Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 17,2014 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curtis indicated the new walls do encroach further into the utility easement. The City Engineer has <br /> recommended the applicant look at relocating the walls or minimizing their encroachment. If they cannot <br /> be relocated completely out of the utility easement, an encroachment easement would be necessary. <br /> Leskinen asked if it is a city easement. <br /> Curtis indicated it is a City utility easement. The City Engineer did review whether there are utilities <br /> located within the easement and did not find any. Curtis stated it appears the sewer is located in the <br /> roadway. <br /> Lemke noted the City Engineer also recommended the applicant enter into an encroachment agreement, <br /> and asked if the applicant has agreed to that. <br /> Curtis stated she does not know that answer but that the applicant would need to enter into that agreement <br /> if the retaining walls are not relocated out of the utility easement. <br /> Leskinen asked if there are any other risks associated with having the retaining walls encroaching into the <br /> easement. <br /> Curtis stated she does not believe so, but that the standard language in the encroachment agreement would <br /> say that if there is a need for the City to use the easement,whether there are presently utilities there or <br /> not, it would be at the homeowner's risk to have that structure there and that the City may need to remove <br /> it to conduct repairs. <br /> Leskinen stated as far as the average lakeshore setback, given the location of the property and the <br /> neighboring views, she does not see that as an issue and that the request is reasonable. <br /> Schwingler asked about the neighbor's concerns relating to erosion and drainage. <br /> Curtis indicated that information has been communicated to the City Engineer and that the City Engineer <br /> will review the plans further to ensure that further impacts to the channel as a result of erosion do not <br /> occur. Curtis indicated the neighbor was more detailing his concern so they would be on record and was <br /> supportive of the project. The neighbor had the channel dredged in 2002 or 2003,which ended up being <br /> an ordeal, and that he wanted to make sure that was not further impacted. <br /> Schwingler asked if there is any concern about screening. <br /> Curtis stated the structure does meet the setbacks from West Branch and that they are asking for a setback <br /> from the average lakeshore setback and a wetland buffer setback. Curtis stated the pool would be visible <br /> as someone is driving from the east but that the house is also visible from the road. Curtis stated the <br /> applicants may want some additional screening once the pool is installed. <br /> Schoenzeit moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3655, <br /> Brian Butterfield on behalf of Joe and Donelle Feldmann,805 Forest Arms Lane,granting of an <br /> average lakeshore setback variance and a variance from the wetland buffer setback in order to <br /> allow construction of an in-ground swimming pool and retaining walls,subject to the City Engineer <br /> recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. <br /> Page 3 of 26 <br />