My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-16-1993 Planning PacketC
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1993
>
08-16-1993 Planning PacketC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/1/2023 12:12:20 PM
Creation date
11/1/2023 12:06:55 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
201
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
WHAT ELSE HAVE WE DONE TO MEET THE <br />REQUIREMENTS? <br />1. NO DECK. After many meetings with architects (Mulfinger & <br />Susanka) and our builder (James W. Bruce), we have realized that <br />there is no way to incorporate a deck mto the front (lake side) of <br />the home. We love sitting on a deck, and entertaining on a deck-- <br />as we do now at our little lake home on Noith Arm—but designing a <br />deck at the front of the home, and trying to keep it out of the lake <br />setback, pushes the house way too far back, and escalates the <br />amount of hardcover to levels 1 doubt we would get ap^ roved. So. <br />no deck. <br />2. NO ATTACHED GARAGE. We have alv --ys had attacheo <br />garages, which are the most desired in nicer homes. Homes in the <br />price range weTl wind up in often have big three-car attached <br />garages. But several of the models the architects built showed us <br />that an attached two-car garage would keep the new house almost <br />in the same footprint that the existing home now occupies -very <br />much into the It^e setback. Also, even a modest garage starts to <br />get buried into the hill and requires the cutting down of too many <br />trees. <br />Although our architect, builder, and Realtor a]] pointed out that <br />tuck-under garages tend to slightly diminish the value of nicer <br />homes, any^ing but a tuck-under garage on this particular lot is <br />pretty rough on lake setback and hardcover requirements. <br />In an attempt to request as little variance as possible, we have <br />agreed with the architect’s conclusion that w’e need to stick the <br />garage under the house. <br />3. Finally, w-e don’t v/ant to build one of the big. impressive “ego- <br />homes" that seeni to be popping up all over Lake Minnetonka, even <br />on small lots. My wife and I have no children, and we can be <br />happy with most of the building size restrictions tliat this lot <br />presents, especially with the little hill being such an obvious <br />amenity to preserve, and »:ot dig into. <br />We have designed a small, compact, efiicient. two-story home <br />which minimizes lot coverage the best we can. I would imagine <br />that virtually any other buyer of this lot would be trying to build a <br />much larger home, and would be coming to Orono for much <br />greater variances, than what we are asking lor. <br />Tliank you for your consideration of our request.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.