Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of 3 <br /> Janice Gundlach <br /> From: Loren Schoenzeit[lorens@att.net] <br /> Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 8:25 AM <br /> To: Janice Gundlach <br /> Subject: Response to the planning commission report <br /> To: Janice Gundlach <br /> From: Loren Schoenzeit <br /> RE: Response to the pianning commission report <br /> Date: 16-May-2005 <br /> I hope you enjoyed your vacation and found it restful. I'd like to thank you for creating detailed and accurate <br /> report for the City's planning commission. I think we are close on many of the "Staff Recommendations" in your <br /> report and would like to work through these items with you in an effort to gain the Planning Commission's <br /> approval this evening on the proposed project. <br /> I would like to address each of the"Staff Recommendations" listed in the Planning Commission report. <br /> 1) Eliminate the need for the structural coverage variance. <br /> 2) Eliminate existing and proposed retaining walis/curbs within the right-of-way. <br /> 3) Reduction of the proposed lake yard patio extending beyond the deck in an effort to reduce hardcover <br /> further within the 75'-250' zone, preferable to 25%. <br /> 4) Eliminate the portions of the proposed new structure (SE corner of house) coming within 10' of an <br /> existing sewer line. <br /> 5) Revise lot rearrangement request whereby lot area and width for both lots remain unchanged. <br /> 6) Staff would also recommend that the City Engineer review the proposed grading plan prior to Planning <br /> Commission approval. <br /> 1) Eliminate the need for the structural coverage variance. —To meet the 15% structural coverage requirement <br /> we will drop the request for the 230 SQFT deck. In your report on page 7 paragraph#1 you note that"The <br /> foot print proposed is 2233 s.f. which would meet 15% ..." <br /> We do however continue to offer the City the opportunity to gain an easement for the existing sewer line in <br /> exchange for a "structural coverage easemenY'which would allow us to build the deck. We believe that this is <br /> justified for several reasons <br /> • In Planning Commission report on page 6 paragraph#3 you properly note "... that an extra-ordinary <br /> amount of boulevard exists on the applicanYs side of Forest Lake Landing. The road is platted at a width <br /> of 60'and only 20' is paved. The road is also not centered within the 60' platted area, resulting in an <br /> undeveloped right-of-way in front of the applicanYs lot of 18' to 20' when 10' normally exists. This is <br /> acting as a front yard for the applicant and lessening any negative impacts of a reduced, unobstructed <br /> front yard." <br /> • The existing sewer line does not have an easement. It also has a negative impact on the property's <br /> value and iYs usefulness for building a house. The City could be forced to move the sewer but that <br /> would create a large expense and hassle for the City. We need to be compensated if we grant the City <br /> and easement for the sewer line. The"structural coverage easement" is a "win-win" for both parties. The <br /> City of Orono gains an easement to the existing sewer line and it cosYs the City nothing. We gain <br /> because we get to build the house we want to build. <br /> • The purposed of the 15% structural coverage rule is to make sure that the houses built in the city are not <br /> too big and do not look to big for their properties. There is over 3000 s.f. of"extra" land (as outlined in <br /> the report) that is in the front of my house. This extra land adds sufficient area to more than cover the <br /> proposed 230 s.f. deck. We are asking that this land be used in consideration for the Structural <br /> Coverage Variance to allow the deck to be built with the proposed 2233 s.f. house. Further a typical <br /> 5/16/2005 <br />