04-22-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 8, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 12 Seals commented it is good to have a covenant, but the City does not have the best track record of managing these things. The risk is that the structure could be used as a second dwelling and that the City Council has to decide what the rules of engagement are on that. Walsh stated the covenant goes with the land and that the City has approved them in the past. Walsh indicated he is not aware of any that have not been granted. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve Application No. LA19-000010, Rehkamp Larson Architects on behalf of Alexander and Amy Ware, 2587 Kelley Avenue, granting of a Conditional Use Permit allowing a bathroom in the detached garage, and to require a 7.5-foot setback for the detached garage. Rehkamp asked whether they can maintain the nonconformance that currently exists. Johnson stated they can but that they are increasing the massing. Seals stated if they want to construct the exact same garage, that would be allowed. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 16. LA19-000011 JULIE LENSING, 3349 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct an 18’ x 18’ addition on the rear of the existing home resulting in a setback from the rear lot line of approximately 1.2 inches. The existing hardcover level is 42.9 percent. The proposed addition will be constructed over an existing patio so no new hardcover is proposed. Due to the change in the nature of the nonconforming hardcover, which is an expansion from non-building to building, a hardcover variance is required. The Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority is the property owner to the rear or south. Both Staff and the property owners have discussed this project with Jessica Galatz, the HCRRA representative. Ms. Galatz indicated that the applicant’s agreement to remove the shed encroachment and the applicant’s changes to the plans in response to Roger Peitso’s comments help to alleviate their concerns with the application. In addition, Ms. Galatz indicated that the proposed grading for the addition and future home maintenance can be accommodated through temporary access permits. The applicant did ask whether she could purchase some additional property but the HCRRA was not in favor of that. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their March meeting and voted 4 to 2 in favor of a motion to approve the requested variances. Staff does not support the variance reducing the rear yard setback from 7.4 feet to 0.1 feet. In Staff’s view, the burden of proof to present practical difficulties to support that level of variance has not been met. The City Council should discuss the application and then make a motion directing Staff to draft a resolution for approval or provide findings for a denial resolution to be reviewed and adopted at the April 22 meeting.