Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-1994 Planning Work SessionMINirrES OF THK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION W EDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Acting Chair Steve Peterstm. Sandy Smith, and Dale Lindquist. Janice Berg arrived at 6:08 p.m. City staff were represented by Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Lin Vee. Representing the marinas were Gar}' DeSantis of Sailors World. Todd Nelson of Minnetonka Boat Works. Jim Rivers of Windward Marina, and Jim Dunn of Lakeside Marina. Members of the public who were pre.sent 'Acre Bev Blomberg. 3180 North Shore Drive and Bt^b Bilgcr, Sr., 4005 North Shore Drive. The meeting was called to order at 5:15 p.m. Peterson explained that the meeting was an informal work session with public hearings and Council action to follow. Gaffron explained that the Planning Commission has been reviewing a draft of proposed revisions to the B-2 code. He provided "A Revised List of Uses" indicating the pemiitted. accessory and conditional uses that were considered and discussed at previous meetings. Discussion continued with Subd. 13. Setback. Hardcover and Tree Removal Regulations. The Commission has considered whether existing marinas should be subject to different standards than a new marina. They questioned if there was any real incentive or benefit to changing the standards for hardcover and setbacks to tit what currently exists. The 75 setback is met by none of the existing marinas. No conclusions were reached at previous meetings. Lindquist thought standards should remain as they exist, knowing there would be variances for any new marinas or existing marinas that may request a change. Smith agreed. Peterson expressed concern over Item B, Subd. 13 which discusses the setback from residential property of 50’ for marina operation and activities except for storage and parking. One ot the marinas has a gas dock which is near a residential property line creating a very hazardous condition. Although there may be little the City can do about the situation, he felt the code should address hazardous situations to protect neighbors. Peterson is referring to a line extending from the on-land storage tanks out to the gas dock. Smith asked if there were any fire, safety or police ordinances to help guide the City with respect to gas dt>cks. Gaffron responded the City has adopted the State Fire Code which regulates how a gas dock is built but doesn't necessarily address setbacks from neighboring property lines. Dunn commented that most of the marinas are quite current as they must follow State and Federal laws which the City could incorporate. He added that many residential properties have far more ha/.ardi>us situations with 50-gallon gas drums near their homes. MCSXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 GatTron asked Dunn how many times he had seen an inspector trom the I'ire Department at his marina. Dunn responded that he had never seen anyone representing the City but has dealt with the State. He noted that there were cenain requirements of the fuel companies for gas dixks and updates have to be done with any improvements to maintain current standards. Gaffron indicated that City Building Inspectors were ir ’\ed when changes were made but were probably not involved with any regular inspectioiis. DeSantis noted that in discussions with the UPA. all gas tanks would be required to be above ground by 1996/97 or be made of special material if below ground. The State is considering adoption of a requirement for some type of material that wimld absorb spill in the lake. Lindquist thought the City should Uxik at the State regulations and leave the ctxle with the current 50' setback. Peterson added that the City may want to add a requirement for a IcKal fire inspection to the code. Rivers commented that the LMCD requires a 40 ’ setback for gas tanks abutting residential property. Gaffron added that many marinas had obtained variances to that code through the years. Peterson ntited that, theoretically, all d(x:ks are built within LMCD guidelines as they are the governing agency. Dunn pointed out that a boat/'operator may be the cause of an accident rather than the gas and gas dock. i.e. a recent incident at Gayle's. He added that the DNR is doing research on using composting techniques for treatment of bad spoils from spills. Peterson commented that Minnesota is one of the leading states in dealing with environmental and EPA issues. Gaffron explained the current policy on tree removal. Council has given staff the ability to deal with these requests. The City requires the homeowner to contact a tree service or reputable landscaper who will inspect the trees to determine their condition. A report is submitted and a restoration plan proposed if trees are to be removed. Members agreed to leave this policy as it exists. Discussion continued with Subd. 14, Drainage. Gaffron noted much of this section already exists. New language relates to submitting a drainage plan any time a new use is applied for. construction of facilities to manage stormwater runoff and acknowledgement of Shoreland Management Regulations and I'lood Plain Management Regulations. Peterson noted that any time a major change takes place, drainage is included with the landscaping section. Members agreed there is an obligation to refer to the Surface Water Management Plan, the Shoreland Management Regulations and FKhhI Plain Management Regulations. Gaffron continued with Subd. 15, Non-Conforming Use. noting that no ehanges have been made since written in 1975. He gave an example of a current application by North Shore Drive marina to do some cosmetic remodeling to a structure within 10' of the lake. This section r MINI TES OF THE ORONO Pl.ANMNG COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 allows for the continued use of an existing: use if nt't included on the current list of accepted uses. Peterstm questioned wh> this section was necessary. Lindquist thought it should be taken out also as the reference to S3.000 is not current. Gaffron explained this section was put in place when the City was tiy ing to get marinas to pull back fa>m 350' to 200 ’. There are references to other sections of tte code. Gaffron thought the City Aiti>rney may suggest leaving at least parts of this code in place. Peterson questioned the $3,000 tair market value. Mabuslh suggest^ the reference to structure could be removed. Lindquist thought the .section should be reworked with the dollar figure updated if left in. Peterson suggested Gaffron have the City Attorney give an opinion on this section. Peterson asked if reference to the LMCD should be removed in Subd. 15. Section A. Gaffron thought if reference to the LMCD were removed, other sections should be added referencing docks since the LMCD is the regulating agency. Lindquist thought the LMCD should be left in to be sure dtKk regulations were addressed. Gaffron continued with discussion of Subd. 16, Variances, noting this is how variances are currently dealt with and saw no need to make any changes. Subd. 17, Variances for Required Landscaping Areas, was established with a four year time frame for making required improvements. Gaffron stated that in previous discussions Planning Commission members noted there was no incentive for completing a landscape plan and no sanction if the plan was not done. Lindquist reiterated there was no way to enforce this section so it should not be included in the code as written. Gaffron thought this could be included as a set of directives for when a variance is granted but would not work to apply to each marina at the current time. Peterson asked what kind of incentives could be offered to marinas. Rivers respt^nded that he has been in business in Orono for over 20 years and there has never been a Council or Planning Commission that was happy with the marinas. Complaints the City has received were always related to the appearance of the marinas not their operations. He thought the City was working towards developing a set of minimum standards that could be met, especially regarding setbacks, and then the City could be happy with the marinas. Minimum landscaping and setback requirements could be established. Peterson agreed that was the original intention but there have been problems with the "grandfathered" marina activities. Rivers added that the EPA will have strict regulations on runoff and there will be no choice but to make the improvements or there will be heavy fines and penalties. He felt if the City works with the marinas, it could help with meeting EPA requirements. He would like to see an end to the adversarial relationship and recognize that the marinas exist. Peterson questioned if the City was qualified to do that, noting the EPA has struggled with runotf issues and is unsure what the future changes may be. r MINLTKS OK THK ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SKSSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 Dunn commented on the landscaping issue. He thought the goals and ohjecti\es of the City were reasonable but there h;i\e basically been no changes from what was done 10 years ago. He noted the EPA has their own program and the marinas are already living with those expectations. He added that a list has been established by the Plaiming Commission of things a marina operator can aral cannot do and that has made iIk operators even less flexible than 11 sears ago. He suggested the Commission make their requirements less burdensi>me - minimum standards enn be dealt with. He commented that last year is the first time anyt>ne fn>m Council had visited his marina and they had a different perception of marina operations after leaving. As a result of the proposed changes, he stated, there was no reason for an operator to attempt to make a change at their marina because they would be told to make other required improvements or quit doing something they have already been doing. He expressed disappointment with having less incentive to make improvements than there was three years ago. He did not think there would be any ra:w marinas on Lake Minnetonka only the possibility of expanding existing marinas. Smith asked if Dunn was referring to the "Revised List of Uses" or the landscaping which w’as part of the current discussion of Subd. 17. Dunn stated landscaping was not the is.sue but the ’•St of uses. Mabusth asked if the Commission had recently reviewed the original directives from the Council or if any Councilmembers had talked with Planning Commission members. Peterson did not think so. Gaffron thought that discussion may take place at the next joint work session. March 11. Planning Commission members agreed. DeSantis objected to the "Revised List of Uses" being brought to Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. He felt the marinas would conform with landscaping, parking and runoff issues but there would be problems with some of the other uses. He thought "the best incentive would be to give the marinas enough credit ... that they will work within the framework and that which has been grandfathered in. Let’s not make a big issue out of .stuff that really isn't a big issue." Working together on landscaping and keeping neighbors happy is important. Peterson noted the public hearings will bring much discussion on all these issues. Both the public and marina owners will have opportunities to express their opinions. Lindquist asked if DeSantis wanted to see all of the activities the marinas have ever performed in the past included in the code as permitted uses. DeSantis agreed. He dvies not agree with the wav the "Li.st of Uses" has been divided. Dunn replied the real issue is landscaping and would agree with minimum standards. Anything the marinas try to do is tied to land issues. He did not understand how boat rental could be considered as an accessory' use at a marina and should be permitted as this is where Ix^at sales happen. Signs should be a permitted use subject to City zoning, why is it an accessory use? .fuLfc. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO P1.ANMNG COMMISSION WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 Peterson responded that some ot the ;^;ees.si>r\ uses were not changes from the axle as it was created 20 years ago, such as boat rental. Lindquist ct>mmenied that there will be operators vfbo run minimum qierations and that is what the Citv wants to address. Dunn made an example of Prior Lake wht) never had any zoning whereas Orono has had the zoning and is try ing to fine-tune it. He stated that st>me operators have to maintain minimum operations because of the land and envelope they have to work w ith while others can be more aggressive and have to make the most of all opportunities. He felt if the City worked with each marina they could develop a list of activities that would be appropriate for that marina. By working with the parking formula, the property only allows so much activity. Peterson reiterated that these meetings have been work sessions and their recommendations are not necessarily what will be the end result. Comments the operators have made will be brought to Council's attention. Discussion continued with Subdivision 17, Variances for Required Landscaping Areas. Gaffron suggested leaving the language basically the same with a little tweaking and updating. Members agreed. Subdivision 18. Regulations Relating to Location, Construction, Installation and Maintenance of Docks, Boat Mooring Arc and Other Fixed or Floating Structures and Objects on l^kes - Adoption by Reference, references three LMCD ordinances. Peterson thought this section should remain at this time as the City needs to be able to "reserve the right to deny any variance to provisions of Ordinance No. 1 as amemled, even though the same variance was granted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District". Smith asked why specific ordinances needed to be referenced. Gaffron responded that if, for instance, the specific ordinance on dock standards was not referenced, there W'ould be nothing to enforce. Members agreed these references should be updated. Lindquist did not think the language needed to be changed for Subdivision 19, Reference to Other Ordinances. Dunn suggested including a disclaimer in both Subdivisions 18 and 19 regarding the LMCD and add reference to the axle afx>ut the DNR as the authority on the lake. Members agreed there should be reference to the DNR. Peterson expressed concern that the DNR may not care about the individual cities siiKc the DNR looks at the entire populace of Minnesota and what will be beneficial to the whole. Peterson asked if anything had been missed in the work session discussions. Gaffron replied that Subdivisions 1. 2 and 3 had not been discussed. He stated that Subdivision 1 states a purpo.se that ftKUses on taking care of the environment and being a goixl neighbor by r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PL^UNNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION WTIDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 not diminishing the neighboring real estate values but spedfrcally references businesses located to service lx>als for recreational purposes. This came from the 1975 Council. Peterson thought this could be written as proposed. Subdivision 2 deals with dermitions. Peterson thought this was pretty straightforward. Gaffron continued with discussion of Subdivision 4 which requires a review of any application for a building permit to do work at a marina and questioned if reference to the Lake Use Committee should be omitted. Peterson asked what tte Orono ctxle says when a marina dt>es not pay for a license. Gaffron responded that all of the marinas regularly pay their license fees. The City has denied the issuarttc of the license to a number of them for various lengths of time, however, no action was taken to stop their operation. Peterson noted that from a legal standpoint if the City cashes the check, they have granted them a license. Peterson indicated he would remain after the meeting to discuss any personal comments or concerns of the people present. Smith asked if another work session should be scheduled after the joint work session on March 11. DeSantis commented that he had a problem with the "List of Uses" being submitted to the Council which indicates that the list has been agreed upon and, in fact, there is not agreeinent. He felt the Council could have pre-conceived ideas. He questioned what should be a permitted use. Smith suggested re-ranking or marking up the list so the Planning Commission had something in writing to refer to. Gaffron reviewed the definitions of uses. A permitted use means it can be the primary and only use for that site. If there is vacant land, one of these uses could be the only use. For example, a marina owner or neighbor would not want to see a piece of vacant land with nothing on it but a sign which is why it is considered an accessory use. Accessory use means it is secondary to one of the permitted uses. He thought boat rental c-iuld be considered as a permitted use. Conditional uses are things the City will allow a marina to do if a set ot standards is met that has been set up in the code. Gaffron noted the right hand hst is a list of items that were discussed at the various work sessions with the majority opii^ion being they should not be included as a use within the B-2 zone. Dunn suegested the Planning Commission take the "List of Uses" to the Council and go through each item to get their input. r II MINIATES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION W EDNESDAY, MARCH 9 1994 Members agreed to make a decision abmit another work session after tlw Friday joint work session. Lindquist felt there was a responsibility to the people present to have aji additional work session prior to a public hearing. ADJOURiNMENT The meeting cU>sed at 6:38 p.m W _ ♦ r REVISED UST OF USF-S - B-2 ZONING DISTRICT (UPDATED TO INCLUDE CONCLUSIONS OF 2-23-94 WORK SESSION)• Allowed by existing B-2 Code (Note that most uses identified below aie not add ressed in existing B-2)Petmitted Uses AgfiSfig.ysg(must be secondary to a permitted or conditional use)Conditional Uses Uses Conniirrril uni ri-ni-rd Recommend to not allowRental of in-water boat slips (•wet storage*)Signs • Charter boar port-of-call • Ice skatii^ saies/rental/ rink• Toboggan sales, etc. • •Sales of boats, motors, trailers and marine accessories • Head pumpout/sanitary vraste dumping facilities • Boat club • Snowmobile rental Fishing Tournaments • On-demand launching of customer’s boat stored on site Snowmobile operations base • •Repair and servicing of boats * • Sale of prepackaged food (currently a CUP)Transient boat launching • Ice fishing houses sale or rental • •On-Iand storage of boats, winter and summer ('dry storage’) • Boat rental • Sailboard sales/rental • Lake/lake structure maintenance operations base (4-1 vote) • Christmas tree sales * • Marine fuel sales • • • Dive shop • Snowmobile sales and service • Parasailing sales/rentaJ operations base Bait and fishing tackle sales Clubhouse (for slip users) • Autcmobile winter lake access Sailing schools • Concept of ’associated recreations uses • Ice boating saies/rental/ service and operations base •• Cigarette sales • Ice fishing tackle sales •• Sale of 3.2 beer and ’set­ ups" • Cross-country ski sales/ rental/service • Restaurants (3-2 vote) • One caretaker dwelling unit NOTE: PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USES AND SOME LISTED ACCESSORY USES ARE ACKNOWLEDGED TO NEED SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS SPELLED OUT IN THE CODE (FUTURE DISCUSSION) rriKiWwrrm- -rrrr *kiaW ■■ ^ I l«- ifV-iW