Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,June 21,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> Ressler asked if Staff would support the monuments being rebuilt in the current location. <br /> Oakden replied home owners are allowed to maintain what they already have and if they wanted to <br /> rebuild the existing monuments in-kind or smaller that would be done with a building permit.Any new <br /> expansion would trigger the need for variances. <br /> Peter Eskuche, 18318 Minnetonka Boulevard,Deephaven,noted they received previous approval of the <br /> project on a bigger scale and have since reduced the project. He stated French Creek which runs through <br /> the property is the biggest practical difficulty. Regarding the monuments,he noted they are six feet square <br /> and they are proposing to remove that which would improve the hardcover around the wetland,as well as <br /> increase the distance from the busy road. The main reason they want to spread them out is because it is <br /> quite scary to back up onto North Shore Drive so these would be a bit further from the road.Mr.Eskuche <br /> could repair the existing monuments but because those were so much bigger,they thought this would be <br /> an improvement. <br /> Chair McCutcheon clarified it is more of a safety issue in trying to see around the monuments. <br /> Mr.Eskuche replied in the affirmative,noting one can barely pull in and still touch the numbers on the <br /> gate.Delivery trucks are longer than his car and one feels very unsafe with no choice but to back out onto <br /> the highway. This is the reason they are proposing the monuments. <br /> Kirchner clarified the existing monuments are 6x6 feet and the proposed new monuments are 2x2feet. <br /> Mr.Eskuche replied in the affirmative. <br /> Kirchner asked Staff if the Applicants could rebuild where the existing monuments are at 2x2 feet and <br /> push to the back"wall"of the existing 6 foot monument to gain 4 feet? <br /> Ms. Oakden replied the Applicant could not do that without a variance. They could maintain the current <br /> concrete pad and pillar; she noted the City is very literal with in-kind replacement and moving the pillars <br /> even two inches upon the existing concrete pad would trigger a variance as it is new massing where no <br /> massing exists today. <br /> Ressler asked if Staff would recommend approval of the variance applied in that way. <br /> Ms. Oakden noted entrance monuments are an accessory use and are not necessary to the principal use of <br /> the lot,they have been consistently interpreted as accessory use variances and it is challenging to meet <br /> those practical difficulty standards. She does not believe Staff would support a variance to most accessory <br /> use expansions which is the hard interpretation of the City Code. <br /> Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.There were no public comments. <br /> Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. <br /> Erickson noted the plan was to have an entrance at the 925.7 elevation which is currently well below the <br /> lake level.He also checked the history of lake levels and many times the lake level has been around <br /> 930.5.He is glad the Staff report notes this will be contingent upon watershed district approval and they <br /> can be assured the watershed district will not approve an entrance that is underwater. Based on his early <br /> Page 5 of 9 <br />