09-16-2002 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 16, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#3) #02-2813 MARK WELSH, 3625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, Continued that since this is a private driveway maintained by the residents,with regard to snow removal and gravel maintenance, he felt the City should not have issue with his proposal. Chair Smith indicated that, although the current residents are very responsible with regard to maintenance, future owners might not be as dependable, which may also contribute to the cross easement issue later. Weinberger pointed out that, typically, the City requires approximately 24' of traveled road, even for private roads, and he felt that 16' was simply too narrow. Having visited the site, Rahn stated that if people parallel park along the driveway there would quite obviously be no room. He voiced his concern that potential fire or emergency access to the driveway would be drastically impaired if someone were parked along the roadway. Mabusth questioned if there were a legal description of the 10' cross easement the two homes to the east have granted. She asked how much of the hill fell within their property. Mr. Welsh pointed out that the middle of the roadway was not reflected accurately on the survey provided. Jeanne Welsh indicated that she had spoken to Hennepin County this morning and had been told that their ROW is 33' from the center of North Shore Drive and marked by a marker on the hill. She believed they could likely remove some of the embankment,but they did not wish to do so. Rahn stated that the stake was quite clearly up in the hill and the survey did reflect the lot fairly accurately. Chair Smith asked for a recap of what was originally approved. Weinberger noted that the applicant had been required to meet a 50' setback from the lakeshore and had not included the prow extension at that time. Mr. Welsh stated that the prow was not included but the eaves were at that time. Chair Smith reiterated that, based on the August recommendation to push back the prow, the applicant has encroached into the traveled roadway more than the Planning Commission is comfortable with were the prow not there. Mabusth pointed out that the prow plus eaves extends approximately 8.5' further into the lakeshore setback. Rahn maintained that nothing had been drawn up the first time through which indicated that a pointed V-prow was coming off the lakeside. PAGE 4