HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-1996 Planning Commission Minutes•
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MINUTES FOR JULY 159 1996
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members
present: Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice
Berg, and William Stoddard. Elizabeth Hawn was absent. The following represented the
City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and
Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffron, and Recorder Sherry Frost. Council Members
Kelley and Goetten were present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS
( #1) 7:00 P.M. - #2152 HANS T. HAGEN, 4750 WEST BRANCH ROAD -
PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION
Application has been withdrawn by applicant.
ACTION ITEMS
( #2) #2131 LARRY KARKELA, 4149 HIGHWOOD ROAD - AFTER - THE -FACT
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 7:03 -7:18 P.M.
• The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The applicant was present.
Mabusth reported that the application was for an after- the -fact variance in the
construction of a 65.5 s.f upper level deck at the lakeshore side of the property. The deck
extends from expanding a 3' walking deck. The proposed structure is 21' in front of the
average lakeshore setback line. The existing lower level deck is 31.6'. This additional
deck results in 11.5 s.f of additional hardcover.
The applicant offered his apology for the after- the -fact construction.
Peterson informed the applicant that the issue of average Lakeshore setback was important.
He noted letters received from neighbors on both sides in support of the project.
Lindquist commented on the question of whether the deck would have been approved if a
variance request was proposed prior to the construction. It was noted that the deck was
stopped during construction and has stood incomplete since 1993.
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
•
( #2 - 92131 Larry Karkela - Continued)
Smith asked if there were any extenuating circumstances which resulted in this deck being
constructed. Karkela said the existing lower level deck is accessed from a spiral staircase,
which is cumbersome to travel down; and therefore, it is only used when he has a large
number of guests. The other option is to walk down a steep hill, which is also difficult
when carrying food, etc. The upper level had a walkway -type deck and was being
expanded to allow its dining use.
Peterson asked about the 1984 permits when the walkway was approved but a deck was
not part of the application. Mabusth noted the inability of the 3' walkway deck to house a
table with chairs. Mabusth added that the applicant is willing to remove portions of the
lower level deck and/or parking area to offset hardcover increase.
There were no public comments.
Smith asked the applicant what he was willing to remove of the lower level deck in order
to gain the upper level deck. Karkela said he was open to what was necessary to keep the
upper level deck but noted the complexity of removing sections of lower level deck
because of location of footings and need to maintain stability of the upper deck. Karkela
added that the upper level deck was at the height of the roof lines of the neighboring
• homes. The neighbors view to the west was said to be downward toward the lakeside.
Trees separated his property from his other neighbor at the east.
Stoddard asked if there were any guidelines for mitigation. Mabusth said that
determination was made by the Commission and applicant adding that the applicant was
aware of the structural excesses.
The applicant suggested removing corner pieces from the lower deck. He was willing to
remove more hardcover. Smith did not wish to take away from the driveway.
Lindquist suggested removing the length of the deck to maintain the same edging on both
decks. The applicant said he would prefer to cut the corners off from a style standpoint.
Karkela suggested removing 6' triangles of lower deck of 36 s.f., which would result in a
reduction of 11 s.f with the new deck. Smith noted that the hardcover excess was already
in existence prior to the new deck. The applicant then suggested to remove the front 2 -3'
of deck to the footing area along with the triangular pieces from the two front corners.
This would enable the applicant to maintain the current footings.
Stoddard moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2131 based on the design as
outlined above of removing decking to the supports and corners. Schroeder inquired why
the applicant waited from 1993 to 1996 to finish the project. Karkela said he had personal
• matters which had required his attention. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Peterson, who
historically votes against allowing any average lakeshore setback variances.
2
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
•
( 0) #2135 PAUL AND SUE HEDLUND/EDNA ALBEE ESTATE, 1575 LONG
LAKE BOULEVARD - VARIANCES - CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
7:1 8-7:54 P.M.
Members of the Edna Albee family were present, along with Burnet Realtor, Jeff
Martineau.
Gaffron recalled the application being before the Commission at their May meeting for a
proposed addition to the structure to include removal of a detached garage, a new
attached garage, an addition, a second story addition, and driveway. There are concerns
over hardcover excess, the placement of the garage to the street and side of the property,
and the septic /sewer situation. Gaffron said the proposed buyers of the property, the
Hedlunds, are currently not pursuing the application; but the property owners would like
to continue with the application in order to determine what can be done with the property.
Gaffron continued in reporting on the hardcover, which will decrease from the existing
1195 s.f. to 1185 s.f., rather than the originally proposed increase to 1280 s.f. Hardcover
in the 75 -250' zone will increase from 887 s.f. to 1467 s.f., rather than to 1783 s.f as
originally proposed. The net hardcover results in an increase from 2082 s.f. to 2652 s.f
rather than to 3063 s.f as originally proposed. This would be equivalent to the 25%
allowed in the 75 -250' setback. The garage, now proposed at 34' from the side lot line,
will now meet the required 30' side setback. This revised proposal moves the garage to a
location 8' from the street property line and out of the public right -of -way, rather than F
from the line as originally proposed.
Gaffron said the applicants ask to rehab the house to no more than 2 bedrooms. The
existing septic tanks will be disconnected from the drainfield and a fully executed pumping
contract from a licensed contractor will be supplied to the City. The owner will also draft
and record a restrictive covenant on the chain of title for the property stating a 3rd
bedroom would not be allowed until City sewer has been obtained and installed. The
closet in the main floor den must be walled off, which will incur the need for a building
permit if it is rebuilt to create a third bedroom. Gaffron noted that the existing septic tank
may only need a plug for the outlet, which would result in a minimal cost. If no sealed
tank is found when inspected, however, a new tank would be required, and might cost the
applicant about $2000.
Gaffron reviewed other issues of concern. The second story addition would be located 49'
fi-om the lake, where 100' is required. A variance for an 8' street setback would be
necessary, where 50' is required in the 2 -acre zoning district. There would be an average
lakeshore setback encroachment of 32'. It was noted that even though almost all of the
house is within the lakeshore setback, it would not encroach on the views enjoyed by the
adjacent neighboring properties. The hardcover will stay within the guideline for the
• overall hardcover. There is a bluff issue on the west side. Some filling would result from
the project and erosion control measures will be necessary during construction.
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
( #3 - 92135 Paul and Sue Hedlund/Edna Albee Estate - Continued)
Peterson responded to the report noting the positive changes that were made. He
reported that the number of lakeshore variances requested with this application is similar
to that of other properties in the areas of Long Lake Boulevard and Casco Point, which do
not meet zoning regulations. Peterson said the City does not know when sewer will come
to the area, and he has no problem with a holding tank. Peterson also reported that he
spoke with a neighboring property owner to the east, Mr. Bingham, who originally voiced
concern over the location of the garage near the side lot line but is in favor of the revision.
Peterson noted that the street setback is consistent with that of the neighborhood. The
bluff issue was said to be initiated by the state and does not seem to present a problem in
the aplication. Peterson also commented that the average lakeshore setback is not a
problem with this application due to the location of houses on nearby properties. With
these notations, Peterson said the plan was still quite aggressive with the confined building
site.
Jeff Martineau responded that the applicant has addressed the size of the home, which
Martineau says is consistent with the size of starter homes at 1092 s.f with a 534 s.f
garage and 38 s.f. deck. Schroeder commented that the house was small because it was
bound by the size of the lot. Peterson added if this was new construction, this home
would not be allowed to be built.
Smith clarified t h at t h e seco n d story ry does extend ove r the master bed r o0 m located on
the main floor. A future powder room area was noted on the floor plans but will not be
completed at this time. There are two baths currently on the first floor. Smith suggested
removing the wall to open up the den area so it could not be used as a bedroom. The
applicant commented that the wall may be load bearing. Smith asked that it be made clear
that the second story powder room and first floor bedroom not be used as such. Lindquist
said that would realistically happen when sewer comes to the property.
Lindquist noted there was only a partial alternate site for septic. Gaffron agreed but noted
it would not be needed when sewer came in. The existing system will be converted to a
holding tank and the drainfield eliminated. Schroeder asked what would happen if it was
found that sewer would not come for another five years. Gaffron said the applicant may
then wish to replace the current septic system.
The applicant reported that it was their intent to notify potential buyers of a 3rd bedroom
possibility in the future. Lindquist asked if it was the applicant's intent to follow thru with
this proposal and rehabilitate the house and then sell it, or sell it now as -is. Martineau said
the intent was to have the capability of showing potential buyers what the property could
be. Gaffron noted that this could result in a buyer presenting a totally different plan to the
Commission at a future time.
0 There were no public comments.
4
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
is
( #3 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund/Edna Albee Estate - Continued)
Smith asked what would happen if sewering was put on hold, a new septic system was
built using the alternate site, and it failed. Gaffron said the property owners would then
have to resort to pumping. Peterson noted that there were many homes in Orono that
pumped.
Berg said the application was then based on what might be or what could be done.
Martineau informed Berg that their goal was to modify the previous plan in order to
present a variation to the Hedlund's and bring closure to the purchase if possible. The
Hedlund's were sent the current package being reviewed. Smith said if that failed, then a
tangible plan would be possible for another buyer. Martineau concurred noting it was a
good use of the property.
Schroeder asked what size holding tank was used and whether it could hold up to a 3
bedroom home. Martineau said they were under the assumption that the existing tank
could be sealed and would work with Orono to determine if that was so. It was noted that
the actual size of the tank was immaterial as whatever pumping schedule was required
would have to be done. Martineau said the pumping contractor would monitor the use of
water to gain historic data and pump accordingly. It was determined that the holding tank
was not relevant to the number of bedrooms in the house.
•Lindquist noted that the review was similar to that of a sketch plan review. Peterson said
it verbally was a sketch plan review but in actuality an application. Martineau responded
he felt there was a high probability that the Hedlunds would move forward on the
purchase.
•
Smith asked Gaffron if there were any concerns with the bluff. Gaffron said a grading
plan would be required to protect the site during construction. The driveway revisions
could possibly require retaining walls. Other similar sites were noted in the area. It was
determined that a grading plan would be required prior to the application going before the
Council.
Lindquist noted that the hardcover was decreasing in the 0 -75' setback and totals were
similar to what now exists. The setbacks were also similar. He saw the plan as being
viable.
5
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
•( #3 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund/Edna Albee Estate - Continued)
Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2135 with the
understanding that a grading plan for the bluff area be presented prior to the application
going before the Council. A minimum of a 1500 -2000 gallon tank would be required for
pumping and the drainfield would be disconnected. Variances for a street setback of 8',
hardcover, and average lakeshore setback were recommended. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1,
Peterson (to be consistent with his policy to vote against average lakeshore setback
variances). Peterson noted the improvements made to the plan and said the proposal is
consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. The application will be presented at
the August 12 Council meeting.
( #4) #2148 WAYNE M. HOLMES AND JACKIE DAHL, 1390 PARK DRIVE -
VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:54 -7:59 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The applicants was present.
Mabusth reported that their original proposal was to restore the majority of the house and
add a new second story. The applicants found that the foundation would not support the
• new second story and now propose to raze the structure and install a new residence. The
property is located in the 1 acre zoning district. The lot width is met as well as all
setbacks. A lot area variance is required. No negative comments have been received from
any neighboring property owners.
Peterson saw the application in the light of a formality due to code restrictions. He did
voice concern over a cistern on the property and asked that it's removal or abandonment
be attached as a condition of the application. The existing well is to be relocated, and the
existing well will need to be abandoned.
There were no public comments.
Mabusth noted that the applicant's have asked to have the application presented at the July
22 Council meeting.
Peterson moved, Berg seconded, to approve Application #2148 with the addition of the
removal of the cistern and existing well. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
�J
•
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
( #5) #2149 THERESA NORSTED, 2811 CASCO POINT ROAD - VARIANCE -
PUBLIC HEARING 7:59 -8:17 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The applicant was present.
Mabusth reported that the application requires a variance to the average lakeshore setback
for the construction of an enclosed screen porch to the lakeside of the property. The
porch would wrap around the house to a bay addition and be located 11' in front of the
average lakeshore setback line. No other variances would be required.
During the review of the application, the applicant determined while speaking with
neighbors that her plans for a detached garage may be impacted by her current
imprpovement plan. The applicant asks for direction regarding the porch and the
possibility of a 20'x22', 2- stall, garage consisting of 440 s.f of hardcover. This would
require the application be tabled to allow filing an amended application to include a
garage. The property is allowed 573 s.f of additional structural coverage and 628 s.f in
the 75 -250' zone. The applicant is asking the Commission what would be reasonable for
the property.
Peterson said, with the objection from the neighbors regarding any change to the average
lakeshore setback, no 3- season porch would be allowed if the applicant also desired a
garage. Peterson suggested the possibility of a deck instead of a porch. Lindquist
recommended staying within the average lakeshore setback. Peterson said the neighbor
would be able to see across a deck. Mabusth noted that there was only P in which to
work with before crossing the average lakeshore setback line. Construction at grade level
was suggested.
Norsted said the original screen porch was made into a room. She said she would like to
enjoy the lake and questioned whether a narrower porch with no wrap around was a
possibility. She questioned whether a garage is possible with the hardcover and asked
clarification on standards to determine if she should keep the property. She also
questioned whether a deck would have to be at grade level or if it could be located on the
second level.
Schroeder asked if the neighbor, Mr. Stern, received a variance for his remodel. It was
noted that he received a 9" variance from applicant's side lot line but was within the
average lakeshore setback. Stern and Norsted's lots are similar in size. The property on
the other side is larger. Mabusth noted that the garages on the adjoining properties were
probably built in the 1950's with no record of building permits being issued, and they are
located less than 1' from Norsted's property lines.
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
( #5 - #2149 Theresa Norsted - Continued)
Lindquist commented that he would be in favor of a second story deck if it did not
encroach into the average lakeshore setback.
Stern commented that he was strongly in favor of maintaining the average Lakeshore
setback. He did not wish to see a second story deck which he felt would obstruct his
views. It was noted that trees would result in the same obstruction. Stern replied that
trees were within the rights of the applicant where a deck was not. Stern asked that the
Commission uphold the code.
Peterson said, although he usually voted against encroachment into the average lakeshore
setback, other members did not necessarily do so. Mabusth added that the City does listen
to the comments from neighbors.
Stoddard asked the Commission to give direction regarding the garage. Lindquist said he
would be in favor of a garage no nearer than 1 -2' from the lot line which might require a
fire wall. Lindquist said a side setback variance would probably gain approval. Stoddard
said a. registered survey should be conducted.
During public comments, Susie Swanson noted that there was a garage on the site in
• recent times and questioned whether the felled garage could be grandfathered in. Peterson
said the Commission does feel a property owner is entitled to a garage in this climate and
would attempt to come to a resolve.
Stern said he had no problem with a garage, only with obstruction of the views.
Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2149. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
( #6) #2150 KENT AND SUSAN SWANSON, 3229B CASCO CIRCLE -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:17 -8:25 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The applicants were present.
is
8
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
•
( #b - #2150 Kent and Susan Swanson - Continued)
Mabusth reported that the existing residence was built prior to the current Shoreland
regulations, The majority of the residence is located in front of the average Lakeshore
setback as it is located on a peninsula and lot is pie - shaped. The applicants are proposing
a single -story bay addition which will extend no closer to lake than the existing 3' deck. A
27 s.f kitchen expansion addition will replace an upper level deck at 76 s.f. . There would
be no reduction in hardcover as a 3' path or walk exists below deck. A second addition
involves a kitchen expansion of 27 s.f located over existing hardcover and upper level
deck. One addition is within the 0 -75' setback and the other in the 75 -250' setback. One
addition would be 49' in front of the average Lakeshore back and the other at 33'. The
setback of the lakeside deck exists at 58.5' and bay addition is proposed 65' to the lake.
Mabusth added that she has received no calls from the neighbors, and there is no visual
impact from the proposal.
Peterson informed the applicants for the reason for the average Lakeshore setback. It is to
eliminate a leap frog effect from home improvements_ He noted that the average
lakeshore setback was meaningless for this particular property due to its configuration.
Stoddard questioned whether both additions were necessary to meet the needs of the
family. Peterson said there was a plan to complete both changes. He continued by noting
• the location of the home close to the lake requiring a variance, the reductions made, and
creation of a different type of structure for structure, the problem arises when there are
continual increases in hardcover. Susie Swanson replied that the setback was at 50' when
the home was built meeting the code at that time. Mabusth added that the majority of the
home was also out of the 0 -75' setback.
Smith was informed that the same architect was being used who originally designed the
improvements for the residence in the early 1980's and 1993.
Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve #2150 for both additions. Vote: Ayes 5,
Nays 1, Peterson, stating he was not opposed to the application but to the encroachment
of the average lakeshore setback.
( #7) #2151 JOHN AND JANICE HURD, 2795 CASCO POINT ROAD -
VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:25 -9:03 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted.
The applicants, along with their architect, were present.
•
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
( #7 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued)
Mabusth reported that the application was for hardcover and average lakeshore setback
variances to reconstruct a new residence after razing the existing residence. There is a 20'
encroachment by the existing house into the average lakeshore setback and is proposed at
25' with an upper level screen porch. There is a minor excess of hardcover in the 75 -250'
zone resulting from hardcover in landscaping underlaid with plastic. The 7% excess in
hardcover in the 250 -500% zone results from the driveway, turnaround, and landscaping
underlaid with plastic.
Mabusth said she has received 3 letters from neighbors voicing concerns with further
visual impact with the mass of the house and the leapfrogging of construction closer to
lake. The neighbors would like to see the home kept behind the average lakeshore
setback.
The Hurd's architect, Mr. Combs, said the original structure has been remodeled 4 or 5
times. The existing foundation is unable to support further remodeling. Combs presented
drawings to show the relationship of the proposed home to the neighboring homes and the
site lines. Combs said the garage, parking, and play area, which is highly used, will be
pulled into the lot to create a safer play area and enable the residents to drive out onto
Casco Point Road. The plan calls for the use of the existing building site. Combs said the
• applicants were sensitive to the average lakeshore setback and impacting of any views by
maintaining this building site and angling of the home to better the impact. The home is
also located in the mid- section of the lot so as not to infringe on the views. Combs said
most existing views are obstructed by trees. Combs superimposed a drawing of the
proposal over the existing to show that the new residence would be located in the same
sweep line. He said it was also his intent to work within the existing topography.
�J
Peterson said the concern is that the proposed structure gives a larger appearance to the
neighbors. He noted that the 675 s.f hardcover variance in the 75 -250' setback and 7.3%
in the 250 -500' setback is minor when comparing the size of the home to the lot. Mabusth
asked is there a need to grant a hardcover variance? Peterson added that with the razing
of the existing home, the Commission views the proposal as new construction.
Council Member Kelley asked the Commission to review the boat house on the property.
Peterson acknowledged with new construction, a boat house may not be allowed. This
then results in the existing boat house becoming an issue. The code calls for an existing
boat house repair to be limited to board by board maintenance. Peterson noted that this
particular boat house was in excellent condition.
10
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
( #7 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued)
During public comments, neighbor on the south side, Ron Grundeen, said his concern was
with a second story. Peterson informed Grundeen that his views will be changed
regardless of what is built on this property. Grundeen said he would like to maintain the
views he now enjoys. The obstruction of tree foliage was noted during the summer
months.
Lindquist reviewed the location of the existing residence at 15' in front of the average
setback and a proposed 24' to the enclosed porch. This does not include the deck at 22'.
Neighbor, Todd Theilmann, commented that the foliage was not an issue but was
concerned over a "leap frog" affect with structures moving forward. He acknowledged
that the placement of the garage and play area more into the lot would assist in alleviating
an unsafe condition.
Peterson commented that Casco Point neighborhood had many average lakeshore setback
variances and saw it only increasing with more intensive building. This particular
application becomes a bigger issue with the element of new construction. Peterson noted
the possibility of the need to remove the boat house on the property.
• John Hurd said no mention had been made of the boat house during the designing of the
house. He said he placed stakes showing the new home construction which he feels is less
offensive from a view impact standpoint than the current residence. Hurd said the home
now has 3 sub basements, and it is their intent to build the home as it should be rather than
add on a further remodeling addition, which would be a hardship. Hurd said the boat
house should not be part of the consideration and asked if there was any mention of boat
house removal in the code. Peterson said the boat house becomes an issue when principal
structure is to be removed and new improvements involve variances.
is
Bill Miller, 2691 Casco Point Road, reported that the Hurd's responded to the neighbors'
concern of visual impact by architecturally repositioning the home and staking out to show
the lesser impact. He disagreed with Peterson's assessment that the boat house would
have to be eliminated. The code allows for boat houses to be upgraded through the
variance procedure as he had completed for his property. The boat house is not to be
improved. Miller said the Hurd's hardship is in the need to raze the home but the
possibility of removal of the boat house only increases the value of their home presenting
an inordinate amount of hardship upon the Hurd's.
Peterson responded that in new construction, this is the time the City has to rectify past
mistakes that are grandfathered in. He noted other agencies also do not allow such boat
houses.
It
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
•( #7 - #2151 John and Janice Hurd - Continued)
Schroeder acknowledged that the Commission does have the authority to allow the boat
house to stay, but this proposal deems the property new construction requiring variances,
which does raise the issue of the boat house. Schroeder said the people who live on
Casco Point should be most concerned with the development of the area_
Hurd responded that this lot is one of the best in Casco Point and remodeling the existing
residence would create a hardship.
Theilmann said he had suggested the staking. It is his opinion that the second story of the
proposed home would eliminate the views for the neighbors.
Stoddard asked the Hurds what their objection would be in complying to the average
lakeshore setback. Cohen said it was their intent to get back what they had with the
construction and not to further disturb the land. Stoddard said he also lives on the lake
and is in favor of the Hurd's boat house, but sees the average lakeshore setback as an
issue.
Peterson acknowledged that the hardcover was a mute point and the concerns were the
average lakeshore setback and the boat house.
•
Lindquist said an new construction would have to meet the average lakeshore setback.
q Y g
•
There were no additional public comments.
Combs said the home could be moved back, but the Hurds would like to maintain the
same views.
Mabusth noted that the new construction was being located closer to the Grundeen
property. She said she had made mention of the boat house issue to Mr. Combs when the
applicant was filed.
Lindquist asked the applicants if it was their desire to table the application or noted the
possibility of denial unless the residence was placed behind the average lakeshore setback.
The Hurds asked that the application be tabled.
Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application #2151. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
12
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANKING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
•
( #8) #2153 BEN YOUNG, 3106 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCE - PUBLIC
HEARING 9:04 -9:08 P.M.
The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted_
The applicant was present.
Mabusth reported that the application was for an oversized detached accessory structure
for a property located on the south side of County Road 6 just west of the intersection of
Old Crystal Bay Road and Sixth Avenue North. The structure meets the size limitation for
a property of 3.92 acres. The variance required involves the structure being placed 15' in
front of the line of the residence.
Peterson commented that the issue was not with the proposal but a matter of technicality
with the code.
Young was asked what color the structure would be. Young said it would match the
color of the home and be of a lapsiding.
Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve Application #2153. It was determined
that no landscaping would be required. Mabusth asked that the ground cover be restored.
• Smith was informed that the structure would be used to house vehicles and equipment and
used for storage. Young noted the 6' height of his current garage door does not allow for
parking of his truck. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
•
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
( #9) #2154 JOHN O'SULLIVAN/ERWIN SMITH, 2380 SHADYWOOD ROAD -
PROPOSED REZONING /COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN
The Applicants, John O'Sullivan and Erwin Smith, were present, along with Consultants,
Rob Thompson and Jim Coen,
Gaffron noted the addendum to the proposal which requires no site plan review at this
time but only review of the rezoning issue. The property in question is being proposed for
rezoning from the LR -1C district to B -5, which requires 20,000 s.f lot area. The proposal
is for a bank building with a drive -up teller area and a two -story retail/office building. A
portion of Navarre Lane has already been vacated, and applicants will propose that the
remainder be vacated. A stormwater holding pond is to be constructed. Parking is also
being addressed.
13
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
( 99 - 92154 John O'Sullivan/Erwin Smith - Continued)
Gaffron said the issue is whether the property should be rezoned from residential to
commercial. There is B -1 zoning on two sides of the property. The northern side is an
existing 1/2 acre residential neighborhood. On the east side is an outlot containing a
wetland area which is a density credit for the Lafayette Ridge neighborhood. The site
itself consists of 4 tax parcels, portions of which are within the 1000' lakeshore setback.
Hardcover regulations allow for 35% coverage over these portions of the property.
Gaffron reported that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the City to encourage private
development in the Navarre area but to not adversely affect the neighboring property.
Woodland areas are to be maintained also. The plan calls for neighboring retail and
professional services to be available.
Gaffron reported that there is pressure on Orono and other cities to provide affordable
housing and questioned whether this property might meet such a need. In reviewing the
property, Gaffron said it could hold three 1/2 acre single family residences. With its
proximity to the neighboring businesses, other options could be three 2 -unit duplexes or
M -6 density housing. Gaffron asked that the Commission make their considerations in the
scheme of enhancing the Navarre area and in consideration of the area as a whole. A
study was begun in 1987 to review the Navarre area. Business owners were not interested
• in pursuing any changes at that time.
Peterson brought attention to the public information hearings conducted by O'Sullivan on
the project. Peterson attended one of the meetings and noted favorable input from those
in attendance. Peterson noted only one variance appeared to be required for this proposal.
However, the issue of rezoning is serious and has rarely been changed in the history of the
City. Peterson continued that if such rezoning was done, this is is a logical location but
use is a different matter altogether_ The comments Peterson heard at the meetings favored
the rezoning. The neighbors were said to view the proposal as a viable option.
is
Stoddard said he attended both meetings and saw overwhelming support for the proposal.
He noted that something needs to happen with the vacated church property adding that
the B -5 zoning was a less stringent application. As to the housing possibility, Stoddard
said he understands the need but noted having a proposal at hand from a local
businessman. Stoddard did acknowledge the need for review of a Navarre beautification
plan or revitalization. Peterson responded that the business owners showed no interest
when presented with such an idea. He added that the City would not proceed without that
interest from the local businesses.
14
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
( #9 - 92154 John O'Sullivan/Erwin Smith - Continued)
Peterson said he would not have envisioned changing the zoning one year ago but now
views it differently, noting a recent proposal further south on Shadywood for a minor
rezoning from residential to commercial for an automotive graphics business. He
suggested the two sites be considered together_ There are two residential lots combined
with the lot that was considered for the auto graphics site. Berg said she did not believe
the Commission would want to tie the two properties together. Goetten said the back lots
were zoned residential, and the applicants had proposed rezoning. Goetten said the
Council wanted to look at all of Navarre before making any changes.
In discussing whether to look at Navarre as a whole or property by property, Lindquist
said it could not all be done at once. Lindquist saw the need for developers to make
anything happen and rezoning alone would not accomplish anything.
Berg cited an example in Minneapolis of a neighborhood revitalization. She said the
business owners had to be convinced to become involved by offering incentives. Mabusth
later noted in the meeting that the business owners back in 1987 were offered low interest
loans but still had no interest. Berg acknowledged O'Sullivan's pride in his property and
saw the proposal as an improvement. She also saw the need to look at the highest and
best use of the property and was not convinced residential would be the answer. She
• noted the neighbors were pleased with the proposal at hand.
•
Mabusth asked for a reason why the property was not suitable for housing. Berg said it
was close to an intersection and not large enough to attract a developer.
Peterson said he thought the neighbors would prefer a buffer such as a church but that was
not voiced.
Lindquist asked about petitions for and against the project. O'Sullivan noted that petitions
were presented at both information meetings as well as located in his store. Of all the
signatures, he has only received one in opposition, and that person lives farther away from
the site. O'Sullivan said he has heard no opposition. Peterson acknowledged the change
of heart from those neighboring property owners in this application as compared to the
previnus application for a shelter for this property. O'Sullivan also questioned the
affordability of land for moderate housing on the site.
It was noted that the public was not notified of this sketch plan review. The next door
neighbor to this property, John Erickson, was said to not oppose or voice positively for
this proposal.
15
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
( 99 - #2154 John O'Sullivan/Erwin Smith - Continued)
Schroeder asked the Council members present if there was any long term plan for Navarre.
Goetten responded that the original thoughts of planning were dropped after no interest
was shown. It is her hope that O'Sullivan's other project would encourage other business
owners to take part in revitalizing the area. Schroeder reiterated that there was no grand
plan envisioning a movement to develope a systematic plan for the area. Kelley said the
area will probably not compete with neighboring city areas and saw a need to view it
differently. Goetten acknowledged that the City has never done any TIF programs.
Kelley agreed that unless the business owners have an vested interest, any improvements
would be for naught. Berg added that there were alot of absentee ownership properties
within Navarre. Goetten said it was her hope if the new project was successful that it
would energize the area.
Gaffron said plans considered but not adopted in the 1988 review included parking to be
located in front of the buildings with some multi- family and institutional facilities as well as
single and duplexes to the west. Peterson suggested a sub - committee review the area but
would not apply to this particular application. He saw the proposed commercial
development as an excellent choice over multiple housing options. He asked other
Commission members if the plan was appropriate for the site.
• Erwin Smith noted difficulty in gaining upgrades in the buildings in the area. O'Sullivan
added that with the new restaurant and other buildings, there will be improvements made
elsewhere. Coen noted that the original O'Sullivan had been refaced. Schroeder
acknowledged O'Sullivan as a driving force to revitalizing the area. O'Sullivan did see the
project as a catalyst for others when new business is brought to the area.
•
Regarding rezoning, O'Sullivan commented that the church has been there for many years,
and it may be hard for others to envision anything else. He said the project at hand makes
sense with the neighborhood and its municipal parking in creating a natural flow.
O'Sullivan said their purchase option for the church property expires at the end of July,
and only a short extension will be allowed. He said no developer or business will commit
to a project without assurances that rezoning will happen. Banks have shown interest in
becoming a tenant but will not progress further without the rezoning. O'Sullivan said,
once the rezoning issue is resolved, the project can be conformed to the code
requirements. He saw possibilities of clinics, light retail, bank, gift and greeting shops. He
noted there would be no high intensive use of the property such as video or liquor stores.
O'Sullivan said buffer zones would be created. During a meeting, neighbors asked how
the property would be accessed and deliveries made. Reaction was favorable to the plans.
Peterson noted that the majority of those attending walked to the meetings. O'Sullivan
said he has spoken with 80% of the business owners and all voiced favorable opinions of
the project. They also saw no conflicting usage.
16
•
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
( #9 - 92154 John O'Sullivan/Erwin Smith - Continued)
O'Sullivan said he cannot move any farther forward without the rezoning. He
acknowledged that other developers would come forward at some future point but noted
the comprehensive plan's call for encouragement of private unification and coordinated
projects. O'Sullivan said the property could remain as it is, the existing structure could be
used, or tax- subsidized housing is a possibility. He asked that with the purchase option,
the plan of presentation before the Planning Commission and Council in August be upheld.
Schroeder asked what studies were done to see if such a project was viable. O'Sullivan
said he stood on the corner and viewed the situation. He noted that since the proposal,
others have approached him with interest in the project. Coen added that a cash flow
review showed favorable results.
Lindquist asked if O'Sullivan would require a certain amount of the building to have lease
commitments prior to building. O'Sullivan said he would look at 70 -80 %. Berg said
leases would have to be the length of the mortgage. It was noted that of the 23,000 s.f.
size, 19,000 would be for office and retail use.
O'Sullivan said he has spoken with the Engineer, Shawn Gustafson, who said the plan
appears to be a good use and feasible from an engineering standpoint. The engineering
• issues will be addressed.
•
In obtaining Commission viewpoints, Stoddard saw the plan as a good buffer to the
residential area. Lindquist said he was in favor of the project. Peterson saw the project
and rezoning as appropriate and as a catalyst for the Navarre area. Smith said she was
okay with the plan. She did not see it as the perfect buffer; though acknowledged, there
may not be a perfect solution.
Smith asked why B -5 was considered. Gaffron reviewed the uses in the business districts
noting the fit of the B -5 uses with the area. B -I had the most uses. B -3 requires a 2 -acre
minimum lot size and accommodates shopping centers and multiple buildings. B -4
provided for professional and office but without any retail. B -5 allows for such uses as
municipal, office, clinics, art stores, office supply, real estate, barber shops, photo stores,
hobby and gift, antiques, libraries, pet store, and other miscellaneous retail. Other B -5
areas in the City are to the west end of Navarre, with a furniture store, a non - conforming
gas station, a Dairy Queen, a veterinarian office, an auto parts store, and office space.
Schroeder said he liked the look of the project and asked for direction on how rezoning
process occurs. Gaffi on reviewed the process. Schroeder asked that traffic flow
improvements be considered and other businesses be encouraged to work with the City for
revitalizing the area.
17
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996
0 ( #9 - #2154 John O'Sullivan/Erwin Smith - Continued)
Kelley said he was concerned with the time frame for the project in light of the need for
rezoning. Goetten agreed that a month's time was probably not enough. A scheduled
public hearing will be held at the August 19 Planning Commission Meeting. Peterson
asked that signs be posted on the corner of the proposed project calling attention to the
possible zoning to B -5. Berg suggested the notification be extended as far as Lydiard and
Kelly. Smith asked that neighborhood notification go beyond the last application. Coen
said 300 notices were sent for their first proposal and the Navarre vacation. 600 notices
were sent for the recent meetings. Mabusth said a list can be obtained from the County.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
( #10) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE
ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY S, 1996
Peterson attended the July 8 Council Meeting and informed the Planning Commission
regarding the outcome of the agenda items.
( #11) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
• Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning
Commission Meeting of June 17, 1996. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
•
Lindquist will attend the August 12 meeting of the Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Berg moved, Schroeder seconded, to adjourn at 10:23 p.m. Vote: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
18
'U
ephen Peterson, Chair Person