My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-21-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
11-21-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2018 11:27:46 AM
Creation date
3/13/2018 3:40:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
140
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 /> Monday,October 17,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse stated the duty of the Planning Commission is to answer the practical difficulty questions,and <br /> that one of the questions is whether it fits the neighborhood. <br /> Schoenzeit stated at 15 percent, it would still fit in with the neighborhood. <br /> Leskinen commented she would disagree with that. <br /> Schoenzeit stated when the next guy asks for a structural coverage variance,there is no way the City can <br /> hold him to 15 percent if they approve this one based on the rationale that it fits the neighborhood. <br /> Thiesse commented he agrees with that but that he is not going to vote on this one simply because the <br /> next application is requesting a structural coverage variance. Thiesse stated he believes this one fits in <br /> with the neighborhood. <br /> Leskinen noted the whole point of the variance is if it cannot meet the ordinance as it stands and the <br /> practical difficulties of this application are very clearly outlined. Leskinen stated by taking it on a case- <br /> by-case basis,that does not mean the Planning Commission is blowing off the 15 percent. Leskinen <br /> stated the Planning Commission has to deal with the merits of what is in front of them. <br /> Schoenzeit stated in the past the Planning Commission has encouraged the applicants to acquire more <br /> land if their lot is substandard and they want a bigger house. <br /> Leskinen stated the Planning Commission is not talking about that tonight. <br /> Schoenzeit commented the City loses credibility in enforcing it anywhere else. <br /> Thiesse stated the City has been trying to hold the 15 percent sacred for a long time but that the City has <br /> allowed the other numbers to go all over the map. <br /> Schoenzeit noted it is a clean sheet and it is way bigger than what would normally be allowed on this size <br /> of property. <br /> Thiesse commented a 1,000 square foot house on Lake Minnetonka does not cut it in this day and age. <br /> Schoenzeit noted it is 1,611 square feet. <br /> Thiesse stated the garage consists of the other structural coverage and that it is basically a 1,000 square <br /> foot house. <br /> Schoenzeit stated if the City is going to stop enforcing structural coverage, it should be discussed in a <br /> work session. <br /> Thiesse asked if hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances will also be discussed at the work <br /> session since they are also being requested tonight. <br /> Schoenzeit stated a structural coverage limit is a starting number. Schoenzeit commented the distance of <br /> the driveway from the street that naturally adds coverage to the house is fine if it is necessary,but that if <br /> one of the top numbers is no longer solid,then the Planning Commission should stop reviewing it. <br /> Page 11 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.