MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 16, :30 o clock p.m.

Transcription

1 ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Janice Berg, Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Christopher McGrann, Loren Schoenzeit, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Lizz Levang was present. Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 6:36 p.m. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2015 Landgraver moved, McGrann seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of February 17, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. # JOHN BESSESEN AND TOM WASMOEN ON BEHALF OF DAVID DELANEY, 2500 KELLY AVENUE/PID , RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONING, 6:33 P.M. 7:58 P.M. Gaffron stated the proposed twinhome use at this site was originally reviewed as a five twinhome development in the spring of The applicants originally proposed a 5-twinhome sketch plan in the spring of 2014 and received generally favorable comments from both the Planning Commission and Council. The Council indicated the twinhome use would likely be a good transition between the commercial or mixed use area to the immediate north and east and the twin and single-family residential uses to the west and south. The Council also suggested that the number of units be reduced to four twinhomes and indicated that an alternate access to Shadywood Road be explored. In August of 2014, the applicants formally requested an amendment of the Community Management Plan to re-guide the property on Kelly Avenue to allow for multi-family residential development where the current guide plan is for single-family residential use at a density of two to three units per acre. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal on September 15, 2014, at which time members of the public commented on the proposed development concept. The public comments are documented in the September 15 Planning Commission minutes and additional written public comments are included in Exhibit D. After discussion, the Planning Commission tabled the application. On December 11, the applicants held a neighborhood informational meeting for the purpose of providing an opportunity for the community to review and comment on the proposal. As a result of that meeting, the applicants chose to reconsider their options. The applicants subsequently met with Staff and have revised their plans. The revised proposed use of the site is four twinhomes with eight dwelling units, which would require a subdivision and concurrent rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development District. The new proposal would have a single shared private road/driveway access onto Kelly Avenue, with the future potential to eliminate access to Kelly and gain access to Shadywood Road upon development of the adjacent property. Page 1 of 30

2 The Planning Commission should consider some factors for development of this property. The property is 4.59 acres in gross area of which 0.57 acres is delineated as wetland, leaving a net dry buildable area of 4.02 acres. A flowage and conservation easement exists on the property, which encompasses the delineated wetland area, adjacent areas not within the delineated wetland, and a portion of the steep slopes on the property. This easement contains an approximate total of 1.6 acres, nearly three times the area of the wetland, which places further development encumbrances upon the site. The easement was created at a time before there were formal delineation processes in place. The applicants will likely be requesting a revision of that existing easement boundaries based on the current delineation. As it stands today, the proposal is for eight dwelling units on three developable acres if it is assumed that the area of the existing easement is not buildable. The conditions of that easement currently do not allow the developer to do very much within that area. At such time that the easement is reduced in area, this density would decrease slightly but it is still at a density with the eight units of 2.7 units per acre, which is within the range of two to three units per acre that the site is guided for. The property is currently guided for two to three acres in the Community Management Plan for residential uses and is zoned LR-1B, one-family lakeshore residential district, which is a district that requires one acre and 140 feet of width. The City Attorney has indicated that a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not necessary because the guide plan merely establishes an allowable density range for this portion of the Navarre area an does not specify the requirement that the development be limited to singlefamily uses. An analysis of the potential zoning options for development of this site was conducted just prior to the September 15 meeting. The conclusion at that time was that there is a need for rezoning to residential planned unit development. Exhibit F describes the process that was undertaken in analyzing the development. The RPUD district is available for properties with a minimum of five acres of dry buildable. There are a number of criteria that the Council would have to find exist prior to allowing a change. The four criteria for an RPUD are as follows: 1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as an RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. 2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as an RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. Gaffron noted that is not the case in this application. 3. The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. Page 2 of 30

3 Gaffron noted the Council will need to find that this proposal meets at least one of those criteria in order to develop the property as an RPUD. This application is before the Planning Commission tonight for a recommendation regarding the rezoning to RPUD. Once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation, the application will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. If the conceptual rezoning is approved by the City Council, the applicants next step would be to apply for preliminary plat and Master Development Plan approval. This step would involve preparation and submittal by the applicants of more detailed development plans, a formal preliminary plat drawing, and engineering plans for site grading, stormwater management, etc. The actual rezoning to RPUD would take place concurrently upon final plat and Master Development Plan approval. Gaffron stated as it relates to site planning considerations, the existing site is undeveloped. A wetland delineation study was prepared for the property and is reflected on the survey. The wetland as delineated extends along approximately half of the site s Kelly Avenue frontage. The existing flowage and conservation easement extends from the northern boundary of the site to within 60 feet of the southern boundary and extends an average of approximately 130 feet northeastward from Kelly Avenue. The site contains a very substantial mature tree canopy, including a large variety of deciduous trees and substantial undergrowth. The upland areas of the site are categorized in the Orono Natural Resources Inventory as Maple-Basswood forest. Wooded areas contained within the flowage and conservation easement are protected by covenants that prohibit cutting or removal of vegetation except by the written consent of the City of Orono. The above characteristics and circumstances directly impact the potential development of the site and support the concept of a RPUD development scheme which allows flexibility in site layout in order to preserve important natural features. The underlying zoning of LR-1B would allow the division of up to four single-family lots with direct frontage onto Kelly Avenue if the flowage and conservation easement was not in effect. Such a development under existing zoning requirements would very likely fail to preserve the natural state of the southwest portion of the property along Kelly Avenue and require each site to have long individual driveways running up the hillside to access homes on one acre lots. This would not only result in much greater destruction of the mature tree stand canopy coverage and reduce the screening of individual dwellings as viewed from Kelly but would also result in a much higher net hardcover percentage of the property. Gaffron stated such a development scheme would require extinguishment of most, if not all, of the flowage and conservation easement set up originally by the land owner and City to protect this area of the property from future development. This is a compelling reason, in Staff s opinion, which supports the more compact, clustered development approach for the proposed development plan. The Planning Commission is requested to consider whether the proposed development of four twinhomes is appropriate for this site and make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a future rezoning to RPUD. Since a rezoning action is highly discretionary, the zoning code does not specify criteria by which a rezoning should be considered. The code merely suggests that rezoning is appropriate if the Council finds it to be in the best interest for the physical development of the City. Page 3 of 30

4 It is Staff s opinion at this time, in conjunction with that of the City Attorney, that an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan is not strictly required in order for this property to be developed at the proposed density with four twinhomes. A rezoning of the property, however, is required. The Planning Commission is requested to consider whether the proposed development of four twinhomes is appropriate for this site and then make a recommendation to the City Council regarding a future rezoning to RPUD. Since a rezoning action is highly discretionary, the zoning code does not specify criteria by which a rezoning should be considered. The Code merely suggests that rezoning is appropriate if the Council finds it to be in the best interest for the physical development of the City. Gaffron stated in order to provide the Planning Commission with potential findings to make a recommendation, they should answer the questions outlined on Page 5 of Staff s report. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission decides to approve the application, they should include the following recommendations of Staff in their motion. 1. Landscape plan must provide a substantial coniferous planting plan along the south side of the new twin home structures. 2. The twin home structures shall be located no closer than 40 feet to the east property line and the private drive shall be located no closer than 20 feet to the east property line. 3. The final development plan should preserve to the greatest extend possible all existing mature trees and underbrush on the property and maintain all undisturbed land not approved for site grading and improvement in its natural state. 4. The development shall be prohibited from any type of subdivision entryway signage on Kelly Avenue, except for an approved private street name sign. 5. The dead-end turn-a-round design at the end of the private street shall be subject to final design approval of the Fire Chief. 6. Final road design shall be established in a manner that can be converted to readily gaining access from Shadywood Road if that becomes feasible in the future, and provisions for future elimination of the access to Kelly Avenue should be a consideration in the initial road design. 7. If a reduced private street improvement width is proposed and approved for less than the standard 28 feet minimum, and which includes available off-street bump-out visitor parking areas, then onstreet parallel parking shall be prohibited along both sies of the private roadway. Signs restricting such parking shall be installed and maintained by the homeowner association if needed to assure full access to all dwellings by emergency personnel. 8. All pertinent requirements of the Orono Subdivision Code and RPUD District standards shall be adhered to during the development review and approval process. Particular attention shall be paid to stormwater management within the development site to ensure the development does not have negative impacts downstream. Page 4 of 30

5 Gaffron noted the public comments received regarding this application have been included in Exhibit F. In addition, the City has received three more letters that have been placed in front of the Planning Commission tonight for their consideration. There is also a letter of request from the applicants, which was received late today. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Tom Wasmoen, Firm Ground Architects & Engineers, stated they had a very well attended meeting with the neighbors and that in the end their comments about the five twinhome project were taken into consideration, which led to the reduction in the number of twinhomes. Wasmoen indicated at that meeting John Bessesen was emotionally driven to say that they would construct four individual singlefamily residential homes. Wasmoen stated the site, however, does not lend itself well to four homes, and the property owner would prefer to see this site developed to its highest and best use, which means that the existing tree canopy will be protected as much as possible and as much of the conservation zone as possible will be preserved. Wasmoen stated the diagram that is on the overhead is the current proposal showing four units with a single drive lane and a single access onto Kelly Avenue. Wasmoen stated they are basically looking to stay out of the conservation zone as much as possible and developing the buildable part of the site, which is located on the high side of the hill. Wasmoen stated what is interesting about the site is that in the fall, given the trees, the homes across Kelly Avenue are not visible from this site. Wasmoen stated one can only assume that if proper care is taken to preserve that vegetation, the twinhomes will not be particularly visible to the existing neighbors as well. Wasmoen stated the other thing that is important to note is that there will be a homeowner s association involved, which will maintain the landscaping, protect the undeveloped portions of the site and take care of gardening, plowing, and oversee the development in a professional manner. Wasmoen indicated he also sent Staff a couple of color renderings earlier today depicting the twinhomes. Wasmoen stated in their view the twinhomes will blend well with the more expensive homes in the neighborhood. The twinhomes will vary from a lookout to a walkout depending on how the house sits with the existing grades. The top elevation would be the entry level and the garage entries will be turned to make them less impactful. From the back, the twinhomes may have a two-story appearance from Kelly Avenue. Wasmoen stated with the color renderings, they are suggesting some architectural details and palettes that will blend well with the other homes in the neighborhood. Wasmoen stated they wanted to make sure people were comfortable with the architectural style and have them understand that they are attempting to do a low-impact development. Wasmoen stated this type of development is something that is very popular with empty-nesters and that they are looking for people who want to stay in the Navarre community but do not want to care for a larger property. Wasmoen stated it is their hope that the local residents will learn that they have listened and taken their comments into consideration in designing this development. Wasmoen indicated their intention is to be respectful to the property owner and also be good stewards of the existing environmental conditions of the site. Wasmoen noted the conservation zone would be avoided and that they would only disrupt the area where the buildings and driveway will be constructed. Wasmoen indicated they do have some flexibility in the layout and that the driveway could be moved slightly one way or the other. Page 5 of 30

6 Landgraver asked how they envision relocating access to Shadywood at some point in the future. Wasmoen stated the hammerhead that is being shown as a turnaround could become the access point that would continue out to Shadywood. Wasmoen indicated they cannot do that now since that property is privately owned and they do not have the ability to create an easement over the property. Landgraver asked if they would consider abandoning access to Kelly Avenue at that point. Wasmoen stated they would be receptive to it but it would need to be based on the fire chief s recommendations. Lemke asked what price point they are considering for the units. Wasmoen indicated it would be $500,000 plus. McGrann asked what the width is between the units. Wasmoen indicated it is 20 feet. Leskinen asked what the current width of the driveway lane is. Leskinen indicated she has a concern with the driveway as it relates to emergency vehicles and their ability to turn around. Wasmoen stated they are showing a 22-foot wide driveway and that there would be no parking on the driveway. Wasmoen indicated they have provided parking space in terms of the driveways at each unit and also some additional visitor parking. In addition, the hammerhead at the end would be able to accommodate an emergency vehicle. Wasmoen indicated the plan will be adjusted per the fire marshal s recommendations but that the driveway would be similar to a driveway to a single-family home. Leskinen noted there are more units that would need to use the driveway than single-family homes. Wasmoen indicated 22 feet allows two vehicles to pass by each other. Lemke asked if there would be a curb along the driveway. Wasmoen indicated it would likely be a surmountable curb so rain gardens can be constructed on either side of the road. Wasmoen noted they will manage all of the water on the site so it does not drain to the southeast. McGrann asked if the units were more staggered and facing different directions under the earlier plan. Wasmoen indicated they will be looking at the grade a little more closely and that with four twinhomes instead of five, they have more room to move things around. Wasmoen stated currently they are set up so two units can share a driveway access to help limit hardcover. Wasmoen stated this is a model that has been used over in Blaine very effectively and would allow them to provide more rain garden across the front. Wasmoen stated the units could be turned a little bit based on the grading but that they need to get to the next step before fine tuning that. Page 6 of 30

7 Schoenzeit asked if there is any benefit to the development as well as the neighborhood in creating something more unique that would be more in line with the upper-end single-family homes. Wasmoen stated they could change the materials and shapes of the gables. Wasmoen indicated the gables are decorative and that they could perhaps add an octagon room on some units and not others. Schoenzeit stated given the price point, the developer could be a little more creative. Schoenzeit stated in his view it appears to have a cookie-cutter appearance. Wasmoen stated there could be adjustments made in the plans and that some will have decks or other features and some will not. Wasmoen stated there is also the ability to use different stone and brick on the twinhomes. Lemke asked if the vegetation would be basically removed on the upper portion of the site. Wasmoen indicated a vegetation and landscape plan is required as part of the next step. Wasmoen noted they will be providing a buffer to the northeast side of the drive. Wasmoen stated as it relates to the tree canopy that extends onto the other property, they will attempt to preserve that and it will be part of the consideration for how that gets developed. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Judy Fredrickson, 2507 Kelly Avenue, noted she was in attendance at the last meeting when this was discussed and that she is disappointed they have to appear again in order to defend their neighborhood. At the September 15 meeting, the neighbors expressed their dissatisfaction with the proposal. Fredrickson stated the neighbors also attended a neighborhood meeting held at the Freshwater Institute in December. At the end of that meeting John Bessesen said, okay, we will build four single-family homes with two roads off of Kelly Avenue at the north and the south ends with two houses at the top. Fredrickson stated she thanked him for listening to their concerns and that she was surprised and disappointed to read that Staff did not hear anything about that meeting. Fredrickson stated the bigger picture is to think about the City overall and that every City has to look at what is important to the City and what is unique about the City. The Planning Commission is about protecting what is unique about the City of Orono. Fredrickson indicated she looked at the City s website and it talks about protecting and preserving Lake Minnetonka, preserving distinct urban and rural land patterns and lifestyles, and preserving Orono s local character and identity. Fredrickson stated in looking at this particular project, in her view what they are doing here today is talking about all this because the property owner, David Delaney, wants to build multi-family on this site. The applicants have not presented one compelling reason for doing multi-family. Fredrickson stated the only reason they are talking about it is a return on investment for Mr. Delaney, who will make more money if he builds four twinhomes than he would on single-family. Fredrickson stated the neighbors are not asking for a transition and that she has not seen anybody around the age 55 walking around looking for a place to live. Fredrickson stated that is not what this is about and that it is about a return on investment for Mr. Delaney. Page 7 of 30

8 Fredrickson stated she would like to first talk about the Community Management Plan, which is the guide for the City. CMP Part 3C says multi-family developments will generally not be considered appropriate for lands within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Fredrickson noted this lot is less than 1,000 feet from Lake Minnetonka. Fredrickson stated the Community Management Plan is a very long document that took hours and hours to create which says that multi-family should not be put within areas that are less than 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Fredrickson noted that this particular project is just phase one to what was laid out by the applicant and that what is going to go on the backside of this is a bunch of retail and condominiums along Shadywood. Additionally the Community Management Plan states: County Road 15, which is the key roadway serving these urban areas, and particularly the Navarre area, is far over capacity. It is not practical from an economical or environmental standpoint to expand County Road 15 to increase its capacity. Therefore, additional housing options will be primarily developed along Highway 12. Fredrickson noted the Community Management Plan absolutely does not recommend multi-family. Fredrickson stated they are now hearing tonight that they want to change it and rezone it to RPUD. The next step with an RPUD requires the area to be rezoned. The first requirement is that it has to be a minimum of five acres, which this development does not meet. Fredrickson stated since the property does not meet the minimum requirement of five acres or the guidelines in the Community Management Plan, the applicants are now trying to make it work another way. One of the criteria is that the property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between commercial or industrial area. Fredrickson stated she would like to say that there has been no proof presented at this time that would suggest that single-family homes in this location do not provide a transition to the commercial property and there is nothing to suggest that somebody would not buy a single-family home there. Fredrickson stated as a matter of fact, there are single-family homes right up adjacent to this property. Fredrickson stated nobody has said there has to be multi-family in between here and that none of the neighbors are asking for it. Fredrickson stated the neighbors have to look at this development and that the question to ask is why can t single-family be the buffer. Fredrickson stated she does not understand why they are trying to insert that and that in her view Item C is not justification for this development. Item D says the property contains steep slopes and steps should be taken to save trees. Fredrickson stated in her view this is the one thing they would all agree to, that whatever happens on this property, they should try to minimize cutting down trees. Fredrickson stated nobody has ever asked Mr. Delaney and his developer why they cannot take that same road and extend it. Fredrickson noted Staff talks about the fact that there has to be four roads, which is a silly example since they cannot do it because there is no easement. Fredrickson stated that is not an option and that it should not have been included in the document. Fredrickson asked why they cannot simply drive up there and put single family homes up there on a culde-sac. Fredrickson questioned why four twinhomes need to be built. Fredrickson noted the design calls for two-car garages, which adds up to eight two-car garages. Fredrickson noted nobody from the City has asked for a diagram with four single-family homes. Fredrickson stated they also are not Blaine but Navarre. There are two, three and four million dollar homes across the street. Fredrickson stated they do not want half a million dollar multi-family homes across the street from them to devalue their properties. Fredrickson stated they purchased their properties Page 8 of 30

9 knowing that area was zoned single-family. Fredrickson noted that Mr. Delaney also purchased the property knowing it was zoned single-family and that they are not asking him to live with something he did not know when he bought the property. Fredrickson stated she does not understand why one property owner gets to trump the rest of them. Fredrickson stated the question to ask is, what is the big community development that will be achieved with this proposal. Fredrickson stated no park is going to be built and no beautification project is going to happen to save something. Fredrickson questioned why they are spending all this time on a project for one person. Fredrickson stated the answer is so Mr. Delaney can get a better return on his investment and that the neighbors are asking the Planning Commission to stop the madness and just say no. Fredrickson stated she has a 17-year-old daughter who is good about asking over and over for the same thing, which is true of the applicant. Fredrickson stated sometimes you just have to say no, enough is enough. Ken Heimbach, 2525 Kelly Avenue, stated what really concerns him is that Tom Wasmoen is glossing over the meeting that was held in January. Heimbach indicated he was here in September and it was the same thing. The Planning Commission told the applicants to have a neighborhood meeting. The neighbors attended that meeting. At that time the applicants had another plan that would face Kelly. The neighbors were opposed to that. Finally John Bessesen said, okay, we understand, we know you do not want twinhomes, we will go with four single-family homes. Heimbach stated the neighbors thought it was all over at that point. In the interim months the applicants have been back discussing this project with City Staff and the first the neighbors knew of any change was a postcard in the mail six days ago. Heimbach stated it was his understanding Andrew Mack was going to be in attendance at the neighborhood meeting and that he then wrote him a letter saying that because there was no one from the City there, he wanted to put in writing what happened. Heimbach stated the neighbors were given the impression that this multi-family project was over. Heimbach stated somebody has used the term that it was disingenuous, but that in his view it was a lie. Heimback stated Bessesen wanted to get the neighbors out of there so they did not need to deal with them anymore. Alex Ware, 2587 Kelly Avenue, stated in September the neighbors raised a number of issues and there were over two dozen neighbors that were in attendance that spoke or wrote in comments. Ware stated in his view many still feel that same way but they are not able to be here tonight. Ware stated he would like their comments that were made earlier to be reviewed and taken into consideration. Ware stated the developer has chosen not to take the neighbors comments into consideration. The primary issues that need to be addressed are erosion and flooding. This property is very unique, is very steep, and causes significant issues with flooding. The drainage study cited a number of 100-year events. Ware noted this area of Kelly Avenue has flooded dozens of times in the past few decades. Ware indicated there have been steps made to clear out some of the culverts and improve the drainage, but that he would call attention to the final point of the drainage study, which says that this area is very sensitive to any increase in runoff. Any additional development should be required to maintain or reduce existing runoff rates or volumes. Ware noted that comes from the City study. Ware stated while the improvements suggested in the plan will cost several hundred thousand dollars of taxpayer money, they will not likely address the concerns. The increase to hardscape in the area started Page 9 of 30

10 with the development of the Lund parking lot that has created a cascading effect down the hillside. Ware stated adding more hardscape will only be a detriment. Ware indicated he is in agreement with Judy Fredrickson s comment relating to the driveways with four single-family homes is not a possibility given the wetland crossing that would be required. Ware stated he would like the Planning Commission to take into consideration the drainage study, the cost of improvements, and the increased hardscape leading to increased runoff. In addition, safety issues should also be considered at the intersection of Kelly and County Road 15. Ware stated it is likely the traffic counts will more than double. Ware stated the number of vehicles from this project would more than double those that received postcards about this development. Ware stated the increased density and traffic will only lead to increased safety issues. Ware stated if this project gets any traction, a thorough traffic study needs to be done. Ware stated as it relates to the impacted property values, in his view this will have a significant detriment to their property values. Ware stated if this application is approved, Mr. Delaney will win economic value and the rest of those in the neighborhood, who bought into the current zoning, will lose. Ware stated he would ask the Planning Commission to take those items into consideration. Chuck Nadler, 2509 Kelly Avenue, stated he wants to talk about the safety and the traffic. Nadler stated the intersection of County Road 15 and Kelly is already overloaded. Nadler stated he supports Mr. Delaney developing this property as it is currently zoned but that he does not see any rationale for this development. Nadler stated when the developer presented tonight, as he talked about all the things that would be required of him, such as how the drainage will not spill to the south, the landscape, and lots of other commitments, the reality is that their integrity is not very good. Nadler stated he would be very concerned about whether they would meet all of these commitments that the City puts on them. Elizabeth Sedgwick, 4182 Arrowhead Drive, Medina, noted she is not a resident in Orono and originally had no intention of speaking this evening. Sedgwick stated when she was walking through the parking lot, she saw a truck door open and some books spill out. Sedgwick indicated she went over to help him, during which time Mr. Bessesen took the opportunity to let her know that he felt threatened by her presenting any ideas or comments on this development since she was not a resident of Orono. Sedgwick stated she is not here tonight representing anybody on Kelly Avenue but that she owns a landscape company that is internationally published. Sedgwick stated the only comment she would like to make on behalf of herself as a resident of Medina is that she would like to seek out the City of Orono as a place for her new home. Sedgwick stated having reviewed this particular development as potentially a possibility, she finds it architecturally unsound and very unappealing. Sedgwick stated she is frightened for the local residents as they will now see the existing flooding conditions that have impacted 2605 Kelly Avenue in the past now be partly impacted by this new development. Bob Ponzetti, 2545 Kelly Avenue, stated he supports everything that has been said by his neighbors. Ponzetti indicated they bought their house 20 years ago, and when the first bought the house, they had a lawn between Kelly Avenue and their house. Ponzetti indicated they have let that area basically become naturalized because they like the idea of privacy and intimacy of Kelly Avenue as it now stands. Ponzetti Page 10 of 30

11 stated it is like you are in the city, but the moment you drive around the corner of County Road 15, it becomes another area. Ponzetti stated he hopes it can continue to be that way. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. McGrann asked what would be required if the applicants move forward with four single-family homes. Gaffron stated he would suspect they would require a number of variances and easements across properties for access. Gaffron indicated Staff has not looked at a four-lot plan, but there would be a number of DNR and shoreland standards that would require certain minimum widths, etc. Gaffron stated there may be any number of considerations that have to be taken into account that would affect how this would lay out. One of those considerations is that based on the existing easement, which is much greater than the delineated wetland, the applicants only have three dry buildable acres. Gaffron stated there would need to be some discussion about whether or not there is any interest at all in changing the easement, which there likely is on the developer s part. Lemke asked what the maximum number of single-family homes that would be able to be constructed. Gaffron stated in his view it would be three since they would not receive credit for the wetland and there is a question mark on whether they would get credit for the area that is in the conservation easement since it is very restricted. Gaffron indicated there are a number of questions that would need to be answered and they have not been part of this review. Schwingler noted single-family is not before the Planning Commission tonight. Schoenzeit asked whether multi-family is not allowed within 1,000 feet of the lake. Gaffron stated the actual wording is as follows: Multiple family developments generally will not be considered appropriate for lands within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka, nor for areas that have limited public transportation access to outside employment or shopping facilities. Additionally, County Road 15, which is the key roadway serving Orono s urban areas, and particularly the Navarre area, is far over capacity. Gaffron noted in 1980 the City built McCulley Road as a bypass to keep traffic from Mound and points west heading north so people would not have to take CR15. Gaffron stated it further states that it is not practical from an economical or environmental standpoint to expand County Road 15 to increase its capacity. Therefore, additional housing options will be primarily developed along Highway 12. Gaffron stated if you read all of the language, it does not prohibit it but says these are the City s general goals and intent. Schoenzeit asked if there was a meeting with the neighbors where the applicant shook hands and said four single-family homes. Wasmoen stated there was a neighborhood meeting and John became emotional at that meeting because his professionalism was called into question and their intent was called into question. Wasmoen indicated John came to the podium and was literally in tears. Wasmoen stated he is not standing up here telling untruths. Wasmoen stated John did become emotional and said that he would put four family homes on the site. Page 11 of 30

12 Schoenzeit asked if he shook hands. Wasmoen stated he shook hands with people and that he is not denying any of that. Wasmoen stated after that meeting, John Bessesen reviewed that with David Delaney and that was not Mr. Delaney s desire. Wasmoen stated what that does not do is does not put aside the fact that they were listening that night and made some changes to this plan based on what they heard. Wasmoen stated they are basically putting up four twinhomes that are the size of four single-family homes that would potentially be built in this neighborhood. Wasmoen stated in their view they were improving the ability to build on the site without some of the issues that would arise with four single-family homes. Leskinen requested the gallery to please let whoever is up at the podium to have the floor. Leskinen noted they already had a public hearing and that she understands there is a lot of passion associated with the issue. Leskinen indicated the Planning Commission is happy to hear everybody out but that having this bantering back and forth will be very unproductive. Wasmoen stated John did tell these folks that he would do four single-family homes in there and that they are not denying that. Wasmoen stated they have taken the thoughts that came out of that meeting and have incorporated them into a plan that they thought was a compromise based on the feedback they received from the City. As it relates to whether this development will significantly increase the traffic over four single-family homes, Wasmoen pointed out that most million dollar homes will have four-car garages and that this development will have four cars per unit. Berg stated if you go to a meeting with the neighborhood and you make a comment that you are going to build four single-family homes and yet you come back with a plan for four twinhomes, that is kind of disingenuous. Berg stated the concern is if you say that and then you come before the City with a different plan that gets approved, the concern is what people can expect for this development and how the City is going to guarantee that it is going to be done the way the City would like to see it happen. Berg stated she is against this project. Berg stated in her view if they can have three single-family homes on that site, then that is the route that should be taken. Lemke stated based on hearing about the meeting, it was probably not a good decision to come with four twinhomes, but that really does not have anything to do with what the Planning Commission is charged to do. Berg indicated she does not agree. Landgraver asked if there is already multi-family housing across the street that is within 1,000 feet of the lake. Gaffron indicated there is. Landgraver asked what process occurred that allowed that to happen. Gaffron indicated that development was done before 1992, which is when the Shoreland ordinance came into effect. Gaffron stated to his knowledge that was done as a Planned Residential Development. Gaffron stated he cannot tell the Planning Commission what the code read in 1986 or whenever it was Page 12 of 30

13 when those units were developed. Currently the language suggests that a PRD is only for single-family development, which shows up on Exhibit F. Leskinen stated her first inclination in September was to be against the five units and to be in favor of four, but that her major concern is the traffic given the conditions of County Road 15 and Kelly Avenue. Leskinen stated the flooding is also a major concern. Leskinen stated as far as it relates to multi-family homes in that neighborhood, if there were not any there, that might be a more compelling argument, but since some already exist there, that does not hold as much weight. Leskinen reiterated she does have serious concerns about the traffic capacity. Berg pointed out this development would also send more traffic back into the Kelly and Lydiard neighborhoods and then over to County Road 19, which is also very difficult to get on. Schoenzeit stated the fact that multi-family housing already exists in the neighborhood is significant and that he has concerns that somebody says one things and then comes back with something else. Schoenzeit stated if the lot supports three single-family homes, maybe the cooperation with the neighborhood is to actually get four. If there are going to be eight units, that would be 16 cars versus eight cars, and it is not, clear even at a million dollars, whether there is enough land to allow four car garages and the rest of it. Schoenzeit stated in his view the developer has to work with the neighborhood and stick with the handshakes. In most circles that is the most important thing. Schoenzeit stated whether it is three or four buildings or six or eight units, then that is where it goes, but the neighborhood and the developer have to be in sync. If they are not, the Planning Commission is able to help the developer follow the code and construct three units. Schwingler stated what is before the Planning Commission is the multi-family twinhomes, and the rezoning action is highly discretionary on the part of the City. Schwingler stated from what he is hearing and reading, this lot does not support the number of units being proposed. Schwingler stated the traffic is also a consideration and the question is what that will add in terms of traffic. Schwingler stated the property owner has rights and what can be done in the City is what the Planning Commission tries to allow. Schwingler stated what is being presented tonight, however, is something he cannot support. McGrann stated in his view anytime the City tries to change the play book after the game has started is a problem. McGrann stated the neighbors knew what could someday be across the street and that he has a problem changing that. McGrann stated he initially thought the Planning Commission could get behind this proposal if the neighborhood got behind it, but that it feels like the Planning Commission has already had this conversation and that it just took the last hour to go through it again. McGrann indicated he is not able to support the current proposal. Leskinen suggested the Planning Commission go through the list of questions outlined in Staff s report to make sure the Planning Commission fully looks at this issue and comes up with appropriate findings. Leskinen stated the first question is whether the proposed use is consistent with the guided density for the site in the Community Management Plan. Leskinen stated as it relates to guided density, it does meet that criteria. Page 13 of 30

14 Gaffron noted it is guided two to three units per acre and it does not specify single or multi-housing. At three acres with three acres, that would be 2.7 units per acre. Leskinen pointed out that what is it guided for and what it is zoned are two different things. The second question is whether the site meets the criteria for development via RPUD of a site less than five acres in area. Leskinen stated based on the criteria for the development, the only item that was a possibility was that it provides a transition. Leskinen stated potentially due to the topography of the site, the clustering of the buildings would make it a candidate, but not necessarily so close to the lake. Schoenzeit stated the topography meets the criteria. Leskinen stated the third question is whether the proposed twinhome use and clustered layout allow for a development that is no more intense in potential impacts than development under a single-family concept. Leskinen stated in her view this development will increase the neighborhood impacts on traffic and flooding. Landgraver stated he does not know whether it would impact the flooding but that it would definitely impact the transportation and safety issues. Lemke stated from a visual impact, this development does not make that much difference since there could be large residential homes on that site. Leskinen stated the impacts to the neighborhood or general area are traffic, flooding, and safety. Schoenzeit stated he would be in agreement and that this development might have a bigger impact than single-family homes. Leskinen stated question number four is whether the proposed development provides for a suitable transition between the abutting residential and commercial uses that exist or are likely to be developed in the future. Leskinen stated while it is a transition, she is not convinced that it is necessary to be this type of a development. Leskinen stated any type of a development can be a transition. McGrann stated he would consider it a transition if there was a road from Kelly up into the commercial area. McGrann stated if you look at it as a traffic transition, he would say no. Landgraver stated if the City knew that the area near Shadywood was going to be guided toward multiple use, that would be one thing. Schoenzeit stated it is a potential transition. Leskinen stated it could be a suitable transition. McGrann questioned whether a group of buildings makes it a transition as someone is going from Shadywood onto Kelly Avenue. Leskinen indicated she is reading it as the development as a whole and the type of use. McGrann stated he thinks of the transition from commercial to multi-family to residential. Page 14 of 30

15 Leskinen stated Question No. 5 is, will the site be adequately served by existing police and fire services and are existing roads and utility infrastructure sufficient to serve the development. Leskinen stated in her view the development will be adequately served by existing police and fire services but that in her view this question might relate more to the density. Leskinen stated Question No. 6 is, will the proposed development be expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost. Berg stated it possibly could. Leskinen stated it possibly could but that she does not know if she fully agrees with that. Berg stated there is a greater chance the area could flood, which would create a greater demand for public services. Leskinen stated Question No. 7 reads, is the proposed development of the property compatible with the surrounding area and neighborhood. Can sufficient existing site vegetation be preserved on the property and maintained in its natural state so as to have minimal negative impacts. Is the developer willing to plant coniferous trees along the south side of the twinhome dwellings to minimize the dwelling exterior elevation massing impacts of views from the south and to establish covenants for permanent preservation of that screening. Leskinen stated visually it may possibly be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Schoenzeit stated the development should blend in. Berg stated as it looks currently on the plans, it does not appear to. Lemke stated if there was vegetation superimposed on the drawing, the development would not have as much impact. Schoenzeit stated four buildings exactly alike do not fit in the neighborhood. Leskinen asked how the Planning Commission feels about Question No. 8, which reads: Will the developer agree to restrictions with regard to subdivision entryway signage along Kelly Avenue in order to minimize any negative visual impacts to the existing single-family detached residential neighborhood character. Leskinen noted the Planning Commission has not gotten into the specifics of that. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission is comfortable with their findings, Staff would be fine with the Planning Commission making a recommendation. Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend denial of Application No , John Bessesen and Tom Wasmoen on behalf of David Delaney, 2500 Kelly Avenue, for rezoning based on this evening s discussion and the plan as presented. Leskinen asked if Staff needs specific findings included in the motion. Page 15 of 30

16 Gaffron stated during the discussion the Planning Commission has addressed a number of the questions, and based on that, Staff could put together a set of findings. Gaffron noted the Council will need to have a set of findings in order to adopt a resolution of denial. Leskinen asked if Staff needs a certain number of findings. Gaffron indicated they do not. Gaffron stated it is up to the Planning Commission to exercise their best judgment and make a recommendation based on that. Leskinen stated in her view the Planning Commission s discussion noted a couple of things that are strong findings but they may not been articulated very clearly. Schwingler stated No. 11 would be a reason for denial. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Lemke Abstained, Landgraver Opposed. Lemke stated he would have liked some additional information, such as a traffic study and the impacts on runoff, and that he does not feel comfortable with denying it at this point. Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission should be more specific in their reasons for denial. (Recess taken from 7:58 p.m. to 8:02 p.m.) 3. # CHRISTOPHER PERRY, 1125 HUNTER DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 8:02 P.M. 8:10 P.M. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit in order to install a full bathroom, including shower or tub, within a detached accessory structure (barn) on the property. With only 2.68 acres, the subject property is not large enough to be eligible for a guest house conditional use permit. The zoning district requires a total of four acres in order to permit a guest house. Approval of the conditional use permit shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: 1. The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with a bathtub or shower will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighbor. In the opinion of Staff, the bathroom facilities will be used by the property owners for personal purposes and will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2 The Council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. The use of the accessory building is residential in character and in the opinion of Staff the installation of plumbing fixtures, including a shower or bathtub, will be in keeping with the residential use of the building. 3. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. It is Staff s opinion it is. Page 16 of 30