Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-28-2003 Council Packet
J Public A ttendance Meeting D ate __-"A3 C ouncil □ Planning C ommission □ Park Commission □ Other Please fill out the information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please prlat)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from ageada) NAME OR NUMBER 1. k Q4f. r ///-V 2.^.TQJKPCJRO ,» if;., ?! \I-io (?CUljhJ^ CjfUUJL, CilT. . 3. 4. Jl?qpiL 7 j /!A s. 11 dy->«(< 110 o i J <L 6> i7. <:’<& O'C / /4A^tY '7 c O i (UtTt 8. 9. y/^t, Ml 10. 11.. 12. > i 13-..it lA • ^ 15.. 'Kxjutmmmn If: 4 ^1 I 0 AGENDA FOR COUNCIL MEETING SET FOR MONDAY, JULY 28,2003,7:00 P.M. ORONO COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY, ORONO, MINNESOTA (*) Asterisk items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under the Consent Item* on the agenda. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet - located on the counter near the sign in sheet. ROLL CALL CONSENT AGENDA I. Approve/Amend - JUL 2 6 awl QllYOrUMONO APPROV.\L OF MINUTES • 2. Regular Council Meeting of July 14,2003 PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Irene Silber. Representative PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - J. Marc Fritzler, Representative PUBLIC COMMENTS - (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person) 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. #03-2911 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT • 3. #02-2809A Rick Sterling, 1300 Vine Place - Variance Amendment - Resolution #03-2895 Gary Germundsen, 4101 Highwood Road - Variance #03-2904 Richard S. Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive - After-the-Fact Variances - Resolution #03-2906 Richard Roberts, 1937 Fagemess Point Road - After-the-Fact Variances - Resolution #03-2907 Jeff and Cara Ziebarti, 720 North Arm Drive - Variances #03-2909 Plckkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGIynn, 3980 Dahl Road - Afler-thc Fact Variances - Resolution #03-2910 Wayne and Anne Johnson, 1225 Lakeview Avenue - Variance - Resolution Peter and Lisa Ryskamp, 1080 Wildhurst Trail - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 11. #03-2912 Marvin and Mary- Smith, 1940 Country Club Road - Variance - Resolution 12. #03-2913 Stewart and Gina Hansen, 583 Park Lane - Variance - Resolution 13. #03-2915 Northern Sunrooms, Inc. on behalf of Scott Udell, 2166 Shadywood Road - Variance - Resolution 14. #03-2916 Phillip Smith, 2600 West Lafayette Road - Variance - Resolution 15. #03-2918 Bruce Singer, 330 Tonka Avenue - Variance - Resolution 16. #03-2921 Stuart MacDonald, MacDonald & Mack Architects, Ltd. on behalf of Edward Hamm, 485 Orono Orchard Road South - Conditional Use Permit - Resolution 17. #03-2924 Todd Smith on behalf of Jim and Julie Harstad, 4550 Wolverton Place - Variance - Resolution MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT •'i; M :< j I « im oomKtt HxtruG sit rat mnn. mi M. OHO OOmClL CBAHBBBS* 2780 EELLBT FABHAI. OIDHO* lOHMESOTA PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 18. Spaces Avenue Lift Station Control Panel 19. Request for Payment Number 2 - SCADA System cm Ai 20. 21. nnSTRATOR'S REPORT Request for Payment - Navarre Fire Station Long Lake Fire Station StonuwJter Drainage Options cm ATTORHET'S R] * 22. Llceoaea * 23. Bills 3 ISSUES AMD EVENTS 2003 07/28 - Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. 08/04 08/06 08/06 08/11 08/18 08/25 Park Commission Meeting, 7:15 p.m. Council Work Session, 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission Work Session, 5:30 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m. •. .4 # M. 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. JUl ROLL The Council met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Barbara Peterson; Council Members Jim Murphy, Bob Sansevere. and Jim White; City Attorney Thomas Barrett; Representing staff were City Administrator Ron Moorse, Planning Director Mike Gaffron, City Engineer Tom Kellogg, Public Service Director Greg Gappa, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Mayor Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve/Amend Council members added items 3,8,10,11,12, 13,14,15, and 16. Murphy moved, Sausevere seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nnys 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES *2. Regulnr Connell Meeting of June 23,2003 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Regular Council Meeting Minutes of June 23,2003 as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *3. Amend Minutes for Council Meeting of April 14,2003 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to amend the Minutes of the CouncU Meeting of April 14, 2003 as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Items 14 and 16 were moved up on the agenda in order to hear a presentation by Police Chief Good. *14. Police Department Web Site Design Implementation Donation Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to accept the donation of time and expertise from Stephanie Grande for building the new Orono Police Department web site. VOTE: Avet 4, Navs 0. Chief Good introduced Stephanie Grande, a website designer who has devoted over 200 hours of volunteer service to the Police Department updating a web site and links for the cooununity and OPD. PAGE I OF 21 ioAna 1 1 . t MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (*14. Police Department Web Site Deiiign Implementation Donation, Continued) Grande thanked the Chief for her comments and complimented the OPD on its fabulous service to the community. She walked the City Council through a power point presentation of the new website, noting the main sections. The primary categories on the home page include; about us, services supplied by the department, crime prevention, youth, regulations, forms and permits, community resources, and FAQ's. She pointed out that each of the headings will link the user to other resources, such as the Teen Driving Contract, and a search function will be available in the coming weeks. Grande again commended the department for its dedication and indicated that their goal will be to continue to keep the website current and fresh. Mayor Peterson stated that she had visited the site and had found it to be a useful tool containing much practical infonnation. Sansevere concurred, stating that the website seemed very user friendly. Murphy questioned whether the site would be interactive and provide a link for youth to contact the OPD. Grande and Chief Good stated that the site allows for PDF downloads and does offer email capability. Since communication is an ongoing goal, the site can ensure anonymity for those who need it and in the future provide answers to even more questions. *16. Appoint Volunteer Services Coordinator for Police Department Through Grande’s volunteerism. Chief Good pointed out how rewarding it was to the officers to be involved in the website development process and feel appreciated by the community. In an effort to draw in more people like Grande to volunteer with the department. Chief Good indicated that the OPD asked Grande to remain on as volunteer coordinator. Grande thanked the OPD, acknowledging that she too would have missed the involvement she had with the department. She was pleased to continue ongoing communication with the OPD and felt she could provide a meaningful bridge between the community and the police department. Mayor Peterson suggested an article be put together for the next newsletter encouraging residents to visit the website and introducing the new volunteer coordinator Stephanie Grande to the community. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to appoint Stephanie Grande as the Orono Police Department Volunteer Program Coordinator. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 2 OF 21 aidhi. 'I i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MoDday,July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. PARK COMMISSION COMMENTS - Pauline Bouchard, Representative Bouchard reported that several items of interest were discussed at the recent Park Commission Meeting, including; the 20-year park improvement plan to be shared with the Council at the upcoming work session; a meeting attended by Gappa and McDermott with other municipalities north and west to discuss the notion of trail planning and future links, one link includes County Road 19, which could be a candidate for federal grant money. In addition, she invited the Council to join the Commission on its annual park lour, Tuesday, September 2,2003. Bouchard continued, slating that Wolfe had contacted both the WILD and Twins organizations in an effort to find suppoil for fields and rinks; however, learned that the WILD does not make donations and merely helps with fundraising. The Twins had not yet responded to Wolfe’s inquiry. Bouchard reported that Halvorson had learned of, and would be pursuing, an Autobahn sanctuary agreement which partners the society with golf courses, in an effort to maintain habitat and decrease the dependency on chemicals. On a final note, due to environmental concerns regarding debris being blown into the lake, Halvorson asked Bouchard to encourage the Council to contact the DNR to install waste receptacles at the Maxwell Bay landing. Mayor Peterson concurred, stating that the landing had become a mess. She also encouraged G^pa to investigate cars with trailers parking along Tonkawa Road. She added that the Council members would be in attendance at the park tour on September 2"**. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS - Liz Hawn, Representative Hawn stated that she would remain for comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ron Cloud, 3460 North Shore Drive, explained that he had met with the Planning Commission and Council back in October of 2002 to gain approval for a replacement deck on his residence. He was granted approvals for a deck the same as the original size subject to various removals. The original deck, according to a letter from the previous owner, measured 10X30X14. He stated that the removals have taken place and w'hen he obtained his permit, the deck size had been reduced to 300 s.f. deck, or 8X30X10 on the permit. Cloud indicated that construction has been in progress and he is concerned that he will not be able to meet this smaller size and install an overhang to accommodate railings. Although he argued that the deck should be the original size as it was approved, he admitted that he merely needed an additional 6” to put up the railings. He asked to be given flexibility, as nothing had changed from his original application, stating it would be ahardship to force him to reapply and pay an additional $250. PAGE 3 OF 21 , > # MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) Gaftron maintained that the original approval granted Cloud a 300 s.f. deck, which equates to 8X30X10; therefore, the applicant should submit a new application to gain the extra 6”. According to the original submittals. Mayor Peterson pointed out that what was approved reflects a 300 s.f deck, 12X30X8. Sansevere questioned whether there was any scenario which would allow the applicant to avoid repermitting the construction and paying an additional $250 permit fee. Cloud stated that Bruce, the building inspector who visited the site that day, felt they could solve the problem. Gaflron suggested Cloud eliminate an additional IS s.f. of hardcover elsewhere on the property to gain the necessary 6” for installation of the railings. Mayor Peterson encouraged Cloud to work with Gaflron to determine where the 15 s.f. would be removed to add the overhang. Barrett believed that staff could work with the applicant to determine a mutually acceptable solution and interpretation of the resolution. ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *4. #03-2886 Dennis and Diane Killian, 1300 Spruce Place - Variances - RESOLUTION NO. 5006 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5006, a Resolution Granting Variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24 Subdivision 5B, 10.22 Subdivision 2,10J5 Subdivision 8, and 10.56 Subdivision 16 (J) and 16 (L), for the property located at 1300 Spruce Place. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *5. #03-2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West - PUD Concept Plan - Formal Withdrawal of Application No formal action was required. PAGE 4 OF 21 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, Jul> 14,2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. 6. #03-2906Richard Roberts, 1937 Fagerness Point Road - After-the-Fact Variances As the applicant was not present, GafTron explained that the applicant had requested after-the- fact approval for construction of a retaining wall and stairway system in the 0-7S’ setback zone, constructing hardcover and structure where none is permitted. Staff supported the Planning Commission recommendation. White moved, Sansevere seconded, to 1) Deny the variance to allow retaining walls on the lakeside of the street; but permit construction of a 4* wide stainvay, bringing in 10 cubic yards of topsoil with a staff issued permit in the 0-75* zone to allow that area to become lawn and regrading of the area with the new walls to be removed to provide a stable, maintainable slope including revegetation. 2) Approve a two-tiered retaining wall replacement system on the house side of the road, with landscaping/screening to soften the visual impact for the property located at 1937 Fageruess Poiut Road. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 7. f 03-2909Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, 3980 Dahl Road - After- the-Fact Variances Gaffron explained (hat the applicant requests after-the-fact variances for reconstruction of an accessory structure (old boathouse) w ithin the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no such structures are normally allowed. A permit was issued for non-structural maintenance and modifications to the building; work proceeded beyond the scope of the permit, including moving the building off its foundation and reconstructing the foundation. Gaffron identified 4 issues for consideration, which would be expanded as Council proceeded: 1. Was the building, including its foundation, altered in ways that increase its non-conformity per 10.55 Subd. 26(A)? 2. Do the changes to the foundation constitute structural alterations that exceed 50% of the building’s value at the time it became non-conforming (1975) per 10.55 Subd. 26(B)? 3. Does removal of the building to a location 50' away and removal/reconstruction of its foundation, constitute it being ‘destroyed’ as that term is used in Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E)? 4. Based on the conclusions to the above questions, if a variance is necessary to allow’ the structure to be placed at its former location, do adequate hardships exist that support the variance request? With regard to the history of this application, Gaffton reported that the applicants in 2002 determined to restore/remodel the boathouse and their builder applied for a permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans and determined that the extensive work proposed was in some respects PAGE 5 OF 21 .• « i J MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03‘2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) cosmetic or merely maintenance (which City code does not prohibit), in a few respects structural (which City code severely limits), and some of the work was considered to be expansion (which City code does not allow for non-conforming lakeshore structures - see lO.SS Subd. 6B). The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate which items of work could be approved and which were not allowable. He also met with the builder to explain in detail the extent of work which was allowed. The value of the work was estimated by the builder at $20,000. Gaffron noted that it was the City’s expectation that the building would remain in place during the restoration/remodel, as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, would not be allowed, and would far exceed “30% of the structure ’s value at the time it became non- conforming” which the City had long established as January 1,1975 when the 75' setback ordinance was adopted. The value at that time was likely minimal, although it does not appear as a separate entry on assessor’s records. GafTron explained that it has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakeshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code does not allow the construction of new accessory structures within 75' of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major structural repairs to such structures. Continuing on, Gaffron explained that afler issuance of the permit, it was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation and set it up on cribbing approximately 50' to the south, where it was being renovated. It was also found that they had done extensive work on the foundation of the structure, which consisted of posts sunk into the ground with beams upon which the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. Staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to whether the structure had lost any ‘legal non-conforming’ status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it was placed back on the original foundation (which was now laying in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status. However, in staffs opinion the new' foundation clearly w as ‘structural alteration’ and undoubtedly exceeded 50% of the value of the structure in 1975. The Planning Commission was not unanimous in its view of this application. However, on a vote of 4-2, the Planning Commission recommended that the boathouse be allowed to be placed back onto the foundation, on the basis that it is the original foundation, that the work on it was not structural repair, and should therefore retain its legal nonconforming status, and bo varisBCC shoBid be required, even though it was temporarily removed. The minority opinion was that this approval was PAGE 6 OF 21 .♦ « MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (7. #03-2909 PIckkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) inconsistent with the way the City has historically treated similar applications for repair/replacement of lakeshore accessory structures. SUIT Perspective - Gaffron expanded on the questions he raised earlier: 1. Foundation Alterations The first issue to resolve was whether the foundation had been altered. Staff believes it had been extensively altered. Staff believed the foundation had been altered as follows: a) The pre-existing beams were unbolted from the sides of the posts and set aside. b) Most if not all of the pre-existing posts were pulled out of the ground (See photos). c) New postholes were dug, Sono Tubes were installed for some of the posts. d) The old posts were placed into the tubes or holes which were then filled with aggregate to provide stability to the posts. It is unknown whether a concrete pad at a 42" depth was placed; however, such a footing would have been required by building code for a legal foundation replacement. e) The pre-existing beams were then placed on top of the posts rather than alongside them and were held in place by brackets rather than through-bolts. Gaffron stated that it is staffs opinion that the foundation as it had previously existed was in fact totally removed, and a new foundation was constructed with a combination of old and new materials in a configuration different than the old foundation. Has it been altered in ways that increase its non-conformity? The building is nonconforming as to location, which is not proposed to change. The building will not increase in size. But it will, as a result of the reconstruction of the foundation, have the potential to remain in place as a nonconforming structure for a much longer period of time. This might be considered as an increase in nonconformity. Gaffron maintained that the actions taken by applicant's contractors are absolutely consistent with what staff has long considered as structural alterations or additions. We have consistently told people that cosmetic improvements such as re-siding or reroofing are allowed but that structural improvements are not. The work that is listed above clearly is considered as structural improvement. 2. Does Structural Alteration Exceed 5(P/o of 1975 Value?. The second issue to resolve is whether the extent of structural alterations was more than 50% of the structure's value at the time it became nonconforming (1975). Staff believes the value of the structural alterations does exceed the 1975 value of the structure. The mere value of the labor involved in the construction of the new foundation probably exceeds the value of the structure in 1975. *• PAGE 7 OF 21 # p MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (7. #03*2909 PIckkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlywn, Continued) No value has been formally established for this structure as of 1975. The assessors’ records do not separately recognize or document its existence on the property. Therefore, we must find other methods to estimate its value as of 1975. Taking liberty, Gaffron believed the 12' x 20' (240 s.f.) structure could reasonably be equated to a one-stall detached garage, although it has a flat roof and a wood post/beam foundation which would probably reduce its comparative value. StafTfound permits issued in 1975 for detached garages on 8 different properties, ranging in size from 440 s.f. to 768 s.f. with valuations ranging from $2200 to $4000. The average permit valuation was $5.06 per square foot. For the 240 s.f. McGlynn boat house, using a 1975 figure of $5 per square foot, the value of the boathouse in 1975 was probably no more than $1200. This would be replacement value, and does not account for any depreciation based on the (unknown) condition of the building at that time. It follows that, per 10.55 Subd. 26B, the boathouse could undergo no more than $600 in structural repairs during its lifetime. Gaffron noted that staff believes the costs of reconstructing the foundation, including moving the building off the foundation, have far exceeded the $600 limit. Applicabilitvof50%Rule. Applicant’s attorney suggests the reconstruction of the foundation would “substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure”, and therefore the 50% limit of Subd. 26B does not apply. Staff would submit that applicant had no initial intent to raise the building to meet any flood protection requirements, as evidenced by the lack of foundation revisions shown on their submitted plans. 3. Was the Buildinit "Destroyed"? Gaffron noted that since the City code does not defip'* the term “destroyed” in the context of non conform: 3. Section 10.55 Subd. 26(E) indicates that ifa non-conforming building is destroyed to an extent of more than 50% of its assessed value, it may not be ‘reconstructed’ except in conformity with the code; but the City may issue a CUP for reconstruction if the building is located outside the floodway (i.e. landward of the 929.4 elevation contour) and is flood proofed, elevated or otherwise •Protected in conformity with 10.55. Temporary relocation of the structure was not contemplated by City staff and was not divulged by the contractor during the permit application and review process. Had such a relocation been proposed, staff would have immediately advised the contractor that relocation, even on a temporary basis, would put the entire building in jeopardy. This would have been considered in the discussions as part of a variance review had the proposed temporary relocation been anticipated. The City has PAGE 8 OF 21 ■ 1 A MINUTES OF THE OmONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o*clock p.m. (7. M13-2909 Piekkenpol Builders luc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) long held that if a nonconforming building is intended be moved laterally, that it can and should be moved to a conforming location. 4. Should a Variance be Granted? If Council concludes I) that the building and its foundation have been structurally altered in a way that increases its non-conformity and 2) that the extent of the structural alterations exceeded 50% of its 1975 value, then it follows that a variance is necessary for the building to remain. If Council then concludes that the structural alterations substantially reduce potential flood damages to the structure, then the 50% rule might not apply. Gaffron stated that in staffs opinion this would not necessarily void the argument that this building ceased to exist at its original location and putting it back needs a variance. Assuming a variance is required, should it be granted? The variance must be considered on the basis of hardship and the potential impacts on the neighborhood. There are few if any new impacts to the neighborhood. The building has existed at this location for a long time, and if replaced at its former location will not alter the essential character of the locality. The hardship is self-imposed, perhaps unknowingly, by removing the structure in order to do work on it. Issue of EstabllshlDg Precedent Gaffron maintained that allowing this structure to be removed from its foundation and temporarily relocated while the foundation is reconstmeted. would have been called out as requiring a variance before the fact and should be considered no differently after the fact. Similar cases in the past have been treated as requiring a variance. In 1981, John Erickson at 1620 Shadywood Road did similar work on a lakeshorc structure and was made to remove the structure. His vai >ance was denied. In more recent history, the Council has approved the renovation cf some lakeshore accessory structures and denied others. The consistency is that each has had to go through the variance process. Ill conclusion, Gaffron reviewed tbe Staff Recommendations as follows: 1. 2. Staff concludes that the reconstruction of the foundation constitutes structural alterations in excess of 50% of the structure’s value when it became nonconforming. Staff concludes that the removal of the structure from its nonconforming location ca.nnot be condoned except in the context of a variance, or the City risks claims of inconsistent treatment between similarly situated properties. PAGE 9 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Moaday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (7. #03-2909 Plekkcapol Builders lac. oo behalf of Tom McGlynn, Coatlaued) 3. 4. Staff has not seen convincing evidence that the structure has been or will be changed in a manner that substantially reduces its potential for flood damage, and therefore staff concludes the exemption in 10.55 Subd. 26B does not apply. Staff concludes that the variance process is the only method via which the structure should be allowed to be replaced back into its former location. GafBron maintained that the Plaiming Commission did not act on the merits of the variance application or define any hardships; they simply chose to conclude a variance was not required. Therefore, if Council concludes that a variance is necessary, the application could be referred back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Gafffon reiterated that the City has failed to be consistent on these types of rulings over the past years and staff would appreciate direction for lumre clarification. Attorney Boeder, on behalf of Mr. McGlynn, asked to make some clarifications to the presentation made by Gaffron. To begin, Mr. Boeder explained that the McGlynns went through the permit process in the summer of2002 with the intent to restore the boathouse, built originally in the 1940 ’s. Building Inspector Oman indicated that the boathouse was in excellent shape and worth pn^erving, not a tear-down. After obtaining permits in March of 2003, work began on the installation of insulation and plywood. Plekkenpol recognized the danger involved in working in water with power tools for their people and that the only reasonable way to do the work was to lift the boathouse up. Since the new pressed lumber foundation was constructed in the 1980's and in good repair, the contractor was under the impression that the foundation could be pulled out and inspected. Boeder pointed out that Oman was present during this inspection process when the posts were pulled out and can attest that these are original posts. Boeder felt it relevant to clear up the misconception that these posts were new, he maintained that they reused the original pieces. With regard to the City’s intent to see all boat houses disappear by attrition, Boeder argued that the Ordinance or code does not reflect this sentiment. He maintained that Mr. McGlynn had gone thru the proper process, had permitted work going on, when he was stopped. Boeder stated that the City’s expectations are not enforceable when a pemiit has been issued and no ordinance supports those expectations. With regard to the 1970's value of the boathouse, Boeder stated that there is no hard evidence to base its value and questioned how anyone could make judgments to that effect today. He referred to comments made by Planning Commissioner Rahn, an inspector himself, stating that he understood the concept of raising the boathouse structure and the values assigned the project, including minor alterations. PAGEIOOF21 J L MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.in. (7. II03<2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behnlf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) Boeder explained that two lakeside posts were removed entirely and the building was to be cantil?* ered over the water. Boeder disagreed with staff s perspective that 10.55 Subdivision 26B doesn’t apply. In fact, Boeder maintained that the 50% Rule should tqiply and presented a bill from the contractor for $505 for brackets and supplies. In addition, since the beams as reconstructed would be above flood level, this which would substantially reduce potential flood damages for the entire structure. Furthermore, Boeder pointed out that it was not the intent of the applicant to ’destroy ’ the boathouse, rather to restore and remodel the structure. Unlike the Erickson Resolution GafTron referred to, Boeder stated that McGlynn pulled the appropriate permits to do the restoration work and went thru the appropriate process. He maintained that these are not after-the-fact variance requests on behalf of Mr. McGlynn, as they were in the Erickson case. Boeder stated that their position remains the same, that a variance is not needed, the use has not changed, the structure has not been enlarged, and the same materials are being used. He pointed out that it is diflicult for contractors to distinguish between structural and nonstructural work based on the code, in their opinion, maintenance of the foundation should not be considered structural. Sansevere questioned what phase of completion the McGlynn ’s were in when forced to stop work. Boeder stated that all that remains is painting and installation of French doors. Boeder stated that the entire restoration project was estimated at a cost of $20,000; whereas, the foundation work was just a mere $505 of that bill. Having visited the site, Murphy acknowledged his preference for keeping the old lakeshore buildings. As a homeowner with a nonconforming bam and shed in need of floor repair work, which to be done right, the structures should be lifted off their foundation. He had difficulty supporting staff s notion that the structure not be moved. He recognized the contractor’s need to ensure the safety of his workers. Gaflron maintained that lifting a structure off a foundation should be viewed differently than moving it entirely off its foundation. Murphy did not understand the difference if the structure was returning to the same place. Gaflron pointed out that once the nonconforming structure has been moved off of its original foundation, the City has an opportunity to relocate or encourage the applicant to move it to a PAGE It OF21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2093 7:00 o*clock p.m. (7. #03-2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continned) conforming location. He stated that discussions to this effect have occurred at the Planning Commission level in an effort to eliminate nonconforming structures. White agreed with Murphy, that the distinction between li Aing up and lifting sideways seemed silly, and did not seem sensible distinction to base the ordinance upon. If the Council felt the distinction was not warranted, Gaffron encouraged Council to clarify the policy further. Although he agreed that, on instinct, the distinctly i of movement is weak, Barrett questioned whether the structure was moved and work done that might not be considered permitted. Murphy maintained that, to him, restoration or remodeling by improving the foundation to set the building back on top would be considered part of the restoration process; whereas, structural change means something that alters the structure altogether. Barrett explained that nonconforming structural changes to the foundation have always meant a major change requiring a variance application or it would not be permitted. He maintained that, to allow the applicant to change the foundation, would be somewhat inconsistent with efforts of the past. Murphy indicated that he had difficulty with the nonconforming language, since it was the boathouse that had remained in the same location for 50 years, and similar to his bam and shed, only became nonconforming as the language changed over the years. Barrett stated that the boathouse is nonconforming, since it is located in the 0-75’ setback zone. He suggested the applicants be encouraged to find a conforming location to place the boathouse, or cautioned the City that it might be faced with similar scenarios in the future, if they do not find a hardship for this application. Murphy questioned what Oman considered the structure would be when finished, based on an estimated $20,000 in repairs. Gaffron stated that Oman expected new siding, windows, and roof; however, he questioned if Oman expected the stmcture would be moved from its foundation. GaBron stated that he could not determine how Oman expected the applicant to do the insulation and plywood work to the underside if it were not moved. Clearly, Gaffron stated, replacing foundation, joists, and/or adding to the a. PAGE 12 OF 21 H # MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (7. MI3-2909 Plekkcnpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) structure would have caught his attention. Gaffron questioned how the windows changed from the original submittals. Boeder assured the Council that Oman was aware of the window change and supplied the Council with a change order initialed and faxed back and forth between the contractor and Oman with regard to the windows. With regard to the post holes being redug, Boeder stated that once the posts were pulled to be looked at, the holes filled in, thus necessitating the need to rcdig them. White stated that the City accepted the $20,000 building permit from the beginning and now the Council needs to determine whether the building stays or goes. Based on a broad interpretation, Sansevere pointed out that the floor was not removed; therefore, questioned whether they could use this as part of the findings to support the work. Gaflron s ated that the floor would be viewed as absolutely inseparable from the foundation tuid posts. Murphy had difficulty accepting that through benign neglect the City should see boathouses disappear entirely. Gaffron stated that bused on 1992 and 1995 Shoreland and DNR codes, we do not allow structures in the shoreland district and limit the structural alteration to items located in the 0-75' setback zone. He maintained that, due to requests like this, the City needs to carefully analyze the codes and create some consistency in their evaluation. Sansevere questioned whether the hardship could be the improved drainage condition gained by setting the building up 6” on the posts and joists to decrease the flooding potential. He commented that several Council members would like to see this be allowed, and asked staff to help them find a way to approve it. Planning Commissioner Hawn outlined the Commission's discussion as follows. Although they were simiUuly confused, the Planning Commission relied on the fact that the building permit was granted, and that it w'as their understanding that Attorney Barrett had rendered an opinion that moving the building to one side for safety reasons would not constitute a problem to it being placed back again; therefore, the Commission found the need for the variance null and void. Hawn stated that based on the fact that the materials w ere not new, they felt no variance was necessary, or it would have been denied. PAGE 13 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.ni. (7. MI3-2909 Plekkenpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) Barrett stated that the basis for decision would not abandon the City ’s intent of the original permit; however, they would be overturning staffs conclusion that the work was structural. Murphy moved. White seconded, to uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation that no variance was required for the work performed on the boathouse. Moorse acknowledged that the $500 cost of the foundation work meets the requirement that the cost not exceed 50% of the 1 975 value of the structure; however, he questioned the potential loss of the opportunity to move the boathouse to a conforming location. He felt this was an opportunity to bring things into conformance, and put the boathouse anywhere on the site for a mere $500. Barrett stated that they should amend the motion and call it an appeal to the stop work order which would reverse the staff reconunendation, since the work amounted to less than half the value. Murphy added to the motion that the appeal to the stop work order placed on the applicant by staff indicating he could not move forward was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council and reversed, based on the findings that the foundation work was less than half the value, and that the work was not, in this case, a structural repair because the same material was being put back on. Murphy reiterated that, in his opinion, the City has fewer opportunities to hold on to the great history of our lake, and based on resident’s acknowledgement of the boathouse, he felt it fit within the character of the community and would hate to see it moved. Although he agreed that historical significance plays a role in preservation, Moorse questioned whether this structure truly had historical significance, as it did not have a unique architectural style. He pointed out that a structure should be maintained in its historical state to be considered historical or it jeopardizes its unique historical character. Sansevere questioned how many boathouses exist on the lake in Orono. Gaffron stated that about 1000 lakeshore properties are in need of inventorying to determine the characteristics worth preserving. Of those 1000, Gaffron believed 100 or so would fall within Orono, and 20*50 would be worth preserving. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Mayor Petersoa dissentiag. The Mayor felt the structural work bad gone beyond the 50% rule. PAGE 14 OF 21 0 J.I MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (7. #03-2$K)9 Plekkenpol Builden Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn, Continued) Gaffron stated that, in other communities, if 50% of an existing nonconfoiming structure is removed, then it must be replaced in a conforming location. Recess was taken from 8:57-9:05 P.M. The Council adjourned to the scheduled HRA Meeting at 9:05 P.M. and reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 9:07 P.M. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Sansevere questioned whether past Council member, Mr. Nygard, had refunded the City the portion of pay for the month of June which he did not complete. Attorney Barrett stated that he had sent a letter this past week to Mr. Nygard requesting the refund of approximately $120; ho^^cver, it had not yet been received. Murphy commended staff for painting the back wall of the chamber and staining the peak of the golf house. White reported that the State Historical Society had agreed to accompany him on a lakeside tour of several sites on the lake, including the icc house on the Cable property and points along Casco, Thursday of next week. He asked staff to submit additions to the list of sites they should view, questioning whether Big Island should be examined for significance. He noted that the Cable ’s had removed more than 'A of the driveway as required and suggested staff address the nonconforming chain link fence running to the lake as well. Gaffron stated that only foundations from the amusement park remain on Big Island where the promenade posts, and lights existed. PUBLIC SERVICE DIRECTOR’S REPORT *8. Adopt Assessment Roll for Heritage Drive Sewer Extension - RESOLUTION NO. 5007 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve RESOLUTION NO. 5007, a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the Heritage Drive Sanitary Sewer project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE IS OF 21 •. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o ’clock p.m. 9. City of Medina - Medina Mornlngside Expansion Development Sansevere questioned whether staff supported the proposed development. Murphy noted that the City has a good relationship with Jim Lange, of Medina, and asked if there were any issues to be worked out. Gappa stated that several issues accompany the expansion development. The proposed development, west of Willow Drive between the Orono City limits and the existing Medina Momingside development, is comprised of twenty-one % acre lots on 22 acres of land, where one single family residence exists currently. Gappa noted that the high density of this urban development directly adjacent to the 2-acre zoning in Orono is one issue to be addressed. With regard to sewer and water service, Gappa noted that there should be both sufficient capacities in the Orono water system and waste sewer systems to handle the flow, should a future agreement between Orono and Medina be approved. Gappa stated that the City has concerns about the increased traffic impacts from the proposed Keller Estates Development upon the intersection of Willow Drive/County Road 6, especially, since the County docs not intend to correct the intersection in the near future. The tentative plan is for completion of an intersection safety improvement project with the provision for a future traffic signal; although, the schedule, costs, and funding for this project have not yet been determined. Gappa stated that Medina, and/or the developer, would likely be asked to share in the costs for the intersection, at minimum 25%. He indicated, also, that the developer has indicated a willingness to fund Medina’s share of the intersection improvement costs. In conclusion, based on a letter sent to the City of Medina, Gappa stated that until the traffic safety concerns at the Willow Drive/County Road 6 intersection are resolved and the potential impacts of a higher density urban development directly adjacent to the 2-acre density development in Orono are reviewed and discussed, staff would not be in favor of recommending modification of the Long Lake/Orono/Medina sanitary sewer agreement to include the proposed Keller Estates Development project. Gappa asked the Council to review and discuss the project and provide direction to City staff regarding the issues outlined above for the project. Sandy Larson, Medina City Employee, was present. Sansevere suggested the City of Orono also send the adjacent 4-5 Orono neighbors a letter ahead of time :o give them advance notice of the proposed project. He questioned whether there should be a buffer required between the development and where it meets the City of Orono. PAGE 16 OF 21 # r MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o'clock p.m. (9. City of Medina - Medina Morningside Expansion Development, Continued) Gappa stated that the City could send a letter to the neighbors now that a formal request has been made. Moorse noted that formal covenants could be added to the approvals, similar to the Fleming Subdivision, since the development would significantly change the backyard impacts felt by those Orono residents. Murphy agreed a buffer should be added; however, suggested the City poll the current residents to see what they feel would be adequate requirements. Gappa indicated that the City could poll residents and notify them of the density, buffer concerns, etc. Murphy questioned Medina representative, Larson, whether the City of Medina itself wishes to see this development move forward. He hoped to gauge their level of interest before proceeding, and indicated he would contact Lange. Larson stated that the current owner of the site wishes to subdivide and is aware that doing so is subject to Orono approvals. Gappa asked if the Council or City wished to be represented at the public hearings. The Council wished to be represented. *10. Request for Paymeut - County Road 6 Reconstruction Project Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the request for flnal payment of $12,097.95 to Hennepin County for the County Road 6 Reconstruction Project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT *11. Request for Payment - Navarre Fire Station Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the request for payment in the amount of $3,240.00 to Constructive Ideas, to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Fund. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. •A PAGE!? OP 21 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o*clock p.m. *12. Planner Salary Range Correction Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the starting salary of the new Planners at $48306., which b approximately step 2 of salary range Level 111 of the Supervisory Administrative pay schedule. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *13. Accept Bulletproof Vest Reimbursement Grant Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve bulletproof vest reimbursement grant VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *14. Police Department Web Site Design Implementation Donation Addressed earlier on the Agenda. *15. Approve Contract for Service - Teens Alone Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve contract for services with the Teens Alone Program. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *16. Appoint Volunteer Services Coordinator for Police Department Discussed earlier in the Agenda. 17. Amendment to Noise Ordinance Sansevere questioned what the impetus of this ordinance was. Moorse stated that complaints were received from a resident regarding diesel dump truck fiimes and noise. While Sansevere pointed out that the ordinance should specifically pinpoint residential properties versus areas, he cautioned that the ordinance would impact City Hall, Otten Brothers, etc. Since all residents of the rural/urban Orono would be impacted by this ordinance, Murphy questioned whether the City had gotten to the point where it should regulate problems between neighbors. While he was sympathetic to the neighbor's concerns, he believed the City might be a^ng for more trouble than it bargained for. PAGE 18 OF 21 S MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mondty, July 14,2003 7:00 o*clock p.m. (17. Anwndmeut to Noise Ordinincc, Continued) Attorney Barrett recognized the Council’s concerns, stating that in an effort to limit this problem they focused on the noise ordinance. Murphy suggested that an odor or pollution ordinance might be more practical. He asked if the neighbors or City had spoken to the offending owner. Moorse stated that the City has very general odor, nuisance, and noise ordinances currently in place, admitting how difficult it is to get too specific in these areas. Moorse stated that the truck owner is aware that he is allowed to keep his dump truck at home, and does not believe he meets the definition of a home occupation. Gappa acknowledged that these are the types of problems Orono is faced with as it transitions from rural to metro. Gaffron inquired whether the City could further define the oversize vehicle definition to include diesel trucks. Sansevere and Murphy indicated that they were not comfortable to move this ordinance forward. Moorse stated that they would continue to rework the ordinance. Murphy moved. Mayor Peterson seconded, to table the ordinance amending the City*s Noise Ordinance. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Attorney Barrett reported that the City is in negotiations with the Cable’s. *18. LICENSES Kennel I. Tony and Mary Becker 259 Hollander Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Kennel License requested by die Bcckcr*s. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PAGE 19 OF 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mooday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. Special Eveut Permit 1.Applicant: Bruce Kienke Event: Wedding and Live Music for ISO Guests Location: 541 North Stream Road Date: Saturday, July 26,2003 Time: 6:00 p.m.- Midnight Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Special Event Permit requested by Mr. Bruce Kienke. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 2.Applic'mt: Robin K. Olson, Vice President/Toumament Director Event: Minnesota Bass Federation Club Tournament Location: Maxwell Bay Public Access Date: Sunday, August 17,2003 Time: Sunrise to 3:00 p.m. Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve the Special Events Permit requested by Robin Olson for the Minnesota Bass Federation Club Tournament. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. *19. BILLS Murphy moved, Sansevere seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) The City Council viewed a recent video-taped Mound City Council meeting during which the Mound City Council considered a cooperative agreement between the City of Orono, Medina, and Corcoran to receive a ‘Safe and Sober’ police grant. On the videotape, the Mound Police Chief asked the City of Mound to participate in the multi-agency grant with the Orono, Corcoran, and Medina Police Departments, pointing out that Mound is currently the only City that doesn’t take advantage of the great opportunity offered by participation in the ‘Safe and Sober’ system in the metro area. He explained that the OPD would act as administrator of the funds for this unconditional grant to enforce D Wl’s, speeding, and seat belt issues, which could mean in excess of200 over time hours, or $8,000, to the City of Mound. Mound City Council members failed to second a motion to accept the opportunity to partner with the three other communities and receive the ‘Safe and Sober’ grant money as presented..The Council PAGE 20 OF 21 .w MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, July 14,2003 7:00 o’clock p.m. (MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued) was hesitant to enter into a partnership with Orono and questioned how the funds would be administered. The Chief explained that how the funds are admimstered is specifically laid out in the grant. The Council asked the Chief to return with specific dollar and grant details and, once again, voiced their reluctance to partner with the City of Orono. Mayor Peterson questioned what the City of Orono had done that was perceived as so dishonest by the City of Mound to warrant this reaction. Mayor Peterson was at a loss to explain where this perception stemmed. Murphy complimented the new Mound Police Chief for trying very hard to supply the City of Mound with l^ership, information, and maintain a non-political position. He stat^ that it would be unfortunate for the Mound Police Department to be denied these funds that could help them in their service to the community, based solely on Council sentiments. ADJOURNMENT Murphy moved. Mayor Peterson seconded, to adjonm the Orono City Council Meeting of Jnly 14,2003 at 10:13 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Petemon, Mayor PAGE 21 OF 21 ---------AjMii r Dale Application Received: 6-17*03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6-17-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 8-16-03 • • —* ~ JUL 2 8 2003 CITY ur REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 23,2003 Item No,3 DepartmeDt Approval: Name: Janice Waataja]^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2809A Rick & Kristine Sterling, 1300 Vine Place - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR-Bl Single Family Lakeshore Residential (1-acre minimum) 1.31 acres (56,846 s.f.) 79.43 ’ List of Exhibits A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 7-23-03 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 7-16-03 Application Summary: Applicant requests a variance to construct an addition to an existing deck. The variances include: 1. 105’ encroachment on the average lakeshore setback. Planning Commission Recommendation On July 21,2003 the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the average lakeshore setback variance subject to the applicant providing plans for final building permit approval that meet all other City standards for new' construction in the LR-Bl zoning district. The deck addition shall follow' the existing foundation lines of the home and not get closer to the lake than the existing deck. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting an average lakeshore setback variance for I3Q0 Vine Place. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22 SUBDIVISION IB FILE NO. 03-2809A WHEREAS, Rick & Kristine Sterling, married, (hereinafter “the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1300 Vine Place within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: Tract B, except the easterly 35 feet thereof parallel with and measure at a right angle to the easterly line of said Tract B: Tract C, and Tract D, except the southerly 28 feet parallel with and measured at right angles to the southerly line of said Tract D, all in Registered Land Survey No. 488, files of Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter the “property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal inning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision IB to allow the construction of a deck addition encroaching 105’ past the average lakeshore setback. NOW. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03*2809A. 2.The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, which requires an average lakeshore setback of 75 feet and no closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence building on adjacent lots. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on July 21,20C*3 and recommended approval of the average lakeshore setback variance based on the following findings: •. Page 1 of 5 lUMlMfeiBi a. The shape of the shoreline makes it impossible for any structures on this property to meet the average lakeshore setback. b. Neighbors’ views of the lake will not be negatively impacted by the addition. c. Hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone will not change. d. Lot coverage by structures will be 7.4%, well below the 15% limit. 4.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, 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 variance would not adversely affect (raffic conditions, light, air nor pose a tire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a 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 2^ning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Citv. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision IB to allow the construction of a deck addition, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes or the scope of this approval will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (July 28,2004). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 2 of 5 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 28"' day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owneifs) Page 3 ofS r^nn ifMiartfci STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _day of , 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _day of 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public ■■ ■ .................. ■ ;.4 ■AU. T-'%1 m. a. Page4ofS liariiaii iniilifliii iiiiii iidiliiiitfMiiilil iiiiiiii^iA^yii “| 111 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of , 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, <ind acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of . 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/aifirmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public A Page S of S rf / ; ;i f CXfhWT-A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR L. CRAMER COMPANY IN TRACTS B. C. k D. RJ..S. NO. #488 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA % *r- . • •'* •'a FOREST CITY OF ORONO ^ SITE PLAN __ GRADING PLAN LgCAL CCMIlPTIOJ or PRCVIISES : Trecl 8. fiCfpt tht fOft«rly 39 ftfl th«ftef BO^sHtl •ith aAdfntoturtJ • flQht OA^lt to tho ocAtifly lint of foitf Treci 8. Trocl C. ond Trod 0. o tAt •oytnorly 29 foot poroMo* witn ond mtoswrod ot rt9M enetft to t lino of iolO Tfoet 0, oil In RodlotO'tO LonO Syrvty M. 4S9. fliot of Kooiotfof of Tilloi, Honnopin County, Uinnototo. UlAPP.'^.OVF.O □ APPi'.ovEO y«rrH RryisioNS o : donotis Iron rro^litr CIC9|>: donotot oiiotlng spot tlfyotlon, moon too Itvol 8ooriA9t oHoofi Oft boood upon on otsirod dot«/n.m TiiIb turvty Intondt to s9o« Iho doundofiol Of Iht o9ovt dOiorUtO proporly. ttio looolien of oil osiftlnf houoo pool houto ond ohod, end tho locotion of oil vIoTpio *hordcovof* thofoon. It dote oot purporl to ohou ony other inprovononto or onerooehmonto. T CSOKBERGftJISSOCUTS^IKC • •OACOf M oo —• ePtPUO 0* <0 Oi MOd Oi Wt I mt A Oaf OPr J CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box M Crystal Bay* MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: 003-2809A NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 23,2003 TO:Rick & Kristine Sterling 1300 Vine Place Orono, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION DATE OF MEETING: July 21.2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance allowing a deck addition to enc 'oach 105’ into the setback. The Planning Commission found that due to the orientation of the property and the applicant’s home being entirely within the average lakeshore setback, a hardship was inherent to the property. VOTE:6 FOE 0 AGAINST Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28,2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Plaimer Janice Waat ija at 952-249-4623. uidai t \ M02-2809A July 21.2003 Page I ofS Date Application Received: 6>17*03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6*17*03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 8-16-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner July 16,2003 #02-2809A, Rick & Kristine Sterling, 1300 Vine Place - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-Bl Single Family Lakeshore Residential (1-acre minimum) 1.31 acres (56,846 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests a variance to construct an addition to an existing deck. The variances include; 1. 105* encroachment on the average lakeshore setback. Stajf Recommendation: Staff recommends; a) Approval based on the site plan attached herein. A hardship exists due to the orientation of the property and the applicant ’s home being entirely within the average lakeshore setback. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B); Average Lakeshore Setback; No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots... List of Exhibits A - Application B - Survey C - Existing Site Plan D - Proposed Site Plan E — Hardcover Calculations (no change) F - Photographs G - Property Owners List H - Plat Map Background The applicant received a variance to encroach 105 feet into the average lakeshore setback in July of 2002. The variance allowed the applicant to replace an existing upper level lakeside rotted deck (8* X 42 ’) and to construct a 2 ’ x 10’ addition on the lake side of the home. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on the following findings; 1. The shape of the shoreline makes it impossible for any structure to meet the average lakeshore setback. 2. Neighbors’ views were not negatively affected by the additions. 3. Hardcover didn ’t change because patio exists below the deck and was already counted towards hardcover, and *' 4. Lot coverage by structures remained the same at 7.4%, when 15% is the limit! i c t i M2-2M9A JMiy2l,2003 rage 2 ofS LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width t LR-Bl Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 (1 acre)140 ’ Actual 56,846 s.f. (1.31 acres)79.43 ’ Setbacks: LR-Bl Required Exbting Proposed Front 35’40 ’40 ’ Rear 30 ’n/a n/a Left Side 10 ’91.5’91.5 Right Side 10 ’10.3 ’10.3 Lakeshore 75 ’105 ’105 ’ Average Lakeshore 0 ’125’125’ Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 56,846 s.f. (1.31 acres)Allowed: 8,526.9 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 4,215 s.f. (7.4%) Hardcover Calculations : These calculations are those that were submitted with the previous variance. No change in hardcover is proposed w’ith the deck addition. This is because of an existing concrete patio that exists below the deck and therefore is not counted twice. Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’29,109 s.f.0s.f. (0 %) 1.286 s.f* (4.4 %) 1,286 s.f. (4.4 %) 75-250’27,737 s.f.6,934 s.f. (25 %) 8,001 s.f.* (28.8 %) 8,001 s.f. (28.8 %) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined andscape beds % rMSiOrir M2-2809A July 21.2003 Page 3 ofS Average Lakeshore Setback Variance The applicant has requested a variance to encroach 105 ’ into the average lakeshore setback to construct an addition, 32 ’ x 12.5 ’, to the existing upper level lakeside deck. The subject property is located on a point on Forest Lake. The property meets the 75 ’ shoreline setback requirement for all property located on Forest Lake. Although the average lakeshore setback line is the same in the proposed variance as the variance approved in July 2002, a new variance must be considered and approved to allow the new deck addition. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public sttfety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it Is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The existing conditions of the applicant ’s property put the entire home, existing deck and proposed deck within the average lakeshore setback zone (125 ’ setback from shoreline). The proposed deck addition will not be any closer to the lake than the existing home and deck. The existing topography, location of adjacent homes and existing vegetation all indicate that the proposed dock addition will not have a negative impact on neighbors ’ view of the lake. Also, hardcover will not change due to the existing patio. Therefore, there is a unique hardship inherent to the property. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1.The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Should a variance be denied, the property can still be put to a reasonable use due to the existing nature of the existing home on the property. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The property is located at the tip ofa small peninsula where the adjacent properties ’ lake frontage is on the sides of the peninsula, a circumstance unique to the property. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Because of the inherent nature of the property, should a variance be granted the character of the locality will not be altered This is due to the fact that the entire home doesn V meet Zoning I J 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. II. 12. Ordinance requirements for average lakeshore setback M2-2M9A July2l.200J Page 4 ofS "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Not applicable “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to dii«ct sunlight for wlar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Not applicable "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." The proposed use is a use allowed in the LR-IB single family lakeshore zoning district. •The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The fact that the property is located on a point placing the existing house and deck in the average lakeshore setback is a special condition Inherent to this property. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The characteristics of this property generally do not apply to other properties in the surrounding area or zoning district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting of the application allows the applicant further enjoyment of his/her property. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” The proposed variance wUl not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals or the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. ^ The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The granting of the proposed variance will help alleviate the properties inherent hardship. Mn-2809A July 21.2003 PageSafS Iisues for Considcratioii 1. The shape of the shoreline makes it impossible for any structures on this property to meet the average lakeshore setback requirement. 2. Are the neighbors* view of the lake negatively impacted by the addition? Is the shape of the shoreline sufTicient hardship to justify the granting of an average lakeshore setback variance. 3. Does Planning Conunission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 32’ x 12.5* deck addition. •. PxhiWf A •m • CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION ^ (S50.00 per each additional variance) rS Application # A Date Received (p ^ Amount Paid C7*> [enewal VanaiRid Fee AIJO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ( Oiua Property Identiflcation Number (P.l.D.) 07- (f“l CQOtSL Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired _____________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___pother (specify) Lr - I “R — • ______Zoning District: APPLICANT Name Address: oo U; k^p City:. Phone (h»a*e) Phone (wotfc) ^Q-V7;i-yf7/ OroA^________Zip:_2£36iL_ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ _____ Describe request in detail: lo fke 4« ■iy.L»yAt —scc4»o^ v. Tka g/rKrvo i,4 AfcL (attach additional sheets if necessary) U/A.S fr.lsik Vorv ciovo*^ or FOt". Sec VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear X Average Lakeshore Other (jpecify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: oi^ ptjVcx. Koim. r ‘ (attach additional sheets if necessary) iinmiiififi 6 )» required submittals fafprmqUoB mwt fuhminfd bv thi. «ppi|, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form are’’pSpSsed. In adS”prov1deTn“o)'7^^ '7r'f SketchK ot plans of floor & elevation ,dirS^^o»iH, ,!?' "praduclion. List of the leval names (include mantel sS^w7 'T * "">' property. Thi. would include name(s) of aoDlican«li^f"°I“ *" *"“™' *" As an addendum to this application please attach a 2 T* owner(s). you wish notified of this application.-- _______sep^te list of any other p< Additional items as may be requested by City staff. lersons 3ar|an?t appllcation^h that yfiur APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE members for purtmses^^^iUon-and vcrifica^fonte“ Owner's Signature )bate 03 change prior to the meeting. * Buildmg & 2^mng Office of this i i i i • »# • Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) OijiAvj A- Vtirhae.! 3k^etr4f V^irve-^i lint name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. ^pety Owner Date Property Owner Date I (we)"T>)n tJTKIa)-or£fig(^r/«v:^|)f Umf. PiWi€^ (print naifi«(s}] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires C^ncil approval. Date Property Zhx^Cj^a QcD^ Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ». 8 \ j CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR L. CRAMER COMPANY •\ • FOREST TRACTS B, C. «e D. R.LS. hKX #488 ^ ^ ^ ^ ■Va'-t PIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, • ' ■ • • .. ./ . * . , • ' \ 4 • . •• . * ''S ■ • "V-' '*V ' CITY OF ORON' ^ SITE PLAN__ GRADING PLAN BLAP?P.OVF.D'«>e^ □ APPr.OVEO VVITH RP71S10NS G DlSAPp.'pVjiO LCCAL CCSatlPTICS cr PRCVISIS ; Trod t. f«c«pt IM tosUrljr 35 fstt Ihtftaf peralltl end fr^osurti e rieht enqlt to th« Pflttrly lint el tdld Trc^t B; Trod C. ond Trast 0. ctAt •out.M^ly 21 poroMfi ond mt«s .f#d «t ri$M CAptti to tht i,_ _lint of told Trod 0. oil In Rtgitttrtd tond Survt/ No. 4SB. filtt of Rttitlror of Tilltt, Htnntpin Ctunljr. Minntttta. O : dtrotif irtnrrorlitr IK&3): dtnottt ffUtinp spot titvotlen. trozn tto Itvtl dot\n Bforinpt t.^oon oro beatd upon cn otsirod dolim. ,CATE- V-1^ ' ------------------------------------ m Tnliturvty Inttr.dt to 0^0« tht boundtritt of Ihf obovt dttcr4btd proptrty. tht locotionof on oaittihf hooft boot howto ond fhtd. end tht lotollon of oil vItTblo ^btrdtovtr* thtfoon. It dofi hot pwrpoft to Ohoo ony othtr inprovoninU or oncroothmtntt. CR0NBERGUSS0CUTES.1KC • iOACtf Wl M fim VM^t*?tK «t ncattf •a •HPwo Of «t t* «aoct «v itRf MCMo<i**o WT • «i * Oikv UMO tWHMin oonsa hO toO n tc uoi o tc •«« o oMN i ■ ■■ '•"i;r k«- ■*.'^> ^,_j r I K|5 ^M«A/ ^ppro\>f^ ^zkuii m V' V •; •:» •f''-4 ^eV.Ae^i:, {'^OO \j iN-C. 0 €-n '02. Bffhitii B r"• • »IT«ACK ZONI, gXlSTIWG HARDCOVrR m ^2:—^ 75*250 250.S0O- A. House ^ 30.1 X N^%-. ^ ^ ^ ^ •D I !t Jba Ungih 75-250' 7A.O 500-1000*, t X B. Ctrage C. Oriitway X D. Sidewalk X X E Patio/Deck ^ • *■••• • • X »• • F. Landscape Underlain ByPIasu'c Or Fabric X X O. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A ______________+ B propose d H ardcover in 7.n.>nr* A. House LtnfOi __ X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Palio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X 0. Other X ^ TOTAL HARDCOVER fN ZONE total property area in zone ^ •*. B wieoi 72*2- sf-B oa ---------------- Moos£ xlOO wie* lit m X too S.F. S.F. S.F.- S.F. S.F. S.F. 22____s.F.-^^o sir 6iR£y.v4y^ S.F. S.F.-' S.F. S.F. S.F. coNCRrrc w/ SOAT LAvNCf 537 sF>^t> neb 10<7 4.42. S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F. B % ii 1i 0Khibi> f I5i-C wrr^';'/. ^ t, ^ . I'Wok i |2C'C’ Vw’ivo PlCt-CJi. » • 'm . 'I' i i/: ^ J.V T' im ’‘•w'llfciij ■•"*• 'A ' >:; .jj& . ■ '■ J-'T^ iWHi . T 1 ^ |\ ’' ^-‘i V... -I"' if' V V. ^ • l«% < A m f '-*9 »>- V"®.- ■A-. •^, ^5Bafl3ff«3sd?|^^ i-'. * ».'<«• '1* W C' ' ^ V'>'^.’ - ’f>fi'V''^ -VV- - ^ -* •y*'. „ W0:- gtg** ~»X.fe' ^'SS >?;’ v"- ;■ Uf My. U'./ *■ '^- >/,/<.. i;- »:0 •V- • .-V.N 1- ‘ 1 M'• • • .*. • . V. * i.*.* ^ « %. <>■ % r RUN DATE BATCH SB2 HCMNEPIH COUNTY ntOPCRTV INFORMATION SVSTEtf PROPERTY OWNERS LIST OWNER NAME TANPAYER NAHE/AODR SO 07-I17-2S 42 OaOl tisio VINE Pt N R I J A SHIELDS MICHAEL R 0 JUDITH A SHIELDS ISIS VINE PL HOUND HN S5S04 OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ABOR SB 07-117-23 42 0004 01S4S VINE PL NAROARET N DAVIS TRUSTEf NAROARET H DAVIS IS45 VINE PL MOUND NN SSS04 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR SO 07-117-23 42 OtS7 OISOO VINE PL T D LANDON S ANY E LANDON TIMOTNY D 0 ANY B LANDON ISOO VINE PL MOUND NN S5S04 %to so 07-117-23 42 0002 01300 VINE PL R J STERLING 0 K E STERLINO RICX J 0 KRISTINE E STERLINO 1300 VINE PL HOUND NN S5364 so 07-117-23 42 0009 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 00 CRYSTAL BAY NN SS32S TOTAL BATCH in 0*007 *1 REPORT NO. PZ43S401 PACE S so 07-117-23 42 0003 0132S VINE PL * 0 D CARLSON 0 N J CARLSON DON 0 I NARY U CARLSON 132S VINE PL MOUND HN SS304 so 07-117-23 42 0034 01380 VINE PL HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO P 0 BOX 40 CRYSTAL BAY HN SSSU BATE c iL... • • O • I. H iW>Mnty Taxpayer ■'*•• • • * *T FarMi ID 071172342(ji0Q2.^|Sl£ House Number 130P' Street Nome VINE PL *v’-- •V*.:' -ucy*^ '/ •V. *..•*.'..■ ■—••• ww- wasaM ■” *, v' *'•:, . 7Ms IsnotaltgaOyncofMmsp. Unpntvta • cornpamh 9/htimtttoh'« • and dat$trom City, Coui^,9ndSM»ro»dmithorlU9S9ndeOm$6uK^* • • •• • Dale Application Received: 4*23^3 Date Application Considered as Complete: 7-11-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 9-9-03 rr>....... ------- JUL 2 8 200) Cn Y Or REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 23,2003 Item No.: ^ Department Approval: Name: Janice Waataja]^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2895 Gary Germundson, 4101 HighwoodRoad - Variances Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1-acre min.) 0.20 acres (8,550 s.f.) 40’ List of Exhibits A - PC Action Notice 7-23-03 B - Draft PC Minutes 7-21-03 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 7-17-03 Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a 12’ x 12' deck on the lake side of the new residence: 1. 50.5% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone (46.8% currently exists) when 25% is allowed. 2. 1,708 square feet of structural coverage (1,528 currently exists) when 1,500 square feet is allowed. Planning Commission Re-.ommendation On July 21, 2003 the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the hardcover and structural coverage variances. The Planning Commissioi: found no viable hardship and held the applicant to Resolution #4645 (approved April, 2001) which put limits on the property. Staff Recommendation Denial of the request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Uphold the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Direct staff to draft a resolution based on Council action, for adoption at the August 11 meeting. , ! MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ziebarth asked the Commission to vote on what was before them. Mabusth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend Application #03-2907, Jefl* and Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive, as proposed. Denial of the 4* side setback variances for the garage, as it can be still shifted to meet a 10' setback with some interior design changes; Denial of the second story additions within the side setbacks, because they will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance; Approve the second story addition encroachment of the 75' lakeshore setback; Approve the hardcover variances as proposed, unique to the submittal, as this plan reflects what appears to staff to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property; and Require that a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to review by the Council. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#9) #03-2895 GARY GERMUNDSEN, 4101 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:19-7:40 P.M. Gary Germundsen, the applicant, was present. Waataja reported that the applicant has requested the following variances to construct a 12’X12’ deck on the lakeside of the new residence. 50.5% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone (46.8% currently exists) where 25% is allowed and 1,708 s.f of structural coverage (1,528 currently exists) where 1,500 s.f. is allowed. Waataja stated that staff would recommend denial of the request based on Resolution #4645 which approved variances allowing construction of the existing house, limiting the applicant to 40% hardcover. Furthermore, denial of the request would be recommended since, as it currently exists, the home is over on lot coverage by structures and never received a variance. When reviewing hardcover caleulations, Waataja pointed out that retaining walls were added at the time of construction to ensure proper drainage and were not proposed with the initial renewal variance review process. The driveway also appears larger than what was depicted on the original survey. Currently, the home is in excess of the Lot coverage by structures by 28 s.f., at 1,528 s.f. This was a result of a modification to the plan upon construction of the home. Waataja stated that the modifications include the 1.5’XI2’ two story bump-out and enlarged deck entry. The applicant is proposing a second story deck and stairway off the lakeside of the home greater than 6’ off grade; therefore, it would be included in the lot coverage by structures figure. PAGE 12 of 37 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Due to a lack of viable hardship, and the stipulation set forth in Resolution #4645 which set limits for the property, staff would recommend denial of both variance requests. Germundsen stated that sightlines for his neighbors are not a concern and referred to letters from neighbors submitted to Planner Bottenberg. He indicated that both neighbors on either side of his home have decks that extend further than his home. He stated that, originally, he underestimated how bad parking on Highwood Road was, and that drainage would be as significant an issue as it has proven to be. Germundsen stated that, currently, all of the water running down Highwood runs between him and his neighbor's property; therefore, warranting the need for the retaining walls. He maintained that the driveway did not exceed what was approved, and believed miscalculations must exist. He stated that he had no other outside structures on the property to remove in order to gain room to allow for the deck. Chair Smith stated that no letters accompanied the packets. Germundsen pointed out that letters fiom neighbors on both sides of his home t^ere submitted with the original packet. He indicated that he would supply staff with nt m copies of those letters, as provided to the previous plaimer. Berg questioned the bump-out on the lakeside, as it did not exist on original plans. Germundsen stated that he purchased the house with the plans and that a window was present on tiie plans. Waataja indicated that the bump-out was not approved; whereas, a window was granted approval. Rahn questioned whether driveway removals could be made to allow for the deck. Germundsen stated that he could reach 40% with driveway removals. While staff could live with the fact that the retaining walls were necessary to control drainage and that the second story bump-out appeared during construction, Gaffron stated that staff could not support the addition of a 12'X 12’ deck above the other approvals. Fritzlcr stated that the lot, in his opinion, had been maxed out. Chair Smith was hesitant to endorse further driveway removals given the safety needed to maneuver onto Highwood Road. Hawn felt granting approval for the application would set a poor precedent going against the 2001 Resolution. PAGE 13 of 37 I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Smith asked the applicant whether he wished the Commission to table or vote on the application. Germundsen asked whether the impact on his sightlines caused by the neighbors justified his request. Berg stated that the sightlines had nothing to do with his structural coverage c.xcess. Germundsen could sec no where to pull additional hardcover from the property and asked the Commission to vote on the application. Fritzler moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend denial of Application 1103-2895, Gary Germundsen, 4101 Highwood Road, due to lack of viable hardship and the stipulation of Resolution #4645 which set limits to the property. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #03-2910 WAYNE AND ANNE JOHNSON, 1225 LAKE VIEW AVENUE, VARIANCE, 7:40 - 7:44 P.M. Wayne and Arne Johnson, the applicants, were present. Foth explained that the applicants request a side yard variance in order to encroach 15’ into the side yard setback. The applicants arc requesting a variance to place their proposed porch at 1 S’ from the side lot line where a 30' setback is required. Based on the hardship of the Small lot size (0.47 acre) in a 2-acre zoning district, and location of the existing house and w'ell, Foth indicated that the staff would recommend approval of the side yard variance for 15’ encroachment into the 30’ setback. Foth stated that the application is to rebuild a porch addition which will be slightly larger than the existing porch and will have an attached deck. The new porch is proposed to be 15’ from the side lot line at its closest point for a total increase in square footage of the deck and porch to be 24.5 s.f. greater than the existing porch. The lot size in this situation is 0.47 acre, typical of lots in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The proposed setback of 15’ would be conforming if this area was zoned for '/j acre lots. Fritzler believed the location of the w ell to be adequate hardship. Gaffron pointed out that the neighbors detached garage is also an issue. There were no public comments. •• PAGE 14 of 37 i CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: (103-2895 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 23,2003 TO: Gary Germundsen 4101 Highwood Road Orono, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPjJOYTW DATE OF MEETING: July 21,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Denial of hardcover and structural coverage variances due to a lack of a viable hardship and due to Resolution #4645 which placed limits on the property. VOTE:7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28,2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-4623. i • n ■ ■t' ■ > , ‘ ,4 «f03.289S July 21.2003 Page 1 of 6 Date Application Received: 4-23-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 7-11-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 9-9-03 o:Chair Smith and PltMining Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner July 17,2003 #03-2895, Gary Getmundsen, 4101 Highwood Road, - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1-acre min.) .20 acres (8,550 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a 12’ x 12’ deck on the lake side of the new residence: 1. 50.5% hardcover in the 75-250’ zone (46.8% currently exists) when 25% is allowed. 2. 1.708 square feet of structural coverage (1,528 currently exists) when 1,500 square feet is allowed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Denial of the request based on Resolution #4645 which approved renewal variances allowing the construction of the existing house. This resolution limited the applicant to 40% hardcover. 2. Denial of the request because the property, as it currently exists, is over on lot coverage by structures and never received a variance. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.22.2: Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. “...Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover.” Section 10.56.16L (2); Hardcover Limitations. “Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover...” Section 10.03.14.1C: Lot Coverage: “...EXCEPTION: Regardless of lot area, ever>- developed lot shall be allowed at least 1,500 square feet of lot coverage by principal residence and garage structures...” »* I l>f.* of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - As'buitd survey showing proposed deck D - Original survey E - Sketch of Proposal W3-289S July 21,2003 Pagc2of6 F - Hardcover calculations G - Photographs H - Resolution #4645 I - Property Owners List J - Plat Map Background In April 2001 the applicant received the following renewal variances to construct the existing house on the lot (refer to the original survey. Exhibit D): 1. 25’ front/street yard setback where 35’ setback is required. 2. West side setback to allow 9.5’ where 10 ’ is required. 3. East side setback to allow 6’ where 10 ’ is required. 4. Variance to allow lot area of 8,550 s.f where 43,560 s.f is required. 5. Variance for lot width of46-50’ where 140’ is required. 6. Variance to allow 1,956 s.f. or 40% of hardcover in the 75-250’ zone where only 1,220 s.f or 25% is normally allowed. The resolution approving these variances is attached for your reference. On page 4 of the resolution, number two stipulates that “. ..Any hardcover in addition to that noted wiU require variance approval by the City, and is not likely to be approved in the future unless concurrent removals of pre-existing hardcover result in no hardcover increase above the 40% allowance.” The applicant did not receive a variance for lot coverage by structures at the time of the above variances. The applicant is allowed 1,500 square feet, currenUy 1,528 square feet exists. During the duration of construction of the existing house, modifications were made that that resulted in an additional 28 square feet of structure. Any structure 6’ or higher above grade would require a lot coverage by structures variance. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidth: LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f (I acre)140 ’ Actual 8,550 s.f (.20 acres)40’ r' Setbacks; LR-IB Required Existing N03-289S July 21.2003 Page 3 of 6 Proposed Front Rear 35 ’ 30’ 25’ LeR Side Right Side Lakeshore 10 ’ 10’ 75 ’ 9.5’ 6’ 99’ 9.5’ 6’ 91’ Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 8,550 s.f. (.20 acres)Allowed: Proposed: 1,500 s.f. (15% or 1,500 s.f. whichever is more) 1,708 s.f. (20.0%, currently 17.9% or 1,528 s.f. exists) Structures counted towards coverage: Building footprint (1,392 s.f.) - 1.5 ’ X 12’ two-stor>' bump-out on east side of house not illustrated on survey but shown in pictures (18 s.f.) - a modification from the original sur\ ey. - Deck entry from driveway to front door - (Section 10.03.14C (2) which states “Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar “open ” structures...which extend more than 6’ above grade level (if any portion of such structures extends more than 6’ above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage)” (118 s.f). - Proposed deck and staircase because both will be 6’ or higher above grade level (180 s.f. is figured into the proposed structural coverage figure above). Hardcover Calculations; These figures include everything noted above that was counted towards structural coverage. Also included are the retaining walls and driveway. The retaining walls were added at the time of construction to ensure proper drainage and were not proposed with the initial renewal variance review process. The driveway also appears larger than what is depicted on the attached sur\ ey (see photo of driveway in Exhibit E). Hardcover Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Zone Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover 0-75 3,668 s.f.Os.f 0 s.f.*Os.f. (0%)(0 %)(0 %) 4 • • «K)3-2895 July 21,2003 Page 4 of 6 75 - 250 4,882 s.f.1,220.5 s.f. (25%) 2,283 s.f.* (46.8 %) 2,463 s.f. (50.5 %) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance The applicant is proposing to construct a second story deck on the lake side of the home. The proposed deck would be 12 ’ x 12 ’ with stairs 3’ x 12 ’ extending off the back towards the lake. The construction of this deck with the associated stairway would constitute an additional 180 square feet of hardcover. As mentioned in the background section of this report, the property received a variance to construct 40% hardcover. With the additional driveway space, needed retaining walls, and added bump-out to the home during construction, the hardcover is now in excess of 46%. Lot Coverage by Struetures Variance Currently, the home is in excess of the allowed 1,500 square feet by 28 square feet. This was a result of modifications to the plan upon construction of the home. These modifications include the 1.5’ x 12 ’ two-story bump-out and enlarged deck entry. A variance was never granted for lot coverage by structures. 1 he applicant is proposing a second story deck and stairway off the lake side of the home. This deck would be greater than 6’ above grade and therefore be included in the lot coverage by structures figure. Because the applicant currently does not meet this requirement, is requesting additional structure coverage, and a variance was never granted one must be approved prior to construction of the proposed deck. Hardship Statement The applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In conslde, g appUcatU ms for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, tight and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safely, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances front the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff docs not find a hardship for either variance. The existing conditions do not meet the stipulations of the variance that was approved in April 2001. The applicant was held to a specified hardcover amount previously and has exceeded that. Also, the applicant made modifications to the home and property during the construction process which constituted an additional 28 square feet of lot coverage by structures. Should a variance be granted the intent of the code would not be met. Further, the applicant should be held to the 40% hardcover and 1,500 square foot lot coverage by structure stipulations which were approved in April 2001. This would consist of the applicant removing existing hardcover f (N)}-289S July 21.2003 PagcSofO and reducing structural coverage by 28 square feet. Note that despite the fact that the applicant installed a patio door and ledger board, a future deck was anticipated. The building code treats patio doors as windows, and the City would not prohibit installation of a patio door knowing that a deck was impossib but would require permanent blocking of that door for safety reasons. Merely allov/ing installation of the door does not give the applicant any special rights to a deck. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.* The property is currently being used in a reasonable manner. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.* The applicant currently has a small walkout off the lake side of the home. There are no unique circumstances which would constitute additional variances above and beyond what was already approved. 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.' Not applicabh “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.' Not applicable "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Secti^'n 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.“ Should the variance be granted or not granted, access to direct sunlight will not be affected. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” The use proposed is an allowed use in its respective zoning district. 1 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. M3-M95 July 21.2003 PageOofO "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” There are no special conditions applying to the structure or land that would constitute a variance approval for a deck beyond what has already been approved. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structure.s in the district in which said land is located.” Not applicable "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Should the application be denied, the applicant still has the enjoyment of an existing walkout balcony on the lake side of the home. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." The intent of the Zoning Code would not be met should variances be approved beyond the original renewal variances. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely seive as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable Iiardship or difficulty." The applicant has stated that the deck will serve as a fire escape and improve sight lines. The Planning Commission should discuss whether these needs represent convenience or hardship. StafT does not find any unique hardships to justify a variance for the deck. Issues for Consideration 1 . Does a hardship exist to allow a take side deck? 2. Should the applicant be held to the stipulations of the previous variance approval? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Denial of both variance requests due to a lack of a viable hardship and the stipulations of the Resolution #4645 which set limits for the property. i J CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application #03 "'<9^*/.^ Date Received -A3 ~03 Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^\oV v\ <.\vvocio Property Identification Number tfll.D.) C>'~1 - \\~i Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquire d r^.'} I \ H^ -«-l*4 — ^________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential ___other (specify)_______ Zoning District: _______— •............................................. (month/year) APPLICANT Name O cvq Address: c, \ ^ t U. .v,.. \ Phone (home)c\S^ ____ Phone (work) City: GQ-cOd__________Zip: «-( OW NER (if different than applicant) \ Name Crvc^vi C»»t Addres^ Auvv. ^ 0. fvr Phone (home) Phone (work)___ City:j^f2£A£^Cl Zip: irc/ Estimated Construction Cost $ o • / cy-fjDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: T~\or *2 VV* o. /., . ■ a V t A y (attach additionafsheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side y Hardcover Rear .ot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: c iX V\ < (attach additional sheets if necessary) JJ. o o ^ IT /O O Cii- • REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2.■f 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form ^ LS‘ffr7'T ^'''™-'“" vU ~s~vi o^e (IroTst-'n,-, property. This would include name(s) of _ As an addendum to this application, please ariach a separate lisT^*^you wish notified of this application.*^ separate list of any other persons Additional items a- may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application PImc^ v u APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE AdrninSmr! ‘’3’ the Zoningr« r,s:“ /------------ DaleApplicant’s SignatureQ's f\ OWNER’S SIGNATURE entry onto the Xpel^Ty'cUy sLff!^rnsuUant? Sem.“entry onto the property by City staff *consulianf<T authorizes reasonable members for puntoses of investisation’and veriftcat'ion oVthifreqrsr" Owner’s SignatureO^.. O. Applicant must have aSksu^i j Date Jg/ // n LJCf sr..:" ys;r “„VSchange prior to the meeting. Building & Zoning Office of this o'?*.- J% » ' V .1 / /-^cry ■■a* *. • .J .* * t'. r i! ll t>1 j|; JX^C : V !. f-i ii; ^ C e c*vjJLV^ \( c*^ C)«,OtOo ^|i! |i:I I ox 'v.^^r-00«-t_ c-^r • 0». ^ ^*"' iSl'"'^ ^\ CJ Or ^ V^OL-Tye ^ V>-V-<T1 c-0>jyc_ *^' O V^<— C"^ t*VL/0---------- 4\jl r \ V» c c '.W \c >;= *iA. ftJi C <x r % V rocJ<^ rv-vt'vX NAc ^ Cyj 0 o ^ cv\^ W.^ Vj^v*^ oa::) - • ■ ^ •'Vv c w^ *x iLX -o VvX\ V.iLovX LO v_sXVAi^ cr^x o^\>^-' t_'^. o«^ •b'^- O o r- c^ c_jc3z. \ ' ^•“«J V »- ( • t ^ f»k«;. V VQjJ. Vck VLC ^ c_DVJV 6 o^cV v\ ^vj*i ^*0 r,vXVi^OL S^/vV><^ c, ^ ^ Vc^ v^ “iX^V cV < O W ^l— t'v.-s\-v_t.^\ 'vn> r c.:^> >•S.V .•Kf 1 I *• *••• • -« a ■ • •«f^tsif4'. '^JUc3L ^V'cS^ \VjJOC c% T>^ «.»^ ^O ( v> *‘~'^ d. cTNyJLA^ QoJ> c.*-^ . \\OkTL^ Q ^vyjuO , rv>v f 0 s»JOua^ \o -\c CD—V <=-. *5Lyf.^fiOs-^ 0)%iV VvO^-Jkn^ ^S^V. V)^<^ UOaj\,;) ^ Xv*. \Q. V>«tvr»^ oij«-^ A\* ^ ^ *^Ci , ^^L»_x-v^ ^<> NA a » ^ t C.C. \K* O-y^ <0^^ C Ov.^V^O^-'^^ V.i' t>0 V" w r <1. '^'^ON.>-fi^ \nivO_j>,—. ^O ^V-w \ ci pv-v vj^ ^/-o » \ V s ^fVvfcVJ-*-^ ^Sv.'S^CC.Sl ^o 'v ^ V. -v\ VvSo^ vw^W. «>^N ®S^ , \ P>^J4^ . Csr c.c--'^ Vv*^.o^ ^ O^ V Q C CJ c . Oo^ C_50i_Si^ \ G li\'»- "l'\V- "5V^i5 a '"^.. -- ■' \^lO I 'A- ^fVo.acJ^ C^S.»»40^ <VA. wV-^ r r.AX*-A Io 2 i z<?. /^ • !^.! ifMlwo^'t,' ifl I N efoij^/: ■ ^ ' I nm*; e««>|r tM ■<• mMcm * ol (w««)r MM r<ipM« »ir in* m MHdir my <mi tv^mmm and It I ww ioiy ftigimrrt Lid Survayor iviivttit IM •( MI 7''ZV.:m. 14700 ... • ,V.f. T*jfUj;.. *>y *.^.**’« ♦ . < t V*. . .&*•* - J..V ■»•>*. A a ^•8fc=.a8g.a»te<| y* ..itW.1W.4att ^ • r'^ ■• t uaiiA ■im .S |X f AREA OF HOUSE k CARACC (iNaUDINC CANTILEVER) RAISED DECK ENTRY area of oriveamlk TOTAL HAR . SO. FT. TOTAL AREA OF LOT LOT ABOVE 75' LAKE SETACX TOTAL HARDCOVER ABOVE 75* LAKE SETBACK 8550.57 SO. FT. 4882.21 SO. FT. 40*/<7 //•/f aI»»- Ron Krueger & Associates, Inc. fnolMtilno UniSun«y«no PUnnIng • $301 Edbia Induslrlol CdOia, Miwioiota $S430-2$24 ($t2} $31-2t0f SR Property Manqgement Fodtity Man^yment Maintenance Construction Project Matu^ement t'fione (612)^38-2828 Fax {612)338-3288 REAL ESTATE SERVICES c. Cl o. 4 <s E)Chibi> S >jt^ Name: _____________ Page Number: Date:: scale: 1/8"=1 foot ! 0)K^O G \ ^5 i\vo\ r i i. 4' < ^ ; in Vi— . i I M jL o o oif o cJ ^1 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75 HARDCOVER CALCVIATIONJ^RKSHEET F 250-500‘500-1000' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House" LiMh wm B. Garage C. Driveway X X X X X 1 (l0^id)rt BA- X D.tlb X B 4-14*»i)Tnx 9b “2>2- E. Pado/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Ptasdc Or Fabric RETAMnih G. Other \:4t\u. X X X ^l0 210 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 'LM’b + B WMV xlOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House LiRgih Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patia/Deck X X I MM F. Landscape Underlain By Plasnc Or Fabric X X X G, Other \%0 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 1^0 ♦ B xIOO m m w S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2,283 S.F. A S.F. B Mb.V % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A __S.F. % B X • Xv- *v • * X 4'» J . » • X' 4 .^3rm %?i'. &l£. ^<5 . w ... -------- . • v‘ • ^ * * * r ** ****^-» ’ ■ * '*.■ *'•r.^' .t • *..:• .'^. •Vf-*r*T" ‘^^=fT‘:■* L3* 11 fA^ . Bl.-fI & Mi I .. 'x’.x m*lv y>T:x . ; *^7414*^ hJ Jbsi{:3t:* :f<* ^ fci T PffiL r%^ *-^x<- c —r-.-r - L \ '>- • • -f* '• ' . • /:/--' • V' • '* '•- • , * *1 -. •• , X •• ‘.t t r ; 3iSgiilMii K».■■iK-;;^®..n“-: uili sia i ii J i,.. 1 ; la;• • ,'<*' ■.’ 1. ^BBI) j 1 ssu£snm1u» j! n (mm mm lis? f ®, !4 %sW£;,,*-'2': ..; .i *■;:- ■■‘I3^i t " mili? '■"F^"ihny: ■ V \ •..' A * ^ • '’ifHSfr ' * ' Sii I i£sii i^S M BSS f^-';i'.iW.« • wmmm .^M r • i j'v •. m:ii'1^' wji*' . Si’"", ^ 0^15^ ^ BS fli ft5'^§j Ml m J.: ^jmi '^' ~ n.'-------- ' ,:r..»«. 1^! . »'<■■- o ;<^i)Jp. ■’ • rir, ' 'r* .*• I -; *1 mk' <. # # ^ -. • • •• ' • . '»^*. •.,^i-‘ '• .: • *" “sV- ' * ■-^: .'■ ■■ .. '^^ 'V*. or-,:* ’^ . f^ \ 4 ' * * • ■ T.v 'j' .» ,^r ,-. ’•••V;^: •■• ^'"vv V '-• ■ ■•"■•'‘V-::y»^^ < •>- .^*.j:>v., ;-.-• v' • . -. • • ■ '• Y. .V 1^: •: ;:.« . .' ■ i >'■.> '-.^h-j • . ’ it*? m, '■>- •5,- ; .;. iS iV '■- 'i - ;;4': t ti !->■ • ■■. r-lS » ^ w m tAif ■ 'f? "’4'i ■. M) 14 “ ' '•> . ,'--'i- * • I -am •*. .' -r-'-rli m r-.'■■■■ ' \. , .V- • .. • ^ ^4i'-'_________ ll^f^iS^SSSa PLEASE DISREGARD ( • • / • ♦*LAST DOCUMENT I > ^7z:^r.mmm > >ni '^■-V^-> V3rv \m ?i r s*_____'/ wm feSfti '.i'l*; laap*'*--'’ ■ j.; ,'•■» “;ie»^*V’ X. wiM-ta'SS5?SS3»:f .4 i:,_ O-V p y ' V'^' 'fife-'.# ■}^*»<^.-' Kr.t5.fij r • K t 'l-V ''■\ •' •I.- • ■.' ■ I'?;." fe'AS® J^V ^ ;■*’ ' r r / • ■' ->‘-^/>*a Wi,kii ^ ;. i* - u J '*v •/ Si'fe'iM' n___r. ■1 I. m .. mie^k ' -V' ^'-*'' • -* ' ■• '^' V.'i*.', .'t • J-', .. I:. i 0^. 1 . ^--« nf rx/rcTira ir r*-^ . ' * .' ^- ■. -y V'«''.- ''' .' t./lr-D'^A-' )-.r r.^'***- «♦?'•/£.’*.• -»Al.rv •’ K,'» *'^~ •'*•'*■• J’^-' ^5 ' V '\ V % ‘n"• ^ •' >• ^v /V V A-- --IVI • ‘ •••T «ii::-'vr'"4. v: ■ Vf t ' * • ' ‘ ' • aJl ' bLi j^LJ^sInLvJb^. «/•» 1^«^ >f:-; '^£il m5- ■% w-m % .;«• m 10.22, WHEl property located at 4 legally described as 1 Lot 15. High’ property"); an WHEI Municipal Zoning Cc residence to replace t from the front or si required, and request and requesting an e^ requesting a lot area in area where lot are existing lot width wl width is normally rec 10.22, Subdivision 2 1,956 s.f or 40% wl NOW, Minnesota: I.This a reques City C Counc EnUrttVI- M EfS.M4i/r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.24, SUBDIVISION 5 (B); 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE NO. 01-2673 WHEREAS, Gary L. Germundsen (hereinafter "the applicant") is owner of the property located at 4101 Highwood P..qad within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lot IS, Highwood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and « • V'HEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for renewal of variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property, the new residence to be located 25’ from the front or street right-of-way line where a 30' street or front setback is normally required, and requesting a west side setback of 9.5' where a 10' setback is normally required, and requesting an east side setback of 6' where a 10' setback is normally required, and requesting a lot area variance for construction of a new residence on a property of 8,550 s.f. in area where lot area of 43,560 s.f. is normally required, and requesting a variance for the existing lot width which is 50' at the shoreline and 46' at the 75' setback line where the lot width is normally required to be 140' at such locations; and requesting a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 1,956 s.f. or 40% where only 1,220 s.f. or 25% hiudeover is normally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #01-2673. This application is a request for renewal of variances granted via Resolution No. 3889 adopted by the City Council on April 28, 1997 and Resolution No. 3719 adopted by the City Council on April 22, 1997. Page 1 of 6 ilHtom .• • 2. 3. Zoning Distnct, requinng 1 acre in area and 140’ of lot width. • • The Orono Pl^ng ComraUsion reviewed this applicstiin on April 16 2001 ,L P”>P®«d.variances based upon a finding that R«oiu.ion-No. 3719 ;u;iNo7ir8; L A. B.|HS£S3Sacode Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C). * C.The proposed hoiue is located less than the normal TO' requited setback H ^ « proposed for the 0-75’ zone, and standald^f r DNR D.The "«t side setbapk of 9.5’ only occurs at a midpoint comer of the mimmum structure-to-structure setback requirement. F.Jnn ^including a 10*x2’ cantilevered segment IS only 24 in width as proposed. The adjacent house on the property to Page 2 of 6 a ^ i \ i f .• t 4. 5. the northeast averages 18' from the lot line, hence the separation between the structures will be maintained at approximately 26', greater separation than might be obtained if. all houses in the neighborhood were constructed right up to the required 10* side setbacks. G.While the lot at 8,550 s.f. and width of 46-50' is relatively small compared to the 1 acre/140' standards of the LR-IB zone, other developed lots in the neighborhood are of similar size. Further, the property has contained a single family residence for many years and ha< remained in single separate ownership. H.Applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan which will adequately manage the runoff from the property. Because the neighboring property to the east has recently been reconstructed, the opportuniw exists for an appropriate drainageway to be developed along the common lot line. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pcse a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propeily; would not merely serve as a convenience to. the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a 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 Comprel.ensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants renewal variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B), granting Page 3 of 6 r . • • area and width variances for construction of a new residence on the property which is 8 550 at such locat'ons; and hereby grants further variances to Section 10.24, SubdllSi'on "^'0 a iow the restdence to be located 25’ front the front or street right-oAvay line Xre a st^t or front setback ts nomaliy required, and to aiiow an east side setback of 6'where a W setback is normally required, and to allow a west side setback of 9 5* where a 10* sefharV u normally requM; and ^er grants a variance to Sections 10.22, Sub^irioV^^ m ss Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 1 956 s.f or 40% « f' 1,220 s.f or 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: ” ^ Iv Construction of a single family residence on this property shall adhere to the site plan and cons^ction plans per the survey by Ron Krueger and Associates Inc dated November 19, 1995 revised April 1, 1996 (Exhibit A attached) 'iny fo^e revisions to the site plan which change the location or size of the house by thrcity additional hardcover, will require additional review 2.No hardcover shall be allowed in the 0-75' setback zone. In the 75.2so- rnn*. 8^46^8 *0 M92 s.f including the house and attached garage,’ Tfnflno/ driveway, for a total hardcover allowance of 1,956 nored will •'“■icover in addition to thataw:ii ‘ • -------- iimutuvcF u\ aaoiiion to that Tn ^ f“ "O' <0 be approvedin the future uniess concurrent removais of pre-existing hardcover result to no hardcover increase above ti;e 40% allowance 3. cfw to‘^«fbMlh7,to»H^ 'o »>' and with the no^nenattol taosc^^ dramageways so that the applicant's construction has no negative impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. 4. buT neSt^ o’' l"’“ "O' with the applicant,but are pemissive only and must be exercised by application for a buildiner.x«r,f 5. i«°ototn Shan ZXf'i.*"'*,"’"' “<* “nditions of thisresolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code shall Aitomaticallv tenninate any authority granted herein, and sLi ^ ptllisrbr^ ^ P*ge 4 of6 1 J misdemeanor. 6.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the rec^/ruLg of this resolution in the chun of title of the property. Adopted by the Orbno City Council on this 23rd day of April, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, Ci^ Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of April, 2001, by Barbara A. Peterson & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the C-ty of Orono, a Miimesota municipal corporation and ^aid instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public i. Pages ofd . i 3^- mM'•If}:-?- ■' >■’ •- .■ ttv*m IHJN.DATE 12/11/05 BATCH 607 HEtMEPXN COUNTY PROPtRTY INFORMATIOH SYSTCH . • PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX41S401 ■ PACE 17 SO 07-117-23 44 0010 PROP ADDR 04079 IIXG1IH000 RO OWNER NAHE JOHN T SANDORN ETAL TAXPAYER J T SANDORN NAHE/AOOR 4079 IIICIIHOOD RO MOUNO HN £2364 38 07-117-23 44 0011 04091 IIXCtIHOOD RO F t JOHNSON A 0 L FOSS FREDERIC JOHNSON . 4091 HXCHWOOO RO HOUND HN 55364 ' 38. 07-117-23 44 0012 04099 HXGHHOOO RO 0 L A R NELSON ALONZO B SERAN XXI • 4099 laCHNOOO RO • .HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0013 04101 HIGI0400D RO EVA THEOOALO EVA A THEOOALO HANE/AOOR 4101 HXGHHOOO ROAD HOUND IM 55364 PROP AODR 0»tCR WANE TAXPAYER 0 38 07-117-23 44 0014 a C* ' 04iosX*«CHMooo no ^ CHARLES>^A HART ^ ft', NILUAiyC'-SRX If 38 07-117-23 44 0015 04109 HXCHWOOO RO • CEORCE N APPLEDAUH GEORGE APPLEDAUH 4109 HXGHHOOO RO HOUND m SS364 • • • SO 07-117-23 44 0031 04132 HXCHWOOO RO SCOTT G A CATHERINE ANDERSON SCOTT G A CATtlERXNE ANDERSON NaHE/AOOR 4132 TnGHHOOO ROAO HOUND HN 55364 PROP AOOR OTMER NAHE TAXPAYER 38 07-117-23 44 0033 04108 HXGHHOOO RO JASON H THEXS JASON THEXS 4100 HXGHHOOO RO HOUND HN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0084 04125 HXGHHOOO RO JOHN H A ROBERTA J HENRXCH JOHN H A ROBERTA J HENRXCH 4125 HXGHHOOO RO '. ORONO HN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0086 04l04 HXGHHOOO RO GLEN A BEVERLY SAUER GLEN A BEVERLV SAUER • NAHE/AOOR -4104 HXGHHOOO RO HOUND HN 55364 PROP ADDR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER 38 07-117-23 44 0087 04116 HXGHHOOO RO PHILLIP H OTTO PHXLLXP OTTO 19050 STRA'TORD RD 0209 HINNETONKA HN 55345 TOTAL BATCH 507 00011 .• . X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARB AN ACCUIATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF XNFORHATXON AS XT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS* OF THE KENNEPXN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXAHON. TO THE BEST OF HY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. . •*i -•■ I SATE m• • • • • ♦ • • • 7. ■AaMAttiMl ■uii ■ t . .. I • • • • r. I %, ii ^ i ■?; j i Date Application Received: 5-20-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5-23-03 00-Day Review Period Eipires: 7-22-^3 Eitended on 6-20-03 to: 9-20-03 JUL 2 8 2003 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CH v Date: July 24,2003 Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2904 Richard S. Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive - After-the-Fact Variance List of Exhibits A - Notice of PC Action 7-24-03 B - Draft PC Minutes 7-21-03 C - Memo and Exhibits of 7-17-03 Application Summary: Applicant requested an after-the-fact variance for certain retaining wall setbacks on the property, and a hardcover variance for excessive hardcover in the 500- 1000' zone. This item was tabled at the June PC meeting to allow applieant to explore ways to reduce the excess hardcover. A revised proposal was reviewed at the July 21 PC meeting. Allowed = 35% = 6,785.6 s.f. Existing = 50.8% = 9,860 s.f. Initial Proposal = 45.9% = 8,908 s.f. Revised Proposal = 39.7% = 7,693 s.f. Background The applicant purchased this home in November 2002. Before the closing he inquired of the City as to whether the property was in compliance. As no Certificate of Occupancy had yet been issued nor requested, and no inspections had been called for in more than a year, staff visited the site and concluded that hardcover appeared to be excessive. The applicant then executed an agreement drafted by the City Attorney (Exhibit F of 6-11-03 PC memo) to allow temporary occupancy while the matter was resolved. Applicant subsequently had an as-built survey performed, which confirmed that the hardcover was far in excess of that allowed, and portions are outside of the property boundaries and potentially encroach on required wetland setbacks. Applicant provided an initial plan for review at the June PC meeting, proposing hardcover reductions from the existing 50.8% to 45.9%. Planning Commission tabled the proposal and requested further reductions. Applicant then made substantial revisions to the plan by replacing the loop driveway with a sidewalk, reducing the hardcover to 39.7%. L (N)3'2904 1300 Shoreline Drive July 24,2003 Page 2 Planning Commluion Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed the revised plan at a public hearing on July 21 and on a vote of 5-2 recommended approval of the revised plan for 39.7% hardcover subject to the following conditions: 1.Existing encroachments of wetland or required wetland setbacks by retaining walls, fill or paved surfaces shall be removed. 2.Retaining walls shall be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within S' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or whether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site shall be removed. 3. All landscape beds lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. The minority opinion of the Planning Commission (Smith, Fritzler) was that the removals do not reach the 35% limit established by code and they failed to see a hardship supporting the variance. Staff Recommendation The applicant has made a good faith effort to reduce hardcover by eliminating the circle driveway and replacing it with a walkway and stairs in the front yard, and establishing parking spaces near the lower driveway. The result is hardcover of 39.7% where 35% would be allowed. If Council concludes that the unique circumstances regarding the history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then approval of the after-the-fact variances per the revised removal plan may be in order. Because the Planning Commission recommendation was not unanimous, staff has not drafted a resolution for this application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the proposal and determine whether the hardcover removals to a level of 39.7% are acceptable, and direct staff to draft a resolution for review and adoption at the August 11 meeting. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55325 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #03-2904 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 24, 2003 TO: Richard S. Brown 1300 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances (Hardcover, setback) DATE OF MEETING: July 21, 2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of after-the-fact hardcover variance per the revised hardcover removal plan resulting in 39.7% hardcover, subject to the following conditions: 1.Existing encroachmenti of wetland or required wetland setbacks by retaining walls, fill or paved surfaces shrll be removed. 2.Retaining walls shall be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within 5' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or whether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site shall be removed. 3. All landscape beds lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. VOTE: 5 FOR 2 AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaftron at 952-249-4600. .W A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Mr. Henrich asked if they could redesign the deck to meet the 10’ bluff setback and still maintain the 6bo s.f. size deck they currently have, or maintain the 28% hardcover figure. Mabusth agreed, ^ing that thi': solution would be consistent. Chair Smith indicated )l»t if the applicants could compromise their desigt^ meet these suggestions, the Commisnpn could support the 28% due to the steep slopo^^d narrowness of Highwood Road. \ There were no public comments. \ Mabusth moved* Frltzler secondhi* to recommend approva^f Application #03-2893* John and Roberta Henrich, 412^SHighwood Road, approving the average setback variance for the revised location* approving the revi^ hardcover plan for 2Syo hardcover in the 75-250* zone due to. the steep slope.^and narrowness of Highwood Road* require that the deck be pulled Out to meet ^10* top of bluff setback* and the shed be converted to a lockbox. N. Gaffron questioned whether the Commission wquid approve the small 4 ’ encroachment of the house into the 30’ bluff setback. Mabusth amended her motion* adding that while (l^e deck needs to be reconfigured in order to be pulled 15 ’ from the top of bluff s^back* the house could remain encroaching by 4’ into the 30’ bluff^etback. Hawn moved that the prior m^tira be withdrawn* Brem^ seconded* VOTE: Ayes 7* Nays 0. Bremer moved* Mabus^'seconded, to recommend approval onkpplication #03-2893, John and Roberta H^drich, 4125 Highwood Road, approving t^average lakeshore setback variance the revised location; approving the revised bedcover plan for 28'!(t hardcover/4n the 75-250’ zone due to the steep slope an^narrowness of Highwood Road; approving a 4’ encroachment of the house into the 3m bluff setback; however, the Commission would require that the deck not encroach more than 15 ’ from the top of the bluff and the removal of the shed in lieu of a loclmox. VOTE: Av^s^* Nays 0. (#7) #03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN* 1300 SHORELINE DRIVE, AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES, 6:34 - 6:48 P.M. Scott Cooper, the builder representing the applicant, was present. Gaffron explained that the applicant requested an afler-the-fact variance for certain: PAGE 5 of 37 ( MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. retaining wall setbacks on the property, and a hardcover variance for excessive hardcover in the 500-1000' zone. This item was tabled at the June meeting to allow applicant to explore ways to reduce the excess hardcover. Allowed = 35% = 6,785.6 s.f. Existing = 50.8% = 9,860 s.f. Initial Proposal = 45.9% = 8,908 s.f. Revised Proposal = 39.7% = 7,693 s.f. The applicant has made a good faith effort to reduce hardcover by eliminating the circle driveway and replacing it with a walkway and stairs in the front yard, and establishing parking spaces near the low'er driveway. Gaffron stated that if the Planning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the afler-the-fact variances would be in order As this item was tabled a*, the June meeting in order for applicant to work with staff to reduce the hardcover to as near the 35% limit as possible, staff met with the applicant and discussed each item of hardcover on the property. Applicant made some decisions as to the relative importance of each hardcover item to his use of the property. After working with u landscape architect, the applicant determined that removal of the circular drive could result in a positive impact to the property and result in a hardcover reduction of 2,167 s.f, yielding a final 500-1000' hardcover of 7,693 s.f or 39.7%. Gaffron noted that, while additional items of hardcover could be removed, they represent amenities that applicant feels arc integral to his use of the property (patio areas) or which the removal of would reduce the functionality of the site (reduction of the lower driveway surface would make it difficult to maneuver vehicles into that space). Issues for Consideration 1. The applicant proposes a revised plan such that the hardcover will be reduced to a level of 2,167 s.f. less than the e.xisting but still exceeding that allowed by City Codes by 908 s.f 2. The applicant's acquisition of the property was finalized before he knew the magnitude of the hardcover excesses. 3. Retaining walls that encroach past the lot line or are less than 26' from wetlands should be relocated to be within the property and meet wetland setbacks. While the City has minimal use of the adjacent right-of-ways and they appear to a casual observer as part of this property, the City has no intent to vacate those right-of-ways, hence applicant cannot make the property larger to reduce the hardcover percentage. Gaffron indicated that staff would make the following recommendations: 1. If Planning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the PAGE 6 of 37 .1 * 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the after-the-fact variances per the revised removal plan would be in order. 2. Existing encroachments of wetland or required wetland setbacks by retaining walls, fill or paved surfaces should be removed. 3. Retaining walls should be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within S' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or whether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site should be removed. 4. All landscape bed lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. Chair Smith questioned whether the unique circumstances surrounding this application could be considered hardships. Gaffron stated that, while the applicant should have done some further investigation before purchasing the property, there is some debate over whose fault the overages of hardcover could be blamed. Although certainly unique, Gaffron acknowledged he did not know if they constitute hardships by definition. Chair Smith pointed out that the original approvals allowed 30% hardcover. During the last meeting the Commission asked the applicant to get as close to 35% hardcover as possible. She questioned whether further removals could be made to reach 35%. Cooper commented that construction occurred over a four year period and that the current applicant has gone to great lengths to reduce hardcover substantially and still have good access to the property. Hawn asked how the retaining walls would be changed. Cooper stated that the walls would be pulled onto the property; however, as allowed at the last meeting, they would not meet a 5’ setback. Gaffron stated that minimal reductions would be gained with these removals and that the remaining pavement is necessary to ensure adequate turning radius and maneuverability. He pointed out that the applicant would like to keep the patios. Hawn and Bremer felt the applicant had done a good job faced with a diiTicuIt situation. Fritzlcr stated that he would insist the removals go further to meet the 35% as originally directed at the last meeting. Chair Smith concurred, stating that she saw no hardship to support the need for two driveways. PAGE 7 of 37 .* • I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Gaffron pointed out that the two driveways access two difTerent levels of garages. There were no public comments. Cooper reiterated that they had taken out the circular driveway, for a decrease of some 2,000 s.f, and all that remains was a sidewalk accessing the front door. Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application ff03>2904, Richard Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive, after-the-fact variances per the revised removal plan, subject to staff conditions including; the removal of retaining wails, fill, or paved surfaces within the existing encroachments of wetland or wetland setbacks; removal of retaining waUs where they extend over the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within 5* of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or aesthetic in nature, and those unnecessary to support topography of the site should be removed. In addition, all landscape bed lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Chair Smith and Fritzler believed the removals should meet 35%. (#8) #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, 720 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCES, 6:48 - 7:19 P.M. Jeff and Cara Ziebarth, the applicants, were present. Gaffron stated that the applicants at the June meeting provided a new plan which reduced the number and magnitude of variances needed to construct a second story addition and attached garage to the existing residence. A slightly further reduced plan was submitted on July 14. The variances required by the most recent revised plan include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75’ setback zone, 65 ’ from shoreline. Second story structure encroaching 4.3 feet from left side lot line. Second story structure encroaching 2.4 feet from right side lot line. Attached garage addition and grading 6 feet from left side lot line (rather than 4 ’) and moved back toward existing house footprint to avoid encroaching sewer line easement. Remove existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75’ zone, replace with a smaller 95 s.f. deck still slightly encroaching average setback line. Hardcover in 0-75’ zone will be reduced from 1058 s.f(29.4%) to 535.31 sf (14.8%) where no hardcover is allowed, by reducing deck steps and concrete slab areas. Hardcover in 75-250' zone will be reduced from 2257.1 sf (51.9%) to 1961.38 sf (45.1%) where 25% is normally allowed. Changes not requiring variances include: > Lot coverage by structures reduced from 1870 s.f. (23.5%) to exactly 1500 s.f. where 1500 s.f is allowed (no variance required). PAGE 8 of 37 i Date Application Received: 5-20-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 5-23-03 60-Day Review Period Espires: 7-22-03 Extended on 6-20-03 to: 9-20-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaflfron, Planning Director July 17,2003 #03-2904 Richard S. Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive - Variance - Revised Plan - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. 19,388 s.f. (0.45 acre) Application Summary: Applicant requested an after-the-fact variance for certain retaining wall setbacks on the property, and a hardcover variance for excessive hardcover in the 500- 1000' zone. This item was tabled at the June meeting to allow applicant to explore ways to reduce the excess hardcover. Allowed = 35% = 6,785.6 s.f. Existing - 50.8% = 9,860 s.f. Initial Proposal = 45.^ = 8,908 s.f. Proposal = 39.7% = 7,693 s.f. Staff Recommendation: The applicant has made a good faith effort to reduce hardcover by eliminating the circle driveway and replacing it with a walkway and stairs in the front yard, and establishing parking spaces near the lower driveway. If Planning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the after-the-fact variances would be in order. List of Exhibits A - Revised Hardcover Submittal B - Notice of PC Action 6-20-03 C - Memo and Exhibits of 6-11-03 This item was tabled at the June meeting in order for applicant to work with staff to reduce the hardcoN cr to as near the 35% limit as possible. Staff met with the applicant and discussed each item of hardcover on the property. Applicant made some decisions as to the relative importance of each hardcover item to his use of the property. After working with a landscape architect, the applicant determined that removal of the circular drive could result in a positive impact to the property and result in a hardcover reduction of 2,167 s.f., yielding a final 500-1000* hardcover of 7,693 s.f. or 39.7%. While additional items of hardcover could be removed, they represent amenities that applicant feels are integral to his use of the property (patio areas) or which the removal of would reduce the functionality of the site (reduction of the lower driveway surface would make it difficult to maneuver vehicles into that space). . • * I J «03-2904 July 17,2003 Page 2 REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width! RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200' Actual 19,388 s.f. (0.45 acre) (Var 1998) 129.5' (Var 1998) Setbacks; Structural Coverage; Hardcover Calculations; • After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds, which by stoff calculation consists of an additional approximately 600 s.f. not apparently included in the submitted numbers on the survey. RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 50'32' (Var 1998)Same Rear 50'49' (Var 1998)Same Left Side 30 ’25' (Var 1998)Same Right Side 50' (Comer lot)50' +Same Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 19,388 s.f. (0.45 ac.)Allowed: 2908 s.f. (15%) Existing; 2854 s.f (14.7%) Hardcover Zone Total Area In Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500-1000'19,388 s.f 6,785.6 s.f (30 %) 9,860 s.f* (50.8 %) 8,908 s.f (45.9 %) 7,693 s.f. (39.7%) #03-2904 July 17,2003 Page 3 Hardship Analysis StafThas not revised the hardship analysis (see June memo). Planning Commission must determine whether the proposed removals and resultant reduced hardcover are supported by unique circumstances or hardships. ( Issues for Consideration 1. The applicant proposes a revised plan such that the hardcover will be reduced to a level of 2,167 s.f. less than the existing but still exceeding that allowed by City Codes by 908 s.f. 2. The applicant ’s acquisition of the property was finalized before he knew the magnitude of the hardcover excesses. 3. Retaining walls that encroach past the lot line or are less than 26' from wetlands should be relocated to be within the property and meet wetland setbacks. While the City has minimal use of the adjacent right-of-ways and they appear to a casual observer as part of this property, the City has no intent to vacate those right-of-ways, hence applicant cannot make the property larger to reduce the hardcover percentage. 4. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommeodation Staff makes the following recommendations: 1 . If Planning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the after- the-fact variances per the revised removal plan would be in order. 2. Existing encroachments of wetland or required wetland setbacks by retaining walls, fill or paved surfaces should be removed. 3. Retaining walls should be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within 5' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or whether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site should be removed. 4. All landscape bed lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. T X-f-' Impervious Surfaces Colculotions i.ee& «f. ou\ 718 tf. In / new 2.187 tL aUHrme* 8.860 tf. eeitllnQ 2.187 sf. out Iculotlons mm....;fpKw i-.ll» V %. t^:'1 W^'ir^:>'-/i •:>?v;r '>•'» 4^,,''i«on\V»>9 ■ •“ 'A <vy mm I •V • ^ t.-te'. l'. •/> X* •.'//////ZZa .-:. s- r-'v' » * • ! •. « V'*rj PfontW.^ B%€ II \ Ite ilf!i '\CoM. • »^mA ■:-.\Tr '•' > )\t' CoocfBle♦ • * «v./ • -S' WQlk trM ••• ■•.■.•» '^U9ht, iMiii 4 r; ‘■‘SA iiv.'jh ■■■;■ '• B K 'i-' -0 ^\V^fy .• .;AJ4r/i . , ’ »i 4 .^f ^.y ■•* ^ .• -‘ ) I,'-Plonting »•■•■■»; •' ••'•' -X-;•;•'■ iA»n • ’.X - f.'*•••/• '/:-v';~:;*v''.-. iv.‘: .• .• .‘V * •7 • V-'>, - • T' ^‘* ^ v*V^ !•'•♦ v.‘‘-- • •* w * * f V •» • ! •? 0.0 0£T :^Es 'f : ' i;>. V ' iQJ i •In JUL. >'U’03 (MON) 10:28 J.N.6.A. FINANCIAL TEL:952-844‘0996 P. 002 A' ^ ^ fVLt^DC glHk Htfi*&«.TL»4Bw<ti 7-f (kt"mrn4i * ^ 9 S: P r“ ^ P««r U|i.(/WKy> srirMItf Syi!^ rut/S^iI fV^A TT'Mi. J ^ ?rw«- tr«.«-s —- 7 » ^ !|^^*y||i^SurfBaM Olculctiom 1 .:?• it h / MW 1 a CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING nLE #03-2904 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; June 20, 2003 TO:Richard S. Brown 1300 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances (Hardcover, setback) DATE OF MEETING: June 16, 2003 Planning Commission recommended as fol-ws: Table, subject to applicant working with City staff to reduce the hardcover to a level as close to the 35% limit as possible. Planning Commission indicated that the wetland delineation must be completed to determine the wetland boundary, and all grading, fill, structures, etc. will have to meet the 26' setback. Retaining walls at the east side of the driveway loop which meet the 26* wetland setback and are within the property boundaries likely will not be required to meet the normal 5* lot line setback. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST You are scheduled to meet with Mike Gaffron at the City offices on Monday, June 23 at 3:30 p.m. to review your application. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday, July 21, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on May 23, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on July 22, 2003. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the July 21 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day^ review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to September 20, 2003. I Dale Application Received: 5-20<03 Date Application Considered as Compietc: 5>2I^3 60-Day R^ew Period Eiplm: 7-22-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaf&on, Planning Director June 11,2003 #03-2904 Richard S. Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive • Variance - Public Hearing 2U>nliig District: Lot Area: RR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. 19,388 s.f. (0.45 acre) Application Summary: Applicant requests an after-the-fact variance for certain retaining wall setbacks on the property, and a hardcover variance for excessive hardcover in the 500- 1000* zone. Allowed = 35% = 6,785.6 s.f. Existing = 50.8% = 9,860 s.f. Proposed *= 45.9% = 8,908 s.f Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variances subject to a number of conditions to bring the property into compliance. PertIncDt Code Sections: 1.10.22 Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. ...Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. 2.10.56 Subd. 16(L)(2); ...Between 500 feet and 1000 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. 3.10.55 Subd. 8: Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D - Approved Hard;:over Plan & Calculations E • Resolution No. 4072 F • Compliance Agreement 11-13-02 G - Property Owners List H - Plat map I - Inspection Slip 11-8-02 5 ‘ SNc . f f i #03-2904 June 11,2003 P*g«2 Background IS Md*c**’ ***“* *” T" ***®" ® y®"' staff immediately visited the ematterwasr^lved. AppUcant then had an as-buili survey ptrfonned. which coiifiTOed that Ihe Applicant hu proposed c^ain hardcover removals to reduce hardcover form the exislina 50 8»/ do™ to 45.6%, where only 35% is allowed. The original hardcover submittal {eSS nn^!,^ hardcover at exactly 35%, which was accepted by tte City and under wSa SI if T issued in Octo^ 1998. This property had been the subject of a variance for lot area and v^tTu well as front/side/rear setbacks, but no hardcover vaiiance had been granted. » should be noted that the sitecontains many boulder and keystone retaining watts which add to the hardcover and which S support «>e many ^ vaned garages and entry points to the house, or provide for flaTn^w sloped yaid areas The previous owner/builder did not obtain permits nfr disclose Us intoUo^ City pr or to constructmg the walls, as few are shown on plans submitted to the Citv before orH„ ■ ct“ri.Slforfi” '".r somh lot lUe? Hardship Statement roS'-st :pp”:^r"" Hardship Analysis .• 0 i #03-2904 June 11,2003 Pnge3 Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the oflTicial controls.” The property in question £sn be put to a reasonable use if the hardcover variance is not granted The property contains an excess ofdriveway and retaining wall hardcover which is not necessary for reasonable use of the property. Reasonable use of the property is a single family residence with adequate vehicular and pedestrian access, which is perfectly feasible without the need for a hardcover variance. *The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” While the applicant is purchaser ofthe property and was not responsible for the hardcover excesses, he was advised ofthe overa^is’S prior to his purchase of the property and he agreed in writing (Exhibit F) to bring lU tn i:perty into hardcover compliance by June 1,2003. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” A visual comparison of this site with properties in the Minnetonka Bluffs neighborhood suggests that the property has excessive hardcover as compared to most properties in the neighborhood, and if this was the norm for the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood would be much different. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the 2^ning Chapter.” "Extremefinancial and practical hardship " is cited by the applicant, noting that he requests the variance in part in orderfor the property to "maintain its value ". The value associated with non-compliant site features should not be legitimized by granting an after-the-fact variance in a case where the purchaser was clearly aware ofthe non-compliance (ifnot the actual degree of non-compliance) prior to the purchase and chose to tune the risk. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” (Not applicable) "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” (Not applicable) "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelliitg.” (Not Applicable) "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The special conditions applying to this property, i.e. the substandard lot si?e and limitations on hardcover, as well as the topography of the site, are common to this neighborhood. #03-2904 June 11,2003 Page 4 9. on Aorrfcover apply to many other properties in the RR-IB dismct. The property was granted certain variances to overcome the 10. limitatior. of lot sise in 1998. Howevel the granting on:;ZZ JaHalZtr construction of new homes on •/, acre lots subject to hardcover limitations is not common. *' P«»»v«ion mdenjoyroentofasubstantial property right of the applicant. r®' i«Aereniproper/rK right to exceed the hardcover limitations He does have a right to maintain a house on the property, and reasonable access to it. 11. m?raif»>««>*. Safety, comfort morals, or in any other respect be contraiy to the intent of the Zoning Code.” ^,>'°f»gofthevariancewouldbeinconflictwithandcontrarytotheinten^^^^ 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but IS necessa^ to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” ’ <l,glaai,cs. 6,« d,SicuUtes ere ««leHeren, tn,He property bolorearesljul^t ‘l«‘°’-^y‘^fPl>can,’spredecettor.aod«e^^^ Issues for Consideration 1. 2. The hardcover on the site far exceeds that allowed by City Codes. Th^i appli cant tow when he purchased the property that hardcover was excessive and he of oc:upr; 3.Once the applicant became aware of the magnitude of hardcover excess, he chose to request an after-the-fact vanance rather than bring the property into compliance 4.Certain iinproventents to the property were constructed in City right-of-ways without nrior authoma ton, and some of the improvements potentially encroachwithin KtmSof Jet^oOT."’ of such encroactaent is 5. applicmtt be rcquired to reduce the haMcov; to 6. Does Platming Commission have any other issues or concerns with this appIiiTation? i ji W3-2904 June 11,2003 Png* 5 •— Staff Recommendation Staff makes the following recommendations: 1.The after-the-fact hardcover variance should be denied, and the applicant should be directed to provide a plan showing how hardcover will be reduced to meet the 35% limitation, including removal of fabric or plastic from all decorative rock beds. 2. The wetland delineation should be completed immediately to determine the degree of encroachment of wetland or required wetland setbacks by retaining walls, fill or paved surfaces. All such encroachments should then be removed. 3.Retaining walls should be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls within 5* of the lot lines should be reviewed to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or whether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site should be removed. Proposed Motion Motion to table the application and direct applicant to take actions to bring the property into compliance per the staff reconunendation. «03-2904 June 11,2003 P«ge6 _ LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width! RR-IB Required Actual Lot Area 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 19,388 s.f. (0.45 acre) (Var 1998) Lot Width 200' 129.5' (Var 1998) Setbacks! Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area 19,388 s.f (0.45 ac.) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 2908 s.f (15%) 2854 s.f (14.7%1Existing: Hardcover Calculations! Hardcover Zone 500-1000' Total Area in Zone 19,388 s.f Allowed Hardcover 6,785.6 s.f (30 %) Existing Hardcover 9,860 s.f* (50.8 %) Proposed Hardcover 8,908 s.f (45.9 %) exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds, which by staff calculation consists of eii .dd.l.on.1 approxinulely 600 s.f. not apparently Includtd In the submitted numbers on the su^r RR-IB______________Required Existing Proposed Front ^0'32 ’ (Var 1998)Same Rear ~50'49’ (Var 1998)Same Lea Side 30’25 ’ (Var 1998)Same Right Side____________50' (Comer lot)________50’+__________Same Ii Apr*2W003 09:32u Froa-CITY OF ORONO 4952Z4S4SI6 M36 P.OOr/014 F-S16 A CITY OF ORONO • VARIANCE AFFLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change Irom origbal application) Variance for non*confonning structures S2S0.00. Afker-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Apjdicatton # Date Raceivi^ Amount Pald_3QQi_£o^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address Dig. Property Identification Number ff.ID.l Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired...___________________________ l'(do) <2o ndti aim own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property X residential other (specify) Zoning District; HQ.' _______________________J .(monfii/year) APPLICANT Name BfaiVA/ Address: /3o^ P<A Phone (horned - y ___ Phone (work) City ; OiaQisAd Zip:. O^VNER (if different than applicant) Name____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work) Address:.City;.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: Ht*nPco>A*/’lAr/c^, (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Let Area Lot Width ^ Setback:Front Side y Hardcover _ Rear Lot Cove Average Lakes Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UIWSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 5ce. ________________ (attach additional sheets if neceuazy) 6 > iirtri Apr'24-2001 09:12ao Froi^ClTY OF OnONO 49S224946IS M39 P.009/014 F>St$. REQtHR|:D SUBMITTALS order for vonr ftDplfcafioB to TOIlfa t«oft rtutf Ja 1. ^^^^j^^ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners list of owners vdUun 150* label* »nA t«i«» ^ ^ ^/^Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes- in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) coov SW* i ii ^ ^ 6. ^ i^t of tte le^ names (include marital status) of all peisons'^tli an interest in ?! 0^ Wlicant(a) if noTimrS,7. _ As an addento to this applicaUon, please ^ a sqiatar torf t^T^ pecsoM you wi* notified of this qiplication. ^ ^ 8. _ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. applicylom- Please remonber that yaHC APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby a£taec to provide aU infotmaUon required or____..a vv Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not coverrf b!?<!i?n.i r“ and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of Ms onginal fee payment) infotmaUon supplied is true and correct to the best of l^ertaLw^.^ **' *' -------------------DateApplicant’s Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURErx;xs srss.r" -t” members for purposes of investigation and vcrification^f tliis^request. Ow'ncr’s Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the Citv ofRrpse *iK a» e , , Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetines arm i, ^A before the Planning month. Applicants must be pres^ a ** Commission and Couu.ll. If Trepficlnt V^Alf re ?« 7 make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in vni,r***t * *®|j*^uled nieeting, please & Zoning Office of this eh«tge prior mTheTetfag j // Asa# \J • •S/jo/<tJ L?5: ....^ ofi /^A/ ^ f^„ c.!/ I QiTe/«>^«*'^^*-...fxf'M.yf'f**** jJ ^ |U^.^ ^ /->/’•'*«/ _____.iTfo- 'L dt^ zyc^c /v«£<;^^>fe. • , • ••• • ••^ ^ -------r-in rx.J^Uc^tJ^ 7X^. .♦* • ZT!^<s . I'^''^*^ ^ fH, rcc/.i«rf5 ’ ^ /!u,Jo-^ '■•fs'/y/f^ . • • ••• •• •■ . .1 •..— *- • • • • . ••• •' ».»•-•••• I*** ., •-• •• • • ••• • I inch ■ 10 It » • •• • . • . \ Csoo-/Oefo' . •». •.*;•' ••■ •••• . .■ Notes Structure Coverage Allowed 15X^=2908.125sf Total Structure 2854sf Hardcover Allowed 35X=6785.6Jsf Boulder Walls 999sf Front DW Sc Ent.4243sf DW to upper Garage 697sf Rear Sidewalk 137sf Back Patio 276sf Lower Patio 159sf House and Garage 2854sf Front Entrance lOlsf Kevstone Retoing Walls 394sf Total 9860sf « • •• • • : et Note: Lot size from survey prepared by All-Metro doted 2-23-98 •• • . • REMOVALS: 1. AREA OF LOWER PATIO TO BE REMOVED:119 S.F. 2. AREA OF PAVED DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED: 733 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS TO BE REMOVED: 952 S.F. I hereby certify that this survey, phn or report was prepored by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the Stole of Minnesoto, ond No certificotion whotsoever is extended to subsequent owners, mortgagees or title insurers, unless this survey has been redoted for this purpose by the surveyor. ' Dated this -----<loy of —___:_________ 2003' - " ». t* - . u . -------------------------Registration No. Rodney H. Holvorson - Minnesota Licensed Land Surveyor 3-0r03 '. ■BAH i .993 135 ajL r-ETRoUc" *• _____________ 5 161256^95^'? -------------- ^ - EOPir qq o4 PIPE I .r *»J5JO [•M.97 CfTYOFOROM _3t. SITE PLAN -—JHP!!!? date rS«3-2> SIONS rtSAg>0Qf(go Or^^T L«.j}‘'«*|||«.«« p 10.00*^ L'‘S3ej« •. l^jOAO ----------- o.MMTt 'Iz OF I , i|\ po*. I # V I \ 30.00 |949.12 j ( I 024' Rti., viaUS 2** *S> &y '^ySIS J_ j-----1 proposed EtEV. , EWSTINO EtEV. **9«.00 SCAIE: T-30' —------------------ lov«M. I •"* , e /I etro jTi'U coj!3in 22ai^m •) -:ns=sr.» ^ .. .MM mt*i 1 I Oy __ un* f itoa. Wp.»«4«*y i, JC4»W*» ilt: T.t. («»*) I p,. r*x (•»») [ L^-2, PURPOSED HARD COVER 1300 SHORELINE DRIVE pelU^*-'JT /'Jo. /07fS /o-U'I'S LOT SZE 19387.6 sf STRUCTURE COVERAGE ALLOWED 15% = 2S08.125 sf TOTAL STRUCTURE 2908 sf HARDCOVER ALLOWED 35% = 6785.63 sf HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS: FRONT DW & ENT. 2573 sf DW TO UPPER GARAGE 704 sf REAR SIDEWALK 100 sf BACK PATIO 246 sf LOWER PATIO 96 sf HOUSE 1980 sf FRONT ENTRANCE 39 sf GARAGE 885 sf RETAINING WALLS - 150 sf TOTAL 6773 sf Scale approxiHaUI inch = 20 feet by Bob Howard August 1998 Hardcover2.pl1 • ■ f . ■ ' r 6912495 •i. GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A 0*^2 ~ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #2362 ^9/ WHEREAS, Robert E. Howard and Barbara Howard Qiereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1300 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 14, Minnetonka Bluffs, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WWREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow construction of a new residence. Variances for lot area, lot width, front, side, and rear setbacks are required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2362. The property is located in tlic RR-IB Zoning District where the minimum lot area requirement is 2 acres in area. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 20, 1998, and reconunended unanimous approval of the proposed variances based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The existing residence was destroyed by fire and cannot be rehabilitated. It is ntore than 75% damaged. TRANSFER ENTERED HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVlCeS Page 1 ofS 10 1^98 ( / * ti rin’flnaiTit irlTii • • CITY of ORONO 4. 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Tu ... NO. 4 0 7 2 Ine zoning Jot is .446 acres, where 2 acres is required.— C.The existing structure does not meet front or side setback requirements. E. The lot width is 129.5' where 200 ’ is required. F. The front yard is 28.7 ’ existing where 32 ’ is proposed and 5V is required. G.TTie side yard is 15.1 ’ existing where 25 ’ is proposed and 30 ’ is required. H.The rear yard is 58 ’ existing where 49’ is proposed and 50 ’ is required. I.proposed residence is located in the 500-1,000 ’ setback area from Lake Minnetonka. Hardcover will be less than 35%. The proposed structural coverage will be less than 2,913.75 sq. ft (15%), Ipipsssi Mrve a, a convenience to the applicants, but is necessaiy to alleviate a nZeJ^iht °r to preserve a substantial spirit andintent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 5 ^ F ■i i i • • b O : v% 1^!^ ■S»‘ CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 0^2 ^ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants lot area, lot width, front, side and rear setback variances per Municipal Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of a new residence on .446 acres where 2 acres is required as proposed in Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, 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 (April 27, 1999). 2.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3.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 Orono City Council on this 27th day of April, 1998 'LimiaVS,. Ve.e,:Ci^..Clerk •. ''A ' -Vv V -Ax' .x'-V. i.' / Property Owner(s) Page 3 of 5 in Ti J pS CITY «f ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 072 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) V instiument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of April 1998 UZ3XZBK CAROLE A. HASEMAN N0wrrftjeuc4i»mES0U MBWEPWCOUNTr ItrOBimissloaEielnsMSt.tOOA y/. Notary Public ^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this %-hy day of ____^^ 199£. before me a Notary Public within CAROLE /LHASEMAN NOTARY PtieilC^liNNESOn HPINErai COUNTY Mjr CeiuRisjIcn Eipicn Jtf. )1. MOO ------xegsexsz--------- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) "Notary Public On this day of j 199 _before me a Notary Public withinand for said county, personally appeared ____ known to me to be the person(s) described in and vdio executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 .• # tew-, - ------ ' •- ^ « -A al rr w Certificate of Survey 6* Tschldaof Lots 10. 11. a 12, Block 14. MI«NCT0N:<A . Hennepin County, Minnesoia I O)lt0IHCr COFFIN & GRQNBERG,* INC Scale: 1 Incn * 40 feet Date ; May Z3, 1585 c : Iron marker Marl; S. Gronbero Reg. 1 W?-|3 -zoNi*^- 2 Ac«t£ Ut jtn.^ Zoo ' WV»M u*iptH 56T0ACK5 - PitB^n- «* 5nvKi Slot CJCIUWiO 2U»* 12755 Cordon R. Coffin Reg. No. 6C64 Engineers and Land Surveyors Long Like, Minnesota Phone 473-4141 4^0 Ofr ^ <&J .-in' 13 j NOU 13 2002 KS9 PM FR HINSHRU CULBERTS0N2 334 8888 TO 4707ll7048395tt952 P.03 ••••* ••• \ 000 000 * 0 0 0 0 • ^ f: I! ■! ACTEEMENTTOCtlMfeV CAgwemenO If given Ihb 13* diy of Noveinber, 2« BROWN rOwaoT) to the CITY OP ORQNO CW) wipect to the Shotelioe Drive, Qrono. Minnesota S5391 (the *Tioper^. I • “ U')mOn even tialeheiewidi. Owner is.puichising the Fkopeity , __ Usidng a Ceitificatt of Occupancy, die Cily ddemiliwil dot (0 a poitkm dm M fte'' “/w«ect to Dc^nmeot M Nabnl R movm (the “DNR’O xegulanons, and QO Aw hard luiftee covenge of die ftopetnrw exceed City orainances. •• • • •• •• • t • Owaeragreet that djat in conaid«ati<moftheCiQr’s issuance of a IVmporaiyCerti^Oocupan^ that : : •• K M •• PfO. 0«“ ««1 ««tat *tdn a toHanc. iiom fh. DNR and/or^ so diat the wall can remain in ha eunent location, or, at Owner's sole expense teconstrucithcwallincojnplianccwiihDNRandCityiequiiements. 2. On or befiw the Final Date, Owner will bring the Property sur&ce coverage ordinanoea of the Cily. 3. ThisAgre^t may be enforced l^iidunctiverdief in Hennqim County District Court The obligations of Owner hereunder dull Nnd its heirs, successoti a«yt • • • • • • g the undersigned has executed this Agreement as of the di^ and • . •• RIC . 3,# ••V.* • •• • * • aniMvi I A I ■ . i i ' 'V' fW' KUNUAIIi:^ 'J 3t O2II7333I0OIS PROPAODR 337 HANLON AVE OWNERNAMB RVAMBKOEIINEN TAXPAYER ROOCRTAMIClUiLKOCIINEN NAME/ADDR 337 HANLON AVE WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 0211723310011 PROPAODR 1300 SHORELINE OR OWNERNAMB RICHARDS DROWN TA3CPAYER RICHARD S DROWN NAME/AODR 1300 SHORELINE OR WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0211723310021 PROPAODR 1300 FOX ST OWNERNAMB RTJAFFRAYAVH3AFFRAY TAXPAYER RTAVHJAFFRAY NAME/AODR 340 BARRETT AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0211723310031 PROPAODR 3t ADDRESSUNASSIGNEO OWNERNAMB JACKC A MARION DURCH TAXPAYER JACK C A MARION DURCH NAME/ADDR 0372 WHITE OAK DR LINO LAKES MN 55039 38 0211723310034 PROP ADOR 38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAMB HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TA3CPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR PODOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 33323 •4 38 02117233^0016 PROPAODR 1383 POXST OWNER NAME J DIANN OOETTEN TAXPAYER J DIANN OOETTEN NAME/ADDR 1383 POX ST WAYZATAMN 35391 V-.-'‘ ^-fV f llliNNLWN COUNIY PROP) PROPERTY OV •INFORMATION SYiTll-M iS LIST 38 0211723310016 PROPAODR 565 HANLON AVE OWNER NAME IIADASSAH YEHUDITZOIIARA TAXPAYER IIADASSAH YEHUDIT 20HARA NAME/ADDR 565 HANLON AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723310019 PROPAODR 1340 FOX ST OWNER NAME ALLAN NLTTWIN TAXPAYER ALLAN NUTWIN NAME/ADDR 1340 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723310022 PROP ADDR 540 BARRETT AVE OWNERNAME RTJAPFRAYAVHJAFFRAY TAXPAYER RT&VHJAFFRAY NAME/ADDR 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723310032 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME HENNEPINFORFEITEnLAND TAXPAYER HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND NAME/ADDR 1027-NC 38 0211723310035 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND NAME/ADDR 1027-NC 38 0211723410009 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN CO RfiOIONAL RR AUTH TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH NAME/ADDR 4175THSTNi320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 38 0211723310017 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME IIADASSAH YEHUDIT ZOHARA TAXPAYER IIADASSAH YEHUDIT ZOHARA NAME/ADDR 565 HANLON AVE ORONO MN 55391 38 0211723310020 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME HD MEYER ETAL TAXPAYER HD MEYER NAME/ADDR BOX 12 WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723310023 PROP ADDR 540 BARRETT AVE OWNERNAME RTMFFRAYRVHJAFFRAY TAXPAYER UTStVH MFFRA Y NAME/ADDR 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723310033 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNQ) OWNERNAME MARIONiDETTLOFF TAXPAYER MARION J DETTLOFF NAME/ADDR 1255 DICKENSON ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723310046 PROP ADDR 540 BARRETT AVE OWNERNAME RTJAFFRAYRVIUAFFRAY TAXPAYER RTJkVHJAFFRAY NAME/ADDR 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723340014 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME I fENNBPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH NAME/ADDR 4I75THSTN#320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 k PAGE: 1 r . X .4.•• (' 1 .-V** , • • / ( ■ * * . • ! 1 RUN DATE :VM/30Q) I * Ml f ‘ *V iSSIJISSSSSSS t .. I n N ■•.;! '■ •k *. V .• >■ A,; A* « PAGE: 2 /’ « . ( (' ••;■ k. • 1H ■■'X' .. ■■a.A a.i . -hii . - ■UliirtTnM III i^'^^^^^^^-^*-^ftl^^llltfffiiH’it^l^^lillNilllii^ilin‘iitf«-----gMlite >*•;H I i»» ) ) m ) ) 8 127.92 24 V% 8 23 $$ 8 22 •/ 8 21 8 ^13819* ?\ 8 10 (6) 8 17 1 8'• 19 (11) 8 h. ” t 8 : 14 1(10) 8 13 127.75 i'.- \l.f vovy/v O f »7.02 .I I 2 S r-#9j* 8 0 (5) Mj )•8 7J 8 i • 5 ('7;8 Z 9 *(8)8 120.49 * 20 .V ; 129.49 ^ ' f5t; 1 % 8 23 % 8 22 y '3 8 8 21 f. •^ f. 8 000 : s^fsr: * 8 fo < “j 4 « '* 8 7 8 ■' (16) « A (!t) « 8 r20;?' w 8 s • 11 a \ fyfl; * 8' « 129.29 '• *7 o »29.2S * _________ FOX S>T TSU 8 20 / > * 8 ** '' * ^39J / 2 g r27J * 8pe;19 f. •3 5*. 8 ‘h-17 ! •*'■' 4 1 8 ^(37) « %l 16-0 : a 1 IT r28J i *50CjQ S •0 : _0 : 8 t 7'j 8 8 ^ .- -'/ (29) ®50\129.32 r. It, 9 ^%»09I2W « N f. 8 I](4t 8 I 8‘ 8 0 K ; ? Lr^; • •« '.1 '■“'X -*y *^. /'k\ r :'■ ■*> •■ -,i /s••' ,.t.’ • •: • ,1 OZ-II7' :23~ "2u\lu>JL •“CHy 7 ■*•• •Parcel Information ;* •f V • :.• Pare«l ID 0211723310018 H oum Number 1300 ftTMt Nam* 8H0R8UNI DR TNslsnot»l9gafyneord9dmap.ltnpnmila9compttllonoHnhjfmaion * and data from Ob'. OounO'. amf Stata roadauOiofUaa and odmaqurcaa. -.-i-i v « ; I »: I f. j:i f7u CITY^UEORONO called in INSPECTION NOTICE # / scheduled PERMIT NO. - COMPLETED c 5kc /v DATE TIME Uz£=oZ- ADDRESS ^__ CONTR. A7/:? ^ y^/r/cv Ui TELEPHONE NO. 11 me A k s DESCRIPTION 01 FOOTING 02 FRAMiNO 03 INSULATION BO. ~ 3(^Q - /<s/^ tdrreRRy^iTE ^ 07 OEMO-FINAL y 09 PLUMBINO m 10 PLUMBINO FINAL HANICALRl 13 MECHANICAL FINAL 24/2S WOOD BURNEfVFREPLACS 12 WATER HOOK-UP 14 SEWER HOOK-UP 27 SEPTIC MAINT. 15 SEPTIC INSTALL 23 SEPTIC FINAL ^ OWN^RNM>NTRACTORTO MEET YOU: YES S COMMEN^^.j Q: 4? 18 EXCAVASRAOINQ/FILUNO 19 LAKESHOREAWETLANOS 34 TREE REMOVAL 17 SITE INSPECTION 06 PROGRESS 21 COMPLAINT 22 FOaOW-UP 39 HARO COVER REMOVAL 36 FOUNOATIONmEMOVAL t/AA.f 4o-a K V\ Ci\^ft § fts Ul s.KtCn "hi 5>ti/ ft — -tWg. i\ar(icoVi^ hnii g 7 ^ ^WORK SATISFACTORT. PfiOCf EO □ CORRECT WORK E PROCEED a CORRECryVORK, CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING a CORriECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN___ INSPECTOR WILL RETURN q: 4i Q 8 HOURS. □ PROJECT COMPLETE □ ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY -------------TEMPORARY _______PERMANENT a STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR O INSPECTION REOUIREO.CAU TO ARRANGE ACCESS. □ PHOTO TAKEN □ CITATION ISSUED Call for themlext InspecUon 24 hours In advance. (952) 249-4600 Owner/ContractocAnaite: inspector ixgumtw:___ WhiU Copy/lAtp«€lorJ(fll« — K CtfiiryCppy/SttpNoBM i- -I. •-*••• *m •• .4*J • # • • A • I y * ‘ ^ 4 k mt:^vv: ■ Vw. • * r,. ••-^- . '.-.kC,,, k4,>-;i-!,' •-'>/->^- * ^ r^ .>” -‘V - =' CL ’ • r .'ii*-- ;» ' ''■ '?‘S: ■ !.?■•■■; 1 ■ •»i 'll i ' • > W ' • V. ♦ . - t;. • , V -L 5'!' ^ - • • **V - ’ Vat /iW.Vj rtW^fv *; w. .m 'i.-. '•■ • i?. ^ L. r:» *- *> . S <> • M , **• ' •' • .« . .A .w •• ' •• iloO fy.v< JL 4» -2^ ■'W‘- <^TT- . .1^ ■ ..y^ S5 ^ ;’J'. :’@1 ' ^t'’ Mi l. i1 0'ii:l;.'. ri'iMij; : v' fi ',-^-> 0^. > iw^^jaSK^ Vf .p- ;r- i ^ .t: jsaiKs;mjm. . • 'f>«t_ •• • \ / non SKiHei;rv(i o ■’ vj-■ 7 -k:^r f,j) -V • V ' f. . !■. ■ .? " ^ ' J/ r ^ Vl' ii '-' '■ r m. Cr^'^ . W' ‘-C* • >*-^* y.it r /• * •■->;’ •*■--> . ;£2e^=’:4F * ^ « - *L.i^-^ . ri4-tX?L \ ' • vJ^Xi . 'J ii P ;^4/ • -i'f . ^ ^ >f. ^ ^ ^ .i ^ ■' ■' ^ , ' <> -=^ '-^.- V.. .1Jk '• pp <V< ‘<7- / laa f ; ■‘K- A-’.' i. .-■ r j»- . ??.. ,.v ,^y.- ^ V^ • mm -:"i( LO V> - : ' • X S ft! ki 1*. - •. ■ ^* 'jS^^»5.. • *' V ffT^ ■■ y\ '■?' . -t-^ •TO •- e^;•« >*ij' 'V- ' •• 'J> . -^ : '.>:%<1^mfCL 1^ ^ ||Han^^>^>'r ,;.vV^; K»%- V' .V,••,»-*•.I r£»^Tf%>£c^ j» -- - •r^— — - S 1^# • •• %‘t M■W -«. ’ 300 5Kc''^\.'m;L) •;: \'V i ^ •• mm r4fm J4- ....«■; 1^ m te|‘l^- ^ ^ K^-’k ils^' Jcr ^ r.f • ■/' y i '^mW 'M mWI^- W# i^ --r- ■<. .^ - P^jitWrfjP^v • . .. V 4L •>.v«ft ^ U * [•.iV *ri R-'..r> .>/ ..:;,! y ; V j. ■,;:,;i‘.?^?^^! ' ■ ■*!■ , • -.5. . ' ;•-.? ....;.. ' '■ 'y«te~5!r i- 4-"^ /.V * . .• A ; . ,-'..HwW^f(iV« fuz .; ••’.*. . • «.* • ,>^'- r *:.V •' . :'V" '■ • ■ *vr' -/.r; if ■' A*/' ►' . •• ' - ' • f - .^‘. ^ v...... ■ • . .‘-•- y.'C'.. T- ■ ■ Vf •■ ' >.fc'V . ■ ••• ■ • ';•• , >-• ' • r:-: :••;•' : ■•>-• ••v •: •- / jkc'( <: \j‘' < 1 .'IX. iK^3^ J! % ?.’-V . £♦ W .'"rl -J - Tr'- t»t *v* > * ^y ’ - 'Tr.>:E/ -- ’, • w. # '' - v^- i <•■»«> . " I i" .'tT' ' ’* • ■ • - : ::^’*J ~~ .*0 rnrnmmmS^^^^. ^ ^ -• v^ ^• ri II/- mf.r 5 m !.:'K-:.%,y v-r if.t \ » • ;3?':-'r' r ’ j 4-^ J.^'. - I ;• <“*^» ' . I. : ■ j ■<! I • v.^.aaSL ‘5^^£>;: noo h ' A' Q Dale Application Received: 5-21-03 Date Application Coniidercd ai Complete: 5-23-03 Approval/Denial Action: 7-14-03 60-Day Review Period Eipired: 7-22-03 •• . REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION —-imG JUL . j ?003 CITYO. --------- Date: July 28,2003 CONSENT AGENDA Item No.: ^ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: /^03-2906 Richard Roberts, 1937 Fagemess Point Road - Variance/CUP • Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution Application Summary: Applicant requested after-the-fact approval for construction of a retaining wall and stairway system in the 0-75' setback zone, constituting hardcover and structure where none is normally allowed. Council Action 7~I4~03: Council voted 4-0 in the absence of the applicant to take the following action, and directed staff to draft a resolution reflecting this action for the July 28 meeting: I) Denial of variance to allow retaining walls on lake side of street; but OK to construct 4' wide stairway. Obtain staff-issued permit to allow up to 10 cubic yards of topsoil in 0-75' zone to allow that area to become lawn. Re-grade area of new walls to be removed to a stable, maintainable slope and revegetate that slope. 2) Approval of a 2-tiered retaining wall replacement on house side of road, with landscaping/screening to soften the visual impact. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution. Applicant has indicated he will not be present at the Council meeting but has already begun to remove the offending walls. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt the attached resolution. ». - liHiS A RESOLUTION DENYING AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE AND CONDITIONALLY GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22 SUBD. 2, 10.55 SUBD. 8, AND 10.56 SUBD. 16(L) - HLE .'lO. 03-2906 WHEREAS, Richard and Collette Roberts, husband and wife, (hereinafter **the applicants") are arc the owners of property located at 1 937 Fagemess Point Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter the "property”); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City ofOrono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22 Subd. 2, lO.SS Subd. 8, and 10.56 Subd. 16(L) to allow the construction of retaining walls (some of which have already been constructed without permits) located within 75' of the shore of Lake Minnetonka, where no structures or hardcover are normally allowed. Miimcsota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed ac Zoning File #03-2906. 2.The property is located in the LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, which requires minimum lot area of 0.5 acres and and minimum lot width of 100*. The lot is 0.39 acres in area and 74' in width. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on June 16, 2003 and recommended denial of the variance for retaining walls already constructed within 75' of the shoreline on the lake side of Fagemess Point Road, and recommended conditional approval for certain retaining w alls not yet constructed on the house side of Fagemess Point Road, based on the following findings: Page 1 of 6 * J 4. a) The applicant constructed I '-2' high retaining walls and a stairw'ay on the street side of the road without obtaining the required building permits. Only the stairway at a 4' width would likely have been granted a permit had one been applied for. b) The creation of a flat area above the walls for potential storage of trailers or other property within 75' of the lakeshore is not necessary to preserve any inherent property rights of the owner, and no suitable hardship supporting or justifying the walls has been presented by the applicant. Furthermore, Orono’s 2000-2020 Community Management Plan (CMP) Part 3A, the Environmental Protection Plan, in Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management, Policy 2, states that “Retainf'^g walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation." c) The retaining walls are constructed on a slope of 1:6 or 17% over a distance ofl 0-1 S', and Planning Commission concludes that the walls are not necessary to prcser\ e the slope. d) The Planning Commission findsthattheslopeofapplicant’syardonthehouse side of the street has a steep bank near the street lot line which does ^pear require stabilization to prevent erosion, and a retaining wall at that location would be appropriate and would be supported by hardship to the land, subject to adequate screening to minimize the visual impacts of tliat wall, and subject to construction of the wall outside the right-of-way of Fagemess Point Road. e) Applicant should be required to restore the grade on the lake side of the road and revegetate that area. Applicant should obtain a building permit for the maximum 4' wide stainvay that would be allowed on the lake side of the road. Applicant must provide adequate plans and obtain the appropriate building permits for construction of the stairs, as well as for the w'alls on the house side of the road.. 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 public, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 I t 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and in some respects do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance to allow retaining wall construction on the house side of the road would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; that the retaining walls on the house side of the road would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but are necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty, and are necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and such approval would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6.The City Council took action on July 14,2003 to deny the after-the-fact variance for the retaining walls on the lake side of the road and approve a variance for the walls on the house side of the road, and directed Staff to draft a resolution documenting such action for adoption on July 28,2003. CONCLUSION, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Secti jnslO.22 Subd. 2,10.55 Subd. 8, and 10.56 Subd. 16(L) to allow th: construction of retaining walls on the lake side of Fagemess Point Road, located within 75' of the shore of Lake Minnetonka, where no structures or hardcover are normally allowed; and approves a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22 Subd. 2,10.55 Subd. 8, and 10.56 Subd. 16(L) to allow the construction of retaining walls on the house side of Fagemess Point Road, located within 75' of the shore of Lake Minnetonka, where no structures or hardcover are normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1.The retaining walls already constructed on the south side of the road shall be removed and the yard areas disturbed shall be regraded to a stable, maintainable slope and revegetated. 2.Applicant shall apply for and obtain a building permit if applicant chooses to retain or construct a stairway of maximum 4' w’idth to accommodate pedestrian access to the lakeshore on the south side of the road, as allowed by City Code. Such permit may include up to 10 cubic yards of topsoil fill for spreading in the disturbed areas to assist in the revegetation required in condition 1. Page 3 of 6 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Applicant shall provide suitable construction plans, and apply for and obtain a building permit prior to construction of the retaining walls on the north side of the road. Such walls shall not exceed 4 feet in height shall be located within the property boundaries and not within the right-of-way of Fagemess Point Road, and shall be provided with a suitable vegetative screen to soften their visual impact as viewed from the lake. Council approval is based on the site plan with Staff notations attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B. Any amendment to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes or the scope of this approval shall be subject to further review by the City Council and/or Planning Commission. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property, not with the applicant but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of coimcil approval, or the variance will expire on that date (July 28,2004). Violation or non-comnliance with an>’ of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punished as a misdemeanor. The undersigned replicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution, and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopced by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) Page 4 of 6 L STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of .,2001 by Baibara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of .2001 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page S of 6 « .M STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of .20 personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 p")ved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ..20 personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/ailirmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 # EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION NO. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF .PREMISES SURVEYED: All of Lot 20, Eagerness, and the accretions to said lot described »c follow: Commencing at* the intersection of the exuf^nsion Southeasterly of the Southwesterly line of Lot 19, Eagerness and the Southerly line of Uncer the Linden Avenue, which point is marked by a Judicial landmark; the.ice Southerly 21 degrees 3 minutes East a distance of 53."IS feet to a point marked by a ludicial landmark; thence continuing Southerly*2l degrees 8 minutes east a distance of tl feet, more or less to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Southwesterly ilong the shore of Lake Minnetonka to its intersection with the Southwesterly line of said Lot 20, extended to the Shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 20, extended to the Southerly line of Under the Linden Avenue; thence Northeasterly along the Southerly line of said Avenue to the point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder In and for said County •*. .•V .! 4 MOKHMHBIH -ate • * > • #03-2907 720 North Arm Drive July 24,2003 Page 2 Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this item on July 21, 2003 and voted 7-0 to make the following recommendation; 1.Approval for the second story structure encroachment within 0-75' setback zone, 65' from shoreline. 2.Denial of side setback variance for second story of structure to encroach within 4.3 feet of left side lot line, and within 2.4 feet of right side lot line, because the resulting structure would tend to overshadow adjoining properties and lead to future maintenance issues. 3.Denial of the side setback variance for attached garage addition to encroach within 6' of left side lot line 6' left side lot line, as it can still be shifted to meet 10' required side setback with some interior design changes. 4.Approve the remove of the existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75* zone, subject to replacement with a smaller 95 s.f. deck as proposed, still slightly encroaching the average setback line. 5.Approve the hardcover variances as proposed, finding that the plan reflects what appear to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property, as follows; a) Hardcover in 0-75' zone will be reduced from 1058 s.f.(29.4%) to 535.31 sf (14.8%) where no hardcover is allowed, by reducing deck steps anri concrete shb areas. Hardcover in 75-250' zone will be reduced from 2257.1 sf (51.9%) to 1961.38 sf (45.1%) where 25% is normally allowed. 6. Applicant to provide a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to Council approval. Staff Recommendation Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Review the application and take action regarding each of the 6 Planning Commission recommendations. Direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting the Council’s action, for review and adoption at the August 11 Council meeting. •v. 1 1 A CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Cr>stal Bay, MN SS323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING HLE #03-2907 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 24, 2003 TO:Jeff & Cara Ziebarth 820 Bayside Lane Minnetrista, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: July 21. 2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Approval for Ihe second story structure encroachment within 0-75* setback zone, 65' from shoreline. Denial of side setback variance for second story of structure to encroach within 4.3 feet of left side lot line, and within 2.4 feet of right side lot line, because the resulting structure would lend to overshadow adjoining properties and lead to future maintenance issues. Denial of the side setback variance for attached garage addition to encroach wHhin 6* of left side lot line 6' left side lot line, as it can still be shitted to meet .qtr.iia side setback with some interior design changes. Approve the remove of the existing 423 s.f deck in 0-75' zone, subject to replacement with a smaller 95 s.f. deck as proposed, still slightly encroaching the average setback line. Approve the hardcover variances as proposed, finding that the plan reflects what appears to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property, as follows: a) Hardcover in 0-75' zone will be reduced from 1058 s.f.(29.4%) to 535.31 sf (14.8%) where no hardcover is allowed, by reducing deck steps and concrete slab areas. b) Hardcover in 75-250' zone will be reduced from 2257.1 sf (51.9®/o) to 1%1.38 sf (45.1%) where 25% is nomtally allowed. Applicant to provide a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to Council approval. rOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they^are available fit>m the City Recorder after review and ^proval by the Planning Commission... If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. ♦.. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. GafTron pointed out thattha^o driveways access two different levels of garages. There were no public comments. Cooper reiterated that they had taken ouN)^ circular driveway^«iet^ decrease of some 2,000 s.f., and all that remains was asidewaOccessing th&frdmdoor. Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, to recommeM^iiroval of Application #03*2904, Richard Brown, 1300 Shoreline j^v^Tafter-the-m^K^ariances per the revised removal plr.n, subject to staff ^dlflons including; the rembi(al of retaining walls, fill, or paved surfaces within ^e insisting encroachments of wetla^d^r wetland setbacks; removal of retainin|^ walls where they extend over the property utHmdaries, and any walls to runain .within 5* of the lot lines should be reviewed by sthff to determine whether ^ey^re needed to support steep slopes or aesthetic in natiwh^nd those unoeccss^ to support topography of the site should be removed. In amKrion, all l^dfcape bed lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. VBXE: Aves lavs (#8) #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, 720 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCES, 6:48 - 7:19 P.M. Jeff and Cara Ziebarth, the applicants, were present. Gaffron stated that the applicants at the June meeting provided a new’ plan which reduced the number and magnitude of variances needed to construct a second story addition and attached garage to the existing residence. A slightly further reduced plan was submitted on July 14. The variances required by the most recent revised plan include: 1. O 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75’ setback zone, 65' from shoreline. Second story structure encroaching 4.3 feet from left side lot line. Second story structure encroaching 2.4 feet from right side lot line. Attached garage addition aiid grading 6 feet from left side lot line (rather than 4 ’) and moved back toward existing house footprint to avoid encroaching sewer line easement. Remove existing 423 s.f deck in 0-75* zone, replace with a smaller 95 s.f deck still slightly encroaching average setback line. Hardcover in 0-75’ zone will be reduced from 1058 s.f(29.4%) to 535.31 sf (14.8%) where no hardcover is allow ed, by reducing deck steps and concrete slab areas. Hardcover in 75-250* zone will be reduced from 2257.1 sf (51.9%) to 1961.38 sf (45.1%) where 25% is normally allowed. Changes not requiring variances include: > Lot coverage by structures reduced from 1870 s.f (23.5%) to exactly 1500 s.f where 1500 s.f is allowed (no variance required).» « ** PAGE 8 of 37 8> MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 2 1,2003 6:00 o'clock p,m. > Total hardcover as a percent of 75-250' zone will reduce from the existing 3315 s f. (76.3%) to 2496 s.f. (57%). Gaffron indicated that staff would recommend the following: a) Denial of the 4' side setback variances for the garage, as it can be still shifted to meet a 10’ setback with some interior design changes. b) Denial of the second story additions within the side setbacks, because they will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance. c) Approval of the second stoiy addition encroachment of the 75 ’ lakeshore setback. d) Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed, as this the plan reflects what appears to staff to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property. c) Require that a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to review by the Council. At the June Planning Commission the Planning Commission tabled the request for further review and analysis by staff. The applicants have made a number of revisions since the June meeting, the changes needing variance approval are summarized above. Gaffron explained that the characteristics of the most recent plan include: - Deck removal and replacement with a small (95 s.f.) deck in 0-75 ’ zone to limit structural coverage; - Remov^ of extraneous hardcover in 0-75 ’ zone and 75-250 ’ zones; - Relocation of the attached garage to be approximately 6’ from the left side lot line at its closest point, and to avoid encroachment of the sewer easement; - The second story additions directly above the existing house footprint remain, so the side setback and lakeshore setback variances are still requested; The driveway is minimized to a width of 10’, widening near the garage; the existing detached garage by the road will be removed. Gaffron continued, pointing out the primary issues with the current proposal including: a) c) d) The second story addition is partly in the 0-75 ’ zone, and adds additional bulk of structure nearer the lake than nomially allowed. The second story addition is proposed to continue the existing extremely substandard side setbacks of 4 ’-5 ’ on the left side and 2.5-3.9’ on the right side. The Building Official has determined that windows can be allowed wherever the walls are 3 or more from side lot lines, which leaves only a sho. length of the south side wall as ineligible for windows. The attached garage is proposed to be 6’ from the side lot line, which is better than the ongmal proposal but still constitutes new structure in a substandard setback. Drainage is still a concern, although from staff’s perspective the most recent plan will actually reduce the magnitude of overland drainage from the rear half of this site. Staff believes the drainage issues are not made worse with this plan, and a suitable drainage plan incorporating swales and roof gutters can be‘devised to PAGE 9 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. reduce any current drainage problems. When designing his proposal, Mr. Ziebarth stated that he believed hardcover to be the most important element of the design, as opposed to setbacks. He indicated that the biggest challenge he faced was the sewer easement, and the struggle to meet several requirements, and still get what they need for livable space. Ziebarth contended that, under the allowable calculations, he would only be allowed a SOO s.f. second story if he were required to meet 10’ side yard setbacks. He indicated that he had assumed they would ^ allowed to construct a second story above the existing first story. Chair Smith stated that the revised drainage plan seems doable and that the second story could encroach into the 0-75 ’ setback; however, the side yard setbacks remain the issue. She stated that feedback from the neighbors at the last Commission meeting and letters in the packet still contend this to be an issue. Ziebarth stated that, in his opinion, his home has been overshadowed by neighboring properties, and that a precedent has already been set to the south allowing the second story, albeit further from the lot line. Kirk Otteson, 710 North Arm Drive, the neighbor to the south, indicated that his home is compliant 23’ from the property line. He stated that, as proposed, this home would be larger than his home on a smaller piece of property. He maintained that if the home were located just 2’ from his property line, and still two stories tall, the impact would be 10 times \N'orse than his, which is compliant. Otteson stated that he was not allowed a walko... design; therefore, went with the two story plan. He objected to a two story home located 2’ from his property line. Chair Smith asked for the applicant to comment on staffs recommendation that the garage be shifted. Ziebarth stated that moving the existing structure would compromise the layout of the house. 1 le maintained that the design and look of the house would be substantially changed and that shifting the garage over would drastically block the house and any sunlight from its southwest comer. Chair Smith asked for Ziebarth to comment on the second story recommendation. Ziebarth stated that a 490 s.f. second story would look odd sitting atop the home. Chair Smith stated tliat the Commission could vote on what was in front of them or table the application for redesign. Ziebarth stated that he had looked at other designs and believed that hardcover was more important than setback; therefore, they chose this layout. He stated that being given the 0- PAGE 10 of 37 vt • k ■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. 75 ’ setback zone grace was insignificant, since the average lakeshore setback protrudes further than their home. f « Chair Smith indicated that the Commission had allowed limited side yard setbacks in the past. GafTron stated that the Commission has gone so far as to approve 5 ’ side yard setbacks but no less on both sides of a tiny lot. ’ Ziebarth maintained that he could rebuild a new 720 s.f. footprint home meeting all of the setbacks and questioned why he could not do this which was a smaller design. Hawn reiterated that the home would be too close to the side yard setbacks and too close to the neighbors. Fritzler commented, small lot, small house. Rahn agreed with staff recommendations. Mabusth suggested the applicant reconsider the detached garage in order to allow them additional living space. Ziebarth repeated that he felt the detached garage would have a negative impact on the design and increase their hardcover. Chair Smith asked the applicant whether the Commission should table or vote on the application. Ziebarth asked what other options tl.cre might be. HaNvn suted that they had given the applicants direction. The Commission would consider something less than a 10’ side yard setback, but no less than 5 ’, more like 7.5 ’ and encouraged him to consider this. In addition, Gaffron stated that, if the applicant chose new construction, he would be required to meet 25% hwdeover, versus the rebuild design which allows him 45%. In reality, Caffen indicated that new constniction would most likely be identical to the hardcover of the rebuild. Ziebarth asked for further second story suggestions. PAGE 11 of 37 m 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. Ziebarth asked the Commission to vote on what u as before them. Mabusth moved, Berg seconded, to recommend Application #03-2907, Jeff and Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive, as proposed, Denial of the 4* side setback variances for the garage, as it can be still shifted to meet a 10' setback with some interior design changes; Denial of the second story additions within the side setbacks, because they will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance; Approve the second story addition encroachment of the 75* lakeshore setback; Approve the hardcover variances as proposed, uniqne to the submittal, as this plan reflects nhat appears to staff to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property; and Require that a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to review by the Council. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW DURESS y (#9) #03-2895^ARY GERMUNDSEN, 4101 IlIGHWOOD ROAD, yARIANCE, 7:19-7:40 P.M. Gary Gcrmundsen, the^^licant, was present. Waataja reported that the ^plicant has requested the folio>rl^ variances to construct a 12’X12’ deck on the lakeside ofthe new residence. 50^^8^hardcover in the 75-250’ zone (46.8% currently exists) where 2^is allowed and 1^708 s.f. of structural coverage (1,528 currently exists) where 1,500 s.f. is mlowed. Waataja stated that staff would recomm^docnial of the request based on Resolution #4645 which approved variances allowipg^nstruction of the existing house, limiting the applicant to 40® o hardcover. Furthepnbre, dchjal of the request would be recommended since, as it currently e.xists, the Jtdmc is over qp lot coverage by structures and never received a variance. When reviewing hardc^r calculations, Waat.ija pomted out that retaining walls were added at the time of construction to ensure proper draina^^and were not proposed with the initial renewal variance review process. The driveway alsd>appears larger than what was depicted on theoriginal suney. Currently^^lhe home is in excess of the Lot coverage by structures by 28 s.f., at 1,528 s.f. This was a result of a modification to the plan upon construction o^t^e home. Waataja stated that the modifications include the 1.5’X12’ two story bump-out^d enlarged deck entiy'. The applicant is proposing a second story deck and stairway off the lakeside of tlie home greater than 6’ off grade; therefore, it would be included in the lot^yerage by structures figure. PAGE 12 of 37 i w Date Applicallon Received: 5-21*03 Dale Application Considered at Complete: 5-22-03 Initial 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 7-21-03 6-23-03 Extension of Review Period to: 9-19-03 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gaffron, Planning Director July 17,2003 #03-2907 Jeff & Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive - Variances - Revised Plan - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1-acre min. 0.18 acre (7,946 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant at the June meeting provided a new plan which reduces the number and magnitude of variances needed to constmet a second story addition and attached garage to the existing residence. A slightly further reduced plan was submitted on July 14. The variances required by the most recent revised plan include: 1. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75* setback zone, 65' from shoreline. 2. Second story structure encroaching 4.3 feet from left side lot line. 3. Second story structure encroaching 2.4 feet from right side lot line. 4. Attached garage addition and grading 6 feet from left side lot line (rather than 4*) and moved back toward existing house footprint to avoid encroaching sewer line easement. 5. Remove existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75' zone, replace with a smaller 95 s.f. deck still slightly encroaching average setback line. 6. Hardcover in 0-75’ zone w ill be reduced from 1058 s.f (29.4%) to 535.31 sf (14.8%) where no hardcover is allowed, by reducing deck steps and concrete slab areas. 7. Hardcover in 75-250' zone will be reduced from 2257.1 sf (51.9%) to 1961.38 sf (45.1%) where 25% is normally allowed. > Lot coverage by structures reduced from 1870 s.f (23.5%) to exactly 1500 s.f w here 1500 s.f is allowed (no variance required). > Total hardcover as a percent of 75-250' zone will reduce from the existing 3315 s.f (76.3%) to 2496 s.f (57%). Stuff Recommendation: Staff recommends as follow s: a) Denial of the 4' side setback variances for the garage, as it can be still shifted to meet a 10* setback w ith some interior desi^ changes. b) Denial of the second story additions within the side setbacks, because they w ill tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance. c) Approval of the second story addition encroachment of the 75' ..ikeshore setback. d) .Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed, as this the plan reflects what appears to staff to be the minimum hardco\ er necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property. e) Require that a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to review by the Council. t • #03-2907 July 17,2003 Page! List of Exhibits A - Revised Site Plan Dated 7-14-03 B - Revised “Removals” Plan Dated 7-14-03 C - Elevation Relationships Drawings 7-14-03 D - Response Package Submitted by Applicants at June PC Meeting E - Memo & Exhibits of 6-12-03 Background At the June Planning Commission meeting the applicants submitted a response packet providing changes to their proposed remodeling/addition plans, addressing certain issues raised by staffin the June 12 memo. Planning Commission tabled the request for further review and analysis by staff. Applicants have made a number of revisions since the June meeting, so both their response packet handed out at that meeting, and a further more recent plan revision, are included in this packet. The changes needing variance approval arc summarized above. The characteristics of the most recent plan include: - Deck removal and replacement with a small (95 s.f.) deck in 0-75 ’ zone to limit structural coverage; - Removal of extraneous hardcover in 0-75' zone and 75-250 ’ zones; - Relocation of the attached garage to be approximately 6’ from the iefr side lot line at its closest point, and to avoid encroachment of the sewer casement; - The second stoiy additions directly above the existing hoiisc footprint remain, so the side setback and lakeshore setback variances are still requested; - The driveway is minimized to a width of 10’, widening near the garage; the existing detached garage by the road will be removed. The primary issues with the current proposal include: a) The second story addition is partly in the 0-75 ’ zone, and adds additional bulk of structure nearer the lake than normally allowed. b) The second story addition is proposed to continue the existing extremely substandard side setbacks of 4 ’-5’ on the left side and 2.5-3.9’ on the right side. The Building Official has determined that windows can be allowed wherever the walls are 3’ or more from side lot lines, which leaves only a short length of the south side wall as ineligible for windows. c) The attached garage is proposed to be 6’ from the side lot line, which is better than the ongmal proposal but still constitutes new structure in a substandard setback. d) Drainage is still a concern, although from staffs perspective the most recent plan will actually r^uce the magnitude of overland drainage from the rear half of this site. Staff believes the drainage issues are not made worse with this plan, and a suitable drainage plan incorporating swales and roof gutters can be devised to reduce any cuirent drainage problems. I M3-2907 July 17,2003 Page 3 Hardcover on the property is still excessive compared to the code standards, but is in line with variances granted for remodeling of similar sized properties. The proposed revisions will result in an 819 s.f. hardcover reduction from the existing condition, while yielding what will be a substantially new house. From stafTs perspective, the current plan reduces the number and magnitude of variances requested. The primary remaining concern is the extension upward from the existing footprint along the side lot lines. While it might be argued that requiring the second story to meet the 10* setbacks will yield an odd look and reduce the usability of the second story space, the fact remains that Uvo stories with end gables as much as 30'-3S' above grade will be difficult to maintain with setbacks of only 2.4'-5' from the lot line, and still have a potential impact on the neighboring properties. Staff is less concerned about the second story encroachment into the 75' setback, due to reduction of the deck as well as the roof ridge paralleling the shoreline which pulls the highest points of the roof back from the lake. REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot AreaAVidth; LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre)140' Actual 7,946 s.f. (0.18 acre)50' (shoreline) 45' (75' setback) Setbacks: LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front NA NA NA Rear (Street)30'75 ’62' Left Side (NW)10 ’4.3* (overhang at 1’)4.3' 2nd Story 6.0' Garage Right Side 10 ’2.4 ’2.4' 2nd Story Lakeshore 75 ’House: 65' Deck: 42' 65 ’ 2nd Story 60' New Deck Average Lakeshore (No Encroachroeni Allowed) House: No Encr. Deck: 20’± House: No Encr. Deck:‘S’! M3-2907 July 17.200J Page 4 Stnicturnl Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 7,946 s.f.Allowed: 1500 s.f. Existing: 1870 s.f. Proposed: 1500 s.f. Hardcover CalculaHom ; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'3,600 s.f 0s.f. (0 %) 1,058 s.f. (29.4 %) 535 s.f. (14.9%) 75-250*4,346 s.f 1,087 s.f. (25 %) 2,257 s.f. (51.9%) 1,961 s.f. (45.1 %) Total lot hardsurface proporid * 2,496 s.f. = 31 % of entire lot Total lot hardsurface as a percent ol 75*250' zone = 2,496/4,346 » 57% Hardship Statement Applicants provided a hardship discussion in their submittal at the June meeting (see Exhibit D), and should uc oSkcu for tlieir studiliouiil icsiimony regarding the application.odjvcu Staff h^ not updated the Hardship Analysis (see June 12 memo). Planning Commission should determine whether the variances required for this revised proposal arc supported by substantial hardships in order for the variances to be granted. Issues for Consideration 1.The lot is extremely substandard and is smaller than all other lots in the immediate neighborhood (see plat map). 2.Addition of second story at the existing side setbacks has a number of negative impacts and potential consequences. 3.Are the reyis^ proposed reductions in structure and hardcover acceptable given the extremely limited lot size? The structural coverage has been reduced to the 1500 s.f. allotment for lots less than 1 0,000 s.f. in area, and hardcover appears to staff to be minimjyf^ to the extent necessary to reasonably support the house at its current location:' .V 4.Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? m>V290J July 17,2003 Pages Staff Rcconunendatioo Staff recommends as follows: a) Denial of the 4* side setback variances for the garage, as it can be shifted to meet a 10' setback with some interior design changes. b) Denialofthesecondstoryadditionencroachmentofthesidesetbacks.becausethey will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance. c) d) Approval of the second story addition encroachment of the 75' lakeshore setback. Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed, as this the plan reflects what spears to staff to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property. e) Require that a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to review by the Council. "T 2 . t . .. . . ' ; , '.l-* ii CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Cr)'stal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249^600 ZONING FILE #03-2907 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; June 23, 2003 TO: Jeff & Cara Ziebarth 820 Bayside Lane Minnetrista, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances COPIES: DATE OF MEETING: June 16. 2003 Planniog Commission recommended as follows: Tabled to allow staff to review and respond to revised plans submitted at Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday, July 21, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notificatii.n to the applicant. Your application was deemed as complete on May 22, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on July 21, 2003. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the July 21 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60-day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to September 19, 2003. If you de«ire certified copies of the official Plamiing Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. T ExlithiK Hard Co v»r 75-2M Pool Zorn ExiMiflg House - «2638 SJF. Existing Omgea 419.61 S.P. Existing Gnvel ■ 90.88 S JP. Existing Bit >642.16 SJ’. Existing Cooc. Sidewalk > 462 SJ*. Existing Retnin.WaU > 16.07 S J>. Total >2257JO &r. Proposed Hold Cover Removal 75-250 Foot Zoos Existing House Removed >-84.00 SJ>. Existing 0.irage Removed > -419.61 S J*. Existing Gravel Removed > -90.88 Sf . Existing Bit. Removed > -642.16 SJP.. Existing Cone. Side. Removed > -462 S J>. Existing Retain. WaU > 16.07 SJ*. > 55845 SJr. (16M.65 SJr. Removed) —... ___ flt/fl/Uj oiftij". \ j\ / / ^ / / / ^/>*Asr* ---------------------- X ' X X X \ v< \ V \ X V \ / ^CciacrKi «a ««#•«•• SSsWfTTyi?#:"™.'.... -----JAjttty-UMjC........ « i > 7 2 0\(4oirH7 Arm OriM^7//i-/43_ •f # kft WWHM ^ « * -J ------ . •ik& f i ii amt ______ . •**-<!?' ► ^ • *• • -* - r:.. i • gy !i:',V : '-v -•:-Wa-.v M'. >;;^V _*r^: ■ '^ i : ' :)• ^■■■'^■^ liill ■ F=! --------------t.— ■ '■ 1------------ City of Orono - Information in Response to letter dated 6/12/03 720 North Arm Drive Jeff and Cara Ziebarth owners and applicants June 16,2003 Responses to Applicadon Summaiy: 1. We agree with this item. 2. 0 - 75’ setback zone. We believe the 75* setback has changed over the past several years due to erosion conditions within our site boundaries therefore, substantially reducing our 75’ setback zone. The neighbor to the south indicated his shoreline has bm altered with the past few years (filling in material to pu^ the shoreline back, providing more shoreline grass area, therefore pushing the shoreline back. It is our understanding this alteration occurred prior to the constructing of there “new” 2 stoiy addition on existing foundation, therefore allowing that home to be in compliance with the 75’ setback zone. Also, by drawing a common lakeshore line between our shoreline and the adjoining neighb^, you can see an unusual shape to our shoreline compared to this “common line”, suggesting erosion from lack of maintenance. It is our intention to repair the deteriorating shoreline. 3. We agree with this item. 4. We agree with this item. 5. W'e agree writh this item. 6. tVe agree to alter thb Item. See additional comments within this document 7. We agree with this item. S. Ve agree to alter this item. See additional comments within this document 9. >Ve agree to alter this item. See additional com/ients within this document 10. One of our revl&ed plans reduces the existing iardcover in thb tone from 2257s.f. to 1795 s.f, a reduction of462 s.f. Staff R .commendations: a) We agree to offset the garage by 2 feet vroviding a setback of 7 feet Anymore than thb severely comprombes the interior layout and appearance of the house. b) The neighboring house to the south has already set precedence. Not with bsues of setback, but with issues of **ovmhadowing adjoining pn^>erties". In fjct the house to the south b very Imposing to our property. The height to the Ciive on the lakeshore side of the home b approximately 28 feet above grade. The height to the peak of th b house b approximatdy 43 feet above grade. Thb house's lower level elevation b appro.ximatdy 2 feet higher than ours. The approximate hdght of our home to th e peak elevation b 39 feet, 4 fed shorter and 2fed tower in elevation for a total 6 feet difference in mass. Abo thb home b substantially big, ;er in footprint area than we are planning, presenting t. n even more imposing structure than our proposed design. We find thb recommendation extremely mbieading and inaccurate. (See attached photos) c) We agree with thb explanation and will alter our original proposal (See attached revbed designs) d) We need to understand your priorities regarding acceptable limits allowable for altering and upgrade the condition of the existing structure. s. P-1 Bad(;p.nMUid C—mitK We aigree in one revised dcflign to lednce die oovertge stnicmres to 1SOO s.f. limit Primiy taMMs: a) We feel this itMement U misleading. In&cttiie‘*bulk”ofoarpra|)osedstniGti0euleM imiMcting than the nd^ibofing home to die south. This home added tfleeA one come of block to the fbundmioo, end elso has oriented die loof for the tan gable Co the Urn end street aide the piopaty. presenting a inore‘Imlky” qipciawee thtoi if orisBted the other directioiL Oorpwyo^derignpoipose&liy orients the ghble side of oer house peipeodiailar to die and street sides of die property to miniiiiiza the bulkiaBM of die design. Ilto neighboring home to die south also has a substantial roofslope of 14/12 or 16/12. for esceeding the slopes ofioofs in dll neighborhood. This home can be seen hundreds ofyanb away as you iCT^oach this home from the IdBcsideelevadoii. Onr picpoaed design does not add a come of block to the fojodation and has a reduced roof slcpo ^gslainf see the/tome lie snath Of seiifog/ieaeeArjMeiwfthfiqgeH^reihlrfrree nlcsd. As prs^afy mailed &bkom«bstsitWau:dykUintm dtsmSam (mkastd fist :dkr) and mbstaatiaBy more imposing ht mass and Mk. b) AdL^riag to the sjfoack ieqairements for diispropnty win not dingc die status and substandard conditions in place, y r*“ —— •'‘frffrtr tide yard and takakan imt csttsxks, tkb wouUaiUw a secondstaiy atfJ:don qf28Ssf., snbetenriaOsbalomonr desired propose! (See ^eettadiedske plan diagrams). Also the buildiag code riiould be v.nified as it rektes to single-fiaiily residences end propcriy fine sedwekn c' We Mwoldr^Ticf to off siting the garege to address tkb issue. However, to push back fremdwr oyaid setback die ^gest.'d 10 feet, would move the garage to die south side of ltd tea:.foe. .ly reorganizing of the p>iniary living spaces smay from expc .'ire. Thiiw: Id also icsalt in the o 'jori^ofdiesitetobeinshadowiBfoerduttin sunlight as irJicatvd in our proposed design. <9 Adding the garage ¥dU in ferskdp address t*:islssne (See attacked gmdingplm). The prop(^::d locaUcn of t.. s ganige is in the locatun of the most severe grade change ^ffoss foiisite. The propos: Igarcgc win have a gutter ^stem dial will provide a direct cocr c^ntDcIxain tne, Fn>vifongnconiio!lc Jdiainaseconditioo. Also lylocatiqg the gar. ; in this location, the overland drainege ares ij gready reduced for the nei^ boT to dw Dotfo. /dso with fot removal of the street side existing garaBSL the site h:is me ^e r ’ -iliiy to be “rti-gred: -1" to help alleviate exirdqg dniiicge fnwmitf We aba arepropo. Utg die eUmiaaticn cjkard sniiact amkab aJfoinkin tke--------AMto praf y tiao, yata f asUvjfy trtpc dag the cxbtt:g drainageeoadMons. WeZ f.'opc.rrhead.a. on ofnon hard sr.faee (Inndscc,jiaj, sod and f needed a drabt-Me ;.oaddi.ss th. ~edrauTigeprobtems). S’s -ttai.': IgradL ’’*plans. V) We rrsT’-tpared to o 'rr -chr*^ reductions in harden sfspee ficnib regarding Aa tfiimc.jrel he’d cover) in good feUi, WctsJte bsnotothepkrose yieL ng what wili be a subst.sntiaUy new hanse". Thb has negative eonnomtlansand has K rjl.’varce in thb matter whether thb banew house or net f) ^/edii notkn^wfocre ise 10’easenemon each side ofesswerline. Wbereiadriactatodin Ciqr canstruetkm laws? g) Again in goodfaisk we are prepared to revbe the deck eonngnmtion and sbnfrom 422»/ to 128 s.f. o reduaion cf294sf. or 70%. 1 P'2^ Stttaclis: Lakeshore Avenge Ltkeduxc PropotedDtck-fiom42*wS7*. Pn^MudDtck-tatmtfaimwtkdtdaiMndtjkbortmghoma ¥>Uek we erepnpadagt0bei*deqt bf 16*kmg, meabituubd Sinictural Coverage: Total Stnietunl Coverage Weanpnpareito pnpim a ISOObJ. ttmettni eo mage. Hardcover Calcvlallona: 0-75’ 75 - 250’ Propaaei kerdeowr efM6 %f.(22.4%i to beetdecedie 640 m/. (l7*4)vrm4O%redHdioiiofarea0fpmi0iu4edgn. in one of omr revised dafgiu we arepn^osbigndMetkmitfAe hardcover bp B4s.f. ^ee attached revbed design drawings^ Total lot banburfiKe pioposed in one revised design » 2435 §.€ « 30% of eatire lot. Toul tot hardsatfaee as a percentage of 7S - 250' zone » 2435/4346 ” 565L Hardship Slatcmcal Respons e; 1. We purchased the propoly under the assumption dial it was 10.800 s.f or 27% larger than die actual siie (s 36 attached Real r tate Description and Hennepin Cbunty tax infimnatiao). HiisafrectedaIitbepieli.jinarycalculatiaiisHrez3adetcgaRlingthiagawe could do to alter the existing stnicture, specifically lakeriiore s^nbadi zone (our home is ill lino with hnth lijnininc prn7nTiri. ttirrrfnm aisiiminfl thii hnmr ififii in rnnfinrniinrr Also regarding “cuirenttybeittg used for a reasonable use....” is a subjective streament l‘or our iimuly, die current aze and quality of diis home cannot be used widdn reason. Our current living sitnalion is a 2700 s.f. home where my wifio and 1 live with two children The reason the previous owners moved was to have a larger home; fin oUdi diey felt they could not afford to add an to this property. It was/is our intention to ircpiovc the s,ipeaiance; q dity and size of this home; something we feel would be a welcome idea within this nwi^borhood, not a distia don 2. V/e take offi-asc to the statement **1 .'*.owing full v/:!! in cdvzr.ee the limhatioas of die p.-opimy”. On initial invcRigationoftfae property ibowad the property aiaa to be lO.SOO s.f. which is und.r the acre reqouen' nt wi Jiin this area, but 27% larger than the actual property, if dull had been the case, scv.»l of Cie variance issues and calculations would have been greatly reduced in our favor. Again ufiErtod:; attached Reel Estate Description and Hennqiin County ttx information. Also our irutial visual iiH|>ncrions were amducted in the month of Mardi, with the shoreline and eethack vague (anow and ice). We did not fed it was appropriate to have a survey oondueied on a prapany we did not in*firet owtL If die lot had been the size we first thought, the 25% allowable hardcover would have been 1380 s.£ instead of die current allowable ^10fi7s.f. 3. Wc rtrongjy iti«igree with thii «tatcment Againwefiwlthjhoaictolfaeioutliofour propoty hu let a voy strong precedent legirding the dtaipgof stmctures in tfie aetghboAood (hetgb^ roof orieoiatioii, lade of gutim on <iw side of the property), vireal density, and radaoedligbt. air and open apace idative to ror propoty. Also the removal of die aalsiing garage win have peat positive impact on ^ he visual density and ctaanctcr of die net^bofhood. 4. The refeiMice to a neighl*e™BP**T***y *******'*"BB^***'*B********^**^**r********^^**** no felevancc in this matter and should be taken out oi this docufjwnt We are not aw we the City of Orono had icstrictioos against how long a icadcnt was to inhabit a pnifieity. 5. Agiia we fed the property to the tooth ofonn has set a precedence regwding this issue. The orientmian of (b sir roof coofiguiaiioii, the increased slope of dieir roof and added heiglitofthis home has sigaificantinqiactfeganling access to sunlight. Hie property to the noidi of os has its garage as the adjacent nse of dint hnaiediate home, whereas our home's cunent l^rout has die primaty living spaces oriented to the overwhdmiqg heiglit of die hooie to the sooth. Again a precedent negadvdyiinpactiiig our livii^aP*^^ already exists. 6. NA 7. NA 8. The statement of'lieafbyldtesliofeproperties'* is a snlgectivephiase. What it considered nearby? I have driven the area numerous dmes and believe there exists nmieious coodidoos nothin the ncarity lakeshore properdea voy aimilar toourprapossL 9. Several areas within the LR'lBaone have minimal lots with laiga newer or nmodded Loses. 10. The current condition and si vC of die exirtiqg home is not acapmblefer oar livipg (itOfltlOD. 11. Agai.n this is a subjective oomment. The borne to die south baa eet a ptccedeatfer the Lsuc regarding visual density end reducing ligbL air, and opm ipaoe. The diauuige condition will be improved with the removal of die non-confemniig garege and attachiEeiit to die hrmn ^ritb die abflity to ’‘contrai" more surfecs area with gntlera etc.. Also there will be th * c, .;;ortuiiity under our proposal to significant^ re-grade die existing site, to reduce fee cunrot draiiiage issnes. The removal of this garage will ntwi posfevdy impact i'.ie visual density and character of the Dcigi'.rofhood. 12. This pnpeity was pordiased wife the intent to tnprove die quality, oondidonaad appe&raaoe ix fee existing bon* c. Is ju ra for Coosidention: L TkekH¥fas/mfch:stdtt^d!rthett!vtmpdmkmu27%la.'ger. 2. Our gufjpomtu^d goodfa^annprombtsi0m*thavtJust motive UnpactMmtd consequences butposUveones cs w*7iieiuding: therenunnlof a non-conformi/ig garage, ref' .ztUm of ^e barJeo^er areas, tke smteturai hardcaaer area to iSOOaf, tke remomt, a.’uratiam, md^ifieamtredMetioa im area audmeraackment oftba uam- conformin,, deck, tkealUity and desire to aker ike existing oser la mddralnaga utkk tke eke, tkeaf'lty to **eontrat" more of Ae tke area regarding drainage, endflnalfyto Unprove U$j ^^earenar, condition, and guaUty of tke existing konu: Onr proposed d.xign vdUpaeUvefybnpaet tke overall appearance cfAeimmedioUereosnrfonmSng ourpnpesty. 3. Our revised prapaeei reduce; Arse percentages to a more aceeptabie 56% kordeaver c;.u d, it 'eagreeAconfermtoAbeaxenenL 'b-r 5. WemgpropotiHg tlltrtHgIkbtoaOtmftr 4 Mm nmmeempelM. BakmU^ImkeaetaiWe bkdte»t4»aparkkig$t§0tytaM4aalimahg4t€k^me€ ecitdldeiit t WetmekibbeOemttwmfnwnMebi ^JW§ekUng ■nnpjwnrjhr tMMlicBpivlft# mdiUcn efinej. wOfct b unmtctftahkemdmmtuabiet maweU asjimmeinffy IrrwifmuiUe. If w€ml4ifmm»mkmmfoalpriitteflMtf.iiMtkii33%neainntke»Aeagb/lMgk{ emn^tfymiMepnpefb- aurmt eelmWikmfor eUmmbU tmieevm/ertkealuefmr tot art tt§7gf. tkatbmmmHuMti 9^anpnpa$kgM49lgaWetha$Mkar4eaver percmU:j€ef56%. WemeedlheCIbefOeomotoaMBthAe"prlarUee^tk^ wmUBtete tmgmstfareieaigaWMepnperb- THIsiesIgitmamtkeaeaekeittn^mti^pomAemkaiyeatematumMcmikewlutf tHeatr/aitkameifSIs/, m4pnposes€smeJkr4eekfMgliutdeeklt422t/.,amrlem propae^tks4a3t$af.ieek, wemrammvpnpatimg tUef.4edL Thedes^miso aHmm dralmaseianteimm v0ypcdttfewgft redHtbtgkardceimarcatmipnaUinglamdeeppbigaam four for iniuit Wear^dboprtpedbtgOt^oMmgofiraimlOeUOihhdlirtfkairtimoto WetUim chop eop mH wUfOOodetigH, efftUOmgOuoorapelftnfhm tke noUk wall of A« komUtpramAiga 7*aeOiackn.tkeeMrrtmt!ypnpeae44.3*, l7eatUiwouUitei4ha r4eofMr mrlmaaamdMopardaeCaekvarlameaa, Ike mrtutarti coverage ef Ikiodadpa b tSOO of. rnttbedd Thb4e3lgpa44tariagbgu>fyadditkmtUmovaI29$f,cfAecxbtbiglum9eaa4mavai0l€ garageawrpfromthaaaaetiteittaadaboofftbBlipombemortkemwalL TkbdabgP re^tlresr.fooftimelmra9aaeeamm\a4aleeppraalmaufy 600tfef0tdbatpaoalmmaaeomi otery be roof (gores'oad mall kous^tbiwou :iao4at£cAstoreset'uattg0aaL Uta rumdbdertfbe buieaigo bike tamo. UibSedgo regulr3 a 1790 of. atmcmnOcoaaragab tioM of be l5C9tfofeOueutral eevjoge cf be retbj4s:amdt1ojy4ebga. Iiinritf'iyirtfii litiffiitilih tinoto Family flaalda rHial Status: Sold style: fiF) Oat Slaiy Conttniction Statu* Ust Price: $4St.tuaetiiim BoMPficr.$m V-'U ■ V- •M ^ >, k.Year Built ItM Badroem*:! Tem Betti-S Map Page: IBS Mep Coord: BS FiraB: OfigUal Price: SmjiB MLSAraaftSBI SscAim . e .f V • \'i ?/ A 4 ttNm fey dicMntea ttM Lot 81 m: Acim B Foundation Size: IBff APvOidFinSqftlM BeUfdFinSqltBM TctolFmSqftlMB LWOat*:Sf1«IBBS Reed by MLS:ifunm MaibatTImetdt TSKIWFOmiATIOil Tax Year Tax And: BUIS Taxie/j Sa.7M AaaesaBalSB Aeaeta Pend: Uahaaem HomeeleedtViBa Propatty ID: BBIIWSISBiBI Off Marftet Date: ettiiBos Selling Agent: fimaJK. r?Q Nrrth Arm Drive C..^ON -i rono, Minneoota M364 Ssitino Offlcs: llgALTPHm,liift osTc cfoff d: moan Laks Nams: r •»» nL: Ro :.?rr’iNromuiK)M 5 r*djc ». ist»c«;.d fl<ai;m»ll fCiiiiy titftiBla Cidley tell am i letaCan4tt)laUeidrSiiii -egji;.* Touply:.: JJItJ - Hinrtopln UtoVtaterfront Ute Bchool 0 strict (r f4N9; tlT ^ompIsx/OaytfcpmarrVSabdivjsion: ^esti1ctk>nsACavsnanl8: jo: Cascr.:ton: T.m Covarjg^ • Xs*ix r! v iFas vf fraqaene/t WA •CO (nr iwdcs: W/A kc *8ss bitity* lic;;a Ic frg ic Frorraqe; City, Pz,\ StiMki Common Watt . Mm Approved Financing: r iMASK 5^ant R?na.''HS. ^utHcRemarks, rmsttmeiig oiM|ulotMdofIMAAiaaBayMdaladocfOMfrMiLyMMMr lo:ij vtovvia Hardee J fU c/Se Mm iMle WaikMiteralljf iMiiia Dock. ;iT. ;iMFor.:;.:.TiCM Total £]jths‘ 2 F. i I Bath Ctaractsdsacs: Main F loaf FMI Battig 111 laaMMl Dini/v Room Eatln Kifcha.i Faihily Room tav.'Of Lavot Firaplares 0 F r#p acs CCaractc/ sOcs Appnances Rar :liaf, Basffna.nr Wafftc i; PlU, Citaiioc. MaWAAnyl Fencing Hoof AatAat Bhlnslaae Fftchadg Aga i Vaafo at Laaa Amonit es - Sha;er Ar unities - JnttC:? Pai cng ChamcttrisCn: C Jt:; Poem Lsvtl C .ran Room Doacfiplion Laval 1 ?im ?n Miac L .ir.;3 Rn VJkXN :U22 Heat FemadAIr L nioj) R:n FuehNMmlOM Frrr "rn l^’Tl ilsH Air Conditioning: CanMif H !c^.1*Dill Water MM V *droom1 Mr :n 13 .10 Smdcr: C ty iasaar - CmmcM •! jdfoom?I0;1J Garaga Stafis: < Eodroorr- iLOtSE.’l 13213 Otnar Parking: f.3drcom-i I Pool: s, »• ( HENNEPIN COUNTY COMPLETE TAX REPORT PIO • 0ei172343(IPLAT PROPERTY TYPE; R • RMldMtial rrAXYEAR; »roDftv InfomwMombr; 720 WORTH ARM DR ORONO MN SS364 SuMMdonfAddNiOfl) School OI»trlc< Cnty Prep Typo Cods Mpit Prop Type Cede Legal OMolpliM AUDITOR'S SUBO. NO. SS2 Let/ Bioelt 377 • WE8TONKA Parcel Slio RL Acres HmaldCede Year Bum 1954 Hmeld Cede Leal Yr AUDiTOR-B BUBO NO. 382 LOT 003 BU COM AT MOST NLY COR OF LOT 3 TH 8WLY TO MOSTWLY COR THEREOF TH BELY 40 FT ALONG THE SVM.Y UNE OF SAID LOT TH NELY TO LAKE SHORE ALONG A UNE PASSING THROUGH A PT OIS 90 FT SELY AT RT ANGLES FROM THE NWLY UNE OF SAID LOT AT A PT DIS172 6H0 FT NELY FROM THE MOST WLY COR THEREOF TH NWLY ALONG LAKE SHORE TO BEG 3/ 95 X 229 H H Ownwfr«xpsyrlnfofnMil Owner Name. Address JS LEECH SVELAI»LEECH,720NORTH ARM OR ORONOMN 95364 Taipayer Name. Address J8LEECHSVELAIS4EECH.720NORTHARMDRMOUNDMN95364 MsilWt VbIuBB / TaxffS / SubycOfd (Hem»: Tam do no re»ect solid wests tee: Tot wM Vats.0001896) MafMValuoa Lond: BuHdlfio: Total: $152,000 $106,000 $260,000 Taxaa Base Tax: AaaaaaAfflt: Taxed Aamnt: Subracord Stalin $2.70240 Watarahad 90.00 Delinquent Stelue 92,702 40 Green Acres/OA.SqFI 3 8bIm Information Moat RacaottalaPata 2/26/1960 1311$145,000 Moat Raoanf Sale Cod#W-WmrantyDeed Pfovtoua tala Data PrevlouaBalaPrIoa Prevtoue Sale Coda De. illod Dwsllina Chaructsristico OroaaSMg.SqR 1004 Buhdtngtiyia RAMBLER UvaMaSqFt Number of Stoflaa 1 Tot Bedrma/Bathe 3/2 FiralFtooftqfl 1004 BuMIngSliapa Family 1 Living Rm 1/1 S-.cend Fleer SqFI BuDdino Condilfon Average Dining / Other Rm 0/0 BcseffieotSt|Ft 1004 Buiding Conelruelloa Wbod2x4 Kllefiefi 1 Oarage SgFt 400 Oarage Type / Capacity DETACHED/2 Firepleoee 0 Dacli/Patio SsiFt 300 / 300 Roof Type/Cover Geble/Wood ^reWn Porch S^FI Exterior WaUa Metal Air Pool / Pool Sqf t N/0 Inferior Wane Sheetrock Total Rooms 6 LotSgFt 11200 Lot Width/Depth 55/225 Lot Zoning :^oom Schodule _ _ . Room Type Bamt F11 FI2 Fi 3 Room Type Bamt F1 1 FI 2 R 3 Room Type Bamt FI1 FI2 FI3 Dedrooma 1 2 0 0 BaBiaFiil 0 1 0 0 Kllcliefi 0 1 0 0 Family Room 1 0 0 0 Balha3/4 1 0 0 0 Flieplaee 0 0 0 Living Room 0 1 0 0 Baths 1/2 0 0 0 0 Other Room 0 Report DM Mon. Jun 16,2003 05^4 PM Infermalon it Believed To Be Aoour«le Bui Not Oumrenteed IVbirk^Linx » software Copyright O Inlefacftve Data Development, Inc. 1907*2003 AH Righli Reaefvtd An inform aOon contained herein ia for ttie txdutfve uae of authorized MLS Subacribera: Copyright O 2001*2003 Regional Multiple Uating Service of Minneaota. Inc All Righta Reaerved For NoithatarMLS problema or auggeaiiona pleaae contact the Help Deak or cal 651*251*5450. V •• r^dmt ^ ii^ditton N&mo JB Proparty n>: Mdraao: HOUCBorBUHJMMOi: School Mai: Walaiohad; taaiorOiat: OaaiarNama: 1^20 r SmETNAME: M imi tm 3 iiMMHiMti {north arm driva i r rr “1r~i Taapoyor Namo AAdtfioaa: miHHi |^_ ^raoofdaperpaoa talaoprioooaron wamailadloropw SalaOala: SalaPrico; IVanaadioiiiypo: AtfdMonNMia; Lot •Mock: Malao ft Bounds: • cT/ite 60} Atcs^ • (hkui ii/aciM) ^^i1d7bte~Aies:::c60t ’fci^/ivAA d /r^c.Tb^cur^ ^ .......... - V'v .A ftfm vP/'il/ \ ^ ^// ft'ifSbcjtr.j?... UO.^J: -z: : -. V• Mui5*d OesiQ^ i Ph^*\ jv^/M Aidii'tcn i aJ<*^ \ AUtchtel 6**^*^e ( /SCO i./. c^ue/-yMci Mt») i>fVC. dn 3dd/tcs wOlAaa' Issued / • «. « t « . AlH/Atf'OcH |tf4>«At^*l A 7 >oicd Nt««> Airc». 9P^h fcrn«e ^PLA ' . t>«ci?^ 5‘fi»V •fCMdilC,piu4C' ^ C4A6/e.'i€. uuiiv: 0 • aiavhl \ AlOVX. ^Af2dje\-i« 4>tiu3 ^pcfKr |4eg5"*Jl5p1fTf U A »«•«»» # 1^ U1 a9/r^< i( Hoc$blt Sfic*, ftc4 c4/t/afut^ --:ii3!>3aeo’.Xafe2tei»i^^ Aft)^ : Sy‘9^» iX0 i Ad^t'^ 4A2f iAfmi^hi^oA aree ‘i j^oSti ----F^ojpUtd Qfdc X>-(3 .......... s: ii(,&ZhiGiJ b9H^<. r^OOM ofW/j 1v^ «* N \ ^Aifcrr/iT AddihcA -r Vi' > « • »> • \ ' iv.*i i ’I'lO iwr*M Dale Application Received: 5-21-03 Dale Application Considered as Complete: S-22-03 60*Day Review Period Expires: 7*21-03 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike GafTron, Planning Director ^ June 12,2003 #03-2907 Jeff & Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Aim Drive - Variances • Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1-acre min. 0.18 acre (7,946 s.f.) Application Summary" Applicant requests a number of variances to construct a second story addition and attached garage to the e.xisting residence. The variances include: 1. Additional structure within a bluff impact zone. 2. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75' setback zone, 65* from shoreline. 3. Second story structure encroaching 4.3 feet from left side lot line. 4. Second story structure encroaching 2.4 feet from right side lot line. 5. Attached garage addition and grading 4.0 feet from left side lot line. 6. Continue existing deck in 0-75' zone (42' from shoreline) slightly smaller (dimensions not defined by applicant) but probably still encroaching average setback line 7. Encroachment within 10' of City sewer line (City will not vary from the 10' requirement). 8. Lot coverage by structures to remain at existing 1870 s.f. (23.5%) where 1500 s.f is allowed. 9. Hardcover in 0-75' reductions proposed from 1058 s.f (29.4%) to 806 sf (22.4%) where no hardcover is allowed, by reducing deck and concrete slab areas. 10. Hardcover in 75-250' zone will be reduced from 2257 sf (51.9%) to 1879 sf (43.2%). Staff Recommi'ndation: Staff recommends: a) Denial of tlii side setback variances for the garage, as it can be shifted to meet a 10' setback w ith some interior design changes. b) Denial of the second stor>’ additions within the side setbacks, because they will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, lead to issues over future maintenance, and will probably not be able to have windows on the sides due to building code restrictions based on the substandard setbacks. c) Denial of garage less than 10' from sewer line. The required set 10' setback will result in a garage only 14' deep, i.e. non-functional. d) The application should be tabled to allow* applicants to re-dcsign. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement & Addenda C - Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D - Proposed Plans & Elevations E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Letters from Neighboring Owners G - Property Owners List H -Plat map *• •• r- «03-2907 June 12,2003 Page 2 Background Applicants purchased this property in May 2003 and request a number of variances to construct a a second story addition and an attached garage. The lot is very small at just under 8,000 s.f. Lot coverage by structures is over the 1500 sf limit, and applicants apparently will slightly reduce this by reducing decks by 120 sf. while the attached garage will be about the same size as the detached garage it replaces. The primary issues are: a) The second story addition is partly in the 0-75' zone, and adds additional bulk of structure nearer the lake than normally allowed. b) The second story addition is proposed to continue the existing extremely substandard side setbacks of 4 -5 on the left side and 2.5-3.9* on the right side. These setbacks are so substandard that the building oiTicial has advised that it is likely no windows can be allowed in these side walls per building codes. c) The attached garage is proposed to be 4' from the side lot line and extend an already substandard setback an additional 20' for a total substandard setback extent of 55' on the northwest boundary. Drainage is a serious concern, as all overland drainage from the rear half of this site flows toward the neighbor to the north... Hardcover on the property is very excessive and the proposed revisions will result in minor reductions while yielding what will be a substantially new house. The existing City sewer is shown on the survey as 4' from the proposed garage. The City normally requires an easement area 10' either side of sewer lines. Whether or not a formal easement exists for this line, the City will not allow structure to encroach within 10' of the sewer, leaving the proposed garage too short to be functional. There is no permit of record for the deck on the lake side of the house. The assessors records indicate it appeared in the mid-1980's. This may be a non-issue if it remains as-is, but if it is removed or replace it should be brought into greater conformity... d) c) 0 8) Both adjacent neighbors have written letters in opposition to the variances. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHELT Lfft AKuAVjdlh: LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f (I.O acre)140' .Actual 7,946 s.f (0.18 acre)50* (shoreline) 45' (75* setback) • T #03-2907 June 12,2003 rjgc3 Setbacki; LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front NA NA NA Rear (Street)30*75 ’55’ Uft Side (NW)10*4.3 ’ (overhang at I*)4.0’ VAR Right Side 10’2.4’2.4’ VAR Lakeshore 75 ’House; 65’ Deck: 42’ House: 65’ VAR Deck: 42’??? VAR Average Lakeshore (No Encroachment Allowed) House: No Encr. Deck: 20’± House: No Encr. Deck: ???? VAR Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 7,946 s.f.Allowed: 1500 s.f. Existing: 1870 s.f. Proposed: ? 1750sf?VAR Hardcover Calculations; Note that calculations submitted by applicant do not use zone areas as denominator; as a result the percentages shown on the survey and discussed by applicant are incorrect. The numbers in the table below are believed to be reflective of what is actually proposed. Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Aliowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’3,600 s.f. Os.f. (0 %) 1,058 s.f. (29.4 %) 806 s.f. (22.4 %) VAR 75-250’4,346 s.f.1,087 s.f. (25 %) 2,257 s.f. (51.9%) 1,879 s.f (43.2 %) VAR Total lot hardsurface proposed = 2,685 s.f. = 33.8 % of entire lot Total lot hardsurface as a percent of 75-250* zone = 2,685/4,346 ■ 62% Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibits A and B, and should bp asked for their additional testimony regarding the application, ■ -'------------------------------------------------------------------------ #03-2907 June 12,2003 Page 4 Hardship Analysis In considering appltcarions for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the ^ect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the communit}', existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning^ Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” Some variances will be necessary to make changes to the property, however it is currently being used for a reasonable use and can continue to be used in that manner without \ariances. 2.“The plight of the landoNMier is due to circumstances unique to his property not created bv the landowner.” The plight of the landowner is self created in that the landowner is proposing to make changes to the property knowing full well in advance the limitations of the property. 3.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The lot at such a small size is an anomoly in the neighborhood and the granting of the requested variances on it may tend to increase visual density and structure massing in the neighborhood, and reduce light air and open space which adjoining lots properly maintain. 4.“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Applicants have not suggested this proposal is for economic gain. A neighboring property owner has suggested this may be a spec house... 5.Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” A second story 4-5'from a side lot line may have severe impacts in blocking sunlight to the adjoining property to the NIV. 6.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” Not Applicable 7.“The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-fathily dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” (Not Applicable) 8.'The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The zoning codes which limit hardcover <£ stmclural coverage and require minimum setbacks apply equally to all nearby lakeshore properties. 9.“The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The code applies to all similarly situated lakeshore properties in the LR-IB zone. 10.“The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The applicant does not have an inherent right to increase the degree of nonconformity of an existing nonconforming structure, but has a right to maintain it as is.. 11.“The granting of tlie proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." Granting of the variances will potentially be contrary to the intent of the zoning code by increasing the nonconformity of an existing nonconforming structure and adding to visual density while reducing light air and open space in the neighborhood. It also has potential to have negative drainage impacts on neighboring properties absent a plan to deal with drainage within the property boundaries. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely st ve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Planning Commission must determine whether sufficient hardship has been demonstrated to allow one or more of the variances to be granted. Issues for Consideratioa 1.The lot is extremely substandard and is smaller than all other lots in the immediate neighborhood (see plat map). Addition of second story at the existing side setbacks has a number of negative impacts and potential consequences. 3.Are the proposed reductions in structure and hardcover acceptable given the extremely limited lot size? As a guide, note that as a percentage of the 75-250’ zone, hardcover is proposed at 62%... this is far beyond the 40-50^o that is common for rebuilds on properties this size... 4. 5. The garage must be no less than 10' from the existing City sewer. Drainage is a severe problem on this site that needs to be addressed in deatil if the project moves forward. 6. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? t'• • t #03-2907 June 12,2003 PagcO StalT Rcconunendatlon Staff recommends tabling this application to allow i^plicants to revise the plans to address concerns raised by suflf and the Planning Commission. Applicants should be provided direction regarding: - acceptable levels of hardcover and lot coverage - acceptable lakeshore and side setbacks for second story and garage additions - the need to provide drainage plans that eliminate impacts to neighboring properties - the need to maintain 10' separation to City sewer Proposed Motion Table to allow applicants to revise their plans. • ti ■ ” ' • » - K ■**, . ’ 7 *. . a. »• ilbaf lartihinldWI ------- 4- CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change fiom original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received I - 03 # Amount Paid r^QO. OO^ Property Identification h Attach legal description [X j"— ^ M '— P^enhsT^ prope^^^^^idcntial required survey.ty Identiticaiion v* I legal description to app^^^m /do^not^also own the ^jacent ituSS^Sf^property: Lx^esident (month/year) other (specify). Zoning District:. APPLicAN3^.^i: ■ y.vv,^,v^ Pho« ntvr ^/\:/iAoV^c\^__Zip: 0^^’NER (if different than applicant) Name ______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work). Address:.City:.Zip:. description of request Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ --------------------- VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _ ■)( Setback: Other (specify) Lot Width y Side X Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore compliance with Zoning Code requirements:-----p>TT^r[/)kV\Mt (attach additional sheets if necys ^) £> W f required submittals 1. 2.S^!?'Td Fom.Certified Prooertv Oum«„ t 3. within 150-, labels «td p|« sns as rd>nii.'.-a.^ , ^ ® licensed snn/a..,^.\ _ . . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. u^^iain mis IisL labels and , fC,^r 348-5910). uepartment ofFin.nCertificate of Survey fsi«,M u finance. A-603, calculations as requiVed ^ surveyor) anH • , reptoduetion. ' =‘‘<<>'■0". provide one (i) “ov"s!)^* hardcover Topographic survey (existine »„H ^ for As an addendum to hirainr*' «PP«<^am(s) ^f norcu'^* y by City slafE nt And T^mr«Aa>4*. A,,, —«Pl.lCAm-S SIGNATURE -------—at. ine applicant hereby aereec t« r£;“;rr,:r„“'S'»»»..-,“ ""“Ssras: Applicant's Signature -fj [ ^ “MAijijjz.signatures ' Vy/ ^ —j| 'iri I vy The owner hereby acknowledges an,r Applicant must have alMubmlif il • J '— —St*U I 6^ Apptfnts i^Th^pSr affs stSr'°^^” ^banse prior to the 4e.ing ‘" “« >» ‘dviaeT™abe arran*ements to 7 -iV ^ r-. y a iih^ ,■>«=' .// AW 'W') f City of Orono - Variance Application 720 North Arm Drive Jeff and Cara Ziebarth owners and applicants May 21,2003 Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions We are requesting variances of the setback requirements for the side-yard, front-yard (lakeside), and the hardcover ordinance for the property. Existing Conditions The existing lot is 50 feet wide at the lakefront and 40 feet wide at the rear and approximately 180 feet deep (approximately .18 acres), suggesting this is an unusually narrow lot (less than the minimum for LR-IB Lakeshore Zoning of one acre). The existing home was constructed in violation of the current side-yard and lakeside setbacks. The existing property also has a garage that was also constructed in violation of front- yard (roadside) setback and in 1993 was granted a variance to reconstruct a new garage on the existing foundation. The current hardcover is also in violation of the required hardcover percentages. This hard cover violation also received a variance in 1993 when the existing garage was rebuilt. The current conditions of the house and lot size will not allow a one level expansion of the home to be in compliance with hardcover requirements. The current conditions of the house and lot will allow minimal expansion of a second story to fall within setback requirements (this would allow an approximate addition of600 square feet including a stairway reudering less than 500 usable square footage). Proposed Changes We are proposing a second story addition to the existing home structure, to increase the livable square footage of the home by approximately 1300 square feet. The following summarizes the proposed property change details; ♦ Remove the existing two-stall garage structure (currently in violation of roadside setback) ♦ Remov al of the existing concrete apron in front of the existing garage ♦ Remove existing sidewalk leading to the house from the garage ♦ Reduce the amount of driveway currently on the property, while still maintaining a shared driveway access for the nei^bor to the north ♦ Construct a new attached two-stall garage (with living space above) ♦ Removal of the e.xisting roof and porch (structural coverage) on the west portion of the existing home (approximately 90 square feet) ♦ Reduction of the existing deck size on the lakeside of the home by 25% ♦ Addition of new walkway from rew garage to the new front entry ♦ Proposed New Home = 2400 square feet above grade and 800 square feet finished walkout basement area Additional Information We will have a completed survey for review by the Planning Commission Meeting date of June 16.2003. This survey vnW document current and proposed hardcover dnd structure property line setbacks. We will also provide description of existing fouhdation conditions.u.'ill \ot (U)Ai|3/ete. “^^6 oi Aly dr /C: ♦*c : C' ft City of Orono - Variance Application 720 North Arm Drive Jeff and Cara Ziebartb owners and applicants May 21.2003 Description of Request We are requesting die following variances: ♦ Side-yard setback will be less than the required 10 feet The current home is in violation of this setback requirement Our proposed second floor addition will maintain the fooqirint of the existing home. Surveyor will provide exact property line setback proposed. ♦ L^eside setback will be less than the required 75 feet The current home is in violation of this setback lequirment. Our proposed second floor addition will maintain the fooqirint of the existing home. Surveyor will provide exact property line setback proposed. ♦ Common L^nhore setback will be maintainf^ It 15 believe the current home falls in line with this setback. Surveyor will provide exact property liny setback proposed. ♦ H^cover Ordinance cannot meet the suggested allowable percentages. The existing conditions of the property are in violation of both the 75-foot zone and the 250-foot zone. We are proposing a reduction in the hardcover in the 250-foot zone with our addition and garage replacement project Surveyor will provide exact hardcover calculations for the proposed changes. Estimated Construction Cost: S135,< -----d IL City of OroBO- Variance Application (Additional Information Requested) 720 North Arm Drive Jeff and Cara Ziebarth owners and applicants ^ June 2.2003 Addidonal Infomation not yet submitted: Survey with Hardcover CakulatioBS Attached you will find a signed surv^r from Otto Associates of Buffalo. In addition to the survey and proposed hardcover calculations, the following will also be incoiporated into the proposed nc!w construction and property. These changes have not been included in the attached survey and calcularions. 0-75 Foot Zone Existing Concrete of 79.23 S.F. is proposed to be reduced to SO S.F. with the new construction. Existing Deck of 422.67 S.F. will reduced to 300 S.F. with the new construction. Total Hardcover Area will be 906.53 S.F. or 11.4 % vs. the 1058 43 S.F. or 13 J % f reduction of 15 % of hardcover in the 0 - 75 Foot Zone. 75 - 250 Foot Zone Existing concrete of 137.56 S.F. proposed to remain will in fact be removed. Total Hardcover Area will be reduced from the proposed 2016.% S.F. to 1879.4 S.F.. This will reduce percentage hardcover proposed from 25.4% to 23.6% compared to the existing hardcover of 28.4 %, a reduction of 17%. Existing Foundation Condition and Inspection The City of Orono Building Inspector has observed the condition of the existing foundation. The cunent foundation of the existing house is 12” concrete block widi concrete footings at frost dq)th on the walkout side of the existing house and continuous under the concrete block foundation and basement slab on the non-walkout portion of the basement These footings appear to be 24” in depth and assumed to be centered under the block foundation walls. ^ W ifr * *. I I 3 ----^! rm • ^3 1 \mL^ Ziebarth Residence 720 North Arm Drive Orono Mianetota 2 Certificate & Topographic Survey \ iiiii’n ,\ \ \ \ V V \ A V \\ \ X lMlm '\x\Jv* XY"mA -uSk: / \ \ *• tM-SAM. Mn-*3dM trn-MUf monument found pipe oot 00 ohown boftng [$$7M '•MUM C^flcofd * Topegnphk; Sunmy cn part of Lot J, AUDITOR'S SUBOI\ASK)N Na 362. IteMiMdi CtounfK yinnooota LOT AREA to O.H. W.L‘‘‘7947.30 S.F. Cara Ziebarth 09lm &/27/03 r- 20' dmotea PotMr M# d$not0$ 0¥mh^ Odette danoim Senttary Saamr ikf dmotm tMktktg CoMfourt r«t Spot aomiX $m3S donotm Spot Ooaotleno Existing Hard Cover Cduiotions 0^75 foot Zone Proposed Hard Cover CaiutaUdns 0--75 foot Zone £Mbthg House" 400.3t Sf. EjUs^g Dock" 42Z67 S.f. EMisUng Stops" 156.22 S.f Ekioi^ ConcrotS"7S.2J Sf rotd" 1056.43 SF. 133X Existhg Hard Cover CduiaUons 75-250 foot Zone Ejdoiing Houoo" 400.31 SF. EjOoOng Dodt" 42267 SF. EdoUng Stops" 15622 SJi Extotlng CofKrots"79.23 Sf* Totd" 105643 6F. 163M Proposed Hard Cover Caiuiations 75-250 Foot Zone EtdoHng House" 6263$ SF, EktsUng Congo" 41661 Sf. CdotSig Crevol DHvsmoym gaSB SF. ETdottig Bit Drtvsssy^ 64216 SF. EjdotStg Cone. StdomoSt" 46200 SF. FMioting RotoMig WPS" 1607 SF. Totd" 2257.10 SF. 264M Legal Deeertpthn of Beeor^ Pnpoeod Gangs" 42600 SF. Pnposod Drimwoj^ 66654 SF. Proposed SidowoSn 10641 SF. EdatSng Cone." 137.56 SF. EjUotlng House" 62636 SF. SMiothg RotpInStg WPS" 1607 SF. Totd" 201696 SF. 264M That sort of Lot X AUitTORS SUeOhSSON HUUBOt 362 HonnopH Oounty ninnmmnta idno Northmf/ of o straight Uno drawm through 2 pohts^ eatondhg Mortheostody to the 1 point being h the SoutheeotoHy One of said Lot X 4600 iPot Southody dong odd One. Pom the moot Sdotorty comer of sold Lot the other poSit bode 5600 feet distent et tight angles Southoostorty Pom the Northmootorty Hne of sdd Lot meeeund Bom a point St the Hortheootody iino of sdd Lot ddtont 17260 foot Hertheeetorty meeeund dong sdd Uno Bom the moot Weeterty comer of odd Let ceoofdStg to the piet thenof on fSo or of record in tho office of tho Begletror of 7160% HennepFi County tUnnseeto. I herdSf cortIN thd tNs tunf^. or under my dfnei eupemton one the! I «m • duly UeanMd Und ndtr few IVfefeftte: wwMMlIdmociaiMxem toM few Mdto «f TTO MOCMTU Nid C. Otto 0WMt0MdiMtt§onti»,mmi3nttpntmAnr taB(7U)M24S2f (toulMd: Job No. 1^03^0251 a''"so «• \V L_. NT ln ‘"•i- 'V<^/-i> •>1^ 7 l/ \ \••^0: V o <>. V*bT- : ^•5i? « V £r/sf»i0 Houn ' / .* .•■ «= N X ^ix>< y y ----edge of bit. , % ^ A^' \M <(v; ,.* \ /X:^ ‘^pi O' X ♦y 96J.C6 Wosf WtMterty- cor. of hct X % X f//' A\ X j . » w.w •O' ^^'Spru^y f % <Sfv Ejcl$ttng House ✓ f/ev'.* 959.75 (N.G.V.D. 1929) \-. /XX 1.06 \ / -'A\----/_K v^*-- / '966A5vWvi •'.V y X LOT AREA to - -988- X 988.53 Existing Hard Cover Calulations 0-75 Foot Zone Existing House= 400.31 S.F. Existing Deck= 422.67 S.F. Existing Steps= 156.22 S.F. Existing Concrete. =79.23 S.F. Total= 1058.43 S.F. 13.3X Existing Hard Cover Calulations 75-250 Foot Zone Existing House = 626.38 S.F. Existing Garage=’ 419.61 S.F. Existing Gravel Driveways 90.88 S.F. Existing Bit. Drivewoy= 642.16 S.F. Existing Cone. Sidewalk^ 462.00 S.F. Existing Retaining Wall= 16.07 S.F. Totals 2257.10 S.F. 28.4Z denotes denotes denotes denotes denotes Power Overhi Sanitc Existir. Spot I Pro Pre 968.87 \.y \ Cone, to \ bo romovoi UH-SAN------ Rkn>'955.58 lnv.-94J.38 /F ^Li Legal Description of Record:^, •' That part of Lot 3, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NUMBE Minnesota, lying Northerly of a straight line drcr.n Northeasterly to the waterline, 1 point being in i : \ • ' P-l I a o C"\av;r..'S9 vJ* J V' • ' ft ^ ^0.7 »•• Ziebarth Residence 720 North Arm Drive Orono Minnesota t \ • f• • •* • # • • * • • ••• • • ft . A • .• ' V ,-/V ;:ir^ L . ‘.. .. ' •• - - .'• ^ * f t :• ^ •• • • II • €i \ • \ /. • ^U» Ziebarth Residence 720 North Arm Drive Orono Minnesota •V * . ! ]>'3 •.. * I' uEl o C.;^ - Ziebarth Res 720 North Arm Orono Minnesota d e n c e Drive Ar % I /. * • V • • .• * #o'Dc# iO ‘^' U i -• Ziebarth Residence 720 North Arm Drive Orono Minnesota I »i 1 i » —JL V'S Trr Ziebarth Residen 720 North Arm Dri Orono Minnesota c e V c M . i O -OWf— --------988 X 988.33 denotes Power Pole denotes Overhead Electric denotes Sanitary Sewer line denotes Existing Contours denotes Spot elevations Existing Hard Cover Calulations 0—75 Foot Zone Proposed Hard Cover Calulations 0-75 Foot Zone Existing House — 400.31 S.F. Existing Deck^ 422.67 S.F. Existing Steps — 156.22 S.F. Existing Concrete.=79.23 S.F. Existing House= 400.31 S.F. Existing Deck= 422.67 S.F. Existing Steps= 156.22 S.F. Existing Concrete.=79.23 S.F. Total= 1058.43 S.F. 13.3Z Lx>T Totals 1058.43 S.F. 13.3Z Existing Hard Cover Calulations 75-250 Foot Zone Proposed Hard Cover Calulations 75—250 Foot Zone Existing House= 626.38 S.F. Existing Carage= 419.61 S.F. Existing Gravel Drivewoy= 90.88 S.F. Existing Bit. Driveways 642.16 S.F. Existing Cone. Sidewatk= 462.00 S.F, Existing Retaining Wall= 16.07 S.F. Proposed Garage= 428.00 S.F. Proposed Driveways 699.54 S.F. Proposed Sidewalk= 109.41 S.F. Existing Conc.= 137.56 S.F. Existing House= 626.38 S.F. Existing Retaining Wall= 16.07 S.F. » Total= 2257.10 S.F. 28.4X Totals 2016.96 S.F. 25.4% ^ , I e.,d 1 Legal Description of Record: That part of Lot 3. AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NUMBER 362. Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying Northerly of a stroight line drawn through 2 points, extending Northeasterly to the waterline, 1 point being in the Southwesterly line of said Lot 3, 40.0C feet Southerly, along said line, from the most Westerly corner of said Lot, the other point being 50.00 feet distant at right angles Southeasterly from the Northwesterly line of said Lot, measured from a point in the Northwesterly line of said Lot distant 172.60 feet Northwesterly measured along said line from the most Westerly cp/ner of said Lot, according to the plat thereof on File or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota. lereby certify that this survey.Web Site: - Revised: < • i i ±. n« lu A F-l Hart^^OragoQi^ To; SubjMt Mr. MIchartP.Ooffrootho propoiod 720 N. Aim Or changw - Numbor 03*2907 Dear Michael and the othar planning ooordinaton. Since I can not coma In parson on the foUoMng Monday for the maating, I wanted to voica eoma concame I have In the Ziebarth propoead changes. While certain variances can be compromised, m^ ones are bigger concerns. I am also not sura what will become of their driveway plans , as the my property line has always indudad soma of the driveway for thair house. a InsSorvmrry'irth^ sloped Otelr land away from their house, but draining toward mine. I have also received Nnts that they will not be moving In here, but are doing these changes not with the Idea of a better place to live for themselves, but for the investment they would reap. I am the home ovmer at 700 North Arm Or, and have lived here sinea January , 1987. I hope you can understand my concerns. Please contact mo If I need any other avidenca of my concern. or If I tan come in person soma other time. Many thanks. Gregory M. Harty 992-472-4661 Home or pager 1-888-371 *2501 I June 9,2003 • • <* *. Michael P. Gaflfron and Planning Conunissioners 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN SS3S6 I stopped into the City offices this morning to review the plans and variances of 720 North Arm Dr. (#03-2907). I own the property to the southeast (710 North Arm Dr.). I was surprised to find that the house ’s current cement patio is 1.3 feet on my property and the deck is 2.1 feet on my property. My wife and I are concerned that the proposed addition of a two story walk out only 2.4 feet from our property line is way too close, not including any eaves or overhangs that the house may have. Building up from the current location is crowding the lot lines arul we definitely don ’t vmnt to see this happen. Also, there would be no way to go from the front yard to the back yard without going through the house or our yard. There also seems to be no effort to reduce the amount of hard cover. I have not been able to identify any hardship. The current owners bought the property as an investment to fix up and resell. Any variances and plans should have been approved before the property was purchased. Laws of building and zoning are established for a reason. I can see approv^ for minor deviations from the rules but the ones requested here seem very excessive. My wife and I had applied for variances when building our home only to have our plans turned down due to bluff set backs. We made compromises and resubmitted new plans to satisfy the city planners. Respectfully,452— Kirk and Sue Otteson Cell (952)240-1630 Home 472-2341 H. 'rii’ikiltiiltihi F'2. Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (wc) -TOO <v)- Ca [print address](print name(s)] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (wc) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Rope^Owner /7 Date Dd Property Owner Date ************************************1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,i,1,*1,1,1,i,1,1,1,4,1,l,i,i,i,i,t,in,i,tt,^^^,^^,^^^t,^^ I (we) ______ ol [print name(s)j nio [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________®lso referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner 5inm Date Property Ov\*ner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. v I L Jun 16 03 03:17a Ulnduiood Condominiums 613-941-2630 P. I FIXIRENCE A. HAGBERG 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE MOUND* MN 5S364 pi STTti f8 AT* ORONO CriY OFFICES PLANNING COMMISSION 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO* MN 55391 SUBJECT: ZUebartb - 720 North Arm Drive Dear Planning Commission, I am writing to you as a resident having lived 54 yean at 740 North arm drive in Orono with concerns about requested zoning variances for Ziebarth 720 North Arm drive. Pint, many times change can he good* as seen recency at the remodel of 710 North Arm Drive which abuts my property line, owned Kirk and Sue Otteson. At the time of their request to build on their property I had no objection as they limited their request in a very sensible manner by conAning their home to the footprint of the previous existing home. I had asked that Orono protect the ravine along our shared property line and you did what you promised. Second* when Karl and Agnes Lorenze purchased the lot to the North of us owned by Mr. White* my husband and I were not pleased that Orono allowed the lot to be sfriit. When Karl and Agnes built on the split lot (720) closest to Mr. Johnson* the lot closest to their North* we were appalled that Orono would allow them to put such a huge home on this new lot The home went from one edge of the lot to the other with no sensible green space left Third, this property has been purchased recently by a Realtor who is Interested In building a home for speculation and is askiog for a number of variances to do so. I AM OPPOSED TO GRANTING ANY FURTHER VARIANCES ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. The garage should remain at the road as Orono made this very conditional to Lorenze in an act of sympathy for Minnesota winters back in the early 1960*s. To move the garage into the new house plan would change the flow of water which could add to existing water problems on the lot and surrounding lots. The proposed home is designed to flirthcr encroach on the property lines even more than fbf existing home. This should not be allowed. Thank you, OL, Florence A. Hagbcrg h:<'NUAil;:ViUV(Ui 31 0611723330003 PROP ADDR 40S NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC TA3CPAYER LAKEVIEW GOLF OF MTKA INC NAME/AODK >SS RED OAK LA MOUND MN 53364 38 0611723430004 PROP ADDR 720 NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME J S LEECH * V E UR-LEECH TA3CPAYER 3 S LEECH A V E LAIS-LEECH NAME7ADDR 720 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 1- • ■ H c^J7v HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPER! V INFORMATION SYSTEM PROI'LRTY OWNERS LIST 31 0611723430002 PROP ADDR 680 NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME DOUGLASFWATSON TAXPAYER DOUGLAS F WATSON NAME/ADOK 680 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 0611723430003 PROP ADDR 700 NORTII ARM DR OWNERNAME GREGORY M HARTY TA3CPAYER GREGORY M HARTY NAME/ADDR 700 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 38 0611723430003 PROP ADDR 710 NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME KAOTTESONASKDICKHAUSEN TAXPAYER KAOTTCSONASKDICKHAUSEN NAME/ADDR 710 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 0611723430006 PROP ADDR 740 NORTH ARM DR OWNER NAME E G EINAR HAODERG ET AL W/LE TAXPAYER EOHAGDERO NAME/ADDR 740 NO ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATEONTHE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO TOE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. , ^-----) ./J /y X DATE 'S'~20'^3 by ^^*^3 A- PAGE: 1 ^5 GQ jj V I Hennepin County Taxpayer I 9oosm*t ' ■ O Q j r -^sS .--V. OC - O ~7--(52) f-i \ • t ^ J Si':f Parcel Information ^ £‘ • • House Numbor'720''?:*'T^-^k^V^;n• •• • -:; r Y- Stroot Namo NORTH ARM DR'(.. v ^ r TNsisnot»hi)atynconhdmap.nnpr9S»nt$»compMk)noflnfommtion »nd data horn City, County, and Stata road aulhortSaa and othoraqufcoo,^f-.ir- Ai, f' 71 ^ t .... ••-••• A'i '■ -V ' ■ ■* •• • ■'• :‘,2 ff- ■ * ? • • .T wm^: M^A 'ia>^'|. .! V ' >rn'^ ’ *teuiKMi fAf:"-- i*. r. ’ • V ^ t s.-’-„t'J‘j* •' ■ A (-^- ^ -:,r *. • ! ► Siu£lltL«£ 1 ' • \ \ ^ i \'j t I .> \ i 'V?:i 1€frmm-/ ■.'ies I. V X* V-*. -hSt m-^i fr .i •-V '•> y ■ ' ' ‘^ ^ ♦-1 \ji: > *., ‘I £f t- - ijfe’ h'--*> ' / •'. KiioT/'^'■' \ i^<ii^^,v.; ■ ■ ■: ^ -". -I ■rv'TS' 5s?'--".1 ».ia:* 0 '%• 9 • *./:. •«. V * *. . •» ^ V -:>V" ^ [i >*" ' . ', . .! lv.^i »• • J.y.- - "• ' \'■ '■ 1 ‘» ‘ t t . , * * i' w^m t ■ ;■ SfiJl!:/ ^^ ’ Vi’*-' ' V > ~7j,',) /v',-' (i'- A''ijr V*0 w ^;:»%-n 4 *.-s ■■ W» I ■ ». *«• i-^i i m?T^ ». 'if- r4 ’’ . . ..r/*V'i‘.J^ V' ** \T*.^.;S»5tV.V «V 1 K ^git^ I i?U^ i ’S^mr ysi li'3. j- ■'**A «^ -mm 1dlSaT 7-^v; "4^j •’. •*: '7^-0 /\.’<'f A^f'%tiC'v^ I; W-?.! r- Date Application Received: S-22-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6-8-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: S-7-03 2 fl m REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION cnr Mrvu Date: July 28,2003 CONSENT AGENDA Item No.: 8 Departowat Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffton Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Detciiptfoa: #03-2909 Piekkenpol Builders/Tom McGiynn, 3980 Dahl Road • Resolution Determining No Variance Required List of Exhibits A • Resolution On July 14 Council determined that replacement of the renovated McGiynn boathouse structure to its pre-existing location would be allowed on the basis that its temporary relocation does not requite a variance, for unique reasons to be documented by resolution. Such a resolution is attached for Council review and adoption. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. ¥ A RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE RENOVATION OF A NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT 3980 DAHL ROAD FILE NO. 03-2909 WHEREAS, Thomas P. McGlynn (hercinafier "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 3980 Dahl Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City) and legally described as follows: That part of Government Lot 4, Section 8, Township 117, Range 23, lying North of a line drawn East perpendicular to the 3Vest line of said Lot from a point on said West line distant 1022.80 feet North from the West Quarter comer of said Section; Hennepin County, Minnesota; (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the property contains an accessory structure (hereinafter referred to as the “boathouse") which has been located for many years within 75* of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no such structures are normally allowed, and is therefore considered as a nonconforming structure; and W'HEREAS, nonconforming structures within 75* of the shoreline are subject to the requirements of Municipal Zoning Code Section I0.5S, Subd. 26; and W’HFRFAS, the applicant contracted Plekkenpol Builders (hereinafter the “contractor") to reno\ ntc the boathouse, and the contractor obtained a permit from the City allowing only a portion of the proposed renovations to occur, i.e. those renovations determined by the Building Official to be either cosmetic in nature or considered as non-structural maintenance, and which do not comprise structural alterations; and WHEREAS, prior to issuing the building permit the Building Ofllcial met with the contractor to review which of the proposed renovations would be permitted; and WHEREAS, the contractor in order to complete the pemiitted renovations moved the boathouse off its foundation; and Page I of4 . WHEREAS, the contractor proceeded to reconstruct the post and beam foundation of the structure, re-using the pre-existing posts and beams but reconfiguring them in a manner to provide a more stable foundation for the structure; and WHEREAS, the reconfiguration of the foundation is considered as a structural alteration to the boathouse; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 10.55, Subd. 26(A) allow the continuation of a nonconforming structure as long as it is not expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in a way which increases its non-conformity; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 10.55, Subd. 26(B) limit the structural alterations or additions to any nonconforming structure over its life to not exceed 50 percent of its value at the time the structure became nonconforming; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Section 10.55, Subd. 26(E) prohibit the reconstruction of any nonconforming structure which has been destroyed to an extent of 50% or more of its assessed value, except in conformity with the provisions of Section 10.55; and W'HEREAS, the City has determined that the boathouse became nonconforming on January 1, 1975 and had an estimated value at that time of approximately $1,200; and WHEREAS, the value of the work done by the contractor in relation to the foundation of the boathouse was declared by the applicant to be $505, as wimessed by an invoice for such work presented by the applicant at the July 14,2003 Council meeting. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. The City Council finds that the boathouse was not expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in any way which would increase its nonconformity. 2. The City Council finds that the boathouse by virtue of its temporary relocation during renovation was not ‘destroyed ’ as that term is used in 10.55, Subd. 26(E). Page 2 of 4 jMl i inii'itrfM A __■■ t 3. The City Council finds that the structural alterations to the boathouse and its foundation do not exceed 50% of its value as of January 1, 1975. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby determines as follows: 1.The renovations performed by the contractor are not in violation of the provisions of Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.SS, Subd. 26, and no variance to said Section is required. 2.The boathouse has not ceased to exist by virtue of its temporary relocation, and has not been enlarged or expanded in ways which would increase or change the amount of hardcover, the setback from the OHWL or any other standard governed by the terms of Section 10.55, and therefore no special approvals are required. 3.The boathouse may be placed back on its reconfigured foundation without further action by the City. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Page 3 of 4 i ----- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of ,2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Miimesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of ,2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Miimesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 4 Dale Application Received: 06-26-03 Date Application Contidcred as Complete: 07-11-03 60-Day Review Period Eiplres: 09-10-03 JUL 2 8 2003 CITY Ur UHui^o REQUEST FOR COUNaL ACTION Date: July 23,2003 Item No.n Department Approval: l)il^ Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Name: Melanie Foth Title: City Planner Item Description: #03-2910-Wayne & Anne Johnson - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre/ 200* width 20,436 s.f.± (0.47 acre) 150 ’ List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 07-23-03 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 07-21-03 Application Summary: The applicants are proposing to build a porch and deck in the place of an existing porch. The new porch and deck would be larger than the existing porch. The applicants are requesting a side yard variance to encroach IS’ into the side yard setback area where a 30 ’ setback is required. __________________________ Planning Commission Recommendation On July 21,2003, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of thel 5’ variance from the side yard setback Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. h. ■A r A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28 SUBDIVISION 5(B) FILE NO. 03-2910 WHEREAS, Wayne & Anne Johnson, husband & wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1225 Lakeview Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Minnesota Lots 14, 15 and 16, Block I. Maxwell’s Addition to Crystal Bay. Hennepin County, (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28 Subdivision 5(B) to allow construction of a new larger porch and deck encroaching 15’ into the required 30 ’ side yard setback area. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2910. The property is located in the RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential District, which requires minimum lot area of 2 acre and minimum lot w'idth of 200’. The area of the property is 0.47 acres (20,436 s.f.) and defined lot width is 150’. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on July 21 ,2003 and recommended approval side yard setback, based on the following findings: a) The proposed porch and deck replace an existing porch located approximately 1 8‘ from the side lot line. The new porch will be 15 ’ from the side lot line. I *. 4. 5. b) The location of the neighboring detached garage, the vegetation screen and the fence make the encroachment of the side yard setback less significant in terms of its impact on the neighboring property c) The lot size of 0.47 acre is typical of lots in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The 1 S’ setback is consistent with side setbacks of many other existing homes in the nei^borhood. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; 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 one or more of the above flndings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5(B) to allow construction of a porch and deck encroaching 15 ’ into the required 30’ setback based on the following conditions: Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes or with the scope of this approval will require further Planning Conunission and City Council review. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (July 28, 2004). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owncr(s) ------ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of ^2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of..2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public tiiiililiiiiiiiiirf Ilf I riiifiSrt STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF FIENNEPIN this day 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of credible witness ..a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/'she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN this day 2003, personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of ____whose identity 1 proved on the oath/afTirmation of, credible witness .,a and who executed the foregoing insuument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Drtv. No. 030869 - 'y}i^'::':'^>- •S'V CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O.Bws06 Crystal , MN 55323 (952) 249-4*^ ZONING FILE ^03-2910 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 23,2003 TO: Wayne & Anne Johnson 1225 Lakeview Ave Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Side yard setback DATE OF MEETING: July 21,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval as submitted: 1. 15’ encroachment into the side yard setback where a 30’ setback is required in order to reconstruct a porch and deck larger than the existing porch. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28,2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Foth at 952-249-4627. 9. Date Application Received: 06-26-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07-11-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09-10-03 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Contmission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Foth, City Plannerp/I' July 16,2003 #03-2910, Wayne & Anne Johnson 1225 Lakeview Avenue, - Variance - Public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR'IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 Acre 20,436 s.f. (0.47 acre) Application Suntmury: The applicants request a side yard variance in order to encroach 15’ into the side yard setback. 1. Applicants are requesting a variance to place their proposed porch at 15’ from the side lot line where a 30’ setback is required____________________________ Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: a) Recommend approval of the side yard variance for 15’ encroachment into the 30’ setback. Hardship: Small lot size (0.47 acre) in a 2-acre zoning district, and location of existing house and well. ___________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections • Section 10.28 Subd 5(B): Lots: Minimum side yard setback of 30’. List of Exhibits A - Application/ Hardship Statement B - Proposed Survey/Site Plan C - Proposed Plans and Elevations D - Submitted Hardcover Calculations E - Photos F - Property Owners List G - Plat Map Background The application is regarding a rebuild of a porch addition. The proposed porch will be rebuilt slightly larger than the existing porch and will have a deck attached. The existing home is angled on the lot and is at its closest point 18’ from the side lot line. The proposed porch w ould follow the same building line as the West side of the home. The new porch is proposed to be 15’ from the side lot line at its closest point. Total increase in square footage of the deck and porch will be 24.5 s.f. greater than the existing porch. The location of the neighboring detached garage, the vegetation screen aiid the fence make the encroachment of the side yard setback less significant in terms of its impact on the neighboring property. 1 #02-2910 July 16,2003 Page 2 The lot size in this situation is 0.47 acre, typical of lots in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The proposed setack of 15 ’ would be conforming if this area was zoned for '/i acre lots. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArcaAVidth; LR Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres)200 ’ Actual 20,436 s.f. (0.47 acre)150 ’ Setbacks; Structural Coverage; Hardcover Calculations; LR Required Exbting Proposed Front 50’34.06’No change Rear 50’75.5 ’74 ’ West Side 30’18 ’15 ’ East Side 30’31.71 ’No change Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 20,436 s.f. (0.47 acre)Allowed: 3065.4 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2031 s.f (10 %) Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 250 - 500 ^ t • 20,436 s.f ^ ^ ft • A 6310.8 s.f (30 %) 3010 s.f* (15%) 3035 s.f (15%) landscape beds). —0- < M2-2910 July 16.2003 Page 3 West Side Yard Setback Variance Reconstruct an attached porch and deck 15’ from the side yard setback where a 30 ’ setback is required. The proposed porch would encroach 3’ further into the side yard setback than the existing house. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis___________________________________________________ 7n considering appUcatlons for vartance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, exbtlng and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping whh the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. [. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” The Vj acre lot subjected to 2-acre lot standards makes It difficult to use the property in a manner allowed by the official controls. 2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the lando\\-ner." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The applicants have not suggested that economic considerations are a factor. 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Vu nances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." N/A r* M02-29I0 July 16,2003 Page 4 6.“The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." N/A. 7."The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling," S7A 8.“The special conditions applying to the structiue or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The lot size of this property is not unique to the neighborhood, however when compared to the bulk of the lots in the RR-JB this lot is unique. The uniqueness lies in the Code. The RR-1B zoning setbacks are a hardship for this property. 9."The conditions do not apply generally to other land or strucUires in the district in which said land is located.” The condition of a small lot size is unusual in the context of the RR-IB district. 10.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Without a variance the applicant has very limited use of the property. II."The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." The location of the well, and the deficient lot size for the district pose difficulties for design and location for the project. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. Issues for Consideration 1 • Are there any negative impacts on the neighborhood by granting this variance? 2. Does the Planning Commission agree with staff that the location of the neighbor’s garage, the fence, and the vegetative screening result in no negative visual impacts caused by the porch in the proposed location? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance to allow the porch addition 15’ from the side lot line where a 30’ setback would normally be required. L! lby-22-2003 09:l3u FrooKITY OF ORONO 49S22494SIS T-803 P.OOr/015 F-992 Cixy OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance)' Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning stnictores 5250.00 Aftei>the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcaHon # O3-^Ql0 Bate Receive^^-^JR~ Amount Paldy^sb . oo ~ (lOPERTY EOmM^ON Site Address /O^/lO MA/ Property IdentiBcation Number O'-U).). ^------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey Date Property Acquired _______ I (do) (do not) also own the^jacent parcels of land. Present use of prowrty: V residential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:!'' .(month/year) APPLIC Name Address Zip; SSS9/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____ Address;City Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUES' Describe request in detail; (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback;Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify)__ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difBculiIj.s-noc unuuc narusmp or practical ditficultv or unusual property conditions preventing, (attach additional sheets if necessary) UayZZ-ZOOI 09:l4aa Froa-CITY OF OMNO «9S22494jtS T-503 P.009/015 F-992 •Atyaeeiit Property Owners' Aclcnowled^ement Form [print address] !s^gaagates:asi£^-’»'-»““ uncil (hat I Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] cs.'Z'Sffi: ssitssar “'or use Property Owner Date Property Owner Date Applicati^ pleue subLt your fcLfio d*""* ”**to the scheduled meeting date. ^ «mng office at least 10 days pnor *;v t7. \ i cv a. II) 1 CD CD I O ♦ CM in 0) 0^ UJ cccc CL 0) Uir (Cn (0o o 3n wm miw tomuxKWA WB ADVANCE SURVEYING A ENGINEERING Ca fta(»94l4ISf7 ilBSUfiL Ifiimff JOHNSON ^ M • ‘ *V Mriim i£KI|u«li(. *1^ aeaag&^ H ------ . ^----.. T AiM.4t.rf •■PIWIIA WililialAMifWiMilivAtMM^Iitl^ lAMitrfrftHlIillWfyAiWfcmiBHUlj SSksmuSS?®--- -u * o mums acm tmmn ' ‘ > ^ ' *•- V'^fV j Orw. Mx ?ff'7 r.r :v ■.sp s. A;' *- » . V-- i TotfAiyo>LUfii'<!•<? /Q-^S" i-AK'«vye<*^ 0(^0n 0 A^t \ 75-a Hoi c^ii/Aj w ■* ^ m>wH' f I » • '.V -*fi *• • n »’•■ ^ ^ „:% Mil® A. i. \ 4. Id S> '“SSf'-. r . ■, •-•' , 1 ®3i / ■5- ,■ % >. •■>, '.. *;^i' jft.v'^"-'- ' V,,-.,•:v is'')(>- '. jf^/ t S c l^zsig- (l^9Te\\^ fliv" O'C C//9UU r OO £fsisr\'0t, ^oyjg ^ e. fftNtu uitH Gpjctt" ;>- «*</-» /Vprc ^fiOi ix«.r*r»;^r SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* ----------------------nmzoNE eXHi&lT' O : HARDCOVER CALCIflLATION WORKSHEET 7S-250'250-S00'(^10^ A. House X • Length Width X ••------r----------- - , X a. X » B. Oenge X • C. Driveway • X • nnn A X H Imteun D. Sidewalk X •Zbl X •a E Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape • X •^7*7 Underlain X m By Plastic •X m G. Other X • • TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE•- A + B X 100 - A + B _ X 100 -in PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X <2,Width 0*40t X 2Z4- X X B. Garage X _ C Driveway X t X an D. Sidewalk X X a. E Patio/Deck fkeco ’W>£a^ X X a. F. Landscape X Underlain X ____ aa By Plastic X _____ M G. Other X SJ. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + B X 100 ■■ S.F. S.F. S.F. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. SJ. sp. Sf. ^1^0 SS. SJ. SJ. SJ. A S.F. B % SJ. S.F. S.F. SE. SJ. S.F. SJ. S.F. SE. SE. SE. SE. SE. SE. SE. 3^7^S * SE. A SE. B “Tr>/iZ ^»‘/c L^'f 9 » • f ■ k'l *v, -^v ^ ^ ^ . 'f " ‘ 't -. V >-^ '■•I' '1^ '■- *■ V -■/' •• •’ •"X?l >■ * < ) ••* ' t. >v ..s ♦ ' V i.i \ \ r .. ; I -* *>• -. J. ^ VV " •V r • v.v ;-A.v.*t -V... •>>•* ^ut V«v.' ? ;f ! ’* f ' K- 52^ I —,^.1; Ts •t * • rjt f ;»!&T A^ir ^MflL m - ;Y. 5 i0 '^fT* ■ 5^^ Vfctsn.- >' 'X It' ^ *'v^ y^uhi't ^1 iWf!m Yv ;(•np'rj.iMSl ''•*:■€: w-.CTM gfk\ «»2* •'w: V-' ;»i'i;': -V , 1^1^P^iiS mm. ' *V T -‘ ‘^ X K-:'^ \‘.', 1^ ->\. V: '•• r sL- HnQISS^^RIS 'V _ .'• •i.sij'.^^j^RBEgaigMr^t’ig •• •' '■ ' . Ji » -• V '\ ■ '" Jj. .W "--r;-: ‘. 'v,-.'-' '. -• • Ar • •W\ X. RUN DATE :S/r ““^3 31 I0II7232400I7 PROr ADOR IMS WILLOW DRS OWNER NAME TODD M OADRIELSON ET AL TAXPAYER TODD M A SUE E GADKIELSON NAME/AOOR IIISWIILOWDRS WAY2ATAMN 55391 31 1011723240020 PROP ADOR 1165 DROWN RDS OWNERNAMB DARREN K A SHELLEY LKNOP TAXPAYER DARREN K A SHELLEY LKNOP NAME/AODR II6SOROWNRDS WAYZATAMN 55391 31 1011723240023 PROPADDR 1225 LAKEVIEWAVE OWNERNAMB WAJOHNSONAAMFARNHAM TAXPAYER WAJOHNSONAAMFARNHAM NAME/ADDR 1 225 UKEVIEW AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 3> 1011723310064 PROP ADDR 1205 DROWN RD S OWNERNAMB ROGER A DAY TAXPAYER ROGER A DAY NAME/AOOR 1205 DROWN RD S WAYZATAMN 55391 3t 1011723310069 PROPADDR 1230 ARDOR ST OWNER NAME P G MARTIN ACM MARTIN TAXPAYER • P C MARTIN ACM MARTIN NAME/ADDR 1230 ARDOR ST ‘ WAYZATA MN 55391 llENNU-IN COUN-n' PPOPP—V iNinuMA'llON SVSTEM PROl'Lia Y O IS Lisr 38 1011723240018 PROP ADDR 1 145 WILLOW DR S OWNER NAME DETTEPERL TAXPAYER BETTE PERL NAME/ADDR I145WII.T.OWDRS WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723240021 PROPADDR 1205 LAKEVIEWAVE OWNERNAME LESLIE A HANSON TAXPAYER LESLIE ANN HANSON NAME/ADDR 1203 LAKEVIEWAVE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723240024 PROPADDR 1245 LAKEVIEWAVE OWNERNAME KEITHSNORD TAXPAYER KEITH SNORD NAME/ADDR 1245 UKEVIEW AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723310065 PROPADDR 1223 DROWN RDS OWNERNAME CURTIS RALPH QUADY TAXPAYER CURTIS QUADY NAME/ADDR BOX 127 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55323 38 I0II7233I0070 PROPADDR 1215 ARDOR ST OWNERNAME CHAUNCEYHSANDGRENETAL TAXPAYER CII SANDGREN NAME/ADDR 1215 ARDOR STREET WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723240019 PROPADDR 1220 LAKEVIEWAVE OWNERNAME DOUGLAS PAUL SCHNOOR A WIFE TAXPAYER DOUGLAS & NORMA SCHNOOR NAME/ADDR I220LAKEVIEWAV WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723240022 PROPADDR 1212 ARDORST OWNERNAME JRCADYASRCADY TAXPAYER SRCADYAJRCADY NAME/ADDR 1212 ARDOR ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723240031 PROPADDR 1185 ARDORST OWNERNAME SARCARLSON TAXPAYER STEPHEN C A RANDIJ CARLSON NAME/ADDR 1185 ARBOR ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1011723310066 PROPADDR 1241 DROWN RDS OWNERNAME M T BROWN A M E DROWN TAXPAYER MONICA TA MICHAEL E DROWN NAME/ADDR 1241 DROWN RD S WAYZATAMN 55391 38 lOi 1/23310099 PROPADDR 1240 ARDORST OWNERNAME LSKENNENAJMKELL. R TAXPAYER LK3NARD S KENNEN NAME/ADDR JANICE M KENNEN 1223 ARDORST WAYZATAMN 55391 V rik i. PAUL: I >v?EP- 'A ** /it •( V. *• I g7f////g>/r 6 Hennepin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department C •/>” sf *:;• i i C w Information 1 ^*-^Parcel ID 1011723240023 House Number 1225 e. 1 Street Name LAKEVIEW AVE This Is not a lega//y recorded map. It represents a compilation of information sna data from City, County, and State road authorities end other sources. ^ % 1 11-.I r.-r ------------ r T ' Date Application Received: 6'34I3 Date Application Contidcrcd ai Complete: 7-7-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 9-6-03 JUL 2 8 2005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CUYOr- UHONO Date: July 24,2003 CONSENT AGENDA ITEM Item No.10 Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. Oaffiron Title: Planning Director * Agenda Section: Zoning Item Descriptkm: #03-2911 Peter & Lisa Ryskamp, 1080 Wildhurst Trail - Conditional Use Permit to replace Permanent E>ock - Resolution Lbt of Exhibits A - Resolution B - Notice of PC Action 7-24-03 C - Memo and Exhibits of 7-17-03 Ap/^icatioH Summary: Applicant request a CUP to allow the replacement of an existing permanent piling dock which is deteriorating and which is poorly located in relation to neighboring docks. ‘nM: PlanniBg Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this item on July 21 and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval as proposed.J • staff Recommendation Approval per Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. »• \MM r A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 9(B)(3) FILE NO. #03-2911 WHEREAS, Peter J. and Lisa M. Ryskamp, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1080 Wildhurst Trail within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") legally described as follows: Lots 5 and 6, Tonkaview Gardens, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section lO.SS, Subdivision 9(BK3) to permit construction of a permanent dock to replace the existing permanent dock located within Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 21, 2003, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, nNDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2911. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential zoning district. 3.The property abuts the shore of Lake Minnetonka and currently contains a deteriorating permanent piling dock which the applicants wish to replace in a new location extending from the shoreline. a. Page 1 of 6 f. 4. 5. 6. 7. Permanent docks are allowed by Conditional Use Permit in the floodway and flood fringe of Lake Minnetonka per the provisions of Orono Municipal Code Section 10.55 Subd. 9(BX3). The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 21, 2003 and recommended approval for a conditional use permit for construction of a replacement permanent dock by of vote of 6 to 0, based on the following findings: The property is on Forest Lake Bay of Lake Minnetonka and is located in a cove where wave and ice action will be minimal, hence the stability of such dock will be at minimal risk. b)The proposed replacement permanent dock is located in Lake Minnetonka and is under the jurisdiction of the Lake Mirmetonka Conservation District (LMCD). The applicants obtained a permit from the LMCD for replacement of the dock in June, 2003. The LMCD permit also granted a dock length variance for shallow water depth. The proposed permanent dock will be located so as to reduce potential conflicts with adjoining docks and will meet LMCD setback standards. 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 conditional use permit would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 6 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 9(B)(3) to permit construction of a permanent dock to replace the existing permanent dock located within Lake Minnetonka, subject to the following conditions: 1.The dock shall be constructed per the location and design as indicated on the approved site plan attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. The dock shall be allowed as long as it continues to be permitted by the LMCD and DNR and is in conformity with the rules and regulations of those agencies. 3.Future replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit from the City of Orono. 4.The property owner is advised to obtain the appropriate permits from LMCD in the event that winter de-icing of the dock area is proposed. 5.Authorities granted by this conditional use permit run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a City of Orono one-time dock permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (July 28, 2004). 6.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7.The undersigned applicants have read, understand 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. Page 3 of 6 J Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 28th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Ownerfs) '■1 Page 4 of 6 K STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of July, 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of July, 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. On this day of ..20 personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____ whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of _______________, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 6 of 6 'i* ^ ^ • -_A - ' mr's . ~ ^ A AJo. #2y 11 I CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Boi 66 Ciy stal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING nLE #03-2911 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 24, 2003 TO:Peter & Lisa Ryskamp 1080 Wildhurst Trail Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: CUP for Permanent Dock DATE OF MEETING: July 21, 2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval per staff recommendation, subject to: 1.The dock shall be allowed as long as it continues to be permitted by the LMCD and DNR and is in conformity with the rules and regulations of those agencies. 2.Future replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit from the City of Orono. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST I ‘V- I Date Application Received: 6-343 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 7-7-03 60-Day Review Period Espircs: 9«643 TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike GafTron, Planning Director July 17,2003 SUBJECT: #03-2911 Peter & Lisa Ryskamp, 1080 Wildhurst Trail - Conditional Use Permit to replace Permanent Dock - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) Application Summary: Applicant request a CUP to allow the replacement of an existing permanent piling dock which is deteriorating and which is poorly located in relation to neighboring docks. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits A - Application & Letter of Request B - Plat Map C - LMCD Staff Report Excerpts D - LMCD Dran Permit (Dated 6/25/03) E - Existing Dock Location Survey F - Proposed Dock Location Survey G - Design Detail H - Property Owners List Pertinent Code Section Section 10.55, Subd. 9(B)(3) - Floodway District Uses: B. Conditional Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter): 3. All permanent boat docks or other similar structures. Summary' of Request: The applicants have submitted an application for a conditional use permit, per Code Section 10.55. Subdivision 9(B) to permit replacement of their existing permanent dock. The new. dock will be similar in shape, design and construction as the existing dock, but will be relocated slightly further I— M3-2911 July 17,2003 Page 2 north to be placed more favorably in relation to the adjoining docks. The property is on Forest Lake Bay of Lake Minnetonka and is located in a cove where wave and ice action will be minimal, hence the stability of such dock will be at minimal risk. The dock is located in Lake Minnetonka and is under the jurisdiction of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). The Ryskamp’s permit was approved by the LMCD in June, 2003. The LMCD permit also granted a dock length variance for shallow water depth. The length of docks is generally held by the City to be under the primary jurisdiction of the LMCD, although the City has adopted by reference certain LMCD dock location regulations and the City does have concurrent jurisdiction for certain lake uses under Section lO.SS, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management. Please review the LMCD memo and exhibits of June 5,2003. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends l^)p^oval of the conditional use permit for replacement of a permanent dock subject to the following conditions: 1.The dock shall be allowed as long as it continues to be permitted by the LMCD and DNR and is in conformity with the rules and regulations of those agencies. 2.Future replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit from the City of Orono. 1 k r-mmr ■'nnr'.r ««1 AppUcation # 03^ ^ 1 \ Date Received U -:K - 2.003. Amount Paid <^Z^O»0O CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address i | Type of Application to be Filed Oc •,'Yy\rA rOfv jT Property Identification Number (P.LD.) 0~7 11 *~7 \ i APPLICANT Name i^i .foVr\^^ Address i i .*> ■ | Phone (home )<7ASp.u^g-/^f ^ _____ Phone (work Vwa 0 City Oi/niAO_______Zip_^5^^^ 0\VNER (if different than applicant) Name Phone (home). Phone (work). Address City Zip, Date Property Acquired VI/ ;^LQD V miI (do) (do not) also own the aqacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ^ $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore PRD/PED - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Afier-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$250.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule #2911 required submittals 1. 2. 3. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Cntilirt Pioptity Owners List of owners wiiWr. 350'. labels and plat map fyou '*• ^ '*>' ‘ surveyor) - refer to handout for survey ?• Attach legal description to application if not included on requited survey 6. vyUr Topographic survey (enisling and proposed contours) if land alterations involve Changes in elevation (grades). n!^‘ *" “ "“«st in theproperty. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ownetfs). 7. I----r"V saavauuv IISUIIC^S^ UI appilCamtS^ U HOt 8. Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements) fuZte'™' pisus. etc. to be The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application.. Please remember that vour application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE me applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the ZorJng Admin,strator agrees to pay addidonal fees (staff time nm covered by ori^I feTpaS Md/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the infoiJJ^Iion supplied IS true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWTVER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission memberT andToufeU members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. ’ ^ * Owi.w.'’s signature .. Date Applicant must have all submittais'^to the City offices 25 davs before the. di. ■ ^ ... Planniti, Coimiiiiion Meelin,. are held oa the M Moeday of iili ™nd, Comm.ssion Meeting. Khednled review nwdng, of the Planning ConwOanoS^ cX|| f"”"' *'•" o'^e'ordSLe'S"”?, •>^X.o,\ldTZ‘‘p.^iL”ad^1he‘------------Of aaiaafvv •aiaU5^UlCIiU W DA VC All 1 Ij^tdu^iAs Zoning Oflice of lhi;^chang^iDr to the mSCing. #2h9 1 I n ' \ A-2- Description of request: We recently purchased the home located at 1080 Wildhurst Trail in Orono. The previous owners did not weather treat the existing permanent dock. In turn, the dock is dangerous to walk on as it is foiling ^>art. We are currently working with the Executive Director, Greg Nybeck at the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to replace the existing dock with a new permanent dock which will extent into the lake to a depth of 4 feet. We liave all variance/permits in process at the LMCD & would like to apply for all necessary permits as require J by the City of Orono. Thank You, Lisa M Ryskamp Peter J Ryskamp husband/wife-owners June 5,2003 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO; FROM; SUBJECT; Board of Directors Greg Nybeck, Executive Director (yJ^ Lisa Ryskamp Permanent (Non-Multiple) Dock License & Variance Applications BACKGROUND Ms. Lisa Ryskamp, 1080 Wildhurst Trail, has submitted Permanent (Non-Multiple) Dock License and Variance applications to construct a 119' long permanent dock for the storage of two watercraft on Forest Lake in the City of Orono. The proposed variance application has been submitted for variance from Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Code for dock length requirements, with a physical hardship of shallow water. Pursuant to LMCD Code, the attached public hearing notice was published in the 5/27/03 edition of the Lakeshore Weekly News. A few months ago, Ms. Ryskamp contacted me indicating that she and her husband had recently constructed a new home and that they would like to reconstmct the existing permanent dock at the site that has been there for several years back to around 1970. I met with Ms. Ryskamp on site and determined that the existing permanent dock did not have a license on file with the LMCD and that it would need a variance from LMCD Code for dock length. Thus, Ms. Ryskamp has submitted the proposed applications for consideration by the Board. DISCUSSION To evaluate the proposed applications, staff beiieves that three Code sections apply to them. They include: 1.Code Section 2.06 states that "No person may locate, construct, install or maintain a new permanent dock on the Lake without first securing a permit therefor from the Executive Director pursuant to this section, provided that no such permit shall be required for docks regulated by Section 2.03*. The Code allows the Executive Director to grant the permit if the information shows that the dock will be in compliance with the Code. The Code further states that a new permit is required whenever the size, type, location or configuration of the dock is changes. However, there is a grandfathered clause in the Code that allows permanent dock lawfully in existence on 5/5/82 to continue without a permit. Both the existing and proposed permanent docks are not contained within the authorized dock use area for this site. Further discussion of the existing and proposed permanent docks is detailed below. 2. Code Section 2.01, subd. 1 prohibits a person from using any area of the Lake outside an authorized dock use area for docking and storage of watercraft. An authorized dock use area is defined as ‘that area of the Lake which may be used for docks, moorings, boat storage, swimming floats, ski jump storage or diving towers, or which may be enclosed on three sides for any of these purposes*. These three sides are further defined by Code for maximum dock length and side setback requirements. As noted above, both the existing and proposed permanent docks are not contained within the authorized dock use area for this site. Because the site has approximately 103 ’ of continuous 929.4’ shoreline, the maximum dock length allowed by Code is 100*. Both the existing and proposed permanent docks extend beyond 100' from the 929.4' shoreline (slightly over 100' for the existing and approximately 119’ for the proposed). Additionally, the minimum side setbacks for both dock and r LiM Ryskamp Public Hearing Memo, 6/S/D3, Page 2 watercraft storage required by Code beyond are 20’. The proposed permanent dock would comply with this Code requirement: however, the existing permanent dock does r.comply with it 3. Code Section 1.07 states that “Where practical difficulties or particular hardships occur or where necessary to provide access to the handicapped, the Board may permit a variance from Code or may require a variance from what is otherwise permitted by the Code, provided that such variance with whatever conditions are deemed necessary by the Board, does not adversely affect the purposes of this ordinance, the public health, safety and welfare, and reasonable access to or use of the Lake by the public or riparian owners’. In review of the proposed application for variance from Code, the Board should ensure that the applicant has proposed practical difficulties or particular hardships that are cause by the application of the Code. In addition, the Board should apply the following decision standards in the review of the proposed variance applications. • Is the proposed use reasonable? • Would it be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance? • Is the difficulty of conforming to the ordinance due to circumstances unique to the property? • Is the problem one created by the applicant? • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? In review of the proposed variance application, staff believes that the proposed permanent dock length of 119 ’, with two watercraft, is reasonable. The Code allows for dock length variances beyond the 100’ long authorized dock use area for this site to reach a water depth of 4’ from the 929.4’ level at the outer edge of the dock. The applicant has documented three feet of water depth 100’ Into the Lake and approximately four feet of water depth 119 ’ into the Lake. In the past when dock length variances have been granted, the Board has periodically restricted the size and number of watercraft at the proposed dock. The two watercraft to be stored at the proposed dock seems reasonable; however, the Board might want to consider discussing whether it would be appropriate to restrict the size of watercraft to be stored at it, which is currently proposed at approximately 35’. In compliance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the MN DNR and the City of Orono were previded copies of the proposed applications on 5/29/03, with comments due in the LMCO office by 6/9/03. To date, staff has not received feedback from the MN DNR or the City of Orono on the proposed applications. recommendation staff cannot take action on the proposed Permanent (Non-Multiple) Dock License until Ihe Board makes a decision on the proposed Variance application. Staff believes that a particular hardsh^ of shallow water exists at the site for a dock length variance and the Board can direct the LMCD attorney b prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the Variance application. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNE70NKA BlVD. • OEEPHAVEN. MINNES01A 55391 • lElEPHONC 957/74S-0789 • f AX 957/745-9085 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS o MmfItcyeMConitni 10% ^ OoTMitr Wm FROM: Bert Foster Chair, Deephaven Craig Nelson Vice Chair, Spring Park Ui McMillan Secretary, Orono • 0: Tom Skramstad Treasurer, Shorewood Bob Arnbrose Wayzata Douglas E. Babcock Tonka Bay Orv Burma Mound k^les Canning Greertwood Paul Knudsen Mlnnetritta Tom Seuntjens Minnetor>Ka Beach Herb J. Suerth Woodland Jose Valdesuso Excelsior Katy VanHercke Minnetonka May 22,2003 Lakeshore Weekly News Attn; Sue Korus, Legal Department {Fax #473^) SUBJECT: Judd J. Harper, Administrative Technld^ PuWic Hearing Notice (5/27/03 Edition) LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 7:00 PM, June 11,2003 Tonka Bay City Hall 4901 Manitou Road Lisa Rytkamp Variance Application 1080 Wildhurst Trail, Orono, MN Forest Lake, Uke Minnetonka The l^ke Miniwtonka Conservation District (LMCD) will hold a public hearing to consider a variance application from Lisa Ryskamp for a proposed permanent dock. The proposed application is for variance from LMCD Code for dock length requirements. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to comment. Phc^ 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven, MN 56391; s. via DRAFT LM(>T> //V LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT RE: APPLICATION OF LISA RYSKAMP FINDINGS A public hearing was held on the application of Ms. Lisa Ryskamp at 7:00 o’clock p.m. on Wednesday, June 11,2003 at Tonka Bay City Hall in the city of Tonka Bay, Minnesota. The Applicant requested approval of a dock length variance for property located at 1080 Wildhurst Trail in the city of Qrono. The harddiip dted by Applicant for the variance was shallow water depth. Applicant indicated that foe water dq>fo at 119 feet from foe shore line at elevation 929.4 feet NGVD is 4 feet The depth at 100 feet from foe shore line is 3 feet The Board finds ip within the meaning of LMCD Code Section 1.07 and that ranting the variance hereinafier set foid^ on foe conditions imposed, consistent with the spirit and intentoffoeCSSZT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS ORDERED that a variance for dock length for the property at 1080 Wildhurst Trail in the city of Orono is granted subject to the following conditions and limitations: 1. Dodc lengfo shall be limited to 119 feet from foe shore line at elevation 929.4 NGVD. CLL-U34l»vl LKIKM 03-2.CW 2. The dock shall be constructed and maintained in strict confixmance with the dock plan attached hereto as Attadiment One, \^di is herdry made a part of this Order. 3. All docks aixl boat storage shall be nuintained within the authorized dock use area as adjusted by this variance, and all docks and boat storage shall meet all side setback limitations imposed by the Code. The issuance of this variance shall grant no vested ri^ts to the use of Lake Minnetonka. Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulation by the District to assure tfre public of reasonable and equitable access to the Lak^. By Order of the Board of Directors of the Lake Miruretonka Conservation District this 25* day of June, 2003. ATTEST: Alberto. Foster, Chair Lili McMillan, Secretary V « CU^233419vl UCII04 03- 5911 i- i• • N O 3 (M r- I S! • • s u 9 h- i»';- S'' ^'v •■.<■. ?.-•._ ;c'-;., .■■'••.'Vv/.v '■• -- ’ ;' *■ •.. . • •' »■. ■ ■ “ ’ • - ■> ■ :’v :♦■•.■:• n/. ‘0 f Cil' V*/■»;■-*■• '• isiM % i.„ ^ir '7 •■« : t« M p;>4 PiM 2A.4 Oet*C»M yx4 i&l^i • uvJA piaae^ f • •• /iu^ ‘ ,0(0 / • : V I • »• •«. » • O'a fA 0 If "Ml I UNOATE:SaaOOI 31 0711733130206 60M 31 ADDRESS UNASSUNGD ANAME HENNETINFORFEITEOLAND VVER CITYOFORONO /AOOR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN SS323 31 0711733130216 AOOR 9M WILOHURSTTR KNAME RITA JANE ZEBECK AYER RITA JANE ZEBECK 7AOOR 9M WILOHURSTTR MOUND MN SS364 31 0711723240011 AOOR 1000 WILOHURSTTR ■RNAME PJRYSKAMPRLMVRVSKAMF AYER PETER* USA RYSKAMP !/AODR 1000 WILOHURSTTR MOUNDMN SS364 31 0711723240017 AOOR 4440 FOREST LAKE UNDINO IRNAME RSMULUNRLFMULUN AYER ROBERT* USA MULUN •/AOOR 4440 FOREST LAKE LANOINO MOUNDMN 33364 31 0711723240029 AOOR 1003 WILOHURSTTR iRNAME TROY K*STACY SPULUS AYER . TROY K* STACY SPULUS VADOR 1M3WIU)HURSTTR MOUNDMN 33364 , 30 07il723240032 AOOR 30 ADDRESS UNASSiONEO ERNAME MtCHAEUCHRBIWEUnMANN •AYBI MICHAEL UTTMANN E/AOOR 9173 UnCA AYES BUXHIINOTONMN 33437 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMVNERS LIST 30 07II7231302II PROP AOOR 30 ADDRESS UN ASSIGNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER CnYOFORONO NAME/ADDR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323 31 0711723130217 PROP AOOR 1000 WILOHURSTTR OWNERNAME DAVID A TMP * MICHELLE T1MP TAXPAYER DAVIOATIMP NAME/AODR 1000 WILOHURSTTR MOUNDMN 33364 30 0711723240013 PROP AOOR 4460 FOREST LAKE LANOINO OWNERNAME PVMARTWSON/IMMARTINSON TAXPAYER peter V MARTINSON NAME/AOOR 4460 FOREST LAKE LANOINO MOUNDMN 33364 • i: f 30 0711723240023 PROP AOOR 4473 FOREST LAKE LANI OWNERNAME J BLACKSTONE*0 BLACKSTONE taxpayer JON *0AIL BLACKSTONE NAME/AOOR 4463 FOREST LAKE LANOINO MOUNDMN 33364 3S 0711723240030 PROP AOOR 1043 WILOHURSTTR OWNERNAME MICHAELVMCKENNEY TAXPAYER MICHAELVMC KENNEY NAME/AODR 1045 WODHURSTTRAn. MOUNDMN 33364 31 0711723240031 PROP AOOR 4463 FOREST LAKE LANDING OWNERNAME JONDBLACKSTONEETAL TAXPAYER JON D BLACKSTONE NAME/ADOR 4463 FOREST LAKE LAN004Q MOUNDMN 33364 3t 07II723I302I4 PROP AOOR 3S ADDRESS UNASSIONEO OWNERNAME HENNEPINFORFEITEOLAND TAXPAYER CITYOFORONO NAME/AOOR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323 38 0711723240003 PROP AOOR 4443 FOREST LAKE LANOINO OWNERNAME TIMOTHY MARK LEMBKE TAXPAYER TIMOTHY M LEMBKE NAME/AOOR 4445 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUNDMN 33364 38 0711723240016 PROPAODR 4430 FOREST LAKE LANOtNO OWNERNAME RL*VAWOLFF TAXPAYER ROBERT L* VELMA A WOLFF NAME/ADOR 4430 FOREST LAKE LANOINO MOUNDMN 33364 i: t 38 0711723240024 PROPAODR 4473 FOREST LAKE LAI OWNERNAME J BLACKSTONE*OBLACKSTOPS TAXPAYER JON* GAIL BLACKSTONE NAME/ADDR 4463 FOREST LAKE LANOINO MOUNDMN 33364 38 07II72324003I PROPAODR 1055 WILOHURSTTR OWNERNAME CITY OF (MONO TAXPAYER CITYOFORONO NAME/AODR POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 35323 38 0711723240040 PROPAODR 4470 FOREST LAKE LAI OWNERNAME R W WALTER JR* JM WALTER TAXPAYER RICHARD W WALTER JR 4470 FOREST LAKE LAMNNO ORONOMN 33364 PAGE: I ): H JiJ % tr /f.r ;/'i• 1 ^El iT ^• r ' 'WOTTTLj * u :' . c\ _ ^ vV'/ v ' ^»>i>.i *>•.»» r ■• I 4"T-T* ■\ 'i 'ft'' Ji| // i ■' t- j^r^f ')"'^■"f? SnMi>3s ^ ’ ' r '^'/. > .‘V £»#■:: ,.l V'. ^'^ •- • ■ ,^ r: . • ' p- ai Is. vS^ -T ^ rJ '{•''• •> ! W *- I, KTiTi ■ Wtfn Mi ro.'fMd »r»nn 'iTirinfTO ^TiYilvrriri •J5vw#ri]^lurimT^ iiii [•wirri] RjiTTOmiP jTinwrwii riBifriTiWii r#riirwmi»rfiT«i •m»ifr«TTr«i winnm] LWlil STTiTil CV^ nil rtHiTUKTi niiTiRrw ninn^rw nMWiTnrfHt^ nitwniTiiwTMTO JiJWijiii un nrrrra rofliini.m nrniiTiavtiii nil:*: m I [ilWTiTiKiliTi n rw •KvnnHii MRlfW niiire niMiiMt atitiTiivnivi^ nmw nviiii M fantji VO vovin fC«ri WIIUW PTiTi V<0 T« n IM ikVi op.ifniivii LOlTTTPVinTil i; 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terras of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 28* day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) ■ .< t' » > ‘ ' 3 Page 3 of 5 i KM - -* —^ —*»■ - - STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of 2003, _ personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/af!irmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ., 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/af!irmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public ». Page 5 of 5 « r ^ #ir>if)inu^4 5 flHsW-) ^ ivp.Q 1 9: // /-w ifSE>/ u » ^ • CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 TO:Marvin & Mary Smith 1940 Country Club Road Long Lake, MN 55356 ZONING nLE: IK)3-29I2 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 23,2003 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances (sideward setbackj^front yard ^tback) DATE OF MEETING: July 2 1 ,2003 Planning Conimission recommended as follows: Approval of the side yard and front yard setback variances subject to the applicant providing plans for final building permit approval that meet all other City standards for new construction in the LR-IA zoning district. VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28,2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call Citv Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-4623. M3-2912 July 21.2003 PaSelofS Date Application Received: 6-16-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6-16-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 8-15-03 To;Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner)^ July 16,2003 #03-2912, Marvin & Mary Smith, 1940 Country Club Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential (1-acre minimum) 1.037 acre (45,161 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests a number of variances to construct additions/revisions to the existing home. The variances include: 1. A side yard setback variance to allow a setback of 18.8* where 30 ’ is required (18.8’ currently exists). 2. A front yard setback variance to allow a setback of 36.8 ’ at the house and 39 ’ at the garage where 50’ is required (36.8 ’ and 39 ’ currently exists). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: 1. Approval of the side yard setback variance to allow an encroachment of 11.2’. 2. Approval of the front yard setback variance to allow an encroachment of 13.2 ’ at the I'ouse and an encroachment of 11 ’ at the garage. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.23.6B lists the minimum requirements for all lots located in the LR-1A zoning district. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement & Addenda C - Existing & Proposed Survey D - Proposed Elevations & Plans E - Photograph F - Property Owners List G - Plat Map Background In August of 2002, the applicants received a front yard setback variance to construct a 2 story addition over the existing garage. The existing home has a front yard setback of 36.8 ’ and the existing garage has a front yard setback of 39 ’ when 50’ is required. The Planning Commission approved the vari.'.nce based on the following findings: 1. The existing residence was built in 1965, prior to current zoning standards. 2. The characteristics of the neighborhood are one acre lots. The proposal would meet the zoning standards of one acre districts. 3. The proposed setback fits with the character of the neighbor!:KOI* i W»-29I2 July 21.2003 Pagc2orS These improvements were never implemented and the applicants are proposing new, somewhat revised plans with this application. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width ; LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87, 120 s.f (2 acres)200 ’ Actual 45,161 s.f (1.037 acres)225.49’ Setbacks; The existing setbacks will not change. The applicants are proposing to add/renovate space above the existing footprint of the home. LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Front 50 ’36.8’36.8’ Rear 50 ’76’76’ Left Side 30 ’Home-166’ Shed-31.4’ Home-166’ Shed-31.4’ Right Side 30 ’18.8 ’18.8 ’ Lakeshore n/a n/a n/a Average Lakeshore n/a n/a n/a Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 45,161s.f. (1.037 acre)Allowed: 6,774.15 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 3,201.23 s.f (7.1%) Hardcover Calculations Because the property is not lakeshore or located within 1,000 ’ of a classified water body, hardcover requirements do not apply. ’ Side Yard Setback Variance The applicant has requested a side yard setback variance to allow the construction of a second story addition. The existing home is setback 18.8 feet in its closest comer to the side property line, where 30 feet is required. The applicant isn’t proposing to encroach further on the side yard setback but to exclusively construct the addition above the existing building footprint and adjust A M3-2912 July 21,2003 Page 3 of 5 roof lines. Front Yard Setback Variance The applicant has requested a front yard setback variance to allow the construction of a second story addition. The existing home is setback 36.8 feet and the existing attached garage is setback 39 feet from the front property line, where 50 feet is required. The applicant isn’t proposing to encroach further on the front yard setback but to exclusively construct the addition above the existing building footprint and adjust roof lines. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering appiications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, tight and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safely, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission .^kall consider recommending approval for variances from the literai provisions of the Zoning Code in Instances inhere their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions wilt be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The existing residence was built in 1965, prior to the current requirements of the LR-IA, One Family Lakeshore Residential District requirements. In addition, the property is located within a zoning district with two acre minimum requirements, where the total area of the subject property is 1.037 acres and the character of the neighborhood is that of one acre minimum lots. Both of these conditions are inherent to the property and create a hardship. To alleviate the hardships, staff finds it r easonable to consider this application in relation to the minimum setback requirements of one acre lots, which have 35 foot front yard setback and 10 foot side yard setback requirements. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1.M*The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." The property could exist in the manner that it currently exists should the variances be denied. No alterations could be made to the existing home without a variance. 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." Because the home U’or constructed prior to the current zoning ordinance standards and is therefore legally non-conforming, the circumstances are unique and not created by the applicant. 3.“The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locally.” The character of the neighborhood is that of one acre lots with 2 story homes, consistent with what i TT 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. the applicant has proposed. m-2912 July2l,200J Pate4of5 "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Mot applicable "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section I I6J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." The proposal would not affect neighboring properties' access to direct sunlight. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." The proposed use is a use allowed in the LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential district "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable "The special conditions applying to tJie structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The character of the neighborhood and the subject property are that of one acre lots within a two acre zoning district. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." irhile the conditions apply to the applicant’s property and the surrounding neighborhood, the conditions do not apply generally to all property within the hvo acre minimum zoning district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting of the application allows the property owner further enjoyment of his/her property. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." The proposed variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals or the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." \ r ' i M3-2912 July 21.2003 fa|tSof5 Tfte granting of the proposed variance will help alleviate the properties inherent hardship. Issues for Consideration 1. The applicant’s home was constructed in 1965, prior to current Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. The applicant could not make any improvements to the home without approval of a variance. 3. The character of the neighborhood is that of one acre lots, and thus should be subject to the minimum requirements of one acre zoning districts. 4. The proposed setbacks fit with the character of the neighborhood. 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the front and side yard setback variances to allow fee construction of a second story addition to the existing home. *. 4^liA A m t Exhn>> A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # 03-9^ f Date Received Amount Pald^^‘SO« PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_____^oad ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)' Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______________________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the ^acent parcels of land. Present use of property: 1/residential __other (specify). Zoning District: APPLICANT Name J, Sr*l iTH/flflavyj |-, Srni'tt; Phone (work) ^52 • 7*^S~OOZ 7 Address: t*lMO CUh %3-l CU/: _____ Phone (home) 9S2' *j 7i> ~0 7i3 ^‘7<^S-OOZ7 Zip: Ji^SL 0\>'NEP* (if different than applicant; Name ___________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $__/ 75^ OOP Describe request in detail; -fawi.U ron»»i mairkt^ /hedk. ■ Mcuo (attach additional sheets if necessary) prior- ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (ipeclfy)___ HARDShlP/DESCRlPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe und' e hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:____________________________________ ____Hoi<vSg fiui pr*or eydt»ig»Megr Flouo Q'f VneuSe___________________* (attach additional sheets if necessary) #29 1inirtii o t i Betker & Associates, Inc. • • Structural Engineers April 29.21 Marv Smith 1940 Country dub Road Long Lake. MN 55356 RE: Extatino Structure Evahialion for Reektential Addtlon at 1940 Country Club Road Dear Marv: At your request I have investigated your proposal to replaoe the 4:12 pttduool of your house with a 10:12 pitch roof trasses, vdtich v4N be supported in the same manner as the original roof (i.e. support at exterior and ir4eriorbeatkrg wans). It appears that thtestracture is adequate provided that tteest and west exterior wails are sheathed with plyunod. Please call if you have any questions. 10700W.Hwy.S5.Suite 185 Phone Nundrer (763)546-0083 Minneapolis. Minnesrxa 55441-6134 • Fas Nundter (763) 546-3059 r m • * • ^ I^AS-W bca.^<7^)Ki/5«fA/ 1^ -flooK -4o scc«v>a^ 'f/ooi^ ^ S-K;v- -f^OKH inipirov^s “f\ouj o-f V^o^se K Co*\SC/vHS S^iict. ?) P»+c^ o-f rocrf cvo^ «x\ar^mfc s-1»^«c^hkc. ■6"ov»^ 3y<z 4^ Xli^io ' ^^Sovu- /5ccotvi a^^*Vic_ S^w "^^Qwx 4*loo^' t\tu> Mft.S'Kw' bci^eom /t)^^f^ ^(UJ 1^00"^ • -j. JX€^C^^>^'- ft X ^ BihiMt-C »* #(nO) ’I 'tr f u X / r : ■••» { r / \ • ^ St%'>-Vii^“I # THijS7S^?WS3S3!i? l-r« ■ «’>' ■ ■A*VaSjj^**«* ’*'"j ■ V ■fii* ■^■15™* ■ i!«4n 1^ ■ ■"■'■z AI!::««»»ka I7e^mc. iCNc'^wrr X#M m-T VC € CD U] >-• CJ 10 10 XV M- to U9 U1 KJ 10caa IV c.) tv U1 » « y Q > ui »-4 H Q K . ' i -from V^2l Vd /Z/iO See (K-HaJneef. Do U)C r\4ffd -k> ‘^cr AfYn'ouoJp .-.f^X a II I iSm •N s 10 Uls iJ CJ CO CA 3 s iSkakir ELEVAtkTN SCM* l/0»>l< fi s umi*irlitl'niTk rti-'^^-^- -- ■ , .V «MilHMtaaHiiiiiilltt c * -V -\ )! \o ■•.'<. '■•«• ■ C '■ . • •• - • .* I •- » ’• t •* • \ % li <. ' ? b'v y\m li. r:--., . . .l-w. ♦ , UyjEOK 2‘'3|:::l ■■S_:_S IhhhI _UL fkotoMA Vtaenvc. Mi* (S CD •-• U» X* «o CD•• M> M ID CH •0 «0 W AIV 81 Scn (Ms I <« % V I ^D 4 CDu) s Kl iD 111 1^ »o id• • IV • * ID III KJ ID id rw OJ i (/) i-« «>u mm Nr oV. >^> I r» « i»a: •l • m?KH -----! CB U1 N* CB M Mm ui IV K) Ui • # r.• • lO UI KJ (D UI M* ^ UI Cl til 95 U) KHl I CD UI ---------- --- jr i- Me• !i :ivj . . // ' ^ ) .......rt, '- c- 1.)) ' ; ‘V I 1 W^K¥-3S-.^ It. C|:» _* _ »4» j,k^ ,.«■«. It. nil IMilTIli^iill iifUiiliHiilil jiiiL «i y> K)N* Of %! •sl 4*1 • • A lA CJI 1*1 UIV 1*1 I H •-4 S S •sJ r ♦ V' :‘Ur.. " K v ’n* V'* '% , ••y • *. •r.«/ •* . V f 'V 1 ..'V). ,*Sf: ?<S». J r • \-.-- cn t. ki;-: >t£t»feV#^ • >.^ 38 ir.'I ''S ! j' ■ '■^ Li-i . • •;, ' *.* • •' 'M ■*- 1 't - ■><-:»Ti^i^.^-i<;jWj>- ■■g^-6-dfc.4^v^ ■• -smmM »<"■ ^ dU • ••;'/%.* •->• •. ^ • * • . ,*-*••**•*. * . ‘ • • . * •*•••*•*..•• • •» ' , ,* . * • ••‘** %*‘J* * *4 • • .' * */■%•*, . .• • . I *’jL** . ', •■*’,> • • ; . ■ , •••• ■<•' ^ •• ■■• . • ;»•/, , .. ;•; -J.-V,’ . • * * V . -, ' ‘t' •). -f ,<■*••'• » .f ' • ' ■ *'.#-' • * •• • ' * . ' > ■ ... S-!. mmi I: '■'■wm- kijit UAlii tf(/ii</w.3 5ATCH SiA MENNlIrlN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEtt PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PM3M0I PACE ST u. PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 3« 27-118-23 A2 OOOS 010*0 OROHN RO N J • L LUCAS JOSEPH R LUCAS lOhO BROWN RO N LONG LAKE UN SS350 38 27-118-23 A2 0013 01080 BROWN RD N HAROLD F BOWER ETAL HAROLD F BOWER 1080 N BROWN RO LONG LAKE NN SS35* 38 27-118-23 HZ 001<« 01925 LAKEVIEW TER HAROLD F BOWER I WIFE HAROLD F BOWER 1080 N BROWN RO LONG LAKE NN SS356 PROP ADDR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR SB 27-118-23 42 0015 * 01805 LAKEVIEW TER SHERILYN DEANE ASKE-RENXCK SHERXLYN DEANE ASKE-RENXCK 1805 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE NN 55350 38 27-118-23 42 0016 01045 LAKEVIEW TER J C RETTXNOER/L L RETTXNCER JANES C 8 LAURA L RETTXN6ER 1845 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 27-118-23 42 0017 01920 COUNTRY CLUO RO K A D CARLSTEN KEITH 0 0 DEBORAH N CARLSTEN 1920 COUNTRY CLUO RD LONG LAKE NN 55356 »• *«.. PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NANE/AODR 38 27-118-23 42 0018 01940 COUNTRY CLUB RO n J W SNXTH t H F SNXTH NARVXN J W SNITH 1940 COUNTRY CLUB RO LONG LAKE NN 55356 ■ 38 27-118-23 42 0020 01965 • COUNTRY CLUB RO PATRICIA A NONOALE PATRICIA A (NONOALE) CONNER 1965 COUNTRY CLUB RO LONG LAKE NN 55356 38 27-118-23 43 0002 01925 COUNTRY CLUB RO CAL FREDEEN GLENN C A LOIS E FREDEEN 1925 COUNTRY CLUB RO LONG LAKE NN 55356 t PROf ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/AODR TOTAL BATCH S14 ••Rtf X CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE A ■ II • .6 - • Exhibit <3 Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Dibpe^iiNeht ~~ •i • __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________- * * • . ‘ ^ 7 -___V • • •% •••• $6 68 18631 R (6) 1 >*• lakeview 2rz66 Naraow i • LO(m ^n$7 .y § # •27.7S ^^9r^s(rw % *)0 S$T34Ve COUNTRY 4» Nertfsoiv V A (25) ■' \ '4^ i; >3- IS Parcel Information *arc«l ID 2711823420018 Housa Number 1840 Street Name COUNTRY CLUB RD This Is not a legally noonltd map, HtaprasantsacompPahonofMomMoh and data trom City. County, and Sta^ toad wthoridaa and ethar source Dale Application Received: 06-16-03 Dale Application Considered as Complete: 06-164)3 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 0-15-03 ________ JUL 2 8 2005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CUYur OHONO Date* July 23.2003 Item No.: DcpartmcDt Approval: Name: Melanie Foth Title: City Planner Adminbtrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2913- Stewart & Gina Hansen, 583 Park Lane - Variance - Resolution LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1-acre/140* width 9,500 s.f.± (0.219 acre) 49.65’ Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 07-23-03 C - PC Memo & Exhibits as of 07-21-03 Application Summary: The applicants are proposing construction of a 6’ x 20’ covered p^irch entry 5’ firom the side lot line where a 10’ setback is required. The applicants have proposed a reduction in structural coverage amounts of 0.2%, and hardcover reductions from 57.1% to 54.7% (not including landscaping underlain with plastic or fabric which will be removed). Planning Commission has requested the applicants further reduce hardcover by removing equal amounts of hardcover under portions of the existing deck to be reduced. Planning Commission Recommendation On July 21, 2003, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the 5’ side yard variance subject to the applicants making a further reduction in hardcover by matching the square footage reductions approved for their lakeside deck. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval per the attached Resolution, which reflects Planning Commission recommendation. Note that staff initially recommended that the 10’ side setback be required; however. Planning Commission concluded that requiring the 10' setback was a hardship due to existing window and well pit location, and the addition as proposed is not a detriment to the neighborhood. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED a. ** Adopt or amend the attached resolution. I I- « A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES 10 MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03 SUBDIVISION 14(C) SECTION 10.22 SUBDIVISION 2, SECTION 10.24 SUBDIVISION 5(B) AND SECTION 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16(L) FILE NO. 03-2913 WHEREAS, Stewart & Gina Hansen, husband and wife, (liereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 583 Park Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally describ^ as follows; Lot 13, Block 6, Minnetonka Summit Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24 Subdivision 5(B) to allow construction of a new 6’ X 20 ’ covered porch entry 5’ from ll.o «ide lot line where a 10 ’ setback is required; a variance to Sections 1 0.22 Subdivision 2 and 1 0.56, Subdivision 1 6(L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250’ /.one at 54.7% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, and a variance to Section 10.03 Subdivision 14(C) to allow lot coverage by structures of2439.2 s.f. (25.7%) where only 1500 s.f. would normally be allowed. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota; FINDINGS 1 . This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2913. 2.The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, which requires minimum lot area of 1.0 acre and minimum lot width of 140'. The area of the property is 0.219 acres (9.500 s.f.) and defined lot width is 49.65*. 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on Miiih 4. 5. July 21,2003 and recommended approval of the side yard setback variance as well as approval of the hardcover and lot coverage variances, based on the following findings: a) Per Resolution No. 4497, the property was granted approval for additions in July 2000 which resulted in no increase in lot coverage by structures. The current proposal results in a structural lot coverage decrease from the current level of 2459.7 s.f. (25.9%) to 2439.2 s.f. (25.7%) b) The side setback variance of 5’ is supported by the hardship of an existing window which would be blocked if the 10’ setback is required and the location of the existing well pit. c) The proposed porch will not have a negative impact on light, air or open space in the neighborhood. d) A hardcover variance in the 75-250' zone is supported by the following hardships and justifications: i. Narrowness of lot at only 49.65' width limits the amount of hardcover allowed on the property and results in a long narrow house design configuration due to the required 10' setbacks. ii. Hardcover is proposed to be reduced on the property from the current level in the 75’-250’ zoneof 57.1% to 54.7%. There is no additional hardcover that can be reasonably removed. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 ser\c as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessar>' to alleviate a demonstrable hardship JL-. or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; 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 one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.24, Subdivision 5(B) to allow construction of a new 6’ x 20 ’ covered porch enUy 5’ from the side lot line where a 10’ setback is required; and a variance to Sections 10.22 Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16(L) to allow hardcover in the 75- 250* zone at 54.7% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall not increase above the existing 10.3%. Hardcover in the 75’-250 ’ zone shall be limited to 3147.16 s.f. or 54.7% per the proposed plan and hardcover allowance summary as depicted on Exhibit A. Applicant is advised that any future requests to increase hardcover or change the nature of cxisting/approved hardcover shall require City approval, and increases in hardcover will likely not be approved without concurrent reductions in existing hardcover. 3. Applicant shall remove all plastic or fabric liner material from the decorative landscape beds on the property to ensure their permeability as non-hardcover surfaces. 4. Required removals of structure and hardcover shall be completed by November 1,2003. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissixe only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance w ill expire on that date (July 28,2004). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted ,J r / herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of .2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public 4 * # STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of ,2003 by Linda S. Vec, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN this day 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/af!irmation of credible witness ..a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their fim act and deed. Notary Public . > I i r‘ ■' vv 1-A• .4 -C ji? j y -^ ■ I . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____\Kdiose identity 1 proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/aflirmation of______________________ credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. -.a Notary Public f '• > . r-/ • ■i '- ■ ; v;^-; *■-, >." S’ Ts ‘ M SURVEY FOR; GINA HANSBN % m T CO v-H nor or mic* CiOMnoM • tirtJ ^ ^ iS or IX KOO Qm iron monumont I h«r#by corUfy tM Ihit iurv«y too prtporod undor rm oupofYliiofi and thdl I om o UcoriMd Land Survtyor imdif Hit Tbit drawing hdt bttn cbtcktd and rtvittrtd tfiM . ACEU^ JB _ doy of 20ji£:. lows of tho Stolt of Iftnntiiolq. rf i 00 fMl Tboodont 0. Ktfnno 0«t^' 4 ~ >*' Ucw — No. 17006 .r. oooiiii* CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE (^03-2913 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 23,2003 TO: Stewart & Gina Hansen 583 Park Ln Orono, MN 55356 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: 5-foot variance from side yard setback DATE OF MEETING: July 21,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval as submitted, subject to: Approval of the 5-foot side yard setback variance in order to construct a 6’ x 20 ’ covered porch entry. 1 . Removal of all plastic and/or fabric lined landscape beds. 2. Removal of hardcover and structural coverage as proposed. 3. As recommended by Planning Commission; removal of additional hardcover under the lakeside deck, to match finished size of the deck (once reduced) as proposed by applicant. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28,2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Foth at 952-249-4627. ». ^ . 1 i •' // Dale Application Received: 6*16*03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6*16*03 60*Day Review Period Expires: 8*15*03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Foth, City ?\anner jjll July 16,2003 #03*29 13 Stewart & Gina Hansen, 583 Park Lane, - Variance • Public hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR* 1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 *acre) 9,500 s.f. (0.219 acre) Application Summary: Applicants request a variance to construct a 6’ x 20’ covered entry located 5’ from the side lot line where a 10 ’ setback is required. The variances include: 1. Decrease structural coverage from 2459.7 s.f (25.9 %) existing to 2439.2 s.f. (25.7%). Net decrease of 20.5 s.f. 2. Encroachmer.; of 5’ into the required 10 ’ setback. 3. Hardcover in 0*75' to remain at existing 10.3% where no hardcover is allowed. 4. Deere?.'A h rfJeover in the 75*250' zone, will be reduced from 3641.16 sf (63.3%) to 3503.16 (60.9%). Stajf Recommendation: Staff recommendations: a) Denial of setback variance of 5’ from side yard as it will limit light and air for neighboring property, and will add to the crowding in the neighborhood. b) Approval of change in structural coverage amounts (net decrease). c) Staff would approve a proposed porch meeting the side yard setback and resulting in a further decrease in proposed structural coverage. d) Staff suggests removal of 356 s.f. of landscape beds to further reduce 75’*250’ hardcover. Hardship: Staff finds that there is no viable hardship. Applicants are looking for aesthetic change to facade rather than added space.___________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections • Section 10.22 Subd 2: Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75’-250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. • Section 10.24 Subd 5(B): Lot minimum requirements: Minimum setback from side*yard shall be 10 feet. • Section 10.56 Subd 16(E)(2): Hardcover: Betw een 75’*250’ of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. • Section 10.03 Subd 14(C): Lot Coverage: The total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Including all structures 6’ above grade level. , MM913 July 21,2003 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D — Proposed Plans and Elevations E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Property Owners List G - Plat Map H - Resolution No. 4497 Background The applicmts wish to add a 6*x 20’ covered porch on the street side entrance to their home where previously a 6’ x 6’ platform existed. This porch would be located 5 ’ from the side property line. This proposed encroachment is less severe than that of the existing home. The home is located 3 ’ from the NW side yard, where a 10’ setback is required. With the proposed reductions to existing stairs, and lakeside deck, the proposed porch addition will decrease the structural coverage totals for this property. In addition, the applicants have proposed a 67.5 s.f. reduction in their driveway hardcover. In J»dy 2000, the applicants received a 7’side yard variance to allow house additions 3 ’ from the side lot line where a 10’ setback is required, in order to construct a 225 square foot second story addition over the back portion of the residence and enclose a 4’ x 18’ deck into living space. This resulted no changes from the previously existing hardcover and lot coverage levels per Resolution No. 4497 (attached). Average lakeshore setback is not an issue with this application. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Area/Width: LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre)140’ Actual 9500 s.f. (0.22 acre)49.65’ Setbacks for proposed porch addirtnn; LR Required Existing Proposed Lake 75 ’100’100’ Rear (street)30 ’38 ’38 ’ NW Side 10’3 ’5 ’ SE Side 10’14’14’ r #02-2913 July 21,2003 Page 3 Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 9,500 s.f. (0.22 acre)Allowed: 1500 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2459.7 s.f. (25.9%) Proposed: 2439.2 s.f. (25.7 %) Staff Proposal: 2409.2 s.f. (25.4%) Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 3750 s.f.0s.f (0%) 386 s.f.* (10.3%) 386 s.f. ( 10.3%) 75 - 250 5750 s.f.1437.5 s.f. (25%) 3641.16 s.f. (63.3%) 3285.16 s.f.* (57.1%) 3503.16 s.f. (60.9%) 3147.16 s.f.* (54.7 %) Side Yard Setback Variance The applicants request a variance to encroach 5 ’ into the side yard setback where a 10 ’ setback is required. Hardcover Variance The applicants request a variance in order to change their hardcover amounts. This change would result in a decrease in the total square footage in hardcover on the property by 2.4%. This is due to a proposed a change in the lot coverage by structure. The applicants have proposed a reduction in the lot coverage by structure percentage by 2.4%. Hardship Statement The applicants have provided a detailed hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis________________________________________________ In considering applications for variance, the Planning Contmbslon shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement wnild cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the bidlvlduat property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. ____ Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for ’’rnidue hardship” pertinent to this application: JL (IM2-2913 July 21.2003 Page 4 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofncial controls.” It is the opinion of staffthat this criterion is not met. 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The property is 0.22 acre within a I acre zone. It is the opinion ofstaff that this criterion is met. 3. 4. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The lots in this area are very tightly arranged and the variance would decrease the amount of light, space and air for the neighboring property. In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Reasonable use ofthe property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. 5. 6. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, madequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defmed in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” The variance requested is not the minimum variance which would alleviate any hardship. "The Board of Appeals wd Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not pemutted under this Chapter for property in the zone \^ere the affected person's land is located.” N/A 7."The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one<family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” N/A 8. 9. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The proposed structure would add to the aesthetic appeal of the home from the street Additionally, proposed changes would lessen the hardcover totals on the property. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or strucunes in the district in which said land is located.” The property is not unique to the neighborhood, however, the lot sizes in this neighborhood are unique to the LR-IB zoning district. In the opinion ofs(affthis criterion is not met. MM913 July 21,2003 Pages 10."The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The variance as requested is not the minimum variance which would alleviate any hardship. Staff would agree to the necessity ofa covered entry with minimal impact. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” It is the opinion of staff that this criterion is met. 12. ”The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” It is the opinion ofstaff that this criterion is not met. Issues for Consideration 1 . Are the changes proposed strictly aesthetic? 2. Does the size of the proposed open porch addition continue to contribute to the overcrowding of the neighborhood? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this implication? Staff Recommendation a) Staff recommends denial of setback variance of 5’ from side yard as it will limit light and air for neighboring property, and will add to the crowding in the neighborhood. However, staff would approve a proposed porch meeting the 10 ’ side yard setback and resulting in a further 30 s.f. (S’ x 6’) decrease in proposed structural coverage. b) Additionally, staff recommends that the proposed reductions in structural coverage be required by removing the S9.S s.f segment of deck, and only allowing the street deck to be 6’ X IS’ (90 s.f installed as opposed to 120 s.f). c) The applicant’s proposal does not include removal of 3S6 s.f of plastic/fabric lined landscape beds in the 7S’*2S0 ’ zone. If these are removed (staff recommends removal), final 7S’-2S0’ hardcover will be (3S03.16-3S6)=3147.16 s.f or 54.7%. 1 A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change fix>m original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 ‘ Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received ' /7- Q 3 Amount Paid 2sOiOo • • Hanlon ', PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address^ ^lUtV-U^W_____________________ Property Identification Number (P.LD.1 Oh- il7-2?-4i 00^7 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. OKI SUfVb/- Date Property Acquired OB/ \99A-_____________________________ (month/vearl I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pr^ent use of property ^ residential ___pother (specify), Zonina District: LR- iD ------------------- APPLIC.ANT , ,, . Phone (home)^52.475.1474 Name OW phone Address: 5^3 XJWO___________ City: OYDlflO_______Zip: 5^35 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:,Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ^timated Construction Cost $, Describe request in detail: S0C-OTnl^rlC(^._____________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage ^ Setback:Front X Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) 9 HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNTJSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or imusud property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: SCo _______________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary)#291 ]o\‘rh REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ittsUc >ttg5UivcY JUT2000. 3. 5. & uwdcv' 6. ?)lWr7f-0) Completed Application Form ‘ Certified, Property Owners List of owners within ko* j . obtain this list, labels and map from Henneoin Coimtv’ n?^ Govt Center. 348-5910) "e'wepm County Department of Finance, A-6C3. property. This would include name(s) of aoniicantM *"^*"^* “ !!!1A As an addendum to this aoDlication current owner(s). MIA notified of this application.--"“y ®*er persons AHHifinnal ______ «5t til A A application.----------------" 8- —L Additional items as may be requested by City staff. ‘ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE consultant expenses incurred in review of this aonlicatir'^^^^^ supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Imowledgc. ^ *^e information Applicant's Signature Date KTmO^QOb 0%\'NER'S SIGNATURE entry onto the prope!^°bj'c1ty s"afr! MnU'tMB reasonable members for purposes of investigation and verification of thiw^isr" Owner's Signature (/A\L {AA)\tYh^ ~U Date 1<S\^\Y\0'IVO^ Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings L held o^ Planning Commission Applicants must be present at all scheduled review Council. If an applicant is unable to attend ** *** Commission and have an authorized agent attend in wur place and to aH • arrangements to change prior to the meeting. ^ ^ ^ ® ®“‘^ding & Zoning Office of this 1 j^^2Q 1 M r • ■ ■ |, .; Adjacent Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form I (we) 577 Pdiric U^\ic/ [print name(s)][print address] I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. . Aecs^**• Property Owner Date Property Owner UI.&, ^ Date I (wc) SVm>k> t i^ns fiuM of Wi Park Layit> [print name(s)] [print address] proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at yvp LMNO also referred to as Land Use Application No. ________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confum for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Cqpd^il approval. Date Date If you •>»»« »ny infonnation that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application please submit your coiiunenU to the Building & Zoning Office at ieast 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. • I Variance Application (June 2003) 383 Park Lane Stewart & Oina Hansen e)chlk>it ^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Background Upon review of the minutes of previous Planning Commission minutes, it is abundantiv clear that the City of Orono is concerned about structural coverage creating a “massiveness*' on smaller lakeshore lots as well as reducing the runoff towards the lake. After meeting with Mike Gaffron and Lyle Oman, we have developed a plan, which reduces the overall structural coverage on die aide of the home and reduces overall hardcover on bodi the lake and street sides of the home. In addition, the prim^ intent of die proposed construction is to “soften” and reduce the current “massiveness" feeling of the home as viewed from the street Tbe attached survey only shows the addmons, not the reducdons. Street (EaaQ Side We propose construction of a 6* x 20* covered entry which will reduce the "massive” feelina of one large wall as you view from the street The existing “temporary** entry was 6’ x 6’ and was not covered. A pictwe has been attached to help the reader understand the issue. A drawing of the proposed entry is also included with this application. The variance required for this is a side yard setback of 5* where 10* is normally required. The house is currently at 3* and the proposed entry is 2' Crom the outside wall of the house. ^ ^ In adilnon, we propose to remove a 3* x 22.5* and an 10* x 5* section of the driveway and plant some shrubbery underlain with mulch to help blend the house into the neighborhood. No variance required for this, we are just attempting to “softer.” the view and blend h ivith the neighborhood. It is also our goal to have some sort of covered entry for safety and convenience reasons but this is 8ccond:iiy to the aesthetics of the home. Lake (West) Side We propose to remove a portion of the existing deck and relocate the stairs farther to the north. This will reduce the structural hardcover by 59.5 feet In addition, it will create a more “open” feeling as you walk towards the lake. ^ Furthermore, we propose to rebuild the existing deck and reduce the distance from the house by 18** across the entire width (30.0). This will further reduce the structural hardcover by 45.0 square feet Since this « a rebund, it will also require a side yard setback of 3’ where 10* is normally required. The edge of the deck will not protrude any farther into the setback than it currently docs or than the house protrudes. A table is atuched which outlines these changes ss well as provides estimated completion dates. Description Net Effect to 75 ’ - 250* Setback Zone Esdmated Compledon Date • Replace 6* x 6* platform and stairs on street (east) side that uas in place before the Scop VCbrk Order. No change.Completed pending removal of the stop work order. Consuuct additional pbeform , * If with roof pitch of 6/12 on street (eat:) side to match that of the house. See attached drauing. There is no cha.nge to the ovetaS hardcover since the platform u-Ql + 84.0 (6.0’ X 14.0) square feet (suuctural). • Platform is completed pending removiJ of the stop work order: Roof to be completed as soon as possible upon acceptance Iqr the City. «9 m Variance Application (June 2003) SS3 Park Lane Stewart jk Gina Hansen *^a *. . %be bu3t over the cxistiiig dnvewa/ tad Imdscaping currently undechin b/ plastic portion of the deck and moving the suirs to the north. The current stain have two landing pbcforms that are not necessary and will not be rebuilt. The stairs are replacing a portion of the deck that uill be remo\*ed but is not considered as reducdon in this calculation since they will occupy the same amount of space and both are considered structural co\-erage. Rebuild deck oo the lake I - 45.0 (1.5* x 3a0) square feet I Sonna 2004“TTki:------=-----Z------ (to the west) by 18'* on the entire length. Since there is an overhang now; this is the maximum that will allow us to utiliae the current footings. awning and since we need to do that, we have some maintenance to do above the awning that we unuld like to complete at the same time. Tlus includes replacing some Remove 3’ of dnveu-ay (m front of j -117J1 (3.0* x 22^* and 10.0’ x 5.0) I fSIoS'* " bndicape wall) on the »ueet (cast) square feet (hardcover) side to allow for planting of shrubbery using mulch that will further soften the massing effect Reducing hardcover from 63.3% I - ?0.S iquare feet (structural) * - A Re^i. i We have recently remodeled and foreseeable lives and it is our goa neighborhood. This proposal has been discussed they arc all in full agreement that neighborhood in general. They a present at the PLinning Commiss -i----------------------------------------LC2.439.td). . ' it is OUT intention to occupy the home for the rest of our to a d curb appeal and provide additional enhancements to the 1 wth the neighbors to the North, South and across the street and this u an improvement not only to out property but to the xe willing to provide you with any feedback and they wiU also be ion meeting. They are as follows: Paul and Denise Aasen (North) 577 Park Lane Orono, MN 55356 H-932473.4045 Shane and Kria Rudd (Sooth) 60t Park Lane Orono, hCs' 55356 H-9514732483 C-611270.9749 Scott and Shannon Burger (Eaad 594 Park Lane OrooOkMN S5356 H-952.476.5846 C-6IZ599J395 .. Page 2 o1 1 j Variance Application (June 2003) 583ParkLue Stewart A Oiiui Hansen HAROSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS The property is a amall lot and we have worked di^eody to draft a proposal diat ftdb widiin the atfM and our guidelines and goals. The proposed solution will allow us to add curb appeal by; 1. **Softe^g'* and reducing the oppressive feeling of being overwhelmed by the home, and- 2* “blend” into &e neighborho^ dirough the use of landscapiiig (undediun by Furthermore, it meets the Ciqr’a guidelines of cedudng structural coverage and hardcover overall, and reduces the structural coverage and hardcover, thereby reducing the runoff on die lake tide of the home. We are revesting two variances. The first is for a 5’ tide yard setback where 10* is nonnaUy required for the covered entry. The house is currendy at 3’ and the proposed entry is 2 ’ from the edee of the house, which was the maximum available in order to maintain a roof on the entry that will help t< break up the current wall ^ The second is for a 3’ side yard setback where 10* is normally required for the deck. This is whei the deck is currendy located and is in line with the setback of the home. It wfll not protrude anv further than current or than the home. ^ * •! Finally, since we have purchased the home, we have consisiendy reduced the hardcover (over 800 square feet) widi no addidon or exchange) in the 75-250’ setback, by. 1. Removing dog kennels and asphalt on die east and south side (-725 square feet); 2. Completed remodel with no addidon or exchange ofstructural coverage or hardcover; Reconfiguring landscape of keystone wall when house was remodded in 2001 (-20 square feet). 4. Replaced a dered railroad tie wall with a sin^e boulder wall in 2002 (-80 square feet). Furthermore, there has been no addition of structural coverage. We also deceased the hardcover in the 0-75’ setback by 55 square feet when the railroad tie wall was replaced with a boulder wall and removing landscape underlain by plastic and replacing with mulch This proposal does NOT require any changes in the 0-75’ setback sone. .1 ..P ra«3«r> I .-n* *r " ^r-V» ' ^ - %' SURVEY FOI IMA HANSON X SCHOEU ft MADSON, INC. ^ iKBiniM ♦ wmtma • ruHtm (Itf) Mt-ldM ______^■•«.«Ji Lot U. DIock 6, UtNNEIONKA SUtAitT PARK. BENCHUARK: taka Minnetonka tater olovatlen. □evotlon • 928.83 (NGVD-192S Dohim) tlM m T O CMC or mm tiptmt - f laoj ^ ^ ns or ATM 10. 1000 1. • - DmiKm Iron memimont I hftroby cortNy that thio oorvey too Tbte drawing hoo boon ehockod andV.\ /^y/» doy of 2Qj££i \ pnpQfod undor my oupofvWon'ond that f*«n o Uetnood Land Sunwyoi loti of !h# Stoto of Mlnntiotfl. 20 iOfiMi Dote n^eo UoOTM No. 17006 -U cH?it i OOl, JL <LJ^ -•. . .. ••fiW- ■M' - . &'•'•■' ■ m., U r *<*5v-*: • -y.' > • i 4^ ' • •*» * *• • -' V ■ ■• ' ':• ■.^; , ,■! »■*>•., '. . *• • '. < ■ ' t'.%.' -> ‘V.**Jtii • * / *»;•! . • ■“ * » •'. r. ^ . ■ r •' -- t* T V ,. V**. '* ^ -* KV " if"-' * t^jt^' A .,t * •% ' • ^ .;6-.-. I I idyi' I i)hiiiib4i - . ;• .'ny. v^-.. E*l« ».*. ./ »i?^J»iLy' ^:V ■ i tjc- w?; •• . «;.•^Vt.. •.•■•.. .• : ■ >^- u"’f :re I*!.. - . • . • . .: -".“y: :"k^-’PUW'-T OSISife!!*®!W- -'X^TSOl IT,'-. ) ' .■• • .7^ •:C,pr'V'T jIE w^V' o. V ‘V3 *V:. . '. H - **" Ifs,;. ■;..■ ■■. ■■.>^fe 'PjJ^Blr’asHsi pafelsLt:.» *'-^^^5H8SI ». JLlVS --W ■ - V ■»' '•‘'-*4 'i' "■' '■' -.........................................;! i?3l—Ci aisti '■. _■"•_____-■- ' ^ ——— ■ ■■’ '• ' , ■■ ■' ■; if Z •■•Vv^ vs> i4 • «—'-usyag;;u:s^:'^;.^isa:: ^rs-.jsirarecn'sa ;v2T! " •' 'fc' •.*» I»'. *. *.•f..#.. » ♦<• ..,4t • *• .«•w..i_ia£L-i/r:t.L-.____ •■ /• A *■••* <•/ - . «•'/.Ik • . • ‘ r D I !!.i ’ ) ■ li f ' [ IMI i I •;, >. • r ‘ ' # O (■'~'.^7 »» I*. J X or^;>' 1. \> •. rl-«r ------1 & )Pi2£>UlT'ftaih Add iTi6iJ fae. ^teulAWr ^ HAllSDfcl ^iinifc. m - I •“ -eVAMlZ- 4«£. «l5Z.-4-1&- I4-14 C!£IL Ibll.- 4lf>- D&Tb . <5hill&i£.5 -16 MAI&k BO^AK* itee ^ RyiOfliP &iS. i4-‘'c>.Cl.,i •MemL PlAeMlIlfr 1?EGl. b'^tJLAXL vkfSfSL 0CP£>6ED DVetiOiCA ...■■, . .. ■ . ' \'Z."^Ablc.OU!?e.HlkfJ&& ICE. TRscrTedW l2-''lK^lC!£ liAlLUilE ^ , , , . r ...............- . 'S/s (ujb^^^tT fiyuIZfiDfiRfclA It? to At tOo SUb^Ae>t(lA 2X.4- Lcb<^irP5 z4b.c. I II i I nTTr Ml Ivi^ UT.>';n|.'F -.I-r I ■'( - I - (' <i6.COM.CMCl 6l^ ‘Hr Of 6li|K.^bEk.6 VUi6 coot•s-zxfcifeEflp m ^A.n^nAf^ r^j% IImidRwI. l(B6hr /-i I Ki^i^crseSKiCt ^4- - 2»Z> 4-|£*-feJiAe. if f ,: t B/IStlVLTtet^ 24 45" di^?/R ,« • r c / '• . •• • ■y*; •; I • *: ir ,:;{ iia K-i ' V' {.-.•■}' 'Va ■< I • 11 ■■■ f ^' - '! ' •■■*■'• ^ V •' • • I •• >,;-" ii«r'iii‘^*i ) C‘ !. . I •- 1 •> l.ll* r.i .. * V «>nf4Aa STOir^'j^ irM'tc/h ati0lvof mllfviwinWtj 'j FE^rfi* ::;^r (W-»t - > **^ hW M V m ♦*, cpx r ) x-j-y' ‘i;" it) WXi^O^M \9 WX m-V\V^Pry.a'!'.9! pjchibif b HARDC SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 7/>N A. House —_____‘ Length alc^ation worksheet 75-250' 250-500* 500-1000' .IVidih B. Cange C. Driveway D. SidewalkWir$) E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other X X X X X X X X X \0 JJ it MWW * A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B ^79(? ______________ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZHNI.’ A. House Length Width B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underhin By Plastic G. Other X X X X X X X X X 1 0 ^ ^0 m\dtr v(ti X ^ paildCY \wll IT- EtftfHiaiSfV X I I I t; TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE tot ^^tyarwwzo .^ X 100 - X 100 - X 100 » lt.0 7Z m c[b ^.7g -Sp, _SP. _SJ. _S.F. _SP. _sp. -SP. _SP. -SP. .SP. .SP. .SP. .SP. :sp. :SP. _SP. A _SP. B % SP. SP. SP. SP. SF. SF. SP. SF. SP. SF. SP. SP. SP. SP. *nr,' !S 7z SF, '■ SP. SP. A B SETBACK ZONE! EXISTING HARDCOVER IN A. House WORKSHEET 2SO-500' Ltn^lh .Width X X X B. Oange C. Driveway 30.^22.4 39^. P D. Sidewalk ^P. f? £ Fatio/Deck F. Landscape Uoderlain By Plastic O. Other 3P.(? L\dm ^c) l4TYCCf) X X X X X X 9.^ t^.(7 X X 4^>4- f m4 K) I7,p X 9.^ 4--(? A A TOTAL HARDpDVER IN ZONE ------------------- + B PROPOSED HARDCWER IN 7.n>r|p; A. House ^2.4- Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other -22.4- '^.0 ^P.O 3C.0 (iaMol y p L^tYGd fi 40.4- Cmthl 2i?-4 f^TTP^ 4g.4 X X X X X X X X X 22.^ 2.CI 0S ^.0 3.0n TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE 500-1000* sj. 4twcn(^ SI. SJ. SI. SE. 737.3 X 100 X 100 B 9.7gC?./? X 100 - 300-0 3^ I2I.Z 17^ IZTTi • ^>4M^ 9J30.0 ^3.3? 730.0 yo.o lii.Z 7b:f JZI.Z 3.903.\\o 9n<5(nj \oQA SE. SE. SE. SE. . SE. 3\rt<£4nrt/ . SE. .SE. .SE. . S E. SE. ^ItcMl^C/ SE. A SE. B _•/* \303.4h sjr^ SE. SE. SE. S.F. 4iy4otifn? S.T. SE. SE. SE. 0 s F ftriiC'tUrC' tzo. 0 ~ s F. fhlU'tlV^O SE. SE. SE. S.F. SE. A SE. B % (■ “il ». ^ ■ , «* •I 'V«‘,Xm I >.’ * ^V' RUN DATE :«)f20Q) M 06II7U4I000I PROPAOOR M ADDRESS UNASSiCNRO OWNERNAMfi RIQIARDRRUDD TAXPAYER RICHARD R RUDD NAME/ADDR «07PARKLA LONQLAKEMN S5J36 M 06U7234I0046 PROPADDR 577 PARKU OWNER NAME' DENISE L DUENOW TAXPAYER DENISE L DUENOW NAME/ADDR »77PARKLA LONCLAKEMN 5MM U 0611723410049 PROPADDR 60S PARK LA OWNERNAMfi SEAN DALY TAXPAYER SEAN A LEAH DALY NAME/ADDR COS PARK LA tDNCLAKEMN SS3S6 31 061172341008S PROPADDR SM PARK LA OWNERNAMfi HENNEPIN PORPEITEDLAND TAXPAYER CmrOPORONO NAME/ADDR POOOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN SS323 3> 0611723440014 PROPADDR 630 PARK LA OWNERNAMfi R D ANDERSON AN L ANDERSON TAXPAYER • RICK D ANDERSON A NAME/ADDR NANCY L ANDERSON ' 630PARKU ' LONQLAKEMN SS3S6 m HCNN1U>1N COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNEIG LIST 38 0611723410044 PROPADDR SS9 PARKU OWNER NAME JAMES A MULVANNY TAXPAYER JAMES A MULVANNY NAME/ADDR SS9 PARKU LONQLAKEMN SS3S6 38 06II7234I0C4S PROPADDR SC7 PARKU OWNER NAME AUDREY OVEROY TAXPAYER AUDREY OVEROY NAME/ADDR S67 PARK LANE LONCUKEMN SS3S6 38 0611723410047 PROPADDR 583 PARKU OWNERNAMfi QINAR A STEWART L HANSEN TAXPAYER QINAR A STEWART L HANSEN NAME/ADDR S83 PARKU LONQLAKEMN S53S6 38 0611723410048 PROPADDR 601 PARKU OWNERNAMfi SHANE R A KRISTINE M RUDD TAXPAYER SHANE R A KRISTINE M RUDD NAME/ADDR 601 PARKU LONCLAKEMN SS3S6 38 0611723410060 PROPADDR 4100 ELM ST OWNERNAMfi TPCARROaASKCARROU TAXPAYER THOMAS PETER CARKOa NAME/ADDR 4100 ELM ST LONQLAKEMN SS356 38 0611723410084 PROPADDR S94 PARKU OWNER NAME S E A S N OURCER TAXPAYER SCOTT E A SI lANNON N OURCER NAME/ADDR 394 PARK U ORONOMN SS3S6 38 0611723410086 PROPADDR S84 PARKU OWNERNAMfi HENNEPINPORFEITEOLAND TAXPAYER CITY OF ORONO NAME/ADDR P O BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 0611723440005 PROP ADDR 649 MINNETONKA HOLD U OWNERNAME S VSWANTEKAPCSWANTEKTR TAXPAYER STEPHEN A PATRICIA SWANTEK NAME/ADDR 649 MINNETONKA HOLD U LONCLAKEMN 55356 38 06II7234400I7 PROPADDR 607 PARKU OWNERNAME R RUDD A K RUDD TAXPAYER RICHARD A KATHLEEN RUDD NAME/ADDR 607 PARK U LONQLAKEMN S5356 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESEFTTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATE ONTIE RECORDS OPTHE HEM4EPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST PACE: t P* 4. Hennepin fj*Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department / *B Parcel Information .1. Q^rarcel ID 0611723410047 House Number 583 Street Name PARK LA Ws Is not a legally recorded map. It represents a compilation ofhformaSon and data from CHy, County, and State road authorities and other sotacas. -• ‘si • •7334869 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 ft y A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE * TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE . „ SECTION 10.24. SUBDIVISION 5(B), Motro Leo^' Services Inc. p|L£ ^O. 2591 Box 491 ^ WHEREAS, Gina R. Hans^(hereinafler "the applicant") is the o\\iier of the property located at 583 Park Lane >vithin the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: Lot 13, Block 6, MINNETONKA SUMMIT PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance tr ' Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow a side yard setback of 3' wherv 10' is required to permit construction of a second story to the existing residence. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19,2000, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, 1. 2. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2591. This property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre or 43,560 s.f. is the minimum lot area. The propert>' consists of approximately .219 acres or 9,500 s.f. 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 19,2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 0. Page 1 of 5 i GITYof OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 9 y 4. The Planning Commission made the following findings of fact: A. The structural coverage and hardcover on the lot is not increasing. A roofed deck already exists in the area of the addition. B. The addition of the second story within the side yard setback will not adversely affect the neighboring property. 3. The lot is extremely undersized and narrow for the LR-1 B zoning district. 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 variance will 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 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. 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono Citv Council hereby grants a vari^ce to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow a side yard setback of 3 ’ where 10' is required to permit construction of a second story to the existing residence. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1 . Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant attached to this resolution as Ej^bit A. Any amendments to the site plan may require further Plarming Commission and City Council review'. Page 2 of 5 iiiL • ^ Mm CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 44 9 7 2.Applicant is advised that if this project ultimately results in substantial remo\^ of the existing residence due tq. unforeseen circumstances, the City Council shall have the right to reconsider this approval to determine whether the conditions of this resolution remain applicable. 3.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 these variances will expire on that date (July 10,2001). 4. 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. 5.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of herself, her heirs, her succe.ssors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the proper^. Adopted by the City Council of the City or Orono, Miimesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of July, 2000. ■ Linda S. Vee;‘.City Clerk */. *••••** Gabrie^abbour, Mayor Property Owner (s)Ly Page 3 of 5 -t ..kMt fxU'.bft H m CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 9 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 1 0th day of July 2000 by Gabriel Jabbour and Linda S. Vee, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. 3 JOHNSON ? ..^ywyfWUC-liCNNESOTA Hr rnmnWuii C mim .»n. 3t. a»S h Notary Pu^ic X STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS* COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On tWs JMh -----day of _______ 2000, before me a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared 54f»co«;<r Z..t*^a<t.e known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and "fe acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ’ ^ otVrer'JOHNSON iv notary PU8UC-U.V4S0TA V •YCon»rittien65fcjjj!tji,2ooi Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COLtNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this__________ day of___ and for said County, personally appeared 2000, before me a Notary Public within known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Notary Public Page 4 of5 rnMmSk sfeSSfi^ -■; vV SURVEY \ L GINA HANSON ^ I 8CMOEU A MAOSON, IN&\ IMBMIIM • IMMVM • fUlMM •OC IIMM • ONMMIIIL tIMKIl MIC 1 (•If) Mt-TIAI Vai^I ••• ti OCSCRIPnONt Lot t^. Block G. UiHNaONKA SUUUrT PARK. Loko Minnttonka wottr otevollon. tlovolion •• 020.G3 (NCVD-1929 Dolurn) I ; f. • c<'=o;;.i c-i.\ T \bu'K u\it> lww\q \ VAhi\ ^ % * 7 *> .; .. •.. J j • •- *••• mI- S-' i .1 . •• - DonoUs Iron monument 'llrI|i* TMt dfoulno hos t^n checked ond revtoved UiTt Ji££lL day of ZCLTLi?. I hereby certify that this eurvey «oe prepared under my euperyWon ond thot i om o Uceneed Land Surveyor under the lows of the Stote of ttnneiotn. .iJi t **'*90 fMt Theodore 0. Kemno Dote: !$^^0 Ucenee No. 17006 ff. eoai CD Date Application Received: 06-18-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06*18-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08-17-03 JUL 2 6 2005 CllYUt- UHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 23,2003 Item No.: ^ ^ Department Approval: Name: Melanie Foth Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: ^03-2915- Scott Udell, 2166 Shadywood Rd - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Vi acre/ 100’ width 18,843 s.f.± (0.43 acre) n.97' List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 07-23-03 C - PC Memo & Exhibits of 07-21 -03 Application Summary*: The applicant is proposing a 2"^ story porch addition over an existing kitchen which encroaches 8’ into the average lakeshore setback. In addition, the applicant requests a 2’ variance to allow existing roof eave to continue to extend 3.5’ into the 10’ side yard setback. Planning Commission Recommendation On July 21,2003, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the 8’ variance from the average lakeshore setback and the 2’ variance for the eave encroachment. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. J A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03 SUBDIVISION 15(A) SECTION 10.22 SUBDIVISION 1(B) SECTION 10.56 SUBDIVISION 16(B)(6) AND SECTION 10.25 SUBDIVISION 6(B) FILE NO. 03-2915 WHEREAS, Scott & Deah Udell, husband & wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the properly located at 2166 Shadywood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: That part ofLot 19, Block 1, lying Northwesterly of a line drawn through said lot parallel with the Shoutheasterly line of said lot and 12.5 feet Northwesterly there from, and also the Southwesterly half, front and rear, of Lot 20, Block I, all in Wiley ’s Park, Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22 Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56 Subdivision 16(B)(6) to allow construction of a 2"** story porch above an existing kitchen encroaching 8 ’ into the average lakeshore setback.; and a variance to Sections 10.25 Subdivision 6(B) to allow an cave to extend 3.5 ’into the 10’ required side yard setback where only a 1.5’ eave is normally allowed as a non-encroachment. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2915. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC Lakeshore Residential Zoning District, which requires minimum lot area of 0.5 acre and minimum lot width of 100'. The area of the property is 0.43 acres (18,843 s.f.) and defined lot width is 72.97 ’. 1 9 3. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on 4. 5. July 21,2003 and recommended approval of the average lakeshore setback variance as well as approval of the eave encroachment variance, based on the following findings: a) The proposed porch addition would not encroach fUrther into the average lakeshore setback than the existing home. b) The views of the lake from the neighboring properties would not be affected by the proposed addition. c) encroachment is for an “eyebrow” eave that e.\ists between the 1** and 2 stories. The continued encroachment of this eave does not detract from the property or the neighborhood, does not add the bulk of the structure in the neighborhood, and does not impact light, air or open space in the neighborhood. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 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 ser\e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessaiy’ to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants- and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. H J CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56 Subdivision 1 6(B)(6) to allow construction of a new 2"^ story porch to encroach 8’ into the average lakeshore setback; and a variance to Sections 10.25 Subdivision 6(B) to allow an eave to extend 3.5 ’ into the required 10’ side yard setback where only a 1.5 ’ eave is normally allowed as a non encroachment based on the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes or which extend beyond the scope of this approval will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (July 28,2004). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted heroin, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants' heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the propeny. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) ii—an i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of ^2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instnunent was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of _________, 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Mi..i.iesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public y 4* STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN this day 2003, personally appeared before me, ____ who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of. credible witness a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed.I Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN this day 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of, credible witness ..a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as hi&^er/their free act and deed. Notary' Public *H« CBwTflm ng CXSTMC House ©(h'lM-l'yA ^•v-«rw - - = •i 45*24» |5« ft^£h F^oA. ^5ri4/viiM<s J ^uaj/3at/o/\I ' I3^X|| . - J —!_□■ JL OCCK CiOSlMC House 4 . EXISTMC ft < CARACe 1 J '4 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #03-2915 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; July 23,2003 TO: Scott Udell 2166 Shadywood Rd Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: Joe Lucas Northern Sunrooms, Inc 1060 N Brown Rd Orono, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Average Lakeshore Setback, Side yard setback variances DATE OF MEETING: July 21,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval as submitted; 1. Variance for an 8* encroachment into average lakeshore setback. 2. Variance to allow eaves to extend 3.5’ into the 10 ’ side yard where only a 1.5’ eave is normally allowed as a non-encroachment. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28,2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you ha\ e questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Foth at 952-249-4627. r. Date Application Received: 06*18>03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06*18*03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 08-17-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Melanie Foth, City Plannerj July 16,2003 Subject:^03-2915 Northern Sunrooms, Inc for Scott Udell, 2166 Shadywood Rd - Variances - Public hearing Zonins District: Lot Aren: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) 18,843 s.f. (0.432 acre) Application Sumtnary: The applicant, Northern Sunrooms, Inc, on behalf of the owner requests a variance to allow an 8’ encroachment of the average lakeshore setback for construction of a second-story porch addition. Also a variance for a side yard encroachment of roof eaves. The variances include: 1. Encroachment of 8’ into the average lakeshore setback for a 13’ x 11 ’ second- story' sunroom addition over the existing kitchen. 2. Existing roof eave 3.5’into side yard setback area. Only 1.5’ is considered a non encroachment therefore, the remaining 2’ is considered encroachement. Note that: v' Lot coverage by structures to remain at existing 3466 s.f (18.3 %) where 15% is allowed - Variance granted in August 1993, file #1826. ^ Hardcover in 0-75' to remain at existing 229.5 s.f (4.7 %) where no hardcover is allowed - Variance granted in August 1993, file # 1 826. v' Hardcover in 75-250’ zone will remain at existing 5021 s.f. or 41.9%, i.e. 600 s.f less than the 5621 sf (46.8%) approved in 1993, where 25% is allowed - Variance granted in August 1993, file #1826. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: a) .Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The addition would not encroach further into the average lakeshore setback than the existing home. The addition would not affect the views of the lake from the neighboring properties, rather potentially blocks only the view of the neighboring yards. b) Denial of the requested excess roof eave encroachment. I lardship: Staff finds that hardship exists due to the location of the residence.________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections • Section 10.03, Subd (15)(A): Non-Encroachments: The following shall not be co;isidered to be encroachments on yard requirements: (A.) Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-stre.“t parking except as hereinafter regulated. • Section 10.22, Subd (B): Average lakeshore setback: No principaT or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lake than the Y i I «03-2915 July 21,2003 Page 2 of5 average disitoce from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on aljaccnt lots. • Section 10.24, Subd (6)(B): Lots: Minimum requirement for side-yard is a 10 ’ setback. List of Exhibits B-AProjostdSutvey/SitePIm FIpJ.Xs"’' ^ “ Proposed Plans and Elevations G — Plat Map D - Submitted Hardcover Calculations Background 25o ”fones S 1993 ?u structures, and hardcover in the 0^5 ’ and 75 ’- ® lhc”»e«g, SJeshore^^KiJl* LOT ANALYSIS WORSMEET................................................................................ Lot ArcaAVidth! LR Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780s.f. (0.5 acre)100* Actual 18,843 s.f. (0.432 acre)72.97 ‘ i OMmUiUWiHiAl «03-2915 July 21.2003 Page 3 of 5 Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 18,843 s.f (0.432 acre)Normally allowed: 2826 s.f. (15%) Allowed pc.' prior approval: 3466 s.f. (1 8.3?'o) Proposed: 3466 s.f. (18.3%) Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 4687 s.f.Os.f 229.5 s.f.*229.5 s.f. (0%)(4.7 %)(4.7 %) 75-250 11.876 s.f.7969 s.f. (25%) 5621 s.f.* (47.3%) 5621 s.f. ( 47.3%) ♦After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Side Yard Setback Variance The existing NW side yard setback is less than the required 10 ’. The existing roof eave overh; ngs into the setback area a total of 3.5 ’, 1.5 ’ of the eave is considered a non- nicioachment [Sect 10.03, Subd(15)] which leavesatotal ofa 2’ side-yard encroachment. Avcr.age Lnkeshore Setback Variance The applicant has requested a variance of the average lakeshore setback variance in the amount of 3 ’. The existing building is currently encroaching into the average lakeshore s-'tback, however, the applicant wishes to add a second-story, which would increase the bulk of the encroachment. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis III comidefing appUcathms for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safely and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardsliip” pertinent to this application: 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable uzc if used under corditiorj allowed by the official controls." It is i/.c opinion of Staff that the property can be put to reasonable' ttse under the current conditions. X 1 #03-2915 July 21,2003 Page 4 of5 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. • '^‘1 “' •» Prop.ny.ot It is the opinion of Staffthat the circumstances are not created by the landowner. "^c variance, if panted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." hcai% of Staff that the variance will not alter the essential character of the Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable ^e for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chaptcr." The applicant has not indicated that economic considerations are a factor. N/A "The BoMd of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance ra. variance reguesled is not a prohibited me under the LR-IC zoning dtsiricl. ll is the opinion of Staff that this criterion is met. Slfn^ ."w^f^ly ‘ ““ N/A “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in quesUon are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.* It is the opinion of Staff that this criterion is met. It is the opinion of Staff that this criterion is met. It is the opinion of Staff this criterion is not met. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health safetv contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." It is the opinion ofStaff that this criterion is met. ^ 0 i i rEUaa* «03-2915 July 21,2003 PagcSof S 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or diiliculty.* The location of the home constitutes a hardship for the applicant. Issues for Consideration 1. Does Planning Commission agree that the average setback encroachment will have little or o impact on views of the lake enjoyed by the adjacent property owners? 2. Is there any hardship demonstrated to support the encroachment of the eave **eyebrow” mo"' than 1.5’ past the 10 ’ setback. This eave area is between the first and second stores and is an ornamental feature of the house. Staff cannot support any eaves above the second story being more than 1.5’ from the house, but the existing eyebrow should be addressed. 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The addition would not encroach further into the average lakeshore setback tlian the existing home. The addition would not affect the vi;ws of the lake from the neighboring properties, rather potentially blocks only the view of the neighboring yards. Staff recommends denial of the requested excess roof eave encroachment. *.• • ♦ # %imk .* •A • • • • CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance)- Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 •* ■ After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION . Site Address. i fP.LD.) " /gr 4 Application § ^ Date Received" 6 / / y/e j Amount Paid ^ , o d Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) * for ^ 2.0 I /Aiiley*^ Attach legal description to applic^ion if not included on required survey. * ' Date Property Acquired__________________________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent j^aicels of land. Present use of prope^ X residential ' ___other (specify) Zoning District; ^Co>SA —.............................. ' APPLICANT Phone (home) Name-----_______CUCi^ ^ _______ Phone (work) z. » e> j ^ as Address:^CaA City;Zip:_SSiLS3Sa OWER (if dj^erent than a^U|ant|^ Nami Phone (home) ^5 2. - ^0/ . / . -----, A I______ Phone (work) <?5Z - Address: ^h^AyLiiaod brci City: U\A^\eAifL_______Zip; c-ci DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S ^■'2.^000 ^scribe reqiwst in detail: .S^eJ^A O^rZJZ (attach additional sheet^if necessary) variances REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshorc Other (specify) ^lTe ^^3£^ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSU.AL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: H>vs AUHA- UKXbfi-y e>^ y ^^£PAlA^. OJE l/U£ TO (L^?Lfi^ce Ui nH d 5evi-\aK^ . / (attach additional sheets if necessary) Q "I ^ 4X Ipornl#!. "“T*^****™ u tf»t lafl, AF*XICANrs SIGNATURE .......'^»nirTj ‘y ztata,-ppiica i.«, «.«^. “* -^sns^" owxer -s signature ^ The ov^Ticr hereby sckrowledces a #4 9’Q 1 • f i t i.».••■• . .*7 ^ 1 mat.. o ■'% I* -‘ iu Ik gygl i :9'U06Ci,I t^^io Bf M//AeK5 HAJJDCOVERC^CULATION WORKSHEET BVTBA.CK2j0^t .(CACUl ONE) piXTSTlNQ MAIlPgOVER IN EONE A. Houm ____________•• Liq|^ X X X S Otr«ge • • •C.' Drivewio^ '•x‘ X D. Sidewalk X . X E Paao/Debk SrdPi ^X X F. l.andseape Underlain ByPiutie Or Fabric 7A X X X O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A * B p^^OPOSEn MAUPCOVEil IN ZONE* A. Kwe Vmgh X X X B. Oarage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Undsripe UnierUrn By Flaaiio Fabric O. 0-w TOTAL HARDCON'ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN Z^'?NE A _ _ _ _ _ __ B 75-250'^0^00'500-1000' WliA xlOO - Wtdib XlOO • #291 ^7 PJK ^770 •* • +»■ *^3355?^ «N 3LU S.F. SI. SI. SI. S.F. SF. S.F; SI. S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF.- SF. _SF. A _______SF. B SF. SF. SF. . --"jc ______ W«« • SF. SF. SF. • • • • • • S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. .-. SF. SF. sf; SF. SF. A SF. B V i I > A. House ,v L4I^ 2S0-S00' X X X B. Ov«g« "C* DxivewiQr X’ X D. Sidewalk -ji___ X X E. PatiedDeek X X X X X O. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTALRROPERTV AREA IK ZONE A _♦ B gBQPQSED Ha RDCOVRR tn ynxr?« A. Houio ♦ ^ htr.ffh X X X D. C. Drivewey X n D. Sidewalk X X E Paiio/Deck X X F. L*.ndscepe Under! iLi ByPIaitlc . Or Fabric X X X O. Other X TOTAL HARDCOVER W ZONE TOTAL PROPER! Y AREA IN ZONE ^ B WiiA J9*g 7^ S ____ ^^76 xIOO - WM:h xlCO » V/ I.' V ' U_f^J »'i 800-1000* .ST. SI. hi .^Sf. __SP. SP. 1SS7 SF. SP.- /e___SP. 8* ___SP. ___SP.2 77 SP. _SP. -SP. SP. -302.^ SP. 1/97^ SP. a B sp; SP. SP. :*sp. S.F. ,SP. SP. •SP. n SP. «• SP. »SP.• e • ..•• S F.• •SP. •SP.• • SP. • • - * • SP.A SP.6 y» • . ••• O /•'!» /•« •• . ■ HABDCOVER CALCXn[iATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONEt (CIRCLE ONE) ItVISTtfXCMARHehVRW TN glOTffi K Home V____________ 0.75‘ X ■ 75-250*SOO-1000' SE X X X B. Oireie * X*. Diivewny X X D. Sidewilk X X E Pet!flA>eeik X X F Landaetpe S^MTZy L’cderltin ^Pltstio OrFebrie X X X O. OiKer TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B PROPOSED WARPCOVER IN EONS* A. House • • : ■LcnsOi X X X B. Gciege C. Ddvcwiy X X X D. SidewtUc X X E P*tlo/D«k X X F. Lec^ctpe UnderUih By PImUc OrFebrie • X K X O. Oihtr TOTAL HARDCOVER (K ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____________ ♦ 3 WiSOi SF. SJ. ^S7 _S.F. /.2 xlOO *SF. ■SF.• cs . SF. s*‘ ~ SF. B V27 SF. e SF. B SZ SF. Ai • /I S.F. ■SF.• ■ S. { . SF.A l4>Um SF.B __.r^r.4fil V» B SF. H • SF. B SF. B ........."SF. SF. SF. m SF.• B SF. B SF. SF. a S.F.1 a SF. a S.F. a SF. . • • • SF. SF. xlOO •• ii- A f;; w ko» JA'I u ; V 3> I7tl72}42000> PROPADDR 2114 SHADYWOODRD OWNERNAMB AOnSHER&OOnSIIGRJR TAXPAYER ALEXANDniUORVlUXriSIlERJR name /aoor 2114 shadywood road WAYZATAMN 55391 3S 1711723420011 PROPADOR 2166 SHADYWOODRD OWNBRHAME SDADLUOnU TAXPAYER SCOTT D A DGAIIL UDELL HAMB/AODR 3166 SHADYWOODRD WAYZATAMN 55391 3t 1711723420021 PROPADDR 3601 TOGORD OWNERNAMB THOMASLSNYDER TA3CPAYER THOMAS L SNYDER NAME/ADDR 3601 TOGO RD ORONOMN 55391 31 I7II723430I36 PROP ADDR 2177 SHADYWOOD RD OWNERNAMB K M HEINS AMD HEINS TAXPAYER KENTMAMiaiELLEDIiniNS NAME/AOOR 2177 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 C ) (. v^ W;.} ■' •■/ (iJ/ ULi-.oUH.>I COLR.-n’ prop ; n.'FOkMAUOW SYSTEM PROPERI Y 0\V. .wKS LIST 38 1711723420009 PROP ADDR 2178 SI lADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME CAS ANDERSON TAXPAYER CURTIS ANDERSON NAMli/ADOR 2178 SHADYWOOD R >AD WAYZATAMN 5539 38 1711723420010 PROP ADDR 2172 SI lADYWOOD RD OWNERNAMB JOAN MARIE HOLSTEN TAXPAYER JOAN MARIE HOLSTEN NAME/ADDR 3204 OUTTGRNUTCIR PRIOR UREMN 55372 38 1711723420012 PROPADDR 2142 SHADYWOODR 3 OWNER NAME PCAMAMERLO TAXPAYER PAULCAMARCIAAMERLO NAME/ADDR 2142 SHADYWOOD RO WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723420013 PROPADDR 2138 SHADYWOODRD OWNERNAMB JEROME J LAGUE A WIFE TAXPAYER JEROME JLAOUE NAME/ADDR 2138 SHADY WOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 I7I1723420022 PROPADDR 2171 SHADYWOODRD OWNERNAME JACQUELYN A RODEPTSON TAXPAYER JACQUELYN A ROBERTSON NAME/ADDR 2171 SHADYWOODRD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 1711723430135 PROPADDR 2195 SHADYWOODRD OWNERNAMB JOHN H ANDERSON TAXPAYER JOHN H ANDERSON NAME/ADDR 2195 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 17II723430I37 PROPADDR 2189 SHADYWOODRD OWNERNAMB THOMAS URSON . TAXPAYER THOMAS URSON NAME/ADDR 2189 SHADYWOODRD WAYZATAMN 55391 1 CERTIPY 7HATTHB FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ONTHO RECORDS OFTHB HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO THE BEST OFMY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. , _ DATE <<'-/7'Trs 'if A JL O mm PACE: I r 5^ V. - -^V ' ^ ^ V: .-"IVi-^-r;; ^ ■:• ’ -f.y-■ .•A;':*^' - « k'%/1 I il A « . 2/ 'X«^ V. ■ ■.'•'J'S? • < ;• »•%• • f \ - '- ' • 'V- ' ^ ■ :■• • VA / /'(V M;iTl«iS/f- e?rg;l Hi ii f:?"' lA. -:= STHZgani^lM^ , • • * • V VL' V:*.** .t:l . «i ■ • LS^iiu; :u. <*. . • •• •«• • .«■», «»• n V *T. 10 B • j1 t c (■ 'i) \r::' -- .•••. “v:;. f; "\ y 'V »-V Si*' »»,. S •> - ]r^i l(Ce^S^ ^ sr^o ,rf '■.rnmitMk gm kiiniMM EKtoti-f F V m m . •* - V• • T. *• • t3 P.M iMtal fi m. m m-^ •I. V- \ .' • « S J. f i:il £7 I s^'tt ZI63(^ tXd c ^ifi''.'. ‘ ■ -'[>■■'' -1-. •> .' .■ ; ••• v\ • jisf -S.Tt W VT?P ' I'-' • . \rp9m "-II ■ ry'-.Vf •’/ r;A ?, *V“v •^'t- •-> . . • -.r * ► .\ • ** » \ *'■ '/•»: •» ■• .: ■ 4 ■ t . I k .► ' < /Jl' K'Sf-'«!^'E,*• '4 s.,^in , i'* ' * ' f • 'UVr- i ^ ^ ■■ -'B -"' ■'’•'if-'"-*■ '§G <1: ...vk S^^: ^ ' . .‘ ir ) ‘■.' ‘- *1 S' • . • A-•4 • /|.P ‘ • V • ■ V- jk. * •#* V3T-':> ^ if'^r » fcrXH'ibi*' I li If iiiiiifiiii rniirili^iiltlitiiiliiii iitri • *k ^ f. 'V- .■6S. .- . » , •» .•• <^V ■>7-- W ■- • ■■’' ■:^.^ " ' - w.:, *1- • ' ,, «‘ , - rr^r * '-r • J u - i r 1 •' •i»i’Juli»»4i. I li .» . ^ * ... •<• -^1 ■ . T f ^ 1^1 • r *• . *)^r ^ \ ^ ' •'.*;* •' ^ . » /(is- ••^, ' tj. ' ' vj-,-w y S >’l»V ^ . • M -!?•:• : '■l a :! i i 4 i I fe? «*+• ^ Hennepin .•* •* • * •I..-,-. f.- • • ••• *r . (5) w PARTO^LOTil \ Nir4ne’s ITS HALCYON (47) 1 2 HOLLOW l75NW4TX'g *1177 NOTEWILerSNAVAMEAOON OFPAKTOFOUVBAV. LOT24 see BK 1STM COUNTY SURVEYOR P 1S4 124 (34)(33) • TO 70 $irt IT i I \^^^Parcel information 1 • . » • • * » ircel ID 1711723420011 ;.n^ House Number 2166 - V* Street Name SHADYWOOD RO;.. This Is not* legally recorded map. It represents a compUatior olMotmaUoti • and data from City, County, and State road authorSies and ol 'er • i Date Application Received: 6-lSm3 Date Application Contidercd ai Complete: 7>9^3 60-Day Review Period Eipirei: 9-7-03 Cm JUL 2 6 200j REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ClTYOFOHo,,^ Date: July 24.2003 Item No.: / (/ Department Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Michael P. GafTron Title: Planning Director Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2916 Phillip Smith, 2600 West Lafayette Road - Variances List of Exhibits A - Notice of PC Action 7-24-03 B - Draft PC Minutes 7-21-03 C - Memo and Exhibits 7-14-03 Application Summary: Applicant requests a lakeshore setback variance to construct a second story addition partially within 75' of the shoreline, and hardcover variances for an attached garage and a porch addition. Applicant has proposed io remove I s.f. of existing 0-75 ’ hardcover for each 2 s.f. of proposed new 75-250 ’ hardcover; i.e. a 1:2 removal ratio which would result in a 300 s.f. net increase in hardcover on the site. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this item on July 21 and recommended approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75 ’ zone, finding that the visual impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a '/j-story configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75 ’ zone is the hardship. Planning Commission further recon*, n'.nded that a hardcover variance be approved for the porch and garage additions only in conjunction w ith concurrent removals of hardcover in a ratio of 1:1 to result in pp net hardwver ingrcitft on the site. PC also recommended that the shed be removed from the 0-75 ’ zone as part of the required hardcover removals (shed may stay on site in the 75-250' zone, but would be counted as hardcover...); and that all landscape plastic/fabric be removed. Staff Recommeodation Staff concura with the Planning Commission lecommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Reach a conclusion regarding the setback variance for the second story addition apd determine whether the hardcover removal ratio should be 1:1 or 1:2. Direct staff to draft a ^lulion for adoption at your August 11 meeting. .S 0 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING RLE #03-2916 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 24, 2003 TO: Philip Smith 2600 West Lafayette Road Excelsior, MN 5S33I TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances COPIES: A DATE OF MEETING: July 21, 2003 Plaanlng Cominissioa recommended as follows: Approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75 ’ zone, finding that the visual impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a '/i-story configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75' zone is the hardship. Approval of a hardcover variance for the porch and garage additions only in conjunction with concurrent removals of hardcover in a ratio of 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site; that the shed be removed from the 0-75* zone as part of the required hardcover removals (shed may stay on site in the 75-250' zone, but would be counted as hardcover. ); and that all landscape plastic/fabric be removed. VOTE: 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28, 2003; mcctiig starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. %. to* .* # r \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. While the existing roof cave encroaches 3.5’ into the 10' side yard setback, only I.S’ of the eave is considered a non-encroachment. Applicant wishes to keep the existing eave. Udell maintained that' they would confine the construction to building on top of existing %structure. Rahn questioned where overhangs exist elsewhere on the home and whether the eye row would be flat or raised. \ GafTron pointed out that the ^ ^verhang runs the entire length of the oth^'Side of the home. d\.Chair Smith asked if the work could begone without the excess eave. Tia Udell stated that they needed the eave^ reduce water and drainage problems. Mr. Lucas stated that, aesthetically, the applic)mt would wish to keep the existing overhang which matches the overhangs across the entire Iwme. Mr. Udell stated that the inset eyebrow and inset gutter would assist them in eliminating the flat rubber roof and water probl^is tn^ face currently Hawn asked if the applicants could makq/tne design w^ with no further overiiang than currently exists. Chair Smith questioned why staff b^ld recommended denial forthe overhang. 0 m While, aesthetically, the overhang should be there, Gaffron stateXthat it encroaches and there is no hardship to support its approval. Udell maintained that without the overhang water pools at the comers ah^ they need to be able to channel the water to the outside edges. There were no public comments. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #0^915, Nor^rn Sunrooms, Inc.for Scott Udell, 2166 Shadywood Road, granting the aveh^e lakeshore setback variance and excess roof eave encroachment. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nay (1113) #03-2916 PHILLIP SMITH, 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD, VARIANCES, 8:45-9:11 P.M. Phillip Smith, the applicant, was present.9, PAGE 19 of 37 B # MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. 'i)^2Af=T GafTron explained that the applicant requests a lakeshore setback variance to construct a second story addition partially within 75' of the shoreline, and hardcover variances for an attached garage and a porch addition. Staff recommends approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75' zone, finding that the visual impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a '/i-story configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75' zone is the hardship. Gaffron reported that staff recommends that a hardcover variance be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of hardcover in a ratio of at least 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site Because the proposed additions arc mostly over existing hardcover, only the proposed sidewalks or the proposed porch could be reduced in size to significantly reduce the hardcover increases. The total proposed hardcover increase in the 75-250’ zone is 601 s.f. including the porch addition, small portions of the garage addition, and sidewalks either side of the garage. Existing 0-75' hardcover associated with the shed and patio totals 1375 s.f. A 1:2 removal would result in a reduction of 0-75' hardcover of 300 s.f. or from 2561 s.f. (21.3%) to 2261 s.f (18.8%). Staff suggests that a 1:1 removal ratio (601 s.f.) would be more consistent with past City approvals, resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property. A net decrease in hardcover could be achieved by reducing the patio even fuither. Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission consider whether it would be more consistent with past practice to require concurrent removals of hardcover in an overall ratio of 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site. Hardcover removals in a ratio greater than 1:1 w ould create a better long-term situation, given the excesses of overall hardcover on the property. However, driveway hardcover removals in the 75-250’ zone may result in parking problems Gaffron stated that It should be noted that the runoff from the w est half of the house, i.e. most of the 75-250' zone, flows westward to a low area west of the main driveway serving the immediate neighborhood, rather than flowing directly to the lake. If gutters which currently discharge about half of the roof drainage to the east, could be redirected to the west, this would reduce the impact of existing 0-75’ hardcover. Applicant notes that the 300 s.f of 0-75’ hardcover he would remove is the 100 s.f shed and 200 s.f of the 1300 s.f patio. He would prefer to not remove additional areas of patio, but also notes that driveway reductions are the only likely other area of removals, and because the road in front of the house is a private easement driveway, parking on it is problematic. He would prefer to not have to remove driveway areas. PAGE 20 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Mr. Smith submitted a neighborhood recommendation from four neighbors supporting his position to reduce 1 s.f of hardcover in the 0-75* setback area for every 2 new s.f in the 75-250’ setback area. Mr. Smith explained that his home is oriented to the lake and has four doors which exit to the lakeside. In an effort to maintain the character of his home, he suggested that he remove 300 s.f from the 0-75’. He expressed his hesitation to remove additional pavement from the driveway, since the road is a private driveway with no where to park. As proposed, Smith stated that they would build over the I 'A car garage. With regard to the stormwater diversion. Smith indicated that he could divert all but one of the gutters away from the lakeside. There were no public comments. Hawn stated that she had a problem supporting the 1:2 removal ratio. She added that the shed was currently too close to the property line and would need to be relocated or removed. In addition, she felt further removals than the estimated 300 s.f offered would be required. Mabusth questioned whether the Commission could support a redesign of the drainage flow, if their interest did not support the 1:2 removals. Rahn concurred with the staff recommended 1:1 removal ratio. Mabusth stated that she did not wish to see further drivew ay reductions, and believed the removals would need to come from the patio. Smith pointed out that he had tried to save the patio and create something that would reduce runoff into the lake. He maintained that this was not a large lot, that most of the home falls within the 0-75’ setback zone, and 40% of the property is not counted in hardcover calculations. While he was willing to move the shed, he encouraged the Commission to review this application in the variance process based on its own merits and not the cookie cutter standards oflen mandated across the board. Chair Smith indicated that the Commission would be inclined to support the staff recommendation, along with removals oflandscape fabric, and asked the applicant whether he would prefer the Commission vote on or table the application. Smith asked if the Commission could vote on the portions of the application independently and provide him the opportunity to present his 1:2 removal ratio recommendation to the City Council, along w;ith his plan to redirect runoff away from the lakeside of the residence. Chair Smith moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03> PAGE 21 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. 1)*e4rf=r' 2916, Phillip Smith, 2600 West LaFayctte Road, granting approval of the upper level second story addition in the 0>75* setback zone; and hardcover variances be approved to allow additions to the porch and garage subject to staffs recommendation that the hardcover additions be concurrent to removals of hardcover in a ratio of at least 1:1 with no net hardcover increase on the site; further requiring, that the shed be relocated on the property if removals from the 0-75' are required; and that all landscape plastic be removed. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#14) #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, 90 MYRTLEWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, 9:11 - 9:49 P.M. Deborah Thompson, the applicant, was present. GafTron reported that the applicant requests a side street setback variance to construct a 996 s.f. detached garage. A second variance is requested to allow the new garage to be attached to an existing 848 s.f. detached garage via a 11* x. (?)_’ greenhouse (dimension undetermined). The variances include: 1 . Side street setback of 23.1' where a 50' side street setback is required. 2. Oversize accessory structure variance (no accessory building larger than 1000 s.f. is allowed on a lot of 0-1.99 acres in area). (Note: Applicants had indicated they also want to add a pool requiring a side street setback variance, but have not provided the requested location/size detail for that pool, so the pool request is not under consideration as part of this application) Gafiron indicated that staff recommends: a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage. b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure. c) Consider whether screening should be required. Gaffron explained that the applicants propose to construct a 996 s.f. detached garage 11' southeasterly from their existing 848 s.f. detached garage. The new garage will be located 23.1 feet from the south side lot line, which is by definition a side street lot line. It abuts the dedicated right-of-way of old Highway 12 or Wayzata Boulevard. While the portion of Wayzata Boulevard immediately adjacent to the property has not been used for road purposes since the extension of 1-394/US 12 in the 1970's, it is still MnDOT right-of-way and must be treated as a street for zoning purposes. With regard to the Oversize Accessory Structure Variance, Gaffron stated that the Council adopted the Oversize Accessory Structure (OAS) ordinances in the late 1980's to place limits on the size of individual accessory buildings as w ell as on the total square footage of accessory buildings that could be located on a property. For lots smaller than 2 acres, it was concluded that no oversize accessory structures should be allowed, and any structure over 1000 s.f. would be considered as oversized, The concern was the mass and bulk of structures on properties, with an intent to limit the visual density and retain open space. PAGE 22 of 37 J Date Applicalion Received: 6-18-03 Date Application ConiMercd at Complete: 7-9-03 60-Day Review Period Fipirea: 9-7-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike GafTron, Planning Director July 16,2003 #03-2916 Phillip Smith, 2600 West Lafayette Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1-acre min. 0.71 acre (30,720 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests a lakeshore setback variance to construct a second story addition partially within 75* of the shoreline, and hardcover variances for an attached garage and a porch addition. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75' zone, finding that the visual impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a '/i-story configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75' zone is the hardship. Staff recommends that a hardcover variance be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of hardcover in a ratio of at least 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site. List of Exhibits A - Application B • Hardship Statement & Addenda C - Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D - Proposed Plans & Elevations E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Property Owners List G - Plat map H - Topography Map I - Photos Pertinent Code Sections 1.Sections 10.22, Subd. 2, 10.55 Subd. 8 & 10.56 Subd. 16(L): Hardcover: a) 0% Hardcover allowed in 0-75' zone, proposed is 2,561 s.f or 21.3% (same as existing). b) 25% Hardcover limit in 75-250' zone, proposed is increase 601 s.f from 3,829 s.f (20.5%) to 4,430 s.f (23.7%). The issue is that the site in total already exceeds its allotted hardcover allowance of 4,670 s.f (25% of 75-250' zone) by 1720 s.f Applicant proposes a 300 s.f of removals in the 0-75' zone to compensate for the 601 s.f increase in the 75-250' zone 2.Sections 10.22, Subd. 1, 10.55 Subd. 8 and 10.56 Subd. 16C: Lakeshore Setback. No structure is allowed within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed second story addition over the existing house is partially within the 0-75' zone, at the nearest point is 59' from the OHWL. L... _________ M3-2916 July 16,2003 Page 2 Background Applicant proposes a number of additions to the existing residence, including: - Attached 16' x 22' screen porch at south end of the house, constituting new hardcover in the 75-250' zone; - Attached garage addition with bonus room above, mostly over the existing driveway in the 75-250' zone; - Second story addition over north end of house, located partially within the 0-75' zone; The additions meet all pertinent street and side setbacks, and the additions all meet the average setback as indicated on the attached airphoto (part of applicant ’s attachments) and the topography map. Second Story Encroachment of 0-75' Zone . The proposed encroachment of the 0-75' zone is caused by raising the roof over the northerly 1/3 of the existing garage/lst story by approximately 5' to accommodate vaulted space within the roof and new dormers. The new roofline will match the existing roof over the southerly 2/3 of the house, and meets all height limitations. The visual impact of the higher roof line is minimal, and this will still by definition probably only be a 1-1/2 story home when the additions arc completed. The increases in the bulk of structure w ithin 75' of the lake is minimized by constructing a half-stor>' rather than a full second story. Hardcover Increases . The hardcover allotment for the property is 25% of the 75-250' zone or 4,670 s.f. Total existing hardcover is 6,390 s.f., and proposed is 6,991 s.f. Hardcover is not proposed to increase in the 0-75' zone; however, applicants are suggesting they would remove existing 0-75 ’ hardcover in a l-for-2 ratio (i.e. about 300 s.f) to allow the additional 601 s.f of hardcover in the 75-250' zone. This is not reflected in the hardcover calculations submitted, but is offered by applicant as a method to reduce the hardcover impact on the site. Because the proposed additions are mostly over existing hardcover, only the proposed sidewalks or the proposed porch could be reduced in size to significantly reduce the hardcover increases. The total proposed hardcover increase in the 75-250' zone is 601 s.f including the porch addition, small portions of the garage addition, and sidewalks either side of the garage. Existing 0-75' hardcover associated with the shed and patio totals 1375 s.f A 1:2 removal would result in a reduction of 0-75' hardcover of 300 s.f or from 2561 s.f (21.3%) to 2261 s.f (18.8%). Staff suggests that a 1:1 removal ratio (601 s.f) would be more consistent with past City approvals, resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the property. A net decrease in hardcover could be achieved by reducing the patio even further. It should be noted that the runoff from the west half of the house, i.e. most of the 75-250’ zone, flows w estward to a low area west of the main driveway serv ing the immediate neighborhood, rather than flow ing directly to the lake. If gutters w hich currently discharge about half of the roof drainage to the east, could be redirected to the west, this would reduce the impact of existing 0-75 ’ hardcover. The above calculations and references exclude existing fabric or plastic lined landscape beds. All such beds must have the fabric or plastic removed as part of any variance approval. IS »03-2916 July 16,2M3 Page 3 Applicant notes that the 300 s.f of 0-75' hardcover he would remove is the 100 s.f. shed and 200 s.f. of the 1300 s.f p;.:io. He would prefer to not remove additional areas of patio, but also notes that driveway reductions are the only likely other area of removals, and because the road in front of the house is a private casement driveway, parking on it is problematic. He would prefer to not have to remove driveway areas. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET IdK Ann/Widtli: LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre)140* Actual 30,720 s.f (0.705 acre)160* Sclltackii LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front t.I.akcshorc)75'47' Existing Den 59' Upper Story Same Same (VAR) Rear (Street)30'80'63' Left (N) Side 10'15.2'11.0' Right Side 10'57'37.5' Average Lakeshore (No Encroachment)(No Encroachment)(No Encroachment) Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 30,720 s.f (0.705 ac.)Allowed: 4608 s.f (15.0%) Existing: 2454 s.f (8.0 %) Proposed: 3336 s.f (10.9%) Hardcover Calculations: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75'12,040 s.f Os.f (oro) 2,561 s.f* (21.3%) 2,260 s.f (18.8%) 75-250'18,680 s.f 4,670 s.f (25 %) 3,829 s.f • (20.5 %) 4,430 s.f (23.7 %) Total Site 4,670 s.f 6,390 s.f 6.6M s.f AAer exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds #03-2916 July 16.2003 Page 4 Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In coMsidetUtg appUcMtons for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, dMger office, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values ofproperty in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement nvuld cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions wUl be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application; 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofTicial controls.” The property is currently being put to a reasonable use. but approximately half of the existing house is less than 7 5'from the shoreline. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The existing house was constructed at this location in the early I950'sprior to adoption of the code requirement for a 75' setback. This condition was not created by the current landowner, but is not necessarily unique in the LR-IB zone. 3.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The proposed additions will have little impact on the essential character of the localit)\ 4.“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists un. .. the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Economics have not been sugge.sied by the applicant as a hardship. 5.Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. N'ariances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as deflned in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” (Not Applicable) 6.“The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the aflected person's land is located.” (Sot Applicable) Ii «I03-2916 July 16,2003 Pages 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one>famity dwelling as a two-family dwelling." (Not Applicable) "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The condition of having the existing house located too close to the lake is not uncommon in the LR-IB zone, although it is becoming less common as new homes are constructed in a conforming location to replace older nonconforming structures. The existing e.xcess hardcover situation is similarly not peculiar to this property, but occurs on a significant number of LR-IB properties. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The hardcover and house location standards apply to all residential homes in the LR-IB district. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting ofthe variances is not necessar}' in order for applicant to enjoy the property as-is. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." The intent of the zoning code is to eventually have all structures located outside the 0- 75 ' zone and limit hardcover to 25%ofthe 75-250 ’zone. The proposed additions will have some impact in terms ofprolonging the existence of the portions of home in the 0- 75 ’ zone. Due to the location of the house near the lake, the driveway areas needed to serve the home are substantial. The existing patio comprises substantial non-conforming hardcover near the lake and its reduction would be in keeping uith the intent of the Code. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTtculty." The setback variance for the upper story addition is supported by the hardship of the e.xisting house location. The lot shape, 160' wide by an average of 192' deep, is not a substantial hardship even though the 0-75 ’ zone is 39% of the lot. A substantial house meeting all City requirements could be constructed on the property- ifthe existing house uur proposed to be removed. The inability to park visiting vehicles in the private easement road suggests that the driveway cannot be substantially reduced. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the e.xisting house location act as a hardship in support of the 0-75 ’ upper level additions? 2.Do the proposed l-for-2 reductions in the 0-75 ‘ hardcover mitigate the excesss hardcover proposed? Should the reductions be increased to 1-for-l to result in no net hardcover increase on the site, given the excessive patio hardcover? \v- r r. M3-29H jHly It, 2N3 Paget 3.Would re-direction of roof runoff to the street yard from the entire house be a way of mitigating the excess hardcover on the site, given that such runoff would travel further and have more potential for absorption and filtration before it reaches the lake? Staff has not looked at the impact of this on neighboring properties... 4.Are there any significant visual impacts imposed by the upper level additions in the 0-75' zone that need to be mitigated? 5. Does Planning Commission have any additional concerns about this proposal? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75' zone, finding that the visual impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a '/i-story configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75' zone is the hardship. Applicant proposes hardcover removals of 301 s.f in the 0-75' zone to compensate for 601 s;f of added hardcover in the 75-250' zone. This proposal has merit; however. Planning Commission should consider whether it would be more consistent with past practice to require concurrent removals of hardcover in an overall ratio of 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site. Hardcover removals in a ratio greater than 1:1 would create a better long-term situation, given the excesses of overall hardcover on the property. However, driveway hardcover removals in the 75- 250' zone may result in parking problems. Redirection of roof runoff should be considered, since in this unique situation discharge to the street side of the lot yields a potentially greater infiltration capacity. r t , < r m k__i aA 1 r /I CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application H ()^ ^ Date Received ^ ~ Ampiint Paid ^ ~ PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ Site Address _____Iv. Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)____A l|l~7 I doojL Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prag^[ty Acquired_______i______________________________ I (do)((donl^aIso own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/ycar) Presentuse ofproperty: residential Zoning District: Lfc-lB other (specify). APPLICANT Name If.^ Address: >4oo Uv- tt4t Phone (home) 2-X* _____ Phone (work) 2 a-ri&f City : __________Zin: rrJ2t OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home). Name .K Phone (work)_ Address: _____________________ City:_____________Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ /S~o. eoo - Describe request in detail: /_____________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width ^ Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore • I ✓ Other (specify) 0~1C - ov<r HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difllculty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: i<c *ti_________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) JLin'- "^\-‘^1: W • • f-5 o I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followliiy Infarmarion muat be lubmltted bv the appMcadon deidllne d«te In order for voMf ■ppllcaMon to be contidercd complete; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Foim Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150*, labels and plat map (you most obtain this list, labels and map from Hetmepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A” x IT for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing gr^e are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'A” x 11” for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views ^rovi^ one (1) copy 8'A” x 11”). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not curumt ownerfs). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any odier persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vot variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her biowdetfee. Applicant's Signature 7^^Date 'tiX OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and fiirther authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Conunission members, and Council members for putpose^f investigation and vepficafion ofAhiS'teauest Owner's Signature, Applicant must have all submittals into the City office 25 lays before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plaiming Commission Meetings are held on tte third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & 2U>ning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 7 ' - „ ■ > n. UJ' \r- 1 A E-l PIftn Our suggestion is as follows: 1) The second stoiy be allowed 2) The increase in hardcover be allowed, subject to the following: a) For eveiy two sq. ft of additional hardcover in the 75 to 250* area, one sq. it. of existing hardcover (patio and shed) would be permanently removed from the 0 to 75* area. We believe this variance request is consistent with City policy to reduce hardcover in the 0 to 75* area and is a reasonable use for the property given its particular circumstances. .•a » -• V » .. ; > <.1 V M ^ rj .. r.' ilO X ■Shouclikc I'd J \ aivu/iUi iV^..v ^i\i B-3 Attachment to Variance Application 2600 W Lafayette Road Orono.MN 55331 Phillip Smith and Jennifer Pastrick-Smith # Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions We are requesting two variances for our remodeling/addition project 1. Hardcover 2. To allow a partial second level above the existing house which is within the 75’ setback from Lake Minnetonka. Background The lot was platted in 1952 and the house built shortly thereafter. The house footprint is original and no know-n additions have been added since its original construction. The house structure is as close as 48 ’ to the lake; the stone patio is as close as 37 ’ to the lake. The 75’ setback line is approximately the fall line for drainage. That is, the 75’ closest to the lake drains to the east towards the lake and the portion beyond the 75’ setback line flows to the west to a wetland/drainage pond in the neighborhood. Approximately 50% of the house structure lies within 75’ of the lake. Hardship for Variances The lot is very wide with 160 feet of lake frontage and an average depth of approximately 190 feet. Different from when the house was built, the current zotung code disallows the 0-75’ zone from the calculation of hardcover. In this instance, approximately 39% of the total land area is excluded from the calculation of hardcover. The wide shape of the lot is a hardship due to the fact that 39% of the land area is excluded from the hardcover calculation. This condition more severely impacts this lot versus a regular lot with deeper proportions. As the hardship relates to the second story addition, the location of the existing structure is a hardship. Zoning allows for two story structures, except for the fact that the existing house is within the 0 to 75’ setback. In the early 1950’s, law allowed the location of the house. Additionally, the proposed second stoiy addition (i.e.: a shed dormer on the back of the house) repeats the architecture of the existing house and will not alter the views of my neighbors. Furthermore, the entire house structure, existing and planned, is behind the average setback as determined by the two neighboring houses. O 1 ► filial im r ^ ^ 1 * •• • *‘ B-1 r/-* ► .V.J^*.. V, .7 ' ** ^4 k _ .____ CulB r ' C */ - X ^*7- V : t Vl.*;..- % ^ 1} K-^ ifjt B, ;,,.'V«iC/.;. • . to* .^•^. jsTi « • -. *4 f liSf V •; • . ■' '>v ■* Ik-*, V- ‘ * ■ .■'•‘■* • •* ■■ WLXi’i-V r •':; V.^1 ' - ss? ,^'V' *7'^ • V! >. IT-- FI s>? ^;-j3W \< 'I p WMm ./ r I &4 . O •4 <, • # •kX/j v: ;•, . <>i iv,-‘ J/“- r. ''••’■-'.-‘A--.'-*. Wi ^ ' "• *\r ■• • •» •* ^ ..'. » >■•• ••• : -V '*! « ^ %< *• *. *^ •*, • -.‘ V; M - • mn m liiikkS jJ r^ -4 <■ -1^ I •.* . ’««: • «• ., • r - •• .-t ' V.,f- - -iP#V »• •«#•••JS#<^J#^0- • . 'i 44iH • >i •'• ' il -X .<*•!- • •• >v •? ,l______ • • \ U»WfTrn»W-t: , i ■ I ____ M •• ’■ ThCT^trrriTx: g*rir"r r-j-te |. r- . - S >tMC/! m m» m •»*• •• »* « «»« W Af»iV i f/orr» AfLiw HMD ; J . ■ . *: . i.!< : ....................... I - -M /V w''v5:---------- • % ^1 ^ i^ ' JT, ........» . !« -.rfS.' 4M: #*•»“ ^mA^t — • X ?» » \ \ -i ,J ^J94*^..;.L| 11. .a£f y* --------, #Hltc. MU i t* *" ■ tf ■■]*. t^t -M- - i‘.' JSShT “«► .1 i 'ih a;jif X ■ M'S lil :»i^ \ ■ > » ^ \ -35iCfd- •• • i* •9Tmmlbr, r m mm *• t • • m m m X........ X m!0!^......-------------9H\____^ j?^| ij|J-------'-—.— «ry>c.......... ••—jj I ML !.•... *.*.. ... . •• .. w.* • »• .^.w! I.. I* /' -4 ^ itttcobn 4**%^ 19^ t» f mm^ I — *^3E* rs AscnSm/^ I T 5 AlV----I % mti : ^1 • .g^r- /»r.^v4^r-4. **»r .. ' ------------------ k i;i /Wiiwfl j il _ - _^r ______/i#.'- iy/l" "- • *:-!’■Vf1 HWU. 4-1'iiifnil^ >••# « ••• ••• • yiKir.—.~i_ .;.4 _________^— .j 99^ •->•<• • •••. m» • •••• « * m • •• •• * aM •••# ./S.t> •»*♦ r*A#. inrrH kmpw »f1KV5K I r I ^’1________ «. L aJ. —*4.*^J^L. ^ ^ I______ -4 \ trzTzird •4. til* 09 fjT^ per. N/iut V •; • s' a* ;• • « • • ; • V . ivV/ • •*. c.r ■•.•■ •* . X ■*• 'a* * *•• • a ♦.. /.. • V>* -v-t»' ■ • * ■ >ry4 'a ?v.:,a • a \1 I... .'iil:-' • * f • • ‘ ♦ 9»l«f4Kr.ifU-t^03 7- «- a> I 9 «s ■ / Ul8i 1 X 3it SMEHNa pi ' M- • ^9 % • • • h - - ».•r . * ’ •• / 4«« ‘. Til o. ■iSCiC. r tr : • -t I., *• 1- ti r-<t . ♦«' r—iX^ .‘•I-*,.’ • *. . *• / HARDCO /SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXlSTlNCr HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _ alculation worksheet 75-250’ ‘ 250-500’ 500-1000' e^-( If z. Length Width B. <Haag»1Z.3 e>.3 C. Driveway D. Sidewalk X X E. Pado/Deck X X F. Landscape Underiain By Plastic X X X G. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property AREA IN ZONE + B /Z.C>4<=> + B _________ raoposED HApnrnvER IN ZONE ■ ” “ /4.~7A. House /4.Z. Length Width s-ktd B. Oatage (Z.S 83> C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pado/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plasdc 1^^ Q. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B ____ #2916 IDZ It. 73 ZsGf \-7 O 40 X 100 - X 100 - •Z./.3 ZD? laz itlZ> /3 iz. o40 xlOO -Z/.3 =.6)SE. S.F.^ SE. SE. JE.^ SE. SE. SE. SE. SE>—^ SE. SE. SE. ^(3 SE. A SE. B % 5.F.(gf> SE.(^ SE. SE. SE. S.F. SE. SE. SE. SE. SE. SE. S.F. A S.F. B % • /HARDCOVER CALCUUUON WORKSHEET 'SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* ^5-250* ^ 250-500' 500-1000' PyijgTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House li( Lengthz.X X X Width S9 B. Qara^X C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X O. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B /AtoSO X 100 X 100+ B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Length /(r>__ Width 'Uo ^4,7 /z B. Garage C. Driveway __X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pado/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A A 3D * B X 100 M- •^1'? . A " ••JL O ! - /Z- mo Z47 40 / ^(o9>o \\i6> 3z:a (oO 2.5^ kG) S.F SR SR. SR. SR.® SR. SI.(S) SR. SR.^ SR. S.F. S.F. SR. SR. SR. SR. % A B SR. SR.^J) SR® SR.(i^ SR. S.F. SR. SR. SR. SR. li b>so SR. 23.7 • % A B 6-2^1 RUN DATE: 6^17/2003 3> 2III7232IOOOI PROPADDR 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RO OWNER NAME PR&LCEKIIOLM TAXPAYER PAUL R EKHOLM NAME/ADOR 2606 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN SS33I 31 2111723210007 PROPADDR 260S WEST LAFAYETTE RO OWNER NAME B LA DM BLANKENSHIP TAXPAYER BRADFORD A DEBRA BLANKENSHIP NAME/ADDR 2603 WEST LAFAYETTE RO EXCELSIOR MN 33331 HENNEPIN CX3UNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 2111723210003 PROPADDR 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME D J OLSON A B J BOWERS TAXPAYER DOUGLAS 3 OLSON NAME/ADDR 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RO FJICELSIORMN 55331 38 2111723210002 PROPADDR 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME PHILUP J SMITH ET AL TAXPAYER PHILLIP J SMITH NAM E/ADDR 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 35331 38 2111723240043 PROPADDR 2610 WEST LAFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME CYNTHIA N ENCQUIST TAXPAYER CYNTHIA N ENOQUIST NAME/ADDR 2610 LAFAYETTE ROW EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS TT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO THE BEST ^ ^ OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. , ------- DATE(LiZ£j BY PAGE: I 'I .• I >* t. Hennepin . t- Hennepin County^;jv:i^^p^gS« ^“"artirop^ijggpyTaxpayer Services bepaiiimepl: fti Parcel Information JL \ reel ID 2111723210002 House Number 26C0 ^ •tree! Name WEST LAFAYETTE RD Thi» Is not* legally mconMmap. HnpnsanUacompaaOonofMomiatton. and data 6om City. County, and State road authortlias and other sources iL 159.500 a-/ K .W-W-' k^.J, V*h ■ i i^' . >'V,V«»*:. ■ ,?Syy&Yj mrm r .’^’ ■ rf Rr-r ■ ;^'J |‘v ij ’iv"-ll^ ■;1«:V. - T - ^{.f h: S^JS^ .• ";\ m 'M ^ ;•>! ?-• i'-;; £i;-•.'•■' % », ^•: '3V > ;'J n>’. ■1 - ■-• • ? ' . !> ‘•'v; .• 'jmm^ •• ’ ‘'iS^: VMk '• ;;C ■r --^' tJT- • # *' I ’■fe- *r • '.^ fv^r.;->' ■ r s r i’ ^ .*i \ v^ ; ■* f«v? f |r ♦ 1 UV -•■-: A «•te 'VfV / > Wtt: ISMi' 'y' ■ -:*i. . a‘‘ \ ■ •' ’ ^ 7V >* J?'-. > ■' ■ mm^A ■ ■ if.- " ' . i *^4 •*'5 '^/ H 4 :W ' V»: '"yp .4 .si ■/ s sw m • -# .• I ^ry: fc'.^ .V- • / •> V ; •> t ^le 'A. f- IWK—------ - T?, ,.•• •■V * 1. -• -•‘i 2^#^. ■*#i{-’- v,'.- \^f£\/J r^©/v fr^-lWATlT w \ iN) t ..»« iw . Neighborhood Recommendation Orono Plan Commission Neighbors of Phil & Jennifer Smith July 19.2003 Variance Request #03-2916,2600 West Lafayette Road Members of the Planning Commission; We, the neighbors of Phil and Jennifer Smith, would like to support the Smiths in their variance application. We Understand; 1. Phil and Jennifer Smith have made application for a variance to allow them to build; a. a screen porch, b. an addition to the front of the existing garage, and c. a partial second story (which is within the 75* setback) 2. The Smith’s proposed to add 601 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 75-250’ zone and reduce 300 sq. ft. of existing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone (a I for 2 ratio). 3. City stafThas recommended approval of the variance application, with the condition that hardcover be reduced 1 for 1. We have b^n provided with a copy of the Planning Director ’s memo dated July 16,2003. Our Recommendation; Given the special issues in this neighborhood, we recommend that the Plan Commission grant the variances as requested by the Smiths, specifically the proposal to reducing 1 sq. ft. of hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area for every 2 new sq. ft. in the 75 to 250’ area. Name Address Signature Date i 2(0£ ^zc/cj 'LM CeHt 20, oi f L7 -SJ *v r/i.-. .\ * .- .. •: • 9^^Crltxm •*. .• -.‘>*jy*-^^Parcellnformation ircel ID 2111723210002 Street Name WEST LAFAYETTE RD House Number 2600 ^ t\. This Is not a legaOy racooM map. It npnsants a compSaOon of lf0dma6dnl(. and data from City, County, and Stata road authoddas and othar sources. • _______ . • • • • L l(we) ___AdJtcBt Property Owners’ Acknowledgement Form 6</ionik\ [print Dame(8)1 of 0^r/1^t7TY ^ • [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the proMrty located at 2fran IjO ♦ referred to as Land Use Application No. Ci? ^ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use Property Owner Property Owner Date I (we [print address]Xprint name(s) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located atnave reviewea me plans tor me proposeo unprovcmcDi or piopuscu vi uic ^■^621 also referred to as Land Use Application I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare ai^roval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner ^ Property Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 8 .* • ?L Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form I (we) [print name(s)] CLU CD UP UiJtwc.^c/' [print address] ^ have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. ^I>OL.vr Property Owner -j \ u:>\ o'^ Date Property Ovraer 'J ) io I Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property- or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Own 7 / Date If you have any infotmation that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 8 „jiiA s AdjMCBt Pf»p«rty Owntrt* Aclai«»rledgem«t Form [priDt^nunKs)] [Pri"* •r."Tf z-jsr ““ “ ^ I (we) am (are) of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use leciuircs Council ippioval. Fropo^ Owner (/O Date f^A^AiA PrdiWty Owner Q \ L Date *♦*•*************< I (wo) [print name(8)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or pr^^ use of the property kicated at also refened to as Land Use Application No.--------- I (we) undeistaiid that in executing this acknowledgem^ I (we)am (are) declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm that I (we) am (are) aware of foe improvement plans and that foe proposed nei^boi*s project or use requires Council approvaL Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days poor to foe sche^led meedng date. 8 ......................... Date Application Received: 06*18^3 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07><MMI3 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 09-08-03 JUL 2 8 2003 Oi»» ur ORONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 23,2003 Item No./r Department Approval: Name: Melanie Fothj^A^ Title: City Planner Administrator Approval:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 1^03-2918 - Bruce Singer, 330 Tonka Avenue - Variance - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: LR-1 A, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 acre/ 200’ width 18,750 s.f.± (0.43 acre) 150’ List of Exhibits: A - Resolution per Planning Commission Recommendation B - PC Action Notice 07-23-03 C - PC Memo & Exhibits of 07-21 -03 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances from lot area and width to construct a 2260 s.f. single family home on the 0.43 acre lot with a defined width of 150 ’. Planning Commission Recommendation On July 21,2003, Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the v'ariances from the lot area and lot width requirements. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. a. to* hmrliaiaailni A RESOLDTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.23 SUBDIVISION 6(B) FILE NO. 03-2918 WHEREAS, Bruce and Linda Singer, husband & wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 330 Tonka Avenue within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Minnesota Lots IS, 16 & 17, Block 5, Ba>-side Addition to Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23 Subdivision 6(B) to allow construction of a new single family home on a substandard lot. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Mimiesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2918. The property is located in the LR-IA Single Family Lakeshore Residential District, which requires minimum lot area of 2 acres and minimum lot width of200'. The area of the property is 0.43 acres (18,750 s.f.) and defined lot width is 150*. 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on July 21,2003 and recommended approval of the requested variances, based on the following findings: a) No additional land is available for acquisition by the applicants to make the property conforming in area or width. 1 id 4. 5. b) The property is served with municipal sewer. c) The combination of 3 lots with a total lot size of 0.43 acre is typical of lots in the immediate neighborhood. d) A single family residence can be constructed on the property without the need for further variances. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the public, and the effect of the proposed variances on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propeily 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 applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. • i I CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.23, Subdivision 6(B) to allow construction of single family home on a substandard lot based on the following conditions: 1 . Council approval is based on the revised site plan submitted by the applicant with City staff annotations, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (July 28,2004). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punt:'*able as a misdemeanor. 4. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the applicants ’ heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) r , STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this__day of ,2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instnunent was acknowledged before me on this day of .,2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. 1 Notary Public m. K inri liiiiniiiKiiti i m ■ a mi - STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN this day 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/afllrmation of credible witness ..a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN this day 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of ____whose identity I proved on the oath/aifirmation of, credible witness .,a and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public . j WHC le RCOUWCO. PROPOSED Cp|u»NO CEFTHRCATE OF,^RVEY 'V- AS-SURVEYED DESCRIPTIQNr LOTS 15-17. BLOCK 5. BAYSIOC ADDITION (TO LAKE MTKA). HENNEPIN COUNTY. MN TITLE INfORyATTON PRODDED BY CUCNT. AGENT OR COUNTY TAX MFORyARON: NO T1TU RESEARCH CONDUCTED. UNLESS NOTED 2SQ-SQO* QMW SETBACK LOT AREA: 13.220±Sr. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 3740A SJ, COVERAGE: 28X ... 50Q*~1QQ* QHW SETBACK PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 1601 S.E. LOT AREA: 5.5501S.F. COVERAGE: 0.3X TOTAL I ROPOSEO IMPERVIOUS AREA; 39001 total lot AREA; 1B.7701S.F. TOTAL COVERAGE: 21X CONTRACTOR NQTT; PROPOSED STRUCTURES SMOVM ARE GENERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF A PLAN PRO>mO BY CUENT AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE COMPLETE NOR ACCURATE. CONSULT ARCHITECTUAL PLAN FOR ANY AND ALL PROPOSED DESIGN FEATURES. DIMESMONS. ETC. IXfiUfi ^ nail * OR 5Pmt SET • MON MONUMENT FOUND O MQN PMC SET JM. NA«. * OR SPKC W/ BRASS DISK SET X4S 0 SPOT nXVATKM (AOO 900 FT) NO TILTHS SURVEY iS FOR THE WX BENEFIT OF THE MOl^mALS. corporations . ANO/OR PARICS NAMED 1HCRC0N > AND STANDARD OF WORK FOR SURVEYOR BASED UPON "NORMAL* STANDARD OF CARE REQUMEO BY LAW VERTICAL DATUM: NCVQ 192f PROPOSED ORiUNAOC jjo tonka AICNUE ORONO. MN 55123 BRUCE ic LINDA SINGER 1725 KNOX AVENUE S MPLS. MN 55403 612 - 868- 9369 1162 */r » © 2003 SURVEY SPCOAUSTS REPRODUCTION PROHBiTED I •RMtT coinrT mAf ««s mnmi has tun pmptm rv MK oa IV Mom umi mt mRUMMN AM) I AM A isoTA KasHuaw aa f MMCWU liisMiail [ • CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE //03-2918 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 23,2003 TO: Bruce Singer 1725 Knox Ave Minneapolis, MN 55403 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Lot Area and Lot Width PROPERTY: 330 Tonka Avenue DATE OF MEETING: July 21 ,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval as submitted; 1, Construction of a 2260 s.f. single family home on a lot with area of 18,750 s.f. (0.43 acre) and width of 150 ’ where required lot area and width are 2.0 acres and 200 ’ respectively. VOTE; 7 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28,2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call City Planner, Melanie Foth at 952-249-4627. ♦ .i* Date Application Received: 06<18-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07>09-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09-08-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Foth, City Planner j|^ July 16,2003 #03-2918, Bruce Singer, 330 Tonka Ave - Variance • Public hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Single Family Lakeshorc Residential, 2 Acre Lot Area: 18,750 s.f. (0.43 acre) Appiication Summary: Applicant requests variances to permit construction of a new residence on a lot with area of 18,750 s.f. (0.43 acre) and width of 150’ where required lot area and width are 2.0 acres and 200’ respectively. Sta/f Recommendation: Staff recommendations: a) Approval of the varia:ices as requested. Hardship: Deficient width and small lot size (0.43 acre) in a 2 acre district. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections » Section 10.23 Subd 6 (B): Lots: The minimum lot area for LR-1A is 2 acres. The minimum lot width shall be 200’. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Submitted Hardcover Calculations C - Existing & Proposed S'irvey/Site Plan D - Proposed Plans and Elevations E - Property Owners List F - Plat Map Background 'I he applicant requests a variance to construct a new residence on a substandard lot. The setbacks, hardcover, ami structure cover requirements have all been met based on the site plan provided by the applicant. As can be seen from the plat map, this combination of liu-ee lots is very cons’stent with the other developed lots in the neighborhood. V r* #02-2918 July 16,2003 Page! LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot ArcaAVidth; Setbacks; Structural Coverage; Hardcover Calculations: * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds * LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres)200 ’ Actual 18,279 s.f. (0.42 acre)150 ’ LR Required Existing Proposed Front 50 ’n/a 50 ’ Rear 50 ’n/a 50 ’ South Side 30 ’n/a 30 ’ North Side 30 ’n/a 30 ’ Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 18,279 s.f. (0.42 acre)Allowed: 2742 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2260 s.f. (12%) Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 250 - 500 13,270 s.f.3981 s.f (30%) 3825 s.f * (29 %) 3740 s.f (28 %) 500- 1000 5550 s.f 1942 s.f (35%) 350 s.f* (0.6 %) 160 s.f (0.3 %) w M2-29\S July 16,2003 Page 3 Hardship Statement Applicant should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis __________________________________________ 7/1 considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It b demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 3. ” The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 4. 5. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property e.xists under the terms of tlie Zoning Chapter." In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 6."The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a \ ariance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. It02-2918 « r. ■* • July 16,2003 Page 4 7."The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." N/A 8."The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." small lot size is not common in the 2 acre zone. The lot size in question is consistent with neighboring properties. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 9."The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The neighborhood is a small lot neighborhood, which is zoned for larger. The lot size is typical for the neighborhood. In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 10."The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment rr a substantial property right of the applicant." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. II."The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the variances as requested. , i m m f A CITV OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcaflon» Date Received (o~ t/('~ :loo'3. Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ 't'o kikr-A Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) oSij Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 5* • i ^ & S I (do)also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ____presidential ___pother (specify) Zoning District:_____________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name ^ <■ e Address: iTi^-V Icuok Ao X «> Phone (home) / V^/» ------ Phone (work) Ci^:_AA P c ^_________Zip: ff y* Vo a 0)\NER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City: Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Zip:^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost $ 2.SZ>, ^oo . (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQXnRED ^ • > X. Lot Area X Lot Width Setback;Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) _ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ^ ^ _ —* t— ^ . . J. . _ t . • a a • aaaw aDescribe undue hardship or practical^ difficulty or unusual^ property conditions prevenUng .Tcompliance with Zoning Code requirements:CL? (attach additional sheets if necessary) #•9 OTf 4 V-o i I I ti i A m • required submittals fer vour.application to bg cnt^p|y ^y «■^fder 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form C^rtifled Property Owners List of owners within 150' labeU nnft nu* / obtain this list, labels and man from ^“®P roust Govt Center. 348-5910). Department of Finance. A-603. ra<l« «e propose/ to*lSdMo™proWdo ”m'(^^ in existing you \mh notified of this application. eparate list of any other persons Additi mal items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this anDlicatinn pi. lMrlnnce .pp|it„,op „ ^ 3amt A A __________APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE i?n.ss;.'^cr^:/Sst“re“^ consultant expenses incurred in review of thic <m r *• ^'^Sioal fee payment) and/or supplied is Je .ndconectw^tVhi^ 4 'Applicant's Signature H Date (• * f • o ^ OWTVER’S SIGNATURE Jm ”:r l!,?pfo;:IS “^'IffTolua'nt "'*• "“0““' members for purposes of investigation ’and vcrificatioronhi^r^cTt!^" Wm m m Owner’s Signature Date— V— --------------—___ l-’rllC ' / P • ^ 5 Meeting. Planning ComnuTsSn McetbgfL^ heTd on thhd*M' Commission Applicants must be present at all scheduiprt r..n.____-x.^. «"=h month.Applicants must be present at all schedUlfd re^ew mcetinM ofth^ Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a schrdnt.ri Commission and have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise^Te change prior to the meeting. ® B^ldmg & Zonmg Office of this »i • I Vi - -V JL O. 1 f? 4 l|l 3 f7Ia SEnukOiiotau (cokusosxo ms* tmss* aasmaaAKDcavEB 4L Banat I 50MI ^r A GsRVf C Diinmff D. SUxveSk E. FcalfalDtdt 5S. 5.F. SS. ^.?Q £A iMKTj ss. * //O &F. ■&r. 5A 5if: A Ltniteept UadtiMn ttfrkaBe X X X 5A SLF. aOdm < itnw^BiRDoovEitiKsprar . njEtf. noFttarMEA ot.'/tlCl, + fl xiOO ' T~* Jir. • X IZiZ2CL-.*i^ ■ , 7^S ■ ‘ g Wtfff £««t^WliM • • X X X S.F. S.F. 5A A- G«t^AF. C DrtMWt^X X £F. SA 17. SUmdOi X X 5.F. S.F. E. FadciDtdc X X 5J\ £F. F. Ladtape Vndatdn BUfUastic CrMric X X X &F. SJf. S.F. C. Olhtr SS. TOTAL B4MDOOVER Of ZONE - TOTAL rOOFOITAMEA JNZONE A ____________ ♦ F'xm - £F. A _____&F. « \ B I _______J _.U^ |JT.5 S3 iS s SBMBACKXOltEi (CtMCLEONJ^ ffX!smQaMQamtmwm 7sa»> 4L Hanu r<rsz3 yTr- B. Gavge C Drhtw^ D. Sidewalk £ Tedo/Dedt F. laadseep* Uaded/dn SpSloide OrFdbde Q. -Other X X X wm X X X X X X X X X .5F. SF. .S.F, ,SF. _SF. .S.F. .5F. ,SF. ,SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. TOTAL BAKHXfVEX INXOffE - TOTAL PROFERTTAKEA IN ZONE , • + B Mj^^^BARD^RINTlnef Un$A ^ xioo ^•Fm * A _______& ^ ^ -7 6-g^O. SF X X X B. Oarage ^ac^kt^ SF. SF. SF. - JLrrr, C. Drteeway A/r '^ueSeJj <^^J8r v D. Sidewalk E. PadclDedc F. Landstxpe VndeHai.% By Plastic OrFcbric ACb <7. OihtT X X X X X X X X X 20.6vo -p<o SF. jc«> SF. r Jcli '7 c30 S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. TOTAL BAMDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL FROPEKITAMEA JN20NE ^ ____________ ♦ J 3^.Ac>SF. A xJOO - .4>Sd£Q^SF. 3 :z£i -fi ^B/-?cu3 .< # s.3SO -TdAJKi,^/9i^&. o/Sc>A/o,n*i/ »UiB3UXM}tKJi,%JAULMlJUMni nUKhUtUBAM ^ SBraACKwaSi (coczbom? w nv tsi^soo A. Banu ^7v> ffc? X ________________ ■• _____ '/^t SJf. Mtk X X X SJP. 'S.F. ‘S.F. B. Cange C. PrheiM X X SJF. D. SldrHdtr £. Fada/D^dt X X X X Fa iMiicept UaiaUdn BjflaaAc OrFtMc X X X S.F. SF. "• IS.F. ^ S.F. S S^. A\ a. -Ikher ^ ^ S.F. ' TOTALBARDCOVEKOtZeWB - total FROFEKrtAFEA DtXOSE A ____________ + B _xlQO ?st» SS. • A ier-^ S.F. B fpnpQsgp nAKOcavBR m zone A. House S.F UngA WtAk X X X S.F. 5.F. S.F B. Cange S.F. C. Drivewciy X X S.F S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. 5.F. E. FaAolDetM X X S.F. S.F. F. laAscape VrJeiUAn By Plastic OrFdbrtc S.F S.F. S.F. C. Other SS. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ■ TOTAL FROPEIOTASEAJNZONZ A _____________ * » - S.F. A SLF. S XJOO - J^-4>Li<A /S' ^/&nx>3 »• .• 0 m I •!«)» 4 SSIBACKtOfO: i \BA J-rg A. Baa* BONB} JIL MS 9S4S§‘ Jt > ’/ rfi\l ‘ *' • k .• / B, Qanf* C Dthtmff J>. Sldn*dk 9 £. Pattons F. tambc^ UnUUn BynatHe QrFAtic X X X O. -Othgr j • PROPOSED HARD€XmRiNXOS^ A. Bouse Unsfk X X X B* Oaroii C. Drtvevoaf X X D. Sidewalk X X E* Pedo/Dedc X X F. Luidscape Vndirloln By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL Ba KDCOVER IN. total fHOPBCrrASEAJBZONZ ^ ------------------- ♦ J ^ llA i^r JMM09* SS. XF. _XF. &F. SJF. XF. __XF. XF. X^. X^. XF, SJ. TOTAL HABDCOYEK. tNZONE - TOTAL nONOarAKEA INZOSE A. ____________ + P T XF •• ^ Xi00 »___XF B _______% am XF S^. S.K X,F XF \C XF XF XF. XF XF XF. ,.S/v XF. XF. X,F. i_i>Q X/00 _XF A SCO SLF »• '7/t:l7co3 ♦ J r ?T. \^:Y V^^'V'? 4 •MlLit HUUU'^U. msJ^sjJUi \^MHQ TO K OONC BY OTWCRS.I f«|i‘r* 'II* \ L 0 T 1 11^ CERTIFICATE OF, ^URVEY 3 .% MC i.‘ { i c tm' »• tin# \ >wX_A raoposcp onvc 3 » I L 0 I ■u© • N U S N tMAii mccs 'i U*Mi ^!>i3 4 Si3 I------4 (M K DOMtiNC nv^TTi^ A*;sLiufn SCAIE IN FCET AS-SURVTYgD DKCRIPTIQM- LOTS lS-17. OlOCX S. OAYSIOC AOCmON (TO LAKE MIKA). MtMNLI'UI COUNTY. MN TmC INTORyATION PROVIOCO DY QICNT. ACCNT OR COUNTY TAX INfORUATlOH; NO THU RCSEARCH CONOUCTCO, UNLESS NOTtO 25Q:^Lqhw setback LOT AREA: 13.220±S.F. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: J740± SS. COVERACE:28X 500*-1QQ* OHW SETBACK PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS XREA: lOOt ST. LOT AREA: 5.550±ST. COVERACE:0.3X total proposed impervious AREA:3900i TOTAL LOT AREA: 10.77OiS.F. total C0VERACe*2IX CONTRACTOR? NOTE: PROPOSED STRUCTURES SHORN ARE general REPRESENTATIONS OF A P|>N PROVIOCO OY CUENT ANO ARE NOT •NaAOCO TO BE COMPLETE NOR ACaWATE. CONSULT ARCHITECTUAL PLAN FOR ANY ANO AU PROPOSED OESKiN FEATURES^ OUdCbMONS. ETC. IZctM} ^ NAN. A OR SPKC SET • RON monument FOUND O RON PRC SET ’ .AK NAA. A OR SPKC W/ GRASS ST X4S.0 SPOT acvARON (Aoo too /r) i. J ( T LieIMK I --------------MQ1L.W SUR^ IS FOR THE SOLE BCNCnT OF THE KXVIOUALS, CORPORATIQNSL ANO/DR PARTIES NAMCO TKRCON. ^ AND STANDARD OF MURK FOR SURVEYOR 8ASC0 UPON *N0RMAL* STANOAHO of care REQUMEO BY LAN BRUCE 3c LINDA SINGER 1725 KNOX AVENUE S, MPLS. MN 554U3 612-660-9309 KRT1CAL OAIUM: NCVO 1129 PROPOSED ORAMACC PPQCCRnLAORCSi.XkJ lUNKA A^LMOC ORONO. MN SS323 1162 A S urvey 4^ SPErtAtJfSTS * WAUT oawt »<Ar MS mAoir mas iiiu « m^mo K or 9T Mc iMu «? b«ur a^MIAON AIA I AM A MtUOiAi AIKCTVI «Mt« A NOUMCO ■ n*.mn nm »> n 4*^ 4- . i TV < Z O' m •k *• pNvfeuU'f \^ V'-----—---------------l'IL“ I ■ r- 'X* ^ ^&rtn»cAfis \i__1. fcsO'S^rh (B o:) ^11^ -ftAM ic^Wgs f//^‘'« I L^<i ■iKiJi^p^l/ne^l p9^ I d|ft?*4ee<V|, iJa 0/s/^5 %. «» I I • I UrrEK L£V£L fLAKI V up ' ! . .f' . ...faiii... / • . *•: \ V .*> r ► s. I' O V. V 1 o ■ •<^35^'3k E KUNUAIlirtflWiUtJ 31 (Ul1723130021 PROPAOOR 293 TONKA AVE OWNER NAME MICHAEL M SCHMITZ TAXPAYER MICHAEL M SCI IMITZ NAME.AOOR 293 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 0311723140024 PROPAOOR 283 CRESTVIEWAVE OWNER NAME SANORA J NICCUM TAXPAYER SANORA 1 NICCUM NAME/ADOR 283 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 35336 38 03II723I4003I PROPAOOR 323 CRESTVIEW AVE OWNER NAME WILLIAM L SULLIVAN TAXPAYUl WILLIAM SULUVAN NAME/AOOR 8417 RECENT AVE N 8103 UKOOKLYNPAKKMN 33443 38 031I723I400S2 PROPAOOR 3390 OAYSIOERO OWNER NAME BARBARA JOANNE HUOER TAXPAYER BARBARA JOANNE HUBER NAMEMOOR 3390 BAYSlOE RD LONG LAKE MN 33336 % HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 38 0311723130029 PROPAOOR 38 AOORESS UNASSICNEO OWNER NAME ESTHER M AOOISON TAXPAYER ESTHER M AOOISON NAME/AOOR 3382 BAYSlOE RO LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 0311723130030 PROP AOOR 3400 BAYSlOE RO OWNER NAME O&S ESTERS TAXPAYER DANirX & SANORA ESTERS NAME/AOOR 3400 BAYSlOE RO LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 0311723140023 PROPAOOR 283 CRESTVIEWAVE OWNER NAME SANORA J NICCUM TAXPAYER SANORA J NICCUM NAME/AOOR 283 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 0311723140030 PROPAOOR 315 CRESTVIEWAVE OWNER NAME R A EOOINCTON/T J EDDINGTON TAXPAYER ROBERT & TAMARA EDDIHCTON NAME/AOOR 315 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 3333C 3P 0311723140033 PROP AOOR 38 AOORESS UNASSIGNELt OWNER NAME BERT L AOOISON ETAL TAXPAYER MRS A L AOOISON NAME/AOOR 3382 BAYSlOE RD LONG LAKE MN 33336 38 0311773140039 PROP AOOR 340 TONKA AVE OWNER NAME PATRICK J SKEIE TAXPAYER PATRICK J SKEIE NAME/AOOR 3710 NORTH ARM OR MOUNOMN 33304 38 03II723I4006I PROPAOOR 280 TONKA AVE OWNERNAME PA«lKSSKOOG TAXPAYER PIIIUP & KAREN SKOOO NAME/AOOR 280 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN S:336 38 0311723140062 PROPAOOR 330 TONKA AVE OWNER NAME BRUCE SINGER » 5INCER TAXPAYEP. BRUCE SINGER & LINDA SINGER NAME/AOOR 330 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 33336 1 CERTIFY THATTHB FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEP. DATE O'-BY PACE: I - i. . . 1 ji. Hennepin V* u*' • * • •yy **• • - V.iliMMi ■■ Hennepin Countpli^^^^if Taxpayer Semces 7 . Parcel Information arcel ID 0511723140062 ouse Number 330 Street Name TONKA AVE This Is not a hgslty ncofdsd map. It reprsssnts • eomfOstkxi ofMomshon and data from City, County, and State road authorities and othar sources. • m a ........... Date Application Received: 6*18^3 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6-18-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 8-17-03 JUL 2 6 2005 cn y Of OHONO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: July 23,2003 Item No.: Departmeat Approval:Administrator Approval: Name: Janice WaatajaJ|) Title: City Planner Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #03-2921 Edward H. Hamm, 485 Orono Orchard Road S - CUP - Resolution Zoning District: Lot Area: Lot Width: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2-acre minimum) 21.408 acre (932,549 s.f.) 2,185’ List of Exhibits A - Resolution pet Planning Commission Recommendation D - PC Action Notice 7-23-03 C - PC Memo and Exhibits of 7-16-03 Application Summary: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an entrance gate. The entrance gate is considered an accessory building and because the lot is a through lot a conditional use permit is required. The proposal meets all conditional use permit standards. Planning Commission Recommendation On July 21,2003 the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approve of the conditional use permit subject to it meeting the 50 foot rear yard setback requirement, which is the only standard required by Zoning Ordinance. Staff Recommendation Approval per the attached Resolution. COUNCIL action REQUESTED Adopt the attached Resolution granting a conditional use permit for 485 Orono Orchard Road S A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 10 FILE NO. 03-2921 WHEREAS, Edward H. Hamm*, Trustee, (hereinafter “the applicant”) is the owner of the property located at 485 Orono Orchard Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as follows: See Exhibit B (hereinafter the ‘property”); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 10 to allow the installation of an entrai>ce gate at the rear entrance to the property which is considered a “through lot” by City Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. 2. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2921. The property is located in the RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District, which requires a minimum lot area of 2 acres and a minimum lot width of 200*. The lot conforms to width and area requirements. •as Trustee under the Trust of Edward H. Hanun originally established on August 14,1992, as subsequently amended and restated in its entirety by Amendment and Restatement of Trust of Edward H. Hamm dated October 10, 1995, and as furth.r amended and restated by Amendment and Resutement of trust of Edward H. Hamm dated February 26,1999. •. 9. < « Page 1 of 5 •#* 3.The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on July 21, 2003 and recommended approval of the conditional use permit based on the following findings: a. The property has frontages in the front and rear of the property making it a through lot. b. The entrance gate is considered an accessory structure, and c. The location of the proposed entrance gate will be setback so as to meet the 50’ rear yard setback required. 4.The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the public, and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5.The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the installation of an entrance gate, considered an accessory structure, on a through lot will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of tbs property will be in keeping with the intent and objections of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 10 to allow the installation of an entrance gate, subject to the following conditions: 1.Council approval is based on the site plan submitted by the applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. Any amendments to the site plan which are not in conformity with City codes or the scope ol this approval will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2.Authorities granted by this resolution nm with the property not with the applicant, but are pennissive only and must be e.xercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council approval, or the conditional use permit will expire on that date (July 28,2004). f Page 2 of 5 .*« 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicant and the applicant ’s heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 28'*' day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner Edward H. Hunm, Trustee* •as Trustee under the Trust of Edward H. Hamm originally established on August 14, 1992, as subsequently amended and restated in its entirety by Amendment and Restatement of Trust of Edward H. Hamm dated October 10, 1995, and as further amended and restated by Amendment and Restatement of trust of Edward H. Hamm dated February 26,1999. Page 3 of S * ♦ 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of , 2003 by Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota' - w 0 0 -------------------^ 9 —" municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _ day of , 2003 by Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota . • « * A Amunicipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Page 4 of 5 1i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this_day of , 2003,personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this_day of , 2003, appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of personally whose identity I proved on the oath/afTirmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and aclaiowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 •MHBCBnMi KUcDofiald A Mick AldlMKtt.111 •—— ^ . . s:rsgs^ dz: nMMHiii /-r Ir ’*Mf.Etfww< Him _ v.>. OATO a:> A1 « ^ I tm EXHIBIT 1. That part of the Southwest Quarter, which lies North of the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, of Section 2, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 2; thence South along the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 434.3 feet to a point designated and hereinafter referred to as “Point A”; thence northwt'terly deflecting 101 degrees 43 minutes to the right from last described course a distance of 1C2 feet: thence northwesterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 4,687.5 feet a cisiance of 60 feet; thence northwesterly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 222.45 feet a distance of 200 feet; thence northerly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 237..56 feet a distance of 175 feet; thence northerly on a tangential curve to the right with a radius of 527.4?. feet a distance of 50 feet; thence northeasterly on a line tangent to last described curve a distance of 62.55 feet to a point in the South line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 2 distant 360 feet West of the point of beginning; thence continuing northeasterly on an extension of last described course a distance of 48.55 feet; thence northerly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 181.4 feet a distance of 100 feet; thence northwesterly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 283.7 feet a distance of 125 feet; thence northwesterly on a line tangent to last described curve a distance of 267.4 feet; thence northwesterly deflecting 2 deg-^ees 23 minutes to the left from the last described course a distance of 169.3 feet; thence northwesterly and westerly on a tangential curve to the left with a radius of 61.13 feet a distance of 64.62 (43.01 measured) feet, more or less, to a point designated and hereinafter referred to as “Point B”, said point being in the West line of the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 2 exclusive of highway upon easterly side thereof, said East Half being ascertained after taking from the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said section said highway upon easterly side, and which “Point B” is 636.66 (625.61 measured) feet North of the southwest comer of said East Half so ascertained; thence North along the West line of said East Half so ascertained a distance of 679.85 feet to the northwest comer thereof; thence East along the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 2 to the northeast comer of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section; thence South along the East line of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section to the point of beginning. Subject to and together with an easement for right of way for driveway purposes over a strip of land along the southerly and westerly boundary lines of the premises above described and extending from above designated “Point A” along said boundary line to above designated “Point B’’, said strip of land being 16 feet in width, 8 feet on each side of the line forming the southerly and westerly boundary of the premises hereinabove first described. Also subject to public easement in existing highways. 2. Also that part of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 2, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at the northeast comer of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 2 exclusive of the highway upon easterly side thereof said West Half being ascertained after taking from Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of JUiiife r • • said Section 2 said highway upon easterly side; thence South along the East line of said West Half so ascertained a distance of679.85 feet, more or less, to a point distant 636.66 feet North of the southeast comer of said West Half; thence deflecting right at an angle of 83 degrees S3 minutes on a line bearing South 83 degrees 53 minutes West a distance of 33.68 feet; thence South 82 degrees 41 minutes West a distant of 66.32 feet; thence northwesterly in a straight line 710.6 (721.11 measured) feet, more or less, to a point in the North line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 2 distant 237 feet West of the point of beginning; thence East along said North line 237 feet of the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for right of way for driveway purposes over the southerly 16.5 feet of said last described tract. And together with an easement for like purposes over a strip of land 16.5 feet in width lying southerly of and immediately adjacent to the southerly line of the premises hereinabove last desrribed, and between the southerly extensions of the easterly line and westerly line of said premises last described. I Vi •• •• CITV OF ORONO 2759 Ktlleir Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE: #03-2921 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 23,2003 TO: Tom Roddy 485 Orono Orchard Road S Orono, MN 55391 COPIES: Stuart MacDonald MacDonald & Mach Architects 712 Grain Exchange Building Minneapolis, MN 55415 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: July 21,2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval, subject to the gate meeting a 50 foot setback from the rear property line. VOTE:6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confumed as: City Council - Monday, July 28,2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from Ae City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call City Planner Janice Waataja at 952-249-4623. sI WM922 July 21.2003 Pig* 1 of5 1(0 Date Application Received: 6-18-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 7-9-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 9-7-03 To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Janice Waataja, City Planner July 17,2003 03-2922, Mike Cashman, 1655/1685 Fox Street, - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre min.) 1655 Fox Street: 12.153 acres (529,379 s.f.) 1685 Fox Street: 10.1 acres (439,957 s.f.) 1695 Fox Street: 7.463 acres (325,067 s.f) Outlot A, Hanser Addition: .215 acres (9,346 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests a wetland setback variance to allow the placement of address monuments. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Denial of the wetland setback variance due to a lack of a viable hardship. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.55.8: Development Restricted; Prohibition. “Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plan and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof...” List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - Survey D - Sketch of Proposal E - Monument Design F - Photographs G - Property Owners List H - Plat Map Background The following properties consist of the same parent parcel. 1685 Fox Street: • April 1992: Preliminary approval of a 5 lot subdivision (expired, never final platted) -September 1992: CUP approval for a guest house • ♦ • • - February 1993; CUP approval to allow additional excavation of ponding area M3-2922 July 21,2003 Pag*2 ofS 1695 Fox Street: - September 1992: CUP approval for a guest house Wetland Setback Variance .......... The applicant has expressed a need for a more defining address marker. Currently small address sign sits veiy low to the ground on the side of the private drive The Z rid” ''°PPi"8 “‘i a Thus, the applicant is requesting a wetland setback variance to allow the placement of the result of a wetland delineation but rather the wetland boundaric.s that were recognized when the property ^s platted. After a site visit, staff has concluded that the wet Jd boundmes depicted on the survey are not accurate. The wetlands appeared to have gotten larger (especially on the wstero side ofthe drive) and staflfMieves both stone monuments would actually be closer to the wetland than what the survey is showing (15' There also is ra line of vegetation along the road. The monuments ate being p^Zms rxltte dri^”'->• Hardship Statement The applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. uraoeasKed Hardship Analysis properly In the surrounding area. The Ptannln • Commission shall eontiZT V enforcement nould cause undue hardship because of circumstances unltpte to the tndvUuat Staff finds that a viable hardship does not exist. The purpose to me address monuments IS to better identify the private drive. After a site visit, staff feels that the split rail fences that border the comers are more denning than if they were removed and replaced with address monuments. Tins is due to the extensive vegetation along the roadway. Also, the dK)3-292a July 21.2003 Page3ofS wetlands and associated vegetation extend almost to the pavement of the private drive. Should address monuments be placed approximately 15 ’ from the roadway and private drive they would be almost in the wetland possibly affecting the structural integrity of the monuments over time. Therefore, staff feels that a wetland setback variance should not be granted based on sight visibility issues and alternatives should be examined. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for ’’undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1. 2. 4. 5. 6. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Should a variance be denied, the property can still be put to a reasonable use due to the existing nature of the property. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The vegetation and wetland located at the entrance to the property are unique circumstances. Should the Planning Commission determine that there is a hardship: the wetlands should be delineated to confirm the magnitude of the variance. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.' Address monuments exist in other areas of the city and would not alter the essential character of the locality. “Economic consideratioiis alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Not applicable “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Not applicable "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." Not applicable • t r 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. MU-2922 July2l.200J „ Page 4 of 5 "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” Not applicable “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” Wetland exists along this section of Fox Street. "•^e conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." There are wetlands located along this section of Fox Street causing the adjacent properties homes to be setback substantially and served with private drives. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting or not panting of the variance will not impair the applicant ’s right of Preservation and enjoyment of their property. •The granling of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning The proposed vorlance, whether granted or not, may affect the safety of the fmX/tn ofr™"' Commission should decide whether the tZfZefhe •The granting of such variance wil l not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." ^""'”'f'On should decide if the proposed monuments would serve comenience and whether they would alleviate sight visibility issues.as a Issues for Consideration 7 lllonM f".ithin the wetland setback?2. Should the sight visibility triangle be obstructed'^ 3. Due to the topography and tree line, would the address monuments improve the visibility of the dri ve entrance, or does the split rail fence suffice? ^ 5* l7ihHo/«tinn compromised due to the wet soils? wetlands and vegetation constitute a hardship, and approval of 6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? I «03-3922 jHly21,2003 Page 5 ofS Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the wetland setback variance because the applicant has not demonstrated that sight visibility issues would improve with the placement of address monuments in place of the existing split rail fence. # EfSr^biir IK 'i Application'# Z'2^ Date Received /p> / Amount Paid QSO- ^ o CITY OF ORONO - V^I^MCF APPLICATION Initial Application Fec^WSO^O^^ (S50.00 per each addUlonaTvariance) Renewal Variance Fee $159.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2S0.00 Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION i Site Address \L<S^ ^ JFc^)C ________________________ Property Identification Number fP.I.D.) 03- ll-»» 23 W y oz nn 33 33 It IJ *4* * IC 11- XJ-LLJAttach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propsaly Acquired______________________ I (do) fdon^ also own th^djacent parcels of land. PresentSise^propeity: X resident! (month/year) other (specify). Zoning District: APPLICANT __ANT__ , i-m4^lnaK*‘7 is: (rin Phone (home). Name Address: (i lit ____ Phone (work) City: Zip: ^7yz^ OVSNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: lUhS' f^X Phone (home) ____ Phone (work) 9X2- City: _________Zio: S\fJ9/ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ / Describe request in detail: lAJe_ vefii<r<- •lo )otu.U ol-gAAvctt P«fto.vs iJcFUwli ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ad4tress fid VARIANCES REQUIRED I^t Area yX Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcoyer Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) (1/rl )ND1TI(&SHARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITP Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propeny conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ % • (attach additional sheets if necessary) JJLC^O) O' jy f • •• required SUBI^TTALS 2 “V Application Fonn ' ~ ¥-.*rrs ’ property. His would include na^Si „? ? “'' »«> » imerest in th. AddiSfal"h«« of -y othlfpetsons - «» ro^oerted by City staff. ............ The Applicant and Property Owner «,,«* • ,. . ARPLICANT'S SIGNATURE • -fi^SlUacluded, Applicarifs Signature OWTVER'S signature / --------— The outier hereby acknowledges and aereec t« »»,• ... entry onto the property bv Citv «tarr^ f ®PPhcation and further anttio ■ 3. 4. # 5. 6. 7. 8. Date a;;i:»..s n!r '^^"Moudir:? ^r‘“‘r h^r^lUortze'CT^^^^^ change prior to the 4etinr *^0 B*«Sin“&'^,S„;[!S^~ k.;Ci 't'^t ••• ... ..rr* X • .• V •; ;' ^ £ V • ^ ^ ^ i 4 JUN-17-2003 11552 PRU 552 476 7991 P.01/01 \ REQVIKED SUBMITTALS #•\ \ 1. c/tP^^ 2. 4. O 6. 7. 8. of th» foUovtag InformaHon must be sobmittcd by the application dendline dat# |n ci»d»X for vour applicatiOB to be coinldered complttg; ^ __ Completed Application Fonn * __ ' Certified Property Owners List of owne« within 150 ’, labels and pUt map (you must obtain this list, labels and map fiom Hennepin County Department of Finance A>603 Govt Center, 348*5910). ’ __ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed $urv<^or) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8J4" x ll" for reproduction. __ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 ‘/j" x 11 ” for, reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & clevatioa views (provide one (1) copy 8W x U"). __ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current ovmei(s). ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. —•*• ---------- * __ Additional items as may be requested by City staffl The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour varlapce_applicntiou is not complete if the above iiiformatlon has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The ^plicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by origizul fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the informatioa supplied is true and correct to (he best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature Date a 7 OWNER'S SIGNATI The owner hereby aclmowledgss and agrees to this applicanon and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the properly by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. O-.vnet's Signature ^Date AppUcar.t must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review rneetings of the Plann'mg Commission and Council. If an applicant is ucable to attend a scheduled luceting, please maJve arrangements to have an autnotiacd agent attend in your place and to advise the Building it Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ___. •• • c.-i;., '^. .<1 O J b, ,rt 4^ it.--' • 06.14.03 Ci^of Orono Re: Hardship for 1655 and 1685 Fox Street We are requesting the setback from wetlands be reduced per the appHcation to allow for address pillars to be installed at the curb and driveway per site m^. Address piilars are allowed by the City of Orono. The 26 ’ setback from the wetlands prevents the opportunity to properly identify the hidden driveway The pillar will help prevent a safety problem of sudden stops on the main road’ The reduced setback will not interfere with the wetland nor the integrity of the land. 6182 Olson Memorial Highway.Golden Vallqy. MN 55422 Phone7635454123 Fm763-5454266 .t # tfMil ------- *6 1 ................................. I-ililB ir*n I/) GO •• r %•» • •• • :• *«•/ V ( .1 f • .' • V \ V.' : • 'j•A:-..' .•• < .' * y.;• • •Jt n • .1^ • • *• •• " ^ U L Sreee^r liWiiifl^iiin^i 7. 21 0" X 16 ” concrete block elec. In tO|j view A s 6" ai rl I ~T~ 1 \!• ji 1 Vied lights Entrance Monuments/Markers - Qty: 1 of each Similar to San Francisco Cobblestone*, with caps similar to Buckskin Cap* ’ Panel Is inset within stone (approx. 3*') and has a concealed reveal on top, providing an area for iiiumination. Panel has attached 3/8" thick aluminum dimensional letters. A' I k.— 2’-6" - . 23/4 •*.j I 2-0 ’ • y - ■ ,r 4" —,f 5‘-9l/Z’ 5’-0" ! I . ' i ^ Pier and pad footing p 1 . .. j) > f-' '/• •■ A • t» •‘T.• V.’. • •• ••.••? -^ ■ ^^nr% • .'•• A ^ T^n**** •?••*ri •••Vf**'• --I.* •. /*• ‘./•/r *.•*»•■ » ‘-’■■^aA i\^ •«*.• m i*i' , ^'y-ti.'- f|a v-.< 4'*’. *r*%*. *»• ;' • ,*• • ! •:-^uJr.. X- ■•» •' m mm ST.’xv 1^MV: v;.. V/#•% '•*..< nwMm' i.V-:S l*,.*?J ’-' "r- "M' - '✓ ' ,** •' *'’• ' l2_ » ■■ ♦•.!-, Jn% V iBl " ' - ^ r*.^ ■ ..iv. -V,- ' i’ 4 r*I'C:..;fe-:"'/'*'■■ j • . '! .. I >Ti^A^«4iS4S5U,sa:f:T-"v >-.».- -, • « •>.cu ’ . ■•■■j.rj'.tj i ’ : '., i>s*s%»i •«-• -\ ^ ^ • WL' i »*• >**•* . f i ' •T"^ i *,*''•' 4 . 41. » ‘•.. « ' 4^ ______ -fc.%rr &•'''* fci#5. mt I " ' WPII 'J' li" "P ^• W - wPt -'i''■ •''• <;■;■ '■ :■ • i-iv- •" ■' /'Lm i : \ i»' <»^y— mmmfir> ife?''; ;'Svm ___...:>i' . #.-V .. ’ •'^ • '• r >. *#\ ,.r,ir¥K^f52ffl fe..vf^VJ • ' -lij < ‘;.. * **^ •r- » . . VI . f. I / W;#<t»Jv • \. *• ■ • •» .■ • 4 . •* • • '. RUNDATU:6/1 3R 0211723)20003 PROPAODR IMOFOXitT OWNER NAME i A NOLAN & J A NOLAN TAXPAYER JOI IN A NOUN A JOAN A NOUN NAME/ADDR 1540 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0211723330010 PROP ADDR 1410 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME A HARRISON A I L HARRISON TAXPAYER ALFRED A INGRID LI lARRlSON NAME/ADDR 1410 SHORELINE DR WAY2ATA MN 55391 3R 0311723410004 PROP ADDR 1620 FOX ST OWNER NAME THE WAKEFIEU) ORONO PTNRSHP TAXPAYER the WAKEFIELD ORONO PTNRSI IP NAME/ADDR C/0 RODERT J THEILER POBOX 5628 MPLSMN SS440 38 0311723440003 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNER NAME M WCASHMAN A J LCASHMAN TA3CPAYER MICHAEL W/JFNNIFER LCASHMAN NAME/AIX3R 1685 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 1111723220009 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTO TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTO NAME/ADDR 417 5THSTNW20 ■ MINNEAPOUS MN 35401 1 .* Cl V.T , . _ r >1 M / 1•; I lENNEPIN COUNTi' PROPR INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERl Y UWNtiKS LIST PACE: I 38 0211723330001 PROP ADDR 1485 FOX ST OWNER NAME W P HENNEMAN A A n HEKNUMAN TAJCPAYER Wr HENNEMAN A AD HENNEMAN NAME/ADDR 1485 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 0211723330002 PROP ADDR 1465 FOX ST OWNER NAME K A OIRKELANDA: A DIRKEUND TAXPAYER KAARE A CYNTHIA DIRKELAND NAME/ADDR 1465 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 021I7233303I4 PROP ADDR 1655 FOX ST OWNER NAME R J MIGUORIA J L MICUORl TAXPAYER RICHARD J A JOAN L MIOUORJ NAM17ADDR 1655 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 0211723410009 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REOK3NAL RR AUTH NAME/ADDR 4I7 5THSTN4320 MINNUPnUSMN 55401 38 0311723440303 PROP ADDR 1695 FOX ST OWNER NAME RJ AKSCATI CART TAXPAYER RICHARD A KATHLEENCATHCART NAME/ADDR 1695 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 38 0311723440004 PROP ADDR 1685 FOX ST OWNER NAME M WCASHMAN A J LCASHMAN TAXPAYER MICHAEL W/JENNIFER LCASHMAN NAME/ADDR 1685 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10117231lOOOl PROPAODR 38 ADDRESSLNASSICNEO OWNFRNAME SUADHAZHARI T/OU'AYER SUADHAZHARI NAME/ADDR 1745 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 1011723110002 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REOKJNALRRAUTH NAME/ADDR 4175THSTN8320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 38 02II7233400I4 PROPAODR 38 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTO T/OCPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTl I NAME/ADDR 417 5TH ST N 8320 MINNEAPOUS MN 55401 W I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESEhlTED ARB AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS F APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMl OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUBF. wdate^A^/^ by V x^ .v-v* ExWbH-rt »w 03-^l7•^'3•<© uiMirjrm A /0-/I7'13-{h) I i oi-n?z3 I ‘ • • IMI7-Z3 M03-2921 July 21,2003 Page 1 of3 Date Application Received: 6-18-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6-18-03 60-Day Review Period Expires: 8-17-03 To;Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner ^ July 16,2003 #03-2921, MacDonald & Mach Architects on behalf of Edward H. Hamm, Trustee, 485 Orono Orchard Road S - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2-acre min.) 21.408 acre (932, 549 s.f.) Application Summary: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an entrance gate. The entrance gate is considered an accessory building and because the lot is a through lot a conditional use permit is required. The proposal meets all conditional use permit standards. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of the request subject to the location depicted on the survey. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.03.10; Conditional Use Permit Required. All accessory buildings on through lots located in “R” Districts shall require a conditional use permit. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant Narrative C - Existing & Proposed Sur\ ey/Site Plan D - Proposed Plans and Elevations E - Photograph F - Property Owners List G - Plat Map Background The property received a variance in April 2003 to allow two entrance gates to exceed the 3.5 foot height requirement required for all fences. At this time, the entrance gates were treated as fences not accessory structures and therefore only a variance was required and approved by the Planning Commission. Planning department staff feels that the most accurate way, and the intent of the code, would be to treat this lot as a “through” lot and treat the monument entrance i;ates as • • 'A # 5 biaiiilAi M0y-19U July 21.2003 Pagc2or3 structures thus requiring a conditional use permit. Should a conditional use permit be approved for the proposed gate, staff will amend the resoluUon for the previously approved gates to acknowledge the conditional use permit. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET ........................................................................... Lot Arca/Width! RR-IB Lot Area Required 87. 120 s.f (2 acres)200 ’ Actual 932,549 s.f (21.4 acres)2, 185.08 ’ Lot Width Setbacks; The setbacks indicated below are those measured from the closest structure to the property lines. T^e property is in conformance with all lot requirements of the RR-IB zoning district. The proposed entrance gate will be setback 50 ’ from the private road located along the western border of the property. RR-IB Front Rear Left Side Right Side Lakeshore Average Lakeshore Required 50 ’ 50 ’ 30 ’ 30 ’ Existing 188.7 ’ (from main house) 304.1 ’ (from main house) 267 ’ (from bam) 670’ (from main house) Proposed 188.7’ 304.1 ’ (from main house) 50 ’ (from gate’ 267 ’ (from bam) 670’ (from main house) Structural Coverage TH- suy«t property is not subject to structural coverage requirements because it is in C accss of 1.99 acres (Section 10.03.14C). Hardcover Calculations The subject property is located tvilhin 1 000’ of Brown’s Bay. Due to the area of the lot hardcover is not an issue and hardcov er calculations were not required. H. rrr t I «03-2921 July 21.2003 Ptfc3of3 Conditional Use Permit Analysis For the mere fact that the subject property is a through lot, a conditional use permit is required to construct any accessory structure. The intent of the 2U)ning Ordinance is to ensure that the project is reviewed to protect sight-lines from roadways and neighboring properties. The 01^ condition placed on the accessory structure is that it meets the front/rear setback requirement, which in this instance is SO’. The applicant has submitted a survey indicating the location of the proposed entrance gate. It will be located 50 ’ from the edge of the easement dedicated for the private roadway, thus meeting conditional use permit requirements. The entrance gate will consist of brick and stone piers 12 ’ 7.5 ” in height with openwork metal gates 6* in height. An openwork metal decorative sign will extend between the two brick and stone piers. Because the entrance gates are being treated as an accessory structure, they are subject to the accessory building height requirements of Section 10.03.3b which is 30 ’ or at or below the height of the principle building. The proposed entrance gate meets this requirement. Issues for Consideration 1 . Do the proposed gates meet the conditional use permit requirements? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the entrance gates subject to it meeting the 50 ’ setback requirement from the roadway easement •• •• .. .** Application # 1 Date Received Ip- I R'-C>3 Amount Paid jilSO. CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Orono Orchard Road South, Orono, Minnesota 55391 T>pe of Application to be Filed Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Structure Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 02-117-23-32-0001 APPLICANT Stuart MacDonald Phone (home) 651.698.1845 Name MacDonald and Mack Architects, Ltd. Phone (work) 612.341.4051 Address Grain Exchange Building c,ty Minneapolis, Mn ^Tp ^5415 400 South 4th Street OWTsER (if different than applicant) Name Edward H. Hanun, Trustee Phone (home ) 952.473.3605 ________ Phone (work) 651.227.6675 Address ^85 Orono Orchard Road South City Orono, Mn ______ 2ip 55391 Date Property Acquired circa 1950s I}(]do$ (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) .X FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request w'ith CUP application $250.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) S250.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments 5250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg 5325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) .^ftcr-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____ 5300.00 Vacation _____S250.00 Easement Vacation _____SI00.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals _____Other - see Fee Schedule : '-#0 5 “rt ^ % i* • I . § ' r •I I f. \ 1% A. required submittals • I' Application Form. 3.' Sh..t obuin .his^s., 'SSs »d ^ZrHete" T’ l”" ">»P frou 4 X r t^r C'nler. 348-3271). Department of Finance — ^VttdCh ICQal _ •• imormation. w*«»wjrwiy - reier to handou «■' ±: ‘-ey. 7 X K “ elevation (grades/ ^ contours) if land alterations involve List of the legal names (include marital status^ nr aiio-lr Hr. prrHj,. ^ >Jt il^ persons you wish notified of SSsappliMUor' ^ “y otherm tr ^ for ~"ES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPV •“ P^rrhe application is no. C0.^JR ft remember Uta. your (T^^rtt 1___.^t • - ^ oeen included. SSSetTstm Ure Application is complete. ■ • ■ --------------------------------------Dat e '■ ■' .; • APPLiriAlVT'C CTreiAr.rr.t^., “ •APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Admwftrator, sgJe« Zpsy IddSS'fee'l ^ Zoning 03WER’S SIGIS-ATURE ' -ili-JOOJ------- mZbersVp'ur'’'V^^^^^^^members for puntoses of tnves.iga.ion and verification of this reZst°" % t A ^ ----------- - ■*OwTier’s signature CITY of ORONO ❖CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPUCATION for an ACCESSORY STRUCTURE on a THROUGH LOT 485 Orono Orchard Road South, Orono, Minnesota 55391 Continuation Sheet Description of Request: The proposal is to add a gate to the private driveway at the west side of the property. The west side property line centers on a private road with an 8-foot easement. The new gate would be situated beyond the 50-foot setback from the easement. The gate would consist of brick and stone piers, openwork metal gates, and a decorative, openwork metal sign. Dimensions and details are included in the following accompanying drawings: A1 A2R A3 A4 A5R A6 SI Site Survey Site Plan Plan & Elevations Masonry Details Masonry Details Metal Gate Details Metal Sign Details Structural • •t •' % *4 // •A* N % mm ^^ • •. rr: ; • ^I • * I • •* t • . • ••* 4 I 'i- • ,'■•.•■ - •/ > r-y' MacDonald A Mack Afckinctt.i» •■ - PkasaniHiU Mi.Edwttd Huam t OATH a) jaM A1 y. •r; ,t. -i^' ■ Aii w K i '■.# • '■• '■ ;i> •: 5*-<. , a A • ^ $ Oi 1 il MxDooaU A Mack AfdMiicii.ua r V • • •'• *• 1 FleaiMiinu tm Mr.Eilwafd lUowa MC m I r—] a I i..\' V . .i /./ *• • ■•. o la— ■ Jfc PLEASANT HILL GATE-REVISED 5«t«i 1/4*-1 •-0* A2R ... 4»if®r m MacDonald A Mack AfckiiRti^iia •rnmmmm * 'i- .♦ ,. •..* rkuMAim Mr. Edwaid Uiiiiai iIMQ m II—7rw>i o A3 ■Aninr^ttimiiiil - i^ifannl~^ in ^ PiirVii i litiffiniiii i i’Ih lAiiAifa iiiiiia.- PLEASANT HILL GATE - SIDE I ELEVATION A4 yscjle: 3/4*-1‘-cr ^f 3 L tf- f 2L f tr IFa iii •4'. ? «i ■ 4 *•, '■• • ‘ ■ 4 <------^-^y^•-------( 6 PLEASANT HILL GATE - END 2 A ELEVATION y Scjlc: 3/4*-r-O* V’ V’V T r-O* V* •• 4 «• V* r-cr iP 2--0* * uTi* I* «X* • •• • n* f if t T ^5• n t ii^•■csaaoB** McDonald &Mack AlClMlCCli.LfD ?• •*• • £S=S~.i iTmv riMsaiilliill fa Mr.Edwaid IbOMI IF D A4 * ^ »'•:?* * - * >.' I- I b H5* 5cm\ (King Arch. Metals 15^&4-7) A l/y ScroM (fOftq Arch, McUb j 3«^.A9) 5 1/2* SCfoU (Kirm Arch. MeUls 13>flO-A i O) I 3/4* flcroU (stiop Ubncatcd) ©PLEA5ANT HILL GATE-REVISED 5e*le: l*-r^ # C%i ">! < i^S;- ’ '• # •iW JJ. Vfc -• MacDonald &Mack e=Li £SA•JJulZ----- ncasMilliU to Mr. Edward lUmm IMOm O A5R •-----a. T\ PLEASANT HILL GATE SIGN Scale: M/2*-1‘-O’ r? •f ‘••'V jmi MxDociaUi &Mack Aicitett.li* sv•« -r7iif77»r PteMMUUiai Mr.Edwaci Ham mom r O A6 s .t ,»■ ■ J iS^ CATE ATTACHMENT SEE DETAIL L2-0" L 36"x12* FTC ^^ #5 O 12" o/c EA WAY TOP AND BOTTOM 5‘-0" MIN 16 x16" COLUMN 8-16 VERTS #3 TIES O 12" o/c FOOTING OUTLINE OF MASONRY PIER -I*. . 5'-0" MIN PLAN VIEW B•1o1•£ 2 <9 WT 4x15.5 X 0'-8"li4 - 1/2" DIAM EXP *ANCHORS TO COL.M|iLig I PIER ELEVATION CONNECTION TO GATE ASSEMBLY TO BE DETERMINED DETAIL V8". 1’-o' Pier ond foundotions shown ore for both the entry gote ond the "Pheosont" gote. Foundotion dimensions sholl be odjusted to provide 0 minimum of 6" projection beyond edge of mosonry surround Foundoton ond pier dimensions sholl not be less thon the « minimum dimensions shown on this J ■ ■ drowing. j f J. \ 3"- r-D' iiia M .-J^r;: iJ^irT • J -» .•' kunuail .ui 38 0211723230006 PROP ADDR 387 ORONO ORCI lARO RD S OWNURNAMG D D A K M MACMILLAN TAXPAYER DAVID D MACMILLAN NAME/ADDR PO BOX 5628 MPLSMN 55440-5628 38 0211723240006 PROP ADDR 360 ORONO ORCHARD RD S OWNER NAME S AII OSBORN TAXPAYER STEELE B OSBORN NAME/ADDR 360 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723310007 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME ROGER J HA WKINSON TAXPAYER ROGER J IIA WKINSON NAME/ADDR S70 ORONO ORCI lARD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 02II7233I00I0 PROP ADDR 1390 FOX ST OWNER NAME JONATHAN DA GRETA M WITCHER TAXPAYER JONATHAN A GRETA WITCHER NAME/ADDR 1390 POX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723310049 PROP ADDR 500 ORONO ORCHARD RD S OWNER NAME S S A J E V THSTER TAXPAYER STEVENS A JO ELLEN WEBSTER NAME/ADDR 500 ORONO ORCHARD RD S 'WAYZATAMN 55391 138 0211723320003 PROP ADDR 1540 FOX ST OWNER NAME J A NOLAN A J A NOLAN TAXPAYER JOHN A NOLAN A JOAN A NOLAN NAME/ADDR 1540 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 IILH!..iiTi'! L- PROPrI'uoruii V oVk IM OKMAIION SVLTLM i LIST 38 0211723230007 PROP ADDR 1580 FOX ST OWNER NAME W MACMILLAN ETAL TRUSTEES TAXPAYER WIRTNEY MACMILLAN NAMIVADDR P 0 BOX 5628 MPLSMN 55440 38 0211723310005 PROP ADDR 540 ORONO ORCHARD RD S OWNER NAME SANDRA S LARSON TAXPAYER SANDRA S LARSON NAME/ADDR PO BOX 546 WAYZATAMN 5<39l 38 0211723310008 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME ROGER J HAWKINSON TAXPAYER ROGER J HAWKINSON NAME/ADDR 570 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 021I7233I0OII PROP ADDR 570 ORONO ORCHARD RD S OWNER NAME ROGER J HAWKINSON TAXPAYER ROC liR J I lAWKlNSON NAME/ADDR 570 ORONO ORCI lARD RD S WAYZAIAMN 55391 38 0211723320001 PROP ADDR 485 ORONO ORCHARD RD S OWNER NAME EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE TAXPAYER EDWARD II HAMM NAME/ADDR 408 ST PETER ST #434 ST PAUL MN 55102 38 0211723320036 PROP ADDR 1560 FOX ST OWNER NAME WMACMRXAN ETAL TRUSTEES TA3CPAYER WHITNEY MACMILL a N NAME/ADDR PO BOX 5628 MPLSMN 55440 38 0211723230008 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME LONGRIDGE ASSOC TAXPAYER LONGRIDGE ASSOC NAME/ADDR C/0 ROBERT JI HEILER PO BOX5628 MPLSMN 55440-5628 38 02II7233I0006 PROP ADDR 550 ORONO ORCI lARD RD S OWNER NAME PAULETTE PICKARD STUURMANS TAXPAYER PAULETTE PICKARD STUURMANS NAME/ADDR 550 ORONO OROIARD RD S WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723310009 PROP ADDR 1380 FOX ST OWNER NAME HERBERT D MEYER TAXPAYER I lERBERT D MEYER NAME/ADDR 1380 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 c %} 38 0211723310047 PROP ADDR 450 ORONO OROIARD RD S OWNER NAME KEVIN GARNETT TAXPAYER KEVIN GARNETT NAME/ADDR 601 CARLSON PKWY #615 MINNETONKA MN 55305 S-4 38 0211723320002 PROP ADDR 1520 FOX ST OWNER N/JHE E J CONUN A J D CONUN TAXPAYER EDWARD J CONUN NAME/ADDR 1520 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 38 0211723320007 PROP ADDR 1570 FOX ST OWNER NAME J D PENICK A R C KURTH TAXPAYER JAYNE DORSET PENKX NAME/ADDR RANDY C KURTH 1570 POX ST ■ WAYZATAMN 55391 yt I ms kUNUAII::6/U/20(U 3S 0211723330008 PROr ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER N ame wmacmillanetal trustees taxpayer WHITNEY MACMILUN NAME/ADDR P O box 3628 MPLSMN SS440 38 0211723330010 PROP ADDR 1410 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME A HARRISON AIL HARRISON TA3(PAYER ALFRED AINORID L HARRISON NAME/ADDR 1410 SHOREUNE OR WAYZATAMN 35391 38 0211723340006 PROP ADDR 1395 ORONO LA OWNERNAME NORWESTOKMPLS-NTLASCTRST taxpayer M THOMAS NAMEIADDR 1393 ORONO la WAYZATAMN 33391 38 0211723340012 PROP ADDR 1380 ORONO LA OWNERNAME DAM30HNSON Taxpayer douolas d tohnson NAME/ADDR 4I94CENTERBOARDUSE STUARTFL 34997-6176 38 0211723410009 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSK jNEO OWNERNAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONALRR AUTH TAWAYER HENNEPIN CO regional RR AUTH NAMEMDOR 4l73THSTNf320 'MINNEAPOLIS MN 33401 ■ •* r r m- K : • 'v 38 0211723330001 PROP ADDR 1483 FOX ST OWNERNAME W P HENNEMAN A A 0 HENNEMAN Taxpayer wphennemanaabiienneman NAME/ADDR 1485 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 33391 38 0211723330011 PROP ADDR 1401 SHORELINE DR OWNERNAME EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE taxpayer EDWARD H HAMM NAME/ADDR 408 ST PETER ST #434 ST PAUL MN 35102 38 0211723340007 PROP ADDR 1397 ORONO LA OWNERNAME DANAMWELLS taxpayer DANA M WELLS NAME/ADDR 1397 ORONO LA WAYZATAMN 53391 38 0211723340016 PROP ADDR 1383 POX ST OWNERNAME JDIANNGOETTEN taxpayer J DIANN OOETTEN NAME/ADDR 1383 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 33391 38 0311723410004 PROP ADDR 1620 FOX ST OWNERNAME THE WAKEFIELD ORONO PTNRSHP TAXPAYER the WAKEFIELD ORONO PTNRSHP NAME/ADDR OD ROBERT! THEIUR PO BOX 3628 MPLSMN 33440 ,44 >• 38 0211723330002 PROP ADDR 1463 FOX ST OWNERNAME KABIRKELANDCABIRKEUND taxpayer KAARE a CYNTHIA BIRKELAND NAME/ADDR 1463 fox ST WAYZATAMN 35391 38 02 M 7233300I3 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSK jNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH TA3CPAYER ALFRED HARRISON NAME/ADDR 1410 SHORELINE DR WAYZATAMN 53391 38 0211723340008 PROP ADDR 1399 ORONO LA OWNERNAME KEVINRKOKESH taxpayer KEVIN RKOKESH NAME/ADDR 1399 ORONO LA WAYZATAMN 33391 38 0211723340019 PROP ADDR 1391 FOX ST OWNERNAME PATRICKJMCN a OgHTONETAL taxpayer PATRICK J MCNAUGHTDN NAME/ADDR 236 GIRARD AVE N MPLSMN 33403 38 0211723340014 PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH Taxpayer hennefih co rbciwial rr auth NAME/ADDR 4I73THSTN#320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 33401 PAGE: 2 11..... 1 -j I (; ■' ic. K' KUNUA11::& • • S -.•t' * * H •* ■; J-.. V' •. ■' W ■ ^ ■ llUNNlil'lN COs-UTY I’UOP: INI OlUvlAUUN aVSILM PROl ’liRTYOVk. -its LIST ICHRTIFY TIIATTUn FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HEM4EPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARIMENT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. , f-----> ^ yy y j/ DATE BY ^ rr ■ a ... J-. jg>,» % PAGE: S fXJ ;:) ) •* • ¥'h'; - :i Date Application Received: 6*234)3 Date Application Coniidercd as Compictc: 7-16-03 60-Day Review Period Eipircs: 9-15-03 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CONSENT AGENDA ITEM JUL 2 8 2003 OllYurOMOMU Date: July 24.2003 Item No.: )~7 Department Approval: Name: Michael P. Gaffron Title: Planning Director Administrator Approval: /k^ Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: 1103-2924 Todd Smith on behalf of Jim & Julie Harstad, 4550 Wolverton Place - Variance - Resolution List of Exhibits A - Resolution B - PC Draft Minutes 7-21-03 C - Notice of PC Action 7-24-03 D - Memo and Exhibits of 7-16-03 Application Summary: Applicant requests an after-the-fact variance to construct an accessory gazebo/shed structure nearer to the street lot line than the existing residence. The gazebo structure is approximately 245 feet from the private road, whereas the house is approximately 300 feet from the road. The gazebo is located 27.6' from the side lot line, meeting the 10* minimum side setback for a 200 s.f. detached accessory structure. Planning Commission Recommendation Planning Commission reviewed this item on July 21 and on a vote of 6-0 recommended approval as proposed. Staff Recommendation Approval per Planning Commission recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Adopt or amend the attached resolution. ».». rr I- A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03 SUBDIVISION 9D FILE NO. 03-2924 WHEREAS, James L. and Julie R. Harstad, husband and wife, (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners ofthe property located at 4550 Wolverton Place within the City ofOrono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Foxfyre Estates, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have made application to the City ofOrono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 Subdivision 9D to allow construction of an accessory gazebo/shed structure located nearer the street or front lot line than the principal residenece structure on the property where no such structures are normally allowed. Minnesota: 1. 2. 3. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, I .NDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #03-2924. The property is located in the RR-IA Rural Residential Zoning District, which requires minimum lot area of 5.0 acres and minimum lot width of 300'. The lot is conforming as to area and width. The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a public hearing held on July 21, 2003 and recommended approval of the requested variance based on the following findings: a) The gazebo structure is approximately 245 feet from the private road, whereas the house is approximately 300 feet from the road. The gazebo is located 27.6* from the side lot line, meeting the 10’ minimum side setback for a 200 s.f. detached accessory structure. Page 1 of 5 4. 5. The location of the house near the rear of this 10-acre parcel has made it difficult for the property owner to use the property in a reasonable rural residential manner with regards to locating acccssoiy buildings. The gazebo structure is a rather ornamental feature, does not take on the character of an intrusive structure, and is setback far enough from the road and lot lines to not require any special screening or other visual treatment The City Council has considered this application including the findings and iwommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the .-jubiic, and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. TIk 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 vantmee would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire huard or other danger •» neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty is neceraary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be’ in kMping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03 sibdlv'iriorPD to a^^^ an Kcessory gazebo/shed siraclure located neater the street or front lot line than the principal fonowrg co'ISS^ ■<> «>« ' ■ RriuLT.1 Elihi!’* It”" "" Wlicant and attached to thisa amentaenis to Uie sue plan which are not in confonnity with City codes or are outside the scope of this approval will require further PlanniiiB O and City Council review. *ommission Page 2 of S -it ^ , ...w V aArPy. 1.. .---------------- ------------||[|l■ll 2.Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction within one year of the date of Council iq;>proval, or the variance will expire on that date (July 28,2004). 3.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 4.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of the applicants and the iqi>plicants* heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in die chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of July, 2003. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owneifs) •V 4>' Page 3 of S aaifiiin 'i STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instnunent was acknowledged before me on this dayof 2003 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN instnunent was acknowledged before me on this dayof 2003 Notary Public PigedofS j*' •* aflliiifiifn-ufiill4iifflft 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of . 2003, personally appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity 1 proved on the basis of, whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of ,2003, personalty appeared before me, ____who is personally known to me ____whose identity I proved on the basis of, whose identity I proved on the oath/affirmation of, a credible witness and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he/she/they executed the same as his/her/their free act and deed. Notary Public Page 5 of 5 ».». «i* ln^ «» i^ ft? t i Z 1 i ^ o ! . \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. Omstein indicated that she had been given the impression that the owners would be wiUilig to take the next step by identifying the wetland and refining the monument jl»ign accordingly. Chair Smith sugge^ed the Commission table the application to opportunity to conduct the delineation. ailow^mstein the Waataja asked the Commftwon whether, once the delineation wa^efined, the wetland constituted a hardship to allowvihe monument placement. Chair Smith believed that, whil^lw markers could be reused, they are necessary. She indicated that not all members ofNhe Commission would support overturning staff’s recommendation to put up the monumeh^in the wetlapdT Omstein asked for direction.y / \ Gaffron encouraged the applicant to design a sUeet sign, on a 4X4 post with hanging address plates. He noted that the cod^llows 2 s.Eper address. Berg questioned whether the mpilument could be moved^up to replace the current split rail fence. /' y Gaffron stated that Jhe sight triangle would be negativelySjmpacted by moving the monument in plac^"6f the fence. He indicated that many possibmhes exist and should be discussed in further detail, especially, since the vegetation and tc^es themselves also obstruct thesightline. Berg^jd^ed) Mabusth seconded, to table Application #03-2922, ImaginaK^ on behalf of>fike Cashman, for the purpose of redesign and wetland delineation. VO=|^E: Ayes 7, Navg 0. ----------------------------------- -------------— (#17) #03-2924 TODD SMITH ON DEHALF OF JIM AND JULIE UARSTAD, 4550 WOL\TRTON, VARIANCE, 10:35-10:38 P.M. Todd Smith, on behalf of Jim and Julie Harstad, was present. Chair Smith stepped out of the Chambers briefly, from 10:35-10:37 P.M. Gaffron explained that the applicant requests an after-the-fact variance to constmet an accessory gazebo/shed structure nearer to the street lot line than the existing residence. The gazebo sUiicture is approximately 245 feet from the private road, whereas the house is approximately 300 feet ftom the road. The gazebo is located 27.6' from the side lot line, meeting the 10' minimum side setback for a 200 s.f. detached accessory structure to* PAGE 30 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 2 1,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. Gaffron stated that the applicants commenced construction of this building without obtaining the necessary building permit. When the work was stopped by the Building Inspector, it was determined that due to the location of the house near the rear of the property, the accessory structure was in a location nearer the street than the house out of compliance with the Code. ’ Gaffron indicated that staff recommends approval, subject to applicant obtaining the appropriate aAer-the-fact building permit for the accessory structure. There were no public comments. Mabustb moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2924 Todd Smith on behalf of Jim and Julie Harstad, 4550 Wolverton Place, granting an after-the-fact variance to construct an accessor)' gazebo/shed structure nearer to the street lot line than the existing residence, subject to the applicant obtaining after-tbe- hcl build tag permits for Ike sIrucMre. VOTE: Aye. 6, N.y. 0, Abstata I, Chslr Smith abstained having missed the discussion. SKETCH PLAN (#18) #03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR., 2165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE SUBDIVISION, 10:38-11:00P.M. MtUKt DRIVE, John Ringer, son of applicant, and Mark Gronberg, of Gronberg and Associates were present. ’ Gsffron rwiewed the sketch plan for a 5-Io. residential plat of property abutting the Dakota Rail Comdor and Lake Minnetonka. The proposal includes development of a private cul- de-sac road plus an outlot driveway sening one “back lot”. The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Se^ice Area but does not abut any existing municipal sewer lines. The site IS wooded and contains an existing single family residence constructed in the 1 VzUS. With regard to the sketch plan review, Gaffron expanded on its characteristics as follows: 1. Conformity with 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan (CiMP) The property is guided for single family residential use at a density of 1 unit per 2 acres The proposed plat confoms to this use. The property is located within the MUSA and is intended to be developed using municipal sewer and private wells. The propo-ed appears to be in conformity with the CMP. ^use 2. Relationship to Surrounding Development •. f* PAGE 31 of 37 J ri. .. C CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING FILE #03-2924 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: July 24, 2003 TO;Todd Smith 1380 Arbor Street Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: Jim & Julie Harstad 4550 Wolverton Place Maple Plain, MN 55359 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: July 21, 2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Approval of the after the fact variance for an accessory struchu-e located nearer the front or sheet lot line than the principal structiu-e on the property. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAINST Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: City Council - Monday, July 28, 2003; meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. ♦ ! m Date Application Received: 6-23-03 Date Application Conildered as Complete: 7-16-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 9-15-03 To:Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Directw^^^^ July 16,2003 #103-2924 Todd Smith on behalf of Jim & Julie Harstad, 4550 Wolverton Place Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential, 5-acrc min. 10.1 acres (439,869 s.f) Application Summary: Applicant requests an aOer-the-fact variance to construct an accessory gazebo/shed structure nearer to the street lot line than the existing residence. The gazebo structure is approximately 245 feet from the private road, whereas the house is approximately 300 feet from the road. The gazebo is located 27.6' from the side lot line, meeting the 10' minimum side setback for a 200 s.f detached accessory structure. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval, subject to applicant obtaining an afler- the-fact building permit for the structure. ____ List of Exhibits A - Application B - Survey/Site Plan C - Proposed Plans & Elevations D - Property Owners List E - Plat map Pertinent Code Section 10.03, Subd. 9(D) ‘‘Location. No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and recryard .adjacent to a street, accessory buildings located within the street or rear yards ofsuch lots are subject to the setback requirements of Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B), Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) except that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turn~around is provided on site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. ” Background Applicants commenced construction of th's building without obtaining the necessary building permit. When the work was stopped by the Building Inspector, it was determined that due to the location of the house near the rear of the property, the accessory structure was in a location nearer the street than the house, mt of compliance with the Code. #03-2924 July 16,2003 Page 2 The intent of the ordinance prohibiting accessory buildings nearer the street than the principal residence structure is likely primarily intended for suburban-style small-lot neighborhoods where an accessory building in the front yard would be out of character with the neighborhood. However, on this 10 acre parcel in the 5-acre zone, this gazebo structure is a rather ornamental feature and docs not take on the character of an intrusive structure. It is off to the side and does not block the view of the house. Further, at a setback of more than 100' from the street, it would not need a variance if the house had been placed at the minimum required 100' street setback, fhe house was constructed in 1988 prior to the 1990 subdivision of Foxfyre, and its location near the rear lot line made it nearly impossible to construct accessory buildings without a variance. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot AreaAVIdth: RR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 5.0 acres 300' Actual 10.1 acres 1,050'± Setbacks; RR-IA (200 s.f. Det. Acc. Struc.)Required Proposed Front 100' + and not closer to street than house (House is approx. 320' from street) Rear 10'9 Left Side 10'35' Right Side NA NA Hardship Statement Applicant has not provided a hardship statement, and should be asked for his testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values ofproperty In the surrounding area* The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval artfy when k Is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirk and intent of the Orono ZoningtCode. iOkiba^aamniwkanasmmameliaal^ #02-2924 July 16.2003 Page 3 Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the ofTicial controls.” The property is being put to a reasonable use as a single family dwelling site. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” The placement ofthe house by the original owners is a circumstance unique to this property and not in the applicant's control. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.' This criterion is met. in staff's opinion. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” The applicants have not suggested that economics are a factor in this request. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” Not applicable. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” Not applicable. “The Board or Council may permi. as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” Not Applicable. “The special conditions applsing to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The code sections applying to this site are applicable to all adjoining properties. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The code requirements apply generally to oil properties located in the RR-IA District. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjo>ment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” If the variance is not granted, an accessory structure could be located on'oiUy a relatively small portion of this 10-acre parcel.•• I »02-2924 July 16,2003 Page 4 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not In any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” This criterion is met, in staff’s opinion. 12. yihe granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The location of the existing house appears to be a substantial hardship that supports granting of the variance. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. Will the location of the gazebo have any negative impacts on the neighboriiood? Does Planning Commission agree that the location of the house has made it difficult for the property owner to use the 10*acre property in a reasonable rural residential manner with regards to locating accessory buildings? 3.Is there any reason to provide screening for this structure, or is it a visual amenity to the neighborhood? 4. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval, subject to applicant obtaining the appropriate after-the-fact building permit for the accessory structure. ■ .• t'r * •' i <ks...GITYoT ORONO Municipal Offices Strati Mdra ts: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Manini Mdrass: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323^6 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION June 30,2003 Jim & Julie Harstad 4550 Wolverton Place Orono, MN 55359 SUBJECT: 2toning Application #03-2924 The City of Orono is required to notify you within ten (10) business days as to the status of your application for a variance for property located at 4550 Wolverton Place. Below is a list of items the City of Orono is requesting to complete our review: o Certificate of Survey for the property certifying location of the proposed gazebo structure. AppUcation #03-2924 is incomplete. If you wish to proceed with your application please submit the items requested above by Wednesday, July 9, 2003 to remain on the July 21, 2003 Planning Commission agenda. Please call me at (952) 249-4600 should you have any questions Sincerely, (/^~ Michael P. Gaicron Planning Director cc: Todd Smith •f i i n Mil 1Uepboiie(»S2)24M<IB • fhi wwwrl.uwsj _______________________________ A Application # Date Received Amount Paid a^SOt CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address f/.5"STP Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired..(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X resiresidential other (specify). Zoning District: APPLICANT Name Address: / S9b S Phone (home) ____ Phone (work) P City:Zip:_SS23d OWNER (if different tl^ applicant) Name f Jj Li£ A T ^ On m ^ J Phone (home ) 79^5^ ____ ^ __________________ Phone (work). Address: VjS2) _______ City: g)feAA>0 Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: /^'7, ^ Bu/cl (attach additional sheets if necessary) sSi. VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage / Setback: _X Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance "'ith Zoning Code requirements:^______________________________, (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2924 \ « H fi f required submittals All of the followlgg inforinatlon mint be suhmiy^ liar your application to be considered complp(y;>tlOD deadline date Ip ordpr 1. 2. 3. pphcation Forni jerty Owners LisI of owners within ISO’, labels and plat map (you must 1, labels »d map ftom Heratepin County'Departmen^ofFinmctlZ, 4. 5. 6. 7. Completed Application Form Certifled Property Owni obtain this list, labels ar Go\1 Cerater, 348-59**0). A f *A UU5 appiicaiion. ----Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this aoDlication u ^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or reouested hv th- 7 • Admimstrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered ^ ^consultant expenses incurred in review of this application andPayment) and/or supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her toowledge ^ *^at the information Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE members for purposes of investigation an^erification of this request.^" Council Owner’s Signature _ Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 dav« K.r« »u », • M«ling. Planning Commission Meetings ie held o^ftT MM m* a r* Applicunls musi be present at all scheduM review meetinas of ih/pl^ ?“^/?^ Council. If u, applicant is unable to attend a scheduled J..?!- •“'* have an authorized agent anend in your place and to advise fte nf.!!?^ arrangements to change prior to the meeting. Buildmg & Zomng.Office of this C% (*‘ ■' X ^4 »v-r m» Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form ‘ I (we) p..^M>^fi57/lAVO of PLe^ [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed^plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at V5SP> fo£__also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm foi the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. TopeftyOwmCT ^ 03 Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at l^t 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. • J jQ • /ft. fA-? EXISTING. HOUSE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ; Lot 1. Block 1. FOXFYRE ESTATES o : denctes iron marker Bearings shown ore based upon on assimed dotum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above.described property, the location of an existing house, drivewa> aid gazebo under construction thereon. It does not purport to show any other litprovements encroachments. GRONBERG k ASSOCIATES. INC. eONSULTNO CNGMEERS, LAW SURVtYOHS. STE PlA»*CIO 44S NMITM WOOW OnVE. LONG lake . Mi U3Se •S2-47>-4141 I »CSCSr CSSTTY THAT Xm 9UiL VCCSCATOK oh HCFQIir WAS rwASco er 1C OS ims ut oicct sumww aio YW^T I AM A OU.Y UCCNXO MOTCSSOMAL OOCtS AlC UW» SSCVOIIKO sc lAMS or sc tiAlC or IMCSOT a hN UCCMSC MUUKA OATI 7-15-03 Ml MQk 03-301 m m f‘. ■■yC ■. fey^.*^^;.','''’*S!i'r ‘i :-. -^ i, ■ . * ,’V ^ . t t ^ I f, i •.. • .! I »•; , /. (. ■/ •i • 0 r- . * • ' •♦ , V :>■ ''■ •Fi?cNr DP 6<\zf:e>o 0/>fec. ^oCx;o' Mt»^-»HT ?'vJAU- * .. I • • • • I » • I Vi \2 J '* n- • W ’’’-^ -'I'.-; f) % /; *. • '• ( • • • .;•> f. (■ . I •• V i • ♦• * I •• f -I I' 1* •' .• • • •% •. •* 4 ru r: • —.. . • . iiy.^ X. ■ >i- • \ - i - Bwx wNu- (y^ 6(Vzc^bp 6e : gu^' < 10' K* prM r\ i 1 I • ^ I \ V .• 7 i '^ . .' fm:a\A mm m- •« • I I . .j* •• .•!.•. •. f '** . :•.. 7 . ' ^ • I •■ t *. 0>> ■: •) .\ .# /J. ': V.'' ^ '■‘7 % •/ 1 •'* Jl ^.J . • ■s.3 L .. * i Mi «* « I ( . •*-I { •*. • • - i •». • mm *--• 4. - I -r«»* *.• • -I - L- I t ----i 1---- .... L.1• • — I \ I l»* ^ I * . t I • I r* •4- I I- — svDir ■4.‘ . sftiiyL » rv 1 lA/ A n Smooth Feed Sheets'^'^ 38 31-118-23 23 0009 Robert A Rachaelle Brady Jr. 420 Deborah Drive Maple Plain, MN 55359 38 31-118-23 310005 James L. Harstad 4550 Wolverton PI. Maple Plain, MN 55359 38 31-118-23 310008 Gregory & Kathy Kirkpatrick 4515 Wolverton PI. Maple Plain, MN 55359 a'b-7(c,ACf 38 31-118-23 240003 Timothy W. & Anna M. Otten 425 Turnham Rd. Maple Plain. MN 55359 38 31-118-23 310006 Charles E. & Jennifer C. Phelps 385 Turnham Rd. Maple Plain. MN 55359 38 31-118-23 310009 David P. & Karen L. Grandstrand 4435 Wolverton PI. Maple Plain, MN 55359 • • m* < m A Address UbeU Use template for 5160®I 38 31-118-23 24 0007 Tom A Hallquist 415 Debciah Dr. Maple Plain, MN 55359 38 31-118-23 31 0007 Joel N. Johnson 4575 Wolverton PI. Maple Plain. MN 55359 *.». « 4 Laser 5160® « ^ . •<1^ fo:f m j' 111 « • ; I 1 .- 1 --------- ••—. ffSw •• (11 ■• 11/ , 1 ..........in i HA It (II • i |S»» a 1 • 1 II <*’ 1 1. . I«i I / a a cm 1 a all 1 II am .tit :ffi ^pM-e 4 / ,>a *as iN«.ii«i rt> SEC.6,T.117,R.23 __lijpu.i/iS^ ' • ‘: .V • »v--> •’’• v*^- T- •' "■•"• • ■ •» ••■ '• *A. - s* V • • ^ *•- . ......................MO JUL 2 8 2005 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ci i y Uh UHONo DATE: July 28,2003 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Name Gregory A. Gappa Title Directorof Public Services Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Public Sen ices Director's Report Item Description: Spates Avenue Lift Station Control Panel 1 his item is for the replacement of the control panel for the Spates Av enue lift station. This is one of our larger lift stations, which was installed in 1985, and serves the Crystal Bay, Shoreline/ Heritage, and Bay Ridge neighborhoods. The City does not have an easement for the portion of the station and control panel that is not on the City Right of Way. We have contacted the property owner, and he is upset that the lift station is in front of his house and is not interested in granting the City an easement, fhe lack of an casement became an issue when an additional control panel and antenna were installed for the new SCADA system. There is inadequate space in the existing control panel for the SCADA equipment. The property owner was upset about the additional control panel and SCADA antenna on his property. It is not possible to install a new control panel on the Right of Way as it would be too close to the street. We have discussed this issue with the City Attorney, and his opinion is that we have a prescriptive casement for a control panel and the lift station, but any additional structures are not covered by the prescriptive easement and will require a new easement. Our recommendation to solve this problem without having to condemn property for a new casement is to replace the existing control panel with a new control panel that can include the SCADA unit as the prescriptive easement is valid for a single control panel. The SCAD.A antenna can then be installed on the City Right of Way further north as to not be in the property owners view of Lake Minnetonka. This solution has several other advantages. This lift station is currently setup to nm on 460 volts and is the only station we have that uses this high voltage as all of our other stations are either 110 or 220 volts. This is a problem when using an emergency generator as we need a special generator setup for just this one station. The cost for tliis new panel also includes rewiring of the pumps to run on 220 volts. The existing panel is almost 20 years old and spending money to purchase a new panel provides a benefit to the City versus money spent on legal fees and the co.st to condemn an easement. Also, the existing separate SCADA panel can be installed on another lift station. The initial SCAD.A system only included SCADA at ten lift stations, and our plan is to eventually have a SCADA system at all of our 40 lift stations. In the short time, the SCADA system has been operational it has provided prompt notification of problems at one lift station at which we have had several previous claims for .sewage backups in basements. With the prompt notification, we were able to respond and correct the problem quickly and pre\ ented another sewage backup. Page 1 of 2 P We arc recommending acceptance of the quotation from Electric Pump for this project. We have worked with this company for many years, and this is same company that recently installed new panels at lift stations 16,17 and 19. This new panel will be the same control panel that we have at almost all of our other lift stations. This standardization of control panels and pumps is more efficient for maintenance and operation of the system. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to accept quotation from Electric Pump, Minneapolis for Spates Avenue Lift Station Control Panel Replacement in the amount of $19,926 to be funded from the Sewer Fund with approval of a Sewer Fund budget adjustment to reflect this expenditure. Page 2 of 2 ,* # ‘ • JUL 2 8 2003REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Cl IY Oi- ORO nu DATE: July 28,2003 ITEM NO. Department Approval: Nanc Gregory A. Gappa Title Director of Public Services Administrator Revicr'ed: Agenda Section: Public Services Director ’s Report Item Description: Request for Payment #2, SCADA System Project We have reviewed the information submitted by the City's engineering Arm and recommend approval of this Request for Payment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve Request for Payment #2 , SCADA System Project to Automatic Systems Company in the amount of $61,081.20 '■m21 ' ■ lifc.ikltirti'iiraridfilliaMlii niiiiiMiii'ili i I 1 r ■ eONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK B 651636'?3T1 07/2A/03 08:00 :02/0S N0:856 •omUfw AflME Atsoditcs Owm^CilvofQmnoPOBo)>6eCiVit1B«v.MN.66a?3-00W PofPtrlod: 12^0002 lo T/ISfflXn______________ 0«l*:Jiiv2a.2009 RjQuttNo: Conlfidor AulonwBc gyitew Company 2400 WCty mO-POBoK 120368.8< Paul. MN. 65112 ----- CONTRACTOIIV WQUUr FOR FAYMCNT ORONO8CA0A SYSTEM BRAPILEN0.13M1-113 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract AfflouiH Chang# Onlor • Addition Chang# Ordar • Oaduetion Ravtaad Corriract Amount Vaiua Cemplalad to Data MatarWonHand Amount Eamad Laaa Rotalnaga 6% Subtotal Las# Amount Paid Pnviouaiy Liquhtataddamagaa* amount due THiS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 10 11 12 174.32800 s 8 S.648.00 0.00 180.074.00 178424.00 800 175.424.00 8771.20 iee.0S2.80 10887180 0.00 Raeemmandad for Approval by; SONESTROO, ROSENE. ANOERUK 8 ASSOCIATBS, INC. 8— altaehad for rionatura Apprevad by Coniraelor AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS COMPANY Approvad by Oanar: OTYOFORONO a— atlachad ter alanatura •paeMlad Contract Cemptalion Data: Daeambar 18.2002 OMo; a. mmmm "7" ■ Tiir 4 ^iv APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT aia document G702 <m«ruciton» on revcoc mc) mu om on t»cn t> OWNER: ciTT OF OVOMO City Rail P.O. Box 66 Orono» MN 55323 «EOM CONTEACTOlt AOTOHATIC STSTDfS CO. P. 0. Box 120359 St. Paul. MH 55112 :ONTltACT FOR: PROJECT: sc/y)X Project Orono( MN APPUCA110N NO.: 2 PERIOD TO: 7/15/03 PROJECT NOS.i^^q 01~113 VIA ARailTBCT; bonestroo « BDSBHC, 2335 West Trunk Hlgbifay 36 Roseville, MN 55113 Dittflbuiion lo: □ owner □ architect □ contractor□□ CONTRACTOR’S APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT \ppUcaiioa a made for pajrmeni, u ahown bdo*^ in cooncctkio wlih the Com tact. ConibieRiion Slieei. AIA Document G703, a atnched. 1. OfllQMM. CONTIMCT SUM................................»—174,32B.OO ---------------- 2. eliMM htf Chaniie (Mhb ............................9. 6,566.00 5. CONflMCr BUM TO DMV (Line 1 t 2)............9—ia0 ,B2AJI0 4 . TOflM. OOMPLCTEO 4 STONH)TO OKTE........9—17?,42^.00 (Coluinn C on G709) 9. 9. 8.771.20nEWMAOe: *. J -St of Completed Work (CohMUU D ♦ E on G703) b._____% of StOKd Material (Coluain P tm G703) . ^ 1b^ Reulnage (tine 5a 4^ 5b or Ibtal lo Coluran I of G703)...............................9.8.771.20 6.TDmLlAflNEOUES8IIE1MNMSe......................I—166,6?_2.§^ (line 4 less Line 5 Ibial) 7LIt8W«VIOUiaimFiaffE8FOniWfMEMT (line 6 from prior CCrtUicaie)..............................9 tV?i?7 lt6tt. B.CUflflBNTMniENTDUE.............................. 9.MUMiCtT0nNnH.INCUIIIINailC1»M^ (Line 3 leaa line 6) 9—14,??J...2II 61.081.20 □ CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY ADDITIONS DEDUCTIONS Tbtal rhantra approved In 0.00 0.00 Ibol approved this Month bSRDaW UnllU TOfIhLS 6546.Od O.oo NET CHANGES by Change Order ^546.00 The undenivied Connacior oeitiflea that D dte beat of the Connactorli knonrlediK Iniar- nuilon and belief ihe Work covered by this Application for Payment has been complesed in accordance sriili the Cooinct Oocumenis, iliat all amotmu lis«e been paid bp the Conuactor for Wbik for srMch previous CeidAcaiet for PapmeM were laaacd and pay ments received from the Owner, and that cuncm payment shown herein is now rtoe. _ rv.^ 7/16/03 Siaieor. Mlnneaota County of: SulMcratcd and sworn to before me this |6th ‘**7 of j«iy, 2003 ARCHITECrS CERTIFICATE FOR PAYMENT In accordance Willi the Conuaci Oocumenn. baaed on on-she obaenradona and the <Mia comprialnR ihia applicailoo. the Archheci oertlOes to the Owner that to the bear of the Aichlieci’i knowledie. Information and belief the IRxk has progreaaedailnrUcaied. the rpoiky of the Wbrk is in accordance with the Coouact Docuanents. and Constacsor la eoUded to pay mem of the AMOUNT CERTIFIED. AMOUUT mifMKD...................................................----------------------------- (At$m* tifUmmtkm ifmmoumt arttfM difftnfiom tbt mmommt mppU*d/or. ImUlml mil fiturts on this Ajutfcnffon and on M* CcmttnuMtioH Aarf fhni mn rhansad so conform jp Date: __________ __ncBOitable. The AMOUNT CERTIPIH . . tractor named herein, laauance, payment and acccponce of paymeM am without itaoR • iwi amnua. iuk .>san • Imtn •H 8 o iOm Oui 04 5 ru •V. 8 S • • 8 a a 8 8 8 a a 8 OK w n;;i.'‘:'.;'dmiMW - *!*» 4i!^- ■■ •P: a*.,. »•: lA Documem C702. AfPUCATION AND CERTIPICATE FOR PAYMENT. Miiiinint ConUAcloc’i fli»«ed CeftlUcAiloft. Is •iiached. I ubulatlons below, amounu aie iiated lo ihe nnre« doUsL fc Cokimn I on Conincik wlwi* variable retalnage fa* Uiw H«n* "laT Hv^f- OCSCRIPTiON OP WORK lond/Insttraiico A^rovod Shop Dwgo./ BB|tn««Tlng CoHp«t«r Allomoca Suponrisory Control Paaola (loso radios) Isdlos, Aotoanso. Coax A Connoctora SCHIOUUD VAUIl I 1750. I 1750. I 17500. I 7550. I 65B28. Softvara Pitld InotruMOototioD llectrical SubcootractorlI Stortup/lrainlng 11 0AM Moniiolfl |l I C.O. #1 (4/29/03) II •• 0 9 1S0S74 o I B womc coMPtrreo PROM PREVIOUS AFPUCATION <0 ♦ E) I • 500. this period 0.00 0.00 125000.00 0.00 0.00 $22750.00 $ 5000.00 0.00 I 5000.00 $ A546.00 $ Ull2t. $64296.00 APPUCATION NO.; 2 application DATE: July 15 . 2003 PERIOD TO: July 15. 2003 ARCIItTECrS PROJECT NO.: 139-01-113 MATBRIAU PRESENTiy STORED (NOT IN DOR E) • SM aamaM • AMP • cmib •tm RRMaaMiMR «MN m lUL TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED TO DATE (OvE.n $ 1750. I • % (C ♦ C) RA LANCE TO FINISH (C-C) RCTAINACE (IP VARMOLE) RATE) 100.ox 0.00 1 87.50 lOO.OZ 0.00 875.00 62.9Z 4450.00 377.50 100.OX 0.00 3291.40 1 100.OX 0.00 1250.00 lOO.OX 0.00 450.00 100.OX 0.00 25.00 100.ox 0.00 1337.50 lOO.OX 0.00 250.00 o.ox lOO.OX 0.00 0.00 500.00 lOO.OX 0.00 327.30 97.0X $ 5450.00 •1992 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK 9 6516361311 07/2A/03 08:00 0 :05/05 NO:8S6 PROJECT PAYMIHT fTATUt OWNER CITY OF ORONO MRB^I BRAFILEN0.1394)Mia CONTRACTOR AUTOMATIC SVSTBlW COMPANY CHANGE OROIRB No. Dili DooetWIOll ThbChMigoOidifpiwflaoolofinoiwnaiiMoteliiil^iMat modulo. Sto TalMChMWoOidtfd PAYMENT SUMMARY No. Pram MotorWonHond 1166.S82.iO RotolnOQO Pov No- 2 ■77130 ToiolAmounlEofnod 1178.42400 OrtoinalContfad Ordort i. l !( hi ■ ’ -4' ’’ ' ' > d V •V* Amount ia.S46.00 16.846.00 1 174.126.00 16.64600 116a674.00 0. ^ ■■ IBQtiEST ^ CPUNCIL ACTION .__■'*♦40 JUL 2 8 2003 Y ur OHONO DATE: July 25, 2003 ITBI NO: 2^ I Departaent Approval: Maae: Ron Moorse Title: City Administrator Administrator levlcmed:Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report Item Description: Application for Payment Number 1 - Navarre Fire Station Attached Is Payment Application No. 1 for the Navarre Fire Station. The payment application, in the amount of $24,312.28 has been approved for payment by the Architect and the Project Manager. CIL ACTION RBQDBSTED: Motion to approve the payment of Payment Application No. 1 for the Navarre Fire Station, in the amount of $24,312.28, to DEW Corpotation, the General Contractor, to be funded from the Navarre Fire Station Construction Account. BKV GROUP Date: July 15.2003 AtCantioiK Ron Moors* 222 North 2nd StrMt Minna^wltt. MN SS40I Phon* *12 339 3752 Pw 6I7-33942I2 AddrotK CkyofOrono 2750 Kdl*y ftricway Orono, MN 55336 Project No.: 1124.10 ’ I a-„ Ro: Navirr* Fir* ScRtion WE ARE SENOING YOU: ^ Shop drawing Q Prinu C] Plans D Sa«<pl** O Spaclficatlons Copy of lattar n Onnf* order Q Other TRANSHITTED VIA: □ Mai □ MatsanfM- □ Fax □ Oihan < s r»Ai 1 NO DFSCRIPTION 2 Payment Application No. 1 THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as choclnd boloir r~l For approval l~1 For your us* i~l As requested n For review and comment □ FOR BIDS DUE______ S Approved as submittetl d Approved as noted d Returned for corrections d Other_______ I I Resubmit □ Submit _ n Return copiM for approval copies for distribution corrected prints n PRINTS returned after LOAN TO US REMARKS: Enclosed are two copies of Payment Application No. I for work performed on the Navarre Fire Station. This application has been reviewed and certified in the amount of $24,312.26. Please remit payment against this application. Reguds. Nan Gustafson COPY TO: BM Wokers. Construct ive Ideas. 901 Jefferson Avenue. Suite 300. St ^uL MN 55102 Brad Berk*. DEW Corporation. 2125 Century Avenue. North St RmA MN 55109 Pie PM^IVIMII 1 .'-..vr ■ ’■ b,'^: PAYMENT APPLICATION Page 1 TO: FROM: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Attn. Accounts PayaM Oew Corporation 2125 Century Avenue North St Paul. MN 55109 PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION: 03005 Navarre Fire Station 3770-3790 Shoit line Drive Orono. MN 55336 ARCHITECT; BKV Group. Inc 222 N 2nd St Minneapolis. MN 55401 APPLICATION « PERIOD THRU PROJECT #s 1 07/02/2003 DATE OF CONTRACT: Distnbution to: X OWNER X ARCHITECT 07/01^003 X CONTRACTOR FOR V CONTRACTOR'S SUMMARY OF WORK Application is made for payment as shown below. Continuation Page is attached Contractor's signature below is his assurance to Owner, concerning the payment herein applied ^or. that (1) the Work has been performed as required in the Contract Documents. (2) ail sums previously paid to Contractor under the Contraa have been used to pay Contractor's costs for tabor, materials and other obligations under the Contract for Work previously paid for. and (3) Contractor is * ;atly entitled to this payment. 1 CONTRACT AMOUNT 2 SUM OF ALL CHANGE ORDERS 3. CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT 4. TOTAL COMPLE TED AND STORED $1.138 000 00 $0.00 (Line 1 ♦/- 2)$1,138.000 00 $25.592 28 (Column G on Continuation Page) RETAINAGE: a 5 00% of Completed Work (Columns D ♦ E on Continuation Page) b. 5 00% of Material Stored ____ (Column F on Continuation Page) Total Retamage (Line 5a ♦ 5b or Column I on Continuation Page) TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED LESS RETA)!4AGE (Lme 4 minus Line 5 Total) “ LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENT APPLICATIONS (Line 6 from pnor Application) "" 8 PAYMENT DUE 9 BALANCE TO COMPLETION (Line 3 minus Line 6) $1.113.687 72 $1,280.00 $0.00 CONTRACTOR: By Dew C Date;07/02/2003 F^bert S. Dew."Prcs»dent State of: Minnesota County of Ramsey Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of July 2003 $1.280 00 $24.31228 $0.00 $24,312.28 SUMMARY OF CHANGE ORDERS [ADDITIONS DEDUCTIONS Total changes approved in 1 previous months $000 $000 T(M approved this month $000 $000 TOTALS $0 00 ^^ $000 ' NET CHANGES $000 Notary Pubfic; Tammy J. Nelson My Commission Expires January 31.200! TAMMY J NELSON NOTAHY PUBLIC MMNESOTA MyCofiMWonEeitfetJan 31,2005 ARCHITECrS CERTIFICATION A. Architect's signature below is his assurance to Owner. concermr>g the payment herein appked for. that (1) Architect has inspected the Work represented by this Appication. (2) such Work has been completed to the extent indicated in this Application, and the quaiiity of workmanship and materials conforms with the Contract Documents. (3) this Application for Payment accurately states the amount of Work completed and payment due therefor, arxJ (4) Architect knows of no reason why payment should not be made CERTIFIED AMOUNT.................................................................................... (tf th% certified »m(>untis(iiffef9nt from th§ payment due. you should adach an explanation. Initiai aK the figure yffS/Are changed to match the carttfmd amount) Date tid&e Payment sApplicBtKHf nor payniM appM for haram a assignable or nagolMbie Paymnt shall ba mada only lo Contractor, and » anthoul ptajudioa to any rights of Oamar or Contractor under the Conbact Oocumants or otharwtoa. PAYMENT APPLICATION ) OSS. INC DOCUMENT A__ CONTINUATION PAGE Page 2 of 3 PROJECT:03005 Navarre Fire Sialior) Payment Application containing Contractor's signature is attached APPLICATION #: DATE OF APPLICATION PERIOD THRU PROJECT «s 1 07/02/2003 07/02/2003 B I ITEM i WORK DESCRIPTION SCHEDULED AMOUNT COMPLETED WORK AMOUNT PREVIOUS PERIODS AMOUNT THIS PERIOD STORED MATERIALS (NOT IN D OR E) TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED (D ♦ E ♦ F) PERCENT COMPLETE (G'C) BALANCE TO COMPLETION (CG) RETAINAG6. (IF VARIABLE) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Geneial Conditions Bonds Earthwork Site Utilities Asphalt Pavvtg Site CorKrete Landscaping Concrete Masonry Precast Concrete Arch Precast Steel Fabrication Steel Erection Rough Carpentry Mitiwork Waterproofing Roofing Caulking HM/Doors/Hardware Overhead Doors Ai Clad Wood Windows Ai Glass & Glazing Ceramic Tile Acoustical Ceiling Tiie Epoxy Flooring Carpet/Resilient Painting Toilet Partitions Toilet Accessories SUBTOTALS $126,687 50 $9.994 00 $25.645 00 $11.900 00 $16,857 00 $4.950 00 $17.582 00 $41.200 00 $241.700 00 $9.283 00 $11,71500 $35,696 00 $8.700 00 $35,323 OC $13.102 00 $6.400 00 $48.840 00 $3,657 00 $9.345 00 $5.919 00 $9,952 00 $11.409 00 $7,130 00 $2,640 00 $11.500 00 $6,339 00 $11.178 00 $711 00 $2.140 00 $747,494 50 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $15.59828 $9.994 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $25,592 28 $0 00 $000 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $15.598 28 $9.994 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $000 $0 00 $0 00 $coo $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $25 592 28 12% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% $111,089 22 $0 00 $25.64500 $11,900 00 $16.857 00 $4,950 00 $17,582 00 $41.200 00 $241.700 00 $9 283 00 $11.71500 $35,696 00 $8.700 00 $35 323 00 $13.102 00 $6.400 00 $48.840 00 $3.657 00 $9.34500 $5,919.00 $9.952 00 $11,409 00 57.130 00 $2.640 00 $11.500 00 $6339 00 $11.178 00 $711 00 $2.140 00 $780 00 $500 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $ox $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $000 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $721.902 22 $1.280 00 CONTINUATION PAG£ FOR PAYiy^NT APPLICATION QSS, INC DOCUMENT p.. ; *■ /m CONTINUATION PAGE Page 3 of 3 PROJECT;03005 Navarre Fire Station Payment Application containing ContfactoFa signature is attached. APPLICATION § DATE OF APPLICATION PERIOD THRU PROJECT «s 1 07/02/2003 07/02/2003 A B C D n__E F G H 1 ITPSi SCHEDULED AMOUNT COMPLETED WORK STORED TOTAL PFRPFNT BALANCE11 ELM «WORK DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT MATERIALS COMPLETED AND COMPLETE TO RETAINAGB. rVwlw wle 1 PREVIOUS THIS PERIOD (NOT INDORE)STORED (G/C)COMPLETION (IF VARIABLE) PERIODS (D ♦ E ♦ F)(C-G) 30 Lockers $7,280 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$7,280 00 $0 0031Louvers$244 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$244 00 $0 0032Visual Display Boards $812 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$812 00 $0 0033Fire Extinguishers $350 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$350 00 $0 0034Mtsc Specialties $960 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$960 00 $0 00 35 Floor Mats $1,91500 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 c%$1.915 00 $0 0036Identifying Devtoes $7.554 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$7.554 00 $0 0037Resktential Appliances $4,466 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$4.466 00 $0 0038Crane$6.709 50 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0% $6.709 50 $0 0039Window Blinds $1.655 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$1.65500 $0 00 40 Mechanical $236.000 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0% $236.000 00 $0 0041Fire Protection $12.560 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$12.560 00 $0.00<2 Electrical $110.000 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 0%$110.000 00 $0 00 ' V- . - * totals $1,138,00000 $0 00 $25,592.28 to 00 t25.592 28 2%$1,112,407 72 $1.280 00 CONTINUATION PAGE FOR PAYMENT APPLICATION i QSS. MC. DOCUMENT iiMtei ': :|p ^,.■.;■ ■ 1 :"iH T''’- . t Ar: ¥ v<^ ’-:, •tv^-V * •'V' ';':i-. ■';'- 'T Rv 5:f PAYMENT APPLICATION Page 1 FROM City of Orono 2750 Kelley ParkMiay Ofono. MN 55336 Attn Accounts Payable Dew Corporation 2125 Century Avenue North St Paul. MN 55109 PROJECT NAME AND LOCATION: 03005 Navarre Fire Station 3770-3790 Shoreline Drive Orono, MN 55336 ARCHITECT: BKV Group. Inc. 222 N 2nd St Mlnneapolii. MN 55401 APPLICATION # PERIOD THRU PROJECT #s DATE OF CONTRACT: 1 Distribution to: 07/02/2003 ^ OWNER X' ARCHITECT 07/01/2003 ^ CONTRACTOR J FOR; CONTRACTOR'S SUMMARY OF WORK Application is made for payment as shown below Continuation Page is attached 1. CONTRACT AMOUNT 2. SUM OF ALL CHANGE ORDERS 3 CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT 4 TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED $1,138.000 00 $0 00 (Line 1 ♦/- 2)$1,138,000 00 $25,592 28 (Column G on Continuation Page) RETAINAGE: a. 5 00% of Completed Work (Columns D ♦ E on Continuation Page) b 5 00% of Material Stored (Column F on Continuation Page) Total Retainage (Line 5a ^ 5b or Column I on Continuation Page) 6 TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED LESS RETAINAGE _ (Line 4 minus Line 5 Total) LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENT APPUCATIONS (Line 8 from poor Application) PAYMENT DUE _ BALANCE TO COMPLETION (Lme 3 minus Line 6) $1,113.68772 $1,280 00 $0 00 $1.280 00 $24.312 28 $0 00 $24,3l'2.28n SUMMARY OF CHANGE ORDERS Total changes approved m ADDITIONS DEDUCTIONS previous months $0 00 $000 ( Total approved this month $000 $0 00 : TOTALS $0 00 $0 00 ' NET CHANGES $0 00 Contractor's signature below is his assurance to Owner, concerning the payment hetem .ipplied for. that (1) the Work has been performed as required in the Contract Documents, (2) aU sums previously paid to Contractor under the Contract have been used to pay Contractor's costs for labor, materials and other obligations under the Contract for Work previously paid for. and (3) Contractor is legally entitled to this payment. CONTRACTOR: DewCorpo^p^n Rob^ S. Dew. President State of. Minnesota County of: Ramsey Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of July 2003 07/02/2003 Notary Public Tammy J Nelson TAMMY J NELSON : NOTARY PUeuC MMNESOTA % CamwMn Em«M Jw. 31.200S ARCHITECrS CERTIFICATION Architect's signature below is his assurance to Owner, concerning the payment herein applied for. that (1) Architect has inspected the Work represented by this Application. (2) such Work has been completed to the extent indicated in this Application, and the quaility of workmanship and materials conforms with the Contract Documents. (3) this Application for Payment accurately stales the amount of Work completed and payment due therefor, and (4) Architect knows of no reason why payment should not be made. CERTIFIED AMOUNT....................................................................................^^^4) A (If the certifted amount is different from the paynwnt due, you sttouid attach an enpianation. tnitiat ati the figure^ffUfare change^^Jtgjpalch the certified amount ) Date negoltdM PaymentshNeither this Applicatidn nor payrrfbnt applied for herein is assignable or negoltdble Payment shall be made only to Contractor, and is without prt|udioe to any rights of OMier or Contractor under the Contract Documents or otherwise PAYMENT APPLICATION QSS, INC. DOCUMENT Mb Aiii I T CONTINUATION PAGE PROJECT:03005 Navarre Fire Station Payment Application containing Contractor s signature is attached APPLICATION « DATE OF APPLICATION PERIOD THRU PROJECT #s Page 2 of 3 07/02/2003 07/02/2003 ITEM i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 B WORK DESCRIPTION General CondiUona Bonds Earthwork Site Utilities Asphalt Paving Site Conaete Landscaping Conaete Masonry Precast Conaete Arch Precast Steel Fabrication Steel Erection Rough Carpentry Millv^rk Waterproofing Roofing Caulking HM/Doors/Hardware Overhead Doors Clad Wood Windows AJ Glass & Glazing Ceramic Tile Acoustical Ceiling Tile Epoxy Flooring Carpet/Resitent Painting Toilel Partitions Toilet Accessories SUB-TOTALS SCHEDULED AMOUNT $126,687 5C $9.994 00 $25,645 00 $11.900 00 $16,857 00 $4.950 00 $17,582 00 $41.200 00 $241.700 00 $9.283 00 $11.71500 $35,696 00 $8,700 00 $35,323 00 $13.102 00 $6,400 00 $48.840 00 $3.657 00 $9.345 00 $5.919 00 $9.95200 $11.409 00 $7.130 00 $2.640 00 $11.500 00 $6.339 00 $11.178 00 $711 00 $2.140 00 $747,494 50 COMPLETED WORK AMOUNT PREVIOUS PERIODS $0 00 SO 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 SOOG $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 i $0 00 AMOUNT THIS PERIOD $15,598 28 $9,994 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $25.592 28 STORED MATERIALS (NOT IN D OR E) $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $000 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED (D ♦ E ♦ F) $15,598 28 $9.994 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 PERCENT COMPLETE (G/C) 12% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% $25.592 28 BALANCE TO completion (C-G) $111,089 22 $0 00 $25,645 00 $11.900 00 $16,857 00 $4.950 00 $17.582 00 $41.200 00 $241.700 00 $9,283 00 $11.71500 $35.696 00 $8.700 00 $35,323 00 $13.102 00 $6.400 00 $48,840 00 $3,657 00 $9.345 00 $5919 00 $9,952 00 $11,409 00 $7.130 00 $2.640 00 $11.500 00 $6.339 00 $11.178 00 $711 00 $2.140 00 $721.902 22 I RETAINAGB. (IF VARIABLE) $780 00 $500 00 $0 00 $000 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $ox $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $1,280.00 CONTINUATION PAGE FOR PAYMENT APPLICATION OSS. INC DOCUMENT t mmmsmi 1 Pr. r - CONTINUATION PAGE Page 3 of 3 PROJECT:03005 Navarre Fire Station Payment Application contamiog Contractor's signature is attached. APPLICATION # DATE OF APPLICATION PERIOD THRU PROJECT as 1 07/02/2003 07/02/2003 A B C D 1 E F G H 1 ITEM «WORK DESCRIPTION SCHEDULED AMOUNT COMPLETED WORK STORED TOTAL COMPLETED AND STORED (D ♦ E ♦ F) PERCENT COMPLETE (G/C) BALANCE RETAINAG^ (IF VARIABLE)AMOUNT PREVIOUS PERIODS AMOUNT THIS PERIOD MATERIALS (NOT IN 0 OR E) TO COMPLETION (C-G) 30 Lockers $7,280 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0% $7.260 00 $0 00 31 Louvers $244 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$244 00 $0 00 32 Visual Display Boards $812 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$81200 $0 00 33 Fire Extinguishers $350 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 0%$350.00 $0 00 34 Misc Specialties $960 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$960 00 $0 00 35 Floor Mats $1.91500 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$1.91500 $0 00 36 Identifying Devices $7.554 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0.00 0%$7.554 00 $0 00 37 Residential Appliances $4.466 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0% $4,466.00 $0 00 38 Crane $6.709 50 $0 00 $0 00 $0.00 $0.00 0%$6,709.50 $0 00 39 Window Blinds $1.655 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0%$1.655 00 $0 00 40 Mechanical $236.000 00 $0.00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$236.000 00 $0 00 41 Fire Protection $12.560 00 $0.00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 OH $12.560 00 $0 00 42 Electncal $110.000 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 $0 00 0%$110.000 00 $0 00 TOTALS 11.136.000 00 $0 00 125.592 28 so.oo $25,592.26 2H $1,112.40772 $1.280 00 CONTINUATION PAGE FOR PAYMENT APPUCATION QSS. INC DOCUMENT fEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ••••■. . Ti* JUL 2 8 2005 VI t r Or OHONO DATE: July 25. 2003 ITEM HO: 21 Departaent Approval: Haao: Ron Moorse Title: City Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: City Administrator's Report Item Description: Long Lake Fire Station Stormwater Drainage Options Attached is a letter from Bill Wolters, the Project Manager for the Long Lake Fire Station project, setting out four options for addressing site drainage Issues at the north side of the Fire Station. Staff will review the options with the City's consultant engineer prior to the Council meeting so that we can provide an evaluation of the options. OOOHCIL ACTIOH REQUESTED: Motion regarding the selection of an option for addressing site drainage Issues at the north side of the Long Lake Fire Station. ' 07.24/2003 15:23 6512254741 CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS PAGE 02 Constructive Ideas------------------------------- Planning & Preconstruction Services • Project Cost Analysis • CPM Scheduling July 24.2003 Ms. Michelle Morse. City Adrolnistrator City of Long Lake P.O. Box 606 Long Lake. MN 55356 Re: Long Lake Fire Station - Constniction Quality Dear Michelle: I have received the pricing from Rochon Corporation relative to the site drainage issue at the north side of die Long Lake Fire Station. As I had explained to you previously, I requested Rochon to price four options. Option 1 would reconstruct the area according to the original contract drawings. This d^ign has been reviewed by Dan Boxrud of SEH and it is his opinion that properly constructed - that is according to the original plans, this design will work. There is no cost to die City for this solution. Option 2 would reconstruct die curbs, paving and sidewalk at the north side according to the original plan elevation, but instead of replacing the sod and lawn irrigation system in the area a concrete surface would be installed from the building to the sidewalk to aid the drainage away from the building. The cost of this solution is Eight Thousand Five Hundred Thirty Eight Dollars ($8,538.00). Option 3 reconstructs the north curb, paving and sidewalks to the original elevation but adds catch basins and storm sewers to the area between the sidewalk and the north building wall. This is in accordance with the redesign information v^ch was provided by SEH, Inc. This solution requires the removal and replacement of sidewalks, curbs and bituminous parking surfaces which would not be impacted with options 1 or 2. The cost for this solution is Thirty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Three Dollars ($35,643.00). Option 4 woidd leave the north curb and paving in place at their present “as-built'* elevation and profile, but add the storm sewer and catch basins similar to option 3. The cost of this solution is Thirty-One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six Dollars ($31,286.00). 901 JcfTcriOn Aveiiue. Suite 300 • St. Paul. MN S3102 • (OS I) 22^ 4740 • Fai (6SI) 223^41 www.cofiMructiv«i<lMsinccoin tbese prices diould be considered somewhat **iMgotiable.’* I would numbers to be marginally less than these quotes. etthe IBnal I am attaching die breakdowns received fiom Rochon for your information and use. Rocfaon is ready to go to woric on any of diese options once they receive direction. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely. lUiam A. wbhers President /oww enc1:3 cc:Mr. Ron Moorse - City of Orono Mr. David Kioos- BKV Group, Inc. Mr.Dan Boxrud - SEH Inc. ,* • Cl - - — 07«<24/2ee3 15:23 S512254741 JUL-94-2B03 B7<S1 ROCHON CORP CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS T'AGE 04 7635596101 P.04/e« •« Sutit tot 1660 A<v«palis LaM Nonh Plymouth, MNOOMr 0«lco 7B3.GB9.SI6S PO»766SMJItOt Loni Llfci nxi SMto" RochonfOlQB jMiy2«,aooi on north iMt or MMkig in Itotf ToM [... li ill I Aii fiiiiiiTfiiBi JSLia »• .*■ # TdiM. P.04 5 07/24/2003 15:23 6512254741 JUL-24-2003 a7«50 RDO«N COfiP CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS PAGE 09 1101 P.B3/B4 ..•Ml RtaliM Suita tOI jasOAnnipoWJJiwNwih Plymoutt).MN6&M7 Offiw 783.tt9 93S3 P«kT«3M9.»i0i Long t«l» Fli* 8®i*®** RoGhonf0206 July M. 2003 » ti-K di»»ln9 03 wuM W W ^ leuMMd *4’’' \\I 07/24/2003 15:23 6512254741 JUL-24-20B3 07150 KOCN CORP CXM5TRUCTIVE IDEAS PAGE 06 7635S98101 P.K/M m0t • • • 8un«ioi 3650 Ann«puin) Ng^ Plyinoutti, MN19447 Oflie«7«3.SS0.UI3 Pai 763.690.6101 LonoUtonpomtHdn Rochontasoa juiyH26 pwU.H.dnwl(HlC3raviMimMl0iii ____ 01 ooMlii 0MO of WNili ^9lv0 oM not bo iMWOd MfiSSMSS! ammoMna 200f laoo A«ctMad6mO 1.000 6ftt 1.00 CphiiPaWh»illi>>Bi____ agbiinwoo ICIiWOOOli0iiPloei»WC urdMBoeiimflwoondi^lioo-tonD^OoB i IL ispm 2J77.00 i Ba»iP3 uumt Slcmi flw«#C0iBnBwiw»uniPi (aodOcnortindwolit mM S.9BO.OO 3233 llZfiiSB. l^odion l4—vWon Qanoti^ CondWoni OHAP Bond ToW S.0d«i»aia40Bordf OAOwHttQLS^nBM jeffWUmuufu ___ ^wnUitB.vic»wiyi»y jL 2MLOO mxuEi T >.<'1 ■BCi3Cl 9B3.00 amM 2M0M CRgEJ ■rXLiLyl 1.7Q0J0 T mmxQ mm cnl ] ...............—-«mg REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ^ ® Cl IY OH UHO/VO DATE: July 24,2003 ITEM NO: 22. Department Approval: Name Lin Vee Title City Clerk Administrator Reviewed: Item Description: List of Licenses for Council Approval Agenda Section: Licenses SPECIAL EVENT PERMITS 1. 2. Applicant;Maria Swenson Event:Birthday Party and Live Music for SO - 75 Guests Location:875 Forest Arms Lane Date:Saturday, August 9,2003 Time;6:00 p.m. - 11:30 p.m. Applicant:Brian McCollor/Jarrod Sokolowski - Gear West Ski & Run Event:Com Days Annual 4 Mile Run Location:Hackberry Park, Brown Road South and Willow Drive Date:Sunday, August 10,2003 Time:11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the above listed licenses. c i k CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date Issued: Date of Event: Time: July 28,2003 Saturday, August 9,2003 6:00 p.m. • 11:30 p.m. Name of Person(s) And/or Organization Sponsoring this Event: Maria Swenson 875 Forest Arms Lane Orono,MN 55364 Phone:952-472-1912 Location of Event: 875 Forest Arms Lane Type of Event: Birthday party with live music for approximately 50-75 guests The following documents are required and on file at the City Administrative Offices: • Approval from Orono Police Department • Approval from Building and Zoning Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: This special events permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or identification of hazards to safety of the public. A noise exemption will be granted for live music which is played between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. Notification of the event to be provided to the neighboring residents, including the date of the event, the hours the music will play, and a contact name and phone number for any questions or concerns regarding this event. Parking is restricted to one side of Forest Arms Lane. “No Parking” signs are available from the Orono Police Department. Approved at City Council meeting on: July 28,2003 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator *. r* 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 5S323 Phone: 952-249-4600/Fax: 952-249-4616/www.ci.oroiio.nB.us I li ii CITY OF ORONO SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT Date Issued: Date of Event. Time: Type of Event: July 29,2003 August 10,2003 11:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. Corn Days Annual 4 Mile Run Name of Pcrson(s) And/or Organiiation Sponsoring this Event: Brian McCollor/Jarrod Sokolowski 1908 W. Wa>'zata Blvd. P.O. Box 188 Long Lake, MN 55356 Phone: 952-473-0377 Location of Event: i lackbeny Park, Broxsn Road South and Willow Drive (I lackberry Park at Wilk'w Drive, south to Brown Road, north to Orchard I^ne, west to Holbrook Park) The following documents are required and on file at the City Administrative Offices: • Certificate of General Liability Insurance • Proposed Route of Event • Approval from Orono Police Department and Building and Zoning Department The following conditions have been placed on this event: • lliis special event permit is subject to immediate revocation by the Orono Police Department upon violation of any City Ordinances or identification ofhazards to safety of the public. • Race volunteers to be as'ailable to assist with traffic at the following locations; Start Point WatertownAVillow Brown/Willow BrowTvTox BrownAVatertown Brown/Orchard Finish Point Cleanup Start and Finish areas. Permit holder is responsible for removing all related signs at the end of the event. Signage is limited to the day of the event and is to be located so as to not impact traffic visibility' (i.e. low to the ground or back from the right-of-w'.:y) For reserx e officers, contact the Orono Police Department to determine a>*ailability. Phone: (952) 249-4700. Runners to be asked to run facing tralTic at the Start. Long Lake Fire Department to be asked if Resuce Squad can be available for emergency medical needs. Contact through Long Lake City Hall. Approved at City Council meeting on: July 28,2003 (City Seal) Ronald J. Moorse, City Administrator 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone: 952-249-4600 / Fax: 952-249-4616 /www.cii»onojnD.us CITY OF ORONO Check Detail Register® 07/28/03 9 03 AM Pagel JULY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Comment M 2 8 2005 CITY ut UH( 10100 Primery Cash PaidChk# 076362 7/14/03 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT E 402-48032-441 Licenses & Taxes $75 00 Permit Permit OCB Rd TH12 - Fox MSA ToUl THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT $75 00 Paid Chk# 076363 7/14/03 ARROWWOOD RESORT E 101-41500-437 Training & Development E 101-41500-437 Training & Development Total ARROWWOOD RESORT $210 87 Kuehn $210 87 Olson $421 74 Lodging GFOA Conference Lodging GFOA Conference Paid Chk# 076374 7/28A)3 ANDERSON. KRISTI E 101-41300-319 Other Professional Services E 101-42400-319 Other Professional Services Total ANDERSON. KRISTI $200 00 $335 00 $535 00 JULY03 JULY03 council 7/14 B&Z7/21 Paid Chk* 076375 7/28A13 ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES E 10M1900-201 Office supplies $54 50 6013-327424 Coffee - CH E 101-42110-201 Office supplies $11040 6013-327425 Coffee - PD E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $54 50 6013-327426 Coffee - PW Total ARAMARK REFRESHMENT SERVICES $219 40 Paid Chk« 076376 7/28/03 AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO G 602-20600 Contracts Payable G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress G 601-20600 Contracts Payable G 601-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress Total AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS CO. ($2,411 10) RFPi2 $48 222 00 RFP#2 ($803 70) RFPi2 $16.074 00 RFPi2 $6108120 RFP#2 SCADA SYSTEM RFP«2-SCADA SYSTEM RFPi2-SCAOA SYSTEM RFPS2-SCADA SYSTEM Paid Chki 076377 7/28/03 BATTERIES PLUS E 601-49400-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories Total BATTERIES PLUS $17 03 $17 03 a'1-32847 Batteries Paid Chk* 076378 7/28A13 BFI OF MINNESOTA. INC E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bkfgs/Grounds $78 90 1307115 Solid Waste Service E 101-45200-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $65 75 1307214 Sokd Waste Service E 101-41900-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $251 17 1307420 Solid Waste Service E 613-49830-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $72 33 1307461 Sokd Waste Service Total Bfl Of MINNESOTA, INC $468 15 Paid Chk* 076379 7/28/03 BIFFS INC. E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $11691 W195113 biff rental E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $121 82 W195114 biff rental E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $121 82 VA/195115 biff rental E 613 49830-415 Other Equipment Rentals $60 91 W195116 biff rental E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $60 91 W195117 biff rental E 101-45200-415 Other Equipment Rentals $256 91 W195118 biff rental Total BIFFS INC.$73928 Paid Chk# 076380 7/28A)3 BLOOSNHQTON. CITY Of E 601-49400-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges Total BLOOMINGTON. CITY Of $60 00 040103-60300 iMrtefting $60 00 Paid ChkS 076381 775503 BONESTNOO ROSENE S ASSOC G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress $1,625 06 97786 G601-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress $2.444 13 97767 E 402-48037-304 Engineenng-Consulling $1.854 93 97788 Hwy 12 - Stonebay Swr Insdustnal Pk Wtr Mam Imp Fcm St Bridge Replace CITY OF ORONO 07/28A)3 9 03 AM Page 2 *Check Detail Register® JULY 2003 Check Amt liwoice Comment E 651-49910-304 Engineering-Consulting E 10143260-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-304 Engineering-Consulting E 101-43170-303 Engineenng-Retainer E 651 -49910-304 Engineenng-ConsuHing G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress E 402-48030-304 Engineering-Consulting E 406-48735-304 Engineering-Consulting G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const in progress G 602-16500 Fixed Asset-Const m progress E 406-48736-304 Engineenng-Consulting E 425-48945-304 Engineering-Consulting G 601-16500 Fixed Asset-Cc *'st. in progress E 402 48037-304 Engineering-Consulting E 42548945-304 Engineering-ConsuKing Total B0NE8TR00R0SENEAA880C. $1.379 89 $1,739 29 $297 00 $150 00 $96 00 $348 00 $15812 $1.026 71 $: 232 58 $1.894 00 $2.17479 $11.156 21 $2.227 89 $1.669 46 $7,631 25 $40.105 31 97789 98676 98678 98676 98678 98679 98680 98681 98682 96683 98684 98685 98686 98687 98688 Erosion Control Ord Applic May 2003 Calculate Alt Street Lenghts Counal Mtgs Apr-May 2003 Caroline/Ethle Drainage SCAOA 05/2003 Co Rd 19 SidewatK North Arm Lane Paving NLL Swr Ext - John Makay CR15 Forcemain Imp-Spates Femdale Rd Bridge Replace Nav Fire St & Util Imp Industrial Park Wtr Main Imp Fox St Bridge Replace Nav Fire Site Imp Paid Chk# 076382 7/28A)3 BOYER FORD A TRUCK E 101-43000402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $55 78 414305 Oil Leak - 425 E 10143000402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip $1.224 55 414764 king pm* #427 Total BOYER FORD 4 TRUCK $1.280 33 Paid Chki 076383 7/28A)3 E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint Supplies Total BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC. $735 41 52565 $73541 GS#6 mam break Paid Chk* 0763S4 7/28/03 BUDIGe STAQE E 10142110437 Training & Development Total BUOIG. STACIE $357 30 7/10A)3 $357 30 Tuition - Bus Comp Sys Paid Chki 076385 7/28A)3 CARGILL SALT E 60149400-218 Chemicals and Chem Products Total CARGILL SALT $1.510 71 15383 $1,510/1 Solar Salt Paid Chki 076386 7/28A)3 DCA • WIRE ONLY G 101-21719 DCA/Spending Accounts Total DCA-WIRE ONLY $692 87 072303 $69287 FLEX SPO Paid Chk* 076387 7/28/03 DELL E 101-42110-570 OfRca Eqwp and Fumiehings Total DELL $2 619 71 390040914 $2.61971 Inspiron 8500 Paid Chk# 076388 7/28A)3 DELTA DENTAL G 101-21709 G 101-15996 Dental Insurance Non-Employee Health Ins Total DELTA DENTAL $1.374 05 37220072 $477 30 37220072 $1851 35 Dental 7/2003 Dental 7/2003 Paid Chki 076389 7/28A)3 DEPT OF AOM • INTERTECH GROUP E 101-41900-321 Telephone $97 00 W03050601 E 101-42110-321 Telephone $41 58 W03050601 Total DEPT OF AOM-BiTERTECH GROUP $138 58 long dial long diet Paid dhki 6^6300 7/28/6i EDii.MANN t ASSOCIATES INC E 601-49400-227 UUNty System Maint Supplies $1.102 54 078644 Total EOELMANN S MSOCIATES INC. $1,102 54 pwnp Paid ChMP 076391 7^M3 OKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRCTR CITY OF ORONO 07/26/03 9 03 AM Page 3 *Check Detail Register® JULY 2003 Check Affil Imroice CommiH E 101-43000-406 Contracted Street Main! Total EOAI44iCKAY ELECTRICAL CONTRCTR $217 50 JC30110791 $217 50 Light -12 and 6 I Paid ChM 076392 7/26A)3 ENOINEERMO REPRO SYSTEMS E 101-41900-201 Office supplies $107 35 51401 Map Copies Total ENOINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS $107 35 Paid ChM 07^3^3 7/28A)3 ESS BROTHERS S SONS E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint Supplies $1.269 75 FF2086 Riser Rings Total ESS BROTHERS S SONS $1,269 75 Paid ChkS 076394 7/26A)3 FAEORE A BENSON LLP E 101-43290-600 Speaal Projects. Contingency $1.345 50 791194 Equip Cert Legal Exp Total FAEORE S BENSON LLP $1.345 50 Paid ChM 076395 7/26«3 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC E 602-49450-227 Utility System Mamt Supplies $107 63 325656 valva E 602-49450-227 Utility System Maint Supplies $69661 326655 parts S pipe Total 1FEROUSON ENTERPRISES, INC $604 44 Paid ChM 076396 7/28/03 FORTIS BENEFITS G 101-21712 Other Oaductions $626 67 JULY03 denial (/7-03 Total FORTIS BENEFITS $626 67 Paid ChM 076397 7/28A)3 GBKSERVICES E 613-49630-226 Clothing & personal equipment $549 E 101-43000-226 Clothing & personal equipment $67 92 E 101-43000-226 Clothing 6 personal equipment $60 56 uniforms E 613-49630-226 Clothing & personal equipment $5 76 E 601-49400-226 Clothing & personal equipment $11 52 E 602-49450-226 Clothing & personal equipment $2304 E 602-49450-226 Clothing & personal equipment $25 12 E 601-49400-226 Clothing & personal equipment $1256 E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $49 53 611766 uniforms E 602-49450-226 Clothing & personal equipment $22 10 618599 uniforms E 613-49630-226 Clothing & personal equipment $5 49 618599 uniforms E 601-49400-226 Clothing & personal equipment $11 05 618599 uniforms E 101-4300C-226 Clothing & personal equipment $77 26 616599 uniforms E 613-49630-226 Clothing & personal equipment $575 625356 uniforms E 601-49400-226 Clothing & personal equipment $12 09 625356 uniforms E 101-43000-226 Clothing 6 personal equipment $64 55 625356 uniforms <DCMCMs§IIIClothing 6 personal equipment $24 18 625356 uniforms E 101-43000-226 Clothing T.^i-^al equipnnent $54 00 625356 uniforms E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Mamt-Bldga/Gfounds $94 26 631973 E 101-42110-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldga/Grounds $122 51 631974 mats E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds $54 90 631975 ntat service E 101-41900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Orounds $62 07 631976 mat service ToUl OSN SERVICES $931 73 Paid ChM 676398 7/28.'03 GOPHER STATE ONE-CAU. E 601-49400-469 Other Miscellaneous Charges $62 00 locales E 602-49450-469 Other MisoeRaneous Charges $62 00 3060610 locates Total OOPHER STATE ONE-CALL $12400 f I E 101-41000-201 Office supplies 142 66 160690 Pnnihead • plotlir J CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 07^8/03 9 03 AM Page 4 JULY 2003 Ctieck Amt Invoice Comment Total OS DIRECT $42 86 Paid Chk« 076400 7/28/03 NANCE UTIUTY SERVICES. INC E 602-49450489 Other Miscellaneous Charge! $67 00 6862 Total NANCE UTIUTY SERVICES. INC $67.00 LOCATES Paid Chk# 076401 7/28A)3 NAWKINS CNESNCAL E 601-49400216 Chemicals and Chem Products Total NAWKINS CNEMICAL $1.493 38 534022 $1.493 38 Flourine. Chlorine Paid Chki 076402 7/26A)3 NECKSEL MACNINE INC. E 601-49400222 Vehicle Equipnwnt & Parts E 602-49450222 V4hide Equipment & Parts Total NECKSEL MACNINE INC. $201 82 071503 $201 83 071503 $403 65 TOOLBOX TOOLBOX Paid Chk» 076403 7/26A)3 NENNEPIN CO-OP SEED EXCNANOE E 101-43000221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $25 35 50049 Total NENt^N COOP SEED EXCNANGE $25 35 Propane Paid Chk« 076404 7/28A)3 NINSNAW S CULBERTSON E 101-42110-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-43280-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600-307 LegaK^onsulting E 101-41600307 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600-30/ Legal-Consulting E 101-41800-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600307 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600305 Legal-Retainer E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting E 101-41600-307 Legal-Consulting Totol NINSNAW S CULBERTSON $7200 $3,523.16 $746 00 $761 00 $730 00 $429 00 $6 64 $1,301 80 $780 00 $728 00 $9.077 60 10110113 10310112 10310113 10310113 10310113 10310113 10310113 10310114 10310115 10310115 Hiring Issues-Prexisting Cond AppiicMay 2003 Bottenberg Matter Prof Prop of Orono Cable Prop Zoning Violation Manly Tide Registration Gen Legal-May Council Mtgs May 2003 Council/Staff ord Bottenberg Matter Paid Chk# 076405 7/28X)3 lOENTAORUO E 101-42110-433 Memberships & Subscriptions Total IDENTAORUG $65 55 S3848 $6555 Drug Reference Web Access Paid Chk# 076t06 7/28A)3 JONNSON. RICK E 101-42110-319 Other Professional Services Total JONNSON.RICK $82 50 7/3A)3 $82 50 Deer Removal 5/2003 Paid Chk# 076407 7/28/03 JOHNSTON FARGO CULVERT. INC. E 101-43000-224 Street Mamt Malerials/SuppSy $3.950 72 125936 Total JOItNSTONFARGOCULVERT.INC. $3 950 72 CULVERTS Paid Chk# 076408 7/28/03 KENNETH N. POTTS. PA E 101-41600-306 Legal-Prosecution Total KENNETH N. POTTS. PA $2.39166 7/1/2003 $2.39166 Prosecutions 6/03 Paid Chk# 076409 7/28A)3 LOGIS E 101-42110-310 LOGIS-Applications $1.643 00 23065 Police Records 5/03 E 101-41900-311 Data Processing Communication $30 00 23065 Henn Cty Connection E 101-41900-329 Other Communicalions $159 00 23065 Internet 5/03 E 101-42110-329 Other Communications $15900 23065 Internet 5/03 E 101-42110-401 Repaks/Maint-Offloe Equip $106 25 23120 Innoculan Updates E 101-41900-401 Repairs/Maint-Oince Equip $106 25 23120 Innoculan Updates Total LOOM $2,203 50 ! CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Registei® 07/28/03 9:03 AM Pages JULY 2003 CKeck Amt Invoice Comment 1Paid Chki 076410 7/28A)3 LONO LAKE. CITY OF Q601-16S00 Fixed Asset-Conat in progreM Total LONO LAKE, CITY OF $567 90 071703-2 LL/Orono wtr systems interconn $567 90 PaidChMI 076411 7/26/03 LUBE TECH E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels ^ Lubricants E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants Tot^ LUBE TECH $98 60 969472 $54 77 971632 $153 37 Tar Remover. Washer Fluid grease Paid Chki 076412 7/28/03 MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOW8KIB CO E 101-41900-301 E 613-49830-301 E 101-41500-301 E 602-49450-301 E 601-49400-301 Auditing and Acctg Services Auditing and Accf g Services Auditing and Acct'g Services Auditing and Accfg Services Auditing and Accfg Services Total MALLOY MONTAGUE KARNOW8KI ICO $3.35200 $2.360 00 $4,231.00 $3.600 00 $2.81000 $16.353 00 11706 11706 11706 11706 11706 Audit RFP63 Final Audit RFP»3 Final Audit RFP#3 Final Audit RFPi3 Final Audit RFPi3 Final Paid Chki 076413 7/28A)3 MCLEOD USA • PHONE BILLS E 601-49400-321 Telephone $22.72 062003 phones E 101-41900-321 Telephone $477 03 062003 phones E 101-42110-321Telephone $204 44 062003 phones E 602-49450-321 Telephone $53 00 062003 phones E 601-49400-321 Telephone $47 40 062003 phones E 602-49450-321 Telephone $39 45 062003 phones Total MCLEOD USA • PHONE BILLS $844 04 MIDWEST FUELSPaid Chki 076414 7/28A)3 O 101-14101 Gasoline Inventory E 101-43000-212 Motor Fuels S Lubricants Total MIDWEST FUELS $2.119 45 20881 $722.29 20881 $2,841 74 gasonline diesel Paid Chki 076415 ^7/28/03 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY E 101-42110-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $83 23 ja759945 E 101-43000-221 Equipment Parts & Accessories $30 67 RI06030874 Tout MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY $113 90 OXYGEN Tank Rental Paid Chki 076416 7/28X)3 MN DEPT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY E 613-49830-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $52 73 2NDQTR'03 E 101-42110-489 Other Miscellaneous Charges $2.358 00 2NDQTR 03 ToUl MN DEPT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY $2,410 73 Paid Chki 076417 vvorkers comp/Jensen workers comp/hendricks 7/28A)3 0 601-20602 Due to govts-State Total MN DEPT OF HEALTH-CON FEE MN DEPT OF HEALTH - CON FEE $1.144 00 2ndqtr $1.144 00 connection fee E 602-49450-402 Repairs/Maml-Auto Equip E 601-49400-402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip Total MOBILE RADIO ENGBIEERINOINC. $167 07 113332 $167 07 113332 1334.14 radio remount ratio remount [ Paid Chki 076418 7/28X)3 MN DEPT OF REVENUE R 101-34650 Police Reports $14 00 5/2003 Sales Tax 5/2003 R601-39610 Miscellaneous Revenue $15 00 5/2003 Sales Tax 5/2003 R 101-34210Ger^erai Taxable Sales/Servioe $14 00 5/2003 Sales Tax 5/2003 G 613-20806Due to Govts-State Sales Tax $1.975 00 5/2003 Sales Tax 5/2003 Total MN DEPT OF REVENUE $2.01800 ____ CITY OF ORONO *Check Detail Register® 07/28A)3 9.03 AM Pages 1 JULY 2003 Check Amt Invoice Commentmhki 07642I 7/28/03 MTIDI8TCO. E 613^9630403 Repairt/Maint-Misc Equip Total MTIDI8TCO. $272 50 362556^ $27250 Open Irrigation Line PakIChki 076421 7/28A)3 NEOPOST E 101-42110.201 omc« supplies Total NEOPOST $139 00 41452241 $139 00 Rate Change Protection Paid Chk» 076422 7/2(iA)3 OLD DUTCH FOODS INC. E 61349900-093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl Total OLD DUTCH FOODS me. $7 14 6000978 $7 14 Chips for Resale PaMChM 07A42a 7/2R/D3 PIRTEK E 10143000-221 Equipment Parts 6 Accessories E 10143000403 Repairs/Maint-Misc Equip Total PIRTEK $22 74 20196 $8321 PL20466 $105 95 Mower Parts parts (/flail mower Paw Chk* 076424 7/2V02 POST BOARD E 101-42110441 Lloensas & Taxes Total POST BOARD $90 00 Arneson $90 00 Post License - Arneson PaWChk* 076425 7/28A)3 PRAIRIE OFFSET E 101-41900-201 Office supplies Total PRAIME OFFSET $266 28 118996 $266 28 LETTERHEAD&BUS CAROS PaWChM 076426 7/28ff)3 PROLAWNS E 10141900-404 Repairs/Maint-Bidgs/Grounds E 101-45200-404 RapairsyMaint-eidgsKVounds Total PROLA1NNS $330 15 6/20^3 $1.288 65 6/20/03 $1.61880 Weed/Feed Parks Weed/Feed Parks Paid Chk# 076427 7/28A)3 QWEST E 60149400-321 Telephone Total QWEST $103 00 072003 $103 00 phones Paid 6hki 076428 7/28/03 SA-AG INC. E 60249450-227 Utility System Maint Supplies Total 8A-AO INC. $517 63 30975 $51763 FILL SAND PaW Chki 076429 7/28ff)3 SAFETY SIGNS E 10143000415 Other Equipment Rentals Total SAFETY SIGNS $175 73 30927 $17573 Barricade l>aW Chki 076430 7/26A>3 SAMARITAN TIRE CO INC E 10142110-221 Equipment Parts 6 Accessories Total SAMARITAN TIRE CO INC $69.48 132605 $69 48 Tire CSO Truck PaW Chki 076431 7/2IV03 SBC PAGING E 60249450489 Other Miscellaneous Charges E 60149400489 Other Miscettaneous Charges Total S8CPACNN0 $3361 48300507034 $3361 48300507034 $67 22 Pagers-PW Pagers-PVtf >aWChki 076432 7/2BA)3 SCHARBERSSONS E 101-43000-221 Equip«nenl Parts & Accessories E 101-43000-221 Equipmeiil Parts S AcoassoriM E101-43000-221 Equipment Parts A Aocesaonas $295 31 01 294974 ($23 39) 2033156 $318 2033163 Condenser - Mower return parts fMersAparts Total •CHARKfltMIIS $275.10 CITYOFORONO 07/28«39:03AM Page? *Check Detail Registei® JULY 2003 wmmFm Check Amt Invoice Comment m 8IOm OF THE SEASON E 602-49450402 RepairiAMnt-Aiilo Equip E 10145200-223 Bktg/Orounds Meint. Suppket ToM SIGNS OF THE SEASON $7325 1259 $26 63 1281 $99 68 Graphics #712 Beach Parking Signs PaldChki 076434 TSSW STEFFENHAOEN. RON E 61349030-201 Office supplies E61349900-095 Pro Shop Hems For Resale Total STEFFENHAOEN. RON $16.90 7/11/03 $191.59 7/15A)3 $208 49 Paper - Credit Card Machine Golf Balls Paid Chk# 076435 7S®W STRUCTURED NET1NORK SOLUTIONS E 10142110404 Repairs/Maint-Bldga/Ofounds $1.705 53 11043 Total STRUCTURED NETWORK SOLUTIONS $1.705 53 Cabling - PoKce Dept Paid Chkf 076436 7/28«3 TOU GAS « WELOINO SUPf^ E 101-43000-221 Equlpmant Parts & Accastories $585 422903 E 10143000-415 Other Equipmant Rantals $11500 708535 Talal TOUOA8 A WEUM40 SUPPLY $120.85 Cylinder Rental cylinder rental Paid ChkS 076437 7/28A)3 TWIN CITY OARAGE DOOR^ E 10142110404 Repairs/Maint-BidosA^nds $95 00 168682 Total T1NIN CITY OARAGE DOOR CO. $9500 Malnt • PD Garage Door Paid Chkf 076438 7/28A)3 US BANK NA • WIRE ONLY E 30847000401 Debt Srv Bond Principal E 30847000411 Bond Interest E 31147000411 Bond Interest E 31347000411 Bond Interest E 31447000411 Bond Interest G 312-10102 Cash-¥MAruslee E 31247000411 Bond Interest E 31247000411 Bond Interest Total US BANK NA-WIRE ONLY $860.00000 14889550 $22.827 50 14889550 $32.130 62 15035450 $24.436 25 25525000 $20,631 25 33385060 ($1.095 21) HRA $1.095 21 HRA $38.317 29 HRA $998,342.91 Called Princ 8/1/03 Int Due 8/1/03 Int Due 8/1/03 Int Due 8/1/03 Int Due 8/1/03 HRA Trust A/C Cash 98 HRA Int Due 8/1/03 98 HRA Int Due 8/1/03 Paid ChkS 076439 7/28AI3 VALLEY-RICH CO E 60249450406 RepairsAHaint-Swr llnesriirts Total VALLEY-RICHCO $2,263.49 7155 $2,263.49 aevwr main breakTTonkayn&Elm Paid ChM 076440 7/28rt)3 VESSCOWC. E 601-49400-227 Utillly System MainL Supplies Total VE88COINC. $67.15 29278 $67.15 valve l/Mtr plam 10100 Primary Cash $1,172,833.57 i CtTYOFORONO 07/28/03 9:03 AM P«0«8 *Check Detail Register® JULY 2003 Ctiecfc Amt tnvotce Comment Fund Summary 101 GENERAL FUND 30S 1002 IMRPROVEMENT BONOS FUND 311 1007 IMPROVEMENT BONO 312 1000 HRA REFUNOING BOND FUND 313 1000 IMPROVEMENT BONO 314 2000 IMPROVEMENT BONO 402 MUNICIPAL ST AID ST CONSTUCT 406 PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT REVOLVE 425 NAVARRE RRE STATION PROJ FUND 601 WATER OPERATING FUND 602 SEWER OPERATING FUND 613 GOLF COURSE 651 STORM WATER UTILITY OP FUND 10100 Primary Cash $50,028.03 $882,827.50 $32,130.62 $38.31720 $24.436 25 $20,631 25 $3,75751 $3,201 50 $18.787 46 $20.41487 $61.892 01 $5,031 59 $1.47589 $1,172.83357 ■V •••• ? : V • . - ’i . •mpOKMATION items COUNCIL MEETING OF JUL 2 6 200} ciiyui -uhonu i ! 4 i !t 1 % % r r- JUL 2 8 2003 VmJi cmrof CUT or UHONO IK Municipal Offices Street Mdreu: 2750 Kelley Parliway Orono, MN 55356 MeWef Mirett: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 July 24,2003 Tim Lembke 4445 Forest Lake Landing Orono, MN 55364 Re: Potential for Rezoning Properties on Old Crystal Bay Road Dear Mr. Lembke: We are in receipt of your inquiry regarding the possibility of rezoning your property on Old Crystal Bay Road North, and adjacent properties, from RR-IB: Single Family Rural Residential to I: Industrial. Please be advised that the City of Orono adopted its 2000-2020 Community Management Plan (referred to as the CMP) knowing full well the location and general parameters surrounding the new routing of Highway 12. The Council spent considerable time reviewing the potential impactsofthe Highway 12 route and how it might afTect the City’s ability to maintain a rural character in central Orono. The conclusion reached was that all areas south of the relocated railroad would remain guided and zoned for low-density single family development. While it was anticipated that properties adjacent to or near the corridor would be affected by the highway noise, it was also anticipated that two factors would help to mitigate the noise impactr One factor, which was also a key factor in the decision to use the BNRR corridor as the location for the new highway, is that the BNRR corridor is an existing transportation corridor that already has impacts, such as noise, on the adjacent properties. Another factor was that the location of the highway, approximately 20 feet below grade, would substantially mitigate the noise impacts. The BNRR corridor has served for many years as the transition point from industrial uses to residential uses. Thecorridoritselfhasbeenbothabarrierandabufferbetweenthetwouses. Ifthis transition point was to be moved south of the corridor, it would cause three major problems. First, there would no longer be a clear transition point betw een industrial and residential uses. Second, there would no longer be a buffer between industrial and residential uses. Third, the new area of industrial uses would have a substantial negative impact on the existing rural residential uses to the west, south and east. r Tck|(952) 249-4M0 • Wn (952) 249^M www4l,orom>.m.iM J Tim Lcmbkc July 24,2003 Page 2 The City has no intent at this time to broaden its industrial base nor to expand non-residential uses south of the highway/railroad corridor. To do so would bring added commercial traffic and activity nearer to existing residential neighborhoods that developed with a reliance that the City would not further encroach on them with non-residential uses. From a staff perqiective, I can offer no support for your proposal. It is completely opposite from the direction in which Orono has been moving for the past 30 years or more, and I would expect little or no public support and no support by the City Council for anything but low-density residential south of the corridor. The process for your request, should you wish to pursue this further, would first involve a formal application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, involving a public hearing process and reviews by the Planning Commission, Park Commission and City Council. In the highly unlikely event that such an application was successful, a formal application would have to be submitted by the City to the Metropolitan Council for approval. Your estimation of 6-8 months is optimistic for a proposal with strong City support; for a proposal such as yours, that would have potentially significant impacts on the character of rural Orono and result in the need for new infrastructure, I can give you no realistic timeline. If you have further questions, please contact me at 952-249-4600. Sincerely, Michael P. Gatiron Planning Director cc: Mayor & Council City Administrator -*‘.7 wmmm' ^^ -I- ■« 1 Jut^gi 03 10:47a // /f-An Fax to: Mike Gaf&oo Director of PI From: Tim Lembke 2 pages. ig #249-4616 MrGafl^ I read in the local paper complaints fiom residents on Old Crystal Bay Rood about the railro^ moving closer towards them. Obvious complaints would be die noise, vibration, and dust Under die current plan for the area what is now residential will become undesirable and unsuitable for everyday living. I contacted Councihnembers Jim White and Bob Sansevere. Jim mentioned he would bring it up with you because it is a timely issue. Bob e-mailed me back prompdy, urging me to contact you. The attached map shows my property and areas crosshatched that 1 would support a rezoning to Industrial. If my map were larger the crosshatch would go forlher East I have a rental house on my property and don't feel I could rent it out after the tracks are relocated. The best use of the property would be Industrial. I know the process of rezomng is a 6-8 month ordeal involving hearings, applications, and meetings. I ^ipreciate your attention to this timely matter. TimLeml^e 4445 Forest Lake Landing Orono, MN 55364 Ph. 952 472 2062 e-mail timlembke(g|aol.com it., P- t N •iA \ Jur 21 03 10t48a P2 CERTFICATE OF SURVEY FOR N THE NE 1/4, SW 1/4, SEC. 33-118-23 HENNEPM COUNTY. MMNESOTA l-TSH J 07/23/2003 12:10 FAX 1S07S3S4S67 ■EOIACOM 131002/002 juL 2 8 2003 Press Alert 11 <^r FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Marian Loz^ino. C-SPAN (::02) 626-4861 MEDIACOM WELCOMES AWARD-WINNING C-SPAN SCHOOL BUS TO EXCELSIOR AND WAYZATA Washington , D.C., July 17.2003- The award-winnlag C-SPAN Schott Bus, ■ 45>foQt televisioD prodaction studio and dcmonstratloa center, continnes Ht trek around the country with visits to Excelsior and Wayxata, MN. On Wednesday, Jnly 30, the C-SPAN School Bus will visit the Excdslor PnbUc Library 9:00am to 10:30am. The 45-foot motor coach, a traveling TV production studio and media demonstration center, will provide community leaders and the general public with fint-hand knowledge of the C-SPAN Networks ’ 24-hour public affairs programming - a public i«rvice offered byMediacom. Later that aftenwon the C-SPAN School Bus will visit Waysatn and park along Lake Minnetonka at 402 Lake Street fiom 11:00am to l:30pns. C-SPAN staff will be rnoviding tours and demonstrations of the Bus, introducing visitors to the C-SPAN networks and ta.ldng about die non-profit, non-commercial cable network ’s programming, die in^Milance of balance, and an unedited approach to information dissemination. This marks the lO"* year that the C-SPAN School Bus has been touring the country, visiting all fifty states and state cqiitols through the he^ of local cable systems. Well over 100 cable systems and educational outlets will host the Bus throughout the 2002-2003 year. The visit to the Turlu Cities is sponsored by Mediacom, which carries C-SFAN on channel 16 and C-SPAN 2 on channel 14. The C-SPAN School Bus schedule can be found on the network ’s official web site, located at www.c-spaa.org. Visit the site to leam more fivts about the bus. Serving as an online resource to public affairs, c-span.org features a video/audio archive of C-SPAN prog ramming and general information on the C-SPAN networks. Mediarain) \ A