Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-2017 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver,Bruce Lemke,Denise Leskinen, Chad Olson,and Loren Schoenzeit. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Victoria Seals was present. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017 Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of January 17,2017,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 2. #17-3898 DALE RICHARDSON,2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, ORDINANCE/PUD TEXT AMENDMENT,6:32 P.M.—6:51 P.M. Dale Richardson, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated Dale Richardson of CBS-MN Properties is the owner of the property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West. The site has five building pads and a common outlot. The applicant is requesting the City amend the zoning provisions for the subject property to allow daycare as an allowed use for the property. The impetus for the request is a separate application from Little Acorns Childcare, which currently operates in Long Lake. They have requested a conditional use permit to operate a daycare in the existing building on the property. The property is zoned B-6 PUD. B-6 is an office/commercial district. The PUD on this property specifically allows for a small office condominium complex consisting of five buildings but does not allow any other types of uses. Because the PUD 2C Agreement functionally becomes the zoning for this property, an amendment of the Agreement is necessary for approval of a daycare use should the City Council choose to allow it. As a result,the applicant is requesting the City amend the Agreement to allow daycare as an allowed use for the property. From Staffs perspective, a B-6 District text amendment to allow daycare would not be necessary. The proposal to allow the daycare use should be evaluated against the goals of the Community Management Plan. The CMP guides the subject property for office use but the Comprehensive Plan suggests that the area west of the Orono Woods Senior Housing should be developed"with a mix of commercial uses, including retail, service and office components." Gaffron noted while this property is essentially guided for office use,the Comprehensive Plan suggests service uses would be appropriate; a daycare facility would be a service to the community. The character of the immediate neighborhood is varied. Some businesses along the Highway 12 corridor provide services to a sub-regional area, not necessarily specific to Long Lake and Orono,while other Page 1 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. businesses are quite localized. The proposed daycare use is likely to be providing service to local residents and potentially to some smaller subset of commuters. In residential zoning districts where daycare is allowed, it requires a conditional use permit. Daycare is also allowed in the B-1 and B-3 districts as a conditional use. Little Acorns Childcare is looking to occupy the existing building on the site and remodel the interior. The building on Lot 2 to the immediate east consists merely of a foundation. The rest of the site has had extensive grading done on it in 2007-2008 in preparation for future office condo use. In other areas of the City where daycare is allowed, it is a conditional use. In residential districts where it is allowed there are no specific standards for a daycare other than it is to be a conditional use. In the commercial districts where 'day nurseries' are allowed,the only condition is that not less than 50 square feet of outside play area per pupil be made available and that it be fenced. The applicants have proposed two outdoor play areas, one at the north end of the parking lot and another behind one of the building pads. The primary intent of this part of the application is to determine whether daycare is appropriate for this site and then to define what conditions should be established for the use. One of the issues is the fact that the site contains five separate building sites. In discussions with the applicant and others over the past five or six years, it was noted that it is not likely the remainder of the site would be developed in the configuration as originally proposed. Gaffron stated in a perfect world there would be a comprehensive development plan for the site rather than a piecemeal approach. At the time of the original plan, one of the City Council's concerns at the time the property was being developed was that only one of the buildings would get built, rather than a complete timely buildout of the site. Unfortunately,the former has occurred. As it relates to parking, the original approvals for parking required 3.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet using 85 percent of the gross floor area,which was felt to be a realistic standard for the office condos. The site plan was approved with a parking layout that just meets the minimum with 102 stalls. The 'Day nurseries' use under current code requires four stalls plus one for each 500 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. Based on that formula, a total of 15 parking stalls would be required. Gaffron stated the daycare will potentially take up more than one-fifth of the total parking on the site and will need to be reviewed as part of the Little Acorns CUP application. The parking area as constructed meets all required setbacks. The parking stalls have never been striped. By all indications, it also appears that the wear course of bituminous has never been installed. A backup apron was included at the end of the most northwesterly parking area. The site shares a driveway entrance to Wayzata Boulevard with the Orono Woods Senior Housing property. Original office condo approvals in 2007 and earlier took into account the lack of a direct, full- turning movement access to the site from Wayzata Boulevard due to the median and no turn lanes. At the time the senior housing project was approved,the City required a cross-access easement through the senior housing parking lot to allow direct access to and from Brown Road from this property. The current Hennepin County plans for improvements to Wayzata Boulevard will remove the median and insert an opposing left turn lane system. This will allow for full turning movements at the shared driveway and will make access to the applicant's property much easier and less of a burden to the senior housing property. Page 2 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission and City Council should determine if the proposed daycare use is consistent with the Community Management Plan and/or the neighborhood. The Planning Commission should also discuss whether any specific conditions should be imposed to mitigate the impacts of the use. Planning Staff recommends approval of an amendment to the PUD No. 2C Agreement to allow a daycare use at this site. Staff does not recommend amending the allowed uses within the B-6 District to include daycare at this time. Thiesse asked whether discussion on this application should be limited to the PUD. Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron stated Item No. 3 is regarding the conditional use permit request and that it would be very difficult to review a proposed use without having some sense of how the property will be used. Lemke asked if there is any issue with using the parking area to the east and having access through there. Gaffron stated when Amber Woods was developed, the City required an easement to allow traffic from the subject property to go through the senior housing parking lot. That easement has been in place for approximately 15 years. Lemke asked if going to the north towards the strip mall would be an option. Gaffron pointed out the location of the existing infrastructure in the area. Gaffron stated the initial intent was that the parking area could become a continuation of a road via outlots that exist through the Sugarwoods subdivision. The easement that was over the Otten Brothers property no longer exists. Gaffron stated the need to go west with the road is not an immediate need and it is possible there will never be a need for that. Gaffron stated the grade change makes that connection a little more difficult but not impossible. Gaffron noted the use of that area for a daycare play area would eliminate a few parking spaces. Lemke asked if the truck station would remain. Gaffron stated Staff has not received any indication that it would be eliminated. Dale Richardson, CBS-MN Properties, stated in his view the daycare is a good fit for the area and is not out of character with the rest of the area. Richardson stated they do have plans for the other parts of the property but that it is still a work in progress at this point. Richardson indicated there would likely be two buildings on the site or possibly one large building in addition to the existing structure. Gaffron pointed out the location of the existing structure. Richardson stated the one building is being contemplated as a medical building and that building would have parking below, which would compensate for any lost parking. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Page 3 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Landgraver stated he tends to agree with Staff to amend the agreement as opposing to modifying the B-6 district. Landgraver stated some of the other developments going on in the City may create additional demand for daycare. Thiesse noted one option is not to change anything. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver. Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3898,Dale Richardson,2060 Wayzata Boulevard West,granting of a PUD text amendment. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 3. #17-3899 LITTLE ACORNS CHILD CARE,2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:51 P.M.—7:16 P.M. Mary Smale, Little Acorns Child Care, and Dale Richardson, CBS-MN Properties, were present. Gaffron noted this conditional use permit application review is conducted under the assumption that daycare use will ultimately be determined to be an acceptable use for this site. The applicant is currently operating a daycare business in Long Lake and is requesting that the City approve a conditional use permit to allow operation of a daycare in the existing building on the property. Currently the only Orono Zoning Code requirement for a daycare conditional use permit(in B-1 and B-3 Districts) is that 50 square feet of outdoor play area per pupil must be available. For a 95-child level of use, the code would require a 4,750 square foot play area. This requirement is different from current state licensing standards, which require a minimum of a 1,500 square foot outdoor activity area. The applicants are proposing two 1,500 square foot outdoor play areas which would allow 20 students playing at a time under state regulations. Given existing state regulations, Staff does not believe there is a need to enforce the City requirement as long as the state requirements are satisfied. As it relates to parking, technically Orono's Code requires 15 stalls for this use. Use of the northerly portion of the parking lot for a play area eliminates six parking stalls and the backup apron that was required in the original parking lot approvals. This makes the remaining stalls abutting the play area less functional. Staff would be requesting a detailed site plan be submitted for the play area, showing how it will be fenced off, how it will be accessed, and its relationship to the adjacent parking area. The site currently does not have the capacity for a loop or drop-off lane and all vehicles dropping off or picking up children would have to park in a defined stall. The property currently has only right in/right out direct access to Wayzata Boulevard but does benefit by existing easements through the adjacent Orono Woods Senior Housing parking lots to access Brown Road and the signalized intersection at Brown and Wayzata Boulevard. Planned removal by Hennepin County of the median in Wayzata Boulevard and creation of an opposing center left turn lane will result in full access directly to Wayzata Boulevard for this property. That access change is anticipated to occur within the next two years. Page 4 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The applicants have submitted building layout plans that do not propose additional lighting. Parking lot lighting was completed by the original developer. The applicants have not indicated the need for any additional exterior lighting. If any new exterior lighting is proposed, photometric plans should be provided. Under the original approval, the dumpster area was to be enclosed but that has not yet been done. Any approval should require the dumpster area to be enclosed. In addition,the incomplete elements of the landscaping plan should be completed. The entire PUD development site is allowed 190 square feet of signage, which includes the existing partially-built monument sign and individual exterior wall mounted signs for each unit. The applicants should be asked to show the size and location of signage proposed for their use. The Planning Commission should discuss the issues outlined in Staffs report. If the Planning Commission concludes that this site is appropriate for the proposed daycare use, Staff would recommend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants provide detailed plans with regard to the outdoor play areas, which should be designed to meet State of Minnesota licensing standards. 2. Prior to occupancy, the final lift of bituminous should be installed and the parking lot striped per the approved site plans, and dumpster screening should be constructed. 3. A signage plan meeting City requirements is to be submitted. 4. The property owner is to provide a detailed schedule for completion of required site improvements. Schoenzeit asked if City or state code require that the fenced-in play area be escape proof, such as being connected to the building. Gaffron stated he is not familiar with that and that the applicants would need to meet state standards. Thiesse asked who owns the hydrant. Gaffron indicated the fire hydrants and the water and sewer lines are city owned. The individual connections going to the buildings would be privately owned. Lemke asked whether there are any issues with fire trucks negotiating the parking lot. Gaffron stated it is likely that a fire truck would access through one of the neighboring properties. If a fire truck did go into the parking lot, it is likely it would have a hard time backing out. Gaffron noted the fire chief has not reviewed the plan at this time. Leskinen asked if the fire chief reviewed the original development plans. Gaffron stated he is not sure and can check on that. Page 5 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Dale Richardson noted the building is sprinkled. Mary Smale stated she is the owner of Little Acorns Child Care and that they have been in business for the past 20 years. Smale stated they are required to obtain state approval on their plan and that they are here tonight to see whether Orono would allow this type of use on the property. Thiesse asked if she is comfortable with the proposed outdoor play area. Smale indicated she is. Smale stated in her view the families will love the new location and that it will be a great change for them. Landgraver asked if she has any thoughts regarding the signage. Smale stated she has not really thought about signage at this point but that it likely would be located closer to the street. Smale noted the building is pretty visible from the highway but yet set back far enough for child care. Dale Richardson stated it is his understanding the contract for the road project will be let in April and that the median should be removed sometime this year. Richardson stated the signage will probably not be done until after the road work is completed since it is likely it would need to be removed as part of that project. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Olson stated the concerns raised by Staff are valid but that it seems like a good use for the building. Schoenzeit noted a lot of the regulations regarding daycares are controlled by the state. Thiesse stated his one concern relates to the fire hydrant in the back corner that might get fenced in. Gaffron stated Public Works will need to look at that. Richardson noted it is right on the corner. Thiesse stated if it is fenced in, it would be inaccessible in the event of a fire. Thiesse noted no accessory structures would be allowed on the property. Gaffron stated he would recommend the applicant provide a detailed site plan for how the site will be used. Gaffron stated the initial request was to see whether daycare would be allowed and that a more detailed plan would be required prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit. Thiesse stated the remote play area is somewhat of a concern, especially as the property becomes more developed. Page 6 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron noted there is a stormwater system that runs behind the buildings down to the south end of the property. As of a few years ago, there were open catch basins that have since been covered. Gaffron stated it is possible that the storm sewer system could change depending on what happens with the rest of the property. Gaffron stated it is also possible that the parking on the site will need to be reviewed once the rest of the site is developed. Thiesse stated his biggest concern is 95 children in the back yard of the Sugar Woods Smale stated they probably have around 20 at one time and not 95. Leskinen asked at what point something will be done with the foundation. Richardson stated they intend to develop that site sometime this summer and that they have two interested parties in the building. Leskinen asked what type of use they were thinking for that site. Richardson indicated it would be professional use, likely architectural and legal. Thiesse asked if the play area would still be available during construction of the site. Smale stated that area would be gated and the children would not be able to simply walk over there unsupervised. Landgraver stated he has previously observed this daycare on outings down to the lake and that in his view there will be plenty of adult supervision. Smale stated they would need to comply with state requirements on the ratios for adult supervision. Landgraver asked if they are open 12 hours a day. Smale indicated that is correct. Landgraver noted all the employees would not be there at all times, which will lighten the parking needs. Thiesse asked if they are willing to put down the final lift of asphalt prior to occupancy. Richardson indicated they will be doing a portion of the lot this year and then will be finishing it once the rest of the site is developed. Gaffron stated there is some risk to the applicant that the remaining construction will do some damage to the asphalt and base but currently the base is fairly stable. Thiesse asked if a construction schedule will be provided sometime this summer. Richardson indicated they are pretty much ready to go once they receive approval and that they will be submitting that in the near future. Page 7 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked whether there is an easement that exists for access across the adjoining property at 2120. Richardson stated there were some access agreements by the old owner but that he does not know whether they are still applicable. Richardson indicated his preference would be to go right out onto Wayzata Boulevard. Thiesse commented daycare would be a wonderful use of the building. Landgraver stated he would prefer to rely on the state licensing requirements. Thiesse stated in his view Orono's daycare standards should be removed from the code and they should just rely on the state regulations. Gaffron stated Orono's standards only apply to the B-1 and B-3 districts at this time. Landgraver moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3899,Little Acorns Child Care,2060 Wayzata Boulevard West,granting of a conditional use permit,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 4. #17-3900 SCOTT KIRCHNER, 1090 HERITAGE LANE,VARIANCE,7:16 P.M. 7:24 P.M. Scott Kirchner, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the subject property is an existing lot of record that is substandard in size for the LR-1A district. The lot was created in 1965 as part of the Foxhill neighborhood which predates the creation of the 2-acre minimum requirement. The lot currently consists of 0.98 acre in area. In addition, the applicant has made an application for a subdivision exemption to allow an administrative lot line rearrangement between the subject property and the Nelson property at 1780 Shoreline Drive. The proposed lot line adjustment would increase the size of the subject property to 1.07 acres but would still not meet the requirement of the district. The additional land will make the buildable area larger and possibly avoid setback variances for the development of the lot in the future. A lot area variance is needed in order to process the subdivision exemption. Staff finds there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the lot area variance. Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot area variance. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Scott Kirchner, Applicant, stated the survey shows some of the difficulties that were encountered with the lot, including a wetland near Heritage Lane. Due to that wetland and the building setbacks,the lot is very limited with regard to the building envelope. Kirchner stated by purchasing the adjoining property, it will help square off the lot and eliminate some of the future complications with the building pad. Landgraver stated it is a reasonable solution to a challenging problem. Page 8 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse commented it will still be a challenging lot. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Dennis Libby, 1000 Heritage Lane, stated he would like to compliment Staff for making the very prudent recommendation of approval. Libby stated this is a prime example of adjoining neighbors cooperating and doing something constructive to solve a problem. Libby stated he would recommend strongly that the City approve the variances and allow a home to be built on the site. Libby noted under issues of consideration in Staff's report there is a difference in elevation that has not been addressed by the architectural drawings or platting. Currently there is a 40-foot drop between the upper lot and where the building pad is on this lot. Historically that drop has caused a lot of water during heavy rains to collect on the road surface. Libby stated the drainage system has not been very well maintained, and when it does not work correctly, the water drains under and over the road to a private property and then down to a community pond. When that is working properly and maintained, it works very well, but when it is not, there is a lot of standing water on the roadway,which causes issues with freeze/thaw and traffic. Libby stated he would suggest the City review that drainage to ensure it is working properly as part of this application process. Curtis noted the applicant is not proposing to develop the site at this time, but at the time a structure is proposed for the site,the City Engineer will be reviewing the plans and drainage. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Schoenzeit commented the application looks fine and is more administrative in nature. Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3900, Scott Kirchner, 1090 Heritage Lane,granting of a lot area variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. #17-3901 MICHAEL DEMENGE,4380 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,VARIANCE,7:24 P.M.—7:28 P.M. Michael Demenge, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated this property is located in the RR-1A, which requires a 100-foot front yard setback. In the late 1990s, Hennepin County acquired a portion of this property in order to realign CSAH 6 and create a frontage cul-de-sac. The existing home on the property at that time met the front yard setback. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance in order to construct a second story addition over the existing home 76 feet from the front lot line where a 100-foot setback is required. Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variance. The setback variance and septic system variance will be considered by the City Council at their February 27 meeting. The setback variance is the only item that is before the Planning Commission at this time. Landgraver asked how future property owners are notified of the lack of a second septic site. Page 9 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated she is not familiar with the process since it is a building official process. Curtis stated to her knowledge the primary site is proposed to be the future alternate site as well. Curtis stated to her understanding there is notification. Curtis stated she can make that part of the recommendations if the Planning Commission would like. Michael Demenge, Applicant, stated he has nothing further to add to Staff's report. Demenge stated his intent is to improve the current home for the neighborhood and the future owner. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. Thiesse commented the application is pretty straight forward. Schoenzeit moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3901,Michael Demenge,4380 Sixth Avenue North,granting of a variance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. #17-3904 MARTHA MYERS HEAD,2090 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:28 P.M.—7:37 P.M. Martha Myers Head, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for the guest house use in order to reconstruct the existing guest house cabin with a different footprint; a conditional use permit to reconstruct the guest house elevated out of the floodplain on helical piers; an average lakeshore setback variance for the guest house location; and a lake setback variance and hardcover variance to permit a northern entry stoop to be placed within the 75-foot setback. The original home and guest cabin on the property was constructed in the mid-1920s. A portion of the lot is below the one percent flood elevation but the existing home has been elevated above the flood elevation. The existing cabin, however, sits lower on the property and has not been elevated above the flood elevation. The cabin was damaged by the 2014 flood waters and the applicant would like to reconstruct and elevate the building. Because the construction and elevation will be done using helical piers rather than fill material, a conditional use permit is required. The construction of the guest cabin will require an average lakeshore setback variance as well as a lake setback variance for the northern stoop to be located approximately 67 feet from the ordinary high water level. The cabin will be at a conforming setback of 75 feet. In addition, a guest house conditional use permit is required as one has not been issued and the guest house cabin is being reconstructed in a different, expanded footprint and is in a nonconforming location. In regards to the average setback, the home is situated on a peninsula. The property located at 2165 North Shore Drive across the bay is the adjacent property and determines the average lakeshore setback. The home at 2165 North Shore is located approximately 170 feet from the ordinary high water level. According to City Code, the guest cabin must be located equal to or further back from the lake than the home located at 2165 North Shore Drive. Page 10 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The proposed cabin meets the 75-foot setback from the lake. The northern stoop access to the cabin is within the setback at 67 feet. An additional 61 square feet of hardcover is proposed within the 75-foot setback. The applicant is attempting to avoid impacting the existing extensive garden features on the property with the new cabin construction. Staff finds that the peninsula configuration of the property functions much like an island yet shares a 6- foot connection with the property across the bay at 2165 North Shore Drive dictating the average lakeshore setback requirement. The subject property does not block views of the lake from the home at 2165 North Shore Drive as it is across the water from the home. Staff finds the practical difficulty requirements are satisfied regarding the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has opted to modify the footprint and location of the guest cabin thereby triggering the need for the variances as well as the conditional use permit. Staff finds that the stoop on the north side of the home can be removed as there are three other points of egress. The proposed development suggests hardcover levels beneath the Tier 1 allowance and there is sufficient pervious area offering infiltration opportunities on the property. The conditions applying to the two different conditional use permits relating to the guest cabin have been satisfied according to Staff. The engineering standards required as part of the floodplain regulations apply to the conditional use permit for the structure and will be reviewed and applied at the permit stage. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances and conditional use permits as follows: 1. Approval of the guest house conditional use permit with the standard covenants; 2. Approval of the conditional use permit to permit the guest house to be constructed on helical piers within the floodplain; and 3. Approval of the average setback variance for the construction of the new guest house cabin. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Laurel Ulland, Architect, stated she would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Thiesse asked how far the proposed guest house would need to be moved to meet the 75-foot setback. Ulland stated she mistakenly read the ordinances as saying the house could be set at 75 feet without the stoop and that she would prefer not to move the house back. Ulland indicated she is attempting to set the south edge of the new house where the old house was as well as preserve the garden. Ulland stated they can give up the stoop if it is a concern. Thiesse stated unfortunately it will be a concern. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Thiesse commented the stoop was his main concern. Page 11 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated the rationale for average setback in his view does not apply here. Landgraver moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3904,Martha Myers Head,2090 Shoreline Drive,granting of a variance and conditional use permit as recommended by Staff,with the understanding the applicant will remove the stoop. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 7. #17-3906 JOSHUA/MARKUM BUILDERS,INC.,3472 LYRIC AVENUE,VARIANCES, 7:37 P.M.—7:52 P.M. Mark Olson,Joshua/Markum Builders, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting lot area and width variances in order to construct a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. This small lot would qualify for buildability without area and width variances under the Shoreland regulations. However, in order to take advantage of that, they would have to comply with a 25 percent hardcover limit. The property is located in a Tier 3 hardcover zone and would qualify for up to 35 percent hardcover if area and width variances are granted. Gaffron displayed a survey depicting the existing house. Gaffron stated the neighborhood consists of lots typically 50 feet in width and 130-145 feet in depth. Over time these lots have been developed for individual homes or in combination of two or three lots together. Staff does not believe construction of a single-family residence on a single lot in this neighborhood would be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant meets the setback requirements. The neighbors to the east have expressed some concern about the location of the house since it will be a couple feet closer to them than the existing house. Other concerns related to drainage, construction impacts, and the character of the neighborhood. The neighbors request that the new home be no closer to their property than the existing residence which is approximately 12 feet from the side lot line. The new home is proposed to be located 10 feet from the property line,just meeting the setback requirements. The neighbors' home is approximately eight feet from the lot line. Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances. The plan has been revised down to 1,503 square feet by reducing the depth of the garage. Staff does not recommend approval of a variance for structural lot coverage despite the fact that it is a minimal overage. The Planning Commission should consider and discuss the issues outlined in Staff's report. If the Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met for the area and width variance, then a recommendation for approval would be in order, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall adhere to the 35 percent hardcover and 1,500 square foot structural lot coverage limitations. 2. The applicant shall submit and adhere to a grading plan to be approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance showing that drainage from the new residence will have no additional Page 12 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. drainage impacts on the neighboring property and, if possible, reduce the existing impacts. While this is a standard building permit condition, it is called out here due to expressed neighbor concerns. Lemke stated the letter from the neighborhood mentions a couple of trees on the property. Gaffron displayed an aerial photograph of the site and pointed out the location of the trees. Gaffron noted the pine trees in the front will be eliminated since they are located in the middle of the proposed driveway and that there is some fairly heavy vegetation in the back. Thiesse asked whether the City has any control over the trees. Gaffron stated the trees are not protected since they are not within 75 feet of the lake. Builder Mark Olson, 7867 East Wood Road, Mounds View, stated he will attempt to save as many trees as possible. Olson stated as far as the 1,503 square feet, he has been reducing the size of the house throughout this process and that he can possibly try to reduce the size of the fireplace to reduce the structural coverage down to 1,500 square feet. Thiesse commented it would be a lot easier for the Planning Commission if it was reduced to 1,500 square feet. Olson stated it will be reduced to 1,500. Thiesse asked if the roofline drains from front to back. Olson indicated it will and that no water will drain into either of the neighbors' properties. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Cecilia Schulte, 3477 Livingston Avenue, stated she resides in the property located right behind this lot. Schulte stated she currently has an enclosed back yard with a dog, and if they remove the garage,that would take away part of her enclosed back yard. Schulte indicated part of it consists of a wooden fence and part of a chain link fence. Schulte stated if the garage is removed and the fence is removed, she no longer will have an enclosed yard. Schulte stated the garage is right on the property line and that she is not sure whether she has to get a new fence or whether she can receive some assistance. Schulte commented it is a great idea to replace the existing structure but that she is worried about her back fence. Schulte stated she currently is a single homeowner and that she probably cannot come up with the money to put in a new fence. Gaffron asked if there is a retaining wall behind the garage. Schulte stated she and her husband constructed the retaining wall to help with the drainage since their property is lower than the adjacent property. Schulte stated they had the property surveyed when they constructed their garage. Page 13 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated the survey he is looking at depicts the neighbor's garage as being completely on their property and that he would encourage her to talk to the property owners about whether they will be erecting a fence. Landgraver asked if the applicant is considering erecting a fence. Olson stated he has not considered that at this point. Olson stated this is a spec house and that more than likely he will do something back there. Olson stated during construction he can erect a snow fence and talk to the neighbor about what they will be doing back there. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Leskinen stated the only issue she had was the structural coverage and that has now been resolved. Thiesse stated in his view the new house is an asset to the community and that it cannot be built without the variances. Thiesse noted the square footage on the property will also be reduced. Landgraver noted the water issues will also be addressed. Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3906, Joshua/Markum Builders,Inc.,3472 Lyric Avenue,granting of variances,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 8. #17-3903 UGORETS 8098 LLC,2520 SHADYWOOD ROAD, CONCEPT PLAN,7:52 P.M.—8:40 P.M. Tom Goodrum, on behalf of Ugorets 8098, LLC, was present. Barnhart noted this is a sketch plan review request for a 49-unit apartment building located at 2520. This request would require a zone change. The access will be off of Shadywood Road via a shared drive with the Freshwater Business Center. This driveway will line up with the driveway servicing the church across Shadywood. Ultimately the plan is to have the shared driveway line up with the new Shadywood Circle access as part of the Shadywood Villas project and will likely remain as a right-in and right-out driveway. Hennepin County supports the proposed access. The proposal provides for 100 parking spaces, which is more than two parking spaces per unit. Fifty-one of those spaces will be located under the building and 49 surface spaces are proposed. Two parking spaces per unit are required by City Code. Staff expects the hardcover on the site to meet the requirements since the lot lines can be reconfigured to adjust the hardcover. One of the issues for discussion tonight is the height of the structure. The height of the proposed building will be between 31 and 54 feet. At this time elevation drawings have not been provided to accurately analyze the height. The building from the front will appear as a three-story, flat-roofed building plus a penthouse over a portion of the building. From the wetland,the building will appear to be four stories in addition to the penthouse. Barnhart noted in the past the City has stayed away from projects higher than three stories but Orono Woods does have a portion of building that is three stories. Page 14 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The building is proposed to be 35 feet back from the Shadywood Road right-of-way line and is about 35 feet from the new side lot line to the north. The building will be 75 feet from the wetland. Each unit will have a balcony. The building as shown includes brick, steel, and glass with stucco accents. The mechanical units will need to be shielded from public view. Currently the site slopes toward the east/southeast, away from the street, dropping 12 feet in the first 119 feet. It appears that a substantial amount of fill will need to be brought in to accommodate the project. In addition,the site is wooded and the grading for the building, parking lot, and stormwater management will require the removal of most of the trees outside of the wetland. The project will be served by municipal water and sanitary sewer. Barnhart stated while this is not a public hearing, Staff has received one public comment expressing a concern regarding the number of units being proposed. The property is currently zoned B-4 Office Professional but is guided for mixed use with a prescribed density of 6-15 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan suggests mixed use to include senior assisted living, townhomes, condominiums, or apartment buildings. From a use standpoint,the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the proposed density does allow the City to offset lower density in other areas. Barnhart noted the proposed project is slightly higher than 15 units per acre. Thiesse asked where West Lafayette Road is located. Barnhart indicated it is south of this property off of Shadywood. Thiesse noted that is where the public comment was received from and that the person's property is outside of the 350-foot zone. Barnhart stated one of the concerns expressed by that person related to traffic in addition to the density. Since it is likely some type of development will happen on the site,the question is whether what is being proposed is appropriate for the site. Barnhart stated currently there is quite a bit of traffic on Shadywood, with residential generating a substantial amount of that traffic, but that the overall traffic situation hamstrings redevelopment of the site. Lemke stated he has a concern that no one from the public is here. Barnhart noted this is a sketch plan review and that a formal public hearing has not been noticed. Barnhart indicated this is basically an opportunity for the applicant to hear from the Planning Commission and City Council on what they envision for the site. Thiesse stated one of his concerns is the three stories and a penthouse, especially since it will be five stories from the back. Olson asked how many units would be in the building if the density is reduced down to 15 units per acre. Barnhart noted the applicant is proposing 15.75 units. Barnhart stated the Comprehensive Plan lists a range of appropriate densities and that it is up to the City to determine what they would like to see on this site. Page 15 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Olson asked if a traffic study would be able to determine the traffic levels between different uses. Barnhart indicated that can be done, and given the higher density, a traffic study would be very appropriate. Lemke asked whether this proposal has been discussed with Hennepin County. Barnhart stated Hennepin County is comfortable with the proposed access. Barnhart illustrated the location of the shared driveway and the surrounding access points. Schoenzeit stated in his view it would be important to hear from the Fire Chief to see whether they would be able to fight a fire at this location given the height of the building. Schoenzeit stated the City is in need of higher density and that the City should not shy away from the higher density, especially since this is an area the City is hoping to redevelop to help bring in additional customers for the existing businesses. Thiesse commented in his view this is a perfect spot for this type of building but that it might be difficult to get approval for a five-story building and 15 units per acre. Landgraver asked if there are any trails planned for this area. Barnhart stated the developer is not proposing any trails but that there is an easement along Shadywood to hopefully someday provide a connection to the trail further up the road. Thiesse asked if any park land will be dedicated or could be required. Barnhart stated generally a residential development will trigger that requirement and that it will need to be reviewed. Leskinen asked if the soils have been tested to see whether underground parking is doable on the site given the wetlands in the area. Barnhart indicated that will be part of the due diligence the developer will do, but at this stage of review it is not required. Schoenzeit stated if the water table permits it,the first floor could be pushed further into the ground to help alleviate some of the concerns with the height of the structure. Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner with Westwood Engineering, stated he is representing Alex Ugorets tonight who is currently out of state. Goodrum indicated he has worked with Alex Ugorets on a number of projects throughout the years and that Alex would like to let the Planning Commission know that he is excited about being part of the redevelopment of the Navarre area. One of the reasons Alex Ugorets purchased the Freshwater building is because he wants to be part of what is happening in the Navarre area. Goodrum noted Mr. Ugorets also purchased the land next to the Freshwater building as well another nine acres for a total of 12 acres, which gives him quite a bit of land to move things around to make things work. Goodrum stated if the 9-acre parcel is added to this parcel,they would be down to 4.75 units per acre. Goodrum indicated they could work with the density somewhat but that it comes down to whether this is Page 16 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. a good fit for the site. Goodrum stated they are interested in hearing what the Planning Commission thinks about the proposed project. Goodrum stated they looked at the character of the neighborhood when designing the building and that they knew traffic, density, and the height of the building would be concerns. Goodrum noted they do have a traffic engineering component to their company and that they have already met with representatives from Hennepin County. A formal traffic study has not been completed at this point but an internal memorandum regarding the traffic has been completed within the company. Goodrum stated if these are market rate, full family units, it is anticipated there will be 23 AMP trips on the county road,which is less than three percent of the total traffic in the area. Goodrum stated they are well within acceptable parameters for traffic in the area. Goodrum stated they are also looking at a higher market-end rate building and that they expect more seniors and more retired people to live in the building, which will help reduce traffic even further. As far as fitting this building in with the neighborhood,the plan as presented proposes very minimal grading impacts to the site and works with the actual grade on the site. Goodrum stated the building in the front would be 30 feet in height, with three stories in the front. Goodrum stated they are basically following the grade as it goes down. Goodrum stated what is being seen from the back side are the three stories and the penthouse, which matches the front, and the added height is the garage level. Thiesse noted the people in the back will see five stories. Goodrum concurred it will be a taller building but that they are working with the topography instead of bringing fill in. Goodrum indicated they can bring a bunch of dirt in to cover the bottom level,which does not make a lot of sense, since it can be screened with landscaping. Goodrum stated they are also looking at how this building will compare with the neighboring Freshwater building. This building will have 31 feet at the front when facing Shadywood Road and the penthouses are toward the back on the north side, which raises it to approximately 40 feet. The 54 feet is from the back side from the bottom of the garage to the top of the penthouse. Goodrum pointed out the Freshwater building on the adjoining site has the same heights. Goodrum stated they took the height of the Freshwater building at its highest point, matched it on this building, and then dropped it off to 30 feet in the front,which is the same as the Freshwater building. Goodrum indicated they tried to match what already exists on the Freshwater site and that they are not putting a tall building next to a short building. Goodrum noted there is another 400 feet before the first residential house with 40-foot tall trees in between. Goodrum stated they also attempted to locate the building where it would not have a huge visual impact to the residential properties in the back. The building is tilted and located further back off of Shadywood, with only one corner being up against the 35-foot setback. The rest of the building will be further back. Goodrum stated for someone coming down Shadywood,there will not be that tunnel effect since that building will be 100 feet back from the road. The plan also incorporates berms and landscaping to help break the appearance of the building up. Goodrum noted no headlights will be seen from the residents' homes and that the building is tucked into the site. Goodrum stated they took the neighbors into consideration when designing the building. Page 17 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Goodrum stated in their view they have put together a well thought out plan and that they also looked at the zoning for the properties across the street to make sure this development would fit in. One of the objectives with the plan is to help bring people down to the Navarre area. Reconstruction of the Freshwater building has resulted in a number of positive comments and activity. Goodrum noted they require the 50 units to make this project economically feasible and that it fits in well with the neighborhood. Goodrum noted they also met with representatives from the Watershed District and that they are happy with the fact that they can meet the wetland buffers and setbacks. Goodrum stated the building height is a little scary when you hear five stories, but that if you walk through the plan and look at the various elements,that fear is alleviated. Schoenzeit asked if the building would be precast concrete with 8-foot ceilings. Goodrum indicated the architects have not decided on that yet and that this is a concept plan at this time. Schoenzeit stated if wood is used for the framing, the building would be even higher. Thiesse asked about the ordinary high water level. Goodrum stated they have not done any soil borings for this site at the present time but that soil borings were done on the Freshwater site and they did not hit groundwater at 14 feet. Goodrum indicated they also took a look at the wetland delineation that was done in the past. Goodrum stated they are confident they will not be getting water underneath the building but that borings have not been done at this site yet. Thiesse asked if they are considering spread footings for the building and not pile footings. Goodrum indicated they would be spread footings. Thiesse asked about access for fire trucks. Goodrum noted they have a shared driveway in the lower area where the garage will be located and that they will have to take a look at the fire codes to see whether access is needed all the way around the building. Barnhart stated from past experience he would expect the fire chief to require a hard surface so they can be within 150 feet of any portion of the building. Barnhart stated that might require the driveway to be extended somewhat. Lemke asked if there is a number on the units that would be a deal breaker. Goodrum indicated they would need between 45 and 55 units to make things work and that they started with a 50-unit building. Goodrum stated he realizes the density is at 15.75 but that they could add some land to this parcel if necessary. Landgraver asked how many units the penthouses are. Goodrum indicated they would be between two and four depending on how big the units are. Page 18 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked if the penthouses will be rented out at a higher rate than the other floors. Landgraver stated he is not sure if there is a Plan B of what it would look like without the penthouse suites but that it might be something to consider if there is a lot of resistance to the height. Landgraver stated he likes the rationale that the Freshwater building is 54 feet in height. Goodrum stated the penthouse part is being proposed due to market demand and that they also help out with the economics of the building. Thiesse asked if any variances would be required as currently proposed. Barnhart stated it depends on the zoning and that a PUD would likely lessen the number of variances that would be required. Barnhart stated he would recommend going that route but that this review helps provide direction to the applicant to make it approvable. Lemke asked if there would be a demand for this many units. Goodrum stated they have not done a formal market analysis, but from what they are hearing there is a demand for housing in this area. Schoenzeit asked what type of rent they are looking at and square footage of the units. Goodrum indicated he does not have that information. Leskinen asked if they are anticipating older clientele. Goodrum commented it would be higher market rate but that it has not been determined what age group to market to at this time. Goodrum stated they are hearing more from older people who would like to remain in the area and that there appears to be a demand for both ownership and rental. Thiesse stated the City has heard there is a demand for smaller units. Landgraver commented empty nesters like to stay in the area. Gaffron noted there are two other buildings in Orono of this magnitude. One is the senior housing located at Brown and Wayzata Boulevard. From an architectural standpoint, the Council was very adamant that those buildings have pitched roofs rather than a flat roof. Thiesse noted the Freshwater building next door has a flat roof as well as a number of other buildings in Navarre. Lemke stated he likes the idea of a continuous project on these parcels. Lemke noted there already is some massing in the area with the Freshwater building and that this project continues that massing, which he is not opposed to. Lemke stated he also likes the contemporary design and that in his view the building helps to upgrade the Navarre/Orono area. Lemke stated the traffic in the area concerns him but that it sounds like that will be addressed. Lemke stated in his view this project will help revitalize the Navarre area. Page 19 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke stated the main concern he has is the nearby residential neighborhood. Lemke noted the City has run into a number of public hearings with the neighbors and that there are a number of single-family homes in this area and now all of a sudden they are proposing throwing in a major development. Lemke suggested the developer hold some neighborhood meetings to get them on board with what is being proposed for the site. Goodrum stated Staff has made them aware of that and that they are ready to send a letter out to the neighborhood in the near future. Goodrum stated they wanted to hear from the Planning Commission first. Thiesse stated the people across the road will have different concerns and that they might want to split them into a different group. Landgraver commented planting some evergreen trees might also be beneficial to the residential properties. Goodrum stated it comes down to approximately four homes that will have the biggest impact and that they will do their best to appease them. Lemke noted very little vegetation is being shown around the building and that from a visual standpoint, some vegetation would help soften the building a little. Goodrum indicated they will create some 3D illustrations but that the trees are pretty dense near the property line and wetland area. As a result,there is a pretty good buffer but that he likes the idea of planting more evergreens. Landgraver stated he does not mind the density being slightly over target and that aligning the entry and exit is good so they are further away from the intersection. Landgraver stated he does have a concern about the height from the back but that he likes how the building is angled off the street. Goodrum stated the third property to the south will be most impacted. Leskinen asked if those properties are lower in elevation than this building. Thiesse indicated the land starts to go back up at that point. Barnhart suggested they create a graphic depicting the elevation of the building as well as the trees and berms. Olson stated he agrees with being consistent on the flat roofs. Olson stated if there is a way to warm up the building somehow,that would be good, and that he would like to soften up the appearance of the building somehow. Olson stated it would be hard to change the roofline given the other office buildings in the area since it would not be consistent. Lemke stated in one of the renderings it almost looks like a green roof, and that if it is not going to be a green roof, it might be a little misleading. Page 20 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Goodrum stated they are entertaining that but that it comes down to pricing. Goodrum stated the flat roof adds a nice feature to the penthouses and for water treatment. Thiesse stated he likes the sketch plan a lot but that he would caution the applicant that the next time they meet there will likely be a full house. Thiesse suggested the applicant also meet with the Navarre business owners in the area as well. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 9. #17-3894 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: RETAINING WALLS AND GRADING,8:40-9:07 P.M. Barnhart stated at the direction of the City Council, Staff has drafted an ordinance to address land alterations and retaining walls within the side yard setback. In 2015, the City Council and Planning Commission reviewed an ordinance amendment that regulated retaining walls as well as other things such as grading in residential districts. The type of permit required was dependent on the height, amount of soils being retained, and the location. As a result,the City Council felt that unnecessarily encumbered small residential lots and have directed Staff to alter that regulation. Barnhart stated the City has two options. Exhibit A basically regulates retaining walls and planters, and as long as they are less than two feet in height,those would be allowed to be located in the front yard or side yard area. The draft ordinance contained in Exhibit A removes a portion of the language which talks about the distance from the side lot setback line. The primary purpose with this option is to make it easy for people to have retaining walls, planters, or other low features in the side yard. In application, a planter bed with stones around it would technically be considered a structure and would be required to be set back. Barnhart stated Staff does not drive around looking for those type of landscaping features and it is likely those are occurring, but the current regulations actually prohibits them. Exhibit A would remove them to be within the required yard setbacks. The second option looks at this item more comprehensively and fixes the issue raised by the City Council in terms of the small retaining walls but also pulls out the grading requirements contained in the original ordinance. In addition, grading requirements were contained in the non-encroachment section of the code. Barnhart stated non-encroachments are those improvements listed that are allowed to extend into a setback without the need for a variance and are usually building related. Barnhart stated from a comprehensive standpoint, it does not make sense to have grading regulations in the non-encroachment section. Staff recommends Exhibit B. Barnhart stated one of his goals is to make it easier for the residents to understand the regulations. Barnhart noted the back page of Exhibit B talks about unusual land alterations, which are defined as excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet, if excess material is stored on site, if there is more than 500 cubic yards of fill imported, or if you grade within five feet of adjacent residential lots. Barnhart Page 21 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. stated those three things require a conditional use permit and that Staff is now proposing they will just require a permit. Barnhart stated this ordinance is still going through the review process but Staff is comfortable enough to recommend approval of Exhibit B subject to some minor tweaks from the City Attorney. Thiesse asked if he can put in a cut retaining wall within five feet of the lot line if any grading is done. Barnhart stated the person would need to get a permit for the grading. Thiesse stated one of his big concerns is someone cutting the roots on a tree located on the adjoining property line because they want to put in a retaining wall. Barnhart stated the City does not protect the trees and that they can be cut down. Thiesse asked what would happen if it was the neighbor's tree. Barnhart stated the permit would require that a grading plan be submitted. Thiesse stated if he cuts or erects a wall on his property and then the neighbor does the same thing,there will be two walls parallel to each other. Barnhart stated the City cannot give someone permission to go on someone else's property regardless of any permit that is obtained. Barnhart stated if the retaining wall is located right on the property line, in theory someone would have to get the permission of the neighbor to construct it since it is likely they would go on that person's property. Barnhart stated this ordinance is similar to the fencing ordinance. Barnhart stated fences have certain height requirements depending on where it is located on the lot and two people adjoining each other could put a fence right next to each other on the property line. Barnhart noted that does not happen very frequently. Thiesse stated fences and trees are more temporary where retaining walls tend to be more permanent. In addition, retaining walls can impact neighbors more since they typically require land alterations. Planters would be similar to fences and shrubbery. Thiesse stated he would like a little more thought put into this. Schoenzeit asked where the 2-foot limit comes from on the retaining walls. Schoenzeit commented the two feet seems to be somewhat arbitrary, which is similar to the 3'/11"number on retaining walls. Schoenzeit stated the 3'/11"might be a more appropriate number. Barnhart stated the two feet is just a carryover from the ordinance drafted in 2015. Thiesse stated in his view it should be reduced to 3'/6"because otherwise a railing is required. Schoenzeit stated the two feet seems arbitrary and low. Barnhart stated the number can be changed. Page 22 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated if walls at four feet require engineering, it seems that a retaining wall under this ordinance could go up to that height. Schoenzeit noted this code does not say a taller wall is prohibited but that a permit would be required for it. Schoenzeit stated previously no retaining walls were allowed within the 5-foot setback. Lemke asked if a permit could be denied. Barnhart stated Staff would look at grading as well as location of any easements before issuing a permit. Shrubbery and minor improvements such as planters within the easement would probably be acceptable but a retaining wall would require a little more review. In the case of a retaining wall, Staff would also look at the visibility of the wall but the decision will primarily be based on grading issues. Thiesse commented if the City is not going to allow it in an easement, why allow it anywhere else. Barnhart stated an easement gives a right to another entity, such as a utility company, and that the City does not let people build structures in an easement since the City has a duty to protect that area. Since the easement benefits the neighbors, most cities do not allow construction within an easement. Barnhart stated fences can be removed fairly easily but retaining walls are not that easy to move. Barnhart stated to say whether all permits would be approved is hard to say but those are the things that Staff would be looking at. Barnhart stated the height of the wall to be allowed is completely up to the Planning Commission and City Council. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. Schoenzeit stated the question of the retaining wall being cut or flat also seems arbitrary. Schoenzeit stated it comes back to the fence. Schoenzeit stated someone can put a fence in that setback without a permit and the City does not require a survey. If the fence is over the line, the person could be stuck with it. Schoenzeit stated the retaining wall,which is at a height of 2 feet or 3'/11"or 3'16", or cut into the soil, is the same use of that piece of property, whether it is going positive or negative off of the person's land. Thiesse noted if someone changes the grade, a permit is required. Thiesse stated if the grade is altered in any direction, a permit is required, but a permit is not required for the actual wall. Barnhart stated the City does not differentiate between a retaining wall that is cut or filled. Schoenzeit stated if the retaining wall is a row of keystone blocks simply set on the ground, the City would have no control over it. Thiesse stated if it is a planter or a bench and the grade is not changed, a permit is not required. Thiesse stated a permit would only be required if the grade is changed. Page 23 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated Exhibit B states in Section 5.1B, retaining walls and planters exceeding two feet in height above existing grade, which are located than five feet from the side property line, shall require a land alteration permit. Barnhart noted Commissioner Schoenzeit's comments went to what would happen if someone stacks keystone blocks that are not retaining any dirt and whether that is different from a fence. Barnhart stated Staff perhaps needs to tweak that language a bit, but the main issue is if a retaining wall is retaining dirt or causing land disturbance. Barnhart stated if the wall includes land alteration, it will require a permit. Barnhart stated if someone just has a row of keystone blocks set on the ground to form a boundary around a planter bed, it may impact the drainage and would be an issue that will need to be addressed. Barnhart stated the language may need to be tweaked a little, but it might be as simple as, if the wall exceeds two feet in height, is less than five feet from property and includes land alteration, it shall require a land alteration permit. Schoenzeit stated if it does not change the land characteristics or change the water drainage,there would be no trigger for a permit and that the language should somehow trigger a review. Barnhart stated he will probably use land alteration and will work with the language a little. Lemke indicated he prefers Exhibit B. Landgraver asked what is being accomplished in Section 3, Part B. Barnhart stated the language basically states unusual riprap shall be referred by the City Engineer to the City Council for action in accordance with the chapter. If the City Engineer determines it is unusual, it would be considered under the conditional use permit section and would go to the City Council for action in accordance with this ordinance. Barnhart stated there are several sections in the Code where the City Engineer, Zoning Administrator, or City Administrator may refer things to the City Council. Landgraver commented the ordinance is shifting more judgments or decision making to Staff. Schoenzeit asked if riprap would require a Watershed permit if it is on the lakeside of the home and above the 929.4' elevation. Schoenzeit stated when he placed riprap on his property, the City was not involved and he had to obtain a permit through the Watershed District. Barnhart stated if it is above the 929.4' elevation,the City would then be involved. Landgraver indicated he agrees with Exhibit B more than A. Barnhart stated Staff is looking for direction on which one to send to the City Council. Leskinen moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3894,City of Orono,Text Amendment: Retaining Walls and Grading,Exhibit B,incorporating Commissioner Schoenzeit's comment regarding land alteration language in the appropriate sections. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 10. #17-3896 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: STRUCTURAL COVERAGE, 9:07 P.M.—9:44 P.M. Page 24 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated similar to the last application, Staff has prepared two separate draft ordinances regarding structural coverage. The City Council directed Staff to review the structural coverage limit. The Council felt that the structural coverage limit might be burdensome to homeowners since there is also a hardcover limitation. Barnhart stated the challenge that Staff has is there seems to be a strong concern or desire from the public to protect the massing issue. Barnhart stated structural coverage basically addresses a massing issue. Barnhart stated the Council has indicated a desire to reduce regulatory burdens on small lots. In many areas of the community,where there is a structural component,there is also a hardcover component. Barnhart stated under the stormwater quality ordinance,there are some opportunities to simply rely on the hardcover limitations to address the massing goals. In response to the City Council direction, Staff has drafted two ordinances. Exhibit A does what the Council would like to accomplish,which removes references to lot coverage and massing standards. The section regulating massing has been removed and there is no language regarding calculation of massing and also no maximum or minimum structural coverage depending on the lot side. Exhibit A also modifies Section 78-1685 where it talks about calculations of massing in the nonindustrial zoning districts. Barnhart noted the massing standards in the industrial zoning district will stay. To address some limitation of hardcover throughout the community, in Section 78-17 on Page 2 the City is broken into six districts. The first five districts provide a hardcover limitation ranging from 25 percent to 85 percent. In addition,there is a portion of the community that is exempt from the hardcover limitations. Barnhart stated the draft ordinance prescribes a hardcover limitation in those areas that are exempt in the stormwater quality map to 75 percent of the gross lot area. All references to structural coverage have been removed and the hardcover is based on the gross lot area. Barnhart stated the draft ordinance also addresses the goal of removing redundant regulation. Thiesse asked Staff to describe a lot that does not have a hardcover limitation. Barnhart indicated they are primarily located in the center one-third of the City and over 1,000 feet away from a lake or tributary. Barnhart stated the main concern of the Council was that the 15 percent limitation is onerous on the citizens, create unnecessary ordinances, and does not allow the freedom of folks to reinvest in their property. Exhibit B raises the limit from 15 percent to 20 percent. For lots less than 10,000 square feet, it raises the structural coverage limit from 1,500 square feet to 2,000 square feet. Barnhart noted Staff had recommended that originally some years ago. Exhibit B also modifies the calculation of massing to basically include just roofed structures if they are over six feet. If it is a roofed area, such as a doghouse,that is below six feet,that would not be counted. In addition, some modifications have been made to the nonindustrial zoning districts to be consistent with what was discussed with Exhibit A. Staff supports Exhibit B since it reaches the City Council's goal and maintains some limits on massing. Barnhart noted last year the City reviewed four structural variances and each one of those applications would be helped by this draft ordinance since none of them exceeded the 20 percent. Page 25 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated even if the limit is moved to 20 percent,there will always be people pushing the limit. Barnhart stated he does not deny that people will always try to push the limit. The other side of the coin is if there is no line,there would be no limitations. Barnhart stated the concern from a Staff level is the impact on residential neighborhoods but yet still trying to accommodate what people are attempting to do. Lemke asked what the outcome was on those four variance requests. Barnhart stated to his belief all four of those variances were approved. Thiesse stated it is very likely that the other applications that were over 15 percent were directed by Staff to reduce it. Thiesse noted the 15 percent has been a benchmark for a long time. Thiesse stated if the limit is increased, the City will not have as many variance requests. Schoenzeit stated the other regulations need to be enforced more strictly so someone does not use this extra structural coverage to encroach into the setbacks. Thiesse stated the City can control it by not granting other variances. Landgraver asked how many lots would be affected by this. Barnhart stated the lots that would benefit the most would be those that consist of less than one acre. Barnhart indicated there are quite a number of those lots that are close to the lake or in the southern third of the community. Landgraver noted they are talking about a 33 percent increase in massing or a 36 percent increase in massing. Landgraver stated the City has had neighbors that have expressed concerns about how big the house will be next to them and that he does not know how this ordinance benefits those lots. Barnhart stated Staff is looking for some direction from the Planning Commission. Landgraver stated in his view the City has a process already in place and that the 15 percent has been a benchmark for years. Landgraver commented this is almost like a solution in search of a problem and that the current process seems to work, even on the four applications that the City had last year. Landgraver stated he has a problem with bumping it up to 33 percent or 36 percent. Thiesse stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that asking for a variance should not be an easy process. Thiesse commented people like to live in Orono and that it is easy to tell when you drive around the lake which community you are in. Thiesse stated just because someone wants a big house on a small lot on the lake does not mean it needs to be an easy process. Schoenzeit noted the City also had a similar discussion with the hardcover and that the City is seeing fewer hardcover variances as a result of the changes. Gaffron stated the City is seeing somewhat fewer requests. In the past the City would typically see a variance on a small lot for 45 percent and now the City is seeing 25 to 30 hardcover requests. Gaffron Page 26 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. stated in his view there was benefit to the lakeshore property owners being able to do something without a variance but that Staff would have to research it more to quantify it. Schoenzeit stated the other part that is not being discussed in either Option A or B is whether they should eliminate the deck from the structural calculation. Schoenzeit stated at 20 percent,the needle will be moved quite a bit. Barnhart stated modifying the structural coverage regulation gives the City the opportunity to hold firm on other regulations, such as setbacks and hardcover issues. Barnhart stated the City does not need to grant variances to setbacks provided the setbacks are the correct ones for that lot. Barnhart stated out of the 41 variances granted last year, 19 dealt with lot area and width and 19 dealt with setbacks,which tells him that the setbacks might not be appropriate. Barnhart stated the process perhaps should not be easy, but more than half of the people should not have to go through the variance process to make reinvestments in their home, which is what the Council is looking at. Thiesse stated to his knowledge most of the variances occur on the lakeshore lots and that a lot of the variances are where people are attempting to maximize their lot. Barnhart stated the variances that typically are not approved are expansions into the 75-foot setback or hardcover in excess of the limits. Thiesse stated his fear is that the City is jumping pretty quickly into this and that he wants the City to have something in place that will work. Thiesse stated he would like to ensure that this has worked ten years from now. Lemke commented it would be nice if the City could come up with some numbers and stick with them. Landgraver stated it is not just about the applicant but the community at large that has concerns about the size of the house. Landgraver stated he does not want to foolishly open the gates to allowing a third larger house and that there needs to be a balance throughout the community. Thiesse pointed out there is a fine line of increasing the value of the property by increasing the size of the house. Schoenzeit noted the direction from the Council was incorporated into Option A and that this is an opportunity for the Planning Commission to make a suggestion that there is something in between Option A and where the City is currently. Schoenzeit stated the Council should be told that the Planning Commission has thought about it and has urged some caution. Schoenzeit stated if this ordinance adjustment does not have the desired effect of fewer variances, the City needs to understand why that is. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission does not get to decide what the final number is but they can make recommendations. Schoenzeit stated eliminating the decks from the calculation might cover it rather than completely getting rid of the 15 percent limit. Landgraver noted the City will also be doing a Comprehensive Plan review and that something of this magnitude might be best considered as part of that overall discussion. Schoenzeit stated removing the decks from the calculation could be a start. Page 27 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated the smaller lots believe they are being affected the most and another 120 feet of structure is quite a lot for that size of lot. Lemke asked if there is anything wrong with what the City has now. Thiesse stated the nice thing with the 15 percent is that the City has held pretty tightly to that and that the reason the City only saw four applications was because they were directed to reduce it. Thiesse stated very seldom does the City allow it to go beyond that. Thiesse indicated he can live with removing the deck from the calculation and leaving it at 15 percent but that in his view 20 percent is a lot. Thiesse stated if the deck is also removed from the structural coverage calculation, it could amount to a 40 percent increase on some lots. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can choose to deny or make modifications to either of them. Thiesse asked what would happen under Option A if someone has a property with 35 percent hardcover and wants to reduce it down to 30 percent. Barnhart indicated those would be handled the same. Thiesse stated it could become a situation where the majority of it becomes structure. Barnhart stated if the hardcover limit is 35, someone could construct a house at 33 percent without a driveway and then say they require a driveway and need to go over the 35 percent. Barnhart stated someone will always try to push that envelope. Barnhart noted under Option B the structural coverage limit would be eliminated and people would only need to comply with the hardcover limit. Landgraver stated as it relates to Exhibit B, he would propose the Planning Commission not agree to the 20 percent but keep it at 15, not agree to the 2,000 square feet, agree to the highest point of the roof if more than six feet, and then accept the changes on the last page, which incorporates Commissioner Schoenzeit's comment of allowing decks but keeps it at 15 percent. Thiesse indicated he would like to keep the 1,500 square feet and allow decks to be excluded independent of its height off the ground. Gaffron stated one of the four applications last year was purely because a portion of the deck railing was above six feet and that those changes would eliminate only one variance request. Lemke asked if there would be a limit on the size of the deck. Thiesse stated they would still need to meet hardcover limits. Lemke stated the impact from a deck could be as much as a driveway. Schoenzeit stated someone could have 400 square feet of patio with a 400 square foot deck over it. Schoenzeit noted someone is allowed 100 square feet of deck. Gaffron stated the deck would need to meet the standard of quarter spacing in order to get the 100 foot credit. Page 28 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted the ordinance alters the massing standards in the nonindustrial zone as well. Barnhart stated it is currently in two locations in the regulations and that this would eliminate the redundancy. Schoenzeit stated in his view the Council is going to no structural limit and that the Planning Commission should encourage some level of structural coverage. Thiesse stated to his understanding the Planning Commission is considering Exhibit B. Barnhart stated what he has heard from the Planning Commission as it relates to Option B is that the limit should remain at 15 percent, remain at 1,500 square feet, retain the language pertaining to the roof, and eliminating decks,tennis courts, etc., from the calculation. Thiesse asked what a nonindustrial zone district is. Barnhart indicated it would be residential lots. Gaffron stated the City only has 40 acres of industrial. Thiesse asked what Section 78-1403, lot coverage and massing standards, is regulating. Barnhart stated the regulation is found in the code twice, which is why it is reflected here. Barnhart indicated there likely will be some additional modifications to the ordinance as it goes through the process. Thiesse stated he is not looking at this as the final ordinance but that he does not have enough information to tell him that this is the right direction to go. Barnhart noted this will likely be the only time the Planning Commission reviews the draft ordinance unless the City Council sends it back to the Planning Commission. Thiesse stated he is going to have to stick with what the Planning Commission is leaning towards since he does not have enough information. Landgraver stated the Planning Commission has been attempting to enforce the rules and that the current process appears to be working. Landgraver stated he cannot support bumping up the structural coverage 33 or 36 percent or eliminating it completely. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:43 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:43 p.m. Page 29 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3896,City of Orono,Text Amendment: Structural Coverage,with the changes that were discussed by the Planning Commission. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 11. #17-3897 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: SPECIAL EVENTS,9:44 P.M.— 9:58 P.M. Barnhart stated special event issue was the highest priority item identified by the Planning Commission and City Council last fall. The City is attempting to develop an ordinance that balances flexibility with residents using their property in a more intense manner occasionally versus those that do it more frequently to the detriment of the neighborhood. The City would also like to avoid people needing to get a permit or obtain permission to hold a special birthday party or other similar event. Staff has attempted to draft an ordinance that would accomplish those goals. As part of the ordinance, definitions of private event and special event have been modified from what existed previously, Staff tried to establish a process for how frequently private or special events would be allowed in the community, and an avenue has been created to allow someone to obtain a permit in the event one is needed. Exceptions include funeral processions, a government agency acting within the scope of its functions, and an occasional party that does not require special service from a city department. Barnhart noted the following language was added to the exceptions: "A property hosting four or more private events per calendar year shall obtain a permit as required in Section 66-221." Under this language, a residential property may hold three private events per calendar year without the need for a permit. The fourth event would require a permit. Special event regulations are intended to allow flexibility for certain events that are important to community health while managing the impact they may have on the neighborhood. The regulations generally associated with special and private event impacts include traffic, noise, and parking. From October, 2015,to December, 2016,the City issued 89 special event permits covering races, home tours, and live music. Barnhart stated the City had quite a bit of special event permits issued throughout the year,with those permits typically being reviewed by the police chief and city clerk prior to approval. Barnhart stated it was Staff's intent to allow those to continue but that one of the objectives was to place a limit on the number of private events due to the impact on the residential neighborhoods. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission should be aware that there is an important distinction between private event and special event. A special event is typically open to the public and a private event is the use of someone's private home. Lemke asked why funeral processions are exempt. Barnhart stated they often use public streets, require police escorts,and generally are not planned that far in advance to obtain City Council approval. Landgraver stated he appreciates the effort of Staff to look at these text amendments and that this ordinance will provide more tools for enforcement. Landgraver stated the City cannot anticipate every situation but that in his view this is close to the target. Page 30 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked what the permit approval process is. Barnhart indicated there is a review process outlined in Section 66-223, which describes what is required on the application, and Section 66-225 talks about how the City can deny a permit. Schoenzeit asked if there is some delay in getting a permit. Barnhart indicated the permits are approved by the City Council. Barnhart noted permits will automatically be denied if the request is not received 14 days prior to the event being held. Barnhart indicated that is because there must be notice provided to residents within 350 feet at least ten days prior to the special event. Barnhart noted that would not apply to private events. Under the draft ordinance, residents would be allowed to hold three private events with the fourth one requiring a permit. Schoenzeit asked if Item No. 3 in 66-225 applies to all city ordinances or just zoning. Barnhart indicated it would just be zoning. Schoenzeit asked if that will be changed with this ordinance. Barnhart stated that is not proposed to be changed. Thiesse commented that seems odd and that technically it would be all ordinances. Barnhart stated some events are held in the event and have live music. Those events in theory would violate city ordinances and would need special City permission. In addition, launching fireworks is against city ordinance unless a permit is obtained. Schoenzeit asked if there is any provision in the event a request for a special event permit has been previously denied that would force it to go to the City Council. Schoenzeit stated Staff cannot approve a special event permit and it must go before the City Council. Schoenzeit asked if there would be a public hearing in connection with that permit. Barnhart stated typically there are not public hearings on special event permits but that notice is provided to the residents located within 350 feet of the event. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:56 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:56 p.m. Lemke moved, Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3897,City of Orono,Text Amendment: Special Events. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Page 31 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 12. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON JANUARY 23,2017,AND FEBRUARY 13,2017 Barnhart reported on the following actions of the City Council: • The Hennepin County application was approved; • The 2902 Shadywood application was approved; • The Good Shepherd Church application was approved; • The Timothy White application at 2170 Prospect Avenue was approved; • The Steve and Stacia Andersen application was denied by the Council 4-1; • The sex offender ordinance was approved; • The house numbering and location ordinance was approved; • The request to develop a banquet facility at 2500 Shadywood was withdrawn by the applicant. 13. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Barnhart stated there likely will be a work session the first Wednesday in March. Thiesse commented it would be nice if the Planning Commission could review text amendments twice in a work session prior to it appearing on the agenda. Barnhart stated the challenge is that the Council has given Staff direction to address these issues and that the Council would like to keep things moving. ADJOURNMENT Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10:00 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. moi_ John Thiesse, Chair Page 32 of 32