Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, June 18, 2018 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, <br />6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued <br />Vogstrom stated right now that area is wide open and that they will keep visibility in mind when <br />landscaping. Vogstrom stated the Walters Port driveway will be for emergency access and that all three <br />properties will access off of Pence, with a turnaround for trucks and other vehicles. <br />Thiesse stated in his view gated roads are not an acceptable alternative to a cul-de-sac, and that if they are <br />going to continue to propose gates, they should be prepared to defend them before the City Council. <br />Ressler commented anything they can do to simplify it would be helpful and that maybe they should <br />consider placing the gates on each individual property. <br />Erickson stated he was visiting relatives over the weekend and that they have a gate hooked up to a <br />generator. Erickson stated the power went out and the generator did nothing. Erickson stated fortunately <br />the power company got the power going again in four hours, but that if someone was having a heart <br />attack, that would be a long four hours. Erickson indicated it turned out the battery was old and needed to <br />be replaced. Erickson stated if something like that happens in an emergency situation, that could have big <br />consequences. Erickson questioned whether the City would assume any liability if they approve the gate. <br />Thiesse asked if they are proposing any outlots for the roads. <br />Vogstrom stated they are open to that but that they would rather not. <br />Curtis asked if the driveway is an outlot. <br />Vogstrom indicated it is not at this point and that they are not proposing an outlot. Vogstrom stated his <br />thought was that they could go on Walters Port and not have to create an outlot for the new road. <br />Curtis noted that road does not have road frontage and as a result they would be creating a back lot and a <br />second back lot with no frontage. Curtis noted that back lot needs to be 150 percent of the area. <br />Vogstrom stated that would happen if they have the third driveway. <br />Curtis noted they need to have frontage on the road or it is considered a back lot. Curtis stated a big piece <br />of this is that lot does not have road frontage at all. <br />Eric Vogstrom indicated they would be open to doing an outlot. <br />Thiesse asked if they can have two back lots. <br />Curtis stated the City typically only allows one back lot. <br />Thiesse noted Item No. 7 relates to the need for a conforming building envelope, which this lot does not <br />appear to have, and that a newly created lot is required to have a conforming building envelope. Item <br />No. 7 states: An average lakeshore setback variance would be necessary for Lot 2 as configured. The <br />alignment of the shoreline for proposed Lot 2 is not a peninsula but rather a curved shoreline, which is <br />very common along the lake. The creation of the new lot in this configuration would be a self-created <br />Page 14 of 21 <br />