Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-02-2011 Council Work Session Minutes ORONO JOINT PI�ANNING COMMISSION O & CITY COFT�CIL WORK SESSION Wednesday,March 2,2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Orono City Council and Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Doug Franchot,Aaron Printup; Planning Commissioners Kim Kang,Denise Leskinen, Loren Schoenzeit,Jon Schwingler, and Alternate David Rahn. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus,Assistant City Administrator of Long Term Strategic Planning Mike Gaffron,Planning Coordinator Melanie Curtis,Planning Assistant Christine Mattson, Consulting City Planner Ben Gozola, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Cynthia Bremer arrived at 6:43 p.m., and Planning Commissioner John Thiesse arrived at 6:47 p.m. The work session was called to order at 5:38 p.m. NEW BUSINESS AARDCOVER REGULATIONS UPDATE Ben Gozola thanked the City Council/Planning Commission for allowing him to speak tonight. Gozola noted he has 12 years of planning and zoning experience and currently works for approximately 12 cities. Gozola noted on January 24, 2011,the City Council authonzed City Staff to begin the process of updating the City's regulations governing hardcover. One of the purposes of tonight's meeting is to discuss the general overarching goals that Staff should use as guideposts throughout the review process of the City's hardcover regulations. Staff will be seeking consensus from the group as to what general outcomes are being sought. Some of the overarching project goals to discuss include the following: 1. Simplification of the regulations so all parties understand what is required and how to comply. 2. Continuance of historically stringent standards for the protection of local water bodies. 3. Greater options for citizens to legally comply with code requirements in light of the revised variance standard established by the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2010. 4. Openness to new technologies as they may arise. 5. A transitioning of the City's focus away from"meeting minimum standards" towards "achieving desired results." 6. Reaffirming Orono as a civic leader in hardcover management policy. Gozola asked if there were any additional overarching goals that should be included. Kang commented the bullet that talks about transitioning from meeting minimum standards to achieving desired results is a good goaL Kang stated the City needs to clearly define what its desired results are. McMillan stated the original philosophy of Orono was fairly comprehensive and helped to reduce the __------------------ Page 1 -- - -- -- — ORONO JOINT PLANIVING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday,March 2, 2011 5:3D o'clock p.m. hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone and reduce the massing on the lots,but over time the regulations grew more complicated. Orono has achieved a great outcome over the years but the regulations should be simplified and adjusted to today's technology. Rahn commented simplification of the regulations should be a primary goal to make it mare understandable by contractors and builders,which would reduce the time that Staff has to spend explaining the regulations. Rahn stated the amount of hardcover currently allowed by the City is at a good level but that the different zones contribute to the confusion. Rahn stated the City should determine whether they want to continue with the different zones. McMillan commented that the smaller lots and different shapes of the lots can also be problematic at times. Kang stated that it appears from the comments that appearance and massing is also another major component. Rahn stated the other item he would like to see is uniformity between the lakeshore cities and that the City should look at what other cities are doing for setbacks and hardcover. Gozola pointed out the tiering concept is unique to Orono. Leskinen stated she would like to see the terminology be consistent throughout the regulations and that a decision needs to be made on what constitutes an impervious surface. Schoenzeit stated performance standards would allow the applicant and the City some flexibility to bring the plan into compliance. Performance standards would also put the burden on the applicant rather than having the Planning Commission redesign the plan or suggest modifications. In addition,the City should identify where the 50 percentile is in the variances, which may eliminate some of the customary variances. McMillan stated a lot of comments that they receive from applicants relates to the amount of money that they have paid for the lot and that they complain they are not allowed to construct whatever they want on the lot. Franchot stated the City needs to be careful about institutionalizing circular logic. McMillan commented part of the problem is that people are not aware of the City's hardcover regulations. Franchot stated he is not familiar with the number of variances that are granted in relation to the overall acti`�ity of the Planning Department, which would be helpful to lrnow. Franchot indicated he understands how the City evolved into their current regulations,but that the decisions are beginning to feel somewhat arbitrary. Franchot stated the City should focus on outcomes that are desirable and talk about standards, which would make the regulations logical to the applicants. Bremer stated a number of people have asked the City Council to eliminate the zones, which is now one of the items being proposed. Bremer noted the different zones have been established to help limit structure and hardcover near the lake,but that she does not want to go away from Orono being the Page 2 — � ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday,March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. forerunner of protecting the lake, which should be their number one concern. Bremer indicated the City should also be open to new technology and look at the number of variances that have been granted in the past. Bremer indicated her second concern is that she does not want residents to be upset that they have been denied under the old regulations and that she does not want to give the impression that those rules have been changed almost overnight. Bremer noted the City routinely denies decks because they exceed the hardcover numbers. Curtis stated one of the project goals is to hold open houses and meetings to bring forth that input by the residents. Gozola noted they will be able to document the questions/input by the public and the process the City went through in changing its regulations. Gozola pointed out that even if the code is simplified, that does not mean it will be easier to get a variance. Schwingler stated simplifying the process does not necessarily make it easier to obtain a hardcover variance. Schwingler stated it is not the Planning Commission's job to redesign the applicant's plans and that the regulations should not be less stringent but to have language that is easier to understand by the applicants. Bremer asked if the Planning Commission feels that applicants tend to propose their hardcover numbers at a higher level because that will allow them some leeway with the Planning Commission. Bremer noted Staff does inform the applicants of the hardcover regulations and that most local builders are aware of the numbers. Bremer stated the City Council should stick with one particular number. Schoenzeit reiterated there should be some performance standards that have to be met far the extra hardcover. Bremer noted under the recent Supreme Court ruling, they are not allowed to swap hardcover for a variance. Curtis pointed out they would be viewed as performance standards and not a variance. McMillan asked when the hardcover regulations originated in the City. Gaffron indicated they started in the 1970s and evolved due to questions by the developers and builders over what would be allowed, such as a shared driveway and what percentage is allocated to each property. There were also questions over what is considered hardcover and what is not hardcover. Back in the 1980s, there was a discussion regarding plastic under rock versus fabric, which raised a concern that people would create rock gardens within the 0-75 foot zone and plastic was subsequently banned. The 1980 Comprehensive Plan helped to document the vision of the City. Gozola stated there appears to be agreement for simplification of the code, consistent terminology throughout the code, outcome based regulation versus a hard cap on hardcover, and providing options for people to meet the code, which would allow far some flexibility in meeting the City's stringent regulations. ___.. --- Page 3 ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION � & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday,March 2,2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. Franchot pointed out the group has not really approved those specific goals but have indicated they would like those ideas explored. From a process standpoint, the City needs to clearly identify the goals and the desired outcomes and should avoid jumping too quickly at the answers without looking at it from all angles. Gozola indicated he has some specific items he has identified within the code that the group may want to consider. Staff would request the group identify additional aspects of the current policy which must be retained, things people have histarically liked, and things about the current policy that people feel must change. Gozola stated the first area deals with multiple terms that are currently used throughout code to address the issue of impervious surface. Hardcover is essentially defined as anything that interferes with direct absorption of rainfall into the ground. Lot coverage is essentially defined as area covered by structures while hard surface is undefined and impervious coverage is undefined. Bremer noted the term typically used in Orono is structural coverage rather than lot coverage and that she would recommend the term lot coverage be changed to structural coverage. Schwingler asked whether other cities use lot coverage. Bremer stated they use lot coverage to define hardcover. Franchot commented there is not much confusion about what lot coverage is,but that his sense is that the term hardcover has caused a number of problems since there is some deviation in thought on what hardcover truly is. Decks, for example, are considered hardcover even though they have openings in them, which has caused some constemation on the part of the applicants. Consistent terminology and clear definitions would help to overcome that. Gaffron stated another example of inconsistency is gravel that is driven on is considered hardcover while gravel that is not driven on is not considered hardcover. Gaffron commented they have had people in the past put holes in their plastic to make it nonhardcover, which required Staff to inspect it. Curtis noted geotextile fabric is not allowed for landscaping but it is exempted when it is used on a mound system. McMillan stated one of the overall goals is to make the terminology more consistent throughout the regulations. Bremer asked whether other cities have more consistent definitions. Gozola indicated there are some consistencies in what is considered hardcover but that there are also some inconsistencies, such as the hard packed g-c-avel, decks, and landscaping. Plastic is always considered hardcover but that other cities do accept the geotextile fabric. Gozola commented that enforcement does become a problem over time. Leskinen agreed the group should look at whether hardcover could possibly be tied into performance __ _ _....-- _ Page 4 , ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2,2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. standards. Gozola stated area two deals with soffits. Soffits that are in excess of two feet have historically been considered hardcover but that the following are issues that are raised periodically: -Surfaces under soffits are typically not hardcover; -Surveyors are ostensibly being asked to verify a point above ground on as-built surveys; -Limits architectural styles and roof types; -Is there any desire to see this changed if it can be justified. McMillan commented in her view the City should lighten up on some of the hardcover regulations and that she personally feels bigger roof overhangs should be promoted more since they help keep water away from the house. Rahn stated at the time it was discussed, it was felt that anything over two feet would be considered hardcover but that the property owner could have whatever size overhang they wanted. Gaffron noted the Council did look at that but never came to a final decision. McMillan stated she personally would like some leeway on that since it affards some protection against water coming into the house. Franchot commented that is probably one of the items that appears arbitrary to the residents. Curtis stated that item was made more consistent in the last few years with the City's nonencroachment regulations. Franchot stated the method the City follows sometimes appears to be arbitrary, which has been a complaint raised in the past by applicants. The City should look at it in the context of how it can be made less arbitrary, which would also help ease the burden on Staff. Franchot commented there needs to be a good balance between how that is accomplished and the City's goal of clean water, etc. Curtis stated typically the surveyors do not denote things above grade, which creates some issues for Staff. Theiss stated if the goal of the City is to have good infiltration of water, a two-foot overhang provides the ability for the ground to absarb the water; whereas an eight-foot overhang prohibits water from infiltrating the ground near the house. Rahn pointed out they are not limiting the design but rather the hardcover. Gozola stated the third area is whether the City should regulate all properties in the City. Current regulations seem to ignore non-shoreland areas unless they are zoned industrial, RPUD or PRD. While there are "lot coverage" regulations affecting al] properties within the City, it appears current hardcover regulations are limited to the shoreland district, industrial district, RPUD district, and PRD areas. It appears that nonshoreland areas which are not in an industrial, RPUD or PRD district do not have hardcover requirements. _ ____.. _ Page 5 ORONO JOI�'T PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday,March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. Franchot asked what area is considered shoreline. Gaffron indicated it would be the first 1000 feet near the lake. Most of the rural area away from the lake is not subject to hardcover regulations. Gozola stated all of the properties feed into the water system regardless of whether they are considered shoreland properties or nonshoreland properties. Gozola asked whether the City is interested in looking at including those lots that are not currently included. Bremer conzmented in her view they should be looked at since the hardcover impacts appearance and massing. Curtis noted the reason the industrial, RPUD and PRD dish-ict have hardcover regulations is because they have been created within the last ten years. McMillan commented that Orono does have a tremendous amount of wetlands within the City, which helps to filter the water before it reaches Lake Minnetonka. McMillan asked whether the City should be more aggressive on induslrial/commercial lots. Gaffron noted that all of the City's industrial lots far exceed the hardcover limits and that the City should be more aggressive in requiring different types of ponding on industrial/commercial properties. McMillan commented that NURP ponds can also be expensive to maintain over time,but that the City could incorporate a number of different requirements to help infiltrate the water in those areas. Gaffron recommended that there be a different set of standards for the industrial districts. McMillan commented that rain gardens are becoming more popular on industrial sites and that they are easier to monitor on those sites versus residential lots. Franchot stated one of the issues the City strug�les with is that the regulations are written from the perspective of starting with a vacant lot, which is often not the case. The question then becomes, how does the City transition from where we are with the things that we don't like to where we like them. Franchot indicated small lots are a classic example of lots that meet very few of the City's minimum standards. Franchot recommended that as part of this process the City spend some time thinking about ways to improve Navarre and make it a better place to live. Gozola stated to achieve something like that, the City could build in some incentives to have those types of investments. Franchot commented one of the reasons people come in here asking for something is that their neighbor has it, but they are not always aware that some of those items were previously allowed but are no longer allowed. ___.__ -----. __..—_.__._ Page 6 ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated it is more likely in Orono to have someone spend a fair amount of money to build something to help infiltrate the water rather than lose a significant amount of parking lot and that performance standards would allow the City to be more proactive. Gozola indicated the current code also includes a provision granting credits when shared driveways are used, which is one way to reduce hardcover. Things for the group to consider are: One, does the City want to continue this practice; and two, the Code does not appear to give property owners credits when public roads or other hard surfaces are accidentally built outside of easements or right-of-way. Gozola asked whether the City would also like to provide credits where there are encroachments on someone else's lot. Bremer noted that while it does not appear in the Code, the City Council does give the property owner credit far that when the application is before the Council. Rahn asked whether they are speaking of residential properties with the shared driveways. Bremer indicated they are. Rahn stated he would like to eliminate shared driveways between residential properties since it tends to create problems in the future. Rahn suggested a penalty be imposed rather than an incentive. Gozola commented that is actually a common sentiment in other cities. Gaffron indicated that provision came about in an effort to address existing situations rather than as an incentive to have shared driveways. McMillan asked whether any credit is currently given to people who have a shared driveway. McMillan stated one of the problems is the configuration of the lot and the driveway, which sometimes creates long driveways. Curtis noted the City does have minimum standards for driveways,but that a long, thin lot requires a longer driveway. Bremer stated in the past the 15 percent structural coverage number was imposed very strictly and that they were given a minimal driveway. McMillan no�ed the City also has minimal standards for things such as driveways and sidewalks. Bremer stated the average lakeshore setback, which is intended to preserve the view of the lake, also helps to reduce the length of the driveway by pulling the house back away from the lake and c]oser to the street. Curtis commented the 15 percent structural coverage limit is helpful to Staff. Gozola stated another area of the code he would recommend the group look at is their tiered system. The City has historically protected the first 75 feet of area beyond the OHW and uses a tiering system for hardcover beyond that point. _--_ __...-- Page 7 ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. Gozola requested the group consider the following: -Does the City wish to continue its policy of strict protection of the first 75 feet beyond the OHW? -Is the City interested in maintaining their policy of hardcover tiering? Or is the City more interested in maintaining similar to better results than what is obtained through the current policy? -The ability to transfer allowable hardcover from one zone to another seemingly transforms a difficult to implement policy into an administrative nightmare. Poor documentation at city hall could easily result in different future hardcover interpretations,new surveys, and bad feelings all around. Staff would suggest the approach which comes out of this process be easy to understand by all parties and easy to document. Gaffron indicated the goal of the tiered system initially was to protect the 0-75 foot zone by not allowing any hardcover and then to allow the next tier to have a limited amount of hardcover. The tiered system did not have anything to do with massing initially but rather infiltration. Schoenzeit noted the DNR has a standard of 50 feet. Curtis pointed out the City does not allow any credit for the 0-75 foot zone. Bremer stated it is 15 percent of the entire lot that is allowed for structure but that people get no credit for the 0-75 foot zone as it relates to hardcover. Some of the frustration and misunderstanding comes from the fact that people have to maintain that area but they are not allowed any hardcover in that zone. Rahn commented that someone with a larger 0-75 foot zone with a narrower lot on top can be restricted on their hardcover simply because of the configuration of the lot even though they have the same setback. Franchot stated in his view the majority of the group likes the tiered system but that there is some frustration with how the discussion goes on particular applications. Franchot stated he cannot think of any other item that would create mare controversy than changing the policies for the 0-75 foot zone and that in his view most people do not understand the need for infiltration, which then becomes an educational piece. Gozola noted other cities do not have a tiered system. Rahn stated to his belief Deep Haven was exploring the possibility of implementing a tiered system and that it would be interesting to see what discussion they had regarding that. McMillan asked whether the DNR has redone their shareline regulations. Curtis indicated the DNR is still working on that. Gozola stated the tiered system allows for differing amounts of hardcover throughout the different zones of the property. _ _ ......._ _.._..__ Page 8 � ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday,March 2,2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. Gozola indicated they will double check the code for consistency. One example of inconsistency is that decks are always considered hardcover but that there is another section that says you can add hardcover under your deck if certain conditions are met. Gozola recommended another area to Ue considered is whether the current ordinance compels citizens to comply with the regulations or encourages them to do things without proper permits or oversight. In addition, some thought should be given to how much additional survey costs citizens incur to demonstrate compliance to the current tier system and whether the permitting process is timely. Gozola asked whether there is anything about the current ordinance the group would like to discuss. Printup stated the common theme repeated tonight has been the need to ensure there are clear definitions, and that when the de�nitions are not consistent, it creates frustrated. Rahn concurred that consistency throughout the Code would be good. McMillan commented that another criticism she has received concerns gravel driveways and why they are not promoted more. McMillan stated there can also be issues with performance standards, such as pavers that are installed and then not maintained properly over the years and then they are paved over, or rain gardens being filled in after the property owner has been given credit for thein. Performance standards are great if the residents lrnow how to maintain the items. Lakeshore buffers are also another item that over time tend to become a maintenance nightmare. Loftus noted in Tonka Bay they started requiring easements over the improvements as well as access easements, with language allowing the City to assess the costs back to the property owner, which helps with the enforcement but created some anger among the residents. McMillan noted that Minnetonka also attempted that. Loftus stated that was the only way they could think of to gain access to a property. Enforcement and access are huge issues and it will generate some anger. Gaffron stated they are dealing with that as it relates to wetlands and wetland covenants. Schwinger indicated that a lot of what they are dealing with is items relating to redevelopment and new technology. McMillan stated one of the best things people can do it aerate their lawn every fall to help with water absorption, which does not need to be spelled out in an ordinance but is mare an education piece. Kang asked whether the City could provide a one page list of various resources to the residents. Loftus noted the City currently does that. McMillan suggested that information also be included on the City's web site. Bremer stated the question becomes, how do you stop people from finding ways to circumvent the ___ _._. _ Page 9 ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION � & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. regulations and how that can be built into the process. Gozola stated they do recognize the need for maintenance oversight and that will be taken into consideration as they go through this process. Gaffron stated another item the group may want to consider is stormwater quality rather than hardcover limitations. The goal behind limiting hardcover on a site is to increase the water quality of storm water entering into area water bodies. While limiting hardcover is certainly one way to achieve the goal, the group should consider whether there are other solutions that achieve the same goal. Gaffron stated the City will want to try to avoid the need to have builders, contractors and homeowners do some type of complicated calculation. Curtis stated the City could also require a higher level of approval. If the resident is able to meet this new number, they are allowed to do it, but if it requires five percent more hardcover, then the City could incorporate additional best management practices, which could lead to a higher level of approval, such as requiring a conditional use permit. Gozola concurred that there could be ways to tier out the performance standards and hardcover regulations. Rahn stated new technology also needs to be considered as part of this process and that the City needs to motivate people to do the right thing, such as installing impervious pavers, and perhaps providing them some type of minimal credit for those types of items. Curtis commented when Staff speaks to a homeowner and they want a logical solution and you talk about arbitrary standards, they start to doubt where the City's intentions are. When they are told they can do something that is beneficial but they don't get credit for it, they become defensive. Schwingler indicated that is seen from applicants going before the Planning Commission because the rules do appear arbitrary. Bremer stated one of the things that should be gained from this process is that the City feels like what is being required is justified, has a rational basis, and is consistent. Whether or not the homeowners are happy cannot be the focus of this process or the regulations. Franchot concurred that is one of the goals and that it would be impossible to make everyone happy. One of the City's goals is to uphold Orono's rural character, which is in conflict with people's desire to do what they want with their properties. The rules need to make sense and be clear. Schoenzeit stated the City needs to be able to show that they have done the due diligence on the different technology. Gozola stated as it relates to the timeline, during March they will be in contact with the MCWD and DNR to get supplemental support for developing a template ordinance. In April the goal is to have the research completed on all final DNR and MCWD rules and look at possibly revising the timeline to accommodate final goals and objectives. The goal in May is to be able to hold city open house to introduce the process to the public, solicit _ ___... _____. __. __....._ Page 10 _ _ � ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday, March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. potential focus group participants and get people on an e-mail distribution list to keep them informed. Once the focus group is established, Gozola indicated they would like to hold the initial focus group meeting to tell fhem the goals established by the Council/Planning Commission, explain their role in the process,provide background research that has already completed, and bring in expert presenters. In July they would like to meet with the Planning Commission to present options and receive feedback.A second open house would be held in either late June or early July, followed by the preparation of an initial draft ordinance far review by both the City Council and Planning Commission. In August they are aiming for public hearings at the Planning Commission, followed by approval by the City Council. Bremer asked whether this is a realistic timeline. Gozola indicated in his opinion it is a realistic timeline and pointed out that they are only reviewing one section of the code. Kang expressed a concern that a majority of the work with the public will be completed in July and August, which is the time when a number of the residents take vacations and are busy with other things. Gozola indicated he will take that into consideration if the amount of public feedback is minimal. McMillan asked if the open house is a means of finding potential members for the task force or whether Staff would be recruiting volunteers. McMillan suggested the first open house be a more informative session. Gozola indicated that is what he was envisioning for the open house. McMillan suggested that perhaps now would be a time to compile some people for the task force and that she would prefer the focus group be preliminarily assembled in the near future. Curtis stated if the open house is held prior to the ordinance being drafted, it lets the public know that the City is looking for their input. McMillan commented when she thinks of a focus group, they typically have a particular topic that they focus on, and that the Ciry could have like a focus group open house where certain topics of the hardcover regulations are discussed. Franchot asked how many of these open houses Ben Gozola has participated in and what process he has found works best in these situations. Gozola stated you typically hold at least one open house during a process like this. Gozola stated people come to the open houses to learn as well as vent over certain items. Having that opportunity to express their thoughts tends to satisfy the residents that they have had their opportunity to speak on the subject. They do plan to be constantly communicating with people throughout the process and Staff will also available for comments and questions. Gozola indicated they would be immediately responding to questions of the residents. Franchot indicated he would prefer to defer to Ben Gozola on the actual process and to have the group - -----_ _.._ _....__ Page 11 ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday,March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. focus on the goals. Schwingler commented the last open house on the comprehensive plan, while it allowed people an opportunity to provide input and ask questions, gave the impression that the City had already completed the comprehensive plan and that their input really was not needed. Franchot commented that a number of the residents in attendance had the impression that the comprehensive plan was already completed. Franchot commented he believes the process outlined by Ben Gozola is a good one. Gozola indicated Staff feels it is critical to establish a focus group far this process and that the group has two important questions to address: One, who will sit on the focus group and, two, what input role will the focus group be given. Gozola suggested the focus group consist of one or two council members, one or two planning commissioners, a residential lakeshore owner, a residential nonlakeshore/nonshoreland owner, a local builder or architect familiar with Orono, and a commercial/industrial landowner. Gozola indicated he would prefer to keep the focus group relatively small. Schwingler recommended the members be limited to people who actually reside in the City of Orono. Schwingler pointed out Orono has two very different residential landowners, lakeshore and nonlakeshore, and that perhaps they should have someone from both groups on the focus group. Bremer noted there are also differences within the nonlakeshore group depending on the size of their lot. Gozola commented that it would be difficult to accommodate every group and still keep the focus group small. Rahn stated with that small sampling of volunteers, there could be a strong opinion one way ar another by one or two people on the focus group and that a bigger number of people would help to rectify that. Gozola stated that it may be necessary to go out and approach certain individuals if not enough interest is expressed. Franchot stated there needs to be an identification of ideas and different perspectives, but that it would be helpful if the members of the focus group have experience and expertise in this area. Bremer recommended they start with a small group at first and perhaps reach out to other people with expertise in this area. Curtis asked if it is important that the builder/contractor actually live in Orono. Curtis commented that it is important they have ownership in Orono but that a commercial/industrial landowner may not live in Orono. The builder and contractor is the person Staff typically meets with before coming to the City and that she does not feel the person needs to live in Orono to be on the focus group but should perhaps work within the City and be familiar with the rules and regulations. Franchot stated that is the reason why it is important the City clearly define what it is they want the focus group to da If the City wants to have a metering device that helps the process stay on track with Orono values and vision, they should live in Orono. �_.._....._._._.__--._..._----___....-.._._._.___.__..---.._..__..___...---.__..--.._._.._._....___..._ Page 12 ORONO JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION & CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Wednesday,March 2, 2011 5:30 o'clock p.m. McMillan commented the important thing in her mind for the focus group individuals is they have the time and have the interest. Gozola indicated he was anticipating having one meeting a month for four months. McMillan stated she would like to have some or most of the focus group individuals on board before the open house, which would allow them to listen to the infornlation being presented. Gozola stated they could identify some individuals prior to the open house and encourage them to attend the first open house. Bremer stated if there are outside contractors and/or builders that would be interested and have the time to be on the focus group, they should be included. Gozola thanked the group for providing their input and indicated he will be providing a summary of the meeting in the near future. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. ATTEST: GZ�U �f l/�-e— �C�, - d�0� � `'� •�,... Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayar _._. __.. _..._._. _....... _.._. Page 13 _..._..._ _ ..._ _...._ __ ___ ___ ._._...__.