HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/2007 Planning Commission Minutes . l � � , . '
/
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007 �
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 Jaye Ann Zullo,Ralph Kempf,Michelle Winer,Tess Rice,Dick ,
Kroeger, and Kim Kang. Representing Staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron,Planners Eveyln
Turner and Melanie Curtis, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Lili McMillan was present.
Chair Rahn called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
CONSENT
Item Nos. 7 and 9 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as amended.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. . ,.,;
*1. #06-3242 YUNKER ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF DAVID AND BETSY
WYERHAEUSER, 1540 FOX STREET,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3242, 1540 Fox Street,
granting of a conditional use permit subject to the filing of a restrictive covenant in the property's
chain of title and further subject to the applicant meeting the requirements set forth by the septic
inspector. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
*2. #06-3247 SUISSE CAPITAL LP, 1470 CfIERRY PLACE,VARIANCE . �
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#06-3247, Suisse Capital, '
1470 Cherry Place,granting of lot area and lot width variances subject to the City Engineer's ' �
recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS � �
3. #06-3249 CITY OF ORONO, OUTLOT A STONEBAY, CMP AMENDMENT,6:05 P.M.—
6:37 P.M.
Gaffron noted this application was tabled at the November Planning Comxnission meeting at the request
of the property owners'representative,who indicated that due to incorrect address listings in the county _
records, suf�cient notice was not given to allow the owners adequate time to respond to the proposed
amendment.
PAGE 1 ,
\ .
� • .
. MINUTES OF THE .
. ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
� 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3249 City of Orono,Outlot A Stonebay,Continued)
Additional documents provided tonight include Resolution No.4041,which was the City's initial policy
. statement regarding development along Highway 12 that set the tone for the 2000-2020 Comprehensive
Plan language. The 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan ultimately included virtually the same language as .
the policy resolution. The CMP amendment language in strikeout/underline format is also included to
illustrate the few subtle revisions to the pre-existing CMP language that were adopted in the 2004
amendment for Outlot A. Outlot A of Stonebay is a 3.7 acre commercially guided parcel located at the
northwest corner of Willow Drive and Highway 12.
Gaffron stated the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan officially adopted on November 13,
2001, originally guided this property as well as the other properties between Kelley Parlcway and �
Highway 12 from Willow Drive to Old Crystal Bay Road for commercial office uses. The proposal for a
Walgreens and a strip retail center by Reliance Development Company in 2003-2004 was not in
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan since it included freestanding retail not specifically associated
or supportive of an office use on the site. The proposed Walgreens and the office/retail building were
characterized more accurately as neighborhood retaiUservice uses. After public hearings and substantial
consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council, and after receiving Metropolitan Council
approval,the City Council adopted in 2004 Resolution No. 5190,Amendment#2 to the 2000-2020 CMP.
The amendment reguided Outlot A to allow for retail uses under the following parameters:
1. No individual buildings greater than 15,000 square feet gross floor area.
2. One building must be a pharmacy/convenience store. �
3. The remaining buildings shall have no individual tenant space greater than 7,000 square feet.
4. The most westerly building on the site shall be oriented and designed in a manner that focuses on
the regional pond as an amenity for customers or tenants.
� 5. Buildings on the site shall be oriented with a goal of providing an inviting vehicle and pedestrian
entry from Kelley Parkway without creating negative visual impacts for the Stonebay residential
development.
6. Architectural design and details shall be carefully prepared by any developer of the site to ensure
a high quality design compatible with the quality of the office buildings on Kelley Parkway, and
shall be subject to City approval through the PUD process. •
7. Building materials shall be high quality and durable, shall be compatible with the quality of the
office building on Kelley Parkway, and shall be subject to City approval through the PUD
process. '
Reliance Development Company was granted conditional approvals in June 2004, including a rezoning, �
General Development Plan Approval, etc., for the proposed Walgreens and retail strip center,but
PAGE 2
MINUTES OF THE •
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION
. Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3249 City of Orono,Outlot A Stonebay, Continued) .
ultimately failed to commit Walgreens or any other pharmacy retailer to the site and the approvals
eventually expired with no development occurring on the site.
In the summer of 2006,Hempel Properties proposed a medical office and retail strip center for the site,
requesting a further amendment of the CMP to remove the condition that one of the buildings had to be a
pharmacy/convenience store. Although the Planning Commission recommended approval of such a a
change,the City Council, after a number of ineetings and much discussion,voted on September 25,2006,
to deny the requested CMP amendment. Hempel subsequently formally witl�drew their application.
There are currently no applications for development of Outlot A. The City Council has directed City
Staff to proceed with a CMP amendment that would,in effect, "undo"the changes that were adopted in
2004. The property owners have been notified via the standard mailed legal notice of this proposed
amendment,but as of this writing,have not weighed in with Staff as to their position on the matter. The
City Council has broad discretion to revise the Comprehensive Plan as it sees fit after following the
proper notification and public hearing process.
The City Attorney has indicated that because the current RR-1B zoning does not match the City's intent .
for Outlot A,nor the proposed guiding,the City should consider rezoning to a zone that reflects the City's
intent. The City purposely has not done so to date, and has simply been using the RR-1B zoning as a
holding zone for this and other properties that were reguided from SFR to something else in past actions.
The Council's intent for Outlot A appears to most closely match the B-6 district standards,which allows
offices,banks,libraries, and motels/hotels. .
Gaffron requested the Planning Commission discuss the following issues:
1. Does the Planning Commission agree with the Council's intent to return to the former provisions
of the CMP with regards to Outlot A?
2. Are there any specific elements of the original CMP language that should be revised or clarified
' with this amendment?
3. The Planning Commission should consider whether there are any negative impacts associated
with proceeding with a rezoning of the site to match the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Does the Planning Commission have any other concerns regarding the proposed amendment?
Gaffron noted this property is currently zoned RR-1B, single-family,two-acre minimum lot size. The
rezoning that was approved in 2004 never took effect and the property was never rezoned to match the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that the zoning be changed to a B-6 PUD.
The Planning Commission should hold the public hearing, discuss the proposed amendment, and make
recommendations to the Ciiy Council regarding the reguiding and the rezoning of this property.
PAGE 3
. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
, . Tuesday,January 16,2007
. 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3249 City of Orono,Outlot A Stonebay, Continued)
Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. � �
Steve Johnston,Landform, stated he is appearing tonight on behaif of the owners of the property,John ,
Terrance Homes,LLC. Presently there is a purchase agreement with another developer that is being
pursued. Johnston indicated they do not believe this site is ideally suited for office use but would be
better fitted for commercial. Johnston stated they would request that the rezoning of the outlot be tabled
for six months to allow the submittal of an application and site plan for a bank and food co-op. Johnston
stated in their opinion those uses are appropriate for this site and they would ask that the Planning
� Commission consider their application prior to the rezoning. �
Bill Henney,2482 Sandstone Lane,Orono,indicated he is familiar with Reliance's proposal for this site
and he is in support of the project.
David Strandman,Reliance Development, stated as of last week,they have the property under contract
again and discussions have been undertaken with representatives from the bank and the food co-op.
Strandman requested they be given additional time to explore these two uses for this site.
Michelle Krokzyk, 65 Cygnet Place, Orono, stated she is a member of the steering committee for Harvest
Moon Food Co-op and that they have spent a considerable amount of time hying to locate a food co-op in
Orono and that they would like the City to give some consideration to this use on this site. Harvest Moon
is a gathering place for all people of all ages and would act as a community hub for the city. Krokzyk
stated Harvest Moon would be similar to Lakewinds and the Wedge,with the members owning the co-op.
Krokyzk noted they have received a$10,000 matching grant from Cooperative Development Services and
have raised almost that much money through the community. Krokyzk stated they have utilized the
monies to develop a feasibility plan and business plan. Krokyzk stated they will continue to fine-tune
their business plan but they feel confident about the success of this proposal. Krokyzk stated a number of
their members are Orono residents and that they would like an opportunity to present their proposal in
more detail. .
Chair Rahn closed the public hearing at 6:17 p.m. '
Kempf commented the previous Planning Commission was generally in favor of retail for this site and
that he personally likes the proposed tenants for this site. Kempf inquired whether Harvest Moon has
other operating locations. .
Krokyzk stated this would be their first location. .
Kempf stated one of the concerns expressed in the past is that whoever the tenants are,that they will be
successful, and that in his experience grocers tend to need a certain density of population in order to
survive and that Orono is on the edge of that density. Kempf commented he would love to see a natural
food store in the area,noting that it would not compete with other businesses already in tihe immediate
area. Kempf stated he would like to give this proposal an opportunity to be heard more fully.
PAGE 4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3249 City of Orono,Outlot A Stonebay,Continued)
Kroeger stated he is in agreement with the concept,noting that he shares the same concerns about having
a successful business at this location. Kroeger stated in his opinion the City would not have anything to
lose by tabling this application.
Zullo stated she would also be in support of giving the applicants time to bring in additional information
and would be in favor of tabling the rezoning application.
Rahn stated he would prefer to move this application forward to the City Council since they are the ones �
who would be making the�nal decision on the type of use for this site and that the Council could elect to
table the rezoning.Rahn stated if this property is rezoned back to B-6,the City would still have the ability
to make changes or request certain items with whatever application comes before them. �
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission at some point in time should make a recommendation on
reguiding this property as well as possibly rezoning the site. Gaffron pointed out the Metropolitan
Council has recommended that the guiding and zoning for specific properties match one another.
Kroeger inquired how Staff feels about the rezoning.
Gaffron stated the Comprehensive Plan was changed in 2004 in reaction to a proposal that the City
Council liked but that the City Council has undergone a change in its philosophy in the past year or two
and that they would like to review the 1998 resolution and possibly not allow any further retail in this area
in order to help the retail currently in the City of Long Lake become more viable.
Rahn stated in his opinion it would be better for the Council to weigh in on this matter prior to the parties
incurring additional costs.
Kempf stated if this matter were tabled,the parties would have the opportunity to submit an application.
Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission tables this application, it would afford the parties some time to
submit an application.
Kroeger stated if the rezoning for this site were approved, it would revert back to the original zoning.
Kroeger stated the City should not be changing the zoning on this site every time a different application
appears before the City and that careful consideration should be given to what is being proposed for this
site.
Gaffron stated the guiding and the zoning for this site needs to be consistent,and that the B-6 zoning
district would allow office use with ancillary retail.
Zullo inquired whether a bank would be considered nonretail.
Gaffron stated a bank in the past has been considered office use but that there are some aspects that could
be considered retail.
PAGE 5
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
, 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#06-3249 City of Orono,Outlot A Stonebay, Continued)
Kempf inquired whether Steve Johnston would prefer that the Planning Commission table this item.
Johnston stated they would like to have the matter tabled to enable them to submit an application to the
City for the two proposed uses for this site. Johnston stated he would ultimately like the Planning �
Commission to make a recommendation on their application,and then have it proceed to the City Council.
Kempf stated he did hear from the City Council that they have a concern with the amount of vacancy in
the available retail space in Long Lake currently and that in his opinion these two tenants are not typical
tenants of a strip mall. �
Zullo commented the proposed businesses for this site would help to draw other businesses to the City.
Kang stated she is supportive of some type of retail for this site.
Kempf pointed out this site is located next to a high-density area and that the residents of that area were '
� expecting and desirous of some retail in this area.
Gaffron stated absent the requirement for a pharmacy, a bank and a food co-op would generally fit into .
the current zoning for this area but would not fit into the zoning for the B-6 district specifically.
Rahn noted the city attorney has recommended that the guiding for this site and the zoning for the site be
compatible with one another.
Zullo stated this property has been in this state for a while and that the City does not need to be in a rush
to change the zoning.
Zullo moved,Kempf seconded,to table Application#06-3249, City of Orono, Outlot A,Stonebay,
CMP Amendment,to the March Planning Commission meeting to allow for further consideration
of the proposal by Reliance. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Rahn Opposed.
�
NEW BUSINESS
4. #07-3250 PHILIP CARLSON,2060 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST,PUD,
COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN, SUBDIVISION,6:37 P.M.—7:42 P.M. �
Jeffrey Shopek,Loucks&Associates, and Gina and Philip Carlson,Applicants,were present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are requesting the following in order to construct ten units of office condos
on ten lots and one common lot,to be lrnown as Amber Woods Office Centre: � ' �
1. B-6 PUD General Concept Plan approval;
PAGE 6
MINUTES OF THE �
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3250 Philip Carlson,Continued)
� 2. Preliminary Plat approval in order to create 10 unit lots and one common lot;
. 3. Commercial Site Plan approval in order to obtain building permits;
4. Easement vacations in conjunction with dedication of new easements.
The applicants have proposed development of five duplex office condo buildings on approximately 2.6
acres located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West. The proposed condos will be two-story walkouts
containing approximately 33,570 square feet of usable space. Each building will contain a walk-out level,
a main floor level, and an upper level loft.
The property was part of a seven-acre tract that was platted into two lots for development in 2001. The
easterly lot was rezoned to RPUD and is now the site of Orono Woods Senior Housing. The west 2.6
acres became Lot 1, Orono Ambar,and was rezoned to B-6 PUD,Highway Commercial District. Lot 1 is
the subject of the current application.
In December 2004,Interspace West filed an application proposing to construct an office condo
development on the site. That application resulted in general concept plan approval in March 2005 for
five 2-unit, 1-1/2 story walkout office condo buildings. The applicants worked through spring and
summer 2005 to produce detailed plans and had discussions with the City regarding changing access to
the site based on new information about future access points along Highway 12. Applicants ultimately
chose to not make the suggested revisions to their plans.
In October 2005,the Council conditionally granted the applicants general development plan approval,
commercial site approval, and preliminary and final plat approval. White it was unusual to grant
preliminary and�nal plat approvals on the same day in the same resolution,the applicants expressed a
need to move quickly. Those approvals were conditioned on timely submittal of required documents,
fees, and other agency permits. The resolution indicated that all approvals would expire if the plat was
not filed by April 10,2006: Because preliminary and final plat approvals were granted simultaneously,
the effective periods of preliminary and final approvals ran concurrently. Final plat approval expired six
months after adopting the resolution on April 10,2006,because the conditions of the resolution had not
been met and the applicants had not made the necessary submittals. Preliminary plat approval continued
in effect until one year after adoption or until October 10, 2006. On October 23,2006,the City Council
voted 4-1 to deny an extension of the effective period of preliminary plat approval and denied the request
for a second final plat approval,finding that the conditions of Resolution No., 5387 had not been met
within the allotted time period. Council concluded that submittal of permits from MnDOT was an
essential element of the conditions that was not completed and the applicants were directed to begin the
entire review process anew.
Gaffron stated the main issue that remains outstanding at the present time is access to the site. Access to
' the site was originally established during the approval process for PUD No. 2 and consists of a shared
right-in/right-out driveway access directly to Highway 12 at the southwest corner of the senior housing
pro,perty and a shared driveway access eastward through the senior housing site to Brown Road North.
Outlot D was platted as a potential service road corridor behind the Orono Shopping Center and Service
PAGE 7
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
• � 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3250 Philip Carlson,Continued)
800 buildings,with possible connections southward to 12Brimhall, or west through the Otten Brothers
property to willow Drive. The applicants are proposing no connection to Outlot D,but have designed the
parking lot so that such a connection would be reasonably feasible in the future. Applicants have asked
that cross-easements for public ingress/egress over the property and the senior housing site be established,
as the current easements may be only for private use. '
The cities of Long Lake and Orono have been meeting for more than two years on a regular basis in
� preparation for the turnback of Highway 12 to the County. An important aspect of this process is defining
how existing Highway 12 will function once the bypass is opened. A full-turning-movement access
directly across 12 from Shaughnessy Avenue is contemplated as one of two potential such intersections '
on 12 between Brown and Willow. This would provide a much more direct access to the applicants' site,
especially for eastbound traffic desiring to enter the site, which could avoid having to go all the way to
Brown, do a U-turn or drive through the senior housing driveway system.
Gaffron stated critical to making access to the site work is the ability to make all turning movements
feasible within the site. The proposed connection across the front of the site requires awkward,if not
impossible,turning movements due to the acute angle between the service drive and the parking lot
entrance. A driver exiting the office condos would have severe difficulty turning to the west,while a
driver entering from the west would also have difficulty. This issue is called out by the City Engineer in
his January 10 comments and should be adequately addressed. It may require a complete redesign of the
connection.
The applicant has chosen the current proposal in hopes of avoiding having to lower the entire site an
additional two to four feet,which may be necessary in order to make the connection functional while
maintaining acceptable parking lot grades. The costs of such additional lowering were the basis for the
applicant's resistance to this suggestion in 2005. It also has implications on retaining wall heights,
building exposures, drainage, etc.,which would have to be addressed.
Staff feels this application at the present time is incomplete and would require a number of plan revisions ,
, and submittals necessary to allow the City to determine whether the plan as submitted is feasible and that
he is not able at this time to say whether the items submitted today by the applicants would satisfy the .
requests of Staff for additional information.
Chair Rahn inquired whether the applicants have addressed the City Engineer's comments.
Shopek indicated they just received the comments from the engineer earlier today but that they appear to
be minor in nature. Shopek stated the main issue is the access to the site and the circuitous route from
Wayzata Boulevard through the site and that they would be addressing that issue. Shopek stated they
would like to make the revisions prior to the Council meeting and have all the issues resolved prior to
moving forward to the City Council. Shopek stated they could create a 90-degree turn-in,turn-out.
Gina Carlson,Interspace West, stated their plan is not totally accurate as depicted and that they have
made revisions recently based on the comments by Staff and the City Engineer.
PAGE 8
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m. '
(#07-3250 Philip Carlson,Continued)
Kempf asked whether this is the final MnDOT plan.
Gaffron stated it is more likely that Hennepin County rather than Mn/DOT would be malcing the
decisions on access to this site and that Hennepin County has met with Staff on a number of occasions
regarding access points. The goal of Hennepin County is to reduce the number of access points along the
Old Highway 12 corridor. .
� Gina Carlson presented the Planning Commission with an overview of the Amber Woods project. Carlson
explained the general site plan that they have designed and noted that a water feature, landscaping, and a
berm are being proposed for this site. Carlson indicated they have met with the residents in this area and
the neighbors are supportive of the project. Carlson displayed the existing and proposed landscaping for
the site,noting that the foliage is quite thick between this site and the Sugar Woods neighborhood,which
would remain with this development. Carlson stated they did erect a pole with a red square at the end
during the wintertime illustrating the height of the structures and the red square was not visible to the
neighbors. .
Carlson displayed a layout of one of the proposed units,which consist of a lower level, a main level,and
- a loft. Carlson pointed out there would be a considerable amount of green space under this proposal. The.
unit would be a 2-1/2-story building with custom build-out,handicap accessible, and ten parking spaces
assigned to each building. There would be five total buildings on the site with two units each. Carlson
stated the tenants would own their individual building as part of the office condo concept. '
Carlson displayed the proposed monument sign for the development. The sign would be 18 feet in length
by four feet in height.
Carlson stated their market analysis indicates there is a need for office space in this area and that there are
few existing office condos located in the western suburbs and that this type of concept is popular in other
areas. Carlson stated their project is the least invasive on the residential neighborhood,with no
headlights into the woods and blocked parking and traffic noise. The five units have exposure to the
woods,with the woods acting as a natural buffer. The retaining wall and plantings would help to create
an added buffer. The buildings tend to have a residential"European"look and would be designed for
higher-end users.
Carlson stated they do have the first duplex already sold and that they would like to commence
construction on the project this spring. Carlson stated they were unable to meet the deadline of the City
last fall due to the delay in getting their financing ananged and the need to obtain the necessary permits
from Mn/DOT. Carlson stated at the present time Mn/DOT owns the road but would be turning the road
over to Hennepin County in the future. Carlson stated they are willing to look at a frontage road again for
this site but that they do not feel that Mn/DOT will be receptive to that concept due to the potential for
stacking near Brown Road and the number of driveways that would be located on the frontage road.
Carlson stated they have now obtained all the necessary permits from Mn/DOT and that they would like '
to have their application move forward to Council.
Rahn inquired whether the Mn/DOT pernuts would be subject to the entrance to the building site.
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION �
Tuesday,January 16,2007
' 6:00 o'clock p.m. .
(#07-3250 Philip Carlson,Continued) , . '
Shopek stated the Mn/DOT permit was for essentially the southeast corner near Brown Road and
Highway 12 for the holding ponds. A permit was also necessary to connect the sanitary sewer in the•
Mn/DOT right-of-way near Highway 12.
Rahn stated he does not remember a service road being talked about in the prior discussions.
Shopek stated there was not a service road proposed previously, and that if the intersection is
' reconfigured in this area, a left-in turn could be accomplished. Shopek stated they would still have access
off of Brown Road if the intersection were not reconfigured.
Carlson stated the service road came up after the Planning Commission had initially heard their
application.
Rahn inquired whether the proposed level of screening with the revised plan has remained the same as
well as the proposed elevation of the buildings. ,
Carlson stated the landscaping is basically the same and that it is in keeping with the neighborhood.
Carlson noted the units would be walk-outs and would be carved into the hillside.
Shopek stated the elevation for the buildings might change slightly and actually be one foot less.
Kempf inquired whether there is a five foot green space between the parking level and the retaining wall.
Shopek stated there is. •
Kempf stated he would like to see some low plantings on top of the retaining wall.
Shopek stated the retaining wall tapers up and would be approximately five feet at its highest point.
Shopek stated they would be willing to put some shrubs in the five-foot area to help buffer that wall.
Zullo noted there is some lighting proposed for the front of the buildings but that she did not see a
lighting plan included in their packet. Zullo stated she would like to see adequate lighting to help ensure
the safety of the people in the parking lot. _
Carlson stated they do have a lighting plan for the site and that they are proposing lighting on the
buildings as well as in the parking lot. �
Gaffron stated Sheet L2-1 depicts the lighting plan.
Zullo inquired whether the lighting in the parking lot and buildings would be on sensors. ,
Carlson stated the lighting does get softer as it extends out from the site and that the lighting is designed
not to shine onto the adjoining properties. .
PAGE 10
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m. .
(#07-3250 Philip Carlson,Continued) �
Zullo stated she does have a concern regarding the lighting on the perimeter of the site and recommended
that the lighting be sufficient to help ensure someone's safety. Zullo inquired whether there are covenants
regarding maintenance of the units. �
Carlson stated the association would hire people to clean the offices daily and that the association would
also be maintaining the common areas. Carlson stated they have submitted those documents to the City. ,
Zullo inquired whether these units would have sleeping or kitchen facilities since they would be privately
owned.
Gaffron stated this site is zoned B-6 and that there is no expectation that there will be any retail or
sleeping facilities provided.
Carlson stated it is a high-end office space and that there might be a small kitchenette in each unit to
allow them to make coffee. �
Rahn stated he would like to see a more detailed plan tl�at addresses the points raised by Staff and the City
Engineer. Rahn stated access to the site is very important and should be addressed right away prior to the
other items being discussed.
Shopek stated they will be addressing the points raised by Staff but that they did not have sufficient time
to revise their plans prior to tonight's meeting.
Gaffron stated there are a number of details that would need to be addressed in the interim.
Rahn stated he would prefer to table the application and revisit it in the future. Rahn commented he is
fine with the concept being proposed for the site.
Carlson requested they be provided with Staff's comments in sufficient time to respond to them prior to
the next meeting.
Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.
Marilyn Mileusnic, 2110 Sugarwood Drive, stated currently the vegetation does block their views from
this site but that the vegetation has thinned out slightly since the start of this project. Mileusnic stated she
would like to see the drainage addressed for this site,the location of the garage enclosures, and that she
would rather have them constructing on the hill rather than having the site lowered. Mileusnic
commented she is generally supportive of the project.
Gaffron stated Sheet A-5 depicts the peak height to be lower than the senior housing center by one to two
feet.
' PAGE 11
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3250 Philip Carlson,Continued)
Zullo stated she has some concern regarding the drainage behind the buildings and that she would like to
' see the location of the dumpsters revisited by the applicants. Zullo stated she would also like to have '
, more information on the access provided. • • .
Gaffron stated the layout currently does not eliminate the possibility of extending the service road.
Zullo inquired whether the one service road would meet Fire Code. '
Gaffron stated the fire marshal has not reviewed this latest plan but did not have a problem with the
previous proposal that was similar to this. Gaffron noted the buildings would have sprinkler systems
installed.
Kempf suggested two smaller dumpsters be considered in two separate locations.
Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. ,
Kempf moved,Winer seconded,to table Application#07-3250,Philip Carlson,Interspace-West,
Inc.,Amber Woods Office Center,LLC,2060 Wayzata Boulevard West,PUD,Commercial Site
Plan. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. . �
(Recess taken at 7:43—7:48 p.m.) �
5. #07-3253 JENNIFER AND CHARLIE COGBILL, 1590 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD,
� VARIANCE,7:48 P.M.—7:56 P.M.
Mark Earhart, Contractor, and Charlie Cogbill,Applicant,were present. �
• Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a side-yard setback variance to allow a 21-foot setback where a
30-foot setback is normally required in order to construct an addition to the existing home.
The existing home has an existing staircase to the basement level,which is extremely challenging,unsafe,
and at 2',7"wide, does not meet the building code requirement for a legal staircase. The applicants are
proposing to construct a 5'10"x 24' one-story addition to accommodate the new legal staircase. �
While Staff finds there is a hardship for a variance from the side yard setback requirement of 30 feet,
Staff would make the argument that allowing for the minimum of a 3-foot wide staircase and an addition ,
to accommodate that at four feet as opposed to the six-foot addition as proposed would be reasonable.
This addition would result in a side setback of 23.6 feet as opposed to the 21.6 feet proposed. The
resulting side setback would not be out of character with the neighborhood.
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE .
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3253 Jennifer and Charles Cogbill, Continued)
Staff recommends approval of a side setback variance to allow a four-foot addition to the existing home,
thus allowing for the minimum width legal staircase. The applicant should submit a revised survey and
building plan prior to City Council review.
Earhart distributed pictures of the existing staircase. Earhart stated the applicants are currently unable to
move any furniture downstairs due to the narrow staircase and that they would like to utilize their master
bedroom in the basement,which has recently been remodeled. Earhart requested they be given an
additional six inches over what Staff is recommending to enable them to make the turn.
Rahn inquired whether there would just be a raw block finish.
Earhart stated it would be finished.
Rahn stated in his opinion 4'6"would be the minimum width. Rahn suggested insulating the outside of
the wall rather than the inside in order to gain some extra room. Rahn stated in order to obtain a three-
foot wide stairway,the builder would need at least 4'4". Rahn recommended going with five feet and
allowing the contractor to design the stairway as he wants.
Zullo inquired whether there is an egress window in the basement
Earhart stated it is in located in the master bedroom at the front of the house.
Rahn inquired whether permits were obtained when the bedroom work was completed.
Earhart stated there were permits obtained.
Kang commented she did visit the home and that the stairwell is very steep and the ceiling is very low and
that the additional space would help to make the situation safer.
Winer stated she would like to see five feet to help a person ambulate up and down the stairs.
Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Chair Rahn closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Rahn moved,Winer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3253,Jennifer and '
Charlie Cogbill, 1590 Long Lake Boulevard,granting of a side setback variance to allow a 5' x 24'
addition to the existing home,subject to the applicants submitting a revised survey and building
plan prior to City Council review. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
PAGE 13
. . MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m. �
6. #07-3254 METROBUILDING CO.;940 NORTH ARM DRIVE,VARIANCE,7:55-8:26
P.M. • .
Joe Leintz, Contractor,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variances in
conjunction with an addition to the existing home. Curtis stated she has outlined the new portions in blue ,
on the overhead,with the existing home being depicted in black. �
Leintz pointed out one of the decks that was existing but has since been removed.
Curtis stated the property is located on a curved bay-like shoreline and the home is entirely ahead of the
average lakeshore setback line. The applicant would like to remove the existing attached garage and
construct an addition approximately five feet further from the lake than the existing attached garage and
add more square footage to the home more streetward.
Staff supports the average lakeshore setback variance request. However, Staff recommends a reduction of
the existing/proposed porch, a reduction in the nonstructural hardcover on the property as well as removal
of the proposed lakeside deck and proposed porcli as they both encroach into the 0-75 foot zone. If the
applicant does not want to remove the above listed items, Staff recommends that the application be tabled
to allow the applicant an opportunity to propose further hardcover removals and redesign the addition,
decks, and porches to lessen the impact on the 75-foot setback. Additionally the City Engineer has not
had an opportunity to comment on the current proposal. Staff would like to give the City Engineer the
chance to comment on the current plan and on any subsequent plans prior to further Planning
Commission or Council review. Planning Staff recommends tabling the application for revisions.
Leintz stated they would like to take the hardcover area that existed toward the riuddle of the house and
convert it to screen porch. Leintz indicated they would be wi�ling to reduce some of the other hardcover
on the lot and would be redesigning the driveway.
Rahn stated in his opinion this property is way over on hardcover and that there should be further
reductions made. Rahn suggested reducing the driveway and having a turnaround. Rahn stated in his �
opinion the Council is not going to be receptive to any further encroachment into the 0-75 foot setback
and that he personally is not in favor of the amount of hardcover being proposed.
Leintz stated they would be removing the concrete.
Rahn stated in his view further reductions are necessary and that typically further encroachments into the
setback are not allowed.
Kroeger inquired whether the detached garage would be removed.
Leintz stated the attached garage would be remodeled into kitchen space and would remain. The
detached garage would also remain. •
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
• ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION '
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3254 MetroBuilding,Continued)
Kroeger noted the garage is located within the 75-250 foot zone. Kroeger inquired whether the pool is an
existing pool.
Leintz stated the pool is existing. Leintz stated they looking at raising the house 36 to 42 inches,which
' would eliminate the low spot and allow them to construct some swales.
Rahn inquired whether they are talking about raising the first floor elevation.
Leintz stated they want to raise everything to the first floor elevation. Leintz stated currently the,garage is
lower than the house.
Kroeger inquired whether there is height issue that comes into play that the neighbor has raised.
Leintz stated to his understanding the neighbor might have thought there was a second floor being added.
Curtis stated the neighbor might have been concerned with the additional height being added to the
structure within the 0-75 foot setback and the impact that could have on his view of the lake.
, Rahn encouraged the applicant to discuss the proposal with the concerned neighbor.
Kempf inquired how much height is being added to the structure.
Leintz stated it is his belief there would be about a six-foot difference. Leintz stated the neighbor is
located approximately 25 to 30 feet above the roofline on a hill. Leintz stated his men did attempt to
discuss the project with the neighbor but that the neighbor had indicated he would prefer to get all his
information from the City. Leintz stated this proposal should not obstruct the neighbor's view of the lake.
Rahn inquired why one end of the home increases suddenly in height.
Leintz stated there are some vaulted ceilings inside under that section of the roof but that they could • ,
perhaps drop it down somewhat. Leintz stated he would prefer to make that a hip roof.
Kempf encouraged the applicant to soften the look of the house since it is located near the water and that
he would not be in favor of any further encroachment into the 0-75 foot zone. Kempf suggested the
applicant consider reducing the driveway in front of the existing garage.
Gaffron inquired whether the majority of the existing foundation would be utilized. .
Leintz stated it would be but the cap would be taken off since there is only a six-foot clearance
downstairs. � • �
Gaffron inquired whether a structural engineer has examined the foundation wall and determined that it is
in good condition.
PAGE 15 �
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
. Tuesday,January 16,2007
- 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3254 MetroBuilding,Continued) '
Leintz stated based on an interior view,the engineer felt the foundation was in good condition.
Rahn stated typically the City requires a letter from the engineer regarding the foundation prior to work �
commencing. � ,
Zullo inquired if 50 or 60 percent of the foundation has to be redone whether the applicant would need to
come back before the Planning Commission or whether they could still proceed forward.
Gaffron stated there have been a few cases in the past where a bigger portion of the foundation has had to
be replaced and that the City now requires a letter from the engineer certifying that the foundation is in
good condition prior to construction commencing.
Zullo inquired whether the application should be tabled to verify the foundation.
Curtis stated verification of the foundation was one of her recommendations.
Rahn inquired whether the elevation of the basement would also be lowered.
Leintz stated the elevation of the basement would be raised to eight feet.
Kroeger recommended the survey be redone showing what exists.
Leintz displayed the blueprints showing the deck as it existed.
� Rahn noted an e-mail was received from John Horoshak dated January 16, stating that he would have a
problem with the variance if it hinders his lake view. •
Rahn opened the public hearing at 8:23 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application. ,
Rahn closed the public hearing at 8:23 p.m.
Kempf moved,Winer seconded,to table Application#07-3254,MetroBuilding Company on behalf
of Guardia Development Group,940 North Arm Drive. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
*7. #07-3256 MATT�W AND KATHY DOLLIFF,2680 PIiEASANT ROAD,VARIANCE
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3256,Matthew and
Kathy Dolliff,2680 Pheasant Road,granting of a revision to the hardcover variance approved in
#02-2754,subject to the removal of the portion of the driveway lying closer to the side lot line than
the side wall of the garage extended and also subject to the proposed hardcover removals.
VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. �
PAGE 16 �
NIINUTES OF TI�
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 dclock p.m.
8. � #07-3260 ROGER O'SHAUGHNESSY, 1265 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD,VARIANCE,
8:23 P.M.—8:50 P.M.
Roger O'Shaughnessy,Applicant,was present. �
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance to allow the existing five-foot high
wrought iron fence to remain where a maximum of 3.5 feet is allowed. The property is located on the
western side of Bracketts Point Road and has over 600 feet of lakeshore. In 2004,the property owner
received approvals from the City of Orono in order to redevelop the property. During a site inspection for
a certificate of occupancy,the building inspector noted that a new fence had been constructed which
exceeded the City's height standards. The property owner would like the fence to remain as constructed
and he has applied for an after-the-fact variance.
The Planning Commission should consider whether the hardship statement presented by the applicant
supports the granting of the variance. If the Commission finds that there is a hardship or reasonable
justification to grant the variance,then a recommendation to approve would be appropriate. If the
Commission determines that the fence as constructed is not reasonable and is inappropriate in the location
and height,then a denial recommendation would be in order. If the Planning Commission feels the fence
is appropriate but not justified under the variance standards, a revision to the code is an option to
consider. If so,this application should be denied and sent to the City Council to determine whether a
code change should be pursued.
O'Shaughnessy commented he does travel a lot and that he would like the fence for security.
O'Shaughnessy stated he has experienced people picnicking on his property, fishing from his shore and �
parked in his driveway. O'Shaughnessy stated the fence helps to serve as a barrier and that it was his
architect's understanding that he would be allowed a six-foot fence since this is a corner lot.
Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
There were no public comments regarding this application. �
Chair Rahn closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Sue Steinwall,Attorney-at-Law, stated cities have broad discretion in deciding whether a variance is
appropriate and that one of the standards the City needs to consider is whether the application is
reasonable and constitutes a reasonable use of the property. The fence is reasonable to provide the
applicant with the security that he needs and is unobtrusive.
Steinwall stated had they known the fence was going to be an issue,they would have addressed it at the
time this property was developed in 2004. Steinwall stated although one of Staff's recommendations is to
consider a denial of the variance and to send it on to the Council for possible code changes,they would
ask that the Planning Commission approve the variance application.
Kempf stated his feeling is that this is a residential neighborhood and that this is the kind of place that the
. ordinance was written to have lower fences between neighbors. Kempf commented he does understand
PAGE 17
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION .
Tuesday,January 16,2007 � �
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3260 Roger O'Shaughnessy, Continued)
the concern that the property is an attraction and draws people to the site,but that there are trees in the
area and a 42-inch fence would be a sufficient barrier. Kempf stated a wrought iron fence is probably less
intrusive but unfortunately does not meet the City's ordinance. �
O'Shaughnessy stated the landscape architect perhaps interpreted the code incorrectly but that there is
some ambi�guity in the code regarding corner lots and that it should read that it is only along county roads
. that a higher fence is allowed. O'Shaughnessy stated it was a legitimate mistake and that denial of his .
variance would require a substantial amount of fence to be removed and replaced.
Rahn stated the fence seems reasonable and is not out of character with the neighborhood. Rahn stated
given the examples cited by the applicant for security,he would not be opposed to the fence. Rahn
commented the City's fence ordinance in his opinion does need some tweaking but that now is not the
time. Rahn suggested this item be placed on a future Planning Commission work session.
Winer stated she agrees with the need for the fence from a security standpoint from the road as well as
from the lake and that given the level of architectural detail of the house,it is easy to see how the property
owner could overlook this detail regarding the fence.
Kempf stated there are a number of incredible propertie,s that draw people and that perhaps the City
should look at changing their ordinance to address security. Kempf stated the City has not chosen to
write their ordinances to address a person's desire for security.
Rahn stated the City should afford a person's right to privacy to every resident.
Kempf stated in his opinion the City should look at changing the ordinance prior to approving this
application. �
Rahn stated the perception of one's security should not be a city issue and should be a personal issue and
that the city's fence ordinance could be tweaked.
Curtis stated the Planning Commission could recommend that the ordinance be changed in the future as
part of this application.
Winer inquired whether the fence height with corner lots has come up in the past.
Gaffron stated the City's code reads as follows: "A fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located '
along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare." Gaffron stated it is
possible the language could be interpreted that since the lot abuts a major thoroughfare, any street lot line '
could have a six-feet fence. Gaffron stated this is a unique lot and unique layout where you not only abut
a county road but also a minor neighborhood road. Gaffron stated this type of fence does fit the character
of the neighborhood in his opinion and that this is a situation where the fence should remain. .
PAGE 18 '
� MINUTES OF TI�
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3260 Roger O'Shaughnessy, Continued)
• Rahn stated the code does not say that the fence can only exceed 42 inches in height in the area where the
fence abuts the county road and that it could conceivably be interpreted that the fence could be at the
higher height the entire length.
Zullo stated the City's fence code should be revisited. .
Rahn commented the City does deal with a number of fence issues and that there hopefully is a method to
make the code clearer.
Rahn moved,Kang seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3260,Roger
O'Shaughnessy, 1265 Bracketts Point Road,granting of an after-the-fact variance to allow the
existing five-foot high wrought iron fence to remain,based on the finding that the fence is not out of .
� character with the neighborhood,the fence helps to address the security issues raised by the
applicant,the request is reasonableness,and further based upon the current ambiguous language in
the code regarding fences along county roads,with the recommendation that the Planning
Commission address the City's fence ordinance in the future. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Kempf •
Opposed.
*9. #07-3261 JAMES AND LINDA MARTINSON, 1330 CHERRY PLACE,VARIANCE
Rahn moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#07-3261,James and Linda
Martinson, 1330 Cherry Place,granting of a lot area variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
SKETCfi PLAN
10. #07-3257 BPS PROPERTIES,95 LEAF STREET,SUBDIVISION SKETCH PLAN,8:51 -
9:29 P.M.
George Sticlmey,BPS Properties,was present.
Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lot area variance to construct a replacement residence on a lot
that consists of 0.74 acre when one acre is required. The property is two lots in the Saga Hill revised
subdivision,which was platted in 1887. The current house on the property was constructed in 1935. The
proposed house is two stories with a basement walkout toward Grant Street and toward the lake at the
northeast corner of the house. The walkout toward the lake will be to a swale created in the location of
the existing house.
This is a sketch plan for a 39-acre parcel proposed to be divided into 15 single-family residential lots, a
private road and a 5.44 total acre park outlot. The proposed 1.3 to two plus acre lot subdivision is in
PAGE 19
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,'2007
. 6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3257 BPS Properties,Continued) � �
conformity with the guiding of this area for single-family rural residential development at a density of one
unit per two acres. The proposed development generally conforms to the 2.0 acre dry-buildable,200-foot
width standards of the RR-1B Zoning district. All of the lots would be served by a new private road with �
a cul-de-sac extending westerly from Leaf Street. All lots would be served by private septic systems and
wells. Primary and alternate septic locations for each lot will be required;however, septic reports have
not been submitted.
Staff's report outlines a number of issues to be discussed during this sketch plan review. Those issues
include:
1. Conformity with 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan;
2. Relationship of the proposed plat to the surrounding development;
3. Confornuty with zoning district lot requirements; '
4. A discussion of the general site characteristics; �
5. Lot layout and lot standards; �
6. Road layout and standards;
7. Park,trail easement, fees or dedication needed; .
8. . Road improvements and/or easements needed;
9. Stormwater and drainage improvements; � '
10. Utility locations and availability; •
11. Wetlands on the property;
12. Woodland impacts and conservation design.
' The goal of tonight's review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent city ordinances
and how they affect the proposed plat and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. �
Curtis stated this application would be presented to the City Council at their next meeting for their input
and direction.
Stickney gave a brief overview of the project to the Planning Commission. Stickney stated the lots did
meet the two-acre minimum until it was suggested that the City's ecological restoration management
concept be incorporated into the project. Sticlrney stated he is willing to incorporate conservation zones
at different locations within the development. Stickney stated a conservation zone would be established
_ near the Luce Line and the area to the creek would also be enhanced in conjunction with this project.
There are approximately 8.3 acres of wetlands on the site. Stickney stated by enhancing the woodland
areas,there would be a considerable amount of vegetation and there would be a net gain overall in the
number of trees on the site after they finish their plantings. �
Sticlrney stated they would like to incorporate a number of amenities into the plan that would be attractive
to families.
Stickney stated Lot 1 has a natural berm,which helps to keep this development less visible to the
adjoining properties. Sticlrney indicated the neighbors are in support of the concept and that there is
significant vegetation throughout the site to allow for this development to remain relatively hidden.
PAGE 20
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3257 BPS Properties, Continued)
Zullo inquired what Fire Code dictates as far as the road and cul-de-sac.
Gaffron stated due to the number of proposed lots on the road,there would need to be a 28-foot road and
would more than likely be without curb and gutter to give it a more rural look. Gaffron stated there
would be private wells and septic. Gaffron pointed out the maximum length of a cul-de-sac is 1000 feet
but noted the City has approved a number of roads in excess of that length, and that the minimum turning
surface is 80-feet in diameter.
Sticlrney stated the potential placement of houses works well in the area and allows for the structures to
remain relatively hidden.
Gaffron inquired whether the applicant has considered defining the various house placements on the lots
to help reduce the ability to have structures over the backs of the lots so there would not be any negative
impacts on views of wildlife corridors in case someone would want to construct an accessory structure
towards the back.
Sticlrney stated the only neighbor that would really see anything of this development would be Mark
Gronberg. .
Gaffron suggested certain areas be restricted by covenants on what can or cannot be constructed in certain
areas: ,
Sticlrney stated the goal is to have covenants dictating those types of items. Stickney pointed out there
, would be an easement over Lot 1 and part of Lot 2 and that they would be constructing a woodchip trail
along Watertown Road. � �
Gaffron stated one question that should be considered when atfempting to preserve areas of a ,
development is to determine whether it should be platted as an outlot or a conservation easement.
Kempf stated in his opinion an outlot provides better protection. Kempf inquired whether the
conservation easements and covenants would be part of the final plan.
Sticlrney stated they would have covenants in place that will show the tree preservation agreement and the
easements,etc., once the plans become more finalized.
Rahn inquired whether there is a reason that Lot 6,Block 2, only has 30-feet of footage.
Sticlrney stated that lot could be changed slightly.
Rahn commented if that lot is changed,it would provide more options for a driveway.
Gaffron inquired whether there is any intent to provide a connection to Watertown Road.
PAGE 21 .
MINUTES OF TI3E
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3257 BPS Properties,Continued) � .
Sticlmey stated they would prefer not to have a through road to Watertown Road. Stickney stated they
are trying to create a buffer between Watertown Road and this development.
Curtis inquired whether development is anticipated on the Riley property and whether that is the reason
why there should be a through road. �
Gaffron stated in the event of an emergency or a blocked road, it is always nice to have a secondary
access. •
Zullo recommended that another storm water pond be considered for fire protection given the lack of a
• second access to this development and the private wells on the lots.
Sticlrney stated there are neighborhoods that currently do not have storm water ponds but that they would
look at possibly adciing another pond.
Zullo stated she recently visited a development in Chicago that was constructed similar to what is being
proposed and that they required the houses to be sprinkled. �
Kroeger stated the Orono Fire Deparhnent has informed him that they can have thousands of gallons of
water to someone's house in minutes. '
Rahn commented the plan appears to be well done.
Kempf inquired whether a conservation design report would be completed.
Sticlrney stated they are in the process of refining their preliminary study and would be submitting that.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.
11. #07-3258 GEORGE STICKNEY FOR BRUCE PADDOCK, 1450-1500 BRACKETTS
. POINT ROAD,SKETCH PLAN,9:29—10:15 P.M.
George Sticlmey,Applicant,was present.
Gaffron stated the applicants are proposing a multi-faceted application with the ultimate goal of
improving the marketability of the two residential properties at the southern tip of Bracketts Point. The
application has been presented as a sketch plan at Staff's recommendation since a number of policy issues
may need to be considered. The project includes: •
1. Vacation of the�southerly 580 feet of Bracketts Point Road;
PAGE 22
� • MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007 ,
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3258 George Stickney, Continued) �
2. Replatting of Lots 1 and 3,Block 1,Bracketts Point,to create: �
a. a new private road outlot serving 1450, 1480 and 1500 Bracketts Point Road;
b. a 2.02 acre lakeshore lot to replace the 1.99 acre non-lakeshore lot at 1450;
c. a 2.83 acre lakeshore lot to replace the 3.71 acre lakeshore lot at 1500;
d. a new tennis court outlot,potentially to serve as a neighborhood amenity.
The proposal is in conformity with the guiding of this area for single-family dwellings at a density of one
unit per two acres. The properiy is zoned LR-lA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential District,requiring
, 2.0 dry buildable acres per lot and a 200-foot lot width.
Gaffron stated the biggest issue is road layout. Currently, the 20-foot right-of-way of Bracketts Point
road contains a narrow paved road that serves homes at 1450, 1480,and 1500. It has no cul-de-sac
platted or constructed,but both 1480 and 1500 have loop driveways that eliminate the need for backing
up. While these provide for some level of emergency vehicle access, at the average 14-foot width they do
not necessarily provide the 20-foot width that the fire marshal would likely be looking for.
An additional issue regarding the lack of a cul-de-sac is the need to provide a turnaround for public traffic
at the end of Bracketts Point Road. The entire length of the road from County Road 15 to its southerly
end abutting 1480/1500 is dedicated to the public. However,the City has historically only maintained it
to the northwest corner of 1450 and there has long been a sign at that point that says private road starts
here—turn around here. This has not been a huge public issue and has served the residents fairly well.
The new proposed layout would eliminate the portion of 1480's driveway in the existing 20-foot right-of-
way and create a new shared private road abutting the entire west boundary of 1480. Tliis will have
obvious impacts on 1480's access route and may require minor changes where its driveway would enter
from the south end of Outlot B.
As it regards the vacation of the right-of-way near the lake, Staff would note that it does not abut the lake
and provides no public access to the lake. It may provide the opportunity for the public to view the lake,
some of which could be lost with this proposal.
The Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
1. Is the proposed back-up apron or modified hammer handle configuration at the northwest corner
of Lot 1 and Outlot A acceptable as a public turnaround? The City Engineer suggests that the
turnaround should be platted as public right-of-way. The issues with a hammer handle versus full
cul-de-sac include, one, ease of movement for all probable users; two, amount of hardcover
necessary within close proximity to the lake; three,public perception of the demarcation between
the end of a public road and the beginning of private driveways.
2. Does the con�guration proposed adequately serve 1480?
PAGE 23 •
� MINUTES OF THE •
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3258 George Stickney, Continued) •
3. Vacation of the public roadway is potentially app'ropriate when the public no longer has current
or future needs for the roadway. While the only obvious need for the roadway is to serve the
' owners of three properties as an access and'utility corridor, does it or could it serve otlier public
purposes that suggest vacation should not occur? .
Gaffron noted city sewer exists in a portion of the right-of-way to be vacated. This would become the
lakeshore yard of a new residence at 1450. The City Engineer indicates the two options are to, one,move
. the sewer lines to be under the new roadldriveway in Outlot B or;two,create easements over the sewer as
it exists and risk that City vehicles will have to traverse lawn areas to maintain the system. Additionally,
the sewer connection for 1480 crosses over 1450. This should be relocated to be within Outlot B.
Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission discuss the following items:
1. The appropriateness of the vacation of road,given the public versus private interests.
2. Whether the proposed access is sufficient and whether the proposed turnaround is located and
designed in an appropriate manner.
3. Is the owner of 1480 okay with the proposal. f
Gaffron requested the Planning Commission provide the developer with as much input as possible with
regards to the proposal. No formal action by the Planning Commission is required.
Rahn inquired whether the sign is located at the end of the public right-of-way.
Kroeger stated the sign is located at the hammerhead.
Gaffron stated the road continues for approximately another 500 to 600 feet.
Sticlrney addressed the Planning Commission regarding his proposal. Sticlrney stated the road was'
platted in the 1970's and only served one residence at that time. Over the years two other residences were �
added and that they are considering the creation of a cul-de-sac in place of the existing road,which would
help clean up the issues relating to access.
Sticlrney stated they are willing to remove a considerable amount of hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone
'but they would like to preserve the tennis court. Sticlrney stated Mr. Paddock would like to construct a
new house on the point lot. Stickney indicated the pool and pool houses would be removed within the
0-75 foot zone as well as 7200 feet of roadway. A total of approximately 13,000 square feet.of hardcover
is proposed to be removed in the 0-75 foot zone. '
Rahn stated he is more interested in the public good than the private good that would be accomplished
with this proposal. �
PAGE 24
MINUTES OF THE ,
ORONO PLANNING COMNIISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007 .
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3258 George Stickney, Continued)
Sticlrney stated it was platted originally for access for one family in mind and that it is typical for the
caretakers to stop any foreign vehicles that attempt to travel back there. Sticlrney stated the City has not
maintained the road for a number of years. Stickney stated in his opinion it would be in the best interests
to clean up this area.
Zullo commented the sign was probably erected illegally. .
Kroeger stated the sign says dead end—turn around here.
Zullo inquired what upkeep on this road the City would have been responsible for.
Gaffron stated the City has a number of different types of road ownership and maintenance requirements.
Gaffron stated the City has not maintained this road because there was not felt to be a need to and that
there now is a concern that the road should be maintained with the recent installation of sewer. Gaffron
stated there really is no public value or need to gain access to the middle of three private residences.
Gaffron commented this is a very unique layout and that it is difficult to balance who should have what
rights. '
Sticlrney stated the roadway is approximately 14 feet.
Rahn inquired why the input of the fire marshal has not yet been obtained if access is the primary issue.
Rahn stated he would like the input of the fire marshal prior to moving this application forward.
. Zullo commented that area is still city property and that there could be a walking path along the lake.
Kroeger inquired whether there is any point along the roadway to access the lake.
Gaffron indicated there is not. Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should determine what,if any,
value there is to retaining the public right-of-way in this area.
Kempf commented people could travel to other areas of the city and sit on the beaches if they wanted to
be near the water. Kempf stated in his opinion this is not the type of area where a spot should be created
for public parking.
Sticlrney stated this area is very private. �
Zullo stated the Planning Commission should look at the future of this area and that these properties
would be receiving a tremendous value without compensating the city in any manner if the public right-
of-way is not retained.
Rahn pointed out the City also has a number of fire lanes that are encroached upon by some of the citizens
but that does not mean that the City is ready to relinquish their rights to those fire lanes. Rahn stated the
PAGE 25
MINUTES OF THE -
ORONO PLANPTING COMMISSION
• Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3258 George Stickney;Continued)
� amenity is the fact that it is a lakeshore road that the public can travel down and that he does not
understand the public good that would be served by eliminating that road.
Winer stated it is diff cult to make a decision without the input of the fire marshal and without further
information on the Indian mounds from the Historical Society.
Gaffron stated one question is where the trail would go and what the purpose of the trail would be.
Stickney stated he would like to clean up the area and provide better access to the three properties as well
as eliminate a substantial amount of hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. Sticlrney indicated they would like
to preserve the cottage house if they could but would be removing the pool houses.
Rahn stated the issue with the burial grounds would need to be resolved and that a plan should be
designed to comply with the recommendations of the fire marshal and the building inspector.
Gaffron stated the Planning Commission could consider whether there should be a parking area with a
picnic table in exchange for losing that piece of land. Gaffron stated there are a number of options that
could be explored that would compensate the City for giving up the public right-of-way.
Stickney stated this road has never been a cul-de-sac or a turnaround and should not be considered a �
public road.
Zullo stated there is a certain monetary value to the City for the easement.
Winer stated she is more concerned with the issues the fire marshal might find and the historical burial
grounds.
Rahn inquired whether there are any park dedication fees that would be paid on this.
Gaffron stated park dedication fees are required when you create a new lot.
Zullo stated she sees the easement as having some value and that the removal of the hardcover does not
full compensate the City for that value they would be giving up.
Stickney stated a person would need to look at the history of this area to understand why it was platted the
way it is. •
Gaffron concurred that some research should be done on why it was platted the way it�was.
Kempf stated the value that has been described is sight-seer value and the attitude that the City should do
it just because they can seems rather absurd. Kempf stated in his opinion the road has no public value
other than public sight-seeing and that the removal of the hardcover along the lakeshore does matter.
PAGE 26
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#07-3258 George Stickney, Continued)
� Winer reiterated she would like to get the input of the fire marshal and the Historical Society.
Zullo stated the lake has a specific value to the community and that the Planning Commission has to �
consider that. Zullo stated if the City Attorney feels that land has value,it should be considered.
Rahn stated the public value should outweigh the private value and the removal of the hardcover is not
enough to compensate the City for what it would be giving up.
Zullo inquired whether the Planning Commission has the authority to ask the City Attorney to research
certain items.
Gaffron stated the goal at the sketch plan level is to raise issues that should be addressed at some time
during the application process.
Sticlrney stated he is open to suggestions on how to address the issue of public access.
Gaffron stated if Bracketts Point were vacant land today,it is likely the City would say that the road
should be platted as a private road.
Kroeger stated some of the commissioners feel the giving up of the road has some monetary value to the
• city.
The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. .
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
12. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS NOVEMBER 27 AND DECEMBER 11,2006,AND JANUARY 8,2007
Kroeger stated he attended the November 27'�'Council meeting and reported the Council directed
Mr.Munson to redesign his plans.
Kempf reported on the December 11`�'Council meeting,noting that the Munson application was approved
without any variances. Kempf noted there are 2401oads of fill that would be going in on the lot and that
the�11 would not be used to raise the elevation of the house or impact the views of the neighbors. Kempf
stated the Johnson,Maney and Vogstrom applications were also approved. Kempf noted the Hollander
. application was denied.
13. OTFiER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION •
None
PAGE 27
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANI�TING COMMISSION
Tuesday,January 16,2007
6:00 o'clock p.m. �
� 14. PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 20,2006
Kroeger moved,Rahn seconded,to approve the minutes of the November 20,2006 Planning
Commission meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. �
. 15. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON
JANUARY 22 AND FEBRUARY 12,2007
January 22—Zullo
' � February 12-Kempf
ADJOURNMENT �
Rahn moved,Winer seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 10;28 p.m. .
There being no further business to discuss,the meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
, � ��
�!
David Rahn, Chair .
� PAGE 28