Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-15-1991 Planning MinutesMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 ROLL CALL: The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present; Planning Commission Chair Charlie Kelley and Planning Commission Members Jeffrey Johnson, Maureen Bellows, Ed Cohen, Jim Hanson, Candace Rowlette and Sara Moos. The following represented the City Staff: Building and Zoning Administrator Mabusth, Septic Inspector Steve Weckman, and City Recorder Scheffler. Council Representative Jabbour was present, as were Councilmembers Goetten and Callahan. Kelley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. (#1)AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE: Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. (A)TEMPORARY SIGNS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS- Mabusth stated that the City's Sign Ordinance now allows a business to have one 25 s.f. temporary sign (the portable signs on wheels, usually with a yellow background) per 24-month period. She commented that the business owners who apply for this type of permit have indicated that this system does not work. John O'Sullivan, owner of O'Sullivan's Service Station, distributed a list of Havarre Business owners who wish to see the Ordinance amended to allow a quarterly sign permit allowing a temporary sign to be displayed up to a maximum of two weeks during the quarter. Mr. O'Sullivan said, "I have talked to each of the business owners shown on this list. They represent the majority of the Navarre retail establishments. The business owners do not feel that the present Ordinance is very useful, from a business standpoint. We a proposing that permits be allowed on a quarterly basis because many of us have specials that coincide with the various seasons. It is our feeling that such a provision would give us more flexibility." Cohen asked, "If a business owner only requires a temporary sign for one week during a particular quarter, will he have an opportunity to post another sign for an additional one week period of time?" Mabusth replied, "No. The permit will allov. a sign for one event, displayed for a maximum of two weeks, per quarter." John O’Sullivan agreed that would be a reasonable provision. Cohen asked O'Sullivan if the business owners would prefer the Ordinance to allow a 32 s.f. sign as opposed to a 25 s.f. sign. O'Sullivan answered affirmatively. Rowlette commented, "It makes more sense to allow a 32 s.f. e - 1 - i f ;%' OROMO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#1)ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS-TEMPORARY SIGNS CONTINUED sign because that is usually the size of the portable signs that are leased by business owners." Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if their intent is to allow a singla-faced or double-faced sign. if' . It was Planning Commission's consensus, with the exception of Bellows, that a double-faced sign should be allowed. Mabusth stated that would mean that 64 s.f. of signage would be allowed. Rowlette questioned the need for a two-week maximum period to display a temporary sign. Johnson noted that a "grand-opening" may require a sign to be displayed for two weeks. Bellows stated that she did not approve of the signs at all. Rowlette stated that though she does not like the appearance of the signs, as a business owner, she can honestly say that they are effective advertising tools. Bellows stated that the proposed Ordinance amendment would theoretically allow a business owner to display such a sign for two months out of the year, and that, in her opinion, is not acceptable. Kelley asked if it is now possible for business owners, through a Variance or Conditional Use Permit process, to obtain an additional period of time to display a sign. Mabusth replied, "We would usually respond to a request for additional temporary signs with a Variance process, however, there is not sufficient time. 3y the time the business owner comes to us with a request, he/she cannot wait six weeks for the Variance process." Bellows reiterated that a two-week maximum time period per quarter for displaying such a sign is excessive. Cohen stated that he did not object to two weeks. Hanson indicated that he would prefer ten days, but would accept two weeks. Rowlette, Cohen, and Moos agreed with Hanson. Bill Wear asked if the Ordinance amendment would allow each tenant in a building, (which is ten in Mr. Wear's case), to apply - 2 - :y \ .*. iiJHiti 4 ■2f vr :m ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#1)ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS-TEMPORARY SIGNS CONTINUED for a sign permit each quarter. Mabusth replied, "Only the owner of a property may apply for and obtain a permit. Mr. Wear would be allowed to apply for fc-r temporary sign permits, one each quarter of the year, on behalf of his tenants.” It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of a Temporary Sign Ordinance amendment, as proposed by Staff, allowing a maximum ten-day display of such a sign during each quarter of a year. Each sign is to be no more than 32 s.t., per surface, or 64 s.f. in the case of a double-sided portable sign. Johnson stated that, in his opinion, two weeks ^ reasonable time period. Motion, Ayes-5, Kelley, Bellows, Nay. Motion carried. Kelley indicated that he agreed with Bellows in that he does not approve of the signs at all. (B)CONSTRUCTION OF MUNICIPAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF ORONO BY NEIGHBORING CITIES Mabusth provided a brief explanation of what prompted the City to review and consider an amendment to the present Code. Kelley said, "I think the City should do whatever needs to be done to prohibit other cities from building municipal facilities within our City." f - ■ .. V>: . . It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the present Code should not be amended to allow other cities to construct municipal facilities within the City of Orono. bellows noted that a special statement may need to be added to apply to facilities (such as police) that serve communities other than Orono. The Planning Commission recommended that the ticy Attorney be asked to provide the legal language. Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m. :¥■• ' . v'-'-'a'/' ■ ■?' ■*' («2)ZONING FILE #1631-CHARLES ft ANN HOMMEYER 475 LINDEN AVENUE VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING Charles and Ann Hommeyer were present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m., and asked Mabusth to make her opening statements. Jftl Mabusth stated that the Hommeyers are requesting renewal of ^^^^a lot area Variance which was granted in November, 1987/ ??? noted that drainage remains the key issue, and require the Hommeyers to submit a drainage plan when they apply for a building permit. ‘ -A. . ,v S(*'■ t ■ Mr. Hommeyer stated that he currently has no plans to - 3 - m mm:'- m m-i«l i - -' T > wr w:ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 frSnfT ( #2) ZONING FILE #1631-HOMMEYER CONTINUED develop the property, but that he wanted assurance that he could build on the lot in the future if he so wished. 1 '■'i. Cohen asked about the size of the lot. Mabusth stated that the lot is 6/iOths of an acre, is located in a One Acre Zoning District, but does have City sewer. Kelley asked how far back from the lake this property is located. Mabusth noted that portions of the property fall within both the 250'-500' and 500' to 1,000' setback areas. p'- Hanson asked how often the City should expect to receive additional renewal Variance requests. Mabusth stated that she could not answer Hanson's question, and reiterated that the Hommeyers are purchasing the property for privacy, not development. Kelley stated that, in his opinion, it is wise for the Hommeyers to continue to renew the Variance, rather than letting it lapse, in the event they should decide to develop the property in the future. Ken Holland, 4119 Oak Street, asked if the same conditions required as part of the approval of the previous renewal request, would apply in this case. He noted that there is a culvert that is maintained by himself and the Hommeyers, to alleviate some of the drainage problems in this area. He wanted to be sure that any future owners of the subject property would be alerted to this. . . s Mabusth advised that the same conditions of approval are for this current renewal application. She said, "The only change is the omission of payment of $390.00 for Park Dedication fee.” There were no further comments from the public, and Kelley the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. "S *: ’• L- • It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of the renewal Variance, subject to the findings and conditions of Resolution #2300, excluding Condition #2. All voted aye. Motion carried. fI : s ■4 ^ n ■Ty - 4 - li ■M/mi mr^- ‘ /f.’ • ■.' 1 OROHO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (13)ZONING FILE 11632-STEVE MARTIN 3890 SHORELINE DRIVE RENEWAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-PUBLIC HEARING A representative for Steve Martin was present Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:55 p.ra. • -.J' Mi Mabusth reviewed the issues involved with this application, ep outlined in her April 10, 1991 nemo. She stated that the proposed duplex meets all the standards of the Conditional Use Permit granted in 1979. Mabusth said, "The problem is that now I received an updated survey which indicates that the 931.5 elevation comes extremely close to the proposed structure. There must be at least a 14 foot separation between the structure and that elevation. There is adequate room on the property to move the structure forward while maintaining the required front setback from the street. Even though no filling is proposed, this application is subject to review by the DNR because of the sensitive nature of this property. I would recommend that the applicant provide an amended site plan showing the structure moved forward at least 14 feet." Kelley indicated that he does not favor a duplex in this location, and questioned whether the Planning Commission had any ability to deny the Conditional Use Permit at this point. Mabusth replied, "I cannot address the legal aspect of that question. Tne Conditional U5se Permit was acted on back in 1979. I do not know whether a 1991 Council can be tied to decisions made by the City Council back in 1979. If the applicant is not saeking Variances to that Conditional Use Permit, I am not sure that the Planning Commission can now recommend denial. There has been no change in zoning, or other changes for that matter, involving this property." Cohen stated that 12 years is a long time for something to exist in limbo without some follow up. He added that he also objects to a duplex in this location. fHv'" Johnson asked whether the applicant has fully explored his capability to construct anything on this site. He said, "There must be some poor soil conditions." Mr. Martin's representative agreed that soil boiings will have to be taken, but have not yet been done. Cohen suggested that reviewing this application at this stage may be premature. He stated that the DNR has not yet reviewed this, that soil borings have not yet been taken, and that an amended plan will have to be provided showing the structure relocated to accommodate the 14 feet required between it and t.be 931' elevation. - 5 - ‘ A ;. .V - f-y-Ui 'Mi i 1 T < ^ ” ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (13)ZONING FILE #1632-MARTIN CONTINUED Bellows asked when the property was sewered. Mabusth replied, 1966.” That area received municipal sewer in Bellows said, "That property was assessed for one sewer unit. That to me says that in 1966, the City no longer viewed this property for multiple use, and that provides a basis to say that the decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit in 1979 for a duplex does not have to be upheld." It was moved by Cohen, seconded by Hanson, to table this application to allow Staff and the applicant to look further into the issues raised by the Planning Commission. Johnson stated that in his opinion, the property is suited for a duplex, given its location to Highway 15 and commercial property. He added however, that the property may not lend itself for construction. All voted aye. Motion carried. (#4)ZONING PILE #1633-ANDREW MCDERMOTT 2702 WALTERS PORT LANE VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING Andrew McDermott was present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 p.m. Mabusth provided a brief summary of her memo dated April 7.0, 1991, pertaining to this application for a rear setback Variance to construct a deck, three-season porch and bath addition. She noted that she had not heard anything from the neighbor west of Mr. McDermott upon which the addition would have the most impact. Cohen noted that Mr. McDermott is not proposing to increase hardcover on the property, and the house has betan 11 feet from the rear lot line since 1969, when it was constructed. Hanson stated that it bothers him somewhat to have such a nassive addition off the back of a house situated only 11 feet from the property line. He added, however, that the rear of the property is adjacent to Pence Lane, where there is adequate screening. As there ware no public comments pertaining to this application, Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m. It was moved by Cohen, seconded by^ Moos, to recommend approval of the rear setback Variance to construct an addition. The hardships are the peculiar nature of the property, the applicant’s existing floor plan in relation to the proposed addition, and the fact that the house he 3 encroached into the 30 foot rear setback area for 23 years. Cohen added that the City - 6 - V A >■ -■ ■ b ,r- f Av. i i-»* <5}i ■;■■-' 7a ’ f li- ’.:l t ’•■:M ■V**,NL U »T .» . I 'br>-' , f*. • • . X ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#4)ZONING FILE #1633-MCDERMOTT CONTINUED created the hardshio for this property by allowing the house to be construct2d so close to the rear property line. Rowlette asked whether it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to address the excess hardcover in the 75-250' foot setback area, even though the applicant is proposing no increase in hardcover. Mabusth explained' Council's recent directives to have plastic under landscape areas removed if hardcover percentages exceed the City's standards. She informed the Planning Commission that they have the right to ask the applicant to remove the landscape plastic that exists in the 75-250' setback area. Cohen stated that he preferred to leave his motion as is. Motion, Ayes-6, Johnson. Nay. Motion carried. Johnson believed that the excess hardcover in -he 75-250' setback area should have been addressed. (#5)ZONING FILE #1634-JAMES & JOAN MAUS 3700 BAYSIDE ROAD VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING James and Joan Maus were present. At 7:37 p.m., Kelley opened the Public Hearing, and asked Mabusth to provide a brief explanation of the application. Mabusth stated that the applicants are seeking approval of side setback and average lakeshore setback Variances to construct an addition to their existing residence. She noted that when the property was divided, the property was within the RR-IA Zoning District, which required five acres and a 30 foo^. side setback. Mabusth stated that because it was built prior to zoning code requirements, not only does the existing residence not meet a 50 foot side setback, but it does not meet a 30 foot side setback, as required under the present zoning classification of LR—3.A. Kelley asked the Mauses if they knew when the addition on the east side of the house was constructed. Joan Maus stated that the east addition must have been constructed at least ten years ago by the previous owner of the property. Rowlette stated that she had lived near this house for 17 years, and that the east additivon had originally been a porch, which was then converted into a family room. Kelley asked Mabusth if she had received any input from the Mauses' neighbors. Mabusth stated that she had not received anything from the neighbors. James Maus advised that the Burgers and the Olsons fully supported their addition plans. L ■{ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#5)ZONING FILE #1634-MAUS CONTINUED There ware no public comments regarding Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:40 p.m. this matter, and f'r .V : -■/ It was moved by Rowlette, seconded by Hanson, to recommend approval of the side setback aid average lakeshore setback Variances based on the six hardships and noted in Mabusth's April 9, 1991 memo. All voted aye. Motion carried. (#6)ZONING FILE #1635-JOHN O'SULLIVAN & ERWIN SMITH 2420 SHAOyWOOD ROAD VARIANCE/COMHERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW-PUBLIC HEARING John O'Sullivan was present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. Mabusth reviewed the issues involved with John O'Sullivan's request for a 10' x 25' concrete block addition onto the east side of the car wash portion of his service station. (See Jeanne Mabusth's April 8, 1991 memo.) Mabusth asked Mr. O’Sullivan if he would explain why additional storage could not be provided on top or below the existing building. O'Sullivan responded, "From an engineering standpoint, placing a storage area under the building would not be a viable alternative. The items may freeze if stored on top of the building, and I would think that placing a storage area on top would create an eye-sore. We are planning to locate the storage area behind the car wash where it will virtually be invisible from Shadywood Road. We had discussed an alternate plan with the Building Department involving construction of a raised platform within the car wash bay. We determined, however, that it would be more cost effective to add onto the exterior of tn^ building, rather than the interior. There may also be a problem with moisture if the computerized equipment is stored within the car wash bay." There were no comments from the public on this matter, and Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. Kelley asked Mabusth if the City had received any comments ^^from the Freshwater Biological Institute.m Mabusth replied, "No, the City has heard nothing from them." Johnson noted that it will be necessary to remove trees to construct the addition asked Mr. O'Sullivan to explain his plans for screening. O'Sullivan explained, "At the most, we will be removing one tree. I like trees, but the one in question is a Cottonwood that plugs our air conditioning and heating systems, two or three - 8 - w ■ • • r —— * ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 19^#1 (#6)ZONING FILE #1635-0'SULLIVAN & ERWIN SMITH CONTINUED times a year. Tlie other trees will remain." Mabusth added that the City Engineer has recommended removal of the Cottonwood trees because of the new construction. It was moved by Johnson, seconded by Cohtn, to recommend approval of the side setback Variance and Commercial Site Plan^as presented, subject to Staff recommendations #1, #3, #4, ana ».5. All voted aye. Motion carried. («7)ZONING FILE 11636-STEVE TIBBETTS 1810 SHAOYWOOD ROAD AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES-POBLIC HEARING Steve Tibbetts was present. At 7:26 p.m., Kelley opened the Public Hearing. Mabusth outlined the issues noted in her April 15, 1991 memo relative to Mr. Tibbetts’ application. jfa. Johnson asked Mabusth what the total hardcover is for the entire lot. i3 f 'Mabusth stated that the coverage for the entire lot is approximately 28%. The Planning Commission, as a whole, agreed that there wete really no other forms of hardcover on the property that could be removed. They agreed that the back-up area of the drive should remain to provide turn-around space and eliminate the need to back onto Shadywood Road. Johnson noted that much of the runoff from the property drains down the driveway onto Shadywood Road, rather than toward the lake. Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m. He stated that he was a Planning Commission member in 1985 when the application involving the porous pavers was reviewed. He said, "The Planning Commission was skeptical that the pavers would work, and they have not." It was moved by Kelley, seconded by Bellows, to recommend approval of the after-ths-fact lakeshore hardcover, and side setback Variances. It is recommended that the resolution of approval, if adopted by Council, include language restricting any additional hardcover on this property. All voted aye. Motion carried. - 9 . ':> I, f 1 > A ‘ ^ - V ' ■ 7 'i r ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#8)ZONING FILE #1637-SPRING HILL LAND COMPANY 725 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE-PUBLIC HEARING Jud Dayton was present. Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 7:41 p.m., and asked Mabusth to make her opening statements. Mabusth provided a brief review of the information outlined in her April 12, 1991 memo. She distributed a copy of Section 10.29 of the Zoning Code to the Planning Commission members, calling their attention to Subdivision 2. She said, "This Section states that as long as the Conference Center is leased by non-profit organizations, the conference use, as proposed, is permitted and does not require a Conditional Use Permit. The City Attorney has advised that the City should require an agreement from the applicant stating that he will only allow non-profit organizations to hold conferences within the facility." Kelley asked if the applicant would be required to notify the City should he decide to expand the building. Mabusth responded, "Yes, the City would be aware of any expansion plans because the applicant would have to go through a Commercial Site Plan review process." Jud Dayton added, "I have an agreement with the Spring Hill Management group which states that I will not demolish or make any substantial changes to the building for five years. That agreement was made 18 months ago, so it will be another three and a half years before we can make any changes." Dayton asked whether he could allow an entity, such as Ford Motor Company, to use the facility for a conference. He also asked whether the Church could use the facility for wedding receptions. a Kelley indicated that his interpretation of the Code is that profit-making company would not be allowed to lease the facility. Mabusth confirmed that to also be the City Attorney's interpretation. She stated that she did not know whether the Church could allow a wedding reception or similar use. Kelley stated that the Code requires that the Conference Center must be leased by a non-profit organization. He said, "I do not know if the Woodridge Church or Freshwater Institute can allow profit-making entities to use the facility. I ):hink that is a legal issue." - 10 - C:: ySL: i 11 1 1 1^1 l:y--- ■. ■ Si ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#8)ZONING FILE #1637-SPRING HILL LAND COMPANY CONTINUED Dayton stated that he would have his attorney contact the City Attorney to make sure that any agreement that is drafted is within the City's guidelines. Kelley asked if the Conditional Use Permit for the church use will require a periodic review. He stated that he would like to see the matter come back for an annual review. Bellows suggested a condition of approval be that the applicant keep a record or log of when the facility is used, and by whom. She said, "The log should be submitted to Staff on an annual basis. If Staff determines that there are excessive or inappropriate uses, the matter should come back to the Planning Commission for further review." Mabusth noted that the neighboring property owners would more than likely contact the City if they are disturbed by any use of the Conference Center. She noted that in the event the City receives a petition from neighboring property owners advising of abuse of this use, the City can re-open consideration of the Conditional Use Permit. Bellows and Kelley stated that they would like to have an annual review of the use of the Conference Center. Mabusth advised that a Conditional Use Permit is only required for t.he church use, and that the conference use is permitted. She said, "The arreement the City Attorney is recommending be drafted would provide a means of regulating the permitted use. Kelley closed the Public Hearing at 7:51 p.m. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Moos, to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a church use of this property provided that: 1) A log is submitted to the City annually showing the dates the Center is used and by whom. This applies not only to the Church, but to all non-profit organizations that use the property; 2) that the parcels making up the Conference Center property be legally combined; 3) that users of the facility be notified that should attendance of persons exceed 300 that a large assembly permit is required; and 4) all signage shall be subject to the standards set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 2. It is further recommended that the City enter into an agreement witn the applicant, which shall be prepared prior to review of this matter by the City Council, pertaining to the permitted use of this facility by the Freshwater Biological Institute, or any other non-profit making entities. All voted aye. Motion carried. -frr- ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#9)ZONING FILE #1638-CITY OF ORONO 1285 BROWN ROAD SOOTH VARIANCES-POBLIC HEARING Kelley opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. *• 'V- = • iStk summarized the information and issues pertaining to thw ..ity's request for Variances to construct a temporary Public VJorks storage facility. She displayed a sketch showing where the temporary facility would need to be situated on the property if it were to meet all requirad setbacks. Mabusth not ad if that were the case, there would not be sufficient space for the mixing , which is utilized for mixing sand and salt. The exterior storage yard, and naif of the employee parking would also be lost. Mr. Terry Morse, 2080 Spates Avenue, asked why the building could not be constructad to meet the setbacks, and the mixing area relocated elsewhere. Mabusth explained that the Crystal Bay site is the only area available for mixing. If the building was to be placed to meet all setbacks, there would not be enough area remaining to serve as a mixing area. Morse commented that he had no preference about where the building is located, and felt that whatever Is constructad in lieu of the existing building will be an improvement. Morse also raised the issue of whether the small shad located near the railroad tracks is safe. He noted that he has seen children crawling underneath the corners of the structure. y; Mabusth stated that she would forward Mr. Morse's concerns > about the safety of the shed to the Public v/orks Director. Bellows asked Mabusth to elaborate on the term "temporary". Mabusth stated that the storage facility is being constructed as though it will be permanent due to the size and nature of the equipment that it will house. There were no additional comments from the public, and Kelley closed the Publiv-: Hearing at 8:06 p.m. It was moved by Bellows, seconded by Cohen, to recommend approval of the accessory structure, setback and lot coverage Variances required for the City of Orono to construct a temporary storage facility, based on the hardship that a hazardous condition now exists, posing a serious liability for the citizens and employees of Orono. Planning Commission believes that it is inappropriate at this time for the City to effectively re-do the entire site, which would nesd to be done when the building is located on a permanent site. Kelley allowed Mr. Morse to ask an - 12 - r-► ■ L kg:/m 1 ii laiiaii r if?-.' P‘,..,>a'i if’.'lA; • ir'':m b ■ ■ t. : ■ ■•[. A * JL( . ■ hm:Ak - ■#4' ■ ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#9)ZONING FILE #1638-CITY OF ORONO CONTINUED additional question. M'orse asked if the City will in fact remove this structure if a City facility is constructed elsewhere. Mabusth stated that the City definitely will remove the structure and that it will serve as a storage facility for sand and salt. Bellows amended her motion to state additionally that the structure is temporary. Cohen seconded the amendment. All voted aye. Motion carried. (#10)ZONING FILE #1618-HILLIAM PUCEL BALDUR PARK PRO/SUBDIVISION-SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Mr. Pucel asked Mabusth if she would review his sketch plan again for the benefit of the Planning Commission members not present at the March 18, or March 20 Planning Commission meeting. Mabusth displayed Mr. Pucel's sketch plan and briefly explained his proposal. She also showed the Planning Commission the three-lot subdivision proposed for this property by Marco Franklin. Mabusth noted that Mr. Franklin's proposal did not include any encroachment of the 75 foot setback area, that it did not require any setback Variances, and had smaller house pads. The grading plan did not include any grading within the 0-75' setback area. The issues involved with hardcover and the road would have needed to be addressed. Cohen said, "In my opinion, this property will not support three units, it will support one house." Mr. Pucel askad what other issues the Planning Commission would like him to address other than the road. He stated that he did not feel he had received sufficient direction from the Planning Commission on what he could do to develop this property. Johnson questioned whether Mr. Pucel was planning the same stormwater treatment and grading plans as those submitted by Marco Franklin. He stated that even though this is a sketch plan, Mr. Pucel has not provided enough information to enable him to determine the other issues that need to be addressed. Johnson did agree that a PRD is the way this parcel needs to be developed, but could not state whether or not he would approve any Variances. Mr. Pucel replied, "The road would sixteen feet and there would be a drainage area that would flow into a holding pond. There would not be any grading as we would build on site without having a change in the topography. The sewer would have to be installed along the south side. Before I invest more expense into this, I want to be sure I am going in the right direction." ^Bellows stated that she would not bt3 in favor of recommending approval of Variances to create a PRD on this site. - 13 - Wt.' ■: . V' •4-;*::^ S’ '' V ..Vj m ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#10)ZONING FILE #1618-PUCEL CONTINUED She said, "I agree with Jeff that the information that has been provided to us is insufficient in order for us to make any real determinations. I have said in the p<ast, and will reiterate, that in my opinion, access to this property first and foremost, must be solved before construction of anything can be considered. This is the first time I have heard Mr. Pucel mention his plans for the road, drainage, or sewer. I have serious questions about whether or not this property can be developed beyond a single unit. The only way I can see development occurring is under the guidelines of a PRD. However, it would have be a PRD that is in strict conformance with all other zoning regulations." Moos agreed that Mr. Pucel had not provided sufficient information, given the sensitive nature of the this property. She stated that she does not believe the property will support more than one home. Rowlette stated that construction of three additional homes on this property, with the pad size indicated by Mr. Pucel, would create more hardcover than she could approve. Hanson stated that because this property is so sensitive, he would not consider any application that will require Variances. He did say that he would consider a variation from the Code in order for the provision of adequate access. Cohan said, "I am consistent with my recommendations for denying hardcover within the 0-75’ setback area, and would continue my policy in this case. I cannot see more than one additional home on this property." Bellows explained to Mr. Pucel that the idea of a PRD is not to push the intention of any of the City's Zoning Variances or restrictions in terms of allowing someone to build something that exceeds what a property can sustain. She said, "The point of a PRD is to give a landowner some degree of latitude. It is designed to allow someone to develop a piece of property that has some unique features by clustering, or other means, that will result in a minimal impact on that site. In my opinion, Mr. Pucel, your proposal goes against the spirit of what a PRD is. You have simply taken three, very large, foot pads and put them out on a site on land. That is not the point of a PRD. You have heard very clearly from the Planning Commission that if we are to recommend approval of a PRO on this site, we would not allow any other Variances." Jabbour suggested if the property owner proceeds with development plans that the survey be confirmed before he is given approval. He stated that the southwest corner of the point continues to slide into the lake aid the survey Mr. Pucel has provided is three years old. - 14 - h ' k-- . 1 -- - -.;!.• - ?- OROHO planning commission meeting held APRIL 15, 1991 (#11)ROLE OF PLANNING COMMISSION It was agreed by the Planning Commission that they would meet on April 29, 1991 at 7;0C p.m. , in a closed session to discuss what they would like their role to be. Based on the consensus of that meeting, a recommendation would be prepared and presented to Council. (#12)PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS-1991 STRATEGIC PLAN After reviewing the 1991 Strategic Plan, it was the Planning Commission's consensus that the City should adhere to the Plan as presented. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS: Bellows was thv Planning Commission Representative at the April 8, 1991 Council Meeting. Bellows first provided a brief update of the action taken by Council at their March 25, they adopted the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding Highway 12. She informed the Planning Commission that as part of Council's motion to adopt the recommendation, they asked to have cover letters sent to MNDOT and the City of Long Lake, and that both letters be provided for Council's review prior to mailing. The letter to the City of Long Lake was to address the Planning Commission's stated position that it made good planning sense to consider the consolidation of the City of Long Lake and Orono. Bellows stated that the letter to the City of Long Lake was signed by the Mayor and mailed, but was not reviewed by the other Councilmembers. She said, "Councilmember Butler's motion was to adopt our recommendation in its entirety, and Councilmember Callahan understood that to be the intent of Butler's motion. The newspaper and minutes from the meeting also interpreted that Councilmember Butler's motion was to adopt the entire recommendation. However, the last paragraph, pertaining to consolidation, was deleted from the document that was sent to the City of Long Lake. The Mayor had understood Councilmember Butler's motion was to exclude that paragraph from the recommendation document that would be adopted as the City s position, and thought that was what she had seconded. At the April 8, 1991 Council meeting, there was lengthy discussion about what Council had done, what they had intended to do, and where they should go from here. A motion was made to reconsider the matter, and after further discussion, a motion was made to have Councilmember Butler's original motion stand. That motion was approved three to two. I must say that I found the flavor of that meeting extremely distaseful. What the citizens of this town heard, was that two Councilmember, our Mayor being one, backed down on what was public record, both in the newspaper and minutes of their meeting, and what in fact they said at that particular meeting. It seemed to be predicated on their feeling of some extreme sensitivity about negotiations with Long Lake. I However, in my opinion, the verbal protestations and numerous meetings made, which have since been postponed or canceled, makes - 15 - r ir-- T^ W'^--ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S COMMENTS CONTINUED me tend to doubt Council’s sincerity. I think the Planning Commission needs to sit down and determine among ourselves what we want our role to be. If we think anything is going to change, then we need to take a direct leadership role in doing that." r < Councilmember Jabbour explained to the Planning Commission that the concerns the Mayor has regarding the City of Long Lake s sensitivity to the word "merger" or "consolidation" is well founded. He told the Planning Commission that Councilmembers, and Planning Commission Chair Kelley had met with the Long Lake City officials to discuss this matter. He said, 'One of the problems is that the Wayzata Newspaper printed an indicating that the action taken by Council at their March .-5th meeting was as Mayor Peterson had thought it to be. The other paper reported that the action taken was as Councilmember Butler indicated. The City of Long Lake got mixed messages on both ends. The City Administrator, who was on vacation immediately following the meeting, also understood the motion as Mayor Peterson had. There was a true misunderstanding of the motion. The City of Long Lake is very sensitive to issues, and not only this one. Last week Council met again with representatives from the City of Long Lake. Sherokee Use and Bruce Carlson were also there. The first thing I told the people from Long Lake was that they would be receiving a letter from the City of Orono indicating that the consolidation paragraph would be included in our adopted position on Highway 12. The Mayor from Long Lake said, 'Than there is nothing for us to ever talk about again . We tried to get the Long Lake City officials beyond that way of thinking so that we could discuss the issue of Highway a2. However, we could not get past the word ’merger*. We spent hours and hours arguing and d:.d not gat anywhere. I think Councilmember Goetten was correct when she suggested that we avoid that issue in our position." Bellows clarified that her comments pertaining to Council's sincerity did not just apply to Highway 12, but to the manner in which Council communicates with members of the City. She said, "Specifically there have been some issues involving appointments or ra-appointments, that have not been addressed properly. Communication has got to be improved. I applaud the efforts of Councilmember Jabbour, who is working overtime to try and make things work." («13)APPROVAL OP MINUTES It was moved by Hanson, seconded by Kelley, to approve the minutes of the March 18, 1991, and March 20, 1991, Planning Commission meetings. Motion, Ayes-4, Nays-0. Cohen, Moos, and Johnson abstained. - 16 - t Air-; '■ 1 '.•■•i ' T , V iii-if I rritar iitiai tt, f t: - - -r ^ -T' I •4 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD APRIL 15, 1991 (#14)PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE It was agreed that Sara Moos would attend the May 13, 1991 Council meeting as the Planning Commission Representative. OTHERwith regard to the upcoming May 6, 1991 Planning Commission Public Hearing regarding City facilities, Kelley suggested that the first half hour consist of "x tour of the existing buildings. The Planning Commission agreed with Kelley. Rowlette indicated that she would be unable to attend that Public Hearing, but would provide a written opinion.C-. •t-'t-, ADJOURNMENT ' '■•■‘5:^'A* ■. The April 15, 1991, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. L.*‘/1V j'm TMmw iU ^ -■■-mm WSm^m . , ■> T- .-M \ • I■' . ■ i- \ ■■ wmh'.M fc. .:= ,• • ■ -y; ’T' 4'i -v' I .: : . ' vV a 7^-s. :.V'. '■ .-. ■ ,i -V. ; : '^A : .;aV S. -A.:'. ■: '. ... , ( wmmi ■--.<.; f ...jb}.’ My- - 17 - r-' ■'-y •.'"j ■n ---------------