11-27-2006 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n�nvuT�s or Tx� � ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday,Februar}�21, 2006 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#05-3135 ALLEN A1�D D�ANNA iVIUNSON CONTINUED) Gaffron noled the applicant has submitted a letter fi-om his attorney, which is included in the materials before the Planning Commission tonight. The applicanY has not submitted any new plans Uut has submitted a drainage map and drainage calculations, which have been reviewed by the City Engineer. Gaffron stated ihe Plaiming Conunission should consider the following conditiions: 1. Does the proposed plan for filling create any negative inlpacts? Is there a basis to reduce the amount of filling because this is on a private driveway system:? Should the house be redesigned or relocated, either to reduce fill im�acts or eliminate average setback concerns? 2, Is there sufficient hardship or mitigation available io justify�-anting the average setUacl:varianee given the oUjection by the neighbor? Munson indicated the roofline at the sight line has been reduced from 30 feet to 27 feet, which was the height of the pole erected on his property. Ralui inquired if that��as accomplished by reducing the height of the parapet or the ceiling heigl�i. Munson stated it��as through a comUination of things. Munson stated his la�vyer is working on the drainage easement for the northeast side of the building and that the neighbor is in agreement with the easement. Nlunson stated they are willing to remain five feet from the retaining wall with the fill. Rahn inquired wl�ether the City Engineer reviewed the plan that depicted the drainage five feet fi�om the property line. Gaffron stated the plan is included as Exhibit A and thai it is not clear to him that there were any changes to the drainage plan along the south side of the house from what was previously submitted and that there were no changes on the north side. Gaffron stated the intent of the study is to indicate whether there is additional draining going to adjoining properties over and above what currently exists and the rate of runoff. The City Engineer has concluded that no water quality treatment is provided onsite and thafi some rainwater gardens or other biofilhation features are reconunended to provide water quality treatment for this lot. I�i addition, the City Engineer has found that the proposed site raises rates slightly into Lalce Minnetonka but has not found that there were any negative impacts to adjoining properties that should be addressed. Sjoholm stated he does not Uelieve there are any draina.ge issues remaining,but if there are any outstanding issues that need to be addressed, the applicant is willing to address those to the satisfaction of ihe PlaiuZing Commission. Sjoholm stated the only issue remaining is whether the variance for the average lalceshore setback should be granted. Sjoholm indicated he has not been given pennission to visit the Wagener propei-ly to see how the house ��ould impact the view. Sjoholni stated based on the photo�-a��hs that are included in Mr. Gaffron's file, it is hard to imagine ho«�this ne��residence cottld be seen from the Wagener property due to the irees. Sjoholm stated the trees appear to be two and a half tin�es the height of a two and a half story structiu�e. Sjoholm questioned if there is even an issue of a sigllt resh-iction, and if tlZere were a z�esixiction, the strict enforcement of the code would not serve the puipose of the ordinance. Sjoholm stated the applicant is attenlpting to enjoy a reasonable view of ihe lake. PAGE 3