My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-22-2011 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2011
>
08-22-2011 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2015 10:51:18 AM
Creation date
4/8/2015 10:47:24 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.
/
211
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, August 8, 2011 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 11 of 21 <br /> <br />PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT <br /> <br />*4. #11-3510 CASEY HANKINSON ON BEHALF OF RYAN COMPANIES US, INC., 2725 <br />WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESOLUTION NO. 6062 <br /> <br />Rahn moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6062, a Resolution Granting a <br />Conditional Use Permit Pursuant to Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-823(1) for the property <br />located at 2725 Wayzata Boulevard West. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. <br /> <br />5. #11-3514 BRIAN PETERS, 1978 SHADYWOOD ROAD – VARIANCES – RESOLUTION <br />NO. 6063 <br /> <br />Curtis stated the applicant is requesting structural coverage, hardcover and setback variances in order to <br />replace the existing 18’ x 22’ garage with a more functional, larger 24’ x 24’ garage. Within the 0-75’ <br />zone 21.1 percent hardcover exists after the removal of landscape areas. The applicant is not proposing <br />changes to this zone. The applicant is requesting a variance within the 75-250 foot zone to allow 47 <br />percent hardcover where 57.9 percent currently exists; a structural coverage variance to allow an increase <br />of 141 square feet resulting in 17.3 percent structural coverage where 16.3 currently exists; and a rear <br />setback variance to allow a 9.7 foot setback where a 10 foot setback is required. <br /> <br />At the time of Staff and Planning Commission review, the applicant’s survey contained some inaccurate <br />information regarding hardcover, existing conditions and proposed changes. The major discrepancies <br />were regarding landscape areas that had been previously removed yet the survey did not reflect the <br />removals. The Planning Commission reviewed the application based on the information contained within <br />the Staff report and packet and received clarification from the applicant during the meeting. <br /> <br />Based on the clarification provided by the applicant, on July 18, 2011, the Planning Commission voted <br />6-0 to recommend approval of hardcover, setback and structural coverage variances to construct the <br />proposed garage, provided the applicant assured removal of the landscape areas from both zones. <br /> <br />The applicant has since submitted revised, corrected survey information reflecting the accurate hardcover <br />calculations. The actual hardcover numbers have changed slightly since those calculated during the <br />Planning Commission meeting. The 0-75 foot zone actually has 21.1 percent existing hardcover and the <br />75-250 foot zone actually is proposed to be reduced from 57.9 percent to 47 percent hardcover. <br />Staff recommends approval of the variances per the draft resolution. <br /> <br />Rahn stated he is surprised that this application is being recommended for approval when previous <br />Councils held the other garages in the neighborhood to a smaller size and that now the new standard is a <br />24' x 24’ garage. Rahn asked whether the Council is going to maintain uniformity or whether that is the <br />new size that the City is going to approve. The property is over in structural coverage. The Planning <br />Commission struggled with that issue. Rahn commented that the other two properties would have liked to <br />have larger garages and asked at what point the City Council should require the applicant to make <br />adjustments to the size. <br /> <br />Franchot asked if it makes any difference that this lot is quite a bit bigger than the two other lots. <br /> <br />Rahn stated in his view you have more practical difficulty or hardship with a smaller lot. Rahn stated the <br />issue is about being in compliance with structural coverage. <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 08/22/2011 <br />Approved Council Meeting Minutes 08/08/2011 <br />[Page 11 of 21]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.