Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-17-2021 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 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 Chris Bollis,Bob Erickson,Matt Gettman,Dennis Libby,Mark McCutcheon,and Jon Ressler.Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart and City Planner Melanie Curtis. Chair Kirchner called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.,followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Libby moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the Agenda.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 19,2021 Gettman moved,Libby seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of April 19,2021 as submitted. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MINUTES OF APRIL 19,2021 Erickson moved,Ressler seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission workshop meeting of April 19,2021 as submitted.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 1. LA21-000030 TOM BERGSTROM, 1509 LONG LAKE BLVD,VARIANCES Tom Bergstrom,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information(Item 1 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). Curtis noted the owner received variances to redevelop the property with a new home and deck; at this time the applicant is requesting rear street setback and 75 foot setback variances in order to expand the existing deck by 227 square feet including a spiral staircase. The property owner has indicated a willingness to remove an 80 square foot patio within the 75-foot setback to facilitate approval of the requested variances. Staff finds the variances are not supported by practical difficulty and recommends denial of requested variances to enlarge the deck as the property has reasonable use with the existing improvements. Bollis asked regarding the 80 square foot patio: was that part of the 2018 redevelopment or was it existing prior? Curtis replied it was preexisting. Tom Bergstrom, 1509 Long Lake Blvd,did not know he did not want a diamond-shaped lot until he moved into the lot as one cannot do much with it as shown regarding the lake setback and road setback. He is requesting to have a deck that would be approximately a smaller size than all of the existing lake owners on the lake.His nearby neighbors to the west have large decks;the.average deck in the U.S. is approximately 300-400 square feet and Mr. Bergstrom is requesting 395 square feet. He thinks it is Page 1 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. reasonable to have an average-sized deck in the U.S. given that he is on the lake. He showed his property on screen and noted he would like to ideally remove a patio and combine it together,taking hardcover out of the 75 foot lake setback and moving it or attaching it to the house so it is not separated. He showed the survey and noted that his property only has a sliver in which one can technically or legally build anything; he thinks on some level that is a practical hardship considering if it was a rectangle-shaped lot they do not have the same practical difficulties.There has also been some severe erosion over the past several decades,they did some shoreline stabilization and noted years and years of erosion has impacted the size of the lot.He noted there is not a good work around for the proposal,he has come to the City and worked with Ms. Oakden trying to figure out the best ways to expand this. Because of bugs,being higher off the ground is preferred and unfortunately there would still be a section in the 75 foot setback but it would be less than 15 feet so there would be a reduction in hardcover in that precious area. He showed overhead photos of his house and 9 adjacent houses and said every one of them have decks,pools,outdoor spaces, hardcover spaces substantially larger than his. He would think it reasonable to still have the smallest imprint in front of his house considering he is well below the hardcover requirement and making concessions. Kirchner said Deck B on screen is currently existing and asked how many square feet it is. Mr. Bergstrom replied 179 square feet. It is enough to put six chairs and a table. He would ideally like to pull the couch off the other area and have a place to sit and eat to enjoy the lake views. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. Ressler said Staff feedback point of contention seems to be the deck.He asked if there are any other concerns over the rest of the application and variance besides the deck. Curtis replied all the applicant is asking for at this point is to construct that deck. Ressler said as long as it stays behind the green line, Staff would be agreeable to it and asked if that is accurate. Curtis believes Staff could support the request if it was not encroaching in the 75 foot setback. Kirchner asked if it is not encroaching in the 75-foot setback,would a variance still be required for the 50-foot setback? Curtis replied yes. Kirchner feels there is currently usage of the space and does not think the applicant is being denied usage in that they do currently have a deck. He appreciates the research that went in but does not believe that just because the average size of a deck is 300-400 square feet the Planning Commission needs to go out of their bounds to allow that to happen within the 75 foot setback. If they were not encroaching on the 75 foot setback he would likely be a bit more open to it if it was merely a 50 foot rear yard setback. Page 2 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler agrees.The precedent in Orono follows the recommendation by Staff in trying to be agreeable to a reasonable building envelope and stay within the guidelines they have.He would support Staff's recommendation. Bollis agrees.There is no doubt there is practical difficulty on the lot with the legal building envelope. He likes the intent of the exchange for the hardcover within the 75 foot setback but would like to see something closer to a 1-to-1 exchange. Mr. Bergstrom reiterated that he would be removing approximately 85 feet in that setback area. If the goal is to stabilize erosion,which is the point of the hardcover issues for drainage;this meets and actually exceeds that goal in a precious area by eliminating more hardcover area and reduces that. As for the definition of reasonable,he would like to understand that if all decks bigger than this are now considered unreasonable,he would think that will affect many other houses potentially being built in the City—if the Commission defines anything bigger than this as an unreasonable request. Kirchner shared that Mr. Bergstrom's request is not unreasonable,the overall thought is there is a reasonable use of the property at this time.A home is there for year-round use and the owner is being afforded the opportunity to use the lot in a single family residential manner as zoned.As for removing hardcover within it, a vast majority of applications the Commission sees involves hardcover from decades prior that is already within that,which would set a bad precedent if they said because they are removing some hardcover that they will allow other intrusions into that space to then be allowed. Mr. Bergstrom pointed out in the survey,he did not know when building a house for his family,that they were not able to do this and he understands there is a legal gray area of an existing house in that structure. They intentionally worked with the City to pull that back and he does not see a great way besides putting a hallway on a deck to work inside of that. He noted it would be a very small corner, less than 10 square feet in total in that area;he showed the house that was torn down less than two years ago on screen. Kirchner noted the Commission has a note from a neighbor stating they have no concerns with the proposal. Ressler stated the Commission has to work with what they have as guidelines for the City. There have been other applications that have had as reasonable or more reasonable means for approving the application—however,it has been made loud-and-clear that the City Council does not necessarily agree and they draw a pretty hard line on meeting the defined practical difficulties. He thinks that will be the pushback regardless of the outcome of the Commission's vote. Once it gets to the Council it is not necessarily something that is granted. Libby asked the applicant if there is any resistance to modify the proposed deck in a more linear manner in the front where the encroachment into the 75 foot setback is, bringing the deck front,back,equal,to deck B.He asked Curtis if that would bring it back enough out of the 75 foot setback? Mr. Bergstrom would be willing to do that,he has met with the City several times and sent dozens of emails,and the hardship is the corner of the deck. He would be absolutely open to any work around to try to enjoy the hardcover space up to 25%. Libby said the encroachment into the 75 foot setback and the surface area of the patio are really not a trade-off because there would still be a remaining encroachment in to the 75 with the physical location of Page 3 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. the deck.He is trying to take a constructive method in designing the deck to remove the encroachment into the75 which the Commission has regularly and consistently maintained as a metric of ordinance. Bollis asked if Mr.Bergstrom has a calculation for the amount of the proposed deck over the 75 foot setback. Mr. Bergstrom replied approximately 16 feet total. He would be removing approximately 95 square feet of hardcover which is better for the City and better for the lakes. Ressler does not feel that it is a fair exchange removing hardcover in exchange for structure. He does not think it is an unreasonable ask but he does not know it can be approved under the guidelines the Commission must abide by. Ressler moved,seconded by Libby,to deny LA21-000030, 1509 Long Lake Blvd,Variances as submitted.VOTE: Ayes: 7,Nays 0. 2. LA21-000031 BCD HOMES O/B/O STEVE& SARA ZAWOYSKI,724 TONKAWA RD, VARIANCE Doug Johnson o/b/o the Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information(Item 2 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). In 2011, the property owners received variances in order to build the current home and detached garage. Lot area and lot width variances,a hardcover variance permitting 32.9%hardcover where 25%is allowed,and a rear setback variance for the detached garage to be set back 15 feet from the rear/street yard where a 30- foot setback is required.The applicant is requesting a setback variance to add a second story above the existing detached garage.The garage has a street-facing overhead door which requires the building to be set at the principal building setback of 30 feet.The garage is set at 15.6 feet from the rear property line. Staff finds lot width,topography, and the proximity of the existing garage to the rear lot line supporting of the requested variance. Finding practical difficulties,Planning Staff recommends approval of the rear setback variance to add a 2nd story to the existing detached garage. Gettman asked if there are additional covenants being suggested such as no plumbing so it does not turn into a second house. Curtis did not recommend any covenants. The applicant would need a conditional use permit(CUP)in order to have additional plumbing.A toilet and a sink are proposed. Kirchner asked if a toilet and sink would trigger a CUP. Curtis replied no;they require a covenant for that but it is not a CUP-level activity. Kirchner asked if a shower is what triggers it. Barnhart clarified as of last month yes,but now it is just a covenant. Page 4 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Doug Johnson,200 SE University Ave,Minneapolis,said there is currently no plumbing in the detached garage and the owners would like to use it for an office and would like a toilet and sink,there will be no shower. Kirchner asked if the owner would be okay with the Commission adding a covenant added that a shower not be added. Mr. Johnson replied 100%. Barnhart noted they should be cautious about adding conditions that are not germane to the application in front of the Commission. The applicant has the right to have certain plumbing and covenants are in place. The reason Staff did not suggest a covenant is because they did not a see the need;obviously the Code still prevails so if there is a future building permit with plumbing,then they would add that as a requirement. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Libby asked if this is sewered. Curtis replied yes, it is sewered. Ressler said generally speaking to trigger the covenant, is it at the time of rough building inspection and does it then come back to the Commission? Curtis replied when they apply for the permit and show features on the plan the applicant is required to provide a covenant prior to issuance of the permit. The covenant is dependent upon the noted features that will be roughed in. They would not be able to proceed if they did not have a covenant; it would not come back to the Commission as it is just a covenant at the Staff level. Ressler noted that includes a shower,as well. Curtis answered that is true. Ressler is on board with the applicant as applied. Ressler moved,Bollis seconded,to approve LA21-000031, 724 Tonkawa Rd,Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 3. LA21-000032 AL AZAD, 165 BEDERWOOD DR,VARIANCES Al Azad,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information(Item 3 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). The applicant is requesting approvals in order to redevelop the property with a new single family home.Requested variances are for the following: lot area, lot width,and front and rear setback. Staff finds the LR-1A zoning district requirements,lot size,width,and the unique configuration without Page 5 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. actual road frontage in an easement driveway create practical difficulties for development. However, there is a reasonable,conforming building envelope available to the property owner. If the proposed home were rotated slightly it would nearly fit into the allowed building envelope(showed on screen). The existing envelope appears to provide adequate space with which to construct a conforming home footprint. Staff suggests the applicant re-orient the home to better fit into the permitted envelope. Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the setback variances;however, Staff supports lot width and lot area variances allowing for redevelopment. McCutcheon said it seems that they need a variation for every setback and asked why the existing envelope is better than this one. Curtis noted the lot has historically been defined as the front with the eastern lot line which would thereby dictate the other setback yards. It is an awkward orientation as the lot does not have frontage on Bederwood Drive,the road continues up into the Luce Line property and becomes a driveway for this residence. McCutcheon asked if the proposed front will be the south or the north. Curtis said they are not changing the proposed front but are asking to be 15.3 feet from the defined front, 10 feet on the side as the Luce Line property cuts through 44.8 from the west(rear), and 39 from the side. Bollis asked if an analysis has been done in redefining the lot lines so that the north line was the front line;is there a different legal buildable envelope that conforms more with what they are proposing? Curtis said potentially but the front would still be 50 feet. Barnhart did a cursory analysis of that and there is less buildable area if they consider the north property line the front. Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Drive,noted the house is quite old and they are trying to remodel it and fix it up;they decided for community enhancement to rebuild the house. The garage,although they are saying detached, is actually attached as there is a little sidewalk separating the garage from the house but the roof is attached.They are putting the house exactly where the old house is but is a bit bigger than the old house. Al Azad said the house that is there right now is the exact same direction,the only thing they added was a sunroom and the garage is a little bigger. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m. Kirchner does not see that it is the same location of the current house. Based on setbacks this is not something he can support and agrees with Staffs recommendation. Gettman asked what would be the proposed envelope that Kirchner and Curtis would be comfortable with because they are combining the garage that is currently separated.The overall footprint looks like it is modified but practical difficulty is this is just not a buildable lot. Page 6 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Curtis showed the building envelope on screen that the Code would dictate. Gettman said where the existing garage is they are not trying to modify the footprint that much but trying to combine it under one space.He would tend to support this as the practical difficulty of trying to combine. Switching it the 45 degrees based on this lot, it looks like the area to the south does not necessarily mean it will fit for any kind of house they are trying to combine the space with. Bollis thinks Gettman brings up a good point and the 15.3 front yard setback they are asking for it actually better than the existing one when considering the garage. That being said,he could get behind this if it was a remodel or addition but this is a completely new house. He does not know if he can support this; if it was an addition he would support it. Gettman asked the applicant what renovations he had previously tried to do. Mr.Azad said the house is close to 100 years old and the basement has a lot of problems. Trying to fix and remodel was not reasonable and it did not work out. McCutcheon asked if it is oriented to get a lake view out of the sun room. Mr. Azad said they are trying to put the house where the old house is and a little bit on the back might be bigger;that is his understanding from talking with the designer. McCutcheon asked if the applicant were to re-orient the house,what does Mr. Azad not like about that design. Mr. Azad stated there is nothing that he would not like. Libby asked to clarify in the term"partial approval"what Curtis sees as permissible and positive and can work within the envelope that would meet the City's ordinance. Curtis noted they are asking for four variances: lot area, lot width,front,and rear setback. Staff supports the lot area and lot width variances to develop the lot with a new home. Staff is suggesting that there is an adequate building envelope to do so not requiring variances. Ressler said generally the Commission likes to see an improvement of the existing structure setbacks,the existing garage is demonstrative of that.He does not disagree with Staff that there is a reasonable building envelope.He believes 48 feet is the width of a reasonable building envelope and asked if that is correct. Curtis noted she said that the building envelope is 40 by 80. Ressler would not be in support of the application as applied; however for where this application may go afterward,he would like to be on record that he probably would be supportive of the garage part of the structure to go outside of the building envelope.He does not know that he would be supportive of encroaching on the rear setback as a variance from the building envelope. He does not know how supportive he would be on the house itself exceeding in any direction; if it were to go any direction he would perhaps be agreeable going front. Page 7 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner noted Ressler sees the value in improving the garage location but is not in support of the applicant encroaching in other areas. Ressler agreed. He thinks there is precedence identified because the current garage is already outside the building envelope quite extensively and they are improving that position in having the attached garage be part of a proposed structure. Moving the garage farther away also adds hardcover so they must be cognizant. If they can keep the house mostly or entirely within the building envelope he would be supportive of the garage exceeding the building envelope. Curtis asked if that would mean getting the sun room out of the rear setback and leaving the rest as-is. Ressler said it looks like the front of the lot where the garage is,he would be agreeable to exceeding that building envelope.Right now it looks like it is applied to exceed the building envelope(house and garage).He would not be agreeable to that much of an encroachment. Gettman noted they are saying because of the practical difficulties they are willing to have the garage go outside the envelope which by definition is saying that this is not buildable. It is not reasonable for them to have that 40 foot space—it just does not work for any kind of set up. He suggested giving the applicant feedback with the partial approval as opposed to just denying the application completely. Kirchner clarified the Commission is not here to redesign for the applicant,and regardless of the outcome at the Commission it will go before the City Council and they will make the ultimate determination of approval or denial. This discussion is feedback for the applicant and a recommendation for the Council. Kirchner agrees with Ressler;40x80 allows for about a 3,200 square foot footprint which he thinks is reasonable and there are ways that can be done to still build a home and have use of that.He is a little torn on the garage,depending on how things would be aligned;he thinks some work can be done and he would not be supportive of this as applied today. Erickson would support the Staff report. With the 40x80 building envelope and rotating the building, it would bring it closer to fitting in the City's ordinance,those are two good reasons for denial at this point. Erickson moved,Ressler seconded,to deny LA21-000032 Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Dr,Variances. Ressler asked Gettman if he would move to partially approve. Gettman replied for the certain setbacks.He is willing to have it denied so it can go to Council to hear the Commission's recommendations. McCutcheon clarified the applicant has the opportunity to submit another drawing before it goes to Council. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4.LA20-000033 DUPONT CONSTRUCTION OB/O CAROLYN& MASON HARDY, 1579 MAPLE PLACE,VARIANCES Carolyn Hardy,Applicant,was present. Page 8 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Staff presented a summary packet of information(Item 4 on the Agenda under Public Hearings).The applicant requests lot area and lot width variances;the property is 9,000 square feet in area,and has 50 feet in width where 21,780 square feet and 100-feet in width are required. This substandard Lot of Record qualified for buildability without area and width variances and a new home was constructed on the property in 2012.However,a qualifier for taking advantage of the Lot of Record status is a hardcover limitation of 25%,although the property is within Tier 2 which allows a hardcover level of 30%. The applicant would like to construct a slightly larger deck(140 square feet);therefore,lot area and width variances are required.The applicant identified the substandard lot area and lot width as practical difficulties. Staff agrees and finds the substandard size of the property a practical difficulty. Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances which would permit the property to utilize 30%hardcover—the applicant is proposing 27%. Bollis asked the hardcover levels of the neighboring homes on each side. Curtis replied many of the homes in this strip of Maple Place were built by the same builder who took advantage of the Lot of Record status. She did not look to see if any had received lot area or width variances,but they were all either conforming to 25%or had received variances. Carolyn Hardy, 1579 Maple Place, stated they are the second owners and the deck was put in before they purchased the property and is unsafe. There are simply trying to replace the bad deck with a good deck and hopefully fit all four of their family out there. Kirchner is trying to understand how much larger this deck would be. Ms. Hardy thinks it is 8x9 foot deck and they are asking for a 10x10 deck. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Kirchner stated this seems fairly simple and reasonable; they are not maxing out the 30%hardcover level. He asked if it expands any wider than the existing exterior of the home. Curtis replied no it does not and it meets the setbacks. Kirchner does not have any problems with this application. Libby supports Staff's recommendation. Bollis questions how these lots were able to be developed in the first place with the Lot of Record. He is sure they will have applications from other lots wanting to go to the 30%. Erickson moved,Ressler seconded,to approve LA20-000033, 1579 Maple Place,Variances As applied.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 5.LA21-000035 DARRIN ROSHA O/B/O ORONO STATION WEST,2160 W.WAYZATA BLVD, VARIANCE Page 9 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Darrin Rosha o/b/o Orono Station West,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information(Item 5 on the Agenda under Public Hearings).Barnhart stated the property owner recently purchased the existing gas station and are looking to rebrand the fuel sales portion of the business. This property includes the gas station, fuel sales,and several other commercial entities in the mall building on the property.The applicant is requesting variances from the sign ordinance,all of which are spelled out in the City Code and Barnhart's memo. City Staff supports the second freestanding sign variance,they can support some modification to the sign area but Staff has a challenge supporting a variance that is 2-3 times the size allowed by the City. Staff can support some modification from the number of canopy signs but cannot support lighting of the canopy. When the City enacted a new sign ordinance in 2018, one provision was that a canopy sign cannot be lit. Staff recommends approval of the number of free standing signs,and the number of canopy signs. Staff does not support variances for the lighting of the canopy and the size of the proposed free standing sign. Kirchner said the lighting of the sign Barnhart is talking about is the blue and red line running along the face of the canopy—he asked if the words"Marathon"would be supported as lit. Barnhart replied yes,the Code contemplates logos and signage on the canopy which would be lit. The Code allows this type of business to have one street frontage and one canopy sign; Staff can support multiple canopy signs because of the unique shape of the canopy but cannot support the lighting of the bars around the canopy. Ressler asked what part of the presentation is the changeable copy that Staff had opposition to. Barnhart said as defined by City Code,change of copy is anything that can change the text or graphic of the sign. This technically is changeable copy with the idea they can put pictures,words,advertisements on it which could change.By the strict reading of the rule,the price sign is changeable copy, although that was never the intent of the ordinance so Staff is clarifying that issue with the sign text amendment the Commission will see later. Ressler asked if the gas prices were not part of the calculation would it meet criteria for changeable copy? Barnhart replied it would meet the criteria in the sense that it is the correct ratio. The changeable copy is to be 35%maximum of the freestanding copy area. Ressler asked if they know the size of signage of the gas station down the road from this property to contrast and compare. Erickson sold that property back in 1997 and they received a variance for height at 16 feet high and has 75 square feet of signage. Barnhart noted that sign is in Long Lake so it did not factor in to his comparison. Bollis clarified Code allows 45 square feet. Barnhart replied 45 square feet for the freestanding sign area. Bollis asked if that is 45 and the additional electronic portion? Or 45 including it? Page 10 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart replied it is 45 including it. The sign the Commission is looking at tonight is proposed at 95.79 square feet. Erickson asked the height on the Marathon sign. Barnhart noted it is 20 feet high. It conforms because there is a section of the Code that applies only to gas stations which allows a 22 foot high sign. Gettman asked about the Holiday station on Shadywood; it looks like it is 106 square feet as opposed to the 95 square feet.He noted that is another 10 square feet over what the applicant is proposing and asked if that was approved for any particular reason? Barnhart did not pull the resolution for that or what the standards were at the time; he does not have the history for that one.He stated a lot of signage that was redone replaced existing signs so it may have been 20 years ago. Bollis asked the square footage of the existing Orono Shopping Center sign. Barnhart replied it is 141 square feet. Darrin Rosha noted the owners are present as well as the owner of Hamilton Sign.His law office is in the same building,there have been a lot of improvements to it,and they opened Orono Station West.As a tenant they are happy to see this continuing to move forward. It is very unique and a landmark in the City; Barnhart has talked about historic variances and the new owners have gone back-and-forth trying to figure out what is permissible because there were variances at different times. There are about 10 businesses in the strip mall and if it were parallel to the road there would be more opportunity for signage. In talking about the canopy,it is a challenge because in looking at which sides meet the road,one is at an angle and another is behind you going east,the last one coming to the west; it is a challenge to see those so having them on three sides is definitely beneficial. There is significant improvement in the safety for the staff at the gas station as he heard changing the old plastic price signs in winter with a ladder is challenging.In looking at the way the road curves,most gas stations have a"long run"and drivers have a longer way to see the property;this one comes up on one and if the sign copy is too small it becomes dangerous to drivers and pedestrians.Mr. Rosha stated there is lighting around the canopy on other stations within Orono—it is fairly modest—and 2 of the 4 stations have lighting on the canopy.This property owner would request the same opportunity so people are aware of their presence and maximize their capacity to exceed—he said an independently-owned station adds a lot to the community. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Erickson asked to clarify which is the monument sign. Barnhart showed it on screen. Erickson said by the picture it looks to be structurally supported. He shared about his time on the Long Lake Planning Commission and there was lots of discussion about signs. They ended up noting a monument sign has some type of solid fill on the bottom(masonry, stone)and those supported by poles were defined as free standing signs,which they prohibited. Page 11 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated all signs not attached to a building are defined as free standing in Orono.They frequently see support posts or panels/shrouds in front of that to screen that post. He would anticipate some type of planter and if not,it would be something Staff would carry to the Council as a comment. Bollis asked for Staff clarification,when they say the Staff does not support the sign, area proposed, and the lighting of the canopy,they are speaking just to the canopy on that. Or are they talking about the overall sign area? Barnhart supports the number of free standing signs,the number of canopy signs,and the areas proposed. Staff does not support the area of that free standing sign, nor the lighting of the canopy that is not signage. Gettman asked to clarify the area referred to of the free standing sign that Barnhart is not recommending approval for—he asked to see a picture of that sign so everyone is on the same page. Barnhart showed the sign on screen(95.79 square feet)and said it is too big. He also showed the lighting of the blue/red lines around the canopy. McCutcheon asked to see the existing sign.His first thought in making it bigger is that they would hit the power lines but then Barnhart noted they would move it back.He noted they want two gas stations in town—they want competition—so he likes Orono Station and noted there is a great point about the building being perpendicular to the road.He kind of feels sorry for the other businesses trying to get signage,too,because they have to go back.McCutcheon wants to be pro-business but noted this seems pretty big.He asked if this area is the limit or if they will go a bit bigger than this. Barnhart stated this is 64 square feet and he can support 64 square feet,which is in excess of what the ordinance allows,but it is consistent with the variance approved 20-or-so years ago. Gettman clarified Barnhart does not support the 96 square feet. Barnhart replied that is correct. Jim Hamilton,Box 148,Rosemount, of Hamilton Signs approached the podium. Gettman asked Mr.Hamilton if there is any contractual relationship as a Marathon owner that they must have certain signage requirements. Mr. Hamilton replied there are requirements—there are certain orders on the sign:they must have the top three signs: "Marathon,""Regular"and a"pricer".That is basically all they must have from Marathon. Gettman asked the minimum size that the requirement would have? Mr. Hamilton noted he would have to calculate it because they have different signs and different widths depending upon the location. Gettman asked for this location? Mr. Hamilton said they could reduce the height of this sign by eliminating the height of the two signs. The expectation from Marathon is that they would like to see a minimum of 7-foot sign at this location Page 12 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. and if they can get an 8-foot wide,they have enough roadway to see a larger digit from farther away. Proportionally,if he was going to make an 8 foot wide sign he would not have it lower than a 20 foot sign. Most standards run between 20-24 feet in height. Gettman asked of that 20-24 feet,how much height is used for the sign itself'? Mr.Hamilton stated it depends on the location,but 50-75%. Gettman said about 10-18 feet.Back to the canopy sign, is there any requirement from Marathon on those? Mr. Hamilton noted this is the new look of Marathon,so the whole fascia is illuminated;if the City denies that,then it goes down to a hard metal(ACM)like most canopies and the Marathon would be channel letters. Kirchner said Marathon has branding standards that allow for a non-lit canopy. Mr. Hamilton replied they do. Libby asked about the monument sign—they are truly numeric rather than alpha-numeric—they simply change the gas prices,there is nothing streaming,no video,no motion. By standards the City has set and Staff has recommended, is there anything detrimental about conforming with Orono's sign ordinance? Mr. Hamilton stated they went through it in a meeting and noted the 14 foot sign is very small,even with an electronic gas pricer,and put a Marathon on the top; Marathon will look at it and say it is too small because of their standards. Can he shrink it down to 40-45 square feet?Yes,but monetarily he does not think it is worth it for the customer to put a really small sign out there and battle with Marathon in saying all they can do is 45 square feet. Libby said that is not a really small sign, especially with LED digital lighting 24/7. The idea is they are better off to have a sign that meets and complies with the City ordinance than have no sign at all that would be changeable and go back to getting on a ladder to change the numbers. He sees a win-win if they can come to some terms together.He asked if there is any sort of marketing deprivation from having a canopy that is not lighted versus one that is. Mr. Hamilton replied driving down the road and seeing Marathon illuminated canopies,people will say "wow."It is all marketing and he pointed out it is not shining lights throughout the community, it is illuminating the canopy and when one drives down the road they say"I want to stop there." He said the electronic message center will really help with the tenants that are not getting noticed there,also. Mr.Rosha clarified there is a stone base. When one contemplates 22 feet high for a service station sign and then limit it to 45 square feet,that is a 2-foot-wide sign. It is a challenge with an independent fuel station, as they must have a relationship with a quality fuel supplier. They could have it down to Marathon,Regular, and the price;but there would be no local branding(Orono Station)and would not have the ability to draw people in like the competitor down the road has.The station down in Navarre has a sign that exceeds even what is being proposed here.His client was trying to come up with something reasonable;they would prefer that the canopy not be considered signage and be lit. Page 13 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson said the concept of a lit sign is a way to deal with the fact that it is on a curved piece of road that does not have long sight lines like other locations do. Mr. Rosha noted they are very mindful that it faces south to the direction of an industrial area rather than lighting up a neighborhood. Bollis thought this monument sign proposed(20 foot)was replacing the Orono Shopping Center sign that is similar in size. He clarified that is not the case and the Orono sign is staying;he asked if there been any consideration of replacing that one with this one that can give each individual business billing there and then create a smaller monument sign where Marathon was proposing this one. Mr. Rosha said the current Orono Shopping Center sign tenants were under 10 square feet per unit. His concern about making that switch and going with something smaller for the gas station is—that is the one catching the eyes and if it is too small it does create a safety hazard for people being able to see prices. Mr. Rosha said there are no plans for the Orono Shopping Center sign right now. Bollis noted there is one existing sign and the property is only allowed one to begin with. He is pro- business and pro-signage but they also have to look at the Code to see what is reasonable.He would like to see a proposal that includes all signage for the site so they know what to expect for the future. When McCutcheon sees the two per property,the practical difficulty there is the building, such a narrow lot,and it is deep. He can see where the property needs two signs. Mr. Rosha thinks it bears a mention that they are two different entities. The Orono Station is a tenant of the mall itself;in the Code,they are treated differently than other businesses are. He noted as a tenant,the current Orono Shopping Center sign did not attract them to the location. He said that would be opening up another conversation that has not been part of this dialogue so far. Ressler shared his comments on this application.Bollis makes a good point,they have to look at the entire lot. Because it would be triggering a variance,if the applicant wanted to then modify the second sign, it would trigger another variance which would go before the Commission for feedback. The timing of the application is curious because they are having an agenda item to talk about getting more favorable for signage in the area in trying to be more encouraging and accommodating for businesses. Personally, when he goes to the gas station off Shadywood and Shoreline Drive,Ressler does not think that sign is too big. The Speedway(although not in Orono) is comparable and worth noting as guidance for the City as they talk about perhaps changing their guidelines.As it is applied,he does not see changeable copy being egregious and they have noted that particular plot of commercial space has had difficulty drawing attention.For that reason he has support for the application as submitted,he does not know if Staff does not recommend it because it does not meet practical difficulties or if it does not meet the opinion of Staff Barnhart stated Ressler raised a number of good questions. Regarding the existing sign on the west side of the property,the owner can tear that down and replace it in-kind and they do not need to come back from a variance standpoint. Part of the reason they are here today is because they want to relocate the gas station sign to a more favorable location.The comment about practical difficulty and Staff not finding out —it is not uncommon for the Commission to identify practical difficulty through the analysis of the application and find practical difficulty when Staff did not. They can certainly recommend approval based on the Commission's findings...that is just Staff's recommendations. Page 14 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler said in regards to the like-kind, if they were not going to increase the sign area of the secondary sign it would not come back to the Commission unless they were looking to increase that? Barnhart replied only if they wanted to increase it or move it. Kirchner echoed the reactions; he does not have strong oppositions to the way this is proposed. He struggles with the lit canopy, especially as they heard Marathon has branding standards that allow for a non-lit canopy. He struggles to approve that if there is another option to meet those standards. Gettman would be in favor of having the lit canopy because of the location and the fact that one cannot see coming from the different angles. What Staff was recommending was just lighting the"Marathon" part of it,but that is not an option,which is why he wanted to clarify the branding standard. It is either no lights or the full lights;those are the only two options and he would support the full light option. Libby agrees in part with Ressler's statements. He would tend to be in favor of the application as made. He asked Barnhart in his presentation where he referenced sign ordinance changes in 2018: in view of the fact the Commission is currently looking at proposals of changing or modifying the sign ordinance, Hennepin County just spent an extraordinary amount of money in one of the most ambitious infrastructure re-dos and bringing them into the 21St century. When he looks at things like lighted canopies and digital information available as a public service,he thinks about it as moving into the 21st century with infrastructure outside of just roadways. He thinks very modern and is in favor of the proposal as it is,not that he is in contradiction to the ordinance,but he thinks it is currently in flux and they do not know how it will land. The ordinance as applied seems to be 20th century thinking and methodology versus the 21st century—a more progressive and modern way of marketing and serving the community. Erickson has similar thought regarding the new signage proposal, it all looks great to him. He asked if the owner would get rid of one of the old signs as there are two free standing signs here. Do they both go away or do they both stay? Barnhart's understanding is the sign on the west which is lower will stay with no changes. He showed photos on screen and said one sign will have no changes and the other sign will be removed and a new Marathon sign will be placed. Ressler moved,Gettman seconded,to approve LA21-000035 Orono Station West,2160 W.Wayzata Blvd,Variance as applied.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 6. LA21-000028 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO SIGN REGULATIONS Staff gave a high-level overview of the summary packet of information(Item 6 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). He noted they do not do a lot of sign permits as they do not have a huge commercial area,but when they do they take notice to make sure they are meeting the goals of the ordinances. This project and a couple others identified some areas where the City needs to look at the sign Code. Staff has received authorization from the Council to examine it and make sure things are clear and meet the goals of the community. Staff has drafted an ordinance amendment they think accomplishes a number of goals, the mains ones relate to the definition of incidental signs(line 97). The sign ordinance is a standalone document and provides all the regulations for signs in the City;when it was drafted in 2018 the goal was that it would be content-neutral as they did not want to regulate signs based on what they said. Sometimes Page 15 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. in writing a content-neutral ordinance the clarity goes away and now they are trying to rebalance the confusion level while not ignoring the content-neutral aspects. In clarifying, Staff tried to provide examples so a lay person can understand what the sign ordinance is telling them they can do(lines 95 and 97).Barnhart walked the Commissioners through the suggested changes in his memo with examples. Gettman asked regarding number 3,is there any research data that led him to 50 arbitrary feet being an appropriate amount?What he heard earlier is that Marathon has a 70 to 144 square foot norm for the big sign.He asked Barnhart if he did any analysis on some of the big companies that franchise? Barnhart replied no. He has been in the Planning Department for 20 years and has heard examples such as the Dodge dealership requires this,Marathon requires this, Speedway requires this;most cities do not care and say"these are our standards and this is what you can do in our community."He did look at source in that respect,but used the application from earlier for the amount of signs—he felt the amount of signs proposed was reasonable given the size of the building and lot. This is even more than what they would be asking for.They did some analysis on what the other canopies were. Gettman said going back to the branding,they cannot underestimate the value that these companies, and corporations have spent millions doing the analysis on how much is that minimum square footage. If the City wants to be friendly to the businesses,they have to understand what the branding necessity is for a franchisee to come in. Barnhart said that is a fair comment; if they ask any advertiser they will want the biggest sign they can possibly get. Barnhart does not propose changing what part of a canopy cannot be illuminated because 7- 8 years ago Holiday went through a rebranding and wrapped their building in blue neons and they received a lot of complaints from people that now their living room or office was blue because of the light shining. Many cities did not consider neon to be signage; he does not want to write an ordinance that says one cannot have neon as it is not a defendable ordinance. However,they can define where the lighting occurs and that is how they arrived at the canopy not being lit. Libby is aware of the fact there are very deep pockets in corporate research for signage, advertising, and marketing—they have metrics and statistical data to draw from and make decisions on. He is still not sure where the last line under number 3 (page 8 of 14)is coming from. Barnhart read the line:Such signage may be illuminated externally, internally, or backlit, but no other part of the face of the canopy shall be illuminated. Libby asked if there is concern about having external lighting that would be lighting toward the canopy or is it backlit as a structure. Barnhart replied in this application they are allowed up to 50 square feet of signage on the canopy. That signage may be lit, either externally, internally,or backlit,but nothing else may be illuminated on the canopy. This only applies to the surface area canopy. Libby clarified it is the face of the canopy which is like the fascia on a house facing outward. He asked where does that determination come from-from a ruling and ordinance standpoint-how was the decision made that it is detrimental to have that permitted? Page 16 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated it was written in to the existing Code and they put it in there because of the situation many years ago with the Holiday station.The goal was to avoid those situations and that is where the prohibition came from. Libby noted if they have this ordinance and it is applied,then it is global and the Commission cannot look at this on a case-by-case basis. If it is not a Holiday type of situation where it is not intrusive to offices or other adjoining properties,will they not have the latitude then? Barnhart noted they just did,as a half hour ago the Commission approved lighting of the canopy. He clarified the only changes they are making are struck through/underlined in red in the document. Kirchner said an applicant could always apply for a variance as they just saw. Bollis noted he lived 1,000 feet away from a Holiday Station that had the wrap all the way around not facing the street and it did put blue light into his house.He thinks"facing the street"is to protect residents as there is no need to brand the back side of their canopy that is facing a residential neighborhood. In the previous application it made sense they could light the sides not facing these street; but he thinks there needs to be some protection for residents. Barnhart's proposal is to re-strike that limitation if the Commission would prefer. He hears Bollis say he would not permit signage facing residential areas. Libby agrees with that premise as many of these are zoned densely commercial and there are not adjoining residential properties. If they could add language that would be more specific as to where it would be intrusive to other businesses and/or residential so they do not have people coming back and asking for variances if there is not that sort of intrusion by that type of lighting. McCutcheon said language is tough and what if there is a house across the street...there is gray area. Barnhart stated to keep in mind they would already be next door to a gas station which has some inherent impacts. Ressler agreed there is not a lot of purpose in lighting the back and they can apply for a variance. He likes the change to 50 square feet for service area as that is doubling what they currently have and they can continue to monitor it. Erickson asked regarding line 229,free standing pole signs,perhaps it could be a bit expanded. He noted a definition on line 86 that is somewhat similar. Barnhart noted the pole sign definition prohibits two poles,basically the monument sign is the sign that has a base mounted. He clarified there is a free standing sign definition, a pole sign definition, and a monument sign definition. Erickson said on Table 1 it comes up again in looking at free standing and"type B" do they want to scratch pole out of there? Barnhart replied they want to be as clear as possible. On Table 1 he is proposing an increase in the max height for free standing signs in sign district 3 which is most of the commercial. Page 17 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon said the max height of a house is 30 so he can see staying under that; earlier tonight they approved almost 22 feet. Barnhart noted they approved 20 feet and Code allows 22 feet. He stated he is proposing to not count fuel signs as changeable dynamic display as that is a reasonable expectation for those businesses. It is the same with time and temperature displays. He shared one area they get a lot of pushback from the real estate community is what kind of sign one can use to advertise a property for lease or a development and is trying to clarify that signage. Planning Staff recommends approval of these changes with the comments made earlier in terms of residential impact. Bollis stated regarding the 45 square feet,he feels that is pretty limiting for a business. He thinks Minnetonka has 50 square feet which is also pretty limiting. He asked how long it has been 45 square feet. Barnhart said when they changed the Code in 2018 that is when they did the 45. He does not recall what it was before that time. Bollis thinks it is pretty restrictive. He would be supportive of bringing that number up a bit perhaps to 50 or 55. Ressler would not disagree with that,he thinks at least 50 square feet is reasonable. Kirchner is not willing to put a number on it right here and would be curious to know what other municipalities nearby are doing. Erickson noted in Long Lake, Sherwin Williams has 80 and Speedway has 75 on the monument signs. Ressler has driven by the signs several times and has never felt the sign was too large. If he were going to pick a number,he thinks 75 square feet based on that. Barnhart is hearing the Commission is open to some changes but Staff should provide some additional feedback to the Council. Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Ressler moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA21-000028 Text Amendment Related to Sign Regulations as applied with further Planning Commission feedback shared.VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 7.LA21-000034 CHARLES SCHATZ O/B/O BROOK INVESTMENT GROUP,LLC,3423 SHORELINE DR,SKETCH Corey Englund,o/b/o the Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information(Item 7 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). The project is a proposed subdivision where they are creating one commercial lot at the southwest corner of Kelly Parkway and Shoreline Drive. Typically in looking at the Code each lot maintains the required lot Page 18 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. area and lot width and both parcels would meet the minimum 20,000 square feet in size. Analysis shows lot 1 might be higher in structural coverage and impervious surface which is one area they need to look at. The proposed development on the east side is in concept stage and appears to meet the requirements in terms of hardcover but there seemed to be an impact from a setback standpoint.The proposed layout would likely require variances for hardcover and structural coverage for the existing building,and the side yard setback from Kelly Parkway. Staff is looking for sketch plan feedback that would be carried forward to the City Council and then to the applicant. McCutcheon said it is a one story building and asked if they wanted,could they have a two story building? Barnhart said if it met the requirements of setbacks and other factors,yes,they possibly could. From a commercial standpoint in going more than one level it starts adding parking requirements. Bollis asked why subdivide and not a PUD or a different type? Barnhart said it is six-of-one and a-half-dozen of the other in terms of process. One is a re-zoning and public hearing and this is the path the applicant chose. Corey Englund,Reprise Design,2400 Portland Ave. S,Burnsville,is with the architecture group on behalf of the applicant.This is a vacant lot that is used to sell fireworks on occasion, but is otherwise a dusty,empty lot.The site is somewhat challenging because there is a retaining wall dividing the north and south portion of the lot;they are somewhat restricted in developing any kind of a driveway.He thinks this is a good use of an empty lot but before they proceed with anything they need to know that it is feasible from a platting standpoint and would like to assess if the variances would be supported. There will be some difficulties as stated,with hardscape coverage, and on the existing lot with structural coverage. Libby asked on the Kelly side,there is a fairly substantial grade,that is natural topography as they could not put a driveway in there.He said the adjacent property is the liquor store. Mr. Englund replied yes. McCutcheon noted since the retaining wall would be shared between both properties,for future use of perhaps a loading dock,has the applicant put any thought into how they would use the space to the south. Mr. Englund thinks the southern space will have an egress ability for the other lot but will mostly remain as-is for now because of the topographic difficulties, about 5-6 feet of grade change from the upper lot to the lower lot. Barnhart clarified they would not suggest much more development south of the existing retaining wall because then they are starting to encroach in the residential district and they want to be cautious of those impacts. Kirchner asked if they are adding 4 new parking stalls. Mr. Englund replied yes,parallel stalls. Page 19 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner asked if they are able to exempt the driveway that runs to the south because it is not servicing the second lot,but arguably that would be the only way to access those four parking stalls,and then comes back to hardcover. Barnhart said the four stalls were added to address a parking count analysis. That is something they can continue to work with the applicant on. McCutcheon asked about an easement to use those steps if one would have to park there would they have to walk across Kelly? Barnhart stated they would probably look at some sort of easements. Bollis asked if it would be a cross-flow parking easement for the entire site. Barnhart replied yes,there would be some sort of access easement, some parking easement although this area is open to discussion,and if there is not already a cross access easement through the portion, and perhaps over in another area. It is all part of the site analysis. Bollis is fine with having a business there and thinks it is big enough. Erickson asked if there has been any indication of the type of commercial business there. Mr. Englund replied yes,they are looking at a drive-through coffee shop/donut shop concept. Perhaps with a second tenant space of 1,000-2,000 square feet. Kirchner gave his opinion on the drive-through configuration emptying out in the manner in which it does gives him consternation because there is similar coffee shop with another tenant in a newly constructed building in a City to the east.The drive through creates an absolute nightmare and headache as people wait in that line to get their coffee and creates ingress and egress issues. He reiterated the hardcover concern if the driveway to the south is or is not counted,he would like to see something other than a dirt lot but wants to make sure they are not giving up so much to make that happen. Erickson shares the concern on that and said QSR's are very popular and it is possible they can become victims of their own popularity with big lines backing up and trying to get in and out.He hopes there is another way to configure that to get a clear shot out to 19 or some other way. Barnhart asked which location Kirchner is having problems with? Kirchner replied it is the Starbucks in Wayzata right across from the gas stations before getting on Highway 12. Barnhart noted there are not a lot of other options as they do not want traffic onto Kelly or south into that little parking area.He said they can do some examination on what they can do and that type of feedback is very helpful. Bollis' concerns on the subdivision are they are creating a property that literally does not have its own access and it has to access through the neighboring property. If it were ever to be sold separately,with the easements they are talking about,he believes they ran into an issue with O'Sullivan's and the old Page 20 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,May 17,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Snyder's building with a similar situation. He would rather see this application as a CUP or PUD so it is still one parcel but the Commission gets to see it in its entirety and possibly realign the access to the site. Ressler agrees that is a good point to make it a Planned Unit Development(PUD)so it would have common areas for the access in and out. He said the issue with the Starbucks in Wayzata is a good point and he pointed out the McDonald's right next door to it,and a gas station,and a strip mall, all sharing that space. It is a nightmare no matter what they are doing and the traffic counts are probably a bit heavier there.He is more encouraged to think about the Caribou in Mound on Shoreline Drive where there does not seem to be as much of an issue getting in and out of there. McCutcheon clarified they do not want to access Kelly because it is a residential street. Barnhart replied yes, and because of the grade issues.Any access on to Shoreline would be further east of Kelly which would be beneficial from a traffic movement standpoint.Assuming it is not a PUD,a drive through restaurant will be a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)back through the Commission. If it is a PUD the zone change will come back through the Commission. The Council will see this on June 14,2021 8.UPDATE ON MAY 10,2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported the variance for 3215 Crystal Bay Road was approved by the Council 3-1;the variance at 706 North Arm was tabled for a redesign;variance at 1395 Orono Lane was tabled due to the relocation of the boat house. Kirchner noted that relocating a boat house was something that historically is never done in the City or allowed and that was the Council's opinion as well. Barnhart stated the text amendment for boat storage was approved, and the text amendment for plumbing in accessory buildings was also approved. The Council gave feedback on 2709 Walters Port that seemed to support the proposal. ADJOURNMENT Libby moved,Ressler seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting.VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m. ATTEST: Scott Kirchner,Chair Page 21 of 21