Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 18,2013 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> lot line. The neighbor's detached garage is situated between the lot line and the home and is located 110- <br /> plus feet from the applicant's home. A 30-foot side yard setback is required for the principal structure. <br /> The property is surrounded essentially on three sides by wetland. It is unknown at this time whether or <br /> not the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will require establishment of a 25-foot wetland buffer. A <br /> portion of the applicant's proposed footprint encroaches into the City's 35-foot buffer. The applicant is <br /> proposing to improve upon an existing encroachment and replace the southwestern corner of the house as <br /> close as 23 feet from the wetland where currently there is a 5-foot setback. <br /> The applicant is requesting approval of a building footprint as shown on the proposed survey and outlined <br /> in red on Exhibit Dl. Staff would suggest the applicant move the proposed home five feet closer to the <br /> street and right up to the 50-foot setback in order to reduce the encroachment into the wetland buffer. <br /> The property size is similar to lots within the LR-1C half-acre zoning district,which has the City's least <br /> restrictive setbacks. As this project is not proposed as an in-kind rebuild, it may be reasonably to require <br /> a 10-foot side setback from the property line. The conceptual proposed plans reflect a plan for a home <br /> with a second story. Due to the floodplain constraints, it is unknown at this time if a basement can be <br /> constructed and a second story is likely to be proposed. <br /> Staff would suggest the home be designed such that at a minimum the second story portions of the home <br /> be set back further from the side lot line in an effort to maintain the existing feeling of open space that <br /> currently exists with the one-story home. <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues: <br /> 1. Is the Planning Commission comfortable approving a general building footprint area for a new <br /> home as opposed to an exact footprint? Discuss the potential risks. <br /> 2. The project as proposed is well under the structural coverage and the hardcover limits for the <br /> property. If the variances are approved, does the Planning Commission feel it is appropriate to <br /> set a limit on the home footprint size? <br /> 3. Does the Planning Commission feel that the new footprint should be moved to the 50' front <br /> setback line in order to reduce the rear wetland encroachment? <br /> 4. Should the new home be required to meet at least a 10 foot setback from the side lot line? <br /> 5. Are there specific conditions the Planning Commission feels are appropriate to impose on the <br /> project if variances are to be granted? <br /> 6. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property <br /> in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> 7. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential <br /> character of the neighborhood? <br /> 8. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts <br /> created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Page 24 of 35 <br />