My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-15-1986 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1986
>
09-15-1986 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/18/2024 10:03:02 AM
Creation date
1/18/2024 9:57:52 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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
:io <br />Zoning File #1075 <br />September 10, 1986 <br />Page 2 <br />Applicant requests after-the-fact approval of this new deck, and <br />requests approval to construct an additional 3*xl6* catwalk to <br />connect the porch balcony and the bedroom balcony. <br />Discussion: <br />Perhaps the initial issue to review is the status of the pond on <br />this property. The pond was dredged out some time prior to 1960 but <br />does not show up on plat maps as part of Lake Minnetonka. It is <br />definitely connected to Lake Minnetonka and was issued a Conditional <br />Use Permit for dredging and rip-rapping in January 1986. Staff feels <br />that this pond definitely is subject to the 75* setback requirements <br />for lakeshore property. <br />Based on this, about 3/4 of this lot, including most of the <br />house, is in the 0-75* setback zone. <br />It appears that the porch permit in 1982 should not have been <br />issued based on the 75* standard, however, it was issued. The matter <br />at hand is whether to allow the new 144 s.f. deck to remain and <br />whether to permit construction of the requested balcony. <br />The patio nets out to about 72 s,f. of new hardcover that was not <br />already in place, or an increase of about 2/10 of 1 percent. The <br />balcony is proposed to be 3*xl6* or 48 s.f., and is mostly under the <br />existing overhang, and with the rock beds along the perimeter of the <br />house, the balcony will have a very small impact in increasing the <br />hardcover.^ Is the professed ”need" for a fire excape route a <br />sufficient justification to grant the variance for the balcony? Is <br />there a demonstrated hardship that justifies granting after-the-fact <br />approval for the deck? <br />Staff Recommendation: <br />If either or both of the projects are approved, you should make <br />findings of hardship that justify the variances. If the deck is <br />®PP^®ved in full or in part. Planning Commission could recommend that <br />the contractor be double-feed as a penalty on the required permit for <br />whatever work is allowed. Note that there are extensive rock beds <br />along the perimeter of the house. These are underlain by plastic, and <br />staff would recommend that if any portion of the variances are <br />granted, that an equal or greater area of plastic in the 0-75* zone be <br />removed. <br />io <br />as
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.