HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16-2003 Planning Packeto, U C <•- •
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday June 16,2003 6:00 PM
27S0 Kelley Parkway - Council Ckambcrs
AGENDA
Council Ricpmcutatlve: Mayor Peterson
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:
Please sign la for the pubUc 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 announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the
City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they w ill be schednied for the
Jufy 14,2003 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair.
CONSENT
1. #03-2897 Atlantis Pools on behalf of Irfan Altafullah, 2520 Thoroughbred Lane,
Conditional Use Pcmiit (Staff: Mike GalTron)
2. #03-2899 Timothy Pcllizer. 520 North Arm Drive, Variance (Staff: Mike GalTron)
NEW BUSINESS
3. #03-2904 Richard S. Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive, AHcr-the-fact Variances
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
4. #03-2905 Heidi B. Nagel, 995 WiMhurst Trail, Variances (Staff: Mike GaHion)
5. #03-2906 Richard Roberts. 1937 Eagerness Point Road, Aftcr-thc-fact Variances
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
6. #03-2907 JcITand Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive, Variances
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
7. #03-2908 Ned and Loma Butterfield. 3745 Watertown Road, Variances
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
8. #03-2909 Plekkcnpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn. 3980 Dahl Road,
Aftcr-thc-fact Variances (Staff: Mike Gaffron)
cv a'Cc C <• *
(■
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday June 16,2003 6:00 PM
27SO Kelley Parkway - Connell Chamben
AGENDA
Coaacil Rcpmenlafive: Ma>^r Peterson
AUDIENCE MEMBERS:
Pteaic tigB la for tbe pnblk record at the froat podinm if >*00 wfob to address tbe Plaaalag
CoasasIsshMi. Applkaats will be asked to move to the front table to answer qnestloas whea
tbe Cbair aaaoaaces tbe applicatioa. Tbe PlaanlaK Commlsskm b an advisory body to tbe
City Coaacll. If acHoa b takea oa any Items on tbis agenda, they wUI be scheduled*for tbe
July 14,2003 CHy Council meeting aaless otberwisc noted by tbe Cbair.
CONSENT
1. M3-2897 Atlantis Pools on behalf of Irfan Altafullah, 2520 Thoroughbred Lane,
Conditional Use Permit (StafT: Mike Gaffron)
2. 803-2899 Timothy Pcllizcr, 520 North Arm Drive, Variance (Staff: Mike Gaffron)
NEW BUSINESS
3. 803-2904 Richard S. Brown. 1300 Shoreline Drive, Afler-the-facI Variances
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
4. 803-2905 Heidi B. Nagel. 995 Wlldhurst Trail, Variances (Staff: Mike Gaffron)
5. 803-2906 Richard Roberts. 1937 Eagerness Potait Road, After-the-fact Variances
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
6. 803-2907 Jeff and Cara Zicbaith, 720 North Arm Drive, Variances
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
7. 803-2908 Ned and Loma Butterdcld. 3745 Watertown Road, Variances
(Staff: Mike Gaffron)
8. 803-2909 Plckkcnpol Builders Inc. on behalf of Tom McGlynn. 3980 Dahl Road,
After-the-fact Variances (Staff; Mike Gaftron)
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
9. Rqwrt of Planning Commission rqncscntatives mending Council meetings May 27,
2003 and June 9.2003.
10. Other issues for discussion.
1 1 . Planning Commission approval of minutes for May 16,2003.
12. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on June 23,2003 and July 14,
2003.
ADJOURNMENT
L
L
Public A ttendance
Meiting Date /j K i 0(
□ Council
■^^LANMNG C ommission
□ Park Commission
□ Other
Please fillouttiie information requested
BELOW FOR OUR Cm' RECORDS.
NAME (ptraic print)ADDRESS
PRESENT FOR (from agenda)
NAME OR NUMBER
i.'.5vi 'Xiin'TJ. l lA J74.\
n.i c !> ?vy
lie, DT .X7r V
,)5. hyfi j. Ui2:>^t
6. A^m// .
:>u » »> I /Jr C i '
CT
9.____
y L.lo^-,-An. yyfsp.{ \]u \ (*rrrh-/T ^f
11..
12..
I3._
14..
I5._
liiMiiMiiiiiiiniii II
ORONO rLANMNG COMMISSION
M«i4«]r Ift, 2MJ «.-00 rM
27M KcMn fartiwav - C—caOiiiSfn
AGENDA
800 CmmO RrpraraMKe: Mayor Pdcnoa
^ _ AUDIENCE MEMDCRS:9
ncaw »!{■ la far Ikr pabUc retard al tke Daot {MdJoai ITywi wbk to addmt Ike rtaaaias
L Cowiwlia ApplicaaU win kc aaked la ■are to Ike froat laMe to aaiwrr qarttloBS wkra
>•^400 Ik* Ckair aaaooacet Ike appUcatioa. Tke Plaaalae Coauabaioa b aa advbory kody lo the
^ OtyCooarlL If artloa b takea oa aay llemi oa Ikb apeoda, ikey wiB be ackedalrd far tke
Jaly 14,200J City Coaaril atrctlat aalni othrrwbr aolcd ky tke Ckalr.
3
CONSENT
1. MU-2197 AtlantiiPooUonbd»iroflrfinAluruUih.2S20TkoroaskbredLaBe,
Conditional Um Pctmil (SufT: Mike Gaflron) Map F-4
2. MU-2t99 Timothy Pcllucr, S20 Norik Arm Drive, Variance (SufT. Mike CafTron)
Map A-S
4. MU-2904 Richard S. Hrown, 1200 SkorcUae Drive, Aller-the faci Variances
(SufT: MikeGafTron) Mapl-S
5. B02-290S Hcidi U. Nagct, 99S Wildkanl Trail, Variances (Staff: Mike GalTron)
Map A-«
6 MI2-2906 Riduid Roberts, 1937 Facernrss Taint Road, Ancr-lhc-facl Variances
(Stall: Mike Gaflion) Map C-8
7. S03-2907 Jeff and Caia/.ebarih, 720 N'orib Arm Urivr, Variances
(Stair. Mike GalTron) Map D-5
8. 803-2908 Ned and Loma lluileiricid, 374S Watcrlowa Road, Variances
(SUIT Mike GalTron) Slap C-J
9. 803-2909 PIckkenpol iluildcrs Inc onbchalToTTom McGlyim, 3910 DakI Ro«l,
Alicr-thc-Tact Variances (SUIT. Mike Galfion) Map C-6
PLANNING CO.M.MISSION CO.MMENTS
10. Report of Plannm( Conuniaaion fcprcKnUtivci attending Council roeetinp May 27,
2003 and June 9.2003.
1 1 . Other isaun Ibr diacuaaiea
1 2. Plmiag Cbmabakn approval of minutes Tor May 1 6^ 2003.
13. Ssketian oftepraMimtives for City Council meetinp on June 23.2003 and July 14.
2003.
DaleApf«miMlUctiir«i: 4-2M3
DU Ap^UnUtm Ciwlitwi m C»f Irtrt S-M-U
iM>a7lltxkwpt|)a4Eiplm: 7-3*4}
X
Fron:
Dale:
SabjccI:
Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Mike Gaffion, Planning Director^y^|y|^^^
June 11,2003
#03-2897 Irfan Altafullah, 2520 TlKMOUghbred Lane - CUP * Public Hearing
Zaakig Dblrkt: RR-1 B Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre min.
Lot Area: 2.28 acres
AfpUemthm Stumm^y: AppUcantieiiaests a Conditional Use Permit for construction of an
accessory stnictuie (swimming pool) on a ‘through’ lot
Su^Rec^mmtmiatUm: Staff recommends approval subject to slight relocation of pool to
meet Iff structure-to-strticture separation requirement
Pertiacnt Code Section:
10.03, Subd. 10: Conditional Use Permit required. All accessory buildings on through lots
located in “R” Disbicts shall require a conditiorul use permit.
LIslofEihlblls
A - Application
B - Survey/Site Plan
C - Septic Diagram
D • Proposed Pool Plans & Elevations
E - Property Owners List
F • Plat map
G - Site photos
H - Covenant
I - Excerpt from MCWD Wetland FwictKMi^
Classification Map
Background
The applicant proposes to construct a swimming pool and associated patio areas on a through lot,
bordered by Thoroughbred Lane on the south and Watertown Roaa to the north.
The intent of the ordinance in requiring a CUP is to ensure that structures located in the functional
rear yard of a through lot will not have negative visual impacts for adjoining or nearby properties,
especially those located across the rear road (Watertown Road, in this case).
The proposed pool basin surface is 20* x 44 ’ or 880 s.f, requiring a 15 ’ side setback as well as Kf
from the pool surface to any other structure. The pool as proposed is 39* from the side lot Une but
only O’ from the upper level deck (see survey enlargement and photos). There is sufficient room to
move the pool either northward or eastward to meet the 10^ scpMioo requirement.
M3-2t»7 -
Plftl
w"“ “ • Type 1 or 2 Uut i. «, on .h. (bnnri On.no list of
A poition of the wetland (the 'open wuer’ area 33' fiom the
T1*P“I “to be located near the house and meeuifce setbacks IhaiwouM be requ^ of a principal structure. The pool will have no impact whatsoever on the
of Watertown Road. Because no variance, are involv^ h«d.hip need b^
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Arg«/WMthi
RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width
Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200*
Actual 99.440 s.f. (2.28 acres)315 ’
RR-4B Required Proposed
Front 50* min and behind front
line of house
105*
Rear (north lot line abutting
Watertown Road)
15* min subject to CUP
approval
180*
Left Side r 15 ’ min 2I0*
MghtSide 15 ’min |39*
LiM
mymn - --
Jntll.XMS
Pi«t3
ItMci for CoasiderilkNi
1.There are no apparent impacU to adjoining propaties which would need to be ameliorated
by acrecning or other action.
2. The propoaed pool basin must be moved eastward and northward to meet the required 10*
aetback fiom the adjacent deck/stairway system. There is sufiicienl room on the site to
accomplish this while still meeting required setbacks.
Stair RcconuDcadatioa
Staff recommends approval of a conditiorud use permit for accessory structure on a through lot,
subject to the following conditions:
1.Pool shall be relocated northwaid/eastward to meet the required 10 ’ separation setback
fiom the pool basin to the adjacent dcck/stairway system, while also avoiding any fill or
structural encroachment within the defined wetland easement
Applicant is advised to check with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and
obtain an Erosion Control Permit and/or any other permits that MCWD may require for this
project, prior to commencement of construction.
Hm*2M90I lltOlM Ff®t-cm 0« 0*5110 ♦3S224»i|||.T-121 P 8BI/3JI P-«l
AprtkatfoBli
DatelUcdved
AraoimtlW
CTTV OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION
PROPERTY LOCATION
Site Addreu_____
Type of Application ____
Propoty Idendfieation Number (P.ID.)
APPLICANT
-■ —"lloecvy^ e/>*J JL l
--------City
Phone (home)
0 3i^
7t>F~~ sni 0 —Cfo^
- Zip
OWNXR (if different than ^UcanA / .
Date PtQBaoy Acauired , ...
I (do)^o^ -ti .!.> ___________ ____________________(month^tsar)alio own the ac^acent parcels of land.
FEES • CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS -
—^— S 75,00 For each variance request with CUP application
^ $250.00 Residential Accessory Use
------ $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.)
- S2S0.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments
______$250.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg
______$325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use
______$250.00 Land Alteration
------- Orading and filUng - designated wetland or floodplain
_____ Gradittg and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more
_____ Orading, seawall, retaining walls within 75 ’ of lakeshore
______PRD/PIO - see Fee Schedule
---------$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from ori^nal appUeation)
______Aftcr-the-Faci Fee - Double Current Application Fee
OTHER APPLICATIONS
______$275.00 Commercial Site Plan R.view (+ consultant fees)
______$300.00 Vacation '
______$?50.00 Easement Vacation
______ $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision
______$350.00 Reaoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule)
- $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment
______$100.00 Appeals
______Other - see Fee Schedule
#2 ^97
«Ur-lM3ai IhfilM f»or<m 0« Gnaw «3!2{4a4|||T-S21 P OCI/901 F-CSI
^QUIRED SUBMITTALS
*• - Con^leied Application Fonn.
Describe lequeat in detail.2.
3.
5.
6.
■ • “«»«<• .«v.,,o - „f„«, .
; ^*t^c '•n^''(CThlS‘*'iSS'“^ on required, nuvey.
chra^a in elevation (grades). ^ coniourt) if land alterations involve
'* -•*“ >««** names (include marital status^ of mI;
pere^ you of *““•> • *«Pm«e n«t if ay oihet
documents OR COPY
““ i. coreptac
--------------------------- Date
remember that your
^TLICANT ’S signature
™ appUcam hereby agrees to provide all
Ai^mistrator, agrees to pay additional fees
expenses incurred in review
aapphed is true and correct to the best of hii
Applicant's aignalure,
®: "’“'"•0 '-y “>e Zoning
#
OXWER.S signature -------
member, forpuipow* of in*e|&«ioD «Uveiific.fion rfttU ^ memben ind ^unell
App.Icsnt tuujt luve all submlralj iato^^City *
;-:i
I •
Hm-IMJJI lIttiM Prot^lTY or ORCm «H»4}4|||Mil MCI/9II Mil
2.
3.
hequuued submittals
*• :: CoA^letod Application Fonn.
Deteribo reqoett in detail.
• A-603. Government Center, 34«.Syi) ***®®P “» Coua^ Dep«tmcnt of Fimice.
dumfca in elevation (pades). P'VOted comourt) If land alterations involve
■ propeny. Tl2^LS!niSl^2LilJS “f *•
. Csannietloa pin. if •pplicabk (Me mff ®'™‘'
------At a «ld«dum to tu.
poions you with oodfied of thl cpplicotio^ * »«P«»ie list of «iy oihtr
fOR 1IEI*0DUCT10N™i*V^^’^1T ® documents or copy
oppugn is ni^oiStootf temembor that yout
SSif.'ScWe^'stS? AppUoation i. complote.
^---------------------------------------------------------------------
appucants signature
The a^licant hereby agrees to provide all
A<tainiftrator. agrees to pay additional fees
•nd/or unusual at^nscs inclined in review o,
•upphed is true and correct to the best of hi
Applicant's signature
5.
6,
S.
9.
Wbnnr^on required or requested by the Zonin#
p-erCTDate
nforrytion t
mhOVNER'S SIGNATURE
X^o .uthodzod toaso^hio
membOT for puipoiea of invc|^tioa t^verificaJon of ttis^,!JJ. “<* Council
Owner's stgnarjre ________
ApplIcMf nut have all aubmiroTi into^ CUv oflk.'I''
ickeduled review laeciidts of the Pitneini Co«mi«ioa Cn^i ??* Applkaroa enut b« prcieat aiaH
Khcduled meetisi. ptoue inice a*rta^^ toha “ « ^ usable lo ,
Buddies A Zoeia, Offlee ef OU. rta^^w •***“ •"*«*'* *“ Pi^ aod adSTeh.
^ --------
# • ••
r".
.<t..1*
IVA TERTOWN
S89*09*25**E 290.00 ^OAD
S 83^45^ 00” ^ 00^^ TUnpH! ^42^46 L«41.89 f nOROUGHBRED LANE
80 120
SCALE FEET
= EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION.
X(998.0>= PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION
^ ■ » DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE
DESCRIPTION:
LOT 3, BLOCK 1. OLD CRYSTAL BAY
ROAD SECOND ADDITION
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN.
ADDRESS 2520 THOROUGHBRED LANE
AREA * 99440 SF / 2.28 ACRES
EXISTING HARDCOVER
HOUSE 2837 SF
DRIVE =1000 SF
PORCH = 196 SF
DECK = 285 SF
TOTAL 5118 SF (5.15 %)
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
POOL&DECK 1865 SF
TOTAL 6983 SF (7.0 %)
ft;
i \
r-
I
I \
%
I
\^o ’ ^ e. ->"
-is^,^^rL83* w, ._ . ,«Q \ I
8-2
J
00
i-lAI
I X
«-.-. 140.00 ^
UJ
s
1 ^ »u^:j.ui
— — -4' — —: — - - z=^— N^c^ozS.y Vl« lawn7 ^ "
/ \
t CT V \
I025.n^
39 ri
i .0^^-
^^o^iA?>
9 K
k,
*r
<N
38.3 [!■£= 1026.5
EXISTING HOUSE
38.4
T^1S.S
iO
d<o
|r> '
r
.4
I.•.>
■A
. > ••*.
wm
itiii
m-m
t'pi
Vi^
ivl
'■i^irS:si^^0.r.N^rL;>r
■
pool n only as good as U'c
(}uatity of matenah dial go
Mo Ms planning and design
ihe enjirynmulKtufirg procesj.
MM
Thfoug
noilMijQJ'S Ucci^aicJ n a Signature (d-i‘on
assure you of the Ivghesi quahiy
pool lor years ol carcNee fun.
WjH panels a<e consirucied usmg siLf dy
14 gauge gjivarrued steel protected by a tirK
coatMig. and supported «nth steel A Irame
bracing for Stiengllr
In adrftiion. a scries of speciati:ed supports
s>gnif<an(ly adds to Uie quaby and durab^ty
of your pool Deck brxes hdp support the
rwCglil of tl< Surroundeig deck and prevent
slutting under clianging soJ conda«ns
Skimmers have their own special mounting
bracket. Jigs both akgn and support the ladder
and handrail lor strength and safety.
Afl iners feature a handsome tile and print
pattern and ut constructed from prenvum
grade 20 mif virg>n vinyt. Filtration and
Circulation systems as weO as akjmirtum
coping arc fabricated from a variety of
advanced technology mateifals which a*e
e*iremely rcsHlani to corrosion.
t Ca'.> m/S cfnvaarariei|| u C»jge. Kj:ciS C:3S
2 5'rrtA rr^ re (vavrinf'i rpr-enjr Anchor Aare
J A4,fcyna'<5»»r/fCf
4 Conerf t Bo^d Dejm
5 AVxrirtvm Cf Coc-^'i
t Occt
f (••«<■>•:*> t t Dydef Prrt
t SteHDtti r-xf fOprunad
f, Kehim Imt
•'■'If').
.JbL
DIMEnSR)NS
A
B 36-0“
C 3*-4 “
D 3-4 “
E-3*-4 “
G 4*-6"
H 5-6“
J 14*-0 ”
K 12*-b“
L 8-0“
M 9-0 “
N 4*-6 “
R1 2*-0“
Y1 36*8- 5/8"
'*• V •
VOLUME 22.500 CAL
POUMETER 104-6 3/4"
AREA 645.0 SQ.FT
rnPiMn
iM-
\N
~r
uM
_I
N
PLAN VlgW OF POQi
CROSS SFCTlrtM
“iP^issk%ss&
J/>NCtTUDtNAl SF(;7|(7|^
UYOUT
r
STmRS
ANSI/NSPI-5 SPECIFICATT ons
THIS IS A TYPE II POOL
DIVING EQUIPMENT IS PERMIHED
JL
jp*
-(y-O*
•■-0*
T
I
W or OMNO MUM
MTtR UNC LOCATCD
S* KLM CXTRUMM
I-gagjygj wry.
• 1 ■awD w « rr "juy
PANEL LAYOUT
UCHT B'
ltA»<S
^ ^L_8* ? S’ y 8‘ y 8*
3‘^
8*
2«.
6-
Tr .11»*a1 8* 4 8’ 4 8* i 8* it
NOTES
1. M
2.
9"«« ar« r«;#i«4 «m«<u;9r
to mMl l^«M Moi^tordi CM toc«l BWICof
a. Wannalton lit |Kf Brawny It tor nl«rt>ict
Title;
,18’-0” X 36’-0”
2' RAD. RECTANGL
Revised: 10/12/95
Scole: WOWl
Drown: B j
20
T—trtTjy; ~3W.>.vW^?yMveifHqi
Orowing No.
S2R1836
r
KUNOATE:: d
31 Oill^lIOOn
pnorAon mje'iwmouchmedu
OWNOINAME JCSKOGUINDIEASSICOQLUNO
TAXPAYER JCSKOOUMDJRRSSKOOLUNO
WAWAPCR 300 THOROUGHBRED LA
LONQLAXEklN SS3M
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROP ‘ INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OV. JRS LIST
PAGE: I
31 0411723110014
PROPAOOR 2440 THOROUGHBRED LA
OWNEMNAME KWWILTADS WOT
TAXPAYER KEVIN Wn.TR DEBORAH WB.T
NAME/AOOR 3460 THOROUGHBRED LA
LONGLAKEMN SS354
» 0411733110013
PROPAOOR 2520 THOROUGHBRED LA
OWNER NAME DIFAN M ALTAPUUAH ETAL
TAXPAYER IMRTIALTAPULLAH
NAME/AOOR 2530 THOROUGHBRED LA
LONGLAKEMN 5S3S4
31 04117231 lOOlO
PROPAOOR 2570 THOROUGHBRED LA
OWNBRNAMB SNRBJFItJPS
TAXPAYER STEVEN NRBEnYFlUPS
NAMB/AOOR 2370 THOROUGHBRED LA
LONGLAKEMN 553S4
30 04II723II00I9
PROPAOOR 2405 THOROUGHBREDU
OWNBRNAMB JDRMEHAVEMANN
TAXPAYER JERRY DR MARUEHAVEMANN
NAME/AOOR 2405 THOROUGHBRED LA
ORONOMN 55334
30 O4II723II0OZ2
PROPAOOR 2403 THOROUGHBRED LA
OWNERNAM8 JAER1ANOSONRRERLANIX3N
TAXPAYER JOHNARROMYERLANOSON
NAME/AOOR 2403 THOROUGHBRED U
LONGLAKEMN 55354
30 33III234400II
PIU AOOR 35 HACKBERRYHnX
OWNERNAMB RWWAGMANETAL
TAXPAYER • WCHARD W WAOMAN
NAME/AOOR 35 HACKBERRY HU.
^LONGLAKEMN 55354J
134 33ni2344003S
PROPAOOR 2440 WATERTOWNRD
OWNDINAMB WRPELUl
TAXPAYER WALTBRTELLB
2440 WATERTOWN ROAD
UMOIAOMM ff?f*
31 04117231IOOI7
PROPAOOR 2600 THOROUGHBRED LA
OWNERNAME SCRAJHANKEY
TAXPAYER STEVD4CRAMYIHANKEY
NAME/AOOR 2600 THOROUGHBRED U
LONGLAKEMN 53334
34 0411723110020
PROPAOOR 2525 THOROUGHBRED LA
OWNERNAMB BRADLEYERMARYJBAKKEN
TAXPAYER BRADLEY ER MARY J BAKKEN
NAME/AOOR 2325 THOROUCHBREO LA
LONOLMCEMN 55354
34 O4I1723II0Q23
PROPAOOR 31 AOORESSUNASSX jNEO
OWNERNAME OtONOUMOEOPARTNERSHIP
TAXPAYER TONYEIOENC04IPANY
NAME/AOOR 4100 BBRKSHBtE U
PLYMOUTHMN 55444
34 3311423440019
PROP AOOR 2440 WATERTOWN RD
OWNERNAME RWWAGMANRJBWAOMAN
TAXPAYER RCHARDWRIUNEBWAGMAN
NAMB/ADOR 25 HACKBERRY HBJ.
LONGLAKEMN 55354
34 3311423440035
PROPAOOR 40TRUPPUUTR
OWNERNAMB LCACOSTAR VP ACOSTA
TAXPAYER liXBCRVEROmCAPACOSTA
NAMB/AOOR 40TRUPPULATR
LONGLAKEMN 55356
31 0411723110014
PROPAOOR 3425 THOROUGHBREDU
OWNERNAMB P M DEJUTE A S H DEJUTE
TAXPAYER PAUL M A SUSAN H DEJUTE
NAME/ADDR 2433 TIKNIOUGHOREO LA
LONGLAKEMN 5S3S4
34 04I17231I003I
PROPAOOR 2573 THOROUGHBREDU
OWNERNAMB ANDREW0ESTOCtET
TAXPAYER ANDREW OESTOCLET
NAME/AOOR 2575 THOROUGHBRED LA
LONGLAKEMN 55354
34 3311423440017
PROP AOOR 33 HACKBERRY HILL
OWNERNAME RWWAGMANETAL
TAXPAYER RICHARD W WAOMAN
NAME/AOOR 35 HACKBERRY HRl
LONGLAKEMN 55354
34 3311423440027
PROP AOOR 22 HACKBERRY HILL
OWNERNAMB MJERNHARTBTAERNHART
TAXPAYER MICHAEL JERNHART
NAME/AOOR 22 HACKBERRY HILL
LONG LAKE MN 55354
34 3311423440034
PROPAOOR 40 TRUPPULATR
OWNERNAMB RRJkSMAHESNWARI
TAXPAYER RAJKR4HAKUNMAHB»IWARf
NAME/AOOR 40TRUPTUUTR
ORONOMN 55354
f.
(I)
%
—™
OWMRHAftlB MtBKTPJRAMNICtSinS
TAXTAYn ROMRTPAAJAMCSSUBn
HAMyAflOX ISMWAYBnDWNltO
UMQIAKEMN SS3M
HENNEPIN OCXJWTY PtOPEXTY INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY OWNERS LIST MGI:]
31 331112344000
PROPAOOR 31 AODREttUNASSCNEO
OWNERNAME ROBERTPSUESSETAL
TAXPAYER CITYOPORONO
NAME/AOOR POBOXM
CRYSTAL BAY MN SS323
I CERTIFY THATTME FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND
s’
w\im\Efcxo irnlffllfllfl’i > I
is"
-*k
:ss:
va'o
“S
r' li*:
' i
[2!u
ssg^Esa
m1^wMmwi
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNt Vof /fei/ArfftA/)”'
COVENANT OF nirnfCATiniV
Coffin Co'riIi»*pZ!^™"t P*n«nliip. and
of facts; the Indcrsigned '!;* *“»*'"*
STIPULATinM.;ncp^^
v« L.,"“ .”SSZff’TT“ !!■?-“'”
clS sr
L ois 1 - 4. inclusive. Block 4 Old Crystal Biv j I -«inclusive. Block 3. and
.\|,\. o'-'ystal Bay Road Second Addition, Hennepin Counly,
renulaiaT juris^cln oHhe s[ pL’l'^Sonhfu f*W Com'^r p"''"
pursuanc to Section 404 ofihc Clean Water Act of Engineers
permitted to develop a ponion of the applicant will be
of Corps of Engineer. Permit number 944)2434 33 SjT'Tf
Nai.on«,de permit number (26); aid. that i„ consideration for
development by dedicating the easements as defined in he
use as a consef^•ancy aru in accordance wiUi the lermperpetual
and the above mentioned permit. conditions of this document
iliMiii»aiii Pave I of*r
I
I
,*Jo “'"'"‘ by of (he aeculion oTlhis
tht auached Exhibit A; m^t .hi, do«m™
County Recorder for Hennepin County. be recorded in the Office of the
Thai a pcrmii to develoo ihm
deed and use restrictions
perpetuity for use as i conservancy area. "« hereby dedicated in
Paifd* “* a»r j
wriuen approval from the Corps ofEngin^^ *'^ '’'
,»-,i
SSil^^iHSSS
..>> jssL'XS^Ssr.S”' "•
ORdNO LIMITED
by mtm
partnership
IIVH
Presid :nt of James Oeveloprocnt
Corpo at ion, a Minnesota Corporation, a
General Partner ofOrono Limited Partncfsliip
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss
COL*NTY OF HENNEPIN )
Tlie forreoing insiiumem was ackiiosyl'eaged befare
A----..ISH by me this l^Imday of
President of
on behalf ot the Limited Partnership.
M„»!SS>!Sa«>ra
XSSESSSTHs-
1
•-••’’•••‘'•I::'
31*
*#, Jsll
t wKsmm
V
'-;v^
•*V;
■ ..............................•:•;
wsa;:'
i®aif
.'•: • •
1000 1000 Feet
WETLAND CLASSIFICATION MAP
CITYOFORONO
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
LEGEND
I I City of Orono Boundary
Wetland Classification
Typel
Type 2
Types
Type 4
Types
I Types
I Type?
i Types
I__j Potential Restoration Wetlands
r I Incomplete
IL I Stormwater Ponds
Not Assessed
Not Assessed Wetlands
r I Assessed Wetlands
L I Legal District Boundary
I i Mijor Watersheds
Lakes
Hill:
liii
iiii
IIII
ill1!
iliil■
■iit
Hi ,111
iWiil
(r ^ ntei'M
.'jV'.v
mmim
’ll 'rfriW
a#ir
i'jj.
Bl*
W.
;-'V>;15aif-^23|’
xu:^^mm ■:
0
DattAppHcatlMlUcHvfd: 4-23-t3
rulT njrrtfTtllia r r lirrfit ai raap lttr 4-29^
laltful M-Day Rtvlaw PcrM Esplm: 4-2S-43
EalaaM ao 9-21-«3 la: »-27-U
To: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorse, City Administrator <
Froai: Mike Gafiron. Planning Director
DaU: June 11,2003
Sobjeel: #03-2899 Timothy Pellizer, 520 North Ann Drive - Variance - Public Hearing
Zoning Dblrlel: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2-acre min.
Lot Aren: 2.74 acres
AppHcatiom Summmry: Applicant requests an average lakeshore setback variance to allow
construction of a 1,228 s.f. attached garage addition encroaching 68' into the average lakeshore
setback.
St^ff Recommemdtttiont Staff recommends approval, «u^;ict to relocation of the septic system
as necessary to maintain required setbacks.
Pertinent Code Sections:
1. 10.22 Subd. 1(B)“B. No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet
of the l^eshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance
from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots...”
10.56 Subd. 16(CX6) %. Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure
shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from
the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except
that this does not apply to staifwa>’s, lifts, landings, and lockboxes.
...The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting
the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the
immediately adjacent lakeshore lots.**
List of Exhibits
A - Application & Hardship Statement
B - Existing & Proposed Surk’e>/Site Plan
C - Proposed Plans & Elevations
D • Septic Diagram
E - City topography map
F • Site Photos
G - Property Owners List
H -Plat map
k
M3-»99
JoaclI.MtS * '
P«C«2
Background
The applicant proposct construction of an attached garage addition which meets all Citv
SMSouXu^rr* ®**"wshoreline.ihe•djacenilakeshorehome
w.u.d ‘vers*. Unc
Ingagjg Of Avera ge SctlMCK Rncrpayhmmt- The only home whose protected lake vicus mieht
potentially be impacted by an average setback encroachment is 460 North Arm Drive Due to die
hom^^•** '* appro’^imately 25* higher in elevation than applicants ’
Snr^ »cnd^o mitigate any impacts. Further, the proposed addition is in line with the existing
residence as vieu-ed from 460. «> that no new lateral encroachment of lake views will
garage addition will have the same roof height as the existing house
St^s conclusion is that the garage addition will create no new view impacts affectine the
neighboring residence. Please review the attached photos in Exhibit F. *
ft3-2m
JmmII.MI) •' ■*
PattJ
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Atm/WMA!
LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width
Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)2W
Actual 119,230 s.f. (2.74 acres)300*+
Srtl>ocki!
LR-Required Eilstiag Proposed
Front (Street)50*350* +340* ±
Rear NA NA NA
UR Side 30*90* +5Tjt
Right Side 30*35* +No change
Lakeshore 75*155’160*
Average Lakeshore (No Eacroachmcot Allowed)100* encroachment
(existing house)
68* encroachment
(garage addition)
Hirdcovgr Colc«lollooi:
Hardcoser
Zoae
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Eibtiag
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
0-75*15,125 s.f.0s.f.
(0%)
0 s.r.
(0%)
0 s.r.
(0%)
75-250*67,505 s.f.16,876 s.f.
(25%)
9,452 s.f.
(14.0 %)
10,698 s.f.
(15.8%)
250-500*36,600 s.r.10,980 s.f.
(30%)
4,425 s.f.
(12.3%)
(No Change)
m3-tm
Jutll,2€t3
Pagt4 _
Hardtliip Slalcmrat
i^licant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his
additional testimony regarding the application.
Hardship Analysis
I
Staff would ^e the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardshio’^
pertinent to this application:
1. 7heprope^lnque.Uoncmn«beiMilloa(c»soiiibleuseifu$edun<lercondilioiuallowe<lby the ofTicial controls.*'
77i Wocar/on o/neigh^ring homes and the unique lot configuration result in an airrgae
setback line that would make the lot practically unbuildable absent a wriance.
^ Ow'laSdSlli^"*’* landouTier is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by
are unique to this lot and and were not created by the
3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality “
4. 'Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardshb if reasonable use for
the property exisu under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.**
Economics are not a factor in this request for a variance.
*■ forenergy a^ems. V«, we, ihall be granted for euth iheltered conslniclion axhOned
in Mtim^ta StjMe^ Section I I6J.06, Subd. 2. « hen in h«mony with this Chapter "
i^o ’-flgl'I’O'l^pmperty-saccessMtynlighlyrillbt^uudbylhispropoial
5. •'reeBo«dof App«l.^ AdjustnienlsorlheCoiincil may not permit as a variance any use
lhal is nolp|CTitted under this Chapter for properly in the »ne where the affeeied per^n's
(l^ot Applicable)
(Not Appikable)
MS-ltff
J«m11,2M3
r>rs ..
**The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.”
The special conditions of topograpfy and lot shape are unique to this prtqserty.
”T1ie condiltoiis do nol apply generally to other land or stnictures in the district in which said
land is located.”
The unique conditions cfthis property are not shared by most other properties in the LR! A
Dstrict
”The granting of the application is necessary for the presen ation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the ^rplicant”
Absent a variance, the applicant could not construct an addition to the existing residence,
and the proposal meets all other City requirements.
11.”The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort,
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.”
Granting of this variance uitl in all respects be in keeping with the intent of the Zoning
Code. Lake views of the adjacent lakeshoreproperty owner will not be negatively impacted
by granting of the variance
'The granting of such variance w ill no t merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty ”
Granting of the variance is necessary^ to alleviate a hardship caused by the unique
configuration of the property.
Issues for CoBsidcration
1. Neighbor's views of the lake are not further impacted by this addition.
2. The applicant acknowledges the need to relocate the septic system on the site..
3. The proposal meets all other City requirements.
Stall RccoouDeadalkM
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to no permit for the garage addition may be
issued except in conjunction with replacement of the septic system per City codes.
Proposed Motion
Motion to approve an average lakeshore setback encroachment of 68* for a garage addition at 520
North Arm Drive per the staffrecommendation.
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION
Initial AppUcation Fee S250.00
(SS0.00 per each addhiooal variance)
Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO
(no chanpe from original qjplicatioiO
Variance for non-confonning stnictures S250.00
After-tbe-Fact Feet (Double qiplication fee)
Application g
Date Recdvf^
Amonat Paid
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address M.
Property Identification Number (P.LD.l ~
Attach legal description to application if not included on r^uired survey.
Date Property Acquired________10^9^_______
I (do) (do not) alM own the adjacent parcels of land..(montyyear)
Present use of property. X residential other (specify)
t: [«IA ------------~ VZoning District:.
APPLICANT
Name "TTi
Address: S
\MpmV f£UJ7^(i
)tO K3 Ato
Phone (home)
____ Phone (work) 9? 9 - 3Sfio
City: Zip: S53ib<^
0^^'NER (if different than applicant)
Name SAM&
Address:City:.
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST . ^ Estimated Construction Cost $
Describe request in detail: r^V)i?/;liry > ^
f^k>Ror tSAiAN tm ^ -----
(attach additional sfieets if n^essa^)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
___Lot Area
Setback:
___Lot Width
Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
.Lot Coverage
JC Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical diflicully or uniuual property condiUons preventing
(attach additional sheeu if necessary)
J o J
required StJBftlITTALS
to Y»yr ft* tBffllniliw d«dii... |„
“1“ •" p~”-*'‘'^(i) x*^;:
6: 4
7 tJA P™P®"y- ™» »<>“•'* include Mme(8) of i^icMtflwf'Z”
7. ip As »n uldenduin (o this eppUcation/pIease^Ssch I'T?'
you wish notified of this appUcatioD. - . '''* “P“'““l ®f “y other pc
---- ^**‘*‘**®*“* “ *nay be lequested by City stafl*.
versons
W .. Oioo AI URE
0»7,cfs Signatuse^jMt^ AV> ff J 'j ^2--'^
the 0
.U O ;r> :f%
r^S'-’ :hJ^ -W‘
</?
/
\
v'
j; .
\
•- -if* ^ -.. *
:*•.
\
. ■• j .• • — .
4 — » • ...•••
*' ‘ *^ ■ * * ' * - *
* • * •..•i——rr“
\ ___________. : * >
**•••.. \ • ‘ * !.■ .* • .;; }
I» • *.».»
/
j:]Vv‘- *v-ir.
..•••4
kl>/
/Vt1
./'t
y
,4^
0U‘ -
.V «'iil d:
■ ■ • .Op^y ■ ;
• ■ . •/ ^ • • * i
i “T '* .
•• ..t*:
c:“L A^'v •i
.♦; .!</fj •, A u y
,y..*•
•\mt y
\^ A
/
4\\-i
\V
.•••X'\\9
/ N \ V X
••\. \ A
/
V
{• •• ■
c
(. • ^
■i
- g
NEW
WALK
5WN ARWVDC.
i V.'*
ft \
' • \.• •'. •••!
1 t
5e«iW.Aft ;)ft.
SEPTIC SYSTEM INVENTOR Y
Address: S20North AnnDr. PID: 06-117-23 310006
Building BRs Install'd for 4 In Musa: No
Peimh«: 8709 DateofPennit: 10^/86
System Type: skaUow treach Experimenlal: no
Installer: Hayes Exc.
Tank Filter:
SYSTEM commos
Conformity: 1 Tank Condition: 9 DF condition: II Failure Pot; low
SEPTIC TANKS
Material: precast concrete
Setback to Bldg: 65
Capacity: lOOOJOOO
Cesspool:
DJt4/Arf7££l>
Length of Lines: 400 # Lines: 4 Trench Width; 3
Treatment Area: 1700 Type of Filter; rock Soil Boring; yes
rUeSize: 4 Under Tile: 6 PercRate: 45
Setback DF-Bldg: 45 DF Hi above Wl: 3T*
Soil Type: loam, clay loam Limitations: \^‘ater table
WELL DATA
Setbacks-WeU-Tanks: 75
PumpT>pe: subm.
Well-DF: 125 Report in File yes
Depth; 109 Diameter: 4 Method; drilled
INSPECTION RECORD
DATE DESCRIPTION
installation
no surfacing
no surfacing
nostnftcing
no surfacing
no surfacing-pump tanks
no surfacing
no surfacing-pump tanks
no surfacing-pump tanks
conforming system, pump tanks
no surfacing
PUMPOUT RECORD
COMPLIANCE DATE GALLONS
KV8/86
6/23/88
8/21/90
9/2a'91
6/9/92
9/1/93
5/22/95
8/23/96
4/30/97
5/22/00
9/03/02
8/1/90 2000
10/14/93 2000
8/1/97 2000
5/20/02 1700
compliant systen
L ^ 1
■^0 lOo^k Dr.2>'2.
= r=ss: . •:
I#
\
\
\
P'V' •
> /.
f- 2
’..Vi‘^-Z-':w^mm:./»
'•■ »-/> 7: •‘-' 113 V i-:
r..’?Tr>^
PPI
• >t ' iv-'t . —
i\-y ' '' Tw'
( tI A./.v '■^-T H
!
•• .• %
EiffisAS ««.?: .-if'.
■aj' /\' ^ 4"^.
-l| ; ^^■‘. .
L 'r*- .. .•->. ^‘i: . -•*-•. .v-vv:-r ' ‘••"o*-:\'’^r-£.j^'^* vV. r* ..•
•W*.
**•••'<?. ■•*ics*• T'*
■■
‘jU-'h':<^\. A( 1>‘''V
L
wmm
- * * V.
iiiP®ISJ
V,• i.
u
: ’ n ‘f V -4 ‘
■ #;
KFlrSSlC^
^ »• I
_____ ...
• ’vV' •- * ,v
•^'- : : V . * ; • '•
. .:.V-J,v.i?-;v-4-v:-Vp;-- • •.■ Vy.; ■'. -.'-y.
,^•.v':;y/.,oy,.y,^■.•'v..vr. ;^;,^ _, '■ y, .•.iy..-, ,' .
\i.-.v ■. • S,
^ O.N .; •..:< •;:
**k-»*- • • .- .. ■ m;*'{ .:
> f\-‘:'i ^ A/. ^ [)'
IIUNIM1G:« 1
31 MM7233I0003
mWAOOl 440 NORTH ARM OR
OWNRRIIAMe RRPSTERNAU
TAXPAYER RENERPATRinASTERNAU
NAMB^AOOR 440NORTHARMOR
MOONOMN 5S344
30 OIII7233IOOM
PROPAOOR S40NORTHARMOR
OWNBUIAMB OONMiKPmR)
TAXPAYER OONWEKPIEPMO
NAMEMOOR S40NORTHARM DR
MOUNOMN 35364
31 06II7234I0006
niOPADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
OWNER NAME VICTORIA ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
TAXPAYER VICTORU ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
NAME/AODR OO THOMAS MAZER
560 NORTH ARM OR
MOUND MN 55364
HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPr INFORMATION SYSTliM
PRa’ERTY OV. Jl LIST
PAGE; I
31 0611723310004
PROPAOOR 460 NORTH ARM DR
OWNERNAME T3ASJWANNER
TAXPAYER THOMAS J A SUSAN J wanner
NAME/ADOR 460 N ARM DR
MOUND MN 55364
3« 06II7233IOOOP
PROPAOOR 500 NORTH ARM OR
OWNERNAME MORHIHOY
TAXPAYER MATTHEW DA IIEHXJ HOY
NAME/ADOR 500 NORTH ARM DR
MOUNOMN 55364
34 0611723310005
PROP ADDR 520 NORTH ARM DR
OWNERNAME TMOTHYPELUZZER
TAXPAYER TIMOTMY PELUZZER
NAME/ADOR 520 NORTH ARM DR
MOUNOMN 55364
3t 0611723320003
PROP ADOR 405 NORTH ARM PR
OWNERNAME LAKBVIEWOO! •‘sJPWTv * WC
TAXPAYER LAKEVIEW OOLF OP MTKA .NT
NAME/ADOR 155 RED OAK LA
4IOUNDMN 55364
:
>•*f •
y * I
(/! iX3.- ’ w.s.
Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department ;
4^|X)RTHARMESW
<•»»
TES FOURTH ADDN j
, {'
I ^^^^fiMesrATEs !*
IL
Farce/ Information
Parcel ID 061172331000S
Houta Numbar 820
Straat Nama NORTH ARM DR
TMt It nor • lageiy leconMmjp. ffrepreMiiO a coriyieaeon of Mbrma«on
enrfdMeAamOiiy. County, and 8$mnadmjthoim$maolfmmunm.
tm
6912495
€ITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. A a72
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B)
FILE «362
WHEREAS, Robert E. Howard and Darbara Howard (hereinafter "the
applicants") arc owners of the property located at 1300 Shoreline Drive within the City of
Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows!
Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 14, Minnetonka Bluffs, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal
Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision S (B) to allow construction of a new residence.
Variances for lot area, lot width, front, side, and rear setbacks are required.
Minnesota:
1.
2.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\'ED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2362.
The property is located in th.e RR-IB Zoning District where the ni.nimum lot
area requirement is 2 acres in area.
The Orono Planning Commission rc\iewcd this application on April 20. 1998,
and recommended unanimous approval of the proposed \'ariances based upon the
following unique findings and hardships:
A. The c.xisting residence was destroyed by Arc and caimot be rehabilitated.
It is rqore than 75% damaged.
TRANSFER ENTERED
ICNNEPIN COUNTY 7AXFAYEHS£«V>3H V
10 1^96
CITYofORONOm
4.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO 4 0 7 2
The zoning loC is .446 acres, uhere 2 acres is required.
The existing structure docs not meet front or side setback requirements.
There is T>*pc 3 wetland on the northeast comer of the lot. A 26’
setback from the wetland is required.
The lot width is 129.5’ where 200’ h required.
The front yard is 28.T existing where 32’ is proposed and 50* is required.
The side yard is 15.1’ existing where 25’ is proposed and 30’ Is required.
The rear yard is 58’ existing where 49 ’ is proposed and 50’ is required.
The proposed residence is iocaled in the 500-1,000’ setback area from
Lake Minnetonka. Hardcover will be less than 35%.
J. The proposed structural coverage will be less than 2,913.75 sq. ft. (15%).
The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar
to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that
granting the variance would not ad\ersely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serv-e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a
demonstrable hardship or difficult}; is necessary to preser\e a substantial
property right of the applicants; a.nd v ould be in keeping wi* the spirit and
intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
The City Council has considered this application including the findings and
recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments
by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety
and welfare of the community.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Page 2 of 5
i
M’S ClTYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 4 07 2 ^
CONCLUSIONS^ ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono Cit>' Council hereby
grants lot area, lot width, front, side and rear setback variances per Municipal Code Section
10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit construction of a new residence on .446 acres where 2 acres
is required as proposed in Exhibit A, subject to the foIlo>\‘ing conditions:
1. Authorities granted by this variance nm with the property not with the
applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a
building permit \rithin one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance
will expire on that date (April 27, 1999).
2. Violation of or non*compUance with any of the terms and conditions of this
resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
tenainaie any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
3. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and
assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resoluiion in the chain of title of
the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of April, 1998.
. • ...........—-lA.,;’-.
Page 3 of 5
GITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. A 072
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instniment was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of April 1998
by Gabriel Jabbour & Linda S. Vee, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Mirlnesoul
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
CAHOLEAHASCMAN
NOIMTMUMMNESOn
HBMCfM COUNTY
ibCtaJnl1.20(B Notary Public
J
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of //,, _ ------r~i«y------------. I99£. before me a Notary Public within
and for said county, personally appearedft,ii.......7 k
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing i^ti^ent md
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
CAROLE A HASEMAN
NOtMvrueuC4INNIS01A
HEMCm COUNTY
1^‘y CerjKHsioi Eisira J8i )1. XlOO--------------------
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Notary Public
On this day of _> 199 before me a Notary Public within--------—^ —-----------------------------------, uciorc me a moiary niDiic witnuiand for said county, personally appeared______________________
known to me to be the pcrson(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed.
Notary Public
Page 4 of5
o/th?&>undar!es^of\iti*iJ corrtct represeniatlon of a survey
of thl KJStirn of III i I Si MINNETONKA BLUFFS, andIni buildings. If any. thereon. It ctoes ret purport to
Show any other Insprovecents or encroachxents, other than an existing fence.
Scale:
Date :
0
1 Incn s 40 feet
May 25. 1585
Iron marker
COFFIN S GR0NBER6.' INC.
'^Hari; S. 6ronbw-g Reg Ntf; 12755
cordon R. COffln Reg. No. 6C64
Engineers and Land Surveyors
Long Lake. tUnnesota
Phone 473-4141
-ZANi*^ - 2 ficite Ut
ZOo'lV^iM CMIPTH
SeTOAcics - rotnJT
5man sio«
llisisa SQ*
UinUrsrO Z4»*
ir ^
NOVI 13 2M2 1159 P« FR HINSHRU CULBERTS0N2 334 8988 TO 47e7N704839S«952 P.03
JlLfiiSltyc
___■?*!.**—"* CAiw«nwO Is ifjim te 13* 4w»».nfat. Matt, h. '
•■•••
•»
ywnNaSWffiREOP.iteMiiiio,ig,rtliMn,KuadfliiiAawa«itf.trfih.H»«wiyitr fifii abovi wnnea.
• J
kUAiUAiL;> t
M O2II7233I00IS
ntOTADM U7 HANLON AVE
OWNERNAME RVAM EKOCHNEN
TAXPAYER ROBERTAMICHaiCOEllNEN
NAME/AODR 337 HANLON AVE
WAYZATAMN 35)91
IILNNU'IN COUNl-V i Kul’l
PROPliRTYOV
(■'•I
JiLIST
uuiLM
)l 0211723)10016
PROPAOOR 363 HANLON AVE
OWNER NAME llADASSAil YDIUDIT ZOIIARA
TAXPAYER 1IAOASSAH YEHtmiT ZUItARA
NAME/ADOR 363 HANLON AVE
WAYZATAMN 35391
31 O2II7233I0OI7
PROPADDR 3t ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
OWNERNAME KADASSAIIYEKUDrTZOHARA
TAXPAYER HADASSAIIYEIIUOITZOIIARA
NAME/ADDR 363 HANLON AVE
ORONOHN 33391
PAGE: I
31 0211723310011
PROPAOOR 1300 SHORELINE OR
OWNERNAME RICHARDSHROWN
TAXPAYER RICHAROSBROWN
NAM&AODR I300SHORELJNEDR
WAYZATAMN 33391
31 0211723)10021
PROPAOOR I300 R3XST
OWNERNAME RTJAPPRAYAVHMFFRAY
TAXPAYER RTRVHJAFFRAY
NAME/ADOR 340 BARRETT AVE
WAYZATAMN 33)91
31 0211723310031
PROPAOOR )t AOORESSUNASSIGNEO
OWNERNAME JACKCRMARION BURCH
TAXPAYER JACK CR MARION BURCH
NAME/ADOR 6372 WHITE OAK DR
LMOLAKESMN S303S
3t 0211723310034
PROP ADDR 31 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO
OWNERNAME HENNEPINFORFETTEOLAND
TAXPAYER CTTY OP ORONO
NAMB/AOOR POBOX66
CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323
3t 02II7233400I6
PROPAOOR 1313 roXST
OWNERNAME IOIANNOOETTEN
TAXPAYER I OIANN OOETTEN
NAME/AOOR l3t3POXST
WAYZATAMN 33)91
31 O2II7233I00I9
PROPADDR 1340 FOX ST
OWNERNAME ALLANNLITWIN
TAXPAYER ALLAN NLITWIN
NAME/AODR 1340 FOX ST
WAYZATAMN 35391
31 0211723310022
PROPADDR 340 BARRETT AVE
OWNERNAME RTJAFFRAYRVHJAFFRAY
TAXPAYER RTAVHIAFFRAY
NAME/AOOR 340 BARRETT AVE
WAYZATAMN 35391
38 0211723310032
PROPAOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
OWNERNAME HENNEPINPORFEITEOLAND
TAXPAYER HENNEPIN FORFEnEO LAND
NAME/ADDR 1027^
38 0211723)10033
PROPADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
OWNERNAME HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
PROPAOOR
HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND
1027-NC
31 0211723410009
38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO
OWNERNAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH
TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RRAUIH
NAME/AOOR 4l75TNSTNf)20
MWNEAPOUSMN 33401
38 0211723310020
PROP ADDR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED
OWNERNAME 110 MEYER ETAL
TA3CPAYER HD MEYER
NAME/ADDR BOX 12
WAYZATAMN 33391
38 0211723310023
PROPADDR 540 DARRETTAVE
OWNERNAME RTIAFFRAYAVltlAFFRAY
TAXPAYER RTAVHIAFFRAY
NAME/AODR 340 BARRETT AVE
WAYZATAMN 35)91
38 02 M 7233I0033
PROPAOOR 38 ADDRESSIfNASSIGNEO
OWNERNAME MARION J DETTLOFF
TAXPAYER MARION I DETTLOFF
NAME/ADOR 1233 DICKENSON ST
WAYZATAMN 55)91
38 021172)310046
PROPADDR 340 DARRETTAVE
OWNERNAME RTIAFFRAYAVIIIAFFRAY
TAXPAYER RTAVH JAFFRAY
NAME/ADDR 540 BARRETT AVE
WAYZATAMN 33391
31 0211723340014
PROPAOOR 31 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO
OWNERNAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RRAUT1I
TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH
NAME/ADDR 4I7STHSTN1320
MINNIiAroUSMN 35401
■M
i'; •• --v, ■■ .
mmr
m
■IMOMTEiVmM HBNNtpmcojjrg^o^^
I CERTIPy TfUTTfC FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND
^ rTAPPEARSTHS DATEONTW RECORDS
OF MV^wSw^DC?AN^^ SERVICES DEPARTTUENT, TO THE BEST,
DATEi^/^’^3 by
•'‘v
PACE: 2
(. }
;|ip|Hiii:.CcuntyTaiq»ay»rSofvlc«»
B 12F.U
* 24 V
127^ ^ » 8
8 » ;
' («; *
8 " 1''2 8
8 if '•S' *
3 30 '^(5) *
8 lo’y -O* *
8 tt (6)fe “ 7 SIII ”
>• 8
8 ' ** (11)*
8 > »5
SO«)i®
8 '* 1277a s
Is
S 34 ..
r2>.4« ^
f5t; f ^
8 23 (14) *
8 22 ''-* 3 8
8 31 •.•< r. 8
8 » ••
^15); ®
8 » ■! 1 f .-U
t' " *
^(22)■' m *
8 f»
(21)<w *
8 f20J 10 8
* ftp;•. (18) 8
8' w
f2A28 '■• 8 »29.25 ”
>•■• '•
. \ •
-i2ii
OZ-//7- 23-
7 y-Parcel Infonnatlon ‘:y
Panai ID 0211723S1001t
1900
tHODOIINOPII
Tmi»MMakgafynconPdmtp.anpnMnUaepmiia9lionetkihfmab6n
and daflmmaiy. County, and Sim road auMm and earn mnm...
CITYQEORONQ
iKS pection no ^
DATC TIME
>ECTIONNO
PERMIT NO.
ADDRESS.
OWNER.
CAUCOM _____________ _____________
S(^HEOULEO ^ infSO/jt
__COWPIETEO _______________ _____________
S^kcr^. //a^.
TELEPHONE NO.
DESCRIPTION.
01 FOOTINO
02 FTVUMNO
03 NSULATION
CONTR. ^ /?A/
^ 36?Q -
"Tluf Co -
mwiSiANicArw
Si
iEirtxm^sne
^ or UMO-FINAL
$ 09 Pt-LiyiBINa Rl
2 10 PlUMSINO FINAL
13 MECHANICAL FINAL
iV2i WOOD BURNCHFlflEPLACE
12 WATER HOOK UP
14 SEWER HOOK-UP
2/ SEPTIC MAINT.
15 SEPTIC INSTALL
23 SEP nc FINAL
4
^ OWM^WCONTRACTORTOMEETVOU:__VES___NO
16 EXCAV/QRAOmO/FUJNa
19 lAKESHOREMETlANOS
34 TREE REMOVAL
17 SITE WSPECTION
06 PROGRESS
21 COAIPLAINT
22 FOUOW-UP
35 HARO COVER REMOVAL
38 FOUNOATOHREMOVAL
I COMMENTS___
^ tIeJr 4^fl cidce ^
nctARAifliM ^ .sihT^
^r;qa<p>Ktfng^^r m^/7
H
O
BKSTSSKSffX mn
co\)&r
Vrt)RK SATISFACTORY. PROCEED
jy O CORRECT WORK 6 PROCEED
g □CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REIMSPECTIOM
C BEFORE COVERINO
O CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN____
INSPECTOR WIU RETURN
.HOURS.
□ PROJECT COMPLHE
□ ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
--------------TEMPORARY
--------------PERMANENT
O STOP ORDER POSTED CAU INSPECTOR
□ INSPECTION REOWRED. CALL TO ARRANGE Arrtc^
□ PHOTO TAKEN
□ CITATION ISSUED
Callfo''1he ni«xllnspoc1lon24hourslnBdYanc«. (952) 249-4600
Owner/Contractoj^'sll*:____________
InspecloR.
WMMCepp
^XUMj -
nnspKlMlJlpllt CPMfyCoFvISlI* Nolle
'I
r-:
..
'\ :/ ■-- ^■:^^-' rv.-. *' 'V • •• -.vr
. ■ - ■• ..- .^-' : - -
y J <■■ " *'■ ■*'
tfc'i \ i|r t^y ^<'-'" . ''"■ V-'
w. ■ i, ,
<r .»*-• - ■■•■. - ,.• f-r. :*•
ii
8 -W^Wl
'I
l-^oO '^V<'iv\>v fjrvv
2.
i wHpfifc it)''H‘'‘^h?^'^ ‘ S<
-/I. /
f ii»'4 fii \'*i«» ■< j“' ’!>’-it T:
— , /*T.
jaassewv-. .
* >-r
\ '\l'’j * ■ ■■ij !.
' ^
V-
f.V -.o'-
1
>■ T *y. ' ^ *
' A^ -•■■ .
^ t-.:•
..Mi«i*iftSfeii81^^
Ui'
•• H
O,-. V,: -:
'••' .h-
'■ sam-Mkswmm
*'m•'<?r *
L Ju ■ '-v- r ■'
‘.viUH’
h
m >•.
r.
,• i
7-^ ■ .. -^x.'
itS^t!
tu
|l#ir. * r- •; .
v'y'r.-
'■■■*• .. ‘
8m '""
i- ^'Wj^-
lam^L-. ‘I
'' '.^ r.
ISSfq/" :/®i"'V . ^
Wwm'cJt
f^:
i''w*'" ^
'^..w
f/>/^.-j
', )S.:
' ¥>'■■::
^ lia
A.^m
• urz.\PxirA
‘■‘i^ i'S
3 %
p;5a
t?>^'
";..'i.V-‘?r'4wp,--^ ^' . ;r T:;;3L'^'
*^ii>-;S^'" i-—,-rcT .
V '■
DaU ApptkallM Rtctivad: 5-2I-03
D«U Applkalloa Coasidtrcd as Cowfirtf; S-23-0J
60*Day Rcvkw rcriod Eipim: 7*224J
To: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorse, Cit>* Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director
Dale: June 13,2003
Subject: #03-2905 Heidi Nagel, 995 Wildhurst Trail • Variances • Public Hearing
Zoning Dbirict: LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 -acre min.
Lot Area: 0.53 acre (23.210 s.f)
Application Summary: Applicant requests a number of variances to enclose a portion of a
second story deck, expand a deck, extend roof over existing front porch, and construct an
attached 2-stall garage to the existing residence. The variances include:
1. Additional 75-250’ hardcover in excess of 25% with concurrent rcniovals to result in no
increase or a slight decrease.
2. Average setback encroachment by decks and screen porch.
3. Street setback variance of 1.5' for attached garage.
4. Lot coverage variance to increase from 14.02 % to 16.79 %.
Stajf Recommendation: Staff recommends only partial approval subject to specife
conditions.
List of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Existing & Proposed Suivey/Site Plan
C - Proposed Plans & Elevations |
E - Resolution 3578 (7-10-95) ^ O .
F - Letters from Neighbors
G - Property Owners List
H -Plat map
1 • Site Photos
Background
Applicant proposes 3 additions to the existing residence:
1) Enclose a screen porch over a portion of the existing 1 st story deck, requiring an
a>*erage setback variance.
2) Add a 68 s.f. portion of deck requiring an average lakeshore setback and hardcom
variance.
3) Add an attached 24‘x24' 2-stall garage requiring a street setback variance of 1.5* which
results in a lot coverage excess.
4) Extend roof to cover entire front porch.
This property has been the subject of variance applications in the past to alio w the decks on the lake
side as well as the twt)-stall attached garage at the east end. The most recent hardcover approval
allowed 4,910 s.f in the 75-250* zone. Existing hardcover in 2003 is 5238 s.f, Le. an excess of 328
MO-XMS
J«M 13.2MS
Pite2
s.f. It is apparent by comparing the 1995 appro\ il and the cunent sunvy that this is almost entirely
due to overages in the driveway and front walkway.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area/Wklth!
LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width
Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre)140'
Actual 23,210 s.f. (0.53 acre)126'
ScOtisku
Stnictural Coverage:
Hardcover Calculatioiis:
LR-Required Esbting Proposed
Rear (Street)30 ’51.9*28.5' VAR
Front NA NA NA
Left Side iO'15*No change
Right Side iO’5'Garage 15'
Porch 20'
Lakeshore 75'76*76’
Average Lakeshore (No Eacroachaicol Allowed)6 ’7’
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
23,210 s.f. (0.53 ac.)Allowed: 3,482 s.f. (15%)
Existing: 3,254 s.f. (14.02%)
Proposed: 3,898 s.f. (16.79%)
Hardcover
Zoue
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing Hardcover Proposed
Hardcover
0-75’9,375 s.f.os.r.Orf Os.r.
(0%)(0%)(0%)
75-250*13.835 s.f.3,459 s.f.5.238 s.f.5,306 s.f.
(25%)(37.9%)(38.4%)
M3-2M5
Jmc 13.2003
Hardship SlalcMcnf
Applicants have provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for their
additional testimony regarding the application.
Hardship Analysis
/m c^msUtriHg appUcaiiont for varkmce. Hie Ptaiuibit Commhilom skeU eomlder ike effect of tkeptepoud
rarlamee upon Ike keehh, safety and metfare of Hte community, existing and anlklpaled traffic conditions, light
and air, danger effire, risk to HiepuhNc safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. Th e
Fiannlng Commission skatt consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the
Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumMances
unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shaft reiommend approval onty when U b
demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code._____
Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "ui.duc hardship"
pertinent to this application:
1. **Thc property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed
by the ofTicial controls.”
The property as it exists is being pul to a reasonable sue.
2. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his properly not created by
the landowner.”
The plight of the lanJowver in regard to the aserage setback encroachments is a result of
the locations of adjoining homes, which applicant cannot control.
In regards to the lot coverage excesses arid setback for garage, ihesi are a direct result of
owner’s desire for more home and space.
3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The garage addition extending forward of the home may be somewhat out ofcharacter with
the neughborhood: the deck and porch additions will not alter the character of the
neighborhooiL
4. ”Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for
the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.”
Economics have not been discussed by applicant as a factor.
5. 'ndue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy s>*stems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined
in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.”
Sot applicable.
6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use
that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's
land is located.”
Sot ttyrplieable.
M3-2905
Jiim13,20«3
Pagc4
7. **Thc Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.”
Not Applicable
8. “The special conditions applying to the structiire or land in question arc peculiar lo such
properly or immediately adjoining property."*
The conditions apply to all other lakeshore properties in the J acre zone.
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said
land is located."
The conditions apply to all other lakeshore lots in the LR^IB District.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enJo>ment of a
substantial property right of the applicant”
Variances are not necessary for this applicant to continue the current enjoyment ofproperty
rights by applicant.
11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort,
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.”
The granting of a lot covere^e variance will be contrary to the intent of the lot coverage
ordinance by adding t excessive bulk and mass of structure in the neighborhooilandaddto
visual density in the neighborhood
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTicully.”
No hardship has been demonstrated that supports the e.xcessive lot coverage by structures
The average setback \ariances are. however, supported by the fact that no neighbor's vieus
of the lake will be decreased by the proposed deck and screen porch.
Issues for Consideration
1 . The current excessive hardcover must be resolved prior to issuance of any new permits for
this property.
2. After the property is brought in to conformity with the prior approval, it will have to be
determined whether hardcover associated with the proposed additional deck at the NW
comer of the house can be mitigated by further removal of driveway or other pavement.
3. Is there any justification to allow an increase in lot coverage above the 15% limit applicable
to all lots of this size? Note t^t the screen porch over existing deck will not increase
structural coverage. The extension of roof over the front porch and the new deck at hte N W
comer will add about 130 s.f of lot coverage or bring it up to 14.6%. The new garage will
bring it well over the limit.
4. The average setback variance should not cause any problems because neither adjacent
neighbor's views will be impacted.
5. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application?
myms
J«M 19,2003
PigeS
Stair RMaawMadatioB
I.Stair recommends approval of the enclosure of the screen porch as proposed over the portion
of existing 1* story deck.
2.
3.
Stafif recomniends approval of the extension of roof to cover the entire front porch.
Staff recommends that the applicants determine where hardcover will be removed to bring
the property into conformance with the 4,910 s.f. limit imposed by Resolution No. 3578.
Then Planning Commission ^uld consider whether further hardcover removals can be
comi^eted to offset the proposed new deck hardcover addition.
Staff reconunends denial of the lot coverage and setback variances for the attached garage,
finding that neither is supported by hardship.
Planning Commission could either send this forward to Council with conditions; or table for
applicant to revise plans (provide clear direction to applicant as to which projects are feasible and
which should not be pursued).
CITV OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION
Initial Application Fee $250.00
($50.00 per each additional -c)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-confomiing structures $250.00
Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
Application # .
Date Received
Amount Paid
PROPERTY INFORMATION. ,, ^ ,
Site Address (jAlAV\tJf<‘f "[V»l I_________
Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 0*711"7 l/i Oh
()vhY\/i
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Property Acquired w)iiKic^Property i
I (do) 0QJD^ also own the ^jacent parcels of land.
Zoning District: LRi fe
Present use of property
rict: L
Jmonth/year)
residential other (specify).
APPLICANT
Name tfti
Address:,^
E.Phone (home) ^^2-
Phone (work) Gl 2. AT-/ Y
City: DRPtsjr)Zip:
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name____________________
Address:City:.
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
Zip:.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Esiiiyated Ponstruction Cost $ IDO. PPd
Describe request in detail: m iXioijLiA (> fag.
' A *f (attach additional sheets if nccessLy) /
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area
Setback:
___Lot Width
Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
.Lot Coverage
Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship oj practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventine
Srrt\ Pv£r"4iu.
w. uiiHcuuy or unusuai property conditions
compljancq with Zoning Code rcfluircmcnts: 'Itx Hi, <jf Da.
u
#9.Q A
L
REQUnWD SUBMITTALS
*• __ completed Application Form
2. B--------^
Completed Application Form
Ceiliflcate of Survey rsiened k«# . i;____ ___ .
«»«««| aoaw*^ full
Govt Center, 348-5910). ____
reproduction. P™"'*' “■« <» “PX 8X," x If forreproduction. P™""' (» “PX SXi" x If for
: -
». — Additional items as may be requested by City staff.
SriitTwrt wmTlW r7!T ir i”ti!i*‘
APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE
The applicant hereby
Administrator,agrees to ^yaddltiLlt» (staff «qui^ or requested by the Zoning
consultant expenses incuirqd in review of thb ^nl.«
supplied is true and correctAo the best of his/her faiowlcdge infoimaUon
Applicant's Signatu^^^Jl^^TL Date ^ ^ ^ 0 -0
OWER'S SIGNAL
ttlm^clTy ‘PP"“«°" “■* «“*her authorizes reasonable
members forpunjises "f invcstigation’i^ verificaUoToTtiu?°r^esr^
OwTier's Sigi^ re
4i- !*'^ -’7'
7/ 4S55X
X-
/ .' L .L K^ <r.. . '
r'».if4 V ‘
ii'”'5' v‘
sS:r‘^‘%=. >7^,
'‘-9-
tT^.’^r • ’V.
/ ^
mm\
•I ,S«®«e •V
' 1 -------V ///♦ A i /
WILDHURST . TRAIL
r
; t*« . 1. ^ i
The East til. feet of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 7, Township 117, Range 23.
The above property is in the naac of Barbara Kosch
as evidenced in Certificate of Title No. 688946.
Subject to a peraanent easeaent for street,
utility and drainage purposes over and across the
South 8.00 feet of the above described property.
NOTE:
,^Thc above described easeaent is not included in
hardcover area coaputations.
: //ae/sa ~ • ^4^4
r.. f. S/a
ar/a/A • 233
0/4c^o/>
:•
•H
523S
NAMcom eatcgufiot niimt
//•? rv' //at
•A.a.c.0.1. .f.
Lakvfherw
Setback
tamm
Let Area
In Zano
esttttng
Nardeovar
In Zona
Ealaeifig
Nardcovar
fareantana
(l/AlnlOO
Final
Prapaaad
Mardcaaar
In Zona .
Nardtaaar
raraancana
I0/A)ml00
Allaaad
■ardcaaar
Fartaacaga
0 - 75*9375 <3 . ^o_ .M * 0
75 - ISO*S238 87.9 ^m IS
250 - 500*—1 - -tr - - - - - -%
a
- - - - -af - - - -X » X
y-r £
PREPARED FOR
J n
V
non : BRUCE IUB1S8N NO. : 7G3 323 993B tlay. 20 2003 li:0»M P2
C-I
(1^
not: iRucE lUBsm PW»C Na t 763 323 9936 n«w. 2B 2003 li:e7m P3
c-^-
P
KvMor«
02
noi I MUCE I^CRSaN M»C NO. : 763 323 993B
/ / I
4^0 0 ^ ^ . •• ^••••' : .-.♦ ___
Vssi^
(M*
6/2W03
miMfls
04
Fton : VUCE lUERSeN
\M
Proposed Plan - Main Leve
m
H V '
l//
v;i-\ \j
•5-/'J
GlTYof ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 8 57 8
A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES
TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2
FILE NO. 2030
%VHEREAS, Richard LaVerc 0 ‘crclnaftcr "the applicant") is the owner of the
properly located at 995 Wildhurst Trail within the City of Orono and legally described as
follows:
The cast 111’ of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest
quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Ranfo inaftcr "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal
Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (D) and 2 to peimit construction of a lakeside deck
totaling approximately 523.6 s.f. of new structural hardcover where 4,991 s.f. or 36.1 % xisis
and where 4,910 s.f. or 35.4% is proposed and where 25% is allowed; and an cncroa«....ncnl
of the average lakeshorc setback of 6’ where no encroacluncnt is allowed.
Miimcsoln:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by llic City Council of Orono.
1.
2.
FINDINGS
This application was reviewed as Zoning File /i^2U30.
The property is located in the LR-IB Lakeshorc Residential Zoning District
requiring one acre in area. The properly consists of 23,210 s.f. or .53 acres.
3.Tlie Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 19, 1995 and
recommended ajiproval of the proposed variances based upon the following
findings:
A.In 1992, the City approved a hardcover variance within the 75-250*
setback’area at 5,082.58 s.f. or 36.7%.
Page I of 5
‘T'-n GITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. B 5 7 P
ill! ‘^5^2 approvals, required hardcover improvements
have been removed and hardcover is currenliy at 4,991 s.f. or 36.1%.
C. Bas^ on llic curvature of the shoreline and the location of mature trees
D. The proposed Improvements will result in addiUonal reductions in
hardcover within the 75-250* setback area.
E. The lakeside deck would be consistent with adjacent lakeside decks on
residences also designed with walkouts to lakcsliore.
F. 523 * f of new deck area shall be installed over 378 s.f. of patio and
former i^vcd walk area approved in 1992.
“■ m 2?;“ '’■"?* on ■!'« property are peculiarto It and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning dUirict; tliat
granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor
pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely
serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a
Ihe “necessary topreserve a substantial property
ciTr:;“ci;rehS^^^ «•'
5. llie City Council has considered this application including the lindings and
hrn."1!n"r ’"T ?' ’’'“"'""S Commission, reports by City staff, comnienls
welteTf“"J
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby
Page 2 of 5
II J. .’1
GITYofORONOmRESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. S 578
1.Hardcover k approved at 4,910 s.f. or 35.4%. Both existing improvements
to remain and proposed improvements are shown on Page 5 of this resolution.
Applicant shall maintain improvements as designated on this plan.
Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant,
but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building
permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will
cxpue on that date (July 10. 1996).
Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this
variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically
terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms
of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns,
hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the
property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting
held on the 10th day of July. 1995.
Edwarf J. Callah^, JnlMayor ^
Page 3 of 5
CITYof ORONO
resolution of the city council
NO. S578
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
Orono. a Mumatou municipal eoiporaiion and said insmimeni was eacLed on behalf o?the
--iKnwvMuc4mNison
NDH0II COUNTV
M)fCwahllpnti^Jw.l1.WI8
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On ihis day oT _^j2iA
NoUby Public
/</ ^
A f ^!\**'^* of ----------------- 191ff ’ befoie me a Notaty Puolic within
andforsaidcounty.personaliyip^KOiTTrZ; i/aaT: ^
known to me to be the person(s) desciSSi in and who executed the foregoing insmiraent and
acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and dee!
gggagM—eeeOTtiypitm l■^nllt ii
LINDA S.VEE
NOMrnauc-MNiesonHOMEPMCOUNIV
%CaanilnloBtiylwiJw.3i.M00
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of Jg /^r
]NOTARY PUBUC
andfors;irco;nt^i;;-nan^^^^
known to me to be the ^ison(s) described in aid who cxecui^W foregohig instiument and
ackiiowiedged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ’ “
_ LW0AS.Vff jf. (/jUL^
NOTARY PUBUC
Page 4 of 5
May 19,2003
CityofOrono:
In reference to the variance application made by
Mr. & Mrs. Scott Nagel for the property located
at 995 Wildhurst Trail pin number
071172321000003 we as their neighbors at 997
Wildhurst Trail have no objection to their
^plication. This is no way will impact our property
or line of sight.
s/zo/ot,
*** . •
^ ^ 6cAf, ^ —
hmjt rw^^ cf V/t^
* lJt(^.' /^(X^dl, Nu/t,
%
^JxJL^ijjL>d>kJ^ CL ^/U^ixMMAi.
[/^AMJLiUJL, , %D Oi(Y\ ^huA^ nU^'UJoSh
'h "Me U£<zh
toU( nfh di^oLcJ-^pGYVK.
Jlpu \Miyu C/L f^ (A)9-(^, ^
93 U)aJihMJ-
f-z.
#2905
Adjacent Property Ownert' Acknowledgement Form
I (wc) C1\xaj ^^ of It
[print name(s)] [print address]
I (w) indentnd Ito in exteuUng ihis acknowledgemail, I (we) w> («) not uked to declare
approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I
(wc) am^) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use
Property Owner Date
Property Owner Date
fJ^IVhav.
[print address]
‘^£saS£L'^;'ss'x?s"5ss s:"'-"” "
I (we) undentand that in executing this acknowledgement. 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare
approval or disapiroval of the propeit>' or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I
iniproveraent plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use
Property Owner Date
Property Owner Dale
If yo" >«»« “y information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use
Application plnse tutoit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior
to the scheduled meetiitg date. ^
O O fP\ ^
RUNOAIE:!/’
M 07II7UI20002
PROrAOM t7S WILDIIURSTTH
OWNERHAMB ANTHONYRSOOCtMAN
TAXFAYER ANTHONY R SOOERMAN
NAME/AOOR «7S WIUM CURST TR
MOUND MN SSJM
It 07il723IM3l*
rROTAOOR m WRilHURSTTR
OWNOtNAME RTTAIANEZEBBCK
TAXPAYER RTTAJANEZEaeCK
NAM&AOOR 9M WRDHURSTTR
IklOUNDMN SSJM
Jt 07I172J2I00M
PROPADOR 997 WILOtIURSTTR
OWNERNAMB CEBOEJIMAMACBOEHM
TAXPAYER CHARLES AIMARY ANN BOOM
NAME/AOOR 9*7 WRDHURST TRAIL
MOUND MN SSJM
St O7IIT2J2I00IS
PROPADOR 44SS WEST BRANCH RO
OWNER NAME iANEEIOlNE
TAXPAYER JANE E KUNE
NAME/AOOR MSS WEST BRANCH RD
MOUND MN SSJM
HENNCPIN CXJUTrnr propf
PRa'LRTYOR
Jt 07II72JI2000J
PROPADDR 99J WOOIIURSTTR
OWNER NAME JANET LCILUJUIST
TAXPAYER JANET LOIU4JOIST
NAMI7AD0R 993WRi)HURSTTR
MOUND MN SSJM
Jt 07II7UIJ«3I7
PROPADOR 1000 WILOIIURSTTR
OWNER NAME DAVID A TMP A MIQIELLE TMP
TAXPAYER DAVID A TMP
NAML/AODR 1000 WILDHURST TR
MOUND MN SSJM
Jt O7II72J2I0OOS
PROPADOR 999 WILOIIURSTTR
OWNER NAME M W A N C NMERIROII
TAXPAYER MARTIN W A NAN CNIMERFROII
NAME/AOOR 999 WtUNIURST TR
MOUND MN SSJM
Jt 07II72J24004S
PROPADOR 1006 WILOHURSTTR
OWNERNAME F0lOROENSENARMASHER
TAXPAYER POXNtOENSEN ARM ASHER
HAME/AOOR 1006 WOOHURST TR
MOUND MN SSJM
INFORMATION SYSTEM
LIST PACE: I
Jt 07II72JI20009
PROPADOR tOS FORESTARMSLA
OWNERNAME ALGURAUNIKAVCURALNK
TAXPAYER ALBERT A VALERIE CURALMK
NAME/AOOR MS POREST ARMS LA
MOUND MN SSJM
Jt O7II72J2I0OOJ
PROPADDR 99S WILOIIURSTTR
OWNERNAME SI NAGEL AII NAGEL
TAXPAYER SCOTT I NAGEL
NAMC/ADDR 99S WTLOHURST TR
MOUND MN SSJM
Jt 07II72J2I0006
PROP ADDR Jt ADDRESS UNASSICNED
OWNERNAME HARRIET IMORGAKT
TAXPAYER HARRIET IMORGART
NAME/AOOR 100) WILOHURSTTR
MOUND MN SSJM
I CERTIFY TIP:* FACTS REPRESEhTTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND
TRUE REPTir TWY'' .10NOF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OPTHE HEY;^ > OOUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO THE BEST
OFMYKNOWLCEANDBEUEF. ^
DATE BY VA
>i'X'IM
I'^^^ggjS
!> rv ;-n
r* ™
r;v,
TW&
-I
r •; '■^■'J;.-*
;?^ ' ■ '. V'^J'-^’;' • -' ■■
>.:*, .,a..’ * V. .S^¥'.
- g-
■*- ’,& LlAi-rfSHrf .W f*
I.;.:'
■: V •
m *.‘#4
■sacs W V 'N , yV; .
k_4* ,* fi*
rJ' ' 4
" U0-1
'VA;
■ ■i ' l /- \ ' i Vil tm
. i
-1 /
'"V
ll'ijgglli'^:'I
-r---------W^ --m
ill^lfif"'
...'I
.T.“’9«!Kr A"
t • ^
i, ^ -i‘
Biin SintiiiTiiii
Date Apfikstlaa Rtccivcd: 5-21-f)
Date ApfMcallaa CoflsMcrcd as Complete: 5-23^U
M<Day RarJawTcriod Ciplrts: 7*22*«3
Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From:
Dace:
Sobjed:
Mike Gaffiron. Planning Director
June 12.2003
#03-2906 Rkhaid Roberts. 1937 Fagemess Point Road • VarianceOJP
- Public Hearing
Zoalag District:
Lot Area:
LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2-acre min.
0.39 acres
ApptlcmUom Summmry: Applicant requests afler-the-fact approval for construction of a
retaining wall and stairway system in the 0-75' setback zone, constituting hardcover and
structure where none is normally allowed.
Staff RecommendatloH: Staff recommends partial approval only, to allow for a 4* wide
slairw a\ but deny the retaining walls on the lake side of the road; and denial or request further
design I'etail for a retaining wall within the property on the north (house) side of the road.
Pertioeni Code Sccllons:
1. 10.22,Subd.2:LakeshoteHardcoverand Land Alteration Regulations. Within 75 feet
of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary
or permanent strurtures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of
this section (i.e. a 20 s.f lock box).
10.55 Subd. 8:De\’elopment Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically
permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation. hardcot.T,
temporar>’or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well
or other construction shall be allowed w ithin the Flood Plain and
Wetlands Conserv’ation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof;
nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinar>’ highwater elevation of
any lake shoreline...
10.56, Subd. 16(L): Hardcover Limitations. 1. 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, except for stairways, lifts,
landings, and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in the Municipal Code.
■SOb
M3-29M
JaM 12,2003
P«|*2
Conprcbeasive Plan Excerpt:
2000-2020 CMP. S«tion 3A - Envimnmcnul Preicclion PIm;
Urban Area Policies for Natural Resource Management
ft™ M- “““ of irb.nlz.tto. u vblbh
s." 'Sr arnrs,gras'ss rr.
LbtorEibibil.
A • Application
B - Hardship Statement
C - Survey and Proposed Wall Plan
D - Hardcover Calculation Submitted
E - Photos
F - Letter to Applicant 4-15-03
G - Staff Memo 8-5-91
H - Resolution No. 3001
1 - Property Oumers List
J - Plat Map
Backgrouad
•U-29M
J mm12,2M3
rigtJ
Along the house side of the street, applicant states he wishes to replace an old retaining wall that is
now gone, to hold up the bank and make this area easier to maintain. Replacement of that wall in
the right-of-way is not something staff will support. If it is replaced within the property boundaries,
this will potentially create a parking area along the street. This is a narrow street, and applicants
driveway already has capacity for storing at least 4 vehicles. If this wall is allowed to be replaces,
staff would recommend that the area outside of the 3* gravel shoulder be maintained in grass rather
than be graveled or paved for parking area.
HARDCOVER ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Hardcover Total Area in Allowed Pre -Existing Proposed
Zone Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover
0-75*3225 s.f.*0s.f.
(0%)
15 s.f**.
(0.5%)
s.f.***
( %)
• E.xcluding area in right-of-way
•• Sec text: pre-existing retaining walls in r-o-w have been removed, portion in property was
about IS s.f.
***Includes new walls, replacement walls, apparently intended parking area, both within and out
of right-of-w-ay
Proposed 0-75* Hardcover Line Items:
a) Within Property Boundaries:
Retaining Walls 38’ x 0.67* = 26 s.f.
Stairway 3’ x 4’ = 12 s.f.
(? Newly created flat area already used for storing boat trailer) 20* x 20'« 400 s.f.
b) In Right-Of-Way:
Retaining Wall (replace per hardship statement): 25* x 0.67 ■ 17 s.f.
(? Parking area) 10’ x 20* -200 s.f)
Total new 0-75* hardcover aT'i»arenlly being proposed7created:
Retaining Walls: '• :r 17 17 = 55 s.f.
Potential parking ar*.v. • 0 + 200 = 600 s.f.
Hardship Statement
Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A. and should be asked for his
additional testimony regarding the application.
m-tm
June 12,2003
r«gc4
Hardship Aia^-sb
to ,0 U,e cri.«ia for -„„du. ha«bhip ”
ite l™d^CT.“ ''“ to-'"'""'"'" “toque to his property rot created by
^Je°«ZZ'm!T'’'7u-"^‘‘ to ’ “to* rt-' are Wed/er
3. The vjmance, if ^ted, will not alter the essential character of the locality ^
The applicant has not stated the hardship is economic.
■>. “Undue hardship also iroludes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunliaht for
Ao/ Applicable.
JI't^o^"yZnLr'*™‘“*™^^
(Not Applicable)
M3.29M
June 12,2003
PafcS ^
8. "The special conditions implying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property."
The UmitattoHS on hardcover and the general City policy to avoid retaining nails applies
to all other lakeshore lots in the City.
9. *The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said
land is located."
The conditions that limit hardcover and retaining nails apply to all lakeshore properties.
The characteristics of this site are not unusual and do not support granting of the variances
for the nails on the lake side ofthe road, but may support approval of a nail on the house
side of the road.
10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant."
The applicant does not have an inherent right to construct retaining nails where they are
not ne^ed to support steep slopes.
11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort,
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the ^ning Code.”
The granting ofa variance to allow nails on the lake side of the road would be contrary to
the intent of the zoning code and the Comprehensive Plan.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty."
A xariance to allow the retaining walls on the lake side of the road would serve only as a
convenience to the applicant and are not supported by hardship. On the house side of the
road, a low retaining nail may be needed to retain the slope but should not be allowed to
create new hardsurfaced parking area.
Issues for Consideration
1. Is there any reasonable hardship that justifies the extent of w'alls proposed on the lake side
of the road?
2. Appl icant should address whether he has considered i f the slope on the house side of the road
can be dealt with by re-grading rather than construction of a wall.
3. If the wall on the house side of the road is approved, should it be screened? The proposed
height is unknown, hence a design for such wall might be useful if it is approved...
4. Applicant’s plans are minimal at best, and any recommendation for approval of ports of
this request should be subject to submittal of detailed plans...
5. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application?
Im
M3-2ftC
Plfii
Stair R m dattoi
St.ff.««»»^tto<totodaig.dd,Ub,p,,,vartbythe«pplic»tro^
!Lli2^**®*^'^“““'?*™*^®^''* *'”•*• “''•>“ *»<l>»*Pptoved,ilihouM be loci-S
'“* ??* "*l“"®f‘**y. “x* ecieened with vegetalioa to lolteii iu visual irapaci
1^ .he lake. The «ea bebeeo. .he waU and U k road should ri^paved. gruveled
allowod .0 becoraeapaikuigaiea. except foray gravel shoulderadjaceni M rte Ncislingpavemenl.
Propotcd MotkM
/4
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S250.00
($50.00 per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORhUTION
Site Address_______
Application i
Date Recdved~57ffi[0j’
Amonnt Paid
Property Identification Number (P.C1>.)_< *7 - in - - P'S. - oo I»-
Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey.
Date Pronerty Acquired_____4
I (do) OormO also own the adjacent parcels of land. ^
_(monlh'ycar)
Present use of property: X residential ___mother (specify).
Zoning District: I _________'
APPLICANT
Name cVNCtrA <^-e r
Address:
OWNER (if different than applicant)
Name________ __________ ______
City:.
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_fal2 - gl^O
__Zip: rga.*i I
Address:
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
City..
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated ConslnicUon Cost S______________
Describe request in detail: ^ l
P.rr>t.^A~rc^ii-*tiTp i SteOS t^cuIt/M-. Aotjto V> l/ilt e -C^r
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
Lot Area _
Setback:
___Lot Width
Front Side
Hardcover ____^Lot Coverage
_ Rear __ Average Lakeshore
Other (specify)
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing,
compliance wlh Zoning Code requirements: , _______________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
c
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
/j^ ---- Completed Application Fonn
Govt Cente?."348-5910). ^ ^ Hennepin County Department of Finance. A.603,
® include h.«icovc,
reproduction. i’™”'*' *>“ O “P^ »i'." x ir for
property. This would include nameTs^ of «n r interest in the
7. _ As an addendum to this a^fcaZ^ T r
you wish notified of this Kil ® *'*^^*"
8. ---- Aduiticna* r»c*ns as ,r ?y be requested by City staff.
The Applicant and Property Owner must sien this anniirat.^,, m
iarldBU pppIiMtlM I, BP, cpmniftc if th e nb ove ““
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
AdroWstraror!ayetV^nddi^ requested by the Zoning
consultant e.xpcnscs irrfbrrcd fnl\ review of this anniv t* °^Smal fee payment) and/or
supplied is true and^oW^^ of his/her faiowfcdge **ic information
Applie«.f. Sign,t;;;?||gj(||^
:SieLrrifpS“£EH
Bkb.nl MaColWIc Robert*
m Xm. mftK
back .njoyrnwi o. —-
bee. dltlc.M Ihw pMt » w.
\V. have jcvcral family roemben ^ and l» »"»“' *» *"
visit* .1. .:.!» nf Va#crncs9
,<xoo 06
HARDCO]OnnKALCULA‘
SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE a\E) (>75* 7 75.;
pimyrron hardcover in zone
TION WORKSHEET
75-250*250-500*
A. House
B. Gofife
C Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E Pado^k
F. Landscape
Underlain
By Plasdc
J90
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
- 1*10 • B __
_____________ B
X 100
X 100
PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE
A. House
Width
B. Garage
Driveway
D. Sidewalk
E Patio/Deck
F. Landscape
Uoderlaio
By Plastic
A
G. Other
TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE
TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE
no * B
SO'i-1000*
SF.
S.r.
SE
JSgjjJtfO- S F.
__________SE 'T
S.F.
SE.
SI.
SI.
•70*S.F.
SF.
SI.
ml.
S^v?S
_SF.
____. S F.
%
__________%
SI.
SF.
SJ.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
b
1
AkMiai
mm
•l‘
i -.«
U
■iM^
piirt--**‘
.... ,..^-•» nr» . * ■
V*'- ••*•
. •• ”',«-" <
M- MM^ W$
■ 'y>.. * -v. ^
-ymmm
•' <^f k'..-’"---'" .'CvU'-i^?v:^.:-
• ■' ■ ^ • ^^v■ *f.*%* •*•■>•yv.
‘>v«
- **• ’ '
'V;r . .
fcfM .i=%: j il
;
, i - '■
^ .1
•r-*
V-
...
'^- p;
piiSx-' ■■|•'^-•«#
•V-
Jk ,".<•. \^^^.:^.^-: \ .;.
:^:-v
^c' \ •>.^^ ; r,;.'
/• iV>'-’.'*'’i'l%in.;ViA''.!
.11#.
■ -:x". •• •■' ■ ■■■ " -.•■ • ■-
. V-.-
F
GITY<rf ORONO
Mairfd^ Offices
StMtAMrm
2750 Mey Pmnf
Onm, MN S53S6
IWtalMirtst:
PA taK
Cn«t»l In. m SS323A05<
April 15.2003
Richards Roberts
1937 Fagemeas Point Rd.
Orono.MNS5391
RE: Retaining Walls and Fill
Dear Mr. Roberts,
The City has reviewed your aflcr-the-fact Building Permit application for retaining walls and fill
Unfortunately Orono Municipal Code does not allow fill an^or retaining walls within 75’ of the
lake.
Therefore The City must deny your permit application and require removal of the walls and fill
already in place. If you feci you have a hardship you may apply for a variance. A deadline of
May 5,2003 has been established for removal or variance application submittal. If you ha\ c any
questions please feel free to contact me at my office.
Sincerely,
Lyle Oman
Building Official
LO^dml
Enclosure
1UfphOM(«S2)24M«» • flufISDaiMiii
www^LeraMJHMM
Froai
Date I
Mayor Peterson t Orono Council Members
John R. Gerhardson, Acting City Administrator
Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planning « Zoning Administrator
August 5f 1991
Subjects 11662 Richard 6 Collette Roberts, 1937 Fagerncss Pt Rd
Variance - Resolution
toning District - LR-lC, % acre, sewered
Application - Request for lot area and lot width variances to
construct a new residence. Lot area is .39 acre or 78% of
the required 1/2 acre. Lot width is 74' or 74% of the required 100'.
List of Exhibits -
A - Resolution
B - Revised Rouse Location and Hardcover Calculations
C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 7/15/91
D - Memo & Exhibits of 7/9/91
Discussion -
Please review the memo and exhibits of July 9th. Briefly,
the applicants wish to remove the existing house and cabin on the property, and construct a new home.
The original request showed a 50' street setback, with 2^,4%
hardcover in the 75-250* zone. Applicants were advised that only
a 30' front setback is required, and Planning Commission also
indicated to applicants that they would have a hard time granting
a hardcover variance. Applicants have revised their plans to
move the house forward to the 30* setback and have therefore been
able to reduce proposed hardcover to 24.6% in the 75-250* zone.
Planning Coasd-ssion Reccansendation -
At their July 15th meeting^ Planning Commission voted 7-0 to
recommend approval of the lot width and lot area variances
subject to limiting 75-250* hardcover to 25.0% so that no
hardcover variance is necessary.
Justification for the lot width and lot area variances is
that this lot was platted prior to the current half acre/100*
area and width requirements, and that a residence currently
exists on the property.
For the record, lot coverage will be approximately 11% under
the current proposal and there is no problem with average
lakeshore setback. Applicants have been advised that removal of fj
plastic sheeting underneath the volleyball court in the 0-75*
zone and replacement with top soil and sod to make that a non-
hardcovered yard area, will not require any additional approvals.
Staff Rernundation -
Staff recommends approval per the Planning Commission
recommendation. A resolution is attached for Council review.
S'-C>
GITYofORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CIT / COUNCIL
NO. 3001________
area of 0.39 acre is large enough that a
associated sidewalks and
driveways can be constructed without the need for lot
hardcover variances. The appll?J„\^^
thi 75 Jsn? ■ 2.4% hardcover viVl.nc. In
no luBtlflc.r'Jon' Plahnlng Commission findsjustification for granting a hardcover variance.
accommodate a slnol.
Jl%\“.’Ltbrci^j:^„^r"4\'’„r tl a
4. The applicants have revised their Initial proDosal to
re commend?! tf on, and
mSoMno th» iS? residence nearer the road but still
fooVToB^ o% street setback, reducing the square
footage of hardcover In the driveway and therefore
®lioiinatlng the need for a hardcover variance.
lAeludl^o^ *'*/ considered this application
Comm4^«??«n^ findings and reconunendations of the Planning
staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the variances on the health
safety and welfare of the community. health,
6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on
this property are peculiar to it and do not apply ^e?ailC
to other property In this zoning dlstricti that grantin? th^
Haht"".*!™ ti.f f ic Vondltfo«?® hazard or other danger to
neighboring propertyi world not merely serve^ as a
convenience to the applicants, but Is necessary tS
alleviate a demonstrable hardship or dlfficultyi is
preserve a substantial property right of thJ
applicants} and would be in keeping with the solriti and
Clty”^ Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the
COMCLDSIOIIS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the findings noted above t-ha
Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Miin4r«4n«i v* »
C«l. section 10.25, SubdltllloS 6 T b ) to thi oiP„Vt,S?j}S2
r.sldenc. on a lot c'Tai act. srT^S' lo?
Width where lot area normally required Is 0.50 acre and *i nt w4d?h
normally ,.,ulr«l 1. 100-. sjbje'^t to thV fo!l^lnVcondUlonsI^
Page 2 of 4
GlTYof ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 3001________
\t I
1. Hardcover in the 75-250* zone shall not exceed the
normal 25% limit. In the 0-75* zone, applicants shall
remove all plastic sheeting hardcover placed by a previous
occupant of the property, however, the existing retaining
walls in the 0-75* zone may remain in place. No further
is required for plastic removal and replacement
topsoil and sod in the 0-75* zone.
pproval
ith tops*
2. No other variances are granted with this approval.
3. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the
property not with the applicants, but are permissive only
and must be exercised by application for a building permit
within one year of the date of Council approval, or this
variance will expire on that date (August 12, 1992).
4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and
conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of
the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority
granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and
hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf
of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby
agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of
title of the property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono,
Hinnesota at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of August,
1991.
GITYof ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 3001
STATE OP MINNESOTA )
) SB.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on
August, 1991, by Barbara A. Peterson s Dorothy
M. Hallin, Mayor s city Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of
USDA S. VEE
NOTAMV MSUC • MWNCSOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
My MHMtMkn MpkW •'(Mi
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
y/. C/jLJL.
Public
ss.
On this
before me
appeared
day of
thin an3
erH.
^______________, 199_/.
d county, personally
a^ipeaxrea t\tt^e^r€L /\ca&rr^. nujn^r'_________________
known to me to be the person I si dbtrcribed in and who executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed
the same as his (their) free act and deed.
UHUA S. VEE NOTAAv neuc • utNutsorA HENNEPIN COUNTY W, OBiwialiilon npmt A-tMl
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)S8.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this
before me a
appeared
known to ne
Notary Public
________ . . of /fU4ur^
Notary Public within ^ad fof said
toboiuJe dec
199 /
7 L ~r~ .------county, personally
i)b<er^. )o>n¥‘
escribtfdMn and ~person(sj describSdKin and who executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed
the same as his (their) free act and deed.
m' L ' ; 7 J
USDA S. VEE 1 NOTAftv AU0UC . Minnesota
1 , HENNEPIN COUNTY NotSry ^blic
Page 4 of 4
/I
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED
accretions tosaid lot described as follow: Commencing at
extension Southeasterly Southwesterly line of Lot 19, Eagerness^
Southerly line of Under the Linden Avenue
Southe?l!”2i'rf ® judicial landmark; thence*,o? 15 East a distanceof 53.45 feet to a point marked by a judicial
landmark; thence continuing Southerly 2i decrees
east a distance of 11 feet, more or fIss
Hinnetonka; thence Southwesterly
J Minnetonka to its Intersection
**"® Eot 20, extended^^^® M*””etonka; thence Northwester Iy Southwesterly line of said Lot 20. extended to the Southerly line of Under the Linden Avenue-
Avenll along the Southerly line of'sald
2^ beginning, according to the plat
^i‘® *'«cord in the office of theCounty Recorder in and for said County.
■ ■ lllllf ■■'I II ■ ■ >
Dale ApplicalioB Rcccitcd: 5-2l'03
Date Application Contiderrd a« Complete: 5-22>03
M-Day Review Period Etpirea: 7-21-03
Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorsc, City Administrator
From:
Dale:
Subject:
Mike GafTron. Planning Director
June 12.2003
W03-2907 Jeff & Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive - Variances
• Public Hearing
Zoning District:
l.ot Area:
LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1-acrc min.
0.18 acre (7.946 s.f.)
Application Summary': Applicant requests a number of variances to constmet a second story
addition and attached garage to the c.xisiing residence. 1 he variances include:
1. Additional structure within a bluff impact rone.
Second story structure encroaching w ithin 0-75' setback rone, 65* from shoreline.
Second story structure ctKroaching4.3 feet from IcA side lot line.
Second story structure encroaching 2.4 feet from right side lot line.
.\ttached garage addition and grading 4.0 feet from IcR side lot line.
Continue existing deck in 0-75* 7onc (42 ‘ from shoreline) slightly smaller (dimensions not
defined by applicant) but probably still encroaching average setback line
Encroaclunent w ithin 10’ of City sew er line (City w ill not vary from tlic 10' requirement).
Lot coverage by structures to remain at existing 1870 s.f. (23.5^o) where 1500 s.f. is
allowed.
Hardcover in 0-75' reductions proposed from 1058 s.f.(29.4%) to 806 sf (22.4?e) where
no hardcover is allowed, by reducing deck and concrete slab areas.
Hardcover in 75-250' zone w ill be reduced from 2257 sf(51.9?i) to 1879 sf(43.2%).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends:
a) Denial of the side setback variances for the garage, as it can be shiAed to meet a 10' setback
w ith so-^c interior design changes.
b) Denial of the second storx' additions w ithin the side setbacks, because they w ill tend to
overshadow adjoining properties, lead to issues over future maintenance, and w ill probably not
be able to have w indows on the sides due to building code restrictions based on the
substandard setbacks.
c) Denial of garage less than 10’ from sew er line. The required set 10' setback will result in a
garage only 14' deep . i.e. non-functional.
d) The application should be tabled to allow applicants to re-design.
List of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Hardship Statement & Addenda
C - Existing & Prop««'*d Survey'Site Plan
D - Proposed Plans J. Elevations
E • Submitted Hardcover Calculations
F • Letters from Neighboring Owners
G • Property Ow ners List
H -Plat map
I- fko*»
L^.__
r
•03-29t7
Jane 12.2003
Pafc2
Backgrovod
Applic»nts puiclu^ (his property in May 2003 and requca a number of variances to constroct a
a second story addition and an attached garage. The lot is very small at just under 8,000 s.f. Lot
rorenge by slnicl^ i, om the 1500 tf limit, and applicants apparently will slightly reduce this
by reducing decks by 1 20 sf. while the attached garage will be about the same size as the detached
garage it replaces.
The primary issues are:
a) The second story addition is partly in the 0-75' zone, and adds additional bulk of structure
nearer the lake than normally allowed.
b) The 8<xond story addition is proposed to continue the existing extremely substandard side
1!*^' u setbacks are so
iTlhS^tide wa\u window's can be allowed
c) The attMh^ g^ge is proposed to be 4* from the side lot line and extend an already
substandard setback an additional 20’ for a total substandard setback extent of 55* on the
northwest boundary.
Dmiimge is • serious concern, ns all overland drainage &om the rear half of this site nows
toward the neighbor to the north...
Hardcover on Uie property is very ex^ive and the proposed revisions w ill result in minor
reductions while yielding what will be a substantially new house
The existing City sewer is shown on the survey as 4' from the proposed garage. The City
normally requrres an easement area Iff either side of sewer lines. WTiethcr or not a formal
casement c.xists for this line, the City will not allow structure to encroach within 10* of the
sewer, leaving the proposed garage too short to be functional.
g) There is no permit of record for the deck on the lake side of the house. The assessors records
tndteate rt appeared tn the mid-l98ffs. This may be a non-issue if it remains as-is, but if it
IS removed or replace it should be brought into greater conformity...
d)
e)
0
Both adjacent neighbors have written letters in opposition to the variances.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot ArcaA\Tdi^:
LRIB Lot Area Lot Width
Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre)140*
Actual 7,946 s.f. (0.18 acre)50* (shoreline)
45* (75* setback)
r
003-2907
JMM12.200J
PifcS .
Sfctbitkii
LR-IB Rcqaired Eibtiog Proposed
Front NA NA NA
Rear (Street)30*75*55*
UftSide(NW)10*4.3* (ombang ai 1*)4.0* VAR
Right Side 10*2.4*2.4* VAR
Lakeshore 75*House: 65*
Deck: 42*
House: 65* VAR
Deck: 42*??? VAR
Average Lakeshore (No Encroachmrnl
Allowed)
House: No Encr.
Deck: 20*1
House: No Encr.
Deck: ???? VAR
StnictTal Coverayg!
Total Lot Area Total Stmclural Coverage
7.946 s.f.Allowed: 1500 s.f.
Existing: 1870 s.f.
Proposed: ? 1750sf?VAR
Hardcover C«I c »I«H<hh :
Note that calculations submitted by applicant do not use zone areas as denominator; as a result
the percentages shown on the sun cy and discussed by applicant are incorrect. The numbers in
the table below are believed to be reflective of what is actually proposed.
Hardcover
Zone
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
0-75*3.600 s.f.Os.f.
(0%)
1,058 s.f
(29.4 %)
806 s.f
(22.4 %) VAR
75-250*4.346 s.f.1,087 s.f.
(25%)
2,257 s.f
(51.9%)
1,879 s.f
(43.2 %) VAR
Total lot hardiurface proposed » 2,685 s.f. - 33.8 % of entire lot
Total lot hardiurface as a percent of 75-250* zone ■> 2.685/4.346 • 62%
Hardship Statement
Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibits A and B. and should be asked for
their additional tKtimony regarding the application.
«03-2907
Junt12,2003
Pa|e4
Hardship Analytb
Im^itrlmg ypjk^em$/or rtriamce, tk, tUnmirng CcmmhshH ihttt cpmiUtr the tffea c/tkepropaui
Ihisapplka? ^ recommendations in regards lo the criteria for 'undue hardship"
I. I^e pn^y in question cannot be put lo a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed
by ihc official controls ”
W xvriances H ill be necessary lo make changes to thepropertv. hon c, .-r it is currently
being used for a reasonable use and can continue to be used in that manner nithout
variances.
^ ihc^uSdijIliiCT Circumstances unique to his properly not created by
The plight of the landowner is self created in that the landowner is proposing to make
changes to the property knowing full Hell in adx-ance the limitations of the property
3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality ”
The lot at such a small size is an anomaly in the neighborhood and the granting of the
requested variances on it may tend to increase visual density and structure massing in the
neighborhooil. and reduce light air and open space which adjoining lots property maintain
4. -Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for
the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapler.*’
Applicantshaxenotsuggestedthisproposalisforeconomicgain A neighboring property
owner has suggested this may be a spec house.. J
5. -Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy s>^tems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined
in Minnesota Statutes. Section I I6J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter "
S. ••The Bowd of Appals md Adjustments or the Couiteil may not pemiit as a variance any use
blot Applicable
(blot Applicable)
8.“The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property Or imniediately adjoining property.**
The zoning codes which limit hardcover dk structural coxxrage and require minimum
setbacks apply equally to all nearby lakeshore properties
“The conditions do not apply generally to other land or struct’ircs in the district in which said
land is located.”
The code applies to all similarly situated lakeshore properties in the LR-IB zone.
“The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.**
The applicant does not have an inherent right to increase the degree of nonconformity of
an existing nonconforming structure, but has a right to maintain it as is..
11.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort,
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.*'
Granting of the variances uill potentially be contrary to the intent of the zoning code by
increasing the nonconformity of an existing nonconforming structure and adding to visual
density while reducing light air and open space in the neighborhood It also has potential
to have negatlw drainage impacts on neighboring properties absent a plan to deal with
drainage vithin the property boundaries.
“The granting of such variance w ill not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty."
Planning Commission miut determine w hether sufficient hardship has been demonstrated
to allow one or more of the variances to be granted.
luues for Coasidcratioo
1.The lot is extremely substandard and is smaller than all other lots in the immediate
neighborhood (sec plat map).
Addition of second story* at the existing side setbacks has a number of negative impacts and
potential consequences.
Arc the proposed reductions in structure and hardcover acceptable given the extremely
limited lot size? As a guide, note that as a percentage of the 75-250* zone, hardcover is
proposed at 62%... this is far beyond the 40-50% that is common for rebuilds on properties
this size...
4.
5.
The garage must be no less than 10 ’ from the existing City sewer.
Drainage is a severe problem on this site that needs to be addressed in deatil if the project
moves forward.
6. Does Plamung Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application?
tm-tm
hftC .
Stair Rccmnocadalioa
- acccplable lakethore and side setbacks for second sloiy and garage additions
* ^ *0 Pro'''<>c drainage plans that eliminate inquets to neighboring properties
- the need to maintain 10* separation to City sewer
Proposed Moiioa
Table to allow applicanU to revise their plans.
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION
Initial Application Fee S250.00
(S50.00 per each additional variance)
Rental Variance Fee SI50.00
(no change bom original application)
Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
if «y-
Date Propc^i/cquired------VK—* V r u~---------------------------
I (do) /donotjalso own the ^Jacent parccB of lai
Presenlinff^propery-^Li^ -----^
Zoning n;«trirf ---------
Application
Date Received I - 03 t
Amount Paid P>QO.OOfA
of land.
_other (specify).
__^(month/>'car)
Phone fHnmff)
- - Phone (workl ^ ^
\ i'-'f Ciiy.'WM>fltwi\a.----Zip;_SCfcy.
i.Cv>. Zieto/Vt^.
0^^'NER (if different than applicant)
Name
Address:.City..
Phone (home).
Phone (work)_
description of request
Describe request in detail:
Estimated Construction Cost S.
VARIANCES REQUIRED
___Lot Area
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
Lot Width Hardcover _Lot Coverage
a Setback:Jt, Front JLSide __Rear __ Average Ukeshore
Other (specify)
compliance with Zoning Code requirements;----P-fT.Vl^aVU’rV*'---------------------------
(attach additional sheets if nyaw)
r
required submittals
1.
2.
5.
6.
7.
8.
»wt..»
City of Orono - Variance ApplicaHon
720 North Arm Drive
JelTaod Cara Ziebarth owners and applicants
May 21,2003
L.._
Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Condilions
We are requesting variances of the setback requirements for the side-yard, front-yard
(lakeside), and the hardcover ordinance for the property.
Exbting Conditioiis
The existing lot is SO feet wide at the lakcfront and 40 feet wide at the rear and
approximately 180 feet deep (approximately .18 acres), suggesting this is an unusually
narrow lot (less thu the minimum for LR-IB Lakeshore Zoning of one acre). The
existing home was constructed in violation of the current side-yard and lakeside setbacks.
The existing property also has a garage that was also constructed in violation of front-
yard (roadside) setback and in 1993 was granted a variance to reconstruct a new garage
on the existing foundation. The current hardcover is also in violation of the required
hardcover percentages. This hard cover violation also received a variance in 1993 when
the existing garage was rebuilt. The current conditions of the house and lot size will not
allow a one level expansion of the home to be in compliance with hardcover
requirements. The current conditions of the house and lot will allow minimal expansion
of a second story to fall within setback requiremeols (this would allow an approximate
addition of 600 square feet including a stairway rendering less than 500 usable square
footage).
Proposed Changes
We are proposing a second story addition to the existing home structure, to increase the
livable square footage of the home by approximately 1300 square fccL The following
summarizes the proposed property change details.
a Remove the existing two-stall garage structure (currently in violation of
roadside setback)
♦ Removal of the existing concrete apron in front of the existing garage
♦ Remove existing sidewalk leading to the house from the garage
♦ Reduce the amount of driveway cunently on the property, while still
maintaining a shared driveway access for the nei^bor to the north
♦ Construct a new attached two-stall garage (with living space above)
♦ Removal of the c.xisting roof and porch (structural coverage) on the w est
portion of the existing home (approximately 90 square feet)
♦ Reduction of the existing deck size on the lakeside of the home by 25%
♦ Addition of new walkway from new garage to the new front entry
♦ Proposed New 1 lome - 2400 square feet above grade and 800 square feet
finished walkout basement area
Additional Information
We will have a completed survey for review by the Planning Commission Meeting date
of June 16.2003. This survey wilt document cunent and proposed hardcover and
itnicture properly line setbacks. We will also provide descri^on of existing foundation
conditions. . • •• ^
O
-lie of fly «-■
05
=14:
CHy or Omo - VariMcc ApplicatiMi
710 North Am Drive
Jeff ood Chra Zieborth owoers ood appUcaots
May 21.2003
DcacriptioB of Reqacat
We are lequestijig ^ foliowipg variances;
♦ Side-yard setback wiU be less than the required 10 feet The currertl^
in violaition of this sedwck reqdreinenL Our proposed second floor addition
vwll maintain the footprint of the existing home. Surveyor will provide exact
property line setback proposed.
♦ LAesides^1c»iUbel«lhuitkeit<|uirad75feet The cioint borne is in
vtoUtiMorUusseibockmiuitmeiit Our proposed second Hoot eddilionwiU
maintain the foocpruitofthe existing home. Surveyor will provide exact
property line setback proposed.
♦ CMBinoaUkeshore setback wiU be rnaintained. It is our believe the current
home falls in line with this setback. Surveyor wUI provide exact property line
setback proposed.
♦ Hardcover Ordnance cannot rneet the suggested aUowable percentages. The
exjstiQg coodirions of the property are in violation of both the 75-foot zone
and the 250-foot zone. We are proposing a reduction in the hardcover in the
250-foot^ with our additioa and garage repUcememprojc^ Surveyor
will provide exact hardcover calculations for the proposed changes.
Estinaied Constnetion Cost; S 135,000
•6-2.
city oT Of^o - Varteace Applicatioa (AdditioBal bforaadoB Rcoacsicd)
720 North Ana Drive
Jeff aad Cara Ziebarth owaert aad applkaats
JiMe2.2003
Addlli—I lafcfarteo at ytt mharitted:
Samoy with Hardcover CakolatiMt
Attached you win find a signed survey from OaoAsiodites of Buffalo. Inaddid. -----------g---------- WWW ruwMxatss VI uuiiwo. in ■Dgmod to the surv^
■M proposed hadcom calnilatiofis. the following will also be incorporated into the proposed
new cooanictioa aad property. These changes have not been included in the attached survey and
calculations.
0-7SFoMZoae
Exirting Concrete of79.23 S F. is proposed to be reduced to 50 S.F. with the new coostnictioa.
Existing Deck of422.67 S.F. will be reduced to 300 S.F. with the new construction.
Total Hardcover Area will be 906.53 S.F. or 11.4 % vs. the 1058.43 S.F. or 13.3 % a reduction of
15%ofhardcovermthe0-75 Fool Zone.
7S-250 Foot ZoM
Existing concrete of 137.56 S F. proposed to remain will in fact be removed.
Total Hardcover Area will be reduced from the proposed 2016.96 S.F. to 1879.4 S.F.. This will
reduce percentage hardcover proposed from 25.4% to 23.6% compared lo the existine hardcover
of 28.4 V • reduction of 17%.
Eilsriag Fovadniioa Ceaditloa and laspcction
The City of Orono Building Inspector has observed the condition of the existing foundation. The
current foundrtkn of the existing hmse is 12" concrete block with concrete footings at frost
depth on the walkout side of the existing house and condnaoua iuiderih«» coAff rte Mock
foundation and basement slkb on the non-walkout portion of the basement. These Ibotiogs appear
lo be 24" in depth and assumed to be centered unda the block foundation walls.
^'2907
^3
«••• ••
^0%
X
c-zn\
LOT AREA to (
o
-o«f—
-5S-------
-----9$B----
jr 938 JJ
denotes Power
denotes Overhe
denotes Sanitar
denotes Existim
denotes Spot t
Existing Hard Cover Catulations
0-75 Foot Zone
Existing Houses 400.31 S.F.
Existing Deck« 422.67 S.F.
Existing Steps^ 156.22 S.F.
Existing Concrete, o 79.23 S.F.
Totals 1058.43 S.F. 13.3X
Existing Hard Cover Calulations
75-250 Foot Zone
Existing Houses 626.^3 SF.
Existing Carage» 419.61 SF.
Existing Gravel Driveway" 90.88 S.F.
Existing Bit. Driveway" 642.16 SF.
Existing Cone. Sidewalk" 462.00 SF.
Existing Retaining Wall" 16.07 S.F.
Total" 2257.10 SF. 28.4X
Legal Description of Record:
That part of Lot 3. AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NUMBEf
Minnesota, lying Northerly of a straight line drc*n
Northeasterly to the waterline, 1 point behg in tht
fwmt ikim the moet-JEf*
» * .
"T V •» ••
• IS.a.
< • 49** \
• • •
rt1 ■1^
SB
(lllllllll
! i-i —\ 1 . ■
'1
^■j*
\*
#2907
Ziebarth Residence
720 North Arm Drive
Orono Minnesota
~iS3ssx2:SOtst6^Tjaf^'
*•
#2907
Ziebarth Residence
720 North Arm Drive
Orono Minnetott
• f
.*•
D'5
#2907
Ziebarth Residence
720 North Arm Drive
Jjiljjjfi Orono Minnesota
#2907
Ziebarth Residence
720 North Arn Drive
Orono Minnesota
o
—43H£—
- as——
--------988-
X 988 JJ
denotes Power Pole
denotes Overheod Electric
denotes Sanitary Sewer line
denotes iMistina Contours
denotes Spot uevations
Existing Hard Cover Cafuiations
______0-^75 Foot Zone ________
Enisting Houses 400.31 S.E.
Existing Deckm 422.67 S.F.
Existing Steps- 156.22 S.F.
Existing Concrete.-79.23 S.F.
Total- 1058.43 8F. 13.3X
Proposed Hard Cover Caiuiations
________0-75 Foot Zone _________
Existing House- 400.31 SF.
Existing Deck- 422.67 S.F.
Existing Steps- 156.22 S.F.
Existing Concrete.-79.23 S.F.
Total- 1053.43 SF. 1S3X
Existing Hard Cover Caiuiations
______75—250 Foot Zone ______
Existing House- 626.38 SF.
Existing Garage- 419.61 SF,
Existing Gravel Driveway- 90.88 S.F.
Existing Bit. Driveway- 642.16 SF.
Existing Cone. Sidewalk- 462.00 SF,
Existing Retaining Wall- 16.07 SF.
Total- 2257.10 SF. 28 4X ^’nRxf'
uc?r
Proposed Hard Cover Caiuiations
_______75-250 Foot Zone ______
Proposed Garage- 428.00 SF.
Proposed Driveway- 699.54 S.F.
Proposfid Sidewalk- 109.41 SF.
Existing Cone.- 137.56 SF.
Existing House- 626.38 SF.
Existing Retaining Wall- 16.07 SF.
Total- 2016.96 S.F. 25.4X
Legal Description of Record:
That port of Lot 3. AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NUMBER 362. Hennepin County.
Minnesota, tying Northerly of a straight One drawn through 2 points, extending
Northeasterly to the waterline. 1 point being In the Southwesterly line of said Lot 3, 40.00
feet Southerly, along said One, from the most Westerly comer of said Lot. the other point
being 50.00 feet distant at right angles Southeasterly from the Northwesterly One of sold
Lot. measured from a point in the Northwesterly line of said Lot distant 172.60 feet
Northwesterly measured along said line from the most Westerly egrner of said Lot,
according to the plot thereof on file or of record In the office of the Registrar of Titles.
Hennepin County, Minnesota.
'S.., certify that this survey.
W»bSlt8:Revised:
r N
HartvOfiflM
Mr. MIehMiP.OMhan
tit prapOMd 720 N. Aim Or cfiOTQM-* Numb« 03-2007
Omt Mlohtil ltd tm otwr ptminino ooortfntlori.
Mnotlominol iwInptraonontitfoftMlnoMondtyfbrttitnittling, I wtnltd lo voiot tomt oonotma I titvt in tht
chtnttA Whit otrtiin varitnoM can bt eompremlMd. mtlor ontt am Ugotr eonotnit
For WMlt. I hovt found out tom my ntighbor on ttit otiar aida «tial II tttmt to bt tncraachmtm tvtn doatr 10 my
praparty iia. Tha NW oomar la abaody only 5 foal from my Ina. and Hit 8E oomar la 4.3 foal from my Hna. Tha
pfOpoaodohonga«iMhtiaaltooliad0va9aaMbaavaneloaarai4faoi With Ilia liaioM of thanawprapoaodolniclum.
MaeouM ba a nagaHva to Oia vahia of my pfopaity and Ow privacy I movad ham to hava. I afro undaroland twt
fioniMiy. eoda iHo foal . I am not turn aM Ma . but I know you would ba.
I am afro not aumwhalwMbaooma of ttwirdrivaaoy plana, aa foamy prapariyNnahaaalwayainGludadaomaoffoa
drivaway tor fooir houaa.
MyMOOE8Toonoam.hoaavar.iafoadrainaoailluodon. andadialamuldhappanvriianfoanMrprepoaadoamoa
would mova to baliitM focha il to foak houaa. poaa dilydraininoavan mom wator my way wWiWtohaideovarbolng
am afro <lamofroooncamadfoanawlandaoapingwould cmalaaua nmomwatorcomlnomyway.andfolawouldba
a mplor wony t fooy olopad fooir land aaay from fooir houaa. but draining toaoid mina.
I hava afro moolvod hinia foal foay wM not ba movino in ham . but am doing I
piaoalollvaterfoa ma alvaa.butforfoalnv a abnanti^ii«uldmap.
tchangaanolwifo foa Moa of a ballar
I am tha homo ownor at 700 North Ann Or. and houalvad ham ainea January. 1087. I hopa you can undaraland my
I oonlaci ma tf I naad any ofoar avidanoa of my oonoam , or if I can coma In pamon aoma ofoar tima.
Monyfoonka.
OmgoiyM.Horty
052-472-4061 Homo or I 1-860-371-2501
L J
Judc9.2003
^ • I
Michael P. Gaflioa and Planning Conunisaiooen
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono.MN 53356
• v#»* ^ .
1 rtopped into the City ofHoes this monitag to review the plans and variances of 720
Noflh Aim Dr. (#03-2907). I own the properly to the southeast (710 North Arm Dr.). I
was surprised to find that the house's current cement patio is 1.3 feet on my property and
the deck is 2.1 feet on my property.
My wife and I are concerned that the proposed addition of a two story walk out only
2.4 feet from our properly line is way too close, not including any eaves or overhangs that
the house may have. Building up frm the current location is crowding the lot lines and
we definitely don't want to see this happen. Also, there would be no way to go from the
front yard to the beck yard without going through the house or our yard.
There also seems to be no effort to reduce the amount of bard cover.
I have not been able to identify any hardship. The current owners bought the property as
aninvestmerntofixupandresell. Any variances and plans should have been approved
before the property was purchased. Laws of building and zoning are established for a
reason. I can see approval for minor deviations from the rules but the ones requested here
seem very excessive.
My wife aixl I had applied for variances when building our home only to have our plans
turned down due to bluff set backs. We made compromises and resubmitted new plans to
satisfy the city planners.
Kirk and Sue Otteson
Cell (952)240-1630 Home 472-2341
F'Z
F^y
.. . Adjaceot Property Ovrnen* AckBowledgement Form
I (wt) /iicU^L tO. Dl
[print nanie(s)] [print address]
have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the properly located at
-_________________referred to as Land Use Application No.___________.
I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare
approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I
(we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use
requires Council q^roval.
tiTopcsraOwntf Date
Property Owner Date
[print name(s)]
of ~1 \D M frv\
[print address]
have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at
___________________*l»o referred to as Land Use Application No.________.
I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare
approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I
(we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbofs project or use
requires Council approval.
iSlf
raSpertyOwrw Date
5inlQ^
c-------* * ^Property Owner Date
If you hive my infonniUoii that miy auist the City in the review of this Lend Use
Aiiplicatioii, please submit your commeou to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior
to the scheduled meeting date.
#2907
RUNlMIliV ’HENNEPIN OOUWnr PHOPF INFORMATION SYSTEM
PROPERTY O^. JiLlSr
N MI172U3000)31 0611723430003 30 0611723430003
PROPAOm 405 NORTHARMDR PROPADOR 600 NORTH ARM DR PROPADOR 700 NORTH ARM DR
OWNeHNAMC LAXEVCWOOLPOFMTKAPC OWNER NAME DOUGLAS F WATSON OWNER NAME GREGORY M HARTY
TAXPAYER lAKBVCW OOLP OP MTKA me TAXPAYER DOUGLAS F WATSON TAXPAYER (HUBGORY M HARTY
NAMB/AOOR 155 RED OAK LA NAME/AOOR 600 NORTH ARM DR NAMPMODR 700 NORTH ARM DR
MOUNOMN 55M4 MOUNOMN 55364 MOUNOMN 55)64
M 0OII72MM0O4 30 0611723430005 30 0611723430006
PROPADOR 730 NORTH ARM DR PROPADOR TIO NORTH ARM DR PROPADOR 740 NORTH ARM OR
OWNER NAME J1LEBCH 4 V B LAB4EGCH OWNER NAME K A OTTESON 4 S K DKXIIAUSEN OWNER NAME E 0 EINAR HAGHERO
TAXPAYER J t LBBCH 4 V B LAB4£BCH TAXPAYER K A OTTESON 4 S K DICIUIAUSEN TAXPAYER EOHACOERG
NAMVAOCNl 7» NORTH ARM DR NAMC/ADOR 710 NORTH ARM DR NAME/AOOR T40NOARMDR
MOUNOMN 55M4 MOUNOMN 55364 MOUNOMN SS364
I (XmFY TKATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND
TRUE REPRESENTATION OP INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHS DATEONTIE RECORDS
OFTFC WNNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF.
dateS‘-^o^3 by
PAGE: I
OD
CQ
\<^
Hennopin County Taxpayer ^ryices^jpj^
06~ //*7- z^-(y^
/ • C^ji n 5
r • <1^ tr ---------------• »
K.-
Parcel lO 0«11723«39004iifW.'5ivi,',i
H omsc Hambar 7?0'•'
•tract Name NOIITH Aim
7hbkiKl»hg»^mooidtd0mp.Kmpi9 mnt»anwripmm^lnkimiien\l
tnddmkorn Cty. Obmw». mdSm»rotimMhortlin midatmtouicm^i^:
^ f
y
m^wI ■'■ ll c
'M
*
:....V-
=^S2i7S4Jiii
‘ < V
^.,.'V
•H
ii; ;•<■ ':• V. .
/v'.’--. Aif- 0 .■'
,'n —— •
p&’^: v-.,^",;.--;
^ES--v.K' 'ite''-'
Z--^-
M ^.r ■■ % .
. ^
m^m^z
~y.^c Ai^-' ij-''^
ISl
- -___> .ii-PgV!L
s^®s«sa
r i:\’:V> .v* •• V; -;: *v^vV->*:*?.
■;^’*/r 'X•^■* ''''r ' ;** • :V**’ •'♦ ■ ’“■^ •7 *'vf" ^
7j).0 A'.'f"! A"'
• H
v.os-.'tv' .vn:^ •''^-
I'*
•z5'
7U
i
fi
SSSB*P-V- \'V\
V-' \)T ..........
i iftsSilWlii
Kil-:; * :* .*
73 '••! a '\ '
• i# I
Lrv^N
m
mw
VV-
u.-vw-*:.,-.«>«,A i'. . ’ f ...•*“* •.* J. %••: ••'•Iv
“7j>^c A''If ^ b: '’■
U-
Jun 16 03 08x176 Uind«ood CondOBlnluas 612-841-2630 P- I
rUNUNCE A. HAGURG
748 NORTH ARM DRIVE
MOVND. MN SSM4
ORONOcmromcEs
rLANNING COMMB8ION
2798 KELLEY PARKWAY
OMmO, MM 98191
BtIRIICT:-TtiNvAAniRrlvt
havluf Hv«R 94 yMn 61748 Nwtfe Ml drivt M OVM wilR
«6ri66(M iMrZkMwRl 728 NdHk Am Rrivt;.
I 8t ••68,61 IMS
MMibjrKMoad
168 Mr pfvpfrUr I h6i 66 •MtctiM 61 IlMy
•r7l8N6ftll Am Drive
AtiktiiBMiri
iMr rtfecR i6 6 very I
II
imttkmnip yrnm
8«iK6rt668Ati
«gr hoMM 8681 Wirt 881
8681 •■ tht wM IM (728) dtM to Mr.
HMt 01666 W66to aHtW torn 16 P6t
•8at erilM tol to llM 6l8v witfi 66 tt6M
8yMr.W8ito»
il8*tolto86q8R. Wk«iKiri668AgoM
l8t lil dtotol to iMr Nirili, W8 wtfft I
8tm661886m111. ntiimwd
Mctlrit
vtr
rw868l
to86ti^
I AM OPPOSED TO GRAimNG ANY niRTHER VARIANCES ON THS PIECE OP
PROPERTY.
IMi
•r
866M rM66l6 61188 rwto it Ort66 Me 188 v«7 C8688to6ri to L6M6M to 66 6CI
tor Mtoimto wtotew 86c8 to tSeedriy IfiTt. Te erne t8t nwi^i tote t8e 6vw
I8e (tow if wator w888 m88 688 to estottoi W6ler preMwde 6618e let
668 1111616688
beat 8 8«i8648 to Raritor eacreaefe 8618c pnperiSr I
Th8t8e6M6tobei
TWakyed,
a.hhd'
IIAW
I*. 2003
l*/12.fJ«aM*iigllJrdipMoriaofti^^^^
At^nMma^ N»i|lrw» t<|>rJ» tImmMtu 4mltmi4
i9 WtdiiMilMw«MnitalO*MHMMiiAiMioriMrliM. WlHniiMt
«/to IJ9 a/a mMIw #JP#a/ar mib
mtan
fc—r^iyrry^i
■rf4a^-24JS &r.-30% of Min lot
r^Tf - 2Jr MM • M3SMS«f • JMt
in it «M lOJOO ■.£ or 27% Ivpr
Canty «M
ioion M aaii Mi*'^
ie(«rlHnoii
«(
1 m dM 10 iM n to *io
,niliiyniiinor*i
itSirt!oTn!rir^*i^
ifte M kon *• cMk nml oft
>Cornymirftnnin MtoonnMvini
I to *0 oMi* of Mn^ toiifc *0 iuorioto OBi atobnk mn (now Old
Wo iii ooi Itol it m np"ip»^ % ^ ^*P">"^***^
i4kt on. Ifte loiltoi bon tfw itoo M Int inakt *0 23% I
l3»tC I o#ito ontoi olbwiMo or 1007 o f.
mm
IJf 1^ ^rnmmt^kmmm^mmm^im
>M4rM9V¥
am0fmmimm/^i r<««i
r«il»ii^i
rfwrfawf iN
fW
vii
U»VII<WllBWl
^m-m
tfmf
UiwNM«.l
CommafiMM m
Flnnchtg
ornm n 1 Til ■,"OMBan Mac
UMvMm mm nm HaMtaaiiMr
DMaMm
fMkIln imam tMi i^SSgfiU^JLSSSi ____________
Mttan IMM MrM tssum.=;—S—mm b^%JBBLJBBSam ________C cm 9mm i
tamm Itara OmafPaH*c
ImomU I ~r • ~Pool
m
.MUPMMIUI
ssu itllMWl
IOOUMTV C0MU1C TAX RVORr
■» MO.»l0T«lMCaMin-«OVr«A.VOOIIOM0rS1HMLYTOMOSTWLVOOR
' 1M mr «• FT MONO 1M MLV UW OF OMD LOT IN NB.V TO UH« MjOHO A UNi
mOWMMIAOrOMWFTMlVAniTlimilWIOIITICIiMtVUIMOPOMDtOTATAFTOMin
IFT NB.V PNOM im MOOT mv000 nOOMF tH MMIV AMMO UM MOfie TO M
J 0IMBM A V ■ LMOOOCM. m NOOm MW 00 ONOMO MM I
JOIJHNA V01M040QN. TWMOMTNMW ON MOUND aWi
•14MII
CMET«GNn>/a
OMM/WM
ao
111
0/0
1
0
mmmn
m
UIJ
Ml ni ni
I 0 0
0 0
0
OMMOMONMMAOI
MWnmn Ml IM AOIMMN hi
■N WUMO «
p»
Pfo^rly iMfoniMliofi SMf«h R mu H
nm
mtmtmrnh fcsn
PltMl CMi tar TaxM Ptytbft 2003
caenHarnibrStmcmtfPnmttmoaTm
mSmS&Ji ^SCnStSSSSi^
m4^f
277
3
IPW: «
MKMBCBnmiS
ry***^ni(MTii ami dMw
I—
J f l£ECH « V C uyWfCH
J t UnCH a V C LM04EECH
730 NORTH MM OP
Moat CiiriMiC SalM Intarmattofi
iiaaoDo
Tas Parcal PMcrtatfo w
MJ0fmrtau«>.N0.3B
009
COM AT MOOT NLV OCR or LOT 3 TN OMLY
TO MOtT RLV OOR THBMOF TN KLV 40 rr
AiONO THE fRLV UNE or IMO LOT TN
Nav TO UMEINORE ALONO A LME
NMKlMilaa RwaNNR M4—wiiD—Misisssssscsr
VaHiaand Taa Symawiy tar Taaaa Payabla 2003
wmm
on.400
MM MM 1Mb e.TIB.40
Arcb. * (hJiMi
BifUdtble. tut»k
Vo *// se.fbicicr «
7«o d./.
71^
//. A^m PrlU
V\ A
\>
'Build Mbit.V ^ «// re.y^«Ucr «
(./.
\
k.'I ^
Prt» ApyMwIlM 5»2l-t3
DU AppMmi— Ctailiiwi M Ciaplrtr S-3«-i3
M-Day RtaiawPatM Cipira: 7.Z9-M
Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
nrom:
Date:
Sabjeet:
Mike Gaflron, Planning Piiector^^yj^^
June 11.2003
W)3’2908 Ned & Lonu Butterfield. 374S Watertown Road • Variances
- Public Hearing
ZoDlag District:
Lot Area:
RR-1A Single Family Rural Residential. S-acre min.
4.84 acres Hennepin County)
AppUauioH Smmmtuy: Applicant requests lot area and lot width variances to allow an existing
residence to be moved onto the property, which consists of 4.84 acres where S.O acres is required
and 185' in defined width where a lot width of300* is required.
Su^Mecommemdaihm: Staff recommends approval of the area and width variances, subject to
proof that a suitable septic system and alternate site can be provided for the proposed residence.
Pcrtlncat Code Sections:
1.10.27. Subd. SB: Minimum lot area required « S.O acres dry buildable.
Existing lot area: 4.M acres (per Henn. Co.)
Minimum lot width required 300*
Existing lot width (at 100' street setback) ■■ 18S*
List of Exhibits
A - Application & Hardship Statement
B - Survey w/proposed house location
C • City topography map
D - Existing Septic Layout
E - Photo of House to be Moved In
F • 1968 CUP for Commercial Greenhouse
G-CUP Resolution No. 1793
H- Property Owners List
1 - Plat map
3 - iirT fnmwi
Background
Applicants ’ home was destroyed by fire earlier this year, and applicants wish to replace it with an
existing home to be moved onto the property. The home that was destroyed was nonconforming in
location and the new reridrace is proposal to meet all required setbacks of the 5-acre zone.
This property had historically been the site of a mixed use: a residential homestead with a
commercial greenhouse operation involving a number of buildings. This use was issued a
*'Nonconforming Use CUP” in 1968. which was limited in scope in 1985 by conditions of a CUP
for an additional greenhouse. That 1985 CUP eliminated any retail sales of flowers from the
property.
x:.. .
M3-29M
JmcIMMS
-----------
In 1996 the greenhouses and auxUliary buildings were removed from the site, and in 1997 a land
alteration CUP was panted to allow up to 2,000 cy of fill to be placed in the excavation from the
greenhouses, and to prepare for a ftmire residence on the site.
No commercial greenhouse operation has existed on this site since 1996; however, within the last
year Mr. Buttweld has constructed a small (approximately 30 x 50) frame greenhouse near the
center of the site in which he grows flowers for his contract gardening work. The site appears to
have intermittent vehicle storage activity to the rear which stafThas not fully in\ estigated at this lime.
It should be no^ that Commercial Greenhouses are a conditional use in the RR-IA district, and as
a result of inactivity for a period of 6 years, a new commercial greenhouse use on the site would need
a new CUP. Addtional review of the current use is necessary to determine whether it rises to the
level of a conditional use, or it may merely be a home occupation (without a home at the moment)
and may or may not require a Ikcnie.
Since the house was destroyed, applicants are attempting to finalize purchase of one of the Silver
Meadow Drive homes that has been acquired by MnDOT for the new Highway 12. Applicants
indicate they have a short window of opportunity to get the house moved and would like to store it
on the Watertown Road property temporarily while a foundation is constructed.
Ssclig-Swtnn- The house that was desUoyed by fire had been served with a new mound septic
system in 1 999, with capacity for a 3*bedroom home. Applicants plan to re-connect the new home
to that system. Staff will have to confirm that this system has capacity for the new home and
applicanu will have to show that there is an alternate sepUc site on the property.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot Area/Wldth!
RR-IA Lot Area Lot Width
Required S.O acres 300 ’
Actual 4.84 acres 185*
S€fi>acks:
RR’IA Required Proposed
Front lotr i40.y
Rear 100*700* +
Left Side 50*51.0*
Right Side 50*75.2*
M3-29N
J«acll,2M3
P«t>3
Hardship StateMMt
Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his
additional testimony regarding the implication.
Hardsliip Aaalysb
tm €mm$U*Hmg afpHetd0ms ftr vaHtmet, the PUamtmg CammbtJoii thaB €am%Uar fft# affect afAe prapated
variamee apam the keatk, i^ety amd we^ate af the eammaakp, axlutmg and anticipated traffic camditiamt, tight
and air, danger affiee, risk tathapnttie safety, and the effect an mines af praperty in the surrannding area. The
banning Cansmissian shaU cansider recaatmending a^rardt far eariancesfram the literal pravislans af the
Zaning Cade In instances where their strict enforcement wantd canse mndme hardship because of circumstances
unigue ta Ae IndMdnal praperty under cansideratlan, and shaU recammend appravat aniy when It b
demaustraeed that such actiams wB! be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orana Zaning Cade.
Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship"
pertinent to this application:
1. The pnm^rty in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed
by the official controls.**
The site has had a residence on it for many years and cannot continue to be used for
residential purposes unless a \-ariance is granted. The property is zonedfor residential use.
2. **The plight of the lando>%7icr is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by
the laiKlowner.**
The lot area and width haxe exbted as nonconformities for many years. The lot was
originally created prior to adoption of the S-acre/SOO'zoning requirements.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.**
A variance to construct a new residence on the property will allow the site to remain in
keeping with the essential character of the locality.
4. *‘Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for
the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.”
Economic consideration u not a factor in this request.
5. ”Undue hardship also iiKludes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined
in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.”
Sot Applicable
6. ”Tbe Board ofAppeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use
that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s
land is located.”
Sot Applicable
m-im
J«mI1,2M3
P«ft4
7. “The Board or Council may pmnit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelltne
as a two-family dwelling ” *
Not Anfiicable
8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.”
The tack of area or width is not unusual in the 5-acre zone because that zone was created
after many properties had been previously divided.
9. •The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said
land IS located.”
The tack of area or width is a condition that is not uncommon in the RR-tA District
10. ‘The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant”
The applicants must be granted the requested variance in order to preserve their right to
use the property for the residential purposes for which it is zoned and guide in the CMP.
11. The granting of the proposed variance •.ill not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.”
Granting cf the variance will be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code.
12. ^The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but
IS necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difliculiy.”
Crantwg of the \ariance is necessary to alle%iate a hardship to the property.
luacs for ConsIdcralJoD
1. As this property returns to its residential use, any and all ongoing non-residential uses should
be eliminated or made legitimate through the proper approvals.
2. T^e property owner should be advis^ to apply for the necessary permits for additional filling
that appm to be occurring on tbe site, and should confirm for staff the level of greenhouse
use so that it can be determined whether a CUP or home occupation license is nccessar>-.
3. The site appe^ to be rather cluttered with vehicles and equipment; the applicant should
work with staff to bring the site into a level of orderliness that befits a residential
neighborhood.
4. Docs Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application?
•U-2fM
JaMll,2M9
F«itS ...
Staff RccomnesdiHoa
Staff recommends approval of the lot area and width variances, subject to:
a) Proof of adequate septic system capacity and alternate site.
All other standards of the RR-1A zone shall be met by the new residence.b)
c)Elimination of non-residential uses on the property such as commercial storage, etc. unless
such uses are allowed by CUP or license, in which case the proper approvals shall be
obtained if qrplicant wishes to continue those uses.
d) Eliminationofclutter and debris to match the character of this rural residential neighborhood.
Proposed Metfmi
Motion to approve the lot area and width variances for the placement ofa new home on the property,
per the conditions of the suff recommendation.
,.OaOiai
-------
CITY or ORONO - VAR1ARC3E APPUCATION
Initial Application Fee
($50.00 per each addi^al^ariance)
Renewal Variance Fee $150.00
(no change from ori^nal application)
Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00
After-the-Fact Fees (liouble application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION %
Site Address 3 ^ (_Jl_
Application #
Date Received
Amount Paid PQ .
i
Property Identification Number (P.1.D.> 3 ^ ^ ^
Attach legal description to application if not included on requir^
Date Pr^ertv^cquired <OLuuo<Xjt^
I (do)^(3o nolj^jlso own the ai^aceift parcels of lan^
PresdiTiiM orproperty: ^ residential '----
survey.
_(monlh/year)
Zoning District:
APPLICANT
jDthcr (specify).
PPLICANT ^ ^3 Phone (home)_2
NameVTi fTWy^ Cfy Phone (work)
Address: A City:
Phone ^ome)
Phone (home)
Addrcss:.^;j5^
Phone (work) /JX - ^
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost $ ________
Describe request in detail: ^^7^ a re a. ^ ^
1/a f" t t g-______4-y> c 1~y^ tTf in rlaJ vvn je.
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
VARIANCES REQUIRED
X Lot Area ^ Lot Width
Setback:Front Side
Hardcover
Rear
.Lot Coverage
__ Average Lakeshore
Other (specify'
HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing
compliance with Zoning Code requirements: T/ y g, -f— / r
^ ^ ^ * rT~ (TZ Us. Mr J
/?7T ncDg------____________________
(attach additional sheets if necessary)
#2908
L
REQUI^D St/BMITTALS
#
All of tht foUdwIag toformattna m,..« l,* K» .. .tojrittUrVppllcat^^^^^ ^fffrtlfne d>t> j,
]• ---- Completed Application Form2. r>^:r.^ »------ ^Application Form
C^ficate of Survey (signed by a licensed . . .
Ml -
icij^twuubiion. ' ' -~rj Vfi A II - lor
•r/^sed. ‘" ““'‘"S *«le
Sk«tch« or plus of floor 4 *? * ' • for reproduction.
Lis. of 0.. 4, nsrltXluS *>''■ * •>').6. n
property. This would include nimefs) of sSSt^tflwf nT
_ As u «ldendurn to this nppIicSleue^rJ^ir«^^ .'T?'
you wish notified of this application - ......... eparate list of any other persons
. Additional items as may be requested by City staff8.
APPLICi^'S SIGNATURE
Administrator, agrees^to panddaioM^fees^st^^^^^ requested by the Zoning
consultant expenses incurred in review of this anDlicJinr*”^
suppUed is true and correct to the best of wi^cr too Sgc ^ information
Applicant’s Date /-Z.. /. ,
entry onto the propert7by‘a“ Half* unsuhslits' «««n»t>fo
members for purposes of investigation end veriflcalion of ihiw^^.'°" ■"'*
Otvner-s Signature Date /O'-,
.r ;r tss: srr s-r
Appllcauts must be present ,,,,|.ched«l?dr«lew l,,i„«'/u^ "'X -"“fo
puncit If u applicant is unable to attend n scheduled m!tr?„^ Commission nod
have u authonzed agent Mend in your place ud to advi» n,? n*'-i5 “rangements to
chuge prior to the meeting. Building 4 Zoning Office of this
#290
L.
Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form #
I (we) \ VWf ^ cit^lrof___________________
[print name(s)][print address]
have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at
__________________also referred to as Lauid Use Application No.________.
I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare
approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1
(we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use
requires Council approval
Property Owner
S-21-03
Date
Property Owner Date
I (we)
[print name(s)][print address]
have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement ur proposed use of the property located at
__________________also referred to as Land Use Application No.________
I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare
approval or disapproval of the property or use but mertly to confirm for the City Council that I
(we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use
requires Council approval.
Properly Owner Dale
Property Owner Date
If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use
Application, please submit your comments to the building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior
to the scheduled meeting date. . ^
'
m
T
W THE S
PWOPO^O rifVATH
1) Coro9« • IflC!
2) Top of fowodo
3} Bosonml • (g
LFC«t OCVniPTli
Treel t
Thol port
Toonohtp
Of Ift.
Ilfl. »
Connoocina ol (I
Ouorlor: thoneo
oleo9 Iho Sc
dUlonco ol
r; Ihonec
Iho South
149
0 Oliloneo of 8 doocrihoO: Ihon
448 89 tool lo South 8/ O«9f*o01 179.17 fotl.
of 1031.03 Ittl <^*o»l«r. Ih;ncif
South lino, o 0
40 oocondt «tsl
Troct t
Thol poM of Ih
Tounship 118, h
iino
Ouorlor. inonci
olono Iho SouM
Oitionco ol 14*
OotcriOod. Ihoi 8S4 94 loot; II
ol 8S4 04 fool
Ouorlor. lhonc< South lino, o •
O : Oonoloo i
(N«|: donoltt 0
•97........ doflotot o
Boorinyi (hoon
Thio turvor in
ood Iho propofto »hou ony ol
/
3lHS 7?c(.
■S.
^ ^ ^ t ll I 1; n
f: 1>-•-/• '^ ; r *•— •^ f-
Vllld^C 1/1 VIUIIU
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
No __M^oate.
For iToa«Confornlii|: Uso
Fee,
Cose No.^
VILLAGE Or OAONO
Crystal Bay, Minnesota
(Conplete in Duplicate)
This Corn to be used in all applications Cor conditional use peraits
and for rexoning, dividing or consolidating parcels of land, vacating
stre its, alleys and variances.
Type of Applicationu.^.>,r«»r«>-4..T .. . i i M,^P«te
Ovner of Property: Nane rXUAd.Phone No. »75.4214
Address 3745 Vatcrtcvn Read
Applicant (other than owner): Nane_
Address
Phone Ko.
Relationship to Owner19Entineer: Kane Phone No.
Land Planner: Name Phone No.s Subdivider: Nane Phone No.
Location (How do we find it?)
Legal Description: Lot 32, Bl. »1S, Plat 41332, Parcel 4500_ _ _ _
Date Acquired Area (sq. ft.) 4 Ac. Separata Ownership_
Single Ownership
Date of last division of this property.
Do you own any adjoining property?
Action Requested »N‘ou-Confert-i.-iy Use Fcrnit for nursery
Signature of Applicant
RECORD OF ACTION TAKEN
Inspection Dept:
Adninistrator:
Village Council:
Village Engineer:
Village Attorney: ^
Planning Coonission:
Village Council:
Pernit Issued: Date
Sate
fB /.<
Action
/ >
/■£ ^
Ross Mau
_• • ______________
uniM
Condition of Non-Conforming Use:
Vholesi'lo Mn%l retail flowurs. Four jcron total,
houses and parking.
One acre for green>
i
Cityof ORONO
RESO'. UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. _________
A RESOLUTION CRANTING
A CONOITIOKAI. USE PERMIT
PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (E)
PILE NO. 933
NBEREAS, Kcd Butterfield (hctcinaftvr “the applicant")
has an Interest in the property loc.ated at 3745 Katertown Rood
within the City cf Orono (hereafter “City “J and legally described
as follows:
The east 196.5 feet of the -est 3«.9* feet of the southeast
quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 32, Township 117
north. Range 33 west of the 5th principal eeridian, Kenr.epin
County, Minnesota (hereinafter “property*): ar.d
WHEREAS, the applicant lias applied to the City for a
Conditional Use Permit to permit the construction cf a <C* x 100'
co.-:usercial greenhouse per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20,
Subdivision 3 (S).
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile No. 93.7.
2. The property is located in the RR-IA Single Fanily Rural
Residential Zoning District.
3. On Juno 17, 1985, the Orono Planning Ccr.'*.ission reviewed
the application as proposed and rcconrundcd approval,
finding -.hat:
a) A conrercial greenhouse opciation h.*»s cxirted on
this property Since prior to the 1967 rening code.
b) The City Council (ornally recognized this
cocwiercial greenhouse und wholcsale/retai 1 Cermercial
flcwer operaticn through a no:.-ccnforning crnditicnal
use pernit doted Septc.nber 13, .968.
c) The retail sale of flowers cn the picperty has
nearly ceased to exist in recent years. The whole-
sale/rctall sale of flowct s on the property will rot
increase as a result of the addtciunal grcenliousc
structure, hence, this is not considered as an expan-
sica o( a nor.'conforning use.
Page 1 of 4
I
mm
City of OROIVO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITV COUNCIL
NO. r>93_________
d) The property is 4.6 acres in area in this S-acre
zoning district.
e) The new greenhouse will be located 25 feet from the
side property line, in conformity with the existing
greenhouse structures.
f) The City has no complaints on file regarding the
use of this property for a cor.-icrcial greenhouse opera
tion.
4. The City Council has considered this application in
cluding the findings and recommendations of the Planning
Comnission, reports by staff and comments of the applicant
and the effect of the proposed use on the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
5. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use
Permit to allow the construction ot a 40 ’xl00* greenhouse
will r t be detrimental to the health, safety or general
uelfar of the public, would not adversely affect light, air
nor pc e a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring pro
perties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values
and the proposed level of use cf the property will be in
keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code
and Comprehensive Plan of the City.
CC.JCLOSIONS, ORORR AND CONDITIONS
Based upon the above fi'Jings, the Orono City Council
hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit per Kunicipal Zoning Code
Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 IE) to permit thu construction of a
ccrmercial greenhouse, subject to the following conditions:
1. The greenhouse structure must meet all Building C'sdc and
Fire Code standards, including the 20' setback from other
greenhouse's if no 1-hour firewall is provided.
2. The structure shall tc set tack the same distance from
the east ride lot lino as the existing greenhouses
(approximately 25*).
3. In granting this conditional use permit, the Council
recognizes that this lot is 4.6 acres in area in *ho RR-IA
5-acrc zoning district, and grants an approval for the
substandard lot size.
4. The applicant is placcu on notice that any future addi
tional gncnhousc construction or expansion will require a
new co.nditional use permit.
Page 2 of 4
w
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. _ 1V93_________
d) The property is 4.6 acres in area in this S-acro
xoning district.
e) The new greenhouse will be located 2S feet from the
side property line, in conlorraity with the existing
greenhouse structures.
f) The City has no conplaints on file regarding the
use of this property for a cor.-icrcial greenhouse opera
tion.
4. The City Council has considered this application in
cluding the findings and recoanendations of the Planning
Conmission, reports by staff and coaaents of the applicant
and the effect of the prcpcscd use on the health, safety and
welfare of the coanunity.
& mm
5. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use
Pernit to allow the construction ot a 40'xl00* greenhouse
will r t be detriaental to the health, safety or general
uelfar of the public, would not adversely affect light, air
nor pc e a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring pro
perties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values
and the proposed level of use cf the property will be in
keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code
and Coaprehensivc Plan of the City.
CC.ICLOSIONS, ORDRR AND COitDlTlONS
Based upon the above fi-lings, the Orono City Council
hereby grants a Conditional Use Percit per Municipal Zoning Code
Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (E) to pernit thu construction of a
con.-icrcia 1 greenhouse, subject to the following conditions:
1. The greenhouse structure nust reet all Building Code and
Fire Code standards, including the 20* setback fron other
greenhouse's if no l-hour firewall is provided.
2. The structure shall be set back the sane distance fren
the east ride lot line as the existing greenhouses
(approxioately 2S'I.
3. In granting this conditional use pernit, the Council
recognizes that this lot is 4.6 acres in area in rhe RR-IA
f--acrc zoning district, and grants an approval for the
substandard lot size.
iiB 4. T.he applicant is placcu on notice that any future addi
tional greenhouse construction or expansion will require a
new conditional use pernit.
if :■Page 2 of 4
I
m
m City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
5. There shall be no further retail sales activity on the
property.
€. If the existing septic systen, at sore future time fails
to function satisfactorily, the conditional use shall ccaso
until the systea is repaired.
7. Violation of or non-conpliance with any of the items and
conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation
of the Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any
authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a
misdemeanor.
8. The undersigned owner has read, understood and hereby
agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of
hinself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agreui: to
the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of
the property.
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of
1985.
ATTEfeT:
y CSir^othy K.^^lliu, city Clerk .vary C. Bu^^r, Mayor N
Prop/rty Owner UI /
Page 3 of 4
'8L V- V..K.
—
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNaL
NO. I7*)3
STATE or h:nncsota
COOXTY or HCKKCPIH
}
1 %%.
}
1995On this _ day of ______________
HUTART PUBLIC
MT CO.'V'.IS.SION EXPIRES
STATE OP MINNESOTA )
iss.
COUNTY or IICNNEPIN )
0.. this 30'*’''day of
V WICHAtL P. OAFfRON I
HENNSPl*lCCL“i*T i
....... . •
1:CU}r?l/
NOTAHT PUBLIC
_ .A // /» V
MT CC.-MISSIC:; EXpfRES"
Pa^e 4 cf 4
r
KUNUAlLiV
II 05M7U2I002I
raOf ADDR SO LANDMARK DR
OWNER NAME R W FULLERTOWC K FUUERTON
TAXEAVER ROOERT A CAROLINE FULLERTON
NAME/AOOR SO LANDMARK DR
LONG LAKE MN SS3S6
]l 32III23S30002
PROf AOOR 37tS WATERTOWN RO
OWNER NAME JAMES F BROOKS
TA3CEAYER JAMES F BROOKS
NAME/AOOR 3715 WA-^RTOWN ROAO
MA>" I* ^lAIN MN SS3S9
31 3211123340013
PROP AOOR 37&S WATERTOWN RO
OWNERNAME LLCOOKALMCOOK
HLNNLl'INCOlJNry PROPl ISrOkMAIlON SYSILM
PIIOTERTY OWfsiiRS LIST
PAGE: I
31 0SII72323000I
PROP AOOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO
OWNERNAME STATE OF MINN
TAXPAYER DNR R£AL ESTATE MGMT
NAME/AOOR ATTN DEBBIE CURTIN
500 LAFAYETTE RD
STPAULMN SSIS5
3i 33llt233400ll
PPOPADDR 36tS WATERTOWN RD
OWNERNAME J IIA M LMERIOETTI
TAXPAYER JOHN HA MARLA MER1DET1I
NAME/ADDR 3«5 WATERTOWN RD
MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359
3t 3211123310005
PROPADDR 3760 WATERTOWN RO
OWNERNAME JOHN RATZLOFFETAL
TAXPAYER X)HN RATZLOFF
NAME/ADDR ROCHELLE OANIELS-RATZI OFF
3760 WATERTOWN RD
maple PLAIN MN 55359
3t 3211923340012
PROP A004i 3743 WATERTOWN RO
OWNERNAME NED L BUTTERFIELD ET AL
TAXPAYER NED L BUTTERFIELD A
NAME/ADDR U3RNA L BUTTERFIELD
3743 WATERTOWN RD
MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359
TAXPAYER
NAME/ADDR
LARRY LA UNDA M COOK
3765 WATERTOWN RO
MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359
I CERTIFY TI4ATTHE FACTS REPRESEMTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND
TRUE REPRESENTATION OF IPffORMATTON AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS
OF TIC HEWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO-niE BEST
OF MY KNOWLEDGE ANDBEUEF. ^
DATE BY
I j I c: i nc aaa/iu
lENT.TO-mEBEST j /
0?>
mlUt'?-«w5r
jm^;••% '•
'^0 1^
r^* , • ■»
. o Hi risr.iij.52f }^*»i v/fc;z«ai
June 13, 2003
This letter is in response to the Butterfield variance issues as
documented in File #03-2908, being heard Monday, June 16, 2003.
My thoughts arc numerous. Some of which you will find related to the
house and some related to the behavior history of those living there.
The 1st concern is the proposed placement of the house in
relationship to Watertown Road. I am curious why with all the land they
have available, why they would choose to put it so close to the road? Also, so
close to neighbors? 1 feel as if they need more privacy, as do the neighbors.
The 2nd concern is a safety one. Historically, there has been so much
traffic and random parking, as well as many **comings and goings** of odd
people, numerous young adults and kids. 1 feel it is a potential danger to
anyone traveling along Watertown Road whether it be in a vehicle, on a bike
or on foot. There arc many blind areas in this **parking lot**, due to the over
grown trees and bushes.
My 3rd concern is the traffic. I am not sure of what goes on there, nor
docs anyone else. Each of us thinks we have an “idea". 1 know for a fact that
three generations live together. There is a constant flow at all hours of the
day and night of people, barking dogs, strange noises, music, cars,
motorcycles, semi trucks and snowmobiles. There are often times ten or
more cars parked in the yard over night. The Orono Police have made many
pg^
visits there and recently there has been numerous incidents of vandalism not
on, but near the area of the property.
My 4th concern is the appearance of the property in general. I believe
we all have a right to do what we want on our property, yet this is an eye
sore. We joke this is what is keeping our taxes dow’n! In the front yard
there is trash scattered, garbage in a the ditches, random furniture and often
times an unmowed lawn. Prior to the fire and stored behind where the
house once stood were vats of “who knows what”, abandoned cars, a dozen
business trucks, a motor home, snowmobiles and a deer stand in the woods.
At this moment many of these arc still present, along with a working
greenhouse. Will this change or become an issue again if you the planning
commission passes on this request.^
My 5th and last consent is a responsibility to the environment in
general. Perhaps my concerns seem more p>ersonal, I do speak “the voice ” of
many who didn’t want to get involved for FEAR of retaliation. We want to
defend what we consider is respectful, good neighborhood behavior and the
values we hold true in our community of Orono. This is why we live here.
Everyone who is part of this letter “feels” for the Butterfield’s and their
loses. It would be a nightmare to lose a home, belongings and all the
memories. We do want them to get a fresh and positive start. They also
must be made aware of their impact on their immediate community. As I
stated before, we the residents of Orono and any other community expect
and deserve respectful and conscience behavior from all of its citizens. 1 am
asking that they clean up their “act” and come back.
Dalt AppttcaHea Received: 5-22-H3
Dale Applicatiea CoMldercd as Complete: d-S-03
(0-Dajr Review Period Eipires: i-7-03
To: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaf&on, Planning Director
Date: June 12,2003
Subject: W)3-2909 Plckkenpol Builders/Tom McGlynn, 3980 Dahl Road
- Aftcr-lhc-Fact Variances - Public Jlcaring
Zoning District: LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 -acre min.
Lot Area: 2.30 acres
Application Summaiy: Applicant requests aAer-the-fact variances for reconstruction of an
accessory structure within the 0-75* lakeshore setback zone where no such structures are normally
allowed.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variances.
Pertinent Code Sections:
1. 10.22,Subd.2:
iO.SSSubd.8:
10.56, Subdl6(L);
LakeshoreHardcoverandLand Alteration Regulations. Within 75 feel
of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary
or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of
this section (i.e. a 20 s.f. lock box).
Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hercinaAer specifically
permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover,
temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well
or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and
Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof;
nor on any land within 75 feet of the ordinary hrghwater elevation of
any lake shoreline...
Hardcover Limitations. I. No hardcover or imperv ious surface shall
be placed, located, or constructed within 75 feet of the Ordinary High
Water Level of any lake or tributary, except for stairways, liAs,
landings, and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in the Municipal Code.
10.56, Subd. 16(CXI): Required structure setback from OHWL on General Dev clopn.cnl
Lake is 75‘.
M3-2909
Juel2,2IW3
P*|c2 _
10.56 Subd.l6(CX6):Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure
shall be located closer to the lakeshore thM the average distance from
the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except
that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes.
...The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting
the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the
immediately adjacent lakeshore lots.”
10.55 Subd. 26(B):
10.55 Subd. 26(E):
Non-conforming Uses. A structure or the use of a structure or premises
which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this Section but
which is not in conformity with the provisions of this Section may be
continued subject to the following conditions:
A. No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged or altered in a
way which increases its non-conformity.
B. No structural alteration or addition to any non- conforming structure
over the life of the structure shall exceed 50 percent of its value at the
time of its becoming a non-conforming use, unless the structure is
permanently changed to a conforming use or unless the alteration or
addition would substantially reduce potential flood damages for the
entire structure.
E. If any non-conforming use is destroyed by any means, including
floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its assessed value, it shall
not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this
Section. However, the City may issue a conditional use permit for
reconstruction if the use is located outside the floodway and, upon the
reconstruction, is adequately flood proofed, elevated or otherwise
protected in conformity with this Section.
List of Exhibits
A - Application
B - Letter of Reqiiest/Hardship Statement
C - Sur\ey/Site Plan
D - Plans & Elevations for Building Permit
E - Building Permit Documents
F - Letters from Nci^boring Properly Owners
G - Property Owners List
H - Plat Map
I - Photos
*03-2909
June 12,2003
Pages
Background
The existing house on this property was constructed in 19S7, replacing an older home which had
been located in the 0-75’ zone. Applicants purchased this property in 1993. An old boathouse had
existed on the property for many years prior to their purchase (a structure, perhaps not this
boathouse, appears in the City’s 1955 airphotos at this exact location) and that boathouse w as shown
on the sur\*ey when the new home was built.
Applicants in 2002 determined to rcstorc/rcmodel the boathouse and their builder applied for a
permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans and determined that the extensive work
proposed was in some respects cosmetic or merely maintenance (w hich City code docs not prohibit),
in a few respects structural (w hich City code severely limits), and some of the w ork w as considered
to be expansion (w hich City code does not allow for non-conforming lakeshore structures - sec 10,55
Subd. 6B). The Building Official clearly marked the plans to indicate w hich items of w ork could
be approved and which w ere not allowable. He also met w ith the builder to explain in detail the
extent of work which w as allow ed. The value of the w ork w as estimated by the builder at 520,000.
It was the City’s expectation that the building w ould remain in place during the restoration'remodel,
as any w ork to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, w ould not be allow cd. and
would far exceed "50% of the structure’s value at the time it became non-conforming" w hich the
City has long established as January 1,1975 when the 75'setback ordinance was adopted. The value
at that time was likely less than $500, although it docs not appear as a separate cntiy on assessors
records.
It has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakeshore structures disappear
by attrition; the Code docs not allow the construction of new accessory structures w ithin 75* of the
shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major structural repairs to such structures.
After issuance of the permit, it was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure
off its foundation and set it up on cribbing approximately 50' to the south, where it was being
renovated. It was also found that they had replaced the entire foundation of the structure, which
consisted of massive posts sunk into the ground w ith massix. beams upon w hich the structure sits.
They were advised to stop work. Staff eontacted the City attorney and conferred as to w hethcr the
structure h.id lost any ‘legal non-confonming’ status it may have had prior to the move. The
conclusion was that if it is placed back on the original foundation (w hich was now laving in pieces
on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status, but the new foundation clearly is
’structural alteration’ and undoubtedly exceeds 50*lo of the value of the stiucture in 1975.
Applicants w ere advised of their options and chose to apply for an afier-the-fact variance to allow
them to replace the structure on its new foundation in the ci-75’ zone.
Floodplain Issues. The surv cy provided by the applicant docs no: indicate the 931.5' 100->rar flood
elevation contour. However, visual observation at the site suggests that the structure was likely
w ithin the floodplain and is subject to floodplain regulations. Floodplain regulations would tend to
have two goals: 1) reduce the potential for damage to this structure by flooding; and 2) mitigate the
impact the structure has on the volume of flood storage in the Lake Minnetonka basi;i. City code
would require that the lowest floor elevation of the structure be no lower than 932.5’. Mitigation for
L
M3-2Mf
June 12,2003
Pi|«4
the loss of flood storage volume would be extremely minimal, perhaps a few square feet, which
could be functionally replaced by removing a wheelbarrow or tw o of existing sard below the 931 5
elevation...
Hardcover on the property is within required limits :n the 75-250* and 250-500* zones
to Ae ^75|^zone, toe boathouse and a few walkwa>-s, steps, and portions of boulder w alls add up to
892 s.f or 2.3% of toe zone.
AYCraKSrtfragK. The ^athouse will encroach approximately 110* past the defined average setback
line. How'evCT, due to its central location on the property, no neighbor’s views of the lake will be
impacted by the boathouse.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Lot AreaAVIdrli!
LR-IA Lot Area i.ot Width
Required 43,560 s.r (1.0 acre)140*
Actual 100,076 s.f. (2.30 acres)400* +
Setbacks (Boathouse structure!:
lr-ia Required Existing Proposed
Front NA NA NA
Rear (Street)30*220*220*
Lett Side (North)10*200'200 ’-»-
Right Side (South)10*200*+200*+
Lakeshore 75*1*±>’±
Average Lakeshore (No Encroachment Altoned)II0*±110*1
Hardcover Calculatlonsi
Hardcover
/one
Area in Zone
(calcutalcd by UalT)
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
0-75*39,000 S.f.0s.f.892 s.f.892 s.f.
(0%)(2.3%)(2.3%)
75-250*54,700 S.f.13,675 s.f.12,659 s.f.12,659 s.f.(25 •/.)(23.1 %)(23.1 %)
250-500*6,400 s,f 1.920 s.f.os.r.0s.f.
(30%)(0%)(0%)
M3-2909
June 12.2003
rates
Code laterprctotioi
Applicants' attorney in Exhibit B suggests that the reduction in flood damage potential by raising
the structure to meet the 932.5 ’ lowest-floor elevation, should technically allow this structure to
remain in place as an exception to the 50*/i rule of 10.55 Subd. 26(B). If the provisions of 26(E) are
considered, it may be argued that the act of temporarily removing the structure from its former
location constitutes that it has been *destro>’ed by any means’; in that case the City could choose to
issue or not issue a CUP for its reconstruction in a manner that addresses the floodplain issues...
Hardship Statement
Applicant has provided a letter of request explaining the situation (Exhibit B) as well as a brief
hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the
application.
Hardship Analysis
In conilitrhg applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed
variance upon the health, safety and sveifare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light
and air, danger office, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The
Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the
Zoning Code in Instances svhere their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
uni.jue to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it Is
dei onstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code.______
Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship"
pertinent to this application;
1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed
by the oflicial controls.”
The property can be put to reasonable use absent the sxiriance.
“The plight of the landovvmcr is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by
the landowner.”
The boathouse is perhaps a unique structure although probably not historically significant.
The plight is that the boathouse was moved absent prior approval for same, which is a
situation created by the landossner.
“The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The boathouse has been in place for many years at this location. It has been painted in dark
tones during at least the past 25 years which limits its visibility. Replacing it and similarly
darkly coloring its e.xterior would result in little impact on the essential character of the
neighborhood.
“Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for
the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.”
Economics have not been cited by applicants as a hardship.
*03-2909
June 12,2003
FagcO
8.
Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined
Chapter.”
^•Thc Board of Appeali and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use
A^o/ applicable.
‘The Bowd or Council may permit as a variance the temporary' use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. *
Sot Applicable
"The special condilions applying lo (he slruclurc or land in queslion arc pcculi- ij such
property or immediately adjoining property.”
AH lots in the LR-JB zone are subject to limitations on structure and hardcoverin the 0- 75 zone.
9. •The condilions do no! apply generally lo other land or struclurcs in the disirici in which said
land IS located.
The limits on structure and hardcover are applicable to all other lakeshore lots.
andenjoy.en.ofa
At issue is uhether removal of the structure from its foundation and temporary storage 50'
Enjoy ed nonro«/c»rwf>jg stucture status the boathouse prexiously
11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safely, comfort,
morals, or m any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code "
Cmm.ngr*e«rieee.rHfHresu/r(nco«/„„o(,„„o/un„„con/om/nga,«em^^where any new such structures would normally be prohibited.
12. ;The granting ofsuch variance will not merely serve as a convenienee lo the applicant, but
IS necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.”
Planning Commission must determine whether a hardship has been demonstrated...
Issues for CoDsIderaUon
1. Average setback is not a significant issue.
^ ofu?eTw'“^’*'“* *•><»■' one-half of one percent (0.5%)
i03-29t9
Japcl2,2M3
F*fe7 _ .............
3. Granting of the variances will result in the nonconformity remaining in place for a much
longer period than if the variances are denied (i.e. if it’s put back on its old foundation, which
would have to be re-insUlled using old members, requiring lots of effort but add no new
value to the structure... is this un-ringing the bell?...)
4. City ordinances as consistently inlciprcted by slafTallowed for the non-structural repairs that
make this appear as an entirely new' structure... should the code be revised to further limit
the extent of maintenance/remodeling that can be allowed for such structures?... this
applicant has been allowed to expend significant dollars on this building but w ent a little too
far in attempting to increase its longevity...
5. Please review the letters from neighboring property owners.
6. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application?
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the variances be denied, on the basis that this structure has been removed and
should no longer retain its status as an existing non-conforming structure. Had the structure remained
in place and the foundation work been accomplished without its removal and with the proper
permits, it might have qualified as an exception under 26(B). But, the foundation work was done
without permits. The building was moved 50* away. It mi^t have been moved 50 miles away to be
renovated, it shouldn ’t matter. It was moved off its grandfathered location and should be granted no
further nonconforming structure status. This is how the City has consistently treated nonconforming
decks, etc. The new foundation work should be removed and the structure removed from the
property, or relocated on the site to a conforming location.
MflY-2l-2003 15139 PLEKKE>TO. BUILEERS INC 952 688 2259 P.82/83
r
AppUcation #
CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION
laitiBl Application Fee S2S0.00
• (SSO.OO per each additional variance)
Renewal Variance Fee S150.00
(no change from original application)
Variance for non^conforming structures S250.00
Aftcr-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee)
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Site Address .7HS/0 pjnfj,
Date Received
Amount Paid Jf.'yrxZ?.
l ZS-M -(Property Identification Number (PXD.) -<_____________
Attach legal description to application if not includ^ oli mqiifrld svu^
Date Property Acquired_
I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.
Pieseat use of propoty; ^residtntial other (specifr)
Zoning Putrid: ~___
_(month/ycar)
APPUCANT
Name Phone (homo)_
OWNER (if difierent than applicant)
Name ^
Add«si:_ag(^eji
Zip:_g'j-yt2 0
Phone (home)________
-----------------Phone (work)~jl^>.4^;^^gfara^
(attach additional sheets if necessary’)
V/VRIANCES REQUIRED
___Lot Area Lot Width
yK Setback: ^
^ Hardcover
/
_Lot Coverage
Side Average Lakeshore
Other (specify) ^ ^
HARDSIUP/DESCRIPTIO.N OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS
Describe undue hsrMip or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions, preventing
T9 D/HB ^^^^ga^^jjdo^shects if necesi
r
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Attachment No. 1
The property at 3980 Dahl Road, Orono, Minnesota, has had an accessory structure located
at the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, most probably since the 1940's and, perhaps, earlier than that.
The accessory structure was originally constructed as a “boathouse" and was existing on January 1,
1975. Accordingly, it is “grand fathered" as a non-conforming structure under the provisions of the
Orono City Zoning Code. The current owner of the property, Thomas P. McGI>-nn, purchased the
property on July 22, 1993, at which time the acccssoiy structure was no longer being used as a
boathouse but was being used for storage and as a playhouse.
In 2002, Mr. McGI>Tin and his wife. Toni, dctcmiincd that certain repairs needed to be made
to the structure. Tliey accordingly hired Plekkenpol Builders, Inc., of Bloomington, Minnesota,
Minnesota Residential Construction License No. 1797. to make the repairs ♦ *hc accessory- structure.
In August 2002, prior to commencing work on the stnicturc, Plekkenpol ijuilders, Inc., contacted
Lyle Oman. Orono City Building Inspector, to discuss making the repairs. On September 10,2002,
a meeting was held at the McGlynn residence, at which time Lyle Oman confirmed that the structure
was not in such disrepair that it would condemned, and accordingly, repairs could be made on the
structure, subject to the issuance of a Building Permit.
During the winter. Lians were drawn for the repairs to the accessory- structure which were
presented to the City on March 18,2003. On March 31,2003, a Permit was issued for the repairs
to the structure. Certain of the proposed repairs had been crossed off on the “Rcdline Plan" which
repairs were, accordingly, eliminated from the contract between Mr. McGlynn and his builder.
Revised Plans were submitted to the City Building Inspector on April 10, 2003, which
included replacing the windows and installing a new header above the windows. Lyle Oman, on
April 10’^ approved the revised Plans.
Work was commenced on April 18, 2003. As part of the i pair work, the structure was
moved off its foundation in order to install 3/4 inch plywood shea*n.. ;g on its bottom, pursuant to
the approved Building Plans. The repairs, so far as possible, used existing materials but did, as
allowed by the Building Plans, include the installation of certain new mateiial. The new material
includes the 3/4 inch plywood sheathing on the bottom of th.* structure, new insulation between that
sheathing and the existing finished floor, new interior knotty pine on the existing plywood and
existing wooden studs, new knotty pine ceiling over the existing ply-wood and existing joists, new
exterior cedar-lap siding covering over the existing ply-wood sheathing and existing studs, and a new
singic-ply EPDM roof membrane over new ice and w ater shield on the new 3/4 inch ply-wood
sheathing roof over the existing joists, as well as installation of new windows and doors.
^1 m
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Attachment No. 1
Page 2
The stmeture, as existing at the lime of the issuance of the Building Pennit, stood on eight
6x6 posts. Attached to the posts were 6x6 beams, with the structure sitting on top of the beams.
The beams were attached to the sides of the posts and held in place by large bolts. The two most
northerly posts were located in Lake Minnetonka, as the lake exists in the summer of2003. It was
the intention of the builder to remove the two most northerly posts from the lake, straighten the next
set of posts, which over time had moved and were no longer vertical, and also to move the existing
6x6 crossbeams from the sides of the posts to the tops of the posts in order to raise the structure.
Raising the structure further !»’iovc the lake level places the structure in compliance with Section
10.56, Subd. 16(D), Shoreland Management, of the Orono City Zoning Code. As the structure was
located within the Shoreland Overlay District, the minimum elevation of the lowest floor must be
at least three feet above the ordinary high water level. It should be noted that the matcrirus being
used were the onginal posts, as well as the original 6x6 crossbeams, with the only addition to the
foundation being the installation of new metal “L” brackets and bolts to hold the crossbeams in place
and prevent lateral migration of the posts when the building was placed back on the foundation.
It is the Applicants’ position that the alteration would substantially reduce potential flood
damage for the entire structure and, thus, not be subject to any limitation on costs, as allowed by
Orono City Code Section 10.55, Subd. 26(B). It is further the Applicants' position that the
continuing use of the structure as an accessory structure for storage and as a playhouse for their
childrenisaconlinuingallowednon-conforminguscunderIhcCityOrdinance. Section 10 55 Subd26 states: ‘ ’
Non-conforming Uses. A structure or the use of a structure or
premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this
Section but which i^ not in conformity with the provisions of this
Section may be continued subject to the follow ing conditions:...
B. No structural alteration or addition to any non-
conforming structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50
percent of its value at the time of its becoming a non-conforming use,
unless the structure is permanently changed to a conforming use or
unless the alteration or addition would substantially reduce potential
flood damages for the entire structure....
APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
Attachment No. 1
Page 3
Accordingly, Applicants respectfully request the issuance of a C nditional Use Permit
allowing the return of the structure to its foundation, as repaired by Plekkenpol Builders, Inc., and
its continuing use as an accessory structure for storage and as a playhouse.
Respectfully submitted,
BRUCE A^BUER. P.A.
Bthce A. Boeder (9349)
1000 Superior Bouleva^
Wa>-zata, MN 55391
Telephone (952) 475-7040
Facsimile (952) 475-7042
Attorneys for Applicants
* s t4 • 9
vl \ S
zc
T
r
EAST ELEVATION
1/4-sr-o*
17^
(T) (N) UNDER6R^?UND SPRINKLER SYSTEM
^ CONTROL PANEL,
(T) CN) MARVIN INTE6RITYIMNOOW SNAP4N
^ F'O. GRILLES.
(4) (N) CUSTOM WO. DUTCH DOOR (Srxt<nC\^
^ W/ TRUE DIVIDED LITES.
(N) CUSTOM WD. SLIDING DOORS
^ (aa-xM'xi-a/o w/ true divided lttes & galv .
MTL. BARN DOOR HARDWARE.
@ fN) 3X3* TIGER DECK STOOf. FREE STANDING
^ A U«/^OT^CAOAC^«-/)>a O ■
CAAft
crry
BUILDING
INSPECTOR
DAr[:_7 1*7.QJ I
OF ORONO
>Er>l,!iT PLAN r.EVICW
__»t.r.. !;,* f;o..
□ APPric \>c:> Aj :;l?v! lo
-e^j'.-nc.vr'j V/. .T: CLrf:. •“ ac *
c KCT/rn::; .vCfA;v:!;3./ir
7't'V ' -■ *' • . J.f V ,U UKf t?> '...'tvcr, . . v; ciiri* *}^/^ Cfd C0i»L
K£U» 11 ua PLAU St f ON J«l rfc at all timeJT
GcCA v&« 4^»S Quic Oia ^ i C Uj ITH/Af
Of^ TMe c.Aloe IT 13 ery«5T)/^ /voa /—
^ArJl=orL»<v\,A^ StOsjcttvA^^ ffy.'STVi5 a /O/vI —
CxyvP^VU«v,rv/^ iTPUJCTU»A^7 C a ^a J 04 A«AWTT*»^^*^
Got /^/o gTi^,<VvSi»<vJ o/L
^fLucTvAAC. fLcfA\AS M4S A^LAjosjjeJ
Cx'ry CeofMCtl App/UoAo. C/LoSE-fc./
oJr- AA a 5 /vor /^cAAO\a**J fJ^OT'
/S^AAJaJ uJirH '^ts
MOOOPY
CU/lCti
?it50 OArtc (Zjb^
0
I>-3
FLOOR PLAN
1/4*"1'-0'
‘///olo3
Bl^i '
. (
!.
t:
;!
!1;i
! .
If
) i
I:
:i’
!!
• r
CITY OF ORONO
275ftKe«&y Partway • PO Box 66
Crystal Bay. Minnesota 55323
"52)249^600
PERMIT
Permit Number
Permit Type:
Date Issued:
€:/
P06II0
AdditioaHemodel/Repair
3/31/2003
SITE ADDRESS:
PID: OS-117-23-23-0001
3980 Dahl Rd
Mound. MN 55364
DESCRIPTION:
Proposed Use:Residential Construction Type VN
Permit Gass:Building Census Code 434
Permit Type:Addition/Remodet/Repair Permit Sub-type(s): AddaTlemodclIRepair
DETAILS:
ApproN-ed per resolution
Separate permits required;
NOTICES/REMARKS:
-Fee: $.
•AteredBy: __
.0 .O'-7-,
/5 1)^Da.e Received:€-7-
Permit#: Ad^jiin
CITY OF ORONO - BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION
All information must be submitted !n full before plan review will be started.
{please print all information)
THE APPLICANT IS: {circle one) OWNER OlVCONTRACTOQ
JOB SITE ADDRESS: DptHL> Rt)____________ZIP:
PHONE: (home)_
(work)
NAME OF 0\>T^R: iJcJ
i _ (work)_______________________ /
MAILING ADDRESS: OAoTL. (2^ CIT\': ZIP;
CONTRACTOR: PHONE; ^<"Z
CONTACT PERSON: /hjf<uJ MOBIlSPAGER:
MAILING ADDRESS: ^77f~ CIT\': ZIP;
STATE LICENSE: #____________
ARCHITECT/ENGINEER;
MAILING ADDRESS:___
NAME: _____________
PHONE:
CITY:_________
REGISTRATION#
ZIP;
_ Addition____ Accessory Strucmre ^
Remodel/Alteration Land Alteration
• 7*^ ------
PROPOSED WORK {describe In detail): 7^
TYPE OF WORK: New
Move____
/SQ. FEET OF EACH FLOOR:STORIES:_____
NO. OF BEDROOMS: GARAGE STALLS: ATT.
ESTDLATED CONSTRUCTION VALUATION (excluding land): S 2€>^OCr?^
I hereby apply for a building rermit and I acknowledge that the information above is complete and
accurate; that the work will be In conformance with the ordinances and codes of the City and with
the State Building Code; that I understand this is not a permit and work is not to start without a
permit; and that the work will be in accordance with t^ approved plan.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE;DATE:
NOTE! Parade of Homes eventyrequire separate permit approval by Police Department and
Gty Council 60 days prior to the event. Non-permitted events will not be allowed.
v ••. • :• • • v
g:‘
fi ■• .
^,^;oi*c.:o::o
; 7.. Jtoi/. Qir ;
^ioAlUL *^00 V
■• ^/'PCjBVUX'i^ • yiAMAfUjw^ OrVM./vvwVi-crv'
■-r (oaiiik C lU ti U*P)IWA.
,, . 0^w^ 6^ OuuutAa ^»jdSIc!.p<i,vAs av-
LA-^Ou3cu^ cu^ 'Viu. \Afiv^
■ 0^ VjUK CJJV\L^^
OjVfclcJL
't' (^ : \>jui^^
bw^Vllo/;^ J -eA-n; A/\\a Ju J> MfV .
\ip^\ 0-6 O^ ^bHr^U-
b ClAXCU^ ^ U.AA^O'SVv^O'liU .
W IxlAjp Wlo u^Vt C)(Xi.v^
. oi^ DSK^ ur ^ CJUJ^^
^ ^ Cfc u*o-o->
-KuuriA \J CLU^X alu -® 0^^^ Cnu. (y^
pjuu^v. l>Lc<=»s. O^UfuW. -H-l
flff^^Xj h><-CtXjL(A^ ^ JULKAj^»^^J5X>a^
U hIu P LUO j^ “te t WW^ ICleyvJJ , ^
44ji /vjmJbci L«w^^^<na tou«-Utw
AppL*'-':i-CrP "b t:^ ^ QOi^l CiXCCOCLuP
OJ^ qIx^ liita_4k Lu A 6^ ooWi^
- 'I
.^vVa-S^ Ala^
(MW 4U V—
^ V<pCt^5,
0^
dic>alcct
Scw-UJ u J^
l^cuA. CL n^
0^tLLUUl(y
f- V
\~^V
HtNNU*l;» COUhm* I ROfF
PROPERTY 0>
* INKORr.tAllUN SiitHM:>usr
3t MU7U2J0023
Pftor Aom lois loma lmoa avc
OWNOUUM8 ToosTcsBotcyKjasmuieiio
TAXPAVOt TMOTOYCMCJUSTUOSnuatO
HAMR/AOM 1045 UMA UNOA AV8
MOUNOMN SS5M
51 MII7252Xa3
PIIOPAOCMt 1035 LOMA UNOA AV6
OWNERNAME R C BROWN A M A BROWN
TAXPAYER ROSSCAMEUNOAABROWN
NAME/AOOR 1035 LOMA UNOA AVE
MOUNOMN 553M
PROPAOOR
30 00II7U230024
I03S LOMA UNOA AVE
OWNERNAME R B ANOERSONA J A ANDERSON
TAXPAYER RBAIA ANDERSON
NAME/AOOR I03S LOMA UNOA AVE
MOUNOMN 55364
M 0011733730031
PMPAOOR 1040 L064A UNOA AVE
OWNERNAME LAPELLB1TASHPBLLE1T
TAXPAYER LOREN PEILBTT
NAMVAOOR 1040 LOMA UNOA AVE
MOUNOMN 55364
3S Oil1733330039
PROPAOOR 1056 LOMA UNOA AVE
OWNERNAME KRTRmASTRTIZ
TAXPAYER KEVIN A SUELLYN TRITZ
NAME/ADDK 1056 LOMA UNOA AVE
MOUNOMN 55364
I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND
•mUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHS DATEONTHE RBOOROS
OFTHE HEWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST
OFMY KNOWLEDGEANDBEUEF. . .
DATE^l£!i:i^ BY
// ''
PAGE:!
CD
.,K
RUN date . yjyiau
31 0711723110020
f«Of ADM 4060 DAHLftO
OWNERNAME JAJNEVBJR
TAXPAYER JAMES P NEVE JR
NAME7AOOR 4060OAHLRO
MOUNDMN 35344
3t 07II723I4000I
PROPADOR 4013 DAHLRO
OWNERNAME RRBHAAPAIA
TAXPAYER ROOERTJR BONITA LIIAAPALA
NAM^AOOR 4013 DAHL RO
MOUNDMN 33364
31 0711723140006
PROPADOR 1029 L06IA LINDAAVE
OWNERNAJ4B RARKNOX
taxpayer RALPH B KNOX
NAME/AODR 1099 L06IA LB40A AVE
MOUNDMN 33364
3t 07II723I400S6
PROPADOR 1030 L064AUNOAAVE
OWNERNAME LAHUDIKERAOWWOLLNER
taxpayer LORI A HUNKER
NAME^AOOR CARY W WOlXNER
I030LO64ALINDAOR
MOU74DMN 33364
3t 0011723230006
PROPADOR 1031 LOMA UNOA AVE
OW7IERNAME TMAMLSCHAIBIE
TAXPAYER TODD M A MICHELLE LSCHAIDLE
NAME7AOOR • 1091 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUNDMN 33364
31 Oil 1723230009
PROPADOR ion LOMA LINDA AVE
OWNERNAME DRJOHNSONALMJOHNSON
TAXPAYER DEAN R A LBAM JOHNSON
NAME/ADOR I0E2 LOMA UNOA AVE
MOUNDMN 33364
HENNEPIN SYSTEM PACE: I
31 0711723110021
PROPADOR 4040 DAHLRO
OWNERNAME JOHN LLEPPLA A WIFE
taxpayer JOHN L LEPPU
NAME/ADDR 4C40 DAHL RO
MOUNDMN 33364
31 07II723I400Q2
PROPADOR 4023 DAHLRO
OWNERNAME LARRYDMCLAIN
TAXPAYER URRY D MCLAIN
NAME/ADOR 4023 DAHLRO
MOUNDMN 3M64
31 0711723140007
PROPADOR 1023 LOMAUNDAAri
OWNERNAME LAVONNESORENSON
TAXPAYER LA VONNE SORENSON
NAME/ADOR 4027 VINCENT AVE N
MPLSMN 53412
31 0711723140071
PROP ADOR 1000 LOMA LINDA AVE
OWNERNAME MARYAUUUCH
TAXPAYER MARY A ULRICH
NAME/ADOR 1000 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUNDMN 33364
31 on 1723230007
PROP ADDR 1066 LOMA LINDA AVE
OWNERNAME CAROLMRADUNZ
taxpayer CAROLMRADUNZ
name /aoor 3309 river bluff cm
BLOOMINGTON MN 33437
31 on 1723230019
PROPADOR 1139 LOMAUNOAAVE
OWNERNAME MCTHURLOADSTHURLO
TAXPAYER mark THURLO A DEBRA THURLO
NAME/ADOR 1139 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUNDMN 33364
31 07II723II0022
PROPADOR 4030 DAHLRO
OWNERNAME JHQLBERTAM MCtLOERT
TAXPAYER JAMES H A MARY M GILBERT
NAME/ADOR 4030 DAHL RD
6NXJNDMN 33364
31 0711723140003
PROPADOR 4033 DAHLRO
OWNERNAME WRUa MJR08ETH
TAXPAYER WILLIAM J ROSETII
name /aoor 4033 DAHL RD
MOUNDMN 33364
31 0711723140033
PROPADOR 1034 L064A UNOA AVE
OWNERNAME M HURNER ABHURNER
TAXPAYER mark HURNER A BRENDA HURNER
NAME/ADOR 1034 LOMA LINDA AVE
MOUNDMN 33364
3S 0111723230001
PROPADOR 3910 DAHLRO
OWNERNAME THOMASPMCCLYNN
TAXPAYER THOMAS P MCCLYNN
NAME/AOOR 39H> DAHLRO
MOU7IOMN 33364
31 on 1723230001
PROP ADDR 1074 LOMA LINDA AVE
OWNERNAME MARGARETEMATTSON
TAXPAYER MAROARETE MATTSON
NAME/ADOR 1074 LOMA UNOA AVE
MOUNDMN 93364
31 on 1723230020
PROPADOR 1127 LOMA LINDA AVB
OWNERNAME DALEFROTM
TAXPAYER DALE F ROTH
NAME/AOOR 1127 LOMA UNOA AVE
MOUNDMN 33364
Qc:-
e'i
*
♦' • -
. /I
ikP"' / .n ^T>;-
-t.' -'f f '■ ^■ ;l
-."r-ri™l- V ... .. 'T
.•s,,u:u:.i^:^*;-N; •;■•::■.
<'- - ____________i-lL--..
T^v?7*»v^
. -V. ■«•i"Si- <s
!lv.' .
w-.- » . » «-^l*
i
C-V:* ‘
;k; __.
feiMifr;' ■'■•
mWi •
Bf.rm-'-m • <. ^
:^r.
ek:^^wJr • •
r<
' /' t'V
.-iT. ‘
mMm
\
rl
wm
P't
<v'.' i... v: ■
^^;ysfu,A:
m.
• ^ r ^
ft I
.Jl
m^z~^ x;^?r ■
r'
4
I r
ik'
'■i^- ’ ■•%L
'•' ■siV’' '^-^\
‘V l^ 'M'..
!"?v ;Vs^^
*.'^.^-^jL. ---------■!L> ..
- • ■O *V .-. ■ - > rl . r^•^h-
- ■' -
., .^.-^-v ' •- -.'. *
f ;f
i' * *^1L Sir-V-A..,'^^
m
feJL_;.....
' ' ■■'*■'---i ■ ' •*■ *. >!-.'■' ’
#:>3^“^■*3 ■20^'If
PifiI"!
fj,
m.i
m
V liL
■ f?'
m mmmm
mM
, V.. .
' ' 2- > t-'
■ - S' ,V V M
3^^?- l/ri
‘y-J:^'^a£k^Ww'
V^j V
W7rv> «
:-V
j '1-
iM • • C-. f 1
.. 5 . V«k*... ■ «.^
r /i' <^.
%v\,'
V'<rv ■ V.
■ 58T.
iW m
' ■ ;|«
/
/ '/_
.‘i--^ '»-j
r; #
'TT-'* * —
%: ..
I'V '.'IISifew>slrfliv.
1N>&
’-.i&
il. • V^4.v(
v^^V ■7 • ' ***2««l
W J
'ml^^
C, 7 ci c >' <yj-^
PI W-‘-<
I ^ . .•
.C--' ’■;.
V f ; . ,.
b' < - ' . -Jr '^V
:• ' ' ^
1&5I
X ?«!»«
t->«gia
mi
f-W'
/; 70 • C *> 5^^^
MDce Oaffron
Orono City Offices
Cl« I
June 12,2003
Re: Tom McOlynn
3980 Dahl Road
#03-2909
Dear MDce.
Thank you for the land use application notice in regard to our neighbors, the
McGlynns. We have no objection to their request and in fact, think it sounds like a fine
idea. If you have any questions, give us a call.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETLNG
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
ROLL
The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present:
Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, Liz Hawn, Jearme Mabusth, Cynthia
Bremer, Stephanie Zugschwert and late arrival alternate Jule Hannaford. Representing staff
were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Recorder Kristi Anderson, and Council
Representative Jim Murphy.
Commissioner J. Mark Fritzler was absent.
Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M.
CONSENT AGENDA
(#1) #03-2891 ERIC AND KAREN PAULSON, 2605 MAPLE RIDGE LANE,
VARIANCE
Hawn moved. Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-
2891, Eric and Karen Paulson, a variance to permit construction of an in-ground pool
that encroaches 32* into the average lakcshore .«vthaeu 'he propert>- located at
2605 Maple Ridge Lane. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#2) #03-2892 DANIEL BARTUS, 1001 WILDHURST TRAIU VARIANCE
Chris Morgart, 1003 Wildhurst Trail, requested that the item be taken off consent for
discussion. He indicated that since the property has been demolished, there has been a trash
pile located on the site which has blown trash onto his property. He stated that, as
construction continues, he would like some assurance Uiat the encroaching driveway on the
property would be changed and asked when a home would be built on the site.
Chair Smith removed the item from consent for further discus.sion aPer item #3, in order to
give the applicant time to arrive. Furthermore, Smith indicated that, typically, home
construction needs to be completed within a certain timeframe or variances expire on a
property.
Gaffron expected that a home would be built on the site within one year.
OLD BUSINESS
Since staff was short handed, Mabusth indicated that she w’ould be a non-voting member of
the Planning Commission this evening in order to assist Planning Director Gaffron w ith
staff memorandum and reports.
PAGE I of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock pjn.
(M) «03-2869 DR ROBERT GUMMT, 1100 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO.U),-----------
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, 6;10-7:42 P.M.
Dr. Robert Gumnit and Francis Graham, the applicants were present, as were their
representatives, Attorney Robert Mcller and Paul Hudalla, of Schoell and Madson.
Mabusth explained that the applicants were requesting the following to reconstruct an
existing gravel pathway through wetland to access a 1.8 acre island of land on their
property:
1. Variance: hardcover within the 0 to 75’ setback zone from the OHWL of
French Lake where no hardcover is permitted (pathway reconstruction);
2. Variance: grading, filling and excavating within 75’ of the OIIWI. of French
Lake where no grading, filling or excavating is permitted (pathway
reconstruction and wetland mitigation); and
3. Conditional Use Permit: movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material
Within the shorcland overlay district (pathway rcconstniciion and wetland
mitigation).
In addition, Mabusth indicated that the applicants were also requesting the following to
pcmiit keeping horses on an intermittent basis on the island of land on their property:
1. Variance: cgricultural u.se (grazing of horses) within 150’ of the OIIWI. of French
Lake where no agricultural use is pennitted; and
2. Variance: a wire fence w ithin 150’ of the OlIWL of French Lake where no fences are
pennitted.
Mabusth reported that this application was tabled at the Fcbniary-19, 2003 Pianning
Commission by a vote of 6 to 0. The applicant was directed to discuss the proposal further
with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Department of Natural Resources,
opposing property ow ners within the neighborhood and to revise the proposal according to
the Planning Cominission s comments. She noted that the applicant had taken the Planning
Commission’s advice and discu.ssed the proposal with the MCWD and DNR. However, he
has chosen to move forward with the same plan as re\ iew ed in February, w ith clarification
of some of the concerns voiced at the meeting.
For discussion, Mabusth stated that the application was two pronged; to permit
reconstruction of a I2 ’X 120’ gravel pathway for the property owners to access an island of
land on their properly; and to allow horses on an intermittent basis on the island.
With regard to the keeping of horses. Mabusth explained that horses are permitted
accessory use in the RR-IB zoning district. Since Nvo acres of pasture are required for the
first horse and 1 acre for each additional horse kept on the property, assuming that all 8.36
acres arc available for pasture, the applicants would be permitted up to 7 horses on t!
property.
PAGE 2 of 39
F MLNUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
(^3 1^03-2869 DR GUMMT, Conlinucd)
Agricultural uses, including grazing, arc permitted in the Shoreland Overlay District.
However, this use is not permitted w ithin the shore setback zone. The shore setback zone
for French Lake is defined as 150’ from the OHWL. Therefore, horses arc not permitted to
graze within ISO' of the OHWL of French Lake, as proposed. Mabusth indicated that the
applicants have stated that they have a grazing plan from the Hennepin Conservation
District which they intend to follow. At a minimum, the Hennepin Consers ation District
has suggested that a IS’ buffer should be maintained between the horses and the edge of
the wetland. The island is surrounded by wetland wliich. further out, becomes open water
and the delineated edge of French Lake. Mabusth stated that it is possible to consider that
the island is surrounded by wetland, not lakeshorc, requiring a 26* setback instead of ISO’.
The City Engineer reviewed the application when it was first heard in February. He stated
that a typical section of the proposed roadway should be included for review and erosion
control measures should be installed, inspected and approved prior to construction activity.
Since this time, a wetland delineation report has been received and a t>pical section of the
proposed roadw ay has been submitted. City Engineer review and approval w ill be required
prior to issuance of permits.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Written comments have been received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
regarding this application Mabusth explained that the MCWH has indicated that, as long
as the impacts are mitigated, they would support any action taken by the City.
Pepa nment of Natural Resources
The DNR surveyed the applicant’s property and determined that the pathway is above the
OHWL of French Lake and, therefore, docs not require DNR re\ iew or approval. Neither
did the DiNTl express any concern about the care and keeping of horses on the site.
Mabusth stated that, if the Commission considers the application in tw o parts, and
approvals are so moved, the approvals should be conditioned by tlie following:
1. Permit approval from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is required prior to
construction on the p. ipcrty;
2. Review and approval from the City Engineer is required prior to construction on
the property;
3. The property owner will have the ability to routinely maint.ain the |.athway, as
approved; and
4. The I >pcrty owner must sign and return the 120 day review period waiver,
provided by the City on April 18,2003, prior to Ma> 23. 2003.
PAGE 3 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMMT, Continued)
Chair Smith reminded the applicants that a previous use docs not necessarily guarantee
them the ability to return to that original use since some time had passed and new slate
statutes had come into play.
Dr. Gumnit rcii-v^cd what he felt to be their hardship, which was the inability for them to
access or use 1.8 acres of their property. He stated that, legally, they did have the right to
place a fence on the island near the top; however, they wished to make use of a less
obtrusive low visibility wire fence near the lower portion of the island which would hardly
be noticeable. He pointed out that, if the island were viewed as adjacent to a wetland
versus the lake, he would be allowed to place the fence 26’ versus 150’ from the
‘shoreline'.
Having lived on this parcel for 15 years. Mrs. Graham noted that much has changed in
Orono over the years; where once you commonly saw horses from the road, now you
don t She stated ihal they have an extensive set of woods on their property n ar the road,
which she felt would be absurd to destroy to keep the horses on an intermittent basis. As
environmentally conscious individuals, she pointed cut that, at any rale, they should be
allowed access to 25% of their dry land property and to maintain it.
Commissioner Hannaford arrived at 6:30 P.M,
horT^^s^””^^ ® shelter on the island might fit into the picture for the
Graham stated that, technically, they could build a ga/ebo on top of the knoll.
Bremer encouraged the Commission to considLr the application as two separate items.
Dr. Guninit reiterated that they wish to have safe access to the island to maintain it and
separately, would like to be allowed to put up a w ire fence to keep their horses
occasionally.
Gaffron c®"curTcd that, legally, the applicants do have the right to build something if they
meet the 150* setbacks.
There were no public comments.
ofAe iKi^boI^*^* supported the application, indicating that it maintained the rural feel
PAGE 4 of 39
MLVUTESOFTHE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMNIT, Continued)
Dr. Gumnil reiterated that a 12’ width is what has always existed, and they were merely
asking to repair this by filling the sagging middle and creating a ‘crown’ for the water to
run off of.
Chair Smith asked for comments with regard to the keeping of horses.
While acknowledging that the horses would not be kei*t near the wetlands >Tar round,
Hawn voiced concern with regard to the amount of phosphorous delivered by each of the
horses over the course of a year into the wetland. She asked what t>pe of manure
management plan they would use.
Dr. Gumnit stated that, w hile Hennepin County suggested that they n.aintain a buITcr from
“MndSarr!''"
For both aesthetics and the enviromnent, Graham maintained that they would be able to
manage the hill, prairie, and manure problem.
Chair Smith asked the Commission how they could manage the number of horses or
control the timeline to which they were allowed to be kept.
Gaffron pointed out that, since the variance would be transferred with the property and not
the owners, consideration should be given to setting limits, if the Commission so chose.
^ppheatbn^ whether the MCWT) w ould find any reason to look unfavorably on the
conc'tn abounhe^h^^ express any
Since the City adopted the DNR’s own ordinances as their own. Mabusth found it difficult
that they had no problem with the horses being kept near the water’s edge.
bound^'Tf Frof h distinguish betxveen the ‘shorcland’ versus ‘wetland*
PAGE 6 of 39
r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o ’clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT CUMMT, Continued)
har^ip on the second mailer. He questioned whether the Commission believed the
applicants should have a right to that use or if it should take place elsewhere.
Mabuslh stated that the haMship could accompany the fact that 1.8 acres of their dry land
sundlrds*”'^ ** surrounded by water; therefore, it is considered ‘shorcland* by new roning
property could support 7 horses, she did not
believe the island or knoll could do so. She recognized that if they were to be fed bv
th^knoi appJjcants would be required to provide more acreage than that provided by
Hawm maintamed that it was the Commission ’s responsibility to look at the bigger picture
and impose rcstnclions that would accompany the property should ownership change.
Chair Smith moved to approve the reconstruction of the gravci drivewav, not to
exceed 12 , and the intermittent keeping of no more than 4 horses on the knoll at
time, for no more than two weeks at a time.one
Since their Ih^ horses, currently, would only visit the location and not be kept there
permanently. Graham stated that she did not wish to be limited furthc*-
The applicants Attorney asked for a three minute consultation from 7:27 - 7:30 P.M.
PAGE 8 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#3 #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GUMMT, Continued)
Chair Smith withdrew her original motion.
Chair Smith moved, Zugschwert seconded, to approve Application #03-2869, Dr.
Robert Gumnit, approving the reconstruction of the gravel driveway, not to exceed
12*, and the intermittent keeping of no more than 4 horses on the knoll at one time,
for no more than two weeks at a time, for a maximum of 20 weeks in a given calendar
year, accompanied by a manure management plan, for the property located at 1100
Old Co'stal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 3, with Hawn, Rahn, and Bremer
dissenting.
Chair Smith moved, Bremer seconded, to approve part one of Application #03-2869,
Dr. Robert Gumnit, approving the reconstruction of the gravel drivew ay to the knoll,
not to exceed 12’, subject to staff conditions, for the property located at 1100 Old
Ciy stal Bay Road. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
As tlic application would be moving forward to the City Council with tliis partial
recommendation, Gaffron reminded the applicants that the 120 day waiver needed to be
filed.
(#2) #03-2892 DANIEL BARTUS, 1001 WILDHURST TRAIL, VARIANCE, 7:42 -
7:48 P.M.
Todd Kitutson, the draibman and applicant's representative, was present.
Although the neighbor, Mr. Morgan had to leave, Mr. Knutson indicated that he had
spoken to him in the hallway, supplied him with his business card, and promised to follow
up with Mr. l^irtus on his concerns. Mr. Knutson indicated that the driveway would be
moved, no detached garage built, and that the debris would be cleaned up. I ?e added that a
home was intended to be built as soon as permits were obtained.
Chair Smith encouraged Mr. Knutson to have the applicant clean up the debris as soon as
possible.
Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, approving Application #03-2892, Dan-liar Homes,
1001 Wildburst Trail, granting a lot width variance to permit construction of a new
home on the parcel. VOTE: Ayts 6, Nays 0.
PAGE 9 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
(#4 «I03>2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
4. 3,303 s.f. (30%) hardcover v%ilhin tlic 75’ to 250’ lakeshorc setback zone where
2,753 s.f. (25%) is permitted; and
5. grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where no
grading nor filling is permitted.
The Planning Commission heard this application at their Monday, April 21, 2003 meeting.
With a vote of 7 to 0, the Planning Commission tabled the application to allow the
applicants to reduce hardcover in the 75’ to 250’ setback zone to ‘ between 25% and 30%”
and to no more than 2,783 s.f (15%) of structural coverage on the combined lots by
redesigning the proposed home. The requested variances for lot area, lot width, hardcover
within the 0 to75’ setback zone, and grading and filling within 75’ of the OHWL appeared
to be acceptable to the Planning Commission at the last meeting.
Mabusth noted that the proposed house has been redesigned to reduce the hardcover in the
75’ to 250’ hardcover zone from the previously proposed 4,483 s.f (38.36%) to 3,303 s.f
(30%). The structural coverage has also been reduced from 3,132 s.f (16.88%) to 2,505
s.f (13.5%), meeting the maximum pennitted on the lot.
With regard to the City Engineer’s comments, Mabusth presented 5 comments, several of
which include:
1. The grading plan should show a defined swale along the northwest lot line to take
storm water tow ards the lake and away from 1270 Spruce Place;
2. Grading should be coordinated with the proposed development at 1300 Spruce
Place so that drainage from both parcels is directed towards the street or the lake;
3. Driveway grades should be shown on the plans and should not exceed 10%;
4. There are currently w atcr and sewer scrx ices provided to each property, only one of
which will be needed foi the new home. The unused sew'cr service should be
removed to the City right of way and sealed to prevent infiltration into the sanitary
sewer system. '1 he old water serx ’ice should be abandoned and the curb stop shut
otf. St wer and water removals must be inspected and approved by the City’s public
works department; and
5. Erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved prior to any w ork on
site.
On behalf of staff, Mabusth reiterated that hardcover variances have consistently been
denied for new construction on similar sized (approximately % acre) lots in the % acre and
1 acre zones over the past 4 years. Staff could Qot support a variance for hardcover in 75’
to 250’ setback zone for new construction on this lot since, in staffs opinion, no suitable
hardship could be identified.
PAGE 11 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2885 GEROA AND LD TOTH, Continued)
Mrs. Killian at 1300 Spruce Place, back to the drawing board with the recommendation to
get the hardcover to 25%. It seemed ^parent to Rahn that the Council would like the
Commission to low the line on the 25% hardcover requirement. Although no vote w as
taken, the Council gave the impression that the application would have been denied rather
than tabled, if the full Council were present.
Although Haw n had been present at the past Planning Commission meeting during which
the Commission gave the applicant misdirection, she believed now that they should try to
hold them to 25% hardcover in order to avoid a simila' problem at the Council level
Since there was little hardship which demonstrated the need for more than 25*o hardcover.
Chair Smith was hesitant to send them forward with 30%
Mr. MacDonald argued that the evening’s discussion was a reversal from the last Planning
Commission meeting. He maintained that, since the full Council was not present at the last
meeting, Rahn could not deduce that tlic application would have been denied a greater
hardcover vaiiancc. He made a case that the 2 acre zoning district Ordinance in itself
imposes a hardship on applicants with smaller parcels.
Chair Smith reminded the Commission that the Council had given them clear direction, as
of late, to adhere to the 25% hardcover allowance. Althougli she agreed that the new home
was beautiful, she acknow lodged the need to hold to the hardcover nuntbers.
MacDonald maintained that the City had granted many variances in excess of 25%
hardcover over the past several years.
Chair Smith admitted that the City does make exceptions when the land warrants it On the
other hand, she noted that when new construction, like this, offers little in the way of
hoidsliip, they must adhere to the percentages.
WTiile she apologized for the misdirection given the applicants the last time, Hawn stated
that the Commission would be doing the applicants no favor sending them forward to the
Council only to be denied their application.
Mr. Toth voiced his disappointment in being vastly misguided by the Commission the last
time t).ey met.
MacDonald asked for the opportunity to repeat his powerpoint presentation given during
the first hearing, since the applicant had gone to a great deal of time and expense to
redesign his application to fit within the Commission’s guidelines
PAGE 13 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#4 #03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
Since the Commission had viewed MacDonald's presentation the last time. Chair Smith
encouraged him to be brief and focus on the portion of the presentation that focused on
their specific hardship.
MacDonald began reiterating that the overlay Ordinance is what has created the hardship
for smaller lots. He pointed out that they had succeeded in removing all of the hardcover
from the 0-75 ’ setback zone, and reduced the hardcover in the 75-250’ zone from 47»/o to
30%.
Chair Smith asked if what MacDonald was really requesting w ould be that the Ordinance
be revised from the existing 25% allow ance.
MacDonald noted that, while on a 2 acre lot in the zoning district, a 12.000 s.f home is
more than ample, on a 50’ lot, 25% creates a small ‘dog house’. He maintained that
special consideration must be given to smaller lots and pointed out that Orono is one of the
only lakes communities that subtracts the 0-75 ’ from its hardcover equation. He shared
what he believed to be applications in which variances for hardcover over 25% were
granted.
Chair Smith indicated that it was not up to the Commission to rewTite the variances this
evening and suggested Mr. MacDonald hold conversations to that end with the City
Council as well. ^
\i hile shape, grade, and drainage all constitute elements ofhardships, Hawn stated that
unfortunately, size alone cannot constitute the hardship. She reminded the public that the
vjmancc and Ordinance process is not a perfect science and that, occasionally, mistakes are
Bremer maintained that many of the applications cited by the architect were remodels, and
not new constniction, therefore the approvals for those variances may be misleading.
Gaffron concurred, stating that the comparison of remodels to new construction was like
comparing ‘apples to oranges’.
MacDonald encouraged the Commission to look at the intent of the variance. He
maintained that his applicant was proposing to create a better situation for the lots He
believed the City had gotten to a point of being too legalistic, and not considering each
spccifie application on its own merits. Once again, he encouraged the Commission to
w eigh w hat would be best for the property versus the o\erall consequences of their
decisions.
PAGE 14 of 39
r
L-
MINUTES OK THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
«03-2885 GERDA AND ED TOTH, Continued)
While Mabuslh recognized the dilemma the City had created by looking at rebuilds versus
construction, she questioned how setting this precedent without formal discussion with the
City Council would impact the process.
Cl.air Smith agreed, stating that a larger discussion was required than could be had this
evening with regard to variances for new construction versus rebuilds. She added that this
was the City ’s only opportunity to get the property into greater conformance with what is
currently required, since size is not an accepted hardship. She indicated that the applicant
could ask to be tabled, or they could ask for a motion, which would likely be for denial, in
order to make their argumcr: to City Council.
Wliilc he was not present at the last meeting, Hannaford felt the applicant had followed the
direction given by the Commission and that it would be unfair to deny the applicant’s
proposal.
MacDonald asked if the applicant would be penalized by a time restriction if they moved it
forward to Council and it were denied.
Gaffron indicated that, if the application moved forward with a recommendation for denial,
and the City Council chose to table the application for redesign, it w ould return before the
Planning Conunission.
Hawn and Ralm bolli indicated that the architect’s objections were a matter of policy and
the Ordinances would not be chartged in one niglit.
Bremer reiterated that, based on prior discussion, the Commission gave the applicants
direction, they met it, and now’ they arc being told they do not comply. She felt this w as
unfair.
MacDonald asked for a motion.
Haw n moved, Rahn seconded, to recommend denial of Application ^03-2885, Ed and
Cerda Toth, 1280 and 1290 Spruce Place, due to the hardcover Issues in the 75 ’-250’
setback zone. The Commission would recommend approval of the lot area, lot width,
and grading variance requests. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Bremer and Hannaford
dissenting.
Bremer and Hannaford disagreed, stating that tiic aoplicant had met the guidelines set forth
by the Planning Commission at the previous meeting.
PAGE Hi of 39
L
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING - 8.^00 P.M.
(#14) #03-2903 cm' OF ORONO PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
TELECOMNIUNICATIONS TOWER, 8:50 - 9:15 P.M.
GafTron r^rtcd that the City Council had identified a need to provide additional potential
locations for personal wireless scr\ ice antennas in the City aside from the two municipal
water towers. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow such antennas on existing
or future City emergency warning siren towers as a conditional use within the I R-IC, RR-
1 A and RR-1 B zoning; a potential future siren tower at the Orono golf course would also
be in the RR-IB district.
GafTron explained that the ordinance amendment as drafied does the following:
Section I revises existing LR-IC language to allow personal wireless serx ice antennas
only upon the municipal water tower and not upon other municipal structures
‘Personal Wireless Serx icc Antennas’ to the list of conditional u.ses in the
LR-IC district, and establishes conditions and perfonnance standards under which such a
CUP would be granted
Section 3 revises existing RR-IB language to allow personal w ireless serv ice anieiinas
only upon the municipal water tower and not upon other municipal structures.
Section 4 adds ‘Personal Wireless Serv ice Antennas’ to the list of conditional uses in the
RR- IB dislnct, and establishes conditions and performance standards under which such a
CUP would he granted
-Scclioa 5 adds •I'ctsonal Wireless Sersice Antennas'.. the list ofcondilional uses in the
CUP wotldTc’iJanp^^^ conditions and perfonnance standards under which such a
Section 6 merely establishes the effective date of the ordinance amendment.
GafTron indicated that staff recommends adoption of the ordinance, subject to any
revisions the Planning Commission finds appropriate. Note that the City has been under a
moratonum on issuance of pcmiits for siting of wireless telecommunication facilities and
reviewed specific subsections of the ordinance and asked the Commission for additional
comments.
There were no public comments.
PAGE 16 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(##14 ##03>2903 CITY OF ORONO, Continued)
Bremer indicated that in Section 2, subsection j. the size of the cabinets is not identified
and left vague. She questioned what size cabinets would be reasonable to house new
technology.
GafTron stated that language would be added to the section that explains that the size of the
cabinets would be determined by the City Council, based on the consultant’s opinion.
As discussed during the work session. Rahn questioned w here the requirement of screening
for the cabinets ended up.
GafTron indicated that he w ould add language addressing the screening of cabinets, at the
carrier’s expense, to the ordinance.
Hawn moved. Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of the Ordinance
Amending Orono Zoning Code Sections 10.25,10.27, and 10.28 pertaining to
Regulations for Construction and Placement of Personal Wireless Service Antennas
and Towers. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
OLD BUSINESS CONTINUED
(«5) #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD. WEST,
PUD CONCEPT PLAN, 9:15 ~ 10;05P.M.
Rich Revering of Ultieg Engineering, Paul Karlson of Ravia Real Estate, and George
Vanllouicn of Ravia Real Estate, w ere present.
Gaffron explained that the applicant had submitted revisions to the application for B-6
PUD General Concept Plan Approval for the property located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard.
The property was rezoned to B-6/PUD in 2001. The proposed use of the 2.6 acre property
is now two 3-unil office buildings for unit ownership, and a 5-unit equivalent building for
condo office, i.e. leased rooms with common reception areas, etc. as opposed to ow ned
units.
GafTron presented a summary’ of revisions as follow s:
1. Reduction in equivalent number of units from 13 to 11.
2. NE Building reduced from 5 to 3 units, pulling it further south from Sugar
Woods neighborhood.
3. Five-unit West building w ill be designed and marketed as individual office
spaces w ith common reception, lunchroom, restrooms, storage, etc. These
w ill be leased spaces rather than individually owned units.
PAGE 17 of 39
MINUTES OF THfc
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2889 RANTA REAL ESTATE. IXC. CoBtinurd)
4.
5.
Additional screening is added along north aiKl northeast boundaries ofsltc
to bufTer from adjacent residential uses.
Applicant is suggesting the neu plan has 42,000 s.f. gross square footage
but contains only 21,000 net square feet for parking calculation purposes.
Using ITE standards, applicant suggests parking needs arc 2.79 stalls per
1000 s.f of gross floor space; 2.79 x 42,000 /1,000 yields a 114 stall
requirement. Gaffron stated that he was comfortable with 10 stalls per unit
Applicant has had discussions with the City Engineer and Public Ser^'iccs
Director regarding the grades for the scrv ice road and parking areas The
^des recommended by the City Engineer provide difficulties for designing
the walkout concept proposed. Although applicant has indicated that they
will accept the ’approval of the City Engineer’ as a condition of approval,
we do not have a revised plan that meets the City Ilnginecr’s
recommendations.
Applicants have had discussions with the manager of the Orono Shopping
Center and have gamed his general agreement to a 20’ driveway connection
to the north end of the property, subject to no itinoff additions to the OSC
property.
Alter rcvicivine 16 issues tor discussion, GnfTron indicalcd lhal llic plan revisions would
appear !o he addressm* some of the major eoncems brouglil up by ihe public and the
Planning Commission at the April meeting.
Gaffron report^ t^t staff believes • .e mix of owned leased office spaces proposed is an
appropriate and relatively low-mtcnsny use of this site as compared to other possible B-6
uses. The design of the buildings is attractive and of a residential character. Staff is less
concern^ about the parking needs given the reduction in units and the data supplied. We
still need to consider potential traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial use
Despite applicant s hope that the road grades can be worked out to allow the walkout use
intended, the proposed road and parking lot grades are still an issue, and applicant should
be advised to submit a rcMsed grading plan addressing the City Engineer’s
recommendations.
Plannins Commission should address and if possible reach a final conclusion on site
planning issues, including but not necessarily limited to the following:
a) Is the scale and character of the buildings appropriate for the site, in terms of:
iramrcrc^'*^ ‘n'cnsiiy of use and resultant impacts to surrounding properties.
- building setbacks, height, number of stories
- basement/walkout exposure and elevation views
• driveway layout, site access, interior circulation
PAGE 18 of 39
1
r MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
(«S #03-2889 RA\1A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Conti^v a«I)
- building design, facade materials, etc.
• any specific concerns regarding lighting or signage
b)
c)
d)
c)
0
8)
Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public
Landscaping, screening needs
Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter
Parking capacity, whether basis for proposal is acceptable
Pedestrian access, walk^vays
Future road connection to the northwest and Outlot D; or to Orono Shopping
Center site
Any concerns about the revised proposal to provide a mix of owned and leased
units
Any other topies of importance
Any recommendation for site plan approval should also include vacation of utility
easements as required.
Revering staled that, in response to the neighbors, Ravia deleted two units from the
proposal. He indicated that they would be submitting grading plans to Greg Gappa and the
City Engineer for review and was comfortable that they would be able to come to an
agreement.
Chair Smith felt that the intensity and character were good, as well as, the limits set on the
retail use. She believed the parking situation was a definite improvement.
GafTron asked if 20% was too high a percentage for retail use and whether there was much
retail located in their other locations. He suggested the retail use be defined as an ancillary
use not to exceed 10*/o of the space.
With regard to the issues for discussion, item U6, the City Engineer’s concerns, Revering
was confident that the concerns could readily be addressed and submitted to Bonestroo. He
staled that he had discussed the capacity of the pipe w ith Greg Gappa and they were both
comfortable using it.
GafTron found that acceptable.
PAGE 19of3S
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
(#5 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC. Continued)------------------------------
Item #8, the retaining walls on the west side w ould consist likely of one 6’ high modular
block wall. Revenng added that the landscaping w ould potentially be made up of vines to
screen the walls, since there is little space for shrubs or bushes in the landscaping.
Gaffron inquired whether an emergency access betw een the site and the adjoining Orono
Shopping Center would be acceptable w iih Ravia.
Revering agreed an emergency access should be available, at a minimum.
Gaffron and Revering concurred that pedestrian space would be easy to accommodate.
Revering indicated that they would be moving certain trees to Hll in the gaps between the
development and the Sugarwoods properties.
Gaffron noted that during t c ne.xt phase. Wally Case, the City’s consultant, would review
the landK^ing plan, and make a recommendation w hich would include a fairly dense
buffer. Gaffron also suggested the developer assist the neighbor in filling in the old
driveway access area from Sugarw oods.
Revering indicated they would be happy to do so.
Regarding item #14. Revering indicated that the trash enclosure w ould be made of the
same matcnal.
Gaffron suggested that they ensure the office park sign meets all of the setbacks and does
not cause neptive visual impacts from Highway 12. He noted that the base would be made
of similar bnck matching the building and illuminated from within.
Hawn asked if the representatives had held additional meetings with the neighbors.
Gaffron slated that no new comments had been received since the last meeting.
they had downsized the development, she believed that it was still too much for the site
She indicated that she would be interested in seeing the hardcover percentages versus the
greenspace. °
PAGE 20 of 39
r
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday. May 19.2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(«S #03 2889 RAVTA REAL ESTATE. LLC. Continued)
Jackie Ricks. 2108 Sugan\oods Drive, stated that she had phoned Gaffron about receiving
the brochure. She indicated that she, too, believed the use was too intense for just 2 acres.
Ms. Ricks stated that she would like to sec the number of rentals reduced even further,
perhaps by two more. As the dumpster was nearest her property, she asked about its
placement and time trash pickup would occur.
Karlson indicated that they wrre open to a better location, however, he could not guarantee
pick up at a certain time.
Rahn suggested limitations be put on the hauler m terms of pick up times, and believed the
noise ordinances, restricting noise prior to 7AM and after 8PM, would suffice.
Gaffron felt they could address this concern by attempting to get a daytime hauler.
Karlson ensured the neighbor that the dumpster location would be completely enclosed and
shielded.
Ms. Milcusnic stated that she was more skeptical about the elevations, since the
construction of the apartment buildings, as they were much more obtrusive than the
residents were first led to believe.
Karlson stated that it was their intent to be good neighbors and believed the apartment
buildings next door would tower over their buildings.
Gaffron reminded the residents that the development w ould be built on higher elevations to
begin with and might appear higher as a result. He suggested the applicant put togctlier a
side by side elevation comparison between their proposal and the neighboring apartments.
Revering asked what the next step would be.
Gaffron indicated that, if approval was recommended this evening. Ravia would then seek
concept plan approval from the City Council which defines all that is necessary in the final
plans.
Bremer moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2889,
Ravia Real Estate, LLC, 2060 3Va>’zata Boulevard, PUD - General Concept Plan
Revie%v/Prelimlnar>* Plat Review, subject to staff recommendations. \ OTE: Aver 6,
Nays 0.
PAGE 21 of 39
minutes of the
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
NEW BUSINESS ---------------------------------------------
“EHALF of mark CREF., 3120 NORTH
SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE, 10:05 -10:35 P.M.
Robert Swanson, Mcadwood, Inc., on behalf of Mark Crcc, was present.
Gaffiun reported that the applicants were requesting a hardcover variance for the 75-250’
zone to allow 9,970 s.f or 36.75% where only 6.783 s.f. or 25% is allowed. The applicant ’s
agent hu proposed *e use of a paver system CUni Eco-Stone') as a method to mitigate the
exv«s hardcover, which if the payers arc considered as 0% hardcover would still yield a
75-25(r result of 27.5%. Gaffron introduced Robert Swanson to present a permeable pave
system for the Commission’s consideration.
Chair Smith asked if the representative could answer the Commission’s concerns with
regard to the property and variance request.
Sw anson did not have general knowledge of the application.
genIra"cm5?Mlw application with the owner or
Swanson indicated that it was his intention to encourage the Commission, and Orono to
consider permeable pavement as a potential pavement alternative. He explained how the
downspout s>’stcm would collect w ater runoff until it steeps off into the soil He
maintained that the system would require little maintenance and that concerns with regard
to an unstable surface were not warranted.
Since hurdcover was im imponant issue and runoff nn even greaier concern near the lakes
owners themselves, or their contractor, to be available for discussion. ’
disadvantageous position.
PAGE 22 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday. May 19.2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(M #03-2890 MEADWOOD, INC. ON BEHALF OF MARK CREE, Conlinncd)
Mabusth stated that the City needs to involve many more levels in order to begin
discussions and make recommendations for a new product such as this s>*stem.
Gaffron maintained that what exists currently on the site is 32% hardcover versus the
original approvals for approximately 27% hardcover several years ago. He believed the
i^licants would need to answer many questions before the City would consider their new
application.
Rahn stated that the original approvals allowed 25% hardcover, whereas, many things have
continued to be built since that time. He pointed out that there were far too many issues
with the application other than just the permeability issue Mr. Swanson wished to discuss.
There were no public comments.
If staff expresses an interest. Chair Smith indicated that time needs to be spent in a w ork
study to analyze the potential of the product.
Gaffron suggested the Commi. sion leave the hardcover issue with the applicants and staff
to pursue, and indicated that it would take some effort to understand how and where the
permeable paver system has been used successfully. Given the condition of staff, Gaffron
acknow ledged that an evaluation of the product would not even be on any radar screen for
priorities. \Vliile he believed the City should consider the merits of products like this,
Gaffron cautioned the Commission from labeling it non-hardcover due to the precedent
this would set.
W'hilc Gaflron indicated that he would be happy to work with Mr. Swanson over the long
term, the application would likely be tabled this evening due to the concerns inherent in the
application.
Hawn moved, Zugsehwert seconded, recommending Application #03-2890,
Meadowood, Inc., Mark and Nanc>' Cree, 3120 North Shore Drive, a request for a
hardcover variance in the 75*-250’ zone be tabled for more informalion, and that the
presence of the applicant or their representative is requested for further
consideration. \’OT£: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
(#7) #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENR1CH,4125 IIIGIIWOOD ROAD,
VARIANCES, 10:35-11:17 P.M.
John and Roberta Henrich, the applicants, w’ere present.
Gaffron explained that the applicants proposed to remove the existing house and construct
a new house on the property. The lot is located in the LR-IB zoning district requiring a
PAGE 23 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o*clock p.m.
(#7 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Cootinued)
GalTron relayed staff recommendations, as follows:
• Approval of the variances for lot area based on the fact the lot is developed as a
single family dwelling, has been provided sanitary seuer service and it would not
be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot
• Approval of the average setback and accessory structure variances as described
atmve. Determine whether the deck will remain in place or whether a variance to
top-of-bluff setback would be allowed for its replacement.
• It would be most consistent with City actions over the past 3-4 years to deny the
variance for exceeding 25% hardcover in the 75-250* zone for new construction. In
order to approve the request, Planning Commission must make findings about tlie
unique aspects of this property that rise to the level of a hardship to the property.
Mr. Henrich pointed out that their structure was quite modest at merely 8% coverage and
that they had built the garage in its current location in an effort to maintain the unique
landscaping aspects of the property, including the grove of lilacs. He maintained that the
access was designed in its current configuration based on City recommendations and
numerous discussions. He stated that one of their hardships was exiting the driveway
safely in the winter due to the grades. In addition, he noted that it would take a pretty
significant amount of reworking and a great deal of money to make enormous changes to
the lot and its character to accommodate the requirements.
Gaffron concurred that it would lake a great deal of substantial changes to make the
property conform, which in turn would change the entire character of the property.
While they looked into remodeling, Henrich acknowledged that the home was 80 years old
and in need of total repair. They had decided to rebuild and fell their hardships justified
their application.
Although cost was not an acceptable hardship alone, Hawn agreed that the property w*as
steep and that it would be very expensive to change it.
Mrs. Henrich staled that they had made attempts to rework the garage in the design phase
only to be confronted with new drainage issues.
Henrich stated that he w ould be hesitant to remove, or lose, his relatively new’ and
serviceable garage in order to construct his home. He w as given a variance and built the
garage in 1990 and fell removing the garage would have little impact on the placement of
the house.
PAGE 25 of 39
MINUTESOFTHE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETD^G
Monday. May 19.2003
6:00 o ’clock p.m.
(«7 «03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Conttoaed)
Chair Smith indicated that she felt there was significant hardship to support the variance
request a: 1 would be comfortable allowing the applicant to work with staff to find
ad^tionai removals to get closer to 25%.
Bremer deferred to staff to work with tlie applicant to find additional removals, while
maintaining safe access for the applicant.
Henrich indicated that he would be happy to work with staff to find some additional
removals.
Mabusth concurred, stating that, in her opinion, there were sufficient or definite hardships
to the land to recommend approval of this application.
Bremer moved. Zugschwert seconded, to recommend approval of Application 803>
2893. John and Roberta Hearicb. 4125 Highwood Road, granting lot width, average
lakeshore setback variances, and a variance to allow an accessory structure without a
principal structure during construction on the proper!}'; VOTE: Ayes 5. Nays 0.
Bremer moved. Zugschwert seconded, to table the variance for hardcover in the 75'*
250* setback zone for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 5. Nays 0.
(«8) 1^03-2894 DOUGLAS AND ROBAN SMITH. 4195 HIGHWOOD ROAD.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE. 11:17-11:25 P.M.
Mr. Smith, the applicant, was present.
Mabusth explained that the applicant was requesting the following variances to pemiit
replacement of existing retaining walls and stairs within 75* of the OlIWL of Lake
Minnetonka:
1. 524 s.f. (4.6%) hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone where none is
peimitted;
2. grading, filling and excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75’ of the
OHWL where no more than 10 cubic yards is perming; and
3. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted.
Mabusth noted that the City Engineer had requested additional information with regard to:
1. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of the
stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the hardcover from the
lakeside;
2. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the project; and
3. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan.
PAGE 27 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
■“ ’' ** Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(«S #03-2094 DOUGLAS AND ROBAN SIVIITH, Coattancd)
Ov^l,. .abuslh ^caied that staff recommends approval of variances to replace existing
1. T^ existing deck within the 0-75’ setback zone requires structural repairs and
will not be permitted to be replaced once it has been removed; and
2. Prior to issuMce of the necessary City permits, the following must be submitted
and approved by the City Engineer:
a. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of
the stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the
hardcover from the lakeside. Plans should include existing structures, lot
lines, proposed and existing contours, etc.;
b. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the
project; and
c. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan.
Mr Smith question^ why the reminder with regard to the existing lakcshore deck must be
part of this approval, since it had nothing to do with the current application.
I lawn stated that, as variance approval moves forward, the Conunission and staff would
bkeshori d«r'"
John Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road, as his nearest neighbor, Mr. Henrich stated that he
supported the improvements 100%,
iwj'n’'H •" r«omiii»nd approval of Applicallon KOJ-
‘a sraallat 4.6% hartcovar I.
mora^hao 10 'jJ* 75' if m toTbtalHoilcI
lone where no All Is permitted subject to staff recommendations. %'OTE* Aves 5
Nays 0. *
Mrs. Bastiaaiu, ihc applicam, and Bruce Boeder, ha represenUlivc. were present.
»“ ■““«!» building permit in January
PAGE 28 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday. Ma/ 19,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(#9 #03-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCISCUS BASTIAENS,
Continued)
new principal residence. This would require a Guest House CUP approval, and a variance
to the lot area requirement. The building permit was issued subject to an agreement
requiring applicant to remove the old house within 30 days afler issuance of a C.O. for the
new house if the CUP is not approved.
Gaffron reviewed the fact that, Orono ordinances do not allow a detached second dwelling
unit to remain in place on the property after construction of a new' principle structure,
except and unless a Guest House Conditional Use Permit is approved by the City Council.
Since by definition the parcel is a comer lot, the north lot line of the property is considered
as the front lot line, and the east lot line abutting the right-of-way of Femdale Road North
is considered the side street lot line. Gaflron explained that the applicant wishes to
continue to use the existing driveway access to North Femdale Road during the duration of
the temporary CUP, althougli the new home accesses the private road informally known as
‘Lydiard Road’ to the north of the property. For the 24-month period staff would not
oppose this plan.
After review of the existing septic system, it was deemed that the septic serving the old
house is functional but non-compliant with the 3‘ separation from seasonal saturation rule,
and under City codes would normally have to be replaced by the end of December 2010.
However, the drainfield for the old system is minimal at best and is close to the foundation
of the new house. Having discussed this matter with Septic S>'stems Inspector Matt
Bolterman, it is staffs recommendation that the old house sewer line be connected to the
new house septic s.vstcm during the temporary continued use of the old house.
With regard to the lot area variance, Gaffron pointed out that the City has consistently
ruled that the language ‘All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house ’
means that the lot area must be 20(W'a of the zoning district standard area; i.c. for the
2-acrc zone the lot area must be 4 acres. The applicant’s old house is about 35 ’ from the
new house, hence the property could not be subdivided to allow both houses a 30' side
setback; furthermore, the lot is only 2.3 acres, so no subdivision is feasiblj.
After reviewing the issues for consideration, Gaffron stated that staff recommends
approval of a temporar>' guest house CUP and lot area variance for same, subject to the
follow ing conditions:
1. The guest house shall be used and occupied by persons w ho would otherwise use
the primary residence on the property, such as domestic help, guests and relatives.
2. The guest house shall not be used as a rental unit and will not be used for a home
occupation except to the extent that such use may be allow cd by City code.
PAGE 29 of 39
..
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
CJ9 #03-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCISCOS BASTIAENS
COOtlDIICO^
The applicant shall, upon completion of the septic system serving the new house on
the property, rannect the old house to said new system in a manner acceptable to
the City, and discontinue use of the existing septic system serving the guest house
structure.
^e guest house use shall be allowed only for a period of 24 months beginning with
the date of final Council approval of the CUP. At the end of the 24 month period
the property owner shall discontinue the guest house use and shall remove the
stnicture no later than 30 days after the end of the 24 month period.
The existing drive^^•ay connection directly to North Femdale Road may be
continued only during the 24 month period for which the guest house use is
allowed. Within 30 days after the end of the 24 month period, the driveway
connection to North Femdale Road shall be eliminated, and the driveways and
entrance regrad^ to permanently eliminate direct vehicle access to North Femdale.
Any other conditions the Planning Commission feels are appropriate to ensure
compliance with the conditions of approval.
With regard to the staff recommendations, Mr. Boeder stated that, since the cxistine
s>'stcm was functioning the applicant objected to the requirement that they connect to the
new septic system. While the new home would be ready for occupation by July 11
There were no public comments.
son*s *^**^*^ applicant intended to remove the home in two years after their
Mrs. Bastiaens confirmed that the home would be removed in two years and that no
improvements were to be made to the residence during that time.
approval Femdale driveway access would be subject to Greg Gappa's
Hawn stated that she opposed the application and saw no hardship which would entitle
PAGE 30 Of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o'clock p.m.
(«9 «W3-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCTSCUS BASTIAENS,
CoBlinued)
Rahn agreed that once the certiftcate of occupancy was granted, the City would lose its
leverage.
Gaffron indicated that the guest house can require a CUP.
Rahn questioned what conditions the City could attach to the CUP, suggesting they require
an escrow of funds to ensure the removals take place.
Boeder stated that they would be willing to post a bond or make a deposit of some kind.
Mrs. Basliaens pointed out that, although they own 6 acres, they were unable to subdivide
the property due to easements and the comer lot location near Femdale and Lydiard.
Gaffron indicated that it was the applicants’ intent to subdivide their property into three
parcels; however, due to ROW'S, Lydiard, and easements, the applicant's lot was
significantly reduced down to Us usable 2 acre form.
Bremer stated that, as long as a sunset provision and escrow were required, she would be
comfortable recommending approval of the application. She asked if the applicants could
retain the accessory buildings aAer the Uvo year period if they removed the plumbing from
them.
Gaffron slated that they could retain the accessory’ space without plumbing. He questioned
whether the City was getting a better bargain by obtaining a contract with the applicant that
they will remove the space after two years.
Mrs. Bastiaens stated that she would be willing to sign a contract to remove the buildings
after two \ ears.
Gaffron believed the escrow would provide the city with adequate leverage.
Hawn and Rahn indicated that they could not find adequate hardship to support the
application and were concerned with sc ting a precedent.
Zugschwert stated that she would find hardship, due to the fact that the City's easements
and ROW'*s infringed upon their usable property or ability to subdivide.
Bremer reiterated that she could support the application with the escrow and sunset date
clause.
PAGE 31 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday. May 19,2003
6:00 o’clock p.m.
(#9 M)3-2896 BRUCE BOEDER ON BEHALF OF FRANCISCUS BASTIAENS,-----
COMtiDHCd)
With regard to the septic. GalTron indicated that the City was concerned how the old seoUc
might impact the septic for the new residence.
Boeder staled that, as an engineer, Mr. Bastiaens was willing to take the risk and was
comfortable with the old septic.
Hawn moved, Rahn seconded, to deny Appileatiun ff03-2896, Franciscus Bastiaens
665 North Fcmdale Road, a request for a Gnest House CUP and variance to the lot
dbseitilg*"”**** Nays 3, Chair Smith. Bremer, and Zugschwert
^“Kwhwert seconded, to recommend approval of Application «03-
2896, Franciscus Bastiaens, 665 North Ferndale Road, a request for a Guest House
CUP and variance to the lot area requirement, subject to staff recommendations,
cscept that the applicant be aiionid to utiliie the existing septic system; and that a
two year sunset date and financial arrangement behveen the applicant and the City
Attorney be agreed upon. VOTE; Ayes 2, Nays 3, Hawn, Rahn, and Chair Smith
dissenting.
Chair Smith moved, to recommend approval of Application MI3-2896, Franciscus
Bastiaens, 665 North Ferndale Road, a request for a Guest House CUP and variance
to the lot area requirement, subject to staff recommendatloos except that the
applicant be allowed to utllixe the existing septic s>^tem; and that a one year sunset
date and financial arrangement between the applicant and the Cll> Atlornev be
agreed upon. Motion failed for lack of a second.
AfiCT three failed motions. Gaffron indicated that the application would move forward to
the City Council for their recommendation.
Mra. Buliacns voiced her fhisiralion wih the City that her 6 acre property had been
Mrs. Wi.ittington. the applicant, was present.
a variance to permit construction of a
d^k and stairs 5 in lieight onto the existing home, requiring 5,596 s f (41 56V*) hard
within the 75 ’ to 250 ’ setback zone where 3,366 s.f. (255i) is permined.^ ^cover
PAGE 32 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, May 19,2003
6:00 o ’clock p.m.
(#10 #03-2898 MIKE AND JULIE WHITTINGTON, Continued)
Mabusth presented the property's history, stating that in 1984, applications were filed for
an after-the-fact conditional use permit and variances to construct stairs, retaining walls
and planters within 75 ’ of the lake; and for excessive hardcover in the 0-75’ and 75 ’-250’
setback zones. The resolution permitted 250 s.f of hardcover in the westerly 0-75’; 5,500
s.f. in the 75-250’; and 1,500 s.f in the easterly 0-75’ (not including roadway). The
resolution also stated that, “...any future improvements to this property involving an
increase in hardcover must be matched with the removal of existing h^cover ’’.
While the applicants have stated that they have removed a significant amount of hardcover
over the last few years. Mabusth indicated that staff cannot support increasing hardcover in
the 75 ’-250’ hardcover zone by 86 s.f when the existing hardcover already exceeds the
25% permitted. Mabusth pointed out that staff could support construction of the deck
above the existing concrete patio, not exceeding the existing 5,510 s.f (40.9%) hardcover
in the 75 ’-250’ setback zone.
Mrs. Wliittington stated that they removed 1,000 s.f of plastic over the past several years.
Mabusth explained to the applicant that tlicy would not get a credit for the removals of
plastic.
Wliittington indicated that there was little to remove other than the house. She
acknowledged that 79 s.f of boulders and a pathw’ay w’erc all that could be removed.
Chair Smith insisted that tlie applicant find 86 s.f of removals to hold them to their
existing hardcover calculations before reaching City Council.
There were no public comments.
Hawn moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Applicalfon #03-2898,
Julie and Mike Whittington, 1981 Eagerness Point Road, permitting construction of a
deck and stairs over an existing patio 5’ in height onto the existing home as long as
the total amount of hardcover per staff recommendations does not exceed that which
is already present on the property, and before the application appears before the City
Council the calculations and removals will have been made. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
(#11) #03-2901 DENALI CUSTOM HO.\lES, INC. ON BEHALF OF MELINDA
LEE AND THOMAS DEVEAU, 680 TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCES, 12:20-
12:51 A.M.
David Bicker, of Denali Custom Homes, and Thomas DcN'eau, the applicant, were present.
PAGE 33 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday. May 19,2003
6:00 o ’clock p.m.
" “f •" '«p«”i'»™co^lion on w undersized lot (0.54 acre) having a lot width of 64’. Also reouesled is a
ha^«er variance for Ihe 73.25(fzone lo allow 29.15% where only 25% is nSnS“
Gaflton nplaincd that the lot cuircnlly contains an exisUng residence structure which the
hlZiZ H*" ,■?' ““P Wufr»..T),i,
il? 2-* P">l“«' •>»'"es are outside of the bluff impact zone, and no work
Side Ktback on both sides. GafTron pointed out that another way to reduce hardcover
Gaffion pointed out that the City Engineer's inspection revealed serious concerns with the
recommend:
. Appro«l of the variance for lot area and lot width based on the fact the lot is
developed « a single family dwelling, he been pmvided sanitary ,ewe.e^ce
and It would not be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot.
• Deturf rfthe Mcove variance for hardcove in excess of 25% in the 75-25(r
the'25%tar P'opcriy meeting
a ^ “<> f" submittal^gineeT'* *”<lmg and drainage plan addreaing the concerns of the City
PAGE 34 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday. May 19.2003
6:00 o’clock pjn.
(Ml 1 #03-2901 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES, INC. ON BEHALF OF MELINDA LEE
AND THOMAS DEVEAU, Coaliaaed)
Mr. Beiker staled that the applicant’s hardship lied in the narrowness of the lot. steep
grade, and rough terrain. After consulting Planner Bottenberg. Bicker stated that they
made numerous changes to minimize the plans and pull the home back 20' to minimize
driveway hardcover. He stated that they had made attempts to redesign the driveway, to
make it an end loading garage, and still fell short 170 s.f Bicker pointed out that the
hardcover would be reduced from 40®/o to 29% with the current plan. Finally, he stated that
he w’as confident they could resolve the drainage issues.
Mr. DeVeau stated that they had outgrown the home years ago, and contemplated
remodeling; however, they decided to build a new home since the costs would be similar.
Mary Torkclson, 670 Tonkawa Road, voiced she and her husband’s support for the new-
home. She felt ^e proposed residence would be a good addition to the neighborhood. She
noted that the new home built next door to the DeVeau’s current residence severely
impacted the DeVeau’s view-s of the lake.
Bicker pointed out that the retaining w-alls could not be removed and serve a real purpose.
Based on the fact that the lot was undersized. Chair Smith stated that she did not have
much problem with the application. She asked the applicants to provide the City Engineer
with the appropriate drainage information. She encouraged the applicants to squeeze llic
hardcover down closer to 25%.
Hawn asked whether they could move the excess hardcover out of the 250’ setback zone.
GafTron indicated that pulling the structure back 15' would not help reduce the hardcover
by any significant amount and would adversely affect the home's views. He stated that
even if he putted the home back to gain 150 s.f and turned the garage to be end loading,
which would gain 200 s.f, they would not be much closer to 25% hardcover.
Mabusth indicated that the hardcover for these narrow lots w ould explain why most of the
homes have detached garages at the top of their properties along this stretch.
Wliile they could probably build a detached garage. GafTron staled that they would have a
considerably long walk to the house. He maintained that the applicants could lose little in
the 0-75’ setback, since the retaining walls, steps, and landings were ncccssar)*.
Chair Smith noted that the Commission would be hard pressed not to get closer to 25%.
Hawn asked whether they could consider the fact that the applicant’s views would be
severely limited if they were forced to pull the home back even further, especially after the
PAGE 35 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday. May 19.2003
6:00 o ’clock p.m.
(#12) #03-2902 WJM PROPERTIES, LLC., 2605 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
WEST, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 12:51 -1:00 A.M.
Peter Johnson, Council for Monies < .utomolive Group; Michael Anger, supplier of the
storage tanks; Tom Maddox and another representative of WJM. were present.
Gaffron explained that WJM Properties had applied for an amendment of their CUP and
site plan approvals granted in August 2002 via Resolution No. 4845. The amendments
include the following:
1.Installation of a motor fuel station to support the approved body shop, auto prep
and wholesaling operations (’Motor Fuel Stations* arc a conditional use in the
Industrial District).
Refinishing the east facade of the existing building w ith EIFS (Exterior Insulation
Finish System) to result in a more uniform look to the building.
Approval to construct a 40-foot bituminous driveway from the east parking lot to
the cast property line.
With regard to the access driveway, Gaffron indicated that the applicants were advised in
Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 4845 that access to the site may change in the future
and applicant agreed to discuss the matter at such time that the City or adjacent landowners
initiate such discussion. Applicants have initiated discussion with Long Lake to attempt to
gain access to Industrial Boulevard to the cast via a route behind the golf dome. Public
Scr\ ices Director Greg Gappa is in favor of such a driveway, and it has long been our goal
to establish access to/from the industrial park to signalized intersections and eventually
eliminate direct accesses to Highway 12. The proposed access would be angled to align
with the east-west driving aisle within the existing parking lot.
Gaffron acknowledged that there were a number of issues to be resolved before such a
connection could be realized, not the least of which w as poor soils and w etlands for most
of the corridor. How ever, the City would support such an access if the applicants w ould be
able to obtain it, and the City would want to discuss the potential for establishment of
casements through the WJM property to serve adjacent industrial park parcels.
Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the CUP for the private motor fuel
station and the amendments to the commercial site plan for facade changes and the access
to the east, subject to the following conditions:
1.The proposed fuel system shall meet all pertinent standards of Section 9.34, and
shall meet all pertinent Fire Code requirements. Gaffron noted that the Fire
Marshall had relayed that he had no problem with the use of the storage tanks.
PAGE 37 of 39
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday. May 19.2003
6.*00 o'clock p.m.
(#15 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES, Contiancd)
rebuilds that do more good for the property than remodels of existing bad conditions. He
stated that the opposite bad occurred to date; therefore, making bad situations worse.
(#li) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
There were no other issues.
(#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES fOR APRIL 21.
2003
Hawn BMved, Zagrekwert seconded, approving the Minnies of the Aprii 21,2003,
Plaanlng CoounlsstoB Meeting ns presented. VOTE: Ayes 0, Nays 0.
(#18) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
ON MAY 27,2003 AND JUNE 9,2003.
May 27 •> Hawn
ADJOURNMENT
June 9 • Mabusth
reoved. Chair Smith seconded, to adjoum the Planning Commission meelinn
at 1:10 A.hL VOTE: Ayes 0, Nays 0.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 1:10 A.M.
Sandra Smith, Chair
PAGE 39 of 39