HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2003 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednetday February 19,200.1 6:.10 P.M
2750 Kelley Parin a\ - Council Chambers
AGENDA
Council Representative: Jay Nygard
Al DIFNCE MEMBERS:
Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning
Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when
the Chair annonaces the appiicaliou. The Planning Commission b an advisory body to the
City Council If action b taken on any items on this agenda, Ihev will be scheduled for the
March 10.2003 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair.
CONSENT
1. t^03-2872 Tcny and Christy Morse. 2080 Spates Avenue. Variance
tStafr Jennifer Ch^ul)
NEW BLSINhSS
2. ^03-2865 Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagerness Point Road, Variances
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
3. ((03*2866 Judy and Daxid Zoschke. 2040 Shadywood Road, N'arianccs
(Staff. Jennifer Cliaput)
4. P03-2867 Daniel .Adams. 1145 Tonkawa Road, \ anances
(Staff; Wendy Bottenberg)
5. K03-2868 John E. Whitman. 1580 Sivth Avenue N. Variance
(Stafl': Jennifer Chaput)
6. (^03*2869 Dr. Robert Gumnit. 1 KM) Old Cry stal Bay Road. CUP and Variance
(Staff Jennifer Chaput)
7. MO.1-2871 Sally and Dan Weatherly. 1214 Wildhurst Trail, After-Tlic-Fact
Variance (Staff: Wendy Bottenberg)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:15 PM
S (<0.1*2870 Tim \'aughan. 205 Tonka .Avenue, Lot Line Rearrangement and Variance
(Staff; Wendy Bottenberg)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:30 P.M
9. #03-2873 City of Orono, Several Properties on Old Long Lake, Ruann, and
M akcficld Roads, Community Management Plan Amendment, (Staff; .Mike Gaffron)
L i.
ORONO PLANNING C OMMISSION
Wrdaesday Frbniar>’ 19,200.16:10 PM
2750 Kdln Parkwav - Coaacil Ckambrn
AGENDA
CouacU Rcpmcalalivc: Jay Nygord
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:
Please sigB in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning
Commbsion. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when
the Chair aaaouaees the applicatioo. The Planning Commission b an advisory body to the
City CounciL If action b taken on any Items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the
March 10,2001 City Connell meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair.
CONSENT
1. #03*2872 Terry and Chris!y Morse. 2080 Spates Avenue. N’ariancc
(SlafT: Jennifer Chapul)
NEW BUSINESS
2. #01-2865 Kevin Manley, 1971 Eagerness Point Road, Variances
(SlafT; Mike GafTmn)
3. #01-2866 Judy and David Zoschke, 2040 Sbadywood Road. Variances
(SlafT: Jennifer Chapul)
4. #01-2867 Daniel Adams. 1145 Tonkawa Road, Variances
(SlafT: Wendy Botlcnbcrg)
5. #01-2868 John E. Whiiman. 1580 Sivth Avenue N, Variance
(SlafT; Jennifer Chapul)
6. #03-2869 Dr. Robert Gumnil, 1100 Old Cry stal Bay Road. CUP and \ ariance
(SlafT: Jennifer Chapul)
7. #0.1-2871 Sally and Dan Wealhcriy. 1214 WHdhurst Trail, After-The-Fact
Variance (SlafT: Wendy Boiienberg)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:15 P.M
S. #01-2870 Tim \ aughan. 205 Tonka .Avenue, Lol Line Rearrangemeni and N'anance
(SlafT; Wendy Botienberg)
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:10 P.M
9. #01-2871 Ciiy of Orono. Several Properties on Old Long Lake, Ruann, and
Wakefield Roads, Communily Management Plan Amendmeiil, (Staff: Mike GalTron)
rLANNING CO.MMISSION COMMENTS
10. Rqiort of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings January 27,
2003 and February 10,2003.
11. Other issues for discussion.
12. Planning Commission approval of minutes for Januar>' 22,2003.
13. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on February 24,2003 and March
10.2003.
ADJOURNMENT
____
Public A ttendance
Meeting D ate ^ - l^'i .Jt'. • ^
□ C ouncil
(Zr^jiNNiNG C ommission
□ Pakk C ommission
□ Other
Please nLLourniE infoesution requested
BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS.
PRESENT FOR (Chm accnda)
NAME (please print) ADDRESS NA.ME OR NUMBER
■U.
%., C /-i 1C 6^ /fw A’
4.-&J
‘^r j
^C3- '79^lo'n
7.,
10. _
11. -
12..
U..
.OMMOaMMUIJCAIt
I 1200 J 800 K 4^ 0
UKONO PLANNING COMMISSION
\^nJanday Pcbraary 19,2003 fc;30 PM
nw Kfllf\>arfcwiv - Cowell riiainh*rt
AGENDA
Council Kriirr«cnUll«r: J4>
Al DI» N( K MKMBKRS:
O Ptetwateuta for Ibe public r«ordaltliefrwilpodlu« If you %.li*louddr«*lb«Pljuu»u
Z Conimiitloii. Appikaali Mill be nbeO lo mo%t to Ike froul tabk lu aoturr qurtlkiut uhc
____ .. ___ai______U mm a«lk kArw KimIv In lli
^ VullBuUvviVIB* /vuwmawt* wiuo u#« ^ -- - --
tbr Ckalr au«ouuc« Ike appUtaliou. Tke PlaMiug CoamiKUoa b au ade bory body lo Ik
am Cky CouuciL If action b taken on nny iImM on Ikb afcnda. Ikcy uiti be ubcdulcd for ll.
^ March 10.2003 City Council nedinc oiilm oChembe nded by Ike Chair.
CONSIST
1. M3>2f72 Terry and Chnsiy Mor»c. 2Mf Spairt A»tnue. V njiue
(Su(T: JcnnifCT Chapul) MapG-7
NEW BUSINESS
2. a03-2**5 Kc«n Manley. 1973 Faccmcat Point Road, Variance*
(Suit MikcUafrnxi) MapB-8
3 k03>21M Judy and Dai id Zuwhkc. 2040 Sbadytiood Rond, Variancct
(Suit Jennifer ChaputI .Slap 0-9
4, «03-2R67 Daniel Adanu. 114.9 fonkana Hoad, Vanancet
(Suit Wendy BollentH;i|;) .Map D-b
5. 903-2861 John K Whitman. 1980 SiUb Aicnnc N. Variance
(Staff: Jennifer niapul) Mapl-I
6 803-2869 Dr Robert Gumiwi. 1100 Old Cry ital Bay Rond. CUP and Variance
(SufT Jcnnifn Chapul) MapF-6
—1200 7. 803-2871 siallyandDanWeaihaly. 1214 SVildkonI Trail, Aftcf-Thc Tael
VariaiKC (Staff Wendy Uollenbcri;) .Map A-7
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS 8:15 PSI
8. 803-2870 Tim Vaughan. 209 Tonka Atcaue. Lot lane Rcanange:ncni and VanaiK
—^1600 (SlafT. Wendy Bolltnhcrg) .Map IM
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEAKINGS 8:30 PM
9. 803-2873 City of Orooo. Sc* cral Proper!let on Old Laeg Lake, Rnann. and
W afcelkld Road*. Community Managnuent Plan Am .t A; m. i uff .MiVe ( a. fror)
Map K-3
PL.VVM.NC CO.M.MISSION COMMENTS
10. Report of Planning Commimoo lepreicnlatiie* anending CoutKil meelinp Jamiary 27.
2003 and February 10.2003
11. Other tuuet for diKuauon.
12. Planning Commisinm approia! of minutes for January 22,2003.
13. Selection of reptcicniaiive* for City Conncil fnceting* on February 24.2003 and March
—2800 10.2003
ADJOURNMENT
—1200
OKONU PLANMNG COMMISSION
\\ rdanday Frbraary 19,2003 6:30 r.M
2750 KrWr% fariwav - Cwtacil Clliibm
AGENDA
CmkU Kcfirn«Ua(hc: Jj>
AtOitNCE MIIMHEKS:
nn*t tita ia f«r ike pablk mord ai ibr fnat padiaai If yoa la addm« lb« Pfaaaia
CaniBlttioa. Applkaalt wUI be atkcd la ow%c lo Ibc froal table la aatwer qaeiiioai whe
Ibr Cbair aaa»uam ibe appNcallaa. Tbe Plaaalag CaaMiiuiaa la aa ad%bar> body ta tb
CHy CaaaciL If aciioo h labca oa aay IlcaB a« tbia ageoda. Ibcy will be uhcdalcd fur tb
March 10.2003 City CaaarU awetiag aalna otberaise aated by ihe Cbair.
lONSENT
1. •Q3-2t72 TeiTy and ChnalyMoiac. 2010 S|»ateaA»eaoe,V:naiKe
(SuTT: Jemufa Chapvl) MapC-7
NEW BUSINESS
2. «03-2865 Kevin Manley. 1973 Fageraevv Polat Road, Varianeev
(SufT MikeGafrnm) Map tt-S
3. P03-2J66 Judyand Dav111 i'uHhke. 2040 Shadyviood Road, VanaiKCS
(SufT: Jcnmfa Cliopul) 3lap 1>*9
4. II03-2I67 Daniel Adantv. 1145 foaluiaa Road, X anancca
(Staff Wendy llollenhtnJ 3lap l>-6
5 a03-2J6I John E Whitnun. I5W Sialh Aveaac Variance
(SufT: Jennifer Chaput) .MapM
6. •03-2S69 Dr Robert Gumnil. I lOt OM Cry atal Rajr Raad, CUP and Vanance
(SufT Jennifer Chaput) .Map F>6
7. MI3-2t7l Sally and Dan Weatherly. 1214 WUdbaral Trad. After-The-Fact
Vananvc (SlafT Wendy Uoltenbcrg) 5lap A-7
SCHEDULED PUBl 1C HEARINGS S:I5 PM
8 D03-2870 Tim Vaui;1un. 205 Tuoka Avenue. Lot Liik Reaiiangcnieni artd Vonanc
(SufT; Wendy Uollenbcri;) Map IM
SCHEDULED PUBLIC l!Ey\Rl.\GS 8:30 P.M
9. t03-2S73 City ofOrono. Several Propertica on Old l-onf l ake. Rnaan, and
Wakefield Roadi, Conuiiunity MaiMgcniciil Plan Am.' .W m.(Suff. MileCati'ror.)
.Map K-3
PlwX.NM.NG CO.M.MISSIO.N CO.M.MK.MS
10 Report of Planiung Commiuion feprescnUlivci attending Council meetings January 27.
2003 and February 10.2003
11. Otha issues for divcussioa
12. Planning Commiuion approval of minutes for January 22.2003.
13. Selection of representatives for City Council mectinp on Fcbrttao' >003 and March
10.2003.
ADJOURN5IF.NT
F .
TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM: Jennifer Chaput. City Planner
DATE: Kebruary 3.2003
SUBJECT: #03-2872 Teny & Christy Morse
2080 Spates Avenue
Variance - Public Hearing
IsfiAmg DbtrkI: LR-1A One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acres)
Lot Area: 1.16 acres (50,472 s.f.)
EihibHs:
A Anal>*sis Worksheet
D Application
C Survey
D Addition Plan
E Plat Map
F Location Map
G Property Oumer's List
H Permit Record
I Photos of Property
PcrtiBCBt Code ScetioBs:
1. Section 10.23. Subd. 6 (B); Lot area, width and setbacks: llie following minimum
requirements shall be observed in the LR-1 A One Family Lakeshore Residential District:
side > »n street setback of 50 lect.
Application SooiBiary :
The applicants request a \ ariance to add a second story for closet space on the most
southwcstcrl) portion of the e.xisiing principal structure. 20.6* from the side lot line adjacent to a
street wheie 50'is required.
The applicants submitted an application for a building permit for interior'exterior renovations on
their e.xist .'tg home. StafT reali^ that the request included an addition of second story* living
space within the substandard setback, requiring the applicant to go through the variance process
The property is located on the comer of two platted streets: Spates Av enue and Railroad Avenue.
Although Railroad Avenue is not in use as a street at this point, the Zoning Ordinance requires
ltOS-2872 Ttrry d Chraiy Morut
2 12 200}
Page I of}
F
skSe yaid setbacks of SO' from both streets.
The applicant is proposing the following renovations to the existing structure:
1) Change the structure of the roof above the ”Great Room" (the most southwesterly part of
the structure) to a higher pitch: and
2) Add a second floor area of 162.4 s.f. for two closets (above the northern portion of the
“Great Room").
The existing structure dates back to 1910 and has had a number of reno%'ations since that time.
The port of the structure in question was added to the home in 1971 and is in need of repair. The
contractor. JLM Design Build, has stated that foundation under this part of the home is 12" block
and will support the addition. Proof of this information will be required at the time of building
permit s^iplication. There are no zoning applications on file for this property.
Hardship:
The applicants have included their statement uf hardship in Exhibit B.
Isivea for CoBsMcratioB:
1.
3.
4.
Railroad Avenue is a platted street but is not in use as a street. Should the structure be
required to meet the same setback from Railroad Avenue as it does from Spates Avenue,
an active street?
The proposed addition does not increase the footprint of the existing building or further
encroach into the SO' setback:
The structure within the SO' setback has been in existence since 1971;
Other issues raised by the Plaiming Commission.
Staff Rccooincndalions:
Staff recommends approval of a variance to add a second story ’ on the most southwesterly portion
of the existing princi^ structure. 20.6' from the side lot line adjacent to a street where SO'ts
required.
§03^2872 Ttrry <f Chrun Mone
2/13/2003
Patt2i^3
r
L
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
LR-1A Zoaiag Distrkl Setbacks:
^3’2872 Terry A Christy Morse
2‘12/2003
Page 3 of 3
/V
Setbacks Required Eiistiug Proposed
Front Yard 30*54*54’
No Change
Rear Yard 30*222.6 ’222.6 ’
No Change
Side Yard 10*58 ’58 ’
No Change
Side Yard Street 30 ’20.6 ’20.6 ’
No Change
I
r
L...
CITY OF ORONO - VARUNCE APPLICATION>^AR4NC£A
Initial Application Fee
(SSO.OO per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-confonning structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
ApplcmenP
PateRecehf<r \j
AmoiintPald
PROPERTY INFORMATION__ ^ -
Site Address
Property Identification Number (P.l.D.)___________________
Attach legal description to arolication if not included on required surv'ey.
Date IVopetty Acquired W ____________
I (do)<MonQtLa^ own the adjacent parcels of land.
_(month'>w)
Present use of property: Y
APPLICANT
Zoning District:
residential _othcr (specify).
NimeTPjg£Y £ r>rtgigv rrx)g.«<^-
Address: ZfyfiO Citv:
Phone (home)
Phone (w*ork)
Zip:
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name
.\ddress.
Phone (home).
Phone (work)
City:.
DESCRIPTION OF Estimated Construction Cost S I
Describe request in detail:CtJ WJiiViiii^
gt)' if 9ipe, ^ ____
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area Ut ^\1dth
L/*^etback: __ Front
__ Other 'specify)______
-^sHeeo
Hardcover
Rear
___Lot Cover.
__ Average Lakcsh<
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual pr^^ ^nditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements:
(attach additional sheets.^f necess^)#2
^0-lrz
REQUIRED SUB^HTTALS
AM of the followiag taformarioii mm
ordtr for vour iPDllcatloii to be comidtrtd complete!
ubmitted bv the ■DPlfgallon deadling datt In
1.
2.
/
3. ^
4.
5.
6.
8. __
Completed ^plication Form
Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat‘ map (you
must ol)taiir*llus**list, labels and map -froitHHei^in' Counfy Department, of
Finance, A-603.M$ovt Center, 348-5910).
Certificate orSur\cy (signed by a licensed surveyor) and'lnclude hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy ZVi" x IT for
reproduction.
Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, pro\'ide one (1) copy 8'/r x IP for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8'/r x IT).
List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in
the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s).
As an addendum to this application, please anach a separate list of any other
persons you w ish notified of this application.
Additional items as may be requested by City sufT.
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour
yariincc apnncatlon Is not complete If the above information hai nnt hfen Incliidfrf
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/o: consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
lofocmation supplied is trrjP'^ayd correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature
is tmp.^ayd correct to
i ---Date
OWNER'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 purposespHpvestigaiion and verification of this request.
Owner s Signature ------------------- Date l________
Applicant must have all submi tals into the City offices 25 da>s before the Planning
Cor mission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make ^angentents to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoni.".g Office of this change prior to the meeting.
: j /■j
fT'3/f2-
Pbraiing Commission
Ann: Jennifer
City ofOrono
2750 Kelley Parkuvy
Orono^MN 55356
Terry D. Morse
2080 Spates Ave.
Wayzala, MN 55391
Date: January 24« 2003
RE: Variance Application/Hardship Statement
Dear Jennifer,
This home, the original homestead, was buih in 1910. We purclvised the properly in
1980 after it had been on the market for a considerab^’ k>t^ time. The home had holes in
the original cedar shingle roof, which was able to w^etrome wind blown seeds, rain and
sunshine...the result being plants growing in the attic and ceiling water damage. In
addition, the main floor had about a 2" sag to the center of the house, and there was
virtually no insulation in the walls.
Over the years we have done considerable renovations and additions to not only make
this prop^y habitable, but also an attractive home site in Orono, while enhancing the
charvter of the original farmhouse.
The part of the home we desire to renovate and improve was added to the site in the mid
1970‘s. In as much, the room b 2X4 construction and insubted with minimal efficiency
based on today's standard. Thb proposed project, while not tearing down the original
structure, plaits to address the following:
* In^trove the insubtion efficiency
* Add closet space to the small bedrooms on the second level
* Keep in context of original home (woodwork, roof pitch... .etc.)
The proposed budding project would not expand beyond the existing structure. Although
you may have never seen thb section of "Railroad Avc", it b not an improved road. 1
have neighbors who say one property owner, who then lived in a home which b now
accessed by Heritage Dr., us^ thb section of Railroad Avc. to access his property until it
was vacated (thb section of RaOroad Ave.) in the 1970‘s. In any ’ case, in the 23 y*ears wo
have resided here, the section of Railroad Avr. has never been touched by the bbde of a
snow plow. For these reasons, 1 don't understand the necessity of a setback variance
because the structurei^ within 50* of this "Sidc/Street".
Terry D. J^orse ^
Sincerely’,
(Photo’s Attached)
ft iL__
L«
J"■ ipf
Im .
/* *
iwo.
■>v>v,r;^'.V-.
mmmu
^•■■
£>. ■■ ■
"
‘ •1 t'■ W'* vt-5<Sb^-V
^ Kt^fr»»^A/e 4^/taeJrio
/hx-
Ol-9'n>
A« 'i
iiiif^ r^frffllw,«*m^ (
B>
6/\Z
6f4:e^kit.
C?1)-P?7P-
r
l/iea ^ /Ift"
ifff/ei 4ifc .j
■fiju**H4ACc ^ Kei/n)*J ^ac. ^
-2^ (i/t^hssK ji 75^ S*r¥aitJl/
f(^ dfituiH^, 1U ti>;Ko0s. frt
/f6ad }n ^
7^^^ jfn£C^f‘it:\r'ft> oit^
o \ 'sin.'i
-, ; f . •
'i V -.t." . I
iV'^crr^ •
wc
'Y -I ,.^1^
V '•> K.yn^iiillll
«'
p .. 'Ji^
< ■' iM
X*.
'T'
k^\ ■
(.>^A->lj'(f ijuio. K7i>^
• /' /
% >^fyf(, UJ
::r0y/'O 7^ '
/ f»-0\tti<:. Tyj, r>, J,^-
^''t' f'-^j/'Ty % ^)]y”"^ "7/
r
‘ ,i« #
* if ^>'- I
; I
ii)
Hs.rv
•f-tmmm
i>^/(x
CT
t>t>/r2-
m
lr\tfl^k^ 4^ ^lf*^Mc pairdr^uiu'cL.
X 5V ^
cjr 4U, L^liht, A.h!ii^ UsZ*}, ^tir
df 2090 /f\fc,.
6»5-387>
hn/a
Mary Am SHmmi
ItM Spates Avt.
Waynla,MNSS39l
Jnuvy23,2003
Plannmg CoraraiMiiMi
CityofOrono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Onmo.MN 55356
RE: Application for a variance @ 2080 Spates Ave.
Dear Planning Conanission,
I am aware of the remodeling (buiUing) project ptamied by Teny and Christy Morse, at
2080 Spates Ave.
I have seen the project drawinga/jplan and believe this will be an attractive fanprovement
to the property and to our nei^ibortiood. The Morse's have always strived to keep their
propeity in excdlent repair and a ppea rance.
I have no issues with thek remodeling plan, and would tecomnKnd the approval of the
necessary varianoc(s).
Sincerely,
Mary 4mn Stinson
#2 'V o I
blc/12-
Mkhatl J. LMbtr
IJMlUiHra^Avt.
Crystal lay, MN SSS23
Jtan»y23.2003
Plnng Cocnninioo
City ofOiooo
2750KslByPtakwi^
Orono.MN SS3S6
AppGcatioa for a varianoe @ 2080 Spatas Ave.
Daar Planning CoomiMiofi.
I am aware of the remodefing (bmkhng) project planned by Terry and Christy Morse, at
2080 Spates Ave.
I have seen the project drawa^plan and befieve this wQl be an attractive improvement
to the property and to our neighborhood. The Morse's have always strived to keep their
property in excellent repair and appearance.
I have no issues with their remodeSng plan, and would rec ommend the approval of the
neces sa ry variance(t).
Sincerely,
- V.
J J
r"
V
.::v
.«•
^11/17-
Mafffatta AadcTM*
2tS5 S^lts Ave.
Wayala,MN SS9fl
jMU«y23,2003
Pliminf Gommbnoo
CityofOrono
27SOKdkyPttlnviy
OroM>,MN 5S3S6
RE: Application for a variance @ 2080 Spates Ave.
Dear Ptaoning Coinroisrion,
I am awve ofthe rcmodeliQg (building) project planied by Teny and Christy Morse, at
2080 Spates Ave.
1 have seen the project drawings/planand believe Ihb will be an attractive improvement
to the property and to our nei^dwhood. The Morse's have alwnys strived to keep their
property in excellent repair and appearance.
I have no isiues with their remodeling plaii, and would recommend the qjproval of the
necessary variance(s).
Sincerely,
hlr.jJ.n:. a.
Marietta H. Anderson
/ ? *^.7
"W.-*
r-
r
Mr. Af1 J. To«rBagM«
Spalts Arc.
k )>4lalBiy,MN SSm
Jmm^23. 2003
Pluning ComniHkNi
CiQrofOioiio
2750KdkyPMlcwi^
Orono.MN 5S3S6
RE: Applicatioa for a variance @ 20S0 Spates Ave:
Dear Planoiog Cooniisbii,
I am awmofthe remodeling (building) project plianed by Terry and Christy Morse, at
2010 Spates Ave.
I have aeen the project drawiogs/jplen and beiieve this will be an attractive improvement
to the propert> arid to our rieighborhood. TheMorr *s have always strived to keep their
proper^ in excelleot repair and appearance.
I have no blues with their ttmodeing pbn. and would recommend the approval of the
necessary v ariance(s).
Sincerely,
Art J. Tourangeau
, A 34 . .
-aU-T...
------r
• I. - _
= :
giu--vv ■ •*
HonucoHDSJO^
;losct»...matcm * Vf»m6 noof mcH..
r ,<A... j
; -! •^ ..f* • ■; TTl
'v .V'.
' vA
NEH6ABLeeN0«DINd
TOW5MA««TOWM" <
SHAKf PANELS^
EXTERIORPtltePE^tiyKi'^^^
*N._
.^ •' • ■-/•. * ■• j •-
EX»TIH6fAH«.rR00M
KH^LftTORCMMNASIS-
ON THE eXTERIO*
..<•! i
' ■’ • ! -■ . •
—!-;pr']M»pa^.
T> :*V^
Sfr™1f'!fi"'^;(l’illi!!ll!i[
I
r
M.r
• *»W-.OV
■■k
!fi-
Ift*
^ 0
i____
>:
V‘*
■ p^
; '{••»
t-H-
■'‘Im ’/HJ*
4-
•«•■■.
1 r
■ j * ■ *
-i ‘./ !i.*
^ r, •
r
. a ’♦••
•; if. ■
HpN GH£AT *OOM..ySOOO T l ^R
. J TO MATCH THE EM5TIN6 ..
-----------------------------------rr:::--..|:.- T-^
P----pf-l ~
. .. I .*
!?'■■■■■?{:
TT
i
>.
y.
V:;5
fl-
fi-J.
i.•>/__-“Lot
. — L :.. . _
------------IT4T . . --
PORCH
2Ut««
:X&=z,:^-.3i6-:
•------------A..............->»
? .HIu S
ri
HEH PAVOR
WLK ^HAYl
«.• » »... >
i';
. EMSHMA f AMK,r MOON
TO WMAM Aft a
OM TMC CJtTtttOA
A
•% '.
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN VA>^' 0".
MTS
»•*•, c •
__
’* ' —•• ---------------------------------------------------------------------------—-----------------------------------------------
,U.j , I ■ \
-y. -..
7=!=;-=j:T1^
■• • ‘V • *f'..I' *• •-
ptLXD^t"'
'iq
Dr'iix\
:r .. r-TT-
4 >1
|{ ’,1
l;i ’'“H-4F:L:_r
I :'
^illu
fh
t r
• *^ >*M<nV.«j4o*
•: • -'v y<- .•:
■ c-
• •
»■. >%.i >J073H.-
»«'•«• Mi>«4n«.n4w>c
••0>«»40MM»«aClUMOC« »«w
>«-*»* »M m ma wwx mamma »»i
■r^ >M. a> • <W1«u MM ac»a
m.'JK ■• • •- Iv k'
*■'*>.
■^»«4 c—k. .: * • * i • .*.
•; i ■■>■■,I
^~~=5S) -■'■■• -./■'■'<
r
LlJi
• kMMkvfc'AiB (an n M«M •( AMJS»iL-SBaisr--
MffKMMtaa BMIBMMH . tM
f—
INTERIOR PERSPECTIVE
„mJ_ ........
RcGw^
Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Depailnn^
o 12 J IMIS J ^
mi (31) Sfl 1S7.82 (22)
t« ^ ^
«Si.wf30; S 141 n r23)
8 w 3 0/ >s
8 /4007 ft/p.
lT*^L». W 5 «/jQy
® (50f
r-
CT--
V”' 7 "‘ ,o~/n-z3~(^
/-_. - PareAInfymutlon
PmrcM ID 1011723310MS
NouMNumbrnrlOSO
StTMt Nam* SrATBS AVE
TMenoftlteiiyieconMffMip. tt«eP'*a*'^«comp«itibrtorMbrmA^ *
•ntf dM» ftom Oty. COunf^, end Stale road etAhonliM antf otfMf AouroM.
KX^HOKi wW
mm MTE ti/svts
MTca %m
[PIN COUNTY rOOrCPTY IHPOMATXm SYSTDI
PtorttTv OMNcn list
KPOOT HD. PX4SSM1
PACE S7
TMPAVtT
MM/AM
PMP AOOO
OMNiC NAME
TAVAVCI
NCIK/AONO
TACPATtO
HAMi/AM
f *
SC 1C-11/-2S n CM2
•MSS AEOKSS UNASStMID
MDMiPIN CO MCICNAI. M AIITN
■mCPIH CD MCIOHAI r> A. IN
A17 STH ST N 1520
HXMAPOilS m SMAI
SC 1C-I17-2S SI CM7
•lUA NAILIDAO AVC
HICNAfL J tASMEE
HICNAII, J LASMU
ISA* CAIIMAO AVC
CITSTAL OAV Ml US2S
SC 1«*117-2S SI MM
•2MS SPATES AVI
lUCtCTTA N AMOCtSON ET U,
NACIETTA N AHOECSOH
2CSS SPATES AVC
WAV2ATA IM SSSM
««EN NAME
TAaPAVCO
NAHE/AOOt
SC IC-117-2S SI MTV
MCSC AOOHSS UNASSICHID
TENV ■ t CNCISTIHC N NOtSf
TEMV ■ I CMDISTINC N NOtSI
2CCC SPATES AVC
NAV2ATA MN SSSVl
SC iE-ii7-:s SI me
BCCSC AOOAfSS UNASSIGMED
TCCCV • C CHCISTIME N NOCSC
TCmv i C CHPlSTtMC N NOCSC
EMC SPATES AVC
HAVZATA IM 5SSn
SC IC-IIT-IS SI MSI
SCBSC AOOeCSS UNASSICNED
TFttV D I CNCISTINE N NOSSE
TESCY D • CMIISTINC N NOCSC
2MB SPATES AVC
MAVZATA MN USVl
SC 1B-117-2S SI BBCC
BB< SO ABOCESS UNASSIOMEO
TEC*Y • S CNCISTINE N NOCSC
TECBY C A CNCISTINE N NOCSC
2CM SPATES AVC
HAYZATA MN SSSVI
SC IB-117-2S SI BBVO
B2BAB SPATES AVC
NACY A STINSON
NACY A STINSON
2B«B SPATES AVC
HAYZATA IM SSSVl
SC IB-1I7-2S SI BMt
B2BCB SPATES AVC
T B C NOCSC
TECev D NOCSC
2BCB SPATES AVC
HAYZATA MN SfSBl
M IB-II7-2S SI Me
C2CM SPATES AVC
NACCICT SPATES TCUCANOCAH
NACCIET SPATES TOCANOCAU
?MB SPATES AVC
HAYZATA IM SSSM
TOTAL OATCN SM BMIB
I CERTIFY THAT TNC FACTS RCFCESCNTEO ACE AN ACCUCATC ANN TMIC
CCPCCSENTATION OF TNFOCHATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TNC CCCOIOS
OF THE NCMNEPIN COUNTY MPACTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION. TO Tl|» BEST
OF NY RNONURBC AMO BCUEP.
■•/r
A
PERMIT RECORD
Ui/i
P#r«It Mo,JPate Type of Pen lU
.S0OjXLaU ____
XlEk
_____
-------
______________
---------------------------------li! tLJtQ _____________ __ Jw«;^0tffta£
-tw-------------------------------________________________P.ui^^________
MU------------------------------U; ---------------- _____
______________________Kpr.(V()cfeu__
:S2iD.____________l^_--'2)Dr5 ’SL__________________
3T?_________,3-L^-.gb __
:i/Ak_________6-.J9 - )?7 ______ _________i/in
•■:P6'!
33.il'
TKf-cJi—,__-7----r£h.
_2-63„,
_l5S.t
U478
------------------------.............................................
_____________________________________________________
C 1 ~---- -
^oT7^o
---------------J.-^Il9J._________y>u:cyi___
__________________________________Plurr\b«nC|: 5-p»tu«'q
3 ^7- C ^0-t.C^--------------------------------------------^_____
___/M4£^^/£^.
lC-
Total Fte: $.
EmeredBy: __
Date Received: / - !l/‘ 0
____________ Permit #: l.-ty
CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
An inTonnatioo must be submitted in fuU before plan review will be started.
{pifast print all information)
THE APPLICANT IS: (ci>r/e one) OWNER OR CZSSSaSoI^
JOB SITE ADDRESS: ^ ZIP;
NAME OF OWNER: ^ PHONE: (home)
' I . (WOTk)_________________________
MAILING ADDRESS: CITY:^i^
CavntACTOR: /%/(/f\<iry
CONTACTITOSON;
MAILING ADDRESS: Cm':
STATE UCENSE:
ZIP:
PHONE:
MOBILE/PAGER:
I •
llA^ZIP;:
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER:
MAILING ADDRESS:___
NAME: _________
PHONE;
cm':______
REGISTRATION#
ZIP:
TYPE OF WORK: New
Move____
Addition___ Accessory Stnicture
Romodel/Ateration S»^ Land Alteration
PROPOSED WORK {describe in fletaii): 2tA.— 2:P
STORIES:
u
SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR:
GARAGE STALLS: ATT. DET.NO. OF BEI^OO.MS:____ ____ ___
ESTDUTED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): S j ^
I hereby apply for a buildiiig permit and 1 acknowledge that the information above is complete and
accurate; that the w ork will be in confonnance with the ordinances and codes of the Cit>’ and with
the State Building Code; that I undersund this is Mt a pemit and work is not to start without a
permit; and that the work will be in accordanc^id/utL^^ plan.
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE: *>ATE:
NOTE! Parade of Homes evei^rtgulrt st^rote permit approval by Police Department and
City Council 60 days prior to meeyentT Son-permitted events will not be allowed.
X'/s
0-1^5/O'CC/b
M j' - ..M' "
\iiew ^cioK< tjieuawM/<9PMe^«ri2Ber
X2/S
•*(/b'7-try2.
^lew SPPqE5 sT|205r
r
±3&
'I
'i ipn P‘lmil
-3,*
0i^i
•i-
m-.-nir-lj ••'■
■W*’
_____^v:
laiFII
^.,‘:?-rT5r'W.
<■ V
- ':
V
/itw iJP RPrtuioW) Aveww? fie<?/w sweer-
i
}
Dm* Rtc*iv*<: MM3
DM* AppHcMtoa CMHMcrtrf M CmvIM*: MM3
laMal M-Day ■!**<*» PcrMEiplm: 3-IM3
Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From:
Dale:
Sab|cct:
Mike GafTron, Planning Director
February 13.2003
1103-2865 Kevin Manley. 1973 Fagemess Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing
AppIleatioB Snaunary Gustafson Design, Inc. on behalfof Kevin & Janet Manley, owners of
1973 Fagemess Point Road, has made application for:
1. Approval of after-the-fact lakeshore setback, average setback and 0-75* hardcover vananccs
for construction of a 4.5'xl2* (54 sO attached deck on the west side of the residence;
2. Approval ofa 75-250* hardcover variance for a proposed 12*x23.5* (266 sO deck adjacent to
the garage tunnel; and
3. Approval of a 0-75* hardcover variance for a proposed 20'x20* gravel parking area on the cast
lakeshore side of the property.
Zoalng Dbtrict: LR-IC, Single Family. Vi acre
Lot Area: West of Road: 10.322 sf (0.24 ac)
East of Road: 3,600 sf ± (0.08 ac) (Based on straight extension of north lot line)
LbtofEshibits
A - Application
B-Survey (11-5-02)
C - Site Layout Detail Sheet - Proposed Decks
D - Site Layout Detail Sheet - Proposed Parking Area
E - Plat Map
F - Property Owners List
G - Photos
H - Hardcover Calculations
1 - Plans'Elevations from Prior Applications
J - Assessors Records re: Prior I3«k
Pertinent Code Sections
1.Section 10.22. Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C)1: Structure within 75* of
OHWL: To permit the encroachment of an upper level deck 36* from the w esterly
shoreline.
Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56 Subd. 16(C)6: To permit an etKroachment
into the average lakeshore setback.
Section 10.22, Subd. 2 arul Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L)I: Hardcover in the 0-75* setback:
To permit deck of 54 s.f. in the west 0-75* zone and gravel parking area of400 s.f. in the
easterly 0-75* zone. (42 sf is not over already approved boulder walls).
Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56 Subd. 16(L)2: Hardcover in the 75-250*
setback: To allow the construction of a 266 s.f. deck in the 75-250* setback, increasing
75-250* hardcover from 1119.7 s.f (25.1 %) to 1386.2 s.f (31.1 %).
M3-2MS
1973 Fagmicu nimt Read
Febnury 13.2M3
Page!
On December 9 Council rc\icwcd Ihe application for boulder retaining walls and brien> reviewed
the other outstanding unresolved issues with the property. They indicated the shed on the east
lakeshore must be removed and applicant w as advised to apply for variances for the parking area and
the west deck. Such application has been made, but applicant has additionally included a request
for additional hardcover for a deck in the area between the house and garage. Hardcover and
structural coverage for a similar (but smaller) deck w as denied in a prior application (File tt 02-2778
Resolution No. 4788 adopted April 22.2002).
Because each of the three aspects of this request is in a separate hardcov cr rone, they w ill be treated
individually for the sake of clarity.
I. Gravel Farklag Area - East 0-75* Zone
The most went surv cy on file for the property (November 5,2002) indicates an easterly 0-75* rone
of approximately 3600 s.f based on directly extended lot lines to include the accretions east of the
^ right-of-way. Applicants submitted hardcovercalculations incorrectly include road right-of-w ay
in the area calculation. Staff has received no indication that Manley’s title registration action to
formalize their ow nership of the accretions has been completed. Neither the sun cy nor the detail
sheet indicate any angling of the north line to accommodate the neighboring property owners w ho
expressed concerns at the PC meeting last fall. T.iC result of this is that the total square footage of
Ihe east 0-75* zone is potentially not >rt established, and therefore the percentage to be covered by
gravel parking area is potentially subject to change.
Assuming, however, that Ihe shed will be removed as directed by Council, and that the only other
hardcover in the east 0-75 ’ zone is iht 4(X) s.f. gravel parking area, this >iclds an easterh 0-75'
hardcover of 11.1%. I he survey- sugges ts that the existing paved road surface ends about 8* from
Ihe edge of the right-of-w ay. This either means that the 2(Tx20 ’ gravel area will add 28*deepx2(rw ide
of hardcover, or it means that only 1 2* of the gravel w ill be on the property, with the remainder on
the nghl-of-w ay. It’s unclear from Ihe draw ings w hat is proposed. Worst case is the 28 ’x20 ‘ scenario
with the pavement being about 25' from the shoreline.
The possible parking area in front of the garage is 1 7 -1 9* deep from the door to the irav eled paved
roadw ay. The average compact car is 14* long, and nothing longer than that could comfortably park
in front of the garage w iihout affecting traffic. With a road w idlh only 1 8' -20* wide, there really is
no ability to parallel park cars on the street. A parking area for tw o vehicles on Ihe east side of Ihe
road would potentially be of benefit to Ihe neighborhood as w ell as to the applicant in terms of safety
and reducing congestion. The dowTiside is that cars w ill be parked very near Ihe lake.
If Planning Commission concludes that a 20 ‘x20* parking area is a reasonable request, and that the
existing road and parking conditions as well as the location of the garage near the lot line all support
a hardcover variance, then staff would suggest three conditions to any approval granted:
]
1973 ragtTMti ratal Raa4
Ftbruary 13,2M3
rafc3
2.
3.
Applicant to provide shrubbery* bcmccn the parking area and the lake for screening of
v^icles.
The parking area be limited to a depth of 25* measured from the edge of the traveled paved
road, yielding a 2S-3(y lake setback.
The shed next lo the lake must be removed by a date certain to be established betv^ een
Council and applicant, prcsum^ly as soon as the snou is gone.
l^altasMc Deck-West 0>75' ZiNie
This 4.S* X 1T deck is'as constructed on west side of the house during remodeling. It was eonstructed
without zoning or building permit approval, constituting 0-7S' structure encroachment, an average
setback encroachment, and excessive hardcover. The deck is 36* from the shoreline. This deck w as
not shown on any plans or surveys used in approval of prior zoning applications. It was not shown
on any surveys or plans used to obtain the remodeling permit m Sqitcmbcr 2000. This deck first
appeared on a plan used to obtain a permit for basement remodel and deck over garage in February
2002. however, this deck was not part of that plan review and the fact that it appeared on the plan
is inconsequential.
Staff can confirm that a 160 s.f. deck existed in the past (see Exhibit J, assessors records) but it was
completely removed sometime prior lo or during the remodeling process, and construction of the
new deck has never been addressed.
The deck constitutes additional hardcover and lot coverage above the limits established by City code.
Unfortunately, the hardcover calculations submitted for the two earliest prior Manley applications
do not quite coincide with those submitted for this request. The 0-75* calculations used for
applications 2668 and 2778 show the house at 960 s.f with 60 s.f. of flagstones and a 26 s.f entry
landing for a total of 1046 s.f or 17.8%. The currerr. r*i*pu\il shows the house at 983.7 s.f. with
the approxed landscape plan adding SS5.9 sfof boulou walls, stairway, etc. for' - 'c-deck total of
1539.6 sf or 26J%. Approximately 42 s.f of the deck is not ox cr approved boui'. cr w alls and its
additional hardcoxer yields a new proposed total of 1581 6 sf or 27.0 */».
Mrs#*$ Mirdrrrrr.*iSppIkattaai
•2Ma*S277g
Approved Retataing WaM A
Landseape rtaa. **Optleo 1”it___1House 960 sf 983.7 sf 983.7 sf
Stone Steps and Landmp 26 sf 173.4 sf 173 4 sf
Boulder Walls 382.5 sf 382.5 sf
Flagstones 60 sf —
[>eck —42.
Ttoi$-7yHw4c0v«r 1046 sf 1.539.6 sf I58l6sf
0-75* Zone Area S.860sf 5.860.7 sf 5.860 7 sf
d- 75' Hw4covtr Ftrctmtag*17.8%26J%27.0%
M3-2M5
ItTSFaicrMtfNiMRMil
Fcbniary 13.2M3
fl|«4
The proposed deck serves a sliding glass door located 7-8' above grade. If the deck is not approved,
the applicants will be required to permanently block the door with a railing or other method for
safety reasons.
The deck is at a location in the topography where it will have no significant impact on lake views
enjoyed by the neighbor. The visual impact of the deck from the lake is minimal.
No construction plans for the deck have been submitted. The applicants have not submitted a
hardship statement and should be asked for their comments regarding the need for this deck.
III. Proposed Dedi Between Garage and Honse - 75-250' Zooe
Applicants are proposing a 266.5 sfdeck south of the house and extending toward the garage. This
deck would be adjacent to the garage tunnel and would be 6 ‘ from the side lot line at its closest point.
The deck constitutes additional hardcover. Again, no construction plans have been submitted fbr the
deck, however it is assumed for discussion that no portion of the deck or its railing if one is
proposed, will be more than 6' above existing grade and it would not constitute a lot coverage
irKrease. If the deck has a railing it must meet a 10' setback from the side lot line. For discussion,
it is assumed the deck will not have a railing and its platform elevation w ould coincide w iih the main
floor elevation of the house.
Pre-existing 75-250'hardcover is 1119.7 sf or 25.1%. The proposed deck would increase hardcover
to 1386.2 sf or 31.1 %. There does not appear to be any extraneous 75-250' hardcover that could
be removed to mitigate the hardcover impacts of the proposed deck.
75-250' Hardcover Aaal)sls
Exisliag Proposed
House 333.2 sf 333.2 sf
Garage 558.4 sf 558.4 sf
Dnveway 74.6 sf 74.6 sf
Sidewalk 153.5 sf 153.5 sf
Deck 266.6
Total Hardcover II 19.7 sf 1386.2 sf
Area of Zone 4461.5 sf 4461.5 sf
Hardcover Perccatage 25.1 %31.07 %
Applicant has not provided a hardship statement, and should be asked to comment regarding the
basis for this request and what hardship supports the hardcover van ance necessary. Applicant should
also be asked to confirm the assumptions regarding the railing and the height of the deck above
grade.
M3-2MS
1973 Faterncu PaliH IlMd
Ftbrvary 13,2MJ
Pages
Stalrmeat of Hardtliip
Applicants have not provided a statement of hardship. Applicants should be asked for their
testimony regarding this issue.
Issves for Cooskkrolioa
1. Do the neighborhood impacts of not hashing sufficient parking a\-ailahlc on street or on site
act as a hardship that supports the gravel parking area variance'^
2. Does Planning Commission find any sufficient hardship to grant the hardcover, average
setback and 0-75' structural encroachment to allots the deck on the lake side of the residence?
3. Are the staff assumptions correct regarding the nature of the proposed deck south of the
house? Arc there any valid hardships presented which suoport the hardco\or variance
necessary for construction of this deck?
4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff RccoflunendatioD
Staff finds no hardship to support a hardcover variance for the deck » n the south side of the house,
and recommends denial of that request.
Staff suggests that w hile the deck on the west side of the house w ill have minimal impact on lake
views enjoyed by neighbors, and w ill have minimal visual impact from the lake, there is no apparent
hardship supporting the existence of the deck. Staff rccoHimcnds denial of this request, and removal
of the deck w ithin 60 davs in addition to w hatev er measures are required by the Building Code to
make the door safe.
Staff supports the hardcover variance for the gravel parking area, based on the lack of on-street
parkinr in the neighborhood, and recommends the follow ing conditions of approval:
1. Applicant to provide shrubbery between the parking area and the lake for Kreening of
vehicles.
2. The pacing area be limited to a depth of 25’ measured from the edge of the traveled paved
road, yielding a 25-30* lake setback.
3. The shed next to the lake must be removed by a dale certain to be established between
Council and applicant, presumably as soon as the snow is gone.
OpiioBS for Actioa
1. Recommend denials'approval per staff recommendation and add any additional conditions
you feel are appropriate.
2. Tabic for further information (specify).
3. Other.
CITY 0|;ORONO - VABI^^IE APPLICATION
ImtfaA^jjcation Fee i25o!wy
( (SSO-O^b” each additlQaarvarianc^^^^
RenewaH^ance Fee SISO.OO
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-confonntng atructures S250.00
AAer-the-Fact Fees (Double qiplication fee)
PROPERTY INFORhUTlON
Site Address t ^*7\ ^
AppMcallon » 0^ ^
Dale Rccehed
AmoantPaid
Property Identification Number (P.LD.)__________
Attac'i legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired.
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent pareels of land.
Present use of property: residential ___^othcr (specify)
Zoning District: ________________
.(month^’car)
APPLICANT Phone (hoBM)
Phone (work) ^44 * 4zTrName _______ __
Addre^t^^<g^l^^;^^^ City:_^^ \4HaAVzip~
O^l'NER (if different than applicant)
Name MjjuLJLy
Address:City:,
Phone (home)________________
Phone (work)
______________ Zip:________
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail:
t»C-
Estimated Construction Cost $
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
_ Lot Area
Setback:
___ Lot Width
Front Side
Hardcover
__ Rear
Lot Cover;
__ Average Lakesh*
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ________
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the foUowhig iBformitloB mml be lubmltttd hv ihe annHcation dgadline dat» in
order for vour ■pplicaHon to he coiiiliier»«| comptgt*!
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
Completed Application Fonn
Certified Property Ch^irers List of owners within 150*, labels and plat map (you
must obtain this list, labeU and map from Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910).
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/*" x 11" for
reproduction.
Topographic survey (existing and pro|^sed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade a.^ proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11" for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8^i" x 11").
List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in
the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(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 Acaheant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remembe na
aPblication is not complete if the above informaHon has not included.
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature _________Dale /w.
OWER’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
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 re Jew meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make ^angements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
u. o o
tf .V'*
DRAfTtli \Mcinlicr J. 2(JU^
ADVANCE SVKVEYING A ENGiNEEKING CO.
5iai s H»> N« 101 Mmmcm Iml MN S5MS nMKl«52i474 tvm (•>s;i474
suRvtvRm A'£Kf/V d JANET MANLEY
SimvtVED N«»o«hcfM0:
LECiAL DLSC'RIPTION ------
Lm 7. Hennepin Cminiy. Minnruiu. and the «.emiun« ki tanl kM lyinp het»evn ilic
e«un«iuii« wnithea%ietl) hi the Uiorc of Lake Minnetonka of iIk mmbeastetiv ami «iuih»cuerl> lim.* of
mh I kM and Mnnheaticrly of Ac MiulhcatiCTly Ime of Under d*e Linden A*enoe. a> dedKaied in wmJ plai.
•huh Miuiheaueily line i» 40 feet touiheaMerly. a« mc»\umj ai nghi anyie«. from ihe wHiilica»ieTly Ime
of wh I Im '
limitations ik NOTLS
1 Shooing the length and dircciian orhoundary linc» of dK legal di>enptiim you
rurmihed
2 Shinmag iht Iwauon of rirumg mpiovcniemv •« deemed rtnpimam
3 hcRmgnco monuineiMeur «cnfymgoldinanuimi«iomark ihecumcixofihcproperty
4 Whale •ctho»prwpo»ediinpwi»cmew%luyoor|iftgiem »e arc noia^ familiar oiA
ytwr plane a« y«M are mo arc oe a» familiar wtih the re^cmem» of gmenoncrnal
agerxick a\ ikcir onpluycce arc We tofgcw Ihai you rmteo the Mirtey iiluinrirm thai Ac
propovale arc •hat ywi imeiid ami mRmm the toryey ki toch goyctnmaual apcmyce a» mat
hatpc iwiMlKtain met your pnofcct lo gam rhew appimaK if ytm can
STANDARD SYMIKH.S A CX>NVLNTK>SS ^ i
CXmncy 1/3- lUpipe oMh pUmc phig hearing Sure Liecmr Number «»:f< wt, onkyi ^
oihcnaiye nuecd 7r •
I hereby cenify liui ihu plan, apecincwtaii. repon or wyTv trxi prepared by me or
umkT m> difixi itMin and lhai I am a Ircvnicd hiircvyiMul Ei^ioecr jad
P(olc%Maiul Swrtcyur under the laot of ihc Suu: of Minncioa
^Tinmoa H ___________
11 Parker I* E A P S No 9235
GRAPHIC SCALE
« m
i mmn
.Sjl: jf
/
i>WG. NO. ae,
B'l
>r boundary lines of die description you
iiprovcmcnu we deemed imponanL
ng old monuments to mark the curoerN of the
nents to property, we arc not as familiar with
miliar widi the requirements of yovcmmcntal
suggest that you review the survey to confirm that the
Jmii the survey to such govenimaiial agencies us may
gain their approvals if you can.
NTIONS:
plug bearing State License Number 9235. set. unless
?-2
ification, report or survey was prepared by me or
ai I am a liccn.sed Prorcssiunal Engtruxr and
W.S of the State of Minnesota.
235
;raphic scale
w
( m For )
ifbow miary lines of ihc legal description you
t*pruvcnicntt wc deemed importani.
ng old monumcnu lo mark ihc comers ofihc
ncnl’i to your properly, we arc noi as familiar wiih
miliar with the requirements of guvcmmcnial
Miggesi that you review the survey to confinti that the
Knit the survey to such guvcmmcnuil agencies as may
gain their approvals if you can.
NTIONS:
plug bearing Slate License Number 9235. set. unless
/'
ification, report or survey was prepared by me or
at I am a licensed Prufcssional Engineer and
ws of the State of Minnesota.
IRAPHIC SCALE
m m
( V fBT)
V/<*
- 21±
found 1/2**
i
sus
ft
Li
T'§
LOW FLOOR ELEV.
938.0 ■- I- •
c
>
'“Wo
oz
H
H
U
W
U
(/)zoz
oo o
iJ ww o
HO I 2
8
CMO *OCO
found 1/2
04-
FOUND 1/2”
.'/ / <s_> ^ <4^
1--
0{]
^ Ni'JOv,.
I >o
3
0o
2
0
h:T"A-
7
5
9
/
Chilion Stone STcop
- ---— --------------
MM MTf tVlt/M
UTCII Its ^■OWiTV QNNCK IIST
nm MMf
TMMVn
WM/MM
*• la-iir'n i« nm
Jl!5"*** nJtm K ran? t tai
JMN K
rMiMiss pr N
MmTA fM inn
« •••y
/*«*■»««' »^niT HO * L MUV I L A UCLAV
WUIAW L 1 U»« A nUY
i*n rAStmns font n
mavzata m inn
KNiT NO. OZAinn
PAOC 1
M i«-iX7-n i« nn
pSssimt CT
m nin
ran AOMi
MMn MM
TARPAm
nank/aom
so 10-117-ZS lA Mff
. won** rawT m 0 L mop 1 e p Lit ■
OAO» mop / CATNV III
lOOS PAONNIU PT 10
mavzata m inn
so 10-117-n 14
:‘rm,^r;Ts;;iT ~ Ks%isi!n**ss;r^7
navzatami inn '
ir:
total oatch Stz flMi
=Ns t '■
CO
■
f “V
S-.>
kS:^ (
tCPKllNTATlON oTlSo2Anorjr??AjJjASor Tn NIIMPZN COWITY5SlTKMT^^2in,I*^* «»*««»* TNI MCOm or m iNONLioei aS» wiiiJ. *" ^ raoPWTY tahation, to tnc kst
OATC 3-n-aZ .^
*2mo Rster Beyr^
RB Fbgmiea
yifuo pn^M.
lA}e^'r YfiASHa
V h . .^\
imm
m C Wi
» . k.
^2MK> Mar Begr^
ms Fbgmea t4->4
rSJ wur
1973tegtmm4jPG 1973 ftgenwss 5 JPS
mr •
LEiK.* -ky£:.<^
1973 ragwnMS JPG
'
101^
l873fagimMt7 JPG
Jwv
1973 fagimMft 6 JPG
' .iW. ■
1973'J9tm«M9JPO
m::mi mm&^
rElSD ^
1973 tagtmns JPG 1973 fagwneu 2 JPG
tm. .«l«
V:--'
_ H**DCOTOW^^ula .TION worksheet ff^r tf'l
setback ZCfilEs (cncuioioo ^0|7^ 75W* UO^OO*^]^]^0O>lMO'
LSABDOOVER Bf CONE
A. Boom
B. '’Oia|e
, " * . *•••
C. Diivtwijr
D. SUtwiDc
E. F«do/Dcck
E. Lindic<p«
Uodciliia
ByPUKle
OtFAde
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
2JO-SOO*^^Jj^OO.lOOO*
• •••'
. iv.: V.• •••V
.S.F.
.S*F.
.S.F.
.SF.*.
.S.F.
S.F.
1___1SF.
TOTAL HAUDCOVER IN 20NE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
+. B XlOO
S.F.
S.F.r-
ynoposEn haupcovi ^ in cone *
A. Mouse ____________ 3
•1VMX
B. Oarxt«
C. Driven
VIMS
D. Sidewalk
£. Pecle/Deck
p. Xjuise^
Uodcdila
By Plutle
OrPebrie
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S.F.
S.F.
>.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 ZONE *
I ••. Vi
Jf xlOO «
.3-
S.F.
S.F.
:'y
SETBiLCKZOMEt (CIRCLEOKE)
niAimc3nfvnp*r.ft?w
HARDCOVER CALCULA'
-------0-73*
(RESHEET
UOdOO*
A. Bo«M
« •
B. ' *Oua^ • . •••• •
‘ C. DtivVwiar
D. SUewdk
E. VaSoniedc
F. Lindscipc
Uodcd«la
By PUsde
OrFA.^e
O. OA«r
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-;V-:
TOTAL HAltDCOVER IN TONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A •• . • . ♦. B xlOO .•
ynnPOSED HABPCQVlgR Pf ZONE
A. House
B. Ctrei*
C. Drivewv
D. Sidewalk
E. Petlo/DKk
F. Iifldsc^
Uodedala
By PiuOe
Or Fabric
O. OAcr
yfUA.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ioo-l'ooo'
3».g-
.S.P.
.S.P.
.Sf.
TOTAL HARDCOVER L; ZONE *
lua/kL PROPKTY AHCA D(ZQNB *
f , A^-:> ■*- B
•* . ' * ; *
b s i.
__________S.F.
m. g .s-p.
____^S.F.
_____S.F.
_____SF.
_____S.F.
____S.F.
___:SF.
11 M.t.7 S.F.
isf^^
S.F.
’S.F.
’S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
(ms’') S.F.
------ ~~SF.
' -gfcfc.g.
Alii Al.^
________X100 - Jir:^—■
Sl.onY,
S.F.
[S.F.
S.F.
‘S.F.
'S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
Sm^CKZONC: (CnCLC ONE)
KMCTIMC MA»l>novy |M f|>wr
A Howe
hardcx >ver calculation worksheet
Ts-isr ISOSOO*
B. Omge
C Driveway
D. Sidtwalk
E. HMDt \
F.
By PlHtic
G. Odwr
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _♦ B X 100
FBOfOREP HABnrnvya TiOMf
A. House _____________ ,
B. Gar^e
C. Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E PaikVDeck
F. Landscape
Uaderiain
By Plastic
* G. piher^
#r
TOfAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERn* AREA IN ZONE
_________ ♦X 100
//'5
soo-itor
S.F.
S.F.
SF.
S.F.
.S.F.
.S.F.
S.F.
.S.F.
S.F.
SF.
S.F,
S.F.
S.F.
ST.
ST.
ST.
ST.
. S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
SF.
It 00,0 ST.
*400^S.F. A
S.F.
H
\\
• P
#.9!'7-7,Q
-- . If.ip HP
•/
• ^
I •
O Ftanco Ifie.
*• I
.2 I
;.. . |. .v:.... i ..
• f
*:
;
Wo'(Plt>o> '
#r|iAl|i*Pi| Hofp
i
I.
j ‘
kjww I------
^ ' - i x_a
T=T
0
Lily:^ ■ .kJii L
IQ T c5TL
^il
Wf
C a.
$U.
iH
t ••* >
p«M 4i^u iii»p |pa*i> m1 li!
-iL:* - • ‘ /'
i
WM rUX}R F\>M
1/4- -[ ’ '■ ] •• »r»/
I I - ttr. r*rw«.>
I 1 - tr^nt w/u
r
V
t -1
I • I
;r-s-
V •*>--------—*—
__
I *-1 1,1
rr •“TT
€ TIB «
•]■\
1 <I w^'C!
jN s /f-
-irfj^
*m oi» i«r
/
------------------ -j,.
j
■ii
uau utU , -III I
^-U l/J
T
,i! '
t‘i
:_i
/.. ___-•-1 -_!cf—t -L'i-f---------------■- --------f
.•* -.• I r ‘_____________________ i
w%x Lte
CAT UC
I - W<U» TO CtMO
"7^ - trff wAL
I - »rw rv»e
I - B0fq»
flOVIDE TVEATID PLATES «>{EM
UYQ>aNCONOtEIE
i-liU-o-u
V I I/I
5^^*
K2MM9
rflirATkins
a MI5Jn».r MN cwoo rcn a\*nv^ «oi roip><7 «i£«/u»
UW PSP AW» A LATPA ncf <* Per IT wu ec "Tc
PMPc* 'veunr <r onxM ro
\znro "TCft eAP/«iTC5
oaticses.
o ee»tfArTC w<»p. <n*u cat
ro *ix KC4UiPObOir9 er k* *
6 lUZM spcertp vtxm ca€»ryz kAPT tt/cty nr reLUv.** TWeop«ee» er r
PAY UMWSSAt «nit>*r»i r
MTCMS Pe«»A» MMt M POMM
PCTAK** WALL V muar
tt3tjhasv.tLc<SiUicuaLK:
us::ii oTftiRfctifcTt
g nr cantAcrai ovtx Lt>
»y rnx> erceiv. «ll
I ptJty^rJkMS. tirvAT^p
! UK^r^n, zjc or c.n.c.T« .
o»T»« catmmcTiCh m%h /
»o>rNf Ttf n« rew
eOtt/TKJcrieH
b AU P»yO««*P *weiv»6 »
I weiL". r*KA cn. t«.vtKrti
C30«r»C» 0»«STRj6.rL'*l SPAi r
mx> crrern> pr nc
' wr f\p>A9tP re- t»«
: 9JtcairnAciat tvat ro
r*tiu*rvn <r awy wetiL ni
I vtFrtp pm?a5 a>p srviL ap:
I HV ft KtTTT* *« LN n|
flrv»’ WAY*’ firwtrrtP
e Tn: ncAitA n*p u«re *o<v»rT*xs ce»tXii>>Y« r>i
i«aroc96 (T nr D«»»f ' ru_F»«y. Afr nru awutt*; AF» m»r ng* nAr»» w»»
I it'-eAC? Arc «»<sni!jcirr i.
a»P<»AT> AtTVl «tXP Ct^tA.
|f4^«*KrTe». nr' ca:r^Acron •vu taut
I DTTWisrMPY I cactrst^ pseatTYAricn or
eiLPifc n.p»«» ctMXTVN Ht
I fcw tPisruxTicv wibx n.p’
1 *t. WAL A£A«r • APOIC A
pr«’i»p-rt.rTY r<x nr
fH£«KvAr^»t ep nr» p«£»Tf
« TYc ce»nt«.rc* om
nr APerfTeT^e-rrtu
Mcrvi-nY «p AKY p»A<p^f'-t.
fcrATDr ee*rSTiAjtricw
I «WA-VY» Arc AtnjAl YfU’
MHa/ I nt^ m fyjo, n >M
UA* - r-^
r
TO: Chair Smith ami Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner
DATE: January 31,2003
SUBJECT: #03-2866 Judy and David Zoschke
2040 Shad>'>vood Road
Variances - Public Hearing
Zoniag District: LR-1C One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (0.5 acre)
Lot Area; 0.4 acres (17,467 s.f.)
Exhibits:
A Analysis Worksheet
D Application
C Hardcover Calculations
D Surrey
E Deck Plan
F Average Lakeshorc Map
G Plat Map
H Location Map
I Topography Map
J Property Ov\ncr’s List
K Pcmiit Record
L Permit for 1993 2"^ Story Addition
M Photos of the property
N Photos of the property by applicant (1 993)
Pertinent Code Sections:
1. Section 10.22, Sub2. 1 (U) and Section 10.56. Suhd. 16 tO(6) Average Lakeshure Setback;
The average lakeshorc setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions
of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshorc lots.
2. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LK2): Hardcover within 75* to 250 ’:
Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25® o hardcover.
3. Section 10 03. Subd. 14 (C): Lot Coverage By Structure; For all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total
area, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 1 5®/o
of the lot area.
n0.i-2Sfi6 JuiA aftj Dti\ ij Zoschke
2/n 2003
Page ! of 5
Applkali*B Sunmao:
The applicant requests the following variances to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. (42.3 ’ x 12’)
lakeside deck, enclosing I SI s.f as patio aa*a:
1) Lot coverage by structure: 2.848 s.f. (1 6.3%) where 2.620 s.f (1 5%) is permitted;
2) Hardcover within the 75’to 250’ lokeshore setback /one: 6.442 s f (87.08%) where
2.821.5 s.f (25%) is permitted;
3) Average lakeshore setback: encroaching 21’.
In 1993. the applicants added a second story onto their home. The remodeling and expansion
resulted in the removal of the roof of the existing deck as well as the oiiginol ratling system. The
building permit did nut identify a new deck us port of the approval nor did it question the amount
of structure or hardcover on the property at that time. It is the City ’s ptdicy that a second story
may be added to a home w hen the foot print area of the building is not incre.i>ing. regardless of
hardcover e.xccsses. There liave been no zoning applications on this property in the past
The applicants w ish to replace the existing deck for safety reasons, due to the deterioration of the
floor boards. The proposed patio enclosure does not increase the size of the existing deck but
may impact the lake views of neighbors. The lot area and lot w idth of this property ore less than
required by the zoning district.
Lot coverage by structure
The existing amount of structure on the property exceeds the ma.\inium permitted by 228
s.f Structure on the property includes the house (with deck) and a shed in the rear yard.
1 his application does not proptise to increase or decrease the amount of structure on the
property. The proposed deck will replace the existing deck within the same square
footage.
There is no building permit on file for the existing shed. A review of aerial photographs
show3 that the shed was in existence prior to 1970. At that time, a building permit may
not have been required since the building code allows structure up to 120 s.f to be built
without a permit (although the City has required permits for all such structures since
1996).
To reduce the amount of structure on the lot and bring the property closer to conforaiity ,
the shed (128 s.f) could be removed or reIcKated under the deck. The removal of tlie shed
would reduce the amount of structure to 2.720 s.f (15.57® o)
2) Hardcover
There is significant hardcover liKated within the 0-75’ and 75’-250’ hardcover zones,
none of which has had building permit approval but has existed since before 1970 (as
shown on aerial photographs). Even thou^ the proposed deck replacement is located in
the 75’-250’ hardcover zone, it has been the City ’s practice to request removal of
hardcover in the 0-75’ zone when excesses c.xist.
»OJ-2>S66 unj Du\iJ Zuschke
2u:m
Page 2 of S
AppUcalioii SiiniiiMry:
The applicant requests the following variances to replace an existing S07.6 s.f. (42.3* x 12*)
lakeside deck, enclosing ISI s.f as patio area:
1) Lot coverage by stnicture; 2.848 s.f. (1 6.3%) where 2.620 s.f. (1 5%) is permitted;
2) Hardcover within the 75*to 250* lakeshore setbwrk /one: 6.442 s f (87.08%) where
2.821.5 s.f. (25%) is permitted;
3) Average lakeshore setback: encroaching 21*.
In 1993. the applicants added a second story unto their home. The remodeling and c.xponsion
resulted in the removal of the roof of the existing deck as well as the oiiginal railing system. The
building permit did not identify a new deck as part of the approval nor did ii question the amount
of structure or hardcover on the property at that time. It is the City*s poliev that a second story
may be added to a home when the foot print area of the building is not increasing, regardless of
hardcover cxcc.s.ses. There have been no zoning applications on this property in the past.
The applicants wish to replace the existing deck for safety reasons, due to the deterioration of the
floor boards. The proposi^ patio enclosure docs not increase the size of the existing deck but
may impact the lake views of neighbors. Ilie lot area and lot width of this property are less than
required by the zoning district.
1) Lot cov erage by itniclurr
The existing amount of structure on the property exceeds the maximum permitted by 228
s.f. Structure on the property includes the house (with deck) and a shed in the rear yard.
This application docs not propose to increase or decrease the amount of structure on the
properly. The proposed deck will replace the existing deck within the same square
footage.
There is rto building permit on file for the existing shed. A review of aerial photographs
shows that the shed was in existence prior to 1970. At that time, a building permit may
not have been required since the building code allows structure up to 120 s.f to be built
without a permit (alihougli the City lias required permits for all such strvictures since
1996)
To reduce the amount of structure on the lot and bring the property closer to conformity,
the shed (128 s.f) could be removed or relocated under the deck. The removal of the shed
would reduce the amount of structure to 2.720 s.f (15.57* o).
2) Hardcaver
There is significant hardcover located within the 0-75 ’ and 75**250 ’ hardcover zones,
none of which has had building permit approval but has existed since before 1970 (as
showT. on aerial photographs). Lven thou^ the proposed deck replacement is located in
the 75*-250* hardcover zone, it has been the City’s practice to request removal of
hardcover in the 0-75* zone when excesses exist.
Juih and DtiuJ 7o\chke
2is:tm
Page:cf5
0-75* HardcoN'cr Zone:
The Cit\'*s policy is to allow one 4’ wide stairway with landings, and retaining walls (via
CUP/v*ariancc) within this zone. This property has both wihhJ and stone rctainiii^ walls
and two sets of stairways, varving from 4* to T in width, accessing the lake.
Since there are two sets of steps to the lake, one set (49 s.f.) could potcnlially be removed
to reduce the total hardcover to 1.292 s.f. (23.95*/i) from 1..14I s.f. (24.86“ b). The
retaining walls arc r,jccssar>' for the applicants' use of the properly. There is a significant
amount of concrete patio and walkway (821 s.f.) within thi.s /one. In the future, if repair
of the concrete patii> and walkway become necessary, they should be remo\ed.
75 ‘-2SO' Hardcover /one: There is 3.621 s.f. of hardcover in this zone beyond the 25*?b
permitted. Although this is excessis-e. there are few areas of hardcover that are
unnecessary for the use of house as it exists today. Doors on either side of the htrmc use
the concrete walks for access; and the concrete steps and Hat stones on cither side of the
home provide access to the back of the lot.
Potential hardcover reduction in this zone could be accomplished through reduction of
the driveway closest to the southern property line. If the driveway was reduced by 264 s.f.
(44‘ X 6*). the hardcover would be reduced from 6,442 s.f (87.08*b) to 6.178 s f
(5474“b).
Additionally, if the shed (128 s.f.) and patio blocks surrounding the shed (1 16 s.f) were
removed In the future, the hardcover would be reduced from 6.178 s.f (.^4.74%) to 5.934
s f (82.58“/b).
1 here is a significant amount of rock on plastic throughout the property, which is
considered non-conforming hardcover. All plastic and fabric must be removed on the
property before a building permit will be issued This includes; 70 s f in the 0-75’
hardcover /»me. 1.267 s.f. in the 75*-250’ harJciwer zone, and 169 s.f in the 250’-500*
hardcover zone Since plastic is not a permitted form of hardcover, these numbers arc not
included in the total amttuni of hardcover reported for each zone
Average l.akeshore Setback
In 2002. a certificate of occupancy was issued for the adjacent new home at 2060
Shadywood Road. The new home wns built farther back on the lot than the previous
home, changing the average lakcshore setback of the applicant's home.
1 he property to the north. 2032 Sliadywood Road, is closer to the applicant's property
than the new home to the south. The proposed enclosed patio area is also located within
their view of the lake. A letter is included in the packet from this neighbor, stating that
their views will not be impacted by the 21' encroachment due to the higher elevation of
their home and the dense vegetation between the properties
n0h2S66Juth anJ DuuJZoschKiC
2'n :ooj
Page i o/5
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area 4k Wkltli:
LR-IC Required Actual
Lot Area 43.S60s.r. (01 acre)0.4 acres (17.467 s.f.)
Lot Width 100'75'
Hardcover Calculatioas:
Dblaace froM
shoreline
Total area
in setback
Alhmcd
hardcover
Exbting
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
0-75*5.395 s f.None 1.341 sf.
(24.86%)
1.341 s f.
(24.86* «)
No Chanse
75-250’11.286 s.f.2.821.5 s.f.
(25%)
16.442 s.f.
(87.08%)
16.442 s.f.
(87.08%)
No Cbanac
250-500’786 s.f.235.8 s.f.
(30^i)
192 s.f.
(24.42%)
192 s f
(24.42%)
No Change
Lot Coverage B> Stmefare:
Total Lot Area Alkmed Lot Cos crage Exbting Lot
Coverage
Proposed Lot
Coverage
17.467 s.f.2.620 s f 2.848 s.f.2,848 s.f.
(15%)(16 3*b)(16.3*i)
No Change
J5M Jtuh tmj Daiui ZoKhkg
:V200J
PageSc/S
AurtteHw* aiTlrL.
Date Received /•/7 -D^
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Inititl Application Fee S2S0.00
(SS0.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SI 50.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming atnicturet S2S0.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double qjplication fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address
Property Identification Number (P.LD.)_
Amount Paid nO
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired______________________________
1 (do)also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Present use of prope^. V_residenlial ___pother (specify)
Zoning District: IfH-CT____________
.(monlh^ear)
APPLICANT! .
Name Dtlihd
Address: fliiI'EKfIfTJTTSPrjIR
Phone (home) fSS-HTh
____ Phone (istitk) fiS -1^73 - /> y
City:_ OnCyif Zin: Sb
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name
Address:City:.
Phone (home)..
Phone (woric)_
_ Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S ZS‘%000
Describe request in detaih {iittx {00h~:R/tiHkJi
to Y srkfy LAil . PJi/ M^JhM//r/onff <i,VAaf ,
V • (attach idditional sheets if necessa^
He.
VARIANCES REQUIRED
___ Lot Area
Setback:
___Lot Width
Front Side
Hardcover
^ Rear
X Lot Covera
Average Lakesho
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty er unusual property conditions preventine
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ______________
(attach additional sheets if neces:
6
taiy)
- 2 ;
/T
& J2./1
1.
2.
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the folkmiBf i^form■^lol^ mu«t be lubmtttcd bv the application dcadHne date in
order for vour ■ppllcitkiB to be comidertd complete:
_ Convicted Application Form
_ Certified Property Owners List of owners within ISO*, I^ls and plat (>t>u
must obtain this list, labels^and map from Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt CenteC 348*5910).
_ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surve>t>r) and include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'// x 11" for
reproduction.
_ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy SV'i" x II" for reproduction.
_ Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8'/r x 11").
__ List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in
the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s).
_ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any o^cr
persons you wish notified of this application.
_ Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour
variance appllcatloB is not complete if the above informaHon has not been included.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (suff time not covered by original fee pa>ment)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature Date ^-------------------------
OWNER'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 Signatur^ Date
Applicant must have all subniitials into the City offices 25 days before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicanli must be present at all scheduled review mectlogs of the Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in >-our place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
7/uajy
MINNEAPOLIS
y<L
Olaa laktsij#^ u)Lt ^ ntfasures Sc‘jt /J^ u >a -
Cjtt/^rlfJ A. ^otfC ■Av Stf. TAi
iTutiP 4tJ be ✓‘f/WCi/cl bte^tUiL. ftf ft
t/y /4^V# /) f 4-t
fg^wg
Aicrlcii Cflircf «f lleiiililtif
A Si.t^ LJiKt^ tM. fifi/'aOi J. Du4' fa# f-g/vt|ii/if rJtt# Jti j
-t £.
Ati
rl^t •/•At- 4^t- ^ot# J£> P Pm,a^3. A^Ou;
k^\ fl^tl iS t4/m&<vfcl< I (^4^ SLtk/*i.4-l ’£.J r<AA.^- /i/e.»» i< r<-
r p^t^J fifilc
A/wj A.i </ A. St^A.t( _Qt.tr^ t-L /// y 1.1 j A/^Ji
f*kAn^# S Itu^i J ft** t/ft^ 4lt CtfA’A//*m C a ^€A. i*g *
pA.iV tb*jl kt lA'rt'/i/w -f-Lf- /^p/'tiut J ejt.'i I'.’ij
J/;Or» CtnCt. A/\
~TbU/f l-ruc^i'4A/*^ Q/1 6t»^ic
^ i*4Jt -/^Xi W<L ai 3L^ <ft. 4^44~ g<^ cj 4>-t-
• 44<«*t. i<\/c A/rg«.<i^_ fC<Jucc<l_S^^/rucf^/^c. ccfCi*«;^g-
h'^QSV rg f/. iL^litA li/C iV VJt.
)l OfcC /V-ilxCC. Cj/\^ t*/“'^Itg<** C4» t-AMt.1* i\euCt. £n\ A ^»>t Ic.
^(\<' IA p_L^ , A_c\ 5? r^ k f J/<< e, Tfi'l'r^/f ./icn.t /
"TXt- Sii^ po/»^A ii>.'/l ht. picefj "^hc /)cri-k r/itl cJrer.Ji^
Aa\ fio ^>i.i/-.Vi^ ^^.VftCy if^ct £i/%d t* iirkerci^At fAkiC.tk.
rtLi..’ ^lig- pnrtvk f ii/./ij r 4"ltAi-. L ^ Attu
Afitf. rt *-*.L‘%A:eJ. A/wi 44tf^
^ > k4^ /.‘a«- 11-/*. f/•« gn \ Lje^t^ £ii.^ti4-ifA Un4~»l rfif.i u;Ji(>-i c^ir /It.^/i i^tv*
•fX' ^/t< j f* Jft<ngJ l^/g.i/1 ^ 4~n/e> "f~ort. cit'ic.t
bc-l-A heiiStl A/1<) b^:/f A la/^^cfy Ca "Hit. Scu4-/if.«rt ntcii'
MINNEAPOLIS
T4- ii/Ai KhMcA Pn/-4l></» i^Acic
if lAiinC Sn^A
-4*keiV J\tuii- it Ce4' r>n4gL Ou^t
Airrlcai C«llc|( %t llfiiaititg)
tru^ rturr. fticd reu.'ito^J al.^
rl Cg\^Uu%. icii ‘.'c<f^ ^U£pr^4 ‘ i4‘.
^ llflri/ C^^^/“* p/'a L It I €Jl*i'l‘^ f 'i~ LtiAulJ
li'Wc io me Ati/e^ ^.1- ij.cf nP ;/.
J^£1 U/g utrL4,J*x rtg>!9t>t4 <3 />
fStc. Je.hfir‘ /rf J2'fX‘0±) c^J
f
h/l/^^ 4^ Jetvk. Cl4~
^—Airiak^ rcJute. /n gont/Jc/‘<,^i>>,
...
r
Arthritis and Rheumatology Consultants. RA.
J4»p C GcfT.»n M 0
Jcdy K Hsfgfcv# M 0
S*rr»o. MD
Pvji h iVa/u. M D
Ja»*’evL w*'*c« 00
K um F Zif^r-afmar M 0
Oav-d C Zcsc'^a MD P^O
A C.*n-c c» Boafd Ceft RNjjmatoiogists
7/a H Oc'na'' V 0
P^ora (6r2)332 624S
FA* IA’2* 233
'/*r*v3r iV MD
P-cf^a •'63>55t-WC4
F-j *;• ,u.^
P^ora <952)593 19*9
fax (952)893-1954
December 15. 2002 /A
B^.E.-Weinberger
Cit>* Planning/Zoning Administrator
City of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
I .
CJt 'i Cr0 = 0 j
RE: Rq>air of deck at 2040 Shadywood Residence
Dear Mr..\V.£iob<rger
I am writing to request a building permit to repair my existing deck. My general contractor. Scott Cooper,
has already reviewed ^e plans with you. j\pparently there are some issues that need to be resolved.
Some histoncal information is important here. When we bought the house in 1993, the whole 50 foot deck
was enclosed w ith a roof and an extensive railing system. This was removed in order to remodel and expand
the structure upward. We actually reduced the total building coverage by 350 square feel by removing a
glassed in patio area and a sky port.
Not unexpectedly, the deck floor (carpet and plNwood) had detenorated w ith its new* exposure to the elements.
It has been unsafe to w'alk on for the past year. I have to replace the total deck flooring. I need to replace
the railing s^-stem and reroute the stairs to satisfy safety codes. 1 am requesting to rc-enclose a small portion
of the deck (12 feet) to protect us from the elements. No additional building coverage is in these repair plans.
Several issues need to be discussed;
I. Sight line restrictions : Because our home is on an c.xcavatcd lull there never was any interference with
the neighbors* lake view with ilic old co\crcd structure nor will there be with the repaired dock. My
neighbors agree with this (see enclosed letters). Additionally my neighbors have a privacy fence betw cen our
properties and I have grown a dense arborx itac hedge also to block any view of the deck.
2. I oi coverage bv smicmre: By >*our calculations we are over by 228 square feel. Note that we have never
added a single square foot to this coverage with our remodeled structure and in fact reduced it by over 350
square feet (see paragraph one). This repair project does not add any covered structure square feet Our
original approved remodeling plans (1993) allow for another 108 feet of covered structure but this was never
completed for lack of funds at the time.
7210 Ffarc* A.«ou«
Mf< «*.i35
(952) 893-1353
3C32 UT4
t.n 5i-ur
1763)5*1-9404
9C5 Art 9 jk3#vj
M'rveacc-'S WN !5 t02
(612) 333 6245
Pap 2
3. Excessive hirdcover: This has always been a concern with this property. I have never added any
hardcover and in fact have tried to reduce it. In 19941 took out 96 square feet of cement walk in the 0-7S
foot zone and replaced it with flower gardens and lawn. In 1998 I re-coniigured our damaged asphalt
driveway to reduce the hardcover by another 1,240 square feet.
I am continuing to seek ways to reduce hardcover on this property,
rebuilding project I am willing to remove the following:
In consideration for the above deck
-over 400 square feet of cement patio in the 0-75 foot zone replacing it with lawn,
-the plastic under 650 square feet of graveled area on the north side of the house.
Sorry for this letter's length but I wajit to set the record clear on these repair plans. My background
training before medicine was in ecology. When we bought this property in 1993 it was not only an eyesore
but also an ecological Cuhtre. With some money, but mainly just hard work, we have immensely improved
its visual appearance and made it much more environmentally friendly.
I would hope to avoid the additional time and expense of a variance application since this is just a repair
project We have already paid over SI,300 for the hardcover survey and had to hire a second contractor
when the first one. Leisure Rooms, Inc., bailed out afler meeting with you.
Again, thanks for you consideration. I will call you soon to set up a meeting to discuss these plans further
if you desire.
Sincerelv,
*~7udy and David Z^hke
DCZ/STS/lak
Enclosures (letters)
iaaitaa
r
To Whom It May Concern;
We hove reviewed the Zoschke’s plans for repairing their deck and for adding a small covered porch. We
are in agreement with these plans. Because of the significant difference in elevation between the two houses
as well as a privacy fence and an arborvitae hedge, there has been and will not be any interference with our
view of the lake.
Sincerely,
S05^
cUv'.»
i J ii-Ct-
‘ ^
f
1/5
UARDCOVE^^LCULATION WORKSHEET
AETftACX ZONBt (COtCLEONK) 75-lSO* 2S0-S00’ S00.1000*Mtl|TyO MAUPCQVKR IN rnwr ^ awwiwv
^ X _____________ - ______________sjr.
Lm^ WiM ttnUK
■ SF.«»6tfaoga«
■ S F
■ ' - v>2. sy-ggvS;
5 “- 17ft” X 9*. 2Z xg.67; |S°
_____________ X _____________
_____________• X
B l Ointi
C. Driviwajr
D. Sidtwdk
E PaiioMc
F. Landiecpx
Uadcdain
OrFXWe
S.F.
"S.F
COHCRfT£
SF.-WAUV<T|
.SF.-OH<.Wf
COMtQtn
.SF-fUTI^
.SF.
«p.Poa< OAiIf:
ST.
O. OOmt
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _____________ + B
WlOPOStP MAttncOVER IN ZONE'
A. H oum >
X100 -
*SF
.ST.
Wi«k
B. Otfift
C Dri¥twqr
D. Sidawalk
E HMIhck
F. Landicapt
Uadcritin
By Plastic
Or Fabric
S.F.
ST.1st.
_ST.
.ST.
ST.
;sF.
.SF.
SF.
&F.
.&F.
ST.
ST.
ST.
0. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A #2S*•
rj ■*
ST.
ST.
H
«i. 4
/
^ 4^/(me
HARDCOVER CALCULATIO jC1\VORKSUEET
fITBACKZONli (CIKCLE ONE) 0-75* m-25Q?> 250-500*
■mriMC HA»PCftV»» IN yytw ^
K H oom _____________ X •
SOO-1000*
-221^ S
X
X
• X
I7A
. s F
B. Otrafc
C OrivMngr __ BtAcxrof
5-s •
D. SMtwiIk
L Palio/Dcck
F. Landscape
Uadertain
ByPtaatk
OrFdbfk
.sf-^3J.
SF'^aOlilCM•^Tmousc
SF -DE6^<
.-_QOCU OH
SF
0. ou»8''i31(i£:J£Lil!2®' « .
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A __ _ _ _ _ ♦ B xlOO -
M-2AA
vMoo irrc«
FROPOSID HARPCQVER IN ZQtVT'
A Houk
S.F.
H
B. Oarage
C. Oriwaay
D. Sidewalk
E PatioOeck
F. Landacape
Underlain
By Plastic
Or Fabric
.SF.
.SJ.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
S.F.
SF
SF
'SF.
S.F.
0. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _____________ • B XlOO -
SF.
SF.
"" ■'")
1/.O
r
•tTBACK ZONlt (CmCLE ONE)
KKirriNc HAMPcoygR m zosn
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
0-7S ’75-250*S00.1000*
Wi4lh
X
X
*
SF
SF.
SF.
B. Otnge
»• •
C Drivewqr
SF. -
164 .11 DCt^gtU ^ r
D. Sidewalk
E Ptiio/Deck
SF.
SF.
“F
SF.
F. Landscape
UoderUin
ByPUsitc
Or Fabric
SF
SF.
SF
RdcKOf/
MASTIC
0 Other X
vwo 0f««tN
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A __ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B xlOO -
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE*
“7RA
A House
S.F.
'SF.
H
A
B
SF.
.SF.
ST.
B Oara|e
C. Driveway SF.
SF
D. Sidewalk
E. Patio/Deck
F. Laadieape
UodcrUia
ByPUsite
Or Fabric
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
"SF
’SF.
O. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ _ _ _ _ _ - B xlOO
SF.
SF.
H
A
B
V ’
• r.. ) f) .•
.*■
>
113
>
(Uo
0)
CERTFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
LEISURE ROOMS. INC.
IN LOTS 6 AND 7. GUST S. JOHNSON* S ADDITION
HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA
_!____________________
LAKE
MINNETONKA
CRYSTAL BAY
•n* COMtM IM
tCCM, OC«W'»tiqn or pwfwiMS
LOI • ood Ne.itv^tU')^ hail. 'f*Kl ond faar. «i i«| 7. *Cw»l S. •••on't «dd> I
!»»• M'l dl !*>• d«*«'<»l<e« le "IKd MK. »»o«« d“J
- - -- Hf l.n« •• l»- “ — --------------
•'«. <K« .iiaAi It ad.ittd l»di >1 n«r d* "tctttt'r *•
o' lot 7* It O .OfaiO dttr'iOli
on tvO'CMondi*. I mo ^•'t»o•o»
ii.dic<oiif doio"»i.«*o i*»o iovi*'
on in Ikol "io'Mo.<nootla> If Imo ol Ltl 7 it <>*• io.otn«>t.
Sovl^totio-' f Imo o' tn« oOo.o d«*C'>Md O'OOO'W
o d«noU« «»on nvrkti
Boonnyt toonn o« o Mtod «•«)• on o««ifntd dolim
Init tu'.Or nionot lo »•••• »»d Oenn^.iot o* tno oco.t O»t«*»0Od O'oo«'lf.
IKO lotolion 0> on o.i'lin^ 0«wtt. 0*d in# locotion o' 0>I ••t>0>0 *noid<o.tr*
maroon II doat nol Ow'M'I '• **«n onf omar nrpro.ar.onlt or anaraoaononit
e GRONBERG k ASSOCIATES. INC.
CKMULTM DCiCPia W mj$9€m
mm wuom um lmc um
• 1ta.4y3-«l4t
, fMI*
rtT /d.;.
7dJC:oL w ictioi <
M-JI7
' : V
Vi,
^mr r«K?A.xjrva/&
Attraaimam. ,|
S a* MtTmtatm*
V*r^ ataaram
ELEVAnows.
ir .
- fWi
E
n f
L_^T :
X»W
• ^
e ‘ ^>Vt
!
.'' **
f -
II
i
^ ^ ijCo rV
J*>,,
Uj^3S^
8
r •/o r
o o
<1/O
i b •
PMEt^ aOVSE
N ■•
. ■;:— ^
•p^ ^ ”■» » 8 - 8 % /
»»! ■.A C7 1^.
3'5«y)
■UN •Alt ti/ir/is
■ATCN BIS
MiNNiriM COUNTY nnritTv iNromATioN svstfn
fHorcoTv ouNin list
■CfOOT ND. PlASfMl
PACE u
TAVAVrt
NAfK/AM
1? 17-llP-tS SI MOS
•SM« WmtT Ml
■f STAMIANTS NO LINIT INC
■CSTAMMNTS NO LIlUT INC
OSOO MOfI ■■
NIMKTMA MN BfSOS
17 17-I17-2S SI OMS
•S701 SUNSfT OK
BPCIONAV SUPIP’NtOICA UC
SPtlONAV StIPf .nCOICA UC
c/0 POOPCOTV '4R PCCOOOS
BS« SOVTN MAIN ST
riNOLAt ON ASM*
SA 17»117-2S SI MAI
#2A#t SNAOTNOOO 00
R 0 RIRCMKR I L N RIRC10KR
R ■ RIRCWNR BLN RIRCMMR
2BAA SNAOTNOOO RO
NAT7ATA m 5fS«l
SO 17*117-2S SI AAtt
R2AI0 IIIAOTNOOO RO
■ N B C N ROCICRT
■tCNAOO N ROmOT
2010 SNAOTNOOO RO
NATZATA NN BSSTI
SO t7-u7-2s SI tm
A2A20 SNAOTNOOO RO
PAWLA J NtLLITTI
PAM NlLLtTTt
2020 SNAOTNOOO RO
OOONO NN BBSTI
SO 17-II7-2S SI 0012
020S2 SHAOVNOOO 00
OANtS N OUROCSS
JAMit N OURBfSS
20S2 SNAOTNOOO RO
NATZATA NN 5SSTI
NAIK/AOOO
SO I7-II7-2S SI MIS
020M IIIAOTNOOO RO
0 A J ZOSCNRf
OAVIO a JUOT R Z0SC1OE
2000 SNAOTNOOO RO
NATZATA Ml BBSAl
SO 17-II7*2S SI MIA
02014 SNAOTNOOO RO
JACOUtLYNH HytILLY
JACOmLYNTMCoiLLY
2014 SNAOTNOOO'OO
NATZATA NN IISAI
SO I7-II7-2S SI MIS
020AA SNAOTNOOO RO
J RLfIN ^N RfLLY
J H RLCXNyi-i» N RfLLY
2tS4 SNAOVnOOO RO
NAVZATA Mt SSS*!7
TAROAVtO
NAIM/AOO
SO 17-1I7-2S SI 0014
02000 ailAOTNOOO RO
JOAN L CARLSON
JOAN L CARLSON
20M SNAOTNOOO ■■
NATZATA Ml BSSAl
SO 17-1I7-2S SI
02040 SNAOTNOOl
OOS2
I RO
JAC0UILT1M N RfLLY
JACOUfLTMl n RfLLY
J N RLfIN
2014 SNAOTNOflO RO
NAVZATA Ml 11SA|
TOTAL OATCN IIS MOll
I CtRTIPT THAT TNC PACTS RfPRfSENTfO ARf AN ACCURATf ANO TRUt
RtPRfSfNTATION OP INPORtUTION AS IT APPEARS TNIS OATf ON TNf RfCOROS
or TNf NfMKPIN COUNTY OOPARTiefT OP PROPERTY TAIATTHN. TO TNC OfST
OP NT RNONLCiOf ANO OfLltP.
■ATI OV
ftoMiHRRltN
#
7’-- N
/fy
PBIMIT RECORD
P«ralt Mo,Dotf Tvdc of Pornit
/S3^- //)•.> 4,
'XJ 3 6^/’z/?6
!^\A /lP/>tTtW
n.!t /0-/5 46 %1^•i<* 67
ikoit ____ 7- t »
IgHi 4*^7 6tr Pl&G
o>9 y fcKCH
3lsl tO'iH 7^'
^J9l fnerT^t ♦
v576./
•^S/(a /J ‘ /s/-Q J{
^ir,<l 7-/-<57
■Pc 5 /✓$-'/- ^• - .-tr
CHBCX OFF LIST FOR I8S0AMCB OF PERMITS
FOR OFFICE USB ONLY
SHAOMOJoe^ (lA PIP«_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _OR LBGRLt
dbsoixptxor of wo
ZOMIWO REVIEW BTt
BOUDIW ««*W ■>. -----■• DATl MWOVTOl
DATE RPPROVEDs
- - -
fees to be CHRBCTDt
PERMIT
PLRM nwnw
STATE SURCHARGE
Misc. Fees CeXculeted Byi,
YesJi^.Mo^
Yes Mo,
Yes~^ No_
IMVESTIGATXOM FEE Yes_ _ Ho^E^Yes No A*** —w—
o£ SAC OBlt. _ _ _ _ _ _OTHER (»p«cHy)
SBMER CONNECTION
WATER CONNECTION
PARK FEB
SITE INSPECTION
Eoann cssot list xoning Piitneti ----------
Pir* So»t offlM. School nistrlcti
tot Ar«ai_ik,^2a,a^^_£E. Wathi_fc2,X^_dHi_ Doptht »S3 «T>(teL
Siuvoy Submitted. Yei_K_ Ho_ _ Date of Survey, jr-n-^3- - - - - - -
sight side. ,o.. <&.
Reo* (street)! t-_ _ _ _ Left Sldei
Adjacent Structures; _ _ _ _ _
Wetland; A/4f
Building Heights Defa Hot. 2.C *
Existing
Peak Hgta__3^
R„. setback. p |<
Hardcovers 0-75*
75-250*
250-500*
500-1000*
a IIViKO /var
juo
Qn»r f/tusfT
Hardcover Variance Required! Yes_ _ No^ Date of Council Approvals
Gradings Staff Approvi
Septics Staff Approval
9aa«t4fl%FT
\ OAtet 1 / Bys/Council Approval Dates
o\ta.“7 V.
Resolutj on Resolution Dates
remarks (ia hooM)s 71\
\y-
\/ -V-____________
■OXLDIH6 mwnmt
OBCi_____
LIST
coKSTKOcnon
BascMnt
1st Floor
2nd Floor
Gsrsgs
Sq Footags 9 P«r Sq Ftg
TOTJOi
Bstiaatod Oottstmctloo Valoos ♦ Ll.OQO^
Znspsotioiia loqnirndt
^Sito
' rooting
[Framing
Insulation
Ifork Kaqoiring Saparata Parmitss
i Plumbing
Machanical
Septic
Grading/Filling
Fire
Nall Board
inal
Other
/y^Fireplace
___(Masonry)
_p£(M£g.)
_Water Connection
~Sewer Connection
Lawn Irrigation
Other _____
o^Well (State Permit)
nc Electrical (State Permit)
XBIhBKS (XV mOUSB}t
ttEvnm BY oranss.DhTB:
AccessI Existing New
Access Approvals Date _ _ _ _ _ __ By*^
ffipt*—« ixo Bl ■OTBD ON FBBMITi i AV)g*»r»TVAi^ fp»r
(jJi-r>^ SmT- .A.^/tAoAC
JkiAih,
I • 1
■ > '^-';: 4rf*
f-:<:^9.r;t ';’f'/4 ^5c-^o sv^orioccp
jVvfl- r ,‘.f-St.v' f'-Cv.‘. C». :^' i^v.K
f
i '
.1
I •
'■mm
;;T '
>
.rS. •,
iiifiil
' ' * * ^ *
/'•
.1 ".r't ■iosr- •^t^£'■^Y.•.^^■r■'
5?'^ &a'. 1
r^-'i'cr'Tf .t.‘.
Vi 1^5
V=UQ2-«cm>? cveck>,
** I (.1» »»I
UCV-SE Pft{ti(r S^CT
^.-■ij.^ 0iSSUk i "^1
Hj|y :!>^
f ^I “v.
‘ --triar^ "■"t^mmM
K
W iM
;H*^*i*t 1.
•- •• Jt-
—
^ ' u .
< f
. ^ti
'»r*
g-li
"i^hheiice CP nt^Jise
r • I >'» ; J .
^ I • *a
mn^<.
A‘\'^
... « ,-■ V
► •-^ >
•-I,
’s
's/i^llggi
iw
':,1<
r.i V i:
r?
im.
l: / - • .t
i*li m-''
$TtNES C5<bLaH ^[c^ Of- He»v>e)
Mlv/^
I’lVk^
'f^i»*«.V-?9|
a>JC*ee-n£ pfmo HMaD^<vEC.
v-^
' . -N
0
:• .
'j
•4HN M a M-tIWf MMMR %m
nrOMMnON NMtt MIMM MIT M01 mum
^ ‘r\ liiM:'| ■ l-^i
MUNWMO t* NStI
t M m M t ew ■ COU NtMlgga^lflfjr^afefe
rM«MMK «ntwt »M« rr «A»«w uwamwi M HMnvw
CMTflWMf ■AaVTHAOLOTWMinMVAiMOOMWM.
VH-ft-
4 ,1
•;.,“ ....’. 'v
?
•S'- : ^
"'1‘c
lltMMMIW*hvTf I *00
im M«ANIUM« MtkOWI MMtU* It MAMMTNMUT
iMWA^Bitvnivf INI uiMAOMwmwnHWPaan
Mvi*>«tvn| CMNIIT CIM )t A«*«A«I niMaMt «»IM
Me«a«. cmiMB mcn and ini iimi p«i«i mm« mi m*
fiooNioctiiN«r«tnAcnia i*ii inicmumi inbmcmi
l»|NMQI ««MIIB, ll4MNOCtlUN«IIHNOIMNBIITfN|aMI|
noON llir»IN. WWMI AND UVNM MMMI
AMNIVAAl IIAlUAIft
COirtaie INIAfWAI MKilMI A NIAIIB HINUBWIIAA* Mt-
iwo MNCN INI lOTw m CAwiite and Mauoti iw r—iin
r>*N f«MI N>«CM CWAB M VWB Af rtAMIM VUf IMOT UW«
IB INI IMIN HBBA ANB IBINII Um MM AAIAI. BIIINIW
ANO Al«<0 Itllla INNOWOnOUl INI MB«M
A WAIN nBBA IIICIIIN INCtVBf fl BAIAAIAIt MA ANB BUBAAMt
BNANB AAIA If AOiNO IBWAIABWI MCA. BAIAI lAAUnMI IIMM
• MIBMANB IIV1W0ANB WAII|NMBAOO« BMIIIAMDNBOAMfAl
!•« AW N|A rtcttlt ANB AMO'MIA NAliOVI 10 IMf BICA. A*
plHIAWWNItA ■lOAoOWtfCWAMtNIIrMMWWWBAIA
oriAori I
• M|»(n flNOlNAarW^MMuk
if«wiA tr»fi MAI •lAiuAiii 1*4 AAMi lAf swr AO nSiiMM
I'ONf AoiiM/iHrvA,„niiMi INI oi»(^ laiTtSJ^
CAA«,NAAI«l||ni
TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. Cit>* Administrator
FROM: Wendy Bottenbe^. City Planner
DATE: Febmary 14,2003
m
SUBJECT: «03*2867 Dan Adams
1145 TonkawaRoad
Variances ~ PuUk Hearing
Dbirkt: I.R-1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre)
Lai Arat: 41.685 s.f. (.95 acre)
EiMMls:
A Analysis Worksheet
B Application
C Ha^ship Statement
D Survey
E Hardcover Calculations
F Elevations
G Floor Plans
H Photo of Property
I Plat Map
J Property Ow ncr's List
PertiMi Code SectioM:
1. Section 10.22. Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (C) (1): Structure tvithin 75' of
lakeshore: 1 o permit construction of a second story/dormers 62* from the OH WL of Lake
Minnetonka wlierc 75' is required.
2. Section 10.22,Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56. SuNl. 16(C)(6): To permit an encroachment
into the a\cra^c lakeshore setback. The total er>croachment is approximately 17*.
3. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd (16) (L) (I): Hardcover in 0-75* Setback: To
permit l.l 55 >1'. of hardcover uithin 75* of Lake Minnetonka where 0 s.f. (0%) is allowed.
4. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (LX2): Hardcover in 75-250* setback:
To permit 9.82 1 s.f. (35.75%) of hardcover in the 75-250* setback zone where 6.866.25 s.f.
(25*/*) is allowed.
AppUcalion Summary : The applicant is requesting average lakeshore setback, hardcover within
0-75* setback zone, hardcover within 75-250* setback zone, and structure w ithin 75* of the
lakeshore variances to remodel, add a second story and attach the existing garage to the
resideiKe.
#03-2167 Dan Adims
1145 TonaUt»a Road
2/14 2003
Psge 1 of4
of the addiiitm. To decrease the amount of hardcom in this zone, the applicant has
remov ing the concrete shufReboard. the brick next to the shufTleboard surface and a
portion of the deck ItKated by the residence. These removals reduce the amount of hardcover in
this setback/one to 1.155 s.f (9.56%) from 1.730 s.f. (14.3%). A hardcover variance to required
to allow this amount of hardcover in Ihe 0-75* setback zone.
Note: A permit wa.s not issued for the deck located by the lakeshore. A 1983 survey is in the
street flle. The deck liKated by the lake does not appear on the survey. Staff does not have a
picture of the deck due to snow cover, so the condition of the deck is unknown at this time.
75-2St* setback zone-
The rest of the existing residence, garage and driv eway are located in the 75-250* setback zone.
Currently, thea* exists 10.254 s.f. (37*/'o) hardcover in the setback zone. The applicant is
proposing to remove the brick apron, sidewalk pavers and an existing deck. These removals
reduce the amount of hardcover in this setback zone to 9.821 s.f (35.7%). A reduction of
approximatciv 7U8 s t
The drivewav on thi't property is fairly extensive and accounts for a large amount of hardcover.
Beewse the lot is long arid it would be difTicult to back out onto Tonkawa Road, a circle in the
driveway is appropriate However, there seems to be other areas that would be appropriate to
look at for removal. I liis lot is very close to conformity in lot area and lot width. (.95 acre and
150* wide where I acre and 140' wide is the standard in the LR-1B zoning district). Areas of the
driveway that could be removed arc bv the garage and the gravel area. Because this resideiKC is
on Tonkawa Road, there is a fair amount of traffic and difficult sight lines, it is important to have
a turn around on the propert>- so the homeowner can drive straight onto Tonkawa Road rather
than backing out
A hardcov er variance is required to allow this amount of hardcover in the 75-250' setback zone.
Average Lakeshore Setback:
The existing residence is located 17' into the average lakeshore setback. The second story
additiorv'dormers will not change the location or eiKroachmcnt in the setback. The existing
topographv. the lavout of the neighboring houses and existing vegetation screening all suggest
that the propo^ed addition will not be within the visibilit) of either neighboring property and will
not encroach on aiiv existing view of the lake.
An average lakcslioiv setback variance is required for the proposed addition.
#03-2867 Don AJanu
1143 TonaksMa Road
2/14/2003
Page3of4
L
StaiNMat 9f Hardship:
The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit C. The applicant should also be
asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
iMHca far Coasidcratioa:
1. The existing residence was built in 1%6, prior to existing zoning standards.
2. A portion of the screen porch to be constructed falls within 75* of Lake Minnetonka. Does
Planning Commission feel there is a hardship to allow more structure to be constructed within
75 ’ of Lake Minnetonka? Should the porch be constructed to meet the 75* setback?
3. Are any neighKirs' views of the lake negativ-ely impacted by the addition? Is the location of
the existing rcsidcncc justification for the variance?
4. Hardcover in tlw 75-250* setback area will be decreasing, but still over the allowed 25%. Are
there any other removals that Planning Commission would suggest?
5. Should the deck liH;ated by the lake remain and when it needs repair or replacement then be
removed?
6. Lot coverage by structures will remain at 9.6%. well below the 15% limit.
7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
Staff Rccoronicndaiion:
If the Planning Ct>mmission feels the existing conditions of the residence and property create a \*altd
hardship that support > the variances requested, then a recommendation for approval is appropriate.
Your alternative i> to consider one of the other options for action.
OptiMH for Action:
1. Recommend approval of variances.
2. Recommend denial of variances, stating reasons.
3. Table, giving appiicaiu direction.
4. Other action.
•03-2167 Dan AJ.intv
1143 Tonakavva R.vkl
214-2003
Pate4of4
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
L«t Am:
LR-IB Lot Area
Required 43.560 s.f. (1 acre)
Actual 41.685 s.f. (.95 acres)
Harimrcr Cakulatiou:
Distance from
shoreline
Total area in
sciKack
Allov^ed
Hardccrver
Existing
Hardcm-er
Proposed
HankoN-er
0-75*12.075 s.f.0s.f.(0%)1,730 s.f.
(14.3%)
1155 s.f.
(9.56%)
75-250’ 11 27,465 s.f.
1
6.866.25s.f.
(25%)
10.254 s.f.
(37%)
9821 s.f.
(35.7%)
250-500 ’ 2.145 s.f.643.5s.f.(30H)127 s.f.
(5.92%)
127 s.f.
(5.92%)
Lot Coverage by Structures:-
Lot Area: 41.685 sf.Allowed: 6.252.75 s.f. (15%)
Existing: 3,438 s.f. (8 2*;*
Proposed: 4.043 s.f.
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $130.00
(no change firom original q)plicalion)
Variance for non-confonning atmcturcs S2S0.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORhUnON
Site Address 114^^ Tnt lKi*^VilfY
am Ictiim o 03-Jj?(>7
Date Received | -O 3
Amonat Paid JFJL rri
—-------------------_ r ^ ^
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Ofet iTTJ^i-aaeei i a
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Prope(2g;Acquired________________________________
I (do)^(3o^^)Also own the adjacent parcels of land.
PnMeruTSew property: residential ___mother (specify)______
Zoning District: L-g-lfe_________________________________
_(month^rear)
APPUCANT
Name Qe>e^tg^
- "'r2il^L4A40A.Address:
OWNER (if diOcrent than applicant)
Name
Address:
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Phone (home) OfcL
____ Phone (work)
City:_e^:feoisjr^ Zip:
Phone (home) 4TI •o^'iSL
____ Phone (work) (otnL-nttr-^'T^S
City: cSteciOft ZiD:^^2g^
ASCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S iO£Pi;rTY)______
Describe request in detail: ALtefc l/lsuUiUiex ifti f^OA U^s^fmw^ux
lX\k£U iZy/'/ray Uimni L, /KTJT# .V»~
^ '"“h *ldiiUi.l >h^ if n^«Miy)rf
VARUNCES REQUIRED
___Lot Area Ut Width
Setback:__Front Side
Hardcover
^ Rear __
Lot Cover.
Average Lakesh<
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code reouirgingnti- _______________
(attach additional sheeu if necessary)o
#f •..x»
1^/'
i
'rr^
(L
hutCJ^ oo "/S' sSfb^ofs ^
iP cX» Y^uuS^ 64 r^aiU£c^ • hoM •<
^ c^h}pu(jdis4u^ <THX, /Oi/CZfeiS.. —V— Cou^eC
JaJlp ^)h cCi4xJ^ %4ji ^ hSMe 4
i/pdf^tZ l(W pnck^ ro^ :sf^?(nofoacf ^
a/9HM'Cy
IkJHoa X c JL^ 00C( ffrL hcx^(iC\UA o^^hXjg 0--7S^
ajsd 75^ tA) PSD ^ hcu^ 9^
pit4o^/isU^ -fitsy^ K.^SVo V d ^*5ft>V(>
-4f* Vo ^ •/i . V^j^cf ^ ^ ’;fiu<
cunyT^^ 64 ^?6f/W<05^ ^;xx/(ftju! >4 //cpuu'
hfCiM/^ M !o^ (zyY^^^ ^ /7/Ha^ ^
tfX^ (y^ /cY- Cci/^a.^-
j,f .n\
••rT'T'" " .>' ‘ *.• .■
CCRTFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
DAN ADAMS
HEWCPfl COUNTY, MWNESOTA
I4K«
klNNETONKA
NORTH ARM
•2tl4 CONTOM UC'
-U6*t OtSOtlMlOW cr WKMtSU r '•"**
i- ...........—. 5 srs::.‘:uK'sr!.k:—•
• MonoIm trail iNirkar
• Maaal#» >»a>ctal laa
BaartNfa taaM a«a kaaaa k ramia
an aktiMM «altf«
»N*a a««»af iMa»aa i« rnm tna k
a*>4 INa lacaiian at ait »mkia ’naia<a»a>y.!r-*?K:r:ar:r p^:y,!;r;'r;
CRON6ERG & ASSOCIATES.
oa^iiiB OMM. um arc hm
taRiN m* «Mt. io« uic
IMKtn-aMl
INC.
—^y^'j
e
of rtf KU* f^O»
^ »n A«i«2i7
UARDCOVEll
iCTBACK ZONBt (CIRCLE ONE)
pfABPCOVKIt IN ZONE
K Houm ____________
LCULATION WORKSHEET
7S-150*230^*SOO-ltOE*
SIB SP.-Mg^
WiAh
•K
X
X
B. Otrar
C. Orivwty
D. Sidewalk
E PaiioA)eck tol - MOt/Sp
F. Landscape
Undertain
By Plastic
OrFabiic
^'nsrr.S F.
SF.
!sf
SF
SF
-1^
SF - CIN^-
sT-oecKS
SF-0aiCi5
|¥»T»0
.SF.
.SF.- PLAS^%C
SF.
0. Other 1P2
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN 70NE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A \~ih6 * B lT.079 X100
PROPOSED HAUnCQVER IN ZONE
K House ____________
B Oarage
C Driveway
D. Stdewalk
E Patio/Dcck t ^T Aie^Vc<cH*dVi&
_____________ K
F. Laodscape
Uodertaia
By Plastic
Or Fabric
\'?X> J^gflL S F. A
fl gT?TSF B
SF
SF
SF.
SF
SF \
^7^
^~'n
:sr^-
.SF.
.SF.
SF.
SF
SF
0 Other .SF
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROi»ERTY AREA IN ZONE
A \ - B \7.jn~1^ xioo -
// ■*
'7/
Q.==5</i
.SF
SF.
H
,‘v.Vv^c:’
D ah /A dam 5 Of IMCI Kt.'>
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SrriACKZONIi (circle one) 0-7S‘ <f305Q> 2S0.S00*
EXBTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A Houn
WidA
«•
X
X
B. Oirtfi
C Drivtw^r
D. Sidiwdk
E Pttio/Dcdc
r Landscape
Underiam
By Plastic
Or Fabric
0 Other
total HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A l7 • B xlOO
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE'
A House
B Oarsfe
C. Driveway
D. SidewaQc
E Ptiio/Deck
F. Landscape
Undertah
By Plastic
OrFabhc
0 OdMr
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
NE
• B
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A I xlOO
S00.1000*
1^47 sf-h^S£
SF.
Sj.etACiCIDP
;SF>GaeA/EU
.SF -5?oISaU<.
S F-
.SF.-Oeod.
.SF
SF ROCIC OH
r PtSF.
.SF.
ftOOC AtvD
.SF’wemo poaotei
m __SF.
SS^F
A
B
_2cOi2c—SE
S F. ^
.SF.
.S.F.W
\nn^. SE ^.•'Ars
SF b^ficL-jz^
SF Gf .* >»-•
SF
SF
SF
SF
SF.f r *1. .r# ,,
SF.
,2m.
C'.g-t SF
A
B
A-::.
-:v • -
Ik.
/2*/7-^2
T»CTA,KlSH»eS5
^«(Url^4wo^K)2l7
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORK§li££J
SETBACK lONlt (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S' 75-}5U‘
EXHTINC MARDCOVER IN ZONE
SOO-1000*
A H oum
Wrfili
B. Oartgt
C. Driwwijr
D. Sidcwttk
E PadoMc
F. LtBdKtpt
UndcrUin
ByPUitis
OrFabho
0. OdMr
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A \21 - D 7.14S* xlOO 5.^2.
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE'
A House .____________
B C«nf«
C. Drivewty i?r7
0. Sidewalk
E Patio/Dcck
F Lar^caps
Uedertam
ByPUsoc
OrFabhc
0 Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
A _ vin * B xioo
”71
se qi.
SF.
ST.
ST.
ST.
BlAocro^^
SF.-OrtivC WITH
ST.R k K BOROCK
ST.
ST.
ST.
ST.
SF.
SF.
S.F.
2.1t
ST. A
ST. 8
K
ST.
S.F.
ST.
,s.F. >zixzS^'^op>
.S.F. bf -K.CS»
ST.
sr
ST
SF
SF
SF
!st
SF
ST.
H
/*•
I.,
if >
L
r
INS aX
L¥:.»Pti
■‘S'
rm w-
»-i'' ^
CU- *
i« u
•• ‘ Vi
. Vi .’>
- i/''•'..«
■
■:i \ i Jic-V
//‘/‘I; Icidt-iM*-!' /H
i T-f i * %
V .f.' L
lijfi Tv/U.^? t(f
lHt>
1^'M
wm
.£5#‘tp.-
.’■V. -ir^c ■-#%,:.
V.-..
S^ii<ci iircc
-ff c!,- Uc-7
'Tfri^knari
L
r.i V- X
j& V ;
Ir.iU’Ztdo l.ccJ
H-
mi
, »KikSi mmy-- WMm'm- i//
’ •« ‘ X
c>h'<tf liCcO
MM MTf tl/lft/tS
Mm BM
mWnM CMMTV WWWU nroMMTtMt SVSTtd
MorciTv oMcn list
Kvwrr MB. msMts
PMB !•
MMil MMB
TMPAVn
mm/um
TMTAVn
MMi/MM
PMT AJM
SK«r
HMK/AMB
PMr MMI
OMM MM
TAipmi
MM/MM
M M-nr-n is §•*«
•ntS THKMM
JOHN ■ NILLIR a VZFE
JBMI • NILLfI
MM uHivfnirv a«t N I
MIS m BM21
sa M-ii7*ts IS aaa?
•list TONCAHA M
f T a s R STivtm
ramcs t a susam r srtvm
liaa TOM AIM Ri
iOM LARt Ml nSS*
sa aa-117-xs is taaa
RllM T8MRAMA RR
J ROUMM RAVn miSTtf
j mum PAVR
ll«a TRMURA m
iOMB URI NM SSSS4
IS aaa«
R»
SR RR-117-tS
•lUR TRMUM
J a A ROMT
JOMI • a ARM L RtMBT
llZt TMMAHA RB
iONR UWC Ml BSSM
SR RR-117-tS IS RRia
RARSR AMRtSS IRMSSX8HU
NAavn RMMAM BTAI.
MAavn MMMII
SSff MRWST CfNrtR
MIS IM SMRS
SR aR-117-zs IS tail
aiRRR T8MIAMA RR
MRVni RMMAM ITAi
NAHVXN RRRMM
ssat NomtsT cnait
MLS NN BBRIZ
SR M'117-zs IS aaiA
RllAS TRMRAMA RB
BAMIEL BSCAR A8AN5
BANIIL BSCAR ABANS
HAS raWAMA RB
LONR LARI IM SSSSA
SR Ra'117-ZS IS Riir
ailRS TOMIAMA RB
N T RfMARB R B S HfNRR
N T RfMARB R B S
lias TOMIAMA RB
LRM LAU Ml SSSSA
SR RR-117-IS IS RRIR
aizas TOMIAMA RB
H A SNITN a T N SNITN TRSTfS
THOMAS N a NANCY A SMITH
izas TOMIAMA RB
LONR LARI Ml SSSSA
TOTAL BATCH SRA RaaaA
I CIRTIPT THAT THE FACTS REPRCSCNTEB ARE AN ACCURATE AMB TRUE
RtPRESEN^ON OF IMORnATtON AS IT APPEARS THIB BATE ON THE RECOBBB
OF THE MEMNEPIN COtRITT BfPARTNENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST
OF NY KMOMIEBBE AMB BELIEF.
BATE
•rrq* li-
1 )
•
TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM: Jennifer ChapuU City Planner
DATE: Februar)’ 6.2003
SUBJECT: #03-2868 John E. Whitman
1580 Sixth Avenu.' N
Variance - Public Hearing
Zmiing District: RR-IB One Family Rural Residential (2 acres)
Lot Area: 4.2 1 acres (183.387 s.f.)
Exhibits:
A Analysis Worksheet
B Application
C Correspondence from City staff
D Surxey
E Subdivision Plat RLS 1418 & Resolution
F Plat Map
G Location Map
H Topography Map
I Property Owner's List
Pertinent Code Sections:
1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LKl): Hardcover m- *ihin 75*: No
hardcover or impervious surface shall be placed. located or constructed within 75 feet of
the Ordinary High Water Level of any lake or tributary.
2. Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (JK2): Grading/fUling of more than 10 cnbic \ards within
75*: Grading, filling or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards is prohibited within 75 ‘ of
the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters.
3. Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (JM3); Driseways within 75*: Drivewayx shall not be
constructed within 75* of the Ordinary High Water Level of public waters. If no
alternatives exist, such improvements are subject to the variance review procedure,
taking into account the following:
a) Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and
topograf^y to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters;
b) All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and
control erosion to public waters.
I10S-286M John E Wtuiman
2 1)2003
Pag€ I of 5
H^wepin Counw Traiwpoftation PUimina
Hennepin County has ..cd the proposal and supports the proposed location of the access to
the property. The County states that there is a sight distance problem westbound on County Road
6 (Sixth Avenue N) so It is most desirable to have the access to the property located as far away
from the County road as possible. *
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
The application has been reviewed by the Mirmdiaha Creek Watershed District They note that
an erosion control permit will be required and that a site plan show ing contour elevation lines
will be required as part of their submittal. Board of Managers Approval will be required before a
permit is issued.
History:
The property in question was created in 1976 (Registered Land Survey # 14 1 8) as part of a five
lot subdivision, accessed through a driveway (Tract E). All of the lots have been developed to
date, with the exception of 1580 Sixth Avenue N. The resolution of the subdiv ision does not
identify any development stipulations on the land. The subdivision allowed for Tract E to cross
Long Lake Creek and did not identify any designated wetlands at that time
In 1994. the owTiers of the property to the north. 1570 Sixth Street N (Lot A), were granted
variances and a CUP (Zoning File 1 881) to permit construction of a private driv eway to cross a
protected tributary to access the back of the owners* property. The variances included; filling and
grading within 26* of the flood plain and wetland conserv ation area; grading and filling w ithin
75* of a tributary; and placing hardcover within 75* of a tributary. The CUP was granted for
grading and filling in excess of 500 cubic >ards in a shorelond district.
Hardship:
The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit D. The applicants should also
be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Issues for Consideration:
1 . The lot was created in 1976 and is permitted to have one access;
2. The minimal amount of frontage on Tract E requires that the access he located close
to the tnoutary on Sixth Avenue N;
3. City staff have determined that the safest location for access to the lot is as far away
from Sixth Avenue N as possible;
4. Driveways can not be located closer than 5* to any (side) lot line and grading may not
occur within this area;
5. The construction of the access will create minimal disruption of the land and should
not negatively impact the tributary;
6. Testing has not been completed to d.ite to determine the location of the primary and
secondary septic sites on the property for when it dev clops. *rhe location of the septic
sites will affect where the drivewav is liKated on the property in the future;
7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission.
'■ John E II human
2 1)2003
Page 3 of 5
1
stall Itea
Staff itcommends approval of variances to construct a 125 s.f. driveway and pad, located 50*
south of the centerline of Long Lake €reek where no hardcover b permitted, and gratfing, filling
or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75' of the Credc, to serve as the accc» to a
future home, with the following conditions:
1. A 15* culvert must be located underneath the driveway r^;
2. A grading permit appUcatioo shall be made with the City for no more than the grading
and filling necessary lo construct a 25* x 25* drivewa>'
3. Erosion control measures should be installed, inspected and approved by the City
prior to any construction activity;
4. Application and approval of the appropriate permits from the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District is required prior to City permit approval; and
5. The applicam is advised that future driveway construction within 75 ’ of the Creek
will require additional future approvals.
•03^2868Jotmt Hhitmm
233/2003
Fatt4qf5
ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Am:
RR-IB Rcqoircd Actual
Lot Area 2 acres (87.120 s.f.)4.21 acres (183.387 s.f.)
Hordcovcr Cakoblioas:
Distaacc froai
tHbolary
Total area
la setback
Allowed
kardcover
Eiistlai
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
0-75 ’20,120s.f None None 125 s.r (0.62«/o)
HoricovcrAGradiBg Scthoda:
Setback required from tributary Proposed setback
75*50*
$03-2868 John E. Hltitman
2/1(32003
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-confonning structures $250.00
Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double qiplication fee)
AppUcadon «
Date Receh-ed l/X fQ%
AnwatPald PO
PROPERTY INFORhUTION ^ ^
Site Address .C VNv^fk
Property Identification Nuinber (P.I.D.) ZIL //^
Attach legal description to applkation if not included on required sur\’ey.
I^SPropettyAcq; red
I(^ (do not) also own the adjacent parceUif land. '
Present use of prop^ ___residential other (spcci^)
Zoning District: /^iP- //g _____________________~~~
.(montVyear)
APPLICA.^ ^ y y .
Name TTnArt JC
Address:^ aJ
Phoat (home) ffCa) y7f-3~>C^p
Phone (work) C/s^^
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name _ /-ruu^ - c.‘AZ,v«u
Addrew:' ^ ' «gitv:
City: L/lI^ Zip. ^CiT^C^
Phone (home).
Phone (work).
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail:
Estimated Construction Cost $ /Oan
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
___ Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Covera
Setback:Front Side Rear __ Average Lakesho
Other (q>ecify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
rAmntianr# \A*itK 7/\nitia f^rsAm j m J. j . . ^ ^ ^
^ ^ m w- —w WitUIIII
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 7~^
cipiruuf,^ ffH Uy n^r. ?,t
—/•/ tmnf-------!______________________ '
V (attach additional sheets if necessary)
-ijO
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
All of the foBowiag Informatioii niM»t be lubmltlgd bv the ■pplication date in
order for vour apnlkaHon to be coaildered compigtt:
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Completed Applicalioo Fonn
Certified PiqMity Owners List of owners within ISO*, labels and plat »wap (^t)u
must obtain this list, labels.^ mi^ Jrom Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-603, Govt Cenlei7348-5910). ^
Certificate of Surs-ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) an<l include hardcover
calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy ZVt' x IP for
reproduction.
Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy ZVi* x IT for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8V^a" x IP).
List of the legal names (include mariul status) of all persons with an interest in
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 slafT.
fhe Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour
variance application It not complete if the above information has not been included.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the 2toning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee pa>*mcnt)
and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the
information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signal __ Date / /JZy/f, •?
/
OWNER'S SIGNATURE
The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable
entry onto the property by City suff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council
members for purposes of inv CTtigation ai.d verification of this request.
Owner’s Signature^^_x^^^'"^____p
Applicant must have all submituls 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 Planning
Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building
Si Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.
ii V, •
l/oAr^ A/L:6iiAt7 ~ ^
^Ci^clcdL ^nu^X
m
h/1 (XA^Ccfy^ A/ '/yyi^r^
dr<. ^A*-/Kcri /o
/9^/Uac, A^^/t,
//^//,2
SS 4f>^
L e‘*y r “V•**»
^ I Hl■l iiiiliMiiii
H
d
I/IJ Bonestroo
R«>sene
vv Anclertil(&
|\|| Associates
Engineers 4 AfcMtects
aatcft*. H0t4—m kH H «n AffmMln* A«M«n Omw
11»!»>»■»» 0«iwA
Otiu O Buririt'on B| • V.«>>n| V»<«'>
J* ’» ' ri • VMt A MWWM ri
1 04m») t {'«•• •‘I • » C( \(r<urvii«i l»|
Cawim WA U autw*! A’ Buimr *»<•>«« I kA"r> Al • Wvo'V Ikr'W C BAAiwv" C An.*r>»
AitMUN* AtMWIM** *» ’*' * ff • Bn*"! » r«,*V«»r B| • A lovlr< B| • fi*. SO B| •
I • W'wow »f • Vil • *»*<l »f • B A-»A*»J« Bt f| B| • D'»'4 * Bv VBA
V Vr, B • B| I % . A^\ V tr>l V (I • • •«-»' »•>» B1 • « A BvlrM^ Bf •
t V» wl B| • v«ri B B» • | »*vr^ A Bf • 0 J ' B| • Hi*«» V»t*^» »f •
• tflw Bf • %rm<avt I • Oat a &■>«* B| • lAesmBi A ••wt'WB B| • | tVi«-r B|
Fcbniary 4,2003
^ ^4S/ tl C«owd toenrar* Jn4 t
I4«t ««tv n n A to«*»
Jennifer Chaput
Planner
CHyofOrono
Post OfTice Bos 66
Crrt«» Bay. MN 55323
Re:1380 6* Avenue Noitb
RteNo. I394»<000
Plat No. 03-2868
Dear Jennifer
We have reviewed the cenincaie of survey and proposed gravel driveway plan for the property located at I S^'U'J
6* Avenue North. The plan proposes to ronstoKt 625 square feel of gravel driveway access to the pmpeitv
from an existing pnvate dnve. NV: 5ave the following comments w ith regard, to engineering matter.
• Th? proposed driveway is «hown v far away from C.R. 6 as possible making it the ir.os; derirable
location from an engineering perspective.
• Efusiitn conuol measures sliould be installed, inspected and approved by the City pnor to any
cuistiuciior. activity.
s r: jiiK tlwicid be submitted to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for their review and coirme ’'!.
• Plans should be submiued u* Hennepin County for their review and comment regarding C R. 6 right of
way needs.
If you have any questions picase call me at (651) 604-4863.
Yours very truly.
BONESTROO. ROSENF. ANDERI IK & ASSOCUTFS. INC.
Tom Kellogg
Cc; Gfcg Cijn'.i, City of Omno
ms West Highway 16 • St. Paul. MN SSIfJ • 6SI-6J6-4600 • Fax: 6SI-6I6-13I1
nr-.A-B.AAA. A r.B.*rW«^
Niiulnlajwek^^Witershei listrid
cv>\
Improving Quality ofWater, Quality of Life
FsuUisM III 1967
IW
1«2«llnnM>r*aBMl.
OMptaMn.MN 55391
Rim: (962) 471-0690
Fk(952)471-08K
Emft
oMn^mnoNtu
MMiSM
PviMiiO Bill
JwiMCaUni
UnnFMr
MoncaOran
SeoaTbomu
RchMOUlv
nOMn SCftfOtOif
frn^mi
Memorandum
Datw: February 10.2003
To: Jennifer Chaput. City of Orono and John Whitman
From: Renae Schubert, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
RE: Proposed construction of a driveway pad at 1580 Sixth Avenue N.
W$ have received the plan and project description for the above mentioned
location in Orono. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) concerns
are as follows:
• Erosion control; Permit is required for the disturbance or excavation of
5,000 square foot of soil or 50 cubic yards or soil. The site plan must
show silt fence around the disturbed area at the bottom on down hill
slopes
• V/etiand determination must be made
o If there is wetland on the property, a permit will be required for
wetland protection, a wetland delineation will be required, and
wetland buffers will be required
• Site plan showing contour elevation lines
o A Permit is required for any riH below the elevation of 931.5*
and will require mitigation
• A $10.00 application fee is required
Permits tor wetland protection and floodplain impacts will require Board of
Managers Approval. Additionally in this rase, mailing labels from Hennepin
County for all properties within 600' of your property are required for public
notification of the meeting in which your permit will be heard. Ttiese
applications typically require 30^5 days prior to permits being Issued.
Please submit the items listed above as soon as possible for District Review.
Please mail your submittals and permit application to:
Attn: District Technician
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minneton'Ka Blvd.
Oeephaven MN, 55391
€lTYor01IONO
Municipal Ofllcci
Skill AMms;
27M MkT ftHonf
Oroflo. m 5S3S6
Stomal
P.0 loi €6ciytui lay, in amm
Mr. John Whitman
1570 Sixth Avenue North
Long Lake. MN SS3S6
Re: ISSO Sixth Avenue North (Count) Road 6); AKA Tract D of RLS 1418
Dear Mr. ^^liiunan:
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the information neccssarj* to develop the
property for single family use at 1580 Sixth Avenue North.
1. LotArcaAVidth
This lot is zoned RR-1B with a minimum lot area of 2 acres and minimum lot width of 200
feet. The front of this lot, determined by the shortest iot width along a street, is located along
the outlot private road, referred to as Tract E. Given this, it is possible that the minimum lot
width may not be met when measured at the rear of the front setback li^'e. How ever, this lot
svas created after the City adopted the current 2-acre zoning standards in early 1975 and,
therefore. wjH nol require a variance for the lot width or area. The area of the lot conforms
with the minimum requirements of the district.
2. Bnildhig Staudards
The maximum height permitted for a single family home is 30 feel or 2 '/, stories. The
setbacks for a principal structure, measured from the property lines, in the RR-1 B district arc
as follows:
Front Yard (from the private road): 50’
Rear Yard (opposite the front): 50’
Side Yard (along County Road 6): 50'
Side Yard (abutting property to the north/: 100 ’ from OHW'L Long Lake Creek
and to* from the side lot line
3. Accessory Structures
Detached garages are considered accessory structures and require different setbacks than the
principal structure. Accessor) structures are not perr .itied in front of the prinar\ structure.
Depending on where a proposed house is situated on this lot. a detached garage would need a
variance if positioned in front of (cast oO the house. For the other yards, the following
setbacks apply:
TdepiMM (952) 24MM9 • Fki (952) 249-4CU
«nw.cLoraMjnajH
Rear Yard (opposite ihe front): 1 0’
Side Yard (along County Road 6): 50’
Side Yard (abutting property to the north): 100’ from OI^X Long Lake Creek
4. Creek Setbacks
Long l^c Creek, classi fied as a Tributary Stream, runs along the north side of this lot. All
land within 300’ of a Tribuiao ’ Stream is subject to shoreland district requirements. On an
unsewered lot, the primary structure must be located a minimum of 100 feet from the OHWL
(Ordinary High Water Level) of Long Lake Creek. Also, no hardcover is permitted within
75’ of the OHWL of tlic creek.
5. Septic Systems
The septic system must be located at least 75 feet from the OHWL of Long Lake Creek 20
feet from any hardcover and at least 20 feet from a lot line. The site is required to have a
p; .uar>' and secondary septic site and their sizes will var>- depending on the number of
bedrooms in the proposed structure. Orono code requires that sites with a capability to serve
a 5-bedroom home must be identified. It would be advantageous to lest the site in advance
for two potential septic locations. Consideration should be given to where the drivewav can
be located on the site before determining septic sites.
$, Access
Acce« to the property ^^i\\ be required off of Tract E and not the County road The drivev.av
mict be located no closer than 75 feet from the OHWL of the creek. 1 8 feet in width with a
15 culvert mnmng beneath it. If the driveway is longer than 600 feet, a circle drive mav be
required at the end to accommodate fire equipment. City staff determined that the safest
-Pproxima..»26 f«. souU.ofU,cconK,p™p.„y
nuil-i'"■?' "l' <>"'cway locaiion falls wthin tht 75 foot solhack f,om the
OH»X of the creek where no hardcover U permitted and a minimum setback is required a
varimce application wouW requued. In order for a variance to be approveo. tne applicant
must prove a ph>-sical hardship of the land. In this case, the hardship could include the
necessity of having access to the site from the private toad and if the applicant chose to meet
*c requited setr.icks and relocate the driveway father to the south, safety would be
knowingly compromised.
We would be pleased to discuss the parameters for development of this site w ith potential
purchasers of the lot. If you have any other questions regarding the potential development of this
property, do not hesitate to contact me at (952) 249-4600. ^
fnnifer Chapfct
Manner
1380 Sixth Ave N Street File
OF TRACT D. R.L.S. NO. 1418
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
LEGAL DESORPTION OF PREMISES:
Troct 0. Registered Lond Survey No. 1418, files of Registror
of Titles. Hennepin County. Minnesota
This survey shows the boundories of the obove described property. It does
not purport to show ony other improvements or encroachments.
o Iron nrxirker
• ; Herviepin County right-of-way monument
Beorings shown ore bosed upon on assumed datum
LOT AREA exaUDNC CO. RO. NO. 6-4.2U- ACRES
0-75 U Mtboch tone ■ 20,1204— SO. FT. Drivewoy pod
75-250 Ntbock tone -1140104—SO. FT.
250-500 Mtbocfc zerw-403054-sa FT.
1254- SO. FT. ■ 0.52% hardcover
GRONBERGkiSSOCUmiNC.
^ aHtKoanKiMsuKn^mfums
1 hereby (vHy (hot Ihd srtty ra prepned by m v inder my drect sper-
visioiv ml that 1 om 0 dJy revived Civil Cn^jnMr and Lord Suveyor mler
SCAU
r-100*r Ihe km ol the Stote of Uimesota OAIC
1 ^ 4«iiaiOiOMC LCKucmsm
M-47J-4141vj
Mark S Grorberq klrvwsolo IcefM lumber 12755
JOti NO.
03-021
03-021
'.'r
LI
RESOLirriON NO. 667
•A RESnuJTiaN ATPnOViSC THE WICISTERED LV:!) SURVT.Y #1418“
MEREAS, the City of Orono is a Municipal corporation organized
and existing tndcr tlic l»-s of the State of Minnesota, and
MEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted sub
division regulations for the onlcrlv, economic and safe development of
land within the city; and
MEREAS, the City Couicil has considered the application for a
sii>division plat for Rcnlstcrcd Land Surwev 11418 by A1 hhitaan;
,N(lf, IIEREIORli, BO IT RRSOLVED, that the City CoiOKil of the City
of Orono hereby aporoves the plat for Registered Land Survey #_l4ia
Hennepin Goiiity, Minnesota, conditioned on the existing pari dedication
fees being paid.
This resolution will expire on Soptcirther 1, 1976, if the aforesaid
stixiivision pair had not been filed with the Hennepin Coioity Register
of Deeds. In that e\*ent, it will be necessary to file a new application
with the City of Orono for subdivision approval.
Dated this dav of March 1976.
Jiohert L. Scarles, Mayor
ATIT-ST:
Kalter
Clerk/Adnin is t rator
r
STXK OF .'n.WnSJTA
onum OF HDC^TPIN
CITY OF oncwo
The trtdcrsif!ncd duly qttallfied and acting; City Clcrk/Ailnlnistralor
of the City of Orono horchv certifies that attached hereto is a tnic and
correct copy of the oriRinal Resolution passed by the City Council of the
City of Orono on Febniarv 23, 1976, apnrovinf the Refsisteirtl Land Survey
• Plat on file in the office of tlic City Clcrk/Aii^inistrator, Cltv
of Orono.
Cleii/Adninistrator
Dated this 9th Jnv of _____, 1976.
(Seal)
TO:
L
Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
Jennifer Chapul. City Planner
February 7.2003
SUBJECT: li03-2869 Dr. Robert Gumnit
1100 Old Crystal Bay Road
CUP and Variance - Public Hearing
Zoniag District:
Lot Area:
RR-iB One Family Rural Residential (2 acres)
25.4 acres (1.106.424 s.f.)
Esbibits:
A Application
Ha^cover Calculation Worksheets
Correspondence from City Staff
Site Plan
Grading and Hro.sion Control Pliin
Wetland Mitigation Plan
1989 Aerial Photo
Topography Map
Plat Map
Location Map
Property Ou-ner’s List
Pertteent Code Sections:
1. Section 10 55. Suhd. 8; Filling of wetlands: No filling, grading, dredging, excavation,
harJeoN er. temp^'rary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other
con<tniction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conservations Area;
nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary
high wuter elevation of any lake shoreline, rtor on land abutting, adjoining or affecting
said area.
Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (J) (4b): Moscnicnt of more than 500 cubic yards: For
movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material any^vherc within the Shoreland
Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the City Council is required in
addition to the required land alteration permit.
Section 10.20. Subd. 3 (M). Section 10.28. Subd. 4 (A) and Section 10.56, Subd. I6(N)
(I): Animals and Agricultural Use; Animals shall be a permitted accessory' use in the
H03-2S69 Dr floK'rl CJumnit
2112003
Fagr I of 3
RR-IU district. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single
horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. Wlten
permitted in the underlying zoning district, general cultivation, farming, grazing,
nurseries, horticulture, mick farming, and wild crop harvesting shall be allows in the
Shoreland Overlay District except that no such activity shall occur within the shore
setback zone.
Section 10.56. Subd. 7 (A) and Section 10.56. Subd. 16(C) (1): Shore setback: French
tjike is classified as a Natural Fnvironnicnt l.akc. requiring a setback of 150'.
Section 10.22. Subd. 2. Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (l.)(l) and Section 10.56. Subd 16
(JH 3); Hardcover and driveways w ithin 75*: No hardcover or impervious surface shall
be placed. ItKated or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary High Water Level of any
lake or tributarv-. Drivewavs shall not be constructed within 75' of the Ordinary High
Water Level of public waters
Section 10.03. Subd. 15 (Ci)(2 c): Lakeshore lot fences: Fences shall not be constructed
within the defined lakeshore vard of a lakeshore lot. i.e. shall not be located vsiihin 150
feet for Natural Fnvironment Lakes.
Application Summary ’:
The applicant ret]uests the following in order to n.*construet a 1.440 s.f. (1 20' x 12') gravel
driveway to access and use a 1 .X acre island on his property:
1 ) a variance for filling in 2.091 s.f. of a wetland, where no fill or hardcover is normally
permitted.
2) conditional use permits for movement of more than 500 cubic yards of fill and mitigating
wetland within the shoreland overlay district.
3) a variance to allow .in agricultural use (gra/ing ofhorses) within the 150' of the OllWL
of French I ake;
4) a variance to allow a 4* fence to be liKated as close as 14* from the OHWL of French
laikc where 150* is required, and
5) a variance for mitigating 4.234 s.f. of land within 75* of the OHWL of French l.akc where
no grading or excavation is permitted
There is an existing trail accessing the island of land at this time. The trail has been worn down
over time so the applicant wishes to improve it for machinery’ to be able to drive on it. In the
1950s. the original land owner used this land for grazing cattle.
The construction of the driveway requires 2.091 s.f of wetland to be filled with approximately
1 32 cubic yards of material if rebuilt on the existing drive. However, the amount of fill is
difficult to anticipate at this time so. since the s^>ils have not been checkcnl. there may be more
than 1 32 cubic yards of fill required. In the case that more than 500 cubic yards of fill is required,
an application for a conditional use permit has been made.
t‘OJ-2869 Dr RoK’rt Oumntt
2 IJ 200J
Page 2 vj 5
In order to comply with the Wetland Conscr\ation Act. wetland mitigation of 4.234 s.f. is
proposed next to the south property line near the middle of the proposed site. Mitigation requires
movement of land within 75’ of the OHWL of French Lake, which is not permitted and requires
a variance. Changes in the e.xisting grade arc not permitted w ithln 5' of the lot line. The proposed
mitigation will also require movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material, requiring a
CUP.
When the access is improved, the applicant intends on plow ing or burning the land and planting
native grasses. The applicant has four horses that are stabled in Delano. From time to time
(typically weekends), the applicant may want to bring a few- horses to his property (on the island)
the day ^fore going riding with them. No more than 3 at a time would be on the property and
they would not be stabled there or remain for a long period of time. For this purpose, the
applicant wishes to fence the island with no more than a 4’ electric fence. On lakeshore lots on
Natural Environment lakes (such os French Lake), fences can not be located within 150’ of the
OHWL. The applicant proposes a fence location as close as 14’ from the OIIW'L.
In the RR-IB zoning district, horses arc permitted as an accessory use. ‘The applicant proposes no
more than 3 horses on the property at one time. The number of horses permitted on the property
is broken down as follows:
Total lot area;
Less wetlands:
Less I acre for house (Section 10.20. Subd. 3m)
25.4 acres
-16.04 acres
-1.0 acres
8.36 acres
Since 2 acres of posture are requimd for the first horse .md I acre for each additional horse. 7
horses would be pcmiitted. assuming all 8.36 acres arc available for pa.sturc.
Other Comments:
City Engineer
'The City i ngineer has reviewed the application. He staled that a typical section of the proposed
roadway should be included for review and erosion control measures should be in.stall^.
inspected and approved by the City prior to construction activity.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
The application has been submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for review but no
comments have been received at this time. MCWD approval will be required before wetland nil
and mitigation are permitted. As a requirement of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,
mitigation of the wetland at a ratio of 2; I (filling 2.091 s.f. of wetland and creating 4.234 s.f.) is
proposed adjacent to the southwest comer of the wetland along the southern property line.
•0J-’MV Or RutK-rt Uumnit
21) 200)
Pagt)^S
1
Departmenl of Natural Resources
The applicant has been in contact with the Department of Natural Resources regarding this
.application. The applicant will require a permit from the DNR because the proposal impacts the
OIIWL of French l.akc (930). The DNR has stated that they will not likely be able to make a
ruling on the possibility of this application until aher the snow has melted and their own
independent sursey can be completed.
Hbtory:
The property is unplatted with a metes and bounds legal description. An application for
subdivision of the property was submitted and w ithdrawn in 19R9. There have been no other
zoning applications on the property.
In the past, driveways have been permitted through wetlands to provide a primary access to a
property when denial would deprive the owocr of all use of the property. In this ca.se. the fill is
only needed to pros idc access for an accessory use and the Planning Commission should
consider whether a hardship exists to justify the variance. The surrounding properties do not have
dry land w ithin the wetland, as this property does. The area to the immediate north of the
applicant's isl.ind. French Creek Preserve, is owned by the City and was prev iously in use as a
sewage treatment plant.
Hardship:
I he applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit A. The applicants should also
be asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Issues for Consideration:
1. There is currently a muddy trail in place for access to the island. If the applicant is not
able to improve the access, the existing trail will likely continue to be used aiid not be
improved;
2. Historically, the island was u.sed as a grazing area for cattle. 1 he properly Is not currently
being used for this purpose;
Construction of the access w ill create hardcover w here it is prohibited;
W ill nughbviring views of French Lake be obstructed by the placement of on electric
fence and horses, from time to time, on the island?
There are no other known applications that permit a property owner to access dry land
within a wetland on a property . Ibis issue is particular to this property;
Can the pn>perty be put to a reasonable use without accessing the island? Is use of the
island a property right of the owner?
Would use of the island negatively impact the health, welfare or safety of the public?
Other issues rai.sed bv the Planning Commission.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
tiO}-2S6V Dr Rot\ ri Cumnit
2 IJ 200)
A/.e 4 of)
r:
Staff lIccoBiBMflMlalioas:
If Ihe Planning Commission feds that the applicant has shown undue hardship and should be
able to reconstruct a gravel dri\*eway by filling in and mitigating wetland to access land,
proposed to be enclosed with an electric fence and used for pasturing of horses from time to time,
then the variances and CUPs necessdfy should be approved, with the following conditions;
1. A wetland delineation report must be submitted to City staff prior to presentation of this
application at the City Council;
2. Review and i^iproval from Minnehaha Creek W^ershed District is required prior to City
permit approt^;
3. Review and approval from the Department of Natural Resources is required prior to City
permit approv'd;
4. City permit submittal must include a typical section of the proposed roadway and
illustrate that no grading will occur within S' of any lot line;
5. Erosion control measures should be installed, inspected and approved by the City prior to
any construction activity.
If the Plaiming Commission feels that there is no hardship to permit the constrviction of a
driveway through a wetland, and that the driveway reconstruction is not necessary to preserve the
owner’s rights, then the apr''cation for variances and CUPs should be denied.
M3-2869Dr Robert CumHU
i/n/iooi
Page 5 of 5
L
A '/C»
Applicatioo # 03'
DaleRccei^-cd
Amount Paid frJ .
CITY OF ORONO - GENERAC LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Address H/)n r>/SAr* fZo^Dwatw __________________________________________________
Type of Application to be Filed ucj^t PgA^trr
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)______________________________________
APPLICANT
Name J3H?-
Address ^ ge~________
Phone (home)_
Phone (work ) 2
Zip
OWTIER (if difTerent than ^plicant)
Name_________________
Phone (home)_
Phone (work)_
Address
Date Property Acquired_____________________
I (do) tfdo poll also own the adjacent parcels of land.
(month^>-ear)
FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
y $ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application
_____S250.00 Residential Accessory Use
_____S2S0.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
_____S2SO.OO Guest House/Guest Apartments
_____S250.00 Duplex Creditmidg
_____$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
y $250.00 Land Alteration
y Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain
Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more
Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore
PRDTID - see Fee Schedule
$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application)
Afler-the-Fact Fee - Double Cunent Application Fee
OTHER APPLICATIONS
_____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees)
_____$300.00 Vacation
_____S250.CX) Easement Vacation
$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision
_ $350.00 Rezoning (PUD • refer to fee schedule)
_ $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
_ $100.00 Appeals
_ Olh« ■ s« Fm Schedule t- ; ..j,
O C/
ADDBaition #03-^ <3S(p'
Date Received
Amount Raid
I
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original qjplication)
Variance for non-conforming atiuctures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
SiteAddreti ///7^
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)___________________________
Att^h legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired___________________________
I fdol ^ noth aim own the adjacent parcels of land.
_(montli';j-car)
Present use of property:
Zoning District:_______
X residential _other (specify).
APPLICANT
Name T>^.
Address: ^ rf________
Phone (home).
____ Phone (work ) » fa vevr /
City: Zip: g«rT2.T
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name ______________________
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
Address:City:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Describe request in detail: __
Estimated Construction Cost $
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
___ Lot Area Lot Width
Setback: __Front
Other (specify)______
Side
Hardcover
Rear
Lot Cover
__ Average Lakcsl
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements:______________________________
(attach additional sheeu if necessary)
—*
i
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
AH of the following information mutt be lubmltted bv the ipplicatlon deadline date In
ordtr for vour appllcatioa to be toniidcfcd complete;
1.
2.
/
3.£
JL
5.
6.
jL
7.
8.
±
/
Completed Application Fonn
Ceitifled Property Ow-ners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (>*ou
must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of
Finance, A-S03, Govt 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 e.xisling
grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8/1" x 11" for reproduction.
Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11").
List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in
the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not 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 Cit>' staff.
The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your
variance application b not complete if the above Information has not beta included.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning
Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment)
and/or consultant expenses incuned in review of this application, and certifies that the
infoimatlon supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant's Signature Date
0>\’NER'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.
/I i . \ M
Owner’s Signature
les of investigation and verification <
Date
Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 da>s before the Planning
Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each
month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning
Commission and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please
mak: arrangements to have a.T authorized agent attend in >our place and to advise the Building
& Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting.n '■
) !
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
5.
6.
_/ Completed Application Form.
Describe request in detail.
IZ- Certified Property Owners Ust of ow.*ners within 350*, labels and plat map (svu
Hennepin County Department of Finance.
A-603, Government Center, 348*3271).
Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for $ur\ey
information. ^
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land aUerations involve
changes m elevation (grades).
jL List of the legal names (include mariul sUtus) of all persons with an interest in the
y property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current o>^Ticr(s)
_2l^onstruction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements).
^ addendum to this appUcaUon, please attach a separate Ust of any other
persoru >x>u wish nolilleU of this application.
YOU REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY
SuSviimD^*^^s7f?^ i/”" SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTSSUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc to be
submitted.)
me AppUc«U ^ 0»ncr must sign (hi, w«c«ion. Pla« r«ncn.b« Uul >w»
applicabon is not complete if the above information has not been included.
Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is comolele
Initials of Clerical Staff:________________________D jU p
8.
9.
APPLICANTS SIGNATURE
supplied IS true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge.
Applicant’s signature i Date
OWER'S SIGNATURE
•“‘horized reasonable
S.rror contusion Co««,l
Owner’s signature
Appheam must have aU nbininab ioto the City ofTicei 25 before the r-
Plannyig Conunission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each mor.Ui Coowawion Meetmg
scheduled review meeriagi of the Planning Convnission ai^ Council If an aSheloi m *
scheduled nteenng. please nuke arrangemerS, n, have «, Lr aJendt^^^^
Builduig A Zoning OfT.ce of tha change prior to the meeting ‘ “ ^ **
i .
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 7S-2S0* 2SO-SOO*8W-10M*
RXMIINC HARDCOVER IN
A. Hom«
B. Gants
C Drivtmy
D. Sidewalk
E Pado/Dsck
F. Undicape
Uadetlaia
ByPlasik
O. Other
TOTAL HASDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
t> ♦ B ^4rrt X 100
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 70NF
A. Houm
WiMi
B. Ganfe
C Driveway
D. SidewaDc
E Patioa>cck
F. Landscape
Uadertaia
By Plutk
O. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
ZTRg ♦ B /XLL-t!% 100
rgg
2;., ^
SE.
SR.
SJF.
SP.
SF.
SE
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
_________SF.
_________S.F.
,SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF.
SF,
SF.
SF.
SF.
__________SF.
__________SF.
HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) i-TS* 2S0-SM’
XBTINC HARDCOVER IN TOUT
900-100t*
A Howe
B. Oanr>
Cl Drive MQT
D. SidnvaR
R FMtoMc
Underlain
By Hulk
O. Oter
i’
WMdi
total hardcover in zone
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
yr^TiQ ♦ B /r^ yzt % loo
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZnNE
A. Howe
B. Gatife
C Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E ParioDcck
F. LatMbeape
Underlain
By Pluric
O. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
total property area in zone
2Tf 3/0 * B X 100
S.F.
SR
SR
SR
SF.
SR
SF.
, SR
s.r
,S.|
SR
S.F.
SR.
TiO S.F.
S.F. A
SR. B
%
SR
SR
SF.
SF.
. S F.
SF.
SR
.SR
SR
SR
SR
SF.
__ _ _ _ _SR
SR
£T,/L %
i^r
hardcover calculation worksheet
StIlACK ZONE: (CDICLB ONE) 0-75'
C HAMDCOVMI IN y/MWT
7S-250* 2M.SM* (^H0a*TZ^
A. H(mm
‘8. Omc«
C Odvcwqr
D. Sidnvdk
E PMhyDwk
F. LndKape
UndnUin
ByFluiie
O. Other
Widih
TOTAL hardcover IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
______o ♦ B X 100
PROPOSED HARDTOVER IN TONy;
A House
E Ganfc
C Drivtwiy
D. Sideuxlk
E. Puio/Dcck
F. Landscape
Uoderlaia
By PUstic
O. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
_ _ _o * B X 100
SF.
SJ.
SF.
S.F.
.SF.
SF.
.SF.
.SF.
.SF.
SJf.
SJ.
ST.
_ S F. A
_ST. B
SF.
SF.
S.F.
.ST.
.ST.
ST.
. SF
ST.
,ST.
SF.
ST.
ST.
05
CO
f> ■
e:
n. i ,
•>
* .
__ _ _ _ _ST.
__ _ _ _ _ST.
# •
T 1i HAI
(j
LZflim
jj.
\,J> i f
r
aMM*. AnM«M ms Iac N «a Afto*
ms Own*A
•*ACIMA t»M« OpMIIMWity f
AttnopjN i>*KiC M •Va'ixl *1
■•••, A • n * V.. A »•
tfOM* CantHNAMt toc«>t A «ni*r« M
» f »( • (>-AKMr f,
> •h 'uk II twAnTf ft • totAn W ItvfM C *AAiicpnC Andr«M M
AltMMI* AlMtIAAft r^K<*on >•1 «t.|>«|l rfr'ft-'v fl • t.[t<A> J « *oUT4 « • tlA>xt O lOWOlA fl •
t n • V4* Anor-tr^ Af • ¥L»« • tnOt H • {\*><f A Acr*A^oo Ml A
V<»»# ^ A A-Amion n I I • Ai^pvt V t>ig VI A • A^m »«• f» • l» —A A»t»«von »| •
V AAfxl A| • tAirit >t»nrft PI • l p^ihi b».ri ■ PI • D atiaa j P| • iva wi Va " P| •
IhnmAi A 1,1m Pf > %tmSaA I Aannian • DMr A C><m« PI • A PuwiA* P| • Po«r«1 I (•*.»', PI
OltKP* |l P«A U Coutf P<M>wilrt A«~-» WPk* IA!*»A«>«!«CrMA9a «
► Sonnttoatom
Bonestroo
CjB Rosene
Andertik&
|\|| Associates
. engineers 4 Architects
Febcueiy4.2003
loiiiiferClii|wi
Planner
CityofOrono
Post Office Box 66
Ccystal Bay.MN 35323
Re: 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road
BleNa P94)3-000
Plat No. 03-2869
Dear Jennifer
We have reviewed the plans for constructing a roadway through a wetland to provide a connection between
two upland areas on the property located at 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road. The fubnunal includes .i wetLind f:L
and mitigation plan. We have the following cominenu with regards to engineering ma*ten:
• The plaiu should include a typical section for the pr.'fA'iicd nKutway
• Erosion control measures should be installed, inspecied and appo.'ved by the City prior to a.-’y
construction activity.
• Plans should be submitted to Minnehaha Creek Watershed Districi for ihcir review and app*ova)
regarding the proposed wetland fill and mitigation.
If you have any questions please call me at (63 1) 604-4S63.
Yours very truly.
BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERUK & ASSOCIATES. UiC.
Tom Kellogg
Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono
c
2JJS West Highway 36 • Sc. Paul. MN 5SI1J • 651-636*4600 • Faa; 651-636-1311
N
n
ncv>s«*>s
#
SCHOUL 4 MAOSON. INC.
i«M(n • tuw«<«n • *tMMS
IM n%>m ‘ tmmexmmm. wmt%*nm mmtUM Mt •
«iM»«Dii ft M »y>
I*'*) «M WWM
Ow<«/OCvtiOPtA
OR ROBOT GUMT poeoxMCMnrfrALBAT.iMinn
____QAlI_j^<uftg!L-2>-2flfll.
MOjCCI nauC/Sm(CI niLC
noo OLD CHYSTAL BAY ROAD
ORONQ.IM
SHE AND UTLITY PLAN
su.l. PROJECT NO «4KHXa SHEET 1 Of 3 SHEETS
wvtsions
.Uii-M ««
SCHOCLL * MAOSON. INC.
• MT«n •
tM «■«*»
iCMa MWIMH •
MMK’OMU M MJM
(••>1 »t4-»*C'
oanoeBVTQUMNrr___p a tox •»anrtTALBAY.iMaam
_______________________fUtr 7. MOJ
pROJCcr NAwe/wcr iiuc
tlOO OLD CRYSTAL BAY HOAD
GNONO.IM
QRAOMQ AND BK»ON CONTFXX. PLAN
s M I PNOJECr NO «MXH)0a SHEET * or 3 SHEETS
OCNOTCS rH.lCO wctlano
OCMOTCS MOPOSCO tVCTumO
^^/7777?y77y77.
-----T
53KS?rr:
COrtWCtO* W/1> CO«'<CI t*C«<t*t «TUH« VtWllit
MM« to HCMMC COMr»jC>Ci« V •T«*TC" MIM
M *«-»••->»0l
•r*uM run • tr
•ffuwe wic«to« afOurifP • I.M'
; MDTOUD «nuM> ■ «.}M tr
Jfir
«CviS«NS
■M« l,M-» •» «#
SCHOCIL 4 MAOSON. INC.uo«m • kAcon • >u»«»c
»» NitK • «•»«(«
•«*0 aMUU 10 «M. fc**t •
•«• »W0»
omnch /ocvuopcr
cfvrvrAL t4t. m asaas
t»tL jA»» 0 OOfli
PAOJtCT MAM£/SHCtt T.TlC
1XX) OUD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD
OnONO. IM
WETU^ MmOATION PLAN
SMI PROJECT NO «a«0-002 Sh ££T 3 Of 3 Sh EETS
’!fa
f
•*
f'
d j ' -1
r^*-
sp-
<-i
.T.---
i.'?
IM ' '■ -■’^F
;.. . ' • ■ 'll
i^i-:'v^
H-! •>-/mi
'- •.' v: r^ ^m.tas
^smm
teSill
B
(O
Q.
<
•iiaimiM
I SEE MAP 48
r.lcDlNA
I
\r ^
I.........
CtautH
---------<
------i
e:'
-----i nuif
(hP®lu*,iSL
-Kl______.—I
Lake
>U«M-
hMQI
\
Long Lake
I TIMVMD I *in
NH WTf »l/M/n
BATCH US
NOBO ’Pn COUNTY MOPCtTV IMTOOIUTIOH STSTIN
rBOfCRTV OMNCBS LIST
ItroOT NO. PlASMBl
PA8B 9
TAmiTtOmm/um
H M-117*3S It 0M7
■M90 OLB CRYSTAL BAY BO S
CITY OP OBONO
CITY OP OBONO
BIS BBONN BB
CBYSTAL BAY Ml SSBBS
SB t«-117-2S 11 IBM
•MBB OLD CBYSTAL BAY BO S
RilBNTN N BIFP/JULli N BXFP
ROBKTN N BlPP/JULIt N BIFP
9BB OLB CRYSTAL BAY BB S
IMYZAfA NN BSS91
SO BY-llT'ZS II MM
•IBIB OLB CBYSTAL BAY BO S
BOBIRT B ELlZABfTN NCLAHIB
BOBCBT B ELIZABCTN NILANiD
IfIB OLD CBYSTAL BAY BO S
MAYZATA HN BBS9I
BHHiB NBfK
TAKPAYtBmm/um
SB B9-117-ZS 11 BBIB
B2MB PBtNCN LABE BO
ROBBBT J B JOAN L DAYTON
BOBCBT J B JOAN L DAYTON
1 FBCNCB LABE BO
NAVZATA m B5S9I
SB t9*117-ZB 12 BBBB
BBBM OLB CBYSTAL BAY BB B
J A B N M TROUP
JONN A B NABOABET H TBOUP
BM OLB CRYSTAL BAY BB S
MAYZATA NN SSSYl
SO B9-117-ZS 12 BBB9
■BBSS ABBBCSS BHASSIONCO
CITY OP OBONO
CITY OP OBONO
P 0 BOB M
CRYSTAL BAY NN BBS2S
OUNCB NANC
TAKPAYtBmm/um
lA B9-117-2S 12 BBIB
BZBBB LITTLE OBCNABO MAY
TNONAS L A AIJA HECNAN
TNONAS L HECNAN
B9SB BAY COLONY OB BABl
NAPLES FL SAIM
SB B9*I17-2S IS BBBA
BllSB OLB CBYSTAL BAY BD S
6 M B D E STEINHAFCL
CBCOO tf/OCNISC C STETNNAFCL
USB OLD CRYSTAL BAY BO S
MAYZATA m SSSYl
SB B9-117.25 15 BMA
BiaZB OLD CBYSTAL BAY BB S
kCMOALL ELLIS
RCNOALL ELLIS
IBZB OLD CRYSTAL BAY BO S
MAYZATA m SSSYl
POOP AOBB
ONHCB MM
TARPAYtR
MM/AODB
SB B9-117«2S IS BBIB
02MB NOBTN SMDRf BB
0 R NOPPHAN B J A NOPFNAN
CBCSOBY B B JUOITN NOPFNAN
2MB NOBTN SNORC OR
MAYZATA HN BSS91
SB B9-117-2S lA BBBl
BllBB OLD CBYSTAL BAY BO S
R J GUHNIT B r N 6BANAN
BOBCBT 6UMIIT/PBANCCS OBANBM
IIBB OLD CBYSTAL BAY BB S
MAYZATA NN SBSAl
SB BA-I17-ZS lA aiBA
BBBSB AOOBESS UNASSZ6NCO
B J B J L DAYTON
ROBERT J DAYTON
1 FRENCH LAKE BO
MAYZATA NN S5SA1
PROP AOOB
OMNCB NANC
TAKPAYCR
NAMi/ABBB
SB IA-117-ZS lA BBB7
BllSB OLD CBYSTAL BAY BO S
TNONAS 6 B PNYUIS B COLMELL
TNONAS 0 B PNYLLIS B COLMELL
C/0 COLMELL IMBUSTRIES INC
IZS SOB ST N
NPLS NN SSABl
SB BA-117-2S 2A BMl
aZBAS NORTH SNORE OB
NCNN CO PARR RESIBVE BIST
SUBURBAN NCNN BfO PR BIST
IZAIS CTY BO A
PLYNOUTH Ml SSAAl
SB aA-ii7-2s Ai aaiA
aaasB aoobess unassicneo
CHARLES S BIBOITTA SCHOCN
CHARLES B BIBOITTA SCHOCN
2ASB NOBTN SNORE OB
MAYZATA NN SS3Y1
POOP ABBB
OMNER NANC
TAXPAYERmm/um
SB 1B-117-2S ZS BBBS
BBBSB ABBBCSS IBIASSICMIB
B C B N Lin
ROBERT C B NANCY LUX
IFBA FBCNCN CREEK BB
MAYZATA HN SSSAl
TOTAL BATCH SBS BBCU 7^
V''
■HI Mil tl/M/U
lATCN MS
wmiriN COIMTV rmirv mromiTxaN svstih
raapurr omnc«s list RIPOtT m. fMSMIl
fASt it
7
TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
FROM: Wendy Bottcnberg. City Planner
DATE: Febrxiary 14,2003
SUBJECT: #03-2871 Dan & Sally Weatherly
1214 Wildhurst Trail
After-lhe-Fact Variances - Public Hearing
Zomimg District: LR-1B One Family Ijikcshorc Residential District (I acre)
Lot Area: 47,327 s.f. (1.086 acres)
Eibibits:
A Application
B Ha^hip Statement
C Surv ’ey for remodeling
D Sur\ ey for attached garage
E Elevations
F Floor Plans
G Lot Line Rearrangement - 1200 Wildhurst Trail
H Photo of Property
1 Plat Map
J Property Owner's List
K Letter from Adjacent Neighbor
Pertinent Code 5iections:
1. Section 10.03, Subd. 15(A): Non-Encroachments: Ea\es shall not be considered to be
encroachments on sard requirements provided they do not extend more than 1 '/»feet. To
permit ea\ es to encroach more than I into the side >ard setback.
2. Section 10.24. Subd. S (B): To pemtit the foundation to encroach 6" into the side yard
setback The side yard setback will be 9 '; feet where 10' is required.
Application Summary: Tlie applicants are requesting two after-the -fact >ariances for a newly
constructed single family residence. Tiie first \ariance is to allow the foundation of the newly
constructed residence to be K>cated 9 '/i* from the side property line where 10’ is required. TTic
second variance is to allow the eaves to encroach into the side yard setback.
Discussion:
The subject propertv v as purcliascd m 2002. The applicant's initial plan was to remodel the
existing residence and add a second story. Shortly aflcr the applicants started the project, it was
determined the foundation was not sound enough to handle the additional load of a second story.
The structure was demolished and a new foundation was built.
«03-:S7i Dsn Sail) Westherl)
1214 Wildhurst Trail
2 142003
Page I of3
While out to the property for an insulation and roof inspection, the building inspector noticed the
eaves on the north side of the residence were more than the allowed 1 '/S’. The inspector verified
this by reviewing the submitted plans of which the building permit was issued. The eases were
too big. The City then notified the builder of the problem. Shortly after this, the applicant’s
brought on a new architect and builder.
City staff and the new architect and builder discussed the problem with the eaves and a proposed
attached garage. Another set of plans were submitted for the proposed attached garage. The
proposed garage met the required 10’ setback. The garage was deigned to follow the setback
line, however, when the property was surv eyed for placement of the garage, it was determined
the foundation of the newi residence encroached into the side yard setback. (9.6’>9.8’).
Phns:
Set #1 : The plans that were submitted for the remodel and addition of a second story showed the
foundation and eaves meeting required setbacks.
Set #2; The plans that were submitted for the attached garage show the caves larger than on set
. Because the building permit had already been issued, the residence construction well
underway, and the builder was aware of the ea\e problem, only the garage was reviewed for
issuance of a building permit.
Fouadation:
In the LR-1B /t»ning district, the required side yard setback is 10*. The building permit was
Issued after reviewing plans and a survey which indicated the foundation to be located 10’ from
the side property line.
As discussed earlier in this report, when the survey ors were on the property to stake the proposed
garage location, it was determined the foundation encroached 6" into the side yard setback. At
the corners of the foundation, it is located 9.6’ and 9.8’ from the property line where 10’ is
required.
Eaves:
naves on a single family residence are allowed to encroach no more than I Vi* into a required
yard. The eaves on plan Set«I met the I '/»’ required. However, the eaves shown on Set «2
show 30” because that plan is “as built". Also, because the foundation is 6 ” into the setback and
the caves arc 30”. they encroach 36 ” into the side yurd setback. (Sec Exhibit C).
Lot Line Rearrangement:
The lot line between 1214 and 1200 Wildhurst Trail is oddly shaped due to a lot line
rearrangement In 1976 the property to the north. 1200 Wildhurst Trail, received approval for a
0O3-287I Dan Sally Weatherly
1214 Wildhurst Trail
2 142003
Page 2 of 3
lot line rearrangement to help correct a non-conforming situation to the existing residence to the
south, 1214 Wildhurst Trail. The residence to the south is the subject property applying for the
aAer-the-fact variances.
SUIcamit of Hardship:
The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicant should also be
asked for their testimony regarding this issue.
Issues for Consulcration:
1. The error in the location of the foundation was discovered after a building permit u’as issued
and the residence was almost completed. Would Planning Commission require the residence be
moved to conform to the required setback for newr construction?
2. The building plans submitted and approved indicate the eaves would not encroach more than
the 1 Vi allowed into the side >ard setback.
3. The eaves arc not essential to the of the residence. Does Planning Commission find
any hardship to allow the caves to rem;-:4,24 is, or should they be cut back to meet the required
setback?
4. The properi\ is conforming to *^5 the LR-IB zoning district.
5. The new residence did not require .'i v sariaices to be constructed. It met hardcover,
structural lot coverage and height requirement of the LR-IB zoning district.
6. If Planning Commission recommends to deny the aAer the fact variance for the oversized
eaves, should the location of the foundation be considered in determining the size of the eaves to
be allowed?
7. Othci issuo raised by tl.e Planning Commission.
Staff Rccuuuucudalion:
Staff recommends approval of the aAer the fact variance for side yard setback for encroachment of
the foundation
Review ing the building plans that were submitted and approved (Set ^ 1). the eaves indicated on the
plans do not encroach more than the allowed I Vi. Therefore, staff recommends the aAer-the-fact
variance for the encroachment of the eaves into the side yard setback be denied and cut back to
conform to required standards.
•03-2171 DwiSatlx Wcjuherl)
1214 Wildhurst Trail
2/14 2003
Pagc3of3
f.
L-.
App«c«lioa »<0^-^^-7 I
DrtcRccthfcd
Anwt Paid SOO.
CITY OF ORONO - VARlANCf; APPLICATION
Inititl AppUcition Fee S2S0.00
(SSO.OO per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $130.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforaiing structures S250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double q>plication fee)
PROPERTY INFORhUTION
Site Address^ / £ W LtJilJUursfJVAsI
Property Identification Number (P.LD.) ol -tn-23* 31 - g>0 aC#
Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv'ey.
Date Property Acquired _________________
I (do) 6io hop also own the* adjacent parcels of land.
2 00 2._(month'>-car)
Present use of property: _2Cresidential
Zoning District: / ylZ I
_other (specify).
APPLICANT
Nime _____
Address: So 70 » Citv: M A
Phone (home ) 2»
Phone (wx.k) S
Zip:
0»'NER (if different than applicant)
Name
Address:
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
City:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S.
Describe request in detail: ^
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
___ Lot Area
y Setback: __Front
__ Other (specify)______
Lot Width
X Side
Hardcover
Rear
.Lot Covera;
__ Average Lakesho
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
DeKribe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requiremente: ___________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
t o r
)3 1 '
OMcr^lon of Request for 1214 WMhurat Tral. Orono MInnnota
The Weelherlys «• lequeetino e side yerd eett>eck to:
• Aocomnodale the eidslingbuldkig with the roof overtieng of 12* beyond me
pemMed eelbeck. and
• teavemecurrerdfKMjndetion6'’intome8emack.
? 9 , r-
* "•;
Stalemtnt of Hardship 1214 Wildhurst Trail. Orono Minnesota
We have determined hardship due to the building errors created by Innovative
Remodefing.
In spring of 2002 the Weatherly s purchased 1214 Wildhurst Trail to renovate for ttwr
home. The Wdathertys hired Innovative Remodeling to design arfo build ^ renovatiw.
They at hy< Innovative to assess the sourxlness of the home and were given a letter by
a structural engineer stating that the house was sound. A remodeling plan was
developed utilizing the existing basement and first floor of the home and adding a
second story. Construction started In May 2002 and not long after, in early June, the
Wdathertys were told that upon further investigation, the basement was not sound due
to the fact that footings vwere either non-existent or not to code on the fokcsi^ of the
home. They were informed that a second story should not be added arfo In fact, the
entire structure vwuld have to be tom down. The Weatherlys were unhappy with the
situation but proceeded with the totally new structure because they tell they had no
choice due to the extent of the demolition thus far. Innovative Remodeling demolished
the structure and constructed a new basement.
The continuing construction was plagued by similar miscommunication and cost
overruns. In the fall of 2002 the Weatherlys asked Innovative to put the project on hold
for tHO vreeks while they assessed their options. At that time. Innovative
left the job and did not return. In November. Sharratt Design & Company and Robert
Craig Homes were brought into the project to continue the work
At the start of their Involvement. Sharratt Design & Co. contacted Orono Building
Inspections to discuss the project arnf the status of the viiork that had been inspected up^
to that time. SDC ¥ws informed by Lyle that Bruce had found the roof overhang to be
over the permitted setback and presented a setback problem. SDC further discovered
that the roof overhang extends a total of 12" Into the permitted setback.
As part of the continuing work. SDC designed a new attached garage for the project.
SDC met with the Planning Department to design a conforming structure. Plans wwere
given to the building department for a new permit. Because the garage was designed to
go up to the setback line, the original surveyor was employed to locate the new
structure for the block contractor. Upon laying out the new garage a problem was
discevered; a discrepancy behveen the actual field conditions and the proposed survey.
We determined that the surveyor had not been called to the site to locate the house
when it was rebuilt by Innovative. The contractor had built the foundation into the
setback on the north side of the building ranging between 2.5" to 6". The current survey
included vwth our application shows the original conforming building location and the
current building location.
These unfortunate errors by Innovative Remodeling have produced a continued
disruption for the neighborhood and a serious hardship for the Weatherlys and the City
of Orono.
/jr
i
'i.s
ricnx pkn OH Ptcpr’-^rt
P» 5C/2 t
•^Gxc^ii ON/«2«:><ztcL
*.*■
„ ..
Iv2>r^ pUu^ aeH
■R?5t>lS
A
• •i V • • ^ »• 1
Hp^iliiiiiwifsi
: ::: : ;.: ::!
••»•* • 1^ -•• ••*•* iV ►»-*•>» *i:i:<;i:ii|
iS!'i! !!iiiIII IIII“j Va.
WWKMPWMWrMWMW
liiil.
VL
I
t ■ . .
i
• •
f' •
i-.y
Vv
• V^.
m-
%ji-v«
•
v>t^
•A ' *
‘V“V. '
•ffi '
TO:
Fnr^:
a\TC:
SU3J2CT:
K. R. BenMn
II. F. l^lAlch
February 27, 1976 #9
David J. Xnatirtpf • 12Cn Kildhurst Trail
Variance - Lot Area and width
o jif
•
* \
This prsperty is located in an LR-IB residential zone. f!r. Ktusk^f U
rcqi:93ti^ a variance fren lot area and widtt requireeents o. eon acre
(43,550 sq. ft.) end 140 ft. lot width. His lot consists of .7 of an acre
rr.a is CO ft. %rtde therefora, he is rcquestlnn variances of ?.3,068 sq. ft
end SO ft.
The pTcposod location does neet all setback requizments. Hswever, we do
have a prcblen in the existing location of the residence on Ae preperty
to scuth. He have here a ncn-confonaing situation which we should
rectify. At the tine that the nsighborinf residence was cor.stnxtad surveys
v.-ere not required with building penait applications. This hsuse is new
encroaching the property line to such a d^ree that it does not even oeet
the fldnisza State requirexents. Ke night suggest as an agren^nt between
the property owners, to change the lot lines senewhat so we cen resolve
scse of the prebless. b’e could also consider slight variances on the sidu
tM noisetback to the north.
t;e should try to cset the 20 ft. distances between structures and also
prevent future prcblens fron any fences thnt night be crcctcJ aider r.iother
property cwners windows.
PUWriT (mnSSION - Ttarch 1, 1976
Although not scheduled as part of the regular nccting, the remission
revie<ed the above application. They then directed tiwit I contact
llr. Kniskepf and state that the Planning Comission would look favorable
to a variRree if he by pri\Tite negiotations try to rc.slif3i the lot line
with his neighbor in order to alleviate the cne foot sotbaci; ordilcn.
TIK^IUTS CC:*IS31CH - 7!crch IS, 1978
epryevai of the plan end ths vari -ixes ccnsistls9
c5 F3 i l. cn Xzn r':U£j; .3 cc m tzTO . lot nrea esd a 6” \MrixiSO ca tha
r.V’*r rrl'-'i*; ert 'ii:' rcrtli lot liso.
CCr'Cih rL'5;T:i3 - :irrch U, 197«
c- • r’A vsrirxs cad lot lino roarraijcaoat oa prasntad
ir. n:-.'? rr.^r'-i pin.
1
•V
k.*' • ?
WtU%-rk
eCHOBLL
■Kimwawn a ■uavYcaa
M HtMfM MTtMy t MWTM
iiawiw. MNiMcsa?*
cBRnncATa m burvby
M
I
il1
1
f.SO'
^5
'■f-•.
J
o - Omnofj9 iron monomtnf •»/
o^Pooohs iiyj monvm^nf found
midof. opofuf^y^.
a I ;'; . JBhp.gcrogm /3bor-Wff
V^*:| • ..
I ►3S33V CWTJ*V TX4T 7Hi9 S 4 TKUS AKO CC^^JCT WIAR222NTAT.ON OA
A£U»WlVOP ’IMltOJ^aX«tBCy ‘;
Tfacf B. IP)tQi&r9rmd Lona Survey Ab ///5, Hennepin
Caunfy, Kmneeofo.
A> 3 9 T>« LCCATON OA AU. eU)JD:>CJ. ANY. TKSP30IM. AK3 AU. VJE^'-S
tr.r^WOAWMTB. 6> ANY. FAOVICA CM CAX> LAXa ,,
A£ ojAVBvaopv iwa. c» c^sa;; ktt ^err thx -----------
ffielocs/idn of y(, ^
Aic: -az L/-VO 2x;.wj'/cn
ev/ CA
I m
• '4
t)MM MTf tl/17/«S
MTCN M2
NOMEPIN COUNTY POOfCRTV INTOMUTION SVSTCH
roopcm omcfo list
M tr-nr-is m •••7
MMR MOO 01104 MILONUOST TO
OMNii mm 0 0 RAsmssfN/s j rasmusscn
TAITATIO OOIM 0 I SMMA J RASMUSSCN
MM«/AIM 1104 MILONUOST TO
NOUMO NN SSS44
ocroor no. tiasmoi
fAfiC S
M 07-117-2S M
01170 CARDIN CT
T A I J • SUTTON
TNONAS A SUTTON
Mm OAROARA SUTTON
205S0 RNIONTSOOIOCC RO
CRCCLSIOO IM SSSSl
50 07-117>25 24 0044
01140 6AR0CN CT
JOHN n A CXNOV L CULllTON
JOHN H t CINOT L CUUITON
1151 MILONUOST TR
NN S5544
Poor Aooo
oMNiR mm
TAXPAVCO
NAHC/AOOO
SO 07-117-25 51 0015
01270 MILONUOST TO
J • 0 STASIR
JANiS STASIR
1270 MILONUOST TRAIL
SS544
50 07-117-25 51 002»
00050 AOOOCSS UNASSIGNCD
ROOERT L RIRRILANO CT AL TRS
ROMRT 0 .lARIT RIRRILANO
1240 MILONUOST TR
NN S5544
50 07-117-25 51 0054
01214 MILONUOST TR
S N MfATNCRLV/0 M NCATNIRLV
SALLY H MCATNIRIY
1214 MILONUOST TR
NN S5544
SO 07-117-25 St 0057
POOP AOOO 01200 MILONURST TR
OMNIR NANI SANOOA J NOLLCNNORST CT AL
TAXPAYCO SANOOA J NOLLCNNORST A
NANC/AOOR NICNACL J NOLLCNNORST
1200 MILONURST TR
NOUNO NN 15544
50 07-117-25 51 0050
01241 MUOMUOST TR
SCOTT NICNACL NCNNCSSY
SCOTT N NCNNCSSY
1241 MILONURST TR
m S5544
50 07-117-25 52 OO4S
04440 TOWAVICM LA
RCNNCTH J NICREY
RCNNCTN J MICRCY
4440 TONRAVICM LA
NOUNO NN 5SS44
PROP AOOO
OMNiR NANI
TARPAYIR
NAHC/AOOR
TOTAL RAKN B02 00004
I CCOTIPV nut TMO FACTS RCP0E5CNTCD ARC AN ACCURATE ANO TOUC
RCPOtSCNTATIOM OF IkTapnATION AS IT APPCAOS THIS DATE ON TNC RtCOOOS
OF TNC NCNNCPlN COUNTY DCPAOTNCNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO^NC ICST
OF MY RNOMLEOGC ANO iUlEF.
DATE RY
ROPERTY TAXATION, TOJI
yy
#2371
Sandra and Michael Hollenbont
1200 Wildhuru Trail
Orono. NfN SS364
K
952-495-9107
952-495-0067(f*i)
s ■
Felmiwy 12.2005
Jennifer Chaput. Planning Commission
Cii> of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay. MN 55323
RE: 1^03-2871 (1214 Wildhurst Trail) /
After fact variance request lo be heard Februarv' 19.2003
Ms. Chaput:
We received the notice signed by you advising us of the above referenced agenda item.
Neither my wife nor I expect to be able to attend the meeting, but request that the
commission consider this letter as part of the hearing on the matter.
Our position on this matter is reducible to two points:
1. The city should follow the related guidelines and codes it has established, and
deal with the matter os it has with similar matters in the past. 1 his
construction project has obviously been a dinicull project from a planning
perspective, so it is not surprising that errors - whether intentional or
accidental - were made in the set-back requirements. If the city is to waive
the setback requirements here, perhaps the new homeowners could be urged to
tear down the old green garage with the solar collectors on top and landscape
the resulting space.
2. More significantly, we notified the city inspectors of our concerns related to
the setback issue at the very beginning of the construction project. Your
people were on notice that we were concerned, and that the project appeared
to be close to. if not actually encroaching. Your own city inspection people
were expected to be substantially more pro-active than they obviously were,
and we request that they be reminded of their own apparent lack of diligence.
Regards;
Michael J. Hollenhorst
MJH/jl:
TO: Chair llawTi and Orono Planning Commission
Ron Moorsc. City Administrator
FROM: Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator Planner
DATE: Febniary 14,2003
SIBJECT: #03-2870
Roberta Vaughn and Tim Vaughn - 205 Tonka A\cnuc 3440 Bay side Rood
Subdivision of a I.oi Line Rearrangement - Class I Subdivision - Public FIcaring
a^lng Dbtrict:
Lot Area: (Ekbling)
Lot Area: (Proposed)
LR-IA One Familv Lakeshore Residential District
3440 Bay side Road
205 Tonka Avenue
3440 Bay^idc Road
205 Tonka Avenue
2.35* aca*s
1.55+ acres
2.0+ acres
1.99+ acres
Required Minimum Lot Size 2.00 acre
LbtorEsMbits
A Application
B Plat Map
C Stirs ey Proposed Property Line
D Sewer Maps
Fi Letter from applicant
F Site Topography
G Pn>pcrty Owners List
Summary of Request:
I he Zeismer’s (owners of 3440 Bayside Rood) and Roberta and don Vaughn (owners of 205 tonka
Avenue) propose a subdi\ ision of a Lot Line Rearrangement between the two lots. The Vaughn's
ore plartning to sell 205 Tonka Avenue to their son Tim and family to build a single family residence
on it. Prior to this, they want to make 205 Tonka Asenue parcel more conforming in size with the
zoning district. 3440 Bayside Road is larger than the 2 acres required and 205 Tonka A\enuc is
smaller than the 2 acres required. The proposal is to mo\e the south property line of 205 Tonka
Avenue 65 ’ to the south Currently. Kith lots are record lots and the lot line rearrangement will
create new record lots.
The lot at 205 Tonka Avenue is an oddly shaped lot that surrounds another property and is vacant.
«03-:i70 Vaughn
205 Tonka A\cnue
Fcbnian 14.2003
Page I of4
PerltoMl Ordtoiacc
Section 10.23 LR-1A One Fanil) Lakcshorc Residential District
Lot
2 acre
Lot
200 feet
Front •
Yard
50 feet
Side
Yard
30 feet
Rear
Yad
50 feet
Lot Area and Yards:
3440liaYiide Road
Esistina
Lot Si/c
Lot >\’idth
2.35 acres
120 feet
Proposed
Lot Si/c
Lot Width
2.0 acres
120 feet
???T9lthoAvfllMt
Esbtioa
Lot Size
Lot W idth
1.55 acres
180 feet
Proposed
l.ot Size
Lot Width
1.90 acres
245 feet
Note that 205 Tonka Avenue width is measured at the 50' setback from the portion of the property
that wraps behind 225 Tonka Avenue. Ihc front yard for administrative purposes (due to the ixld
lot shape) is the east yard abutting the rear yard of tJie l onka A\enue lots.
Both lots were originally developed prior to the adoption of the current zoning standards. The lot
line rearrangement would meet the intent of the comprehensive plan Kreause it would not increaM.*
the existing density and would not create additional building sites.
Hardcover:
3340 Baysidc Road
The propeny lies in 75*250 ’ of Lake Mirmetonka.
Proposed Lot size; 2.0 acres (87,120 s.f.)
Allov\edllC: 21.780 s.f. (25%)
Proposed Hardcover: 3,852 s.f (4.42*o) plus driveway .
205 Tonka Avenue
The property lies in 250*500' of Lake Minnetonka
Proposed Lot si/o:: 1.90 acres (82.764 s.f.)
Allowed HC: 24.829 s.f. (30".o)
1*03*2170 Vaughn
205 Tonki A\enu<
Febnuo >■). 2003
Page 2 of 4
Proposed Hardcover: Tlic proposed residence is still being designed. The hardcover should not be a
problem even \shen the drivessuy is included.
Variance:
If the lot line rearrangement is approved, a variance will be granted at the same time fur lul area. The
LR-1A zoning district requires lots to be 2.0 acres, the subject property \\ ill be 1.00 aca*s after the lot
line rearrangement.
Access:
Access for the 3440 Ba>*side Road property is off Bayside Road. Access for 205 Tonka Avenue will
be otTTonka Avenue. The driveway will be long and wind around the property line os indicated on
E.xhibit C.
Fronl/Back lol split:
This lot line rearrangement was not reviewed as a fronihack lot split, although if has many
characteristics of such a split. If it were, the following issues would have to be considered:
1. In a fronihack lol split a 30 ’ corridor is required for access to the back property:
This property has access from Tonka Avenue. If an outlot was created for access, the land
dedicated for the outlot would not be credited to the lol area, therefore the lot would be
smaller and be more non-conforming than being proposed. Because the lot surrounds
another property, there is plents of space for the dris eway in the 40' corridor.
2. In a fronihack lol split the front yard setback is 75’: (This is the I R-1 .\ zoning district and
50' is required. 150P o is required of setbacks for front back splits).
As indicated on the surxey. the front yard setback is proposed to be 50’. The placement of
the residence would be at least 50’ from the east property line. The residence located at 225
Tonka Avenue is located 60’ from the rear property line for a total 110’ of separation for the
residences.
The applicant is proposing to place the new residence at the high point on the property
(southeast comer). Placement of the residence there is directly behind the residence at 225
Tonka Avenue. There is a line of mature trees which separates these two properties. I he
matua* trees consist of oaks and evergreens. The eNcrgrccn trees will screen the two
residences. However, with the residence King constructed at 205 Tonka Avenue and the
driveway wrapping around, there will K more activity Kiiind 225 Tonka .Avenue
■03-:870 Vaughn
205 Tonka Avenue
February 14.2003
Page 3 of 4
Will the 3440 Ba>'stdc Road propeity c\rr be rede\eloped? If it were to occur, the new-
residence could be placed whm it is currently located to continue to enjoy lake views or it
could be placed further back on the lot at an angle behind 225 Tonka Avenue.
Sewer Reviewr:
The property located at 3440 Ba> side Road is currently sewered. The property located at 205 Tonka
Avonue has sewer available at tw o dilTerent locations, \\1ien the sewer project for the neighborhood
was pul in. sewor went up Tonka Avenue. Sewer goes to 205 Tonka Avenue where the driveway is
proposed to be located (See Exhibit C).
The owner of225 Tonka Avenue applied for and was granted approval to move the utility easement
to the south end of the property in order to construct a new residence on the property. The utilit>
easement is 20' wide along the south property line of that property.
The City Engineer and Public Works Director discussed the best location for sewer to the
Vaughn property. They reviewed the location of sewer lines, depth of pipes and felt the sewer
should be brought to 205 Tonka Avenue via the utility ea.sement along the south 20' of 225
Tonka Avenue.
Stair RccoBiBMadaHoa:
• Staff is recommending approval of the lot line rearrangement subject to the following
conditions:
1. Applicant shall dedicate drainage and utility casement along new property lines and
vacate any drainage and utility casements along old property lines
2. Applicant shall provide to the City any documentation relating to easements on both
properties.
3. Prior to City Council review 3 original copies of the survey completed by a licensed
sun eyor in the State of Minnesota shall be submitted, with signature blocks.
Setbacks for the residence to be constructed at 205 Tonka Avenue shall be as shown
on the surv ey dated 12-2-02.
•03O870 Vaughn
205 Tonka Avenue
FetMuary 14.2003
Pi«e4or4
e.
r^ \v. >
?■' -
lVi.»
f "•
PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR
DANIEL VAUGHAN ic TODD ZIESMER
IN LOTS 5 Sc 20. AUD. SUB. NO. 203. AND
SECTION 5-117-23
HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA
- —-------------
I I IB —
i\iiii'(LU.U:iU2UCfc:eiia^
Tkji l.« 1. fc«ng« > !•«•.•»* IH V»»V .1 Wni WiV I*
M<r4'j«t. trnt*€* n b>ka«« Uo —* •»»*-« «•■■»•■ l»1l :i fcn »>*
w(iM tjn I M o« >»• Oi.*^« •• Iro * 1 tl7 W(» t*^}) wrf
iWmCw pvilWMiW o.4S«RkaaO>jn>' X'WMUoCJI f*m.
IIHIK* W» M< w >k* Ua lM« «< m4 NaAkaaa !>.<«•> • «au<Ht af IT) t
tw.i»aa«. »»* a.< »«".•••»«►* Vwa k-t a<i*< San>«aa <3w*w. t 4.v.*«aa#i«vi. tM«ct »ni mm - ----
117 IT fai. iWa Ja*» axa »*»»H-«» A, Cl* k«t •#-J NonO-a I
|kaaa« af !»• H hai iai»a ca.a«t •-• al Ca-t| iaal. !*««» WtaatlT «•
I—lalMilraW i<Mt«K>al llTatan la tauMi Aawi llil 21 (m> Wca al i>a (aa
■>«>« IITJI
' .* I * t •
/••■••fi i
^jraiw • n?«r'
M al m 7<anaatu Oaanaf. Ikcan Nartk ana laiau w laa Caai haa of ia4 NanSM
Ou«wra««aacaal437Tllniiail-n'"«a'*nA«*t IXCtrTA*|a«a<r*<
.aa.a«r«»kaaniiancTA<awiaiia.. Tka*a-»lOOfatiafAaMaaa >7J««-.a»
Aa Em katfaf Lai 79. /UaWi 1.M—aaa Naaa- »J Mwaa>- Caa-r
raulAiV
l«T.
Ma
ITOI. EVCtf r All »ai .a ia4 Lai J. loi- »al H
i| ■ Aa VaA^a aanM af Bataia AMa-a w LaU M.—ai4a.
MLJ—i_iI tmmm4
m w ■ ■ — —- --------------------
Aaica 7*anlai*» ilai« • Ua ah.* A Aa NAAMT»M|i«tAa A iSi Waairt, l»a al
OiaA I. Baja*i Alia-a A Laka M—taAa. A a a—-krt II *0 hai l-aa.aaai*»
w«A Ai SawA..aaA| lAa afaa \l-aawaa Aaaan RaA«a< Caavaar ntM al-ar.
a-aAAl A r%A a>>(lai Aaiala- Ua-a VMl-aaafla al—« a Laa AaM aaralWI A
Aa WAaaaiKii) Laa a7u IM—ai—u A mam Ra.^iaa2 Ca—aiay i^*a a/«a* laiad
(At A m SaariMaaartf a-rcaa-. aaa Aral ■ niA <««kA A oa AM aEmAOAa
arialUa-afcAaNaaAailypraiMiMAAakaaAtr'kaaalBiaaa l.Barala
AMa-a A LAa LkaanMa. il«a W-sVifta ilc»« A-s '•an»<i1» prataoM al Aa
Caaatr Im alDlaA 1. laiaAi AAti«« a Laka kt —a^Aa a Aa aaanaciAa a#*l
lAa-aA Aa TiaiAartf lAa af ■araAa aa Iim A LaU kkra-aaka. AaM Waaatf
Aaai Aa tIaaAailr haa af Bat-la AMa-a A laka MAAtaaU A Aa lAM af
SCALE FEET
eHuUUZnacu
tkji aan A Aa ImA m—g A—rAd r a Mi
Tk-tanalfc.Mr—Lail Ta- 7 Naak. Ba^A » *^*1
AAal*rnacAalklt.>|Mlnir*diikiAa-. AifAl A a AM Aa. i
Uti:SliaiWi«alAataal-awiiaNanka Qmii« af laoAa i.
Ta—aA>l’Nank BaiAa !) ani Aaa- lOli Thai KaKkdAaSaAkAMA
Aa Namaaa Qmwi af Ad SaciAa I. Aran EaM N>A<al A Aa LMk l-a a(
uA.kaRkaaaQMAriAaaaaiATlt 7) icn. ikaan Saak aal atnaal A Aa
Eaai kaa al Ad N-il-a- Qaann a Aama aO>l a l-t. Aaaia Aaa m4
aarakal »ak Aa Saak haa af lad SarAaaH 0>on«i a Aanau af 117 17 Iai .
A—aa Saak aal paralaf-ak Aa Ia« kaa al u4 NarAaaa Qaan-a Aaaan
afllf 11BAAAacamlaaafCaaB>llaal.ikMaAaaanTAaaiiaaAi
loaaria4AaltAauacaa/ll7«iaaiAaw—lata- IkMUba Wa-aT
Aa taa loa af Ad NaiAaa-QMiar. Aa-a Mank aa| taiaM A Aa Ua kaa
al tad NarAaaa Qiana a AAaaca a/97 7 71 Im A Aa aaoi af kAAMB
EXCErTAaatnaliktakaAlavrAaliran IncrAal a faOa-t TkaSaok
IH h« afika Tiank 17) 9 <M af Aa tail kiir dLM 70. AaAaan SaklrMAk
MoAar Ml. Ma a i ■ CaMr. kiMnaia.
«Ac>ktiSiAkti1|alAaNaakartt9l7)iaaiAAaa<
rimUtVBrtMi
LALkalArt SAIi iiiSaaAwTO) E XCLPT Aai pan af Ad La ). lawAal u
Maat BatAaaaaAa7artk.aaiarMi.f0riidi amua a Lata MoaaAda.
Acacf Kankadt ataag a h— -k«k Aa x-f^iif A*iaa-a af Aa Acaartf Ua af
Blaik ), Baridi AMa—a ALatakia—nanta. Aap—A -kak a ao tm Saaki a—7|
kBA Aa SaaA*iaadt Ua af Aa M—wa Uaaa— lUaitMl Ca-paar af aap.
—aaiaac m nfli aap*ai ikarafry—. ikr-t V».;<ajar > alaap a <-a A im paiakal a
Aa Seak-a-arl]r U—af Md kl —aatojM.wi.a B*l>aaJCaagoat i^af-apaadao
fiA Aaaa Saak .nnd, Aaraaaa.. a-.MirJ a rigH a^glav a Aa poa af i—Aii-a
af Ad Ua aak Aa Tiankaftr praioiM a iti Caoad, L— at Ban I. Barada
AALtoa A Lata I liaattai a. M—a Wi.ii| daig ud 7tan—7. pnpaaM af Aa
KamiltUaafltaik l.BatidaAdlaaaALatatl—.oBaAtUMAaMdad
Ua-ak Aa Nankal. Ua af Baradi A47 <oa A Lati M«-rAdai lUw Aa««l;
ala«|ika >A«Aadt Uaai Birtda Alia—, a laU\t —nada a I«p— af
U(.raap
Aak.AaManka«ta>7) li.i af Aa ABa.-p Inar A.d |••Aat.
TU pot af Ca»tra-aA La 1. Saua 1 la-adap !■’T—nk. lai^ 7) Aia
i Bap—ag.
tall 7) Ui Watt af Aa Ead Ua a Aa Aiaikaaa Qk —taf SaOM ).
‘fnaa>paltlad4ai.ln.TiWI«hd>i-t Dap—ag ■ a poA Aaaa
Tu Ma MT7iank.lLaaaa:^aall.«aa 107a 0 Ua lAnkafAa Saak kaaaf
tfa KaiAiaa <Xoiwr af lad U.a«a ). Aaaia Cad p.rBia A Aa Saak hn af
AdTUAaaaQhaiiaf aAiiaaaiBi:}7 7| Ui. Adaca Saak aal panBif a Aa
Ead Uaaf AdTAdkiaw Qud<r aa > a-aair) vui.Ad—a Wa« -d
Pdtkai Mt Aa Saak Lw af lad VanNiui Cvaria a *«Ma af 117 IT Ui.
Aani Saak ad pwaiM.aaiA Lilt Uaaf..a *dnk..d Oaota a l.iiMa
w7M»UiAAifaaaafl-a«(...<i.Baa7 'U•.aM|dad)ala-Irw
Uaaf Adruladaa.>.< af 117 at... w i.tp 771,.,
A i Cad Uaaf —d VdiAra i.kj.n< A.— . K.'.tk —d paa d.I •# Ar t .a k —
pf Ad VaiAaad yaanar a Aa».« d a77 7) u.i a .»a u-a A lap—...
EXCEPT A« part A A. aka. A a . kal »ao A-r-d a AiU., uTuak
179 U i af Aa Vaiw ITltiaaafikaLadkaaafLaTOi k-Ud a Vda~.».-
Ka-ka 79), Itaddcpa CaMf. tlAAiau
I5S4
£11
m
02-903
r
I
Point 4«it*it issalizs ft Wott
Coot ino of »C W*i Soe. S. am
10S6.0 ft North of South Gno
of NC 1/^ Soc. 5 ^
------------1------------
V-v
\
■"' ' BLOj PROPOSED DIVIDING LINE ^ Jg r*rjB AYSIDL
■—^
Ordnooo and
ifURy
*BAY»e
LAKE MNCTONCA-
Linoo Murulol frith Coot ino
of fC 1/4.\Soc. S
I r
a^,;LAKE
-
^J|^L ‘!T ' 1
-------------------------
i. .......i. '
01 ' 8
II 8
zi ■ »
i
r
**••»* jg
I
«r-
'.4 —»
■9\ >lr^\
1 —__
0 ~
L
8 9
• »^nn* •-> ‘xm •*n**^^
r Mf ^ Mf o*iet w«c»^w» «e w• <M • t'A.f »«crtu«iwt tnCMC*
••.:1
ArcMI»cft auM 14*RECORD PLAN l*/97
1*4 Of >•< &i4it 0* IMVfSOU arw.^0 C«
I44WM0 CMC
SI r*ul M•nn••Jl••!• » i»»J ^ «, •*»•o*rt r(t ». '»*:llvV*qvon.
• >IO4lM00 «■<»• » «0(uirv »4 •♦»'rf»»i • w -l
m/>MS ii«t IN r»Mi Toi rjMtt 001 or ooi
Pcbniocy 2.2003
Mo. Bottenbcrg
2750 KeliTT Porkwi^
0<ono.MN 55356
F«ic (9S2) 249-4U16
Dear Mi. Bottenberg,
SUBJECT: ZONING APPLICATION #03-2870 NARRATIVE OF PROPOSAL
Thu letter ii in tecponie to jour request for a short narrative of our proposal for review bj
the planning commission.
My mother, Roberta Vaughan, owns the property where we are requesting a lot line
rearranpment and variance. Mj wife, Natalie, and I are planning to acquite this property
from my mother m order to build a new home in 2003.
Wf are currently working with Lundgren Bros. Custom Home Division to finalize plans for
the home. We anticipale the home will be a 2-str>ry with finished square footage on the top
two floon of approximately 3,400 square feet
1 would like to thank you for your continued assistance and guidance with this applicaUon.
Sincerely,
Tim Vaughan
2725 PHEASANT ROAD
ORONO, MN 55331
r" J —*2 - *** ‘ f” • r*'! /w^ r7 US 'r/A-'^y^^Ur-
\.»«*« ■• ' ♦^..7 t .M * !•
\\t
*v
■\!: --.v n't •“•i'U,Vi., : ! I
'■h\S\"tn{
'i I i r,j=:-rs: t-i-
«*'MM I'**
l>
;,v\Vv..-^,0
''' vV
^>^1! —
" ■■V' Y. \
. ■ \ '■ \7' ”71 i i V
^ II . ,
\i .
rN : \ '^-I ! E
1^7/
^v; J
:rjV
V
ItiBi
MliM*
1^1 til*«*'»
"/
■tz-
Vi
•••«•«• •••••••
I'
■ L I. N _7l P
misssii
&'M 4^1
N£ 1/4 SEC OS
TII7N. R?3b
HENNEPIN COUNTT
•m •< I ** «l
ttotn/oms. in:.
««tl« »«»t«ti»4^
m « MM • • #•• «■•
!qzn&M»tt«Bt‘ »lil •-••««
I
«M MTt H/ir/tS
MTCH tl2
NCNNiriN COUNTV rtOTCIITV INrOMUTlON SYSTTN
roorcRTv omncrs list
Rcrtwr HO. P14SM01
PACf M
poor MM
OMNiR HM«
TRRPATIRmm/mm
PROP AMR
OHWR HAHC
TAHPATIR
PRHP MM
OMHKR HMt
TARPAVtR
HCV/MM
MHIR MHI
tARPAVft
HANi/AMt
M tS-117-2S 11
•IMS LCAP ST
I C ORANAN JR
K C ORANAN JR
•S UAf ST
LONO LAM IN SSSSA
M IS-llT-ZS 12 MIS
M2«a RCMRHOn M
ALISNAH S AZAI
ALISNAH S A2A0
2M MRCRHOOO M
LONG LAIF HN SSSM
u as-iir-zs 12 aais
•••SR AMRfSS UNASS1GM20
STATf or niNH
PHR RIAL CSTATC HCm
ATTN MNIf eURTlN
BM LAPAVCm RD
ST PAUL fW BSISS
PROP ARM
OHNTR HAHi
TARPAVfR
NANI/AMR
SR aS'llT-rS 12 ••U
•••SR AMRfSS UNASSIBNfD
STATf OP Him
MR RfAl fSTATf NBNT
ATTN RtMIf OWTIN
BM LAPAVfm RR
ST PAUL IM BBISB
SR fB-llT-fS 12 M17
•SAIS HION LA
RICNAM 0 NARRLUM) CT AL
RICHMR eUSTAV NARRLUNO •
NINA f OUfRTIN-fMRRLUND
541S NtON LA
LONO LARf NN SSSS4
SR •5-117-2S 12 ••21
•SARS CNRISTlNt M
N N ■ C 0 HAGRERO
MRlf N • CMLTON 0 NARRCRR
SAAB CHRISTTNP DR
tIAPLE PLAIN m B5SSA
PROP AMR
OMHfR NANI
TARPAYER
NANf/ADM
SR as-iip-zs IS •••s
•••SR ARMfSS IMASSIONER
RORtRTA I VAURNAN
RORERTA I VAURNAN
SAAI RAVSIRf M
HN SBSBA
SR IB-llP-ZS IS MIA
•••SR ARMfSS UNASSISNEO
ALISHAN S AZAO
ALZSNAN S AZAO
2ia REOERMNID M
LONG LARf HN SS3SA
SR aS-llT-ZS IS IMS
•••SR AOORESS UNASSIGNED
ALISNAH S AZAO
ALISNAH S AZAO
2M lEOCRMOOD OR
LONO LAKE HN SSSSA
SA •S-117-2S IS ••!!
••221 RfRERNOOR DR
ALISNAH S AZM
ALISHAN S AZM
2lf REOfRMOO OR
LONG LMf NN SSSSA
SR fS-llP-ZS IS MI2
•SA2R SATSIOE RO
R • M ANDERSON
RMERT r I MENOV S ANDERSON
SA2A SAVSIOC RO
LONG LMf HN SSSSA
SA •S-117-2S IS aais
•SAAI RAVSlOf RO
T n ZIESNER I N T ZlfSHfR
TOM H A NARXf T ZlfSHfR
SAAR SAVSlDf RO
LONG LAKE HN SSSSA
SR as-lip-zs is MIA
•SA7I RAYSIDE RO
LVNN M HALSTEDT
LVNN M HALSTEDT
SA7I RAVSIRf RO
LONG LAKE HN SSSSA
SR •B-117-2S IS aais
•ssaa RAvsiof rd
R RAN6ERT S V RANCERT
R RANGERT • V RAHGCRT
ssaa RAvsiof RO
LONG LARf HN SSSSA
SR as-ii7*2s IS aai7
aSSAl RAVSIOE RO
RYLE PAHILY LTD PTNRSHP
RICHARD I RATNLEEN A RYLE
llAa TOMAMA RO
LONG LARf NN SSSSA
SR aS'llY-ZS IS ••2R
••2AS rOHRA AVE
mCNUl H SORUTZ
NICNAEL n KWUTZ
2AS TOIRtA AVE
LONG LARE HN SSSSA
SR RS-117-2S IS tAAA
RI222 RfOCMOM DR
J D NUELLER I R J NUELLER
JEPPREY 0 « RENEE J NUELLER
222 RCRERNOOO OR
LOM LARE HN SSSSA
SR SS-117-2S IS MSa
•A2AS TOMA AVE
NARY RAY HCCARTY
HARV HCCARtV
2AS TOMA AVE
LONG LARE HN SSSSA
L #
n'U
MM MTE
MTCM S12
OMMn MMi
TMTAVftmm/um
M ■S-I17-2S IS MSI
•M2f TOMA AVC
•M«LV1 NC CAtTV
MMiVS NC CARTV
22S TOWA AVC
LMM LAIC IM SSSSA
HClMCriN COUNTY fMrCOrV TMTOONATION SVSTCN
MOrflfV ONMCK LIST
SO OS'llT'ZS lA IM*
M270 CKSTVIIW AVf
CNAOLCS N ALOOtCH IV CT AL
CNAM.CS A CAILIE ALMICN
270 rorsTview avc
LONO LAIC NN BSSSO
KfOOT NO. CIASMIl
fAOC SO
SI IS-117-2S lA Mil
OMSI AOMICSS UNASSfONCD
CNARLES N ALDRICH IV CT AL
CNAILCS I CARLIC ALMICH
270 CICSTVICH AVC
LONO LAIC HN SSSSA
SO 0S*117>2S 1A Mil
poor AWO OAOSO AOOOCSS UNASSICNCO
OUNiR NANC CNARLCS ALDRICH IV CT AL
TAIPAYCR CNARLCS I CARLIC ALORICN
NANC/AMM 270 CRCSTVICH AVC
LONR LAIC IM SSSSA
SR IS-117-2S lA M12
OMSI AOMCSS IMASSIGNCO
STATE or NIMN
■NR REAL ESTATE NONT
ATTN MNIC CURTIN
SOI LAFAVCTTC RO
ST PAUL IM SSISS
50 0S-1I7-2S lA 0017
00051 AOORCSS UNASSIONCO
CHARLES H ALORICN IV CT AL
CNARLCS 0 CARLIC ALORICN
270 CRCSTVICH AVC
LONQ LAIC IM SSSSA
PROP AIM
ONHER NANC
TAXPAYER
NANC/AMM
SO 0S-117-2S lA Mil
002*0 CRCSTVICH AVC
PATTY L CLAPP
PATTY L CLAPP
2*0 CRCSTVICH AVC
LONO LAIC IM SSSSA
SO 0S*117*2S lA Ml*
002SB CRCSTVICH AVC
NARI H HILLSTRON
NARI H HILLSTRON
2SS CRCSTVICH AVC
LONO LAIC IM SSSSA
SI 0S-117-2S lA 0020
002A5 CRCSTVICH AVC
6ARY F GOLL II
CARY P COLL II
CAS CRCSTVICH AVC
LONO LAIC IM SSSSA
PROP AMW
OHNCR NANC
TAXPAVCR
NANC/AIOR
SO 0S-117-2S lA 0021
002S5 CRCSTVICH AVC
STEPNANIC RCIHAN
SIEPNANIC RCIHAN
2SS CRCSTVICH AVC
LONO LAIC HN SSSSA
SI 05-117-2S lA 0022
002AB CICSTVICH AVC
JOIN C NOROAN
JOHN C HOMAN
CAS CRCSTVICH AVC
LONO LAIC IM SSSSA
SI 0B>117-2S lA 002S
0027S CRCSTVICH AVC
HAROLD R HANSON CTAL
HAROLD R HANSON
27S CRCSTVICH AVC
LONO LAIC IM SSSSA
PROP ADRR
OHNCR NANC
TAIPAYCR
HANC/AORR
SO 05*117'2S lA MCA
MMS CRCSTVICH AVC
SANDRA J NICCUN
SANDRA J NICCUN
CIS CICSTVICH AVC
LONO LAIC HN SSSSA
SI 0S-117<2S lA 0021
002BO TOMA AVC
OCRALR L IRieOS/IRCNC MIICOS
OCRALO I IRCNC RRIOOS
2S0 TONIA AVC
LONO LAIC IM SSSSA
SI 0S-117-2S lA 002*
O02S0 TOMA AVC
0 NARCUSSCN I N NARCUSSMI
OANICL 0 NARY NARCUSSCN
AAA7 OLSON NCNORIAL HHY
OOLBCN VALLEY HN SSA27
SI 0S«117-2S lA MA*
PROP ARM OMSI AIMCSS UNASSICNCO
OHNCR NANC STATE Of NIlM
TAXPAVCR STATE OF PINN IDNRI
NANC/AMM SSO TOMA AVC
LONG LAIC IM SSSSA
SI IS-117-2S lA MSS
M2A0 CRCSTVICH AVC
JCFFRCV S NCLRV
JCFFRCY S NCLRV
2AI CRCSTVICH AVC
LONR LAAC NN SSSSA
SR 0S-117-2S lA MAI
#0200 TOMA AVC
PAIRS SROOO
PHILIP I lARCN SIOOO
200 TOMA AVC
LONO LAIC NN SSSSA
-i*
V:
iUN MTC tl/17/t5
•AlCN S12
NCMffriN COUNTY PtOrCOTV INTOOfUTtON SVSIfN
•’•OfCOTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIRSS4R1
PACE S7
POOP AIM
OWNER NAME
taxpayer
NAHI/AIM
TOTAL lATCH 112 MRS*
Froau
Dale:
Sabjcct:
Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, Cit>’ Administrator
Michael P. Gafhon« Plying Director
February 13.2003 /
a03*2873 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment - MUSA Boundary
LbtofEsbMts
A - Notice of Public Hearing
B • Map: Existing MUSA & Proposed MUSA Additions
C - Memo and Exhibits of January 9.2003
D • City Engineer Preliminary Cost Estimate
E - City Council Minutes M3-03
BacfcgroaMi
The City Council has directed that stafTproceed to make an application to Met Council for expansion
of the MUSA ^Metropolitan Urban Serv ice Area) to include a small number of properties along Old
Long Udte Road situated just west of the Wayzata Country Club, between the Luce Line Trail and
the Wood Rill Scientific & Natural Area. The MUSA defines those portions of the Metro Area
where development is allowed to occur with municipal sewer rather than w ith septic s>-stems.
The initial intent was to provide the potential to sen e the vacant parcel at 645 Old Long Lake Road
and developed parcels adjacent to it. The area proposed to be included in the MUSA has now been
slightly expanded by sUfT to include those properties abutting Old Long Lake Road w hich could
potentially connect to the sewer line if one is constructed.
Please review the staff memo of January 9 for more infonnation on the property at 645 Old Long
Lake Road. Also review the Jamiarv' 13 Ci icil minutes for a sense of the Council's direction
Process
The public hearing is the first step in the process for completing a Comprehensive Plan amendment
to revise the MUSA. Once Planning Commission has completed the Public Hearing and
recommended approval, a Resolution w ill be presented to the City Council for conditional adoption
of the amendment subject to Met Council approval. The proposed amendment w ill be submitted to
the Met Council on their standard forms w ith supporting information, and also submitted to adjacent
municipalities for cornmem. Once Met Council has approved the amendment, the City can formally
adopt it by resolution. After the amendment takes effect, actual construction of s^ers and the
asscssmenu for sa-;c are topics primarily dealt with by the Council with no further Planning
Commission action required. P dir linaiy discussions w ith Met Council staff indicate because the
area of the amendment is less than 40 acres, and because there are no impacts to metro s>stems. the
amendment w ill likely be considered as minor and timely approval would be expected.
#03-2873 MUSA Amendment
January 13,2003
Page 2
BmIs for Ameadmeil
The primary intent of the amendment is to solve current and potential future sewer issues for a
handful of existing developed substandard lots. The four lots along the south side of Old Long Lake
Road range from 1.0 to 1.9 acres in area. Those on the north side are generally more conforming to
the 2-acre standard.
The 2000-2020 Community Management Plan made significant expansions of the MUSA to include
developed or developing areas of the 2-acrc zone surrounding Orono's lakes. The City (purposely)
has not revised the zoning in most areas where sewer has been provided during the past quarter
century, and retrofitting of rural neighborhoods w iih sewer has in most cases not resulted in greater
densities of development than i f sewer had not been provided. This is also the case w ilh the current
proposal.
The nine properties included in the MUSA amendment area arc shown in the following table:
Properties for IncluskM hi 2003 MUSA Amendment
PLNS «Address Status Lot Area
36-118-23 31 0007 (Not assigned)Mostly wetland, not buildable; remnant
outloi from Wakerield Farms Addition,
owned by owner of 375 Wakeneld Road
0.87 ac.
36-118-23 31 0010 220 Wakeneld Road Conrorming lol w ith conforming septic
s>stefm. abuts Old Long Lake Road
2.34 ac.
36-118-23 32 0002 250 RuAnn Road Substandard lot. existing residence, is
being rebuilt, plans to build a new
conforming septic system this year
151 ac.
36-118-23 32 0003 625 Old Long Lake Rd.Substandard lot w ith existing residence,
septic s>stem is non-compliant and must
be replaced by 2010
1.05 ac.
36-118-23 32 0004 645 Old Long Ukc Rd.SidMtandard lot, existing residence was
demolished by owner in 2001
102 ac.
36-118-23 32 0006 705 Old Long Lake Rd.Existing residence on slighlly
substandard lot, leptK s>stem is
coaforming mound
l.%ac.
36-118-23 32 0007 685 Old Long Lake Rd.Existing residence, slightly subsundard
lot. conforming mound septic system
1.87 ac.
36-118-23 32 0009 360 RuAnn Road Existing residence, conforming lot. septic
s)stem is conforming
3.6 ac
(2+ ac dry)
36-118-23 32 0010 350 Ru.Ann Road Existing residence, conforming I-m. septic
system is conforming
4.0 ac
(2* ac dry)
18.2 Ac
#03-2873 MUSAAmendmern
Januafy 13,2003
Page3
Stair Rfra—fadattoa
Review the profwsed amendment to the MUSA boundaiy, and hold the public hearing on the
proposed amendment. Please advise sUfTof any issues that should be addressed prior to the public
beadng. SufT recommends approval of the proposed MUSA amendment
Opiiaas far AcUm
1. Recommend approval.
2. Recommend denial, stating reasons.
3. Table for iuither information.
4. Other.
am iliiawitriii
ji
CITYOFORONO
2750 Kell^ Paricvray, P.O. Box 66
CiystalBay.MN 55323
Phoncj(952) 249-4600 Fax (952)249-4616
KOTICP
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley
Putawy on Wednes^y. Fehnuuy 19,2003 beginning at »:30 p.m., or sometime ibeieaOer. to
consider application *03-2173, City of Orono, 2750 Kelley Parkway, for an u, the
Comm^ty Management Plan (Comprehensive Plan). The amendment is to expand the
MetropohtM Uibw Service Area (MUSA) boundary to incorporate certain properties along Old
Long Lake Road, ideotified by the following Property Identification Numbers:
36-118-23 310007
36:118-23 32 0006
36-118-23 320010
36-118-23 32 0003
36-118-23 320007
36-118-23 320009
36-118-23 32 0004
36-118-23 32 0002
36-118-23 310010
The intent of the amendment is to allow for the potential future connection of the existing homes
on these parcels to be connected to munidpa! sewer.
All persons wishing to be h^ shall be present Written comments are due by February 12,
2003. The plans may be reviewed at City offices by appointment For further information cdl
City Hall at 9S2-249-4600.
City of Orono
By: Pianrung Commission
Wh
Jennifer Chatfot
Planner
To be published the week of February 8,2003.
Posted at:Orono City Offices
Crystal Bay Post Office
Long Lake Post Office
Navarre Post Office
.n.Hi—nniiMridni' i
Orono Proposed Musa Expansion
c
REQt EST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: January 9. 2003
ll«tn No.; **7
DtfMflmrat Approval:
Nanr: Michael P. GafTron
THk: Plaiuung Direcior
AdmiBiftrator Approval:Agenda Section:
Zoning
llcm DcscriplhNi: Sewer Extension Request • 645 Old Long Lake Road
Lbl ofExhibito
A - Location Map
B - MUSA Map and Possible MUSA Amendment
C • Demolition Permit Issued February 2001
D - Septic Inspector Correspondence with Mr. Jacques
In 2000 Alistair Jacques purchased the residence at 645 Old Long Lake Road for uproximalcly
S250.000. This was an existing residence on a substandard 1 -acre lot in the RR-1B 2-acre /one The
rcsidenee was served by a nonconforming septic system which would have required replacement by
2010.
In February 2001 Mr. Jacques and his contractor. John Thomas Homes, applied for and were issued
a permit to demolish the existing residence. It was subsequently demolished.
In March 2001 Mr. Jacques discussed his plans for construction of a new residence on the property
with City stafT. He was advised of the need for a lot area variance, and of the required 2-acre zoning
standards. He subsequently filed a variance application for lot area and side setback variances for
a proposed 5-bcdroom home. His application was immediately dcvmed incomplete because it lacked
septic s>’stem design intormaiiun
After hiring a septic site cvaluator/designcr. applicant learned that the site would not support a septic
system to serve the size house he intended and in fact would only support a primary standard system
for a 3-bedroom house, with the alternate site requiring a non-standard s>-stem t\pc. His request for
septic system approval for the new residence was rejected by the On-Site Septic Manager based on
the inadequacy of the site to support standard primary and alternate svstems for the proposed bouse.
The variance application has never proceeded.
Mr. Jacques has requested that the City offer solutions to his dilemma. Stafl ’ has reviewed the
possible options for septic system use, including the idea of allow ing a 3-bcdroom house w ith a
standard system and allow ing the alternate svstem to be ‘non-standard*. The risks to the City arc that
Old Long Lake Road Sewer
January 9,2003
Page 2
construction of a new resideiKe on a substandard lot without proof of conforming septic s>stem
capability, could create a demand for sewer outside the MUSA should the primary system fail. Such
a demand could be avoided by merely disallowing the variances.
Staff has reviewed the possibilities for extension of sewer to the property. The site is located
approximately 1/4 mile west of the existing sewer line in Old Long L^c Road that serves Wayzata
Country Club and the “Summit Station” subdivision (see Exhibit B). A pressure system with
individual grinder stations could potentially be provided to ser\e 645 Old Long Lake Road, w ith
cqracity to serve the one house immediately east and two homes immediately west of the Jacques
site.
This area is outside the MUSA, but near enough lo the existing system to suggest a MUSA
expansion might be reasonable. Metropolitan Council stafThax e indicated such a MUSA expaitsion
w ould be considered as a minor amendment because it is less than 40 acres in area and would have
no impact on metro systems.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Determine whether Council is interested in having staff pursue the provision of municipal sew er to
4 properties on Old Long Lake Road. If so. direct staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan amendment
request to the Metropolitan Council, including holding a pubhc hearing for that amendment, and
provide Council with additional information regarding costs, assessments, neighborhood interest,
etc.
My. a 'TO (
5"- ^ .
—eoo
400 >
4 City o1
—400 street Nu
' 5 •.(C;•—BOO ■
k e6
—1200
7 •
— 4 600 .
8
—2000
9
—2400
10
—2800
11
__lonn
Orono Proposed Musa Expansion
CITY OF ORONO
2750 Kellty Paikway - PO Box 66
Ciyttal Bay. Minnesota 55323
(952)24M600
PERMIT
Pemiit Number:
Permit Type:
Date Issued:
C
F03S4I
DenioUiion
2/22/2001
SITEADOffESB:
PO: 3S-llt-23-32O004
643 OidLongUkeRd
WAY2ATA.MN'55391
DESCfUPTION:
PiopOMdUw:
NnnhClnr
NraihType:
Rcsidemiil
Dtmolitton
CcRMsCode 643
Pennit SubHypc(s); Dmo • Principtl Smicture
DETAIL
Approved per mohitioa I:
Sepme pemits reqitind:
NOTICES/REMARKS:
r«und3tion&'al! detno debris to be removed from ground &, disposed of ofT site per PCA regulations. Wells
mjstbcabofldoned. Inspection berorc (Mckfilling.
FEE SUMMARY:Permit Fee; S 50.00
«
State SuRharge Fee: S 0.50
Valealkm: S 0.00
TOTAL FEE:SSO^
applicant :OWNER: Jacques Alistair
2515 Old Beach Rd
Wayzata,MN 55391
14-01 09:IIP John Thomas Homos, Inc.612 471 0945 P.02
(^BV.MN SIW .
,rocMi-cuwwiioi«*«qis»»P*“
MltUl^A^dRIK
cowtiucioMji^V^t^
tiOt *■*■'—•• g***iC--------------V«7JUU_JUI
BBSBUll 4lH9CIBUy
• OAi ■ 4^*11. cn t A
Dan^Qiiooir^UMdtyi Uwycqjuipoia^
psnnitiliwtd. xtaujoamcoi
hvdbyigr*eiufbttowt:
1.
la l«um Ibr Uiutnct of taDemoli^
Th. rtnuturtC.) ri-n be tari .-101.4-d^or «cu^
ceoipteie.
^Stejdot W««"* •• **“*^ *"*"**•*“ “* **"*
r^^.«;.i«. jaBttefl—UMlirww^ *”***”**•
AU--«W~tppUcibU rCA nqakeoMoti
iM,««cBin«>w»At«tf a** !«**» »«"*'• *^***®“^
r«b-14-01 OS:llP .John Thomas Homos. Znc. 612 471 0946 P.03
^Waia3wodd^4^of6ytnaiiauinww%i^4l!nith^iir<iio The
ifcil^btldldiyMiciM>rf|ll<i»di^9<th^9Mm6B9ahi9lAi^ifldlrtrtl
pMi ilMita (99^ anh cMivite b to W Mid as put of a MW
Oraoo^ bs tafibstaB
OMofornaufefevI dM*
ttaCbr ad
daw^louasor
hiian^plqyeti^HWU.»ibccap«ctow cr
RKMrr TYTE AND fZB CALCUIATION
^ moo.fiMpdSttiicoii*
110.00* AccaiwyStnictaw
1. S«Alelalorite«apanBltRfwilcd
2. Sttas Suitliaiia
3. TOTAL mOlIT FEB (add Kmi 1-2 dboM)
1 ^0
Iha tadanipad iMnby adflM to tba City af Oraoo iir isaiMMt of a DamaliiioB Eanait. ^wa to
do an iMOfk la ibfct accofdaMa «Ui dH ardbaaeaa of Am CHy »d iha idfulatea affha ttaaa of
I oo Ab applicatioa an cooiplaia^ tnM and aoiraet
AmJCANTSSKaNA'
OWm'S ilCWATOTBiSum.
Data: 2* n^U/?\
Paa: I
AfTBOVEDlY:.P—• 2 7,l» Ol
J
/'9-P3
CITYcrOilONO
iMi
OnMi m l53Si P .O. !■ «
OpM 9ti. m SS32M0M
September 6,2002
AlisUtr Jacques
2505 OLD BEACH RO
ORONOMN 55301
Dear Mr. Jacques:
This letter is legardiitg your request for approval for a septic system for 645 Old Long Lake Rd.
Orono requires 2 standard septic sites for new houses on vacant lots. Due to the fact that your lot
does not have a house on it, it fidls into this requiremenL The s<^c design that you turned in
has a standard mound . ite but the secondar>’ site is an "other system". It does not fit the standard
requirement because it is situated on fill soil. Standard systems must be put in on original
undisturbed soil. Since there ate not two standard septic sites on this lot, 1 am rejectiiig your
application in regards to the septic system. You have the option of appealing this decision to the
Orono City Council.
If you choose to appeal this decision you can call either myself after September 22,2002, or you
can call Mike Oaffran with any questions before diis dale.
Sincerely,
QVx ^WZ-^7tv-Z
ManDoltennan
On-Site Septic Manager
IWsihinigSDaSMUt . Pbi(9S2) 394515
J
Memo
TO:GrtgGappa
FROM: Tmi Kdtoa (^1) M4-4S«3
DATE OF REPORT: Immmary li, 2M3
RE: Old LMif Lakt Rm4 Sewer EitensiM
Cost EftiMtc:
Attached is an itemized cost estimate for the sanitary sewer extension to serve the four properties on
Old Long Lake Road. The cost estimate is for all work necessary to construct a pressure sewer and
provide curb stops to each of the four properties. Keep in mind that each home will require an
individual grinder pump and connection between the home and the curb stop. This work is not
included in the cost estimate and will need to be completed by a licensed plumber. In addition,
e.\isting septic systems will need to be abandoned in accordance with City regulations. Costs on
past project for the grinder pump, connection to the home and abandonment of the septic system
have ranged between $6,500 and $10,000. These costs should be added to the cost estimate to give
the properly owners an indication of what their toul costs might be. Please let me know if you need
anything else or have any questions.
2335 WMt Highway 36 ♦ 8t Paul.MN5S113« Phone 651-636^4600 ♦ Fax: 651-636-1311
cmroFORONO
OM Long Lako Rood SanRory Sowor Extontion
Proliminary Cost Estimate
BRA File No. 139^0-127
Pntmin§ryCo9tE^imat9
ITEM UNIT
EST.
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE
EST.
COST
r HOPE 80R11. directional bore LF 2000 $14.00 $28,000
Sanitary aarvioe. ind. curb stop EA 4 1.500.00 6.000
Fkithlng station connection EA 1 3.000.00 3,000
ConrMCI to existino manhole EA 1 1.000.00 1,000
QaedinQ incL tnpfoll mulch fartPiMOTa wppvwii| i*feiMepvS| iwws*
Estimated Construction Cost------—«—vonongsnoMS
AC 0.5 3.000.00 1.500
$39,500
1.975
PntakmntCm (i-ieo3)jas
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY 13,2003
PARi^MMtSSiOy COMMESTS —SHBROKEE iiSE, REPRE5ENTA nylB —
CmmHmmeA
The Hackbeny ball fields were haddled in the fall and are finally done pr
City aufT.
rly thanks to
Moorse staled that^althou^ Mr. Andcrst had not >*et arrived, P^e Officer Kurt Erickson
had to leave to attend another meeting. Counc.! decided Offip^ Erickson was not needed
for Item 3 as his memb wu suflicieni in explaining the
PLANNING COMMISSION CO.MMENTS
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
•5. «02-27S3 WetlcyB^e, 2817 Casco Point Roa<
PlannlBg Commisston
rPlan Revisions—Refer to
Murphy moved,^d Sansevcrc seconded, to re-open applicktion ff02-27S3 and refer it
to the Plannln^ommissioa for further consideration.
Vote: Ayes 4^a>s 0.
*6. Adonlion ofSlormwater Management Plan—Resolution No.^11
MunE\ moved, and Sansevere seconded, to adopt Resolntlon No. 491t adopting the
Cidr Bf OroBO Surface Water Management Plan. \
_Y/fig;Ayes4,NaysO.______. \
7. Consideration of Old Long Lake Road Sewer Request
GafTron stated that they were looking for direction from Council Mr. Jacques bought a
substandard lot with a bad septic s>-stcm. He tore down the home and made the necessary
applications for variances to rebuild, then found that there would be problems with getting
septic onto the site. The system he could use, would not meet the needs of the size house
he plans to build. His request for septic s>-stem approval for the new residence was
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, JANUARY U, 2003
7. CoHsUeration of OW Lon^ Loke Road Sewer Request—Continued
rejected based on the inadequacy^of the site to support standard primary and alternate
systems for the proposed house.
Staff reviewed possible solutions and determined that the an extension of sewer to the
property may be possible. A pressure system with individual grinder stations could serx'c
645 Old l^ng Lake Ro^ with capacity to serve the one house east and two houses west of
Jacques site. The area is outside MUSA, but near enough to the existing s>*stem to suggest
a MUSA expansion would be reasonable. Metropolitan Council indicated such a MUSA
expansion would be a minor amendment because it is less than 40 acres in area and would
ha\e no impact on metro systems.
Staff had not yet looked at the cost or proposed the plan to neighbors.
White stated it would be a minor amendment in order to protect the lake. GafTron stated
that the area is totally boxed in and could not grow any larger than the proposed project.
Sansevere stated that Jacques would burden most of the cost since he requires the project.
Jacques stated that he was aware of that and though he did not yet know the cost of the
project, he had requested it be done to scr>*ice his property.
Moorse stated the item was exploratory lo see if Council was interested in pursuing the
Mayer Peterson asked if the City incurred expenses doing a feasibility study, and then
Jacques backed out, who would shoulder the cost of the study. Moorse stated they could
come up with a ballpark figure without incu-ring any significant cost. If the cost seems
reasonable, then they could pursue it further.
GafTron stated that they would contact the neighbors and post a public hearing date but
first would need to establish an estimate of cost.
Murphy stated he was in favor of the plan.
hite moved, and Mayor Peterson seconded, to direct staff to Initiate a
Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Metropolitan Council, including
holding n public hearing for that amendment, and provide Council with additional
information regarding costs, assessments, neighborhood interest, etc. to provide a
sewer extension to 645 Old Long Lake Road.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
L
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdaciday, JM«ary 22,2003
6:30o*clockp.B.
ROLL
The Commission mci on the above mentioned date with the following members present; Chair Sandra
Smidt. Commissioners David Rahn. J. Mark Fritzler. Liz Hawn. Jeanne Mabusth, Stephanie Zugschwert,
and Julc Hannaford. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron and City Planners Wendy
BoCtenberg and Jennifer Chaput, and Recorder Kristi Anderson.
Cofiunissionen* Janice Berg and Cynthia Bremer; and Council Representative Mayor Peterson were
absent
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:34 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(«l) M2>2tS5 KEVIN GARNETT, 450 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD. RENEWAL
CUP/VARIANCE
Hawn Moved, Malwslh accooded, to rccoMBcad approval of Applicalion M02-2855 Kevta Garnett
450 Orono Orchard Road, rcocwlng a variance and coadittonal nsc permit to permit constmetloa
of n new **gncsl honac** on the property, sobject to the property ow ner flUng a restrkth e covenant
In the chala of tMe of the property that wonid Ihnll nse of the goest honae to ocenpaato of the
priacipal atroctnre and their non-paying, gnests or domestic employees, and that the gnest home
conM not be nsed for a home occapatlon. VOTE: Ayes 7. Nays 0.
(«2) «02.2aS0 JOHN AND PATRICIA WALKER. 1318 SPRITE PLACE. VARIANCE
Hawn moved. Mabnsth seconded, to recommend approval of Application 802-2850 John and
Patricia Walker, approving a rear yard setback and hardcover variances in 75-250* setback zone to
construct a deck on the rear of the residence located at 1318 Spmee Place. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS
(#3) 002-2854 KEVIN .^LANXEY 1973 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, CUPA'ARIANCE 6:40 - 7:18
P.M.
Kevin Manley, the Applicant, and Eduardo Suarez of Gustafson Design. Inc. were present.
Gaffron explained that on December 9, 2002. the City Council reviewed the application including the
vanous unresolved issues aside from the retaining wall request and provided direction, much of which
will be addressed at the February Planning Meeting.
At this time. Gaflhm reviewed the three proposed boulder wall landscaping plan options for the
Commission. He explained that each of the options incorporates a stairway sy-stem to provide continued
access to the lake, and a 'Tirst flush” drainage system behind the top of the boulder wall to allow retention
and natural filtration.
PAGE I of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdacsday, Jaaaary 22,2003
0:30 a'dock p.n«
(M^2t54 KE\1N .\IANLEY, CoBHaacd)
Option I creates a half-osal (kpreased area at e1e\ation 937.5 next to the house, then re-establishes the
pre-existing walkout elevation with a ‘step-up' wall 3-6* lakeward from the house. GafTron noted that an
underground drainpipe is proposed to remove runoff from the depression area next to the house, outlening
just below the crest of the sh^line boulder wall.
Option 2 omits the depression area, but establishes a slope starting at the walkout door elevation dropping
to 937.0* at the shoreline boulder wall. While this avoids the depression anra. GafYron indicated that it
does little to le-establish the pre-existing grade levels.
Option 3 also omits the depression, hut establishes a slightly ilaner lawn slope than Options I or 2. and
somewhat changes the shape and orientation of the lakcshore stairway. Again. Gaffron noted that this
Option docs not re-establi^ the lakeshore yard elevations that existed previously.
After rev lew mg the three Options, and their hardcover impacu. GafTron reported that staff and the City
Engineer concluded that only Option 1 meets the goal of restonng the flat part of the lakeshore y ard back
to the pre-existing walkout elevation. However. Gafliron slated there may be no plan that puts back the
sideslopes to their pre-existmg grades without adding more retaming walls or reducing the soil insubility
inherent in the former slopes. In discussion with the applicant with regard to drainage. Gaffron pointed
out that gutters and downspouts wnuld be added to the house to catch rainfall and direct it past the
depression.
Gaffron stated that another aspect of Option I is that it provides vegetative screening across the facade of
the house to help soften and r^uce the vertical nature of the amount of house wall exposed to lake view.
Whereas, none of the Options proposes tree plantings that w ould further soften the facade as view ed from
the lake.
Other than the obvious need to protect the undercut shoreline from further erosion. GafTron identified 6
issues for consideration by the Plarming Commission in reviewing the proposed boulder wall /landscaping
plan.
According to Gaffron. if the Planning Commission concludes that the boulder w all sy'stem is appropriate
fur restoration of this sue. slafl'would recommend approving Option 1. with the addition of gutters and
downspouts, because it bangs the walkout level elevation hack to what it was onginally. Gaffron noted
that, from a precedent standpoint, staff would prefer that the sideslopes also be restore^ howeva. the
negativ e aspects of such restoration may outw eigh the positiv e maintenance and stability aspects of the
more gradual slopes resulting from Options 1-3.
GafTron fuaher identified three items for inclusion in any motion made by the Planning Commission,
including stnci adherence to the rev egetation 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" second,
construction of the boulder wall system be performed by a highly qualified contractor and or under direct
supervision of the same; and third, adherence to the required grades, and proper construction of the “flnt-
flush** system and installation of guners'downspouts to resuh in the degree of water quality control the
plan intends to accomplish.
Chair Smith asked w hat restonng the side slopes would mean to the erosion problems.
PAGE 2 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wedacsdiy, Jaaaary 22,2003
6:30 o*clock p.B.
(#02-2854 KEVIN MANLEY, CMiHaMcd)
Gaflron indicated that, from an equity standpoint, applications have been repeatedly denied to do grading
to construct walkouts in this neighborhood. In fact, an application to create a w alkout on this property
was denied 4-5 years ago. howeser, now the work has been done and the City is striving to restore the
properly to some semblance of what it w-as. Gaffron explained that the building inspector felt that none of
the Options does enough to restore the property to what it was onginally. since permits were never
applied for which would allow the grade change in the first place. With regard to hardcover, all three
C^ions hasT similar impact.
In regard to protection of the lakeshore. Chair Smith asked w hich Option the City could support.
If the City were trying to reum the existing shoreline character of the neighborhood. Gaffron felt that any
of the three Options would do.
Chair Smith asked if the Commission found the proposed plantings acceptable. She inquired w hether
nativ’e species or additional trees were suggested.
Suarez maintained that most of the plantings would be of a native variety, woody, grasses, and dogwoods.
He pointed out that few properties haw trees near the shoreline.
The Commission agreed the proposed plantings with added trees would be acceptable.
There were no public comments.
As a matter of equity. Hawn indicated that her first choice would be to sec the property restored to its
original state. She maintained that the application for w hat now has been done an>^ ay. had been denied
just a few years ago. At thisjuncture. Hawn beliesed it to be in everyone's best interest to maintain a
stable landscape and could support staffs recommendation.
Mabusth stated that, she too, could support Option I of staffs recommendation, however, had concerns
about the runoff near the “bowl" area. She also wished to see trees in various areas of the yard in order to
break up the v ertical expanse.
Suarez reiterated that gutters and downspouts w ould be used to direct runoff aw ay from the depressed
area. He noted that trees could be added to the comers of the lot nicely.
Mabusth asked if the neighbor's concern regarding safety and h- tgN fthe retaining wall had been
addressed since the last itKcting.
Suarez assured the Commission that the tallest wall would be only ■ tall.
Gaffron acknowledged that the slope would now be closer to the neighbor's property, with
less vegetation than there was previously.
Mabusth questioned whether staff f'und the stairs over the nprap acceptable and Public Serv ice Director
Gappa had no issue with the east side stairs.
PAGE 3 Of 29
r MINIITESOFTHE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdanday, Juiwy 22,2003
0:30 o'clock p.m.
(M2-2BS4 KEVIN MANLEY, Cootloocd)
GafTron stated that the lakeside stairs would lead to a dock system and that staff found that acceptable.
Tie street side steps were not an issue.
Fritzler stated that his questions had been answered and that he would support Option I, as long as the
City could be sure the work was conqileted as promised.
Chair Smith indicated that she could support the construction of a boulder wall system \crsus keystone
for aesthetic reasons. With regard to the inspector’s comments. Chair Smith agreed, however was
concerned about the future of the property. She also believed more trees were needed and that a timeline
should be provided with ways to monitor the progress.
Rahn asked if Option 1 restored the side >-ards. He indicated that if staff were satisfied w ith Option I as
proposed, w hich restores the property the closest to the original state, he could support that as well.
Gaffiron stated that Option I would not restore the side yards as proposed. He belie\*ed that by restonng
the original 3 or 4:1 slope, you might gam something, but cause the need for double retaining walls as
reflected in old photos.
While she could support Option I. Zugschwert indicated that she could not see sacrificing the future of
the property by requinng the side yards be restored.
Chair Smith wns troubled by the fact that, had the application for this grading and retaining wall work
been before the Commission prior to being done, it would have been denied.
In order to keep the shoreline as safe as possible, Hawn agreed that the City had now been put in the
temble position.
Haws moved to reconmeod approval of Applicafloa #02*2854. Kevin Manley, 1973 Fageraets
Point Road, granting an Affier-tke-Fact Variance and CondMonal I'se Permit for land alteration
and hardcover within 75’ of the shoreline as per Option 1 of the staffs recommendation, along with
a schednie detailing the timeline for completion of various pieces of the project, plus additional
planting of trees on the property, and snbject to staff recommendatioas as per the staff report dalrtl
January 16,2003.
Hawn asked if regularly scheduled inspections should be done dunng the process
Although he wished someone from the City could visit the site on a regular basis, due to limited staff.
GafTron indicated this reaiisticallv couldn’t be done.
Fritilcr seconded the motiou. VOTE: Ayes 6/1, Chair Smith dissenting.
Chair Smith stated that she would like to see the propertv much more closely 'esiored to its original stale.
PAGE 4 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdaesday, JasHary 22,2003
6:30 o'clock p*Bi.
(M2-2tS4 KEVIN MANLEY, Coatlaaed)
Gaf&on staled that the lakeside stairs would lead to a dock system and that sufT found that acceptable.
The street side steps were not an issue.
Frilzler stated that his questions had been answered and that he would support Option 1, as long as the
City could be sure the work was completed as promised.
Chair Smith indicated that she could support the construction of a boulder wall system versus key'stone
for aesthetic reasons. With regard to the inspector’s comments. Chair Smith agr^. however was
concerned about the future of the property. She also believed more trees were needed and that a timeline
should be provided with ways to monitor the progress.
Rahn asked if Option 1 restored the side yards. He indicated that if staff were satisfied w ith Option 1 as
proposed, which restores the property the closest to the original state, he could support that as well.
Ganion stated that Option I would not restore the side yards as proposed. He believed that by rcstonng
the original 3 or 4;1 slope, you might gam something, but cause the need for double retaining walls as
reflected in old photos.
While she could support Option I. Zugschwert indicated that she could not see sacrificing the future of
the property by requiring the side yards be restored.
Chair Smith was troubled by the fact that, had the application for this gradmg and retaining wall work
been before the Commission prior to being done, it would have been denied.
In order to keep the shoreline as safe as possible. Hawn agreed that the City had now been put in the
terrible position.
Hawn moved lo rccoomiend approval of AppUcatioa #02-2154, Kevin Manley, 1973 Fagerocss
Poini Road, granting an After-the-Fact Variance and Conditional I se Permit for land alteration
and hardcover within 75* of the shoreline as per Option I of the slafTs rccommendatfam, along with
a schedule detailing the timeline for compktion of various pieces of the pro|cct, plus additional
pbatiag of trees oa the property, and subject to sUff recommendations as per the staff report dated
January 16,2003.
Hawn asked if regularly scheduled inspections should be done during the process.
Although he wished someone from the City could visit the site on a regular basis, due to limited staff,
Gaffron indicated this realistically couldn’t be done.
Fritiler seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 6/1. Chair Smith dlssentiag.
Chair Smith stated that she would like to sec the property much more closely restored to its original state.
PAGE 4 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO P1.ANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, Jannary 22,2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
m
P3I.
#02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE, 2*17 CASCO POI.NT ROAD, PLAN REVISIONS 7:19 - 7:45
Wesley Byrne, the Applicant, was present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant was granted a 75-250* hardcover variance in March 2002 for major
additions to the existing residence. The variance was granted based on a finding that the existing
residence building and foundation would not be altered as part of the remodeling, and that no lot
area/widlh variances were necessary because the e.xisting house walls and foundation would remain,
without structural repairs. Gaffron felt that during the February 2002 review. it was not clear that the plan
os approved required raising of the second story roof a few feet.
Gaffron continued that a condition of the approval was that if it w as determined the existing foundation
was required to be replaced or repaired, all variance approvals would be w ithdra.. n and a new variance
application submitted.
Afler being issued a building permit in June of 2002. the building inspector only recently noted that while
the additions w ere progressing, the second story of the residence has now been completely removed,
including the portion encroaching past the side setback. Furthermore. Gaffron noted the inspection
department questioned the integrity of the portion of foundation below the first story wall w ith
substandard setback, to which the applicant has hired a structural engineer to review the situation.
Gaffron pointed out that replacement of the remov ed second story in the substandard setback clcarl>
requires a variance that was not addressed in the original approval. In addition, the removal of portions of
the existing house and the need for substantial work on the foundation, triggers ll c need for further City
review. Gafiron questioned whether the remodeling addition process has resulted m removal of so much
of the existing residence that the project should be considered as a total rebuild, requinng all setbacks to
be met. He also questioned whether allowing the second stoiy lo be put back in the substandard setback
should be an option at all.
Byrne stated that his intent from the beginning has been to work with City stafl’. He acknowledged that,
in hindsight, he should have considered bulldozing the entire home and started fresh, as many new issues
continue to arise. The structural engineer lOokcd at and discov -red some obv ious rot issues and repau-
work that needed lo be done. At this point. Mr. B vttic asked the Commission to grant him a setback
variance, as it would be very costly to change the design now. Had he realized this a year ago. Bvrne
stated he would have designed the home differently.
Chair Smith noted that the Fcbruaiy 2002 Minutes address the need to readdress the foundation issue at a
later date if it became an issue.
B>Tne reiterated that had he known the foundation would become an issue he would have done things
differently.
Rahn was surprised that the foundation stability had not been addressed earlier, pnor to or dunng
construction. He stated that, in his view, this project is a rebuild and wtu a rebuild from the start. The
only thing he was not clear on was the need for a raised roof, which he felt, further encroached into the
side setback by massing the encroachment.
PAGE 5 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, Jaanary 22,2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(M2-2753 WESLEY BYRNE. Coaliaacd)
Byim indicited that the design uith the 8’ rooflinc as part of the plan has remained the same throughout
the project.
Had the Commission understood the raised roof at the time. Rahn believed this would have triggered the
need for another vinance. He questioned why there always seems to be the need for an after the fact
variance with rebuilds.
Hawn inquired whether the tight sidedoading garage was ever considered to be a problem
GafTron indicated that the driveway retaining wall would need to be S' from the lot line for maneuvering
in and out of the garage and driveway.
Kelly Wulvey, 2815 Casco Point Road, stated that she and her family moved in last Apnl and have no
concerns or issues w ith the addition. She added that they were happy to see Byrne improve his property
and did not have concerns that it fell 4’ from the property line. As this was unintentiimal on Mr. Dynic or
the City's part, her only concern was. if Mr. By rne were forced to redo his plans, the home would have
little character and be extremely long to fit on the lot in order to meet setbacks.
Fntzler also viewed the home as a touil rebuild and asked what would be required if the applicant were
forced to go back to square one.
While Hawn concurred, she empathized with the applicant's unintentional error.
Mabusth pointed out that staff and building inspectors had looked at the project all along w ith him. She
felt the City was a bit remiss, now after many months into construction, only revisiting the topic now.
Byrne acknow ledged he is seven months into construction, of which now he is debyed and will be costly
to him.
Whether or not the foundation needs to be repaired or rebuilt. Rahn questioned if the applicant could
mainuin the original 5' wall height versus the proposed 8* wall. Since the City is constantly dealing with
massing issues, he believed holding the construction to what it was onginally could be an acceptable
compromise
If the applicant were denied the vanance. Zugschwert asked what he would have to do next
Byrne staled tliat. as he undersiiX'd it. he would have to remove 4' from his first Boor and lift up the porch
room over the haNcment (iaiTron added ihai. as well as. redesigning the baths, stairways, etc
As blame e.xistcd on both sides. Ilannaford found it difficult to force the applicant to redesign his whole
plan due lo misunderstandings.
Hawn concurred with Rahn to keep the knee wall at 5' versus S'.
GatTron drew a jog on the overhead to reflect ihe revised setback and wall height.
PAGE 6 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdictday, Jaiiiary 22,2003
6:30 o*clock p.m.
(M02-2753 WESLEY BYRNE, Coallaucd)
Hannarord clanfted that, all the City u-as asking for u-as the applicant to redesign his plan lo reflect
imall jog on the aecond story.
Raka bmvc B, Mabasik locoaM to approve Application M2-27S3, Weilej Byrne, contianiag tke
Variance far 2ti7 Casco Point Road aBowing tke work to continne whk no fkrtker variances tkan
wkat was prior approved, wHk wall aad fonadation repair/replaceroent lo bring it back to no larger
tkan its pre-esistlag stale. VOTE: Ayes k/1, Hannafard disseatiag.
Hannaford was not in favor of requiring a redesign by the applicant.
NEW BUSINESS
(#5) «02-2tS4 ANDREW AND TRACEY RASCHER, 4705 NORTH SMOR»: DRIVE. VARIANCE
7:40-7:50 P.M.
Andrew Rascher. ApplicanU and a representatisT ff Hew Depot, were present.
Planner Chaput expbined that the applicants have n^\v»fs»cd vanances from the average lakeshore
setback, the 75* structure setback from theOIIW Minnetonka and for hanfeover in the 0-75*
lakeshore setback zone in order to replace an c.\ : story deck attached to the residence. 11k
existing deck is rotting and has become a uiiciy ismic owners. Currently, the deck encroaches 71'
into the average lakeshore setback and is 67' fmm the C; WI. of Lake Minnetonka.
Chaput pointed out that issues for considetaiion include the fk.' that the deck has existed for many years
and the proposed deck will not increase the existing square fooUge of hardcover, change the setback from
the OHWL nor the average lakeshore setback. She added that the deck would continue to provide a
landing for two sliding glass doors located lakeside and would not infhnge negatively any of the
neighbors' views of the lake. Chaput reported that staff recommends approval of the variances necessary
to replace the cxistmg deck.
Mr. Rascher pointed out that the existing deck is rotting and has been a safety concern for his family. He
currently has a mesh nening in front of the railing to ensu .* safciv. as the railing itself is not sUbIc.
Mabusih noted that that no impact on ncighbonng view s would be caused by the replacement.
There were no pubiK commenu.
Fni/lcf asked if the lower screening would remain and what materials the deck would be made of.
A representative from Home Depot, explained that the lower screening would remain and the upper deck
would be a rail craft system with metal and glass panels.
PAGE 7 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO FLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdaetdav, Jiaatry 22,2003
0:30 •*clock p.m.
(«S M2-2IM ANDREW AND TRACEY RASCUER,CoatiBiM<i)
^lakvslli Moved. Hawi itcMded, lo appr^rc AppHcaltoa M2-20S6. Aadrew aad Tracey Raseber.
gnwtiaf lk« 71* eactMclUMat talo the average lakctliore letback. ftoKtarc «S* froa liw OWHL
of Lake Miaadoaka, aad t06 tX (5.12%) of kardcover la tke 0-75* kardco^er xoae variaacct ia
order to replact aa eiRlIag secoad story deck attacked to tke reiideace located at 4705 Norik Skore
Drive. VOTE: Ayea 7, Nays 0.
(•0) M2-2f57 O'NTHIA PIPER, 1125 SPRING HILL ROAD, Cl P 7:51 - 7:57 PJ^I.
Daniel Gaudette. of Steiner and Koppleman. was present representing the applicant.
Chaput reported that the applicant requests a conditional use permit to permit a guest apartment w ithin the
pnmary residence. A building permit has been issued to construct a new residence on the property and
the applicants are aw are that the guest apartment must ha\-e Planning Commission approval before
construction begins. Chaput pointed out that the apartment would be liKaicd above the most westerly of
the two garages for the use by guests. Interior access would be obtained by a spiral staircase in the
mudroom on the mam floor of the pnncipal stnicture. the second access is from an eatenor door leading
up a sUirw ay, located on the front of the garage. This interior access must be considered the guest
apanment's primary access. Chaput continued that adequate parking exists, as discs septic system.
Chaput indicated that staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit for a non-rental guest
apartment, conditioned upon three points noted in the staff recommendations section of the report.
Gaudette stated that the applicant accepts all of the conditions noted in the staff report, lie aihled that the
primary occess to the apartment and its guests would be the ex tenor access, whereas, the mudroom area
spiral staircase w ould supply a second entrance.
Chair Smith questioned whethc: staff had issue w ith a spiral suircase.
Mabusth stated that spiral staircases are safer today than many years ago and save in economy of si/c
There were no public comments
All of the Commissioners felt the applicatran to be reasonable
FrHalcr Moved. Chair SMkb iccoodcd. lo approve Appl^loa M2-2S57. C'vaibla Wper. graallag a
CoWMomI l ie PerMk lo pemdl coMinictioa ofogMst apartmeM wkhki ’tke prtauirv reildeMe
for Ike property localed al 1125 Sprlof Hi! Road, sob)eci lo Ike ihree cooditloos cHed la Ike staff
recoMMeodalloos lectloa of the staff repon dated Jaauary 9,2003. \ OTE: Ay es 7, Naxa 0.
(#7) #02-2i59 BLAKE AND .MARY BICHA.MCH, 332 WESTLAKE STREET. VARIANCE 7:58
-9:08 P.M.
Blake Bichanich. Applicant, w as present.
PAGE 8 of 29
i
J
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdaesday, jMiaary 22,2002
0:30 o'clock p.m.
(M2-2tS9 BLAKE AND MARY BICHANICH, CooltaocO)
Chapul reported that the applicants are requesting lot area, uidth, and setback wiances in order to
construct a new house in the same location as a house exists today on the property. In order to rebuild a
home on this property within the same dimensions as previously granted, variances would be needed for
side yard setbacks, 11* to the south and 1 9.3* to the north where 30* is required, a kit width variance for
100.28* where 200* is required, and lot area variances allowing 1 .34 acres where 2 acres are required.
In 1993, Resolution #3231 permitted the applicants to construct additions to the existing liome with side
yard setbacks of 19.3* to the north and 12.7* to the south where 30* is required after two parcels were
corribined to bring the lot width and area closer to conformity. Chaput explained that, by current Zoning
Ordinance, the existing house is non-conforming and any new structure should be constructed as close to
conformity as possible. The proposed plan eliminates a detached garage, which is currently situated over
the lot line and onto the nei^boring property and proposes an attached garage 10’ from the lot line.
Since the proposed garage is attached, it is considered to be pan of the principal structure, requiring a 30*
setback instead of 11* for a detached garage.
Chaput identified 7 issues for consideration by the Planning Commission and stated that if the
Commission felt the applicant should be able to maintain the setbacks permined from presiously
approved variances on the property to construct a new house, the application should be granted.
However. Chaput stated, if the Commission felt 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.
Hawn a -ked if the shed by the lake was ever permitted.
Bichanich indicated that the shed had been existing on the site when they purchased the property.
Chaput pointed out that it was acknowledged in the 1993 Resolution that it was existing non-conforming
and that it could be looked at in the future.
Chair Smith asked what the shed was used for.
Bichanicli stated that he used it mostly for lake storage of water equipment and toys.
Mabusth slated that the applicant should be advised that, to be consistent w ith what's been done in the
past with new construction, the City asks that the non-conforming strxictures within the lakcshore vard be
removed.
Chair Smith added that the applicant could investigate a lock box in lieu of the storage shed.
There were no public commenu.
Chair Smith asked the Commission where they stood w ith regard to lot area and lot width vanances. as
these are usually something that cannot be altered easily.
Mabusth stated that this lot has more area than the three remaining lots on the street.
PAGE 9 of 29
MimJTESOFTfiE
ORONO PLANNING CO»tMlSSION MEETING
Wrtfactday, Juaary 12,2M3
(••MtM ILAKE and MANY MCHANIOL Ciiliiiti)
Fntzlcr staled that he feh new coRStructkxi should be required to conform to setbacks, which arc 30' from
either side.
Chair Smith concurred, stating that the a|)pl!cant could build a deeper more narrow home.
Bichanich stated that his intent in combmmg the two properties was to be allowed to do more with the
overall parcel. He pointed out that the property wns inapproprutely zoned LR-I A. 2 acres m the Tint
place, since no other properties in the area meet this standard. He indicated that, had the lot been zoned
LR-IB, the property would need to meet a mere 10* side ywd setback, and been a more appropriate
aoning fit for Westlake Street He argued that there is little value or inccntur for people to combine lots if
the City further lirnitt the buildable area of those combined lots. He pointed out that people mi^t be
better off with a SO* wide lot and apply for a 4*>side yard setback.
Mabusth asked if the applicant could center the proposed residence on the property.
Bichanich slated that he could move the home I S' off of either side yard, adding that the neighbors arc
delighted to have garage removed from their propert}-.
Rahn staled that, in his opinion, the house was not designed to fit a long narrow lot. He felt the most
lenient he could be would be to allow setbacks 2/3 the distance of the requirement since the lot itself is
2/3 the requirement. Rahn believed that the applicant could do a better job of conforming to the lot,
however, he could accept 20' side yard sctbaclu.
Bichanich asked how this philosophy would work for SO* lots.
Rahn reiterated that he did not Ihink a 100* lot should be allowed to be as close to the lot lines as required
by a SO* lot.
Chair Smith asked whether the Commission saw a hardship for this application.
Mabusth asked if there were similar lots on the lake in Orono that were long and narrow like these on
Westlake Street.
Gaflron indicated that the most similar situation he could think of would be the residences along Tonkawa
that are zoned I acre.
Hawn stated that she would like to encourage people to combine lots and provide tncenuves to do so.
therefore, had difficult)- with this application. She felt she could support a IS* side yard setback.
Chair South stated that the w as not opposed to the proposal however, questioned the precedent it could
besetting.
Gaffron pointed out that these lots would be wtinewliat unique, in that they fall within a 2-acre zone. He
added that the 50* lots are required to meet a 10* setback in acre and 1 acre districu.
PAGE 10of29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdactday, JM«ary 22,2003
0:30 o'clock p.a.
(#02-2139ILAKE AND MARY BICIIANICH, Cooltaocl)
Mabusth agreed, stating that this is one of the only areas left in a 2 acre zoning diso^icl uhere >'OU have
SO' wide lots.
Bichankh stated that he could accept a I S' side \ard setback on chher aide, and believed the true hardship
will befiill the neighbor to his south.
Mabusth staled that she could accept a IS' side >ard setback.
Confused by the rationale. Fntzler stated that when property owners haw long narrow lots. >tHi should
design and build a long namm- home to fit the parameters of the lot.
Mabusth maintained that all encroachments must meet the side >-ard setbacks, including fireplace
chimneys, overhangs, air conditionmg units, etc.
Chair Smith asked w hat staff would recommend.
Gaffiron indicated that it was difficult to find a hardship for new construction on this 100' lot. although it
would not set a precedent for the other SO' lots along the street.
Chair Smith acknowledged that the Commission seemed to concur that some additional side surd setback
would be allowed.
Zugschwert indicated that she would vote to support the proposal as submitted.
Hannaford found it difncult. given the size of the lot, to throw’ out an arbitrary’ number for the side yard
setback. He slated that it is clear the zoning is inappropriate and a vanance should be allowed.
Chair Smith recognized that these situations require the Commission to examine them on a case by case
basis.
ZugKhwen pointed out that these variances were allowed in 1993, and questioned why the Commission
felt the need to create new standards right now with this application.
Hawn asked the applicant whether he could accept 20* side yard setbacks from the Commission.
Bichanich staled that he could accept a 15' side yard setback requircmeni.
Hanuiard moved, Mabusth seconded, to approve Applicartoa «02-2l59. Blake and .Mary
Bicbaakh, graatlng lot width, lot area, and side yard setback variaaces as proposed for the
property . given the voriaaces that were approved la 1993 and the aalqae hardships that thb Is one
oflbelaat 100* lots la this 2 acre loaiag dbirlci.
Hawn stated that the dimensions of long and narrow constitute a hardship, even though there is still quite
a bit of land to build on.
PAGE 11 of 29
L
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WcdMstfay, Jasiary 22,2M3
6:30 o*cl«ck pm.
(M2-2aSf BLAKE AND MARY MCHAMCH. CmOwmO)
Btchmich stmcd that the current home is 70’ wide and the proposed will virtually sit in the identical
position as the existing home except for moving the garage off the property luie.
Rahn staled that the application is for new construction strsus the additions and remodels of 1993.
\ OTE: Ayes 3, Nays 4, Friulcr. Hawn, Chair Smith, and Rahn dbacaltag.
Hawn stated that she would support the home being centered on the property.
Rahn reiterated that a 40’ wide building pod and very deep lot did not constitute a hardship to him. He
believed the issue was Oiat, unfortunately, a wide house was designed for a narrow lot.
GaflnHi reiterated that the applicant had been faced with meeting impossible standards since the lot did
not match the zoning code. He added that, over the past 20 years, people have purcha:.cd multiple lots
and combined them to build bigger homes gt\ing Orono a multitude of lot sizes.
Hawn nwvcd, Chair Smith seconded, to approve Application 002-2859, Blake and Mary Bkhaakh,
granting lot area and hM width variancct, and side yard aethacks of 20’ on either side of the
res idence because it is a long and narrow shaped let In order to constrnci a new house on the
property located at 332 Westlake Street.
Chair Smith asked the applicant if he would like the Commission to vote on this motion or table the
application.
Bichanich indicated that he would prefer the Commission table the application. He reiterated that he had
combined two non-conforming lots in an eflbrt to bnng them more into conformity 9 years ago. whereas,
what he has found is that he would have been better off keeping two 50 ’ lots. Knowing what he docs
today, he questioned what the incentive for anytme would be to buy two lots for combination, thereby
doubling their land cost, for a mere 2S"« more house.
Chair Smith stated that they would table the application and encouraged the applicant to redesign the
home and garage to meet a minimum I S’ side yard setback on either side.
Hawn withdrew her molhiu.
Mabusth Mated that as it stands, it feels as if the house was not designed to fit a long narrow bt.
After further consideration. Bichanich felt that a 60 ’ wide home could be acceptable and asked to move
forward w ith the 20’ side yard setbacks.
Chair Smith stated that they could move the application forward to the Council without seeing it again if
the Commission agreed.
Although he would vote favorably if the applicant chose to accept 20’ setbacks, Hannaford reiterated that
mandating a 20’ setback sounded arbitrary .
PAGE 12 of 29
L
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION SIEET1NG
Wcdaoday, JuMry 22,2003
0:30o*€leckp.n.
(i02-2tSf OLAKE AND MARY BICHAMCH, CMliavcd)
Zugsch>»ert fell she could support the 20* setback without seeing the application again.
^Arliilc he would accept a 20* side >ard setback on either side. Fnt/ler maintained that it be inclusur of
everything, chimney, air conditioning unit, overhangs, etc.
Chair Smith asked if stafT would be comfortable with the Commission not seeing the application again.
As long as it w-as understood e\Tr>lhing would be within the setback requirements, GafTron indicated that
there would be no real need to bring the application back before the Commission
Bichanich asked if I * overhangs would need to meet setbacks.
Gaffron reiterated that they would count as encroachmenu m a substandard setback zone.
Bichanich explained that, aesthetically, the standard overhang should be allowed outside the building
envelope.
Hawn asked how large the overhangs wctc in the proposed construction and w hetlwr the Commission
could support standard overhangs.
Bichanich stated that the overhangs vary from 1-4* for architectural interest.
Rahn stated that he could support 2* overhangs on either side of the home encroaching into the 20*
setback, but not 4* on either side.
Hawn stated that she would be alright with 4* overh^gs encroaciiing into the side >ard setback
Hawn nMved, .Mabosth sreoaded. la approve AppReatiaa M2-2859, Blake aad .Mary Bichanich,
graatiag lot area aad ka width variances, aad side >ord setbacks of 20* oa diher skic of tkc
rcsidcocc wHb a asaalriaai of 4* roof overhaag oa either side cncroaehiag into the side yard
setback area*. to reoMval of the cabling shed in the ATS' hardcover looc aad benasc it b a
lung and narrow ihapcd lol. ia order to canslmct a acw hansr oa the properly located at 332
Westlake Street. VCTTE: Ayes 6. .Nays I. Fritzler dtsscatfag.
Frit/ler indicated that he could not support a 4' overhang encroachment into the sideyard setback.
(Recess from 9:M - 9:15 P.M.)
m W62-2I60 SrNSTATE CONCEPTS, INC« 1955 HERITAGE DRIVr., variances 9:15-
10:04 P.M.
Todd Gorr. Applicant, was present
Gaffron summarized the applicant’s request for lot area and side setback variance for construction of a
new residence to replace the existing residence on the property. Technically, he added that a front yard
setback would be required as well.
PAGE 13 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WcdMtday, JMaary 22,2003
6:30 o*clMk p.n.
(i•^2•i0 SLNSTATC CONCEPTS. CoMtoaed)
Originally, a I acre zoning district, the zoning is-as changed in 1975 to 2 acre mmimum and well and
•eptoc serves the property. Gafiron explained that the applicant recently purchased the property intending
to tear doisTi the supcntnicture and re-use the existing footings and slab foundation. A lot area and
setback variance is required to replace the 4-stall garage in the substandard side setback abutting the
Dakota Rail comdor. Gaffron continued that the house will be enlarged to incorporate a second story
including a “bonus room" abose the garage, which adds a second level of encroachment to the side
setback.
Gaffron pointed out that, from sUfT s perspective, there is little hardship to support the side setback
swance. since the garage could become 3 sulls instead of 4. He noted that the house garage could also
be rwonfigured to pros idc for additional storage behind the garage next to the pool, while meeting the 30*
setback. He added that the applicant had prosided a second survey, w hich indicates a proposed
house garage location, which meets the 30' setback, should the side >wJ be denied.
For zoning purposes. Gaffron pointed out that the publicly used and maintained cul-de-sac cxistmg upon
the comer of the property had been deleted from the lot area calculation Therefore, a line 10' from
Jie edge of the pawment of this portion of the public road' must be used as the front property line for
front setback determination. Although there is no current plan to remove or discontinue use of the cul-de-
sac. the City Engineer m his 1999 County Road 15 Traffic Study suggested that a future method to make
15 safer would be to eliminate the Heritage 15 intersection and redirect neighborhood traffic to Brown
Road
South across the rail comdor. Gaffron noted that such a rerouting would eliminate the cul-de-sac and
hence the setback issue.
Vk hilc t^ exiting and proposed house appear to be setback approximately 39* from the wetland. Gallron
acloiowledged that the wetland has not been formally delineated. He felt it would be appropnate to have
the applicant get the wetland boundary delineated poor to construction of the deck to ensure it meets the
required setback.
C^ffron reported that the current residence per the original plan is considered as a 4-bedroom home and
the existing septic system has served it well, but its actual design capacity is unclear based on the tack of
information from the dratnfield replacement done in 1982. The City has considered this as a conforming
system J^hich has been functioning well under the pnor owner's usage pad.m Gaffron maintained that
It IS unlikely the property contains an altemaie site meeting setback requirements from lot lines
structures, wells and wetlands. While it might be reasonable to allow the new structure to be reconnected
to the existing septic system for the time being, the lack of an alternate site suggests that the applicant
PAGE 14 of 29
,J
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WcdMt^ay, Jnwiry 22,2003
0:30 0*d0ck p.M.
(•0^20M SUNSTATE CONCEPTS, CMMiaacd)
Gtffron kkiKified 6 issues for considenlion by the Planning Commission and indicated that stafTuouId
recommend approval of the lot area variance. On the other hand, GafTron stated that staff u-ould
recommend denial of the side setback variance and approval of the front yard setback vanance relatis-e to
the alternate plan. He continued, that staff would recommend the new home be connected to municipal
sewer rather than reconnected to the existing septic system at comrietion of construction and that the
applicant be required to have the wetland delineated prior to construction of the 2nd-story deck to ensure
it meets the minimum wetland setback.
Although he had submitted an alternate plan, Gorr suted that he would prefer to retain the 4-stall garage.
With regard to hardship, Gorr maintained that LR-1A is an inappropriate zoning district for small lots, not
to mention, the limitation posed by wetland encroachment on this propen>’. As he would be building over
the existing foundation with no room for a basement, storage would be limited, therefore Gorr requested
he be granted a 4-stall garage to offset this limitation. Adding storage behind the garage might encroach
into the pool area.
Giair Smith suggested, relative to the garage, to merely construct a deeper garage for storage.
Oaffron reminded the Commission that the applicant would need to maintain a 10’ setback between the
pool and structure.
Gorr maintained that building a deeper garage would cut into the limited usable yard and cost more to
redo the foundation.
Chair Smith pointed out that not having room to store your belongings was not considered an acceptable
hardship.
Neighbor Lenny Dayton, across Heritage Dnve to the south, asked how high the two story home would
be.
Gaffron indicated that the home met height standards at a proposed height of 27*.
Dayton inquired whether the size of the home was of issue, since the footpnni appears to be much smaller
than the proposed construction.
Chair Smith stated that the size of the home did not seem to be in question.
Gaffron noted that the home will be significantly larger than the original 36X4S. Additional spaces of
18X30 w ith bonus room above the garage and 40X 23 would be constructed.
Da>lon asked w hat the proposed setback to Heritage would be.
Gaffron indicated that the setback would be measured 10* back from the cul-de-sac. and that the applicant
was asking for a variance to be 28’ instead of 50 ’ from the setback.
W’hile Chair Smith staled that she saw no problem allowing the lot area variance, she felt there was
inadequate hardship displayed to support the side scdiack.
PAGE IS of 29
NINITTESOFTHE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
WcdMtday, jMMry 22,2M3
(:2t •*dock p.m.
(Ml-2tit SVNSTATE CONCEPTS. CmaOamti)
Mabusth suggested that the applicant keep the black top for additional paridng next to a ihrec<ar garage
Gorr ttted that, in his view, the proposal wn not new construction since he nas using the existing
foundatkm.
Hawn disagreed, stating that in the Commission's opinion, this was new construction. She wondered why
some sviances would be accepuble and not others.
Mabusth stated that she had no difficulty supporting the front setback since the City put in a public road
on their private property. She added that the proximity to the tnul behind the property also causes an
issue.
Hawn agreed, view mg the cul-de*sac as something of a hardship that had been imposed upon the property
owner.
Gaflron reminded the Commission that potential did exist for the cul-de-sac to go away some day in the
future, however, he pointed out that the trail could Ke replaced by li^t rail as well
Chair Smith asked the applicant how he felt about connecting to municipal sewer.
Gorr indicated that he would prefer to keep his septic sewer system as it has been considered a
conforming system, adding that rather than an alternate septic site he would consider connecting to
municipal sewer as the alternate.
Chair Smith asked if the sy stem w ere currently conforming
GafTron indicated that the system was built for a 4-bcdroom home and w ill still be used for a 4-bedroom
home on a larger scale. He questioned what impact the usage pattern might have on the future sewer
capaeity and indicated that no one could predict what impact the additional use might cause.
Assuming the applicant was building the home to sell it and assuming the sewer was conforming. Chair
Smith questioned whether the applicant should be allowed to continued to use the current sewer system
and merely make the new buyer aware that they will be purchasing a 20 year old septic system with their
new home.
I lawn stated that the City could not force the applicant to hook up to City sewer if their current system
w as conformmg.
Rahn felt they applicant should be connected to City sewer if asailable during the rebuild.
Gaflron pointed out that replacing a sepuc system could run approximately Sl0,000-Sis.000. Smee no
one could estimate how long the current system w ould last, Gaffron suted that to connect a force mam
system to a new line for City sewer would likely be similar m cost.
Mabusth agreed that now would be the ume to connect.
PAGE 16 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
OUONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wc^Msiay, jMMry 22, 2003
i JO •*dMk p.m.
(M2-20M SUNSTATE CONCEPTS, C
Hawn Mated that, in new cooMniction. the City typically asks for two sq>! ic site locations, w hercas thu
property does not have it
Gaffron indicaied that due to a lack of an alternate site is the reason why City staff recommends the
connection non-.
Hawn asked why the home did not haw a basement and whether it could.
UTuk other homes in the neighborhood have basements. Gaflron could not say why this one did not. He
offered that the wetland might haw impacted die ability to construct a basement.
Gorr stated that the City Sewer Inspector had indicated that the existing system was conforming.
Although a second site is not asailable. Gorr reiterated that City sewer would be the alternate.
Chair Smith asked if the wetland delineation would be done.
Gorr stated that this would be a future issue to be addressed in the spring or when construction permits.
Gaflron stated that staff would suggest a caveat to the motion be that no deck is built until the delineation
is finished.
Fritzicr asked what type of stab the garage sat on.
Gaffron indicated that, while the bouse sits on 12'* block, he was unsure of the garage foundation.
Fritaler pointed out that going to a three-car garage, could reduce the side lot. a.s well as front yard,
setback requirement. He believed the garage should be cut back to three.
GanVon agreed, stating that the applicant could make up for the fourth stall b> extending the garage
deeper.
Chair Smith suted that the consensus seemed to be that the Commission would support the staff
recommendations.
Based on the original plan. Gorr noted the garage stood on 8** block and 20" footings.
Chau" Siruth suted that the Comrmssion was ready to make a recommendation based on staff findings or
it could table the application if the applicant so chose.
While Gorr indicated that a 12X12' addition off the bock of the garage did not thrill him. he did not wish
to have hu application tabled.
Chair Smith asked the Commission if they w ere comfortable making a recommendauon and allowing
sufTto work with the applicant to make the necessary garage adjustments.
The Commission agreed.
PAGE 17 of 29
ClMiBBar
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdacsday Jaaaary 22,2003
6:30 o'clock p.Bi.
(M2-2060 SUNSTATE CONCEPTS. Coatiaacd)
Ckair SaUlli aiovcd, Raka Mcoadcd, to approve Applicalioa #02-2860, Saavlatc Cooerptv, Ibc„
based OB stair recoaiaseBdailoBs to §raat a lot area variaBce, deay a side setback v irlaace, approve
the froBt setback variaace relative to the *alteraate* plaa bat aot for the ori|{iaal proposal that
reqaires the side setback vaiiaace, a farther recoauaeadatioB. that the aea hone be coaoected to
maakipal seaer rather thaa recoaaected to the exlstiag septic system at completioB of
coastractioa. aad completiag a aetlaad deliaeatioB prior to coastruction of the 2nd-story deck fur
the property located at 1955 Heritafe Drive. \‘OTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
GofT asked if be a cre being required to hook up to municipal sew er, even after being told by the City he
was not required to do so, if the current system was conforming, lie felt this w as contrarv to ex eryihing
he had been told.
Chair Smith stated that the Commission recommendation to City Council would be that he connect to
City Sewer pnor to the issuance of the certifica».* of occupancy. As there was not an adequate second site
found for sewer, the Commission agreed with stafTs recommendation to connect the new construction to
municipal sewer.
Gafl'ron suted. to be fair, the applicant likely has a second issue with the City, .since he had also been told
incoiK. tly by staff in the past that he would not have to go through this process for a lot area variance to
rebuild on the e.visting foundation, which was not the case.
Gorr stated he was told tw ice he would not need to ask for the lot area variance by staff, first early last fall
by Weinberger and then Bottenberg late fall. It was not until more recent meetings with GalTron ih. l he
was informed otherwise, after purchasing the property.
Rahn stated tliat since Gorr had asked to be moved along to Council, this is only the Commission's
recommendation and he could plead his case and the inconsistencies lo Council when he nwets with them
Gaffron reminded the Commission that this issue, of when a remodel becomes a rebuild or new
construction, is still a fluid issu.- fo*- discussion that the Commission has not come to any conclusion on.
There is no code recognizing 50 “/o. or any other standard, by w hich to judge w hen a rennidel becomes
new construction. Ibis issue docs need to be resolved so that the City can show people, in its Code, that
sshen a remodel reaches a certain level it becomes new construction or rebuild.
Chair Smith agreed w ith Gaffron. and stated without a standard in place for documentation, it would be
the Commission's recommendation that the Council consider this as new construction, whereas the
Council may still decide cthenvise.
Gaffron si;.ted that this would come before Council next week and asked if the applicant felt he had
enough tine to make the alterations since the process came as somewhat of a surpnsc lo him.
Gorr indicated that he could w ork w ith staff to have something ready for Council.
PAGE 18 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING CO.MMISSION MEETING
WcdicMlay* Janvary ’ 22,2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(«9) M2-2061 ERIK TH03IPS0N, 1940 CONCORDIA STREET, VARIANCES 10:05 -11:20
P3I.
Enk Thompson. Applicim, and Kelvin Renerath. were present.
BoOenberg explained that, once agam. this applicant too, was requesting a front yard setback md lot
coverage by structure svrances to construct a new second story to the existing residence on the property.
She continued that, currently, there is a second story over 3 '4 of the residence constructed at sanous
limes. She pointed out that the fuotpnni of the residence would not be changing, nor its location,
however due to the age and condition of the residence a structural engineer has determined the residence
can handle the additional load of a new second story, but mil need some additional footings and shoring
up.
Bottenberg noted that a Vanance for hardcoser in the 250-500* setback zone was not required, howeser,
the applicant w ould be proposing the removal of existing hardcover and structure and aiding structure
and hardcover to other locations on the property.
Bottenberg identified 8 issues for consideTation by the Planning Commission and staled that if the
Planning Commission concludes that the unusual conditions and configuration of tin* property are
hardships that support approval of the front yard setback and lot coverage hy structure v ariances to
construct a new second story to the existing residence, then a recommendation for approval may be
appropnate.
As he was planning to be married. Thompson explained that he was attempting to make room for a future
family. He commented that his goal was to retain the same character of his home, w hile making it a bit
bigger.
Hawn asked if a permit was on file for the lean-to shed.
Bottenberg indicated there was a permit fw the shed.
John Waldron. 1951 CoiKordia Street, stated that he favored the remodel and felt it to be an improvement
to the neighborhood He maintained that the applicant was faced with the hardship of an odd-shaped lot
and should be allowed his application. After speaking to several neighKirs. Waldron stated that all were
in favor of the improvements, especially since neither the footpnnt or hardrover would increase
Mabusth asked for clanfication of the covered deck.
Thompson suted that the covered deck is exisung structure, which would be turned into a covered porch.
With regard to the front yard setback for the second story. Chair Smith asked if :he addition would be
built straight up
Although she felt the design was reasvmabte. Hawn indicated that the Commission has difficulty with
structural coverage in general.
Although the current lean-to structure built right up to the neighbor* proper.^ .me has always been there.
Thompson indicated that it would be removed, as would the current garage-landing roof
PAGE 19 of 29
MINITTES OF THE
ORONO PLA^NING COMMISSION I^IEETING
Wcdartday, Juairy 22.2003
6:30o*clockp.m.
(»u^ 2861 ERIK THOMPSON, CoallDMcd)
Chair Smilh expressed her desire to see the lot coverage numbers decrease.
Thompson stated that he could get creative and would prefer to work to remove the shed instead of
additional house structure.
Retterath suggested they lower the new entry landing in order to remow its size from stnictural lot
coverage calculations, and instead impact hardcover.
Mabusih stated that she would prefer the applicant removr the shed, which would« m 129 s.f. and retain
the entry landing.
With regard to remodels. Bottenbag pointed out that, consistently, the Commission has found it
accepuble if cunent hardcover levels be mainUined.
Hawn stated that she would support removal of the shed.
Rahn asked if the proposed residetKe would be taller than the existing home.
Retterath stated that the sireetside would remain the same, however, the new height is over the existing
number.
Rahn inquired how the transition from the fir»t floor would be accumptivhcd.
Retterath stated that at least I '4 of the mam floor level would remain intact.
Thompson stated that he has gone to great lengths to remove all the debris, sample wallboard, access
panels to the foundation, etc. in order to allow inspectors to view the joists ete He added that much of the
plumbing and fixtures would be rec>cled in the proiect.
Retterath staled that ihe ceiling heights will vary on the first floor from 8-9’. all else would be changed
and removed to the caps and floorboards
Rahn quesuoned whether a stniciurai engineer had looked at the foundation.
Reitei Jih indicated that a structural engineer had hxvkcd at the foundatiot. to see what exists and found
that the pcnmeier was in decent shape with the only necessary change being modificaiions for a point
load within the cunent den.
Frit/ler stated that, in his opinion, recycling would not make a difference between the evaluation of the
remodel versus new construction
Gaffron stated that the curent characten/ation of the project appears to be much more now than the City-
had deemed before this e mng He questioned v. hetber the Commission ought to consider if this
application is going to be subjeci to some additional variance l.ita on. as was the first application the
Commission heard this evening.
PAGE 20 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wednesday, January 22,2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(»02-2a6l ERIK THOMPSON. Continued)
Rahn agreed, encouraging the applicant to consider new construction altogether. As indicated by Uie
applicant earlier this evening, it may have been cheaper iti the long run to have started over than try to
remodel. Rahn feared this may the case m this situation as vsell.
Thompson reiterated that he has gone to great lengths to examine his property to prepare for the remodel
by allowing many experu to view his home and make recommendations He asked the C'ommissum to
throw him some guidelines to work within and suted that he had heard the discussion earlier making
refercrure to the ‘gray /one’ of new construction versus rcbu>l<'
Hawn suted that, w ith new construction, he would be back to the I5^« structur/ lot coverage requiremeni
he IS currently faced w nh.
Chair Smith agreed that, as staled earlier by Gaffron. this application ’looks and feels’ like more than was
ever envisioned and asked for further suiT comment.
Gafiron suied that, the characteristics of an addition versus teanng everyihmg dow n to the cap. all of a
sudden sounds like well over the 50"/o the Commission had discussed in the pas! as the threshold for new
construction. Originally, he had envisioned a first floor, with a second floor that would be tom off and
replaced, as well as minor additions. Gaffron indicated that, now from what he heard, all that w ill be lefl
IS the den area and everyihmg else tom down to the cap. At this point, the questions anse. with over 5(>“»
removal, do you have them move the home or remove the foundation that still has value (iallrnn felt
these questions remain
Thompson argued that much of the first floor, including the bedroom and den. and its supporting walls,
basement, and foundation would remain, therefore, this is not new construction, nor would new
construction work in this neighborhood.
Ga!;ron asked if the caps they referred to were those between the basement and first floor
Thompson indicated that they are ulking about ceruin w^Ils. which would need major reconstruction
with f- • additions, whereas the floor panels would remain the same on the first floor. He pointed out that
M»nie of the walls are in need of repair currently, or would come down anyway, if he were required to
merei. shore them up that could be done also. Thompson maintained that more of the house is being left
alone than they’ve been led to believe this evening, and financially remodeling is his best option
Chair Smith asked whether the application should be tabled for a month to alh*w ihe applicant time to
consult with and assure staff that this is a remodel versus a rebuild
Gaffion felt this was unnecessary , he was not convinced they could be ceriain until the applicant got into
the project whether it would remain a remodel or become more Similar projects have become more once
applicants have gotten into them and GatTron indicated that he would rather know that the Planning
Commission is comfortable w iih the fact that, if it gets to the point where they discover it is more, they
can continue on. On the other hand, if they get to the point that all is left is a f* 'undation and a cap.
Gaffron questioned whether the Commission would want to revisit the application at that point versus
dealing w ith It now.
PAGE 21 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
cdacs<Uy« JaaMary’ 2L 2003
6:30 o'clock p.m.
(IW2-2861 EIUK THOMPSON, CoallBiicd)
The Conmiissioncrs agreed they would not want to rcMsit the application.
Rahn questioned what would be done, if in fact, the house was demolished, would staff recommend it he
pushed back 15 ’ on the property to meet a 30’ front yard setback.
GaiTron stated they would still need to meet a 30* rear setback, and agreed to bener meet scibacks the
home would need to be pushed back.
In all of the Commission’s discussions of w hat constitutes new construction. Hawn maintained that this
application falls squarely within the center of the discussion. Admittedly, the standards have not been
codified.
Zugschwert pointed out that the fact that the standards have not been codified is the problem. Faced with
many applicants who have spent money to desij^ plans, she asked what the Commissioners can evpcct
when they themselves can't differentiate between a remodel and new construction. She felt it too
overbearing at this point to impose a new standard on this applicant
Retterath pointed out that, in his experience, thi.- is the first time he had ever been exposed to this sort of
invisible fine line that exists between a remodel and new construction
Because it is not codified. Ciaffron stated there is not really any standard ihey can bring up. however, over
the past SIX months the Planning Commission has had several discussions about where the threshold is.
He explained that this issue is brought up perhaps three times car when an applicant wants to rcmt>dcl
rather than tear down and rebuild an existing home, and it ends up being much more than first proposed
Clearly. Gaffron staled they need to address all of the issues. While they have addressed the setback.
Gaffron felt they should further address the tear down in a substandard setback and ihe need for a
vanance.
Mr. Walden staled that, while the Planning Commission might be inclined to label a project new
construction when a 50"/i remodel has been submitted, this assumption may not apply to this application
He maintained that it is not the applicant's fault when an inspector comes in and tells an applicant during
the remodeling process to remove or change something.
Rahn indicated that was the din'ercnce between a remodel complete rebuild and a new construction
Walden felt there was a difference between an applicant who attempts to ‘’art a project one way. as docs
this applicant, and an applicant who misleads the Commission by intending to do more than proposed
Thompson maintained that he had invested a great deal of money and time into ripping into his home to
sec what he had and could be salvaged. He argued that others may not know what they have to begin
with, therefore arc surprised midway through a project. Thompson maintained that his application was
correct in that this would be a first floor remodel with a second story addition.
Chair Smith asked if there was anything further staff could do to look at his property, or his invcMigation
of his property . to detcnninc he can do w hat he has proposed.
PAGE 22 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wc4a«sday, Jaaaary 2L 200J
6:30 e'ctock p.B.
(«02-2t6l ERIK THOMPSON, CMMto«c4)
Hawn asked what would happen if the ‘demo plan* demonstrates that much more will be removed than
we can accept.
Gaffron mainuincd that the red flag went up this evening once he learned everything but the den will be
removed down to the cap
Rahn stated that he would still like to see a structural report even though GalTron fell it would not
provide any new information, and get back to 15?i structural coverage
Mabusth uxpiired what the Comnussion felt their comfort zone to be if walls got removed, would thev*
still allow the convtruviion to progress.
Thompson reiterated that he wnuld prefer his property not be the test bed of the new threshold discussion.
Gaffron pointed out that in order to get hack to 15"W structural coverage, the applicant would be forced to
remove house or garage structure.
Rahn asked if 17?ii was as close as the City could get to the requirement.
Gaflitm confirmed that 17% was the best they could do.
Chair Smith asked, once again, if the City finds that this project isn't a remodel, but indeed new
construction, then what.
Smee no code currently exists to support the Commission. Hannaford suted that they should approve the
application as submitt^.
Thompson maintained that, was there such an orJmance whereby he could base his design, he would be
more prepared to address the Commission's concerns tonight.
Gaffron asked if there was anv portion of the e.\isting home within 30* of the street that would be coming
down on the first or second story.
Thompson stated there would not.
Gaffron maintained that tabling the application docs nothing for staff, the Commission, or the applicant.
Chair Smith asked if there w as any more the Commission could do to assure themselves this is all that
would happen, and this application would not go the direction as the earlier one this evening.
Gaffron suggested staff review the applicants demo plan and structural plan, and hold them to changing
nothing within 30' from the comer of the house to the street
Hawn left at 11:06 P.M
PAGE 24 of 29
MINITTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdactday, Juiaary 22,2003
6:30 o'clock p.ai.
IM2-286I ERIK THOMPSON, Cootiooed)
Roko OMvcd, klobtttth iccoodcd, lo approve Appikalioo «f2-2861, Erik TkompMii, grantiag a
froot yard tclkMk variaocc and Minctiiral kM coverage varlaoce to oukc flm floor addMoos aad
perak cooftmclloo of a oew lecood itor> to tke eristiog resideoce located al 1940 Coocordla
Street, Mkject to tke reaoval of tke sked, aod ifk looks like fSModalloa replaceoieot h oecessary
wkkiatkeJO'Mtkocktkattkeapplicaliookerevisiled. VOTE Ayes 9, Nays I. Fritiler diaaeotiog.
Fntzkr staled that he still saw this as a new construction project and not a remodel.
(#10) it2-2t62STE\T.N GROM%'AI.U ISM LONG LAKE BIAT). VARIANCE 11:2I - I l:4S
P.\L
Steven Gron^^all. the Applicant, was present.
Boticnberg explained that the applicant was requesting rear yard setback and side yard adjacent street
variances to construct a new attached garage w ith a second story on the property. After attempting to
explore several options. Bottenberg stated that due to the condition of the existing foundation, location of
the existing residence, and size of the property, the only feasible option was lo add a second story. Since a
structural engineer determined that the existing foundation could not bear more weight w ithoui being
replaced, the applicant is proposing to remove the existing garage and construct a new two stall attached
garage with a second story, lire garage will be enlarged an additional 78 s.f.
Bottenberg maintained that, although the proposed hardcover in the 250*500’ setback zone is oxer the
allow ed, the applicant has not used all of the 600 s.f. in the 75-250 ’ setback zone and the City docs allow
credit for unused hardcover allotment to be transferred to zones further from the lake. Bottenberg
admitted that, even w ith the transfer, the amount of hardcover is over the allowed amount and the
proposed is increasing by 78 s.f There might be other areas to remose hardcover in order to maintain
existmg levels.
Rahn asked if they had looked at puning the garage addition at the othei end of the property or whether
there would be a conforming location anywhere on the property.
Gronwall stated that they had considered it. however, since the rear neighbor is uphill the backside
addition made the most seme when considering neighboring views. He added that, were he not many mg
and addmg children to the mix. he would not be here at Cits time tiy ing to enlarge his residence
Gaffron noted that there would not be a conforming location for the addition anywhere on the prupeny
without svtances.
1 here w ere no public comments.
Gronw all stated that he had spoken w iih two neighbors who favored his application but could not be
present this evening.
Chair Smith asked how’ the applicant could decrease hardcover.
PAGE 26 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wcdacaday, Juury 22,2003
0:30 o’clock p.in.
(M2-2a62 STEVEN GRONWALL, Cootloocd)
Gronwill indicattd that he could rcmo\-c ^ patio slab at the rear of the house and consider reino\ing a
bordered garden ekevi here.
Bottenberg agreed that nut much else existed that could be remosed to maintain current lewis, although
the patio would balance the equation.
2Uigscliwcrt moved, Haaoaford hccoodcd, lo approve Appikalioo N02-28S9, Sleveo Groowall,
graodof rear yard setback aod sMc )ard adjacent street setback variances to permit construction
ofas attnebed garage whb a second story to be located I4* from tbe side yard adjacent street fur
tbe property at 1SI6 Long Lake Btvd. VOTE: Ayes 5, Na}*! I, Raka dtesenting.
Rahn felt this proposal allowed tMi much mass mcreK 4.S’ from the pr iperty line.
(•I 1) ••^2M^RICIIAII0 KAIL, 37S3 CASCO A\XM E, VARIANCES 11:46- 12:62 A.\l
Richard Kail, Applicant, uas present.
Bottenberg e.xplained that the applicant was requesting lot area and lot coverage by structure variances to
construct a new residence on the properly. She pointed out that approximately 4 years ago the residence
on the property burned and all that remains on the property is a foundation and accessory structure
(detached garage). She added that, in 1995. the applicant applied for and \%as granted a lot area vanance
to construct a new residence on the property, which has since expired. Since that time, the ownership of
the subject property’ changed between family members, the applicant regained ownership and has applied
for v*anances to construct a new residence on the property.
^^’herc4S the lot area is .37 acres in an LR-IC zoning district where .5 acres is required, and existing lots
of record would be required to meet .4 acres. Bottenberg pointed out that in 1995 the applicant was
granted a lot area variance.
The proposed residence is 2.856 s.f. and a covered porch of406 s.f.. for a toul of 3.262 s f. (20^.).
Bottenberg stated that the lot coverage by structures is over the allowed amount by 847.75 s.f.
Bottenberg e.xplained that staff recommends approval of the lot area variance; however, based on city
regulations staff recommends denial of the lot coverage by structure variance.
Cha>r Smith indicated that while there would not be an issue with regard to the lot area vanance. the lot
coverage vanance would likely not be approved.
Kail indicated that if the lower porch were removed, they could eliminate 408 s.f
There were iw pubiK comments.
Rahn asked if the plan reHccled a two or three car garage.
PAGE 27 of 29
KUNirrESOFTHE
ORONO PLANNING CO.MMISSION ftlEETING
WcdMtdjiy, JuMry 22,2003
0:30e*docfc|>.ai.
(•02-2003 RICHARD KAIL, Lmmtimutd)
Kail stated that the proposal reflects a lhrce<ar garage, with the third stall constituting storage for the
most part. Kail believed if the nei^hbonng alley ww vacated he would be closer to the 15% coverage
requirement.
Chair Smith asked if the applicant could make any further reductions to reduce the structural lot coverage
numbers or if he had adequate hardship to consince the Commission the wiance is warranted.
Kail reiterated that if the neighboring alley were vacated he wwild gain more area. He believed the City
had never filed for the alley and due to the presence of a shed foundation and well in the alley belonging
to this parcel he should Ik entitled to file for its rights.
Mabusth questioned whether the alley had ever been vacated.
Kail indicated that he was trying to find out who owns the alley, arguing the City did not file for it. and
felt the Cotmcil would allow him to vacate it.
Gafiron pointed out that, since the alley was a dedicated plat, the City need not file. In addition. GafTron
stated that he had difiiculty believing the City would ever vacate the parcel due to drainage issues.
Chair Smith maintained that the proposed new construction would need to be reduced to l5*!o. rather than
the 20“/o as proposed. She explained that, while the lot area variance would be acceptable, not more than
l5“/o structural lot coverage would be allowed, therefore a revision was needed.
Kail staled that he saw no way to reduce the proposed application to 151a.
Rahn reiterated that 15% is the ma.vimum structural lot coverage allowed.
Chair Smith stated that, if the applicant chose for the Commission to vote on what was m front of them it
would likely be a denial.
Kail repeated that he saw no way to downsize the proposal and asked for a vote.
Chair Smith moved, Maboslh seconded, lo approve the Lot Area Vartuce and deny the Lot
Cov erage Variance for Application ••2-28h3. Richard Kail, to ernstme a new rrsidence on the
property located at 3753 Casco Avenue. VOTE: Aves 6, .Nays 0.
PLA.NM.NG C'O.M.MISSIO.N CO.M.ME.NTS
CTiair Smith reported that the Home Occupation project is now m Ordinance form
GafTron indicated that the January 29 W ork Session topics will include rebuilds versus new construction,
and other topics as noted on the packet cover sheet.
Aficr speaking to Brad Nielsen. Planning Director for the City of Shorewood. GafTron indicated that their
threshold for new construciio:i is 50*•.
PAGE 28 of 29
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Wc^Msday, Jaavary 22,2003
6:30 o*dacfc p.ai.
(PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS, CoMteacd)
Zugachwcrt slated that Ihe Ctty may be faced with legal challenges m the future if it does not set
parameters in ordinance fonn for new construction versus remodels.
(«I2) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL
MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 9,2002 AND JAM ARY 13,2003
At the December 9.2002 City Council meetmg. Gan'ron reponed that the Manley application was
discussed, as was Ihe Dahlstrom Development proposal. He pointed out that the Dohlstrom group is
having difficulty obtaining MCWD approvals and will be asking for conditional final approval from the
City Council m order to close on February 7.2003.
During the January 13 meeting. Gaffron repocled that the Stormwater Management Plan adopted and
will begin implementation in the near future. Also, the Ctty will be assisting Hiih femti/cr and erosion
conttol public education programs.
(f 13) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
Upcoming meeting discussions will include the Fire Sution in Nasarre and sewenng the north side of
Long Lake.
(•14) PLANNING CO.%L>IISSION APPROVAL OF .MINUTES FOR NOVE.MRER IS, 2002
Mabustb Moved, FrRilcr secooded, to approve the Sllmtes of the November IS, 2002 Planning
CoMHlsslon Meeting as presented. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(•15) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIMIS FOR CITV COUNCIL .MEETINGS ON JANUARY
27,2003 AND FEBRUARY 10,2003.
January 27 • Rahn
ADIOl'R.NAIE.NT
February 10 - Mabusth
Rahn moved. Zngschwert seemM, to adjourn the Planning CommKslon Meeting at 12:12 A3L
VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 12; 12 A.M.
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 29 of 29
f
iinUlftCMittf
h:^ctCfy4L*
AfcancaCaptM
Mmagwisni Co>porMon
•01 Second A««nut SouVt. Suit SOOO
MnnotpoAt. UN 55400.4382
m (SI?) *73^3
Fts (612) 342-2149
Ema4 Knttn.Bu^onCtcnC com
Kimtn turton
UeoPiotidtnl
p t ch/ i'C-
'Vw//
U
.^5^ /c ^ t* ^ncc J
L' ciy'V ^tcAuL^
<tJ?" iid^ '^ ^
^’</iwC^cv -^*' .r/iX-
7^' T^u* ^ ..'yJ^ i. //\y.O
c , • .' ^ . ^. . . . ' O
^/XLir^ ^.iZtC:^^ \xC ^Cdt. 6‘:ro^ ^
/T/vZ ^'::/i\t ^/?:.J/
r
y-idtd s>'nrni^ y ^'ixaji'^i'^'-'
t/^- (i/'C^^^ ar-i^ p ^
-t/'U> {2\C^
/-tu.cj d^:-
^-fl/ Krd d<^^f/<--“''/^‘^- f- C*''-^^-'f ‘^
,<rJ p(, p ^ .
yl/r>d7^J^ 7^
"*/
“V
7 /
r /i»-
ffUyf
i'^s-'T'^ic:^
L *'/■ » /'/• <
'T /^^‘v
7
7
V if'/*;
«A- 1^
pac/f7_ ^
\ A<VL^I dK^' ^
6^yv^ (yC^/?- C^9^f^S>^
/;.'>/j.^
7^'^ -/7^
Dr. and Mrs. Kcancth RifT
9M Old Cn stal Bay Road
Wayzata. Miaacsata 55391
MEMO
To: The Planning Commission. City of Orono
From: Ms. Julie RifT
Re: No. 03-2869 Dr. Robert Gumnit
Date: February 19,2003
The purpose of this memo is to voice my suong opposition to the application by
Dr.Gumnit to fill the wetland, rem n c more than 500 cubic yards of fill uiihiu a
shoreland district, install a fence within the setback arc i. and permit the use of a very
small parcel of land for the grazing of up to four horses, even though it w ill be on an
interim basis.
We live adjacent to the same wetland and environmental lakeshore. W'c are c.xtrcnicly
concerned about the possible precedent th?t could be set by granting tlicsc variances
where no hardship exists. The filling of the w etland w ithout adequate hardship is a huge
mistake. The allowing of structures to be built so close to environmental lake is an
additional mistake becau.se it opens up the whole subject ^^f variances and down a
slippery slope we might surely go.
Lastly, that hill of high ground, being the only high ground in that entire wetland adjacent
to French Lake, is the home for large numbers of wildlife. Deer. fox. and many other
smaller animals make their homes on that high ground. The introduction of horses in that
area and the use of an electric fence will absolutdx interfere with the natural habitat
prov ided for these animals.
For these reasons, we respectfully but strongly request that the Planning Commission
deny the above mentioned request. Thank you for your close consideration of this matter.
Sincerely yours.
Sharon L. Wimlow
1205 FrcMh Creek Drive
Ofono, MN 55391
(952) 404-2889
Cily ofOrono
2750 KeDo Ptikwwy
POBox66
CiytulBay.MN 55323
Attenrion: Phnntng Commission
Rc: Dr. Robert Gumnit’s Request for Conditinna] Use Pcrmii tt 03 2Wi9
Planning Commission;
1 am writing on behalf of my husband and myself to oppose the above referenced pemui request of
Dr Gumnit. We have a direct s-iew of the property m question, and strenuously object ui the
proposed use of the property. We arc very concerned u-iih the effect on the natural Trench lake
preserve, including water quality ’, noise and disturbance of u-ildlife, as well as the aesthetics of the
preserve. Ilic lake is home is a large variety of birds and other wildlife, both resident and migratory .
We moved to this location away from l,ake Minnetonka three years ago in order to rnjoy the much
more peaceful and natural lake environment prosided on French Ijdtc.
We would like to be kept aware of dcselopmcnts and have a chance to speak before permits arc
actually granted.
Sincerelv,
Sharon L. Vl'insbw