My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-22-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
04-22-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 9:13:03 AM
Creation date
9/5/2023 9:11:27 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
179
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
(St i'.i K\ri April 1, 1996 <br />Minnetonka Office <br />19400 Highway T <br />Excelsior. MN 55331 <br />612/474-2525 <br />Fax 612/474-9583 <br />TO: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono <br />FM: Stuart Hoarn (470-2550) <br />RE: 4101 Highwood (revision for variances applicaticn) <br />On behalf of Eva Theobald, here is the revision for “"sjf <br />Planning Commision. Pursuant to direction provided by the commissioners <br />on January 16, we have: <br />1. Reduced "lot coverage by structures" from 1795 sf to 1492 sf, slightly <br />under (by 8 sf) the 1500 sf target set by the Commission. <br />2. Increased side setback and separationsproperties by (a) narrowing the house by one foot (from 25 to 24 ) and lb; <br />"mirror-reversing" the footprint. <br />- While these changes don't result in ideal 10' sepacks ” <br />pretty unrealistic on so narrow a lot -- improved separation from sur <br />rounding structures was achieved. <br />- Of particular concern to the Commission (as expressed 1/16/96), sep <br />aration between the proposed garage and the garage on the ° <br />the west was increased by an additional 3.5 feet (as a result of revers <br />ing the footprint of proposed home). <br />- The revised proposal increases the already generous lakefront setback <br />by an additional eleven feet. <br />- Note that separation from the new house to the east is 27 feet, seven <br />feet more than would be the case if both structures were the standard <br />current setback of 10' from the common property line. <br />3 Also herewith is a copy of the floor plan as revised. Elevations are <br />not included for the smaller floor plan footprint because the exterior ap- <br />pearance of the structure has been essentially retained only reversed and <br />downsized. <br />4. We hope you and the v.ommission agree that the revisions substantially <br />comply with the Commission's direction, and that the Commission will 9ive <br />favorable consideration at the April 15 session. If so, we also pfj <br />the application be put before the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City <br />Council. <br />Atch.: 1. Revised site plan <br />2. Revised floor plan (3 pp) <br />3. Commission recommenda <br />tions, notice, 1/17/96 <br />~rr.. .
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.