Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/16/2010 Planning Commission Minutes � t,� � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Kim Kang, Commissioners Loren Schoenzeit,Linda Feuss, and Denise Leskinen. Representing - Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning and Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,Planner Evelyn Turner,and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member James Murphy was in attendance. Commissioner Jon Schwingler arrived at 7:05 p.m. Chair Kang called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the consent agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. � *APPROVAL OF PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 19,2010 Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the minutes of the July 19,2010,Orono Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #10-3482 MICHAEL GALLUS CONSTRUCTION,INC., ON BEHALF OF MATTHEW &ALISSA BRIGGS, 1985 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD,VARIANCE,6:34 P.M—6:47 P.M. Dan Gallus, Gallus Construction,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lot width and a lot area variance in order to construct a new residence on the property. The subject property is substandard in area and in width for a lot within the LR-1C zoning district. Lakeshore exists on both sides of the property with approximately 8800 square feet within the building area of the 75-250 zone. Further,the property does not meet the 80 percent minimum requirement for an administrative lot area and lot width approval as provided by City Code. The applicant would like to consiruct a new residence on the property and is proposing to meet all of the required setbacks and hardcover requirements. Without variances for lot area and lot width,a home of any size could not be constructed on the property. Staff finds that the applicant cannot put the properiy to a reasonable use without variances for lot area and lot width. The applicant's request is supported by a clear hardship. Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width variances. Feuss asked if this lot existed with these same dimensions as of January 1, 1975. Curtis indicated it did. - Page 1 : . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 16,2010 , 6:30 o'clock p.m. Kang noted the City received a letter from Guy Milliren, 1991 Fagerness Point Road,raising a number of issues dealing with the actual construction. Kang asked if the Planning Commission should address any of the issues raised in the letter. Curtis stated those requirements would be addressed at the time a building permit is issued. Gallus indicated there would be a small wrap-around porch on the right side of the house and a deck on the back. The house has been moved closer to Fagerness Point Road in an effort to accommodate those items and to eliminate a portion of the driveway to stay within 25 percent hardcover. The property owners understand the 25 percent hardcover is nonnegotiable and that it may not be possible to construct the wrap-around porch and/or deck. Feuss noted the only variances being requested are lot area and lot width variances and that she does not any an issue with that. Feuss stated she would like the applicant to lrnow that the plans should not change during construction. Gallus indicated the applicants are familiar with the hardcover requirements. Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. - Mike Miller, 1987 Fagerness Point Road, stated he does have a few concerns with the proposal. The first concern deals with the removal of three large mature trees on his side of the property. The swale that will be cut to accommodate the drainage is located within 17-1/2 feet of space,which will make it difficult to create a proper grade. Miller stated he would propose the house be moved to the northeast four to�ve feet,which would center the house between the two adjoining houses and would provide additional space for the swale and perhaps save one of the trees. Miller stated his second request involves the elevation on the southeast side of the property. There is a cut of dirt that is proposed to be removed for the garage and there will be some exposed concrete along the side of the garage facing his property. If all of the present shrubs and vegetation are removed,he would request that some landscaping be planted to help screen the structure. Miller asked whether the structure meets the height requirements. � Curtis stated the applicant would be required to meet a 30-foot height requirement and be limited to two and a half stories. Curtis stated they measure the height from the highest point of existing grade touching the foundation to the peak of the roof. Miller indicated he did speak with Dan Gallus regarding a six to eight inch red maple that will be removed about possibly having it spaded and relocated. Miller stated he also has the same concerns regarding parking during construction and that there were many times during construction of the house at 1984 Fagerness, due to the narrowness of the road,where parking of trailers and other big equipment made it very difficult to traverse down the road. Miller indicated he does not have an issue with the variances. Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Page 2 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. � Kang asked whether the City can regulate the removal of trees. Curtis stated the City does not have tree preservation regulations outside of the 0-75 foot zone. The applicant is proposing 17-1/2 feet on both sides of the house where a 10-foot side setback is required. Feuss stated the applicants have indicated they are willing to comply with all of the regulations of the City and that it is a reasonable request. Feuss indicated she does understand the difficulties with the traffic and the parking of big equipment during construction but that is not within the purview of the request before the Planning Commission at this time. Curtis indicated they are not allowed to block the street except to unload materials for a very limited period of time. A silt fence and erosion control is also required. In addition,the streets must be swept as part of the erosion control. • Kang encouraged the residents to contact the City if the builder is not complying with those regulations. Curtis noted the majority of those items would be addressed at the time the building permit is applied for. Schoenzeit pointed out that since the applicants comply with the side setbacks,there are no screening requirements. , Schoenzeit moved,Feuss seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3482,Michael Gallus Construction,Inc.,on behalf of Matthew and Alissa Briggs,1985 Fagerness Point Road, granting of lot width and lot area variances. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 3. #10-3483 CITY OF ORONO,CODE AMENDMENT,COLUMBARIUM,6:47 P.M.-7:25 P.M. Turner stated this zoning code text amendment would address inurnment or burial of cremated remains at places of worship in residential zoning districts by: 1. Allowing indoor columbaria as an accessory use to a place of worship; 2. Allowing outdoor columbaria, ground niches, and direct earth burial with or without an urn that is accessory to a place of worship with a conditional use permit. This amendment does not allow cemeteries. Turner stated the intent is not to exclude cemeteries but there are different issues with cemeteries since they are a very permanent and protected land use. They could be considered separately at some future date. Inurnment is the placement of an urn of cremated remains in a final resting place. Places of inurnment within the church building have no land use impact separate from the building. For this reason, Staff is recommending they be allowed as an accessory use. Places for inurnment or burial of ashes not within the church building have a land use impact because they involve structures,including buildings that are only for inurnment. For this reason, Staff is Page 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. recommending they be an allowed accessory use but require a separate conditional use permit unless an outdoor place of inurnment is part of the initial conditional use permit for a place of worship. Because what is being proposed is not a cemetery,the possibility exists that in the future the property ceases to be a place of worship. Staff recommends that the religious organization be required to make provisions for disposition of the cremated remains,regardless of where they are located, in the event that occurs. Cremated remains in urns within niches are easily physically relocated. When urns and remains are placed directly in the earth,physical relocation becomes more difficult. The Planning Commission should discuss the acceptability of this arrangement and if it would be more acceptable if the urns and ashes were placed as Good Shepherd Church proposes,at a shallow depth and within a closely de�ned area,rather than being placed separately as in a cemetery. There are also niches that can be placed horizontally,but they do not allow the earth burial of ashes. Scattering of ashes on land so there is no defined burial or inurnment location can occur on any property with the consent of the owner. Since it has no land use impact, Staff does not propose to regulate it. Planning Staff recommends approval of the zoning code text amendment. � Leskinen commented she is unclear regarding the language contained in Staff's report stating it would not be open to the public. ' Turner stated it would somehow be restricted to church members or relatives of church members in order to prevent it from becoming a public site. Curtis stated the church can set those restrictions. Feuss asked if the storing of remains would be limited to church members. Turner stated that is a question the Planning Commission should address. Kang commented in her opinion that should be decided by the church. Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 6:57 p.m. Dave Owen stated he is here on behalf of Good Shepherd Church. They would encourage the Planning Commission to allow cremated remains to be stored on the church property. Their interest in this goes back six or seven years and a number of ineetings have been held where they looked at different options. Good Shepherd Church has developed a rules and procedures document that the church members would sign. Plans have been developed and they have a contractor who is ready to construct the project. Owen stated they also have had conversations with Trinity Lutheran Church and St.Edward about where they are in this process. Good Shepherd is further along than the other churches. There is a demand for this type of project since new cemeteries are not being constructed. ' Owen stated they did receive some comments from David Lee Funeral Home regarding this proposal that he would like to provide to the Planning Commission. In the third paragraph of the letter,David Lee Page 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. T states the need for burial space is surmounting given the lack of new cemeteries. Churches that are now accommodating members to rest cremains are providing a much needed service to the community. The second comment in the fourth paragraph states, cremation is considered the final disposition of the body and the remains are sterile and provide no health risk and is therefore considered an ecological safe method for burial. Owen stated in his view those comments address what is being discussed tonight. { Owen stated other communities such as Plymouth,Minnetonka Beach,Edina,Mound, and Wayzata have columbaria. If the church should relocate or close,there is language in their document that addresses that issue and is based on language that other churches are using. They have had an attorney review the language. Owen requested the Planning Commission move forward with this zoning text amendment. Betsy Lee stated she has been serving as St. Edwards'rector for two years. Due to a fire that occurred, a new building was constructed in 2005 and the initial plans at that time included landscaping and a possible columbaria. No formal plans or funding has been raised for the columbaria but they would like to go in that direction. St.Edwards currently has a sacred ground where people can scatter the ashes of their animals. St. Edwards would like to work with the City as they proceed forward in this direction. � Julie Zubay, 150 North Shore Drive,indicated she is part of the columbaria committee at Trinity Lutheran Church. They have been looking at an above-ground columbarium for a number of years and have developed a rough plan. They are looking at constructing an above ground columbaria with the names and dates engraved on a plate. The concept is to have a garden area that is very intimate and where someone can come and reflect and have a place to sit and think about their relative who has passed away. Trinity is at the point where they are ready to discuss this with their congregation and start raising funds. Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. . Feuss commented she is surprised this does not already exist in Orono since she has belonged to other churches that do have these. Feuss stated in her view it is a very ecological alternative to graveyards and it is part of the Episcopal tradition. Kang stated cremation is an emerging trend and the zoning text amendment helps address that. Kang stated there are in ground and above ground columbaria and asked whether there should be any language included in the zoning code text amendment that addresses the different types. Curtis stated if the Planning Commission has a concern regarding one of the methods,that should be addressed,but as a whole it is not necessary for the Planning Commission to draft specific language at this time. Feuss stated in her opinion the language in the application summary addresses that and that the motion perhaps could contain that or similar language. Schoenzeit asked if the outdoor columbaria should meet any setback requirements. Page 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the Planning Commission has the option of imposing setback requirements. Currently there is a 50-foot setback for structures associated with a church or a place of worship. The City also does have setbacks for walls depending on their height. Schoenzeit commented in his view the outdoor columbaria should meet a setback. , Curtis pointed out there will also be some activity around the columbaria. Schoenzeit stated he would recommend a setback for the outdoor columbaria. Leskinen asked whether the setback would be in addition to the 50-foot setback. Schwingler stated it should meet the 50-foot setback. Schoenzeit pointed out there cunently are no setbacks for landscaping. Curtis stated the 50-foot setback is a structural setback for the building. Turner noted the columbaria can take different forms, such as a wall or a structure that is four to nine feet tall. The one being proposed by Good Shepherd is basically a patio. A patio would need to be located three feet off the property line. Schoenzeit stated as it relates to the outdoor columbaria,there should be a certain required setback that is in excess of standard landscaping requirements or patios. Schwingler commented buffering or screening would also be appropriate. Turner stated to a certain extent it may depend on what is adjoining the property. Curtis noted this is being proposed as a conditional use permit process and at the time of each individual request,the City would be able to impose certain requirements specific to that particular application. Feuss commented that is a reasonable approach to take with this since each application would have a different set of circumstances. Curtis stated if the Planning Commission has certain conditions that they would like to see apply to all columbaria,they should include that in the motion. Curtis asked what the setback is from the property line to the circle being proposed by Good Shepherd. � Owen stated theirs is located five to ten feet from the property line but they are adjoining a city park. Kang stated the setback question is a good point and asked whether the Planning commission would like to leave it flexible so it can be addressed at the time of the CUP or whether they should set a specific setback requirement for all applications. Feuss commented she feels it should be addressed at the time the conditional use permit is applied for. Page 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. , Leskinen indicated she concurs with Commissioner Feuss and that each application should be reviewed on its own merits. Leskinen stated her only concern was the language that addressed relocation of the � remains should the church cease to be a church,particularly as it relates to the in ground columbaria, and that concern appears to be addressed by the church documents. Kang stated that also was a question she had and that she was wondering what other cities are doing. Turner stated Staff does not particularly care what the arrangement is between the church and the church member and that in their view the churches should address it. Staff would then need to take steps to ensure that that issue is addressed by the church appropriately. Kang asked what would happen to the remains if a church, for example,went banlaupt. Curtis indicated it would depend on the agreement the churches have with their members on how that would be handled. Curtis noted cemeteries are governed by state statute and it would depend on what the � arrangement is between the church and its members. Kang noted if it is located within the building,it would be considered an accessory use. Kang asked how big the columbaria could be. Turner stated the size of the columbaria could range and that in national cemeteries they tend to be rather large. Schwingler stated it likely would be based on the size of the congregation and that his concerns are with the setbacks and buffers. Kang asked whether specific setbacks should be part of the ordinance. Schwingler stated in his view it should be addressed at the time the conditional use permit is applied for. Curtis stated the Planning Commission could perhaps set a general condition that a setback will be • required and the City Attorney could draft the appropriate language. Feuss moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3483,City of Orono, Code Amendment,zoning code text amendment that would allow inurnment or burial of cremated remains at places of worship in residential zoning districts by allowing indoor columbaria as an accessory use to a place of worship and allowing outdoor columbaria,ground niches, and direct earth burial with or without an urn that is accessory to a place of worship with a conditional use � permit,provided that the conditional use permit take into consideration appropriate setbacks, buffers,and a provision addressing the possibility that at some point the property is no longer a place of worship. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 4. #10-3484 CITY OF ORONO,CODE AMENDMENT,HISTORIC BUILDINGS Curtis stated in all R Districts,no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area, except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under certain conditions. Page 7 MINUTES OF THE ' , ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. The City of Orono has not formally adopted a historic registry or regulations to protect and preserve structures considered by some to be historically significant to the City or to the Lake Minnetonka area. One method of preserving historical buildings is to move them from a site to be developed or to be changed on to a new site where the building can be preserved. The City's accessory structure regulations may make it dif�cult to allow for preservation of buildings,particularly large buildings,without special consideration or variances. Staff is suggesting a minor change be made to the maximum accessory size limitation in order to facilitate the potential preservation of some local historical structures. The current code limits the maximum size of an accessory structure based on the property area. The suggested amendment would exempt structures with local,historical significance from the maximum individual accessory structure size. The square footage of the structure would still apply to the total square footage of accessory structures allowed for the property; however, it could exceed the maximum size limit. A definition for"historic building"or "historically significant"is recommended. The Planning Commission should discuss and develop language for a definition of historic building and/or historical significance using the above staff suggestions or any other language determined to be appropriate. The Planning Commission should consider the following: 1. Who should decide on the historical significance of a building? 2. If a historic building is moved to a site,and the exception made for size, should there be any additional provisions for protection of the historic building? For example,the 2,000 square foot historic building should not,in the future,become a 2,000 square foot pole barn. 3. Should an inventory of buildings with historical significance be conducted? . The Planning Commission should recommend a code amendment to allow a size exception for buildings determined to be"historic." The Planning Commission should also draft a definition of"historic building"or"historically significant"for the Council's review. Feuss asked whether Staff is recommending any particular language for the definition. Curtis indicated they are not. Schoenzeit commented the words culturally or architecturally signi�cant in addition to historical significance is important in his view for the definition. Schoenzeit asked if there would be a CUP required or whether it would simply be allowed on a compliant piece of properiy. Curtis stated it would need to meet all other zoning requirements. Staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission siructure the definition of historical to include language only allowing historical buildings in Orono to prevent buildings located in other communities from being brought on to someone's property. Schoenzeit stated the words local origin would address that. Page 8 MINUTES OF TAE . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � . Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. Feuss stated the issue she has with the first three bullets is that there is no objective standard and that the language would allow for some regulatory body to have undefined discretion in determining what is historically significant. Feuss indicated she prefers the fourth bullet point since it says,this shall include historical buildings or properties on, or determined eligible for,national, state or local historical registers or inventories and provides some guidance to the City Council or Planning Commission. - Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Sam Mar�eld,2455 North Shore Drive, asked if the new rules would make it easier to use the Hill School as far as setbacks and parking, etc. Curtis stated this language talks about potentially relocating a building to a new site where the property owner would be required to meet all of the zoning requirements and other regulations. The City feels it is important to preserve historical buildings but,that this proposal does not have anything to do with the existing Hill School building on its current site. Marfield stated he has concerns that this will affect the Hill School property. � Curtis noted this would not affect the Hill School property unless the building is moved and turned into an accessory building. Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Feuss reiterated that the definition under the fourth bullet is good because it already contains a standard that is in existence,but that they should include language at the end that allows the City Council and/or the Planning Commission to determine whether a building has historical significance and is an important part of the City's heritage worthy of protection from changes or destruction. Schoenzeit stated the building does not have to be 100 years old in order to be preserved and asked whether the word historical should be eliminated. Kang indicated she does not feel the word historical should be eliminated. Feuss concurred a building does not need to be old in order to be historical. ` Curtis stated by allowing the Council to determine significance to some extent leaves the code amendment somewhat flexible. ' Feuss commented she likes the word"shall"so the Council has the discretion to designate a building as historically, culturally or architecturally significant. The City Council would have no discretion if the building is listed on the national, state,or local historical registers. Schoenzeit indicated he would have an issue with the word historical unless it does not mean only buildings that are old. Schwingler asked what the City's inventory is of old buildings. Page 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated Staff does not have a precise inventory of historical buildings within the City at the present time and are unsure how many possibly exist. Curtis noted when she first started with the City she did look at a particular boat house to see whether it had any historical significance to the area. Since the � home had been rebuilt,the boat house was not considered to be a historical building. The City does not have an inventory of historical buildings. Feuss stated the question is whether it would be worth the resources to create an inventory. Schwingler commented they should be able to craft appropriate language to deal with that. Curtis stated in her view the number of historical buildings would be very limited. Leskinen stated it would be better to deal with the buildings on a case-by-case basis. Leskinen stated she would like to see some language included that would address the deterioration of historical buildings. Curtis noted a person currently is allowed to maintain or rebuild a structure in kind. Schwingler commented a local historical preservation society could perhaps be created for Orono. Feuss stated the question is whether the appropriate language can be crafted tonight or whether the Planning Commission should consider this amendment at a work session. Feuss stated she would like a provision that automatically includes buildings that are currently on a register and language that also gives the City Council some discretion along with some requirements for the preservation of the building. Schwingler commented he would like to get the input of the City Attorney on the language. Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to table Application#10-3484,City of Orono,Code Amendment,Historic Buildings. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 5. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JULY 26,2010,AND AUGUST 9,2010 . Feuss reported on the July 26, 2010, City Council meeting,noting that the majority of the items were placed on the Consent Agenda. Schwingler stated two issues that were discussed at the August 9`�'meeting were the Terry Schneider � application and the Roedel application. The memory care building proposed by Schneider was reduced in size in order to eliminate the need for the setback variance. The Roedel application was denied based on the recent MN Supreme Court ruling. 6. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None Page 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING Monday,August 16,2010 6:30 o'clock p.m. 7. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON AUGUST 23,2010,AND SEPTEMBER 13,2010 August 23,2010—Leskinen September 13,2010—Kang � ADJOURNMENT Kang moved,Schwingler seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 7: 53 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. � Kim Kang, Chair � Page 11