Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL <br />UAR 13 ' <br />CITY OF ORONO <br />/O <br />Zoning File #1378 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />March 9, 1989 <br />Additional Coaaents a Planning CoHiiaaion Reco*endation <br />List of Additional Rzhibita ^ <br />Exhibit J - Planning Commission Minutes 2/21/89 <br />- Amended Survey <br />- Existing Floor Plan <br />- proposed Floor Plan <br />- Ostrom Letter of March €, 1989 <br />Exhibit K <br />Exhibit L <br />Exhibit M <br />Exhibit N <br />iSweStU thS^threxhibits submitted with the epEllcatlon did not support <br />Major concern centered around the fact that the floor pl*"* <br />submitted for the review did not demonstrate the hardship expressed by <br />applicant. Planning Commission found it difficult to understand applicants <br />claim that the spirit of the "Minnesota Farm Character" architecture would <br />be destroyed with an addition placed on the east or south side of the <br />residence. Please review the additional submittals Exhibit K - N <br />Council review. Mr. Ostrom, applicants contractor has submitted amende <br />survey with revised floor plan showing existing and proposed room locations <br />on -'ach of the floor plan exhibits. Mr. Ostrom denotes the hardships <br />involved with placing additions to the norths south and east. <br />Mr. Ostrom*8 letter (Exhibit H) notes the following hardships: <br />Expansion to the north (County Road 6). ^ w <br />a) Proposed floor plan would not relate to the Kitchen <br />expansion on the north side of the house. <br />b) Nearness to County Road. <br />c) Loss of trees (refer to Exhibit K). <br />1. <br />2.Most <br />d) Location of sej^tic system review Exhibit J. <br />Expansion to the east. <br />a) Negative impact on dominate elevation of house, <br />visible side of the housa when approaching from drive. <br />b) Addition would make existing dining room area an interior <br />room with no natural lighting - no views or windows. <br />c) The porch structure would be lost if expanded on the east.