05/17/2004 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (4. #01-2671 ALISTAIR AND KAREN JACQUES,Continued) Mr. Sherek explained he reviewed the Orono Community Management Plan and read several paragraphs 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 its 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. Sherek asked the Planning Commission to view the proposed variance 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 enjoyment of natural amenities which they currently enjoy. Mr. Sherek asked why the garage and driveway must be placed directly on the property line and within the 30' side yard setback when there are other location alternatives. Mr. Sherek restated that he is not opposing the variance and welcomes a residential building but has a problem with the garage and pool located on the lot line. Planning Commissioner Bremer arrived at 6:15 p.m. Chair Mabusth asked for further public comments. Ms. Susan Thompson, 685 Old Long Lake Road, the property just to the west of the subject property,indicated she reviewed the applicant's plan and,as shown, it does not affect her property at all but in a broader perspective, she felt there is so much negative effect to the neighbor to the east of the subject property,that she would welcome the subject house/garage/driveway to be moved westerly in order to maintain neighborhood relationship. She commented that it insinuates an impact on the neighbors to the east in such a significant way,noting spring run-off can affect their basements and knows it would more significantly affect the easterly neighbors. Ms. Thompson recommended the applicant move the house site to the west to relieve significant negative impacts to the easterly neighbors. Chair Mabusth asked for additional public comments. There were none. Rahn asked if the applicant had any comments after hearing Mr. Sherek's and Ms. Thompson's concerns. Rahn acknowledged the application is for a lot area variance but if it does in fact result in drainage issues,the Planning Commission is not compelled to recommend approval of the application. He stated it would be beneficial to all to have a site plan of exactly where the pool and house would be constructed and then to get accurate neighbor comments. Mr. Jacques repeated that no exact house site has been selected yet and explained they were trying to accomplish the lot area variance first, followed by the building permit process. The house was situated as easterly as it is shown on the variance 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 are no wetland impacts to the west of the proposed house site. He offered to move the house site westerly to more centrally locate it on the lot and stated they had no objection to moving the proposed house site. Chair Mabusth opened the discussion to Planning Commission members. Page 3 of 40