Laserfiche WebLink
Tos Planning Commission Chairman Kelley ^ __ <br />Orono Planning Commission Members ' <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />Date: March 14, 1989 <br />Subject: #1366 Loren Butterfield, 3925 Watertown Read - <br />Request for Clarification on Planning Commission Recommendation <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Applicant's Letter <br />Exbil-lt B - Proposed Preliminary Plat <br />Exhibit C - Proposed Plat Layout <br />Discussion - <br />Mr. Butterfield's application for a subdivision to create a new <br />building site near the Luce Line Trail was reviewed by the City Council at <br />their meeting of February 13, 1989. Mr. Butterfield brought up a number of <br />concerns during and after that meeting, regarding conditions which the City <br />is proposing to place on the property. His concerns relate to use of the <br />wetlands, building setbacks, and the condition that no buildings can be <br />constructed south of the Luce Line. <br />I. The acplicant has requested that Planning Commission clarify their <br />reasons for the recommendati-r ihat no structures be allowed south of <br />the Luce Line. One additional fact that was not before the Planning <br />Commission during your review, is that Mr. Butterfield's easement <br />across the Luce Line is a public easement, and the DNR does not limit <br />the usage of that easement to Mr. Butterfield. Because of this, the <br />potential for access to the easterly parcel sc th of the Luce Line is <br />under Mr. Butterfield's control to a great degree and under DNR's <br />control to a much lesser degree <br />Although this is not an attempt to convince Planning Commission to <br />change their recommendation, it will be helpful to both staff and the <br />Council if Planning Commission can detail your reasons for <br />recommending that no structures or accessory structures be allowed <br />south of the Luce Line. <br />II. A secondary issue in this matter is the setback requiremer** for <br />both primary and accessory structures. Was the Planning Commis. on's <br />intent that accessory buildings on the north side of the Luce Line <br />meet the required principal structure setack? In a typical two acre <br />lot, if the rear yard lot line is up against the Luce Line Trail, the <br />City wo'ild normaly allow a 10' setback from the Luce Line for <br />accessoij buildings. Please clarify your intent regarding accessory <br />structure setbacks on tjth the north and south sides of the trail and <br />give your reasoning ~for your recommendation.