My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/17/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
01/17/2012 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2012 3:19:07 PM
Creation date
8/20/2012 3:19:05 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 17,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> The plans were modified through the course of several hearings in 2009 for a hypothetical buyer. Owens <br /> stated the findings made by the City Council in June 2009 all apply to the current application with one <br /> exception,which is that instead of a slight decrease in hardcover,they are requesting an increase in <br /> hardcover of 4.3 percentincrease. <br /> Owens stated four of the five variances that were granted in 2009 have not been changed or impacted by <br /> this request and the new applicants are not requesting that they be changed or modified in any way. The <br /> only real issue for consideration is the hardcover change and whether the requested change in hardcover is <br /> reasonable and whether it will alter the locale. Owens encouraged the Planning Commission to find that <br /> the increase is reasonable in part because of the nature of the locality. Owens stated when you have a <br /> piece of land that is surrounded by water on three sides and it is as substandard and nonconforming as this <br /> property is,as well as a new residence constructed on the adjoining property with an approved hardcover <br /> of 52.6 percent,the modest increase in hardcover being requested in this case is very reasonable. <br /> Owens noted no objections or concerns have been raised by neighbors or other Orono citizens. In <br /> addition,the dwelling and lot nonconformities and parcel configuration are so unique that approval of this <br /> request would not set any type of precedent. Owens noted that since the variances were approved in <br /> 2009,the standard for review and approval has been significantly lowered by the Minnesota Legislature <br /> with the passage of the practical difficulty standard. <br /> Dr. Truwit,Applicant, stated he has resided in Minnesota for 18 years and currently resides in Wayzata. <br /> Truwit indicated he is interested in relocating to Orono and that the previous applicant went to great <br /> lengths to design a plan for this property. Truwit commented that it is implausible for someone to have <br /> lakeshore property without egress to the lake. As a result,he went back to the minutes of the various <br /> meetings and the variances that were approved. At the time of the original approval,Mayor McMillan <br /> was the only council member who voted against it due to the massing close to the adjoining property, <br /> which is one of the reasons why they are proposing the massing of the house be relocated to the center of <br /> the property. <br /> In addition,there was a request that the patio at some point be replaced with a pervious element. Truwit <br /> stated it seemed logical to construct access to the lake and to construct a deck if the patio were replaced <br /> with a pervious patio. Truwit noted that according to the previous City Council,they felt the house <br /> should be elevated two and a half feet from the existing elevation,the garage elevated a foot and a half, <br /> and the driveway elevated a foot and a half as well. After carefully reviewing the plans and approved <br /> variances, it seems logical that you need egress to the back. Under the proposed improvements,the deck <br /> would be moved further away from the lake and would be constructed out of pervious materials. Truwit <br /> stated in his view these changes are in everyone's best interests. <br /> Truwit stated during his review of the variances,he noticed that while the driveway is partially under the <br /> appropriate level and it is recommended that it be elevated and corrected,the neighbor's driveway goes <br /> under water every spring when the lake melts. It is in the neighbor's best interests to have the driveway <br /> fixed, in the property owner's best interests, and in the City's best interests to have the driveway fixed. <br /> The previous plan called out for the driveway to be fixed. Truwit stated he has a concern with the <br /> previous plan that someone is going to back out of the garage, slid on the ice, and go over the retaining <br /> wall that was requested to be constructed. <br /> As a result of that safety concern,they are proposing two components to the driveway be changed to <br /> allow for a little bit of safety. If you slip on the ice,your back tires will go over the edge. Truwit stated <br /> Page <br /> 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.