HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/20/2012 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
ROLL CALL
The Orono Flanning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Loren Schoenzeit Commissioners Lizz Levang,Jon Schwingler,Bruce Lemke,Denise Leskinen,
Kevin Landgraver, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator for Long-
Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,and Recorder Jackie
Young. City Council Member Cynthia Bremer was present.
Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
Lemke moved,Schwingler seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,
Nays 0.
*1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 16,2012
Lemke moved,Schwingler seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission
meeting of July 16,2012,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
NEW BUSINESS
2. #12-3568 JIM SMITH OF CONCEPT LANDSCAPING ON EHALF OF WILLIAM AND
ANITA ROUSE,4051 HIGHWOOD ROAD,VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
6:32 P.M.-6:38 P.M.
Jim Smith, Concept Landscaping,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting hardcover variances within the 0-75 foot zone in order to remove
and replace the lake yard stair. A conditional use permit is also required as the amount of disturbance in
the 0-75 foot zone exceeds 10 cubic yards.
The applicants would like to reconstruct and reconfigure their lake access stair system to make it safer
and allow for better screening from the lake. The current stairway is approximately 20 inches wide. The
lake access stair hardcover is allowed hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. However,the new stair
configuration will increase hardcover by 251 square feet and must be reviewed and approved as a
variance. The hardcover will increase from 14.5 percent to 16.2 percent. The increase is the result of
widening the stair to the code-allowed 4-foot width.
In addition,the applicant is proposing earth movement exceeding 10 cubic yards within 75 feet of the
lake,which requires a conditional use permit. Although the applicant's grading activity is very minimal
and may not quite trigger the conditional use permit requirements, Staff feels it would be appropriate to
follow the conditional use permit review analysis. The City Engineer has reviewed the plans from a
stability and safety perspective and has generally approved the applicant's plans. The public hearing
should address any additional non-engineering related concerns regarding erosion prevention or
stabilization of slope,natural re-vegetation and appearance from the lake, excess hardcover and impacts
to adjacent properties.
Page 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CONiMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Staff finds the applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties specific to the topography of the lot and in
the orientation,width and condition of the existing staircase. Staff supports granting the 0-75 foot zone
hardcover variance and a conditional use permit to allow construction of the new stairway to the lake.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted,will not alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts
created by the granting of the requested variances?
4. Does the commission find there are additional conditions which should be placed upon the
conditional use permit approval?
Lemke asked whether there would be mulch or fabric under the landscaping.
Jim Smith, Concept Landscaping, stated all of the plantings will have hardwood bark shredded mulch.
Schoenzeit asked what conditions Staff would like imposed.
Curtis stated an administrative land permit and stair permit is required as part of the permitting process.
The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and Staff would request that his recommendations be
incorporated into the approval. The applicant has been in contact with the City Engineer and understands
the parameters.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:35 p.m.
Schoenzeit stated the plan is an improvement from what currently exists.
Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3568,Jim
Smith of Concept Landscaping on behalf of William and Anita Rouse,4051 Highwood Road,
granting of a hardcover variance and conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
3. #12-3569 CHRIS JANSSEN OF MII,LS CONSTRUCTION,LLC,ON BEHAL OF JASON
WILSEY,990 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:38 P.M.—6:47
P.M.
Chris Janssen,Mills Construction, and Jason Wilsey,Applicant,were present.
Page 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
. 6:30 o'clock p.m. ,
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a guest apartment to be
incorporated into the design of the proposed home. The subject property was platted in 2005 and is
located in the RR-1B rural residential zoning district and consists of two acres in area. The property has
been vacant since 2005. The property owner is proposing to construct a new residence on the currently
vacant property. In addition the property owner would like to construct a guest aparhnent within the
proposed home to function as a private space for visiting family. Because the guest apartment is proposed
to have its own separate exterior door, a conditional use permit is required.
The non-rental guest aparhnent provisions in the zoning code allow for two types of guest apartments: an
apartment with a door to the outside and an aparhnent without a door to the outside. According to the
zoning code,a guest aparhnent must be physically connected to the home and access to the aparhnents in
all cases must be primarily through the principal structure and not via a separate"front door." If an
additional door is provided which accesses directly to the outside of the home,a conditional use permit is
required.
Curtis noted plans depicting the correct layout of the proposed home have been distributed tonight.
Prior to applying for a building permit the applicant approached Planning Staff with questions regarding
the design o the proposed home which included a guest apartment for extended family. Upon review of
the proposed plans,Planning Staff felt the design did not conform to the traditional guest aparhnent
layout in that the home appeared to be a duplex. The property is zoned for a single-family dwelling and a
duplex is not permitted. Staff recommended the applicant redesign his plans to eliminate the "duplex
feel." As a result,the applicant has provided modifications to the design to better define the spaces and
the intent. Due to the proposed exterior patio door at the rear of the home, a conditional use permit is still
required.
As the lot exceeds 1.99 acres in area,the structural coverage limitations do not apply. The property is
also located outside of the Shoreland Overlay District so hardcover restrictions do not apply. The City's
septic manager will review and must approve the proposed septic design for the proposed home which
includes all bedrooms and the guest apartment prior to issuance of a building permit. The owner will be
required to follow the covenants outlined for the guest aparhnent as part of the conditional use permit
approval.
Planning Staff finds the proposed guest apartment meets the 15 conditions outlined in City Code Section
78-916 regarding issuance of conditional use permits. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
permit for the proposed guest aparhnent subject to the following conditions: the service door between the
garage and the guest aparhnent must be completely eliminated;the guest apartment shall be utilized
solely for non-paying guests or domestic employees;the guest aparhnent shall not be addressed separately
from the principal residence; and the guest apartment shall not have separate utilities.
Schoenzeit asked what recourse the City would have against the property owner if the guest apartment
was ever rented out.
Curtis stated it would become an enforcement issue and the City would need to sue the property owner to
enforce the conditions. Curtis indicated the covenant lays out parameters for how the aparhnent can be
used.
Page 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Schoenzeit commented the enforcement is on the City's nickel and asked if the City can recoup those
prosecution fees.
Curtis indicated the City is unable to collect that type of fee. The City prosecutes code violations
criminally and the City is unable to collect those costs. The covenants filed on the chain of title gives the
City leverage for enforcement in the future.
Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission grants the conditional use permit,whether that would be
filed with the property.
Curtis indicated it would be.
Landgraver asked if the conditions of approval would be disclosed to the new property owner.
Curtis stated the covenants and any approval resolution would follow the chain of title. The City would
need to participate in removal of the conditional use permit to have it o�cially removed from the chain of
title.
Chris Janssen,Mills Construction, stated Staff has conveyed their concerns and adjustments have been
made to the plans to accommodate those concerns. Janssen requested the Planning Commission approve
the application tonight.
Landgraver asked if the applicant has any objections to the recommendations of Staff.
Janssen stated they had a concern with closing off the access to the garage in case of an emergency. The
area in the lower level is a weather shelter. If there is need to access the severe weather shelter,the only
way to access it would be to go around the house. By closing off the door,that might potentially create a
safety issue. Janssen stated their main goal is to be in compliance.
Janssen pointed out the storm room on the overhead.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.
Landgraver noted his questions were more directed at what could happen in the event the property is sold.
Schoenzeit stated this situation is similar to an office rental type of situation and that the Planning
Commission has to ensure that all the appropriate City regulations are complied with.
Curtis noted the building plans would be reviewed at the time of issuance of the building permit.
Levang moved,Schwingler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3569,Chris
Janssen of Mills Construction,LLC,on behalf of Jason Wilsey,990 North Shore Drive West,
granting of a conditional use permit,subject to the 15 conditions set forth in Staff s report. VOTE:
Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Page 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
4. ROOSTERS—POTENTIAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT,6:47 P.M.—7:20 P.M.
Gaffron stated the City has received a small number of complaints about roosters in the City,which
prompted the City Council to clirect Staff to review the situation. The request from Staff is for the
Planning Commission to review the issue of roosters and potential problems that can arise.
The matter has been published for a public hearing. However, Staff is recommending that the City only
adopt an ordinance that is part of the animal chapter of the municipal code and not the zoning code.
Because it deals with the animal chapter,the Planning Commission is not technically required to hold a
public hearing but Staff would recommend that one be held tonight.
Gaffron noted this issue was discussed at the Planning Commission's recent work session and one
property owner was in attendance. Gaffron stated it is common knowledge that roosters can be noisy. In
the City's five acre zoning districts, it might not be a problem,but they can cause problems on the small
lots. Included in the information is an excerpt from the City's zoning code on how the demographics of
the City have been slowly changing over the years.
Orono's zoning code reads as follows: "The City is growing in population from a rural agricultural
� community to a rural residential community. Use of land for residential purposes is considered primary
with other uses viewed as supporting this use. While present commercial or industrial activity,where
consistent with residential use and other guiding principles,will be protected by ordinance or conditional
use permit, it is not the intention to expand or allow all such commercial or industrial activity to a degree
where it conflicts with the primary residential use and the other guiding principles. The continued use of
land for farming and similar purposes will be protected by ordinance or conditional use permit where
sufficient acreage allows such use to continue without conflict with expanding residential use."
Gaffron indicated he is aware of one prior situation in the past ten years involving a rooster. The
complaint was from a neighbor that was located approximately 300 to 500 feet from the rooster. The
roosters eventually went away and it was no longer a problem.
In looking at the issue,the City's existing code sections related to chickens and roosters are as follows:
1. Chickens are farm animals by definition.
2. The code does not distinguish between chickens(hens)and roosters;they are all defined as
fowl.
3. Fowls are allowed in the 2-acre and 5-acre Rural Residential Districts as an accessory use.
4. Fowls are allowed in the Lakeshore Residential 1/2-acre, 1-acre, and 2-acre districts and in the
RS District as a conditional use,requiring a CUP.
5. The number of fowl allowed is based on the size of the property. The minimum acreage for
farm animals is at least one acre for the dwelling and one additional acre for each animal unit.
6. One animal unit is equivalent to 50 fowl under Orono code. Therefore, a 2-acre lot would be
allowed 50 fowl; a 3-acre lot would be allowed 100 fowl; a 4-acre lot would be allowed 150, etc.
Page 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
7. Structures for housing of animals, including fowl,must be 75 feet from neighboring lot lines
and 150 feet from neighboring residence structures.
8. Animal noise such as crowing that occurs repeatedly for more than five minutes at intervals of
less than one minute is considered a noise violation.
It should be noted that the general noise ordinance regulations contained within Chapter 58: Environment
of the municipal code do not address animal noise.
Landgraver asked if a property owner would be allowed 50 roosters on a 2-acre property.
Gaffron indicated they would be.
Thiesse asked if the rooster in question meets the structure location requirement.
Gaffron stated he is unsure at this point. The Community Service Officer(CSO)has reviewed the site.
Thiesse stated in his view that would be important to know because if the rooster is not in compliance,the
City could require the rooster to go.
Gaffron noted this particular situation is currently in litigation and that the outcome at this point is
uncertain. The City does have a violation enforcement process in place,which is being followed.
Thiesse asked why the City would not prosecute under the noise ordinance.
Gaffron stated the way the City Attorney has to determine if it a noise violation is if it is in excess of five
minutes and not more than one minute apart. The CSO has spent a lot of time dealing with that. If the
City were to prosecute based purely on location, it is likely they would move the chicken coop and not
solve the problem.
Landgraver noted there is no requirement that the fowl must be kept in that structure so the fowl could be
let out and be able to go to the property line.
Schoenzeit stated there is an option as to whether roosters should be dealt with under the zoning code or
under the animal code,and asked if the City chooses to go under the animal section,whether the rooster
in question would be grandfathered.
Gaffron stated if the ordinance is approved under the zoning ordinance,existing roosters would be
grandfathered, but under the animal section it would not be grandfathered.
Leskinen asked if the City wants to go down the path of changing an ordinance based on complaints from
one or two neighbors when they have not historically had a lot of complaints regarding this situation.
Gaffron stated he is in agreement but that Staff has been directed by the City Council to take a look at the
situation. If the conclusion is that, no,the City should not,then they are back to the City Attorney dealing
with the situation under the regulations currently in place.
Schoenzeit noted neither of the parties are in attendance tonight. •
Page 6
MINUTES OF THE
� ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Gaffron stated the City has not attempted to determine who has roosters but that notice of tonight's
meeting has been published in the local newspaper and posted. Gaffron noted this would be a city-wide
ordinance.
Thiesse commented he personally is aware of three people who have roosters that would be affected by
this ordinance.
Schoenzeit questioned whether the City gives the CSO sufficient tools to deal with the rooster,and that he
has a concern the CSO will not be able to deal with the situation due to being insufficiently equipped.
Schoenzeit commented it is a responsibility of the City to address that.
Gaffron stated he specifically asked the City Attorney whether the ordinance should be changed and that
he was comfortable with not doing anything or banning roosters totally. The recommendation of the City
Attorney was to wait until the lawsuit was completed.
Levang stated she did visit the property and that the minute she opened her car door,the rooster started
crowing,which she found to be unpleasant. Levang noted that John Thiesse knows of a rooster in his
neighborhood and that she also hears crowing in her yard,which she finds slightly irritating when she is
outside.
Thiesse noted there is a wetland between her and the location of the rooster. Thiesse pointed out that
someone can hear a train even though they do not live right next to the tracks. Thiesse stated he would
not,however,want that rooster outside his window and that there can be problems with people having
roosters.
Schoenzeit stated roosters can also go on top of fences and inside structures,which can be a problem.
Levang stated she would not want to hear the rooster 24/7.
Schoenzeit noted there are other cities that have banned roosters.
Thiesse pointed out the City of Minneapolis allows roosters. Thiesse stated in his view this is a noise
issue but that the City should not ban roosters.
Schoenzeit asked whether the City's noise ordinance could be tightened.
Gaffron stated the City's ordinance matches the state's ordinance and that they would not be able to
change it.
Landgraver asked whether other cities regulate roosters through zoning or through noise ordinances.
Gaffron stated the City Attorney has provided a sample ordinance from another city and that he would not
recommend adoption of all sections of the ordinance. If you deal with this situation under the zoning
section,the rooster would be grandfathered in;whereas, if it is deal with under the animal section,the
rooster does not have to be grandfathered in. Gaffron stated Staff also does not want to pursue licensing
of roosters and other animals.
Page 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated licensing roosters would not be practical.
Gaffron noted there are a number of cities that do ban roosters. In March of this year, Shorewood totally
revamped their animal regulations and they banned roosters. At that time Shorewood did a very extensive
review of their ordinance and many of the things that were incorporated in their new regulations are
things that Orono already has in place. Staff is not recommending that there is any need to totally change
the animal ordinance.
Schoenzeit stated based on the discussion at the work session, it appears that you can have a successful
chicken operation without a rooster.
Thiesse commented that he did have chickens that pecked themselves to death until a rooster was
included with them. Thiesse stated he would like more research done on that issue.
Levang asked what a successful chicken operation would be.
Schoenzeit stated in his mind a steady supply of eggs and chickens to eat would be a successful operation.
Gaffron asked whether roosters are necessary to lay eggs.
Thiesse indicated they are not but that roosters can be necessary to protect the pecking order.
Landgraver stated the City's guiding principles denote a change from a rural agricultural community to a
rural residential community.
Gaffron stated that statement goes back 30 to 40 years ago. In the 1960s and 1970s, Orono was more of a
farming community. In 1975,the City adopted a new zoning code that established two and five acre
zones. The city fathers recognized at that time that there is a difference between rural residential and
rural agricultural. At the same time,they wanted people to be able to have farm animals. The statement
came down to saying the rural residential takes precedent over rural agriculture for the future as the City
develops,which is why it talks about sufficient acreage. Gaffron stated the City's animal regulations
typically deal with the larger lots.
Lemke asked what would happen with the roosters that currently exist if the City should ban them under
their animal regulations.
Gaffron stated Staff did discuss allowing a period of time for those animals to be phased out and that the
CSO would need to work with the violators after that grace period expires.
Landgraver commented it seems that the City has been gradually evolving and that this does not seem to
be a zoning issue.
Schoenzeit stated in his view any size property could have rooster issues.
Thiesse stated this is the first complaint regarding a rooster in ten years and it revolves around a noise .
issue. Since the current case is moving through the court system and a final decision has not been made
yet,Thiesse indicated he does not see the need to change the City's ordinance at this time pending the
outcome.
Page 8
NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Leskinen stated the City should not change the ordinance based on one complaint. If it did go down the
path where there was a consensus to change the ordinance, she would recommend that the ordinance be
placed in the animal section rather than the zoning code.
Schwingler stated in his view it is not a zoning issue and it is an animal control issue.
Gaffron commented some cities have placed it in the zoning section and others have placed it in the
animal section. The Planning Commission can either make a recommendation to the City Council or
table it for a month to see if the court action is resolved.
Schwingler stated in his view it is not a Planning Commission issue.
Levang stated it does not belong under zoning but rather belongs under the animal section.
Gaffron noted public notice has been given and that the public hearing should be opened.
Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Schoenzeit moved to recommend that regulation of roosters be considered an animal control issue
and not a zoning issue and that the Planning Commission would encourage the City Council to take
no further action on it.
Thiesse stated in his view it is a noise issue and that they can recommend to the Council that the Planning
Commission take no further action on it.
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission has held a public meeting on this and has found it not to be a
zoning issue.
Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council not to do anything.
Schwingler seconded. VOTE: Ayes 7,nays 0.
Leskinen stated it is not the Planning Commission's role to decide an issue that is in the courts.
PLANNING CONIMISSION COMMENTS
5. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending City Council meetings on
July 23,2012 and August 13,2012
Landgraver stated he attended the August 13`�'City Council meeting and that the City Council discussed
at great length the draft hardcover ordinance. Landgraver stated he got the impression that the City
Council is wrestling with how to deal with properties that are adjacent to certain properties within a
Page 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
particular zone and whether they should be lumped together into the same tier. The City Council also
discussed the DNR regulations.
Gaffron stated the DNR regulations do not limit the location of hardcover and that it is merely a
percentage of the entire lot.
Landgraver stated there was also a concern with including the 0-75 foot area and that there was not a
consensus of the City Council regarding the area beyond the 250-foot zone. Landgraver stated Staff was
a little bit frustrated because the Council could not decide definitely yes or no on whether the City should
go with the tier system. The City Council ended up with requesting Staff to do an analysis of some
sample properties under various scenarios.
Gaf&on noted the ordinance was tabled for a month and will be before the City Council on
September 10`h. Ben Gozola will not able to be in attendance at that meeting but will be providing some
information on the criteria for how the properties were determined to be in which tier.
Levang stated the Council also discussed retaining walls and the requirement that the City Engineer
determines whether it is necessary for drainage or for aesthetic purposes. The City Engineer indicated he
would prefer that retaining walls would either be considered hardcover or not considered hardcover.
Landgraver stated there were also a couple of people in attendance who served on the task force who had
expressed some frustrations with the process.
Landgraver noted the City Council did approve the application on Pheasant Road.
Gaffron commented the variance was out of character.
Landgraver stated there should be some feedback to the Planning Commission that lets them know what
the hardship is when they approve an application over the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
City Council Member Bremer stated in her view the Planning Commission made the right
recommendation.
Gaffron stated the fact that the overall hardcover on the lot was 22.5 percent was also a factor in the City
Council's decision. Gaffron stated the City should get something in return for allowing the additional
hardcover and that they should hold to the 25 percent standard.
Bremer stated she has a concern about properly owners who, in the past,worked hard to get their
properties into compliance and that now the rules are changing. The City should have a strong reason for
either changing it or staying the same. Bremer indicated she also would like the ordinance to be voted on
by all five council members.
Gaffron indicated it is StafPs intent is to have additional information to the City Council for their work
session.
Bremer stated she is not sure whether the City Council gave definite direction to pursue the tier option at
the beginning of this process.
Page
10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday,August 20,2012
6:30 o'clock p.m.
Levang stated she attended the July 23`d City Council meeting and that the Council discussed an issue
with deteriorating light poles throughout Orono. The City is looking at replacing those and perhaps
obtaining a grant to help with the costs.
Gaffron stated the City is considering replacing them with a different type of light fixture.
Levang stated it was also brought up that this might be a good opportunity to improve the appearance of
the lighting in the Navarre area.
Levang noted she will be attending the meeting on August 28�'at 6:00 at the Freshwater Institute
regarding pedestrian safety being hosted by Hennepin County.
6. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Curtis noted the Planning Commission will be meeting at Lord Fletcher's on Thursday at 3:45 p.m.,for
the boat tour.
ADJOURNMENT
Thiesse moved,Leskinen seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 7:47
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
��-�,..� � I� Se '�' 2-� ��
Loren Schoenzeit, Chair
Page
11