Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,January 17,2012 <br /> � 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Levang asked to see the differences between what was originally approved and the new proposal. Levang <br /> noted on the proposed plan,the entrance is from the garage, and asked whether they need a sidewalk. <br /> Owens indicated that is included. <br /> Levang stated she would like to remind the Planning Commission of the property on North Shore Drive <br /> where the back out was so narrow that it did not work,and asked whether the omission of the blue area <br /> will present the same type of issue where it is too narrow. <br /> Thiesse noted they gain the green area in the back and that he does not see it as a problem. <br /> Leskinen stated the applicant made a point with regard to the triangle portion,and asked if they need a <br /> turnaround in this situation. Leskinen indicated she was on the Commission when this application was <br /> looked at the first time and that it is a difficult lot to work with. The Planning Commission and the <br /> previous applicant worked very hard to come to a good resolution of the issues. It becomes problematic <br /> when a variance is put forth for an imaginary house. The Planning Commission anticipated that the new <br /> owner would be back requesting additional hardcover. Leskinen indicated she is in agreement with the <br /> green backup area but that she does not see a real need for the turnaround. <br /> Landgraver indicated he has the same concerns. <br /> Thiesse stated the hardcover ordinances are to protect the lake and that the applicant is adding a rain <br /> garden to treat the additional runoff. The other reason for limiting the hardcover relates to massing and <br /> visual appearance,which is not the case here. <br /> Leskinen stated her concern would be that a subsequent owner will not maintain the rain garden and that <br /> the City does not have anything in place to deal with that kind of a situation. <br /> Owens stated that could be dealt with in some sort of restrictive covenant such as they do with <br /> , maintaining a NURP pond or vegetative screening. <br /> Curtis stated the City would need some sort of covenant or easement and that typically they do not use <br /> those on residential properties. <br /> Thiesse commented it would also become a burden to the City to enforce. <br /> Levang noted the City's hardcover task force is currently looking at this type of issue. <br /> Gaffron concurred that the City has potential monitoring issues far into the future whenever they approve <br /> a mitigation measure that requires maintenance. <br /> Schoenzeit stated he would like to see some form of mitigation required at this time. <br /> Levang asked how Staff feels about the deck. <br /> Curtis recommended the Commission discuss the new deck. Curtis noted the proposed deck will be <br /> higher than the patio. While the deck is moved back from the lake, it will still be within 13 to 17 feet of <br /> the lake. Staff has a concern with screening the deck and that side of the home. <br /> Page <br /> 22 <br />