Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,May 20,2019 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Curt Fretham and Steve Eggert, Lake West Development,was present <br /> Barnhart stated the applicant is looking to replat the property to provide Lot 1 with lake frontage on the <br /> lagoon side of the property and an easement through Lot 1 to serve Lot 2. Currently there is not lake <br /> frontage due to the outlot. The purpose behind the requirement of a separate outlot for front/back lot <br /> configurations is in part to consolidate driveway accesses, prevent flag lots, and allow for maintenance. <br /> The lack of an outlot is not likely to alter the essential character of the community. <br /> The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable practical difficulties and <br /> should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. <br /> The applicant notes that the dock was shown on a concept plan. However, it is not customary to review <br /> these types of improvements for final approval because, in most situations,these are conceptual and often <br /> change as the footprint and hardcover proposals change. Further,the application did not request dock <br /> approval or hardcover approval or building footprint approval. Miscommunication between the developer <br /> and the City is not a practical difficulty. <br /> Replatting Lot 1 and the outlot will increase the size of Lot 1. When those two parcels are combined into <br /> one,the size of Lot 1 would be 9,600 square feet bigger and an additional amount of hardcover would be <br /> added to Lot 1,but it does not exceed the allowable limit. <br /> Staffs analysis concluded that many of the variance standards are met. The Planning Commission should <br /> determine if the standards are adequately satisfied,and if the Planning Commission feels the standards for <br /> a practical difficulty are satisfied, a motion recommending approval of the variance should be made. <br /> Thiesse asked what has changed about the application from a 30,000-foot view. <br /> Barnhart stated from a perception standpoint for the neighborhood,the change between an outlot and an <br /> access easement would not be noticed. <br /> Thiesse stated he did not notice a dock on the plans the first time this was reviewed and that it was his <br /> impression there would be a dock on the lagoon. <br /> Barnhart noted the Planning Commission is not approving or reviewing the docks at this time,and if it is <br /> a seasonal dock, a permit through the City would be required. <br /> Ressler requested Staff show an overhead view of the area. <br /> Barnhart pointed out Outlot A, Lot 1,and Lot 2 on the overhead. One of the unique factors is that Outlot <br /> A connects to the end of Ivy Place, which does not continue through to the neighboring lot. That access is <br /> via a private easement between private property owners. Barnhart noted the City rarely sees this <br /> situation. <br /> Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, stated as they went through this process,they tried to address <br /> everything upfront. The dock was clearly an oversight during the process. Fretham noted they did not <br /> show the dock on all the plans, such as the utility and tree removal plans,since that is typically not done. <br /> Page 12 of 16 <br />