Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor Grabek fc Orono Cou*'*cil Members <br />City Administrator Bernhaiison <br />MSTlii <br />0t933 <br />an OF Mi <br />Proas <br />Dates <br />Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator <br />July 5, 1989 <br />Subject: #1415 Robert fr Cheryl Humphrey, <br />669 Minnetonka Highland Lane - Variance - ResoJution <br />Soning District - LR-IB, 1 acre, sewered <br />Application - Request for hardcover and average lakeshore setback <br />variances to construct pool and decking. <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Planning Commission Action Notice of 6/22/89 <br />Exhibit B - Proposed Resolution <br />Exhibit C - Memo 6 Exhibits of 6/16/89 <br />Discussion * <br />Applicants are proposing to replace the existing deck on the <br />lake side of their house, construct an additional area of deck <br />adjacent to it, and in the future (perhaps a few years down the <br />road), construct a swimming pool in the lakeshore yard. <br />Applicants request a hardcover variance and an average lake <br />setback variance. Planning Commission reviewed this item at <br />their June 19th meeting, and recommended approval of the average <br />setback variance finding that neither adjacent residents will <br />have lake views encroached upon by the proposed decks. <br />Furthermore, Planning Commission recommended approval for a <br />variance to allow the existing 37.11 hardcover to contii^ue, with <br />the condition that the proposed deck addition be subject to <br />removal of equivalent amounts of hardcover to result in no <br />increase above 37.1%. There is substantial area of rock beds <br />with plastic that can be removed to accomplish this. <br />Applicant noted that the pool drawings submitted were likely <br />not the final pool layout, and applicant was proposing merely to <br />make Planning Commission aware of his long-term plan for <br />development of the property. Appl:|^ant noted it may be a number <br />of years before the pool is conirtructed, and applican : was <br />advised that the variance would i^pire after one year. The <br />Planning Commission then specifically excluded the future pool <br />from this variance request, finding that it was not thr 'inal <br />plan and therefore not a verifiable proposal at this poin*-. In <br />effect, the Planning Commmission was not willing to g^.ant <br />approval for variances for the pool without knowing exactly what <br />would be the final product. The property owner would have to <br />apply for another variance at the time the pool is actually <br />proposed to be constructed, providing final plans and layout.