Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, November 18, 2013 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />Page 24 of 35  <br />  <br />lot line. The neighbor’s detached garage is situated between the lot line and the home and is located 110- <br />plus feet from the applicant’s home. A 30-foot side yard setback is required for the principal structure. <br /> <br />The property is surrounded essentially on three sides by wetland. It is unknown at this time whether or <br />not the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will require establishment of a 25-foot wetland buffer. A <br />portion of the applicant’s proposed footprint encroaches into the City’s 35-foot buffer. The applicant is <br />proposing to improve upon an existing encroachment and replace the southwestern corner of the house as <br />close as 23 feet from the wetland where currently there is a 5-foot setback. <br /> <br />The applicant is requesting approval of a building footprint as shown on the proposed survey and outlined <br />in red on Exhibit D1. Staff would suggest the applicant move the proposed home five feet closer to the <br />street and right up to the 50-foot setback in order to reduce the encroachment into the wetland buffer. <br />The property size is similar to lots within the LR-1C half-acre zoning district, which has the City’s least <br />restrictive setbacks. As this project is not proposed as an in-kind rebuild, it may be reasonably to require <br />a 10-foot side setback from the property line. The conceptual proposed plans reflect a plan for a home <br />with a second story. Due to the floodplain constraints, it is unknown at this time if a basement can be <br />constructed and a second story is likely to be proposed. <br /> <br />Staff would suggest the home be designed such that at a minimum the second story portions of the home <br />be set back further from the side lot line in an effort to maintain the existing feeling of open space that <br />currently exists with the one-story home. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission should discuss the following issues: <br />1. Is the Planning Commission comfortable approving a general building footprint area for a new <br />home as opposed to an exact footprint? Discuss the potential risks. <br /> <br />2. The project as proposed is well under the structural coverage and the hardcover limits for the <br />property. If the variances are approved, does the Planning Commission feel it is appropriate to <br />set a limit on the home footprint size? <br /> <br />3. Does the Planning Commission feel that the new footprint should be moved to the 50’ front <br />setback line in order to reduce the rear wetland encroachment? <br /> <br />4. Should the new home be required to meet at least a 10 foot setback from the side lot line? <br /> <br />5. Are there specific conditions the Planning Commission feels are appropriate to impose on the <br />project if variances are to be granted? <br /> <br />6. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property <br />in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? <br /> <br />7. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential <br />character of the neighborhood? <br /> <br />8. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts <br />created by the granting of the requested variances? <br /> <br />9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br />Item #01 - PC Agenda - 01/21/14* <br />Approval of Planning Commission Minutes 11/18/2013 <br />[Page 24 of 35]