08-21-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 17,2000 (#2600 BRIAN KERBER, Continued) Smith inquired why tire Applicant would like to construct a 2,400 square foot oversized accessory building as opposed to the 2,000 square foot building permitted under City Code. Kerber stated the need for the oversized structure is driven by the need to park a vehicle and trailer, which amounts to 56’, in the structure and to have Uvo feet in the front and back to allow someone to walk around it. Kerber stated he needs a minimum of 36’ wide, noting that a 60’ by 36’ building comes to 2,160 square feet, which is still over the maximum allowed by the Code. Kluth inquired why the Applicant could not reduce the size of the building to 33', which would bring the structure under the maximum allowed. Kerber stated he needs the width in order to store additional equipment and to allow a workshop within the structure. Kerber indicated his hydrosceder that he utilizes in his business is appro.ximatcly nine feet wide, and in order to allow ample room to back out of the pole bam, it is necessary to park the vehicle away from the side of the structure. Smith inquired if the existing garage could be utilized for his workshop and other equipment. Kerber stated the existing garage would be used for storage of vehicles, with the pole bam being used to store his work vehicle and trailer along with a workshop and other equipment. Nygard inquired how Hennepin County’s application for the sand/salt storage stmeture differs from this application. Weinberger stated the difference is the use of the property, noting the Hennepin County application was for highway maintenance and not residential use. Nygard questioned w hether Hennepin County w as expanding its use of the property w ith the new storage building. Weinberger indicated the City Council did not find that the new storage building would not necessarily constitute an increase in the use of the property since the number of deliveries was being reduced and the nighttime deliveries were being eliminated Nygard stated the comprehensive plan had designated the Hennepin County property as potentially becoming residential in the future. Nygard questioned whether the accessory building constructed on the Hennepin County property was larger than the principal structure on that lot. Weinberger stated the building proposed by Hennepin County was larger than what was permitted for the property, w ith the building being downsized somewliat in response to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission and City Council. Nygard commented in his view the City Council did not vote correct!)’ on that application, noting that he has a similar problem with this application. PAGE 14