06-11-2012 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 11, 2012 7:00 o'clock p.m. (6. #12 -3547 JOHNAND PHOEBE STAVIG, 790 BROWNROAD NORTH, Continued) Stavig stated he appreciates the time that the City has taken on this application and that they have attempted to minimize the number of variances being requested. Stavig indicated he did not receive the e -mail with the City's recommendations until after the Planning Commission meeting and that he did not have a chance to discuss Staff s recommendation with his neighbors. Stavig indicated the proposal to push the house closer to the street and to the tennis court is not something that his neighbors would like and not something that he proposed. The Planning Commission elected to vote for Staff s proposal, which also creates additional hardcover. Stavig stated he is attempting to find a solution and that he is proposing to put the house in the most responsible place and where the engineers have recommended. There is approximately 1,500 square feet to construct a house in the location proposed by Staff and it will be considerably smaller than the other houses in the neighborhood. If the house is located closer to the street, it will be more visible to the rest of the neighborhood and block the lake views. Rahn asked what the bluff setback is for Long Lake. Gaffron stated the model ordinance that the DNR adopted approximately 20 years ago is one that they expect all cities to comply with and. that it is likely Long Lake's regulations are the same as Orono's, which is consistent with the DNR regulations. • Stavig indicated they would be willing to eliminate the driveway to the storage shed and that they would also be open to considering limiting the height of the house. McMillan noted she visited the site yesterday and that it is a difficult lot. She added the lot would not have much of a building envelope without variances. McMillan asked how the City typically handles requests for variances when there are no plans to build a specific house. Gaffron stated variances have been granted in the past for a conceptual house so the owners knew they could market the lot as buildable. In the case where there is a proposed footprint, Gaffron indicated he would not be surprised that the actual plans would have a different footprint. Gaffron stated basically the applicant is attempting to establish a location for the house and the size of the house. McMillan commented it is fair to the applicant that he knows what he can build on the lot so he can market it appropriately. McMillan noted there will have to be some variances granted and that it is a matter of how many and what type of variances would be approved. Gaffron stated the Consulting City Engineer has stated in his letter that traditionally the City has not considered information such as a slope stability analysis that has been provided by applicants when reviewing proposed encroachments into slope setbacks as defined by the City Code. This is because even with the technical information that has been provided, slope stability still cannot be guaranteed. It is his understanding that the City has past examples where extreme weather has led to slope instability on other lots that were originally believed to be stable. This is one of the reasons that the City has adopted the slope setbacks. Gaffron stated in essence the Consulting City Engineer is saying that there is risk • involved but that he did say the proposed location is acceptable. Staff would prefer variances to the bluff not be granted. Page 7 of 17