10-17-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEETING Monday, September 19, 2016 6:30 dclock p.m. Bohl indicated it is and that it would be framed above that. Bohl stated he understands the importance of the height restriction but that they have the peak height of the building at 35 feet instead of 30 feet given the 16-foot drop from North Shore Drive. Bohl indicated every resident would have two parking spaces along with some guest parking on the center driveway through the buildings. Bohl noted sanitary sewer is available but not city water and that they have researched into how a well system could be brought to a multi-family building to make sure fire safety requirements are met. Bohl indicated they believe they have an idea of how to accomplish that. Thiesse asked if there is anywhere else in the City where there is an innovative pond like that proposed. Gaffron noted it would be a question for the DNR as to whether they would consider the existing lagoon as part of the lake and whether it could become a stormwater pond. Thiesse asked if the three townhome units could be tiered back further from the lake and still retain the views. Bohl stated in his view they could. Thiesse commented the property is full, which is something to keep in mind. Schoenzeit stated the issue is to sell the neighborhood and the City but that he believes the demand is there. Schoenzeit noted there are big houses on large properties next doar to this. Schwingler stated there will probably be a density issue in addition to the neighbors' concerns. Lemke commented it is such a radical change that it is difficult to provide direction but that the City Council should be able to provide some good feedback. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 9. #16-3865 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO APPEALS, 8:58 P.M.—9:08 P.M. Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance is a housekeeping measure based on the advice of the City Attorney and formally consolidates and clarifies the appeal process for a number of decisions made by City Staff,the Board of Appeals, and the City Council. The City currently has a number of areas in the Code where it lists appeals. In each situation, an opportunity to appeal that decision is allowed. The City's ordinance is somewhat cloudy since the different appeals go to different boards. As a result, Staff reviewed the appeal process allowed in the ordinance and developed an ordinance that would send the appeals to the Planning Commission first and then the City Council. On any appeal decision made by the City Council,that would be through the court process if the person wishes to pursue it further.. Barnhart noted Staff did not add any new opportunities for appeal but just clarified them and that the changes are summarized in Staff inemo. The draft ordinance also establishes the Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals for appeals to the subdivision process. In addition,the ordinance does require an aggrieved person to file an appeal within 10 days. Currently the ordinance is open-ended and teclmically Page 21 of 23