10-19-2020 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, September 21,2020 6:00 o'clock p.m. away whether or not they build, but it will be exacerbated and made potentially worse if someone stops in front of their house, someone will have to pull around and that will be a head-on collision when someone is turning left to go onto North Arm. Mr. Anderson said they would have to do that even if the house wasn't there. Gettman said nobody would be stopping there,whether it's a mailman or garbage collector; currently it's a vacant lot and that's why the question as far as having some workable solution for all parties,he's not being adversarial,but that is the issue they're dealing with. He stated he can't imagine the property owners finally making the decision to build on the property and now this,he doesn't envy that position and he appreciates their patience as he tries to voice some of those concerns. Kirchner respectfully disagrees,he doesn't think it's the Commission's place,nor is it fair to place traffic or highway concerns onto an individual lot-owner; rather it falls on the County to do a traffic study and figure out a re-engineering plan. He said the Applicants have submitted a plan that abides by all of the setbacks and the only reason they're here asking for it, is because when it was originally platted, it was under the size of what Orono has now changed the Comprehensive Plan to. Therefore,that is the only reason there is a trigger for a variance, because when it was originally platted,they didn't have a 2-acre minimum or it didn't apply to this area. He asked Staff if the purple-to-red dot in front of 4760 is where the culvert is and it would not run under the driveway at 4780 North Arm Drive. Ms. Curtis responded that is what the map is indicating. Kirchner said he would approve and support this variance. Erickson doesn't have a comment; he is comfortable with the Staff report. Libby said with all due respect to the public comments and objections,he doesn't find anything empirical in any of that discussion that would prohibit or impede a private property owner that has elected to have a home-site. He said they have agency, plenty of planning and scrutiny by 4-5 different agencies that say the lot is buildable. He noted the discussion about whether or not there is a watershed or wetland and the delineation is a federal delineation, is seasonal and based on 100-year flood plains. If you go to Hennepin County tax information there is an astounding set of resources to be able to see where wetlands are,the meander of stream and creeks, and how frequently they flood. Libby said he hasn't done that, but if the public commenter would look they'd find there is a lot of difference between a wetland and a flood plain. He said the flood plain concerns him very little, he also has just designed 5 sub-surface treatment systems, which is a current term for septic treatment, and he is very involved with the engineering and design of 4- 5 methods and all are under the auspices of the State mandate, regardless of the municipality. They must have an ongoing maintenance and service pumping, unless it was an old system with a drain field,which are all considered failed. He is trying to respect the public comments but he can't find anything in a material fact issue that would really be an objection strong enough to persuade the homeowner not to build their house. He is in favor and would approve it. Chair Ressler noted it's a 1/2—acre lot, it's not little, and he believes the driveway will dump out onto North Arm Drive and immediately allow egress onto CR 19 so the disruption to the neighborhood traffic is minimal. He said it's certainly not ideal but he doesn't have a concern about that. Chair Ressler noted they don't have any other setbacks to consider besides what is triggering the variance, which is that it's Page 20 of 27