My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-28-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
04-28-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 4:12:48 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 3:41:29 PM
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.
/
493
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
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, APRIL 14,2003 <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />Mayor Peterson read a letter she had received from Mr. Larry Silliman stating that he had <br />met with Wendy Bottenberg concerning the purchase and redevelopment of some Lake <br />Minnetonka property. He had heard that Orono was a difficult city to work with because <br />of the many rules and regulations. He felt, however, that he understood the City ’s rules <br />after his meeting and commended Bottenberg on her professionalism, thoroughness, and <br />pleasant demeanor. <br />Mayor Peterson thanked Bottenberg for her excellent job. <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT <br />6. #02-2859 Blake & Mary Bichanich, 332 Westlake Street—Variances <br />Chaput slated that the application was tabled on March 10,2003 so that the applicant <br />could redesign the house to meet side yard setbacks. At the March 10*'’ meeting, Council <br />discussed approving the lot width and lot area variances, but was prepared to deny the side <br />yard setback variance. The Planning Commission had recommended a compromise of <br />allowing 20 ’ setbacks on either side. Staff recommended the required 30' setbacks <br />because the proposed house would be new construction, which should meet the minimum <br />standards. <br />Bichanich redesigned the house to meet the 20 ’ setbacks with a 4’ encroachment of <br />overhangs on each side, though staff had advised that he redesign to meet the zoning <br />ordinance requirements. <br />Sansevere asked what the hardship was. Chaput stated that the Planning Commission <br />identified the following hardship: that because the applicant joined two 50 ’ wide lots in <br />1093 to closer conform with zoning requirements, the applicant was permitted to connect <br />two e.xisting homes with substandard side yard setbacks. Also, the combined lot is very <br />long and narrow, creating difficult conditions to build a home that takes full advantage of <br />the lakeshore. <br />Liz Hawn stated that the proposed design seems to fit the lot and that meeting the 30 ’ <br />setbacks would overly constrain the applicant. <br />Gaffron stated that the Commission was looking for a compromise. <br />Mayor Peterson stated that the hardships listed are not true hardships. <br />Hawn stated that the setbacks in that zone are very large.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.