Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/18/2013 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 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,Kevin Landgraver, and Alternate Janice Berg. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator of Long-Term Strategic Planning Michael Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, Consulting City Engineer David Martini, and Recorder Jackie Young. City Council Member Lizz Levang was present. Chair Schoenzeit called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA Berg moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2013 Berg moved,Leskinen seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of February 18,2013,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #12-3585 SPRING HILL GOLF CLUB,725 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH/1050 TAMARACK DRIVE,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:32 P.M.—6:52 P.M. Tim Johnson,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is seeking a conditional use permit for a wetlands alteration permit approval in order to conduct wetland filling activities. The golf course has requested approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD)to fill portions of a wetland on the 13"'fairway on the 1050 Tamarack Drive portion of the property.Please refer to the aerial photos attached as Exhibit C for the location of the project. It is also necessary to re-zone the portions of wetland to be filled and amend the City's official Wetland Map so the filled areas are no longer subject to the standards of the Wetland Overlay District according to City Code Section 78-1609. The applicant has undergone the Sequencing approval process pursuant to Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) regulations in order to conduct the filling activities. The Sequencing application is attached as Exhibit E. The sequencing review process ensures that alternatives to the proposed wetland alterations were considered prior to the request for alteration approval. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) found that the proposed alterations met the sequencing criteria. The sequencing application was reviewed by the TEP consisting of representatives from Hennepin Conservation District, Board of Water and Soil Resources, the MCWD and the MnDNR. Mitigation for filling the wetland is required at a 2:1 replacement. The TEP's recommendation for mitigation involves purchasing banked credits versus on site mitigation. The MCWD Board will be reviewing this request for off-site mitigation via banked wetland credits as a variance from their Wetland Rule at their March 2gcn Page 1 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. meeting. The MCWD's Wetland Rule requires on-site mitigation and the MCWD staff report regarding the variance is attached as Exhibit H. MCWD staff is recommending approval of the variance. City Code Section 78-1610 provides guidance for reviewing a wetland alteration permit and states that alteration of a wetland will only be allowed if an equal amount of water storage is provided. Section 78- 1610 also states that, unless otherwise approved by the city council, compensatory wetland area must be provided within the same subwatershed district as the wetland being altered. The applicant is following the TEP's recommendation to mitigate off-site. The City understands this is because the adjacent wetland is dominated by narrow-leaved/hybrid cattail and reed canary grass(invasive species). In order to prevent the migration of these invasive species, significant vegetation management in the adjacent wetland would be necessary. Also, since the adjacent wetland is a MnDNR Public Wetland, approval of vegetation management in that wetland may be problematic. Per WCA rule 8420.0522 subp. 5, the presence of invasive species will not allow any replacements credits to be granted. Further,the existing wetland to be filled is degraded to the point where replacement of it would result in a certain gain of function and public value, i.e. an environmental benefit. The proposed on-site bonow area shown to the south of the wetland, was originally intended to meet half of the wetland mitigation requirement on site. Even though this area is not proposed now to provide any of the mitigation, the area will still be graded to the same design and seeded with buffer vegetation. Due to the proposed elevations and proximity to the adjacent wetland, wetland vegetation will migrate to this area, and it will most likely become a low grade wetland in the future. Since this proposed on-site borrow area will still be graded to the original design intended for wetland mitigation, the area will still provide the same stormwater treatment and rate control as originally proposed. The mitigation provided by the borrow area results in a minimization of the proposed impacts from an original 0.71 acres to 0.42 acres. The proposed plan proposes an additional 12,181 square feet of native buffer above the minimum required. Issues for Consideration: 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the TEP recommendation for off-site mitigation . combined with the "bonus" of the additional buffer and on-site stormwater storage mitigation is appropriate? 2. Has the Planning Commission identified any additional mitigation measures to be implemented? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? The wetland to be impacted, as reported, is degraded with low quality function and value, and invasive vegetation. On-site mitigation would likely result in a similar low quality wetland as currently exists. Allowing the applicant to conduct the wetland filling activity results in the creation of a new, higher quality wetland mitigation as the proposed mitigation wetlands provide a gain in wetland function and value. Planning Staff recommends approval of the wetland alteration permit(CUP) and the rezoning to remove the filled areas from the Wetland Overlay District. The applicant should provide the City with the digital wetland boundary (post-fill) in Hennepin County coordinates to finalize the rezoning. Submittal of Page 2 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. MCWD permits indicating approval of the project should be required for the administrative land alteration permit to be issued by the City as well. Leskinen asked if the offsite mitigation will be within Orono. Curtis indicated it is not. Tim Johnson indicated it will be located in Wright County because there are no available credits in this area. Landgraver asked if there is the presence of invasive species that is no allowing replacement credits to be granted. Curtis stated that refers to the newly created wetland. Schoenzeit asked if there is any project that is closer to the water. Johnson indicated that was the closest they could find and that this is the recommendation of all the involved government entities. Schoenzeit commented this project does not benefit Orono's efforts to remove phosphorus and manage runoff and that it is unfortunate a closer spot could not be found. Landgraver asked how the credits work. Gaffron stated whenever developers have excess wetland credits anywhere in the state,they are able to bank and sell them. Gaffron indicated City Staff had a similar discussion with the staff of the Watershed District about the inability to do something more on site. The Watershed District has indicated there are no bankable credits in Hennepin County or in the Watershed District, and if there had been any created in the past,they were likely used up immediately by developers. Gaffron stated the City's Code talks about doing something on site, and absent that, WACA rules allows a developer to go to the next step and buy credits from somebody else. No credits were available from the Watershed District and so the developer went to the next watershed. Schoenzeit asked if the cost of the credits is comparable to doing the project on site. Johnson indicated it costs substantially more in wetland credits than if the project is done on the property. Schoenzeit asked if the City could act as the intermediary to sponsor something locally. Consulting City Engineer David Martini stated the issue is finding land that is available next to an existing wetland. Martini noted this project is fairly small and that it was not possible to find land that was conducive to it on this site. Schoenzeit noted the City has had some subdivisions in the past where they have had to create wetlands. Page 3 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Martini indicated there is not necessarily land left over that could be sold,which is the idea behind the banking. Lemke asked if there is a database listing the available banking credits. Martini stated the Watershed District has that information. Gaffron stated the Watershed District has also informed the City that manmade wetlands do not have the same impact and function as natural wetlands. When the Spring Hill Golf Club initially constructed the golf course,they created wetlands on the property but they have not taken off the way the Watershed District would like them to. Staff was convinced by their conversations with the Watershed District that this is probably a better solution than attempting to find something on site. Martini stated in this scenario the City is still getting that manmade natural area and it will be taken over some day by the wetlands but it will be a lower functioning wetland. The benefit with this arrangement is it will result in a higher functioning wetland. The problem for Staff with invasive species is it is difficult to monitor it and get the vegetation to the point where it is acceptable. Leskinen commented the City is getting some benefit in the treatment of the water by filling in a wetland that is filled with invasive species,which would terminate the spreading of that. Martini noted originally almost three-quarters of an acre was proposed to be impacted,but after finalizing the plans, it has been reduced to less than half an acre. Lemke asked if the borrowed area then becomes part of the official wetland. Martini indicated it would become part of the wetland area if a study determines that it is. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Landgraver commented it is unfortunate that Orono loses this area but that as part of this project they are increasing the stormwater retention, lowering the impact area, and getting more native buffer,which are positives. Schoenzeit stated he did not understand the area would be built as a wetland but not counted as a wetland. Martini stated Staff shared the same concerns and it was only after meeting with the Watershed District that Staff became acceptable with what is being proposed. Schoenzeit stated a longer-term study to conduct is to find out how many projects in Orono are actually purchasing offsite credits. Gaffron indicated to his recollection this is the first such project in Orono that requires the purchase of credits. Page 4 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application#12-3585, Springhill Golf Club,725 Sixth Avenue North/1050 Tamarack Drive,granting of a conditional use permit for wetland alterations and rezoning to remove the filled areas for the wetland overlay district subject to Staff recommendations.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 3. #13-3597 JUSTIN McCOY ON BEHALF OF ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS,685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:52 P.M.—6:58 P.M. Jason McCoy,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant would like to construct two 350 square foot sheds on the 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North property to house equipment near the newly constructed softball field. As the school and uses accessory to the school are permitted conditionally in the RR-1B rural residential zoning district,a conditional use permit is required to authorize construction of the new sheds. Curtis illustrated the approximate location of the proposed sheds. Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP to construct two sheds according to the site plan provided. Schoenzeit asked if these sheds are going to be a kit from Menards or somewhere. Justin McCoy,Applicant, stated it is a shed from a kit and that they will be assembling two simple 16' x 22' sheds. The sheds will match the existing structures. The sheds will be slightly visible from Highway 12 and the school is looking at screening the sheds. Landgraver asked where the equipment is currently being stored. McCoy indicated the field is brand-new and that they did attempt to relocate an existing shed to this area but that the shed fell apart. Lemke asked if they would be on a floating slab. McCoy indicated they will be. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Landgraver moved,Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application#13-3597 Justin McCoy on Behalf of Orono Public Schools,granting of a conditional use permit subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Page 5 of 24 MINUTES OF THE � ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. OLD BUSINESS 4. #13-3596 CITY OF ORONO,ZONING STUDY—ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES,6:59 P.M.—8:41 P.M. Gaffron noted at the February meeting Planning Commission was introduced to the topic of unlisted accessory uses by City Attorney Soren Mattick. This was further discussed at the March 6 work session during which a number of currently unlisted accessory uses `customarily incidental to the primary residential use' were considered. The intent of this review process is to determine whether certain uses and structures that commonly appear at residential properties should be added to the Zoning Code listing of allowed Accessory Uses within each zoning district. For those that ultimately are chosen to be listed, parameters for allowable location, size and height should also be considered. The Planning Commission should also consider potential revisions to the sections of code providing for general standards for various accessory uses, as well as some definition revisions and the desirability(pro and con) of text additions formally stating that`uses not listed are not allowed'. In order to better assess the wide range of non-listed `customarily incidental' accessory structures and uses, staff has re-ordered and in some cases consolidated the list reviewed on March 6, and then assigned each of the items into one of three `priority' categories: 1)extremely common structures/uses-found at most residential properties;2) somewhat common structures/uses-found at many but certainly not all residential properties; and 3)marginally common structures/uses-found at a limited number of residential properties, or an as-yet relatively uncommon structure or use that may become more common in the future. A fourth category could perhaps be those structures/uses rarely if ever found on residential properties-these would clearly not fit the definition of being `customarily incidental' and have not been included for consideration. To facilitate discussion regarding appropriate standards for each use or group of uses listed, it may be useful to review how these items are addressed in other cities' codes. Excerpts from various nearby cities' codes have been included with many of the uses in the attached tables-these are not necessarily recommended text changes for Orono,but may provide a framework for discussion of what standards Orono may wish to incorporate for accessory uses that are ultimately added to the Orono Zoning Code. l. "Extremely Common" Structures/LJses • This category includes a variety of accessory structures or uses which staff and PC agreed are fairly obvious as being common within residential districts. These have long been allowed in the City(with or without the need for building permits)and are found throughout all zones in the City; from a common sense standpoint have been taken for granted as allowable, even though they have not previously appeared within the zoning district lists of allowed accessory uses; and in some cases standards for them are already established in the code.Table 1 (attached) lists these uses or structures and notes existing applicable code sections as well as sample standards for discussion. 2. "Somewhat Common" Structures/LJses These are structures or uses that may be common in some zoning districts but not others, or which reflect the needs/wants of a limited segment of the population, or which are decorative in nature rather than Page 6 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. necessarily functional. Table 2 (attached) list these uses or structures and notes existing applicable code sections as well as sample standards for discussion. 3. "Marginally Common" Structures/Uses These are structures or uses which are not found at most residential properties but which do exist on some properties in Orono. Some of these items might be better addressed as Conditional Uses rather than Accessory Uses. Table 3 (attached) list these uses or structures and notes existing applicable code sections as well as sample standards for discussion. Sample Code Language: Prohibition of Unlisted Uses A number of cities' codes contain language specifying that if a use is not listed as permitted, conditional or accessory within a zoning district, it is simply not allowed.Here are a few examples of such language: Maple Grove Sec. 36-211 "This article sets forth uses that are allowed in residential districts. If a use is not shown as a permitted, conditional or accessory use, it shall not be permitted." Wa,yzata Section 801.01.7 (Identical to Maple Plain 153.022) "Uses Not Provided Within Zoning Districts: Whenever in any zoning district a use is neither specifically allowed nor denied,the use shall be considered prohibited. In such cases,the City Council or the Planning Commission, on their own initiative or upon request,may conduct a study to determine if the use is acceptable and if so what zoning district would be most appropriate and the determination as to conditions and standards relating to development of the use. The City Council,Planning Commission or property owner,upon receipt of the staff study shall, if appropriate, initiate an amendment to this Ordinance to provide for the particular use under consideration or shall find that the use is not compatible for development within the City." Minnetonka Section 300.10 "3. Accessory Uses. Within the R-1 District only the following uses shall be permitted as accessory uses, provided they are subordinate to, and associated with and located on the same lot as a permitted use:" Gaffron noted this is something that the City has taken for granted but it has never been incorporated into the City Code. Mahtomedi Section 11.01, Subd. 6A "6.0 Interpretation and Application. The provisions of this ordinance shall be the minimum requirements. A. Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance,the following shall apply to a use not provided for within a zoning district: 1. If a use is not specifically permitted in a zoning district,the use shall be considered as prohibited in the zoning district. Page 7 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. 2. The City or an applicant may initiate an amendment to this ordinance to permit the particular use under consideration." The goal of this second review is to further consider the various accessory uses that have been identified as customarily incidental to a principal residential use,as organized into the three attached tables. Review and discuss the existing code sections that address or regulate those uses, as well as the examples of how they may be addressed in other cities. The Planning Commission should identify those uses that clearly should be added to the residential districts as accessory uses, and identify what standards should apply to each. The Planning Commission may wish to then consider putting those to the test using real-world examples. The next step will be for Staff to draft an ordinance amendment for discussion at the April 15 meeting. This draft would attempt to incorporate uses and pertinent standards into the appropriate code sections (zoning district Accessory Use lists, accessory use standards, non-encroachments section, etc.). Schoenzeit asked if an item is not on the list whether the applicant would be responsible to pay a fee or could they request the fee be waived. Gaffron indicated if someone were to make application for a code amendment currently, Staff would expect them to pay a$750 application fee. Typically they would be asking for something that the City probably has not seen in the past. Schoenzeit commented community gardens might be an example. Gaffron recommend the Planning Commission discuss the extremely common list of structures/uses and determine whether additional language or standards should be added to any of the accessory uses. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission should decide first whether a structure/accessory use that is not listed should be allowed. Landgraver stated in his view the easier approach would be to determine if something is allowed rather than deferring it. Gaffron stated that is very logical and is probably a good approach. Leskinen stated the language that the applicant would have the right to appeal should also be included for those uses that are not permitted. Gaffron there are two appeal processes available. Schoenzeit stated if the starting of this process is that the applicant is wasting their time if they do not come out with this clause that is part of the new code,that would be an important thing to know. Gaffron stated the first item on the chart is accessory detached buildings that are not garages, such as sheds,tool houses,workshops,pool cabanas, greenhouses, gazebos, detached covered decks, carports, etc. Gaffron noted it does not say structures and that the application just reviewed tonight was regarding a storage shed. Staff asked the City Attorney whether those would fall under the moratorium and it was the City Attorney's position that the City can issue those shed permits when they are ready because they are a different situation than it would be for anybody else. Page 8 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. When you look at the standards already in place for this item,they include Sections 78-1431 through 78-1440,which would be applicable to all accessory buildings and structures. Page 10 of the report states that all accessory buildings and structures on through lots located in R Districts shall meet principal building setbacks and have no negative impacts to adjacent neighbors or public right-of-way. Section 1432 requires that no accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is an accessory and at the time of demolition of the principal building, all nonconforming accessory structures must be removed. Section 78-1433 states, "No accessory building in an R District shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall an accessory building exceed 30 feet in height. Gaffron indicated those restrictions have been in place for a number of years. Some cities limit their accessory structures to a height less than the principal structure or less than 30 feet. One of the reasons that the Planning Commission will see barns listed separately is that they are a structure housing animals. In the past the City would see barns that were higher than the house. Gaffron indicated he feels this may still be a potential issue in the future and perhaps should require a variance or a conditional use permit. Section 78-1434 covers area restrictions for an accessory building and states that in all R Districts, no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under certain conditions. Gaffron stated in his view there does not need to be any new buildings added to the list. Section 78-1435 talks about the location of the accessory building and states as follows: "Except as may be specifically provided, no detached garage or other accessory building shall be located nearer to the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot." Gaffron stated in his view that is a basic requirement. In addition, Section 78-1435 requires that"Detached garages or other accessory buildings on lots which have frontage on a lake may be located between the rear yards of such lots and the principal building only if setback requirements of Sections 78-305(b), 78-330(b), and 78-350(b)are met. Detached garages on lots that have frontage on a lake may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and an adequate vehicle turnaround is provided on the site. This section does not apply to lakeshore lots that are divided by streets or private roads or are corner lots." Gaffron stated the issue here is whether or not on a lakeshore lot, such as a lot located on Shadywood Road where you can end up with a lot that is long and narrow, quite a few of those have existing and relatively new garages that are close to Shadywood Road. Those garages have to be located at least ten feet from the right-of-way line, and if they are less than 30 feet from the property line, have to have a side loading garage so they have room to park cars. The way the Code currently reads is that it is only detached garages and not the other type of buildings that might be located on a property. Gaffron questioned whether those restrictions should apply to other types of buildings and whether they should meet a different setback. Schoenzeit commented the alternative would be to require a variance. Berg asked if the house with the temporary car port would be allowed. Curtis stated the building code would address that and they would be considered a temporary structure. If they do not meet snow load requirements, it would be considered a temporary structure and would not be allowed on a permanent basis. Page 9 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Berg stated that property also appears to have pavement to the structure. Gaffron indicated Staff will have to take a look at that situation and that it appears to be an oddity. If you have a lot and there is a road between the lake and the lot, an accessory building would not typically be allowed in the front yard between the street and the house because that functionally would be their lakeshore yard. , Berg asked if that type of structure would be allowed. Curtis indicated it would be a temporary structure and they would not be allowed. Curtis stated seasonal docks are also similar because in some cases the dock never leaves the lake. Leskinen asked if there is a distinction between structure and building in terms of definition. Gaffron stated rather than calling it undefined,they should make sure that it is clarified in all places of the code wherever those terms appear. A building is something with a roof and a structure is anything that is built and is over six feet tall. A three-foot high deck with no railing is still considered a structure but it is not a building and it may or may not be structural for purposes of average setback. Leskinen asked if that is something the Planning Commission should address or whether they should make sure there are parameters in the code concerning structures and buildings. Gaffron indicated the definitions currently exist in the code and that they should be used consistently throughout the code. Gaffron stated one of the next steps is at the April Planning Commission meeting he is expecting to have code language ready applicable to that and that is where the Planning Commission should take a close look at how the terms building and structure are used throughout the code to make sure they are consistent. Lemke asked what the definition is of a garage. Gaffron stated a garage is considered a building and a structure. A garage is a building that is for the storage of cars, but to his recollection the term garage is not specifically defined in the code. Lemke noted it does say accessory detached buildings that are not garages in Table l. Gaffron stated garages are already dealt with in a different section. The intent of the chart or table is to define things that are not listed and how or whether they should be added. Accessory detached buildings that are not garages are things that are not currently in the code and detached buildings that are garages are already in the code. Berg asked if the definition of temporary is dependent on the load. Curtis indicated that is correct,and that hoop structures would be considered temporary. Curtis noted gazebos and other more permanent structures would require a permit. Gaffron stated if it is mobile, it would be considered a temporary structure. As it relates to Section 78-1436, accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square Page 10 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. A building over 1,000 feet would be considered an accessory structure. Gaffron indicated this section was added in the early 1980s and changed the setback from 10 feet to 15 feet. Any building over 1,000 square feet would be covered under a different section. Gaffron indicated Section 78-1437 relating to plumbing is fairly standard language and is seen on a periodic basis. Section 78-1438, Crowding principal building states,"No accessory building or structure, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory structure." Gaffron indicated the City for many years required a 10-foot separation between a house and building. Part of that is to maintain open space and to provide access for firemen and other people who need to get back behind the house. The other intent of that section is not to allow swimming pools closer than 10 feet to the house because there is a tendency of people to jump from the house into the pool. Section 78-1439, garages, states, "Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors 30 feet or more from the property line when the doors face on a public alley or street." Gaffron indicated this section acts like the definition of a garage. Landgraver asked if it not facing the street, how that would work. Gaffron stated this section is merely stating that if you have a garage that is facing a public alleyway,you need to meet the 30-foot setback. Landgraver asked if the garage is sideways. Gaffron indicated it is sideways and the door does not face the street,the setback would likely be ten feet. Section 78-1440 addresses exterior materials and states, "Except for accessory buildings that are less than 120 square feet in area or are located on lots two acres in area or larger, an accessory building and the principal building shall be consistent in design and color. Detached garages located within the rear yard on lots that have frontage on a lake shall have windows or other ornamental features on the wall facing a street or private road." Gaffron indicated this section came about fairly recently because there was a property owner in the Forest Lake area that erected a pole building that had no relationship architecturally to the house and the neighbors complained. As a result of that,the City Council changed the code so there would be some consistency in architecture between accessory buildings and the house. Landgraver commented that homeowner associations would also likely address that and it appears reasonable. Gaffron stated in terms of detached accessory buildings,the question is if the standards fit and should be left as is. Gaffron stated in his view the standards are appropriate, and unless there is a desire to limit accessory structures to a lower height, he would leave it as is. Landgraver indicated he is fine with that section. Page 11 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated the City's current code relating to private recreational facilities lists a number of private recreational facilities but does not list a number of other possible private recreational facilities. A number of other city codes do address those. Gaffron noted there is a difference between stationary and mobile recreational facilities. The code currently lists basketball hoops, hockey rinks,tennis and sport courts, swimming pools, hot tubs and spas, recreational fire rings, barbecue pits and outdoor kitchens, playhouses and play structures, swing sets, etc., and other recreational facilities which are for the convenience and use of the residents of the property and their guests. The list is intended to be fairly inclusive but likely does not include everything that would be considered recreational. Gaffron indicated he will add trampolines to the list. Lemke asked whether miniature golf putting greens should be added. Gaffron commented that would probably more relate to a use than a structure or building. Gaffron indicated he will put it down with a question mark since he is unsure at this time exactly it should be listed. Lemke noted on Old Crystal Bay Road there is a miniature golf hole and he is not sure whether that should be regulated. � Berg noted there are a couple of other properties that she is aware of that also have miniature golf holes. Gaffron stated it probably should be listed under uses. Lemke noted tennis courts without fences are included as a use and in his view this would be similar to that. Leskinen stated it likely would be included under the language"other recreational facilities which are for the convenience and use of the properiy and their guests." Schoenzeit commented every sport has its own equipment and that the reasonably expected equipment associated with that use is missing from the list. Schoenzeit stated he would hate to require someone to pay a$750 fee for a recreational facility that is not listed. Gaffron stated a horseshoe pit is a better example because it becomes more of a permanent fixture. Sporting equipment can be all-encompassing and the word et cetera provides the City some leeway. The question is whether there is any recreational facility that should not be allowed. Schoenzeit commented archery might be one example. Leskinen stated she likes the words et cetera and example to cover those items that are not covered since it would be impossible to list every possible sporting activity. Leskinen commented it would be very difficult to cover all common sense items. Schoenzeit asked if the giant cage for batting would be permitted. Gaffron noted most city codes have the caveat that if it is not listed, it is not permitted, but there is risk on both sides on the argument. Page 12 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked which would be less risky and what unintended consequences would there be by not listing a specific recreational facility. Gaffron indicated the City has to rely on words such as similar or et cetera. Leskinen stated she would be more concerned with getting too detailed and that she would prefer to leave it a little broad. Landgraver stated in his view the language, "private recreational facilities which are for the convenience and use of the residents of the property and their guests"provides some leeway. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission would prefer a definition of private recreational facilities that would list certain allowed uses. Curtis stated an exhaustive list could be developed but at some point in the future there could be a new recreational facility that is not envisioned and would not be listed. Lemke commented he likes the phrase such as since it does provide some guidelines. Schoenzeit stated it is open to interpretation. Gaffron stated private recreational facilities could be included in the definition section or they could develop a short list with the term"and similar. Schoenzeit stated another word could be the practice of that sport. Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Lizz Levang, 4010 Bayside Road, questioned whether skate boarding should be limited. Gaffron noted some of the items listed have parameters for how big they can be or require certain setbacks. There is not a limit in size but there is a limit on location. The City has not attempted to place a limitation on size or location for hot tubs or spas.There are standards for fire rings. Outdoor kitchens and barbecue pits do not currently have standards. Gaffron stated things that could be defined as a structure will have some accessory structure setback standards. Larger items, such as tennis courts, do not qualify as oversized accessory structures since they are dealt with in a different section that deals specifically with those items. Schoenzeit noted you could have a 20-foot court for skateboarding that is quite large but did not go over 1,000 square feet so it did not hit a setback requirement. Berg commented barbecue smokers and outdoor kitchen areas are also becoming more popular and can be quite large. Berg stated in situations like that you need to look at the location of the item and the size of the lot. Schoenzeit commented there is also the issue of smoke that can be generated from those items. Levang noted there is also a property that is now going to have two swimming pools. Levang questioned whether there should be a limit on those types of items. Page 13 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated with some of the other communities that define sports courts and items like that, it appears they are broke into sporting activities or a non-sporting activity such as an entertaining facility. Landgraver stated there appears to be a distinction between those two. Curtis pointed out a sports court could also have lights and nets. Landgraver stated that is a physical sporting activity and parameters can be placed around them,but that in his view entertaining facilities perhaps do not belong in the sporting section. Gaffron stated there is probably a distinction that staff could develop between sporting and nonsporting. Berg noted the code speaks to recreational facilities,which is preriy broad based. Gaffron noted other cities' codes talk about location, lighting,fencing and other factors that could have a potential impact on the neighborhood. Berg noted other people also erect up temporary hockey rinks with lights and asked whether the City wants to regulate those. Gaffron stated this section will need some additional thought and consultation with the CiTy Attorney over how detailed the list should be. Landgraver commented that sporting activities tend to have people making some level of noise and requires a bigger area. Schoenzeit stated he would caution the City from developing such a specific list that encompasses everything and would require the person to pay a$750 fee if it is not listed. Schoenzeit stated the use of the word et cetera might avoid that. Langraver suggested creating a section regarding sporting activities and then leave it somewhat open- ended. The more entertaining/nonsport activities perhaps should be a separate category. Leskinen stated the City should be careful not to overregulate the use of a person's private property and that they want someone to be able to entertain and enjoy the use of their property. The City needs to be very cautious in how the code is worded for controlling buildings and structures and not overregulate how an individual can use their private property. Landgraver stated whatever the sporting activity or entertainment facility is, it should be at least 15 feet from the neighbor. Gaffron stated that would help establish some parameters for those uses that could potentially impact the neighbors. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with that restriction but that she has a concern the City will get too detailed. Leskinen commented it is not what the City says but how it is interpreted. Leskinen stated how the Planning Commission understands it in the context of this conversation may not be how someone else interprets it later on. Landgraver asked if Staff is going to go back and review this section. Page 14 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated they will be. Gaffron stated in his view, as it relates to fencing,the City has refined their fencing ordinances to the point where they should be. As it relates to garbage can enclosures, compost structures, stationary waste and recycling bins, and firewood piles/stacks,those are lumped together because they are somewhat similar to each other. Some cities require that those types of enclosures be located in a side or rear yard and not a front yard. Questions the Planning Commission should consider are whether the height of those enclosures should be limited to the allowed height of a fence wherever it is located and whether there should be a setback from the neighboring property. The City of Shorewood requires that storage of trash receptacles for single-family and two-family dwellings may extend into a required front yard setback or required side yard setback abutting a street no more than five feet. Trash receptacles may be placed adjacent to the street, 12 hours prior to the designated refuse collection day, and must be removed no later than 12 hours after the designated refuse collection day. Gaffron indicated he is not aware how they deal with people who have long driveways and leave their recycling container out for longer than 12 hours. Schoenzeit stated in his view the Lakeville regulations relating to compost structures and firewood piles would create problems in Orono. Gaffron stated compost piles tend to end up in the back corner of a lot and could become a problem. There is a potential that anyone with a garage that is ten feet from the lot line could have a wood pile stacked up against it. Leskinen asked if there have been a lot of issues relating to that in the City. Gaffron indicated they have not and that it could just be something that is not allowed that the City does not have any standards for. Landgraver asked whether compost structures in the past have been an issue. Schoenzeit stated you could require a well-managed compost pile. Landgraver asked if the location of the compost structure would matter or just the fact that if it becomes a nuisance,the property owner has to clean it up. Curtis noted the City does have a provision relating to nuisances, such as accumulation of firewood that is stacked in a way that would collect rats or rodents. Leskinen noted it is located in the property maintenance section of the code. Landgraver stated relying on the smell test is a way to regulate it but that it does feel like if you do not regulate some of these items, it might become a problem. Schoenzeit commented a compost pile is definitely different than a wood pile. Curtis stated the code talks about how wood piles shall be free from rodent infestations. Similar material shall be neatly stacked outside the structure in a manner that does not attract an infestation. Materials Page 15 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. permitted for exterior storage shall be neatly stacked. Household garbage, dead animals,wood pallets, construction or building materials, etc.,are not allowed. Schoenzeit asked what the difference is between fallen timber and a wood pile. Curtis indicated the City typically gets calls regarding brush piles. Landgraver indicated he likes the way Shorewood addresses the trash receptacles. Landgraver stated he would be open to not being so restrictive on wood piles and compost structures if the City does not have an issue with it at the present time. Landgraver noted the City already has a mechanism for dealing with nuisances and that it may not be necessary to separately address those items. Gaffron stated he would prefer to list those items as allowed uses and to use the nuisance section to deal with problems. As it relates to storage of recreational vehicles and equipment, Sections 78-1511 through 78-1515 talks about setbacks for parking of vehicles.Parking of recreational equipment is regulated specifically in Section 78-1577. Section 78-1511 reads as follows: "Required off-street parking in all districts shall meet the following setback requirements: "Within all R Districts, all vehicles normally owned or kept by the occupants on the premises must have a garage stall or open parking space on the same lot as the principal use served Garage stalls accessory to residential structures may be located anywhere on the lot other than a required yard area, except that such garages may be located to within ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line subject to this chapter. Open parking spaces on lots must have a location other than a required yard,except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to within ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line." Gaffron stated the intent is that later in the code it talks about how many parking spaces a single-family home needs and that the number might be two. Any additional spaces would need to meet these standards. While this language is not uncommon in other cities' codes, it will be difficult to stop people from parking cars in their driveway or front yard. Schoenzeit asked if Orono has a paving requirement for the parking of vehicles. Gaffron indicated they do not, and that many other cities do require that if you are going to park a vehicle on the property, it has to be on paved, gravel or otherwise hard surface. Orono has never had that standard. Berg noted that would fall under the hardcover regulations then. Gaffron stated when you look at exterior storage in R districts, it talks about definitions of recreational vehicles and that mobile homes and recreational vehicles shall meet certain standards, including camping trailers, motor homes, pickup campers,travel trailers. Then there is language relating to special mobile equipment,which is every vehicle not designed or used primarily for transportation of persons or property, including ditch digging equipment,moving dollies,pump hoists,well drilling equipment, etc. Page 16 of 24 MINUTES OF THE . ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron stated in regards to utility trailers, people tend to park trailers anywhere on their property that they have access to. Parking of recreational vehicles,mobile homes, utility trailers shall be regulated as follows: (a) It is unlawful for any person to park a motor home or recreational vehicle on public property for human habitation,which basically means you cannot park a vehicle on the street to live in. (b) It is unlawful to park or store a utility trailer,mobile home, or recreational vehicle in any R District for more than 24 hours except in a side or rear yard at least five feet from any property line. Berg asked how close to the house you are allowed to park a vehicle. Gaffron indicated you can park a vehicle right up against the house. In addition, it is also unlawful to use a motor home or recreational vehicle for human habitation on any private property for more than 72 hours without a permit from the city. All vehicles parked or stored on any property within the City shall be operable and cunently licensed. Storage of boats and boat trailers is a relatively new section that resulted from a complaint about all the boats parked in their neighborhood and on the way to Wayzata. The result was instead of further limiting the type, number, size of boats that you could have stored,they increased the length from 25 to 30 feet. Berg asked if you can still park a boat on your properly. Gaffron indicated you can. As it relates to prohibited parking or storage, outdoor parking or storage of special mobile equipment as defined in this section shall be prohibited in the R Districts. This would cover skid loaders and other similar equipment. Prohibited material storage, debris and trash are also covered in that section. Landgraver asked if there is a distinction between recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles used for someone's business or livelihood. Curtis stated the City does have a couple of home businesses and one of those property owners drives a box truck. The City also has a number of contractors that have signage on their trucks. In those situations the City would look at the weight of the vehicle. ' Landgraver asked whether they are lumping ditch digging equipment under the same regulations as recreational equipment. Curtis indicated that would fall under special mobile equipment,which is not allowed to be parked outside in the yard. Curtis stated special mobile equipment would tend to be equipment that is not typically driven on the road. Gaffron stated under definitions it talks about recreational vehicles, and it states that mobile homes and recreational vehicles shall mean camping trailers,motor homes,pickup campers,travel trailers. Gaffron noted nowhere does it list things like snowmobiles and four-wheelers. Landgraver indicated he was thinking about a topper that is removed and left in the yard. Page 17 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated that would be a situation similar to a fish house. The goal of the regulations is to cover things that people are likely to store on their property and then identify where they can be stored. The question for the Planning Commission to consider is if they are likely to be problematic to the neighbors, should there be standards placed on them. Schoenzeit stated similar with the wood piles,the City should look to see whether their nuisance regulations cover these types of situations. Curtis stated the City has a provision regarding non-trash items which says, all other non-trash items which are of a type or quantity inconsistent with the normal and usual use of the property or of a type and quantity inconsistent with the intended use of the property or likely to obstruct or impede the necessary passage of fire or other emergency personnel are not allowed. If someone has a lawn mower and they park it next to the garage, it would not be considered a violation. If you have a number of lawnmowers over and above that,that would be considered a type and quantity inconsistent with the normal use of the property. Berg asked about bobcats. Curtis indicated those are not allowed to be stored outside. Landgraver asked whether the City receives complaints about RVs parked on the properly line. Curtis indicated that does not happen very often unless it is very close to the house. The City does receive calls periodically where an RV is plugged in and someone might be living in it. Gaffron stated this is probably a section where the City needs to list the things that people are allowed to store and then rely on existing code sections as well as the nuisance section to deal with problems that may come up. Schoenzeit commented the odor from a compost pile could also be dealt with under the nuisance section. Leskinen stated as long as there is that balance,you can be less specific. Schoenzeit stated the nuisance regulations could be less specific. Landgraver asked if they are saying that what is listed on Pages 18 and 19 should be eliminated or keep it as it. Schoenzeit stated in his view it should be left as is and that they do not need to get more specific since complaints could be handled under the nuisance regulations. Schoenzeit stated the question is whether the City has a way to deal with these things should they become a problem rather than restricting them. Leskinen stated for those lacking common sense,the City can deal with some of these things under the nuisance regulations. Landgraver stated it appears that Staff is looking for tangible language that Council can act on but that this may be an instance where it does not need to be that specific. Page 18 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit commented the mere fact of parking a bobcat may not be a problem but it could become a problem if it is left running on the driveway. Leskinen stated the question is if there is something in the code that already addresses those situations, whether it is sports or recreational equipment or storage of vehicles,which is the gist of the conversation the Planning Commission is having. Gaffron stated it gets back to how much of someone's life you are going to regulate and that many of these can be regulated under the nuisance ordinances. There are structures that have moving parts that have potential impacts on the neighborhood from glare, sound, and other factors. Berg stated the City has to regulate some things but also use common sense as well. Gaffron stated the next item on Table 1 relates to garage sales. The question is whether the City wants to establish regulations regarding how many garage sales are allowed in a year or how long those garage sales can last. Landgraver asked if the City currently regulates how often a person can have a garage sale. Gaffron indicated they do not. Berg asked if there have been any complaints about how many garage sales someone has. Gaffron indicated the City did receive one complaint where someone was running some type of boutique and would hold sales on Saturday a few times a month where the residents were tired of all the cars parked on the road. Curtis stated the City has also had a couple of instances where there have been tables left out on the driveway covered with a tarp for a number of days but there has not been a large number of those types of complaints. Gaffron stated they do periodically deal with vehicles parked in the front yard of a property for an extended period of time. Schoenzeit commented it is his understanding if you sell more than six cars a year that you need a dealer's license. Landgraver stated he is hearing that there are situations where these things can be abused but at the present time there are not a lot of regulations or problems that the City has and that he would be inclined to not regulate it any further than what the City already does. Leskinen and Berg indicated they are in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver. Gaffron indicated he is comfortable with that. Gaffron stated as it relates to air-conditioners,the City does periodically receive complaints. Air conditioning units are clearly incidental and customary and generate some complaints when they are located too close to a neighbor. The City does not have too many instances where people have outdoor heating equipment. Page 19 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Shorewood's regulation reads, "No accessory uses or equipment, such as air conditioning cooling structures,which generate noise,maybe located in a required side yard setback, except for side yards abutting streets where equipment is fully screened from view." Plymouth's code reads as follows: "Air-conditioning or heating equipment may be located in a side or rear yard,provided such equipment is set back at least six feet from any lot line. Air-conditioning or heating equipment shall not be located within the front yard area that lies between the front lot line and the closest wall projection of the principal building to the front lot line, except that on corner lots or through lots, such equipment may be located within a front yard area that abuts a side or rear building fa�ade(not the front building fa�ade containing the main entrance). In no case shall such equipment be permitted to encroach into an existing or required drainage and utility easement unless approved by the City Engineer." Gaffron stated any subdivision in Orono created in the last 30 years has typically a five-foot, either side of the common lot line, a utility and drainage easement. If you have a 10-foot setback,that leaves you five feet between the easement and the house to locate your air-conditioning unit if it is located on the side of the house. This is an item where the City needs to list that type of stuff and then look at whether the City wants to require people to put them in a front or rear yard. Schoenzeit stated the side setback does not appear to be the issue but that it is the distance to the neighbor's house, especially if they are offset. A person should be required to push it as far away as possible from the neighbor's house but that it could certainly be in the setback. Schoenzeit stated even though it might be four or five feet from the lot line, it really is the distance from the neighbor's house that the City, from a code standpoint, should attempt to maximize. Landgraver commented it is probably the noise it generates that is the problem and that it should be a minimum distance from the lot line. Gaffron stated in homeowner association situations like Stonebay,they have probably already dealt with that type of situation. Gaffron stated he will speak with the City Attorney to see if they can develop some language to address that. Gaffron stated the next item relates to dog houses and dog runs. Currently dog kennel standards are partially addressed in Section 62-181 and requires a 30-fot setback from lot lines for kennel structures housing up to two adult dogs in a side or rear yard. Those standards do not require a kennel license. Lakeville's regulations for animal enclosures reads as follows: "...domestic animal enclosures shall not be placed in the front yard or in the side yards abutting a street, shall not be placed closer than 10 feet to any property line, and shall not be placed closer than twenty-five feet to any dwelling unit other than on the owner's property. No encroachment shall be permitted in existing or required buffer yard or drainage and/or utility easements. Screening and/or a hard surface will be required if problems occur with appearance, noise, odor, and sanitation as determined by the zoning administrator. No such enclosure shall exceed 120 square feet, unless approved through an administrative permit." Schoenzeit commented the 10-foot setback could also be the requirement for air-conditioners. Berg asked why you would need a kennel license for a dog run if you only have one dog. Leskinen asked if a kennel license is only required for three or more adult dogs. Page 20 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated that is correct. Lemke asked if the City has had problems with dog houses. Curtis indicated they have had problems with dog runs and dog kennels. Leskinen stated if you are going to put up a dog kennel, it should be 30 feet from the property line. Gaffron stated Section 62-181 says that it is unlawful for any person to own, operate, use, maintain or allow to exist any kennel on any property without a license from the City in accordance with this subdivision. It is unlawful for any person to own, harbor,keep or house three or more dogs or five or more cats over six months of age on any one lot or property without a valid residential or commercial kennel license. Leskinen stated a kennel license has nothing to do with an outdoor kennel. Curtis stated it depends on where you house the dog. Gaffron stated Item C states it is unlawful for any person to operate any kennel for business or commercial purposes without a valid commercial kennel license. Item D says it is unlawful for any person to construct, keep, or maintain a kennel structure for one or more dogs without a valid residential or commercial kennel license except that kennel structures used for not more than two dogs over six months of age need not be licensed. The kennel structure for one or two dogs need not be licensed if the structure is located in a side or rear yard and is located at least 30 feet away from an adjoining property line. Leskinen commented that language is not very clear. Landgraver stated it appears the thought process is someone can have two dogs in their yard without a dog run and they can run around and bark and it is only a nuisance issue. Landgraver stated he is not sure what the difference would be once you build a dog run or a dog house, Gaffron indicated a dog run would be a fenced in area and a dog house is a dog house. Under the current regulations, if you build a dog house less than 30 feet from the lot line,you will need a kennel structure license. As it relates to mailboxes, City Code does not address standards for mailboxes. They are commonly attached to the house or located in the right-of-way. The United States Postal Service regulates the height of the mailbox. Gaffron stated the issue of a monument structure near a mailbox can sometimes cause issues with damage to cars. Overhead utility poles and lines are typically associated with public utilities and are located in right-of- ways but can also occur within private property and not necessarily within public easements. Gaffron stated these are items that the City merely acknowledges that people normally have. Schoenzeit noted the size of the service dictates who is responsible for the line. Schoenzeit asked if the City should care about lines that are not buried between an accessory detached structure and the principal structure. Page 21 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gaffron indicated the City at this point does not regulate that. Yard lighting is contained in the non- encroachment section of the code. The direct source of the light must not be visible from the right-of-way or adjacent residential property. A similar standard exists in Section 78-566. Gaffron stated there might be a push in the future to have a dark sky ordinance. Schoenzeit noted violations with lighting are normally only enforced when there is a complaint. Berg asked if the monuments with lights on top have to adhere to this section or a different ordinance. Curtis indicated those would be covered under the monument ordinance. Gaffron stated as it relates to retaining walls, Staff does not feel they fall under the non-encroachment terraces contained in Section 78-1405. Staff feels that retaining walls are different from terraces. Such walls are regulated in other sections of the code and lakeshore retaining walls require a conditional use permit. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission has discussed if retaining and terraces should be allowed to encroach. The word terraces only implies a flat patio and that the City should include the allowed terracing wall that creates a negative space. Gaffron stated he does not disagree with that and that the question is whether retaining walls should be listed. Gaffron indicated he will research other cities' codes to see how they deal with retaining walls and terraces. Landgraver asked if they are limiting it to an accessory structure that's relevant to the use of the structure. Schoenzeit stated if you are on the low side of a property line,you may install a terrace and a terracing wall to gain some useful space even if you encroach into the setback. Schoenzeit stated that is a normal use and should be allowed in the Code. If you do not like retaining walls that encroach, a terracing wall is something that is typically more acceptable. Landgraver stated it perhaps should be stated that these things are allowed. Gaffron stated lawn sprinkler systems are regulated by city and state codes and deal primarily with the plumbing associated with the sprinkler system. The City does issue permits for sprinkler systems and the main issue that needs to be watched out for is that they are not run through the septic system. Schoenzeit asked if the City distinguishes between sprinkler systems that are connected to a private well versus the lake. Gaffron indicated the City does not. Gaffron indicated the City's permit talks about lake,well, city, or a pvb, make, model and year of manufacture, and hydraulic calculations. Gaffron stated there does not appear to be much code behind the permit but that it does address some logical questions. As it relates to driveways and sidewalks, it is Staff's feeling that people should be allowed those items but that perhaps the City should consider establishing a 5-foot setback to adjacent resident properties rather than rely on the existing prohibition of grading within 5 feet of the lot line. It is questionable whether it Page 22 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. needs to be listed as a use or a structure. One issue is that at times there are driveways that are close to the property line. Gaffron stated the next step would be to create language that can be included in the City's Code. Gaffron indicated everything that gets done is reviewed by the City Attorney prior to it coming before the Planning Commission. Chair Schoenzeit closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 5. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 25,2013,AND MARCH 11,2013 Landgraver stated at the February 25 City Council meeting there was a swearing in of a police officer and a presentation by a group of interested citizens on ways the Orono Golf Course could be improved. The Colson Custom Home application was approved. Lemke noted he was unable to attend the March 11`�'City Council meeting. Curtis stated the majority of the discussion at the March 11 meeting centered around the LMCC and Media Com. The LMCC has developed a list of priority items that they are attempting to negotiate with Media Com. Levang stated one of the issues is that there are 153 homes in Orono that do not currently have cable and it was the City Council's position that those homes should be provided with cable. LMCC's proposal to Media Com is to have a total build-out completed within five years, and it was the feeling of the City Council that it would be better to directly deal with Media Com and have those areas served sooner. Levang noted Orono is either the top or second highest contributor to the LMCC and yet the City does not receive very many benefits in exchange for the$100,000 franchise fee. Berg asked if the LMCC also negotiates their programming. Levang indicated they do not and that it included under the PEG fees. All people who have cable pay a PEG fee in addition to the franchise fee. LMCC is saying if the City does not agree to remain part of the joint powers agreement,they will not be receiving any services from them. The City requested the LMCC consider offering a tiered approach on the fees. Leskinen asked if the arrangement will be similar to what Wayzata has. Levang indicated it would be. A couple of cities have already pulled out of the LMCC and some have agreed to remain part of the joint power agreement. Schoenzeit asked if there has been any discussion about requiring technical excellence from Media Com. Schoenzeit commented the LMCC is more focused on their private channels and is not very good at � Page 23 of 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMISSION MEETING Monday,March 18,2013 6:30 o'clock p.m. managing the technical issues. From a customer standpoint,the LMCC cuts Media Com a lot of slack and not much happens when they do not meet certain standards. Levang indicated negotiations with Media Com will be starting in a couple of weeks and suggested the Planning Commission provide her with any feedback they might have. Schoenzeit asked if the City can also address internet and telephone services in the negotiations. Levang indicated all they have discussed with Media Com and the LMCC is cable service. Gaffron noted the LMCC is only focused on TV and Media Com does provide additional services. By working directly with Media Com,the City may have a better opportunity to include those other services. Schoenzeit stated the next question is the type of cable that will be installed going into the future. Schoenzeit commented that Media Com is behind in their technology. Berg stated she would be hesitant to go with Media Com given the number of outages. Levang stated she has concerns about the long-term planning by the LMCC. Levang noted the deadline is December 31 and that the subcommittee will be creating a list of items the City would like to see addressed. 6. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Lemke noted this is his and Kevin Landgraver's last meeting. Curtis indicated there will be a recommendation to reappoint both commissioners at an upcoming City Council meeting and that they would be reappointed in April or May. Curtis stated the City is expecting to receive an application for an alternate member in the near future. Berg indicated she would be willing to attend future meetings as an alternate. ADOURNMENT Leskinen moved,Schoenzeit seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:52 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. G�vJ��v ��y � Loren Schoenzeit, Chair ` � C���— ZC�� � Page 24 of 24