03/19/2012 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,March 19,2012 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis illustrated the location of the home and the second piece of the property. Under the definition in the code, it would be called an adjacent lakeshore lot. Curtis stated that is the reason why Staff is recommending approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. Schoenzeit asked for some background on the bluff regulations. Gaffron stated prior to 1992,the City did not have an ordinance that protected bluffs but they did have some subdivision regulations that define the dry buildable area of the property to exclude slopes that are in excess of 18 percent,which are still in place but rarely used. This is an existing lot of record and is a situation that the City does not encounter often. Gaffron indicated the City has had a couple of situations on North Shore Drive and Tonkawood Road where the City expected the properties,when they were being rebuilt,to meet all the required setbacks as much as possible. The bluff impact zone,which is the first 20 feet from the top of the bluff, is an area that should not be violated with any vegetation removal. The next 10-foot area constitutes a bluff setback, and grading within that area is not as critical. The DNR opposes all development in the bluff impact zone since it may contribute to destabilization of the bluff. Gaffron noted the City had a situation two summers ago that involved a bluff on North Shore Drive that experienced catastrophic failure and it took quite a bit of engineering to reconstruct the slope. Gaffron indicated this specific site meets the criteria of a bluff. There have been some discussions about whether the entire width of the property should be considered a bluff. The applicant's engineer has outlined the areas he feels should be defined as a bluff. To determine the top of the bluff, Staff bases it on the point where the slope changes from greater to 18 percent to less than 18 percent. Gaffron stated in his view this is clearly a bluff and should be subject to all the applicable regulations. Landgraver noted there is an old driveway bed and asked how that factors into this situation. Landgraver asked whether the Planning Commission should ignore the driveway bed. Gaffron stated as it relates to the top of the bluff as defined on Exhibit L2, it is at the lakeshore side of the old driveway bed. From Staff's perspective,the driveway bed does not change the stability of the slope and does not have an impact on the way the top of the bluff is determined. John Stavig,Applicant,stated they purchased both of the lots in 2002,with the long-term intention of eventually selling off this lot. Stavig indicated they are attempting to get approval for what they feel is a realistic and reasonable proposal to construct a modest house on this lot. The lot is slightly over two acres. Stavig indicated at one time the City would have allowed building down to the 75-foot setback line. Stavig stated they have paid property taxes on the area included in the bluff. Stavig stated the assessed market valuation for the property is$585,000,which is a decrease from$720,000, and we are now being told the lot cannot support much more than a garage or a trailer. Stavig reiterated that in his view this is a reasonable proposal. Staff has been very responsive to our questions and we are hopefully we can come to a reasonable solution. Stavig noted the driveway bed was completely left out of Staff's report,which is an important consideration in his view. The driveway bed is at least 102 years old and was originally constructed sometime between 1870 and 1910. There is no erosion whatsoever in that area. The lot itself clearly is Page 9