My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-22-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
01-22-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 3:32:38 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 3:30:36 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.
/
236
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
- <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COM\HSSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2001 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />(#01-2722 Michael and Monica Brown, Continued) <br />Brown stated the fence is intended for privacy due to the amount of traffic on Minnetonka Avenue. <br />Smith inquired how many cars the parking area would be able to accommodate. <br />Brown stated he would have the ability to park three cars outside. <br />Mabusth noted the current fence is located 25 feet off the right-of-way. Mabusth inquired how close <br />the new fence would be located to the property line. <br />Weinberger stated it is his understanding the fence would be constructed 15 feet off the right-of-way, <br />which would be 27 feet from the p^ved roadway. <br />Smith inquired why the garage could not be moved closer to the house. <br />Brown stated there is a larger Cottonwood tree that is not depicted on the drawing that essentially <br />covers the entire yard. <br />Weinberger stated the Applicant is proposing to maintain the pine tree. Tliat would prohibit moving <br />the garage to the north. Mo\ ing the garage to the east may impact the cottonwood. <br />Hawn commented in her view this plan is an improvement over the previous plan submitted by the <br />Applicant. <br />Smith stated she is not fully supportive of a six-foot fence. <br />Lindquist stated he is willing to support this current proposal, noting he does not have a problem w ith <br />the six-foot fence since this is a comer lot. <br />Stoddard stated he agrees with Lindquist. <br />Rahn stated if the garage were located fiv e feet closer to the street and is side-loading, a variance w ould <br />not be needed. <br />Weinberger stated if the garage were located five feet closer to the street, it would be closer to the street <br />than the principal building, and the garage w ould be located w ithin 50 feet of the property line. <br />Rahn stated he does not really understand the hardship here since the garage could be side loading. <br />Brown indicated all the garages in this neighborhood are front loading garages. <br />Hawn inquired why this garage could not be side loading. <br />Brown stated in his view the appearance of the garage would not look as nice if it were side loading. <br />Mabusth stated if the garage was located at the same 28-foot setback and the doors were turned, in her <br />opinion it would be encroaching into the right-of-way. <br />PAGE 3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.