Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, October 20,2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />4. Applicant paid the after-the-fact fee for the variance application. If the variance is <br />approved, should an after-the-fact building permit fee be paid? Applicant claims he was <br />unaware that he needed a permit to replace an existing deck on the property... <br />5. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this <br />application? <br />Gaffron indicated that staff recommends denial of the application. In staffs opinion, if this <br />reconstruction had been applied for before-the-fact, the encroachment over the shoreline <br />and within 1 foot of the side lot line would have been questioned and likely not approved. <br />He noted that the apparent expansion of the deck from a depth of 6' to 8' would certainly <br />not have been approved. <br />Gaffron maintained that, while the fact that the approval process has cost the property <br />owner more than the project itself is unfortunate, but should not be a factor in determining <br />whether the approval is granted after-the-fact. <br />Maintenance and/or replacement of existing decks and lakeshore accessory structures is an <br />ongoing issue along Orono’s 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline. Gaffron stated that <br />the Plaruiing Commission may wish to consider whether the current policies and codes are <br />appropriate, or whether they need to be relaxed or strengthened. <br />If approval is granted. Planning Commission should address the excessive hardcover on <br />the property and make a recommendation as to removals. An after the fact permit should <br />be applied for so the building inspector can confirm the construction meets pertinent <br />building codes. <br />Chair Smith asked if staff had recommended to the applicant that he consider a lockbox. <br />Page 5 of4 1