Laserfiche WebLink
� 1VIINiJTES OF THE � <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMiVIISSION • <br /> Tuesday,February 20,2007 " <br /> � 6:00 o'clock p.m. � <br /> (#07-3262 Alexander Design Group, Continued) <br /> Rahn inquired what the new peak height would be. � � � <br /> Alexander indicated she is not sure. � <br /> � Rahn stated he understands the small building area but noted that basically everything is expanding in <br /> the 0-75 foot zone. <br /> • Kempf inquired whether the basement is seven feet high. . <br /> Alexander stated it is. � <br /> . � . <br /> Kempf inquired whether the addition would start from the existing cap. <br /> Alexander stated the basement would stay as is and that based on the City's code,she is not able to do <br /> i <br /> anything to adjust the grade around the basement. <br /> Kempf commented that,this is another instance where a new addition is being added onto an existing <br /> older foundation. � . <br /> Alexander stated they do have a letter from a structural engineer saying the foundation and basement <br /> are sound. ' <br /> Zullo stated she does not necessarily see a hardship to construct the additions to the house and that not <br /> every lot on Lake Minnetonka needs to be a buildable lot. . <br /> Q�exande�stated�_Becico_wns the_house on the_ ro e_ now and it cannot go to an empty lot. <br /> . Zullo sta.ted a house already exists and does not need to change. . � <br /> Gaffron stated the house can remain as is. Gaffron noted all the changes being proposed are in a <br /> nonconfornung location. � � <br /> � Kempf stated he is of the opinion that within boundaries the lot is a hardship lot and that a person does ' <br /> � have the right to improve their property to some degree and not just have it remain the same. . . <br /> Curtis suggested the Planning Commission discuss the merits of applying the wetland buffer <br /> requirement to mitigate what might potentially be seen as negative impacts_from the existing structure <br /> and the proposed additions. Curtis stated the applicant is not increasing the hardcover but questioned <br /> � whether there should be some consideration of the runoff into the wetland. � <br /> Gaf&on stated the proposed work on the property does not trigger the creation of a wetland buffer,but <br /> _ since there are a variety of variances being requested as part of this application,there is a c�uestion <br /> whether some buffer requirement should be included to mitigate the runoff into the wetland. <br /> PAGE 22 • <br />