06-14-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, May 17, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 7. LA21-000034 CHARLES SCHATZ O/B/O BROOK INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, 3423 SHORELINE DR, SKETCH Corey Englund, o/b/o the Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information (Item 7 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). The project is a proposed subdivision where they are creating one commercial lot at the southwest corner of Kelly Parkway and Shoreline Drive. Typically in looking at the Code each lot maintains the required lot area and lot width and both parcels would meet the minimum 20,000 square feet in size. Analysis shows lot 1 might be higher in structural coverage and impervious surface which is one area they need to look at. The proposed development on the east side is in concept stage and appears to meet the requirements in terms of hardcover but there seemed to be an impact from a setback standpoint. The proposed layout would likely require variances for hardcover and structural coverage for the existing building, and the side yard setback from Kelly Parkway. Staff is looking for sketch plan feedback that would be carried forward to the City Council and then to the applicant. McCutcheon said it is a one story building and asked if they wanted, could they have a two story building? Barnhart said if it met the requirements of setbacks and other factors, yes, they possibly could. From a commercial standpoint in going more than one level it starts adding parking requirements. Bollis asked why subdivide and not a PUD or a different type? Barnhart said it is six-of-one and a-half-dozen of the other in terms of process. One is a re-zoning and public hearing and this is the path the applicant chose. Corey Englund, Reprise Design, 2400 Portland Ave. S, Burnsville, is with the architecture group on behalf of the applicant. This is a vacant lot that is used to sell fireworks on occasion, but is otherwise a dusty, empty lot. The site is somewhat challenging because there is a retaining wall dividing the north and south portion of the lot; they are somewhat restricted in developing any kind of a driveway. He thinks this is a good use of an empty lot but before they proceed with anything they need to know that it is feasible from a platting standpoint and would like to assess if the variances would be supported. There will be some difficulties as stated, with hardscape coverage, and on the existing lot with structural coverage. Libby asked on the Kelly side, there is a fairly substantial grade, that is natural topography as they could not put a driveway in there. He said the adjacent property is the liquor store. Mr. Englund replied yes. McCutcheon noted since the retaining wall would be shared between both properties, for future use of perhaps a loading dock, has the applicant put any thought into how they would use the space to the south. Mr. Englund thinks the southern space will have an egress ability for the other lot but will mostly remain as-is for now because of the topographic difficulties, about 5-6 feet of grade change from the upper lot to the lower lot. Council Exhibit C LA21-34