HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/18/2005 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair David Rahn, Commissioners J.Marc Fritzler,Jim Leslie,Roland Jurgens, Cynthia Bremer, and
Travis Winkey. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Curtis and
Janice Gundlach, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Sansevere was also present.
Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
CONSENT
Item No. 2 was removed from the Consent Agenda and Item No. 4 was added to the Consent Agenda.
Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3071,granting of a lot
area variance to permit construction of a new residence subject to City Engineer approval prior to
building permit issuance for the property located at 400 Leaf Street. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0
Rahn moved,Jurgens seconded,to recommend approval of Application#04-3022,renewal of
variances granted in 2000 for a rear yard setback variance, subject to the removal of the plastic
liner from the landscape beds in the 500'-1000' setback zone,for the property located at 280 Tonka
Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0
#2 05-3079 NICOLE AND PETER THOMAS, 1385 ORONO LANE—VARIANCE,
6:03 p.m.—6:26 p.m.
Peter Thomas,Applicant,was present.
Gundlach stated the applicants are proposing to construct a wrought iron deck on the lakeside of the
existing home within the 0-75' hardcover zone. Gundlach noted a majority of the residence is located
within 75' of the lake. The deck will be placed over the existing air conditioning units and the chimney
shaft located on that side of the home would be removed to accommodate the deck. In addition, a set of
French doors will be constructed into the eastern wall of the house to provide access to the proposed deck.
Gundlach indicated the applicants are requesting a hardcover variance to permit 10.79 percent hardcover
within the 0-75' lake setback zone when 0 percent is allowed and 10.79 percent currently exists. The
applicant is proposing to remove 100 square feet of driveway within the 0-75' zone to offset the 100
square feet of new hardcover being proposed.
Staff finds that a hardship exists in order to grant the variance request. The property has a significant
amount of lakeshore with only a street frontage and one interior side yard in addition to the 400 plus feet
of shoreline.
Thomas indicated they are attempting to improve the safety of the house in an effort to keep a better eye
on their three young children. Thomas stated his children like to play on a small section of the lakeshore
that is relatively flat,with the remainder of the shoreline consisting of a steep bank and not easily
accessible. Thomas indicated the residence originally consisted of windows on the lakeside of the house,
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3079 Nicole and Peter Thomas, Continued)
with one of the previous owners constructing a chimney on that side of the house that now blocks their
view of the area where his children like to play.
Thomas stated they are proposing to remove the chimney and replace it with windows so they are able to
see their children playing as well as improve the access to that area by constructing a wrought iron
staircase. Thomas indicated they are proposing a wrought iron deck because it is water permeable and
would not alter the runoff in that area.
Thomas stated originally when they submitted the application they did not know that it would be
considered as hardcover but that they are now proposing to remove a portion of the driveway to offset the
new hardcover.
Jurgens noted the Planning Commission typically reviews hardcover on the entire property whenever an
application is submitted, and inquired whether the hardcover that was installed in front of the main
entranceway has been included in the calculations.
Gundlach stated that hardcover was included in the calculations. Gundlach indicated the applicants did
submit a revised survey that reflects the work that was completed in 2001.
Jurgens inquired what was approved in the 75'-250' zone.
Gundlach stated 7,433 square feet of hardcover was approved in 2001 in the 75'-250' zone.
Jurgens inquired whether that is the amount that currently exists in that zone.
Gundlach indicated it is. Gundlach stated prior approval was also received for the 3,203 square feet in the
0-75' zone.
Jurgens stated as long as that hardcover was previously approved, he does not have an issue with it,but
that he does not believe the amount of lakeshore constitutes a hardship in this situation.
Rahn inquired whether a majority of the deck would be above 30 inches and whether it would be
considered as structural coverage.
Gundlach indicated the elevation plans that were submitted are not to scale and she therefore cannot
verify the height. Gundlach stated if the deck at any point becomes taller than six feet above grade,then
it would be considered structural coverage.
Rahn noted even with the deck being counted as structural coverage,this property is well below their
structural coverage limit. Rahn commented that it was his understanding the Planning Commission does
not like to swap hardcover for structural coverage.
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3079 Nicole and Peter Thomas, Continued)
Gundlach stated the structural coverage ordinance says that if any portion of the deck exceeds six feet in
height, it is considered as structural coverage,but that she is unsure at this time whether any part of the
deck will exceed six feet.
Rahn stated he does not have a problem with the material being proposed to construct the deck but that he
does not like to swap hardcover for structural coverage.
Gundlach pointed out the air conditioning equipment would remain in that area,which requires the
wrought iron.
Winkey inquired whether the driveway was originally included in the hardcover calculation for the 0-75'
zone or whether that only included the retaining walls that were approved in 2001.
Gundlach stated the driveway was allowed included in the 2001 request and was approved based on the
level of hardship that the Planning Commission found at that time. Gundlach stated the Planning
Commission could recommend denial of the application if they find that there is no hardship. Gundlach
noted a majority of the house is located within 75' feet of the lake and was at one point restored.
Thomas pointed out the driveway as it currently exists is exactly as it was when they purchased the
property in 2001. Thomas indicated the property was built in the 1920s, with the retaining walls also
being constructed at that time. Thomas stated they repaired the retaining walls due to their deteriorating
condition in 2001.
Fritzler stated he can understand the desire to add a door to improve the safety but that he does not see
how adding a deck would add to the safety or security any more than the existing window. Fritzler stated
he would not have an issue with adding a door and a step down but that he is not in favor of adding a
deck.
Leslie stated normally the Planning Commission does not like to exchange structural improvements with
hardcover,but that in this case he does not feel it is likely that this wrought iron deck would be replaced
with another material over time due to the air conditioning equipment being located in that area. Leslie
stated although the deck still counts as hardcover, it is not the same type of hardcover as the driveway and
that he would look more favorably upon approving the deck in exchange for removal of the driveway.
Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to have the size of the deck reduced from
eight feet to four feet.
Leslie inquired whether the amount of driveway to be reduced would then decrease if the size of the deck
were to decrease.
Rahn stated he would prefer to see 100 square feet of driveway removed even with a reduction in the size
of the deck.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3079 Nicole and Peter Thomas, Continued)
Thomas stated the reason the deck was designed in that location is because the house is constructed on a
steep bluff and that location limits the height of the deck.
Rahn commented the deck could be reduced to four feet and be considered a landing to service the door.
Fritzler stated in his view the deck does not increase the safety.
Jurgens noted there currently is a door approximately 10 feet from where the new door is being proposed.
Jurgens inquired whether there are any walls dividing those two areas.
Thomas stated it is all one room.
Jurgens stated in his view the location of that other door tends to diminish the need for the deck.
Thomas stated the location of the new door is a straighter line to the lakeshore.
Jurgens moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend denial of Application#05-3079, 1385 Orono Lane,
a request for a hardcover variance within the 0-75' zone and a lake setback variance.
VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 3,Leslie,Bremer, and Winkey Opposed.
Rahn suggested the applicant submit a more detailed drawing to the City Council. Rahn stated he voted
in favor of recommending denial because of the location of the other door and because he is not in favor
of swapping structural coverage for hardcover.
Thomas inquired whether a French door in the location of the chimney could open up to a small balcony
without stairs.
Rahn noted the Planning Commission has already voted on his application and that the applicant could
suggest that to the Council. Rahn inquired whether it would be necessary to submit the revised plans to
the Planning Commission.
Gundlach stated the applicant could submit a revised plan prior to the Council meeting,which would
enable Staff to make the appropriate calculations. Gundlach requested the drawings be scaled to allow
Staff to verify height.
OLD BUSINESS
#3 04-2987 HASHEM ABUKHADRA, 1745 FOX STREET—REVISED SKETCH PLAN,
6:27 p.m.—6:57 p.m.
Mark Gronbeck, Surveyor, was present on behalf of the Applicant.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2987 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued)
Gundlach stated the applicant has submitted a sketch plan for a six lot residential plat of property abutting
Long Lake Creek that leads to Tanager Lake at the southernmost property boundary. An existing single-
family residence and associated guest house are proposed to remain on one of the six platted lots.
Gundlach noted an elevation of 929.4 exists but has not been located and would be required at the time of
preliminary plat. Gundlach stated the shoreline regulations do apply to this property and the property
consists of 58 acres, with 23 acres being dry-buildable.
Gundlach stated the proposal is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan and zoning district
for this area with respect to lot area and width of the lots proposed. The property is located within the
two-acre zone. Gundlach noted construction of a private road is being proposed for this development.
Gundlach indicated issues for discussion are as follows:
1. The irregularly shaped lots, as currently laid out,potentially create very restrictive hardcover standards
for the lots with 929.4' frontage.
2. Should lots 2 and 3 be combined due to the design challenges with lot 2 and the uncontiguous
buildable area.
3. Proposed lot 2 automatically requires approval of an average lakeshore setback variance. Is that
acceptable and could that variance approval be included within the plat process.
4. The owner is proposing to keep the existing guesthouse, which is assumed to have kitchen facilities.
A fourth septic site must be located and a setback variance would be required.
5. Proposed lot 6 may access of Fox Street. Is the Planning Commission okay with two accesses off
Fox Street where there is currently only one. Would an outlot across proposed lot 5 be a more
acceptable solution if proposed lot 5 could meet the 2.0 acres standard,not including the outlot.
6. Is there a bluff on proposed lot 6 and what issues does this raise for the septic sites shown.
Gundlach requested the Planning Commission give the applicant guidance on the outstanding issues
outlined in the report.
Gronberg stated they are showing the septic sites 75 feet from the 930 contour and that they will locate
the 929.4' contour,which would allow the house pad to be located farther north. Gronberg indicated
some of the other lot lines could be relocated 20 feet north rather than combining lots 2 and 3.
Winkey inquired whether they would be able to build on lot 2 without the need for a variance.
Gronberg indicated they could build on the lot without the need for a variance.
Gundlach pointed out an average lakeshore setback variance would be required for lot 2. Gundlach
indicated all of these lots are considered lakeshore lots.
PAGE 5
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2987 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued)
Jurgens inquired what standards are required to construct the driveway and whether substantial grading
would be required.
Gronberg stated the driveway would need to be 75 feet back and that they are planning to construct a
12-foot wide road. Gronberg noted the grading would be outside the 75' setback and that this area is
fairly flat,which would not require a lot of grading.
Rahn inquired what the width of the corridor is.
Gronberg indicated the corridor is approximately 100 feet and that the driveway would be located five to
ten feet off of the property line.
Leslie inquired what the square footage of the building pads would be.
Gronberg stated they would be approximately 5,000 square feet.
Jurgens inquired whether any septic site tests have been completed.
Gronberg stated borings have been completed. Gronberg stated they are attempting to find extra land on
lot 6 for another septic site so the guesthouse could remain. Gronberg noted the applicant probably would
not final plat all of the lots at this time and that some of the lots may be combined.
Gronberg pointed out there is an existing driveway that goes into the guesthouse, and that for the final
plat lots 5 and 6 may be combined, with an easement being given to use that driveway. Gronberg stated if
the two lots are split,they would like a new entrance or combine it with the guesthouse entrance onto Fox
Street.
Gundlach stated the driveway currently comes in off of the far west end of the site and curves around.
Rahn noted the guesthouse currently is nonconforming. Rahn pointed out once a new structure is
constructed,the guesthouse would need to conform.
Gronberg indicated they do not intend to construct a new residence on that lot.
Gundlach stated in the past the City has required all nonconformities be eliminated at the time of the
creation of new lots.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should also consider whether the driveway to the guesthouse
should be eliminated as part of the platting process.
Gronberg stated in his opinion the existing driveway is in a pretty good location and the proposed new
road is also fairly good.
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2987 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued)
Jurgens inquired whether the site distance for the new driveway is good coming onto Fox Street.
Gronberg indicated that location is better than farther on top of the hill.
Gundlach stated currently there is one location for access to the residence as well as the existing driveway
to the guesthouse, with a third access being proposed for lot 6. Gundlach stated an issue to consider is if
the existing access remains, it would run through lot 5,which just barely meets the two-acre minimum.
Gundlach indicated an easement for access would then be required, and if the easement is placed in an
outlot, lot 5 would no longer meet the two-acre minimum.
Leslie commented it sounds like lots 5 and 6 might be combined.
Gronberg stated that issue could be addressed at the time those lots are split.
Jurgens inquired whether any variances for hardcover would be necessary on any of these lots.
Gundlach stated there is a possibility due to the configuration of the shoreline that some of the lots could
become restricted,but that there is not enough information available at the present time to determine that
definitively.
Rahn inquired whether lot 6 would be connected to Fox Street rather than utilizing the existing driveway.
Gronberg stated if it is possible to use the existing driveway with an easement, that might be better than
creating another access onto Fox Street.
Jurgens stated he would prefer the number of accesses onto Fox Street be restricted.
Gaffron inquired whether the guesthouse would be eliminated.
Gronberg stated the property owners would like to retain the guesthouse since they have made
improvements to it.
Gaffron expressed concerns regarding the building pad on lot 2 and inquired whether that lot could be
reconfigured.
Gronberg stated the lot line could be moved north 20 to 30 feet.
Gundlach indicated it might be necessary to reconfigure the other lots as well to comply with the two-acre
minimum if the lot line for lot 2 is relocated. Gundlach noted Staff does have administrative approval to
grant an average lakeshore setback variance on a point situation.
Gronberg commented this really is not technically lakeshore.
PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
' Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2987 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued)
Rahn stated in order to leave the guesthouse, it would need to be 100 percent conforming.
Gundlach pointed out an additional septic site would need to be located. Gundlach stated Orono's Codes
also do not allow an accessory structure closer to the road than a principal structure if it is not a lakeshore
lot.
Fritzler inquired why it would not be considered a lakeshore lot.
Gaffron stated it is a difficult situation to determine because of the 800 feet of wetland between the
property's OHW and any open water. Access across other properties would also be necessary to reach the
open water. Gaffron stated this property functionally has all of the limitations of a lakeshore lot but none
of the benefits. Gaffron stated in his view lot 2 is probably not functionally a lakeshore lot but could
possibly meet all of the definitions of a lakeshore lot.
Fritzler pointed out if it is not a lakeshore lot,the guesthouse would need to be removed.
Rahn asked for public comments.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Rahn stated the issues he has on this application deal with the septic sites,the reconfiguring of the lot
lines, and the guesthouse remaining. Rahn recommended a fourth septic site be located.
Gaffron stated in his view the guesthouse should be removed due to a number of issues.
Gronberg stated they are only talking a 10 to 15 foot setback variance for the guesthouse and that the one
access onto Fox Street could be eliminated if necessary.
Gundlach noted the guesthouse is located 38 feet from Fox Street where 50 feet is required.
Rahn stated in his view the guesthouse should be removed, and if the guesthouse should remain, it would
need to be accessed off the primary driveway.
Bremer inquired whether the guesthouse should be removed if lots 5 and 6 are combined.
Rahn stated the guesthouse would still be considered nonconforming and that the code requires these
guesthouses to be conforming.
Gaffron inquired whether the guesthouse would need to be removed if lots 5 and 6 are someday divided.
Fritzler pointed out the guesthouse is still not conforming even if lots 5 and 6 are combined. Fritzler
stated he would like the guesthouse to be dealt with at this time rather than in the future.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#04-2987 Hashem Abukhadra, Continued)
Gronberg stated currently there are three parcels and the property owners would like to construct one
additional house. Gronberg stated the lot lines would need to be relocated in order to locate that one
additional house.
Rahn stated the guesthouse could be removed prior to the time that lot is improved.
Bremer commented in her view the guesthouse should be dealt with at the time of the subdivision rather
than at the time lot 6 is developed.
Gaffron inquired when the new road within the outlot would be created.
Gronberg stated in his view construction of the new road would be delayed.
Jurgens inquired what lot the new house would be constructed on.
Gronberg stated either lot 1, 2, or 4.
Fritzler stated the existing road would not meet the requirements for the new subdivision.
Gaffron commented there has to be some sort of a division since you cannot construct two principal
residences on one lot.
Jurgens inquired whether there would be a performance bond required to ensure that the new road be built
at some future date as part of this development.
Gaffron suggested showing the outline of the property as it currently exists and then show the proposed
lots and what is proposed for the future. Gaffron stated Staff would like to have more information on
what could possibly happen in the future.
Jurgens stated in his view a decision should be made on where the new house will be constructed so the
other issues can be addressed. Jurgens inquired whether Staff is going to require proof of hardcover on
the new lots.
Gaffron noted this is a sketch plan stage and that the applicant has been given some good direction on
some of these issues.
Jurgens commented he would like to see the guesthouse removed since it is nonconforming and that he
would like some confirmation that the building envelopes for these lots are workable. Jurgens indicated
he would also like to see only one access onto Fox Street.
Winkey stated he would like to see lots that do not require variances.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS
#5 #05-3072 ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT#278, 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD-
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT, 6:58 p.m.—7:19 p.m.
Neal Lawson and John Osland appeared on behalf of the Orono Public School District.
Curtis stated the Orono Public School District is requesting a variance and conditional use permit in order
to replace the existing campus monument sign with a new monument sign. The new sign would be
located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12 on school
district property. The applicant is proposing a 9' 2"tall by 11' wide monument with 56 square feet of
sign face, including a 30 square foot static electronic readerboard. As proposed,the static electronic
readerboard is not considered a flashing illuminated sign,which is not allowed.
Curtis stated a variance is being requested to the 12 square foot residential zone sign limitation for the 56
square foot sign on one side of the monument. A conditional use permit is also being requested for a sign
related to an institutional use within a residential zone.
Curtis requested the Planning Commission consider the following issues:
1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the monument sign,readerboard sign and its proposed use are
appropriate.
2. Will a static electronic readerboard serve as a distraction to vehicular traffic.
3. Does the landscaping proposed address the guidelines within Section 78-1467 regarding monument
signs.
Curtis noted Section 78-1467 requires that 200 square feet of ground area around the base of the
monument sign be landscaped with shrubs or perennials. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing
approximately 60 to 70 feet of landscaping which matches the existing landscaping on the property.
Staff finds the hardship to be the fact that currently the Orono sign codes do not address institutional uses
within residential districts,making it difficult to meet the needs of schools and other institutional uses
within residential districts. Staff recommends approval of the sign variance and conditional use permit
for a new campus monument sign.
Lawson thanked Staff for their help on this application.
Rahn asked for public comment.
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Fritzler inquired what would go into the sponsor panel.
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3072 Orono Public School District, Continued)
Lawson stated they would like to recognize a possible sponsor of the sign.
Fritzler stated he is fine with the placement of the sign as long as it complies with current requirements
for line of sight. Fritzler indicated he is against the sponsor panel since that is advertisement and not
related to school activities. Fritzler inquired what the square footage would be if the sponsor panel were
removed.
Curtis indicated the sponsor panel is 1' by 8'.
Winkey inquired why the school district is proposing a sign of this size.
Lawson stated they attempted to follow the City's monument sign standards.
Leslie indicated he also is not in favor of the sponsor panel since it would then become a commercial sign
located within a residential zone.
Rahn concurred with the removal of the sponsor panel and to leave the height of the sign as shown.
Leslie inquired whether the height of the sign would be reduced by the size of the sponsor panel area.
Rahn commented the sponsor panel is probably located three feet from the bottom and that he would
prefer to see that area landscaped.
Lawson stated the sponsor panel would probably contain the name of a nonprofit organization.
Rahn stated he would prefer to see only school related events on the sign.
Jurgens stated he has concerns that the name on the sponsor panel would change periodically and that he
would prefer a placard or a cornerstone on the end or side rather than the sponsor panel. Jurgens
commented he would like to see the landscaping around the monument increased.
Winkey stated he also is opposed to the sponsor panel. Winkey indicated he would prefer the sign remain
the same size but that the landscaping around the base be increased.
Leslie inquired whether there are any restrictions that can or should be placed on the content of the sign.
Leslie indicated he is in favor of a sign that promotes school activities but that he does not want to see the
sign used to promote non-school related items. Leslie inquired whether there currently are restrictions on
the manual readerboard.
Gaffron indicated there are not.
Curtis noted a permit is required to change the sign face.
PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3072 Orono Public School District, Continued)
Jurgens moved,Winkey seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3072, Orono
Schools, 685 Old Crystal Bay Road North,granting of a variance and conditional use permit,
subject to the condition that the sponsor panel be deleted,with the understanding the size of the
monument would remain at 9' 2"tall by 11' wide. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Bremer Opposed.
Bremer indicated she is not opposed to the sponsor panel remaining.
Lawson inquired whether the Planning Commission approved the elimination of that panel or the
elimination of the name of the sponsor.
Jurgens stated the panel would be eliminated.
Bremer stated the total area of the sign would remain the same.
Rahn stated it was his understanding the upper signs would remain the same, with removal of the sponsor
panel to allow additional landscaping around the base.
Jurgens stated his motion was to allow the two upper panels of the sign to remain the same, with the
readerboard panel remaining the same, and deletion of the sponsor panel in its entirety.
Bremer inquired whether the total area of the monument would remain the same.
Jurgens stated the height and width of the sign would remain the same.
Fritzler stated that would eliminate any sponsor panel—illuminated, engraved, engrossed,painted, etched
or carved.
Jurgens indicated that was not in his motion. Jurgens stated he does not have a problem with a brass
placard or cornerstone recognizing a sponsor. Jurgens inquired whether there are standards for wall signs.
Gaffron stated if it is a part of this sign, it should be considered as part of this sign and not separately.
Lawson inquired whether they could advertise school related activities.
Fritzler stated the City does not want to see advertising for separate entities outside the school.
Lawson stated they would like to have the size of the sign remain the same.
Sansevere inquired whether other schools have similar sponsor panels.
Lawson stated he is unaware of any at the present time.
Sansevere requested that that information be gathered prior to the council meeting.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3072 Orono Public School District, Continued)
Lawson requested that he be given direction on the size of the sign.
Jurgens moved,Bremer seconded,to rescind the above motion. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
Rahn moved,Fritzler seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3072, Orono Public
School District#278,685 Old Crystal Bay Road,granting of a variance and conditional use permit
with the stipulation that the sponsor panel only be used to promote school functions and activities
and not act as any type of advertising. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Bremer Opposed.
Bremer indicated she still is in favor of the sponsor panel.
#6 #05-3074 SEAN AND MELISSA WAMBOLD, 1379 PARK DRIVE,AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,7:20 p.m.—7:42 p.m.
Sean and Melissa Wambold, Applicants, were present.
Curtis stated the applicants have recently purchased the property located at 1379 Park Drive and were
notified following the purchase that the retaining walls and hardcover were installed by the previous
owner without proper city permits. The applicants' intent is to do some remodeling in the future and they
would like to bring the property into compliance.
Curtis noted a memorandum from Bruce Vang is included within the file providing some background on
this project. Curtis indicated the prior owner had proposed to do limited grading in the 0-75' zone. He
was advised by the City to also contact the MCWD. City Staff later discovered that work had been
completed. The potential buyers contacted staff regarding the City's issues with the property. While
there was no information regarding any violations in the file at the time of the inquiry, Staff did advise the
applicants of the issues as soon as they became known,but in the interim the applicants had purchased the
property.
The applicants are requesting after-the-fact approval for hardcover variances within the 0-75' setback and
the 75'-250' setback and a conditional use permit for retaining walls and grading within 75' of the lake
that was conducted by the previous owner.
Staff finds that there is no hardship inherent to the land to justify granting the conditional use permit for
the grading or a variance for this type or amount of hardcover within 75' of the lake. City Code provides
properties with steep slopes a stair access to the lake yard rather than conducting extensive topographic
alterations. With the exception of the two graded walkways, a majority of the boulder hardcover is
strictly aesthetic. It is Staff's opinion these graded walkways are unnecessary as a partial stair system
currently exists and would only need to be extended for lake access.
Curtis stated additions of boulder borders and related non-structural hardcover in the 75'-250' zone would
not have required a City permit; although this installation places the 75'-250' zone out of hardcover
compliance. Curtis indicated the grading and hardcover additions in the 0-75' zone bring the entire
PAGE 13
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wambold,Continued)
property's hardcover status under review. Since the additions of the boulder borders and flagstone patio
areas have increased the hardcover level above the permitted amount within the 75'-250' zone,the
Planning Commission should discuss whether or not to grant a variance to allow the current level or
recommend removal of the 1,587 square feet of coverage.
Staff recommends removal of the hardcover in the 0-75' zone and 75'-250' zone that is not strictly
necessary for lake access or slope stability as well as removal of the boulder borders that cross the
property line.
Mr. Wambold indicated they closed on the property October 15"'and were contacted by a realtor shortly
thereafter regarding some hardcover and setback issues. Wambold stated to their knowledge the prior
owners are in Arizona somewhere and they probably would not be able to locate them.
Wambold indicated there is extensive landscaping on the property,which was one of the reasons why
they purchased the property, and that they anticipate doing some remodeling in the future. Wambold
stated they would like to bring the property into compliance but that they were not aware of these issues
at the time of the purchase since there was nothing in the file. Wambold noted they would have to incur
significant expense in removing the landscaping.
Rahn asked for public comment.
George Daniels, 1375 Park Drive, addressed the Council regarding the improvements made by the
previous owner. Daniels indicated a number of big pieces of equipment were brought in to do the work
but that in his opinion there was not a formal plan ever submitted. Daniels stated he would like the
Planning Commission to allow some steps down to the lake in order to enable the new property owners to
access that area and maintain it.
Daniels noted some of the boulders are located on his property, which he was not aware of at the time the
work was completed. Daniels suggested a landscape plan be submitted to Staff.
Wambold stated if steps were constructed in that area,it may be necessary to bring fill back in, which in
turn could cause erosion down into the lake.
Rahn stated in his view the Planning Commission would look at this application as if the landscaping
were not there and decide what is necessary to allow access to that area. Rahn indicated he tends to agree
with Staff that whatever hardcover is not necessary for slope stabilization be removed.
Jurgens stated he understands the applicants' desire not to have to redo the work and the expense
involved,but that perhaps one option is to locate the previous owner. Jurgens suggested a possible course
of action tonight is to table the application in order to give the applicants some time to hire a landscape
architect and arrive at a plan for what should be removed and what they would like to have in that area.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3074 Sean and Melissa Wambold,Continued)
Winkey stated since the applicants are planning to do some remodeling in the future, it might be in their
best interests to have some ideas about what type of work would be done in connection with the
remodeling.
Leslie pointed out that any variances granted by the Council would expire at a certain point in time and
that the applicants may not be able to accomplish the remodeling and removal of the landscaping at the
same time.
Wambold stated they are hoping to be able to do the remodeling sometime this fall but that there is a
possibility it would be delayed.
Leslie noted the remodeling would be a separate application.
Jurgens stated the applicants might want to take into consideration the remodeling project when they redo
the landscaping. Jurgens pointed out the applicants would only be allowed 25 percent hardcover in this
area.
Wambold asked what amount of hardcover the Planning Commission is looking for in this area.
Jurgens stated they would like the hardcover to be in compliance but that at the present time he does not
have enough information to determine exactly what needs to be removed and what should remain.
Jurgens stated by tabling the application,the applicants would have time to work with a landscape
architect and staff to come up with a new landscaping plan.
Rahn stated the applicants would only be allowed to keep whatever hardcover is necessary to maintain the
slope in the 0-75' zone and that the Planning Commission at this time cannot determine exactly what
needs to be removed.
Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to table Application#05-3074, Sean and Melissa Wambold,
1379 Park Drive,to allow them time to submit a landscape plan. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
#7 05-3075 MITCH AND KIM OLSON,3275 CARMAN ROAD—VARIANCES,
7:42 p.m.—8:07 p.m.
Mitch and Kim Olson,Applicants, were present.
Gundlach stated the applicants are requesting a hardcover variance in order to allow construction of an
additional attached single garage stall and a 2' by 12' kitchen addition. A hardcover variance is necessary
to permit 35.9 percent hardcover within the 75'-250' zone where 31.6 percent currently exists. Gundlach
indicated an average lakeshore setback variance is also required to permit both additions to be constructed
in front of the average lakeshore setback line.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3075 Mitch and Kim Olson, Continued)
Gundlach stated the property is located at the end of Carman Road and is situated on a point. The
applicants are proposing to add a third garage stall at the street end of the lot and also a small kitchen
addition approximately 17 square feet in size on the east wall of the house behind the garage. Gundlach
noted a majority of the lot is located in front of the average lakeshore setback line.
Staff finds that a hardship exists in order to grant a hardcover variance above the allowed 25 percent due
to the nature of the lot existing on a point with over 480 feet of shoreline. Because of the nature of the
point and the orientation of the home on the lot, some additional land exists for infiltration purposes.
However,based on the runoff direction and the additional land through which storm water infiltration
occurs, Staff finds that the existing level of 31.6 percent is probably the maximum level of hardcover that
the property should be allowed based on the above hardship.
Based on the amount of existing hardcover on the lot, Staff is recommending denial of the hardcover
variance and approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. It is Staff's opinion that the applicants
redesign their plan in an attempt to prevent an increase in hardcover.
Mr. Olson stated they would like to replace the roof and windows on the existing structure and extend the
kitchen two feet outside the existing wall. Olson indicated they would like to improve their property and
that the replacement of the roof and windows are due to the deteriorating condition of the residence.
Olson noted they are addressing several structural issues with the renovation.
Olson indicated they have looked at several plans in an attempt to make the kitchen addition conform but
that they have been unable to arrive at one. Olson pointed out the bump-out does not touch the ground
and would be beneath an existing overhang. Olson stated run-off currently flows away from the house
and that the proposed design is consistent with the neighborhood.
Olson stated they are in need of an additional garage stall to accommodate a third vehicle. Olson
commented at the present time they are forced to move cars around in order to get in and out of the
driveway and that there really is not room available to park on the street. Olson stated the garage is
located within an alcove. Olson stated the driveway consists of 59.4 square feet of current hardcover but
that it is listed in Exhibit B as 16 square feet. Olson stated there is a walkway from the front entrance to
the garage that is under an overhang. Olson pointed out the runoff in his opinion would not be a factor in
this area.
Olson stated it was suggested that the garage be made deeper but that they rejected that idea since it
would create additional hardcover and the driveway would need to be relocated. Olson stated there is also
a setback that would have to be addressed.
Olson stated the property consists of 1.06 acre of land and has six percent total structural coverage. Olson
indicated one neighbor is at 20 percent and the other one is at 17 percent.
Rahn asked for public comment on this application.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3075 Mitch and Kim Olson, Continued)
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Fritzler stated in his view from reading the Planner's Report this remodeling work is going way beyond a
kitchen expansion and garage stall and is instead a major remodel. Fritzler questioned whether this is
truly a remodel or a rebuild.
Gundlach stated after meeting with the property owners' architect, it was clear that they are doing some
maintenance issues, which can be achieved with a building permit only. Gundlach stated the reason the
applicants are before the Planning Commission is because they are increasing the footprint and hardcover.
Gundlach indicated it is her understanding the interior of the residence would not be changed
dramatically.
Rahn inquired whether it is the intent of the applicants to remove the trusses and framing and raise the
ceiling.
Olson stated they are raising the ceilings but they are also attempting to address an ice-damming issue due
to the current pitch of the roof. Olson stated currently their ceilings are approximately seven feet high.
Rahn stated it does appear to be relatively substantial work that is being proposed and that if this were a
new home, the Planning Commission would be scrutinizing the 31 percent existing hardcover. Rahn
stated because of the major work that is being proposed, in his view the applicant should consider his
options for keeping the hardcover at the existing level.
Olson stated in his view a three-car garage is not unusual in today's market and noted that he currently is
at six percent structural coverage when he is allowed up to 15 percent. Olson pointed out that 62 percent
of his property is unbuildable and that there is a waterway on both sides of his property that further
restricts the property. Olson stated they did look at tearing down the entire structure found but that they
found this option the least obtrusive.
Olson stated he is unclear why the kitchen bump-out addition would be considered hardcover since it is
not touching the ground.
Jurgens stated there would be a roof above it.
Olson stated there currently is a roof in that area.
Rahn inquired how much of the overhang would stick out beyond the two-foot addition.
Olson stated it is two foot something.
Rahn asked whether it is their intent to come out to the fascia line.
Olson stated it is.
PAGE 17
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3075 Mitch and Kim Olson, Continued)
Rahn stated that type of construction is similar to a bay window or a chimney chase and that those are
considered hardcover.
Gundlach stated if it is simply a roof overhang,the rainfall is allowed to get within the two-foot overhang
of the house, and once that area is filled in with structure, it creates additional runoff.
Olson stated they are attempting to keep the runoff away from the house.
Gaffron stated the City consistently in the past on a two-foot roof overhang has said that it would not be
considered hardcover if it is above ten feet. Gaffron stated if there is a portion of the house that does not
allow the wind and rain back in,that is considered hardcover.
Winkey inquired whether there is any hardcover that could be removed as a trade-off.
Gundlach indicated there is currently a deck that is somewhat in the 0-75' zone.
Jurgens inquired whether the gravel parking area would be removed.
Gundlach stated they would be adding some driveway on the lot and that there is an existing gravel
portion,which is proposed to stay.
Olson inquired whether there was another material he could use for a driveway that would not be
considered hardcover.
Jurgens stated any material that is driven over,regardless if it is pavers or the ground, is considered
hardcover.
Gaffron stated the one option available to avoid increasing hardcover for the garage is to construct the
new stall in front of the old garage on the driveway.
Olson indicated there might be a problem getting the cars in and out of the garage since the driveway
narrows in that area.
Rahn noted the applicant is allowed to build structural coverage over hardcover and that it is a matter of
what they can do without in an effort to keep the hardcover at a minimum.
Olson inquired whether removal of the concrete on the non-lakeshore side would count.
Rahn stated that would be considered hardcover.
Jurgens commented the goal is to not exceed 25 percent hardcover within a certain zone and that
hardcover is considered to be anything that is impervious. Jurgens inquired what the 839 feet consists of
in the 0-75' zone.
PAGE 18
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3075 Mitch and Kim Olson, Continued)
Olson stated a portion of that is the house and the rest is the garage.
Jurgens stated the deck could be removed or reduced in size to decrease the hardcover. Jurgens noted the
applicant is also over in the 75-250' zone.
Gundlach stated the applicant is not changing the hardcover within 75 feet of the lake.
Rahn stated in his view there could be a reduction in the hardcover being proposed.
Jurgens commented the Planning Commission can only act on what has been presented,but that in his
opinion the applicant does have some options he could consider.
Leslie stated the Planning Commission could either deny the application or table the application, which
would allow the applicant to submit a revised plan.
Olson indicated he is unclear what the average lakeshore setback variance relates to.
Gundlach stated technically all structures need to be behind the average lakeshore setback,but because
this property is located on a point, the entire lot is in front of that line, which requires a variance.
Leslie stated the intent of that code is to insure that neighboring houses do not encumber somebody else's
view. Leslie stated because this is a unique situation,the average lakeshore setback variance would be
granted.
Leslie moved,Winkey seconded,to table Application#05-3075,Katherine Taylor Homes on behalf
of Mitch and Kim Olson,3275 Carman Road,to allow the applicant time to submit a revised plan.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
#8 #05-3076 GREGORY AND JEANNE GUSTAFSON, 1280/1290 SPRUCE PLACE—
VARIANCES,8:08 p.m.—8:27 p.m.
Greg Gustafson, Applicant, and Katherine Alexander,Architect,were present.
Gundlach stated the applicants are requesting lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new
residence on an existing lot. A conditional use permit is also required to allow grading within the 0-75'
setback zone consisting of removal of the existing house and restoration of the grade. The property
consists of.42 acres and is located in the LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District, which has a
one-acre minimum. The property is approximately 100 feet in width at the shoreline and a 75-foot
setback when 140 feet is normally required.
Gundlach indicated the applicants have met all the standards with respect to setbacks,hardcover, lot
coverage, and building height.
PAGE 19
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3076 Gregory and Jeanne Gustafson, Continued)
Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Dedication of 10 feet drainage and utility easements along the side lot lines and street lot line.
2. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer letter dated January 4, 2005.
3. Formal combination of 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place prior to building permit issuance.
Gustafson indicated he does not have anything to add to Staff's report at this time.
There were no public comments concerning this application.
Fritzler inquired what the total height of the proposed structure is.
Alexander stated the structure does comply with the height restriction for this lot.
Fritzler stated he does have a concern regarding the proposed height.
Alexander stated the height was measured from the highest existing grade to the mid point of the roof.
Alexander pointed out the pitch of the roof on the right side was changed to accommodate the height
restriction, which is the way the house will be built.
Rahn inquired whether a height variance is being requested.
Alexander indicated they are not requesting a height variance or hardcover variance.
Fritzler stated he has a concern with how the structure would sit on the lot, especially given the height of
the residence located next door.
Alexander stated the residence next door would still appear to tower above this structure.
Fritzler stated he wants to avoid having two towering structures next to one another, and given the higher
topography of this lot,it may have the appearance that it towers above the rest of the neighborhood.
Fritzler stated he also wants to insure that the existing grade remains the same.
Alexander noted a similar application did appear before the Planning Commission in June of 2003 but
that the previous owner had let the variances expire.
Gundlach noted the previous application did request hardcover variances in addition to the lot width and
lot area variances. Gundlach stated the hardcover variances were denied at that time.
Jurgens stated in theory the house is being constructed on a pedestal since the grade around the house is
being raised anywhere from four to six feet. Jurgens inquired whether additional grading would be done
PAGE 20
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3076 Gregory and Jeanne Gustafson, Continued)
besides the grading necessary to restore the grade following removal of the existing house. Jurgens noted
the City's code goes from the highest point of the existing grade in the area where the house is built and
not on the piece of property.
Gaffron stated that is what the applicants are proposing.
Nancy Anderson, 1260 Spruce Place, stated she is here tonight representing her mother who resides to the
north of this property. Anderson expressed concerns regarding the potential runoff if the elevation on this
property is being raised. Anderson stated in his opinion the elevation on this lot has previously been
artificially established 30 years ago when the lakeside area was dug out illegally and that dirt was placed
on the street side. Anderson commented it is her understanding that yard was already raised four to five
feet on the street side.
Rahn stated the City Engineer addresses all drainage issues prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Gaffron inquired whether the City Engineer has reviewed this plan.
Gundlach indicated the City Engineer has not reviewed the revised plan but that it is her understanding
the revised plan does incorporate the recommendations the engineer had regarding the initial plan that
was submitted.
Gaffron stated the City is aware that there was some illegal grading done on this property a number of
years ago but that this plan does partially restore the original grade.
Gustafson noted they are proposing to remove the retaining walls.
Alexander stated they are proposing all hardcover be removed in the 0-75' zone.
Gustafson commented that half of the existing house is within the 0-75' zone and that all hardcover
within the 0-75' zone would be removed and not replaced. Gustafson indicated they require a conditional
use permit for the 0-75' zone to restore the grade following demolition of the home. Gustafson stated he
does not want to create a drainage problem for his neighbors and that he has incorporated the
recommendations of the city engineer into his plans.
Gundlach pointed out the applicants have also agreed to dedicate 10-foot drainage and utility easements
on the north and south lot lines in an attempt to formally establish a swale within those lot lines to control
drainage.
Gustafson stated that area of the lot would be lower than the land to the north.
Jurgens stated in his view there will be a lot more water running down the slope and that the City
Engineer needs to look at that. Jurgens inquired why the slope was built in that area.
PAGE 21
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3076 Gregory and Jeanne Gustafson, Continued)
Alexander stated there is a small berm in that area and the surveyor has noted that non-maintenance
groundcover would be in that area. Alexander stated the reason for the berm was partially for aesthetics
and partially to meet a code that says that the lower level has to be more than six feet under the ground.
Gundlach stated the building code definition of a basement is that 50 percent of the perimeter has to be at
least six feet under the ground, otherwise it would be considered a three-story house.
Jurgens reiterated his concern about the amount of water being directed down the slope into the swale.
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3076,granting of a lot
area variance,lot width variance,and a conditional use permit to allow grading within the 0-75'
setback zone for the property located at 1280/1290 Spruce Place. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2,Jurgens
and Fritzler Opposed.
Jurgens indicated he voted in opposition to the motion because he would like the approval to be
conditioned upon review and approval of the City Engineer.
Bremer noted that is required as a condition of approval as outlined in Staff's report.
Gustafson stated he would rather go before the City Council with a five-one vote.
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to amend the above motion to include the stipulation that approval
is subject to the conditions outlined in the January 18,2005 Planner's Report.
VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Fritzler Opposed.
(Recess taken from 8:27 p.m.—8:35 p.m.)
#9 05-3077 BARRY AND ROBIN O'ROURKE,2300 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH—
VARIANCE,8:35 p.m.—9:00 p.m.
Barry and Robin O'Rourke,Applicants,were present.
Curtis stated the City received an inquiry in November regarding a lean-to structure that was under
construction that appeared to be too close to the property line. After looking into the file, Staff
determined that no permit had been issued and a stop work notice was issued.
Curtis stated the applicant did meet with staff and was told that the required setback for a stable,barn or
other structure meant to house animals was 75 feet from the property lines and that the structure must be
removed. The lean-to was constructed less than two feet from the rear property line and approximately 45
feet from the western side lot line. At that time the O'Rourkes determined that they wanted to request an
after-the-fact variance for the structure to remain at the current location. Staff informed the applicants
that there was no hardship present in order to receive Staff approval for a variance of this type and
PAGE 22
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3077 Barry and Robin O'Rourke,Continued)
advised the applicants again to remove the building. The applicants maintain that there was no other
viable location for the lean-to and proceeded with the after-the-fact variance application.
The applicants are requesting after-the-fact variances in order to allow continued construction of a
16' by 48' lean-to horse shelter structure less than 2 feet from the rear property line and 45 feet from the
western side lot line where a 75' setback from all property lines is required for a structure used for the
keeping of horses.
Staff finds that based on the size of this property there is no hardship for a setback variance and that
granting of this variance would serve as merely a convenience to the applicants. Therefore,Planning
Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variance. Staff is also recommending that the partially
constructed lean-to be removed immediately weather permitting.
Mrs. O'Rourke apologized for commencing construction on the lean-to,noting that they were not aware
that a building permit was required for an unenclosed structure. O'Rourke indicated the lean-to is
designed to shelter the horses from the north wind.
O'Rourke stated the lean-to needs to be within the paddocks that do house the horses, and that if she is
required to meet the 75-foot setback, the lean-to would be located completely outside of one of the
paddocks. In order to meet the rear setback, the lean-to would be too close to the barn and too close to the
fence line. O'Rourke indicated she is unable to move the fence line because of utilities in the area, and if
the lean-to is located further east,there is a wooded area, which is the natural drainage for the area.
O'Rourke stated they have spent thousands of dollars in an attempt to correct the drainage in that area,
with drainage ditches being constructed all the way out to County Road 6 to hit the storm drains.
O'Rourke stated she would like to retain the trees.
O'Rourke stated in her opinion she has a hardship due to the location of the existing structure and the
need to locate the lean-to in close proximity to the paddocks.
Rahn asked for public comment concerning this application.
Stephen Mann, 2275 Cox Trail,indicated he is the property owner to the northeast. Mann stated in his
opinion a structure of this size should be located further away from the property line than 16 inches.
Mr. O'Rourke noted the lean-to is not located 16 inches from Mr. Mann's property.
Curtis noted each commissioner should have in front of them a letter sent by Paul Phillips.
Jurgens inquired where in relation to the O'Rourke's lot the Phillips property is located.
O'Rourke indicated he lives at the end of Phillips Drive, which is northeast from their property.
Winkey inquired if the lean-to could be constructed in the right-hand area.
PAGE 23
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3077 Barry and Robin O'Rourke, Continued)
O'Rourke stated due to the population of horses that she owns,which are both miniature and full-size,
they need to be separated for safety reasons. O'Rourke indicated she also owns a small stallion which
cannot be kept with any of the other horses. O'Rourke stated she needs to have these areas of separation
in order to maintain the horses. O'Rourke stated it has also been recommended by the veterinarian that
she keep three older horses with respiratory problems outside as much as possible. O'Rourke noted she
does not intend to increase the population of the horses on the property.
Winkey inquired whether the horses kept in the paddocks closer to the wooded area require the shelter.
O'Rourke indicated those horses would be able to access the barn.
Fritzler stated in his opinion it is very important that the side yard setbacks be maintained. Fritzler noted
normally utilities are not at the same depth as fence posts and that it could be possible that the fence could
be relocated. Fritzler stated due to the size of the lot,he would suggest the applicants consider two
smaller shelters rather than one large shelter.
O'Rourke stated even if two smaller shelters were constructed she would be unable to conform to the
75-foot setback requirement and that it would place the shelters completely outside the paddocks.
O'Rourke indicated if she complies with the 75-foot setback,the lean-to would be located too close to the
barn and cause safety issues for the horses.
Fritzler reiterated that in his view, due to the size of the lot,the side yard setbacks should be complied
with. Fritzler inquired whether the applicant currently owns all the horses on the property.
O'Rourke indicated there is one horse that she personally does not own,which is a temporary situation.
Winkey inquired whether the paddocks could be located elsewhere.
O'Rourke stated she still would be unable to meet the west side setbacks. O'Rourke pointed out one of
the areas on the diagram is a riding arena with a large pine tree in the middle. O'Rourke stated she has
attempted to relocate the lean-to in a location that would be complying with the setbacks but that she has
encountered problems with the fence line,the wooded area, and safety of the horses.
Rahn commented in his view the lean-to appears to be very large.
O'Rourke stated the lean-to was designed to cover two paddocks.
Rahn stated in his opinion the lean-to could be relocated but that it may involve re-orientating the fence
line. Rahn indicated the most important issue he has with this application is the neighbors who have
purchased plats of land and have researched the City's requirements prior to construction to find out if
they are in compliance and then are now faced with a situation where they have a structure located very
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
• Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3077 Barry and Robin O'Rourke, Continued)
close to the property line. Rahn stated those property owners have a right to expect that no structures will
exist in the 0-75' area.
Mr. O'Rourke indicated they have spoken with the neighbor who is directly behind them.
Sansevere inquired whether the lean-to could be located halfway between its current location and the
barn.
Mr. O'Rourke stated that would not be 75 feet from the property line.
Mrs. O'Rourke stated they would be able to relocate the lean-to closer to the barn but probably not
halfway. O'Rourke indicated they could locate the structure approximately 45 feet from the property line.
Jurgens commented horses do tend to hurt each other if they are confined close together. Jurgens inquired
what the setback requirements would be for a storage shed.
Curtis stated the setbacks would depend on the size of the structure.
Jurgens noted the lean-to appears to be less than 1,000 square feet but more than 750 square feet.
Gundlach stated that size structure would require a 15-foot setback.
Jurgens stated he has gathered from the comments of the neighbors that they do not want to see the
structure,but noted the applicant does have a right to construct a storage shed the same size 15 feet from
the property line and just not house horses in it.
Curtis stated the structure should also be located 150 feet from the neighboring homes.
Rahn noted a storage shed would probably need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission since there
are already other structures on the property.
Curtis pointed out that structures that house horses fall under a different set of regulations.
O'Rourke indicated she is agreeable to planting trees to screen the shelter.
Leslie commented in his view this is more an issue of convenience and that the fence line could be
reconfigured or the horses could be placed in different paddocks.
O'Rourke disagreed that this is an issue of convenience,noting that the bottom paddocks do not currently
have shelter. O'Rourke stated the middle fence line could be removed but that would result in a shortage
of paddock areas. O'Rourke reiterated they have attempted to come up with alternatives but have not
been able to find a way to meet all the setbacks.
PAGE 25
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3077 Barry and Robin O'Rourke,Continued)
Fritzler moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend denial of Application#05-3077,Barry and Robin
O'Rourke, 2300 Sixth Avenue North. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
#10 05-3080 INTERSPACE-WEST,INC.,2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD—PUD
AMENDMENT,FINAL PLAT,9:01 p.m.—10:16 p.m.
Gina Carlson, Interspace, Philip Carlson, Interspace, and Dan Larson, Engineer,were present.
Gundlach stated the applicant is requesting a B-6 PUD General Concept Plan approval,preliminary plat
approval, commercial site plan approval,and easement vacations in order to construct 20 units of office
condominiums on 10 lots and one common lot to be known as Sugarwoods Office Center. The property
consists of 2.6 acres and is located just west of the Orono Woods Senior Housing Development. The
proposed condos will be two-story walkouts containing approximately 34,186 square feet of gross square
footage. Each building will contain a walkout level,a main floor level, and a second story mezzanine.
Gundlach indicated approval of this project first requires general concept plan approval,preliminary plat
approval and commercial site plan approval, followed by general development plan, easement vacation,
and final plat approvals and an amendment to PUD Agreement No. 2A.
Gundlach noted in the spring of 2003 an office-condo development was proposed for the site, with a site
layout that included buildings with south and east-facing walkouts. While that plan was generally looked
upon favorably by the Planning Commission and Council, the applicants ultimately concluded they could
not reduce the number of units or square footage in order to meet the parking stall minimums established
for their proposed use.
Gundlach stated the proposed plan does comply with the goals of the Community Management Plan. The
proposal meets the requirements for lot area, lot width, and setback requirements. The applicant also
complies with building height regulations. Gundlach noted the applicant would be lowering the site four
to eight feet with some cuts as large as 10 to 15 feet. The site will be lowered overall and carved out in
the rear to create a walkout situation. In addition,berming and retaining walls are proposed for the north
end to lessen the impacts of adjoining neighbors.
The applicants have proposed 103 parking stalls, which is in compliance with the 3.5 stalls per 1000
square feet recommended by the City Engineer and planning consultant. Gundlach noted this is not the
actual regulation in the City's current zoning ordinance,which does not address this type of use.
Gundlach indicated all stormwater will be collected via catch basins and transported via underground
storm sewers to the existing storm sewer system serving the Orono Woods senior housing site,
discharging to the existing NURP pond located at the northwest corner of Brown Road North and existing
Highway 12.
Access to the site consists of a shared right-in/right-out driveway access directly to Highway 12 and a
shared driveway access eastward through the Orono Woods site to Brown Road North.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3080 Interspace-West,Inc.,Continued)
The applicant has submitted proposed exterior finish materials consisting of a light and dark color stucco
material, metal grills affixed directly to the facades, and glass, with an all-metal roof. Staff finds that the
materials proposed meet the standards established within the B-6 code.
Gundlach stated issues for discussion should include the following:
1. Should pedestrian access to Orono Woods and Highway 12 be required.
2. The connection to Outlot D, Sugarwoods, at the northwest corner of the site, also creates a
turn-around at the dead-end portion of the parking lot. Because a service road does not currently
exist, a variance may be required to allow a parking lot encroachment to the 10-foot setback
requirement.
3. Is an open space calculation of 39 percent adequate.
4. Does the architecture proposed have a positive impact on the landscape.
Staff is recommending this application be tabled to address the seven items outlined in January 18, 2005
Planner's Report. Gundlach noted a landscape plan, signage plan, and a lighting plan must be submitted.
Gundlach indicated should the Planning Commission find all the plans to be acceptable with the
exception of the lighting, signage, and landscaping plan, a favorable recommendation to the council could
be taken, with the seven stipulations being addressed prior to council review or prior to the final plat
application.
Gina Carlson addressed the City Council regarding the proposal,noting that they are taking the concept of
a townhome and turning it into office townhomes where the person would own the building as well as the
ground underneath. Carlson indicated 10 buildings are proposed for this site, with the potential for 10
different owners. Carlson stated the units are clustered in two groups of three and one group of four,with
the end units each having their own private stairwell and the other units having a shared stairwell.
Carlson indicated the project was designed based on the theory of Feng Shui,which deals with the natural
flow of the land. Carlson stated the site is L-shaped with a curved driveway,with the buildings being
designed to incorporate the five elements of Feng Shui. Carlson reviewed the proposed design of the
buildings,noting that the buildings would consist of stucco, metal, and glass.
Carlson stated the back of the site abutting the residential neighborhood would consist of four-foot berm
tiers,resulting in a gradual berm, with plantings being proposed for the berm.
Rahn asked for public comments.
Michael Ricks, 2108 Sugarwood Drive, indicated he did meet with the developers and that they have
taken into consideration the residential property abutting the back of this site. Ricks expressed concern
PAGE 27
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3080 Interspace-West,Inc., Continued)
that if a lot of dirt is removed from this site,the residential area would be more exposed to Highway 12.
Ricks requested the natural height of the hilltop be maintained to keep the differentiation between the
residential neighborhood and the commercial development.
Rahn inquired what alterations would be made along the property line.
Dan Larson stated the highest point on the property is 1024', with the first floor elevations of the two
northern units being 1019' and 1020'. Larson stated there would be two stories on top of that, which
should obstruct the sight lines to Highway 12.
Mrs. Carlson indicated each floor from floor to ceiling is 10' 7",with the walkout level being below the
berm. Carlson stated the berm would come to approximately mid point on the first main level,with the
rest of the building being approximately 15 feet above the top level of the berm. Carlson stated the trees
would create a barrier between the residential neighborhood and the buildings.
Rahn inquired whether the applicants have had time to address the issues raised in Staff's report.
Mr. Carlson noted they only received the report today due to the holiday. Carlson indicated the lighting,
landscaping, and signage plans are almost complete and should be completed by the end of the week.
Carlson stated they would prefer this application not be tabled.
Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission could give it preliminary approval without those items.
Gaffron stated since this application will appear before the Planning Commission once final plans are
submitted,the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Council. Gaffron indicated
the Planning Commission could give general concept approval to the plan.
Winkey inquired whether the concept of purchasing office space has been done elsewhere. Winkey
inquired whether these units would be purchased by someone and then subleased out.
Mr. Carlson stated to their knowledge this is a new concept and is not being done elsewhere. Carlson
indicated the opportunity to own the office townhome and land is a great selling point.
Winkey noted based on the footprint, these buildings are being marketed to small businesses.
Mr. Carlson stated they are also marketing investors who might be interested in purchasing the building
and then sublease them out.
Winkey inquired whether the applicants are proposing to clear the entire site prior to knowing whether the
buildings will be sold.
Mr. Carlson stated it is their intent to have a couple of the buildings sold prior to clearing the site.
PAGE 28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3080 Interspace-West,Inc.,Continued)
Mrs. Carlson pointed out the site needs to be cleared in order to construct the road and install the utilities.
Mr. Carlson commented they are not worried about selling the buildings.
Gaffron noted all vegetation on this site would be removed due to the grading of the site except for the
northeast corner.
Winkey stated the total clearing of the site is one of his concerns,noting that the vegetation on the site at
the present time does provide some shelter to the residential area located to the back of this site. Winkey
indicated he has a concern with this development using the name of Sugarwoods and the likelihood of
people confusing the entry off of Brown Road and going into the residential neighborhood rather than the
office development. Winkey noted Sugarwoods does not have much traffic currently and that there is a
large number of young children who reside in the neighborhood. Winkey inquired whether the
developers would be willing to consider renaming this development.
Mrs. Carlson indicated they have already been marketing this development under the name of
Sugarwoods.
Mr. Carlson stated they do have a lot of costs associated with the printing of the brochures and marketing
of the development.
Winkey noted the concern with using the Sugarwoods name was expressed at the very beginning.
Mr. Carlson noted it was approximately two weeks ago that they had their first meeting with the
neighborhood concerning this proposal.
Winkey commented he does like the appearance of the buildings but that he does have a concern with the
name and the clear-cutting of this site in advance of selling any of the buildings. Winkey inquired
whether the top of the berm is 1024'.
Mr. Carlson stated it is.
Winkey inquired whether that elevation would be maintained.
Mr. Carlson stated it would.
Gaffron stated since a portion of the access is through the senior housing development, one option might
be to post a sign at that entrance stating that it is the Sugarwoods Office Center.
Winkey pointed out the senior housing development can also be accessed off of Brown Road, which is
approximately 15 feet from the entrance into the Sugarwoods residential area.
PAGE 29
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3080 Interspace-West,Inc.,Continued)
Mr. Carlson pointed out the majority of their signage would be located along Highway 12 and their
address would be Wayzata Boulevard.
Leslie commented he is having a hard time envisioning this project from the street and that it appears the
view from the street will be one of a lot of rooflines. Leslie stated he would like to see an elevation view
of the entire development from the street. Leslie stated he has a concern that there will be a wave of
metal buildings from the street and how that might impact the planning for the old Highway 12 corridor.
Mrs. Carlson stated the buildings toward the rear of the property would not be visible from the street and
that the elevation at the road is 995' and 1010' at the entrance to the property.
Mr. Carlson indicated the majority of what would be seen from Highway 12 would be the landscaping
and the monument sign.
Mrs. Carlson illustrated on the architectural drawing the portions of the building that would be visible
from Highway 12,noting the front entrance and glass stairwell would be the portion most visible.
Jurgens inquired what color schemes were planned for the roofs.
Mrs. Carlson stated the roofs would be an earth tone and not a shiny metal. Carlson indicated the exact
color selections have not been determined at this time.
Richard Apple, 2101 Sugarwoods Drive,indicated he also has the same concerns expressed by
Commissioner Winkey with the use of the name Sugarwoods and the amount of traffic that could
mistakenly turn into the residential area. Apple stated in light of the amount of money being spent to
develop this project,the brochures could be changed to reflect a new name. Apple inquired about the
parking requirements for this development.
Gundlach indicated the parking standards adopted in the City's zoning ordinance were adopted in
approximately 1974 and it uses a general office designation. Gundlach stated due to the number of office
condo developments that have been constructed,the parking requirements are fairly well understood and
the city's planning consultant determined that 3.5 parking stalls are needed per 1000 square feet.
Apple inquired about the maintenance of these buildings since they will be independently owned.
Mrs. Carlson indicated there would be an office owners association that dictates that the buildings remain
uniform and retain their original color scheme. Carlson stated the roofs would be similar to those on the
city office buildings.
Winkey noted the parking standards were based on the fact that there would not be a medical clinic or
other high traffic use located on this site. Winkey inquired whether those types of businesses would be
restricted from owning one of the units.
PAGE 30
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3080 Interspace-West,Inc.,Continued)
Gundlach stated when it was originally zoned B-6 PUD, the parking requirements were reviewed in
relation to a medical office since that is what was originally proposed, and it was determined that the site
could handle the traffic generated by a medical office. Gundlach stated if the businesses located in this
development are not primarily medical,the consultant felt the amount of traffic generated would be less.
Gaffron stated the justification for the 3.5 stalls rather than 5 per 1000 square feet is that the site is not
conducive to retail and that the primary business would not be a medical office. Gaffron stated to his
knowledge the types of businesses that would be located in this development would typically not generate
many visitors to the building.
Winkey inquired whether there would be restrictions on medical businesses.
Gaffron stated that probably is an office management issue but that the City should look into that issue
further. Gaffron stated he is unsure whether the City can identify the types of businesses that would
generate more traffic and parking needs.
Mr. Carlson stated they are expecting that this type of concept would attract professionals rather than
telemarketers or similar types of businesses.
Winkey stated that does not address the issue of a number of doctors coming in and purchasing one or
more of the buildings.
Mr. Carlson stated they are not planning on having a medical office park but that there is the possibility
that a chiropractor would be interested in owning one of these buildings. Carlson indicated they would
need to look at the parking requirements for a particular business prior to purchase.
Gaffron inquired whether the developer would have any control over resale.
Mrs. Carlson stated the office townhome association would have control over resale and that their
attorney is in the process of drafting up the necessary paperwork to address these types of issues.
Gaffron suggested that it might be useful if the Planning Commission reviewed the association's
covenants and restrictions.
Leslie inquired whether a certain number of parking stalls would be assigned per unit or whether it would
be general parking.
Mrs. Carlson indicated they were thinking it would be general parking in order to keep the handicap stalls
available for the lower units.
Leslie suggested considering assigning a certain number of stalls to each building.
PAGE 31
• MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(05-3080 Interspace-West,Inc., Continued)
Mr. Carlson indicated they would consider assigning a certain number of parking stalls to each tenant but
that he would like to avoid erecting a number of signs designating the assigned parking.
Apple commented one of the problems with assigned parking is that the customers are not aware of the
parking restrictions.
Mrs. Carlson pointed out that the office space has not been designed to accommodate a large volume of
people.
Jacqueline Ricks, 2108 Sugarwood Drive, expressed a concern regarding the clear-cutting of the lot and
the possibility that these units may not be sold as well as the limited amount of parking available for this
office development. Ricks stated she also has a concern with the removal of trees near the residential area
and how that would impact their visibility of Highway 12.
Rahn inquired who at the city reviews the parking issues.
Gaffron indicated the City has employed Shelly Johnson from Bonestroo&Associates, who is very
familiar with the parking needs for this type of use. Gaffron stated another consultant employed by the
City was Wally Case with DSU. Gaffron indicated both consultants arrived at 3.5 parking stalls per 1000
square feet. Gaffron stated since the City does not have a history of this type of use that they can look at
to determine the parking needs of this site, they have employed the services of the consultants. Gaffron
stated it is difficult to determine the parking requirements for this type of use since the businesses located
within the development would vary.
Fritzler commented he likes the conceptual design of the buildings,but that he has a concern with the
policing of the tenants that purchase these buildings.
Mr. Carlson stated that would be one of the things that would need to be addressed in their covenants.
Fritzler recommended that the association's covenants be very clear concerning the criteria that the
tenants would need to comply with.
Gaffron stated the City's zoning code for business districts is outdated in terms of listing uses. Gaffron
stated one option would be to bring before the Planning Commission the businesses that are interested in
purchasing one of these lots but noted that option may become time-consuming if there is a high amount
of turnover. Gaffron stated he is unsure whether the City wants to be involved in who is allowed to be a
tenant in this development once the project has been approved.
Fritzler commented in his view the City should not be involved in that type of review process. Fritzler
expressed a concern that if there is a high number of unoccupied buildings, the homeowner's association
may approve tenants that are not ideally suited for this type of development.
Rahn requested that the association's covenants be submitted to the City for review.
PAGE 32
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3080 Interspace-West,Inc.,Continued)
Jurgens pointed out the association's covenants will dictate what happens on this site in the future and
that the City should review that prior to final approval.
Bremer indicated she has a concern regarding the clear-cutting of the site and the potential that these units
will remain unsold for a period of time. Bremer stated she would like to see some analysis or research
showing that this is a marketable concept. Bremer commented she would like to see this project be
successful but that she would like some reassurance that there is a market for this type of development.
Mrs. Carlson stated they have looked at that issue,noting that they did look at Long Lake's
Comprehensive Plan and other office developments along 394. Carlson indicated their last project was
fully leased prior to completion of construction. Carlson stated they are hopeful that this project would be
completed within two to three years.
Bremer inquired whether the buildings would be constructed separately or in groups.
Mr. Carlson stated they would be constructing more than one building at a time due to the shared stairwell
as well as to keep costs down on the project.
Winkey inquired whether the applicant has any marketing studies concerning this type of concept and the
viability of the project.
Mr. Carlson noted condominiums are a hot marketing concept at the present time in the
Minneapolis/St.Paul area as well as the suburbs.
Gaffron requested the Planning Commission address additional screening between the office park and the
residential neighborhood. Gaffron noted it is not possible to accomplish that additional screening on this
site,but that the applicants should give some consideration to the option of providing additional screening
within the Sugarwoods outlot. Gaffron indicated another concern deals with the retaining walls that range
from one foot to six feet right up against the property line. Gaffron noted there is not room to screen
those walls and that the Planning Commission should discuss whether screening is necessary in that area.
Rahn stated he would like to see an elevation view of both of those areas as well as the landscaping plan,
which could be done prior to final plat approval. Rahn indicated he is not willing to approve anything at
this point that mentions the words building permit.
Gundlach stated that language is based on the commercial site plan regulation for the B-1 District.
Gaffron noted final plat drawings would show the individual building pads.
Rahn inquired whether the Planning Commission would need to approve or deny all four items listed in
the January 18, 2005 Planner's Report.
Gaffron stated they would be acting on all four items.
PAGE 33
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3080 Interspace-West,Inc.,Continued)
Rahn noted the applicants have indicated that they feel the outstanding items can be addressed in a
relatively short time. Rahn indicated he is not opposed to moving this forward to the council for their
input,noting that this plan would come back before the Planning Commission for final plat approval.
Rahn recommended submittal of the association's covenants also be made a condition of approval.
Apple inquired what action would be taken on the use of the name Sugarwoods and the potential for
additional traffic to be generated into the residential neighborhood.
Rahn recommended the Sugarwoods homeowners attend the City Council meeting and voice their
concerns. Rahn stated he is unsure what power the Planning Commission has over the name of the
project.
Bremer stated the Planning Commission could require certain signage.
Gaffron stated since this is a PUD,the Council could possibly request that the name be changed if they
feel it is a big enough issue.
Rahn moved,Leslie seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3080,B-6 PUD general
concept plan approval,preliminary plat approval in order to create 10 unit lots and one common
lot, commercial site plan approval in order to obtain a building, and Easement Vacations in
conjunction with dedication of new easements,for the property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard
West, subject to the conditions outlined in the January 18, 2005 Planner's Report being addressed
prior to the Council meeting,and further subject to elevation views and the homeowners
association covenants being submitted by the applicant. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
#11 05-3081 ZB CONSTRUCTION,INC.,OUTLOT E, STONEBAY,RPUD AMENDMENT,
BUILDING PLAN,FINAL PLAT, 10:17 p.m.—11:23 p.m.
Arnie Zachman,ZB Construction; Bruce Heller, Project Manager for Bruce Lehrer Architects; and
Steve Johnston, Landform; were present.
Gaffron addressed the City Council regarding the applicants' request for an amendment of the Stonebay
RPUD for changes to the owner-occupied condominium building and site plan, final site plan approval,
and building plan approvals as well as final plat approval for Outlot E as a single 2.5 acre lot for the
condominium building. Gaffron stated the new proposal is somewhat similar to the three-story building
that was proposed last fall. Gaffron inquired whether 61 units is the total number of units being proposed.
Heller indicated there are 61 units, with one guest unit, for a total of 62 units.
Gaffron stated the current proposal is for a single L-shaped building with virtually the same footprint as
the originally proposed garage level but filing in of the open terrace space with building. The applicants
claim that this allows for larger individual units and provides spaces for certain amenities not provided in
PAGE 34
•
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3081 ZB Construction, Continued)
the original concept. These include a party room/hot tub/exercise room at the rear of the garage level; an
undefined common space, and other amenities. The proposed 62 individual dwelling units range from
1400 square feet to 1700 square feet in area. Gaffron stated due to the addition of the amenities and the
increased living space, the applicants are proposing one building rather than two separate buildings.
Gaffron indicated in 2002, at the time of the approval of the lots,there was a discussion regarding
allowing a provision based on final grade as opposed to existing high side grade,which was determined
to be 38 feet. The applicants have since added three feet to the height of the building due to the increased
ceiling height,the height of the underground garage ceiling, and the pitch of the roof systems. The
applicants are proposing a peak height of 1071.33', with the original approval being for 1066', which
results in the building being five feet higher in general. Gaffron indicated there was a discussion at the
time of the original approval centering around options to reduce the massing and the size of the building.
Gaffron requested the Planning Commission give direction to the applicant concerning the size and
massing of the proposed building and the visual impacts of the added height in light of the proposed
location of the building and the other uses proposed along Kelley Parkway.
Gaffron noted the applicants have submitted a plan that meets the parking requirements for this site and a
stormwater management plan,which illustrates an above-ground storm sewer system with the majority of
the drainage directed to the north. Gaffron indicated the City Engineer has reviewed the stormwater
management plan and has made some recommendations. In addition,the applicants are proposing some
retaining walls that are slightly different than what was originally approved, with the City Engineer
requesting that all retaining walls above eight feet in height be engineered. Gaffron stated the fire
marshal has been asked to comment on the layout,the single access to the site, and location of hydrants.
Gaffron requested the Planning Commission review the landscape plan for this site. Preliminary review
by staff indicates an acceptable level of plantings of trees and shrubs. The developer should also be asked
to describe all outside lighting proposed for this building other than the typical street lights, and provide a
lighting plan sheet for such lighting. The developer also needs to indicate any identification signage
intended for the building.
Gaffron noted the impervious surface coverage for this site is limited to 50 percent,which is not an issue
in Staffs opinion.
Gaffron requested the Planning Commission address the following items:
1. Acceptability of building expansion and the conversion from two buildings to one.
2. Acceptability of increased building height.
3. Acceptability of proposed building materials and building design.
4. Signage and building lighting.
PAGE 35
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3081 ZB Construction,Continued)
5. Acceptability of landscape plan.
Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed site plan and building plans are
acceptable,then a recommendation for approval would be in order, subject to any conditions that the
Planning Commission feels are warranted. If the Planning Commission concludes that one or more of the
above topics require further consideration,then tabling may be appropriate.
Zachman stated they are attempting to go from the two buildings down to one building in an effort to
achieve a larger square footage within the units and to also incorporate some amenities that would help
make the units more marketable. Zachman stated with the two buildings, the size of the units is reduced
to 1400 to 2000 square feet, which,in their experience, does not sell as well as the larger units. Zachman
indicated they would like to include a party room,hot tub area, exercise room, and storage areas.
Zachman indicated they have attempted to reduce the height of the building at both ends to help reduce
the appearance of massing.
Heller stated they have reduced the height of the building in the middle and on both ends and have
attempted to minimize the visual impact by varying the heights of the different brick colors comprising
the façade. Heller indicated they are proposing darker stone on the vertical uprights to also reduce the
impact. Heller stated the materials being proposed for this building are virtually maintenance-free for
30 years.
Zachman commented they are incorporating a stucco look and stone look rather than lap siding. Zachman
stated as it relates to lighting,there will be an entrance-way chandelier, lighting for the parking lot area,
lighting for the exterior fire escapes, and a light over the garage door.
Gaffron inquired whether the individual balconies would also have lighting of some type.
Zachman stated there would be a light for each balcony probably consisting of a 60-watt bulb.
Rahn inquired what comments the commissioners have relating to the size of the building. Rahn inquired
what the length of the proposed building is.
Heller indicated it is 376 feet long.
Rahn stated he personally would prefer a taller roof with a steeper pitch for aesthetic reasons.
Johnston indicated the original building peak was at 966.8',with the new plan calling for a peak height of
971.33, which is four and a half feet higher. Johnston pointed out that 3.5 feet in the height is as a result
of the need to raise the underground ceiling and issues relating to stormwater. Johnston stated overall the
building is one-foot higher if stormwater is not factored into the calculation.
PAGE 36
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3081 ZB Construction, Continued)
Rahn commented he likes the stepped roof and the steepness of the roofs,but that he has a concern with
the length of the building. Rahn noted the original concept plan had less square footage proposed than
this proposal and that the applicant needs to consider reducing the number of units in order to keep the
amount of square footage down to what was originally approved.
Johnston inquired what the length of the senior housing building is.
Gaffron stated that it is close to 500 feet.
Rahn noted that the City did receive a number of phone calls regarding the size of that structure.
Leslie stated he understands the need to make it one building given the issues related to constructing two
buildings on this site. Leslie stated in his opinion the number of units could be reduced in an effort to
reduce the massing. Leslie noted the City had approved the building at a certain square footage and not a
number of units.
Zachman stated due to the location of the building and street, it would be difficult to get a direct view of
the building. Zachman noted there would be commercial development across the street.
Leslie pointed out the homeowners located behind this structure would be able to see the full length of the
building.
Zachman stated the L-shape design of the building will help break up the view and that only one end
should be visible.
Heller stated the Public Works Department would have the most direct view of the building and that in his
opinion this structure should not be that visible from Willow Drive.
Fritzler indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leslie's comments concerning the size of the
structure and that there should be a reduction in the size of the units.
Bremer commented she prefers the nine-foot ceilings and that she does not have an issue with the increase
in height as a result of the raised ceilings. Bremer indicated in her view the building would be more
visually attractive with the taller roofs,but that she has a concern with the size of the one building.
Bremer encouraged the developer to reduce the size of the building.
Rahn stated he would like the size of the building reduced to the amount of square footage that was
originally approved. Rahn inquired whether any outdoor amenities are being proposed.
Johnston stated they have looked at some outdoor amenities but have decided not to include them due to
the maintenance issues associated with a pool and the close proximity of tennis courts to this site.
Johnston indicated in his opinion this proposal is a better looking plan and noted that one unit was
removed from the previous proposal.
PAGE 37
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3081 ZB Construction, Continued)
Winkey commented the units are more likely to be leased with the amenities but that in his opinion the
costs associated with the amenities with this proposal versus the previous proposal have not changed
dramatically and that a higher rent could be charged for the larger units.
Johnston noted some square footage was added to make the building deeper.
Zachman indicated they did increase the size of the parking stalls to allow easier access for full-size cars.
Winkey stated it is his understanding the number of larger units has been increased and that in his opinion
this project would be economically feasible even with a reduction in the number of units.
Jurgens commented it is difficult to imagine the visual impact this building will have. Jurgens inquired
whether the first floor elevation is seven to eight feet above the curb line of the existing road.
Gaffron stated the road is at 1022', with the first floor level being seven to eight feet above the road.
Jurgens inquired how it would be transitioned from the roadway to reduce the appearance that this
building towers over you.
Johnston stated the slope as it exists now would remain for the most part, with the parking lot located in
between the road and the building.
Jurgens inquired how far back the building is situated from the curb.
Gaffron stated the building would be located approximately 60 to 80 feet from the curb.
Jurgens indicated he still has a concern regarding the length of the building and inquired whether the focal
point of the structure could change somehow to try to lessen the visual impact.
Heller indicated the vertical uprights come out four feet,with the facade being broken up with different
shades. Heller stated a 3-D picture would help to better illustrate how the building will appear.
Rahn stated he prefers the step-down appearance of the building. Rahn recommended the applicant
review their plans to see how the building can be reduced in length.
Zachman inquired whether the Planning Commission would like to see the end units clipped off
Leslie stated he would like to see the top unit also clipped near the end cap so there would still be a step
down. Leslie encouraged the applicant to review his options for reducing the size of the building.
Jurgens inquired whether a patio is being constructed off the back of the building.
Johnston stated the patio could be accomplished with an easement.
PAGE 38
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#05-3081 ZB Construction, Continued)
Gaffron stated the patio ends up being located in one of the common areas.
Johnston stated the outlots could possibly be replatted to avoid the need for an easement. Johnston noted
commercial development will be going up in the area in front of this building and would also help reduce
the appearance of the building.
Rahn inquired whether there were any public comments regarding this application.
There were no public comments.
Winkey moved,Bremer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#05-3081, Stonebay
Lofts,with the understanding that the proposed revisions are acceptable and that a revised plan
would be submitted prior to the Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 2,Nays 4,Rahn,Jurgens,Leslie
and Fritzler Opposed. MOTION FAILED.
Rahn indicated he was opposed to the motion because he would like to see some reduction made in the
size of the structure.
Bremer suggested this application be discussed at the next Planning Commission work session.
Gaffron noted the next work session is scheduled for February 2nd.
Fritzler moved,Rahn seconded,to table Application#05-3081,Stonebay Lots,to the next Planning
Commission work session scheduled for February 2"d. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1,Bremer Opposed.
Johnston inquired whether they would be allowed to attend the work session.
Rahn noted the work session is a public meeting and that it would be helpful if the applicant attended the
work session. Rahn stated the Planning Commission would need to limit the applicant to 15 minutes.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
#12 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS NOVEMBER 22,DECEMBER 13, 2004,AND JANUARY 10,2005
Winkey gave an update on the November 22nd Council meeting.
Leslie gave a brief update on the December 13,2004 Council meeting,noting that the Vogstrom
application was tabled.
Gaffron stated the Vogstrom application was given conceptual approval for 31.9 percent hardcover at the
January 10th Council meeting and would be finalized at the January 24th meeting.
PAGE 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,January 18,2005
6:00 o'clock p.m.
#13 OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
None
#14 PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 15,2004
Bremer moved,Rahn seconded,to approve the minutes of the November 15,2004 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
#15 SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
JANUARY 24 AND FEBRUARY 14,2005
January 24—Rahn
February 14—Fritzler
ADJOURNMENT
Bremer moved,Fritzler seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:32 p.m.
VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0.
David Rahn, Chair
PAGE 40