02-25-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

b CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION FOR: Matthew A. & Kathleen M. DoIIifT Residence 2680 Pheasant Road, Orono, MN SS331 AppUcatloo # lAddeadninl DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST History die Current Situation ■ The applicant and his family have lived in the house on this property since June of 1998, having purchased the house from his parents who are the original builders of the house back in 19SI. It is a relatively decent sized parcel (nearly 33,000 SF), but relatively long and thin. The bouse is set back 134.3 feet from the high water mark and llOfeetfromihestreetsideproperty line, putting nearly all of the impervious surfaces on the prope^ within the 73' to 230’ setback zone. There are many impervious elements in this typical lakeshore home, and their sum total results in a hardcover percentage of 34.2% due to the narrowness of the lot (average lot width through the zone is only 106.2 ft). So even though the lot is 34,623 SF, the relatively modest house, driveway and turnaround, patios and decks, and retaining walls result in an impervious coverage ratio that is 9.2% above the 23% ordinance. The current house is oddly designed, which creates two major negatives impacts on the house [refer to Item A attached]. 1. The “H-shape" design is quite narrow in the middle, making the center living space a "bridge” between ends of the house. This makes the spaces somewhat dysfunctional, as they have a difficult time relating and socializing with each other from ends of the house. 2. The "H-shape" design creates a trough for surface water to gather, giving them an aimual water problem in the basement. The water travels downward towards the house from the street and gets caught between the garage extension on the north end and the bedroom extension on the southern end. Proposed Project The applicant has developed a design with the assistance of Lake Country Builders that will place an addition on the street side of the house between the two side extensions of the house, turning the "H-shape” into a “U-shape" [refer to Items B & C anached]. This will help solve the two major problems in the house (previously noted above). The 467 SF addition fills in the "trough” between ends of the house, allowing simple positive drainage to guide the surface waters around the sides and towards the backyard. With the added square footage, a new mudroom, entry and dining room can become a part of the narrow center section of the house. This will result in a much more social and functional house, [refer to Item B anached] With the wet basement issues solved, the oumers can improve the finishes in their lower level and make use of the family space there. In the area where the addition is proposed, an existing brick wall and brick patio exist To compensate for the additional hardcover, the applicant has proposed to remove the brick patio and wall, and 312 SF from the two lakeside impervious surfaces (a 113 SF dog run and 197 SF from the lower lake side patio) to maintain the current hardcover ratio where it is, at 34.2?a Please refer to the attacked hardcover spreadsheet as well as Item E attached. H.\RDSHlP/DESCRlPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Unique to the land in question The current house and property conditions already qualify as non-conforming [refer to hardcover table and Item D attached]. The hardcover ordinance is already exceeded in the 73’ to 230’ setback zone. This is due to, in large part as mentioned above, to the narrowness (106 foot width) of the lot. The lot tuns 386.6 feet along its northern border which is significantly unusual it relation to its width. With only 18,387 square feet in this zone, the 23% hardcover ordinance allows for only 4646 square feet for bouse, driveway and outdoor living spaces. Currently, the house and garage footprint account for 2391 SF and the modest driveway with turnaround is 2201 SF - these two items alone (4792 SF) put the zone in a 26% ratio, not including any of the existing sidewalks, retaining walls, decks and patios. It doesn’t seem reasonable that a '// • ZA • -• t • • ’•.i A'4wjArt