My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-18-2011 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
07-18-2011 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2012 4:04:37 PM
Creation date
8/15/2012 4:04:29 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
127
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
MfNUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 20,2011 <br /> � 6:30 o'clock p.m. � <br /> Curtis asked if the applicant is proposing to remove the roof from the east side of the house. <br /> Wotipka pointed out the location of the rood on the overhead. ' - <br /> Thiesse asked whether the vestibule would need to be put on a new foundation if it were to remain. <br /> Wotipka sta.ted it would need to be. <br /> Thiesse stated in his opinion a door on the north side of a house located in Minnesota requires a vestibule <br /> and it is a practical difficulty if there is not one. - <br /> Curtis stated Staff's proposal was to remove the east facing door and stair. <br /> Thiesse encouraged the applicant not to remove the vestibule in exchange for a set of stairs. <br /> Chair Schoenzeit opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. � <br /> Gene Hite,2475 Countryside Drive, sta.ted the house needs some fixing and they have been working on <br /> the plans with Linda Wotipka for approximately a half year. They did not receive the full <br /> recommendations of Staff until two days ago. Of the things that Staff is recommending denial,they will <br /> accept those with the exception of one item. <br /> Hite stated they are fine with the requirement of obtaining an engineer's opinion on the foundation. They <br /> have a very competent builder who has examined the interior and it is very probable the engineer will say <br /> the foundation will not need to be replaced. Hite stated they will agree to have the tests done prior to <br /> council review of this application. . <br /> Hite indicated they are also fine with relocating the shed to the back of the property. In the wintertime <br /> they will not need to access it very much. Hite noted there is a little encroachment of some pavers that <br /> . was unlrnown previously,which will be removed in the very near future. <br /> The issue comes down to the vestibule. The plan would be to change the design so that the vestibule is <br /> eliminated and the porch would be extended. There will be a door that opens on to the porch. Tt is <br /> possible to then construct two to three stairs at that point,which would give access to the east yard and <br /> would also completely eliminate the need for the vestibule. The roof would cover that area,which the <br /> applicant feels is adequate for the north side. Those revisions would bring the plan into conformance <br /> with Staff's recommendations. � <br /> Feuss asked what Staff's position is on that proposal. <br /> Curtis stated she believes she could agree with what the applicant is proposing but that she would like the <br /> Planning Commission to discuss the new encroachment of the stairway into the east yard. <br /> � Gene-Hite stated there"is no need for a landing since there is no structure there and that basically the <br /> decking underneath the covered porch would stop at the three stairs. ' <br /> Schoenzeit noted there is a lot of property to the east. <br /> Feuss asked if the required setback is 30 feet. <br /> Page <br /> 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.