Laserfiche WebLink
.;v; <br />5*40'» . ' <br />% <br />(.\, <br />iiO ?d <br />j03.4?sJ^yit <br />_/»(39)^ <br />•.u <br />u\ <br />12 *. <br />3/ <br />•..* .*4 <br />\|'(118)^ <br />• 5 .•.*•’. <br />14/\2 <br />,‘"A’J.f.1 -nc <br />/ 10 e (j 7 6*Sk <br />/7, <br />Hardships <br />3770 Bayside Road, Orono <br />I am requesting variances so as to obtain a building permit to expand <br />the present 744 sq. ft. home located at 3770 Bayside Road. It is my <br />understanding that 15% of the square footage may be used for building <br />structure purposes. The allowable area for structure is 2358 sq.ft, based <br />on the surveyed total of 15717 sq. ft. My request would not exceed 1913 <br />sq.’ <br />The requests for variances arise because of this irregular, <br />triangular shaped lot and the location of the old home built only 4 ’ from <br />the north property line. This 1/2 acre lot Is configured so that it is <br />difficult to meet the present 2 acre standards. <br />I would like to propose two options for expansion to the existing <br />home. Option 1 would extend to the south and Option 2 to the east. Both <br />scenarios would have simillar floor plans and elevations as those <br />presented. <br />Option 1 almost satisfies the 30’ setback from the north by 2’. <br />However, by expanding this direction, two beautiful mature oak trees (2.5 ’ <br />diameter) would have to be removed. <br />Option 2, or east expansion would enable the trees to be saved but <br />this addition would follow the same line as the old house and not comply <br />within the 30’ setback. <br />Option 2 allows for a better factual finding hardcover area. <br />Option 2, as seen in the photograph would not restrict views from <br />the neighbor to the north. His floor plan Is such that all windows are <br />located on the east end of the residence. <br />Both options are not located in the 0 to 75’ area and both would <br />remain outside the 50’ setback from the north line of the highway <br />ea sement. <br />Both options would mean that the west boundary setback would <br />remain at 20 ’, however I have requested a variance for vacation of the <br />alley ( a 30’ wide strip to the west) and was told by Dennis Hill at <br />Hennepin County that this parcel would be attached to Lots 2 and 3. <br />Therefore, both options would met the west line requirements as well as <br />improve tne hardcover requirements. <br />My preference is for Option 2 as I would prefer to save the oaksand <br />it would be better for the hardcover requirements. <br />Thankyou.