My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-20-2001 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2001
>
08-20-2001 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2023 2:32:08 PM
Creation date
2/22/2023 2:25:07 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.
/
324
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 />Monday, July 16,2001 <br />(#01*2697 Larr>' And Sharon Gchl, Continued) <br />The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. <br />Weinberger stated the application v\as for variaiwes to permit a tuo-stor> addition to the e.xisting <br />house, which includes a first level garage and second level above the garage for living space. The <br />addition would be 8* from the side property line where a 15 ’ setback is required because of a platted <br />City right-of-way (undeveloped) down to Lake Minnetonka. The standard interior lot line setback is <br />10’ in the l.R-IC district, lie noted that the property owners ha\e designed the project to meet the <br />hardcover requirements and will be removing an existing garage and the necessary driveway in front <br />of that garage. <br />Weinberger added that the Park Commission has been looking at the long-term use of the right-of- <br />ways to the lake, which are public land in the City. The City has had a policy that these right-of- <br />ways would not be vacated, with potential u-;?s including pedestrian access to the lake or <br />snowmobile access. 1 he Park Commission has not determined the future use for this particular <br />right-of-way. <br />Staff w ould recommend approving a 10* setback to the interior property line w here 15' is required. <br />The 8' setback encroaches into the standard setback because a corner of the house is located 8 ’ from <br />the property line. <br />Weinberger asked the Applicant and/or his builder to comment on the need to have an 8' setback <br />rather than I O' or 15'. <br />Hansen explained that he had been working with the Gehls for some time on various plans. The> <br />found the best solution was to demolish the existing garage and attach a new garage to the existing <br />house. Odd angles for the house would be created b\ maintaining a 10' setback since one corner of <br />the house is already located 8' from the property line. <br />Mrs. Gehl staled that the City-owned property between the two homes is a low point in the <br />neighborhood and becomes Hooded during heavy rains. She felt the City may not be able to put the <br />area to a good use because of the flooding conditions. She added that their current garage is only 4' <br />from the property line; therefore, the proposed addition improves the setback situation to 8'. 1 hey <br />have tried to work with the existing foyer and access to a three-car garage while saving a large tree. <br />Mr. Gehl stated they had tried to upgrade the existing garage but found it would be better to remove <br />it. He noted that his neighbor believed he >wned the 15' right-of-way and had been maintaining it. <br />He also pays additional insurance because the right-of-way is in the flood plain. The neighbors have <br />no objection to the proposed improvements. <br />There were no public comments. <br />Stoddard stated that he was pleased that the Applicants were improving the setback situation. He <br />asked if Gaffron had anv concerns about the Cilv's future use of the rieht-of-wav. <br />PAGE 9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.