My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-19-2003 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
02-19-2003 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 1:36:54 PM
Creation date
2/9/2023 1:35:42 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.
/
235
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 MEETING <br />Wcdictday, Jaiiiary 22,2003 <br />6:30 o*clock p.m. <br />(M02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE, Coallaucd) <br />Hannarord clanfted that, all the City u-as asking for u-as the applicant to redesign his plan lo reflect <br />imall jog on the aecond story. <br />Raka bmvc B, Mabasik locoaM to approve Application M2-27S3, Weilej Byrne, contianiag tke <br />Variance far 2ti7 Casco Point Road aBowing tke work to continne whk no fkrtker variances tkan <br />wkat was prior approved, wHk wall aad fonadation repair/replaceroent lo bring it back to no larger <br />tkan its pre-esistlag stale. VOTE: Ayes k/1, Hannafard disseatiag. <br />Hannaford was not in favor of requiring a redesign by the applicant. <br />NEW BUSINESS <br />(#5) «02-2tS4 ANDREW AND TRACEY RASCHER, 4705 NORTH SMOR»: DRIVE. VARIANCE <br />7:40-7:50 P.M. <br />Andrew Rascher. ApplicanU and a representatisT ff Hew Depot, were present. <br />Planner Chaput expbined that the applicants have n^\v»fs»cd vanances from the average lakeshore <br />setback, the 75* structure setback from theOIIW Minnetonka and for hanfeover in the 0-75* <br />lakeshore setback zone in order to replace an c.\ : story deck attached to the residence. 11k <br />existing deck is rotting and has become a uiiciy ismic owners. Currently, the deck encroaches 71' <br />into the average lakeshore setback and is 67' fmm the C; WI. of Lake Minnetonka. <br />Chaput pointed out that issues for considetaiion include the fk.' that the deck has existed for many years <br />and the proposed deck will not increase the existing square fooUge of hardcover, change the setback from <br />the OHWL nor the average lakeshore setback. She added that the deck would continue to provide a <br />landing for two sliding glass doors located lakeside and would not infhnge negatively any of the <br />neighbors' views of the lake. Chaput reported that staff recommends approval of the variances necessary <br />to replace the cxistmg deck. <br />Mr. Rascher pointed out that the existing deck is rotting and has been a safety concern for his family. He <br />currently has a mesh nening in front of the railing to ensu .* safciv. as the railing itself is not sUbIc. <br />Mabusih noted that that no impact on ncighbonng view s would be caused by the replacement. <br />There were no pubiK commenu. <br />Fni/lcf asked if the lower screening would remain and what materials the deck would be made of. <br />A representative from Home Depot, explained that the lower screening would remain and the upper deck <br />would be a rail craft system with metal and glass panels. <br />PAGE 7 of 29
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.