Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutProject Packet7� CITY OF ORONO, MINNESNA c Conditional Use and Variance Applicatiowi!� i1 LOCATION OF PROPOSAL (or property) TYPE OF MQUEST Address-';/"c'� ® I Legal Description n, ;702,cGT .3, / t PJ7--A:).r /r 1j.1O%j�Cl ✓rrc X APPLICANT i Name ��/ A6 /f-'W-Lo,Al Al Phone N•i ., . .: Riprap Address jj _z !• t _ .y'..' /. �'.�:' �� 1 1t3 Name f,/..� N n?.✓-`. � - ,4� Phone N Conditional Use Variance Wetlands Variance Fee FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Counc i 1 Action Address .=3 L _5'C' .0jC�?���-} !Date Present Zoning =r ` ,,�� Present Use JApproved -- Zoning Ordinance Section Relating to Request !Denied Specify Ordinance Requirements [ I . / �- Explain Request Relative to Requirements r/ i i It MATERIAL NECESSARY FOR COWLE71; APPLICATION (Must be submitted 1 week prior to Council Meeting) 1. Application completed 4. Certified Property Owner's List of 2. Plat Map Section owners within (300 ft.) (150 ft.) - 3. Survey (Sketch in proposal) fmm Hennepin County Registrar of Deeds S . $ 30.00 Fee 1" Date ____._ _._ _., Signatu6z� Cs u Auguz t 2, 1977 3275 Catman Road Pt_ann.ing Commi66.icn City 06 O'cono Ohono, MN 55391 Genttemen: A6 Nei.ghbou o6 the H. N. Hanki.n6on.6, 3265 Cabman Road, we have no object.ion6 to bte-iJc .i.n6-tatting an undshgnound 6w.i,nini.ng pool within thnee (3) heet oh owe tot Cine. Veh ',t.ut y youu, H. A. H �zu � , F 3� �, 4�• 5 � 1 QV ov ` \\to L i Ll •�.. ' tar s ii;o� uj / 7 �' � •� 4� f �1 Q .� 7 O D G� r � L3r AN " rla r VE- w. ELMER J. PETERSON COUNTY SURVEYOR HENNEPIN COUNTY,WNN m TO: Planning Commission and Cotmcil i• '�% FROM: A. P. Olson, Asst. Zoning Administrator I]AIT: September 13, 1977 SIJRJI:CT: H. N. Ilankinson - 3265 Carman Road Variance - Side Setback Applicant requests a side setback variance for construction of a swimming pool 3 ft. from the property line (accessory structures require 10 ft. min. setback). The adjacent neighbor has indicated no objection. There has been no survey submitted to date so approval should be contingent upon a survey confirming a setback at least as large as required by Council action. S MT - Septemuer 30, 1977 (;upplernent from hank Munich, ZonimT VWnistrator. I waived the required survey on this proposal as T have clone on several other occasions to save tl;e applicant the high cast of a survey if the variance were den i ed . However, if the concept were approved, the absolute minim.m s,►tl)ack should be 3 ft. as dt•.,:rmincd by the State !suildin� Cole and the apnrov�il sliould be con- tingent upon the applicant submitting the necessary survey prior to obtaining a building permit. h survey would he regtiired to confirm the location and set- backs. We might also discuss the drainage of the pool to determine whether it will be directed to the lake or sanitary sewer. PLAMVING COMMISSION STING - October 3, 1977 Mr. Ilankinson was present. The Planning Commission was in favor of the concept on the basis that this is the only available location for the pool. The neighbor to the northeast has submitted a letter of no objection to this 3 ft. setback. Recommended approval conditioned on applicant submitting certified survey to confirm 3 ft. setback as shown on sketch. Hardship - lay of the land. COUNLIL 'AUTINr - ()ctober 11, 1977 Approved variance per Planning Commission recommendations noting the partiCulaT lay of the land and the existing fencing. ?!1` ir-S OF .A i'I.1.".'SINC, 097.11S4,;1(N 'f:E"11'; ; : •, ; ;'i' ".:.!: ti, 1)77 - 1'1I: 9 the applicant were to remove the overl:.-rn . ]-lie "orz i ng Q V I STI`41" '•1.�:K Administrator infon-ied the Corinission that Cie prolx,s(•d (coltimr-d) expansion should be limited to single F:viily - no sci_ond (r311) floor. After some discussion, (luthrie movrd, 11ai-itrrel scs'onrled, to recmwend approval with the that the structure does not include living qu;irtcrs. 'lotion - ,Ayes (7), Nays (0) . '•1r. 114uikinson was present. Ilic Z,.ening Miiinistrator 1!. i.nfoiTred the Cminission that the appl ic,-mt is rs:• 01f,!stinp, V16S C_VMlw ROAD a side sc6 ack variance for constriction of a swir. ping 1'Ul.kIcE - ST1E SF**Fhk(,K pool 3 feet froin the property line. This rtioulci 1v a (#312) variance of 7 ft. from the 10 ft. sic setllack ro itri rc- ' vent. The Zoning .Administrator uxPl.a ined that he !i ad r,aixed the required survey until the Plaaming rrvi-ission and Co.mcil could review the concept. A ]•:tt(•r frtKn t?:e VX affected neighbor, Hal laday, had been so'rroitted irn'6 A irtg no objection to the 3 ft. setback. Tliere is no otlier land available for this pool. llassel riovc-di Pharr seco:i,1#:4i, to :i, pioval of Vic request for a variance condi t icdacd on applicant ste1.A t t i!,,, certified survey confirming 3 ft. set`).16. is shown on sketch. %tion - Ayes (7), ':ays (0). T}ae Zoning .Arlrinistrator stated that the applicant is K .li.';S1;V requesting a variance to place a &t aclied garage on his I S20 `1 . "41 E ;XV ? 1F. property. The proposal shows a 10 ft. setback from the t'ARI X14 'E - I=W1: T (tom' tF..AR) east property line, IS ft. from the south property line SETRAC}: and 18 ft. from "irrnie :Avenue. 'tire Zoning Administrator nade the suggestion that the f.,•arage be rived another 2 ft. closer to the cast property line which waild allow for a 20 ft, setback from 'Minnie Avenue. Mr. Reinhardt, neighbor to the east, was present. He stated that he would have no objection to a S ft.'set`aack variance if the applicant i,ould c-1c<an zip the debris between the two limies. After reviewing the proposal, 11assel moved, I1urr seconded, to recormcn,I approval of the variance provided tire applica- tion is nodi-ied to move the structure no closer than 20 ft. from Minnie Avenue and the applicant o;)tain letters of no objection from the three adjacent hand ca.n.-rs :as to the location of the structure. `lot ion - -Wes (') , ':ays (0) . The Planning C(rriission tool, action on the fol lot•Inr, %,kirk session itc^t: The applicant is reou• s- t ins alypn_, al of s protK tad :111t II1 RF addition to the existing lharb:are• • tare in ':axarrr. V)o `;'.i�ari�.l_IM' ITT E A front and side yard setback vat'' trace is rr_•kIuired. I-V#W tiIT 1.1RI1 SI"I'7ACRS t' c• ,ra in £ P,. kh. `,, W:,1`t2 +t...01's Proposal ild_� lso mcuir a v�ar xc �ror^ , " �unorer cn ?toe e•xtt'�t o t'►e , ; c�,c ;. t REeWLAR MEETING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, OCTOBER 11, 1977 Page 11 Staff - September 30, 1977 - Hank Muhich The replacement of the existing garage is actually an expansion. The existing garage is 20.2 ft. X 22.1 ft. (446.42 sq. ft.). The proposed garage would be 26 ft. X 26 ft. 9 in. (695.5 sq. ft.) an expansion of approximately 250 sq. ft. fiost of this hardcover expansion, however, would be located beyond the 75 ft. lakesrore setback requirement. Planning Commission fleeting - October 3, 1977 Recommended approval subject to addition boing limited to single story garage only. Proposed addition not to be used for second residence on a single family lot. Justification: reduce hardcover within 75 ft. from lake, existing structure currently non- conforming, property is sewered. Council fleeting - October 11, 1977 Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to approve the variance request of Christine Beck, 3820 Cherry Avenue, per the Planning Commission meeting of October 3 1977. ?lotion, Ayes (3) - Clays (0) . fir. Alan Olson, Assistant Building & Zoning Administrator, entered into the record the following information concerning a variance request of H. N. Hankinson, 3265 Carman Road, dated September 13, 1977, which states: Applicant requests a side setback variance for construction of a swimming pool three feet from the property line (accessory structures require ten feet minimum setback) . The adjacent nf�icthbor has indicated no objection. There has been no survey submitted to date so approval should be contingent upon a survey confirming a setback at least as large as required by Council action. Staff - September 30, 1977 - Hank Muhich I waived the required survey on this proposal as I have done on several other occasions to save the applicant the high cost of a survey if the variance were denied. VARIANCE 3820 Chorry Avenue (Continued) VI/A/RIANCE 3265 Carman Road #312 H. N. Hankinson However, if the concept were approved, the absolute minimum setback should be three feat. as determined by the State Building Code and the approval should be contingent upon the applicant, std)mittinq the necessary survey prior to obtain►nq a hzai ldir;I i,-rmit. (Contlnued) , R)"AWIAR MEETING OF THE ORO'70 COUNCIL, OC'i'(7)BFR 11, 1977 r.j(.1e 12 A survey would be required to confirm the location and setbacks. lie might also discuss the drainage of the pool to determine whether it will be directed to the lake or sanitary sew(--!r. Planning Commission Meeting - October 3, i977 Mr. Hankinson was present. The Planning C0�r•Imi!3-;i,)n was in favor of the concept on the basis that this is the only available location for the pool. The neighbor to the nor. thc.ast has suhmi ttrd a ] t•t f or of no objection to this three foot set.l-tck. Recommended approval conditioned can applicant submitting certified survey to confirm three foot setback as shown on'sketch. Hardship: lay of the land. Council sleeting - October 11, 1977 Butler moved, Pesek seconded, to approve the variance request of H. N. Hankinson, 3265 Carman Road, per the Planning Corunission rt-cormen(Litic,ns of October 3, 1977. Motion, Ayes (3) - Plays (0). VARIAWE Q65 C-ii-m in Read (('(-,nt i need) Alan Olson, Assistant Building 6 Zoning Administrator, VARIANCE entered into the record the following information 1520 Minnie Avenue concerning a variance request of Mirk lt-n.sen, 1520 t313 Minnie Avenue, dated September 13, 1977, which states: Mark Jansen Applicant requests a setback variance to place a detached garage on his property. The lot depth is narrow precluding meeting both the 30 ft. front and 10 ft. rear setbacks. There is no other structure close to this proposed location on either adjoining lot. Consideration might he given to making the rear setback five ft-et which would allow a 23 ft. front setback thereby increasing the distance from the street. Staff - September 29, 1977 In looking at a copy of the plat map, it appears the south and east lot lines of the :;ubj«-ct propert are abutting side lot lin-s of the adjacent neighbors. My conclusion would be that a 10 ft. setback would be the requiremetnt IT-rfm both these lot lines. The street setb,jek requiif,- ment in a one acre :one is 35 ft. A garage which faces a street should be regvjirf�d to ri,iintain a minimum of 20 ft. from !-he st r--t i i,:ht t.,f w,ty in order to provide adequ.ite fir; .':ite p,irkinq distance to keep parked errs off the City right of %.iy. This would eliminate st t,(!et ma intt. nance lxrobl�,icis, 4,specialiy during snow plowing.