Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-03 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE A- (_)L) 3 ❑ COUNCIL ANNING COMMISSION PLEASE FILL OUT THE INFORMATION REQUESTED ❑ PARK COMNIISSION BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS ❑ OTHER PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER i. / (t s, mT r%42) -s _ _ - - . Z 2. i C04-z.� _ � �- �c `� �4Ii wck ,,r -e( 3. L) 0 h n / S 4. UCO 'c'y ki` Slf/-kcri . 1/41-2464-A 5. ' (' o1 c3 -- 7 (9`7 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. X:\Data\Admini*rotive Support\(Forms-Otd)\FORMS\'UBLIC.ATT ' r a MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, Janice Berg, Cynthia Bremer, J. Mark Fritzler, and Jeanne Mabusth. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron and City Planners Wendy Bottenberg and Jennifer Chaput, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Commissioners' Liz Hawn; and Council Representative Jay Nygard were absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:33 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) #03-2872 TERRY AND CHRISTY MORSE, 2080 SPATES AVENUE, VARIANCE 6:34 - 6:43 P.M. Terry Morse, Applicant, was present. Mabusth asked that this item be taken off consent for discussion, believing that the subject's properties should be legally combined. Chaput explained that the applicant had applied for a variance to add a second story for closet space on the most southwesterly portion of the existing principal structure, 20.6' from the side lot line adjacent to a street where 50' is required. The property is located on the corner of two platted streets, Spates Avenue and Railroad Avenue, and even though Railroad Avenue is not in use as a street at this time, Zoning Ordinances require side yard setbacks of 50' from both streets. Chaput added that neighboring letters of support accompany the application and staff recommends approval of the variance. Mabusth questioned why the applicant had not legally combined the lots identified in the packet as lots 1, 2, 3, and 6. She suggested that the Commission require the combination as part of it's recommendation in order to be consistent with what the City has asked for in the past. Morse stated that he had purchased each of the lots at separate times. Chair Smith asked the applicant if he would object to this as part of the recommendation. Morse stated that he did not know what would be required in order to combine the parcels. PAGE 1 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2872 TERRY AND CHRISTY MORSE, Continued) Gaffron indicated that combining the four lots would be a simple matter of filing the appropriate paperwork, and that doing so, would not change the value of the overall property and would allow him to receive one tax statement instead of four. There were no public comments. Mabusth moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03- 2872, Terry and Christy Morse, 2080 Spates Avenue, granting a variance to add a second story on the most southwesterly portion of the existing structure, 20.6' from the side lot line adjacent to a street where 50' is required, subject to the condition that the applicant apply for the legal combination of lots 1, 2, 3, and 6 to be combined with the homestead parcel. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#2) #03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES The Commission returned to this Application after Item 4, as the applicant was not present. (#3) #03-2866 JUDY AND DAVID ZOSCHKE, 2040 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES 6:44 -7:02 P.M. Judy and David Zoschke, Applicants, were present. Chaput reported that the applicants had requested a lot coverage by structure variance of 2,848 s.f. (16.3%) where 2,620 s.f. (15%) is permitted, 6,442 s.f. (57.00%) hardcover within the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone where 2,821 s.f. (25%) is permitted, and average lakeshore setback encroaching 21' in order to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f. as patio area. As the addition of a second story in 1993 resulted in the removal of the roof for the existing deck, Chaput pointed out that due to deterioration of the floorboards, the applicants wish to replace the existing deck. She noted that the proposed patio enclosure does not increase the size of the deck. As it is City policy to allow one 4' wide stairway with landings, and retaining walls within the 0-75' setback zone, Chaput suggested that one of the two sets of steps to the lake could potentially be removed to reduce hardcover. She continued by noting that there was a significant amount of concrete patio and walkway within the zone, and suggested if repair was found necessary, a portion of this could be removed as well. Further hardcover reduction could be accomplished through reduction of driveway closest to the property PAGE 2 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2866 JUDY AND DAVID ZOSCHKE, Continued) line, and finally, a considerable amount of non-conforming plastic hardcover shall be removed throughout the property. With regard to the average lakeshore setback, Chaput stated that due to the fact that the adjacent new home was built farther back on the lot than the previous home, the average lakeshore setback changed for the applicant. Chaput indicated that staff would recommend approval of the requested variances with the condition that 1,506 s.f. of plastic hardcover on the property be removed prior to building permit approval. Chair Smith indicated that, to her, the removal of the roof in 1993 caused the floorboards to rot, therefore, this application seems to be a mere replacement of what was already on the property. She also noted that the new enclosed portion adds nothing to hardcover, since it is on the upper level. Chair Smith stated that she would not support any additional removals from the driveway, as the home was on a busy County Road. Mr. Zoschke stated that they had removed excess driveway hardcover in 1997 and would find it difficult to remove any more today. He maintained that the plastic had been there for 10+ years under 4' of gravel and l' of topsoil, noting that it would be a very dirty job to remove and questioned his alternatives. Chair Smith indicated that the plastic does interfere with the natural runoff occurrence. Gaffron concurred, stating that the removal of plastic has been a policy for 15 years. There were no public comments. Mabusth questioned whether the Commission could recommend the removal of one set of steps in order to reduce hardcover. She asked what the lean-to structure was on the lakeside of the home. Zoschke suggested they remove most of the patio by the lake except for a small walkway in lieu of removing the steps. He pointed out that the lean-to was small uncovered storage area by the lake. Chair Smith indicated that this application provided the City with a great opportunity to reduce hardcover on this site. With regard to the shed on the other side of the home, Zoschke pointed out that it would be difficult to remove, given the size of the garage and the fact that they are gardeners. PAGE 3 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2866 JUDY AND DAVID ZOSCHKE, Continued) Berg felt it was fair to allow the shed to remain, while requiring the removal of the steps and patio. Zoschke noted that it would be difficult to remove the concrete steps and retaining walls on the north side without causing tremendous erosion problems to that hill. Berg agreed that this removal could cause a far greater issue than allowing them to remain. She could accept removal of the patio alone. Bremer stated that, after walking the property, she felt the garage would be too tight to fit anything other than the vehicles inside, therefore, she had no problem allowing the shed to stay. Since he saw no increase in structural coverage, Rahn stated that he saw no reason to continue to look for additional removals. Mabusth moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of the requested variances with the condition that 1,506 s.f. of plastic hardcover, as well as, the concrete patio in the 0-75' hardcover zone be removed prior to building permit approval. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#4) #03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, 1145 TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCES 7:03-7:35 P.M. Kathy Alexander, of Alexander Design Group, was present representing the Applicant. Bottenberg explained that the applicant had requested an average lakeshore setback, hardcover within 0-75' setback zone, hardcover within 75-250' setback zone, and structure within 75' of the lakeshore variances to remodel, add a second story and attach the existing garage to the residence. The space that currently exists between the house and garage would be filled in and the second story with dormers would be over the entire residence including the garage. Bottenberg reported that lot coverage by structure would remain below the allowed 15%, even with the addition of the proposed second story and attaching the garage. On the other hand, a 385 s.f. portion of the existing residence is located within the 75' setback from Lake Minnetonka, in fact, at the closest point it is 64' from the OHWL of the lake. The second story addition would also be above this portion of the residence and located within the 0-75' setback zone. Bottenberg continued by pointing out that, while hardcover would not increase due to the addition, the applicant had suggested removing the concrete shuffleboard and the brick next to the shuffleboard surface to reduce the amount of hardcover within the setback zone to 9.56% as compared to the previous 14.3%. A PAGE 4 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued) hardcover variance would still be required to allow this amount of hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone. Bottenberg stated that the rest of the existing residence, garage, and driveway are located in the 75-250' setback zone and constitute 37% hardcover in this zone. She pointed out that, while the driveway on the property is fairly extensive and accounts for a large amount of hardcover, the circle driveway may be appropriate to assist the residents in backing out onto Tonkawa Road. There could be other areas of the driveway near the garage and gravel area to consider for removal. With regard to the average lakeshore setback, Bottenberg indicated that the existing residence is located 17' into the average lakeshore setback, which would not change with the addition and dormers. While the existing topography suggests that the addition would not be within the visibility of either neighboring property or encroach on any existing view of the lake, Bottenberg maintained that an average lakeshore setback variance would be required. Bottenberg reviewed the issues for consideration and stated that if the Planning Commission felt the existing conditions of the residence and property created a valid hardship that supports the variances requested, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate, otherwise further direction should be given. Chair Smith stated that she was hesitant to recommend driveway removal if this made backing out onto Tonkawa Road more hazardous. Alexander pointed out that, while the new plan shows the new screen porch outside the 0- 75' setback zone, the applicant would prefer to build the porch as originally submitted. There were no public comments. Bottenberg pointed out that there is an additional deck near the water, covered by snow, which she could not ascertain its condition. Alexander passed around an aerial photo with the deck near the water. While she felt the applicant's design made sense, Chair Smith noted the numerous opportunities to reduce hardcover on the property. Alexander stated that the site is difficult to work with and difficult to maneuver by car. Mabusth indicated that she had noticed that the loop had not been plowed and didn't seem to be used much. PAGE 5 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued) Rahn stated that, in his view, the applicant was more than doubling the square footage of the first floor and asked what the hardship would be to allow them to further encroach with vertical structure into the lakeside setback, thereby increasing the massing effect. Chair Smith inquired as to the status of the structural engineer's report. Bottenberg stated that Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, had noted that he would like to do more exploring of the block foundation in the basement, since the entire home is covered by brick. Gaffron pointed out that the building inspector had indicated that the structural engineer's report contained several assumptions without ever actually ripping into the wall to find out if they were accurate. Chair Smith asked what the next step would be and whether approvals could be granted subject to further investigation. Gaffron stated that someone, either the City or the applicant's representative, would need to rip into the walls to see what is in there, it may or not be an issue, however, more needs to be known before any work is done on the house or permits granted. He questioned whether ripping into the house in the winter would be the right thing to do. Although the structural engineer's report was a good start, Chair Smith stated that it was not sufficient to satisfy the City. Based on her experience working on three other homes on Tonkawa Road, Alexander assured the Commission that the home was a good sound house, not a tear down, and indicated that they would get the engineer to sign off on it. Mabusth explained to Alexander that, in the past, applicants have had to come back to the Commission after beginning a project, only to find their project was more involved than first thought. Chair Smith pointed out that the Commission and the City want to be sure that the foundation will support what's being proposed. Rahn asked if the basement and first floor would be left untouched. Alexander maintained that the only work being done on the first floor would be remodeling the kitchen and attaching it to the garage. PAGE 6 of 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued) Mabusth noted that a bay window on the design plan seems to be encroaching further into the 0-75' setback, and questioned the location of the second floor balcony. Alexander stated that the plan the Commission had before them was misleading, in that, the balcony has been set back into the building envelope and would not protrude into the setback. She pointed out that the bay window, however, would extend 2' out. While he had no objection to attaching the garage, Rahn indicated that he was trying to get a handle on the additional encroachment into the non-conforming setback. He also believed there was ample driveway available to allow some removals. If they could hold the dormers back outside the 75' setback, Alexander asked whether they could adjust the roof slope to allow for a greater pitch. Chair Smith indicated that the Commission would prefer that they leave the corner alone, and not add anything further within the 0-75' setback. Bremer reminded the Commission that one of the latest work session topics focused on massing and need to limit further encroachment into setbacks. Alexander reiterated the need to adjust the 3:12 roofline to allow for easier snow removal. Rahn repeated that, while he could support the garage addition, he would object to further encroachment into the setback. Mabusth suggested that the Commission provide the representative with further direction and that they table the application. Alexander concurred, indicating that she would prefer to table the application and consult with her clients. Chair Smith indicated that the Commission had difficulty finding a hardship that supports further encroachment into the 0-75' setback. Based on her earlier observations, Mabusth felt that hardcover in the 75-250' setback could be reduced by removing the driveway loop area. Chair Smith questioned the status of the lakeside deck, indicating that now would be the time to focus on what is permitted, the stairs, lockbox, and lift service. Bottenberg suggested that a 4' wide set of steps with a lockbox replace the deck, since the deck was not shown on an earlier 1980's survey. PAGE 7 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, Continued) Alexander asked that the application be tabled and that more direction be given with regard to the roofline in the 0-75' setback. Mabusth reiterated that, while the Commission is concerned about massing, they might be amenable to reviewing an alternate plan. Rahn agreed that a less obtrusive design would be preferable in the 0-75' setback area and that a reduction of hardcover in the 75-250' would be recommended. Bremer encouraged the applicant's representative to continue to work with staff to develop an acceptable alternative. Bremer moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend tabling Application #03-2867, Dan Adams, 1145 Tonkawa Road, for the purpose of redesigning the proposal. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. (#5) #03-2868 JOHN E. WHITMAN, 1580 SIXTH AVENUE N., VARIANCE 7:36 - 7:45 P.M. Chaput reported that the applicant had requested variances to construct a 125 s.f. driveway and pad, 50' from Long Lake Creek (a tributary stream) where no hardcover within 75' is permitted for grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards, to serve as the access to a future home. Chaput continued, stating that the applicant proposes a driveway pad 125 s.f., located 15' south of the corner property stake. Chaput noted that the applicant is in the process of trying to sell the property and felt that he would have greater success if the potential buyers knew how the property could be accessed off the existing driveway accessing Sixth Avenue N. It is presumed that the septic sites would be located in the southeast portion of the parcel, since it is the flattest area. Chaput reported that the City Engineer, as well as, the Hennepin County Transportation Planning Department, have reviewed the proposed plan and agree to the proposed access placement to the property. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District noted that an erosion control permit would not be required as part of their submittal. Chaput noted that staff would recommend approval of variances to construct a 125 s.f. driveway and pad, located 50' south of the centerline of Long Lake Creek where no hardcover, grading, filling, or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75' of the Creek is permitted, to serve as the access to a future home, subject to the four conditions identified in the staff memo dated February 6, 2003. PAGE 8 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2868 JOHN E. WHITMAN, Continued) Chair Smith maintained that, it seemed to her, that there was a need to provide access to this parcel. Mr. Whitman pointed out that the pad would be 25' x 25' and that the proposed culvert would need to slant toward the creek. Chaput agreed that those were necessary corrections. There were no public comments. Fritzler moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2868, John Whitman, 1580 Sixth Avenue N., granting approval of variances to construct a 125 s.f. driveway and pad, located 50' south of the centerline of Long Lake Creek where no hardcover, grading, filling, or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75' of the Creek is permitted, to serve as the access to a future home, subject to the four conditions identified in the staff memo dated February 6, 2003, with the addition that the culvert be slanted toward the Creek. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#2) #03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES 7:46 - 8:37 P.M. Kevin Manley, Applicant, was present. Gaffron explained that the applicant had applied for approval of after-the-fact lakeshore setback, average setback, and 0-75' hardcover variances for construction of a 4.5'X12' (54sf) attached deck on the west side of the residence; approval of a 75-250' hardcover variance for a proposed 12'X23.5 (266sf) grade level deck adjacent to the garage tunnel; and approval of a 0-75' hardcover variance for a proposed 20'X20' gravel parking area on the east lakeshore side of the property. As each of the three aspects fell within a different hardcover zone, Gaffron indicated that they would treat each one individually. With regard to the gravel parking area, Gaffron stated that the total square footage of the east 0-75' zone was potentially not yet established, and that the City had received no indication that the applicant's title registration action to formalize their ownership of the accretions had been completed. Assuming that the shed would be removed, as directed by Council, Gaffron acknowledged that the only hardcover in the east 0-75' zone would be the 400 s.f. gravel parking area. With a road width of only 18'-20', Gaffron noted that there really wasn't an opportunity to parallel park cars on the street, therefore, a parking area for two vehicles on the east side of the road would be a benefit to the neighborhood with regard to safety and congestion. He stated that if the Planning Commission were to conclude that a 20'X20' parking area was PAGE 9 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued) reasonable, and that existing road and parking conditions all support the hardcover variance, then staff would suggest three conditions be applied to any approval granted; 1. Applicant provide shrubbery between the parking area and lake to screen vehicles. 2. The parking area be limited to a depth of 25' measured from the edge of the traveled paved road, thus, yielding a 25-30' lake setback. 3. The shed next to the lake must be removed by a date certain to be established between Council and applicant, presumably as soon as the snow is gone. With regard to the lakeside deck in the west 0-75' zone, Gaffron pointed out that this 4.5'X12' deck was constructed during remodeling without zoning or building permit approval, constituting a 0-75' structure encroachment, an average setback encroachment, and excessive hardcover. The deck is merely 36' from the shoreline. Arguably, Gaffron stated that the deck was not shown on any plans or surveys used in approval of prior zoning applications. Although staff could confirm that a 160 s.f. deck existed in the past, Gaffron indicated that it was completely removed sometime prior to or during the remodeling process, and construction of the new deck had never been addressed. Since 42 s.f. of the deck is not over approved boulder walls and its additional hardcover yields a new proposed total of 1581.6 s.f. or 27% hardcover, a hardship statement should be requested by the Commission to warrant its existence. Gaffron pointed out that the deck currently serves a sliding glass door located 7-8' above grade, and if not approved, the applicant would be required to permanently block the door with a railing or other method for safety reasons. He added that the deck is at a location where it would have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by the neighbor. With regard to the proposed deck between the garage and house in the 75-250' zone, Gaffron stated that the applicants are proposing a 266.5 s.f. deck south of the house and extending toward the garage, adjacent to the tunnel and 6' from the property line at its closest point. Gaffron asked what the intent of this deck was meant to be, and stated that he saw no hardship to support this aspect of the application. Once again, Gaffron stated that staff had found no hardship to support a hardcover variance for the deck on the south side of the house, and would recommend denial of that request. Furthermore, although the deck on the west side of the house would have minimal impact on lake views, staff believes there is no apparent hardship supporting the existence of the deck. Staff recommends denial of this request, and removal of the deck within 60 days, in addition to whatever measures are required by the Building Code to make the door safe. Gaffron pointed out that staff would support the hardcover variance for the gravel parking area, based on the lack of on-street parking in the neighborhood, and would recommend approval subject to the conditions noted earlier. PAGE 10 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued) Chair Smith asked if the gravel parking space would be used for guests or for permanent storage of extra vehicles. Gaffron stated that, typically, there are not many extra cars parked in this area. Manley stated that he normally parked his vehicles in his driveway and used his garage to store his collection of old cars. Rahn asked if the deck on the lakeside was included in the structural coverage calculations and what they were. Manley stated that they were not increasing the hardcover because the deck would be over existing hardcover already. Rahn asked if the structural coverage numbers were over the allowed maximum. Gaffron indicated that the applicant had been denied a variance for lot coverage for a deck on a previous application. The structural coverage was previously 17%, not a great deal over the allowed, but this was the figure prior to adding the lower portion to the mix, which would change the lot coverage equation. Gaffron believed the structural coverage to be at or near 15%taking into consideration both parcels. Manley pointed out that when he submitted his plans for the lower level, the deck on the backside of the house was included on the sketch. He passed around the blueprints with the approval stamped on them, maintaining that he had been under the impression this deck was allowed at the time these plans were approved. Manley stated that he had not intended to blatantly build a deck without permission. Although familiar with the drawings, Gaffron argued that, at the time of submission, the applicant had said nothing about a deck and the building inspector did not believe the plan had ever addressed a deck. Rahn stated that an old picture of the original home showed that an old deteriorated deck did exist. Manley stated that he believed there had been a misunderstanding between he and the City and now that he has built the deck, he was hesitant to tear it off leaving the doors exposed. Chair Smith agreed there was little hardship to support its existence. With regard to the east side deck, Mabusth questioned the need for this additional deck when the applicant had a beautiful deck over the garage. PAGE 11 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued) Since there is a tunnel between the house and garage, Manley stated that the purpose of this deck would be to provide a wider and safer walkway. Rahn questioned whether the undesignated boundary for the parking pad would have an impact on the proposed gravel parking area. Although technically the boundary had not yet been determined, Gaffron expected this one would likely be no different than the others in the neighborhood. He pointed out that a 20' wide X 25' deep parking area would have no bearing on the boundary. Chair Smith asked how the City would know this has been resolved, and what they would recommend the parking area be made of. Gaffron stated that it would be cleaner for the neighborhood if the area were paved and a permit may need to be required to complete the work in the spring. Bill Delay, neighbor to the south, stated that his initial concern was where the 20'X25' parking area would fall, as it did not look to be on the lot line, he concern was addressed. Gaffron pointed out that the parking area would need to meet 5' setbacks on either side. With regard to the deck issues, Chair Smith stated that she could not find adequate hardship to support the side deck. Rahn stated that the submittal does show a 12X24 deck on the side. Manley stated that the deck dimensions were incorrect and asked that he be allowed to come back with the appropriate size at a later date. Chair Smith stated that according to this application, the Commission would likely support the gravel parking area, and deny the two deck requests. She suggested the applicant provide a stronger hardship request than what's been provided. Since the applicant had built the deck on the lakeside assuming the City had given him permission, Bremer stated that she would likely be the only Commissioner to support the lakeside deck variance. On the other hand, Bremer stated that she could not support the side deck. Berg agreed that the lakeside deck had been signed off on in a previous application, but she too, could not support the need for a side deck. Rahn stated that he could support both the gravel parking area and lakeside deck. PAGE 12 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued) Chair Smith asked staff how the Commission should view the blueprint with stamp. Gaffron reiterated that the previous application contained no verbiage about a deck and that the building inspector never issued a permit for it. He maintained that the deck was merely ghosted on the plans. Fritzler stated that he would deny both decks. Mabusth indicated that she needed more information with regard to the side deck. She questioned whether what was needed was an expanded walkway for safety reasons. Manley asked how wide the grade level walkway deck could be. As it stands now the deck is 3' wide and 1.5' off the ground. Gaffron indicated that a 4' wide walkway was typical. Mabusth stated that she would like the building inspector to look at the walkway. Chair Smith asked if the Commission could approve the gravel portion of the application and deny the deck portions of the application. Gaffron suggested that tabling the application would not hinder the applicant as the work cannot be done this time of year anyway. Mabusth agreed that tabling the application would benefit the applicant, allowing him time to beef up his hardships. She felt his application was missing several of the hardships he had mentioned in person this evening. Manley asked if there was hope for approvals if he tabled and cam back with additional information. Mabusth stated that she needed to be convinced that the east side deck/walkway was necessary as a safety issue. Rahn stated that he did not see a hardship that would allow the applicant more than a 4' walkway. Rahn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2865, Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagerness Point Road, granting approval of after-the-fact lakeshore setback, average setback, and 0-75' hardcover variances for the construction of the 4.5'X12' attached deck on the west side of the residence as it was noted on the original plan and not increasing hardcover or structural cover; approval PAGE 13 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued) of an extension of walkway not to exceed 4' wide to form a path adjacent to the garage tunnel; and approval of a 0-75' hardcover variance for a proposed 20' wide X 25' deep gravel parking pad. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Fritzler and Chair Smith dissenting. Fritzler and Chair Smith felt insufficient hardships existed supporting the deck portions of the application and that the drawings were inadequate to support their existence. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:15 P.M. (#8) #03-2870 TIM VAUGHN, 205 TONKA AVENUE, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND VARIANCE 8:37-8:46 P.M. Tim Vaughn, the Applicant, was present. Bottenberg explained that the Zeismer's and the Vaughn's have proposed a subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement between the two lots at 3440 Bayside Road and 205 Tonka Avenue. The Vaughn's are planning to sell 205 Tonka Avenue to their son to build a single-family residence on it. Prior to this, the Vaughn's would like to make the parcel more conforming in size with the zoning district. Bottenberg continued that the proposal is to move the south property line of 205 Tonka Avenue 65' to the south which would create new record lots. Bottenberg pointed out that 205 Tonka Avenue is an oddly shaped lot that surrounds another property and is vacant. With regard to the proposed hardcover, Bottenberg stated that the proposed residence is still being designed and that hardcover should not be a problem even when the driveway is included. If the lot line rearrangement is approved, a variance would also be granted at the same time for lot area, since the subject property will be 1.9 acres in a 2-acre zoning district. With regard to access, Bottenberg stated that a long driveway that winds around the property line for 205 Tonka Avenue would access off Tonka Avenue. She continued that, although the lot line rearrangement has some of the characteristics of a front/back lot split, it was not reviewed as such. Bottenberg pointed out that sewer would be available to 205 Tonka Avenue from two locations, and that the home would be placed at the high point on the property near a line of mature trees. Bottenberg stated that staff would recommend approval of the lot line rearrangement subject to three conditions as noted in the staff memo dated February 14, 2003. Mabusth asked if the neighbor would be willing to grant a sewer easement. PAGE 14 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2870 TIM VAUGHN, Continued) Chair Smith asked if the County had any comment with regard to the proximity to the Luce Line Trail. Bottenberg stated that the City sent notice regarding the Luce Line and had not received any comment. Mabusth mentioned that the lot dimensions were very strange and difficult to work with. There were no public comments. Chair Smith stated that she could not find any other solutions for this location than had been proposed. Mabusth moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03- 2870, Roberta Vaughn and Tim Vaughn of 205 Tonka Avenue/3440 Bayside Road, a subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement between the two lots subject to staff conditions and acknowledging that the Zeismer's may have to grant a sewer easement for the property located at 205 Tonka Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. (#9) #03-2873 CITY OF ORONO, SEVERAL PROPERTIES ON OLD LONG LAKE, RUANN, AND WAKEFIELD ROADS, COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 8:47-8:59 P.M. Gaffron explained that the City Council had directed staff to make an application to Met Council for expansion of the MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) to include a small number of properties along Old Long Lake Road situated just west of the Wayzata Country Club, between the Luce Line Trail and Wood Rill Scientific & Natural Area. The initial intent was to provide the potential to serve the vacant parcel at 645 Old Long Lake Road and the developed parcels adjacent to it with municipal sewer. Gaffron stated that the public hearing was the first step in the process for completing a Comprehensive Plan amendment to revise the MUSA. The proposed amendment would be submitted to the Met Council on their standard forms, and submitted to adjacent municipalities for comment. Gaffron continued that, once the Met Council had approved the amendment, the City could formally adopt it by resolution. He explained that actual construction of the sewers and assessments would be topics dealt with primarily by the City Council with no further Planning Commission comment. Since the amendment area is less than 40 acres, Gaffron stated that preliminary discussions with Met Council staff has indicated that the amendment would likely be viewed as minor and timely approval would be expected. PAGE 15 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2873 CITY OF ORONO, Continued) The primary intent of the amendment was to solve current and potential future sewer issues for a handful of existing developed substandard lots primarily on the south side of Old Long Lake Road. Gaffron identified nine properties to be included in the MUSA amendment and indicated that staff recommends approval of the proposed MUSA amendment by the Commission. Chair Smith asked what the impact of the amendment would be to the other neighbors. While she felt that the one resident who wished to bring sewer to the area should be liable for the cost, she believed that if others volunteered to participate the cost sharing benefits could bring the entire cost down. Gaffron stated that there was no expectation to bring sewer up Wakefield Road, and that the corner property would be offered sewer simply because it abuts the project. Mabusth inquired about the oulot area. identified on the map. Gaffron pointed out that the outlot was a wetland, not to be developed. Mr. Gopinath, of 705 Old Long Lake Road, questioned whether he would be forced to hook up to sewer as it was proposed to end directly in front of his residence. Gaffron indicated that the City had no desire to force anyone to connect or assess anyone. He stated that if the neighbors chose to voluntarily connect they could do so. Mr. Gopinath asked whether the residents would be forced to hook up in the future. Once again, Gaffron suggested that if a resident had a septic system problem that could not be solved on site, hooking up to sewer could be an option. He added that discussion continues as to whether the City should share in some of the cost. Chair Smith asked if notices had gone out. Gaffron confirmed that notices had been sent to neighbors. Mr. Gopinath pointed out that Old Long Lake Road is a charming tree lined road and questioned what impact the sewer construction would have on the trees. Based on topography, Gaffron indicated that the sewer would likely be a pressure line bored under the road, which would have very little effect on existing trees. PAGE 16 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2873 CITY OF ORONO, Continued) Berg moved, Fritzler seconded, to recommend approval of the proposed MUSA amendment for several properties on Old Long Lake, Ruann, and Wakefield Roads. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Recess was taken from 9:00 - 9:05 P.M.) (#6) #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, CUP AND VARIANCE 9:05-10:04 P.M. Dr. Gumnit, the Applicant, and his representative were present. Chaput explained that the applicant was requesting five items in order to reconstruct a 1,440 s.f. (120'X12') gravel driveway to access and use a 1.8 acre island on his property: 1. a variance for filling in 2,091 s.f. of a wetland, where no fill or hardcover is normally permitted, 2. conditional use permits for movement of more than 500 cubic yards of fill and mitigating wetland within shoreland overlay district; 3. a variance to allow an agricultural use (grazing of horses) within the 150' of the OHWL of French Lake 4. a variance to allow a 4' fence to be located as close as 14' from the OHWL of French Lake where 150' is required; and 5. a variance for mitigating 4,234 s.f. of land within 75' of the OHWL of French Lake where no grading or excavation is permitted. Chaput pointed out that there is an existing trail accessing the island of land at this time, however, over time, the trail has been worn down and the applicant wishes to improve it for machinery to be able to drive on it. Construction of the driveway requires 2,091 s.f of wetland to be filled with approximately 132 cubic yards of material if rebuilt on the existing drive. With regard to other comments, Chaput stated that, after reviewing the application, the City Engineer stated that a typical section of the proposed roadway should be included for review and erosion control measures should be installed. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) stated that permits would be required, as well as, wetland mitigation. Chaput indicated that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would also require a permit, however, they will not renew the application until the snow clears and they can perform their own independent survey. Chaput stated that, if the Planning Commission feels that the applicant has shown undue hardship and should be able to reconstruct a gravel driveway by filling in and mitigating wetland to access the land, enclose the land with an electric fence to use it for pasturing from time to time, then the variances and CUPs necessary should be approved including 5 PAGE 17 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued) listed conditions, plus a sixth allowing the applicant to routinely maintain the drive access as approved. On the other hand, if the Planning Commission feels that there is no hardship to permit the construction of a driveway through a wetland, and that driveway reconstruction is not necessary to preserve the owner's rights, then the application for variances and CUPs should be denied. Dr. Gumnit stated that he wished to fill as a maintenance measure to maintain the trail. Chair Smith questioned whether there were other locations on the property where the horses could be managed. Chaput submitted into record five letters the City had received from neighbors in opposition to the application, as follows: Kirsten Burton 2601 Rainey Road, Dr. and Mrs. Kenneth Riff of 900 Old Crystal Bay Road, Sharon Winslow of 1205 French Creek Drive, Marcia Hanson representing the French Creek Association, and James Peterson 2280 French Creek Circle. Dr. Gumnit's representative reiterated that the proposed driveway had always been an existing path, which had merely deteriorated over time. Dr. Gumnit stated that the road or path had been there since somewhere around the World War II era. The applicant's representative stated that two scenarios have presented themselves, the MCWD has suggested that a culvert be installed with gravel rock fill and that they steer clear of the OHWL of 930', on the other hand, Julie Eckman of the DNR has suggested that they lay a geotextile fabric under the gravel with no culvert. He pointed out that neither agency is in agreement or ready to grant approvals and are hoping to hear what the City decides. Chair Smith asked what the purpose for building up the trail would be, for horses, pedestrians, or vehicles. Dr. Gumnit stated that he and his family have always used the path to the hill and they would like to be able to bring a tractor across to clean up the island. He indicated that they would like to burn out the non native junk vegetation on the island and replant it with native grasses and flowers, the proposed electric fence would keep the horses out of the wetland area and be less obtrusive than a wood fence. Overall, Dr. Gumnit believed that his proposed enhancements would be better for the wildlife than what is currently there and offer better views for his neighbors. He reiterated that the wide path leading to the island had always been there but a sunken area was in need of repair. PAGE 18 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued) Chair Smith maintained that even the attractive proposed vegetation would be changed by keeping horses on the island. Dr. Gumnit stated that he was familiar with pasture management plans and rotation to avoid problems. He stated that he preferred to keep the horses on the island as opposed to elsewhere on his property in order to avoid removing the trees and wetland. He indicated that the Conservation District felt this was the best place to keep the horses due to the great deal of wetland on his property. Gumnit added that both MCWD and the DNR have made inconclusive recommendations at this time and are relying upon each other, and the City to make the first move. Chair Smith questioned how the applicant would create a water and feed management plan at this site. Dr. Gumnit stated that once he knew what he would be allowed to do, he would be better prepared to make a plan for water and feed. He noted that a manure management plan would simply be picking up the worst of it. He pointed out that the horses were fed and stabled in Delano, and that they would merely be kept at this location for short-term outings and that grazing should be sufficient. Chair Smith inquired about shelter. Dr. Gumnit stated that he had no plans to construct any type of shelter, knowing that he would need to apply for a CUP to do so. As a responsible horse owners, at most, he could foresee building a lean-to structure on the island to protect the horses from the elements in the future and with the approval of the City. Chair Smith agreed that some horses are housed outside all the time and that a simple lean- to structure would be sufficient. Berg felt this was an ambitious plan for short term riding opportunities. Dr. Gumnit stated that they could possibly take the horses out weekly or monthly, he could not say for sure. As there were no further public comments in person, Gaffron suggested the Commission address the comments made in the letters. Bremer stated that she agreed with many of the comments and concerns expressed in the letters. She questioned what impact the electric fence might have on natural habitat. PAGE 19 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued) While there was no question that some deer do bed down on the hill, Dr. Gumnit explained that the deer more often use the perimeter of the island as their routine path. He pointed out that the fence would not be turned on all the time either. With regard to small game, Dr. Gumnit indicated that they would be able to walk under the fence lines, as only the top line is electrified. Chair Smith asked about the presence of trumpeter swans. Dr. Gumnit maintained that little nesting occurs on the hill, and that most of the birds fly over the hill to the French Creek area. Berg questioned what the applicant's hardship was to support the application. Dr. Gumnit explained that they have always used the land, have had their horses out there in the past, and now due to the level of deterioration of the path it is difficult to use the land the way they are used to. The path is in such disrepair that it is dangerous to the horses, nor can they maintain the property since they cannot bring out any equipment to do so. Chair Smith questioned the opportunity to place a structure elsewhere on the property. Dr. Gumnit maintained that in order to keep the horses elsewhere, they would have to destroy much of the wooded area on the property to put up a fence. Bremer asked if there were any neighbors who had voiced support. Dr. Gumnit stated that, the Coldwell's, his immediate neighbors, had voiced their support knowing our love for nature and that we are responsible horse owners. He indicated that, had he known the other neighbors had such strong opposition to the application prior to this evening, he would have gladly discussed his plans with them as well. Chair Smith questioned whether the applicant could do as he proposes in this district. Gaffron pointed out that the City 1992 imposed new restriction on properties in this RR-1B zoning district by adopting Shoreland regulations, which put this parcel in the Shoreland Overlay District. The new rules do not allow the fence or horses as near the shoreline as he proposes. He noted that, unfortunately, the neighbors were not present to hear from Dr. Gumnit as he describes his intended use. . Chair Smith questioned how the City position's itself with the MCWD. PAGE 20 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued) Gaffron explained that the DNR won't take any action until spring, and the MCWD won't take any action until the DNR does, any approval that the City makes in support of this application should be contingent upon the other two agencies. Mabusth felt the City should also wait until spring before deciding whether to allow someone to do this kind of work in a protected area. Fritzler opposed the application, stating that he could foresee this application being developed into something more than what is being proposed here today. He asked how wide the path had to be to allow someone to walk a horse out to the island. Dr. Gumnit reiterated that the driveway was needed to allow for maintenance of the island. Fritzler agreed that, while the area would be nice to use, it could easily get stretched into more intensive use. Dr. Gumnit pointed out that he was making no attempt to mislead the Commission. He admitted that the horses would likely remain on site over long weekends etc. Fritzler maintained that, in his view, the horses should be kept on the larger portion of the land and not on the island supported by a unpermitted roadway. Rahn concurred, stating that his reservations centered on this proposal being part one of a potential three-part plan. While she had no problem with the applicant using his horses all across his property, Mabusth stated that she had difficulty supporting the need for a roadway. Berg agreed with Fritzler's comments. Dr. Gumnit indicated that he was offended by the City's justification which allowed roadways to cross wetlands when they lead to homes, whereas, he cannot repair an existing roadway for his rural use. Rahn stated that, it seemed to him, there was little hardship to support this site, when there were other suitable locations on the property, which would be compliant. Dr. Gumnit asked Gaffron to reread the Code, indicating that he was frustrated, by what he viewed as an unreasonable restriction, on his use of the land. Berg stated that the applicant was not being denied use of his land for riding. She added that what the Commission did find difficult, was the fence and roadway use. PAGE 21 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued) Dr. Gumnit's representative reiterated that the roadway was not new construction, it has deteriorated over time and use and the applicant wishes to continue using it. In an effort to keep the hill as natural as possible, Dr. Gumnit stated that he would need to get access to it with his maintenance equipment. According to Berg, this use should not be on this island, she did not find adequate hardship to allow this use on this part of the property. Rahn stated that repairing the path would be acceptable, however, building a roadway would not. He believed the area was not conducive to what was being proposed and the Codes should act as the Commission's guide to that conclusion. Bremer agreed with Rahn. Mabusth agreed that adequate land existed elsewhere to support this activity. Chair Smith suggested that applicant consider other locations for the horses and pen near the house, while still using the island for riding. Dr. Gumnit asked the Commission to table his application to see if he could come back with an alternative plan. Chair Smith suggested that he use this time to visit the people whose letters were received by the City in order to address their concerns as well. She thanked the applicant for being forthright and open to discussion. Mabusth moved, Chair Smith seconded, to recommend that Application #03-2869, Dr. Robert Gumnit, 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road, be tabled in order to allow the applicant further time to investigate alternatives. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#7) #03-2871 SALLY AND DAN WEATHERLY, 1214 WILDHURST TRAIL, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE 10:04- 10:45 P.M. Sally and Dan Weatherly, the Applicants, and Brian Novak, Architect, were present. Bottenberg reported that the applicants were requesting two after-the-fact variances for a newly constructed single family residence. The first variance would be to allow the foundation of the newly constructed residence to be located 9 1/2' from the side property line where 10' is required. The second variance would be allow the eaves to encroach into the side yard setback. PAGE 22 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2871 SALLY AND DAN WEATHERLY, Continued) After purchasing the property in 2002, the applicant's initial plan was to remodel the existing residence and add a second story. Shortly after they started that project, Bottenberg pointed out that it was determined the foundation would not handle the additional load, therefore, the structure was demolished and a new foundation was built. While at the site for a roof inspection, Bottenberg noted that the building inspector noticed the eaves on the north side of the residence were more that the allowed 1 1/2'. Soon after the City notified the builder, the applicant's brought on a new architect and builder. The new architect worked with the City to create a new set of plans for the proposed garage, which would meet a 10' setback. As the property was surveyed for the new garage, Bottenberg explained that it was determined the foundation of the new residence encroached into the side yard setback (9.6'-9.8') While the permits were granted off Plan 1, which showed the remodel and addition of a second story based upon the foundation and eaves meeting required setbacks; Plan 2 reflected the garage construction only. Bottenberg continued that once the surveyors were on site to stake the proposed garage location, it was determined that the foundation encroached 6" into the side yard setback. Bottenberg indicated that staff would recommend approval of the after-the-fact variance for side yard setback for encroachment of the foundation. However, after reviewing plan 1, in which the eaves met the required setbacks, staff would recommend the after-the-fact variance for the encroachment of the eaves into the side yard setback be denied and cut back to conform to required standards. Mr. Novak informed the Commission that the former builder had failed to get a new survey to lay the new foundation, and stated that if the eaves are to be cut back to less than 8-10" no brackets as designed could be installed on the building. He added that, in order to cut back the eaves, scaffolding would need to be erected to remove the brackets and shingles at a cost of $6,000-$8,000. After speaking to several of the neighbors, Novak indicated that their main concern was the repair of the existing non-conforming garage. He maintained that, if the Weatherly's were forced to change the roof and eaves, there would be little left over to improve the garage, and this would have to wait. There were no public comments. Rahn stated that he found it difficult to allow the excessive overhang of the eaves, although he could accept the foundation variance. Mabusth asked what length of overhangs staff or the Commission could support in the encroachment area. PAGE 23 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2871 SALLY AND DAN WEATHERLY, Continued) Gaffron stated that a 1' eave in the front and 1.3' eave in the back could be allowed due to the foundation. Mabusth indicated that she would like to see a compromise and suggested they settle on a 14" overhang to match the garage. Fritzler stated that he would prefer something closer to conformity. Given the cost of the change to gain a few inches, Bremer found it difficult to support denial of the variance and indicated that she would allow the 1 1/2' eaves. Rahn felt the eaves were closer to a 30" length. Berg asked at what point these problems were found. Mr. Weatherly pointed out that the inspector noticed the problems during a roof inspection. He reiterated that improvements to the original garage would take time. Mrs. Weatherly stated that, had they known the difficulties they've face, they never would have chosen the first builder and spent more than 80% of what was originally proposed. Mr. Weatherly stated that he and his neighbor currently share a bituminous path between their homes, pointing out that his neighbor's home falls within his 10' setback as well. Bremer reiterated that she would allow the eaves, due to the economics of the situation created by the difficulties the applicants withstood. Bottenberg asked what the hardship would be to warrant such a motion, noting that Council would want to have supporting hardship for the variances. Gaffron concurred, stating that, from a policy standpoint, staff needed to have a hardship identified to support the application. Mabusth stated that the hardship, which would allow the foundation to remain, would be the same one that supports the eaves to be left alone. Gaffron asked if it was the history and economics that the Commission based its decision. Berg stated that she was surprised that no stakes were placed or survey done when the home was rebuilt. PAGE 24 of 26 • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2871 SALLY AND DAN WEATHERLY, Continued) Gaffron asked the Commission if they were comfortable with a hardship statement that supported the aesthetics, history of the project and lot line, and economics as rationale for allowing the after-the-fact variances. He noted that if the Commission were comfortable, these could be added to the Resolution brought before the City Council. Berg moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2871, Dan and Sally Weatherly, 1214 Wildhurst Trail, approving the foundation and eaves as built, based on the hardships of aesthetic symmetry, history of the project and lot line, and economics. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Fritzler dissenting. Fritzler stated that he believed the roofline should be moved back to be compliant. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#10) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 27, 2003 AND FEBRUARY 10, 2003 Rahn reported that the City Council approved the variances for Wesley Byrne's property. Gaffron noted that the Council approved it per the original site plan, and suggested the Commission use those words in similar future recommendations. Bottenberg reported that all but one of the Planning Commission items were on the consent agenda for February 10. The Richard Kail application was removed from the consent agenda for discussion. (#11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron reminded the Commission that a work session was scheduled for March 5, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. Both Gaffron and Bottenberg pointed out to the Commission that they had tended to spend more time on certain topics than necessary this evening, including an hour on one item and 45 minutes on another. Staff reminded the Commission of their goal to limit discussions to approximately 20 minutes, especially with the lengthy spring and summer agendas that will be coming in future months. Discussion items centered on beginning the meetings earlier, putting more items on consent, and the need to give direction without redesigning applications during meetings. Bottenberg pointed out that hardcover items would never be put on consent. PAGE 25 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, 2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION, Continued) As discussed in past work sessions, Rahn reiterated the need to hold the line regarding the 0-75' setback zone and reasonable hardships, as well as, massing issues. Bottenberg and Gaffron believed that they could give applicants more direction criteria if they were sure the Commission would only allow certain types of hardship and exceptions to the 0-75' setback zone. (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 27, 2003 Fritzler moved, Mabusth seconded, to approve the Minutes of the January 27, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 4, Abstain 2, Berg and Bremer abstaining. (#13) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 24, 2003 AND MARCH 10, 2003. February 24 - Fritzler March 10 - Bremer ADJOURNMENT Mabusth moved, Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:05 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 26 of 26