My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2019 2:23:27 PM
Creation date
8/25/2016 9:13:01 AM
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.
/
356
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 /> Tuesday,January 19,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the variances they are asking for as it relates to lot width and lot size are typically <br /> granted and that in his view the proposed house is very in character for the area. <br /> Landgraver stated it will be a big change for the people who live near this lot. <br /> Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission has any particular concerns with hauling the 2,000 cubic <br /> yards of dirt. <br /> Thiesse stated if you look at the contours,the grade would be fairly consistent and relatively flat to the <br /> house with a swale up the sides. <br /> Gustafson stated the swale would be walkable and mowable. <br /> Landgraver commented they do not want all the water to run straight across the road and into the lake. <br /> Landgraver stated Staffls recommendation regarding vegetation should also be accompanied by some <br /> type of lift or rain garden. <br /> Gustafson indicated they would be open to that. <br /> Leskinen stated in one e-mail someone likened the proposed fence to a cemetery. Leskinen stated she is <br /> not too gung-ho about the fence being all the way around the perimeter and that she likes the earlier <br /> compromise suggested. Leskinen stated she understands the need for the fence but that she likes the idea <br /> of staggering it and moving it further in. <br /> Lemke stated it could also be broken up with some indentations and plantings. Lemke stated in his view <br /> the impact of the fence could be minimized with some creative design. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if the City has any maximum lengths far fences. Schoenzeit stated he is not <br /> comfortable with a 6-foot fence around the whole perimeter. Schoenzeit stated in his view the fact that <br /> the lot has been vacant for so long goes against allowing a 6-foot fence around the entire perimeter. <br /> Landgraver noted the property is going from a see through lot to a two-story house and a fence and that <br /> the applicant should be somewhat responsive to the neighbors. <br /> Gustafson stated there is definite flexibility with the fence. <br /> Leskinen asked if anyone is uncomfortable with the lot area, lot width, and side street setback variances. <br /> It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that those variances should be approved. <br /> Landgraver indicated he is okay with the conditional use permit simply because the lot is so far back from <br /> the lake and Staffls recommendation for the shielding. <br /> Schoenzeit stated the purpose is to push the house further into the ground, which is a positive. Schoenzeit <br /> noted the intent of the developer is to get the excavation work done in less than a week. <br /> Thiesse recommended best storm water and erosion practices be added as a condition. <br /> Page 23 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.