Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE � <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 20,2007 � • <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> � (#07-3259 Lake Country Builders,Continued) <br /> proposing is,in part, a remodelirig project and also a rebuild, and that it is somewhat a matter of <br /> . semantics. � <br /> Jacobson stated in attempting to retain the exterior footprint,a sincere effort was made to reduce what <br /> was proposed before and that they did reduce the square footage of the house. Jacobson stated <br /> approximately 40 percent of the wood structure of the eYisting house would remain but that the <br /> � foundation is old and raises some issues. Jacobson indicated they have designed a portion of the <br /> residence to have a new foundation and a new mechanical room. <br /> 7acobson stated they are attempting to comply with the spirit and intent of the law. <br /> Kempf asked whether from Staff's perspective there is some possibility that the 75-foot setback was <br /> measured differently back then. <br /> Gaffron stated the shoreline probably has eroded and that it is also probable the setbacks were <br /> measured parallel to the lot lines and not to the lake. Gaffron stated the building inspector at that time <br /> � did accept the 75-foot setback. ' <br /> Rahn sta.ted if the applicants would like the pool to remain,they would need to construct a smaller <br /> home and that it is a matter of choices. Rahn stated it is not logical to leave the old foundation under <br /> the portion of the house that is noncompliant and to construct a new foundation under a different <br /> portion of the house. _ <br /> , Rahn sta.ted seldom has the Planning Commission allowed a developer to add on to the front�of the <br /> house that is noncompliant as well as increasing the height. , . . . <br /> ---- --�-------Jacobson stated a second�floor�s°be'ingadded-oirto=tha�area but=they°are--not=adding--out. — � . <br /> . Kempf sta.ted going up matters when there is an encroachment. <br /> Zullo stated regardless of whether this is a rebuilt or a remodeling project, additional structure within a <br /> setback is not appropriate. ' ' . <br /> Smolik stated the setback at its narrowest point is 18.6 feet and that there is a greater setback as it goes <br /> further back. Smolik stated they are attempting to honor the site lines of the neighbors. • <br /> Rahn stated the issues in his mind are the garage setback, the front setback, and the hardcover. <br /> � Kempf stated in order to have a large house and a swimming pool on Lake Minnetonka, a large lot is . <br /> necessary. Kempf stated he would like to see the house pulled further back. <br /> Winer noted this is the fourth time a proposal for this property has come before the Planning . <br /> Commissiori and that perhaps better direction should be given to the applicants. <br /> PAGE 17 <br />