Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: variance/minutes, memos, etc MLINMITES OF THE ORONO PL 1 'G C011riMIISSION MEETLITG HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (99-92048 James & Joann Jundt - Continued) Mabusth said the septic is non-conforming and it is being questione hat affect the apartment would have on the septic. Mabusth said it is a good id to ask for septic inspections_ Peterson agreed that the goal is not to allow the se p c to fail_ Crawford noted that this property was considered a hot spot for sewerinQ t one time, and the applicant has been dealing with this issue throughout all the plications. Schroeder added that the ity cannot allow more people reside on the property than the septic can handle. He is in vor of inspections; and if t system fails, Schroder said that would affect the conditional se perry it. The property has two separate s tic units, one for e main residence and one for the accessory structures. The septic is do not me e the separation requirements. Peterson commented that normal ins ons cur every two years. This property, according to Peterson, should be insp ed in re often. Schroder moved, Lindquist seconded, for proval of a studio within the oversized accessory structure, subject to conditions the CUP with inspections of existing relevant system every two months to show its ca b' in handling the increased usage. A charge will be incurred by the applicant for ext insp 'on time. Gaffron remarked that the earliest dat for seweri of the property would be the end of 1996. It is Staffs sense that the septic is not rennin out onto the ground, but noted the 3' separation is not met. It is possible hat the system y not be able to handle the usable wastes during this period of time. f this is found to be rue, the septic would need to be pumped out on a regular basis. There were no public comment Ayes 6, Nays 0. Mabusth commented on an sue with tree removal in the 0-75' zone for terproofing of a tunnel that was not appro ed by Staff. All of the earth around the tunnel was moved during the waterproofing rocess. Staff will ask for replanting of these trees. Crawford commented that the elms were deteriorated, and tree roots were extending into the tunnel. Part of the tunnel encroaches the 0-75' setback. An amended application will be coming before the Planning Commission on this issue and is not part of this application. (#10) #2049 FRED GUTTORMSON AND CHIC DWIGHT, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCES -PUBLIC BEARING - 9:25-9:48 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (910 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) The applicants were present. Gaffron reported the application was to replace an existing deck, along with the construction of a screened porch under the deck. A walkout area would also be excavated from what is now a split entry area. The existing deck is in poor condition. Replacement would be done of the total foundation as footings have been found to depths less than the frost line. This would all occur within the 0-75' setback area and require hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances. The residence is 42'from the lake, and the 8x24' deck would be located 34'from the lake. Drainage on the property comes from the mature trees toward the proposed screen porch area. It is questioned whether this could be flattened out, retaining walls about 1' in height be constructed, or ground cover established to aid the drainage. A letter from the DNR was read into the minutes recommending denial of the application based on the existing house being within 75' of the lake and proposed porch and deck increasing the nonconformity of the house. The porch and deck would also be within the 37.5' shore impact zone. Gafiron noted that the hardcover would be at 8.48%, resulting in a minimum increase in the hardcover from existing. It would, however, lend more permanency. Two buildings have been removed as well as an 8'gravel driveway located in the 0-75' zone, which has not been revegetated. New gravel has been placed for the loop driveway. The applicant said the property was overgrown and buildings were found to be deteriorated. There is a tank on the property but the reason for it is unknown. During clean up, the driveway to the lake was discovered. Two 20-yard dumpsters were used to remove debris from the yard and house. An outhouse sized building still exists by the lakeside. Peterson said the application has several issues. He felt the filling on the top dressing down to the lake should meet approval. The accessory structure to the south should be removed. It was felt the retaining walls would create problems and not solve any. The applicant said she has seeded three times and erosion has washed it out. It is so shaded that sod will not grow and thought a wall would help. It is the applicant's desire to keep the property natural. Peterson felt the sliding doors would meet his approval but found the deck and screened porch were issues needing discussion. I3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMIVIISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - 92049 Fred Guttormson& Chic Dwight -Continued) Lindquist asked why the deck and porch would be beyond the house. The applicant said there was surface hardcover there already. Lindquist said the desire of the Planning Commission is to remove as much hardcover in the 0-75'zone as possible. It was noted j that there is a lxb' patio extention leading from the patio doors. Lindquist said the deck could be replaced but the extension removed. The deck should not extend beyond the house. Gaffron asked the Commission if approval were given for the walkout, would this be setting a precedent by allowing a change to the grade. The applicant said her purpose was to gain light into the lower level of the home and modernize it. The applicant said it appears the grade was put in when the home was built j and not originally there. Peterson said he saw a problem with the bench by the dock and asked applicant if they would be willing to eliminate the accessory structure to gain the deck. The applicant said about 1000 s.f of hardcover has been removed and felt they were being sensitive to that issue. The applicant said the property was purchased in part because of the deck structure by the lake. Peterson said it would not be allowed today. The applicant said she would be willing to remove the shed by the lake. Lindquist asked if the deck could be 8' instead of 8'6". Schroeder said the structural coverage should not exceed the amount on the property as it exists now. He suggested the driveway extension and outhouse-size shed be removed as mediation for the deck. Any additional hardcover in the loop driveway that is unnecessary was also asked to be removed. The applicant said this was required to turnaround noting the inability to park on Tonkawa. Berg said she used the loop area in which to turn around. Peterson said the applicant should be concerned with the problems being created by beavers gnawing on the trees. Major erosion problems could occur in the future due to the loss of these trees. Peterson asked if the issue is altering the lakeshore if the grading is changed. Gaffron said it would be a conditional use but Staff saw no need for this to be done and would not recommend approval for this or boulder walls. a Smith asked what could be done to maintain the shoreline. Gaffron said the boulder wall would help erosion from coming to the house and rip-rap could be done to prevent shore erosion. A Watershed District permit could be obtained to rip rap. 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLN/IISSION MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1995 (#10 - #2049 Fred Guttormson & Chic Dwight - Continued) There were no public comments. Schroeder moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve replacement of the deck and screened porch in the existing footprint, not to exceed the footprint. Approval was recommended for the grade cut to allow a window or walkout door as proposed on the southeast side. No boulder walls would be allowed. Removal of the concrete slab on the east side, removal of the e.Yisting accessory structure to the south, removal of the old access boat ramp and resodding of same, and removal of the dock at the shoreline to include the bench-deck area were recommended. Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) #2050 WILLLICNI TOLES, 3165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 9:48-10:12 P.M. The Certificate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. The applicant was present. Gaffron reported the application is for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to construct a pool on the lake side of th roperty, which was purchased by the applicant in July of 1995. The pool would create a 1 average lakeshore encroachment but would have no visual impact. A net decrease in the h dcover would result in the 75-250' zone from 33.1% to 32.6%. Gaffron compared the application to a 1988 varianc approval, the hardcover square footage of which was allowed at that time, today, is n exceeded. There continues to be no hardcover in the 0-75' zone. The 75-250' zone was a proved in 1988 for 29.5%, but exists at 33.1%, and is proposed at 32.6%. The ."-50-500' one was approved in 1988 for 24.1%, exists in 1995 at 20.4% and proposes no change. The two surveys from 1988 and 1995 each use a slightly differ t base lot area for each zone. What Gaffron thinks happened is the driveway portion ova eliminated but rock beds that are in place were not looked at and the overhangs were li ed separately. The 1988 circular driveway has been changed with not as much loop and e garage addition built_ The applicant will take out the rock and plastic to be replaced wit hard surface. The 1390 s.f. of land in base area calculation change and 400 s_f of concr e patio would be in exchange for the pool. When the pool is built, there would be no hardc ver within 115' of the lake. In looking at the hardcover as a percentage of the entire lot, th re was 21.70'0 before, and as approved, in 1988, now existing at 22.1°%, and proposed at 21.8%. 15 P { iR s q& } fc r MAT z .. \\\ Hennepin County Map Server Page 1 of 1 Click on map to view information on adjoining properties Scroll down to see property address, value & tax info ZOON t P" i Last update:9/03/2004 at 1:00 PM READ IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER INFORMATION BELOW Property ID Approximate Approximate Property Perimeter Property Area 08-117-23-42-0001 2,169 ft. 126,446 sq.ft.=2.903 acres Property Address Market Value Total Tax (2004) 1220 TONKAWA RD $ 1,024,000 $ 6,817.14 ORONO, MN 55356 http://wwwl 9.co.hennepin.mn.us/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=Hennepin&cmd=Find&VALU... 9/15/2004 To: Chair Steve Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Tom: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Date: August 14, 1995 Subject: #2049 Fred Guttormson/Chic Dwight, 1220 Tonkawa Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B, One Acre Single Family Residential Application: Request for hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances to replace existing deck, construct a screen porch underneath it, excavate to create access for a proposed walkout door, and create some low boulder walls, all in the 0-75' setback zone. Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1/Section 10.55, Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C): Structures not allowed within 0-75' setback zone. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.55, Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (L): No hardcover allowed in 0-75' setback zone. 3. Section 10.55, Subd. 8/Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J): Grading, filling and excavating not allowed within 75' of the lake. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners' List D - Survey E - Hardcover Calculations F - Plans and Elevation Views G - Staff Sketch H - August 8, 1995 Memo from Bruce Vang I - Neighbor Acknowledgement Form Synopsis The applicants purchased this property in October, 1994. Since then they have replaced an existing sliding glass door on the walkout level below the existing deck, and now wish to do additional work, all of which is in the 0-75' setback zone. The proposal includes removal of the existing 8' x 24' deck and 4' x 6' stairway (216 s.f. total) and replace it with a 9' x 24' ground floor screen porch with 9' x 30' deck/stairway above it (270 s.f.). Zoning File #2049 August 14, 1995 Page 2 The existing house is 42' from the shoreline. The existing deck is 34' from the shoreline. The proposal would increase the bulk of physical structure encroachment in the 0-75' zone. In order to construct the screen porch, applicants will be excavating under the existing deck, which may result in the need to replace footings under the east end of the house. The proposed screen porch would require perimeter footings. Additionally, applicants propose to replace existing lower level windows at the southeast front of the house with a glass door, requiring excavation to create the ability for a walkout. While this excavation is minimal in the number of cubic yards to be removed, it does expose a larger portion of the facade to the lake within 50' of the shoreline. Although applicants have suggested that this excavation plus a boulder wall adjacent to the main entry are to prevent erosion, there is no existing erosion problem, and the grading is merely to create the ability for a walkout door on the south facade. Applicant additionally proposes a series of low boulder retaining walls between the house and shoreline. There are a number of mature trees and some underbrush within 15' of the shoreline, but the slope is not so great that any significant erosion is occurring. The slope is certainly maintainable as it exists without boulder walls, and any excavation or filling to establish the proposed walls might have a negative impact on the existing trees and vegetation. Hardcover Issues There is some accessory hardcover in the 0-75' zone, including a 10' x 14' deck adjacent to the lake, sidewalks adjacent to the house, and a gravel driveway loop which appears recently upgraded. Applicants' survey indicates an 8' gravel driveway that previously led to the lake has been removed, as have a 10' x 11' shed and an 8' x 10' shed. (See survey, Exhibit D.) A faint sketch on the 1970 survey apparently used for the original building permit, as well as 1989 City air photos, suggest that a loop driveway and access drive to the lake has existed for many years. The portion leading to the lake (noted by surveyor as 800 s.f.) has recently been removed, but is not revegetated. The loop driveway has new gravel and sod boundaries and is clearly defined. Most of the loop is within the 0-75' setback zone. A hardcover analysis of the property is as follows: I. 0-75' Zone (Area = 33,050 s.f.) Structural Hardcover: House 770 s.f. Existing Deck (attached) 216 s.f. .! Deck (at lake) 120 s.f. ? 1,106 s.f. (3.35%) House 770 s.f. Proposed Att. Deck/Scr. Pch. 270 s.f. Deck (at lake) 120 s.f. 1,160 s.f. (3.51%) ;r/ Zoning File #2049 August 14 1995 Page 3 Non-Structural Hardcover: Existin Loop Driveway 1,530 s.f. Sidewalks, etc. 113 s.f. Wood patio at walkout 24 s.f. 1,667 s.f. (5.04%) Proposed Loop Driveway 1,530 s.f. Sidewalks, etc. 113 s.f. 1,643 s.f. (4.97%) 0-75' Totals: ExistingL Proposed Structural 1,106 s.f. (3.35%) 1,160 s.f. (3.51%) Non-Structural 1,667 s.f. 5( 04%) 1,643 s.f. 4( 97%) Total 2,773 s.f. (8.39%) 2,803 s.f. (8.48%) There are no rock or plastic covered areas in the 0-75' zone. Almost three-fourths of the lot is in the 0-75' zone. II. 75-250' Zone (Area = 13,400 s.f.) In the 75-250' zone, existing hardcover is as follows: Structural hardcover 900 s.f. (6.7%) Non-structural hardcover 3979 s.f. 29.7 Total hardcover 4,879 s.f. (36.4%) No changes are proposed in the 75-250' hardcover zone. Issues for Discussion • Has any hardship been presented that justifies increasing the bulk of structure encroaching in the 0-75' zone? • Is there any justification for granting a variance (and conditional use permit) for excavation in the 0-75' zone to create the proposed walkout along the south facade? Zoning File #2049 August 14, 1995 Page 4 • Although removal of the 8' gravel driveway in the 0-75' is a positive step, the City has no real "baseline" data on what was there, nor on how extensive (or how hard-surfaced) the loop driveway was prior to its recent upgrading. Is the loop driveway in the 0-75' zone necessary? Remember that no permit was obtained (nor technically required) for spreading additional gravel on an existing driveway, yet this policy results in perpetuation of non-conforming hardcover. • Does prior removal of the two sheds out of the 0-75' zone provide adequate structural mitigation for the proposed screen porch/deck? • Is there justification for allowing the 12" retaining walls between the house and the shoreline, even though their visual impact might be minimal? If constructed as proposed, what is their impact on the existing vegetation and trees? • If the excavation to create the new walkout/patio door is allowed, is the additional facade exposure in the 0-75' zone significant enough to warrant the need for additional screening? Staff Recommendation It is recommended that Planning Commission consider this request based on the visual impacts of the proposed addition as well as the perpetuation and expansion of the existing non- conformities. Keep in mind the distinction between structural and non-structural hardcover. Consider whether removal of the 10' x 10' shed near the driveway loop and removal of the 8' gravel driveway to the lake justifies expanding the bulk of the house lakeward. Also, consider the non-conforming status of the freestanding deck at the lakeshore. lsv II O O 0 CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL N0. kESIIO OFred TION GRANTING VARIANCES � UNICIPAL ZONING CODE SE10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 AND 2, S 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8,AND SEC .56, SUBDIVISIONS 16 (C, J, & L) FILE NO. 2049 WHEREASttormson and Chic Dwight(hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1229 Tonkawa Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: That part of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision No. 217, Hennepin County, Minnesota lying southerly of a line parallel with and 125 feet southeasterly at right angles from a line described as.follows: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of County Road No. 135 distant 1141.25 feet southeasterly along said easterly line from its intersection with the north line of Lot 10, said Auditor's Subdivision; thence northeasterly 143.2 feet to a point distant 1004.29 feet south at right angles from the north line of said Lot 10; thence continuing northeasterly on the extension of the last-described line to the shore of Maxwell's Bay, and there terminating(hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) to allow construction of a screen porch and replacement of an existing deck within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no structures are normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L), to allow hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone where no hardcover is normally allowed; and a variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J) to allow excavation and retaining wall construction within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where grading, filling and excavating is normally not allowed. NOW, '['HEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Mirulesota: Page 1 of 7 O O 0 ti CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��`9ItE SH p4 NO. 3 6 1 1 FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#2049. 2. The property is located in the LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on August 21, 1995 and recommended partial approval of the proposed variances based upon the following findings: A. The existing 8' x 24' deck and 4' x 6' stairway (216 s.f. total) are in poor condition and need to be replaced. Since there are existing doors opening to this second level deck,it would be appropriate to replace the deck in kind to preserve a substantial right of the property owner. Construction of a new 8' x 24' deck plus a stairway at the north end of the new deck will result in no new encroachment of the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone. B. Construction of an 8'x 24'screen porch directly below the proposed deck will have minimal visual impact as viewed from the lake, due to partially being below grade and due to existing screening along the shoreline. Further,the existing and proposed deck constitutes hardcover under the City's hardcover policies and therefore no new hardcover results from the screen porch addition. C. Neither the deck nor screen porch will have an impact on neighboring properties' views of the lake. D. Excavation along the south wall of the existing residence to allow installation of walkout doors to replace existing windows is minor in nature, involving the removal of only 4 cubic yards of material ranging in depth from 0-3' along a small portion of the foundation wall. The excavation is necessary in order to allow access via the proposed patio doors. The visual impact of the additional facade opened up to lakeview is very minor. Page 2 of 7 0 0 b CITYof ORONO b RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL SH E. Replacement of the existing 8'x 24'deck and relocation of the stairway to the north end of the deck will result in an overall structural hardcover increase of less than 10 s.f. in the 0-75' zone. Further, structural hardcover on the property can be reduced significantly by removing the 120 s.f non- conforming deck structure at the lakeshore. Further, 0-75' hardcover has been reduced by removal of two sheds and a remaining small shed approximately 10-15 s.f. should also be removed from that zone. F. Other hardcover in the 0-75' zone includes a circular gravel driveway, an addition to sidewalk and walls adjacent to the house.- Applicants have recently removed an 8' gravel driveway leading to the lake which constituted approximately 800 s.f.of hard surface. That is a positive improvement to the property,although that area has not been revegetated and should be. Further, the portion of grade-level wood patio extending outside the footprint of the existing deck, i.e. 24 s.f. of wood patio, is unnecessary and should be removed. G. The removal of the detached 120 s.f. deck structure near the lakeshore and concurrent removals of other structural and non-structural hardcover, are an improvement to the property. H. No adequate justification has been presented to support granting a variance for construction of low boulder walls between the house and the shoreline. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health,safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,but is necessary to alleviate a Page 3 of 7 0 0 0 A4 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �kESHOg' NO. demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C)to allow construction of an 8'x 24' screen porch and reconstruction of the existing 8' x 24' deck plus stairway structure; and grants variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow construction of said structures which constitute hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone where no hardcover is normally allowed; and grants a variance to Sections 10.55, Subdivision 8 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (J)to allow excavation in the 0-75'zone where excavation is normally not allowed,to accommodate said screen porch and additionally to allow alteration of grades to accommodate a walkout door on the southeast facade of the residence, subject to the following conditions: 1. The deck and screen porch shall not extend past the southerly wall of the house. The said stairway may be in addition to the 8'x 24' deck and shall be located at the north end of said deck, and shall not exceed 4' in width, and shall be only of the length necessary to accommodate said stairway and landing. 2. This approval allows excavation of fill in the 0-75' zone only in the amounts to accommodate construction of the deck and screen porch,in addition to approximately 4 cubic yards of removal at the southeast wall of the house to allow access to the proposed walkout doors, including the necessary retaining wall adjacent to the front stoop. j 3. The proposed low boulder walls between house and lake are specifically not approved, and shall not be constructed. Page 4 of 7 O O CITY of ORONO a � ti 0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL L9kESH0 NO. e3 6 � 4. Prior to footing inspection,proertY owner shall remove the rade-level wood patio 3' x 8' portion that extends outside the existing deck footprint. Applicants shall further remove the small accessory building located at the southeast side of the property, and shall remove the 120 s.f. detached deck structure located at the lakeshore, prior to footing inspection. Further, applicants shall topdress and revegetate the area of the previously removed 8' x 100' gravel driveway by topdressing and seeding or sodding, such work to be substantially completed prior to final inspection of the additions. 5. Final hardcover in the 0-75' zone shall not exceed 2,645 s.f. as follows: House - 770 s.f. Attached deck and screen porch including stairway-232 s.f. Loop driveway - 1,530 s.f. Sidewalks, etc. - 113 s.f. Total - 2,645 s.f. In the 75-250' zone, hardcover shall not exceed the existing 900 s.f. of structural hardcover including house and shed, plus 3,979 s.f. of non-structural hardcover including driveways, sidewalks, etc. for a total of 4,879 s.f. or 36.4% hardcover in the 75-250' zone. Property owners are advised that any future proposals to add hardcover on the property will likely not be approved, but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover to result in no net hardcover increase. 6. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 9, 1996). 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 5 of 7 r O O O ITY f OR NO b C o RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL L�kESH0 . NO. 8. The undersigned applicants have read,understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 9th day of October, 1995. ATTEST: Dorothy M. Hallin, City Clerk dward J. Callae, Jr., Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October, 1995 by Edward J. Callahan,Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin,Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 6 of 7 I I I i I I � , ` Ni z _ i __. i by i -�� •. � I 1 I � � :I I I I I vi I , - . ...:. . ... s P�oPc�s�N� I a bar 19 20 E -. p'x ►•+off er 73 • _ � rJr1' ^L[ �-75 Se1'bcZc 'r rr t•Jr I 6 , 1 ��•IWr[p( ��[ I Sita <V I ,.R Z I N O a Z I N 14 (� s f •919.4 Contour `7 G. (� a �- J b V� LEGAL DESCRIFTIGN Cf PREMISES I as1".a That part of Lot 9, Auditor's Subdivision Number 217, ''• a•° Minnesota, lying Southerly of a line parallel with ant I }, easterly at right angles from a line described as foll at a point on the Easterly line of County Road No. 131 feet Southeasterly along said Easterly line from its the North line of Lot 10, said auditor's subdivision; easterly 143.2 feet to a point distant 1004.29 feet 5, N angles from the North line of said Lot 10; thence cont easterly on the extension of the last-described line Maxwell 's Bay, and there terminating. •: denotes iron marker found Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the abo property, the location of an existing house and shed. • tion of all existing "hardcover" thereon. It does not show any other improvements or encroachments. 3� iYUNUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL ti ETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 199:5 . iE PLAiNT?4-L IG COiYLNIISSION CO:VnIMENTS There was no Planning Commission report- PUBLIC CO' LNM'N-TS There were no public comments_ N TG ADNIrgISTR-kTOR'S REPORT ZO. I (* 3) X2044 GEORGE OLSON, 2775 SEL DYWOOD ROAD - VAR--VNCE RESOLUTION T3610 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Reso lution,-',' granting a hardcover variance to George Olson of=775 Shadywood Road for the construction of an addition to the existing residence. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#4)-,,2049 CHIC DWIGHT/FRED GUTT OR,NZSON, 1220 TONKAWA ROAD - VARIANCE - RESOLUTION r-43611 The applicants were present. I Gaffon reported that the application is for a request for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for a number of projects. The applicants would like to replace the existing deck on the lakeshore side of the residences ce for a walkout door, and construct low boelow the deck area, ulder excavate to the south side of the resrd walls, all of which is in the 0-75'zone. The current setback to the lake is 42' from the residence and 34' from the deck_ During Planning Commission review of August 21, 1995, the applicant received a Partial recommendation for approval of a screened porch under the deck and deck replacement and stairs. The approval was based on the deck not extending past the south wall of the residence. Excavation to the south side wall and retaining walls to allow a window to ed. The Planning Commission did not recommend become a doorway was recommend M the installation of the low boulder walls between the deck and shoreline as there was no justification or hardship shown. The approval was based on the condition that southeast J the small patio below the deck be removed,ravel driveway well as the small recommended to be top dressed section of the property- Theo .. and reveg ve the deck b the etated with full grass. The applicant was also asked to rerno Y lake. Gaffs on also noted that the DNR recommended denial enia of the deck and screened porch based on the fact that the properry is non-cora II 4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEE17ING HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 199 (#4 -#2049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttormson . Continued) Gaffron said Staff does not totally agree with the recommendation of the Planning Commission as it is felt the new screen porch located so near the shoreline would only increase the bulk structure of the property within 75' of the shore. Staff is also concerned } that the approval of the excavation to create a walkout would possibly be precedent setting. Callahan asked the applicant if he had reviewed and approved the recommendation made. Guttwas because of the deck by the lake. He noted it is located near the end of the point and is partially hidden from view. It is his main concern that this lakeshore deck remain. Guttorrnson said he was willingto eliminate the grave} road, had no problem with changing the stairs from the visible, front to the back of the deck, would remove the small shed, although it is not very and noted that the 10'x 10' shed had already been removed, as well as the center section of the driveway, which was sodded. He is willing to proceed with the recommendations if the lakeshore deck can remain. The applicant said it was their intention to perform upkeep on the property. The riprap has been found to be eroding and needs to be reconstructed in order to save trees. Chic Dwight commented that neighbors present at the Planning Commission meeting d were not given the opportunity to comment on the application. She said they were in favor of the proposed projects. Goetten responded that she also was present at the meeting and felt their inability to speak was unintentional, an oversight, and apologized for the applicant's feeling of mistreatment. Hurr asked Gaffron if the Staff had concerns with approval of the walkout. Gaffiron said the City has generally not approved major excavation in shoreline areas for properties high in elevation when the purpose is only to produce a basement walkout. This application, according to Gaffron, was considered minor in comparison at 2 to 2-1/2' of cut. He noted that the area was more than likely filled in when the house was built and is not in its natural state but was probably flat and built up to accommodate the split-entry style home. The applicant said the area where they are asking for excavation for the walkout is on the east end and receives very little light_ Their purpose is to gain more light into the lower level of the home with the walkout door. Kelley asked and received confirmation that there is an entrance to the inside of the residence from the screened porch- Kelley Kelley asked if there were any hardships for the requested variances. Theapplicant said their desire was to improve on the aesthetics of the home, to gain the extra light into the lower level, and to repair the deck. 3 lvDffTEs of THE REGULAR oRONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 1995 (94 -42449 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttormson - Continued) Jabbour inquired what the applicant would be allowed to repair on the deck if the recommendation was not approved, noting that the current railing does not meet code. Gaffron said boards could be replaced without a variance. The question is at what level p of replacement a variance is needed. If a deck is totally removed, it would require a variance to rebuild it. The City would likely approve a variance required to maintain the safety of an existing deck - M, Jabbour asked if the change from a window to a walkout door requires a variance. Gaffron said the variance, as well as a conditional use permit, is required because of the excavation. Hurr said she was concerned with the decks encroachment on the Lakeshore. The applicant noted that if the deck was asked to be removed, he would not proceed with the other proposed projects. Hurr said, even if the applicant would not proceed with the other improvements, she could not support the lakeshore deck remaining. Hurr was in support of the other recommended projects;though, she did voice some concern of the excavation. Goetten said she was also concerned with setting a precedent by allowing excavation for a walkout and would not support it. She emphasized the majority of the home being within the 4-75'zone. Goetten said she would support the screened porch and deck but not the deck at the lakeside. i Jabbour said he takes a more realistic approach to the application. He noted that the deck is already there and would be rebuilt. The screened porch would be over and above a patio, which is hardcover anyways. Jabbour saw the tradeoffs as substantial to the goals of the Ci the property has been extensively cleaned up. He saw the removal of the rock areas, driveway to the lake, and two sheds as major contributions to hardcover removal and 99% of what the City would like removed. Jabbour said he would not support the boulder walls unless they were to stabilize the ground. He did support the walkout. Kelley asked about the condition of the deck at the lakeside. Gaffron said he has seen it but not walked on it. The applicant said it was in good shape. Kelley asked Gaffron how much repair could be done to this deck. Gaffron said structural repairs could be allowed up to a value of 50% of the value at the time the deck became nonconforming, probably in 1975. He was not aware if the deck was there at that time nor whether its value had been established. The applicant said the house was built in 1970. Kelley asked if a grading plan had been presented at that time. Gaffron said probably not. The applicant said he has the original plans. 4 I 1%1Vi TES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL NLEETLNG HELD ON OCTOBER 9, 199:5 (9 4 -;r-049 Chic Dwight/Fred Guttormson- Continued) Kelley said he would support the walkout, and supported the comments made by Jabbour and the Planning Commission with the lakeshore deck remaining if the driveway was removed. The applicant noted that 1000 s.f of hardcover has already been removed on the property. Hurr said she was not in favor of approval of keeping the lakeside deck. Kelley commented on approval for a lakeside deck received on the Norenberg Park property. Hurr responded that this was a different situation with the historic value of NN orenberc' Jabbour moved, Kelley seconded, to approve Application 92049 per the Planning mi Comssion recomrnendation with the exception that the lakeside deck remains on the property. Vote: Ayes 2, Kelley, Jabbour, Nays 3, Callahan, Goetten Hurr. Motion fails_ Callahan.moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Application 92049, Resolution#3611, per the Planning Commission recommendation. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Kelley. (*#5) #2051 MIKE HILBELINK, 2760 WATERTONVN ROAD - ROAD NAME APPROVAL Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve the name of Copper View Drive, applicant's first choice for the private road within the Rosch Addition plat. Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#6) #2058 RON RANMAUTOGRAFS, INC,2525 SHADYWOOD ROAD - COACWERCL LL SITE PLAN REVIEW- RESOLUTION#3612 The applicant was not present. Mabusth noted the amendments to the resolution by the City Attorney regarding the intent of the City concerning rezoning of the adjacent residential property. The applicant will be made aware of this minor change. Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to approve Resolution 13612. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Abstain 1, Callahan, who was unaware of the proposal. (*#7) #2060 TIM FEYO/KAREN F LT J FR, 4055 ELM STREET- VARIANCE RE WAL- RESOLUTION #3613 Jabbour moved, Goetten seconded, to adopt Resolution 93613 granting a lot area variance to Tim Feyo and Karen Fuller-Feyo for property located at 4055 Elm Street. Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5 _..