The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/17/2006 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Acting Chair Cynthia Bremer, Commissioners Ralph Kempf, Travis Winkey, Roland Jurgens,and Jim Leslie. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Jim White arrived at 6:48 p.m. Acting Chair Bremer called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. CONSENT 1. #06-3165 DENNIS BACKES,2940 FOX STREET,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:01 p.m.—6:02 p.m. Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3165,Dennis Backes, 2940 Fox Street,granting of a Conditional Use Permit to permit installation of plumbing in an existing detached garage. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 2. #06-3166 STEVEN R.JACOBSON,4185 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH,VARIANCE Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3166, Steven R. Jacobson,4185 Sixth Avenue North,granting of a front yard setback variance and a rear yard setback variance to allow construction of an addition to the rear of the home. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 3. #06-3173 CITY OF ORONO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, 6:03 P.M. Steve Grittman and Mike Darium,Northwest Associated Consultants,were present. Grittman addressed the Planning Commission regarding the proposed amendment to the Industrial District standards and existing Zoning Code Sections 78-821 through 78-853. Grittman noted the latest revision before the Planning Commission does contain the comments received from the Planning Commission at work sessions held on January 4 and January 11, 2006. Grittman stated the first item covered under the ardinance amendment relates to a change from a detailed listing of permitted uses to a more general description of allowable activities. Procedurally, Staff will PAGE 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3173 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS, CONTINUED) occasionally need to determine whether a specified use fits within the district, with uncertainty being resolved by the City Council. This approach would be an informal appeal process rather than the formal zoning appeal process required for other types of disputed decisions. Grittman noted other revisions were made to the language relating to, one, large group assembly; two, an increase in the allowable minimum building coverage from 30 percent to 35 percent for lots of three acres or less; and three, a more general outline of good design rather than merely listing specific materials as part of the revision to the building design and construction section. Grittman stated a series of changes were also made to the language regarding parking standards. The proposed ordinance includes a clause that allows for off-site parking provided that the applicant shows that the parking area is under control of the applicant through ownership, a long-term lease or easement, or a short-term lease upon Council approval. The new ordinance also establishes setbacks for parking areas that vary based on the location of the parking area in relation to the public street. In addition,the new amendments maintain the current requirement that parking be set back from the existing building to accommodate a 10-foot wide landscaping strip. An alternative has been offered that provides for the elimination of this strip in back areas where the applicant demonstrates that the parking area is completely screened from the public right-of-way. The proposed amendments also incorporate additional design requirements into the parking regulations section of the Industrial District. Grittman stated the last changes relating to loading, lighting and signage. The revised ordinance revises the standard for loading requirements by specifying that loading dock facilities are internal to the building; although the truck itself may be in an outside berth. Grittman indicated some specific requirements for lighting within the industrial area have been added as well as a section on signage,which establishes a signage requirement for the district that allows one 15-foot high sign per building,plus one tenant identification sign on the wall of the building per tenant. The regulations are written to allow 32 square feet of wall signage per tenant; however, larger tenants can display more than this. Grittman stated the next section of their report covers some amendments to various sections of the City's Zoning Ordinance and that the proposed language is contained in the report as well. Bremer noted this ordinance amendment is still preliminary and that the City Attorney would need to review the proposed changes,particularly the large group assembly issue. Jurgens stated it was his recollection at the last work session they had discussed different ratios to building height. Jurgens stated he prefers the area ratio language rather than a straight percentage because in his opinion it helps to control massing. Bremer pointed out the buildings in the industrial district are typically flat roof structures,but that she does understand Jurgens' concern. Leslie stated in the first work session they had discussed finished material on light poles being dark, and inquired why that language is not included in this draft. PAGE 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3173 INDUSTRICT DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS, CONTINUED) Grittman indicated he was unclear whether that was specific language that the Planning Commission wanted added but stated that language could be included reflecting that standard. Leslie stated it was his recollection that it was a consensus view of the Planning Commission. Kempf indicated that was also his recollection. Kempf inquired if the 15 percent green space in an industrial zone is typical of recent zoning in other cities and what the typical range is in other cities. Grittman stated it is not uncommon to see a 25 percent green space requirement but that some cities have a 10 percent requirement. Grittman stated if a larger percentage is allowed for building coverage,there should be a bottom threshold for green space. Kempf stated in his view the 15 percent for green space seems low for Orono. Kempf inquired whether parking was a large concern in determining the lot coverage and green space for lots. Grittman stated in response to parking, it was his understanding parking was one of the issues that was going to be reviewed carefully by Staff given the small size of the industrial district and the fact that there is not likely to be available parking overflow given the location of the industrial district. Grittman stated other communities that he has worked with use 15 percent,but noted that there are other communities that have a higher percent. Kempf reiterated that the 15 percent seems low for the Orono area and that he would like that number increased. Winkey stated there would probably be situations where the 15 percent is higher if the building coverage is limited to 35 percent depending on the size of the lot. Grittman stated the parking requirements would also be dependent on the use of the facility. Bremer stated in her view the proposed landscaping provision is also meant to address this issue,which would require applicants to provide X number of trees,berms,plantings, etc. Jurgens stated if the 15 percent is the minimum,the City should require additional landscaping, such as trees and plantings, or allow the applicant to have 20 percent green space but require fewer trees. Bremer stated she would prefer to leave the language as currently drafted. Winkey commented the 15 or 20 percent green space seems somewhat arbitrary and that the City is more concerned about shielding the various structures. Jurgens stated if the Planning Commission is not comfortable with the 15 percent,they should require additional landscaping or increase the percentage for green space and leave the landscape requirements as is. PAGE 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3173 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS,CONTINUED) Bremer stated the intent of the landscaping provision in her view has been written to give the City the ability to require additional landscaping if deemed appropriate. Grittman stated the 15 percent is expressed as a minimum in the ordinance amendment and that an argument could be made that there is some discretion on the part of the City to increase that number. Bremer stated she would like that section of the code to be clear to applicants so they understand that the City has the discretion to require whatever additional landscaping is necessary in the best interests of the City and that they would need to meet these minimum standards. Grittman stated that specific expectation could be included. Kempf stated if there are two standards, in his opinion the office uses would have very little landscaping because they need additional parking and the warehouses would be beautifully landscaped. Jurgens stated green space in his view is grass and landscaping is the trees, shrubs, flowers, and plantings. Jurgens stated the 15 percent only addresses the green space and that the landscaping requirements would cover the plantings and trees on a lot. Jurgens stated if the 15 percent remains,he would recommend that the number of required trees or landscaping be increased. Winkey stated he would like to see clear language in the ordinance that would allow the City to have the discretion to require more landscaping in certain situations. Leslie noted the City is anticipating there will be a decline in the number of CUPs under this ordinance and that most businesses will meet the 15 percent. Gaffron stated the City does have some discretion with a Planned Unit Development and that it would be helpful to Staff if there were some very defined standards rather than general language which leaves it up to the discretion of Staff. Kempf stated the general consensus of the Planning Commission appears to be that there be a strong landscaping standard. Leslie and Jurgens concurred they would like to see a strong landscaping standard, which will accomplish what the City would like to see for green space in this area. Bremer opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m. Peter Johnson, Attorney-at-Law for Morrie's,noted he received the draft ordinance on Friday. Johnson stated they have not had a chance to adequately review this draft ordinance and how it would apply to their property. Johnson indicated they have begun that review process but have not completed it. PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3173 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS,CONTINUED) Johnson stated the ordinance change is being driven somewhat by the Ryan application and that he would like some feedback regarding the timing requirements for when this ordinance would be finalized. Johnson noted under the parking provision there is a requirement for a parking island every 20 spaces. Johnson indicated they have different types of parking on their site and that the screening requirements should reflect what use is being made of the parking area and whether it is public parking or private parking. Johnson stated it would be impractical for them to have a parking island every 20 stalls since they are in the business of storing cars. Johnson stated they have 40 rooftop units on their building at the present time and that they would have to incur a substantial expense to screen those units. Johnson stated they would like to see a grandfather clause for those units and that no screening would need to be added unless there is a major renovation done to the building. Johnson noted there is no reference for outdoor sales lots, and inquired whether it is still a conditional use or not. Johnson noted they currently do have a conditional use permit for outside storage and outside display. Johnson stated he also does not see any definition for automotive services,noting that Morrie's has a large body shop but that they do not have as many customer visits as a retail automotive service center would have. Leslie inquired whether Mr. Johnson was comfortable with the language contained under 78-822, Item A(1) Johnson stated the parking section defines a parking requirement of three parking spaces for each service stall,but that they do not feel they need three customer slots for that use. Johnson stated they have presented the issue of signage,noting they have a 23-acre site with a single pedestal sign. Johnson stated the scale of the sign does not match the scale of the operation, and that they would like to see the size standard for the signage reflect more closely the size of the operation. Johnson noted a number of the suggestions that they made at the planning sessions have been implemented but that they would like further consideration given to the suggestions made tonight. Johnson stated their main objective is to maintain the rights they do have on the site and that there will be more applications in the future regarding expansion on this site. Bremer noted if the Planning Commission forwards this application to the City Council tonight, it would be on the agenda for the January 23`d meeting. PAGE 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3173 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS, CONTINUED) Larry Palm, 2687 Highway 12, stated he has a concern regarding the vagueness of the landscaping section and other sections of the City Code. Palm stated it is frustrating to have to do the planning at the time of the Planning Commission and City Council meetings because there is no clear direction in the code. Palm noted the light section contains no details and that in his view the City has an obligation to specify the standards. Bremer stated the City does have a lighting standard. Palm indicated he has only seen the draft ordinance. Jurgens stated to his recollection the City does specify the foot candles in the lighting section of the City's code. Gaffron indicated the City has a one sentence lighting code which states that you are not to be able to see the source of the light from the property line and that the City does not currently specify candle lumens. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission does need to review the lighting ordinance in the future. Palm requested the City be more speci�c in their standards. Leslie stated he is in agreement with Palm's comments. Palm inquired how this ordinance would apply to existing buildings if there were no modi�cations planned for the building. Gaffron stated Staffls expectation is that this ordinance would not apply unless there were some modifications being proposed for the site. Grittman stated language to that effect could probably be more clearly stated in the ordinance. Mark Shouting, Ryan Companies, stated they are interested in potentially redeveloping the property at Wayzata Boulevard and Crystal Bay Road. Shouting indicated they appreciate the inclusion of their recommendations in the draft ordinance. Shouting stated the first item he would like to discuss regards Item B, Building Permits and Council Review. Shouting indicated the language implies that all building applications will be reviewed by City Council, which is a little unusual. Gaffron stated all building permit applications are required by current code to be reviewed by the council,but that in reality on minor remodeling the building inspector has used his discretion and not brought those minor changes to the council's attention. Shouting stated that is a little unusual in their experience. Shouting stated the section on conditional uses PAGE 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3173 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS, CONTINUED) and Item Q under required parking talks about if evidence is provided demonstrating that the parking requirements of the proposed use will be less than the parking required under this section during the peak demand period. Shouting inquired whether that language would allow a company to have less parking than the formulas would mandate if a conditional use permit were granted. Bremer stated that is how she understands the language and that the parking requirement could be deferred. Shouting inquired if the City would prefer that be a condition of use. Bremer stated yes. Shouting stated page seven under Item 9 under Building Design and Construction covers materials and reads, "use of substantial amounts of masonry materials (face brick, stucco, stone) is encouraged." Shouting indicated there are many different types of masonry materials and inquired whether the masonry materials are being limited to these tl�ree materials listed or whether other materials could be utilized. The Planning Commission indicated other materials could be proposed. Shouting stated page seven, footnote three says, "within adjoining industrial developments,private access and undivided parking areas may be permitted provided that each individual parcel meets all other district requirements. Shouting inquired what is intended by that language. Shouting inquired if two buildings back up to one another, whether the City would allow zero lot line allowances. Shouting inquired whether that is what is intended by that section. Grittman stated that is the intent of the language and that in that situation you would not need the setback. Shouting stated Item 2 refers to the obligation of a property owner to fully screen from a public right-of- way a proposed parking area if the parking area does not have a 10-foot setback from the building. Shouting stated the particular site they are looking at has a southern exposure and that it is probable that the building will have a truck port area that faces Highway 394 and that it would not make sense to put green space between the building and asphalt. Shouting inquired whether they would have to screen the entire southern portion of that site,noting that it is a preriy substantial area. Shouting stated the road is lower than the site. Bremer stated in her view it is too premature for the Planning Commission to decide that without having the opportunity to review exactly what is being proposed far the site. Bremer stated she personally would like to adhere to the ordinance as much as possible. Shouting inquired if extra landscaping would be preferable rather than a wall. PAGE 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3173 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS, CONTINUED) Jurgens stated it does say fully screened view of a public right-of-way. Jurgens stated the new freeway would not be viewing this site,but that he does have a concern regarding the view of the adjacent neighbors across the road rather than the people traveling along 394. Shouting stated the next item he would like to discuss is on page 10, Item Q (4)under the parking section. Item Q (4), which reads as follows: On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed for parking in accordance with this Section. The area reserved as"proof-of-parking" shall be sodded or seeded and maintained as green space. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof-of- parking"area. Shouting stated in their practice it is more common to consider paved areas that might be used far trucking as parking; and that if more parking is necessary, those areas become striped. Shouting suggested language be inserted regarding areas such as a truck port. Grittman stated the idea of deferment of parking is that somebody might be developing the site with a building that one use might require a large amount of parking but that another use would not require as much parking as a building would otherwise need. Grittman stated the City could approve a proof-of- parking agreement with the understanding that if there becomes a need for additional parking, that there is parking available. Grittman stated this deals with the reservation of parking far future needs. Bremer stated she agrees that the area should stay green if it is not needed for parking, and inquired whether an area that was at one time being utilized for parking would need to be converted back into green space if the parking is no longer needed. Grittman stated most cities would not require the parking to be converted back into green space if the parking was not required. Shouting stated typically at the time they appear before the Council they do not lrnow the exact tenants of a building and the exact parking needs. Shouting indicated the trucking area could be used for parking in the event additional parking is required. Bremer stated it appears that that situation would be allowed. Shouting stated his final comments deal with the section on signage. Shouting indicated Items 1, 2, and 3 have to do with freestanding monument signs and Items 4, 5, and 6 have to do with building signs. Shouting recommended the City consider including language that would cover the situation where a single building has a single tenant and that the single tenant may have two or three signs or a sign larger than 32 square feet. Shouting suggested the Planning Commission consider putting like a five percent limit based on the square footage of the building but that it is up to the properiy owner or the tenants to allocate that five percent. Bremer noted that topic was discussed at the work session. Bremer stated Items 4 and 5 are building signs and that Item 6 is more of a directional type sign, which is a different type of sign. Grittman stated those could be subtitled to make it clearer. PAGE 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3173 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS, CONTINUED) Shouting suggested a total signage amount be speci�ed. Bremer commented it is difficult for her to envision what five percent of the total building size would be. Shouting stated that one option would be to put a limit on the maximum amount of the sign but that they be allowed a larger sign than 32 square feet if there is a single tenant. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Bremer closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Jurgens stated he believes that number two under C on the off-street parking needs to be revised to make it a little clearer. Bremer indicated she would like Mr. Johnson's comments to be addressed. Bremer stated she agrees there should be a provision for existing structures and that the definitions for automobile service center and outside sales should be revised slightly. Bremer stated parking islands is an interesting issue,noting that Morrie's is a unique use and that she would not have a problem making an exception for that type of use. Winkey inquired what would happen if the use would change. Leslie noted Morrie's currently operates under a conditional use permit. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that if the use would change,parking islands would be required. Grittman stated he perceives that most of Morrie's parking area is outdoor storage and not parking, and pointed out the landscape island is a parking requirement and not a storage requirement. Bremer stated sign size is an outstanding issue and that she is unsure whether the Planning Commission can make the requested changes. Bremer noted the City does periodically review the City's sign ordinance. Bremer stated she can see where a bigger sign would be helpful and that she would be willing to set some sort of maximum that would be greater than 32 square feet. Bremer stated the City Council would need to look at that more carefully. Gaffron stated the signs the City has approved recently far the dental office, the school, and Morrie's all meet the standards that have been established within the past year for monument signs. Gaffron stated the 32 square feet does seem small for a monument sign and that Staff should probably take a look at that. Leslie inquired whether the vehicles that are being repaired are licensed or unlicensed vehicles or both. Johnson stated both. PAGE 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3173 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS, CONTINUED) Leslie stated one of the specific specifications for storage is unlicensed vehicles. Johnson stated he does not understand the intent of the difference between licensed and unlicensed vehicles and that whether they are licensed or not makes no difference on their storage. Johnson inquired what the intent of the language is. Leslie stated he interprets that language to give more leeway to storage rather than customer parking. Johnson stated in a residential context, an unlicensed vehicle is something different than in a commercial setting. Johnson stated these are brand-new cars and that their current conditional use permit does not distinguish those stored vehicles based on whether they are licensed or unlicensed. Bremer commented in the case of Morrie's,it is the starage of inventory. Leslie inquired whether Morrie's owns the vehicles. Wagener stated they are responsible to receive all leased vehicles and are required to store them for a short period. Wagener stated because of parking constraints they are stored for approximately two weeks at their Orono facility. Wagener indicated the vendor owns all of the leased vehicles and the company owns all of the new vehicles. Leslie stated the intent is clear but the language is not exact. Grittman stated he feels that situation can be addressed in the ordinance. Wagener stated there are interim occasions where they do store some licensed vehicles. Grittman stated as part of the next step they plan to recap the comments received tonight for the City Council at their next meeting. Gaffron stated the notice went to all of the property owners within 350 feet but that some notices had the public hearing set for 8:00. Bremer stated she would announce this application again at 8:00 to see if there are any additional public comments. Leslie moved,Kempf seconded,to direct Staff to forward Application#06-3173, City of Orono, Industrial District Zoning Standards Ordinance Amendment,to the City Council with the changes discussed tonight being incorporated into the amendment. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Gaffron stated this application would be heard at the January 23rd Council meeting. PAGE 10 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (Recess taken at 7:27 p.m.—7:33 p.m.) OLD BUSINESS 4. MARK AND PAMELA PALM, 1447 PARK DRIVE, VARIANCE, 7:33 P.M.—7:50 P.M. Mark Palm,Applicant,was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a number of variances to replace an attached garage. The Planning Commission did review this application previously and had made a number of suggestions to the applicant. The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to permit 34.51 percent hardcover within the 75-250' zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 38 percent currently exists; two, a hardcover variance to permit 57 percent hardcover within the 250'-500 zone where 30 percent is normally allowed and 49.5 percent currently exists; and three, a side yard setback variance to permit a side yard setback of five feet where 15 feet is normally required for a detached building in excess of 750 square foot and a 1.5 foot setback currently exists. The applicant submitted a revised survey in early December with revised hardcover calculations submitted on January 6"'. The City Engineer has reviewed the revised survey and has provided comments contained in Exhibit C. From Staff's perspective,the revised plan does not address any of the issues noted on the Planning Commission Action Notice except for moving the garage closer to the road but not to the 15 feet suggested by Staff. The applicant has not reduced the size of the garage to less than 750 square feet or met a 10-foot setback. Staff recommends the application be tabled to allow the applicant to incorporate the recommendations of the Planning Commission at their last meeting. Palm stated this application has been going on since 2002, and he has had many discussions with Staff concerning his application. Palm stated he had to delay action on his application due to the 10,000 square foot house constructed next doar and the water runoff issues. Palm indicated those issues have since been resolved by the installation of a gutter. Palm stated he did not want to proceed further on the garage until those issues were addressed, which has resulted in some delay in his application. Palm indicated as far as not complying with the requirements,he had the understanding he did provide what was required to Planner Gundlach. Palm stated Gronberg was retained and those surveys were supposed to have been provided to the City. Palm stated his situation is unique in that there is a hill coming in and out of the driveway,which makes it difficult to maneuver a car into a garage when it is icy or snowy out. Palm stated the rock wall that was constructed was for decoration but that he would be willing to alter it if need be in order to push the PAGE 11 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MARK AND PAMELA PALM,CONTINUED) garage further into the current driveway. Palm stated in his opinion that would make it dif�cult to back out and he would prefer to leave the wall where it currently is. Palm noted at the time he first applied for the variance,he was approved for a 5-foot setback. Palm inquired why he is now being required to comply with a 10-foot setback. Gaffron stated the rules have not changed but that the size of the garage dictates the setback requirements. Palm stated he is fine with leaving the garage where it currently sits,meeting the 5-foot setback with the garage being 750 square feet. Gaffron stated a 10-foot setback is required for any new construction. Palm stated he was granted a variance the last time for a 5-foot setback. Palm stated the application was granted back in 2002 with the provision that the garage be located five feet from the property line. Gaffron stated Council did grant a 5-foot variance in 2002 but that Staff is questioning today whether or not there is still a sufficient hardship to support that setback. Bremer noted 22' by 34' were the approved dimensions and the applicant is now requesting a 25' by 32' garage. Bremer stated the Planning Commission tends to allow smaller structures to be located closer to the property line. Palm stated he was directed to move it out of the 75'-250' zone and move it closer to the road. Palm stated if he did that,he would not be able to back out of the garage as well. Winkey inquired whether the applicant could move the garage if the wall were removed. Palm stated he would also need to remove some trees. Leslie inquired when the county installed the curbing. Palm stated the curbing was installed this fall. Leslie inquired why the variance expired without the garage being built. Palm stated he did not construct the garage originally due to the drainage issues and financial reasons. Bremer stated she personally would let the applicant construct what was originally approved,but doubted whether a Suburban would fit into the garage. PAGE 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (MARK AND PAMELA PALM, CONTINUED) Bremer stated in her view this property is extremely steep and that there is a safety concern with traversing up and down the hill in the winter. Bremer stated the size of the structure is the determining factor for what the setback should be to the lot line. Leslie stated he does not see a reason why they should not go back to what was previously approved. Bremer noted the applicant is proposing a larger structure at the present time. Gaffron inquired whether the other garage was also a two-story structure. Palm stated it was. Jurgens stated if a two and a half car garage were constructed, the applicant would be at the 750 square feet. Jurgens stated he personally would like to see an equal amount of hardcover removed as what is being proposed and inquired whether any additional hardcover could be removed. Palm stated he would like a 23' by 34' garage. Kempf stated it was his understanding the hardcover was being reduced by moving the garage further back. Jurgens stated that probably is the situation,but that he would like to see whether any additional hardcover could be removed. Palm stated he has a concern with backing out of the driveway. Jurgens stated the City does have minimum standards for a turnaround area. Winkey stated he would be comfortable with a 5-foot setback if the size of the garage were reduced. There were no public comments regarding this application. Leslie moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of Application#OS-3146,Mark and Pamela Palm, 1447 Park Drive,with the Applicant making the necessary modifications to bring the application into compliance with Resolution No.4831. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Gaffron stated the resolution requires a 22' by 34' garage with a 5-foot setback. Leslie noted there are also very specific hardcover requirements contained within the resolution. PAGE 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. NEW BUSINESS 5. #05-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON,3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:52 P.M.—8:40 P.M. Allen and Deanna Munson, Applicants, and Tim Nelson, Architect, were present. Gaffron stated the Applicants are requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and a conditional use permit for importation of fill in excess of 500 cubic yards to allow for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. The average lakeshore setback variance request is a result of the remote location of the adjacent residence to the south, which is located more than 300 feet from the lake, in line with other homes on Bohn's Point. The applicants propose to mitigate the impacts of the encroachment by building a flat roof home of 30 feet height, which has less impacts than would a typical steeply pitched roof home,but potentially more impacts than the relatively low-profile, one and two-level existing home. Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing an encroachment of approximately 22 feet. Gaffron stated the applicants have proposed to incorporate approximately 2350 cubic yards of fill on the west side of the proposed home to control drainage while creating a walkout situation allowing the primary entrance at the upper level of the two-story home. The existing relatively flat rear yard will be raised as much as ten feet. Some fraction of this fill will act to restore grades that existed at the base of the slope prior to construction of the existing house in the 1960s. The city engineer and staff have worked with the applicant's architect to identify and resolve issues with site drainage. The City Engineer has recommended the following issues be addressed: 1. Grading on the neighboring property to the northeast is proposed to convey drainage across that property. The Applicant might consider a lot line rearrangement,but as a minimum the City will require drainage easements from that neighbor. The applicant has been requested to provide written evidence that this neighbor will cooperate in this regarding plan. 2. Engineering design is needed for the 10-foot high retaining walls at garage entrance. 3. The 2350 cubic yards of fill could be substantially reduced if the house is moved north and west and angled slightly. 2350 cubic yards translates to 235 truckloads entering the site. The applicant has indicated the primary reason he proposes to build in the same location as the existing house is related to views of the lake. 4. The existing foundation needs to be removed, as applicant hopes to re-use portions of it, and a soils analysis is also recommended. 5. The applicant is required to provide 2-10-100 year drainage calculations. Gaffron noted drainage calculations have been provided to Staff at tonight's meeting. Gaffron stated the following issues should be discussed: PAGE 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON, CONTINUED) 1. Does the proposed plan for filling create any negative impacts? Is there a basis to reduce the amount of filling because this is on a private driveway system? Is there a basis to require that the house be moved back, either to reduce fill impacts or eliminate average setback concerns? 2. Is there sufficient hardship or mitigation available to justify granting the average setback variance given the objection by the neighbor? 3 Any other issues or concerns with this application that the Planning Commission would like to see addressed. Gaffron noted the hardcover calculations include the buried portions of the garage and that the applicants do meet the lot area, lot width, and setbacks requirements. Gaffron stated two access alternatives were initially proposed, each with slightly different hardcover impacts,but neither requiring a hardcover variance. Alternate A continues the existing access to North Shore drive for both the driveway circle loop as well as for the underground garage access. Alternate B had North Shore Drive access for the garage,but Bohn's Point road access for the circle drive. Staff has been advised that the driveway easement that would be used for Alternate B has been abandoned and is no longer valid and that the Wageners would object to Alternate B. It is the recommendation of Staff that the application be tabled at this time. The applicant should be provided direction with regards to the fill,with regard to whether an average setback variance is likely, and whether the chimneys should be subject to a conditional use permit. Allen Munson stated on the south side of the lot there are trees that go all the way down to the water and the Wagener residence is set 331 feet back from the lake. Munson indicated the property on the other side is 76 feet back from the water, which cuts through the existing part of the house. Munson stated they tried several different options to relocate the house but were unsuccessful due to the topography of the lot. Munson pointed out on his model where the house would be located and the tree lines. Munson stated the slope of the land runs into the house, which requires the creation of a swale around the house. Winkey inquired whether the fill basically would be behind the house. Munson stated it would be. Winkey inquired whether the foundation of the house would be increased. Munson stated it would not be. Bremer inquired whether the applicants feel the proposed location is the optimum location for the house. Munson stated they have done approximately ten different revisions and that they are limited to the present location. PAGE 15 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON,CONTINUED) Bremer inquired what the purpose of the chimneys is. Nelson stated the chimneys are approximately eight feet high to keep the roof fairly clean from smoke and soot residue. Leslie inquired whether the model house could be oriented to depict what it would look like if it were outside the average lakeshore setback. Munson stated he would then encroach on the setbacks if the average lakeshore setback is complied with and that he would not be able to use the same foundation. Bremer noted the city engineer expressed some concerns regarding the integrity of the foundation. Munson stated they would need to look at that,but that he would also lose some of his view of the lake if the house were relocated. Nelson pointed out the trees cut off the view of the lake. Kempf indicated he did pace off the lot and that with each foot back from the proposed location of the house the lakeshore disappears rather quickly and dramatically due to the trees. Kempf stated the tree line creates a little funnel and diminishes the lake view. Kempf stated it appears the topography of the lot on the other side of the house was reduced at the time the house was constructed. Gaffron concurred that it appears there was some dirt removed at the time the house was constructed. Kempf stated in his view this is a unique situation and that the Planning Commission has made exceptions to the average lakeshore setback in the past. Kempf noted the roofline was lowered in consideration of the neighbors. Kempf stated if permission is obtained from the neighbor to the north and if the drainage works around the south, with the Munsons reaching agreement with the neighbor or keeping the drainage on this site, he would not be opposed to the application. Munson stated they have reached agreement with the neighbors on the driveway. Munson stated his lawyer is in the process of working out the easement. Bremer stated Wageners' second issue regarding the driveway has been alleviated,but the third issue raises a concern about placement of fill within five feet of the property line. Munson stated there could be a problem with the drainage if he is not allowed to fill within five feet of the property line. Munson stated he would need to come down approximately six feet form the south side of the building and at a 45-degree angle. Kempf questioned whether the drainage could be resolved by filling within five feet of the property line. PAGE 16 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON, CONTINUED) Jurgens stated in his view the major issue on this application is the potential impact on the Wagener property with the fill and that he would like to see an agreement that both parties are okay with the fill. Jurgens stated some of it is a design issue and that it does not constitute a hardship to place the residence in the proposed location. Jurgens stated he would like to see those issues addressed prior to moving forward with the application. Kempf inquired how far onto Wagener's property the retaining wall is located. Gaffron stated the majority of the retaining wall is on Wagener's property. Jurgens pointed out the retaining wall has a back fall to it. Gaffron illustrated the retaining wall and the lot line on the overhead. Gaffron indicated Wagener is the high side and Munson is the low side. Gaffron stated the City's code does not allow fill within five feet of a property line. Munson stated the water runs around both sides and will continue to do so after construction. Munson stated the grade would still be one foot below Wagener's property following the fill. Bremer asked for public comment. Peter Johnson, Attorney-at-Law,noted he did submit a letter to the City. Johnson stated he would like to address the claimed hardship and the history of the property. Johnson stated the property owned by the Munsons was originally owned by the Wageners but was divided of£ Johnson stated this is a self-created hardship, if a hardship exists at all. Johnson stated this is a 1.6 acre lot, which allows plenty of room to construct a substantial home, and that he does not see the hardship to construct the home within the average lakeshore setback. Johnson stated the Wagener's view of the lake would be blocked by the proposed residence,and requested the Planning Commission to visit the Wagener lot to see what impact the residence would have on the Wagener residence. Johnson stated after the property was purchased by Wagener, there was a garage improvement, and in order to do that improvement,he was required to take all that drainage on his property down to the lake, which required him to build up that side of the lot. Johnson stated the City of Orono required the construction of the rock retaining wall that this applicant is now proposing to bury under ground. Johnson stated Wagener is interested in being a good neighbor,but that if the house were lower, it would not impact the lake views. Johnson stated while this is clearly an unusual situation with the way the homes are configured,he would point out that as a consequence of that, the Wageners have very little protection from encroachment into PAGE 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON, CONTINUED) their view. Johnson stated if these three homes were lined up,Wagener would not lose his view of the lake,but as proposed by the applicant,he would lose that view of the lake. Johnson reiterated they would like the fill to be kept back five feet from the lot line and to have the applicant comply with the average lakeshore setback. Leslie stated he does not understand the issue with the driveway. Johnson stated a long time ago there was a carriage home down by the lake and that the sellers of the property wanted to preserve access to the carriage home. Easements were created over the Wagener property. At the time sanitary sewer was required, a joint driveway easement was created, which became the primary access point to all the homes. Johnson stated Wagener has been in possession of the property since 1980 and that no one has made any effort to use the easement since then. Bremer stated that item is really not at issue in this application any longer. There were no further public comments regarding this application. Bremer indicated the Planning Commission deals with unique situations and that in her opinion it would be helpful to visit the Wagener property to see if there would be an impact on the view. Bremer stated she would be in favor of lowering the house further, which would address the issue with the view of the lake. Bremer stated she does not have a problem with the fill,but that an agreement would need to be reached with the Wageners to allow fill within five feet of the lot line. Winkey indicated he does not have a problem with the amount of fill proposed except the fill within five feet of the lot line. Winkey stated he does not have a problem with the chimneys and that in his opinion some of these issues could be addressed by redesigning the house slightly. Kempf indicated he also does not have a problem with the chimneys. Kempf questioned whether this is a similar situation to the Vogstrom residence on Casco Point. Bremer noted that application went through a number of revisions, with the house being made substantially smaller. Jurgens stated he would like the agreement with the Wageners to be reached first befare discussing this application much further. Jurgens stated to his knowledge City Code states that anything on a flat roof house above 30 feet is considered a protrusion and requires a conditional use permit. Bremer inquired whether Jurgens would agree to an encroachment within the average lakeshore setback if the height of the house were reduced. PAGE 18 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-31135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON, CONTINUED) Jurgens stated he does not have an opinion on that at the present time until he has a plan in front of him depicting that. Leslie stated from his perspective this is a classic example of why the average lakeshore setback exists and that the adjoining property is actually overlooking some of this property to the lake. Leslie indicated he does not see a hardship for the encroachment,noting that this is a large lot and a large house. Leslie stated the code was not designed to ensure optimum views for everyone and that the house could be reduced if the applicants want to retain the optimum view. Leslie stated he is unsure on the amount of fill, and that until an agreement is reached with the neighbors, he is not in support of the application. Bremer reopened the public hearing. Johnson repeated that the Wageners invite the Planning Commission to take a view from their property to see how this proposed residence would impact their view to the lake. Johnson stated they are going to research whether this is a restoration of the original grade,but that the Munson property gives the impression that it was dug out due to the fill hauled in on the Wagener property. Nelson stated the current house has eight-foot ceilings with a vaulted peak roof. Nelson stated they are not going up from the peaked roof and are really only proposing nine feet higher from the peaked roof. Nelson stated if the house were relocated back,the neighbor's view would be impacted further. Bremer closed the public hearing. Jurgens moved,Leslie seconded,to table Application#OS-3135,Allen and Deanna Munson,3165 North Shore Drive. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING,CONTINUED 3. #06-3173 CITY OF ORONO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ZONING STANDARDS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Bremer inquired whether there is anyone present for the public hearing on Orono's Industrial District Zoning Standards. Bremer noted one public notice had the public hearing scheduled at 8:00 p.m. There were no additional public comments. The Planning Commission took no additional action on this item. PAGE 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. 6. #OS-3147 STEVE AND JANNA SUNDBY,3587 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,8:40 P.M.-8:58 P.M. Steve Sundby, Applicant,was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a number of variances to construct a 5' by 8' covered entry to the existing residence. A portion of the entry will be under an existing overhang. The applicant is requesting a lake setback variance to permit a lake setback of 49' from the 929.4' OHWL when 75' is normally required and 21 feet currently exists. A hardcover variance is also required to permit 65 percent hardcover within the 0-75' zone where 0 percent is normally allowed and 65 percent currently exists. In addition, the applicant is also requesting a structural coverage variance to permit 28 percent where 1500 square feet is normally allowed and 27 percent currently exists. The applicant originally requested a conditional use permit to allow replacement of existing lakeshore retaining walls. After consulting with the City Engineer, it became apparent that additional engineering was required to be completed on the walls,which the applicant has been warking towards since September of 2005. Since that time the applicant has been completing exterior updates to the home, including new windows and siding. Part of the proposed covered entry would be constructed under existing overhangs and entirely over existing hardcover. Although hardcover percentages will not be changing, the entire covered entry would now be considered additional structural coverage. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss under what circumstances covered entries should be permitted as the hardship almost always is related to the location of the existing home. Staff finds that there are no inherent hardships to the land to allow for a covered entry. Sundby distributed a handout with pictures to the Planning Commission. Sundby stated the reasons for proposing this entryway is protection of property,provision of shelter, and construction of a concrete slab to allow for better access into the home. Sundby stated as far as it relates to protection of property, the configuration of the roof has the water configured right over the front door and has required a patch on the driveway,which has now been worn away and is further wearing the driveway away. In addition,the slope of the driveway also drains the water toward the house. Sundby stated the third picture depicts that there is damage down below in the lower level. Sundby stated the fourth picture shows that there is leakage of water showing through the new siding that was installed in October and that there were carpenter ants that were removed. Sundby stated the entryway is needed for protection of property rather than just aesthetics. Sundby stated the concrete step would also make it level to enter the house. Sundby noted currently people are required to step up to enter the residence. There were no public comments relating to this application. PAGE 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3147 STEVE AND JANNA SUNDBY, CONTINUED) Bremer noted this type of application is becoming more common and that the Planning Commission will try to give the applicant good direction on what is and is not allowed. Bremer inquired whether the applicant constructed this residence. Sundby stated he did not. Leslie inquired why gutters would not solve this problem. Sundby indicated there was a gutter on the residence previously but that in a heavy downpour the water overflows the gutter and it was not sufficient for taking the water away from that area. Leslie inquired whether a larger gutter could be installed. Sundby stated his builder recommended the covered entryway. Jurgens stated diverters could also be utilized and that there are some other options that could be explored. Jurgens stated in his view gutters could resolve this situation. Bremer noted an application similar to this was approved on Fagerness Point. Winkey stated he does not have a problem with the application given the issues that need to be addressed. Jurgens inquired what the area on top of the covered entryway is. Sundby stated the fence is merely for aesthetics and was put on there by the architect. Sundby stated there is not a deck located in that area. Sundby pointed out they are covering an existing hardcover surface and that no new hardcover would be created. Jurgens commented the water would be diverted elsewhere and would likely still cause problems. Sundby stated a gutter would be installed on the overhang. Kempf stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Winkey. Kempf stated structural coverage has a lot to do with the massing and that there are some lots where this type of covered entryway would be more noticeable. Kempf stated the intrusion is on the inside angle of the L where it would have minimal impact. Kempf noted there is not an adjoining residence on the side this entryway is being constructed and that in his view the applicant has provided sufficient evidence depicting the need for a covered entryway. Bremer noted the applicant has submitted a letter, four photographs, and a pest control invoice. Bremer stated in her view this applicant has made a compelling case for the covered entryway. PAGE 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3147 STEVE AND JANNA SUNDBY, CONTINUED) Leslie stated he absolutely agrees that it is unobtrusive to the neighbors and does not increase hardcover. Leslie stated he does not see the covered entryway as being the solution to the problem but that it is only when the gutters are installed that the problem is addressed. Leslie stated in his view the City needs to change its code to allow covered entryways or to stop giving variances allowing covered entryways. Leslie stated until that is changed, in his view the city would continue to allow houses to be built without a covered entryway, which is then followed by a variance request. Kempf moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of Application#OS-3147, Steve and Janna Sundby,3587 North Shore Drive,granting of a lake setback variance to permit a lake setback of 49' from the 929.4' OHWL, a hardcover variance to permit 65 percent hardcover within the 0-75' zone,and a structural coverage variance to permit 28 percent where 24 percent is normally allowed and 27 percent currently exists. VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 2,Jurgens and Leslie opposed. (Recess taken at 8:58 p.m.—9:07 p.m.) 7. #OS-3159 TODD KNUTSON FOR FRED JOHNSON,4017 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE,9:07 P.M.—9:15 P.M. Todd Knutson was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting variances far lot area and lot width in order to construct a new residence to replace the existing residence on this lakeshore lot. The lot is located within a one-acre zone. The property consists of 27,595 square feet or .63 acre and is 102 feet to 111 feet in width. The applicant requests lot area and lot width variances to replace the existing residence on the property with a new home and detached garage. The site is located just each of Highwood Road, and has a relatively steep drop at the proposed house location about 60'-80' back from North Shore Drive. The proposal includes a two-story walkout, with an apparent 4' by 18' underground tunnel option for connecting the house to the detached garage. A proposed grading plan has been submitted that has been reviewed and found acceptable by the City Engineer. Staff has reviewed the building height and finds the plans conforming to the standard height limitation of 30 feet and 2-1/2 stories. A 6' by 8' shed near the shoreline in the 0-75' zone would need to be removed as part of this approval. The proposed garage is being considered as detached,because its connection to the house is entirely below grade. PAGE 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#OS-3159 FRED JOHNSON, CONTINUED) Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested, subject to meeting the recommendations of the City Engineer,and subject to reducing the footprint size of the proposed detached garage to no greater than 750 square feet. Bremer inquired whether the applicant is agreeable to reducing the structure to 750 square feet. Knutson stated he is. Bremer inquired what impact that would have on the hardcover. Knutson stated the shed has already been removed. Jurgens inquired whether the tunnel is being calculated as hardcover. Gaffron stated it is. Winkey moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application 305-3159, 4017 North Shore Drive,granting of lot area and lot width variances to allow construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on this lakeshore lot. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 8. #06-3168 LYLE SCOTT,3472/3480 SHORELINE DRIVE & 3477 LYRIC AVENUE, SUBDIVISION: EASEMENT CREATION, 9:15 P.M. -9:26 P.M. Lyle Scott,Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant proposes to formally establish driveway easements over a vacant lot abutting Lyric Avenue to serve two properties that abut Shoreline Drive but currently have no suitable vehicular access to Shoreline Drive due to topography constraints. Gaffron stated the four small lots in question have been separate tax parcels but owned in common for many years. Three of the four lots contain single-family residences that have historically been rental dwelling units. The applicant is preparing to sell the properties and wishes the ability to sell them into separate ownerships. There is no known existing documentation or past City action that would prohibit these from being sold and owned separately. However,because the two dwellings abutting Shoreline Drive are approximately 12'-15' higher in elevation than Shoreline Drive, vehicle access to Shoreline is poor or nonexistent. While an old,very steep driveway exists along the west boundary of 3480, it is not very functional and the primary access to both 3472 and 3480 has long been from Lyric through the vacant lot. PAGE 23 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 dclock p.m. (#06-3168 LYLE SCOTT,CONTINUED) Gaffron stated because this property is not being subdivided to create new lots and because no lot boundaries are proposed to change,there are no proposed new impacts that would trigger a zoning standards review of the site. The expected result of this easement approval request is that the nonconforming garage and some driveway hardcover will ultimately be removed from the site,but any future new expansion of buildings on the existing substandard lots would likely result in a zoning review process. Scott stated he would like to attach that lot to Lyric with the assumption that he would like to construct a garage in the future. Gaffron stated it does not require a setback to an easement,but that Staff would like some separation between the driveway and the easement. Gaffron stated in his view there is sufficient room between the driveway and the garage. Jurgens inquired whether a setback from the easement could be insured. Gaffron stated any future structures could be required to be ten feet off the easement, similar to a side lot line. Scott stated the garage would be facing Lyric and that you would be building 15 feet from the Lyric line. Jurgens inquired whether there would be an issue of this properiy having two curb cuts off of Lyric. Gaffron stated they would be considered separately. Jurgens stated he would like to see the 10-foot setback as a condition of approval. Bremer pointed out the Planning Commission has not required that in the past. Gaffron stated the City would be adopting a resolution on this application and that a separate document, such as a covenant,could be attached outlining the requirement. Scott stated after the two lots are combined, there would be a 15-foot piece of land separating the lot line and the driveway. Jurgens inquired how wide the easement is. Scott stated 15 feet. Jurgens stated a structure could not be constructed within the easement and that the easement could be made 25 feet wide. PAGE 24 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3168 LYLE SCOTT,CONTINUED) Bremer stated in her view the Planning Commission does not need to require the creation of a separate legal document. Kempf pointed out that neither of the two houses closest to Shoreline have enough land to support a double garage and would probably be rental properties. Kempf stated if the east/west lot line were to be moved toward Lyric approximately ten feet, it would create enough land on each of those lots to construct a double garage. Scott stated the intent of the gentleman who is buying the two lots is to combine them following the purchase. There were no public comments relating to this application. Jurgens moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3168,Lyle Scott, 3472/3480 Shoreline Drive and 3477 Lyric Avenue, Subdivision: Easement Creation. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 9. #06-3170 BRUCE SCHMITT ON BEHALF OF MARY JEANNE BOWEN,985 EDGEWOOD ffiLLS ROAD,VARIANCE,9:27 P.M.—9:27 P.M. Bremer moved,Leslie seconded,to table Application#06-3170,Bruce Schmitt on behalf of Mary Jeanne Bowen,985 Edgewood Hills Road,at the request of the Applicant. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 10. #06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS,905 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:27 P.M.— 10:19 P.M. Christine Albertsson, Architect, and Jean Garborino, Landscape Architect, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting variances for lakeshore setback and for hardcover in the 0-75' zone in order to relocate and reconstruct an existing deck and access stairway. Gaffron depicted the location of the deck and stairway on the overhead. The applicants are also requesting a conditional use permit to allow installation of plumbing consisting of a toilet,lavatory and sink in the existing nonconforming lakeshore accessory building. Proposed cosmetic changes to the existing accessory building have been deemed to not require special zoning approvals. Gaffron noted the request for replacement of an existing fence completely within the right-of-way of West Ferndale Road is beyond the scope of the variance process and is subject to the provisions of PAGE 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, CONTINUED) Municipal Code Section 18-2 regarding obstructions within the right-of-way and to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes regarding reconstruction of nonconformities. The applicants are proposing to cosmetically upgrade the existing old garage/shed structure at the base of the slope west of the house to make it more useful recreationally. The shed has existed for many decades and is considered as legally nonconforming and is set back 50 feet from the shoreline. The proposed upgrades are primarily non-structural and do not increase the height of bulk of structure and require no special approvals. However, the applicants also propose to add a toilet, lavatory and sink to the building. Installation of the toilet requires a conditional use permit. Staff has no specific issues with the toilet installation; although it should be noted that the building does not meet condition 17(d)in that it is not conforming in location. However, it is a legally nonconforming building and cannot be relocated to serve its intended purpose and still be conforming within the lower west yard, since all locations in that yard are less than 75 feet from some portion of the shoreline. Conditional use permit approval should be subject to the standard conditions for approval as noted above. In addition,the applicant is proposing to remove an old detached 16' by 16' deck near the lakeshore south of the accessory building and replace it nearer the building and further from the shoreline. The existing deck is 11 feet from the shoreline and the proposed replacement deck will be 33 feet from the shore. The old deck appears on old air photos, as does a stairway leading up to the main house,which sits on a plateau 20-25' above the lake. The reconstructed stairway is also proposed to include appropriate landings, and it will be relocated further from the shore but still within the 0-75' setback zone. The stairway as proposed is an allowed encroachment within the 0-75' zone and is required to provide reasonable access to the lower level and lakeshore. Gaffron stated overall the hardcover on the site would be reduced by 64 square feet in the 0-75' zone, a reduction from 10.22 percent to 10.16 percent. The only prior zoning activity on this property involved reconstruction of the main house in 1984, for which lake setback and hardcover variances were granted, and a guest apartment conditional use permit at that time for replacement of a prior such apartment above the attached garage. Gaffron noted that variance application was completed at a time when the City did not require applicants to provide detailed hardcover calculations, and the 0-75' hardcover was estimated by Staff at 7 to 8 percent and 27 percent in the 75'-250' zone. Staff finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood due to its size and remote location from any other properties. Staff further finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed include a toilet, lavatory and sink, which is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. The accessory building is conforming in size and height,but is legally nonconforming in location. However, it is a pre-existing building that is not being structurally altered. In addition, the property owner must agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be, one,used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by city code; two,used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained; three,rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. The applicant should understand the covenant and agree to execute the covenant as part of this approval. PAGE 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, CONTINUED) Staff finds that the proposed deck and stairway relocation and reconstruction results in a slight hardcover reduction on the property and results in structure being located further from the shoreline. In considering whether the deck could be located in a more conforming location, Staff would note that the only portion of the lower yard mare than 75 feet from the shore is a small 10' by 20' triangle 90 feet west of the accessory building and located in the 100-year floodplain below elevation 931.5'. From a visual perspective, Staff feels that approval of the requested variances will have no negative impacts. If the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed deck size and location is appropriate, it may be worthy of consideration to determine whether any other areas of hardcover on the site, in either the 0-75' or 75'-250' zones, should be removed. Albertsson stated she would like to point out that the deck would also be lowered in elevation. The deck is currently four feet about grade level and would be further shielded from view of the lake. Albertsson stated landscaping would also help shield the deck from the lake. Jean Gorborino stated the applicants would also like to do some shoreline native plantings to try to restore the shoreline, which would also help screen the deck structure. Bremer asked whether there were any public comments regarding this application. Robert Floyd, 960 West Ferndale Road, stated he did provide a written statement concerning this application. Floyd inquired whether anyone on the Planning Commission has any business or social contact with the Brookses or with their attorney. Bremer indicated she is unsure what the purpose of the question is. Floyd stated the purpose of the question is to make sure there are no conflicts of interest. Bremer stated anyone with a conflict typically recuse themselves. Floyd noted the fence issue was not included in the public notice. Floyd referenced a letter he had received dated December 31, 2002. The letter states the fence must be removed by January 15, 2003, as a result of a court decision. Floyd read from a letter he received from the City of Orono that states that the City does not allow any gated fence to be constructed within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Floyd stated he has learned today that the Brookses' fence apparently does not need a variance, and inquired why they are required to fulfill one set of requirements and other people are required to ful�ll other inferior requirements. Floyd stated as far as the driveway is concerned,they have a court order stating that it is their exclusive property, with the courts denying access to the Brooks. Floyd stated they have abided by that court order PAGE 27 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, CONTINLJED) and the Brooks have not. Floyd indicated they have removed old structures and ended longstanding use of land awarded to the Brooks in 2002,while the Brooks have flagrantly violated the final court order and have continued trespassing on his private property. Floyd stated the Brooks' current application is based on illegal trespassing. Floyd stated the Brooks should have been required to relocate their driveway access in compliance with the court order,which has not happened. Floyd stated they have no protection from liability from the use of their land by the Brooks, their workers, and the City's use. Floyd stated they do not want people continuing to use their property without their permission. Bremer noted Floyd's letter is part of the record and that it would continue to remain a part of the application as it proceeds to the City Council. Bremer stated Floyd is also welcome to attend the City Council meeting. Floyd stated as far as the application materials,they are totally insufficient, with the submitted survey being a pseudo survey. Floyd noted the pseudo survey contains a disclaimer and also does not show all the structures on the Brooks' property. Floyd stated the City requires that an application is to have a real survey and not contain a disclaimer stating that it does not show everything on the property. Floyd stated he has had numerous discussions with Gaffron and other staff inembers since 1998 concerning his property and the Brooks' property. Floyd stated their fence and property is not in the location depicted by Gaffron on the overhead but is in the location depicted on his survey. Floyd illustrated the location of his property line and fence. Floyd indicated he is opposed to having Staff discuss his property line and fence in connection with this application. Floyd stated he resents the fact that he has to appear tonight while the applicants do not bother to show up. Floyd stated they have offered the Brooks a reasonable settlement numerous times since 1998. Floyd stated they have proposed an easement for an easement and that there is nothing that they are asking that is extraordinary and that there is nothing that he is requesting that the Brooks cannot easily grant. Floyd stated since the applicant does not care enough to do a swap, the applicant obviously does not care about the driveway and he should be required to relocate it. Floyd stated the original structure is not the structure that is there now,with the roof being much higher and the use being different. Floyd pointed out the shed was grandfathered in as a garage and the variance to build the new and improved building was based on it being a garage; not as an entertainment pavilion or a lakeside restroom. Floyd stated the character and the use of this building have been allowed to expand beyond what a garage typically is. Floyd stated the small garage that used to exist there is no longer there and that the garage should not be allowed to be converted into living space. Floyd stated the Brookses are now expanding to a third residence on this site and that this building is not functioning as a garage. Floyd pointed out there are a number of nonconforming structures on the property that are not depicted on the pseudo survey. PAGE 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, CONTINUED) Bremer reiterated that Mr. Floyd's written document is part of the record of this application and will continue to be so. Bremer requested Mr. Floyd limit his comments to new issues. Floyd inquired whether the stone structures located at the end of the main driveway are nonconforming since they are located both within the roadway easement and also within 75 feet of the lake. Bremer stated generally speaking there are certain structures throughout the City that existed prior to the City adopting a code regulating their use and that those are considered legal nonconforming structures. Floyd stated those structures are new and have been constructed within the last four years. Floyd asked if those are a violation of the current laws. Bremer requested Mr. Floyd direct those questions to the City Attorney. Bremer stated the City Attorney would be in attendance at the City Council meeting and that the Planning Commission does not make legal decisions but acts as a recommending body to the Council. Floyd inquired whether the new city attorney is currently on staff. Gaffron stated the new city attorney is actively on duty as of last Monday. Floyd indicated he has attempted to deal with Mr. Barrett but that he has not received any response from him. Bremer requested that the contact information for the new city attorney be provided to Mr. Floyd. Bremer pointed out the Planning Commission is not in a position to answer questions regarding the legality of certain items. Bremer stated she would like to see a better survey provided on this application. Floyd questioned whether action could be taken on this application if those questions cannot be answered. Floyd commented the submittal of a proper survey is a common part of the Planning Commission process and that these issues are routinely discussed at Planning Commission meetings. Bremer stated she does not have the data at the present time to comment on the legality of various structures located on the property. Leslie stated the Planning Commission could condition their action on this application, with the city attorney making the ultimate determination on the legality of certain structures, and that the Planning Commission would take action based on all the data in front of them. Floyd stated if the Planning Commission is saying that this is not a trespassing act,he would take issue with that. PAGE 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, CONTINUED) Bremer commented she does not see a court order and that there is a methodology for correcting that violation if one exists. Bremer stated the Planning Commission looks at zoning matters and that the Planning Commission is not an enforcing body of a property owner's legal rights. Bremer commented the Planning Commission is unable to give the recourse that Mr. Floyd is requesting because they do not have the authority to act in that role. Floyd stated he has already provided court orders and detailed surveys to Staff and the police deparhnent and that he would like to stop being questioned on whether he owns this property. Leslie stated he understands the frustrations of Mr. Floyd but that the Planning Commission only makes a recommendation to the City Council, with the City Council having the final say. Floyd inquired on what basis is their property and fence being referred to as part of this application. Gaffron indicated he does not understand that part of the question. Floyd indicated that Gaffron included his property line and fence when he was discussing the request. Gaffron apologized for inadvertently including that portion of Mr. Floyd's property when illustrating the property line but pointed out that the request by the applicants is within their property. Gaffron pointed out the request deals with replacing existing structure, which is different than creating new, and that laws passed within the past two years have drastically changed the scope of how a City can govern the replacement in kind of existing conformities. Floyd inquired why he was sent a letter telling him he would need a variance to do work in that exact same area when the applicants were told they could just go to Mr. Gappa in the Public Works Department to get approval. Bremer stated Mr.Floyd's fence is not part of the Planning Commission's review tonight. Gaffron stated the obstruction of the driveway is an issue for the public works department. Floyd inquired whether the illegal fill in the lakeshare is within the city's jurisdiction. Floyd displayed a survey dated 1910. Floyd demonstrated how the two surveys correspond and differ. Floyd pointed out the depth of the water measured at three and a half feet in his survey with no extended tail out at the time the Brookses purchased the property and that the surveys now show there are areas of unnatural fill. Bremer stated she understands Mr. Floyd's point,but reiterated that the Planning Commission is not able to rule on whether the fill is illegal fill. Bremer reiterated that Mr. Floyd's letter was quite thorough and that generally the Planning Commission asks residents to limit their comments to five minutes. Floyd stated he has an issue with the calculations for the hardcover, and pointed out that the driveway area was never calculated in the 1984 hardcover calculations even though it existed as hardcover. PAGE 30 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, CONTINUED) Bremer pointed out the City was treating hardcover differently in the 1980s and that hardcover calculations are calculated differently at the present time. Floyd pointed out the City's application process requires hardcover calculations to be submitted as part of an application. Bremer stated the hardcover on a particular lot is looked at if there is a hardcover variance request or when the amount of hardcover is right on the line. Bremer noted the hardcover in this instance is below the allowable amount. Floyd stated in this case the hardcover consists of hundreds of feet which has not been accounted for and that the City has required many other citizens to remove hardcover. Floyd stated in his opinion the hardcover is pertinent and that the City's own application process requires accurate hardcover numbers. Floyd stated the illegally filled area has been calculated at 11, 988 square feet by City Staff and has grown since 1984. The illegal fill in the area north of the house and along the roadway consists of 5,810 square feet, which is far in excess of the allowable hardcover for this lot. Floyd stated as far as a solution, the Floyds feel the City should enforce their codes and not grandfather in a garage that will serve as a lakeside entertainment facility. Floyd stated the intentional mistruths warrant a denial of the application and that the applicants should be required to submit a correct survey. Floyd inquired whether the Planning Commission considers the hardships outlined by the applicants as sufficient hardships. Bremer stated prior to the Planning Commission making a recommendation tonight,the Planning Commissioners would have a discussion on these issues following public comments. Floyd stated he wants to ensure that the same hardships and requirements will apply to him as well. Bremer pointed out every property is different and that the application is unique to the property. Floyd stated a variance request is within the Planning Commission's jurisdiction. Bremer stated the Planning Commission makes recommendations to the City Council,but they only make recommendations on variance applications that are before them. Leslie stated Mr. Gaffron indicated earlier that this is an issue in flux and that Staff would be happy to discuss with Mr. Floyd on how to work with the City to get an appropriate resolution. Bremer recommended that Mr. Floyd submit an application if he wishes to be heard on something regarding his property. PAGE 31 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, CONTINUED) There were no further public comments. Kempf stated he did not get a chance to view the entire property but that it is likely the stairway and the deck would be better if reconstructed and that he does not have a problem with the plumbing in the building as it exists currently. Leslie stated in his view this is expansion of a nonconformity and that this is a building that is being expanded in a use materially different from what the structure was originally intended for,which is contrary to what the Planning Commission has typically approved plumbing for. Leslie stated he is not in agreement with the application. Jurgens stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leslie's comments and that the deck should be removed since he does not see any approval of it in the past. Jurgens stated he does not see the hardship for expanding the use of the structure. Winkey indicated he is not in support of the application because he does not believe the Planning Commission would have approved the grandfathering of the building if they had known what the ultimate proposed use of the structure would be. Bremer stated she is not opposed to the replacement of the stairs but that she would concur with Commissioner Leslie's comments regarding the expansion of the use. Bremer stated the goal of the City was to have 0 percent hardcover in the 0-75' zone and to have these structures removed once they reached their life expectancy,but instead the City has found that many of these buildings have been improved and made better than what they originally were. Bremer stated the City does have the ability to stop this type of structure from being turned into a miniature guesthouse. Leslie indicated he based his decision tonight on the Brooks' property and what the applicant was requesting and that his decision was not based on the situation between the Floyds and the Brooks. Bremer commented that in her view the use of the property is not being limited by this application being denied and that the site has many amenities that the property owner can enjoy. Kempf stated based on the pointed raised by the other Commissioners, he would change his mind and not support the application. Leslie moved to table Application#06-3171,John and Joan Brooks, 905 West Ferndale Road,to allow the Applicants to redesign their plans to address the relocation and reconstruction of the stairway,to remove the existing deck, and to make no changes to the nonconforming lakeshore accessory building. Winkey inquired whether it would be easier to deny this application and file a new application. PAGE 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. #06-3171 JOHN AND JOAN BROOKS, CONTINUED) Gaffron stated City Code does allow property owners to have a stairway down to the lake,which can be accomplished with a permit regardless if they choose to pursue the other portions of their application. Leslie inquired whether the redesign of the stairway would need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Gaffron stated as long as the stairway meets the City's guidelines,the applicants can simply obtain a building permit and do not need to obtain approval from the Council. Leslie withdrew his motion. Leslie moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend denial of Application#06-3171,John and Joan Brooks, 905 West Ferndale Road. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ll. #06-3174 KEVIN AND SUELLYN TRITZ, 1056 LOMA LINDA AVENUE,VARIANCE, 10:20 P.M.—10:58 P.M. Kevin Tritz,Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting a number of variances in order to construct a second story addition above the existing attached garage. The following variances are required: One, a rear/street yard setback variance to allow the proposed second story to be located at a 26-foot setback where 30 feet is normally required and 26 feet currently exists. Two, a hardcover variance to permit 55 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 56 percent currently exists. Three, a structural coverage variance to permit 18.6 percent where 15 percent is normally allowed and 18.6 percent currently exists. Gaffron noted the applicant is not proposing any new hardcover but that the existing levels exceed the allowed limits within both the 0-75' zone and 75'-250' zone. The applicant is proposing 55 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 25 percent is normally allowed and 56 percent currently exists. The hardcover reduction comes from a corner of the driveway the applicant proposes to remove. A variance approval for 55 percent hardcover in the 75'-250' zone was approved in 1998. In addition,the applicant has requested a structural coverage variance to permit construction of the second story addition above the existing attached garage. The property is permitted 15 percent structure where 18.6 percent is requested,requiring approval of a variance. The applicant is not requesting an expansion of the footprint,but the addition of a second story introduces new mass to the total structure requiring a variance. The variances approved by Resolution#4055 allowed 2,406 square feet of structure. Based on the new survey and hardcover calculations, only 2,325 square feet of structure is existing and proposed. PAGE 33 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3174 KEVIN AND SUELLYN TRITZ, CONTINUED) Staff finds that while the rear/street yard setback variance and hardcover variance are minar based on the fact that no additional encroachments or hardcover are being proposed, the structural coverage component is not minor. The structural coverage ordinance exists to limit structural mass on properties. The addition of a second story above an existing single story, from Staff's perspective, adds mass to the property. The only hardship inherent to the land to grant a structural coverage variance beyond 15 percent is the actual are of the property. The Planning Commission may want to consider whether or not the applicant should be permitted the second story addition based on the 1998 approval that allowed for 2,406 square feet of hardcover. The Planning Commission should consider the differences between footprint expansions and second story additions as they relate to overall mass. Also, the Planning Commission should consider if the applicant has a right to 2,406 square feet of structure due to Resolution#4055, even though it was never considered and the current proposal, including the existing structure, does not match the 1998 approval. Gaffron noted that 352 square feet of hardcover appears to have been added to the 0-75' zone without approval. The 1998 variance allowed for 254 square feet and the current survey shows 606 square feet. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the intent of the structural coverage ordinance and determine if the second story addition would add additional mass to the property. Staff would also recommend that the applicant comply with the 0-75' hardcover permitted within Resolution#4055, which would require removal of 352 square feet of hardcover. Tritz stated the intent for going the full length of the structure was to tie the structure to the corners of the existing residence. Tritz indicated he would be willing to move the structure back to get it out of the setbacks. Tritz stated he also would be willing to remove a portion of the driveway. There were no public comments regarding this application. Kempf stated in his opinion this project would have an impact on the neighbor to the south. Tritz stated he has a signed agreement with the McCormicks and the Osterbergs who have indicated they are in support of the project. Tritz indicated his other neighbor does not reside there year-round but is aware of the project. Kempf stated a longer view should be taken and that the homes in the immediate vicinity will someday be occupied by other people. Winkey inquired whether the hardcover in the 0-75' zone could be reduced. Tritz stated there is a permit in his file for the retaining wall and steps. Tritz indicated the hardcover in the 0-75' zone consists of approximately 40 percent for the steps, 30 percent for a portion of the house PAGE 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3174 KEVIN AND SUELLYN TRITZ, CONTINUED) and deck, and the rest retaining wall. Tritz stated he has already removed a plastic pond and that he would be willing to remove a 3' by 3' cement slab. Winkey commented he does not see the hardship for the variances and that this application is not consistent with what the Planning Commission has approved in the past concerning massing. Leslie stated in his opinion massing is less tangible than structural coverage or hardcover. Leslie stated there is not an impact from the lake regarding the massing and that the second story will almost be equal with the roadway,which mitigates the feeling of massing and is unique to this property. Jurgens stated in his opinion the addition should not encroach into the setback. Jurgens stated the resolution granted in 1998 gave the applicant a structure that was livable, habitable, and served the purpose it was intended for. Jurgens stated the purpose of a variance is to give someone reasonable use of their property, which was given to the applicant back in 1998. Jurgens stated as far as the hardcover on the lot,he would like the hardcover verified with what was approved in 1998. Tritz indicated he would be willing to reduce the size of the addition so it would not encroach into the setback. Bremer inquired whether the 2,406 square feet of structural coverage that was approved was ever built. Gaffron noted the previous application dealt with a deck. Gaffron stated the addition is going over existing structural coverage and would add to the massing on the lot. Bremer stated she would recommend that the addition be held to the 30 feet. Tritz illustrated on the overhead where he would propose to end the addition. Tritz stated the addition would end near the dormer window. Bremer stated that reduction in the size of the addition would eliminate the need for a setback variance and that the issue then becomes massing on the lot. Bremer inquired what amount of hardcover would have to be removed to comply with the resolution. Tritz stated he would need to remove 352 square feet. Tritz stated he is also agreeable to removing the 3' by 3' concrete pad and a portion of the driveway. Leslie commented the massing issue should be taken into account from the lake as well as from the neighbors. Leslie stated he would like to see a plan for the second story addition now that it is being reduced. Tritz illustrated on the overhead the layout of the revised second story addition. PAGE 35 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#06-3174 KEVIN AND SUELLYN TRITZ, CONTINUED) Bremer moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3174,Kevin and Suellyn Tritz, 1056 Loma Linda Avenue,granting of a hardcover variance to permit 55 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone and the granting of a structural coverage variance to permit 18.6 percent structural coverage, subject to the removal of a 3' by 3' concrete pad located in the 0-75' zone and also subject to the removal of 350 square feet of hardcover located anywhere on the property,with preference for the removal of hardcover in the 0-75' zone; and to recommend denial of the rear/street yard setback variance with the understanding the new second story addition will be no greater than 14 feet from the existing roofline of the existing second story,with the garage roofline remaining as is. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0 Bremer recommended the applicant submit a revised plan at least one week priar to the City Council meeting and a plan outlining the hardcover removals. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 12. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS DECEMBER 12, 2005 AND JANUARY 9,2006 Jurgens stated he attended the December 12`h City Council meeting and reported that both applications from Bohland Development were reviewed and tabled at that time. Jurgens stated the City Council were not in support of the amount of massing being proposed for the Willow site and the amount of�11 that would be necessary to raise up the level of the road. Jurgens stated there were also discussions relating to the wetlands and the amount of vegetation proposed to be removed. Jurgens stated on the other Bohland application Council Member McMillan had raised a concern with giving approval to septic on lots less than two acres in size without having the appropriate code language in place prior to the approval. 13. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None 14. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 21,2005 Bremer moved,Jurgens seconded,to approve the minutes of the November 21,2005 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PAGE 36 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,January 17,2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. 15. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JANUARY 23 AND FEBRUARY 13, 2006 January 23 —Travis Winkey February 13 —Ralph Kempf ADJOURNMENT Bremer moved,Winkey seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission at 11:11 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. thia Bremer, Acting Chair PAGE 37