Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 17,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron stated the property to the north is almost double the size,with a fairly large house,and the house <br /> to the immediate south is also larger than the applicants' proposed house. <br /> Gretchen Shaw,Applicant, stated at the time of the original submittal,they had not gotten the signatures <br /> of the adjacent neighbors. Shaw indicated they have subsequently obtained the signatures of those <br /> neighbors and that she would like to submit those at this time. Shaw stated the only suggestion they <br /> received was to improve the landscaping,which is something they intend to do. <br /> Shaw stated they have owned the home for approximately 20 years. It is currently a cottage or cabin <br /> structure and is quite limiting in use. Shaw stated they are planning to retire and that they hope to use it <br /> as a year-round home. Shaw stated in its current state,they could not do that. <br /> Lyle Shaw,Applicant, stated the house was constructed in the 1940s and is pretty limited. Shaw <br /> indicated one neighbor actually reviewed the plans in quite a bit of detail and suggested including a few <br /> windows. <br /> Jeff Gustafson, Stonewood, stated they are willing to relocate the house slightly to eliminate the side yard <br /> setback variance. Gustafson noted in Staff's report it says the property to the south was granted a <br /> variance for 20 percent structural coverage in 2006 and that they used that as a guide for what might be <br /> reasonable. <br /> The Planning Commission had no questions for the applicants. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. <br /> Lemke stated he agrees with Staff and that the house appears to fit in with the rest of the neighborhood. <br /> Lemke commented the current house is quite limiting. <br /> Thiesse pointed out if you take the square footage of the proposed garage and subtract it from the <br /> structural coverage,they would be at the current structural coverage on the lot. Thiesse stated it is the <br /> garage that is adding the structure to the property and that the applicants have a right to have a garage in <br /> Minnesota. Thiesse noted the hardcover is being driven by the turnaround,which is absolutely necessary <br /> given the road, and that narrowing up the driveway will not help the lake. <br /> Schwingler commented the proposed house improves the neighborhood. <br /> Leskinen stated she was thinking the same thing about the garage and that is what is driving the structural <br /> coverage. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the City keeps approving structural coverage variances rather than the lots becoming <br /> conforming as they rebuild,this whole neighborhood will be rubberstamped at five percent more <br /> structural coverage. Schoenzeit stated regardless of where a property is located,the City allows them a <br /> 1,500 square footprint,but that these applicants are getting 1,951 square feet over the 1,611 allotted based <br /> on their lot size.. <br /> Page 9 of 19 <br />