Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-2003 Council Minutesa ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 . ROLL The Council met on the above - mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson, Council Members Bob Sansevere, Jim Murphy, Jim White, and Lili McMillan. Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Foth, City Planner Janice Waatasa, City Attorney Tom Barrett, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Services Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Alissa Winternheimer. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve /Amend Items 6, 14, and 16 were added to the Consent Agenda. Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve the consent agenda as amended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. • APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 10, 2003 Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of November 10, 2003. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS —DREW MCDERMOTT, REPRESENTATIVE McDermott stated that the snowfall means winter activities will be able to occur on schedule. They were pleased with the work session. He thanked Mayor Peterson for keeping the public audience present at the last meeting for the Friends of the Parks award presentation. He also remarked that the lighting at the Navarre fire station was excellently done. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None. • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 LMCD REPORT —LILI MCMILLAN, REPRESENTATIVE • McMillan stated that they had their annual meeting with the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, which enforces the LMCD code on the lake. Overall code enforcement went well. They had a safe summer, except for the July 4th boating incident. There was a significant increase in BUI's, with 67 in 2003 vs. 22 in 2002. One possible cause would be the good weather. The water patrol campaigned this year to address underage drinking on the lake, which led to a significant increase in citations, with 87 in 2003 vs. 30 in 2002. Licensed deputy and special patrol hours totaled 4,500 on Lake Minnetonka, which came to about 85% of enforcement time for the entire county. The percentage time was consistent with what they've done in the past. They had about 33 special deputies (volunteers), which is down with their hours totaling 800 in 2003. They felt 33 was a good number of special deputies. Hennepin County has not yet determined if they'll fund enough of the budget to have the two extra deputies next summer as well. They should know by the end of December. Murphy asked if the increase in BUI has to do with increased enforcement. McMillan stated they had the same number of deputies last summer. Sansevere stated he believed they stepped up enforcement of BUI after the Big Island problems over July 4th PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 40 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 3. #02 -2829 Orono Zoning Code Amendment — Section 78 -71— Regulation of Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission had been working on this Zoning Code amendment for about two years. The intent was to add standards for nonconforming structures. The current draft was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing held on November 17th. They recommended approval with a unanimous vote. The draft accomplishes three things: a purpose for the nonconforming uses and structures section, and standards for nonconforming uses and nonconforming structures. It separates the provisions pertaining to "Nonconforming Uses" from those pertaining to "Nonconforming Structures." It eliminates language that makes the existing section pertinent only to uses, not structures. It eliminates the `36- months after 1 -1 -75' sunset provision for lawful nonconforming use of land not involving a structure or involving a structure with value less than $3000 on 1 -1 -75. It eliminates language that suggests Council would look favorably on the granting of variances where a situation existed legally under laws prior to 1975. It distinguishes between "Involuntary Destruction" and 2 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 • 3. #02 -2829 Orono Zoning Code Amendment—Section 78-71—Regulation of Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures — Continued "Voluntary Destruction" and establishes separate standards for each. Involuntary Destruction: retains threshold after which rebuild must be conforming at `damage is 75% or more of fair market value.' Voluntary Destruction: establishes that if less than 50% of fair market value is retained, or if less than 50% of pre- existing volume remains then the entire structure and site must be made conforming. Gaffron stated that if a tornado hit a house and damage exceeded 75% of fair market value, then structure and site must be brought up to code in total. If only 60% of property is damaged, then it may be rebuilt as it was before destruction. That standard has been in place for over twenty years. For voluntary destruction, a teardown, if less than 50% of fair market value is retained, or if less than 50 01u of the original structure remains, then the entire site must be brought into conformance. Gaffron stated the problem has been when the City approves a remodel, and the applicant tears down to the foundation, or leaves only one wall standing, and then calls it a remodel to avoid bringing the property up to code. The Code amendment gives them a standard at which to hold applicants when determining if a project is a remodel or a rebuild. Murphy asked for an example of volume. Gaffron stated that if one had a single story house with a pitched roof and full basement. and tore down to the cap of the basement, they have removed the first story and the volume of the roof, they would have removed over 50% of the volume of the house. That would trigger the entire property having to come into conformance, including a foundation that was encroaching into a setback. The proposed code also establishes standards for the expansion of existing nonconforming residence structures as well as slightly more strict standards for expansion of nonconforming accessory structures. A lawful, nonconforming residential structuze may be expanded, provided it does not increase the nonconformity and complies Nvith all requirements of the district. For example, if a house were nonconforming based on being too close to a setback on one side. The addition could be on the side opposite the substandard setback, provided any expansion of the building met all standard requirements. You could not add a second story where the first story is already too close to the lot. White asked if a house were okay on setbacks, but had too much driveway hardcover, • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 3. #02 -2829 Orono Zoning Code Amendment — Section 78-71—Regulation of • Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures — Continued would adding a second story then require reducing the hardcover of the driveway. Gaffron stated that it would not trigger the hardcover nonconformity. Expansion would be permitted if the structure is nonconforming only with respect to substandard lot area or width for the district in which it is located, and the expansion shall then meet all requirements of the district. Gaffron stated that 1/3 – % of lakeshore homes are on substandard lots. Some percentage of those may have substandard setback or hardcover that would require variance applications. The amendment provides standards with which to work regarding such applications. In cases where the lot line setback of a structure is less than 50% of the required setback for that district, the City may require that the discrepancy be made up by enlarging the opposite yard depth to result in an aggregate yard depth equivalent to the combined required yard. The Planning Commission felt that there ought to be some threshold at which they look at compensating for an extremely substandard situation. If a house had a 4' setback on one side, where 10' is required, they could be required to make up the difference on the other side. If that was not possible, then the City would consider a variance. White asked if the code could lead to residents feeling the City has removed rights. Barrett stated that he had not yet closely reviewed the ordinance. Any ordinance the City drafts could brush up against Constitutional rights. The language in item 3(C) reads, "may require," which means Council would set a series of precedents as to how the ordinance is interpreted and enacted. Gaffron stated most cities' codes have a 50% threshold. Accessory structures have the same caveats in general. Item 4(C), was a little different, stating that when an accessory structure is located too close to a lot line, the City could require that the structure be modified so that it becomes completely conforming with respect to setbacks. Gaffron stated that a detached garage that comes up for remodel, the City may require the entire structure be moved into conformance. The Planning Commission recommended approval. Gaffron stated that Council could approve, amend, or table it for further review. 4 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 • 3. #02 -2829 Orono Zoning Code Amendment --- Section 78-71—Regulation of Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures — Continued Murphy asked about the overall basic goal of the ordinance changes. Gaffron stated that Orono's code never had a threshold for how far one could go on a remodel before it triggered the need to come into conformance. The proposed ordinance will limit expansions and require properties be brought into conformity if too much is torn down. Murphy stated his only concern was whether the attorney should review it before Council voted. Barrett asked if there was any need to rush on the ordinance. Gaffron stated there was not. McMillan asked if there was a volume distinction for involuntary destruction. Gaffron stated there was not. This part of the code always contained a "75% of fair market value" distinction. Staff felt with voluntary destruction, volume would be fairly easily addressed. McMillan asked if in the past, on a teardown where the foundation was left, would they have allowed someone to rebuild in a nonconforming situation. Gaffron stated that if the foundation was too close to the lotline or lake, they would need a variance to put back anything that was nonconforming. McMillan stated her concern was that some people might not be able to get the same value of house as they already had by bringing the property into conformance on a substandard lot. Gaffron stated that the logical situation would be to look at a variance for such a property. The intent of the code was not to make substandard lots with substandard houses currently in existence unbuildable, but to give clear direction that if the ability exists to make a property conforming, then it is expected. Variances would continue to be granted where there is clearly a hardship. Murphy moved, and White seconded, to table Item 3, Orono Zoning Code Amendment — Section 78- 71— Regulation of Nonconforming Uses and Nonconforming Structures, for legal review. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 4. #03 -2866A David and Judy Zoschke, 2040 Shadywood Road — Administrative Appeal The applicants were not present. 5 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 4. #03 -2866A David and Judy Zoschke, 2040 Shadywood Road—Administrative • Appeal -- Continued White moved, and Murphy seconded to table Item 4, David and Judy Zoschke, 2040 Shadywood Road — Administrative Appeal. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *5. #03 -291 Winfield and Nancy Stephens, 350 Crestview Avenue— Variances- Resolution No. 5078 Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5078 granting variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78 -282, 78- 305(B), and 78- 1288(B) to allow construction of a new residence on a property that is 0.455 acres in size when 2 acres is normally required and for the structure to be setback 30' from the front property line when 50' is required, and 10' from the side property line when 30' is required and 30' from the rear property line when 50' is required and also to allow 45% hardcover in the 75 -250' zone when 25% is normally allowed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *6. #03 -2935 Scott and Kara Hutton, 1835 Shadywood Road— Variance- Resolution No. 5079 Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5079 granting variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78 -282 to allow hardcover within the 75- 250' setback zone of 27.8% or 4,584 s.f. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 7. #03 -2950 David and Tara Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive West— After - the -Fact Variance — Resolution No. 5080 Foth stated that the applicants requested an after - the -fact variance to allow a 2380 s.f sport court to remain less than 6' from the side lot line, where 30' is required. The Planning Commission voted to deny the application, 5 -1, as they found no hardship. They recommended a deadline of June 15, 2004 for removal or relocation of the sport court. After the Planning Commission meeting, Gaffron and Building Inspector Bruce Vang had discussed a reduced time line for removal of the sport court. Mr. Gross came forward. He stated that they never intended to be deceptive with the installation of the sport court. They moved to Orono two years ago. They have four children. They have done some other projects in the back yard since moving in. They decided to install the sport court to keep the children active and safe. They assumed a 10' setback would be allowed, as that is standard in Plymouth. They flagged the area for the court and left the flags up for six weeks. The current location allows them to see the children from the deck and kitchen windows. They spoke to the neighbors, including the • 0 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 • 7. #03 -2950 David and Tara Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive West—After-the-Fact Variance Resolution No. 5080— Continued next door neighbor along that property edge. No one had any concerns. They shopped for the court and chose a green one that is not too visually disturbing. He had assumed the sport court company pulled a permit. They assumed he had. The company installed the court and after the grading was done, they put the court at 6' instead of the 12' where it had been flagged for installation. Over the summer, he was approached by Bruce Vang who told him that the court was too close to the property line. He applied for an after -the- fact variance after consulting with an attorney. Mr. Gross stated it looks like they delayed parts of the process, but he responded to every City request promptly and complied with all the deadlines. He offered to plant a row of arborvitae along the property to screen it from the neighbors. The Planning Commission voted against it. He would consider moving the sport court to another spot on the property. He stated the alternate location chosen by the Planning Commission would not work well for them. They could reduce the size of the court at the current location. Or they could do soil tests to possibly move the alternate location of septic and shift the sport court away from the property line. Sansevere asked how they failed to get a permit, when the contract with Sport Court stated permits are the customer's responsibility. Mr. Gross stated that they have never had to pull a permit for other projects. The contract was a 4 -page document and customer responsibility was in no way flagged for them. It was his error, however, Sport Court admitted they used to pull permits and this was the first year they did not pull permits. Now because of mistakes like his, they are again pulling permits for customers. Sansevere asked about the alternate site and sight lines. Mr. Gross stated there is a sunroom off the house they can't see around, as well as a row of mature spruce trees. He added they are concerned about people coming off the road to approach their four young children. Sansevere asked if the yard will be fenced. He said it would be. He also said the pool is kept covered, so they are not worried about that as a hazard. Sansevere asked if they have a hardship. Mr. Gross stated they would have to remove a number of mature trees. Mr. Gross stated that he feels singled out when he sees the other sport courts around Orono that are up against lot lines. Barrett stated that the authority of the City to grant variances comes from the State statute, which sets out determinations that can be seen in the resolution. Key is the City's obligation to follow the law. Also, understand that if the law is read loosely in one case, it is difficult to not read it loosely in another case. Council's task is to apply the law to the application before them. They have had similar unfortunate cases in the past. • Murphy stated he received two calls from John Bowman regarding the application. His 7 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 7. #03 -2950 David and Tara Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive West—After-the-Fact , Variance Resolution No. 5080— Continued company put in the applicant's garden. Bowman stated that something changed with the neighbors, and they are no longer okay with the sport court's presence. Mr. Gross stated that initially there was no issue, and he is not sure why things have changed. Murphy stated that if the court were off by 1' and the neighbors all approved, he would feel different about the application. But the court was too far into the setback. Murphy asked about the location in regard to the septic system. Foth stated that she had the septic inspector look at the site and he said the mound on the survey is smaller than the actual mound. They suggested soil testing to see if the alternate septic location could be shifted to the west to make more room for the sport court. The problem was that the septic tanks run close to the sport court. Murphy stated it seemed the alternate site for the sport court suggested by staff seemed the best choice. He suggested rebuilding the deck to create another location from which to view the children. Mr. Gross stated that the alternate sport court site is not out of the question. Sansevere asked if Sport Court had offered to help with the expense of moving the slab. Mr. Gross stated he had not yet discussed that matter because he wanted to first determine what would need to be done with the court. Mr. Gross stated he just found out staff changed the deadline and wanted the court moved within two weeks. He stated that would be impossible. Gaffron stated that Vang's perspective on the matter was that he never recommended an after - the -fact variance, but mentioned it as an option and stated it would be unlikely to be granted. Vang felt the applicants have already had four months to consider what to do with the sport court, which should have been moved last summer. Gaffron stated that at this point, the applicant will have issues with moving the court due to the weather. It may have to wait till spring. If the applicant has to move the court, it should be done as soon as possible to minimize the nuisance to the neighbors. Mayor Peterson asked Mr. Gross how the court wound up 6' from the lot line. Mr. Gross replied that he flagged the court at 11' or 12' from the lot line. In the process, with a slight change in grade, Sport Court placed it at 6' and said it was necessary. He stated that activity on the court has been minimal so far. In the spring, they would like to minimize the amount of trucks in the yard tearing it up. He stated they need time to consider options and conduct soil tests concerning the septic site. Mr. Gross stated they plan to live in Orono for a long time and want to make the matter right. • M ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 • 7. #03 -2950 David and Tara Gross, 2635 Countryside Drive West—After-the-Fact Variance Resolution No. 5080— Continued Sansevere stated he would not support removing the court immediately. Todd Urness of 2630 Countryside Drive West, stated that in addition to being a neighbor, he was serving as attorney for the Gross's. He stated that he was stunned at staff s recommendation that the court be removed in two weeks time. He submitted the variance application on behalf of the Gross's in a typical time frame and it was incorrect to say they dragged their feet. The sport court has no lights or fence and use would be inoffensive. He requested Council stick with the June 15`h deadline. White stated he would agree with the June 15`h deadline because in the spring weather is too muddy. He asked if the garden had to come out too. Mayor Peterson replied it did not. Sansevere stated that Sport Court should not have installed the court at 6' without permission. He suggested Mr. Gross's attorney discuss the matter with the company. McMillan stated it's unfortunate that there is no real hardship for the variance. • Mayor Peterson stated that Council could not approve the variance, but would support a June 15`h deadline for removal of the court. Murphy stated that if Sport Court sent someone to the Planning Commission meeting, where they admitted to changing policy on pulling permits, Mr. Gross should pursue some assistance from them. Gaffron stated that if the applicant finds a location that meets City code, he would not need a variance, but only a building permit. If he needs a variance for a new location, he would need to submit a new application. The current application would be closed out once Council moved on it. Sansevere moved, and Murphy seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5080 denying variances per Municipal Zoning Code Section 78 -1404, Subdivision 2, allowing a deadline of June 15, 2004 for removal of the sport court. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 8. #03 -2951 Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road —Lot Line Rearrangement Gaffron stated that the applicants proposed a lot line rearrangement between their two properties. The westerly lot, #14, 1849 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterly lot, #15, . 1801 West Farm, contains a principal residence and a guesthouse approved via CUP 9 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 8. #03 -2951 Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road —Lot Line Rearrangement -- Continued Resolution No. 2854. The applicants' intent is to yield two lots that are conforming for the intended uses with the easterly lot totally 4- acres. This can only be accomplished if the wetland area is attributable for the 4 -acre guest house requirement. Planning Commission concluded that the wetland area is not attributable and that the guesthouse use should be discontinued, the kitchen removed, and a "Plumbing in Accessory Building CUP" be applied for. Gaffron stated that at the time the CUP was granted for the guesthouse, the lots should have been combined, yielding a lot with over 5 dry contiguous acres. For unknown reasons, the applicants never completed the legal combination. They requested the lot line rearrangement in order to maximize the area of the homestead parcel while retaining the minimum 2.0 dry buildable acres in Lot 14 for future development or sale. The result would be a lot with 3 acres of dry buildable and 1 acre of wetland. The Planning Commission felt that was not adequate to allow the guesthouse to remain. Gaffron stated that the applicants would have to make necessary easement vacations in exchange for dedication of new easements along the new lot line. There is a driveway on the property that has existed for many decades. The Planning • Commission suggests it be removed by 2004. The applicants suggested that the drive ought to be left alone as it poses no complications to any one. Gaffron stated that the City Attorney advised that the application for conversion of the guesthouse to Plumbing in an Accessory Structure be a separate application and should not be added to the current application. Planning Commission discussed the fact that the guest facilities did not meet location standards for the Plumbing CUP but concluded that because the building has been in the present location for many decades, is far from any neighboring residence, has no negative visual impacts, and is a historic structure dating in part to the 1870's, any negative impacts of such a CUP would be limited. Gaffron passed out copies of a letter from Mr. Pierpont. Sansevere asked if the applicants intended to apply for the plumbing CUP. Mrs. Pierpont stated that the guesthouse had partial plumbing when they bought the property and applied for the conversion permit in 1990. Mrs. Pierpont stated that the letter from her husband covered all the Planning Commission points. She summarized. They have no problem with the requirement to change the utility easements. The driveway recommended for removal has been in existence since the 1870's. Previous • 10 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 • 8. #03 -2951 Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road —Lot Line Rearrangement — Continued owners had blacktopped part of the drive, and they finished the blacktopping. The drive connected Farm and Homestead streets and was used by neighbors. The neighbor who lived on Homestead at the end of the driveway informed the Pierponts that they were nervous about a road exiting opposite their house, so the Pierponts blocked the access to Homestead by installing a mound at the end of the drive and planting it. The Pierponts did not understand the need to remove a drive that had been in existence for so long when its presence did not impact anybody negatively. Mrs. Pierpont stated that when they bought the house, it was in disrepair and the stable was derelict. They wanted to keep the character of the property. They kept the roof, walls and foundation of the stable and converted it to a guest house with an alcove kitchen, bathroom, balcony, and bedroom. She stated that the guesthouse is only ever used by family members or close friends who visit, with the exception of allowing guests of their church to stay briefly on two occasions. They have tried to add value to the neighborhood with the changes they've made, while keeping the original charm and style of the property. She stated that they originally believed the lots were connected in order to provide • alternative sites for septic. She stated they plan to bring sewer hookups to both lots 14 and 15. • Mrs. Pierpont stated that her husband figured they have 13,000 s.f. (7.5 %) of wetland on their property with lakeshore frontage. According to his calculations, they do have enough dry buildable to keep the guesthouse. She stated they would gladly sign an agreement stating the house is only to be used by family members and that it would never generate an income. Murphy stated that the City should do a better job of protecting historic properties. Gaffron asked if they would be ignoring the preservation of a historic structure by merely requiring the kitchen to be removed. The 4 -acre requirement has to do with density. The code doesn't distinguish between constant use and occasional use. The Pierponts seem willing to limit the use of the house. Wetland is not credited in terms of density when a property is sewered. Still, the situation has existed for over 13 years with no negative impacts. There is, however, a precedent setting concern if the City allowed the situation to continue as is. Murphy stated that they need a unique situation in order to find a hardship. Mrs. Pierpont stated that the age of the house and guesthouse make it a unique situation. They were built in 1870. 11 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 8. #03 -2951 Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road —Lot • Line Rearrangement — Continued Murphy asked which calculation on the wetland was correct. Gaffron stated that based on the watershed district's maps of wetland, 25% of the 4 -acre property is wetland. If Mr. Pierpont walked the property looking only for open waters, he would have arrived at his calculations technically in error. McMillan stated that wetland has to do with soil and grass types and not necessarily with open water, which fluctuates greatly. McMillan asked Mrs. Pierpont if they had intended to combine the lots in 1990 with the guesthouse CUP. Mrs. Pierpont stated they had intended the lot combination, though it never happened. McMillan stated that the applicants could combine the lots and get only one sewer. Gaffron stated if the lots were combined, the guesthouse as a separate unit would cease to be an issue. However, if the Pierponts only got one sewer, the cost of sewer for each unit within the project would increase. Moorse stated that the zone requires a 2 -acre minimum for a guesthouse in the 2 -acre zone so that if the lot were ever subdivided, the guesthouse could stand on its own. In this case, they wouldn't want the guest house to stand on its own, so would the 2 -acre minimum • requirement still stand, or could some compromise be worked out where the house remains, but could never be subdivided in the future. Such a compromise would then raise the issue of enforcing the use - restrictions related to the guesthouse in the future. Murphy asked if they could attach a covenant to the property. Moorse stated that a CUP would effectively do the same thing. Gaffron stated that a CUP would run with the property and be permanent. Moorse stated the problem would remain of monitoring for violations of the CUP. McMillan stated that the Pierponts would surely use the guesthouse appropriately, but the next owner could violate the CUP. When lot line arrangements come up, it gives the City a chance to influence a situation. Mrs. Pierpont asked if it would be possible to make the restrictions part of the property deed. Barrett stated that they have a subdivision application, but do not have an application for a guesthouse before them. In order to grant a variance for the guesthouse, they would need the application and a hardship for that matter. He stated Council could decide on a preliminary basis if they would allow the guesthouse to stand, then require a formal application. They could put conditions into the variance, but could never effectively • 12 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 i 8. #03 -2951 Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road —Lot Line Rearrangement — Continued police those conditions. McMillan stated the only way to enforce the appropriate use of the guesthouse, is to require the removal the kitchen. White stated he would like to see standards for historical residences, and also a definition of a kitchen. Mrs. Pierpont stated they installed a cooktop to help prepare simple food items for children. Otherwise guests dine at the main house. Gaffron stated that the applicants wanted to move the lot line 3 0ths of an acre, creating a 2 -acre and a 4 -acre lot. Rededicating easement is not an issue. They would still have two buildable sites with sewer coming in to both sites. Mrs. Pierpont stated they want to redefine the lot line because they have the chance to bring in sewer to two lots, defraying the cost of sewer for the neighbors and making it more feasible for the City to bring sewer. Also, their son suggested they divide lot 14 so • that they'd have the option of selling it off someday if they wanted to. They also own a house on 6`" Avenue North, which their son lives in. If someday the property passes to him, he would have the option of selling off lot 14. Gaffron stated that as it currently stands, lot 14 is a separate tax parcel from lot 15. Both lots abut a private road. The only reason to move the lot line, could be because the septic system for lot 15 crosses the property line. With sewer coming, lot 14 could remain at 2.2 acres. Barrett stated the Pierponts currently have two lots, so there is no real need to change it. They would then be left with a nonconforming guesthouse on a lot with under 4 -acres of dry buildable. If the kitchen were removed, that problem would be solved and they could leave the lots as is. Gaffron stated that the typical kitchen contains a sink, stove and refri_serator. The Planning Commission was not concerned with the Pierponts use of the house, but there is a risk that the next owner could use it as a permanent residence. Murphy stated that there ought to be a better way to insure the future use of the guesthouse than to punish the Pierponts for wanting to leave things as they've been for the last decade. • McMillan stated that the lots were supposed to be combined in 1990, before the 13 ORONO CITY COUINCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVE11BER 24, 2003 8. #03 -2951 Judith and James Pierpont, 1849 and 1801 West Farm Road —Lot i Line Rearrangement — Continued conversion, and it never happened. Sansevere asked if another CUP would solve the problem. Mayor Peterson stated it would not unless they removed the kitchen. Gaffron stated they would have to remove the kitchen under a plumbing for accessory structure CUP, or receive a variance for the acreage required for the guesthouse. Gaffron stated that the sink is the primary factor that makes the kitchen, as other fixtures such as stove and refrigerator can be merely purchased and "plugged in." Mrs. Pierpont stated that she is afraid if the sink were removed, the pipes would freeze and back up into the rest of the plumbing. Sansevere stated he felt a stove made a kitchen. Gaffron stated a kitchen is defined by use, not the appliances installed. He stated if the Pierponts apply for a CUP, the discussion would center on what needs to be pulled out. Mrs. Pierpont stated that the stable had a sink in it before they bought the property. • Gaffron asked Mrs. Pierpont if they really need to move the lot lines. She replied not necessarily. Gaffron stated that if the application went away, the City would be faced with enforcing use of the original CUP from 1990, which has never resulted in a complaint. Mrs. Pierpont stated that her younger son has a strong interest in the property, and so she'd be willing to put a deed on the property as it will likely stay in the family. Gaffron stated that the CUP for plumbing in an accessory structure would not be intended for overnight use. Mayor Peterson suggested the Pierponts apply for a CUP application. She asked what needed to be done about the road then. Gaffron stated nothing would need to be done. As long as the properties remained owned by the Pierponts, there would be no issue. Most likely, the road, which passes through lot 14, would be dealt with should the lots ever come under separate ownership. Sansevere asked that if the Pierponts got the CUP, then removed the kitchen, got in two sewer hookups, then could they move the lot line at a later time and put the kitchen back in. The sons could then subdivide the property should they take ownership of the property some day. Mrs. Pierpont stated their intent was to take care of everything themselves so • 14 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 • 8. #03 -2951 Judith and James Pierpont,1849 and 1801 West Farm Road —Lot Line Rearrangement — Continued that their children would not need to go through the process. Gaffron asked if there are substantial reasons to continue with the subdivision. If so, he suggested Council proceed with the subdivision conditioned upon approval of the CUP application in January. Sewer would happen for both lots regardless of the subdivision. At this point, there is no need to do anything with the driveway. Mrs. Pierpont stated they would like the subdivision approved conditioned upon the CUP application's approval in January. They would then remove the kitchen if the CUP required doing so. At that point, they would have lots 14 and 15 standing on their own. The road would remain as is, unless they were no longer the owners of the properties. Gaffron stated Council could table, or conceptually approve the subdivision subject to staff drafting a resolution that says they approve the subdivision and lot line rearrangement subject to it not becoming effective until they complete the CUP application and all conditions of the CUP approval. Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to conceptually approve the lot line • rearrangement and easement vacation /rededication, directing staff to draft a resolution for adoption on December 8th, stating that the lot line rearrangement will not be effective until an application for a Plumbing in Accessory Structure CUP is obtained and the guesthouse is brought into compliance with requirements of the CUP. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Murphy). • Murphy stated that he voted against the motion because he felt they were unnecessarily restricting the Pierponts due to fear of a potential future problem with the guesthouse use. *9. #03 -2953 Raymond and Nylene Newkirk, 1489 Shoreline Drive, Variance, Resolution No. 5081 Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5081 granting variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78 -282 and 78 -305 Subdivision B to allow construction of a new residence on the 0.71 acre property and hardcover level within the 75 -250' setback of 35.7% where 25% is allowed. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 15 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 *10. #03 -2959 Timothy J. Latterner, 2032 Shadywood Road — Variance — Resolution • No. 5082 Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5082 granting variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78 -282 to allow hardcover within the 75- 250' setback zone of 59.9% (4,504 s.f.), and 78 -350 (B) to add a pitched roof over an existing flat roofed porch, and to expand the'/: story to a full 2 "d story within 5.8' of the property line where 10' is normally required. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *11. #03 -2960 Timothy and Kelly Mahoney, 2760 Pheasant Road— Variance- Resolution No. 5083 Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5083 granting variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78- 330(B) to allow a new 7/12 pitch roof with a covered entry to be setback 29' from the front property line when 35' is allowed and 33' currently exists. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *12. #03 -2963 WJM Properties, LLC, 2605 West Wayzata Boulevard — Commercial Site Plan Review — Resolution No. 5084 Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5084 approving the • commercial site plan to allow a 20' x 75' addition to an existing detached garage structure on the property. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 13. #03 -2966 Orono Zoning Code Amendment — Section 78- 1491(H) and 78 -1577— Regulation of Vehicle Storage in Residential Districts — Ordinance No. 4,3 rd Series Foth stated that historically special mobile equipment and vehicle parking was addressed within the introductory paragraph of 78 -1577 regarding exterior storage. This revision of City Code Section 78 -1577 is in part to maintain consistency between the various code sections that deal with parking, to establish additional updated standards commensurate with the residential nature of Orono, and to address the wide range of uses of vehicles in the community. The Planning Commission determined that the code section regarding vehicle storage on private property was a better fit within the Exterior Storage section (78 -1577) of the Ordinance. Recreation vehicles and motor homes will have overlapping coverage in both the Zoning Ordinance (78 -1577) and within City Code Section 90 -1 Manufactured Homes and Trailers due to the different enforcement components. • 16 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 • 13. #03 -2966 Orono Zoning Code Amendment — Section 78- 1491(H) and 78-1577 — Regulation of Vehicle Storage in Residential Districts — Ordinance No. 4, 3'd Series— Continued Foth pointed out an error in the report. Under staff recommendation it read 78- 1479h, it should read 78- 1491h. The summary of changes in the report were added to by Sergeant Kurt Erickson and were indicated within circles in the report. The Planning Commission reviewed the final draft absent comments from Sergeant Erickson and recommended approval. Staff also recommended approval. Jeffrey Hagen of 2905 Sixth Avenue was present with his wife. He stated he was in favor of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Sansevere stated that the Ordinance seems to restrict campers in ways that boats and trailers are not restricted. Gaffron stated that a year or two ago, Orono changed the boat storage ordinance to be more liberal, and are finding that they did not have in place an ordinance that addresses the storage of large vehicles away from the lakeshore. The new Ordinance changes • provide standards and limitations for large recreational vehicles. Foth stated that recreational vehicles will now need to meet the same setbacks as utility trailers are required to meet in the boat storage ordinance. Trailers are now included with recreational vehicles, where before they were only addressed in the boat storage ordinance. The setback was set at 10', and will now be required to sit no closer than 5' from a lotline. The present changes are more liberal. • McMillan asked if parking of vehicles for more than 24 hours would be allowed in the driveway. Foth stated they could not be stored in the driveway, but must be in a side or rear yard, not in a street yard. Foth stated that vehicles over 14,000 lbs could not be stored on property of less than 5- acres. Large, 1 -ton pick -up trucks used for towing are typically at 14,000 lbs. They wanted to allow those, but restrict heavier vehicles. Mr. Hagen stated that his neighbor has a dump truck stored on his property, as well as other vehicles. Gaffron stated that staff have attempted to solve such problems with large vehicles through home occupation ordinances, but found they could not, so they propose revising the vehicle storage ordinance. 17 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 13. #03 -2966 Orono Zoning Code Amendment — Section 78- 1491(H) and 78 -1577— • Regulation of Vehicle Storage in Residential Districts — Ordinance No. 4,3"d Series — Continued Sansevere asked if a dump truck was not included under the ordinance. Foth stated that a dump truck is NOT special mobile equipment, which is regulated elsewhere. Special mobile equipment would be things that one could not drive to and from work, like a well driller or bobcat. Special mobile equipment is not allowed to be stored outside at all. Gaffron stated that page 3 of 6, items 2 a -g covers the dump truck. The City will handle violations of the ordinance on a complaint basis. Staff would likely allow a 3 -month grace period to allow residents to work out new storage spaces for their vehicles. Gaffron stated they could get word out through an article in billings, the website, and/or the newspapers. Sansevere asked for a definition of nuisance. Barrett stated there is a definition of nuisance in a different portion of the ordinance. Murphy asked where special mobile equipment was covered. Foth stated section a on page 4 of 6 stated that outdoor storage of such equipment is prohibited. White moved, and Mayor Peterson seconded, to adopt the Ordinance No. 4, Third • Series, An Ordinance Amending Section 78 of the Orono Municipal Zoning Code by Amending Sections 78- 1491(h) Regarding Commercial Vehicle Parking and 78 -1577 Regarding Exterior Storage. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1 ( Sansevere). Sansevere stated he felt the City sometimes overly restricted where residents could and could not keep things on their property. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere mentioned a resident who wanted to plant poplar trees in the boulevard outside power lines along his property, which would put them along the street's edge and in the City's right -of -way. Mayor Peterson asked Gaffron to look into the matter. Murphy stated that he had attended three meetings with Mn/DOT and would have two more on Tuesday regarding construction. He felt the meetings were making progress. The engineer and Mn/DOT representative seem to understand their issues better than ever before. They raced to get the temporary bridge blacktopped on Friday afternoon and did Kelley Parkway on Saturday. They agreed that the issues raised thus far require that they redesign the construction plan for the balance of the project over the winter months. They have discussed ways to keep people apprised of progress. One idea is to shoot still photos IN ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 • MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT — Continued with a traffic camera that posts to a website. Murphy added that Orono Police Sergeant Jay Dembouski was nominated by the Long Lake Chamber of Commerce as the Person of the Year, and won the award. White suggested Orono could charge a fee for companies bringing heavy vehicles onto city streets that tear up the streets. The fees could help cover costs of street repair. Moorse stated he would look into it. Mayor Peterson stated the Mr. Anderst of the Narrows Saloon stated he felt a pull -tab license could raise $50,000 to help beautify the City. Moorse stated that the establishment and charitable organization both would require state permits. Sansevere noted that the MS Society raised less than $5,000 from the pull -tabs. Mayor Peterson stated that she attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the Excelsior Fire District. The Chief spoke to the members of the board from the five communities in the fire district and recommended Orono and Long Lake's partnership as an example of cooperation. She thanked them for their partnership with Orono over the next few years. • PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT • *14. Accept Quotation for Industrial Park Watermain Extension Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to accept quotation for the industrial park watermain improvements from Nodland Construction Company, Fergus Falls, Minnesota in the amount of $7,350.00 to be funded from the Water Fund with a budget adjustment to the 2003 Water Fund budget. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 15. Adopt Assessment Roll —North Long Lake East Sewer Extension — Resolution No. 5085 Murphy stated that Council had agreed to try for the lowest possible interest rate for another sewer assessment at the previous meeting, and wondered if they should do the same for this project. Gappa stated that everyone assessed for the current projects had already agreed to the 6.25% interest. Assessment rolls that had already passed would have to go down to the county in order to change the interest rate, and they would have to re -adopt the assessment rolls. 19 ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 15. Adopt Assessment Roll North Long Lake East Sewer Extension Resolution • No. 5085— Continued Sansevere stated they should look into it for the current application because it came before them after they were aware of the possibility. Moorse stated they could adopt the assessment at 6.25% or lower based on the City's cost of funds. Murphy moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 5085 approving the assessment roll for the North Lake East Sanitary Sewer Extension Project at an interest rate of 6.25% or lower based on the City's cost of funds. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *16. Application and Certificate for Payment #5— Navarre Fire Station Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve the Application and Certificate for Payment No. 5, in the amount of $301,395.00 to be paid from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. • 17. Police Department— Accept Donation Sansevere stated it was kept off Consent so that it could be acknowledged publicly. McMillan moved, and Murphy seconded, to accept the donation of six traffic safety vests from Dr. Charles Boehm to be used by the Orono Police Department. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT None. 18. LICENSES ANNUAL LIQUOR LICENSES 20 • ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 • 18. LICENSES — Continued Club On Sale and Sunday Liquor Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Boulevard Woodhill Country Club 200 Woodhill Road Off Sale Liquor Navarre Liquors, Inc. 3421 Shoreline Drive Mayor Peterson moved, and White seconded, to approve the above listed licenses Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 1 (McMillan). *19. BILLS • Sansevere moved, and White seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ATTEST: u- Lmda S. Vee, City Clerk 21 Barbara Peterson, Mayor