HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-2017 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
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,Loren
Schoenzeit, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, 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
Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to amend the agenda,with Item No.3 being heard first and
Items 2,4,and 5 being combined. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF
SEPTEMBER 18,2017
Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the minutes of the September 18,2017,Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0,Landgraver Abstained.
3. #17-3966 LDK BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF LINDA AND DARRELL TAMOSUINAS,
1525 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD,VARIANCES,6:33 P.M.—6:39 P.M.
Scott Koppandraye, LDK Builders, and Darrell and Linda Tamosuinas,Applicants,were present.
Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a rear yard setback variance, lot area and lot width variances in
order to build a new home that will be located 29.6 feet from the rear property line. The lot is
substandard.
The applicant plans to demolish the existing home and detached garage. The existing detached garage is
nonconforming due to its close proximity to the property line. Due to the contours of the lot,they are
requesting a rear yard setback variance to allow them to be 29.6 feet away from the street side of the lot
instead of the standard 50 feet,which is a 20.4 foot encroachment. The applicant states that positioning
the garage further away from the road creates issues with the downward slope of the driveway, creating a
hazard in the winter months.
Included in the memo is a lot analysis,which goes along with the setbacks required for this parcel. Also
included is an analysis of the practical difficulties. Staff finds that there are practical difficulties inherent
to the lot area,width and the rear setback. If the applicant wishes to do that in the future,they might
experience challenges as they are currently at 24.6 percent hardcover on the site,with the maximum
hardcover being 25 percent. The applicant is not requesting a hardcover variance as part of this
application. In addition,the lot poses multiple challenges with steepness on the lot and the curved road
creates a small building envelope.
The applicant will need to address how water will be managed on the site so it will not direct water to any
neighboring properties.
Page 1 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff finds the requested variances to be reasonable and recommends approval contingent on submittal of
an updated grading plan to ensure water will not be directed onto neighboring properties.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Scott Koppandraye, LDK Builders, stated their biggest concern was the curvature of the road in the front.
The proposed house will sit further back.
Thiesse asked if they plan to install stairs down to the lake.
Koppandraye indicated there are none currently, and that if that should change at some point,they will
reduce the driveway hardcover.
Thiesse asked whether that should be addressed now.
Oakden stated the applicants are not required to have lake access, but if they choose to add stairs at some
point in the future,they should be aware that they are getting close to the hardcover limit.
Thiesse asked if they will be meeting the 30-foot height requirement.
Koppandraye indicated they will be.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
Thiesse stated there is a definite practical difficulty given the steepness of the lot.
Landgrver moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3966,LDK
Builders on behalf of Linda and Darrell Tamosuinas, 1525 Long Lake Boulevard,granting of a rear
yard setback variance,lot area and lot width variances. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
2. #17-3947 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY,209
WALTERS PORT LANE AND 210 PENCE LANE,VARIANCES,6:39 P.M.—8:14 P.M.
4. #17-3970 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY,2709
WALTERS PORT LANE,VARIANCES,6:39 P.M.—8:14 P.M.
5. #17-3971 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY,2710
PENCE LANE,VARIANCES,6:39 P.M.—8:14 P.M.
William and Sue Dunkley, Applicants, and Paul Vogstrom, Builder,were present.
Curtis stated the applicants own two adjoining properties located at 2709 Walters Port Lane and 2710
Pence Lane. The applicants would like to move the common lot line between the two properties. The
property line movement will help them accomplish their lot layout and property improvement goals.
Page 2 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
In order to move forward,three separate applications have been made involving a number of variances.
Tonight the applications will be reviewed together and the public hearings held together for purposes of
efficiency.
As proposed,the following variances have been identified supporting the administrative lot line
adjustment:
1. A lot width variance for 2710 Pence Lane,which is currently the larger lot. It will become the
smaller lot of the two once the property line is relocated.
2. A variance from City Code Section 82-256 to permit creation of a second back lot.
3. A variance from City Code Section 82-256 from the lot area requirements of a back lot. A back
lot requires 150 percent of the district requirements. This lot just meets that requirement.
4. A variance from the requirement for back lot setbacks meeting 150 percent of the side yard
setback standards for 2710 Pence.
5. A variance from City Code Section 18-136 which allows up to two residential lots to be served
via a private driveway. This variance is triggered by the addition of the 2709 Walters Port
property being addressed off of Pence.
6. A variance from the requirement that a 30-foot wide back lot access outlot, or 50-foot wide
private road outlot(with a minimum of 24 feet in paved width)be created to serve the three lots.
For 2709 Walters Port a variance is requested for the hardcover within the 75-foot setback relating to
structural improvements to the home as well as a lake setback variance and an average lakeshore setback
variance for the structural improvements to the home,the retaining walls, and a drivable path within the
75-foot setback needing a setback variance. The 75-foot setback cuts the home off at the addition. The
applicants are proposing to use the addition as a connection to the home.
For 2710 Pence Lane, an average lakeshore setback variance for the new home is requested as the
proposed home is about halfway through the average lakeshore setback. In addition, a lake setback
variance is required for the proposed retaining walls and a drivable path within the 75-foot setback.
Staff provided individual practical difficulties analysis in each respective report. Curtis stated in the
interests of time tonight, Staff will entertain discussion on specific criteria rather than review each
specific criteria.
Regarding the variance to facilitate the boundary line changes,out of 14 of the standards necessary for
granting the variance, nine were not met and three were not applicable. Staff generally supports the
reconfiguration of lot boundaries. However,the current proposal requires variances from City Code
which potentially introduce long-term risks to protections required by the City Code. As a result, Staff
cannot support this boundary line adjustment that is such a deviation from City standards. As proposed,
Staff recommends denial of the application.
As it relates to 2709 Walters Port, the preceding variance request to move the lot line lays the groundwork
for the administrative lot line rearrangement and results in a proposed area for this property of 3.6 acres.
Page 3 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Although they are gaining a significant amount of lot area,the property owners are proposing an addition
which will triple the size of the home on the property,adding more structure and hardcover within the
already burdened average setback and lake setback areas. They are proposing the connection in the most
inconspicuous place possible,which will also avoid impact impacting the existing generator and
mechanicals on the side of the home. However,the existing conditions do not necessarily constitute a
practical difficulty supporting the variances.
In addition,the necessity for the work proposed within the 75-foot setback area to install retaining walls
and create a driving path for ATVs and lawn maintenance vehicles is partially self-created. The tree
removal on the lake slope and the grading were done without City permits. The applicant was directed to
provide a detailed restoration plan, some of which may be addressed on the landscape plan. However,the
proposed lakeshore retaining walls are not supported by a practical difficulty in the opinion of Staff.
As it regards 2710 Pence Lane,the applicants' preceding variance request results in a restriction of the
buildable envelope for the new home on the property as it is getting quite a bit smaller. As currently
configured,the property had ample opportunity for a new residence to meet the required average
lakeshore setback.
The applicant is proposing a new home on the newly created lot which will increase the mass of the
structure on the property within the average lakeshore setback. The applicant is also proposing to
increase the mass on the east side,possibly further impacting the property owner to the east. The limited
building area on the property after the lot line rearrangement results in the applicant creating existing
conditions which do not necessarily constitute a practical difficulty supporting the variances.
In addition,the necessity for the work proposed within the 75-foot setback area to install retaining walls
and create a driving path is partially self-created. The tree removal on the lake slope and the grading were
done without City oversight. The applicant was directed to provide a detailed restoration plan.
The Planning Commission should open a public hearing to address each of the specific applications,
receive comments from the public and review them as necessary. Three separate motions should be made
regarding the three separate applications.
The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff.
Sue Dunkley,Applicant, stated they have lived at 2709 Walters Port since 1984. The adjoining property
was purchased recently and discussions have been had with the City since May regarding the proposals.
Dunkley noted they received an email at 6:32 p.m. Friday night that raised the back lot issue, which had
never had come up before. Dunkley stated they do not have a variance request submitted for that because
they were not aware of it but that they have attached information regarding all the other variance requests.
Dunkley indicated she did speak with Melanie about the back lot earlier in the day.
Dunkley stated their house sits on .56 acres,with the house being built in the 1950s. Dunkley commented
the house is very sandwiched on the lot and that they were very excited about being able to purchase the
other lot and bring their lot more into compliance.
Dunkley stated when they started having discussions with Staff in May,they knew there were lots of
questions and issues that would need to be addressed. Dunkley stated they knew they would be able to
Page 4 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
handle the width of the road, and after meeting with all the neighbors,who expressed opposition to a 50-
foot wide road,they decided to propose a 16-foot road width. Dunkley indicated they did meet with the
fire department to discuss access to Walters Port and Pence Lane and as a result of the proposed
improvements, access would be majorly improved. Currently Walters Port is a private road and Pence is
a private driveway.
Dunkley indicated they met between 15 and 20 times with the City and it never occurred to her when they
closed on the property in August that there was not something that could be done. Dunkley stated the lot
with their house on it would have three more acres added to it, bringing it up to 3.56 acres, and in order to
do the improvements,they were going to sell a 140-foot wide,one-acre lot. Dunkley stated they bought
4.02 acres and that their hope is that there is a way to make this work so they can have two beautiful
homes. Altogether there is 320 feet of lakeshore.
Dunkley noted they did offer to the Huelers a portion of the property at the price they purchased it for,
which did not work out. As a result,the circular piece was moved closer to their current house in order to
provide more privacy for the Huelers. Dunkley stated the Huelers have to travel approximately 600 feet
over their land.
Dunkley stated she is hopeful that with the four plus acres they now own, they will somehow be able to
have two beautiful homes. Dunkley stated her husband injured his arm and hip in an accident in 1981 and
that they would really like the drivable access to the lakeshore.
Dunkley stated they would like to move forward with their applications and go before the City Council on
Monday.
Paul Vogstrom, Builder, stated they did look at a number of options with the lot and how to provide
access to it which meet the code requirements of the City. Vogstrom stated in his opinion this is a perfect
example of where a variance is needed due to the setting. Part of the process was to try and create a safe
driveway as well as to provide adequate emergency vehicle access. As a result,two access points were
created, one for Walters Port and the existing one for Pence,which will only be for emergency vehicle
access.
Vogstrom noted they did present this as a sketch plan last month. What changed from the sketch plan is
that there used to be a turnaround more in the middle of the lot. Vogstrom indicated they are also trying
to minimize the hardcover by removing the portion of Walters Port that goes into the Dunkley's home
currently and instead have the circular area in front of the existing home. Vogstrom stated they are trying
to maintain everyone's privacy between the lots as well as along the roadway.
Vogstrom noted he also met with the fire chief and that they have incorporated two areas where cars can
pass one another.
Sue Dunkley stated there are two places to pass around another vehicle and that they would like to make
the area more landscaped and better taken care of. Dunkley indicated they are willing to plant lots of
trees.
Vogstrom pointed out the two fire hydrants on the property. Vogstrom commented this property
illustrates a perfect situation for a variance and that they are trying to meet the requirements for access by
improving safety and allowing Walters Port to also have access.
Page 5 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Mark Howry, Landscape Designer, stated they worked with the Dunkleys and Staff at taking an overall
comprehensive look at the lot and that it is a very difficult project due to the lot configuration. Howry
noted four more items came up today that they were not aware of and that it is not a straight forward lot.
Howry commented there is no other lot like this on Lake Minnetonka and that there are still some issues
that will need to be worked through. Howry stated in their view they have done a great job at working
with Staff and minimizing hardcover. The big issue was the second entrance for the emergency vehicles,
which will be a locked gate and not a pass-through.
Howry pointed out the existing walls along the lakeshore. Due to Bill's accident,they would like to plant
switch backs so a vehicle can be driven down to the lake. Howry stated there is a property on Kelly that
also has a switch back that was approved by the City. Howry indicated they will also plant vegetation to
make the terraced area more natural. As it relates to the wetland area,work is being done in conjunction
with Solutions Blue, a civil engineering company, and wetland delineations have been done. Howry
noted they will be purchasing some wetland credits and making the pond bigger.
As it relates to access,there will be the turnaround up top,which will improve the access and allow for
better stormwater management and improve water runoff. In addition, a portion of Walters Port will be
eliminated and turned into green space. Howry stated their plan is to add more evergreens for screening
as well as deciduous and ornamental trees and making it more of a naturalized wetland.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
Greg Hueler,2715 Pence Lane, stated they researched lake property for five years before purchasing their
current home, and that what they found after working with the builders and architects was that there were
a lot of restrictions along the lake that would prevent them from building the house they had originally
envisioned. As a result,the plans for the house were altered and scaled down. When Pence Lane came
on the market, a decision was made to purchase that property and sell the Kelly Avenue property because
the Pence Lane property already had a house on it, had the necessary easements that protect their access,
and is beautifully wooded.
Kelly Hueler stated while they are new to Orono,their understanding is that all the residents live under
the same City Code regardless of how long they have lived here. Hueler stated while the Dunkleys have
lived here for a very long time and they would have loved to come to a compromise,they purchased the
Pence Lane property for the privacy they had anticipated with a private drive with only two other homes
in the area. Hueler indicated they went through quite an exercise when building their home to comply
with as many of the regulations as possible and that they should have a reasonable right to expect that the
City Code and regulations would continue to apply to other properties in the area. Hueler noted their
easement is a recorded legal right.
Hueler stated when they first found out about this project,they were very shocked and surprised, but they
decided it would be in everyone's best interests to try to work with the Dunkleys and to try to
communicate. Hueler stated they are quite familiar with real estate and the need for communication with
the applicants and the City. Hueler stated they were shocked when they learned that there had been
conversations with members of the City Council prior to them even being aware of this project. Hueler
noted City Council Member Richard Crosby lives on Walters Port and that he and other families will
benefit quite a bit with the changes to Walters Port.
Page 6 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Hueler stated the fact of the matter is that on Pence Lane there is only one other property next to them,
which could potentially be subdivided, but to say the variances being requested are justifiable is not
accurate. Hueler noted they made repeated attempts to communicate with the Dunkleys as well as left a
letter in their mailbox as a last ditch effort requesting a discussion about their continued concerns and
received no response. Hueler indicated they then had to have their attorney write a letter, which was not a
minor thing for homeowners who are not attorneys, and that they do not have the resources to deal with
this type of a situation. Hueler stated it is a hardship to be engaging in this situation and that it is City's
government's job to determine what is appropriate.
Hueler stated they were unwilling to pay the lakeshore price the Dunkleys wanted for the lane and that
they did not understand why the Dunkleys wanted them to pay for a lot that has no lakeshore access, no
lakeshore view, and is not buildable at a price that included what the Dunkleys had paid for their
lakeshore. Hueler indicated they had real estate people come out as well as appraisers to look at the land
and that they told the Dunkleys they could not pay that much for the land. Hueler indicated they offered
to buy a smaller section of the land, which was not acceptable to the Dunkleys, and that Mr. Dunkley told
them the price was nonnegotiable.
Greg Hueler stated Mr. Dunkley also said they would be paying for part of the retaining walls by the
marsh and part of the driveway. When asked why they should pay for that,they were told it was
nonnegotiable and communication ceased by the Dunkleys.
Kelly Hueler stated they left on vacation over Labor Day and came home to a dramatically altered land.
Hueler indicated they were not given any fair warning except for a demolition order for the home. Hueler
stated when they arrived home, in their driveway was a large backhoe and a bobcat, with huge stumps and
boulders pulled out of the lake area all the way down to the shore. Hueler indicated they called the City
but someone had already called in and a stop work order had been issued. Hueler stated she could not get
out of her driveway that morning to get to work and that the situation was very intimidating. Hueler
stated the Dunkleys know they did not notify them about the work and that they are now in a situation
where they are wondering how any project like this could get passed when citizens' rights are supposed to
be equal. Hueler commented reasonable people can disagree but they need to follow the law and not
thumb their noses at City ordinances and City Code. Hueler commented she is not sure what they are
supposed to do as neighbors when they did what they did to the lakeshore.
Greg Hueler stated their easement rights specifically state that 2710 and 2715 share the driveway and that
additional homes cannot be added to that driveway without their cooperation. Hueler commented it is
unfortunate they have to be here tonight.
Kelly Hueler noted they did not say anything at the July meeting but that they tried to be neighborly and
present a reasonable solution but they unfortunately have gotten nowhere.
Thiesse asked if the easement document is still in flux.
Greg Hueler indicated it is and that they do not expire.
Kelly Hueler stated easements are legally recorded and are still in play.
William Dunkley, Applicant, stated they did try to reach an agreement and that he offered the Huelers the
land at the same price they paid for it. Dunkley stated while the Huelers were not purchasing lakeshore,
they also were not buying marshland. Dunkley stated for the last month and a half their lawyers have
Page 7 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
been contacting his lawyers, and when lawyers are talking back and forth,the neighbors are not talking.
Dunkley stated the bottom line is that the Huelers have an easement to drive 600 feet on land he now
owns and that they share the agreement for maintenance. Dunkley noted they will be making the
driveway twice as wide and improving it and the Huelers do not have to pay for that. Dunkley
commented all the Huelers have is a right to drive on the land and that he is not sure what the dispute is
for them.
Thiesse stated the easement allows them to be on the land.
Dunkley stated that is undisputed and that the Huelers will always have that right. Dunkley stated it is
their land and that they can make the driveway nicer and wider and relocate it. Dunkley noted he has two
attorney opinions that support that. Dunkley stated if the Huelers have a legal issue,there are legal
remedies and they can either commence an arbitration or sue, but that they will always have the easement.
Dunkleys stated it is their land however.
Schoenzeit asked if they are parking on it or blocking the Huelers' access in any way.
William Dunkley stated one morning a company removing a tree blocked their way out and that he is not
sure how that happened. Dunkley indicated he was not there at the time.
Schoenzeit asked if the Dunkleys know they cannot block it long-term.
Dunkley stated they are absolutely aware of that.
Sue Dunkley noted when the driveway is paved, there will be an issue and that they will need to figure
something out.
William Dunkley stated that is why they proposed the road be 16 feet wide as opposed to 12 feet wide so
cars can pass by each other. Dunkley stated they are proposing to make the road wider and safer and that
they will be paying for it. Dunkley stated the Huelers have a permanent easement to use the driveway.
Thiesse asked about the stop work order.
Sue Dunkley stated the previous owners of the house had the right to remove anything from the house
that they wanted prior to demolition. Dunkley indicated they did not touch the house and that the former
owners removed a lot of stuff from the house.
Curtis noted the work that occurred on the interior of the house happened prior to the demolition order
was issued and that the stop work order was posted for the work within 75 feet of the lake.
Mark Howry stated the tree removal company started removing boulders that were up against the back of
the house and not near the water. The tree removal company then started removing buckthorn and a large
concrete foundation.
Sue Dunkley commented there used to be a boathouse down there.
Howry stated once that was removed,they graded everything out and placed straw down.
Page 8 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen asked if they were aware that a permit is required for any work along the lakeshore, such as tree
removal and boulder removal.
Sue Dunkley stated she is now.
Howry stated they did not want them to do that and that they corrected it as fast as we could.
William Dunkley stated they did not demo anything until after they got a permit.
Schoenzeit stated they are not talking about the salvage of the items in the house but that they are
speaking of the work within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Schoenzeit stated the landscape architect should
have known better and that type of work is completely unacceptable. Schoenzeit stated it is important
that any project in the future respect that no work is to be done in the 0-75 foot zone and that he wants to
hear how that work will be undone.
Schoenzeit stated he also sees as part of this project that the applicant has managed to get their dream
property but that he would see if they can make the project work with the one lot. Schoenzeit stated the
attempt to recoup their costs for the property appears to be pushing the project over the edge.
Paul Vogstrom stated going back to the variances,they can do the project to conform with city codes,
which means that they have to construct a 50-foot wide road with a cul-de-sac. Vogstrom noted he had
nothing to do with the work in the 0-75 foot zone and that he does not know why that happened.
Vogstrom commented the project makes sense but that the neighbors would rather not have them meet
code because it means they will have to construct a really wide driveway. Vogstrom indicated they are
trying to propose something that makes sense for the whole neighborhood,the Huelers and the lake area,
and that in his view this project does that.
William Dunkley commented the other neighbors feel their project is fine.
Vogstrom stated this project is a perfect example of why a variance is needed for the road. Vogstrom
noted they are creating a new access to Walters Port,which will help the residents on that road.
Vogstrom indicated they did have conversations with the neighbors prior to doing this project and that
everybody is happy about it but that there is a disconnect between the Huelers and the Dunkleys.
Thiesse noted there are a lot of variances that are being requested. Thiesse asked how many variances are
being requested.
Curtis noted the City does not require a 50-foot paved road as part of the platting of an outlot for either a
private road or an improved private driveway but that the City requires a 50-foot easement. Curtis stated
in a redevelopment like this, it might be appropriate for some type of variance,but that some of the other
variances are not appropriate because they are in complete contradiction to the requirements of the City.
It is Staffs belief that the applicants can work out a solution with the fire department to take the place of
the cul-de-sac.
Thiesse stated if they were not to access the existing house from Pence and kept it off of Walters Port,
that variance would be eliminated.
Page 9 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Vogstrom stated he would like to handle one variance at a time and that he would like to discuss why they
are necessary.
Sue Dunkley stated part of the problem was the entrance into Walters Port.
Thiesse commented now that they own the land,they can bring it out and around.
Vogstrom stated there is also the wetland and some other challenges.
Sue Dunkley stated their hope was to come in through the nice gated area, which creates the need for a
couple of variances.
Greg Hueler stated a couple of the things said by the Dunkleys are not in full disclosure.
Kelly Hueler stated they would like to stay with the facts,which is what the Planning Commission should
deal with. Hueler noted they are the only home on Pence Lane and they are the only homeowners that are
being impacted this way. The landowners on Walters Port are being provided benefits and that they can
understand those benefits because they are reasonable people. Hueler stated it does not, however, give
the Dunkleys the opportunity to harm or take away from the rights of another citizen because there is only
one on the shared driveway.
Hueler stated the easement is a relatively complex document and it speaks very clearly to several things.
The one thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that the easement gives everyone an undivided
interest in the entrance to Pence Lane off of Kelly Avenue. Hueler noted there are three homes that share
that right but yet they were initially told by the Dunkleys that since they now own two of the homes,that
takes precedence. Hueler stated they had to calmly tell the Dunkleys that that tactic won't work because
it is an undivided interest and that it would be better to discuss it and come to a reasonable solution.
Hueler commented they are the only house on Pence Lane and the only one impacted by this development
in the way they are being impacted. Hueler noted the new home will be triple the size of the existing
house but the new home next to it will significantly generate more traffic on the driveway and will impact
her property. Hueler stated this project will impact them and it needs to be dealt with in a rational,
reasonable way. Hueler stated to tell them that there is a nonnegotiable price was untenable to them and
that they are not in a position to spend their resources like that.
Greg Hueler stated they do not dispute that the Dunkleys own the property, but the dispute is that the
easement actually requires all affected parties to agree on what happens to the driveway. Hueler noted the
Dunkleys cannot legally widen it without their agreement.
Kelly Hueler commented it is not as simple as the way it is being presented.
William Dunkley stated that last statement by Greg Hueler is absolutely untrue.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m.
Thiesse asked if there is a specific reason why only one back lot is allowed.
Page 10 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the back lot rule was created for properties that have the acreage to subdivide but not the
frontage. In the situation of a back lot, the City would require a 30-foot wide access lot be platted that
provides access through the front lot to the back lot. Under City Code,the back lot area should be 150
percent of the zoning district requirement and the depth of the required street yard setback shall be 150
percent of the zoning district requirements.
Thiesse asked if the second back lot would be alleviated if the existing home keeps their driveway on
Walters Port.
Curtis indicated it would because then the Hueler's lot would be the only back lot.
Schoenzeit stated in his view the applicants need to bring back a revised plan.
Curtis stated from Staff's standpoint,the issue with the application is the disregard for the access outlot
creation and that a dedicated outlot is key in this scenario for the future. Curtis noted the Walters Port
corridor is 20 feet wide and is smaller than some driveways in the City. If there is a way to plat a corridor
that meets the guideline of the Council and the Planning Commission that will satisfy the access and the
frontage requirements,that would go a long way to alleviating Staff's concerns. Curtis stated City Code
requires a cul-de-sac if a private road is being created,but a variance can be granted to allow for alternate
accommodations, and the applicant and the fire department have been working on that.
Schoenzeit stated he is in favor of tabling the application and having the applicant bring back something
clean because it is not the work of the Planning Commission to straighten out the application.
Vogstrom noted there was a sketch plan review and everyone seemed to be on the same page at that time.
Curtis noted there was a platted outlot on the sketch plan which has gone away.
Vogstrom stated that can be put back on. Vogstrom stated he would prefer to discuss the variances rather
than tabling it at this point.
Schoenzeit noted Staff recommended denials on each application and that in his view it is kind of selfish
on their part to be trying to get the Planning Commission to fix their incomplete application.
Vogstrom stated there are a number of issues that have not been discussed at all.
Schoenzeit stated the plan has gone backwards from the sketch plan.
Vogstrom stated the reason for creating the outlot was that they were attempting to sell a piece to the
Huelers and he did not know about the back lot variance until last week Friday. Vogstrom indicated he
went over their applications a number of times with Staff and that he is very frustrated that they are not
being able to be heard on the variances in front of the Planning Commission.
Thiesse commented he has not seen an application with this many variances before.
Schoenzeit suggested the applicant reduce the number of variances being requested.
Vogstrom stated the Planning Commission needs to understand the project and why they are requesting
the variances.
Page 11 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission does understand the application and that variances are allowed
when there is a practical difficulty. Thiesse indicated he is having a problem with the creation of a second
back lot. Thiesse stated the first variance is a lot width variance for 2710 Pence.
Curtis stated the applicants have indicated they could resolve the lot width variance.
Schoenzeit noted when a new lot is being created, it should be conforming.
Thiesse noted the second variance being requested is the creation of a second back lot and a third variance
from the requirements of a back lot.
Curtis indicated that is correct. Curtis stated it is a 1-acre lot.
Thiesse stated the fourth variance is from the 150 percent of the setback standards and that Item No. 5 is
where the outlot would come in.
Curtis stated in her view a lot of the variances build on each other and hinge on the access outlot or the
private road. Curtis stated if they create a private road, it would become frontage and it would not be a
back lot situation..
Thiesse asked if that is what was presented originally in the sketch plan.
Curtis stated she does not believe they presented a 50-foot wide corridor but they did present an outlot.
Leskinen stated she has a concern about the easement, and the way she reads it is that it requires all
parties to agree on any change or maintenance or repair of the driveway that are a part of the easement.
Leskinen stated if the parties are not in agreement, it may be a nonissue.
Thiesse stated if an outlot is created,the question is whether everybody will have access to it. Thiesse
stated the easement will not work anymore because they will not be able to connect to the outlot.
Vogstrom stated he is not sure since that issue just came up on Friday and they will need to address that.
Sue Dunkley noted the easement covers the area before the gate and consists of around 100-plus feet,
which is before the gate. Dunkley stated anything inside the gate is their land and that the Huelers will
need to travel 635 feet on their land. Dunkley noted Pence was a city road at some time.
Thiesse stated the easement is a legal document that the Planning Commission will not be discussing.
Sue Dunkley stated it is the 135 feet from the gate to Kelly and that it has nothing to do with the huge,
long driveway coming in.
Thiesse recommended someone submit something to the City stating that. Thiesse asked if the outlot
needs to be near Pence.
Curtis stated it does not and that the applicants could propose to move the driveway.
Thiesse stated anything going to the outlot would need to be accessed by the Huelers.
Page 12 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Sue Dunkley stated the Huelers will be able to access it and that they just moved the circle so the traffic
would be away from the Huelers so they could keep their privacy. Dunkley indicated they can put the
driveway back where it was.
Lemke asked if the Planning Commission can approve some of the variances.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission can take them one at a time.
Schoenzeit commented he has a problem with the rest of the variances where the first premise is wrong
and that the applications should either be tabled or denied as presented.
Thiesse stated he would like to discuss the applications further.
Landgraver stated he is in agreement with what Chair Thiesse said.
Curtis suggested the Planning Commission provide direction on each request because the applicant would
like to move forward to the City Council.
Thiesse stated he appreciates the work of the applicants but that they are requesting a number of variances
to get to that point. Thiesse stated he is not inclined to accept a second back lot and their reduced
percentages.
Leskinen noted the property does not lend itself to meet the standards of a practical difficulty and because
of that she cannot approve it.
Schwingler indicated he is in agreement.
Schoenzeit stated he is also in agreement.
Lemke stated the application is somewhat incomplete and that he would love to see the proposal tidied up
a little bit more.
Landgraver stated if the back lot is denied,the question becomes what remains of the proposal.
Landgraver stated he does not think it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to deny the
applications outright and that perhaps they should table it. Landgraver stated he is in agreement with
allowing Staff to do a lot line rearrangement.
Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3947,Paul
Vogstrom on behalf of William and Sue Dunkley,2709 Walters Port Lane and 2710 Pence Lane,
due to the second back lot variance requests,the lack of practical difficulties,and based on Staff's
recommendations.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Thiesse noted the next application for discussion will be Application No. 17-3970. Thiesse asked if the
addition was shown on the sketch plan.
Curtis stated she does not recall if it was included but it was discussed at the sketch plan review.
Thiesse asked if the addition extends into the average lakeshore setback or the 0-75 foot zone.
Page 13 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated the whole house is within the average lakeshore setback.
Sue Dunkley noted the whole house is also within the 0-75 foot zone.
Schoenzeit stated the fact that the majority of the house is in front of the line is a practical difficulty.
Thiesse commented the applicants could not meet those two setbacks even if they wanted to.
Thiesse stated the next issue is the retaining walls in the 0-75 foot area. Thiesse commented the area
appears to be relatively flat based on a photograph he has seen.
Curtis illustrated the area where the retaining walls would be extended.
Sue Dunkley pointed out that there are 11 stairs that go down currently.
Leskinen stated someone's physical limitations are unfortunate but that she is not sure it rises to a
practical difficulty inherent with the property itself to justify the continuation of the retaining walls.
Thiesse asked if there is a way to install a ramp.
Curtis indicated the applicants are allowed by code to construct a lift.
Landgraver stated he does not recall granting a variance in the past to allow this kind of access.
Curtis stated the situation on Kelly was a grandfathered situation where walls were repaired and there was
an existing pathway that had been in place for quite a while. The homeowners had maintained that with
their project.
Landgraver asked if that was a fairly steep hill.
Curtis indicated it was not and that it was an existing situation.
Thiesse asked if the only reason the walls are necessary is due to the ramp.
Mark Howry pointed out there is a 13-foot grade change from the high point and that the Dunkleys do
want to have handicap access. In addition,the property on Kelly Avenue is not even a half mile away and
it does have a switch back,which is one reason why they proposed what they did. Howry stated he
realizes there are a lot of variances going on but that they are requesting it because of the existing walls
and that there is a precedent on Kelly for the switch back.
Thiesse noted the Planning Commission cannot consider the Kelly Avenue situation because it was an
existing condition that is being maintained. Thiesse stated this property already has a number of walls.
Howry stated there is another switch back on Bohn's Point Road.
Curtis noted the City did not approve the switch back and that they were repairing existing retaining
walls.
Page 14 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Thiesse commented it is a lot of wall already and that he would have difficulty with the switch back.
Howry stated there are existing stairs there, but as far as reconfiguring the stairs,there is no way to get a
ramp in there without reconfiguring some of the existing walls.
Schwingler noted they would be adding more hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone.
Landgraver commented he does not recall the City ever approving something like this and that he does
not want to start now. Landgraver stated it appears the Planning Commission is okay with the average
lakeshore setback variance and the average lakeshore setback variance but is against the hardcover
variance.
Schoenzeit stated he sees no compelling reason to add more hardcover in that area.
Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3970,Paul
Vogstrom on behalf of William and Sue Dunkley,2709 Walters Port Lane, based upon the request
for a hardcover variance in the 0-75 foot zone. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Thiesse stated the Planning Commission will next discuss Application No. 17-3971, variances in order to
construct a new home with a pool and construct shoreline retaining walls within the 75-foot lake and
average lakeshore setback.
Thiesse stated he stood along the average setback line and then stood further back along the line and his
view was not changed. Thiesse stated the house will just be further back from the lake.
Leskinen asked whether the scope of the variances changes for the new building if the lot line
rearrangement does not happen.
Curtis indicated it would. Curtis stated if the lot line rearrangement does not happen, it would change
everything being proposed.
Curtis pointed out the current lot line and the proposed lot line. Curtis stated if they were to rebuild on
the Pence Lane property in the same location, it would result in a narrower house as viewed from the lake.
The home that was removed was a one-story rambler and what is being proposed is a two-story.
Currently the lot consists of four acres and they would have ample conforming area to construct a new
home on. Curtis stated the creation of the new lot line creates in part their practical difficulty because it
does not allow them to move the house further back.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission should just review this application without considering the
lot line rearrangement.
Curtis stated they should make a recommendation based on what is in front of the Planning Commission
for this application.
Schoenzeit noted the applicants would not get the variances if the lot line rearrangement does not happen.
Page 15 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated they would be recommending approval of a plan for a lot that does not currently exist. If the
Council denies the first application,the second two applications become moot. This application is
requesting a structural setback variance in the 75-foot zone for walls and not for the house.
Schwingler stated in looking at it from the average lakeshore setback, it does not make sense and that it is
contingent upon getting the lot lines moved. Schwingler stated he does not see a practical difficulty for
the hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone.
Thiesse asked what the allowance is for stairs for access to the lake.
Curtis indicated the applicants are allowed access to the lakeshore via a stair and that typically the City
has enforced the minimal building code stairway width.
Thiesse commented the lot line rearrangement is causing a lot of the problems with the property.
Lemke stated he does not see a practical difficulty for either one.
Thiesse stated if the lot line was there already,there would be a practical difficulty.
Lemke stated he would disagree and that the house could possibly be configured to fit on the lot.
Schoenzeit commented these are pretty big lots but that they will not be able to get a big house in there.
Leskinen stated the lot line creates the practical difficulty,which is the part she is having a problem with.
Schoenzeit stated it is a self-inflicted practical difficulty.
Vogstrom stated in order to put the house in front of the average lakeshore setback, it would be
completely in front of both homes on each side and the back yard of the new home would be looking at
the front of either home. Vogstrom stated that would not fit in with the character of the other homes on
the lake. Vogstrom stated moving the new home further back than the existing home seems to make
sense since it is on a point and that type of situation has been approved in the past.
Lemke commented there are too many unknowns at this time.
Landgraver stated he would like to see some further clarity on the application before approving.
Schwingler stated the back lot issue needs to be cleared up.
Rief stated in his view this should be tabled until it is determined what will happen with the back lot.
Vogstrom stated he would agree with tabling it so they can get the back lot figured out.
Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to table Application No. 17-3971,Paul Vogstrom on behalf
of William and Sue Dunkley,2710 Pence Lane. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
(Recess taken from 8:14 p.m.—8:20 p.m.)
Page 16 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
6. #17-3972 JAN GASTERLAND, 1920 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,8:20 P.M.—
8:31 P.M.
Jan Gasterland, Applicant,was present.
Oakden stated the applicant is requesting rear setback, side setback, hardcover and structural variances.
The applicant is requesting a rear setback of 3.6 feet, a side setback of 4.3 feet, and to maintain the
existing hardcover on the lot at 45.75 percent. The structural coverage variance is to allow 20.3 percent,
which is 39.4 feet above the allowed structural coverage. Oakden noted City Code was recently amended
to increase the amount of hardcover to 20 percent.
The applicants are proposing to demolish an existing detached garage and reconstruct a new 3-stall
detached garage. They are proposing to maintain the same 4.3' side and 3.6' rear setbacks as the existing
structure,which are less than the minimum standard of 15 feet. The new garage will be angled slightly
different to create a more conducive access for the vehicles. The new garage will be placed over existing
asphalt so it does not alter the hardcover calculations of this parcel.
The proposed survey includes a landing and stairs along the east side of the proposed garage, but the
applicant has indicated this is no longer included in the scope of the project.
The adjacent neighbors have submitted letters indicating they have no objection to the variances.
Included in Staff's report is a lot analysis and a practical difficulties analysis. Staff can review that in
more detail if the Planning Commission has questions. The small size of the lot and the practical
difficulty analysis shows support for the requested side and rear setback and hardcover variances for the
new detached garage. An email has been attached for the Planning Commission's review noting
additional construction requirements for a structure within five feet of a property line.
The Planning Commission may approve some or all of the variance requests; deny one or more of the
variances; or approve the side setback, rear setback, and the hardcover variance. Staff recommends the
applicant revise their plan to be within the 20 percent structural coverage.
Landgraver asked if the removal of the stairs and landing would change the structural coverage.
Oakden indicated it would not.
Jan Gasterland, Applicant, stated his family has owned this property since 1964 and that he is the present
owner. Gasterland stated his intent is to leave the property to his children but in the meantime he would
like to replace the existing garage that is falling apart and construct a 3-stall garage in place of the
existing 2-stall garage.
Gasterland stated as it relates to the structural coverage,the calculated lot area varies depending on which
survey you look at and that his surveyor shows his north property line at 194 feet. The neighbor's survey
to the south shows it at 199 feet and the half-section map shows it at 204 feet. Gasterland stated there are
discrepancies and that he will not belabor it but that he would prefer not to reduce the size of the garage.
Gasterland noted his neighbors are in support of the proposal.
Page 17 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver asked if there is any other structure on the property that could be removed.
Gasterland indicated there is not.
Thiesse noted the ordinance recently changed from 15 to 20 percent and that the Planning Commission
preferred to stick with the 15 percent. Thiesse stated the City would like to adhere to the 20 percent.
Gasterland stated the variance is to allow for a modest 3-stall garage,which is not out of line with the
neighborhood, and that it will be slab on grade.
Schoenzeit asked if they will see a variance to attach the garage to the house someday.
Gasterland stated they will not.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Lemke commented it seems to be a nice improvement to the neighborhood.
Thiesse noted the City did not say they would never grant a variance above 20 percent as part of the
ordinance change.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission has encountered this issue of whether a 3-stall garage is
reasonable and that in his view it is. Landgraver stated if the structural coverage limit was still 15
percent,he believes he would still be in support of it but that he is reluctantly in favor of it.
Schwingler commented a garage is practical.
Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3972,Jan
Gasterland, 1920 Shadywood Road,granting of rear setback,side setback,hardcover,and
structural coverage variances. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
7. #17-3974 SML ELECTRICAL,INC.,ON BEHALF OF BRIDGEWATER BANK,2445
SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE,8:31 P.M.—8:42 P.M.
Pat Lawrence,Applicant, was present.
Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a variance to permit a freestanding pole type sign to be located
within the 10-foot side yard setback. The sign would be located less than two feet from the property line.
Barnhart displayed a sketch of the proposed sign. Barnhart noted the dashed lines denote the existing
boundary of the sign and that the proposed sign is smaller than the current sign. The reason for the
variance is that a portion of the base is wider than existing and the thickness of the sign is wider than
existing. In addition,the entire structure is within the 10-foot setback area and is nonconforming and
Page 18 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
must be replaced in kind. The average person would likely not notice the difference between the two
signs.
Staff recommends approval based on the practical difficulties outlined in Staff's report.
Thiesse noted the trend has been to have lower signs. Thiesse asked if Staff has any concern about that.
Barnhart stated Staff's main concern is that a lower sign will block visibility for the vehicles on the road.
Pat Lawrence, Sign Maintenance Lighting, asked if the sign could have up lighting rather than interior
lighting.
Barnhart stated the concern with exterior lighting would depend on where it would be located and that the
impacts to traffic and pedestrians would need to be reviewed. Barnhart stated if the area could be
screened,he would not necessarily be opposed to it.
Thiesse noted this is a heavily traveled intersection. Thiesse asked if a lighting plan was submitted.
Lawrence indicated this is a last minute request of the client and that it was initially proposed to be lit up
on the interior.
Landgraver asked if it is an absolute requirement that the lights point up rather than be lit on the interior.
Lawrence stated the lights will sit back from the sign a certain distance, be on a post that is approximately
two feet high to avoid the snow, and would shine up. Lawrence stated his client would prefer the post
mounted lights.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:37 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8: 37 p.m.
Leskinen stated the request seems pretty straight forward, and that if the Planning Commission
recommends approval, it should be with the recommendation that more specifics on the upward lighting
be provided prior to going before the City Council meeting.
Schoenzeit stated because it is closer to the curb, it is more stuff for the public to interact with.
Lemke stated his concern would be how far away the lights would need to be located in order to project
onto the sign.
Thiesse stated his preference would be a back lit sign.
Schoenzeit stated the smaller base would be a preference and that the area should be kept clear as much as
possible.
Page 19 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart stated the recommendation would be based on what is before the Planning Commission tonight
and that the applicant will need to provide additional information on the lighting. Barnhart indicated he
does have a concern with the upward lighting due to the topography but that Staff can review that if
additional information is submitted.
Lawrence noted they do have quite a bit of room going both ways from the sign and that if some
landscaping was done, people would see the light but not the post.
Schoenzeit stated that would defeat the purpose of keeping the area clear.
Lawrence noted there are already bushes around the existing sign.
Thiesse asked if the landscaping would be an intensification of the use.
Barnhart indicated it would not.
Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3974,SML
Electrical,Inc.,on behalf of Bridgewater Bank,2445 Shadywood Road,with a preference for a
back lit sign. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
8. 17-3975 KELLY HANSON, 1284 WILDHURST TRAIL,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
8:42 P.M.—8:45 P.M.
Kelly and Tom Kahlert, Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a permanent dock installation. The
applicant is currently building a new home on the vacant property and would also like to install a
permanent dock. Because of the permanent nature of the dock within the floodway, a conditional use
permit is required. The LMCD regulates docks on Lake Minnetonka and has not yet processed the
application fully. However, it appears the proposed dock will meet all of their setbacks.
The conditional use permit analysis was provided in Staffs report. There are no specific building code
construction standards for docks. The City does require that a zoning permit be issued for the dock to
document the existence and construction of a permanent dock on the lake.
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for construction of the proposed permanent dock
subject to the following conditions:
I. The dock may be allowed as long as it continues to be permitted by the LMCD and DNR and is in
conformity with the rules and regulations of those agencies; and
2. The dock is not to be used for commercial purposes or rented.
Kelly and Tom Kahlert stated they can answer any questions the Planning Commission may have.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:44 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Page 20 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:44 p.m.
Leskinen moved,Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3975,Kelly
Kahlert, 1284 Wildhurst Trail,granting of a conditional use permit subject to conditions of Staff.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
9. #17-3976 SCOTT AND LAURIE KNUTSON,795 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH,
VARIANCE,8:44 P.M.—9:32 P.M.
Scott and Laurie Knutson, Applicants,were present.
Oakden stated the applicants are requesting a rear yard setback to construct an addition to the home and
are proposing to remove an existing 2-car garage and shed. The applicants would like to construct a
4,168 square foot addition to the home to replace those two accessory structures. Currently the detached
garage is located 36.50 feet from the rear property line and the shed is located about 17 feet from the rear
yard property line.
The proposed addition would include garage space, storage, a gazebo/sunroom and attic space. The
proposed addition would be 15 feet from the rear yard. The home is oriented facing east and is placed in
the northwest corner of the property. The topography of the lot creates multiple drops in elevation
surrounding the home and leaves only a small flat yard space to the north of the principal structure. The
home also has septic and wetlands to the east and a well to the west of the principal structure.
Included in Staff's report is a lot analysis which goes over the setbacks and lot coverage for the site as
well as a practical difficulty analysis. Staff can review those in more detail if the Planning Commission
has questions. The practical difficulty analysis by Staff found that the topography on the lot and the
orientation of the existing home does create some practical difficulty. The existing home is built at the
tallest elevation of the lot and the topography then slopes downward away from the principal structure
creating many slopes and hills as you look out from the existing structure. The home also has septic and
wetlands to the east. The addition would create a 15-foot setback from the rear property line.
The encroachment does not appear to adversely impact the adjacent properties and Planning Staff
recommends approval for the rear yard variance.
Thiesse asked if the two neighbors to the north submitted any comments.
Oakden stated it is her understanding the applicants did contact the neighbors and received no comments.
Landgraver asked to see a map depicting the adjoining properties.
Thiesse noted this property sits up higher than the adjoining properties.
Oakden pointed out the front yard space and the rear lot line.
Scott Knutson,Applicant, stated this is a very unique,private property,with a lot of acreage. The
perimeter of the property is laced with natural barriers and the area is very quiet. The house was
constructed in 1962 and they are running into a situation where they need space in the garage for storage
of equipment and vehicles. The existing two-car garage with a lean-to shed is falling apart and the plan is
to combine them as well as add a sunroom. Knutson indicated they are trying to keep the profile of the
Page 21 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
structure low. Knutson stated the reason for the multiple doors is to provide for more than one way in and
out to avoid the need to jockey stuff around.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:52 p.m.
Steve Pierce,259 Hollander Road, stated they purchased their house approximately ten years ago and that
they looked very long and hard for land that would offer them some privacy. Pierce stated they purchased
the home in November and took the time to consider what the property would be like when there are no
leaves on the trees. With no leaves on the trees, someone standing on their property would be able to see
a structure. Pierce noted this proposal will leave one homeowner with an enhanced property but their
property will go in the opposite direction by negatively impacting their property values and privacy.
Pierce stated in his view there are laws in place to control how close a structure can be to the property line
and that they should be followed. The subject property has a whole lot of acreage and that he is not sure
why it has to be located in an area where it could be an issue. Pierce stated the structure could be located
on the other side.
Kathy Pierce noted their property is lower than the subject property and that the existing small shed
already looms above their property. Pierce expressed a concern that a bigger structure would be more
looming on the edge.
Knutson stated they are trying to achieve the same thing with the natural barrier so that when the leaves
fall,they don't see each other. Knutson stated once the leaves fall, however, if they see him, he can also
see them. Knutson noted the neighbors multiple garages and a swimming pool. Knutson stated he does
not understand the issue about seeing the structure and that people everywhere see their neighbors'
homes. Knutson stated he does not intend to cut any trees down and that he would be willing to add some
pine trees.
Schoenzeit asked if they are completely tearing down the existing structure.
Knutson indicated he is.
Thiesse asked if the garage going off at an angle could be placed in front of the proposed addition.
Knutson indicated they located it there to maintain the circle. Knutson commented he wishes he could fit
it somewhere else but that they have a pond and the topography drops it off quickly. Knutson stated the
proposed location seems to be the only logical place. Knutson noted the hardcover is also way low for the
lot.
Lemke asked what the existing height of the garage is.
Knutson stated he is guessing it is probably 20 feet.
Oakden stated the existing garage is one story with a pitched roof and that they are proposing some attic
space on the new garage.
Knutson pointed out the attic space. Knutson indicated it will not be a live-in structure and would just be
for storage,with a pull-down ladder to access the attic space.
Page 22 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if he could put the garage on the other side.
Knutson stated the problem with shifting it is that they ran into restricted space with one entry.
Lemke asked if they could rotate the entire thing.
Knutson stated they tried but that they wanted a walkway to the house. Given the size of the garage door,
it turned out to be an odd configuration.
Schoenzeit asked if they could put the garage on the other side.
Knutson noted there are pine trees and a pond with some other large trees on that side. In addition,the
other side has the septic and the back yard drops off fast. Knutson stated it is a unique orientation where
the elevations drop off of the plateau,which is the high point of the area.
Schoenzeit asked what the encroachment is on the current garage.
Thiesse noted the garage is at 36.5 feet and the shed is at the spot where the proposed structure would go.
Knutson stated he would like the neighbors to keep their privacy as well as their own and that they would
be willing to add to the natural barrier. Knutson noted they will not touch any of the existing vegetative
barrier.
Steve Pierce stated he appreciates the suggestion of a landscape plan but that he would note the Planning
Commission saw some other locations for the shed that could be explored. Pierce stated his
understanding was that the corner of the shed was going to be the very corner of the new structure and
that he was surprised when he looked at the plan that it is definitely not the back corner of the new
structure and instead goes quite a bit beyond the existing shed. Pierce stated he can see the corner of the
shed now and that it will go another 30 feet or so closer to the property and that they will be able to easily
see the structure.
Thiesse commented he sees areas where the garage could be reconfigured.
Schoenzeit stated with this amount of property,there is no reason why it could not be relocated.
Thiesse noted there are reasons why it cannot be relocated to some areas.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m.
Landgraver stated the issue he comes back to is if it was a replacement in kind,there would not be
anything they could do about it. Landgraver commented the property owner has some rights but he could
build a different structure that does not require as much of a variance.
Schoenzeit stated if any of them were the neighbor,they would be hoping that the City Council or
Planning Commission would be enforcing the code. Schoenzeit noted the applicant would require a
variance for the extra height even if he built within an existing footprint.
Thiesse noted the applicant's view is mainly down the hill to the northwest and that if the structure is
rotated, it would be even more visible from the neighbor's property.
Page 23 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated due to the topography of the lot, a variance is needed. Leskinen stated she understands
the neighbor's perspective and she takes that into consideration, but if the Planning Commission looks at
what the code says and what they need to do in order to grant a variance,they need to establish a practical
difficulty,which they have done.
Thiesse asked what the practical difficulty is.
Leskinen stated it would be the topography and the wetland buffers. Leskinen indicated she would not be
opposed to recommending as a condition of approval some screening of the new structure.
Thiesse stated the intent of the setback is to protect the neighbors and to keep space between the
neighbors. Thiesse stated in his view the intent has not been met and that it is an encroachment into space
that the neighbors thought would not be used and that there is a lot of flat land in front of the circle that is
usable. Thiesse stated it is a practical difficulty to encroach on the side yard when something can be
reconfigured to not encroach in that area.
Leskinen asked if the other area is flat enough.
Thiesse pointed out the 1000 contour and noted the whole area inside of it should be flat.
Lemke commented the applicants would not get the same thing as what they are proposing.
Schoenzeit stated he does not see any attempt to place it in a more conforming spot.
Landgraver stated the end result could be a 30-foot structure that is just as visible but it ended up costing
the applicant more money to redesign it. Landgraver noted that area is at the top of the hill,which would
make it even more visible.
Schoenzeit noted it would be further away from the property line.
Thiesse commented there is no doubt in his mind the neighbors will see it.
Landgraver stated it will still end up with the same result in terms of visual impact. Landgraver noted if
the structure is in a conforming location,the applicants will not need to come before the Planning
Commission or City Council.
Schoenzeit stated since the applicant is tearing down the existing structure, it would be a clean sheet and
that the applicant can be more creative with locating it.
Schwingler stated any neighbor can say the same thing about the leaves falling and that he feels the
variance is a reasonable request.
Lemke stated he would deny it.
Schoenzeit stated if the roles were reversed, he would want the City to uphold the codes.
Page 24 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Lemke moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3976,Scott and
Laurie Knutson,795 Ferndale Road North. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 3; Schwingler,Landgraver and
Leskinen opposed. MOTION FAILS.
Barnhart stated the Planning Commission needs to make a decision one way or another.
Leskinen stated the other option is they could table it to allow the applicant to come back with a more
conforming plan.
Schoenzeit stated if they brought back some of the whys of why it does not work anywhere else,that
would be helpful.
Knutson stated they have looked at every option and that this is the one that works. Knutson stated he
wants to get along with his neighbors and that he is open to adding more screening. Knutson stated they
tried the one that was squared to it with one opening and that was very difficult and then the grade drops
off in the other area.
Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission would be more inclined to approve if the motion had a
recommendation requiring vegetative screening.
Schoenzeit stated in his view there is plenty of land to be more creative and being that close to the
property is not necessary. Schoenzeit suggested the structure be placed in the area where the word lot is.
Thiesse noted that area contains a number of big trees.
City Administrator Rief noted removal of trees is not necessarily a practical difficulty since the
homeowner has the right to take them down if he wants.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission is interested in some engineering data that shows the
structure cannot be placed elsewhere.
Knutson pointed out the location of the septic tank,the well,and the drop in grade. Knutson stated he did
not want to create a big foundation by placing it near the drop in grade but that they could maybe bring it
in some.
Thiesse stated he would like to table the application so the property owner can look at other options.
Knutson commented there are very few options outside of screening or bringing it in slightly.
Thiesse noted the configuration of the structure can be changed as well but that there is not much that can
be done to alleviate the view of the neighbor.
Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3976, Scott
and Laurie Knutson,795 Ferndale Road North,based on Staff's recommendation and with the
further recommendation that vegetative screening be provided for the new addition.
Thiesse noted anything on that side of the house would be visible and that adding some landscaping
would help.
Page 25 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit commented he would hope when there is no practical difficulty that the City Council and
Planning Commission respect the boundaries,especially on a property this big.
Leskinen stated in her view the practical difficulties are well outlined in Staff's report.
Lemke stated moving it 20 feet away is going to lessen the impact.
Landgraver stated he believes there are practical difficulties based on the topography and the location of
the utilities.
Schwingler indicated he is in agreement.
Pierce stated if it is moved further back,they would see it less. Pierce questioned what the point is of
having the codes if they are not respected, especially when it is such a big property, and that he would like
other options explored.
VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 3; Thiesse, Schoenzeit,and Lemke Opposed. MOTION FAILS
Knutson noted his property sits up higher and that he can see the neighbor's property.
Thiesse stated the difficulty is that there appears to be other land available to build on.
Barnhart stated tabling it would allow the applicant time to strengthen the practical difficulty,to identify
other solutions, or to have another Planning Commission present to break the tie.
Knutson stated he can list the practical difficulties. Knutson stated due to the pond,they cannot build
close to that; they cannot build by the septic or the sewer; and the land drops off in three different areas,
which is why the existing garage was placed there to begin with.
Knutson stated he respects what the Planning Commissioners are saying and that he is trying to make it
work the best he can. Knutson noted he would have to take out the trees screening the other house to
place it in the other area. Knutson stated he could perhaps shorten it up but that he is not sure he can tell
the Planning Commission anything more. Knutson noted he if brings it forward, he is concerned about
the well and that he is not sure how close he can be to that.
Schoenzeit indicated he would be willing to make a motion tabling the application.
Barnhart stated if it is critical that the application be moved forward,the Planning Commission should
recommend denial or approval outlining the issues or comments but that they should make a decision
based on their review of the application.
Thiesse stated he is denying it because there appears to be room for a building of the same size but
configured differently and that he would like it investigated further.
Lemke commented the structure might not be the exact same size or exact same square footage but that
something smaller could work.
Schoenzeit commented he does not find three acres to be a hardship.
Page 26 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Knutson stated three acres with that contour is a hardship.
Thiesse stated he will not argue that the topography is a hardship to an extent but that the applicant also
has a portion of land where the structure could possibly go.
Landgraver stated he will change his vote to advance it to the City Council.
Thiesse moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3976,Scott and
Laurie Knutson, 795 Ferndale North,based on the fact that there appears to be an opportunity for
a reconfigured building to be located on the plateau of reasonable size and that there is a neighbor
that voiced opposition to the proposed location. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2, Schwingler and Leskinen
opposed.
10. #17-3978 ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF TRAVIS HANSBERGER,
1720 SHADYWOOD ROAD,VARIANCES,9:33 P.M.—9:45 P.M.
Kathy Alexander, Architect, was present along with Travis Hansberger,Applicant.
Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a rear setback of 24.8 feet, hardcover of 33.98 percent lot area,
and lot width variances in order to build a new single-family home. The applicant is proposing to demo
the existing home and construct a new single-family house. The house was signed to meet the structural
coverage of the lot at 20 percent but the applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to allow for adequate
driveway space and a patio. The existing lot has 35.74 percent hardcover and the new proposed home
would have 33.98 percent.
In addition,the applicant is requesting a rear yard setback for the principal structure of 24.8 feet where 30
feet is required. Lot area and lot width variances are also required. The existing home is nonconforming
to the 75-foot setback as well as the average lakeshore setback. The house has been designed to meet
those City standards,which has resulted in the home being pushed further to the rear of the lot. The
applicant is also proposing to move the driveway access along Shadywood Road. Since it is a county
road, it would require approval through Hennepin County.
The applicant is proposing to place the principal structure 24.8 feet from the rear property line where 30
feet is required. The existing garage is located two feet from the rear property line and the home is 52
feet from the rear property line. The applicant oriented the home to meet the lake yard setbacks,which
are at a curve due to the nature of the lakeshore and caused the structure to be moved closer to the
rear/street side of the property.
Staff finds that there are practical difficulties inherent to the land and the orientation of the existing home.
The existing home is built at the tallest elevation on the lot. The topography then slopes down and away
from the principal structure on all sides creating many slopes and hills on the property. The home also
has septic and a wetland to the east and their well to the west of the principal structure. The addition
would create a 15-foot setback from the rear property line. The encroachment does not appear to
adversely impact the adjacent properties.
Staff recommends approval of the requested variances if the Planning Commission finds the practical
difficulties reasonable. A recommendation for approval should be contingent upon the applicant
Page 27 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
receiving approval from Hennepin County for moving the driveway access on a county road. If not
approved,this could change the shape of the driveway altering the hardcover of the site.
Kathryn Alexander,Architect, stated they have a signature supporting the project from the property owner
to the south and that they have tried to contact the neighbor to the north but have been unsuccessful.
Alexander indicated she can answer any questions the Planning Commission may have.
Thiesse requested she address the drainage and the driveway.
Alexander noted it is only the lake side that was raised as well as a little bit on each side of the house.
Alexander pointed out the areas that would be raised on the survey and pointed out a portion of the area
that slopes back down toward Shadywood.
Thiesse asked if there is a swale in the area near Shadywood.
Alexander indicated there is a swale there and that the neighbor's property to the south is actually higher
than this property. Alexander stated in speaking with the surveyor, he indicated he would have no
problem making sure there could be a swale in that area.
Alexander stated the reason for raising the grade is that it is very close to the OHWL and that there will
only a partial basement under the house. Alexander noted there is a crawl space that is 3'/10.5"tall and
they raised the back side in order to get enough crawl space. Alexander indicated they are still working
on the driveway with Hennepin County.
Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 9:41 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:41 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if a 7.5 foot side yard setback is now what is allowed.
Landgraver indicated it is along with the 20 percent structural coverage.
Thiesse noted the driveway is responsible for the hardcover overage. Thiesse stated when he drove in the
driveway and turned around so he could drive out forward,the turnaround room was necessary since it
would be dangerous to back out onto Shadywood. Thiesse stated it would be difficult to eliminate the
900 square feet of excess hardcover from the driveway and that the driveway might as well be a size that
is workable.
Lemke noted overall hardcover on the property is being reduced.
Schwingler stated the applicants have also addressed the drainage.
Page 28 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver commented the Planning Commission knew people would be encouraged to maximize the
housing space and then come back for a hardcover variance when the City approved the 7.5 side setback
and the 20 percent structural coverage limit.
Thiesse noted the hardcover is being reduced in this case.
Landgraver stated one of the positives with the proposal is that the applicants are reducing the hardcover
on the lot. Landgraver agreed that Shadywood Road is dangerous to back out on and that the turnaround
space is necessary.
Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3978,Alexander
Design Group on behalf of Travis Hansberger, 1720 Shadywood Road,granting of a rear setback
variance,a hardcover variance,and lot area and lot width variances. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
11. #17-3977 BRIAN BENSON ON BEHALF OF JIM AND MARY JUNDT, 1400
BRACKETTS POINT ROAD,SKETCH PLAN,9:45 P.M.—10:05 P.M.
Brian Benson,Builder, was present.
Barnhart stated before the Planning Commission is a sketch plan proposal for a 5-lot single family
residential development. The property consists of 13.78 acres and lies near the southern end of Brackets
Point Road.
The purpose of the sketch plan review is to obtain the feedback from the Planning Commission on some
of the issues associated with developing this piece of property. The main issue is the access to the site.
Bracketts Point Road enters the property at the north end and then cuts to the west side. Within Bracketts
Point Road is an existing sanitary sewer line that serves the area.
The property owner is proposing to vacate the road,relocate it to the interior of the site, retain the existing
sanitary sewer line and protect it with an easement with specific site improvements to protect access. The
southern end is proposed as a cul-de-sac,with separate drives to maintain access to the private road.
Barnhart stated the main policy question is whether shifting the road into the interior of the property is
acceptable. Staff will continue to make sure that emergency vehicle access is maintained.
Barnhart noted by virtue of adding four new lots onto the subject property,traffic will increase on
Bracketts Point Road and will also impact its connection with Shoreline Road to the north. Input from the
County is necessary to determine whether any improvements are necessary at this intersection. The
proposal to relocate the road to the interior of the road will help remove hardcover within the lake yard of
proposed Lots 3,4, and 5.
The other issue is the establishment of average lakeshore setback. When new lake lots are created,the
average lakeshore setback needs to be established at the time of subdivision.
It is Staff's belief that the existing sanitary sewer line will be adequate to service the additional homes but
that will need to be verified.
Lastly,a Conservation Design Plan will need to be completed. A number of trees will need to be
removed to facilitate the road realignment and house construction.
Page 29 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Barnhart noted this project has been designed with the intention of following city ordinances in terms of
lot size, lot frontage, and things of that nature. Barnhart stated at the present time no variances appear to
be necessary.
Thiesse stated he sees this as a Lakeview type development where it is quite critical that everything be
met. Thiesse asked what the ramifications are with relocating the road.
Barnhart pointed out there are property owners that are not part of this subdivision who may want to
retain the access as it is now.
Thiesse stated he was thinking on the north end.
Barnhart illustrated the path of the proposed roadway,noting that the existing lots would still maintain
their access.
City Administrator Rief asked if the road would remain public after it is moved.
Barnhart indicated it would.
Landgraver asked what the pros and cons are of leaving the sewer line where it is.
Barnhart stated the cost to relocate the sewer line would be pretty expensive.
Thiesse stated the City would need to have vehicular access to that area.
Rief stated one of the concerns with moving the sewer line is the need for lift stations.
Landgraver asked if there is any additional maintenance cost with leaving the septic line.
Barnhart stated having the road as access makes it easier and that there will probably be some additional
impacts but that the City Engineer has reviewed it briefly and did not raise any concerns with relocating
it.
Leskinen commented having the road go down the middle might be better for the lake since it would help
with salt runoff and hardcover.
Barnhart stated having the road by the lake also provides some benefit to the area in terms of lake views.
Chuck Alcon stated since they submitted their plan, they have met with the fire chief, which led to the
basis of the radius of the cul-de-sac. The road would also improve emergency vehicles access. Alcon
stated they also met with LMCD staff, and since there will be no marina, each property owner will be
responsible to permit their own docks on their lakeshore.
Alcon indicated they also met with the MCWD staff,and they are eager to get the road off the lakeshore.
The proposal is to maintain the sewer line and provide an easement using grass pavers so the maintenance
trucks can get down there.
Page 30 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
A wetland delineation has been completed and that has been submitted to the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. Alcon indicated they will have that information for the preliminary plat.
Attempts have been made to contact the property owners in the area and that those attempts have not been
successful at the present time. Alcon indicated they will continue to make attempts to contact them.
Alcon stated shifting of the road improves the lake quality and that they will contact Hennepin County as
far as the additional traffic going onto County Road 15. Onsite ponding and infiltration are the current
concepts for the stormwater management onsite and sanitary sewer capacity calculations will be provided
at the time of preliminary plat. Sanitary sewer maintenance access will be along the existing roadway
area but with grass pavers. The grass pavers will accommodate up to 88,000 pounds.
Alcon noted a Conservation Design Plan is required and that they will provide that at preliminary plat.
Alcon stated the two major items are relocating the road,which will help the lake quality, and then
maintaining the sanitary sewer. No new lift stations are required and quite a bit of hardcover will be
removed down near the lake. Alcon noted water will be provided via private wells and the underground
storage tank that was for fire protection will be removed because the fire chief has indicated he would not
use it.
Lemke asked if there are any issues with the grass pavers.
Alcon stated to his knowledge there are not and that Mark Gronberg is the surveyor on the project and he
has used them in the past at the Long Lake Library.
Thiesse encouraged him to get in touch with the neighbors.
Brian Benson noted they have a meeting scheduled with the owner who owns two of the three lots on
Monday and that they have also reached out to a couple of other people but have gotten no response.
Another neighbor asked whether the main house is staying and the other family is moving.
Alcon noted the 45-foot radius continues on through the corner and connects into the private road as
opposed to the curved hammerhead.
Schoenzeit asked how the proposed grading for the homes will compare to what is there.
Alcon stated they will be custom graded lots.
Benson stated they might do a custom grading plan for Lot 5 since it is low and flat.
Schoenzeit asked if these homes will have foundations or be slab on grade.
Benson indicated Lot 2 would be a walkout, Lot 3 would be a walkout, Lot 4 might be a lookout, and then
Lot 5 will likely need to be built up. Benson stated they are waiting to get feedback from this meeting
and then they will explore that a little bit more.
Alcon stated all that information will be provided at the time of preliminary plat.
Page 31 of 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,October 16,2017
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Landgraver asked what the rough square footage of the homes will be.
Benson stated the lots would be sold to end buyers and they would work with the City on their individual
building plans. Benson stated they are not planning on having any architectural covenants placed on the
property but that there would be an association for the pond.
Alcon stated the association will probably have some architectural control.
Lemke asked if an easement for the sewer connection will be needed for Lot 1.
Alcon stated the necessary easements will be provided.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
12. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 25,2017,AND
OCTOBER 9,2017
None
13. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Lemke asked whether anything can be done when the Planning Commission is deadlocked.
Barnhart stated according to the code,the Planning Commission has to provide a recommendation.
Leskinen noted typically there are an odd number of commissioners and would not be a problem.
ADJOURNMENT
Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
10:08 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
ATTEST:
John Thiesse, Chair
Page 32 of 32