Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2017 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, Chad Olson, 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. 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 JULY 17,2017 Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the minutes of the July 17,2017,Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 2. 17-3949 DALE GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF KEVIN KRETSCH,3155 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCE,6:32 P.M.—6:44 P.M. Dale Gustafson,Applicant,was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a setback variance for construction of new retaining walls within 75 feet of the OHWL in the lake yard. The applicants are adding retaining walls and landscaping along the shoreline. The property abuts Lake Minnetonka and has a slope into the shoreline. There are currently stairs leading down the slope creating an access to the lake. The applicant is proposing to replace the stairs in kind and to strengthen the slope along the lake by installing additional retaining walls. The applicant is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to add rip-rap along the water line and they are also proposing to add boulders above the rip-rap along the base of the slope creating what appears to be a retaining wall to protect the rip-rap and slope. The proposed walls range between one and four feet high and run from property line to property line creating the need for a building permit. The walls are also situated at the ordinary high water line of the lake. The applicant is hoping to proactively prevent further erosion of the slope. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and is requesting a building permit be obtained in addition to engineering of the walls. Included in Staffs report is an analysis of the practical difficulties for the variance. The applicant has submitted some photographs of the existing stairs they would like to replace in kind. In addition, Staff has conducted a site visit and took photographs as well to illustrate the current condition of the slope. Oakden displayed a photograph of the existing stairs looking to the east. With regard to the walls protecting the stairs, Staff finds practical difficulties exist with the existing conditions and find a need to stabilize and protect the slope from erosion. Staff has concerns regarding the linear retaining wall that runs along the shoreline that is connected to the rip-rap. A thorough grading review by the City Engineer will occur upon submittal of the building permit Page 1 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. for the walls. Staff is suggesting approval of the project with screening of all of the retaining walls being required to preserve the natural look of the shoreline when viewed from the lake. The Planning Commission should discuss the issues outlined in Staff's report. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1. Submittal of engineered plans with the building permit application; 2. Approval applicable permits from the MCWD; 3. Vegetative screening plan to provide a natural looking slope when viewed from the lake; and 4. Removal of the wall directly above the rip-rap or, if the wall is necessary to the stability of the slope,the applicant should provide justification and a revised plan which allows for vegetative screening of the bottom wall without justification. Staff recommends denial of this wall. Oakden played a short animated video of what is being proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Dale Gustafson, Developer, stated he completed the design of the project and that he is fine with the recommendations of Staff. Thiesse asked if there is justification for the sea wall. Gustafson indicated it is commonly called a curve wall,with the curve of the wall being within the range of where the MCWD says the rip-rap should be. Gustafson stated whenever there is a steep bank,the rip- rap is placed at a low angle so it does not get pushed up the hill. Putting boulders on the edge of that will get you to the edge of the bank. Gustafson stated the reason for the wall on the right-hand side that appears in one photograph to be back a few feet is in the area where it is all dirt. The other photograph shows annual weeds, which does not hold the soil. Gustafson indicated that area is already eroded and giving away. Gustafson stated if it is not fixed now,they will probably have to come back and fix it later. Landgraver asked how it will terminate at the property line. Gustafson indicated it will tie back into the bank at the property line by the rocks. Landgraver asked if it will route water over to the neighboring property. Gustafson stated it will not. Gustafson stated they are attempting to keep more of the runoff from this site on the property and that the runoff will come down the bank and not go onto the neighboring property. Schoenzeit asked why the normal detail that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District uses on Lake Minnetonka does not work for the applicant. Gustafson stated the guidelines are set up for a 3:1 slope and this bank is steeper than that. As a result, the rip-rap should come up and meet the grade to avoid making the slope steeper. Page 2 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit noted other property owners with the exact same problem have not constructed a wall that Gustafson stated there are more curve walls being installed on the lake. Gustafson stated with the high water and the wave action, erosion was occurring above the rip-rap and as a result the Watershed District said that the rip-rap needs to go higher in order to hold the slope. Schoenzeit commented rip-rap is more natural and is not a wall. Gustafson stated it will not be a big wall and that the grasses will grow over the edges. Gustafson stated in the end it will not look much different from rip-rap. Gustafson noted the neighbor has the same thing and that this will blend in. Thiesse asked if he is comfortable with Staff's requests. Gustafson indicated he is. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Lemke commented the proposal makes sense. Thiesse stated his only concern related to the wall and that the applicant has addressed his concerns,with the City Engineer and Watershed District reviewing it. Thiesse asked if there was a letter that indicated the Watershed District did have a detail but have never used it. Oakden stated to her understanding it has been a while since they have used that style of detail. Landgraver stated in his view if the applicant conforms with all of Staff's recommendations, it will be a positive. Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3949,Dale Gustafson on behalf of Kevin Kretsch,3155 Casco Circle,granting of a setback variance subject to the conditions outlined in Staff report. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 3. 17-3963 JHG PROPERTIES,LLC,4035 DAHL ROAD,PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE,6:44 P.M.—7:16 P.M. James Gilbert,JHG Properties, LLC, was present. Curtis stated this property is located within the LR-1B, lakeshore residential district requiring a minimum of one acre and 140 feet in width per lot. The applicants are requesting approval of a lot area variance with a Class III subdivision in order to subdivide the 1.82 acre property into two buildable lots. The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum lot standards in order to create one additional lot. The development would create one conforming 1-acre lot and one .67 acre lot. The remaining two- tenths of an acre would be dedicated right-of-way. The property is currently within the Tier 2 hardcover Page 3 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. zone limiting hardcover to 30 percent. Proposed Lot 2 would remain in Tier 2. Based on the building footprint location of proposed Lot 1, after analysis it appears that Tier 3 or 35 percent hardcover limitations would likely apply. Curtis noted the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance to the City in adopting ordinances and policies to achieve the goals and vision of the City. Based on the guidance from the Comprehensive Plan,the City adopted zoning regulations establishing minimum lot sizes, including those for the subject parcel. The low to medium density category was not intended to suggest that the City would change the zoning to allow creation of new lots that are substandard. Since 1975 the City has only twice allowed the creation of new lots with substandard area. Both were in 2-acre zones and both were for what can only be considered political reasons. In every other instances when substandard lots are created they have been created via the PRD process and the City has required the underlying density still be met by the overall creation of open space outlots. The Conservation Master Planning requirements apply to all proposed residential subdivisions or multi- unit residential developments greater than five acres in total area or guided for urban density. The property meets the urban density guidance trigger and a conservation design pan is required. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement. The Planning Commission should provide direction on this issue; however,the City Council will make the final decision. Staff provided a practical difficulty analysis within the Staff report. Tonight the applicant should be asked to discuss the practical difficulties supporting their variance request. Staff's analysis found that the applicant failed to satisfy all of the practical difficulties necessary to grant the variance, which is also necessary in order to approve the subdivision. The City has historically not created substandard lots without a rezoning or PRD process. Staff did speak with one neighbor who was not in support of the variance and/or subdivision of the property. This neighbor further stated their concern was the lack of regulation preventing the type of construction the applicant has identified on 940 North Arm Drive. A comment letter from another neighbor was received today and has been distributed to the Planning Commission. Curtis noted the home on 940 North Arm Drive was constructed in accordance with the minimum building code standards. The City does not and may not have a prohibition on any of the different home or construction types which meet the building code. Staff suggests the City Council may want to explore the regulations which govern construction types or minimum construction standards relating to minimum size and/or width of homes. Specifically if the placement of mobile homes on properties within the City is a concern. The Planning Commission should consider one of the following motions: 1. Approval of the lot area variance in order to create a new substandard buildable lot and approval of the Class III subdivision to create a total of two buildable lots where one lot currently exists. If the Planning Commission finds variance approval appropriate,the applicant should be directed regarding the waiver of the conservation design requirements. 2. The alternative motion to be considered by the Planning Commission tonight is denial of the variance;thereby denying the subdivision request. Page 4 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. James Gilbert,4030 Dahl Road, stated he is the chief manager of JHG Properties and that he has resided in Orono for over 30 years. Gilbert stated he tries to do what is right and be a positive influence and that he is attempting to be proactive in this situation but that he takes issue with the recommendations of Staff. Gilbert stated he purchased this blighted,rundown property off of the Internet after it was foreclosed upon. Gilbert indicated they found out when they started demolition on it that there were three subbasements. The house was built up from 1926 and onward but not taken care of. The house has been vacant for almost 15 months before purchase and over the years the City has had maintenance issues relating to grass cutting and other problems with the prior owner. Gilbert indicated he bought the property in an as-is condition and that they eventually decided to demo the home. Gilbert noted the owner of 940 North Arm put a trailer home on the property and that all he needs is a building permit to put a trailer home on this property. Gilbert stated it is not his plan to do that but that he does have a concern that it would be allowed in Orono. Gilbert stated they did perform the demolition and it ended up being a lot more work than what was anticipated. Gilbert stated after they filed the application, a letter was distributed to the 18 homes in the neighborhood asking for their input. A written response was received from the McGlynns and the only call received was one from Mr. Wallner on Loma Linda,who expressed two concerns. The first concern related to the size of the home. Gilbert stated he informed him that they do not know how big the house would be but that it would not be any bigger than 3,500 square feet. Gilbert stated he has a footprint about the same size as the current home with a second story being added. The second concern expressed by Mr. Wallner was about an accessory structure that was being proposed that he felt was too close to the property line. Gilbert noted they have removed the existing structure. Gilbert indicated JHG Properties has constructed approximately 10-12 homes in the past as well as the U.S. Bank building in downtown Wayzata. Gilbert displayed a picture of a house in Minnetonka that JHG Properties is constructing right now as well as another home in Minnetonka that they constructed consisting of a 5,000 square footprint. Gilbert stated he does not know the design of this home yet but that it will be a high-quality home. Gilbert noted this lot is 1.82 acres, which is equivalent to a football field and a half. The proposal is that one of the lots would be fully conforming even without the wetland being taken into consideration. The idea was to have the larger lot near North Arm Drive. Gilbert noted there would be some separation between the two homes because of the slope and that they are also proposing to do some landscaping to create more of a buffer from North Arm Drive. Gilbert noted Section 3C of the report says that less than three of the surrounding lots are one acre or less. Gilbert indicated he went on the Hennepin County website for real estate taxes and that he tried to figure out the size of the lots. Of the 18 lots that are either facing this lot or adjacent to it, nine of the lots are less than one acre and nine of the lots consist of one acre. Gilbert stated in his view creating the two lots would be in conformity with the neighborhood and that everything that will be built will be in compliance with the requirements of the City. The only variance being requested is the lot area variance for the smaller lot. Page 5 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gilbert stated the other issue he has with Staff's report is that there is a finding that the variance alters the character of the neighborhood,which in his view is an erroneous conclusion. The Minnesota Supreme Court held in 2008 as well as in the mid-1970s that unlike use variances, area variances do not alter the character of the zoning district. Gilbert stated what they are doing here is not altering the use but rather asking for a variance to the size of the lot. Gilbert stated as a matter of law the neighborhood will not be altered. In addition,the City Council just approved another variance. In the Bjerkland variance,the City Council found that single-family use is consistent with Orono's Comprehensive Plan. Single-family use for both of these properties is consistent and in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. Gilbert noted state law controls the ultimate issue here as it relates to practical difficulties. The statute contains three elements,. The first provision states the use of the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by zoning ordinance. Gilbert stated in his view the proposed use of the property is reasonable and that it will improve the neighborhood. It will also create a sense of community. The second element of the statute says if granted,the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Gilbert stated their proposal will not alter the character of the locality since it is not a change in the use. The third element states there are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Gilbert indicated they purchased the property to preserve and improve the neighborhood and that they would not have purchased the home if they had known there would be a trailer home on the lot right around the corner. Gilbert stated this is a long, narrow lot which has created problems with the City over the years in terms of maintenance of the property. Gilbert noted he has hired a grass cutter to mow the grass. Gilbert stated in his view their request is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and that they are in full compliance with all of the other regulations. Gilbert requested the Planning Commission approve the request and grant the variance. Leskinen asked if there is a reason why they would not just build a house on the existing lot. Leskinen stated she is struggling with the practical difficulty since they can make use of the full lot without subdividing it. Gilbert stated it would require a house over a$1 million and that in his view the neighborhood would not support that since it does not have lakeshore. Gilbert noted the property is approximately 200 yards from the lake. In the Bjerkland proposal,that was a lot line change and the City Council approved that because it would create another lot on the lake and create a view for the second lot. Gilbert noted they are not asking for that and that state law requires that Lake Minnetonka be a public domain for all the public and not just for Orono. Gilbert stated in his opinion their findings are almost identical with Bjerkland's findings. Curtis stated Mr. Bjerkland had two lots, one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore. In that situation,the City Council approved a lot line adjustment to create two lakeshore lots out of those two building sites. Thiesse stated to his recollection the City required the lots be conforming. Lemke noted they were also two existing lots. Page 6 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gilbert commented they created a new lakeshore lot. Gilbert noted the findings state the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment and is a substantial property right of the applicant. The Planning Commission voted against that and the City Council reversed that. In addition, the granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort or morals in any respect and would be contrary to the intent of this Chapter. Gilbert stated they meet that requirement as well. The third finding was that the size, shape and orientation of the properties raise practical difficulties. Gilbert stated he believes his situation is no different when considering the rationale in the Bjerkland application. Thiesse pointed out Bjerkland had two lots to begin with and ended up with two conforming lots, and in this case there is only one lot and he will end up with one conforming and one nonconforming lot. Lemke asked if there is city sewer available. Curtis stated there is. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Schoenzeit asked if the Metropolitan Council has approved a second connection. Curtis stated they have not. Leskinen stated historically the City does not create nonconforming lots and that she does not see a compelling reason to change that in this case. Leskinen stated the applicant has reasonable use of the one lot and that it does not meet that section of the practical difficulties since reasonable use can be made without subdividing. Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leskinen. Lemke stated it does not parallel the other decision since there were two lots initially and both ended up being conforming. Schoenzeit stated in his view the standard of practical difficulty has not been met and that there is one lot so there should be one house. Olson stated his biggest concern is that it will set a precedent. Schwingler stated in his mind it is pretty straight forward and that it would be creating a nonconforming lot. Landgraver stated it should be acknowledged that the applicant is taking a less than desirable property and improving it,which should be encouraged, but that this Planning Commission has never approved a nonconforming lot. Thiesse stated he would agree with that. Page 7 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jackie Neve, 4060 Dahl Road, stated she has lived on Dahl Road for 40 years and that she lives across from this property. Neve stated her biggest fear is that because it is 1.8 acres and if the Gilberts decide that it is not economically feasible to build a big enough house,that the neighborhood would end up with a mobile home on there when they sell the lot. Neve noted there are lots in the area that consist of.4 and .5 acres and that it was that way when she moved in 40 years ago. Neve stated the idea of having the smaller lot on the hill closer to those smaller lots would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood and that she is okay with what they are proposing and that it would be preferable to it being left vacant or having a mobile home on it. Thiesse commented he understands what she is saying and that the Council could decide to approve the request. Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3963,JHG Properties,LLC,4035 Dahl Road,Preliminary Plat and Variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4. 17-3962 LAKE WEST DEVEOPMENT,LLC,ON BEHALF OF RICK AND BARBARA LUPIENT,PIDs 20-117-23-42-0001/0002/0003 (Lots 1,2 and 3 Casco Point Addition) "Ivy Place", PRELIMINARY PLAT,7:16 P.M.—8:40 P.M. Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, was present. Barnhart stated the City has received a request for preliminary plat approval of a proposed two-lot subdivision of a vacant property located at the northerly end of Ivy Place on Casco Point. The project is located on Casco Point on a peninsula near a lagoon on the east side. The aerial photograph shows a vacant parcel, a boathouse, a generally flat peninsula, and a lot of volunteer vegetation which would be removed as part of the project. The property consists of three existing tax parcels,which the applicants propose to reconfigure to result in two residential building lots, each meeting the size requirements, and one outlot as a front lot/back lot configuration. Based on the preliminary pad layout, it does appear that the structures themselves would meet the setback requirements, or at least building pads are depicted on the plan showing an adequate building pad without the need for variances. Also proposed is the vacation of an existing roadway easement through the parcels,which will be replaced with a new one that better aligns with the proposed development pattern. The property will be served by municipal water and sewer. Barnhart noted there are a number of easements that impact the property, with many of them remaining in effect and the others being modified. There is a view easement over the northern half of the property in favor of a private resident across the bay. That is a private easement and the City is not looking to enforce that but it is shown to be preserved as part of the plat. In addition,there is a sanitary sewer main that is protected by an easement. That easement does not necessarily follow exactly where the sanitary sewer line follows so some modification will be necessary. The proposed plat shows that easement on the west portion of the property. Easements to be vacated include a private driveway easement that includes a private cul-de-sac and a utility easement that does not match the actual location of the sewer lines. Staff has been advised that the existing sewer connection for the residence at 3560 Ivy Place crosses the applicants' property. This will need to be confirmed, and if it exists,the encroachment should be Page 8 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. eliminated by relocating the sewer connection or the applicants must grant an easement for the encroachment. The survey indicates that a small portion of the deck for the house at 3560 Ivy Place may encroach into the applicants' property. In addition, a portion of the driveway serving 3560 Ivy encroaches into the applicants' property. Possible remedies for these two encroachments include a lot line rearrangement, an easement,or removal of the encroachment. The applicant's proposed driveway parallels this encroachment. Access to the site is via a road easement that extends through 3560 Ivy Place. An existing driveway easement will be vacated and replaced with a 30-foot wide Outlot A that will serve both Lots 1 and 2. Outlot A will be located within the 75-foot lake yard but generally outside of the drainage and shore stabilization easement. A portion of the outlot will encroach into this easement because the existing road easement terminates into the drainage and shore stabilization easement. Establishment of a cul-de-sac or more functional turnaround at the end of Ivy Place would be desirable but there is not sufficient room to accomplish that within the existing right-of-way. Acquisition of additional right-of-way from the applicants' property would seem to be of marginal value given the configuration of the property and the close proximity of the lakeshore. The neighboring property owner has raised concerns with access and the applicant's attorney has responded. As a result of it being a private driveway,the City is not in a position to arbitrate the access question. Because this is a peninsula and because both lots having shoreline on two sides,the average lakeshore setback should be addressed as part of the approval resolution. It would appear that the location of the adjacent home at 3560 Ivy should be the defining property for establishing average lakeshore setback on the lake side. The home at 3560 Ivy appears to be 35 feet from the lake. Since the survey indicates that 3560 Ivy does not abut the lake on the lagoon side,there would be no average lakeshore setback on the lagoon side. Any new homes on Lots 1 and 2 must be at least 75 feet from the shore and Staff would suggest that 75 feet become the required average setback regardless of which lot is built first. The proposed plan shows both lots having a conceptual footprint preserving the 0-75 foot lake yards. Barnhart noted there is a wetland that runs along the entire perimeter of the property and a very small wetland within existing Lot 3. The applicant proposes filling this wetland. Approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must be obtained prior to preliminary plat approval. A wetland buffer of 25 feet will be required by the Watershed District. The City requires a setback of 10 feet from the buffer for structures and hardcover. The wetland along the shoreline and its buffer/setback impact the proposed driveway at the extreme south end of the parcel and a wetland variance will be necessary for the driveway. A Conservation Design Report has been submitted and identifies a number of boxelder and elm trees. The applicant's landscape plan suggests the planting of 94 new trees on the property. The Fire Chief has recommended that the residences be provided with fire suppression sprinkler systems and that no contractor parking be allowed on Ivy Place during construction. In addition, it was recommended that the driveway be wider than eight feet to better accommodate emergency and service vehicles. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Page 9 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. No structure may be closer than 75 feet to the lake on either side. 2. The property line between Lots 1 and 2 shall function as a side property line, requiring a 15-foot setback. 3. The applicant must comply with all comments of MCWD outlined in their memo of August 10, 2017. 4. The applicant should submit declaration and documentation of a wetland buffer as required by the MCWD. 5. All comments of the City Engineer outlined in a memo dated August 14,2017, shall be addressed. 6. Comments from the Fire Chief shall be addressed. 7. Additional approvals include the following: a. Variance from the wetland setback. b. Variance of wetland buffer impact from the Watershed District. c. Conditional Use Permit for filling in the floodplain. d. Successful vacation of the existing driveway easement. e. Successful realignment of an underground utility easement. Landgraver stated to his recollection at the time of sketch plan review there was an issue with the view easement. Landgraver asked whether that was regarding Lot 2. Barnhart indicated it is. Landgraver asked if the location of the house on Lot 1 complies with the side lot setback. Barnhart stated the required setback is 10 feet and the plan is showing 16 feet. Lemke asked where the existing house is. Barnhart illustrated the location of Lots 1, 2, and 3 on the overhead as well as the existing home and garage. Lemke asked if the existing home would be set off from the proposed house. Barnhart indicated it appears to be close to the property line but that he does not know what that distance is. The proposed house shows a 16-foot setback. Thiesse asked if there are concerns with construction staging that would cause problems with the average lakeshore setback. Barnhart suggested the average lakeshore setback be identified as part of preliminary plat approval. If both of the new homes are at 75 feet,that would be the average lakeshore line on both sides. Page 10 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked if the one-story limitation and sprinkler would be recorded on the title. Barnhart indicated it would be a restriction on the property if it is approved. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission has no control over the single-story limitation. Barnhart stated it would be up to that property owner to enforce the view easement and that the City would have a hard time denying a two-story house that meets City requirements based on a private agreement. Barnhart stated the sprinklers are enforceable by the City. Lemke asked if the sewer will work given its proximity to the water. Barnhart stated that is where the existing sewer is and that it would remain as is. Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, stated he is here to answer questions. Lemke asked if one unit would make it economically feasible to develop the property. Fretham noted it was originally platted as three lots and that what they are proposing is very reasonable in terms of the two homes. Fretham stated if the site was developed as one lot, he is not sure how big that house would get someday. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Tera White,3560 Ivy Place, stated their house is located at the bottom of the hill and all the water runs down the hill and floods into the lower lot. White expressed a concern with adding hardcover and runoff to the already existing water that runs down the hill. White stated at times that creates a pond and that she is concerned they will have runoff onto their property after construction. White stated she is not sure a 10-foot setback will be sufficient for a swale between their house and this property. Jay White noted the house will also be 1.5 feet higher than their home 15 feet away and that they would request some consideration be given to an additional side setback. Tera White stated their other concern is that they have not heard any sort of plan regarding the sewer and gas encroachments. White stated in 1970 the sewer went in but that it is not within their property and is an encroachment. White commented they do not know where to put it,nor do they want to incur the cost of that since they just installed a new driveway and it would have to be ripped up if the lines were relocated. White commented the project seems to be very impactful to them and that they have concerns about that. White stated the utilities were allowed to be installed on land they did not believe would be buildable and was not their choice. Jay White noted it was considered wetland two years ago. White stated in regards to access, a 12-foot driveway would put it within two feet of the lake and that he is not sure how a truck would get through there. White stated at the last meeting the City had suggested barging in a lot of the fill and equipment and that they would support that rather than having huge trucks coming up a private driveway and making that turn. Page 11 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Tera White stated they also back up the driveway to make that turn and that they have encountered people coming down the hill as they are backing up. White commented they would now be adding two other families with possible multiple drivers,which would add to the congestion. Jay White commented there are safety concerns associated with that. White stated since it will not be a public road so the City is not considering making any improvements. White noted there is no agreement concerning the driveway and that he would ask the Planning Commission to consider whether it would be better for only one home to be built. White stated in their view adding two home would not be safe. As it relates to the outlot, White stated that will end up being a private shared driveway off of their driveway and not dedicated as a public road. White commented he is not sure if a variance is needed or how it works, but the subject lot has no hardship. White stated the access should go directly to the setback and that they are using the outlot to create the two homes and that there will be a lot of hardcover in the impact area. William"Frenchie"Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, stated he has spoken with several neighbors who have a concern about an overly cozy relationship between the Mayor and this developer and that they feel powerless to do anything. Dampier stated the common question that came up was why the maximum profit for the developer is the overriding interest rather than maintaining the community's interest. Dampier stated as he understands it,the developer has a contingency agreement with the owners, and should the Planning Commission not approve this,he has nominal costs in the project. Dampier stated they have ignored the fact that everybody who lives on Ivy Place,with the exception of the Whites, live within the 130-foot sight setback. Dampier stated if they are allowed to build within 75 feet, it would preclude him and everybody else who has adhered to that sight setback from ever having a view of the lake. Dampier indicated he has a little over 135 feet from the front of his house to the lakeshore and that he had to give up eight feet in order to build his house back in 1998. Dampier stated he is familiar with the sightline setback rules and that everybody else has adhered to that 135 feet setback over the years. Dampier stated if they are allowed to put two houses in there at the 75-foot line, it will change the character of the neighborhood permanently. Dampier questioned whether they would all then be allowed to move forward. Dampier noted he also found out recently that15 feet of the street belongs to him and that he can use that 15 feet to justify building closer to the lakeshore. Dampier commented it is going to be a never-ending battle unless another approach is taken to developing this land. Dampier stated it is not a hardship for somebody to build a house with a compromised setback but it is just not as profitable. Dampier stated as has been mentioned,the point of the peninsula has always been wetlands. Dampier stated if it has been defined as 168 square feet,that's fine,but that he knows it has been much bigger than that over his lifetime. The flood water coming down the hill does turn that whole point into a pond, which causes the developer to have to raise the land. That, in turn,will cause drainage problems for the neighbors. Dampier expressed a concern about how many dump truck loads it will take to raise the elevation of the land and how many trucks will be going up and down the road. Dampier stated the road is not rated for heavy trucks and that it has less than two inches of paving in spots. If heavy traffic is allowed on the road, the road will crumble. Dampier stated at a bare minimum, if this is allowed and barging is not required,the City should demand some type of surety bond or warranty to ensure that any damage to the road will be addressed by the Page 12 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. developer. Dampier stated the congestion from construction crews and equipment will bring further problems and damage to the neighborhood. Mark Pfleghaar, 3509 Ivy Place, stated he would second what Frenchie said about traffic and the condition of the road. Pfleghaar stated there are a lot of kids on the road and that the road can barely pass two vehicles right now. Pfleghaar stated he is not sure if anyone talked to Jim White about why this lot was never developed before but to allow somebody variances for financial gain is senseless. If the Lupients wanted to retire there and build their dream home,the neighborhood would be a lot more supportive of anything happening at all. Pfleghaar stated when he presented some things to the Planning Commission and City Council, he was told that financial gain is not a reason to grant a variance. Pfleghaar stated the developer is building the homes for a profit and that he wants to go outside the rules of the City to do that,which he does not believe is fair. Peter Graffunder, 3630 Casco Avenue, stated he is not close to this site and not impacted by the work but that he has great concerns about filling wetland. Graffunder noted earlier photographs depict this area as all wetland and that it has already been filled somewhat. Graffunder stated he is not sure whether the filling was permitted or not. Graffunder stated the mitigation of a 165-foot wetland is a ridiculous amount since virtually all of the site is wetland. Dave Pichotta, 2914 Casco Point Road, asked if there have been soil borings done of these lots and whether the Planning Commission or City Engineer has reviewed them. Pichotta stated he stood on his lot near the shoreline by the high water mark from a few years and that entire peninsula was under water. Pichotta commented it seems ludicrous to him that the City would allow building on there, but what is more ludicrous is that the County and the City have been taxing the Lupients for developable lots for so long. Jeff Danberry, 3545 Ivy Place, asked why they want access across Jay's driveway. Danberry asked if that access has already been granted and whether it is for a walkway or for vehicles. Barnhart indicated it is vehicular access and it is already there. Danberry asked if Jay White has any say in what goes on there. Barnhart stated based on the easement he does not. Danberry stated his understanding was his driveway was set up to turn the snowplows around from Ivy Place. Danberry asked if there is an easement to do that. Barnhart stated he is not aware of an easement for that but that there is an easement through Mr. White's property to the point. Danberry noted the street ends at Frenchie's house and from there it is all driveway. Danberry commented it is not very thick asphalt down there and it will be torn up for sure. Danberry stated there should be compensation to Jay by the developer. Danberry asked if they can or cannot restrict the height or not. Page 13 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated one lot is governed by a view easement,which is in favor of a private resident. Barnhart stated the City would not enforce that but that there is an easement that restricts it to one story. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Barnhart noted one of the concerns expressed related to the average lakeshore setback and allowing these properties to be built to the closer than what presumably would be allowed. Barnhart stated if Lot 1 is the first one to be built,when Staff computes the average lakeshore setback, they would look at the adjacent lakeshore lot to that property. Typically Staff would look at the property to each side of the proposed house and draw a straight line between the most lakeward protrusions of each adjacent house. Dampier commented that is not how it was calculated when he requested his building permit. Barnhart stated that is how it is calculated now. Barnhart stated based on the most lakeward protrusion of those two homes,the house can go up to that point. Barnhart noted also in play is the 75-foot lake yard setback and that homes are not allowed to go within 75 feet of the lake. Barnhart stated if the house is 50 feet from the lake,the average lakeshore line would be 50 feet, but that there would also be a 75-foot lake yard. As a result,the house cannot go closer than 75 feet to the lake. In this case there is not an adjacent lake yard for one of the lots since it does not touch the lake and the average lakeshore really only applies to one lot. Staff is proposing that the lake yard on all three sides be 75 feet, which is similar to what was proposed at the sketch plan review earlier. Barnhart stated as it relates to the filling of the wetland, Staff is aware of the history of this parcel and has presented that information to the DNR. Based on the information the City was able to find,the DNR was not willing to say that area was a wetland and thereby protected. Barnhart noted Staff spent quite a bit of time and energy trying to prove it was a wetland and was not able to do so. As a result, Staff went with the wetland delineation that was done within the last eight or nine months ago. That delineation depicted a wetland along the shoreland and also a 168-foot wetland on Lot 3. Barnhart stated those are the known wetlands based on the delineation and accepted by the Watershed District. Barnhart stated with regards to the wetland setback and wetland buffer, with the exception of some areas that the Watershed District is still discussing,the only impact to the wetlands, other than the filling of the 168 foot wetland, is a small portion of the driveway that is necessary to gain access to the lot. Barnhart noted there is no other place to put the driveway other than driving along this parcel,which would still be impacting the wetland and the wetland buffer. Staff felt the proposed location would be the least impact to the neighbor. Barnhart stated the applicant can have an 8-foot wide driveway in the shoreland and in the 75-foot setback area if there are no other options. The developer is proposing 12 feet because it is serving two lots. Barnhart indicated it is up to the City Council on whether to allow the 12 feet, but the additional four feet is to provide more maneuverability in the curves. Thiesse asked if they can construct two 8-foot driveways. Barnhart stated that would defeat the purpose but that they could possibly come back with two 8-foot driveways. Barnhart stated he would like to reduce the amount of hardcover in that area. Page 14 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. As it relates to soil borings, Staff is anticipating pilings or another extraordinary foundation being required for these buildings. Barnhart stated the building officials likely will require some additional engineering or additional proof to show that the foundation can support the building. Barnhart stated Staff does realize it is at the bottom of the hill and that the soils are somewhat suspect. Barnhart stated as it relates to access,there is an access that cuts through private property, which is certainly not an ideal situation, but that is what is available. Barnhart stated it is his belief the developer is attempting to minimize the impact to the property and still provide access but that the applicant is aware of the concerns of the neighborhood. In addition,the fire chief has recommended no parking on Ivy Place during construction. Landgraver asked if Ivy Place is a private road. Barnhart stated it is a platted right-of-way and publicly maintained. Lemke asked if Staff is going to look into the ability of the road to support heavy loads. Barnhart stated he would recommend that verification of the condition be established before construction and then following construction. Lemke asked how much fill will be required. Barnhart indicated he does not have those numbers at this time. Schoenzeit questioned how someone in a floodplain,which is below 932.5, can get to create more land by the lake. Barnhart stated it would be through a Conditional Use Permit and that Staff does not know those numbers yet. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission can either table it or move forward. Fretham stated their engineer has proposed 1,000 yards of fill and that with a typical excavation 200 to 300 yards of material is hauled out and 200 to 300 yards is hauled in. Fretham stated if you times that by two, it will be approximately 1,200 cubic yards,which is a little more than typical. Fretham stated another way to double check those calculations is to take the square footage of the lots and multiply that by two,which is approximately a third of an acre. It would take approximately 1,600 yards of fill for that area. Fretham stated in his estimation they are looking at around 1,200 to 1,300 cubic yards. Fretham stated while it might seem that they will be hauling in a lot of material, a lot of that has to do with the fact that the homes will be slab on grade so there is not a need to haul material out. Thiesse stated stormwater management is a concern of his as well as the neighbor. Thiesse asked how it will be confirmed that the water will not disturb the neighbor's property. Fretham noted he has provided a drawing that specifically addresses water runoff and that what they are proposing should help the Whites. Fretham stated a berm will be installed to help divert the water away from the White's property. Page 15 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Tera White stated they do not have a problem currently but it is the addition of hardcover that they are concerned about. White stated the water appears to be diverted to a swale that is very close to their house and that it will be creating a problem that does not currently exist. Fretham noted there will actually a mound in that area. Tera White stated it does not assure her that they will not get runoff onto their property. Thiesse noted they have contours that show the water will go down Casco and onto the subject property. Fretham stated they are not diverting any water onto the White's property and that it should improve their situation. Fretham noted they will also be adding some underground stormwater treatment on Lots 1 and 2. Thiesse asked how he proposes to address the existing roadway and construction traffic. Fretham stated they are planning to do a thorough analysis of the road independent of what the City does, and if the road is damaged,they will be accountable,but they will know what it looked like before they start. Fretham stated even though the sewer and gas lines are on the subject property,they are not in their way and they are not planning to do anything about it. Thiesse asked if he would give the Whites some sort of easement to repair. Fretham stated that depends. Schoenzeit asked if there is any existing easement for that. Thiesse stated the City is not aware of one. Fretham stated there will be an easement on their side. Schoenzeit noted the other property does not have to grant an easement as part of this project. Fretham stated as it relates to the wetland and the wetland buffer area,the Lupients, in granting this restoration easement, created their own burden by creating a wetland and a restoration easement along the property line that is in conflict to their own interests to the property. Fretham stated the Lupients gave that up and that they are now expecting a variance to the easement will be needed. Thiesse asked if the City was provided with that easement. Barnhart stated he did not provide it to the Planning Commission but that the City does have possession of it. Dampier stated when he was getting his building permit,the City explained that the house to the north was exempt because it was a pre-existing nonconforming structure. Dampier stated to base a setback on a pre-existing nonconforming structure ignores all the potential that exists. Dampier commented not all the Page 16 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. houses will be here 100 years from now or even 20 years from now and at some point the houses will be replaced. Dampier stated what won't be replaced is that sightline,and if a house is set at the 75-foot line and everybody else on Ivy Place is at 120 and 130 feet from the shoreline,that precludes him from using his property to the same degree that is being granted to the Lupients. Barnhart stated he does not know how the rules were applied when Mr. Dampier got his building permit but that he is basing the average lakeshore setback on the current regulations. Dampier stated he was forced to give up a significant portion of his house because of that 130-foot setback. Dampier stated his neighbors were also told that as well as the two new houses on Ivy Place. In all of those situations the City ignored the pre-existing nonconforming structure, but yet the City is using the pre-existing nonconforming structure as the basis for creating the 75-foot setback in this case, and it is not right. Curtis noted the interpretation and the actual language in the average lakeshore code have changed and is not written the way it was when Mr. Dampier was working on his home. Dampier asked if he can move closer to the lake. Curtis stated if the homes on either side of him are more lakeward and there is still room within the 75- foot setback, he can, but that hardcover and structural coverage would also come into play. Landgraver stated the rules were probably changed because of that situation. Thiesse stated if he has not already closed the public hearing,he will do so now. The public hearing was reclosed at 8:20 p.m. Landgraver asked if snow just gets pushed down Ivy Place into the lake. Landgraver stated in his view this is an opportunity to maybe put in a little more protection for the lake. Thiesse commented he is afraid protections of the lake in connection with snow removal will create other problems elsewhere and that there is very little room to turn around as it is without snow being piled in that area. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can either forward the application to the City Council or table the application to give the applicant time to submit the requested information. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission is not recommending approval of any variances or a conditional use permit at this time and that those items were highlighted merely to identify future actions that will be required as part of construction of the property. Barnhart stated a separate public hearing will be held for those items. Leskinen asked if the variances and conditional use permit would be discussed as part of final plat. Barnhart indicated it would. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the condition of the road be verified both before and after construction. Thiesse asked whether the fill would be brought in by barge. Page 17 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Fretham stated they did not contemplate bringing trucks across the lake for fill, and that when that was discussed, he thought they meant lumber and other things. Fretham indicated their plan was to bring in the fill and other materials by truck. Fretham noted there is a City Engineer's memo regarding drainage. Barnhart stated the City Engineer's comments were added as a condition to make sure it was incorporated into the final plat. Thiesse asked if both homes would be built at once. Fretham stated probably not. Lemke asked if all the water runoff will be away from the neighbor's property and oriented towards the lake. Fretham stated the biggest runoff will be from the rooftops and that the gutters will direct it towards the storm management system. Fretham stated there will be some treatment by the driveway and the only water that is going to end up between the two houses will just be surface water. The other runoff will end up in the shady area. Fretham noted the arrows on the plan depict the direction of the surface water and not off the roof. Peter Graffunder, 3630 Casco Avenue, asked if there will be any attempt to mitigate the hardcover stormwater that comes off the driveway and straight into the lake. Graffunder noted that runoff will have salt from Ivy Place and in his view that should also be handled with some type of treatment. Thiesse noted it is not being handled now. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission has settled on a 12-foot road. Thiesse noted that is what is shown, and if it is approved,they would require a variance. Barnhart indicated that would need to be approved as part of preliminary plat and that it has been identified as an issue. Schoenzeit stated the City should go in thinking it is going to be 12 feet wide because they do not want someone to build a nonfunctional road and then be forced to deal with it after the fact. Schoenzeit stated eight feet is not functional. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission would like to table the application. Lemke stated he does not need to see the additional information. Schoenzeit commented it would be nice to have the top number for fill limited to 1,250 cubic yards. Thiesse stated he would prefer to include an understanding in the motion rather than a hard number. Thiesse stated the City Council will be making that decision. Page 18 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated the property owner has the ability to develop the property and that he does not believe the neighbors will be entirely happy with whatever is constructed on the site. Landgraver noted there have been some concessions made by the Lupients along the way and that he would be willing to advance it with conditions. Schoenzeit asked if the drainage could be observed prior to occupancy to ensure it works. Barnhart stated the issue is that the City approves a building plan and a stormwater plan that includes treatment as shown. The developer would then build it as approved. Barnhart stated he is not aware of a scenario where it has been approved and then the City has not allowed them to occupy if it doesn't work. Schoenzeit asked what the recourse is if it does not work. Barnhart stated the standard condition on the building permit is someone cannot add water onto the adjacent property,which is what is being proposed here. The developer will be adding hardcover so there will be more runoff but the applicant is showing collection from the roof into an area not on the adjacent property. In addition,the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and those comments have been incorporated into the conditions. Barnhart stated in his opinion that is the due diligence Commissioner Schoenzeit is looking for. Schoenzeit moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3962,Lake West Development,LLC,on behalf of Rick and Barbara Lupient,for preliminary plat,subject to the recommendations of Staff outlined in the August 21,2017,Staff report,and based upon the discussion of the Planning Commission,with a recommendation that the amount of fill be identified prior to appearing before the City Council,with the understanding the Planning Commission based their decision on 1,300 cubic yards of fill,and subject to the City observing and verifying the current condition of Ivy Place prior to and after construction. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission would like the Council to understand what was told to the Planning Commission and what their decision was based on. Thiesse asked whether the width of the road should be identified in the motion. Barnhart stated in terms of the driveway width,that is part of the project that is being recommended for approval. Barnhart stated the additional approvals are outlined in Staffs report, and at some point in the future the applicant will need to request a variance from the wetland setback, a variance from the wetland buffer, and a conditional use permit for filling in the floodplain. Schoenzeit moved to amend his motion to add the condition that the neighboring property should not incur any expenses to remain connected to utilities. Thiesse noted there will be an easement down the property line of this subject project. Schoenzeit stated the Whites are connected today and they should remain connected after the project and that there should not be any cost to them. Thiesse asked what the easement is along the property line. Barnhart indicated it is a standard easement. Page 19 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated if the utility company wants $3,000 to reconnect the gas,the Whites should not have to pay for that. Thiesse noted the applicant is not moving the utility lines and that the applicant is not responsible for replacing it. Landgraver stated in his view that condition might be overreaching and could cover any number of situations. Leskinen stated she is not sure that is within the scope of the Planning Commission's authority. Amendment dies for lack of a second. VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 5. 17-3932 YMCA OF GREATER TWIN CITIES, 135 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH, SKETCH PLAN,8:40 P.M.—9:15 P.M. John Quinlivan, Gordon James Homes, was present. Barnhart stated the developer on behalf of the YMCA is seeking comment on a sketch plan proposing a 39-acre property abutting the Luce Line Trail be developed into 15 single-family residential lots. Of the 39 acres, 24.1 acres comprise wetlands,wetland buffers and a conservation easement. The adjusted net density is 1.02 units per acre. Most of the lots back up to an existing wetland. All lots would be accessed via a new private road through the property. The road could be public based on urban densities and the City Code. The project as designed will require municipal utilities,which will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This property is not located within the MUSA boundary. The guidance for the property is low residential density but the applicant is proposing a slightly higher density. The Metropolitan Council will need to approve any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Barnhart stated based on previous conversation,the Metropolitan Council likely will not approve a revision of the MUSA line. Utilities will likely come from Long Lake into Orono Orchard Road. Staff has not conferred with Long Lake on whether or not utilities are available to serve the site since that is a responsibility of the applicant. The proposed development will require a zoning change to RPUD. An RPUD does allow certain flexibility with regard to lot sizes and setbacks. At the suggestion of Staff,the applicant did hold a public meeting last Thursday and he can comment on that. The developer is proposing a trail connection at the end of the cul-de-sac to the Luce Line, which will likely require DNR approval. The 15 lots range from three-quarters of an acre to 1.5 acres, which is below the required lot size for this zoning district. This zoning district has a 2-acre dry buildable minimum. Barnhart indicated some of the lots could be extended into the wetlands but that will not get them to the 2-acre dry buildable. In order to meet the 2-acre minimum lot size,the number of lots will Page 20 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. need to be reduced and the remaining lots made bigger, which is partly why the applicant is proposing this as a sketch plan. Barnhart stated the yellow on the overhead depicts the wetland,the green is the wetland buffer, and the pinkish color is the wetland setback. Barnhart noted the City has an additional ten feet of setback in addition to the Watershed District's requirements. The area in blue is a proposed conservation easement and the MUSA boundary is depicted in pink. The property is adjacent to the MUSA but not included within that boundary and would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The developer has submitted four different house styles which were included in the Planning Commission packet. The property is within the defined Rural Area of the City in which new development is expected to occur with lot sizes of two to five acres. The boundary between the defined Urban and Rural Areas was established in the 1980 Community Management Plan. At that time the boundary was consistent with the USA line and it has been the City's intent to avoid creating new pockets of higher density within the defined Rural Area. Issues for discussion by the Planning Commission include the following: 1. Is the property in a location where the City should depart from the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan guiding and allow higher density development? 2 If so,what are appropriate standards for such a development? 3. Portions of the property located less than 250 feet from the creek are not eligible to be rezoned to RPUD and therefore would not benefit from flexibility in terms of lot standards. The applicants are requesting that these areas be included in the RPUD rezoning. 4. The property is not in the MUSA and therefore is not eligible to be provided with municipal sewer. Is expansion of the MUSA boundary appropriate for this project and this parcel? If so, what other parcels should be identified for higher density to compensate for reduction of density buffer? Barnhart noted development of the site with septic systems would be difficult given the extreme topography and it is likely only a small number of homes can be supported with the use of septic systems. 5. The steep slopes surrounding the existing home site are heavily wooded. Development of new homes on the property will likely result in significant and substantial impacts to the topography and vegetation of the site. Would this be consistent with the rural residential goals and visions of the Comprehensive Plan? 6. Should the internal road be public or private? Barnhart stated the project would be a departure from the City's vision for the Rural Area. The proposed density requires municipal sewer but it does not meet the Metropolitan Council's standards for expanding the MUSA. If added to the MUSA, it would likely require guiding other properties for higher density. Page 21 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Such properties are scarce in Orono and they are needed to offset future expected low density developments already in the MUSA. Barnhart requested the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant on the sketch plan. Schoenzeit asked what the dry buildable acreage is for this site. Barnhart indicated it is approximately 17 acres. Lemke asked what the length of the cul-de-sac is. Barnhart stated to his understanding it is 1,500 feet. John Quinlivan, Gordon James Construction, stated this is nearly a 40-acre site and that they considered three options: One, leave the site as is with the existing house;two, create equestrian sites; and three, develop it within the existing zoning today. Quinlivan stated the challenge with the property is that it is a peninsula surrounded by sensitive wetlands. Quinlivan indicated they can put septic sites in and have a little more than half of the site for building but that there is sewer and water sitting in the street at the mouth of this property. Quinlivan stated the extra lots are needed in large part to pay for the city water and sewer. Quinlivan stated they did have a neighborhood meeting on Thursday and that he can understand the reluctance of the residents in wanting this lot developed. Quinliven stated he is here today to get guidance from the City on what makes sense for this site. Quinlivan stated if they stick with the current zoning, they can either install septic and wells on the sites where it can be done or they can bring in city water and sewer,which is also a challenging prospect. Lemke asked if all the lots can be developed without city sewer and water. Quinlivan stated they would not be able to develop 15 sites with septic and well. Lemke asked if the cul-de-sac could be pulled down a little bit. Quinlivan pointed out there is some ponding in that area which would likely prevent that. Lemke asked if this site was donated to the YMCA. Quinlivan indicated it was. Lemke asked if there is any stipulation on what the YMCA should do with the land. Quinlivan indicated there is not. Quinlivan stated at the time the Rydells moved to Orono in the 1970s, their intent was to develop this property, but it was never developed. At that time Ed Rydell simply decided to build his home and that was it. Chair Thiesse opened the meeting for public comments at 8:55 p.m. Page 22 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Kelly Lowe, 105 Orono Orchard Road, noted she did submit a letter to the City. Lowe stated she is not anti-building but that she is a rule follower. Lowe stated she is not opposed to a development that is in the rural area with septic and water, but that does not mean they can get 15 lots. Lowe stated they might be able to get four or five homes. Lowe stated the land in back of the site is pristine, gorgeous, and hilly. Lowe stated the thought that any builder would come in and rip 10 to 15 feet off of the topography and put something like what has been proposed makes her ill. Lowe stated there are a number of violations going on with the proposed plan, which is what she is going to speak to. Lowe stated the top three northern lots are within 250 feet of the creek and they are not eligible for an RPUD unless there is a waiver. Lowe stated she does not want the City to grant a waiver in this case. Lowe stated she remodeled her home and stuck substantial money into it and followed the rules. Lowe noted she was not allowed to tap into the MUSA system. Lowe stated she anticipates that everyone around her in Orono should also follow the rules. Lowe stated the property is not in MUSA for a reason. The City's intent at the time the Comprehensive Plan was developed was to avoid creating new pockets of higher density within defined rural areas and she is asking the City to stick to that. Lowe stated the site also has steep slopes and that she would encourage the Planning Commissioners to visit the site. Any development on this site would significantly impact the topography, the vegetation, and the wildlife. Lowe requested the Planning Commission keep the zoning rural, and that if they want to put lovely homes with private septic sewers and wells,they can do that. Judy Wood, 1230 Woodhill Road, encouraged the Planning Commission to follow the Comprehensive Plan since it is a very important guiding document for Orono. Marsha Rokke, 180 Orono Orchard Road, stated the 2-acre zoning should remain as it is and that they need to keep Orono rural. Samantha Muldoon, 1801 West Farm Road, stated she is against changing the zoning since it is a departure from a historical standpoint and from the current plan. Muldoon stated the residents rely upon consistency and transparency from their government and also rely on them being fair to everyone. Muldoon stated they are all equal under the law and in her view this is changing the rules after the fact for someone who does not live in Orono. Muldoon stated they should play by the same rules the residents do and that they likely will find no shortage of people who would buy a lot. Muldoon stated she would like the site to stay as beautiful as it is now. Jamie Lowe, 105 Orono Orchard Road, stated the site is beautiful and reflects the best of Orono. Lowe commented he can appreciate that it will be developed someday but that it should be developed within the rules. Lowe noted there is no hardship and that what is being proposed is a substantial deviation from multiple government bodies. Lowe stated to allow development within the current framework is the best and most appropriate option. Lowe stated of the 15 people that were at the neighborhood meeting, not one single person was in support of the proposal, and that it would be a sad day when the rules are changed for no reasonable purpose. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Page 23 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Quinlivan stated the reason they considered 15 lots is to tie into the MUSA system to avoid the need for private systems. Quinlivan stated he is looking for guidance from the City. Schoenzeit asked if any market studies have been done, especially given the new developments at Lakeview and other areas. Quinlivan stated this location in Orono far outweighs the location of Lakeview, Kintyre and some of the other developments. Quinlivan noted the property is right next to the Luce Line and that in his view these lots would be chosen over them. Leskinen stated her first impression when she read the report was that she does not want to see the City deviate from the underlying zoning. This area is a rural area and it does not need to have an urban feel. Leskinen stated she is not opposed to an RPUD as long as the individual lots are smaller and as long as the overall size of the development conforms to existing zoning. Leskinen stated if there are 17 acres, the maximum number of sites would be eight lots but it might be less depending on the viability of the septic. Leskinen indicated she is not in favor of changing the underlying zoning. Schoenzeit stated it would nice to see a development require less of a topographical change. Schoenzeit stated the take-away from tonight's meeting is that eight is the upper limit for this property Lemke stated his concern is that the number of units proposed does not work without city sewer and from that standpoint it is not a viable plan. Lemke stated he likes the two acres per unit and that he does not agree with what has been proposed. Schwingler stated he is not in favor of deviating from the Community Management Plan and that the developer should look at creating the number of lots that are allowed under the current zoning. Thiesse noted this property is not dense enough to be included in the MUSA, and if it was allowed, it would require the City to find higher density elsewhere in the community. Thiesse stated the site is located in a very rural area and that he is having some difficulty with the density. Landgraver stated this Planning Commission has been very true to the Comprehensive Plan and have attempted to preserve the openness of Orono. The Planning Commission also unanimoously voted against the increase in structural coverage. Landgraver stated what is unique about Orono is the sense of openness and the rural character, which the Planning Commission has been consistent with. Landgraver stated in his view it is too much density for this area. Landgraver stated he recognizes that Long Lake has some denser developments nearby, but that Orono is responsible for Orono. Landgraver stated to the extent they can develop this property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,that is what should be done. Thiesse asked if the City would have authority over view shed or tree removal. Barnhart stated development of this site would likely trigger the Conservation Design criteria. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 6. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON JULY 24,2017,AND Page 24 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 21,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. AUGUST 14,2017 Barnhart reported on the following actions taken by the City Council: • Approved Michael and Marilyn Kuhlman's variance application. • Approved the variance for 1020 Tonkawa. • Provided direction on the Dunkley sketch plan. Barnhart stated the Council seemed fairly supportive of the project. • Reviewed and tabled the Apex Holding senior housing project. The main issues discussed were whether the existing sanitary sewer system would have enough capacity and whether the City would get credit for 70 residential units. Since the time of the meeting,the Metropolitan Council has preliminarily agreed to give credit for 70 units. • The City Council declined to take action on the text amendment relating to non-encroachments in the lake yard so the ordinance will remain as is. • The City Council discussed waiving fees for the proposed improvements at the Orono Ice Arena but tabled action on that item. • Approved the hiring of WSB to complete the Navarre area plan,which should be finished by next April. Barnhart noted the new city administrator will start August 28. 7. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Thiesse recommended the City discuss length of cul-de-sacs at some point. Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission will have input into the Navarre plan. Barnhart indicated there will be a committee comprised of residents that will be reviewing the plan and the Planning Commission will see it towards the end of the process. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:23 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 1 John Thiesse,Chair Page 25 of 25