My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-18-1998 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1998
>
05-18-1998 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2019 2:52:40 PM
Creation date
7/10/2019 2:52:39 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
,API• <br /> • ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MINUTES FOR MAY 18, 1998 <br /> (#8) #2366 PETER LANPHER, 1359 PARK DRIVE -VARIANCES - 8:27-8:48 P.M. <br /> The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. <br /> The applicant was present. <br /> Van Zomeren passed out pictures the applicant provided. Property is zoned LR-1B. Requested are <br /> variances for hardcover, average lakeshore setback and side yard setback to allow a pool, deck and <br /> shed that were damaged during a storm in 1997 and subsequently replaced without permits or <br /> variances to remain. The survey shows that the pool and deck exceed 1,000 square feet and it is <br /> therefore considered an oversized accessory structure. The shed needs to be 10 feet from the side <br /> property line. The existing garage is also an oversized accessory structure and should be 15 feet <br /> from property line. The pool and deck exceed 1,000 square feet and are required to be 30 feet from <br /> the side property line. <br /> Applicant is asking to keep the pool, deck and shed which require several variances for hardcover <br /> in the 75-250' setback, average lakeshore setback and side yard setback. <br /> • There is a separate issue with the location of retaining wall. However,the applicant provided a legal <br /> document from Hennepin County to staff The staff originally thought the wall may be on the <br /> neighbor's property and the applicant thought the survey was incorrect. Van Zomeren stated that <br /> staff could not recommend approval because they were built without permits or variances. Four <br /> years after the pool was originally constructed in 1972, the variance was requested after it was <br /> determined that it was built without permits. Storm damage is viewed as providing an opportunity <br /> for compliance. Applicant stated he moved in 1986, the house was built in 1968, and the pool was <br /> constructed in 1972. In 1976,when the garage was constructed,there would have been a hardcover <br /> issue. He is concerned that the 1976 survey is not the same as the 1998 survey. <br /> Applicant could move the shed on the other side,but there would be a drainage issues. Stoddard said <br /> he wants to be sympathetic,but has to look at the after-the-fact variance requests. It is common to <br /> ask for smaller deck,etc,when there is a hardcover issue. Smith asked how reconstruction occurred <br /> without a permit. Applicant said only the corner of the pool was destroyed, and the pool people <br /> thought panels could be replaced initially. Later it was discovered that more work was needed. <br /> Replacement parts are no longer available. Smith asked if no one thought to call the city and ask if <br /> permits were needed. Applicant said he thought there wasn't enough damage to require permits, and <br /> he was only replacing what had previously existed. The mortgage company decided there was 100% <br /> replacement cost. <br /> • 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.