Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,September 17,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis noted the City has received an e-mail from a neighbor to the east containing his concerns regarding <br /> the application. The e-mail reads as follows: "Per our discussion this morning regarding the variance <br /> application for our neighboring property at 4156 Highwood Road, I am submitting our <br /> comments/questions since I may not be able to attend tonight's meeting. My wife Nancy and I live at <br /> 4149 Highwood Road,which is the adjacent property to the east of the variance request for 4156. I had a <br /> chance to view the submitted plans of Scott and Melissa Musgjerd and would welcome the proposed <br /> home as a significant improvement for our neighborhood and our property. <br /> I would suggest the home conform to the 10-foot standard setback on our shared property line by moving <br /> the home's footprint to the west by the 3.8 feet being requested in the variance and as I understand the <br /> Orono Staff is also recommending(I would not want this to be a deal breaker for Scott and Melissa <br /> however!). I also inquired about how the grade of the lot as it exists today would change on our lot line <br /> for the proposed new plan. Currently there is a cement retaining wall along our common lot line that <br /> extends from their driveway to roughly 10 feet beyond the porch of the existing structure that <br /> accommodates the elevation difference between our properties. Is the elevation of the final grade going <br /> to remain relatively the same; and if so, what would be done during construction to maintain the integrity <br /> of the wall?" <br /> Schoenzeit asked which property owns the retaining wall. <br /> Curtis indicated the retaining wall belongs to the applicant. The concern of the neighbor was regarding <br /> the grade and the existing vegetation along the lot line. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the Planning Commission could recommend that a swale be constructed in that area. <br /> Curtis stated the City would require that. <br /> Thiesse commented that it appears from the elevations on the drawing that they are planning to fill in that <br /> area. <br /> Curtis stated the City Engineer has not reviewed the plans in detail at this point and, in fact, requested <br /> more detailed plans. <br /> Thiesse asked why Staff is recommending the applicant not approach any closer to the alley. <br /> Curtis indicated typically 10 feet is a standard minimum setback that is used but that there is no planned <br /> or intended use of the alley by the City at this time. <br /> Landgraver asked if there is any significant difference between an alley and a street. <br /> Curtis stated in this instance there is not. The existing garage is located in its present location at a 0 foot <br /> setback. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the basement meets all the requirements of the City in order to be considered a <br /> basement. <br /> Curtis indicated she has not conducted a review of that at this time. <br /> Page 5 --- <br />