Laserfiche WebLink
MIl�TUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 19,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Levang commented she understands the applicant's desire to construct a home on that lot but that the <br /> Planning Commission has a responsibility to ensure the City codes and ordinances are adhered to. <br /> Levang commented she does not get the impression the applicant is flexible on this application. <br /> Stavig stated in his view the proposal they attempted to put forward a proposal that is very flexible. The <br /> driveway bed defines the top of the bluff and the flat area of at least 15 feet has stood still for over a <br /> century. Their proposal is to stay behind that and go further forward to make sure that no erosion issues <br /> are created. Stavig commented he hopes that is a flexible approach since it is not where they would like <br /> to locate the house. <br /> Stavig noted there have been bluff setback variances granted previously in Orono and that in his view this <br /> is a reasonable request. The top of the bluff as defined by the roadbed is flat for 15 feet and they will stay <br /> behind that. Stavig stated the other adjoining lot also has bluff areas that they have maintained over the <br /> years. Stavig stated in his opinion their proposal is within the spirit of the regulation,which is not to <br /> erode the bluff. The area is marginally a bluff and is defined by the roadbed. They are placing the house <br /> in a different area out of respect for the bluff. <br /> Levang asked whether they would be willing to downsize the house. <br /> Stavig stated downsizing the house would require it to be two-story,which would be out of character of <br /> the neighborhood. Staff has rejected that. Stavig stated they have also attempted to ask for as few <br /> variances as possible. If erosion is the concern, Stavig indicated he is not sure how their proposal would <br /> impact that since the driveway bed has existed for over a century. <br /> Leskinen asked if the City can grant a bluff setback variance if the DNR recommends denial. <br /> Gaffron stated the City can still grant a variance since it is merely a recommendation from the DNR. <br /> Curtis commented typically the DNR will say they do not oppose it or the City will receive no comment <br /> back. Every application for a variance in the shoreline is under the DNR's review and they generally do <br /> not comment on the majority of them. <br /> Stavig asked whether there have been some approved in the past. Stavig stated it is his understanding the <br /> City granted one in 2006. <br /> Gaffron stated Staff has not done a complete analysis of how many bluff setback variances have been <br /> granted. Gaffron stated there likely have been some variances granted to allow a rebuild, but that he does <br /> not recall any that were granted to a vacant lot. <br /> Curtis noted the 2006 application was a rebuild. <br /> Landgraver stated he does not have the ability to opine on stability of slopes,but by the same token,the <br /> applicant has proposed a smaller footprint house close to the edge of the street,which is out of character <br /> with the neighborhood and that he is not sure if the neighbors have had a chance to consider this <br /> application. Landgraver indicated he is leaning towards tabling the application for the applicant to <br /> consider obtaining the additional information,which is another expense that he would incur with no <br /> guarantee of results. <br /> Page <br /> 13 <br />