HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/20/2017 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
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,and Loren
Schoenzeit. Representing Staff were City Administrator Doug Reeder,Community Development
Director Jeremy Barnhart,Senior Planner Michael Gaffron,City Planner Melanie Curtis,and Recorder
Jackie Young. Council Member Aaron Printup and Mayor Dennis Walsh were present.
Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
NEW BUSINESS
1. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 21,2017
PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 1,2017
Lemke moved, Leskinen seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of February 21,2017,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Leskinen moved, Lemke seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
Work Session of February 1,2017,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
2. 17-3907 UGORETS 8098, INC.,2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,6:32 P.M.—6:41 P.M.
Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to permit a permanent dock into the
floodplain. Docks that provide reasonable access to the lakeshore and do not exceed eight feet in width
are among the listed conditional uses in the floodway.
Barnhart indicated some letters have been received from the Watershed District,the DNR, and the Army
Corps of Engineers. Barnhart noted the letters are not necessarily letters of approval but they provide
comments regarding the application.
Barnhart noted this portion of the lake floodplain does not include any boat connection to Lake
Minnetonka.
Last month the Planning Commission reviewed a sketch plan for an apartment building on the adjacent
lot and the property owners within 350 feet of this site have received notice of the public hearing.
Barnhart displayed a survey showing the existing site conditions. The proposed dock will be an accessory
structure to the principal office use on the property and will be offered as an amenity to its renters.
Barnhart pointed out the location of the proposed dock. The dock will be six feet wide and 180 feet long.
A portion of the dock will encroach into the wetland. The proposal includes a viewing/seating platform
into the open water area. The dock will be constructed of wood, including wood support pilings.
Staff has reviewed the standards for a conditional use permit and believes those standards will be met.
Staff does recommend that some type of warning lights or reflectors be placed at the end of the dock to
alert people about the new structure. No lights are proposed on the structure.
Page 1 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff recommends approval of the request.
Lemke asked owns the land around the dock.
Barnhart indicated the property owner owns four lots in this area, including portions of the wetland near
the dock.
Thiesse asked if what they are proposing will be high enough out of the water.
Barnhart stated the City requires structures to be one foot above the water.
Alex Ugorets, 175 Brentwood, Tonka Bay, stated the reason he would like a dock is to serve as an
amenity to the professional clients that will be renting office space in the building. Ugorets stated he
envisions the tenants utilizing the dock on nice days when they wish to work outside and in his opinion
that will be the only use of the dock.
Ugorets noted it will be a permanent structure but will be more of a walkway rather than a dock since
there is no way to get a boat in and out of that area. Ugorets indicated he does own the wetland near the
dock.
Landgraver asked if the dock will be secured at night.
Ugorets stated he did not plan to secure it since it is not that easy to access except from the back of the
building. Ugorets indicated there are cameras on the building, and unless there is an issue with the dock,
he does not see a need for securing it at night.
Lemke asked what type of wood will be used to construct the dock.
Ugorets indicated it will either be treated wood or cedar and that it will be constructed to meet the
requirements of the code. No creosote treated wood will be used. Ugorets stated the proposed plan
merely depicts the location of the dock and has not been designed to City specifications at this time but
will be at the time they request a building permit.
Lemke asked why there is a rope that extends four feet above.
Ugorets indicated the rope is to be used by people using the dock and that the height can be adjusted if
necessary.
Landgraver asked if he is okay with adding reflectors to the dock.
Ugorets indicated he is.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Page 2 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver stated in his view it is an appropriate use.
Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3907 Ugorets
8098, Inc.,2500 Shadywood Road,granting of a conditional use permit,subject to reflectors being
added to the dock and subject to Staff recommendations.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
3. 17-3908 CUBE, INC.,3320 NAVARRE LANE,VARIANCES,6:41 P.M.—6:49 P.M.
Roman Zhuk, Cube, Inc.,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting lot area and lot width variances in order to take advantage of the
Tier 3 hardcover level of 35 percent. The property is located on Navarre Lane. This small lot qualifies
for a building envelope without lot area and lot width under the Shoreland variances and the new home on
the property meets the 25 percent hardcover limit per the Shoreland regulations. The property owner
wishes to be able to add certain hardcover amenities; in this case a deck of unspecified size. Gaffron
stated in order to be able to exceed 25 percent up to the 35 percent limit,the lot area and width variances
are required. Once the area and width variances are granted,any additional hardcover would be limited to
35 percent.
The neighborhood consists of single-family homes located on Olive Avenue,Navarre Lane and Bayview
Place. In this neighborhood there are approximately 20 homes on single lots,with another half dozen or
so on combined lots. The neighborhood consists of lots typically 47-55 feet in width and range in depth
from 90 to 160 feet. In the opinion of Staff,a single-family residence and associated amenities on a
single lot in this neighborhood will not be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
The applicant's property had contained a single-family residence for many decades before it was recently
replaced with a new home. The ability to have the same type of hardcover amenities as other existing
developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are not
granted.
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances. If the Planning Commission
determines that the practical difficulties test is met for the area and width variances,then a
recommendation for approval would be in order, subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall adhere to the required setbacks and 35 percent hardcover limitations with
regards to any additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property.
Gaffron displayed a survey of the surrounding area and a photograph of the existing house.
Leskinen asked if this is the same owner that constructed the house on the property.
Gaffron indicated it is.
Landgraver noted this application is a little unusual in that what is actually being proposed is unknown.
Gaffron stated every builder has the option to take advantage of the Shoreland regulations. In this case,
the builder has a time deadline and does not want to spend the extra two months going through a variance
process. Gaffron stated typically these types of variances are granted and that it would be consistent with
Page 3 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
the neighborhood since the whole neighborhood is located in Tier 3,which is allowed 35 percent.
Gaffron stated if the applicants were asking for excess hardcover for that tier, it would become an issue.
Landgraver asked if the City is essentially granting a variance to allow them to build right up to the lot
line.
Gaffron stated they are not but that they are merely saying this lot at 50 feet wide requires variances in
order to get the 35 percent. Gaffron stated in the five years that the Shoreland regulation has been in
place,the City has encountered a few of these situations.
Roman Zhuk, Cube, Inc., stated they would like to construct a 16' x 24' deck on the house.
Thiesse asked if the house is 24 feet wide.
Zhuk indicated it is.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m.
Landgraver commented Staff has clarified his concerns and that the request seems reasonable compared
to the other homes in the neighborhood.
Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3908,Cube,
Inc.,3320 Navarre Lane,granting of lot area and lot width variances,subject to the applicant
adhering to the required setbacks and 35 percent hardcover limitation with regards to any
additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
4. 17-3909 KEN AND SHERALYN SADDLER,2755 ETHEL AVENUE,VARIANCES,6:50
P.M.—6:56 P.M.
Ken and Sheralyn Saddler,Applicants,were present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting lot area and lot width variances in order to take advantage of
the Tier 2 hardcover level of 30 percent. Gaffron noted this is a similar request as the preceding
application except this lot is located in Tier 2.
A new home was constructed on the property within the last year. In order to take advantage of the
Shoreland regulations,there was a hardcover limitation of 25 percent,which the new home meets. The
owner wishes to be able to add certain hardcover amenities, including a patio,steps, and other
landscaping. In order to be able to exceed 25 percent up to the 30 percent limit, the lot area and width
variances are required.
Gaffron displayed an aerial photograph depicting the current house. Gaffron noted the lot is comprised of
approximately 7,500 square feet and is 50 feet in width. The standards for the LR-1C zoning district are
one-half acre and 100 feet minimum width.
Page 4 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The neighborhood consists of single-family homes located on individual lots as well as combinations of
lots. The applicant's property had contained a single-family residence for many decades before it was
recently replaced with a new home. The ability to have the same type of hardcover amenities as other
existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are
not granted.
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances. If the Planning Commission
determines that the practical difficulties test is met for the area and width variances,then a
recommendation for approval would be in order, subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall adhere to the required setbacks and 30 percent hardcover limitation with
regards to any additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property.
Lemke asked what the white square is that is depicted on the color rendering.
Gaffron indicated there are no variances being requested as part of this application in regards to that. If it
is located in a side yard, it would not be allowed.
Thiesse commented it appears to be a hot tub. Thiesse asked if it would need to meet a 10-foot setback.
Gaffron stated it would. Staffs assumption is that the deck will be above grade but that the applicant
could answer those questions.
Ken Saddler,Applicant, stated the idea was to have a pad for a hot tub and that they will be moving it to
the back end of the deck towards the bottom. Saddler stated it is a 64 square foot concrete pad for a hot
tub.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m.
Leskinen noted this is almost an identical application as the previous one.
Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3909,Ken and
Sheralyn Saddler,2755 Ethel Avenue,granting of lot area and lot width variances,subject to the
applicant adhering to the required setbacks and 30 percent hardcover limitation with regards to
any additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property,and subject to the hot tub
being located off the back of the house rather than the side. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
5. 17-3911 LAKEWEST,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,ZONING CODE
TEXT AMENDMENT,6:56 P.M.—8:02 P.M.
Curt Fretham, Lakewest, LLC, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting a change to the City Code to allow for a new type of zone.
The applicants received final plat approval of a 27-lot residential development of the property at 3245
Page 5 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Wayzata Boulevard in July of 2016. The property is currently zoned RR-1B and will be rezoned to PUD
following final plat approval. Pending more favorable market conditions,the applicants have chosen to
not proceed immediately with the residential development. The applicants are requesting,however,to be
able to allow temporary use of the site as a staging,storage and materials recycling yard for the upcoming
County Road 112 improvement project expected to begin in 2017. This project is being done in phases
and could take up to four to five years for completion.
Because construction staging is not an allowed use in any Orono zoning district and is not a permanent
use,the only functional method for approving it is through an Interim Use Permit. The zoning code
currently does not contain provisions for Interim Uses. The applicants are requesting the City amend the
zoning code in order to allow Interim Uses.
State statutes permit cities to allow interim uses. Interim use is defined by statute as a temporary use of a
property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event,or until zoning regulations no
longer permit it. The statutes indicate"the governing body(City Council)may grant permission for an
interim use of property if:
1. The use conforms to the zoning regulations;
2. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;
3. Permission of the use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the
public to take the property in the future; and
4. The user agrees to any conditions that the governing body deems appropriate for permission of
the use.
Any interim use may be terminated by a change in the zoning regulations."
Gaffron noted it is important to remember that a conditional use permit is permanent and runs with the
land. In contrast,an interim use permit provides the tools necessary to `sunset' a use that may be
appropriate for some temporary time period but is not generally appropriate on a permanent basis.
Staff has long felt that an interim use ordinance would be a very useful tool for Orono because it provides
flexibility with a high level of city control. A past example of where that type of ordinance would have
been helpful was in the case of a daycare facility located at the corner of Highways 6 and 12. It sat empty
for five years because the City did not have an Interim Use Permit.
In order to allow the proposed staging use,the applicants are requesting the Code be amended. Staff
recommends that an Interim Use section be added to the zoning code and that the RR-1B District be
amended to include a list of allowed Interim Uses to include"Construction staging,materials and
equipment storage and materials recycling"under specific conditions.
In order to allow the proposed staging use on a temporary basis,the Code must be amended and the
following factors should be considered:
1. A general"Interim Use"ordinance should be adopted that establishes parameters for any interim
use regardless of zoning district. This would,as a minimum,read similar to the statute language
Page 6 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
above and might include additional parameters that the City desires. This section would be
similar to the City code sections that provide required findings for variances and CUPs.
2. The RR-1B zoning district should be amended to include a section entitled"Interim Uses". This
would presumably list just the use now being requested, such as"Construction staging,materials
and equipment storage,and materials recycling."
3. The listing could/should include a number of conditions that must be met in order to be approved.
Those conditions might include, for instance,the following:
-A minimum separation distance from nearby residential structures or lot lines;
-Minimum lot size;
- Requirements for site and adjacent road maintenance and traffic control measures;
-Allowed only for government sponsored public improvement projects;
-The Council must have the ability to deny an interim use even though it is listed for a specific
zoning district. Item 4 of the statute excerpt would presumably allow the City to find that
appropriate conditions cannot or will not be met and that becomes a basis for denial.
The Planning Commission should consider whether there are any additional conditions that would be
appropriate for this use.
Gaffron stated one of the questions that came up is whether the zoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan for interim use. An interim use that might be appropriate on a temporary basis
might not fit within the type of uses for which a property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan. If an
interim industrial-type use is allowed in the zoning code as an interim use in an area guided for residential
use, does that meet the standard for being in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney
has indicated that because zoning needs to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,the
Comprehensive Plan technically should be amended to allow interim uses that are not conforming with
the guiding. Gaffron noted there will be some text amendments that potentially will be added to the
Comprehensive Plan during its 2018 update but Staff does not believe that should stop the City's ability
to add interim uses to the zoning code at this time.
The Planning Commission should consider the issues for consideration outlined in Staff's report. If the
Planning Commission feels that interim uses is a tool the City should have in place,a recommendation of
approval would be appropriate.
Gaffron noted with the next application the Planning Commission will be looking at the exact use that is
being proposed by the applicant.
Schoenzeit asked whether the conditions should include language that the interim use or the specific use
requires some type of bond in the event the interim property owner does not clean the lot when they are
finished with the interim use.
Gaffron indicated he does not disagree with that suggestion.
Leskinen noted City had considerable discussion on interim uses a number of years ago and that to her
recollection there were some pitfalls involved with interim uses. Leskinen indicated she cannot
remember what those pitfalls were but that she has always felt it would be a useful tool.
Page 7 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated it might have been in conjunction with the Emily Program or it could be possible that past
City Councils were simply not interested in making that change. A number of cities utilize it as a tool but
it could become a problem if the correct conditions are not placed on the applicant. Gaffron stated in his
view it gives the City excellent control over the duration of the interim use.
Leskinen commented it seems to be more secure than a conditional use permit.
Gaffron noted a conditional use permit is permanent and an interim use permit could be terminated by the
City Council at any point.
Landgraver asked if a date certain could be set for the interim use, and then if that date is not met,the date
could be extended.
Gaffron stated that is one option. Another option is that the interim use could be required to be renewed
on an annual basis. Gaffron stated one of the questions is what are the potential future uses or ancillary
uses of the site that might not have been predicted or expected. Gaffron stated it could also be a trigger
event rather than a trigger date.
Gaffron asked if the Planning Commission would like to review Item No. 6 in conjunction with this
application or separately.
Lemke stated he would like more time to review this item since there are three options from three
different cities they need to review.
Thiesse commented this weekend was the first time he has seen this request and that he would
recommend Staff prepare draft language for an ordinance so the Planning Commission and the public has
something firm to review.
Gaffron stated Staff did not prepare language because they were not sure whether the Planning
Commission would be interested in an interim use ordinance. Gaffron indicated it would not take very
long for Staff to draft language.
Thiesse asked if another public hearing would then be required.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission has the option to hold a second public hearing or tabling the
application at this meeting for further review.
Landgraver asked if there is another work session scheduled for April.
Barnhart indicated it would be April 5.
Thiesse stated in his view the Planning Commission has an obligation to review and give a
recommendation on a draft ordinance. Thiesse stated he thinks it is a good idea but that he would like to
see some language regarding it.
Landgraver commented that would also give people something to respond to. Landgraver stated it might
also be useful to hear the next application.
Page 8 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m.
Allan Engleman,315 North Old Crystal Bay Road,stated he has questions regarding pollution and traffic.
Engleman stated if someone tries to turn in there, it is not possible with that guardrail. Engleman stated
he is not sure what the taxes currently are on this property,but when it is turned into a money making
deal,he has a question of how it will be taxed.
In addition,when Mr. Eisinger put that fill in there,he did not compact anything. Engleman stated if they
start placing excess material in there and other items,the land will sink. When Hennepin County installed
the new road,the swamp was proposed to be dug out,but because of the pollution,they decided not to dig
it out. When the County 6 interchange was put in,a land bridge was constructed because they would not
dig it out and fill it back in. Engleman asked what is going to happen with the pollution when they start
doing this new activity.
Engleman asked if they are going to be able to crush concrete or whether the City will limit them to
daytime hours. Engleman stated there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before this can be
approved.
Thiesse noted the Planning Commission will be discussing some of that under Item No. 6.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to suspend discussion on this item and to open
Item No. 6.
(Discussion on this item was suspended from 7:16 p.m.to 7:56 p.m.)
Schoenzeit stated in his view there should be an annual review.
Thiesse stated an annual review is not very good if there are not very specific guidelines put in place first.
Thiesse noted the City has to have a reason to close the use down.
Schoenzeit suggested the interim use conditions should include sufficient bonding to restore the site to
pre-use condition at the applicant's expense so the taxpayers are not stuck with the bill.
Landgraver stated he has a much better understanding of what an interim use permit would be and that he
has a better visualization of what is going to happen on the site. Landgraver indicated he would like to
look at the proposed language at the work session and then put it out there for the public so there is
something concrete to work on.
Thiesse stated he is in agreement with that and that the public should have something specific to comment
on.
Leskinen asked if Commissioner Landgraver is suggesting that the interim use permit for this project
should be discussed at the work session or the general concept of interim use as well as this project.
Landgraver stated he would suggest both be discussed.
Page 9 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse asked if this item should be tabled.
Barnhart suggested tabling the application and continuing the public hearing until the April Planning
Commission meeting so public comment can be received.
Landgraver moved to table Application No. 17-3911, Lakewest, LLC,3245 Wayzata Boulevard,
Text Amendment,and to continue the public hearing to the April 17 Planning Commission
meeting.
Fretham stated the road contractor is hoping to start in April and May would be ideal to get approvals.
Fretham stated tabling it to April is fine but tabling it to May,June or July would be challenging.
Schoenzeit seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
6. 17-3910 LAKEWEST, LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT,7:17 P.M.—8:02 P.M.
Curt Fretham, Lakewest, LLC, was present.
Gaffron stated for the last few months Staff has been receiving inquiries from contractors searching for a
staging area for the upcoming highway project. Currently there appear to be few suitable options and this
site is an option since it is open and relatively flat,has good accessibility to Wayzata Boulevard,is large
enough for the intended activities, and is relatively remote from nearby residential development. The
home located across Wayzata Boulevard is 700 feet away and the site is 1,000 feet from any homes across
the freeway.
The potential negative impacts, such as noise, vibration,glare,dust,should be minimal as compared to
most other locations within the Wayzata Boulevard corridor,which is one of the reasons this site was
proposed. The portion of the site proposed for construction staging is primarily over the landfill area that
has been closed for a number of years,which is the area depicted in blue. Layers of clean fill over the
landfill were added by the former owner in order to establish a suitable cap for the landfill and assure
appropriate runoff characteristics.
The current owners have had borings done in the landfill area in order to determine the stability and
extent of the landfill as well as what materials might be encountered if a future phase of residential
development is ever proposed. This information was obtained as part of the applicant's 2016 residential
development proposal. The information regarding what is contained within the landfill was also
contained within that application. The area that gained approval for residential development is not within
the landfill area.
The proposed site use plan indicates the proposed rock construction entrance will be located where the
approved future residential access would be located. This access point has been approved by Hennepin
County as a temporary construction access. Gaffron stated he is not sure whether Hennepin County will
require some sort of additional turn lanes,temporary or permanent, in the area. Since it is a county road,
Hennepin County will need to make that determination.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved an Erosion Control permit for the construction
staging activity.
Page 10 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The Long Lake Fire Chief has indicated no issues with use of the site for construction staging. The
Orono Public Works Director has indicated this location is likely as good a location as the contractor will
find for construction staging.
The site plan suggests that temporary lighting will likely be used, and it is likely that to minimize impact
on traffic flow, some work on the highway improvements will be at night. It would be appropriate to
establish that any temporary lighting be downcast and directed away from residential areas.
The site plan indicates a proposed visual and noise screening berm along the west and south boundaries of
the site. The applicant is working with the MPCA to establish parameters and obtain permits for this
berm which will become an amenity for future residential development. The City will require a grading
plan be approved for this and it potentially will require a Conditional Use Permit based on the volume of
permanent fill material.
The applicant's narrative suggests that this site might be used as a recycling yard for projects other than
just the Wayzata Boulevard improvements. This could put a different slant on how the site is intended to
be used. The applicants should describe what is actually intended and how the contractor or Hennepin
County expects to operate this site.
Questions to be answered include whether materials from the Wayzata Boulevard project will be recycled
and head out to other projects not in Orono and whether it is the City's expectation that this site is
intended to be in use exclusively for the Wayzata Boulevard project and not as a regional recycling yard
for other projects. Staff recommends that this industrial-level use at this site not become a regional
activity and that a definite end date be established commensurate with the end of the Wayzata Boulevard
improvements.
The Planning Commission should consider the following:
1. Are there any specific concerns with the location of this site for the proposed use?
2. Are there any specific concerns with the level or type of activity that is likely to be associated
with the proposed use? Is the use intended to be specific to the Wayzata Boulevard
improvements or is it intended for other projects?
3. Are there any specific concerns with regard to the duration of the proposed use; i.e., is the date of
completion of the Wayzata Boulevard improvements a suitable termination date for the activity or
should it be further limited,such as requiring an annual review and/or annual approval of an
extension?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
If the Planning Commission concludes that this site is appropriate for the proposed use, Staff would
recommend that an Interim Use Permit be issued subject to at least the following conditions:
1. Establish an end date of the use to be no later than completion of the Wayzata Boulevard
improvements.
Page 11 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. Use of the site is intended solely for activities related to the Wayzata Boulevard improvement
project and may not be used to support other projects.
3. Use of the site shall be subject to Orono Code standards with regard to noise, lighting, dust
control,street maintenance,etc.
4. Appropriate permits to be obtained from Hennepin County. Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District,MPCA,and any other agencies or governing authorities as may be required for activities
on the site.
5. Construction of a proposed permanent screening berm along the south and southwesterly
boundaries of the site will require conditional use permit application and approval.
6. An annual review of the interim use permit shall be conducted to determine whether the use
remains acceptable during the duration of the Wayzata Boulevard improvement project.
Landgraver asked if Hennepin County has a site that they used during the project on Highway 12 on the
west side of Old Crystal Bay Road.
Gaffron indicated they vacated that property a number of years ago and Staff is not sure what the final
intent for the property is.
Curt Fretham, Lakewest Development, stated the entire site consists of approximately 30 acres and that
they will only be using a small portion of the site for this activity. Approximately half of the site is
wetlands and the other half is dry buildable land. Fretham noted the green pasture area would be the
location of the majority of the activities. The area highlighted in blue depicts the lot.
Fretham indicated the next slide illustrates the layout of how they envision things would work on the site.
Access would be on the left side of the property. The trucks would come in and dump on the left-hand
side. The material would then be processed in the blue highlighted area. Fretham commented it seems
like there will be a lot going on but there is not that much to it. Fretham stated they have done similar
activities on other sites previously.
In addition,a screening buffer would be created. Fretham stated there will be a lot of excess clean fill
available from the job and that he was planning on using it to create a future buffering amenity but that it
could be created now. A formal landscape plan does not exist currently but some trees could be planted
along the berm to help further screen the site.
Fretham stated he has done some of this before in other communities a lot closer to town. Fretham
indicated they did a large demolition of a church in St. Louis Park where they crushed the materials,
recycled them, and then used some of the materials on site but then hauled some off site. Another project
was done recently in Golden Valley behind Menard's where a large commercial building was demolished
in addition to a project in Minnetonka at Highway 101 and Minnetonka Boulevard.
Fretham stated he understands people have legitimate concerns about truck activity and the amount of
dust that could be generated, but new technology has been invented and the materials are now dampened
with water, which reduces the amount of dust that is created. Fretham stated the equipment will make
Page 12 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
some noise but noted that the site is right next to the freeway and that he cannot imagine that anyone will
know they are there. Fretham indicated the crushing will not occur at night.
Fretham stated some of the challenge here is tying the property up for a period of time and then being able
to balance it with the practicality of tying it up. Fretham stated one of the questions that he has to answer
prior to committing to this is whether there will be enough materials coming off the Wayzata Boulevard
job to make it worthwhile. Fretham stated he does have some experience with this type of work and that
it really is a blend of being able to mix all of those components,being able to work with Hennepin
County,and being able to supplement it to make it a legitimate short-term operation.
Fretham stated he would like to point out that there is an indication they might need a separate conditional
use permit for the berm and that he would like to process everything concurrently.
Lemke asked what the hours of operation would be.
Fretham indicated they would like to work with the road construction project,which will occur mainly
during the day, but that there might be times where the road crews will work longer days.
Thiesse stated they do not necessarily be tied to Hennepin County's schedule and that they could limit
their work to the daytime.
Fretham stated the crushing would not occur at night but the movement of trucks might occur during the
night. Fretham stated it is likely Hennepin County will store some pipe and other materials to be used on
the road project that might have to be loaded at night.
Thiesse stated one of his concerns is possible headlights from a pay loader that are bouncing around and
moving around since they can be a big distraction.
Fretham stated he does not envision that being a problem but that he included everything in the
application that could possibly raise a concern. Fretham stated in his view there will be very little
evening or nighttime activity but that it would be nice to be able to do that occasionally.
Thiesse asked if recycling of offsite materials was done on his other sites.
Fretham indicated there was. Fretham stated as it relates to traffic,there would not be a parade of trucks
running through downtown Long Lake and that there will be occasional trucks coming off the bypass.
Fretham noted this site offers easy access versus coming in through downtown.
Landgraver asked what type of other material they are contemplating bringing it.
Fretham indicated it would be concrete and asphalt.
Lemke asked how many trips a day in and out are anticipated.
Fretham stated he would estimate approximately 2,000 loads over the course of a year,which would
amount to seven loads a day. Fretham noted those loads will not occur over the course of a year but will
be in spurts. Fretham stated some days there will be 50 to 100 loads and some days nothing.
Page 13 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron asked to what extent the contractor for the county project will be involved in the operation of the
site on a daily basis and to what extent the County will be involved in the site on a daily basis.
Fretham indicated the County will not play a role in managing it and that Hennepin County would expect
them to abide by the permit conditions. Fretham stated their expectation is that the contractor will
manage the site on a daily basis and they will be monitoring their activities.
Landgraver asked if they are looking at a three-year project.
Fretham stated they hope it is a three-year project, but that if it does not work after a year,they will
probably shut it down. Fretham stated he would like to try it for at least a year.
Lemke asked what will happen with the site after the process is done.
Fretham indicated they would need to restore the site to a similar condition as before.
Lemke asked whether a deal breaker would be if there is a restriction on bringing in other materials from
other sites.
Fretham stated it could be since at this time he has not gotten a commitment from the contractor on how
much material will be brought in. Fretham stated to his understanding the contractor is negotiating with
the County to do some of it onsite at the road project. If that happens,that will reduce the amount of
material being brought to the site. Fretham noted he has to look at the costs of tying up the property for a
period of time versus the amount of materials to be brought in.
Lemke asked him to address the question of pollution.
Fretham indicated the contractor will be bringing in street materials,such as curb,concrete, asphalt,
manholes and pipe. Fretham stated the material is fairly clean from a pollution standpoint,and if they
were demoing a building,that would be a different process.
Landgraver noted people are concerned about the old dump. Landgraver asked what government agency
would look into the added weight and traffic to the site.
Gaffron asked Mr. Fretham what discussions he has had with the MPCA regarding the site. Gaffron
stated his understanding of what the gentleman questioning pollution was referring to is what happens if
the landfill material is pushed further out or changes the drainage characteristics of the area. Gaffron
stated there are a lot of things that go into a landfill and that he would like to know what the MPCA's
views are on the proposed use for the site.
Fretham indicated they have spoken with the MPCA but that they have not really spoken with them about
the recycling activities. Fretham noted he has dealt with them before on other sites and that he
understands their process and concerns. Fretham stated the MPCA's concern was more about the
screening buffer since that is a permanent thing and that they will want to sign off on that. Fretham
indicated he has hired Wenck Engineering for that component and that he can add that point to his
discussions with them going into the future.
Gaffron asked if the MPCA has a concern about the additional weight on the edges or the drainage being
impacted.
Page 14 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Fretham stated their concern is adding a berm on top of the landfill area,which may make it more
difficult to clean the landfill up if that is found to be necessary.
Leskinen asked whether the applicant would restrict the materials to just road debris or whether there
would be materials from the demolition of a building if they were to be allowed to have other sites bring
in their debris.
Fretham stated they would like to have discretion to bring in other materials. Fretham noted on a
demolition project they still have protocol they have to follow to make sure the materials that are going to
be recycled are clean. Fretham stated he could provide that paperwork and that he will retain it in the
event there is ever an audit performed.
Leskinen asked if it would be fair to say that it could be more than just road debris.
Fretham stated potentially it could be.
Schoenzeit asked if he would agree to the stipulation that if other materials are brought in that it be
limited to concrete,asphalt,manholes,and not this other demolition material. Schoenzeit indicated he
would be very uninterested in recycling non-road material and non-authenticated stuff and turning this
site back into a dump.
Fretham stated they do not want to turn it back into a dump and that they consider it to be a valuable
property. Fretham stated if that was a stipulation, he would need to figure out whether they could live
with that.
Thiesse stated it sounds like a site is necessary for recycling of road materials in Orono but that there is
not a big need to be recycling other debris. Thiesse stated in his view the Planning Commission does not
have enough information on whether that is a required component for the applicant. Thiesse commented
he would love to see Orono take care of its own materials.
Fretham noted he does not have control of the entire equation.
Thiesse asked when that information would be available.
Fretham stated it would probably be available in the next 30 to 90 days.
Thiesse commented this site is probably the best site to do it, but in order to give exact information to the
public on the interim use,he would like more information on how the property will be used and whether
it could be viable without bringing in other materials from other towns.
Schoenzeit stated the City's obligation is to keep this site clean and that it starts with knowing what the
materials are and where they are coming from.
Thiesse stated it also has to be a viable operation.
Landgraver stated if there are limits on the amount of traffic and the type and amount of material, he
would not be inclined to be as restrictive on where it is coming from.
Page 15 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Fretham stated if the City of Mound has a road project going on and they would like to bring in 20 loads
of street materials,he is hearing that might be acceptable,but if a building is being torn down in
downtown Long Lake,they would like to see that go somewhere else.
Schoenzeit stated he could take the concrete foundation but not the rest.
Fretham stated that would be helpful since oftentimes that it what is recycled. Fretham noted there are
strict specifications that they use for the recycled materials and that the finished product has to be
acceptable to their standards.
Leskinen asked if MN/DOT ran a similar type operation for the new Highway 12 project.
Gaffron indicated it was a staging area for materials and equipment but to his knowledge they did not
have a recycling operation. Gaffron stated vehicles were parked there now and then and there was a
construction office located there. Gaffron stated that site was handled by MN/DOT and the City had
limited say in it. Gaffron indicated he does not recall any conditional use permits being requested.
Lemke asked if there would be storage of trucks and equipment as well as the crushing equipment.
Fretham indicated there would be. Fretham stated it is likely the crushing machine will be run less than
200 hours,which is basically two and a half weeks out of a year. Fretham stated the machine might run
for a few days and then not for a while and that they will not be running a full-blown crushing operation
all summer long.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m.
Allan Engleman, 315 Old Crystal Bay Road,stated it sounds like there will be a recycling operation on
the site and that the City does not need someone hauling stuff from Brooklyn Park or Wayzata in there.
Engleman questioned what will happen when they are done and the pile is still standing there. Engleman
commented it looks to him to be a business and that the City does not need that here. Engleman stated he
does not know if the borings showed any contaminated material from the bypass project.
Gaffron stated the boring logs primarily identified materials within the landfill and they attempted to
determine the boundary between the landfill and high land. Gaffron stated he has not seen borings from
in town but that any contaminated material would need to be hauled to different sites.
Thiesse stated he did see the soil borings from downtown out to Birch's and they were all good.
Engleman commented it looks to him like there will be a business operation over there and that they will
be taking in other cities' material from all over.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
(The Planning Commission suspended discussion on this item in order to discuss Item No. 5)
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to table Application No. 17-3910,Lakewest, LLC,3245
Wayzata Boulevard,Interim Use Permit,and to continue the public hearing to the April 17
Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
Page 16 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
7. 17-3912 BRUCE BIRKELAND, PID 07-117-23-31-0028(Adjacent to 1298 Wildhurst
Trail),VARIANCES,8:02 P.M.—8:38 P.M.
Bruce Birkeland, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a variance to facilitate an administrative lot line adjustment,
which is a subdivision exemption, in order to create an additional one lakeshore lot where there is
currently one lakeshore lot and one non-lakeshore lot. The southern lot is not a lakeshore lot currently.
The applicant owns both lots and has presented two options:
1. Create two conforming lots,each meeting the LR-1B minimum area and width at the 75-foot
setback. This would require a side setback variance allowing the existing home on Lot 2 to be
located within three feet of the new dividing line. The side setback variance is needed in order to
certify the subdivision exemption.
2. Locate the dividing line so that the existing home meets the required 10-foot side setback.
However,this results in Lot 3 having 132 feet in width where 140 feet is required. A lot width
variance would be required in order to process the subdivision exemption.
Curtis noted Option 2 is the applicant's preferred option.
The LR-1B requires 140 feet in width at the ordinary high water level and at the 75-foot setback for Lake
Minnetonka. There should be at least 280 feet at these points for supporting two lakeshore lots. The
plans submitted for either option do not appear to reflect conforming measurement of lot widths. The
applicant should revise Option 1 to meet the width requirement at the OHWL and at the 75-foot setback if
possible. The existing home on the property is in a conforming location currently. Curtis noted moving
the common lot line in order to make the lot width conforming at the 75-foot setback results in the house
and deck encroaching within three feet of the new lot line.
The purpose for this application is to increase marketability by creating a second lakeshore lot. The
Planning Commission and City Council should determine whether or not it is appropriate to grant a
variance based on this type of need.
It is unknown whether or not two lakeshore lots can be created that meet the dimensional standards of the
LR-1B requirements if the existing home is removed.
The preferred option of Staff would be to create two conforming lots. The existing home is likely a
temporary situation, suggested by common redevelopment of homes of this age when the properties are
sold. There is a sufficient buildable area on the property to accommodate a new home in a conforming
location.
After further analysis, it appears that neither lot in Option 1 meets the 140-foot requirement at the lake or
at the 75-foot setback. There could potentially be an option that meets the requirements but Staff does not
have that information at this time. If the applicant wishes to create a new lakeshore lot, Staff suggests the
applicant show that both lots will meet the 140-foot requirement in both locations.
Page 17 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Comments from the neighbors have been received and are before the Planning Commission this evening.
A comment from the applicant's engineer was also received and should be read into the record.
Planning Staff recommends denial of lot width variances facilitating an adjustment of the property line. If
the Planning Commission can support the variance from the lot width LR-1B standards, Staff prefers
Option 1 regarding the site setback variance for the existing home. The applicant is encouraged to
explore alternatives which result in two lots with conforming area and width prior to placement on the
City Council agenda.
Thiesse requested City Planner Curtis read the letter from Mark Gronberg into the record.
Curtis read the following letter into the record:
"Bruce, I was very surprised to see the City of Orono interpretation that the lot width at the 75-foot
lakeshore setback should be measured at the inside of the chord rather than the outside of the chord as we
have shown on our survey drawing.
We have been showing it this way for many years on other projects in Orono and in other adjoining cities
as well and have never been questioned on our interpretation. The purpose of a lot width measurement is
to show that you have enough room to build a house on the lot. You would certainly not be allowed to
build the house at the inside chord line because you would be way too close to the lake. Taking the
measurement at the outside of the chord gives a more correct representation of where you can build."
Curtis noted on the back of the letter Staff included the definition of lot width for the Planning
Commission's reference.
Thiesse asked if it should not be measured from where the house can be built.
Gaffron noted the lot width definition reads: "For lots which abut a lake or tributary, at the shoreline
measured in a straight line between the points at which the side lines intersect the OHWL."
Thiesse concurred that that is what the definition says.
Gaffron stated it further reads,"and at the required structure setback from the OHWL, measured in a
straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot lines with the structure setback line."
Gaffron stated the code says to measure it in a straight line but Mr. Gronberg is suggesting to measure it
in a line that hits the outside of the curve in a straight line.
Thiesse commented that makes a lot of sense since that is where the house can be built.
Gaffron stated it does and that the City looks at it that way in the past for non-lakeshore lots where there
is a cul-de-sac. Gaffron stated very rarely does the City see a lakeshore subdivision,and in this case the
code is very specific on how it should be measured. Gaffron stated he does not disagree with
Mr. Gronberg's logic that the lot width should be measured from where the house is to be built,but that
the code does not read that way.
Gaffron stated one of the questions he would ask is if it is measured at 125 in a straight line between those
two points and if that same straight line is drawn between two different points,whether it would be more
than 125 feet.
Page 18 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis indicated that is 140,which is where it is shown by the applicant.
Thiesse noted they conveniently put it at the curve of the line.
Gaffron stated if the line were skewed another way, it would not meet it.
Bruce Birkeland, 128 Wildhurst Trail, stated this definition was a surprise to them and that he basically
received notice of it just in the last day or two due to some Internet problems. Birkeland indicated they
cannot build the house toward the lake any further and that the house would actually be set back another
35 feet from where Mr. Gronberg drew his line across.
Birkeland stated he is not sure if Mr. Gronberg is aware of the way the City does it but that the original lot
line cannot meet the setbacks where the house might have a view of the water. Birkeland stated the
concept here is to create a lake lot so that some other family can have a place on the lake and make the
best use of the lot. Birkeland stated at this point he is not quite sure how the Planning Commission
interprets this new information and that he would ask for the advice of the Planning Commission.
Thiesse stated the definition is very specific where the line needs to be drawn and that he does not see
how it could be interpreted differently.
Birkeland asked what his options are at this point.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission will open the public hearing and then discuss the matter.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:14 p.m.
John Besseson,4500 North Shore Drive,stated he is one house down from Bruce Birkeland and that Mr.
Birkeland approached him about what could be done with the property. Besseson indicated he consulted
with Mark Gronberg about the lot and that they also had an architect take a look at it. Besseson stated
they spent three or four months on this project and then met with Staff and looked at the documents,with
Mr. Gaffron indicating he would not have a problem dividing the property if the house is torn down and
the two lots are conforming.
Besseson stated approximately five to ten feet of the house sit inside the 10-foot side yard setback and
they are hoping the Planning Commission will allow it. Besseson stated otherwise they will have to tear
the house down. Besseson commented the house has a lot of value.
Besseson noted the neighbors are in agreement with the project and that they are attempting to create
some value for the property owner and the City by creating this new lot. Besseson stated in the 50 years
he has resided in this area,he has witnessed a huge amount of development along the lake and that
Wildhurst Trail is a beautiful road.
Besseson stated the way the property sits now makes it difficult to build anything facing Wildhurst and
County Road 19. Besseson commented they would rather see a$2 million house built there rather than a
$200,000 house. Besseson indicated he did talk to Staff about resolving this and that the plan does
currently meet the required criteria except the house happens to be sitting within the 10-foot setback.
Page 19 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Besseson stated they can tear the house down but that they would rather not do that and that they are
attempting to come up with an alternative to make it work. Besseson stated they cannot go forward until
they get some direction on this.
Neil Weber,Architect,stated when they started out with this project,they felt they had enough lineal feet
of shoreland. Weber stated they interpreted it as the actual footage instead of a straight line but that they
would still have enough lineal footage. Weber stated the only reasonable place to construct a house to
meet the criteria would be in this upper area,which is not the best use of the lot. Weber stated they were
basically attempting to place the house in a more ideal location so there would be a view of the lake.
Weber stated they then went to Mark Gronberg and he indicated they need 140 feet at the shore and at the
setback line. Weber stated they had an option of the 140 feet in both areas with the need for a side
setback variance or an option where it met the 10-foot side setback but does not have the required width.
Weber stated as far as they are concerned,either option works.
Weber noted this area is not a bluff and that Staff agrees with their interpretation. Weber stated without
changing the topography,the house will need to be located significantly behind the setback due to the
grade,and no matter how the line is configured,the house will need to be further back. Weber stated to
his understanding somebody from the City came and verified that the proposed access onto the road was
acceptable. Weber noted they probably would not be able to have access onto County Road 19.
Weber stated the bottom line is,no matter how the lines end up being configured,they will end up with
the same site plan. Weber stated they felt the 140 feet at the building line was the logical interpretation,
which is what their plan is based on. Weber stated no matter how it ends up,the proposed location for the
house is the logical site. Weber stated they are not creating a new lot but that they are trying to rearrange
the lines so they can get the best use of the site and take advantage of the view.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated when the City's interpretation of the definition is subject to a different interpretation,
the tie goes to the runner.
Thiesse stated the definition is pretty straight forward and there really is no other way to interpret it.
Schoenzeit stated the other piece is that the City has also pre-identified the average lakeshore setback and
building site. The lot line rearrangement helps determine the building pad. Schoenzeit stated his
assumption that these lots are sewered and that they will not need to find a septic spot. Schoenzeit stated
if someone can steer where the house goes and it is behind either of the lines that are in discussion,the
City should find a way to make this work.
Landgraver stated he tends to agree with Commissioner Schoenzeit.
Leskinen stated the issue from her perspective is not about where the house is being placed but the fact
that they are rearranging the lot lines,which requires them to create two conforming lots. Leskinen stated
if it does not meet the City's requirements, it would be a nonconforming lot,which historically has not
been allowed.
Page 20 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated her other concern is with the practical difficulty analysis. Leskinen noted economic
conditions alone cannot determine whether a variance is granted and that in her view it appears to be more
of an economic piece than the other criteria the Planning Commission generally looks at.
Leskinen stated if they can get past the practical difficulty and decide that the lot line rearrangement can
create two conforming lots,that is the option they should choose. Leskinen stated she would be more
inclined to grant a setback variance than a lot line variance because she is not inclined to create a
nonconforming lot.
Thiesse noted the lots conform with the area requirement but do not conform to width except at the 75-
foot line. Thiesse stated based on the width,they cannot build a house where the line is drawn. Thiesse
asked if this could be approved if a condition is added that they have to conform with the lot width at the
location the house is constructed.
Gaffron stated the existing lot has a defined width going from one point to another point,which is perhaps
100 feet. Gaffron indicated the applicants are trying to create two conforming lots from a substandard,
nonconforming lakeshore lot. Gaffron stated the lot is substandard because of the channel that was
dredged decades ago. Gaffron stated the question is why the southerly lot was not given lakeshore access
at that time. Gaffron indicated it is unlikely Staff would be able to find the answer to that.
Thiesse asked if there is anything in the Code that prohibits people from having gerrymandered lot lines.
Gaffron stated to his knowledge there is nothing in the code prohibiting it as long as the lots are
conforming but that the City creates nonconforming width lots every time there is a cul-de-sac. In this
situation the applicants are taking two lots,one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore,and turning the non-
lakeshore lot into a lakeshore lot.
Lemke commented it makes sense to create two lakeshore lots by looking at where the building pad will
be. Lemke stated in his view it would not be a horrible situation but that he would like to see it work if at
all possible.
Thiesse stated it appears it cannot be granted based on the practical difficulty statement. Thiesse asked
whether the Planning Commission can request a revised practical difficulties statement.
Schoenzeit stated the practical difficulty is the shape of the land and not the economics.
Thiesse noted the Planning Commission cannot write that for the applicant and that it would have to be
revised.
Leskinen stated economics cannot be the only factor in determining a practical difficulty.
Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission could approve the application with the caveat that the
applicants submit a better practical difficulty statement.
Schoenzeit stated the practical difficulty statement should be more in line with the difficulty of the land.
Barnhart stated the practical difficulty statement is intended to give the Planning Commission reasons to
recommend support or denial. Barnhart stated if the applicants did not meet the practical difficulty
Page 21 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
standard,the Planning Commission is obligated to recommend denial. Barnhart stated the Planning
Commission uses the practical difficulty statement when they review the application and that they cannot
write the practical difficulty statement for the applicant.
Schoenzeit commented the Planning Commission could give the applicant the option to table it.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission could also deny it with the suggestion that they submit a
different practical difficulty statement.
Barnhart stated either option would get them to the same spot. Barnhart stated if the Planning
Commission recommends denial because the practical difficulty standards have not been met,the
applicant could be encouraged to address some of the comments made prior to the City Council meeting,
which would keep the application moving forward.
Thiesse stated in his view the intent of the code is that the City is looking for a reasonable width,which
will be satisfied based on the location of the house.
Lemke and Landgraver indicated they are in agreement with that.
Leskinen stated if the applicants could make the argument that it meets the intent of the code but not the
letter of the code, she could live with that.
Birkeland asked if he can amend his practical difficulty statement tonight.
Landgraver stated he would rather the City Council have something in writing.
Birkeland stated the main reason they wanted to do it the way they proposed is because a house could not
be built otherwise to get a view of the lake. Birkeland stated he does not believe he wrote the practical
difficulty statement that way but that he will have to review his document.
Thiesse stated the options are to either table it or recommend denying it,at which point they can modify
their practical difficulty statement prior to the City Council meeting.
Barnhart noted it would be on the April 10 agenda.
Birkeland stated that would be the thing to do then.
Lemke asked if the practical difficulty test has to be met.
Thiesse stated it does and that economics is not the key factor in determining whether there is a practical
difficulty.
Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3912,Bruce
Birkeland,PID 07-117-23-31-0028,for the reasons discussed. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
8. 17-3914 PHILLIP AND DARCY OTTO,4116 HIGHWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,8:38
P.M.—8:42 P.M.
Page 22 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Phillip and Darcy Otto,Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are proposing to expand the main floor of their home on the northwest with a
16' x 16' upper level addition to be constructed on posts. It will not encroach closer to the side lot line
than the home currently is and, in fact,will be located further away. The home is set back three-tenths of
a foot from the lot line. With the proposed offset,the addition to the rear of the home will be as close as
three feet from the lot line where a 10-foot setback is required.
Staff finds that the nonconforming location of the house and the angled lot lines result in limited to no
expansion opportunities,which constitutes a practical difficulty with respect to making any improvements
or changing the footprint. The proposal to construct the addition on posts will continue the existing
drainage patterns. The variance is supported by practical difficulties.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance.
Curtis noted comments were received from the neighbor and are included in the packet.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Phillip Otto, Applicant,stated the most level spot to put an addition off of the back of the house would be
the west side,which would be the right side on the overhead. Otto indicated they will not be finishing the
lower level but will just be using the footings. Otto stated the proposed location is basically the only spot
for an addition.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m.
Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3914,Phillip
and Darcy Otto,4116 Highwood Road,granting of a side yard setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
9. 17-3915 LECY BROTHERS ON BEHALF OF CHARLIE AND NORA DAUM, 1920
FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,VARIANES,8:42 P.M.—8:53 P.M.
Andy Johnsrud, Lecy Brothers,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting approval of variances to the required lot area,the 0-75 foot
hardcover,street setback,and lakeshore setback, in order to construct a new residence to replace the
existing residence on the property. The property is located on the south side of Fagerness Point Road and
the existing survey depicts the current house.
The applicants submitted an application in 2016 for variances needed to construct an addition that was
built in 1071. Due to water issues, it was determined a total rebuild would likely be necessary. Gaffron
noted those conditions are illustrated in some photographs provided by the applicant. As a result of the
water issues,the elevation of the home will need to be raised and a total rebuild is necessary.
Page 23 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The current application proposes completely replacing the existing house with a new structure in
approximately the same location and with a similar footprint. The new home with a full story above the
garage will increase the livability of the property while not adding to the hardcover or to the structural
coverage percentage. Structural coverage for the lot is well below. The proposed hardcover is 17.5
percent,which will all be located in the 0-75 foot zone except for a small portion of the driveway.
The proposed street setback for the house is 20 to 22 feet,with an entry porch proposed to be located 18.1
feet to the street. The lake setback is proposed at 34.8 feet, which is greater than the 32-foot lake setback
for the existing home. No average lakeshore setback is necessary since the existing house to the south has
a deck that is closer to the lake than any parts of this house would be.
The size,shape and orientation of the lot in relation to the lake make it impossible to build on the property
without variances. Variances were granted in 1970 for the original construction of a home on the lot and
an additional variance was granted in 1981 to allow construction of the existing attached garage. In 1991,
a variance was granted for the existing second-story deck located on the lake side of the house. The
applicants are not proposing a deck as part of the new home application but a grade-level patio that is
similar to the existing patio is proposed.
The close proximity to the lakeshore as well as the substandard setback to the street is clearly a function
of the lack of lot depth from the street to the lake.This factor is shared by the two adjacent homes to the
immediate south. The Planning Commission should consider whether there is a need to provide
screening from the lake for the new residence due to the limited lake setback.
Staff would note that the house across the street sits significantly higher than the applicants' house so that
the lake views enjoyed by that off-lake owner will be minimally affected. Gaffron indicated he is not sure
whether the large trees will need to be removed.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. If the Planning Commission determines that the
practical difficulties test is met,then a recommendation for approval would be in order.
Landgraver asked if the house is being elevated to get out of the water.
Gaffron indicated that is correct.
Schoenzeit noted this is a total rebuild.
Gaffron stated it is a tear down but they will not be utilizing the existing foundation. Gaffron noted the
home will not have a basement. In an effort to meet the intent of the code,the applicants are proposing
essentially the same footprint.
Leskinen stated it is basically being rebuilt in kind but higher.
Gaffron stated the applicants are also proposing to add a second story to the garage.
Thiesse noted both of the trees are shown on the applicants' plans as staying. Thiesse asked whether
those trees can be removed without a variance.
Gaffron indicated the applicants would need to get permission from the City but it would not require a
variance. Gaffron stated it is likely those trees would need to be replaced if they are removed.
Page 24 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Andy Johnsrud, Lecy Brothers,stated this project was started last fall. They are a growing family with
the existing home's footprint being approximately 1200 square feet and no basement. Initially the
property owners looked at remodeling the home and adding an addition over the existing garage. As the
project went on,two major issues were discovered. The water is the first major issue, which remodeling
will not fix. Johnsrud stated the other option was to ask the City to lower the elevation of the street, whch
is not feasible.
The other issue was discovered from the soil borings. There are currently no pilings under the home and
there is approximately seven to eight feet of peat dirt under the home. The house is currently floating
right now. Johnsrud stated their recommendation to the homeowner was to put pilings in the ground to
hold up the new foundation. Between the water and foundation issues, it was felt it would be better to
tear down the existing house and rebuild.
Johnsrud stated they did the best they could to stay within the existing footprint. The proposed location is
actually two feet further away from the lake and two feet closer with the front porch area,but otherwise
the proposed house footprint is really consistent with what currently exists. Johnsrud stated they are not
proposing to construct a deck on the second story currently.
Johnsrud indicated he also has pictures that depict the other two properties on the same side of the street
that have a similar design.
Thiesse asked if they intend to keep the two trees.
Johnsrud indicated they do.
Thiesse encouraged the contractor to consider installing a rain garden.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:53 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:53 p.m.
Landgraver noted it is not exactly the same footprint but the applicants have demonstrated that they will
be improving some of the current variances. Landgraver stated the neighbor's house across the street is
also higher and their views of the lake will be minimally impacted.
Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with the request.
Lemke moved, Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3915, Lecy
Brothers on behalf of Charlie and Nora Daum, 1920 Fagerness Point Road,granting of lot area,
hardcover,and setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
10. 17-3916 PETER ESKUCHE ON BEHALF OF FORREST BURKE, 1020 TONKAWA
ROAD,VARIANCES,8:53 P.M.—9:03 P.M.
Peter Eskuche,Applicant, and Sven Gustafson, Stonewood Development,were present.
Page 25 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the owner is planning to redevelop the property and would like to construct a new home with
a lakeside terrace. The existing home improvements will encroach as much as 11 feet lakeward of the
average setback line. The new home is proposed to encroach approximately 30 feet lakeward of the
average lakeshore setback line and the new elevated terrace is shown with as much as a 40-foot
encroachment toward the lake.
The home on the north side sits higher than the applicant's property and is situated further back from the
lake than the majority of the neighboring homes along the shoreline. The lot is only 100 feet in width
where 140 feet is required. Because the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance,the
lot width variance cannot be administratively approved.
Comments from the neighbors were received and are supportive of the project.
Staff finds there are practical difficulties supporting the lot area and lot width variance as well as the
average lakeshore setback variance requests. Planning Staff recommends approval.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Peter Eskuche,Applicant, stated the house is further from the lake than the homes on the other adjoining
properties. The property to the north was constructed approximately 100 feet from the lake,which makes
it out of context with the rest of the neighborhood.
Eskuche stated the red line outlines the existing home,which is quite a bit closer to the property to the
north and the lake than the proposed home. Eskuche stated they are attempting to meet the intent of the
Code but that it is difficult since the location of the home to the north is unusual.
Thiesse noted those property owners did write a letter in support of the project and the location of the
proposed home.
Thiesse asked if there will be a new driveway.
Eskuche indicated there will be.
Gustafson noted it is currently a shared driveway with the property to the north.
Thiesse asked whether that neighbor will be able to use the old driveway.
Gustafson stated there is no plan to move the driveway at this point and it is to be determined.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if the Planning Commission would approve this if the neighbor to the north said they
were not supportive of it.
Page 26 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated the intent of the ordinance is to protect the person's lakeshore views and they have given
that right away so it is a nonissue.
Schoenzeit stated if they had not agreed to this project,the discussion tonight would be different.
Thiesse agreed the discussion would be different.
Schoenzeit commented it is important that the Planning Commission is respectful when there is a
sightline change and take the neighbors' comments into consideration.
Leskinen noted the applicants are replacing the existing home and that they have pulled it back from the
lake.
Thiesse pointed out the applicants are also proposing an elevated deck. Thiesse stated the letter from the
neighbor made the sightlines a nonfactor for him.
Landgraver stated the fact that the neighbor is okay with the project was a deciding factor for him.
Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3916,Peter
Eskuche on behalf of Forrest Burke, 1020 Tonkawa Road,granting of an average lakeshore setback
variance and a lot width variance. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
11. 17-3917 JAMES AND VICKI SPLINTER,4005 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCES,
9:03 P.M.—9:24 P.M.
James Splinter,Applicant; Craig Sherber, Project Manager; and Clayton Johnson,Yard Scapes;were
present.
Curtis stated the applicants have applied for variances in order to construct a new single-family home and
an in-ground swimming pool on the property. The variances consist of side street setback and average
lakeshore setback variances for the home and the pool. Because the property does not conform to the
LR-1B standards, lot area and lot width variances are also requested.
The applicants are proposing to construct a new home 16 feet from the side street property line. The pool
is proposed at 20 feet where a 35-foot setback is required for both. The average lakeshore setback line is
141 feet from the lake as determined by the location of the applicant's home on the neighboring lot to the
west. The proposed pool with elevated patio is situated approximately six feet above grade and will be
set back 75 feet from the lake and 66 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed
home will be 98 feet from the lake and 43 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback.
There were a number of issues outlined in the Staff report regarding driveway dimensions and minimum
requirements as well as proposed work within the Hennepin County right-of-way and privacy fencing.
The Planning Commission should discuss these issues with the applicant's representative and direction
should be given and revised plans should be submitted.
Comments from the neighbors were submitted and have been distributed to the Planning Commission.
Staff finds that there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot shape, size, location on both the shoreline
and North Shore Drive which support the granting of reasonable variances.
Page 27 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances conditioned upon submittal of a landscape plan and
satisfactory resolution of the following site plan issues:
1. Driveway compliance;
2. Submittal of revised hardcover calculations;
3. Privacy fence; and
4. Retaining wall engineering.
Curtis read the following e-mail into the record:
"I live at 1560 North Arm Drive(County Road 19),across from this planned house, garage and pool. I
just have to wonder what Hennepin County has to say if this county road were ever to have a proper
shoulder added to this county road like normal county roads have.
Doesn't the County have an opinion on this house being so close to the road?
I am unable to be at the hearing tonight since I have to work.
Thank you for your consideration. Barbara and Patricia Lawless."
Thiesse asked what kind of property Hennepin County has and whether it is 20 feet from the edge of the
bituminous to the right-of-way.
Curtis indicated it is approximately 20 feet and that there is room to construct a shoulder if they choose.
Craig Sherber, Project Manager,stated the driveway is still a work in progress and they have not met with
Hennepin County yet.
Thiesse asked if the applicant understands he has requirements he needs to meet with respect to the
driveway.
Sherber indicated he does.
Curtis noted Staffs issue with the driveway is that the width within the right-of-way exceeds 20 feet.
Curtis stated even if the County were to allow the extended backup area,the City would not allow it.
Sherber indicated they can work with those restrictions.
Curtis stated an additional driveway concern is that a driveway is required to meet the minimum standards
up to every garage door.
Clayton Johnson, Yard Scapes, stated he has been working on the landscape plan for the property.
Thiesse asked if the applicant is aware of the changes being requested by Staff.
Sherber stated they are and that they would like to work with Staff on any necessary revisions. Sherber
asked if it would be necessary to come back before the Planning Commission.
Page 28 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated in his opinion they are looking at variances,and as long as they meet the requirements of
Staff before to going before the City Council, he would be okay with that.
Leskinen indicated she also would be okay with that.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Carlos Lopez, 1570 North Arm Drive, stated the house was built approximately 100 years ago and that
they also own the$2 million home next door to this one. Lopez stated in his view the house would be
grandfathered in. Lopez stated when he spoke with City Staff,they indicated the applicant did not have
any variances for the$2 million house they currently own.
Lopez stated anybody who would purchase this house at 4005 North Shore Drive would have to set the
house further back from the shoreline than it currently sits right now. Lopez stated assuming the house is
grandfathered in,they should not be able to go closer to the shoreline and they have to build within the
footprint and square footage of the current house. Lopez noted the applicants want variances for a side
yard setback and a 6-foot privacy fence, which he is opposed to,on the county line.
Lopez noted he submitted a written statement outlining his concerns. Lopez stated he does not mind if
they tear all the trees down on the county line side but that he would then not want other trees to be
transplanted onto that property along the county property.
Lopez stated with them applying for variances in pretty much every direction of the house,it will block
his view of the lake. If they build this house,he will no longer have a view of the lake, and they should
not be allowed any variances. Lopez stated they already have a$2 million house and that he is not sure if
this is considered an accessory dwelling or whether a minimum square footage is required or whether a
garage/pool structure can be 90 percent garage and 10 percent house. Lopez stated he would appreciate
any information the Planning Commission could give him regarding the project and the rationale for any
variances.
Thiesse noted this is an individual property whether owned by the neighbor or not and that they have a
right to construct a structure on the property and that they are requesting some variances in order to build
it. Thiesse stated there is a current structure on the property and the City has to allow another structure to
be built.
Curtis confirmed that it is a lot of record.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission cannot deny them a house.
Lopez stated he is not saying that but that this house is grandfathered in and they should not be allowed to
build any closer to the shoreline than the existing structure.
Thiesse noted they are outside the 75-foot setback line by quite a bit.
Curtis displayed the survey on the overhead. Curtis stated the deck comes out to the edge of the 8' x 20'
piece and the house foundation is the square-rectangle piece. Curtis noted the stairs for the deck are at 82
feet.
Thiesse stated the house would be 96.1 feet.
Page 29 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver noted the house is being pulled back but the pool will be closer to the lake.
Thiesse stated the pool would still be outside the 75-foot setback. Thiesse stated as far as Mr.Lopez's
property,to his understanding his views are not protected since his property is not lakeshore. Thiesse
stated the people who own lakeshore properties have the ability to build on their lots. Thiesse stated
while it would be nice that they take into consideration Mr. Lopez's views,they are not obligated to.
Lopez asked if the 6-foot privacy fence is allowed on the side lot line.
Thiesse stated it would be allowed if it meets the City's standards.
Lopez asked if he is saying that he has no say in whether they get a variance. Lopez stated he does not
mind if they construct a house on the property but that the height of the roof will exceed what is currently
there. Lopez stated presently the yard slopes down toward the road and they will backfill with dirt and
raise the elevation of the proposed house. As a result, it will be a pretty tall house.
Thiesse stated Mr. Lopez does have the ability to come forward at the Planning Commission and state his
concerns. Thiesse noted the maximum height of the house is limited to 30 feet and that the applicants
could propose a rambler that is 17-foot tall or put in a house that is 30 feet tall.
Lopez asked if he basically has no say on the variances.
Thiesse stated if the applicants can show a practical difficulty and it seems to reasonably meet the intent
of the law,the variances would likely be granted.
Lopez commented that he does not feel a$2 million house is a reason to allow a summer pool house.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:18 p.m.
Thiesse stated he sees the privacy fence as a practical difficulty given the county road and the headlights
shining at this house as cars come around the corner.
Curtis noted the applicants are permitted a fence as long as the fence is located within their property.
Curtis stated as it is shown,the fence does cross into the County's property to the east.
Landgraver asked what the elevation of the pool and terrace is.
Curtis indicated it is approximately six feet higher than existing grade due to the tiered walls. Curtis
noted the City Engineer did review the plans and that the applicants are essentially building an elevated
structure. Curtis stated the pool is a structure within the average lakeshore setback,and the height of the
patio,even without a pool,would require the requested variance.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission listens to all the comments and apply them when appropriate,
but when you look at the applicant's request and the code,they are reasonable requests and use of the
property. Schoenzeit stated the City's Code does not provide non-lakeshore neighbors protected
sightlines of the lake.
Page 30 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver stated given the project manager's willingness to comply with Staff's recommendations, he
believes this is a good use of a difficult lot. Landgraver noted the applicants are pulling the house back,
which reduces the massing near the lake even with the pool,and that he tends to be supportive of the
application.
Lemke commented he sees it as a reasonable request.
Leskinen stated it is a reasonable request and complies with what the City requires. Leskinen noted the
City has standards that the Planning Commission has to meet in order to either deny or grant a variance.
Leskinen stated if someone comes in and can show the practical difficulties of a particular property and
meets the criteria and intent of the code,the Planning Commission cannot arbitrarily deny it. Leskinen
stated in her view it is reasonable and well presented.
Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3917,James and
Vicki Splinter,4005 North Shore Drive,granting of side street and average Lakeshore setback
variances,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
12. 17-3919 AMIR AND ASHLEY MEHBOD,2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,
9:24 P.M.—9:30 P.M.
Andy Anderson and Kareem Radom were present on behalf of the applicants.
Curtis stated the applicant's home was initially constructed in the 1920s and has been remodeled over the
years. The existing home is located 30 feet from the lake. The applicants are requesting a lake setback
variance in order to construct a small 8' x 29.5' addition to the home 64 feet from the ordinary high water
level. It would add 93.2 square feet of hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. The hardcover property
calculation is below 25 percent. The majority of the home is within the 75-foot setback accounting for
3,700 square feet or 4.3 percent of the site's hardcover.
Both of the adjacent neighbors are aware of the request and the property owner to the east has provided
additional supportive comments that were included in the Planning Commission's packet.
Staff finds the practical difficulties inherent to the existing home's location and its current proximity to
the lake support the requested variances. Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested variances
for the proposed addition with the condition that the Planning Commission should consider
recommending plantings to screen the addition from the lake.
Thiesse asked how old the survey is.
Kareem Radom stated to his recollection the survey was done in 2015.
Andy Anderson, Builder,stated the property owners are currently out of town. Anderson indicated they
wanted the addition to look authentic instead of a little knob off of the side. In order to do that,the
addition ended up encroaching into the lakeside slightly. Anderson noted the addition is not very visible
from the lake, but in order to keep the addition consistent with the original roofline, it had to be situated
this way.
Thiesse noted one of Staff's recommendations was screening and asked if that is reasonable.
Page 31 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the existing vegetation on the east side of the home will be removed because the addition
will be built in its place. As a result, Staff is recommending the addition be screened from the lake.
Anderson stated that is reasonable.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:28 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:28 p.m.
Thiesse commented the application seems to be pretty straight forward.
Landgraver stated given the distance between the homes, he is okay with the request.
Leskinen moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3919,Ashley and
Amir Mehbod,2625 North Shore Drive,granting of lake setback and 75-foot hardcover variances,
subject to Staff's recommendation for screening. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 9:30 p.m.to 9:37 p.m.)
13. 17-3920 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: SURVEY REQUIREMENTS
Barnhart stated in the review process of the City's projects,whether it is a building permit or accessory
building permit or a planning application,the City requires a certified plan by a licensed architect,a
surveyor or engineer. Barnhart stated in some cases that is appropriate but sometimes it results in
additional time and expense.
The draft ordinance removes the requirement of a survey and instead requires a site plan or a certified site
plan. Barnhart stated a site plan shows the proposed improvement and a survey represents what is there
on the property. The City requires a plan showing what the person is proposing to do on their property.
Barnhart stated if someone is doing a project that requires grading,the City will require a certified site
plan. The plan helps provide a certain amount of confidence in the project.
The draft ordinance is intended to revise the permitting requirements for projects,such as accessory
structures, in Orono reducing unnecessary steps and expense in getting a project approved. In those
situations the ordinance is requiring a site plan to illustrate what is being proposed,the location of the
improvement in relationship to the property line,the house,and other features of the property. That
information is used in the review process to determine if variances are required.
Section 3 of the draft proposes changes to the site plan review process for permitted uses in commercial
and industrial districts. The City Administrator or designee is to make decisions on site plans but may
refer these to the City Council. Under this change, City Staff would review the permitted and accessory
uses and a public hearing is not required.
Page 32 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Section 4 removes most of what is required for a site plan application,deferring this to forms provided by
the City. This allows for more flexibility to change the form or to waive requirements when appropriate
based on the project.
Section 5 requires a building permit and that the property corners must be located. This deviates from the
current ordinance which requires pins to be located. If pins are not located,the property must be
resurveyed.
Section 6 continues to require a location for a 20 x 24 foot garage shown on a plan. The change is the
type of the plan based on if the garage is to be connected to the principal structure or not.
Barnhart noted Section 78-144 on Page 3 of the ordinance relates to an application for site plan review.
Thiesse asked if there is a need to be more specific on the specific forms being used by the City.
Barnhart stated he does not believe so and that the use of the term forms allows Staff more flexibility to
change the forms. Barnhart stated the required information could change based on the project.
Schoenzeit stated if someone was putting a shed on the 10-foot setback,without a survey or markers from
a surveyor,they would be guessing where that setback is. Schoenzeit asked what the recourse would be if
the shed is in the wrong spot. Schoenzeit stated he has some concerns that the placement will not be
correct and that it could encroach into the setback if the distance is not properly determined. Schoenzeit
stated perhaps they should require that it be placed at120 percent of the setback.
Barnhart stated if Staff is reviewing a site plan for a shed and the applicant indicates they will retain a 10-
foot setback, it would be permitted by the City. The property line would need to be identified by the
applicant or his builder. Barnhart stated in that situation,they might lose a little bit of accuracy,but the
City approved it at 10-feet and not at any other distance. Barnhart stated if evidence is submitted that
shows the shed is in an incorrect position,the person must move it. Barnhart stated in his view that will
only happen in a few cases, but the Planning Commission and City Council will need to decide whether
that is acceptable.
Schoenzeit stated with a$500 shed from Menards or Home Depot,you should not necessarily need a
$3,000 survey, but that someone should not be able to put it right on the 10-foot line since they are
guessing and that perhaps the City should require it be located at 12 feet.
Barnhart stated there could be some sort of sliding scale of how close it is to a setback line but he chose
not to go that route since it adds more layers of regulation. Barnhart stated he is not confident there is a
lot of benefit to that but he is open to comments from the Planning Commission and City Council.
Landgraver stated the issues likely will occur on the smaller lots where people are attempting to maximize
their space and there will be selective interpretation of where the property line. Landgraver stated if the
City receives a number of complaints,that will alert the City of that issue and it can be modified, but that
he is willing to give the person the benefit of the doubt.
Barnhart pointed out the City Administrator may require a survey to verify property lines for those types
of situations,especially if the project is bigger in scope.
Page 33 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse commented that is a good idea. Thiesse stated if the person is proposing something right up to
the setback line,the City should perhaps require a survey.
Schoenzeit stated there could also be a statement that the applicant is responsible for locating it in the
correct spot and that they may still need a survey or they will have to move it at their expense if it is in the
wrong spot. Schoenzeit stated the issue is that the City is not always diligent with their enforcement.
Thiesse stated he understands what Commissioner Schoenzeit is saying,but that the City has required in
the past structures to be moved if it is in the wrong location.
Schoenzeit commented with this permission comes some responsibility. Schoenzeit stated in his view it
will happen and that it goes back to pitting neighbor against neighbor. Schoenzeit stated in his view it is
crazy to ask for a$3,000 survey for a$500 shed,but at the same time, a person still has to put it in the
right spot.
Thiesse stated this gives them permission to put it in the right spot, and if it is not in the right spot, it
would need to be moved.
Lemke asked what would happen if they place it eight feet from the property line,there is no survey,and
the neighbor complains. Lemke asked whose responsibility it would be to prove that the shed is not in the
proper location.
Thiesse commented it would be in the proper location until proven otherwise.
Barnhart stated he would ask the person who registers a complaint where he feels the property line is. If
that differs from what the other property owner says, it then it becomes a dispute between Property Owner
A and Property Owner B. If it turns out that Property Owner B is correct,the shed would need to be
relocated.
Lemke stated the only way to prove that would be for someone to obtain a survey.
Thiesse stated the City is only allowing a shed at a specific location but they are not getting involved in
where the property line is. Thiesse stated requiring a survey for everything is time-consuming and
expensive and a lot of times unnecessary. Thiesse stated if the structure has a permanent foundation, it is
a different story in how easy it can be moved.
Barnhart stated that could happen now with surveys and that it is something that will have to be dealt
with. Barnhart indicated Staff is attempting to have a balance between the 100 cases where it is not a
problem with the two cases where it is a problem. Barnhart stated more inaccuracy is introduced with
less time and expense.
Thiesse stated he is willing to try it.
Leskinen commented it puts some responsibility on the applicant,which is where it should be.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:54 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Page 34 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:54 p.m.
Thiesse noted on Page 2 of 2, it talks about Section 3. Thiesse asked if that is similar to Section 78-144.
Barnhart stated under Section 78-14, starting at Line 82 of the draft ordinance,there are two processes for
site plan review. A site plan review in the existing code is primarily commercial and industrial districts,
such as the Lund's expansion and the Freshwater Business Center. Basically that is a permitted use and
Staff reviews the plan to make sure that the code is being met.
Currently the code says that the planning and zoning district can make a decision on relatively minor
changes to a site plan. If it is a new building,the City Council would need to approve those through a
public hearing process. Barnhart stated that is proposed to be changed in the draft ordinance to allow
Staff to approve a site plan for a permitted use in industrial and commercial properties. Since it is a
permitted use,the Planning Commission or City Council does not have a lot of discretion in approving it
since it basically is already allowed by code. If any part of the code is not met,a variance would be
required. A conditional use permit would also go through the current review process.
Thiesse stated managing expectations is big, but if people do not get a chance to address things, in his
view it is a perception of less transparency.
Barnhart noted the Planning Commission does not review house plans,which is the same thing. An
argument could be made that they impact more residents but the Planning Commission does not review
house plans unless they require a variance. Barnhart stated that is the same process that Staff is proposing
for the commercial and industrial districts.
Landgraver noted starting at Line 140 it talks about monuments. Landgraver noted the Planning
Commission recently had a situation where the monuments were constructed and the citizen indicated that
they did include the monuments on the landscaping plan that the City reviewed. Landgraver asked what
the language regarding monuments relates to.
Barnhart stated the draft ordinance would make monuments similar to any other accessory structure.
Barnhart stated the code currently requires a survey for a monument and the draft ordinance removes that
requirement and instead requires the property owner to identify the corner markers.
Schoenzeit asked what would happen if it was a new project.
Thiesse commented there would be a certified site plan.
Barnhart stated that house would require a certified survey under the ordinance just like it did three
months ago. Barnhart stated the challenge in that situation was that the contractor did not show the
monuments on the survey and made the decision later to add the monuments. As an accessory structure,
the City would not require a new survey for the monuments. Barnhart stated the certified site plan can be
modified without a survey.
Landgraver asked how the City will determine if this is successful going into the future.
Barnhart stated if Staff starts receiving negative comments about the impact to the neighborhood or things
like that, it would cause concern. If the City needs to spend more time on code enforcement,that would
Page 35 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
also be an indication that the City will need to look at it again. Barnhart stated in his view there will be
more successes than failures.
Thiesse noted this is not going to reduce Staff's work load.
Barnhart stated it will also reduce the amount of Staff time needed to obtain a survey from an applicant.
Landgraver stated an increase in after-the-fact variances would also be an indicator.
Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3920,City of
Orono,Text Amendment: Survey and site plan requirements. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
14. 17-3921 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: ESCROW AGREEMENTS AND
FINANCIAL GUARANTEES, 10:03 P.M.—10:12 P.M.
Barnhart stated this ordinance primarily deals with financial guarantees associated with projects and with
escrow agreements. Escrows are authorized by City Code Sections 79 and 75. Section 75 deals with
expenses incurred during the development review and Section 79 deals with erosion control. The City
has a land use review process and a building review process. In land use applications,the City collects an
escrow to help guarantee that the city engineer,consulting engineer,and consulting attorney's fees are
paid and that the taxpayers do not have to pick up the costs.
Barnhart stated on the building side,there are erosion control requirements, such as maintenance of
erosion control measures, which are separate from the normal things that are included in the City's
development agreement and subdivision process. If someone is building a new pool or anything that digs
up the ground,the person provides an escrow that guarantees that that will be maintained. In the event it
is not maintained,the City would deploy resources to clean that up and then bill the property owner. In
the event the applicant does not pay those costs,the City would use the escrow.
Barnhart noted he made some modifications to the draft ordinance and that a new draft is before the
Planning Commission tonight. Based on the advice of the City Attorney, Staff would like to clarify
Section 45. The proposed next text goes from Lines 37 through 44 and is intended to modify and clarify
the City's existing deposit rules and regulations. Barnhart stated the idea with the ordinance is instead of
having a separate escrow agreement document,the City will take that key language and include it in the
land use application or the development agreement with the goal of making the process somewhat simpler
for the applicant.
Also as part of the draft ordinance review Staff has removed the portion relating to security agreements.
Chapter 78-147 of the ordinance deals with the site plan process. If someone were to obtain site plan
approval to construct a commercial building,the person would be required,based on the code,to provide
to the City 125 percent of the estimated costs for those improvements. Barnhart stated that implies the
City is going to do something with that money, such as finish the work, and the City is not going to finish
a commercial project. Barnhart stated what the City will do is stabilize the site so erosion is not an issue
and safety issues are addressed.
Barnhart stated the draft ordinance removes that requirement for a security agreement for a site plan.
Staff is not proposing with doing away with escrows at this point but is merely recommending
eliminating the need for an escrow agreement.
Page 36 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse asked why that would not be included under the collection of unpaid service charges instead of
requiring an escrow. Thiesse stated the unpaid amount could be applied to the taxes on the property.
Barnhart stated that is certainly a valid option. Barnhart stated it is his understanding the City Council
will be looking at escrows in the near future and that might be a solution.
Thiesse stated the City is basically holding a lot of money that they may or may not use. Thiesse noted he
does not know how much money is returned after the project is done,but that perhaps the City should
trust the applicant to do the project correctly and then levy the fees against their taxes if something needs
to be corrected by the City.
Barnhart stated if that is the consensus of the Planning Commission, he can recommend that to the City
Council as long as the City Attorney feels there are sufficient safeguards to allow the City to do that.
Barnhart stated he still sees some value to requiring an escrow on certain projects but perhaps some
additional language could be added to the final draft of the ordinance.
Landgraver commented an escrow allows for a lot more skin in the game on the part of the developer or
applicant. Landgraver indicated he is not ready to eliminate escrows at this point.
Schoenzeit stated it also depends on the stage of the project,such as the occupancy stage versus the
permitting stage.
Thiesse asked why there is an as-built survey required and not a final certified site plan under Section
86-68.
Barnhart indicated Staff kept the same nomenclature that is currently used. Barnhart noted Staff did
remove a paragraph regarding the certificate of occupancy. If the property owner wants that certificate of
occupancy before the as-built is completed,they will need to provide a security deposit. Barnhart stated
the Development Review Committee will be looking at ways to address temporary certificates of
occupancy but that the draft ordinance still requires an as-built survey but removes the leniency the City
has to allow temporary certificates of occupancy.
Thiesse commented there is the possibility that the City will not allow someone to move into their house
in February if the land has not been grade and a survey cannot be done.
Barnhart indicated Staff has not applied the language that way and that Staff will allow people to move in
but that a deposit will be required. Barnhart stated that can always be changed later and that it basically
encompasses Lines 28 through 30.
Thiesse stated he would like to contemplate leaving some of that in since there are weather factors that
may not allow someone to complete their as-built survey.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:11 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10:11 p.m.
Page 37 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3921,City of
Orono,Text Amendment: Escrow Agreements and Financial Guarantees,and retaining the
language in Lines 28-30. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
15. 17-3923 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: SUBDIVISION EXEMPTIONS,
10:12 P.M.— 10:21 P.M.
Barnhart noted last year the City adopted a new ordinance that related to boundary line adjustments.
When someone has a common boundary line between two lots and a new lot is not being created,Staff
can certify that that is exempt from the City's subdivision ordinance. The caveat is that both lots need to
meet the minimum lot size requirements. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission saw an application
last month where one lot was made bigger as a result of a lot line rearrangement but they required a
variance since the lot was located in the two-acre zone. Barnhart noted this does not give Staff the
authority to certify a lot line rearrangement where it creates a nonconforming situation nor does it give
Staff the authority to move a lot line closer to an existing structure where a nonconforming situation is
created. The ordinance would allow Staff to certify a modification of common lot lines on basically two
nonconforming lots but that Staff cannot certify nonconforming lots.
Barnhart stated the ordinance would allow certain land activities to be exempted from the City's
subdivision ordinance consistent with state statute. Barnhart stated one deviation from State Statute
462.352, Subd.12, is that the City added the requirement that the two adjusted lots meet the requirements
of the zoning code. In areas where the lot is already non-conforming due to size,a variance would be
necessary to increase the lot area.
Schoenzeit stated if both lots start out as nonconforming and one neighbor purchases a pad for a shed,
they will still both be nonconforming. Schoenzeit asked whether a lot could be made more
nonconforming and be certified by Staff.
Thiesse noted the draft ordinance just applies to a lot line rearrangement.
Barnhart stated they would not be allowed to create any new non-conformities.
Schoenzeit asked if it is possible to do if both lots were under an acre and one of the property owners sold
land to a neighbor but both lots still are under an acre.
Gaffron stated the language would need to say something other than creating new nonconformity.
Barnhart stated he listed the following four criteria that would need to be met:
1. All the resulting parcels,tracts, lots or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in
width for residential uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses,or
2. Will create cemetery lots,or
3. Is court ordered,or
Page 38 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. Is an adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary and no new
nonconformities are created.
Barnhart stated in speaking with the City Attorney, he and Staff felt comfortable with the proposed
language. If the Planning Commission would like to specify that no existing nonconformities will be
increased,that could be added.
Schoenzeit noted that would not allow a situation where one lot is made bigger since it would increase the
nonconformity even though both lots would still remain nonconforming. Schoenzeit stated the property
owners would need to swap equal adjustments of land in order to not become more nonconforming under
that language.
Thiesse stated if the lot is already nonconforming in size,making the lot smaller would not be a new
nonconformity.
Leskinen questioned whether increasing the nonconformity should be treated the same as creating a new
nonconformity. Leskinen stated in her opinion that is splitting hairs too much.
Barnhart suggested the following language be added: "No new nonconformities are created or an existing
nonconformity is increased." Barnhart stated he does not want to be in a position where he has to adjust a
lot line resulting in one of the lots becoming smaller. Barnhart noted that could result in a zig-zagging of
lines.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:20 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10:20 p.m.
Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3923,City of
Orono,Text Amendment: Subdivision Exemptions,with the additional language suggested by
Staff. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
16. 17-3924 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: REPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT, 10:21 P.M.— 10:30 P.M.
Barnhart stated the City Code includes a provision that gives neighbors the authority to petition the City
Council. The current language reads"Upon petition of 75 percent or more of the adjacent property
owners as those whose property lies within 1000 feet of the property subject to the conditional use permit,
the Council shall hold a public hearing on the continuation of the permit."
The City Attorney has recommended that there is no authority in state statute to open up an existing,
conforming, lawfully operating conditional use permit. The objective with the draft ordinance is to
remove that section from the code because in theory it could give a resident false hope that some action
could occur. As a result,the City Attorney has recommended the following language:
Page 39 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
"The City hereby reserves the right to inspect the premises where a Conditional Use Permit has been
issued,after receiving permission from the property owner or receiving the appropriate court order,to
ensure compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance and/or conditions imposed."
Barnhart stated the language would basically allow the City to review where required by the courts or if
the property allows the City to review the conditional use permit but it removes the false hope that the
residents can impact a lawfully operated conditional use permit. Barnhart noted once the City issues a
conditional use permit,that permit goes with the land regardless of who owns or operates the land until
the land is abandoned.
Landgraver asked why the sentence following the proposed language was struck.
Barnhart stated the City Attorney recommended replacing it with the new language since it more
accurately reflects state statute.
Landgraver stated he is attempting to relate it to an interim use permit. Landgraver asked if it is saying
that the City does not have the right to do periodic reviews of a conditional use permit.
Barnhart stated an interim use permit is basically a conditional use permit with a timeline. The same
standards that are reviewed for a conditional use permit are basically the same standards that would be
reviewed with an interim use permit but the interim use period would elapse after a period of time.
Barnhart stated if the City grants someone the ability to have an interim use permit for four years,the City
would not necessarily be able to review that use every year unless the property owner agrees to the
review. Barnhart stated the City would have to allow the person to operate under the interim use permit
during that time unless there is a reason to go in and review it.
Barnhart indicated interim use permits are an important tool to use in a transitional area where the use is
not felt to be appropriate long-term or a permanent use.
Landgraver stated he was struggling with how that relates to an interim use permit if the City decides to
allow them. Landgraver stated under the proposed language the City would not have the right to review a
conditional use permit unless ordered by the court or the property owner agrees to it.
Barnhart stated the first three lines most directly reflect the authority given to the City by the State.
Barnhart indicated the City has some rights under state statute, which are reflected in the draft ordinance,
but if the Planning Commission recommends the second red portion be kept,he would not recommend
against it.
Schoenzeit stated if the City can legally keep that language, it would be a nice tool to have.
Thiesse commented it appears the City is giving up some of their perceived rights whether they exist or
not. Thiesse stated he would like the City Attorney to look at it again to verify whether the language
could be drafted a little more in the City's favor.
Landgraver stated it could be a tool to say that the City will check back in after a year or two,which could
help placate concerns and build up trust,and that they should try to keep that language. Landgraver stated
if the City does not have that right,then they cannot exercise it.
Page 40 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen noted the language reads that conditional use permits shall not be subject to periodic Council
review. Leskinen stated the first sentence allows the City to reserve the right to inspect the premises.
Lemke stated even if that language is left in,the City would still not have that right under state statute.
Landgraver stated the sentence also goes on to say,"...unless such a review is one of the conditions of the
original permit..." Landgraver stated it does not appear the City has the right to conduct periodic
reviews.
Thiesse stated unless they are in violation of their conditional use permit.
Landgraver stated if the City has the right to conduct periodic reviews,the City should retain that right.
Barnhart indicated he will ask the City Attorney to review those two sentences to see whether the City can
retain or clarify any rights the City may have.
Thiesse stated he would like the City Attorney to confirm that.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:28 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10:28 p.m.
Thiesse stated he would like the City Attorney to review it one more time but that it does not have to
come back before the Planning Commission.
Leskinen moved, Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3924,City of
Orono,Text Amendment: Repeal of Conditional Use Permit as draft with the recommendation
that the City Attorney review the language of 78-91. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
17. #17-3926 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: EXEMPTIONS FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY SIGNS, 10:30 P.M.— 10:36 P.M.
Barnhart stated a strict reading of the City's sign code does not regulate traffic control or public message
signs so therefore they are not permitted. The draft ordinance exempts the placement of traffic control
signs, identification signs placed by a public authority,and signs placed by the city,county,state or U.S.
Government. These signs are usually located in rights-of-way, but also on city,state,or government
property. The ordinance in general codifies current practice.
This request was initiated by Hennepin County through their Sheriff's Department since they desire to
place electronic public service signs on bridges to serve boat traffic. Hennepin County currently places
electronic public service signs on area highways for emergencies and public service initiatives.
Barnhart stated one of the goals of the City Council is to review the entire sign ordinance but that Staff
would like to address this issue first since these signs do exist currently throughout the City.
Thiesse asked if there is a reason why the language cannot just say"signs placed by public authority."
Page 41 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated that could be changed.
Lemke asked if there should be any distinction between permanent signs and temporary signs.
Barnhart indicated he does not want that distinction since there are some situations where a temporary
traffic sign is appropriate.
Thiesse asked if this would preclude all the realty signs placed in the right-of-way.
Barnhart indicated it would.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:35 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 10:35 p.m.
Thiesse stated he is fine with the language as proposed by Staff.
Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3926,City of
Orono,Text Amendment: Exemptions for Public Safety Signs,with the language being left as is.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
18. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: FEBRUARY 27,2017,AND MARCH 13,
2017
Barnhart reported on the following actions taken by the City Council:
• Approved raising the structural coverage limit from 15 to 20 percent with elimination of decks.
The Planning Commission recommended keeping it at 15 percent with elimination of decks.
• Tabled the special events ordinance indefinitely.
• The Council supported the ordinance regarding structures of non-encroachment but directed the
City Attorney to make some modifications. That ordinance will be reviewed at the special City
Council meeting on March 22.
• Approved changes to the PUD Amendment.
• Supported the Little Acorns daycare use at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard and directed Staff to make
some changes to the resolution.
• Approved the Scott Kirchner application on Heritage for a lot line adjustment.
• Approved the application for a setback variance and septic variance.
• Approved variances and conditional use permit for 2090 Shoreline. The Planning Commission
had a comment about the stoop extending into the 75-foot zone and the applicant withdrew that
portion of the application.
• Approved the 3472 Lyric variance application. The builder and applicant are working together
on the fence in the back yard.
OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Page 42 of 43
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,March 20,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart noted a work session is scheduled for April 5. Barnhart noted he will include on the agenda the
item added this evening. There will also be a discussion on wetland regulations and small lot setback
issues.
Lemke asked what commissioners will be completing their three-year term. Lemke asked whether
Denise's, Loren's and John's terms are up at the end of the year.
Barnhart stated John's term ends this year.
Gaffron stated commissioners can serve three full three-year terms. Gaffron stated if they are finishing
off someone else's term, it would not count as the first term.
Curtis noted they would be able to become an alternate.
ADJOURNMENT
Thiesse moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10:45
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
a. �•�"y / L
John Thiesse, Chair
Page 43 of 43