Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 17,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> foot buffer. The lower wall, which extends into the 20-foot utility easement, is a replacement of the <br /> existing wall in this general location. Due to the height and separation of the proposed walls, an <br /> engineered design will be required for the permit. <br /> The proposed pool, pool deck and retaining walls will be entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore <br /> setback line. Since the location of the applicants' home is also partially ahead of the average lakeshore <br /> setback line, there is no conforming location lakeward of the home to construct a pool. The configuration <br /> of the subject property along the end of the channel creates a unique situation regarding the view. The <br /> neighbor to the south has no lake view per se over the applicants' property but rather a view of West <br /> Branch Road. <br /> The construction of the applicants' home has prompted the need for establishment of a 50-foot buffer <br /> from the edge of the wetland between 9 feet and 22 feet further upslope than the 75-foot setback line. <br /> The proposed pool and walls are proposed well outside the 75-foot lake setback. However, the walls <br /> encroach into the established 50-foot wetland buffer and the currently required 10-foot buffer setback. <br /> One of the walls also encroaches into a 20-foot utility easement on the property. Due to the slope of the <br /> applicants' property, the walls are necessary in order to create a flat platform area to construct the pool. <br /> The applicants' property is the last lot which fronts on a long channel and is somewhat disconnected from <br /> the lake. The neighboring property likely had no lake views to the north over the applicants' property but <br /> rather a view of West Branch Road. The existence of the 50-foot wetland buffer,the location of the <br /> neighboring home, and the nature of the channel create practical difficulties for the property owner. In <br /> addition, there are mature trees separating the applicants' property from their southern neighbor which <br /> will likely screen most of the views of the proposed pool. <br /> Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as well as the setback <br /> variances for the retaining walls. The applicant will be required to comply with the City Engineer's <br /> recommendations. If the wall within the utility easement cannot be relocated, the applicants should be <br /> required to enter into an encroachment agreement for the walls within the utility easement. <br /> Leskinen asked if the applicant was required to obtain permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed <br /> District as well for this project. <br /> Curtis stated in her opinion they will require permits from the Watershed District for erosion control but <br /> that this is not a project that triggers a buffer per the Watershed District's rules. <br /> The applicant had nothing to add to Staff's report. <br /> Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. <br /> Leskinen stated she did visit the site and it appears there are not many options where to locate the pool <br /> and that she does have a concern regarding the utility easement. Leskinen asked if the proposed retaining <br /> walls encroach further into the setback. <br /> Page 2 of 26 <br />