My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
LA18-000076 (1725 Bohns Pt Rd) Ex C Draft PC Min
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Bohns Point Road
>
1725 Bohns Point Road - 16-117-23-22-0007
>
Land Use
>
LA18-000076, VAR
>
CC100818
>
LA18-000076 (1725 Bohns Pt Rd) Ex C Draft PC Min
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2026 1:56:07 PM
Creation date
3/5/2026 1:56:06 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, September 17, 2018 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br /> <br />Landgraver stated he usually is against massing on the lake, but that this structure is proposed to go <br />straight up instead of expanding the footprint. Given the slope and shielding, he would be comfortable <br />with it. <br /> <br />Libby asked if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has weighed in on this application. <br /> <br />Curtis noted they are above the floodplain. <br /> <br />Ressler stated his only other concern is if the City approves this, it likely will set a precedent for other <br />similar applications and that he is not in favor of it. <br /> <br />Thiesse stated in his view a precedent is not necessarily being set since each site is looked at individually. <br /> <br />Landgraver moved, Olson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000076, <br />Revision, LLC, 1725 Bohns Point Road, granting of variances. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 3, Lemke, <br />Erickson and Ressler opposed. <br /> <br />Erickson stated he is a little bit concerned with the proposal given that Item No. 12 says that the granting <br />of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. Staff notes that providing a <br />more comfortable viewing opportunity could be viewed as a convenience, which he tends to agree with <br />that. Obviously if the structure is failing, it is in everyone’s interests to improve it, but an expansion of <br />use beyond what was there could be considered not a practical difficulty but a convenience. <br /> <br />Thiesse noted it says merely serves as a convenience but that what the applicants are proposing is more <br />than that. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.