Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-16-2018 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Chair Bruce Lemke, Commissioners Bob Erickson, Dennis Libby,Mark McCutcheon,Chad Olson,Jon Ressler,and Alternate Jan Berg. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Acting Chair Lemke called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 18,2018 Libby moved,Olson seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of June 18,2018, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0,Berg Abstained 2. LA18-000060 JAY MITTELSTAEDT, 1980 HERITAGE LANE,VARIANCE,6:33 P.M.— 6:40 P.M. Gregory Gruman, Applicant,was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance and is proposing to remove an existing detached accessory building located 19.6 feet from the front yard setback and replace it with a larger garage that will be attached to the home and constructed to reduce the existing front yard setback, which is currently at 2.6 feet. The front yard of this property abuts Heritage Drive and the home is oriented towards the Dakota Trail. The home sits at the end of a cul-de-sac and there are no additional houses beyond this property. The applicant has stated the most practical location for the proposed structure is in the same location of the detached shed. The house,driveway,site topography,wetlands,and the existing landscape make it difficult to position the proposed structure in any other location. The applicant is also proposing to increase the hardcover from 5.5 percent to 7.1 percent. Structural coverage does not pertain to this site. Staff finds there are practical difficulties with the property to grant a front yard setback variance due to the location of the wetland,topography of the lot,and orientation of the home. One public comment was received over the weekend in support of the project and is before the Planning Commission tonight. Staff would support a motion recommending approval of the proposed variance. Libby stated he would like to see the aerial photographs of the property. Oakden displayed an aerial photograph of the property, noting there is some screening currently on the property in the front. Page 1 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Greg Gruman, 1980 Heritage Drive,stated the existing detached structure is in rough shape and this would be a beautification of the neighborhood. The new location would increase the current setback and provide some additional boundary between the building and the road. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. Lemke commented it is a fairly straight forward application and appears to be an improvement over what currently exists. Erickson stated in his view the project is good and that he will support it,but it appears the application was signed with a first name only. Erickson stated he has never seen that before and asked whether that is acceptable. Oakden stated Staff can look into that. Oakden noted all applications are received digitally at the present time,and as long as it is signed digitally, it is considered a complete submittal. Libby commented he is very familiar with the site and that he has visited the site and reviewed the elevations. Libby stated it is a very nice,private lot,but that he did not pay as much attention to the delineated wetland areas in the front. Libby noted there is a substantial grade up from there and that he would suggest the applicant and City make sure there is plenty of buffer or barrier between the project and the wetland to protect them since wetlands are a major part of the character of Orono. Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA18-000060,Jay Mittelstaedt, 1980 Heritage Lane,granting of a front yard setback. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 3. LA18-000061 JIM CLEARY,2775 CRESTVIEW AVENUE,VARIANCES,6:40 P.M.— 6:58 P.M. Jim Cleary,Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting lot area,lot width,and rear setback variances in order to construct a new single-family home. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing home and place the new home to match the front setback of the neighboring properties. The home will be centered on the lot. The proposed rear yard setback for the deck is 32.8 feet and 40.8 feet from the principle structure to the rear property line where 50 feet is required. The new home is proposed to be a 2-story home with a full basement. The property is nonconforming to size at 0.14 acres in the LR-1A,2-acre district. The applicant originally submitted a survey showing 34 percent hardcover where 35 percent is allowed. The surveyor has updated that to show 31.1 percent hardcover. Staff finds there are inherent practical difficulties with the small lot in the LR-1A, 2-acre zone. The applicant has made an effort to meet the district standards for a new home and is requesting the rear yard setback,lot area and lot width variances. Page 2 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Commission should discuss whether the rear yard setback encourages development out of character with the neighborhood and verify whether a height variance is required. Oakden noted one comment was received last this afternoon,which has been provided to the Planning Commission this evening. Oakden displayed the house plans and photographs taken from the street and an aerial photograph of the area,noting the proposed home is depicted in purple and the red depicts the setbacks per the Zoning Code. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. Libby asked where the neighbor at 285 Crestview Avenue is located in relation to this property. Oakden indicated that neighbor is on the left side of the residence and her house is located four feet from the property. Technically that makes her house nonconforming in that setback. Oakden noted this application does meet the 10-yard setback. Jim Cleary, Applicant,pointed out there is another run-down shed on the property that will be torn down. In addition,the concrete slabs will be removed to improve the hardcover on the property. The home proposed for the lot is similar to a house that was built at 2775 Ethel Avenue. Cleary stated in his view the house fits well on a 50-foot wide lot,and because the lot drops about five feet,the lookout does not require any retaining walls. Lemke asked if there are any plans to landscape the area between this house and the property at 285 Crestview. Cleary indicated they will put some landscaping on both sides of the house as well as some near the front entry. Cleary pointed out the neighbor does have a 6-foot high fence in that area and that the only way she can see this lot is if she stands on the toilet in her bathroom. Libby asked if the landscaping will be adequate for privacy issues. Cleary stated in his view it will be. Cleary noted the other neighbor has a big deck on the back,which is in line with the deck that will be on this house. Ressler stated the e-mail they received from the neighbor talks about the side setback. Ressler asked whether the current driveway will remain. Cleary indicated it will be converted to grass and that the new garage will be a front-loading garage. Ressler commented that should help improve the situation. Ressler asked how much further they will be going into the rear yard setback from what currently exists. Cleary indicated there is a bump-out on that side and that they will be over by approximately two feet. Oakden stated from the existing corner it is approximately 20 feet. The new house will be slightly closer to the property line but there will be a bigger side yard because the driveway in that area will be removed. Page 3 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon asked where the runoff will go. Cleary indicated it will drain to the back. Cleary stated there is not a house directly behind that area and that it is a vacant lot. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Ressler stated the applicant is improving the position of the house by centering it more on the lot and improving the side yard by removing the driveway. Lemke noted the applicant is proposing to meet the side yard setbacks. Lemke asked if there is any concern about the size of the house on the lot given the character of the neighborhood. Libby stated it appears the applicant is also removing some existing hardcover,which could have been added to the house. Oakden pointed out the applicant is proposing to increase the hardcover to 31 percent but that they will still be within the limit. Cleary stated the concrete slabs may not be reflected in the hardcover numbers,and once those are removed, the hardcover amount should go down. Berg moved,Ressler seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA18-000061,Jim Cleary,275 Crestview Avenue,granting of lot area,lot width,and rear setback variances. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4. LA18-000062 STONEWOOD,LLC,385 AND 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH, SUBDIVISION,PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:58 P.M.—7:08 P.M. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, LLC,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a subdivision of the two individual properties totaling 16.3 acres to create five single family lots. At the calculated density of 0.3 units per acre,the proposal is less dense than the prescribed minimum density contemplated within the Comprehensive Plan. The existing home is proposed to remain and each lot will meet the minimum acreage and setback requirements with the exception of Lot 4,which does not meet the width requirement. Increasing the width of that lot will likely impact the driveway. The existing driveway configuration is proposed to be improved and will be upgraded in width and contained within an outlot to serve as the private road in the same general location for the plat. The Conservation Design Report provides a more detailed overview of the natural site characteristics and it is the developer's intent to protect significant tree stands. Removal of invasive and diseased trees will be done on an as-needed basis. The goal of the developer's design and grading plan is to minimize tree removal and clearing as well as preserve the existing vegetation along the Orono Orchard Road corridor. Page 4 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The applicant received comments from the City's Consulting Engineer earlier today related primarily to the road and it is likely the applicant has not had time to review those thoroughly. Any issues related to the grading and drainage can be addressed prior to the application being placed on the City Council agenda if the Planning Commission is agreeable to that. The property is not located within MUSA but the applicant has provided septic system designs for each of the lots which appear to be acceptable. The plans will be reviewed more closely at permitting by the Building Official for conformance with the regulations. Staff recommends approval of the plat in accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer as well as the requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Curtis displayed aerial photographs of the area. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, stated he does not have anything additional to add to Staff's report but that he would be available for questions. Libby asked what the developer is contemplating for tree removal. Gustafson indicated there will be some tree clearing that will be required for the homes but that they have designed the road in such a way that it will follow the existing driveway. Gustafson noted there is a stand of 60-inch trees along the right-hand side of the road and that they have taken a lot of effort to maintain those since they add a lot of value to the site. Gustafson stated the cul-de-sac will sit in a clearing on the south side of the property and that the trees that will need to be removed are mostly smaller trees. Libby asked if he has had an opportunity to review the comments from the City Engineer. Gustafson indicated he has not. Libby stated the City Engineer comments are very prudent and are environmentally sensitive. Libby recommended the City Council review those more thoroughly. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Lemke asked whether the Planning Commission is comfortable moving the application forward without the engineer's comments being addressed. Ressler stated it appears the applicant is doing whatever he can to preserve mature trees and maintain the existing driveway corridor. Lemke stated he does not see any red flags with what has been presented. Page 5 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ressler moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA18-000062, Stonewood,LLC,385 and 387 Orono Orchard Road South,subdivision and preliminary plat. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 5. LA18-000063 MATT JOHNSON, 1432 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCE, 7:08 P.M.— 7:33 P.M. Matt Johnson,Applicant,was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 6-foot tall white privacy fence in the 75-foot setback. There is an existing fence depicted in orange on the overhead,with the proposed fence depicted in blue. The 75-foot lake yard setback impacts the subject property from both the west and the east side. The lot is substandard in size for the LR-IA,2-acre district. The applicant is looking to create additional separation between the neighbor to the south which uses the property as a commercial parking lot as well as a home. A fence would mitigate sound and visibility between the two properties. The applicant has stated there is an existing fence post located in the lake yard that they would like to connect the new fence to. The fence will connect to a fence along the east property line. Typically fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet in height and shall not exceed 42 inches in height for any portion located lakeward of a line drawn between the most lakeward projection of the fence owner's principal residence structure and the most lakeward projection of the principal residence structure on the adjacent property abutting the side yard in which the fence is located. As a result,the applicant is requesting a variance. Findings are included in Staffs memo. Staff finds there are some practical difficulties to support the variance. The adjacent property is residentially zoned but the large gravel lot is used for parking for much of the year for the marina. The main impact of the fence visually will be from the deck at 1440 Shoreline. The Commission could recommend a 42-inch height limit in this area if they wish. To date no public comments have been received on this application. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed questions provided by Staff. If the Planning Commission supports the proposed findings, a motion to recommend approval is supported. Erickson asked if the lot to the south is zoned differently from this lot. Oakden indicated it is zoned residential but that a portion of the lot is used for a commercial business. Matt Johnson,Applicant, stated the property next door is zoned residential but that they have a variance that was obtained in the late 1980s to support the marina activity located next to that property. Johnson noted the residential property has to be in joint ownership with the marina and that there are actually two residentially zoned properties that have the right to have overflow parking. Johnson displayed some photographs of the area,noting that the photograph currently on the overhead was taken on Wednesday,June 20,at 3:00 p.m. Johnson stated the overflow parking occurs during the week as well as on the weekends. Page 6 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Johnson stated the roadside fence is depicted in the left corner of the picture and that it is six feet tall. Johnson stated in his view a 6-foot high fence is very reasonable since the parking activity occurs into the evening as well. Johnson noted the City allows this property owner and their customers to park on the grass ahead of their assigned parking. The site does have a parking plan but for one reason or another the City allows them to park on the grass,which results in cars being parked right next to his property on the lakeward side. Johnson indicated that was part of the reason for extending the fence to the existing post. The existing post was probably for a 4-foot high fence. Johnson stated at some point in time there was permanent screening consisting of lilacs and buckthorn but that has since been removed. Johnson stated in his view there is some history showing that there has always been a fence there. Olson asked whose trees those are. Johnson stated to his knowledge the deck is on the property line and the majority of the shrubbery is on his property. Olson asked if he will be leaving that. Johnson stated that is a good question. Johnson noted the abutting property owner did come forward and offer to pay half of the fence because they see the benefit to it. Johnson indicated he would like to keep as much of the shrubbery as he can but that he would like to remove as much of the buckthorn as possible. Johnson stated he would leave that up to the contractor who is going to do the work. Erickson asked if the property line has been surveyed. Johnson indicated it has and that the survey has been done within the last month. Johnson stated they had the surveyor put some additional stakes up so the fence will be located totally on his property. Libby noted these are both privately owned lakeshore access points. Libby asked if he has ever had any problems with people intruding onto his property from the lakeshore side. Johnson indicated he does not,but that he does get boats within inches from his dock. Libby asked if the noise and traffic abatement are the primary reasons for the fence. Johnson stated that as well as the parking issues. Johnson indicated he does hear people coming in from the lake. Ressler stated the majority of the vegetation in this situation appears to be scrub bushes. Ressler noted one reason why there is a restriction on the height of the fence is to protect the view for people using their side yard but that the applicant does have the support of the adjacent neighbor. Ressler stated he appreciates the applicant trying to make it easier on the Planning Commission by proposing a 6-foot fence rather than an 8-foot fence. Libby stated a person should be able to have quiet enjoyment and use of their property and that the fence will lessen the visual distractions. Libby stated the reason for his question about the intrusion is that Page 7 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. while it may not be happening currently,it could occur in the future. Libby stated in his view this is a unique circumstance since the adjoining residential property has commercial application. Johnson stated until just recently the house was rather dilapidated but has recently been remodeled and that in the near future there will be people living in the house,which could add to the issues. Lemke noted there were some previous complaints about that house being used as a party house. Lemke asked whether that is still ongoing. Johnson stated for the most part that has stopped and the situation has improved immensely. Johnson stated every now and then there is some activity there but that he is a reasonable person and is not expecting total solitude. Libby commended the applicant for bringing those concerns to the City. Erickson stated when the Planning Commission looks at variance requests,they look at any unique circumstances that create hardships for property owners which do not necessarily reflect the typical layout of a particular district. Erickson stated in his view there is a strong case for a unique hardship since it is very unusual to be next to a residentially zoned property that is used like a commercial property and with the close proximity to the marina. Erickson stated it is his belief the fence will give the applicant some relief from that and that the City's ordinance was not necessary designed with this situation in mind. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Richie Anderson, 1955 Shoreline Drive, stated he owned the property on the other side of River Valley Power Sports a few years ago. Anderson stated River Valley is now one of the largest retail marina operations in the state and the Your Boat Club is probably the largest boat club in the Upper Midwest. Anderson stated there is a tremendous amount of activity happening on the site now as compared to when he owned it. Anderson commented he also remembers the fence that used to be there and that he is in favor of the proposed fence. Anderson stated in his view the house will be used as a short-term rental house. When the house was being remodeled,Anderson stated someone took the water heater out and drew a penis on it and then faced it towards Matt Johnson's property as well as drew a penis on the plastic covering the house during the remodel. Anderson stated this is some of what Matt Johnson is dealing with. Anderson stated to add insult to injury, they also took Matt Johnson's ornamental goat out of his yard and put it in front of their deck. Matt Johnson did not call the cops but he had to go over and retrieve his ornamental goat. Anderson stated in his view this is a legitimate case where someone has been unduly harmed and likely will continue to be harmed. Anderson noted he has seen the City approve decks in the 0-75 and that they should let him go to the fence post because that was there in 2005 and 2007. The fence probably got dilapidated and fell down. Anderson stated in his view the applicant has suffered a lot and that the City should do the policing themselves and not require someone to complain all the time. Anderson stated he is in strong favor of letting Matt Johnson go to the fence post and that it will alleviate a lot of his problems. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Page 8 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke commented the request seems reasonable. Olson stated there is a strong case for the fence. Ressler stated he is in favor of the 6-foot fence and would even entertain an 8-foot fence given the circumstances. Ressler stated he has not found any reason to oppose it. Berg commented there are extenuating circumstances in this situation. Lemke asked if the Planning Commission feels the proposed project is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance. Ressler commented there is not much harmony currently given the commercial activity next door. Libby stated the applicant has demonstrated a hardship and that he is not sure why the neighboring property should be allowed to intrude on someone's quiet and reasonable enjoyment of their property. Lemke asked if the fence would alter the character of the neighborhood. Berg stated it does not. Erickson stated in his view it would be an improvement. Ressler moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA18-000063,Matt Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive,granting of a variance to the 75-foot lakeyard setback and the average lakeshore setback in order to permit the construction of a 6-foot privacy fence. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 6. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT—ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SETBACK,7:33 P.M.—7:53 P.M. Barnhart stated this is a continuation of the conversation the Planning Commission had last month regarding some proposed changes for the accessory structure setbacks. The previous discussed looked at some of the zonal impacts. Since that time Staff has drafted a table based on the zonal impacts introduced at the last meeting. Staff has compiled an ordinance amendment. Included within the ordinance will be a table attached to each residential zoning district that incorporates the lot area and lot width where that applies,the setbacks for the principal structures,and then also anticipated improvements. A table will also be prepared for the business districts but will be slightly different in format in order to anticipate possible improvements such as parking lots and other common improvements in commercial districts. Barnhart noted the tables are conceptual at this point and are intended to look at the impacts an accessory structure could have. The proposed table for the LR-Al district notes that the side yard setbacks for lots that are nonconforming as to their width shall be the lessor or 30 feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However,in no case shall the side yard setback be less than ten feet. The table also looks at lake yard setbacks,street setbacks,wetlands,and height. Possible improvements on lake lots include accessory buildings; oversized accessory buildings; accessory structures such as pools,patios, and Page 9 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. decks; garage doors; signs not attached to a building; and driveways. The same concept would apply to non-lakeshore lots. Barnhart stated the second part of the ordinance would include the text of the Code that maybe applies to every zoning district but does not fit into a table. Lemke commented it appears to be very comprehensive. Barnhart stated part of the challenge is that certain sections of the code might have one format and other sections will have a different format but that his overall goal is to consolidate it into an easier to use document. Barnhart stated he is looking at what is reasonable and what makes sense. Libby stated in his view this is very innovative and that other municipalities may want to use it as their standard. Libby commented oversized structures are becoming more prevalent and the City needs to address it. Libby stated he would encourage Staff to continue to work on this and that in his view they are on the right track. Ressler commented he is not going to get picky about some of the clarifying language since it will be going through the public hearing process and then before the City Council. Ressler stated simplifying it is in the best interests of everyone. McCutcheon asked where he could find what the maximums are. Barnhart indicated that would be contained in the other section that he was talking about,which would encompass those sections of the code that do not fit easily into a table or chart. McCutcheon stated in his view this will be very helpful. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Matt Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive, stated what this speaks to is how the City organizes information and makes it available to the public. Johnson stated there is a good portion of the residents who go to the website first,and while the new website looks fancier,he had trouble finding the distance requirement for a fire pit from a building. Johnson stated one of the tools the City has available to it is its website and that a single word search could come up with 500 items,which can be overwhelming. Johnson noted fire pit did not come up. Johnson commented he is not sure how big of an issue accessory structures are in the scheme of everything,but the more things that can be organized and found on the website,the more beneficial to the residents it will be,which in turn will also lessen Staff's time. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Barnhart stated at this point he is looking for any direction from the Planning Commission that they feel is necessary. Barnhart indicated he anticipates having 90 percent of the draft ordinance completed in time for the August meeting but that there is no real rush to approve something. Barnhart stated in his view this is an issue that touches a lot of the City's residents who are wondering about setbacks and that he can add fire pits and compost areas to the list. Page 10 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon stated trees is another item that is brought up rather frequently. Libby asked if the City has a list of accessory structures that have been approved. Libby commented it would be nice to know how many accessory structures are out there and whether it is a growing trend. Barnhart stated he is not sure there has been a change in the frequency of requests but in his experience the City's method of dealing with those requests is very complicated and results in a lot of wasted time and energy. Barnhart stated he would like to process those applications more efficiently. Libby stated in his view onsite analysis of visibility,positioning on the lot and shadows, etc.,is also important to take into consideration and that some guidelines on those items would be very constructive and helpful. Barnhart indicated he will look at those. Lemke stated in his view it is a good template. Ressler stated it is a good start. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 7. LA18-000059 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT—SIGNS,7:54 P.M.—8:09 P.M. Barnhart noted the City Attorney has been working on revising the City's sign ordinance to be consistent with recent Supreme Court action. The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that cities can administer and regulate signage as it relates to time,place,and manner but not on their content. In addition,cities cannot have a separate set of rules for residential real estate signs than a political sign in a residential district. The draft ordinance takes away the content type of nuance and is more content neutral,which is a pretty significant change in some respects. Barnhart recommended the public hearing be opened and the Planning Commission receive any public comments. Barnhart noted he is not looking for any formal action by the Planning Commission at this time but that he would like the commissioners to review it prior to their August meeting. Barnhart noted the draft ordinance divides the City into districts based on use, such as residential zones and commercial districts. For nonresidential uses in residential districts, such as schools and churches, those would have a separate set of rules. Barnhart stated in his view the business district should probably be divided into two separate zones since the current ordinance says the amount of signage allowed is based on the front footage. At the present time the B-5 zoning district has a ratio of 3:1,but in the draft ordinance the B-5 district has been grouped with the B4 district,which has a ratio of 2:1. Barnhart indicated his goal is not to create nonconformities and that he will need to examine that further but in the meantime the Planning Commission should review the proposed ordinance and provide feedback. Libby stated he did read over quite a bit of the draft ordinance as well as look at other information and that there is quite a bit of diversity in signage. Libby stated his intent was to understand where signage is appropriate and where it might cross over into commercial and residential use. Libby stated currently there is not much enforcement by the City on its signage and that he also does not see much latitude. Page 11 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted home occupations are licensed separately and are allowed signage,which is one issue,and that another issue that needs to be addressed is someone who wants to advertise a commercial business in a residential zoning district,which would have to be allowed if the other requirements are met. Acting Chair Lemke opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Richie Anderson,3205 Crystal Bay Road, stated what he would like to bring up is the scuba guys that put their sign on the corner of Bohn's Point. Anderson stated years ago the city inspector used to pick everybody's signs up and bring them to City Hall where they could pick them up. Anderson noted the election is coming up,which will result in more signs out there. Anderson suggested the City consider including something in the newsletter explaining the rules. Curtis stated the candidates receive a packet of information when they file stating the requirements. Anderson asked if the signs can be in the right-of-way. Curtis indicated they cannot. Anderson stated he remembers someone complaining last election cycle that the signs were too close to the road and that the City should perhaps have a policy about removing those signs that are in the right-of-way. Acting Chair Lemke closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Ressler asked if permitting is based on whether the sign is political,commercial,etc. Ressler noted if he wants to put a sign on the outside of his building,he needs a permit issued by the City. Barnhart stated there is temporary sign language that has been included in the ordinance,and that what Staff did overall was to look at what is required,what a prohibited sign would be,and whether a permit would be required. In addition,the proposed ordinance does not require a permit to change the face of the sign. Barnhart indicated he is trying to simplify it as well as lessen the paperwork for the applicant. Libby asked whether the City regulates developments to allow for the temporary placement of signs over the weekend for open houses but requires their removal by Monday. Barnhart stated the City has temporary signage language but that Staff does not drive around on the weekend looking for those types of signs. Barnhart noted the City also regulates special events,which are allowed four times a year,and would cover those folks who have a garage sale periodically. Barnhart stated signs located in the right-of-way are often garage sales or open house signs and are not permitted. Curtis noted real estate signs are allowed on the property but not in the right-of-way. Libby moved,Berg seconded,to table Application No.LA18-000059,City of Orono,Text Amendment-Signs. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. Page 12 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 8. UPDATE ON JULY 9,2018,CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported the July 9 had three planning related items and all items were placed on the Consent Agenda. Barnhart stated the meeting in total lasted around four minutes. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Lemke asked whether the Planning Commission will be reviewing properties on the lake this year. Curtis stated what Commission Lemke is describing is the City's inspection trip and that members of the Planning Commission,alternates, and Staff have the opportunity to go around and look at the projects that have been approved. Barnhart stated the challenge with that is that if there is a quorum of Planning Commissioners,it needs to be published as a public hearing and open to the public. Libby stated he can fit 10 or 11 people comfortably on his boat and that he is located on Smith Bay. Lemke stated the open meeting laws make it a challenge. Barnhart stated he will talk about that with the City Attorney. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Ressler moved,McCutcheon seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:15 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. ATTEST: Bruce Lemke,Acting Chair i" Page 13 of 13