Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 21,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart stated one lot is governed by a view easement,which is in favor of a private resident. Barnhart <br /> stated the City would not enforce that but that there is an easement that restricts it to one story. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. <br /> Barnhart noted one of the concerns expressed related to the average lakeshore setback and allowing these <br /> properties to be built to the closer than what presumably would be allowed. Barnhart stated if Lot 1 is the <br /> first one to be built,when Staff computes the average lakeshore setback, they would look at the adjacent <br /> lakeshore lot to that property. Typically Staff would look at the property to each side of the proposed <br /> house and draw a straight line between the most lakeward protrusions of each adjacent house. <br /> Dampier commented that is not how it was calculated when he requested his building permit. <br /> Barnhart stated that is how it is calculated now. Barnhart stated based on the most lakeward protrusion of <br /> those two homes,the house can go up to that point. Barnhart noted also in play is the 75-foot lake yard <br /> setback and that homes are not allowed to go within 75 feet of the lake. Barnhart stated if the house is 50 <br /> feet from the lake,the average lakeshore line would be 50 feet, but that there would also be a 75-foot lake <br /> yard. As a result,the house cannot go closer than 75 feet to the lake. In this case there is not an adjacent <br /> lake yard for one of the lots since it does not touch the lake and the average lakeshore really only applies <br /> to one lot. Staff is proposing that the lake yard on all three sides be 75 feet, which is similar to what was <br /> proposed at the sketch plan review earlier. <br /> Barnhart stated as it relates to the filling of the wetland, Staff is aware of the history of this parcel and has <br /> presented that information to the DNR. Based on the information the City was able to find,the DNR was <br /> not willing to say that area was a wetland and thereby protected. Barnhart noted Staff spent quite a bit of <br /> time and energy trying to prove it was a wetland and was not able to do so. As a result, Staff went with <br /> the wetland delineation that was done within the last eight or nine months ago. That delineation depicted <br /> a wetland along the shoreland and also a 168-foot wetland on Lot 3. Barnhart stated those are the known <br /> wetlands based on the delineation and accepted by the Watershed District. <br /> Barnhart stated with regards to the wetland setback and wetland buffer, with the exception of some areas <br /> that the Watershed District is still discussing,the only impact to the wetlands, other than the filling of the <br /> 168 foot wetland, is a small portion of the driveway that is necessary to gain access to the lot. Barnhart <br /> noted there is no other place to put the driveway other than driving along this parcel,which would still be <br /> impacting the wetland and the wetland buffer. Staff felt the proposed location would be the least impact <br /> to the neighbor. <br /> Barnhart stated the applicant can have an 8-foot wide driveway in the shoreland and in the 75-foot <br /> setback area if there are no other options. The developer is proposing 12 feet because it is serving two <br /> lots. Barnhart indicated it is up to the City Council on whether to allow the 12 feet, but the additional <br /> four feet is to provide more maneuverability in the curves. <br /> Thiesse asked if they can construct two 8-foot driveways. <br /> Barnhart stated that would defeat the purpose but that they could possibly come back with two 8-foot <br /> driveways. Barnhart stated he would like to reduce the amount of hardcover in that area. <br /> Page 14 of 25 <br />