Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF T� <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> � Tuesday,February 21,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#OS-3135 ALLEN AND DEANNA MUNSON CONTINUED) <br /> Gaffron noted the applicant has submitted a letter from his attorney,which is included in the materials <br /> before the Planning Commission tonight. The applicant has not submitted any new plans but has <br /> submitted a drainage map and drainage calculations,which have been reviewed by the City Engineer. <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should consider the following conditions: <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:? Should the house be redesigned <br /> or relocated,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 /> Munson indicated the roofline at the sight line has been reduced from 30 feet to 27 feet,which was the <br /> height of the pole erected on his property. <br /> Rahn inquired if that was accomplished by reducing the height of the parapet or the ceiling height. <br /> Munson stated it was through a combination of things. Munson stated his lawyer is working on the <br /> drainage easement for the northeast side of the building and that the neighbor is in agreement with the <br /> easement. Munson stated they are willing to remain five feet from the retaining wall with the fill. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the City Engineer reviewed the plan that depicted the drainage five feet from the <br /> property line. . <br /> Gaffron stated the plan is included as Exhibit A and that it is not clear to him that there were any changes <br /> to the drainage plan along the south side of the house from what was previously submitted and that there <br /> were no changes on the north side. Gaffron stated the intent of the study is to indicate whether there is <br /> additional draining going to adjoining properties over and above what currently exists and the rate of <br /> runoff. The City Engineer has concluded that no water quality treatment is provided onsite and that some <br /> rainwater gardens or other biofiltration features are recommended to provide water quality treatment for <br /> this Tot. In addition,the City Engineer has found that the proposed site raises rates slightly into Lake <br /> Minnetonka but has not found that there were any negative impacts to adjoining properties that should be <br /> addressed. <br /> Sjoholm stated he does not believe there are any drainage issues remaining,but if there are any <br /> outstanding issues that need to be addressed,the applicant is willing to address those to the satisfaction of <br /> the Planning Commission. Sjoholm stated the only issue remaining is whether the variance for the <br /> average lakeshore setback should be granted. <br /> Sjoholm indicated he has not been given permission to visit the Wagener property to see how the house <br /> would impact the view. Sjoholm stated based on the photographs that are included in Mr. Gaffron's file, <br /> it is hard to imagine how this new residence could be seen from the Wagener property due to the trees. <br /> Sjoholm stated the trees appear to be two and a half times the height of a two and a half story structure. <br /> Sjoholm questioned if there is even an issue of a sight restriction, and if there were a restriction,the strict <br /> enforcement of the code would not serve the purpose of the ordinance. Sj oholm stated the applicant is <br /> attempting to enjoy a reasonable view of the lake. <br /> PAGE 3 <br />