Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />November 21, 2022 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 11 of 13 <br /> <br />Libby thinks whatever could be done here needs to be done and not on the lakeshore side as they need to <br />maintain that setback for the lake and not set precedence. He does not think they can do much to extend <br />and exacerbate an encroachment into the setback. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. <br /> <br />John Daly, Revision LLC, 153 East Lake Street, has been working with the Applicants on the project. He <br />understands this is a complex and unique house. If they asked to add a main floor addition into the yard it <br />would have come with a major hardcover request. The current home is small with only one level and by <br />adding the addition over the existing space, they tried to focus on the impact for neighboring properties <br />over the middle of the home. The intent is to protect the hardcover, work within the existing structure, and <br />be mindful of the impact on neighboring properties. They felt tearing down the house and moving it back <br />would have been more disruptive and felt this is a great candidate to remodel. Mr. Daly noted they are <br />trying to solve many challenges to make it a nice family home. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. <br /> <br />Kraemer thinks it is a thoughtful design and likes that they are not tearing it down but are keeping the <br />structure that the Applicants have a love for. Kraemer stated if they deny and the Applicant tears it down <br />and brings the structure out of the 75 foot there will probably be more hardcover than the proposed plan. <br />He also likes that they are willing to clean up the shoreline and remove the patios. <br /> <br />Chair McCutcheon noted the Commission has actually gone up on these; however when it is inside the <br />ALS, they have never done it before and that is his sticking point. Because they are already over on <br />hardcover, they could really only add structure over the driveway footprint. <br /> <br />Ressler thinks in the past the Commission has established adding massing within the 75 foot or ALS of <br />existing dwellings. They do not like it, the closer to the lakeshore the harder it is to approve which is why <br />many boathouses go away and there is a hard line on adding massing for boathouses. Although they do <br />not want to tear it down, if they did it would improve hardcover due to a shorter driveway. <br /> <br />Mr. Eskuche noted Minnetonka has an ordinance that allows conforming to the building height as long as <br />it does not encroach more. He asked if that is what the Commissioners are saying would have been okay. <br /> <br />Ressler replied the Commission has approved other homes that have gone up in massing within the <br />lakeshore setback as opposed to adding additions of structure in the setback. <br /> <br />Curtis clarified the Applicant is essentially going up over existing with the 3-4 small additions. <br /> <br />Mr. Ekuche noted there is one section forward of the house and in eliminating that, would they get <br />approval? <br /> <br />Ressler replied if they are not adding structure within the setback, the Commission would have a more <br />favorable view but deferred to Staff. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the new footprint proposed is the little chimney next to the deck and the area noted onscreen. <br />The project is going up over existing with the exception of the portion over the garage. <br />