HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-20-2001 Council Work SessionSummary of Joint Council/Plannine Commission Work Session 12/20/01
Lot Co% eraae
I. Ilic general consensus was tha! low p<xils and puilios lhat have m> clcmcnis higher than 6* aht>ve
grade should not be included in the calculation of lot coverage by structures. Impkmrntatiiin of
Ihii will require an ameudnirnl of the zoning code.
2. 'rherc was general agreement that a hardcover limit for mw-shoreland areas descr\ es a closer look.
However, it is not clear whether the limit should be 50®/« or some other percentage. Stall* should
bring e.xamples of pn>perties of various sizes with various liardcover percentages back to the
Planning Commission for further consideration. One suggestion was to use a percentage of the
buildable area, say 80%.
3. It was concluded that structural coverage calculations should include building protrusions more
than 6* above grade, i.e. not just the building hxMprint but the vertical pmjection ofany p;irts olthe
building that are more than 6‘ above ground. I low ever, the outer 2’ of nuif overhangs shall QiH be
considered as lot coverage. My interpretation of the discussion is that open decks w ith any portion
of railing above 6' w ill still be counted as lot coverage in their entirety.
Home Occupations
Con.sensus was to priKced with the 15-item amendment that PC recommended in 1998 (Page I of
11/201 stall* memo), and incorporate the 4-itcni slafl* recomnieiidalion regarding non-residcnl
employees, with the following revisions or e.xceptioiis:
a) Add a line item tliat addresses noise impacts and limit those impacts lo K:(M) a m - 7:iM) p m.
b) Need further discussion on item 5 Hoarding home iKcup;ition in access4>r> stnictures (as w ritten,
only allowed in rural zones or with rural lot size...)
c) l or item 6. need to define which **ccrtain vehicles’* are allowed to be stored outside...
d) For item 7. establish a threshold number aKne which parking of vehicles associated with the
home cKcupation must be screened.
e) For item 8. consider adding a weight limit for vehicles used in the business...
0 For item 11, limit hours of operation to 8:(X) a.m to 7:00 p.m. rather than 8.00 p.m.
g) For item 12, add a limit on the number of customers or clients that can be at the liKation at one
time.
h) For item 13, consider that the normal delivery vehicles such os UPS and Fedli.x should be
allowed.
Summiiry of Joint Council/Planning Commission Work Session 12/20/01
l.ot Co^cmyc
1 . I1ic general consensus was that Utw piHils and pulios that have no elements higher than 6* above
grade should not be included in the calculation ol lot coverage by structures. Implemcnlalion of
Ihfai wUI require an amcndmenl of Ibc coning code.
2. 'Hierc was general agreement tliat a hardcov er limit for non-shorcland urciis deserv es a ch)scr took,
ilowcver. it is not clear whether the limit should be <>r some other percentage. StalTsln>uld
bring c.xumples of properties of v urious sizes with vuriims hardcover percentages back to the
Planning Commission for further consideration. One suggestion was to use a percentage of the
buildable araa. say 80'’ o.
■5. It was concluded that stmctural coverage calculations should include building protrusions more
than 6* above grade, i.e. not just the building fotitprint but the v ertical projection of any parts of the
building that are ntore than 6* aK^ve gn^ind. However, the outer 2* of rtiof overliangs shall OiU be
considered as lot cov erage. My interpretation of the discussion is that open decks with any portion
of railing above ft' will still be counted as lot coverage in their entirely.
tloinc Occapatioiis
Consensus was to priK*eed with the 15-iiem amendment that PC recommended in 1098 (Page I of
11/2/01 stall'memo), and incorpirrate the 4*item staff recommendation regarding non-resident
employees, with the fttllowing rev isions or exceptions:
a) Add a line item Utat addresses noise impacts arnl limit those impacts to 8:00 a.m - 7:00 p m.
b) Need further di.scussion on item 5 regarding lu>me in:cupatii>n in accesM>rv struetua*s (as written,
only allowed in rural /ones or with rural lot size...)
c) For item 6. need to define which "certain vehicles" arc allowed to be stored outside...
d) For item 7. establish a threshold number above which piirking of v ehicles asstKialed with the
home occupation must be screened.
c) For item 8. consider adding a weight limit for vehicles used in the business...
0 For item 1 1 . limit hours of operation to 8:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m. rather than 8:00 p.m.
g) For item 1 2, add a limit on the number of customers or clients that con be at tlic location at one
time.
h) For item 13. consider that the normal delivery vehicles such us UPS and FedEx should be
allowed.
Il was alsi> suggested that the ctnle uinendmeni include an inlniduetor) punigniph of intent in terms
of maintaining neighKtrhiHHl chunicterislies.
It was also suggested that language be added gi\ ing the C'iu ability to turthcr regulate or e\ en i'urcc
the closua* oi'any home (tccupation tliat is found to be having negativ e impacts i>n tlic ncigliborhood.
A ‘humc ttccupalions ’ code amcndMcal should be drafted and bru jehl back lo fianninie
Commission in a final form for review and recommendation. (The public hcarini; tabled on
November 19 should he re-opened).
Boalh«»uses and l.akeshoreStructures
Consensus was to do an inventory of what's out there, perhaps a pnijeet that could be dtme by a
student or intern. Most were generally ()K w ith making certain types ol structures legal, but the key
to making this work is to have clear criteria h>r what should and shtnildn't be saved. Minnesota
I listorical Society or SI IIM) should have existing guidelines for detennining whether a structure has
historical importance or value. We alst» iKvd to maintain tlw principiil «»l a natural Kntking lakeshoa*.
and eiinsider the hardcover aspects.
(Kcrbaocs. Bay W iodows. Ktc.
My notes don't iiave much on this... only tliut the lost 2'uruver)iang shouldn't be considered as lot
coverage. Please help me out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When Docs a Rem«Mlcl liccomc a Total Rebuild?
Consensus was to adopt a fonnal p^>lic> similar in sci»pe to tliat proposed in the stall'memo, but in
item 4. change the threshold peaentagts. A renuHlel should be considered as a total a ’build when
ihc uflumc of ih'Mly amstnu'h'tl or recioiMnuWif yfurcc.: cwciuh (not of the fUuit total
hiiiltfluii volume: i.e. if just over half of the final prvHiuct will be new. tlvn it’s a total rebuild, and
the entire set t»f standards (lot aura, width, setbacks. h>t .-overage, hardcover) nmst be met.
Also, a "newly constructed space" will be one in which 75"n (not 5()"o) of the surface area of
walls/ceiling'lloor are new construction: i.e. the consensus was that a riHim must have 3 4 of its
surfaces new to be considered as •newly constriKted'. I he question was raised as to vv lut coastitutes
new con.struetion in terms of a wall t»r llimr... diKs new .shcx'tnK'k i»ver an exi.sting stud wall
constitute new coastruction? (Maybe) 1 low about iwvv studs and sheetnKk in tire some location os
a pre-existing wall? (lliat's new) 1 low ubt)ut new llooring over on existing floor platfonn? ( ITiat's
not new) Let's discuss other possibilities that will be thrown at us...
A policy residutitm t»r perhaps ev en a axle amerdment should be adopted once the final langaige
is worked out.
1
CITY OFORONO
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
NOTICE is hereby given that the Orono City Council and Orono Planning Conunission will
meet in a joint work session at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, December 20, 2001 in the City Council
Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway. Orono, Miruicsota. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss
zoning issues related to lot coverage by structure, home occupations, and other topics that could
benefit by a Joint discussion. The agenda will also include a progress update on the l ong l ake Fire
Station project, and other issues of current interest
This meeting is open to the public.
/s/Lindas. Vce
City Clerk
Posted at;
City Hall
Navarre Post Office
Long Lake Post Office
Crystal Bay Post Office
mmm-
...
TO:Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
FROM:
DATE:
Ron Moorsc, Cily Administnilor
December 18,2001
SUBJECT: Strategic Planning Regarding Retail Development
Stair recently met with a developer to discuss a proposal for an upscale grocery store and related
retail uses in the northwest quadrant of Willow Drive and I lighway 12. The City's Comp Plan calls
for oflicc development west of Willow rather than retail development. Mike Gaffron has provided
background information regarding the City ’s position, which is based on limiting trafTic congestion
west of Willow Drive and focusing retail development in a more compact Long Lake downtown
area.
This memo addresses the issue of retail development from the broad perspective of what both Long
Lake and Orono have indicated their vision is for a downtown that serves both Long Lake and
Orono, and the types of strategic planning and decisions that arc necessary' to make this v ision a
reality. The cities are at or near a critical crossroads when; a small number of key decisions could
be tlie difference between reaching our joint vision and making that joint vision impossible to
achieve. These key decisions relate to the ItKalions of key significant development projects,
particularly retail development. The critical elements that are impacting this issue are as follows;
1.In order to make the joint vision a reality, substantial portions of the current Long
I.akc dow ntown area cast of Brow n Road need to be redeveloped. Tliis is reflected
in the Long Lake Downtown Master Plan.
2.
3.
Redevelopment is expensive in that it requires the relocation of existing businesses
and demolition of existing buildings simply to create a site for the new development.
It is much easier and less expensive for developers to develop on vacant land than to
redevelop a site with an existing use.
If we have an opportunity to get a high quality, high income-generating retail use to
locate in this market area, we need to guide this use to a priority redevelopment
location, rather than changing our Comp Plan and zoning to allow it to take the path
of least resistance and develop on a vacant parcel.
Redevelopment requires a subsUintially higher valued building and use that can
generate the additional revenue needed to fund the redevelopment, either through
income or tax increment financing.
The Long Lake/Orono retail market is limited due to a relatively small, albeit high
income, population in the market area.
H
i
Strategic Platming Regarding Retail Development
December 18. 2001
Page 2
The Long Lake/Orono retail market can only supptiti a certain amount of higher
valued, higher income-generating retail uses, i.e., one grocery store, one pharmacy,
8.If these types of uses arc allowird to locate outside of thcv primary l.ong I.ake
downtown retail area, there will not be another opportunity to locate similar uses In
the downtown area.
Bvery high quality retail use that is allowed to locate west of Brown Road has a dual
negative impact on the Long Lake downtown area.
It pulls retail energy and vitality away from the downtown area rather than
adding its energy and vitality to the downtown anra.
The financial resources that could be generated by the use to facilitate tiic
redevelopment of the Long Lake dow ntown area arc lost.
Given tlie small retail market, a more compact downtown is more vital and viable
over the long term than a linear retail area spread out along Highway 12.
11.Most third ting suburbs would gi\ e their right arms for a compact downtown that
could be a focal point for the community, or arc spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars to artificially create one. In downtown Long Lake we alrcad>' have a compact
downtown retail area w ith the huge bonus of being located adjacent to a beauti^'ul
lake. Enabling this compact downtown area to reali/e its potential should be a much
higher priority than facilitating retail development in any other area.
Given the strategic elements listed above, it is critical that the cities of Orono and Long Lake are
clear on a sluucd vision for retail development, and that development decisions in each city are made
in a coordinated way that enables progress toward the shared vision. This will require a specific plan
and strong adherence to this plan by both cities. If cither city is unwilling or unable to participate
within these parameters, the probability of achieving a joint vision will be very small.
The proposal the City has received for the property at Willow and 12 is a quality proposal that would
be a great benefit to the community. The problem is that this development should be located in
downtown Long Lake w here it would provide a key piece of the downtown redevelopment puz/Je.
It is important to determine whether Long Lake is committed to focusing retail development in a
compact downtown, and is willing and able to make this type of development happen in downtown
Long Lake within a foreseeable time frame. If it is not possible to facilitate this type of development
in downtown Long Lake, it would be better to have this project located on Willow Drive than to have
it move to Maple Plain or Medina, bypassing Orono and Long Lake and leaxing them with a
significantly reduced ability to attract a similar type of development.
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
December 18,2001
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Ung Lake Fire Station Site Plan Update
The Long Lake Fire Station site plan includes a public road\%ay ofT Willow Drive, south of the fire
station building. The two purposes of the public madway are to serve the fire station and to pmvidc
access to the easterly three acres of the propert)’ (please sec the attached initial site plan).
The permit approval process through the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) resulted
in a revision to the site plan to avoid wetlands on the site. The site plan revision involves moving
the public street to the north to provide a required 16.5 foot buffer between the road and the wetland
on the southern boundary of the property. (A copy of the revised site plan will be provided at the
work session.) The result is that the side yard setback of the building is reduced to approximately
20 feet The side yard setback for the building would normally be 30 feet However, because the
side yard will be adjacent to the proposed public sucet the required setback is 50 feet
The reduction in the yard area betw cen the building and the street necessitates a variance application.
■ ■! Ill ■! ril ■ I ■ n ■■ f m