Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair David Rahn, Commissioners J.Marc Fritzler,Jim Leslie, Cynthia Bremer, and Ralph Kempf. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Melanie Curtis and Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Jim White was present. Commissioners Roland Jurgens and Travis Winkey were absent. Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. CONSENT 1. #05-3070 JERRY BOLDENOW,70 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WEST—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:01 —6:02 p.m. Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application. There were no public comments. Rahn moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3070,granting of an after-the-fact conditional use permit for a non-rental guest apartment for the property located at 70 North Shore Drive West. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. OLD BUSINESS 2. #05-3074 SEAN AND MELISSA WAMBOLD, 1379 PARK DRIVE—VARIANCE, 6:02 P.M.—6:35 P.M. Sean and Melissa Wambold,Applicants,and Scott Marotz,Landscape Architect,were present. Curtis noted this application was tabled at the January Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicants to have time to hire a landscape professional to design a hardcover removal plan and to determine the areas of hardcover and walls which are critical to remain. The applicants have proposed hardcover removals in both the 0-75' and the 75'-250' zones. Hardcover removals within the 75'-250' zone would result in a reduction of 1,588 square feet for 25 percent total. Within the 0-75' zone,the applicants are proposing removals,but have determined that 268 square feet of hardcover is necessary. Staff feels that the removals within the 75'-250' zone are appropriate. However,in following with the City Engineer's recommendation, Staff feels that the wall and fire pit located in the 0-75' zone should be removed as well. The hardcover within this zone should be removed and re-graded as appropriate. Staff finds that there is no hardship to justify granting a hardcover variance to allow the hardcover within the 0-75' zone. Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variance for the 0-75' setback zone PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wambold,Continued) and approval of a conditional use permit in order to remove existing hardcover and to re-grade the lake yard. Mr.Wambold stated the reason for retaining one wall is that there are areas where it is necessary to hold back ground and that it would be necessary to re-grade and construct steps in the area. Wambold indicated they do have a grandmother that would not be able to use the steps, which is the reason for the grassy ramp. Wambold commented there are other property owners around the lake who currently who have boulder and/or wood retaining walls, and requested that one portion of the boulder wall be allowed to remain. Fritzler stated the Planning Commission usually does not address what other property owners have on their property until the property owner approaches the City for some type of permit but that the City does typically require property owners to conform to all the regulations. Fritzler indicated he is in agreement with denial of the after-the-fact variance,but that he would be against leaving any of the hardcover within the 0-75' zone that is not necessary. Fritzler stated he would be in favor of re-grading the area. Kempf stated he is happy that a majority of the boulders have been removed,but noted that the fire pit is not necessary and should be removed in the 0-75' zone. Kempf indicated in his view the existing boulder wall running down the side of the ramp appears to be functionally good for the lot since it allows for a flatter area above it as well as the ramp that is going down at an angle. Kempf stated the hardcover would not be improved if steps were constructed in this area and that re-grading may not improve the situation but could create an erosion problem. Kempf stated he would be in favor of retaining the one boulder wall that is still remaining since it does make the property more useable and would require less re-grading of the lot. Leslie noted the applicants did not create this situation,but stated the boulders located in the upper area appear to be more decorative than structural. Leslie stated he is unsure whether there is a direct correlation between the ramp and the boulders,but that he is sensitive to Staffs recommendation and the recommendation of the City Engineer that some stairs may be necessary. Leslie stated retaining the boulders is not a solution. Marotz stated this area was backfilled at one time and the boulders are retaining the ground. Marotz indicated that area would need to be re-graded if the boulders are removed and would cause an erosion issue until permanent plant cover could be established,which would be approximately two years. Marotz stated initially it was not necessary for the wall to be located in that area but that fill was later hauled in that now requires that wall. Marotz stated substantial work would need to be done if the wall were removed and that erosion measures and extensive planting would need to be done. Leslie stated the question is whether the ramp could be constructed without the boulders. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wambold,Continued) Marotz commented considerable re-grading in that area would need to be done if the boulders are removed due to the prior backfilling. Rahn stated he is in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Marotz inquired whether the stairs are excluded from the hardcover calculation. Curtis stated stairs are allowed in the 0-75' zone. Rahn pointed out stairs to the lake would not be counted against any future project and that a stairway is allowed in the 0-75' area. Fritzler stated he is aware that there are materials that can be used to prevent erosion and that there probably has been a significant amount of dirt that has washed down between the rocks and into the lake already. Rahn commented the applicants could take extra steps beyond what is being recommended by the City Engineer to prevent erosion if that is a major concern of theirs. Marotz noted it would take a couple of years for any plantings to take root and become established and that there would be a period of time where the applicants would not have full access to the lake. Kempf stated it is his understanding the applicants are not asking to re-grade this back to the original contours of the land. Rahn stated the applicants could submit a re-grading and restoration plan and that they probably do not need to restore it back to the original grade. Fritzler inquired whether it would be necessary for the applicant to appear before the Planning Commission again if Staff's recommendations are approved. Gaffron stated in his opinion the City Engineer could review the re-grading and restoration plan and that it may not be necessary for the Planning Commission to review the plan unless they so desire. Chair Rahn asked for public comment. Jeff Danbury,4410 Shoreline Drive, Spring Park, inquired whether the boulder wall looks worse than a wooden set of steps down the slope. Danbury noted they would constitute the same amount of hardcover. Danbury inquired whether a portion of the boulder wall could remain along with the grass ramp. Rahn noted the applicant is not limited to constructing a wooden stairway and that there are other types of materials that could be used. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wambold,Continued) Marotz stated if some grading is to occur, it could be graded in such a way that a portion of the wall could be retained. Rahn stated in his view one of the issues is the visual impact from the lake and that typically all that is seen from the lake are boulders. Rahn stated the City Engineer has determined that the boulder wall is not necessary and that the applicants are not required to have a stairway down to the lake. Leslie noted the stairway being discussed by the Planning Commission and the City Engineer would be allowed in the 0-75' zone and not in the area where the ramp is being proposed. Wambold commented if the objective is to reduce the hardcover below 168 square feet of hardcover within the 0-75' zone, leaving a portion of the boulder wall and having a ramp would be better than constructing stairs. Rahn stated if the stairs are not necessary at all,then the Planning Commission would prefer no stairs. Fritzler commented in his view this slope may not need a stairway. Marotz noted the City Engineer did recommend that stairs be allowed on this property due to the slope. Wambold stated they would rather have a ramp than stairs. Wambold asked if they are able to reduce the hardcover to below 168 square feet, whether they would be permitted to leave a portion of the boulder wall. Rahn inquired where the 168 square feet figure comes from. Marotz indicated that is the amount they calculated would be needed to construct a stairway to the lake. Kempf commented functionally the boulder wall is probably less disruptive to the whole yard as far as erosion control than to re-grade and that the same objective could be achieved by reducing the boulder wall to 168 square feet or less, with removal of the fire pit. Kempf stated in his view there is nothing particularly offensive with having one boulder wall. Rahn inquired how the length of the wall would be shortened. Marotz stated down at the bottom of the wall they would not be able to remove any of the boulders but that they could relocate some of the dirt towards the top and eliminate possibly the first 15 feet of the wall. Rahn stated in his view there still is the visual affect of the wall from the lake. Curtis noted in past situations where a retaining wall has been allowed to remain the City has required vegetative screening of the wall. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wambold, Continued) Bremer indicated she would be fine with allowing a portion of the wall to remain as long as it was under 168 square feet and it is screened with vegetation. Bremer stated there may be some confusion over the City Engineer's letter since he indicates that the boulder wall is not necessary but that due to the steepness of the wall they should be allowed a set of stairs. Bremer stated in her view it does not appear that this slope would need a stairway in order to access the lake. Bremer stated the Planning Commission typically looks at after-the-fact variances on what they would have allowed prior to the work being completed and that this work would not have been allowed had the proper steps been followed. Bremer indicated it is difficult to tell from the City Engineer's letter whether the steps would be allowed all the way from the residence down to the lake. Curtis stated re-grading the property could result in the necessity for the stairway to be extended somewhat but that it is not necessary for the property to be re-graded back to its original grade. Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend denial of the after-the-fact hardcover variance and to recommend approval of a conditional use permit in order to re-grade the 0-75' setback zone, with the applicants having the option of choosing whether to retain a portion of the boulder wall, subject to the hardcover in the 0-75' zone not exceeding 168 square feet and further subject to appropriate vegetative screening being provided for the wall, or to construct a stairway down to the lake not to exceed 168 square feet. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Leslie opposed. Leslie noted the 168 square feet is a presumption on the part of the applicant and is not what the City Engineer is stating in his letter. 3. #05-3078 GARY AND LYNN CHRISTENSEN,3560 IVY PLACE—VARIANCES, 6:35 P.M.—6:54 P.M. Gary Christensen,Applicant, and Jeff Danbury,Builder, were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and a side setback variances in order to replace their existing low-pitched roof with a steeper pitch resulting in a '/z story that will include attic storage space. Curtis noted this residence does not have a basement. The existing residence is currently set back 40 feet from the ordinary high water mark of Lake Minnetonka where a 75-foot setback is required and 8.2 feet from the side lot line to the north where normally a 10 foot setback is required. Staff finds there is a hardship due to the location of the existing home. Staff recommends approval of the request in conjunction with the applicant removing all encroachments onto the neighboring property. Curtis stated there are portions of the deck, sidewalk and existing PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3078 Gary and Lynn Christensen,Continued) driveway that encroach across the property line. In addition, a shed, a playhouse and a play structure exist entirely on the adjoining property that would need to be removed. Staff is also recommending removal of extra sidewalk, a 10' x 16' concrete pad, and any other non-essential hardcover. Curtis noted this property currently exceeds the hardcover limits. In addition, should the Planning Commission determine the Y2 store to be additional living space versus attic space, Staff would suggest that the dormers on the northern side of the roof be eliminated. The applicant had no comments in addition to Staff's report. There were no public comments regarding this application. Danbury inquired why the dormers on the north side of the house are an issue when the dormers on the other side of the residence are not. Curtis pointed out the dormers would not meet the 10 foot setback since the roof currently encroaches into the side setback. Danbury inquired whether a variance has been granted in other locations. Curtis stated often the second story would be required to meet the 10-foot side setback if there is an encroachment. Gaffron stated it probably is a situation where a variance has been both approved and denied. Gaffron suggested pulling the dormers back in a foot and a half to eliminate the encroachment. Fritzler commented the Planning Commission needs to deal with the issues that are before it tonight and that when there already is an encroachment,the Planning Commission would like it reduced whenever possible. Danbury stated the dormers are located on the left side and that they have been informed that adjacent lot is unbuildable. Danbury indicated there is a couple hundred feet to the left of this addition. Fritzler indicated they are unable to tell what the future may hold for the adjacent lot and that it is possible that some day in the future there may be a house built on that lot. Christensen stated relocating the shed is an option. Rahn inquired how long the applicant has owned the property. Christensen indicated he has owned the property for approximately ten years and that the deck and driveway existed at the time of purchase. PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3078 Gary and Lynn Christensen, Continued) Rahn stated the biggest issue with this application is the fact that the house sits very close to the lake and that the residence already consists of two stories. Rahn stated the addition of a half-story is increasing the nonconformity of the structure and that in his opinion the hardship due to the location of the house does not necessarily mean the height of the house should be increased. Rahn indicated another issue is the peak height, which may be raised by eight to nine feet with the addition. Christensen indicated it would be raised approximately five feet. Rahn stated he also is unsure of the need for dormers and an eight-foot ceiling to accommodate storage. Christensen noted there currently is no basement and that storage is an issue. Rahn inquired whether there would be access to the attic. Christensen stated there would be a pull-down stair access and that the area would be insulated. Rahn stated the biggest obstacle is the fact that this is a large residence already and that they would be adding to the encroachment. Kempf inquired what the square footage of the house is. Christensen stated approximately 2800 square feet. Fritzler inquired whether the hardcover calculation is accurate for the lot. Curtis indicated the hardcover is correct. Curtis indicated there is a 75 foot setback on two sides of the lot and that the percentage is based only on the 75-250' area. Christensen indicated some of the existing hardcover is at the end of the road, with the property extending across the road. Christensen stated that area is paved and is utilized by the City to accommodate city vehicles. Fritzer inquired whether that area is included in the hardcover calculation. Curtis stated to her knowledge all the hardcover on the lot is accounted for. Kempf stated in his opinion the residence is in need of the update and that he likes the appearance of the proposed project. Kempf noted the neighbors' views would not be impacted by this addition and that it is desirable to keep the value of the house appropriate for the value of a lake lot. Kempf indicated he is inclined to approve the application as proposed. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3078 Gary and Lynn Christensen,Continued) Bremer stated in her view this is a hardship lot and that she is in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Bremer indicated the question in her mind is the dormer issue and that she would prefer the dormers be pulled back. Fritzler noted the hardcover removals are not an option and would be required. Christensen indicated he would be agreeable to removing those items. Fritzler stated those items would not be allowed to re-appear in the future. Kempf noted there is a sidewalk on the side and inquired whether it goes anywhere and whether it serves any purpose. Christensen indicated the sidewalk does not go anywhere and was probably constructed for aesthetic purposes. Kempf commented he would like that sidewalk to also be removed. Curtis noted that sidewalk would be included in recommendation number two of Staff's report. Bremer moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3078, 3560 Ivy Place, granting of a side setback variance and an average lake setback variance,subject to recommendations one and two contained in Staff's February 15, 2005 Planner's Report, and further subject to the dormers on the northern side of the roof being pulled back to avoid any encroachment. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 1,Rahn opposed. Rahn indicated he is opposed to the approval because in his opinion it is increasing the nonconformity of the house. 4. #05-3083 CITY OF ORONO, SOUTH BROWN ROAD,MYRTLEWOOD, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,6:54 P.M.—6:59 P.M. Gaffron stated the City is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to add several existing developed properties to the MUSA. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area defines those portions of the Metro Area where development is allowed to occur with municipal sewer rather than with septic systems. Gaffron stated the City is requesting the Myrtlewood neighborhood be included. This area was not included in the 2000 Comprehensive Plan MUSA expansions because there was not any sewer service close to this subdivision. The City of Wayzata is now constructing a new public works facility directly south of the Myrtlewood neighborhood and has completed the extension of sewer and water utilities to serve the new public works facility. The existing Wayzata Public Works facility will be removed for the new Highway 12 construction project. Gaffron noted the City of Orono has contributed financially PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3083 City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Continued) to the Wayzata sewer and water extensions to provide capacity and service connections for future service of the Myrtlewood neighborhood. Gaffron indicated another area proposed to be included in MUSA is 25 South Brown Road,which is an existing developed property located just south of Watertown Road with a failing septic system. The house was originally constructed in 1940 and consists of 3.0 acres with 1.5 acres of filled or disturbed soils unsuitable for septic with the remainder wooded. Gaffron noted the proposed amendment would need to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for their approval. Gaffron stated preliminary discussions with Met Council indicate that because the area of the amendment is less than 40 acres and would have no impact to metro systems,the amendment will likely be considered as minor and approval is expected in the near future. There were no public comments relating to this application. Leslie noted lack of sewer expansion has been an effort to contain density in certain areas and inquired what impact this would have on the density in those areas. Gaffron stated this expansion would not provide for any subdivisions and would not impact the density. Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3083, City of Orono, South Brown Road, Comprehensive Plan Amendment—MUSA Boundary. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 5. #05-3084 JAMES AND PATRICIA OLSON,4360 BAYSIDE ROAD,VARIANCES, 7:00 P.M.—7:12 P.M. James and Patricia Olson,Applicants, were present. Gundlach indicated the applicants are requesting a front yard setback variance to permit a front yard setback of 72 feet when 77 feet currently exists and 100 feet is normally required. The applicant is proposing to construct an attached 24' by 30' two-stall garage adjacent to the existing single stall garage. The property is located in the RR-1A, One Family Rural Residential District, which has a five acre minimum, and consists of 3.51 acres. Staff finds that there is a hardship that supports some degree of front yard setback variance. The existing house was constructed prior to adoption of the current zoning regulations, including the 100-foot setback. Staff recommends denial of the request as submitted since the request for a variance at 72 feet is not consistent with previous approvals and denials as it would increase the nonconformity. Staff would, PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION • Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3084 James and Patricia Olson, Continued) however,recommend approval of a front yard setback variance of 77 feet,which would not increase the existing non-conforming front yard setback. Gundlach noted the applicant would have to redesign the garage to achieve a 77 feet setback. Mr. Olson indicated in discussions with his builder and other contractors that the recommended option was to construct the garage in this manner and that there are potential water damage issues if the design is changed. Kempf inquired whether it was recommended to relocate the windows. Olson indicated that was the recommendation. Rahn inquired whether the garage is 30 feet front to back. Olson stated it is. Rahn questioned whether the length of the garage could be shortened. Rahn stated he is unsure where the peak lines up with the windows but that in his opinion there are a number of options that the applicant has. Rahn noted the Planning Commission has consistently not allowed further encroachments. Rahn reiterated in his view it could be redesigned. Leslie commented the garage could be angled. Olson stated the rationale for going the direction they are proposing is to avoid the need to remove three large pine trees. Rahn asked for public comment on this application. There were no public comments. Kempf stated it is unlikely that the Planning Commission would allow continued encroachment and that there are a number of options that the applicant could consider for this project. Kempf stated in his view it does not appear likely that the Planning Commission would allow the garage to be constructed toward the street any further than the existing setback. Olson inquired whether a 24 by 24' garage would be an option. Leslie stated in his opinion there are a number of options the applicant could employ without further encroaching into the setback. Olson indicated the house met the setbacks at the time it was constructed and questioned whether there is any grandfathering allowed. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3084 James and Patricia Olson, Continued) Leslie stated the Planning Commission is taking into consideration the fact that this house was constructed prior to the current codes and that the City has allowed the 77 feet front yard setback. Rahn stated he is in agreement with Staff's recommendation. Rahn suggested the applicant consider revising his plans. Mrs. Olson stated the existing tuck-under garage is recessed and that they are trying to improve the appearance of the structure by changing the roofline. Rahn noted that side of the house is located 77 feet to the street and that in all likelihood there is a design element that could be utilized to achieve the 77-foot setback. Leslie moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3084,4360 Bayside Road,with the condition the proposed garage be located no closer to the road than the current 77 feet front yard setback. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Bremer indicated she would have allowed the structure to be constructed at 75 feet. Olson inquired whether the setback goes from the corner of the foundation or the overhang. Rahn indicated it is typically the foundation and not the overhang. Gundlach noted the overhang in that situation should not exceed one and a half feet. 6. #05-3085 JUL ANN,INC.,3455 SHORELINE DRIVE, COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW,7:13 P.M.—7:40 P.M. Harry and Julie Kreslins,Applicants, Paul Overson, son of the property owner,were present. Gundlach stated the applicant has requested a commercial site plan review in order to relocate her existing business across the street to 3455 Shoreline Drive and to obtain an occupancy and/or building permit for property located at 3455 Shoreline Drive. The applicants are proposing to convert an existing lower level vacant space into a beauty shop/salon,which is a permitted use under the B-1 zoning district. Gundlach noted typically permitted uses do not require Planning Commission or City Council approval but it was discovered by Staff that this space never received any legal occupancy permits, which is the reason for the commercial site plan review. The purpose of the commercial site plan review is to verify adequate parking, safe and legal access, signage in accordance with the sign regulations as well as a general review of the site. Gundlach stated currently there are two accesses to this site, one at Shoreline Drive for the street level businesses and one through the Keaveny site to the direct east off of Kelly PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3085 Jul Ann,Inc.,Continued) Avenue for the lower level. Gundlach noted a letter was received from Mr.Keaveny indicating he would support a shared access for this use but that he does not want a binding agreement since he may be selling this property in the future. Staff feels the right of access should be formalized into an easement of some sort given the increase in traffic. Gundlach noted the parking requirements for this site were reviewed,with the building owner providing estimated floor plans of the existing businesses and the applicant providing a floor plan for the proposed beauty shop. Currently there are three existing businesses as well as four apartments. City Ordinance would require a total of 33 parking stalls,with 28 stalls currently being available. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the parking availability on site and the access to the rear of the building in making a recommendation to the City Council on this use. Gundlach stated the applicant is proposing to erect her current 14 square foot sign on the street side of the building,which brings the total amount of signage to be displayed on the street side of the building to 126 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to display a 1' by 4' sign on the backside of the building near the proposed entrance, which would increase the total amount of signage to 130 square feet. Gundlach noted the City's Zoning Ordinance does permit 185 square feet based on the street frontage of the lot. Gundlach recommended the Planning Commission consider the following issues: 1. The reasonableness of a parking variance for five stalls. 2. The necessity of a shared easement for access to the lower level. 3. Should compliance with City Code Sections 58-1 and 58-3 be required as part of this approval. 4. The impact of the potential future development of this site given the possibility the Keaveny property may be sold. Gundlach stated if the Planning Commission finds that parking and access requirements cannot be met, then a motion for denial is recommended. If the Planning Commission wishes to approve this permitted use,then a parking variance should be granted and the applicant should be directed to obtain a shared access agreement with the adjacent property owner and comply with Sections 58-1 and 58-3. Rahn asked for public comments. Andrew Freese, 2914 Casco Point Road, stated he is in favor of the application if it improves the appearance of the building. Freese indicated the parking lots are never full in this spot and that the appearance of the building is currently an eyesore. Liza Kreslie 3455 Shoreline Drive, indicated she is the owner of the existing beauty salon and that in her opinion there is a parking issue due to the lack of available parking. Kreslie indicated she would PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3085 Jul Ann,Inc.,Continued) also like to see something done with the appearance of the building,but that the parking does need to be addressed. Rahn inquired whether Staff would be inclined to allow parking that is only accessible off an adjoining property,referencing the stalls shown on the plan on the lower level. Rahn noted the property owner could elect to erect a chain link fence, which would prevent the use of these stalls. Gundlach stated the parking stalls are only available from the adjacent lot. Rahn stated he is unsure how the city could protect future access to this site and noted that would be a risk the applicant would be taking. Rahn stated in his opinion there are parking issues in this area and that he would not be likely to deviate from the required parking spaces. Mr. Kreslins stated the parking is an issue on the top lot but not on the lot down below. Kreslins stated customers of Jul Ann would not be able to park on the upper lot and access the lower lot. Rahn stated the City would not be able to restrict any overflow parking onto Keaveny's lot. Gundlach stated there are also five apartments on this site and that City Code requires two stalls per apartment. Rahn inquired whether the parking is based on the square footage of the tenant space in this building. Gundlach stated it is but that she has a concern that her calculations may not be accurate based on the square footage provided tonight by the owner of Liza Janes. Liza Kreslie stated directly next to her door is a door that goes downstairs to access Jul Ann's spot and an apartment going upstairs, accounting for some additional square footage. Gundlach stated the floor area of the beauty shop would be included but not storage area. Rahn inquired what options there are for increasing the available parking for this lot. Rahn noted they would not be able to count the parking stalls where the dumpster currently is located. Liza Kreslie stated her concern is if another tenant comes in, she would be unable to expand due to the parking situation. Kreslie indicated she is unaware of her rights regarding the parking. Leslie stated if the apartments are included in the calculation,then ten of those spaces on the lower level would be eliminated. Gundlach indicated the code requires two parking stalls per apai lment. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3085 Jul Ann,Inc.,Continued) Leslie noted that would only leave two parking stalls for Jul Ann's. Leslie stated one option to restrict pedestrian traffic to the lower level from the upper level would be to gate the stairway,which may be against City Code. Liza Kreslie stated the side of the building that faces Champion Auto belongs to Keaveny's and that she has not been allowed to do anything with that side of the building. Kreslie stated in her opinion the customers of Jul Ann would try to utilize the top lot and then attempt to access the lower level. Keslie indicated she would like more information on the parking issues. Fritzler stated he sees the possibility that a parking easement from Keaveny would be needed and that parking in his opinion is an issue on this lot. Fritzler stated he would be reluctant at this time to grant any variance on the parking and would like to see some documentation on the shared access. Fritzler noted there also is the possibility that people catching the bus in that location would park on this lot and occupy some of the stalls for the majority of the day. Frizler inquired whether there would be any issue with adverse possession concerning the parking. Bremer stated to her knowledge, if sorheone allows parking on their lot, it is not adverse possession and that it sounds like it has been permitted for a number of years. Bremer stated she would like to see some type of agreement that would be binding for as long as Keaveny owns the building. Bremer noted that agreement would need to be renegotiated if the owner of the building changes. Bremer commented she was unaware of the parking issues for this lot,but that it would be difficult to include the parking spaces where the dumpster is located. Overson indicated the dumpster could be relocated and that it was initially located there to provide easy access for the refuge company. Fritzler commented in his view the owner of the property has neglected to keep this site clean and that items have been placed on the lot that have been there for quite a while. Overson stated people of their own volition have periodically dumped items there. Overson stated he is willing to clean up the property and that he was not fully aware of the current condition of the property. Rahn reiterated the parking remains an issue and that he would prefer a revised plan showing how the parking would meet the requirements of the City. Rahn stated the applicant does have the option of tabling her application in order to consider her options. Rahn suggested the applicant consider meeting with Staff to discuss the parking issues. Mr.Kreslins requested the application be tabled. Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to table Application#05-3085,Julie Kreslins on behalf of Jul Ann,Inc., and Building Owner Aleck Overson,3455 Shoreline Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Recess taken from 7:40 p.m.to 7:48 p.m.) 7. #05-3086 PHILIP AND CASSANDRA ORDWAY, 1145 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, VARIANCE,7:48 P.M.—8:25 P.M. Philip and Cassandra Ordway, Applicants,were present. Gaffron stated the applicants have purchased the property at 1145 Sixth Avenue North and are proposing to remove the existing house and detached garage in order to construct a new residence with attached garage. The property is located in the LR-1A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, and consists of 7.313 acres. Gaffron noted the property has significant topographical limitations,with approximately 3.65 acres being buildable. Gaffron stated the existing house, garage and driveway apron extend to the defined top of bluff, with no setback from the bluff itself. The proposed new residence has been located to be further from the top of the bluff than the existing house,but constraints of driveway slope and tree locations limit the ability of this site to be developed as well as the proposed home design. The applicants are requesting top of bluff setback variances for a small portion of proposed deck and for the attached garage. Approvals are also required for restoration of grades after the existing house is removed, as well as minor grading to accomplish foundation construction and drainageways within the bluff impact zone. Gaffron stated the applicants have provided a detailed hardship statement,but that from Staff's perspective an argument could be made that a different home design could be created for this property that would require no setback variances; although grading within the bluff impact zone would be required to restore the grades where the existing house would be removed. Gaffron noted the applicants have redesigned their proposal from an initial plan which would have had major grading encroachments in order to create a walkout situation to a plan which has relatively minimal site grading. Gaffron noted the grading would still result in the need for a number of retaining walls. Gaffron stated the proposed six-foot deck encroachment results from the design and size of the house in relation to the narrow buildable corridor between the two bluffs. The six-foot deck encroachment is over an area that is currently a relatively flat driveway apron, which has no existing vegetation. The six-foot deck encroachment would have little impact on the views from the lake or on the stability of the bluff. Gaffron stated in his view there are a number of house designs that would be better suited for this lot and that there may not be a need to grant a variance to the top of bluff setback. Staff is recommending, one, denial of the requested variances for structural encroachments of the required 30-foot setback from top of bluff; two, denial of any required variances for retaining walls or grading within five feet of the lot side lot line; three, approval of any necessary grading within the bluff impact zone to allow for restoration of grades after the existing home and garage are removed; four,the applicant be directed to re-design to eliminate any structural encroachments of the 30-foot bluff setback. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3086 Philip and Cassandra Ordway,Continued) Mr. Ordway illustrated for the Planning Commission the topographical features of this lot,noting that there is a shared driveway that rises 24 feet over the length of the driveway. Ordway stated they are prevented from moving the driveway due to the top of the bluff restrictions. Ordway pointed out that their first intent was to design a house that met every city code and ordinance, but that their surveyor interpreted the language of the top of the bluff law differently from city staff. Ordway noted the house as originally designed was thought to conform to city codes based on the top of the bluff interpretation of their surveyor,but that due to the city's interpretation of the top of the bluff regulation,the house was redesigned. Ordway stated they have attempted to bring the house into conformity as much as possible and have relocated it. Ordway stated the current house as designed can fit within the buildable area but that the driveway would have too steep of a grade. Ordway noted the lot is heavily wooded and that they would like to preserve as many of the trees as possible in constructing the driveway and residence. Ordway displayed a computer-generated illustration of the proposed house and the switch back driveway. Ordway stated in his opinion they have resolved some of the issues since the submission of the application for the variance. Ordway indicated they would prefer to keep the house located essentially as proposed on page four but that it could be lowered five additional feet, which would eliminate the need to have the driveway swerve out to the neighbor's property and also reduce the rise in grade. Ordway stated the house could also be located to eliminate the encroachment on the side,with the grade being changed slightly to improve the erosion problem. Ordway stated they are willing to eliminate the deck and walkout. Ordway stated their proposal would also improve the drainage on the site by diverting the water to the natural wetland area along the edge of the driveway prior to it entering the lake. Ordway indicated they would still be required to request a variance for the driveway. Ordway stated this property is unique since it is located on a point and that the purpose of the variance process is to deal with lots that are unique. There were no public comments concerning this application. Kempf commended the applicants for redesigning their proposal in an effort to address Staffs concerns. Fritzler inquired whether the lower elevation would be 979 feet by lowering the residence five feet. Ordway stated the first floor elevation would be 994.88, and a reduction of six feet would make it 988.88. Fritzler stated in his opinion lowering the residence does work to everyone's advantage and makes the driveway more workable. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3086 Philip and Cassandra Ordway, Continued) Rahn commented it appears to be the type of lot that would allow for a tuck-under garage, which would also allow the walkout to remain. Rahn commented there are some design issues that could be considered and that he tends to agree with Staff's recommendations. Leslie inquired whether there was some agreement reached on the top of the bluff interpretation with staff. Ordway indicated his surveyor insists that his interpretation of top of the bluff should be accepted by the City of Orono since it has been accepted by a number of other cities. Leslie inquired whether Gaffron is confident that the City's interpretation is correct. Gaffron noted the applicants have incorporated the City's interpretation of top of the bluff into their present proposal. Bremer inquired how the surveyor's interpretation differed from the City's. Gaffron stated according to City Code,the top of the bluff means that point shown on the cross-section of G. Gaffron stated the applicants' surveyor misinterpreted the City's language partially contained on Exhibit G for top of the bluff and used an interpretation by other cities that have not changed their code to that exact definition. Gaffron noted the applicant was provided with documentation concerning the City's interpretation of the top of bluff. Gaffron stated if the surveyor's interpretation is utilized, it would result in a top of the bluff definition as if you were to stand on top of the bluff. Gaffron stated the City's interpretation of top of the bluff is slightly different than the other cities cited by the applicant. Ordway noted his surveyor's interpretation does fit with the legal language. Gaffron stated the city has been consistent with that interpretation in other top of the bluff situations. Fritzler indicated he did tour the property with a surveyor and that their way of thinking was more in line with the City's interpretation. Ordway noted they are not arguing with the City's interpretation. Mrs. Ordway stated they did request some clarification from the City in October,which they thought they were following Gaffron stated Staff did not have any inkling that the top of the bluff was incorrectly drawn until the surveyor submitted drawings and they were asked to review them. PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3086 Philip and Cassandra Ordway, Continued) Mr. Ordway indicated they did meet several times with City Staff and did review the survey and site plan. Ordway indicated they met between a half hour and a hour, asked for comments from Staff, and requested that it be approved. Ordway stated they were informed it could not be approved until it was submitted. It was also pointed out by Staff that a wetland delineation was required. Ordway indicated there was no comment at that time regarding the bluff. Ordway stated a follow-up letter was sent requesting any comments on the plan but that they did not receive any. Ordway stated that is not an issue tonight. Ordway indicated since that meeting they went ahead and submitted a number of plans and were notified within 24 hours following submittal that the top of the bluff was incorrect. Rahn commented that it was an unfortunate situation but that the Planning Commission has to make a decision on the application submitted before it this evening. Rahn stated he is unsure whether any variances would be allowed given the size of the lot. Bremer commented this property is unique with an odd-shaped building pad but that this is not a typical hardship lot due to the large building pad available. Bremer stated she has a concern sending this forward to the City Council since this is new construction and that typically the City prefers all requirements be met whenever possible to make the structures conforming. Ordway stated the problem lies with the driveway and where to locate it. Ordway stated in his view this proposal is an improvement over what currently exists and that if their application is not approved,they would be looking at improving what currently exists. Bremer commented limiting the impact to the area is important. Leslie stated the most compelling argument is the location of the driveway and that the entire building pad may not be available given the situation with the slope of the driveway. Leslie inquired what the footprint of the structure is and how large the garage would be. Ordway stated it is a two-car garage,with approximately 3600 square feet on the first floor of the house and approximately 2600 square feet on the second floor Leslie stated he is positive some type of house could be constructed on this lot without the need for any variances but that the driveway may dictate the location of the house. Leslie inquired whether the retaining walls and grading would be eliminated under this plan as well as the setback variance for the deck. Ordway stated they would be eliminated and that they no longer are proposing a walkout. Rahn stated the Planning Commission has to consider the plan that is before them and not what the applicant has proposed tonight. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22, 2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3086 Philip and Cassandra Ordway, Continued) Leslie stated he would then suggest tabling the application. Ordway stated the garage would be located over the existing driveway and inquired whether the Planning Commission would be in favor of that. Fritzler stated they would need to get approval to do grading with the top of the bluff line. Fritzler stated he would probably vote according to Staff's recommendations. Leslie commented he probably would allow the garage encroachment provided there were no other encroachments. Rahn stated he would agree with Staff's recommendations and not allow any encroachments. Bremer stated she would allow the encroachment. Kempf indicated he also would allow the encroachment. Bremer noted there normally are two more commissioners present. Rahn suggested getting Staff's recommendation on the latest plan discussed tonight. Gaffron stated the applicants might be better off tabling the application to allow Staff to review the revised plans. Ordway indicated he would prefer to table the application tonight. Leslie moved,Fritzler seconded,to table Application#05-3086,Philip and Cassandra Ordway, 1145 Sixth Avenue North,to allow the applicants time to submit a redesigned plan. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 8. #05-3087 ANDREW AND MARCIA FREESE,2914 CASCO POINT ROAD, 8:26 P.M.—8:51 P.M. Andrew Freese,Applicant, and Scott Schneider,Architect and Builder,were present. Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a half-story above the existing two-story home in conjunction with other remodeling. The following variances are being requested: 1. A hardcover variance to permit 29 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone when 31 percent currently exists and 25 percent is normally allowed. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3087 Andrew and Marcia Freese, Continued) 2. Hardcover variance to permit 1.7 percent hardcover within the 0-75' zone when 3.7 percent currently exists and 0 percent is allowed. 3. Average lakeshore setback variance to permit construction of a half story above the existing second story where the existing house encroaches approximately nine feet to 25 feet into the required setback. The applicant is proposing the basement of the existing residence become the first floor,with a new half story be constructed above the existing second story, for a total of two and a half stories. Gundlach indicated the applicant is proposing to tear down the existing two-car garage and reconstruct a new three-car garage at an elevation lower than the existing garage. On the second floor the applicant is proposing to construct a new bedroom and bathroom above the proposed three-car garage, a new front porch, and major interior renovations which would eliminate the existing three bedrooms and replace them with a kitchen, dining room and living/entertainment room. In addition, a new half story would also be constructed,which would include a master bedroom suite with full bath,three bedrooms, a second full bath, and laundry. Gundlach noted this property did receive a variance in 1989 to permit 27 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone to accommodate the addition on the back of the residence. Gundlach stated there were hardcover removals required at that time in conjunction with the variance approval. Gundlach noted the 1989 variance restricted future requests to increase hardcover on this lot. Staff finds that the applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated a hardship to justify approval of 29 percent. Gundlach stated Staff did visit this site and does not find that the view of the lake for the neighbor to the north would be negatively impacted by this project,but that the neighbor to the southwest would be impacted in the sense that their home is located behind the applicant's residence. Staff feels that the addition of a half-story would not further obstruct their view of the lake since their view is already obstructed by the existing house. Staff is recommending denial of the requested 29 percent and that the applicant be required to comply with the resolution approved in 1989,which specifically calls for no additional hardcover in excess of the 27 percent approved at that time. If the Planning Commission finds that the level of work proposed constitutes review as a rebuild rather than a renovation, Staff would recommend that no hardcover variance be granted. Staff is also recommending denial of the hardcover variance request for the 0-75' zone. Gundlach noted the applicant has already removed the 286 square feet boat enclosure. The 230 square feet of fabric mesh should also be removed for a total 0-75' hardcover percentage of 0 percent. In addition, Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as the property is located at the mouth of what is known as Casco Cove, where the neighbor to the northeast only has views northeast over the open water and the neighbor to the southwest only has views within the cove. Freese indicated they just relocated here from Philadelphia and were not aware of all the hardcover issues. Freese stated they are going to remove the fabric mesh and merely put it down to kill the weeds. Freese stated currently the hardcover is 31 percent,which in his opinion can be reduced to 27.3 percent. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3087 Andrew and Marcia Freese, Continued) In terms of the sight line,Freese noted Staff should have received letters from both neighbors indicating that they are in support of the project. Freese stated two floors of the structure are remaining the same and that they would be occupying the house during the remodeling process. In addition,they are requesting a three-car garage in order to store a collector car that has been in their family for years and is rarely driven. Freese stated the car is currently being redone in Pennsylvania. Schneider indicated they have discussed this application numerous times with Staff, and if the garage is flip-flopped,the driveway could be reduced and relocated, which lowers the hardcover and puts it at 27.34 percent. Leslie noted the driveway would actually be shortened. Fritzler inquired whether the first floor would remain the same. Freese stated the first floor would stay essentially the same with merely some doors being replaced. Fritzler inquired whether the ceilings are remaining the same. Freese stated the ceiling would remain the same. Fritzler stated in his view this is close to being a rebuild rather than a remodel. Freese stated they did consider tearing the existing house down but decided a half-story would meet their needs. Fritzler noted if the existing structure is torn down,the applicant would be required to meet the 25 percent hardcover limit. Freese stated they would like to improve the appearance of the residence, and that if the Planning Commission deems this to be new construction and requires the hardcover be reduced to 25 percent,he is unsure how he would be able to achieve that. Bremer stated in her view this is a remodel but that perhaps in the near future this law should be reviewed by the City since more and more remodel projects are coming before the Planning Commission. Leslie indicated he is in agreement with Bremer. Bremer noted she also is in agreement with the proposed changes to the driveway. PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3087 Andrew and Marcia Freese,Continued) Gaffron stated he would need to know the turning radius of the driveway and noted that there needs to be a 15-foot straight out before it angles. Gaffron noted it currently comes out straight for ten feet before it angles. Gaffron stated it might be difficult to get a large vehicle in and out of the garage. Bremer inquired what the hardcover calculation is. Gundlach stated the hardcover as proposed with the revised plan presented tonight would be at 27.30 percent. Freese stated they would be willing to abandon the patio in the back. Rahn inquired whether there are two existing patio doors but no patios. Schneider stated there are two patio doors but no patios. Rahn commented it is likely that a patio would appear in the future given the two patio doors that currently exist and that the patios have been eliminated in order to gain the third stall on the garage. Rahn stated in his opinion a minimum patio should be constructed outside each door. Freese stated that was their original intent,but given the curve on the driveway,they have abandoned the patios. Rahn stated the applicant might want to look at some other options,but that he is in agreement with the proposed hardcover, a driveway that is workable, and a small patio off one of the doors. Freese stated he is agreeable to the 27.34 percent hardcover,meeting the requirements for the driveway, and constructing a small patio. Fritzler stated what is approved is only what is allowed. Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3087,granting of a hardcover variance, average lakeshore setback variance,with the requirement that the hardcover not exceed the 27.34 percent that was granted in 1989,with the condition that the driveway will meet City Code and that some type of minimal patio be constructed off one of the patio doors. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 9. #05-3088 MICHAEL KURUVILLA,850 WEST WAYZATA BOULEVARD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:52 P.M.—9:15 P.M. Michael Kuruvilla,Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the property is located in the RR-1B, one family rural residential area, and consists of 6.404 acres. In April 1979, a conditional use permit for a daycare serving 30 students was granted to the PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3088 Michael Kuruvilla, Continued) Busy Beaver Day Care Center located at 850 Wayzata Boulevard. Currently there is no daycare operating within the Cornerstone New Testament Church located at that address. With the new Highway 12 construction,there is a need for a one-half cloverleaf access in the area of Highway 12 and County Road 6. The Orono Montessori School currently operates out of 3800 Wayzata Boulevard, which has been chosen as the site for the one-half cloverleaf highway access. As a result, the Orono Montessori School must find a new location for the school. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing 4.5' x 9' sign face with a new sign meeting those dimensions. A sign permit will be required at the time of the installation. The applicant has also requested some temporary signage to announce the new location. Staff finds that a conditional use permit currently exists on the property for 30 students within an operating church and that expanding the student enrollment level to 69 as the sole use for the property is not too intense of a use and will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties. The proposal meets or exceeds the requirements of the City Code regarding day cares and conditional uses within residential districts. The applicant is requesting conditional use permit amendments to operate Orono Montessori School, a daycare, in the building that currently houses the Cornerstone New Testament Church. Kuruvilla gave a brief history of the school,noting they have operated the school for the past five years and have been given the opportunity to acquire this building. Curtis stated Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit amendments and sign variances following the Planning Commission's guidelines for temporary sign usage. There were no public comments regarding this application. Bremer inquired how many students they currently have. Kuruvilla stated they are licensed for 49 students but at the present time have between 30 to 35 students. Kuruvilla noted they are hopeful that enrollment would increase with the new location. Curtis stated they are in compliance with the City's parking regulations. Bremer inquired what type of temporary signage the applicant is considering. Kuruvilla stated they would like to erect a canvas banner at the new location to notify people that they have relocated. Bremer inquired whether they are contemplating a certain size for the banner. Kuruvilla stated they do not have a specific size in mind but that they are not contemplating erecting a temporary sign at the old location. PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3088 Michael Kuruvilla, Continued) Curtis stated the temporary sign ordinance states that the area of the sign shall not exceed 32 square feet, which could be used as a guide. Rahn inquired when they are planning to move their establishment. Kuruvilla stated they would like to be in the new location by the end of April. Bremer noted once a permanent sign is erected,the temporary sign would need to be removed. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to reuse the area of the existing sign, which is four and a half by 9 feet. Curtis stated if the posts are removed, a new monument sign would need to be constructed. Curtis stated a variance to the size is required because the property is located within a residential zone. Kempf moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3088,granting of a conditional use permit and sign variance for temporary signage no larger than 32 square feet to be erected on the property located at 850 West Wayzata Boulevard, subject to the applicant obtaining licensing with the Department of Human Services and a maximum enrollment of 69 students. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 10. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS JANUARY 25,2005 AND FEBRUARY 14,2005 Rahn stated he attended the January 25th meeting and noted that the Vogstrom application was tabled due to the absence of the applicant. Fritzler indicated he attended the February 14th meeting,with the Vogstrom application being tabled to the February 21'meeting to allow Council Member Sansevere an opportunity to vote on the application. Fritzler stated there were issues with relocating the house closer to the public access in order to save an oak tree and that payment was made to the neighbor in reparation on the tree removal. Gaffron stated the restoration plan was approved by the Council,with the motion to adopt the resolution failing 2-2. Fritzler stated the Council was in favor of the sponsor panel proposed by the Orono School District provided the language, Support the Spartans,be incorporated. Fritzler stated Eden Prairie is currently being sued for selling off-site advertising,which was the rationale used for eliminating billboards. Fritzler noted the McDonald application was approved,the Interspace West application was tabled to allow the applicants time to redesign the office condominiums, and the ZB Construction application was tabled due to parking and elevator issues. PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,February 22,2005 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Planning Commission Comments,Continued) Gaffron noted ZB Construction has submitted a parking plan that appears to meet the concerns of the Council but that the developer is reluctant to add a second elevator. 11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron noted the next Planning Commission work session is scheduled for March 2nd. 12. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 18,2005 Bremer moved,Fritzler seconded,to approve the minutes of the January 18,2005 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 13. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 28 AND MARCH 14,2005 February 28—Leslie March 14—Kempf ADJOURNMENT Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:23 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. David Rahn, Chair PAGE 25