Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01-22-2003 Planning Packet
t f''* ^'w ORONO PLANMNG COMMISSION WcdBctday Jaaaary 22,2003 6:30 P3I 2750 KfWe>- Parkwav - Couacil Chambers AGENDA Couacil RcprescatatKe: Mayor Peterson AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please slga ia for the public record at the froat podium if you wish to address the Planaini: Commissioa. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planaini; Commission is an advisory- body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they w ill be scheduled for the Kebruaiy- 10,2003 City Council meeting unless otherwisc noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. 1102-2855 Kevin Garnett 450 Orono Orchard Road Renew al CUP / Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 2. #02-2850 JohnandPatricia Walker 1318 Spruce Place Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) OLD BUSINESS 3. #02-2854 Kevin Manley If73 Eagerness Point Road CUP/\'ariancc (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 4. #02-2753 Wesley B>-rrne 2817 Casco Point Road Plan Revisions (Staff: Mike Gaffron) NEW BUSINESS 5. #02-2856 Andrew and Tracey Rascher 4705 North Shore Drl\ e Variance (Suff: Jennifer Chaputt 6. #02-2857 C>Tithia Piper 1125 Spring Hill Road CUP (Staff: Jennifer Chaputi 7. #02-2850 Blake and Mary Bichanich 332 Westlake Street N’oriance (Staff: Jennifer Chaput) 8. #02-2860 Sunstatc Concepts. Inc. 1955 Heritage Drive Variances (Staff: .Mike Gaffron) 9. #02-2861 Erik Thompson 1940 Concordia Street Variances (Staff; Wendy Bottenberg) 10. #02-2862 Steven Gronwall 1586 Long Lake Blvd. Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg) 11. #02-2863 Richard Kail 3753 CaKo As enue \*ariances (Staff; Wendy Bottenberg) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 12. Rqwrt of Planning Commission represcntativn attending Council meetings December 9« 2002 and January 13.2003. 13. Other issues for discussion. 14. Planning Commission approval of minutes for November 18,2002. 15. Selection of rerresentatives for City Council meetings on January 27,2003 and Fcbruar>‘ 10. 2003. ADJOURNMENT To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith & Planning Commissioners Mike GafTron. Planning Director ) January 17. 2003 ' Various Topics of Current Imp<inance Ffe®/"/ Here's an update on various things that are happening... 1 ) New City Planner Jennifer Chaput has been hired as our newest City Planner She and Wendy will be sharing responsibilities for the ongoing support of the Planning ( ommission and administration ofour zoning ordinances (Wemayexen do some Planning in theanning year!) Jennifer was City Planner in Long Lake in the late 1 990's, then moved on to Arden Hills and .MnDOT prior to accepting the p«'sition here. 2) 200.1 Kleeting Schedvle The follow ing meetings arc scheduled for 2003. PC and staff should discuss on an ongoing basis whether the work sessions will be held and what topics w ill be considered, but at least they w ill be on your calendars... Ketulmr PC Merrimfs (6:30 p.m. i Wednesday. January 22 Wednesday. February' 19 .Monday, .March 17 Monday, April 21 Monday, .May 19 Monday, Junel 6 Mondayr, July 21 Monday. August 1 8 Monday, September 15 Monday, October 20 Monday. November 1 7 Scheduled tlork Sv%%ioms (5:30 p.m.i Wednesday, January 29 Wednesday, March 5 Wednesday. April 2 Wednesday. May 7 Wednesday. June 4 Wednesday. July 9 Wednesday. August 6 Wednesday. September 3 W'ednesday. October 1 Wednesday. No\ ember 5 Wcdncsd.iy, December 3 January 29 Work Sessioa Topics On January 22 w e should discuss agenda topics for the January 29 work session, which might include one or more of the following: - Status L'pdate on CPUD ordinance • Zoning changes to confomt w ith CMP - Finali/e 'building height and massing* amendment • Finalize 'what constitutes a rebuild' amendment policy - Review \anance renew ability - Discuss making plumbing in accessory structures' an administrative function, and eliminate the CL’P aspect... • Review policies code regarding non-confonning accessory buildings (lakeshore and non- lakeshore); rev isit size of lockboxes - Revisit sign and lighting ordinances • Consider an ordinance that allows retention of conforming accessory buildings during a rebuild, rather than requinng a variance (to section that sez no acc struc w b princ struc) • ________________ (\t)u add one) L_ Clt> News Lony Lake Fire Siation on Willow Drive in schcilulcd lo open in Februor)'. Fire Scr\ ice Chanyes . Long Lake Fire Dcparinieni has hceiin providing fire scr\ ice lo our former Maple Plain ftre serv ice area, as Maple Plain cancelled the contract and Long Lake FD was quite w tiling lo step in. Also, as of 1*I*(»4. the Navarre area will no longer be served by Mound FD, and Orono is making haste lo design and construct a new* satellite fire station on City property along County Road 15 across from Good Shepherd church. Orono will be working with both Long Lake Fire Dept, and the Excelsior Fire district to make the transition aw ay from Mound for the provision of fire scn icc lo the Navarre area. Dahlstrom 1 andfnnn StoneBav Project has hit continuing snags in gaining .MC\VD approval, primarily due to the wetland impacts which MCWD is balking at granting. The plan is reduced lo I62 units at last eount. Council has 'approved the wording' of the General Development Plan Approval Resolution hut has not adoptcil it. Dahlstrom still plans to begin construction on Phase I this spring'early summer. Dental Office The dentists are apparently close to finalizing construction plans, arc in the final stages of completing the purchase of the site, and we expect them lo break ground in the next few weeks. Lifecvric and Workforce Housing The Council has indicated it wants lo become educated regarding all factors that impact the City’s abilii) to create additional housing options at reasonable cost. They plan to schedule a joint work session with presenters from various agencies and organizations, tcnlatively set for Februarv ’ 20ih or 27|h. w iih a goal of gaining an understanding of the key issues and elements involved in the provision of housing to serv e people at various stages of life and at a range of income lev els. Navarre Visioning Council has indicated the first step will be to invite all Navarre area stakeholders (business owners, property ow ners, residents) to a community meeting in March lo gather public input on what the stakeholders want the future of Navarre lo be. and to identify issues that should be addressed through a visioning process. FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Botlenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner January 15.2003 SUBJECT: #02-2855 SharraU Design Company on behalf of Kevin Garnett 450 & 480 Orono Orchard Road Variance/Conditional Use Permit Renewal- Public Hearing ZtBfaig District: RR-IB One Family Rural Rcsidcnlial District (2 acre) Lot Area: 637,806 s.f. (14.73 acre) list ofEihibits A Application B Site Plan/Surv’ey (Proposed) C Elevations/Floor Plans D Plat Map E Property O wtkt 's List F StafrRepoctMay23.2001 Applkation Summary: The applicant is requesting to renew a variance and conditional use permit to permit construction of a new “guest house” on the property. The lot is approximately a 14.73 acre site. There were two residences on the property . The principal residence and bam are addressed at 450 Orono Orchard Road. The caretaker house and detached garage are addressed 480 Orono Orchard Road. The two properties were legally combined in the late 1970*s with the different addresses remaining. Staffs research has concluded that no conditional use permit was granted for the residence and garage at 480 Orono Orchard Road when the property was legally combined. The applicant applied for and wras granted the variance and conditional use pcmiit in May 2001. The plans presented for this application are the same as were approved in 2001. The existing caretaker house and garage (480 Orono Orchard Road) have been demolished. Site Analysu: The property contains about 14.73 acres of which over 13 acres ore contiguous dry buildable land. Lots in the RR-IB district require two acres for the site to be considered buildable. A guest house CUP requires an additional twt) acres to maintain the zoning requirements and comprehensive plan density of not more than one dwelling unit per 2 acres. The RR-IB zoning district requires the following: »02 ’2855 SharrM Design ^50 and 490 Orono Orchard Road i unaneeX^L ’P Renenal I/IS/200S-PI cfS RR-IB (2 acre) 1^ Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Adj Street Rear Yard Required 2 acres plus 2 add. acres for a guest house 200* Existing/ Proposed 13+ acres 663*700- The propert) docs meet the minimum area and wdth requirements for a guest house. Further, the guest house and principal residence will be separated b\ more than 60'. i.c. more than double the required side setback. Guest House Variaucc: Guest houses must meet minimum principal building setbacks. The guest house does meet this requirement. Also. Section 10.03. Subd. 9 (D) stales that an accessory structure {yuesi house) shall not be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. The proposed guest house is proposed to be the same distance to the front lot line as the principal structure. Therefore a variance is NOT required. However, a variance is required for a second oversized accessory structure. An “Oversized Accessory Structure* is defined as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1.000 square feet. Only one oversized accessory structure is allowed on a property. The intent of this is to reduce visual massing of buildings on a site. Section 10.03. Subd 9 (CK2) states: Lot Area 9.01 acre or more Max Individual Accessory Structure Footprint Areas on Property 3.000 s.f Maximum Allowed l otal of All Accessory Structure Footnrint Areas on Property 6.000 s.f. The proposed guest house is approximately 1.500 square feet and the existing bam is approximately 2.000 square feet. The guest house and bam are both accessory structures, however the intent of the guest house is to be a separate dw elling on the property for people to reside. While the letter of the code might be met by constnKting a 1000 s.f. guest house with a SOO s.f. detached garage, on this site the separated garage might add to a perception of clutter on the site whereas the proposed layout with attached garage is relatively compact. *02-2855 Shamil Design Company 450 A 480 Orono Orchard Road \'arianceCVR Reitenol I IS2005-P 2 of 3 S«ptk: A new on*site tewtge treatment system was installed on the property in October, 2000. One treatment system is currently used for both residences. The treatment system is sized for eight bedrooms. The main residence has five bedrooms, leaving three for the guest house. The proposed guest house is two bedrooms. An alternate location will need to be located on the property per a letter provided by the treatmem system installers. (Sec Exhibit E). Hardship: The justification for allowing the second oversize accessory structure is that detaching the garage would meet the letter of the code but would result in greater visual impacts due to a less compact guesthouse/garage combination. Stair Rccammendalioa: Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to the property owner filing a rcstricu\ e covenant in the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants of the principal structure and their non-paying, guests or domestic employees, and that the guest house could not be used for a home occupation. i!02-2855 Shaerat Design Company 4S0 A 480 Orono Orchard Road VtaiimetfCUR Renewal l/lS/200S-F.3efS Appiortipo# n^L Date Received Amount Fold ,co/ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPUCATION FROPERTY LOCATION SiteAddreia Q-f} Type of Applicalioa to be Filed Sp . o ^ /viiJ. ftgtf M i-r Propeity Ideotificatioa Number (P.I.D.) oz - m"7-2.3- />oa^ APPUCANT Nam e <€\ntA m. &Aa^rT ^OJ.r Phone (home). Phone (work) T7/7 Addiea i bo I C^CfcAoel SttsfciCitv aa tMi^gmiaiLA Zip_S£30£l OWNER Of dificfcnt than applicaot) Name ____________________ Address. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Date Property Acquired \ 2-1 Z^| I (da) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month^ear) ✓ FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERhDTS • _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Reiideiitial Accessory Use $250.00 InstHutiooal (church, icbool. etc.) $225.00 Quest House/Guest Apartments $200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Ocadtng and filling • designated wetland or floot^plain ____ Grading and filling - 501 co. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining wails within 75* of lakeshore PRD/PID • see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change fiom original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 App^ Other > see Fee Schedule # • f teas' REQUIRED SUBMITTALS I- -Z_ CooplMMl AivUntin Fom. 2. yf Dctciibe icqacM lo detail. 350'. Ub«U and pta map (yoo * ------'»y « tunreyof) ■ itfa lo handout fa, nnv.^ «■ -4- ''«**P*® “ Wlication if not indadad oo lequiied amvey. ■ ”«^) if ■»<l mvol»c ®f*>>P««ins with an Iniotsi in the S y «PPUcant(s) if not cuneni owieift). ^ o :^ ?******^?“^*^ WBcd)lc(iee Staff fw require 9. As an addendum lo this application, please attach s separate list of any other penons you wish notified of this application. ^ ^ SUPPLY 30 CX>PIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY suBMnr^VSi®^i/“” ^ smaller ) for all document “al« drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be »*«» ^ appUcalion. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SICNATURE p* fPPMcwK hewby agieei to provide all infoimallon requiied or requested by the 7nnin , Applicant's signature_______________________Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE WKcation and ftinher authorired reasonable emiy onto the propem ^ City staff, consultants, agents, commissioo members, and CouncU memben for putpo^^f mvesu^on and veriGcatioa of this request. Owner’ssifiiature \ ________Date ||- T-I qT- E!lSS^A*S!5gS:ir5^^^ -JH A/Wtiliruj hiMS wili M fur offtis. hj tKursd^ -Hh ^ yvixf VdK. S»inr-J f»»r -flu —..e-- \n •aa c cr<cf: ev‘ a ■ 1________ UVm V fM« «IL-«o MWM«Hte«|Uyo |4VIM V iUd»* a<**r«p . • 1 STl7&ri.-’♦<yj* _, 1 ____ '***“j' ■ r iF^ »-***^‘ SNHicn-HaNiE .PlMn-Tloo^flM '^0(0 {^ *:r^' Jr>w’0 ^4. eUKl(T04 jgSBLS>«-*««<»« 4f«)ei »=-JjR^i-^ =»- 'vT , 0n M.T X <«M IMT crm»iiL_ y H!t2SS?.Sa^-^* IJ*.. ^ EO >LH« y•»-w^o •» *A j*r i^»«»r.»*|««^ / H» T^-.-.-«^-.-:V raSSi •1 • _JtACT ElEJfaW r-»•« ^ ..........:______ £. -_-^^p^z —rr - ~ - ~-_rrz ::,-j:-rr iVj ' onw^ 'f^ o-X&T ~ . — ~ :Kft»THei£/IC\OR “ <SafM*4JETT HOJ^E •450 rufioyjo 0P<Wf^ P-D, OFOMO //JJ Pi^OFpSCC? sJE&THfSO&S eHAW^ATTMp //K»>mAl-D 0ES\6>4 CO v:’li <sca*a.B V&"ei'-o'' Ar*«-lU. 'L\jO\ v««r ei»Acv»»^ ff i mm§- MN MTI 11/21/02 MTOI M* 10 •2-117-2S 11 0004 0MT um 00S1S MaoHUi n 0MHK0 MiM w M Ncauin 0 H n HCOUIK TMMfn w N HCCUTtf INN MCCUIK NMi/IIM 111 WnONfU M MIVZAtA NN ISm NOMIPtN COUNTY raOTCOTV INTOMITION SVSTCN raOrCITY ONNItS LIST SO 02-117-2S 2S 0004 0OSO7 OOONO OOCNMO NO S 0 0 I I N N4CN1UM MVn • NACNULM f 0 MM M2I NPLS Ml IS440-K42B KHMT HO. 0I4SMI1 fAM I SO I2-117-2S 24 0004 00140 OOONO ONCNMM W S SIN eSOOM STtILf • OSOONN 340 OMNIO ONCNMO NO MAVZATA Ml 1SS01 SA 02*117*2S 24 0004 roor Aooo 01200 nbooniu am OMCO mum can niui TAINAVtO CNAOLCS M I NUN.A C NIUI NANi/AOOO 1240 NOOONILL AM MAT2ATA NN SSS41 SO 02-1I7-2S 24 0110 00SOS HOIONIU n N H HCOUIM INN NCOUINC NHIIAM N I NAOlNi N NCCUXM SIS NOOONKi NO NATZATA NN SSS41 SO 02-117-2S 11 0002 01210 OmiMOH ST M W NCOUIIC INN HCCUlNf W M NCOnit INN HCCUlNf 1230 OICKINMN ST MAVZATA NN SSS01 TANNAMO NMK/ASI SO 02*117-21 11 000s 00400 MISSCU AM joscnm I cAOftHTCt JOSCNNINi 0 CAOrOITtN ION 4S4 1400 MflSfLL AMI NATZATA Ml SBS41 so 02-117-21 SI 000S OIS40 OOONO ONCNAiO NS S SANNOA S LAOSON SANONA S LAOSON ro SON S44 NATZATA NN SSS41 SO 02-117-2S SI 0004 00SS0 OOONO ONCNMM NO S NAUlfTTI PiaUUM STUNNUNS PAULfTTt PICNAIN STNUNNAW SS0 OOONO OOCNAOO NO S NATZATA m SSS41 POOP AOOO OMHfN HAM TAOPAYtO NAM/AMO SO 02-117-21 11 0014 00Sn HANLON AM C P OUm.10 I I OUNIEO CHAOUS P OUOLCN S21 NANLOH AM HAYZATA IM BSS41 SO 02-117-21 11 001s 00SS7 HANLON AM 0 V I N C ROOMKH OOOCOT I NICWL KOCIONM IS7 NANLON AM NATZATA Ml SSS41 SO 02-117-21 11 0027 012SS OICRCNSON ST NANIOH J OCTTLOPP NANISM J ormopp 12SB DIOttNMH ST NATZATA Ml SSS41 ONMfl HAM TANPAMN HAM/AOOO SO 02-117-21 11 1020 00SS4 RCENi AM 0 N OOTO ICR OOYO OUSTIH N OOTO SS4 RCIMi AM NATZATA Ml SSS41 SO 02-117-21 11 0014 01010 AOONCSS UNASSICMO NDOMPIN POOPflTEO LAND NDOKPZN PONPEinO LANO 10Z7-MC SO 02-117-21 SI MS7 00BS0 NANLON AM L N TNICS IT AL TNUSTCCS LUCILLI MDOOVIlLf TNICS SS0 NANLON AM NATZATA Ml BSS41 PROP AOOO ONMN NAM TAXPAYtR NAM/AOH SO 02-117-2S SI 0010 00S20 NANLON AM RONOAO C ROUOCO RONRAO C RNUOfR 4011 NANITOU NO TOMA OAT Ml USSl SO 02-117-21 11 00S4 0124S OICRCMMM ST SCOTT AUn NAOi SCOTT A NAM 124S OtCRCNSOH ST OOSHO m SSS41 so 02-117-2S 11 0040 0120B DinCNSON ST ANY L RLAINS I JOHN RLAEOS ANT L RLAfOS I JOMI RUIRt 1201 OICRCNSON ST NAYZA AA Ml SSS41 AppHcatiM Dalct Deadliae: 4/24/01 mnn REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: May 23.2001 ITEM NO.: DcparlMrat Approval: Name Paul Weinberger Title Zoning Administrator Admiablrator Reviewed:AfeadaScctiott: Zoning Itcaa DcacriptioB:401-2679 Sharran A MacDonald Design Company 450 and 480 Orono Orchard Road Variance/Condittonal Use Permit Zoaiag District: ListorEakiMta: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential District (2 Acre) Resolution Planning Report (May IS. 2001) Applicatioa Summary: The applicants are proposing to demolish the existing caretaker house and garage (480 Orono Orchard Road) and construct a neu “guest house**. Section 10.20. Subdivision 3 (G) allowa guest houses as a conditional use permit A guest house is deHned as “a separate dwelling constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupanu of the principal buildings, including their domestic employees or their non-paying guests." A condition of approval shall be the property ow^er Tile a restrictive covenant on the property that states the guest house will only be used and occupied by persons who would otherwise be expected to live in the primary residence on the property, and cannot be used for a Home Occupation Variances are required to permit the guest house, which is deFined as an accessory structure, to be located closer to the street rights-of-way than the principal residence and to allow more than one oversized accessory building on the property . Plnrahig Commission Recommendnlhm: By a vote of 4 to 0 the Plaraiing Commission recommended approval of variances and a conditional use permit subject to the follow ing condition: I.Property ow ncr shall file a restrictive covenant in the chain of title that would limit use of the guest house to occupants of the princ ipal structure, and their domestic employees, and that the guest house could not be used for home occupation. The restrictive covenant shall also conuin the standard oversized accessory structure conditions relating to future subdivision of the proper^. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving a conditional use permit and variances for construction of a guest house on the propetty. I j The Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 21. 2001 and recommended by a unanimous vote of4 to 0 '^commended approval of a conditional use permit and variances. The Planning Commission made the follow ing findings of fact: A.The guest house will not exceed the 2 acre per ’’dwelling usiir density for properties in the RR-IB zoning district B. C. The guest house meets all required principal building setbacks. An existing guest house will be removed prior to construction of the new guest house. A septic system was replaced that is designed to handle the wastewater for both the principal residence and guest house. The hardship supporting allowing an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than die principal structure is the existing layout of buildings and driveways on the site and the desire to provide sufficient landscape buffers around the guest house. >\liile it could be moved to meet the principal structure setback, that would place it directly adjacent to the driveways with less ability for landsc^ng. The justification for allowing the second oversize accessory structure is that detaching the garage would meet the letter of the code but would result in greater visual impacts due to a less compact guesthouse/garage combination. 1 he City Council finds that gianting a conditional use permit to allow a guest house w ill 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 s-alues and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page 2 of 7 6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances niould 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 necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserv e 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. 7. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and reconunendations 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’. CONCLt'SIONS. ORDER AND CONDITIO.NS Based upon one or more of the findings noted above, tlic Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (G) for a guest house, a variance to Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (D) to permit an accessory structure to be located nearer to a front or street property line than the principal residence, and a variance to Seciion 10.03, Subdivision 9 (C) (2) to permit more than one oversized accessory buildings on the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. The guest house shall be used and occupied by persons who wriuld otherwise use the primary residence on the property, such as domestic help, guests and relatives. 2. The property owners shall file a restrictive covenant on the property agreeing the guest house will not be used as a rental unit and will not be used for a home occupation. Further, the restrictive covenant shall alert current and future property owners that the property does contain two oversized accessory structures and any future subdivision of the property would require City review of the status of the oversized accessory structures in terms of lot area requirements. 3. The guest house shall be constructed in accordance with the plans submined by the applicant on file with the City of Orono and shall be developed in accordance with the site plan anached to this resolution as "Exhibit B". Page 3 of 7 Audiorilies granted by this resolution are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit mlhin one year of the date of Council approval or this conditional use permit will expire on that date (May 29.2(K)2). Violation of or non-compliaiKe 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 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 29th day of May, 2(X)I. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property’ Ownerfs) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 29ih day of May, 2001, by Barbara A. Peterson and Linda S. Vee. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notary Public Pkge4of7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) _day of.On this, county, personally ippeved. 20 __before me a Notary Public within and for said __________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. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) • )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) _day of.On this, county, personally appeared. Notary Public 20 __before me a Notary Public within aixl for said __________________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 PigeSof? Exhibit A Lots 5 and 6 Auditor’s Subdivision No. 307 and Ut 15, Block 12. Minnetonka Bluffs, Hennepin County, Minnesota Page 6 of7 'j—• •. Scrtk: A new on-site sewage trettnent system was bslalkd on the propeity in October. 2000. One treatment system is cuRcnlly used for both residences. The treatment system is sized for eight The maiii resideiice has five bedrooms, leaving three for the guest house. The p topoaed guest house is two bed rooms. An alternate location will need to be located on the property per a letter provided by the treatment system installers. (See Exhibit E). Hardihtn; The hardship supporting allowing an accessory structure nearer the front lot line than the principal structure is the existing layout of buildings and driveways on the site and the desire to provide sufficient landscape buffers around the guest house. While it could be moved to meet the principal structure settle, that would place it directly adjacent to the driveways with less ability for landscaping. The justification for allowing the second oversize accessory structure is that detaching the garage would meet the letter of the code but w-ould result in greater visual impacts due to a less compact guesthouse/garage combination. Staff Recommendation ! Staff recommends approval of the requests subject to the property owner filing a restrictive covenatk i the chain of title of the property that would limit use of the guest house to occupants of the principal structure and their non-paying, guests or domestic employees, and that the guest bouse could not be used for a home occupaiioiL §01-2679 SharrM A MaeDonaU Dttlgn Con^aiv 450A 480 Orono Ordiard Road Varianeo'CUP 5/nnoot- F.3 #2679 AppBortioii# 0/-2(^7 7 Date Receivc«f~yA V/e/ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address 4»0 QRAao QtXHMtP •0^0 0 , MU. Type of Application to be Filed CmOiTlOtlkL C Property Identificatioo Number (P.I.D.) 02-M7-Z3 31 00*^1_______________ APPLICANT . Phone (home) NameS»UJIR>C^ ^ UA^DOUKLO tfUmi CO. Phone (u.-ork) Address tu4>l HfcUUtiPitA Kvifc cit7~I^UW »_______Zip iS4o% . l WNER(if difTorent than applicant) .. NmmWIM IA.<#ilU4tyT Phone (home)_______________ ______Phone (work)________________ Address (flO\ 0^t>V.»Ofcl Citv~1<UUI4ty»Ut<K Zip if!•» Date Property Acquired_______________________' I (dn^ (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____SI75.00 Residential Accessory Use S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ^ S225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use _____5250.00 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) ' After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (monlK^year) OTHER APPLICATIONS $275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review {+ consultant fees) $300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $1(X).00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $100.00 App^s Other - see Fee Schedule Apr* 20.2001 City or Orano Munidpil OffioM 2780KriiyP«lNMy Orono, MN. 55360 Alliniran: Paul Winoburgor. Dopiitmonl or Zoning Ro: RoquMtforaOondWonilUwPonnlt Our clont Mr. Kavin Ownott raquMli • Concttional Um Pwmit for the construction or a now guaethouw on Ns pfopwty. Dwnolltion or an existing guaMhousa in the general vidnity or the now building Is required. The existing house is currently outside of the required front-yard and aide-yard aeCbacta. The new house will be located witNn the required setbacks. Baaed on our undsralanding of the Zoning Otdinanoe. due to ttie factlhat the two propatOea, 450 and 400 Orono Orchard Rd 8o. were at one time oorrrNrred Into one property. 453 Orm Orch^ Rd. 8a. a CondWonal Use Permit is required to construct a'gueet house* within any *RR-1B* One Farryiy Rural Residential District A'guest house* is a defined acceptable use as included in the *Ust or PermMed Used* ter the R-1A One Family Residentid District ae item O. Theretero. slnoedlor the design crttarta (setbacks, grading, larxiscaping. hardcover requiremenlSt sewir/aoplic design etc.) can and win bo met ter a now guesthouse on the properly, the Owner respectfully requests the granting of a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of the proposed guesthouse. Sincerely. JefTSwaitzorAlA JSjs End. SHMRSrr 4 SMCOOM4XP OESnw COMAWr ----------------------------------» I 77t\Mb»rS»ml tMoMbt.mwrntm Uttl i§4i lawspofc. uw aswo (9994704790 fu (919*^^4407 (9t9933-im Fm (9199904149 #2679 m ,»• - OiL WM. iCi-^' '’Ti?......Ip^r-^>w.mm USS^ 3i.- fSisM' r 2'>"5;; ■ "c.' •f. -!>r I®.-* HOJ«% EXISTING BARN 7 / 6^ett HtotAe ✓ <4900MN(9 OPCHUs-O fo. CA6NO «^U. PRofbseo djesr>«ijs& ^ /fWLil - t£o\ SH^WMT 410 Ittcamo r:%'^%4W' , * rj- .; «: * - ••' -*' ‘x-^ I :-t •'.: * ■ I iKlhiimn Ktauwv ^ c. ■■ ■ O' eiBi(T04 .£»^*tTr oJecn* »^J«e JCLtAriou^ e«ae 4^i6|ot crt »tT V •«■• m4«4 on, too I- T. V . ^ T*n‘eT> c--«« «^-* »wr«3 I■» e«iui*»;« f **.M »<**;f7* ^ySr.. ^ r.n.r> * 7v».SS; % ~“-.**‘::-r ^ •'• t]£^I7 v.;si :»________________________ cmcv:^^ .__ -_r:r '\ /FIK ^ii mmm ■_i:6«7>4ELE.>r.crt -V£«r ejrArwjn (Safsp-METT HCW.E 450 CP^UO CPCHNSC) P-D, OPOMO /AU _ .________ ____ J s\'--" ,p //AfiC»M>kt.D DES\(&Kl CO. AiP«.|L. -lljOl pp-oroseo sJe&THOJS£ ^\je.s\'-o SHAABATT M! SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTORY Addrets: 480Onmo Orchard Rd. S. PID: 02-117-23 310047 Building Typ residence #BRs/0n>: 8 #Systems 1 Units Billed 1 Pemit#: 4442, P031 Date of Pennit: 6/25/92,10/2 Installer Jerry Johnson, Patnode B System Type mound Experimental: no Appliances Indry SYSTEM CONDITION Conformity: 1 Tank Condition: 5 DF condition: 11 Failure Pot: low SEFTIC TANKS Material: precast concrete Setback to Bldg: 30 Capacity: 1000, 1000,1500,1500,2000 CesqxMl: no DKAINnELD Length of Lines 100 4 Lines: 3 Trench Width: 10 Treatment Area: 146*50 T> pc of Filler rock,clean sand Soil Boring: yes TUcSize: 1.5 UnderTile 9 PercRatc: 13.8 Setback DF-Bldg: 100 DF Hi above Wt: 3 Soil Type: loam, silty clay loam Limitations: water table WELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks:Wcll-DF: Pump Type:Depth: Report in File Diameter: Method: INSPECTION RECORD DATE DESCRIPTION installation no surfacing no surfacing no surfacing 9/8/92 4/11/94 7/23/98 8/1/00 PUMPOUT RECORD COMPLIANCE date GALLONS 11/11/94 1500 5/29/96 1500 3/20/98 2000 10/31/00 install 2000 gal pump tank will mil i^ii I riPllPWifl ■» I n .Iwti Aprt24.2001 Ctly of Orano Munidpil OffloM 2750 Kffly PartcMiBy Orano. MN. 55356 Attantion: Paul WinatMgar. Oapaitnant of Zbrring Ra: Raquaat for a OondWonilUaa ParmK InIbniMHon Partrinino lo Sacondaiy Saplic Syalam Attamaliva 8Ma '^DC haa raoaivad a mamo from 8^ Testing (aiao lant to tha Qty of Orono) indicating that dua to tha amount of land dtaturbancaoaatad by ftadamoittfoo of thaaaditing house and the oonstrucbcn of a naw guaat housa, thara wfa not ba sufTidanl M laft In tha area of the new guasi houaa to prevMa orvelti aawaga iraabnant A back-up aNamalva aita would have to ba croalad aomaa4tana in the fWd slang the norttwm sida of the property. Sinoaraiy. JaffSMaitzarAlA JS:is End. SHARRATTAyACOONAlDDOtSMCamUtV -a----------«-2r§wmrs»rnl Cfwasr. kknnmr^ saaoi 1*41M$nmphA¥9nimm)mifieai,klN 8840$(SS947IVS7S0 (Sf9 «7oa«or rSf9339-rt27 #2679 •4/tS/tMl II :M PAX TIMtTMll SP 1BJT1NC INC S"P TESTtNGf iNCm SHMnB.MlnnmSlMmM.8ehirmM W1IWyMI«fWNE*gLIMlMi;IMa9Sn>(76S)4«7-a6M FAX(nS)4>7-S011 3MaLJ0M«M«M EAX f’AOu iRSHBiT -aH‘5-4Wz- ^ ^'"1^ DT®- 'TV^’E- UU-E*s.-r Mo A-e^A- -saj-nPitx^ V/HicW -c*- fVov^ TtfttcMvT&iiKVM <‘‘>^2- e>M-S)TC. C*x* • V <V-^ V" J-K <5^.4^ Totii pi9M B ^ indudbig oo¥«r hMtar ...-^1 \\ i;;c *'. L fmw'W 's • 1 »«y it t !■ auT^^l ‘I2C Ctzno Cid'-^ud ^ ■fc “ 1/ VlV<.0 ■^■0l>^ /iCliiC. 6un/l'_) Ml u ftmu'iti K f ■ f-rc .'A =^c/-M-79 t&)Cr:,\o Ar/-A irt Hd 1 '4 N. >• •' ^ ■*.te.: "' ■ > \ tJ:-.r'' i*. : ■'•v^A# .- ■ ♦» • i' • . J*-' -■ • * . ..'^ fl' j •'' ' >H' Si iVc-tO />c•^^ 0 rc nc OrC * ^ V r^V.,', • V ■; vv‘;; Taxpayer Servi]^ Dei^j^ent H #28fy ^ Parcel InformationJi- Parcel ID 0211723310047^^^: Nouse Number 480 . Street Name ORONO Oltcii||W NO S Cendemlnlum TMstinofshgafyfwconkdmsp/Inprwstntss an^dtatvnOtjf. County, and Stafromt PERMIT RECORD ^0?>/L7/ -P q ■ySO<£Ltcr^ ^■S,. ■X /0-^k o o //. /k- OO P«ralt N9.J)at«Tvoe of Peralt flir<LL~ ^7^0 *^IS7S fies. -LS^_______________/o%air ti L'is\ nssc.•JCit-csv<) ^ yw .JL^l __________3-^-99 r^/5^7 //-/9-7f /^:xos //-^7. 9y -^Ai*rx4-' in e-,.------—trtr-----------/rA>r ;i Po -/> e-O PO 2.5-76 /^--Z.O‘00 /'^22S5/ /i,-2h-0^ Pc ^717.^0£) -------------------------------L_Z_-------1*4-— I'^r iiiii a»..cX\jc^jtXs B fia -RO/Zy, ^0 3 0 97 /t-9-et> ------------------ _______ f MH MU. ««/25/tl MTCH S»1 MOMIPIN COUNTY ftOPCOTY INTOtnUTION SVSUN fMPtm owiictt list nrONT NO. Pl4S54tl PMC i PMP MM OMNCI MM TMPAVn MHC/AOM OMMCt MM TAKPAVn MM/AMC PtOP AOOR OUNCR NAHC TAJIPAYtl NANC/AMR PROP AMR OMNCR MHC TAXPAYER MM/AMR PROP AOOR OMfR MAKE Taxpayer HAM/ABM L SO R2-117«ES IS RRtA RRSIS MOODNILI. RD W tf NCCUXtC ANN rCCUlRC M H NCCUIRE INN NCOIXRC SIS woomzu Ro WAYZATA NN 5SS«l SR RZ-llT'ZS 2S RltA •RSA7 MONO ORCNARO RO S 0 0 I R H NACNILIAN MVIO R NACNXLIAN P 0 BM S420 HPLS NN SSAAt'SAZO SO I2-117-2S 24 RM4 RRS4I ORONO ORCNARO RO S SIN OSOORN STncC 0 OSOORN S4I ORONO ORCNARO RO WAYZATA NN 55S«1 POOP AOM OHNiR NAM TAXPAYER MNE/ABOR SO R7-117-2S 2A MM •124R MOOflNXLL AVf C • N MILE CNARIES W I NARLA C MXLE 12M WWOHKL AVE MAYZATA NN SSS41 SO R2-117-2S 20 OflR •OSSS WOOONIU RO T E HCNELIIS I R J NCNEUXS THOMS E NCNEUXS SSS MOeOHIU RO MAYZATA m SSS4I SO IZ-Il/'ZS Si "ORZ •1230 DICKENSON ST W M NCCUIRE INN NCCUIRE V H NCCUIRE INN NCCUIRE 12S« oiCKneoN st MAYZATA NN S5S«1 SO •2*XX7-2S sx toas • •40« RUSSEU AVE JOSCPNIM 0 CARPENTER JOSEPNIM t CARPENTER ■OX 0S4 tool RUSSEU AVEI MYZATA NN SSS41 SO 02-117-ZS Si M05 MS4* ORONO ORCNARO RO t SANDRA S LARSON SANMA S LARSON PO BOX 544 MAYZATA NN SSS«I SO •2-117-2S Si •••• ttSSt ORONO OOCNAOO RO S PAULETTE PICKARD STUURNANS PAULETTE PICKARD STUUMNANS S5* ORONO ORCtlARD OD S . MAYZATA NN 55S«1 SO 02-U7-2S Si Oai4 MSZX HANLON AVE C P CUBLER I • CURLER CMRIES P CURLER Sn NANLON AVC MAYZATA NN S5S41 SB 02-U7-2S SI ms 00SS7 HANLON AVE R V I N E KOEHNCN ROBERT R HlCNiL ROEMEN SS7 HANLON AVE MAYZATA NN SSS41 SS 02-117-23 31 e«27 0125S DICKENSON ST MARION J DETTLOfP MARION J OETTlOrr 12SS DICKENSON ST MAYZATA Ml 5SS«l SO aZ-llT-ZS SI M20 MSS4 KEENE AVE B A PAINE ■ V E PAINE lEVERlY PAINE SSa REENE AVE VAYZATA NN SSSai SO 02-117-2S Si MSB • ••SO AOMESS UNASSICNCO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 1B27-NC SO •2-117-ZS Si 0037 OOSSO NANLON AVE I M TNIES ET AL TRUSTEES LUCILLE MOOOVIUE TNIES SSR HANLON AVE UAYZATA HH SSSVl so 02-U7-ZS Si OOSI ••(20 HANLON AVE KONRAD C KRUCER ■OHRAO C KRUCER MSI NANITOU TO tonka rav m ssssx SO •2-117-2S SI OOSO •124R DICKENSON ST R S RIUER/K C STENSO NIUER RICK S MILLER 4«SS PERRINSVILLE TO MAPLE PLAIN NN SSSS4 SO aE-llT-ES SI ••40 •1205 DICKENSON ST ANY L RLAERS ■ JOM KLAERS ANY L RLAERS • JOM KLAERS 124S DICKENSON ST MAYZATA NN 5SS41 MM MTE M/2S/n MTCN 5U ____ M M-117-n n »Mi raw AMU wsscu «ve MMW KAMI J P ICALfIM I H H NCALPIN TAWAVtA Mm P A NICMfUI.N NCALPIN mm/m iM mssill avi IMVUTA m KASAI ___ M M*117-2S si AM7 PtOr ABBA AMSI CHKMO 0ICHAA8 AB S OMWA NAME BAVIN AAmtTT TAVPAVtA AIVIN CARNirr HANA/ABHI am AAOMD BACNAAB AB % BAVZATA IM S5SA1 sa A3-117-PS SX tlSf PABP ABBA AAAM MBOBNILL AB BM«A MAMA Jtm C A LBIS A B'NAUtV TAXPAVCA JBNM C B LBtt A S*IUILCV NAMA/ABBA A«B MB8BNIU AB MAVZATA HN KSS«I NAIBKPZM COUNTY PAOPCATV INTBAHATIBN mTKM PAOPfATY OtMAAS LIST U AZ-IXT-SS M AAAZ ••SAB BCCNC AVE HALRFA NBTBAS INC BAAAS XNPBATIB AUTOS INC 11MB MAVZATA BiVB NZNNETONRA NN BUBS SB aZ-lXT-ZS SI BB4B B12ZS otacnooN st B N VOUNB TBUSTCA H/L CST TAYA LILAC 1Z2K BXCACHSON ST MAVZATA NN SSSYl ' SB B2-X17-2S SI BBSI atSBB NANLON AVA p A a n N BcmATT PAUL A a nCGAN N BCIMCTT saa NANLON AVA MAVZATA m SBSai atraOT NB. PIASMBS PAOt S SB B2-117-2S SI BBAA aaSAB BAIAATT AVI A r JAPTBAT I V N JAPTBAY A T a V N JAPPAAV SAB tAAAATT AVA MAVZATA NN SSSBl SB S2-117-2S SI aaAY aaSBB OAONO OACItABB BO S s s B J A MCBSTCB STCVCN S a JB CLLCN MABSTCA saa OAONO bbcnaab ab s MAVZATA NN SSSYl SB 02-n7-2S S2 aaai BBABS OAONO OACNARQ BS S CBMARB N NAIAf TBUSTCA CBMAAB N NANH ABB Sr PATCA ST BASA ST PAUL IW SSlfZ TABPAVEA NANA/ABBA » BZ-117-2S A2 Bail BBBSB ABBACSS UNASS1C>«B CITY OP OAONO cm or OAONO P 0 BOA A4 CAYSTAL BAY Ml SSS2S SB a2-117-2S A2 BBIZ aaaso aooacss pcndino MOOONILL COUNTRY CLUB MBBONILL CBIMTAV CLUB 2BB MBOBNtU RB MAVZATA tM SSSAl TOTAL BATCN SBl BBB2B Ji25S;.n« {JS'SS.'S S?«c-os DATE f •/ /I TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Cit> Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administralor/Planner DATE: January IS. 2003 SUBJECT: #02-2850 John and Patricia Walker 1318 Spruce Place Variances - Public Hearing Zonliif Diilrict: LR-1B One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (I acre) Lot Area: 14.501 s.f. (.33 acre) Eahiblts: A Suney B Hardcover Calculations C Minutes from November 2002 Planning Commission Meeting D Planning Report and Exhibits from November. 2002 AppBcatiaa Sumauiry: This application u-'s * jt the November. 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The application was tabled wiiit Jireclior ^^en to the applicant's representative. The applicant has submitted a new site plan with those changes. The applicant has met all the conditions. The variances arc listed below and the new changes are proposed. Planning Commission directions for the applicant: I. Maintain hardcover in 75-250' setback zone to 4,277 s.f. (34*!o) by removing existing hardcover. PcrtiBcnt Code Seclioas: 1. Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B): Rear Yard Setback; To permit a deck'steps to be 23' from the rear lot line where 30* is required for the LR-IB zoning district. The setback was increased to 23* from 17* due to the deck being redesigned and is smaller than previously proposed. Also, the stairway to the ground le\ el was eliminated 2. Section 10.22. Subdivirion 2 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (LK2): Hardcover ia 75-250*: Within 75-250' of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25"/« hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 4.277 s.f. (34%). where 4,277 s.f. (34* e) exists and 3.137.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. The hardcover in the 75-250* setback zone was reduced to 4.277 s.f. (34*i> by removing a portion of the driveway, the entire lower patio, reducing the size of the proposed deck, and eliminating the brick paver walk in favor of a wood chip pathway. H02-2850A John Walker 1311 Spruce Place I/I S/2003 Pafelof2 Staff lUcawMadalkNi: StafT recommends approval of the rear >’ard setback and hardcover variances in 75-250’ setback zone to construct a deck on the rear of the residence. «02-2SSOA John Walker 1311 Spruce PiKe Pate2or2 L HARDCOVER CALCULA 5EfB4CK ZO^(E: (CIRCLE (K«E) 0-7S* '''WORKSHEET 2JO^OO*soo-x 'qoo* A. Bottie IDCQVER Pf TONE WU4 B. Carafe C Driwar^ * ^45 iVjewi • /AZ1 • . • D. Sidewalk te<«.f4AA. LA 1 X• E. Patio/Deck 0<kt%0 V2.iitit) X F. Mhf* UoAto Ui/e X JlISLlk-_S-F.4»3a« ^2-7___ s.f. .S,F. •Aft*.• PMfc45 ftk'O CtM&Vt& ■V/AM ^ 1 ■■ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ + B _*100 .■ yi^QPOSED HARDCOVCT IN ZONE ' A. House ■ WW6 B. Ginie C. Drivcwiy D. Sidewalk E. Petto/Deck F. Lmdseape Uodedalo By Plastic Or Fabric C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A ______________ + » -*100 - mV IZ.^OO ,S.F.«‘^ S.F.c«*-«c S.F.fA-.' S.F. Otc^ S.F.*- . SJ. ^ S.F. <?ou S.F. / S.F. E ’ r. 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. f. Y^ndy ■ 111602 Ofono Planning Final doc_________Paged C MmUTESOf THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monder HOMWbm 18 2002 esooododipffl Hunt indicated ihat the cupola would be sealed olT with no access to it. Loraine Kaley. 1395 Br>wn Road S. questioned what other types of homes were in the neighborhood currently. Neil Trainor. 1675 Concordia Street stmed that he had attended the meeting to learn whether the home was going to possess a widow s peak or not. With regard to the character of the neighborhood, he indicated that there was a mixed bag of styles throughout the area and he saw no problem with tlie cupola fitting in Rahn asked whether the railing around the top of the home was usable or a single wire. Hunt slated it was merely a single wire rail for safety not a usable deck area. Hawn aMved, Mabnath seconded, to nconuacad AppUcalfoa M2-2t47, James Nyttrom, approving a CoadMlonal Use PermM to attow coastraettoa of the 4CX4Z capola on the top of the mideace located at 172S Concordia Street. VOTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. (07) M2-2S50 JOHN AND PATRICIA WALKER, IJ1S SPRCCE PLACE, VARIANCES 7:21- 7:37 P.M. Ron Anderson. General Contractor for the Af^licar.is. was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicanu had requested rear yard and hardcover in the 75- 250 setback variances to construct a 258 s.f. deck/steps to th^ e.xisting residence. The proposed deck would be 258 s.f.. and located 17 from the tear p<-open> line, where 30 is required. The rear property line is Grant Street, an unimproved right-of-way. which the City has no plans on improving. There have not been any variances granted for this property. Bottenberg noted that the property is located within the 75-250 hardcover zone The ad liiion of the steps and deck increase th* hardcover from 34^k to 36^'». While the lot coverage by structive is currently 13 4%. the addition of the sieps'de.k would result in an iii^icase in the structural coverage. wi..ch meets the 15?« allowed. Mr. Anderson had nothing to add. There were no public comments, Although she was at a loss to moke a suggestion. Mabusth asked if the appl.:ant had considered the removal of any hardcover to maintain the 34%. She believed removal of blacktop might be difficult PAGC«of2t Windy Boaw»b i«9» 111802 drorwRinning Final doc Page 7 •INUTESOFTME OROMO PtAfMNG COMM88ION MEETMG Monday. Novambar 16.2002 OXo-dookpm Anderson noted that they had removed rock and plastic, however, could not remove the existing retaining walls. Chair Smith questkNied the potential for removal of the polio block on the skie of the residence. Mabusth indicated that there was a rear door located at that spot. Bremer stated that little would be gained with its removal. Rahn staled that he believed more work could be done with regard to the drivewav to further reduce hardcover. He pointed out that the Commission, typically, requires removal of hardcover when adding hvdeover in order to maintain and not increase hardcover amounts, w hich are already in excess of 25%. (a7)«t2-2tS8 JOHN AND PATMCU WALKER. IJ18 SPRUCE PLACE. Coatteacd GafTron suied that the slab is 8 XB *. Hawn Slated that she could not ideniify a hardship, other than the odd shape and si/e. which don t necessarily constitute a hardship. Anderson maintained that the driveway eats up a good portion of the allowable hardcover and is dinkuli to maneuver in and wut of. other than backing straight out into the roadwav Chair Smith reasoned whether the driveway constitutes adequate hardship. Mabusth agreed, staling that the driveway contains more hardcover than the house itseli. Rahn asked if the small turnaround portion of the driveway were usable, and if not suggested it be removed to reduce hardcover. GafTron indicated that it abuts the drop off and would give the 159 s.f. or more of hardcover to work with. Since the owners own the two lots next to one another, Hawn suggested they consider a lot line rearrangement to create a better driveway situation Anderson stated that the applicants had attempted to do just that several years ago and had been denied. He added that rearranging the lots could be difTiculL GafTron agreed that it could be diHlculi to rearrange the lot lines so as not to adversely ai.cct the property closer to the lake He cautioned the rearrangement could merely PAOC7ol2f ~WwidyBottBnbi>a»1118(abw P»»w^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. November 18 2002 6 X ozdock p m succeed in making both lots morn nonconfonning. Anderson indicated that they had looked into the potential of Grant Street being vacated. GafThm noted that it would be unlikely Grant Street would be vacated Chair Smith stated that the Planning Commission would prefer the hardcover be maintained at the current level. 34%, without an increase. Anderson staled that he would speak to the Walkers about the removal of portions of the driveway and patio. (ITT) M2-28St JOHN AND PATRCIA WALKER. 1318 SPRUCE PLACE. Conliaacd Fritaler suggested they look at the sidewalk to the front diH>r also. Mabusth staled that her feeling was that the applicants could maintain the 34?*. through a combinacion of removals they could build the 258 s.f. deck. Chair Smith stated that the Commission could stipulate removals and move the application forward to Council. Anderson staled that through a combination of removals and reconfiguring the deck they could maintain the 34%. Rahn suggested that the decorative boulder walls be removed. Bremer indicated that she would be more comfortable with tabling the application in order to allow for redesign and removals and asked if this would hold up the applicant s process to return in January . Although they would begin work inside. Anderson slated that the deck work would not begin until spring, therefore, his returning in January would not affect the contract he has. Mabusth moved, Hawu secooded, to table Appllcafloi IN)2*2850, John and Patricia Walker, 1311 Spruce Place, for the purpose of redesigaiog the proposaL VOTE: Ayes 8, Nays 8l (#8) H02-28S3 AULIK DESIGN CORPORATION, 9S5 TO.NKAWA ROAD. VARIANCE 7:38-8:11 P.M. Gary Aulik. of Aulik Design Group, and Russ Schumer. property owner, were present. Boitenberg e .r'Jined that the applicant was requesting an average lakeshore setback PAGEtoflt Pages c. 7 TO: Chair Smith and Orooo Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planncr DATE: November 15,2002 SUBJECT: «^02-28S0 John and Patricia Walker 1318 Spruce Place Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Dbirkt: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 14.501 s.f. (.33 acre) Eshlbhi: A Application B Survey C Topographic Map D Letter from Applicant E liirdcover Calculations F Elevations G Photos of Propern- H Plat Map I Property 0\^Tier*s List Pertinenl Code Section: 1. Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B); Rear Yard Setback; To permit a Jeek'steps to be 17* from the rear lot line where 30 ’ is required for the LR-IB zoning district. 2. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (LK2): Hardcover in 75-250*: Within 75-250* of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Variance Request: To permit a hardcover variance to allow 4.535 s.f. (36%). where 4.277 s.f. (34%) exists and 3.1 37.5 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Applkation Summary: The applicant has requested rear yard setback and hardcover in 75-250* set^k variances to construct a 258 s.f. decL'steps to the existing residence. Oiscniaion: The existing residence was built in 1974. There have not been any additions ju>t upgrades to the existing residence. A new- roof has been put on the residence and the basement has been remodeled. There have not been any variances granted for this property. *0:-2S50 John Wilker DISSpnice Place i 1/15/2002 Page I oi'3 RcM-Yard Setback: The proposed deck will be 258 s.f. The deck will be located IT (nMn the rear property line, wfhere 30* is required in ihe LR-IB zoning district. The rear property line is Grant Street. Grant Street is an unimproved right of way. It scr\ es primarily as a drainage way and a pedestrian way, and the city has no plans to improve it. The topographic map (Exhibit C) indicates the elevation change from front to rear of the properly. It also shows where the subject property lies in relation to Grant Street. Hardcover: The property is located in the 75-250’ hardcover zone. The existing residence and the proposed deck/steps increase the hardcover from 4.277 s.f. (34*/») to 4.535 s.f. (36%). The property currently does not have a deck, therefore a deck is not included in the existing hardcover numbers. Lot Coverage by Stnictarcs: The lot coverage by structure is currently 1.013 s.f. (13.45#). The proposed dcck/stcps will result in an increase of structural coverage on the lot to 2,170 s.f. (155i) where 2.175.15 s.f. (155#) is allowed. Again a deck is not included in the existing lot coverage by structures because currently one docs not exist. StateflMat of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. T he applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for CoashIcratioB: 1. The existing residence was built in 1974. 2. The hardcover in the 75-250* setback zone is increasing to 365#. above the allowed 255#. Is there any existing hardcover that can be removed to make the pic-pcrty more conforming? Note that the location of the house necessitates a long driveway which uses up a large percentage of the hardcover allowance. 3. The property is unusual that it is surrounded on two sides by platted, but undeveloped right of ways. 4. The City is unlikely to vacate Summit Avenue or Grant Street, hence applicant cannot obtain additional land. •02 2I50 John Wilkcr I3lt Spruce Place ll/IS/2002 Psfe2or3 5. The topogra phy of the propeit>* dwnges from the front to the rear of the property, neccfiitating the relaifliiis wails. 6. The deck/steps will not obstruct views of adjacent neighbors. 7. The property is wooded, at the end of the street, and surrounded by two unde>'cloped right of ways. 8. The deck/steps increases the lot coverage by structures to 15%. 9. The property is undersized for the zoning district, but was granted a variance to lot area in 1974. 10. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff RccanuMBdalioB: If Planning Commission concludes that the unusual conditions and configuration of this property are hardships that support approval of increases in hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone and rear yard setback variances to construct a 258 s.f. deck/steps to the existing residence where no deck currently exists, then a recommendation for approval may be appropriate. OptlaM for ActiM: 1. Recommend approval of variances requested. 2. Recommend denial of variances. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. «03-2IS0 John Walker mt Spruce Place 11/15/2002 Pi«i}er5 Lot Am: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Am Requifcd f 43.560 s.f. (i acre) Actual 14,280 s.f. (0.33 acre) Hardcover CokolalioM:!iTotal am in artkack Allowed kardcover Eibliag Hardcover Proposed Hanicover 75-250*12.550 s.f 3.137.5 $.f 4.277 s.f (34%) no deck 4.535 s.f (36%) 250-500*1,730 s.f 519 s.f 90s.f (5.2 90 s.f (5.2%) Scmctanl Lot Covcinfc: Total Lot Site Total Slrttctoral Coverage 14.280 s.f Allowed: 2.142 s.f (15%) Exijt^ing: 1,913 s.f (13.4%) Proposed: 2,170 s.f (15%) Anplailoo # 0 Z-Z8S0 DateRtcdvtd /0.2Z.-g2. AmowH P«kl J Z SO CITY OF pRONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION initial A^ication Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confotming structures $250.00 Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ,— SiteAddtess -tLq CLg. PropcfQr Identification Number^fP.I.D.) OF- ll"7 - P% 2. ~ QDl^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ~!De.c.e.ry\4ae.r _________________^(month/year) 1 (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: > residential other (specify)______________________ Zoning District: / ~ I ft___________________________________________________ APPLICANT Phone (home) Q5^ Name r^oV\r\ l«^■ VAJall<Pt>_________ Phone (work)___________________ Add.-ess: l^lf) *Pli OWNER (if different than applicant) City: Drono Name Address \ Wc. r Phone (home). _____ l^ne (work)_ City: f)rortg>Zip: ssat.g__ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail: See qA ac K* A________________ (attach additional sheets if neccssao ’) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area _ Setback; ____Lot Width Front Side Y Hardcover y Rear y Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify ) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficult or unusual property conditions preventing compliatKe with Zoning Code requirements: See. ,1 __________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2850 6 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JOHN WALKER OF LOTS 9 & 10. BLOCK 10. SAGA HLL REVISED HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA '■♦3.17 -----S87'33’29"W 88.50 — GRANT STREET LEGAL DCSCRIPTION Of PREMISES ; Lois 9 ond 10. So^o Hill Rcvistd I o, :■ denotes iron marker e : denotes distonce os shown on the plot of Sago Hill Revised Beorings shown ore bosed upon on assured dolisn. This survey intends to show the boundories of the obove described property, the locotion of on existing house, ond the locotion of oil visible ‘'hordcover" thereon, It does not purport to show ony other inprovemsnts or encroochnr.. s. m W W A JkW A A A 1 OF LOTS 9 & 10. BLOCK 10. SAGA HLL REVISED HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA 17 ----5 B7<33' 29" W 88.50 GRANT STREET LCCAL DCSCRIPTtON Qg" PWEMISCS : Lots 9 ond 10, S090 Hill Rsvissd o,: dsnoles ironmarksr • : denotes distonce os shown on the plot of Sogo Hill Revised Bearings shown are bosed upan an assimed datun. m This survey intends to show the boundaries of the obove described property, the location of on existing house, and the location of oil visible "hordcover" thereon It does not purport to show ony other inprovements or encroachments. *3) vtp- U.vuu>■EynoH MIC ocscnwiQN eXAM ECO OCCRtO yso GRONBERG It ASSOCIATES, INE OKUtwe DCMtsi siihtTWS. Sit nweess 445 N WUOW on LONG LAKE, m S5356 9i2-4;i-4l4l I KSCBr UMIf r Ttut TmS riMi VtCSCATCK OH ICPOMI WAS fnerAmo ev wc on iMxn wr owtCT ft#cnvex]M am > TmAT I AAI A OULT LCtNUO MOrCSSONAL fMOMtS tJO LA«0 vwn* IKU nc un or sc suit or iMCsatc SCAU B2-3Sa /Jpr^T^ Ca^i^ w»l 929 mmi ■^24)^ Sf/' ° (25) 8 '-j 8 232 .' !^’J^ •^1^ ^ «•- : .:-«-28 (23) " r AttadniMnl: Varianot for 1318 Spruoa Plaoa AppNeanl JohnW.WaHcar 1310SpojcaPlaca (952)471-7171 Oaacf1|>lion of Raquast Estimatad Constnjction cost $8,000 TNs raquast for construction of a 294.4 square foot deck, is the first step of a signHfoanl property upgrade, eihich will transform an ordinary modular ranch style hoijse of 8ie 70's Into a modem stylish residence compa rable lo other houses in the neighborhood. All oMhe Improvements and upgrades, other than the deck, win be contained with the existing footprint of the house. AM ¥vork will be carried out under Ron Anderson. Residential Dream Builders, Plymouth, MN. a Minnesota licensed contractor. Hardship/Descrfplion of unusual property conditions This norv4akeshore property is located at the dead end of Spruce Place and is surrourKted on two sides by platted, but undeveloped dty streets (also known as paper streets) (Portland and Grant streets.) Three of the four borders of the property are curved, not straight lines, resulting in an extremely unusual lot configuration. Consequently, the house, which was built prior to the passage of the current ordinance. Is oriented in a unique fashion. The average elevation of the property varies by more than an estimated 20 feet from the front to the rear and 10 feet from side to side. The applicant has built several boulder walls to contain the property, and minimize the impact of watershed runoff. A timber wall protects a large oak tree from land shift erosion. The 250' lakeshore setback line falls just inside the western boundary of the property. The only atfjacent neighbor is the applicant who lives at 1310 Spruce Place. #2850 V*.. HABDCOVER CALCUL SETBACKZOXEt (COICLIONI9 0-75* WAimgyyvKR pf tone A. Bom ____________ X * _ ORKSHEET aso-soo’ //- /2 * OZ, 500-1000* . 'tS'A I B. '.Ottife .; •* • . - . C XMvtw^r D. Bdcvrik E. rido/Dcek W* A* I r. IP. txads^ IQ M y. Mg * V*/ ^ 'tfHZ U^iln ____________X _______________n*'» >5. i5> S.F.4\(Mse S.F.C^reM foB^ sr. <; S.F. * s.r. S.F.eocw-Ttp S.F. S.F.gCVlit fA S.F. ‘pArro S*F. Oexx. S.F.5T _S.F.fovfc.-: t • _SJ. O. OAct v /a (\4 6^cte ^ ■• TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • •■________ ♦ B _xlOO A. Kovm HARDCOVER IN ZONE LcdtA B. Gira|C C Drivtway D. Sldewilk £. PaUo/DccV F. Lindsetpe UodcfUla By PluUc OrFtbtk O. OAcr X X X X X X X X X S.F.«^V-Ciiil4 _________S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ;?.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA Df ZONB * A _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B.XlOO - S.F. 'S.F. ' 55 _ HARDCOVER calculation WORK^BSer-^ ^ setback ZCRIEt (CIRCLE ONE} 0-7J* 75-250’ ^50-500’^ SOO-lflOO* P /I-IZ -oz • • PPflAnNQ HARPOOVER Pf RONg a. Houm B. ' OanfC . •.* C. Diivewiy D. Sidewdk E. PAtio/Dcck F. Lindtfipt UodccUln BjrFUiUe OrFabde * *; O. Other .:‘*V TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •• _______ +. B r73o xlOO yaOPQSED HARDCQVl^ IN ZONE ‘ A. House B. Girase C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pailo/D«k F. Tandic^ Uadedala By Plastic Or Fabric ■ Vidii O. OAcr X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A _____________ ♦ B _ .S.F. S.F. s^. S.F. >.F. S.F. ;s.F. S.F. .SF. S.F. S.F. Z-SF.Goct: _S.f. 5,2- 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. xiCO S.p. S.F. ' ft Vx 8 q! 8 q! + ^ I ' *{ r I r A f'ffSr M-m :p mmMmm m -T f*'-; . .-.-i »«>./• »P- WM, V '*':• z' f'r^'- ,^- rX'fw m'- S- ij'si ••• ■ V ■^: K w* jfei t%. no . '\ -■ ' - t ' . & 1 mi ^ f >^ri. . LV. : ix XI fi rai k. .. ir«#^ ll c'--C' T-'^f .*.«« H- Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department L/ •*. •? ■ \ Paretl Intbmudon Parcel ID 0811723320018 Hoyt# Nianbar 1318 Otraal Hama SPRUCE PL .1.' , {• ,v This i$ not »i^^f9con$$amtp.llnpi9mnt»» co mpanio n en n hmatan anS CMS Som Oiy. County. «ntf SBMi icKf MthortiH antf o0Mf Mwcst. H »MTf l$/9f/9Z MTOI Ml NCIMflM COUNTY fOnOTY INrOOnATlON SVftTCH fOOTEOTV ONMCn LIST MfOOT NO. ri%SM«l rME I SEnTmm/unn mmt HMs TAMFAVIK ■MNit MMC TAVATCO NMi/AOM roof AOOO OMKO MAK TAMfATER NAM/AOOR i.- M •T-U7-2S A1 Mil •ISM SfOUCI ft CLAYTON 0 rUCttS CLAYTON 0 FUCNSists sroucf fL NOUNO m USM SA •7-11T-2S A1 ■•S2 •1S74 NOOTN AON 00 NILLIAH I OOHCN NIILIAN E OONEN •• PAOR LANE HTLS m SSAIA SO •7-117-2S 41 ••70 •12M SPRUCE PL NENNEPIN POOPE1TE0 LAN* CITY OP ONONO P O ROR AA CRYSTAL RAY NN SSS2S SO •0-117-2S S2 SOIA •UOO SPRUCE PL P J I 0 J SORIELUR PAUL J A SUSAN J SCNUELICR L2A« SPRUCE PL NOUM m USAA SA M-117-2S S2 ••!$ •12M SPRUCE PL RICNARO P I RATMLEEN A RYLE RICNARO P A RATNLEEN A RYLE IIAA TONRANA OR ORONO Ml SSSSA SA aA-UT-ES S2 ••lA •1S»S SPRUCE PL RICNARO P RYLE RICNARO P • RATNLEEN A RYLE HAS TOWANA RO LONO LARE Ml ASSSA SA •A-117-2S S2 ••17 •ISIR SPRUCE PL JOMN W MAUER JMM W MALRER ISIS SPRUCE PUa NOUNO Ml SSSA4 SA SA-llP-ZS S2 ASIA •ISIA SPRUCE PL PATRICIA A ORRETREH PATRICIA A MAUER ISIS SPRUCE PLACE MNM NN BiSA% SA SA'llT-CS S2 ASIA •1S7S CHERRY PL RRISTIN SEIBOLO RRISTIN SEIOOLO 1S7S CHERRY PL NOUNO Ml SSSAA SA •A-117-2S S2 SSSA •lUS CNERRV PL JANES A HULL JR JANES 0 OULL JR ISSS CHERRY PL NOUNO NN SSSaA TOTAL SATCN I CERTXrv THAT TNE FACTS RCPRISENTIO ARE AN ACCURATE ANO TRUE REPRESENTATION OP INPORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS RATE ON T« SEC OP TNE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTHENT OP PROPERTY TAXATION. TO T« REST OP NY RNOHLEOOE ANO RELIEF. rate/*’^*»^ or Dale AppIkaHM Rcnhrcd: IO-2)-t2 DM* Ap^attoa C*wW*r*d mC*aylH*; lM2-«2 IMtlM««-D*yll*vk«r*fMEipirttf: Ml-t3 M-D*y Rcvl*w PcrM EitCMlM NaUfkalkMi: 12-M2 Carmt«*-Day lUvtrw r*rM Esplm: 3-I2-43 Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Fron: Date: Sabjccl: Mike GafTron, Planning Director January 16.2003 M)2*28S4 Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagemess Point Road • V'ariancc'CUP • Public Hearing AppHcatloB Saaunary Gustafson Design. Inc. on behalf of Kevin & Janet Manley, owners of 1973 Fagemess Point Road, has applied for approv al of a boulder reuining wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use pennit and variance for land alteration and hardcover w ithin 75 ‘ of the shoreline. This is a newriy remodeled house for w hich no Certincaie of Occupancy w ill be required. AppNcatkM Status On November 18.2002 Planning Commission suggested that the applicant request tabling to allowr staff opportunity to review the recently received plans in detail. Applicant indicated he preferred to move along to Council absent such review-, hence Plaruiing Commission voted to recommend denial of the application. Council review ed the proposal on December 9, 2002 and tabled the request, referring it back to Planning Commission. Lbl of Exhibits A - Plan Options 1.2 and 3 B - Notice of Planning Commission Action 12-5-02 C - Notice of Council Action 12-13-02 D - Draft November 18 Planning Commission Minutes E - CouiKil Minutes of December 9,2002 F - Memo and Exhibits of November 16.2002 G - Memo and Exhibits of December S. 2002 Council Rcfernil to Plauuing Commissloo On December 9 Council reviewed the application including the various unresolved issues aside from the retaining wall request and provided applicant w ith the follow ing additional direction: 1. The shed at the easterly shoreline w ithin the 0-75* setback ?onc must be removed. 2. Applicant is advised to apply for a variance to determine the extent of parking area that may remain in the 0-75* setback zone between the road and the easterly shoreline. (Staff is advisetl that appiicatioM wUI be submitted im time far February meeting). 3. Applicant is advised to ^ply for a variance to determine w hether the deck in the westerly 0-75* zone may remain. (AffUeu^u expeaed in time far February meeting). M2-2S54 l«73F»|erMMroliitRiM4 jMMnr It. 2MJ r«t»2 Public Services Director will review the sidewalk/steps near the garage to determine whether their encroachment within the right-of-way of Fagemess Point Road is a pnMem. (Pmklic Strviee Dirtetsr comdmM the steps are asf am issme). It appears that the issue of the location of the lot line between the Manley and Ekiof accretions will be resolved outside the purview* of the City Council. Review of Prepoacd BottMcr WaU Ludscaptog flan The initial topographical suncy and boulder wall plans were received on November 12. The City Engineer's initial comments w ere attached as Exhibit L of the November 16 memo. Prior to the December Council meeting. 3 Optional plans w ere submitted. Each Option includes a cross section sheet and a plan view. Each Option involves the use of boulder retaining walls to retain the lakeshore bank, with variations primarily in the amount of fill replaced where the ground was removed by applicant or his predecessors to enhance the walkout situation. Each Option incorporates a stairway system to provide continued access to the lake. Each Option contains a "first flush" drainage system (a rock- nilcd Uench) behind the top of the boulder w all to allow retention and natural filtration of nutnents and toxins at the onset of a rain event. This w ill have a positix c cfTccl on the quality of runoff reaching the lake. Option I creates a half-oval depressed area at elevation 937.5 (just below the current 938 O’ w alkout (kwr level) next to the house, then re-establishes the pre-existing walkout elevation (939.5') w ith a *step-up ’ wall 3-6 ’ lakeward from the house. The grade then slopes to an elevation of 938.5’ at the top of the shoreline boulder wall. An underground drainpipe is proposed to remove runoff from the depression area next to the house, outleiting just below the crest of the shoreline boulder wall. Option 2 omits the depression area, but establishes a slope starting at the walkout door elevation (938.0*) dropping to 937.0 ’ at the shoreline boulder wall. This avoids the depression next to the house but does not re-establish the pre-existing grade lev els. Option 3 also omits the depression, but establishes a slightly flatter lawn slope than Options I or 2. and somew hat changes the shape and orientation of the lakeshore stairw ay. Like Option 2. Option 3 does not re-establish the lakeshore >*ard elevations that existed previously. Option 3 docs result in slightly more removal of the lakeshore bank as it seeks to sofler. the linear impact of boulder walls. However, the elevation views as seen from the lake suggest that once vegetation is established, the differences in visual impacts between the 3 Options is relatively minimal. I97i Faftram faial lUad JiaaBiy li.2M3 P^3 The hardcover impacts of Options 1.2 & 3 arc shown in the following table: $-75'Hmnk0Per: House Stone Steps and Landings Boulder Walls Total a-7S ’HMfdcoiw 0-75* Zone Area 9~75* Hankooer Fetceamge Optioal 983.7 sf 173.4 sf 382.5 sf 1,539 6 sf 5.860.7 sf 26.6% OplkNi2 983.7 sf 173.4 sf 337.5 sf 1,494.6 sf 5.860.7 sf 25.5% OpiioaJ 983.7 sf 173.4 sf 211.5 sf 1,368.1 sf 5,860.7 sf 23 J % After re\'iewing the three Option, staff and the City Engineer concluded that only Option 1 meets the goal of restoring the flat part of the lakeshoic >*ard back to the pre-existing walkout elevation. Howet'cr, it may be that no reasonable plan will put back the sideslopes to their pre-existing grades without adding more retaining walls or reducing the soil instability inherent in those former slopes. Staff and City Engineer also concluded that while Option I may be the best of the three plans in terms of restoration of grades, creating the depression next to the house potentially creates a drainage issue, if the drainpipe plugs or is frozen. Wc suggested to applicants' designer that a narrow meandering swale be irKorporated into Option 1 to allo\^ an o\crland drainage outlet lor the depression, as a safety measure. The designer has responded with on alternative of adding gutters and dow-nspouts to the house to catch rainfall and direct it past the depression, thereby minimizing the potential amount of runoff that will collect there and reducing the likelihood of a significant backup. Another attractive aspect of Option I is that it pro\ ides vegetative screening across the facade of the house to help soften and reduce the vertical nature of the amount of house wall exposed to lake view. Howev er, none of the Options proposes any tree plantings that would further soften the facade as viewed from the lake. Isaacs for CoBsMcralloo Notwithstanding the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion, the 3 Options require Planning Commission consideration of goals for this site in order to reach a recommendation. Planning Commission hot Id consider the follow ing in review ing the proposed boulder wall / landscaping plans: m-m* 1973 Fagmicu Mat RwmI jAMury 19.2M3 rn^4 I.Does Planning Commission conclude that the walkout grade ele\ation should be restored, as would result from Option 1? Should the sideslopes also be returned to their pre-construction status as part of the • wall project? The impacts of this are that: a) A much narrower exposure of the west facade \s ill result, but possibly at the expense of less stable, not-ar-maintainable slopes, or the addition of even more retaining walls. None of the 3 Options bring the sideslopes back to what wc believe was the pre-existing condition as shown in the photos. b) Maintenance of the restored sleep slopes may require special attention. c) If the sideslopes wxre restored to the pre-existing condition suggested by the photos, the walkout level windows would likely have to be changed out. The result of filling the sides of the west facade would be to leave a narrow walkout corridor, perhaps at an elevation that will drain to the lake. i.e. the w idlh of a w alking path, lliis w ould be similar to what existed prior to the grading work, but 2-3' lower in elevation due to the low ered doorway. It should be noted that the 1998 topographic surx cy docs not reflect the w alkw ay that is shown in the photos, nor docs it reflect the short retaining w'all along the north side of the old walkout level. Wltile Option I restores the walkout level grade, it also results in the most hardcover, but only by a few percentage points... Does Planning Commission find that the perspective as vicw*cd from the lake w ill be better if one Option is chosen over another, or are they so similar that this is not important? Is Planning Commission satisfied with the nature ot the proposed plantings between the shoreline and the house? Should there be some trees added to the plan to help soflen the facade as view cd from the lake? Finally, docs Planning Commission agree w ith the general concept of bou;ldcr w alls in the 0-7S' zone for this property, or should grades be changed to minimize the need for walls? Remember that the CMP states in Section tt3A. Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management, as follows; •2.Retentioa of aataral vcgelatloB will limit ibe impact of urbaaizolkNi as visible from the lake. Building heights will be limited to less than the t>pical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation w ill be preserved on slopes. Retaining w alls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screen^ w ith natural vegetation." Preservation of the lakeshore bank as it has long existed may in fact require retaining walls of some sort, be they w ood timbers, boulders, ke>stone blocks, etc. Other methods for M2-2iS4 irn FaimwM Ml RomI JMMnrli,2NS FiCtS maintaining the shoreline might be possible, including vegetative plantings, for instance. However, more inlnisive methods to ensure no future slump of the lakeshore bank would entail a wholesale reshaping of the shore with a gradual slope from the house to the lake incorporating layered fabric. This method would not be in keeping with the goal of preserving the character of the shore. Stair RcconuMBdalioa If Planning Commission concludes that the boulder wall system is appropriate for restoration ofthis site, staff recommends approval of Option I, with the addition of the gutters and do\%nspouts, because it brings the walkout \c\-e\ ele\*ation back to what it was originally. While from a precedent standpoint staff would prefer that the sideslopes also be restored, the negative aspects of such restoration may outwei^ the positive maintenance and s' Oility (and safety) aspects of the more gradual slopes resulting from Options 1-3. Aspects of the proposed landscape and boulder wall design that are important to the success ofthis project should be noted in any recommendation forthcoming from the Planning Commission, and should iiKlude as a minimum: 1. Strict adherence to the revegetation and planting plan to ensure adequate screening or softening of the wall system as well as the building facade, and to provide long term soil stability. 2. Construction of the boulder wall system by a highly qualified contractor and/or under the direct supervision of same. 3. Adherence to the required grades, and proper construction of the “first-flush" system and installation of gutters'downspouts to result in the degree of water quality control the plan intends to accomplisli. Opticas for Actioa 1. Recommend approval per staff recommendation and add any additional condittons you feel are appropriate. 2. Table for further infomtation (specify). 3. Recommend denial (state reasons). 4. Other. Note that the remaining issues on the property will apparently be on >\)u February agenda for review. It would be stafTs intent to bring the boulder wall to Council as soon as possible for action so that the applicant can begin restoration work this winter if feasible. Hv<Cow«Cal6ulMto>w 0-78H Hw4Cov«r/lf«wBuMn9 0n7iqt Stow 9iP» • LaMli«t» m 4 tq H BomMxVMM 3U%tq« TotoHstfCewr. TaWAr«.&75fl Htfd Cei.« RMn 8M07to ft a«e% Propotod Uevvtton m BLUC Ejiittng ttevstons R£0 Granite Botiders to be uMd ttwougout. Boulder Sae« wdl range from 18* to 46* M neceeary ^ werto . . mp j ^ ^ ' ' '* •» M I AroTciftrin <r ^ 'W91 UiX k' J4 i>* ‘ 4'A*T:^9j to .atoMroD^V-U-aXi-i-ia L^v2.Lu\±L iM t xU. l .\-L I it J i nXi i-lJ i •tXLnl t tU ix\Xi _OJ__L xti I x1X.i i Elevation OrvMc BmAters lo bt uMd ihraugout. BoiMvStKswInngtfroniir to 48* nnoconwy 1^-4 ^'.M- yiw------ ▼*9t4 «# ^14 0 •»». /'K.% y<4p.. , .4 •v c i.‘\ ?.?iJ«|^'T'* .y • ’ .•Likj. Wi k >. 4 li k > A 4 ' • A A <r; 4.jjVjt^eira'gSW t««nrur«n • ^ :’A::‘4*j;.v?»:'^~: :vr v;\^>:'4n'::..^vj'^Vvr::'^ MtfWMTigo^vi l-iM i-tM i i\Ja nJ i i\J. i i\I I 4\J i I'M i ,u. 1 l^J I 1\JL 1 AX-LilXi 1 *\Xl iAj i.4AXL*lJ_i i Elevation |||||p|||^^^ flm IiKlffinO®^ [f330]cOQ0i»(93 ^1)79 (P^« N Scale; 1 inch s 4 feet im«mdmi *m n 4 nun mhu .mn —r to avwM-ms !iU9Q January 15. 2003 J fJcViSeti TO //JCOie/^AAr-c ^T-r^jy^ouf •r/*4w* I im tiii? '?^"'---lii ngi[^iyiTw>mawr 4^Tw«fWMiPtllJl »*M.lfHPIMPia Section 1 A-2 »4«4 ^ T«t*^nso^ OWMUt.* »;l.|tlVM*T« I Section 1 A-3 1 Section 1 A-1 to raiuMlhe MMMHI d VMt« ■Ideritodam Thoi t——d>>ti<»HBitHtieidWod»n OkRMtf lo ■» Mlin% «!■ me draki nn& Cidkdlir l,€B2Ml oraon CoMrapKO-TsIz^Stf.) lOOyrn^rSMMMlMMr orSpd/nMe Cendnielen; 4.S0Z. boMer tiMc (bdkm A ddM) «ai M'davradi ^k«aa 4^M/.a Miffl . Ao«»m tn.4 M»TM Section 1 A-2 •««.o ^ TwtfManu^ rfp«ri»iu9MiJ^ 0WHUI.4 MiifWiMiira) ■••■rr > *11 e-sSSiSSa Section 1 A-3 mqustnf^con tWbekaoananAw No ucMvWMNi. Mi VM27 T« (70a)SU42t% (aaBUgm- IbKa. IgUBO^ SSSD^lSilOO •3079 paaojBaaa !?a. 199. ©irsiB®, Iso Scale; 1 inch = 4 feet December 2.2002 I ttS7a^1l 1734 3374 ■9.11 Hvtf Cmv CtfoiMn*: 0-m BmMvMMi T«W H«d Cmm: MM.I iq. ll. Taw 0-78 «. SJt0.7aq.l. HwiCoMrfUM: 2S4% PropoMtf EMvatioi . in SLUE Eiifting Elevfl intinRED I to b« uMd ttvougout ■euM» StiM «■ r«igt froml r to 4T ainocoHJry ti» tl» «53£'*: I®!3SSJ6,1 j'i?;?, ^ . 4^sii^®s8I C3 Elevation L b««PIUP H*r« Cow CUciMIm. 0-7M SMwtta^ALaidkifi in4«^H BeiMwWtft U7.S»q1l TiMHiNCMV T«lilArM.O-7Sfl. HirtCMWilMto; 1.4M ttq «. S.M0.7>q.fl. ii.5% Qraittc BouHMrv to be uMd ttveugout BouMer Size* wi range from 18* to 48* atfiKHMry ' • —5 t • ;» .•; •• • j ^ 41 44 -r ^rL V MlMiwvitTB ^U-1 J I l^ I \ t i \ t f /t I r (■!, I r^\ 7 r~> ^ >' f . ^ t r^M r n 1 j_ln-L i-i’ix-i-iixXliiuLi^x-t 1 i^L t\l L-l Elevation nk‘gloa^flaaiBdaallgiwtea. l?l^379il3Sa ^ , iiilitet^WItWaonA^ Nu <*»«» vai«». MN VA?7 T#« (7roftt442l«rtoinio Scale; 1 inch = 4 feet December 2,2002 (Nj L OPTION 2 Section 1 A-1 «lliafe«fil«NMlalat*ilam The lo«« •• «Mrtai tan fliaiii «!• MM dNeiv Md lo M» MMMir Mi Mt Ml JM 100 M WM>: 3 HM mMmut or»|M./ii«iiii rJS^ Ni sasr—~ Section 1 A-2 •MX) ^ •40.0 ^ pvac -^tW*4N»M#«SU t«KiiPiueni^ ^ r ■•■ -M' i .:>s - OWtUA.4 Section 1 A-3 mgpWfti<lMS«a aec qm i ragKavQiI®. (BKlQMmMmi^Var TM (TBBIS0M215 B qib IIi ©IT8IB®, 99 i990 !PIL 1^.Scale: 1 inch = 4 feet December 2.2002 ----------------------------P4--r^ ♦ ---------- ^ U______■*\ 1 Section 1 A-1 C9«l|rl 'tt|*araoiiMtae OwwiP jlWjMt00yrn>t' SMMaiMMr oriBfiL/iiMte :4^oc.l riMli J25VSr^*** 4^ Twa^KP*/##)«.» Section 1 A-2 IM4 0 ^ t«iO^ Twat*«ma^ twMMPiuaeiiA ^f) A * ^ ••• <: :: mMIff\U.i& Section 1 A-3 mgpiiftjOagiBi d c 0' q m ba. km Ho kKM!^ IH (7«»5«»4W IkM Gasal^ias ^@79 pagainisaa ^ @ir@iB@i lSlli!l Scale: 11nch = 4 feet December 2. 2002 N> • «r ' I OlfrlON 4 'fM J J f •fl3 w ■ OtWMI* HViCCMT HwiC«MrAi«M:BuMhit N)?w|N- ■Mf«aiipt«Un*iti 1734t^(l. ■iMvWMi 211Si«.«.<> Q> •V«M • ... »•-'- •M \ 1 1 u,»B u rUPiWPlomMl TMtH«iC*Mr TtlilAfM.0-7911. HvtfCMwIIMto: 1JM.1i4.t. S,M0 7«^fl. PrapoMd Clivaiioni in lux Cmbnt OflMMient VI1X0 Oranito •«MMan to b« untf ttvoutmt ■ouMv SiMt «■ rwigo Itom It* to 4i* ail T'? T •■♦•* . Ti»irMi»S4iiF •NN*ai4^ upp ,.-“'t'.. . '"Sip-'» Elevation Cmw CUcuMtont: 0-m iMl«v itfwvls HKXtlC4tmtM HwtfCswwArMtrBuMktg m.Tt^ II, 9Mfw Stops « Lantfnfi in4s«ll. BtoMtoMMl 211SHI. TsMHtoSCMv; TstolAfW.e>7«t. HsrtfCsvsrIWto: 8.tM7s4 • 23.3 « PropcseS Ctovatiom m BLUE Citotifig Dswations m ICD Qrviits BomWvs to bo usotf througout BouMcr Sim «• r«i0t ftom IB* to 4B* asnocoossry twa* T«« •» 'i % ‘i V ' 11 , 1. U I . 1------------ril 1 -1 M_1 J W 1 til u 1 / V u 1 .1 m IM m . v ML : i 0 1 . 1 m ^ .'i i Ai Pni 1 I'M I t\2ii iU.i‘nxii-iii I'ni i Elevation qustatiC on tm^toiocnwiSM No oiMin\Mun.i#tu>4.:r i« treo)Su.42tt rflaalta.^, tBau BIS)il!l^ 1^990^191993 ^@73 pagiaffiasaa IPii. 9^. ©179199) ISIRI Scale: 11nch = 4 feet December 2.2002 (M KCanTintT^r.-^^ I . . w >. ,; 1 OPTION 3 ir-$i/r- t^rnm Section 1 A-1 3M*clMrrcM* 4.SWI rtMc(bdkMiAMM|.««l -£e. %m ss«r ’ ^»«ae Section 1 A-2 -=i—■Ji Section 1 A-3 Ii 4 OPTIONS Section 1 A-1 Section 1 A-2 ■M (fvvftivTa t----jLM SectionJA-3 j '^^^tnf.GonTci o---,B wailga, toa. BDaallw ghsai ^@78 WSWnwiAwttt QO«nwM«,l«IUt2r T«(ns)M442i« ®0®199p ocnT^ MN !PiL Scale: 1 inch s 4 feet December 2.2002 y tv (7~ CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdlcy Farkway P.O. B«i M Cryital lav, MN 55323 952-249-4000 ZONING FILE W)2-2854 NOTICE OF PLANNING C05IMISSI0N ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: December 13. 2002 TO: Kevin Manley Eduardo Suarez 1973 Fafcmess Point Road Gustafson Design Wayzata. MN 55391 1845 Wisconsin Avenue North Kevin Manley Golden Valley. MN 55427 4179 Ethan Drive Eagan. MN SS123 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance / Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: December 9. 2002 CmiBcil to9k the foUowlif actlMB: Motion to refer the application for CUPA'arianccs for lakeshore restoration and retaining walls back to the Planning Commission. I'alr.* 5 /« Faiwr, 4 Agmimst Cmmcn provided applicMl with the foUowfaig additional direclioo: 1. The shed at the easterly shoreline within the 0-75* setback zone must be removed. 2. Applicant is advised to a{q>ly for a variance to determine the extent of parking area that may remain in the 0-7S* setback zone between the road and the easterly shoreline. 3. Applicant is advised to apply for a variance to determine whether the deck in the westerly 0-75* zone may remain. 4. Public Scniccs Director will review* the sidcwalk^steps near the garage to determine whether their encroachment within the right-of-way of Fagemess Point Road is a problem. 5. It appears that the issue of the location of the lot line between the Manley and Eklof accretions w ill be resolved ouuide the pur\ icw of the City Council. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Plannlnf Commission - Wednesday, Jnnnary 22. 2002; meeting stnrts nt 6:30 p.m. If you desire cettifled copies of the olTicial Planning Commission or Council minutes, they are available from the City Recorder aAcr review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 612-249-4600. L CITY OF ORONO 27St KtRcy Firkwiy P.O. iox M Crystal MN SS323 9S2<249-4Mt ZONING FILE W02 2854 NOTICE OF COUNCIL ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: December 13, 2002 c 1 Kevin Manley 1973 Fagemess Point Road Wayzata, MN S5391 Kev in Manley 4I79 Elhan Drive Eagan, MN 55123 Eduardo Suarez Gustafson Design 1845 Wisconsin Avenue North Golden Valley, MN 55427 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance / Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: December 9. 2002 CoMBell tMk the fbllawtog MtkMs: Motion to refer the application for CUP/Variances for lakeshore restoration and retaining walls back to the Planning Commission. Tale; 5 In Favor, § Agnimst Connell provided applicant with the following additional direction: I. The shed at the easterly shoreline within the 0-75* setback zone must be removed. Applicant is adv ised to apply for a variance to determine the extent of parking area that may remain in the 0-75' setback zone between the road and the easterly shoreline. Applicant is advised to apply for a variance to determine whether the deck in the westerly 0-75* zone may remain. Public Services Director will review the sidewalk/sieps near the garage to determine whether their encroachment within the right-of-way of Fagemess Point Road is a problem. It appears that the issue of the location of the lot line between the Manley and Ekiof accretions will be resolved outside the purv iew’ of the City Council. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; Planning Commission - Wednesday, Jnanniy 22, 2002; meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission or Cotmcil minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike GafTron at 612-249-4600. MINUTES or THE ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MMtfay. Ii«vta*w II, 2M2 copies tfwy would require of the applicants. Gaffiron explained thahliqnplicants could obtain cetiified copies ^ abstractt or titles held at iheG easements from Brcflwr aeircd, Rahu sccradcd, to/scdiinieidwro^’sl of AppUcatloB if02-2SS2, JeuBlfer and Troy Koopmp»<^3 Toakavlcw CoaHq^ Patty aad Dwight Affeldt - 4765 ToBkavkwJ^Mt^raatiag the sabdivisloB of a Lot LiaHtMiraagemcBt sabjcct to the threpedMilions summarized la the staff report dated Novem^ 18,2002. VOTCfAyes 6, Nays 0. (•9) #02-2854 KEVIN AND JANET hlANLEY, 1973 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLAN 8:51-900 P3I. Kevin and Janet Manley, Applicants, were present, as was Ed Gusta&on, their consuUanL Gaffron explained that Gustafson Desipi, Inc., on bdialf of Kevin and Janet Manley, owners of 1973 Eagerness Point Road, has applied for approval for a boulder retaining wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The proposal requim a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 73* of the shoreline. This is a newly remodeled home for which no Certificate of Ocaqrancy would be’required. ‘ Gaihon reported that at least four prior zoning applications accompany this property. A “ hardcover setback variance to construct a garage and addition was filed in 1979 wdthout resolution. In 1999, hardcover/ width, and area variances were granted to replace the existing bouse, although grading in the 0-75* was denied and the house was never constructed. In 2001, dormer window ’s, a deck above the garage, and the existing house was remodeled based on setback variaiKC approval. Finally, in 2002, a setback variance PAGE 19 of 28 MINUTES or THE OMONO PLANIONG COMMISSION MEETING M—Say, Wwifcir II, Mtl S:3ta*dackMi> for roofline expansion was granted; Pereas variances for greater than 25% hardcover hi 75-250* setback and greater than 15% lot coverage for a tunnel deck were denied. Oaffitm pointed out that there are a number of unresolved issues related to this property which he enumerated as follows: 1) 8X8 Shed illegally constructed/located near the east side of the road, within 2* of shoreline 2) Gravel parking area (20 ’X32’approx.) constructed within 75 ’ of shoreline along east side of road, without City approvals and constituting illegal hardcover. No evidence on file suggests this was formerly a parking area, photos suggest a minimal single grassy parking space at best 3) 2002 Surveys show property located on the east side of Fagemess Point Road, which consists of **accretions**. Manley is intending to claim the areas surveyed east of the road via a land title registration (torrens) process. Although staffs understanding is that the neighbors to the immediate north will be diqiuting this claim. 4) Concrete stairway alongside garage is constructed within the road right-of-way. and nuy be hazardous for road mainteruuice 5) Deck (approx. 5X10) constructed on the west side of the house w'ithout zoning approval, constituting 0-75* structure encroachment and excessiv’e hardcover. Deck was not shown on plans or surveys used in approvals for prior zoning applications. Deck first appeared oh a plan used to obtain a permit for basement remodel and deck over garage in February 2002, however, w*as not park of that plan re\iew. Stair maintains that this deck exists illegally and should be removed. Although a 160 s.f deck existed in the past, it was completely removed prior to or during the remodeling PAGE 20 of 28 ■liirrfmEigr MINUTES or THE ORONO ELANNING COMMISSON MEETING M«May. Nm^ir II, 2M2 IJI«*dKkMt process, and construction ofa new deck has never been addressed. An alternative mi^be to appl)^for an after-the-fact variance. The deck constitutes additional hardcover and lot coverage above the previously approved amounts. 6) Grade of the walkout level in the westerly 0-7S* zone has been towered by approximately 2’, in violation of denials in 1998. This grading work was not covered by any permits issued to date and has never been approved as part of any prior zoning application. This grading was apparently done to create a better walkout situation. Old and new surveys and photos clearly show that the entire west lakeshore yard has been excavated and the west flKade of the house has been opened up to a much broader width and height than the original house. Gaffion pointed out that the grading activity to date on the west side of the house has left virtually no vegetation intact and 90% of the lakeshore yard in a state of bare uiqnotected soil. Staff and MCWD have required that hay bales and silt fencing be in place during the past few months until proper plans were submitted and approved. 7) Gaffion noted that undercutting of the lakeshore bank due to high water wave action may be a separate issue from the work that has been done to the lakeshore yard. However, the bank at the immediate shoreline is very steep, 60% slope with little vegetation to stabilize it. Without riprap and some method of shoring it up, this bank has the potential to erode and/or slump off in the foreseeable future. With regard to the proposed boulder wall and landscaping plan received on November 12, 2002, Gaffron indicated that the City Engineer has had little time to comment, however, * his initial comments were as follows: 1) the plans should include existing and proposed contours 2) hardcover calculations should be included with the submittal 3) Section 1 A-1 should include the existing grade, along with 10* on eithet side PAGE2lor28 L.^ MLNVTESOFTHE ORONO FLANMNC COMMISSION MEETING MMiay, Nwnlig 1I.2M2 <:M**dockpjn- 4) plans dwuld identify the boulder sues tnd types to be used for retaining walb * 5) proposed plant types should be identified on the plans 6) elevations should include the proposed native plantings to review' the amount of screening provided 7) all tree and plant removals should be identified on the plan 8) more detail, including materials, drainage area served, storm event sizing, etc. should be provided regarding the **First Flush Drain Zone" 9) plans should identify erosion control measures proposed to protect the lake during constniction 10) plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and comment Gaffion pointed out that the proposed boulders will add a significant amount of hardcover to the west 0*75' zone (39.5% per the submittal calculation). Gaffion maintained that the current proposal appears to continue the applicanu* apparent goal of creating a wide yard that w alks out from the new door elevations where a narrow, higher yard previously existed. He encouraged the Planning Commission to re\'iew the pre- and post- construction photos, which further show the amount of clearcutting that has resulted from the grading w ork in the west 0-75' yard. Gaffion displayed a sketch depicting the grade changes that had been made. Notwithstanding the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further eroslm, Gaffion noted that the current plan has a number of aspects, which require Planning Commission consideration so as to, direct the applicant how to proceed. Gaffion encouraged the Commission to consider the following three options or questions when reviewing the boulder w'all/landscaping plan. 1) Should the grade be returned to their pre-construction status as part of the boulder wall project? Impacts ofwhich would be PAGE 22of2S MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mwiday, Navcmbcr It, 2002 0:20 o'clock pjB. •) a naiTOwer exposure of the west focode « b) outside below grade landing and steps would be required to enter/exit the walkout door, a short retaining wall system would be necessary to retain w alkout window exposures. Or perhaps the windows should be replaced with windows that are not so low to the ground, and the grade be brought back up against the house where it w*as orig^ly c) maintenance of the restored steep slopes may require qi>ecial attention 2) An option w-orth considering would be to allow a narrow' walkout corridor at an elevation that would drain to the lake, i.e. the width of the walkway path. This would be similar to what existed prior to the grading work, but 2-3’ lower in elevation. 3) Does the Planning Commission agree with the gent.ral concept of retaining walls in the 0-75’ setback zone for this property, or should grades be changed to minimize the need for walls? Gaffiron reminded the Commissioners of the CMP, Section #3 A, Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Maiugement which reads that ’’Retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake”, and further dehnes natural resource management. Gaffron acknow ledged that preservation of the lakeshore bank as it has long existed may in fact require retaining walls of some sort, be they wood timbers, boulders, keystone blocks, etc. However, other methods for maintaining the shoreline might be possible, including vegetative plantings, for example. Gaffron maintained that more intrusive methods'tO« ensure no future slump of the lakeshore bank would entail a wholesale reshaping of the shore w-ith a gradual slope from the house to the lake incorporating la>*ered fabric. He reminded the Commission, that this method would not be in keeping w ith the goal of preserv ing the character of the shore. WTiile staff w*ould prefer that the shoreline restoration be completed as soon as possible, Gaffron felt that staff was not in a position to recommend approval of this plan due to the PAGE23or28 MINirreSOFTHE ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION SIECTLNC M—Say, fivrtmktr It, MSI S:JS«*clMkpjB. lact that the Cily Engineer's comments had not yet been suitably addressed and suggested that dw Ptaniiiog Comnussion table the application. Gaffron laid out a series of seven recommendations for the Planning Conunissioo to consider 1) Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission table the application to allow staff and City Engineer time to consider whether the plan is appropriate, and to allow staff, applicmt and the applicant’s consultant time to confer. 2) Commission should provide direction as to whether the grades on the west lakeshore yard should be restored 3) Commission should provide direction as to whether the deck on the lakeside of the house might be approved if a formal variance request was made 4) Gaffron maintained that any forthcoming approvals should be conditioned on timely removal of the illegal shed in the eastern 0*75* zone, and removal of the grax’el parking area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant had been ordered to remove the shed back in July but to date has failed to comply. Galfion indicated that staffs perspective would be that the variances for these improvements, if applied for, should not be granted as there is likely no hardship to support such variances. 5) Applicant should be advised to work with adjacent property owners in reaching a suitable cdnclusion in terms of ownership claims regarding the “accretions" east of tH^^ road 6) The survey should be revised to verify the er'^oachment of the concrete stairway Into the City right-of-way. Gaffion questioned whether angling the .stairway toward the driveway might avoid the encroachment 7) Because it is likely the necessaiy work would not take place until spring, the applicant PAGE 24 of 21 MLNUTESOFTME ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mmday, Navtndwr II, 2002 0:30a*cladiM^ should be advised to maintain erosion controls on the site as necessary to avoid ** sedimentation to the lake or road. Silt fencing along road and adding to silt fencing along the west shoreline With regard to the unresolved issue item P7. Chair Smith asked what constituted the foreseeable future. Gaffion indicated that staff really had no idea when the undercut bank of the shoreline could erode or slump off into the lake, it could be next week, this winter, next spring. He stated that he had no clear answer to when the foreseeable future might happen. Chair Smith asked why the Planning Commission was reviewing this application at this time, in light of the numerous unresolved issues. Gafifron stated that the City published that the public hearing would h^)pen toni^t expecting to have a plan well in advance to review, but it was a bit late to call the neighborhood and say don't show up. There was also the situation here that if there were issues that could be resolved which could direct the applicant towards some resolution prior to January he wo hke, tp do so. While thanking City -Mfl understanding and polite demeanors. Mr. Manley stated that the proceis has gone v' < «lowly. He indicated that he first submitted his applications in April 2002 after purch. ;^*>]r the property in February and did not get return phone calls regarding'his application for seversl months. He maintained that he hadn't removed any soil since purchasing the properly and was only responsible for what’s happened since April. He maintained that the only thing he’s done WTong was to construct the 8X8 shed * across the street, which could be removed. He had already ripped out the illegal retaining walls built by a previous owner. Manley reiterated that he has had little luck getting the City to tell him what he can and cannot do on the property. Chair Smith reminded the applicant that, as the current owner, ultimately, he may be held PACE 25 of 28 MINUTES or THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SiMSajr, Ni»Mbir II, 2M2 responsible. ** Rihn asked whether the previous owner had been the applicant’s brother. Manley coofiimed Rahn's statement, however, did not see any significance in that fact Manley continued, stating that the City Council had given him permission to lower the lower level and construct two decks - one on the front and one on the back. As far as the sidewalk, Manley could not understand what the problem was with his stairway as opposed to others in the neighborhood. With regard to the parking lot area, Manley asserted that the gravel parking area had always been there, and that neighbors could attest to this. He indicated that the City Council had already stated they would give him approval fora parking lot ac^ the street as soon as he got it in his name. As a building contractor, Manley reiterated that he could not understand the delay and was concerned about getting a decision made after six months of waiting. He asked to be allow*ed to move forw*ard and be given direction. Chair Smith asked if the applicant had shared these concerns with staff. Manley stated thH be had absolutely shared his concerns and had received a return call finally after approximately ten attempts. He suggested they go down the unresolved list one by one. First, the shed, Manley stated that he would remove the shed only after the City agrees to give him some sort of resolution. While he understood that he had been asked to remove H' several months ago. he maintained that he had asked the City to do many things six months With regard to the gravel parking area, Manley reiterated that the parking area w'as not new, it had always been there. All of the neighbors have and use parking areas across the PAGE 26 of 2S MEVUTCSOrTilE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MECTING MMidajr, N«vMnfctr II, 2M2 road «d tfadfi nuy have been overgrown. Agiin. Manley tilted that the City Council Hid Weinberger had given him the indication that they would approve hit parking area once it was put in hit name. Having been before the Commission in February asking for additional hardcover, Rahn asked the applicHil whether the parking area was included in any of the hardcover calculations. Since the hardcover figures had been looked at in such detail in order to allow construction of the deck, he wondered where this additional hardcover had come from. Manley stated that foe paridng area had not been used in any hardcover calculations in February since it was not in his name at that time. asked if he had built the shed on the property, even though it yns not his. Manley indicated he had done so. Janet Manley stated that no one owns the property and they are in the process, as is one other neighbor, of claiming it through the state. Gaffron indicated that property owners can take action to lay claim to property, then it goes throu^ a process where people can respond to their claim, and the Hennepin County courts decide who owns it.1?. Manley stated that the property claim process was not part of the proposal. Manley maintained that the only reason they were before the City today was because they had the City come out and recommend Ed Gustafroo to design a layout for the shoreline. Manley stated that this proposal is what the City and Ed came up with. Gaffron disagreed, interjecting that the City, at the applicant’s request, recommended PAGE 27 ar 21 MINUTES or THE ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SiMMay, Navaabtr IS, Mil SJta'clKkpjM. loraeooe who could dcsipi a plan for him. Gaffron stated that the City suppUed him with • naiDe,jiolhing Amber, they did not suggest to Ed he design shoulder wall, they merely asked him to give the City a plan that might work. The City got a plan, we are staitiitg to teact to it, and we are now asking the Planning Commission whether this is a plan that will Ainction aesthetically, and from an engineering standpoint, if this is a plan they could support. Ed Oustafton agreed that there were many issues to resolve and that he had been working with MCWD and the City to design a plan. He pointed out that the plan suggests boulders as a technique of dealing widi the erosion problem. Ma.iley explained that, previously, there was no riprap along the shoreline and when he approached the City to obtain a permit to restore the shoreline, the City told him to get a permit from the MCWD. He indicated that they had obtained the MCWD permit and began restoration using ripnq> until the City told them to stop and obtain a permit from them as well. Since that time, several staff members have met at the site and advised Gustafson and the applicant on the design plan. Manley indicated that he had assumed the entile project would be done this year, as he was sure the neighbors had hoped as well. He asked whether they should continue to go through each item. Chair Smith agreed that they could attempt to work through each item, however, she was uncertain how much could be decided this ev ening because so many of the issues required further dikussion with suff. ' Based on the applicant's earlier acknowledgement. Chair Smith noted that the shed would be removed. Wth regard to the gravel parking area, Hawn stated that it should not be included In the discussion since it was not his property. L.;PAOEMoTIB MINUnSOrTHE OaONO PIJ^NNING OMIMMION MiniNG M—>11 H,HtI <t)0«*clMkMk Oiffioo diired photos IhNn 1998depjctiQgiheptvolpafkinf iftaitlhetiiiie,ainuch nutter jcea. Chair Smith Haled that die was pcnooally temiliar with dii property and paikiog area as it looked in 1998. She agreed that they should not bichide this in the discustioo until the County decides whether to combine the pncels. Widi regard to the stairway. Chair Smith asked for opinions on the concrete stairway within the light-of-wity. Gaffion stated that he could not find the stairway on a site plan and was unsure whether it was approved. Hawn asked whether this could beputonatodofistto invotigate whether the stairway was built as a qiecified part of an qiproval. Next, Chair Smith asked about the deck built on the west side of the house, qiparently built without plans or surveys. Hawn suted that Mr. Manley claims to have a stamped plan, but it wu not peimittcd as a part of this proceu. Manley rnterated that he has a permit for two decks, and tlw City should have recoixt^ these as wen. Gaffion stated that staffbelieves that there hasn't been apennit issued for a deck on the west lakeside of the residence. Chair Smith suggested this Hem be put on foe 10 do list for both parties to further investigate. PAGE 29 or 21 I i MlNVTESOrTIIE OKOPfO PLANIOM: commission SIEmNG mOwH.2MI Rahn stfted that this would be easy enough to confiim after the City has looked at the pewnil lecoid description. Manley Staled that if the City were wUIim to allow him to keq> his nnall west lakeside deck he would reapply through the variance process. Hawn staled that the west lakeside deck would ftdl vkithin the 0-75 ’ setback, t^-hich if he came before the Commission for ^jproval. she suspected they would be reluctant to grant She was hopcftil dial things could be determined based on pre\ious applications. Manley reminded the Commission that the home possessed a huge deck on the lakeside of the leridence before his remodel. Manley stated that one way or another he would like the Commission to give him a decision this evening He asked them to make a decision based on what was in fioni of them in order for him to move on to City Council. Chair Smith stated that the Planning Commission could, indeed, act on what was in fiont of them, and not table the application if the q;ipticant so chose, although she was hesitant to do so. Bremer suggested the Commiuion finish their discussion so that the City Council, would have enough infonnation and direction from this ev ening to base their decision. Once again, Rahn was hesitant to discuss ^>ecific hardcover issues without concrete numbers. K^ey stated that be wished for riprap to restore the shoreline and a 3:1 slope to provide a mere path to his boat He thanked City staff and consultant Gustafron for their helpfulness. PAOEMefll MlNVnSOrTIIE ORONO FLANKING CO^fMBSION MEETING j, Novtifcf !•, IM2 €:M9'0»€kpjm, Chair Sgiith lUted that it lecmed to be the comcnsus of the Commlision that the shoreline be restored and, hopefully, there were some creative measures that could accomplish this without some major rcconstniction. She inquired whether the applicant should be given Ibilher directioo with regard to maintaining the crosioii control throu^ut the winter, item #7. While erosion control was necessary, Gaffiron could not predict when the shoreline might fiuL Gaffioo had no further recommendations other than to ensure the erosion control measures stay in place. Hawn asked if the Planning Commission could approve the riprq> portion of the application if something ocher than boulder walls were proposed. Gaffiron indicated that the City does not, technically, get involved in the riprap part of the appUcatioo, however, the riprap becomes an integral part of the whole proposal He indicated that he would check with the City Engineer to see if he thought the applicant could do riprap without doing the rest of the work that*s needed out there. Although separate issues, these all fit together u part of the system that goes together. Manley agreed that, likely, the entire issue would need to be resolved together. He asked, once again, for someone to tell him what he could do. Rahn stated that he could not vote on a motion w ithout knowing hardcover figures. Gusufiwn stated that the hardcover figures w ere included on one of the survey proposals and that he inlentiorully left off the deck in the calculations due to the controversy around Manley asked what the City considered an acceptable slope. 3:1 or 2 1/2:1 . FACE 32 of 21 MINUnSOFTHE OAIKHO nJ^roOKG COMMUnON MEST1KG r,Wrrw>irH.»ttl CaflhNvIndicaled that he would not identify what the ri^ slope would be for this application before qtcodimoooiidenbleiiioce tine with the Engineer. He stated that, now that the City has a plan to woilc fiom, tfiey could move forw ard in addressuig its points. Manley asked whether they could put a deadline on the discussion. Bremer stated that the next City Council meeting would be December 9.2002. if they could address die oooccnis by then. Manlqr rqieated his fiustration over the lengthy process. Chair Smith ^ted that she had difficulty believing that this many issues could get resolved by December 9. She was hesitant to move diis forward to Council with so many open ended iuues. Hawn reminded the Commission that the applicant had asked them to vote up or down on this incomplete application toi^t Rahn stated that, specifically. #6 would need to be changed a great deal if they wanted City Council support Chair Snuth cautloficd the applicant that the City Council rnight send the application to the Plaiming Cdmmission for further discussion. Bremer stated that the applicant w’ould not be losing any time by moving finward to Council at this time, since the Planning Commission would not be meeting again until mid January. Gaffion questioned whether the work would begin during the winter months even if the PAGE 33or2l MINUTES or THE OHONO PLANNING CXIMMISSION MEETING M—Nmitir It. ICOl applicant were to get approval Gustaffoo indicated that it would dq>end what work and which contractor the applicants cfaoae to do the work. He believed a reputable contractor with the ri^tcquipinenlsdio knew how to use boulden could begin sooner than later. Manley inquired whether he should give the City Council two options to review, one with boulden and one with slope. Council Member Muiph> ^iked staff what they view ed as most important, getting the riprap on the shoreline first or getting the ouutanding back issues resolved so that the shoreline could be restored. Although not an engioeer, Gaffion believed that in order to do the riprap, potentially, additional damage would be done to the shore that you need to be working on immediately fi)Uowing that. One would need to be working from the bottom up sequentially. He didn’t believe they could just do the riprap without causing impacts that would need to be immediately followed up on elsewhere. Gary , 1965 Fagemess Point Road, stated that he believed that the riprap could be done from the shoreline or off of a barge from the water. He indicated they could do the work from above, however, they would toully destroy the shoreline w ith a bobcat. Gustafson pointed out that he had re\’iewed the site with a contractor who believed the work could be done from the ice, or if the right person were to do the job, the same could be accomplished with a backhoe from above. Bill Delay. 19 Fagemess Point Road, commended the applicant for his beautiful building and for keeping the neighbors in the loop. He did, however, have issue with the gravel parking area u it encroaches over his property. He noted that the 8X8 shed impedes his PAGE 34 of 28 MINUTES OF THE ORONO FLANMNC CO>LMlSSION MEETING Mtdty, N«vtfl*tr 11.2M2 view* of the lake and should be removed also. Mr. Delay felt the deck over the garage Was done W£ll, but voiced concern o\ cr the steep grade created by the proposed boulder wall. As a parent, he felt this could be hazardous. Chair Smith asked the applicant, once again, if he would rather the Commission table or vote OQ the application. Manley asked for a vote. Hm noved, Fritzkr seconded, to deny AppUcation M2-2854, Kevin Manley. appUcation to increase hardcover and put hardcover in the 0-75* setback to construct a combination boulder wall and riprap system for the purpose of containing the bank. VOTE; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 28, 2002 AND NOVEMBER 12,2002 October 28 - Fritzler reported that the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer application was approved. As of the October 28 meeting the Professional Properties of Orono wetland delineation issue w’as unresolved. Novemb^ 12, 2002 Chair Smith and Gaffion reported that the MCWD bad ruled Hat the wetland on the proposed Professional Properties of Orono site was an incidental wetland and did not require additional mitigation. Council liaison Murphy reported that Council representatives had approached MnDOT about the construction of the trail within their right-of-way easement. Although the City feels this to be the best location, MnDOT has its reservations, however, agreed in principal that if the highway were returned to the County, they would likely support this location. Muiphy indicated that the City would still require easements from the applicants as a back FACE 35 of 28 I II —1> nri 1 iT'iS f ~ • II I I HI I ■! HIM ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING ^lONDAY, DECEMBER 9,2002 9. M02-20S4 Ke^’la Manley, 1973 Fageraest Polal Road—Variancc/Condilfonal Use Pcrmil Kevin Manley and Ed Suarez of Gustafson Design, landscape designer, were present. GafTron Mated that the applicant had serious erosion problems with the lakeshore on his property and was applying for appro^’al of a boulder retaining w all system and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75* of the shoreline. The houM was newly remodeled and several out of compliance issues had been brought into compliance. There were, however, a number of unresolved issues w iih the property. The Planning Conunission offered to table the proposal, but the applicant requested that a recommendation be forwarded to the Council. Planning Commission recommended to deny the request and diu not address specific issues concerning what they might approve were it to come back. StafTh»d not h^ adequate time to review plans for e.xtensive boulder walls. The grade has changed since the owner before the last had the properly, and the grade change had not been approved. They arc therefore looking into po^entia! restoration. There is concern about the slope and stability of the lakeshore bank. They received new plans for 3 different options shortly before the Council meeting. Gaffron suggested it may be appropriate to table the application to allow staff and the City Engineer time to review the new plans. He suggested Council provide direction as to whether the grade should be restored to what it was before remodeling began, w hether the deck might be approved if a formal variance request was made. The deck had not been approved by the City and was encroachment in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback zone, and additional hardcover. Any forthcoming approval should be conditioned on the removal of an illegal shed on the east side of the property and removal of an illegal parking are.-^ in the same zone. He stated a survey should be conducted to determine if the stairw ay encroaches into the right-of-way enough to be an issue with plowing. Work on the lakeshore could occur in the spring, and erosion control would have to be maintained in the meantime. Gaffron stated staffs recommendation was to table the application. Mayor Peterson asked Manley if he would have a problem with tabling the application. Manley asked if they could work through some of the issues. GaHron staled that all the factors need to be dealt w ith. but most were separate issues from the lakeshore erosion. Murphy staled that the applicants had done an incredible job on the house. He felt that the Manley’s had hurried to get the application post the Planning Commission and to the City Council, and stated he was not prepared to revievv the plans without the staffs input. M2-XI54 1973 FaftTMu Mat RMd Nairta*crl«.2M2 Pip3 7. Undercultingonhe lakeshore bank due to high water wave action is to some extent a sepomte issue from the work that has been done in the lakesliore yard. The bank at the immediate shoreline is very steep, qtproximately 60*/* slope (steeper than 2:1) with linle vegeution to stabilize it. Without riprap and some method of shoring it up. this bank has a potential to erode and/or slump off in the foreseeable future. Review of Proposed Boulder Wall Landscapiag Plan The current topographical survey and boulder wall plans were received on November 12. leav ing staff and the City Engineer little opportunity to react to them. The City Engineer's initial comments are attached as Exhibit L. While the profx>sed boulder wall design does not include proposed contours, it does define proposed spot elevations at critical points. The boulders will add significant amounu of hardcover to the west 0-75’ zone (39..S* b per the submitted calculations). The Engineer has asked for a number of additional details to clarify the plan. In general, the proposal appears to continue the applicanu* apparent goal of creating a wide yard that walks out from the new door elev ’ation where a narrow, higher yard previously existed. Please review the pre- and post construction photos attached as Exhibit F. The photos also show to some extent the degree of clearcutting that has resulted from the grading work in the west 0-7S' yard. The staff sketch (cross section at surv ey line) attached as Exhibit H depicts the grade changes that have been made. Notwithstanding the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion, the current plan has a number of aspects which require Planning Commission consideration so that the applicant can be directed as to how to proceed. Planning Commission should consider the following in reviewing the proposed boulder wall / landscaping plan; 1. Should the grades be returned to their pre-construction status as pan of the boulder wall project? The impacts of this arc that: a) A much narrow cr exposure of the w est facade w ill result. b) An outside below -gr^c landing and steps w ill be required to enter exit the walkout door, a short retaining w all system within a few feet of the house may be necessary' to retain w alkout w indow exposures (the new w indow s arc much closer to the ^und than the original window s) (see photos and staff sketches). Perhaps the w indow s should be replaced with windows that are not so low to the ground, and the grade brought back up against the house where it was originally. c) Maintenance of the restored steep slopes may require special attention. 2. An option to consider is allow ing a narrow walkout corridor at an elevation that will drain to the lake, i.e the width of a walking path. This would m similar to w hat existed prior to the grading w&«k. but 2-3' low er in elevation. It should be noted that the 1998 topographic survey does not reflect the walkway that is show n in the photos, nor does it reflect the short retaining wall along the north side of the old walkout level. M2.2tM l973Fa|mMMPilalllMd Hwnwktr 1*. 2M2 Pati4 Does Planning Commiuton agree with the general concept of retaining walls in the 0-75* 2one for this property, or should grades be changed to minimize the need for walls? Remember that the CMP states in Section #3 A. Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management, as follows: *7. Retea tfoa of aataral vegetatlaa wBI Harit the Itpart of arbaaiiatfoo as vbible from the lake. Building heights will be limited to less than the t>pical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearculting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegeUlion will be preserv ed on slopes. Retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screen^ with nati vxgcution.” Preservation of the lakeshore bank as it has long existed ma> in tact require retaining walls of some sort, be they wood timbers, boulders. ke>-5ionc blocks, etc. Other methods for maintaining the shoreline might be possible, including vegetative plantings, for instance. However, more intrusive methods to ensure no foture slump of the lakeshore bank w ould entail a wholesale reshaping of the shore with a gradual slope from the house to the lake incorporating layered fabric. This method w*ould not be in keeping with the goal of preserving the character of the shore. Due to the last minute nature of the submittal, the City Engineer ’s comments have yet to be suitably add ressed. While staff would prefer that this shoreline restoration be completed as soon as possible, we arc not in a position to recommend approval of this plan as of this wTiting. Staff RccommeadaCioa Staff recommends the follow'ing: 1.Table the application to allow staff and City Engineer time to consider whether it is an appropriate plan, and to allow staff, applicant and applicant ’s consu'tant to confer on the plan. Provide direction as to whether the grades in the w est lakeshore yard should be restored to match those that existed prior to remodeling in 1998. Provide applicant with direction as to whether the deck on the lake tide of the house might be approved if a formal variance request is made. Any forthcoming q^provals ultimately should be conditioned on timely removal of the illegal shed in the eastern 0-75' zone, and removal of the grav el parking area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant was ordered to remove the shed in July but to date he hat failed to comply. A variance thould not be granted for these improvements if applied for, at ttaff believ'ct there it likely no hardship to support such variances. m-ias4 Htvmktr l%,im rafts Applicant diottld be advised to wolk with the a($accfit propcfty owners in reaching a suitable conclusion in tenns of ownership claims regarding the ‘‘accretions** east of the road. The survey should be revised to verify the eiKroachment of the concrete stairway into the City right-of-way. Could this stairway be angled toward the driveway to avoid this encroachment? Because it is likely the necessary work will not happen until next spring, applicant should be advised to mamtain erosion controls on the site as nwessaiy to avoid sedimentation to the lake or to the road. This means adding silt fence along the road and beefing up the silt fencing at the west shoreline. Note that as a remodeling project, no Certificate of Occupancy is required, so that occupancy is not a tool the City can use as an incentive to resolve the outsbrnding issues. However, continuing work on this project has become disruptive to the neighborhood, and needs to come to a timely closure. 1 1 * AppBcrthm# DaleRccrivwi A?-^'^-o2, AmatPiyd ‘^.^^C.OO CITY OFY>RONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address / ^7 T led (Type of Application to be Filed Cl)P 0-7? Lmuc/ ^ Propefty Idratification Number (P.I.D.)______________________ fSTS, APPUCANT Name A. ^Ai4^i— Address Av^ »J OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________ Address_______________________ Phone •7LV-2^-6»Xfc2, Phone (work) *7L^ Zip_sS.il/2__ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Date Property Acquired______________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month^ear) FEE!- CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _S 75.00 For ea«.h variance request with CUP application ___$175.00 Residential Accessory Use ___$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ___$225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments ___$200.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg ___$325.00 Commerclal/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling • 501 cu. yd. or more DC Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PIPRD/PID - sec Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Afler*the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____5300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Compreheiisive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeab Other • see Fee Schedule #28 HmI Co»m 0- ■■...fr ■■■ 0oA>r>Wi«| yif»M.*l Tow »t». C omb 1 4HJ 1 vi • RIPRAP T<MAic«.0-rS« H jMC mmIUM i MWA ? V) •* ytix Canting Shorefane t«*«ilfji^***»100 nn*Tw»4 nul iilN4>NAI> ‘i;tU»*;• 0^ Elevation ___ . I* I 1/4“ lc»i4M4«nt ^ G>«M onMt:-<4 4K l«Bf< ti»4l r(4^«)l» -----l|- ---lx s w M« iilVNAPKt^ Elevation lapWMttnt OMMK1«4^ \ '0M‘& Section 1 A-1 tdii 7—------------ \ vQ tk««^ana ^—-—-J— /V-l »/4- \\ f i fej lyirjluJs'/u I'Ja'jl'j'n, lii!;. 184SW«con&««A»« Nq Cotdan Vatey. MN U427 T«l. (7ft3)544-421S Il'J]'I'inlJ friy *j 1 d y71 c y '•l yy'J If* vjyrnyj; ?L TM •C)ro7jy, 'iVlTl Scale: 1 inch = 4 feet October 8. 2002 • V' . A w r I • t. '*rC>% - ^ .-V •• ••- ■ ^' ♦ • •'<•' '■•. .’.^* ’ !*•' - ^ :;r it-:'-''-. ••^■’K^--’v. '..-;5-.' ■ '• -I* *M ,^ .'. ■• ,J^r‘’i*'.. ;-.\k /'VV* Li-Js£i!.ilo___ -^1 ■'..f MW MAW~U7 PLAN r' * 1 • *rw ( 1 rrf«. I I - nr-sne> ttKi /O ’ O'©6-3 n ii III I T ^•V 1/1 /—t-*-M- -- ------^ .-• -• I. •.t w%i. L>e RtV L*C I ] - fi? «>*>■ 7^ - irw W41. I I - >rn mvie I I - ensTji flOVIDE TKEA1T r PLAH» WIILS LAVED ON CONOeiB 6-V ^/- 7 f^ • 0 7. • T ^ I I/I »-7 i/r U4 OCWY nr/ R-« AMT MiLnncN «-¥i=v^Ojr OifTh UJ tM 1 WJ- OA »«r 5-^» iyj?v!eR> ■My-gtL te&:, Jljmj.K«------------------JiSW-I ! 5?Slu^ fUKM UM (»»uMR8>t»») "j[ VTy'rMLRWT^LNM 1 1 ■■ M 0^ H .^ / y/ "%Wi 1___1 j 1) tent^DaB.. I « *41 rj r*" •w'R N»nm f< I r»k,c etxj. rt««rp fi* n j MMMAI «V PtnRtr. Pi?C‘»ir MV fv Hv »■ i>aj»/L w n* »v^ ff Mt fc nr I Rt«PttN»et.fry <r mcM W «rrv r>c^ \oaictcaL 0 6^»«RtrTt n«*n «Hu. «>♦ , r<> Ri. utamjtsT* <r ha * ' b Kl/^.osNcRcrr K«T bfA’/t nr rm^Mf »w«Nr**r» £»• <» WY «nirjn>t*i f eercRr rtaoA m*« »c RonM ; RCTnKnr* f.na V rtr^or rCN-M«r> Ji C ! ASi.lL* I a nr «v«ii. pt rnp Ri. |Pbo«i«>#s. arv«rir»» ' ub>»rir»» CTc- Of axKrw* I DMTbe <^»«nRjc.ricN t*\jt< / . «a>TNt T3 n« icw i c4N«mATM ^ b AX »Aa.vM> •I HOOK !>»« Nr<7 A tMKti , corm» «A«TRifcrb^4 »m f I rnp ctXjUfTO PY nc r^riKA AO fw.-»cp TO nr 9JtCO^^*At.^(H. »»«* lo rA«K>Ti.^4 4IKY ».;»>, ni sxfrtv cwr?YC«34/» «vcL ay * AO ft »*m> A» <«e/i t»4 r>| 'ft** WWAM't 'UHT-TTP e T»t OCAtZJI -AK UKl C4>«.09AfY n| ^ nr (lAPbCA AO ntit Asaiyrt» Ate TH»T n-4 tur»fc A»p (CMbCP AO o»«ntu:.nr »4 o>o«nAT> ATm frto ir«**. tONsrnr'v'L rYtteT^r^ r>t , COOWACW «VbX TA-e • I DinLtfitr»«AtY nAE£A,TK»rt * COiaWHt4f fAMtFVA'KJN <T MPNb P0»0 Cf>AVTK»4 At ft>' a*n5Tb:rT»,-*» nr rr «nAt AtATT TO Ar<ur. A KfPonei.ir^ roK nr atesotvAi-^ <r T»«i» lAt^m d nr u>ntM.x(M. avu. htt nr AR/itTT^T/tMArtP Mi*lvrn.Y or AA CY*<J>trA. I emAriN £^»i9T«u.rK*« KUMKTA A«0 A:.njrL rnr <^iTTdb«» T H a . 0D»:'0 >rw l/awf« rL/>gR R AN I/r - r- ^^meutV f: ^/Cov'T \ GITYorOBONO MMldHOIIIni Street M**u; 2750 Mll^ Partnny OnM. m S5SSC Mtaf Minn: P.O. Bn K cnrstn Bm. m ssmw Kevin Manley 10778 Alison Way Inver Grove Heights, MN SS077 RE: Work Without Permits - 1973 Fagemess Point Road Dear Mr. Manley: It has come to the attention of this depaitment that you have recently done work on your property at 1973 Fagemess Point Road that is beyond the scope of the permits that have been approved. A shed has been placed on the property which is located where no structures or hardcover is allowed. A deck has been added were no structures or hardcover is allowed. Grading has occuned within the 75* of the lake where no grading is allowed. This letter is to require you to remove the shed and deck from the property and restore the grade to the original elevations. A deadline of August 5,2002 has been established for compliance. If this deadline is not met the City will forward the matter to the City Attorney for legal action. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official Cc:Kevin Manley 1973 Fagemess Point Road & Wayzata, MN 55391 4179 Ethan Drive Eagan, MN 55123 lMtpbaae(tn)14MBBB • r)u<9S2)24M»< •ji'ihn- I ill tBi'T 111 Total Eatrai < LAND: Landacaolnt. Eitrat. ..2^. jiso. ratal Land S PARTIAL □ Vatua Of ImpfevaiRtnl S . ^-^OOL Total Rtolacamtnt Lan Dtpradation Phytciai Functional Economic Net Valwf Other Buildmgi Total Value Improvement! Land Value Tota; Frtimafed Market Value ISL.% _____\ _____% ■r4flLflg. 7J> S- OQ s j a g r .. Dale A|iplkatlM Rccdvtd: 1S-Z3-02 Dale Af^Mcattaa CamMcrtd a« Coaiplclc: 11-12-42 M-I>a]r lUirIcw PcHod Eipkm: Ml-U M-tfajr Review PerM Eilciidcd aa 12-M2 la: 3-12-4I3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Date: December 5,2002 Item No.: Dcpartnmil Apf>rovalt Name: Michael P Gamoa Title: Plaimmf Direcior Adnilniitraior Approval:Aseoda SecUon: Zoning Item Description: l>02-28S4 Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagemess Point Road • Variance/CUP Lbt ofEihibits A - Notice of Planning Commission Action 12-5*02 B • Memo and Exhibits of November 16.2002 C • Draft November 18 Planning Commission Minutes Application Snmmaiy Gustafson Design, Inc. on behalf of Kevin & Janet Manley, owners of 1973 Fagemess Point Road, has applied for approval of a boulder retaining wall s>’stem and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75' of the shoreline. This is a newly remodeled house for which no Certificate of Occupancy will be required. There arc a number of unresolved issues related to this property which arc enumerated in the November 16 staff memo. Planning Commission Recommendation On November 18 Planning Commission held a public hearing and rev iewed the request. Although Planning Commission offered to table the proposal for further review and potential modification, applicant requested that a recommendation on the current proposal be forwarded to the Council. Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the request for the reasons noted in the minutes and did not formally address each of the issues noted in the staff memo. Stair Recommendation Slaffrecommcnds denial of the application as proposed. The initial 60-day deadline is January 11, 200.1. Council's next meeting is January 13, 2003. If Council denies the application, a resolution for denial would not be presented for adoption until afler the 60-day deadline. Therefore, the 60 day deadline must be fomially extended, which staffhas done in the N lice of Planning Commission Action. If Council chooses to table the application for revisions and/or further review by the City Engineer, then Staff recommends the following; «02-28S4 December 5,2002 Page 2 1. Table the application to allow ttafT and City Engineer time to consider whether it is an appropriate plan, and to allow sUfT, applicant and applicant’s consultant to confer on the plan. 2. Provide direction as to whether the grades in the west lakcshorc yard should be restored to match those that existed prior to remodeling in 1998. 3. Provide applicant with direction to whether the deck on the lake side of the house might be approved if a formal variance request is made. 4. Any forthcoming approvals ullimalcly should be conditioned on timely removal of the illegal shed in the eastern 0-75 ’ zone, and removal of the gravel parking area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant was ordered to remove the shed in Julv but to dale he has failed to comply. A variance should not be granted for these improvements if applied for, as suff believes there is likely no hardship to support such variances 3. Applicant should be advised to w ork w ith the adjacent property ow ners in reaching a suitable conclusion in terms of ownership claims regarding the "accretions” cast of the road. 6. The sur\ ey should be rc\ ised to verify the encroachment of the concrete stair^vay into the City right-of-way. Could this stairway be angled toward the driveway to avoid this encroachment? 7. Because it is likely the necessaiy work will not happen until next spring, applicant should be advised to maintain erosion controls on the site os necessary to avoid sedimentation to the lake or to the road This means adding silt fence along the road and beefing up the silt fencing at the west shoreline. Council also has the option of sending ai y revisions back to the Planning Commission. COUNCII. ACTION REQL ESTED Take a formal action to do one or more of the following; 1. Deny the request, direct staff to draft a resolution of denial for review on January 13. 2. Table the request, provide direction to the applicant and staff regarding items 1 -7 above. 3. Table the request, provide direction to the applicant, and refer back to Planning Commission for further review. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kritey Parkway P.O. Boa 66 Crystal Bav, MN 55323 952-249-4600 ZONING RLF. «02-2854 f 2 - T - OV NOTICE OF PLANNING CO.M3IISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: December 5. 2002 TO: Kevin Manley 1973 Fagemess Point Road Wayzata. MN 55391 Eduardo Suarez Gustafson Design 1845 Wisconsin Avenue North Golden Valley. MN 55427 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variance / Conditional Use Permit DATE OF MEETING: November 18. 2002 Plaaning Commistion rreommended as follows: Motion to recommend denial of application <K)2-2840. l ore; 6 tm Favor, 0 Againu Applicant's next scheduled meeting is consirmed as: City Council - Monday, December 9, 2002; meeling starts at 7:00 p.m. Extension of 60>Day Review Period Minnesota Statutes §15.99 requires that the City must .ipprove or deny zoning applications w ithin 60 da>-s of receipt of the completed application. The statute also pro\ ides that the City may extend the review period for an additional sixty davx upon written notification to the* applicant. Your application was received on 10*23-02 but not deemed complete until 1 1-12-02 I he initial 60-day perit J w ill expire on January 11. 2002. The City ofOrono hereby extends the review deadline for application M02-2854 an additional 60 days to March 12, 2003. The reason for the extension is that the City Council docs not have a second meeting in December, hence final action on the application cannot occur until aOcr the initial 60-day period expires. If the application is tabled on December 9 and or referred to the Planning Commission for further rev iew of revised plans, the Planning Commission does not meet again until January' 22. 2003. afier expiration of the initial 60-day review period. The normal course of the review process will not allow the City to complete its review and take final action within the initial 60-day timeframe. If you desire certified copies of the ofificial Planning Commission or Council minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission or Council. If you have questions, please call Planning Director .Mike Gaffron at 612-249-4600. TO: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Mmcbcrs FROM: Mike GafTron. Planning Dircctor^^^^^^ DATE: January 13,2003 SUBJECT: #t02*2753 Wesley 2817 Casco Point Road - Plan Revision - Reconsideration of Variances • Rcrerral from Council Zoaiag Obirict: LR-IC One-Family Lakeshore Residential ('/i acre) Lot Area: 16,730 sT. (0.38 ac.) Summaiy of Issae Removal of the pre-existing second stor>' in a substandard setback triggers the Resolution condition requiring further re\ ie\v of this in-progress remodeling addition project. The inspections department also has concluded that substantial foundation work w ill likely be necessary, also triggering further re\ iew. Lbt of Exbibits A • Applicants Letter B - Resolution No. 4768 (March 11,2002) C - SurxT>’ D - House Plans & Elevations t • Current site photos (1st week of Januarv’ 2003) F - PC Minutes 2/19 02 G - Staff Memo ik Selected Exhibits 2'14 02 BacLgrtNiwi The applicant was granted a 75-250' hardcover variance in March 2002 for major additions to the existing residence. The \ ariance \\ as granted based on a finding that the c.xisting residence building and foundation w ould not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot area w idth variances were necessary because the existing house walls and foundation w ill remain, w ithoui structural repairs. It may not have been clear during the February 2002 review that the plan as approved required raising of the second story roof a few feet. A condition of approval was that if it is determined the existing foundation is required to be replaced or repaired, all variance approvals will be w ithdrawn and a new variance application submitted. Not discussed in the approvals was the fact that a portion of the existing house w as 6' from the side lot line where a 10' setback is required. Applicant was issued a building permit in June 2002. The building inspector recently noted that while the additions arc progressing, th second story of the c.xisting residence has now been completely removed, including the portion encroaching past the side scibac'N. The applicant has provided documentation of the circumstances leading to this removal (Exhibit A). Because the inspections department is questioning the integrity of the portion of foundation below the first story r W)2-2753.2817 Casco Point Road January 15.2003 Page 2 w*all with substandard setback, the applicant is hiring a structural engineer to review the siiuaiionand we anticipated having his analysis available for your January 22 meeting. Replacement ofthe removed second story in the substandard setback clearly requires a variance that was not addressed in the original approval. Furthermore, per the approval resolution conditions, the removal of portions of the existing house and the need for substantial work on the foundation, triggers the need for further City review. The underlying issue is w hether the rcmodeling'addition process has resulted in removal of so much of the existing residence that the project should be considered as a total rebuild, requiring all setbacks to be met. Please review the original staff memo and minutes from the February 19, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Staff Rccommeadatioa Staff hiL. allowed the applicant to continue work only on those portions ofthe house and additions that arc structurally unrelated to the encroaching portions ofthe existing house. The primary issues that need further City review arc: 1.WTiether a variance will now be granted to allow the second story encroachment to be replaced at the 6* setback; Whether the first story encroachment should be allowal to continue at the 6' setback, assuming that its foundation needs to be repaired or replaced Staff is treating this as a re*opening of the previous variance approval application. In order to expedite the review process, at staffs request Council has referred this back to the Planning Commission for consideration at your January 22 meeting, w ith the intent to have this back on Councifs January 27 agenda to consider the PC recommendation and take final action. The neighboring property owners have been notified by mail that this application is being further rc\ icw cd should they w ish to comment. TO: Orooo Planning Commission FROM: Wes and Brenda Byrne (homco\%iters) SUBJECT: “Plan Revisions** at 2817 Casco Point Road This memo is UTitten to document additional issues related to the “Plan Revisions'* to our building project that might now require an additional variance application 1) Thwe was never any attempt to skirt conditions of the currently approved variance and building permit Orono inspectors have frequently been brought in to inspect the progress of work so as to try to prevent the types of problems that arc now halting the project 2) The house plans have aol been changed The approved plans clearly imbeate that a new roof would be constructed on an 8 foot wall to integrate the new and old sections of the house The problem is related to the fact that the old house ha I a low roof On the north side (six feet from the propern- line), the roof was set on a second : »or wall whose height w as less than 5 feet Originally, we had mistakenly thought that we would oe able to build olT that existing wall But when our carpenter (Roger Roy) got to the wall, he knew that such an extension would not meet code. In fact, there was no way to legally construct the new wall except to build it from the first floor ceiling up This necessitated removal of the existing short wall But when the inspector saw that the old second floor wall had been removed, we were not allowed to replace it Here the question could be raised. “\\Tiat should we have done difTerentlv'’*' But there is no correct answer to this question With the low second-floor walls of the old house, the variance and building permits should never have been granted as worded. becaiBC the conditions could never have been met. Thv house could nvur have hecn hudi as planned. 3) As an additional problem, concerns are now being raised as to whether the foundation on the north side can suf^rt a two-storv house Yet this same foundation was available for inspection last year, and has been inspected on multiple occasions during the building process Everyone knew that it was questionable, but what makes it difficult to judge is the fact that it has successfully withstood 60 years of holding up two stories and a nxifline In addition, work performed by our foundation contractor (Paul Berquist) on the new pans of the house will improve the long-term integrity of the old foundation For example, our new basement will allow heat into the old foundation and surrounding ground There will also be better drainage and insulation around it The new rooflines will shift roof weight to the front and back of the house, and away from the side with the old foundation l or ihe foundation to now he^ ome a reason for preventing completion of the planned project seems terribly unfair. It should be noted that we were originally hoping to use as much of the old house as possible to save money. W'e arc woiking with a very limited amount of money. We are not trying to escape our responsibility for this problem Howev er. if someone a year ago could hav e lust noticed the low second floor wall on the north side, or let us know that the old foundation could be used at any time as a project-stopper, we would have designed a diftferem house !fw e now are forced to move the enitre wall in 4 feel, we will have to endure suhxtanttally fpreater cost.s, viv wtll lose over 200 square feet of Intng area, and the outer appearance of the new house will be compromised fsshich will affect resale value). /I e GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.—4J68___ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VAR1ANCE:S TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10 J2, SUBDIVISION 2; SECTION 10 SUBDIVISION 16 (L) 2 FILE NO. 02-2753 VnEREAS. Wesley Byrne aod Brenda Bynie, (hereinafter "ihe applicants") are owners of the property located at 2817 Casco Point Road within the City of Orono (hemoaAer "the City^) and leg^ly described as follows: Attached "Exhibit A", Hennepin County, Minaesou (hereinafter "the property ”); aod WHEREAS, the applicants have applied for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10^2, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) 2 to permit 3,564 s.f. (31 J%) hardcover in the 75-250’ lakesborc setback where 4,155 s.f (36.5%) exists and 2,873 s.f (25%) is allowed, to permit additions to the existing house; and >VHEREAS, 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 February 19,2002, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. Minnesota: FLNDINGS 1. TlUs application was reviewed as Zoning File 802-2753. 2. The property is located in the LR-IC, Single Family Lakesborc Residential Zoning District where % acre is the minimum lot size and 100 feet is the minimum lot width. 3. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variances and recommended approval by a vote of 6 to 0 based on the following findings and hardsUps: Page 1 of7 GlTYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 7 W H Planning Commission finds that a lot width and lot area variance is not required since the existing house walls and foundation uill be used, without atnictUTil repain. If the walls or foundation are found to require structure r^air or replacement, the property would require an appIicaUon for additional variances to lot area and lot width. •^ Planning Commission recommended the total lot coverage by structure shall not exceed 15%. * ^ C. D. The proposed additions do not require variances for location or size. ^ci^s a l^e driveway and parking area on the property that would be redu^ in size. The total hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback would be reduced by 591 s.f. E. The existing house is located 72 ’ from the street property line requiring a longCT dnveway to setv-e the property. An existing garage is being removed to allow for constniction of a new garage. F. Applicants have requested to add to the existing house rather than build a ** «ated the existing foundation and building will not be removed or altered as part of the remodeling plan. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propeny in this zoning district; that granting the variances will not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air. nor pose a firehiard or other danger to ncighboringproperty; would not merclyserveasaconvenience tothe 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 keying with the spint and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the The City Council has considered this application including the findings and r«omm wd^ions of the Wanning Commission, reports by City Staff, comments by the appheanu and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safely and welfare of the commumty. ^ Page 2 of? GITYof OROXO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 4 7 6 8 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) 2 to pc^t 3,564 s.f. (313%) hardcover in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback where 4,155 s.f. (36.5%) exists and 2,873 s.f. (25%) is allowed, to permit additions to the existing house subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing shed and all hardcover proposed for removal is completed prior to a final inspection. 2. Final drainage plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer to ensure drainage is properly directed. 3. The property shall be developed in conformance with the site plan attached as Exhibit B. 4. If it is determined die existing foundation is required to be replaced or repaired, all variances approvals shall be withdrawn by the City of Orono and a new variance application shall be submitted by the applicants. 5. Authorities granted by the variances run with the property not w iih 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 these variances will expire on that dale (March 11,2003). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of the variances 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 owners 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 propert>*. Page 3 of 7 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 476 8 Adopted by the City GnincU of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held oa the 1 1th day of March. 2002. ATTEST: Linda S.Vce;City Clerk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Applicams STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was ^knowledged before me on this 1 1 th day of March, 2002 by Barbara A. Peterson, Nlayor of the City of Orooo, a Miimesota municipal coiporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. Notv^^iy^ STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 4^^aussaawinternheimer | on NOTMVMUC.IMeSOfM I MaaaaaassscnsaRTciaHBesanaB The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this * day of !\ t . 200®:; hy Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. | RA»IELOOOG^*^ V 4L^.RACHEL OOOG6 » MOT«yn*uc-m««roTa >> 'MrC««Miinti9iMjMSi.sos Notary ^blic Page 4 of 7 iMii ||| WII- ••••.• *. • i \ 4768 ■X ttCOL DESCRIPTION Of PHPIISES Por. o' Lot «|0 In Spring Pork ond oil thot unploUodlond ond thot portion of Lokt Short Avtnut vocotcd.’ lyino btlwaan Lot 120 sold Minnotonko. occording to tho plot thertof on flit or of rtcord In the of Dttds in ond for sold Htnntpin County which I its SouthsostsrTy of o l int runn ng porolltl with onS 5 fttt dlstont North- wcstsrly from tht Southtostsrly lint of sold Lot. ond tht txttnsion thtreof. Por. 2. Lot 119. Spring Pork, including thot port of Lokt Short Avtnut vocoled. «"<I ‘h« •»><»'•• m Lok.w w* ^ BWPW ««t ■ Wt VvVriUI Minnttonko lying bttwttn thtt sidt lints of said Lot 119 txttndad to iht thopt of Lokt Minnttonko. occording to tht rtcordtd plot•thtrtof. Pige6of7 L 4768 ___/-S.6e«29 00- E LAKE I I • I s I jLAKE ;; i' "SHOFTET""' AVENUE >UI -Cv N 66*29'00".W r\ s C4 ^ 99 A9 WW #T9 .j/rS.^AZ3M99^A0ftQK V SHORE @(vaca Y ed )^.^^ ^ - - n- KTnottK^ __ r,Ti=Lr2. coaosuK Page 7 of? AVENUE i .<»*»?.....) «M9 ■■ 1^*^ ^ I ^ j\ i' I f , f C'\ i mmf r: / ( Vi /•/ r.cL A« : ‘i ^» vv r ••.«*,■ £, ?''r: .'4H- ;// ',C^ ‘ ^ . ^ iMBMaf - N aifeB- *:<■»« r “^58 ■ -■ ■’ ^.' r^ '•I •-•■ •T'*'" '*''‘7 IhOi il„i 6'^ .^■7 (■> (r< 7 r i 3m / ■v/ / > : Id m » '*t . '■*: A-^'-r * : ' '•« ij •«i ,1 V V*! i • > » / 'll — esnsag TO: Chair Hawn and Oiono Planning Comoimion Members Ron Moofie, CNy Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator DATE: February 14.2002 SUBJECT: H02-27S3 Wesley Byrne 2817 Casco Point Road Variances • Public Hearing <2 ZmriiglNstrkt:LR-IC, One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/i acre) UsiafCsliiMts: A Application B Put Map C SuryeyTsUting Property Conditions D Survey/Proposed Property Condiitons E Elevation Views F Ham Le\el Floor Plan G Hardcova Cakulatioo Worksbeett H Property Owners Notification List A|>pUcalioa Summary Property owners have requested variances to permit additions and remodeling to the existing house Thm are twn proposed additions to the house. The first would replace an existing attached garage with a 32' X 35’ two story addition. The second addition would be a 20' X 30* attached garage with future living space located above the garage. The property o\%ncrs only intend to keep the existing house and foundation The open porch, garage, and deck arc being removed to make room for the new additions. Pciitncnl Ordinanccs/Variaoces requested 1. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56. Subdivision 16 (L) (2). Total proposci! hardcover exceeds allowed hardcover by 813 s.f. 75-250 Lot Area - 11,375 s.f. Existing Hardcover - 4,155 s.f. (36.5%) Proposed Hardcover - 3,657 s.f. (32.1%) Allowed Hardcover = 2,844 s.f. (25%) As a result of the proposed plats the total hardcover on the property would it redu- ei There is airrently a large driveway ’ and parking area on the property that would b* reduced in size The total hardcover is still over the 25% limitation in the 75-250 ’ lakeshore setback requiring the variance. •02-37S) Wnky B>m« 3117 Cmco Point Road Febravy 19.2002 Pi«cler4 r Other hardcover removats include reducing die size of the lakeside deck, remtvtd of a shed loaned near the street, an open porch on the streets^ of the house would be removed for the garage addition, and a sidewalk and wood planter box would be removed from the west side of the property. Section 10.24. Subdivision 5 (B). To permit a 9.7' side setback for the residential addition located at the northeast comer of the new house. ‘tghth caused the corner of the house to encroach into the required setback. It uui not untd after the house was designed and (b^awn on the survey that the encroachment was discovered Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C). The proposed lot coverage by structure is 2.612 s.f. (l5.6Vo). The Zoning Code permits up to 1 S% of the lot area to be used for structure on the properly. The total lot area is 16,750 s.f., which allows a total of 2,513 s.f (15%) of lot coverage by structure on the property. Lot coverage by structure ordinances were adopted to preserve space bei ween buildings and regulate the massing of structures Additional structure aho cont.ihutes towards additional hardcover which can negatively impact water quality by not allowing storm water to run across natural growid surface The concept is to allow storm water to be slowed and to infiltrate into the ground Staff had requested Gronberg and Associates, surveyor/engineer, to reverify their final calculations to determine the actual size of the proposed house The total structure was confirmed to be 2,612 s f which is 99 s.f more structure than the property is allowed StaICBCiil of Hardship Applicant has included a hardship statement that is included as part ofExhibit A. To summarize the hardship the property owners state they are expanding the house to be comparable to other houses in the neighborhood, and they are adding to the existing house closer to lake rather than tovsards the street to protect an 80 year old oak tree. Site Drainage Staff received the final site grading and drainage plans on Febrtiary 14'*' and have not had an opportunity to complete review as of the date of this memo. Any recommendation of approN al shall require additional City Staff review of the plans prior to any Council action. •02-275} Wcsk)r a^ 2ll7CaKoPo«nillMi5 Fcbruwy 19.2002 Pv2oT4 Mm iLf PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS FOR ACTION 1. Approve variances noted above 2. Table 3. Deny, stating reasons 4. Other Action Staff RecoiBi —datioa Staff has recommended the applicants reduce the size of the house to not encroach into the side >xird setbacks. Staff also lecorninends the additions be reduced in size to not exceed 1 S% lot coverage by structure. Staffs opinion is the hardship statement does not support a structural lot coverage variance and a side setback encroachmem. As noted above, the City looks at what is best for the long term plan for the City. When ordinances were adopted for structural lot coverage the City adopted this to limit the amount of development in neighborhoods, and create qtace between buildings. Additional structure also contributes towards additional hardcover which can negatively impact water quality by not allowing storm water to run across natural ground surface. The concept is to allow storm w-ater to be slowed and to infiltrate into the ground. Property owners and Plarming Commission may want to consider additional hardcover removals on the property, notably the 0*75' lake setback zone. A review of the final grading and drainage plan wUI determine if the lot can accommodate the proposed additiocis. A copy of the |rfan ha.t forwarded to the City Engineer for commem. •02-27SJ WokT ByfM 2ll7C«CoM«aM4 Fcferavyl«.2002 Paft3or4 L ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Ar««! LR-IC Lot Area Required Actual 16.750 s.f.(0.77 acre) Slmct«r»l Cavrag*! Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 16,750 s.r.Allo\%cd: 2.512 s.f. (15%) Existing; 2.044 s.f. (12.2%) Proposed: 2,612 s.f. (15.6%) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75*4,875 s f Os.f 462 s.f (9.4%)462 (9.4»/o) 75-250*11,375 s-f 2,843 s.f (25%)4.155 s.f (36.5%)3,657 s.f (32 1%) 250-500*500 s.f 150 s.f (30%)138 s.f (27.6%)119sf (23 8%) •02-2753 Wnky Byrw 2tl7C«MM«RMj NfeiMiy 19,2002 HBt4oT4 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.CX) per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $130.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonnlng ttnictures $230.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Amiiicadong 0^’^753 Dale Received AmomiPaid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ y / 7 Cm, Plropcfty Idenlificition Number (PJi).)_ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property^Acouired __________________________ MiaceniI (do) ^ ng^ also own the adjacent parceb of land. Present iSe^ propeity: u^idential ___pother (specify). Zoning Distiict:^__________________________________ .(month/year) APPLICANT Name Address: Phone (home) Phone (work) ^97f-Qo/y 0 OWNER (if different than applicant) > rName City: tZip: s's'sr/ Phone (home). Phone (work). Iress:City:. DESCRIPIION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Oe fL J f /jf IL. 7f fn 1 TO ^ myt^ A# Estimated Construction Cost S Joo ooo Ait- Meif /Ae variances RBQUIRED (attach additional sheets if neccs$a.-y) . . r t / T/ // a* fU »T t-l*- Itfi O'H iJ •>.* 'j '). Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (qrecify) ______________ tcy*^ j‘s Current/ X Hardcover __Rear ___ Average Lakesbore _Lot Coverage ^^V wa RDSHIF/DESCRIPTION of UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 7J* /... /*w.V. ^ I if reJa^ 't ^ ■ii UCtkli rvwiVc^ a —Pr rtdm^lkf —lSr\ nutp it l^uu r*fy (attach additional sbeeb if necessary) ^ ’ 3^'C rtfutvmf o( €0 Y*^ oak 4*J U*n(J '(HrH*r ViCk/ flm. /ov>« Ho* Ac. eii Hnr 5,V« of /4 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS AU rf Itc hllOTiat hlmillw wm hf mI iiiiIWmI I«, «I., mnlicMo. J..HI1.. A... for vour ■ppllcation >a h< comij^rtd ramplrt*; «*«qiine oiff m ___ Completed Application Form 2. ---- Certified Prop^ Owncra List of owners within ISO*, labels and plat map (you Ftnance. A-603 Govt Ced!«?;348-5910). c.f ---- Sketcl^ or plaw of fioor A elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8VTx 1 n 6. ---- Ust of the leg^ names (include marital status) of all persons with an inter^t b 7 applicaniCs) if not current ownei(s). 7. ---- As an addend^ to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8- ---- Additional items as may be requested by City staff APPUCANT'S SIGNATURL ^ Date A g 3 »Applicant's Signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE Owner's Signature ^Date Applit^t must ^ve all submittals into the Cit>- offices 25 days before the Planning monjS^*Appll«n^ mu^ Cominiision Meetings are held on the third Monday of each ^ #2'? o3’ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All af Ag tollawtng toformaHun imt be «ubmi«ttd hv the applicaHon dgadline date in owIt for your applteation la Ik matid<r»d rompiett! I. Completed Application Form Certifled Property Owners List of owners within ISO*, labels and plat map (you 4. __ must obtain this list, latels and map from Heimepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Oovt CcA^*348-S9 10). c( Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and incluoe hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 854" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing gr^ are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 1 1" for reproduction. 5. ___ Sketches or plans of floor A elevation views provide one (I) copy 8Va" x II"). 6. ___ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in die property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). 7. ___ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. 8. ___ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that »uur variance application la not complete if the above information has not been Included. APPUCANT*S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng 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 mm and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature ^ ------. ^ Date A 3 - 0\VNER*S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature ^ --------------------- Date !^OX- Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 2S 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 mcetiogs of the Planning Commission and CounciL If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make anaogements to have an author^ agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildiog A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ‘^7DO tv,'» Ol (It) I (f9) (IS). (1S)J (ft)/ (10)J UtT)/ (St) (S3). 1S2) V # (H) . tt ^ ^ /n- CASCj^Kl|lfrau| County, amfStrte TO;Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput. City Planner DATE:January 7.2003 SUBJECT: <<02-2856 Andrew and Tracey Rascher 4705 North Shore Drive Variances - Public Hearing; Zoning Disirici: Lot Area: 1.R-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 30.063 s.f. (.69 acre) Eibibits: A Anal) sis Worksheet Application SurN ’cy Deck Plan Hardcover Calculations Average Lakeshore Map Plat Map Location Map Property 0\sm*r*s List Permit Record Pholos of Property Pertinent Code Section: 1. Section 10.22. Subd. I (D)and Section 10.56. SuKl. 16(C)(6); Average Lakeshore The average lakcshiv-e setback line .shall be a straight line connecting the mos* lakeuard protrusions of the residence building.s on the immediately adjacent lakeshore hts. Variance Request: To pemiit a variance to encroach 71' into the average lakeshore setback. 2. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10,56. Subd. 16 (C),'l): Structure within 75V Structures shall be set back a minimum of 75* from the OIIWL (929 4’) of lakes classified as Geneial Di'velopment Variance n«.quest; To permit a struciure to be loi atcd 67* fr*mi tbe OIIWl of I ake Minnetonka where 75' is required 3. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16(1.Kl): Hardcover within 75’; Within 75* of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structuras Variance Request: To permit 806« f. (5.12 ) hardcover where no hardcover is allowed. B0J-28S6 .-tnJK'H and Trjcy Roichcr 4^05 Sorth Short Drn* 114 :m Page 13 Application Summar>': The applicants have requested variances from the average lakeshorc setback, the 75* structure setback from the OHW’L of Lake Minnetonka and for hardcover in the 0-75* lakeshorc setback zone in order to replace an existing second stor> deck attached to the residence. The existing deck is rotting and has become a safety issue for the owners Ihe deck is 8 ’x 36* (288 s.f.) and is located appr.. mately 67* from the OHWL of l^ke Minnetonka, where 75 ’ is required. The deck, new ly reconstructed retaining walls and part of the house are located within the 0-75* hardcover area which does not permit hardcover or permanent structures. The hardcover, currently 806 s.f or 5.12%. docs not change with the proposed deck replacement. The deck encroaches 71* into the average lakcshore setback. The residence w ith atijched deck has been located in this position since it was built in 1968 History: On June 2b. 20(X). after a unanimous vote by the Planning Commission, the City Council approved variances for this property to allow hard<*over in the 0-75 ’ lakeshore setback /luie. allow retaining walls which are pn hibited in the shore setba».k /one. and a conditional use permit for lakeshore alterations in order to reconstruct retaining walls (Zoning File <*2584. Resolution «4488). The applicants have completed the reconstruction of the retaining walls according to this approval Statement of Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in hxhibit H. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Cunsideralioii: I The deck has existed for many years in the location of the proposed deck 2. Replacement of the deck as it currently exists will not increase the existing square ftwtage of hardcover, change the setback from the OHWL nor the average lakeshore setback 3. The deck would continue to provide a landing for two sliding glass doors liK'ated at the lakeside of the house 4. Are any neighbors' views of the lake negatively impacted by construction ol the deck 5. Other issues raised by the (Manning Commission. Staff Kecommendation: Staff recommends approval of the variances necessary to replace the existing deck. •02-2S56 AnJrt'H and Troi-y Rait- hcr 4W5 Sorth Shore Drn* I 14 200} Page 2 of} ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Arti: LR-IA Lot Area Required 43.560s.f. (I acres) Actual 30.063 s.f. (0.69 acre) Hardco% er Calculations: Distance from Total area Allowed Existing Proposed shoreline in setback hardcover Hardcover Hai^cover 0-75*15.750 s.f 0s.f (0*i)806 s.f (5.12^0) sof.s-f (S.\y/e) No Change Setback from OUWL: Required slrur^are setback from OHWLofGD Uke Existing Setback Proposed Setback 75*67*67- No Change Average Lakesbore Setback: Existing Encroachment Proposed Encroachment 7V No Change •02-2S56 and Troc\ Kau her r05 Sorth Shore Drnt H4200J fogiSofS .* *.S>Vz. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial ^^icadon Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each addidonal variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 After-tbe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ SiteAddieai AwaallMi» 0^-2S3ti> PiUltoCTlwd Amoonl Plaid Property Identification Number (PJ.D.) Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______ O Z- jQ 9^ ___________________^(mondi^ear) I (do) ((to not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residendrd ___mother (specify)_____________________ Zoning District: Li? ________________________________________________ APPUCANT I Name Z/rA / Address: 7>-^ Phone (home) ____ Phoaefwofk) 9i^ l7FI~“ City: ZiD:5<jr<ro OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________ Address:City:. Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construedon Cost $ Cy, dcro _______ Desenbe request in detail: w.-f/n <■1 iC i lO 4-0 /'C'thi n-C jo ist‘3 , (attach addidonal sheets if necessary) Wr-i5 - Vr’f * iic-Ci- VARIANCES REQUIRED ' ^ ___Lot Area ___Lot Width X Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage Setback: Front Other (specify)_____ Side __R V Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property condidons pre\*enting compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ZToTo-Fij oA rA.vw».^c fo ht /^.it ^ t.o-n&A.'fe fo u,&<._______ Attach addidonal sheets if necessary) ^ 9. R P?. pL/5 c«.i' 'W'* required submittals All if the ftflifmiag iafonnation tnii.i >»iy niHt»d hy >1,. annliriUnii i a nitr for vour »npHr.Him >n t,, con'id”^:; ™ innlicitlQn ilfullinf tftr In J- ji/ Completed Application Form p'« , s^e A-«03. Oovt^X SJ-S^O).^ “'P^' 3. 4:;U_ C^Jic^ of Survey (signed by • licensed surveyor) and include SSSS""*^ I-™ (0 7 iX ^ **^****^' ft™* "«*««(*) of applicant(s) if not current ownerfs)7. ^ As an addendum to this application, please att»:h a sln»r.t. i;^7 persons you wiri, notified of this ap^liL!^. »• _k£ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. .u . udinct .wllchin h dot cmplm If ,hr*;bove in7 »“r„ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ sppIicuM hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested bv the Zonino Atonistrator-. agrees to pay mldiUonal fees (staff Ume no? covered bt?“rS^ fe^L™Z^ •i^or consultant expenses incutied in review of this application'^’^and*^fiM ‘tf^ infonttatron supplied is irtK i^ correct to the best of hisflief knowledge. * Applicants Signature .. __________________Dale ! I ' >-Ql^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE •rhe owner ^leby acknowledges nr-* agrees to this application aji^ further authorizes leasonahV entry onto the property by Cit>* staff, consultants, agents. Commission memh^« .net r members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request ’ ^ Owner’s Signature Date (? -/ •'O Z Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 dav« .i,- di • Co^ssion Meeting. Planmng Commission Meetings are held on Se mX S month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review m»iln.. .r .tToi*’" i CommUsinn and Council. If an applic .is unable to ISenT. !• make amutgements to have an aulhorSd agent a«^ in yo “ oti ? !*“ * Zoning Office of this change prior to Z meeting ' “ “ Pro Floor. Inc. .OKliDMrion CHI) 6334113 Tui Nov 26 15:24:17 2002 llwtMMiKlorlNtiKqlwt. . • t »v5ir'“ ®*’"“0"*'’®««*-»0£SI0N-1.WILES«ASCHEM^ , ». . • > • r I f‘ • ' ^ Floor. Inc. DockCJvWon(esDwyeiu TufNov2816J»:34 2002 ThonwioririoforMopn^oc* Pi/2. ^?36D.if? o£k?SlSi.S'ffS2V ’'^ r a aSSSM<»< ®SWSuJ) LA4<es«c(Ee #jv JMfg "‘V‘» Cr>0*«» ■S'li .-.4l'■j/i -Vjr . 'x V\ •/ SlfcoMe 1* ■ 2QT '^ty SmoMliPMSIiMts^ 3S 07-117-23 32 0002 J H HoutmiB A K J Houtntn 1340 Rnt Point Lne Mound, MNSS364 38 07-117-23 32 0009' Long Yang A Aqjer Yang 4736 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN5S364 3807-117-23 320017 JPHeniy •72S North Shore Dr. Mound, MNSS364 38 07-117-23 32 0025 RichvdO.AJuUeA.Roelfii 4625 Tonkaview Lane Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0039 Lany A Sharon Grabill 1350 Rest Point Rd. Mound, MN 55364 3807-117-23 32 0054 Joshua D. Uran 1345 Rest Point Lane Mound, MN 55364 Ust template far 5160* 38 07-117-23 32 0003 Earl A Tenry Christianson 4641 Tonka View Lane Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0014 Larry A. Giceohagen 4739 Tonkaview Lane M ojim LMN 55364 38 07-117-23 320019 Herman Crawford 4745 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0026 James R. A Dawn Abrahamson 4629 Tonkaview Lane Mound, MN 55364-9631 38 07-117-23 32 0052 Kevin J and Susan K Grover 1315 Rest Point Lane Minnetrista, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0058 Andrew H. A Tracy K. Rascher 4705 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0004 Stuart V. IMutman 4735 Tonkaview Lane Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0016 Dennis A Meyer 4680 North Shore Dr. Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0020 Loren Pellett 4753 North Shore Dr. Mound. MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0038 Kirk Anderson 1373 Rest Point Rd. Mound, MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0053 Holly J. A Richard R.Schaad 4685 North Shore Dr. Mound. MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0059 Stephen C. A Joanne A. Ward 4695 North Shore Dr. Mound. MN 55364 78 07-117-23 32 0061 Kenneth W. A Renee O. Eggert 1371 Rest Point Lane Mound, MN 55364 M4rwfUbtU Laser 5960^ TMMVn M t7-U7*tS II MM M7M I—W 1— m MHM M I 1MCT R USCRU «7« niTN SMH H IKMB m MSM mu IrlTai Ml tMM •7-U7>H M Ml*m Mm MM m C MM Mfi Mm IMM M mum m him U •7-117'U 11 N«1 •U71 MIT ratwr u ir 1 MMt • HMM W 1 MMt f IMCRT 1171 KIT POINT U MUM m HIM 1 CMTlfT TMT TM PACT! KPMHNtM AM AN ASCMUTl AM TM HfMSINUTlM OP OVOMATXON H IT APffAM THIS OATI ON TM KCOOM OP TM NOOKPIN COWn MPM1MNT OP PIOPEITV TAXATION, TO TM OCIT OP NT \\ » s 3u 6o t' cr feralt No, PERMIT RECORD DRte Tvoe of Perait ^ Ji t n . /fpV Lu^Ul ^ /<?////». *f-Ug SfiiUAgs 0 # 3481 98(^0 S -11-13 Hi II Ii(i69 3o^l f'r^ AbSD (}-^lo 9o 36i<l 3o<ig l-H-%.. .^7 K i Ir y'iS'OS.■ n-^-O! S^fs! favs^^7-S-, / ^ ' ' j 0" PERMIT RECORD P«rait Mo. -p.O^/1 JBiis.Tvoe of Poralfc /lAr^y ^jun. S'ia V./f /<?//(a. >f-us S^8i /5^'P7-7a- 98(00 & -1-7-72 II IsU^g h(/69 4^-/^ -T? 3o^i L>-^h-9o • Ttf ^D3 0 ^-«at ftf 3oi4 7-/6-<?« 3o<ti 7-/7-% 3t4'/!r 0!c-<^\ ^ ;^‘T- 9j poxs^'i 7- S - C. d>j 1 ’ ' u ^ \/z VieiN £fm IP m iM :^o •r.-i 6-ii ■ I «•<»&• . /' ’V . :> ' > 'Tl ! I.l !■. r OUfee- UP Or eecato sroerPE^-^-:mm ::-~1 I, V -■ •. .'. P*:.^ - I - .^e4 .'■*< TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE: January 9.2003 SUBJECT; #02-2857 Onthia Piper 1125 Spring Hill Road Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrkt: LR-IA One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area: 6.6 acres (287,596 s.f.) Eahibiti: A Applic^on B Sur\ey C House Plans D Plat Map E Building Permit F Propern- Owner’s List Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.20, Subd. G: Non-rental Guest Apartments: An apartment within the principal residence structure on a lot for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, irKluding their domestic employees or non-pa>ing guests. There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the pruKipal structure, and such door shall be the primary aceess to the apartment. Application for such a guest apartment shall address the concerns of parking, sewage treatment, eniryway and interior access method. Such apartments shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. Application Summary*: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to permit a guest apartment within the primary residence. Hbtory: On April 8,2(X)2, the City Council (following a uruutimous vote by the Plaruting Commission) grant^ the applicant the following variances and conditional use permits for this property for construction of a new* house (Zoning File #02-2761; Resolution #4785); 1. Variance to permit a pool house to be located 9.3’ from the principal structure where 10’ is required; 2. Variance to permit construction of a screen porch w hich encroaches 15* into the average »0^-28S" CvnthuM Piper mSSprir^HiURood / U2003 Po^lcfS lakeshore setback; 3. Conditional use permit tu allow a guest house as an acccssor> structure on the property; and 4. Conditional use permit to allow plumbing in the accessor) structure. The above-listed appro\’als were intended for reconstructing the existing home. Since that time, the ow*ners have decided to tear down the original house and rebuild. The footprint of the new home is located behind the average lakeshore setback line and w ithin the 2SO-SOO' hardcover zone. The house meets all setbacks, structure and hard cover requirements. The existing house has been demolished at this time. A building permit has been issued but the applicants are aware that the guest apartment can riot be constructed without Planning Commission approval. Similar Applkationi : By unanimous vote of the City Council (following the same by the Planning Commission), similar application was approved in Zoning File «02-2758 (Resolution « 4778). Robert Pieper. 399S North Shore Drive on March 25.2002. Mr. Pieper was granted a conditional use permit aRer-the-fact for a non-rental guest apartment above the garage with one access from Uk interior and one from the exterior of the principal structure. DiseiissioB: The guest apartment is located above the most westerly of the two garages (as shown on the upper level door plan) for the u.se of guests. Interior Access A Entry Wav There is a total of two entry wa>*s into the apartment. One access door to the apartment is from within the principal structure. The apartment is accessed by a spiral staircase in the mudroom on the main floor of the principal structure, llic door to the apartment is located at the lop of the staircase, entering into the kitchen of the apartment. The Ordinance states that the door from within the principal structure must be the primary access to the apartment. The second access to the apartment is from an exterior door leading up a stairway, located on the front of the garage This exterior access could be considered the primary access to the apartment. Parking There are two iwt>-car garages planned as part of the principal structure. There is also a considerable amount of driveway to park other vehicles, if necessary. Sewage Treatment The property has a septic system, updated in 1997 and currently compliant. The current system permits up to six bedrooms on the same system. The proposed plan, including the guest apartmenU has four bedrooms. »02’2857 Cx nthia Piper 1 125 Spring Hill Road 1/142003 Page 2 of 3 limn ffK C—ikkratiwi; 1. b the ouUide door to the afMflment an issue? Should the access door from outside of the garage be closed so that the interior door is the principal access? Does a spiral staircase have the capability to fimetion as a primar>' access? (In terms of moving furniture, for instance, it may not be very functional). 2. Restrictive covenant should be recorded on chain of title (as part of the CUP resolution) stating that the apartment is within the principal residence and is for use by occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic empIo>’ces or non*pa>in£ guests. No rental of the guest apartment shall be permitted. 3. The utilities must not be metered separately. 4. The guest apaitmenl must not have a separate address. 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Rccommendaliotu: Staff recommends approt ’al of the conditional use permit for a non-rental guest apartment. conditioned upon the following: a) The apartment within the principal residetKC is for use by occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-pa>ing guests. No rental of the guest apartment shall be permitted. b) There shall be at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure and findings shall be made to permit the access to the guest apartment from the exterior of the structure. More than one exit should be available to the occupants of the guest apartment area for fire safety purposes, especially since the apartment area is located next to and over the garage. c) Utilities shall not be metered separately from the principal residence utilities and the apartment shall not ha\-e a separate street address. Options for Planning Comniitslon Action: 1 . Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. 3. Table. 4. Other action. •02 ’285yCymatUiPip*r 1125 Spring HiU Road 1/14/200) Page 3 <^) A i/z An>Uoiiioii Date Rccehmi Amount Paid -^857 CITY OF-DRONO - CENTRAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Addiess 11^5' SpnAi?}K(i gj U^) . MnI SS3^^ Type of Application to be Filed CLlxP* * ‘ " Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 2 £. i\ f >3V3 _________________ APPLICAN" Name _( Address Pr pe>^ LOtll inn Phone(homcl fti,^ *Z-3 Phone (^-ork)________________ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______rLgjnr-<-________________ Address Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ DalcP 11 I OI adjacent )nrcel Acquired. > also own the adjacent ^nrcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PER5DTS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Instimtional (church, school, etc.) y $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments _____$200.00 Duple.\ 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 PRIVPID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 VacaUon _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____5350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 App^ _____Other - see Fee Schedule 7 MCMTBLCvAnoN /-«e»v c »*. ' "• £1 f=T!!r^ l-rT-ff ■i:l fAttll? IIIIII as— mu^-'/l «g^ / ?+ ilK ♦ ^ ■ II HIM r?.U| r-a mMUvAnw #2O "^1 • -• n;d 1 • i L iSor>Vm»m»^>.4. >ir»naj> O r % fSSSi! wipi Sipfe»5«ilnl 0:‘»D fflsrr v ’f-.Ti’CvVJV^ ■m <R—* ^T<7 urrnjtvAiioN ICM* Vvr«*« #2357 1 i 5: IP L ...... . r- I v:^ B W ■si hu It »WL«V.W«lHfWW •n V wiBP •C4kl. ¥tf •ttm SMISW WiMWNT APAIzrwW '»r? ^ (T^ r r*i .- ^x^ 1^3 i • #2337 1 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KeUty Paikway > PO Box 66 CryttH Bay. MMat^ 55323 (952)24946(M PERMIT Pernwt Number PermiType: Dale Issued: P05787 NewSmictwc 12/17/2002 SITE ADDRESS: 1125 Spring Hill Rd ‘ WayzMi.M^*5S39I PS>: 26-II8-23-43-0004 DESCRIPnON: PropcMcdUM: lUridraiM PamitClaM: Bvildiag PonilType: New Smicture UBC Occupancy R3 Conttnictioo Type VN Ceanis Code 101 Pcrmil Sub-lypc<>): New Home • Single Family 3ETAU: Apprm-ed per icaolMioa »: Scpme panto required: FMnbing Mochmcel Feepoce impBoo Elccoricii (tne) NOnCESmEMARKS: ■EESUMMAirr: NnnHFer Plan Review Fee: State Surcharge Fee: S 5.923.75 S^3,850J8 S 540.50 Valuadan: S 1.100.000.00 TOTAL FEE:S 10J14.S3 1 8340 Minaetoiiica BM Dccpluvcn.MN 55391 OWNER: A^***®" ^ Cmdy P^er ll25Spni«HillRd Wayaia, MN 55391 TOE IKDEMIONED HEREBY REQUESTS PERMISSION TOMAKETHE REAL IMPROVEMENTS SPEOnED cA^iPnuumArrucii SICNATIJ«£BSClOlVSK^TVlE ^ Cani* 1-F8* AaamAMiM. |.A8olicML |.MMhlylUoali. hAmam l-Fi PHH MM MTI U/M/M UTCN Mt NOMinM CMMTV fMffITIf WrMMTXON mTIN I IHVIITY MMUn LIST UPMT Ml. P14SS4S1 TASK sa TAMTMI 10 to-lio-ts lA iOOS oms SSOTN AOI N I 0 0 H S SFMm mOH 0 ■ NAMlItT S SreCCB USB mam mu m Lmm LAOS IM SSSSA SO ai-uo*» SA ooos ouAS snmi avs h JOMI S NACXAT IT AL OBOSOT J STMfTR OOOSOT ■ ONITNrr llf so SOOTH SIXTH ST OiSOO HFU Ml SSAOa Si 2A-11S-ZS AZ OiOA OiOSi AOOOISS OHASSIOHiO SFOIHS MILL OOLF CUM SFOIHO NUL OOU CUM 710 SFtmO HIU 00 HATZATA NN SSSOI TAIMAVfO mmumm so x»-ao>as oa ooos OOOSO AMHSS lOMttSSBHB SFOIHO HIU OOLF aUO SmHO HIU OOLF UIM 700 SFOIHO lOLL 00 HATZATA HN SSSOI SO SA>IIO*a AS 0001 OOOSO AMOnS IMAWtOHre SFOIHO HIU OOLF CLIM SFOIHO HIU OOLF OM 700 SFHINO HSU M HATZATA MH SSSOI Si 2A-Ui*2S AS OiOA OUZS SFOOM HIU 10 A L FIFCI • C fIFfO AOOISON i COMT FIFCO U2S SFOIHO HILL HO LONO LAU HN SSSSA TABFATtt MMi/AM SO XO-llO-ZS AS OOOS oloas ifOBM nu m Note BOOOn TMMTCn MHORS ASOOCUm INC lASO U S TMMT MJO 7S0 MM AVI S NDHUFOLIS Mi SfAOa TOTAL BATCH SOO 00007 • • • • •A •• I CttTirV TIMT TNi FACTS MlMCSfUTU AM AN ACCUAATt AND TMK HtmiCNTATIMI m INFOMIATiaM AS IT AmAM TN|S BATS SN TNi OF TNi NDMiFlN CMMTT ■CFAVIIMNT OF FtMTCOTY TAXATION, TO OF NT RNMILCOOt AIM SCLUF. OATS #2857- NMFCOTY TAXATION, TO UC OfST Resolution M3231 (Zoning File <>1791). recoided in 1993. pennifted the applicants to construct additions to the existing home on this property >»ith the following variance; side >-ard setbacks of 19.3 feet to the north and 12.7’ to the south where 30’ is required. Twt> parcels were also combined at that lime to bring the lot width and area closer to conformity. Dbeusioo: By the current Zoning OrdinarKe, the existing house is non-conforming. Since the applicants are proposing to move the existing house o(T of the property and build a new house, the new structure should be constructed as close to conformity as possible. The proposed plan eliminates a detached garage which is current!) situated over the lot line and onto the neighboring property and proposes an attached garage lU’ from the lot line. Since the proposed garage is attached, it is considered to be part of the principal structure, requiring a 30' setback instead of IT for a detached garage. An accessory strticture exists w ithin the 0-75’ hardco\cr zone. This structure was also identified in the 1993 application, referenced above. The resolution stated that this structure was non- conforming attd any structural repairs would require City approxal. The applicant is not proposing to change the structure from how it currently exists Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit D. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. 3. Issues for CoosidcratioB: 1 . Variances granted on a property for past construction are not applicable to new construction on the same property; 2. Granting the requested variances for new construction on this property will set a precedent for redevelopment of the modest-sized properties to the immediate south (pictured in E.xhibit M); The hardcover requirements in each zone are met with the exception of the existing accessory structure in the 0-75' zone: The non-conforming detached garage, currently located over the property line, is removed with the proposed plan; The attached garage is considered part of the principal structure and should be evaluated according to the setback requirements for a principal structure; The applicant combined the adjoining lot in order to increase the lot width and lot area to be closer to conformity as required with their previous application; Most other lakeshorc lots in this slowly redeveloping neighborhood are less than I acre in area and less than 200’ in width; therefore, requiring the full 2 acre side setback standards •02-:859 Bhke and Atary Btchatuch WHtstlaUSirtet I/U'200J mty not be apfHOfiriMe; t. Other issues nbed by the Plaining Comniissioa. Stair Rccc kalians: If the Planning Commission feels that the applicant should be able to maintain the setbacks permined horn previously approved variances on the property to construct a ne^* house, the apfdicatioo should be approved. However, if the Planning Commission feels that the new house should be built to meet the required side yard setbacks and not set a precedent for future redevelopment in the area, the application should be tabled to allow the applicant to present an altered plan. Options hr Planning Camn ilisian Actiont 1. Recommend approval of the requested variances. 2. Recommend denial, staling reasons. 3. Table. 4. Other action. §02-2939 BUtt amdhkwy Bkhmkh 332WestUJttStntt 1/14/2003 Fat>3qf4 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Hardcvver CaloilaliMs: DittMKCfrWM Total arm Alkmcd EiiitiBK ftlMrdtec ia setback kardcover Hardcover Hai^ovcr 0-75 ’7.521 $.f.os.r.67.45 $.f.67.45 s.f. (0%)(0.89%)(0 89%) 75-250 ’17,500 s.f.4,375 s.f 3.710 s.f.4.369 s.f (25%)(21.2%)(24.%^i) 250-500 ’25.000 s.f.7,500 s.f.2,500 s.f.3,079 s.f (30%)(10%)(12.3%) 500-1.000 ’8.638 s.r.3,023 s,f.850 s.f.880 s.f (35%)(9.8%)(10.2%) LR-IA Lot RcquircncRts: DtecBsioBs Rcqrircd Eibtiag Proposed Lot Area 87.120 s.f (2 acres) 258.659 s.f (1.34 acres) 258,659 s.f (1.34 acres) No Cbaagc Lot Width 200 ’100.28’100.28’ No Change Side Setback North South b b19.3’ 12.7 ’ 19.3’ 12.7 ’ (at the house) 11 ’ (at the saracel Accessory Structure Setbacks (Detached Oarage) 10’0’ (on neighbor ’s property) No detached garage proposed M02-?S59 BJuU and Mary Btchamch }32 Westlake StroH i/14/2003 Page 4 4 /s V; L DateRccdrfd CTTY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial A^Ucation Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original ^ipUcation) Variance for rmo-confonning structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double appUcatioo fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address L Proper^ Identifi^on'Number (P.I.P.) - m - - co i Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Acouiied fV\AV^ IS I (do)^ no^also own ^ adjacent parceb of land. PresenuSTorproperty: residential other (specify). Zoning District: _______________________ ' _(month/year) APPUC^ . . Phone (home) <\S7. Name filCHAh//Cif Phone (work) ^lS'^2L^»g/^«^7 C6I-L Address: 3^3. Uyf^LMi^ ^ Citv: Zin OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________ Adikcas:City:. Phone (home)_ Phone (\\X)rk)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Trs ILv. t A prj Estimated Construction Cos^ $OQQ (attach additional sheets if nccessor}’) VARIANCES REQUIRED y Lot Area Lot Width Setback:From XSide Hardcover Rear .Lot Covers^ __ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical diflicult>’ or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code teouirements: ________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2859 required submittals All ftf the feilairtoi iaftnTition myit be fubmUt»ii bv tfct «nn«i»«tion dMiiiiii# u ordtr for vnur ■pplicatiim to h# c«mtt«Uri^ goapltf; 1. 2. 5. 6. __ Completed Application Forai ---- Certified Prope^ Ownen List of ovMiers within ISO*, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Oo\l Center, 348-5910). ---- Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. ---- Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/a" x 1 1" for reproductioa ---- Sketches or plans of floor A elevation views (proxide one (1) copy 8Vi" x 11"). ---- List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persona with an interest iti the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(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 staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour XlriaiCC ■DDllcatlon Is not complete if the above Informallnn hai imt h##n APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested b>' the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee pav-ment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is trw and correct to the bes^fhis/he^ know ledge. Applicants Signature /T) Date jP jl'7 /cj'S. OWNl R’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature _____________________________ Applicant 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 mcetiogs of the PlaMlng Commbsion and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Al o f\ Jj December 17.2002 Variartoe Request To City Staff. Ptarming Commission and Council Members; In May of 1986 we purchased 324 ar>d 332 Westlake Street. Each parcel had 50‘ of lakeshore and was approximately 600' deep. 324 Westlake Street had a three- season cottage on it. and 332 Westlake Street had a small year round home. Our intent was to eventually combine the two properties and build a new home. In 1993 we applied for variances to build what was substantially a new home on the property (portions of the original structure were incorporated into the new construction). The Planning Commission and City Council voted unanimously to grant the variances for lot area, lot width, and side setbacks as requested. We then legally combined the two properties Into a 1.4-acre site with 100* of frontage on Lake Minnetonka and built a new home. We are now back requesting the same variances that were previously granted in 1993 in order to build a new home on the property. The proposed home is sited in virtually the same posMion as the existing structure. It will be sited approximately 144* from the 929.4 O.H.W. and meets the average lakeshore setback We are asking for variances to maintain the existing 12.7 ’ side setback to the South, and to maintain the existing 19.3' side setback to the North. Please note that the existing detached garage currently exter>ds over the south property line and 2.3' into the neighbor ’s property. We propose to remedy this condition by siting the new attached garage 11' from the south property line. The proposed hardcover remains 67 s f. for the 0-75’ zone ar>d will be less than the allowable areas for the 75-250'. 250-500' and 500- 1000' zor>es. Hardship Statement The hardships for the site remain the same as stated in 1993 Even though we combir>ed the two lots which resulted in a 1.4-acre lot 100 28' wide we still do not meet the 2 acre minimum or the 200' lot width that current zoning requires Due to the current zoning requirements for 30' side yard setbacks, the aMowable building envelope is very restrictive at 40’. We therefore ask for the reasonable variance to maintain the current side yard setbacks of 12.7' to the south and 19.3' to the north in order to build a new home that is the same width as the current home We also ask to be able to build an attached garage 11' from the south lot line instead of the detached garage which currently extends 2.3' over the south properly line. We respectfully request that you grant the variances for lot area, lot width, and side setbacks as requested. ITiank you for your help in this matter. SifKcrely. t tVAKUNCE KEQLEST OOr AL O Q r;; HAlUICOVERJCALCULAn WORKSHEET SETBACK SOME: (OBCIX ONE) 75-25T 2S0-S00* Ensmic iiAmcov»« wnMK 01/4 SOO-IOM* A. Hoom B. 0im« C Driveway D. Sidewak E. rario/Deck F. ByPhttk O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONETAL PR FROFOSED MABnrOVTJI IN EONi: A. House Ungib !». Garase C Driveway D. Sidewalk E. PadoDeck F. Landscape Underlain By PlasUc ZONE X 100 X 100 aidib O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPMTY AREA IN ZO * B J” C), ■: fr .■..'9 .^FS.F. S.F. S-F. SJr. S.F. S^. S.F. ST. ST. ST. S.F. S.F. S.F. ST. S S.F. ST. ST. S.F. ST. SF. ST. S.F. ST. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ST. A ST. B % 12 1 ___ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET•cnACKiONi: <cnicLi ONI) •-TS' as*-«r A Hmm jujasL 3^2 i«'iA«e -mAecui^ I R OifV C Olivfvqr a SUmrik E hlbMc r. By Ptek a oiHr >33. terpiwiAi^ utnL ' . TOTAL HARDCOVER TpTAL PROPCBTY AREA IN ZONE >3la .L EUIEOSID.HABDCCIKIRJ£LlflHE A Homm B. Qmwgt C Orivemiy D. SidMalk E PMioMc By IlMk loo ZONE K 100 ___ X too »>Jdi O. OdMT l*^*^TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL epPERTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B I *7. X100 m SJ. SJ. 3^2 t.ouo RF. RF. RF. RF. RF. _SJ. RF. RF. RF. >e'3*e5 ’ 3~=HO.(» SJF. A RF. H SE RF. RF. RF. RF. RF. SJ. RF. _____RF. i:?r> sF. ________SJ. RF. RF. RF. 0 SJ. r^/cL O RF. A ST. B H #2 S' o er oo.•5 CL Vi ' HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET mBACKSONS: (OKU ONE) E-Vf 75-lSr ISMM* rretn WA»nrYW>» im gnm How* ____________ B. C Omt* D gWiwifc E MMDKk F. By PiMik a OAir TOTAL HAJUXX>VER IN T0TALP|U)PEE1Y AREA IN ZON^ B _________ n HA»nfY*yg« m amw A. H oum E Oing* C Mvtwiy D. Sidtwilk E FMioA)Mk UDdtrtebi By PlaMk ZONE k 100 X 100 a odMT TOTAL HAEOCOVEE IN ZONE X 100 M. .SI. 60)SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. 8J^. SI. SI. A S^. B H H SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. 8.F. SI. SI. SI. UOtZ. SI. A SI. B .H ■■"■9,Rr>9 r- \ h 05w CO OJ FmiMINARY SITE PLAN SCALE TsSC-O" /urs -kl I M.W.I f / • >wr / / *»* ^IMINARY GRADING PLAN S cale r = 5C7-o" O O ^ uMikiia ^v H #2859 r ^W■ Os. #2859 lOccr CQ :$CHLHAvTlC LOWER LEVEL Fmj NT-6. i I ir Cl 5^/3 10 05 .....m- jn-TTL ^SCHEIWIC TOR'-XEVEIZ.-PLA'N l4T6.ctt * r.-I-v:- . .. ■ -.Itt-TSOE. cr 0^ ID (D OJ 6CHtM/^lC UPPER L-EVEL PIAM NT6.V-«>" tt ia OS. uidoL »J3/^ n W MM UTE it/ll/tZ MTCH SIS IMN COUNTY MNfCtTV UNOMATIIM SVSTCN foorcoTv owcts ust tEPOOT MO. P1%U«T1 PMC 7 SO OC-llT-CS 23 ttOY PMV mm osoTs mtoioe is MMM MM* JirrKV C STMMMM CT M. 1MPAVCI JCrPKT « CJMlfM STOMOOCn MMC/MM SOM OOrStOC M LMB LMC HH SSSS4 SO •S-117-2S 23 •BOOS OAvsioc n Oil OlOMCS 0*¥lO OIAHIS S70 W PUMTSTIOH M OOIM STUMT FL SOMO SO •t-tl7-2S 2S MIS • •MS MISTUM(C ST C R NOOOIO a T 0 NMHKI CVWTNIA R I TMOTNV 0 MS WSTiSRC ST LOM LACC NH SS550 OHNiO MM TaMPOVfl •UM/AiOt SS-117-2S 2S SSIO MCSTURC ST OOOfOT A OiSON MOCOT A OLSON SOO MCSTIARC ST ■LONO LARC Ml SSS50 SO Sf-117-2S 2S SS15 SSSBO MCSTLARC ST C C ANKOSON CTAL IOMARS AMDCRSON SS4 MCSTLARC ST LONO LARC Ml USfO SO SS-117-2S 23 SS22 SSS2S MCSTLARC ST MOOCOT D CRICRSON OOOCRT 0 CRICXSOM ISSSS MAV7ATA OLVO 07S0 MAVZATA MM SSSSl SO Sf-117-2S 2S SS2S ftm mm sssso aomkss imassiomco OMMO MM OOOCtT 0 CIICSSON TAHPAYCO OOOCRT 0 CRICRSON MM/AOOO IBSSS MAYZATA OLVO 07SO MAVZATA Ml SSSSl SO SB-I17-2S 23 SS20 SSSOl MCSTLARC ST ROOCOT i CRICRSON OOOCRT 0 CRICRSON ISSSS MAT2ATA OLVO R7SO MAYZATA Ml SSSSl M SS-117*2S 2S SS25 SSMS MCSTLARC ST C R NCNAR IRC NCMAR ROOCOT a CTNTNIA NCNAR 177 PENINSULA ROAR NCDICINt LARC NH SSOOl SR tS-n7-2S 2S MSS PORT AIOO MSS2 MTSTLARC ST ROMO MM R H RICMAHiai I H R TAROAVCR R N RICMMOCN SNR MM/anO SS2 RCSTLARC ST LONO LARC Ml SSSSO SO aS'iiT'Zs 2S Moa Msas RCSTLARC ST ROCOO S A RCTTC J PCRt ROCOR S PCRL SOS MCSTLARC ST lom LARC NM SSSSO TOTAL RATCN sss aaau V. */ _* 3 St I CCRTIFY THAT TNC FACTS RCPOCSCNTEO ARC AN ACCURATC AND TOUC RCPRCSCNTATION OF INFOONATION AS XT APPCAtS TNIS OATC ON TNC OCCOOBS OF TNC NCNNCriN COUNTY DCPARTNCNT OF POOFCRTV TAXATION, TO JNC OCST OF NY RMMLCOGC AND OCLICF. _^ / DATE.—0Y^4/^/4^ / W' \ 1 a ► t: \T-»^'5«* p-M- c: >£.*‘-'s^iV’ '• ^ • V * r.ft • 'w -- ^ Bw^K mm^m ■ 'trsW-f -r'- 11 ymmmm. :i'; r. 'n ^{tf.r L DMt AppMrIita lUciM: 12/1M2 Dm AppliMrtBB CMitiiw<MC—iplrtts l/t«J «M>ay Review PHvM Expiree: 3/MJ Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse. City Administrator FrMR:Mike Gaflhm. Planning Director Jnuaryl3.2003 SabJccI:#02-2860 Sunslate Concq>ts. Inc.. 1955 Heritage Drive - Variances • Public Hearing Zoalag Dislrkt: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. Lot Area: 1.008 acres gross, 0.78 ± acres net dry buildabic AffHcmiimm Summmry: A|>plicant requests lot area and side setback \ .aiances for construction of a new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. It has been determined that a front aefriock variance is technically also required. PcfltaMl Code Sections: 1.10.23, Subd. 6B: Minimum lot area required * 2.0 acres dry buildable. Existing lot area: Gross « 1.008 Acre (per Henn. Co.) Area of wetland - 0.18 acres ± Area of public cul-de-sac “ 0.04 acres ± Net do' buildable area - 0.7S acres ± 10,23. Subd. 6B: Side setback required - 30^ Existing^proposed side setback (attached garage) - 23.7 10.23, Subd. 6B: Front setback required = 50* Existing'proposed front setback relative to cul-de-sac - 28’ Lhl of Exhibits A • Application B - Pliu map C - Existing & proposed survey site plan D - Alternate survey absent setback \*ariance E • Septic information F - Zoning Disclosure Form G - Property Owners List H - City topography map I - Foxhill/Crystal Bay sew cr s>’stcm miq) J - Proposed House Plans & Elevations M2-2S60 Januuy 13.2003 Pagc2 Backgroami This lot was originally platted in 1965 as part of the Foxhill subdivision and was roned for 1-acre minimum lot size at ^at time. The existing house (a 3-bedroom one-story **patio** home, i.e. no basement) was constructed in 1973. The zoning was changed to 2-acre minimum in 1975. A swimming pool w as constructed north of the house in 1976. A new drainfield and pres^zed distribution system was irotalled to replace the original trench drainHeld in 1982. The site is currently served by w*ell and septic, as the prior owner chose to not have the house sen ed when the Foxhill area was sewered in 199&'99. The applicant has recently purchased the property and intends to tear down the superstructure and re-use the existing footings and slab foundation. This requires a lot area variance and a setback variance to replace the 4-stall garage in the substandard side setback abutting the Dakota Rail conridor. The house will be enlarged to incorporate a second story, including a *1)onus room** above the garage which adds a second level of encroachment to the side setback. A proposed second-story deck extending from the east side of the house wilt have to meet the required wetland setback. The property is partially within the 500-1000 ’ hardcover zone and partially outside the Shoreland. Hardcover is not an issue. Lot coverage by structures is proposed at approximately 3250 s.f. or 7.4%. well below the 15% maximum. Lot Area \’ariaacc At appro.ximatcly 0.8 acres dr>’ buildable. the lot contains about 40". o of the required area for the LR- IA District. Remo V al of the superstructure constitutes complete removal of the residence for zoning purposes. Howex er. th* is a lot of record and has contained an existing residence for nearly 30 years. Many other developed lots in the neighborhood have similar lot sizes and characteristics. Granting of the lot area variance would be reasonable and consistent w ith past City practice as long as all other City codes are met. SMe Setback VariaMe The existing detached garage is located 23.7’ from the w est side lot line, w hich abuts the Dakota Rail corridor. It is expected that this corridor will eventually become a regional trail. Orono has other existing structures near to the trail corridor, primarily in the Navarre area along Crystal Bay Rc«>-'. The existing 932 s.f. garage as a detached structure actually meets the 15' property line seu* required for detached accessory structures; when attached to the house as pari of the prop^-««d rebuild, it will become pari of the principal structure. From suffs perspective, there is little hardship that supports the side setback variance. The attached garage could Just as easily become 3 stalls rather than 4. The house'garage could relatively easily f #02-2860 January 13.2003 Page 3 be reconfigured to provide for additional storage behind the garage next to the pool, vxhilc meeting the 30* setback requirement. Based on the 1 973 building plans, the slab has a perimeter footing; this would have to be modified to support the west garage wall if the variance is denied, although it mi^l be feasible to save the remainder of the slab as an outdoor grade-level non-covered parking area if the applicant so chooses. Applicant has provided a second surv'cy which indicates a proposed house- garage location meeting the 30* setback should the side setback variance be denied. Status of C«l-De-Sac; Front Setback Vaiiaacc Required For zoning purposes the publicly used and maintained cul-dc-sac e.xisting upon the SW comer of the property has b^ deleted from the lot area calculation. The City is unaware of any dedication or existing easement for this cul-de-sac. Per Municipal Code Section 6.01, Subd l(L) the definition of public road, “Where traveled public roadways exist in a location not show n on the platting map. the right-of-way shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide on each side of the actual paved or traveled roadway surface." Also, per the Municipal Code definition of “property line" (11 .03 Subd. 2.43). “Regradless of the legal description, the property line to be used for purposes of compliance with the Zoning Chapter., shall be . the edge of the right-of-way...” Therefore, a line 10* from the edge of the pavement of this portion of the ‘public road' must be used as the front property line for front setback detennination. The proposed attached garage will be approximately 28 ’ from the defined “front lot line" related to the cul-dc-sac. where a 50' setback is required. Under the ‘Alternative Plan ’, where the garage meets the 30' side setback, the front setback relative to the cul-de-sac is 35 ’ where SC is required. There is no current plan to remove or discontinue use of this cul-dc-sac; how c\ cr. the City Engineer in his 1999 County Road 15 Traffic Study suggested that a future method to make 15 safer would be to eliminate the Heritagc'l 5 intersection and redirect neighborhood traffic to Brown Road South across the rail corridor...such a rerouting could eliminate the cul-de-sac and hence the setback issue. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A. and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. 26' Welland Setback for Proposed Deck The existing and proposed house appears to be setback approximately 39* from the wetland, more than the 26' wetland setback requir^ by City code. Howev er. the wetland has not been formally delineated, and staff is rel>ing on the provided topography to estimate the wetland boundary. A second-story deck of unknown dimeiuions is proposed to extend from the northeast side of the house. It would be appropriate to have the applicant get the w etland boundary delineated pnor to construction of the deck to ensure it meets the required setback. 1^02-2860 January 13,2003 Page 4 Sewer vs Scptk The existing residence per the original plans is considered as a 4>bcdroom home. The existing septic system has served the residence well but its actual design capacity is unclear based on a lack of information from the drainficld replacement done in 1982. The City has considered this as a conforming system, and it has been functioning well under the prior owner’s usage pattern. It appears unlikely that the properly contains an alternate site meeting setback requirements from lot lines, structures, well and wetlands. Therefore, applicant has indicated that it would be most appropriate to connect the residence to the municipal sewer. The property is in the MCS.A and has two possible options for connecting to sewer: 1) installing a 700 ’ pressure line eastward under HcriUge Drive to the existing Foxhill sewer; or 2) installing a 250' pressure line under the Dakota Rail corridor to the existing Crystal Bay sewer. Either option has the potential to involve cost sharing by neighboring properties, and it is unknow n at this time w hich option is most cost-efTccti vc. It may be reasonable to allow the new structure to he reconnected to the existing septic s>stcm for the lime being; how ever, the lack of an alternate site suggests that the applicant should work toward getting sewer connected as part of the rebuild, rather than forcing that cost onto a new buyer if the old system should fail. If the existing ssstem is rc-used. it will need a thorough analssis to confinn it meets all current City and State standards. IssMca for CoosIdcratkMi 2. 3. 4. 5. Is there sufficient justification shown for granting the lot area variance to construct a new home to replace the existing home on the property? Is there surTicicnt hardship demonstrated that supports the side setback vanance for the attached garage with “bonus room” abo\ c? Should the future potential use of the Dakota Rail corridor as a regional trail be a factor in determining appropriate setbacks from that corridor? Should variance approval(s) be subject to connection of the new home to municipal sewer? Does Planning Commission have any issues w ith continuing the existing substandard setback from the cul-de-sac? Docs Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns w ith this application? Staff Rcconmiradalioa a) Staff recommends approv al of the lot area variance. b) Staff recommends denial of the side setback variance c) Staff recommends that the front setback variance be approved relative to the ‘alternate’ plan but not for the proposal that requires the side setback variance. c) Staff recommends that the new home be connected to municipal sewer raiher than reconnected to the existing septic sv-stem, d) Suff recommends that the applicant be required to have the wetland ddingjicit prior to construction of the 2nd-story deck to ensure it meets the minimum w etland setback CITY OF 9RONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SS0.00 per each additional variance) Rcnawal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change fiom origittal application) Variance for noo-conforming structures $250.00 After-the>Fact Fees (Double application fee) Apoilcadon U 0^'^ Dale Received AmenatPaid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ Property Identificatioo Number (PJJ).) Attach legal description to amlication if not included on required survey. Date Propapf Acquired 13 o Q_________________________ I (do) fdo^ri^ also own the 'adjacent parcels of land. _(month/year) PreaentTSTof property: ^presidential Zoning Diatrict: Z-g.( A__________ .other (specify). APPLICANT Phone ftomel Name _____ Phonefwork^ (yf- .PTo-<?____ __________ PlW ______ ___ AiddmT^'^iA City;Zip: TS^lDl OWNER (if different than applicant) Name 4-Ai-f^ Ga Address: lo Phone (home). City:. Phone (work) ~7P - <? /.J ^ S^gri Zip: S~5~iyi DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: ___ Estimated Construction Cost S (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED V' Lot Area __Lot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage P Setback: __Front __Other (^)ecify’)_____ JL Side __Rear ___ Average Lakeshore HARDSmP/DESCRlPTlON OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difTici^' or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: T kiS / ojLf^ qcl /V ^ Oi»v^ ctMiaSjp*o-P* io-/~ »a.ya ^^^att^^dditional sheets If necessary) iTT^^iter Ai #2® REQUIRED SUBMITTALS An ftf the tollotrlny Infomattoa muH he «ahmitttd hv thg apnliotifta d—dH»> u •rdw ibr yanr applig^Hoa to b# 1. ___ Completed Application Fonn 2. ---- Certified Property Owners List of owTiers within 150*. labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603. Oovt Center. 348-5910). 3* ___ CertiHcale of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculaUons as required. In addiUon. provide one (1) copy 8VJ- x II" for rqproductkm. ---- Topographic survey (existing and propo:cd elevaUons) if any changes in existing ..a grade are proposed. In addiUon, provide one (1) copy 8'/," x 11" for rcproducUon. ‘ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy V/t" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest iri the property. Tliis would irKlude name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additiooial items as may be requested by City stafl*. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yaur variance application is not complete If ihe above Information hat nnt hfm APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay addiUonal fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) auJ/or consultant expenses inct^ in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. 5. 6. 7. S. Applicant’s Signature Date O- 0>VNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby ac*,oiow ledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner's Signature Date Applicant 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 meetings of the Plaanlag CommlssioB 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 A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. il SEmCSYSTEhUNVENTORY Address: 195SHerilifeDr. Building Type: residence PID: 10-117-23 13 0014 BRs Install'd for ^ In Musa: Yes Pennitff: 6867 Date of Permit: 11/3/82 Installer Widroer Bros., Keith Cla System Type: standard trradi Experimental: no Appliances: Indry SYSTEM CONDITION Coofonnity: 1 Tank Condition: 6 DF condition: 11 Failure Pot; medium SEmC TANKS Material; concrete block Setback to Bldg; 12 Capacit}*: 1000,1000.1000 Cesspool: no DKAINHELD Length of Lines: 2S0 «Lines; 3 Trench Width: 10 Treatment Area: 750 Type of Filter, rock Soil Boring: yes Tile Sire: 4 Under Tile: 6 PercRate: IS Setback DF-Bldg: 10 DFHt above Wl: 3 Soil Type: sand, clay loam Limitations: none HELL DATA Setbacks - Well-Tanks: Pump Type: subm. 50 Well-DF: Depth; 115 75 Diameter: Report in File 4 Method: yes drilled INSPECTION RECORD DATE DESCRIPTION PUMPOUT RECORD COMPLIANCE DATE CAUONS 11/1/78 compliance c 11/18/81 1000 •83 added new drainfield 1 4/7/82 1600 •84 no surfacing 1 5/1/91 2000 8/7/87 rK) surfacing 1 10/21/99 2800 7/12/90 no surfacing 1 8/14/01 1000 ia ’2/92 no surfacing 1 d'13/94 no surfacing-pump tanks 1 4/13/98 no surfacing 1 7/26/00 no surfacing, pump tanks I KBHtPlM OOUHTY PKOPOTY INPORMAtlON SYSTBI PROPERTY OWNERS LIST M !• 1X7 U XX MtS mmmm oo MtscwM. m jumi 417 m tr « tsM Ml SMOX !• XQ XX7 aj XS MX« Xftt ■WITWM M 14 4 ClARK JR BUOMM 4 MMai CtMX JR Xm —ITROB ORZYB ■4TUT4 Mi MlfX aa xe xx7 ax la ooxc axoB anmcs ia POAtU. Aisa PQMIIIA Am MMCT RJHKI xojf mmci LA MAVXATA Ml SSX»X at 14 1X7 aa aa om NSP ABM 19M ■RnMR fff OMHR HMM I. V BAmW JR 4 R J BATRM TAIIMMI b V BAYTOR JB 4 B J BAirOR MRM/RBBB ItM BBBITMB BB MATSATA Ml SilVl aa xa ii7 aa aa aoxt xtaa RBBmoB t« H qBBBCBf OOMIBO JR M OBBBOBI OOMMD JR Xaia RHUTROB DB •axviATA Ml asm z cnTZpy HUT hb pactb REPREsarrEO are mi AcxruitATm and true ■EPIESBreaiON OP ZNPOWUTXON AS XT APPERARS TO18 DATE ON TNE REOO« OP m NMNEPIN oowmr OBtArmiVT op prope r ty taxation , to tnb beet or NY MEINMnOl AND DATE /,2- /X o C9 00 - _ T TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/PIanncr January IS. 2003 SUBJECT: #02-2861 Erik Thompson 1940 Concordia Street Variances — Public Hearing Zoniag District: LR-IC One Family Lakeshore Residential District (.5 acre) Lot Area: 15.812 s.f. (.35 acre) Eahibits: A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Ha^ship Statement D Hardcover Calculations E Survey F Elevations G Floor Plans H Photo of Property 1 Plat Map J Property Owner's List PcrtiiiCBt Code Sections: 1. Section 10.25, Subd. 6(B): Front Yard Setback: To permit construction of a new second stoiy to the existing residence which is located approximately 14 ’ from the front lot line where 30* is required for the LR-IC zoning district. 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): Lot Coverage: In all zoning district, for all lots of 0-1.99 acn: in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessor>' structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. To permit 2,840 s.f. (17.^o) structural lot coverage where 2,371 s.f. (15%) is allowed. AppMcatlnn Summary: The applicant is requesting front yard setback and lot coverage by structures variances to construct a new second story to the existing residence on the property. Discussion: The existing residence was built in 1920, This property is one of two resulting from the leplatting of Fageraess Green Subdivision which was approved December 10. 1973. #02-2861 Erik Tliompson 1940 Concordia Street 1/15/2003 Page I of3 There cuntnlly is a second story on the residence, h covers a|)proximaleIy % of the residence and has been constructed at so-eral different times. The second floor and parts of the main floor ha^-e a variety of wall and ceiling heights. The main siding, uindoua and roof need to be replaced. The applicant is proposing to remodel the residence to mo\‘e his family in. The footprint of the residence is r>ot changing, nor its location. Due to the age and condition of the residence a structural engineer has determined the residence can handle the additional load of the new second story, but will need some additional footings and shoring up. The applicant is also proposing to remove hardcover and structure that exists on the property and adding structure and har^over to other locations on the property. (See structure and hardcover sections). The property was granted a variance in 1976 for the garage. It was built 8.4* and 9.3* from the side lot line Also, in 1 976. permits were issued for the decks and siding the garage. Front Yard Setback: The existing residence is located approximately 13* from the front property line where 30* is required in (he LR-IC zoning district. The setback will not change witli the new second story addition. Lot Coverage by Structures: The existing lot coverage by structures is 2.840 s.f. (1 7.9®/o). The applicant is proposing to remove structure and add structure but keeping it at 2.840 s.f. (1 7.9%). 'fhe lean-to and street deck removals will reduce two existing setback encroachments. Structure proposed to be removed: • Lean to attached to garage (171 s.f.) - Street deck (1 54 s.f to 54 s.f.) • Garage landing roof (21 s.f.) Structure proposed to be added: - Rear deck enlarged (192 s.f.) - Covered porch (74 s.f.) • Entr> landing (25 s.f) Hardcover: The subfcct property falls in the 250-500 ’ setback zone. The applicant is proposing to remove and add hardcov r. and will slightly decrease the amount of hardcover by 46 s.f. The hardcover that exists on the subjeel property is 4.349 s.f. (27.5%) and the proposed amount is 4,303 s.f. (27.2*/a). Both are below the allowed 30?«. A hardcover variaucc in the 2S0-S00* setback zone b not required. «02-:i6l Ehk TlMNiipsoa 1940 Concordia Street 1/15^7003 Pafc2of3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Am: LR-IC Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f. (.5 acre) Actual 15,812 s.f. (.35 acres) Hardcover CakulatioBs: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allov^-ed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 250-500’15,812 s.r.4,743.6 s.f. (30%) 4,349 s.f. (27.5%) 4,303 s.f. (27.2%) Lot Coverage by Stractaret: Lot Area: 15,812 s.f.Allourd: 2.371 s.f. (15%) Existing; 2.840 s.f. (17.9%) Proposed: 2,840 s.f. (17.9%) . 'T' tiCnOlMH ^ AfipiaiiM «J22j2ikl Die R»cdv«d P • fy -qz. rVk CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APFUCATION Initial Apptkatkm Fee S2SO.OO (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Vviaice Fee SISO.OO (no change from origioal applkatkm) Variance for noo-cooforming structures S250.00 After*the-Fact Fees (Double appUcatkm fee) PROFERTY INFORMATION SiteAddreas t^HO Co«JccC,0\j^ Amonnl Prid -oo Property Identificatioo Number (P.l.D.) t*ltn 1 oo o Attach legal descriptioa to application if not included on required survey. Dale Property Acquired _________________________ I (do) go also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: '/ residential ___pother (specify)________ Zoning District: LP.-td»_______________ _(month/year) APPLICANT Name Address: City;_ Phone (home) ~ MT t - ‘>f. t><* Phone (work) Lx'i.- *\k^ o_____Zip:_2SiAL OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________ Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Cii>:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estunated Construction Cost S. Describe request in detail: SOC A'lVtOtHV 5/fear _______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARL4NCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover < Lot Coverage Setback: ^ Front Other (specify)_____ Side Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions prevenliog compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^QT ATTACfrOg _________ (attach adt^i^^^lii^ if f»«ssaiy) 77 “/CSO \J JL Project narrative The owners request a front-yard setback variance to allow construction of a second story above the existing footprint of the house. We also request a variance for the existing 20.3 % structure area and existing 29.2% hard cover area to remain. The project removes portions of existing paving, buildings and decks, while slightly enlarging an existing porch and existing deck on the side and rear of the house. The design of the house is consistent with the character and charm of the historic lake area community, while its scale and massing is friendly to the street-scape of the neighborhood. The parking area and grade of the site will remain virtually unchanged. About 88% of the roof run-off will be unchanged, while the remaining 12% will be diverted to the east rather than toward the street. Because this is an interior lot, site lines and views to the lake are not an issue. The existing house includes a base house ami at least two additions. Most of the house has an iiMmmistent variety of wall and ceiling heights. Most of the existing main level siding, windows and roof are beyond repair. At the suggestion of the city planner the existing foundation is currently being examined by a structural engineer. As of 12-16-02 frirther exploratory work as been ordered to determine approximate footing sizes in the areas and points intended for additional loading. After the completion of this, follow-up engineering specifically addressing the proposed design will take place concurrently with this variance process. The owner understands that both components are necessary. The property is an odd shaped lot that was part of a 2 lot replatting. The existing house has a front yard setback of approximately 12ft. to 13ft. M.rr 0 1 mill Kfltlhiiiliiiii I___ Variance criteria a.Theexiatiiighouseisiiotalargestiuctureatocily 1541 s.£ The application of the zoning oedinances for building placement prohibits the improvements of the property’. b. The existing placement of the garage forces the length of the drive to be slightly longer than what would be buih if diis was new construction. This slight increase forces the coverage area to be 5% greater than what is currently allowed. c. The purpose of the variance is not motivated by a desire to increase the property's value, but to ready the house for a larger family. d. The hardship is caused by the existing placement of the house and the rear placement of the garage. No recent or past action by the present owner in terms of structure area and cover area has created this hardship. e. The granting of the variance will allow construction of a structure that will only enhance the character and scale of the neighborhood. f. The zoning ordinance establishes a certain level of conformity and uniformity in the positioning and scale of structures within their respective property boundaries. With the subtle and reasonable repositioning of the structure area, the street deck now becomes a mere landing while the south, lake viewing deck becomes more user friendly. A passerby would assume that this modified struchire has always been there. That suggests this request lives up to the spirit of the zoning code. g. The proposed variance allows the structure area to remain intact. The increased height does not impair the supply of light and air to the adjacent property. It also does not change any traffic issues down the street. rr ^OO 1 c »»• •* ^ ‘ SETBACK Z<K<Et (CIRCLE ONZ) >HAMCOYERIHZ«g HARDCOVER CALCULATION WO 0-7S* 75«0’ A. H ook e. IMmy f'\/‘ 4 fit h p. Sidtwdk I E. Puiomcek •• F, Linfl»c«n« X X X X X X tPKfigEiyr ^ C^0-S60^ 500-X000* - 7^-/ I S.T. : •’ sse^ JctUb O. O^r TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ■_ _ _ _ _ _+. B .xlOO - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' A. House _____________ UztA ir-L • Widih J iLtKl B. Oinfe C. Drivew^ D. Sldewdk E. Petto/Dcdc iv^ h.\0 irk.! F. 1 IfiiYltiVj paA X X X .X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE * TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ *-XlOO - s.p. : S.F. S.E. • f/iL--S,F. /W-vr • 'S.F. /i/S.F. Isc' •S.F. ‘M'S.F. S.F. S.F. /‘7f S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ^7.*s S S.F. n<\S.F. •4*^S.F. S.F. 1: 1L'S.F. i S.F. l"l S.F. j^r ■’ S.F. • •• A/Ss S.F. S.F. Ur-J S.F. If S.F. S.F. S.F. I9fl S.F. 3 s-y* J >i r -n 5^1^i M Hi SlSdi'SlnSn EA$r ^V^VAfloM M. IliiSI"Sip - '■I'lHPIIilll IHHII!/^ ^ rSth4tr2B 3> »aj||jL^Jli] fsss ••/>r |/iVi!'^" »Cf.(i)7i«a- s;;snie^'imis ££ 1 ~ 3T iL- -p I I I • r, ME6f ^tfVATWN l/A-*l'-0* PMl? NTi. i’ t'-n (■'J C^) rm nr— KS^ 1 S I %u •” I C^tCK F , 4" l5;0 IsSli -a .f tl It SIS X—' UflUfY E “‘ 1 T “- l/»’>|'.^ CI»M« IVlS I » • *^QtCK 'Tb*'^ pemiN Irrr^rTTin •j) %m C:0 Q ^e::7zJ|i I V • 1 1 1 6-U V,^ < O': jUrAfR yrMlO : O ■ ntd. yu6 H i^m Att'C I_____ I /*’'• I ‘-o* n r zimi-m Ci^ «,>J ill,'- ^IS hi V'S. <!.'•',< I. • i» f:^- k t ^v>« k 1£ •f . -itrsaisi V) L MM MTl lATCM M2 NUMIPtN CMMTV ftertlTT IMroMMllOM STSTfJI nnruTv owkbs list KfMT NO. PI*SM«1 no. s TMTATTO mm/Mm so 17-117-a a MM JMM i"IinsT**” 19M CMKMIHO n MOVZOTA HN SSSfl SO 17-117>a a M07 MOM 1000011 WMSSIOMU LLOVO H NOOm UOTO N SOAPfO OiU CItMO AWf SO NTLS NO BM19 u 17'117-a a 0009 0191S PAOiMnS POINT 00 ■ ■AMMI C STOVlHi MAMOOH C STOVtOH 191S PAOtMKSS POINT M WATZATA HH SSI9L DUOn HAM TAMPAaO NAM/Am so i7-u7-a a MIS tl9a PAOSMKU POINT HO 0 L PtTtOSON SIN PITUSm OAOOTL I PCTERSM 19Z1 PAOfOHISS POINT U MAVaTA NN MS91 M 17-117-a zs om 91929 PAMMSSS POINT M LLOVO lOAPfO LLOVO N ■OAPEO Alls eilAOO AVt SO NPLS NN SSA19 SO 1T-117-2S 25 9012 91957 PAOIHNaS POINT M I 0 OOMITS IT AL IICNAIO D tOOfITS 1957 PAOCONfSS POINT RS MONO IM SS391 OHNil NAi TARPAVtO HAM/AM SO 17-il7>a a M17 919M COHCOlOU ST mi A TNMO50N ton A TNONPSON 1990 COHCOOOa ST .HAVUTA 101 SM91 SO 17-117-Z5 ZS 9910 91990 PAOIONISS POINT 00 J P A P J TNOOKSN JOm P 9 PATTI J TNItONSN 199S PACfMItS POINT 10 oAvaiA IM sssn M 1A*117-2S 19 9991 91090 CONCOROIA ST 0 P SUNOSTOON 9 J N OLAUSIN 09IAN SUNOSTOON/JUOV OLAUSIN 1999 COHCOOOIA ST MATMTA IM AS591 (o MiMSavTT HANi/AOOO M 10-U7-a 19 Mil J 0 IIILIOON 0 L N MAU JOM) 0 9 LVNH N IIALOM 19S1 COHCOOOa ST MAVaTA NN 00591 U 10*117-a 19 NIZ 91990 CONCOMIA ST ■ M lAOATZ 9 J 1 RASATZ RICNAHO H 9 JILL RAOATZ 1990 COHCOROU ST HAVaTA NN Sa91 SO S0>117-2S 19 9915 91959 COHCOROa ST R I lALON 9 C A RALOM R I lALOM A C A lALOH 1950 CONCOROIA ST RAVZA TA IM 0M91 ♦ 1 J • •m . ORHiR HANi • TAIPAraR SO lS-117-a 19 0919 919a CONCOROa ST TNONAS N lONAT TNONAS N RONAT 19a CONCOROIA ST HAVaTA IM 00591 SO 10-117-ZS 19 MU 91900 COHCOROU ST N 9 C MRSUR* NORNAN TtWHR 0IR6LUND 199^ COHCOROU ST HAVUTA NN 00591 50 I0-117-Z5 19 99U 91909 COHCOROU ST H P 9 R A PCTin RILLIAN P 9 RARAN A PETEU 1909 CONCMOIA ST HAVUTA MN 00591 ORHIR NANI TARPAVIR TOTAL HATCH S9Z 999U NAM/A TO: Chiir Smith and Onmo Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenbe^ Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: January 15.2003 SUBJECT: «02-2S62 Steven Gronwall 1586 Long Lake Blvd. Variances ~ Public Hearing Zoning Distrkt: LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre) Lot Area: 7.145 s.f. (.16 acre) EshIMis: A Anal^is Worksheet B Application C Hardship Statement D Survey E Hardcover Calculations F Elevations G Floor Plans H Photo of Property I Plat Map J Property OwTier's List Pertinent Code Sections: I. Section 10.23. Subd. 6(B): Rear Yard Setback: To permit construction of an attached garage with a second story to be 4.5' from the rear lot line where 50' is required for the LR-IA zoning district. 2. Section 10.23. Subd. 6 (B): Side Yard Adjacent Street: To permit construction of an attached garage with a second story to be located 15* from the side yard adjacent street where SO' is required for the LR'I A zoning district. Application Summary: The t^rplicant is requesting rear yard setback and side yard adjacent street variances to construct a new attachedgarage with a second story on the property. Dbenssion: The property currently has a single family residence on it that was built in 1951. The applicant wishes to add onto it and has explored sev eral difTerent options. Due to the condition of the foundation, location of the existing residence, and size of the property, the only feasible option O02-2S62 Steven Gronwall ISI6 Long Uke Blvd. I/15/2003 Pigeiora was to add a second stoiy. A structural engineer visited the propeft>‘ and determined the existing foundation could not bear more weight without being leplac^. The applicant got an estimate to replace it imder the residence and decided to only add a second story over the garage. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing garage and construct a new two stall attached garage with a second story. Also, the garage will be enlarged an additional 78 s.f. as indicated on Exhibit D. Rear Yard/Side Yard Adjacent Street Setbacks: Rear- The existing and proposed garage location remains the same. 4 5' from the rear property line. The zoning district requires SO*. Because this is technically a comer lot. the north lot line is by definition the rear. Side Yard Adjacent Street- The proposed garage will be located 14 ’ rather then the existing IS* from the side property line adjacent to the street. The zoning district requires SO*. The property is located in a two acre zoning district. However, the neighborhood is more in character with half acre zoning standards. If half acre zoning standards were applied to this property the existing residence would come close to meeting the IS* required side >'ard adjacent street setback. However, the rear yard setback in the half acre district is 30* and the rear setback is remaining at 4.S* in this proposal. Lot Covcraic by Slmcturcs: The property is less than 10,000 s.f., therefore it is allowed 1.500 s.f. of lot coverage by structures. The existing residence is 1.332 s.f. The construction of the garage and 78 s.f of expansion is proposed to be 1,410 s.f It is below- the allowed 1.500 s.f so a lot coverage by structure variance is NOT required. Hardcos’cr: The subject property falls in two hardcover zones, 7S-2S0* and 2S0-S00’. llie construction of the garage is located in the 250-500* setback zone. Currently there is 600 s.f of area in the 75- 250* setback zone and no hardcover. Even though the proposed hardcover in the 250-500* setback zone is 2.391 (36.5^ o) over the allowed 1.963.S s.f (30*/o). the applicant has not used all of the 600 s.f in the 75-250* setback zone. The City does allow credit for unused hardcov er aHotment to be transferred to zones further from the lake. This is referred to as transfer of hardcov*er allotments fnim zone to zone. Even with the transfer of hardcover, the amount of hardcover is still over the allowed amount. And the amount of hardcover from existing to proposed is increasing b>- 78 s.f There are areas on the property such as patio and driveway whm hardcover could be removed to remain at existing levels. •02-2162 Sie%enGronw«l| 1516 Leaf Lake Blvd. I/IS'2003 Pift2or3 StatMMat mf Hardtliip: The if>plicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. IisMs far CoosMeratfoa: 1. A single family residence has existed on the property since 1951. prior to current zoning sttuidards. 2. The property is served mth municipal sevm. 3. The residence to the north is located approximately 15* from the property line. 4. The second story over the garage v%ill not obscure the adjacent properties view of the lake. 5. The properties in the immediate neighborhood to the applicant’s lot arc much larger and many have combined lots. There is not any other land to acquire to increase the size of the property to meet the required area in the zoning district. 6. The subject property is a comer lot. 7. Other issues raised by the Flanning Commission. Staff RccoamcBdadoa: If the Planning Commission feels the existing conditions of the residence and property create a valid hardship that supports the t'ariances requested, then a recommendation for approval is appropriate. Your alternative is to consider one of the other options for action. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, staling reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. i02-3l63SievcnCroimalI I5UL gLtiicBlvd. ri5^2003 Page 3 of3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET L«l Area: LR-IC Lot Area Rcqiitfed 87.120 s.f. (2 acre) Actual 7,145 s.f. (.16 acres) Hardcaver CakabdaBi: Lot Coverage by Stmcturca: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 75-250’600 s.f.150 s.f. (25%)Os.f Os.f. 250-500’6,545 s.f.1,963.5 s.f. (35%) 2,313 s.f. (35.34%) 2.391 s.f. (36.5%) • Allowed; 1.500 s.f. Lot Size; 7.145 s.f.Existing: 1.332 s.f. Proposed: 1.410 sf. r- IK-Il-Illt htm<\n V €00 «Nuiiaii T-IM Mir/lli M2J CXTY or 0«0N0 - VARIAKCE AFPUCATIOW lahU AppttCTtioo Fee S2S0.00 (ISOM F« eech e<l<itinfHl iwImm) ‘ Rtaral VMioce Fee SIMM Aftv-lMect Fe« (fkM0 *•> -0 riiorcRTY SteAAhe^ >• ^___^ ♦- -« --«--» Jpodh^cer) DOtict affuc aw ^ Keaae____ AddiesK^ r ti Phoee(Mmi>.^ _______ Bione(^»ofc3Lly*?<l^ ^ r.{ty » /}/>>gK/y> _2ip:Sy?fL- f OWNER ordiffiercai thin appUcanl) Nua*______ — pbooB (hcoe). Pbfloe(woik)t Addfew.City:. EtfoaOd Coeanedoa Gott S. (•OKik iilitlrtnn** afaeeis If mceniiy)t VARIANCES REQUIRED ty pii Aiee _____ Lot Width Hadcover _LetCovo«fe j^Settok: _F«0 _Sid. _Ro Avenge UkMtot Oiha(specUy) ■ABVMnwmcftCRirnON OF UKOTOAL PROFERTV CONDITIONS __ er loeikil tfffleahy or • »____— - -« coopUaBOC with Feeing Code n Af (tfiach eddiikiiMt ihcettlr # .-''v, f’'; 0-> BMWnWUlAimonii I 'WLKllnur# r 12/1MK2 To Whom It May Concern, Teny limiter and I are setting married and would like to make room for our three teenagers in this residence, as well as a 2-car garage. The existing structure has 1000 square feet of living space and only two bedrooms. The existing basement is not usable for liviog space. We have been told that the current hardcover ratio prevents us from building out... so we decided to try going up. We had a structural engineer look at the basement and he said he would not be able to reconanend that we put a second story on the original foundation. We had an estimate done and were told that a new foundation wo^ cost us over $60,OM, including a new basement floor and drain tiles, (see attached) 4% 77S'! 00^ We decided to try and add a second story to the garage. We have come up with a plan that does not increase the hardcover square footage, but does make it possible for my two sons and Terry's daughter to have their own bedrooms and a bathroom and gives us each the opportunity to have gangeqnce. However, we will need a variance because even the existing structure does iwtineet the niinimumstaiidards for setbacks. Sinccrelx, « /‘'***^ ■/-f Kk ’frs:4 ^ jOff c I QMDNCR CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC. UCCNSCO • MNOCP • INSURED IMISMPERMLWAY LAKEVILLE. MN 59044 JERRY • (9Sa) MN Ik ttOOMUS • MPiS Lk «0271 . t V rwoMiKJ—niiD • ^ "Ts9C. jg/l/*/ ____MCMTfCT OAttOrfUM ^S-lrt.Vi-^n5\ ! I-! L-ti'L joauiCKnoM //.4U^ // <=^f Tu ''------------ /^ Ae<c.(K^>^ {)0 5 ^>4 ---(Lid^/±----/ZJLlCLfy^c. >/ <^tV> “/jg* 3yjY“2.5 ‘ floo^ HPP.lJh^---------^ ‘i<‘ _________________15 f.?li Vk < ^ ----------------------------------- We Propose herew to tum.sh r-.aier.al aod labor - compfie In accordarvc. w.th above apecf.Mt.o^s. for the .urn of <^O0k(^ eonaniS ** P^m.. I Ic t« «»*• »»*;»•?»< / y' Mt'Cntt4 r.'/-.. »rM-:T to wsi J *'f :• 1 S-g"«»J»t r.iN ~j ••>* :mt :* •MCJra e^^r «c" •r-.r e/s.t *2. ^ ^ e^.^ c..- . * irc^. r. .r «... * K '*** ^ ^dr.it :r.co s- ww C*-to. is c.^ ' » tor ** «*r« '«•*“» o./ _ ---------- ^ ^ ^ •vMn »• V»i tc»r« t. V»:A-n.-» C»rf*rMl«.* Munrc yy.gp «.e«itMkn tw M 4 nor acceerdO *«*>' 001* as vccacd Pa>fT«r4 •« i» mje* a» oa»r*<J iO»e _____________________________ S«naMeOeieoiAccaaiance Dl£jVl!i VjKUJNVfALL M LOTS 11 ft 12. ALBEE’S LONG LAKE ADO. HENNEPW COUNTY. MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES That pO''t of Lot 11 lying westerly of the foM-.ifting described line ond Its northerly extension: Comnencing at the southwesterly corner of said lot; thence north along the West line of sold lot a distance of 73.3 feet to the point of ginning of the line being ce defIr-*' - •^thence- - —.ecting right degrees 36 minutes o distance of 16.73 feet; thence deflecting left 13 degrees to the northerly line of said lot, ond there ending/*Albee* s Long Lake Addition", ond Lot 12, except thot port thereof lying southerly.of the following described line: Comnencing ot the Southeast corner of said lot; thence north along the Cost line of soid lot a distance of 73.3 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflecting left 155 degrees 24 minutes to the southerly line of said lot, ond there ending. ^’AI bee's Long Loke Addition": and except that part of Lot 12 "Albee's Long Lake Addition" lying westerly of the following described line: Comnencing at the Northwest corner of soid lot; thence south along the West line of said lot a distonce of 116 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflecting left 55 degrees to the southerly line of said lot, ond there ending. denotes iron marker Bearings shown are based upon on assmvd datum. This survey intends to show the bound* ories of the above described property, the location of on existing house, ond HENNERN COUNTY, MWNESOTA KACKTOP mMOWAY i (M CD 00 CQ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PWCMISES : That port of Lot 11 lying westerly of the following described line ond its northerly extension: Comnencing at the southwesterly corner of said lot; thence north along the Wtest line of soid lot o distance of 73.3 feet to the point of beginnina of the line being described; thence deflecting right 24 degrees 36 minutes o distance of 16.73 feet; thence deflecting left 13 degrees to the northerly line of soid lot. and there ending,*'Albee* s Long Lake Addition*', and Lot 12. except that part thereof lying southerly.of the following described line: Comnencing ot the Southeast corner of sold lot; thence north along the Eost line of said lot a distance of 73.3 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflecting left 155 degrees 24 minutes to the southerly line of said lot, and there ending. ^*A I bee's Long Lake Addition": ond except thot port of Lot 12 "Albee's Long Lake Addition" lying westerly of the following described line: Ccmnencing at the Northwest corner of said lot: thence south along the West line of said lot a distance of 116 feet to the point of beginning of the line being described; thence deflecting left 55 degrees to the southerly line of said lot. and there ending. o : denotes iron marker Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datim. This survey intends to show the bound aries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, and the location of oil visible "hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show ony other Improvements or encroachments. 6I0NBKRGI: ASSOOATBl me mtmmm flM7>4141 I tardy evtib M Mi uwf wa pnred by w e iitar ly M ayv- «d Ml on 0 dW rtpdeW CM tiyjncr od Led Sewyv ede Ihi ton of (he State of linneeota tort & (Mtoerq liweeote Ikwwe taeieer (2^ 12-27-02 02-522 02-522 7-BABDCX>VER CALCULATlWryORKSHEET SKTBi^CKZaNEs fOBCLBONQ VtF ISOM* * LUXflHB IT 500-1000* X m -B-F. UnA -SF. X m -B-F. X m -5.F. H •DanM* •^‘x . ••• •»b.f. ' * * •. * . .. J •*•*.. •. , I •V • * * • ■ * ** * • * *Jb.F. X — SF. n. XMaanlk X • • •S.F. X m — bf. V. HattA/Itadc S.F. X M _S.F. • ••SF. X m S.F. X m • SF. OrFMe # 0. Oditr X -•10ITOTAL HAJU3COVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY ABEA IN ZONE ■A • ■____________. B .xlOO /cC.C. yip[i1l»ft!tgn«AM A. H oqm ^ J2LZ0SS B. 0«x|t C Driveway D. SU«wi!k E« Pado/Dcdc F. Ludiape Uodcdiln ByPlude OrFAiie O. OAcr X X X ,x X X TOTAL HARDCOVER DC ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA DC ZONE * A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ ». S.P. ‘S.F. ’ % S.F. S.F. SJF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. XlOO - S.F. S.F. ' % ..BARDCOVER CALCULATION WO SETBACKZGNEi (COICLBOME) »>7S* 7MS0*SOO-lOQO* + B xlOO .■ TBftPfty*!!) IN ZONE ‘ A. Howe ____________ * Cc< Cc\\cic v>jctTi B. 0««|t » C Dilvtwv ____________ D. SMcwdk £. Fidomcck P. LMdsofie Uodcdita By Plastic OrPAcSe •••.. X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER DC ZONB TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZOHE * A ____________ ♦ B.XlOO - X * ,*IP.ma* X « F. i WV/CtC^ S-KPG X ■1 .ao_SF. X m «F. m. •Oanft ‘ *. .^ ’ 'X .. r .S.F. *.*’•■• '.. . . -. . 7* . • X ■■ ij: ■__S.F. X . m SP. n. SUcordk X m S.F. X m •S.F. «. .Xada/Dcde X *3fq S.F. X ■i S.F. X ■■SP. X m S.F. XvFlMde X m S.F. OrPdnk . A. OAmr X .(c S.F. TOTAL PROPERTY AREA Df ZONE S.F. S.F. 2 ' J. )u S.F. S.F. >.F. S.F. 4^S.F. >.F. S.F. ;s.F. S.F. "S.F. S.F. S.F. SP. im S.F. ^B.F. r^' / / noomjM FliMD.: 90m Lamm.: m fsxB LMML F" 00ft - ^(kiJ 33.a i Ctdroom 14.ff b« ICar Attaohed s Oarage i4.a 5 OMngRoom Kitchen Living Room 250* AREA CALCULATIONi 8UMMMIY tlM% flmm ■M.M M.M•• M.M M«.M Mt UVMO AREA BREAKOGWN n.t a u a a a a la a aM at ua aa O (O f’2 <■> Cr lA_________ _______1i1MLMiaRNS CmsNo {i^ToImo SUN MN ZIP SUSS — e- -rrTiT ■■ ■ - —4— ' IRixxt- • 33a IM.Ig I BMtroom OmngRoom UvmgRoom KilctMn 25 0* \Lyu*tJt F /}^u^ iP/(iA AKEA CALCULATIONS SUMMARY •M ViM* n«M «• M MM mm M m M M.M IM M UVMO AREA IREAKOOWN rmt riM n • • • • • M • I* • •It •• ua M M c% o o O O ’ I I I V Vj- /. I Kt; /A: W />u»t7 1 '. r W ¥, ^ 1' '• Wf Im4 r; BMq;:2SZS&U ■7 "IWimaw.' — ii!||' ■T'^- rif > r'? cMyn riOTiCE i T'^ - - f* • ’I T«^ ' * f* • ’ k.. /•/// /•.. '•'»•■•( r •? * , /* 1 » p a » . I > I uir,gS.■V . -^•gy ' s A -t* . »■ ..-«» * L - i .JK TV w< ^ \ f. JT b mmfSPXM OOUMTY PROPERTY INPORfMTION SYSTEM PtOPIRTY ONMERS LIST M M lit 31 11 tMl 1M« um UMB wuto ■ 1 tlBT JR/m h Wtutll Mt«fr OMMBV M IMt uma UMB H.VD MM IMS M tSlSt It It lit 31 11 tMt ItTt MM UCS MVD lU. XMM1MRTS IXr ILL UWMWffl LLP Itlt lA ILLLS AVB HPLt m SMOl It at lit 31 31 toil lilt MM UUB BLVD Tim t CUMC IfTS MM un tLVD MM lAlB m MIM TMMna MM/MBi It at lit ai 11 out fM UtMft AVB nOM C flMM RIAL TCOMt C OMM tit BMIOIA MS MM Ltn m ssist It If lit 33 11 ooas tM DM0IA AVI 0 A OLM BTAL O A OLM tft DAKOTA AVI MM LAKS m tSlft It at lit 31 33 0«3t Ittt MM lAKB ALtD RicHAiiD K oamm RXCNAAD R BKaWM ISIO MM LARI BLVD MM lARB m Stitt ■RM/RBCt It at lit 31 13 0010 Ittt tOM MRS BLWD tWi c OR Ittt MM LRRS ILVD MM um m Stitt at at lit 33 11 0031 Itot LOM lAKI BLVO MIOOLII Milt lit RIOOUI Him 11 Ittt MM LARS ILVD MM lAKB Ml tSlSt it 37 lit 31 «« toot Ittt MRTH PAM 10 JOtSfN M OfttAIMI JOtlPH M OPPIMAM Ittt N PAM RD MM LAKB m Stitt X CERTXPY THAT THE FACTS RIPRESBarrSD ARE AM ACCURATE AMD RBPRISVXATXOM OF XHPOENATXOH AS XT APPSRARS TMXS DATE OM THE RECORDS OF THE MWRIEPXM OOUMTY DSPAR1MEMT OF PROPERTY TAXATXOM, TO THE BEST OF MY CTOMIEDOE AMD EELXEF date/^-^7*<'2» by ^ // C;-l 00 FROM: DATE: Guir Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Wendy Bottenbe^. Zoning Administrator/PIanner January IS. 2003 SUBJECT: #02-2863 Richard Kail 37S3 Casco Avenue Variances - Public Hearing ZaiUng Diairkt: Lac Area: LR-IC One Family Lakesbore Residential District (.S acre) 16.095 s.f.(J7 acre) Eshibits: A Analysis Worksheet Application Hardship Statement Survey Hardcover Calculations Elevations Floor Plans Photo of Property Plat Map Property Owner's List Resolution #3573 Pertinent Code Sections: I. Section 10.25,Subd. 6(D): Lot Area: Thelotis 16.095 s.f. where 21.780 s.f. is the minimum lot area for the LR- 1C zoning district. Lots of one acre or less serviced with public sonilar> sewer and platted prior to the adoption of the zoning chapter are only required to meet 80*/« of the lot area requirement (17.424 s.f.). 2. Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C): Lot Coverage: In all zoning district, for all lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall nut exceed 15^4 of the lot area. To permit 3.262 s.f. (2054) structural lot coverage w here 2.414.25 s.L (l5*/o) is allowed. AppUcaliaa Snnmuiry*: The applicant is requesting lot area and lot coverage by structures variances to construct a new residence on the property. DbcussioB: Approximately 4 >ears ago the residence on the subject property burned and all that remains on the property is a foundation and accessory structure (detach^ garage). In 1995 the applicant applied for and was granted a lot area variance to construct a new residence on the property. The variance expired without the applicant applying for a building permit. Since that time the S02-2S63 Richard Kail 3733 Casco Avenue 1/15/2003 Pate I of3 ownenhip of the subject propeity has changed between fiunily membefs. The applicant again owns the property and has appli^ for variances to construct a new residaice on the property. Lot Area: The lot area is 16,095 s.f. (.37 acre) in the LR-IC zoning district where 21,780 s. f. (.5 acre) is required and where existing lots of record would be required to meet 17.424 s.f. (.4 acre) or 80*/». In 1995, the applicant was granted a lot area x'ariance to construct a new residence on the property. (Res. #3573). Lot Coverage by Strvctorcs: The proposed residence is 2.856 s.f and a porch is 406 s.f for a total 3,262 s.f (20^ a). The porch is covered, therefore is included in lot coverage by structures. The lot coverage by structures is OVER the allowed amount by 847.75 s.f Hardcover The subject property falls in two hardcover zones. 250-500' and 500-1000*. The construction of the resi^nce is primarily located in the 500-1000* setback zone. A small portion of the residence and porch are located in the 250-5CK)' setback zone for a total of408 s.f Even though the proposed hardcover in the 500-1000* setback zone is 3,960 s.f (38^'o) and exceeds the allowed 3642.63 s.f (35%). the applicant has not used all of the 1706.25 s.f in the 250-500* setback zone. The City docs allow credit for unused hardcover allotment to be transferred to zones further from the lake. This is referred to as transfer ofhardcover allotnK'nts from zone to zone. Tbererore* a hardcover variance in ibe 500-1000* setback zone b not required. Detached Gnmgc/FonndaCian: . There currently is a detached garage and part of the old foundation on the property. If the proposed residence is approved and constructed, both the garage and foundation will be removed. Slalcmcnt of Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicant should also be asked fbr their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. A single family residence existed on the property for over 50 \ears prior to being destroyed b>’ fire. 2. The property is served with municipal sewer and water. »02-2t63 Richard Kail 3753 CaKo A\mue 1/150003 Pi«e2or3 I 3. The appUcanfs proposal docs meet City ordinances for new construction regarding hardcover, setbacks and height requirements. It does NOT meet City ordinances regarding the lot coverage by structure requirement.i 4. There is no other land to acquire to increase the size of the property. 5. The properties in the immediate neighborhood to the applicant's lot are also undersized and most do not meet the required area in the zoning district. (See plat map). 6. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommandationt Staff recommends approval of the lot area variance. Based on city regulations staff recommends denial of the lot coverage by structure variance. If the Planning Commission feels the applicant can meet ail the requirements, including lot coverage by structures, then a recommendation of approval for the lot area variance would be approfmate. The application would then move along to the City Council for review. Optisas for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Reconunend denial of variarKes. stating reasons. 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. W2-2S63 RJclivdKail 3733 Casco Avenue 1/13/2003 Page 3 of 3 L ApplicatkMi # Date RgcdTed Amount Md ♦ *^o. oo CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) VariaiKe for ixm-confomiing structures S2S0.00 AAer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION ^ SiteAddress ZlS ^ t2uc X: \\n - ~ r rr^Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired /JUtrcn DO02_______________________Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Pleaent uae^oTpropetty: ^ residential other fsoecify) Zoning District: Lil • l C-__________________________ _(monih/year) APPLICANT Name 'icUjliiJ AddrcM: OWNER iif different Name Address: Ifif different fiian applicqqt) Phone (home)_______ K{CV\C\rc\ Ka;( ^ Phone (woric)________ ______________ City:________________Zip:_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estmiated Construction Cost S________ Describe request in detail: UMrC. & AifCatA 1 (attach additional sheets if necess<ir>) VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ yC Lot Area ___Lot Width ___Hardcover IS Lot Coverage Setback: __Front Other (specify)_____ Side Rear __ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ (attach additional sheets if nec^wy) MfiiifitL-1#>i/ 6 PhonefhoroeW5'J^-^^3^ _____ Phone(wurk) W 3 ("<1.0u) City: Zio: I t 01/03/2003 Description of hardship on Variance application: The purpose of filing for a variance is in the Building permit application. It stales that smiduril cover cannot be more than 15 percent As you can see per the survey, we are at 17.7 percent We have looked at many plans that meet compliance to all of the setbacks and hardcover issues, and this one is the closest we could And. As you can sec from the survey, we have met the setbacks on Front Back, and both sides along with the hardcover emulations provided by the surveyor at 27 percent. It has been brought to my attention with a concern for depth of the garage where as I have replied that I cannot change this hecause we are Steady over on allowable structure cover. We have looked at all possibilities of down sizing this house plan with qualified architects and structural engineers with the response being, we have to follow the plan. We have 3 vehicles; this is why the need exists for the garage space. We currently have room for 5 on our present property along with room to store 2 snowmobiles and lawn equipment. We thank you for your time and consideration, and are looking forward building our new' home in Orono as soon as possible. Richard Kail SURVEY FOR: mCMAHa KAIL 763903-001 627/39 •CNOOi.AIIAOtOII.Me. MMD mVUTA ■euuwRB. Wg I mg~utSS^^ !Sk B ituminous road . (122-99) D Top of iron monument os shown Elevation - 957.21 (NGVD-1929) QMflAL NOTIS 1. Orientation of the bearings used for this survey is based on on ossumed datum 2. • - Denotes iron monument. 3. X890.0 - Denotes existing spot elevotion. 4. x(B90.0) - Denotes proposed spot elevation. --------Denotes direction of surface droinoge. 6. Proposed goroge floor - 952.7 7. Proposed top of foundation « 953.0 8. Proposed bosement floor ■ 944.0 9. House is o Walkout 10. Dote of lost field survey: 12/17/02 11. x(890.0)CP - Denotes critical point elevotion. 8PCCIAL NOTI Only eosements shown on the recorded plot of CASCO HEIGHTS ore shown on this survey mop. unless otherwise noted. The survey upon whk^ this mop is based wos performed without benefit of either on ottomeys title opinion or o title commitment. DUCMPnON Lots 7 A 8. Block 4. Cosco Heights Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesoto. 77' I hereby certify thot this survey was prepared under my supervision and that I am o Licensed Lond Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dote: Richard J. Willioms, Jr. ________ License No. 19840 r ■ :;3 M % U rr Wi if...i ■« '■«r: ir.! nr .;:■ ^ i .I ■:v,:i ;■■;:;•• .> ■' r & -V r i»i ^?p*s %# m. 4.i;i ^2X/ssa ssz A4flWr*578oPf;W» 79A£OMt^n^, /fntifi TCOSO^SWJM. it *4»e Tfff fM£ DM7aMMi^€0 PBX ACTOAC ^iMD€. dilib J?PnNT F.T .F.VATION LEFT ELEVATION SCALF 1/8": r-0" -ph ^ T A ^ J CQ mm Cvl Kll ^ ^0 2U.4»fri>J >>) fei ^f^*- M -: ;«• :■..■■'■ i4- -^i% w tf . > f •> &•,! t'-v ! ii •t,^< • JON ’•u’KT TO ^-vwT ?^4>tr!C»J REAR ELEVATION SCALE: l/8":l*-0" li fcsia sj- Hy s iS ■.‘i ;?v j-1^1 i ! p»l i i ;’^^iw36ic. 1 RFAR ELEVATK SCALE: l/8*:l Lsssad ^^?555 2£«.-»a I 4 4* „ r 1 o* I [sil 5S--1 mBEDROOM NO. 2 m:r^CLQ.HGT. llHrCLO.HOT. p =1 \ ATnC 1/:% l*-«‘CLC T' 0 :'•] -IL' =— HOT- i ®J' S' i-S' l-' “« i *■ . U ,.)4 1,^ 1 * >»«'M<.t. M«r OJrr/ux eT9JO ‘TP^Crrm^'y - I m^TT. ■ BEDROOM NO. 4 I r-o-CLi. BEDROOM NO. 3 l*-0- CLO. HOT. * L LA'yL^>*L y *L »••*'„ !• 1 1 ;r ”^Our\ig* m^~€*r^ meimt »U t0MA. Muaueu^ ?Tl ■L.? I Copyright I9f2 SKpbeii S. Fullcf, Cnc. | SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: hH----*A7PUV4>.II T5 UU.4.U pNCiC AZ « l/4M ’-0* LiaHiSi .. 9*-0* FOUNDATION \fc y-r CLCilCT 1ST FL r-0- CLO HOT 2ND f OFS; OUTFACE OF S7 OFM; OUTFACE OF k CLO HOTS. MAY VaI N.T.S.: NOT TO SC- ^— ---------------- rr^f* 1 1 r*> ,4 4* T (*)1 1 i ! I ------J- -----N •\ 1 . 1 * f--------------J ■♦ VttV ^----------------------------—J ira -! 1 J____c /r ^ ecu>iy-q I -5 ttf4* BEDROOM NO. 2 r-r CLO. HOT. ’ ir^ CLO. HOT. I I ATTK fw] BEDROOM NO. 3 8*-o- CLG. HOT. r?p»5 0 3> N :^'irrL^ -u-w i I fEDROpM'NO. <•I r-o-CLe.hoT_ i ^ i L iui i I -5] « L. [ CopjrKjM im Stoplw S. Fuifcr, tnt. | SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PI am SCALED --------rr.- Tt -44-i i "•AP^LiNXi.ll ‘T3 U..i.u 3tOA>V*-t 'fuv^ ':►« AT ■* 9’-o- foundation U 9'<r CLCHCTIST FL r-<r CLG HCT 2ND F OFS. outface of ST OF.M. OUTFACE OF S CLGilCTS. XtAY VAl N.TJ.; NOT TO SCi fOf'L s v»- ------------ EfW : *i C f _______> if.------------/ «•’• I *'■*' ^ 1-i" f - ® 43R&AT.^M _^3s»_a: 'Mii^TERBEOROdM: , I I0--4- CLO. MOT. » Ji 'ti'!, ■ ■• ' |T —J’Ily • V_-i*_. 9 ’-a* cui. HOT. /' ’ Mov« ao*ocH Ti uoc*Te ^ ^ Cw.tch ^b«r.r«i i^,' ■ i/sswr i. V-V CLO, HOT^ '.1^- ' '18B iw lAUNDPY (f*-0* CLO. HOT STC^AOE ■ sfcuTLEI^Hi] DINING Jil-iir CLO. HOT. cs STUDY f'-iTCtaHOT.I • / V ■ : ®^r”cp ilir^ . J rnz^T ... :±7-~^ 4V <#w uni \ ] r^ciAaoT. 4- d - FlkST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SC ALE:l/4*:l ’-0* •J r\^:»UN [copyrifhl 1992 Stcylieo S. Fulkr, lac. | t\ “TO t,£.’/s:V >A*2i'*C*^ (^^Jnc p*6r« Ar3-<. _, lLrA-'» in- ^_________ vb m i STORAGE/# ^ MECt^^/STORAOE ' ‘ . I t , 4ao.r <K" 3A* J -P f - 7' —1 Tl ii 1 JL1_ ^ 1 ^ L § 4*^ <7 ■c^f'SS=S“''^•f ------Lay ltV_________ ______!._ i ^9*4 “jt-t' I Copyright vm StepiwS. Mkr, lac. | basement /fqundation plan SCALE: l/4*:r-0- -1I ^A-l4*'o* tflA*________f .1-^^’ ■1 ^ a:a* i«C-----L aV . aV ’ I Lrir '-----‘deck AlOVE •— “* PATIO ^rr s’ BfSStS&M '1 r-A*nU*A‘r y /!l\ !Sf\!a?\i !i .FUTUAE ItBA^ATlONROOM "'—Or M inrruEri I CLOSETj J ! ' H/ ' • ! J —□ FVTUHB i^^TT 4 —ir 1/ 1. - Ci'CM4 AC«^.*At c£ kc. ^JUOS «Vr«Aa PI - a f • r i^li---j I ; i ! j 'ii ill 'I PE -mI” 1 1 1/1ft1t1^VXITC >«».T m I STORAOB/ 1 ^ i- 'O* !___ i____ -r —9V%mt IV4-f®-*' [ Copyriftt 1992 SUphca S. PwDcr, i»c] basement /foundation plan SCALE: I/4M*-<r 3o-i’ • • i— SETBACK ZONS: (CIRCLE 0£<E) y m^iwuftWABnroiVERPfZOWE BARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKS 1. ' •.•V V. C. Ddwv O. SUcwdk E. Pado/Dcde F. tiBdtfya Uodcftala ByFUsde OrFibtle O. Othtr 0-7S ’ X X X 'X X' X X X X X X X X 7S4S0* KS5EET 500-1000* .S.F. .S.F. S.F. ♦ ^V .S.F. .S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. -5.F. 5J. S.F. “S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A • • ■ _________ +.. B .X100 « S.F. ______;s.F. '7 U/ ' % TVT yaOPOSEP HARDCOVra IN ZONE A. Hoose B. Oans« C Oilvcwv D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F; Ixadtcepe Undedala By Pintle OrFdbde -Wdft O. Otier X X X .X X X X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ' TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZOhE * A ____________ + »-xlOO - S.F. S.F. ■ f. • •'*.HAKDCOVER CALCULATION lYORKSHEET SETBACK ZC»<E: (CIRCLE O^QE} 0-75* 75450* 250400* ]rglC^^fQH<ll^pCCIVERl^fZO^IE A. Hona^pr^rh B. jparu«- C. Driveway D. SldtwalK E. Pado/Dcde F. Liadiape Uodeilala By FUsdc OrFAiie O. Other X X X /’’X X X X X X X X X X <gQ0.1000»"^ 5 . V TOTAL HARLCOVER Hi ZOUE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE •A • • _____________ . B .X100 -•'1 ynOPQSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE ’ A. House B. Garaie C. Driveway D. ."’lewalJc E. paUo/DecIc F; Liadseape U&. v-Iaii By Plastic Or Fabric U:|6 WidA C. Other X X X X X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE * TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE * A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ .S.F. .S.F. .s,F. tlf’lr S.F. S.F. _S.F. _S.F. S.F. -S.F. S.F. I S.F. ■ SJ^. __ _ _ _S.F. /t- <-/( /.M 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. xlOO S.F. S.F ’ f. ,rt rr-''^-'.r7A;r.i^-Vi;-.* f“—.* -. f 3 7 ^ ^:/•.'' . n- iy lit] *' / 'w> f</- yy'1 I. ► . , ^ t'-\ < *' »r. - • • ‘ I 37 v3 Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Dep«|^^, Parcet Infdnnation Pare«l ID 2011723310009. Houm NumbM’3793 StTMt Nam« CASCO AVE TN$lth0l»l$gafyf9eei^map Hnfii9mmtcoirfattnncilrthnmMon »nddmitomOfy.Counfy.»n<iStmro9dauMlm9ndcltm»ounm. MM MTI 12/1»/M MTCN M7 MMUPIN COUNTY PROrCRTV TNPOOtUTtON SYSTCH rmrcRTV cmnus iisr RKKOT NO. PIOSMH PMC M PMP MM ■HMO HAM TCMAYtT^ MMi/MM PMP MM 1 . TMPAYIt mm/tm L M Zf-U7-tS 2« •••• •ZTSS CAmiNC AVC • J t 0 ■ NiOIO DONALt J I MMM t NMIO ZTSS CAMLINK AVC MAV2ATA NN SSSVl M Za-lt7-ZS ZA MIO •Z7AA CTNCL AVC L L VICXNAIR I R I VICRNAIR UMCt L A RNONA L VICRNAIR Z7AA CTNCL AVC MAVZATA NN tSSYI M ZA-117*ZS SI VMS •S7SA CASCO AVC « N ROCN II I J R PUeLESTCN JILL R rUBLCSTIN MILLIAN N ROCN II S75V CASCO AVC NAVZATA NN iiSAI SO ZA-117-ZS SI AAM •S7SS CASCO AVC R L RAIL ION SUPCRNALT RICMAM L RAIL S0A4 SUNSCT M SPRXN6 PARR IM USM SO ZA-I17-ZS SI on* ■S7S9 CASCO AVC OHUCC 0 NAMCN CTRL ■aUCI R NARKN S759 CASCO AVCMUC NAVZATA NN SSSVl SO ZI-117-ZS SI ten ••tso AOOOCSS UNASSIGNCO OCAN V 60CIMIM OCAN V COCtNANN S77V CASCO AVC VA'^ZATA NN 5SS91 PMO AOM ONNCI HAM TARTAVCR SO Z0-U7-ZS SI MU MtSO AOOOCSS IMASSIGNU NiMCPlN rOOrCITCD LAND CITY OP OOOM p 0 aoR 00 CRYSTAL RAY Ml USZS SO Zt-117-ZS SI AOIS •oosa ARORCSS UNASSI6M0 NPOMPIN PORPIITIO LAND cm OP OOONO P 0 tON 00 CRYSTAL RAY Ml SSSZS SO Z0-117-ZS SI 0010 •••SO AOOOCSS UNASSICMO NCNHCPIH POOPCITCO LAND CITY OP DOOM P 0 OOX 00 CRYSTAL RAT Ml SSSZS PMP AOM ONNCI NAM TANPAVCO SO Zt>ll7-» SI MSI OSTn CASCO AVC 0 R NCLTY I N N JIN 0 0 NCLTY a N N JIN S7Z1 CASCO AVI MAVZATA Ml SSSYl SO tO-117*ZS SI ••Of 0Z700 CAOOLIM AVC S L A J N ROSSTCOT SCOTT I JAMT MSSTEOT 2700 CAOOLZM AVE MAVZATA Ml SSSOI SO Z0-U7-ZS SI M07 •2000 CASCO POINT 00 CHARLES P MLSON A MlfC CHARLES A LUCY NELSON ZOOS CASCO POINT RO NAVZATA NN SSS«1 POOP AOM ONMR NAM TAXPAYER MAM/AOM SO Z0-117-ZS SI ••71 •S7S^ CASCO AVC NMTI LYNN NMTI LYNN S7SI CASCO AVC NAVZATA m SSSOl TOTAL RATCN SC7 MCIS Tf' V -,-'i CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 57 3 D. E. F. Existing improvemeius on the property encroach into the public richt-of- uay. The existing structure is located 18' from the street lot line where a 30* setback is required. The existing structure is located 0* from the east side lot line where a 10’ setback is required. G.The subject property is consistent with the size and width of other adjacent properties in the immediate neighborhood. The new construction will have no impact on residential development as all drainage will drain directly to a ponding area on land owned by Cit>* to south and west. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to U 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 propertv-; 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, repons by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CO.NCLUSIO.NS, ORDER A.VD CO.VDITIO.VS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.25. Subdivision 6 (B) to pennit the construction of a residence on a propert)* that does not meet the required area for the zoning district and grants a variance of 6.135 s.f. or 285c (per Section 10.03. Subdivision 16 (A*l). variance of 1.779 s.f. or 10%). subject to the following conditions: Page 2 of 4 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ■un 8 578 d^gnated wetland at the southwest comer and proposed house. Applicant snaii also provide detailed grading and drainage plans. Tie eoncieie p«l looted within public illey to be removed prior to the issuance of a building permit for new constniction. ADolicani to obuin a demolition permit for the removal of both the boiL Tie Building toff shall determine if detached gara^ w I'm! s 1 » 7* Si^rW^f consmfction of new residence. Per Section 10.03. S“M^on 7 WiteZtt may apply for a pennit from the City that will aliow appltont to res.de in the exUting residence for a three-month period. Auflmrities gmnttd by Uus variance run with *e proper^ not hut are oeimissive only and must be exercised by appliotion for a budding pelmit vriihin one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (June 26, 1996). vintailon of or non-compliance with any of the tenns and conditions of tUs variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning ct^e. shall any authority granted herein, and shall be pumshable as a misdemeanor. UK undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Cham of Title of the propcn>'. Adopted by the City Council of die City of Orono. Minnesou at a tegular meeting iih day of June. 1995.held on the 26ih day of June ATTEST: -Dorothy M. Cit>* ClerL -------------- js^rry Owner (s) Page 3 of 4 r CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. B 5 75^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing Instrumeoi was acknowledged before me on this 26th day of June. 1995 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin. Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono. a Minnesou municipal corporation and said instrument w'as executed on behalf of the City. JAMiLSOSW muNTMU&MMtsma MBaoMCQisnv HrOomMlMi SMA Iwtsma I anv I Jlll.WP 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Notary Mlic On this <3? 7 day of and for said county, personally a _. 199 before me a Notary Public within in6ea^ known to me to be »he personfsy-^^ribed in and who executed the foregoing instnmient.and ______. 1990 before me a acknowledged that be (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. fVntcseaai **SS8Lio5Sr*irsasssr I yStMXKWk STATE OF NflNNESOTA ) )$s. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) NOT^^PUBUC On this day of.199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said count}-, personally appeared________________________________________ known to me to be the personfs) described in and who executed the foregoing insirument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBUC Page 4 of 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION ^lEETING MoMlay, November 18,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith. Commissioners David Rahn. C>’nthia Bremer. J. Mark Frit/lcr. Liz Hawn, and Jeanne Mabusth. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron and Zoning Administrator Wendy Bottenberg. Council Representative Jim Murphy, and Recorder Kristi Anderson. Commissioner Janice Berg w as absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) #02-2848 PETER AND AMY GOSHGARIAN, 100 ORONO ORCHARD RO.AD, VARIANCE Hawa moved, hlabastb sreoaded, to rreonuarad approval of Application #02-2848 Peter aad Am>* Gosbf ariaa, approviag a side yard setback varfaaee to convert the attic space into living area of the exbling residence located at 100 Orono Orchard Road on the condition that the project meets the 30* height requirement. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#2) #02-2849 STEVE JACOBSON, 4185 SIXTH A\ EM E NORTH, VARIANCE Hawa moved, hlabasth seconded, to recommend approval of .Application #02-2849 Steve Jacobson, 4185 Sixth Avenue North, approving a front yard setback variance to construct an attached garage/bedroom addition on the residence. \'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#3) #02-2851 KEVIN CURLEY AND WENDY KELLETT, 1291 BRIAR STREET, VARIANCE Hawa awved, Mabasth seconded, to recommend approval of Applicatioo #02-2851, Kevin Curley and Wendy Kellett, 1291 Briar Street, approving front yard and side yard setback variances to construct a 6* X 6* porch to the front of the existing rcsidence. \‘OTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. PAGE I of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION .MEETING Slonday, Novcmlicr 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. OLD BUSINESS (84) 802-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS. 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 6:35 - 6:55 P.M. Robert Wiens, Applicant, was present. Oantun reported that aAer being tabled at the October 21.2002 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant made changes to the proposal and met with the City Engineer and Public Works Director. The new plan indicates a berm to be constructed on the property that will have the following characteristics; * Grade changes arc S'or more from the lot lines • a 3:1 slope * the toe of the slope would be at the sewer force main • w ill range in height from 4' to 8' and in w idth from 20* to So* Gaffron explained that the property owner had requested a conditional use permit to permit land alteration on the property over 500 cubic yards. The revised plan is estimated to require 1500-2000 yards, which would mean approximately 160 + truckloads would be delivered to the site. As Bay Ridge Road is a private road and the number of trucks hauling is a concern, the applicant has agreed that the trucks would drive to the site, drop their fill, and back-up or pull out onto North Shore Drive to Brown Road. The trucks w ould not be using Bay Ridge Road. Although a number of neighbors had expressed their concern about the berm at the October meeting, Gaffron indicated that it should be noted that, the only neighboring property w hose lake view s are protected is the residence to the south, w hich would not be impacted; in the 2 and 5 acre zones, it would not be a violation to leave the berm unmow ed if the applicant so chose, unless it generated complaints; the applicant intends to maintain the bufTcr of trees along the north boundary ’ of the site; and the neighborhood drainage pattern would not be negatively impacted by the berm Gaffron noted that staff recommends approval subject to fi\e conditions identified in the staff report, which include the need for a land alteration permit, an erosion control permit from the MCWD, installation of silt fencing, providing a route map to the City, and re establishing vegetation immediately upon completion of the finished grade. Chair Smith asked when immctiiatcly w as referring to. Gaffron pointed out that, most likely, the revegetalion would occur in the spring, however, erosion control methods could be put into place now . PAGE 2 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CO.MMISSION MEETING Monday, November IS, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (S4) S02-2S34 ROBERT AND JULIE WIENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, CoatlMcd) Wiens stated that he had atrcjdy obtained the MCWD permit and installed the required erosion control fencing. Chair Smith inquired as to how the dialogue with the neighbors had progressed. Wiens indicated that he had met with and spoken to several neighbors and that the issues had been resolved. Lorraine Kalcy, 139S Brown Road South, staled that after the last meeting she went o\ er to the applicants residence to judge for herself the impact the headlights had on their property at night. She agreed that the Wiens were greatly impacted by light, especially since some of the trees are dying out at the bottom. Mrs. Kalcy stated that she had no objections to the Wiens proposal and encourage them to construct the berm. Fritzler indicated that he had concern w ith regard to the number of trucks backing out onto North Shore Drive and suggested the trucks pull straight out onto the roadw ay. He also questioned who would be tcsponsible for cleaning up any spillage that gels on the roadway as the trucks arc coming and going. Wiens slated that he would take responsibility for cleaning up after the trucks and agreed that the trucks should be able to pull straight out of the site onto North Shore Drive. Chair Smith asked w hat sort of timeline the applicant w as w orking w iih. Wiens indicated that the whole project was projected to take merely two da>s. Rahn questioned whether he or a project manager would be present. Wiens slated that cither he. or the foreman, would be directing the trucks as per the plan. Although the applicant had answ ered the neighbors concerns, Rahn maintained that some of their gripes w ere warranted given the condition of tw o other berms in the area. He believed the neighbors had the right to worry’ and question the applicant’s intent at this location and asked what could be done to improve the other sites. Gaflron slated that the code docs little to address the maintenaiKe of berms, howes er. the City could send out letters requesting they be mow cd or maintained. Caffron pointed out that, in the 2 and 5-acrc zones, residents cannot be expected to mow their entire parcels. PAGE 3 of 29 • M ■> a >. m-%- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday* November 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (»4) 802-2834 ROBERT AND JULIE W lENS, 1425 BAY RIDGE ROAD, Conllnned Rahn moved, Hawn seconded, to reconunend approval of Application 802-2834, a CondItioaal Use Permit for land alteration of greater than 500 enbk yards, snbjeef to the Hve conditions as noted in the staff report dated November IS, 2002. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (85) 802-2846 LOREN PELLETT,4753 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VACATION 6:SS-7:05 P.M. Loren Pciletl, Applicant, was present. Boticnberg explained that the applicant was seeking approval to vacate 50' of that portion of the unimproved right-of-w ay of Lake Street at the shoreline of his properly. The r.o.w was originally dedicated in the plat of Bcrgquist and Wicklund’s Park in 1888. Lake Street is an unimproved street right of w ay running along the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka from cast to west that currently varies from 17' to 21’ in w idth. Bottenberg pointed out that Lake Street serves no public use and conversations with the public utility representatives indicates they have no problem w ith vacating Bottenberg pointed out that the City has determined, in the pasL that vacation may be appropriate when; • the vacation docs not afTcct access to or use of any adjoining property • the City does not intend to improve, develop, or use the dedicated r.o.w as road • the dedicated r.o.w’ serves no public purpose Bottenberg stated that in slafTs opinion, these three conditions arc applicable to the segment of Lake Street right-of-w ay adjacent to the property, therefore, staff recommends approval of the vacation application as proposed. Mr. Pcilett stated that when he bought the lot. he bought it as lake property, and w ould like to ensure this by adding the parcel to his propeny and correcting any inconsistencies that have occurred on various records. There were no public comments. PAGE 4 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING lilonday, November 18,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. («5) 802-2846 LOREN PELLETT, 4753 NORTH SHORE DRI\'E, Continued Mid>usth tUted that she was surprised more property owners don't come forward to vacate and legally combine parcels such as this. Hawn naoved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application 802-2846, Loren Pcilctt, approving the vacation appUcatioa as proposed for the properly located at 4753 North Shore Drive. \’OTE; Ayes 6, Nays 0. (86) 802-2847 JAMES NTSTROM, 1725 CONCORDIA STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7:06 - 7:20 P.M. Kyle Hunt. General Contractor for the Applicant, was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicant had requested a conditional use permit to permit a cupola to be constructed on a new residence. The proposed cupola is to be located w ithin the central portion of the structure and mimic a cupola on the garage. Bottenberg explained that, w hile the cupola on the garage meets the 30’ height requirement, the cupola on the residence is proposed to be 34.5* in height and 4'.\4* in si/c. Bottenberg pointed out that the cupola does not change the lot coverage by structure or hardcover on the property. As purely decorative, the cupola would not be used for living space, therefore, the height limitations imposed by other sections of the code may be increased by conditional use permit by 50"o when applied to structures, such as cupolas and domes, church spires, belfries, etc. Chair Smith inquired w hat constituted the “etc.** in the code. Bottci hcTg pointed out that there was a specific list of some twenty items in the code, although staff had chosen not to print the entire list, and instead used the temi etc., perhaps improperly. Gaffron maintained that the intent of the City, in approximately 1967, was to generally allow certain features, w hich arc typically higher than the house, used purely for decorative purposes, or which serve a ^>ecific function. Chair Smith asked if this would be a purely aesthetic feature. PAGE 5 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO Pt.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November IS, 2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. M2-2S47 JAMIES NYSTR031.1725 CONCORDIA STREET, Coatinned Rahn asked if the home possessed a widow 's peak. He pointed out that, in comparison to many others, this home was relatively low and the height depends on how it is specifically measured or calculated. Gaflron agreed, stating that the residence would be below the 30* height requirement absent the cupola. Hunt stated the home was a I I O’Stoiy home w ith no widow’s peak and a proposed decorative cupola. Bremer asked if the City had ever denied an application of this nature before. Gaffron reminded the Commission that because this is a Conditional Use Permit, the app.icant need not present a hardship, and that they should c\ aluatc whether the home would merely be out of character w ith the neighborhood given the cupola. Fritzicr asked if the cupola would have access. Hunt indicated that the cupola would be sealed off with no access to it. Loraine Kalcy. 1395 Brown Road S. quesuoned what other t>pes of homes were in the neighborhood currently. Neil Trainor, 1675 Concordia Street, stated that he had attended the meeting to learn w hether the home was going to possess a widow-*s peak or not. With regard to the character of the neignr >rhood. he indicated that there w as a mixed bag of styles throughout the area and he saw no problem w ith the cupola fitting in. Rahn asked w hether the railing around the top of the home w as usable or a single w ire. Hunt stated it w as merely a single w ire rail for safety not a usable deck area Hawn moved, .Mabusth seconded, to recommend Application #02-2847, James Nyslrom, approving a Cond.i;.>nal Use Permit to allowr construction of tbe 4*X4* cupola on the top of the residence located at 1725 Concordia Street. \’OTE: Aves 6, Nays 0. PAGE 6 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MMday, Novenbcr IS, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#7) 002-28S0 JOHN AND PATRICIA WALKER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE, variances 7:21-7:37 P.M. Ron Anderson. General Contractor for the Applicants, was present. Bottenberg reported that the applicants had requested rear yard and hardcover in the 7S- 2S0' setback variances to construct a 258 s.f. dcck/stcps to the existing residence. The proposed deck would be 258 s.f., and located 17’ from the rear property line, where 30' is required. The rear property line is Grant Street, an unimproved right-of-way, which the City has no plans on improving. There have not been any variances granted fur this property. Bottenberg noted that the property is located within the 75-250* hardcover zone. The addition of the steps and deck increase the hardcover from 34?i to 36%. While the lot covoage by structure is currently 13 .4%, the addition of the steps deck w ould mult in an increase in the structural coverage, w hich meets the 1 allowed. Mr. Anderson had nothing to add. There were no public comments. Although she w as at a loss to make a suggestion, Mabusth asked if the applicant had considered the removal of any hardcover to maintain the 34%. She believed removal of blacktop might be difTicult. • Anderson noted that they had removed rock and plastic, however, could not remove the existing retaining walls. Chair Smith questioned the potential for removal of the patio block on the side o.** the midence. Mabusth indicated that there w as a rear door located at that spot. Bremer stated that little would be gained with its removal. Rahn suicd that he believed more work could be done w ith regard to the driveway to fuither reduce hardcover. He pointed out that the Commission, typically, requim removal of hardcover w hen adding hardcover in order to maintain and not increase hardcover amounts, w hich arc already in e.xcess of 25%. PAGE 7 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PI.ANNING CX>MMISSION MEETING Movday, No%'e«ibcr It, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (07)002-2t50 JOHN AND PATRICIA WAI.KER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE, CooUbomI GafThm stated that the slab is 8 ’X8 ’. Ha\%Ti stated that she could not identify a hardship, other than the odd shape and size, which don’t necessarily constitute a hardship. Anderson maintained that the driveway eats up a good portion of the altou able hardcover and is diflicult to maneuver in and out of. other than backing straight out into the roadway. Chair Smith reasoned whether the driveway constitutes adequate hardship. Mabusih agreed, stating that the driveway contains more hardcover than the house itself. Rahn asked if the small turnaround portion of the driveway were usable, and if not. suggested it be removed to reduce hardcover. Gaffron indicated that it abuts the drop off and w ould give the 150 s.f. or more of hardcover to work w ith. Since the owirers own the two lots next to one another. Hawn suggested they consider a lot line rearrangement to create a better driveway situation. Anderson stated that the applicants had attempted to do just that several years ago and had been denied. He added that rearranging the lots could be difficult. Gaffron agreed that it could be difficult to rearrange the lot lines so as not to adversely affect the property closer to the lake. He cautioned the rearrangement could merely succeed in making both lots more nonconforming. Anderson indicated that they had looked into the potential of Grant Street being vacated. Gaffron noted that it would be unlikely Grant Street would be vacated. Chair Smith staled that the Planning Commission would prefer the hardcover be maintained at the current level, 34*!», without an increase. Anderson staled that he would speak to the Walkers about the removal ofponions of the driveway and patio. PAGE8or29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18. 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. («7) #02-2tS0 JOHN AND PATRCU WALKER, 1318 SPRUCE PLACE, Cootiooed Fritzicr suggested they look at the side\^alk to the front door also. Mabusth suted that her feeling was that the applicants could maintain the 34%. through a combination of removals they could build the 2S8 s.f. deck. Chair Smith stated that the Commission could stipulate removals and move the application forw'ard to Council. Anderson stated that through a combination of removals and reconfiguring the deck they could maintain the 34%. Rahn suggested that the decorative boulder walls be removed. Bremer indicated that she would be more comfortable with tabling the application in order to allow for redesign and removals and asked if this would hold up the applicant's process to return in January. Although they would begin work inside, Anderson stated that the deck work would not begin until spring, therefore, his returning in January would not affect the contract he has. Mabaslb moved, Hawa seconded, to table Application ff02-28S0, John and Patricia Walker, 1318 Spruce Place, for the purpose of redesigning the proposal. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #02-2853 AUUK DESIGN CORPORATION, 955 TONKAWA ROAD, VARI.\NCE 7:38-8:11 P.M. Gary Aulik, of Aulik Design Group, and Russ Schumcr. property owner, were present. Bottenberg explained that the applicant was requesting an average lakeshore setback variance and a conditional use permit for land alteration to construct a new residence on the property. The existing residence has been demolished and the proposed location of the new residence is further back on the lot than the old residence. Howeser. Bottenberg pointed out that due to an existing sewer easement and sewer line, the new residence cannot be any further back on the lot tow ards the road. The proposed residence w ill encroach 42* into the average lakeshore setback. The adjacent properties and the subject property arc heavily wooded and at different elevations. PAGE 9 of 29 MINinXS OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November IS, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.in. («8) 002-2153 AULIK DESIGN CORF^ 955 TONKAWA ROAD, Coatiaacd With regard to the conditional use permit, Bottenberg indicated that the proposal estimates approximately 2.360 cubic yards of fill will be brought onto the site. The fill will be used to create a level area to locate the house, provide good drainage, and create access to the site for motor vehicles. Bottenberg reported that staff recommends appro\ al of the average lakcshorc setback variance and conditional use permit for land alteration to construct a new residence on the property subject to six conditions highlighted in the stalTreport dated November 15. 2002. Due to varying elevations. Bottenberg shared concerns expressed by the resident residing at 975 Tonkawa with regard to runoff. Bottenberg shared City l-ngincer Tom Kellogg’s recommendation that a 120 ’ retaining wall be constructed to direct runoff towards the lake and away from the adjacent property to the south. Mr. Aulik expressed his desire to investigate alternatives to the 120 ’ retaining wall recommended by the City Engineer. He believed that there could be less invasive wavs to deal w ith the runoff issue than building a towering retaining w all In fact, he suggested and demonstrated with a 3-D model how they could direct the flow via the proposed landscaping and fill, to cauh the runoff from the driveway in a sw ale and direct it towards the lake. Aulik stated that, unfortunately, everything drains towards the southerly neighbor and always has. He indicated that they w ould prefer to take positive steps to redirect the moisture, leaving the trees on the property line intact. With regard to the location of the home. Aulik stated that they w ould have proposed the home be setback even further had there not been setback issues w ith the sewer easements. In fact, Aulik noted that the sewer lines are not even built w ithin the sewer easements originally dedicated for them, therefore he believed they could argue the easements be vacated. He argued that even if they w ere \ acated. the home w ould still encroach approximately 30 ’. Given the current circumstances. Aulik slated the home was setback as far as it was allow ed. Rahn stated that the last thing he w ould like to see is construction of a large retaining w all, w hen there arc other alternatives worth investigating w ith the City Engineer. While uncertain why the City Engineer recommended a retaining wall. Gaffion indicated that further investigation would need to be done. He fell confident that a swale could work effectively. PAGE to of 29 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Novcnbcr IS, 2002 6:30 o*cloclc p.m. (tfS) N02-2SS3 AULIK DESIGN CORP^ 95S TONKAWA ROAD. Cmitfaiacd Aulik further suggested a longer berm be created to direct the flow. Rahn suggested Aulik design a plan, in coordination with the City Engineer, to divert the flow and present it lo stafT. Chair Smith questioned what vacating the sew er easement and moving the house further back would mean to the runoff issue. Gaflion stated that, in his opinion, monng the house back would only worsen the drainage issue. Aulik added that moving the residence back would also have adverse affects on the forested lot As moving the home back only aggravates the drainage problems. Chair Smith maintained that there was better opportunity to address the drainage issue where proposed, but suggested staff talk to the City Engineer. Mabusth stated that, lo date, the Planning Commission has promoted the use of sw ales lo deal with the impact of runoff rather than retaining w alls w hen possible, and felt this should be explored. She asked how high the building pad would be in comparison to the previous residence. Aulik stated that the walkout is virtually at the same level as it w as before and the garage w*ould be located on a different plane. Rahn thought the home seemed very tall. Aulik stated that the home has actually been reduced from the original proposed size and the northerly neighbor, whom they thought might have issue, has seen the proposal and not voiced any concerns. The northerly neighbors, the McCIcIlens, indicated that they have never had a view of the lake from this direction and wouldn ’t miss a view from this location. Rahn asked if there were issues regarding the bluffs or the pool. Gaffron stated that the home sits back far enough to meet any bluff requirements. PAGE It of29 ^nNUTESOFTHE ORONO rtANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Novcnbcr It, 2002 6:30 o*dock |!.n. («8) i02-2iS3 AULIK DESIGN COKF^ 955 TONKA\3 A ROAD, CMtiaacd Mabusth inquired whether accessory structures, like pools, were allowed w iihin the average lakcshore setback. Caflron stated that the pool should be included in the approval. Mabusth agreed, slating the pool has been included in all the draw ings. Aulik stated that they have been requesting the pool in the setback alt along. He noted that the pool and al of its hardcover have been included in the hardcover requests from the beginning. Chair Smith asked if the Planning Commission could approve the application subject to the City Engineer's approval. Rahn stated that he was hesitant to send something to CouiKil w ithout e.xact dimensions. Gaffron maintained that the pool would not be an issue with regard to the average lakeshore setback since it is in ground. Loraine Kal^, 1395 Brown Road South, asked how many feet the driveway was from the neighboring properly and w here the potential runoff w ould come from. Aulik pointed out that the distance was 70‘-80’ between the driveway and property line, w ith a 2(fi/o grade change. He stated that larulscapc at this grade could be maintained. Chair Smith noted that a recommendation from the Planning Commission should be accompanied by a swale drainage plan. She asked if Aulik had any further comment. Aulik asked w hat they would be required to supply Uie City with regard to drafting a new easement description. Gaffron stated that the applicant should provide the City with a certified copy of the easement so that staff can determine the most efficient method to change the legal description. In order to be consistent, Mabusth asked if the hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone could be removed. Bottenberg clarified that there is 10 0 s f. of hardcover within the 0-75’ setback, which consisu of a planter, and a 77 s.f ret.i ..ing wall w hich could likely be removed. PAGE 12 0129 I L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 8:30 o*clocl( p.m. (»S) 802-28S3 AULIK DESIGN CORP^ 955 TONKAWA R ‘ >^.v<Mtia«ed Although his wife would be disappointed, Mr. Schumer stated that he could remove the planter and timber retaining wall around the garden. Frttakr BMved, Smitb sccooded, to recommead approval of AppUcaHoo (102-2853, Aallk Design Corporalioa, approving the average lakethore setback variance and conditional nse permit for land alteratioB to coaslrnct a new residence on the property located at 955 Tonkawa Road, Bnb|cct to the sia conditioBs noted in sufTs memo dated November 15,2002, remm al at the planter and timber retaining wall within the 0-75* setback lone, and the Cit>- Engineer's approval of a soil drainage plan. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8:00 P.M. (#10) mil-2952 JENNIFER AND TROY KOOPMAN AND DWIGHT AND PATH' AFFELDT, 4753 TONKA VIEW COURT AND 4765 TONKA VIEW LANE, REARRANGEhlENT OF COMMON PROPERTY LINES 8:12 - 8:50 P.M. Jennifer and Troy Koopman. and Dwight and Patty AfTeldt. Applicants, were present Gaffron explained that the applicants are owners of the properties located at 4753 Tonkaview Court and 4765 Tonkaview Lane in the City of Orono. Currently, the Koopman's garden and their driveway are located within the AfTeldt property 4765 Tonkaview Lane. They are proposing a Subdivision of j. Lot Line Rearrangement to correct this problem. Gaffron noted that the need for the lot line rearrangement stems from a 1985 vacation of a porti* : of Park Avenue, in w hich the former owners of the Koopman property, intended to acquire both the south half and north half of the portion to be vacated. He continued that, w hile the City's vacation approval resolution required the Caples to legally combine the enti:c vacated portion w ith their homestead, the County saw it differently and followed their standard practice by splitting the vacated road between the two adjacent propeny owners. The Koopmans and the Affeldts have now agreed to do the lot line rearrangement to clear up the existing encroachment problem. Gaffron pointed out that the lot width of the Koopman property is not affected by the proposal. Both properties were originally developed prior to the adoption of the current zoning standanls. however, the rearrangement w ould meet the intent of the comprehensive plan bcvause it would not increase the existing density and would not create additional building sites. PAGE 13 of 29 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MoMlay, Novenbcr 2002 6:30o*dockp.m. (010) 002-2852 PUBLIC HEARING Gaflfon indicated that Tonkaviov Court is a privately maintained shared road/driveway within the dedicated City right-of-way. He noted that hardcover is not an issue for either property. Finally, GafTron added that a revised version of the survey and revised legal descripliotts would be required prior to Council action in order to clear up past surv’ey inconsistencies. With regard to easements, Ga.Tron staled that the 1985 vacation w as conditioned tlut the Caples* grant a 20’ drainage and uJlity easement over the center 20* of the vacated right- of-way. Gafliron explained that the applicants would be required to provide the City with copies of all easements currently afTecting the properti *s, and sufTicient title information to utisfy the City Attorney that the lot rearrangemen .an be filed. In addition, GafTron pointed out that it is standi City policy to request that new drainage and utility easements 5* on either side of the new lot lines be granted as part of the lot line rearrangement approval. GafTron indicated that stafT recommends approval of the lot line rearrangement subject to three conditions put forth in the stafT memo dated November 18. 2002. There were no public comments. Hawn questioned whether the new lot line rearrangement would cause difficulties with regard to the easements. GafTron indicated that the 20* drainage and utility easement over the center 20* of the vacated right-of-way required as part of the 1985 vacation would accomplish the City*s goals. Mabusth asked if the hatched area on the overhead should be vacated or if it were already. Gafliron stated that this area need not be vacated. Mr. Koopman stated that, essentially, they are landlocked from their home. Mr. Afleldt explained that the former owner built his driveway over the (Koperty line, know ing full w ell he had done so. w hich has now forced the new owners to correct his costly error and make it ri^t. PAGE t4of29 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MMMtoy, November IS. 2002 6:30 o*elocfc p.m. («I0) M2-28S2 PUBLIC HEARING Thanks to the AfTcldts, Mr. Koopman stated that they had only learned of the line issue at their dosing. Mr. Koopman asked how they would provide the City with the necessary copies they would require of the applicants. Gafiron explained that the applicants could obtain certified copies of their casements from abstracts or titles held at the County. Brcnrcr moscd, Rahn sccooded* to rccommeod approval of Applkalioo M02-2SS2. Jeoaifer aid Troy Koopmao - 4753 Tookavlew Court aod Patty and Dwight AITeldt • 4765 Tookavicw Laac,gnmttog the sobdivisioo of a Lot Lloc Rearraogemeot sobjcct to the three coodMoas sommarixcd ta the suff report dated November IS. 2002. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#9) S02-2S54 KEVIN AND JANET MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCE. CONDITIONAL USE PER5I1T. AND REMEW OF L.VNDSCAPING PLAN S:5I - 9:30 P.M. Kevin and Janet Manley. Applicants, were present, as w as Ed Suarez, of Gustafson Design, their consultant. Gafhon explained that Gustafson Design, Inc., on behalf of Kevin and Janet Manley, owners of 1973 Fagemess Point Road, has applied for approval for a boulder retaining wall system and landscape plan for the westerly lakeshore bank of the property. The proposal requires a conditional use permit and variance for land alteration and hardcover within 75’ of the shoreline. This is a newly remodeled home for which no Certificate of Oecupancy would be required. Gaffron reported that at least four prior zoning applications accompany this property. A hardcover setback variance to construct a garage and addition was filed in 1979 w ithout resolution. In 1999, hardcover/ width, and area variances were granted to replace the existing house, although grading in the 0-75’ was denied and the house w as never constructed. In 2001. dormer w indow s. a deck above the garage, ar>d the existing house was remodeled based on setback variance approval. Finally, in 2002, a setback variance for roof line expansion was granted; whereas variances for greater than 25% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ setback and greater than 15% lot coverage for a tunnel deck w ere denied. Gaffron pointed out that .here are a number of unresolved issues related to this property which he enumerated as follows: PAGE IS of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Momiay, N>ve«ber 18,2002 6:30 o*dock p.m. (#9) 802-2854 KEVIN AND JANET MANLEY, 1973 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, CMliaiicd I) 8X8 Shed illegally constnicled/localed near the east side of the md. within 2' of shoreline 2) Gravel parking area (20'X32'approx.) constructed within 75' of shoreline along east side of road, w iihout City approvals and constituting illegal hardcover. No e\idence on file suggests this was formerly a parking area, photos suggest a minimal single grassy parking space at best 3) 2002 Surveys show property located on the cast side of Fagemess Point Road, which consists of “accrclions". Manley is intending to claim the areas surv eyed cast of the road via a land title registration (torrens) process. Although staffs understanding is that the neighbors to the immediate north will be disputing this claim. 4) Concrete stairway alongside garage is constructed w iihin the road right-of-way. and may be hazardous for road maintenance 5) Deck (approx. 5X 10) constructed on the west side of the house w ithout zoning approval, constituting 0-75* structure encroachment and excessive hardcover. Deck was not shown on plans or surseys used in approvals for prior zoning applications Dec’s first appeared on a plan used to obtain a pcmiit for basement remodel and deck over garage in February 2002, however, was not part of that plan review. Staff maintains that this deck exisu illegally and should be removed Although a 160 s.f deck existed in the past, it was completely removed prior to or during the remodeling process, and construction of a new deck has never been addressed. An alternative might be to apply for an after-the-fact variance. The deck constitutes additional hardcover :md lot coverage above the prev iously approved amounts. 6) Grade of the w alkout level in the westerly 0-75* zone has been lowered by approximately 2’, in violation of denials in 1998. This grading work was not covered by any permits issued to date and has never been approved as part of any prior zoning application. This grading was apparently done to create a better w alkout situation. Old and new surveys and photos clearly show that the entire west lakeshore yurd has been excavated and the west facade of the house has been opened up to a much broader w idth and height than the original house. PAGE 16 of 29 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, November 18,2002 6:20 o*clock p.ai. ((H9) im-2tS4 KE\1N AND JANET MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS FOINT ROAD, Coattaacd GafTion pointed out that the grading activity to date on the west side of the house has left virtually no vegetation intact and 90*/« of the lakeshore >-ard in a state of bare unprotected soil. Staff and MCWD have required that hay bales and silt fencing be in place during the past few months until proper plans were submitted and approved. 7) GafTron noted that undercutting of the lakeshore bank due to high water wave action may be a separate issue from the work that has been done to the lakeshore yard. However, the bank at the immediate shoreline is very steep. 60% slope w ith little vegetation to stabilize it. Without riprap and some method of shoring it up. this bank has the potential to erode and/or slump off in the foreseeable future. With regard to the proposed boulder wall and landKaping plan received on November 12.2002, GafTron indicated that the City Engineer has had little time to comment, however, his initial comments were as follows: 1) the plans should include existing and proposed contours 2) handover calculations should be included with the submittal 3) Section IA-1 should include the existing grade, along with 10* on either side 4) plans s! ould identify the boulder sizes and t>pes to be used for retaining w alls 5) proposed plant types should be identified on the plans 6) elevations should include the proposed native plantings to review the amount of screening provided 7) all tree and plant removals should be identified on the plan 8) more detail, including materials, drainage area served, storm event sizing, etc. should be provided regarding the "First Flush Drain Zone" 9) plans should identify erosion control measures proposed to protect the lake during construction 10) plans should be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review and conunent GafTron pointed out that the proposed boulders will add a significant amount of hardcover to the west 0-75* zone (39.5% per the submittal calculation). GafTron maintained that the current proposal appears to continue the applicants' apparent goal of creating a wide >-ard that walks out from the new door elevations w here a narrow, higher yard previously existed. He encouraged the Planning Commission to review the pre- and post- construction photos, which further show the amount of cicarcutling that has PAGE 17 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, November 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. («9) 002-28S4 KE\ IN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Cooliooed resulted from the grading work in the west 0-75’ yard. GafTron dispia>’cd a sketch depicting the grade changes that had been made. Notwithstanding the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion. Ganiron noted that the current plan has a number of aspects, which require Planning Commission consideration so as to, direct the applicant how to proceed. GafTron encouraged the Commission to consider the following three options or questions when reviewing the boulder wall/landscaping plan. 1) Should the grade be returned to their pre-constmetion status as part of the boulder wall project? Impacts of which w ould be a) a narrower exposure of the west facade b) ouUide below grade landing and steps would be required to enter/exit the w alkout door; a short ret house where it was originally e) maintenance of the restored steep slopes may require special attention 2) An option worth considering w ould be to allow a narrow walkout corridor at an elesation that would drain to the lake, i.e. the w idth of the walkway path. This would be similar to what existed prior to the grading work, but 2-3 ’ lower in elevation. 3) Docs the Planning Commission agree w ith the general concept of retaining w alls in the 0-75’ setback zone for this property, or should grades be changed to minimize the need for walls? GafTron remind^ the Commissioners of the CMP, Section tt3A, Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management w hich reads that ‘‘Retention of natural vegetation w ill limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake", and further defines natural resource management. GafTron acknow ledged that preserv ation of the lal .eshore bank as it has long existed may in fact require retaining walls of some sort, be they w ood timbers, boulders, ke>stone blocks, etc. How ever, other methods for maintaining the shoreline might be possible, including vegetative plantings, for example. GafTron maintained that more intrusit e methods to ensure no future slump of the lakeshore bank w ould entail a w holesale reshaping of the shore w ith a gradual slope from the house to the lake incorporating layered fabric. He reminded the Commission, that this method would not be in keeping with the goal of preserv'ing the character of the shore. PACE 18 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^IISSION MEETING Monday, November 18,2002 6:30 o*clock p.m. (89) 802-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Continned While stafT would prefer that the shoreline restoration be completed as soon as possible, Gafiroi. felt that staff was not in a position to recommend approval of this plan due to the fact that the City Engineer's comntents had not yet been suitably addressed and suggested that the Planning Commission table the application. Gaffron laid out a scries of seven recommendations for the Planning Commission to consider; 1) Gaffron suggested the Planning Commission table the application to allow staff and City Engineer time to c.^nridcr whether the plan is appropriate, and to allow staff, applicant and the rqiplicant’s consultant lime to confer. 2) Commission should provide direction as to whether the grades on the west lakeshorc yard should be restored 3) Commission should provide direction as to w hether the deck on the lakeside of the house might be approved if a formal variance request was made 4) Gaffron maintained that any forthcoming approvals should be conditioned on timely remov ’al of the illegal shed in the eastern 0-75’ zone, and removal of the gravel parking area in the same zone, returning both to grass. The applicant had been ordered to runo\c the shed back in July but to date has failed to comply. Gaffron indicated that staffs perspective would be that the variances for these improvements, if applied for. should not be granted as there is likely no hardship to support such variances. 5) Applicant should be advised to w ork w ith adjacent property ow ners in reaching a suitable conclusion in terms of ownership claims regarding the "accretions ” east ofthc road 6) The sur\ ey should be revised to verify the encroachment of the concrete stairw ay into the City right-of-way. Gaffron questioned whether angling the stairway tow ard the driveway migin avoid the encroachment 7) Because it is likely the nccessar>- work w ould not lake place until spring, the iqiplicanl should be advised to maintain erosion controls on the site as necessary to avoid sedimentation to the lake or road. Sill fencing along road and adding to sill fencing along the west shoreline With regard to the unresolved issue item 87. Chair Smith asked what constituted the foreseeable future. PAGE 19 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM^USSION MEETING Mo«4ay, November 18,2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. m 002-28S4 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Coatimied Gaflhm indicated that stalT really had no idea when the undercut bank of the shoreline could erode or slump oH into the lake, it could be next w eek, this w inter, next spring He staled that he had no clear answrer to how soon the “foreseeable future" might be. Chair Smith asked why the Plaiuiing Commission was review ing this application at this time, in light of the numerous unresolved issues. GafTron stated that the City published that the public hearing would happen tonight expecting to have a plan well in advance to review, but it was a bit late to call the neighborhood and say don’t show up. There was also the situation here that if there were issues that could be resolved which could direct the applicant towards some resolution prior to January he would like to do so. While thanking City staff for their understanding and polite demeanors. Mr. Manie>' stated that the process has gone very slow ly. He indicated that he first submitted his applications in April 2002 after purchasing the property m February and did not get return phone calls regarding his application for se\ cral monin^. He maintained that he hadn’t removed any soil since purchasing the propen> and was only responsible for what’s happened since April. He mainuined that the only thing he's done wrong w as to construct the 8X8 shed across the street, which could be removed. He had already npped out the illegal retaining walls built by a previous owner. Manley rcitcated that he has had little luck getting the City to tell him what he can and cannot do on the property. Chair Smith reminded the applicant that, as the current ow ner. he may be held responsible. Rahn asked whether the previous owner had been the applicant’s brother. Manley confirmed Pahn’s statement, how ever, did not see any significance in that fact. Manley continued, stating the City Council had given him permission to lower the lower level and construct two decks - one on the front and one on the back. As far as the sidew alk. Mamey could not understand w hat the problem w as with his stairw ay as opposed to others in the neighborhood. With regard to the parking lot area. Mmlev* asserted thni the gravel parking area had always been there, and that neighbors could attest to this. He indicated that the City Council had already stated they would give him approval for a parking lot across the street as soon as he got it in his name. As a building contractor. Manley could not understand the delay and w as concerned about getting a decision made after six montlu of .vaiting. He asked to move forward and be given direction. PAGE :o of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moii4iy, Number It, 2002 0:30 oVIocfc p.m. (#9) «0^2t94 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, CoBtinucd Chair Smith asked if the applicant had shared these concerns «^ith staff. Manley stated that he had absolutely shared his concerns and had received a return call finally after approximately ten attempts. He suggested they go doi%n the unresolved list one by one. First, the shed. Manley staled that he would remove the shed only after the City agrees to give him some sort of resolution. While he understood that he had been asked to remove it several months ago, he maintained that he had asked the City to do many things six months ago. With regard to the gravel parking area, Manley reiterated that the parking area w as not new, it had always been there. All of the neighbors have and use parking areas across the road and theirs may have been overgrown. Again, Manley staled that the City Council and >^’.'inberger h^ given him the indication that they would approve his parking area once it was put in his name. Having been before the Commission in February asking for additional hardcover. Rahn asked the applicant whether the parking area was included in any ofthe hardcover calculations. Since the hardcover figures had been looked at in such detail in order to allow construction of the deck, he wondered w here this additional hardcover had come from. Manley staled that the parking area had not been uiicd in any hardcover calculations in February since it w as not in his name at that time. Rahn asked if he had built the shed on the properly, even though it was not his. Manley indicated he had done so. Janet Manley stated that no one ow ns the property and they arc in the process, as is one other neighbor, of claiming it through the slate. GafTron indicated that property owners can take action to lay claim to property, then It goes through a process w here people can respond to their claim, and the Hennepin County courts decide who owns it. Manley staled that the property claim process w as not part of the propo.<^l. Manley maintained that the only reason they w ere before the City today was because they had the PAGE 21 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moii4ay, Timvtmbtr It, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.oi. (#9) 002-2SS4 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Conlioocd City come out and recommend Gustafson Design to design a layout for the shoreline. Manley stated that this proposal is what the City and Ed came up with. Gaffron disagreed, interjecting that the City, at the applicant’s request, recommended someone who could design a plan for him. Gaffron staled that the City supplied him with a name, nothing further, they did not suggest to Ed he design a boulder wall, they merely asked him to give the City a plan that might work. The City got a plan, we are starting to react to it. and we are now asking the Planning Commission w hethcr this is a plan that will function aesthetically, and from an engineering standpoint, if this is a plan they could support. Ed Suarez agreed that there were many issues to resolve and that he had been working with MCWD and the City to design a plan. He pointed out that the plan suggests boulders as a technique of dealing with the erosion problem. Manley explained that, previously, there was no riprap along the shoreline and when he approached the City to obtain a permit to restore the shoreline, the City told him to get a permit from the MCWD. He indicated that they had obtained the MCWD nermit and began restoration using riprap until the City told them to <^:op and obtain a pei.tiit from them as w ell. Since that time, several staff members have met at the site and advised Ed Suarez and the applicant on the design plan. Manley indicated that he had assumed the entire project would be done this >’ear, as he was sure the neighbors had hoped as well. He asked whether they should continue to go through each item Chair Smith agreed that they could attempt to work through each item, how ever, she was uncertain how much could be decided this evening because so many of the issues required further discussi* n with staff. Based on the applicant’s earlier acknow ledgemem. Chair Smith noted that the shed would be removed. With regard to the gravel parking area, Hawn stated that it should not be included in the diKussion since it was not his property. Gaffron shared photos from 1998 depicting the gravel parking area at the time, a much smaller area. PAGE 22 of 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Navcnbcr It, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.n. («9) Mtt-2tS4 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Cootioocd Manley reminded the Commission that the home nossessed a huge deck on the lakeside of the residence before his remodel. Manley stated that one way or another he would like the Commission to give him a decision this evening. He asked them to make a decision based on what was in front of them in order for him o move on to City Council. Chair Smith stated that the Planning Commission could, indeed, act on what w as in front of them, and not table the application if the applicant so chose, although she u as h^tant to do so. Bremer suggested the Commission finish their discussion so that the City Council, at least, would have enough information rmd direction from this evening to base their decision. Once again, Rahn was hesitant *o discuss specific hardcover issues without concrete numbers. Manley stated that he wished for riprap to restore the shoreline and a 3:1 slope to preside a mere path to his boat. He thanked City stafT and consultant Ed Suarez for their helpfulness. Rahn reiterated that the City would either locate a permit for the deck or not, and if not, the applicant would have to ^ly for an after-the-fact variance. With regard to the unresolved item 1116. Hassii stated that, while she believed the i^plicanl had not committed this himself, she believed this to be the most offensive of the violations. Manley reiterated that he had not changed the plan or grade, and in fact, his original proposal stepped up the grade. Hawn wrestled w ith the fact that in 1999 the application to grade in the 0-75 ’ setback was denied, and here today, it has been done an>way. Manley, again, maintained that it was a previous owner who had committed this wrong. Bremer pointed out that, it is only at times when homeowners come before the Planning Commission, that the City is given the opportunity to correct these past indiscretions. PAGE 24 or 29 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Novraber It, 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (09) «02-2tS4 KEVIN MANLEY, 1973 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, Cooliaocd Manky inquired whether he should give the City Council two options to review, one w iih boulders and one with slope. Council Member Murphy asked staff what they \iewed as most imi, ''itant, getting the riprap on the shoreline first or getting tlie outstanding back issues resolved so that the shoreline could be restored. Although not an engineer, Ganron believed that in order to do the riprap, potentially, additional damage would be done to the shore that you need to be working on inunedialely following that. One would need to be working from the bottom up sequentially. He didn’t believe they could just do the riprap without causing impacts that would need to be immediately followed up on elsewhere. Gary Eklof, 1965 Fagemess Point Road, stated that he believ ed that the riprap could be done from the shoreline or off of a barge from the w ater. He indicated th^ could do the work from above, howev'er, they would totally destroy the shoreline with a bobcat. Gustafson pointed out that he had reviewed the site with a contractor who believed the work could be done from the ice, or if the right person were to do the job. the some could be accomplished with a backhoe from above Bill Delay, 1971 Fagemess Point Road, commended the applicant for his beautiful building and for keeping the neighbors in the loop. He did, how ever, have issue with the gravel parking vea as it encroaches over his property. He noted that the 8.X8 shed impedes his views of the lake and should be removed also. Mr. Delay felt the deck over the garage was done well, but voiced concern over the steep grade created by the proposed boulder wall. As a parent, he felt this could be hazardous. Chair Smith asked the applicant, once again, if he would rather the Commission table or vote on the application. Manley asked for a vote. Hawn moved, Fritzkr seconded, to deny Applkallon #02-2SS4, Kevin hlanky, ■pplkalioo to increase hardcover and put hardcover in the 0>7S* setback to construct a combination boukkr wall and riprap system for the purpose of containing the bank. \’OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. PAGE 27 of 29 I j MmVTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moaday, Novcaibcr It, 2002 6:30 o*clMk p.n. (#11) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 28,2002 AND NOVEMBER 12,2002 October 28 - Friuler reported that the Hope Chest for Breast Cancer application was approved. As of the October 28 meeting the Professional Properties of Orono wetland delineation issue was unresolved. November 12.2002 Chair Smith and Gaflron reported that the MCWD had ruled that the wetland on the proposed Professional Properties of Orono site was an incidental wetland and did not require additional mitigation. Council liaison Murphy reported that Council represenutives had approached MnDOT about the construction of the trail within their ri^i-of-way easement. Although the City feels this to be the best location, MnDOT has its reservations, however, agreed in principal that if the highway were returned to the County, they would likely support this location. Murphy indkalcd that the City would still require easements from the applicants as a back up. Loraine Kaley, 1395 Brown Road South, stated that she had seen an excellent program on Channel 17 the other night hosted by the Mel Council and others discussing urban spraw I. aflordable housing, and other issues. She asked if staff or Commissioners had seen the program and suggested they contact the station to get a copy or find out when it would be scheduled to run again. In the case of the law suit w ith Edina Realty and the last application beard this e\ening. she also felt it was somewhat common for new property owners to learn about unexpected or unpermitted construction to their homes afler they buy them. Chur Smith stated that someone needs to take responsibility for what has been done to their propmy. She indicated that anyone could visit City Hall to look at the public record and past history of a home before they purchase it. (»I2) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION The Commission congratulated Boltenberg on her promotion. The Meeting schedule for January and February w ere agreed upon. Wednesday. January 22,2003 and Wednesday. February 19.2003 were chosea Chair Smith complimented staff on the inclusion of the summary page of various topics of importance and suggested they continue to update the Commission this way. PACE 28 of 29 bMwituu#. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Moadiiy, N«vc«bcr It, 2602 6:36 o*cIocIi|».bl (#13) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR OCTOBER 21,2662 Haws Mvtd, Bcff MCMded, to approve Mm Mloatct of tlic Septcoibcr 4,2002 PtaaaiagCoaMBlMlao MccMag at presealed. VOTE: Ayes 7, NayiO. FHmer aavtO, Hawa tfcaaOcd, la approve Mm Mtaalcs oC Ike October 21,2002 Plaoiiag CaawiMlao MeeMag as prteeateM. VOTE: Ayc« 4, Na)*! 0. (#14) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON NOVEMBER 2S, 2002 AND DECEMBER f, 2002. November 25 • Hawn ADJOURNMENT December 9 • Rahn BrtaMr aMved, Raha lecoadctf, la adjoara Mm Plaaaiag Coauaitsioa aMcMag at 9:4S P.M. VOTE: Ayti 4, Najn 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:4S P.M. Saadra SaMth, Chair PAGE 29 of 29