HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-18-2004 Council Work Session1
1
CITY OF ORONO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
NO I'ICE is hereby given that the Orono City Council will meet in a work session at 5:30
p.m. on Tuesday, May 18,2004 in the Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono,
Minnesota. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the portion of the City's Comprehensive
Plan that reguided two areas of the City for residential development at 2-4 units per acre, to
discuss a recently adopted zoning ordinance regarding the parking of commercial vehicles in
residential areas, and to discuss other issues of current interest. This meeting is open to the
public.
Posted at:
City Hall
Navarre Post Offiee
Long Lake Post OiTice
Crystal Bay Post Office
LL..
TO:
FROM:
Mayor Peterson and Council Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator /f
DATE:May 17,2004
SUBJECT: The Parking of Comncrcial Vehicles in Residential Zones.
In late 2003, staff recommended adoption of an amendment to the City zoning code related to the
parking of commercial vehicles on residential property. I'his ordinance was need'rd to update the
City ’s parking regulations to reflect the character of development occurring in the City's two acre
residential districts. The former ordinance allowed paricing uses that could have very negative impacts
in two-acre subdivisions. Because the new ordinance restricted the parking of commercial vehicles, it
has the potential to cause some hardships for those who have been parking commercial vehicles in two-
acre residential zones.
The Council has heard from one set of neighbors regarding the new ordinance. One neighbor has
indicated the ordinance will cause a hardship to him. The other neighbor is looking forward to relief
from the negative impacts of the commercial vehicle.
The feedback from this set of neighbors has caused the Council to review the ordinance to ensure it is
providing necessary and useful regulations. Although the ordinance does have a bearing on a
longstanding dispute between the two neighbors, it is important the Council focus on the ordinance, and
not on the dispute. The first step is to make a detennination about whether the ordinance is meeting a
need, and is meeting that need in a reasonable and effective way. Attached is a memo from Mike
Gaffron providing background regarding the ordinance.
MFMORANDUM
To:
From:
Dale:
Subject:
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
Mike Gaffron. Planning Director
January 9, 2004
Ilackground Regarding Vehicle Storage Ordinance
During summer and fall 7003 staff and Planning Commission w orked on an update and revision to the
vehicle storage ordinances. This was in large part due to the obvious long-standing need for an
ordinance that w'ould address contemporary issues as Orono has changed and de\ eloped from the
primarily ‘lakcshore cabins and farms' character of the 1960s to a more ‘urban lakeshore and large-lot
suburban' mode. This was a natural next step following the Boat .Storage ordinance of 2001. While it
would be incorrect to suggest that the vehicle storage ordinance was solely a direct response to the
'limm/llagcn situation, that situation did provide an immediate focus point for discussions. However,
vehicle storage has been an ongoing issue for certain properties throughout Orono for many years, and
the Hagen/Timm situation is not by any means the first or only instance of large vehicle activity that has
cau.sed or has the potential to cause problems in a neighborhood.
Other existing current examples include:
- Stubbs Bay Movers activity (non-confonmng use on Old Cr>'Stal Bay Road)
• Vein llubbell Hxcavating on Watertown Road - contractor who stores his trucks and
sometimes ilumps excess loads, on this residential properly; few if any past
complaints, but new neighbors are going to be building expensive homes in the woods
just east of his operation...
- Kim Hdwards - landscaping business on Woodliavcn Drive
- Sporadic truck storage at llannings on Co. Rd. 6
- I^w n guy across from Sanse\ ere
- Truck storage (rental space) at a detached garage on Russell Avenue
- Tree Care guy east of 11 wy 1 2 just north of l.ucc Line
- (’buck Henke in Navarre
- Dick I.edstrom - all kinds of vehicles and stuff stored at property abutting north end of
Lurton Park property - Vacuum trucks, railroad salvage businc.ss...
- Rossing sons tree/firewood business on Cygnet Place
- I rucker at 4575 Way/aia Boulevard (south ol RK, parks semi trailcr/tractor on site)
- and we can probably find a lew more if we think hard enough...
u
s
The revised ordinance establishes certain performance standards for keeping a large vehicle (in excess
of 14,000 lbs GVW) as follows:
a. Minimum lot size S acres.
Property owner must be vehicle owner or operator.
Vehicle must be set back 50’ from property lines.
Vehicle must not be visible from neighboring properties and public street; vegetative screening
preferred.
Maintenance of vehicle shall occur within an enclosed building.
The vehicle shall not constitute a nuisance at any time.
In shared driveway situation. City must have signed agreement of all driveway users. At least
two of the above-noted examples, besides Timm/Hagen, are shared driveway
situations...
b.
c.
d.
is
e.
f.
g-
Following is a brief description and justification for these standards;
• The minimum lot size restriction was established because the impacts of large vehicles are minimized,
and the ability to reduce those impacts is heightened, with larger properties. Our 2-acre neighborhoods
should not be subject to large vehicle impacts.
- Requiring the property owner to own/operate the vehicle ensures that the extent of commercial
activity is probably going to be limited to a home occupation type use and not to some higher form of
commercial storage.
- The 50' setback is a minimum separation distance that may reduce the visual/noise/odor impacts of a
large vehicle being stored on a site. It matches the 50' principal structure setback for the 5-acrc zone.
The requirement for screening to hide the vehicle from view from neighboring properties and roads is an
attempt to maintain the residential character of neighborhoods.
- lutrge vehicle maintenance outdoors can be noisy and disruptive, probably much more so than car
repair. Requiring it to occur in an enclosed building helps to miniinize the disruption due to sporadic
banging, etc.
- Public nuisances are dealt with in Section 70-4 as follows;
(a) It U unlawful for any person to maintain a public nuisance by his act or failure to
perform a legal duty. For purposes of this section, a public nuisance shall be defined as
any of the following:
(1) Maintaining or permitting a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or
endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable
number of members of the public;
(2) Interfering with, obstructing or rendering dangerous for passage any street,
public right-of-way or waters used by the public; or
(3) Any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance.
(b) It Is unlawful for any person to permit real property under his control to be used to
maintain a public nuisance, or let the property to another knowing it is to be so used.
It is questionable whether the storage of a large vehicle would rise to the level of a public
nuisance, as it impacts only a small number of members of the public.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Mayor Peterson and Council Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
May 17,2004
SUBJECT: Medium Density Residential Development
In September of 7000, the City iidopled an updated roinprehcnsive Plan which reflected, in larpc part, a
continuation of the policies and vision of the prior Comprehensive Plan. One area of change was the
re-guiding of two residential areas from a density of one unit per two acres, to densities of two to three
and two to four units per acre. The two areas re-guided were the southwest quadrant of Old Crj stal
Bay Road and Highway 12, and the cast side of Willow Drive from the IWSF Railroad corridor to
Watertown Road.
The overall purpose of this change was to provide a broader range of housing options to meet lifecycle
housing needs. The change aLso reflected both historical conditions and changed conditions that made
both of these areas more suitable for residential densities greater than one unit per two acres.
fhe Old Crystal Bay Road/llighway 12 area was changed when the new Highway 12 corridor was
located along the southern boundary of the area, 'fliis resulted in the property being bounded by a
freeway and railroad on one side, by a highway on another side, and by industrial development on
another side. 'Hicsc characteristics are not particularly conducive to two-acre (“rurar*) residential
development.
The Willow Drive area is adjacent to residential development at three units per acre in Long Lake, and
is across Willow Drive from the two-unit per acre density in the llackberry Neighborhood. The
northern portion of this area also changed when the new Highway 12 corridor was located on its
northern boundary, and when the new Long Lake Fire Station was located on Willow Drive.
Other than the twinhome and townhomc developments in Navarre along Livingston Avenue, the City
has not had significant e.xperience with higher development densities. 1 he appearance of the StoneRay
dcvclopncnt in the northwest quadrant ol Willow Drive and I lighway 12 is substantially dilfcrcnt than
the Council had expected. Fi>r example, setbacks between buildings are much smaller— not because the
buildings are laid out ditferently than indicated on the plans, but becau.se when the dimensions iue
reflected in buildings on the ground, they arc smaller tlian the Council had envisioned.
I he Council is concerned about whether the higher density residential development reflected in the
updated C'oniprchcnsive Plan is compatible with the City's overall vision, and whether it is possible,
with the proper development regulations, to achieve a design at two to four units pet acre that is
compatible with the City's overall development vision.
The main que.stions for the Council to address as initial steps in a decision process regarding higher
density development options arc as follows:
r
1 . What are the key elements and characteristics of the Council’s overall goal or vision for the
devciupmeul uf (he City?
2. What are the key elements and characteristics of the Council’s goals or vision for development
in the re-guided areas?
3. Is it possible to achieve the Council’s development goals with development at the two to four
unit per acre density?
1 !■ J
r-------T—
1
1 1 *,1
' . Q
. \
I 1
-I
4 ^ -i.{- h • M
■ '■ ' '*M?
1
N\
■INDUSTRIAL |.-i.±jj=:P ; 'H-IP:; i i|J| §
RGipoSED HIGHWAY
r_i. I Sfc-^Brr ; ■
j_
Parcel Grpufi 3
^ / rrtf
|Se
Lpng LakS
::=3
IParcel Group i_______
Ejuitinp Zoning RR*1B Single Family Rural Retidentiai. 7*Acre Mtoimum
C^is’ing Guide Plan (19B9) One tier of commerciel utti abutting Highway 12. accestad vie extended Kelley Pad^way. with area north of Kelley Padiway planned for
medium density residenual use Ra/oneig required
Propoeed Guide Plan Changee are pnmanly m the establ^ment of more defm^ de^velopmen^^at s^njjeand**
multi-*amily uses at a dmritti of 3-6 units per acre
Parcel Group 2:___________ __________________________________________________________________________________
Lxisting Zonir>g RR-1D Single Family Rural Residential. 2 Acre Minimum
Dusting Guide F tan (1900) Single family rural retidentiai uie at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres
Proposed Guide Ran Mixture of urt>an tingle and n utti-family residential usas a! a density of 2*4 units per acre
Parcel Group 3:__________________________________________________________ __________________________________
Lxisting Zoning KR IB Sir>gle Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre Minimum
Fjusting Guide Plan (1900) Single family rural residential use at a density of 1 unit per 2 aaas
Proposed Guide Ran Single farnly urtMin residential use at a density of 2*3 units per acre
Commercial Area Between Willow Dr. and Brown Rd.:
§ji Hting ZoiHng B-6 (PUD) Highway Corrrrrrci4il District
B-1 Retail Salas Busir>ass Distnct
Ejustmg Gmda Plan (1909) OfTica/commercial uses accessing Highway 12 vta a servica road from Brown Road to WJUam Dnve with no direct access to Highway 12
Proposed Gu^da Plan Change is primarily m farms of more deemed development goals rwi of offic#. retail and service components rocused on oorrplerrwnting
dowmown long i ahe
Highway 12 Areas Proposed for Change
City of Orono
Minnesota
MAP 3B-7
K.k
2000 2000 fMt ■ ■ X
CMPPtrtBB. Land Use Plaa
»~T—»»r *>yy*r ■• ■•ftma-imi:m
Site Description:
SITEC
(Parcel Groap 3, Map 3B-7)
20-30 acres cast of >Villow Drive between Watertown Road
and Bariiagtoa Northern Railroad.
Background, Characteristics Proposed Development Parameters
This group of properties currently planned/zoned for
2-acre rural residential development abuts the City of
Long Lake, where adjacent residential development
is at densities in the range of 2-3 units per acre.
West of Willow Drive is the Hackberry
neighborhood in Orono, developed at a density of 2
units per acre. Municipal sewer is nearby and
potentially available via the Long Lake sewer
system. This area is traversed by two small
creeks,and is characterized by gently sloping
uplands. While soils are not unsuitable for on-site
sewage treatment systems, the location between two
areas of denser development suggests this is an
appropriate location for higher density residential
Conversion from rural residential use (1 unit per 2
acres) to an urban residential, single family use at a
density of 2-3 units per acre. This may be a potential
site for relocation of Long Lake residents whose
homes will be eliminated as part of the Highway 12
Bypass project. This area has a potential for an
additional IS-20 or more homes under the proposed
density.
uses.
City of OroBo CoaauaHy Maaagcacat Plaa Pa^3B-3C
.m
j