03-18-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Review of Hardcover Following a review of the approved site plan versus the actual development of the property revealed one issue. The approved site plan (Exhibit E) indicates a lakeside deck that runs approximately '/i the length of the house next to a dog run. The current site plan (Exhibit C) shows the dog run has been removed and replaced with a deck. It is unclear when the deck was actually constructed since a building permit was never applied for. The existing condition of the deck suggests the replacement was done some time ago. Staff did review air photos of the property, but there was no way to conclude when the deck was built. In 1992 the City of Orono adopted the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The Shoreland Management Ordinance incorporated the hardcover regulations that have existed since 1975. The Comprehensive Plan (CMP Pg. 3A-27 and reflected in Municipal Code Section 10.56) states the specific intent of the Shoreland Management Ordinance is: A Protect the water quality of Lake Minnetonka and other lakes within the City by allowing development of uses in the shoreland areas which are compatible with the goals and policies of this Community Management Plan. B Provide appropriate standards for development which will minimize the impacts of shoreland development on the water quality and the economic, aesthetic, and natural environment values of Orono's lakes. One of the primary ways the City has encouraged development that is consistent w ith the policies and goals of the shoreland overlay district (All land within 1000 feet of the lakeshore) is to limit the amount of hardcover. Second Driveway Access Section 6.05 of the Municipal Code requires a permit to be issued by the Public Works Director for additional access to the property. The site plan shows the new driveway arrangement w ith a second access to Partenwood Road. ITie request to allow a second access was not approved. 1 he position the City had taken to not approve the second access was ba.sed on minimizing the amount of accesses to the road. Section 6.05 does not limit the amount of driveway access to public road, however the City has had a policy to allow only one access per property. Primary Issues 1 . The 1985 re.soIution approving the garage addition on the property required a portion of the existing driveway to be removed. The driveway was removed in 1986 when the addition was complete. The resolution also stated any future additions of hardcover may be approved only w ith further concurrent removals of existing hardcover. 2. The decision to not permit a second access to Partenw ood Road is a decision of the Public Works Director. The only option for the property owners is to request in writing an appeal of an administrative decision to the Council. Concurrent review of the variance request and appeal should be done before the Council, following review of the hardcover variance by the Planning Commission.