02-22-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 8, 2021 6:03 p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 26 PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT Mayor Walsh noted Bob Erickson from the Planning Commission is present tonight if the Council has any questions. 19. LA20-000048 - TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I. JACOBS/A. JACOBS REVOCABLE TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT - RESOLUTION Patrick B. Steinhoff, 220 South Street, Minneapolis, Attorney for the Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart noted after hearing from the Council and neighbors last fall, the Applicant revised the proposed Shoreland Estates plat trying to address a number of concerns raised at that time. Those issues included Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS), number of lots, road length, tree removal, and density. The Applicant has put together a revised plan and these changes were routed again through the Planning Commission process and they held another public hearing in January to gain some more feedback from the neighborhood. What the Council sees tonight is the culmination of 4-5 months of work, changes made by the Applicant, and comments or reflection of comments made by the Planning Commission in January; it is quite a bit of comment for this end project. Barnhart said what is proposed today is a 6 buildable-lot subdivision which include 4 outlots – Outlot A, B, and C along Shoreline Drive and Outlot D which is a private road for access for these lots. Of the 6 lots, 4 are lake lots; 3 on Smith Bay and 1 on Tanager; Lot 5 is a lake lot but Lots 4 and 6 are not. Access to this project is via a new private road (maintained by the Association) off Shoreline Drive and the road will terminate in a cul-de-sac. The Applicant is proposing a landscaped island in the middle of the cul-de- sac bulb. The cul-de-sac length conforms to the City standard and the City code does not require a measurement along the diameter of the cul-de-sac. The measurement is shown from the intersection of Shoreline all the way along to the end of the cul-de-sac pavement. Barnhart commented on the ALS as that was the big issue last fall; this plan removes all references to ALS and there is no “artificial” ALS; all of the ALS’s for all of these lots will be established at the time development is proposed for those lake lots. They will follow the City code as it is written at the time those lots are proposed. He said for Lots 1, 2, 3 and Lot 5 – the ALS will be established at the time a building permit is pulled. Barnhart noted there has been some comment or question about the buildability of Lot 5. The ALS for Lot 5 is based solely at this stage, because nothing has happened, on Lot 3 of Tanager Estates. The ALS for Lot 5 is based on the distance 1100 Millston Road is from Tanager Lake; Barnhart showed an exhibit on-screen and noted 1100 Millston and Tanager Lake and the distance from the Ordinary High Water Line (OHL) to the nearest point of the structure is 398 feet per the Applicant’s surveyor. That is the distance that an improvement on Lot 5 needs to be made to build on Lot 5. Barnhart pointed out on-screen the proposed Lot 5 shows the 398 feet to the proposed red line which generally follows the contour of the OHL. He noted they also see a yellow highlighted area showing the proposed setbacks for the zoning district on this lot to show that there is a buildable site for a house on Lot 5. He clarified the house pads here (on-screen) – the Council is not approving house pads at a time of preliminary or even final plat – these are just illustrations to show that the lot can be built on. The buildable site for Lot 5 is within this envelope until something happens with Lot 3 and then that may change. Barnhart said at this stage today, if this plat was approved, and final plat and all the improvements were made, the property owner on Lot 5 can build within that envelope. He continued saying during the review of this project, Planning Commission had a number of issues, concerns, and comments they wanted to address before the City Council saw it; one dealt with the turn lane as it could potentially impact the private property next door. The property owner there has made it very clear they do not want any impact onto that private property which is a fair concern. Barnhart said the Applicant has put together an exhibit to show that a turn lane can be improved within this right-of-