04/21/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

t , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#6 #03-2884 JOHN L. AND CHERYL A. FIEBELKORN, Continued) 2. hardcover within the 0 to 75' lakeshore setback zone: 593 s.f. (6.8%) where none is permitted; 3. hardcover within the 75' to 250' lakeshore setback zone: 6,449 s.f. (52.3%) where 3,085 s.f. (25%) is permitted; 4. an encroachment of 22' into the average lakeshore setback; and 5. lot coverage by structure of 3,225 s.f. (15.3%) where 3,157 s.f. (15%) is permitted. The existing deck is beyond repair and requires complete replacement. The deck is currently"u-shaped"and the applicants propose to fill in the "u" area and replace the rest exactly as it exists. Chaput gave a brief historical synopsis indicating that in the summer of 1988, the property owners constructed a pool, spa and pool equipment building in the 0-75' setback zone without City approval. In April 1989, the property owners applied for after-the-fact variances for hardcover on the 0-75' setback zone; average lakeshore setback; structural setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka; and a side setback variance for the pool equipment building. The requested variances were denied because a hardship could not be determined for additional hardcover within the setback zone. The owners were required to remove the pool and spa and fully restore the property. The pool equipment building was permitted to remain for the time being,pending an application for a lot line rearrangement. In June 1989,property owners were granted a lot line rearrangement(adding up to 20' in lot width from the property to the southeast) and an after-the-fact structure to structure variance to keep the pool equipment building where it was constructed on the southeast side of the house. Chaput pointed out that the survey with this application shows a portion of the driveway to be removed. However, the resolution does not reference any required hardcover removals and the driveway has not changed to date. Chaput continued, stating that in October, 2002, the property owners applied for a building permit to repair their existing lakeside deck. At the footing inspection, the Building Inspector determined that the deck could not be repaired due to excessive rotting. The property owners were informed that a new deck would require variance approval. The existing deck is located 68.3' from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka and it is proposed to be replaced in the same location. As it exists,the deck is "u-shaped"and the most lakeward protrusions are 68.3' from the OHWL. Chaput explained that although the applicants are requesting to remodel the existing deck to fill in the"u" area with deck, they do not propose to go any closer to the lake than what exists. Therefore, there is no change proposed for the setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The deck, located above a portion of the concrete patio, is attached to the house and supported by posts,placed 4"outside the concrete patio, on the ground. Therefore,the PAGE 14 of 40