Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(4. MOl-2671 ALISTAIR AND KAREN JACQL ES, Contioued) <br />Fntzlcr asked who did the wetland testing. Mr. Jacques replied it was done about 1 ' i years ago and did not <br />remember the name of the testing company, but that an accredited wetland tester did it and that he thought a <br />report w-as submitted to the planning staff. <br />Gaffron responded he did not recall seeing a wetland report in the city's file. Using E.xhibit G.. he pointed out <br />an apparent drainage way mid-way between the e.ustmg house site on the property and the neighbor to the <br />west, and. if m fact, the area was not wetlands, then there would be no issue of wetland impact If. however, <br />there is wetland up to the %8* contour, there appears to be substantial room to mov e the house site westerly. <br />Gaffron concluded he did not see a (wtential wetland impact and concuned it was logical to more centrally <br />locale the proposed house site. <br />Jurgens asked for clarification of the required wetland set back dimension and it was pointed out the w etland <br />set back is 26’. lie also asked if the .Minnesota Department of Natural Resources must review the application <br />due to the proximity to the Luce Line Trail. <br />Gaffron advi>ed the .Minncsoia Department ol Natural Resources received Oronu Planning Commission <br />agendas and notifies city staff w hen they have questions or comments on any applications Me advised no <br />comments were received from the Minnesota IXrpartment of Natural Resources on this application <br />Jurgens questioned the prtKess following granling of a lot area \ariance and review mg the proposed house <br />location on the lot. <br />Gaffron explained site drainage issues are reviewed when the applicant applies for a building permit He <br />suggested the Planning Commission could add a condition in recommending approval of the lot area v ariancc <br />that centrally locates the house However. Gaffron noted that if the applicant were not agreeable to that <br />condiiion. It would not be enforceable. <br />Mr. Jacques stated that he was willing to accept the condition of centrally locating the house and pool. <br />Chair Mabusth summan/ed that centrally located the house and pool liKation results :n a larger setback than <br />the proposed location at the side yard setback and 15' pool rear yard setback <br />Chair Mabus'h called foi further public cunui>ents There were none <br />Jurgens moved. Leslie seconded, to recommend approval of Application «01-267l. Alistair and Karen <br />Jacques, 645 Old Long Lake Road, granting a lot area variance to permit construction of a ness <br />residence on an existing lot which Is 1.022 acres in area when 2.0 acres is nurnial'v required, with the <br />condition that the proposed bouse/garage/poo I is more centrally Incaicd on the lot than that shnssn on <br />the variance application. <br />VOTE; Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br />Fnt/lcr inquired about a trailer that may be on Jacques' property .Mr. Jacques indicated he was not aware of <br />any trailer behind his shed .Ms. Ihumpson responded that it was on her property <br />Gaffron advised Applicatiwt aO 1-2671 will be scheduled for the June 14.2004 City Council session. <br />Pi^e 4 of 40 <br />L-