Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> November 21,2022 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <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 /> Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. <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 /> Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. <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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> 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 /> Curtis clarified the Applicant is essentially going up over existing with the 3-4 small additions. <br /> Mr.Ekuche noted there is one section forward of the house and in eliminating that, would they get <br /> approval? <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 /> 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 /> Page 11 of 13 <br />