My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
03-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2012 4:41:09 PM
Creation date
6/19/2012 4:40:41 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.
/
529
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
( <br /> 1 4 � . ' ���� . <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION . <br /> Tuesd�y,February 20,2007 <br /> 6:00 o'ctock p.m. <br /> approaimately 40 �ercent of the wood structure of the eaisting house would remain but thlt the <br /> foundation is old and raises some issues. Jacobson indicated they have designed a portion of the <br /> residence to have a new fo�mdatioii and a new mechanical coom. <br /> Jacobson stated they are aitempting fio conrply with the spirit and iirtent 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 shoreliiie 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 stated if the applicants would like the pool to remain,they would need to construct a smaller • <br /> l�ome and that it is a matter of choices. Ralul stated it is not.logical to leave the old foundation under <br /> the portiou of the house that is noncompliant and to construct a new foundation under a different <br /> portion of the house. <br /> Rahn stated 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 is being added on to that area but they are not adding out. <br /> Kempf stated going up �natters when there is an encroachment. <br /> Zullo stated regardless of whether this is a rebuilt or a remodeling pcoject, additional structure within a <br /> setback is not appropriate. <br /> Sinolik stated the setback at its natrowest 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 tlle site lines oftile tieighbors. <br /> Rahn stated the issues in his mind are the�arage setback,the fi•ont setback, and the hardcover. <br /> � Kempf stated in order to have a large house and a swimming pool on Lake Minnetottka, a.large lot is <br /> necessaty. Kempf stated he would like to see the house pulled fi�rther back. <br /> PAGE 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.