The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-17-2003 Planning Packetr Public A ttendance MCETINCOATr j\'] j 2 □ Council DT*lanning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please FiLLOirmiE information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAMK (please prtol)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER \\\ S-\UrNV,.N______^ I iW, 7 c> -r 1^ ^ ^ Mu¥i ^ AilKr-A: 4.. 5._ /W(/,o\ v?«/ 6* ^. tit C ^ * Wf' f \ A, icCS-‘^ >>i'} A Kru 7.. 9._ 10.. II.. I2._ 1 oro.no planning co.mmission Moaday March 17.2003 6:30 P3I 2750 Kelley Parkwav - Coaacil Chambers AGENDA CouBcil Represealalive: Bob 5.i”scvere AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please tlfa la for the pabllc record at the froat podiam If yoa wish to address the PlaaBlag Commission. Applkaats will be asked to arave to the Croat table to answer questions whea the Chair announces the applicatloa. The PlanalBg Commhsioa h an advisors* body to the Cits* Council. If action is taken on any items oa this agenda, they will be scheduled for the April 14, 2003 Cits Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. OLD BUSINESS 1. #03>2M7 NEW BUSINESS 2. M02-2864 3. #03-2874 4. #03-2875 5. #03-2876 6. #03-2877 7. #03-2878 8. #03-2879 Daniel Adams. 1145 Toakawa Road. Variances (StafT: Wendy Bottenherg) Josephine Carpenter, 480 Russell Avenue, N'uriancc (Staff: Jennifer Chaput) Rich.ird Kail. 3753 Casco Avenue, Vacation (StafT; Wendy Bottenberg) Sandra Ann Benson. 1376 Baldur Park Road, Variance (Staff. Jennifer Chaput) Sevie tanning. 3329 Crystal Bay Road, Variances (Staff: Jennifer Chaput) Shane Rudd, 601 Park Lane, V'arianccs (Staff: Jennifer Chaput) Edward Hamm. 485 Orono Orchard Road South, N’ariance (Slaff: Wendy Bottenberg) Gary Hegencs. 2675 Shadswood Road, N’ariances (Staff: Jennifer Chaput) PLANMNt. CO.M.MISSIUN C O.M.\IE.NTS 9. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings February 24,2003 and March 10. 2003. 10. Other issues for discussion. 11. Planning Commission approval of minutes for February 19.2003. 12. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on March 24,2003 and April 14,2003. ADJOUR.NMENT r- Completion Date: 1^4/03 60 day Review Date: 3/25/03 TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg. City Planner DATE: March 10.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2867 Dan Adams 1145 Tonkaun Road Variances - Public Hearing ironing Dbtricl: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 41.685 s.f. (.95 acre) Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet B Survc)* C Hardcover Calculations D Floor Plans E Elevations F Structural Engineers Report G Staff memo and Exhibits PC Meeting - 2/19/03 Application Summary: This application uos heard at the February’ 19.2003 Planning Commission meeting. The application was tabled with direction given to the applicant's representative. The applicant has submitted a new site plan with minimal changes from the prior plan. The s’ariances required and the changes as propos^ are listed below. Also included is a picture depicting what the proposed changes will look like on the residence. Pertinent Code Seetions: 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (C) (1): Structure within 75' of lakeshore: To permit construction of a second story/dormcrs 62*. a screen porch 70*. and a bay window 69* from the OH\M. of Lake Minnetonka where 75* is required. 2. Section 10.22. Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (C) (6): To permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The total encroachment is approximately 17*. 3. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56.Subd(16)(L)(l): Hardcover in 0-75’Setback: To permit 1.343 s.f of hardcover wi.hin 75’ of Lake Minnetonka where 0 s.f (0*/o) is allowed. S03-2I67 Dan Adams 1145 ToiukaviaRoad 2/14 2003 Page I of4 Sccuon 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LK2): Haidcow in 75-350’ setback: To pcnnit 9,117 s.f. (33%) of hardcover in the 75*250 ’ setback zone where 6.866.25 s.f. (25*/i) is alloMrd. DtocvtsioB: The applicant wishes to remodel and update the existing residence by attaching the detached garage, adding a second sior>’ with dormers and wider overhangs, and converting a portion of an existing deck into a screen porch. New Plan: The applicant has submitted a new revised plan. The changes from the prior plan are noted below: 0-75* setback zone: 1,155 s.f. (9.56%) where 0 s.f. (O'/.) is allowed. Change - Existing deck on lakeside of residence stays. (Increases hardcover by 188 s.f. from first plan) 75-250* setback zone: 9.117 s.f. (33%) where 6,866.25 s.f. (25%) is allowed. Change - Remove 703 s.f. gravel area by driveway. Reducing hardcover by 703 s.f. from first plan. Stnicturc wHbin 75* of Lake Minnetonka: Screen porch - To be located 70’ from Lake Minnetonka. First plan indicated it w ould be moved back out of the 75’ setback. Lakcshorc Deck: At the Planning Commission meeting in February there was discussion regarding the decks located by the lakeshore. A permit was not issued for the decks themselves. However, in 1994 a ptimii «a$ issued for t lift wfiich goes from the lekeshore up the hill to the residence. The hvo smaller decks are where the lifi connects to the ground as landings. Air photos from 1993 and 1994 show the larger deck connected to the smaller deck. Enginccr*s Report: The applicant did have the structural engineer look at an unfinished w^ll in the basemenl The en^neer has indietted the fouiidaUon is able to handle the additional load of the second stors- to be added. Stair has re viewed the report and does not have issues with it«03*3S67 Dan Adams ll45Tonaka«iaRoad 2 147003 Pate2of3 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET iMAnm: LR-IB Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (lacre) Actual 41,685 s.f. (.95 acres) Hardcover CalcalalkNu: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 ’12.075 s.f.0s.f.(0H)1,730 s.f (14.3%) 1,343 s.f (11%) 75-250 ’27,465 s.f.6,866.25s.f (25%) 10,254 s.f (37%) 9,117 s.f (33%) 250-500 ’2,145 s.f.643.5s.f (30%)127 s.f (5.92%) 127 s.f (5.92%) Lot Coverage by Slracturcs: Lot Area: 41,685 s.f Allowed: 6,252.75 s.f (15%) Existing: 3,438 s.f (8.2%) Proposed: 4.231 s.f (10.1%) --- LAKE MINNETONKA NORTH ARM W.* COIJTOUM LMt CO. RD. NO. 13o TONK.WiA HU A!) Li S .-4*: I 1 V I.-.- l^«s»?ii I m ^ i\ - i A 5 _____./^^t-T^-i^ .................................... «. lii \i.diLjA^v. M iiRH i'r.i^’rrl I>w !'(- V vtf TV .?:■ . ■ ^ . .8 i . ■ T;.-->v;____________________ COUNTY ROAD NO. l:io TON'K.AV.A 1;oaU (I I H 11^81 ••• miitmA l3 .-T Jim w :5 r,2t:.?»'«» CO ♦»< 'V Dv4 AoAA^5 HARDCOV£ tITBACittOHIt (OBCUOND BOMBtftlUBBCOVlBBftoWI A. H mi ____________ * ULATION WORKSHEET 7SOSO*2SMOO* R Omfi C. Drinwqr a S^Mlt I K AT E rMMMt lfl7> BjrfM OrFMo O. Ote vs-SfS£l Of iKftcr Kt-’> p C SF. .ST. ST. & \oz ST. &T.*0E^»<.5 isT.-eeicf^ WTlP JT- MO< R0CIC ^ .ST.-VwtfoO R TOTAL KAR£XX)VER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A l"7A/3 ♦ B MtOFQSlD HABllgOVER IN ZI>NT' A. Koum ______________ K IT. 07 ST 1100 "S^S-rS S <4^ WMh a Ovafe C Drivtwqr D. Sidn*; -. ST. ST. ST. .ST. ST.- E. PaUeOick Qgfe F. LaadKtp« Undobia ByPUsde OrFibri; 0. Oihtf TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A * B \7-.f~n^ X iQO 'If!-5*3^-: ST. ST.britVi p ST. ST. ST. 1Q2^ .H"! I=J » IW - I 11^ ,$r. S.F. -A ST. B mi thmbaiipqwm «*f ffflfi ^saax ^ "■■■ ___________■ -VKYC^da ■if47 0> a Om|» C Orivwqr E P«iQM FImIb OrFMe 0. Oter lb > X 44iB ___ . total HARDCOVKIHIOKE t OIAL PROnRTY AREA D4 ZOIC A II ♦ B ngygmH^MCOm 1NT^» A» HoMi____ M rr44T_«ifio - B. Omp C Dfiviwqr 0. Sidewilk E P«M)Kk BrPM OrFAifc O. Other K . X X X • X X X X X X X X ^4SD &F..ecAO£1DP .^£E -H- *'0£v%«<»U4 _ St . .SF.-PEC14 .SF.- -H' RP^ .RF.—^Aisrwc .EF. ROCiCAtrD .8F.-WXP0 ROAEC EF. A 10^ EF; B > JZslZc_s'. H»v^ __3ifa___EF. ^?xvi- fVet __________8F. ■’-G- SF.WC. cVs«Apra>- a.r RF- tSr.->c.' .SF. Rwka?> ^ V EF. EF. .SF. *■ —xXiLain B >7n,4c.^ .m _SF.rec«-Cv t"»*. _EF. c^\n f,..f f •\ »____SF. -A ^^EF. B .H V ' •• I ^D am A da ^^s it^n^cz BARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKStf SITBAGKIONli (CBCLIONS) 0-75* 7SOSO* MnmiiCBiA»i>govKM 1 rt^ K Hmm ____________ k _____________ of^TRcrR^KlSHpB CL •IMO* a omm C. Driviwigr D. SIdiw* EPatfoOMk P. BrPiMi* OrFMa aOter S.F. .SF. .SJ. .W. -'BiACjetaf .EF.-DrtlVC w .aj.RM M«o .SJ. .8.F. .BJr .AF. .AF. .AF. TOTAL HODCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPBtTY AREA IN ZONE A 121 ♦ B wiQ»ogti)H4»Brfl(VCTiwMwr A, Ho«» ____________ X U-fli a owfi __________ C Dfivtwagr _________ D. SMtunJk _________ E PitWDeek __________ OlAS* xlOO F. LieiKapt IMsUn Btrms OrFAik 0. OdHr 8J. A S^SF.* R iai ___ ^iL .8-F- .8J. .8F. • .EF. .S.F. b<cCcW; .8JF*:-T6C*i. brc .8.F. ,EF. .SF. .S.F. EF. !ef. -EF. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A Nlji ♦ B XlOO // ic% •2J ^ .ST. SF. -A 8J. B r r: ^ ^ tM^ iC^ u*rrrr^j • >4 « •.. t •. .* L^? t * r ‘ ..riv:*- .• -••% : V!. ^ ••.'jj •--xi- * t . : . •••' •.•'*> I t m ^RilMPF ifr-.;'/>'4 Wr ("’I’; :l Al h VVM)»-J< 1afsM.v ..«o; r ZJ rs ■t> s; TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottcnberg. City Planner DATE: February 14,2003 SUBJECT: #03-2867 Dan Adams 1145 Tonkawa Road Variances •* Public Hearing ZoDlag District: Lot Am: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) 41,685 sX (.95 acre) Eshlblts: A Analysis Worksheet Application Hardship Statement Survey Hardcover Calculations Elevations Floor Plans Photo of Property Flat Mip Property 0\%ner’s List Pertinent Code Sections: 1.Section 10.22. Subd. 1(B) and Section 10J6, Subd. 16 (Q (I): Structure within 75' of lakeshore: To permit construction of a second story/dormers 62' from the OH>^X of Lake Minnetonka where 75* is required. Section 10.22,Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56,Subd. 16(C)(6): To permit an encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The total encroachment is approximately 17*. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd (16) (L) (1): Hardcover in 0-75' Setback: To permit 1,155 s.f of hardcover within 75’ of Lake Minnetonka wrherc 0 s.f (0%) is allowed. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LX2): Hardcover in 75-250' setback: To pemiit 9,821 s.f. (35.75%) of hardcover in the 75-250’ setback zone where 6,866.25 s.f (25%) is allowed. Application Summary*: The applicant is requesting average lakeshore setback, hardcover within 0-75’ setback zone, hardcover within 75-250* setback zone, and structure within 75* of the lakeshore \*ariances to remodel, add a second stoi;* and attach the existing garage to the residerre. #03-2167 Dan Adams 1145 Tonakawa Road 2/147003 Page lof4 Dbcwsioo: =ssr"-“*'“=2sr.‘:^.^ Lot Coverage by Slruclurca: 5-f. (9.6%). h » ..ill .«ll Mow .he llowed “ •» A variance is not required for lot coverage by structures. StruUurc Miihin 75’ of Lake Minnetonka: A V«i«ce is .equired for ,.™cw„ located within 7J- of Lake Minnetonlcn Hardeoven 0-75 ’ setback zone - «0J.2t67 Dm Adams 1 145 Tooakawa Road VU'TOOi HgtlofA because of the addition. To decrease the amount of hardcover in this zone, the applicant has mggested removing the concrete shuRleboard, die brick next to the thuflleboard surface and a portion of the deck located by the residence. These removals reduce the amount of hardcover in this setback zone to 1,155 s.f. (9.56%) from 1,730 s.f. (14.3%). A hardcover variance Is required to allow this amount of hardcover in Ihe 0-75* setback zone. Note: A permit was not issued for the deck located by the lakeshore. A 1983 survey is in the street file. The deck located by the lake does not appear on the survey. Staff does not have a picture of the deck due to snow cover, so the condition of the deck b unknown at thb time. 75-2S0* seCback zone- Tbe rest of the existing residence, garage and driveway are located in the 75-250 ’ setback zone. Currently, there exists 10,254 s.f (37%) hardcover in the setback zone. The applicant b proposing to reraov'e the brick apron, sidewalk pavers and an existing deck, lliese removals reduce the amount of hardcover in this setback zone to 9,821 s.f (35.7%). A reduction of approximately 798 s.f The drivewoy on this property is faidy extensive and accounts for a large amount of hardcover. Because the lot is long and it would be difTicuIt to back out onto Tonkawa Road, a circle in the driveway is appropriate. However, there seems to be other areas that would be appropriate to look at for removal. This lot is very close to conformity in lot area aiid lot width. (.95 acre and 150* wide where 1 acre and 140* wdde is the standard in the LR-IB zoning district). Areas of the driveway that could be remosod are by the garage and the gravel area. Because this residence is on Tonkawa Road, tliere is a fair amount of traffic and difilcult sight lines, it is important to have a turn around on the property so the homeowner can drive straight onto Tonkawa Road rather than backing out. A hardcover variance is required to allow thb amount of hardcover in the 75-250* setback zone. Average Lnkeshorr Setback: The existing residence is located 17* into the average lakeshore setback. The second story addition/dormers will not change the location or encroachment in the setback. The exjsting topography, the lav out of the neighboring houses and existing vegetation screening alfsuggest that the proposed addition will not be within the visibility of cither neighboring property and will not encroach on any existing view of the lake. An avenge lakeshore setback %‘ariance b required for the proposed addition. #03*2867 Dan Adams 1143 Tooakawa Road 2/14/2003 Pa|e3or4 StatCBcnl of Hardship: •n>**pp««n<*oui.^«,u m • Issues forConsideralioD: 1. Tl»«i«in«i«idence»«bulIltoI96«,priotloexiaia*zoning5<«rf^ ;sSSS“HSHE=”^^ Iher. iny olhel ^ 6. Lot coverage by .imcwrewUlftmiinM 9.6%, wl|bcIo« the 15% limit 7. Other issues raised by the Plsaning Commission. Staff Recommcndalion: Your alternative is to coiuider one of3« othJ’r^pUons fo'Wroval is appropriate. Options for Action: 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, staling reasons 3. Table, giving applicant direction. 4. Other action. •03*2867 Dan Adams 1145 Tonakaua Road 2 14^003 Page 4 of4 Lot Area: ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Hardcover Calculatioos: LR-IB Lot Area Required 43.560 $.r. (lacre) Actual 41.685 s.f. (.95 acres) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Haiikover 0-75*12.075 s.f.0s.f.(0%)1.730 s.f. (14.3%) 1155 s.f. (9.56%) 75-250’27,465 s.f.6.866.25s.r. (25%) 10,254 s.f. (37%) 9821 s.f (35.7%) 250-500*2.145 s-f.643.5s.f. (30%)127 s.f. (5.92%) 127 s.f. (5.92%) Lot Coverage by Structures:. o* Lot Area: 41,685 s.f.Allowed: 6,252.75 s.f (15%) Existing. 3,438 s.f (8.2%) Proposed: 4,043 s.f (9.6%) CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION laitUl Application Fee S230XX) (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-confbrmiAg tmictures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double aj^lication fee) PROPERTY INFORAUTION Site Address & ApplicatloD # Q 3 Amount Paid 5S. pV ^ Date ReceU-ed 1 Property Identification Number ff.I.D.1 Ofel Lo Attach legal descrip’'on to application if not included on required survey. Date Proped3^Acquired_ 1 (do)/ Present _ own the adjacent parcels of land. "of property: presidential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: LfrZ-tfe_______________________] _(month/>ear) applicant Name Address:City:, Phone (home) ofeTL Phone (work) cc.^c^ Zip:_252fe^ OWNER (if different than qiplicant) Name CZ^AUitFl V Address: tV^*^ ^ iia.City;. Phone (home) f Phone (work) (onL-nitn--g;iq»^ Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: l^^rf/^jtAai €y^ ti^kejLt 5T Estimated^nstmetion Cost $ XffljDzi)______ l^rk^ lo <//. /lAnf/ie nniH* (attach additS^ial sheeu if necessary) ^ cCi^^cAti VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width Setback: __Front Other (specify)______ Side Hardcover ^ Rear Lot Cc __ Average La) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code reouiremenU: ^Sbi^rAm^ _______________ (attach additional sheeu if necessary) #286 I flaulsf^Ajo /303O'i'^3i^AW- *hrta< CO uo'VO lS'S^ftex-dK *<f t)» tAJ m«ejP nsw?Q3&^t^. ho^ *« UohditJi vdh'cL, ^Uaicz^ ^ (x^hoxdsAi^ (mIH. <m. Muctk^. I7l7ooji/c<! SJU^ Vo e£0xd-> */* 9fi^ h(Mxf ^ l/pdbCfjL prhA^ :stWo/cad^ ^ <x/5V^’07i«ua>(S. ^ I\^oaX oJL^ oO^ ^ h.a^<!*svju cxxJPkj Q-7S' aji^ 7S* P6D1 K-^8% Vt> a/uf 4f.€5iVo ^ 35.7SVP. o4 «^»W«o!*^ >4 //cpuu’ htCiMAiS M /pV" <>icrucu0 J- hn^ ^ &nj> /oV- (Ui\AiAeL<^‘ crJ^Sr .y*- . : *•. '. • n mm. CJafiw OK JU..VUY FOH DAN ADAMS OF TRACT A. R.L.S. NO. 053. AND PART OF LOT 7. AUD. SUB. NO. 217 HDtCPM COUNTY. MMNCSOTA LAKE MINNETONKA NORTH ARU t2tj4 C0N10UH UC^ UCH wsonpfinwcf wifwi*.f: Traci A. IcfKlcrcC IcM S«k««t m4 IN«I >«rl •* let 7. AirCllcr'a SiMivltiM NM*cf 717. Iflnf *««|fcM«lcrlf cf • IIm «rcM line «f Ml4 Lot 7 CM tU9«rcll«l !• end IM Iccl ••viMMUrIf, mMcurcd Ml rl^l liM It M*rkM bv iwdldcl iMMiibc Ml M'iirAAl ' * Lead VrrMf Hn Mj Md M» MlMtlM. IMI- Ml rl^l MflM Irem IM MrlbMSitrIf lln* Ml4 Lol 7 end •■Umim, able !• TarrbM Cddd I4f74. Md bdrlMctlcrlv «f IM MTlbMlUrl* I Im al Mclalcrad M nj Md It* MlMtlM. Mleb iMl-dttcrlbdd IlM It iMrfebd bf (vdlcltl iMdiwrbb Ml MTMMl 10 Tcr/MI CMC U)7I (IM cMitrIf net cl tc<4 MM4tct ItMMbcd br Jvdielcl lM«Mrha Ml barcMnl Ic IcrrM* i.cMa U*l# end U'i/IJ. C ; dcncict Um •cerber O ■ Maclat Jucicicl iMMcrb fcwcd Neer IIM|t tbCOT Ot bM»C UCM M ettuMd MIim. Tbit turvcf iNlabd* la tbiw IM beenda let il IM cbMC Mierlbad frcfitrlv. IM ImcIIm dl M atlallna Mute and caroM. Md IM lacaliM al all «itlbia “bardcavar* IMicm. II dcM aal la tbM cm albar layrMdwaalt ar ancraacItnMit.BO-SHKldr-wr —N GRONBERG k ASSOCIATES. INC. —^ uaa mwcwl m njma» •«« dl AAA MMM b AM 1 4AA I ....... M. MM.^MaMt.MM «•€0-1 K« acM.f » • • .It MV iwm mIOT UM UK Mt WH "V «»-l7S.4MI mmjLdLSt^ mmmmUuair— mm «<4AI (■■.i AMIS *ipimpw TRACT T I “1 I I / I I / I 7 ' o •H oo ' « W> D ^ •> 2; w oo • ® COc;» tract a ■7: mi ■•MVrkMbr• ; I.__ ______ ’ !••• •I^i«|j^rji*?***^****'*l' •• • •!•# 0ta_ ' >wm, C..,%5; SrUtM}*"*"* , ' ' -^11 ■ mt xtciokclwii associates. INC. V(i/ «—>u-SSTSTJTIjr" ••■W-iMI - •i«-sr Ium n-tt~mj •mi 1 Dtw A d A ai 5 n-/7-0Z Of- IHM.I m, Ku‘> p A nd i„ Ut7 a^^ HARDCOVER.CALClJLATiON WORKSUEET SITBACKZONEt (CIRCLE ONE) (plT) 75-J50* 150-S00’ MAMIgOVEK IN ZONE A. Hcust SOO-1000* Sl9 sr.»H^E Wifth > . » SF.'5S«^cb SF. >.F. B. Oa»|t C. Driviwqr D. SidcwtOt E Pt!-oM( F. Ltsdacap* ’UadcrirfB ByFlMde OrFArie .SF. SF. B«OC Nf SF :SF*“SfCA^, SF.-0FC»<5 .SF.-(3«IC« IViTIC? .SF. .SF.- PtASTi^ 5-« • O. OOm \OZ R ock . A/ SE.-WPoD 0: TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY /iREA IN ZONE A Mho ♦ B in?o a.oiq* xioo 12, g7?t. SF. PnOFOSlD HARDCOVER IN ZONE * A. Houm WUrii SF. SF. SJ. E Otftgt C. Drivtw^SF. SF. D. Sidcwi!k h E Pt:Io/D<ck _____________ X Qgffi rjL‘0:k<«^ ;sE'5^,:': S F. cUc^t: iSF.br^'iii F. Lx ’.iKapc UeicHaia By Plu’ic OrFtbfic SF. SF. SI. 0.SF. r.'-^v> TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A \ * B X100 SF. SF. M ,‘v,Cv # f*-.N irfi *■« D am A da ^5 n^n^oz opTmct A^KIS h^B^ ^tii Lfff 7^A\fo^t^2i HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK XONtt (COICUONI) 0.75‘ 75.3S0* gir«nwc WA»nrovKK in A Houm ______________ • X 500-1000* a <hnt» C Driviwqr D. iUtmOi E. BxdeOwk F. Lxadicy UndfTtaia ByPlMtio OrFMe X . X a Olhcr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A m ♦ B *1149 xlOO PROPOatP MABttCOVTB IN A Houm B. 0«i|i C Drfviurqr D. Sitfewatk E PotioOcck F. LirA?i;e UodcrUia ByPUfde OrFtMe 0. Oifecr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA WZONE A \ijn ♦ B •2J XlOO M«l*7- .SF. SJ. .8T. •'BiAorroP .sj* •Ortivc Vrfr SJ.RocK 0OBOE .ST. SF. .SF. ST.*‘ .«T. .«T. .ST. ST. ZI45^ S F. A .ST. B H ST. .ST. .*T..ST. .ST. .ST.-r6cfc.brcC ST. :sT. ST. SF. .SF. SF. ST. SF. .ST. o o ^ » '.Ui* I'W^. B D B K B A j a r'\ C"} r m :■ ■'^m I ^:- .;\S: •.. >■• Ifc L.... |V) INS Tci^iaLLo 4l » V I f* »-*- Vv*'/ - I.' INS UhluaCti Pd r W1‘ ■■ ii - ■ yl i^;^; 5 c* I f- #« • r\’rd'.d.Jr. 'vr;-:.:v y,.;',:.''- ;4>;^ ‘.I IT"- vj ” iZ\ ■'\V ^.'■^1 S'/Cc? lie •^0 3 " 7 //VS ^ * ■ 1%. ^ ’ I ^ Wi k:;.' :;.:>.:'.j .'* ... ■ “f*'-v^r?^7.T-: -.* .r' #1 '•^'“?ri-<^-^ :• • - ''C‘ *•.--. 1\• •• ^ ,.. V •• 1 llCCC L it IMS ”7?'')'. ICjOi.Lu(i Pd i' HI ■ . -.tr c i ■' * AiV ii I'i‘-:|?A«!fei, « l^^kXZtCLC. I.6»-^ //- 11 ‘4'S ~p})[.lc£ux'a. 7^. 2>h'-ucf lictO '.Ikv^MTT n "“j wm MT> n/is/n MfCH SM mmM mm jtamm tmmfti lumem sa M-ii7-n IS am■un T—<m mJMN ■ mcLft I wtri jam a miLia SM« rnmniTv mi n i nns m ssan sa aa-ii7>n ts aaaa aiita Taiamia a* j a a MMSTjam a a mm l mwt lift nmam m lam UM m sism sa aa-ii7-2S is aaia mas famam as aamn. mcaa aaam Mmti aaam tmm lias twaana aa Lam tan m ssssa CSUHTT flWHBTS PrsmaTW SVSTHI fsaatarv eamas list sa aa-117'ts IS aat7 SUM mauma m a T a s a smim ramoc t a suaan a stthms uaa Tamam m tarn LMt MN ssssa sa aa-117-ts is aaia aaam aamiii laussiams HiBviN aammm nai aiwar m. raassati Pam la ssaa HPLS NN ssaaa sa aa>ii7-as is aai7 anas Tsaaaaa aa N T anaaa a a s anaaa N T aamaa a a s aiiaaa lias Tsmaaa aa tarn Lam m ssssa sa aa-117-ts is aaaa aiiaa lamuam aa * j aaum raan tausm j aaum ram iiaa ramum aa Lom lau lat ssssa sa aa-117-ss is am ataaa ramum aa mavia aaama irat mivn asaaaa ssaa maacsT cofffa MPLS m ssaaa sa aa-117-n is aau auas ramumaa N a SNXTM a T H snmi mm Tamas a t amcv a mna IMS Tamaaa as tarn LME IM BtSU PerUncaf Code Scctioiis: 1. Section 10.03, Subd. 9(B) & (D): Accettor> Bvildlag Location A Height: No detached garages or other accessor)* buildings shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. No accessory building shall exceed the height of the principal building, nor shall it exceed 30* in height. (Request: To permit a 408 s.f. detached garage closer to the front property line than the principal residence). Disenssion: The survey identifies the footprint of the demolished detached garage. The applicant proposes to rebuild the garage parallel to the existing garage, uith 10* in between them, and with a larger footprint (408 s.f. compared to 239 s.f). Front Setback The front of the lot is defined as that part w hich abuts the shortest dimension of a public street. Given the odd lot configuration, the shortest dimension on this lot abuts Dickenson Street. With Dickenson Street being the front lot line, the proposed detached garage is located in front of the principal structure. Side and Rear Setbacks Detached garages are required to be located 10’ from the side and rear lot lines. The applicant proposes to locate the detached garage approximately 19* from the west side lot line (abutting Russell A\*enuw) and about 346* from the rear lot line. Setback from other structures A 10* separation is required between structures on a lot. The applicant proposes to have a 10’ separation between the new detached garage and the existing garage. Height The height of an accessor)' structure can not e.xceed the height of the principal structure. The height of the proposed structure is appro.ximaiely 1 r, not exceeding the height of the principal Histor): In 1965. a building permit was issued for a 20’ x 12’ detached garage. Prior to the destruction of the detached garage which is proposed to be rebuilt, two detached garages existed on the property. It was unclear from the information in the street file which of the two detached garages was permitted by the pemiit. From a review of aerial photographs from 1970. it appears that the garage which still exists on the property today wa< permitted by the building permit in 1965. « urrently within this location, there arc also twu metal sheds and a canvas covered shed which are not shown on the sur\ cy and a detached garage in the process of being resided. A building permit application has not been made for residing the existing detached garage or for the other accessory structures However, the detached garage did have a building permit to be constructed Josephin* Carpenttr J /J 200J Pagi2qf4 in this location in 1965. The remaining accessor>’ structures arc nonconforming. The canvas covered shed is not permitted b>* building code since it is not definable as a structure. The detached garages and sheds have been used by a friend of the ouncr's to store equipment for his business (snow plows in the summer and lavsnmowers in the winter). This individual has since been informed that storing equipment for a home occupation on property he does not own is not permitted. He has rented a storage area in Spring Park and is in the process of moving his equipment from the property. The existing and proposed detached garages w ill be used for storage by the owner of the property. Hardship: The applicants have itKluded their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Considcralioa: 1. The principal structure has existed on the lot since before the adoption of the current zoning ordinance; 2. The existing house is oriented on the lot to face the private driveway on the west side, not the street; 3. The lot is oddly shaped with 47.05 feet abutting a public road: 4. The topography of the lot makes it difficult to locate accessory structures in the side or rear yaM of the principal structure; 5. The detached garage was non-conforming by location prior to its destruction by fire. It has been less than a >-ear since it was completely dcstro>-ed; 6. The existing detached garage was granted a building permit in 1965. It is currently undergoing residing without a building permit: 7. The proposed garage is larger in area than the garage that was destroyed by fire: 8. There ore no building permits on file for the remaining three accessory structures on the lot. The canvas covered shed is not a permitted strticture. The metal sheds located within the (iont >ard of the lot are non-conforming; and 9. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the requested variance to permit construction of a 408 •. T (16.8' x 24.4 ’) detached garage closer to the front property line than the principal residence. wi:h the foUowing conditions: 1. Building permit application must be made for residing of the e.xisting detached garage at the same time application is mode for the new detached garage; 2. The canvas covered shed must be removed from the property prior to building permit application since it is not a definable structure by building code; and 3. 1 he two e.xisting meul sheds exist without a building permit and m. . - r*moved from their current location on the lot prior to building permit application k tached garage. To be conforming, the ^cds require relocation on the lot to b. cor.f. .ming location and building permit approval. •02-2864 Joitphmc Carptmtf yi3 200S Page 3 €f 4 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET RR-IB Lot Rcqoircnnti: DlBCUiOBf Rcqoircd Exbtiag Lot Area 2 acres (•7,120 s.f.) 1.821 acres (79,344 s.f.) NoChaage Lot Width 200’-178’ No Chaagc Dctockcd Goragc Rt^oIrcMitt: DiaicasioBS Reqaired Proposed Front Yard Nor permitted in 59 ’ Iront of principal (in front of principal structure structure) Side Yard West 30*19’ East 30 ’49’ Rear Yard 30 ’346 ’ From Other Structure:* 10’10’ H02'2864Josephint Carptmtr Ml 13m font 4 of 4 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 5. 6. 7. 8. ---- Completed Application Fonn ~ “** “>- i" *««!"«^ grade are proposed. In addiuon, provide one (I) cony 8Vi" x I r fnr ^ vic« L oVco^^x“ 7----- List of the l.gal names (include marital status) of all persons with an In Xr As an addend^ to this applicaUon. please attach a scfMrate list of my ^er pers^ you v,ish notified of this application. ^ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or reouested hv thi. 7nn?n» •nd/of consultant expenses incuiied in leriew of this anolicaiinn .!S*-Z. r ’?iT^ ^ inforeiaiion supplied is tiue and cooect to the lest of hisfli« knowtedge. Applic««-S SignatureOxJ. ^ » r.Hp. nV r ^ , Date / VT>.. C c»x.kVruc^oo __________ OWNER’S SIGNATURE------------------- o^. Sir^ -D.. —O iSSL’ZS- !!LSSS^3:,SSJlfs:SZ t''rf rzs" >»•'■»-» -r«*4is £/- O O ^r. / / '-<■ T.-. « UflBB •O’ H • II t «Ss l^J 6*i RSV1SKXS Oz oJs UJ COI liJcr: X 0):^ [-’•irniai-’rf cioee UP fiff migcr AtBA _______ so Hoor Plan I* - r Cr Scalt .... , ^ •• \ i ■.) V) t • J yi§ Fdt «/ 25 year 3 tot> ospholt shlngto i " c.d.x Roof ply m/ clips 2x6 Sub focio 1x8 - 1x4 Cedor focio Engineered Truss Smooth ply soffet ply w/ conlin- venting j C.d.x woli ply 2x4x6* 16" o.c woU studs 2x4 Treoted well plates bolted to concrete slob 4" slob on grodc w/ wire ond sond boseof 3" Cross section i" - 1* O' Scole 1 I . *. ;• •X. • i’- 1 } . •• ^ ^ ’‘N i s I m *5i ■ ft ’m" ij®3 ■v£'A/(:& ■.■ ■ ..'t.aP' ■^Ifliil m ■' i< iV; 1 ■:& m» .. f :•■■'. Cf N'v^^ Stt€D ^^. Ei:iSTlKl<> i5'W:/\;?e "niC F v:oc^S. «p veuve(^ ffsctkj6 oesr- 8« < 1 -I 'i i--^m t\ ?.\ ^ A -V ••■^JTsnsr- Vv^r 7ief/\i ?ccn\ WAsseu ^^/hmh6 £a^> •"3»> • • ■; - • ■,r‘ - v^' . ^V.'. - ■ .pii. ^t- K-eo.19dfPs ojj •rt'f f=pn€ satm sipe ^ -we e>u.ioD!Kf(5 PEemiK cw F(Le) L TOj Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Wendy Bottenberg. Zoning Administrator/Planncr DATE: March 12.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2874 Richard Kail 3753 Casco Avenue Vacation of Lake Street — Public Hearing District: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshi re Residential District, .5 Acre, sew-ered. ExMbits A Application B Site Plaa^ Surxey C Plat Map D Property Owner’s List E Planning Director’s Comments Pertinent Ordinance: Section 10.12 Application Summary : The applicant is seeking approval to vacate T of that portion of the unimproved dedicated alley adjacent to his property. The alley was originally dedicated in the plat of Casco Heights in 1911. The alley is 14* is width and 317.8’in length. The applicant is proposing to vacate only. ic port; adjacent to his property. Not the entire distance between Casco Avenue and Casco Point Road. Half of the alley (7) w^uld go to the .ipplicant and the other 7* would go to the neighbor to the east, 3721 Casco Avenue. History* of application: The applicant. Mr. Kail, has another ioning application pending, applicatio.-i «03-2863. This application was heard by the Planning Commission at its February 19.2003 raveling. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family residence on the property located at 3753 Casco .Avenue. Application #03-2863 Is for two variances, lot area and lot coverage bv structures The proposed structure wa.s above the allowed 15^ o lot coverage bv structures for new construction. The Planning Commission approved the lot area variance, but denied the lot coverage by structures variance The application was then heard by the City Council at its Februarv .24. 2003 meeting The Cit> Council discussed i.v. options to increase the size of the property ir. ord:r for the proposed structure to meet the 15*/o lot coverage ordinance: vacating the adjacent alley or purchasing city owned land adjacent to the property. Vacating the adjacent alley is the direction the applicant wished to pursue. Application r=02-2863 was ubled in order for the vacation application to oc acted on. •02 ‘2S'"4 RicharJ Kail 3"SS Casco A\e»M iaraiion 3 I2 V3 Page I of 2 Neighborhood: There have not been any vacations of alle)-s in the Casco Point area. There have been vacalion^, but only where the dedicated right of way was between the lake and the residence on the properly (i e Lake Shore Avenue). (Exhibit C). Neighbor to East: Staff has talked with the neighbors to the east, 3721 Casco Avenue, regarding the vacation of the alley. They do not have any objections or issues regarding the vacation of the alley. Criteria for Vacation: Zoning Code Section 10.12 governs the vacation of streets, alleys and puMic grounds. In past vacation requests, the City has determined that vacation may be appropriate when: 1 . The \*acation doses not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 2. The City has not and docs not intend to develop, improve or use the dedicated righi-of-wav ns road except for utility purposes. 3. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose. lUs stafT^opinioo that these three conditions arc not applicable to the segment of alley adjacent to T^e Public Works Director has been asked to review the proposed vacation. He stated the Citv should not vacate this alley. The alley is necessary for the following reasons: stormwater drainage ^agement. possible future utilities and public access for the neighborhood to reach Lake Minnetonka. The Planning Director has been asked to review the proposed vacation. His comments arc attached as E.xhibii E. The gas. elcctnc. telephone and cable i.v. utilities have been notified of this request. Thev have all responded and none of them have any concerns or issues with the v acation. StaH Recommendation t>0J-2S^4 RKhardKaH 3 ~33 Casco Mrmte t'acatioti 3'llD3 Pa^2of2 AppUcaflon » t)3-QS't‘4 Dale RcceK-edg •'/S-O.y' Amount Raid ^300 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address___5 7ST3 Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) APPLICANT Name Address a.cLJ j^. 'L Phone (home) ________ Phone (work) ^ Zip O^lNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Date Property Acquired ftlif-ci. I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____S250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) -______S250.00 Guest Hous&'Guest Apartments _____S2 50.00 Duplex CrediL^ldg - $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use -■ S250.00 Land Alteration ------ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ------Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakcshore _____PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule -------SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____Afler-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/year) OTHER APPLICATIONS -------S275.C0 Commercial Site Plan Re\-ie%v (+ consultant fees) _ X S300.00 Vacation _____S250.00 Easement Vacation -------SI00.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision -------S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) -------S375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____ SI00.00 Appeals _____Other - see Fee Schedule Tl ■ ,4- ' REQUIRED SUB.MITTALS ------- Completed Application Form. --------Describe request in detail. 3. ____Certified *'-------- * must 5. 6. 8. 9. viivc ic«|ucsi in aeiaii. lifirf Property Oumers List of ow-ners uithin 350' labels and ntai / -------•’>' • '• handou. for su.cy z=5pE~a-“ FOR «WW?uCTroN™i''^'irs:sr SiSffi's'S' «“ 1" U« i. ■----------------------------------------------Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE «d'or unusual .!!^s« incL^n^U'“,/S^^r. •?? supplied is mie and couecl lo the be^of hii^^owledgr ^ Applicant's signature OWISER'S SIGNATURE Date w a Mu.>ATURE «r«n» 5^'1CyTa;«a,r**r‘rr members for purpose, of inve..ig^„ verificaiioJrfUU,”™^™ Date 3-li.Oan^ Apphcani must have all submituli into the Citv .i v v •« IxM on the third Monday of ^h*^*”v*** Commissioo Meeiinj. scheduled review meeiin,s of the PUnning Commission aild ^PPI*"**** "msi be present at aU scheduled n^tinf. please make arrangements to have an auihori»?«#ni*^ 1“ •PPJKani is unable lo attend a Building d; Zoning Office of this change prior to ite meeting. “ ^ ^ I**"® ^ . O' SURVEY rc AlCHAnP KAIL I 6390*t2t/i9 I iciwai A _____ Orona^ MN MM1 NAM esvoi TOTAL AREA * 173S1 •Q.ft. 0.40 A ctm MOPOaCD HOUSE • 2A3I m|.H- OAiANAT - 1993 t«.n. TOTAL HAND OMR • 24.K Al S C 0 AVENUE cow* I HARO OnCR TOR LOT TO PNOPOKO HOUSE lOT - I73S1 M.R. 040 A ctm HOUk • M31 to-fl. total OOWRAa - 1S.1X y TACt UOtMO HumAv loAaaHg aAAraAiitlow Mwtn Mttnotod dlam«t«r m tnchML UwM ImI obew growtO InaL Th« Mcand MwaAar 7lf any) OmoIm in« numAor el UwtAa at that lecatian ft Mwtao a dMd Itoo). Number <eaoe*p>g tfiruba Aenatae N’o dtometer bi teat Oonetoa AocMueua U m. U Oonetoa Mopla 0“» ::jUr5i':!:Mh!r5.ior Too af bon monument oo Nioan 0#«elten - 9S7.21 (NC1«-I929) OCHRALNOTtt Orlenletton of tbo boorbtga ueod ter tftti M>iay to beooA on on wjmeO Ootum • - Oonotof Iran menumonL 3. 1090.0 - Cenatoe oiteUng tpot Nonet Ion. 4. 1(0900} - Oonolot propoeod ipot Nowtion. 5. ,^1 — - Oonetoa dIracUan of ourtaco Noinoga. Pr 191009 garogo fear m 9S4u7 PrapoooA tog o< liundotlen - 9500 tVipiiaJ beoamont Aoer • 944.0 H omo la o WObout Dote of Imt ANA aurvojr 12/I7/B3 i(09a0)CP - Oonelia crttIcN gotot elowtlen. t79.0 (P) Oonotoi Ceico Hoigbti plat 17097 (H) Oonotoi TINA miciurimont OPCOAL NOTl ONv oooNnonta Ntemi on tbo roca rAod giot of CASCO HOCMT5 ore Nioen on Util ourvoy mag, uNooi oUiiretii netoA. Tho aurvoy upon Utlo meg lo beoiA eoo gorlormoA ellhaut bmoAt el NtnN an ollemo/i tlllo eglnian or 0 title commitment. late 7 * A *eck 4. Cooeo HNgbU. Honnegbt Countjc Mbwoieto. 88.11 _ ** 84*56'24- w I horoby cortpy tbet tMl lur«ay eoi proporoA imAor my Ouperv iNen onA Utot I am o Uc onioA LonA Surioygr unAor yOtpviMO of Uto Stolo,oi IMnnooot& HIM t; Ootr ucinio No. taao3 • •••»•••••••«<>•••«»*»••»««• 03 ? 2-7-1 20 117-23 24 0005 J. H. Kadlec A P. L. BenA«dt 2726 Caroline Ave. yzata, MN SS391 20-117-23 24 0010 Lance L. and Rhode L. Vicknair >740 Ethel Ave. Wayzata,MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0015 Robert & Linnet Boyd 2725 Ethel Ave. \Vayzata.MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0018 Donna L. Lile 2765 Ethel Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0040 John W. & Joyce Hamblet 2720 Ethel Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 —-117-23 310003 Jill R. Fugleiten V/ilUamH.Kochll 3730 Casco Ave. Wa>'zata.MN 55391 20-117-23 310009 Richard L. Kail 3866 Sunset Dr. Spring Park. MN 55384 20-117-23 31 0020 .'cnny J. Saiki 2874 Casco Point Rd. V.’ayzala. M\ 55391 20-117-23 31 0040 James W. & Patricia Dongoske • 700 Casco Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 117-23 31 0057 Kosemary Iversen ^335 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0007 T. Rejzer A L. Rgzer 2715 Caroline Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0013 Julia S. Jensen 2700 Ethel Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 240016 Benjamin R. A Lisa A Jensen 2745 Ethel Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0019 Dale A. Christensen 2750 Casco FoinlRd. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 240041 Charles A Susan Percival 2732 Caroline Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 310004 JohnF.Klick 3703 Casco Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 31 0010 . Bruce D. Madden 3759 Casco Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 31 0023 Penny J. Saike 2874 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 31 0054 LawTcnce D. A Katherine Elsen 2879 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 310058 DRWeltyAMMJin 3721 Casco Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0008 Donald J. and DaM^n R. Hd>ig 2735 Caroline Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0014 Lawrence D. Pillar 6827 Cardinal Cove Cr. Mound, MN 55364 20-117-23 24 0017 Michael D. Rutherford 2755 Ethel Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 24 0020 Dale A. Christensen 2750 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 310002 Roy Schrader 3704 Casco Ave. Wayzata. NfN 55391 20-117-23 310005 Robert Prcsler 3709 Casco Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 31 0011 Dean V. Grcimann 3779 Casco Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 31 0039 Roy Schrader 3704 Casco Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 310056 R.E. Wolfe 2871 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 310062 Scott A Janet Rosstedt 2740 Caroline Ave, Wayzata, MN 55391 20.117-23 310066 Dcaa V. Greimian 3779CucoAve. Wayiati.MNSS391 20.117-23 320006 Mafk E & PilricU A. Thocnpsoa 2824 Casco Point Rd WayzJita,MNSS39t 20-117-23 32 0009 Ronald & Margaret Dcmshar 2821 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata, MN S5391 20-117-23310067 Charles A Lucy Nelson 2868 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata. MNSS391 20-117-23 32 0007 Bryce E. Peterson and Mary Pat Peterson 2829 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata, MN 5S391 20-117-23 32 0017 Tanuny L. Woodis 2818 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 31 0071 Marti Lynn 3750 Casco Ave. Wayzata. MN 55391 20-117-23 32 0008 David i. Yorks 2825 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 20-117-23 320021 Rosemary C. Iversen 2835 Casco Point Rd. Wayzata. MN 55391 Wendy Botlcnbcrg, City Planner Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners. From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Dale: March II. 2003 Svbjcct: Proposed Vacation of Alley Adjacent to 3753 Casco Avenue Mr. Kail has requested that the 14* alley located between his property and the adjacent property at 3721 Casco Avenue be vacated. The apparent purpose of the vacation is to gain land as credit toward the 15% lot coverage allowance, to allow construction of a larger residence This alley was dedicated in the plat of Casco Heights in 1 91 1. The alley was dedicated for the public use. and while it may have seen minimal public use in the past, certain aspects of its location suggest potentially greater use in the fulure: 1 . The alley provides a 14* wide continuous straight corridor between Casco Avenue and Casco Point Road. 2. It provides a potential pedestrian connection from the Casco Avenue / Caroline Avenue / Ethel Avenue neighborhood to the City beach at Carman Asenue. 3. \\1iile a portion of the alley south of the Kail site may be wetland, the possibility for use of the alley in the future via a walkw ay through the wetlands, or for cross-country skiing and snowshoeing access to the Lake via the beach in the winter, should not be minimized. 4. The property adjacent to the alley directly behind the Kail site is City-owned undeveloped land, used for stormwater drainage purpose.^. We cannot predict the value of this alley as a corridor for future stormwater needs, but w e shouldn ’t eliminate any possibilities. Likew ise. as City land, the area behind Kail may have potential park uses that are currently not on the radar screen, and this alley provides potential access for such use. 5. Post utility use of the alley may be minimal. How ever, we cannot predict the need for future utility use of the corridor, and because it connects tw o main residential streets, there are likely possible future uses for public utilities (such as sew er & water, gas, telephone, electric, cable TV, or other communications needs) that we cannot now envision. The City Council in recent yvan* has expressed a strong awareness of the value of public access to the lake. This corridor has potential to provide connectivity betw een an off-lake neighborhood and the lake. In recent years the Council has expressed a general reluctance to vacate public rights-of- way that are in use. especially in Orono ’s defined Urban Area (the Vt- acre and 1-acrc zones, including Casco Point). V.’Uile this alley may have had minimal use in the past, it has significant potential for future public use. I would refer >x>u to the attached excerpts from Orono ’s 2000-2020 Community Management Plan, Pages 4A-32 & 4A-33 regarding preservation of lake access, which has applicabilit). even though tiii;> alley does not directly abut the lake. Vacation of this alley’ would in my opinion not be in the best interests of the City. CMFFaft4A« TnMMP»rtotkf fUm LAKE ACCESS PRESERyATiO\ A^D MANAGEMENT With more than 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline and nearly 5 miles of additional lake shorelines. Orono’s lakes provide a significant recreational resource for all Orono residents, not just for those wlio ov^n property abutting the lakes. This value u-as long ago realized by the City fathers, as uvll as hy early land developers. In order to provide lake access for the general public, as uiell as to provide for fire department access to the lake as a water source, a number of lake access corridors u*ere created as the shoreland developed. These t>'pically are platted, dedicated right-of- ways leading from the local road system to the shoreline, and arc . commonly from 16' to 66' in width. The historic level of use of these right-of-ways (sometimes referred to os ‘Tire lanes" o. "lake access roads") ranges from minimal to year-round. Certain of these corridors have b^n maintained by the City for local swimming h :hes or as winter snowmobile and ice-fishing accesses. Certain acce are provided with docks for fishing, and some have ramp areas suitable for launching a small boat. However, most do not have designated parking available, and are primarily intended to serve the neighborhot^ rather than the general public. A number of these access corridors have steep topography and e.xperience a relatively low level of tisage. The value of these corridors to the general public both now and in the future is too great to be measured. >Mule an access corridor or fire lane may appear to an adjacent landowner as abandoned, there may well be a future public need for that corridor that may not be obvious today The Minnesota Supreme Court in 1944 (Application of Baldwin, et al No. 33721 for vacation of a platted dedicated lake access road) upheld the value of retaining the public's right to access the lake. In on excerpt from the findings of the Court: *‘7hb court retires mo proof that Lake Minnetonka b a prleeleu heritage of the people of Minnesota, to be preserved and passed on to posterity. Judicial metke ulU be taken of the fact that It b one of the mtost precious Jeweb In the string of Ten Thousand Lakes of which Minnesota b so Justly proud... Because of Its wide expanse and proxImBp to our metropolitan areas. It b much frelented and used for boating, fishing, pknkklng and bathing - perhaps more than any ether lake In the state, lb shore line of nearly 100 miles b dotted ivkik permanent homes and summer cottages, not only at Us waters edge, but extending far back from the shore. But the use of the take b not confined to dwellers on Its shore or nearby. During the summer season especially, b b the meceafor thousands upon thousands ofurbanUes, not sofortunote as to possess a lake home, who -young and old alike - seek ks shores and waters for diverse recreational purposes. To those who do not Indttige In active recreation. It affords tite oppommUy of communing wUh nature at ks best Hlth the ktereose kt the permanent City •rOroM CeaiauBlty hlaaagcaical Plaa Upwmhar SM P«tc4A-J2 CMyprt4A. TniMBortaHoB Plan m, kcwever, Ike eeiemt e/lmketkoee mvaltabU to Otepublic gentrelfy mud the meatu efpubUc mceea 99 ike leke kmve dimtimbked mmd dtergfmte heceme Incremslmgfy velmmkte from year to year^we muu not forget Ikml Ae pmUk Inckidet persona other Aon Aote In Ae Immediate rklnity. The general public has a true concern A Ae recreationalfaeUltka offered by the takes which nature has so freely given us in this slate. Their generous shoring hy M mill moke for m keolAler pnd happier people. The many not fortunate enough to be able Aocgmlre Aeadonmogu of ownership if lake Aore properties should mot be deprived of Aese benefits. This me mould do If me permhmd streets teoAng A Ae Utkeshore A be rocoted... "The has a Ae public ^ ISO feet of shoreline out of m total of approximately 100 miles may to the Baldwins seem Aconseguentlol or even hfimttesimki and noAAg A be disturbed obout But, of Ala 100 miles of precious shoreline, ou^ o smoBfincBon has been reserved for Ae public: and fthe courts Aould create m precedent by permkAtg o single Arood, however smalt, i^on AepubBc's Aare ofAe AorelAe, oAer Aroads wUI AevUably foBom, untB Ae ogg regau becoma a realAreot A AepubUe’s free mecess A Ae take. To ovoid any pouAUity of suA a raauB, Ae courts Aould mkh equal vigor repulse Ae first, the second, and every ether assault upon Ae Less than \% of Orono*s lake shoreline has been dedicated as public access corridors. Nearly all the rest is privately ouned. and not available to the public for lake access purposes, save for the DNR Moxu’ell Bay Access, Hennepin Count>’*s North Arm Access and the Cit>'*s Summit Park on Long Lake. Hennepin County ’s Noerenberg Gardens Memorial Park, while abutting Lake Minnetonka, has deed restrictions that disallow use for docking or launching boats. Witli shorcloiid abutting a dozen separate bays in Lake Minnetonka, Orono has a commitment to maintaining access via the dedicated access corridors. Lake Acr—i PaUclr* It is the City ’s intent to permanently retain for public use all existing lake access corridors and fire lanes, regardless of the current level of use or maintenance. To this end. the City will follow these policies: 1. Requests for vacation of dedicated lake access right-of-ways will be denied in all cases except where equal or better lake access will be granted nearby in return. 2. The Cit>- will identify and lake necessary action to preserve the public’s right to use of any such accesses which exist but which may not have been formally dedicated. 3. The Cit>‘ will endeavor to work with propert}’ owners adjacent to lake access corridors to ensure that both the rights of the public and the rights of the private landowner are upheld. Orono’s lake accesses are enumerated in Table 4A-6. Chy of OroaoComnaally MaHafcncnt Plan Scyirakrr 2PM Pagt4A-33 Application Received; 2/18/03 Application Complete: 2/20/03 60 Day Deadline: 4/21/03 TO:Choir Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput. City Planner DATE: February 25.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2875 Sandra Ann Benson 1376 Baldur Park Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning DisIricI: LR-IC One Family I okeshore Residential District (0.5 acres) Lot Area: 0.27 acres (11,992 s.l.> Application Summary: The applicant requests the folloNsing variances to reconstruct and expand the roof of an existing principal structure and replace windows and doors on the second story: 1. E.\pand portion of principal stmeture located 25.1’ the OllWl. of lake Minnetonka where 75’ is requin»l; 2. A side yard set^k of 5.6' where 10 ’ is required; and 3. A 48.7’ encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. Neither the footprint of the structure nor hardcover is proposed to change with the roof expansion. The applicant proposes to remove a portion of the existing roof of the original structure and replace it with one continuous ridge, approximately 14” higher than the existing roof structure (or 1 ’-10" below the roollinc attached to the west). The exact height may vary a few inches from what is proposed once the structure is worked out. ______________ Exhibits: A Anal>'sis Worksheet Application Survey Hardcover Calculations Structural Engineer’s Letter Existing Elevation Proposed Elevations. Floor Plan, Ceiling Plan. Roof Plan and Section Resolution # 2483 (Zoning File #1280) Plat Map Topography Map Property Owner's List Permit Record Photos of Property C D E F G H 1 J K L M Sandra Ann Benson I'IS 200i Page I qf 5 Pcrtmcnl Code Sections: 1. Section 10.22. Subd. 2 and Section l0.56.Subd I6(CKI): Structurenithin 75*: Stnjcturei r.hall be set back a minimum of 75* from the OIIWL of Lake Minnetonka (92‘).4 ’) (Request: To allow expansion of the principal structure located 25.1’ from the OHWl. of l ake Minnetonka where 75* is required). 2. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (D): Yard Requirements: The following minimum requirements shall be obsers ed; side >ard 1 0 feet. (Request; To allow a side >ard setback of 5.6’ where 10* is required). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56. Subd 16 (C)(6): Average Lakeshore Setback; 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. (Request: 1 o allow a 48.7’ cncroachntent into the average kikcshorc setback) Obeussion: I. Str\icturc setback from the QHWl. The existing structure is located 17.2’ (at the second story deck) from the OllWL »f l.ake Mirmetonka where 75* is required. However, the proposed roof e.xpansion and reconstruction is .ocated 25.1 * (at the house footprint) from the OHWL. The structure is not proposed to be closer to the OHWL than it exists. However, the proposed overhangs do encroach into a,, already substandard setback. This encroachment changes the proposed roof expansion from 25.i* to 2.^ 6 ’ frt>m the OHWL. 2. Structure setback from the side yard The existing structure is located 6 6* from the side lot line to the cast where 10 ’ is required. The structure is not proposed to be located closer to the side lot line than it e.xists. The applicant proposes 1 * overhangs along this side of the new roof With the 1 * overhang encroachment, the proposed roofcxp. i: =i... will be located 5.6’ from the side lot line (a difference of approxim.iielv 2’*). The pu-j. vd overhangs are not considered to be part of structure or hardcov er 3. Average lakeshore setback 1 here is one home located to the southeast of the properly (1 384 Daldur Park Road ) and vacant lots to the west. Since there is only one adjacent ncighKvring lakeshore home, the average lakeshore setback is calculated according to the setback of the adjacent residence from the OHWL. The house to the cast is located 65.9’ from the OHWL The applicants* structure (including second story deck) encroaches 48.7’ into the average l.ikeshore setb.ick V iews from the neighboring property to the east are not obstructed by the proposed *0S-2S'S SjnJra Ann Benson J U 2003 Page 2 of 5 increase in roof height. That house docs not look across the property in question to have a sieu- of the lake. Therefore, an average setback variance may be appropriate. Other Comments: Structural Engineer Letter Jared K. Larson of Larson Associates Inc. has reviewed the proposed roof reconstruction for the applicant and has found that the existing foundation and walls can support the proposed work. The City's Building Inspector has reviewed the letter and finds that the information provided is sufficient. Extent of Proposed Work The proposed work includes replacement of some w indow s, diwrs and walls on the second story of the house. 1 he first story of the structure and other portions of the home w ill not be modified as a result of this proposal. History: This property was granted variances in 1988 (zoning file “1280; resolution <^2483) to construct the second story over the existing first story and a two level addition with parapet between ll.c garage and the existing home. The City Council approved ’ ariances for; 30"/o hardcover in the 0- 75’ hardcover zone; 30.9% hardcover in the 75’*?50 ’ hardcover zone, and slmcturc located IT from the shoreline for these additions. There is no proposed change in hardcover with this application. Hardship: The applicant has included their statement of hardship in Exhibit B 4/4. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration: 1. Variances approved in 1988 permitted a second story addition on the existing home, located within the sam. .setbacks (from the lake, side lot lino and average lakeshore iClback) as arc currently proposed; 2. The application does not propose to increase the footprint of the structure (with the exception of minimal overhang encroachments) nor change the existing setbacks (from the lake, side lot line and average lakeshore setback) nor change hardcover; 3. The original structure (prior to the 1988 additions) has been located within the existing footprint since 1959; 4. The neighboring structure to the casu located at 1384 Baldur Park Road, has been in its current location since before 1955; 5. The property is unique in that it has lakeshore on front and rear and almost all of the lot falls within the required 75’ structure setback from the OHWL; 6. increasing the height of this residence within an extremely substandard setback suggest the need for additional screening or other methods to mitigate its visual impact as viewed from the lake? 7. Other issues as raised by the Planning Commission. b0)‘28'3 SiinJ'J Ann Bx'nson 3 IS :003 Pu.ec 3 t)f 3 Stair RccoaiMCMiatioBt: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances to reconstruct and expand the roof of the existing principal structure t%ith the following conditions: 1. Due to substand^ setback of the principal residence from the OH WL, screening of the Planning Commission ’s choice should be added along the lakeside of the residence to miUgate the visual impact of the structure as it is viewed from the lake; and 2. If structural removals exceed what is shown on the proposed plans, further review by the Planning Commission and City Council will be required. »0i-2S75 Soruta Am Btiwm IU200S Page 4 of S ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR'IC Lot Rcquircmcntt: Dimensions Required Existing Proposed Lot Area 21,780 s.r (0.5 acres) 11,992 s.f. (0.27 acres) 11,992 s.f. (0.27 acres) No CTbange Lot Width 100’50’r • No Change Side Setback East 10*6.6 ’ (5.8* with overhangs) 6.6 ’ (5.6* with overlungs) lardcover Calculatloiu: Distance from sboretine Total area in setback Alluwcd hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’9,928 s.f.Os.f. (0%)2,244 s.f (22.6%) 2,244 s.f (22.6%) No Change 75’-250’2,064 s.f.516 s.f. (25%)729 s.f (35.3 %) 729 s.f (35.3%) No Change Setback from OHWL; Required structure setback from OHWL of GD Lake Existing Setback Proposed Setback 75’17.2’(deck)17.2’ (deck) 25.1’ (house)25. r (house) No Change Average Laketbore Setback: Existing Encroachment Proposed Encroachment 48.7’48.7- No Change If0}-28T5 Sandra Ann Benson 3 IP200J A.je 3 cf 5 cm' OF ORONO . VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI 50.00 (no change from orig^ application) Variance for non-confotming atroctures $250.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcatioo Date Received ly- Amount Paid PROPERTY' information Site Address 137(g BnIJur KoaJ______________ Property Identification Number (P.LD.) Ol>-\\1- -qqob AttftCll ICftAl dcSCnOtlOn tn IC I__I__a_j A*, u • 1 J ■ .-------------------II -QOU^ Date Property Acquired____________ I (do) |do^|) also own the^jaceni parcels of land..(month/year) Present use of property: residential zoning District:'---------- —------------------------------- f CtMJlXJ OOA.U " Address: I57fe WM»r nrk ci,j: 2.n: &S3 ‘?I " OWTIER (if different than applicant) Na.Tic________ Address:City:_ Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ DESCR^ON OF REQUEST Estimalrf Consm,e.ion Cost S 7e?,ooo - c7 ——'—1. aj.udoti^js. ^ (attach additional sheeu if necessary) t7 VARIANCES REQUIRED ___ Lot Area Lot Width ^ Setback: Front __ Other (specify)_______ JlTside Hardcover __ Rear Lot Cov ^ Average La?\« HA^SHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTV CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if nec S 7o SlC ir.’. 17/VdJJ i5l-fc4I-042?MA*a. dV •e>2/*f RCQURED SUBMITTALS All of At foUowlM tefTinatleii myit bt tht appIkittOB df dllne daft ta eritr tor y—r appUgartaa to bt ccaiidtrtd complrtt; 1. __ Completed Application Fonn 2. __ Certified Property Owmut Us: of ownen withio ISO*, labels and plat map (you nuft obiain dtit bit, lab«lr|j|id tn^> from Htmie^ County Department of Finance. A-fr03. Govt Ceater,<^tfrs9IO). 3. Certified of Survey (aignob by a liccnaad aurveyof) and include hardcover cakulatioQS aa required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8V'/ x It** for rcpfoductionu 4. Topogr^thic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in C'tiating gr^ are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Vi* x IT lor r^oduction. 5. __ Skclcfaca or plans of floor ft elevation viev^s (provide one (1) copy 8Vi* x IT). 6. __ List of the legal namea (include marital status) of all penons with an {merest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(a) if not current owner(i). 7. __ At an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other ptmona you wish notified of this application 8. __ Addilioeid items aa may ba requested by City ata£T Tke Applicant mid Property Owner roust si^ this application. Please tcmenlier that ysu variance aDpHeuBou Is not comnlete If the ehove inlertnadiM has not been Inclnded. applicant s signature The epplies t hereby apees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Adminiatraior, agrees to pay additional fees (suff tima not covered by original fee payment) and/or coosuluot expeasea incumd in review of this epplicatkm. and ceitifiet that the infonnadon supplied is true a.<vl enirect to the best of hivlter teowledge. ApplicaatT Signatuza IS true a.<vi eoirect to the best or hivlter knowledge. / y Date //'7 OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and Anther autborites reasonable entry ont the property by City ataff. consultants, agents. Comnussion roembers, and Council membcfi for purposes of iovestigadon and verification of tius request. Owner's Sigrtahire Date Applicant must have all submittals into O'.e Cit)- ofTices 25 da^s before the Planning Conunistton Maedng. Planrting Commission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. AppUcaits must be present at nil schcdoled review meetings of the Fiannlng ComnaUsloa nnd CouncIL If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make amngf.Ttcms to have an authorized agent an end in your place and to advise die Building ft Zoning 0:Ace of this change prior to the meeting i Tf 02/17/2fl33 U:Oe fe5l-t41-W2r WCS SAvpsai T have rcvi( ^I32k A^laccat I (w«) _______ (print iume(t)] the pi OwMra'^kaawlcdlitnMBt Farai / /% (pciM iddraM] js ‘ “ '•") •»* <0 Cmmcn Snum) •• «n«na for die City ^ n«. »MhM d» p„,o«d ,«ghb.^oject or use rmn^ Couacil < Pro^fc^t^Owuer / " /^(nf&Ai>h~ (mj^l Date 7 «^//7 /a a»PmpcfV Owner -----------------........................-------------------------- I <w») [print naBic(s)](print addreas] of the property locatedlagffie^iasr.rjsisas__ p:« «i««. u* p,opo.«i „i,bw. Dale L-n^O'^Piopaiy AppUcatteTpI^'iSBh*^!^^!^^ of this Und Use prior to die scheduled mectiDt^te. ™ «M*ni A Zoninf Office at least 10 days --V •••.V - • •’ ) O e>4/4 City of Orono Variance Application 1376 Baldur Park Road Orono, MN. Statement of Hardthip: Tliis property is located on a narrower portioii of Baldur Park which is a point or peniiinila on Lake Minnetonka North Ann. The property varies in depth firom approxianalely 23 feetononeendlo 170 feet in depth on the other with ftomage on one side of the poinsula of 100 feel and the other of 60 feet Records available indicale the original structure dating to 1939, permit records show an addition in 1971 and another in 1988. The living quarters are lotutted entirely within the 0-73 foot setback on the north aide of the peninsula and a garage just fits between the two 73 foot aefeacks from each side of the peniosula. There are two tevcls to the structure with the lower level on grade and the main living level directly above. The ceiling hdghts of the main living level of the original structures is fr’-lO** clear. The Owner proposes to remove the roof(s) of the original structure and replace with a new roof structure with one coalinnoiMri^approaimBlely IMO” below that of the 1971 addition directly west of this structure. Tte footprint of the building will not change although the roof is planned to have a 18” deep overhang at the lakeside and tear and 12" on the gable end to die east increasing the hardcover somewhaL The interior of dieae living spaces will have vaulted cetlings to provide acceptable interior ceiling heights. iin 'STKaST < 0-7S i f5-2S0 VVt. 250-500 500-1000 Exnrmo hawocovpuw zone Houm Length 1540 SF. GanMM PalWOeck Lantfacape UndMiain by PlaeOc or Fabric _q_sL 0 SF 691 SF" 0 SFreflsr 0 S F -57rsr llPZsf 0 S F 0 S F Omar_______ idfXL HARDCOVER M ZONE 0 SF 47 SF ■2935“SF(Ar tdTAL FROPERtY AREA IN ZONE 10619 S F(B)mw. 2935 10619 TOTAL 0 X100-27.6 % ’PERCENTAGE mZOME Houaa X 11 ■1540 S F. ! Langih Widlh ------------------------------------------1 •X 11 ■0 SF t I 1 . 0 s F ------------------- Garaga • !x n ■ 0 SF 7 ^' 0 Driwaway •x^- 691 SF *x 1 • 0 sT —^ SMcwvk ■ 82 SF lx 11 ■' 0 S F ■ 1 Pabo/Dack __________Li__1 j 575 SF 1 1 T 0 SF Lindteapa ________■0 S F ■ " --------- Undartainby X i1 0 S F Pi^'I m 0 SF X «0 SF i Othar TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE X 1 m m 47 SF i 2935 SF(A) total PRdPERfir AREA IN ZONE m 10619 SFIB) 1----------------------------------------—---------------------------------------------------- ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■ —■ ■■ ■ 4 2935 10619 ■0 X100» 27.6 % >3.t /Ml *5 M ;?>.3 i - IfeTiACK zCWiTjcimi owe) IxaiwiOHAi^oyBtmzoME H oum Tts"250-500 500-1000 t7g-/z. 0 SF ■0 S F ■0 SF Oaraga X ■626 S> O'onvaaioy X m 45 SF ^CCAT/ina, X m 0 SF—I^Maaialk X m 24 S F X M 0 SF Palto/becfc X m 0 SF . ■’ X m 0 SF Landicapa X m 0 SF Undadain by l^laatic or Fabric X m 0 SF ’ X ■0 S^ , j_ ■—OSP-------------------------------------' .g!y .........................X «79 SF^Total hardcover in zone !■774 s F(A)': ‘tbTAL PROPgRTY AREA tN ZONE 2109 S F(B) 2ioT TOTAL 0 X100« PERC^AGg*3^7' > HARDCOVER m zone Langth 0 S F. TSSawy admralh l^atto/D«ck Landacapa Undartainby plastic Oihaf TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TdfAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 2109 0 SF 0 SF 626 SF 45 SF ifurri/^niKp 0 SF 24 SF 0 S F bsT 0 SF 0 SF SF SF 0 SF 79 SF 774jsf;^ Ti09 SF(B)Zxiiw: I-ota T 0 X100*'-------36.r%~ >CTCENTAgr znBfc^ ‘H a a -V •3/ll/28n n:24 651-641-0427 WES SAI«>SQN AR»‘T TWOh J lilMX MRCIMTIt* !«. W NO. : 763-«tS-Si531 «»r. «7 PAGE 02 03:44^ PI g I mu i6i(|a|«mni Mach7.2003 hb GmylUkn 137f BOkvM Road OnoOtMinmioU Rr Uhns Rcsidtocc ?S76Bt1teMRotd OmnokMinMaou DorRaady: Aa nqocmd I visoid )«ur dbovt rtftnacid miinat 00 Mday, Mvcfe7.2003. llKp«poaaor»irURMSiavi0wibaiiRBt«al coodition of tilt eri«h)| Rona and d1 dafcoilDt if tha ffdadag aBoctma i ba modUlad Ry pla^ a ««loofmcr a paniOB efte oiaiag Rosae. ThtKwroofwmldbanfpoiiadbyaMirridRtba aiboot 32 taL aaw rafim bmiai oa ilui oartar bans aaR dba fjoariorbaaiMmlU. IRr anatisi bona ia ii Rood Mncnnl coadiUoa Tla axi«h| RwRflii and Ibuidaiioa walk win aniqm iba loada taBROtad by ika am iid|a baui, witet om-«ranin| tbt ciluiBf aBoetwa. If jfoc have aey flBthar qocatiou plaaia fbal taa to can na. Saccrcly: /MK.l4vir.E. MaBtaoURat-No. 1SM7 203039kt jkl V f. i I * V '5 X ‘ •• - .. -n I/a* - I'-Or r i -bsM 1 y.1 1 ■II ili!ll!l!!lll i^ i 1 I Mtl jl IIIJULI rnotoato \AfX5kOt citvation rox. 137c jauxx takk road i/e* - r4T \ ^ »• . ':n I , ^ * ♦ > 7*^ .......... r v5 ) 0 £ Lira•Y^fsei _______a.-~ t 1 “ fT-'‘ ^^- lyfl* - I'-O* !' } (■ L. I,a* - fUDfOSCO VAUITTO CfltlMC PLAN KM. 137C OAlOtJR PAW. ROW !/«•- r-o* }0 p I I CM I**... ^ J i'5) rnorosco noof riAf. roK. 137c rvALOi;n part, rcao !/«•- r-cr . ,. '^r’.*‘c . HM -2X'h JV <•'.?• w<^ . /.■ /•■ :v ^ ‘*V.' • .-; •j :‘V /='9& '.v/v. . 5472759 C3i,v oi 'ORO-XO i^&0 KCSC'wUTiO*. O' TMt C'tv COJ*.C*l NO --•• ‘ ^.1—IL TRANSrA E\T2RSD A RESOLOTION CP-vrrisc VARIANCES 70 MUIIICIPAL ZONING CODE SCCTIO:i 10.22, SUaOIVISION 1 » 2 • .vn> SECTION 10.55, SODUIVISION C - riLB 11280 .C” 4 S33 •• HECnSAS, w«r.dy K^ihc (he.-eir.after "the op^licart") is the rwrer o. the prejerty iceateu at 12 *5 Baldur r£r< ?sad within the Jitv of Crcr.o {..ercina.tcr “City") and legally described as follows: Lot 2C and that part of Let 21, DlccV 1, “Ealc j- Parh“ desrribed as .cllcvs: b#ginr.ir.9 on the reendet line At the !tortheAStcrly corner cf laid I^t 21» ther.ee Northweittir 1 y cn said lire a d.istarce of 5C* tc the Northwesterly corner cf said Let 21; thence Pout-we*ter 1 v c-. the Northwesterly lire of said Let 21 e distance cf 23-j thence Southeasterly to a point or. the Southeasterly lino cf said Lot 21, Southwesterly fron said Northeasterly corner; the.'.ce !:ert..ea*terly or. «sald Sc-.tV.oattcr 1 / lir? 6'.1* to -..he point cf becinning, Hennepin County, hinrenots (hrteinalter "tr-• sretertv"); and the applicant hta applin.! to the City for varlsn-es to 10.:;, .''U.hdlvislcns It; and Tectlcn ;0.55,Municipal r.cnirg Cede ^-••etlon. . . ... . . • * an., .•.•cvicn .v.a.-, S-b*.. vis .on 8 te allow tee cenntrurt i cn of additions to the o iistlna residrnco. nurh aiditiors being leas than the rcQuired 7«* sethack fron the shoreline cf Lake Kinretonkn and ceni:*. i r ut ire hardc*^-cr in the enu 75-150* lakeshctc sotbac-: rc-.c: in excc:»s ef tno C< am! .I'" har.:cover percontnres nor**ally clicked in thos* respective rencs. .••innjsetsi IWI, Tliusryo';*;, l*:; it SNSOLVra ty city ecu- .• r: Crorc. 1. This a;;; llc.tr •;e review*:! au "onin.n ril * inPO. 2. Tho property ir >r.it?d in the :P-*.C Pirelr rarilv L.t -eher* .esic^-ntl.'* 1 Toning ntstrict. sfi Planning Cen-issien reviewcl this upi lie •tier, cn .Tune 20, l98o, and la-c-'^nJod approval cf the prcpoccd vatia.nce.s bast.! upon tho fcl levin? ft-.din.pc: »* 5 The are- cf t.*-- pr-rpertv is .tj j.rc; t? ite! y i: w. .e.. 4i, : s..*. V* leuv.-. ! v:rhir: t^** *-*f* s^'*: rer'*. .rcitrite.’y l.'.ui: s.f,, e: Pare I cf 5 r* -»5 :‘v V** V -'’tv; -V .s V.: V I t ’;v. •.' .. ' i* •. *. • »* V 'A. wi -^ * i ; r - •. .* • ’ .V lUUJ : -• V- --■■■■•■■f-i-" ‘‘•“'Khv' .* t io;- i ■•> ! L'-- . * ’ • / \ ^ -■ > *.4 • ■ ■ • • //* V i • • . I • • ** ■ *•'*•..■ ' <1 ‘V >N .:•! » ■ rf^! ^'-1------’ Ciiy oi 0R0?>.'0 »£S0LJTiO*. O* TH! C»tvCOJ\C»L NO _:r v_____ 3) Thei cxio*ir.5 rcsiOcnc* sttUCiure i» lorr^^jd 2€' £ron t^• chorelir.e wit.'*. « second strry deck lecated iC fron the shcrelin.*. Existir? hardcsver cr. the j.rcj.er*.y in the 0-75* tore IS 30.41 and it, the 75-25C’ scr.e is C) The fr'->.cf- J 3‘uitlcnal structure ircludea ec-rletien of the second story ove: the entire cxlsti-c house, -ith a 3-levcl edditiun brtweor. the exlstlr.r hcuse and the ^ar^^e. |:lu» a now second story deck at the nerthvait end of the houre. None of th- cJiitic.-.s >ii: ha clcacr .a t.-.? 1; deck.lake than tho ex.jtir.g heuse and r) The applicrnfa eriqir.cl |.r-?;o8al rhowed a reduction in hardcover in the C-T5* rene free 30.4? to 30.11, and fron 4«.C ’. to 44.4% in the 75-250’ sene. The initial Planning Cornissicn. review of that prorosa! resulted in direction fr:n the Flanninr Cernlsiion to further seduce hardcover en the jroperty, her.ee rpFlicant returned with a vrcjestl fer 30.C% in the C-75* cene rnJ 38.-1 in the 7*-25?’ rone. The Planning Cc-n' sicn feun.'.’ t. is eubstantial hardcover reJueticn to be a ncsitiv« aspect cf this apylicaticn end recorctenfed approval. ”1 ^ this property has lakeshare en 2 slden. with a relatively snail area in the 75-250* setback rone, th ; preperty nas sa-e unique hardships in that it could not suppert a^ additions without variances. F) The proposed additions will create no sig:.ficant visual encroachrtent of views enjoyed by neighboring preperty owners, r-1 will not be Isually obtrusive within the landscape due tc the topography within the Irrediatcly Adjacent areas. City Co..nci: has considered this applicaticn including th-s find.ncs ar.d rocc—.endations of the Planning Co-r.lsB‘.on, report? h- C-ty staf., ccrr.ents by the applicant and the effect cf the prepos-i verijnte on the herlt**. safety and welfcno cf the cc-.- nity. 5. The City Council finds that th- rr-^:ti?r- crintinn en. thl property are peeuiisr tc it and do net apply generally tc etl.o- .n thl-. toning district: that granting tne variance wculd no- ‘-rafflc condltic.-.s, light, air nor pere a flro barer : J- "5i5 Ting prep‘TtyJ vculd ret .-erely serve a- .'■*2.*? *•’ *• norcssary to alleviate a de-c-- <*i--i4ultyt is njcessary tc preserv • a substanti.il 111': '** ^1** ®-rllc.trt: and would be in keeping with the -ntert c. the len.ir.e Code and Co.-* rehenssve Plan cf the Page 2 c.» 5 . •*:V*: ' h ^ *r *p : i ?:.• ; • *.■ »v t : • . • I . / .i'.-; • ; v;.. 'V •' j'-. ; ^V« » 1 : 1 - «v ; < • : •'■Tt' ■ ; C5t->- of OKO?iO SSSOLUTiON Of ThE CITV COUNCIL NO ________ cc::ci.t;sic;:::, cr.o’jn A*n> cc.rDiTiCJts 3asi(! Ufon cnc or rorc of the findings no.c- , cltv Council hereby grants variances to sunlcli;al Zoning Ce-^ sec..c. s 1C 22, Subdivision 1 S 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 .c percil. c-*nstruc-ion of additions to thJ cnlfting residence wMc.. w.l. const- -- additional structure and h^idecver in the 0-‘5‘ cone where no ^^rdcoyr^r. structure is normally allowed, and which will ccnntitute harder.or ... .... 75-250* in excess of the 251 hardcover normally allowed, sub:ect to .he following conditions: 1. Hardcover on the vreperty is a I lever! only as follcwi and j.cr tht site plan attached as Exhibit Ai Heuse plus addition 1527 s.f. Deck plus stairs Sidewalks Garage Driveways detaining walls Total 5C5 s.f. 157 s.f. 837 s.f. i::3 s.f. <3 s.f. 4274 s.f.. of which 3242 s.f. 1C32 s.f. is within the is within the C-75* lakcih.cre setback rc-.e an-: 75-250* laVcshere setback rone. All ether existing hardeever including deccrativ: rock t:;'? r.-derl<id by plastic sheeting shall be re.T.eved pr.cr to f.ra. inspection and occupancy of the additions. The applican. is e-.lse.. "in ‘con jureJion vii; concurrent removals of enistlnc hardcover, increase c.' hardcover. resulting in no ret 2. Ths applic.nnt is advised that the lower floor level of addition sh-11 be at an •Itv'.tic"' ef 732.5* er higher. 3. The avpllcfiRt furthr*r at'vlsed that if for some reoscr. the fourl'.tien cJ tho e::istir.a h.ruse has to be replaced, Cou.rcil review ray ba roguirci tc deterrino w*;rher a r*. .crat-vr. .. the house is required. 4. Authorities grants:* with this reseluticr. run with the crcpsrty nut with ths cprlicant, but are ysr-lssive crly and rust bo c;;crcisct 1389). x.4,y< ■^1W.:?? . '■< t Vr : i .> I . .V A. \ .1 N-V • -w ‘i ^51 Cat?' of 0R0r>j*0 R£SO’wU::c*. or Vht cit-* ccu\cu. ?.3 ‘•^-- SrATS or MINKESOTA COUNTY Of MENKEPXM ) ts. On this ' • -'•'_ _ _ _ _ aay o; • _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _"ir- before et • Notary Public vlthin iir.d for county# ^F*^**’’*^*y uppcarvd ____________________5«ncwn to re to the peraor.tsI cesor iDctl ir nrt ^.o executed the .cre?olnc Ip.etrvrent, end achncvled7ed that he (they) •.<ecutcd the »*~e a5 hia (their) free act and d?«d. /7tt day of r-i:1?8 KiiA: V r-a-ic y.y ccrtvissiON expires . ?B OF MIKSBSCTA ) )as. '.on .Y Of HEKNSPIK I thiathis <!ay of _________________ a Notary Public within and Ccr said Ccunty»perionaxly appeared •<nowr. to re to be the peraonl's) described In and who executed the forcgclr.g irstr jrent, and acitnowledged that he (they) executed the rare c» hi-' (their) free act and deed. ! ’I m : • .,*» •;v • ‘.s i-f 1% ^ 'i I ^ l;?? • •• •*mM In w-a ■ M "r; '■VArY" r... . t < . .*• ■ • ;•• -‘W . .v >:V a -, .'A- ■ i ■ i-^4 V::..A' • V .;4v ■ , ■ -.-v . ‘ . '^SV*•• • .^.V* - i A'li'’- • ■-. •. . -*• ciiEcx or? LIST ran jsso.vicz or ren.nx73 rex errxes use c:<Lr AAOftlSS OK LEGAL DBSCKIPT.OMt, HDl oESoumoM or noxxi SONZNa KEVZDf BTt •OZLDZNC WEVZEK KTl rsmuT zssoEo nri_ _ CATE APPP0VE3l_ OATS APPROVED 1_ DATEt_ _ _ _ _ _ PEES TO BE CBARCSOt PEx*'.:r PLAN Rr/:rw y ««_v _ STATE SUXCKAR3E T««_ll PENALTY Tt*___ SAC Y««___ Ec_ Nc. Ni._ xr_ N3 .Vise, roes Caleulstti S/<, sr*EX u :::t s__ ?r.tiE? CONNECTION __ ■..ATEP CONNECTION _ PARK rSE _ SITE INSPECTION _ CTHET (a;«Cif>) _ fira Oepartsvr.tt ,i- Post Cfficot * rrf-.rl Ciatricts Los Araai l‘ ■ '''Widths ■‘ avst.t!.■ Sarvvy SuEnittedt Yfi_^ No_ _Catv of Sjrvivi • •• Prafosetl S**t3c<«: Front (La:««li PoAT (StroveIt r.SP.t Siivi. Lvft Siift_ Adjvcvnt S:r-jctJrva:,•♦•vtijndt •*"* Zxistir.7 fre;cted Kardcovert C>75* 75-25n* f ft - Hardcovvr V*ri.'-c-» ?e-jirvi*i Yva '» No Cav» cf Ccjr.cil Affrc-tl!_£_ Cradin^t StaSf A(;roval Oatot • • ^ gvi "•• Ctiitril Affroval Catot. Svrtict Staff AjFfoval Catci Hvt Icnir.7 nlvt« Pctol-tt:-- *t *' • ' T-selJticr. Cat-; REMAKES (in hettse)i , ‘ 7)tk’ nr5l‘; • /-t-.' ■ ft l:i" i ; '^'}t i'*- ^•I ..M I ;»% • s'*. 'S ‘■fi : >* ■ vS •• ;5: MCI MOIM-lMIl NORTH ARM u + «v« ma \ .1 1 \ \ r\+I \ I \ I v.^ ■ N >;.- **'** ’■ 'v ^^ “•• Vv .-•4 V \.v :=ass« ».../ C3T> cr:> ti-vi CD f:::3 •CD a C2D CD riMis + -ro»fibfrie^'<' rnnP V"TZ^».••• .J__ r |-&7b e>?iIL<3LuA, PERMIT RECORD Permit No.Date ^-n\ Tvdg of Permit 'TiA.Ajtm 2sai______h-ih n^'^lL ^L/O %?i-^ ^3<J Not 1» //io /?iJL ____>^^/s»pDd it <L. !b(c^ 5?___ _ «=?-<?-^LCe^ - _ ._ 6i‘J-'Ja o/^/ t.'r. - ^^XCK ^ 3i^ 0 C-nte ^ J/^'/ rv\i/3 -rt) pe Pecow&niUCTeD A ej(.PAMOfcI> ...Z- K IISI H:!' U^;:k|k' T‘IW ■ ^ *5,’^ ► “' ^ - - uhk£.9-X ’^ Of fOTvAC wi mmh I .«• .. .. .\* er He»ue Siei6Bg?C<2^M6r HOAE tt) -Tti€ eAS Wa-A till msrnmmtu:,,.. ^ 1*1 .r ’ ' '‘Tl 4 ^.- )■'. i 'V • ^ - */r v-J»J^-. • .■ •: » ••» • ’ • <- 4v'.‘ * X..- . . t fc .. ?••• •';■ *• -• ti9\AiS \TIEW 0(= ?fUYenn -rt> "nfe tOECr Application Received: 2/18/03 Application Complete: 2/2a 03 60 Day Deadline: 4/21 /03 TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput Cit>’ Planner DATE: March 4.2003 SUBJECT: #03-2876 Se\ie L. Lanning 3329 Cr>3tal Bay Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtriel: LR-1C One Family Lakeshorc Residential District (0.5 acre) Lot Area: 3.741 s.f. (0.09 acres) Applicalioo Suniniary: The applicant requests the rollo^-ing variances for construction of a new residence on the property: 1. lot area of 3.741 s.f (0.09 acres) where 21.780 s.f. (0.5 acres) is required; 2. a lot width of 50* wh«e 100* is required; 3. setback of 43* from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75* is required; 4. rear yard setback of 10’ where 30 ’ is required; 5. an encro.ichment of 16* into the average lakcshore setback; 6. 1,081 s.f (39.45o) hardcover within the 0 to 75* lakeshorc setback zone where none is permitted; and 7. 292 s.f (29.35%) hardcover within the 75* to 250' lakeshorc setback zone where 248.75 s.f (25%) is permitted. The owner is in the procc.ss of selling the property. A potential !>uyer has signed a purchase agreement contingent on the ability to build a new structure on the lot rather than remodel the e.xisting house. The proposed home shown in the elevations is not necessarily the home that would be built. The purchaser wants to be able to build within the proposed footprint EabihlU: A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Hardcover Calculations D Correspondence from Cit>- Staff E Survey F Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans G Topography and Storm W'aicr Culvert Location Maps H Plat Map I Property Owner’s List J Permit Record K Photos of Property m-:S'6Sf\uL Lanning 313 :oos Pag0l9fr PertiMBt Code SccHoai: 1. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (A ft B): Area, Hd^l, Lot Widtii aod Yard ReqaircaieBls: The following minimum requirements in the LR-IC zoning district shall be obscrv ed: lot area '/i acre; lot uidih 100’; rear >'ard 30*. No structure or building shall exceed 2 '/j stories or 30* in height. (Request: To allow lot area of 3.741 s.f. (0.09 acres) where 21.780 s.f. (0.5 acres) is required; a lot width of 50* where 100’ is required; and rear >*ard setback of 10’ where 30 ’ is required). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section l0.56.Subd. 16(CKI)' Structure within 75*: Structures shall be set back a minimum of 75’ from tlic OHWL (929.4 ’) of lakes classified as General Development. (Request: To allow a setback of 43 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka where 75’ is required). 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (CK6): Average Lakeshore Setback: 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. (Request: To allow an encroachment of 16’ into the average lakeshore setback). 4. Section 10.22 Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (LHI) ft (2): Hardeuver within 75* and Hardcover within 75* to 250*: Within 75’ of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures. Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. (Request: To allow 1,08 1 s.f (39 4%) hardcover within the 0 to 75’ lakeshore setback zone where none is permitted; and 292 s.f. (29.35%) hardcover within the 75’ to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 248.75 s.f. (25*/'o) is permitted). DbeuaskNi: Lot Area ft Lot Width The existing area of the lot is 3,741 s.f. (0.09 acres) where 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) is required for the zoning district. The existing lot width is 50’ where 100’ is required for the district. Neither the area of the lot nor the width is proposed to change with this application. How ever, variances arc nccessao' because new construction is proposed on the lot Lot Coverage Rv Structure While a lot of less than 10,000 s.f. allowi 1,500 s.f. of structural coverage, the applicant proposes a smaller footprint of 1,200 s.f. No variance is necessary for the proposed lot coverage by structure. Side Yard Setbacks The proposed structure meets the required 10’ side yard setbacks. Therefore, no variances arc required. Setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka ft Rear Yard SctNick The existing house on the lot is located 48 ’ from the OHWL. However, it also has a zero setback from the rear and cast side lot line. The proposed house is located 43 ’ from the OHWL where 75’ is required. Given that the nuyority of the lot is located within 75’ of the OHW'L, it wDuld be •OJ-28'6 St\te L Lanmng IIJ2003 difficult to propose a home which met this setback. The proposed house is located 10* from the rear lot line where 30’ is required. If the required setbacks from the OHWL and rear lot line are followed, the setbacks overlap, providing no legal building envelope. \Mth the proposed 10* rear setback, there is only room for a driveway of approximately 10* in length off of Cr>-stal Bay Road. \^th this length, vehicles will not fully fit on the driveway on the lot and may end up jutting into Crvstal Bay Road traveled right of way. Given this information, staff would recommend that a drix'eway of at least an additional 5’ In length be provided from Crystal Bay Road, moving the house S’ closer to the rear lot line rather than the 10* proposed and the 30* required. The footprint of the home would also be 48* from the OHWL of the lake (same as e.xisting home) and lessen the encroachment into the av’erage lakeshore setback with a S’ setback from the rear lot line. The r.ar lot line abuts Dakota Rail right of way which is not currently in use for rail but is proposed to be a future regional trail. To the rear of the propeit>, the right of way is flat then changes significantly in grade. Since the existing house is hxrated on the rear lot line and does not appear to have a negative impact on the abutting property, a S* setback would seem reasonable in or^r for the lot to accommodate a properly sized driveway. The alternate would be to reduce the length of the house by S* to retain a 10* rear setback. Rear setback approvals for structures in the neighborhood have varied from 7.6* to 19*. Average Lakeshore Setback The proposed house encroaches 16* into the average lakeshore setback whereas the existing house encroaches 11 * into the average lakeshore setback. With a decreased setback from the rear lot line of 5*, the encroachment into the average l.tkesborc setback would not change from where it exists today. The property to the west (3335 Crystal Bay Road) has a rear lot line that extends into the Dakota Rail right of way, bc>ond that of the applicant’s property. In 1996, the owners of 3335 Crystal Bay Road combined a small portion of Dakota Rail property' with their lot. The property to the east (3325 Cry stal Bay Road) is approximately the same size as the lot in question *Thc views from either adjacent property will not be obstructed by a home in the proposed location. All properties face directly onto the lake. Usi&hi The proposed elevations of a new structure on the property are taken from a previous application by Ace Properties (Zoning File # 2730) on 3375 Crystal Bay Road for new construction. The elevations arc the same although the footprint has b«n reduced to fit on the lot. As mentioned prev iously, the owner does not necessarily wish to build this particular home but wants to be able to show potential buy ers that something can be built. The home that was built based on these plans was constructed on a w ith changes in grade itOJ-23'6 Seue L Lanntr.^ 313 2003 Page 3 c/7 etev-ation. The toning ordinance states that the height is measured from the highest grade at the building or ten feet above the lowest grade, whichever is lower, to the average height of the highest gable. Given this, the house met the height requirements on 3375 Crystal Bay Road. Howe\"er, the topogr^y of the applicant's propert)’ is much flatter and would not permit construction of a home such as the proposed because it would exceed the height limitations. Any home that is built on this property must be no higher than 30’ and no more than 2 '/i stories in height, as required by the zoning ordinance. As proposed, the house elevations show three full stories. Hardcover 0-75 * Hardcover Zone: There exists approximately 1,059 s.f. (38.6%) of hardcover within this zone where none is permitted. The applicant proposes a home with 1,081 s.f (39.4»/'.) of hardcover. Cr>'stal Bay Road is located within 12’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The City has a prescriptive casement over the property for the roadway. Therefore, it is not considered part of the hardcover or lot area calculations. The majoritv of this lot is located within 75’of the OHWL. 75 ‘-250' Hardcover Zone: There is approximately 779 s.f. (78.29%) of hardcover existing in this zone where 25% is permitted. This is largely due to the fact that the home is positioned right on the rear lot line. The proposed home has 292 s.f. (29.35%) hardcover, reducing the existing hardcover in that zone (while increasing hardcover in the 0-75’ hardcover zone). Other Comments: City Engineer The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and has the following comments: 1. existing and proposed grading and drainage ways should te shown on plans; 2. the existing stomt sewer should be located; 3. drainage and utility casements 10 ’ wide over all existing utilities and 5 ’ wide along the south, cast and west lot lines should be requested (However, except for the storm sewer noted below, it would be inconsistent for the City to request these easements as part of a variance application); 4. erosion control measures must be installed, inspected and approved by the City prior to any work on the site. Existing Culvert Lender House There is an existing storm sewer that runs from the pond on the south side of the railway tracks into Crystal Bay. and it is believed this pipe is beneath the existing house. The culvert, as it exists, must be located on a survey. If a new house is to be built on the property, the cuU'crt must be relocated along the property line. To the south of the railway tracks, two manholes should be placed to turn the culvert from its existing location. A drainage and utility easement of 10 ’ in width will be required over the culvert. The exact relocation of the culvert will be determined by Cit\ staff. These improvements will be the financial responsibility of the property owner. t^0)-28 ’6S€\l< L Lanning 3'IS7003 Page 4 (^7 L Hiilor>': There ha\"e been a number of \’ariances granted in the neighborhood over tune. Most notably, there have been two lots in the neighborhood that have received variances for new construction since 2000: Addreu (Costal Bay Road)___ 3349 3375 AppIkatloB «2593(2000) new construction «2730 (2002) new construction Lot Width/ Lot Area 507 0.11 acres 507 0.15 acres Variances Hardcover 0-75•: 836 s.f. (291i) Hardcom 75’-250*: 972 s.f. (47%) Lot Area: 0.11 acres Lot Width: 50’ Setback from the lake: 70* Rear Setback: 8* _____________ Hardcover 0-75’: 748 s.f. (23.8%) Hardcover 75*-250’: 2,062 s.f. (53.4%) Lot Area: 0.15 acres Lot Width: 50- Setback from the lake: no variance Rear Setback: 19- Side Yard Setback: 9.7-___________ These properties differ somewhat from the current application. Both properties have a larger area of the lot located beyond the 75- setback from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The property in question has alt but V95 s.f. located within 75* of the Lake. Hardship: The applicants have iiKluded their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be ask^ for their testimony regarding this issue. 2. 3. 4. Issues for Consideration: 1. The original house was constructed in 1910 and remodeled in 1954, prior to adoption of the current zoning ordinance; The lot size is substandard for the zoning district; The majority of the lot is located within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka; It is not possible for a house to meet the 75' setback from the lake and the 30' rear setback; There is 100' of Dakota Rail right of way (currently not in use) running along the rear lot line, guided to be a regional trail in the hiture; The lot is separated from the lokeshore by Crystal Ba> Road which is publicly maintained. The 1,044 s.f. of roadway is deducted from hardcov er and lot area calculations within the 0-75*; To establish an adequate setback from Crystal Bay Road, a rear setback of 5* is appropriate for the proposed house dimensions. With a 5' rear setback, the average •03-28"6 Seytf L Laming yii/200i Page 5 9f 7 lakeshore setback and setback from the OHWL would not change from the existing strocture; The house could be shortened S’to meet a 10* rear setback; 8. The proposal meets the 10’ side yard setbacks and is less than the 1,500 s.f. lot coverage by structure permitted for the lot; 9. Ihm is a culvert diaining under the lot from a wetland to the south and into Lake Miiuietonka. The City will not permit a home to be constructed over an existing cuKxrt; 10. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. SlalT RccooiaMBdatioM: Staff recommends approval of the requested variances for new construction on the lot, with the following conditions; 1. The tear setback should be reduced from the proposed 10’ to 5 ’ (or the length of the home should be reduced by S’) in order to provide adequate driveway depth from Cry’stal Bay Road, maintaining the existing structure’s setback from the OHWL and encroachment into the average lakeshore setback; 2. A building of no more than 30’ and no more than 2 '/i stories in height will be pennitted to be constructed on the lot; 3. The existing ^vert murt be located prior to discussions with City staff regarding relocation. Prior tc > btaining a building permit, a survey showing the proposed relocation of the culvert will be required. A drainage and utility casement of 10’ in width will be required over the lelocrted culvert as well. The costs of these improvements will be the financial responsibility of the property owner, 4. Existing and proposed grading and drainage ways should be shown on plans submitted for a building permit; 5. Erosion control measures must be installed, inspected and approved by the City prior to any work on the site. i Srt /# L Laming S/tS/2003 f(^6ci7 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Rcqulrcmcnte: Dimwtiaai Re<|«trcd Exbtuit Proposed Staff Recom mcndatlon Lot Area 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 3.741 s.f. (0.09 acres) 3,741 s.f. (0.09 acres) No Change Same Lot Width 100’50*50’ No Change Some Front Setback (Lakeside)75*48 ’43 ’48 ’ Rear Setback 30’O’10’10’ or 5* Side Setbacks East 10*0*10’Same West 10-17’10’ Lot Coverage 1,500 s.f.1,103 s.f.1,200 s.f.1.200(32%) by Structure (40V.)(29.5V.)(32%)or 1.050(28%) Hardcover Calculation*; Average Lakeshore Setback; Dbtance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’2.746 s.f.0s.f. (()•/.)1.059 sf. (38.6%) 1,081 s f. (39.4%) 75’-250’995 s.f.248.75 s.f. (25%) 779 s.f (78.29«.) 292 s.f. (29 35%) Existing Encroachment Proposed Encroachment 11’16' Staff Recommendation ir m03-2S76 Sexie L Larmiitg S'iJ/2003 Pagt7t^7 V H •e>|/5 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Ifiititl Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Application » 03 Dale Received Qs“ i'i 'O.T~ Amount Paid ^ _jy ( Site Address iOjC Property Identification Numbw (P!U&.) y ^ //Vp Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired___________________________________ rXdo) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: u^idential ___pother (specify) £Za _____________■ _(monlh'year) Zoning District: ^ p APPLIC Name Address: Phone (home) “2 Phone (work) p Zip: ANT-^ Z-. / ON\'NER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ City.. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^/0/j Describe r^cst in detail: J ^ (attach additional ineets if necessary) ^ VARIANCES REQUIRED ^ Lot Area Lot Width Setback: __Front Other (specify)_____ __Side X Hardcover ___^Lot Coverage __Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing complian.'c with Zoning Code requiremenu: _______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2876 Application #03 Date Recelved_2EZE2^5r Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (550.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confoiming sliuctures $250.00 Aflcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Property Identification Number (P!t.D.)_ ^ ^ ^j'7 f Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired._(month/ycar) I (do) (do not) also own the adiacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y^midential ___pother (specily). Zoning District: | A__________________________ APPLICANT.-, . y Phone (home)/.//.^^^^ y Name Z.. /Phone (w-ork) ____Zip: ^ OWTfER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_________________ Name ______________ Phone (woric)_________________ Address:.City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost $ 3./O^J Describe request in detail: S/j>9d>r/^ ) {. /i /ic w V \ ^ (attach addiU^afi^cts if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED y». Lot Area Setback: A Lot Width Front Side X Hardco-.'cr ____^Lot Coverage __Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual pr<meny conditions preventing compliar.re with Zoning Code requirements: ^________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2878 6^^ REQUIRED SUBhllTTALS M.gf.thc fPlIgwiBg information muU mbmltteit hy Ihe anplicatton deadline in order for vour application to he considered gomntefe? rru^niT V w yp yrayr 1* ___ Completed Application Fonn ^ ---- Certified Prope^'Ou-ners Ust of owners within 150*. labels and plat map (you must S>vl"ccnter*M Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, — Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surve>-or) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8/i" x 11" for reproduction. 4. ---- Topogniphicsuivey (existingandpropostdelevations) ifany changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/." x 11" for reproduction '* ---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11") 6. ---- List of the Icpl names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. Tins would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owTier(s). _ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Otvner must sign this appUcation. Please remember that vour YirlillW IPPllCHlM. I» BM cmipicte If the nhnv. I.t-^.tlu, h.. .o, h... APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Ue applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomtalion required or requested by Ihe Zoning <■“» (“fftae not covered by original fee payment) consullan expenses .ncurte^6'review of this application, and eertiL that Ote infott^Uon supphed IS true and eorree^' the best of^er knowledge. mioimauon Applicant's Signatui^^^^^£/_.f?^3u<^^^_ 8. i;)____ Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE Jnl^v^onio Ihe''omueI?I.“hl'r*?' •PP«“tion and further authorizes reasonable members for nii^s Y ^57 City Staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for puiposcs^f^nvcsti^imn^ verification of this request. _____ DateOwner’s Sigi.aur^ Meel'in'"' TbnUin'a Comm> CommissionMee n.^. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month Mc^o a-i4' ,1 r L amnin*^•- Cv uaiu)coveux :alculation WOUKSUFET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 7S-:jU‘ 250-500*500-1000' EXISTINC HARPCOVEn IN ZONE A. House _____________ Ungdi B. Oar<|e C. Dri«way D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. t.andsca;e Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IK ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ - B \ 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER LN ZONE A House _____________ Ltn|th B. Oirage C. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G Other r;? TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _________ - B /: <ri /o 3/ xlOOu Cl) .-o cVi SF SF SF SF SF SF SF. SF SF sr SF SF SF SF )'• SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF Sr ‘SF SF s.t 5 p - SF SF SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ ilAlU)COVEU CALCULATIJ^N WORKSUEET 0-75'C"j5.2SO‘J> 250-500* A[>o, To tE' S00.100. Wrf-Ji B. Garage C. Driveway D. SkkwaOc E Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabne 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZO.'*: TOTAL PROPERTY .MIHA IN ZONE - B xlCO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ B. Oarage C. Driveway L. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. LaniKape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 2-Z 0. Other TOTAL RARDCOX'ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _:_ - B xlOO A 9. •’<* ^ »i i_" *.rs SF SF SF SF SF SF. SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF V, ^r.‘3r'<y. S F - ST. SF. SF. SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF. ‘ »i Bonestnx> Rosene ArKterfik& Associates Engineers 4 Arctiitects March 4.2003 Jennifer Chaput Planner CityofOrono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 3329 Crystal Bay Road File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-2876 Dear Jennifer: OoatrM Aiivctatrt. Inc M an AllMinao** Acimn la»* n.if anatnyiayc 0*na« Annci#Jti Otr* Q konTtfae H • %»*»•< l V»mi* A| • C ♦*» ■ <co« a| • c . i O V»HA«nc at • >*-V A koufAsn at • Mar* a Mjni«n at tamor CanMtianci. ■oorn « aaiana at • M>*p« C An«*>i.*. at • I lu>n«c at • kitan M fb*-*n CaA Actacuc* annciaalt I*.!-a Co-don ai • ao««-i a a-»*»r’>* a| *#(-4-41 dr lottc- af *OaM<IO tottst* at • V --ua« r tjunnann at • Ird ■ •♦•d at . aenraw a a>dr-ten at • Va>* a a»’*» at • 0>-.d A aonTt-oo VIA • A —-to- at u • Aqnai V tr-j v-g A . aj »» t-i* tta«n.e at • A a*tr-»o- af . j*—*» a Vna-vd at • vn*i a imia- at • i an.* a C-*.»< ■ • Oa- ** ; t Jy-tc- *t • n—»*' v-t—f at • Tno—ai A If **• at • w-den J Mnntan • 0**a A C<«.« a| • A a-,ina» af • tcea-i , at OIMat It ana ti Cxn-d tocnait** and A ' «*avir Mr*AaanaMiM(e*n V-« • V nn.tr* •*' • Cn.< .% if We have revie\ived the certificate of sur\*ey iho«*ing the proposed new home construction on the property located at 3329 Crystal Bay Road. An existing home will be removed pnor to the new home construction. We have the following comments with regards to engineering nutter>: • The plan should include contoun showing existing and pwpojed grading and drainage vvsys. • Plans should identity existing storm sewer (if an>) on the pro;Ki!ted property. • The City should request drainage and utility easements 10-;'eei wide ovet all cxistuig utilities and 5> feet wide along the south, east and west lot lines • Most of the proposed construction is within 75-feet of the lake. It is critical that erosion control be irutalled. inspected and approved by the City prior to any work on the site. Ifyou havc any questions please call me at (651) 6044863. Yours very truly. BONEST.ROO. ROSENE. .\MOERlIK ASSOCIATES. INC Tom Kellogg ^ Cc: GregGappa.CityofOrono 2JJS West Highway J6 • Si. Paul. MN SSIIJ • 6SI-6J6-4600 • Fax: 651*636 1311 CERTIFICATE OF LOT 6 ADDITION TO MINNETONKA BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY •2«.4 CONTOUR tW\ % 4P % LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lot 6. Wallace’s Addition to Minnetonko Beach o : denotes iron morker found BearinQS shown ore based upon on ossi/ned dottm. m This survey intends to show the ^oundaries of the above^^^ described property, the locotion of on ^ ii ^oes the proposed locotion of a proposed house the ® not purport to show any other innprovements or e ro .U O Tr i ;• ‘-! ■■' ^ i / <m-4- fAAlP »» I •*• •! • I «“• ’> - » » » ,..... ' o V <CCUE fwrwtir Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department • ••^ Information Parcel ID 1711723410019 Houta Numtar 3329 Straat Nama CRYSTAL BAY RD This i$ not 9 Itgaty ncofdtd map. it npftfnlt a comptlsbon of m/omsbon ond 4»ts torn Oty. Ccvoty. »rd St3t9 rood aulSarXiea and otrtar aourcas. Peralt Mo^ _Ji __ Mm. 8/70 3/i>a PERMIT RECORD Date Ar36’i^8 ^-/y-7a // L • f ^ Type of Pgrwf^ l{ ; i,'-u.’ /UA~-J i ,,/c r mi II H0A/\6 W o' SET£fC<^ <a^KJ Pitofmy le- mi-Rcv^ pi6>Hf or uav ) K*;» .iis®iiPii t;.i-“vi:,. * 'u « *'^h- ' f ‘ I - *^^;s7 ••«»■.■: i •vt -Nf'iro^ ifi f:< ,0^tK I ; o, . ' - ■ .* . -» ■• ,^?MV ..’r>': • .' • -:Ksr Pi2<pp6err utJB rr Application Received: 2/19 03 Application Complete: 2'2ft'03 60 Day Deadline: 4/21/03 TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator FROM: Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE: February 26.2003 SUBJECT: /^03-2877 Shane Rudd 601 Pork Lone Variances •• Public Hearing Zooiaf Dbtrict: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 0.21 acres (8,950 s.f.) Application Suniaary: The applicant requests the following variances to permit a 219 s.f. first story garage addition uith a second story' bedroom onto the street side of the existing home and to reconstruct a main entry Lnding on the south side: 1 . rear yard setback of 25.8* where 30’ is required; 2. side yard setbacks of 8.4 ’on the north and 6.5 ’ on the south (for main entry landing) where 10 ’ is required; 3. an overhang encroachment of 2.5 ’ on the north and south substandard side setbacks; 4. a decorative wall, located 2.5* from the south side yard setback where 10 ’ is required, encroaching an additional 1.5* with overhang into a substandard setback; 5. 3.508 s.f. (67.2® i) hardcover within the 75* to 250 ’ lakeshore setback zone where 1.305 s.f (25®o) is permitted, and 6. lot coverage by structure of 2.175 s.f (24.3®/'o) where 1 .500 s.f is permitted. The pr *poscd 219 s.f. addition is for the expansion of garage space on the main level and living space (master bedroom, bath and closet area) on the second level. A new* steeper pitched roof will be constructed from the main entry (located at the south side) eastward. 1'he existing roofline w ill remain as-is west of the entry door. The majority of the interior of the .second floor w ill be remodeled with the addition. The plan \iew shows a decorati\c wall on the south side. Jutting out from the garage. I his wall ha> an opening w hich leads to the main entry of the house. There is no structure behind the wall and it is not shown on the surxey. It is essentially a false facade. ________________ Stuw ftuJJ 3 14 2003 Page / o/7 Exhibits: A Analysts Worksheet Application Survey Hardcover Calculations Proposed Elevation, Floor Plans. Roof Plan and Decorative Wall Detail City Engineer’s Contments Topography Map Plat Map Property Owner’s List Permit Record Photos of Property Pertiaent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): \ard Requirements: The following minimum requirements in the LR-IB zoning district shall be observed: rear >ard, 30 feet; side yard adjacent to another lot, 10 feet. (Requ«t: To permit a rear >ard setback of 25.8 ’ where 30’ is required and side >ard setbacks of 8.4 on the north and 6.5 on the south where 10’ is required; and a decorative wall 2.5' from the south side lot line where 10’ is required). 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 and Section 10.56. Subd. 16 (LK2): Hardcover within 75* to 250’: Between 75 feet and 250 feet of theOHWL there shall be no greater than 25® o hardcover. (Request: To permit 3,508 s.f. <67.2%) hardcover within the 75* to 250’ lakeshore setback zone where 1,305 s.f. (25%) is pc.mittcd). 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot Coverage By Structure: For all lots of 0-1.99 acres in total are i, the total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15®# of the lot area. EXCEPTION: Regardless of lot area, every developed lot shall be allowed at least 1.500 s.f of lot cov erage by a principal residence and garage structures. (Request: To permit 2.175 s.f. (24.3?o) of lot coverage by structure where 1.500 s.f is permitted) 4. Sect on 10.03. Subd. 15 (A): Non-Encroachments: The following shall not be considered to be encroacliments on yard requirements: chimney<. flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, inechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, prov ided they do not e.vtend more than 1 '/j feet. (Request: To permit overhang encroachments in a substandard side setback of 2.5 ’ on the north and 1.5’ on the south). Discussion: Rear Yard Setback The existing home is located 38.3 ’ from the rear lot line. With the proposed addition the structure moves 10’ closer to the lot line or 28.3 ’ where 30’ is required Howev er, the proposed overhangs are an additional 2.5*. encroaching into this substandard setback. •OJ-287? Shane RiiJJ jn:oo3 Page 2 c/7 Side Yard Setbacks S'orth side setback: 11ie proposed addition follo\\'s the existing house line, located 8.4’ from the side lot line M-here 10’ is required. With 2.5* overhangs, the overhangs are 5.9’ from the north side lot line. South side setback: The proposed addition on the sur\cy follows the e.xisting house line, located 9.5’ from the side lot line where 10’ is required. However, the addition also includes a decorative wall, shown on the elevation and floor plan with a width of 7 ’ and a 1.5’ overhang, further encroaching into the side setback. 'The total encroachment of this w all and its overl^g is 8.5 feel, leaving it 1 ’ from the lot line. On the south side of the home, the applicant proposes to reduce hardcover and structure by decreasing the size of the existing main entr>- landing deck. The existing 75 s.f landing deck and steps will be removed and replaced with 35 s.f. of landing and steps, located 6.5’ from the south side lot line. However, there exists a large overhang completely covering the existing entry deck that will not be changed. Even though the landing below will be reduced in size, the overhang remains. From the building line, located 10’ from the side lot line at this location, the overhang is 5* in depth. Therefore, this overhang will continue to encroach 5’ into the required side setback where only a 1.5’ encroachment is allowed. fiardcover Existing hardcox-er exceeds the ma.ximum permitted within both the 0*75 ’ and 75 ’-250’ hardcox cr zones. Even though the proposed addition is located in the 75 ’*250’ hardcover zone, it has been the City ’s practice to request removal of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone when excesses exist. 0-75 * Hardcover Zone: 1 here c.vists 554 s.f. (14.85® b) of hardcover within this zone where none is permitted. The applicant proposes to remove an existing deck at the shoreline (111 s.f.) (located next to the neighbor’s shed) and .shed (69 s.f.). reducing the hardcover to 374 s f (10.03?o). Remaining hardcover includes one set of brick steps less than 4’ in width to access the lake, and retaining walls (keystone and wood). 75 ’*250’ Hardcover Zone: There exists 3.528 s.f. (67.58®/o) of hardcover within this zone where 1.305 s.f (25®/o) is permitted. The changes to the house and deck and steps on the south side, some of which is already hardcover, result in a net decrease of 20 s.f or a total of 3,508 s f (67.20®/*) of hardcover w ithin this zone. Lot Coverage Bv Structure Lots less than 10,000 s.f in area are allowed 1.500 s.f of structural coverage subject to other more limiung standards. ‘The applicant proposes to remove a shed and deck, located within 75 ’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, and reduce the size of the side deck. With the removals and rOJ-23-’Shane Rudd 3N2003 Page 3 of? Hbtor>’: In 1967, the property ovvrtcrs appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council to determine if the lot was buildabic. After a finding that it was buildable. the existing cottage was razed and a new home was built in 1970. Since this time, there have been no building permits or zoning applications on the property. All of the properties along the lakeside of Park Lane are less than the 140' minimum width and less than the I acre minimum lot area. The property to the north. 583 Park Lane, was granted variances in 2000 for a second story addition to be located 3* from the side lot line and to maintain 65% hardcover in the 75'-250* hardcover zone and maintain 21.7? o of structural coverage. The property to the south. 605 Park Lane, was granted variances in 1986 for additions to be located 7.7' from the side lot line. 3.5 ’ from the rear lot line. Hardship: The applicants have iiKluded their statement of hardship in Exhibit B. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. 3. 4. 5. 6. Issues for Consideration: 1. The existing residence was built in 1970, prior to the current zoning ordinance; 2. The application proposes to reduce hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone and the 75 ’-250* zone; The proposal will decrease structural coverage on the lot; The existing overhangs on the home are 3 Vi’ in depth. 1 he proposed addition reduces the overhangs to 2 Vi*, still e.xcecding the 1 Vi' overhang encroachment into setbacks pennitted; All but the outer 2’ of roof overhangs are considered structure. The south side main entrvxvay landing is covered by a building protrusion of more than 6 ’ abov*e ground that will not change with the new deck; 7. The lot does not meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements for the I.R-1B zoning district; 8. Other properties along Park Lane have been granted variances for substandard side and rear yard setbacks; 9. Does the Planning Commission agree that the decorative wall tends to add to the building's massing, and reduces the openness in the neighborhood? 10. There arc no building permits on file for any structure on the property besides the house; 11. In regards to lot coverage, arc the tradeoffs of shed and deck sufficient to allow the second story home additions given the already excessive lot coverage percentage? 12. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendations: If the Planning Commission feels that the applicant has shown undue hardship and should be able to construct an addition on the street side of the home and reconstruct a main entry landing on the south side of the existing home, then the requested variances should be granted with the Shane RuJJ 3/14 2003 Page 3 of 7 following conditions: 1) Denis] of the proposed decorative wall and approve reconstruction of a main entry landing 6.5* from the lot line to accommodate the reduced landing deck; 2) Building plans should include rain gutter and down spout locations, directing water away from adjacent properties; 3) Erosion control should be installed, inspected and approved prior to work on the she; and 4) The proposed hardcom and structural removals must be complete before footing inspections are approved. If the Planning Commisston feels that there is r» hardship to permit the requested variances for additions on the property, then the application should be denied. • As of 9;00am on Friday, March 14,2003, the proposed overhangs have been changed to 1.75 ’ fiom 2.5*. Given time constraints, this will be further discussed at the meeting. •03-2877 Shant Rudd 3/14 2003 Patf8qf7 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET A LR-IB Lot Rcqairencals: Dimensions Required Existing Proposed Lot Area 43.560 s.f. (1 acre) 8,950 s f. (0.21 acres) 8.950 s.f. (0.21 acres) No Change Lot Width 140’50’50- No Change Side Setback North 10*8.4-9’8.4’-9' No Change Side Setback South 10’9.5 ’ (house) y (deck) 9.5 ’ (house) 6.5*(deck) Rear Setback 30 ’38.3 ’28.3 ’ Decorative Wall (South Side) io-Not Txisting 2.5 ’ (1 ’ with overhang) Overhangs 1.S'encroachment permitted 3.5 ’ encroachment on each side 2.5’ encroachment (1 Vz' at the decorative wall) Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75*3.750 s.f.0s.f. (0^4)554 s.f (14.85%) 374 s.f. (I0.0.'»®i) 75--250’5.220 s.f.1.305 $.f. (25%)3.528 s.f. (67.58 U) 3.508 s r (07.2%) Lol Covcracr Slruclurc; Permitted Coverage 1 1 Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage j 1.500 s.f 1 2.239 s.f (25%)2.175 s.f (24 3>o) I »0S:a77 Sha»t RtdJ r14 2003 Pott 7 of 7 Application H 03~^y77 Date Received /^-<73 Amount Paid cgJO. oQ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initiai Appiication Fee S2SO.OO (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renevval Variance Fee Si50.00 (no chanfe from original appUcatioiO Variance for non-confoiming itnictures S250.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address PMUc. tMfB Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_ Attach lepl description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____lWI^» _______________________(month'ycar) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y_residenlial ___pother (specify). Zoning District: ____________________ APPLICANT Name nLtr>r> Address: Th.riLLth^ Phone (home) Phone (wt)rk) ^52' ^13 City: Um^Lakf zip:„fi535Za ■JTC-Sl OWNER (if different than ^iplicant) Name 3A>^fe Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:.City:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: Estimated Construction Cost S (attach additional sheets if necessar>’) VARIANCES REQUIRED . Lot Area__ ___Lot TOih X Setback: __Front J(_ Side __Other (specify)_________________ Hardcover <TWr X Rear , __ y Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: SflE _______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) e>^a • required submittals for ”our^p”pMcat"^^ ticadling dat^ 1 c. ^ .... 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form^ stssrjsass '»■ ro» ™, Gort Center. 348-5910) ^“"'I'Depailment of Finance. A-603, ^ ~na ”L^S"*"h >--er reproduction. ^ ^ O copy W x ir for are ’^^ied. In'idSiTpro'l^e'X%'copy^^JC Sketches or plans of floor A • P> 8/i x 11 for reproduction. JL Lis, of the ,e%l names » mt;;,rXfrp:^n?uT proper^. TOs would include name(s) of ippUcanifluf^ V * — As an addendum to (his appIica^pW,^Sth . ’ . you wish notified of (his applicat'gn.** ^ P«rsons ---- Additional items as may be requested by City staff APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Admfemtor! »'’^''«VTO “ddiiirai ‘L »>' Zoning consultant c.xpenses incurred in review of this ®"SinaI fee pa>mcnt) and'or aopplied is hue and eo(mc, >^0 infonuation _______Zjl9}o2> OWNER'S SIGNATURE entiy onto the p'ropenv'’by'civ suV^OTsuhall ’u ae ’’"'?'''?'" reasonable ntembers f»r puqmse^^Tgation Date diiln^ b’ . L Varianoe RtqiMft fbr 601 Pirk Um M * ShaM need to add a bedroom to thdr house for their ftnily. Tbcy wish to ********®*^*****^***"** 1. Sida yaid on north aide ftom 10* to t.4 a to fbOow cxistiiM bouse ina.2. Side yard on south side hooi 10* to l.l a to a>0ow cxistiiia bouse Kne. 3. Raoryard(strest)aom30'to 2S.3* 4. UM Coverase to nainlain axistiqg lot coverage at 2044 sq a. RuW’s have designs a coaqa« addition that miitoiMs die nctgbborhood, kaapiog a low profile. The oirrent lot coverage would be ttiamtati^ |)y Statement of Hardship (SOI Path Is an extremely small and narrow lot, .16 acres in a 14 acre aoniag iffrtrid fSwi^IdSwe™ *******“ ^^ *° **“*"'****““"**'* **^^ n ,o , ry ff ' 'J :J ‘if '0 C-Vs'O 0,.) cco 1-*•1 i’ W' *1•«*%w« -*«*4 ul««'«vk M«» < •■K GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. C0N'.AXT».C tNCMCCRS. LAND SUHVEYOWi. »TE PL*N»f«S 445 *<»’M »U0« (MVC. lONC LM£. Ml 5535« t52-47>MI«l i,i- 1-1 r..», vi.:»c»T^ C« • 13 «» .« »4t» •* t»t:» « wo »■ «f 1 •< » '<1 • i.'s C3 %K t » •j’l I i-£ If ikt-. i I'C tf «/4»u 2-/j^j Ml toNH M^r j2 >.rr ri'i IO-25-O: ^4 « 05-055 05-055 / L. bf4AN£ t k|J»5 «rx»Ar-u- CALCULATIQtN WORKSUEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0*75* ^7^250^ 250*500'EXISTING HARDCOVER IV rnN.^ 230*300 A House w t^T I •(.>... P7j v.‘.eji 500*1000' Ai4A__sF -Hri B. G«rs|e C. Drisvway D. Sidewalk E. P«io/Dcck JM liJSSne OfoA itt F. Ludscape Undcrtiin ByPlaitie OrFtbrio O. Oiher TOTAL HARDCO VER W ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONT - B TROPOSED HARnCOVER IN 7■0^f^ • A Houss /d0fcsf c * TftZt B. Ctrafc _____________ C. Driveway Jdn/ftuA'r D. Sidewalk E Paiio/Deck //fuz r€{K^ trr^r % Af»t9V< OLf eiectt ///V^/* F. Lar.ds:ap« Underlain ByPlasiic Or Fabric 0 Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE #2 O ' 4 i ,' (f « M'/ 3wZg xlCO szzo 67,5 g ✓ e/7 -/97 Y J5 - -7S 35ZS -2tf r __ \ ICO ■ 3Scg f?.?. o €7. 20 SF SF SF .SF ^lAOC^Ofs F !sf ec'Zid . S F 'S•Dfv^A^c .SF.-v/roo tU SF -Dc^e ’SF.-e«'^id All $iOC«vv\U SF SF SF wo-'C f S F.» er SF SF V4 SF!sf. SF. SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF .SF SF M >—«t>—. K Hw. H »i <Ut>n/t»>t Qp»«K inty tiapHn. ^ mnt tmflmf Omm4 9^ rrlfKi^Mi Otto G •onnireo H • M*»m i %otfsu H • I Coo* »l • ■€«••! G V»<u»>K»>t M • irrff A PI ' lunw Pf • Wur U CPAtPfitw CanMltantt toMrt «r Pot«^ Pf . C An«r<«*. P| AiiMMp PtmtlMlt *PAA A CwMn Pf • Pefr, t PIrPHnr Pf • W f ettr> Pf • O* * O towat* Pf . Mjt« a Pf . «KAM« I iMMwnn Pf • tM ■ IM Pf . ■•fwvrm P AM«r*(«« Pf • **»• I ••*1 P| * Op»<« a •a«*Uf«« MfA • \-4rwf p AntjwiOA. Pf. 11 • A^p*! M tm9 Wf A • A^«p lcww»a! Pf • TnemM W PMPrwm. Pf • Imttt • Ujtjnd Pf . M.«»t ■ Jp"t»p PI . I PP O< « Pf • Ojr^t I Id^top Pf hmj») Mjnmtt. Pf • ThomM A t/tko Pf • tPXaan i Mfwitcn • 0«*v A O'm* P| • li'ow'Jt A PoutAw Pf • •oMTti Op««ry Pf oriKPk^ U PM t« Cloud. aecAowp* am wmmm mn • --------rrr »< • CiMpfo d l/^Bonestroo ^^flosene wSAnderlic& Associates Engineers 4 Arctiltects Fcbntiiy 27.2003 Jennifer Chaput Planner CityofOrono Post Oflice Box 66 Cr>«al Bay. MN 5S323 He* 601 Park I ane File No. 139-03-000 Plat No. 03-2877 Dear Jennifer: We havo revie^^ ed the certificate of survey and proposed house addition plans for the propeny located at 601 Park La: .c. The plan proposes to construct a 220 square foot addition to the east side (street side) of an existing home. Most of the addition will be bui): over an existing bituminous drivew'ay. A portion of the proposed addition (apprcximatciv 20 square feet) is shomi being constructed over an existing iKNi-hardcovcr si^ace. We have the follouing comments with regards to engineering matters: • The additional new hardcover created by the proposed addition is relatively insignificuni in terms of generating additional storm water runoff from the site. • Plans should include rain gutter and down spout locations. Down spouu should be located to direct storm water away from adjacent properties. • Erosion control ^ould be install^, inspected and approved by the City prior to any w ork on the site. If >x>u have any questions please call me at (631) 604-4863. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK 4 ASSOCIATES. INC. Toni Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 2J3S West Highway 96 • St. Paul. MN SSIfl • 65^6^6•4600 • Fax. 6Sf-6l6 l9ll -------- ff^rassy m.mi\ » ••••••••••••••• \ 'b\-j \ v\ <7/^^. \ uhm^ Ne\^m>o|ifwe?i> Hf priepin C Taxpayer Services Department //7- 23 — ^ K # "J? 77 a (f Parcel Information ParcDl ID 0611723410048 Houm Numbmr 601 Str««t Nam PARK LA m$l»nel9lt9»fyf9eoramtmap- it r9fir$s9nts » compilition of m/omttUon god daft *x3mOfy. County. »nd Sw» mod Mhenboa »nd olhor aouno*. PROI'EKTY OWNliKS LIST JS 0kll72Miguui rNOPATNM Jt AOtMESS UNASSIOiEO OWNttNAMf MCHARDRRUOO TAIPAVCR naiAlUl N RUOO NAMf/AOM IMPAUCIA tONGUUUiMN SSJM M Ml 172341000 PK3PAD0R 367 PARK LA OWN£RNAM£ AUDRinrOVUlOr TAXPAVtiR AUOKtYOVtiaiy NAM&AlXm 367 PARK LANC LONG LAKE MN 33J36 31 MinjMtUMb PROPADDR 377 PARK IA UWNLRNAML IILNBE L UUI NOW TAXPAVCR W NINE I IRIIJWW NAMLrAilOR 377 PARK lA UINGLAKI.MN 3)336 31 06I17234I0M7 PIIOPAOOR SU PARKU OWNBIMAME GMARNEUON TAXPAVa GMARNEUON 313 PARK LA LONGLAKEMN 33336 30 061I7234I00I4 PROPAOOR 3M PARK LA OWNERNAMB SER8NDURGER TAXPAYER SCOTTERSIUNNONNDURCCR NAME/AOOR 3MPARKLA ORGNOMN 33336 30 0611723440003 PROP AOOR 64* MMNETONKA IIGLOLA OWNBRNAME SVSWANTEKRPGSWANTEK1R TAXPAYUt STEPHEN A PATRCIASWANTBC MAMBiAHiM 649 MMNETONKA IIGLOLA LONGLAKEMN 33336 H 0611723440017 PROPAOOR 007 PARKLA OWNERNAMB RRUX2RKRU0O TAXPAYU RICHARD A KATIILLEN RUOO NAMVAOOR M7PARKLA UWQLAKfiMN 33336 3S 06II7234IU04I PIIOPAOOR «0I PARKLA OWNERNAMB SHANERAKRBTM:M RUDD TAXPAYU MIANERAKRSTMEMRUDO NAM&AnOR 601 PARK LA LONGLAKEMN 33336 30 0611723410003 PROPAOOR 3M PARK LA OWNUNAME HENNEPIN PORPEITEO LAND TAXPAYER CITYOFORONO NAM&ADOR POOOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323 30 0611723440014 PROPAOOR 630 PARK LA OWNUNAME KDANOfiRSONANLANDCRSON TAXPAYER RICK D ANDERSON A NAME/AOOR NANCY L ANDERSON 630 PARK LA LONGLAKEMN 33336 31 061172341001'/ PROPAOOR 603 PARK IA OWNER NAME SI AN DALY TAXPAYER SEAN A ITAII DALY NAME/AOOR 605PARRLA LONGIAREMN 3)3)6 30 0611723410006 PROPAOOR 3S4PARKLA OWNER NAME HENNEPIN lORFEni () LAND TAXPAYER CinrOPORONO NAME/AOOR POIIOXM CRYSTAL UAYMN 33323 31 0611723440013 PROP AOOR 30 ADDRESS UNASSKiNEO OWNER NAS1E CEFLEMINOiKALPI LEMINO TAXPAYER ILEMING NAME/AOOR UNDIVIDED I.- / ) / y V.’ 'i. t CamFYTIUTTHE FACTS REPHESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUEREPRESIfNTATIONOFIPfOlUMATIOPIAS IT APPEARS Tt IS DATE ON TIB; RGCOROS Of THE ICPMEPIN OOUKIY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO T1IPI OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. bATC^-//'^3 DY C*0/ PERH1T RECORD PRfIt Wo. POlO Patg Type of Permit; E*)^g COTT¥^f»f JUrtAj Aik\ .5£7>« #0 ‘9J‘-7O_________ .Ltrt7A______ UJ^UL. ML76.______________ _«fiJWa€«L.QLi_ JlLL2h.B__ n III ■ .-i -- - -- -- „ \L^ l^v'}’--S^mmm :/•■ ■W? *> S» * F =■— J-—.'^=5:. m i,;^ If • <i—- STPe&r 9VD6 <5f- Hwse C^oc^nc^ V<^ P(20ft?9eD f\t)DlTlONj) m.-: « 1 J' V-« H f /. mm ■\ii> "W ;n r'-' i" ! ’ .<‘j -A t\oU.SjC& qJ &\1W^9lDe 0F (pC?i LN^JE i 5#nceeT‘5>iDe -^TE>Acfcsf) 1m :• A" ' i»? -v^ scurVt cf^ (poi ^67<?s Fpiiaj^ui ^i2tef9\De A-ut mmm i!!ai.m ■VI i^{ev',"’f'lt^- 1='’ ^ it '^3p, "i V \ y>tF bo'jtp.J «=,;pg reci^ -TO -36 eeo'j'^ceD J.5L* 4 Cft-C L r • ^v-. ^ '>1 . I** '• •'*-'*.'^>* ‘ j3^-' • i* **'a *^'^ ^ • -'* / * -^*-. .,.-'5®t?ife.;r- ■*-- *-’ 4? 'rv^e;p ;Ki f eTFfC^^i TO Wc- RefAC\'1EP ______ -; .:;.»i^-■ 7tCk-^f-R€D ;M O^'^iS' SerrSfCie. ZC l£ ti H- f^e.raED ✓OF fci'B Pcdcttrtea fate: The pedestrian gate uill sene a sidex^tilk from the main house lo the road and will align with the existing fence which is about 3’ into the right-of-way at this location. The metal gate at its highest point will be 6 54’ high and be supported b>- a brick and stone monument of almost 13’ in height. The monument and gate are proposed to be located 3’ into the right-of-wny to align with the existing fenc* Pbemriw: These entryway gates are apparently becoming quite popular, both from the standpoint of security that they provide as well as being a decorative fixture. Staff would note for the record that if these monuments and gates were located more than the SO’ from the front lot line and did not exceed 6’ in height, they would meet zoning code and there would not be a need for a variance. Research: Staff has done extensi\e research regarding entrance monuments and gates throughout the city. There are numerous properties that ha\*e monuments with gates. However, most of these monuments and gates are either on lakeshore lots on county roads which are allowed 6* In height and/or meet the setback requirement. W hile others are not lakeshore lots on county roads and meet the principal structure setback, Uicrefore not requiring a variance. Many of these monuments/gales have existed for many years, prior to revisions in the zoning code and consequently have been grandfathered in. Pictures of many of the entrance monuments and gates are attached as Exhibit K. Three examples which are similar to this proposal are located at 480 Deborah Drive. 450 Orono Orchard Road S. and 2710 Pence Lane. In all of these examples the applicants w ere proposing monuments and gates which were more than the allowed 3 54’ within the required street setback with the highest being 7’. 450 Orono Orchard Road S - (2001) (Approved) Proposed 6’ fence and gale to be located within the front and side yard adjacent to the street setbacks where a 3 Vi' feiKe is permitted. The application was approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The application was approved with hardships which included security concerns and the fence would be heavily landscaped along the property on Orono Orchard Road and Dickenson Street •03-2S78 MacDonald k Mack Architects Td Hanun •185 Orono Orchard Road S 3 12/2003 Page2of4 480 Deborah Drive - (1990) (Denied and tabled at City Council) Proposed T in height and to be located 30* from propert>’ line rather than required 100*. This application was denied at the Planning Commission due to lack ofhardship and tabled by the City Council. The applicant did not complete the review process. Howem, the monument/gate was constructed at the required street setback and at 6* in height. 2710 Pence Lane- (1988) (Approved) Proposed 7 '/a* in height and to be located 10 ’ from the side lot line and 14* from the defined rear lot line. The appUcation was approved by the Planning commission and City Council. The applkatioo was approved with hardships which included security and limitation of traffic onto the private road serving only two residences. The height variance being necessary to allow construction of a structure of a size and scale to be a deterrent in itself and the setback variance necessary to keep the structure near enough to the entrance of the property' to deter unwanted trafRc fipom entering the property. Fire Marshal: William Meyer, Fire Marshal, City of Orono has advised that the required opening excluding the gate portion of the structure at the proposed setback must be at a minimum 20 ’ based on width of fire emergency vehicles. Also, as gates will be electrically controlled, the emergency agencies ask that a lock box **knox bo.x" be provided for ease of access by emergency veliicles. Manual override instructions in case of power failure should be posted inside lock lx>x. Statement of Hardship: Over the \*ears the applicant has been quite concerned about security. As the applicant has stated in his hardship statement, the gates w ill be added to provide an increased sense of security for the property. Also, the gate at the main entrance is proposed at its location to minimally disrupt the border of mature trees along the edge of the driv’e. The applicant should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. issnes for Consideration: 1. The existing fence has been in place for many years and w ill remain. Currently, there are not plans to replace it. Should the pedestrian gate be allowed 3* into the right-of-way? 2. Are the entrance monuments in character with the neighborhood? •03-2t7t MacDonald A Mack ArchitccuTd Hamm 413 Orooo Orchard Rmd S 3/12/2003 Pa|(3or4 L 1 3. The property U in an area where the general development is consistent with other properties in the locality. •j 4. If the moQumeiits/gates are set back to meet die required street setback, but over the allowed 6*. they would still require a variance. They would be coosideied an accessory structure and be located closer lo the road than the principal structure. S. Other issues raised by the Planning CommisstoiL Staff Recamawadatiaa; Based on die numerous monuments/gates located throughout the city, staff recommends denial of the monumentt/gates as proposed. If the applicant wishes to redesign the proposed monuments and gates keeping the height to 7\ moving the pedestrian gale back out of the right-of-way and meeting the recommended 20 ’ width by the tire marshal, then a recoiiunendation of approval would be justified based on past approvals by the City Council. «03-2t7l MacDonald 4 Mack Architects'Ed Hnnin 415 OronoOrchard Roads 3/12/2003 Pl^4or4 Application # G?%-3t 9T7P -0^3 CITY or ORONO - VARIANCE APFUCATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S150.00 (no change fiom original application) Variance for non-conforming itructures S2S0.00 After-lhe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Date Received ^ Amount Paid ^^O,oo PROPERTY INTORhUTlON Site Address 4BS Orono Orchard Road South, Orono, Mlnn«»ota 55391 Property Identification Number (P.ID.) 02-117-23-32-0001 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired. circa l9SOs T|li9l(do not) also own the a4jacent parcels of land. .(month/year) • nnamneM* umw wo praw|rw»s^* VUS«i Zoninn District: Ul>lB APPLICANT Stuart Naci>onald Phone (home)651.698.1845 Name MacDonald & Mack Architects,Ltd. Phone (w'ork)612.341.4051 Addreu: 712 Crain Exchange Building Citv:l^tnneapolis, Mn Zio: 55415 AOO South Fourth Street OWNER (if different than applicant)Phone (home)952.473.3605 Phone (work)651.227.6675 Address:ABS Orono Orchard Road South City:Orono, Mn Zio: 55391 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S 60,000 Describe request in detail: See attached continuation sheets__________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Harder-* n .Lot Coverage __Rear Average Lakeshore _X_Other (specify) Fcnce/gate eorc than 3|* in height within 50* of property line IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:___________________________________ _____________________See attached continuation sheets (attach additional sheets if nec'r^>: 0 O 1. 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS »:::!!!!!!!|"^ «>« mrnu,, ^.,r I, n L_ Completed Application Fonn 6 ~ UsTonV^***T * elevation views (provide one (1) c^ 8/,- x I P) 8. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE IdL'Srt^tor! ’^ Of requested by the Zoning supplied is liue and correct to the best of hifA.. Ji-t' “** certifies that the infatinaiion Applicant’s Signature Tcct to the best ofhis/ler Date 16 February 2003 0%^’NER’S SIGNATURE entry onto' ttTpJI)J^'’by'aw suff^uham “thoriies reasonable member, for purpose, of invesUgation’mul verifieat'io'Ifrf Owner's Signature — _ _------------------- Date Jf j '•} ^atS^iS>^0 & CITY of ORONO 4* VARIANCE APPUCATION for 485 Orono Orchard Road South Continuation Sheets Description of Request: The proposal is to add two gates tn the property, one pedestrian ^ate and one main entrance gate for automobiles (see accompanying site plan drawing Al). Both would be within the 50-foot setback from the Orono Orchard Rt^ right-of-way and both are proposed to be more than 3Vt feet in height; therefore, a variance is requested. The pedestrian gate (see accompanying plan and elevation drawing A2) would serve a sidewalk from the main bouse to the road and is proposed to align with an exiting wire fence that is mostly obscured by hedge and shrub material. The new metal gate would be 6 ’-6*± in height replacing an existing metal gate (see accompanying photographic image). The supporting brick and stone piers would be 12'-8"± in height. The main entrance gate (see accompanying plan and elevation drawing A3) is proposed for the principal drive into the property which, at present, is not gated (see accompanying photographic image). Substantial scotch pines closely border the north side of the drive. The proposed gate will either align wi' existing wire fencing, also mostly obscured by plant material, or will be set back into the property to safely allow one or two automobiles to queue at the gate while awaiting entry without blocking Orono Orchard Road. The new metal gate would vary in height from to 8"-6"± supported by 10'-U"± high brick and stone piers. Hardship/Description of Unusual Property Conditions: The owner desires to add the gates to provide an Increased sense of security for the property. The proposed location of the main entrance gate also is intended to minimally disrupt the scotch pine border along the noith edge of the drive. Uir n-TN 7 - */oo i.. . _______ £2 [ ® J_L I? ■15'2 mm $ s EO] ^srlck I ston« pler--netol QQte--terick 1 stone pJer- FA5T ELfVATIQM^ SIDE ELEVATION (^9tc not shown) PLAN d" ENTRANCE GATE 2 a END ELEVATION rv' -r ASy Scale: 1/4-=r4T ?! 'f''- • • •' ■* i/ MacDonald &Mack Afchiieca.iTo Pleasani Hill Mr. Edward Harnni an (k^teMM OATtS O A3 -1-rr'^^aw r»sk »H ■ IP MacDonak* A Mack Aichiieas. lid i:rus=s=* Pleasant Hill ftr Mr.Edwwd Hamm 0“ pedestrian gate©P2J Scale: 1/4"=r-<r 0 # OATES o A2 ^ it j V I ■’■t« ^ ^t':'-V ■ ^cAiii»•-—--< -V* mV. .•; '■ •- ‘ ■» ’»> ^ Mb ipl gMv-- • i'v*a '..••a/r?#vis. (5 'tt(' - V' ^ SI ^iri^ »‘®* - ’ij ‘ *■»• 4 • i ♦ . ■ -‘'ii ■ ;' •VlSv-i' . i.4\Wi^i' ^iUtf^T'^i ■ 'i .. I ”i 1'V( A • • i iv'“i I ». iV. c* < >(i- ■' ‘ (•* ‘‘ L___ T-< \;j-... V ■ — :'5<c-'-'■■■■;' :#■: ■ 1 V.''7* •-•. .. t‘ ' id ' A-> Existing Condition at Proposed Main Entrance Gate •k_^ f C^io^ e .. - . :''5 ^ • Existing Condition at Proposed Pedestrian Gate ^UM DA7X:jrarau Jf 01II7232X0M raorAom jit ohonoonciiaiiords OWWXNAME OOAKMMACMUiM TAXTAVOt OAVBDMACIMLLAW HAME/AOCM rODOXMf MfUMN SS440-M2I Jt gSIITUJIMB) fWMOOH S4Q OKONOOHaiAltDItOS OWNER NAME SANDRAS LARSON TAXRAVER SANDRA S LARSON NAME/ADOR POOOX5M WAYZATAMN SJJVI )l O2II72J3IO0II PROTAOOR STO ORONOORaiARDRDS OWNER NAME nOGOUHAWKMON TAXFAYER ROGER J HAWKWSON NAME/AOOR STO ORONO OROIARD RO S WAVZATAMN SSJ9I Jl 0211723330001 ntor AOOft OS ORONOORaiAROROS OWNER NAME EDWARD II HAMM TRUSTEE TAXTAVER EDWARD li HAMM NAME/ADOR 101 ST fETER ST M34 nPAULMN SSI02 31 02II7233200W> PROTADOR ISOOPOXST OWNERNAME WMACMILLANETALTRUSTEES TAXPAYER WHITNEY MACMILLAN NAME/AOOR POBOXS02I MPLSMN SS440 31 0211723330001 PROPAODR UtS R3XST OWNERNAME WPHENNEMANAAOHFNNrtMAN TAXPAYER WPHENNEMANAABtlENNLMAN NAME/AOOR I^SPOXST WAYZATAMN SS30I HENNEPINCUONI V PKUPEKI3 IAKMMAIMJiAdlRII.M PROPERTY OWNERS LIST 31 0211723230007 PROPAOOR ISIOIOXST OWNERNAME W MACMIUAN ET AL TRUSTEES TAXPAYER W1OTNEY MACMILLAN NAME/AOOR POOOXSA2I MPLSMN 3S440 31 02II72J3I00M PROPAOOR SSOORONOORatARORDS OWNERNAME PAULETTEPICKAROSTUURMANS TAXPAYER PAUUrnE PICKARD STUURMANS NAME/ADDR S30ORONO ORCHARD RDS WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 0211723310047 PROPAOOR 430 ORONOORaiARDRDS OWNERNAME KEVIN GARNETT TAXPAYER KEVIN GARNETT NAME/ADDR Ml CARLSON PKWY Ml S MINNETONKA MN 33303 31 0211723320003 PROPAOOR 1320 FOXST OWNERNAME L i CONUN A J D CON LIN TAXPAYER LUWAROJCONUN NAME/AOOR U20K)XST WAYZATAMN 3SJ9I 31 0211723320007 PROPAOOR 1370 FOXST OWNERNAME JDPEMCKARCKURTII TAXPAYER JAYNE DORSET PENCK NAME/AOOR RANDY CKURTH 1370 POX ST WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0211723330002 PROPAOOR I4AS FOXST OWNERNAME KADIRKELANDCAIHRKELANO TAXPAYER KAARE A CYNTHIA lURKELANO NAMGMOOR IMS fox ST WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 U2II/2324UUU6 PHOPADOR 3<i0 ORONOOMIIARHRUS OWNLMNAME SAHUSIKJRN TAXPAYER STEELEDOSUORN NAME/AOOR M ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0211723310010 PROPAOOR 1390 FOXST OWNER NAME X3NATIIAN 0 A GRETA M wnCHER TAXPAYER JONATHAN A GRETA WnCHI K NAME/AUOR IJ90IOXST WAY/ATAMN 33391 31 0211723310049 PROPAOOR 300 ORONOORCIURORDS OWNERNAME SSAJEWEUSTLR TAXPAYER STEVENS A JO ELLEN WEBSTER NAME/AOOR 300 ORONO ORCHARD HO S WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0211723320003 PROPAOOR 1340 FOXST OWNERNAME J A NOLAN A J A NOLAN TAXPAYER JOHN A NOLAN A JOAN A NOLAN NAME/AOOR I34UIOXST WAYZATAMN SS39I 31 0211723320000 PROP ADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO OWNERNAME W MACMILLAN ET AL TRUSTEES TAXPAYER WHITNEY MACMILLAN NAME/AOOR f 0 00X3621 MPLSMN SS440 31 0211723330013 PROPAOOR 30 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO OWNERNAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTII TAXPAYER ALFRED ilARRBON NAME/AOOR I4IOSHORELB4E OR WAYZATAMN 9SJ9I 0V. r -s ) MMOiin.jr *>j ja niirujaeoif nurAOM M AODRBSfBNOMC OWNBIIMMI MnUCKiMCMAUaHTONETAL TAXTAVa fATMCKJMCHAUOHTON WAMPADa IMOMAKOAVliN MfLSMM S3403 HBONEHW OOUKIY nOK' ’ INTOIIMATION SYSTEM PROTERTYOV SUST rACf:2 M 02II7IMI0009 niOrAOM M AOOUfSSUNASSICNEO OWNQtHAME MEfWaWCOIICaOMALUAUni TAXTAYEII NENNifWOOIlfGnNALmAUIll HAME/AOCm 4I73THSTN«)20 MINM£AK)USMN SMOl M 02II72JM00U ntOrAODR M ADDRESS UNA&SJGNU) OWNER KAMt HCNNElWCORUaONALRR AUT1I TAXPAVER IIU<NEPMCOR£GK)NALMAUni NAMS/AIXXI 4l7STHSTNfUO MINNEAPOLIS MN 33401 I CERTlfYTHATTHE PACI3 REPRESENrEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND IRUEREfRESENrATIONOPIMrOltMATIONAS IT APPEARSTMS DATE ON TIC RECORDS OFTHE HBr*iEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEMI OFMY»«>WLEOCEANDBEU£F. ^ , DATE-^- uy iRTTRBILTO TME BEST yy ."‘I - re- §V‘ w- ^. » '♦ w I .'fliii'i. iv~- •/ sS prIk «^7f- *IS II .-.-cm^ -7-^:JLLj* ■ ii.ii.dlliklHE!MiHI ;'.^o K.Mtv. J^ '''»' ( ••.v.\( I' ') 1 / I V. it.*- ♦• mL-i i >5 . » *• . '■> ' : i. • . »k^ . J^.' _ : :■ ‘'^rl:i, v’l®m ■> - y(' r . ■•■? • 7 ■ •;-(t f * Vl •■•';. •. rf:i A; .gaSB&rV. ’■* • Jl I* I * . •» : I' VC I '1 F ■I \r. r.r^^ mi ( (\ u •> fw I u -J ■ 0 i Vi br* T' ‘ sPS^'-v I ■' • J0HS 2#"'' I -^V v" I ^ ■ •V. . *u%% • • • .S >. * - »^ • •• 1 !■■■ IS <.^ .,s. ) J if.M:^ \ \<.,-.v,r-•• ,-■V ■ -: N- .' ,-, • -..M., ‘.;.i?S- • *’ ■ - V*.’ ■'. *. ^ * ’ • ' * * < .■■... .■:• K., . ?. » ■'. 'Vv^> '^•>' '*'** 'i ■;y.*,Vs ', «||i|l>-'-' Jjt, '.» . ¥j V I 4»iin«>«IMlu *' DS l\,^ ^ ^ l^iV. v'v"®'( ^ '' Wcv ( ^Ul.Uvi^ ) AOa II I '• 1 '.:0 ‘ f I S' • V : /' - \' . ......... - r*-****”^. - ■. •J‘:r !^r'.. *''^‘* * .•f- . *%\ * n jt'r.■ '. •■■ Hr-.:M- ' ..y I >-.•• ■ V fpi^ T”.- ’ ^'.t ■ r- ^ ■* : • IK., /-•'■iV/-P- ' j^uans I I I I • I :.r ■ • '.’• ■;;^V ' . . I. r- S<- ■M:u- " I i .4^*4 --1 - ir- \■life■. •■. i. - •' _ • • ‘''-S T' : • Si Jll K ^. . ... - . •'•- -*■< f IMmmm ;r^ ■\, •r^ sFt' ^ * •'*'5 3*0 lc»v^’^vv<‘ m•! : m ■E'- . :•> '* <*• m- •I W'-'-c’Sf .- ^ I t- ',f ir •S^' .. I 1 ■ s 4 ■>• 1 ;i )A(s'/iijl i fX mym .f -5^r'* i' .•i (\ V V ^v K ' (*' ^ V.'..\' •■c**’ .«r ^.* y*, ;/ •. <iVf ’-"A* ^ X V 0 ill dI;S‘11 I killmm * • 4 ■ • y - r.v • ■ ‘V. •> - a , I f miiMi rt ^■1: r A * •J" •«>-• ir' ( i:i i [iSj X- -rrA %: » ■«. Iji ^ *'■• ■ iP 1. y:jvj '• /Sc • •' • - *<• I > a •! ' (i -V,- n L. ,i!l2f' / •■'■' ' ' 1' jf* ‘ •' sfek. ‘ <•'•• V: j..r'.^: \i%& H *ii II i \\mm |: >• V. .Y -a..^l •/:-i ^-0 ' r [ L<<-i.. •'') ■vcd Application Received: 2> 19/03 Application Complete: 3/12/03 60 Day Deadline: 5/9/03 TO: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROV* Jennifer Chaput, City Planner DATE: March : 3. 200^ SUBJECT: #/03-2879 Gar> Hegenes 2675 Shad>Avood Road V'arianccs -- Public Hearing Zoning District; LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: I acre (43,600 s f) Application Summars: The applicant requests a side yard adjacent to street setback variance to allow a 20 T setback where 35’ is required to construct a 330 s.f. (15’ x 22’) single stall attached garage addition to the existing attached garage. Exhibits: A Analysis Worksheet It Application C Letters of Support from Neighbors D Survey E Hardcover Calculations F Proposed Elevations G Plat Map H Property Owner’s List 1 Permit Record J Photos of Property Pertinent Code Sections: 1. Section 10.24, Subd. 5 (B): Setback Requirements. 1 he following minimum requirements shall be observed in the LR-IB zoning district: side yard adjacent to street setback 35’. (Request: To permit a side yard adjacent to street setback of 20.1 ’ where 35’ is required). »03-:8 ’9 Gary Ht'gvwt I IS 2003 rag< I oj s 1 L. Piscussion: Setbacks The from lot line of the property is defined h\ the OHWI. of I kc Minneii>nka and the roar lot line is that opposite the front. Therefore, the applicant h proposing to enlarge the e.xisling structure into the side yard adjacent to Mreet setback, abutting Sh.idvuood Road A 35* setback is required for all principal structures from the side ya:J adjacent to’street lot line. Ilie house is cuncnily located 35* from the property line. The proposed garage addition is 20 1 * from the side street lot line. The applicant has suggested that a detached garage could be located 10* from the lot line in this location without variance approsal but believes that it would be more appealing to add onto the existing structure. Detached garages of less than 750 s f are pcmiillcd 10* from side and rear lot lines. Therefore, it is possible to locate a 1 5* wide, one stall garage 10* from the side lot line and still maintain a 10* separation from the principal Mructure Hardcover 0*ri 'Setback Zone \S ithin 75 of the OllW L ol Lake Miiutetonka. there is 101 s.f. (0 64"ii) of hardcover, consisting of block stepping stones, w hich prov ide access to the lake, and a rock hot ler. “S ''250 Sclhuck Zone There is 6.066 s f (21.82%) of hardcover existing within the 75*-250* setback /one on the lot In late 2002, the applicant discus.sed building a 003 s.f deck addition on the house with the Building Inspector. The deck has not K-cn constructed to date but the applicant would like the square footage included in the hardcover and structure calculations to ensure that it can be constructed \\ ith the deck, the hardcover increases to 6. >69 s f. (2t OO^o) With this application, a 330 s.f. (15* .\ 22*) garage addition, with driveway to serve the extra g.uage >tall. is proposed as well as removal cl a portion of the existing paved turn-around. Ihe d::veway area is reduced by 75 s.f as a result of the proposed removals and additions The additi >nal garage space and changes in driveway area (also including the propi>sed deck) roults in 6.9J4 s I (24.91^o) of hardcover llierc is also a shared driv ewav on the piopertv (1.800 s f) which is not included in the h.irdcover calculations per C ity policy. Although the survey (completed while there was snow cover) docs not identilv any landscaping underlain by plastic or fabric, the Building Inspector ha> stited that there was appro.ximatcly 700 s f existing on the lot late last vear. It this type of h.irdcover c\i>is on the propertv today, complete removal will be required. Structural Coverage I p to I .•'‘*0 of the lot area or 6.540 s.f. is permitted for structural coverage on the lot. Currenllv, t^^iere exists 3 642 s.f. (8.351 o) of structure. With the proposed deck, the structure Incre.ises bv 60.. 5 f to 4. 4.< s.f (9.74%). Fmall). with the proposed 330 s f garage addition, the structure increases to 4.57.x s.f (10 49« o). less than the nmimum permitted Gun //egewi) /.»:m Pj£e:o/5 Histor}: The lol was created in 1974. The original house was built in 1977 meeting the 1 acre setback standards still in cfTecI today. Since th ' time, there ha\e been a number of variances on the lot. In 1986 (Zoning File #1023), a variance was granted to increase hardcover as a result of a room addition, from 26.8®/o to 27.1?«i where 25'Jo is permitted In 1990 (Zoning File #1523), the hardcover was reviewed again when a kitchen addition was proposed and it was found that hardcover had been added since the previous application. The 1 ardcover increased to 28.4 /o as a resu't of additional rock on plastic, permeable fabric and a screened ga/ebo. In 1996 (Zoning File #2173), an after-the-fact structure u> structure setback variance f)r the gazeK> and reduction in hardcover to 24.3®o was required before the propertv was sold to a new owner. Historically, the hardcover calculations on these applications were calculated by City stafl ’. ’\‘hcn the applicant talked to staff in late 2002 about building a deck, the Building Inspector roughly calculated hardcover numbers to make sure that the deck would be permitted For the proposed garage addition, hardcover calculations from a surveyor were requested to ensure that the calculations were accurate. Hardship: The applicants have included their statement of hardship in Fxhibit B The applicants should alsi' be asked for their testimony regarding this issue Issues for Consideration: 1. A detached garage could be built 10' from Shadvwood Road without a setback variance. 2. Is an extension of the principal structure for an additional garage more aesthetically pleasing than a detached garage in this location, given the level of screening and the orientation ' 3. The proposed addition will not obNtruct the views of ncighKiring propertv owners; 4. A 6’ fence is loc.*.:ed along County Road 19 (Shadvvvood Road), blovking v levvs of the side of the hou.se where the prop^wed garage addition is located. 5. The lurdcover and structure calculation^ take into account a proposed 603 s.f deck and 330 s f. garage addition; 6. The driveway on the propertv is shared with a neighbor and not included in hardcover calculations; and 7. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. •0J ‘2S'9 Gun Hegents 3 13 :003 Page 3 c/3 Staff Recommendationi: Staff s conclusion is that the lot orientation and the ability to ha\ c a detached garage iO’ from the road are unique circumstances which, in this case, with the level of existing screening, support the granting of a variance to allow a greater side >-ard adjacent to street setback by attaching the garage. Staff recommends that the requested variance from the side surd adjacent to street setback be granted with the following condition; 1) Any existing fabric and plastic hardcover on the property must be removed before a footing inspection will be approved. •W-.'i'P Coo ftegenes s /.»:oos Pag* 4 of 5 ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Requirements: Dimensions Required Existing Proposed Lot Area I acre (4.1.560 s.f.) I acre (43,600 s f.) 1 acre (43.600s f ) No Change Lot Width 140’242.17 ’242.17 ’ No Change Side Yard Setback 35’35*20.1’ Hardcover Calculations: Distarice from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcoser Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 ’15.800 s.f.None 101 s.f. (0.64».i)) 101 s f. (0.64%) No Change 75 ’-250’27.800 s.f.6.950 s.f.6.066 s.f 6.924 s.f. (25%)(21.82%)(24.91%) Permitted Coverage Existing Coserage Proposed Coverage 6.540 s f(15® )3.642 s.f. (8.35%)4.575 s.f. (10.49®..) • $0)-:S"9 Cary H*g*nn 3 13 2003 Page 5 of 3 5)4 CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 AAer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcation # Date Received~~o^/ Amount Paid l^rO PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /C /?J2 [m 7Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_ Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv ey. Date Property Acquired 9^ 1 (do) (do noO^lso own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property. ^-“^dential ___pother (specify)_ Zoning District:_ _____________________________________ _(month'>rar) APPLICANT^ > Name__/v<* g Address^ .T? £ »eLLL^it-r 0^^^^*ER (if difTtrcnt tijan applicant) Name______________________ Acirccs:City:. Phone (home) 91"2 ■ 9 Phone (work) g o yOj ly. /2 Zip: <r -s—^ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail:___ . Es^ated Construction Cost S oo«£r (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: __Front Other (specify) ______ Ut Width A-'^ide^ Hardcover Rear Lot Cov __ Average Lake HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY' CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical diHicuUy or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements;.^_____________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 6^-" - -..w- V '• 1. 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS M .flf Iht follgyyiDg inforni alii)n be submitted bv the aDDllcallon deadlln.. Hm. order for vour anplicaUon to be conddpr**^ —* Completed Application Form _ Certified Property Ouners l ist of o\s-ncrs uithin 150\ labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Go\i Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Surrey (signed by a licensed sur>e>x>r) and include hardcover calculations as required In addition, provide one (1) copy SJ^j" x 11" for reproduction. — Topographic suncy (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are projtosed In addition provide one (I) copy 8'/.- x II" for reproduction. —. 5|'*‘‘chcs or plans of floor & elevation \iews (provide one (1) copy Sir x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of anv other persons >-ou wish notified of this application. __ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Otvner must sign this application. Please rememb-r that vour )ar|.ir,ce appHcmlon is not comp jgle ir the above information l... not he,- lnrl.,n.J “ APPLICA-Vrs SIC.NATLRE T:.t applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoriina Administrator agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered bv o.nainal fee rajmeat) andcr consulia.-it expenses incurred in review of this application, and'ccrtincs that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hisTicr knowledge. 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant’s Signature Date OWNER S SIC.NATL’RE _ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the properly by City staft. consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and vorifuMtion of this request. O '.ncr's Signature into-^hc Date # ? f\J ':) Fcbruar>’ 18,2003 Applicant Gar>* & Barbara Hegenes 2675 Shad>-\vood Rd. Orono.NIN 55331 Re: application for a variance of a side lot set back To the members of the planning commission; We would like to apply for a variance to build a single stall garage attached to our already existing double car garage. The cit>- of Orono building inspector informeu us that the code allows us to build a single car garage 10 ft from our house and 10 ft. from our lot line. The code states that if our garage is attached to our home then it must be 35 ft. from the lot line. Our request would place the anached new garage 20 feet from the lot line of county Rd 19. This would aesthetically be better for the neighborhood and we currently have a 6 ft fence, blocking any side view from county Rd 19. The fence also runs perpendicular to Count) Rd 19, which also blocks the garage from any frontal view of traffic going north along Count)- Rd. 19. All three of our neighbors have given us uritten letters approving our garage variance application. Our neighbor to the North, ihe Haddens, home and garage is currently within 20 ft of count)- Rd. 19. This is in variance to the current code and would place our garage on the same plane as their garage. This garage addition would be well over two hundred feel from the Hadden's hor.e. \Vc would kindly appreciate )our consideration of our application, as we do believe this is an cnhaneemenl to our home and the neighborhood. Respectfully Yours 'Se. Him 952-471-9130 Cell 952-212-0416 tr O .i - ^—. ,y.c Ctlf.V~^ -V <'.VC.-> Cl^-< ■A(0 • ' lo-V \o-v-^ ..oK,'C(^ ^ ^ 'i+->^Cc ■'=r<’'-‘■*' ^ c^l<>-o,-, V''Vi' ■^*3 •> =^( ~* •“*»*■ ; > ^;ry • ’ -V? ,., . •• ;^ *•••. .'■ vw.;v ft.-' / 0 G<Jvj ^ vW" jlA dzoi fyL&iU)> L i^^^ci;t /4/ ir^e^ju* ^ <*. (jAxtA-^^-C ^JU\ t^jLu. jCo &CUA j^ ujIj^ b*. c30 lU^ ^ :0^<^ ,KX«;^^ OiAj^ OJCtSucA^ ^ /6 Xc^c?- K.t<^ 4 uXCku^ i^il^Ul. ^ ■It) Cffnt5-c:f~ UA oS^ 95=i-</7-/-?09</^ (^uJUju ^6ss Sh)>£CyuOOoof A:i Of^dLltiffi mu 5533/ B} fT^ '-■-'\ :-"'v «-*= -3 V, . / \ ^ •• - » .V i UAKDCOVEUCALCULATION WORKSUnLI SETBACK ZONEi (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER rs' ZONE K House ______________ £UJ^c2ib B Garage C Dnxtwiy D Sidewalk E Patio/DecV F. ULnds^pe UA^ain ^Fa^c O Chher TOTAL HARDCOV-ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER FY AREA IN ZONE A - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House ______________ B Garage C Dh\ewa> D. Sidewalk E Patio-'Deck F Landscape Underlain By Plasiic Or Fabnc C OLher 75-250*250 SOO*SOO-1000* I /• Bi/ xICO tS.gggl TOTAL HARDCOV'ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B SF. ’SF SF SF SF Buyjc SF .SF .SF ■II.SF -0c;r2Dwi» SF SF y» SF SF SF SF .SF SF .SF SF !sf SF SF SF N ICO SF SF. ■ y» • / # •-'j UAIU)C0VEI< CALCULAX SETBACK ZON-E; (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House ______________ Uni’Ji ^1 LF. B. Carsge C. Dnvevray D. Slde^»alk E PitiaDeck F. LudKtpe Underlain By Plastic OrFibnc C. Other 0-75 ‘^•25(7^ UORKSliECr 250-500-500-1000* 32ZS_sF-Ht?r " s F - cc RPO< W f fjy«05 SF - ISIIL 7.10 SF .SF . S F gT» .SF conciZE T SF - .SF -T»i.;;Cl; Ofcu$ SF ^ SF SF TOTAL HARDCOVE.R I?.' ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 2 % a A ______________ - B ____________ vlOO bOH> JJ^,9Ck7t, IKS?2. CO^mC, sf-a /caa , SF A SF B Vi<nC: SUA iTED /,! oi*<. ut L//Ne - - ' PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE r, nfT JNO-U irO = V ~ ® A. House B Carafe C Drivewa) D Side.va!’,; E Pat:: Deck F La.-.djca?e U.“.derla;n Ey Pics:;: Of Fabnc Unr-** C Other SF SF SF rJdr X M50 - ISZT 4 - IS SF e r - n 6i 6*</. y* 6^2 SF *SF SF -MfT ^Ai.x .SF SF SF SF TOTAL KARDCO’. cR IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ - B <T92^ X .:o 1 7. Pc/o SF SF %* •i') I • I'() % e CASt tlTMTlON VL e sovm cuvAnoN V •■J) •• * tj . . ti- |:a»fiii m-f1’>f-•. M ■ ."V*/ V 1 yi * •! O - pfr I i/:>“ANaio« iioLi IV u c. • r; C• • . » ** : ; ‘zi •rcoNiCKni: :;iAu CO vv/wirrml:;ii 4" GI{AVItI. CAlifc * '----------------------looiiNr.I i/i/f ir%(* RLOAR (;•) CONIINUOUS I • _ SLAB ON GRADE I Da*R t U- • •• • •• Vs/ r*»~—Zli*~------------. SOrriT - A».Lu/*»„uurn ' 2 “ X?-SOFFIT NAILHR IJOUlJLli T X TOl* l*I^TR t 3 14T WAl I. STUDS 1»i*0 r rX4"n0TT0MI'lATt l~ 4" COWCRlirC SLAB \A7 WIRE MESH , • I rn T 'A« FR . 1/2* EXTERIOR GIirATI HfiC 2-X 4-TRUSSES 24-O.C. r CONP. AinSPASR DRIP roGE ^.--irXirFASCIA 2-Xti*SUB FASCIA I r LAP SIDING VX'^VL 1/2" rxn RioR r.i ir^ri ung 3 V- iJ-c> C'. Of.* j\^3 t) l/?*ANCII()KIJOI Tn*OC ^ ‘.y ---- 4-r.R.\vri MASLI J ri$i:i-Hrr-11 -I''■ 'irHi,\.fiii. I” !i- X i,- co.'j I. coMCi :lu: ruo i ino i-^rriAR (2) r.oNiiNuotJs e PF.mucmn Of IPfcCpDSeP eCpfINaON PIB SSSvlHBFJPV^^SSSBaiVaMP^ — ::MMim • •*. • - \ (, ■^ • • vf•. v^'l - j, :± fieoi ‘r: '•> >/ ‘Vx r.. :S y' p ^ ' •''J ..*• •-*■■•T- if fi2ofc?eP ficfAjysjoM 4— ,tyv >* n;r . i-K- /lew fiia/^ -m uc'A- 0f TK€ <s^ci2M.g -wojw VAi\/ewfW cpfqy\uuet to atfcnwocD /^o.;) wi. 1C:'mm i 'i'-fe ■^wmm '__?-‘--^-'->SL,-:tji:' 1. EXISTING HOME N iJ ’.- • • '-felt s’Pi^'^fe—■ jl> •* ^ -■■ »4’' \ N \-X v&Mv V-5x •. A isr^^:mm- \ ?.f ^ i :!l ?iii -V i -.1^' ' - ■'•.■'■.•?■ XV -,'; •'•■ ;•--■■».' r • ■' • -• ..JX^ r" t^' *^x^.-: -X • ;•'" ■' ___________________ _________ ^!'|'MORTH ADJOIN" :3 NEIGHBOR 1h' FROM S- IADYWCOD i ; ■■.•,: .y.>t m :4 • s:,; .V .V. {.*mmm wmmx i4»i*^ .^- I f'V-v- t ., -^ -r . *wr - ---- • ; •• ; - - “^1 :;bj T :: if^f-." VC ••■«” S*'_ !- . • 4. • , i| ■ . . - . ^ ^-JSifu I t(l^ U«ilt‘li t V'vS^-iBX^U'CS'lC^teri]^^ ' 2 ,-i5^.-a:?* . ----------- ■'■■ --f ■' m^M _ - A\m 5. - MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. February’ 1^^. 2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the foIIoN^ing members present: Chair Sandra Smith. Commissioners David Rahn. Janice Berg, Csulhia Bremer. J. Mark Frilzler. and Jeanne Mabusth. Representing staff \vere Planning Director Mike Gaflron and City Planners Wendy Bottenberg and Jennifer Chapul, and Recorder Kristi Anderson Commissiorrers’ Li/ Hawn; and Coimcil Represcnialise Jay Nygard were absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:33 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) W05-2872 TERRY AND CHRISTY .MORSE, 2080 SPATES A\ ENtE. VARl/VNCE 6:34 - 6:43 P.M. Terry Morse. Applicant, was present. Mabusth asked that this item be taken off consent for discussion, believing that the subject’s properties should be legally combined. Chapul e.xplained that the applicant had applied for a variance to add a second story for closet space on the most •amtluvesterls portion of the e.xisting pnncipal structua*. 20.6’ from the side lot line adjacent to a street where 50’ is required The property is located on the comer of two platted streets. Spates Avenue and Railroad Avenue, anil e\cn though Railroad Avenue is not in use as a street at this time. Zoning Ordinances require side yard setbacks of 50' from both streets. Chapul added that neighboring letters of support accompany the application and staff recommends approval of the variance. Mabusth questioned why the applicant had not legally combined the lots identified in the packet as lots I. 2. 3. and 6. She suggested that the Commission require the combination as part of it’s recommendation in order to be consistent with what the City has asked for in the past. Morse stated that he had purchased each of the lots at separate times. Chair Smith asked the applicant if he w ould object to this as part of the recommendation. Morse stated that he did not know what would be required in order to combine the parcels. PAGE I of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEEl ING Wednesday, February 19. 2003 6:3U o'clock p.m. («03-2872 TERRY AND CHRISTY MORSE. Continued) GalTron indicated that combining the four lots would be a simple matter of filing the appropriate paperwork, and that doing so. would not change the value of the overall property and would allow him to recei\ e one tax statement instead of four. There were no public comments. Mabusth moved. Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application 2872, Terr> and Christy Morse. 20.S0 Spates Asenue, granting a sariance to add a second story on the most southwesterly portion of the existing structure, 20.6* from the side lot line adjacent to a street where 50’ is required, subject to the condition that the applicant apply for the legal combination of lots 1,2,3, and 6 to he combined with the homestead parcel N OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (1*2) «03-2865 KEMN MANLEY, 1973 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANC ES The Commission returned to this Application after Item 4. as the applicant was not present (#3) 1^03-2866 JUDY AND DAMD ZOSCTIKL, 2040 SIIAD^WOOD ROAD, VARIANCES 6:44 -7:02 P.M. Judy and David Zoschke, Applicants, were present, Chaput reported that the applicants had requested a lot coverage by structure variance of 2,848 s.f (l().3"o) where 2.620 s.f (15"o) is permitted. 6.442 s.f. (57.00*®) hardcover within the 75-250* lakeshore setback zone where 2.821 s.f. (25%) is permitted, and average lakeshore setback encroaching 21’ in order to replace an existing 507.6 s.f. lakeside deck, enclosing 151 s.f as patio area. As the addition of a second story in l‘W3 resulted in the removal of the r*H>f for the existing deck. Chaput pointed out that due to deterioration of the floor^ .•.l•4. the applicants wish to replace the existing deck She noted that the proposed pa» c.wX'.surc docs not increase the si/c of the deck As it is City policy to allow one 4’ v\ide stairway with landings, and retaining walls Wuhin the 0-75 ’ setback /one Chaput suggested that one of the two sets of steps to the lake could potentially he removed to reduce hardcover. She continued by noting that there was a significant amount of concrete patio and walkway within the /one. and suggested if repair was found necessary, a portion of this could be removed as well. Further hardcover reduction could be accomplished through reduction of drivew ay closest to the property PAGE 2 of 26 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. February 19.2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2866 JUDY AND DAVID ZOSCIIKE. Continued) line, and finally, a considerable amount of non-conforming plastic hardcover shall be removed throughout the property. With regard to the average lakeshore setback. Chapul slated that due to the fact (hat the adjacent new home was built farther back on the lot than the previous home, the average lakeshore setback changed for the applicant. Chaput indicated that staff would recommend approval of the requested variances with the condition that 1.506 s.f of plastic hardcover on the property be removed prior to building permit approval. Chair Smith indicated that, to her. the removal of the roof in 1993 cau.sed the floorboards to rot, therefore, this application seems to be a mere replacement of what was already on the property. She also noted that the new enclosed ptulion adds nothing to hardcover, since it is on the upper level. Chair Smith stated that she would not support anv additional removals from the driveway, as the home was on a busy County Road. Mr. Zoschke stated that they had removed excess driveway hardcover in 1997 and would find it difTicull to remove any more today. He maintained that the plastic had been there for 10-» >ears under 4* of gravel and 1’ of topsoil, noting that it would be a very dirty job to remove and questioned his alternatives. Chair Smith indicated th.nl the plastic docs interfere with the natural runoff occurrence. GalVron concurred, stating that the removal of plastic has been a policy for 15 years There were no public conunenis. Mabusth questioned vvhclher the Commission could recommend the remov al of one set of steps in order to reduce hardcover. She asked what the lean-to structure vv.is on the lakeside of the home. Zoschke suggesied they remove most of the patio by the lake except for a small walkway in lieu ol removing the steps. He pointed out that the lean-to was small uncovered storage area by the lake. Chair Smith indicated that this application prov ided the City with a great opportunity to reduce hardcover on tins site. With regard to the shed on the other side of the home. Zoschke pointed out that it would be difficult to remove, given the size of the garage and the fact that they are gardeners. PAGE 3.of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19. 2(X)3 6:30 o’cltKk p m. (W3-2866 JUDY AND DAMD ZOSCTIKE, Conlinued) Berg fell it was fair lo allow the shed to remain, while requiring the remo\aI of the steps and patio. Zoschke noted that it would be difficult to remoxe the concrete steps and retaining w alls on the north side w ithout causing tremendous erosion problems to that hill. Berg agreed that this remosal could cause a far greater issue than allowing them to remain. She could accept removal of the patio alone Bremer slated that, aflcr walking the property, she felt the garage would be too tight to fit ansthing other than the v ehicles inside, therefore, she had no problem allow ing the shed to stay. Since he saw no increase in stmcitiral coverage. Rahn staled that he saw no reason lo continue to look for additional remevals. .Mabusih moved. Rahn seconded, to recommend approval of the requested variances with the condition that 1.506 s.f. of plastic hardcover, as well as. the concrete patio in the 0-75’ hardcover zone be removed prior to building permit approval. N OTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. (W) #03-2867 DANIEL ADAMS, 1145 TONK.\W A ROAD, \ ARIANC ES 7:03-7:35 P.M. Katliy Alexander, of Alexander Design Group, was prest I representing the Applicant. DoUenberg explained that the applicant had requested an average lakeshorc setback, hardcover within 0-75 setback zone, hardcover vvithi” 75-250' setback zone, and structure within 75 of the lukesht»re v.iriances to remodel, add a second story and attach the existing garage to the rc.idence The space that currently exists between the hou>e and garage would be filled in and the second story with dormers vvould be over the entire residence including the garage Boltcnberg reported that lot coverage by structure would remain below the allowed ISVo. even with the addition of the proposed second story and attaching the garage. On the other hand, a 385 s f pt»rtion of the existing residence is liKated within the 75' setback from Lake Minnetonka, in fact, at the close.st pviint it is 64' from the OllW L of the lake. The second story addition would also be above this portion of the residence and located within the 0-75' setback zone. Bottenberg continued by pointing out that, while hardcover would not increase due to the addition, the .ipplicant had suggested removing the concrete shufileboard and the brick next to the shuffieboard surface to reduce the amount of hardcover within the setback zone to 9.56"o as compared to the previous I4.3“o. A PAGE 4 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. Fcbniar>’ 19,2003 6:30 o'cIiKk p.m. (M03-2867 DAMKL ADAMS, Continued) hardcover variance would still be required to allou this amount of hardcover in the 0-75* setback zone. Bottenberg staled that the rest of the existing residence, garage, and drix eway are located in the 75-250* setback zone and constitute 37^'o hardcover in this /one. She pointed out that, while the driveway on the property is fairly c\lensi\c and accounts for a large anu>unt of hardcover, the circle driveway may be appropriate to assist the residents in backing out onto Tonkawa Road. There could be other areas of the driveway near the garage and gra^'el area to consider for removal. With regard to the average lakcshorc setback, .ioitenberg indicated that the existing residence is located 17* into the average lakeshore setback, which v\ouId not change vviih the addition and dormers. WTiilc the existing topography suggests that the addition would not be w ithin the visibility of either neighboring property or encroach on any existing view of the lake. Bottenberg maintained that an average lakeshore setback variance would be required. Bottenberg reviewed the issues for consideration and stated that if the Planning Commission felt the existing conditions of the residence and property created a valid hardship that supports the variances requested, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate, otherwise further direction should be given Chair Smith stated that she was hesitant to recommend driveway removal if this made backing out onto Tonkawa Road more hazardous. Alexander pointed out that, while the new plan shows the new screen porch outside the U- 75* setback zone, the applicant would prefer to build the porch as originally submitted. There were no publie comments. Bottenberg pointed out that there is an additional deck near the water, covered by snow, which she could not ascertain its condition. Alexander passed around an aenal photo w ith the deck near the water. While she felt the applicant’s design made sense. Chair Smith noted the numerous opportunities to reduce hardcover on the propertv. Alexander slated that the site is dilTiculi to work with and difficult to maneuver by car. Mabu.sth indicated that she had noticed that the loop had not been plowed and didn't seem to be used much PAGE 5 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19,2003 6.30 o'cItK'k p m (#03-2867 DAMKI. ADAMS, C oofinued) Rahn stated that, in his vicu, the applicant was more than doubling the square footage of the first floor and asked what the hardship would be to allow them to further encroach w ith vertical structure into the lakeside setback, thereby incre;ising the massing effect Chair Smith inquired as to the status of the structural engineer’s report. Bottenberg stated that Building Inspector, Lyle Oman, had noted that he would like t-i do more e.xploring of the block foundation in the basement, since the entire home is covered by brick. GafTron pointed out that the building inspector had indicated that the structural engineer's report contained several assumptions without ever actually ripping into the wall to find out if they were accurate. Chair Smith asked what the next step would be and whether approvals could be granted subject to fi'»^>;cr investigation. GafTron stas. * tlM.t si'meone. either the City or the applicant's representative, would need to i p into walls to see what is in there, it may or not be an issue, howevei, more needs to be ki'ii,any work is done on the house or permits granted. He questioned whethc »»pp 'I . , the house in the winter would be the right thing to do. Although It ^uciurjl engineer’s report was a good start. C hair Smith stated that it was not sufficient to Mt-.y the City. Based on her e.vpericnce working on three other homes on Tonkawa Road. Alexander assured the Commission that the home was a good sound house, not a tear down, and indicated that thev would get the engineer to sign off on it. .Mabusth explained to Alexander that, in the past, applicants have had to come back to the Commission alter beginning a project, only to find their project was more involved than first thought. Chair Smith pt>inled out that the Commission and the City want to be sure that the foundation will support what's being propi>sed Rahn asked if the basement and first floor w ould be left untouched. Alexander maintained that the only work being done on the first floor would be remodeling the kitchen and attaching it to the garage. PAGE 6 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19, “!003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (M03-2867 DAMF.L ADAMS. Continued) Mabusth noted that a bay indow on the design plan seems to be encroaching further into the 0-75’ setback, and questioned the location of the second floor balcony. Alexander stated that the plan the Commission had before them was misleading, in that, the balcony has been set back into the buildmg envelope and would not protrude into the setback. She piiintcd out that the ba> window, however, would extend 2* out Wliile he had no objection to attaching the garage. Rahn indicated that he w as trying to get a handle on the additional encroachment into the non-conforming setback. He also believed there was ample driveway avaibble to allow some removals. If they could hold the dormers back outside the 75’ setback. Alexander asked whether they could adjust the roof slope to allow for a greater pitch. Chair Smith indicated that the Commission would prefer that they leave the comer alone, and not add anything further within the 0-75’ setback. Bremer reminded the Commission that one of the latest work session topics focused on massing and need to limit further cncroachr ;nt into setbacks Alexander reiterated the need to adjust the 3:12 rooflinc to allow for ca.sicr snow removal. Rahn repeated that, w hile he could support the garage addition, he would object to further encroachment into the setback. Mabuslh suggested that the Commission provide the representatixe w ith further direction and that they table the application. Alexander concurred, indicating that she would prefer to table the application and consult w ith her clients Chair Smith indicated that the Commission had difllculty finding a hardship that supports further encroach lent into the 0-75' setback. Based on her earlier obsen ations. Mabusth felt that hardcoxer in the 75-250’ setback could be reduced by removing the drix exvay loop area. Chair Smith questioned the status of the lakeside deck, indicating that noxv would be the time to focus on what is pcmiittcd. the stairs, lockbox, and lifl serx ice. Di'ttenK'rg suggested that a 4 ’ wide set of steps with a lockbox replace the deck, since the deck XX as not shoxxn on an earlier !980's surxey. PAGE 7 of 26 MINUTKS OF THE JRONO PLANNINTi COMMISSION MEETING Wolncstlay. Fcbnury 19, 2003 6 30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2868 JOHN E. WHITMAN. Contiaued) Chair Smith maintained that. i. seemed to her. that there was a need to prov ide access to this parcel. .Mr. Whitman pointed out that the pad would be 25' x 25' and that the proposed culvert would need to slant toward the creek Chaput agreed that those were necessary corrections. There were no public comments FriUler moved. Rabn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2868. John Whitman. 1580 Sixth Avenue N.. granting approval of variances to construct a 125 s.f. driveway and pad, located 50* south of the centerline of Lung Lake Creek where no hardcover, grading, filling, or excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75 ’ of the Creek is permitted, to serve as the access to a future home, subject to the fonr conditions identified In the staff memo dated February 6, 2003, with the addition that the culvert be slanted toward the Creek. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#2) #03-2865 KEVI.N MANLEY. 1973 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES 7:46 - 8:37 P.M. Kev in .Manley. Applicant, was present. GafTron explained that the applicant had applied for approval of aflcr-thc-fact lakcsliorc setback, average setback, and 0-75 ’ hardcover variances for con.struction of a 4 5'XI2' (54sO attached deck on the west side of the residence, approval of a 75-250' hardcover variance lor a proposed I2’X23.5 (266sO grade level il'ek adjacent to the garage tunnel; and .ipproval of a 0-75' hardcover variance for a proposed 20'X20’ gravel parking area on the east lakcshore side of the property As each of the three aspects fell within a different hardcov er /one. Gaffion indicated th.it they would treat each one individually. With regard to the gravel parking area, GafTron stated that the total square footage of the east 0-75* zone was potentially not yet established, and that the City had received no indication that the applicant's title registration action to formalize their ownership of the accretions had been completed Assuming that the shed would be removed, as directed by Council. Gaffron acknowledged that the only hardcover in the cast 0 75* zone would K* the 40(» s.f gravel parking area. With a road width ol only l8'-20’. Gaflron noted th.it there really wasn't an opp«.*rtunity i,’ parallel park cars on the street, therefore, a parking area for two v chicles on the east side of the road would be a benefit to the neighborhood with regard to safety and congestion. He stated that if the Planning Commission were to conclude that a 20*X2b’ parking area was PAGE 9 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. Fcbniary 19.2{KJ3 6 30 o'clock p.m. (W03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY. Conlinued) reasonable, and that existing road and parking conditions all support the hardcover v ariance, then staff would suggest three conditions be applied to any approval granted; 1. Applicant provide shrubbery between the parking area and lake to screen vehicles. 2. The parking area be limited to a depth of 25' measured from the edge of the traveled paved road. thus, yielding a 25-30' lake setback, 3. The shed next to the lake must be removed by a date certain to be established between Council and applicant, presumably as soon as the snow is gone With regard to the lakeside deck in the west 0-75' /one Gafl'ron pointed out that this 4.5'X12' deck was constructed during remodeling without zoning or building permit approval, constituting a 0-75* structure encroachment, an average setback encroachment, and excessive hardcover. Ihe deck is merely 36* from the .shoreline. .Arguably. Gafl'ron stated that the deck was not shown on any plans or surveys used in approval of pnor zoning applications. Although staff could confirm that a 160 s.f. deck existed in the past. Gaffron indicated that it was completely removed sometime prior to or during the remodeling process, and construction of the new deck had never b<^ addressed. Since 42 s.f. of the deck is not over approved boulder walls and its additional hardcover yields a new proposed total of 1581.6 s f or 27‘*o hardcover, a Iiardship statement should be requested by the Commission to vvarrant its existence Gaffron pointed out tb.«t the deck currently serves a sliding glass door liKalcd 7-8* aK*vc grade, and if not approved, the applicant would be required to permanently block the door with a railing or other method for safety reasons. He added that the deck is at a location where it would have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by the neighbor. With regard to the proposed deck between the garage and house in the 75-250' zone. Gaffron stated that the applicants are proposing a 266 5 s.f. dt.k south of the house and extending toward the garage, adj.icent to the tunnel and 6* fa>m the propeny line at its closest point Gaffron asked what the intent of this deck was meant to be. and stated that he saw no hardship to support this aspect of the application Once again. Gaffron slated that stall' had found no hardship to support a hardcover vaiiu.^.ce for Ihe dc\k on the south side of Ihe house, and would recommend denial of that request. Funhemiore. although Ihe deck on the west side of the house would have minimal impact on lake views, staff believes there is no apparent hardship supporting the existence of the deck. Staff recommends denial of this request, and rcniov al of the deck vv ithin 60 days, in addition to whatever measures are required by Ihe Building Code to make the d».)or safe. Gafl'ron pointed out that staff would support the hardcover variance for the gravel parking area, based on the lack of on-street parking in the neighborhood, and would recommend approv al .subject to the conditions noted earlier. PAGE 10 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINO Wednesday, February 19,2003 6:30 o ’clock p.m. (M03<2865 KEVIN MANLEY, Continued) Chair Smith asked if the gravel parking space would be used for guests or for permanent storage of extra vehicles. GafTron stated that, typically, there are not many extra cars parked in this area. Manky s’atcd that he normally parked his vehicles in his driveway and used his garage to store his collection of old cars. Rahn asked if the deck on the lakeside w as included in the structural cos crage calculations and what they w ere. Manley stated that they were not increasing the hardcover because the deck would be over existing hardcover already. Rahn asked if the structural coverage numbers were over the allow ed maximum. GafTron indicated that the applicant had been denied a variance for lot coverage for a deck on a previous application. The structural coverage was previously 17%, not a great deal over the allowed, but this was the figure prior to adding the lower portion to the mix, which would change the lot coverage equation. GafTron helieved the structural coverage to be at or near 1 S% taking into consideration both parcels. Manley pointed out that when he submitted his plans for the lower level, the deck on the backside of the house was included on the sketch. He passed around the blueprints w ith the approval stamped on them, maintaining that he had been under the impression this deck was allowed at the time these plans were approved. Manley stated that he had not intended to blatantly build a deck w ithout permission. Although familiar with the drawings, GafTron argued that, at the time of submission, the applicant had said rwthing about a deck and the building inspector did not believe the plan had ever addressed a deck. Rahn stated that an old picture of the original home show ed that an old detenorated deck did exist. Manley stated that he believed there had been a misunderstanding between he and the City and now that he has built the deck, he was hesitant to tear it off leaving the doors exposed. Chair Smith agreed there was little hardship to support its existence. With regard to the east side deck. Mabusth questioned the need for this additional deck when the applicant had a beautiful deck over the garage. PAGE II of 26 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN’NING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. February 19,2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2865 KEVIN MANLEY. Continued) Chair Smith asked slafThow the Commission should vie\^' the blueprint with stamp. Gafiron reiterated that the previous application contained no verbiage about a deck and that the building inspector never issued a permit for it. He maintained that the deck was merely ghosted on the plans Fritzler stated that he would deny both decks. Mabudth indicated that she needed more information with regard to the side deck. She questioned whether what was needed as an expanded w'alkway for safety reasons. Manley asked how w ide the grade level walkway deck could be. As it stands now the deck Is 3’ wide and 1.5' off the ground. Gaffron indicated that a 4' wide walkway was typical. Mabusth stated that she would like the building inspector to look at the walkway. Chair Smith asked if the Commission could approve the gravel portion of the application and deny the deck portions of the application. Gaffron suggested that tabling the application would not hinder the applicant as the work cannot be done this time of year anyway. Mabusth agreed that tabling the application would benefit the applicant, allowing him time to beef up his hardships. She felt his application was missing several of the hardships he had mentioned in person this evening. Manley asked if there was hope for approvals if he tabled and cam back with additional information. Mabusth stated that she needed to be convinced that the east side deck'walkway was necessary as a safety issue. Rahn stated that he did not see a hardship that would allow the applicant more than a 4* walkway. Rahn moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2865, Kevin Manley, 1973 Eagerness Point Road, granting approval of after-the-facl lakeshore setback, average setback, and 0-75 ’ hardcover variances for the construction of the 4,5'X12* attached deck on the west side of the residence as it was noted on the original plan and not increasing hardcover or structural cover; approval PAGE 13 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19,2003 6:30 o'clock p m. (M03-2865 KFATN MANLEY, ContiDued) of an extension of viallmay not to exceed 4’ wide to form a path adjacent to the garage tunnel; and approx al of a 0-75* hardcoxer variance for a proposed 20* xx ide X 25* deep gravel parking pad. N OTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Fritzicr and Chair Smith dissenting. Fril/Ier and Chair Smith fell insufficient hardships c.xisted supporting the deck portions of the application and that the drawings were inadequate to support their existence. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARl.NG 8:15 P.M. (88) 803-2870 TLM VAUCII.N, 205 TONK.V A\ENUE, LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND VARIANCE 8:37-8:46 PAL lim Vaughn, the Applicant, was present. Bottenberg explained that the Zeismer's and the Vaughn's haxc proposed a subdix ision of a Lot Line Rearrangement between the two lots at 3440 Bayside Road and 205 Tonka Avenue. The Vaughn's are planning to sell 205 Tonka Avenue to their son to build a single-family residence on it. Prior to this, the N'aughn's would like to make the paa'cl more conforming in si/e with the zoning district. Bottenberg continued that the proposal is to move the south pr iperty line of 205 Tonka .Avenue 65' to the south which xxould create new record lots Bottenberg pointed out that 205 Tonka Avenue is an oddly shaped lot that surrounds another property and is vacant. With regard to the proposed hardcover. Bottenberg stated that tliC proposed residence is still being designed and that hardcover should not be a problem even when the driveway is included. If the lot line rearrangement is approxcd. a variance would also be granted at the same lime for lot area, since the subject properly will be 1.9 acres in a 2-acre zoning dislnct. With regard to accc*ss. Bottenberg staled that a long driveway that winds around the property line for 205 Tonka Avenue would access off Tonka Avenue. She continued that, although the lot line rearrangement has some of the characlenslics of a frontback lot split, it was not reviewed as such. Bottenberg pointed out that sewer xvould be available to 205 Tonka Avenue from two locations, and that the home would be placed at the higli point on the property near a line of mature trees. Bottenberg staled that staff would recommend approval of the lot line rearrangement subject to three conditions as noted in the statTmemo dated February’ 14. 2003. Mabusih asked if the neighbor would be willing to grant a sewer easement. PAGE 14 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19,2003 6:30 o'clock p m. (W03-2870 TIM VAUGHN, Continued) Chair Smith asked if the County had any comment with regard to the proximity to the Luce Line Trail. Bottenberg stated that the City sent notice regarding the Luce Line and had not received any comment. Mabusth mentioned that the lot dimensions were vcr>’ strange and difficult to work with There were no public comments. Chair Smith slated that she could not find any other solutions for this location than had been proposcxl. Mabusth moved. Chair Smith seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03- 2870, Roberta Vaughn and Tim Vaughn of 205 Tonka Avenue/3440 Bayside Road, a subdivision of a Lot Line Rearrangement between the two lots subject to staff conditions and acknowledging that the Zebmer's may have to grant a sewer easement for the property located at 205 Tonka Avenue. \’OTE; Ay es 6, Nays 0. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. (#9) #03-2873 CITY OF ORONO, SEVER.\I. PROPERTIES ON OLD LONG LAKE, RUANN, AND WAKEFIELD ROADS, COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 8:47-8:59 P.M. Gaffron explained that the City Council had directed staff to make an application to Met Council for expansion of the MUS.-\ (Metropolitan Urban Scrv ice Area) to include a small number of properties along Old Long Lake Road situated just west of the Way/ata Country Club, between the Luce Line Trail and Wood Rill Scientific & Natural *\rea The initial intent was to provide the potential to serve the vacant parcel at M5 Old Long I ake Road and the developed parcels adjacent to it w ith municipal sew cr. Gaffron stated that the public hearing was the first step in the process for completing a Comprchensi\ e Plan amendment to revise the .MUS.A. The proposed amendment would be submitted to the .Met Council on their standard fonns. and submitted to adjacent municipalities for comment. Gaffron continued that, once the Met Council had approved the amendment, the City could fomully alopl it by resolution. He explained that actual construction of the sewers and assessments would be topics dealt w ith primarily by the City Council with no further Planning Commission comment. Since the amendment area is less than 40 acres. Gaffron slated that preliminary discussions with .Met Council staff has indicated that the amendment would likely be viewed as minor and timely approval would be expected PAGE 15 of 26 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19,2003 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2873 CITY OF ORONO, Continued) The primary intent of the amendment was to solve current and potential future sewer issues for a handful of existing developed .substandard lots pnmarily on the south side of Old Long Lake Road. Gaffron identified nine properties to be included in the MUSA amendment and indicated that staff recommends approval of the proposed MUSA amendment by the Commission. Chair Smith asked what the impact of the amendment would be to the other neighbors. While she felt that the one resident who wished to bring sew er to the area should be liable for the cost, she believed that if others volunteered to participate the cost sharing benefits could bring the entire cost down. Gaffron staled that there was no expectation to bring sewer up Wakefield Road, and that the comer property would be offered sewer simply because it abuts the project. Mabusth inquired about the oulot area, identified on the map. Gaffron pointed out that the outlot was a wetland, not to be developed. Mr. Gopinath, of 705 Old Long Lake Road, questioned whether he would be forced to hook up to sevxer os it was proposed to end directly in front of his residence. Gaffron indicated that the City had no desire to force anyone to connect or assess anxtjne. He stated that if the neighbors chose to voluntarily connect they could do so. Mr. Gopmath asked whether the residents would be forced to hook up in the future. Oice again, Gaffron suggested that if a resident had a septic system problem that could not be solved on site, hooking up to sewer could be an option. He added that discussion continues as to w hether the City should share in some of the cost. Chair Smith asked if notices had gone out. Gaffron confirmed that notices had been sent to neighbors. Mr. Gopinath pointed out that Old Long Lake Road is a chamiing tree lined road and questioned what impact the sewer consimetion would base on the trees. Based on topography. Gaffron indicated that the sewer would likely be a pressure line bored under the road, which would have very little cDect on existing trees. PAGE 16 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, Februar> 19,2o03 6:30 o*ck»ck p.ni. (#03-2873 CITY OK ORONO, C onllnued) Berg moved, Kritzler seconded, to recommend approval of the proposed Ml'SA amendment for several properties on Old Long Lake, Ruann. and Wakeneld Roads. VOTE: Ayes 6, Na>s 0. (Recess uas taken from 9:00 - 9:05 P.M.) (#6) #03-2869 DR. ROBERT GtMMT, 1100 OLD ( RVSTAL BAY ROAD, CI P AND VARIANCE 9:05-10:04 P.M. Dr. Gumnit, the Applicant, and his representative were present Chaput c.vpiained that the applicant was requesting five items in order to reconstruct a 1,440 s.l. (I20’X12’) gravel driveway to access and use a 1.8 acre island on his property; 1. a variance for filling in 2,091 s.f. of a wetland, where no fill or hardcover is nonnally permitted. 2. conditional use permits for movement of more than 500 c j'-ir >. 's '-f fill and mitigating wetland within shoreland overlay distnet. 3. a variance to allow an agricultural use (grazing of horses) within the 150' of the OHWL of French Lake 4. a variance to allow a 4* fence to be located as close as 14' from the OIIWL of French Lake where 150' is required; and 5. a variance for mitigating 4.234 s f of land within 75 ’ of the OHWL of French Lake where no grading or excavation is permitted Chaput pointed out that there is an existing trail accessing the island of land at this time, however, over time, the trail has been worn down and the applicant wishes to improve it for machinery to be able to drive on it. Construction of the driveway requires 2.091 s.f of wetland to be filled with approximately 132 cubic yards of material if rebuilt on the existing dnve. With regard to other comments. Chaput stated that, afier reviewing the application, the City Engineer stated that a tvpical section of the proposed roadway should be included for review and erosion control measures should be installed. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWT)) stated that pennits would be required, as well as. wetland mitigation. Chaput indicated that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would also require a permit, however, they will not renew the application until the snow clears and they can perform their own independent surv ey. Chaput stated that, if the Planning Commission feels that the applicant has showm undue hardship and should be able to reconstruct a gravel dnveway by filling in and mitigating wetland to access the land, enclose the land with an electric fence to use it for pastunng from time to time, then the variances and CLTs necessary should be approved including 5 PAGE 17 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. February 19,2003 6.30 o'clock p.m. (m-2869 DR. ROBERT CUMMT, Continued) listed conditions, plus a sixth allowing the applicant to routinely maintain the drive access as approved. On the other hand, if the Planning Commission feels that there is no hardship to permit the construction of a dnseway through a wetland, and that driveway reconstruction is not necessary to preserse the owner's rights, then the application for variances and CUPs should be denied. Dr. Gumnit stated that he w ished to fill as a maintenance measure to maintain the trail. Chnir Smith questioned whether there were other locations on the property where the horses could be managed. Chaput submitted into record five letters the City had recei\L*d from neighbors in opposition to the application, as follows; Kirsten Burton 2601 Ramey Road. Dr. and Mrs, Kenneth Riff of 900 Old Crystal Bay Road. Sharon Winslow of 1205 French Creek Drive. Marcia Hanson leprescnting the French Creek Association, and James Peterson 2280 French Creek Circle. Dr. Gumnil's representative reiterated that the proposed driveway had always been an existing path, w hich had merely detenorated ov er time. Dr. Gumnit stated that the road or path had been there since somewhere around the World War II era. The applicant's representative stated that two scenarios have presented themselves, the MCWD has suggested that a culvert be installed with gravel rock fill and that they steer clear of the OHWL of 930’. on the other hand. Julie Eckman of the DNR has suggested that they lay a geoiextile fabric under the gravel with no culvert. He pointed out that neither agency is in agreement or ready to grant approvals and are hoping to hear what the City decides. Chair Smith asked what the purpose for building up the trail would be. for horses, pedcstnans. or v ehicles. Dr. Gumnit staled that he and his family have always used the path to the hill and they would like to h • able to bnng a tractor across to clean up the island. He indicated that they would like to bum out the non native junk vegetation on the island and replant it with native grasses and flowers, the proposed electric fence would keep the horses out of the wetland area and be less obtrusive than a wood fence. Overall. Dr. Gumnit believed that his proposed enhancements would be belter for the wildlife than what is currently there and offer better views for his neighbors. He reiterated that the w ide path leading to the island had always been there but a sunken area was in need of repair. PAGE 18 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. February 19. 2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (#03-2869 DR. ROBERT Cl’MMT, Continued) \\1iilc there uas no question that some deer do bed down on the hill. Dr. Gumnit explained that the deer more often use the perimeter of the island as their routine path He pointed out that the fence would not be turned on all the time either. With regard to small game. Dr. Gummt indicated that they would be able to walk under the fence lines, as only the top line is electrified. Chair Smith asked about the presence of trumpeter swans. Dr. Gumnit maintained that little nesting occurs on the hill, and that most of»' .• birds fly over the hill to the French Creek area Berg questioned what the applicant ’s hardship was to support the application Dr. Gumnit explained that they have always used the land, have had their horses out there in the past, and now due to the level of deterioration of the path it is difficult to use the land the w ay they are used to. The path is in such disrepair that it is dangerous to the horses, nor can they maintain the property siiKe they cannot bnng out any equipment to do Chair Smith questioned the opportunity to place a structure elsewhere on the property. Dr. Gumnit maintained th.it in order to keep the horses chsewherc. they would have to destroy much of the wooded area on the property to put up a fence Bremer asked if there were any neighbors who had voiced support. Dr. Gumnit stated that, the Coldwell's. his immediate neighbors, had voiced their support knowing our low for nature and that we are responsible horse owners. He indicated that, had he known the other neighbors had such strong opposition to the apph'ation prior to this evening, he would have gladly discussed his plans with them as well Chair Smith questioned whether the applicant could do as he proposes in this district. Gaffron pointed out that the City 1992 imposed new restnetion on properties in this RR-1B zoning district by adopting Shoreland regulations, which put this parcel in the Shorcland Overlay District. The new rules do not allow the fence or horses as near Ihc shoreline as he proposes He noted that, unforlunately, the neighbors were not present to hear from Dr. Gumnit as he describes his intended use. . Chair Smith questioned how the City position’s itself with the MCWD. PAGE 20 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. Februan-19. 2<X)3 6:30 o'clock p.m. <#03-2869 DR. ROBERT GL.M.M T, Contmueti) Gaffron explained lhal the DNR won't take any action until spring, and the MCWO won't take any action until the DNR docs, any approval that the City makes in support oEthis application should be contingent upon the other two agencies. Mabusth felt the City should also wait until spring before deciding whcthei to allow someone to do this kina of work in a protected area. Frilzler opposed the application, slating that he couM foresee this application being developed into something more than what is being proposed here today He asked how wide the path had to be to allow someone to walk a horse out to the island Dr. Gumnit reiterated that the driveway was needed to allow for maintenance of the island. Frilzler agreed that, while the area would oc nice to use. it could easily get sUctchcd into more intcnsi\e use. Dr. Gumnit pointed out that he was making no attempt to mislead the Commission He admitted that the horses would likely remain on site over long weekends etc Fritzicr maintained that, in his view, the horses should be kept on the larger portion of ine land and not on the island supported by a unpermitied r' 'dway Rahn concurred, staling lhal his reservations centered on this proposal being part one of a potential three-part plan. While she had no problem with the applicant using his horses all across his property. Mabusth staled that she had difTicuIly supporting the need for a roadway. Hcrg agreed w ith Frilzler's comments. Dr. Gumnit indicated that he was ofTenJed by the City's ju.stificaiion which allowed roadways to cross wetlands when they lead to homes, whereas, he cannot repair an existing roadway for his rural use. Rahn staled that, it seemed to him, there was little hardship to support !’is site, when there were other suitable locations on the property, which would be compliant. Dr. Gumnit asked Gaffron to reread the Code, indicating lhal he was frustrated, by what he viewed as an unreasonable restriction, on his use of the land. Berg stated that the applicant was not being denied use of his land for riding She added that what the Commission did find difficult, was the fence and roadway use. PAGE 21 of 26 r' MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday, February 19,2003 6;30 o'clock p.m. (#03-2869 DR. ROBERT CLMMT, Continued) Dr. Gunmit’s represiolalixe reiterated that the road\^ay was not new construction, it has deteriorated over lime and use and the applicant w ishes to continue using it. In an cflort to keep the hill as natural as possible. Dr. Gumnit stated that he would need to gel access to it with his maintenance equipment. According to Berg, this use should not be on this island, she did not find adequate hardship to allow this use on this part of the property. Ralin staled that repainng the path would be acceptable, however, building a roadway would not. He believed the area was not conducive to what was being proposed and the Codes should act a.s the Commission's guide to that cuncTusior Bremer agreed with Rahn. Mahusth agreed that adequate land existed elsewhere to suppivn this activity. Chair Smith suggested that applicant consider other locations for the horses and pen near the house, while still using the island for nding. Dr. Gumnit asked the Commission to table his application to see if he could come back with an alternative plan Chan Smith suggested that he use this time to visit the pc-ople whose letters were received by the City in order to addrc\ss their concents as well. She thanked the applicant for being forthnght and open to discussion .Mahusth moved. Chair Smith seconded, to recommend that Application »03-2869, Dr. Robert Gumnit, 1100 Old Crvsial Bay Road, be tabled in order to allow the applicant further time to investigate alternatives. VOTE: Aves 6. Nays 0. («7) #03-2871 SAI.I.V AND DAN \VE.ATIIERI.Y, 1214 Wll.DlllRST TRAIL, AFT ER-THE-FACT VARIANC E 10:04- 10:45 F..M. Sally and Dan Weatherly, the .\pp icant.s. and Brian Novak. Architect, were present. Bottenberg rc*portc*d that the applicants were requesting two aOer-the-fact variances for a newly constructed single family residence. The first variance would be to allow the foundation of the newly constructed residc-cc to be located 9 I '2' from the side property line where 10' is required. The second variance would be allow the eaves to encroach into the side yard setback. PAGE 22 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. February 19, 2003 6:‘<6o’cItKk p m. («03-287I SALLY AND DAN WLATIILRI V, Conlinued) After purchasing ihc property in 2002. the applicant's initial plan was to remodel the existing residence and add a second story. Shortly after they started that project, BoUenberg pointed out that it was determined the foundation would not handle the additional load, therefore, the structure was demolished and a new foundation was built. NMtile at the site for a ax»f inspection. Bottenberg noted that the building inspector noticed the eaves on the rwrth side of the residence were more that ilie allowed I I 2*. SiK»n after the City notified the builder, the applicant's brought on a new architect and builder. The new architect worked with the City to create a new set of plans for the proposed garage, which would meet u 10’ setback. As the pn>perty was surveyed for the new garage, Bottenberg explained that i* was determined the foundation of the new residence encroached into the side >ard setback (9 6 -9.8') N\'hile the permits were granted off Plan I, which sht'wed the remodel and addition of a second story based upon the foundation and caves meeting required setbacks; Plan 2 reflected the garage construction only Bottenberg continued that once the sur\e>ors were on site to Slake the proposed garage location, it was determined that the foundation encroached 6" into the side yard setback. Bottenberg indicated that staff would rccomn'end approval of the after-the-fact vanance for side >urd setback for encroachment of the foundation. However, after review ing plan 1, in which the eaves met the required setbacks, staff would recommend the after-the-fji t variance for the encroachment of the eaves into the side yard setback be den t J and cut back to conform to required standards Mr. Novak informed the Commission that the former builder had failed to get a new surv ey to lay the new foundation, and stated that if the eaves are to be cut back to less than 8-10” no brackets as designed could be insialleu on the building He added that, in order to cut back the eaves, scaffolding would need to be erected to remove the brackets and shingles at a cost of S6.000-S8.000 After speaking to several »>f the neighbors. Novak indicated that their mam concern was the repair of the existing non-conforming garage He maintained that, if the Weatherly’s were forced to change the rtmf and eaves, there would be little left o. er to improve the garage, and thi<^ would have to wait There were no public comments. Rahn stated that he found it difficult to allow the excessive overhang of the caves, although he could accept the foundation v ariance. Mabusth asked what length of overhangs staff or the Commission could support in the cncroachioeni area. PAGE 23 of 26 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Wednesday. February 19,2003 6:30 o’clock p.m. (OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION, ContiBHcd) As discussed in past work sessions. Rahn rei.eraied the need to hold the line regarding the 0-75’ setback zone and reasonable hardships, as well as. massing issues. Bottenberg and GafTron believed that they could give applicants more direction enteria if they were sure the Commission would only alio a certain tspes of hardship and e.xccptions to the 0-75’ setback zone. (#12) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 27. 2003 Fritzlcr moved, Mabustli sccoided. to approve the Minutes of the January 27, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting as presented. \OTE: Ayes 4, AbsUin 2. Berg and Bremer abstaining. (#13) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON FEBRUARY 24.2003 AND MARCH 10,2003. February 24 - Frit/lcr ADJOURNMENT March 10 - Bremer Mabusth moved. Fritzler seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 11:05 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 6. Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 P.M Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 26 of 26