06-21-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. RL_ (4. MI-2671 ALISTAIR AND KARE.N JACQl'ES, ronlinard) Mr. Shcrek explained he re%iewed the Orono Community Management Plan and read several par.igraphs into the record that he felt captured the core values expressed throughout the entire CMP Section 3. Environment Protection Plan. The Natural Setting. “ ...the foremost goal.** CMP. Foundation, re; Rural Densities. **. no new development encroaches upon i»s neighbors open space activities.” Harza Study. Wetland Definition, re concern that it is not a wetland. “ .no development will be permitted to adversely impact its neighbors or the City by changing drainage patterns or otherwise adversely impacting storm water drainage.” Mr. Sherck asked the Planning Commission to view the proposed vanance application in light of the Community Management Plan and planning goals in the above-cited excerpts. In his opinion, the application goes against those core values, would negatively alter the drainage patterns to his property and the marsh located on his property by increasing the hardcover on the subject property as well as impacting his family's enjoyiment of natural amenities w hich they currently enjoy Mr. Sherek asked why the garage and dnseway mu.si be placed directly on the property line and wiihin the 30* side yard setback when there arc other location alternatives. Mr. Sherek restated that he is not opposing the variance and welcomes a residential biwlding but has a problem with the garage and ptxil liKated on the lot line. Plamiing Commissioner Bremer amved at 6; 15 p m Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. Ms. Su‘m Thompson. 685 Old long Lake Road, the property just to the west of the subject property, indicated she reviewed the arpheant's plan and. as shown, it does not affect her property a; all but in a broader perspective, she felt there is so much negative eflcct to the neighbor to the cast of the subject property, that she would welcome the subject house garage driveway to be moved westerly in order to maintain neighbiirhood relationship She comm.nted that it insinuates an impact on the neighbors to ihc east in such a si^ificant way. noting spring run-off can affect then basements and knows it would more significantly affect the eastaly neighbors Mv Thompson recommended the applicant move the hou.se site to the west to relieve vignificant negalive impacts to the easterly neighbors. Chair Mabusth asked for adoitional public comments. There were none. Rahn asked if the applicant had any comments after hearing Mr Sherek's and Ms Thompson s concerns. Rahn acknow Icdgcd the appli.'ation is for a lot area vanance but if it does in fact result in drainage issues, the Planning Commission is not compelled to recommend approval of the application Me sUled it would be beneficial to all to have a site plan of exactly where ihe pool and house wuuld be constructed and then to get accurate neighbor comments Mr. Jacques repealed that no exact house site has been selected yet and explained i.Vcy were trying to accomplish the lot area vanance first, followed by the building ^nnit prtxcss The house was situaicsl as easterly as it is shown on the vanance application because when planning was started they did not know if there was a wetland to the west. Subsequently, tests were conducted and .Mr. Jacques advised that there arc no wetland impacts to the west of the proposed house site. He offered to move the hou-c site westerly to more centrally locate it on the lot and stated they had no objection to moving the proposed house :iie. Chair Mabusth opened the discussion to Planning Commission iiKmbcrs. Page 3 of 40