10-16-1995 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1995 (#10 - #2074 John and Kristen Gehring - Continued) Schroeder noted that the lot coverage is at 15% now. He is concerned with intensification of the structures on the property. Schroeder said the applicant may wish to consider moving the structures back on the lot and noted that the 3-car garage is limiting the applicant for any future building. Schroeder commented that many people feel a 2-car garage is a right in Minnesota but was not convinced that a 3-car garage was the standard. Berg commented that a 3-car garage was becoming the normal size for a garage. The applicant responded that the size difference between a 2-car and a 3-car garage is minimal. Hawn noted that keeping utility vehicles within a garage is a good idea. Peterson asked for the Commission to look at the application in two parts with the first issue being the retaining wall. Tom Palm, owner of the property to the north of the applicant, commented that the temporary pipe used to alleviate pooling of water was 4’* in size. A ditch was dug which moved the water toward the larger swale. It was determined that there were no problems with this solution as the pipe was found to handle a 6” rain with no standing water. Palm saw no problem with recreating the pipe as a permanent solution. He noted it was to his benefit to see that the water has a place to go. Lindquist said he had no problem with the retaining wall. He did note that ice will eventually take the wall out, which would not occur if rip rap was used. Peterson noted that the Engineer did say it was only a temporary solution. The applicant commented that a neighboring property has a similar wall, which has lasted for the past 5 years with no problem. He noted maintenance may be required and is all right with that. Lindquist asked how far bacK the wall would be built. Mabusth said there is a natural sand beach, and the wall would be 6' from the normal shoreline. Schroeder asked if it should be a concern with the Planning Commissioners if the solution was not permanent if the applicant was in favor of the proposal. Peterson said the area could be left natural. He understood that while the wall works for the neighbor, the Planning Commission needs to rely on the expertise of the City Engineer. He commented that the wall could cause further problems but was not tioubled with the installation of the wall. Schroeder noted that the applicant has an incentive to keep the wall in good repair to save the beach area.