Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2013 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Loren Schoenzeit,Commissioners Bruce Lemke,Denise Leskinen, and Kevin Landgraver. Representing Staff were Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Mayor Lili McMillan was present. Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Item Nos. 3,4, and 7 were added to the Consent Agenda. Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. , ; *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 19, 2012 Lemke moved,Lesldnen seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of November 19,2012, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS , 2. 12-3582 COLSON CUSTOM HOMES ON BEHALF OF BWB HOLDINGS,4731 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE,6:33 P.M.—6:52 P.M. . Rodney Colson with Colson Custom Homes was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lot area, lot width, side, street setback and bluff setback variances in order to construct a new single-family residence. The variances requested are generally consistent with a previous approval for the property that has expired. Curtis stated in 2006, a number of variances were granted for both the subject property and the � neighboring properly to the east at 4725 North Shore Drive in order to complete a lot line rearrangement and a vacation combining three lots into two lots. The home on the neighboring lot was constructed in 2007 by the developer. Due to some typographical errors in the resolution that the City filed with the county,Hennepin County returned it to the City for corrections. Prior to the certificate of occupancy being issued,both properties went into foreclosure and returned to the bank. In 2010,the bank removed the 2006 approvals in order to resolve the issues with the resolutions and sell'the properties separately. The applicant wishes to construct a home with a nearly identical plan as was originally approved in 2006. � This plan requires lot area,lot width, side and street setback and bluff setback variances. In 2006, hardcover variances were granted. However, due to the City's recently revised hardcover regulations,this proposal fits into the allowed 25 percent for Tier 1 properties so the hardcover variance is no longer being requested. The property abuts a 30-foot wide undeveloped street right-of-way. The previous variance Page 1 of 18 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. approval reflected an allowed side street setback of 13 feet. The applicant is requesting a 10-foot setback from the right-of-way to allow for a more functional garage given the limited driveway on the property. In 2006,the bluff was shown 24 feet from the corner of the proposed home,which is outside the bluff impact zone but still within the 30-foot setback. The applicant provided a revised survey today showing the top of bluff and it appears to be consistent with the previous survey. The proposed home is consistent with the previously approved plan. Due to the other constraints of the property,the proposed site for the new home may still be the best location. The top of bluff is 19 feet from the proposed deck. Staff would suggest that the deck be relocated or redesigned to have the least amount of encroachment into the bluff setback area. Staff finds that the practical difficulties that the 2006 approvals were based on still exist with the property. It may be appropriate to reconfigure this deck to reduce the degree of encroachment into the setback. Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. The applicant should address all recommendations of the City Engineer with the building permit application. Curtis illustrated the proposed plan on the overhead and pointed out the location of the street elevation, the front door and side loading garage. Staff has performed an analysis of the elevation and the house does fit into the defined height requirement. Landgraver asked where the deck is located. Curtis pointed out the location of the proposed deck on the northwest elevation. Curtis noted a patio is also shown on the plan. Rodney Colson, Colson Custom Homes, stated he would be happy to answer any questions the Planning Commission may have. Landgraver asked whether the applicant would be willing to redesign the deck. Colson indicated he is willing to adjust the size of the deck some. The deck is located on the alley side so it will have minimal impact to the neighboring property. Colson stated he could pull it back to match the house setback. Schoenzeit asked if the applicant is willing to make those changes. Colson stated he would be. Leski.nen indicated her only concern was with regard to the deck. Chair Schoenzeit open the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. � John Roedel,4725 North Shore Drive, asked if the patio and the deck both being approved as part of the resolution. Curtis stated that is what the applicant is requesting. Page 2 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit noted Staff does have an issue with the location of the deck encroaching into the bluff setback line and that the applicant has indicated they are willing to adjust that. The Planni.ng Commission is being asked to approve a bluff setback variance. � Roedel asked if the amount of hardcover and structural coverage being requested is the maximum amount allowed. Schoenzeit stated the amount of hardcover and structural coverage being requested should match what is eventually constructed. Curtis noted the applicant is allowed 15 percent structural coverage and 25 percent hardcover. The patio is set back 17 feet and extends 3 feet into the bluff impact zone. Curtis recommended the Planning Commission also recommend the patio be reoriented so it is outside the bluff impact zone. Schoenzeit asked if the applicant is okay with reorienting the patio. Colson indicated he would be. Colson noted that the patio is optional at this point and no decisions have been made regarding size. Schoenzeit stated the recommendation of the Planning Commission would be that the patio be reoriented to be outside the bluff impact zone. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Schoenzeit stated as long as the motion includes reorienting the deck and patio,he would be inclined to approve it. Leskinen asked if the size of the patio is a problem or the orientation. Curtis indicated it is the corner of the patio that is into the bluff impact zone. Leski.nen asked if they are within their hardcover limits. Curtis indicated they are. Schoenzeit stated he would encourage the applicant to work with Staff to develop an acceptable orientation of the deck. Curtis stated she would prefer the Planni.ng Commission provide direction to the applicant on whether they would be okay with the deck extending out the same distance as the house. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3582,Colson Custom Homes on Behalf of BWB Holdings,4731 North Shore Drive,granting of lot area,lot width, street setback and bluff setback variances in order to construct a new single-family residence,with the condition that the deck e�tend no further into the bluff setback than the house and with the condition that the proposed patio does not encroach into the bluff impact zone. 5.� Page 3 of 18 � MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis noted there are two separate setback issues. The bluff impact setback is at 20 feet,which is what the patio is encroaching, and the bluff setback of 30 feet. The house currently encroaches and sits at 23 or 24 feet and the deck is at 19 feet. Landgraver noted the house has previously been approved with that encroachment and that the motion would only allow the deck to extend as far out as the house. Curtis asked if it is the intent of the Planning Commission for the patio to be outside of the 20-foot bluff impact zone. Schoenzeit stated the patio should be adjusted to be outside the bluff impact zone. Landgraver noted the neighbor most impacted by this proposal has had an opportunity tonight to discuss his concerns. Roedel asked whether the large tree by the driveway would be removed. Colson indicated it is his intent to take whatever measures possible in an attempt to save the tree but that he is unsure at this point whether the tree can be saved since the property has not been staked. Curtis noted it appears the wall is intended to go around the tree and that it is located outside of the zone where trees aze protected. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *3. 12-3583 CARL AND ANDREA RHAME,3245 WATERTOWN ROAD,VARIANCES Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3583,Carl and Andrea Rhame,3245 Watertown Road,granting of hardcover and setback variances in order to construct a new garage. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *4. 12-3588 WIPO HOMES ON BEHALF OF JUSTIN AND SUSAN KELLY,2990 SUSSEX ROAD,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Lemke moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve Application 12-3588,WIPO Homes on behalf of Justin and Susan Kelly,2990 Sussez Road,granting of a conditional use permit in order to install a shower in a newly constructed pool cabana. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 5. 12-3589 BAUER DESIGN,INC.,ON BEHALF OF PINE CORNER PROPERTIES,450 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, SITE PLAN,6:53 P.M.—7:19 P.M. Mike Bauer,Bauer Design,Inc.,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting industrial site plan approval with a conditional use permit and variances to authorize expansion/restoration of the existing vacant industrial building and parking lot modifications at 450 Old Crystal Bay Road North.The applicants are proposing to construct a small,infill addition onto the southwest end of the existing buildi.ng. The applicants propose to construct the addition Page 4 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. with the saxne faqade materials and color scheme as the existing building,with the intent to have visually seamless facades that will appear to have been part of the original construction. The Crystal Bay Business Center was platted in 2007. JEM purchased and occupied the building at 550 Old Crystal Bay Road in 2011-2013. They recently purchased the existing metal buildings at 450 Old Crystal Bay Road North in order to relocate their machine shop operations. JEM now requests industrial site plan approval in order to continue improving the site's parking areas,construct an addition and modifications to the existing building. The site plan approval includes a conditional use permit for deferment of the number of required parking stalls with a variance due to location and a setback variance .for the proposed parking area to the building. JEM entered into an agreement to purchase 550, concurrently working with Ryan and the City to replat 450 and 550,making SSO longer and 450 shorter with the intent to expand the building at 550 southward. This left 450 with a lot that was substandard in area to support the amount of parking required by code for the existing old warehouse building. The intent was that this old building would be removed, and a new, smaller building eventually be constructed meeting all City requirements. After gaining City approvals for its expansion of 550,JEM later deternuned that the expansion was not financially feasible. However,JEM also concluded that the existing old warehouse at 450 would serve their space needs if renovated. In December,2012,the City Council approved a conditional use permit authorizing JEM to use alternative exterior finish materials to improve the building and continue the existing color scheme for the Crystal Bay Business Center. The renovation of the existing building at 450, on what is now a lot that is too small to allow all code requirements to be met, only makes sense in the context of TEM's ownership of both sites and the sharing of parking, etc.,that makes this industrial campus function. Parki.ng stalls will be created along the Old Crystal Bay Road side of the building in a similar fashion as the lot to the north. City Code requires parking stalls that serve the building to be located on the same lot as the principal use. JEM is proposing to construct 39 stalls and requests a conditional use permit for deferment of parking for the remainder of the required spaces. City Code Section 78-827(� states that a reduction in the number of required parking stalls may be permitted by a conditional use permit provided that certain conditions are met. Curtis noted the City's parking ordinance does not take into consideration the type of facility and that a fully automated manufacturing facility would likely require less parking stalls than a retail operation. City Code states that"in no case shall the amount of parking provided be less than one-half of the amount of parking required by the ordinance."The applicant is proposing to construct only 39 of the required 101 spaces. The conditional use permit requires at least 50 spaces be constructed. A variance will be needed to allow the proposed number of parking stalls. Since the property owner also owns the adjacent property to the north, a portion of which is currently vacant, open space is available for future parking development. . Curtis noted the applicant has provided information that indicates a maximum of 31 parking stalls is required. Currently the day shift has 24 employees and the evening shift has seven employees.Both shifts on the weekends have six employees each. Page 5 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Due to the location of the existing building and the proximity to Old Crystal Bay Road North,the proposed parking area is set back six feet from the existing building where a 10-foot setback from the building is required and the 20-foot setback from Old Crystal Bay Road will be met. The variance requested may be reasonable due to the existing conditions. The parking areas as designed do not incorporate the required number of landscaped islands(1 per 20 stalls). Parking lot grades are proposed to conform to the 4 percent slope limit. All parking and drivi.ng areas are proposed to be paved as required. Due to the reduced number of constructed parking stalls,the applicant should address the anticipated snow storage or removal needs in order to ensure that the necessary number of parking spaces is available at all times during the year. In addition,the applicant is proposing to create an access for loading and pazking via the 550 Old Crystal Bay Road North property and easements should be granted for these access uses. The future modifications to remove the extra wide paved area and replace with lawn and trees on the south side of the property are not proposed until Orono Industrial Boulevard is constructed. Orono Industrial Boulevard is not expected to be constructed unless or until either the vacant site south of Orono Industrial Boulevard is developed or Morrie Wagener's property to the east is developed. The intent of the original Crystal Bay Business Center plat was that shared access would be maintained between and among the three lots lying between Orono Industrial Boulevard and Wayzata Boulevard via access easements so that all three lots would have access to Orono Industrial Boulevard,Wayzata Boulevard,and Old Crystal Bay Road. Those easements will be required to be retained whether or not actual access drives are constructed at this time. The applicants have proposed to continue the style and scheme of the landscaping plan currently in place on the SSO lot. Additional trees were required to be incorporated into the plan as a result of the conditional use permit for the alternative building materials. The minimum tree requirement for this property based on City Code is 60 trees. As part of the conditional use permit for alternative architectural materials, an additional 10 trees were required for a total of 70 trees. The applicant's current plan indicates 66 trees,including the 10 future trees on the south side of the building when the hardcover is removed from this area. Upon further review of the plan and the chart,it appears the transplanted trees were counted twice. The applicant is working on correcting the tree count as well as providing a plan for the landscaping to meet the City's goals of additional screening/beautification and balance the limited amount of space on the property. It appears the additional trees requested with the conditional use permit may not be feasible due to the available area on the property. The screening proposed along the west side of the new driveway entrance and along the west lot boundary parking area,will provide screening/buffering for that parking area and for the building. Some of that screening is proposed to be on the south part of the SSO lot. The applicant is proposing that all exterior wall lighting and pole lighting will be shielded luminaries and their lighting plan indicates there will be little,if any, light spillage outside the property boundaries. The wall signage being proposed is well within the limit of 5 percent of faqade wa11 area allowed for wall signage. The applicant has not identified locations for exterior placement of dumpsters and should clarify the proposed trash location. If the applicant proposes an exterior location for dumpsters or recycling Page 6 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. containers,the Planning Commission should assure the location will be out of view of the public by vegetative screening or other means. Planning Staff recommends approval of the site plan,conditional use permit for parking determent and setback variance for the parking deferment and setback variance for the parking area subject to compliance with all pertinent Code requirements and subject to satisfactorily addressing the issues raised by the City Engineer prior to Council review. Schoenzeit commented it makes sense that an automated factory would require less parking. Schoenzeit asked whether a covenant would be required to cover future parking needs. Curtis indicated a condition would be included in the resolution requiring additional pazking be provided if the need arises. Curtis stated the City can revisit the issue if parking becomes a problem and the Planning Commission could also require the applicant to illustrate on their plans where future parking would be provided. Leskinen asked what the previous parking situation was like. Curtis indicated there currently is a wide access on the south side of the buildi.ng from a driveway off of Old Crystal Bay Road. Orono Industrial Boulevard is not developed at this point. Curtis noted there is a big area in the back of the building that could be utilized for some parking and that the rest of the area would be grass. Leskinen stated if additional parking is required in the future,where that would be located. Curtis stated there is an area on the south portion of the 550 property that could be utilized for parking. Leskinen asked what would happen if the properties came under separate ownership at some point. Curtis noted the conditional use permit runs with the land and that the easements being recommended would be for access and parking. Curtis stated she would need to speak with the City Attorney about deferment parking if the properties came under separate ownership. Leskinen noted this property is not zoned for retail. Lemke asked if it would make sense to deed over the 550 property. Curtis indicated she does not have the answer to that question tonight and would need to speak to the City Attomey about what the best steps to take would be. Curtis indicated she would take the Planning Commission's concerns to the City Council as well. Leskinen stated overall the proposed improvements are outstanding and is a great addition to the area. Landgraver asked if all three properties are intended to have access on to Industrial Boulevaxd. Curtis indicated access would be provided via cross easements. Curtis noted the building has access to the parking lot and when the road is developed,the stub can be opened. Page 7 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COIVIlVIISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked if it would be better to set a definite date for when the parking issue is revisited. Curtis stated she would not recommend a set date,and as long as the applicant is in compliance with the conditional use permit, Staff would not revisit the parking issue. Once the applicant becomes noncompliant with their conditional use permit,it would be revisited. Curtis commented it would be difficult for staff to know if parking is an issue unless they started parking on the road. Landgraver noted the Planning Commission discussed the location of the dumpsters at the time of the original application and asked if Staff lrnows the location of the dumpsters. Curtis indicated she inadvertently forgot to ask the applicant where the dumpsters would be located and that the applicant will need to address that. Mike Bauer,Bauer Design, stated as it relates to the landscaping plan,there is a loading dock in the northeast corner of the building and there will be two enclosed dumpsters that will be utilized for recycling of ferrous and nonferrous materials and another dumpster for trash. The dumpsters will be screened from Old Crystal Bay Road. Landgraver commented the proposal is a huge improvement over what currently exists on the site and that the City is happy to have JEM Technical in the community. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. There were no public comments regardi.ng this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Schoenzeit noted the future parking is dependent on both properties being owned by the same entity and that Staff should discuss the best way to handle the parking issue in the future. Leskinen stated if the conditional use permit contains a condition that requires future parking to be revisited,that should help deal with the issue and eliminate the concem. Bauer stated in his view a cross easement would be the best option. Landgraver stated a triggering event for the parking could be if either of the two properties come under different ownership. Landgraver noted the other Planning Commissioners have not had the benefit of seeing the proposed exterior materials and that they are a significant improvement. Curtis indicated the exterior building materials consist of a stucco-looking material which will be placed over approximately 80 percent of the building and the rest of the building will consist of a rock or brick faqade. Curtis noted E�chibit E lists the building materials and the colors will be consistent with the other building in the area. Lemke asked until Orono Industrial Boulevard is constructed,what would happen to the south of the building. Page 8 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the area will remain as it is currently. Curtis noted a portion of it will remain grass once the road is constructed. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3589,Bauer Design,Inc.,on behalf of Pine Corner Properties,450 Old Crystal Bay Road North,subject to staff recommendations and the condition that a cross easement or other agreement be entered into in order to deal with future parking considerations if one or both properties come under different ownership. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 6. 12-3586 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING CODE—CODE AMENDMENTS REGARDING ANIMALS,7:20 P.M.—8:10 P.M. Curtis noted this application initially was a pair of housekeeping text amendments to Sections 78-394, 78- �419, and 78-443 regarding the keeping of farm animals as an accessory use in Rural Residential Districts. The revision would eliminate language that was inadvertently added via Ordinance 82,Third Series,in December of 2010, suggesting a conditional use permit is needed for this accessory use in RR districts; and Section 78-566 correcting a cross-reference to the list of accessory uses in the RS Seasonal Recreational District which was not corrected when Ordinance 90 Third Series was adopted in December, 2011. At the December 10,2012,City Council meeting tabled the amendment and directed Staff to broaden its scope to additionally address two animal-related topics: 1. Define a process and/or provide guidelines for Council's use of its discretion in determining whether or when to allow horse pasture requirements to be reduced; and 2. Review and address the issue of how many chickens or fowl can be harbored on a residential property;the inference being that current code defining 50 chickens as one animal unit coupled with one animal unit allowed per acre may be excessive. Curtis stated while the text language has been restructured slightly since 1975,the basic elements have not changed. The following are a few key concepts that should be reinforced: 1. At least three acres are required to have a horse,of which two acres must be open pasture. This means that most properties developed in Orono's 2-acre zone in the past 35 to 40 years cannot have a horse. 2. Only two acres are required to have animals other than horses: "There must be at least one acre for the dwelling and one acre for each animal unit." The code previous indicated this non- dwelling acre is"in aggregate"but it has never stated for such non-horse animals that this acre must be pasture. The question of fractional animal units should be answered. On a 1.9 acre lot,there are two potential - interpretations of the code: - One cannot have any farm animals; or - One can have 0.9 anixnal unit. Page 9 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. On a 2.0 acre lot(via a CUP in LR districts and simply as an allowed accessory use in RR districts)one can have a cow, or a steer,or a donkey,or a burro, or three sheep,or fifty fowl,or some undefined number of other farm animals. The Zoning Code definition of"Animal unit"in its assignment of"number of animals per animal unit" does not address all the animals listed in the Zoning Code definition of"farm animals." The definition of farm animals means cattle,horses,mules, sheep,goats,llamas, alpacas, swine,ponies, ducks,geese, turkeys, chickens, guinea hens and honeybees. Curtis noted the City does not have in the Code a standard for how many pygmy goats or pot-bellied pigs or llamas or alpacas or ostriches or emus comprise an animal unit even though most of those animals have been in Orono at one time or another. Staff's fall-back administrative position has been to use MN Department of Agriculture standards for animal units based typically on comparing animal weight and manure production,but this does not necessarily address the many other reasons the City may want to limit the numbers of a certain animal species. In addition,MDA standards would often result in many more animals per animal unit than Orono Code allows. The existing code sections related to chickens 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. Fowl are allowed in the 2-acre and 5-acre Rural Residential districts as an accessory use. 4. Fowl are allowed in e Lakeshore Residential%2-acre, 1-acre, and 2-acre districts and in the RS district as a conditional use. 5. The number of fowl allowed is based on the size of the property. The minimum acreage for farm ani.mals 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, etc. 7. Structures for housing of animals,including fowl,must be 75 feet from neighboring lot lines and 150 feet from neighboring residence structures. The issue of urban chickens has become a hot topic in recent years among cities in the metro area. City ordinances on the topic of chickens are quite varied. Brooklyn Park has recently denied its residents from having chickens. Orono has not faced with requests for or complaints about chickens in our more urban areas. Staff suggests that our review concentrate on the basic topic of appropriate numbers in the more rural areas where animals are allowed in Orono. Staff is not prepared to recommend a specific number of chickens that should be allowed per acre or for a given lot size or pasture acreage at this time. Staff is also not prepared to recommend a specific revision to the number of chickens that comprise an animal unit. In order to help establish a new standard for how Page 10 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. many chickens is correct for a given properly,the Planning Commission may want to consider the following: 1. Does Orono want to place severe restrictions on chickens for any property less than 2 acres in total area within those zones where animals are allowed? 2. Does Orono want to relate the number of chickens to available pasture area or to other site- specific measurable pazameters such as total lot area,location of chicken coop, or chicken run areas relative to neighboring properties? 3. If there is support to reduce the number of chickens allowed on any property regardless of lot size, should that be through, (a)reducing the number of chickens that comprise an animal unit, or(b)reducing the number of animal units allowed for smaller properties? As it relates to pasture acreage for horses, Orono Code since 1968 has stated that where horses are kept stabled without requirement of pasture for feed purposes,the minimum pasture requirement may be reduced at the discretion of the Council. The Code provides no direction as to what factors should be taken into account in determining whether to reduce the pasture requirements,nor does it specify a process for making that decision. The Council has indicated that such factors and process should be established. Staff would suggest that the code-required acreage for horses should not be construed as purely based on the area necessary to grow adequate forage to sustain the animals' nutritional needs and should take the following factors into consideration: 1. Adequate paddock area to avoid creation of a denuded ground surface as a result of grazing and trampling. 2. Sufficient area to manage manure either by active management(accumulation and disposal)or passive management(allowing it to assimilate into the soil surface)to avoid odor and water pollution problems. 3. Adequate area for the horses to be exercised. 4. Sufficient separation from neighboring homes and properties. 5. The long-established code which has created an expectation and/or assurance that horses cannot be kept on a property less than 3 acres in area. This protects our many neighborhoods developed on 2-acre lots. Curtis noted approximately 20 to 25 properties in Orono have horses and/or the facilities in place to keep horses and the majority of those properties are in 2-acre and 5-acre zones. Requests to the City for reductions in pasture acreage for horses are rare,perhaps one every ten years. In order to provide Council with direction as to how to use its discretion in determining when it is appropriate to allow a reduction in pasture acreage, a conditional use permit process may be appropriate. Staff would suggest the Planning Commission consider the following: Should a conditional use permit be required(in any district where horses are allowed)to keep horses with less than the required acreage of Page 11 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. pasture,with the requirement that such a conditional use permit can only be issued if the Council finds that: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that controls are in place to xninimize or intercept and treat runoff from the site consistent with recommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension Services. 2. The applicant submits and shall adhere to an acceptable manure management plan consistent with recommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension Service. 3. The gross site area meets the minimum acreage requirement(3 acres for the first horse,one additional acre for each additional horse) even though the area actually devoted to pasture might not meet those requirements. 4. Structures for housing the horses are located to meet zoning code requirements. 5. All paddock and/or pasture areas where horses are kept are separated by fencing from wetlands and wetland buffers(including existing established buffers and potential future buffers based on Code requirements). Staff would recomxnend the Planning Commission review the provided information, accept public comments, and discuss whether or what additional information would be useful in determining a position regardi.ng the appropriate number of chickens for a given site and possible paraxneters or guidelines for Council to make a decision if a conditional use permit request is presented. Schoenzeit stated laiowing the character of Orono,he would recommend the Planning Commission not consider reducing the requirements for animals in those districts that currently do not allow them. Schoenzeit stated from a humanitarian viewpoint, even though someone could feed them oats,horses should have room to run and graze. Landgraver asked if the state standards require more acreage. Leskinen stated it was her understanding that you had to have a total of three acres in order to have a horse: one acre for the house and two acres of managed pasture. Leskinen asked if the question before the Planning Commission is whether a person should have three acres in total,with two of those being managed pasture, and what is the process the City Council should follow if someone has less than two acres of managed pasture rather than whether a conditional use permit should be allowed for someone who has a total of two acres or less. Curtis stated basically the current code states that in order to have a horse,you have to have an acre for the dwelling and two acres of open pasture for the first horse. When hoses are kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed,the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Curtis stated her understanding of that language is that you have to have one acre for the dwelling and two acres of pasture unless the Council decides you do not have to meet that minimum acreage. Page 12 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Mayor McMillan stated Commissioner Leskinen is correct in stating that you need three acres total for the first horse and that the issue is how the Council should deal with someone who has less than two acres of managed pasture. McMillan stated the City Council had a concern with the language"at the discretion of the Council"and that they did not want to get into that type of a situation. Leskinen stated the question is whether the three acres of land should be maintained. Schoenzeit commented a person who has three acres of land but some of that land is taken up with a swimming pool and other structures would not meet the definition of two acres of managed pasture and probably would not be allowed a horse. Schoenzeit stated he would recommend strongly against lowering the amount of acreage required for pasture. Leskinen stated in her view a conditional use permit would be a good mechanism to deal with individual situations. Mayor McMillan stated with a conditional use permit,you could allow less than the two acres of managed pasture,but that the neighbors might have issues with horses. Landgraver stated in his opinion the person should have to demonstrate how they are going to deal with soil compaction and manure as well as other issues that might arise. Curtis noted Page 6 of Staffls report lists some of the proposed conditions that would need to be met with a conditional use permit and that additional conditions could be imposed based upon the situation. Landgraver indicated he is in agreement that certain conditions should be met prior to being allowed to have a horse on less than two acres of managed pasture and that Staffls list is a good start. Leskinen stated she does not want a conditional use permit to be a possibility for someone who has less than three acres and that she would look at the amount of dedicated pasture. Leskinen noted the conditional use permit runs with the land and that a future owner or neighbor might run into issues. Curtis noted the conditions would still apply. Mayor McMillan noted that Staff is recommending a minimum of three acres in order to have a horse. Curtis stated if the person meets the two acres of managed pasture,it would be an allowed use. Landgraver asked if someone had three acres of land but one and a half acres is woods and not managed pasture,whether that person would be allowed to have a horse. Curtis indicated under the current code they would not be allowed a horse. Leskinen stated at the discretion of council could be changed to a conditional use permit process. Landgraver commented it sounds like the Planning Commission is in agreement that three acres should be required and that anything less than two acres of managed pasture should be required to go through the , conditional use process. Page 13 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated he would strongly recommend that the current language outlining who is not allowed a horse remain as is. Leskinen commented the conditional use process provides some parameters to the City Council and that StafPs report notes that these types of requests are rare. Mayor McMillan commented that a number of the newer people moving into the Orono area tend to want more of an urban setting and that the City should designate areas that are allowed horses. Leskinen asked if the City Council is interested in a minimum of two acres of managed pasture with the Council not having the option to change that. Mayor McMillan indicated that is one option that could be considered. Landgraver stated in his view the City should make a hard stop at two acres of managed pasture and perhaps designating different areas of the City where horses are permitted. Schoenzeit commented if someone has four or five acres but only an acre and a half of managed pasture, they might be encouraged to cut down the trees to convert it into pasture. Landgraver indicated that would be their choice. Schoenzeit stated the CUP option would give those people another option. Lemke expressed a concern with requiring a minimum of two acres of managed pasture and not offering any other option. Schoenzeit commented that requiring a greater number of acres for people who have less than two acres of pasture could be an option. Schoenzeit stated a person who has a total of three acres should have two acres of pasture. Mayor McMillan stated if the person only wants to have one acre dedicated to pasture but own five acres of land,they should be required to go tlirough the conditional use process. Landgraver noted the state requires two to four acres of pasture and that the City should require a minimum of two acres. Mayor McMillan noted that amount of pasture is required for food and that there are some people who feed their horses oats and hay and do not require as much pasture. Landgraver noted the pasture land is not required to be contiguous,which provides some leeway. Schoenzeit stated he would recommend a minimum of two acres of managed pasture and one acre for the house. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with that requirement. Page 14 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 � 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis noted the housekeeping amendment was to also remove the language suggesting a CUP is needed for this accessory use in RR districts and to correct the cross-reference to the list of accessory uses in the RS Seasonal Recreational District. Landgraver stated given the rare likelihood of a situation like this arising,he would recommend a minimum of two acres of pasture,which would be very clear,and eliminate the language"at the discretion of Council." Mayor McMillan stated she has a concem that 50 chickens or turkeys are too many and that the neighbors might have issues with it. McMillan indicated in her view that number could probably be cut in half and would help deter commercial operations. Lemke commented he was surprised that he was allowed 50 chickens or turkeys on his land. Schoenzeit asked if someone currently has more than 50 chickens per acre whether they would be grandfathered in if that number is reduced to 25. Curtis indicated they would be grandfathered in if it is currently allowed on that property. Landgraver stated everyone has the same surprised reaction when they are told they are allowed 50 chickens on their property and that in his view it should be reduced. Schoenzeit stated the question is whether a certain number of chickens are required for someone who raises them for eating or for eggs. Curtis noted the City does not differentiate between the different types of chickens. Schoenzeit commented it might be a problem if the City reduces the number of chickens down to the point where it is no longer practical to have chickens. Landgraver stated that turkeys xnight be a bigger problem since they are mean and harder to keep control o£ Landgraver stated in his view 50 chickens is too many. Mayor McMillan expressed a concern that someone might attempt to push the limit and that the higher number encourages people to have a commercial operation. Lemke indicated he would be supportive of reducing the number down to 25. Curtis noted a minimum of two acres would be required for the 25 chickens since one acre is dedicated to the homestead. Landgraver asked whether the number of chickens or fowl should be measured to some parameter. Landgraver stated it seems to come down to a number that tends to fit in better with the current character of the community and what it envisions in the future. Curtis indicated the Planning Commission could require two acres for 25 chickens and then perhaps require five acres for 50 chickens, etc. Curtis noted there is one standard for horses and one standard for other animals. As it relates to farm animals,there is a broader definition, and that it would be helpful to Page 15 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING � Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. have a better guide for Staff in the case someone calls and asks about goats,pot-bellied pigs or other type of animals. Landgraver commented it sounds like the Planning Commission has reached a consensus of the number of acres required for a horse, and asked what they feel about the number of fowl allowed. Schoenzeit suggested that a smaller number of chickens or fowl be allowed. Landgraver stated an objective measurement would be helpful to Staff. Leskinen noted that the code says fowl,which could consist of turkeys,roosters, or chickens. Landgraver commented an objective ratio would be a bright line for the residents. Schoenzeit pointed out that the state guidelines would allow more chickens than what Orono currently allows. Curtis stated she would like to have a definite number that would be allowed. Schoenzeit commented the formula could be half of what the state allows. McMillan stated the issue in her view is the people who live on less than two acres that would like to have chickens. Curtis noted that currently those residents would not be allowed to raise chickens on their property. McMillan stated in her view cutting the number in half would be a good starting point. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Landgraver moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3586,City of Orono,Zoning Code Amendments—Expanded Scope,with the recommendation that the number of chickens allowed on two acres of land be reduced to a malumum of 25 chickens,with a minimum of two acres being required,and with 25 chickens being allowed per acre after the first two acres; and to recommend that two acres of managed pasture be required for one horse,with an additional acre of managed pasture being required for each additional horse; and with the recommendation that the language"at the discretion of Council"be eliminated. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. *7. 13-3590 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING CODE—HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENT— SECTION 78-1403—MASSING STANDARDS Lemke moved,Leslanen seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3590,City of Orono, Zoning Code—Housekeeping Amendment,Section 78-1403,Massing Standards. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Page 16 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. � PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 8. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMIVIISSION REPRESENTATIVES ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON NOVEMBER 26,2012,DECEMBER 10,2012,AND JANUARY 14,2013 Landgraver stated he attended the November 26,2012, City Council meeting, and reported that the City Council discussed the JEM Technical application,which was approved, and the street lighting and ixnprovements in the Navarre community were also discussed. Landgraver noted that there were no meaningful planning items on the agenda. Schoenzeit noted he attended the January 14,2013,City Council meeting, and that the City Council elected to not follow the same schedule as Spring Park in order to allow for additional public input into the lighting as well as other possible improvements to Navarre. In addition,the City Council approved council liaisons to various committees and task forces. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION McMillan reported the Task Force for Navarre will be holding various public meetings in an effort to engage the Navarre residents in possible improvements for their community. The meetings will be held once a month at 5:00 p.m.prior to the first regularly scheduled city council meeting. Information and agendas will be included on the City's website. McMillan commented new lighting would help create a new ambiance in Navarre and encouraged the Planning Commissioners to attend the meetings. Leskinen asked when the City Council will be meeting with Jim Grube. McMillan indicated he will be attending the City Council work session on January 28�'. Landgraver asked what role the Planning Commission would have in the process involving the Navarre improvements. McMillan stated the City Council will need to do a better job to keep the Planning Commission updated on the discussions. McMillan indicated she is unsure whether any planning items will result from the discussions but that it will be an interesting discussion and a number of topics will be covered. Landgraver asked whether the City Council is interested in havi.ng a joint work session with the Planning Commission. McMillan indicated the next two City Council work sessions have a full agenda and that it might need to be delayed until March. McMillan stated that the City Council could possibly meet on a different date outside of the regularly scheduled City Council work session. McMillan stated she would like to compile a master list of all the items the City Council,Planning Commission,and Staff feel should be addressed this year. Leskinen suggested the City Council consider attending one of the Planning Commission work sessions. McMillan stated that would be one option and that she would like copies of the minutes from the Council work sessions be provided to the Planning Commission. Page 17 of 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 22,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:29 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. � , s.,�,� ���� I � - �26 � 2� �� Loren Schoenzeit,Chair • Page 18 of 18