07-12-2010 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 12, 2010 7:00 o'clock p.m. (8. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE CHAPTER 46: FIRE PROTECTIONAND PREVENTION, Continued) Mattick indicated the homeowner would still be responsible to maintain the tank in good condition. Bremer moved, McMillan seconded, to approve Option 1 and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 76, Third Series, an Ordinance Amending Chapter 46 of the Orono, Minnesota, City Code by Amending' Chapter 46 Regarding Fire Prevention and Protection. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. #10 -3454 CITY OF ORONO — ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT — CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS — ORDINANCE NO. 77, THIRD SERIES Mattick stated the zoning text amendment is intended to make the conditional use permit standards be the same on all CUPs. Bremer asked why it matters under Section 1(a)(6) if the current use is compatible with the surrounding area. Mattick stated that language is basically verbiage from:other conditional use permits and that under case law the City could strike down the CUP if it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Bremer commented she understands how that would apply to future CUPS but that this language refers to • existing conditional use permits. Mattick stated the surrounding area would be the neighborhood. Bremer indicates she understands what the city attorney is saying and that she agrees with it. Bremer" stated the word compatible with the surrounding area is used in the present tense and that she thought it was implying that the proposed structure is compatible as it is presently used. Bremer stated in her view there should be a word before used, such as area or as the area is used presently. Bremer suggested the language read "compatible with the surrounding area as the surrounding area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future." Bremer commented it appears that Item 11 is a term of art and asked what creating vibration, dust, and electrical interference refers to. Mattick indicated that language came out of a piece of litigation in Roseville involving crematoriums that the neighbors felt created too much dust and noise. The language requires the applicant to prove that they will not create a significant amount of dust and vibration, et cetera. Bremer stated as it relates to Item 12, she has a concern that the language "inconvenience to adjoining properties" is going to be a constant complaint. Mattick stated that phrase would need to be put to the reasonable test and that they would examine it from how it has an immediate impact to the adjoining properties. Turner indicated she has seen that language used more in a business area as it relates to parking. • Bremer suggested that the words negative impact be considered. Page 12 of 16