My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-11-2017 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2017
>
09-11-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 8:02:13 AM
Creation date
5/29/2019 7:49:04 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
242
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, August 21, 2017 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />Barnhart stated that is how it is calculated now. Barnhart stated based on the most lakeward protrusion of <br />those two homes, the house can go up to that point. Barnhart noted also in play is the 75 -foot lake yard <br />setback and that homes are not allowed to go within 75 feet of the lake. Barnhart stated if the house is 50 <br />feet from the lake, the average lakeshore line would be 50 feet, but that there would also be a 75 -foot lake <br />yard. As a result, the house cannot go closer than 75 feet to the lake. In this case there is not an adjacent <br />lake yard for one of the lots since it does not touch the lake and the average lakeshore really only applies <br />to one lot. Staff is proposing that the lake yard on all three sides be 75 feet, which is similar to what was <br />proposed at the sketch plan review earlier. <br />Barnhart stated as it relates to the filling of the wetland, Staff is aware of the history of this parcel and has <br />presented that information to the DNR. Based on the information the City was able to find, the DNR was <br />not willing to say that area was a wetland and thereby protected. Barnhart noted Staff spent quite a bit of <br />time and energy trying to prove it was a wetland and was not able to do so. As a result, Staff went with <br />the wetland delineation that was done within the last eight or nine months ago. That delineation depicted <br />a wetland along the shoreland and also a 168 -foot wetland on Lot 3. Barnhart stated those are the known <br />wetlands based on the delineation and accepted by the Watershed District. <br />Barnhart stated with regards to the wetland setback and wetland buffer, with the exception of some areas <br />that the Watershed District is still discussing, the only impact to the wetlands, other than the filling of the <br />168 foot wetland, is a small portion of the driveway that is necessary to gain access to the lot. Barnhart <br />noted there is no other place to put the driveway other than driving along this parcel, which would still be <br />impacting the wetland and the wetland buffer. Staff felt the proposed location would be the least impact <br />to the neighbor. <br />Barnhart stated the applicant can have an 8 -foot wide driveway in the shoreland and in the 75 -foot <br />setback area if there are no other options. The developer is proposing 12 feet because it is serving two <br />lots. Barnhart indicated it is up to the City Council on whether to allow the 12 feet, but the additional <br />four feet is to provide more maneuverability in the curves. <br />Thiesse asked if they can construct two 8 -foot driveways. <br />Page 10 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.