 10-foot mowable, walkable yard between the
home and the wetland buffer.
A majority of the proposed buildin�lots have a functional width of 40 feet rather than the 90 feet width
required with an RPUD. These lots are designed to maintain separation of 10 feet between buildings
which is necessary in order to accommodate the proposed density. Increasing the setbacks would likely
result in fewer homes and a further reduction in density.
In order to prepare the building pads,the high ground adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard will be excavated as
much as six to ten feet, ]eaving the homes at an elevation of four to six feet above the highway. Parts of
the developing area will be filled to allow for acceptable road grades and basements.
The internal road system serving the development is proposed to be private. This is inconsistent with the
provisions of the CMP Transportation Plan in Urban Transportation Polices. Due to the number of units
to be served,the internal road system would appear to qualify as a public road. Due to the unusual lot
configuration and the proposed 40-foot road corridar,the applicant is proposing a 28-foot road width. A
public road serving this many homes would have to be 32 feet wide.
The applicants are also required to submit evidence that Hennepin County will allow two access points
for this development. The second access is desirable from a circulation and emergency access standpoint,
and lack of a second access would require a loop ar cul-de-sac to be incorporated into the plan and
possibly an emergency-access-only or right-in/right-out configuration for the secondary access.
The Planning Commission should discuss the various items outlined in Staff's report as they relate to the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the rezoning from RR-1 B to RPUD, and the preliminary plat review.
Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,with the condition that the City
should identify alternate sites for higher density development. Staff also recommends approval of the
rezoning to RPUD, with formal approval being given at the time of fmal plat.
If the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal as presented is acceptable and can be moved on
to the City Council far review of preliminary plat approval, Staff would suggest the recommendation at a
minimum address the following:
1. Flexibility for the requested specific RPUD lot and development standards;
2. Adequacy of Conservation Design Master Plan;
3. Internal road system to be private;
Page 13 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. Preliminary plat to be reviewed by the Park Commission and Fire Chief for comments and
recommendations prior to Council review of the preliminary plat;
5. A 10 percent private recreational space requirement; and
6. Acceptability of the conceptual house and driveway orientations, designs, and configuration.
Schoenzeit asked if turn lanes will be added given the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit in this area.
Gaffron stated Hennepin County will need to approve the access points and that it is likely they will
require turn lanes.
Landgraver asked if the City assumed the whole site was buildable based on the guided density.
Gaffron indicated the City assumed that approximately five acres was developable and not the landfill
area. Gaffron stated the landfill area, if it can be mitigated, will become part of the buildable area.
Lemke asked if there are any plans for pathways to get from this development eastward.
Gaffron stated there are no plans currently but the Council did request an easement for the potential of a
future trail from the Orono Preserve property in this area. Until the Dumas property is developed, there
would be nowhere for the trail to go and would not connect to anything. Gaffron stated at the present
time there is no plan for a trail along this site and there are a number of issues that would need to be
addressed in order for the trail to be constructed.
Lemke asked if there is a requirement for a trail easement for this application.
Gaffron indicated there is no requirement but that the Planning Commission can request one be granted.
Landgraver asked what the density is across the street.
Gaffron indicated there is a house on that property currently and the site is guided 2-acre minimum
single-family residential. There is no intent at this time to change the zoning or guiding to match the
density across the street. Gaffron stated one of the concerns is whether the City wants higher density
overlooking Classen Lake. There is also no intent at this time to extend the sewer line to that area.
Landgraver commented the City keeps kicking the can down the road on density and that they are running
out of options far higher density. Landgraver stated the density issue needs to be addressed sooner rather
than later.
Ben Wickstrom, Lakewest Development, stated most everything has been touched on in Staff's report but
that he will touch on a couple of items. Wickstrom indicated they would be happy to have higher density
on the landfill site. Wickstrom stated he understands Orono Preserve is at 3.1 units per acre and that this
development would be five units per acre but it was originally guided for 10 to 15 units per acre. The
landfill area does open it up for some higher density.
Wickstrom noted the building parameters far the landfill site limits the footprint for the multi-family
building to 42,000 square feet,two stories in height, and up to two buildings. Wickstrom stated if the
Page 14 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Planning Commission would like them to consider additional parameters for that landfill site, they are
willing to consider that.
Wickstrom stated generally the reason for the 250' RPUD setback from Lake Classen is less aesthetics
and more the stormwater impact on the wetlands. All of the runoff will be directed to the south into the
stormwater pond and there should be no impacts to the wetlands. Wickstrom indicated they can work
with Staff on the configuration if the Planning Commission would like the configuration revised.
Wickstrom stated he understands the park fee will be determined at a future time. If the City finds that
any of the extra land is desired for a park, they would be willing to entertain that. Wickstrom stated in his
view a land donation would be a win/win for everyone.
Wickstrom noted Mr. Gaffron mentioned rezoning the entire site to RPUD would not be done at this time.
Wickstrom asked if the specific development parameters would be a different process for Phase 2.
Gaffron stated it would likely still be an RPUD but that the City would want to look at a separate review
process and separate parameters for how Phase 2 is developed. Gaffron stated the City could include the
landfill site as an RPUD at this time and only have the standards apply to Phase 1.
Wickstrom stated they have attempted to limit any impacts to the wetlands as well as the other sensitive
conservation areas.
Curt Fretham, Lakewest, LLC, stated as it relates to the lot layout, it is a little unique but it has to do with
widening out the building pad and providing a wider view point The layouts range in size from 2,400
square feet up to 2,700 square feet on some of the larger lots. The footprint for the one story ranges from
1,500 to 1,800 square feet. Fretham noted some of the homes will probably be walkouts.
Fretham noted the packet contains some of the different layouts they have submitted and that they have
attempted to come up with some design criteria that is appealing with a variety of architectural features.
Landgraver asked if there is an easy way to know where the different house styles will be located.
Fretham stated the one-story homes will tend to be on the south side of the road and that the homes on the
north side will have a full basement with two stories.
Schoenzeit asked what the price range will be.
Fretham stated they believe the homes will be around$600,000.
Schoenzeit asked what type of materials will be used on the exterior.
Fretham indicated it will be Hardy, brick and stone.
Lemke asked if there will be curb and gutter.
Fretham stated there will be.
Gaffron asked whether any fencing is being considered and/or covenants regulating the fencing.
Page 15 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Fretham stated on projects like this it would be difficult to install a fence, especially given the Z-lot.
There will be some screening along Wayzata Boulevard but they have not really gotten that far on the
design. Fretham stated he does not really envision very much fencing but they have not added any
fencing to their landscape plan at this time.
Gaffron asked what the impact would be if the City decided to require a 10-foot trail easement along
Wayzata Boulevard.
Fretham stated that would be very dramatic,to the extent that they would likely have to scratch the plan.
Fretham noted Hennepin County has an extra wide right-of-way in that area.
Gaffron asked whether they have any expectation that the County will have an issue with the second
access,its location, and whether or not they will require turn lanes.
Marty Campion, Engineer, stated he expects the County will require turn lanes and that the current right-
of-way should be sufficient to construct tbose and not impact this design. As it relates to the second
access point, Campion indicated he is not sure how the County will react to that. Campion noted two
access points would be better from a safety standpoint.
Gaffron asked if there is a possibility of one of them being a right-in/right-out.
Campion stated there is.
Gaffron stated in his view it is a better plan with the two accesses but he is not sure how the County will
feel about that.
Landgraver stated it is likely that Phase 2 would also have a big impact on that as well.
Lemke asked if Staff is comfortable with the off-street parking.
Gaffron indicated parking will be limited on the driveways and that it is helpful to have the side-loading
garages to allow for more off-street parking. Some of the driveways will be able to accommodate mare
cars than others.
Campion stated they prefer the side-loading garages and that it is important to keep the driveways on the
individual lots, which is part of the reason for the Z-lots and the side-loading garages. Campion stated
there is an opportunity on some of the lots to flatten out the curve in the driveway and still keep it in the
lot. On Lot 4 there is some room between the property line and the west edge of the driveway to flatten it
out a little bit. Campion stated there are some things they can do to mitigate the sharpness of the curve.
Gaffron noted headlights will shine into the garage level of the next unit in some cases and screening
would be desirable.
Campion pointed out as it relates to the Z-configuration, they paid particular attention that the portion of
the building does not extend into the view shed of the adjacent lot.
Leskinen stated given the Z-lots, it is likely snow removal will be a challenge.
Page 16 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Campion noted the driveways are 30 feet apart down at the street but that up by the homes there is less
room and some consideration will have to be given not to blow snow onto the neighboring lot. Campion
stated they also have the landfill site to store snow on.
Thiesse asked if the landfill site is impervious and whether their stormwater pond will be on top of any of
that.
Campion indicated the stormwater pond will be at the edge of the landfill area and that they are going to
be following a remedial action plan to deal with any debris that may be uncovered as part of that process.
Thiesse asked if the landfill is relatively stable.
Campion stated to his understanding it is.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m.
Allan Engleman noted there are 27 homes being proposed, with a minimum of 27 cars, and a driveway on
each lot. Engleman stated there should be no building on the site unless turn lanes are constructed given
the school traffic and other traffic in the area.
Engleman noted there is also a high pressure sewer main located on the south side of the highway.
Engleman asked where the right-of-way is where a turn lane can be put in. Engleman stated they will not
be able to put a turn lane on top of the sewer main.
Gaffron stated the developer will need to investigate that and determine where the sewer main is located
in that area. Gaffron stated the sewer main is not located underneath Wayzata Boulevard and is located
underneath the shoulder. Gaffron stated that is one of the questions that will need to be answered.
Engleman stated if they take 50 feet from the center line, that will take some of this property. Engleman
stated given all the hardcover proposed for this site, there will not be a drop of water that can hit the
ground in this development. Engleman noted they are then going to take the runoff over to the pond.
Engleman asked how deep the pond will be. Engleman stated they cannot dig down into the dump due to
the contamination and that he has seen mattresses and other items dumped in there. Engleman stated it
was supposed to be a dump for building demolition.
Campion stated it is his understanding that if the area is mitigated,the debris would need to be removed.
On the edges it is anywhere from 10 to 12 feet deep. Campion stated what they are proposing will be
along the edges so it will not be as deep. Campion indicated he is not familiar with everything that will
have to be done to mitigate it.
Engleman stated in his view that stuff should be considered prior to moving forward with the
development.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.
Leskinen stated the Planning Commission should start with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and that
a number of questions have been outlined in Staffls report that the Planning Commission should focus on.
Leskinen suggested the Planning Commission discuss the density first.
Page 17 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated in his view the City has to get to the bottom of whether the Metropolitan Council is
serious about the density guidelines. If t17e Metropolitan Council is serious about the density, the City
should be looking at Phase 2 since some portion of that could be tied into this approval. Schoenzeit
commented it is likely it will not be developed at a higher density later on and that the residents would be
opposed to it if it is not tied into Phase 1.
Thiesse noted the City looked at this area and thought 10 to 15 units per acre was a nice density. Thiesse
stated he is not sure where else in the City higher density could work if it does not work on this site since
it is more conducive to high density.
Leskinen stated to her recollection the City saw a proposal approximately two years ago and it consisted
of multi-family homes.
Gaffron stated to his recollection those were all single-family homes and that the Comprehensive Plan
shows two multi-family buildings for the landfill site.
Thiesse asked what the density is for Stone Bay.
Gaffron stated if the lofts are included, it is approximately six units per acre. Gaffron stated to his
knowledge the twin homes are three to four units per acre but that overall it is about six.
Lemke stated he has a concern that the Planning Commission has already provided direction to have
lower density on this site and that in his view this is not a higher density location given the fact that there
are no stores nearby or other things that are more attractive to higher density. Lemke asked whether the
Planning Commission can deny the application just based on the density since the City has already
provided direction on it.
Leskinen asked if there is anywhere else in the City where higher density can go. Leskinen stated sooner
or later the City will run out of places. Leskinen asked what the fallout will be if the City does not have
higher density in this area.
Gaffron stated the City made the application to the Metropolitan Council approximately three weeks ago
on the Orono Preserve project and that he is hopeful he will hear back soon. Gaffron stated the
possibilities range from the Metropolitan Council saying they are fine with it to requesting that the City
designate other areas or to denying the lower density.
Schoenzeit stated in his view this development is a non-starter without the turn lanes and that that should
be figured out first.
Gaffron stated Hennepin County would have the discretion to determine whether turn lanes will be
allowed or not and that the applicants have been advised that they need to talk with the County.
Leskinen stated traffic issues are one reason for the lower density.
Landgraver stated upon further reflection, in his view the density that was guided for this area would
present some safety issues if the speed limit stays at 55 miles per hour. Landgraver stated the City is
attempting to make it less dangerous with the lower density and that it is really beyond the Planning
Page 18 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 18,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Commission's pay grade to designate other areas within the City for higher density. Landgraver stated in
his view the proposed use does provide some higher density and that the proposed density is reasonable
for this site.
Leskinen noted the potential for higher density in Phase 2 will offset this lower density. Leskinen stated
the City has to guide for higher density but that they do not necessarily have to build to that level.
Barnhart stated the City has to provide those opportunities and that the challenge from Staff's perspective
is that the City is running out of areas to provide those opportunities. Barnhart stated the other question is
whether the City wants to provide more affordable housing for the people who work in the area.
Schoenzeit stated at $600,000, this will not be affordable housing for most people. Schoenzeit stated at
some point the numbers are not going to work for the suggested density by the Metropolitan Council and
that the City needs to understand what the ramifications will be if they do not meet that density.
Lemke commented the City needs a developer that will make money on high density, and given the
property values in the area, it is difficult to do.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is agreeable with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Schoenzeit stated he is not comfortable kicking the can down the road anymore until there is more
definitive feedback from the Metropolitan Council.
Landgraver stated this proposal is the best plan the City has seen for this property and that they are
looking at economic reality and what the greatest amount of density can be. Landgraver stated in his
view this plan is reasonable but how the Metropolitan Council operates is unknown. Landgraver
indicated he would be comfortable to allow this to go forward.
Lemke stated he likes the layout and the design. Lemke noted this is something the City has been talking
about for over a year and the proposed density is what the Planning Commission said they wanted to see
for this property. Lemke stated in his view higher density is an issue for the City Council to explore.
Thiesse stated this is the density he would like to see for the site but that in his view the Planning
Commission is also responsible for creating areas of higher density. Thiesse suggested Staff bring some
options forward at some point in the near future.
Gaffron indicated Staff does have some ideas for possible higher densities and that it should be dealt with
fairly soon.
Landgraver stated it might be that higher density is just not economically feasible.
Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with the comments of the other Commissioners, and that if multi-
family is not economically feasible, then it does not make sense to try to raise the density on the subject
property.
Landgraver stated he would prefer to wait to make a motion on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment until
they have discussed the other elements of the development.
Page 19 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 18,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commissioners are okay with the rezoning to RPUD. Leskinen stated in
her view the RPUD makes the most sense for this particular property and provides the most flexibility.
Schoenzeit stated the 250-foot setback on the corner lot is not an issue in his mind.
Gaffron stated he does not believe it would be a huge implication and that they could call it out as a
variance to the RPUD standards.
Thiesse asked what the intent of the 250-foot setback is.
Gaffron stated at the time the RPUD standards were adopted,the 250-foot setback for RPUD from lakes
was to limit visual and environmental impacts to the lake. Gaffron noted those impacts can be handled in
other ways, such as stormwater ponding ar rain gardens.
Thiesse stated based on the intent of the setback, he is comfortable with reducing the setback for that lot.
Leskinen asked if the entire site should be rezoned at this time and whether the City would still have
flexibility for the potential mitigation of Phase 2.
Gaffron indicated they would and that it could be similar to what occurred in Stone Bay. Gaffron stated
the entire site could be rezoned to RPUD, with standards just being set at this time far Phase 1.
Schoenzeit and Landgraver agreed that is a good way to proceed.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission feels the road should be public or private.
Landgraver stated what he heard is that one possibility is that higher density housing will be developed in
Phase 2 and that there might also be a park, which would influence the decision on whether the road
should be public or private.
Schoenzeit stated another question is whether there will be a homeowners association that will be doing
the snow plowing, which is not a public road situation.
Campion stated the intent would be to have a homeowners association and that there would be common
plowing.
Gaffron stated the Comprehensive Plan suggests at this high density that it should be a public road but yet
in projects such as Stone Bay, the City made those roads private. Part of the reason for that was the
narrowness of the road and no on-street parking. Gaffron stated it would have been difficult for the City
to maintain those roads due to the narrowness.
Landgraver stated based on potential future public use,the western road would logically be a public road.
Gaffron stated the ability to make it a public road in that section would make sense. Gaffron stated if it is
a private road, the City would still be looking for underlying road and utiliry easements. Gaffron noted in
order for it to be a public road, the corridor would need to be 50 feet and that the applicant is only
proposing a 40-foot corridor, which is another reason to make the road private.
Page 20 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated one concern she has with it being private initially is whether they will get resistance from
the homeowners if it is later made a public road.
Gaffron stated the question is whether the Planning Commission is comfortable with the width of the road
given the number of units,with the potential for perhaps twice as many units down the road in Phase 2.
Gaffron stated another factar is how close the homes are to the street, especially if it is a public road.
Schoenzeit concurred the tight corridor is a concern given the number of units.
Leskinen stated the general design and location of the dwelling units is another issue for the Planning
Commission to consider. Leskinen indicated she is fine with the Z-lots and the garage locations to
provide additional parking. Leskinen stated in her view they are very close together but that is a function
of the higher density.
Leskinen asked how far apart the homes on Maple Place are.
Gaffron indicated the homes on Maple Place are ten feet on each side or 20 feet apart, and that the setback
propose for this development are only five feet on each side, ar a 10-foot separation between buildings.
Landgraver commented the layout attempts to mitigate the distance between the homes.
Gaffron stated they could connect every second group of homes, which would gain ten feet,but it would
change the whole nature of the design.
Thiesse commented it would also impact the financial aspect of the development for the developer.
Landgraver asked what Orono Preserve's setbacks are.
Gaffron stated the majority of them had I S or 20 feet between buildings, with some units having a 10-foot
separation.
Campion noted there is a greater demand for the single detached units than a twinhome.
Leskinen asked whether the 10 to 15 feet from the wetland buffer is acceptable.
Schoenzeit stated that comes with the design.
Landgraver stated he is more concerned about the distance of the homes from Wayzata Boulevard.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission is fine with a 10 percent park dedication fee.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that the walking trail,the small private park and play
area would meet the 10 percent recreation area requirement.
Leskinen stated another issue raised by Staff is the grade change and removal of existing trees along
Wayzata Boulevard, which will significantly change the visual character of that section of Wayzata
Boulevard. Leskinen asked whether any of the Commissioners has any concern with that.
Schoenzeit stated the berm would help protect the view.
Page 21 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated the land would still be higher on the other side of the road given the topography.
The consensus of the Planning Commission was that they have no concerns about the grading and
removal of existing trees along Wayzata Boulevard.
Leskinen noted the Conservation Design Master Plan should be revised to include more complete
recommendations and direction to address different aspects of the site.
The Planning Commission had no issues with that requirement.
Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission is okay with the requests far flexibility in terms of
FAR, hardcover, and building height.
Thiesse stated the flexibility is acceptable but that there should be some limitations.
Schoenzeit noted there likely will be some three-story homes in this development and that is a concern.
Schoenzeit stated he is okay with the 30 feet but that the homes should not be higher than that.
Campion stated one of the issues he encountered on his last project in Orono was the three-story limit.
The Z-design exposes a lot of the side of the house to a walkout elevation because it has to match the
elevation of the adjacent house. Campion stated based on how the City measures that, there could be an
issue with the Z-lots. Campion indicated they do not want anything that looks ugly and sticks out of the
ground but that they do want the walkouts.
Schoenzeit stated they may have to go to lookout versus walkout and that the City should hold the line on
the basements.
Thiesse stated if there are 8-foot high ceilings, with 2-foot floor joists going across,that would be 10 feet.
If you go down six feet, anything that is more than four feet exposed will be considered. Thiesse asked if
50 percent or more of the foundation will be exposed two to four feet above the floor.
Campion stated they are more walkout lots and that he would like to address that now. Campion noted
the sketch also does not show the bump-out.
Gaffron stated the choices are to make the grading plan that is proposed work for each house or ask far
flexibility knowing that some of the homes will have more than 50 percent of the lowest level sticking six
feet out of the ground.
Schoenzeit stated the bump-out is the worst case since it will be sticking out and sized at l 0' x 10', which
would be three stories on at least two of the sides.
Campion stated it could potentially be everything on the south side that would be impacted. Campion
stated someone will see a typical walkout unit but the issue is how it is measured.
Thiesse commented it will be very visible from the highway.
Leskinen noted Commissioner Schoenzeit suggested 30 feet and allowing the developer to do what he
wanted to do with that height.
Page 22 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 18, 2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated at$600,000, the property owner is going to want a larger house,which likely will result
in the house going up. Without a basement, they will lose 1,500 square feet as well as the utility room.
Campion stated given the topography, the homes on the south side will need to be walkouts. Campion
noted there is also 37 feet of grade change between the high point and the wetland along Wayzata
Boulevard. Campion stated that grade change is necessitating the low side be full basements with
walkouts.
Schoenzeit stated there is some flexibility with the high density,but that everyone should know that these
will be three-story structures and not a basement with two stories since that lower level will be more
exposed.
Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission is comfortable with that regardless if they call it three-
story or a walkout with two stories about it.
Thiesse indicated he is in this case.
Schoenzeit repeated it is a three-story building and that it should be known that the City is allowing three
stories in this development.
Landgraver stated he is having a hard time with it since it will be so visible to anyone driving by and that
the City has not allowed other three stories elsewhere in the City.
Schoenzeit stated this is a special development and this is a feature that is part of the development.
Schoenzeit stated without that feature, they will not be worth the$600,000.
Gaffron noted the majority of the homes in Stone Bay that are along Kelly Parkway probably do not meet
the standards for a basement being a basement but yet they were approved. Gaffron stated it is not
precedent setting and is one of the factors that makes it possible to do the higher density.
Thiesse stated he wants it known that the Planning Commission was aware of that.
Leskinen stated that is also the only way the configuration of the development works and that the higher
density is dictating it.
Gaffron stated the separation from the freeway would also support it.
Campion indicated the separation is 800 to 900 feet.
Landgraver stated he is opposed to it and that in his view it could be precedent setting.
Leskinen noted it would not be precedent setting since a very similar situation exists in Stone Bay.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission has any other issues or concerns with the development.
Landgraver stated in his view having a trail would help keep people off of Wayzata Boulevard and that he
would be in favor of it as well as the private park. Landgraver stated people are not going to walk their
dogs on Wayzata Boulevard and that there should be a trail or sidewalk system in this area.
Page 23 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, Apri118,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
As it relates to how deep the stormwater ponds should be or what happens if they dig down and find some
debris, Landgraver stated during this process there should be some review of those issues.
Gaffron stated the Watershed District as well as the City Engineer will review all that. Gaffron stated in
terms of how that relates to the underlying debris, there will need to be some type of review.
Schoenzeit stated a pond that is designed to percolate should not be allowed to become a leach field and
that there needs to be some maintenance of that pond.
Campion stated due to the soils on the site, infiltration will not occur and that it is designed as a filtration
pond.
Landgraver moved, Thiesse seconded,Application No. 16-3822, Curt Fretham of Lakewest,LLC,
3245 Wayzata Boulevard West,to recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as
outlined in Staffls report with the caveat that the City should identify alternate sites for higher
density development. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Schoenzeit Opposed.
Lemke moved,Thiesse seconded, Application No. 16-3822, Curt Fretham of Lakewest, LLC,3245
Wayzata Boulevard West to recommend approval of rezoning the entire site from RR-1B to RPUD.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Leskinen stated the fmal piece is the preliminary plat. Leskinen asked whether a determination should be
made now on whether the road should be public or private.
Gaffron indicated the City Council will need to make that final determination but that a recommendation
from the Planning Commission would be helpful.
Schoenzeit recommended the road be constructed to public road standards so it can be adopted at some
point down the line if necessary.
Thiesse commented he is not sure it can be constructed to those standards.
Schoenzeit stated it can be built to public standards on the western side.
Campion indicated those homes can be moved further west. Campion stated the setbacks would become
an issue if the road is built to 32 feet with a full right-of-way.
Thiesse commented he would hope the City would be flexible on the setbacks if they require the wider
width.
Gaffron stated if the County is okay with a second access,the Planning Commission is suggesting that
that portion of the road be made wider. Gaffron stated if the corridor is made wider,that would push the
homes to the west.
Lemke stated if there is no secondary access,the layout would change quite a bit.
Campion stated they could probably do some sort of T-turnaround if there is not a second access, which
would meet the typical emergency vehicle turnarounds.
Page 24 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit stated there should also be a determination on the turn lanes prior to this going to the City
Council.
Campion indicated he sent a letter to the County approximately three months ago but have not heard back.
Gaffron stated he will contact Hennepin County to see whether he can get an answer on that.
Landgraver stated a second access is also a safety issue. Landgraver noted in the past the City has
approved plats thinking that the access will be approved by the County and that he is okay with advancing
the application even though the second access issue is not resolved.
Thiesse asked if there should be a 50-foot right-of-way as well. Thiesse stated in his view the right-of-
way should be reduced since the utilities will be under the road and that it will impact the setbacks.
Landgraver stated it is reasonable to lessen the right-of-way since they are asking for the wider road.
Schoenzeit stated if there are not two access points,the application would need to come back before the
Planning Commission.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the easterly portion of the road wil] be private and
the westerly will be built to public width standards with the exception of the right-of-way.
Campion indicated they will realign it slightly to make it more of a through road.
Landgraver noted the City Council went into a lengthy discussion about the need for a trail easement on
the Orono Preserve property but that the Planning Commission has not really discussed that for this
property.
Leskinen commented there is very little room for a trail on the south side of the road.
Thiesse noted a trail is also proposed for the north side of the road and that there are wetlands in the area,
which would not allow a trail.
Gaffron indicated the Highway 12 plans include a trail that goes west from Old Crystal Bay Road to the
field gate by the school. Hennepin County Transportation opposes a trail within their right-of-way along
either side of Wayzata Boulevard west of Old Crystal Bay Road and that they would prefer internal trails
or sidewalks. The City Council directed that a 10-foot easement be granted along Wayzata Boulevard for
Orono Preserve far potential future construction of a trail.
Landgraver stated due to the geography, the wetlands and the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit, it does not
make sense to have a trail and that people will likely go from Old Crystal Bay Road up to County Road 6
to access the Baker Park trails.
Thiesse commented a bike trail in that area would be really nice, which is where a trail easement would
be needed. Thiesse stated any trail on that side of the road would also eliminate any trees that are planted
by the developer.
Gaffron stated if a bertn is constructed, a retaining wall will also be required if a trail is built.
Page 25 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,Apri118, 2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded, Application No. 16-3822, Curt Fretham of Lakewest, LLC,
3245 Wayzata Boulevard West,to recommend approval of the preliminary plat subject to the
widening of the road on the western edge to public standards,land dedication for a park, and a
10-foot trail easement, subject to approval by Hennepin County Transportation Department of two
road accesses. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
6. #16-3815 CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING THE
DEFINITION OF HALF-STORY, 10:00 P.M.- 10:27 P.M.
Curtis stated clarification and simplification of the City's half-story definition was the second highest
priority on the Council's and Planning Commission's 2015 Zoning Code amendment directive.
Orono's current regulations limit structures to 30 feet in defined height and 2-1/2 total stories above a
basement. The massing limitation is achieved when the height regulations are combined with Orono's
maximum footprint size based on the lot size.
The half-story allowance almost requires high gabled rooflines and has marginal benefit to the massing
goals. Unfortunately, the current half-story regulation is complicated for homeowners,builders, and
architects. Likewise,the height and massing determination can add excessive time and complication to
the building permit review due in part to the unique character and design of buildings.
At the March and April Planning Commission work sessions, Staff asked the Commission to explore
different options for regulating massing, including the possibility of establishing a floor area ratio (FAR)
limitation. FAR, combined with setbacks, maximum defined height and hardcover regulations may
accomplish the City's goals and result in a more user-friendly regulation without the complication of a
half-story determination.
FAR is determined by dividing the gross floor area of a building by the total area of the lot. Alternatively,
to address visual massing on narrow lots,the addition of a graduated setback requirement for the top most
story or the portions of the structure so many feet from the existing grade was discussed for limiting the
effects of massing. As an example,the third level above the basement could be set back X feet from the
outermost wall below it.
During the work session, Staff and Planning Commission discussed the following two possible options:
Option 1:
- Remove the number of stories limitation.
-Keep height limitation as it is currently calculated at 30 feet.
-Keep 15 percent structural footprint maximum for lots under 2.0 acres.
- Add a graduated setback.
Option 2:
-Remove the number of stories limitation.
-Keep height limitation as it is currently calculated at 30 feet.
-Remove 15 percent structural footprint maximum.
-Establish a Floor Area Ratio limit for principal buildings.
Page 26 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the Planning Commission should open the public hearing and receive any feedback from the
public and then discuss the two options. The application should be tabled after direction is given to Staff.
A draft resolution will be prepared for review at the May Planning Commission meeting.
Staff further solicited comments from a small group of builders active in Orono on the proposed options.
The comments were received at the time of the drafting of Staf�s memo. Revised comments were
received after completion of Staff's report and have been distributed to the Commissioners.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:08 p.m.
John Quinlivan, Gordon James Builders, stated a large number of projects that they do are within Orono
or the surrounding area. Quinlivan stated approximately 90 percent of the projects that they do in Orono
on lots that are under half an acre massing is an issue. Quinlivan stated two-acre properties are in the
16,000 square foot range and are not impacted. Where the massing poses a challenge is in areas like
Casco Point with the smaller lots.
Quinlivan indicated they are currently working on a 10,559 square foot lot. As a result, the garage is
essentially on the city street. Quinlivan stated it is a beautiful lot but it is not as tight as someone would
think because the house is pulled back. Under the City's limitations, they would be allowed a1,583
square foot limit on the footprint. If a very small 3-stall garage or a two-stall garage is constructed, that
results in another 600 to 650 square feet. If a 10' x 15' deck, consisting of 150 square feet, and a 100
square foot front entry is constructed,that would leave 683 square feet for a main floor, which essentially
cannot be done.
Quinlivan stated there are several lots in that area where new build will never be an option unless
someone is willing to build a very small house with a 600 square foot main floor. Quinlivan stated
Orono's massing regulations make it difficult to construct a lot on that size lot and kind of shuts any
compromises down. Quinlivan stated he would like to see the City allow the smaller pieces to be
developed using FAR, which would allow those small lots to be developed.
As it relates to the height restriction,the issue is not so much the height restriction but it is when they
encounter some ground water issues. Quinlivan stated most cities will allow them to pull that water out
but Orono does not allow someone to do that because Orono uses existing grade to determine how much
of the structure can go out of the ground for that two and a half story. Quinlivan stated that may make
sense to all the engineers and the Watershed District,but it is falling outside of the 2.5 story parameter.
As a result, the roofline is brought down two feet, which does not always look architecturally right,but it
is the only way to make the house work.
Quinlivan stated those are some of the things they would like the City to consider.
Schoenzeit asked if soil samples are being taken before they start construction to determine where the
water is.
Quinlivan indicated they can do borings but that those do not always show where the water is since the
water can be found in a different spot. Quinlivan stated if there are poor or organic soils, they like to
remove those.
Page 27 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:11 p.m.
Thiesse noted he had to leave the work session early and that when he left the Planning Commission was
discussing Option 2. Thiesse asked what the discussion at the work session was regarding Option 2.
Leskinen stated both options would remove the number of stories limitation. The biggest difference
between Option 1 and Option 2 is keeping the 15 percent structural footprint under Option 1. In addition,
Option 1 has the graduated setback and Option 2 has the FAR.
Curtis stated Staff would still recommend a 2-acre cap.
Schoenzeit stated this change will increase the massing on smaller lots and that the current regulations
help to control some of that. Schoenzeit stated if the City is trying to control the massing on a lot,the
current regulations are doing a pretty good job. Schoenzeit stated the numbers in Option 2are definitely
an expansion of what was previously allowed.
Thiesse stated his idea of the City's philosophy is that some lots are not large enough to construct a big
house on.
Schoenzeit stated the question is whether it is going to be half the square feet on the second level but that
in general going to the floor area ratio is an expansion of the building.
Thiesse asked whether it would make it easier for a contractor if Option 1 is considered with removal of
the number of stories.
Curtis stated designin�and determining the half-story is very cumbersome and sometimes requires two
Staff people to do it since they can be talking about multiple angles on the homes and rooflines.
Schoenzeit stated simply measuring from the outside of the structure might be the simplification.
Curtis stated at some point,based on the lot size, when the structure is put to an FAR,the house will be
lower in the ground. Curtis stated the 15 percent footprint drives the house to be constructed up on a
small lot.
Schoenzeit stated even at the 30-foot height restriction, a walkout house can go up to 40 feet in height if
they meet the basement definition.
Barnhart stated the idea behind the FAR was that Staff thought it would be the equivalent of a three-story
building with no attempt to try to reduce that. Barnhart stated the FAR idea would speak to that goal.
Leskinen stated if the Planning Commission is leaning towards Option 2, they should discuss what
happens under the roof and what happens to the big open space when someone wants to extend the floor
and how that counts.
Schoenzeit stated he thought the Planning Commission was leaning mare towards Option 1 and that he is
not necessarily convinced that the FAR is going to result in more ramblers.
Page 28 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, April 18,2016
6:30 dclock p.m.
Barnhart stated the FAR provides more options than the 15 percent and would probably result in homes
with a lower height. Barnhart stated Staff is looking for feedback on this item from the public and that
there will be additional discussion at a future work session. Barnhart stated Staff is wondering whether
they should move forward both of the options or just one.
Landgraver stated it comes down to 15 percent versus the FAR and the definition of grade. Landgraver
indicated he would be willing to table it to the next work session.
Curtis asked if there is anything the Planning Commission would like to see from Staff to help facilitate
the next discussion.
Thiesse stated the FAR is being crafted to match the 15 percent as close as possible.
Landgraver stated he is trying to visual what the difference would be between the two.
Curtis indicated Staff can provide some illustrations that will help demonstrate that. Curtis stated Staff
would like the Planning Commission to consider ways in which the massing can be reduced but also
provide some leeway in how someone can use their property.
Schoenzeit stated another question to consider would be what a variance would look like under the FAR
option.
Curtis stated the City does not grant very many structural coverage variances and that the FAR will be a
different concept for Staff to use.
Thiesse asked if there is a reason to stay at the 2-acre size.
Curtis stated the thinking is that there will be a high end of the break point and that Staff is trying to stay
with a similar amount of footprint that would be allowed.
Barnhart stated there is a trade-off in order to make the concept a little easier to understand for the
applicant and that some property owners will benefit and some will not. The City will have to accept
those trade-offs if the change the massing regulations.
Landgraver moved, Thiesse seconded,to table Application No. 16-3815, City of Orono Zoning Code
Amendment regarding the definition of half-story. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
7. #16-3823 CITY OF ORONO, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING A PROCESS
TO REVIEW CONCEPT PLANS AND SKETCH PLANS, 10:27 P.M.— 10:31 P.M.
Barnhart stated this item ranked 10 in the list of ordinances to review. Staff has drafted an ordinance that
establishes a concept review process for zoning code amendments, zoning map amendments, land use
amendments, and other things that are mare policy in nature. The Council and Planning Commission
should provide feedback on the concept plan review process.
The ordinance also removes the requirement that a Class III subdivision go through the sketch plan
process. The sketch plan process is recommended but Staff has removed that as a requirement to help
meet the 120-day time limit.
Page 29 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart indicated Staff looks at this as a housekeeping amendment. Since Staff sees the value of sketch
plan reviews,they will continue to recommend them but they will not be a requirement. Removal of the
requirement was based on the recommendation of the City Attorney.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:30 p.m.
Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3823, City of
Orono,Zoning Code Amendment regarding a process to review concept plans and sketch plans.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
8. #16-3824 CITY OF ORONO, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING A PROCESS
TO REVIEW SUBDIVISION EXCEPTIONS, 10:30 P.M.—10:35 P.M.
Barnhart stated he is not requesting action tonight on this item and that it is more to open the discussion
and receive any public feedback on the ordinance.
Currently the City follows state law in their own zoning ordinances for what is considered a subdivision
except for the following actions:
1. In which all the resulting parcels,tracts, lots or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500
feet in width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses;
2. Creating cemetery lots;
3. Resulting from court orders or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary
as long as each of the two resulting lots meet the requirements of Chapter 78.
The proposed ordinance establishes a process where Staff verifies that a proposal falls within these
criteria. Staff would then generate a document to be received by the County Recorder for filing.
The proposed ordinance also classifies a boundary line adjustment when both lots do not meet the
requirements of the zoning ardinance as a Class I subdivision. Class I subdivisions do not need to be
platted.
Barnhart stated Staff and the City Attorney will continue to work through the draft ordinance and the
Planning Commission should receive public feedback, discuss the draft ordinance if they wish, and then
table action on the ordinance until May.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:33 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at p.m.
Page 30 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18, 2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to table Application No. 16-3824, City of Orono, Zoning Code
Amendment regarding a process to review subdivision exceptions. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
9. #16-3825 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 78-1684
REGARDING THE CALCULATION OF HARDCOVER AND RETAINING WALLS,
10:35 P.M.— 10:38 P.M.
Barnhart stated in 2012,the City adopted Ordinance 94, governing the regulation of hardcover and
establishing the stormwater quality overlay district throughout the City. Within that ordinance,retaining
walls were defined as hardcover in Section 78-L Currently the City does not allow any hardcover within
the 0-75 foot zone except for deck boxes lifts, landings and/or a stairway to access the lake.
Section 78-1279 states that retaining walls shall not be placed in the shore setback zone. Section 78-1684
states that retaining walls are hardcover but lists these walls among its standard hardcover exclusions.
During discussion of this item at the wark session,the Council noted that hardcover items in the lake
yard, including boat houses and sheds, have always been included in the hardcover calculation even
though they are not permitted. The draft ordinance codifies practice and confirms Council intent that
retaining walls are not to be included within the hardcover calculation unless within the 0-75 foot zone.
Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as drafted.
Landgraver commented the draft ordinance has been put together well.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 10:38 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 10:38 p.m.
Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3825, City of
Orono,Zoning Code Amendment to Section 78-1684 regarding the calculation of hardcover and
retaining walls. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
10. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED ON MARCH 28, 2016,AND
APRIL 11,2016
Barnhart reported on the following actions by the City Council:
• The Tufaa application was approved, with Council Members Walsh and Printup opposed.
• The ordinance amendment regulating vacation rentals was tabled and will likely be revisited
sometime in the fall.
• The lighting ardinance was also tabled indefinitely. Some of the Council Members felt the
ordinance was too comprehensive and others felt that it was a good start.
• The application for 3435 Lyric Avenue was approved on Consent.
• The application for 925 Brown Road was approved on Consent.
Page 31 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 18,2016
6:30 o'clock p.m.
• The application for Loma Linda was approved on Consent. The City Council did not approve the
extension of the retaining wall and followed the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
• The Santrach variance on Bohn's Point Road was approved 5-0. The Council felt the lack of off-
street parking was a hardship, especially given the distance from the road to the house.
• The Hennepin County dock ordinance was adopted on a 5-0 vote.
11. PLANNING COMMISSION ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Schoenzeit moved,Leskinen seconded,to nominate John Thiesse as Chair and Bruce Lemke as
Vice Chair. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0, Thiesse and Lemke Abstained.
12. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
ADJOURNMENT
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 10:48 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
ATTEST:
� ;?
/- f,�
( ;�i��/f�
Denise Leskinen, Chair
Page 32 of 32