Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON, CONTINUED) <br /> 1. Does the proposed plan for filling create any negative impacts? Is there a basis to reduce the <br /> amount of filling because this is on a private driveway system? Is there a basis to require that the <br /> house be moved back, either to reduce fill impacts or eliminate average setback concerns? <br /> 2. Is there sufficient hardship or mitigation available to justify granting the average setback variance <br /> given the objection by the neighbor? <br /> 3 Any other issues or concerns with this application that the Planning Commission would like to <br /> see addressed. <br /> Gaffron noted the hardcover calculations include the buried portions of the garage and that the applicants <br /> do meet the lot area, lot width, and setbacks requirements. <br /> Gaffron stated two access alternatives were initially proposed, each with slightly different hardcover <br /> impacts,but neither requiring a hardcover variance. Alternate A continues the existing access to North <br /> Shore drive for both the driveway circle loop as well as for the underground garage access. Alternate B <br /> had North Shore Drive access for the garage,but Bohn's Point road access for the circle drive. Staff has <br /> been advised that the driveway easement that would be used for Alternate B has been abandoned and is <br /> no longer valid and that the Wageners would object to Alternate B. <br /> It is the recommendation of Staff that the application be tabled at this time. The applicant should be <br /> provided direction with regards to the fill,with regard to whether an average setback variance is likely, <br /> and whether the chimneys should be subject to a conditional use permit. <br /> Allen Munson stated on the south side of the lot there are trees that go all the way down to the water and <br /> the Wagener residence is set 331 feet back from the lake. Munson indicated the property on the other side <br /> is 76 feet back from the water, which cuts through the existing part of the house. Munson stated they <br /> tried several different options to relocate the house but were unsuccessful due to the topography of the lot. <br /> Munson pointed out on his model where the house would be located and the tree lines. Munson stated the <br /> slope of the land runs into the house, which requires the creation of a swale around the house. <br /> Winkey inquired whether the fill basically would be behind the house. <br /> Munson stated it would be. <br /> Winkey inquired whether the foundation of the house would be increased. <br /> Munson stated it would not be. <br /> Bremer inquired whether the applicants feel the proposed location is the optimum location for the house. <br /> Munson stated they have done approximately ten different revisions and that they are limited to the <br /> present location. <br /> PAGE 15 <br />