07-17-2017 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,June 19,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. property on a much smaller scale nearing the low end of the six units per acre,more suitable for this nonconforming lot size,and to continue to review all future development proposals for this area under the terms reflected in the guiding principles and philosophy of the Community Management Plan that is in place. Olson requested the Planning Commission and Staff also take an opportunity to review Exhibit G submitted by Mr. Kirk Sherman,who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Olson thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Shawn Macentee,2490 Old Beach Road, stated when he started considering the application,he looked at the City variances. When looking at variances,the City Council may grant variances in cases where there are practical difficulties and the weight of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter, taking into account the character and development of the neighborhood. In considering applications for variances,the Council shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community,existing traffic conditions,light and air,and the risk to public safety and the effects on the values of property,and to grant variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions with be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter. The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Planning Commission heard tonight that this five-story building would be very uncharacteristic of this area. Acting on the considerations alone does not constitute practical difficulties. There have been questions tonight whether it is economically feasible to go smaller,which is not one of the considerations under the statute. The granting of such variance is not to serve the convenience of the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The Planning Commission also heard a little bit about flexibility for the RPUD regulations. Although flexibility may be something to take into consideration,the standards set forth in the statute say within the RPUD district all development shall be in compliance with certain characteristics. The characteristics of this potential building is that it requires numerous variances that are broad in their scope. The project acreage is half of what is required under the statute. 78-626 lists four exceptions the Council can use to provide a variance,none of which exist on this project. Macentee stated the purpose of the RPUD district is to encourage sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the City. Installing a five- story building is not sensitive and is intrusive and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Macentee stated for anyone who has ever driven Shadywood at rush hour,the traffic lines up from the intersection past the Narrows Bridge pretty much every day. Macentee stated he appreciates putting in parking spaces for this number of people but they will also have people turning in and out of this development on a routine basis,which will further exacerbate the traffic situation. Macentee stated the residents support some type of condominium development on this property but they feel this proposed project is too large. The residents are also concerned that condominiums are turned into apartments when they are not sold. Tom Lowe,2630 West Lafayette Road,stated his primary concern is the traffic. Lowe stated one night last week the traffic was backed up all the way to Hazelwood in Tonka Bay. If someone is going to make a right turn to go into Wayzata,they have to get into the line of traffic. Lowe stated there is no way they Page 12 of 17