Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA19-84 ExH PC Minutes 8-20-18MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above -mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bob Erickson, Bruce Lemke, and Jon Ressler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Acting Chair Lemke called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2018 Lemke moved, Erickson seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of July 16, 2018, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. LA18-000067 KEVAN NITZBERG, 1212 BRIAR STREET, VARIANCES, 6:31 P.M. — 6:38 P.M. Kevan Nitzberg, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a side yard setback, front yard setback, and a 20-foot front yard setback in order to construct a single -car detached garage forward of the principal building. Currently there is no garage located bn the property. The applicant has stated this garage is necessary due to the extreme weather conditions a d safety for the livability of his home. The garage will provide additional storage for the property. The new garage will be placed over an existing paved parking pad. The applicant will also be removing excess blacktop from the site bringing the lot into conformance with the hardcover Tier 2 standards. A 5-foot side yard setback is proposed for the south side of the property where 10 feet is required along with a 20-foot front yard setback. The garage will be located in front of the principal structure and located approximately 57 feet from the front of the property. Staff finds the request for a detached single -car garage in the proposed location to be reasonable. The City has previously considered lack of garage parking satisfies practical difficulty. Due to access and the substandard size of the lot, the applicant has stated this is the most reasonable location for the structure. Alternatives include placing the garage in the rear yard but that could potentially create additional hardcover for access. There is currently paved blacktop in this location and the applicant will remove any excess blacktop and bring the hardcover into conformance with the City Code. A garage will increase the usability, safety and storage for the home on the property making the site more useable for the property owners. The neighbor to the south at 1224 Briar has submitted an email in support of the request. The applicant has also submitted signatures from other neighboring properties on the road in support of the request. Page 1 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Planning Staff recommends approval of the request if the Planning Commission agrees with the proposed findings. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Kevan Nitzberg, Applicant, stated Staff has done a great job. Nitzberg noted they do not currently have a garage and that previous owners went through the same process for a two -car detached garage but then decided to sell the property. In their view a 20' x 24' structure would be too big and cover up too much of the house so they are instead proposing a single -car garage at 14' x 20'. Thiesse asked if the applicant is happy with the 20 feet deep. Nitzberg stated he is and that they are proposing the 20 feet to accommodate off-street parking for guests. Thiesse stated his only concern is that a 20-foot deep garage may not be deep enough to accommodate some vehicles. Nitzberg indicated he and his wife both drive compact cars. Lemke asked why a 5-foot setback is proposed rather than the required 10 feet. Nitzberg stated it is partially aesthetic since the garage would cover up more of the house if it was at ten feet. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. There were no comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Ressler commented the application appears to be fine. In regards to the 5-foot setback, if the applicants were proposing a two -car garage, they would need to go over that far to accommodate it. Lemke stated he has a little bit of an issue with the 5-foot setback and that he does not see a practical difficulty for it. Thiesse noted a 10-foot setback would place the garage more in front of the house. Lemke moved, Ressler seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 18-000067, Kevan Nitzberg, 1212 Briar Street, granting of a side yard setback and a front yard setback to permit the construction of a one -car detached garage. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 3. LA18-000068 SVEN GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF 1350 BALDUR, LLC, PIDS 08-117-23-31-0006 THROUGH 08-117-23-31-0009, BALDUR PARK ROAD, SKETCH PLAN, 6:38 P.M. — 7:09 P.M. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, was present. Page 2 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted this is a sketch plan application for a plat on Baldur Park to combine four lots into one lot for the purposes of constructing a new single-family home. This is not a subdivision or the splitting of a lot. There is an existing house at the point. When looking at a plat, the City has to look at a couple of different scenarios. When the property is platted in the proposed manner, it will create a back lot, which is prohibited by City ordinances. Barnhart stated there is not a lot of details available in terms of grading or configuration of roads and that the applicant is looking for guidance from the Planning Commission on the issues outlined in the Staff report. Overall the property is generally flat or very close to the ordinary high water line, so flooding or floodplain issues may come into play on this development. A wetland may be located on the site which will need to be delineated. Both of those items are important in determining minimum lot size and more information will need to be provided. Baldur Park is a platted public road and does not actually touch this property on land. A copy of an easement, if one exists, will need to be provided, or else additional information will need to be submitted showing how the property will access the road. Generally a cul-de-sac would be required at the end of a public road to provide a turnaround for emergency vehicles. The lack of frontage onto Baldur Park Road prevents a cul-de-sac within the Baldur Park Road right-of-way unless additional right-of-way is platted. The proposed plat appears to be consistent with the Orono 2030 Community Management Plan. As a sketch plan, it has been submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and those comments will need to be incorporated into the plan at some point. A Conservation Design plan is not required since this is a proposed plat and not a subdivision. A tree removal plan will be required since there are several large trees on the property, many of which will need to be removed to accommodate construction. The issues identified by Staff include frontage of the property. Issues for discussion: Front lot/back lot. Platting the property as proposed will create an easement back lot. Does the Planning Commission feel a waiver from the prohibition of an easement back lot is warranted? 2. The 75-foot lake yard variance. Because of the narrow width of the peninsula, any improvement of the subject lot will require 75-foot lake yard setback variances. Does the Commission support the placement of a lot in the location, requiring variances? An alternative lot location further at the point would prevent the need for a variance. 3. Does the Commission feel that adjustments to the lot area requirements are justified? Staff does not support the proposal as drafted due to the following: a. The proposal creates a nonconforming parcel by virtue of creating an easement back lot. Access to the lot is in question and information supporting access rights to the development have not been provided. Page 3 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. C. The lot proposed requires a lake yard setback to improve the property. Staff recommends a lot be created at or nearer the point that does not require a lake setback to develop. Thiesse asked if they would require 30 feet to create an outlot. Barnhart indicated they would need a 30-foot wide outlot to provide access to the front lot/back lot. The City would also look for some sort of turnaround within the development. This plat is similar to a recent application approved on Ivy Place. In that situation, the developer agreed to provide onsite turnarounds and sprinkler the buildings to help offset the challenges created by the long road ending in a dead end. Thiesse asked what this would do to the development of the next lots down. Barnhart stated the sketch plan does not address that and that they are simply proposing to plat these four lots into one buildable lot. Thiesse asked if it would preclude them from developing those lots. Barnhart stated it would depend on whether the Planning Commission was okay with waiving the access for the proposed lot. The front lot/back lot situation basically allows them to create this lot and then one additional lot that would be accessed via the outlot. Thiesse asked if a cul-de-sac would need to be constructed if the Planning Commission is not agreeable with the front lot/back lot. Barnhart stated that is one of the options. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, stated this is a unique property since it is located on a peninsula and is narrow. To develop the property in any way would require some variances and that they are here looking for some feedback and direction on how best to proceed with developing it. In regards to the road, currently Baldur Park Road is 12 feet wide and it would not make much sense to have a 24-foot wide road at the end of the 12-foot road. Gustafson stated they are looking at an outlot that would serve some lots beyond this property. Gustafson stated they do not know about the wetlands at this point. Once the wetland is delineated, that will likely drive some changes. Gustafson stated obviously the 75-foot lakeshore setbacks are impossible to meet no matter what they do with the lot lines. Chair Thiesse asked for public comment at 6:49 p.m. Cindy McDonnell, 1420 Baldur Park Road, stated she has a concern about the proposal. Baldur Park Road is brand new since the flood of 2014, and if this lot requires a lot of fill, the trucks hauling in the fill may damage the road and she would like some assurances that repairs will be made to the road if any occur. McDonnell stated if there is going to be future development down at the peninsula, she would like to see a turnaround since this will generate some additional traffic down the road, which needs to be taken into Page 4 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. consideration. Currently the area is somewhat of an eyesore for the whole neighborhood and in her view the neighbors' property values are being impacted by that. There were no further public comments. Barnhart noted an e-mail was received this afternoon regarding the property, which has been provided to the Planning Commission. Thiesse asked about access. Barnhart stated access can likely be resolved by review of the easement. Gustafson stated there is an easement that provides access across the neighboring property, which is Lot 20, and that he can provide additional information on that. Thiesse asked if he is amenable to moving the house down a couple of lots with a road and cul-de-sac for emergency vehicles. Gustafson stated they will take all the feedback they receive tonight and consider it. Erickson commented it would be nice to see a rough plan for the rest of the area to give the Planning Commission a better idea of what is being contemplated. Thiesse stated the applicant is asking for approval for a portion of the property and that it is likely they will use it as a practical difficulty. Erickson agreed that there is a question about what happens after these variances are granted. Gustafson stated a turnaround or a cul-de-sac for this area probably makes sense, but that a cul-de-sac or turnaround for the entire neighborhood at the end of the road is probably not something the property owners are interested in doing. Thiesse indicated he has difficulty creating a substandard lot but that there is no way to make it a conforming lot in all respects. Thiesse noted the City normally does not allow a front lot/back lot. Gustafson asked whether seeing a proposal that shows development of the entire peninsula would be easier for the Planning Commission. Thiesse commented that would be easier for him and that it appears this site needs the most work. Thiesse stated he would rather see the whole thing and that he has the most difficulty with this lot. Ressler suggested the applicant counter this plan with something to improve the situation and that they might not necessarily be helping the situation by keeping the road at 12 feet wide. Ressler stated they should look at balancing some of the difficulties the current residents encounter with the road by perhaps adding a turnaround on the property. Gustafson asked whether a turnaround on Lot 21 to allow better neighborhood and emergency vehicle access and turnaround would be beneficial. Page 5 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse commented that would be something to help the situation. The 75-foot section from two directions is also an issue. Thiesse stated he is not convinced that this is a buildable lot, which is another big concern. Lemke stated he is in agreement and that the proposal seems way too confirmed. Lemke stated in his view there is a need for an emergency vehicle turnaround and that the lot does not seem buildable. Gustafson asked whether emergency vehicles can make it down to the end of the road currently without a turnaround. Barnhart stated they can make it down to the end of the road. Erickson stated in a true emergency, the fire trucks could also cut across somebody's grass. Lemke stated he would also like to see a complete development plan so he can understand the full impact. Barnhart asked whether the Planning Commission would like to see a conforming access in the back. Thiesse stated that would be his preference. As it relates to the 75-foot setback, Thiesse noted it is a huge property and that they are proposing to chop off a very narrow piece. Thiesse stated he is struggling with the 75-foot setback since he is not convinced it is a buildable lot. Gustafson pointed out they are not chopping off one lot but are rather combining multiple properties into a larger lot. Ressler stated since it is not currently developed, it is a different situation, and that there will be more traffic generated and the need for emergency vehicles to travel down the road will increase. Gustafson stated the current access to the peninsula will not be made more difficult since that is what will remain but that there will just be a house there. Thiesse stated in his opinion it is a substandard road and that there is not much they can do to improve that situation, but they can try to improve whatever else they can. Lemke commented rather than have four unbuildable lots, they now have one unbuildable lot Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission feels adjustments to the lot area requirements are justified, including access or easements in lot area. Thiesse stated he is looking at an owner that owns a bunch of property and that there is a neighboring city that requires lots be combined if they are all under the same ownership. Barnhart stated this is a lot of record and that Orono has the same requirement. Barnhart noted the applicants are proposing a plat. Thiesse stated overall he is having difficulty with the 75-foot setbacks, the size of the lot, the access, and the turnaround. Ressler noted wetlands are not included in the lot area calculation Page 6 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated in his view the issues are addressable and the next step is to take it to the City Council or the applicants can make changes to their proposal and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Gustafson stated they would like to take a look at the larger project and then decide what to do. Thiesse stated in regards to the fill, there typically is an inspection of the road prior to construction and an inspection after construction to determine whether any damage has occurred. Gustafson stated they likely will have to bring in some fill to construct the house, which is typical, but that they will not be filling in the wetland area. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 4. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — ACCESSORY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS, 7:09 P.M. — 7:30 P.M. Curtis noted this is a continuation of the discussion that occurred in June regarding proposed changes for Accessory Building and Accessory Structure setbacks. The changes discussed thus far have been regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code and whether or not adjustments to the existing setbacks are needed. Staff has prepared a summary of the existing regulations in a newly organized table format as well as a similar table showing proposed changes to the setbacks for the R-lA, R1-B, LR-lA, and LR-1B districts as a starting point. Any proposed changes in the setbacks are the result of discussions with the Planning Commission at a work session. Private recreational facilities are defined and are listed in the zoning code as allowed accessory uses within each residential district. However, the definition and subsequent district regulations may leave too much up to interpretation. Within the existing regulations tables the setbacks noted with a question mark are done so because it appears the current regulations are ambiguous or silent to those particular setback requirements. The draft proposed regulations tables attempt to clear up these identified ambiguous areas. The Planning Commission should discuss whether all private recreational facilities should be treated equally or regulated at all. The definition of private recreational facilities includes detached structures or equipment, whether stationary or mobile, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and sport courts, hockey rinks, hot tubs, and spas, etc. Curtis stated the public hearing should be reopened tonight. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no comments relating to this application. Curtis recommended the public hearing be continued to next month. Thiesse stated in his view they cannot lump private recreational facilities in with the accessory structures. Page 7 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated that was added to clarify things and it is a relatively recent change. Thiesse stated in his mind a basketball hoop is different than a swimming pool or a tennis court and that he is not sure they can all be lumped together. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission likes the format of the draft ordinance. Thiesse indicated he likes the format. Curtis stated the intent is to include the new tables and replace the little table in the code for each district so there is one concise accessory structure section that is applicable to all districts. Thiesse asked whether Staff feels the average homeowner will be able to understand it. Curtis stated in Staff s view it is laid out in a clearer format and is easier to understand. Barnhart stated in his view the questions people might not understand is what is considered an oversized structure and the interior setback, both of which are easily addressed in the code. Curtis stated Staff took away from the discussion at the work session that the Planning Commission does not necessarily see the need to regulate based on 700 or 1000 square feet for a structure that does not have a massing impact, but that Staff is proposing to separate out a 1000 square foot structure or over a 1000 square foot structures. The draft ordinance also eliminates any special regulation for sport courts, large tennis courts, pools and flat things accessory structures without a roof and put them into a different category. Curtis stated to that end, there are some pieces of the proposed table the Planning Commission may want to discuss. Currently the Code is somewhat silent on front street setback for less than 1000 square foot accessory structures and it may appear someone could have it at right at the front lot line. Staff does not feel it is appropriate to have a pool or other accessory structure there and the Planning Commission may want to discuss that. With the draft ordinance, Staff is trying to look at the impact and what is allowed. Lemke noted under accessory structures/private recreational facilities it says 25 or MCWD buffer. Lemke asked whether someone could have one or the other. Curtis indicated that is the current regulation and that if there is a buffer required by the MCWD of 50 feet, it would need to be 50 feet. Curtis stated they do want to have a setback in place in the event the MCWD does not require a buffer, which is the 25 feet. Lemke asked what would happen if he has a shed that is exactly 1000 square feet. Curtis stated oversized is currently defined as larger than 1000 square feet and that it would be considered an accessory structure if it is less than 1000. Curtis stated a building at 1000 square feet would be considered an accessory structure. Barnhart commented the definition may have to be adjusted slightly to clarify that. Page 8 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted the issues raised during the workshop have been incorporated into the ordinance and that he is fine with the ordinance so far. Thiesse stated as it relates to private recreational facilities, hockey rinks typically come with boards and lights, and asked whether they would be included with sports courts. Curtis stated private recreational facilities would include some things the City already has a specific regulation for but then would also include such things that are stationary or mobile, such as a hockey rink or a basketball hoop. Curtis stated there is value in having discussion about some of the mobile things since they could have a massing impact but noted not everything that is listed has the same kind of impact. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with that and that perhaps they should also look at the intent. Thiesse commented someone could string a batting cage all the way across their property 50 feet from the lake, which could result in the neighbors having to look through that to see the lake. Curtis noted setbacks would apply, but if they are called private recreational facilities, each district would have its own accessory structure setbacks. Thiesse stated he would like the Planning Commission at some point to look at that. Lemke asked whether any consideration should be given to the permanence of the structure and the length of time that it will be there. Barnhart stated variables such as permanence and season -ability can be brought into the equation. Curtis stated she will attempt to have a draft ordinance ready for next month's meeting that would incorporate the general accessory building and accessory structure general regulations but that the issue is complicated due to some of the exceptions and allowances for different types of structures. Thiesse asked whether retaining walls should be included or whether language should be included that says it is regulated somewhere else. Curtis stated retaining walls are included in the non -encroachment sections. Curtis noted the City does not define everything that is considered a structure but generally defines it as something that is constructed or built rather than a boulder. Lemke moved, Erickson seconded, to table Application No. 18-000057, City of Orono, Text Amendment — Accessory Building and Structure Setbacks and to continue the public hearing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 5. LA18-000059 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — SIGNS, 7:30 P.M. — 7:40 P.M. Barnhart stated this draft ordinance would delete and replace all of the sign regulations within the City Code. The ordinance is intended to remove sign regulations based on what the sign says, which is free speech concern. Another goal with the ordinance is to clarify the regulations. Page 9 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sign regulations must be content neutral, regulations must apply based on the time, place, or manner of the speech rather than content. The city's current ordinance includes many references to the content of the sign. Barnhart noted the following: 1. The draft ordinance continues to prohibit pole signs. Where free-standing signs are allowed, they must be monument style. 2. The draft retains the four temporary sign permits annually. 3. The new regulations introduce a sign standard table. This table is central to the "content neutral" goals of this ordinance. All signs in the various districts are regulated the same manner. 4. Table 1 on Page 11 includes five districts. District 4 correlates to the B-3 zoning district and attempts to incorporate existing signage; i.e., not creating a nonconforming situation. An attempt to tailor sign regulations in the other commercial districts to prevent non -conforming situations was made. 5. The draft ordinance allows up to 35 percent of changeable copy, either electronic or manual. 6. The draft ordinance does not require a permit to change the face or text of a sign. A permit would be required if the sign is made bigger. Thiesse asked if the City currently has a requirement regarding the changeability. Barnhart indicated the City does not. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. There were no comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Lemke asked if political signs are addressed. Barnhart indicated political signs are allows and would be covered on Page 10. As written, District I allows a certain amount of signage that is allowed in a residential district, such as a home occupation sign or a political sign. Lemke asked whether this addresses setback from property line or right-of-way. Barnhart indicated there is a height limitation and a setback requirement. Thiesse asked if the City has the right to remove any noncompliant signs. Barnhart stated the City does have that right, and if the sign is a hazard, it will be removed immediately. People will also have the ability to get their sign back. Page 10 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ressler noted at the last meeting there was a comment about advertising signs. Ressler asked whether there is a way to regulate that if the business is not located there. Barnhart stated the City cannot remove it because of what it says, and if the sign meets the size requirements, it would be allowed to stay. Ressler asked if that would be considered a temporary sign. Barnhart stated as long as it meets the size requirements, it can remain. Historically the City has regulated signs based on content, which is no longer allowed. Advertising a business that is not on that property would be allowed to stay since the new sign ordinance does not regulate based on content. Thiesse asked whether the City can prohibit it if it is a sign advertising a business and the person whose property it is on is getting paid to have the sign there. Barnhart stated it would be allowed. Ressler asked if the language can be changed to address those things. Barnhart stated they cannot since they would then be regulating based on content. Thiesse stated in his view that would be regulating based on commercial use. If someone is advertising a business, that is not necessarily content, and the City should be able to outlaw advertising a business in certain areas. Thiesse stated that is not regulating content but regulating what they are doing. Barnhart stated it would still be regulating based on content. Barnhart stated it is a huge departure from what the City has done in the past but that the City Attorney has advised that they cannot regulate based on content, and when you boil it down, it would be a disagreement with the sign based on what it says. Thiesse stated he disagrees with that since the sign is being used for something other than free speech and being used to advertise a business. Erickson moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 18-000059, City of Orono, Text Amendment — Signs. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Ressler Opposed. Ressler commented he wished they could find a way to prohibit certain signs without violating the intentions of free speech. 8. UPDATE ON AUGUST 13, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported the City Council took the following actions at the August 13 meeting: - Approved the Judd Dayton application at 825 Old Crystal Bay Road. - Approved the Jay Mittlestat application for a detached garage. - Approved a variance at 275 Crestview. - Approved an ordinance to adjust the City's septic regulations to meet Hennepin County's regulations. - Reviewed the Matt Johnson application and suggested an 8-foot fence be permissible. Page 11 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. - Held a public hearing on the Goose Management Plan. The City is developing a Goose Management Plan in accordance with DNR requirements, which would allow people to hunt geese in problem areas. - Approved the Sven Gustafson preliminary plat application at 385 and 387 Orono Orchard Road. - Staff provided an update on Your Boat Club. 7. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Lemke moved, Ressler seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 7:45 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse, Chair Page 12 of 12