02-16-2021 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. even further; if they are going at, to, or scaling back he is usually okay with it but struggles when adding additional encroachment, especially regarding the lakeshore. Ressler noted regarding the irregular shoreline, the policies generally call for that to not be a straight line but to follow the Lakeshore. If he looks at it and draws a straight line, there is no place to measure based on these plans. He asked if the measurement is based on the closest of the movement of that shoreline. Curtis said that 75 -foot measurement is the closest point to the lake, the red setback indicated. She said the Applicant's surveyor provided an updated survey showing the 75 -foot setback as a line that cuts across the property and said they plan to adjust the deck to conform to the 75 -foot setback. Ressler asked if that is how the application is right now or if that will be amended. Curtis clarified they have not provided the updated plans but are willing to do so. Ressler said it appears that the Applicant has agreed to stay within that 75 -foot setback, make the amendments to hardcover, and the City does not have a problem with the stairs. He noted they could entertain a motion to approve as applied with the amendment that the structure stays within the guidelines of the 75 -foot Lakeshore setback. Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA20-000074, 746 Tonkawa Road as applied with the amendment that the structure does not encroach upon the 75 -foot lakeshore setback. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 2. LA20-000075 BRIAN HUISMAN, 1121 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VACATION (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Brian Huisman, Applicant, was not present due to a conflict. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart stated the property owner at 1121 North Arm Drive is requesting a vacation of an unimproved alley that is adjacent to their property. The alley is shown on a survey on screen. A portion of the alley to be vacated is hashed in; approximately 75% of the alley is underneath the surface of the water and only about 430 feet is above the surface of the water. The Applicant proposes to vacate the entire area and the reason for this process is that this lot is the owner's property and they technically do not have lakeshore frontage. The City owns about an acre parcel as part of an original plat from 1880 and that forms the lakeshore in the area he indicated on screen. He said the alley associated with a separate plat forms the other portion of the lakeshore. The property owner is taxed on lakeshore and uses the property as lakeshore, but technically does not have lakeshore access and the owner is looking to clean up his title in that regard. Barnhart noted the process to vacate unimproved alleys is described in the City code. The Planning Commission and City Council have to determine there is no public access or public benefit to the property to be vacated. This alley, while it is lengthy around the boundary of that plat, does not connect to any other public land access to the lake. As the alley continues further north, it is owned privately by previous action so there is no City access being lost by this proposal. As part of the process and State statute, they are required to submit a public hearing notice to the DNR for their comment and have not received any comment for this application — the DNR's 60 - day review period expired the previous day. Barnhart said it is not uncommon not to get comments from the DNR; generally, their comments are against vacation, but the City did not receive any such comment for this application. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation of this alley only, the portion that is Page 4 of 38