Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-19-2021 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Scott Kirchner, Commissioners Bob Erickson,Matt Gettman,Dennis Libby,Mark McCutcheon, and Jon Ressler.Representing Staff was Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart. Chair Kirchner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Libby moved,Gettman seconded,to approve the Agenda.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. OATH OF OFFICE Barnhart led Commissioners Erickson,Libby,and Ressler in the Oath of Office. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 15,2021 Gettman moved,Ressler seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of March 15,2021 as submitted.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA21-000023 MARK PRUETER,3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD,VARIANCES Mark Prueter,applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information.The property owner is requesting variances in order to build a new detached garage in generally the same location as an existing, aging garage. Hardcover and side yard setback variances are requested. The new garage will be 82 square feet larger than the existing to improve functionality but the project will result in 49 square feet less hardcover. The applicant identified the size of the property as a practical difficulty supporting the requested variances,as well as the property's orientation and access with respect to the lakeshore,Crystal Bay Road,and the Dakota Trail.The current hardcover level is 37.7%;a 49 square foot reduction in hardcover results in a 37.3% hardcover.The garage conforms to the west and rear setbacks. The applicant has received support from the property owners to the east where a 4.5 foot setback is proposed.An elevation difference from the rear requires a stairway replacement and moving the stair from the east to the west side of the garage. The applicant is able to reduce hardcover for the pathway in addition to removal of the walls that encroach on the Dakota Rail Trail property. Supporting documents have also been received from the neighbor to the west. Staff finds there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot's shape,size, and width and the configuration of the existing garage and access over the easement in the rear which support the applicant's request for variances. The applicant approached the podium, introducing himself. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:06 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:06 p.m. Page 1 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner said although this is larger it is reducing hardcover and in all is a betterment to the situation. He heard Barnhart say by removing the walls it would remove an encroachment. Barnhart noted a retaining wall that encroaches in to the Dakota Rail property that will be removed with this proposal. Ressler moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA21-000023,3215 Crystal Bay Road,Variances. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Barnhart noted this item will be reviewed by the City Council on May 10,2021. 2. LA21-000024 LORRAINE GOODWALD,706 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCES Lorraine Goodwald,applicant,was present. Barnhart noted they are getting some audio feedback so the mics had to be turned down. He asked everyone to please speak into their microphones and speak up a bit. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The property owner is requesting side yard,lake yard, and average lakeshore(ASL)setback variances as well as a hardcover variance for the reconstruction and expansion of an existing irregularly shaped deck. The applicant proposes that the shape of the deck makes it a practical difficulty in using the deck for family and normal deck accoutrements(tables,grills, etcetera),and that the location of the house,proximity to the lake,and the substandard area of the lot all contribute to practical difficulties. Virtually half the house is lakeward of the lake and ASL lines; Staff understands these variances but are somewhat challenged by the hardcover variance. Staff can support the setback variances but cannot support the hardcover variance. Barnhart noted there is virtually no spot to put a deck on this property without a variance.The hardcover increases from 33%to a 34.2%which does not sound like a huge number,but they try to hold firm to the standard 25%in Orono. Staff recommends denial;however the concern is with the hardcover. Barnhart noted this is an older survey and they have removed quite a bit of improvements, some hardcover and a garage. Barnhart stated Staffs recommendation is denial but really they are concerned with the hardcover which would likely require some modification to the deck. However, any deck,especially if it lines up with the side of the house,would likely require a side yard setback in addition to the lake and ALS. Lorraine Goodwald,706 North Arm Drive,applicant,said the reasons she is asking for this variance is because when they open up the door the deck is only 3 feet wide.. McCutcheon asked on the drawings,what is there for hardcover. Ms. Goodwald said right now underneath the deck are some brick pavers,she noted they bought the home as a foreclosure in 2011, so everything that was there when they purchased it still exists. She said it is the original survey from 2003 when the house was built and there really has not been any change. The existing garage to be removed is gone. Page 2 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gettman assumes the sidewalk isone, also. g Ms. Goodwald clarified the sidewalk is there from the driveway to the front door.There is another sidewalk that was removed. She would be flexible to do something different and just wants to have a safe space to be able to bring her family, friends, and her mother out on the deck. There is a grade from the outside so Ms. Goodwald cannot go out and pull her mother(in a wheelchair)levelly as they are on a hill. Libby asked where the entry is from the house. Ms. Goodwald said there is a door from her kitchen that opens up and it is a very narrow,perhaps 4 foot and then it narrows around. Gettman noted the feedback received has been on size and the applicant would be increasing the size of the deck itself. He asked if there is any ability to make it narrower and not the full length or width of the house to accommodate the extending out and squaring off. Ms. Goodwald clarified if she were to do the 8 foot and not the clear end of the house,there is a set of windows there and it might cut into that section but she would be happy to look at that. Gettman noted they had just redone the sidewalk area with a covering or awning. Ms. Goodwald noted the wood arbor was falling apart as the previous owners used interior wood on the outside and the glue was coming apart,so they had it replaced. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Kirchner said there are applications for 4 variances on this application. McCutcheon understands the applicant's concern as they have a lake view as the front of the house is all windows and Ms. Goodwald does not want to put a deck railing in front of a window. He imagines it will be difficult to make the deck return into the middle of the house but if there is an opportunity to reduce the footprint of the deck but still have the depth needed to access it,that is a good solution or compromise. Gettman asked to look at Exhibit H and said by narrowing it, it will actually free up more window but then the issue is they are making a really small deck.There is no easy solution as they are trying to protect the lakeside view. Ms. Goodwald asked to show a picture from the opposite side of the deck and said from the furthest point she wanted to have a rectangle. She asked if she removes the hardcover underneath the deck,could that be a solution? Kirchner stated they have to base it on the application in front of the Commissioners. He said the concern is with the hardcover and whether the Commission approves or denies,it still goes to the Council for their review.His understanding is that Ms. Goodwald can change the application,as far as the layout,between Page 3 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. this meeting and the Council meeting; she could make changes to the hardcover in the plan and bring it to the Council. McCutcheon knows the driveway is narrow but there have been applicants that narrow their driveways to accomplish things and meet the hardcover. It is an option although the applicant probably does not want to do it.He reiterated it is the hardcover so perhaps a compromise on the deck design, as they must win Council over.He thinks showing that she is improving the situation from the original ask says a lot. Libby thinks the Commission's stance on hardcover has been very consistent and a redesign and re- concept coming closer to the standards would be advisable. Ressler moved,Libby seconded,to deny LA21-000024,706 North Arm Drive,Variances as applied. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. Barnhart noted this item will be reviewed by the City Council on May 10,2021. 3. LA21-000026 JALIN DESIGN,LLC, 1395 ORONO LANE,VARIANCES Jalin Design,on behalf of the applicant,was present. Barnhart noted he is getting text messages about the audio noise but cannot really do much; he can hear it himself and it is frustrating. On behalf of the property owner,the applicant is requesting approval of variances for two separate,non- conforming accessory buildings in order to reconstruct them with minor changes.The first project is the carriage house near the street and the other is a proposed boathouse near the lake. The boathouse is requesting side yard, lake,and ALS variances in order to expand the volume envelope of the existing building to meet flood plain regulations. Essentially they are taking the same footprint and structure size and moving it back into the property and away from the side yard setback to address a flood plain issue. It still needs a variance because it is occupying spaces not originally occupied by the structure. The corners of the new building's flat roof will expand outward from the sloped portions of the existing roof. The boathouse will be slightly higher at the edge of the building where the flat roof corners expand upward and the overall height of the boathouse will be reduced about 3 feet from the peak of the existing boathouse.The carriage house near the street is currently setback from the side property line 1 foot so it is non-conforming structure and is considered a guesthouse and has received a CUP for a guesthouse. The applicant is proposing to raise the roof inside the first floor to allow more current garage ceiling dimensions.To accomplish this,the applicant is proposing a minor roof and side wall change resulting in the new envelope expansion slightly above the existing roof on the street side and beyond the pitch of the roof on the lake side requiring the rear and side yard variances. The carriage house is proposed to be reconstructed on the same footprint,which is one foot from the side lot line and the roof within the rear and side yard is approximately 1.6 feet taller than the existing roof with an overall peak height reduction of 1 foot 5.5 inches. In other words,portions of it are getting taller but portions of it are getting shorter. The applicant has identified the location of existing buildings,their setbacks and sizes,and the internal dimensions of the structures 100-year flood plain low-floor requirements,as well as the need to increase the garage door and ceiling height as practical difficulties supporting the variances. Staff recommends approval citing those practical difficulties. Page 4 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Jeff Lindgren,Jalin Design, 651 408th Trail,Brooklyn Park, stated they have provided a fairly comprehensive report of what they are trying to accomplish. They are working to find a new plan for the site that is good for the home owners,the City,and the neighbors. This is part of a bigger journey as they are doing a lot of improvements to the site. These two buildings need to be done first and in talking to the City over time this is the way it has been decided to move forward. Kirchner appreciates the drawings submitted as it makes it very clear to understand the changes being proposed. Libby asked regarding the boathouse,it is a physically larger footprint than the previous. Mr. Lindgren noted it is the same footprint as what is there now,with respect to a couple of architectural details they are adding which are considered wing walls on the bottom left corner and the mid-right upper corner.Those are outside of the envelope and are not for living space but are architectural elements on the outside of the boathouse. In some sense they are reducing the footprint; he noted overhangs on the structure are being reduced by changing to a flat roof structure. Libby asked if they are increasing the volume of the square footage. Mr. Lindgren replied they are increasing the volume,but not the footprint.The volume is per the code; the current structure has a low heel height above the wall and nowadays cannot be obtained with the energy code. What they are trying to do is lower the high point and raise up the low point in the situation to get more energy efficiencies above the wall line around the perimeter. That is where they are changing the volume. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. McCutcheon does not have a problem with this entire plan. Kirchner asked if he is okay with the carriage house. McCutcheon replied yes, even though it is a foot from the property line—that is what it was before. Kirchner tends to agree,it is really a replica of the footprint that was there before and he thinks they are improving by shifting the boathouse back 9 feet and over. Barnhart clarified Staff recommends approval subject to the two conditions in the memo. The boathouse should not have any hardcover landing because of the hardcover concerns,and the property owner shall sign the standard plumbing covenant regarding plumbing within the boathouse. There is already a CUP for the carriage house. Gettman moved,McCutcheon seconded,to approve LA21-000026, 1395 Orono Lane,Variances with the conditions listed in the Staff memo.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1 (Libby). 4. LA20-000047 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO BOAT STORAGE Page 5 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said this item carries over from the March meeting and the work session from earlier today. The Planning Commission provided some feedback in terms of changes to the ordinances as it relates to boat storage. The City code has certain rules and regulations for boat storage and they have worked to address a code enforcement issue identified by the City Attorney. Staff has drafted an ordinance amendment to define what boats are for the purposes of this regulation-basically excluding canoes,kayaks, paddleboards,or pedal boats—and Staff recommends that all boats stored on properties have to be currently licensed and not missing key components of being a boat. These include a motor,propeller, battery, or the interior used for storage such that a person could not operate the vehicle. He noted they borrow from the junk car regulation in that they are not asking people to turn the motor on a boat to make sure it runs,and not all boats have motors. However, it would be to demonstrate that the boat is operable as a boat versus a storage facility. Staff recommends approval as drafted with the exception of"fish house." He would like to remove fish houses from this ordinance and they will address that later if needed. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. McCutcheon moved,Ressler seconded,to approve LA20-000047 Text Amendment related to boat storage.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. LA21-000027 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO PLUMBING IN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Barnhart said this ordinance is intended to address an issue that seemed to require residents to go through an unnecessary level of hoops to get minor improvements to their property,but it also still retains protection from a density issue. City code requires someone adding a bath or shower to an accessory building to get a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for plumbing. The original concern is they were trying to prevent excess density by adding dwelling units in residential areas,effectively doubling the amount of density in a particular area.In the last 15 months the City has had 8 plumbing CUP's come through, all were approved and all included as a matter of approval a covenant that the applicant will not use the structure as a guest house,home occupation,or rent it.From Staff's perspective,they can accommodate those same goals through a conditional permit and not necessarily a conditional use permit(CUP). Staff recommends some changes that remove the requirement that if one is adding a bath or shower to an accessory building,they need to get a CUP. They will still need a CUP when building a guest house, which has been defined a bit differently in correlation with the building code; it requires all of the standards of a dwelling unit identified in the building code such as living, sleeping,eating,cooking, and sanitation requirements.If one meets those requirements they would need a CUP and if they do not they would need to sign a covenant through the office. This ordinance is identical in six residential zoning districts so the actual ordinance amendment will be much lengthier because of duplication. For purposes of conversation,Barnhart wants to show the Commissioners what they may expect to see in the new ordinance. This draft would require the covenant with the standards here and would still prevent guest homes beyond certain requirements. Staff recommends approval of this change that would ease some of the process for property owners looking to add a shower to a pool house,for example. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Page 6 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner noted they have seen these applications quite a bit and as Barnhart stated they have all been approved in the last 15 months.This would also help homeowners get projects done in a more timely manner rather than waiting for Planning Commission and Council approval. Ressler moved,Erickson seconded,to approve LA21-000027 Text Amendment related to plumbing in accessory buildings as proposed by Staff.VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 6. LA21-000025 DUNKLEY—VOGSTROM,2709 WALTERS PORT ROAD, SKETCH PLAN Sue Dunkley and Eric Vogstrom,applicants,were present. Barnhart said the applicant is requesting sketch plan feedback on a proposal to re-plat the property including adjusting the boundary lines for all three lots(2709 Walters Port Road,2710 Pence,and outlot A).When this property was platted a couple years ago there were some conditions on the final plat resolution that prohibited access from lot 1 to Pence.At the time, Staff and Council wanted to prevent access from Lot 1 to Pence for the main reason that Pence Lane was not constructed to a private road standard—right now it is a private driveway. In the City code a private driveway can serve up to two properties while a private road can serve 3-6 depending on the width of the pavement or up to 10 units if the pavement is wider.There is also a cul-de-sac or turnaround requirement and construction feedback.At the time there were no plans to improve Pence to a private road so the condition was put into the resolution.What the applicants propose now is to re-plat the property,provide the necessary cul-de-sac for Pence Lane,and make Pence Lane a private road.Barnhart said they are interested in hearing any feedback the Commissioners have on that scenario. One main issue from Staff perspective is whether lot 1 has rights access to this portion of Pence Lane. The applicant has provided material that suggests they do have rights to that and the City Attorney is verifying that and will have an answer before filing for a preliminary final plat.The other issue identified is that Pence Lane is a 30 foot wide outlot and is required to be 50 feet wide from City code,therefore it is likely that some variance would be necessary to improve Pence Lane within the existing right-of-way. The challenge is they cannot acquire additional right-of-way because it is constructed on either side.Barnhart noted a comment letter received from a neighboring property owner which was provided to the Commission. They are objecting to the change for a number of reasons outlined in the letter and would be incorporated into a formal public comment period in terms of the preliminary plat.Because there is likely no public improvements necessary before the final plat, Staff anticipates the preliminary and final plat occurring at the same time. He noted they are not subdividing any property,but removing the condition imposed on the original subdivision and there is a distinction there. They are looking for some feedback for the applicant. Kirchner wants to fully understand the purpose served by re-platting. Barnhart said re-platting is a clean depiction of what the lot is,what the boundary lines are,and a lay person can identify the boundaries of lot 1 and lot 2 versus having to go out in to the field and survey and find those corners. From a future easement standpoint and any legal document needed, instead of paragraphs of dimensions, distances, minutes,and seconds becomes lot 1,block 1,Pence Lane,second addition. It is a very clean,distinct depiction of what they are working with. From a planning perspective it is much easier to communicate with future property owners what the boundaries and legal description are. Page 7 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said the two conditions imposed that approved the final plat were: 1)access to lot 1 will be via Walters Port Lane only, and 2)vehicular access to Pence Lane from Lot 1 is expressly prohibited. Mark Gronberg,Gronberg and Associates,noted they are trying to clean up some things and Dunkley's have always wanted their driveway to come through Pence Lane because Walters Port is somewhat narrow and crowded; it just makes a better situation and they are willing to put in a cul-de-sac. He noted there is 150 foot stretch of Pence Lane that is 30 foot right-of-way as Barnhart mentioned and is about a 16 foot blacktop now.There are some nice trees,neighbors' fences and it could be widened a bit within that 30 foot but for that short of a stretch they do not know if it is really necessary because of the cul-de- sac and they would like feedback on that. They would have to take down some trees but could get 20 feet wide as fire departments like,or even 24 feet would leave 3 feet on each side.Mr. Gronberg noted Walters Port is so narrow right now that it makes more sense to have these two lots have their own private driveways from the cul-de-sac. Kirchner asked if the existing driveway to lot 1 is intended,too. Mr. Gronberg replied yes,the existing driveway would remain and there is still a house to the north of Lot 1 that uses part of that.He pointed out on screen some shared driveways in there and that would still stay. Sue Dunkley,2709 Walters Port Road, said when they bought this property back in 2018 the neighbor who is having the issues was not even there yet. Pence Lane,Kelly Avenue that they are talking about was at one point a public road and in 1985 it was given back to those neighbors because there isn't much traffic on it. Walters Port,which they come in on now, is also a private road and it is grandfathered in. She said they had the fire in October of 2019 and it was pretty clear what really needs to happen in this whole area—they purchased four acres so they could come in the driveway they own and all of that land that has been in question from the neighbors that came later.They come in 600 feet on their land and all of this has been trying to get them not to come in the land that they purchased and pay taxes on. She knows the Commissioners have a letter she has not seen and that is not surprising,but the whole idea is when they bought the land,the purpose was to come in on the land they bought,that gated area. Ms. Dunkley said they have worked really hard trying to make it incredibly safe for everyone and after the fire,they are at the dead end right now,if there is a UPS truck,a moving truck,a fire truck,there was nowhere to turn around and she stated they have solved all of those issues. They would like to be able to have those neighbors—not everyone in the world—be able to go out and around again. When one comes down Walters Port the only surface to do anything with is their driveway so they are really trying to improve this whole neighborhood.Ms. Dunkley said when they purchased the land it had washers and dryers and mattresses and they are trying to make it a beautiful park-like area. They own it and they really want to be able to come in and look at the land they bought;they do not want to be restricted by someone that bought a back lot and thinks that they should not come in on their land. If one wants control and privacy maybe they do not buy a lot that comes in 600 feet on someone else's property. She noted they have finally come up with a plan that makes sense to everybody.What they have done is taken a map that was really a mess due to some new neighbors that moved in and make them jump through all these hoops. She hopes after four years that they really can look at this reasonably and say what is best for the area,the five homeowners on Walters Port and what really works. There is the same amount of traffic in those areas as always and those two driveways will be close to the same width. She hopes to work with the Commissioners and everyone to make it a safe area. Page 8 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Gronberg said with the plan they have fire and police can come in Pence Lane and go out Walters Port and vice-versa. Eric Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane,wants to be sure the Commission understands the big picture. Coming in on Pence Lane right now is himself and the Randall's;right now that road is 16 feet wide and has three people coming in on it.He said now they are asking for a fourth person. Kirchner opened discussion and noted this is just feedback without a motion. He said the letter before the Commissioners talks about the redundancy of the driveway paralleling the existing driveway. When he first looked at the picture prior to reading the letter that was his concern.He does not know how it works with a private road versus a private driveway and Barnhart could assist on that.Kirchner would prefer to see the existing driveway on the east side. If the second driveway to the west of that was not added and instead,where the 45-degree angle is on lot 2 and it starts to open up wider,he would like to see that secondary driveway branch off right there. He understands there is a covenant that they cannot cross two to one. Barnhart said from a new plat standpoint there are certain things they have say in and certain things they do not.There is a shared driveway agreement for lot 2 and a lot that is not part of the project, so there are certainly constraints within that of who can access or share that driveway. If three lots shared this and it branched off,it would have to be a private road and they do not have the width for that,nor is that what is proposed.There are setbacks and he hears the concern with the redundant or parallel driveways; however if they meet the setbacks there is not much he can do about it. They think they can meet the five foot setback from the driveway perspective but they just need to see it on the drawing.Primarily they are focused on if the Commission is comfortable with Pence Lane terminating in this cul-de-sac,are they comfortable with the likely necessary variance from the right-of-way width from the existing Pence.The Dunkley's brought up the connection between Pence and Walters Port for fire and emergency vehicles which raises another level of comment and concern because they have private road standards including vertical and horizontal curves and things like that for those vehicles which they do not have for private driveways.He would be cautious about promoting that as an emergency access;knowing the history of the site,there are some challenging horizontal curves and elevation changes that might be difficult to address.They would want to look at that before they say it is an access. Mr. Gronberg mentioned the right-of-way pavement issue he would like some comment on; from Staff's perspective the standard is 24 feet and they should keep it at 24 feet to make it a true private road. Again,they are here to listen to the Commissioner's comments. The lots meet the standards in terms of area and width,both have the improvements from a hardcover standpoint so there is no issue there. Primarily,the main question is what the Commissioner's thoughts are on Pence,because if Pence is a private road,they can remove those conditions. Kirchner said there are covenants that do not allow crossing from lot 2 to lot 1,so adding that drive off Pence to lot 1 then connects with Walters Point;he asked isn't that a similar thing? Barnhart thinks that will be less of an issue because now they will have their own access to Pence. Kirchner asked if the traffic on Walters then crosses onto that private drive. Barnhart said that is a fair point but he thinks the issue raised earlier is because there was no driveway and there was a concern that it would be a big loop.Now there is another driveway so that is less of a concern. Page 9 of 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,April 19,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson spoke about pavement width. Kirchner would like to see the neighbors work together to have easements for lot 1 to access the driveway that is on lot 2. McCutcheon would like the neighbors to get together and come up with a solution and it does seem like they have been trying. If they somehow accomplished the horseshoe,would the City still want the cul-de- sac there? Barnhart said no,this is not an easy one,not only how the road is oriented and how to connect,but how do they accommodate hardcover and avoid creating non-conforming situations. He thinks the Commissioner's feedback is helpful and they may see something similar to this because it has to meet the ordinance. Perhaps a PUD is an option but this is not a subdivision,just a plat, and he cannot require them to go through the subdivision process. Kirchner thinks the Commission has given feedback on the item. 7.Update on April 12,2021 City Council meeting Barnhart said the City Council reviewed applications the Commissioners saw in March. 1405 Rest Point Road variances,the applicant made modifications and the Council approved it. The dock permit at 480 Big Island was tabled and the Mayor suggested the property owner's work together to find a solution.The CUP for plumbing at 3500 Bayside was approved on consent, as was the CUP for bees on Bayside. A variance at 4085 Watertown Road was approved,the preliminary plat at 1485 6th Avenue North was approved, and the variance at 15 Stubbs Bay Road was approved. The concept for the apartment building at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West,the Council did not support additional height above the 30 feet but did seem to support the flat roof configuration. ADJOURNMENT Libby moved,Erickson seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting.VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. ATTEST: Scott Kirchner,Chair Page 10 of 10