HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2010 Planning Commission Minutes .:,.-
�
:.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 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,Denise Leskinen and
Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-Term
Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning and Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, and Recorder
Jackie Young. City Council Member Lili McMillan was in attendance.
Chair Kang called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as is. VOTE: Ayes 5,
Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST
16,2010
Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes of
August 16,2010, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. 10-3467 STEVEN SCHUSSLER AND SUNffi RYAN, 1935 CONCORDIA
AVENUE,VARIANCE,6:38 P.M.—6:55 P.M.
Steven Schussler and Sunhi Ryan,Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a hardcover variance in order to construct an attached
garage and porch. They are requesting 32.4 percent hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone when 27.5
percent exists and 25 percent is allowed.
The house was constructed in 1954. An old garage was removed in or about 1992,but a new
garage was not constructed. The owners purchased the property in December 2009.
Within the 75-250 foot zone, 710 square feet of hardcover would be added for the garage, 185
square feet for�he porch,and only 11 square feet to make the driveway. The existing gravel and
cement parlcing area of 699 square feet would be removed. The applicant is requesting a variance
for a hardcover increase of 421 square feet.
The City Engineer has reviewed the applicant's initial request for a detached garage but has not
reviewed the revised plan for an attached garage. Staff finds that the applicant has a reasonable
use of the property and the hardcover proposed is not supported by a hardship. In addition,the
applicant has not demonstrated that enforcing the hardcover provisions of the zoning ordinance
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property.
Planning Staff recommends denial of the hardcover variance.
Page 1
1 +
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schussler stated he cannot imagine a hardship case being more applicable than their situation.
The house has been homesteaded.
Schussler indicated that Sunhi Ryan was attacked three weeks ago in downtown Minneapolis
while performing her job as a real estate agent and has been living in fear since then. The
attached garage would offer her some security. In addition,not having a garage is a hardship
given the winters here in Minnesota. If they had lmown that they would not be able to have a
garage,they would not have purchased the property.
Schussler stated in his view the variance for the garage should be approved not only for hardship
reasons but also because of tax reasons and that the house is worthless without a garage. All the
other neighbors within a five block area do not have a garage. They were told by the real estate
agent and the City that a garage existed previously and was removed due to its deteriorated
condition. They have cleaned up the property and are good stewards of the property.
Schussler indicated he has read the MN Supreme Court ruling and understands the law.
Schussler stated in his opinion a house without a garage is useless and that he would request the
Planning Commission to find that a hardship does exist.
Sunhi Ryan stated from a safety point of view, a garage is necessary. This is a year-round home,
and without a garage,it would be difficult to live in the house. Ryan commented that having to
park the vehicles outside and then having to dig them out following a snowfall will be difficult
and make it hard to get to work. Ryan indicated security is a major issue and that she would like
to have an attached garage to provide a sense of security both physically and emotionally.
Kang asked the applicants to explain the necessity of the porch.
Schussler stated their main concern is the garage and that they would be willing to eliminate the
porch in order to be able to construct the garage. They are willing to wait until the Supreme
Court ruling is changed to construct the porch.
Feuss asked when the house was purchased.
Ryan indicated they purchased the property at the end of December 2009. The house is their
primary residence.
Schussler stated they did not move in until March after the snow melted. They have constructed a
fence around the property, added shutters to the house, and have cleaned up the property.
Schoenzeit asked where the original garage was located.
Curtis illustrated on the overhead the location of the previous garage.
Feuss asked if the original garage was a detached garage.
Curtis indicated it was. '
Page 2
r �
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schussler stated the neighbors are in support of the project. The previous garage was in complete
disrepair,which was the reason it was torn down. They would like to live in Orono and make this
their permanent residence.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
Gary Briggs, 1905 Concordia Street,indicated he is a neighbor of the applicant and that he would
encourage the Planning Commission to approve the application. A garage would improve the
appearance of the lot.
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked how many square feet the proposed porch is.
Curtis stated the porch is approximately 185 square feet. The applicants are asking for 236
square feet over what exists currently if the porch is eliminated.
Feuss asked whether a detached garage could be constructed within the hardcover limits.
Curtis stated it could be done but that it would take up a considerable amount of space on the
south side of the house and would require a tuck-under garage. The building does meet side,
lake, and street setbacks.
Leskinen asked if the garage could be constructed without variances.
Curtis indicated in her opinion it could be but it would need to be constructed within the existing
square footage of the house.
Kang stated the ideal situation would be if a garage could be constructed without a variance,but
that she is looking at this application as a hardship given the Minnesota winters.
Schoenzeit stated he would be fine with having the City Council make a finding on the hardship.
Curtis stated the City Council could make a finding that a property with a home but without a
garage is a hardship. At the present time,the City has not made that statement a part of the City's
existing code,however,and if it is a finding that the City Council makes,the variance could be
granted.
Kang asked if it would require a code change.
Curtis indicated it would.
Schoenzeit asked whether the garage would be counted in the hardcover even if it is not
constructed.
Page 3
� f
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis stated if the applicant provides a plan that shows they are unable to park two vehicles on
the property,which may be what Commissioner Schoenzeit is referring to,but that the City does
allow for two cars to be parked in a driveway.
Gaffron stated the City has not determined whether one car or two cars are a necessity.
Feuss stated she is not comfortable with recommending approval of the application given the
Supreme Court ruling and that she has a dif�cult time finding that there is no reasonable use of
the property without a garage. Feuss stated she would like the City Council to determine whether
there is a hardship that exists.
Commissioners Berg and Leskinen indicated they are in agreement with Commissioner Feuss and
• that the applicants have reasonable use of the property.
Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3467, Steven
Schussler and Sunhi Ryan, 1935 Concordia Avenue,for an attached garage without the
porch,and to request the City Council determine whether a hardship exists for a garage.
VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 3,Berg,Leskinen,and Feuss opposed. MOTION FAILS.
2. #10-3468 DENNIS BATTY ON BEHALF OF BROOK INVESTMENT GROUP,
LLC.,3421 TO 3435 SHORELINE DRIVE,PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN,6:55 P.M.—6:56 P.M.
Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to table Application#10-3468,Dennis Batty on behalf of
Brook Investment Group,LLC,3421 Shoreline Drive, at the request of the applicant.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
3. #10-3485 PAUL LARSON,3268 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,
6:56 P.M. —7:17 P.M.
Paul Larson,Applicant,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-1 zoning district. 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
Section 78-72(b)(1). The property is landlocked and does not have frontage on the lake or on a
public roadway. The access to the property is over an easement on an outlot. An access
easement for two lake lots also runs along the entire eastern portion of the property.
The applicant has proposed a home which meets 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 properly.
Page 4
• ,
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff finds that the applicant cannot put the property to a reasonable use without variances for lot
area and lot width. The applicant's request is supported by a clear hardship. Further,the
applicant has demonstrated that enforcing the lot area and lot width provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of their property.
Since the property is landlocked,this creates a challenge when directing storm water to an
appropriate location off the property. The City Engineer has identified storm water as an issue
which must be addressed. The applicant should be required to resolve the storm water drainage
issues with either an easement to the lake,to North Shore Drive, or by some other method,prior
to approval of the variances to develop this property.
Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances subj ect to resolving the storm water issue
identified by the City Engineer.
Curtis noted the City did receive some phone calls from residents expressing concerns about the
size of the lot and the configuration of the house.
Paul Larson stated he has been a builder and developer in the area for the past 30 years and
received a similar variance for his own house on a substandard lot. Due to the hardcover limits,
the house has been located in the proposed location and to avoid the need for any additional
variances.
The survey has been revised to show a proposed drainage pond behind the house. There already
is an existing low spot where the proposed pond is located. The pond was incorporated to
alleviate any drainage concerns. Larson noted the neighbors' rainfall goes onto this properly
given the elevations and that this would be the only lot that controls its own drainage.
Larson stated he has constructed similar homes in Orono on similar substandard lots. The
property was foreclosed upon and they have spent several thousand dollars going through the
process in an effort to purchase it. They have also been informed by the bank that they will not
be given any extensions.
Larson noted they did receive a letter from the City's Engineer this afternoon that the drainage is
controlled on their property.
Curtis noted the City Engineer has not fully signed off on the property and that he requires a soil
condition report.
Larson stated the soil is sandy in this area and the lot is flat. The marinas on both sides have a
substantial amount of hardcover and their runoff goes on to this property. He is willing to have
the soil tested but that they need the variance approved in the near future in order to satisfy the
requirements of the bank.
Schoenzeit asked whether the applicant is interested in accepting a variance with Staff's
conditions.
Larson indicated he is.
Page 5
, r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Feuss noted there is a wooden fence currently on the property and asked whether that will stay.
Larson indicated to his knowledge that fence is on the adjoining property and that they will not be
removing it. Larson stated they are also considering adding a cistern to collect the rainwater and
reuse it within the house. The rate of runoff is under what is permitted by law.
Leslcinen asked whether there are other issues that need to be addressed with the City Engineer.
Curtis indicated the applicant is required to submit soil information.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
Richard Gherardi, 3262 North Shore Drive, stated he has several concerns. Paul Larson is the
purchaser of the lot and he is scheduled to close in October with a Florida bank. Gherardi
indicated he purchased their property two years ago and was told that this lot was their property
by the realtor. There currently has been a lawsuit�led but put on hold until an accurate valuation
is placed on the property.
Gherardi stated this property is not located in a residential neighborhood or on a cul-de-sac.
There are four other land owners that surround this lot. The builder is attempting to squeeze a
house onto a lot that should be nothing more than grass. The lot is a third of an acre and Orono's
ordinance requires a half an acre. Gherardi indicated he is receptive to variances that are minor
but that this is a substantial variance. In addition,the City's ordinance requires 100 feet of width
and this lot is only 50 feet with. Gherardi indicated these are not simple variances given the
amount of variance that is being requested. A house on this lot would also negatively impact
their property values.
Gherardi stated one of the neighbors,Russell Norum, 3264 North Shore Drive, also has a number
of concerns. Mr.Norum is wondering how North Shore Marina was granted the right to construct
a marina and storage area for the boats. The storage area has severely impaired his view of
Maxwell Bay. This proposed house will eliminate his remaining view of the lake. Norum was
wondering what type of compensation he will get from the builder for losing his view.
Gherardi indicated currently a Florida institution owns the property and that he has been told by a
lakeshore realtor that it was a fraudulent sale to begin with and has been sold by three different
banks. The bank currently has an Edina realtor that is listing the property. His real estate agent
has indicated he is unsure how the property would generate that much money. The perception is
that this property is not worth anything except to the adjoining property owners. Fred Johnson,
the developer from Florida,is not present.
Gherardi requested the Planning Commission to deny the variances.
Iris Wade, 3286 North Shore Drive,indicated she is in agreement with Mr. Gherardi and that she
also has concerns regarding the density.
Larson noted this is a platted lot and there was a house prior to this one that burnt down at some
point in the past.
Page 6
• I
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Kang asked how big the house was.
Gaffron indicated he is unaware of the size of the original house.
Larson noted as it relates to the density in the area,the house down the lake is a duplex and that
there is another rental house in the area. There are six homes in the area already. Larson
commented that one more 30 x 60 house will not wreck the neighborhood.
Lisa Anderson, 3260 North Shore Drive, stated if the Planning Commission feels a house can be
constructed on the lot,it is up to them,but that in her view it would be rather crowded.
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m.
Feuss stated it is a platted lot and that no hardcover or setback variances are being requested. In
her judgment,this does meet the hardship definition that they have been asked to follow and that
she would be inclined to follow Staff's recommendation.
Schoenzeit pointed out the neighbors had the opportunity to purchase this piece of property.
Wade indicated she did make an offer to purchase the property and it was rejected. Wade stated
she was not aware the property was for sale.
Schoenzeit stated there are a number of other lots within the City that have been granted lot area
and lot width variances and that this is a typical variance that has been granted in the past.
Leskinen asked how long ago a house was located on the property.
Curtis indicated she is not aware.
Kang stated in her view this does meet the hardship criteria.
Feuss moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3485,3268
North Shore Drive,granting of lot area and lot width variances. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
5. #10-3486 XCEL ENERGY,3960 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT,7:17 P.M.—7:33 P.M.
Chris Rogers, Gene Kochs,and Joe Sedarski were present from Xcel Energy.
Rogers stated Xcel Energy would like to expand and upgrade the existing substation at 3960
Sixth Avenue North. The project will include a complete rebuild of the existing substation and an
increase in operating voltage from 69 kilovolts to 115 kilovolts. A new transmission line is also
proposed.
The purpose of the public hearing is to provide information regarding the project and to obtain
public comment on the scope of the Environmental Assessment that is required to be prepared as
Page 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
part of the conditional use permit and pernutting process. After the EA is completed and made
available to the public for comment,the Planning Commission will review the CUP application
and make recommendations to the City Council concerning CUP approval.
Kochs stated there is continuing load growth in the area which has prompted the need to expand
and upgrade the existing substation. The current substation is fed from a line from Medina. The
existing infrastructure for the structure is outdated. Since Orono is an expanding community,
Xcel would like to bring it up to their City standard,which is 115kV threshold. In order to do
that,they need to connect the next facility to the old facility,which will later be removed, and
then connect to the circuit that heads up to Medina. The upgrades will support the anticipated
growth in the future.
Kochs noted the project is expected to take approximately four months to construct and it is a
typical upgrade that Xcel does.
Rogers stated the existing substation was constructed around 1989. The area has grown and they
are expecting additional growth in the area.
Sedarski indicated the site consists of approximately 16 acres. The northeast corner consists of a
wetland. A wetland delineation has been conducted and the delineation has been approved as
correct by the Watershed District. Xcel is proposing to construct the structure completely out of
the wetland and will meet all required setbacks.
Sedarski stated the required permitting process allows Xcel to go through the local review process
and request a CUP. In addition,they are required to do what is called an environmental
assessment. The environmental assessment is another procedural step that will need to be
completed and is a typical step in the process.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is to obtain public comments on the draft environmental
assessment and project. Following completion of the final environmental assessment,the report
will be posted on Environmental Quality Board's website. There will be another opportunity for
the public to comment on the environmental assessment on the website. Xcel will then come �
back before the Planning Commission and then the City Council for approval of the CUP.
Kang asked how the City can make its residents aware that the environmental assessment is
available for review.
Curtis indicated a link can be put on the City's website once the document is ready to be viewed.
Sedarski stated they could also provide the environmental assessment to the adjoining property
owners.
Kang commented that would be helpful and that it is important the neighbors be kept informed on
the proj ect.
Schoenzeit asked what the estimated time for construction is.
Page 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Kochs stated they would like to complete the project by 2011, and that the estimated time to
commence construction is in the fall of 2011.
Schoenzeit asked if,once the project is completed,as businesses and residences make
improvements,whether they will receive a favorable response for service from Xcel.
Kochs stated the distribution substation will have more capacity and allow for additional
connections.
Schoenzeit asked whether there is any redundancy in the area and if this project includes any
upgrades further past this substation. Schoenzeit noted the area experiences a number of power
outages.
Kochs stated currently this substation is fed from one direction and that the upgrades will allow
them to loop the circuit. The circuit will be changed to feed two ways,which will increase the
reliability of the circuit and automatically protected.
Schoenzeit asked what protection there will be beyond the substation against outages.
Kochs stated there will also be an enhanced feeder arrangement,which are the lines that service
the actual customers. The red line is the transmission line,which is the source to the substation.
The new substation will improve the distribution with more feeders and additional protection that
will allow Xcel to better diwy up the distribution and reduce the number of outages.
Berg noted her neighborhood experiences a power outage approximately once every two months.
Schoenzeit asked if an example of the type of work that is being proposed is that this area is
currently being fed with eight wires and that it will be upgraded to 16.
Kochs indicated they can delineate the actual distribution work that will occur as part of the
project and include it in the write-up.
Schoenzeit recommended that be done.
Rogers asked if there will be additional feeder lines.
Kochs indicated there will be.
Schoenzeit asked whether the new lines would also be capable of carrying data.
Kochs indicated they are not and that there are no plans to include that. The top wire on the poles
is used for lightning protection and possible communications by Xcel but not for Internet.
Gaffron asked whether the old line will be eliminated.
Kochs indicated they have not yet determined what will be done with that line.
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing was opened at 7:33 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this item.
The public hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m.
The Planning Commission took no action on this item.
OLD BUSINESS
6. 10-3483 CITY OF ORONO, CODE AMENDMENT,COLUMBARIUM,
7:34 P.M.—8:07 P.M.
Curtis noted this application was heard at the August 23`�City Council meeting. The Council
agreed that screening and a setback from property lines were important. The Council also
discussed what should be an appropriate setback. The 50-foot setback from property lines for
church buildings was used as a starting place for the discussion. Most felt 50 feet was excessive
and perhaps something less would be appropriate.
Additionally, the question of permanency was discussed. There was a concern regarding the
potential in the future to have the church disappear and leave the columbarium unattended and
unmaintained. The City's property maintenance regulations would require the property to be
maintained,the grass to be mowed and kept free of rubbish.
Trinity Lutheran Church and Good Shepherd Church has submitted information that they
requested the Planning Commission review as part of the recommendation for the language for
the code. Included with their submitted information are plans and photos of their respective sites.
Additionally,they have provided the language from their columbarium contracts between the
church and the columbarium user for the Commission's review.
All structures over six feet in height would be required to meet the zoning code setback for
accessory structures. Staff is proposing a minimum of a 10-foot setback for all columbarium
structures and inurnment gardens from property lines and would allow their construction to be no
closer than 50 feet from principal structures on the adjacent properties. Year-round screening
from adjacent properties would also be required.
The Planning Commission should consider whether an interim use permit is a possible solution to
the permanency concerns.
If the Planning Commission is satisfied with the requirements for columbaria outlined above,the
Planning Commission should recommend moving the language to the City Council for their
review and direction.
Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
Page
10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Dave Owen, Good Shepherd, 3486 Ivy Place, stated he attended last month's meeting and that he
would like to discuss setbacks in particular tonight and how it affects their site. Owen stated their
columbarium can work with a minimum setback.
Good Shepherd has basically three concerns. The first concern is the limitations of the site. The
area of the property that is appropriate for the inurnment garden is very restrictive and protected.
They have overcome the limitations of the site by a great plan that is supported by their
membership.
The second concern is the difficulty of obtaining variances given the recent Supreme Court
ruling. Owen requested the unique characteristics of the site be considered when developing the
ordinance.
The third concern relates to potential setback requirements. Good Shepherd is actually requesting
the ordinance take a flexible approach to the setback requirements. Owen stated in their view
they believe it would best serve the residents of the community to have flexible setbacks based on
each site's specific circumstances. Good Shepherd's design proposes a 5-foot setback. The
majority of the inurnment area will consist of a garden and a sidewalk. The 10-foot setback
would be difficult to overcome on their site and a 50-foot setback would not allow them to have
an inurnment garden at all. The garden encourages quiet reflection and meditation.
Owen displayed a series of slides depicting the site,the site restrictions, and their plan detailing
why they would like a 5-foot setback. Owen recommended the Planning Commissioners visit the
property. The proposed area has been outlined in white paint,which is depicted in one of the
slides.
Owen noted the site is heavily wooded and does have some steep slopes. The property is located
next to an ice rink and a city park. They are proposing a walkway from the back door of the
church to the garden.
Feuss asked if the garden is being proposed or whether it exists currently.
Owen stated the area is woods currently and that they are proposing a garden with an inurnment
area. There is a slope next to the proposed garden that is basically a 3:1 slope. The area available
to work with is approximately 40 feet wide by 105 feet deep. There are a number of trees in the
way to the east. They would like to take advantage of the flat area that extends into the woods.
Curtis asked if the memorial wall will only contain plaques.
Owen indicated there will be an inurnment area for remains and a 5-foot memorial wall designed
just for plaques for people who do not have their remains inurned in the garden. The property is
heavily wooded and there are no close neighbors. Due to the limitations of the property, Good
Shepherd is requesting a 5-foot setback. They would like the Planning Commission to also
consider a flexible approach on an individual basis as it relates to the setbacks. Owen pointed out
there will only be a handful of requests for this type of use.
Leskinen asked if the memorial wall is located 15 feet from the property line.
Page
11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Owen indicated it is.
Greg Keller, Good Shepherd, 528 Aspen Circle,Delano,requested the Planning Commission take
a broader view of the ordinance since it will apply to other churches in the City. Keller displayed
pictures of St.Martin's Church in Minnetonka Beach and their inurnment garden,Bethel
Methodist Church in Mound, and Good Shepherd.
Keller stated under Orono's Zoning Code, it is not unreasonable or uncommon to have setbacks
as low as five feet. The City has the ability to always require a greater setback on any given
property. The City's Code currently allows entrance monuments to be as close as five feet to
property boundaries as well as boats,boat trailers,signs,name plate signs and lights,terraced
steps,uncovered porches, and stoops,which can extend within two feet of a lot line. In addition,
balconies,recreational equipment,and breezeways can be as close as five feet to a property line.
Keller noted with an inurnment garden,everything will be at ground level and that a distinction
should be made between structures that are above ground and things at ground level.
Keller encouraged the Planning Commission to consider allowing for some flexibility in the
setback requirements and to consider a 5-foot setback.
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m.
Feuss noted at the last meeting she had suggested a flexible setback. Feuss indicated she has
reviewed the City Council minutes on this application and understand their reasoning for a
definite setback. Feuss stated a solution might be to allow for a 10-foot setback from adjacent
residential property. The Good Shepherd property adjoins a park and a hockey rink. Many of the
zoning requirements that had smaller setbacks were from streets. The concern of the City
Council seemed to be with adjacent residential properties. Feuss stated a requirement for
screening is important.
Schoenzeit asked how Commissioner Feuss feels about the 50-foot setback from the principal
structure.
Kang asked if Commissioner Feuss meant 10 feet from the property line or from the structure.
Feuss stated in her view the 50-foot setback from a structure is reasonable and that a 10-foot
setback from a residential property would address the City Council's concerns.
Schoenzeit stated in his view the 50-foot setback is a must.
Leskinen commented she would make a distinction between an above-ground columbarium and a
garden and that a lesser setback could apply to gardens.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission has an obligation to look out for other property
owners and that he would be willing to go with a 50-foot setback from the principal residential
structure, a 10-foot setback from residential properties,and a 5-foot setback for nonresidential
properties for at-grade gardens.
Page
12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis reminded the Planning Commission that year-round screening will also need to be
accommodated within the setback. Curtis noted a fence could be constructed along the property
line. Curtis asked what the setback should be for a nonresidential principal structure.
Schoenzeit stated in his view all principal structures should have a 50-foot setback.
Feuss stated she personally does not feel an interim use pernut is necessary on this, and that if the
church goes away,the inurnment garden would also go away.
Berg noted conditional use permits stay with the property and would not go away once the church
goes away.
Curtis state the goal of an interim use permit is to allow the columbarium or inurnment garden to
exist for a period of time and then have the use sunset should the church move.
Kang asked what would happen with the remains if the church should leave.
Curtis indicated the church would address that in their documents.
Schoenzeit moved,Kang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3483,
Zoning Text Amendment to Residential Districts—columbaria,inurnment gardens,etc.,
subject to the columbaria and inurnment gardens having a 50-feet from any principal
structure,a 5-foot setback from nonresidential adjacent properties, and a 10-foot setback
from adjacent residential property lines; subject to the property owner providing year-
round screening; and to allow columbaria and inurnment gardens as a conditional use.
VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Berg opposed.
Berg stated in her view it should be an interim use permit and that the setback should stay
consistent at 10 feet.
7. #10-3484 CITY OF ORONO,CODE AMENDMENT,AISTORIC BUILDINGS,
P.M.—8:08-8:26 P.M.
Curtis stated there has been a recent request to move an existing historic building to a new
property,which has prompted City Staff to bring forth a zoning code amendment to the Planning
Commission. The request was to move an existing barn which exceeded the maximum size
limitation for the property where it is intended to be located. Without a variance,the barn would
have to be reduced to the allowed square footage or it would not be pernutted.
At the August meeting,the Planning Commission expressed a desire to adopt changes to the City
Zoning Code which would allow for the preservation of buildings deemed as having local historic
value when considered as an accessory structure. The Commission indicated that an amendment
to the current codes was an appropriate method of providing a preservation tool for buildings
deemed by the City to have historic significance. The Commission also desired a means of
keeping the historic building"historic"once the exception to the size limitation was made rather
Page
13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
than allowing a new, oversized building being constructed in its place. The adoption of Interim
Use Permit standards would solve that issue.
The Commission agreed on the following language to define historic building:
"Historic building means by building or collection of structures deemed of importance to the
history, architecture or culture of the City of Orono or Lake Minnetonka by the Orono City
Council. This may include historical buildings or properties on, or deternuned eligible for,
national, state, or local historical registers or inventories, such as the National Register of Historic
Places,Minnesota Historical Society, and city or county registers,inventories, or surveys of
historical or architecturally significant sites,places,or landmarks."
Staff is proposing to adopt IUP standards within the Zoning Ordinance as well as include the
historic building accessory structure size exemption within each appropriate district as an allowed
interim use. Thus,the City would have the ability to impose conditions for which would sunset
the use, such as the demolition of the historic building. Staff suggests that language similar to the
language included in Staff s report be adopted to address interim uses.
The Planning Commission should recommend approval or denial of the adoption of the new
language defining a historic building and they should also recommend adoption or denial of an
interim use permit ordinance.
Feuss asked why an interim use permit is being recommended. Feuss stated her understanding is
that if a historic building is relocated on the property, it will not be interim use.
Curtis stated under current code,the building becomes an existing nonconformity that can be
rebuilt in kind. The City currently does not have historic preservation standards. Staff is
recommending approval of the exemption to the oversized accessory building chart. The
exemption would be a historic building that would be allowed to be relocated onto a property
regardless of its size,but that language is required in order to prevent the building from being
razed at some point in the future and a different structure constructed in its place.
The goal of the interim use pernut is to allow the building to be relocated but that it would
contain a provision to sunset the historic building to prevent a different structure from being
rebuilt in its place.
Schoenzeit stated under the interim use permit,if the historic building goes away,the right to
have a building in that location would also go away.
Leskinen asked if the IUP would be available for other uses as well. �
Curtis indicated they would only be adopting an amendment to the residential districts
specifically allowing a historic building exemption. In the future,if the Planning Commission or
City Council would desire something else to be an interim use,the language would already be in
place and only some minor changes to the language would be necessary.
Schoenzeit asked if the structure would need to meet hardcover and setback requirements.
Page
14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Curtis indicated it would.
Leskinen asked if the interim use permit would need to be renewed every year.
Curtis indicated it would depend on the interim use permit as it was approved and what the
conditions are which are placed upon it. Currently Staff is proposing that a termination provision
be contained within the NP.
Feuss noted there was a change in the definition language for historic building and that the word
may has been substituted for shall in the sentence"this may include."
Curtis stated her understanding of the minutes was that the Planning Commission wished that
there be flexibility for the Council to allow these to be included as a historic building. The word
shall does not give that flexibility whereas the word may does.
Feuss stated if the building is on a national, state, or local historical register,there are already
standards in place and so the City Council does not need to reinvent the standard every time.
Schoenzeit if it is on one of those lists,it would accomplish that.
Curtis indicated she will change the definition language back to"this shall include."
Chair Kang opened the public hearing at 8:24 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Kang closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m.
Kang moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#10-3484, City of
Orono,Code Amendment—Historic Buildings,Amend Code Sections 78-1 and 78-1434,to
adopt the proposed IUP standards being recommended by Staff,to change the definition
language to,"This shall include historical buildings..."and to amend the Code to allow for
the exemption of historic buildings in the oversized accessory building table. VOTE:
Ayes 5,Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
8. Report of Planning Commission Representatives Attending City Council Meetings
on August 23,2010,and September 13,2010
Leskinen reported on the August 23rd City council meeting,noting that the ordinance banning
tobacco use in City-owned parks and other recreational areas was passed. A number of the items
were placed on the Consent Agenda,but there was considerable discussion relating to the Old
Crystal Bay Road traffic study and the City's options for addressing the traffic on Old Crystal
Bay Road.
Page
15
. . , .
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 20,2010
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Kang stated at the September 13`�'Council meeting the Comprehensive Plan was approved.
There was also considerable discussion regarding the Metropolitan Livable Communities
program and whether the City should participate in that program. Kang noted the Metropolitan
Council sets the housing goals for the City and there some discussion on whether the City can
propose its own goals.
The City Council also discussed the 2011 tax levy and budget,with a proposed 1.74 percent
increase for the employees.
9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Gaffron stated the hardcover ordinance that Commissioner Schoenzeit likely was referring to
earlier is the ordinance requiring that the plans account for all hardcover necessary for future
garages, decks and other structures. Gaffron noted with the codification of the hardcover
ordinance that was passed approximately one year ago,when a building pernut comes in,the
hardcover calculations must include items that are not being proposed to be built. The plans
must contain hardcover for a two-car garage, a driveway that meets City minimum standards, a
24-inch sidewalk from the front door to the street or the driveway, and a necessary landing at an
exterior door. The intent is not for the City to be requiring those amenities to be built but the
intent is to prevent the builder from maxing out the hardcover and then the property owner
coming in later asking for additional hardcover.
10. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 27,2010,AND OCTOBER 11,2010
September 27,2010—Feuss
October 11,2010—Leskinen
ADJOURNMENT
Kang moved,Leskinen seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at
8:35 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0
`'"� � G�^
Kim Kang, Chair
Page
16