Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-1995 Planning Commission MinutesPLANNING COMMISSION COUNCIL PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE { / y PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print) 1. 2• 3. 4. 5. 0- 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. IN*. 20. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER ;,ov _ J • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present: Chair Charles Schroeder, Stephen Peterson, Sandra Smith and Charles Nolan, Jr. Candace Rowlette arrived at 8:42 p.m. Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth and Recorder Lin Vee represented Staff. The meeting was called to order by Chair Schroeder at 7:03 p.m. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING ( #1) 7:00 P.M. #1995 FRANK KOKESH, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD - PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION - 7:03 -7 :57 P.M. The Applicant was represented by his attorney, Larry Berg of Fredrikson and Byron. Robert Hare and Patty Napier of Burnet Realty were also representatives of the property. Mabusth explained this application is for a subdivision of the property along previously platted lot lines that were legally combined. Since this is a 5 acre zoning district, this 9.9 acre parcel would never be brought before the City again for subdivision. The City will ask for dedication of road • rights -of -way and a flowage and conservation easement over the designated wetland. Easements and dedications for the remaining 22 acre parcel will be considered at a later time. The total dedication of 66' of right -of -way road easement of Watertown Road at one section creates an unbuildable triangular piece of property to the south which could either be legally combined with the homestead parcel on the northern side of the road or combined with adjacent properties on the southern side of Watertown Road. Staff reviewed the 1989 ordinance amendment that dealt with oversized accessory structures. At the time the larger riding arena and indoor barn were constructed, there were no limits on the size or number of oversized accessory structures on a property. In 1989, the two structures became non- conforming with the oversized accessory structure ordinance amendment, not as a result of the current subdivision application. A major issue for the review of this 9.9 acre parcel (8.41 dry buildable acres) is the 6 horse allowance per current code. What other use could be allowed for these oversized accessory structures if not the keeping of horses? When the Kokeshes purchased the 9.9 acre property in 1968, the code stated that a stock farm had to have 10 acres and Section 10.03 would allow an increase of 25% without the need for a conditional use permit review. In 1985, variances were granted for the commercial use of the property and a conditional use permit was granted for the riding stable and instruction. In 1975 there were 20 horses and in 1985 there were 25 horses, which was legal as the Kokeshes owned 31.2 contiguous acres. Based on 29 dry buildable acres, the code would have allowed 27 horses. The 1968, 1975 and current code are basically the same as for the classifying • of a farm at 10 acres. The applicant is looking for direction regarding the keeping of horses on the property. The two oversized accessory structures can legally remain. • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Larry Berg, attorney for the applicant, presented a timeline of the history of the property. He noted that Council permitted the 9.91 acre parcel under consideration to maintain a 25 horse level of use years before the properties were legally combined. In 1986 the City asked the Kokeshes to combine the parcels because he proposed to build a loafing shed which made one of the other parcels non- compliant. The combination would eliminate this problem as well as give some tax benefits. Berg did not think that building the loafing shed put one of the parcels out of compliance. Berg noted this property has been considered a farm for a very long time. He added that the Last Straw Farm was a 9.91 acre parcel in 1957 with 27 horses. Orono has always had laws that allowed farms to continue to be farms. The Kokeshes are asking that the historic use of the property be permitted to continue, referring to the historic property lines and level of horse use. Peterson asked if this were a farm if it was taxed as Green Acres by Hennepin County. Napier did not think it was. Peterson noted it was not a traditional farm as it did not meet the full 10 acres and was not taxed as such. Schroeder asked what the intention was of Mr. Kokesh by creating this subdivision. Berg responded that he would like to sell his property. A prospective buyer has indicated they do not want to own • more than the 9.9 acre parcel which consists of the oversized accessory buildings and a home. Schroeder asked what Mr. Kokesh intended to do with the remaining 22 acres. Berg responded that he intends to sell that also, possibly in two parcels. Schroeder suggested that development of the 22 acres could result in 4 lots in this 5 acre zone. Berg stated there was no intention to pursue development at this time, simply to divide off the 9.9 acre parcel and use as it has always been used. Berg expressed his view that the historic use of the property should be grandfathered in as it has continued since 1957. Mabusth did not consider this a "grandfather" situation. Berg reiterated that prior to 1986 and the combination of the property, the Planning Commission and Council approved a 25 horse level of use. Peterson did not agree with the idea that because the use existed since 1957 that it should be grandfathered in and continue. Many changes have taken place since that time regarding the code. Smith asked how the future owners intended to use the property. Napier responded that it would be used for boarding, training, lessons - similar to the way the Kokeshes have used the property. No tack shops or horse shows are proposed. Schroeder noted the use is consistent with neighboring properties. Mabusth explained that based on current ordinances regarding the dry buildable acreage, 6 horses would be allowed. Three acres are required for the first horse and one acre for each additional horse. This is a reflection of grazing areas needed for horses. If the area requirement could not be met, a variance would be brought before Council to decide that the horses would not need the pasture area. Mabusth commented that is in the 1985 review, 25 horses were recorded for the 31.2 acres. During the 1985 review, the applicant advised the City that in 1975 there were 20 horses on the 9.9 acres. 2 • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Berg stated that if only 6 horses were allowed on this property, the improvements made to the property do not function for a use that small. He thought this may be considered a taking of the property. Smith asked if there was an opportunity to increase the acreage to 10 acres. Berg responded there was a practical problem with bank mortgages for 10+ acre parcels. Peterson asked how many other properties in Orono have 9.9 acres with 27 horses. Napier responded that right across the street there was a 4.5 acre parcel with 18 horses on it. Mabusth responded she would have this reviewed. Napier noted that there were eight parcels with horses from the 3700 block up to 4100 Watertown Road. She commented that the profile of a typical buyer would be someone who maintains horses indoors with some rotations outside. There are 17 stalls in this state -of -the -art barn. Some of the stalls also have partitions which have been removed allowing space for 20 horses. Mabusth asked Planning Commission members if they felt the horse use at an intense level was more like a non - conforming use and should be considered as a conditional use permit. Members agreed. There were no comments from the public. ee p Smith asked if there was any precedence in other areas of the City. Mabusth thought there were some area variances for the keeping of horses on 2 -3 acre parcels. Peterson noted that at the time of the sale of a property, the grandfather rule does not apply. Berg responded that the oversized structures became non - conforming in 1989 and are being allowed to remain. Jabbour asked how many horses had been kept on the property over the last 24 months. Napier responded that because the Kokeshes are moving their business to Florida, there have been 10 -12 horses on the property. Jabbour indicated that if a non - conforming use was moving from a legal conforming use to a legal non - conforming use and the use was discontinued for a maximum of 12 months, the use could not be continued. Jabbour also asked about the driveway for the northern lot. Mabusth explained that the review was not being done at this time on that parcel because this application is only for a division along an existing lot line. Berg did not feel that the historic use of the property should be affected if there were fewer horses on the property at one time than another. Mabusth explained that clearly the code addresses the number of animal units allowed based on area. Because this property is under consideration for a subdivision, the City looks at it differently. The City recognizes there is a problem with the oversized accessory structures. In the 1989 code amendment, there was nothing that stated the oversized structures would have to be removed. • However, if there were any structural repairs it would have to be brought before the Council as a variance. • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Berg reiterated that the last time this property was before the City, this level of intense horse use was permitted. This was many months before the City contacted the owner regarding combination of the parcels for a totally different issue. Schroeder felt that Council would have considered use of the entire 31 acres even though the variance was granted on the 9.9 acre parcel. Smith noted the environmental impact of 25 horses on this small parcel of land containing a designated wetland. She also expressed concern over waste removal. Schroeder suggested the City Attorney review this issue to consider if the City did not permit this continued use if it would constitute a taking of the property. Smith asked if the potential buyer had a number of horses to be kept on the property in mind. Napier thought the maximum number would be the number of stalls available in the barn. Hare explained that additional land is too valuable to add to the 9.9 acre parcel. After much research and consideration of septic sites, grade, topography, cul -de -sacs, etc. it was found that two sites on the 22 acre parcel would work best. Nolan thought the more horses that could be put on a property, the more valuable it would be. He questioned the marketability of mortgages for property over 10 • acres. Schroeder agreed. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Nolan, to table Application #1995 to permit the applicant further time to look at a more appropriate level of horse use on this 9.9 acre parcel and directed Staff to have the City Attorney review the application regarding the "taking" issue. Ayes 4, nays 0. ACTION ITEMS ( #2) #1990 ROBERT W. CARLSON, 710 GANDER ROAD - VACATION OF EASEMENT CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:57 -8:01 P.M. Robert Hare was present representing Robert Carlson. Mabusth explained this application was for a vacation of an easement that was granted to the MWCC in 1975 and she questioned the method used to designate the easement on the plat. The City has no interest in the easement. The MWCC has released their interest in the easement which has been recorded in the Chain of Title of the property. The City still wishes to retain a drainage easement over that portion of the property that encroaches the designated wetland and a 10' drainage and utility easement at the north and south lot lines. Mabusth noted these signed easements must be granted to the City as a condition of Council's final approval. It was moved by Smith, seconded by Nolan, to approve Application #1990 for Robert Carlson's • vacation of easement at 710 Gander Road. Ayes 4, nays 0. 4 . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 ( #3) #1992 JAMES AND JOANN JUNDT, 1420 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:01 -8:40 P.M. Scott Crawford of Kraus Anderson represented the applicants. Mabusth reviewed the application noting this property has been before the Planning Commission for review several times. She explained the need for variances for the structural repair of a greenhouse and existing garage and a variance and conditional use permit for the repair of retaining walls that support an underground opening into the greenhouse located in the 0 -75' setback area. The comprehensive improvements application also involves the reinstallation of 6' high brick walls along the side lot line and along the front street setback. The walls are 50 +' from the street yard meeting the required setback. Another issue is a paved path located in the 0 -75' setback area that was not calculated in the original hardcover review. The applicant has installed a 4' path instead of the 8' path and this request has also been included in current application. On the original plans there was also a 12' grassed access drive that was to have an underliner of gravel to be covered with grass, which would not be considered hardcover. A 10' paved path has been installed instead which now adds hardcover in the 0 -75' zone and requires variance approval. • Peterson questioned how the applicants could be allowed to install the path in the 0 -75' zone when it was not approved on the original plan. Crawford commented that the path was installed in the "heat of construction" to service the pool and terrace area. The portions of the path in the 75 -250' setback area are not a hardcover problem. Crawford questioned if the entire path would need to be removed or just the portion in the 0 -75' setback area. Schroeder questioned the amount of hardcover in the 0 -75' setback area. Mabusth responded that 21,557 s.f. or 16.47% was approved in earlier reviews. The additional 4' paved walkway, 10' paved drive and retaining wall repairs in the 0 -75' zone brings the property to 16.76% hardcover in the 0- 75' setback area. He did not object to the walkway but did question the drive. Other members agreed. Peterson commented that in the 1993 review members questioned the foundation of the greenhouse and were told that no further improvements were planned. Crawford responded they were not planned at that time. Peterson asked if there were any other violations staff had observed since previous approvals had been granted. Mabusth responded that the Building Inspector works very closely with Crawford and was not aware of any other violations. Smith asked Crawford if there were any other improvements planned for this property in the near future. Crawford responded that there has been some discussion of restoration/structural repair of • the caretaker house. Variances would be required for a side setback and repair to an oversized accessory structure. • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Smith confirmed the retaining walls were to be repaired with no changes. Nolan asked the purpose of the underground walkway and retaining wall. Crawford explained it was the entrance to the root cellar and basement of the greenhouse and the only outside access to the greenhouse. Schroeder asked why the grass drive did not work. Crawford responded that service and maintenance vehicles that would use the drive would cause it to continually require grass replacement. It would be used to access the back areas of the home including the gardens, tennis courts and pool. Peterson asked why the grass had not been torn up over the years as repairs had been done on a regular basis. Crawford responded the pool was located in a different area. Mabusth reiterated Peterson's comments that much of the hardcover in the 0 -75' zone was approved because of the fact that there was only about 17% in the 75 -250' zone. Nolan noted that only necessary items, not items of convenience, should be considered for the 0 -75' zone. He agreed with the walking path and retaining wall but questioned the drive. Schroeder asked if other options had been considered for the 10' drive such as two asphalt paths with grass between. Mabusth asked about the possibility of connecting a drive to the main driveway instead of using another curb cut. She did not feel members were convinced there was a hardship to support a variance for the portion of the drive in the 0 -75' zone. Smith asked about the septic system issue. Mabusth stated a date is required for the installation of a new septic system since the study on areas to be considered for sewer has been completed and the Bracketts Point area will not be sewered. She asked that Crawford submit a written statement with a date indicated for installation. Crawford responded that the owners were reviewing information regarding sewer and septic and may petition the City for sewer. Mabusth noted that sewer to this property would require a Comp Plan Amendment and would take a long time. There were no comments from the public. Nolan moved, Peterson seconded, to deny Application #1992 as proposed. Discussion continued regarding the proposed variances. Nolan commented that if the 10' drive were removed from the 0 -75' zone, there would be no need for a variance for the drive. He did not object to the remaining variances. Peterson commented that the Planning Commission has denied repair of boathouses in the lakeshore protected area and the greenhouse repair is a similar situation. Mabusth noted the uniqueness of the property and the hardship for the retaining wall at the greenhouse being the only grade level access. Schroeder would prefer to see the drive connect to • the main driveway rather than use the 0 -75' zone. Mabusth indicated an amended plan would be necessary showing there was no increase in hardcover as a result of road paving in the 0 -75' area. The applicant could choose to put the drive into grass or connect to the main driveway. 0 . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Nolan amended his motion, Smith seconded, to approve Application #1992 for James and Joann Jundt for property located at 1420 Bracketts Point Road conditioned upon the removal of the 250 s. f. of increased hardcover as a result of the 10' paved drive in the 0 -75' setback area and that it be restored to its pre- existing grassed condition. The applicant will provide an amended plan to be presented to Council. Ayes 4, nays 0. ( #4) #1993 CALVIN C. KORTH, 900 DAKOTA AVENUE - APPEALS - PUBLIC HEARING This application has been withdrawn by the applicant. There was no one present to discuss the application. Candy Rowlette arrived at 8:42 p.m. ( #5) #1994 ROBERT WOLFF, 4450 FOREST LAKE LANDING - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:47 -8:54 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Wolff were present. Mabusth explained that the applicants have received variance approvals, per Application #1945, for a 10'x14' three season porch addition. After reconsidering the improvements, they are now proposing a 5' x 26' addition of the upper level and a matching extension to the lake of the existing deck. This results in an additional 105 sT of hardcover. The applicant discussed the proposed changes. Nolan asked if the applicant would consider replacing the concrete pad with stepping stones and grass. Wolff indicated he would. There were no public comments. Nolan moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #1994 for Robert Wolf, 4450 Forest Lake Landing, subject to the removal of the entire concrete pad up to steps and replacing it with stepping stones or something comparable and the removal of plastic underliner on the south side of the house. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #6) #1996 GREGG PERL - 309 WESTLAKE STREET VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:55 -9:05 P.M. Gregg Perl was present. Mabusth explained that since the 1987 application additional property has been acquired and has is already been legally combined. In 1987 Perl received approval of a side and rear setback variance. The current application involves the expansion of the upper level at the southwest corner. The roof line has been expanded in the substandard side setback requiring variance approval. 7 • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Nolan questioned the shed that encroaches a neighboring property. Mabusth explained that often in these situations neighbors resolve the problems on their own. However, in this situation the City had sent a letter to Perl advising him of the need to move the shed so this will be a requirement of the City. Perl also has outside storage problems. Perl responded that he did not realize the shed was on neighboring property. He has already begun some of the property clean up. Mabusth also noted the need for applicant to connect to sewer as there is an increase in bedroom use. There were no comments from the public. Perl confirmed that he does not operate a business out of his home. Nolan asked about the shed, noting a neighbor's letter asking for the relocation of shed and requesting a bond to ensure it is completed. Mabusth responded that as a condition of approval of this application, the City would require a building permit for the shed and to move it within his property to a conforming location. Nolan also commented on the sliding glass door on the second floor where a future deck may be constructed. Perl may need a variance to build the deck and he needs to be aware of this. Members suggested a board be used to close off the second floor patio door. Nolan noted the extensive exterior storage on the property and felt it was a problem. Peterson moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #1996 for Gregg Perl, 309 Westlake Street, for a side setback variance with staff recommendations 1 -5 in the memo dated February 15, 1995 and adding the deadline date of July 1995 for the removal of all exterior storage violations. Ayes 4, nays 1. Nolan objected to the sliding glass door on the second floor. He felt that if the Planning Commission had reviewed this application prior to construction, it would not have been approved with a sliding glass door. ( #7) #1997 SALLY AND JONATHAN LEBEDOFF - 1101 FERNDALE ROAD WEST - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:06 -9:35 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Lebedoff were present. Attorney Bob Mitchell represented their application. Mabusth explained the applicants were seeking several variances to allow the reconstruction of a new two story residence. Applicants have submitted an amended plan with lakeshore access door /steps creating a 24 s.f increase in hardcover in the 0 -75' setback area. 100% hardcover existed . in the 75 -250' setback area which has been reduced to 67.86 %. Ceil Strauss of the DNR has asked that the residence be located 25' from the main lake. The corner of the existing residence is at 17' while the applicants have proposed 20'. Strauss also suggested the applicant look at removing • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 additional hardcover (gravel). Mabusth thought there may be some limitations to this request because of the shared drive and turnaround also used by neighbor to west. If the structure is moved back an additional 5' (proposed at 20') from the main lake, there will be encroachment in the 75' zone from the lagoon. Mabusth noted this lot is very small and asked Planning Commission members to consider if the proposed residence was too ambitious for the lot. Nolan asked what the proposed living space would be. Mitchell confirmed that approximately 4600 s.f of living space and garage area were proposed. Nolan thought the proposed residence was too ambitious for the property and that a 4600 s.f home was a fairly good -sized home. Rowlette agreed that since this is basically like starting over, even though there are major reductions in hardcover, the footprint seemed overly ambitious for this small but buildable lot. Mitchell explained that this home was his father's residence purchased and developed in the 1950's. Sally and Jon Lebedoff are his sister and brother -in -law. Mitchell noted that there is no attic or basement in this home so all storage is within the main house, including the garage and furnace room. The house will have three bedrooms and three baths for a family with two children. Mitchell is described the development of this neighborhood noting this is one of the last houses in the neighborhood to be improved. The adjacent homes were designed with the existing residence in place. Mabusth stated the City would have to require the 25' setback the DNR is requesting. Mitchell agreed but added that he might talk with Ceil Strauss prior to the Council meeting. Mabusth asked if the applicants would consider moving the home a little further from the north lot line as only 1' exists at the north lot line. Mitchell responded that they did not want to do that because it would push the residence closer to the neighbor's garage blocking all southern light exposure to the kitchen. Smith commented that the applicants had done a good job of bringing the residence in and up although she would like to see a smaller footprint. There were no comments from the public. Peterson commented that the fire department would have accessibility and did not see a problem with the location of the residence. It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to approve Application # 1997 for Jonathan and Sally Lebedoff at 1101 Ferndale Road West for variances to construct a new residence, recognizing the hardship of a small lot, noting the footprint of the proposed residence is considerably less than the existing residence and adding that the building is to be moved an additional 5' back from the • main lake. Ayes 3, nays 2. Nolan and Rowlette objected to approval of the application because they felt the footprint of the residence was too ambitious for the lot. E ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 ( #8) #1998 CRAIG WICKLUND, 3780 BAYSIDE ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:35 -10:03 P.M. Mr. and Mrs. Craig Wicklund and Jo Haislett were present for the application review. Mabusth explained that the applicant proposes to take down the existing structures and rebuild a new residence with an attached garage. The property consists of 1.6 acres in a 2 acre zone. The applicant seeks approval of a lot area, lot width and front setback variances. Hardships listed were the location of trees, well, elevations and drainage issues. Mabusth reminded members that the well only needs to be located 3' from the principal structure. She asked if the well should be considered as a hardship noting it is in the middle of the building envelope. Wicklund commented that he was more concerned about existing trees and drainage than the well. He felt water falling on the south and west sides of the lot has to travel completely around the house. He added that internal water problems could result if the house were pushed further back from the front lot line. He noted a natural knoll on the lot that seems to be the natural building site which is where the existing house is located. • Nolan commented that drain tile could be an issue. He noted that with demolition of the existing home, regrading will be required and it would not make any difference to move the home. An appropriate grading plan could achieve the desired results. He did not see the well as a hardship. He thought the trees on the west would be lost eventually because the residence would still come under the tree drip line. Public comments were made by Christine and Gary Valerius, 3750 Bayside Road, neighbors to the east of the subject property. They wanted to be sure there were no trees removed between the two properties. They were also concerned about the driveway because the existing driveway has an easement over their property. A portion of the driveway encroaches the Steve Gardiner property at 3780 Bayside Road. Schroeder read a letter submitted by Steve Gardiner. Gardiner requested that construction trucks do not drive past the entrance to 3780 Bayside Road. Mabusth suggested the applicant discuss the existing and continued location of the drive with Mr. Gardiner. Neither Nolan or Rowlette objected to the lot width or lot area variances. They did not see the hardship for the front setback variance. Even by removing the shed, they felt the tree would be lost. Wicklund did not think the tree would be lost with the house in its present location. Wicklund stated he wanted the house located as proposed because it is the "spirit of the lot" to have the house positioned close to the existing location. They did not want to add any additional hardcover by rearranging the house plan and adding a driveway. He added that about 1/3 of the lot is wetland and 1/3 is wooded. Smith added that she also thought the house should be located back further from the front lot line. 10 0 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 Nolan commented that there was only about a T variation in elevations on the property. Appropriate grading and drainage plans would be important. Rowlette added that drainage runs down Landmark Drive. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Rowlette, to deny Application #1998 on the basis that there is not sufficient hardship for the front setback variance. Wicklund asked for clarification as to what his options would be. Schroeder responded that the motion could be amended, tabled or sent to Council as a denial and Council would act on it as they see fit. If it were tabled, revisions could be made to the application and then brought back before the Planning Commission at the April meeting. Mrs. Wicklund asked if the Planning Commission were also denying the lot area variance. Schroeder responded that they were not but had to consider the application in its entirety. Members would be in favor of the lot area and lot width variance portions. She asked then if they moved the proposed house back to the 50' setback if the application would be approved. Nolan responded he would be willing to amend his motion under those circumstances. He would not be willing to compromise on the amount of the 50' setback because he did not see a sufficient hardship. iHaislett asked about the easement that had existed since 1911 and if it were possible to avoid using it. Mabusth responded that a driveway could be installed as their own and not use the curb cut of Gardiner. Wicklund requested that his application be amended to exclude the request for a front street setback variance. Nolan withdrew his motion. It was moved by Nolan, seconded by Smith. to approve Application # 1998 for Craig Wicklund at 3780 Bayside Road for lot area and lot width variances for the construction of a new residence. Ayes 5, nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ( #9) REPORT BY PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1995 Members noted written report of Candace Rowlette. ( #10) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION There was no additional discussion. 11 • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 22, 1995 ADDITIONAL ITEMS ( #11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 17,1995 MEETING It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of January 17, 1995. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 6, 1995 AND JANUARY 20, 1995 PLANNING WORKSHOPS It was moved by Schroeder, seconded by Peterson, to approve the Minutes of the Work Sessions on Domestic Abuse Shelters held on January 6, 1995 and January 20, 1995. Ayes 5, nays 0. ( #13) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE FEBRUARY 13, 1995 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL 4p Charles Nolan will attend the March 13, 1995 meeting of the Council. ADJOURNMENT • Schroeder moved, Peterson seconded, to adjourn at 10:06 p.m. 12 Charles Schroeder, Chair Person