Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-21-2016 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2016 6:30 o'clock �.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Denise Leskinen, Commissioners Bruce Lemke, Chad Olson, Loren Schoenzeit, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Banihart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and Recarder Jackie Young. Council Member Lizz Levang was present. Chair Leskinen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. CONSENT AGENDA *1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16, 2016 Lemke moved, Schoenzeit seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of February 16, 2016, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Na,ys 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. #16-3808 RICK DENMAN ON BEHALF OF CASCO VENTURES, LLC,3800 CASCO AVENUE,VARIANCES, 6:33 P.M.—6:44 P.M. Rick Denman, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a lot area variance as well as a rear yard setback variance. The subject property is a corner lot on a curve of Casco Avenue. The lot consists of approximately three-tenths of an acre where a half-acre is required. The south side is the narrower frontage and is therefore defined as the"front'' for setback purposes. The rear yard setback variance is requested in order to orient the front of the proposed home to the northwest,in line with the other homes along Casco Point Road in line with other homes along Casco Avenue. The applicant has proposed a front load garage off of the south side of the home. Tl7e house will meet the 30-foot front setback from either side. The house is oriented so the rear setback is to the side yard of the lot to the northeast. The property is not conforming with respect to lot area. However, the applicant requests a rear yard setback variance and proposes to use the Tier II permitted hardcover level. This results in the property"s inability to conform to the conditions in the record lot administrative approval of a substandard lot. The orientation of the home facing the side street keeps the proposed home in line with the neighboring homes to the north. The setback to the rear lot line is proposed at 10.2 feet. This setback is consistent with the required yard setback from the property line on the adjacent lot and allows a more functional back yard space behind the home to the east, which is consistent with the surrounding properties. As noted in Staffs memo, the proposed plan results in 17 percent structural coverage where 15 percent is allowed. This was unintentional and the applicant will submit a revised plan conforming to the 15 percent structural coverage prior to the City Council's review. No structural coverage variance is being requested. Page 1 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff provided an analysis of the practical difficulty criteria in the memo and the Commission may choose to review individual conditions if necessary. Staff finds practical difficulties exist which support granting the lot area and rear setback variances. Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot area and rear setback variances as proposed with the condition that the applicant provide the revised plan prior to appearing before the City Council. The Planning Commissioners had no questions far Staff. Rick Denman, Applicant, stated they would like to construct a new home on the property. The home to the northeast of this lot is under construction currently. If the home was not situated on the property as proposed, it would result in a back yard being right up next to the home that is being constructed to the northeast. Denman stated in his view it makes a lot of sense to ask for the variance to make the lot more usable. Thiesse asked if the owners of the lot to the north are present tonight. Denman stated they are not. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Dean Greimann, 3779 Casco Avenue, asked if the house is going to be facing Casco Avenue or Casco Point. Curtis indicated the front porch of the house will face the west. Curtis indicated it is Casco Avenue in both directions as it goes around but it is essentially Casco Point. Greimann stated there seeins to be a considerable knoll right now on Casco Avenue as you round and coming off of Casco Point Road to where the line of sight is very limited. Given the construction traffic and parking, that knoll will present some visibility issues. The road is also narrow. Greimann stated he does not know what the proposed elevation will be, but that the house that is being constructed right now appears to be higher than this house. In addition, the lot that the applicant is proposing to build on now is much lower than the existing new structure that will be constructed. Greimami asked if considerable fill will be hauled in and whether there will be runoff onto his property. Greimann noted he currently has runoff onto his property from this property and that he has noticed some sediment runoff already even with little rain. Greimann stated his main concern is the safety at the corner, especially if a berm is constructed and mare fill brou�ht in. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. Denman stated they have not actually set the height of the home at this point in time but they will need to meet all the codes in terms of the driveway elevation and so forth. Denman stated t11e garage will be a side load garage, which will alleviate some of the safety issues. In tenns of tlie height of the home, the new home that is being built is pretty close to the home that was removed. Denman indicated they will be setting the grades in the future when they apply for the permit. Page 2 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21, 2016 6:30 dclock p.m. Leskinen noted what is before the Plamling Commission tonight is a lot area variance and a rear setback variance and that she is not sure the Cotnmission can address the issue with the building height and driveway grade. Curtis stated she will discuss Mr. Greimann's comments with the City Engineer to make sure his concerns are addressed. Leskinen stated as it relates to the rear yard setback and the way the house is proposed to be on the lot, it makes sense given the location and the type of lot it is. Leskinen stated in her view the practical difficulty criteria have been met to grant the variance. Lemke commented he does not see a problem with the application. Thiesse stated he also does not see a problem but that this is a clean slate and the house could be adjusted. Schoenzeit stated even though the survey is showing some of the potential grade, at this time the applicant is telling the Commission that that is not his plan. Thiesse noted the survey has elevations on it. Schoenzeit asked what the applicant meant when he said the grade is not set. Denman indicated they have to meet a minimum floor elevation no matter what. The house will be a two- story with a full basement and that he did not think they would have to discuss the elevation tonight and did not bring those numbers. Denman stated they are attempting to set the house on the lot to provide the best back yard given the house next door, and if the house were to be turned, Denman stated he is not sure they can fit the house on there. Thiesse noted the driveway is set as far away from the curve as possible, which should help with the sightlines. Thiesse stated he is happy with the design and believes it is reasonable. Lemke moved, Olson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3808, Rick Denman on behalf of Casco Ventures, LLC,3800 Casco Avenue, granting of a lot area variance and a rear setback variance, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 3. #16-3811 JAMISON KOHOUT/LANDSOURCE,LLC,3438 LYRIC AVENUE, VARIANCES,6:44 P.M.—6:57 P.M. Jamison Kohout, Landsource, LLC, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. This lot would qualify for buildability without area and width variances under the Shoreland regulations. However, a qualifier far taking advantage of that is a hardcover limitation of 25 percent. This property is in Tier 3, which normally allows 35 percent hardcover. In order to be able to exceed 25 percent up to the 35 percent limit, the lot area and width variances are required. Page 3 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. The proposed application reinoves the existing house and proposes a slightly larger two-story house with a basement and driveway. The applicants will meet the required front, side, and rear setbacks as well as the 15 percent limitation on structural coverage. The hardcover is proposed at 28 percent. The ability to rebuild on the property in the same manner as other existing developed properties in the immediate neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are not granted. The applicant's proposed site plan indicates all required LR-1 C setbacks will be met In addition,the proposed house is well under the 1,500 square feet structural coverage allowance for lots less than 10,000 square feet in area. This lot abuts the Navarre Park and should fit reasonably well with the neighborhood. This area has a number of single lots as well as double lots. The Navarre Heights neighborhood consists of sin�le-family homes located on Lyric Avenue, Livingston Avenue, and Crystal Place,between Shadywood Road and Blaine Avenue. In this neighborhood, 42 homes are on single lots, 22 homes are on double lots, 5 homes are on triple lots, and one home is on a combination of four lots. The lot is approximately 6,700 square feet. Gaffron displayed an aerial photograph of the lot and surrounding area. The property abuts the City"s Navarre playground, which is partially screened from this property by a row of arborvitae along the west line of the park. In addition, the applicant's property contains two mature oak trees which provide afternoon shade to the park. It is hoped that one or both of these trees can be preserved during the demolition/rebuild process. Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to lot area and lot width. If the Planning Commission detern�ines that the practical difficulties test is met and the variances are justified, then a recommendation for approval would be in order. Lemke asked if the existing house is much smaller than what is shown on the aerial. Gaffron displayed the aerial photograph of the lot and the surrounding homes. Gaffron stated the house does appear to be smaller than what is shown on the survey and it may be the angle of the picture. Jamison Kohout,Applicant, stated if you took the garage off of the proposed two-story house, it would basically be the same footprint as the existing structure. The house, outside of widening the driveway to make the house more accessible, would fit the 25 percent hardcover limit. Kohout stated as far as tree preservation is concerned,they will do their best to preserve the trees along the park but that the one in the front yard will likely have to be removed. Kohout indicated he is not sure about the tree on the side. Gaffron pointed out the location of the trees on the overhead. Gaffron concurred that the tree in the front will need to be removed. Kohout stated this will be a nice house far a family given its location to the park, and that in order to provide enough bedrooms, it is necessary to construct a two-story house. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:53 pan. Frank Mittelstaedt, 3444 Lyric Avenue, stated he lives next door to this lot and that he has a concern regarding tl�e size of the house on this small lot. Mittelstaedt stated the lot is so small he does not know how someone can even build on it. Page 4 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen noted they have the ability to construct a home on the lot without a variance and that t1�e variance being requested is for widening the driveway and the additional hardcover. Leskinen stated the City cannot tell them they cannot build on the lot. Mittelstaedt stated he lives on the lot next door and that he can verify that the lots are way too small for a family home. Mittelstaedt stated he noticed he set the house at an angle so he could squeeze it on there. Mittelstaedt stated in his view it should be a parking lot for the park. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Thiesse stated if you take the area of the garage and the area for the driveway, that is more than the square footage that they are asking for in additional hardcover. Thiesse noted the garage is 440 square feet and the driveway is another 500 square feet. Thiesse stated the City should not prevent them from having a garage and a driveway and that the request is reasonable. Olson noted they do not currently have a driveway. Schoenzeit noted the small lot size allows them 1,500 square feet of structural coverage and they are proposing 1,232, which is another attempt to keep the size of the house reasonable. Leskinen stated she is more inclined to grant the variance far the wider driveway to provide additional off-street parking given the narrowness of the street. Leskinen stated she does not believe it would be reasonable to deny it given the practical difficulties. Thiesse noted there are other homes in the neighborhood that are very similar and could be built on this lot. Schoenzeit moved,Thiesse seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3811, Landsource,LLC,3438 Lyric Avenue, granting of lot area and lot width variances, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 4. #16-3812 GREG REITAN AND SALLY NEUBAUER, 925 BROWN ROAD NORTH, VARIANCES, 6:57 P.M.—7:07 P.M. Greg Reitan, Applicant, was present. Gaffron stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in arder to construct a new residence on the property. The property is situated on Brown Road and Dickey Lake. Because the existing residence structure on the adjacent lakeshore lot to the south is very near Brown Road, the applicants' existing home and proposed addition are lakeward of the defined average lakeshore setback ]ine. The property is nearly two acres in area, and both the existing home and proposed additions meet all other setback, hardcover, and structural coverage requirements, including the required 150-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Dickey Lake. Gaffron displayed an aerial photograph of the area. Gaffron noted both the lot to the north and the lot to the soutli are lakeshore lots. Page 5 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. The location of the applicants' existing residence is conforming to the zoning standards of the RR-1 B Rural Residential District. However, the Shoreland Overlay District regulations regarding average lakeshore setback are impossible to meet for constructing an addition to the applicants' home. The adjacent residence structure on the lakeshore lot to the immediate south is located less than 15 feet from the Brown Road right-of-way where a 50-foot setback would normally be required. lf that residence was set back the minimum 150 feet from the OHWL of Dickey Lake, the applicants would not require an average setback variance. Staff believes there will be no negative visual impacts to the neighboring homes. Staff recommends approval of the average setback variance. Lemke stated the property at 2015 appears to come to a point. Lemke asked whether that is considered lakeshore. Gaffron indicated it would be considered lakeshore. Gaffron indicated the reason it becomes a lakeshore lot is because the lot continues into the lake and that the survey confirms that. Lemke asked if the lakeshare is determined by a certain elevation. Gaffron stated it is. Back in 1992, the City adopted the Shoreland Ordinance at the request of the DNR in order to establish an OHWL. This property is one that did not have that elevation so the City went through a process to define the elevation of the OHWL based on historical records and trees, etc. Gaffron noted that elevatioi7 has been established for more than 20 years and that there is no question from a legal perspective that this is a lakeshore lot. Greg Reitan, Applicant, stated the purpose of the variance is to allow them to remodel the existing house. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Tom Lane, 915 North Brown Road, stated it does not appear this addition will impact his sightlines down to the lake and that it should be an enhancement to the neighborhood. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Leskinen stated the request is completely reasonable. Leskinen noted if the Brown farm were ever rebuilt, it would need to be pushed back to meet the 50-foot street setback and that defining the lakeshore setback by a liome that is nonconforming seems unreasonable. Thiesse asked if the existing trees will be removed. Reitan indicated one maple tree will likely l�eed to be removed. Thiesse moved, Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3812, Greg Reitan and Sally Neubauer, 925 Brown Road North, granting of an average lakeshore setback variance. VOTE: Aves 5, Nays 0. Page 6 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 dclock p.m. 5. DALE GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF MATT BURNS, 1180 LOMA LINDA AVENUE, VARIANCES, 7:07 P.M.—7:24 P.M. Matt Burns, Applicant, and Dale Gustafson, Contractor, were present. Curtis stated in February of 2015, the City issued a permit for an in-kind rebuild of the existing boathouse on the property. The boathouse reconstruction is nearly complete and the final step far the property owner is to complete the final lake yard landscaping. In order to stabilize the portion of the slope between the existing stair and the boathouse,the applicant is proposing tiered retaining walls on the south side of the boathouse with vegetative screening. Because the retaining walls are not considered an allowed structure within the 75-foot setback, hardcover and lake setback variances are required. A 1 S foot wall is also proposed on the north side of the boathouse to facilitate a continuous flat yard right at lake level. The walls will be as close as ten feet to the lake. The overall property hardcover will be 22 percent, which is below the 25 percent allowed. The area between the boathouse and the existing stairway appears to bulge toward the lake slightly and is likely not stable. The majority of the proposed walls are new. The small wall section on the north side lot line is shown to be an in-kind replacement. The wall may be an in-kind wall or slightly within the footprint. If the north wall crosses the property line, permission from the neighbor to the north will be required iu order to reconstruct that wall. Staff provided an analysis of the practical difficulty criteria in the memo and the Planning Commissioil may review individual conditions if they so choose. Staff finds the wall between the boathouse and tlle lake access stair to be necessary in order to stabilize the slope. During a site visit, Staff observed the proposed new wall on the north side of the boathouse did not appear to be critical to maintain slope stability and therefare Staff feels there is no practical difficulty that is evident. Staff recommends approval of the variances to allow the tiered retaining walls south of the boathouse, conditioned upon incorporation of the proposed landscape screening plan with additional screening in front of the bottom wall. Staff further suggests that the portions of the wall proposed on the north side of the boathouse which are not an in-kind replacement be denied. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of the wall on the north side, a planting plan should be submitted which offers screening of the wall from the lake. Leskinen asked if they are not removing what is there on the north side. Curtis stated it is not 100 percent clear to Staff and that the applicant could probably better address it. Curtis indicated the green on the plan depicts the walls. The wall is in a slight U-shape and goes up the slope from the lake on either side and extends into the neighbor's property. Curtis stated that appears to be consistent with what she observed on the site to be the existing wall but that the applicant will need to clarify that. Curtis stated the wall does appear to turn into the neighbor's property. Curtis stated the applicant will need to make sure that what is existing is rebuilt in-kind and that they do not go beyond that. Matt Burns, Applicant, stated his neighbar has been encouraging him to do this for the past year and that he should have brought him to the meeting. Burns stated the wall is actually 24 feet long and is probably Page 7 of 21 MINLTTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21,2016 6:30 dclock p.m. more than two feet in height except the land above it has eroded away and is actually covering a lot of the wall. Buri�s indicated the wall goes halfway between the neighbor's property and the boathouse. Burns stated the boathouse and the ground on both sides are at the same height and go down to the same place. Burns indicated the boathouse was holding up a lot of the hill. Burns stated he rented the property out and had to deal with the safety issue of the boathouse, which has now been completed. Burns stated in order to stop the erosion of the shareline, it requires some walls. Burns indicated he would rather not rebuild the walls but from a safety and an erosion point of view, there needs to be more support on the slope. Leskinen asked if he is suggesting that more than just the in-kind wall be built. Burns stated he would suggest that it needs more than just the in-kind wall and that the wall should be continued to keep that side of the hill stable. Leskinen asked what he means by continue the wall. Burns pointed out the current location of the wall. Burns noted one part of the slope is starting to erode away and that his neighbor has asked him to remove the portion that goes into his property and instead have the wall continue all the way to the boathouse. Burns stated the wall is 24 feet away from the boatl�ouse and that he is just trying to clean up the shoreline. Olson asked what materials they will be using for the retaining walls. Burns indicated it will be rocks. Olson asked if there will be rocks on the north side as well going across. Burns stated there will be and that it will match the riprap on the shoreline. Olson asked if there will be vegetation on top of the rocks on the north side as well. Burns stated he could do that if it is too visible and that he does not really want to see the rocks. Burns indicated there are a lot of weeds in that area that will need to be cleaned up. Lemke asked what that dot is on the right side. Burns indicated there is a tree on tl7e property line and then another tree up above. Lemke stated he is trying to determine the location of the oak tree. Burns stated that dot is probably i7ot the most accurately placed and that there is also an elm tree approximately two feet from the neighbor's house. Burns stated there is also a �nanhole cover in that area. Lemke commented he would have liked to see some elevation drawings for that flat area. Gustafson indicated they did submit that. Page 8 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 dclock p.m. Burns stated the ground is at the same level as the boathouse. Thiesse pointed out the ground is much steeper on the south side than on the north side. � Burns stated the hill has basically eroded over the top of the wall making it very difficult to tell where the wall is. Lemke asked how much fill will be required on the north side. Gustafson indicated there will not be any fill on the north side. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Leskinen stated in her view it is important to preserve the slope on the south side aild that the north slope appears to also be fairly steep. Leskinen stated she is inclined to say the wall is appropriate but that she is not certain. Thiesse stated it will be a row of rocks and will not be that high. Thiesse commented he can take it ar leave it but that he does not see a need for it, nor has the applicant asked for it. Leskinen stated if there is no practical difficulty, it would be difficult to approve. Thiesse stated in his view stability is not an issue on the north side except in the area of the boathouse. Thiesse commented it appears the tree has been holding up the slope for quite a while. Curtis pointed out the wall on the south side. Leskinen noted an in-kind replacement would be allowed but that there is no clear need or justification for allowing the wall on the north side. Schoenzeit commented there appears to be enough vegetation on the slope to help stabilize it and that cutting in for the wall might destabilize the slope. Lemke moved, Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3813, Dale Gustafson on behalf of Matt Burns, 1180 Loma Linda Avenue, granting of hardcover and lake setback variances, and denying the wall extension on the north side of the boathouse. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Thiesse asked wl�ether the applicant would still be able to replace in-kind the wall on the north side without a permit. Curtis indicated he can but he would require a permit. Page 9 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. #16-3814 ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF PETER AND MELISSA SANTRACH, 1700 BOHNS POINT ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:24 P.M.—7:52 P.M. Peter and Melissa Santrach, Applicants, were present. Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances in order to construct a new residence on the property located at the very south end of Bohns Point. The property is fairly small compared to other properties in Bohns Point and consists of two-thirds of an acre in a one- acre zone. The new residence would be larger than what currently exists while the driveway would be made smaller. Due to the current narrow configuration of the driveway, it is difficult for cars to turn around. A small portion of the existing house is located 65 feet from the lake, while the entire new house is proposed to meet the required 75-foot lake setback. However, because the adjacent property to the south is vacant, the required average lakeshore setback is defined by the setback from the lake of the adjacent house to the north, which is 115 feet from the lake. The majority of the properties along the east side of Bohns Point are much deeper than the applicants' property and, as a result, the neighboring homes are set back at least 100 feet or mare from the lake. Absent a variance to the 1 15 foot setback, the applicants' property will have a buildable ei�velope of 25 to 40 feet in depth and 120 feet in width, potentially resulting in a long, narrow home stretching from side lot line to side lot line and likely not in character witl�the neighborhood. Staff feels the average lakeshore setback variance is reasonable given the building envelope. Gaffron noted the deck down by the lake as well as a patio will remain. In addition, the applicants are requesting a variance to allow 27.2 percent hardcover where only 25 percent is normally allowed. Existing hardcover on the site is 29.0 percent. The property is located in Tier 1. The proposed hardcover on the property consists primarily of the house and driveway, with sidewalks, steps and patios accounting for the remainder. The proposed house footprint is right at the 15 percent structural coverage limit. The proposed hardcover is approximately 600 square feet over the 25 percent limit. This amount is approximately equal to the area of the portion of driveway north of the garage apron, which provides for the loop access and entry sidewalk. Gaffron stated it becomes a question of how much house the applicants should be allowed to have versus the driveway and the Planning Commission should consider whether further reductions in hardcover should be made. Letters have been received from both adjacent property owners in support of the variance requests. Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met and the variances are justified, then a recon�mendation far approval may be in order. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Peter Santrach, Applicant, stated as Staff has pointed out, they would like to construct a new home on this small lot. Santrach indicated they have encountered some difficulty in designing a home that will fit on the lot as well as provide some off-street parking. Sai�tach noted this property is accessed through the easement, which is shared by two other properties. There is no off-street parking on the easement. In addition, the road access is fairly narrow and does not really allow far any off-street parking. Granting Page 10 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. the variance would provide some relief for creating off-street parking for guests that does not block the garage. Lemke asked if they will be attempting to preserve the 18-inch spruce tree. Santracli stated he is not sure which tree he is talking about, but that they have not really talked about that at this point. Gaffron pointed out the tree on the overhead. Santrach stated he is not sure what is going to happen in terms of final grades until the house is further along. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Leskinen stated it appears the applicants have worked hard to design a house that fits on the lot and that the hardcover is being reduced from what currently exists. Leskinen stated she is inclined to allow a hardcover variance for the additional driveway in order to provide some off-street parking. Leskinen stated she is not sure what could be reduced to bring the hardcover down on the lot. As it relates to the average lakeshore setback variance, Leskinen stated there really is no other option far providing a useful building envelope. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement and that in his view the house should be reasonably sized given its location on Bohns Point. Schoenzeit uoted this is a clean sheet and that the applicants could have a turnaround rather than a looped driveway. Schoenzeit stated the house as designed does not support a circular driveway and could be eliminated, which would bring the hardcover down to around 25 percent. Schoenzeit stated the hardcover on the lot should be in conformity on a new design. Thiesse stated the driveway will not operate the way it should if a portion of the driveway is eliminated. Schoenzeit noted other people that have come before the Planning Commission are not allowed the additional hardcover. Leskii7en stated she has a concern that removing the circular driveway could pose a safety issue since there is not any off-street parking. Leskinen concurred the size of the house is reasonable for the area. Schoenzeit noted it is a 4,100 square footprint, which is not small, and that there should be some give and take on the hardcover. Olson asked how often it is that people are requested to reduce hardcover. Olson stated he is looking at reducin�the hardcover overall. Page 11 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated if it is a clean slate,tlle expectation is higher that everything will conform. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commissioners are concerned with the level of the hardcover for the driveway or the house footprint. Schoenzeit stated the applicants can choose where they would like to have their hardcover and that it appears some of tl�e hardcover can be eliminated. Schoenzeit stated the City has had applicants that have liad smaller lots and have complied with the regulations, and given that it is a clean sheet, he cannot support the overage. Melissa Santrach, Applicant, stated the biggest issue is the lack of off-street parking. Santrach stated if you look at the larger picture, anybody who is coming to the home has to walk a considerable distance from the street. Santrach stated far that reason they have proposed the driveway as designed because parking is also not allowed on the easement. The driveway area would facilitate access in and out of the property. Santrach stated the only other option is to reduce the size of the home. If you look at the other homes in the neighborhood, they are considerably larger, and the size of the home is consistent with what has been constructed on some of the other smaller lots in this area. Santrach stated it is difficult for people with young children or the elderly to walk that distance to get to their house. Santrach stated in her view the additiona] hardcover does not seem to be asking for too much. Leskinen stated what comes to mind is that the proposed home appears to be consistent with other homes in the neighborhood but that the lot size is not consistent with the other lots. Leskinen stated she is now inclined to stick with the 25 percent but that she does not have a problem with the avera�e lakeshore setback variance. Schoenzeit stated he would also agree with the average lakeshare setback variance but that the hardcover should be reduced by 600 feet somewhere. Leskinen noted it is not the role of the Planning Commission to redesign but that they can make recommendations. Lemke commented he sees it both ways and that the proposed hardcover is a reduction from what currently exists. Lemke stated with a clean slate, it could be brought into compliance. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could vote to table the application to allow the applicant time to redesign his proposal or make a recornmendation to either approve or deny the application. Peter Santrach stated he did not see anything in the City's variance documents that talked about a clean sheet design. Santrach asked if the City has criteria on that that could be provided for guidance. Santrach indicated they went through a lot of work to come up with their design and that the first time he is hearing anything about a clean sheet design is tonight. Santrach asked what the Planning Commission is looking for. Schoenzeit noted the property should comply with the City's regulations. Gaffron indicated the property is allowed 25 percent hardcover. Page 12 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Santrach commented he has seen a number of people here tonight asking for similar variances and be approved. Santrach stated while those were not a clean sheet design, he does not see any difference. Santrach stated if he had been shown something about a clean sheet, they likely would have gone a different direction with their design. Gaffron noted the applicants' desigi�team has go��e through the variance process many times with the City and that the usual goal with a clean sheet is to have the property conform as much as possible. Gaffron stated under City Code, the property is allowed 25 percent hardcover. Schoenzeit stated because this is a clean sheet, the applicants have ample opportunity to make their design compliant, and that the amount of hardcover that is allowed should be plenty. Leskinen asked if he would prefer the Planning Commission table their application so they can redesign their proposal or whether he would like to take this discussion in front of the City Council. Santrach indicated they are not interested in tabling their application. Lemke stated the point is that the Planning Commission agrees with the average lakeshore setback variance but that they would like to see the hardcover reduced. Thiesse commented he is struggling with this one and that the hardcover is close to the limit. Leskinen stated she also can see both sides of this. Thiesse stated off-street parking is important in this situation and that any visitors to the property have to walk a considerable distance. Thiesse stated the applicants could keep the proposed driveway but reduce the size of the house. Schoenzeit stated a 4,100 square footprint far a house is not a small structure. Schoenzeit noted on the other applications earlier tonight the lots were smaller. Thiesse noted the hardcover down by the lake was also not removed. Schoenzeit stated a lot of people would love to have a boathouse and a deck or patio down by the lake. Thiesse stated the applicants need to demonstrate a practical difficulty. Leskinen stated given the location of the property on Bohns Point and the lack of on-street parking, someone could see that as a practical difficulty. Thiesse noted this is one of the smaller lots on Bohns Point. Thiesse moved, Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3814, Alexander Design Group on behalf of Peter and Melissa Santrach, 1700 Bohns Point Road, granting of a hardcover variance and an average lakeshore setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 3, Na,ys 2, Schoenzeit and Lemke opposed. Page 13 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monda,y, March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. 7. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: LIGHTING Barnhart noted the Planning Commission has reviewed this proposed text amendment on a number of occasions. The ordinance is intended to address the following: 1. Prevent light intrusion into adjacent property; 2. Preserve the dark sky, a characteristic designed by the City of Orono; 3. Establish lighting standards for properties throughout the cornmunity. The ordinance as drafted applies to every lot in the City. It establishes the maximum amount of light permitted within commercial/industrial zones at 100,000 lumens and also establishes standards for residential lighting. Barnhart indicated he has attempted to describe each of the ordinance sections in Staff s report and that what is before the Planning Commission tonight is consistent with what has been discussed in the last two work sessions. Barnhart noted the ordinance amendment as proposed would be a zoning ordinance change, which means that any existing fixtures that are made non-conforming by the new ordinance are permitted to continue so long as they are not abandoned for a period longer than six months. In addition, a draft ordinance establishing certain lighting as a nuisance is proposed. The standards established as a nuisance are higher than those proposed as a general perfonnance standard. Enforcement of a nuisance violation would be through criminal prosecution and would not be grandfathered in. The two proposed ordinances address tlle two goals of the City, which is to establish minimum standards for the lighting of property throughout the City and to establish a nuisance level for lighting. Staff recommends approval of the ordinances as drafted. The Planning Coinmission had no questions for Staff. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Thiesse asked if there is any time frame for residential lighting. Barnhart stated he does not recall a time frame and that the ordinance limits the number of lumens. Thiesse commented he does not understand why people's lights need to be on all night long. Barnhart indicated that goes towards security. Barnhart noted Pa�e 2, Line 81,talks about different levels of lighting, and that if it is more than a certain level within a residential area, the light needs to be shielded, a motion detector, or be shut off at a certain time. Page 14 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21,2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated he does not believe someone should light up their house all night long, and that unless it is far security purposes, there is no reason for the lights to be on. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission discussed uplighting in residential areas, and on Page 2, Line 66, it talks about maximum inclination of the light. Barnhart stated that is intended to help limit light bleed. Thiesse indicated those are fine, but that his feeling is that after 10:00 p.m., people should not have to look at a lighted house. Thiesse stated he is fine with security lighting that comes on periodically but that it is not necessary for someone to light up their house all night long. Schoenzeit stated this is a great tool to generate nuisances but the question is whether the City has a way to deal with them. Barnhart stated the ordinance attempts to address the concerns raised by the City Council and that there will be some expenses associated with enforcing the ordinance. Barnhart stated the City would need to purchase some equipment and that he did adjust some of the regulations based on concerns expressed by the Council. Barnhart noted he removed the nit meter since he did not know whether it would be necessary to have that level of specialized equipment and instead approached it in a different way that gets the City to about the same spot without being overly technical. Schoenzeit stated if the Planning Coinmission feels the ordinances are important and are approved, the recommendation ar suggestion should be that the Council needs to be comfortable in taking on some of these issues. Schoenzeit stated if the City is interested in maintaining dark skies,they will have to take the step forward. Schoenzeit asked if Staff has ever received ai�y lumen numbers of the neighbors' lights where complaints have been received and whether the ordinance will help those residents. Barnhart indicated that is something he has not verified at this point but that it will need to be done prior to the ardinance going before the City Council. Leskinen asked whether the Planning Commission feels there is anything additiona] they can do to tweak the ordinance. Olson stated in his view it is good to get something down on paper and that it may be a work in progress since it is a new piece of regulation. Olson stated in his view the Planning Commission is at a point where they can make some decision on it given the amount of work that has gone into it. Leskinen stated the ordinance has been tweaked significantly over the past year and that it needs to move forward at some point. Leskinen stated she is not sure if there is any more value that the Planning Commission can add to it. Lemke stated if this ordinance does not solve the problem with the neighbors who complained, it does not make a whole lot of sense to keep discussing it. Lemke asked if there is any way to check that out. Page 15 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated he can check on it. Barnhart stated another question is if one person has a problem, does that constitute a nuisance. Banihart stated the City should know what that level is far a nuisance and that typically the City does not pass an ordinance to address the complaint of one person. Thiesse stated in his view it would constitute a nuisance and that it is similar to a barking dog. Schoenzeit commented it is important to test the ordinance out to see whether it resolves the problem complained of. Leskinen asked if he is questioning whether they have solved the initial problem. Schoenzeit stated it would be nice to know that and would be a nice element to add to the discussion. Lemke stated he can see passing the ordinance but then having a litmus test. Gaffron stated this issue has to do with whether or not the City is accoinplishing what has been a big issue far the City. Gaffron indicated he has a yard light that is not shielded facing his house but that it is not bright enough to register on a meter. Gaffron stated seeing the source of the light is a problem and has been a problem with most of the complaints. Gaffron noted Line 126 talks about luminaire standards, which talks more about commercial properties. Gaffron stated the City could have a shielding requirement for residential properties. Gaffron stated if that is the only ardinance the City has and then beefs up their existing ordinance, that would solve most of the issues. Thiesse stated he would agree with Mike. Barnhart noted Line 67 addresses shielding and beam angle, which sets the direction for new lights. The ordinance does not define light sources that you can see as a nuisance. The second ordinance talks about a measurable quantity, which is where the one foot candle at the property line is used. The idea there is that is a measurable component for a nuisance standard. Thiesse stated there is a security light on a dock across the lake that you can still see from his house but it is not possible to regulate that. Gaffron stated the objective should be that someone can see what is being lit but not the source of it. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission can accomplish anything further at this level or whether they should move the ordinance forward to the City Council. Schoenzeit stated the question to ask is whether the ordinance helps inore than it hurts and does it help to advance the ball on either darker skies or happier neighbors. Schoenzeit stated he does not believe the Planning Commission can keep talking about it. Schoenzeit stated as the lights get replaced, the City's lighting will gradually improve,but that they need to start the process sometime. Schoenzeit stated in his view it is important to start that clock if they want to see improvement. Leskinen asked if there is anything in the ordinance that any of the Commissioners feels is problematic. Page 16 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated he understood the goal to be three-fold: Provide direction to property owners, help preserve the dark skies, and provide an enforceable standard for intrusive lighting or nuisance lighting. Barnhart stated in his view the ordinances accomplish those three things and that it will be a policy discussion for the City Council on whether they want to regulate lighting to this level. Schoenzeit asked if Staff believes there is anything in the ordinance that is problematic. Barnhart stated because the City does not require permits for lights, it will be a challenge, but that he does not recommend pertnits for lights in a residential area. Barnhart stated from a commercial and industrial standpoint, it can be accomplished through the site plan review process. Barnhart stated the ordinance may not be as consistent as they would like it to be for residential and will require some training on the part of Staff. Leskinen stated she would be comfortable moving the ordinance forward to the City Council and that the new lighting standards would apply more to new houses or remodels. Thiesse moved, Lemke seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 15-3784, City of Orono Text Amendment: Lighting. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. 8. #16-3816 CITY OF ORONO, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO DOCKS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS, 8:21 P.M.—8:47 P.M. Barnhart stated Hennepin County has approached the City with a request to install a dock primarily or solely for emergency access. This dock would replace an existing one that has lost its lease and would allow for the Sheriff s Patrol to transport people from the lake to first responders or police cars. Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance is very protective of allowing additional docks on the lake but made it necessary to allow this type of accessory structure based on its use. The ordinance defines what a county dock is and allows a county dock as a permitted use in the LR-lA district based on the recommendation of tlie SherifPs Patrol. Barnhart stated the county dock definition is limited to Hennepin County and for the sole purpose to facilitate ground transportation in the event of an emergency. People will not be able to use it for fishing or general dockage. Barnhart noted when it is directly connected to Hennepin County right-of-way, there is no overnight boat storage or canopies. The dock must also be approved by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The ordinance attempts to address a need in terms of providing or facilitating transportation from the lake to ambulances or police cars. Staff is recoinmending approval of the draft ordinance. Thiesse asked if the City can limit it to one dock or whether this ardinance would allow county docks in other areas of the City. Barnhart indicated the Plamiing Commission can add any conditions they feel are appropriate and that the ordinance has been narrowly written to restrict the number of docks. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Page 17 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gabriel Jabbour stated in the mid-1970s, the City worked hard to ensure there would be no docks if there is no house on the lot. Jabbour stated having docks all over the city is not something they want to do and that the City has prevailed on not allowing a dock on an empty piece of land. Jabbour stated the founding fathers of Lake Minnetonka put the police station in the upper bay and the response time to the lower bay is 45 minutes to an hour. Jabbour indicated they worked very hard in securing a dock at Sailor's World but that things have changed drastically given the number of emergencies that were experienced last 4"'of July. Jabbour reported last year there were 18 near death emergencies on the 4`�'of July and that it became necessary to use part of the Lafayette Country Club to handle the emergencies. Jabbour stated the only area that is allowed to have a dock without a house is on Big Island, which is to help the Big Island residents get to the island. In that case the dock is really an extension of a road, which is how he perceives this county dock. Jabbour stated in his view Hennepin County should demonstrate a strong need to have this dock or any future docks,but that this is the closest point to Big Island where all the activity tends to happen. Gaffron pointed out the location of the county dock on the overhead. Jabbour stated they did have a work session with the sheriff and the City Council, and the biggest consideration for the location of the dock is the fact that there are no residences nearby. The county dock would also be within a few miles of the 55-Inile an hour speed limit on the lake. Olson noted there is a pretty steep embankment in that area. Jabbour indicated the dock would be a floating dock similar to what is at Big Island and that the walkway will be about 40 feet long. The dock will be eight feet wide, with the ability to dock two to three boats simultaneously. In addition, Hennepin County will engineer and construct a sea wall with a walkway to the dock. Jabbour stated in his view the City should try to prohibit any docks without a home since the City went round and round to help ensure that that would not happen. Jabbour noted there are a couple of other areas that are more ideal but that it pushes you further from the helipad. Jabbour stated if the City can make the ordinance more unique to this location, that would be great,but that it really needs to be done by May. Lemke asked how people will be kept off of the dock. Jabbour indicated the area will be gated. Thiesse commented it appears the area will work just fine for what it is intended for. Jabbour indicated the only parking that would be allowed in that area would be for emergency velucles. Jabbour noted at the wark session they had a lot of discussion about whether this dock is needed. Barnhart stated the ardinailce is intended to tie the dock to a specific purpose by a specific entity. Language can be included stating that if Hennepin County would like additional docks, the ordinance would need to be amended. Page 18 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gabriel Jabbour stated in tlle mid-1970s, the City worked hard to ensure there would be no docks if there is no house on the lot. Jabbour stated having docks all over the city is not something they want to do and that the City has prevailed on not allowing a dock on an empty piece of land. Jabbour stated the founding fathers of Lake Minnetonka put the police station in the upper bay and the response time to the lower bay is 45 minutes to an hour. Jabbour indicated they worked very hard in securing a dock at Sailor's World but that things have changed drastically given the number of emergencies that were experienced last 4��'of July. Jabbour reported last year there were 18 near death emergencies on the 4t�'of July and that it became necessary to use part of the Lafayette Country Club to handle the emergencies. Jabbour stated the only area that is allowed to have a dock without a house is on Big Island, which is to help the Big Island residents get to the island. In that case the dock is really an extension of a road, which is how he perceives this county dock. Jabbour stated in his view Hennepin County should demonstrate a strong need to have this dock or any future docks,but that this is the closest point to Big Island where all the activity tends to happen. Gaffron pointed out the location of the county dock on the overhead. Jabbour stated they did have a work session with the sheriff and the City Council, and the biggest consideration for the location of the dock is the fact that there are no residences nearby. The county dock would also be within a few miles of the 55-mile an hour speed limit on the lake. Olson noted there is a pretty steep embankment in that area. Jabbour indicated the dock would be a floating dock similar to what is at Big Island and that the walkway will be about 40 feet long. The dock will be eight feet wide, with the ability to dock two to three boats simultaneously. In addition, Hennepin County will engineer and construct a sea wall with a walkway to the dock. Jabbour stated in his view the City should try to prohibit any docks without a home since the City went round and round to help ensure that that would not happen. Jabbour noted there are a couple of other areas that are more ideal but that it pushes you further from the helipad. Jabbour stated if the City can make the ordinance more unique to this location, that would be great, but that it really needs to be done by May. Lemke asked how people will be kept off of the dock. Jabbour indicated the area will be gated. Thiesse commented it appears the area will work just fine for what it is intended for. Jabbour indicated the only parking that would be allowed in that area would be for emergency vehicles. Jabbour noted at the work session they had a lot of discussion about whether this dock is needed. Barnhart stated the ardinance is intended to tie the dock to a specific purpose by a specific entity. Language can be included stating that if Hennepin County would like additional docks,the ordinance would need to be amended. Page 18 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jabbour suggested Hennepin County be first required to demonstrate a need for additional docks and that this is the minimum number they have to have in order to respond to emergencies. Thiesse stated he would like the ordinance to include language that the dock will be secured with fence wherever possible. Jabbour stated all kinds of security should be installed to ensure the use is only for the purpose intended. Lemke stated he would like to liinit the number of docks. Barnhart noted Hennepii7 County is not proposing any slips on this dock but that three ar four boats would be able to dock there at one time. Thiesse stated his concern is that a dock could be installed at any County right-of-way. Barnhart stated the residents would benefit from the quicker response time but that Hennepin County would have to �neet certain criteria before another dock is installed. Jabbour commented there are not that many County right-of-ways in the City. Gaffron noted the City owns part of this area and that the actual access point is on City property. Barnhart stated under the ordinance a county dock has to be directly adjacent to a county right-of-way and that there is no non-right-of-way land on the lakeside of County Road 15 in this area. Barnhart stated he has not done a full analysis throughout the City to determine where a county right-of-way is adjacent to the lake but that in his cursory view, the City does not have that many. Schoenzeit stated language could be added that all additional dock locations will be built with a variance request. Barnhart noted the City cannot grant a variance for a use. The ordinance states that it is a permitted use in that zone and also includes a number of other criteria. The ordinance requires that the dock be owned and operated by Hennepin County and be adjacent to a Hennepin County right-of-way, with its sole purpose being for access. Barnhart stated all those conditions are an attempt to limit the number of docks. Leskinen asked if this dock and any other dock would need to be approved by the LMCD. Jabbour stated it would need to be. Barnhart indicated Staff included that language in the ardinance as a safeguard. Barnhart stated assuming it meets all of the LMCD's criteria, it would go tl�rough the City's approval process. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Schoenzeit moved, Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 16-3816, Cit,y of Orono,Zoning Code Amendment Pertaining to Docks for Emergency Access,with the condition that the dock be secured b,y fencing and a locked gate. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 19 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 o'clock �.m. 9. #16-3817 CITY OF ORONO, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING TO THE DEFINITION OF EXISTING GRADE, 8:47 P.M.—8:50 P.M. Barnhart stated he is requesting tlie Planning Commission open the public hearing, obtain any public comment, and then table this matter to allow Staff to compile a definition on existing grade. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded,to table Application No. 16-3817, City of Orono, Zoning Code Amendment Pertaining to the Definition of Existing Grade. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 10. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD ON FEBRUARY 22, 2016,AND MARCH 14, 2016 Barnhart reported the following occurred at the March 14 Council meeting: • The City Council reviewed the Tufaa application. The applicant withdrew his fence height variance, which the Planning Commission recommended denial o£ The City Council approved the application on a 3-2 vote. • The City Council tabled the short-term rental ardinailce. • The Adams variance at 2455 North Shore was approved on Consent. • The variance on 660 Tonkawa was approved on Consent. • The Orono Preserve application was approved 6-0 by the Planning Commission and the Council directed Staff to draft an approval resolution for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and preliminary plat. Rezoning will be revisited at the time of final plat The Council did not really comment on finding other properties for higher density. • The City Council approved the text amendment for accessory structures. • The text amendment regarding public hearing requirements was also approved. The requirements will likely be implemented in April. 11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Barnhart noted the City Council is going paperless by the end of the month and that he envisions the Planning Commission also going paperless by sometime this summer. Barnhart stated Staff wants to make sure all the glitches are out on the Council side before having the Planning Commission go paperless. Barnhart stated the Commissioners would be reimbursed for the cost of their tablet. Barnhart stated there will need to be an election of Planning Commission chair and vice-chair at the April meeting. Christopher McGrann has moved to an alternate and Chad Olson will be a full-time commissioner. Commissioners Landgraver and Leskinen have been reappointed. Barnhart stated if someone is not nominated, he will be making a recommendation to the City Council. Page 20 of 21 - i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 21, 2016 6:30 dclock p.m. Thiesse stated he is not opposed to a clean sheet but that there should be some way that applicants are aware that the Planning Coinmission likes to have as many regulations as possible met on a new home or a vacant lot. Curtis indicated she met with the applicant and the designer and talked about all the issues. The applicants at that time were advised to meet the 25 percent hardcover limit. Thiesse stated the applicants should be made well aware that the Council and Planning Commission are far more restrictive on a clean sheet. Gaffron stated Staff has always tried to make that clear to the applicants. Schoenzeit stated given the size of the lot, the applicants could have easily eliminated a small portion of the house footprint. ADJOURNMENT Schoenzeit moved, Thiesse seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:03 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. ATTEST: /f, . � `��! � �7 .'� /%� � r'�C.T c C ll,�� Denise Leskinen, Chair Page 21 of 21