My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-21-2008 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2008
>
04-21-2008 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2012 8:30:54 AM
Creation date
7/27/2012 8:30:51 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
� • Item#09-CC Agenda-•OS/14/07 <br /> ' + � �. File#07-3259[Tota/Pages 41 J <br /> ��-J?�-�� ` <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION - <br /> Tuesday,February 20,2007 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. • <br /> appro�imately 40 percent of the wood structure of the existing house would remain but that the � <br /> fou»dation is old and raises some issues. Jacobson indicated they have designed a portion of the <br /> � residence to have a new foundatioil a�d a new mechanical room. � <br /> Jacobson stated they are attemptin�to comply with ti�e spirit and intent of the law. • <br /> Kempf asked whetl�er from Staff's perspective there is some possibility that the 75-foot setback was <br /> measured differently back tl�en. . � � . <br /> Gaffron stated the shore(ine probably has eroded and that it is also probable the setbacks were � <br /> ineasured parallel to the lot lines and not to the lake. Gaffi•on stated the building ii�spector at that time � � <br /> did accept tl�e 75-foot setbac[c. . � � <br /> Rahn stated if tlle applicants would like the pool to remain,they would need to construct a smatler • • <br /> - • home and that it is a matter of choices. Rahn stated it is noh 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 /> porEion of the house. . <br /> Rahn stated seldom has the Planning Commission allowed a developer to add on to the front of thc ' ' <br /> house that is noncompliant as well as iiicreasing the heiglrt. . <br /> .Jacobson stated a second floor is being added on to that area but they are not addiilg out. • � � <br /> � Ketnpf stated goin�up matters when there is an encroachment. . <br /> Zullo stated regardiess of�vhether tliis is a rebuilt or a remodelit�g project,additional structure within a � <br /> setback is not appropriate. <br /> Smolilc stated the setback at its narrowest poinl is 18:6 feet and that there is a greater setback as it goes <br /> further back. Smo]ik stated they are attempting to honor the site lines of the neijhbors. ' . <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 Lalce Minnetonka,a large lot is � <br /> necessary. Kempf stated he would like to see the house pulled further bacic. � . <br /> P:'�G� 21 � � , . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.