5. 17-3945 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2710 PENCE LANE AND 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 7:52 P.M. 8:42 P.M. Council Exhibit C William and Sue Dunkley, Applicants, and Paul Vogstrom were present. Curtis stated this is a sketch plan review with the purpose of providing the applicant with comments and direction for a proposed preliminary plat to rearrange the property line between the two properties and create outlots and a new private road serving three homes. Currently there are three homes addressed off of Pence Lane, all served by a 12-foot wide driveway. The first home is 2701 Pence Lane and has two curb cuts on the private road outlot at the north end. Pence Lane then extends through a gate just south of this home. After the gate, the driveway is extended serving two homes, 2715 Pence and 2710 Pence, which is owned by the Dunkleys. The Dunkleys also own the property at 2709 Walters Port, which is where their residence is located. The applicants submitted a survey dated June 28 and a site plan labeled proposed survey dated June 30 to illustrate their proposal. The plans do not coordinate so Staff used the June 28 survey for lot area and other reference information. The applicant is working on a coordinated plan. The Dunkleys wish to change the lot line between their Walters Port property and the 2710 Pence lot, increasing the lot size and lakeshore frontage for the Walters Port property and to change their access through the Pence Lane driveway. The addition of the third home, the Walters Port home, triggers the need to create a private road within an outlot for access. The need to create the private road, along with the applicants requested variances for a lot line adjustment, requires a preliminary plat. According to the Code, a private code outlot must have a platted width of 50 feet and a minimum paved width of 24 feet with a 100-foot diameter cul-de-sac at the end. Staff provided a number of issues for discussion in the Staff report. The Planning Commission should address each one and provide direction and guidance to the applicant tonight. Additional issues raised by the public or the Planning Commission should also be addressed. The goal of the review is to provide the applicant with an overview of the Code, city ordinances, and how they affect their proposed plan and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The issues cited by Staff reveal a number of issues
with the proposed plat and the Planning Commission should provide direction to the applicant regarding the plat. The Planning Commission should review each topic and identify issues to which the applicants should respond to. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicant are nonbinding but should be helpful as the applicant moves forward. At the direction of the applicant, the sketch plan will be forwarded to the City Council for review. Curtis stated it would be helpful for the applicant to introduce the project and address the issues identified in Staff report. Thiesse noted the Fire Chief is fine with what is there. Curtis stated Staff would like clarification on what is proposed for the driveway and then the Fire Chief will have another opportunity to provide comment on the plan. The survey shows the driveway outlot at 25 feet wide connecting at Walters Port Lane. Curtis indicated she is not sure if it is intended to be an emergency connection or an active connection, which needs to be clarified. There are also a number of items related to the layout of the driveway that requires clarification. The Planning Commission should provide direction to the applicant on those items. Leskinen asked if the shifting of the lot lines is creating a non-conformity on one lot that is currently conforming with regard to width. Curtis indicated it is. Curtis stated the lot line rearrangement makes the Walters Port property conforming with respect to lot area and width but changing the Pence Lane property. Curtis stated there is some conflicting information but that she believes the applicant intends to add one acre to the Walters Port lot. Curtis stated that lot appears to be just under at this point. Sue Dunkley stated their home on Walters Port Lane was constructed in 1958 on a small lot. Dunkley indicated they moved in in 1984 and remodeled the home in 2008 on the same foundation. Dunkley stated the lot is very small and currently is less than a half-acre. Dunkley stated they are going to purchase the neighbor s property so additional land can be added to the Walters Port lot.
Thiesse asked if at the end of the day they are proposing two conforming lots. Dunkley indicated they are. Vogstrom stated they are trying to figure out the best access for the three properties. At the present time the Walters Port property is really not an easy access for emergency vehicles so they are taking a look at the bigger picture and how that can be improved. Dunkley noted that driveway was not intended to be a public access but just to make it easier for emergency vehicles. Curtis asked whether it would be gated. Vogstrom indicated it would be a strobed gate that would open automatically. Vogstrom stated they are attempting to mitigate the impact to the wooded area. Dunkley indicated they would like to avoid the need for a 24-foot wide road if it all possible. Vogstrom stated they have spoken with the Fire Chief about their plans and the possibility of adding sprinkler systems to each home. Vogstrom indicated they are looking to have Outlot C conforming from the gate all the way down to Walters Port with a hook around for fire accessibility. The driveway would service the three homes. The reconfiguration would allow the cul-de-sac to be reduced somewhat. Vogstrom indicated they are working with the neighbors on the proposal. Vogstrom noted that neighbor currently has an easement and is fine with the driveway being reconfigured since it would help them retain their privacy and provide for better emergency access. Outlot A would connect to Walters Port and the driveway would be shared by the Dunkleys and the new lot. Vogstrom noted some of the driveway hardcover would be removed as part of the project. Thiesse questioned whether Outlot A is wide enough for adequate turning radii for the emergency vehicles.
Landgraver stated there appears to be some sharp angles that would be difficult for large vehicles to navigate. Dunkley stated a large vehicle would probably go through their circle and then out but that they are trying to figure out a way to make it easier. Vogstrom indicated they are working with the Fire Chief on the emergency access. William Dunkley stated if police and fire enter Walters Port right now, there currently is no place to turn around except for in their driveway. The new driveway would provide access to the other homes. Dunkley noted there are not a lot of options available currently. Sue Dunkley stated their property would also not be over the hardcover requirements following the lot line rearrangement but that their house is located within the 0-75 foot zone. Dunkley stated there would need to be a connection to the little cottage as well. Thiesse asked if that portion of the connection could be moved out of the 0-75 foot zone. Sue Dunkley indicated it is as far back as it can go. Thiesse noted the applicants are not creating any new non-conformities for lot size and are providing access for emergency vehicles. Curtis noted average lakeshore setback variances would be required for both lots. Thiesse stated in his view the emergency vehicle access is more important than having the lot be completely conforming. Schoenzeit stated even if the lots were not conforming in width and size, the road would need to be widened.
William Dunkley stated they are proposing to make it 24 feet wide. Vogstrom asked what is not conforming with the new lots. Curtis indicated the width on Lot 2 and possibly the area in addition to the variances that are being requested. Vogstrom stated the lot area and width will be conforming with the new lot line rearrangement. The variances would be required because of the access and the average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated a hardcover variance is being proposed for the Walters Port lot in addition to a variance for the average lakeshore setback and the 75-foot addition on the Walters Port property. As it relates to Lot 2, 2710 Pence Lane, variances to lot width and area are required as well as an average lakeshore setback variance based on the location of the home. Thiesse noted this is a sketch plan. Thiesse stated he would encourage the applicants to get the additional hardcover out of the 75-foot area wherever possible or to demonstrate a practical difficulty. Thiesse noted this is a peninsula and that there is not much they can do about the average lakeshore setback. Leskinen asked what is currently within the 0-75 foot zone. Curtis stated there is a connecting piece from the home to the new addition. The new addition and the driveway would result in 43 percent hardcover. William Dunkley noted most of their home is within the 0-75 foot area and that they are proposing to build out from the hot tub away from the lake. Thiesse asked if they could build out from the other corner of the house. Sue Dunkley indicated there is a generator and other utilities in that area. Thiesse commented that could be a practical difficulty.
Vogstrom pointed out the outlot blocks the land to the north so it is not included in the calculation, which is also a practical difficulty. Leskinen asked if there would be an additional gate besides the one that is being proposed for emergency vehicles. Dunkley indicated there is already a gate there. William Dunkley stated they are proposing to widen the road for emergency vehicles to pass each other. Curtis noted three homes having access triggers the need for a wider road. Thiesse commented he is not sure about the need for a gate at the entrance. Thiesse asked if the gate is 20 feet wide at the entrance. William Dunkley stated it is but that it could be made bigger. Thiesse stated if the road is being made wider for emergency vehicles, that gate should be made wider. Leskinen asked if he would recommend removing the gate. Sue Dunkley stated they would like to retain the gate if at all possible since it helps give the appearance that there is more land than just a small lot. Dunkley stated the gate opens for all people as it is currently set up. Vogstrom indicated they would widen the existing gate and then add another gate for the Walters Port property that would have a strob on it to allow access by emergency vehicles. Vogstrom stated both gates would open automatically for emergency vehicles but that the gate to the Walters Port property would require a code by anyone else. Sue Dunkley stated she would prefer a code for the gate leading into their property. Dunkley stated if the access onto Walters Port is not necessary, she would be very happy with that, and that they are looking
for direction from the Planning Commission. Dunkley stated they would like the three properties to have access through the gate. Leskinen asked if the road would then need to be 50 feet wide. Curtis indicated the platted right-of-way would need to be 50 feet wide and the paved surface would be 24 feet wide. Thiesse stated if Lot 1 were served by Walters Port Lane, then the other two homes would not need a private road. Sue Dunkley stated the reason they are buying the other piece is to have the access come in the other way. Dunkley stated the current entrance looks like the home is sitting in a back alley. Thiesse stated the three homes is what triggers the need for the larger road. Thiesse noted the connection will be gated but that emergency vehicles will have access without the need for a code. Thiesse recommend they look at the radii of the angles. Landgraver recommended the plan be further defined before it goes to the City Council. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission has discussed No. 4 concerning the existing entrance monuments and gate. Thiesse stated to his understanding Orono does not have any other gates that require a code. Sue Dunkley indicated there would also be cameras on the gate so they would know who is there. Dunkley stated Walters Port is also a private road. Curtis noted there would still be underlying easements for access and utilities under the outlot for the roadway. Landgraver stated he has a preference for the way it is now since it will provide some exclusivity or a barrier but that in his view a code might be going too far.
Vogstrom stated they can have it where if someone drives up to it, it will open automatically. Thiesse asked if Outlot B would provide access to the Huelers property. Vogstrom indicated it is if they choose to use that. Thiesse noted if Outlot D were to exist, the Huelers would not require an additional easement. Sue Dunkley indicated the Huelers would still come in through the gate but more of their driveway would be on their land. Vogstrom noted there would still be an easement from Kelly to the gate. Landgraver noted the City has received a comment regarding a shed. Sue Dunkley indicated the shed would be removed. Chair Thiesse asked whether anyone from the public would like to comment on this application. Andrew McDermott, 2702 Walters Port Lane, stated when the Dunkleys were talking about cutting themselves off from Walters Port, his biggest concern was emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, and delivery vans being able to turn around on Walters Port but that the Dunkleys have shown that vehicles will be able to turn around when they get to the end. McDermott noted Walters Port is only 14 feet wide currently and generally works just fine except for the turnaround. McDermott stated a number of years ago the City Council cut off Habermans from Walters Port and put the Pence Lane Road in. McDermott indicated he would like some type of emergency turnaround there, and if it is going to be gated, that s fine, but the gate should be in 20 to 30 feet. McDermott stated he was fine with the gates as originally proposed but the developer did not put them in quite as proposed. McDermott stated in his view the gates should not be widened and that the gates should be left to open automatically rather than with a code. McDermott noted there is a lot of wildlife back there and the maple trees would need to be removed if the road is widened in that area.
McDermott noted the Dunkleys property is part of the Walters Port association and that they have some responsibility for the lagoon portion of the association. If the Dunkleys change their address from Walters Port to Pence, that would need to be addressed. McDermott stated he is not sure why only one person owns the road but that it has been that way for quite a while. McDermott stated it is not a public road and it is really not an association road. If the City is planning on a maintenance agreement, they need to look at how that is going to work. McDermott asked why outlots have to be created and what they could be used for. Curtis indicated they would not be building lots and they would provide some separation between the properties. Curtis noted an outlot would need to be replatted to become a building site and would require a public hearing. Curtis stated one of the concerns with the road connection is it separates the Walters Port property from the other portion of the outlot, which causes the land shortage for the improvements that are being proposed. McDermott stated the Dunkleys were very accommodating to the neighbors when they were remodeling the home and that they are proposing to fix the road that was damaged during the remodeling. McDermott stated his concern is the width of the road. Sue Dunkley stated their plan is not to stop helping out the Walters Port association and that they are planning to raise the road so it doesn t flood everyone s yards. Dunkley noted the easements have all expired and that they are willing to redo the easements as part of this. Dunkley noted they put about $200,000 into the lagoon wall to reinforce it that the neighbors should have participated in but that they still want to have some responsibility for the lagoon. Thiesse stated in his view a wider road will be needed but that the Council might waive that requirement. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item.