Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-16-2022 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Mark McCutcheon,Vice Chair Scott Kirchner,Commissioners Chris Bollis,Dennis Libby, Jon Ressler,Bob Erickson,and Alternate Dave Peterson. Commissioner Matt Gettman was absent. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Planner Laura Oakden. Chair Kirchner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair McCutcheon noted a request for item 2 under Public Hearings to be tabled. Ressler moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve the Agenda.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 18,2022 AND APRIL18,2022 WORKSHOP Libby moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of April 18,2022 and the April 18,2022 Workshop.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA22-000017 JON RESSLER,3683 &3685 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,REQUESTS A LOT WIDTH VARIANCES AS PART OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Commissioner Ressler is part of the application and recused himself. He stepped away from his seat. Jon Ressler and Frank Plachecki,Applicants,were present. City Planner Oakden noted Ressler and Plachecki are neighboring property owners at 3683 and 3685 North Shore Drive.The Applicants are looking to complete an administrative boundary line.Moving the property boundary is a staff administrative action as long as no new non-conformities are created or an existing non-conformity is not increased.Each property will require a lot width variance in order to allow the boundary line adjustment and the existing lot width non-conformity will increase.Lot width is measured in 2 places on lakeshore properties,at the ordinary high water level(OHWL)and at the 75 foot lakeyard setback.Properties in the LR-1C district require 100 foot lot width.Both properties are nonconforming to lot width, area and setbacks. Due to the angle of the proposed lot line,the lot width will decrease at the 75 foot lakeyard setback from 54 feet to 52 feet at 3683 (the smaller property on screen) and at 3685 the lot width will decrease from 92 feet to 82 feet at the OHWL.The new property boundary will maintain the same lot area sizes. Oakden stated the new property line will improve many of the non- conformities on the both parcels.The building setback,overall hardcover, and lot width at the OHWL will improve on the smaller property; currently all of those are non-conforming and all will improve and come closer to the City Code.The new property line will move off the existing driveway bringing the driveway setback closer to conformance for 3685 North Shore Drive. Oakden showed a slide on screen showing the proposed adjustments.The Applicant has primarily identified the existing conditions and the improvement of many non-conformities to the city Codes for each property as practical difficulties Page 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. supporting the requested variance lot width variances and boundary line adjustment.Additionally,they have provided their supporting documentation regarding practical difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Staff finds that the proposed lot line adjustment improving existing non-conformities on hardcover,building setbacks,and driveway setbacks is a positive improvement.The lot width variance requested may be supported by practical difficulty. Staff finds there may be some practical difficulties to support that lot width variance. Jon Ressler,3683 North Shore Drive, stated the reason for this application is to apply how the property has been used in practice for over three decades. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:10 p.m. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:10 p.m. Kirchner stated it seems that there are slight improvements to hardcover and he does not have a lot of issues with the application. Bollis sees that it is clearing up an issue as far as how the properties have been used.He agrees that part of it is getting smaller and the other getting bigger.The reduced hardcover and setback getting better in places is helpful. McCutcheon thinks they are improving the situation with items that Staff highlighted,plus thirty years is a long time and they are correcting something,especially when there is agreement from both neighbors. Kirchner moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA22-000017,3683&3685 North Shore Drive,Lot Width Variances as part of an Administrative Boundary Line Adjustment Between the two properties.VOTE: Ayes: 7,Nays 0. 2. LA22-000024 SHARRATT DESIGN,3350 FOX STREET,REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A GUEST HOUSE USE. (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) This item was tabled at the request of the Applicant. 3. LA22-000018 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO SETBACKS FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEMS.THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN REQUIRED YARDS.(STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart noted this is a general housekeeping amendment. Irrigation systems are a listed accessory use in most zoning districts including residential and there is a setback for accessory structures between 5, 10, and 15 feet. Irrigation systems are located throughout the yard and often within the required setback. They are proposing to add irrigation systems as a non-encroachment, allowing them to be irrigated in required yards. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:18 p.m. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:18 p.m. Page 2 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve LA22-000018 text amendment related to setbacks for irrigation systems as proposed.VOTE: Ayes: 7,Nays 0. 4. LA22-000019 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DOCKS AND EASEMENTS FOR DOCKS IN THE SEASONAL RECREATIONAL ZONING(RS)DISTRICT. THE AMENDMENT CLARIFIES CURRENT REGULATION ALLOWING BIG ISLAND OWNERS TO GRANT DOCK EASEMENTS FOR INTERIOR BIG ISLAND LOTS. (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart gave a presentation noting a couple of years ago the City drafted an ordinance amendment that allowed Big Island lakeshore property owners to grant an easement to interior property owners.This easement for dock access is unique to Big Island and is not allowed anywhere else in the City. Today they are proposing to take the Code and add it to the zoning district so the user can find it easier.They are not changing practice or removing any rights,the City is just saying as it is allowed in the subdivision Code, they are now allowing it in the zoning Code. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:23 p.m. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:23 p.m. Ressler moved,Peterson seconded,to approve LA 22-000019 text amendment related to docks and easements for docks in the seasonal Recreational Zoning(RS)district.VOTE: Ayes: 7,Nays 0. 5. A22-000021 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO EXTERIOR STORAGE IN R DISTRICTS RELATING TO VEHICLE PARKING SURFACES.THE ORDINANCE WOULD REQUIRE VEHICLES TO BE LICENSED,OPERABLE,AND PARKED ON A HARD SURFACE. (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart stated this text amendment is intended to clarify the regulation for the general user who may not understand the nuances of the City Code.The way the Code is written,extended parking of vehicles is considered hardcover. When the City is reacting to complaints about junk cars or debris, one issue they cite is the expansion of hardcover and some people get confused by that.The idea behind this change is to identify and require that the parking of vehicles be located on hardcover: concrete,asphalt,or gravel. Bollis spoke about the example of boat storage on a larger rural lot,noting someone storing a boat seasonally is now required to put hardcover under that all summer long versus hardcover that would only be there in winter.Bollis sees the intent but does not know that it should be blanket across all R districts. It does not make sense to him, especially in some of those larger districts,to require hardcover under a surface that would be there all the time,whether a boat or RV is stored there or not.He said even with a hobby farm, a tractor parked outside would be considered the same thing. In Bollis' opinion it needs more thought as to what districts this should be in and what the overall effect would be to require this hardcover. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:23 p.m. Daniel Phipps,464 North Shore Drive, asked when they would pursue this issue about the hardcover further. He has a rental house next to him with four vehicles,three boats, and an enclosed trailer on the grass.The boats are there all year long and he considers it an eyesore,as do some of the other neighbors. Page 3 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. He shared that is his input and agreed with the question of where the City will draw the line and where they will not. Mr. Phipps noted enforcement is another matter. Chair McCutcheon asked what zone Mr. Phipps lives in. Mr.Phipps replied the lots are 1/2 acre minus wetland. Greg Hahn was called late this afternoon to represent Mitch and Georgina Rasmussen,living on Park Drive.Mr.Hahn thanked Mr.Barnhart as the family has been after this for two years and shared a handout showing what the neighbors are looking at,noting it varies from day-to-day anywhere from 10- 16 cars.Hardcover is an issue to talk about, as it the number of vehicles on a piece of property that is not even 1/2 acre.The owners have been there for 20-30 years and it changed when the next door neighbor purchased this property which has an accessory building on it. Mr.Hahn believes the building is probably being used for mechanical or fix-up purposes and does not know if there is a license or zoning that needs to be done.Mr. Hahn stated this is an issue as the property owners are both retired and are selling their property.Mr.Hahn is a real estate agent and he suggested talking to the City Planning and Zoning about the number of cars and what is going on next door because it does affect the value of their property. Recently Mr. Rasmussen's health has turned which has accelerated the need to get things moving on the sale of their property,noting the family does not want to prosecute but wants to work with the City to try to rectify the situation as it is an eyesore. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. Ressler asked Barnhart if the text amendment proposed is in reference to considering boats, cars, etcetera, on soft storage to be counted as hardcover. Barnhart replied right now the extended parking of vehicles transfers that area into hardcover.This ordinance says if someone is going to store vehicles they must store them on approved hardcover(asphalt, concrete,gravel). Ressler clarified it is making it unlawful to store said vehicles unless it is on hardcover. Barnhart replied in the affirmative. Chair McCutcheon likes that it indirectly says if one has a smaller lot they will have a restriction on hardcover,therefore they will be less apt to store vehicles.To Bollis' point on the bigger lots, it will promote them to add hardcover and does the City want that impacting their lakes and runoff? Bollis asked if it were approved,how would it apply to existing non-conformities such as the example the gentleman just explained about the next door neighbors. Barnhart replied this ordinance will not help him as most of those vehicles are parked on hard surface such as gravel or concrete.The same rules apply, licensed and operable,so those three tests would still be met. He noted with any change to the Zoning Code people would be grandfathered in but if someone moved that vehicle and brings it back it must be parked on hard surface. Peterson said from the two neighbors sharing their experiences with cars,those cars seem to be a much bigger issue and are giving the neighborhood a black eye.He would be sympathetic to someone who has Page 4 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. a recreational small utility trailer as he does not believe that is causing a problem as the cars do. He asked if they can address this to cars and not just hardcover? Barnhart noted Peterson raises a point: it seems the predominant issue is the parking of vehicles that are operated sparingly.As a lake community,Barnhart knows there is a culture of one storing a boat off to the side so it is not impactful of neighbors. He stated perhaps they can revise this with some more direction and bring it back specific to cars or specific to zoning districts. Ressler knows they have looked at this language before and have come to an impasse due to enforcement. If a boat moves three feet it has been moved and it is no longer there for a long enough period of time. He said there is intent and enforcement and he believes that is the difficulty they are experiencing. Regarding Peterson's comment about cars versus a trailer, one could make the opposite argument with kids home from college but are not keeping several trailers.He thinks this is a difficult one to get through and sees there are merits and there are not merits. Kirchner understands the intent but in looking at the photo examples brought forward tonight,based on the photos the vehicles are all parked on hardcover. He asked Barnhart if complaints prompted this and if they were complaints similar to those brought tonight,passing an ordinance like this will not correct it. That does not seem like the best route. Barnhart replied occasionally they City gets complaints about junk cars. One section of Code they would be in violation of is how they park that car for an extended period of time and falls under the definition of hardcover.He noted an example where one had an extension of hardcover without a permit which is one section of Code that the City cites. It is difficult to get a judge or prosecuting attorney to agree with or accept because it is somewhat written in the negative.What the City is trying to do is clarify that a bit. It will not apply in all cases as there are certain situations where other issues can be used such as inoperable cars,license,etcetera.In certain situations this is one of the options the City has in terms of enforcement. With all Code enforcements it is based on a complaint,the City will go out to see what sections of the Code they are in violation of, and then will write a letter letting the property owner know what the rule is. If they choose to fix it that is great,if not,the City will take the next step. Kirchner has some concern that it will not solve at least one of the complaints they heard this evening. In his previous career in law enforcement he has experience enforcing junk vehicle ordinances that are specific to inoperable or unlicensed,and for what it is worth he would stick with that rather than trying to include additional language or violations of hardcover.He would defer to the ordinance that speaks to inoperable,unlicensed,or unregistered vehicles. Libby noted they had two public comments showing why people are upset about having errant, abandoned,or unattended vehicles on private property that can be unattractive and distracting. He thinks the draft amendment includes three elements on how to deal with that.The most difficult part,as Kircher's point was well taken in terms of law enforcement, it can keep the City police department busy making sure there is current registration on any and every vehicle that is parked for any lengthy period of time. Still it is a good component of the draft that Libby thinks should be there;the three caveats or elements of the draft amendment stipulate the vehicle must be licensed,operable,and parked on a hard surface.He does not think the hard surface is a bad idea in any way and thinks the draft amendment in its intent and language is practical and would serve public good. Libby is in favor of what the planners brought forward. Page 5 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Chair McCutcheon can see for a citizen being impacted this would be very frustrating and understands why they would come to Staff requesting something be done.At the same time,he sees the complications and policing of it as a problem and can see the larger lot impact and noted there will be pushback on that. They should think of having hardcover unnecessarily placed in the larger,more rural areas of Orono. Things to consider also include the fact that they are a community of boat trailers and whether it is an issue of cars and unlicensed cars,and the burden on the police department. Barnhart has heard reasonable comments and a good range of discussion and has identified three options: approve as written, deny as written,or direct Staff to come back with revisions. The Commissioners continued discussion on the item including hardcover definitions,long-term storage, and seasonal storage. Peterson asked regarding the earlier complaint regarding cars, if it is suspected that someone is running a repair garage,could they go to Staff to address the issue? Barnhart noted there is an ordinance in the books against car repair home occupations.The challenge is proving it. Libby moved,Bollis seconded,to table A22-000021 text amendment and to direct Staff to come back with a revision to the text amendment.VOTE: Ayes: 7,Nays 0. 6. LA22-000022 TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING VEGETATION REMOVALS IN THE SHORELAND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT.THE ORDINANCE RELATES TO THE REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS AND DISEASED TREES. (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart explained there is a distinction between live and dead trees.Removal of a live tree in the shoreline area requires a replacement at a ratio established by the Planning Commission and City Council some years ago.The important distinction is"live"which requires replacement versus"dead"which does not require replacement.Recently the question has come up regarding aa hazardous tree which is going to fall down in the opinion of an arborist, and property owners have asked if they can remove that tree. Barnhart clarified yes they can,but they need to replace the tree due to the way the Code currently reads. It is the same with a diseased tree.Barnhart clarified there is really no discretion on the Staff level,either a tree is alive or dead.This ordinance clarifies that a bit and an item for discussion is whether diseased or hazardous trees should be required to be replaced at the same ratio of a live tree or at a reduced ratio. Barnhart is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Jay Nygard, 1446 Rest Point Road,has a huge tree by the lake as well as other trees and asked for a clarification.He rioted Mr. Barnhart sent him an email that said this was potentially going to say one could replace a diseased tree with nothing and he asked if that has changed. Barnhart replied he has drafted an ordinance with two options. One has no replacement required for diseased,dead,or pose a safety hazard.An alternative text requires the replacement of a tree one-to-one. Mr.Nygard thanked Barnhart and said that is helpful.Personally he thinks saying something is a diseased tree and that they do not have to do anything is ridiculous.He has a problem next door which Mr. Page 6 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart knows about where a neighbor cut down a tree, disposed of it, and then had an arborist sign something later noting it was diseased. He asked how does anyone know?Mr.Nygard knows because he took the bottom stump when it was left on the street and knows it was not diseased. Having an ordinance as Mr. Barnhart was saying where no tree replacement is required goes completely against what Orono has been all these years in protecting the lake. Especially in looking at the 75 foot setback rather than the 50 foot setback of the DNR,they have one-third of the lakeshore on Lake Minnetonka and it is actually important that Orono maintains that.Mr.Nygard got a tree replacement permit next door when he bought that house because the tree was destroying the boathouse by the lake and the City came and said yes,it is healthy,but it should be replaced.Therefore,Mr.Nygard went through a tree replacement plan,which he thinks is a bit ridiculous as it would have required him to put eight trees in a line in a certain area. This broaches many of the topics the Commissioners brought up today. Mr.Nygard negotiated a different settlement with the City and will not need eight trees and he put them in a good spot where it fits in which worked quite well.What he sees missing here is an actual forestry expert talking about the forests of Lake Minnetonka.They cannot leave it up to residents and a few arborists,but they must talk about the fact that Orono owns one-third of Lake Minnetonka and how do they protect the forest as a whole? Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Ressler recalls in talking about greenspace there is a certain species approval of trees,knowing the City cannot be experts at everything, so they defer that expertise to the DNR and other entities.He does not see the benefit of replacing a Cottonwood or nuisance tree and requiring a replacement,especially if it was diseased. Regarding a perfectly healthy nuisance tree,Ressler noted those would be replanted by the laws and rules in place. McCutcheon noted they make seedless Cottonwood trees now. He likes the idea of putting in a setback for the tree and asked Staff if the tree would be replaced in the lake setback or anywhere on the lot.He stated they may find out that every tree is diseased in some way or another and definitely do not want to promote that. Kirchner does not like lines 15 and 16 in the proposal and would not support. The alternative text that would require replacement of dead, diseased,or hazardous is something he would support more than not replacing a tree. Regarding public comments tonight regarding placement of trees,there are circumstances that do not allow for replacement in that area. He suggested including language saying a tree would be replaced in the same location or allow for an administrative review with Staff to allow for extenuating circumstances,almost like practical difficulties.He would like to keep it administrative rather than bringing those before the Planning Commission for approval. Erickson said besides the lakeshore erosion possibility,certain types of oak wilt are transmitted through their roots which may be another reason a property owner may not want to replant in the same spot. Bollis noted the way he reads the existing Code,the City does not address dead or diseased trees.At first he was in favor of lines 15 and 16 only and in choosing lines 30-32 it would give the owner and Staff some flexibility on where to place that tree within the lake setback. Barnhart and the Commissioners discussed the language options in the ordinance. Kirchner moved,Ressler seconded,to approve LA22-000022 text amendment regarding vegetation removals in the Shoreland Overlay Zoning District including lines 30-33,alternative text requiring Page 7 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 16,2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. replacement of dead,diseased trees deemed hazardous and directing Staff to incorporate an administrative review process regarding replacement location of the tree as suggested by Staff. VOTE: Ayes: 7,Nays 0. OTHER BUSINESS 7. UPDATE ON MAY 9,2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart shared the City Council reviewed several items approving the variances at 1074 Loma Linda and 940 North Arm Drive.Regarding 1720 Bohns Point Road,after much discussion the City Council approved the amended plans for the retaining walls. Feedback was provided to Stonewood for the boundary line adjustment. ADJOURNMENT Ressler moved,Kirchner seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting.VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. ATTEST: �•.-^' �� !/ ���/� Sp -1Qri.,linci,Chair Page 8 of 8