Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/17/2017 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 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, Loren Schoenzeit, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Melanie Curtis, City Planner Laura Oakden, 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 JUNE 19,2017 Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of June 19,2017,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 2. 17-3948 APEX HOLDINGS,LLC (SANJEEV MANGALICK)2635 KELLEY PARKWAY, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,REZONING,PRELIMINARY PLAT,AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:33 P.M.—7:32 P.M. Ashish Aggarwal, Sanjeev Mangalick, and Viren Gori were present. Barnhart stated the applicant is proposing a new 70-unit,two-story residential facility. The facility would consist of 24 independent living units, 24 assisted living units,and 22 memory care units. The proposed plan includes a two-story building with a defined height estimated at 32 feet. Underground parking is proposed under half of the building. The proposed plan would require rezoning to RPUD and an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan converting the site from commercial office use to residential use. The property is located directly across Kelley Parkway from the Stonebay Lofts at the west end of the long stormwater pond. The property is governed as part of the Stonebay Master Development and development of the property requires replatting from an outlot to a lot per the provisions of the agreement. The Stonebay development has established a certain design characteristic and Staff recommends that the building materials be consistent with the Stonebay development. These materials should be spelled out in the final master plan. Barnhart displayed elevation views of the building from all sides. The stormwater pond was originally sized to accommodate all elements of Stonebay so individual ponding will not be required on this site. It is likely some fill will be required to ensure adequate drainage and to allow for underground parking. Staff has been informed Hennepin County is looking at a portion of the parcel for an expansion of the stormwater pond, which may alter the applicant's final plan somewhat. The applicant has indicated that that should not be an issue. A proposed grading plan and landscaping plan have been provided. Screening is proposed along Wayzata Boulevard as well as some landscaping in front of the building. Page 1 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated the first land use amendment is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and requires approval by the Metropolitan Council. The City established higher-density guiding of a select number of properties in order to offset the long-planned sewered development at low densities in the Shoreland areas. It appears to be beneficial to the City to rezone this property since there does not appear to be a high demand for office use and residential would allow the City to meet its density goals. To accommodate the proposed development,the site would need to be rezoned to RPUD. The proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area. The Stonebay development, located directly across Kelley Parkway, is also zoned RPUD. The RPUD district standards indicate an RPUD site must be at least five acres in area but does allow for smaller sites based on Council approval. This site consists of approximately 3.5 acres. The Council has recently approved two smaller RPUD developments, Shadywood Villas and the Eisinger site, so that RPUD rezoning for this site would not be inconsistent. The setbacks from both Kelley Parkway and Wayzata Boulevard appear to be met with the proposed plan. The side yard setback from the building shows 35 feet. Barnhart noted the setback may need to be shifted slightly if Hennepin County acquires a portion of the parcel. Barnhart stated the maximum floor area ratio for an RPUD for an attached family development is one and the applicant is proposing a .52 ratio. A 20-foot setback is required for the parking lot. Some waiver would be required to maintain that setback, primarily for the driveway to provide emergency access. The Fire Chief has recommended the driveway remain at 20 feet in width around the building. The RPUD requirements include 10 percent of the gross project area being dedicated for recreational purposes. The pavilion and the green space around it amount to approximately three percent of recreational space. The maximum hardcover limit is 50 percent under an RPUD and the applicant is proposing 63 percent. Municipal sewer and water utilities are available in Kelley Parkway to serve the property. The property has not been previously assessed for sewer and water and connection charges will be due at the time of final plat approval. Staff recommends approval of the project but a number of issues still need to be addressed prior to issuance of building permits or approval of the project. Barnhart noted this was reviewed last summer as a sketch plan. Since that time some minor changes, such as shifting of the driveway access, have been made to the plan. Staff's report includes a number of comments regarding the outstanding items and issues. Barnhart stated the applicant is not proposing access onto Wayzata Boulevard. The proposal does meet the parking requirements based on the International Transportation Engineers' recommendations. Barnhart noted the City does not have parking numbers required for this type of use so Staff used those numbers to determine whether the parking would be appropriate.. Thiesse asked what the ITE number for vehicle loading would be for commercial was. Barnhart indicated he did not look that up for an office building. Lemke asked if the stormwater would be handled by the stormwater pond to the east and whether that has enough capacity. Page 2 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated the stormwater pond to the east was designed for anticipated development of the entire Stonebay project and would be able to accommodate this building. Additional stormwater ponding is necessary because the stormwater from Wayzata Boulevard will be added to the pond. Lemke asked if this is the same developer as previously. Barnhart stated not to his knowledge. Thiesse asked if there is a reason Staff is requesting a trail easement since Highway 112 will have a trail along it. Barnhart stated it is expected that eventually a trail will be provided, whether it is on this property or on Highway 112. Landgraver asked why only 48 units will quality as residential rather than 70 units. Barnhart stated the Metropolitan Council will only count units as residential if they contain a full kitchen. Based on preliminary discussions, only 48 will qualify. Landgraver asked what the height of the condominiums is across the street. Barnhart indicated those are three stories with underground parking. Barnhart stated he was unable to find the plans for the condominiums but it is Staffs belief they are higher than the proposed building. Thiesse asked if the property to the west would also require an RPUD or whether it could be developed as it is currently zoned. Barnhart stated it could be developed as a commercial parcel. Ashish Aggarwal, Developer, stated they appeared before the City last fall to get some guidance on their sketch plan. Apex Holdings has owned the property for approximately three years now and that they considered senior housing and a commercial warehouse for this site. Aggarwal stated in their view the best option for this property is senior housing. The City Council at that time was very open to the senior housing project given the available housing in the area as well as the higher density meeting the ratios of the Metropolitan Council. Aggarwal noted they will need 70 units to make the project financially feasible and that the units are divided into independent, assisted, and memory care units. Sanjeev Mangalick, Applicant, stated they have performed some initial market studies and that the studies did support the demand for 60 units. The studies also demonstrated this type of housing growing by 50 percent over the next four years. Mangalick commented Orono is unique because it has a lot of single-family residential homes but does not have a lot of options for seniors,which then pushes people out of Orono. Aggarwal stated it is their belief this project fits well with what the City requires, what is currently available, and what the site is guided for. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Page 3 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Larry Schultz, 2670 Kelley Parkway, stated his concern is the one entrance/one exit onto Kelley Parkway and emergency vehicles and the amount of traffic going in and out of that area. Schultz stated in his view the City Council should consider another entrance onto Highway 12 or Kelley Parkway. Dee Schultz, 2670 Kelley Parkway, stated she was wondering why the building could not face Highway 112. Schultz stated Kelley Parkway has enough activity on it with the police,the fire department, and the students. Schultz stated in her view this would be a detriment to what is currently a quiet community. Dick Moberg, 2670 Kelley Parkway, expressed concerns with the parking and the likelihood that people will park on Kelley Parkway. Moberg noted there are 85 parking spaces,with many of them reserved for employees and a few reserved for residents. Moberg asked how many spaces are reserved for guests. Moberg stated it is possible 70 guests could show up and then there would be a lack of parking. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Barnhart noted a copy of an email was received from Alan Leiding that has been placed before the Planning Commission this evening expressing concerns about the height of the building. Lemke asked how many underground parking spaces there are. Barnhart stated to his knowledge there are 39. Lemke asked how many surface parking spaces there are. Barnhart indicated approximately 36. Landgraver asked whether there will be any parking along the street. Landgraver noted the plan depicts some bump-outs. Barnhart noted the south side of the road is signed no parking and the north side is signed no parking with the exception of the bump-out areas. Thiesse asked if the master plan has the building facing Kelley with no access off of Wayzata Boulevard. Barnhart stated he is very confident the Stonebay master plan from the very beginning stipulated no access off of Wayzata Boulevard. Thiesse asked if Staff can obtain the numbers from ITE to verify how much parking would be required if it was commercial. Thiesse stated to his understanding residential would be significantly less. Thiesse commented emergency vehicle access is important since this building will likely generate more medical calls. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission is concerned about access,they could recommend a secondary access off of Kelley Parkway. Thiesse recommended visitor parking be considered as one component of the parking needs for the site. Page 4 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated a balance needs to be struck between having enough parking for special events and the amount of hardcover that would be needed for additional parking. Landgraver asked if some bump-outs could be placed in front of the building. Thiesse commented it likely would only result in four additional spaces. Leskinen asked if there was just one entrance proposed in the fall. Barnhart stated he knows the driveway shifted to the west with the new plan and that the applicant has indicated they have no concern with adding a secondary driveway. Thiesse requested the applicant consider and study a secondary driveway. Barnhart stated he does not recall there being two entrances/exits shown on the sketch plan. Barnhart indicated the current driveway has been shifted to line up with Stonebay Lofts. Schoenzeit asked what it would take to get to the 10 percent recreation area. Schoenzeit stated not meeting that says to him the building is too large or the site is too small. Thiesse asked if the trail was included in that. Barnhart indicated it was not and that the three percent was a very general number. Viren Gori Architect, stated there are a couple of areas that probably have not been included in the calculations. Gori noted on the second floor there is a rooftop patio right above the kitchen and a flat roof area to the west can also be added as a patio or seating area. Gori stated another option is to step the building back to create some more flat roof areas but that there are ways to meet the 10 percent. Thiesse asked if the rooftop areas would count. Barnhart stated the target market for this type of building does not use a lot of recreational facilities and that generally rooftop open spaces might be considered but that it is a judgment call. Thiesse asked if the pavilion would be available to the community. Gori indicated it would be. Gori noted only 24 residents are in the independent living area and that the actual number of parking stalls would not need to be more than 24 for residents. Gori stated typically a facility of this size has a permanent staff of six to eight,with the rest being part-time. Gori stated the balance of the parking would be for visitors and that they could potentially accommodate 50 cars for visitors at any time. Lemke asked how many staff would be there during the day. Gori indicated they will have six to ten full-time employees and the rest would be part-time. At night there would be three or four full-time staff. Landgraver suggested the applicant do a parking table for the City Council. Page 5 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke asked why there was not a second entrance. Gori stated the main reason for not having a second entrance was circulation and wanting to avoid causing confusion with two entrances. Gori stated he understands planning staff usually likes to see one entrance in and out. Gori noted this facility will not generate traffic on the scale of an office building and that other similar projects he has worked on usually only have one entrance/exit. Larry Schultz, 2670 Kelley Parkway, stated as he looks at the plan, he sees Kelley Parkway going through there and that he sees parking spots facing Kelley Parkway. Schultz asked whether there will be any amenities or trees or foliage so there will be a buffer between Kelley Parkway and the parking lot. Barnhart noted Kelley Parkway is north of the site and that there are some trees between Kelley Parkway and the parking lot. Barnhart stated there are trees also along Kelley Parkway that are not shown on the plan. Barnhart stated the intent with the landscaping was not to screen the building. Thiesse commented it would be no different than the parking spots in front of the condominiums. Schultz asked how far back the building would be from Kelley. Barnhart stated the distance between the corner of the building and the driveway is 44 feet, with Kelley Parkway being another 15 feet beyond that. Barnhart stated to his understanding it is 65 feet to the curb. Thiesse noted Item No. 5 in Staff's report asks whether the Conservation Design requirements should be waived. Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission can encourage the applicant to plant some trees. Barnhart stated in his view a Conservation Plan is not necessary but that the Planning Commission can recommend some additional trees be planted. Landgraver stated in his view a more robust landscaping plan should be developed prior to going to the City Council. Landgraver stated he is not sure whether there would be a benefit to angle the parking lot to diminish headlights going into the condominiums. Barnhart stated landscaping is part of an RPUD and would be reviewed as part of the final Master Plan. Aggarwal noted the floor level of the condominium is much higher up than this building and that headlights and so forth should not shine into the condominiums. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission feels there is justification for the CMP amendment and rezoning. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that there is. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission feels there is sufficient justification for flexibility. Schoenzeit stated there could be flexibility on some of it. Page 6 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission has already discussed Item No. 3 and that they have encouraged him to provide more private recreation space. Landgraver stated the City should also show some leniency on that item given the nature of the residents and that perhaps they should include the rooftop seating areas. Schoenzeit stated there could be flexibility in how to get to that number but that he would encourage the applicant to get as close to it as possible. Thiesse noted if they are going to provide a 10-foot easement for a trail,that would be considered. Barnhart stated his understanding is that a trail goes towards the Park Dedication. Thiesse noted Hennepin County has a 100-foot right-of-way and that they would likely construct any trail within that. Barnhart stated the developer would pay the City's portion of the trail, and if it is located on this property, Hennepin County would pay for the trail. Barnhart stated the City can accept a rooftop seating area but that he does not believe a public trail would meet the 10 percent private recreation area. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission discussed Item No. 5 and that they feel the Conservation Design requirements should be waived. Schoenzeit asked whether any precedent would be set by allowing 3.5 acres rather than 5 acres for the RPUD. Barnhart stated the RPUD standards have minimum requirements and that they have different stipulations that could be applied. Number two of the development standards states the property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as an RPUD, which would apply in this case. Barnhart stated the City has also seen some projects in the past, such as Shadywood Villa,where the Council did grant a waiver, and that he does not believe they would be creating any precedent. Lemke stated he has a concern with the amount of massing without a break. Thiesse commented the recesses and offsets help him feel better about the massing. Schoenzeit noted they are also stepping back the second level and adding some patio areas,which could help break up the façade. Larry Schultz asked about the stormwater pond having runoff from Highway 112. Barnhart stated Hennepin County is eying a portion of the subject property to accommodate expansion of the pond. Barnhart indicated a portion of the stormwater from Wayzata Boulevard will be fed into the existing pond,which requires a bigger pond, but that flooding is rather remote. Landgraver commented demands change over time. Landgraver asked whether the City has any mechanisms for keeping the structure at three different living options. Page 7 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted the applicant is applying for the three different living levels at this time, and if they want to change things at some point,they would likely have to go through another public hearing. Barnhart noted assisted living is a conditional use, and if another unit is added and the Code stays the same,the applicant would require the conditional use permit be amended. Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3948,Apex Holdings,LLC (Sanjeev Mangalick),2635 Kelley Parkway,granting of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,rezoning to RPUD,Preliminary Plat approval,and granting of a Conditional Use Permit as presented and based on the discussion regarding the five issues listed in Staff's report. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 3. 17-3950 NOR-SON ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL AND MEREDITH KUHLMAN, 1760 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCES,7:33 P.M.—7:46 P.M. Michael Kuhlman, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct a new home with a lakeside pool on the property. An average lakeshore variance is requested. Because 1700 Shoreline Drive is the only adjacent lakeshore lot, the average lakeshore setback for this property is determined by the distance between that home and the lake to the south. That distance was verified by the applicant's surveyor today to be 1,065 feet from the lake. As a result,the majority of the subject property is unbuildable due to the applied average lakeshore setback. The new home and pool are proposed at 948 feet and 925 feet and will encroach lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. Because the standards of Section 78-72 regarding Lots of Record cannot be met because of the setback variance, a lot width variance is also required. Staff has not received any public comments regarding this application. There are notable practical difficulties listed in Staff's report. Planning Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Peter Euschke stated he is available for any questions. Thiesse asked if the neighbor is aware of the proposed location of the house. Euschke indicated they are. Thiesse asked whether that neighbor has any objection to the house. Michael Kuhlman, property owner, stated one neighbor has seen the plans and they are fine with it but that he has not been able to get ahold of the other neighbor. Curtis noted that property owner has been notified. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Page 8 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Dennis Libby, 1000 Heritage Lane, stated he spent a lot of time reviewing this application and that he is delighted to see the architectural design work on this project. Libby stated the good aspect is the fact that it looks architecturally acceptable and is complementary to the neighborhood. Libby noted he is a real estate agent and has dealt with septic systems. Libby stated he has a concern about the installation and use of a subsurface septic system. Libby noted 17 years ago the residents in his neighborhood were required to abate those systems once they hooked up to city sewer. Libby stated two and a half weeks ago a state of the art pressurized high pressure sewer system was installed to service Tanager Estates and at that time he asked the contractor if the capacity of that line was really going to be adequate for the three large-scale homes. Libby indicated the contractor assured him that the line is adequate and could, in fact, service more homes. Libby stated from a common sense standpoint, he is wondering why the City is talking about putting in a subsurface system in an environmentally sensitive area with large levels of habitat and on a lot that is almost directly adjacent to wetland. Libby stated in his view the subsurface system is antiquated and the City should look at connecting to this high capacity sewer system that was just installed. Thiesse stated in his view it is a system that works and that this property should have adequate room for it,which will be verified by the City. Thiesse stated his biggest concern with throwing it into a force main is that they are sending their problems elsewhere and that a well-maintained system should do what it is supposed to do. Libby stated the modern systems versus the old systems are much more efficient. Libby stated the system that is there,according to the City Engineer, has the capacity to service more than the three houses that were just approved. Libby stated in his view a subsurface system is regressive, old-fashioned, and taking a step backwards. Libby stated given the wetlands and the wildlife, it is a real concern. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Thiesse stated he does believe there is a requirement for that system to accommodate this property and that the ordinances allow a subsurface system. Thiesse stated if they do not work,the whole City of Orono is in trouble. Landgraver stated it is a broader issue and that he would hate to make one applicant do something that other property owners have not been required to do. Leskinen stated she cannot deny this application based on the septic system since it is an acceptable system and allowed by code. Schwingler noted that issue is not in front of the Planning Commission tonight and that he does not have any concerns with the average lakeshore setback variance. Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3950, NOR-SON on behalf of Michael and Meredith Kuhlman, 1760 Shoreline Drive,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance and a lot width variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4. 17-3951 STONEWOOD,LLC,ON BEHALF OF FORREST BURKE, 1020 TONKAWA ROAD,VARIANCE,7:46 P.M.—7:52 P.M. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, LLC, and Peter Euschke, was present. Page 9 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis noted the applicant received variance approvals earlier this year to construct a new home with an elevated terrace, both partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicants are now proposing to construct an in-ground pool within the lakeside terrace on the property. The pool will have a 46-foot encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. No new public comments have been received. Curtis noted she did speak with the property owner to the north earlier today regarding a question he had and that he had no comments. Staff finds there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the average lakeshore setback variance as outlined in Staff's report. Planning Staff recommends approval. Thiesse asked if there will be any projections from the pool such as ladders and slides. Curtis stated they have not identified any stairs. Thiesse asked if it would all be within the terrace as approved. Curtis indicated it would be. Lemke asked if a fence is required. Curtis stated the City does not require one. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, LLC, stated no fence is proposed and that the steps into the pool would be under the water and that there will be no slide or railings of any sort. Peter Euschke stated they did their best to not encroach very much into the average lakeshore setback. Landgraver asked if this was an add-on to the original plan. Gustafson indicated it was. Gustafson noted there was a hot tub that was originally proposed for that same terrace but that has been eliminated. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Lemke asked if the City has any control if they decide to install a slide at some point. Curtis stated the City does not require a permit for a slide or other protrusions to the pool. Schwingler moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3951, Stonewood,LLC,on behalf of Forrest Burke, 1020 Tonkawa Road,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance per Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. Page 10 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. 17-3945 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY,2710 PENCE LANE AND 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN,7:52 P.M.—8:42 P.M. William and Sue Dunkley, Applicants, and Paul Vogstrom were present. Curtis stated this is a sketch plan review with the purpose of providing the applicant with comments and direction for a proposed preliminary plat to rearrange the property line between the two properties and create outlots and a new private road serving three homes. Currently there are three homes addressed off of Pence Lane, all served by a 12-foot wide driveway. The first home is 2701 Pence Lane and has two curb cuts on the private road outlot at the north end. Pence Lane then extends through a gate just south of this home. After the gate,the driveway is extended serving two homes, 2715 Pence and 2710 Pence,which is owned by the Dunkleys. The Dunkleys also own the property at 2709 Walters Port, which is where their residence is located. The applicants submitted a survey dated June 28 and a site plan labeled proposed survey dated June 30 to illustrate their proposal. The plans do not coordinate so Staff used the June 28 survey for lot area and other reference information. The applicant is working on a coordinated plan. The Dunkleys wish to change the lot line between their Walters Port property and the 2710 Pence lot, increasing the lot size and lakeshore frontage for the Walters Port property and to change their access through the Pence Lane driveway. The addition of the third home,the Walters Port home,triggers the need to create a private road within an outlot for access. The need to create the private road,along with the applicants' requested variances for a lot line adjustment, requires a preliminary plat. According to the Code, a private code outlot must have a platted width of 50 feet and a minimum paved width of 24 feet with a 100-foot diameter cul-de-sac at the end. Staff provided a number of issues for discussion in the Staff report. The Planning Commission should address each one and provide direction and guidance to the applicant tonight. Additional issues raised by the public or the Planning Commission should also be addressed. The goal of the review is to provide the applicant with an overview of the Code,city ordinances, and how they affect their proposed plan and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The issues cited by Staff reveal a number of issues with the proposed plat and the Planning Commission should provide direction to the applicant regarding the plat. The Planning Commission should review each topic and identify issues to which the applicants should respond to. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicant are nonbinding but should be helpful as the applicant moves forward. At the direction of the applicant,the sketch plan will be forwarded to the City Council for review. Curtis stated it would be helpful for the applicant to introduce the project and address the issues identified in Staff report. Thiesse noted the Fire Chief is fine with what is there. Curtis stated Staff would like clarification on what is proposed for the driveway and then the Fire Chief will have another opportunity to provide comment on the plan. The survey shows the driveway outlot at Page 11 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 25 feet wide connecting at Walters Port Lane. Curtis indicated she is not sure if it is intended to be an emergency connection or an active connection,which needs to be clarified. There are also a number of items related to the layout of the driveway that requires clarification. The Planning Commission should provide direction to the applicant on those items. Leskinen asked if the shifting of the lot lines is creating a non-conformity on one lot that is currently conforming with regard to width. Curtis indicated it is. Curtis stated the lot line rearrangement makes the Walters Port property conforming with respect to lot area and width but changing the Pence Lane property. Curtis stated there is some conflicting information but that she believes the applicant intends to add one acre to the Walters Port lot. Curtis stated that lot appears to be just under at this point. Sue Dunkley stated their home on Walters Port Lane was constructed in 1958 on a small lot. Dunkley indicated they moved in in 1984 and remodeled the home in 2008 on the same foundation. Dunkley stated the lot is very small and currently is less than a half-acre. Dunkley stated they are going to purchase the neighbor's property so additional land can be added to the Walters Port lot. Thiesse asked if at the end of the day they are proposing two conforming lots. Dunkley indicated they are. Vogstrom stated they are trying to figure out the best access for the three properties. At the present time the Walters Port property is really not an easy access for emergency vehicles so they are taking a look at the bigger picture and how that can be improved. Dunkley noted that driveway was not intended to be a public access but just to make it easier for emergency vehicles. Curtis asked whether it would be gated. Vogstrom indicated it would be a strobed gate that would open automatically. Vogstrom stated they are attempting to mitigate the impact to the wooded area. Dunkley indicated they would like to avoid the need for a 24-foot wide road if it all possible. Vogstrom stated they have spoken with the Fire Chief about their plans and the possibility of adding sprinkler systems to each home. Vogstrom indicated they are looking to have Outlot C conforming from the gate all the way down to Walters Port with a hook around for fire accessibility. The driveway would service the three homes. The reconfiguration would allow the cul-de-sac to be reduced somewhat. Vogstrom indicated they are working with the neighbors on the proposal. Vogstrom noted that neighbor currently has an easement and is fine with the driveway being reconfigured since it would help them retain their privacy and provide for better emergency access. Outlot A would connect to Walters Port and the driveway would be shared by the Dunkleys and the new lot. Vogstrom noted some of the driveway hardcover would be removed as part of the project. Page 12 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse questioned whether Outlot A is wide enough for adequate turning radii for the emergency vehicles. Landgraver stated there appears to be some sharp angles that would be difficult for large vehicles to navigate. Dunkley stated a large vehicle would probably go through their circle and then out but that they are trying to figure out a way to make it easier. Vogstrom indicated they are working with the Fire Chief on the emergency access. William Dunkley stated if police and fire enter Walters Port right now,there currently is no place to turn around except for in their driveway. The new driveway would provide access to the other homes. Dunkley noted there are not a lot of options available currently. Sue Dunkley stated their property would also not be over the hardcover requirements following the lot line rearrangement but that their house is located within the 0-75 foot zone. Dunkley stated there would need to be a connection to the little cottage as well. Thiesse asked if that portion of the connection could be moved out of the 0-75 foot zone. Sue Dunkley indicated it is as far back as it can go. Thiesse noted the applicants are not creating any new non-conformities for lot size and are providing access for emergency vehicles. Curtis noted average lakeshore setback variances would be required for both lots. Thiesse stated in his view the emergency vehicle access is more important than having the lot be completely conforming. Schoenzeit stated even if the lots were not conforming in width and size,the road would need to be widened. William Dunkley stated they are proposing to make it 24 feet wide. Vogstrom asked what is not conforming with the new lots. Curtis indicated the width on Lot 2 and possibly the area in addition to the variances that are being requested. Vogstrom stated the lot area and width will be conforming with the new lot line rearrangement. The variances would be required because of the access and the average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated a hardcover variance is being proposed for the Walters Port lot in addition to a variance for the average lakeshore setback and the 75-foot addition on the Walters Port property. As it relates to Lot 2, 2710 Pence Lane, variances to lot width and area are required as well as an average lakeshore setback variance based on the location of the home. Page 13 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted this is a sketch plan. Thiesse stated he would encourage the applicants to get the additional hardcover out of the 75-foot area wherever possible or to demonstrate a practical difficulty. Thiesse noted this is a peninsula and that there is not much they can do about the average lakeshore setback. Leskinen asked what is currently within the 0-75 foot zone. Curtis stated there is a connecting piece from the home to the new addition. The new addition and the driveway would result in 43 percent hardcover. William Dunkley noted most of their home is within the 0-75 foot area and that they are proposing to build out from the hot tub away from the lake. Thiesse asked if they could build out from the other corner of the house. Sue Dunkley indicated there is a generator and other utilities in that area. Thiesse commented that could be a practical difficulty. Vogstrom pointed out the outlot blocks the land to the north so it is not included in the calculation,which is also a practical difficulty. Leskinen asked if there would be an additional gate besides the one that is being proposed for emergency vehicles. Dunkley indicated there is already a gate there. William Dunkley stated they are proposing to widen the road for emergency vehicles to pass each other. Curtis noted three homes having access triggers the need for a wider road. Thiesse commented he is not sure about the need for a gate at the entrance. Thiesse asked if the gate is 20 feet wide at the entrance. William Dunkley stated it is but that it could be made bigger. Thiesse stated if the road is being made wider for emergency vehicles,that gate should be made wider. Leskinen asked if he would recommend removing the gate. Sue Dunkley stated they would like to retain the gate if at all possible since it helps give the appearance that there is more land than just a small lot. Dunkley stated the gate opens for all people as it is currently set up. Vogstrom indicated they would widen the existing gate and then add another gate for the Walters Port property that would have a strob on it to allow access by emergency vehicles. Vogstrom stated both gates would open automatically for emergency vehicles but that the gate to the Walters Port property would require a code by anyone else. Page 14 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sue Dunkley stated she would prefer a code for the gate leading into their property. Dunkley stated if the access onto Walters Port is not necessary, she would be very happy with that, and that they are looking for direction from the Planning Commission. Dunkley stated they would like the three properties to have access through the gate. Leskinen asked if the road would then need to be 50 feet wide. Curtis indicated the platted right-of-way would need to be 50 feet wide and the paved surface would be 24 feet wide. Thiesse stated if Lot 1 were served by Walters Port Lane,then the other two homes would not need a private road. Sue Dunkley stated the reason they are buying the other piece is to have the access come in the other way. Dunkley stated the current entrance looks like the home is sitting in a back alley. Thiesse stated the three homes is what triggers the need for the larger road. Thiesse noted the connection will be gated but that emergency vehicles will have access without the need for a code. Thiesse recommend they look at the radii of the angles. Landgraver recommended the plan be further defined before it goes to the City Council. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission has discussed No. 4 concerning the existing entrance monuments and gate. Thiesse stated to his understanding Orono does not have any other gates that require a code. Sue Dunkley indicated there would also be cameras on the gate so they would know who is there. Dunkley stated Walters Port is also a private road. Curtis noted there would still be underlying easements for access and utilities under the outlot for the roadway. Landgraver stated he has a preference for the way it is now since it will provide some exclusivity or a barrier but that in his view a code might be going too far. Vogstrom stated they can have it where if someone drives up to it, it will open automatically. Thiesse asked if Outlot B would provide access to the Huelers' property. Vogstrom indicated it is if they choose to use that. Thiesse noted if Outlot D were to exist,the Huelers would not require an additional easement. Sue Dunkley indicated the Huelers would still come in through the gate but more of their driveway would be on their land. Vogstrom noted there would still be an easement from Kelly to the gate. Landgraver noted the City has received a comment regarding a shed. Page 15 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sue Dunkley indicated the shed would be removed. Chair Thiesse asked whether anyone from the public would like to comment on this application. Andrew McDermott, 2702 Walters Port Lane, stated when the Dunkleys were talking about cutting themselves off from Walters Port, his biggest concern was emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, and delivery vans being able to turn around on Walters Port but that the Dunkleys have shown that vehicles will be able to turn around when they get to the end. McDermott noted Walters Port is only 14 feet wide currently and generally works just fine except for the turnaround. McDermott stated a number of years ago the City Council cut off Habermans from Walters Port and put the Pence Lane Road in. McDermott indicated he would like some type of emergency turnaround there, and if it is going to be gated,that's fine, but the gate should be in 20 to 30 feet. McDermott stated he was fine with the gates as originally proposed but the developer did not put them in quite as proposed. McDermott stated in his view the gates should not be widened and that the gates should be left to open automatically rather than with a code. McDermott noted there is a lot of wildlife back there and the maple trees would need to be removed if the road is widened in that area. McDermott noted the Dunkleys' property is part of the Walters Port association and that they have some responsibility for the lagoon portion of the association. If the Dunkleys change their address from Walters Port to Pence,that would need to be addressed. McDermott stated he is not sure why only one person owns the road but that it has been that way for quite a while. McDermott stated it is not a public road and it is really not an association road. If the City is planning on a maintenance agreement,they need to look at how that is going to work. McDermott asked why outlots have to be created and what they could be used for. Curtis indicated they would not be building lots and they would provide some separation between the properties. Curtis noted an outlot would need to be replatted to become a building site and would require a public hearing. Curtis stated one of the concerns with the road connection is it separates the Walters Port property from the other portion of the outlot,which causes the land shortage for the improvements that are being proposed. McDermott stated the Dunkleys were very accommodating to the neighbors when they were remodeling the home and that they are proposing to fix the road that was damaged during the remodeling. McDermott stated his concern is the width of the road. Sue Dunkley stated their plan is not to stop helping out the Walters Port association and that they are planning to raise the road so it doesn't flood everyone's yards. Dunkley noted the easements have all expired and that they are willing to redo the easements as part of this. Dunkley noted they put about $200,000 into the lagoon wall to reinforce it that the neighbors should have participated in but that they still want to have some responsibility for the lagoon. Thiesse stated in his view a wider road will be needed but that the Council might waive that requirement. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. Page 16 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. 17-3953 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT,NON-ENCROACHMENTS,8:42 P.M.—9:10 P.M. Barnhart stated in February the Planning Commission reviewed non-encroachments. Following a review by the City Council, some changes were made to those. The amendment allowed retaining walls, planters and similar structures in all required yards when certain conditions are met. Retaining walls, planters and similar structures has been interpreted to include planter/landscaping edging of stone,wood and plastic,boulder fire rings, and boulder lot line demarcation. Retaining walls are not included in the hardcover calculations. It has come to Staff's attention that perhaps the intent was not to include lake yards. If the intent is not to allow planters or similar structures, such as boulder fire rings, landscaping edging or flower beds,the ordinance should be amended. Staff is asking for clarification in terms of what the intent is. Barnhart indicated he understood the ordinance to allow relatively modest improvements in a setback situation that are not impactful to the neighbors. The challenge Staff has is that it is fairly prevalent along the lake. Barnhart noted the ones that currently exist would be allowed to remain. Thiesse stated one of the goals of the City is to protect the lake and that he is not sure how isolated, small items that are not connected to the lake would cause a problem to the lake. Schoenzeit stated if 20 percent of the homes have a fire ring and then all of a sudden the City makes them non-conforming,that seems silly. Thiesse commented there are also some children play structures that are very large near the lake. Landgraver stated he always understood the ordinance to be in the context of side yards and that it has been the City's desire to reduce impediments to people moving out to the side of their property. Landgraver stated he does not believe the Planning Commission ever discussed the lake side. Thiesse asked where fire rings would be allowed. Schoenzeit stated if there is a 10-foot setback,the fire ring should not be located within that. Barnhart stated a fire ring is similar to a planter or a similar structure that are less than two feet in height but that a fire ring has to comply with additional requirements, such as a 25-foot yard setback from the house or other structure. Barnhart stated it appears from aerial photographs that approximately one out of every three lots on the lake has some sort of hardcover in the lake yard. Staff did receive a complaint, which is why this is being brought forward. Barnhart stated he does not see this as a huge issue but that he wants to make sure the intent of the ordinance is being met. Leskinen commented she is not sure whether it is necessary to go to this level, especially since the structures would be allowed to remain. Leskinen stated the things that are problematic to the lake are addressed elsewhere in the code. Page 17 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked if that reported situation is still compatible as far as material and size. Barnhart indicated it is. Thiesse asked if it is the City's intent to create an ordinance and then only enforce it when there is a complaint. Barnhart stated it is Staff's responsibility to adequately and accurately communicate the goals of the ordinance to the residents and that Staff generally does not have the time to inspect people's properties for possible violations. If the ordinance does not do what the Planning Commission envisioned, now is the time to change it. Landgraver stated he is not interpreting this as overreaching because the City was attempting to accommodate flexibility and expandability and everybody was doing something that is tolerated. Landgraver stated Staff is realistically not going to go out to these lots and tell them they have to remove it. Barnhart stated the original goal with the ordinance was to address non-encroachments and to allow modest, small improvements since they cause little harm. From a Staff perspective,the current ordinance allows these small encroachments. Barnhart stated he is here tonight to ask if there is a desire to make any changes to the code to exclude the lake yard from these encroachments. It is Staff's belief that currently that is included in the ordinance. Landgraver stated as long as the structure is under two feet, there are no other size restrictions. Thiesse noted fire pits can only be three feet round. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:57 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at p.m. Leskinen stated a raised bed would be lawful on a nonlakeshore and that she is struggling with the fact that there could be someone who lives on a lakeshore and wants to do the same thing but they would not be allowed. Leskinen noted the City has other restrictions within the lake yard, such as the 75-foot setback, and that in her view there is no reason to impose further restrictions since the current restrictions help keep it in check. Schoenzeit stated perhaps the City needs X number of complaints to have it rise to the level of a text amendment. Barnhart stated there will be other situations where someone will exploit the ordinance and create an issue. Barnhart stated an example of a situation would be where someone has a planting bed and then edged that with rocks. Barnhart stated he is worried about having to tell someone that they cannot line their planting bed with rocks when other people have stones in their lake yard. Another situation is where someone has a play structure in the lake yard, which is not allowed. Barnhart stated anything lined by hardcover would not be allowed if the ordinance is changed specifically to limit those. Page 18 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated he voted on the ordinance based on believing it was based on side lots and that in his view it was not vetted for the lake yard. Thiesse stated the question he has is whether the side yard follows the whole side lot line. Landgraver stated his understanding was that it would follow the side yard until a certain point,which is similar to a fence. Barnhart stated there is an ordinance before the Planning Commission tonight that would prohibit structures within the 75-foot zone. The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the ordinance, recommend no change to the existing ordinance, or modify the draft. Schoenzeit noted the impact of these structures is minimal, and if more complaints are received,the Planning Commission can revisit it. Landgraver commented the City approved the ordinance, and by reversing it, it appears the City is over-regulating things. Landgraver stated it is likely that someone at some point will build something that does not quite meet the rules and then the City will have to come back and adjust the language. Schwingler commented it is not possible to envision every transgression. Schoenzeit asked whether Staff will send a letter to a property owner if the ordinance is changed. Barnhart noted the existing ones would be allowed to remain. Lemke stated one complaint should not necessitate the need for a change. Schoenzeit stated in his view the City is looking to pass something that doesn't fix a single complaint. Landgraver stated he does not think the Planning Commission looked at the lake yard when originally considering the ordinance,but if the City now excludes the lake yard, it will look like they are over- regulating. Leskinen stated in her view it is singling out the lakeshore property owners. Leskinen questioned what the benefit would be to exclude it now and whether people are going to keep on doing it anyway. Leskinen stated in her view the City has other safeguards to protect the lake. Schoenzeit moved,Olson seconded,to recommend no change of Application No. 17-3953,City of Orono,Text Amendment,Non-Encroachments. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3,Olson,Schwingler and Landgraver Opposed. 7. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: JUNE 26,2017,AND JULY 10,2017 Barnhart reported on the following actions taken by the City Council: • Denied the rock crushing operation • Approved a correction to the small lot setback regulation Page 19 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. • Approved a resolution of a preliminary plat for 800 North Arm • Approved a resolution granting a variance for Peterson at 4105 Highland Road • Approved the site plan for an emergency dock at Molly's Corner for the Long Lake Fire Department. • Approved a variance for All Energy Solar • Approved an Eagle Scout project • Tabled the Catherine Sweet application • Denied the Westwood proposal for a condominium building on Shadywood Road • Approved going out for bids on the Navarre area plan 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Thiesse commented he would like to look at rezoning areas as part of the Comprehensive Plan update since people might question why the site is being rezoned from what is identified in the plan. Barnhart stated there are some opportunities to identify different areas that could be rezoned as part of that process. Thiesse stated building height for some of these sites should also be changed. Landgraver asked when these issues will get folded into the discussion. Barnhart stated ultimately the Planning Commission will see the whole Comprehensive Plan. Barnhart indicated the committee has been meeting and that they are in the process of reviewing various chapters. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:28 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. ATTEST: 7 John Thiesse, Chair Page 20 of 20