10-20-2003 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

il2-2iSt - 2*W C «»co Polflt Ro»d Oct«^ 17.2M3 PaicS 11. “The granting of the proposed varii-.cc will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." Graniing of the i-urunces \*i uld he in conflict utth the intent of the Zoning Code, the intent of u hich is that no nc.% structures be u//mm ed within "S' of the s horehne. and that existing non conforming strut :ure% escntually are removed by attrition 12. “The granting of such variance will rot merely sen e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.*' it is staff's opinion that granting of the after-the-fact variances moutd merely serve as a convenience to the applicant Issues for Cousideralioo 1. Would the Planning Commission hj\c recommended approval for the replacement of this deck had the application been made before the tact? 2. Does Planning Commission agree u iih staff that the 1992 photo provided by applicant casts doubt as to whether this deck was S' deep prior to its replacement? 3. The property has excessixe hardcover in both the 0-75* and 75-250* zones. Is there any hardcover on the site that should be considered for remoxal if the application is approved? The surveyor has identified 235 s f of landscape areas lined w ith plastic or fabric that arc not included in the hardcover calculations on p. 2 and would be subject to renioxal if the application is approved... 4. Applicant paid the after-the-fact fee for the variance application. If the variance is approved, should an after-the-fact building permit fee be paid? Applicant claims he was unaware that he needed a permit to replace an existing deck on the property... 5. Docs Planning Commission have ar.;. other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccor.imendalion Staff recommends denial of the application If this reconstruction had been applied for before-the- fact. the encroachment over the shoreline a.-.d within I foot of the side lot line would have been questioned and likely not approved, in staffs opinion The apparent expansion of the deck from a depth of 6* to 8* would certainly not have been approved. The faet that the approval process has cost the property owner more than the project is unfortunate, but should not be a factor in determining whether the approval is granted after-the-fact. Maintenance and or replacement of existing decks and lakeshore accessory* strueturcs is an ongoing issue along Orono’s 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline. The Planning Commission may wish to consider w hether the current policies and codes are appropriate, or w hether they need to berela.\ed or strengthened. If approval is granted. Planning Commission should address the excessive hardcox er on the property and make a recommendation as to removals An after the fact permit should be applied for so the building inspector can confirm the construction meets pertinent building codes.