HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2017 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, Chad Olson,and
Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior
Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis
Walsh was present.
Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
NEW BUSINESS
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
MARCH 20,2017
Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of March 20,2017,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
2. #16-3883 KEVIN ANDERSON,800 NORTH ARM DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT,
6:33 P.M.—7:22 P.M.
Kevin Anderson, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated this is a preliminary plat application for a 4-acre property proposed to be developed into
three single-family residential lots. All lots would be served by a new private road and would be served
with municipal sewer and individual wells. The property is located on North Arm Drive just east of the
east end of the Lakeview Golf Course.
The property has frontage on North Arm Bay. The west half of the property slopes gradually to the east
with steep slopes at the easterly and northerly shorelines. The area where the north lot boundary nears the
lakeshore is a bluff by definition and the property contains an existing residence at the east end and a
number of outbuildings served by a 750-foot driveway. The property is zoned LR-1B, One Family
Lakeshore Residential District, and is guided in the Orono Community Management Plan for residential
use.
The current proposal incorporates some of the recommendations from the sketch plan review that was
conducted by the Planning Commission in April of 2016. It includes shortening of the private road. The
initial proposal showed the road further to the east. The lot lines have been revised to create lot shapes
that provide more functional and desirable buildable areas based on the existing topography but results in
the need for a lot width variance for proposed Lot 1. Each of the three lots appears to meet the one acre
dry buildable requirement.
Lots 2 and 3 each meet the width requirement as measured at the shoreline and at the 75-foot setback.
Lot 1 only meets the 140-foot standard in the 75-foot setback. The reason for the lot width variance
request is based on the topography and the desired orientation for the house on Lot 2. If the variance is
not allowed, the house on Lot 2 would have its main views overlooking a triangular lakeshore portion of
Lot 1. Lot lines and lot areas could be adjusted to make Lot 1 completely conforming. If the Planning
Page 1 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Commission is comfortable granting the variance, it should be clearly established why it is appropriate to
grant that variance in order to avoid setting a precedent.
Subdividing lakeshore property does result in some unique relationships between homes. In this proposed
subdivision, Lots 1 and 2 each have a home site that meets the 75-foot setback as well as the average
setback when it is defined by the house at 790 North Arm and the existing house.
The following scenarios could happen based on the City's current setback ordinance:
1. If the first home built is in the "possible house" location shown on Lot 2,that changes the average
setback line for future replacement of the existing house on Lot 3 and would force such
replacement to move far back on the lot to where it is not wide enough to be built on.
2. If the first home built is on Lot 1 and is placed farther west than shown,the average setback for
a home on Lot 2 would change.
3. If the first home built is a replacement for the existing house on Lot 3 and it is moved further
back in order to have a house, decks, etc. meet the 75-foot setback, then the average setback for
Lot 2 would be affected and potentially also the average setback for Lot 1.
Gaffron stated the most logical solution is that the allowable lake setback for each lot be established as
part of the subdivision approvals. These would be in effect regardless of how or in what order the three
lots are developed or redeveloped. How this is structured might have an impact on the average setback
lines applicable to the adjacent homes at 790 North Arm Drive and 830 Windjammer Lane. Those homes
are set back far enough so as to likely not be impacted since proposed and existing homes on Lots 1 and 3
are nearer the lake than those neighboring homes. The Planning Commission should consider whether the
proposed house site on Lot 1 will be nearer the lakeshore than the home at 790 North Arm and whether
that neighboring home enjoys lake views that would be blocked by the house on Lot 1.
The proposed home site on Lot 1 is located more than 30 feet from the defined top of bluff, since no
structures are allowed within 30 feet of the top of bluff and the top of bluff as depicted.
As it relates to Lot 2, the topography and location of the existing municipal sewer lines are complicating
factors. The municipal sewer installed in 1973 crosses the property from north to south. The sewer lines
consist of a gravity line flowing from south to north across the site, discharging to a lift station at the very
north end of the property at the shore.
The easement for that sewer line pair is 20 feet wide and no structures can be built over that easement.
The impact is that the proposed house location for Lot 2 is restricted to the area between the sewer
easement and the 75-foot setback, with little flexibility for shifting the house. To make matters worse,the
actual vehicle route used by the Public Works Department is also located in this area. It is necessary on a
regular basis to bring a truck down to the lift station for maintenance since there is no other way to access
the lift station. The City needs to preserve this non-easement route for future sewer system maintenance.
Lot 3 contains the existing house. Replacing the house will likely require it to move back from the lake
some distance, as the 75-foot setback line appears to run through the east side of the structure. With or
without the proposed subdivision, an average lakeshore setback variance would be required for
replacement of this house.
Page 2 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The developer is proposing the road be private. Even though only a small number of homes will be
served, City code requires for 3-6 lots a 24-foot paved road within a 50-foot road corridor, ending in a
100-foot diameter cul-de-sac with 80 feet paved width. At slightly less than 300 feet in length, the cul-de-
sac meets the City's 1000-foot maximum length limitation.
In addition,the proposed cul-de-sac location abuts the rear yard of the existing residence at 835
Windjammer Lane. While those owners and their predecessors have experienced a single private
driveway at that location since the house at 835 was built in 1969,the driveway at 800 North Arm has
existed at its current location since at least the 1940s or earlier based on available historic air photos.
Moving the private road further north to provide some buffer might be feasible but would result in a less
usable street yard area for Lot 1.
The CMP does not indicate any future trails along North Arm Drive. No sidewalks exist in this area of
Orono and none are contemplated. There are not any planned parks or anticipated park needs relative to
development of this property. The total park fees would be $11,100.
The creation of a new road, homes, driveways and other impervious surfaces will require stormwater
management measures, likely including creation of stormwater conveyance and storage systems. Ponding
areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be credited as dry
buildable area. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval.
The property and each proposed lot are within Tier 1 of the Stormwater Overlay District, subject to a
maximum hardcover per lot of 25 percent.
The property will also be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. The total SW&DT Fee will
be either$10,500 or$15,750 and is dependent on whether the existing house will remain.
Municipal sewer is available to serve development at this site. This property was assessed for two sewer
units and 280 feet of frontage as part of the 1973 sewer project. A third sewer unit at the 2017 connection
charge rate of$5,100 would be due upon final plat approval.
The existing sewer connection for the house on Lot 3 runs across proposed Lots 1 and 2 along the
shoreline. Leaving it as is will require establishment of easements between the properties. Adding sewer
stubs to serve Lots 1 and 2 is likely necessary but may be difficult since the existing gravity line is
approximately 15-20 feet below existing grade. An engineered design for these connections may be
necessary. Private wells will be required.
There is a narrow wetland located on the north side of the property delineated in 2011. The applicants
have not been able to find the paperwork on that delineation and are planning to have the wetland re-
delineated in the spring. No changes are anticipated. There will likely be buffer setbacks required from
the MCWD. The City will require a Conservation and Flowage Easement over this strip of wetlands.
Due to the need for vehicular access for municipal sewer maintenance,the City will require that buffer
widths and locations be established in a manner that will accommodate such maintenance.
The developer has submitted a Conservation Design report and recommendations. The property has been
reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies of the City ordinance. The report provides an
inventory of the natural resources on the site, discussed how the proposed site design interplays with
Page 3 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
existing features, and establishes a vegetation management plan addressing wetland buffers and invasive
species control. It is likely some of the trees will need to be removed as a result of construction of the
road and driveways.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
1. Establishment of an average lakeshore setback determination structured to be independent of
when new homes get built on the site,with an eye toward not having negative impacts to the
average setbacks for the adjacent neighboring homes.
2. Review the lot width variance requested for Lot 1 and recommend whether that variance is
justified and supportable.
3. Discuss with the applicant the limitations for the building site on Lot 2 due to shape of the lot,the
75-foot setback, the average setback, and sewer easements.
4. Consider if there are any significant impacts of the road location to adjoining properties, and if so,
are there alternative configurations or mitigations that would reduce such impacts if needed.
5. Address the fact that sewer maintenance access is critical and must be addressed as part of the
subdivision process, likely requiring new easements and potentially buffer width averaging.
6. A new sewer connection for Lots 1 and 2 will have to be established, and an easement for the
connection for Lot 3 over Lots 1 and 2 needs to be addressed as part of the subdivision process.
The Planning Commission should review the Staff report as well as the submitted documentation. The
Planning Commission should hold the public hearing and then make a recommendation for either
approval or denial. Staff will not present this application to the City Council for review until the updated
wetland delineation has been submitted.
In addition, the applicant should plan to meet with the Orono Public Works Sewer and Water Supervisor
as soon as possible to review the route for sewer maintenance vehicles.
Lemke asked if there is any advantage to having the cul-de-sac go in so far.
Gaffron stated that results in shorter driveways but noted the cul-de-sac could be shortened up further. If
the area on the west side of Lot 1 has value as yard, changing the length of the cul-de-sac might change
the nature of the yard.
Landgraver asked if there is precedent for the city maintenance road.
Gaffron stated it is likely there are other places where the Public Works Department has to drive over
private property to maintain the sewer system since the City has approximately 40 lift stations. There is
an agreement currently for maintenance of this road up to a certain point and that agreement will have to
be revised.
Page 4 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver commented it is possible to envision friction between the homeowners and the maintenance
workers given that situation. Landgraver noted the existing sewer gravity line goes from Lot 3 downhill
and that it looks like there is a rain garden on top of that.
Gaffron stated the expectation would be that that sewer line would need to be moved.
Thiesse asked if the 40' x 80' house footprint standard.
Gaffron noted they are shown as a possible house and that the homes that are being built today have a
number of angles. Gaffron stated it is unlikely someone will construct a house that is rectangular in
shape.
Kevin Anderson, Applicant, stated in regards to relocating the house on Lot 2, it gets pretty tight given all
the different angles and that they have reworked the lot lines significantly to try to provide as much
flexibility as possible.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:51 p.m.
Ray Wahlender, 1070 Tonkawa Road, stated he is one of the owners of 800 North Arm. Wahlender
stated while he is generally positive about the prospect for improvements on this property, in his view
splitting this parcel into three lots is quite a stretch and that there are a lot of contortions being done to try
to achieve three lakeshore lots.
Wahlender stated the developer will have some real problems with lake access for Lot 1 and that he
knows from personal experience that it is too shallow to catch pan fish in that area. Wahlender indicated
it is a wetland area that seeps into a marshy wetland area and that you cannot get a pontoon in there. If
you look at the contours with 790 North Arm, any dock that is installed will likely violate the provisions
of LMCD Section 201, Subdivision 2B, which requires that any slip which opens towards a sight line be
20 feet back from that sight line. Wahlender stated in his view it will be problematic to try to get a dock
in there parallel to the sight line, and in order to get it out to any sort of depth, it would probably violate
the sight line for Lot 2. Wahlender stated calling it a lakeshore lot is problematic for them and that it
appears to be jammed in there.
With regards to Lot 2, Wahlender stated he also believe that has some shallow areas and it would be
difficult to get a boat in and out of there. Wahlender commented putting two lakeshore lots on the north
side of the peninsula sounds like a recipe for people fighting about dock placement.
Wahlender stated if one were to construct a house of any height right there on Lot 1, it would block the
light to the adjoining property's back yard. There will also likely be issues with runoff given the close
proximity of the house. Over time that blockage of light and possible drainage issues are going to create a
much damper back yard. If you go from what is immediately behind 790 North Arm,there is a steep
drop-off right before the lakeshore that goes down to a little grassy area just above the lakeshore, which is
where the pump station is. Wahlender stated he would want somebody to take a look at that, because if
there is too much moisture,the area could slide down. Wahlender stated it has ramifications to 800 North
Arm and the sewer system that is located down there,which is very concerning to them.
Wahlender stated on the very south end of 790 North Arm there is a very nice screened in porch that does
have some view of the lakeshore. Based on the placement of the house on Lot 1, it is very likely that they
Page 5 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
will be looking at HVAC systems, generators, exhaust pipes and things of that nature. Wahlender stated
he would not like that either.
Wahlender stated it appears they are wedging three parcels where it would be better if there were only
two lots. Wahlender requested the City look into some of these issues prior to approving anything and
that he would also be happy to discuss this with the property owners.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:57 p.m.
Thiesse stated he would like to start with the average setback. Thiesse stated he would like to see that
average setback maintained until the first two homes are constructed, at which time it comes back to the
City for review. Thiesse asked if the City has any control over mandating that a new house be pulled
back behind the 75-foot line if the existing house is reconstructed.
Gaffron stated to his belief the City can do that. Gaffron stated assuming there was no subdivision, the
existing house is way forward of the average setback. Once there is a subdivision, depending on how
many lots there are, he does not believe there is any way that the existing house will be behind the
average setback line. Gaffron indicated it would have to be pushed back if it is rebuilt in order to meet
the setback to the lake unless some special arrangements are made now.
Thiesse stated he would like to see the same footprint on all the homes and that he would like the house to
be out of the 75-foot setback. Thiesse stated because this is a peninsula,to his knowledge the City has
been a little more lenient on the average lakeshore setback, but that he would like it out of the 75-foot
area.
Lemke noted if they rebuild in kind, it can be rebuilt in exactly the same location.
Gaffron stated it is very unlikely that someone will rebuild that house in kind to the extent in kind means
the same shape,the same rooflines, etc.
Thiesse stated if a house on any lot is built,that house could establish the setback and not the building pad
where the existing house is.
Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about the lot width variance.
Leskinen stated she does not see a compelling reason to create a nonconforming lot, especially since the
City historically has not done that.
Thiesse noted there is no practical difficulty.
Landgraver stated the house will be pretty far back on the bluff and that this is a way of securing visibility
for Lot 1. Landgraver concurred that there is not a strong argument for creating a nonconforming lot and
that Lot 2 also has a number of constraints.
Thiesse stated it is difficult to come up with a practical difficulty for the variance since there is adequate
space. Thiesse stated in his view they should be measuring from where the house is rather than at the
shoreline but that is not what the ordinance says.
Page 6 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver stated it appears the house on Lot 2 will be tight but that it may be possible to orient it to
maximize views.
Thiesse noted the building pad is proposed to consist of 3,200 square feet. Thiesse asked whether there
will be headlights shining into the proposed house on Lot 2.
Anderson indicated there will be.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on Item 4, which is significant impacts of the
road location to adjoining properties.
Leskinen stated having shortened the cul-de-sac makes a big difference.
Thiesse asked if the developer has looked at pulling it further back.
Anderson indicated he has not.
Thiesse stated in regards to Item 5,the City does need an easement to access the lift station.
Gaffron noted Staff has recommended that the applicant meet with the Public Works supervisor to discuss
that. Staff has suggested the applicant's surveyor stake the easement and depict the easement on the
survey since he is familiar with the property. Gaffron stated this issue has existed for a long time, and if
this was not a subdivision application,this discussion would not be happening.
Lemke asked if there would have to be any type of treatment to make it an accessible road.
Gaffron stated there would need to be a sufficient road base to drive a loaded truck over it. Gaffron
commented the topography is such that the trucks cannot traverse much of a side slope and that it is
critical to identify a route.
Leskinen commented she recalls a very lengthy discussion about this last year and that to her recollection
the consensus was that it needs to be where it is.
Thiesse noted Item 6 relates to new sewer connections for Lots 1 and 2. Thiesse asked if the developer
has a plan for how sewer will be provided.
Anderson indicated not at this point.
Thiesse stated that is a piece of information that will need to be provided and addressed.
Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission has any thoughts on the issues expressed by Mr. Wahlender.
Thiesse stated this area is not a lot different from other areas on North Arm and that there are some areas
that are inaccessible.
Wahlender stated based on his experience,the dock would need to be extended way back and that they
would have to go out into the main part of the channel and then come back in. As you go southeast along
the shoreline, it is very shallow.
Page 7 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse noted that is outside of the Planning Commission's jurisdiction and that the LMCD will need to
look at it.
Gaffron stated the applicant will need to speak with the LMCD and that the City would not be involved in
that.
Thiesse asked if the developer is requesting any variances for the house on Lot 1.
Gaffron noted there is a 30-foot setback from top of bluff and that the proposed house meets the side
setbacks as well as street. Gaffron stated the depicted rectangle meets code standards,but the question is
whether someone would be doing a disserve to the neighborhood if they construct right up to the 10-foot
setback.
Thiesse stated his biggest concern is that light and air come into play when asking for a variance. Thiesse
asked if those two things come into play when a variance is not being requested.
Gaffron stated he is not aware of a situation in the past where that was a factor when someone was
meeting the setback requirements as well as the height requirement. Across the bay there was a situation
where someone was building a house that did meet the City's height requirement and the neighbors had
an issue with someone building a house that would block their garden. Gaffron commented it is unusual
for the City to take that into account, especially when a variance is not being requested.
Wahlender stated if you add in the fact that a house is constructed directly to the north of the yard and the
drainage is altered along the ridge, he would have some questions about the structural integrity of the
drop-off. Wahlender stated if the house is tall enough,that will make it very soggy back there and there
will be very soggy ground that overlooks the sloped pitch which overlooks the lift station. Wahlender
stated in his view those are some important issues that the Planning Commission needs to look at.
Lemke asked if the house location is exactly 30 feet back from the bluff.
Gaffron illustrated the 30-foot setback on the survey and noted that the house could be moved to be as
much as 20 or 30 feet away from the lot line.
Landgraver stated the solution seems to be to simply move the house on Lot 1,depending on its size,to
allow ample light to that area.
Thiesse asked if it is possible to move the house over.
Anderson indicated that would make the most sense and that the people that he has talked to about this lot
would like to construct a walkout rambler.
Landgraver stated the other item that would be favorably viewed is some landscaping that would help
screen the area.
Thiesse suggested some contours also be provided showing how the drainage will work.
Landgraver moved to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3883,Kevin Anderson,800
North Arm Drive,granting of preliminary plat approval and denial of a lot width variance,with
Page 8 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
the average lakeshore setback being established by the existing houses as constructed with the
original plat and subject to Staff recommendations.
Gaffron noted if the house on Lot 3 is torn down, it will need to meet the 75-foot setback. Gaffron asked
whether that house should meet the average setback as defined by 830 North Arm.
Thiesse stated it probably cannot.
Landgraver asked if the objective is to make it conform.
Thiesse indicated it is to get it out of the 75-foot zone.
Schwingler seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
3. #17-3911 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,
ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT,7:23 P.M.-
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, was present.
Gaffron noted this item was tabled at the March Planning Commission meeting. Due to the cancellation
of the April 5 work session,the Planning Commission should also refer to the attached work session
packet.
The contractor for the Hennepin County Wayzata Boulevard improvement project has obtained a permit
from MnDOT to use a site at 365 Old Crystal Bay Road for the recycling and storage operation for
Phase I of the highway improvements. Gaffron stated that takes some of the pressure off in terms of the
timing of this application, but the applicant has requested that their application for a text amendment and
IUP approval continue to be reviewed, as they would like to be prepared for use of the Eisinger site for
later phases of the Wayzata Boulevard improvements..
The intent of this review is to look at the advantages and potential disadvantages of an interim use permit.
An interim use permit is intended to be temporary and allows for sunsetting of a use for a temporary time
period that may not be appropriate on a permanent basis.
In considering whether the City should adopt an interim use ordinance, it may be helpful to identify
examples where a temporary use may be reasonable but is not appropriate at a given location on a
permanent basis. Examples found in other Minnesota cities' codes are typically tied to specific zoning
districts. While there are some consistencies, it also appears that every city has its own ideas of what to
regulate via an interim use permit.
Gaffron stated area cities that utilize an interim use permit include Plymouth, Medina, and Minnetonka.
Some of the uses defined as an interim use by those cities are regulated by different methods in Orono,
such as by licensing or special event permit.
Gaffron noted there are a few local governments that list an interim use similar to that proposed by the
applicants. Isanti County lists as an interim use, "Temporary construction facilities associated with road
construction or reconstruction projects. Facility types allowed include blacktopping processing facilities
which includes the processing of recycled materials as well as concrete recycling storage areas."
Page 9 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The City of Andover allows the temporary processing and storage of sand, gravel,or other materials. In
addition, Chisago City allows temporary processing or recycling plant in conjunction with a specific
project.
Adding the ability to allow for specified interim uses within specified zoning districts gives the City and
property owners a method or tool for the temporary use of property. It provides an option for properties
that are expected to be developed in the future in conformity with the zoning code, but for various reasons
such future development will not occur immediately. As it relates to the Eisinger property,the developer
has gained preliminary plat approval for housing, but does not anticipate actual development of the site
for a number of years.
An example of how an interim use permit could have been used in Orono was the former produce market
at County Road 6 and Highway 12. That site was zoned for single-family use and was operating via a
"nonconforming use conditional use permit" in the 1960s. Later conditional use permits were approved
for minor expansion of the market use. When the market closed,the building eventually became a
daycare center via a new conditional use permit. When MnDOT determined that the property would be
needed for the Highway 12 bypass, the daycare use discontinued but it was a number of years before that
part of the bypass was constructed. As a result, the building sat empty for a number of years. Because
the City had no interim use ordinance, any temporary use of the site was not allowed.
Potential disadvantages of an interim use permit include property owners proposing land uses that are
inappropriate for a given site or disruptive to the neighboring property owners or would be inconsistent
with the character of the surrounding area. If the Council approves an amendment to the Zoning Code to
allow interim uses,the City, developers and the property owners will have to be very clear about the
parameters for such use. Clear and concise documentation of the allowed land use,activities and time
periods will be required with each IUP issued. The City must be diligent not only in establishing
appropriate interim uses within specified zoning districts but in monitoring those uses for compliance
with the established terms of each issued IUP.
Before the Planning Commission tonight is a draft ordinance. This is drafted similar to the general code
section on conditional uses. It contains language that mimics the state statute on interim uses and also
contains certain provisions that should pertain to all interim use permits. Sample ordinances from other
cities are also attached. Gaffron stated while the ordinances differ widely,there are four common
elements: A definition purpose and intent; application procedures; standards and conditions; and a
termination clause.
Gaffron noted the companion application to the text amendment includes a request for an interim use
permit in the RR-1B, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. The applicant is proposing
temporary use of the property at 3245 Wayzata Boulevard fo staging of construction activities associated
with the County Road 112 improvement project.
The Planning Commission should review the provided information and discuss the advantages and
disadvantages of having an interim use option in the zoning code and review the draft text amendments.
The Planning Commission should also identify any specific concerns about the proposed construction
staging/materials recycling use and suggest any additional conditions that might be applicable.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Page 10 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, stated as Staff has pointed out,the MnDOT contractor has found
another site, which makes it hard to compete since it is free space. Fretham stated he is not sure the
contractor will stay at that site the entire time and that he is hopeful he can still move forward since the
project will be ongoing for three years.
Lemke noted there was a 3-page letter submitted that raises some concerns.
Fretham indicated he did read the entire letter and that his company has done this type of operation in
areas that were more densely populated. Fretham noted the equipment that is used today is very modern
and controls the dust very well. Fretham indicated he is prepared to adhere to standards that will not
cause problems with the neighbors.
Thiesse asked if he has confirmed whether this would still be a viable operation if materials from outside
the area are not allowed to be brought in. Thiesse noted his understanding is that Phase I will be mostly
concrete recycling and Phases II and III will be more bituminous.
Fretham stated the previous discussion was about needing a site to recycle material and that he would
have more flexibility if materials from other projects can be recycled in conjunction with this project.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Allan Engleman, 315 North Old Crystal Bay Road, stated he is not in favor of Lake West's proposal.
Engelman noted Mike Gaffron made a comment earlier tonight that there is an alternate site with Eureka
on state property and that he wants to know what is going on there. Engleman commented everyone here,
including the City Attorney, says Orono cannot do anything. Engleman stated the City Attorney is not
doing his job and that he wants to know what is happening with Eureka. Engleman asked whether they
will be able to come in there prior to obtaining a permit.
Gaffron stated the City Attorney has advised that the city cannot issue a permit since it is state land and
that Orono does not have permitting authority over state land. Gaffron indicated the City can enforce
certain performance standards on the operation such as times of operation, but that it is difficult to
regulate the operatio since it will occur on state land.
Engleman stated in his view there are things that can be done but they cannot be done immediately.
Gaffron stated he understands Mr. Engleman had a conversation with the City Administrator today who
has told him basically the same thing.
Engleman asked how the state can move in if it is zoned 2-acre residential.
Gaffron stated the state trumps city zoning.
Engleman stated in regards to the letter from the Dumases,they will have a bigger problem now than with
Lake West since the equipment will be closer to them.
Thiesse stated unfortunately the City's hands are tied.
Page 11 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m.
Leskinen stated in concept an interim use permit can be a tool for the City. Leskinen noted when the
Planning Commission discussed this a long time ago and to her recollection there were some cautionary
tales. Leskinen stated the City would have to be very diligent about it and that she is concerned there are
uses that can either be inappropriate and hard to get rid of or may do irreparable damage to the site.
Leskinen indicated she is open to the idea but that she does have some reservations.
Landgraver indicated he is in favor of it since it is another tool in the City's toolbox. Currently the only
tool the City has is a conditional use permit, which goes with the land and is permanent, and the interim
use permit only goes for a certain time period. Landgraver stated it would force the City to be disciplined
and make sure all the T's are crossed.
Leskinen noted in Exhibit A, Section 78-1728c, it states the interim use permit shall be renewed annually
by the City Council. Leskinen asked if they would be reviewed for compliance if they are renewed
annually.
Gaffron stated when the initial interim use permit is established,there would be a trigger date for when it
ends. If the Council decides they want to conduct an annual review,the Council does have the authority
to require that, and can end the interim use if established conditions are not being met.
Leskinen asked if it can be terminated for cause.
Gaffron indicated it can be.
Thiesse asked, once this IUP option is adopted, how many interim use permits might be in place at one
time, 30 or 40?
Gaffron indicated maybe three or four.
Thiesse stated if there will not be that many permits, he would like to review them every six months.
Gaffron stated the time period for the reviews can be written into the IUP resolution for each specific use
and for each specific site.
Leskinen stated the resolution format would be very much like a traditional conditional use where the
conditions are spelled out. Leskinen asked if the main differences are that it does not run with the land
and has a sunset date.
Gaffron indicated that is correct. Gaffron noted the list of allowed interim uses could be a number of
different uses or it could be limited to one use.
Lemke asked what would happen if the site is not restored to its original condition.
Gaffron stated with each interim use permit, an escrow could be established. Gaffron indicated he would
prefer to have incentives to comply included with the approval, such as a larger escrow.
Landgraver asked whether a public hearing would be required.
Page 12 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron indicated it would be. Gaffron noted Line 50 in Attachment A outlines the application
procedures.
Thiesse asked if the City would be obligated to allow a certain use if it is approved at one site.
Gaffron stated if a specific use meets all the conditions we want to establish for that site, there would be
no reason not to approve it, but the Council has the ability to place whatever conditions it wants on it.
Landgraver commented that would allow some flexibility. Landgraver asked how the ordinance language
in part B relates to the text in part A.
Gaffron indicated B adds a section to the RR-1B District entitled Interim Uses, and lists one allowable
interim use that can be applied for.
Leskinen stated A would be the general interim use permit standards, B would be where it is allowed and
what it is, and C(the application for the Eisinger site)would be to establish the specific conditions.
Gaffron stated once the Planning Commission completes its review of A and B, Section C would need to
come back for review of the specific language for the specific site.
Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is only dealing with A and B tonight.
Thiesse stated he has concerns with allowing temporary construction facilities in the RR-1B District and
that in his view it should be located adjacent to the construction project and materials from that project
only.
Lemke suggested the Planning Commission take each section at a time.
Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of text amendment per the attachment
A of the work session packet, but revising the wording of Line 102 to add "at a minimum"
requiring annual review. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Thiesse asked if Staff has any concerns with B.
Gaffron stated the RR-1B District is a fairly substantial residential district. As an interim use,the City is
saying in general this is a district that might allow this,with specific conditions to be established by the
Council, such as a time limit and site layout. Gaffron noted that does not mean the Planning Commission
or City Council is required to approve the use for any property in the RR-1B District. Any proposed use
would have to meet all of the IUP standards contained in A. Gaffron stated if they do not meet those,
even though it is an allowed interim use in the RR-1B district,the City can say no.
Thiesse stated one of his concerns is that the City is jumping forward for a specific project,which is the
Highway 112 project.
Lemke asked if this is the type of thing that would go along with an application.
Page 13 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated in his view the City needs an interim use permit option but that they do not need it right
now. Thiesse commented the City will find out how it works on the MnDOT property and that he is not
sure whether the City has to rush through with this now.
Gaffron stated the applicant has indicated he is looking at future phases should the MnDOT site not work
out.
Thiesse noted Phase II is on the other side of Long Lake and that the materials would need to be hauled
through the city.
Gaffron stated the urgency is not here today as it was a month or two ago.
Landgraver stated since A was approved, an interim use permit can be issued.
Gaffron stated B would also need to be approved. Gaffron noted that similar to the conditional use code
section, if a conditional use or interim use is not listed in the zoning district,then it is not allowed.
Thiesse stated this type of use would need to be identified in the RR-1B district prior to issuing an interim
use permit.
Leskinen commented she has concerns about this particular use since it is so industrial for the RR-1B
district.
Landgraver stated the only identified interim use the City would have is what is listed in B and the only
place where it can be done is in the RR-1B district. Landgraver stated all this is doing is giving the City a
tool.
Thiesse noted the RR-1B district cover the majority of the City.
Landgraver stated someone would still have to apply for an interim use permit and meet all the conditions
that will be set.
Leskinen noted the Planning Commission is not approving the specific interim use permit being requested
by the applicant by approving B but they are saying the City now has this new tool in theory that has to
meet all the conditions the City feels are appropriate.
Thiesse noted there will be equipment that will be generating noise, such as backup beepers and trucks
coming and going. Thiesse stated he does not care about the storage of items on the property but that
there will be a lot of noise and distractions that come from a site like this. Thiesse stated he could
understand it if they are taking the material from Orono's road and recycling it, but that he is not looking
for even a short-term business to come in and do this type of work.
Leskinen stated her concern is bringing in materials from outside projects. Leskinen noted the 3-page
letter also cited concerns with air quality as well as a number of other concerns regardless of the location.
Leskinen stated the use feels so industrial and that she does not want to regret the decision afterwards.
Landgraver stated ironically it is happening and therefore the City is advocating control.
Page 14 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse commented three years from now the City may not ever see another one of these operations
again.
Schwingler stated the concerns are legitimate but noted Orono is not the first community to see this type
of operation.
Thiesse commented the City can make a much better decision in a month after they have had a chance to
observe the other site in operation.
Landgraver stated the reasons for an interim use permit are to allow something the City did not think of
and that it is short-term in nature rather than permanent, creates a land use opportunity, and allows an
empty lot to be used.
Thiesse stated it would come down to C where all the conditions are listed.
Olson asked if B would be attached to every single C that comes forward.
Thiesse stated every C would be under the interim use and the only one before the City is the current
application.
Gaffron stated if someone wants to do a mining operation(the Maple Grove example)that eventually will
become a shopping center, an interim use permit is the perfect way to do it. Gaffron stated interim use
permits have been used successfully elsewhere.
Thiesse stated he is not seeing a big benefit to Orono for this type of use.
Landgraver moved,Schwingler seconded,Application No. 17-3911,Lake West Development,to
recommend approval of the text amendment put forward by Staff for an interim use permit in the
RR-1B district as written in Exhibit B. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
4. #17-3910 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:13 P.M.—8:43 P.M.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, Applicant, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting the City approve a permit for interim use of the property at
3245 Wayzata Boulevard for staging of construction activity associated with the Highway 112
improvement project. There appear to be few suitable options for a staging area for that project and this
property scores high marks in terms of this type of use since the site is open and relatively flat, has good
accessibility, and is relatively remote from nearby residential properties. Potential negative impacts such
as noise,dust, vibration, etc., should be minimal as compared to most other locations within the Wayzata
Boulevard corridor.
Gaffron stated with the assumption that an interim use ordinance is adopted, a list of likely required
conditions for this use at any location would include minimum separation distance from nearby structures
or lot lines, minimum lot size, road maintenance,traffic control measures, and restricted to government
sponsored public improvement projects.
Page 15 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Additional site specific conditions should also be considered in approving the proposed construction
staging use.
The portion of the site proposed for construction staging is primarily over the closed landfill area of the
property. The landfill has been closed for many years and is relatively open and flat. 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. The area which gained preliminary approval
in 2016 for residential development is not within the proposed temporary staging area.
The proposed site use plan indicates the rock construction entrance to 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.
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved an erosion control permit for the construction
staging activity.
The Long Lake Fire Chief has indicated no issues with use of the site for construction staging. The
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 utilized, 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 also 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. 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 applicants have suggested that this site might be used as a recycling yard for projects other than just
the Wayzata Boulevard improvements. The applicants should describe what is actually intended and how
the contractor or Hennepin County expects to operate this site. One question to be answered is 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.
Gaffron noted a letter from the Dumas family in opposition to the proposed use has been received. Some
of their concerns involved the level or type of activity associated with the use,the location of the site,and
the duration of the proposed use.
If the Planning Commission concludes that the 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 16 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
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.
7. Any other conditions the Planning Commission and City Council determine should be included.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, stated in regards to what this operation will look like,the
property consists of 29 acres and is half wetland and half dry. To the east is the wetland area that abuts
the Dumas apple orchard. Fretham stated in his view it is kind of a private or isolated property with no
neighbors in close proximity.
Fretham indicated they have done a recent project in Golden Valley consisting of the demolition and
removal of a large commercial building within a residential zone on a 2-acre site. Fretham stated that was
located in a residential neighborhood,with the homes being located approximately 500 feet away.
Fretham indicated they did that project in an environment that did not cause the nearby residents' cars in
their driveways to get dusty or the furniture on their patios to get dusty. In addition, a similar project was
done in St. Louis Park off of Wooddale. In that situation a church located within a residential area was
removed.
Fretham stated in his view they will be able to do a good job at this site without raising a lot of concerns.
Fretham noted there will be trucks coming and going but that currently there is a fair amount of traffic at
that location and this should not be that noticeable. Fretham stated given the distance from the residential
homes, the noise should not be an issue.
Olson asked if they will be operating during the weekends.
Fretham stated he does not know the answer to the question since he does not have that information
available tonight and that it is possible the contractor might have to work on a Saturday due to weather.
Thiesse stated the crushing activity does not need to occur on the weekends.
Fretham indicated he is willing to work with the neighbors' and address their concerns. Fretham stated he
is not trying to drive hard bargains and that in his view they can accommodate some of those concerns.
Page 17 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated the problem he sees occurring is if the contractor falls behind or wants to complete some
work prior to winter and the apple orchard is open.
Gaffron asked what type of control they will have over the contractor.
Fretham stated they can simply tell the contractor that the site is closed on Saturdays.
Gaffron asked what will happen if the City receives a request for the site to be open on Saturday.
Fretham stated the contractor could stockpile on Saturday and haul on Monday and that in his view it is
not a critical element.
Thiesse asked what end date he is envisioning.
Fretham indicated he is fine with having the end date coincide with the end of the project along with an
annual review.
Lemke asked if it would be a deal breaker for him if this interim use would be for the highway
improvement project only.
Fretham stated part of the issue is about leverage. Fretham stated having an interim use permit and
having the right to bring in materials from other projects would help him negotiate with the contractor.
Lemke noted one of Staff's recommendations is to limit it to the Highway 112 improvement project only.
Fretham stated he does not know if it makes sense to do this without outside materials being brought in.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Thiesse stated as it relates to Item 1,the end date should be upon substantial completion or three years,
whichever is sooner.
Landgraver stated that sounds good.
Thiesse asked if that is substantial completion as stated in the subcontractor's contract.
Gaffron stated under the Phase I contract,the permit for the MnDOT site goes until the end of July, 2018.
Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about allowing materials from other sites to be hauled
to the site.
Leskinen indicated she is not in favor of taking in any other material.
Page 18 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not allow any other outside materials besides those
from the Highway 112 improvement project.
Thiesse noted No. 3 deals with hours of operation, noise, lighting, etc.
Fretham stated he does not anticipate lighting but that it was put in there in case the contractor wanted it
so they did not have to come back.
Thiesse stated downcast lighting would be no different than a parking lot.
Olson asked what the hours of operation would be.
Gaffron indicated Orono's normal construction hours are 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Friday and
8 a.m. to 8 p.m. on the weekends.
Thiesse and Olson indicated they would like Saturday and Sunday to be off.
Fretham stated he is fine with that condition as it relates to the crushing activity.
Olson commented traffic would be a concern on the weekends.
Fretham noted he would like to be able to use the site for storage and that if the contractor is laying pipe
on a Saturday and needs one more piece of pipe, it would be nice if he could retrieve it from the site.
Fretham stated it could be limited to no hauling of materials, which would be heavy traffic.
Landgraver stated his recollection regarding the concern with the apple orchard is that fall is peak season
for them and that he had the understanding the applicant was amenable to restricting traffic on the
weekends.
Thiesse stated if the contractor is one pipe short of finishing, he cannot see stopping them from getting the
pipe.
Lemke suggested the hours be restricted from 8 a.m.to noon on Saturday.
Fretham stated that would probably be easier.
Thiesse noted there would be nothing on Sunday and 8 a.m. to noon on Saturday for retrieving of
materials only. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 4.
Leskinen asked if the public health concerns raised by the Dumases relating to the toxins is something
covered by the MPCA.
Fretham stated he is sure there is some guideline for it and some agency that would be in charge of it but
that he has not come across it in his prior projects. Fretham stated it is probably part of one of the permits
they have to apply for.
Lemke stated he would assume the MPCA would have control over that.
Leskinen asked what items are in place to keep the dust under control.
Page 19 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Fretham commented technology has come a long way and that the equipment has spray bars that spray
water onto the debris to control the dust.
Thiesse noted No. 5 deals with construction of the berm.
Fretham stated the berm will be constructed but that he will need to come back for a separate conditional
use permit for it.
Thiesse stated Item No. 6 is the condition that an annual review of the interim use permit shall be
conducted.
Leskinen stated she would not mind seeing something more frequent, such as a 6-month review.
Landgraver commented there might be seasonal issues that come up and that a 6-month review seems
reasonable,especially since this is the first interim use permit the City will have issued.
Lemnke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3910,
Lake West Development,3245 Wayzata Boulevard West,granting of an interim use permit for
staging of construction activities associated with the Highway 112 improvement project,subject to
Staffs recommendations and the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
5. #17-3918 REHKAMP LARSON ON BEHALF OF BILL TOLES, 1095 FERNDALE
ROAD WEST,VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS,8:43 P.M.—9:02 P.M.
Jean Rehkamp Larson, Applicant, and Charles Fendlayer, Architect, were present.
Curtis stated the owner of the property is requesting the following variances in order to construct a new
residence:
1. Lot area, lot width, lake setback, hardcover within 75 feet of the OHWL, and average lake
setback. In addition, conditional use permits are requested for site grading in excess of 500 cubic
yards for mitigation of areas of the property below the 1 percent annual chance floodplain and to
allow a full bathroom within the proposed detached garage.
The currently proposed footprint is depicted in orange and is situated further back from the lake and
oriented on the property for improved lake views by neighbors than was the previously approved plan.
This property has had a number of variance approvals which are still valid until November of 2017. The
original plan is shown in blue on the overhead.
The applicants' request for hardcover, lake setback, and average lakeshore setback variances results in the
property's inability to conform to the administrative approval provision in Section 78-72 regarding lots of
record. Therefore,the area and width variances are also required to develop this property.
The applicants are proposing to encroach as close as 65 feet to the lake with the home where a 75-foot
setback is required. It also results in an encroachment of approximately 15 feet lakeward of the average
lakeshore setback line. The proposed terraces will encroach as much as 30 feet into the 75-foot setback.
Page 20 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The total site hardcover is proposed to be below the allowed 25 percent at 23.4 percent of the 12,990
square feet of proposed hardcover for the site. 2,300 square feet is proposed within the 75-foot setback.
The code provides for installation of a bull bathroom with a shower and/or bathtub within an accessory
building providing the building is conforming and a conditional use permit is granted. A restricted
covenant is required restricting the general use of the building. The applicant is proposing a full
bathroom in the upper floor of the detached garage. This building will be used primarily for storage, with
the upper floor to the utilized as a yoga studio for the homeowners.
The filling activities exceeding 500 cubic yards within the shoreline require a conditional use permit. It
appears that 1,200 cubic yards of fill material will be brought to the property. The Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District will be reviewing the proposed grading and mitigation plan to ensure that the overall
volume of flood storage has not been diminished.
Staff has conducted an analysis of the practical difficulties and the conditional use permit criteria within
Staff report. The Commission or the public can request to review the individual criteria tonight.
Staff finds practical difficulties based on the size of the property,the areas impacted by the 1 percent
chance of annual flood,the elevation of the property to support the variances for lot area and width as
well as the requested hardcover, lake and average lakeshore setback variances for the new home.
The applicants have provided a landscape plan which appears to offer relief to the neighbors to the west
regarding the floodplain as well as areas of mitigation to limit the impacts of the home on the property.
Comments from the public have been received and have been included in the Commission packet. An
email was distributed to the Commission this evening. In addition, Staff has spoken with the neighbor to
the west at 1101 Ferndale and she indicated that she generally supports the proposed plan but had
concerns or questions regarding how the proposed trees and other vegetation planted on or near the
common property line would affect the light, air and open space they currently enjoy from their home,
specifically from the windows on the east side of the home.
Planning Staff recommends approval. The applicants have demonstrated practical difficulties to support
the requested variances without generating neighborhood opposition. The proposed landscape plan offers
additional infiltration opportunities offsetting the hardcover and structure placed within the 75-foot
setback. They have satisfied the criteria for approval of both of the requested conditional use permits. A
covenant should be signed by the property owners relating to the plumbing within the detached garage.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Jean Rehkamp Larson, Applicant, stated she is here tonight on behalf of Bill Tores. Larson indicated they
have worked closely with the landscape architect to design a house that has a thoughtful scale and broken
into pieces so the massing is not large, and is a much more sensitive plan than the previous proposal.
Larson stated in their view it does address the neighbors' concerns and creates a view corridor from the
Lebedoff's house.
Thiesse asked if what would happen if they rotated the house to be more in line with the average setback.
Page 21 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Larson stated in her opinion it would create more of an obstruction to the neighbor than it currently does.
If the house is rotated, due to the low level of the site,the drainage that occurs on the northwest part of the
site would be reduced and it would be harder to mitigate the water.
Charles Fendlayer, Landscape Architect, noted the site is a very complex site and there have been a lot of
issues with the complexity of how the house is situated on the property. Fendlayer stated this is basically
an unbuildable lot. The highest point on the property is out towards the lakeside where there is the ridge
at about the 100-year floodplain,which is where the previous home used to sit. Soil boring testing closer
to the wetland has found peat and other unstable soils in that area.
One of the main requirements and challenges was to mitigate stormwater onsite. Fendlayer noted they
have been working with a civil engineering firm to create a stormwater management plan, which was one
of the requirements from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Approximately two-thirds of the site
is located underneath the floodplain area and subject to flooding. The proposed design mitigates the same
volume and then some over the requirements of the MCWD. The MCWD has reviewed the plan and
have given a green light to proceed forward with the improvements.
From a landscaping standpoint,the proposed house is set back from the previous proposal and further
away from the western property to help maintain a natural outlet to Lake Minnetonka. The majority of
the existing trees on the property will be maintained and additional trees will be planted on the property.
The infiltration areas will essentially be one giant rain garden and a good portion of the site will be
restored to become a natural meadow to help with mitigation. Fendlayer stated because a lot of the
existing site is right at the water table level,there is not much infiltration currently but the prairie should
help with that.
Landgraver asked if one of the neighbors had concerns with vegetation.
Fendlayer indicated they will be working with that neighbor to address their concerns with vegetation but
the final plans for the site have not yet been finalized.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:55 p.m.
Curtis read the following e-mail received from Christopher Jones:
"To the Orono Planning Commission Members:
I am responding to the Notice of public hearing regarding several properties that directly affect the Long
lake and Lake Minnetonka watersheds, and therefore,the water quality of these watersheds.
Specifically: 17-3918 seeks variances for lot area, lot width, lake setback, average lake setback, and a
0-75 foot hardcover variance. The details of this request is not included in the Public Notice so it is
difficult to assess their individual impacts.
Page 22 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Given the low elevation of this property in relation to Lake Minnetonka, and therefore its potential direct
impact on the lake's water quality, any variance approvals also must seek to include stormwater runoff
remediation through best management practices. This is particularly appropriate for the hardscape
variance being sought. Again, because of the property's low elevations, infiltration of stormwater runoff
will be difficult, and this fact challenges the appropriateness of any hardscape variance request.
Requiring the installation of numerous rainwater gardens using deep root plants is one solution that could
mitigate the impact of any variances being sought;there are other best management practices available,
too. For example, for every square foot of variance sought, an equal square foot of rainwater garden must
be installed. Without this type of trade-off solution building, I encourage the Planning Commission reject
the requests."
Curtis noted the email also discusses Application 17-3929, and concludes by stating: "I truly hope the
Planning Commission will look at these comments as positive and encouraging of the variance process as
long as it includes commensurate requirements for water quality protection so that other efforts to return
Long Lake and Lake Minnetonka's watershed to a healthier state aren't negated."
Thiesse noted the applicant has addressed those concerns and it appears that the practical difficulty has
been addressed. Thiesse commented this is a tough site.
Landgraver stated one of the practical difficulties is the low elevation of the lot and the plan addresses the
overall management of water runoff.
Lemke stated the orientation of the house benefits both neighbors.
Leskinen stated she likes the improvement over the last plan.
Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3918,
Rehkamp Larson on behalf of Bill Toles, 1095 Ferndale Road West,granting of variances and
conditional use permits,subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
6. #17-3927 NATHAN AND BETH BRANDENBURG,825 FOREST ARMS LANE,
VARIANCE,9:02 P.M.—9:05 P.M.
Nathan Brandenburg, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicants' entire home is situated lakeward of the average lakeshore line as determined
by the two adjacent neighboring homes. The applicants have applied for an average lakeshore setback
variance in order to conduct structural improvements to the upper level on the lake side of their home
ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The proposal includes construction of a 780 square foot
expansion over the existing garage within the existing footprint of the home. In addition, a 6' x 7.5
portion of the new second floor area is proposed to bump out over the existing lakeside deck. However,
structural coverage and hardcover levels will not change.
Staff provided an analysis of practical difficulties within the memo and the Planning Commission may
choose to review the individual criteria.
Page 23 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The configuration of the property along the channel creates a unique situation regarding the view. Most
of the homes are situated primarily toward the channel. The neighboring home to the north at 815 Forest
Arms Lane is set back further on their property than the applicants' home. 815 Forest Arms Lane has
little to no direct lake views over the applicants' property since their home is oriented to the west. The
neighbor to the south at 835 Forest Arms Lane faces southwest toward the channel.
Supportive comments from the neighbors were received and have been included in the Commission's
packet.
Planning Staff recommends approval.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Nathan Brandenburg, Applicant, stated the application speaks for itself and that he would be available to
answer any questions.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.
Thiesse commented this is a pretty straight forward application.
Landgraver noted the property owners are not increasing the structural coverage on the lot and that some
thought was put into the plan.
Schwingler moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-927,Nathan
and Beth Brandenburg,825 Forest Arms Lane,granting of a variance per Staff's recommendation.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Landgraver noted an email was received from Mike McElligott in support of the proposed project but that
he did express concerns regarding the condition of the road.
Curtis indicated she did forward the email to the City Engineer.
7. #17-3928 MICHAEL HART,2510 CASCO POINT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,9:05 P.M.—9:13 P.M.
Michael Hart, Applicant, was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to conduct grading and filling
activities on the property to support the construction of a new residence. The applicant proposes to
accommodate a home with a first floor garage. The site currently includes a home with a tuck-under
garage. The grading and filling activities will be in excess of 500 cubic yards of material and the property
is located within the shoreland. Therefore a conditional use permit is required.
Page 24 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The proposed redevelopment of the property will conform to all applicable zoning regulations and no
variances are requested.
Staff provided an analysis of the conditional use permit criteria within the memo and the Planning
Commission can review that criteria tonight.
The applicant is proposing to change the nature of the property to support a different housing style. The
proposed housing style is more in keeping with the immediate neighborhood. To accomplish the desired
house style,the grade must be adjusted to fill the area previously used as driveway for a tuck-under
garage. The proposed home will have a first floor garage elevated above the current grades by
approximately seven feet.
The City Engineer has conducted a review of the preliminary proposed grading plans and a more detailed
review will be performed at the time of the building permit. Additional conditions may be applied at that
time.
Comments from the neighbors have been included in the Commission's packet.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. The City Engineer and Watershed District shall approve the erosion control plan.
2. The street should be swept daily or as needed to keep debris off of Casco Point Road.
3. The applicant must conform to the City's and MCWD's erosion control regulations.
4. Only clean fill is to be imported to the site.
5. Conformance with the City Engineer's requirements at the time of the building permit.
6. Hauling shall occur during allowed construction hours only Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to
8 p.m.
7. The contractor shall post a contact number and able to respond to complaints in a timely
fashion.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Michael Hart,Applicant, stated Staff has done a great job describing the project and that he can answer
any questions the Planning Commission may have.
Thiesse asked if there is room for drainage on the side to keep the runoff off the neighbor's property.
Hart indicated there is.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:11 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Page 25 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:11 p.m.
Landgraver commented this is a well-reasoned re-use of the property and that he appreciates Staff's
recommendation regarding contractors.
Schwingler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3928,
Michael Hart,2510 Casco Point Road,granting of a conditional use permit,subject to the
conditions outlined in Staff's report. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
8. #17-3929 KEENAN& SVEIVEN ON BEHALF OF ANTIONETTE BEENDERS, 1669
NORTH FARM ROAD,VARIANCE,9:13 P.M.—9:38 P.M.
Todd Irvine with Keenan & Sveiven, was present.
Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting approval for replacement and/or reconstruction of the existing
decks and pool as well as replacement of the existing retaining wall system on the lake side of the existing
residence. A conditional use permit is required for grading work as well as variances for average
lakeshore setback encroachment and bluff encroachment.
There is an existing pool with an extensive retaining wall system supporting it as well as some decks
along the lake side of the house. The proposed work involves replacing the pool,the decks, and adding a
second story deck at the southwest corner of the house.
The property is a fairly steep lakeshore lot. The house and pool, decks, and walls are tucked into the top
of a slope that today is defined as a bluff. In 1981, when the house was built,the City did not have a bluff
ordinance. The house was built in a location where today it would not be allowed to be constructed. All
of the proposed work is more than 100 feet from the lakeshore and appears to be at least 75 feet from the
nearest wetland. Gaffron stated the applicants will be conducting a delineation this spring to determine
the exact boundary location of the wetlands.
The first issue is the average setback. In addition to the structure and grading within a bluff,the west half
of the proposed reconstruction actually is encroaching the average setback line as defined by the
lakeshore homes to the west and east. The westerly deck will encroach slightly further lakeward than the
existing deck and patio. The patio area encroachment will be approximately the same or slightly less than
the existing. From a view standpoint the neighboring properties should not be impacted by any of the
proposed construction. The additional encroachment of the deck and pool will be lower than the
neighboring house. It is unclear at this time whether that neighbor has any objections to the second story.
It should be noted that there is an apparent view easement that was established as part of the original
subdivision covenants at the corner of the proposed deck. That easement is not enforceable by the City.
The proposed grading within the lakeshore yard would appear to be necessary in order to match the new
grades resulting from removal o the tiered retaining walls. Proposed grading plans suggest that
approximately 1 to 1.5 feet of fill will be added in an area approximately 40' x 90',totaling between 500-
600 cubic yards. The existing slope in this area is in the 30-35 percent range, while the proposed slope is
in the 35-40 percent range. The proposed slope will be more uniform and will smooth out some of the
minor variations of the existing slope. It appears that a few trees will be removed as part of the grading
plan.
Page 26 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Along the easterly side yard,the tiered retaining wall system will be removed in favor of a single wall
system. In this area existing slopes range from 18 percent to 36 percent. At the base of the slope is a
drainageway within an existing drainage easement. Proposed re-grading after the tiered wall is removed
will result in a uniform slope of about 34-36 percent. Grading plans indicate that the drainageway will
not be filled or graded. A temporary culvert in the drainageway, however, is proposed to allow
construction vehicle access from Long Lake Boulevard. Total fill in this area estimated by Staff is
another 500 cubic yards and will range up to perhaps two feet in depth where it replaces the retaining
walls.
The proposed slope is at the limit of what is maintainable as yard area. The applicants should be asked
what they intend for permanent ground cover in those sloped areas. Grading and filling in a bluff area is
generally prohibited and the existing structures in this area would likely not be allowed under today's
codes. However,their replacement substantially in kind,with only minor revisions to allow for greater
safety, would appear to be reasonable and have no additional impacts on the bluff if appropriate erosion
control and permanent vegetation measures are implemented.
Before the Planning Commission tonight is a letter that was received from Christopher Jones. The letter
talks about the fact that the applicants are seeking variances for average lakeshore setbacks, bluff setback
variances, and a conditional use permit for grading. Jones states that"The proximity of this property to
Long Lake and the slope o the property towards Long Lake suggests that any variance approvals be
paired with rain/storm water remediation best management practices."
Jones further states that"Long Lake is an impaired lake with phosphorus and other chemical levels that
inhibit its ability to recover. Members of the Commission who grew up on Lake Minnetonka in the 1970s
will recall what that body of water looked and felt like,and they will likely recall the 'Save The Lake'
campaign that began that lake's recovery. That's where Long Lake is today, and that's without the
invasive species that compound the problems.
Any variances granted to this property/project also should seek commensurate rainwater runoff treatment
using rainwater gardens or similar management practices to infiltrate runoff before it reaches the
lakeshore. The pool deck is a hardscape surface that will shed its rainwater to the lake, and employing
remediation techniques uphill from the lakeshore towards the pool deck will keep excess contaminated
water from a 100-year rain event from the lake."
Gaffron noted construction of the proposed retaining walls in excess of four feet in height will require
engineering. A stairway adjacent to the easterly pool wall is proposed to replace the existing freestanding
step system located further east of the existing retaining walls and the existing stair system extending
from the westerly decks.
The Planning Commission should review with the applicant what trees will be removed due to the
grading plan and whether any additional screening is necessary. Also recommended to be reviewed with
the applicant is the plan for temporary construction access from Long Lake Boulevard.
In addition,the Planning Commission should discuss the following:
1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner and that the criteria for issuance of variances and a conditional use permit are
met?
Page 27 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances and conditional use permit, if granted, will
not alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose additional conditions in order to mitigate any
impacts created by the granting of the requested variances and conditional use permit?
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance for encroachments of the average lakeshore setback
as well as for structures and grading work within the bluff. The extent of the grading to be accomplished
also meets the threshold for needing a conditional use permit and Staff recommends approval of a
conditional use permit for the grading work, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant to review temporary access from Long Lake Boulevard and the temporary culvert
through the drainage easement with the City Engineer subject to his approval. No impacts to the
drainageway will be allowed.
2. Applicant to provide a vegetation management plan for review by Staff and Council in response
to the grading plan that results in unusually steep slopes.
3. Applicant to conform to all MCWD erosion control requirements.
4. Planning Commission to recommend whether any replacement screening will be required.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Todd Irvine, Landscape Architect with Keenan& Sveiven, indicated he would be able to answer any
questions the Planning Commission might have.
Thiesse asked what size block it planned to be used.
Irvine indicated it would be small block.
Thiesse asked about access to the site.
Irvine indicated it is difficult to access the back area of the property due to the side slopes on the east side
of the house. In the past there was access from Long Lake through the property when the storm drainage
system was constructed. Irvine indicated there is an opening there currently that they would use to access
the site without coming all the way down Long Lake Road.
Thiesse asked if he is amenable to a stormwater drainage pond.
Irvine stated they have not discussed that but noted they have reduced the actual structural footprint of the
property. Irvine stated everything that is disturbed is proposed to be seeded with a low-grow fescue grass
that will be mowed occasionally. An erosion control blanket will be placed down to prevent erosion until
the seed is established.
Thiesse asked if the contours on the left side will allow the trees to be saved.
Page 28 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Irvine indicated they will be. Irvine noted there are a couple of trees on the survey that do not exist today
due to storm damage. In addition,two trees will be removed in the area of the work.
Lemke stated his only concern relates to the slope. Lemke asked whether fescue will be enough to retain
that slope.
Irvine stated it will be and that it is a 2.5 to 1 slope,which is a mowable, maintainable slope. Irvine
indicated the wall will be engineered.
Thiesse stated his biggest concern is also the slope. Thiesse stated placing a foot of dirt on top of a bluff
raises the chance for that slope to slide.
Irvine indicated the fill will be compacted in lifts as it is brought in and shelfed. Irvine stated there is a 3-
tier retaining wall system that is deteriorating consisting of approximately 16 vertical feet of retaining
wall. With the slope revisions, the height of the retaining wall will be reduced to ten feet. In addition,the
size of the pool and patio space will be reduced.
Thiesse asked whether the view easement is an issue.
Gaffron stated the private covenant view easement is one the City cannot enforce. If the neighbors or
association want to enforce it,that is their privilege. Gaffron stated the City has not heard from the
neighbors on this project and that he is not sure whether they have any views of that area or whether they
have any issues with the second story.
Irvine indicated he did provide a plan and drafted a letter to both neighbors. The neighbor to the west has
indicated he is supportive of the project. The other neighbor wrote a note on the letter that said they were
in favor of the project as well.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:29 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:29 p.m.
Schwingler stated he would agree with having some type of rain garden there to help mitigate the runoff
into Long Lake.
Thiesse asked whether there is any criteria for building on a bluff.
Gaffron stated because the code typically prohibits construction in the bluff area,there really are no
criteria to follow. Gaffron indicated he would want the engineers to take a look at this prior to it
proceeding to the City Council but that in his view shelfing the fill makes a lot of sense. Gaffron stated
the applicant will need to make sure the drainageway stays open and a location for some sort of
stormwater management system should be considered for the lower end of the drainageway.
Irvine indicated they have submitted a permit application for erosion control to the Watershed District.
Thiesse asked whether the applicant has any plans for screening.
Page 29 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Irvine indicated it would be grass coming all the way up and that they are not opposed to planting trees in
that area to mitigate the loss of the two trees that will be removed. The landscape planting plan between
the steps that come down on the right-hand side incorporates vines to help obscure the wall.
Landgraver asked if any kind of stormwater management will be done further down the slope.
Irvine stated the whole drainageway across this property drains this site as well as the road and that in his
view it is not practical to place a rain garden in that area. Irvine stated there might be an option for some
stormwater management in the area of the pool.
Gaffron stated that is a good point and that it might not be appropriate to place the burden on this
applicant to solve that problem since the hardcover is really not being changed.
Irvine stated in his view the size of the rain garden that would be needed at the bottom would be rather
large.
Gaffron indicated he will ask the City Engineer whether there is something that can be done to improve
the situation.
Lemke asked whether a more comprehensive landscape plan will be done prior to proceeding to the City
Council.
Irvine stated they can do that.
Leskinen moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3929,Keenan&
Sveiven on behalf of Antionette Beenders, 1669 North Farm Road,granting of a variance and
conditional use permit based on Staff recommendations,with additional stormwater and
landscaping information being provided prior to the application going before the City Council
along with review of the City Engineer of the drainage plan. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
9. #17-3931 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,ON BEHALF OF RICK AND
BARBARA LUPIENT,PMS 20-117-23-42-0001/0002/003 (LOTS 1,2,AND 3 CASCO POINT
ADDITION), SKETCH PLAN,9:38 P.M.—10:20 P.M.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, was present.
Gaffron stated this is a sketch plan for a proposed two-lot subdivision of a vacant property located at the
north end of Ivy Place on Casco Point. The property consists of three existing tax parcels that the
applicants propose to reconfigure into two residential building lots, each exceeding the 1/2-acre minimum
lot size of the LR-1C District.
Gaffron displayed the 1955 plat of the property. In 1955,the northerly edge of this area was a thin
peninsula, and the center of the peninsula was wetland.
Gaffron displayed some aerial photographs from 1945 through 1975 depicting the property and
surrounding area. Gaffron noted by 1960 the area had become filled in a little bit more, and by 1970, it
had been completely filled in. By 1971 some volunteer trees have started to grow on the property.
Gaffron stated this is a piece of property that has been vacant but has gone through a number of changes.
Page 30 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The property was replatted in 1971 from the initial two Registered Land Survey(RLS)tracts into three
lots but remained vacant. In 1975, an application to re-plat the property to convert the three lots into just
two lots was reviewed. Despite opposition from the neighborhood and allegations that the filling was
done illegally, the re-plat was approved with the understanding that the approval should not be construed
as building permit approval nor that the land was buildable. The re-plat into two lots was never filed and
the property currently remains as three separate vacant tax parcels.
The applicants have submitted a fairly detailed sketch plan for review tonight. A tree inventory has been
completed for the property. A majority of the trees are volunteer trees of poor quality. A line of huge
cottonwoods once stood along the Carman Bay shoreline but were girdled by beavers and eventually were
removed.
The applicants are proposing to construct two homes on the property. Gaffron noted there are a variety of
existing easements that will need to be eliminated. There is also a view easement in favor of the Powell
property at 2916 Casco Point Road which limits the number, location and height of the homes allowed.
In addition,there are portions of the property located within the floodplain that would need to be filled.
The applicants are also proposing an outlot with a driveway as far away from the wetland as possible but
still remain within the outlot. The driveway will require a hardcover variance. While eight feet of width
is minimal for a driveway serving two residences,that is the maximum width allowed by code within 75
feet of the lake. With the driveway located so close to the lake, it would be appropriate that stormwater
management facilities be established to mitigate impacts of runoff from the driveway.
Gaffron noted there was a City project completed approximately five years ago to enhance the shoreline
in the area adjacent to the lagoon to cover the City's sewer line. An easement was also created for a cul-
de-sac on the property many years ago but the cul-de-sac was never constructed. City sewer and water
are available to the property.
A very small wetland was delineated within existing Lot 3. If it is determined that filling of this wetland
is required, mitigation may or may not be necessary. The applicants are well aware that the majority of
the property is a filled wetland and likely will require extraordinary measures such as pilings in order to
support homes.
Each of the proposed two lots exceeds the minimum acreage requirements. Lot 1 consists of
approximately 0.6 acres in area and Lot 2, being platted as a back lot given the unusual property shape
and access limitations, more than meets the 150 percent lot area requirement at approximately 1.4 acres.
Each lot exceeds the 100-foot width requirement.
The front/back lot configuration was recommended by Staff as the most conforming method of converting
these three lots into two. The existing driveway easement with cul-de-sac becomes a limiting factor for
development of the site and cannot be counted towards lot area. In order to convert the three lots into two
lots, a new, relocated access corridor to get past proposed Lot 1 is necessary.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
1. Applicants should be asked to address how they plan to resolve the noted easement and/or
encroachment issues, including the Powell view easement; the potential sewer connection
Page 31 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
encroachment from the adjacent home at 3560 Ivy; and the deck and driveway encroachments
from 3560 Ivy.
2. Does the Planning Commission have any concerns regarding mitigation of the impacts to
floodplain,wetlands and trees that are likely with this proposed development?: Site re-grading
over much of the property is anticipated with the proposed plan.
3. Access to the property for development/home construction is likely to be very difficult and will
likely require heavy vehicles needing to access the property on a very narrow road and minimal
accessibility without impacting the immediate neighbor. Contractor parking is likely to be
difficult. The impacts to the neighborhood during the construction process, and especially to the
adjoining residence, will likely be extreme. Applicant should be asked to address how these
issues and impacts will be mitigated.
4. Does the Planning Commission have any concerns regarding the lot layouts and front-lot/back-lot
configuration? The proposed house location on Lot 2 will require re-designation of yards in order
to have a southerly setback less than 45 feet. As shown, the setback from that south line is ten
feet and Staff would suggest that 15 feet be required per the back lot code if that is considered as
a side yard.
5. Does the Planning Commission agree that the average lakeshore setback can be established at
seventy-five feet from the lake for both Lots 1 and 2 as part of the replatting approval??
6. Applicants should address possible stormwater management practices and facilities to be
employed both during construction and on a permanent basis.
7. As part of the preliminary plat review process, comments will be requested from the public
Works, Police and Fire Departments as to the impacts of development of this property over the
short term and long term.
Gaffron stated the goal of the sketch plan is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent
City ordinances and how they affect the proposal.
Thiesse asked if that is a nonconforming cul-de-sac as it relates to length.
Gaffron indicated he has not checked the length of the existing road to see if it meets City standards. It
has been in existence since before the standard existed.
Thiesse asked if a conditional use permit for fill is being requested.
Gaffron stated it is likely additional such approvals will be required when a preliminary plat application is
submitted.
Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, stated when they first started on this project, Staff had requested
that he obtain a letter from the Watershed District explaining their position on whether this is buildable or
not buildable. Fretham indicated he does have that letter and it has been submitted. The second item that
Staff requested be addressed was the"mesic oak forest"designation(shown in the Hennepin County
Page 32 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Natural Resources Inventory for Orono)which would not be buildable. Fretham stated a tree study has
been completed and the property is endowed primarily with box elders, and few if any oaks.
Fretham stated in his view they can enhance this property in a number of ways as well as address the
neighbors' concerns.
Thiesse asked if he is aware of all the easements and can handle them.
Fretham stated he is aware of the easements and that they are aware of the view easement which restricts
the homes to one level. Fretham indicated he is considering negotiating a payment to the Powells that
would allow them some flexibility. Fretham stated he would like to have this move along a little further
before addressing that.
Fretham noted there are some encroachments from the neighboring property that they are aware of and he
is willing to work with them as well. In addition,there are some easements that are in the wrong location
and those can be fixed. Fretham stated he is very confident in their ability to sort those out.
Lemke asked if any borings have been done.
Fretham indicated soil borings have been done and they know that nonstandard footings will have to be
done. Fretham stated in today's world with recent technology it is not nearly as complicated as it used to
be. Fretham stated they are not planning to drive pilings and can use a more economical method, such as
helical piers or screw pilings.
Lemke asked whether fill would need to be added.
Fretham stated they will need to have some fill and that they would like to raise the grade around the
homes one to two feet, with some areas as high as three feet.
Thiesse asked if the City has any restrictions on screw pilings.
Gaffron indicated they do not and that there was a project done six to eight years ago elsewhere in Orono
where they utilized screw pilings.
Thiesse asked if an eight-foot driveway is the widest it can go.
Gaffron stated it is, given its location, and that restrictions will have to be placed on it preventing a future
owner from widening it. Gaffron noted there is no way to access the property without a driveway
encroaching into the 0-75 setback.
Thiesse asked if he has spoken with any of the neighbors about the proposal.
Fretham indicated he did speak with two of the neighbors and one of the neighbors had a lot of concerns
since it will no longer be a vacant space to run their dog and other things they have done in the past. At
the same time, Fretham noted the property has been platted as three lots and has been taxed for a long
period of time but the neighbors are aware that things could change.
Page 33 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Fretham stated as it relates to the 8-foot driveway,they could possibly do two four-foot sections with a
two foot spacing in between to provide a wider driveway.
Gaffron stated the City has not allowed strip driveways in the past and that the entire width is counted as
hardcover.
Thiesse asked if most of the trees will be gone as a result of the fill.
Fretham indicated it is likely that most of the trees will be removed but they will be planting better trees
with higher sustainability. A tree quality study has been completed and a number of the trees are storm
damaged or of poor quality. Fretham indicated they have not created a landscape plan at this point but
that they do plan on planting additional trees with some longevity.
Thiesse asked if he has any concerns about the possible mitigation.
Fretham stated they will be doing some floodplain mitigation.
Gaffron stated the 931.5 contour is the 100-year floodplain elevation.
Landgraver asked if there is a small wetland on the property.
Gaffron pointed out the location of the wetland on the property. Gaffron stated it would be difficult to tell
that it is a wetland if you were standing on the property.
Fretham indicated they are proposing to relocate that wetland to the point.
Thiesse asked if they will be bringing any materials into the property across the lake.
Fretham commented that might be one way to address some of the construction traffic concerns. Fretham
noted the property is two acres and that they can create some onsite construction traffic parking as well to
alleviate concerns with neighborhood street parking. In addition, wood chips can be put down on a
temporary basis to avoid compacting the ground.
Thiesse asked if the footprints shown in the sketch plan drawings are their best guess.
Fretham stated in his view the footprints are fairly representative of what will be constructed unless they
are required to abide with the one-story level. Fretham stated Staff would like to see a 15-foot setback
instead of the 10 feet that is shown, which they are open to changing. Fretham stated it was laid out the
way it is because they were cognizant of the neighbor's concerns.
Thiesse asked if there is a 15-foot setback required.
Gaffron indicated it is 15 feet. Gaffron stated with this type of a subdivision and this kind of an odd lot
configuration,the City may need to make some specific yard designations for this site since it will not fit
into a specific code. Gaffron stated in his view 15 feet is totally reasonable for that setback from
proposed Lot 1. Gaffron stated he is not sure whether there is any possibility of moving one of the lot
lines or putting it at an angle. Gaffron stated this is one of those situations where there needs to be
attention to details.
Page 34 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse asked if the average lakeshore setback would be established at the time of subdivision approval.
Gaffron indicated it would be,
Thiesse asked if the applicant knows what stormwater management will be done.
Fretham stated he has an idea of what needs to be done.
Thiesse commented the applicant should be aware that he is surrounded by a lake that Orono takes great
steps to protect.
Gaffron stated as part of a preliminary plat application, Staff will need to know where the fire and police
chiefs stand on things, especially as it relates to emergency access and turnaround. Gaffron stated this is
an opportunity to resolve some issues but they might not be able to accomplish everything on this
property. Gaffron stated if improvements need to be made to the cul-de-sac, the greater question becomes
where the land for road or turnaround expansion comes from.
Thiesse asked if there is a lift station in the area.
Gaffron stated there is a lift station as well as a sewer line that goes along the shore. The applicant will
have the ability to utilize that existing line.
Thiesse asked if there are any definitions for single-story or whether they would be allowed 14 or 16-foot
ceilings with a pitched roof.
Fretham stated the language(of the easement) is vague.
Lemke commented it would be nice to go above the single story to lessen the footprint.
Fretham stated they would like to do that as well.
Lemke stated the back to back driveways seem kind of clumsy.
Fretham stated the challenge is limiting the hardcover. Fretham stated they have the land mass but it is
quite restrictive to run the driveway that far. Fretham indicated they will continue to look at that.
Thiesse asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on the sketch plan.
Tera White, 3560 Ivy Place, stated their property was developed in the 1940s and that it does flood.
White stated as more fill is brought in, that raises a concern about where the runoff will go since they are
located at the bottom of the hill.
Thiesse stated her concern has been noted.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
Page 35 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
10. #17-3932 GORDON JAMES CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF YMCA OF THE
GREATER TWIN CITIES, 135 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, SKETCH PLAN
This item was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant.
11. #17-3922 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: WETLANDS PROTECTION, 10:20
P.M.— 11:40 P.M.
Barnhart stated the wetland regulation was the sixth highest priority identified by the Planning
Commission and City Council last year. The Development Process Review Committee has provided
some guidance and suggestions for amendments to those regulations. It has been noted by people over
the years that the City's regulations are stricter than the Watershed District and that some possible
modifications might be in order. The first main area identified by Staff where the City and the Watershed
District differ is when wetlands are required to be delineated and the type of delineation. The second
main area is the requirement of a setback beyond required buffer or when no buffer is required. Barnhart
noted the City has an additional buffer in addition to the Watershed District in some situations.
The goal behind the buffer setback is to establish ground features to help filter the water prior to entering
the wetlands. The City also has an additional setback so there is some additional separation. For
example, if there is a 25-foot buffer requirement imposed by the Watershed District,the City requires that
extra 10 feet in order to provide people some room to move around their house.
From a wetland delineation standpoint,the Watershed District makes it clear that a wetland delineation is
only required when someone is constructing a new principal residential structure or are doing a project
that proposes impacts to a wetland. A true wetland delineation requires field work and a licensed
surveyor visiting the site. Normally that delineation cannot be done until May when the vegetation starts
growing so the surveyors can observe that, which provides someone only six months to obtain a
delineation. there is also a 15-day waiting or comment period on the delineation.
The City will require a wetland delineation as part of a subdivision, on a new principal residential
structure, a project that proposes impacts to a wetland, or when other rules related to stormwater
management or waterbody crossings are triggered. The City also currently requires a wetland delineation
when hardcover or grading is proposed within 150 feet of a wetland. The City allows a desk delineation
for projects that are clearly not impacting the wetland, which is usually when the improvement is below
the wetland and/or separated by extreme distances.
Barnhart stated the idea that Staff had in terms of drafting an ordinance was to make the City's rules more
consistent with the Watershed District's. A full delineation is required for new principal residential
structures, subdivisions,and other projects triggering Watershed requirements. A Tier 1 or desk review
delineation may be accepted by the City for all other projects regardless of distance from the project area.
If the applicant disagrees with the City's interpretation of the wetland boundary, a full delineation may be
provided. Other smaller projects, such as decks or patios, require a verification through a desk review or
a Tier 1 review.
The second issue that was addressed relates to the buffers. The Watershed District establishes a buffer
when a wetland is impacted or when a wetland is downgradient of work triggering the Wetland Protection
Rule. A buffer is a no-touch area surrounding the delineated wetland. Additions to existing homes,
Page 36 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
accessory structures and buildings, etc., do not trigger the Wetland Protection Rule and therefore the
Watershed District does not require a buffer if one was not already established.
The City has established a 10-foot setback from the buffer or 35 feet from the wetland edge, whichever is
greater. This setback is intended to protect water quality and to separate manmade improvements from
the natural features of the land. The ten feet is intended to prevent structures placed in such a way that
impacts the no-touch characteristics of the buffer and allows property owners to walk or move equipment
between a structure and the buffer.
With respect to buffers,there are three primary options:
Option 1: Recognizing that the Watershed District's focus is regional and the City's is smaller, retain the
existing setback requirements. Make no changes to buffers.
Option 2: Recognizing the City's role in water quality protection,yet balance the need for use of land,
reduce the setback to 22 feet where no buffer is required or has been established. 22 feet is
nine and one half feet more than the shortest possible buffer required by the Watershed District
for residential properties. Plus, 22 feet is a memorable setback, less likely to be lost in the
mind of the applicant, to the benefit of protecting the wetland.
Option 3: Completely defer buffer requirements to the Watershed District and remove the requirement of
a setback from undeclared buffers and the additional ten feet from declared buffers.
Staff does not recommend eliminating setbacks from wetland edges as this would allow an improvement
at the wetland boundary, offering no protection to the wetland, or the improvement due to wetland bounce
and poor soil conditions. Staff can support a reduction in the setback, which balances the goals of water
quality and use of the property.
Written comments have been received and are included in the Commission's packet.
Barnhart noted the majority of the changes can be found on Page 3, Lines 90 through 99, which talks
about Tier I versus Tier 2 delineations and when those type of delineations would be required. The chart
incorporates Option 2 and provides some idea of the impact of the changes. Staff is looking for feedback
tonight from the Planning Commission on this item.
Lemke asked what constitutes a wetland.
Barnhart stated there are several criteria that establish the presence of a wetland, such as the presence of
water, soils, and certain vegetation. Those characteristics help establish the type of wetland.
Lemke asked whether they could look at the dead vegetation to establish a wetland.
Barnhart indicated the vegetation needs to be actively living. Barnhart stated currently the City has a
Type I and a Type II wetland. Barnhart indicated he did not utilize that language since the Bureau of Soil
and Water has a Type I and a Type II wetland and he did not want to confuse the two. Currently the
ordinance allows for a desk review, when those would be used, as well as provide some direction to Staff
on how those are employed. Barnhart stated a Tier 2 wetland delineation would be as required by the
Watershed District, and as with any decision Staff makes,the applicant can appeal that decision.
Page 37 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated it was always his understanding there was a 25-foot buffer and the additional 10 feet was
considered a setback. Thiesse stated by going to what is being proposed,the City will need to be more
diligent about keeping people out of the buffer.
Barnhart stated what is being proposed, starting on Line 115, is changing the distance from 35 to 22.
Barnhart indicated there would still be the buffer established by the Watershed District and then adding
ten feet of setback. Currently the minimum setback to any building, principal or accessory, is 35 feet and
the draft ordinance reduces that to 22 feet where no formal buffer is required. Where a formal buffer
exists or is required, it would be 22 feet or established buffer width plus ten feet,whichever is greater.
Barnhart stated the effect of the chart on Line 115 is to show the changes from 35 feet to 22 feet.
Olson asked if the net loss would be 13 feet.
Barnhart indicated the net difference would be 13 feet in both circumstances.
Schwingler asked why he decided on 13 feet.
Barnhart stated the minimum buffer established by the Watershed District is 12.5 feet. Barnhart indicated
he took that 12.5 feet, plus a 1-foot setback, and arrived at 22.5 feet, which was then rounded down to 22
feet. Barnhart stated it is important to note that wetland buffer averaging would require approval by the
Watershed District and would likely require a formal wetland delineation, so it would not be applicable
for a small shed in the back yard.
Landgraver stated to his recollection the City had one variance application to the buffer in the past year
and that it does not happen very frequently.
Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission does not feel there is an issue, it can be left at 35 feet and that
the biggest impact would be related to the wetland delineations.
Landgraver asked what situations would be exist where the City would impose a former buffer.
Landgraver stated his understanding was the MCWD imposed all the buffers.
Barnhart stated they do, but that there might be a situation where a property owner constructed a home in
2005 and at that time there was a buffer of 65 feet required. Then in 2017 the property owner would like
to construct a shed in their back yard. The City would add ten feet to that buffer from a setback
standpoint.
Landgraver asked if there is a situation where the City has imposed a formal buffer.
Barnhart stated he does not want to say the City has not done that but that he is not aware of any.
Landgraver asked if there is any type of quantitative feedback on the current buffer the City has.
Barnhart stated there probably is a way to equate lake quality and lake frontage and then compare it to
other communities but that he does not have that information at the present time.
Page 38 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver stated the City does not have a lot of requests for buffer setbacks and that he is not sure
whether Orono should go back to a lower number.
Barnhart stated Orono's stance on protecting the water quality does not just impact the wetlands but it
also includes the lake yard,the lake,the wetlands, and all of those things that come into consideration.
The main impact of the regulation will be for people who would like to do improvements that do not
trigger a full wetland delineation by the Watershed District. This ordinance would give them 13 feet of
their yard back where improvements can be done, which will benefit the smaller lots more. Barnhart
stated the Planning Commission will need to decide whether 13 feet is appropriate.
Landgraver commented the desk review is a way to serve the citizens better.
Gaffron stated from a practical standpoint, when there is no formal delineation, Staff does not know
where the edge of the wetland is and that they are unsure where to start measuring that setback. Gaffron
stated that then becomes a functional issue in trying to implement an ordinance.
Lemke stated he likes the delineation improvement and that he would prefer to leave the buffer and
setback as is.
Leskinen noted she has received emails and letters from people encouraging her to vote in favor of
Option 1. Leskinen stated the City does not receive very many variance requests to the buffer and that
one of the main goals of the City is to protect the water quality.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 10:49 p.m.
Justin Kinve, 950 Willow View Drive, stated his neighborhood is greatly impacted by the wetlands and
that the draft amendment goes a long way to address a lot of concerns. Kinve indicated he would be
against Option 2 and be more in favor of Option 3.
Kinve stated when a neighborhood like his is platted and built,the Watershed District comes in and they
do the determinations on the wetlands. The Willow View neighborhood was given wetland buffers,
which the City has on file. Kinve indicated he is not looking to change any of that.
Kinve noted four years ago he ran into major problems attempting to place a small structure in his back
yard. One of the issues was that Willow Road was widened, which resulted in more flooding and high
water levels in the neighborhood. Kinve stated if he had a delineation done now, he likely would lose
more use of his property. Kinve stated since there is already that buffer, he is not sure going back another
10 feet would do anything for people. Kinve stated he would also not be in favor of the house being right
up to the buffer setback but that patios, fire pits,or sports courts could be closer to the wetland since there
is already that buffer.
Kinve stated in general the draft ordinance is a major step forward. Kinve stated his neighborhood has
had a ton of problems relating to the wetland issues,and the lack of hearing about it might not necessarily
mean it is not an issue simply because people have given up. Kinve stated people have had to spend
thousands of dollars obtaining a delineation and six of his neighbors have expressed concerns about the
additional setback. Kinve stated protecting the water quality is great and the buffers do that. Kinve stated
in his view other structures could be constructed closer to the buffer, especially since the Watershed
District allows structures right up against the buffer.
Page 39 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse asked if some of those wetlands were created.
Kinve indicated they were and some of them were a result of mitigation. Kinve stated the bigger issue is
the current drainage system, which is not working right.
Thiesse asked if there is a reason why a platted development with platted wetlands would not govern over
everything.
Curtis stated that is how the Watershed District treats it but it is not how WACA treats the wetlands.
Barnhart noted the Watershed District does not require the setback but it does require a buffer in certain
situations. Staff is proposing Option 2, which is kind of in the middle.
Kinve stated it should depend on the type of structure that is being constructed on how far away from the
buffer it should be. Kinve indicated there are water permeable materials that could be used if the
structure is being constructed to the buffer. Kinve stated he would like it to be very transparent, and if
there are delineations, a person should be able to rely on them for the purposes of planning without
having to worry about an additional setback since it erodes a person's use of their property even more.
Landgraver asked what he would prefer if he had a choice between having a fixed delineation when the
properties are platted plus a buffer or whether it should be more of a dynamic one that can be changed
periodically.
Kinve stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District treats it more as a permanent delineation unless
there is a significant change. Kinve stated in his view Option 3 completely aligns Orono with the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Kinve stated he is not for incrementalism simply for
incrementalism's sake, which is what Option 2 is about. Kinve stated he would not be in favor of having
the principal structure right up to the buffer but that other accessory structures could be built right up to
the buffer.
Thiesse commented the intent of the setback was to allow people some additional space in their back yard
but then the setback prohibits them from doing much of anything in that area.
Gaffron stated accessory structures could be right up to the edge of the buffer since people probably do
not care that they cannot walk around the back of their shed or sports court. Gaffron stated the setback
prohibits people from constructing anything in that area.
Kinve stated if the principal structure is built right up to the buffer, it is likely people will incrementally
move into the buffer.
Gaffron noted the City had a 26-foot setback from the edge of the wetland from 1975 until 2005. From
2005 to 2013,there was a buffer requirement plus a setback and the City would determine the location of
the buffer. In 2013, the City decided to go with the Watershed District's buffer along with a setback.
Gaffron asked whether the Watershed District follows WACA rules.
Barnhart stated to his knowledge they do but that he will verify that.
Page 40 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Kinve indicated he would be in support of an ordinance that gives the residents guidance on where the
lines are so then they do not have to worry about the water level changing periodically.
Barnhart stated that is part of the challenge and the reason why delineations are only valid for five years.
Thiesse noted the delineation and the amount of wetland were developed for this specific property.
Barnhart commented he is not sure what the WACA rules states regarding that.
Christopher Jones, 2320 Longview Circle, noted he did submit some written comments regarding this
issue. Jones stated he would like to commend Staff for their excellent recitation of Orono's history in
protecting the water quality of the area lakes and streams. Jones stated what that points to is the fact that
Orono really does care about water quality and has taken very proactive steps to protect that so it does
continue to preserve the quality of water that flows down the creek.
Earlier this evening there were comments made about abdicating the rights, responsibilities, and the
power of the City Council and the Planning Commission. Jones stated the ability to control things at the
local level, especially as more and more developments take place, is important. Jones noted the purpose
of the buffer is to keep large amounts of water from reaching the watershed too quickly and that the City
needs to look carefully at any structures that shed water into the wetland regardless if it is a shed or a
sports court. If a case by case basis is needed,that option should be made available.
Jones stated when it comes to lakeshore property,those property owners should be required to do
something to mitigate runoff from going into the lake directly, such as an additional buffer zone or
plantings.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 11:13 p.m.
Schwingler commented he appreciates Mr. Kinve's experience with this and that he has had several
people call and say they wanted the opportunity to have input but they just found out about it. Schwingler
noted the Watershed District looks out for the interests of the District and not necessarily the City.
Schwingler noted Long Lake has Grade D water quality and Lake Minnetonka is worse than it ever has
been. Schwingler stated in his view the City should get more public input.
Barnhart stated the Planning Commission could table this item to allow for more discussion.
Schwingler commented the discussion should also include Big Island.
Landgraver stated his inclination would be to not make a change on the buffers until there is a robust
discussion on it and to go with Option 1 at this time.
Olson asked what a desk delineation would look like for someone who is doing a major remodel of the
house. Olson asked whether a desk delineation could miss some things.
Barnhart indicated a full delineation is the gold standard and hopefully will catch everything in terms of
the wetland boundaries. A desk review would be a review of the currently available information
regarding what the wetland delineation is or the boundaries are in order to measure setbacks. Barnhart
Page 41 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
stated from a remodel standpoint or a large addition to a home,a full delineation would not be required in
all situations and a desk review would be utilized to verify setbacks. If it appears that the building
addition is encroaching into the setback,then the resident may have to modify their plans or submit
additional information, such as a wetland delineation.
Barnhart stated if the concern is that not enough people were aware about the buffer question,that would
be a moot point if no changes are going to be recommended. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission
wants to consider changes to the buffer,then it might make sense to split this up into two ordinances and
allow for additional input.
Dennis Walsh, 1354 Rest Point Circle, noted wetland delineations can only be done from May through
October during the growing season, which is part of the issue. If someone wants to do something on their
property,they may be delayed as a result of the need for a wetland delineation, which is part of the reason
for the proposed change.
Walsh stated as it relates to the wetland buffers,there are not a lot of variances requested or approved
since a practical difficulty needs to be demonstrated. Walsh stated it is similar to the 0-75 foot zone in
that you cannot build in that zone but you can still walk in that area, but with a buffer,there is also a
10-foot setback added on to that buffer prohibiting structures, which limits a person's ability to use their
property. Walsh stated the Development Process Review Committee felt the City should follow the
Watershed District's direction on this.
Kinve asked whether someone can skate on a pond located in the buffer area.
Thiesse commented that is a good question and that he does not know the answer to it. Thiesse stated as
far as the 10-foot setback is concerned, it is not a buffer but a piece of land that allows someone to access
their back yard.
Thiesse asked whether it would alleviate any of Mayor Walsh's concerns if the City opens that setback
area up a little to allow more usage in that.
Walsh stated he is trying to give more flexibility,which does not mean that he wants people to build right
up to the buffer. From a delineation standpoint,the ordinance is attempting to make it a little easier with
the desk review for the residents. Walsh stated the Planning Commission should look at whether a
setback is needed, and if so, what that setback should be.
Kinve commented his position is that the LGU should not rule in this town and that the City should do
something to provide that flexibility and allow different structures in the setback. Kinve stated the
principal structure should not go up to the buffer.
Christopher Jones stated the Minnehaha CreekWatershed District has a regional view and Orono has a
local view. Jones stated in his view Orono probably owes it to itself to retain control of its local
environment to some extent, particularly in situations where it occurs on a frequent basis or where it
might be more appropriate to weigh in at the local level rather than abdicating it to a regional authority.
Jones stated if the City does not have the information or the data to suggest why this is a good idea to
change,then why change it. Jones stated there could be a lot of unknowns and that there may have been
other influences that changed the wetland that had nothing to do with buffers and watershed issues. If
Page 42 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
there is nothing that suggests that this is a good idea to do other than simply changing it, perhaps opening
it up for more discussion is more appropriate than approving it at 11:30 at night.
Thiesse closed the public hearing at 11:30 p.m.
Olson stated in his view the potential impact is too great to change it and that it might not be worth it to
change the buffer. Olson commented Orono has a very local decision making capacity here and they
should utilize that. Olson stated in his view there is some way to streamline things and that a fire pit or a
sports court could be a variance situation since there could be some practical difficulty associated with
those situations. Olson stated he does not feel it is worth changing the buffers due to the potential
environmental impacts and that it could be taking a step back.
Leskinen and Lemke indicated they are in agreement with Commissioner Olson.
Olson asked what the Planning Commission can do if it wants to do something with delineations.
Barnhart stated wetland delineations are an issue and that Options 2 and 3 only relate to the buffers.
Barnhart stated he is hearing from the Planning Commission that they should move the draft ordinance
forward with the recommended changes on the wetland delineations as proposed by Staff and to utilize
Option 1 relative to the buffers.
Thiesse stated he is not sure if Option 1 is exactly what they want. Thiesse indicated he likes Option 1
but in his view there could be some leniency put in there.
Barnhart stated what he would recommend is that the Planning Commission put forth a recommendation
on the wetland delineation as proposed and make no changes to the wetland buffer but that if the City
Council would like to make changes to the buffer,they could recommend that the Council remand it back
to the Planning Commission for further public input.
Thiesse commented he would like to have further discussion on the buffers and get some more
background information on why the buffers are the way they are.
Landgraver asked if the Council could vote on the buffers if the Planning Commission tables that portion
of it.
Barnhart stated the Council can change any portion of the ordinance they want regardless if there is a
recommendation from the Planning Commission or not. Barnhart stated the only way the Planning
Commission could discuss it further is if they table it.
Thiesse recommended the Planning Commission choose Option 1 with the recommendation that the
Planning Commission be given the ability to make some modifications to allow for some flexibility on
the buffer and setback.
Landgraver and Lemke stated they do not want to make any changes at this point to the buffer or setback.
Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,Application No. 17-3922,City of Orono,Text Amendment:
Wetlands Protections,to recommend the City Council approve the desk delineation process
Page 43 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
outlined in Staff's memo and to recommend Option 1 as it relates to the buffers. VOTE: Ayes 6,
Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 11:38 p.m. to 11:40 p.m.)
12. #17-3925 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT: SMALL LOTS/SETBACKS, 11:40
p.m.— 12:12 P.M.
Barnhart stated the issue of setbacks for small lots within the City has been on the ordinance review list
for several years. Last fall the Planning Commission identified this as the fifth highest priority.
Barnhart stated included in the Commissioners' packets are three maps. Throughout the City there are
lots that have been developed inconsistent with the zoning district. Map A shows all lots that are less
than a quarter area in blue. A number of them are located in the Navarre area. Barnhart stated in those
areas the zoning is between 1/2 acre, 1 acre, or two acres. The result is a number of nonconforming lots.
The effect on lot owners with nonconforming lots is that a new or expansion of a portion of the structure
within the required setback, including an expansion going up, requires a variance.
To address the issue, some adjustment of the setback is necessary. The Planning Commission should
consider the following options:
Option 1. Create a new zoning district for these neighborhoods, establishing unique lot sizes,
widths, and setbacks. A new zoning district should be introduced cautiously, as the
opportunity for unintended consequences is higher because many sections of the code
unrelated to lot size and width speak specifically to a particular zoning district. Staff
does not recommend establishing new zoning districts at this time.
Option 2. Amend the size,width,and setback requirements for existing zoning districts. This
would apply to all lots within that zoning district and could conceivable yield additional
density through lot splits.
Option 3. Amend yard setbacks in selected districts based on the lot size or width.
Barnhart stated in developing a proposed ordinance, Staff examined 36 different lots chosen at random in
"hot spot"neighborhoods throughout the City The area and lot width were noted and the side yard
setbacks were calculated, either through the survey or by measuring from an aerial photo.
Of the 36 lots, 23 exhibited non-conforming setbacks on at least one side, and of these, nine had
nonconforming setbacks on both sides. Of the 32 nonconforming setbacks, 19 had setbacks less than ten
feet.
Staff supports an amendment that prescribes side yard setbacks for nonconforming lots due to width as a
function of the lot width, proposed to be measured at the applicable lot width.
Barnhart noted the chart contained within Staff's report provides some examples of the various lot sizes
and the minimum setbacks based on the draft ordinance. In addition,the proposed language defining how
the side yard setbacks will be measured has been included in Staff's report.
Page 44 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
The draft ordinance allows for a nonconforming lot to use 10 percent of their lot width as the setback to a
minimum of eight feet but it could be whatever number the Planning Commission feels appropriate. Of
the 32 nonconforming setbacks, four had setbacks between eight and ten feet. Staff does not recommend
establishing a minimum setback less than seven feet since construction of homes from setback to setback
is an expected consequence.
The proposed minimum will not eliminate variances since some existing homes are less than the
minimum called for in the ordinance. Barnhart stated the challenge is to provide the City with a little
more flexibility with a minimum level of open space preservation.
The Planning Commission should discuss whether a minimum side setback of eight feet in the LR-1B and
LR-1C districts is appropriate given open space and massing control goals and whether the proposed
ordinance adequately addresses the goals of the Planning Commission and City Council.
Barnhart stated relative to the side street setback issue, Staff encounters situations where the side street is
unimproved but still requires a large setback. This often results in the vacation of that segment of the
right-of-way. Staff proposes language that prescribes an alternative setback if the right-of-way is
unimproved to be consistent with the interior side yard setback applicable for that lot.
Thiesse asked if the actuals were existing nonconformities originally or whether they were approved
through the years.
Barnhart indicated he does not know why they built where they did but that some lots are situations where
they were nonconforming, the property owner removed the home, and then met the setbacks a little more
than what they had originally.
Landgraver asked how many of those lots obtained variances.
Barnhart indicated he did not compile that information.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 11:58 p.m.
Amy Nelson, 1180 Arbor Street, stated her lot is actually a conforming lot at 3.4 acres but that it is
located in a small lot neighborhood. Nelson stated she is here tonight as a point of clarification as to how
this amendment would affect her parcel. Nelson stated what she is hearing is the inequity that is
screaming to her. Nelson indicated her neighbor will be able to build within ten feet of the property line
but she will never be able to subdivide or build a house that close to the property line even though her
property is the only conforming parcel in the neighborhood.
Nelson stated in her view this is called spot zoning and everything that she has read says that spot zoning
is not very good due to the inequity. Basically the City is granting something to one homeowner by
creating and allowing a use that is not allowed by surrounding properties in the area.
Nelson commented it is quite ironic that the City is going to take the property that conforms and limit its
potential value and is instead taking every nonconforming property and allowing them to basically
rezone. Nelson stated it is rezoning even though the City is still calling it the same since they are making
it different from any other area in the City.
Page 45 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart noted the City is not rezoning the area and that she would still be allowed to use her property
and not go through the variance process as her neighbors have to. Barnhart stated the draft ordinance
provides some flexibility for her neighbors to use their property.
Nelson indicated she has lived in this neighborhood for 35 years and that she has seen a number of
situations where they could not remodel that was aesthetically pleasing. Nelson commented it still seems
to her that there is a more reasonable and simple solution, such as rezoning the whole neighborhood to an
appropriate designation that is fair to everyone. Nelson stated by doing that, it would also probably
address the setbacks to some extent. Nelson stated if they rezone the neighborhood to an acre, she would
be able to also share in the fruition of the neighborhood.
Nelson noted she spoke with the Council about it this year as well as Staff in years past and that in her
view the City is missing the opportunity to address this with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Nelson
stated it was suggested to her to wait until the Comprehensive Plan Update but nobody seems to want to
address rezoning anything in the Comprehensive Plan because people think it will change the character of
the neighborhood. Nelson commented the proposed ordinance will do the same thing.
Nelson stated in her view massing will be an issue and is a far greater threat to the character of the
neighborhood. Nelson stated she is asking that consideration be given to rezoning her neighborhood.
Nelson noted no other house in her neighborhood could subdivide if it is rezoned to one acre. Nelson
commented it is likely all of these small neighborhoods have a lot or two that contain a property similar to
hers and they would feel like they were not given their full due by creating a situation like this.
Nelson requested the Planning Commission reject Option 3 and to create a solution that will be more
equitable to everybody.
Barnhart noted Option 3 would be changing the setbacks applicable to specific zoning districts and that
the ordinance tries to provide some flexibility based on nonconforming lots.
Landgraver asked if Option 2 would allow a larger lot to be subdivided.
Barnhart stated if the size requirement was changed,the property could be subdivided assuming they have
the appropriate frontage.
Landgraver commented there are probably only a handful of large lots located in a small lot
neighborhood.
Gaffron stated the boundaries of the neighborhood should probably be defined before making this type of
decision.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 12:10 p.m.
Barnhart stated in 2016,the City processed 41 variances and setback variances related to street or side
setbacks were included in 19 of them. Barnhart stated surveys for those properties were looked at to
apply the new zoning ordinances. One of the properties had a 1-foot setback but most of the setbacks
were in the 11 to 25 feet range. Barnhart stated if the new setbacks are applied based on the draft
Page 46 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ordinance, the number of nonconformities is reduced from five to two, so there is some benefit to the new
setbacks.
Landgraver stated in the past 10 feet has been a fairly firm number. Landgraver asked if the changes
would be giving everybody two feet on each side.
Barnhart stated the minimum setback would be eight feet on each side. Barnhart stated ten feet is
appropriate and does not really create a hardship for most property owners.
Thiesse stated in his view 10 feet is reasonable.
Amy Nelson asked if this would set a precedent so other people in the same zoning district somewhere
else in the City would wonder why they do not fall within under the same jurisdiction.
Gaffron stated any 50-foot lots would get the same setback. Gaffron stated if the City is routinely giving
people variances to a particular setback, it might as well be put into the code.
Barnhart stated what he has heard is that the Planning Commission does not want to go less than ten. The
draft ordinance is proposing in four different zoning districts some flexibility from the setback
requirements if the lot is nonconforming in width.
Landgraver stated in his view the discussion by the Planning Commission would be more vigorous if this
had been discussed earlier in the evening.
Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded to table Application No. 17-3925,City of Orono,Text
Amendment: Small Lots/Setbacks. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
13. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON MARCH 22,2017,AND
APRIL 10,2017
Barnhart reported on the following actions by the City Council:
• Approved a conditional use permit for a dock for Alex Ugorets
• Approved variances for lot area and lot width in Navarre
• Approved lot area and lot width variances for 2755 Ethel
• Approved the Birkeland application for side street and lot width variances. The Planning
Commission recommended denial.
• Approved the Burke application
• Approved the survey and site plan requirements ordinance,the ordinance relating to the escrow
language, and repeal of CUPs.
• The City Council had no concerns or comments on the exemption for the public safety signs.
14. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Barnhart stated Staff has been looking at moving toward paperless copies for the Planning Commission
and that they likely will go paperless next month. Barnhart stated the Commissioners will be receiving a
computer similar to the one he has.
Page 47 of 48
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,April 17,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver asked if there will be a work session in May
Barnhart stated at this point no. Barnhart stated given the fact that Mike Gaffron will be retiring in May,
he will likely not be introducing any more ordinance amendments.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Olson moved,Thiesse seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 12:17 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
ATTEST:
Chair Thiesse, Chair
Page 48 of 48