06-28-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 14, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (12. #04-3012 ROGER D. O’SHAUGHNESSY, 1265 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD - VARIANCES/CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - RESOLUTION NO. 5195 continued) Sansevere asked for Gaffron’s opinion regarding the potential hardship created by the proposed floodplain restoration project. Gaffron stated the proposed floodplain restoration project creates a hardship as along as there is a condition that the boardwalk remains only as long as the restoration project exists; this would address a future situation when it may be decided to mow the area and convert it to turf. McMillan explained the floodplain restoration projects are desirable especially in low, wet areas that otherwise would be attempted to be filled, and also, the projects promote diversified wildlife habitat versus a mono-culture lawn. Curtis reported the applicant’s landscape architects are proposing the boardwalk be constructed within the plantings to be less visible from the lakeside and it could be more serpentine to minimize visual impacts. She added she thought a mowed path would be more visually apparent. Sansevere asked planning staff if they were now supportive of the proposed boardwalk/liardship variance and if staff raised their issues to the Planning Commission. Gaffron replied that initially staff did not find any hardship to justify the variance; however, McMillan’s concept of the floodplain restoration project creating the hardship appears to be persuasive as a reasonable hardship. Mabusth explained the Planning Commission as a whole was not opposed to the proposed floodplain restoration project but discussed when to allow such a variance and their decision is based only on existing conditions. They encouraged the applicant to install the project and return at a later date to apply for a boardwalk through an established, existing condition. Mabusth expressed her support for allowing the boardwalk with the floodplain restoration project to allow the property owner to access the lakeshore. Sansevere initiated discussion of whether approving the hardship variance would be seen as ‘creating a hardship.’ Curtis agreed it might be a potential pitfall that could be favorable if there are more vegetative buffers created on the lakeshore. She recommended there be very detailed findings for this variance request if granted so it would not become an overall problem of others claiming to create a hardship. White interjected that granting this variance may become an incentive for other property owners to undertake what is an expensive restoration effort. McMillan commented that the planned vegetative restoration might actually prevent outside storage in the floodplain that is seen with turfed shorelines. Sansevere requested information about the timing of the boardwalk construction. It was explained that the planted vegetation takes several years to become established; Gaffron referred to the MnDNR landing at Maxwell Bay and that the first 2-3 years it looked similar to a lawn but eventually it becomes mature. Sansevere suggested that conditions of approval be detennined to have the Page 12 of 22