Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, March 17, 2014 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 3 of 26  <br />  <br />Curtis indicated the new walls do encroach further into the utility easement. The City Engineer has <br />recommended the applicant look at relocating the walls or minimizing their encroachment. If they cannot <br />be relocated completely out of the utility easement, an encroachment easement would be necessary. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if it is a city easement. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated it is a City utility easement. The City Engineer did review whether there are utilities <br />located within the easement and did not find any. Curtis stated it appears the sewer is located in the <br />roadway. <br /> <br />Lemke noted the City Engineer also recommended the applicant enter into an encroachment agreement, <br />and asked if the applicant has agreed to that. <br /> <br />Curtis stated she does not know that answer but that the applicant would need to enter into that agreement <br />if the retaining walls are not relocated out of the utility easement. <br /> <br />Leskinen asked if there are any other risks associated with having the retaining walls encroaching into the <br />easement. <br /> <br />Curtis stated she does not believe so, but that the standard language in the encroachment agreement would <br />say that if there is a need for the City to use the easement, whether there are presently utilities there or <br />not, it would be at the homeowner’s risk to have that structure there and that the City may need to remove <br />it to conduct repairs. <br /> <br />Leskinen stated as far as the average lakeshore setback, given the location of the property and the <br />neighboring views, she does not see that as an issue and that the request is reasonable. <br /> <br />Schwingler asked about the neighbor’s concerns relating to erosion and drainage. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated that information has been communicated to the City Engineer and that the City Engineer <br />will review the plans further to ensure that further impacts to the channel as a result of erosion do not <br />occur. Curtis indicated the neighbor was more detailing his concern so they would be on record and was <br />supportive of the project. The neighbor had the channel dredged in 2002 or 2003, which ended up being <br />an ordeal, and that he wanted to make sure that was not further impacted. <br /> <br />Schwingler asked if there is any concern about screening. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the structure does meet the setbacks from West Branch and that they are asking for a setback <br />from the average lakeshore setback and a wetland buffer setback. Curtis stated the pool would be visible <br />as someone is driving from the east but that the house is also visible from the road. Curtis stated the <br />applicants may want some additional screening once the pool is installed. <br /> <br />Schoenzeit moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 14-3655, <br />Brian Butterfield on behalf of Joe and Donelle Feldmann, 805 Forest Arms Lane, granting of an <br />average lakeshore setback variance and a variance from the wetland buffer setback in order to <br />allow construction of an in-ground swimming pool and retaining walls, subject to the City Engineer <br />recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. <br /> <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 04/21/2014 <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 03/17/2014 <br />[Page 3 of 26]