Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 8,2017 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />15. # 17-3941 LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, O/B/O RICK AND BARBARA <br />LUPIENT, 3580 IVY PLACE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW — Continued <br />the property owner who has the view easement to see whether there is any chance of changing that <br />easement. There is a neighbor that also has a deck and a driveway that encroaches into the setback. <br />The property is a peninsula that is wooded with mostly poor -quality volunteer trees. The land is relatively <br />flat, with some portions of the site actually being located within the floodplain. Some mitigation <br />measures may be required as a result. <br />Each of the two proposed lots exceeds the minimum acreage requirements. Each lot is supposed to face <br />on a public street or an appropriate private easement. The applicants are proposing to create a 30 -foot <br />wide outlot to meet City standards. Lot 2, being platted as a back lot given the unusual property shape <br />and access limitations, more than meets the 15 0 percent lot area requirement. Each lot exceeds the 100 - <br />foot width requirement. The front/back lot configuration was recommended by Staff as the most <br />conforming method of converting these three lots into two. In order to convert the three lots into two lots, <br />a new, relocated access corridor to get past proposed Lot I is necessary. <br />Since the property is located on a peninsula, with both lots having shoreline on two sides, the average <br />lakeshore setback appears to be defined by the location of the adjacent home at 3560 Ivy. Since any new <br />homes on Lots I and 2 must be at least 75 feet from the shore, Staff would suggest that 75 feet become <br />the required average setback regardless of which of Lots I or 2 is built on first. As a result, the line <br />between proposed Lots I and 2 becomes the front lot line, requiring a 45 -foot setback when the back lot <br />150 percent of standard setbacks rule is applied. <br />The proposed driveway extends from the end of traveled Ivy Place through the road easement across 3560 <br />Ivy and is proposed to be constructed as an 8 -foot wide paved driveway within Outlot A. The actual <br />driving surface is proposed to be mostly 30 feet from the shore, while portions will be within 12 to 25 feet <br />from the shoreline. Maximum driveway width allowed within 75 feet of the lake is eight feet. The <br />proposed driveway will require a hardcover variance. While eight feet is minimal for a driveway serving <br />two residences, that is the maximum width allowed by code within 75 feet of the lake. With the driveway <br />being so close to the lake, it would be appropriate that stormwater management facilities be established to <br />mitigate impacts of runoff from the driveway. <br />It is likely that re -grading of substantial portions of the site will be proposed and a number of trees will <br />likely be removed. The need for grading within the 0-75 foot protected zone should be carefully reviewed <br />at the time a preliminary plat application is proposed. <br />Staff does not believe there is any reasonable way to construct a cul-de-sac since it would eliminate the <br />ability to construct more than one house. That cul-de-sac would also be within 75 feet of the lake. The <br />Fire Chief has suggested the residences be provided with fire suppression sprinkler systems given the <br />narrowness of Ivy Street and the narrow width of the driveway. Gaffron stated it might be reasonable to <br />widen the width of the driveway to 10 feet, which would require a variance. The applicants are proposing <br />a fairly short backup apron on both lots, which Staff does not feel is a big issue. Construction traffic <br />would need to be located on site. <br />The property is served by municipal water and sewer and some fees will be required. There is also a <br />sewer connection for the house at 3560 coming across into this property, which will need to be located <br />and determined if an easement is required. <br />Page 18 of 34 <br />