Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-1984 Planning MinutesH ’ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 21, 1984 7:30 P.M. 1275 BROWN ROAD SOUTH - COUNCIL CHAMBERS Council Representative - Mayor Butler Public Hearings 1. 7:30 p.m.#830 William Smiley, 2720 Pheasant Road Lot Line Rearranaem^nt 2. 7:45 p.m.1835 Judd Rogers, 4490 Forest Lake Landing Lot Line Rearrangement Action Items 3. #819 William Mills, 200 Leaf Street Subdivision 4. #827 C.D. Williams, 1932 Fagerness Point Road Variance - Public Hearing 5. #828 Larry Karkela, 4149 Highwood Road Variance - Public Hearing 6.#831 Robert Haapala, 4015 Dahl Road Variance ~ Public Hearing #832 Harriet Hehl, 405 Oxford Road Appeal “ Board of Review - Public Hearing 8. #833 Harry Brockopp, 993 Wildhurst Trail Variance ~ Public Hearing 9. #834 Brian Fulmer, 3505 Wayzata Boulevard Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Information Items 10. Planning Commission approval of April 16, 1984 minutes. 11. Planning Commission to select representative to attend the June 11, 1984, Council meeting. Adjournment MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION : \ H:TING OF MAY 21, 1904. PAGE 1 ATTENIIAMCE 7:30 P.M. i «830 WILLIAM SMILEY 2720 PHEASANT ROAD LOT LINE RBARRAMG PUBLIC HEARING 7:30-7:34 P.M. The Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chairperson Goetten, Adams, Kelley, Callahan, Rovegno and Sime. Planning Commission member McDonald was absent* Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Assistant Zoning Adminis­ trator Gaffron and City Recorder Sutton represented the City staff- Mayor Butler represented the City Council. William Smiley of 2720 Pheasant Road and Yale William Smiley of 3818 North Shore Drive were present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to recommend approval of the lot line rearrangement for William Smiley subject to the following conditions: 1. Structure to be constructed on new Lot 2 (old Lot 16) must adhere to the designated building envelope. 2. The City will approve no additional variances with this application. 3. All improvements to Lot 2 (old Lot 16) are subject to the performance standards that govern development of lalceshore properties, including hardcover standards. 4. Provide utility easement (for existing sanitary sewer connection in favor of Lot 1 (old Lot 17) upon transfer or sale of Lot 2 (old Lot 16). 5. Applicant to time the building schedule with the upgrading of Lift Station 7. 6. Payment of park fee in the amount of $440. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). NIMOTBS OP THE PLlUnilHG C0NNIS8I01I !TIII6 OF NET 21, 1984.PAGE 2 #835 JUDD ROGERS 4490 FOREST LAKE LANDING LOT LINE REARRANGENENT PUBLIC BEARING 7:55-8:05 P.M. #819 NILLIAN MILLS 200 LEAF STREET SUBDIVISION Nr. and Mrs. Judd Rogers were present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Judd Rogers noted that the well is in the front of the house and also that they are willing to remove the shed. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that at the time the application was sulxnitted, that staff did not know that they would also need a variance. Gaffron stated that the applicants will have to pay the $100 variance fee. Hardcover was discussed and it was determined that because of the trade off in hardcover, no variance is necessary. Adams moved, Sime seconded, to approve the lot line rearrangement based on the following findings: 1. Difficulty in exiting existing garage to street. 2. Applicant is reducing hardcover on property Approval based on the following conditions: 1. No increase in hardcover and applicant to tradeoff with existing hardcover 2. No side setback variance 3. Applicant to remove existing shed to reduce hardcover on property. Notion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). William Mills was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that staff needs additional information concerning the septic primary site. Callhan moved, Sime seconded, to table William Mills subdivision application until the septic is resolved. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). A NIHUTBS OW THS PLM1IIIN6 COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 21, 1984.PAGE 3 C.D. WILLIAMS 1932 PA6BRNESS POINT VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 7:34 - 7:50 P.M.C.D. Williams was present. Kent and Janet Dahlen of 1926 Fagerness Point Road were present from the audience. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted that the applicant is requesting to remodel and add on to the existing house which is within the 75* lakeshore setback. Gaffron stated that the property is severely limited because of the hardcover. Kent and Janet Dahlen of 1926 Fagerness Point Road stated that there is a drainage problem affecting them and William's property. Dahlen submitted a letter noting their concerns. Kelley stated that he would not be in favor of increasing the hardcover on this property. C.D. Williams stated that he would be glad to go upward rather than to increase the hardcover on the property. Rovegno stated that there are front setback, lakeshore setback, and hardcover problems on the property. Rovegno stated that the applicant shouldn' t exceed the existing hardcover. Sime stated that ho would not approve any increase in hardcover. Sime suggested tabling the application to give staff and applicant time to work with the proposal. Kelley moved, Callahan seconded, to table C.D. Williams variance application to allow staff and applicant time to work with the proposal. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). HIHUTBS OF THE PLMlMIilG CQHMISSIOlf TIH6 OF NET 21, 1984.PAGE 4 #828 LARRY KARKELA 4149 HIGBffOOD ROAD VARIARCE PUBLIC BEARING 8s22-8s40 P.N. #831 ROBERT HAAPALA 4015 DAHL ROAD VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 8s41-8i45 P.N. Larry Karkela was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Sime asked about the design of the garage and if the applicant was still planning on using it as an office. Karkela stated that he is using a room in his home for an office and that he will not be using the garage as an office. Karkela stated that he still would like to put in the windows in the garage to match the house. Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to approve the Karkela variance application based on the following findings: 1. Applicant is improving the site and removing the existing garage from the City right of way. 2. Street side setback is improved with proposal. Approval based on the following conditions: 1. Total hardcover not to exceed 2,540 s.f. 2. Any future grading within 75* of the lake must be approved by Building Department. 3. No plumbing allowed in garage. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). Robert Haapala was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Gaffron noted that this variance application was approved in 1981 by the Council but that the approval had expired. Sime moved, Rovegno seconded, to approve the variance application of Robert Haapala subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. All buildings to be located within the building envelope. 2. Maximum hardcover on the lot to be 4,227 sf or less including buildings, driveways, patios, decks, etc. 3. No current or future variances granted for any other performance standards requirements. HlMUTBS OF THE PIAimiliG COMNISSIOM itiHG OF MAY 21, 1984.PAGE 5 #831 ROBERT HAAPALA 4. Payment of standard building permit fees including SAC and Park Dedication fee at the time the permit is issued. 5. Payment of $1,081.45 sewer hookup charge with building permit.I 6. Owner/applicant placed on notice that the property is non-riparian to Lake Minnetonka and any attempt on the part of the propertyowner to acquire lake access via an easement through an abutting lakeshore property will be considered an illegal act, in violation of the Orono Zoning Code and owner subject to prosecution. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). I H: I#832 BARRIBT 1 405 OXFORD ROAD APPEAL - BOARD OF REFIEM PUBLIC BEARIEG 8s45 - 9s20 P.N.Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Harriet Hehl of 3348 Bayside Road was present. The following neighbors were present for this application: l^ery & Louise Smith of 3420 Bayside Road Richard Melby of 240 Crestview Avenue Dennis McGreevy of 3405 East Lake Street Mary Lou Swenson of 3780 Bayside Road Haze*^ Anderson of 3780 Bayside Road Douglas Nash of 270 Crestview Avenue George & Mildred Lind of 3310 Bayside Road John Lehmeyer of 320 Crestview Avenue Bonnie Boylan of 3240 Bayside Road Charles & Jennie Thompson of 3200 Bayside Road Don Boylan of 3240 Bayside Road Jim Deanovic (contractor) of 405 Oxford Road Daryl Hehl (relative of Harriet Hehl) Don Streeter of 4740 Lakeway Terrace Chauncey Sandgren of 1215 Arbor Street Marvel Sandoren of 1215 Arbor Street Esther Addison of 3382 Bayside Road Barbara Huber of 3390 Bayside Road Art Burton (owner of 405 Oxford) George & Kathe Jukish of 3280 Bayside Road David Hehl (relative of Harriet Hehl) MIMOTBS OP THB PIAMNIHG COMMISSION : IH TING OP MAT 21, 1984 PAGE 6 #832 HARRIET E IH: I r r# * . i' •' Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the Planning Commission, as a board of appeals, must make a recommendation to Council concerning staff's interpretation of the pertinent sections of the ordinances that relate to fencing. Mabusth stated that the ordinance allows a 6* high fence to be constructed along a major thorofare. Mabusth stated that the fence is a non-encroachment in this case and requires no setbacks. Jim Deanovic of 405 Oxford Road stated that he had checked with the City before constructing the fence and that staff had approved the fence. Deanovic stated that he has owned the house for two years and that the fence construction was not intended to be harmful. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that Mrs. Hehl does not question the code in regard to the location of the fence, but that she is concerned with the grade change that took place. Rovegno stated that the grade is usually reviewed because of drainage concerns, and as per original grading plans does not appear to have addressed any other concern. The intent of the builder would appear to have addressed drainage concerns only—the change in grade was not to create 10-12' barracade. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated she would agree that staff looks at grading plans to assure that drainage would be directed away from neighboring properties and to improve drainage on the site. Harriet Hehl stated that the grade was changed before the fence was constructed. Don Streeter stated that Mrs. Hehl has enjoyed the view of the lake for 50 years. Streeter stated that the ordinance allows a 6' high fence at existing grade but the grade has been changed and a berm has been added. Streeter noted that with the berming and filling that the fence is actually 12' high because it does not meet the ordinance section that says "at existing grade”. Streeter stated that if the fence had been built on the existing grade that it would not have blocked Hehl's view of the lake. Zoning Administrator Mabusth noted that the specific section of the code referenced by Streeter has no such reference to existing grade. r MimiTBS OF THE PLANNING CONNISSION NESTING OF NAY 21, 1984.PAGE 7 #832 HARRIET BSBL Art Burton» owner of 405 Oxford Road# stated that the intent of the berming and filling was to bring the land in line with the County Road. Burton stated that Bayside Road is a heavily traveled road and that lights do shine into the windows at night. Burton stated that the fence was constructed for privacy reasons also. Burton stated that the intent of the fence was not a malicious one. Zoning Administrator Mabusth read a section from the Municipal Code relating to grade changes in the non­ encroachment fence section as follows: "Fencesr which do not exceed 3 1/2* in height; fences not over 6* in height along the front lot line of lake frontage lots which front on a major thorofare.. .which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principle building and extend to a distance of not less than 2* from any lot line." Rovegno asked what the original grade was before construction was started. Harriet Hehl stated that the grade was changed before the fence was constructed. Don Streeter stated that it seems that the City Ordinances in regard to height of fences can be circumvented if you can afford to do it. Streeter stated that he doesn't feel that was the intent of the ordinance but yet this is what has happened. Streeter stated that the grade was raised, berming took place, and then the fence was constructed. Rovegno noted that the code specifically doesn't refer to grade changes when dealing with fences along major thorofares because the intent of that section was to shield or provide privacy from heavily trafficked roads. A 6' high fence may not work if additional grading or fill is not allowed. Rovegno asked when the construction of the fence took place. Deanovic stated that it was approximately 6 months after the berming. Richard Melby of 240 Crestview Avenue stated that the fence blocks off the view and breeze of the lake for all the neighbors. Emery Smith of 3420 Bayside Road asked how a fence like that ever got constructed above grade like it is. Smith stated the there was a lot of fill that was put on the property and then the fence put on top of that. I MINUTES OF THE PLENNING COMMISSION MEETING OF NAY 21, 1984.PAGE 8 #832 HABRIBT •. I ;h : I Don Boylan of 3240 Bayside Road asked if the berm was built to put the fence on. Boylan stated that the height of the fence is not 6* because he is 6* tall and it goes way over his head. Boylan stated that the fence is considerably higher than 6*. Chauncey Sandgren of 1215 Arbor Street stated that he is sympathetic with the neighbors in this area who cannot view the lake anymore. Sandgren stated that the lake cannot be viewed from a car anymore. Sandgren stated that he questions the validity of the 6 * fence ordinance when all you have to do is change the grade to have whatever height fence you want. Dennis McGreevey of 3405 East Lake Street stated that the fence runs along his property line and deprives him of the view. Art Burton stated that in the previous house his family resided in that they were very concerned about the view of the lake. Burton stated that in the deed it specified that the house must be built in a certain manner and spot so as not to ruin the lake view. Burton stated that he sympathizes with the neighbors but it is his right as a property owner to construct a privacy fence. Bur* on noted that it is a heavily trafficked road and *.he fence blocks the lights that shine in the house at night. Deanovic, builder of house at 405 Oxford Road, stated that before the fence construction neighbors would cross his land to access the lake. Deanovic stated that after the fence construction that the neighbors could not do that anymore. Sime asked applicant/owner if there was any way to compromise with the neighbors affected along Eastlake Street by adding bushes or trees instead of the fence. Burton stated that only three houses* view is obstructed by the fence and one of those houses is uninhabited. George Lind of 3310 Bayside Road stated that the fence devalues their property values. Daryle Hehl (relative of Harriet Hehl) stated that the fence is a solid one and nothing blows either way. Hehl asked if the fence is structurally sound. Deanovic stated that the fence is built in clay and built very well. H NIHUTBS OF THB PIAMNIIIG CONMISSIOM , IH:TIH6 OP MAY 21, 1984.PAGE 9 #832 HARRIET HEHL John Lehmeyer of 320 Crestview Avenue stated that aesthetically the fence is incorrect for the neighborhood. Lehmeyer noted that there are no other fences in the area like this one. Lehmeyer stated that this is setting a precedence for this neighborhood. Harriet Hehl submitted a letter from her neighbor Rose Madden of 350 Crestview Avenue. Chairperson Goetten read the letter as follows: "The reason most of us live in the Lake Minnetonka Area is because we enjoy the surroundings. Our natural surroundings are being shut away from us by fences such as the one on Oxford Road. Also by some people accumulating junk cars in their yard. I have lived in the Stubbs Bay area for 38 years and could enjoy the bay scenery as they change seasons. This is being denied of us by the fence around the property on Oxford Road. Sincerely» Rose Madden" Chairperson Goetten closed the public hearing at 9:20 but discussion was continued among the Planning Commission members. Rovegno stated that Planning Commission must decide if staff interpreted the fence ordinance correctly. Adams felt that the fence does conform to all standards of the pertinent ordinances. Adams stated that the height of the fence does conform to all pertinent ordinances. Adams stated that he didn't feel that there has been illegal filling and no signs of a deliberate intent to violate the ordinances of the City. Adams stated that he didn't feel that the filling was done maliciously but that it does appear that the end result of what has happened is contrary to what the intent of the City's ordinances are. Adsuns felt that a compromise should be made on the overall height of the fence or perhaps a change in the City's fence ordinance should be considered. Adams stated that if no one lived on the other side of the fence that it would be a great way to build a fence. Chairperson Goetten stated that the City has tried in the past to resolve the fence ordinance issue and has never been able to. Goetten stated that changing the fence ordinance would be time consuming and yet an amendment of the code will not be able to address the petitioner's concern now. Sime stated that at the existing grade is where the fence should have been put. Sime stated that he interprets the City's ordinance to be existing grade prior to the berming of this property. Sime stated that the fence should have been included in the plans. mMUTBS OF THE PlAMNlliG COmUSSIOH MBBTIIiG OF MAY 21, 1984.PAGE 10 that the other tated this r Rose etten i Area tural s such eople /ed in tie bay ienied Road. t 9:20 inning ide if :ly. idards St the tinent L that ( of a of the It the appear :ary to Ad€uns verall City's stated ;e that :ied in ind has Lng the yet an iss the ire the hat he j grade stated plans. #832 HARRIET HEHL Rovegno stated that if the owner had used the existing grade and constructed the fence, the fence would not have served its purpose. Rovegno stated that the ordinance allows residents who live on a major thorofare to have a 6' high fence. Rovegno asked what is existing grade. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that staff would interpret existing grade to be the grade established with final site grade elevations approved with building permit. Mabusth stated that it is the timing of the final grading and the requirement to construct the fence that has raised the issue of intent. Mabusth added that although the ordinances clearly permits the construction of the privacy fence along a major thorofare irregardless of grade changes in consideration of the Council's position on privacy fences in lakeshore zones, she would tend to review each case individually. Callahan stated that the timing o^ the berming is not important. Callahan stated that the grade^ as it existed in the beginning is the grade at which the fence should have been put. Rovegno stated that the intent of the ordinance is to allow someone who lives on a major thorofare the right to put a full-privacy, 6' fence. Kelley stated that the 6' fence goes partly down Eastlake Street so only part of the fence is along a major thorofare. Zoning Administrator Mabusth advised the fence along that lot line assumed the setback for an accessory structure at 10' from the lot line. Chairperson Goetten stated that she felc that staff did interpret the ordinances correctly. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked if residents along a major thorofare have lake view protection rights. Mabusth stated that the ordinances address view rights on lakeshore properties that abutt lakeshore with placement of principal structures. One neighbor noted that Mr. Burton is one individual but that the fence affects the whole neighborhood. Chairperson Goetten asked does a person have an inherent right to historically view a lake when lots become developed. Goetten asked if staff or Hennepin County could do some type of study to see how high the fence would have to be to block the lights from cars at night. Goetten asked Mr. Burton if the fence could be replaced with landscaping. ^1 NINUTBS OF THB PIAMMIHG COMNISSIOll MEBTIN6 OP MAY 21* 1984 PAGE 11 «832 HARRIET E I : I #833 HARRY BROCKOPP 993 MILDHORST TRAIL VARIAHCE PUBLIC HEARIMG 10:10 - 10:20 P.N. Art Burton stated that he would rather keep the fence. Burton stated that the City ordinances allow him to have a 6' high fence on a major thorofare. Chairperson Goetten stated that the location of the fence does conform to all standards of the pertinent ordinances. Goetten felt that the height of the fence conforms to all standards of the pertinent ordinances. Goetten did not feel that there had been illegal filling or signs of a deliberate intent to violate the ordinances of the City. Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to recommend to Council that the location of the fence conforms standards of the pertinent ordinances; that the height of the fence conforms to all standards of the pertinent ordinances; and that there has not been illegal filling or signs of a deliberate intent to violate the ordinances of the City; and that staff did interpret the code properly. Motion, Ayes (4) , Nays (2). Sime and Adams voted nay. Adams felt that the fence does conform to the standards of the ordinances as written but that the fence does not conform to the intent of the ordinances. Adams stated that the intent of the ordinance would be that the fence can be 6* above grade prior to 12-1^81 (existing grade date). Adams stated that he would go with the grade of the ground next to the road. Callahan noted that the questions asked are very narrow. Chairperson Goetten stated that she feels that the ordinances were followed. Simc stated that neither the letter of the ordinance was followed nor the intent was followed. Sime stated that the key is the grade and in his opinion the grade should be existing grade before any construction took place. Sime felt it was an error on staff s part allowing the berming and the fence since the combination of both would not be permitted by staff as stated on page 2, last paragraph of the staff report. Harry Brockopp was present. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Gaffron stated that staff needs additional information in notid that he doesn't meet the dry ouiidabie. Sime moved, Kelley seconded, to table Brockopp*s variance application until applicant submits an aiirvev. Motion. Ayes (6)» Nays__(()J_. NIHUTBS OF THE PIANIlIilG COMNISSIOli TING OF NAY 21, 1984.PAGE 12 snce. Lm to E the inent Eence nces. legal :e the id to :o all eight inent legal te the irpret Sime idards » does Adams e that -12-81 uld go very &t the inance stated ( grade m took s part e the taf f as eport. Iih:#834 BRIAN FULI 3505 NAYZATA BOULEVARD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING 10s21-10s22 P.N. Zoning ite of Saffron :ion in bhat he Brian and Cathy Fulmer were present • Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of mailing and the affidavit of publication. Gaffron noted that the existing commercial kennel use of the property is a legal non-conforming use. Gaffron noted that commercial kennels are allowed only in business districts. Gaffron noted that commercial kennels are not listed in the residential districts in the code. Brian Fulmer stated that the 60 dog limit was just a number that was picked because the City asked for a maximum number of dogs to be kept on the property at the time of the conditional use permit review. Fulmer stated that staff sees this as an expansion. Fulmer stated that when one compares the square footage of the existing building and the proposed one» the square footage decreases. Fulmer stated that the number of boarding spaces will increase slightly. Fulmer stated that an electronic security system would be used to prevent any other mishaps like last fall. Fulmer stated that the whole building would be enclosed but there would be an open area for the dogs. Fulmer stated that this new building could hold up to 96 dogs. Chairperson Goetten asked about the living quarters above the kennels. Goetten asked if the applicant was planning to expand the parking area. Fulmer explained the living quarters would be for security purposes only. Fulmer stated that they didn't feel that the change in the building would warrant additional parking space. Kelley asked if there would be any problems with the septic system. Kelley asked how the applicants would dispose of the dog waste. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that additional septic testing will have to be done. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that staff feels that additional parking spaces should be provided. Mabusth asked how many parking spaces are available right now. bkopp * s its an NINUTBS OF TBB PIAMN1M6 C0MN18S10H : I :h :T1H6 OF NAY 21, 1984.PAOE 13 #834 BRIAN FULI I :h • Zoning ite of Saffron of the Saffron inly in lerclal lets in just a 1 for a f at the Fulmer Fulmer »of the square nber of Fulmer >uld be : fall, uld be e dogs, .d up to larters ant was be for It they I would ith the ;s would ed that one. f feels ovided. ailable Fulmer stated approximately six spaces. Fulmer stated that the solid waste goes out to the trash and not to the septic system. Fulmer stated that the water usage will not increase but decrease because they will be using pressure hoses. Fulmer stated that all the drainage goes to the septic system. Fulmer stated that he had approximated the current square footage (hardcover) 13,000 sf and the new building devoted to boarding space would be 9,600 sf and 1,000 of non-boarding space. Assistant Zoning Administrator Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission needs to address expansion of a non-conforming use. Gaffron stated that in the original conditional use permit a maximum of 60 dogs was one of the requirements of that permit. Kelley stated that he didn't feel that this was an expansion but that the business is just growing. Dr. Fulmer (father of Brian Fulmer) stated that the 60 dog maximum number was just picked arbitrarily. Fulmer stated that starting a business from scratch they didn't know how many dogs there would be in the future so they just picked the number 60. Chairperson Goetten stated that she didn't feel that this was an expansion of the use because it doesn't increase the hardcover. Zoning Administrator Mabusth asked what would happen to the building if that property no longer was used as a commercial kennel. Mabusth asked what would they do with that large of a structure in a residential zone. Mabusth stated that Planning Commission should recommer.<' * o amend the zoning code to allow commercial kennels . residential zone if they were to approve this application. Mabusth stated that if the City decides to amend the code, that the City would be opening itself to other commercial kennel applications. Mabusth stated performance standards should be set up for this issue. Fulmer stated that there is a new state regulation covers commercial kennels and that they will follow those regulations. Fulmer stated that it would ^ be similar to those performance standards that the City might like to use. Fulmer noted that the National Boarding Kennel Association has regulations too. Mayor Butler stated that the Council will have a problem with the second residential unit on this property. Butler stated that the City could set up performance standards using the same regulations and language as the state does. nillDTBS OP THB PLiaiNIliG COMIIlSSIO]l MBETIMG OF MAY 21, 1984. PAGE 14 Lmer and the nuse that lmer uare ding ,000 that >n of the dogs le 60 ily. atch I the that (sn't ippen 1 as a ey do tone, lould rcial ^rove City Ld be tnnel nance ntion 9II0W Id be City ional 00. ive a this et up iB and #834 BRIAN FOLI ■ m ■S'- r ■ Rovegno stated that the second residential unit could be treated as a guest house through a conditional use permit because they have enough acreage. Rovegno stated that the City could state that this residential unit cannot be rented out and used as a guest house only. Kelley stated that commercial development within Orono should be limited. Kelley stated that pending the code would only encourage commercial development. Callahan stated that amending the code is a long process and the City should solve this one first. Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to recommend approval of the conditional use permit of the non-confoping commercial kennel use based on the following findings; 1. The square footage proposed to be devoted to kennel use on this property is less than the square footage used currently for the legal non-conforming use. 2. Proposal provides security for the animals. 3. Proposal provides noise reduction to the neighboring properties, noting one past noise complaint on file. 4. The kennel is located on U.S. Highway 12 which is a major arterial roadway. 5. Time schedule of the proposed construction is fall and spring. Approval is based on the following conditions; 1. Standards for operation of this kennel shall be consistent with these provided by; a) American Boarding Kennel Association b) State of Minnesota, S.F. No. 682, Chap. "Pet and Companion Animal Welfare Act c) City Inspection 2. Operator of this kennel shall be required to provide on site private security in the form of a live- in resident. 3. Parking shall be appropriate for in^nsity of the use and should additional parking be required, applicants will be required conform. 4. Waste disposal shall be adequate to serve the needs of the operation. The existing and proposed septic systems are subject to City staff review. 358 1 I 14 it could Dnal use Rovegno Ldential Bt house : within unending LofMnent • I a long first. »roval of nforming indings: voted to le square informing mals. to the (t noise rhich is a on is fall ions: shall be MilhlTBS OF THE PIAHNIIiG CONMISSIOII ITIliG OF MAY 21, 1984 PAGE 15 «834 BRIAE PULI : • I' APPROVAL OP NIEOTBE 5, Drainage plan must be submitted aticlressing City staff concerns. 6, Signage is subject to review by City staff. 7. Building to be approximately screened per staff review. 8. All other conditions that pertain to the existing commercial kennel license and conditional use permit will continue to be met. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). Rovegno moved, Sime seconded, to recommend that staff prepare a draft of an ordinance to allow commercial kennels as a conditional use in appropriate j*5?sidential zones and draft appropriate performance standards pertain*.ig to kennel structures and the operation thereoi. Motion, Ayes (4), Nays (2). Adams and Kelley voted nay. Kelley stated that he would rather not see commercial development in the residential zones. Adams stated that applications for non-conforming uses should continue to be reviewed individually. Kelley moved, Sime seconded, to approve the April 16, 1984 Planning Commission minutes. Motion, Ayes (6), Nays (0). ^ Sime volunteered to attend the Council meeting of June 11, 1984. ADJOORIMERT 11:22 P.M. Planning Commission adjourned at 11:22 p.m. . 358 quired to of a live- ity of the required, serve the 1 proposed review. L_