09-19-2022 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

ID I be walking to our front door alongside a massive industrial-grade slab of a wall, instead of walking alongside a lawn, as we do now. The survey shows the existing house to have side setbacks of 4.8 feet to 6.2 feet from the westerly lot line. There have been drainage problems in the past between our house and the existing house due to tie very limited side setback of the 2815 house. We believe that any additional new construction must adhere to the existing Orono building codes to maintain proper drainage and fire safety concerns for close proximity of the two houses sharing the same lot line. We oppose the addition of the 3-car garage facing the street side of the house as it appears to consume nearly the entire width of the existing house. Thei proposed front door is shown to be "hidden" behind the garage with a concrete walkway along the side of the garage. This modification alludes to the appearance of a storage buildinlp, not a home. The view from the street is basically shown to be 3 garages. A 3-car garage added to a small house on a small lot does not conform to the look and character of the Casco P int neighborhood in which the majority of houses have 2-car garages with beautiful front ntry ways with porches and front doors highly visible from the street. Examples of lake-sid Casco Point Road homes with lovely front elevations that have been recently approved are: 262 ,2635, 2645, 2649, and 2745. None of these homes have the industrial look of a wall of garage doors facing the street. We oppose the request for a hardcover waiver to build a 3 ar garage and supporting driveway on such a small 0.28 acre lot per the Hennepin County rec rds. A three car garage is not a need, but a convenience, and there is no demonstrable reason w this lot should be granted an exception for a 3-car garage. The existing detached oversi ed 2 car garage has a large concrete • pad that has allowed 6 cars to be parked routinely in the g age and driveway (six drivers in the family). More can be squeezed in for family gatherings. his orientation has allowed for minimal on-street parking along this house and adjacent h uses. So adding a 3-car garage with a minimal, single car-width driveway would likely be a disc vantage by putting more parked cars on the narrow street. Deck Addition We oppose a variance to build any deck along the lake sid- of the house. We especially oppose a 14 ft x 30 ft deck across almost the entire length of the lake side of the house. This is an overly large deck that is not in character with the adjacent homes. We believe our backyard view would be consumed by this very large deck, and would limit our wiew of the lake. Also, the height of the proposed deck seems to be at an unusual elevation that would also serve as a porch cover over the existing basement door(see hardcover note), and he higher elevation above the natural elevation of the lawn would also hinder our lake view. W are also very concerned about the "quiet enjoyment" of our adjacent yard. Our neighbors are mostly quiet and out-of-sight because none of us have large deck "living space" and none of us p ay music outdoors. None of the drawings we have been given show this massive deck and t is only described as length x width in the hardcover spreadsheet. Hardcover The hardcover calculations spreadsheet dated 6-21-2022 indicates that the "wood landscape border" will be removed; however these are actually wood seams that are necessary due to the large elevation difference between our two lots. The midd'e of the subject yard on the lake side 411 is 961', and the lot to the west is 966'. This 5' elevation di`erence is partially taken up by the wooden border which is about 1'high. These wooden time-rs straddle the property line and the