04-21-2014 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, March 17, 2014 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 26 foot buffer. The lower wall, which extends into the 20-foot utility easement, is a replacement of the existing wall in this general location. Due to the height and separation of the proposed walls, an engineered design will be required for the permit. The proposed pool, pool deck and retaining walls will be entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Since the location of the applicants’ home is also partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line, there is no conforming location lakeward of the home to construct a pool. The configuration of the subject property along the end of the channel creates a unique situation regarding the view. The neighbor to the south has no lake view per se over the applicants’ property but rather a view of West Branch Road. The construction of the applicants’ home has prompted the need for establishment of a 50-foot buffer from the edge of the wetland between 9 feet and 22 feet further upslope than the 75-foot setback line. The proposed pool and walls are proposed well outside the 75-foot lake setback. However, the walls encroach into the established 50-foot wetland buffer and the currently required 10-foot buffer setback. One of the walls also encroaches into a 20-foot utility easement on the property. Due to the slope of the applicants’ property, the walls are necessary in order to create a flat platform area to construct the pool. The applicants’ property is the last lot which fronts on a long channel and is somewhat disconnected from the lake. The neighboring property likely had no lake views to the north over the applicants’ property but rather a view of West Branch Road. The existence of the 50-foot wetland buffer, the location of the neighboring home, and the nature of the channel create practical difficulties for the property owner. In addition, there are mature trees separating the applicants’ property from their southern neighbor which will likely screen most of the views of the proposed pool. Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as well as the setback variances for the retaining walls. The applicant will be required to comply with the City Engineer’s recommendations. If the wall within the utility easement cannot be relocated, the applicants should be required to enter into an encroachment agreement for the walls within the utility easement. Leskinen asked if the applicant was required to obtain permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as well for this project. Curtis stated in her opinion they will require permits from the Watershed District for erosion control but that this is not a project that triggers a buffer per the Watershed District’s rules. The applicant had nothing to add to Staff’s report. Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Leskinen stated she did visit the site and it appears there are not many options where to locate the pool and that she does have a concern regarding the utility easement. Leskinen asked if the proposed retaining walls encroach further into the setback. Item #01 - PC Agenda - 04/21/2014 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 03/17/2014 [Page 2 of 26]