My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-12-2020 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2020
>
10-12-2020 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2020 12:32:10 PM
Creation date
12/1/2020 11:34:08 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
310
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, September 21, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Gettman said nobody would be stopping there, whether it’s a mailman or garbage collector; currently it’s <br />a vacant lot and that’s why the question as far as having some workable solution for all parties, he’s not <br />being adversarial, but that is the issue they’re dealing with. He stated he can’t imagine the property <br />owners finally making the decision to build on the property and now this, he doesn’t envy that position <br />and he appreciates their patience as he tries to voice some of those concerns. <br />Kirchner respectfully disagrees, he doesn’t think it’s the Commission’s place, nor is it fair to place traffic <br />or highway concerns onto an individual lot-owner; rather it falls on the County to do a traffic study and <br />figure out a re-engineering plan. He said the Applicants have submitted a plan that abides by all of the <br />setbacks and the only reason they’re here asking for it, is because when it was originally platted, it was <br />under the size of what Orono has now changed the Comprehensive Plan to. Therefore, that is the only <br />reason there is a trigger for a variance, because when it was originally platted, they didn’t have a 2-acre <br />minimum or it didn’t apply to this area. He asked Staff if the purple-to-red dot in front of 4760 is where <br />the culvert is and it would not run under the driveway at 4780 North Arm Drive. <br />Ms. Curtis responded that is what the map is indicating. <br />Kirchner said he would approve and support this variance. <br />Erickson doesn’t have a comment; he is comfortable with the Staff report. <br />Libby said with all due respect to the public comments and objections, he doesn’t find anything empirical <br />in any of that discussion that would prohibit or impede a private property owner that has elected to have a <br />home-site. He said they have agency, plenty of planning and scrutiny by 4-5 different agencies that say <br />the lot is buildable. He noted the discussion about whether or not there is a watershed or wetland and the <br />delineation is a federal delineation, is seasonal and based on 100-year flood plains. If you go to Hennepin <br />County tax information there is an astounding set of resources to be able to see where wetlands are, the <br />meander of stream and creeks, and how frequently they flood. Libby said he hasn’t done that, but if the <br />public commenter would look they’d find there is a lot of difference between a wetland and a flood plain. <br />He said the flood plain concerns him very little, he also has just designed 5 sub-surface treatment systems, <br />which is a current term for septic treatment, and he is very involved with the engineering and design of 4- <br />5 methods and all are under the auspices of the State mandate, regardless of the municipality. They must <br />have an ongoing maintenance and service pumping, unless it was an old system with a drain field, which <br />are all considered failed. He is trying to respect the public comments but he can’t find anything in a <br />material fact issue that would really be an objection strong enough to persuade the homeowner not to <br />build their house. He is in favor and would approve it. <br />Chair Ressler noted it’s a 1/2 –acre lot, it’s not little, and he believes the driveway will dump out onto <br />North Arm Drive and immediately allow egress onto CR 19 so the disruption to the neighborhood traffic <br />is minimal. He said it’s certainly not ideal but he doesn’t have a concern about that. Chair Ressler noted <br />they don’t have any other setbacks to consider besides what is triggering the variance, which is that it’s <br />not a 2-acre parcel. He has zero problem with this application as submitted, although he respects <br />differences of opinion. <br />Gettman said he thinks it should be clear that anything he’s articulated has nothing to do with an actual <br />clear Staff-driven declination of this application; it is their advisement to the City Council that he is trying <br />to articulate. He noted these are things that aren’t as clear and it is a difficult lot and his question is
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.