Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 <br />• (LMCD REPORT, Continued) <br />Moorse stated that the resolution supporting the water patrol program on Lake <br />Minnetonka had already been passed on the Consent Agenda. <br />McMillan stated the LMCD would continue to work with Hennepin County and would let <br />the Council know how it goes. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />None. <br />ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />3. #03 -2919 Kevin & Deborah Thompson, 90 Myrtlewood Road— Variances- <br />Resolution No. 5035 <br />Gaffron stated that the applicant was requesting: <br />1. A setback variance to construct a 996 s.f detached garage /pool house /storage building <br />• 23.1' from the side street lot line where a 50' setback is required; <br />2. Oversize accessory structure (OAS) variance to allow the new building to be attached <br />to the existing 848 s.f. detached garage via an 11' x 15' (165 s.f.) greenhouse, for a final <br />accessory structure size of 2009 s.f. where no accessory building larger than 1000 s.f. is <br />allowed on a lot of 0 -1.99 acres in area; <br />3. Setback variance to construct a 20' x 45' (900 s.f.) swimming pool 10' from the side <br />street lot line where a 50' setback is required; <br />4. CUP for plumbing in an accessory building. <br />0 <br />Gaffron stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the setback <br />variance ( #1), denial of the OAS, greenhouse ( #2) because it would create an accessory <br />structure over 2000 s.f. in size on a lot under 2- acres, approval of a variance to locate the <br />pool 15' (not the proposed 10') from the side street lot line because it is over 750 s.f. but <br />less than 1000 ( #3), and approval of a CUP to allow plumbing in the accessory building <br />( #4) subject to City code. They recommended requiring the applicant to establish and <br />maintain year -round vegetative screening along the south boundary to reduce the visual <br />impact of the proposed pool and building. <br />Staff wondered whether the 2 -acre standard was appropriate. Over the last five - six <br />years, they've received one application per year for plumbing in an accessory building, <br />about half for lots under 2- acres, and half over. The building inspections department <br />thought they should possibly discuss the importance of having a 2 -acre requirement in the <br />code. Staff recommended approval of the application with the exception of the <br />3of11 <br />