HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/2008 Planning Commission Minutes .,. �
` • MINUTES OF THE
� � ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
7:00 o'clock p.m. �
ROLL
The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members
present: Acting Chair Dick Kroeger, Commissioners Ralph Kempf,Kim Kang,Tess Rice,Michelle � '
Winer,Jaye Ann Zullo, and Loren Schoenzeit. Representing Staff were Assistant City Administrator
for Long-Term Strategy Mike Gaffron, and Recorder Jackie Young.
Acting Chair Kroeger called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. �
1. APPROVAL OF PLANIVING COMNIISSION MEETING NIII�TUTES OF FEBRUARY
19,2008 .
Kempf moved,Zullo seconded,to approve the minutes of the February 19,2008,Planning
Commission 1VIeeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. �
OLD BUSINESS . .
2. 08-3335 DOUGLAS AND MARGARET FRANCHOT,2010 COLIN DRIVE,
VARIANCE, 6:05 P.M.—6:25 P.M.
Douglas Franchot,Applicant,was present. � � •
Turner noted this application was before the Planning Commission at its January meeting and was
eventually tabled. The applicants are continuing to request a variance to construct an in-ground
swimming pool on their property along with a 34' x 12' multi-purpose pool building situated with the -
34' length facing Colin Drive. The existing home is located 130 feet from Colin Drive. The required
front yard setbacic is 50 feet. The applicants are requesting a variance to construct the.poo175 feet
from Colin Drive, which is ten feet closer than previously proposed, and are also proposing to locate
the pool building 50 feet from Colin Drive,which is nine feet closer than previously proposed. Both �
meet the front yard setback but are still located ahead of the principal structure. .
The applicants' home is set back considerably farther than the required front yard. This proposes a
problem when attempting to locate a site for an accessory structure. The proposed pool will not add to
the massing on the property as it is proposed to be in-ground. The proposed pool building consists of
� 385 square feet and will be located streetward of the pool to offer screening for the homeowners from
the street. .
This property is served by an on-site septic system as opposed to City sewer. City sewer is not an
option as the property is not located within the MUSA. Prior to allowing the applicants to use the
potential septic treatment area in their yard,the applicants must prove to the City that sufficient
alternate septic locations are identified. The applicants have submitted their revised plans and the
City's septic manager has deemed them acceptable.
Staff feels a conforming location exists behind the home where a pool can be constructed and does not
require variances. The applicants currently have reasonable use of the property and their residence. A
pool is an amenity and is considered a luxury item. To grant a variance for the location of a pool on
this property is in direct opposition to the intent of the Zoning Code. �
PAGE 1
MINUTES OF THE • �
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
, 7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot, Continued)
Planning Staff recommends denial of the setback variance to allow the in-ground pool and pool �
• building to be constructed closer to the street than the home. Staff still feels the pool could be
constructed behind the house. ' �' "� • �
Staff requests the Planning Commission consider the following issues: .
1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the applicants have reasonable use of the property
' without the pool and pool building? �
2. Is the Planning Commission satisfied that there is no other appropriate location for the pool
which would meet the required setbacks?
3. Does the Planning Commission feel that the proposed pool building is reasonable and in a
reasonable location? '
4. Does the Planning Commission feel that screening is necessary? If so,what type?
Franchot indicated they have revised their plan to reflect the alternate sewer sites and that the pool and �
building were located closer to the street in order to meet the various setbacks required by the drain �
fields. The location recommended by Staff at the rear of the house is not ideal since it is located in the
shade and would require the removal of a number of mature irees. In addition,Mr.Franchot indicated
that he has been informed the proposed septic fields should not be manipulated in any way, and that in
. order to construct the pool behind the house,they would need to remove two to three 80'to 100' tall
white pines to route construction equipment on the east side of the house.
Franchot indicated they have discussed this project with all of their neighbors and they are not in
� opposition to the proposed location.
. Schoenzeit asked whether there is a plan displaying the mature trees and the other smaller trees. �
Franchot illustrated on the overhead the general location of the trees.
Zullo inquired about the wetland located towards Brown Road depicted on the plan.
Franchot indicated the wetland is not located on their property.
Zullo asked whether the neighbor near the wetland is in agreement with the project.
Franchot stated that neighbor has indicated she is fine with the project.
Acting Chair Kroeger opened the public hearing at 6:10 p.m.
Alan Peterson, 2075 Watertown Road,illustrated on the overhead the location of his residence and �
pointed out the fact that two of his bedrooms are close to the property line and would be close to the
pool if it were located to the rea.r of the house. Peterson indicated they are in favor of the variance.
� PAGE 2
' MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
" Tuesday,March 17,2008
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3335 Douglas and Margaret.Franchot, Continued)
David Healy, 2135 Colin Dri�e,illustrated the location of his residence and noted that they are the
neighbors"most directly affected by the pool. Healy indicated they are in favor of the location
proposed by the Franchots and that the location recommended by Staff is not ideal given the fact that
the tall white pines would need to be removed, which is not in the best interests of the neighborhood or
� the City. Healy stated they are in favor of the variance.
Healy noted one of his neighbors was granted a variance without a hardship and constructed a 3000
foot driveway out to Brown Road where he could have easily constructed a 200 foot driveway out to
Colin Drive.
Acting Chair Kroeger closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m.
� Kang commented she would prefer the trees not be removed in order to locate the pool behind the
house. � �
� Rice stated it does not need to be a choice between the trees and a pool near the street and that the
owners currently have reasonable use of their property without the pool. Rice stated the location of
the pool should be guided by the code.
Kempf concurred with Commissioner Rice's comments and noted that a hardship has not been
� demonstrated to locate the pool in front of the residence. Kempf asked whether there has been a
similar situation where the City has granted variances to allow a building in front of the principal
stxucture. .
Gaffron stated to his recollection there are two examples where a building was constructed in front of
a principal residence. The first one is located on Orono Oaks Drive,which is a wooded area and the
garage is well screened the majority of the time. The second instance is located on Bayside Road,
which is also wooded and in a rural setting. Gaffron indicated that generally the variances that have
been approved for buildings in front of a principal structure have been heavily screened.
Schoenzeit asked whether a variance would be required for the fencing around a pool.
Gaffron stated City Code does not require fencing around a pool and the applicants would be allowed
a six-foot fence since it is out of the defined 50-foot setback from the street.
Schoenzeit asked whether the applicants would be erecting a fence.
� Franchot stated they are planning on constructing a fence, although not a six-foot fence, and they are
planning on doing a lot of screening.
Zullo indicated she is in agreement that the trees in the back yard should not be removed in order to
locate a pool in that area and that she is agreeable to granting the variance.
PAGE 3
MINUTES OF THE `
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �
Tuesday,March 17,2008
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot, Continued) .
Winer stated in her view the applicants currently have reasonable use of the property and that it was
her understanding from the previous hearing that the applicants were going to find an alternate '
location for the pool in addition to depicting the septic sites on the plan.
Kempf stated the proposed structure is rather large and.would be located in front of the principal
residence,which is something that typically is not allowed unless a hardship is demonstrated. Kempf �
stated he is in agreement that there should be a substantial amount of screening but that he still is not
in favor of the application given the fact that in addition to the in-ground pool,there would also be a
structure.
Kroeger stated there is not a hardship to locate the pool in front of the residence and that the Planning
Commission needs to uphold the rules of the City. �
Kroeger moved,Rice seconded,to recommend denial of Application#08-3335,Douglas and
Margaret Franchot,2010 Colin Drive. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 1,Zullo Opposed. ,
�NEW BUSINESS � �
3. 08-3350 J. SVEN GUSTAFSON WITH STONEWOOD,LLC,ON BEHALF OF
FREDERICK PETERS,3127 CASCO CIRCLE,VARIANCE,6:25 P.M.—7:07 P.M.
J. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood,LLC, and Frederick Peters,Property Owner,were present.
Turner stated the applicants are proposing to construct a tennis court larger than 1,000 square feet in .
the street yard of a replacement residence and are requesting the following variances: " •
1. A location variance to place the tennis court between the house and the street; �
2. , A side setback variance to place the tennis court 22 feet from the northerly property line when
a 30-foot setback is required;
3. A hardcover variance to have 37 percent hardcover in the 250 to 500 foot zone when the
maximum is 30 percent.
This lot was divided from the property at 3125 Casco Circle in 1983. The existing tennis court was
built in 1976 accessory to the house at 3125. The tennis court was allowed to remain as part of the
plat approval even though the hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone was well in excess of 25 percent. The '
house was constructed in 1984.
The owner is proposing to remove the existing house and tennis court and construct a new house and
tennis court. The new house would be located where the rear portion of the existing tennis court is. .
The new tennis court would be located between the birch trees in the island in the existing driveway
and the street. It would be enclosed by a 5' 11"fence to avoid being counted as structural lot
coverage. The court would be located three to five feet below street level.
PAGE 4
+� • MINUTES OF THE '
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3350 Sven Gustafson with Stonewood, Continued)
• The Planning Commission should consider whether this should be viewed as a reduction in hardcover
or a request for additional hardcover. The City's practice has been to not consider any existing
improvements when the existing house is being totally removed. There would be no grounds for
approving a variance to accommodate a tennis court since reasonable use of the property exists
without it. If the owner chooses to remodel the existing house without increasing or relocating
hardcover or requiring other variances, all the hardcover on the property could remain. The Planning
Commission should determine whether it is in the City's best interest to accept a significant reduction
in hardcover rather than wait for the property to redevelop.
� The Planning Commission should also determine whether it is reasonable for the tennis court to be.
located between the street and the house since it will not have the usual enclosing fence. If hardcover
� were not an issue,the property could have a patio or hard surface play area between the street and the
house as long as it was not surrounded by a fence taller than six feet. The portion of the street yard
between the house and 30 feet from the street right-of-way could be enclosed by a six-foot privacy
fence. ,
. The code has special provisions to allow accessory structures,of less than 1000 square feet between the
house and street for lakeshore lots. Detached garages less than 1000 square feet can be located 10 or
15 feet frorri the street�as long as the overhead door faces to the side or rear. Other accessory
structures less than 1000 square feet must comply with the street setback for a principal structure. The
Planning Commission should determine whether the proposed tennis court would be less obtrusive
than a 999 square feet accessory structure in the same location.
If the Planning Commission determines it is appropriate to grant the hardcover variance,Staff would
recommend approval be conditioned on the following:
1. Provision of rain gardens or other measures to control the amount,rate,and quality of runoff.
2. No additional hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone.
In addition, Staff would recommend approval of the setback variances subj ect to the following:
1. The court not being enclosed by a fence higher than 5'11".
2. The fencing being dark-colored vinyl-covered chain link or equivalent with no windscreens.
3. The court not being used for parking vehicles,storage or other non-recreational purposes.
4. The area around the court being landscaped but not to the extent the view of the house from
the street is completely obscured.
Kroeger asked if a tennis court can be 1,000 square feet and still be able to be used for tennis.
. Gustafson stated that it cannot be.
PAGE 5
l
NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLAN1vING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3350 Sven Gustafson with Stonewood,continued)
Gaffron noted a standard tennis court is 60' x 120' or 7,200 square feet. Gaffron noted the tennis
court being proposed is significantly smaller than the standard tennis court. �
Kempf asked if a new residence were constructed within the same building envelope whether they
would be allowed to keep the existing tennis court. .
Turner stated typically whenever the prir�cipal structure is removed,the accessory structures must also
be removed. Turner indicated there is some question whether a variance was granted for the existing
tennis court and that the City's files.do not contain all of the necessary information needed to ,
determine whether a variance was granted at one time.
Winer asked if it is in the City's best interests to accept the significant reduction in hardcover.
Turner indicated that is one of the issues that the Planning Commission should consider. Tumer stated
the applicants have submitted house plans but they are not really a part of this application since the
house plans are conforming.
Kempf commented he would have liked to have seen the house plans to ensure him that the plans are �
complete: � �
� � Gustafson indicated he does have a set of plans available here that the Planning Commission could • �
review. . •
,. Turner stated the applicants could change the house plans but they would be restricted to a certain
hardcover numb'er. � �
Kempf briefly reviewed the house plans shown him by Gustafson and stated he does not see anything
glaring on the plans that should be addressed.
Kroeger commented he simply does not want to see a new application sometime in the future asldng
for a deck or other hardcover if the tennis court is approved.
Zullo stated she does not see the need to grant a variance to construct a new tennis court.
Gustafson stated the property owner would like to improve his residence to accommodate his growing
family and that one of the main reasons why they purchased this property initially was the tennis court.
While reviewing their options,it was determined that the house was somewhat outdated,remodeling
the structure would be expensive, and that the better option would be to construct a new residence.
Gustafson noted they did reduce the size of the tennis court as much as possible but still allow them to
• have a useable tennis court. Gustafson indicated they have examined a number of options for reducing
the hardcover further, and that if 500 square feet of hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone was shifted over
to the 250 foot zone,they would be asking for a hardcover variance of 1260 square feet between the
two zones.
PAGE 6
� NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANIVING COMNIISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3350 Sven Gustafson with Stonewood,Continued)
Peters stated one of the primary reasons for purchasing the home was the tennis court. The existing
structure has a number of windows and skylights which are currently leaking and need replacement. "
' Peters indicated due to the costs associated with remodeling,he would prefer to construct a new
residence.
Gustafson indicated they have looked at a number of different options to locate the new residence and
they determined that the proposed location is the best site in order to meet the other zoning
regulations.
Kang asked what would be done with the land once the existing tennis court is removed. .
Gustafson indicated the area is relatively flat and they would probably need to import some dirt to
level it off to the current grade and probably sod it. � �
Kempf asked if the retaining walls would be removed.
� Gustafson stated they would be and the slope would be leveled off.
� Zullo asked whether the runoff drains down the driveway currently.
Peters stated when they purchased the property,the front yard was basically a floodplain and the
previous owners did not attempt to maintain grass in that area.
Zullo commented the tennis court would be additional hardcover and add to the runoff to the lake.
Gustafson indicated the grading they are proposing would help to slow the runoff down and help with
the runoff. In addition,they are proposing to make the driveway more level,which should also
improve the situatiori. �
Acting Chair Kroeger opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. �
There were no public comments regarding this application.
Acting Chair Kroeger closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m.
Kroeger read into the record an e-mail from Greg Becker, 3133 Casco Circle, stating his opposition to
the project, and an e-mail from Ron Dudley, 3125 Casco Circle, also stating his opposition to the
project. Some of the concerns raised by the two neighbors included grading and drainage, side yard
setbacks and lakeshore setback,lot coverage, and the inability to review the plans prior to tonight's
meeting.
Gustafson noted the plans were submitted to Staff and available for review by the public.
. PAGE 7
MINUTES OF THE �
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
. 7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3350 Sven Gustafson with Stonewood,Continued)
Turner stated one of the gentlemen came to city hall while Staff was having a meeting and he did not
' have an opportunity to review the plans and the other gentleman,to her lrnowledge, did not visit city
� hall to review the plans. '
Kempf sta.ted this is an instance where the Planning Commission should look at whether the
� reductions in hardcover are of significant benefit to the City to warrant the variances.
Zullo noted in the past the Planning Commission has approved applications without a formal drainage
plan subject to review and approval by the.City Engineer. •
Kempf stated his main concern relates to the adding of a deck or other hardcover in the future.
Turner stated given the fact that the tennis court has survived the subdivision and the construction of a
new residence,it is likely the tennis court is not there illegally and was granted a variance at one time.
Turner noted the property owner has the right to replace the existing structure under state statute.
Schoenzeit asked whether it would be reasonable to see the house plans as part of this application. �
Turner stated it was Staff's decision not to include the house plans since they were not requesting any
variances and the applicants would be restricted to a certain hardcover number.
Kempf indicated he is satisfied with his review of the plans tonight and does not see the need to
review them further.
Winer stated she agrees with the recommendations of Staff and that in her opinion it is in the City's
best interests to approve a plan that calls for a significant reduction in the hardcover.
Kang asked whether the motion should be contingent upon review and approval of the grading and
drainage plan.
Turner stated the motion would need to be subject to review and approval of the grading and drainage
plan by the City Engineer. �
Kroeger indicated he also is in agreement with Staff's recommendations and that he would encourage
the applicants to take whatever steps possible to improve the runoff situation. ` �
Rice stated she is not in favor of granting the variance for the tennis court given the fact that this is
new construction.
Zullo noted the current residence has siructural problems and should be replaced but that she does not
see the need for a tennis court.
Winer stated it is her understanding the tennis court is grandfathered in and can be replaced.
PAGE 8 � �
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANIVING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17, 2008
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3350 Sven Gustafson with Stonewood, Continued) �
Kempf stated one of the priorities of the City is to remove hardcover that is close to the lake whenever
possible. In this par�icular situatiori,the neighbors'homes are well lakeward of the proposed tennis
court and this project would not have a negative impact on their views. Kempf indicated given the
very positive impact that it would have on the lake by moving the hardcover away from the lake,he
� would be in favor of the application.
Zullo noted two of the neighbors have expressed opposition to this project and that on the other
application,where the neighbors where in support of the swimming pool,the Planning Commission
voted to deny the application.
Kempf stated comparison of the two applications is like comparing apples and oranges since the one
application dealt with a structure in front of a principal residence.
Kempf moved,Winer seconded,to recommend approval of Application#08-3350,J. Sven .
Gustafson on behalf of Frederick Peters,3127 Casco Circle,granting of a location variance to
place the tennis court between the house and the street; a side setback variance, and a hardcover
variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. Provision of rain gardens or other measures to .
control the amount,rate,and quality of runoff(to be approved by the City Engineer before final
• � approval is granted); 2. No additional hardcover in the 75-250 foot zone; 3. The tennis court
not being enclosed by a_fence higher than 5'll"; 4. The fencing being dark-colored vinyl-
covered chain link or equivalent with no windscreens; 5. The court not being used for parking
vehicles,storage or other non-recreational purposes; 6. The area around the court being
landscaped but not to t�►e extent the view of the house from the street is completely obscured;
and 7. The grading plan being acceptable to the City Engineer before Council consideration of
the application. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2,Zullo and Rice Opposed.
4. 08-3351 BARRY TANNER ON BEHALF OF BROOK INVESTMENT GROUP,LLC,
B-1 ZONING DISTRICT,ZONING CODE AMENDMENT,7:07 P.M.—7:40 P.M.
Barry Tanner,Applicant,was present.
Turner noted this application is not for a specific property but is a request to amend the City's Zoning
Code to include bowling centers. Turner stated the applicant is requesting the B-1 retail sales business
district regulations be amended to allow bowling centers as conditional uses. The applicant wishes to
reopen a bowling alley that operated unti12003. Bowling alleys or centers are not allowed in the City;
although there is a parking standard in the zoning code for bowling alleys and bowling centers are
allowed to hold on-sale intoxicating liquor, on-sale 3.2 beer or set-up licenses. The bowling alley was
. a non-conforming use. Once it ceased operating for a year,it could not reopen.
In order for the bowling alley to reopen,the zoning code must be amended to allow a bowling center
or alley as a permitted or conditional use in the B-1 zoning district. Zoning codes usually classify
bowling alleys or centers as part of the broader category of commercial recreation. Also included in
this category are cinemas,theatres, athletic clubs, amusement arcades, golf driving ranges,billiard
PAGE 9
MINUTES OF THE `
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING �
Tuesday,March 17,2008
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3351 Barry Tanner,Continued) �
halls,tennis centers, and volleyball courts. The Orono code makes no provision for these types of
uses. ' �
A zoning district amendment must be considered independently of a specific proposal. However,
� since there is no definition of bowling alley or bowling center in the code,the applicant's description •
would be the basis for a definition. It includes bowling,billiards,video games,•on-sale beer and
setups but no food service. '
The Planning Commission should consider the following:
1. Is a bowling center as described consistent with the intent of the B-1 zoning district?
2. Would a bowling center as described be compatible with the other uses allowed in the B-1
zoning district?
3. Would a bowling center as described be compatible with the uses adjacent to the B-1 zoned
areas of the City?
. .. . 4. Are there restrictions or conclitions that should be attached to bowling centers? .
- Staff is not that concerned about a small establishment with bowling lanes, a billiard table or two and a
few video games. The sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption, especially in the form of
setups and without food service,is of particular concern to Sta�'f. Such establishments tend to operate
late into the evening. They also foster behavior that is incompatible with the residential areas that are
adjacent to most of the areas zoned B-L
Staff recommends that bowling alleys,including incidental video games and billiards,be allowed as
conditional uses,but only if they are not allowed to serve alcoholic beverages. Staff would also
recommend the City's amusement device and alcohol licensing provisions be reviewed to ensure they
are up to date. ,
Tanner addressed the City Council regarding his request to amend the City's Zoning Code,noting that
his intent is to reopen the old Navarre Lanes that existed in the basement portion of the 3423-25
Shoreline Drive building. Tanner stated they intend to make some functional changes to the existing
bowling alley and do not plan on serving food except for what can be purchased through vending
machines. Tanner noted they are not looldng to obtain a setup license but would like to serve 3.2 beer.
Kempf asked if the applicant decides to expand the food service whether the conditional use permit
would need to be amended.
Turner stated restaurants are a conditional use and the owner would need to come back before the
Planning Commission and City Council to add that use. Some issues that would also likely be
addressed at the time of amending the conditional use permit would include parlcing, increased traffic, •
et cetera.
PAGE 10 .
� NIINUTES OF THE �
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
. 7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3351 Barry Tanner,Continued)
� Gaffron noted a previous application regarding the bowling alley requested a liquor license and a
' major expansion of the facility. , .
Kang asked what the hours of operation would be. �
� Tanner stated that would be open for discussion. Tanner aclmowledged that the building is located
next to some townhomes and that he is willing to work with the neighbors on that issue. Tanner stated
he is considering being open from 10 a.m.to 10 p.m. on the weekdays and 10 a.m.to midnight on the
weekends. Tanner expressed a concern that the bowling center would not be a viable business without .
a liquor license.
� Acting Chair Kroeger read into the record an e-mail from Jacqueline and Michael Ricks,2109 Sugar
Woods Drive, and Marilyn and George Mileusnic,2110 Sugar Woods Drive,indicating their
opposition to a zoning change allowing bowling centers to be built on B-1 zoned land. Kroeger also
read into the record an e-mail from Brent Lindgren, 2501 Kelly Avenue, citing concerns with noise,
traffic,vandalism, and lighting.
Acting Chair Kroeger opened the public hearing at 7:19 p.m.
Sylvia Bertagnoli,2499 Kelley Avenue, stated she is the current president of the townhome
� association and expressed a concern that Mr.Tanner would not able to make a go of the bowling
center given the fact that the lanes are not regulation. Bertagnoli expressed a concern that a different
. type of business would then come in there and create additional problems. Bertagnoli also raised a
concern regarding the potential noise from the bowling center and the increased traffic.
Dick Edwards,2480 Carman Street,indicated his property goes up to Highway 15 west of the
. proposed bowling alley and the parking lot is adjacent to his property. In the past he has experienced
problems with the noise,traffic, and lights and that he has a concern he will again experience those �
problems if the bowing center is reopened. Edwards stated he would like to see the property put to a
different use.
Acting Chair Kroeger closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
Schoenzeit asked if the lanes axe currently regulation lanes. �
Tanner stated it is a legally certified bowling center and consists of ten lanes.
Kempf stated he visited Country Lanes on Highway 19 today and that there were a substantial number
of children and their parents bowing. Kempf stated in his view this would be a nice asset for the
community but that he would not be in favor of the setups. Kempf indicated he is not opposed to the
serving of beer at the facility because it would,in his opinion,help the business survive.
Kempf stated he does have some concerns regarding the impact the bowling center would have on the
neighbors and that the applicant should submit a lighting plan if he proceeds forward with reopening
the center. Kempf suggested the applicant consider erecting a higher fence and to look at options that
PAGE 11
MIl�TUTES OF THE �
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
. 7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3351 Barry Tanner,Continued)
could be taken to reduce the noise. Kempf stated as it relates to hours of operation,in his opinion 10 �
p.m. should be the latest dui-ing the week and midnight on the weekends or perhaps 11 p.m. �
Kroeger noted the application tonight deals with including bowling alleys in the B-1 district rather
than the specifics for this property. Kroeger asked whether the Planning Commission should address
the parking and those types of concerns at this time. '
Gaffron indicated those items would be part of a different application.
Gaffron noted if the applicant elects to reopen the bowling center,he would need to come back with a
request for a conditional use permit and perhaps a liquor license. At that time the Planning
Commission could make the conditional use permit subject to a number of specific conditions. Any
additional uses would require the property owner to come back and ask for the conditional use permit . �
to be amended.
Gaffron noted the City's Code does not recognize the types of recreational facilities that currently exist
and that it may make sense for the Planning Commission to address all types of recreational facilities
that are popular today rather than just bowling centers.
Zullo asked if the City has any guidelines that require food to be served if liquor is available.
Gaffron indicated that is part of the liquor license application and would be a separate issue.
Kroeger stated in his opinion the Planning Commission should act on a broader category of uses rather
than specifically bowling centers. Kempf indicated he would be in favor of recreational centers in
Orono,particularly in Navarre where it is more heavily populated.
Turner stated recreational centers typically are where people would congregate rather than going there
and purchasing something. ,
Kroeger moved to recommend approval of Application#08-3351,Barry Tanner,Zoning Code
Amendment—Section 78-644,Bowling Alleys in the B-1 Zoning District,called commercial
recreation that would include the uses listed in cinemas,theatres, athletic clubs,amusement
arcades,golf driving ranges,billiard halls,tennis centers, and volleyball courts.
Kang asked whether the liquor license would restrict the hours that liquor is served.
Gaffron stated it is doubtful that the license would restrict the sale of liquor to certain hours. Gaffron
stated the Council can limit the hours of operation but that he does not think the Council could limit �
the hours that liquor is served.
Kroeger asked if food should be addressed along with alcohol.
Gaffron stated in his view the liquor license is a separate portion and that these issues should be
addressed by the City Attorney.
� PAGE 12
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CO1��IlVIISSION MEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3351 Barry Tanner, Continued)
Turner stated Staff would desire no alcohol be served but that the applicant would like to serve 3.2
beer. ' �
Kroeger cited the following language"Within any B-1 retail sales business district,no shucture or
land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses,deemed similar by the council..."and
that"neighborhood retail sales and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a service �
primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood"are allowed as a conditional use. Shopping
centers would be allowed in a B-2 zoning district. '
Gaffron noted that Section 78-644, Conditional Uses,allows for garages,motor fuel stations, and two
types of restaurants-one which allows liquor sales and one which does not. The Planning
Commission has the ability to make the bowling center a pernutted use or a conditional use. A
conditional use would allow specific conditions to be placed on the bowling center.
Kroeger withdrew his prior motion.
Kroeger moved,Kempf seconded,to recommend approval of Application#08-3351,Barry
Tanner,Zoning Code Amendment—Section 78-644,Bowling Alleys in the B-1 Zoning District,
to include in the B-1 zoning district under Section 78-644, Conditional Uses the category �
commercial recreation. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. �
Kempf stated by making it a conditional use,the Planning Commission arid the City Council has the
ability to put certain conditions on a particular use.
Edwards stated that building is better suited for attomeys,beauty salons, and those types of businesses
that do not generate a large amount of traffic. Edwards expressed a concern over the amount of traffic
that would be generated by a bowling center.
Kroeger noted that the Planning Commission did not approve the bowling center tonight but merely
recommended approval to the City Council that recreational centers be added to the B-1 Retail Sales
Business District.
5. 08-3352 TIlVI HAUSER ON BEHALF OF CLEM KROLL,60 STUBBS BAY ROAD
SOUTH,SKETCH PLAN/SUBDIVISION ,
Tim Hauser,Applicant, and Clem Kroll, 20 South Stubbs Road,were present.
. Turner said the applicant is loolcing for input by the Planning Commission into the possibility of
creating a subdivision along Christine Drive. There currently is a residence located on the property.
There are four existing houses located along the south side of the road. At the time of the original
subdivision,it was contemplated that there could be four additional lots created on the north side of
the road at some point in the future.
Turner illustrated the proposal on the overhead.
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE �
ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION 1VIEETING
Tuesday,March 17,2008
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(#08-3352 Tim Hauser, Continued)
Turner noted the lots do meet the City's standard of 200 feet wide and two acres. The two issues that
' Staff would recommend the applicants address are whether each lot can accommodate two septic sites �
and what is being proposed for grading.
Kroeger asked whether this area is located in the MUSA. Kroeger noted there is a lift station in close
proximity to the subdivision.
Turner indicated that it is not.
Zullo asked whether there are any plans to include it in MUSA. �
� Gaffron indicated it is not proposed to be included in MiJSA due to the low density of the area and
that the Meh�opolitan Council would like to see three units per acre in order to be included in MTJSA.
Kroll stated he is the owner of the property and that back in 1988,Tom Betz developed four lots and
that Christine Drive was created. Kroll noted there is a big culvert to handle the water off the road and
that the land lies in such a way that the water flows nicely and there are not any drainage concerns at
the present time.
. Kroll stated in 1988,he did not conduct septic testing,but that he has had the lots tested to see if there
are viable septic sites available. Kroll noted there are adequate septic sites available for each lot.
Gaffron asked whether the building pads have been identified.
Hauser stated they would like to put them as far back as possible.
� The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed plan depicting the septic sites and the possible
location of the building pads.
Hauser stated the existing house would be removed.
Gaffron requested that the applicant submit his plan to Staff for their review.
Hauser indicated he would have his surveyor bring the plans to city hall.
Kempf noted one of the issues raised by Staff was a park dedication fee and that typically the fee is
• assessed against each lot. Kempf stated if there is any dedication of land required for a trail,it might
be in the area of the existing house,but that it is more likely the City would require a park dedication �
fee.
Kroeger noted there is a huge park located across the road.
Gaffron stated the storm water pond is located at the south end of 3505 and that the City's engineers
will need to look at the ponding to see if it can handle the additional runoff and whether it meets
PAGE 14
� MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING �
Tuesday,March 17,2008
_ 7:00 o'clock p.m. � �
(#08-3352 Tim Hauser,Continued) '
today's standards. Gaffron stated it is likely the current pond would have to be updated to
accommodate any additional runof£ '
Kroll commented the runoff has not been a problem and that to his lrnowledge the pond was designed
to handle the two additional lots. �
Gaffron stated since the pond was constructed in 1988,the City Engineer will need to see if it meets
today's standards. �
•� The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. ,
PLANNING COMIVIISSION COMMENTS
6. REPORT OF PLANNING COMIVIISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING
COUNCIL MEETINGS FEBRUARY 25,2008,AND MARCH 10,2008
Ralph Kempf noted Jon Schwingler attended the March 10'j'meeting but had indicated that the
maj ority of the items were placed on the Consent Agenda. Kempf reported that Council Member
Rahn lost one of his dogs to a pair of coyotes.
Kempf reported on the February 25`�'Council meeting. Kempf noted the Big Island application was on
the agenda and that the Council pointed out that the.action of the Planning Commission to limit the
_ number of docks was really not within their purview and is actually regulated by the LMCD. "
7. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION �
None �
8. SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON MARCH 24,2008,AND APRIL 14,2008
March 24,2008— Kim Kang •
April 14,2008—Michelle Winer
ADJOURNMENT
Schoenzeit moved,Rice seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:12
p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0.
Ralph Kempf, Chair
PAGE 15