Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-21-2003 Planning Packet
p - / ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday July 21« 2003 6:00 PM 2750 KcHt>‘ Parkway - Council Chambers AGENDA Council Reprcsmlative: Jim Murphy and/or Jim White AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium If you nlsh to address the Planning Commission. Applicants s»iil be asked to move to the front table to anssser questions Hhen the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission is an advisors body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the August II, 2003 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. #02-2809A Rick Sterling. 1300 \‘ine Place, Variance Amendment (Staff: Janif-c Waataja) 2. 803-2911 Peter and Lisa R>’skamp, 1080 Wildhurst Trail, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 3. 803-2912 Mars in and Maty Smith. 1940 Country Club Road, Variance (Staff: Janice Waataja) 4. 803-2918 Bruce Singer. 330 Tonka Avenue, Variance (Staff: Melanie Foth) 5. 803-2921 Stuart MacDonald MacDonald & .Mack Architects, Ltd, on behalf of Edward Hamm. 485 Orono Orchard Road South, Conditional Use Pcmiit (Staff: Janice Waataja) OLD BUSINESS 6. 803-2893 John and Roberta Hcnnch. 4125 lligbwood Road, VariaiKCs (Staff; Mike Gaffron) 7. 803-2904 Richard S. Brown. 1300 Shoreline Drive, Ancr-thc-faci Variances (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 8. 803-2907 Jeff and Cara Ziebarth. 720 North Arm Drive, N’ariances (Staff: Mike Gaffron) NEW BUSINESS 9. 803-2895 Gary Germundsen. 4101 Highwood Road, Variance (Staff: Janice Waataja) 10. #03-2910 Wayne and Anne Johnson, 1225 Lakeview Asenuc, Variance (SlafT: Melanie Folh) 11. #03-2913 Stewart and Gina H?nscn, 583 Park Lane, Variance (StafT: Melanie Folh) 12. #03-2915 Northern Sunrooms, Inc. on behalf of Scott Udell. 2166 Sbadywood Road, Variance (StafT: Melanie Foth) 13. #03-2916 Phillip Smith, 2600 West l.afayelte Road, Variance (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 14. #03-2919 Kevin and Deborah Thompson, 90 Myrtfewood Road, Variances (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 15. #03-2920 St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church, 865 Feradale Road North, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 16. #03-2922 Imaginality on behalf of Mike Cashman, 1685 and 1655 Fo* Street, Variance (Staff: Janice Waataja) 17. #03-2924 Todd Smith on behalf of Jim and Julie Marstad, 4550 Wolverton, Variance (Staff: Mike Gaffron) SKETCH PLAN 18. #03-2926 Walter Ringer Jr., 2165 North Shore Drive, Subdivision (Staff: Mike Gaffron) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 19. Report of Planning Commission representatives attending Council meetings June 23, 2003 and July 14,2003. 20. Other issues for discussion. 21. Planning Commission approval of minutes for June 16,2003. 22. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on July 28,2003 and August 11, ADJOURNMENT pr- Public A ttendance Mi:i:tin <; DATt '7- J I- J i- □ C ouncil 'fir Planning Commission □ Park C ommission Please fillouttiie information requested BELO\\ FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. NAME (please print) 1 ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUiMBER 1. / (. ^ r' ! //-V-T .J^V/4 f' r c ^2. ^'Y u c ( S/1-; I f'ybc ^u *> ^‘i IS 3. (V '!.^ t, . l-r.^ *!• - V^'l^ ^/S'l c*.‘‘cL'Ov'^ 4 \jJ. u, V\ vV.*..«Ni,\i 5. lUaQHr"HinK(r -^ i/c o-> -J Sm'-S 'Ilk / , yc ( --------------------------:■ - -----------------\ 8. itCij-'.V. 1 •/<'U ^ ,l' /li/.C i '1 )/‘j 9. T^V .. ~7,2i {r.jl F(.,r 4 \iir', 10. ;r.. / tr-j----by------------------- II. "till ’*"t J'*‘5/Ynii;- Ljv.[■'' Mi'>- 12.* i -^V'>/.£ 'if i:'aiu ^P/.// ^ Q.. n ^ (. / '» k-k L t f~ r t^r /T« /C m * .1 y/L 14. iy c>T 3C.e ’ /.-C J^CJ-----------------------------------—--------------------- Public Attendance Mcctinu D atk ■ 2 I > □ Council 0 Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ O ther ____________ NAME (please print) Please FILLouTTiic information requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 2.. 3-- 4.. 5.. 6._ f 4800 ^ <400 B 4000 C 3600 D 3200 E 2800 F 2400 G 2000 H 1600 I 12p0 J 800 K 400 ORONO PLA»INC COMMISSION KHM rmtkmn - C—rs*«str» agenda rMM«R*?n la Vt *»!*• AllMIXTMrSWItt: ---------—---“r ■«m» IlM rUcHuat aiNsist I Mi mf A HKkSwtltfi* ' «Sul1 iinKelkAjmil SUfB T : a«x«ii ivi« (Stin M.U<U'1< «I M*pAA > *«VJ«I1 M«.n»JW-*S-u>sl<.l*Mraar,n.klU.4.V»«af (Suit Mjpii i llf«.t S.-rt. JJ* A..«.». Vjt<Vjf« MrUnif r«rt* M«p4 ------- . « Ltwi w«l AU.lv-«^ V_»:IV~J A AftV^ttv I .J « MuWrf * .HO. .S.k-j lU-a c»«.-1 - isn- »\ua Mjpl'5 OlIlBl MM * ^4*al^tu*«ollarK»l.4mM.^k—A (Mill M l«U»!Sa) Mjp*-? T ■•VrH* A„KvlS rv«»v.l>WSW«l-«0*‘********^**‘*''“^** (WI kU»UjHn)"l Sljpl-* I ■•»O 1 /.f^irtl. S««*i »»»•”. V»uncn (Mill MAtOjIIniiil MjpB-5 M A IH’SIM'S 9 Ml'Xttt On) C^fmundim. 4I«I Hi»k<»»^ll*»^'«“«* (Vin Jm MipB-X (0 mw^i* (Mill ''cl. W..^ ini Aw* I»» I »».«»»• A.a*f, Vinou fliK MipGA Ur»uy Kvl •**»<*- Mi l’*'^ Metoi*II ••Vlkl* I ’ ilw* K-tMa*-.««. l»c « MKi-l. f Mi« Wril. lU* ShiJ,«a4 ' |u.J.\irii«*l«*ll M***^»«*> MipD* (Si*!' I-keUill»«»l Mipt-U 11 Ml.:9|« Kr.«»oJtJ«*««hTN«(*j«.WM»tilni»*4«a4.V«»a«t (Sun SUpK ) 15 MSIVM S« I J-*J It* CoefwK* f t.«*H t>i«S **« I er»Jilr IU»I N«»*. r»<^*ulU«tr(nBil(Still MAfluHia) Mipl--* «b«iu;f ol\U»C«>-~r IM« tm4 l»M |„ Mmf. rf LniiWuuu) Mipl-S lA *•> r«l M-.,—...--------- - VKumciSiilt lim** WiiUM) Slipl"* V«iinn(Vi!1 SI kf UilfriJtil Slip A-5 5KIUIIPIAN .V. II MSMIk A*;wf Rwtolr.JIS»S««»'’>‘»«»l ‘"*».S«*^"“‘'" (S(*ll MAl OiItn«| Mip t* » MANSISi; tOMSIlVMIIS COMSU MS 19 |i,|wri*m«Myrc«oi»*«»tJ«t*.«s«likni»-.C"J -<r<*a.lirc<iuiit MD)mIM; UMII M (»T*tiikirklr«ixiii»K« J» Vlni»«*lKr'»w*A*“"k<f*» Mu) 1 nnAapralU) 2E 300) ml A«(iM II. AUJUinSMCNT ifiSC OUONO flJ^NMNC COMMISSIO?! ITM Ktttr> - C—ril Cfc»«fc»n ACr.NDA lUyrftnitMHr- lifli M »S*j •vl’iw l« AtMOrt Aa;ni II. W»»fW> C •••nlni€«l»S Ct'NMN* I R~kS*»»‘'P« |W*\t«» rt««», v»nj»*f A«i*i»irefS< (tell MjpB * : MlKII |v«f»J|.uR,»lu»nr. (Sufl RU(G>.<Tf««l >Uf A-* isufi lMi.i««xX^) Mjpll I 4 ••Utl* |lrKr\.nrt.J3*T««k*A.*««».V«iiiKt(5un MriJWfloOil M»p IJ wmJIU btv 4t* !»»•*• Onk«J IU<4>M«k. Co«fc».’^ L'* fcf»4 (SUS M>pl » OLODrMNt>S * W.»JIU*«tj(lc«.»k.4IX5ll«k— (tefl MiUGilfMaJ MjpB-7 T ■•»?*«• R^l.wl* IV(«n.l»WM»«l-t0rt.t.Allct4»*-titlVi«uBm (NUfI M.icGjIlrunI M«pl-5 I ••»»»•• Icf *-»U K. /.ft'-U. TM N.»A Ar» Drt»«. VirtMcn tSuH \UcOjflMI M.W DI’JIM '' * 0i»)0»fi™»»l»«.4l»lllt»R"»<*<l (tefl !»«» ’ to MV}«lt wrf A»» i,>—I. imU4otn» A%«—«. Vwtt (Still S\Ij«k* (i f.) M»p(*-4 II aat )«|i iir’»*rt mJ TitralUiiKii, WOr«tlil»»*.V«iiacc(tell M<Uw»folkl i: ••VJtl'l S«tVm te*»*»v Im cuthtki-’ltf Vi«H4rtI.JH*VkW>»*»4 |U«l.\«>w((telI MriiMlact) MjpD-4 II Mt r*l4 r»wll.p5«w«i.I*«4\Vn(UIj>»««B»*4.V4fuot* (ter '(.UGanrcal M*pt*l4 (Sun Stj4( SUpK-1 IS Ml 2V4 St I J««Jth» I wifrtu'* I (••HT**^'”*'-*** ^*'"^*** ****** ^^^ rv-dituHulUwrnfmllSuil sU»(.*nn») Mjpt-4 I* Ml itU h»;jutiit m b€iu l ol SI if I4«* »M U«« I •» S«rt««. Vjtuaifltea im«l4«JtA4) Sl4pl-S IT M).»24 |oAI5mill»ool*it*'<*f J'«mJM'»II*ii**-<***"**'*'**^ VafUKclWiH SI'lrlUlInHil AI*pA-l SKlICtinAN II Ml-m* »»:i«ll««crlr.2UIKMllkSM««tlfttt.S<MranM ISUII Maplil rt ISMMI (IIMHISMIIM ( (IMMI NIS |» Prt««! rf rur^ v <■. r.-p«r«. i4-4i»tt / CuukiI owdia/t Jvar 2>. 14 .VO) 20 iMftinanfffAHiMuni 21 K»Mi>|CBM»u««>«irr"»»al*4ii*«M»fcfJ«Ml*.200) 22 VWMmorif;«fwnLie.>«(Mr«>CMKJn«uipM)U)2>.20C)»UAar>*lll> Xo) AIIJOl IIV'II M ■•2-2t9tA J»lr2I.X0<U Pat*l*fS Daft ApplkathM Rccchrtd: DaU Applkatioa CoaiMcrcd as Coaipkie: *-l7<03 iO-Day Rtvi«w rtiiod Eipircs: S-16-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner ||)5 July 16,2003 #02-2809A. Rick & Kristine Sterling. 1300 Vine Place - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: LR-Dl Single Family Lakeshore Residential (1-acre minimum) 1.31 acres (56,846 s.f.) Application Summaiy: Applicant requests a variance to construct an addition to an existing deck. The variances include: 1. 105* encroachment on the average lakeshore setback.________________________ Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: a) Approval based on the site plan attached herein. A hardship exists due to the orientation of the property and the applicant’s home being entirely within the average lakeshore setback. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B): Average Lakeshore Setback: No principal or accessor> structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots... List of Exhibits A - Application B - Survey C - Existing Site Plan D - Proposed Site Plan E - Hardcover Calculations (no change) F - Photographs G - Property Owners List H-Plat Map Background The applicant leceix ed a variance to encroach 105 feet into the average lakeshore setback in July of 2002. The variance allowed the applicant to replace an existing upper level lakeside rotted deck (8* X 42*) and to construct a 2 ’ x 10* addition on the lake side of the home. The Planning Commission recommended approval based on the following fmdings: 1. The shape of the shoreline makes it impossible for any structure to meet the average lakeshore setback. 2. Neighbors* views were not negatively affected by the additions. 3. Hardcover didn*t change because patio exists telow the deck and was already counted towards hardcover, and 4. Lot coverage by structures remained the same at 7.4%, when 15% b the limiL I J M2-2W9A Jvlyll.MOJ Pagt2«rS LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot ArfAVIdthr LR-Bl Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560(1 acre)140’ Actual 56,846 s.r (1.31 acres)79.43* Sdteithi; LR-BI Required Eiisting Proposed Front 35’40’40’ Rear 30’n/a n'a Left Side 10’91.5 ’91.5 Right Side 10’10.3’10.3 Lakeshore 75 ’105’105’ Average Lakeshore O’125 ’125 ’ Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 56,846 s.f. (1.31 acres)Allowed: 8,526.9 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 4,215 s.f (7.4 */o) Hardcover Calculatjoni: These calculations are those that were submitted uith the previous variance. No change in hardcover is proposed with the deck addition. This is because of an e.xisting concrete patio that exists below the deck and therefore is not counted twice. Hardcover Zone Total Area iu ZOBC Allowed Hardcover Exbtiug Hardcover Proposed Hai^covcr 0-75*29,109 s.f 0s.f. (0%) 1,286 s.f* (4.4 %) 1,286 s.f (4.4 %) 75-250*27,737 s.f 6,934 s.f (25%) 8,001 s.f* (28.8 %) 8,001 s.f (28.8 %) 0O2-3M9A My 21.2003 ratcJoM Average Lakcsliorc Setback Variaace The applicant has requested a variance to encroach 105* into the a\*erage lakeshore setback to construct an addition, 32* x 12.5*, to the existing upper lewl lakeside deck. The subject property is located on a point on Forest Lake. The property meets the 75* shoreline setback requirement for all property located on Forest Lake. Although the average lakeshore setback line is the same in the proposed variance as the variance approved in July 2002, a new variance must be considered and approved to allow the new deck addition. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anahsis _____________________________________________ In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning CommissloH shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The existing conditions of the applicant's property put the entire home, existing deck and proposed deck within the average lakeshore setback zone (125* setback from shoreline). The proposed deck addition vrill not be any closer to the lake than the existing home and deck. The existing topography, location of adjacent homes and existing vegetation all indicate that the proposed deck addition will not have a negative impact on neighbors' view of the lake. Also, hardcover will not change due to the existing patio. Therefore, there is a unique hardship inherent to the property. Staff \\*ould make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Should a variance be denied, the property can still be put to a reasonable use due to the existing rtatiar of the existing home on the property. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The property b located at the tip ofa small peninsula where the adjacent properties * lakefhsntage b on the sides of the peninsula, a circumstance unique to the property. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Because of the inherent nedure of the propaiy, should a variance be granted the character of the iocaltty will not be edtered Tins b due to the fact that the entire home doesn’t meet Zoning Ordinance requirements /or average lakeshore setback M2-2409A jMly 21,2003 Page 4 ofS 8. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship ifreasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Sot appiicabie "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony vsiili this Chapter." Sot appheabte "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a s-ariance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the aficctcd person's land is located.” The proposed use is a use allowed in the LR-IB single family lakeshore soning district. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Sot applicable "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The fact that the property is located on a point placing the existing house and deck in the axerage lakeshore setback is a special condition inherent to this property. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The characteristics ofthis property generally do not apply to other properties in the surrounding area or zoning diOrict 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the prescrtaiion and cnjo>mcnt of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting of the application allows the applicant further enjoyment of his/her property. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” The proposed variance will not in any way impair the health safety, confort, morals or the Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 12. ”The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." The pmting cf the proposed variance wiU help aUeviate the properties inherent hardship. M2-2I09A Jaly2l.2003 r»fis«rs ItSMt for Considcratioa 1. The sh^ofthe shoreline makes it impossible for any stfuctures on this pcopeity to meet the average lakeshore setback requirement 2. Are the neighbors* view of the iake negatively impacted by the addition? Is the shape of the shoreline suflicient hardship to justify the granting of an average lakeshore setback variance. 3. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 32* x 12.5* deck addition. ^xhibif A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Appi;/.atinn Fpg Application # A Date Received"^ Amount Paid C7*> Q^ ( [S50.00 per each addition^ variance)'""'^ Renewal vinance Pee si50.00 ■ ^[enewai VlflBHCe Pee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non>conforming structures S250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 'To 2-A PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address«^i%v #~»sa\aa | V ilf c. % l Property Identification Number fP.l.D.) 07- QQO^___________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired >3An(_____________________________(month'>’car) I (do) (do not) also oum the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property. JC __presidential ___pother (specify) Zoning District: L. R ■ I .................................................. APPLICANT Name Address: DO 1 City. Phone Owwe) S/JL -?63-05^SV/^ Phone (werh) -^13l-tTlf Or>GKrn__________ Zip: 3^'^CM OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: Phone (homc)_ Phone (work)_ City. DESCRIPTION OF REQUE^ EsUmated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail: To 4, IvcIvAf, IK SecLev V. 1^'// . TAiS C#ftrtvo fi HffL (attach additional sheets if necessary),______________shi _________ •y.ls^ ler^ cr rcf. S<a VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback: ___Front ___Side ___Rear Other (specify)________________________________ X Average Lal:eshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with 2U)ning Code requirements: o»^ ft- pet*A/^ A-.iL (attach additional sheets if necessary) 6 • REQUIIWD SUBMITTALS tor vour^ppHcati^^^^ PPPlIfaffon deadllnt d«ty fp 1- — Completed Application Form ■' “ 5. ___ Sketches or plans of floor & elevailnn v:, T • * ” reproducUon. 6. _ List of the legal names (inctdl marital sla^l^of alf property. This would include name(s) of appUcantfs^f nol** ^ addendum to this application olease a«arK « current owncr(s). you wish notified of this application - ____ scpj^rale list of any other peisons 8. — Additional items as may be requested by City staff. BUIE APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE iss;svsr-.ctt;trrrrK" *• ^ consulun. «pcn«e, incur^I in rc“cw oft^Zlica ior"?'' supplied is ime and conect lo Ih^si of his/her Pledge. ^ Applic^ifs Signahire ^ ^ OWNER’S SIGNATURE Tt.^________• . . Zoning . ^Tiicnt) and'or the infonnation dlUl>ATUK£ enciy onto the pmperty by d'y agwtt ' CoiJll reasonable memben for puTK.sesoLh^^^j^„ verif.cahpn onhifr^c“'°" ^ bate if-9'a 3Owner's Signature ■•*SLrzi‘“.'SrSS 4i0a-ason A Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form 1 (we) OtArVvj *4~ V\vrhGpJ print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvcmcnl or proposed use of the property located at ____________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. jperty Chvner Date Property Owner Date I fwe)'T>)n i//ny [print narhe(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. ___________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowlcdgerr*nt, I (we) am (arc) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Dale X X Property -/03 Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. CERTFCATE OF SURVEY FOR L. CRAMER COMPANY M TRACTS B. C, & D. RX.S. NO. #488 HENNEPW COUNTY, MINNESOTA FOREST LAKE m CWTtM CITYOFORONO^,^,^^ ^ SITE PLAN__ GaADiilG PUN ttCi Tf Ct>-<i»7IOI Cf PtfViltl 8 TfocI •• ••€#»! IN# #*fl#»lf 35 fttl r #.tM !• IP# •7«!#'ly li'’# #• laid Trc«t B; TfKt C. Tr«tl 0. t IN# •#»i'#'l* 31 r«tt partMt* •!in •»# fn»#i«f#« at ri^M cel## la tM • lina »f aala Traci 0. all la Rafiatar«4 Lana Sa.',#/ Ma. aU. liiaa ai Rag al tillaa, Haaaapia Caantjr. iciaaaaaU. B.AP?.-'.OVrO n A?;:iovEfi V'lTH Revisioss h oisA-v'ipvao ,»ATE. i#t>aUar • t Barciat Iraairarbar |K\D I ataalca aaiatlaf a»al aia»atlaa. rnata tta l •aarlaft a>a^ ara feaaaB ««aa ea aa>tr«a aaliAi. Tala tar*a» lataftRa la aNa« IM a#i»*^riai a> la# asa»# etae/i&ca praac'ly. taa lacetlaa al an aaiallaf aa«aa BmI Rawaa aai aaaa. ca4 IM lacatlaa al all aiaiaia *a^a<a«ar* INaraaa. it aaat aal pwrpart la aNaa an/ . eaa laa ___ _ _ ... ______ __ aiaai In»ra«an«ata ar aacraacinaaia. lilSSOCUTE^IKC 9R ua mu«ai i •a«»i a%trt m m anvcxt. <!■»• *a *vaaa a> <a » >mo m tftsi wi I« 4 a«> vcMB iay fBa** a aacai MB at im a a« *4 a MM p~' i P0VEWAY ----rr^r:—•' «> .------- 1 1 1 - ----------------------F““ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 fM 1—jZ1I._1111111111=------------------—^-------=i; \'},(P (/,V£ ' P0VBWAY I I I i I I I'bcjO OlVe D ro^ A^VIV.^ vf \ fl\tajL>\ ftp^oIeB” -----U5fc « L €'tl -02.Exhibf t SETBACK ZOI^TE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXT8T1NC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. H oum _______________ HARDCOVER CALCULATlQ£nvORKSUEET 0-75'(TSjJSO^ 250-500*SOO-IOOO* 33^6 s F. - Wt7i>5(T 107 B. Otrage C Drixway 264^ D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck 1862 F. LandKape UndcfUin By Pluiic Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B 9Q3| xlOO -ie.35^ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE* A Houjc Ungth WidA B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Paiio^Deck F. Landscape Underlain ByPUadc Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL H/'PJKOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B XlOO # o O A C) 5F. SF. .SF.-5HPD coH Caere SF.-W& S F. A^JO^re, SF. SF. COHCCfrc S F.- iV*T»£7 SF. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. ■ H SF. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF SF. SF. SE. S.F. SF. ‘ K •K '-u. Natal A- * "■* ■A. Houm B. Otri|e C Oriivwajr D. SidevraOc & Pttlo/Dcck F. Ltfl^pt Underlain ByPlutie Or Fabric 30.1 Z4.0 wi«h S00.1000 7ZZ O. Other X X X X X • X X X X total HARDCOVER IN ZONE ^ total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ______________♦ B plOTOSEP HARPCOmijVZaig'A. House Viou^ ^ SF. SF. SF.- _S.F. _SF. SF.-'^flOO "”SF SF. SF. SF _SF. .ST. CONCfttTc W. B oat u A wmq nsh xlOO z*t. io<? LrxgOi W^h B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk £ Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other X • X X X X X X X X total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A * B 4-.4Z. .S.F. SF. A B __SF. .SF. SF. SF. _SF. _SF. SF. .SF. SF. 1st. SF. SF. S.F. xlOO_ - .S.F. .SF. E«hiVi> P ir.'C r.yrx f f£'W ’ fis’! . }^'^Ly.ili'L‘ ini'.'. .*.*. t nil b' *- *1 r 1' r j • r;xc' V.Kw <K-MMiU- W il^ msmm'A . 'fmm ItiITm S al S\ V.j ♦.--' X f A ..c“ ■’‘ 'f, ^Wm &■;' • ij ,V!r!^ >; -r^' -V ■" 5iV' . '"‘r, ’ V v rsssss2s& V ‘-| .. .• Vi’ Ip; m.'-.i¥ ' - r*1 l!/f V id H fjgpunty Taxpayer 07- M7-;Z3-^^ n ,.• : • F" •■ ■ ■ \ • liT il %. [ Parcel Informatioh . i ^pircei ID 07117234^^^^^ ,?;; • Hou.. Number 1300 •‘Ciiy •;i;'. •*■"•• vine *'•• ir/fpflMonCi a conyiiittM ' i :. 9nd data from Oty. Couafy. and Stata road aidhemaa and etharaoitnaa. -^:.' •*• Date AppHcatiMi Ilcctiirt4: (-3^13 Date AppMcatlaa CaatMered as Campktet 7>7-d3 6«-Day Review Ferlad Espires: 9-4^ Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Mike GafTron, Plamiing Director DATE: July 17,2003 SUBJECT: ^03-2911 Peter & Usa Ryskamp, 1080 Wildhurst Trail • Conditional Use Permit to replace Permanent Dock - Public Hearing Zooiag Dbtrict: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 Acre) AjnpUemdon Summary: Applicant request a CUP to allow the replacement of an existing permanent piling dock which is deteriorating and w hich is poorly located in relation to neighboring docks. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. Lbt ofExhiblto A - Application & Letter of Request B - Plat Map C - LMCD Staff Report Excerpts D - LMCD Draft Permit (Dated 6/25/03) E - Existing Dock Location Survey F > Proposed Dock Location Survey G - Design Detail H - Property Owners List Pertinent Code Section Section 10.55, Subd. 9(B)(3) • Floodway District Uses: B. Conditional Uses. (When in conformance with this Chapter): 3. All permanent boat docks or other similar structures. Summary of Request: The s^licants have submitted an ^iplication for a conditional use permit, per Code Section 10.55, Subdivision 9(B) to permit replacement of their existing permanent dock. The new dock will be similar in shape, design and construed n as the exbting dock, but will be relocated slightly further M3-2fll July 17,2003 Pmc2 north to be plK^ more favorably m relation to the adjoining docks. The property is on Forest Lake Bay of Lake Minnetonka and is located in a cove where wave uid ice action will be minimal hence the stability of such dock will be at minimal risk. The dock is l^ated in Lake Minnetonka and is under the jurisdiction of the Ukc Minnetonka ^‘*y*^* (LMCD). The Ryskamp’s permit was approved by the LMCD in June, 2003. The LMCD permit also granted a dock length variance for shallow water depth. The length of docks IS generally held by the City to be under the primary jurisdiction of the LMCD, although the City has ad^t^ by reference certain LMCD dock location regulations and the City does have concurrent jurisdiction for certain lake uses under SecUon 10.55, Flood Plain and Wetlands Management. Please review the LMCD memo and exhibiu of June 5,2003. Staff Rf mawrndalion St^recor^CT^ approval of the conditional use permit for replacement of a permanent dock subject to the following conditions: ** continues to be permitted by the LMCD and DNR and is in conformity with the rules and regulations of those agencies. 2. Future replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit from the City of Qrono. Application U 03- ^9 I ( Date Received Amount Paid __j^O»0Q CITi' OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ( lOi T>pe of Application to be Filed A ^ ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Cfl II nni\ \ APPLICANT Name L^CiTa. iai Address \ / .-i. t a -Vv^ OW'NER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (homc)^/^3.LiT3^-/^(^-|^ ---------- Ph'nc i>sQiY)U3.z2mrLUi:AJL. City Ox'nv^i-^ _ Zip Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Date Property Acquired 11/ ;3.nC> I iaii City I (do) (do not) also own the aajacenl parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PEIUVnTS - y. S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application S250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S250.00 Guest House/Gucst Apartments _____S250.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg _____S325.00 Commcrcial^dustrial Use _____S250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. >^1. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore _____PRD/PID - sec Fee Schedule _____SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/)^) OTHER APPLICATIONS _____S275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____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 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1 r>___■ . *Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350* bhM. i . must obtain this list, labels and man from _____ 5. 6. v^emiica Property Owners List of owners within 350* bhM. i . - ^3!'^: “-cr: 3 “i3"T,r <0 handou. f„. ^ Al(ach le^l description to application if not included on required sursev^ Ws:: £S*" -TTsa,. .-isi oi me lejai names (include marital status) of all nerson. ..-i.i, . • . ptopeny. This would include name(s) of applicimt(s) jf nri™„> T!' Constmetion plan, if applicable (see staff for requheLms^ As an addendum to this application olease attari, - J ... . persons vou w'ish noriftoH nr *k.‘.__i:’ separate list of aiany other 8. A\N 9. As an addendum to this application, please persons you \v^sh notified of this application. FOR ^MDucTio/ar - -- •» p^rr^be Wlic1SSnTLreom";K .he"Zv”woSo“^^^^^^ Date complete. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE zTy «■» ^o„ins and/or unusual expenses incurred in review of this annltr original fee payment) supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge°"’ information Applicant's signature Date OWTSER’S SIGNATURE entiy onto the propciiy by “aff^^OTsIdiMU "aginu ' con"^- reasonable members for puTioses of investigation and verification of this K^tesr CH’ ncr's signature Applicant must have all submittaC^nto _ Date ac Applicant must have all submittaW^uito the City omce« v r Mooday of^ih Commission Meeting, scheduW review meetin*$ of the Planning Commission ar^ <Wn ir*' ™“‘ *>e present at all KlKduIed meeting, please make arrangeroents to have an authorir^^^" ^ *” ■PPheant U unable to attend a |Pj||ldip^4v Zoning Office of thi;^ changyjar to the irtfling. ^ “d *dvise the Xi - 1 >•/ ^ JSi ^I #P.QJ i;1 >4-2- Description of request: We recently purchased the home located at 1080 Wildhurst Trail in Orono. The previous owners did not weather treat the existing permanent dock. In turn, the dock is dangerous to walk on as it is falling apart. We are currently working with the Executive Director, Greg Nybeck at the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to replace the existing dock with a new permanent dock which will extent into the lake to a depth of 4 feet. We have all variance/permits in process at the LMCD & would like to apply for all necessary permits as required by the City of Orono. Thank You, Lisa M Ryskamp Peter JRyskamp June 5.2003 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO; Board of Directors FROM: Greg Nybeck, Executive Director SUBJECT: Lisa Ryskamp Permanent (Non-Muftipte) Dock License & Variance Applications BACKGROUND Ms. Lisa Ryskamp. 1080 WikJhurst Trail, has submitted Permanent (Non-Multiple) Dock License and Variance aw)Tications to construct a 119* tong permanent dock for the storage of two watercraft on Forest Lake in the City of /, application has been submitted for variance from Lake Minnetonka Conservation Distnct (LMCD) CoJe for dock length requirements, with a physical hardship of shallow water. Pursuant to LMCD Code, the attached public hearing notice was pubfishec in the 5/27/03 edition of the Lakeshore Weekly News. A few months ago, Ms. Ryskamp contacted me Indicating that she and her husband had rece ntly constructed a new home and that they would like to reconstruct the existing permanent dock at the site that has been there for several /ears back to around 1970. I met with Ms. Ryskamp on site and determined that the existing permanent dock did rot have a license on fito with the LMCD and that it would need a variance from LMCD Code for dock length. Thus. Ms. Ryskamp has submitted the proposed applications for consideration by the Board D' CUSSION Tu jvaluate the proposed applications, staff believes that three Code sections apply to them. They Include: 1. ^ Sectiem 2.06 states that *Mo pei^n may locate, construct, install or maintain a new permanent dock on the Lake without first securing a permit therefor from the Executive Director pursuant to this section provided that no such permit shall te required for r*ocks regulated by Section 2.03*. The Code allows the Executive Orwior to grant the permit if the information shows that the dxk will be in compliance virith the Code. The Code further states that a new permit is required whenever the size, type, location or configuraLton of the dock IS changes. However, there is a grandfathered clause in the Code that allows permanent uock lawfully in existence on 5/5/82 to continue without a permit. Both the existing and proposed permanent docks are not contained within the authorized dock use area for this site. Further discussion of the existing and proposed permanent docks is detailed below. 2. Code Section 2.01 . subd. 1 prohibits a person from using any area of the Lake outside an authorized dock use area for docking and storage of watercraft. An authorized dock use area is defined as ‘that area of the Lake virhich may t o used for docks, rrioorings, boat storage, swimming floats, ski jump storage or diving towers or whi^ may be enclosed on three sides for any of these purposes’. These three sides are further defined by Code for maximum dock length and side setback requirements. As noted ateve, both the existing and proposed permanent docks are not contained within the authorized dock use area for this site. Because the site has approximately 103’ of continuous 929.4 ’ shoreline, the maximum dock length allowed by Code is 100*. Both the existing and proposed permarient docks extend beyond 100’ from the 929.4 ’ shoreline (slightly over 100’ for the existing and approximately 119’ for the proposed). Additionally, the minimum side setbacks for both dock and Lisa Rytkamp Public Hearing Memo, fi/a03. Page 2 IjllTj!” '”■**'**"“ '™"> ««<•• Board should ensurs that lha • la the proposed use reasonable? • Would It be unreasonable to require conformance to the ordinance? . It the difficulty of conroimtng to the ordinance due to clrcumslancet unique to the property? • Is the problem one created by the applicant? • Will the variance. If granted, alter the essential character of the locality? RECOMMENDATIOW _ - ___i LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT GfC90fy S. Nybcch. EXEClHlVt DtRCCTOR BOARD MEMBERS .. _May 22.2003 BenFoMf Chair. Oeephtven Craig Nateoo V«a Chair, Sprirw Park U MclyUUf) Secretary. Orono TO; Torn Skramstad Traaaurar. Shoreniood BoOAmtTvM Wayiau OougtasE Babcock Tortka B*/ FROM: Orv Bum-a Mound ^ _ Milts Canning SUBJECT: Graervwiood PaulKnudMn Mmelnsla TomSeu itens Mmneionka Baach Herb J Suerth WoodUnd Jose Vaioesuso Euaisior Katy VanHereka Minnetonka Lakeshofe Weekly News Attn: Sue Korus, Legal Department (Fax #473-0895) Judd J. Harper, Administrative Technician Pubfic Hearing Notice (5/27/03 Edition) kian^lj LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 7;00 PM. June 11,2003 Tonka Bay City HaH 4901 Manitou Road Lisa Ryskamp Variance Application 1080 Wildhurst Trail, Orono, MN Forest Lake, Lake Minnetonka The Lake Minnetonka Cc.nservation District (LMCD) win hold a public hearing to Insider a variance appficotion from Lisa Ryskamp for a proposed permanent dock. The proposed application is for variance from LMCD Code for dock l^th requirements. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to comment. DetaHs avaHable at the LMCD office. 18338 Minnetonka Blvd., Deephaven. MN 55391 Phone:(952)745-0789. O MAh draft lmqi>/K>oQroUC^ 1 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Ik RE: APPLICATION OF USA RYSKAMP FINDINGS A piibUc hearing was hdd on the application of Ms. Lisa Ryskamp at 7:00 o’clock pjn. on Wednesday, June 11,2003 at Tonka Bay Gty Hall in the city of Tonka Bay, Minnesota. The Applicant requested approval of a dock length variance for property located at 1080 Wildhuxst Trail inthecityofOrooo. The hardship dted by Applicant for the variance was riiallow water depth. Applicant that the water depth at 119 feet fiom the shore line at elevation 929.4 feet NGVD is 4 feet The depth at 100 feet iSmn the diore line is 3 feet The Board fi^ thflUhe- wiTO Ueptli id that^nting the variance hereinafter set foi)^ on 'irit and intern oi ilw iJoae. wBgueytlrifl lip within the meaning of LMCD Cbde Section 1.07 and that Ranting the vananoe hereinafter set foi]i>i^ on the conditions imposed, consistent with the spirit and intent oftheTSar ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE FOREGOING, IT IS ORDERED that a variance for dock length for the property at 1080 ^KHldburst Trail in the ciQrof Orono is granted subject to the following conditions and limitations: 1. Dock length shall be limited to 119 feet from the shore line at devadon 929.4 NGVD. CLL4JMI9VI LK1I04 I 11 The dock ihdl be consinictod and mamtuncd in strict confonnu^ attached haeto as Attachment One, which is herein made a part of this Older. All dodcs and boat storage shall be maintained within the authorized dock use area as adjusted by this variance, and all docks and boat storage shall meet all side setbadc limitatioiis imposed by the Cbde. TTH>iimiiiceofthijv»i«KesMlgnrtnov«edri^tolhei«ofIjkeMiiina<>nl^ Suchuse shdl II dl tima muin srigect to regulation by the District to assure the public of reasonable and equitable access to the Lake. By Onler of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District this 25* day of June, 2003. ATTEST:Albert O. Foster, Chair Uli McMUIan, Secretaiy CU a UMIM UUI»4 DOCK LOCATION DRAWING FOR PETER & LISA RYSKAMP IN LOTS 5 & 6. TONKA VIEW GARDENS. AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA ______________\----- \ SCALE FEET ■(imn| o«tc OflOWlOt 1 GSONBESG k ASSOCUTKS. INC. I aiiir« tM«i !•«} v(Cfc*'c*i. o» rwtPtmo HT ic 0* van m« OHCt uM«voo« mc «H«I I Mt « MT iCimO |MMt« MS IMO XMl Uadflt 'A & <ra 0 UNDA il;.* *1 31 07II723IJ0206 MMW 31 AOfMCSSUNASSIGHED ANAMC HENNeriNFniVQTEOLAND \YEJl OTYOFORONO /ADM rOtOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN SS.'23 IILNi«t.4 iN V,Ol.:«rrY I'ROrT” “V int O/MAUON WLKIYO' iiUiT PAUb: I 3t 0711723130211 MOfADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME HCNNEriN FORFEITED LAND TAXPAYER OlYOFORONO NAME/ADOR POIlOXM CRYSTALBAYKtN SS323 31 07II7231302I4 PROP AODR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED owner name MENNEPWFORFEnEDLANO TAXPAYER CITYOFOROMO NAMb/ADOR POBOXO* CRYST/XBAYMN SS323 31 07II733I303K AOOR m WU3KU1ISTTR KHAME RITAJANCZSBCCK bVER RfrAJANeZEBEOC 7AOM RHWILDMURSTTR MOUND MN SS3M 31 07M 7232400II AOOR ion WILDIIURSTTR ANAM6 PJRYSKAMPALMVRYSKAMP 4YCR PCTERAUSARYSICAMP VADOR ion -WILDIIURSTTR MOUNDMN SS344 3i 3>'ll7232nOI7 AOOR 4440 FOREST LAKE LANOtNO OtNAME RSMULUNBLFMULUN AYER ROBERT A LBAMULUN VAOOR 4440 FOREST LAKE LANOBIO MOUNDMN 33364 31 07II723I302I7 PROPAOOR 1000 WILDNURSTTR OWNERNAME DAV® AT1MPAMOttLLETIMP TAXPAYER OAV®ATIMP NAME/AOOR 1000 WILOKURSTTR MOUNDMN 33364 31 0711723240013 PROP ADDR 4460 FOREST LAKE LANDING OWNERNAME PVMARTWSOtMMMARTINSON TAXPAYER PETER V MARTINSON NAME/AODR 4460 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUNDMN 33364 3S 0711723240023 PROPAOOR 4473 PC SSTLAKELANOWO JWNERNAME jBLACXSTONEA0 BLACXSTONE '-’’wXPAYER XINAGAILBLACKSTONE K '- ’.^r>OR 4463 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUNDMN 3S364 31 0711723240003 PROPAOOR 4443 FOREST LAKE LANOWO OWNERNAME TTMOT7IYMARKLEMOKE TAXPAYER TIMOTHY M LEMOXE NAME/AODR 4443 FOREST LAKE UVOCNO MOUNDMN SS364 3t 0711723240016 PROP ADDR 4430 FOREST LAKE LANDINO OWNERNAME RLAVAWOUT TAXPAYER ROBERT LA VELMA A WOLFF NAME/AOOR 4430 FOREST LAKE LANOINO MOUNDMN 33364 31 0711723240024 PROPAOOR 4475 FOREST LAKE LANOINO OWNERNAME JBLACKSTONEAOBLACKSTONE TAXPAYER lONAQAlLBLACKSTONE MAMF/APOR 4463 FOREST LAKE LANDINO MOUNDMN 33364 \rJlI i (D CX! 31 0711723240029 AOOR lots WILDIIURSTTR 2RNAME TROY K A STACY SPULUS AYER . TROY K A STACY SPULUS S/ADDR IMSWaOHURSTTR MOUNDMN 33344 31 0711723240030 PROPAOOR 1043 WILONURSTTR OWNERNAME MICHAELVMCKENNEY TAXPAYER MCHAELVMC KENNEY NAME/AOOR 1045 WROHURST TRAIL MOUNDMN 53364 31 0711723240031 PROP ADDR 1055 WILDHURST TR OWNERNAME OTYOFORONO TAXPAYER OTYOFORONO NAME/ADOK POBOX64 CRYSTAL BAY MN 33323 , 30 07II72U40032 AOOR 3S ADDRESS UNASSIONEO ERNAME taCNAELOaUSTWELmMANN •AYER MCNAEL UTTMANN S/AOOR 9I73UT1CAAVES •L00M04GT0NMN 33437 3t 07II72324003S PROPAOOR 4463 FOREST LAKE LANOBIO OWNERNAME JONDBtACXSTOIfEETAL TAXPAYER »N 0 HACKSTONE NAME/ADOR 4443 FOREST LAKE LANOBIO MOUNDMN 33344 31 0711723240040 PROPAOOR 4470 FOREST LAKE LANOBIO OWNERNAME RWWALTERJRRJMWALTER TAXPAYER RCMARDW WALTER JR NAME/AOOR 4470 FOREST LAKE LANOINQ ORONOMM 35364 \T: llLMliU'INcOMNn I'. -J 1*1 V !r«rv')KMAJION:»YSIliM PRUl'tKI V OWNUCi LIST PAGE: 2 31 0711723240041 lOM low WIUWUltSTTR RNAMC JMPREWAKLPftEW .Y« KMIN A KAREN PHEW 'AOOA lOWWlLDHURSTTR MOUND MN SS364 31 0711723240043 PROPADDR 4410 FOREST LAKE LANDING OWNERNAME LORENPSOIOENZEITETAL TAXPAYER LOREN F SaiOD«EfT NAME/ADOR 44M FOREST LAKE LANDINO MOUND MN 533M 3S 0711733740043 PROPADDR 1131 WILOIIURSTTR OWNERNAME JACCULUTON TAXPAYER JOHN M ACDTDY LCULUTON NAME/ADDR 1131 WILOIIURSTTR MOUND MN 33364 31 0711723240044 ADOR 1134 WILDHURSTTR RNAME MICHAEL SWEAR A DRir SWEAR AYER MCHAELSWCAR MOOR II34WILOHURSTTR MOUND MN 33364 30 0711723240043 PROPADDR 1006 WILDHURSTTR OWNERNAME FOX3ROENSENARMASHER TAXPAYER FO JORGENSEN ARM ASHER NAME7ADOR 1006 WILDHURSTTR MOUNDMN 33364 30 0711723340046 PROPADDR 1074 WILOIIURSTTR OWNERNAME ILONAJPETERSON TAXPAYER KENNEHIC PETERSON NAME/AOOR 1412013TH PL N PLYMOUTH MN 33447 I CERTIFY THATTIC FACTS REPRESEFOTEO ARC AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OP IhFORMAIION AS TT APPEARS TWS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HBPMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPAIOMENT, TO THE BEST V--S OFMY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. DATE //Oc) 1-*. i.M 7^5 m ■ .r__-\v's'-^--r^<Ji6 •:7rv r 'i'iV: -: 'i- ' •e. - hi ^L: l^fST’'"’'^ «KU-29I2 July 21.2003 PagclofS Dale Application Received; 6-16^3 Date Application Considered at Complete: 6-16*03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 8-15-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Dale: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner^ July 16,2003 #03-2912, Marvin & Mary Smith, 1940 Country Club Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning DbIricI: Lot Area: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential (1-acrc minimui.i) 1.037 ac:. (45.161 s.f.) Application Summary'' Applicant requests a number of variances to construct additions/revisions to the e.xisting home. The variances include: 1. A side yard setback variance to allow a setback of 18.8 ’ where 30’ »s i 8 ’ currently exists). 2. A front yard setback variance to allow a setback of 36.8’ at the house and !> < .A the garai^e where 50’ is required (36.8’ and 39’ currently exists). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: 1. Approval of the side yard setback variance to allow* an encroachment of 11.2’. 2. Approval of the front yard setback variance to allow an encroachment of 13.2’ at the house and an encroachment of 11’ at the parage.____________________________ Periinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.23.6B lists the minimum requirements for all lots located in the LR-1 A zoning district. LUt of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement & Addenda C - Existing & Proposed Survey D - Proposed Elevations & Plans E - Photograph F - Property Owners List G - Plat Map Background In August of 2002. the applicants received a front >*ard setback variance to construct a 2 story addition over the existing garage. The existing home has a front yard setback of 36.8’ and the existing garage has a front yard setback of 39’ wlier* 50’ is required. The Planning Commission approved the variance based on the following findings: 1. The existing residence was built in 1965, prior to current zoning standards. 2. The characteristics of the neighborhood are one acre lots. The proposal would meet the zoning standards of one acre districts. 3. The proposed setback fits with the character of the neighboriiood. •03.2912 July 21,2003 Pa|t2 efS These improvements were never unplcmented and the applicants are proposing new, somewhat revised plans with this application. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot ArcaAVidth: LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f (2 acres)200’ Actual 45,161 s.f (1.037 acres)225.49 ’ Setbacks; The existing setbacks will not change. The applicants arc proposing to add/renovate space above the existing footprint of the home. LR-IA Required Existing Proposed Front 50’36.8’36.8’ Rear 50’76’76’ Left Side 30’Home-166’ Shed-31.4’ Home - 166' Shed-31.4’ Right Side 30’18.8’18.8’ Lakeshore n^a n/a n/a Average Lakeshore n/a n/a n/a Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 45, 161 s.f (1.037 acre)Allowed: 6,774.15 s.f (15%) Proposed: 3, 201.23 s.f (7.1%) Hardcover Calculations Because the property is not lakcshorc or located uithin 1.000* of a classified u-ater body hardcover requirements do not apply. ’ Side Yard Setback Variance The applicant has requested a side >-ard setback variance to allow the conslrucUon of a second story addition. The exislii^ home is set^k 18.8 feet in its closest comer to the side property line, where 30 feet is required. The applicant isn’t proposing to encroach further on the side vard setback but to exclusively construct the addition above the existing building footprint and adjust roof lines. MS-2912 July2l,2M3 Pagc3«rS Front Yard Setback Variance The applicanl has requested a front >tird setback variance to allow the construction of a second story addition. The existing home is setback 36.8 feet and the existing attached garage is setback 39 feel from the front property line, where 50 feet is required. The applicant isn’t proposing to encroach further on the front >’ard setback but to exclusively construct the addition above the existing building footprint and adjust roof lines. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the triplication. Hardship Analysis _________ In eoHilderbtt appileattons for wianct, the Ptanttiag Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, eristhig and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger office, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for %-arlances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It It demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The existing: residence was built in 1965, prior to the current requirements of the LR-1 A. One Family Lakeshorc Residential District requirements. In addition, the property is located within a zoning district with two acre minimum requirements, where the total area of the subject properly is 1.037 acres and the character of the neighborhood is that of one acre minimum lots. Both of these conditions arc inherent to the property and create a hardship. To alleviate the hard.ships, stafT finds it reasonable to consider this application in relation to the minimum setback requirements of one acre lots, w hich have 35 fool front yard setback and 10 foot side >-ard setback requirements. SldfT would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application; 1. "Tie property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." The property could exist In the manner that it currently exists should the variances be denied tSo alterations could be made to the existing home w ithout a variance. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his prop;rty not created by the landowner." Became the home was constructed prior to the airrent zoning ordinance standards and is therefore legally non<ot\forming. the circumstances are imique and not created by the applicant 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The character of the neighborhood is that of one acre lots w/ith 2 story homes, consistent m ith what the applicant has proposed. M3-29I2 July 21,2003 P«|c4orS "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Not applicable "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 1 16J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." The proposal would not affect neighboring properties * access to direct sunlight. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." The proposed use is a use allowed in the /.R-lA. Single Family Lakeshore Residential district. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporar)* use of a one-family dwelling as a tw'o-family dwelling." Not applicable special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The character of the neighborhood and the subject property are that of one acre lots within a two acre district "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” nWe the conditions apply to the applicants property and the surrounding neighborhood the conditions do not apply generally to all property w ithin the tw o acre minimum zoning district "The granting of the application is necessar>' for the preservation and enjovTnent of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting of the application allows the property owner further enjoyment of his/her property. 1 1 . "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convcmence to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." ««J-29I2 J«ly2l.2003 PagtSors The granting ofthe proposed variance will help alleviate the properties inherent hardship. Itsiict for Conddcratioii 1. The applicant’s home was constructed in 1965, prior to current Zoning Ordinance requirements. 2. The applicant could not make any improvements to the home without approval of a variance. 3. The character of the neighborhood is that of one acre lots, and thus should be subject to the minimum requirements of one acre zoning districts. 4. The proposed setbacks fit with the character of the neighborhood. 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccommendatioa Staff recommends approval of the front and side yard setback variances to allow the construction of a second story addition to the existing home. ExNM a CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2SO.OO After-the-Fact Fees (Double ^>plication fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION AppUeation I ^ Dale Received t^-llo-^no'^ Amount ^ CJu ^ ^oacl .Site Address_ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)' Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired________^/^(o ______________________________(monlh/ycar) I (do) (do not) also own the accent parcels Present use of property: 1/residential Zoning District:_______L iP- .......— of land. ___pother (specify). APPLICANT Name J,SrniTH/ma>^ Phone (work) 952'7*4S-OOZ7 Address? CatAtH^i^ Clkh XFrJ City: Phone (home) ?52‘V7^-Q7/3 ?-7*4S-OOZy Zip: /^S35^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_______________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S / 75^ 060 Describe request in detail: -favw.U ronv^ hrd/hddU. . Mtuu Roo-f: ' ' , (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing complia.nce with Zoning Code requirements:_________________________________ Lut 14 i>»\ ^iqk r F1»uj a-f WouSe (attach additional sheets if necessary) L~. i\ +idir(x3 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ..................................................... 1. — Completed Application Fonn 3. — Ceililicale of Survey (signed hv . ii„„„h ______ must A-603, -------- (U* Govt Center, 348-5910). ' ‘ -------- ^-ou.>, “k “ .ddii:‘T™:^eT„r;i) Xy n ”;" 5. 6. 8. reproduction. ^ ^<>Py 8/," x ll” for r <»rn,-r you vyish notified of this application.*^ _____ separate list of any other persi — Additional items as may be requested by City staff. ions The Applicant and Property Owmer must sign this application Hiljance application ppt <^pniPHe if th. |r4niUin|i APPLICANT'S SimVATiror Please remember that your flJiffS qpt been inclnH»^, APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Adri,ird^lrator,agrees^tofandditi™rf^”(Lff'jl™^^ requesled by ihe Zoning consultant expenses incuned in review of this application and/or supplied is true and correct to the best of hisSt^ Swledg^^^^ '"'■“'““io" Applicant’s Signature OWTVER'S SIGNATURE Date entry onto the property by'clty s"aV MMuhalit* agenu' Cor^m s''^"'''' ‘“•'horizes reasonable members for purposeso^estigation and verincat'ion of thU requ«t.‘°" Owner’s Signature ______________Date &//(>/^? rr c.;!‘i Betker & Associates, Inc. Structural Engineers Aprl20.2OO3 L MwSmitti 1940 Country Ctub Road Lor« Lite. MN 55356 ExWhiB Stndure EvteMBon tor RtedteWAMtonM 1940 Counby Club Road DeerMwv: At your requaaL I teve invaiUgaled your profnnl to rqilaoe the 4:12 pitch roof of your house v4lh a 10:12 pKch roof truseM, MMch mM be supported in the same manner as the original roof (i.e. support at exterior and inlortorbeartno walls). It appears that this sbuclure is adequate provided that the east and west extertor vwte are shealhed sMi plywood. Please cafl If you have any questions. #2912 IO70OW.Hwy.55,Suiiel85 Minrwapolis. Minnesota S5441-6134 Phone Number (763) 5464W3 • Fax Number (763)546-3039 Ol«/h<|CS Otrl^iriAl : ■ ^ l^ASor^. i>MpKov^s -flow o-f \ooKsc 4 Co»\SC/iHS S^«ce Pi+c'i o4- roorf ovcy' ex^ar^.o^ ■TiTDm 3yi2. 4«k \i^io ' Pu>S>v»- ^ccotvi s4a»v “T^o^ Z*^d. "f\oou^ -»-0 »V1*.5.-Kw. bci^oo^ /V^^^f^ A/cc^ ^Cuj ►^oo'f’ • \v>vpirov>*- ^cv'A.U #2012 Sl__ ExNbi> 6 v :; V •• . • B5 ti* m m m m ■'■jd \Z ■.'^■ta*« ■adM X - psi.-:' HM€TC^\ tP^SkHKC 0o«f.wi^%^*^aotr;i*^<ttsuryr !C.mm cUiye p+cJ^ root -fvowi •7^ /Z/iO See aHtaJtc^. UJC r\udi 4o gkaHrEtevAti oN 5CM«i »/o«-r D? ‘ V* * ’ /\/ew m i. w .' ’ * •r-' z^.. _ 1 m : li \^ illi aa 7HJ VtaoLHc. <osw n s —-niiTi CQ If \i f. A r\ •li-v ■ -'t. .J^-'3rv»-t-.fMmmm *.f‘V«'.“.;-' V ■:•;. '••• ?v''-V V.-. ir-*®' fc BmmmM . ‘•- •* . . . .: . * .-■. ..I' . . - ■ ■ • . • f«•:>.*.’■•••. - V-v" " ^ ;-vV- v.^-- ; "..'v -:r* •' . ’....* ■ • ■*. . • •• •• - ••>*• : ■• • • • ••'*** • * * ■ ■ .** tATCN S14>• nwiCMii kMi rAbi i* S7-nif2S A2 •••$ r*Of AOM •!•*• acOMN HO N (MMKI NAME J A L LUCAS TAJVAVII JOSfFN t LUCAS NAIK/AaU lUI SMtM tO N LOm LAKE m S5SSA S8 27*118*2S A2 tSlS •IMt BJtOMN RO N mamlo f mmcr etal HAAOLO F SOWER issa N SROMN RO LONB LAKE IM 5535* 3S 27-US-23 b? • 1^25 LAKtVlCW UR HAROLD F SOWER A WIFE HAROLD F SOWER lose N BROWN RO LONG LAKE HN 5535* *JS ! Ffor AOIM OWNER NAME TAXfAVER NANE/AOIW 3S 27-ns*23 *2 MIS ‘ S1S*S LAREVIEW TER SNERILVN DEANE ASKE-RENICK SNER2LVN DEANE ASKE-RENICK 1S*5 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE NN 5535* 3S 27-110-23 *2 SOI* tlS*5 LAKEVIEW TER J C RETTZNCER/L L RETTIMCER JANES C A LAURA L RETTZNCER 1S*5 LAKEVIEW TER LONG LAKE MN 5535* 3S 27-11S-23 *2 0117 01020 COUNTRY CLUB RO KAO CARLSTEN KEITH 0 A DEBOPAH N CARLSTEN 1020 COUNTRY CLUB RO LONG LAKE HN 5535* FROf AOOR OWNER NANC TAXfAVER NANE/AOOR 30 27-11S-23 *2 OOlS omo COUNTRY CLUB RO N J W SlUTN SHF SNITH HARVIN J W SNITN 10*0 COUNTRY CLUB RO LONG LAKE NN 5535* 30 27-11B-23 *2 0020 OlOOS • COUNTRY CLUB RO FATRICZA A HONOALE PATRICIA A (NONOALE) CONNER 10*5 COUNTRY CLUB RO LONG LAKE NN 5535* 30 27-110-23 *3 0002 01025 COUNTRY CLUB RO 0 A L FREOEEN GLENN G A LOIS E FREOEEN 1025 COUNTRY CLUB RO LONG LAKE NN 5535* ««:'■ a) PROP AOOR OWNER NANI TAXPAYER NANE/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 51* BOOB* % _____ _______________6>hiW> g IHiniwpIn County Taxpayer Services D^rtiiNmt Parcel ID 2711823420018 House Number 1940 Street Name COUNTRY CLUB RD TNsbnotat$g»fyneonhdmMp.nnpns»ntste(mpUlionofMormatloh •ndM»/mm Oly. County. 9ndStMt9 road wthoriti9$$ndcttt»$euic»$. • M2-29II July 16,2003 Pag* 2 LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidtIi! LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,I20s.f. (2 acres)200 ’ Actual 18,279 s.f. (0.42 acre)150 ’ Setbacks: Structural Coverage: Hardcover Calcuiationii LR Required Existing Proposed Front 50 ’n/a 50 ’ Rear 50 ’n/a 50 ’ South Side 30*n/a 30* North Side 30*n/a 30* Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 18,279 s.f. (0.42 acre)Allowed: 2742 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2260 s.f. (12%) Hardcover Zone Total Area in 2^ne Allowed Hardcos'er Existing Hardcover Proposed Hai^covcr250-500 13,270 s.f.3981 s.f. (30%) 3825 s.f.* (29%) 3740 s.f. (28 %) 500-1000 5550 s.f.1942 s.f. (35«.o) 350 s.f.* (0.6%) 160 s.f (0.3 %) July 16,2003 Page 4 7. "The Board or Council may pcrmii as a variance the temporary’ use of a one-family dwlling as a tut)-family dwelling." N/A 8- "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The small lot size b not common In the 2 acre zone. The lot size in question is consbtent with neighboring properties In the opinion of staff this criterion b met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The neighborhood b a small lot neighborhood, which b zoned for larger. The lot sbe is typical for the neighborhood In the opinion of staff this criterion b met. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preser\ ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." In the opinion ofstaff this criterion b met. 1 1 . "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. Issues for Consideration I. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the variances as requested. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION lailial Applicalioa Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renew-al Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change firona original application) Variance for non-confonning structures S2SO.OO Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcatfoii g Dale Received /jp- Amount Paid «>o PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address____^ ^ o 't'o JO fc- ^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) O^//. _ , ______ Attach legal dcscnplion to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired S’ • O • I (do)____.‘also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property; ___presidential ___other (speciM Zoning District;____________________ _(month/ycar) APPLICANT Name Address*ilT'^tciJeK Ao.<g> OWNLR (i! different than applicant) Name Phone (home) (ptt. ^7V —;__ Phone (work) f City:,AA^t-^ Zip: gy-Vbl Address;City; Phone (home)_ __ Phone (work)_ Zip:.-. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __Estimated Construction Cost •< g. Ujb -»C X (anach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED . •. Lot Area X Lot Width Hardcover _Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side __Rear - Average Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSHIP.DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) ft y' LO fjcKltli A REQinRED SUBMITTALS I*"* 1‘nnllcallnn ,„ 2* ---- Completed Application Formcompleted Application Form pu. -p (,ou Govt Center, J48-5910). ^ County Department of Finance, A-603, Certificate of 5!nrv«K/ j t... ———- oua II Govt Center, J48-5910). ------------------ *uautc,/^-ouj, calculations as rcqSIed*’^^ addiUon*'^nrovfd hardcoverreproduction. ’ on® (1) copy SVi” x H" for 5. ---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation vi.v... LI."" "Production. Bfauc are proposed. In addiUon Drovide nn* n\ '----'-aanges in existk*.. ---- Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views Lovid?^ n\ * reproduction. _ List of the legal names (include marital staLs W ^ ^ ">• property. This would mclude name^sTof 7. ---- As an addenjlura to this applica^ pica,- ^ not cunent owner(s). you wsh noUfied of this application!^ ^ scpuaic list of any other persons Additional items as may be requested by City staff.8. The Applicant and Property Owner must siim ,w.. - i- • PppiMtipn h rpmnlr.r APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE bj- Ihe ZMii. Applicant’s Signature Date ^ * f6• OWNER'S SIGNATURE wuy onto ihc propeny”4'a" "gen"'Co^ teajonjble members for puTmses of invesligatiot. and verificalion of this”^^0“!°“ Owner's Signature ^7^—r » ~—------------— ------------------Date ^ f P • g ^~—-----------^^---------------Date w • f P • g 5 Meeting. PlamUng Co’^sion Me«U.g^?re° he'd on“fe S'm' Applicants must be present at all scheduled rethird Monday of each month. nice mg. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the S ilt Commission Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetingCouncil. If an applicant is u.nable to attend a scheduled ^ *^^“""lng Commission and have an authorised agent attend in your place and fo atfseT'^^^^ arrangements to change prior to the meeting. ° Building & 7.aing Office of this #Aw {O1 O ..b— .V,\' SmACXZaVb (CtOKUCNO 7M5»« ttrmmn ardmoaavKm mmot 4L Boo* •__________ >^»w f<rsz3 3^yr sji jj: 5.F. B. Came , .... *ST. C Drhewaf ...X ST.Ssf X ST. iX t !0. aieweOc I *m //O ST. X m. ■SF. £. MiAlwft .... *ST.«: wi X XF jr rasfteoDf X ST.iIjQ OndtritAji ... *B SF.Bffbide X B ST.gc OrtMrie —•^ Mg aOdier X -ST. TXrrAL BAKDCOyER INZOHE . nnXL iROfOOTAXEA D/ZaSE A ____________ + B xlGO - f^^OPOSSDMAltDCOVBKINZONR A. UMSt __________ B. Gmtt C Mwta^ D. SldtvaD: E. Paie/Dtek F. Larthcapt VnUrUun ByFtasrie Orfetric O. Other TOTAKBAXDOOVEXBflBONE • TOrSL PROFaaTASEAjNZONS J ____________ ♦ M xm - y ^Jeh<ju3 ^P.X^ S^. A /r>T7.yC) AF. %■ ST. S.F, ST. s SF. ST. ST. \S.F. SF. SF. SF. ST. ST. ST. _ST. A ______ST. _______% •V' / 2 jf: iil •**hn\t A. Borne mssns /W fSTSz 3 X X X A Garage C flriwiiwiy .S.F. D. SUeoedk _S.F. .AF. EL Earia/Dedt .5.F. .5.F. F. Icadtcape Undoidn ByFtade OrFabrie __S.F. .5.F. aOkter ___ total hardcover tNZONE - TOTAL PROPEKrrAEEA DtZOKE '* ________— + B xiOO - _J^F. W _______AF - .. g _£S^ZZ^Cj sf. B. Oaratt J^otf^rr^ C. Drteevay Ax.-r S.F. S.F. sf: J^^urity 4fyf^ - D. JltfMcfir 2<a _S.F. )0bO ^SJF. £. FaRemeek F. Lanixxg)e IkideHain ByFtaxite OrFebrIc 5.F. 5.F. .S.F, iF. S.F. O. Other TOTAL Hardcover in zone TOTAL ntOFEXTTAREA JN ZONE ^ _____________ + B x/00 - ______SS. A /32.TtC'i SF I ^ TOTAL PROFMXTTAREA DiZOSE A ______________ + B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZOSS A. Houtt ______________ X '3^ xlQO - UMli p. Oo.'Xi* C. Drtrt Jep D. SUnvEt E. Mo/Dedc F. Luvisvj^ Vnderlaln ByFlasrt: OrFctric O. OAer A SF. ~ % S.F. S^. "S.F. 5.F. _SS. S.F. [S.F. 5.F. ,S.F. .S.F. SF. 'SF. TOTAL OARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPEBITABEAJNZOtfE A ______________ ♦ B SlOO m .SF. •* A SS. % 7/Sy2JO? & Gantt C. Drtrtvucy D. 5UtmA £. Paie/Dedc F. Lcniizape Vnierlaitt By Plastic OrFebric X X X X X X X X X O. Oikar ,S.F. s.r. 'S.F. lQ/3 S.F. ^S.F. 5.F. _S.F. S.P. _S.F. .5.F. S.F. S^, TOTAL HAJtDCOVEJt IN ZONE - TOTAL tROPERTT AREA Of ZONE ^ ______________ ♦ S I 60 XJOO m __.SS. /'r 7/s'/zx>? A SJ. O i i f M (UIITUIJOOn rnOTAOM 29i TDNKAAVC OWliEXNAMC MiaiA£i.MSOMITZ TAXTAYU MICHAiU. M SOIMITC NAM&AOOR mTOraCAAVE LONGLAKiiMN iilH M 0311723140024 fROPADOR 2«S CRESTVICWAVB OWN£RNAM£ SAKORAJ KtCCUM TAXi*AYiA SANDRA J NICCUM NAMC/AOOR 2S3CR£5TV1BWAVU lONGLAKBMN 3S336 31 OSII723I4003I PJUWADOR 325 CRCSTVUjWAVE OWNER NAME WILUAM L SUU JVAN TAXPAYER WILUAJ4 SULUVAN NAMiyAOOR 1417 RECENT AVENf 105 UROOKLYNPARRMN 55443 30 05II723I40052 PROPAOOR 3390 OAYSJOERO OWNER NAME BARBARA X3AN74E KUDER TA3CPAYER BARBARA X3ANNE HUBER NAME/AOOR 3390 BAYSlOE RD LONGLAKEMN 55356 t-. • PKO*tKTY OWNERS UST 3« 0511723130029 i’KOTAUOR 31 ADDRESS UNASStCNEO ownu <name LSTUERMAODOON TAXfAYER ESTHER MAOOSON hAMOAOOR 33U OAYSIDE RD U3NCLAKEMN 55356 31 05II723I3M30 PROP ADOR 3400 UAYSIJL RD OWNER NAME DASES7LAS TAXPAYER DANUX A SANDRA ESTERS NAME/ADDR 3400 OAYSIDE KO U3NCLAKEMN 55356 31 0511723140025 PROPAODR 215 CRESTViEWAVE OWNER NAME SANDR/. J NCCUM TAXPAYER SANDRA J NKTUM NAME/ADDR 2t5 CRESTVIEW AVE LONGLAKEMN 55356 31 0511723140030 PROP ADOR 315 CKESTVJtWAVE OWNER NAME R A EODINGTON/T i EDDINGTON taxpayer ROBERT a IAMARA EDDINGTON NAME/ADDR M 5 CRESTVIEW AVE U3NG1AKEMN 55356 3S 0511723140033 PROP ADOR 3t ADDRESS UNASSICNEO OWNER NAME BERT L ADDISON ETAL TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAME/AODR 3312 UAYStOE RD LONGLAKEMN 55356 38 0511723140039 PROPADDR 340 TONKA AVE OWNER NAME PATRICK JSKI IE TATCTAVr!' PATRICK 3 SKUE NAML/ADDR 5710 NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 -jj 38 0511723140061 PROPADDR 280 TONKA AVE OWNERNAME PAAKSSKOOG taxpayer PHILIP a KAREN SKOOO NAMC/ADOR 280 tonka AVE LONGLAKEMN 55356 38 0511723140062 PROPADDR 330 TONKA AVE OWNERNAME BRUCE SINGER A LINDA SINGER TAXPAYER OKUCE SINGER A UNOA SINGER NAMI/AOOR 330 TONKA AVE LONGLAKEMN 55356 05 I CERTIFY THATTIE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND information as it appearstws date on tic records COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO -nit UtST /✓ OFMY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. . DATE^I^^ BY / • •, n2arMiA?u L M3-292I Jul>2l.2003 Page 1 ofi Date Appikalion Received: 6-18^3 Date Application Considered at Complete: 6-I8-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 8-17-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner ^ July 16,2003 1^03-2921, MacDonald & Mach Architects on behalf of Edward II. Hamm. Trustee, 485 Orono Orchard Road S • Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2-acrc niin.) 21.408 acre (932,549 s.f.) Application Summary: Hie applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an entrance gate. The entrance gate is considered an accessory building and because the lot is a through lot a conditional use permit is required. *1 he proposal meets all conditional use permit standards.__________ Sta/f Recommendation: Staff recommendation.s; I. Approval of the request subject to the location depicted on the surv ey. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.03.10: Conditional Use Permit Required. All accessory buildings on through lots located in **R** Districts shall require a conditional use permit. List of Exhibits A - Apjilication E - Photograph B - Applicar ’ Narrative F - Property Owners List C - E.xi ing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan G - Plat Map D - Pro|K)scd Plans and Elevations Background The property received a variance in April 2003 to allow two entrance gates to e.xcced the 3.5 foot height requirement required for all fences. At this time, the entrance gates were treated as fences not accessory' structures and therefore only a variance was required and approved by the Planning Commission. Planning department staff feels that the most accurate \v*ay, and the intent of the code, would be to treat this lot as a **through" lot and treat the monument entrance gates as Jul;2l.200J ragcJofi ConditioBal Use Permit Analysis For the mere fact that the subject property is a through lot, a conditional use permit b required to construct any accessory structure. The intent of the Zoning Ordinance is to ensure that the project is reviewed to protect sight-lines from roadways and neighboring properties. The only condition placed on the accessory structure is that it meets the front/rear setback requirement, which in this instance b 50’. The applicant has submitted a survey indie jting the location of the proposed entrance gate. It will be located SO’ from the edge of the easement dedicated for the priv'ate roadway, thus meeting conditional use permit requirements. The entrance gate will consist of brick and stone piers 12 ’ 7.5” in height with openwork metal gates 6* in height. An openwork metal decorative sign will extend between the two brick and stone piers. Because the entrance gates are being treated as an accessory structure, they are subject to the accessory building height requirements of Section 10.03.3b which is 30 ’ or at or below the height of the principle building. The proposed entrance gate meets this requirement. Issues for Consideration 1. Do the proposed gates meet the conditional use permit requirements? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the entrance gates subject to it meeting the 50’ setback requirement from the roadway easement. 0nhibi*i A AppUcatoD # (93- 1 Dale Received lg-lfr-03 Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address Orono Orchard Road South, Orono, Minnesota 55391 Type of Application to be Filed Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Structure Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 02-117-23-32-0001______________________ APPLICANT Stuart MacDonald Phone (home) 651.698.1845 _____ Name.__ MacDonald and Mack Architects, Ltd. Phone ork) 612.341.4051 Adlrcss Crain Exchange Building ^jiy Minneapolis , Mn ^in 5T4T5 400 South 4th Street OWNi R (if different than applicant) Phone (home) 952.473.3605_____ Name____Edward H. Hana, Trustee___________ Phone (work) 651.227.6675_____ Address ^83 Orono Orchard Road South City Prone, Mn Zip 55391 Date Property Acquired circa 1950s I>(dc) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - _____S 75.00 For each variance req cst with CUP application X S250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____S250.00 Guest Housc/Gucst Apartments _____S250.00 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg _____S325.00 Commercial/Induslrial 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 lakeshorc _____PRD/TID - see Fee Schedule _____SI50.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) _____Aficr-thc-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee (month/ycar) 01 HER APPLICATIONS _____S275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____S3 jO.OO \ acation _____S250.00 Easement Vacation _____SI00.00 Easement N'acatior. With Subdivision _____S350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____S375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____SI00.00 Appeals _____Other - see Fee Schedule t 'M. ft V A fWirl.v;:: required submittals I' Completed Application Form. * Continuation Sheetcertified Pronertv Owners i lei «r ___..... 5. 6. “ r'.w-r J i>ee Continuation Sheet _ Certified Property Owners List of oumers within 350’ a , must obtain this list, labels and map from Hcn^L r« - A-603, Government Center, 348-3271) ^ Department of Finance, ■ • refer .0 h„.dou, for suncy changes in elevation (grades). ^ ntours) if land alterations involve Only Hr. Hanm property. Thif would7ndudc'"nLn"(sTofS^ 'h' 8. Ccnslruclion plan, if .pp«eab,e persons ^u'«is7no«n'id '«> »f »"y other for Tir? ^ «« copy ■» «<-in*s‘-o"f"i,,rn.t^ts'; application •^"o"1.mZTf rte^birinfo™^ «">«"8er that >»or STf CIe^ca?stff' « compiete. '----------------------------------------Date___ APPLICA^T'S SIGNATURE " ~lips s r.;: art s""«‘r .H. and/or unusual c.xpcnses incurred in review of this apnlicitlon ®"Smal fee pa>Tucnij supplied IS true and correct to the best of hillier kno\^cd|e ’ *hc information Date 17 June 2003 supplied is true arid correct Applicant’s signatun OW-NTR’S SIGNATURE entry onto the property by Chy rtaff7o7ihants Ti’imrcor''’ reasonable members for p„n,oses of investigation and verification of this"T«,'°" ““ Owner's signature Date ennenirtton Mrc.^, s3“Bnddu., 4 Zonie, Office of this eluage prior » di^^'rSg ‘"'“i b y« pUe. .„d .ri^rdt* .‘'.iv • ?<1 V<..a-1- gjibi bi*+ e CITY of ORONO ❖CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPUCATION for an ACCESSORY STRUCTURE on a THROUGH LOT 485 Orono Orchard Road South, Orono, Minnesota 55391 Continuation Sheet Description of Request: The proposal is to add a gate to the private driveway at the west side of the property. The west side property line centers on a private road with an 8-foot easement. TTie new gate would be situated beyond the 50-foot setback from the easement. The gate would consist of brick and stone piers, openwork metal gates, and a decorative, openwork metal sign. Dimensions and details arc included in the following accompanying drawings: Site Survey AI Site Plan A2R Plan & Elevations A3 Masonry Details A4 Masonry Details A5R Metal Gate Details A6 Metal Sign Details SI Structural //■// * V rr:‘; r- ¥ i- 9>m MxOeaald AMKk s::ax ^. Ml U-wl Himn rifMiMlUl £*-<rU-- C" D 0 & fiI sr-i. rirMMi IM M« U«n4 IUm PLEASANT HIU GATE-REVISED Scales IW-r-O- r^i kSJ o A2R I * MJcDonald AMxk Aitkiaca^im SiC nouMHiU to Mr Edward O PLEASANT HILL GATE - SIDE IA ELEVATION @A4 yduici 3/4*-r-O' ,_ s—— * k i?•* 't#•, V t- f •• ■J if -f •V '.V f •* ■f if f O- PLEASANT MILL GATE - END 2 A ELEVATION A4 y Scale 3/4*-1 •-0* ♦——» 4'- -_-df f * M O om U AMjck AKiMni&in nrj rittiMUta kif rj«w4 lUam b wmmm vH ---- 'M :<lo m3-z:. rijt dr-A ncataalUl to Mr E4«ird o PLEASANT HILL GATE-REVISED Sejie: r-t^ “ #9;- j 1 A5R hili iiAfei r /TN PLEASANT HILL GATE SIGN M. 0 1 V) ~r-i •16M6" COLUMN 8 - #G VERTS 13 TIES O 12‘ o/c ,2-0**, AS REO’D^ *5*-0" MIN PLAN VIEW II — 36"*12" FTC ^ ^ 15 O 12* o/c EA WAY TOP AND BOTTOM 5-0" MIN PIER ELEVATION 3/8"- 1*-0" CONNECTION TO CATE ASSEMBLY TO BE DETERMINED DETAIL 3*- l*-0" WT 4x15 5 « 0'-8* 4 - 1/2* 01 AM EXP ANCHORS TO COL. Pier ond (oundotions shown ore for both , _ entry gate ond the "Pheosont" gate. Foundation dimensions sholl be adjusted to provide o minimum of 6* projection beyond edge of mosonry surround. Foundoton ond pier dimensions shell not be less thon the minimum dimensions shown on thisliilv drawing. L >■ iiii II rmri ■y-y *':'^// .4 “■ A L->.^ w'#sii’S- •IVA', nr n KL..UA1L.U' 31 02U723330006 PROP AODR 3t7 ORONO OROIARD RO S OWNliRNAME DDAK M MACMILLAN TAXPAYER DAVID D MACMILLAN NAME/ADDR PO BOX 5«l MPLSMN 35440-3621 3t 0211723240006 PROP AODR 360 ORONO ORCHARD RO S OWNER NAME SAHOSOORN TAXPAYER STEELE 0 OSBORN NAME/ADOR 360 ORONO OROIARD RD WAYZATAMN 33391 3S 0211723310007 PROP ADOR 3t ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME ROGER J IIAWKiNSON TAXPAYER ROGER J I lAWXINSON NAME/ADOR 570 ORONO ORCt lARD RO WAYZATAMN 33391 31 02II7233I00I0 PROP AODR 1390 POX ST OWNER NAME JONATHAN D A GRETA M WITOIER TAXPAYER JONATHAN A GRETA WITCHER NAME/ADDR 1390 POX ST WAYZATAMN 35391 31 0211723310049 PROP ADDR 500 OROSO ORCHARD RO S OWNERNAME SSAJEWEBSTER TAXPAYER 5TEVENS A JO ELLEN WEBSTER NAME/ADOR 500 ORONO ORaiAROROS 'WAYZATAMN 53391 i3S 0211723320003 PROP AODR 1340 FOX ST OWNERNAME JANOIANAJANOLAN TAXPAYER JOHN A NOLAN A JOAN A NOLAN NAME/ADDR 1540 POX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 llLM.LllNCOi:m’M;01 ‘F 1'KOl ‘LKTYOW infoi‘:.:ai;un 0YSIL4M S LIST PALL: I 3S 0211723230007 PROP ADOR l3«0rOXST OWNI.KNAME W MACMILLAN ETALTRUSTEES TAXPAYER WHITNEY MACMILLAN NAMIVADOR PO BOX 3621 MPLSMN 33440 3t 0211723310003 PROP ADDR 340 ORONO OROIARD RO S OWNERNAME SANDRASLARSON TA3CPAYER SANDRA S LARSON NAME/ADUR PO BOX 546 WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0211723310008 PROP AODR 38 ADDRESS UNASSK3NED OWNERNAME ROGER J HAWKINSON TAXPAYER ROGER J HAWKINSON NAM L/ADDR 570 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATAMN 33391 38 02II7233I00II PROP ADDR 570 ORONO ORCHARD RD S OWNERNAME ROGER J HAWKINSON TAXPAYER ROGER J IIAWKINSON NAME/ADUR 570 ORONO OROIARD RD S WAYZATAMN 55391 38 02II72332000I PROP ADDR 483 ORONO OROIARD RD S OWNERNAME EDWARD II HAMM TRUSTEE TAXPAYER EDWARD II HAMM NAME/ADDR 408 ST PETER ST #434 ST PAUL MN 33102 38 0211723320006 PROP ADDR 1360 POX ST OWNERNAME W MACMILLAN ETAL TRUSTEES TAXPAYER WHITNEY MACMILLAN NAME/ADDR PO BOX 5628 MPLSMN 35440 38 0211723230001 PROP ADDR 3* ADDRLSS UNASSICNCD OWNERNAME LONCRI DOC ASSOC TAXPAYER LONCRIDGE ASSOC NAME/ADDR C/0 ROBERT J T1 IDLER PODOX 3628 MPLSMN 33440-3628 38 0211723310006 PROP ADOR 550 ORONO ORCHARD RD S OWNERNAME PAULETTE PICKARD STWJRMANS TAXPAYER PAULETTE PICKARD STUURMANS NAME/ADDR 550 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATAMN 35391 38 0211723310009 PROP ADDR 1380 rOXST OWNERNAME HERBERTDMEYER TAXPAYER HERBERT D MEYER NAME/ADDR 1 3«0 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 35391 38 0211723310047 PROP ADDR 450 ORONO OROIARD RDS OWNER N/UME KEVIN GARNETT TAXPAYER KEVIN GARNETT NAME/ADDR 601 CARLSON PKWY Ml 3 MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 02!1723320002 PROP ADOR 1320 FOX ST OWNERNAME E J CONUN A J D CONUN TAXPAYER EDWARD J CONUN NAME/ADDR 1520 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 35391 38 0211723320007 PROP ADOR 1570 POX ST OWNERNAME JDPENICKARCKURTH TAXPAYER JAYNE DORSET PENKX NAME/ADDR RANDY CKURTH 1370 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 53391 V VfI ll(MDiATL.6/a^ 31 0211723330001 PROPACm 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME W MACMtLLAN ET AL TRUSTEES TAXPAYER WHITTfEV MACMILLAN NAME/AODR PODOX3A2I MPLSMN 33440 31 0211723330010 PROP ADDR 1410 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME A HARRISON AIL lURRlSON TAXPAYER ALFRED A INGRID L HARRISON MAMfi/AOOR MIOSHORELINE OR WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0211723340006 PROP ADDA 1393 ORONO LA OWNER NAME NORWESTBKMPLS-NTLASCTRST TAXPAYER M THOMAS NAME/AODR 1393 ORONO lA WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0211723340012 PROP ADDR 1310 ORONO LA OWNER NAME DAMJOHNSON taxpayer DOUGLAS D X3HNSON NAME/ADOR 4194 CENTER BOARD LA S B STUART FL 34997-6176 31 02II7234I0009 FROf ADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWERNAME HENNEPIN00REGX3NALRRAUT1I taxpayer HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH NAME/ADOR 4l7STHSTNt320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 33401 IIENNOMN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPliRTYOWNLKS LIST PACE: 2 31 0211723330001 PROP ADDR l4t3FOXST OWNER NAME W P HENNEMAN A A B HENNEMAN TAXPAYER W P HENNEMAN A A U IILHNEMAN NAME/ADDR I4S3FOXST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0211723330011 PROP ADDR 1401 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE taxpayer EDWARD H HAMM NAME/ADDR 40ISTP..rERSTM34 ST PAUL MN 55102 31 0211723340007 PROP ADDR 1397 ORONO LA OWNER NAME DANA M WELLS TAXPAYER DANA M WELLS NAME/ADDR 1397 ORONO LA WAYZATAMN 53391 31 0211723340016 PROP ADDR I3S3 FOX ST OWNER NAME J DIANN OOETTEN TAXPAYER I DIANN OOETTEN NAME/AODR I3B3POXST WAYZATAMN 33391 31 0311723410004 PROP ADDR 1620 POX ST OWNER NAME THE WAKEFIELD ORONO PTNRS HP TAXPAYER THE WAKEFIELD ORONO PTKRSHP NAME/AODR CA) ROBERT! THEILER POBOX362I MPLSMN 33440 1*1^ 31 0211723330002 PROP ADDR 1465 FOX ST OWNER NAME K A BIRKELANIVC A DIRKELAND taxpayer KAARE a CYNDIIA BIKKELAND NAME/ADDR 1465 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 34 0211723330013 PROP ADDR 31 address UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH TAXPAYER ALFRED HARRISON NAMF/ADDR 1410 SHORELINE DR WAY/^TAMN 33391 34 0211723340001 PROP ADDR 1399 ORONO LA OWNER NAME KEVIN RKOKESH taxpayer KEVIN R KOKESH NAME/ADDR 1399 ORONO U WAYZATAMN 33391 34 0211723340019 PROP ADDR 1391 FOX ST OWNER NAME PATRICK J MCNAUGHTON ETAL taxpayer PATRICK J MCNAUGHTON NAME/ADOR 236 GIRARD A VE N MPLSMN 35405 C'! C . C: ■ ■' .I 34 0211723340014 PROP ADDR 34 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH NAME/ADOR 417 3THSTNR320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 33401 RUNOAll::* 1 iiENNUiMr. ^ lumv i*no!’r tvFo’ mat ion :> vsriuyi FROI*EinYo\\ jOiLISr rACE ) I CERTIFY TIUTTIC FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATIONOI INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATEONTHE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TA»*A YER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO TI IE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. ^ -----> ^ yyy y DATE by (■!> Appllcatloii Received: 4/18/03 Application Complete: 5/7/03 Initial 60 Day Deadline: 7/7/03 Ettended Deadline: 9H/03 Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Mike GafTron. Planning Director July 17.2003 #03-2893 John & Roberta Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road • Variances Revised Proposal • Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB One Family Lakeshore Residential Distnet (1 acre) Lot Area: 28.648 s f. (0 66 acre) Application Summary: The applicants propose to remove the existing house and construct a new house on the property. This application was review ed at the May Planning Commission meeting; Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variances for lot w idth, average setback and accessory structure without a principal structure during construction; and voted 5-0 to table at applicant ’s request to allow him to work with City staff to find way-s to reduce hardcover on the property to nearer the 25®/o limit. A revised site plan has been submitted which substantially reduces hardcover in the 75-250' zone from the existing 37.I®/o to just over 28®/o. Stajf Recommendation: Staff recommends: 1. Approval of the average setback variance for the revised location, finding no impacts to lake views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. 2. Approval of the revised hardcover plan for 2S®^ hardcover in the 75-250’ zone, if Planning Commission can make a hardship distinction between this proposal and other total rebuilds that have been held to the 25®/o limit. Approve proposal to make no changes to 0-75’ zone hardcover. 3. Approval of the 4' encroachment of the house into the 30’ bluff setb.ack. Note that only a small protrusion of the house will encroach the bluff setback 4. Planning Commission should advise applicant whether replacement of the deck in kind w ithin the bluff setback would be looked upon favorably. List of Exhibits A - Revised site plan and removals, and revised Hardcover calculation sheets B • May 19 PC Minutes C - Notice of Platuiing Commission Action 5-28-03 D • Memo and Exhibits of May 15.2003 Review of Revised Site Plan Applicant has worked with Building Inspector Bruce Vang to devise a revised site plan that reconfigures the driveway access to the site. M uch of the excess hardcover on the property is related to the ItKation and elevation of the existing garage, which is relatively new and which applicant docs not plan to remove. The new site plan in Exhibit A results in a 20’ eastward relocation of the driveway access point onto Highwood Road, allowing for removal of a major portion of the existing dr: veway while maintaining a functional access to the garage and house, and retaining usable parking area. •03-:90i 4trfiith«ioodRMii J«ly I7.200J P»Ce2 M noted in May, the house footprint will increase from 1219 to 1635 s.f Structural coverage including the garage, house and shed will only be 8.3% where 15% is allowed. Bluff SglbfttK- The revised site plan has an alternate version that moves the house about 4* closer to the lake than proposed in May. This proposal w ould allow for additional green space betw een the house and the dnveway. However, this also results in a 4* encroachment of the ^0* bluff setback M the existing house is at a 32* bluffsctback and the initial proposal just met the 30* requirement (sci Exhibit G-2 of May 15 memo). The existing deck encroaches within T of the top of bluff, and is proposed to remain in place. If the listing deck remains m place, it has a legal nonconforming status in egard io the bluffsctback as It was constructed in 1990, prior to the 1992 adoption of bluff ordinances as part of the Shorel^lnd ordinance. If it is replaced, it will require a variance to the required 30* top-of-bluff setback requirement for structures. ^:cragc Sclbqgk- Planning Commission recommended approval of the average setback for the house location proposed in May. The revised location 4* closer to the lake still has virtually no home? topography and the orientation of those neighboring EaiSl im 9-7?’ Ammilitv Existing I.taining walls, concrcie or flagstone walkwa>-s and stairways in the 0-75 zone are in good condition and no changes arc proposed. 'I hc 0-7^* zone also wntains an 8*xl2* shed and an area of landscape timbers surrounding planting beds near the shore The existing 0-75* landscaping has been developed for many years and is a unique feature of this property that applicant would prefer to not disturb. Total 0-75* hardcover exists at 6.5%. Planning Commission and applicant discussed the potential for 0-75* hardcover removals at the May meeting. Proposed hardcover in the 75-250*zone has been significantly reduced from the existing level of 6. 80 s.f or 37.1 % to 4,630 s.f or 27.8 %. (28.2% if the bluff setback is not allowred. M deck will then not be reduced). The applicant included in his initial letter of request a hardships that support the variance request. These factors included the ability to park numerous vehicles offof Hiihw ood Road which is very narrow and has only minimal ability for on-street parking. The revised site plan still accomplishes these goals at a much reduced level of hardcover. Staff believes the new plan is very reasonable given the stated hardships and the fact that the existing garage will remain on the site. REVISED SITE PLAN ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot AreaAt Mth; LR.IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f (1 acre)140* Actual 28,648 s.f (0.66 acre)150*-157 MJ-2901 4125 Hifhwo^ Road July 17.2003 rattJ Structural Coverage ; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 28,648 s.f Allowed: 4,342 s.f (15%) Proposed: 2.370 s.f ± (8.3%) Hardcover Calculatloni : Distance from shoreline 0-75* 75-250 ’ Total area in setback 11,993 s.f. 16,655 s.f. Allowed hardcover Os.f (0%) 4.164 s.f (25%) Existing hardcover 779 s.f (6.5 %) 6.180* s.f (37.1 %)• Proposed hardcover 779 s.f (6.5 %) 4,630 s.f (27.8ro)** • AOer exclusion of fabric or plastic-Iincd landscape beds ••4,690 s.f or 28.2% if 4' bluff encroachment is denied Issues for Consideration 1.Applicant has provided a plan that addresses the Planning Commission recommendation to remove as much hardcover as possible to get closer to the 25% standard. Is the proposed plan acceptable to the Planning Commission? Do the staled hardships support the granting of the decreased hardcover \ ariance as now proposed? 2.WTiat hardship supports the granting of a variance to encroach 4' into the required 30 ’ bluff setback? Does the resultant slight decrease in deck hardcover offset any visual impacts caused by encroachment toward the bluff? 3.If the hardcover variance is approved, will Planning Commission be able to distinguish the unique aspects of this application from similar requests for rebuilds on simitar sized lots? Docs the mature landscaping of the site and the retention of the existing garage support the idea that this is not a ‘complete* site rebuild as compared to other situations where a site is completely redeveloped? Docs Plarming Commission have any concerns regarding replacement of the deck in kind or in any manner that encroaches within 30 ’ of the top of the bluff, if applicant chooses to replace the deck in kind? it3.2*0l 4l25Hlth««o«dRMd Jal)rl7.20«J Nfc4 Stair Recommendatiini Note that Planning Commission has already taken action on ‘he lot width variance and the ‘accessory structure w/o principal structure during construction ’ variances. The revised house location need to be reconsidered m terms of its encroachment on the average lakeshore setback and bluff setback. Staff makes the following recommendations: 1. 4. Approval of the average setback variance for the revised location, finding no impacts to take views enjoyed by neighboring property owners. Approval of the revised hardcover plan for 28% hardcover in the 75-250‘ zone, if Planning Commission can make a hardship distinction between this proposal and other total rebuilds that have been held to the 25% limit. Approve proposal to make no changes to 0-75‘ zone hardcover. Approval of the 4 ’ encroachment of the house into the 30* bluff setback. Note that only a small protrusion of the house will encroach the bluff setback. Planning Commission should advise applicant whether replacement of the deck in kind within the bluff setback would be looked upon favorably. si *^v • • • . 4-’-.. f^owcTpoi l:. ^ /?o^^ <1 nA ^ \-.SV j:fl%';\curjKR^ ■ ; ''if « «"¥S'(w POW€R ON RHAININO WA ERJT COR^a HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET DRIVEWAY EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET DRIVEWAY PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE 2fi X 1S< X 55 15 4-3 A 1L59 X 15 X 1 m 195 S.F. B 6.66 X 15 X QA e S.F. C 21 X 55 X QA m 165 S.F. D 51 X HJS X 1 m 1256 8.F. E lA^X 25 X 5^u Iffil S.F. F 51 X X 1 B 92Z S.F. 0 1AJ2 X 19^X 1 ■195 S.F. H 15JZ X 2LZ5 X 6.5 a in S.F. 3346 SF. 1155 IfiQ 1636 HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET Sidswsiks EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE 21 2A 4J ifi i IS 2JS 2^ 8 2AZ 8 fiQ S 88 S 22 8.F 8.F 8.F. 8.F. 8.F. 8.F. HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET Sidtwalks PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE 8 21 8 8 88 2 3 X X X X X X X X IS X 1 a 8 8.F. Z5.X 1 m 88 8.F. 3^X 1 m 8 8.F. 8 X 1 ■8 8.F. 2JtZ X 1 ■8 8.F. fi X 1 ■8 8.F. fl X 1 B S1X1812 M 8.F. L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. B (M6 «>03-2890 MEADWOOD, INC. ON BEHALF OF MARK CREE, Continued) Mabusth stated that the City needs to involve many more levels in order to begin discussions and make rcconunendations for a new product such as this system. GafTron maintained that what exists currently on the site is 32% hardcover versus the original approvals for approximately 27% hardcover several years ago. He believed the applicants would need to answxr many questions before the City would consider their new application. Rahn stated that the original approvals allowed 25% hardcover, whereas, many things have continued to be built since that time. He pointed out that there w’ere far too many issues with the application other than just the penneability issue Mr. Swanson wished to discuss. There were no public comments. If staff expresses an interest. Chair Smith indicated that time needs to be spent in a work study to analyze the potential of the product. Gaffron suggested llic Commission leave the hardcover issue with the applicants and staff to pursue, and indicated that it would take some effort to understand how’ and where the permeable paver system has been used successfully. Given the condition of staff, GafTron acknowledged that an evaluation of the product would not even be on any radar screen for priorities. While he believed the City should consider the merits of products like this, Gaffron cautioned the Commission from labeling it non-hardcover due to the precedent this would set. While Gaflron indicated that he would be happy to work with Mr. Swanson over the long term, the ^plication would likely be tabled this evening due to the concerns inherent in the application. Hawn moved, Zugscbwerl seconded, recommending Application K03-2890, Mcadowood, Inc., Mark and Nanc>- Cree, 3120 North Shore Drive, a request for a hardcover variance in the 75*-2S0’ zone be tabled for more information, and that the presence of the applicant or their representative is requested for further consideration. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (H7) 1103-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICII, 4125 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, 10:35-11:17 P.M. John and Roberta Henrich, the applicants, were present. Gaflron explained that the applicants proposed to remove the existing house and construct a new house on the property. The lot is located in the LR-IB zoning district requiring a PAGE 23 of 39 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o'clock p,m. (#7 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued)------------------- cwsling detach^ garage will remain, requiring a variance to allow an acc^r>' structure W™*.n«tely W from (he lAeshore m«u the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for new Gaffen contmued that the existing detached garege is less than 20 years old and of »“>tuon. It contains a storage area below which liu well with the topography hardship can be demonstrated. He pointed die 15 “ ‘*PP™*“"alely 2370 s.f. or 8.3 ?4, well within With regard to bluff impacts, Oaffron reported that if the existing deck remains in place, it nri^r a* '?i!f*re ‘* ‘J* hluff setback, as it was constructed in ? •1?’^ »f op'ton of bluff ordinances as part of the Shoreland ordinance. If f«sSj^. '®l«>f-W “fra‘rt>ack requirement & JSf,"T« S '"creasing in size from about 1240 $.f. to 1600 s.f. and the house w no^cessive for the lot, the ancillary hardcover is the primaiv issue for « stafT, opinion that a site plM^dd be developed on this property 1%-ithout the need for a hardcover variance. However, that would require substantial changes to the character of the lot, and would potentially result in less olT-street parking availability. PAGE 24 of 39 / MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. May 19.2003 6:00 o’clock pjn. (#7 #03>2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICTI, Contiancd) Gaf&on relayed staff recommendations, as follows: • Approval of the variances for lot area based on the fact the lot is developed as a single family dwelling, has been provided sanitary sewer service and it would not be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot. • Approval of the average setback and accessory structure variances as described al^ve. Determine whether the deck will remain in place or whether a variance to top-of-bluff setback would be allowed for its replacement. • It would be most consistent with City actions over the past 3*4 years to deny the variance for exceeding 25% hardcover in the 75-250* zone for new construction. In order to approve the request. Planning Commission must make findings about the unique aspects of this property that rise to the level of a hardship to the property. Mr. Henrich pointed out that their structure was quite modest at merely 8% coverage and that they had built the garage in its current location in an effort to maintain the unique landscaping aspects of the property, including the grove of lilacs. He maintained that the access was designed in its current configuration based on City recommendations and numerous discussions. He stated that one of their hardships was exiting the driveway safely in the winter due to the grades. In addition, he noted that it w ould take a pretty significant amount of reworking and a great deal of money to make enormous changes to the lot and its character to accommodate the requirements. GafBon concurred that it would take a great deal of substantial changes to make the property conform, which in turn would change the entire character of the property. \Miile they looked into remodeling, Henrich acknowledged that the home was 80 years old and in need of total repair. They had decided to rebuild and felt their hardships justified their application. Although cost was not an acceptable hardship alone, H»w-n agreed that the property w’as steep and that it would be very expensive to change t? Mrs. Hennch stated that they had made attempts to rc . k the garage in the design phase only to be confronted w ith new drainage issues. Henrich stated that he would be hesitant to remove, or lose, his relatively new and serviceable garage in order to construct his home. He was given a variance and built the garage in 1990 and felt removing the garage would have little impact on the placement of the house. PAGE 25 of 39 / minutes OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#7 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, ConUnued) Rahn slated that the Commission would ask the applicant to remove the old shed in the 0- 75' setback and replace it with a lockbox. Hoinch stated that he believed the steep grade provided them with adequate hardship to also keep the shed. Hawn concurred with Rahn regarding the shed. While Gaffron stated that, if money was not an issue, someone could change the grade, the access, and the entire character of the property to make the design conforming, he questioned whether that should be the goal of the Commission. He added that parking is an issue for residents along Highwood and the added space they have serves a use to the neighborhood. Chair Smith questioned whether the necessary changes to make it conforming would require exorbitant amounts of fill. Gaffron indicated that it would require a lot of fill to change the properly, wliich. in turn, could create drainage issues. Bremer questioned how cutting the size of the home down to meet requirements would work. At merely 1600 s.f., Henrich maintained that cutting the house down an extra 100-200 s.f. would not impact hardcover significantly, but would impact their livability. While he did not feel the size of the home to be an issue, Rahn felt that other removals were warranted. He suggested that they remove the shed, design a smaller deck, and remove some of the driveway hardcover. He agreed that the topography of the property presented a hardship. While she concurred, Bremer staled that they would need to be clear that it was the steep elevations that presented the hardship, unlike the Toth’s whose project warranted a basic redesign. Rahn stated that, short of regrading the entire topography of the site, they could not redesign the application. Hawm encouraged the applicants to find additional hardcover removals. PAGE 26 of 39 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, May 19,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#7 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, Continued) Chair Smith indicated that she felt there was significant hardship to support the variance request and would be comfortable allowing the applicant to work with stafTto find additional removals to get closer to 25%. Bremer deferred to staff to work with the applicant to find additional removals, while maintaining safe access for the applicant. Henrich indicated that he would be happy to work with staff to find some additional removals. Mabusth concurred, sUting that, in her opinion, there were sufficient or definite hardships to the land to recommend iq)proval of this application. Bremer moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03- 2893, John and Roberta Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road, granting lot width, average lakesbore setback variances, and a variance to allow an accessory structure without a principal structure during construction on the propert}*; VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Bremer moved, Zugschwert seconded, to table the variance for hardcover in the 75*- 250* setback zone for the purpose of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (#8) #03-2894 DOUGLAS AND ROBAN SMITH, 4195 HIGHWOOD ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE, 11:17-11:25 P.M. Mr. Smith, the applicant,. as present. Mabusth c.xp1ained that the applicant was requesting the following variances to permit replacement of existing retaining walls and stairs within 75’ of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka: 1. 524 s.f. (4.6%) hardcover within the 0-75’ setback zone where none is permitted; 2. grading, filling and excavating of more than 10 cubic yards within 75’ of the OHWL where no more than 10 cubic yards is permitted; and 3. placing fill in a bluff impact zone where no fill is permitted. Mabusth noted that the City Engineer had requested additional information with regard to: 1. A detailed plan and profile design, including sections on either side of tlie stairway and profile showing how plantings will screen the hardcover from the lakeside; 2. Calculations of the necessary amount of excavation and fill for the piojcct; and 3. A detailed erosion and sediment control plan. PAGE 27 of 39 C2 CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parknay P.O. Box 66 Co'stal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING HLE: #03-2893 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 28, 2003 TO: John & Roberta Hcnrich 4125 Highwood Road Orono, MN 55364 TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances COPIES: DATE OF MEETING: May 19, 2003 Planning Commission recommended as follows: Motion 1: Approval of variances for lot width, average lakcshorc setback and accessory structure w7o principal structure during construction. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAISST Motion 2: Table the hardcover variance to allowr applicant to redesign with the intent of reducing hardcover to result in a plan closer to the 25% standard. VOTE: 5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commissioners did indicate they felt that the site does present certain hardships which would support some degree of hardcover variance. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission • Monday, June 16, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, lhc>' are available from the City Recorder aAcr review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 612-249-4600. Y AppUcaUen Received: 4/18/03 Application Complete: S/7/03 M Day Deadline: 7H/03 FROM; DATE: SUBJECT: Chair Smith and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike GafTron, Planning Directory^^A^L^ May 15.2003 ' i/03-2893 John & Roberta Henhch 4125 Highuiood Road Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre) Lot Area: 28,648 s.f. (0.66 acre) Application Summary: The applicants propose to remove the existing house and construct a new house on the property. The lot is located in the LK-1B zoning district requiring a minimum lot size of one acre and a lot width oF 140' - ; -cd at the lakeshore and at the 75’ setback. They arc requesting variances to permit*on on an undersized lot (0.66 acre) having a conforming lot width of 150'-157’, An a. lakeshore setback vanance is requested for an encroachment of approximately 8’ by the proposed house. The existing detached garage will remain, requiring a variance to allow an accessory structure without a principal structure during the construction period. Also requested is a hardcover variance for the 75-250' zone to allow 37.71% where only 25% is normally allowed. List of Exhibits A Application B Letter of Request, Neighbor Comments C Sur\ ey/Proposed Site Plan D Hardcover Calculation Worksheets E Hardcover Map F Elevation Views/Floor Plans G Plat Map H Property Owners List 1 Site Photos J Resolution No. 2858(1990 hardcover variance) Pertinent Code Sections I. Section 10.24, Subdsision 5 (B): Required lot area: 1.0 acre Lot area; 0.54 acre •03-2901 4l2SlllsbM00dRMd May IS, 2003 Page 2 Section 10.22 Subd. 2 and Section 10.56, Subd. I6(L): Hardcover limitations: Allowed Existing Proposed 0-75 ’ 0% 6.5 %• 6.5% 75-250* 25% 37.1%* 37.71% • AAcr exclusion of fabric or plasiic-hned landscape beds Section 10.56 Subdivision 16(C)(6), variance to permit an 8* encroachment of the average lakeshore setback Section 10.03, Subd. 9(A), variance to allow an accessor}’ structure (e.xisting detached garage) without a principal structure during the construction period. Existing Conditions The lot currently contains an existing residence structure which the owner wishes to replace, and a detached garage which is proposed to remain. BLuHIiTlpatt Zpitq. The site has steep slopes, and although a formal bluff anal>’sis has not been completed, the easterly 2/3 of the 0-75* zone appears to meet the criteria for a bluff, having an average slope of 32-34% from the shoreline to the 956*-958* contour, above which the slope reduces to no more than 18%. Both the existing house and proposed house arc outside of the bluff impact zone as defined by the 956-958* contours moving east to west, and just meet the top-of-bluff 30* setback requirement. However, the existing deck which is proposed to either remain in place or be reconstructed, is within 1-2* of the top of bluff at its southeast comer. ExjsljPR 0-75* Zdne Amcnitic?. Existing retaining walls, concrete or flagstone walkwax-s and stairwa>’s in tlic 0-75* zone arc in good condition and no changes arc proposed. The 0-75* zone also contains an 8’x 12* shed and an area of landscape timbers surrounding planting beds near the shore The existing 0-75* landscaping has been developed for many years and is a unique feature of this properly that applicant would prefer to not disturb. There also is a stone lined pond area cast of the house in the 0-75* zone which is underlaid with landscape fabric. This area is not proposed to be changed but the fabnc liner must be rcmoveil according to City requirements (Resolution No. 4006). DfiVgw^v-? and Slip Acccs?. Another unique characteristic of the properly is the drix eway access which IS a circuitous route from Highwood Road to the detached garage, and includes a large paved area for parking and maneuvering, plus retaining walls that accomplish the necessary grade change WTiilc this area could likely be totally reworked to result in a more cflicicnt access and reduced hardcover, applicant again notes that this would change the entire character of the propem-. Minor revisions to the paved areas are proposed in an attempt to reduce hardcover in the 75-250* zone •0M90I 4I2S HighitMd RMd Mty IS, 2M3 ragt3 Ceacral ConformiK* to Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan The site plan centers the new house within the 7S>2S0* zone, meeting all required lot line setbacks but encroaching slightlypast the average setback. The ne>%* house uill encroach only 2-3 ’ further past the average setback line than the existing house, and uill have insignificant impact on neighboring views of the lake. The house location approximately 107 from the lakeshore meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for ne>%' structures. The existing detached garage is less than 20 >ears old and is in good condition. It contains a storage area below which fits w ell with the topography of the site. The primary concern is the hardcover variance request. The Planning Commission and Council have been fairly consistent in denying hardcover variances for new construction unless a distinct hardship can be demonstrated. Structural coverage (excluding decks which are currently not above C iis proposed at approximately 2370 s.f. or 8.3 %, well within the IS % limitation. Lot Area This record lot consists of 3 combined platted lots. The lots were originally platted prior to current zoning standards, and developed lots in the neighborln^od typically consist of 1 lot, in a few cases 2 or 3 lots combined. This is one of the larger properties in the neighborhood. The site has contained a single family home for many years. The substandard lot area is inherent to the property. No adjoining land is available to make the lot larger. While the substandard lot area somewhat limits the re-use of the property for construction of a replacement home, a replacement home could be constructed that meets all other zoning code standards, hence the area variance should be granted. Averase Setback The proposed replacement home is in approximately the same location as the existing house, with a very minor additional average setback encroachment of 3-4* past the existing house. This w ill have virtually no impact on neighboring view's of the lake due to the orientation of the adjoining house to the west and the topography. The average setback variance should be granted. Accessory Stractare WKhonl Principal Structure During the period between demolition of the existing home and completion of the new home, the detached garage will technically have the status of an accessory* structure without a principal structure, not in compliance with Section 10.03, Subd. 9(A). This v'ariance should be granted, subject to removal of the detached garage if a principal structure is not commenced in a timely manner after demolition of the existing house. V03.2MI 4l25Hith»MdlUMl May IS.200J fatc4 BlMfrimpacti If ihe existing deck remains in place, it has a legal nonconforming status in regard to the bluff setback, as it was constructed in 1990, prior to the 1992 adoption of bluff ordinances as part of the Shoreland ordinance. If it is replaced, it will require a variance to the required 3(r top-of-bluff setback requirement for structures. Hardcover Varianeg Proposed hardcover in the 75-250' zone is 6.280 s.f. or 37.71 %. The applicant has included in his letter of request a number of factors which he believes arc hardships that support the variance request. These factors include the ability to park numerous vehicles off of Highwood Road which IS very narrow and has only minimal ability for on-street parking. A hardcover variance was granted for the site in 1990 resulting in a reduction from 43.6% to 43.0% in the 75-250* zone (Sec Exhibit The house footprint is increasing in size from about 1240 s.f. to 1600 s.f. While the new house is not c-xccssivc for the lot, the ancillary hardcover is the primary issue for discussion. It is staffs opinion that a site plan could be developed that would accommodate the proposed new home on this property without the need for a hardcover variance. However, that would require substantial changes to the character of the lot, and would potentially result in less off-street parking availability. Arc these factors suHicient to act as a hardship? Isiucn for Coniideration 1.Applicant has indicated that most areas of hardcover on the properly are necessary either for vehicular movement, parking, or to deal with topographic features such as the retaining walls and walkways. It might be argued that the access to the site is inefficient in terms of hardcover usage and should be totally revamped as part of the home replacement project Applicant should be asked to defme areas he may be able to remove hardcover to result in a rebuild that more closely meets the 25% limit... Are the factors described by the applicant in support of his hardcover request sufficient to justify granting of the variance requested? If the hardcover variance is approved, will Planning Commission be able to distinguish the umque aspects of this application from similar requests for rebuilds on similar sized lots? Does Plaiuiing Commission have any concerns regarding the lot area or average setback variances, or replacement of the deck in kind or in any manner that encroaches within 30* of the top of the bluff? nymi 4i2SHi|ki«MiiiMi MaylS.2M3 Stiff RlCTllKMlIrtlw SufT nukes the following recommendatioDs: • Approval ofthevarijuices for lot area based on the iiu:t the lot is developed as a single family dwelling, has been provided sanitary sewer ser>ice and it would not be possible to acquire additional land to create a conforming lot • Approval of the average setback and accessory striicture variances as described above. Determine whether the deck will remain in place or whetheravariance to top-of-bluff setback would be allowed for its replacement. • It would be most consistent with City actions over the past 3*4 years to deny the variance for exceeding 25% hardcover in the 75*250' zone for new construction. In order to approve the request. Planning Commission must make findings about the unique aspects of this property that rise to the level of a hardship to the property. OpttoBs for Acilon; 1 . Recommend approval or partial approval, with conditions. 2. Recommend denial, stating reasons. Table for revision of further discussion, providing applicant with specific direction if possible. Other action. ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot ArMAVidth; LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43.560 s.r. (I acre)140* Actual 28,648 s.f. (0.66 acre)I50--157 Stnictoral Covgrafg; Total Lot Area Total Stnictaral Coverage 28.648 a.r.Allowed: 4,342 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2.370 a.f.± (8.3%) Hardcover Colgulotiont! Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'11,993 s.f.0s.f.779 s.f.779 s.f. (0%)(6.5 %)(6.5 %) 75-250'16,655 s.f.4.164 s.f.6..o0* s.f.6,280 s.f • A _____r i (25%)(37.1 %)•(37.7%) Lii . iiiiiitiiiiiifin »Ti'mmtiini Application #O'h Date Received" *5 Amount Paid ^!oO cm* OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conlbrming structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFO) Site Address_ Property Identification Number ORMATION, ication Number^, it tAVUO ^ ^ •iD)..g7//7Pw Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Dale Prop^Acquire d OO 'I H - - H'-I'CCN f / / ^ p I (do) n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. ' PrcsentuScof property. X residential ___mother (specify)_______ _(month/ycar) Zoning District: f APPLICANT, Wc^f.cK Phone (home) Name U/ rtPA/y^tcA ________ Phone (work) Address n//2 S Atf City: Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name____________________ Address:City. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S ? PC Describe request in detail: “Tf n cj/\^ ^ >v C Uo aY> Kur (CES REQUIRED Area'4Lot Area . Setback': Front Side (attach additional she - if necessary) ^ Hardcover __Rear Average Lakeshore Lot Width .Lot Coverage Other (specify) ArcJ V.f r cloAc HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNTJSLAf. iROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_______ ■toiiiii (attach additional sheets if necessary) # O O required submittals 1. Completed Application Form i = isifsSHFsr7. _ rj:^d™rr^ir;;::Lr^^^ you wsh notified of this applicaUon*^ ^ ^ ®* Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application Please rememt, .u . .PrtkMIon H ■». wniplm If Ih. lnfnrm..lon h.^TK".^ APPLIC^^’S SIGNATURE Administrator, agrees^to fiy *dSiliorarfMs fetafn^^^^ *’7 «>' Zoning ‘rti.r.To;^^^ - cUru!,7rir:; Applicants Signature '7//?//0 ? OWER’S SIGNATURE ""vr; thrX “:r;'b;i!^ “aVrsuLt r^s-r nbers forputposcsefinvestigation ’a^nriSon of ^^^^^ “<* entry onto the property by City stafT, consulianu, aVenlsT coi^lnVsl members for pgiposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature ______________ s;r ;r-r tx'fs zt Applicants must be preieol at all scheduled review meeting oflbePbinnf*^ Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled m«tta. ni™.eCgrpr^tr.inT"'' BLt“i r.Snrs’rrti:: TT , •^'^ 7 April 18,2003 City of Orono Planning Commission P.O. Box 66 Orono. MN 55323 RE: Variance Request 4125 Highwood Rd To Whom It May Concern: Our next variance request is for average setback Our nvo neighbors houses to the west a;c farther south than ours is, howe\*er the house to the east is quite a bit further back. I feci the main reason for this is because we are on the lip of a point into the lake and they are on the receding side. Our house faces due south and the house to the east faces more southeast 1 have discussed our building plans with the neighbors and they agree that our new house will not affect their view of the lake. I am including a letter from they stating that they Have no objection to our building plans We have a very good relationship wnlh all of our neighbors and their opinion on our building plans is very important to us # ^ •.. V B I moved into Orono when I was 18 months old. My parents bought a house at 4125 Highwood Rd. 1 grew up in that house. In 1989 my wife Bobbi and 1 bought the house from my parents. This property has been in our family for almost 50 years. The house on the property is at least 82 years old When built there were no building codes and I am not sure the person/persons who built it knew what a level or tape measure was. The house is slowly falling down and we wish to build a new house on the lot. We have considered remodeling the house, but that is not a viable option However to build a suitable house on this lot will require four variances. The first variance request is for hard cover. The way our garage sits (close to the road and cut into a hill) we are not able to drive directly onto Highwood We must first drive to the west make a sharp turn then drive out northeast. Wlicn I park in the garage it is easiest for me to back in and 1 must serpentine back up to get into the garage This is why we need such a large driving area Highwood is a very* narrow road and there is no room for on road parking, our driveway can accommodate ten cars. This keeps vehicles off the road and allows traffic to be able to move through safely. Many times in the past we have allowed our neighbors to park there when they are having people visit Removal of any of the drive area would create a considerable hardship. When we built the garage in 1990 we were granted a hard cover variance. The third variance request is that we will be tearing down the primary residence but wish to leave the garage The garage is a little over 10 years old and in excellent shape Theftw^ w is for t lot aret varUncc. There were three lots combined into one in 1990 and there is no land available in the area for purchase. Wehaveacouple ofissueswithourlot. which may need to be addressed. First when my parenu moved into the house there was a boat house about 25 feet from the lake. This structure is still there. I am including photos to verify this. The second issue is that there are two existirtg retaining walU within the 0-75 foot setback area. Our house is approximately 65 feet above the lake. The aitgle of the hill is about 45 degrees. If these walls were not in place there would be k>itg-tetm consequences for the strxicture if they When we moved into the house we built a useable garage and worldrtg with the Chy of OrofX) and the building inspectors we were able to build a structure, which we are proud of today. We are expecting to be able to have the same relationship through out this project Respectfully Submitted Bobbi and Jack Henrich # Joanne & George Applebaum 4109 Highwood Road Orono, Minnesota 55364 (952) 472-1270 Gapple (® aol.com March 17.2003 Bobbi&JackHenrich 4125 Highwood Road Orono. MNSS364 Dear Bobbi & Jack. At your request, and at the recommendation of the city, we are writing this letter to express our thoughts to your reouest for a variance to the city ’s average lakeshore setback ordinance. First, we want you to know that we are excited about your upcoming project and thrilled at the prospect of having you as neighbors inderinitely ! Now back to the issue at band. We strongly support the issuance of the variance, as we caruiot imagine a situation in which the positioning of your new home on your lot would in any way have a negative impact with our enjoyment of our fabulous lake views. From what you have described, I don't believe that we would even see your new house from ours. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us. Warmest regards, Joanne & George Applebaum jx - o O it Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) NMC\f Koch_________ of *9*^^*^. [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________also refened to as Lm-I Use Applic-tion No.________ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of Ine property or use but merely to confinn for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aw'are of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. -03 Property Owner Date iCaCJ^'03> Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ___________________aJso referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (wc) understand that in executing tbs acknowledgement, I (ws) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any infonnation that may assist the City in the seriew of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ^ 'issJ' jiumSiM ii * ' I ■ ' l'p:4 . r 1: • Ji: r '• • .• . . ■ ______ i 'i/^k A ^ OuJ iU8* ! '<«W -MU yttMm .sti /I, y. / - y ^ i?* t::'' ">»<*r»C( duV/^^x,:, i\lS» #2893 i i j "M'ii!^ " ^r '•V. f I •--'n-.r r^ ,-<^‘>Vs-, . I .-' I ' *::^-' “--■•-^;>r;^.l. -. . .... . %M. V- ^r/ .• i • • HC ; V r fc I-i- . I* ! * : ‘V L !■* !'II CERTIFICATE OF SUR VEY FOR MARK DANIELS, INC. f.yofiii.I or AfffA m 7tL^4fl lOr MTi'A flurmr or 75* uace srrainf MXSUQUS,SflUCCjlSUJIUISI£.i!£iJQli^MflLSQBACi&CJrr.tMC nOusT^ I.7J4 •.f. CJBsnMC CMUcr • 7m s^/. OMVCWr - JLJ«I At. SOCmua AHO NH4MMC «MUS - Jtt t.f. mtu m»n»vint/t rj<f jT/i fkfnftr Of y*«‘ rmuTK «■ s 74t S.74I / t0.<U - iUX tc* ium 75* ■4>»OMOUS SUHTMX s-llJSlaJ. CA WnWt 75* LAKE SfTBAgX.' S*<0 - lOl At. socmuts AM) NnMMNC WUS - <78 1.7. - mt. V 77f / iiM • lai \ 0 P CNuv um rmcK O ecaouous met eoMUHOus na o SAtHUB — — —*10--------—. JNCCor coNnuR ^ - —Ml -------MtaOKOAIt CONTM • *018 SRoracmiKM euLvm -O-tmrrROLC 4 —cur MW rnwmious simitacc . • . *coMCKTt sumec. *. .* * ' (0/ bu3tf^t ItlAfAOf), A>M •* »«'*♦«• 4W O—CiMWiirft. # •»*/, Aw*» AT An AAld tond. As Aynsfsd bf ms (M* 30ut day cl ■ Arf —< ■Tfl C-l . ' Land sLniAfOt. ttnnmtctc L*cn»s L AiM* 74J» J MEYER ROHUl^. INC CNGtNZa*S-LAND SVt*VCrOI*S Mil May^. ■>.»»■■■, MM AAStS cn. frcM) cm»-trmi r#. frcj) Ams-A*0t ONAWN BT AAR mvsoMs i/t/03 4/3B/0J aooK__jiil_ “iCf ’ SMCTT__L_ W t SXCTS OX MO. • koa A ^ II > ' »uv •tMw naD#'onai ) UMirrm IWt =4> L'.i,"* • / * C9'<*nr'•* ~ O. r»*',n«e o^«u > inar* nt«* ^ iu» ••»/'« //«/• frnf»«C *»XAt ^ >«s/j».iri<Pfr nr;‘X« i*Ot>I ■ V. ur y____/ *. -ij^t** jT -i —i '^rn$f»< -♦4«_ .i !«W» *V r*»tre»: orc> ■OCTtND «7A r’ 22 ^-PROPOSCD WTAiMNC *MU. 6«/>N*e SC4LC iw «rr •*5-("fwsfo s/6/ojf Aooro pmnso) housc and omomb ,------------------------------^wvgfo ajptm/tous tajwTACC aw « oitcuAnowi y* -t ••■•<. “‘o'^ •tff'l' ’\ c*-*! i»*» (ItMfcV • ,—I : I-.-. '• «u. :i:r' r^--r --^^ss^V LOTS »9. 20. AND 21 Highwood Loire Uinnelooko HENNZPIN COUNTY. UiNNESOTA X •> 5Vf> TDML mr AM* » tor MTA eunxr of ts* ijlkt vitunt » t* *« . f Ursmc Hdust - IJ34 rX CMsme GMucc ■ re* aj. ONHCMr > xjei i.f. »TA tarf^pf (y 7^* ff*7V^' soewus ANO actammc hmus - jn ■.r. for*i luprmMim Kimrtrr apta ouranr <y tA^r rmATK - r*i 4^741 / leeis - jfjjg MCDBaQU3L.SUBClCL.tf&LBQ2Cl_Z2l-USC_SCS9C£. SMto - toi Al. SXmWKS ANO AHAIWC mu5 • CTB «.*. roTAL A^CTMom tunraff 4*1 «tm«w w iakt o7iur>c , rrg 779 / II.WJ - tas J LEGEND enm urn mer ocoouous rwrr courteous na O SMiue — — —----------------- owroue — - —wi - — . . HTVtycMrz coMTouH • *o» ■ sw acymnoM cttwer -o- (/Tt/rr «itr *- cur NMT ommtous smvAer coNCKTt sumcc w» htnby tHiTf r**f tMf it 0 in>0 00t ccfrtel ft0i0t0"t0t!o0 of o tvmt 0> ('>• bounOariAt 0/ (Ac lonC OmKnOAd obo*A oa 4 0/ tho heoCtO of ot buHd^l tf>oroao, o« •ncAMcAmcnt*. # #<»r. rnsm er on lOiU food. A* tunoyoO Of mo thit -Mtft Ocy pT AarO 2Q CJ . ton* i^nofor, M^moMto t<an(o Mo. r*JA Mf t. MnYER-ROHLr^J. INC CNCfNCCnS-UfSD SURVCrOftS • •ti aow. P.WOIO. a«N «M<J M. r^j; ooa-i^i torn fTOj) oot-OAoa 04UWN or A*W ru wa g»jg HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-250' 250-500' SOO-1000' A House JUKTOVE^ IN 7£VST. X _ SJf. Lngik WiM X a SJ. X a “ SJ. I SJ. B. Cange a ?X "pO a y f c>_ S.F. C. Driveway _ S.F. X a I S.F D. Sidewalk X a XC,7 S.F. X a I S.F. E PaQalTeck 3/X / <Lf^f2 S.F. »«, 1 L X 7. ?1/^~ S.F F. Landscape , 5 .Vxo SF.^—’ Underlain X a " S F ^ ^ By Plasoc X a S.F. G. Other > 5 \ / a ^ , . SJ. TOT.AL HARDCOVER IN ZONE &3IR S.F. A A TOTAL PROPERTY’ .AREA IN ZON*E 1 ^ - B * lor --Wk:SF B A - B X 100 - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House U V X U 3S _ S.F. Un;i.t X m _ S F. \ m " S.F. X a I S F. B. Garage X 3<P _ S.F. C. Driveway 5 4?X A -SF. X a I S F. D. Side^vaik X 'lOt-l S.F. X m I S F. E. Patio/Deck /X / C w' ? •S.F\ L X 7/7-r I S.F. F. Landscape X m S.F.Underlain X a I S F.By Plastic X ■I S J. G. Other X a . S F. TOTAL H.ARDCOVER IN ZONE total ^ORER-H' ARE.^ IN ZONE - B X 100 M3d>SJ. SJ. A B HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET DRIVEWAY EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A B C O E F Q H HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET DRIVEWAY PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A B C D E F G H X 18 X 1 s 1S3 S.F.6.ee X 18 X SL5 s 33 S.F. 2i X 38 X 8J a S^. 31 X X 1 a 1738 S.F. 10L33 X 28 X 8J a lfi3 S.F. 38 X X 1 a 32Z S.F.mil X X 1 a 155 S.F.mi X 2LZ3 X (L3 8 in 3346 S.F. SJF. 8 X 18 X 1 a 18 S.F. 6.66 X 18 X 8:5 ■33 S.F. 21 X 38 X ILS 8 159 S.F. 37.6 X 12^X 1 a 1589 S.F.Ifi^X 28 X SL5 a 163 S.F. 38 X m X 1 a 527 8.F.laiz X 15^X 1 a 155 S.F.mi X 21Z5 X 8:5 a in 3095 S.F. S.F. HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET Sidewalks EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A 29 X 123 X 1 ■35 SF. B 29 X 2J X 1 ■Ofl S.F, C 13 X 13 X 1 a 13 S.F. D X 1 X 1 a 99 8.F. E 13.25 X 2JS1 X 1 a 33 SF. F 9 X fi 1 a 32 S.F. 267 S.F. HARDCOVER CACULATION WORKSHEET Sidewalks PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A fl X 123 X 1 a Q S.F. B 29 X IS X 1 a 99 S.F. C 13 X 3^X 1 a IS S.F. D 9 X 9 X 1 a 95 S.F. E 9 X 2J3Z X 1 a 29 S.F. F 9 X 5 X 1 a 32 S.F. G 2 X fi X 1 a IS H 3 X 9 X 1 a 12 204 S.F. L,.. fi- /5‘.3^x/^ C fi 3f< HQ,S £ lQ.}>}KSoX !? Q Id^'Kls.:^ [ n (okH If' Si ^|"^wooo”RQ-ji ( 'J • ;V -5 r f ;•-. 'll \ GO GOto etJ^\cH-^bbi0ehic£-^r. 'L>i>wael -t-ooe, I 'J Cl C'D H pnn *h - r-HwrFui^ — mtH ciMwti<»*« >||ii|«»\5 \ ? ^^jfwpln County Taxpayer ServIce^Pfp^ri^frt ^ LL Parcellnfbrmatlon Parcel ID 0711723440084 H oum Niiiiibar 4128 ' a * Stroat Naina HIOHWOOD no This 1$ not •ltg9fyr9Coni§dmafi. ^ \*tfimssntsscen^)tsitono/lnk)nntllon md dsts tom aty. County, and ^ -ifosdsulhorttinsndothsfsounM. ■ JIUN0A11:4 J n 0711723440013 MOfAOCm 4101 IIIGIIWOOORO OWNER NAME GARY LORRMUNDSEN TAXTAVER GARY LAWRENCEGERMUNOSEN NAME/AOOR 4101 IUCIIWOODRO MOUND MN 3S364 HENNEPIN COUNTY Prop INFORMATION SVSTLM PROTLRTYOV. -iU» LU*T PAGE; I 31 0711723440014 PROPAODR 4103 IIIGHWOODRO OWNER NAME J R A M J EASl.EY TAXPAYER JAMES 0& MELISSA JL,\SLEY NAMC/ADUU 4IOSHICIIWOODRO MOUND MN 33344 31 0711723440013 PROPADDR 4109 IIIGIIWOOD RD OWNER NAME O W A J L APPLEUAUM TAXPAYER GEORGE W/JOANNE L APPUOAUM NAMUADDR 4l09IIXillWOODRO MOUND MN 33364 PROPAOOR 31 07II7234400II 4149 IIKJliWOODRD OW74ERNAMB M P KOCH A N A MARK4COai TAXPAYER MARK KOCH A NANCY MAJUC-KOCH NAME/ADOR 4149 IIIGIIWOOORO MOUND MN 33344 PROPAOOR 31 07II723440Q2I 4173 HtQHWOOORO OWNER NAME MERUN L HALVERSON TAXPAYER MERLIN L HALVERSON NAME/AOOR 4173 IIIGIIWOOD RO MOUND MN 33364 3« 0711723440030 PROPADDR 4140 IIIGHWOODRO OWNER NAME J D CUSACK A C M GRACE TAXPAYER C GRACE A J CUSACK NAME/AOOR 4140 HICHWOOO RD MOUND MN 33364 31 0711723440019 PROPADDR 4136 IIIGIIWOOD RD OWNER NAME FRANCES W WILSON TAXPAYER FRANCES TESAR NAME/ADOR 4136IIIGHW10OD RD MOUND MN 33364 3t 0711723440021 PROPADDR 4130 IIIGHWOOORO OWNERNAME JLDAKKEASMGLYNN TAXPAYER JON L DAKKE NAME/ADOR 4I50IIICHWOODRD MOUND MN 33364 31 0711723440031 PROPAOOR 4132 IIIGIIWOOD RD OWNERNAME SCOTT O A CATHERINE ANDERSON TAXPAYER SCOTT G A CATHERINE ANDERSON NAME/ADOR 4132 lUCIIWDOD ROAD MOUND MN 33364 31 0711723440020 PROPAOOR 4167 IIIGIIWOOD RD OWNERNAME MERLIN L HALVERSON TAXPAYER MERLIN L HALVERSON NAMEVADOR 4175 IIIGIIWOOD RD MOUND MN 33364 31 0711723440029 PROP AOOR 4141 HICHWOOO RO OWNERNAME JANETLEIOE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROPAOOR JANET I. EIDE 4141 IIIGIIWOOORO MOUND MN 33364 31 07II7234400M 4123 IIIGIIWOOD RD OWNER NAME JOHN W A ROBERTA J HENRKni TAXPAYER JOHN W A ROBERTA J HENRIOI NAME/AOOR 4I23HIOIIWOOORO ORONOMN 33364 fr ; C -i: 31 07II72344IXMI PROPADDR 4116 HICHWOOO RO OWNERNAME PHRLIPMOTTO TAXPAYER PHILLIP MOTT j NAME/AOOR 4116 IIIGHWOOORO MOUND MN 35364 31 07II723440(M9 PROPAOOR 4IW IIIGHWOODRO OWNERNAME JASONMTHEB TAXPAYER JASON MTHEB NAME/AOOR 4101 HIGHWOODRD MOUND MN 33364 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUEREPRESOrTATTONOf tPKJRMATTONAS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HEWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST^ OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BBUEF. DATE BY ■NT. TO THE BEST. // s. .-■-ry A.’ •'>/y* I il I'i . > ^ '1^' •’ rty 'w«5 : ,.i^ ^ f ■ W •4. if# :■'• tC'' . n. ;* • I -; - ' k^C’-v,‘n- • ■ '“'i /•-.*<'4l-> \\'^r WWW S ■; jailt'r.-,,' i . •'' r.v -A' 'rS&f! <jr'' ? •'.. £Si^^i''.'V,r?i it' _ rr ., 5. w w^mIW !■ M "Ip .V WSmi-i 'f ■' 1 - ■*' u v,sri^ - ■ 1^ ■ MM '^IwM7 v.-^ ^^c 7 r fl W^fr^Ui ‘•I- ,m .’^ r-i Vy*-'--c^^ je:.-*:^^- • \- £i- ^ i| • • . *. * * ■'»*^ . • • •••.*. -••V 4 •. ■ ’ iV-r * '"* - • n s y\'• . i'j. :^M - • I»S fs I ■4^- ■^^r' •• ' ■/’ rr.rrr*u~-.*'- - . -;;•/ r. •..">. :.w^ r CityofOROIVQT • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2858________ *V- • c. The applicants revised their proposal by limiting the size and height of the detached garage to avoid the need for a setback or height variances. 4. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLOSIONS, ORDER AND COMDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 A 2 to permit the construction of a 25* x 30* detached garage, €' x 14' bedroom addition, in addition to decks on the lakeside of the existing residence, such decks encroaching past the average lakeshore setback line where no encroachment is normally allowed, and such additions in total comprising hardcover in excess of the 25% hardcover normally allowed on the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover in the 75*’250' zone is approved at a level of 43.6%. All existing and proposed hardcover approved with this variance approval is recorded in the calculation worksheet and diagram attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The current property owner and all future owners of this property are placed on notice that hardcover shall not be increased above the currently approved level and any proposed improvements of this property that will result in additioCdl hardcover must be approved by the City. Such approval may result in a requirement for concurrent equivalent or greater removals of existing hardcover. All existing hardcover scheduled for removal as a condition of this resolution must be removed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. Page 2 of 4 r 1I ORO CltyofOROlNO ICILRESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2858 Because all setbacks and hardcover calculations were reviewed on the basis that the three lots are a single property* applicants shall legally combine for tax purposes Lot 19 with Lots 20 and 21* prior to issuance of a building permit for the improvements. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant* but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval* or this variance will expire on that date (August 27* 1991). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code* shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein* and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read* understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself* his heirs* successors and assigns* hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of August* 1990. fallin* city Clerk iC^perty Owner (s) ramM R. Grabek, RHyor STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 27th day of August* 1990* by James R. Grabek 4 Dorothy H. Ballin* Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono* a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. £x<jUkj ■aAo^ Notary Public Page 3 of 4 city of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO____2858 STATE OP HIKNESOTA COONTY OP HENNEPIN ) ss. ) On this day of 1990 bafora ma a Notary Public within and for'said county, personally appeared rTnKri ia's. t- CT. /Jc^r/cJ^ known to me to be the person(s) dwribed in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. MY CO STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this ________________ day of ____________________, 199 , m€ a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeareo known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoinginstruroent, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY POeCIC HY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 i RESOLUTION N2858 STATE or MIVIIESOTA ) ) COUMTT OF HERMerm ) ) ) .'r*: CZTT or OIORO Z Dorothy N. Mallia, City Clerk of the City of Orono, HeDnepln County, Nlnnoaota, do hareby certify that I have coopered the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Counoll of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution In the Minutes of the proceedings of sald'Clty Council at a oeetlng of aai-.^ City Council held on m August 27_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _^ 1990 and that the saoe Is a true correct copy of said resolution was duly adopted by said Cityand Counoll at said aeetlng. In Witness Whereof, Z have hereunto set ny hand and seal this 28th_ _ _ _, day of _ _ _ _ _Auauat_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1990 llln. City Clerk (SEAL) •J iiniiifiiii I ni r r-~ jbm" ''- ■' .■*“ I t 'Bm£(T_A j 632£*L* ^_2858 iTl'.Mct AMttl VvlUC* AMttc.tU. mtf . H.dif»,.uiM J«ka ma4 BcMeM ■•■ricli iw. rprL — T^rrr*'^' S .. j;^^ y UJ •at aMlUMal tfack k*f«««**r kr*»«««4i ^ (IS I III • (r I T) • (I I «) *»0 • 4t • u • J)7 Hat aMUIaaai kartfaaaar la aMitlaa a • a.f. •f=- MG Nat aMittaaal tara«a fear«caaar: ISS Z SOI • u« z toi Oat aOOUIaaal drtaavar tarOcaaan 10 z SOI a mr z «i/si • ill a.r. a 114 a.r. ratal nat addUlaaai a JJT # }2( • ||« , 1,^77 ,,7, ■aaaaal af carraat harOcaaari Cld dacB aaritaa J 1 10 a }9 a.f. aalBaar fraa dacK J Z II a |4 a.f. Ortvaaar ST Z 10 a J70 a.f. Orivaaar (ft X J* | . ||tf X «I/H a TIT a.f. Tatal feardeaaar raaaaai a I.Ill a.r. ■ardcaaar SuaAary far tka TS*• no* aaaa - no* araa a ii.iie a.r. Zatatiat:s.sio a.r.a IS.04 Oraoaaad aat addttlaaal:l.OT? a.f..lall Tatal araaaaad;T.m a.r.a Sl.Oft taaa kardcaaar raaaaalai -I.ITI a.r.a - I.Ol Tatal1 i.sai a.r.a 4S.04 a/C Dale AppIkalUra Received: 5>2<M)3 Date AppIkatJon Coniidered ai Complete: S-23^3 60-Day Review Period Eipiree: 7-22-03 Eilended oa 6-2663 to: 9-20-03 Guir Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Dole: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director July 17.2003 #03-2904 Richard S. Broun, 1300 Shoreline Drive - VariaiKe - Revised Plan - Continuation of Public Hearing Zooing District: Lot Area: RR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. 19,388 s.r. (0.45 acre) Application Summary: Applicant requested an aAer-the-facl variance for certain retaining wall setbacks on the property, and a hardcover variance for excessive hardcover in the 500- 1000’ zone. This item was tabled at the June meeting to allow applicant to explore wa>-s to reduce the excess hardcover. Allowed - 35% = 6,785.6 s.f. ExisUng-50.8% = 9,860 s.f. Initial Proposal = 45.9% ■ 8,908 s.f. Revised Proposal = 39.7% - 7,693 s.f. Staff Recommendation: The apjMicant has made a good faith effort to reduce hardcover by eliminating the circle driveway and replacing it with a walkway and stairs in the front yard, and establishing parking spaces near the lower driveway. If Planning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the afrer-the-fact variances would be in order. List of Exhibits A • Revised Hardcover Subt:nttal D - Notice of PC Action 6-20-03 C • Memo and Exhibits o^6-l 1-03 This item was tabled at the June meeting in order for applicant to work with staff to reduce the hardcover to as near the 35% limit as possible. Staff met with the applicant and discussed each item of hardcover on the property. Applicant made some decisions as to the relative importance of each hardcover item to his use of the property. After w orking w ith a landscape architect, the applicant determined that removal of the circular drive could re.«sult in a positive impact to the property and result in a hardcover reduction of 2,167 s.f., yielding a final 500-1000’ hardcover of 7,693 s.f. or 39.7V*. \\*hile additional items of hardcover could be removed, they represent amenities that applicant feels are integral to his use of the property (patio areas) or which the removal of would reduce the functionality of the site (reduction of the lower driveway surface would make it difficult to maneuver vehicles into that space). M3-2904 July 17.2003 Pace2 REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area/Width: RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200* Actual 19,388 s.f. (0.4S acre) (Var 1998) 129.5’ (\'arI998) Setbacks: RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 50’32’ (Var 1998)Same Rear 50*49* (Var 1998)Same Uft Side 30*25’ (Var 1998)Same Right Side 50* (Comer lot)50’ +Same Stinctiinil Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Stnictnral Coverage 19,388 s.f. (0.45 ac.)Allowed: 2908 s.f. (15%) E.xisting: 2854 s.f (14.7%) Hardcover Calculallopf: Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed ILirdcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 500-1000 ’19,388 s.f 6.785.6 $.f (30%) 9,860 s.f* (50.8 %) ft rvivft - /»olWo frn (45-.»%) 7,693 s.f (39.7«/i) • Aftcr.xctusioi.of ftbric orplulic-tined londsciipc beds, which by sttff dcuLiion consists of an additional approximately 600 i f. not apparently included in the submitted numbers on the survey. J«ly 17,2003 P*tc3 Hardship Anal)’sls Suffhas not revised the hardship analysis (see June memo). Planning Commission must dctcimine whether the proposed removals and resultant reduced hardcover arc supported by unique circumstances or hardships. Issaes for Consideration 1.Ti..' applicant proposes a revised plan such that the hardcover will be reduced to a level of 2,167 s.r. less than the existing but still exceeding that allowed by City Codes by 908 s.f. The applicant's acquisition of the property was finalized before he knew* the magnitude of the har^over excesses. Retaining walls that encroach past the lot line or arc less than 26* from wetlands should be relocated to be within the property and meet wetland setbacks. WTiilc the City has minimal use of the adjacent right-of-ways and they appear to a casual observer as pan oftJ is propeny, the City has no intent to vacate those right-of-wa)^. hence applicant cannot make the propeny larger to reduce the hardcover percentage. Docs Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccomiiieBdation Staff makes the following recommendations: 1.If Plaitning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the history of this propeny can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of tbc afler- the-lact variances per the revised removal plan would be in order. Existing encroachments of wetland or required w etland setbacks by retaining w^alls, fill or paved surfaces should be removed. Retaining walls should be removed wherever they extend outside the propeny boundaries, and any walls to remain within S' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to suppon steep slopes or w hether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to suppon the topography of the site should be removed. All landscape bed lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. 129.2^Impervious Surfaces Colculotlons 2.U& si. out 718 »f. In / n«« 2.187 A OlhnfK* BHwniMM Siirloc* 1,860 if. eidsting 2.167 sf. out 7,693 sf. ramolning •30»jn5 6^ 4 JUL-liOSINON) 10:21 J.N.B.A. FINANCIAL TEL:9S2-844‘0996 A ig I. S' fktf- I I • • lAiiUY Ii ?• SHr^hTift^,y^ MA TTm. tUm,^ J \ 1^1 p. j!.«,j 7-._7.,u„_wJ7 • L a CITY OF ORONO 2750 Keicy Parkway P.O. Box 66 CrysUlBny, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING HLE <103-2904 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMIS.SIO.N ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 20. 2003 TO: Richard S. Brown COPIES: 1300 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances (Hardcover, setback) DATE OF MEETING: June 16. 2003 Fluiniac CommissioB recommended ns follows: Table, subject to applicant working with City staff to reduce the hardcover to a level as close to the 35% limit as possible. Planning Commission indicated that the wetland delineation must be completed to determine the wetland boundary, and all grading, nil, structures, etc. will have to meet the 26* setback. Retaining walls at the east side of the driveway loop which meet the 26* wetland setback and are within the property boundaries likely w ill not be required to meet the normal S' lot line setback. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAIi\ST You are scheduled to meet with Mike Gaffron at the City ofTiccs on Monday, June 23 at 3:30 p.m. to review your application. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Plannliig Commission - Monday, July 21, 2003; meeting slaits at 6:00 p.m. If you desire certiHed copies of the ofTicial Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review' and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. 60-Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the date of application, and that this review* period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was received on May 23, 2003 and the t-O-day review period would end on July 22, 2003. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the July 21 meeting, the earliest potential date of fmal Council action falls after the dOnlay period ends. Thereon, the 60^ review perM b hereby extended an additional 40 de^ to September 20, 2003. Daft Applicatloa Rtcdvtd: 5-2M3 Daft Application CootMcrtd as Complete: S*23-03 M-DajRe^taM Eiplm: 7-22-03 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director Dote: June U. 2003 Subject: #03-2904 Richard S. Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive - Variance • Public Hearing Zoning DIsIrIct: Lot Area: RR-IB Single Family Lakedtore Residential, 2-acre min. 19,388 s.f.(0.4S acre) Application Summary: Applicant requests an afler-the-fact variance for certain retaim'ng wdl setbacks on the property, and a hardcover variance for excessive hardcover in the 500- 1000* zone. Allowed - 35% » 6,785.6 s.f. Existing « 50.8% » 9,860 s.f. Proposed - 45.9% - 8,908 s.f Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variances subject to a number of conditions to bring the property into compliance. Pertinent Code Sections: 1 . 10.22 Subd. 2: Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. ...Within 500 feet to 1,000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. 2. 10.56 Subd. 16(L)(2): ...Between 500 feet and 1000 feet of the OmVL there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. 3. 10.55 Subd. 8: Development Restricted; Prohibition. Except as hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, g^ing, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plain and Wetlands Conserv ation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof; List of Exhibits A - Application B - Ha^hip Statement C • Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D - Approved Hardcover Plan & Calculations E - Resolution No. 4072 F - Compliance Agreement 11-13-02 G • Pfop^ Owners List H - Plat map I • Inspection Slip 11-8-02 L Pagel __ Background The applicant purchased this horn requested, and no inspections had been called for in mori. ‘ssued nor well es fipnt/eidtfrear «0)«k., bS^ hwdcom »«imce ^"" "" “ constnicion. In edHit.«Ta;ri*h~r^^ was preliminerily delineated in December eccordino In is * wetjmds. Tbe wetland to the east Hardship Slatencnt »« “Xed fo, his additional Hardship Analysis Kenning CemmUthn >h,ll conluer ^^^JP^^^P^ intheturfcunUngnrte. The Zoning CeJelnlnstmnea fro their urktettforeemeMwouujLt/M'^'*^*^!^'!?* ^'^proHsiont of the r'- M3-2904 June 11.2003 SUff 5K*ou1d make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for ^indue hardship* pertinent to this application: 1. *The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” The property in quution be put to a reasonable use if the hardcover variance is not granted The property contains an excess of driveway and retaining wall hardcover which is not necessary for reasonable use of the property. Reasonable use of the property is a single family residence with adequate vehtailar and pedestrian access, which is peifectly feasible iW/Aou/ the need for a hardcover variance. 2. *The plight of the landowmer is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” While the applicant is purchaser ofthe property and was not responsible for the hardcover excesses, he was advised ofthe overages prior to his purchase ofthe property and he agreed in writing (ExhibUf) to bring the property into hardcover compliance by June 1,2003. 3. 'The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” A visual comparison of this site with properties in the Minnetonka Bluffs neighborhood suggests that the property has excessii-e hardcover as compared to most properties in the neighborhood, and if this was the norm for the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood wvuld be much different. 4. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists imder the terms of the Zoning Chapter." “Extremefmancial and practical hardship " is cited by the applicant, noting that he requests the variance in part in order for the property to “maintain its value The value associated with non compliant site features should not be legitimized by granting an after-thefact variance in a case where the purchaser was clearly aware ofthe non-compliance (ifnot the actual degree of non-compliance) prior to the purchase and chose to take the risk. 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Sect! jn 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony w ith this Chapter." (Not applicable) 6. ‘The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located.” (Not applicable) 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." (Not Applicable) 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” Thespecial conditions applying to this property, l.e. the substandard lot size and limitations on hardcover, as well as the topography of the site, are common to this neighborhood. •03-2904 JuM 11,2003 Umltations of tot sUe tn^^riances to overcome the &''Csrrsxsrtt^sfs''“;‘^pres«ye,h,fualiyo/lcUUin.»Ja. "“*•>'»*ld, cr, Inlenird lo H?S~Hr£i?rn« Issocf for ComIdcralion 1. The hardcover on the site far exceeds that allowed by City Codes. 6. D«s Pl«ni„g Commiuion h,v. «y .tt,„ i«,.. wKcWion? #09-2904 Jutll.lOOJ »*t«5 -r=. TT.- •• Staff Rccommeadatlon Staff malces the following recommendations: 1. The after-the-fact hardcover variance should be denied, and the applicant should be directed to provide a plan showing how hardcover will be reduced to meet the 35% limitation, including removal of fabric or plastic from all decorative rock beds. 2. The wetland delineation should be completed immediately to determine the degree of encroachment of wetland or required wetland setbacks by retaining walls, fill or paved surfaces. All such encroachments should then be removed. 3. Retaining walls should be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls within S' of the lot lines should be reviewed to determine whether they are needed to support steq> slopes or whether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site should be removed. Proposed Mellon Motion to table the plication and direct qjpUcant to Udte actions to bring the property into compliance per the staff recommendation. m-2904 June 11,2003 Page 6 _ LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LotATMAVMtii; RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200' Actual 19,388 s.f. (0.45 acre) (Varl998)129.5' (Varl998) Sctbocks! RR-IB Required Existing ProposedFront50*32' (Varl998)SameRear50'49' (Var 1998)SameLeft Side 30*25' (Var 1998)SameRight Side 50* (Comer lot)50* +Same Structural Covgray^? Total I.ot Area Total Structural Coverase 19,388 s.f. (0.45 ac.)Aiiowea; 2908 s.f. (is%\ Existing: 2854 s.f. n4.7%) Hardcover ratfMlj|f|y|y|. 81:llap Proa^lTY Of CiKXO ♦S!224l4Sli Mil P.NI/3i4 Mli. KEQUIRCO SUBMITTALS 5. 6. 7. S. All of fht foTlotvIng Infomiartwti miiKt ^er tor von" deidifaf 1* Completed Application Fonn 2* Qfi^^Ccrtificd Vnpcrty Ownen list of owners vdihin 150' ^ , must obtain this list, UbeU and « *50. labels and plat map (you ^ Finanee, A-603, Qovt Center, 348-5910)*^ Hennepin County Dg>aiiment of . of 0,. kid n«ne. fmclud.t;^ur?.SiW property. This would include name(i) of aptiLmtf«rj?? * ^ — As an addendum to this applieatton. olette current owner(s). pets^ you wish notified ofto ^Uc^on. ^ »q>arate list of a^y other — -AdditionslitcmsasinvbeTequeitedbyCityitafl: Iflrian^ qPDHcatlon Is yEjji: APPLICANT'S signature «■' ai^or Mnsuluni expenses incutred in review orihis^DDlkS *’*' 1?®*^ *“ psjroent) infomanon supplied is true end conect to die best of bilfter^Il^^e. Applicant's Sisuture ^ ^ -----------------------— Pate /i^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE 2^“» JrX'S’tfS SKiS’s^- members for purposes of investigation and verificaio^fofSus re™«^^ members, cod CouncU Owner's Signature — -------------------------------------------------Pate,/^/<K Applicant must have ell submittals into the Citv . Commission Meeting. Plinninj Commission vr^Tu^, t~ kli/' •’’* P*™!"! month. Applicants must be present at all aeb.ifui.a ***? Monday of each Commission and Council. If « wUcLi, is tlbk t make airansements to have an authoried agent attend in * *chcduled meeting, please & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ^ Buildin'* 04 e rts sf 3* .-^* t z., s.*. fsfc/v ** *^"^ ,. ^.. jy. y-y ll.e ^ , . r!/y 75 /^sv-t* |/ijjr««<^---/V. -(:r-» 5-.a^-^^-o Wf. -2: •'- te.l::t:;,S» y'^’' -y^-jy t:i, ^ „—\i- >f- ^‘H ^ &'^/^U~JL-^ ----- ....'7^'>'<^ Y’^'^ • •••* . • *5 .*• I *. * ••.**;• /«r- •CH i fitorose^ . •■■V .. . V • • • « _ • • •• ♦ ♦ • • • f . . ' • • .. •• . * • * ‘ %* • 1* ' -J . aar*' • ••Vv IBiaiwto. . )n90V0W‘W 1 ------- 1 STREET 129.25 ••• \sr *. • % •* i • • • • • • < • •• . . : •'• ••••. ” • • •. . ;•••••. eS/M/0]04ifti«^Cor •■ ___________________________________________________^____________________________________________■............................ . *_____________________________________ #•• r *Z^Ai4^ Haisi Struciurm Coverage Allowed 15X’‘2908.125sf Total Structure 2854sf Hardcover Allowed 35X=6785.6Jsf Boulder Walls 999sf Front DW A £nt. 424Jsf DW to upper Corage 697sf Rear Sidewalk fJ7sf Bock Patio 276sf Lower Potk* I59sf House and Coroge 2854sf Front entrance lOlsf Keystone Retoing Walls 394sf Total 9860sf Note: Lot site from survey prepared by All-Metro doted 2-23-98 REMOVALS: 1. AREA OF LOWER PATIO TO BE REMOVED: 119 S.F. 2. AREA OF PAVED DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED:. 733 S.F. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS TO BE REMOVED: 952 S.F. . *.v • ■ \\ /certify thot this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and thot I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor lows of the State of Minnesota, and No certification ti.-hats^ver^s Jltwded to OcM this —HHL-^doy of ..Btnahr.____________ 200X Rodney H. Halverson g-OhdS -----------------------------------------------------------iroifoi - Minnesota Licensed Land Surveyor Registration No. • * ^iSSroMTorsu^ FOR- . • SCOTT COOPER ujjjjjj ugp^ H PIPE \ »IJ5JO \ StEiOl -=^•44.97 \ tf*’**' *14X09 OAKIoV/lTHHEJsiCmS ‘..^o ^ \o\t^fir?t Vz of^ . . ]S^\ \ V p^t set >j/£u‘SiS gii NO. __ At l-METRO -k. »•«»• ----j PROFOSEO Et.5V. , tWSTlN5 EtEV. *l«.09 SCM£ 1'-3°’ CMSCtCOh TXV. t... .f swu «» i PURPOSED HARD COVER 1300 SHORELINE DRIVE ()p(UM-VT AiD, /0??8 LOT SZE 19387.5 sf STRUCTURE COVERAGE ALLOWED 15% « 2908.125 sf TOTAL STRUCTURE 2908 sf HARDCOVER ALLOWED 35% = 6785.63 sf HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS: FRONT DW& ENT. DW TO UPPER GARAGE REAR SIDEWALK BACK PATIO LOWER PATIO HOUSE FRONT ENTRANCE GARAGE RETAINING WALLS- 2573 sf 704 Sf 100 sf 246 sf 96 sf 1980 sf 39 sf 885 sf 150 sf TOTAL 6773 sf Scale approxmat€l inch a 20 feet by Bob Howard August 1998 H«rdcovtr2.fi1 J PURPOSED HARD COVER 1300 SHORELINE DRIVE ! •! i .: : PeO¥*-^r /Jo. /07f8 1^- LOT SZE 19387.5 sf STRUCTURE COVERAGE ALLOWED 15% = 2908.125 8/ TOTAL STRUCTURE 2908 8f HARDCOVER ALLOWED 35% b 6785.63 sf HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS: FRONT DW& ENT. 2573 sf DW TO UPPER GARAGE 704 sf REAR SIDEWALK 100 sf BACK PATIO 246 sf LOWER PATIO 98 sf HOUSE 1980 sf FRONT ENTRANCE 39 sf OARAGE 885 sf RETAINING WALLS - ISO sf TOTAL 6773 sf Scale approxmat€l inch » 20 feet by Bob Howard August 1998 HardeoM/2pil ; • 4V0* 6912495 GlTYofORONO« RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ n»72 - A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNiaPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.28, SUBDIVISION 5 (B) FILE #2362 WHEREAS, Robert E. Howard and Barbara Howard (hereinafter ’’the applicants") are owners of the property located at 1300 Shoreline Drive within the City of Cirono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: t Lots 10, 11, and 12, Block 14, Minnetonka Bluffs, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28, Subdivision 5 (B) to allow construction of a new residence. Variances for lot area, lot width, front, side, and rear setbacks are required. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File IH2362. % The property is located in tl:e RR*1B Zoning District where the minimum lot area requirement Is 2 acres in area. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 20, 1998, and recommended unanimous ^)proval of the proposed variances based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. The existing residence was destroyed by fire and cannot be rehabilitated. It is more than 75% damaged. Minnesota: 1. 2. mi GITYof ORONO C. D. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL The a>ning lot is .446 acres. whcre°2 S required.' TTe existing strucnne doe. «>t meet front or side setback requirements. E. F. 0. H. 1. The lot width is I2W where 2W is required. The front ymd b 2S.T existing where 32- b proposed mtd 5<T b required. The side yard b IS.r exbting where 25' b proposed «,d 3(y is required. The rear yred b Sff existing where 49- b proposed mrd Sty i. required. s ts's. ”*** ™ The proposed structural corerage will be less than 2,9i3.75 sq. ft. (15%) demonstrable hardship or difficult is*"nrees^'* 1^”*”*^ *“ nUeviate a property tight of the oppliconts: and’would h. f substantial ge City Co uncil has considered this application including the findi v ae- Page 2 of 5 * ••.. GITYoT ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL no._40 72 ^ CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants lot area, lot wdth, front, side and rear setback variances per Municipal Code Section 10.28, Subdivision S (D) to permit construction of a new residence on .446 acres where 2 acres is required as proposed in Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are perxnlssi\*e only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council appro^, or this variance will expire on that date (April 27, 1999). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. y .i Adopted by the Orono City Councii on this 27th day of April, 1998. GabriVj Jabbour, Maydiv^^^ MLA Property Owncr(s) Page 3 of 5 * GITY«rOROXO STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) >s. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A 0 Y2 by o.bSrj^^’l'ST'vT *’»»• municipal coipontion and said insmimaat exLtedL b^f «f CMOlEMUSaWI "'SSSffilKS?'" W UrcJSSSSTs... STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) u. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) y/. Notary Public ^ ^ and for li..'T * knouTi to me to be the pctson(s) describ^^ W acbnovvlcdgcd d., ha (g^aTlfaat ““ c !mK h 5eman I /5 ^ A. . ynr«ve.«-.b«--«.ra fi C *rt.sJri(L /A CAROLE/I HASEMAN WtMYPUBUOMDMESOIA NESNtm COUNTY ky Ccggirtto tpHaM JLtCCB ,•*.*.* ***-'> ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )85. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Notary Public On this day of and forT;‘d“c“u;5^«-5;;i;;a --------------- Notary Public Page 4 of5 mL_ • •';^Certificate of Survey t * .. . R)b«rt 6. Tschldt _ _ _ _^0* 11. * 12, Block 14, HIMWCTONXA“ . . . Hennepin County, NInnesoia VieHiMl Settop I \3 ’/ F\EF1 ■•r 4 0'?2; snut ^ BS> ip1 rss S'3e—“ k/;:s ALLO sn ’CI) EaiuxtJG Pad of tha location of all butldlqgs. If any, thereon. It daes net purport to Show any other Improveirents or encroachments, other than an existing fence. Scale; 1 Inch « 40 feet Date : rlay 23. 1586 c : Iron narker W?*l3 *z^Ni.Jj - 5CTOAOC5- POxn^ 5m£n ctflt 40* LJ6U>WO ZA COFFIN £ GROhSERG,' IKC. 'Halt S. Gronblra 2 rtcfjG U*r ^n-tj Zoo' ivv.M wip*m sa* Halt t>, Gronbarg Cortten fi. Coffin Engfneers and Land Surve>ors Long Lake, Hlnncsota Fbone 473-4141 tog. ^ 12755 Reg. Ko. 6C54 ■y- o o fi«rr , NOU 13 2MZ liSg PH FR HINSHRU CULBERTS0N2 334 8886 TO 47878784839511952 P.03 **•*" •. . . . . . . . . . . . .. F; 8lMnIinenavt,Oiooo.MBaaai>»I»l(lhe<liop«<90. ^ Itat Art in coluidmtion Of the ay* teMBc« Of«ivni|w«y c«^ •I OoGupaneythat: ii. ?^'*“®*“®^'vinl«nctiv«rditfinHeimq)InCbuatyDi^ •' *. • The o Owner benuadcr ihiU bind its b^, succcisors aad assigns. .. ..t-T. *: .*{ 31 O2II7233I0OI5 ntorAoon SJ7 hanlonave OVNERNAMfi RV4MBK0CHNDI TAXPAYER lOOERTRMlCHELKOEItNDil KAM&AOOR S37HANLONAVE WAVZATAMN SS39I lUlNNmNCOUWV PROIT PROPERTY OV .NIUUMA1I0N-VS»"1LM Ui LU>T 31 O2II7233IO0I6 PROPAODR 565 HANLONAVE OWNER NAME IIAOASSAH YEHUnrTTOIIARA TAXPAYER IIAOASSAH YU lUt): I *:Ji lARA NAMUADUR 565 HANLON AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 31 O2II7233I0OI7 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONr.0 OWNERNAME HAOASSAIIYEHUDfTZONARA TAXPAYER HADASSAHYEIIUDfTZOHARA NAME/ADOR 565 HANLON AVE OKONOMN 55391 PAGE: I 3t O2II7233I00II PXOPAOOR 1300 SHORELINE DR OWNERNAME RICHARDSDROWN TAXPAYER ROURDSOROWN NAMVAOOR 1300 SHORELINE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 30 0311733310081 PROPADDR I300 POXST OWNERNAME RTJAfPRAYRVIIJAFFRAY TAXPAYER RTAVHJAPPRAY NAMWADOR 540 OARRETT AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 30 02I17133I003I PROPADDR 30 ADDRESSUNASSJCNED OWNERNAME JACKC A MARION BURCH PAXPAYER MOCCRMAMONBURai NAME/ADOR 6573 WHITE OAK DR UNO LAKES MN 55030 30 O3I17333I0Q34 •ROPAOOR 30 AOORESSUNASSICNCO 3WNERNAME HENNEPINFORPEnEDLAND PAXPAYER CITYOPORONO (AMB/ADOR PODOX66 CRYSTAL DAY MN 55333 30 Q3II7333I00I9 PROPADOR I340 POXST OWNERNAME ALLANNUTWIN TAXPAYER ALLANNUTWIN NAME/ADDR 1340 POX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 30 03II7333I0033 PROPADOR 540 BARRETT AVE OWNERNAME RT3AFFRAYRVHJAFFRAY TAXPAYER RTAVHJAPPRAY NAML/ADOR 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 30 0311733310033 PROPADOR 30 ADDRESSUNASSICNCD OWNERNAME HENNEPINPORPE7TEOLAND TAXPAYER HENNEPIN PORFEITEO lANO NAME/ADOR 1037^ 30 C31I7333I0035 PROPADOR 30 ADDRESSUNASSICNED OWNERNAME HENNEPIN PORFEITEO LAND TAXPAYER HENNEPIN PORFEITEO LANO NAME/ADOR 1087-NC 30 03II733310Q30 PROPADOR 30 ADDRESSUNASSIQNEO OWNERNAME IIDMEYERETAL TAXPAYER HD MEYER NAME/ADDR fX)X 17 WAVZATAMN 55391 30 03II7333I0Q33 PROPADOR 540 BARRETT AVE OWNERNAME RTIAFPRAYAVHMFPRAY TAXPAYER RTAVHJAFFRAY NAME/AOm 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 30 0311733310033 PROP ADDR 30 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAME MARIONJDETTLOFF TAXPAYER MARION 3 DETTLOFP NAME/ADDR 1355 DICKENSON ST WAYZATAMN 55391 3S 03II7333I0046 PROPADOR 540 BARRETT AVE OWNERNAME RTJAFFRAYAVIUAFPRAY TAXPAYER RTAVIIiAlTRAY NAME/ADDR 540 BARRETT AVE WAYZATAMN 55391 9I . u- ■> Tn )V;-' 3S 0311733340016 WOPAOOR l3tS POXST IWNBRNAME JOtANNOOCTTBI IRXPAYBR JOUNNOOeTTEN lAMB/AOim IStSPOXST WAVZATAMN 55391 30 03II7334IM09 PROPADOR 30 ADDRESSUNASSK3NEO OWNERNAME HENNEPB400K80IONALBRAUTH TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO RBOIONALRRAinH NAME/AOOR 4l7STHSTNf330 MWNEAPOUSMN 35401 3S 0111733340014 PROPADOR 30 ADDRESSUNASSXB41D OWNERNAME HSNNEPMCORBQRMALIttAUni TAXPAYLR HBOICPMCOREaOMALRRAinH NAME/AOOR 4I75THSTN«330 MINNEAPOUSMN 55401 tUNOMTS.-SOWJOn rAOBil Of MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. DCrARTM0fTJD yy DATE^V^:^ DY >.,r«TUI .•■■ C ;) ) *• ? - • ••. j: CITXfiEORONO CAucow fS^!muJsL ADDRESS /^nOcV/^r^. //, 0WNER_^^^-7^^ rnuTB l/^ ptijL out TIUE uwNbHCONTR. f-7r-. ^ TELEPHONE NO. ^ DESCRIPTION i Co - JD :^_J CONTR. ^ DESCRIPTION 01 FOOTVia a nwMiNa a MSUIATION c II me^hano ^ Co -//Vo-^ C WTraw^mB 07DEMO>nNAL Q ofPLUMeMORi 10 FlUMSaW FVM. IS mechanical FtfML 24/29 WOOD BURNCRTlREPlACE 12 WATEH HOOK-UP 14 SEWCP HOOK-UP 27 SEPnCMAINr. 19 SEPTIC M9TAU. 23 SEPTIC FINAL ^ OWHi»WCOMTSACTOSTOMEE7niU:__m_NO I COMMENTS ____________ ci^te -fe fil>iAL,j/ 5T_JLehAAifl3Li*A A^O la A -gihl^wpc II EXCAy.tMAOMG/fKJJNQ 19 LAKESHORE/WETLANOS S4 TREE REMOVAL 17 SfTEtflSPECTlON 09 PROGRESS 21 COA4PLAINT 22 FOUOW-UP 39 HARO COVER REMOVAL 34 FOUNOARON/REMOVAL g- VlO%A/^imM ^ ______^ <gt9V7e/ ^ % . , ^ ^^iyiOHK SATISFACTORY. PROCEED ly □ CORRECT WORKS PROCEED § a CORRECT WORK. CALL FOR REmSPECTWNC BEFORECOVEANO □ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITMIM INSPECTOR WILL RETURN .HOURS. O STCPOROER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR a INSPECTION RCOUREaCAU TO ARRANGE Arr««« O PROJECT COMPLETE O ISSUE CERTIFICATEOF OCCUPANCY — .temporary - permanent OPHOTOTAKEN nOTATtON ISSUED Call for the nfixUnspection 24 hours In Rdvanct. (952) 249*4600 Ownar/Cont/sct^on'site:. Inspector. onuscl^on site:___ r___ WNla Copyfli»p«ciarj[F]C»rx»iTfUnmftMk* 'I 'S -iaAf?’,.W"^'- ■ ■:^ -?:;Lli Kr : -A MrfSl I'ioO S^^i'v\'^ ■2- •» IF' "W ill i i te jl ^1 mM '' k.:. ■ :?.. -■ bK: •.•i;f I ^ firffc.MM tws noo SUci:rx<c [)-,Ve '3 ■ ■ w Ml M ' '' f It i«J y-'-'fl ^ . ' t£~' ' '; ‘ '»»..»••■ j ''-.^ii; ';km lltOO " ^ '''^ • 3-V I m Ib3#I ^rS^Si P' ^aiaii^ —i»ar»iatjO m r: ■ k ■#' r/' m,dMmmi i3<•>.o b * V/'» V A . I'ioo 'jl-f!; V V ■i W mi-1#r^TiriM hsA%rj~^ • --T- i'r3 '»*.?i} t^-t--. ■ tF":|5»^''»'‘ • • , ;,f^ STi:-«i»«.iaEr ____ i'"'^/ C jr' '• ■' - -v Ij V V. 8 Dalt AppIkallM Rtctivcd: 5*21-03 Daft AppUcatioB ContMcrcd at Complclr: 5-22-03 laMal 00-Day Review Period Eiplm: 7-21-03 0-2MI3 ExfcwilM of Rev iew Period lo: 0-19-03 To; Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Mike Gaflron. Planning Director /k/^\ Dole: July 17,2003 ' Subject: ^03*2907 Jeff & Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive - Variances - Revised Plan - Continuation of Public Hearing Zooiog District: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 -acre min. Lot Area: 0.18 acre (7,946 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant at the June meeting provided a new plan which reduces the nurber and ma^ilude of variances needed to construct a second story’ addition and attached garage to the existing residence. A slightly further reduced plan was submitted on July 14. The variances required by the most recent revised plan include: 1. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75' setback zon,.. Cv* jrclinr. 2. Second story structure encroaching 4.3 feet from left side lot line. 3. Second story structure encroaching 2.4 feet from riglit side lot line. 4. Attached garage addition and grading 6 feet from left side lot line (rather than 4*) and moved back toward c :isting house footprint to avoid encroaching sew cr line easement. 5. Remove existing 423 s.f. deck in 0-75* zone, replace with a smaller 95 s.f. deck still slightly encroaching average setback line. 6. Hardcover In 0-75' zone will be reduced from 1058 s.f(29.4‘5o) to 535.31 sf (14.8%) where no hardcover is allowed, by reducing deck steps and concrete slab areas. 7. Hardcover in 75-250' zone will be reduced from 2257.1 sf (51.9®/o) lo 1961.38 sf (45.1%) where 25% is normally allowed. > Lot coverage by structures reduced from 1870 s.l. (23.5%) to exactly 1500 s.f. where 1500 s.f is allowed (no va iance required). > Total hardcover as a percent of 75-250' zone will reduce from the existing 3315 s.f. (76.3Vo) to 2496 s.f. (57%). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends as follow s: a) Denial of the 4' side setback variances for the garage, as it can be still shifted to meet a 10* setback with some interior design changes. b) Denial of the second story additions w’ithin the side setbacks, because they will lend lo overshadow* adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance. c) Approval of the second story addition encroachment of the 75' lakeshore setback. d) Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed, as this the plan reflects w hat appears to staff to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the prepay. e) Require that a suitable drainage plan be dev eloped prior to rcv'icw by the Council. #03-2907 Juljr 17.2003 rate 2 LblofEibiblU A - Revised Site Plan Dated 7-14-03 B - Revised “Removals” Plan Dated 7-14-03 C - Elevation Relationships Drawings 7-14-03 D - Response Package Submitted by Applicants at June PC Meeting E • Memo & Exhibits of 6-12-03 Backfroimd At the June Planning Commission meeting the applicants submitted a response packet providing changes to their proposed remodeling'addition plans, addressing certain issues raised by staffin the June 12 memo. Planning Commission tabled the request for further review and analysis by staff. Applicants have made a number of revisions since the June meeting, so both their response packet handed out at that meeting, and a Airther more recent plan revision, arc included in this packet. The changes needing variance approval arc summarized above. The characteristics of the most recent plan include: - Deck removal and replacement with a small (95 s.f) deck in 0-75’ zone to limit structural coverage; - Removal of extraneous hardcover in 0-75' zone and 75-250' zones; - Relocation of the attached garage to be approximately 6’ from the left side lot line at its closest point, and to avoid encroachment of the sew er easement; - The second stor> additions directly above the existing bouse footprint remain, so the side setback and lakeshore setback variances arc still requested; - The drivewray is minimized to a w idth of 10*, w idening near the garage; the existing detached garage by the road will be removed. The primary issues with the current proposal include: a) Tire second story addition is partly in the 0-75* zone, and adds additional bulk of structure nearer the lake than normally allowed. b) The second story addition is proposed to continue the existing extremely substandard side setbacks of 4*-5* on the IcR side and 2.5-3.9' on the right side. The Building Omdal has detem med that w indows can be allowed wherever the w alls are 3' or more from side lot lines, w hich leaves only a short length of the south side wall as ineligible for windows. c) The attached garage is proposed to be 6* from the side lot line, w hich is better than the onginal proposal but still consUtutes new structure in a substmdard setback. d) D«inage is still a concern, although from stafTs perspective the most recent plan will ac ually reduce the magmtude of overland drainage from the rear half of this site Staff believes the drainage issues are not made worse with this plan, and a suitable drainage plan incoiporatingswalcsandroofgutterscanbedcvisedtoreduceany current drainage problems #03.1907 Jaty 17,2003 P«fc4 Stnictural Coveriyei Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 7,946 s.f.Allowed: 1500 s.f Existing: 1870 s.f Proposed: 1500 s.f Hardcover CilculattoBi i Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone AlloHed Elsrdcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75*3,600 s.f Os.f (0%) 1,058 s.f (29.4 %) 535 s.f (14.9%) 75-250*4,346 s.f 1,087 s.f (25 %) 2,257 s.f (51.9%) 1,961 s.f (45.1 %) Toul lot hirdsurface proposed » 2,496 s.f. - 31 % of entire lot Toul lot hardsurfacc u a percent of 75-250* rone » 2.496'4,346 - 57*/i Hardship Statement Applicants provided a hard^p discussion in their submittal at the June meeting (see Exhibit D), and should be asked for their additional testimony regarding the application. Staff hM not updated the Hardship Analysis (see June 12 memo). Planning Commission should determine whether the variances required for this revised proposal are supported by substantial hardships in order for the variances to be granted. Issues for Consideration 1. The lot is extremely substandard and is smaller than all other lots in the immediate neighborhood (see plat map). 2. 3. Addition of second story at the existing side setbacks has a number of negative impacts and potential consequences. Arc the revised proposed reductions in structure and hardcover acceptable given the extremely limited lot size? The structural coverage has been reduced to the 1500 s.f. allotment for lots less than 10,000 s.f. in area, and hardcover appears tu staffto be minimized to the extent necessary to reasonably suppoil the house at its currciU location. i Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Jalyn.mi rafts Stoir RccommcodathNi Stair recommeiidt as follows: a) Denial of the 4 ’ tide setback \tritnces for the garage, as it can be shifted lo meet a KX setback with some interior design changes. b) Denial of the second story addition encroachment of the side setbacks, because they will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance. c) Approval of the second story addition encroachment of the 75' lakeshore setback. d) Approval of the hardcover variances as proposed, as this the plan reflects what appears to staff to be the minimum hardcover necessary to support a reasonable residence on the property. e) Require that a suitable drainage plan be developed prior lo review by the Council. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING RLE #03-2907 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE; June 23. 2003 TO; Jeff & Cara Ziebarth 820 Bayside Lane Minnetiista. MN 55364 COPIES; type of APPLICATION; Variances DATE OF MEETING; June 16. 2003 Plaanlag CommissloB recommended as follows; Tabled to allow staff to re\'iew and respond to revised plans submitted at Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 6 fOJt 0 AGA/\Sr Applicant ’s next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday. July 21. 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. 60-Day Reslew Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 da>s from the date of application, and that this review period may bo extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was deemed as complete on May 22, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on July 21, 2003. However, because >'Our application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the July 21 meeting, the earliest potential date of final Council action falls after the 60 day period ends. Therefore, the 60-day review period is hereby extended an additional 60 days to September 19, 2003. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they arc available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If you have questions, please call Planning Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. jlMCvnr •.7S*PImIZm EiMBg How • 400J1 SP. Dock-42167 SJ. ExWi« Slavo % 1S622 SJF. EiMiic Comm - 79^ SJ>. TMri - lt9Ml&P. (29^«) tnat^Owr 7S-2»rootZMH How - 626Jt SP. Ott^ • 419.61 SP. EiMi«Gn««l-9anS.F. 642.16 SP. E»i Wf Cooc. Sldcwolk - 462 S.P. EiM« Ro^Wiil - I6j07 SP. TMri-2257J9SP.(SL9«) . Pup Mil Hard Cover (Nnv ComtnKtfoa) 0-TTFootZoM ExilaigHow-400JI New Deck-9SX»SP. New Caaode fkd - 40 5P. TMal-S3SJlSP.(14J«) Propwd Hard CoTcr New CaMki 7S-2MPoo(Zom BjiMagHcmt bM2JSS.P. New Attached Ganfo ■ 400.00 S.P. New How Addiboa - 6131 SP. New Bit Driveway ■ KSO.OO S.P. New CdK. Sidewalk - 90 S.P. Eaiiliiv Retain. WaU - I&07 SP. -1961J8 SP. (411%) 1MUI Ana-7966 &F. TMI Ul Aiw 0-7S* PW ZoM - 3fM SP. ToMLa«Afw7S*-29r Fool ZoM-4346 SP. ‘ TiikiiiinaiiMftiiri 1 ‘ T—r ~ii iiTi nil! 'MNLoliliiikiiHktiaaepirritatior7r-230’aeae-2496a346-S7% TMal Smaeod Aw - 19M SP. vin I c-l C-2^ p-l City of Orono - lafornation ia Rcspoasc to letter dated 6/12AU 720 North Aral Drive JelTand Cara Zieharth owacrs aad applicants June 16. 2003 RcspoMcs to AppBcarioa SaaaMry: 1. We agree with this ilcm. 2. 0 - 75 ’ setback zone. We believe the 75' setback has changed over the past sevaal years due to en don conditions within our site boundaries thercrore. substantially reducing our 75 ’ setback zone. The neighbor to the south indicated his sborelme has been altered with the past few years (filling in material to push the shoreline back, providing more shorelme grass area, therefore pushing the shoreline back. It is our understanding this alteration occurred prior to die constructing of tlierc ’‘new" 2 story addition on existing foundation, therefore allowing duit home to be in compliance with the 75 ’ setback zone. Also, by drawing o common lokcshi't line berwceri our shoreline and the adjoining neighbors, you can see an unusual shape to our shoicime compared to this "conunon line”, suggesting crodoo from lack of maintenance. It is our intention to repair the deteriorating shoreline 3. We agree with this item. We agree with this item. 5. We agree with this item. 6. Ue agree to alter Htb item. See addUonal commenis wiOiln tkL\ dtKumenL /. We agree with th.' i item. 8, We agree to alter this item. See additional comments within this document 9. We agree to alter this Uem. See additional comments within this document JO. One of our revised plans reduces the existing hardcover in this zitne from 22S7s./. to 1795%./., a reduction oJ462s.f. Staff RcciNBmendalioiis: a) We agree to offset the garage by 2 feet providing a setback of 7 feet Anymore than this severely compromises the interior layout and appearance of the house b) The neighboring house to the south has already set precedence. Sot nlih Issues of setback, hut with issues iff ^'overshadowing adjoining properties’', in fact the house tone south is very imposing to our property. The height to the cuie on the takeshore side of the home b approximately 78 feet above grade. The height to the peak of thb house b appraximately 43 feet aboxe grade. Thb house's lower level elevation b approximately 2 feet high er than ours. The approximate height of our home to the peak elevation b J9 feet, 4 feet shorter and 2feet tower in elevation for a total of 6 feet difference in mass. Abothis home b substantially bigger in footprint area than we are planning, presenting an even more imposing structure than our proposed daign. We find thb recommendation extremely misleading and inaccurate (See attached photos) e) We agree with thb explanation and will alter our original proposal (.^e attacked ret bed designs) d) We need to understand your pnonties regarding acceptable limits allowable for altering and upgrade the condition I'f the existing structure t>-z Paciin We agree in one fwiMd doisn to reduce the covcnwe by atmcfDfCf to ISOO s f Umii Pric aiy Ireyw! a) We fed thU tfaaaaieBt ia tnitlead ing. In 6ct the “bulk" of oar prepeaed tbactare U Icre impacting than the eeigMioraig home to die louib This home adikd re lead one oovae ofbtock to dia fouadaticn. and abo hat orieaied thi; roof for the call gdbtc to du and atrect aide of die propty. pwwifiag a more "balky" appareitoce than if orianlad the odice dircciioQ. Oar prapoiad dcregn pnrpotefolly orienti the gable aide of oar house perpcndical ar to foe lahe and atwa aidci of the penperty tn minimiji? Hig hniin—— nf de^ *n>ancighbaimghanmtoiheaiMdialaehaaaiub8antialroofaiopeofH/12or 16/12. far cnceeding the slopaaofroofs in the neighborhood. Tbit home crei be teen hundredtof)^ away at you approach thuhoBM from the laheiidcelevreioa. Ow pcopoaed design dooi not add a come of block loth.* foaadatiooaodhasatodiicedroor alop ^ jIgmLt me me the kerne temutk meet, leg peweedenee mkk regmimAb bme embed As peedemt^maUlmedAb kerne bbge^fleernfykigkerlmekmdambtbme 6 feeile^)mmdni»ttemtbfymeeebigaeiHjibimaammdkmkL b) Adhering to the r .iha ck requticnents for this property will not change the ttatut and aubrereidardoonditiont in place. If fom meet tofoUowtUej^m^lakeakem erne Mbkmeks, Ab momUmUmemMeamdMtaey additkm 9f2BBef., emketaetblfykelmeime deabeipempemlfSeeAeemaekeidieplummagmmsy Alto the bmldii« code diould bevaiSedatit relates to snglo>family residences and propetyliaetctbocha c) IVemmUognemoffeettimgAegermgeioeddetuAbbme. However, to push back from the side>yard setback the suggested 10 feet, would move the garage to the south tide of the home, thneby ran. aniang of the primary Itvio" spaoet away from touthern cxposnie. Thi ; would also remit lo die majority ofthe ate to be tn shadow reihar than in sunlight as mdiv Jied in our proposed design A dddhtgAegangehMAfmakelgmddeeaAbbmefSeeMeeekedge^bigplm). The propoaad locaPon of the garage is in the locabtm of the moat sevare grade change across thissite. Theptoposedgarage will have a gutter syston that will provide a direct corinaetion to drain hie. providing- a orntrolled drainage conditi . . Also by locreing the gauge in this location, the ovr. Kind drainage area ia greatly reduced for impacting the nei^ibm to the not th. Also with the removal of du sL'cet side caisting greage; the site has motr rbtliiy to be “rc-j raded'' to bcip alleviate cxisiiag drain^e concaras. Whafro aeepeopo ImgAedlmleaiiompfkmdmtfaceaspkmbm^imimbgAeccmmommoiA prnop€:l!fliiie^agelnpasiHvttyUmpm€timgAeexbtlHgdrelmmgecomdMtome. Wembe propose At addUn/i of mm .':aed serf ace (laedscapiitg, sod am J ^needed a dreA-tUe system to addeeasAeaedrah. geproktemu). See one:ked gradAgpUms e) H^e ore prepared to offer •'m^joe-redmenoms A koedeoemfirteifkattyregerdimgAe ISOO of. limit of strucsorolkord cover) A good faith. WetakrbsoetoAepkrwsr *^ieJdAg whar wUI be a smbstamtAUy new Amse". This has megative cammotatAmt and kasmorcUvmneaAAbomaerwkaAtrAbbanewkomsearmot /) We did not know there is a 10* casement on each side of a sewer line. Where is this staled in City conreruciioa Ian i? gf dgoA A good faitk we are prepored m revise the dock emtfigamdommdsiufrom 422of. to 128 of a redoettom ^294s.f. or 79%, t>--b StrtMciv; Lakeshore Average Lakethofv Slractufal Csvwage: Total Stnictural Coverage Hardcover CalaUatioaa: 0-75’ 75 - 250* PropoteiDtek-fhm 42* to Sr. FnptnedDeck--to conform with decks on iteighborimghomes ekkk wevepropo:dmgtohed*deepbf I6*kutg, msmhstential redoetkm le area, configuration anddboanee to die rA«r«Bne We are prepared to propose a SSttOaf. stractarol earaeage. Propeaed kardarm of 806s./.(22.4%i to be radaeadm 640 a/. (I7!i)ora40% redacOom of area ofprertoas design, taoaeof oar resbed designs we are propodngradmctlem of the hardcover bp 84 s/.. (See attatkad rerbad dasigp drmwiagtf Total lof hanlfliriace ptofMsed in ooe revised design * 2435 aC 30% of entire lot. Total lot hardsarjsce as a percentage of 75 - 250* zone - 2435/4546 • 56% Hardship SesfriMfil RapoMc: 1. We purchased die property under the assumption that it was 10,800 s.f. or 27% larger than the actual size (see attached Real Estate Description and Hermeptn County tax tnfonnalioo) This afSxtsd all the pnelrminiiy calcuiadons we made regarding tkiaga. we could do to alter the exicting structure, specifically lakedtorc aelbadt zone (our home is in line with both adjoining prop .tties. therefore assuming this home was in conformance. Also leganiing “currently being used for a reasonable use ...” is a suhjcctrve statament. For our family, the current size and quality of this home cannot be used within reason. Our cuireni living sitnahon is a 2700 s f home wboe my wife aad 1 Itvc with two childrea Tha reason the previous owners moved was to have a larger home, for srhich they fdt they could not aflbnl to add an to this property, h was/ts our mtentioo to improve the appcuance, quality and size of this home, aomeihiag we feel would be a wricon.e idea within this nogbborliood, not a distractkxi. 2. We take offense to the statamert “knowing full well in advance the Umhatioos of the propeny ” Chv initial loveshga oa of the property showed the property sua to be 10.800 s f. which is uada the acre requucmeiit within this area, but 27% largo than the actual property If that had been the ease, several of the variance issues and calculmions would have I oen greatly reduced m our favor. Again refer to the ■wfJpH Real Estate liescTiption and Hennepin County tax infonnatioo. Also our initial visual mspeebons were conducted in the month of March, with the shoreline and setback v^ue (mow and ice). We did not fed it was appropriate to have a survey conducted on a property we did not in-fect own. If the l< i had been the sue we first thought, the 23% allowable hsrJcovo would have been 1380 s.f instead of the current allowable of 1087 s f. r 3. Weitniiigtydik«gr€ewitfathii«aianeDL Atiia we ftd the hone to the lootli of our propmy hu lei e voy strong preoedsai rcgmling die aitcriitg of rtnictum in die oeighbartood (htiihi, nwforieBWkMi, lack of gunen on ow fide of the prapolyX vinel dmity. and reduced light, air aodopoi space rdetive to oar property. Also the ramoval of the enUting garage will have grant positive irnpecl oo the visuil density and character of the Dcighbarfiood. 4. The refemee to a neighboring property owner soggestingthismay be a spec bouae have 00 ralevanoa in this mattar^shotdd be taken ont of this document We are not aware the City of Orono had restrictions agninat how long a readent wu to inhabit a property. 5. Agam we feel the properly to the sooth ofoon has set a preoedeaoeregading this iaane. The ocisBfeiion of their roof configuntioa. the increased slope of their roof Md wUbd height ofdM borne has significant impact regarding access to sunlight Thepropcrtyto the no^ of tts has its garage as dm adjacent aae of dm fanmedime haae. wberara our boow ’a cuneot layout bos the primmy Irving spaces oriented to the overwhefaning bcigbt of the home to the south. Again a preccdcni negatively imparti^fl our living already edits. NA NA 8. The stmement of ‘*neeby Ukesbotc pnopenies" is a sabjeedve pbrese. Wbm is oosiiidered nearby? 1 have driven the men numerous timet and btlieve there exists numero us ooodiciOM within the aemby lakeshore properties very similar to ov proposal 9. Several areas within the LR«1D rone have minimal lott ndlh larger newer or lernodclod horses. 10. The currant cooditioo and sue nf ih* it not nrfiTr*fkV' simatioo. 11. Again this is a lubjectrvc comment The home to the south has set a praeedon for the issue regarding visual dcnsiy and reducing light, «r, and opmi ipaoe. The dnun^e condition will be unproved with the removal of fee nonoonforming and attachment to fee botn^ with the ability to “control" more surfeoe area svife gntters etc.. Also feert will b; fee opportunity under oar proposal to lignificmitly re-grade fee exirting site, to reduce the cuncntfeaifiagetstaes. The removal of this gtnge will also positively ingwet fee visual density and character of fee ncighborbood. 12. This property was imrehaMd wife fee intent to improve fee qnalily. condition ad appesranoe offer odrtmg home. Issues for Canddnadnn; /. nelotwaipmreknedmmUrtkea Z (Mtrprwpaa^ ami good fgtkeam^ latpdon kwoa27% larger. ifesdM ikmog^migtti¥elmvoagomi com9.-ioemee$ botpaMvo ones nr irair smdoitmg: ike remmmi of a mom<tmfomlmg garmse^rtdmctlom of fee oroma, feerowrtkiiW kmrieooer nren to 1390 of, Ike remmmt, mtomdom, omi ^gmifleoM ndoaiom in ormamiemeroodummtafAomom^ cmmfomimg deck, the abUUy and deabt looker ike eaMhf ovortmmd droimagf odtk the ake,lkeokiiMjHo-comtni"miorettftkesiteonar^goMimgdnlmege,amdfhmifyto improve Ike oppoaramco,comdiaom,amd4oolty of the esdaUrngkomm Oorpnpoatd design vdilpaaitivety itnpaettheaveseO^7*p***‘*irr i^thr ffmrsrrflnfr armtofriMind ing ourpnperty. Our nrvbed proposal reduces theseperemtega to a more 33% kordcover area. We agree la eaofcemta this oaumiamL •b'r kmmdbttlneMdmpnpmeddnlma§fplmL. b^mtibarnaiaidtagrmtmlK^paaam tked/mlnetregMUmi t^omrpnperty !$fivm Ota *^mrad ** dHaam^ aftk tkamaikbor lomamortk. WeaiwfitvfaalHgmttalmgtktatoattotafarbaa^dinUmaga. ItakamUbe mc0adlkadHuam^cmaadItmatuaimttaoaeeaaapoiiiai ItabanUalaabeamdlba ikxamd drhvw^ aetata tabadavadaa a pafUagataBtfimdhUaalaaaiUlHgdaek^paca, Stair tu AaprenoastfatmBamadmpmtekaaedtklapaap^wttktlialmtmttobapaavaikagaaH^ camdkiomt^paaamaeeaa dalxa aflkeexladagkaate. WatmtIaitabaBaaaMwaafaaaaakkIa ------ — 1.^-i---------------fmyiMfi Jill tUa^faadaatbadU Aamapradaaafyaaated,aa abide tgaUpaadmamtaalbaebataamUaaamdta aiiUm ajmaf. atbleb la mnarntp aabk mimaamMa, aatadimJImameUdf IrraipamaMa If tkeejddlatbaaiameaaeaaaaadamdaaetabaaaecamatmeaadlaeaatpOameewbbaBaaibaeka mmUgha maakoata/ttalfaiat af720af. tfblek la 22%ammaaa1kaa dta mtkdmgkeaaa cmrraatfyamdtaprefieau^ Jbaeanantrakmt adama/oraOaumtlekaadeaaea/ardtealuafamf lalaraIH7a/,mailaanmabablt. WeaaaprapaalagadesIgadiaibaaabaMeavar parcaalataefSeii. IVaaeaddtaaUfofOaamotoeatMiahthe''palaa1tUa"dt^taamUBbaia kaaaaatt/arebaageatadUtpaapeffy. We kavaaBaekadttmraalaad dealga aba MetdaadtLa^ mM a aecamd atory addUoa: Th 'r daittn aaova tka attack ed garaxa ataagfrom dte aamtary aaaaaumi, radaeaa tka aUa of tbecarraithomeby84afaaidpaapaaaaaaataUerdeck(aalffiaaldaekta>r2aJ.,aaialasi propaeelbada3bda.r. deck, wearemtmpropoalmg !2Baf. deck. The design alao addraaaaa il.atnogeian»elma varypariHaamgy, radaeiagkardcoveaareaandpaaaldlHglandacapIngaaa fiber for damage. Wean aba pnpeetag At adding af drain lOalfdiiakelpatkedfalnaga We kave alaopropaaedwbk Ala design, offamIngAe garage 2 feeipomAemoiA wail efAe koma,preae.^tlngaTaeabaekn.Aecurrtmtfypn^eetd4J\ WaadU would mead kardeovar aarianeea and aide-yard asAatkmrIaaeta. TkeattmtAraleaaangeaf Ala design la 1509 af. Kei-iaed dealgm wbk a aingla aaaay adtBtim: Tkla design adds a sLigle atory addition, removes J28 af. ofAe esdsUng keuae and ames Ae gara.awny from Aeesaement and aba offaeabfrom AenarAermwalL Ikladaidgn rrpiirej c raaifmntettua la nrrammodateappmelmettfy 600afofllmhleapaoaA aaaeend atcjy wWtla As roof (storage and main house) via dormeraand a:de/aiora^s truaa ayalem. The i emU tder of AeAe design is Ae same. Tkb dedgyiregalres a 1799 af.smutaraltaaerage A Ueu efAe 1509afefarucmrateaveregeefAeravlaed second story dislgn. Hi«l« PMniy MnMOTttal «U Mfl > twm bf dWinf CA t» ito** pHHa Status: 8oM Slifto <BF)O mSIhy UstPrica:$4MXNW Co(«feuc»on Sutii* SiMrtMMlf Omh 4 VoarBuJtmt Mapl>M|« «M Bodfoons S Map Coord as Total Both 1 FVc f MdPHcr.t47»JDQ€l OrqUaIPnooiSMgm A«.8Arao«.SM See Area Gmrtgt M TAXMFO«MTMMLot SifO MBB o Acras •Tax Yo«r ms Foundation Site TaaFcrt tlTM tW9 AbvOrd F.n Sqft- IM BolOid Fin 8qft Ml Total Fm 8«ft IMS Tn«/os»a« II.7M AasanBaiSS 111LIU Date: irfMM RacdbyMLS: aiAISIBS Hameatead Vta Pfoparry lO WIWMOim MartutTImo 4* ( (Off MwUt Data, •ftiimt SaltngAoart ConUUMdA V-L> ra;0 Not tiArm D.rivt 0:?ON - Ofono. MinnMOli 5S344 OafcCioMd: S*r^ Oflkc*; R mK£ BfAUEOfIftJK c iW2WAL imop^.miwomukTKm r-fc'.cri MMMH» .cjat.lMiftty laurV »!cNN-HMNwpln L*lie.V/«le*Ttont I AMI School D /jcUrfo tMa»1.WinT-Wirti«to.»c1WOlPlo>ittWn ^ompl«i«S»*flcr'Tio.’T‘.Skttd>vison. ^••tncttomrCor^ - ■'onU .otCcicnrCon i.n Comwit-Midh— Xnocirtto'i Fm 3 • FfoqutMr ItA ftp ln-‘^c%HM hCCMM>'it/ MOOO tonrn JlBiitfMliol-atoflo ^o«0 Fior.*at<! CJIy.PovaiSmalK UUioNamo. Corrvnon Win N* Arc'0v«4 Financing KJMkrtKS K^trt '{•'-W.-V4 ^Ib^c F-'rrarks. Caat Cl :in B on fuM mK W Mw» A im B^r Mid alM 1 !■:» vlawB. NorMrast: rs :rx, t: rm tool. WIMkoiAindhr raom. Oocfe. i»OMli>i»ii»Oiy CoMio.W»i» MOMiddwillDrtiool CTRUenWEINF JRMAl .:n floo«Le/rl Oanan Aootn Doacripiton Lavol Dimofi Mttc Lftrtr.UMS tU22 Hear PoRod Air R>n Fuel MdMfdlQoo Fair ty Fm LO*. =A «1xM Air Condtiofwrg Contof K'lf rn •lit Water MM Prd'ooml M.UN IStIO Scwcf CAirSoaaor>Conooctad FmJ-ocoJ <• ".M to.tj aarage Stilt 1 ?c^rayrZ |iLDWkJI I3an OnerPa-fcog 3»d :r. •>« |Pool Talai:.*M 2 Ft.J 1 3a t 17 1 l/< 9 eMhCt^n .-artD'a Vain Floor PaBIgj S'n>ng^oen* Ealin K (cC~'n FanWRocn iMiortjBWl Fifplarrs • Fn«; ace Cr-a'ar’coilcs Apr^arcca Won90. Dlalmaahot. iU»HoWM.tWlMl>of. Diyr.WoMr I BaMirvi; MWfeotfi. Fun. Fnis^od (LhoMiX gdyl^l AdllWM VHndm MattWIayl Ftnarg R of Aa»«MttlilWi>M.W tiU.AtilYoo>»OtLooo A-<efleM- Shirrc t cn<6«a LNtCoc>.Kt:t nWin4M^HMdwoodFloon.Wii>wiaryMHooiMp Paring Cha'acttnsNa OoCwlad AonfibBi' HENNEPIN COUNTY COMPLETE TAX REPORT PIO t M11723430004 IPLATPROPERTY TYPE: R-RooklantM ITAXYEAR: 2003 PropBfty Infomialion for 720 NORTH ARM DR ORONO MN 65364 S«ibdM»i«i (Addition) -heolDtolttel My Pro# Typ* Cede MptoPrapTypaCod* miO—ert^Mow AUOirOfrSSU80 NO 362 Lot/Blocfe 3/ 277.WESTONKA P«cMS4i* S6X22S RL A ctm HmsMCod* M Y«wB<i« 16M HiMidCadcLMlYr M AUDITORS SUBO NO 363 LOT 0C3 BLK COM AT MOST NVY COR OF LOT 3 TM SVbVV TO MOST WLY COR thereof TM 8£LY 40 FT ALONG THE SWLV UNE OF SAID LOT TH NELV TO LAKE SHORE ALONG A UNE PASSING THROUGH A PT DIS 50 FT SELY AT RT ANGLES FROM THE NAIY LINE OF SAJO LOT AT A PT OS 172 &10 FT NELY FROM THE MOST VM.Y COR THEREOF TH NWLY ALONG LAKE SHORE TO BEG OwmaffTaxpayer Information OwiwrNaiiM.AddfMC J8LEECHSVELAISLEECH.730NORTH ARM DRORONOMN 55364 T»t»4yf N mw. Addrw« JSLELCHt VELAJSEEECH. 720NORTH ARM OR MOUND MN 55364 Martf t Va>. bb / Taxes / Subfcord (tiw do not wwn tw tm mM vm » oooieso > MwMVal LmmJ: Bundina: Total: S153 000 5106.000 5360.000 Tana BanTai: Aant* Amt: Taaarf AtmnI: S2.70249 SO 00 S2.702 40 Bubnoord Staliia WatafaNad Oattnquanl Status Gfoan Acras IO A. SqFI SalBS Infbnnation Most Rccanl Sals Oats 2/28/1989 11118145.000 Most Raoant Sola Coda W-warranty Osad Piavtous Sals Dais PravfaMsSaiaPfIca Pravtous Sola Coda Detailed Dnyelling Characttristlca Orota BM b - SqFt 1004 BulMIng Stylo RAMBLER UvaWsSqFl Numliworstortas 1 Tol Badrms/ Baths 3/3 Flisl Flow SqFI 1004 Building Shapo Family / Living Rm 1/1 Sacond Flow SqFt BulMlng CondtOon Avarsfis Dining/OdMf Rm 0/0 Baasmofll SqFt 1C04 Butldlng Construction WDOd2i4 KMchtn 1 '^aeaSqFl 400 Garaga Typa / Capaeny DETACHED/2 FIrcpIacas 0 mil/Patio SqFI 300 / 300 Roof Typo/Covtf GaMs/Wbod Naal PwchSqFI Ertarlw Walls Malal A h Pool/Pool SqFI N/0 lnladwWa«s Shaatrock ToUl Rooms 6 Lot SqFI 11300 LotWMt.'i/Oapth 55 / 235 Lot Zoning !Room Schedule Room Typa BsmI FM R2 FI 3 Room Typa BsmI FM FI2 FI3 RoomTyps Bsffil FI1 FI2 FIS Badroems 1 2 0 0 Bad»Fu6 0 1 0 0 Kdchan 0 1 0 0 Family Room 1 0 0 0 Baths 3/4 1 0 0 0 Fbaplaca 0 0 0 LlvlnaRoom 0 1 0 0 Baths 1/2 0 0 0 0 Othaf Room 0 R«(jriOata Mon. Am 1'? 2003 05 34 PM infcrmatonaBaktvtd roBaAccwataButNotGuaranlaad MafketLinx SoftMrsra CopirngM C tntara^sn Data Davalopr-ant. Inc 1B97-?CX>3 A3 RigJ« Rasarvad A4 Monriason cootamad haftm a for I7a aiC jny# usa o» aemonzed MLS Sctaaibais Copr'’S»" C 3001-2003 RaiyanjI Mii-. pit Litinj of M.nna»ola. Ire AH R.ght» Rtttrvtd Fof NoittaMiMLS proMam m u.gga«5ors piaata eortact o> cal 651-351 -5456 Srcfdi'Propirty Informatioii SMi«h R mu H P-g S0ftHBy: I LaSSSSi I FropwlylO: Addition Namo {SUMorMflUMMOi: ^20 •diMlOIM: |norlh ann drivt i INffTfiVi MmmOkt (kmmMmm Tirmayii BAddim m: Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2003 ^^^St^CojpyafP^fmbtt 2003 Tm SMinwe M-117-MaaoM 7» nortmamioii ORONO ^ 1964 3 PM ataK 840X236X55X215 JSl£ECHaVELAIS4£ECH J S LEECH A V E LAI84£ECH 720 NORTH ARM OR^ mound MNS5364 ^•t Current Sales Information VMoesndsmme SaleRrfee: TMecHeniype: F^bnavy.19e9 9145.OD0 ^^MnrantyOeed AdMIuii Name; Lot ■nsMMSa MMaeAl Tax Parcel Description AUOfTOR*8 8UB0. NO. 362 003 COM AT MOST HLY COR OF LOT3 TH 8VKLY NELY TO LAKE SHORE ALONG A LINE Nda: This is a P«iMI Malae A Boimai TORRENS vailSo p*y«*>ie 2003 ^ Assessor as of January 2,2002 »M^Vafc«: S260.000 UMMaMVate: ^53^ TasMMartM Yahie: Total kmM Abalrael er Tonsne: S253.400 TaMNalTcc TeM tAmeimt S2.7Q2.40 UMMsiliii Am jy/c l€f9bf<. Arcss • Chku} Si/uch/,/t) \ \T>-/o Bc/i 6/e:“A?cjr;abrt^#'/hi/ia -Vo a// Stfbicltc a •' V\ >/. 1/ -Y \ ^1)1able. /*»••»« \ /o a// rt«iVc/cc.«- ' X./. ................ \ * * 1 • Oesi$^ i S‘h^t>l AiJtit^n i fJtut \'^ AHichtet d*^*^€ ( /560 S.-f. ca\H/’ iWi VJ. ‘ rtw(V.iik^<eA dn add/tcs* UOlAaa m>VAt»‘iA .4o y -i%o Ntf'th D-12^ D-I2- I>-I3 >-] Dale AppTtcalton Received: 5-21-03 Date Appliralion Considered as Complete: 5-22-03 60-Day Review Period Eipires: 7-21-03 From: Date: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc, City Administrator ^ Mike GafTron, Planning Director /rLdrO) June 12,2003 t#03-2907 JefT& Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshorc Residential, I-acre min. Lot Area: 0.18 acre (7,946 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests a number of variances to construct :• second story addition and attached garage to the c.xisting residence. The variances include: 1 . Additional structure within a bluff impact zone. Second story structure encroaching within 0-75’ setback zone, 65* from shoreline. Second story' structure encroaching 4.3 feet from Icfl side lot line. Second story structure encroaching 2.4 feet from right side lot line. Attached garage addition and grading 4.0 feet from left side lot line. Continue existing deck in 0-75 ’ zone (42 ’ from shoreline) slightly smaller (dimensions not defined by applicaiii) but probably still encroaching average setbaek line Encroachment within 10'of City sewer line(Cily will not vary from the 10' rcouirement). Lot coverage by structures to remain at existing 1870 s.f (23.5”/^> where 1 500 s.f. is allowed. Hardcover in 0-75* reductions proposed from 1058 s.r(29.4 “.„) to 806 sf (22.4®/i) where no hardcover is allowed, by* reducing deck and concrete slab areas. Hardcover in 75-250' zone will be reduced from 2257 sf (51 .9%) to 1 879 sf (43.2%). Staff Recommendasion: Staff recommends: a) Denial of the side setback variances for :hc garage, as it can be shifted to meet a 10* setback w ith some interior design chances. b) Denial of the second stor:> additions w ithin the side setbacks, because they w ill tend to overshadow adjoining properties, lead to issues over future maintenance, and' will probably not be able to have w indows on the sides due to building code restrictions based on the substandard setbacks. c) Denial of garage less than 10' from sewer line. The required setlC setback will result in a garage only 14' deep, i.e. non functional. d) The application should be tabled to allow applicants to re-design. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement & Addenda C - Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D - Proposed Plans & Elevations E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Lcli.rs from Neighboring Owners G - Property Owners List H -Plat map I' M3-2M7 Jane 12,2003 Page 2 BockgitMiDd Applicants purcha^ this property in Nfay 2003 and request a number of variances to construct a a second story addition and an attached garage. The lot is very small at just under 8.000 s.f. Lot coverage by structures is over the 1500 sf limit, and applicants apparently will slightly reduce this by reducing decks by 120 sf. while the attached garage will be alwut the same size as the detached garage it replaces. The primary issues are: a) The second story addition is partly in the 0-75 ‘ zone, and adds additional bulk of structure nearer the lake than normally allowed. b) The second story addition is proposed to continue the existing extremely substandard side setbacks of 4*-5* on the IcA side and 2.5-3.9' on the right side. These setbacks arc so substandard that the building ofTicial has advised that it is likely no w indows can be allowed in these side walls per building codes. c) The attached garage is proposed to be 4' from the side lot line and extend an already substandard setback an additional 20' for a total substandard setback extent of 55' on the northwest boundary. Drainage is a serious concern, as all overland drainage from the rear half of this site ilows toward the neighbor to the north... Hardcover on the property is very excessive and the proposed revisions will result in minor eductions while yielding what will be a substantially new house. The existing City sewer is shown on the survey as 4' from the proposed garage. The City normally requires an casement area lO* either side of sewer lines. Whether or not a fomial casement exists for this line, the City will not allow structure to encroach w ithin 10* of the sewer, leaving the proposed garage too short to be functional. There is no permit of record for the deck on the lake side of the house. The assessors records indicate it appeared in the mid-1980's. This may be a non-issue if it remains as-is, but if it IS removed or replace it should be brought into greater conformity... Both adjacent neighbors have written letters in opposition to the variances. d) c) 0 S) LOT A.NALYS1S WORKSHKET Lot AreaAVIdih ! LRIB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre)140* Actual 7,946 s.f. (0.18 acre)50' (shoreline) 45'(75' setback) M^-2907 Jiiocl2,2003 Pue3 Sttbitkii LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front NA NA NA Rear (Street)30*75*55* UftS;de(NW)10*4.3* (overhang at 1')4.0* VAR Right Side 10’2.4*2.4* VAR Lakeshore 75*House: 65* Deck: 42* House: 65’ VAR Deck: 42’??? VAR Average Lakeshore (No Encroachment Allowed) House: No Encr. Deck: 20* ± House: No Encr. Deck: ???? VAR Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 7,946 s.f.Allowed: 1500 s.f. Existing: 1870 s.f. Proposed: ? 1750sf?VAR Hardcover Calculationir Note that calculations submitted by applicant do not use zone areas as denominator, as a result the percentages shown on the survey and discussed by applicant are incorrect. The numbers in the table below are believed to be reflective of what is actually proposed. Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75’3,600 s.f.Os.f. (0%) 1,058 s.f. (29.4%) 806 s.f. (22.4 %) VAR 75-250’4,346 s.f.1,087 s.f. (25%) 2,257 s.f. (51.9%) 1,879 s.f. (43.2 %) VAR Total lot hardsurface proposed - 2,685 s.f.» 33.8 “.i of entire lot Total lot hardsurface as a percent of 75-250* zone ■ 2.685/4.346 » 62% Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibits A and B, and should be asked for their additional testimony regarding the application. M3-2M7 June 12.2H3 Pat* 4 Hardship Analysb Im cemsUerimt •ppHcmlcrnt for wiance, the nannlng Commluion shall consider the effect of the proposed rarianceupoa the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, 4mfrr of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The banning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the lUeral provisions of the Zoning Cede in instances where their strict enforeement would cause undue hardship because ofeireumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when U U demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Prone Zoning Code. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application; 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use i f used under conditions allowed by the ofHcial controls.” Some variances will be necessary to make changes to the property, how ever it is airrenily being used for a reasonable use and can continue to be used in that manner without variances. *Thc plight ofthe lando\N7ier is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” ^ The plight of the landowner is self created in that the landowner is proposing to make changes to the property knowing full well in advance the limitations ofthe property 3. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The lot at such a small she is an anomaly in the neighborhood and the granting ofthe requested variances on it may tend to increase visual densin and structure massing in the neighborhood, and reduce light air and open space which adjoining lots properly maintain 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property e.xisls under the terms ofthe Zoning Chapter." Applicants have not suggested this proposal is for economic gain. A neighboring property owner has suggested this may be a spec house 5. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy s>^tcms. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." A second story 4-5'from a side lot line may have severe impacts in blocking sunlight to the adjoining property to the MV. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use land is"l^ateT""^ Chapter for property in the'zone where the affected person's Not Applicable ^ aJ^'t^^Mly ^ * variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling (Not Applicable) 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The zoning codes which limit hardcover A structural coverage and require minimum setbacks apply equally to all nearby lakeshore properties. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The code applies to all similarly situated lakeshore properties in the LR-IB zone. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjo>Tncnt ofa substantial property right of the applicant.” The applicant does not have an inherent right to increase the degree of nonconformity of an existing nonconforming structure, but has a right to maintain it as is.. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” Granting of the variances will potentially be contrary to the intent of the zoning code by increasing the nonconformity of an e.xisting nonconforming structure and adding to visual density while reducing light air and open space in the neighborhood. It also has potential to ha\-e negative drainage impacts on neighboring properties absent a plan to deal with drainage within the property boundaries. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” Planning Commission miut determine whether sufficient hardship has been demonstrated to allow one or more of the variances to be granted. Issues for Consideration 1. The lot is c.xtrcmcly substandard and is smaller than all other lots in the immediate neighborhood (see plat map). 2. Addition of second story at tire e.xisting side setbacks has a number of negative impacts and potential conseijuences. 3. Arc the proposed reductions in structure and hardcover acceptable given the extremely limited lot size? As a guide, note that as a percentage of the 75-250' zone, hardcover is proposed at 62%,.. this is far bc>ond the 40-50^o that is common for rebuilds on properties this size... 4. The garage must be no less than 10* from the existing City sewer. 5. Drainage is a severe problem on this site that needs to be addressed in dcatil if the project moves forward. 6. Docs Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? L #03-2907 June 12,2003 FattO SUIT RceomiiKBdatioB St^recommendt tabling this ^)pIication to allow appUcanU to roise the plans to address rrnccrrw raised by stafTand the Planning CommissioiL Applicants should be proN'ided direction regarding- - acceptable levels of hardcover and lot coverage - acceptable lakeslxrre and side sedncks for second story and garage additions - the need to provide drainage plans thru eliminate impacts to neighboring properties - the need to nuuntain 10* sqiaration to City sewer Proposed Motion Table to allow applicants to revise their plans. r City of Orono - Variance Application 720 North Arm Drive Jeff and Cara Ziebarth owners and applicants Nfay2l,2003 Hardship/Dcscription of Unusual Property Conditions Wc arc requesting variances of the setback requirements for the side-yard, front-yard (lakeside), and the hardcover ordinance for the property. Existing Conditions The existing lot is 50 feet wide at the lakefront and 40 feel wide at the rear and approximntely 180 feet deep (approximately. 18 acres), suggesting this is an unusually narrow lot (less than the minimum for LR-IB Lakeshore Zoning of one acre). The existing home was constructed in violation of the current side-yard and lakeside setbacks. The existing property also has a garage that was also constructed in xiolalion of front- yard (roadside) setback and in 1993 was granted a variance to reconstruct a new garage on the existing foundation. The current hardcover is also in violation of the required hardcover percentages. This hard cover violation also received a variance in 1993 when the existing garage xvas rebuilt. The current conditions of the house and lot size will not allow a one level expansion of the home to be in compliance with hardcover requirements. The current conditions of the house and lot will allow minimal expansion of a second story to fall within setback requirements (this would allow an approximate addition of600 square feet including a stairway rendering less than 500 usable square footage). Proposed Changes We are proposing a second story addition to the existing home structure, to increase the livable square footage of the home by approximately 1300 square feet. The following summarizes the proposed property change details: ♦ Remove the existing tw’o-stall garage structure (currently in violation of roadside setback) ♦ Removal of the existing concrete apron in front of the existing garage ♦ Remove existing sidewalk leading to the house from the garage ♦ Reduce the amount of driveway currently on the property, w hile still maintaining a shared driveway access for the neither to the north ♦ Construct a new attached two-stall garage (with living space above) ♦ Removal of the existing roof and porch (structural coverage) on the west portion of the existing home (approximately 90 square feet) ♦ Reduction of the existing deck size on the lakeside of the home by 25% ♦ Addition of new walkway from new garage to the new front entry’ ♦ Proposed New Home = 2400 square feet above grade and 800 square feet finished walkout basement area Additional Information Wc will have a completed survey for review by the Planning Commission Meeting date of June 16,2003. This survey will document cunent and proposed hardcover and structure property line setbacks. We will also provide description of existing foundation ""‘"'THC.e.l toe (Lcyidc -H^e of Aly av* o Q City of Orooo - Voriaace ApplicatioB 720 Norfh Ann Drive JcffaBd Cora ZielMrtk owacn aad appUcaats May 21.2003 Dctcriptiaa of Request We aie requesdqg the foUowiog variances: ♦ Sid^yaid setback will be less than the required 10 feet The currcnl home is in violation of this setback requirement Our proposed second floor addition will maintam the footprint of the existing home. Surveyor will provide exact property line setback proposed. ♦ L^eside setback vrill be less than the required 75 feet The current home is in violation of this setback requirrOTcnt Our proposed second floor addition wiU maintain the footpnnt of the existing home. Surveyor will provide exact property line setback proposed. ♦ Common L^^ore setlMck will be maintained. It is our believe the current home falls in line with this setback. Survtyor will provide exact property line setback proposed. ♦ Hardcover Ordinance cannot meet the suggested allowable percentages. The existing conditions of the property are in violation of both the 75-foot zone and the 230-foot zone. We are proposing a reduction in the hardcover in the 250-foot zone with our addition and garage replacement project. Surveyor will provide exact hardcover calculations for the proposed changes. Estimated Construction Cost: $ 135,000 L -B-2. City of OroBO - VoriaBce Application (Additional Information Reqncstcd) 720 North Arm Drive Jeirand Cara Zkbarth owners and applicants June 2.2003 AddMomd InlonBaliM not yet submitted: Survey with Hardcover Calculations Anached you will find a signed survey from Otto Associates ofBuHalo. In addidoo to the survey and propel hardcover calculaiioDS. the following will also be inooipmated into the proposed new coostniction and property. These changes have not been included in the attached survey and calculations. 0-75 Foot Zone Existing Concrete of 79.23 S.F. is proposed to be reduced to SO S.F. with the new construction. Existing Deck of 422.67 S.F. will be reduced to 300 S.F. with the new construction. Toul Hardcover Area will be 906 53 S F. or 1 1.4 % vs. the 1058.43 S.F. or 13 3 % a reduction of IS % of hardcover in the 0 - 75 Foot Zone 75 - 250 Foot Zone Existing concrete of 137.56 S.F. proposed to remain will in fact be removed. Total Hardcover Area will be reduced from the proposed 2016.96 S F. to 1879.4 S.F.. Ihis will reduce percentage hardcover proposed from 25.4% to 23.6% compared to the existing hardcover of 28.4 %, a reduction of 17%. Existing Fouadadon Condition and Inspection The City of Orono Building Inspector has obscrv'cd the condition of the existing foundation The current foundation of the existing house is 12" concrete block with conaete footings at frost depth on the walkout side of the existing house and continuous under the concrete block foundation and basement slab on the non*walkout portion of the ba.sement. These footings appear to be 24" in depth and assumed to be centered utuIct the block foundation walls. t >si t 1r i naiia ^'3 Orono Minnesota Certificate & Topographic Survey LOT AREA to 0.H.W.L>‘7947.30 S.F. O dtnotm Pemm Pot* «----- dmctaa Otwtitod CUeble OtnelM Sanitary Saatt Una ___tm— Ptnclaa CaHtPa Canlaura M MftJJ danotaa Spot Oaratient ealstlng Hard Cow Cdylotlon$ 0-75 root Zona ________ Crsttng Houaa^ 4CC.3I sr. Crfathg Dadi- *3707 sr etHUng SttF9~ 156.23 S.F. C*f$tt>9 Cencrala.»793J SF Ma/n t056*J sr. UJM CMlstlng Hard Cow CMotiena 75-250 root Zotio MtPg Houaam 636M SF. Crhti^g Corofo- 41601 SF £al$lhg Oo¥a1 Drhaaoy* MM SF. Cakthg Bit Ortwof- 6*3.10 SF Crhlhg Cane. 510am*- *6200 SF £j*0>g BateMt MW- 10 07 SF ToU/m 2357.10 SF 2B*X Pnpotod Hord Cow Cdidationt _______0-75 Foot Zora _______ Cidating Havaa- *0031 SF Dad- *3307 SF CMlatn^ Slap*- 15633 SF [Mtaiinf Centra1a.-733J SF Total- 1056*3 SF 133M Proposed Hord Cow Cofulothns _______75-250 Foot Zona Pnpoaad Caroga- *3600 SF Pr^oaaO DHraaaj* 009 54 SF /Vppa>»tf SSOaa*-106*1 SF CriiUtf CW>c- TJ7.M SF. UtalPf Houta- 03636 SF. CaJat^t Balohttg HWT- 1607 SF. Telel- 3C1696 SF 3S*M lager Daaar^Ben or BaeerO: niot pert of Lot X AVOITOPS SUBOittaON MUtOCP 363. Hmnapm County, UWaaata, lyOtg Nerlftarly ef a atreigrit Itta dawn Ivewgo 3 poOilt, aatanOOtg Mortnaaatarfy la tPa motarfPa 1 poiil tahg Ot IPa SoutPaatlarty IP* ef eelO let X *0.00 feat Seutharly along aeU Una Pern tPa moal toaetarty earner at aeld Lai tPa ether point baPg 5000 feat extent et right vigla* Seuthaetlt'l/ Own tP* NartPamteriy Ota ef weld lal maaaurad Pam a petit In tPa NertPaeelerly O-t ef told Let dUtont 17300 foal NartPaaaterljr maoeured etang aeld One from the meat taatert/ comer of aeld Lei oeaording la tP* plot thereof en ISa *■ ef racxrd P the afPea ef the Peglitrer ef roai, hennapln County UHnaaete denotes iron monument found denotes iron pipe set ond marked os shown: ( Certificate Sc Topographic Survey on part of Lot J, AUDITOR'S Cara Ziebarth 1 hereby certify Ihot Ihio eurvey. tier, or report ooe prepared by me or under my dbect eupwvleien end »>ot 1 om a Lioeneed Lond Statta/er under the lorn a* the SMe of ICrmeaeta MfeBSite: g \ \ wwwMtousaocMetxem r*“A“jT‘Tirt tWtettWsblMlt \J\y 1 IW MhlevMNSSlfJ r^Bsoeums nufTtsietiM^T Renisod: denotes soil boring SUBDIVISION NO. J62.Data.C'jwn By.Stole:CneeiwO By;Job No. denotes percolotion test hot*Hennepin County. Uinnesota 5/33/03 M.LH,/•- 20*Paid C. Cite Date . !!»«• i 400U / \ MOCMTfS f4cp63)U2-3SU Cn^heers and iMd tiHvtjms, toe.1^03-0251 c-/ ‘■'*v0 1 ' •: C) % C-l/> LOT AREA to ( o -OHE— -----988— X 988 3J Existing Hard Cover Calulations 0-75 Foot Zone i058.43 S.r. 1J.JZ Existing Hard Cover Calulations 75-250 Foot Zone Existing House= 626.38 S.F. Existing Corage= 419.61 S.F. Existing Grove! Driveways 90.88 S.F. Existing Bit. Oriveway= 642.16 S.F. Existing Cone. Sidewolk= 462.00 S.F. Existing Retaining Wall- 16.07 S.F. Totals 2257.10 SF 28.4X denotes Power denotes Overhe denotes Sanitar denotes Existint denotes Spot t Existing House= 400.31 S.F. Existing Deck- 422.67 S.F Existing Steps=^ 156.22 S.F. Existing Concrete. = 79.23 S.F. Legal Description of Record: That part of Lot 3, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION NUMBEf Minnesota, lying Northerly of a straight line drcAn Northeasterly to the waterline, 1 point being in tht • • ■ • -• V /fy f! O r"^ S-fF ^ y U -f-v Ziebarth Residence 720 North Arm Drive Orono Minnesota r i! ' ' !l , ■■■ :.O^ii-_i.2r---/ lE*^ 'SS 4 ' .;. r ; . '; ’• * V ;• *• -3 V.Z4- .^i U'----- 1. i---------. I I I T HSlJ ,• • ' * • / V - » I #S9 G7 Ziebarth Residence 720 North Arm Drive Orono Minnesota r l>-3 ‘i .1/ V Ziebarth Residence 720 North Arm Drive Orono Minnesota r- N HartyOfMOiy Mr. MicM P. OMTren tfw propOMd 720 N. Ann Dr chnngw - Number 03-2007 Deer MichMi and the o O mt planning ooordhwiort. Since I can not oome In parton on the foOoering Monday for the meeting. I wanted lo voice aome oonceme I have In the aebarth propoaad chan^ While oartabi varianoaa can be compromiaed. mpjor ones are bigger concema For exwnple. I have found out from my neighbor on the other lida what it leama to be encroachment even doaar to my properly line. The NW oomar ia abeody only 5 feet from my Ina. and the 8E comer it 4.3 feat from my Une. The propoeed change wNh the attached garage wfll be even doaar at 4 feat With the height of the new propoaad atrudura. this could be a negadve to the value of my property and the privacy I moved hare to have. I alao undaratand that nonnaily. code la 10 laet . I am not aura about thia , but I know you would be. I am alao not aura what wil become of their driveway plana, aa the my property Hna haa alwaya Indudad aome of the driveway for their houaa. My BiOQESTooncam. however, ia the drainage aituation. and what would happen when the new propoaed garage would move to being attached to their houae . poaaibly draining even more water my way with little hard cover being eliminaled . I am alao concerned the new landacaping would create even more water coming my way. and thia would be a major worry If they aloped their land away from their houae. but draining toward mine. I have alao racatvad hinta that they will not be moving in here. but are doing theae change* not with the Idea of a bettor place to live for thomaeivaa. but for the Inveatment tl^ would reap. lamthahomeownaralTOONorthArmDr.andhavelivadherealnceJanuary . 1067. I hope you can underaland my ooncema.Plaaaa contact main need any other evidence of my concern, or if I can come in peraon aome other time Many thanka, Gregory M. Harty 052-472-4601 Home or pager 1-686-371-2501 r June 9.2003 Michael P. GafTron and Planning Commissioners 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 . w,- I Stopped into the City offices this moniing to review the plans and variances of 720 North Ann Dr. (#03-2907). I own the property to the southeast (710 North Arm Dr ). I was surprised to find that the house's current cement patio is 1.3 feet on my property and the deck is 2.1 feet on my property. My wife and I arc cortcemed that the proposed addition of a two story walk out only 2.4 feet from our property line is way too close, not including any eaves or overhangs that the house may have. Building up fr^ the current location is crowding the lot lines and we definitely don ’t want to see this happea Also, there would be no way to go from the front yard to the back yard without going through the house or our yard. There also seems to be no effort to reduce the amount of hard cover. I have not been able to identify any hardship. The current owners bought the property as an investmeni to fix up and resell. Any variances and plans should have been approved before the property was purchas^ Laws of building and zoning are established for a reason. 1 can sec approval for minor deviations from the rules but the ones requested here seem very excessive. My wife and I had applied for variances when building our home only to have our plans turned down due to bluff set backs. We made compromises and resubmitted new plans to satisfy the city planners. Kirk and Sue Otteson Cell (952)240-1630 Home 472-2341 Adjacent Propert>* Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) /HlcU^L [print namc(s)] ■^of 100 to. ra [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ____________________also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confiim for the City Council that I l^uiTOC^nciU^ro^^^ improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use Prope^fOwncr Date •=# Property Owner Date I (we) fS./ jL [print namc(s)] of n 10 M [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use f the property located at -------------------------------also referred to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I fwe) am (arc) not asked to decla.-e approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am^are) aware of the .mprovemenl plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use Property Owner ■Slnlo^ Date Property Owner ■ T-r7-Q>^ Date If you have any infoimation that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use #2907 Jun 16 03 09:17a Ulndwood Condominiums 612-941-2630 P.l FLORENCE A. HAGBERG 740 NORTH ARM DRIVE MOUND, MN 5S364 at- 6-/t) HAT& ORONO CITY OFFICES PLANNING COMMISSION 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO, MNSSJfl SUBJECT: Zicbaitb - 720 North Arm Drive Dear Planning Commbslon, I an wriUng to you as a mident having lived 54 yean at 740 North arm drive in Orono with concerns about requested aoniag variances for Ziebarth 720 North Arm drive. First, many tines change can be good, as seen recently at the remodel of 710 North Arm Drive which abuts my property line, owned by Kirk and Sue Otteson. At the lime of their request to bttUd on their property 1 bad no objection as they limited their request in a very sensible manner by conrtniag their home to the footprint of the previous eiisting home. 1 bad asked that Orono protect the ravine along our shared property line and you did what you prombed. Second, when Karl and Agnes Lorcnxe purchased the lot to the North of us owned by Mr. Whiles roy husband and 1 were not pleased that Orono allowed the lot to be split. When Karl and Agnes built on the spUl lot (720) closest to Mr. Johnson, the lot closest lo iheir North, we were appalled ih.it Orono would allow them to pul such a large home on ihb new lot. The home went Dorn one ed^e of the lot to the other with no sensible green space left Third, tbb property has been purchased recently by a Realtor \>bo Is Interested in buUding a home for speculation and b asking for a number of variances lo do so. I AM OPPOSED TO GRANTING ANT FURTHER VARIANCES ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY The garage should remain at the road as Orono made tbb very conditional to Lorenze in an act of sympathy for Minnesota winteis back in the early 1960*s. To move the garage into the new house plan would change the flow of water which could add lo eiisting water problems on the lot and Burroundiog lob. The proposed home is designed to further encroach on the property lines even more than the existing home. This should not be allowed. Thank you. cl. Florence A. Hagberg HUNOATC.-S } 3t 06II7IU20003 ntOTADOU 40S NORTH ARM M OWNER NAME LAKEVieWOOLFOFMTKA MC TAXPAYER UKEVIEWOOLFOFMTKAINC NAMIVADOR I5SREDOAKLA MOUND MN S5M4 M 06117234)0004 ntOfAOOR 720 NORTH ARM DR OWNeRNAM JStEeCH*VELAB4.EECH TAXPAYER JSL£GCHRVELAB4£Eai NAME/ADOR 720 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN SS364 IICNNEPIN CX)UNTY rnOPI INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERIYON^. -Its LIST PAflE: I 31 06II7334M002 PROPADOR 600 NORTH ARM DR OWNER NAME DOUGLAS F WATSON TAXPAYER DOUGLAS F WATSON NAME/ADDR 600 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 33364 30 06117234)0003 PROP AOOR 710 NORTH ARM OR OWNERNAME KAOTTESONRSKDICKIUUSEN TAXPAYER KAOTTESONASKDiaCJIAUSEN n.AMlYAOOR 710 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 33)64 n 061172)4)000) PROPADOR TOO NORHIARMDR OWNER NAME GREGORY M lURTY TAXPAYER GREGORY M HARTY NAME/ADDR 700 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 33364 3t 06117234)0006 PROPADOR 740 NORTH ARM DR OWNERNAME EGEWARHACBERGETALW/LB TAXPAYER EOHAGBERO NAME/ADDR 740 NO ARM DR MOUND MN 33364 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF lfFORMATK)N AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TIE RECORDS OFTHE l«hWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST , OFMY KNOWLEDGE ANDBEUEF. _ DATE^-^^"<^ BY /X 03 0} L;'' V' ' -i » ;^v ;/ ■-/ M^l »' •J * "% • ’ ' 1 - r#:-. •■V- *. .r .-V;;; {a***-*' p 7i i»».m ■ ■ m:: /v.•■''•► Air- IJ ■'< *e —^ - t-z : Ll^tv'. . jt-.f • •<Cr?^*-< PV''-'* •■•• • K’' ^t^'^'fei' ■ *' fe''' ■ ■• '^ ■ '* ^ ■' Mt ^.*v . ' '^-.-jT ■• ■ #ri "' • '%’• ■ . . ' '^'ir..;. ’ *y it^- *, ~y.XO /v'^'f-ii-< Ai'’-' > m '3 k •( n. jg^BaRi^.v.A-;. >r ♦w- •*'*• 1^0 A'.’f^i A'f' O'Vv f.- V,' ' «v - X* 7 '■•,' - r ..i.- fl I ":».. • r "7 J O /'w'.- •',0 i '••<b: V- LbtofEiliiblts A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - As-build survey shoeing proposed deck D - Original survey E - Sketch of Proposal •03.3195 J«lr2l,2003 F - Hardco\’er calculations G - Photographs H - Resolution (M645 I - Property Ow-ners List J-Plat Map Background April 2001 the applicant received the follo>%Tng renewal variances to construct the existing house on the lot (refer to the original survey. Exhibit D): ' 25 ’ front/street yard setback wiiere 35 ’ setback is required. West side setback to allow 9.5 ’ where 10 ’ is required. East side setback to allow 6’ where 10 ’ is required. Variance to allow lo* rrca of 8,550 s.f. where 43,560 s.f is required Variance for lot widili of46-50’ where 140’ is required. Variance to allow 1,956 s.f. or 4(Wo of hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone where only 1,220 s.f or 25% is normally allowed. 1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. The rcMlution approving these variances is attached for your reference. On page 4 of the resolution, number two stipulates that “...Any hardcover in addition to that noted will require variance approval by the City, and is not likely to be approved in the future unless ™ removals of pre-existing hardcover result in no hardcover increase above the 40% allowance.’’ Tlic applicant did not receive a variance for lot coverage by structures at the time of the above variances. The applicant is allowed 1.500 square feet, currently 1.528 square feel exists. Dunng the duration of construction of the existing house, modiHcations were made that that resulted in an additional 28 square feet of structure. Any structure 6’ or higher above grade would require a lot coverage by structures variance. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LotArea/Width: LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f (1 acre)140 ’ Actual 8,550 s.f (.20 acres)40’ Setbacks: M3-2895 July 21.2003 fug* 3 of 6 LR-IB Front Required Existing 25* Proposed 25’ Rear Un Side Right Side Lakeshore 99*9i* Structural Coveraee: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 8,550 s.f. (.20 acres)Allowed:1,500 s.f. (15%or l,500s.f. whichever is more) Proposed:1,708 s.f. (20.0"/o, currently 17.9% or 1,528 s.f. exists) Structures counted towards coverage: • Building footprint (1,392 s.f.) 1.5’ X 12’ t\vo-stor>* bump-out on cast side of house not illustrated on survey but shovNH in pictures (18 s.f.) - a modification from the original survey. • Deck entry from driveway to front door - (Section 10.03.14C (2) which states “Tennis courts, patios, decks, and all similar “open ’’ structures...which extend more than 6’ above grade level (if any portion of such structures extends more than 6’ above grade level, the entire structure shall count toward lot coverage)’’ (IISs.O- • Proposed deck and staircase because both will be 6’ or higher above grade level (180 s.f. is figured into the proposed structural coverage figure abou Hardcover Calcuialions; These figures include everxlhing noted above that was counted towards structural coverage. Also included are the retaining wails and driveway. The retaining walls were added at the time of construction to ensure proper drainage and were not proposed with the initial renewal variance review process. The driveway also appears larger than what is depicted on the attached survey (see ph^'*o of driveway in Exhibit E). Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 3,668 s.f.0s.f (0«/o) Os.f (0%) Os.f. (0%) MJ-2895 July 31,2003 75 - 250 4.882 s.f.1,220.5 s.f. (25%) 2,283 s.r* (46.8 »/.) 2.463 s.f. (50.5 »/o) • After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance The applicam is proposing lo construct a second stor> deck on the lake side of the home The proposed deck would be 12 ’ x 12 ’ wth stairs 3’ x 12* extending off the back towards the lake. The construct! *n of this deck with the associated stairway would constitute an additional 180 square feet of hardcover. As mentioned in the background section of this report, the property received a variance to construct 40®/o hardcover. With the additional driveway space, needed retaining wulls, and added bump-out to the home during construction, the hardcover is now in excess of 46*/i. Lot Coverage by Structures Variance Currently, the home is in e.xcess of the allowed 1.500 square feet by 28 square feet This was a result of modifications to the plan upon construction of the home. These modifications include the 1.5 ’ x 12 ’ two-story bump-out and enlarged deck entry. A variance was never granted for lot coverage by structures. 1 he applicant is proposing a second story’ deck and stairw ay off the lake side of the home. This deck w ould be greater than 6’ above grade and therefore be included in the lot coverage bv simetures figure. Because the applicant currently docs not meet this requirement, is requesting additional structure coverage, and a variance was never granted one must be approved prior to construction of the proposed deck. Hardship Statement The applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in I-xhibit A. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /« comUerlng appUcatlom/or variance, the Planning CommlsUon $hall con%lJer the ef/ett of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, exbtlng and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air. danger of fire, risk to the public safety^and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending arprosat for svrlances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code In Inuances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumuances unique to the Individual prt^perty under consideration, and shall recommend approxal only when It Is demonstrated that such ^ actions wilt be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff does not find a hardship for cither variance The existing conditions do not meet the stipulations of the variance that w as approved in April 2001 . The applicant was held to a specified hardcover amount previously and has exceeded that. Also, the applicant made modifications to the home and property during the construction process which constituted tm additional 28 square feet of lot coverage by structures. Should a \ ari incc be granted the intent of the code would not be met. Further, the applicant should be held to the 40% hardcover and 1.500 square foot lot coverage by structure stipulations which were approved in April 2001. This would consist of the applicant removing existing hardcover MU-2T»5 July 21.2003 PagtSofO and reducing strucniral coverage by 28 square feet. Note that despite the fact that the applicant installed a patio door and ledger board, a future deck v^-as anticipated. The building code treats patio doors as windows, and the City vs-ould not prohibit installation of a patio door knowing that a deck was impossible, but would require permanent blocking of that door for safety reasons. Merely allowing installation of the door docs not give the applicant any special rights to a deck. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” The property is currently being used in a reasonable manner. 2. "The /light of the landow-ncr is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The applicant currently has a small walkout off the lake side cf the lorn* There are no unique circumstances which would constitute additional variances arm e and beyond what was already approved. 3. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Not applicable 4. "Economic considerations alone shall no* constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property e.xists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Not applicable 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06. Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Should the variance be granted or not granted, access to direct sunlight will not be affected 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance a:iy use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." The use proposed is an allowed use In Its respective zoning district. 8. 11. •The Board or Council may permit as a variance the tcmporar>’ use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." H0S-2S9S July 2I.200J Pace 6 of6 AVj/ applicable The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." There are no special conditions applying to the structure or land that would constitute a variance approval for a deck beyond what has already been approved -Tlic conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." Not applicable "The granting of the application is necessarv' for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Should the application be denied, the applicant still has the enjovnient of an existing walkout balcony on the lake side of the home. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any wav impair health safely comfort, morals, or in any other respect he contrary to the'intent of the Zoning ’ The intent of the Zoning Code would not be met should variances be approved beyond the original renewal variances. "The granting of such variance w ill not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is neccssar>* to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." m applicant has uaud that the deck ndt serve as afire escape and improve sight lines. The P anning Commission should dismiss u hethcr ihe ic needs not find any unique hardships to Issues for Con.sideration 1. Docs a hardship exist to allow a lake side deck? 2. Shou!J ihc applicanl be held lo the stipulations of the previous variance approval? 3. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation L. CITY OF ORONO - VARIA^CE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2SO.OO (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S'50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) BthiWA Application # ^ 5 Dale Received H ~Cj3 Amount Paid PROPERTY' INFORMATION Site Address ■4\o\ v\-V gA Property Identification Number ^.l.D.) o Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired n i - 11^- - «-M - nr> t _____________(mcnth'>-ear) I (do) (do not) also o^\7l the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: y residential ___other (spccif>)_ Zoning District: ____________________________ APPLICANT \ Name i Address: .i* r, v ^ Phone (homc)C\fS5 _____ Phone (work) V- ncyv . City: CtLcOQ_________ Zip:«o«3>3c- «•! OWTS'ER (if different than applicant) \ Name Gryg. ^Goi /O \ Address: niu ^ ^y.. ^ 0^ fvr) Phone (h.me) _________ _____ Phone (work)_________________ City;_^ricicJd'_________Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: .V, T\t_ r yv^v.x ' j ^ I c V ^ V t ^ ^ Caat*^ r\\V.r.< S \v<_ ^‘-v-V.- (a.tach additional sheets if ncccssar>’) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side _ y_ Hardcover ____Lot Coverage __Rear ___ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSIIIP/DESCR»»'TION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: .^O.Nc X sA I ,aooit ^ O (attach addiuonal sheets if necessary) f*5 .1 '•i.- . • A required submittals ^vwr /pplIfg^i!irhTconLT,^!l ’*"• "PP"<-|»Hoi1 dtailllnfjai, |„ „rd^r iCompleted Application Form 5 . "'proposed. In'^dS"p“1dcTe”t'^ you wish notified of this applicatio;" “ny other persons ---- Additional Items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Omicr must siim t»,;c , r - X.UT APPI.lrANT'C A■' *APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Adrainisiralor,agrccs^topayaddmonarrc«“(!iaff^^^ rcquesled by ihe Zoning consultot expenses incurred in review of this apnlic 'ion “?Sinal fee payment) and'or supphed ,s true and eoneet to the best of l.iXcSw^e! ‘'"■“""’■i™ Applicant's SignaturcC,... C',.. N. . / / / OWNER'S SIG.\z\TURE'uriTntK a 5IG.\z\TURE Vj mc?b°"'f agenu "cor'*- leasonabktuembers for purposes of invesiiga, an and verification of t'hiwrqrst‘°" Owner's Sig„aturea..,£^.,^;V,,^J__ Date N^elinr Tlaig Immillbn Meettgs^’lfmWd "on "the m'TM' changeVn^r^^t;! Sir' & Z^r^n^Sonw: Q r f4r«sw •'rriss' n • ■; r Q 'V Co.^cvc'v. !:i - \ \ !;. r I’ Jl' ce.^vjJ-vH c^ CittOiOO \«> 'V(^^jr-CO-<_ Ovr • €^0^,1^ c- V- ^R«. C\., = ^ cv>.r^v-v —. Uj^ il' o V2^ Vtv»C^C*^ WN- 4\x r \ J^. ria_ t^crv.^ V«k ^"CJ^ <''*'^*>X «*^ C,yj*fc^ OOV CV\^ ^«'»,v,vJL>s^ "^VoCAw,. -S-A »-\*;5c^ *v 0" w% "s V V-^.*_ ^.- VvA^ AjL-v X c.^ cocjs ,.^V ■a--'-^ 'k.v .s .-v ^ c~v O o t' *dX. V r>J^*^. C^r-^C^ cJl^4.C V 4Xx^ C^C_j«L3t. C_^^ *, v-^ ^ >4-0 X \, S'^ r-^ X»»^s-V t>N.^ V*^ Vck>d_i:^ s^ V>v e. *C. r»»-VVj^OL X'*“ ^ Vrv V^ ^ c*/w\ —X,' 'o^ *—V-^ *'v^ C-S^i^-tx. K v.vj^ ''^vrv SV o^ru fvV^^ -K • " - ■■ . : \ v^'- • ; •«-% ’W - • •■ ’"■ •-■’** ' •* •• , :'tf r ----------------------^ Vvx^ V\S\- cVj^c5^ Orf>x/>A. .^0 \Qa. ^fe-r>kO . /t. X, s/2. . .. l- --------^bs-.srsf------N'v^V Ccr^Jt V<^/vc /^V.% ' V O 0--CA Vc. \Qa ^ Q' C.T.SL.. V. V f ov Vjov ^ * n C • A *).\ . 9 ,V^ S.Q.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------SM c-^ f-. f> f^wN(V\ . \ V\ ^ -------------------------------- ------—---------------------------------».>4r\____^ t' rt ^ r)i ------------si?v€^\w-._ ' \_S^, V- t^ ' OA V___ X. , ... li^A\~~ ^—.-------------- ------------------------A /> . r r\ X - ^ r\ \ --------------------------—_________ n. 0,.....^_.Q V ■ ---------------—Cll-______l_:L__^r^^' . ---------------—----------------------:_'• ■ •'■' 1 -1 V: i--------li j j r NrNfj^rx^ ^ ct \>JLa 3 Qck Vco (^•^\OsJ^ . ^ ^oo"a, ^ ci^ >r\rxrL-c> Q^vvaj O . ^ r <* —V \o \ c>^ c.. ^V c-^ COe-vrf^^ Os^V 3^rorVr-^ \-\a»-4j\^ 0^ 5^ V. . V0 ^NolO LOc u\^ \P_^^ 1G S sl A^sj #wc5l^ XVc. cx-^^.V.^ \Q. V>5»«.J\b 4-''^ J^\oD 'VnJX.^ C.CJv^Ji_Kw CK/s_^ i\V^. ^ ^6 7;^ ^ t C.V 3 cn^ ck^ tS) Vo»-K Co^%^e^-K^ r «. ^Oc.O ci L-j‘ ^ V(<i_»N-—. viv ii.V^O'V'^ :e-vvfeVA4^ ^\ws^v«- .i-N^-fc-v Cstce--*^ \5v-n.*. V<la^ 0.^ A. o^O ‘5s, N^*^*0*^ ^ V^Cjs r>>k s ^ \ Q !03_&^ Ce\>- n<\V- ■5-.'5>5 \^ ’“A ^t0\. L O^-LolO. <s^ L .51Ui ncAoetDtuvAnoNS XXX . KNOTCSCXCTINCarVATtM.LOMSTaOOtV s<it-9 (XXX). ocNOlumarascsuEVATON GAAUCnOOfV *)'«*« 0 . OCNOnSOfCCTTMOFrUAWCr V WOfFOtNOAIOM-SUVACCORAttACC AREA or HOUSE * CARAtt (iNauoiNQ CAmiLCvcR) • \A^l SO. rr RAISED DECK ENTRY area or 0RIVE/WMJ< TOTAL HARDCOVER • H5U so. fT. 4MU HVC ^iiOuw«n. * ASSO.S? SO. FT.TOTAL AREA or LOT LOT AOC/C 7S' LAKE SCTACK - 4«U.2I SO. FT. TOTAL HARDCOVER ABOVE 7S* LAME SCTBAU Ron Krueger & Associates, Inc. S30I Ctffu mAisMji BNtf. E4Aa. UMMMU SS43Y-2324 («I2) sg ProfMTty Man^genunt FocQity Maiu^gonait Maiiileiuifia Constniction Pngect Man^gemoit Phone (612)jj 8-2828 Fox (612)558-5288 Projicl Name: ____________ Page Number Date: REAL ESTATE SERVICES scale: 1/8 ’-1 fool SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) tonsTiNn HARDcoyf\f( fiV A. Hotae- ■ ZO HARDCOVER CALCULATiON^mRKSHEET LRONE\ 0-75 ’ 7K.7W^ -sm c/ui« B. (joroie C. Drtvtway fU>^bdf:V 7S-250 ’ \eO F 250-500' 500-/000’ 1.^00 S.F. X X X X X #-#- X MM* 12. (U*lMOrT^ ^1. 6% D. t\‘h X M m (lftf)':V A 4-(q-lii tit. £. Putio/Deck x X F. Landscape x m Vndertaln x m By Plastic x Or Fdtrie RFTAMiHh C. tMrriAJAiJ. x 1 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE • A 'L.lf,‘b B xlOO m PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House X * LoiOi MM* X U X ■■ X ai B. Caraxe x C. Drivewtn x X D. Sldenvlk X X 6TAlFt6 -E. Petia/Deck O x IT. 12. X 12 F. Landscape x Underlet x « By Plastic x at Or Fabric C. Other x TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 1^0 * B XlOO 24 210 t.285 TW 5.F. 5.F. S.F. S.F. .5.F. 5.r. .s.r. S.F. ,SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. A S.F. ?b.g % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. [s.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S.F %w - ‘jw A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.24, SlffiDI VISION 5 (B); 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; AND 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (L) FILE NO. 01-2673 >MIEREAS, Gary L. Gcnnundscn (hereinafter "the applicant’*) is ow-ner of the property located at 4101 Highwood Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows; Lot 15, Highwood Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for renewal of variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B) to permit the construction of c new residence to replace the existing residence on the property, the new residence to be located 25' from the front or street right-of-way line where a 30’ street or njnt setback is normally required, and requesting a west side setback of 9.5' where a 10’ setback is normally required, and requesting an cast side setback of 6' where a 10* setback is normally required, tmd requesting a lot area variance for construction of a new residence on a property of 8,550 s.f in area where lot area of 43,560 s.f. is normally required, and requesting a variance for the existing lot width which is 50' at the shoreline and 4V at the 75' setback line where the lot width is normally required to be 140' at such locations; and requesting a variance to Sections 10.22, Subdivi^ion 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hardcover in the 75-250' zone of 1,956 s f or 40% where only 1,220 s.f or 25% hardcover is normally allowed. Minnesota; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #J0 1-2673. Thi.s application is a request for renewal of variances granted \ia Resolution No. 38S9 adopted by the City Council on April 28, 1997 a.nd Resolutio.n No. 3719 adopted bv the Cit\* Council on April 22, 1997. Page 1 of 6 the northeast averages 18’ from the lot line, hence the separation between the structures will be maintained at approximately 26', greater separation than might be obtained if all houses in the neighborhood were constructed right up to the required 10' side setbacks. G. While the lot at 8,550 s.f. and width of 46-50’ is relatively small compared to the 1 acre/140' standards of the LR-IB zone, other developed lots in the neighborhood arc of similar size. Further, the property has contained a single family residence for many years and has remained in single separate ownership. H. Applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan which will adequately manage the runoff from the propcrt>'. Because the neighboring property to the cast has recently been reconstructed, the opportunity exists for an appropriate drainageway to be developed along the common lot line. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. The City Council Finds that the conditions c.xisting on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serA-e as a convenience to. the applicant, but is nccessar>' to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserv’e a substantial propert)* right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Ci^. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono Cit>* Council hereby grants renewal variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B), granting Page 3 of 6 MW , » 4. the northeast averages 18' from the lot line, hence the separation between the structures will be maintained at approximately 26', greater separation than might be obtained if . all houses in the neighborhood were constructed right up to the required 10’ side setbacks. G. While the lot at 8,550 s.f. and width of 46-50’ is relatively small compared to the 1 acre/140 ’ standards of the LR-IB zone, other developed lots in the neighborhood arc of similar si2c. Further, the propert)’ has contained a single family residence for many years and has remained in single separate owTiership. H. Applicant has provided a grading and drainage plan which will adequately manage the runoff from the propert>\ Because the neighboring propert}- to the cast has recently been reconstructed, the opportunit}- exists for an appropriate drainageway to be developed along the common lot line. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Platming Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the communit}-. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propert}- in this zoning* district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propert}*; would not mercly seivc as a convenience to. the applicant, but is neccssar}- to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is neccssar}- to preserve a substantial propert}- right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Cit}-. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants renewal variances to Mum’cipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (B), granting Page 3 of 6 s»?"''"hich«8.550 50- at the shoreline and 46' at thi 75' seibar^^^^ "*1^ « at such locaUons; and hereby grants further vwianccs to^slr? normally required allow .ho residence .0 be loca^25!rm rrom Street or front setback is normally rcauired and m * ngit-of-w-ay Imc where a 30 ’ setback is nonnally requited, and to allosv a west side sMbr^ofO* s'wh''‘ normally required; and further grants a variance, tn ^ f- ° ® setback is Subdivision 16 (L) to allow hwdeover in the 75 250' 2on'^or°f^c|“‘?‘'''*'°" ^ ..770 s.f. or 25./. hardcover is normally .,o Ji. “To t‘rof.:w4 '■ Srr rs7.TJr£>";r" ■*• S“£"i,j “ rsiTS: and 462 s.f. in walkways and driveway for a lofal t, d s.f or 40% of the 4,882 s.f 75.250* ^7nnl a allowance of 1.956 noted will require variance approval by the City Ld^is nonV*l m the future unless concurrw^t removals of nTe evUrfnri ^ approved hardcover increase above the 40yrallo^ C.> w“esIaS\°u^^^^^^^ *= '«> <«<. 'Vith the no negative impact on the ncighborhL or adjacent "0^™^.“’“'™“''’'’ S'rr, «. «.st:s «,v.?rwrr«r-=i:,‘'; Page 4 of6 misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resoluUon and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City CouncU on this 23rd day of April, 2001. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee. City Cierk Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor Property Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument \s-as acknowledged before me on this 23rd day of April 2001, by Barbara A. Peterson & Linda S. Vee. Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. ’ Notary Public Page 5 of 6 3(76) E (7-. V Dale AppHcaliM Rcctivtd: 0^2*43 Date Applicalioa CoasMerttf as CoaipleU: 07-1 14J (0-Dajr Rdriew Period Eipirts: 09-10-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Melanie Foth, City PIanner||)[' July 16.2003 #03*2910, Wayne & Anne Johnson 1225 Lakeview Avenue, - Variance • Public hearing Zoning Dbirict: Lot Area: RR-IB, Single Faail} Rural ResMentiat, 2 Acre 20,436 s.f. (0.47 acre) Appiicatiom Summmry: The applicants request a side yard variance in order to encroach 15' into the side yard setback. 1. Applicants are requesting a variance to place their proposed porch at 15’ from the side lot line x^here a 30* setback is required. StqffRecommei$datU»i: Staff recommendations: a) Recommend approval of the side yard variance for 15* encroachment into the 30’ setback. Hardship: Small lot size (0.47 acre) in a 2-acre zoning district, and location of existing house and well. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections • Section 10.28 Subd 5(D): Lots: Minimum side yard setback of 30*. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application/ Hardship Statement B - Proposed Sui%ey/Site Plan C ** Proposed Plans and Elevations D - Submitted Hardcover (Calculations E - Photos F - Property 0\%Tters List G - Plat Miq> Background The application is regarding a rebuild of a porch addition. The proposed porch \iill be rebuilt slightly larger than the existing porch and mil have a deck attached. The existing home is angled on the lot and is at its closest point 18* from the side lot line. The proposed porch would follow the same building line as the West side of the home. The new porch is proposed to be 15’ from the side lot line at its closest point. Total increase in square footage of the deck and porch will be 24.5 s.f. greater than the existing porch. The location of the neighboring detached garage, the vegetation screen and the fence make the encroachment of the side yard setback less significant in terms of its impact on the neighboring property. I«^2910 Jalyli,2009 rag«2 The lot size in this situation is 0.47 acre, typical oflots in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The proposed setack of 15* would be conforming if this area was zoned for acre lots. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LolAwa/WMth! LR Lot Area Lot Width Reouired 87,120 s.f. (2 acres)200 ’ Actual 20,436 s.f. (0.47 acre)150* LR Required Eiistiog Proposed Front 50*34.06 ’No change Rear 50 ’75.5’74’ West Side 30*18 ’15 ’ East Side 30 ’31.71 ’No change Structural Cov>r«»*« Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 20,436 s.f. (0.47 acre)Alkmrd: 3065.4 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2031 s.f. (10 %) Hardcover Calcularioyi* Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcos'cr250-500 20,436 s.f.6310.8 s.f. (30%) 3010 s.f.* (15%) 3035 s.f. (15%) landscape beds). MOZ-2910 July U.200J Pu|e3 West Side Yard Setback Variance Reconstruct an attached porch and deck IS* from the side yard setback where a 30* setback is required. The proposed porch would encroach 3* further into the side yard setback than the existing house. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysb In consUeHitg apptiemfions for vmrltmc*, the PiaitHb$g Commiulon skott contUer the effect of the proposed vorkmce upon lAr heahh, safety and welfare of die community, ecitrlitx and anticipaied traffic conditions, lltkt and air, danger offire, risk to the public sttfety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommemttng approval for variances from die llterat provisions of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict eiffercement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Intf/vMual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. 1."The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Vie Vi acre lot subjected to 2-acre lot standards makes it difficult to use the property in a manner allowed by the official controls. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The applicants have not suggested that economic considerations are a factor. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." .WA lUy-lMOO) 09:l3u Fro»>ClTY OF OfiONO ♦8S22<9iitl T-503 P.007/015 WM Applieatioii Date Rcc»Ived_^»^3.o ^ AmoimtPaidlCas^. - A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initia] Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each addidonal variance)' Renewal Variance Fee SlSO.00 (no chanige front original application) Variance for Boi»eQa!onning stmcturea S250 00 After-the-Fact feea (Double ^plication fee) ‘ PROPERTY l^nJQ0^1^cm o,<’rw »y ■ I (do) (do not) also owir th^ja^t parols of -------------^(mcmlh/year)ars’jLgm-^'^ —______ APPLICAin Name VVi Address: y. OWNER ^f dififerent thin applicant) Name______ ,2ip:_^5J2: Address: rinr' ' --------------------- --------------------------------- ---------- --------------------------Zip:____ Phone (home). - Phone (work).' (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area SelSetback:Front Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage — Side __Rear — Average Lakeshore Other (specif (anach additional sbeets if necessary) MartMMI 8l:14u Pr«r<lTY OF OMNO ♦BS22494SII T-«> P.B0B/0I5 P-192 •A4|aeciit Property Omiin* Acknowledcement Form [print address] located at appn^MdiMpptovrfofttT^^w^webmtn«^^confi^In (we) em (ace) aware of die impio^ai *" ““ CouncU that I ^4ea (^1 ^v«>vaL *' P»>P»aed neighboi^ p„jeet or u« Property Owner 5J^---------- *(w«)___________________or *****♦•••*••••♦♦♦*♦** [print name(s)][prim address] (we) am (are) aware of the improW^t pto ^ confirm for the City CouncU requires Council approval. proposed nei^bot's project eclare uncU that 1 or use Property Owner Date Property Owner Date OIKce a: least 10 days prior d&Miiakh #S9 1 n r I U <5 IQ-^S l-Ayf'tVifeuJ /^ue iso. Hoi CJII^) /A ^6 fP p \Q' A c r / \ 7 Or ^ p^ [B<?a our o fii*T;c^ cA s:> \ 15 Si Hfio ^#©n3*c?/tr uf irrt Cnicir /Vp^U LyAikr fLiXfvr**-^ r <^-C/ (?.C , /I oc SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLB Om O-TS* ---------'iG HARDCOVER Hf exhibit - D hardcxiver calculation worksheet 7M50*2S0^‘ A. Hooie WiMi SJ. B. OMfB C Drfvcwqr D. E PatJonOeck F. Uzibcive Uadcdaio ByFlHtk O. OBcr A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTV AREA IN 2<WE _____________ ♦ B ____ ______________ + B X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7HWE A. House 4Sb€oi B. Ganie C Driveway D. Sidewalk E Paiio^eck JB04L X _ X F. Tandifape Uaderiaia By Plastic G. Odier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B X 100 gc»4tA ^7a 6 X SE SE SJ. SJ. SE SI. SI. SI. SJ>. SJ. .SI. .SI. :si. SJ. S.F. _% A B SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI. i; !- V I L ■ * I V n •« :^T*. - V. tyhihii- t, Dale ApfiMcallM Received: 6-I64D Date AppikatkNi CoasMered as Coaiplete: 6-16-03 60-Day Review reriod Eipircs: I-1S4I3 // Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Foth, City Planner^/^ July 16.2003 #03-2913 Stewart & Gina Hansen. 583 Park Lane, - Variance • Public hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential District (I-acre) Lot Area: 9.500 s.f. (0.219 acre) From: Date: Subject: AppiicatioH Applicants request a variance to construct a 6 ’ x 20* covered entry located 5’ from the side lot line where a 10’ setback is required. The variances include: 1. Decrease structural coverage from 2459.7 s.f (25.9 %) existing to 2439.2 s.f. (25.7%). Net decrease of 20.5 s.f. 2. Encroachment of 5* into the required 1 0* setback. 3. Hardcover in 0-75* to remain at existing 10.3% where no hardcover is allowed. 4. Decrease hardcover in the 75-250' zone, will be reduced from 3641.16 sf (63.3%) 10 3503.16(60.9%). Stif//Recommendation: Staff recommendations: a) Denial of setback variance of 5’ from side yard as it will limit light and air for neighboring property, and will add to the crow'ding in the neighborhood. b) Approval of change in structural coverage amounts (net decrease). c) Staff would approve a proposed porch meeting the side yard setback and resulting in a further decrease in proposed structural coverage. d) Staff suggests removal of 356 s.f. of landscape beds to further reduce 75*-250* hardcover. Hardship: Staff finds that there is no viable hardship. Applicants are looking for aesthetic change to facade rather than added space. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections • Section 10.22 Subd 2: Lakeshore Hardcover: Within 75'-250* of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. • Section 10.24 Subd 5(B): Lot minimum requirements: Minimum setback from side-yard shall be 10 feet. • Section 10.56 Subd 16(L)(2): Hardcover: Between 75*-250* of the OHWL there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. • Section 10.03 Subd 14(C): Lot Coverage: The total combined footprint areas of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 15% of the lot area. Including all structures 6* above grade level. L MMflJ Jafy21,2003 rsit3 Slfuctwrwl Covraat: Total Lot Area Total Stnictaral Coverage 9,500 s.f. (0.22 acre)Allowed: 1500 s.f. (15%) Existing: 2459.7 s.f. (25.9%) Proposed: 2439.2 s.f. (25.7 •/'•) SUff Proposal: 2409 2 s.f. (25.4%) HMj«ovtrCifcfhM»t! Hardcover Zone 0-75 75-250 Total Area to ZOBC 3750 s.f. 5750 s.f. Allowed Hardcover 0s.f (0%) 1437.5 s.f. (25%) Eabtiag Hardcover 386 sf.* (10.3%) 3641.16 s.r. (63.3%) 3285.16 s.f.* (57.1%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Proposed Hardcover 386 s.f ( 10.3%) 3503.16 s.f. (60.9%) 3147.16 s.f* (54.7%) Side Yard Selback Variance The applicants request a variance to encroach 5 ’ into the side yard setback where a 10* setback is required. Hardcover Variance The applicants request a variance in order to change their hardcover amounts. This change would result in a decrease in the total square footage in hardcover on the property by 2.4%. This is due to a proposed a change in the lot coverage by structure. Tlie applicants have proposed a reduction in the lot coverage by structure perceniage by 2.4*/o. Hardship Statcmeal The applicants have provided a detailed hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis tm CHukkrtHg ippHcartsa i/w vmHmmct, Skr hmuibii Ccmmbslom shmtt comsUer tk* tffect o/tke tnjfle tight mmi ati, danger offlre, rbk to the pmhtie and the effeet om oahiet of groper^ hi the tmrrouHdtmg orea. The Hommirng CommUsioa shati comtider rteommmdh for toriomees from the tiier^groehlomt of the Zonbig Code hthutomets where theU ttrkt ettforctmeni would come mmdmehonbh^ become efdrcmimtoiietimmifiieio the htMdooi property mmder eoml^rotloo, oatdthoU recom mend oppronl ooty when h b demomtr o ttd thot tueh octlont wUI be In keeping wkh die tpirti end intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for **undue hardship** pertinent to this application; MM9IJ Ji%2l,2M3 I. property in question caniwc be put to ■retsoorf)le use if used under condilioosallowed by the official controls.” It is the opinion o/staffthat this criterion is not met ^ to circumstances unique to his properly not created ^ o I acre zone. It is the opinion ofstqff'that this ^e variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The lots in this area are very tightly arranged and the variance would decrease the a/wunt o/llght, space and air for the neighboring property. In the opinion of staff this CTUtfioH is not nt€t. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” Reasonable use ofthe property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Undue hardship also includes, but b not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for ^ enCTgy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as Chapter2. when in harmony wth this Thewriance requested is not the minimum variance which would alleviate any headship. ^ The Bo^ of Anieab and A«ustmenls or the Council nuy not permit as a variance any IM that IS not peniritted under tWs Chapter for property in the zone where theatiected person s land is located.” N/A m Additionally, proposed changes would lessen the hardcover totals on the property. ”TJe conations do not apply generally to other land or structures in the dbtrict in u-hich said land is located.” The p^O-i, nor larijoe IB rteneiiWoftoorf hnmtr.iUhtsimlniU, rtre^f^”/”^*****^’^*””****”** &rte<»iiBtaio/s*jyr«s Ja|y21,2M3 P>gtS 10.“The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The variance as requested is not the minimum variance which would alleviate any hardship. Staff would agree to the necessity ofa covered entry with minimal impact. 11.“The granting of the proposed variance u>ill not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be c ontrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.* It is the opinion ofstaff that this criterion is met. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." It is the opinion of stcff that this criterion is not met. Issues for Considcratioo 1. Are the changes proposed strictly aesthetic? 2. Docs the size of the proposed open porch addition continue to contribute to the overcrowding of the neighborhood? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccoBiiiicfldatioB a) Staff recommends denial of setback variance of 5’ from side yard as it will limit light and air for neighboring property, and will add to the crowding in the neighborhood. Howe ver, staff would approve a proposed porch meeting the 10 ’ side yard setback and resulting in a further 30 s.f. (5’ x 6*) decrease in proposed structural coverage. b) Additionally, staff recommends that the proposed reductions in structural coverage be required by removing the 59.5 s.f. segment of deck, and only allowing the street deck to be 6’ X 15 ’ (90 s.f. installed as opposed to 120 s.f.). c) The applicant ’s proposal docs not include removal of356 s.f. of plastic/fabric lined landscape beds in the 75 ’-250 ’ zone. If these arc removed (staff recommends removal), final 75 ’-250 ’ hardcover will be (3503.I6-356)=3147.I6 s.f. or 54.7%. A AppUcadon # I Date Received 6#- CITY OF ORONO • VARIANCE APPUCATION Initial AppUcatioo Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per eadi additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no chaos® from original ^iplication) Variance for non-conforming structures S2SO.OO After-the-Fact Fees (Double applicatioo fee) Amount Paid 2so.oo PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address PflrV-U^I^_____________________________________________ Property Identification Number (P.IJ).) Oh- U7-2^-4l 0C47 __ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. OK) SlirVi^. Date Property Acquired 06/1994_______________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not ) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Preset use of propertv: ^ residential Zoning District: Lg-I&_______ _other (specify). APPLICANT . , _ Name stNVgfH WqYv;tv\ (mmiod/ Address: 5^3 PClirk LQUO Phone (home)^^2.475.1474 ____ Phone (work ) *^52.47^. City: OroyiO ZiD: 5535fe> OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______________ Address: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ City.. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Intimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail: SCOflmldXCT. (attach additional sheets if necessar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Lot Width ^ Setback: __Front Side __Other (specify)__________________ Hardcover Rear _Lot Coverage ■ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficutfy or unusual oroneru* cat compl-’oce with Zoning Code requirements: SCO Mc M»>vry ewr.ICK mom Cl) REQUnWD SUBMITTALS ft" TOur ronllfuHoii 1. Completed Application Fonii ~ ^:^'nSuc£“ ^iUon!‘Se"T7^ XylF^'x-T?”;" i- JL SItetche. or plans of floor 4 *'?,*" *>' '«producUon. ' JL List of the ifgal names7inc1;.5j^;^uS,)^^^^^^^ *>?• * Ml A ™* wouW include namefs) of a^licantlsl “ *®l!lA As an addendum to this appUcation dImw ^ ^ ® current owner(s). NIA application.^-----------“V ®*er persons _L dditional items as may be requested by City staff. 7. 8. APPLICANT'S SIGNATUREitssr, S'.'T^.cvti'j'Srsr-'r. ‘y*. consults expends incuaed in review of til a^ii“ 10^^ supplied IS tiue and conect to the best of hisflier taSge! ' "■* ‘^»'™«i<>n Applicant’s Signature ____________ OWNER'S SIGNATURE Date 2<JUnt>2.D0b #2913 Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledsement Form I (wc) J^mI^ of ^77 Lciyjc/ [print nsme(s)][print address] also referred to as Land Use AppUcation No. ar«s,“srs." ssrs.ii'isi -»ss? “'or use Property Owner fel UJ.4, ^ . O • i>5 Date Property Owner Date I (we) Shin> t i^ns rM [print name(s)] ._ of iffOi Park Ldho [print address] I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I or use ^L/ill6Date / T Date A r information that may assist the City in the review of this Und Usea'ss.'ssrc—“ —* 2-". ■»»». £.“r. K.S #29J^ Varliflce AppTtcailon (June 2003) 383 Park Lane Siewart ^ Gina Hansen ^xhihif B DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Baefcytnutid rlt^^r**** ^ **^^^**^*1 *. "**«• *e orenll atxuctural coverage on the lake aide ^ « both *. lA. .nd •«« ,id« of the^oo,^ •ddm^ thepnni*ijrmtmtoflhei>to(ioi«feonitnielionu to "tofttn'iiidf educe the cumat Street (Eaat|3 Sf«i^ \Ve pro^ contmedoii of . V x 20' coveted eotty which reduce the "m.itivc" feelin,, of one proved entty u d.o nteluded with thit vpUction. The vidutce tetputed foe this i . Sde «d --------------------—- —' -- —- —— ■» mw uawaaaaa^ae j Crom the oatside wall of the house. In a^rioa, pt^e to a 3' x 215* «id 10* n 5* seetbn of the dnveu^r and plant some shrubb^imtelam with mulch to help blend the house into the neighborhood. No^vamSce required for thu, wie are Just attempting to "soften’* the view and blend in uith th« !;LXToSe*'.:ie;c::?s.?h7n['“''''‘‘ «•« Lake rWeart Slit# We P»po*c to remove a pomon of the exiidng deck and relocate the stairs farther to the north. ccc.^occ-opor Dcscripdon Net Effect to 75 ’ - 250* Setback Zone EtdiuatcJ Completioa Date on street (eai^ *ide that uat in place befote die Stop \Totk Order. No change.Completed pendmg temoval of the stop uork ordea Conauuct addidonal phtform 6* a 14' with roof pitch of 6/12 on street (rsit) tide to match that of (he house. See attached drauing. There is no change to the overaO hixdcowr since the platform «ill 64.0 (6J)‘ X |4.(J) square feel (itructuraQ.Plitform it completed pending tenunxl of the atop uod order Roof to be completed as soon as possible u; on sccepunce bj the aty. #"2913 Varimct Applknioa (June 2003) SMFirkUiic Dcfcripdoa i Setback 2one / i.: ;Jr. *:-f k*-.h ■ad landscaping cimcndy undcdain bjr plastic Kclecatt stun off the deck oo the lake 0«*0 »d* by icmovtog ■ pordos of die deck tad movfag the staits lo the noeth. Ihe current stain hire two i««A«g pbtfeems that arc oot necessary and wiD net be tebuQt The stain are replacing a poedoo of the deck that uiD be remored but is not considered as reduction in this cakuladon since thqr will occupy the same amount of space and both are centideted structural coverage. (structural.Spdqg2004. (tdueaog the soe Cboo die hooac (to the une$0 by 18** on the endm length. Since there it an overhang now; this is the maximum that will allow us to udSxe the current foodnga - 45.0 (14* X 300) square feet (sttuctutaO.Spiing20O4. This tequttet that we »ea^t«ay diauaemb^ die «nd aince we need to do we have some milntcnancc to da above the ewning that we would like to complete et the same toe. Hus includes replacing some Remove 3* of driveuay fin front of •'ndscape wall) on the street (easO aide to allow for plandng of shrubbery using |)m farther tofun the massing effect. -117.5 p.O* X 215* and 1 iioTiO)’ square feet (hardcover. Fafl2003. ------------------------- P.641.14) to 40.9% p.503.14).>117.5 square feet (hardcoTcr) • Reducing attuctural coverage from 23 9% (2,459.44) ' to 25.7% P.439.16^. cements to the *nus propottl his been discussed uith the neighbors to the North South - .. P»«l ssd Dmiir Alien (N’orih) 577 Pirfc Line Oronok.NfN 55354 H - 951473.4045 Shine tnd Kiii Rudd (South) Ml Rack Line Ofono^hDC 55354 H-951473148S C-411270J719 Scon and Shionoo Buner (End JWPiALane OfOookMN 55354 H-951474 l5444 €-4115994395 #291 a SmwmtJtQioaBmHm HABDSHIP/DESCIUPnoN OF UNUSUAL PROFEKTY CONDITIONS home bccak up the cuncnt ««JL ThU pnpoMl d« NOT tBju« cl«S^tTo.7yi!h5[ £iir "'’^ ”* “"^ #2913 P)i«e3er3 ■ •y w-,:5r... "1^1* If.. ‘ f' , ..•-.iri?’'* ,*.ir .'•‘•‘•.~T. ■•’’•■' ''^^•‘/,'IT.'.;” ^.r :j«» -*—t—••• •-.-J.;. -1i» .■U*. 3B u.«t«u4a.^^.^M.i«. . t.. . ::v tL-i&asi^u .li;i^''hIP‘''^ ••-• -’"" •*» ^^ ~^mmrt-mmr -.m-- .IVT. ...Or'-? : 'L;:I.* r^'- J ^ 1^ t 2 |»f’- 1-'^ V j •■’PiTiB m '' ':l’ ’ Fl^ f^-'C gfe'.^y 1^ O'- 'rV^. liT '-''- ~ ;r.:: -.--a- &&<[■:» "„.5k ^ig'^5s.,a;.^::T?ivr-f*^ 5^' .t-’j.TT:: " •jETO'^L " * "T*:■••.•' “T-'T::-------«'• •—- •• ••‘- —, .-.Vi ,. ir- /j-a, -alk- .uii.; : • ■• ■.'■ L;^ u^.J''-!.||f^:>»a ;;W,i -?>.7v«.!;^ —sans' fiv;?.".'. .... .tf® «- V . „. . . . ■ • r . < 'V ____:___!_T -• *. •' J. .^j- I .'I' :/ i/f./• ’> ! •• ■ I i' ;; ;i' ' / : I • J n^B' '• li ■ •' s'l ■ -i Jii-Ji • i • h i'1/ ii’- mB !W;l: L'l; SifJlvJ 1 iLsi'aLiS.i- ii rfdtoh ah^ii/of wa II ^ minify) wx -fm/i life ;'50«i Q DJ '^iJ. ? •fc: <jg ^‘[x‘''\-OW^'t _ wt ivon m \9 di^v\i'J9o ^\<\/^/ pKhibif ^ hardcover fRBACK ZONEt (CIRCLE ONE) f-TS' EXllTING HARDCOVER IW A. Hoom ~ AO.A-' , ©chlbi^ e WORKSHEET 290^* B. C Dlivfinor ^.3 33.Q W,Q D. SUnmik 99-0 E PatMkck 90 V (\A06^ y.Q f<TrfipQ UadtriAin ByPlaitic O. Other -5£iti5£L^l 4^. 4- X X X X X X X X X 2i3 2.0 \Q.O 17.0 (QtlUlflO A A A. Houm TOTAL HARDpOVER IN ZONE ______________ ♦ B ________ HARPf^VRR IN jiamb ; Ltqgdi n.4- WUA B. Oaiaft C Drivcwiy D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck 90.0 2J2.A- n.c 99.C (\akC^ □EUB^O 2Z.^ 2.0 F. LaadK^ 40. A- ^ Uadcfiala 2.^4 f^tYCOH » XBy Plaitie O. Other 9.If total hardcover in zone X 100 X 100 X lOO soo-iooo* \9O0.^h _s^. s j. otmtore^ 707.0 ^Q.o \t0.0 iZt.Z 119. If J2I.2- TgQ.H nzT I2?r S.F. SE SE SE 9tri(c4uro —SEi^tn^irt^ SE ,SE SE sp.ftrwr'#iirt' SE A .SE B —H Sf. ChltC?+Zirt' SE SE SE SE 4tr4otiiny SJ. SE SE SE Z30.O sp ftYiiC'hiny Tio. 0 s'r ftruotll^o SE SE SE SE _^,9Pa.ljy gp ^ ^ SI. B H 0-. ilA M MJITlMIOm raOTAODR Jl AOORfiSSUKASSlGNEO OWN8RNAMB UOIAItOJUUJOO TAXTAYIR MCNARDIUtUDO HAM&AOM «97PAIUCLA LONOLAKCMM S»M Jt 0MI72MI€M mrAon sttpamcu OWNniMIIB'OIMH LOUBNOW TAXPAYm OeHBBLOUENOW HAMiyADOK 577PARKLA LONGLAXfiMN SSJM » MII72MI0049 MOPAOM MS PAMCU OWNER NAMC SEANOALY TAXPAYER SEANALEAIIOALY NAMC/AOOR MS PARR LA LONOLAKEMN SSSSA M MII72J4100tS PROPAOOR SM PARRLA OWNER NAIM IIENM:j>tNPOIIPBfTBOLANO TAXPAYER OTYOPORONO NAMEMOOR PODOXM CRYSTAL DAY MN SS323 M MII72S44MI4 PROPAOm AM PARRLA OWNUNAMI ROANOBRSONANLANOERSON TAXPAYER • RCKOANOCMONA HAMyAflOR NANCY L ANDERSON ‘ AMPARRU ■ LONOLAREMN SSJSA ! HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS USr PACE: I M 0611723410044 PROPAOOR SMPARRU OWNERNAME lAMESAMULVANNY TAXPAYER JAMES A MULVANNY NAME/AOOR SMPAXRU U3NGLAKEMN SS3S6 31 06117234100(7 PROPAOOR 313 PARRLA OWNERNAME GMARASTEWARTLHANSEN TAXPAYER MNAR A STEWART L HANSEN NAMC/AOOR 313 PARRLA LONOLAREMN 33336 M 0611723410060 PROPAOOR 4100 ELMST OWNERNAME TPCARROLLASRCARROa TAXPAYER THOMAS PETEK CAKKOLL NAMC/AOOR 4100 ELM ST LONOLAREMN 33336 36 O6I17234I00I6 PROPAOOR 564 PARRLA OWNERNA61E HENNEPIN PORFETTEO LANO TAXPAYER CITYOfORONO NAME/AOOR POOOX66 CRYSTAL OAYMN 35323 36 0611723440017 noruxm m parkla OWNERNAME RRUDORKRUOO TAXPAYER RiaiARD A KATHLEEN RUOO NAME/ADOR WrAULUi LONOLAREMN 33336 36 06II7234I0G4S PROPAOOR 367 PARRLA OWNERNAME AUOREYOVLROY TAXPAYER AUDREY OVIIAUY NAME/AOOR 367 PARK LANE LONOLAREMN 33336 31 0611723410046 PROPAOOR 601 PARKLA OWNERNAME SHANER A KRISTINEM RUOO TAXPAYER SHANE R A KRISTINE M RUOO NAMC/AOOR 601 PARK LA LONGUKCMN 33356 31 0611723410064 PROPAOOR 394 PARRLA OWNERNAME SBASNOUKCER TAXPAYER SCOTT E A SHANNON NOUKCER NAME/AOOR 394 PARR U OKONOMN 33336 36 0611723440003 PROP AODR 649 MINNETONKA HOLD LA OWNERNAME SVSWANTLKAPOSWANTEKTR TAXPAYER STEPHEN A PATRKTiASWANTLR NAME/AOOR 64' 0*4%* -TONKA HOLD LA lv:«TvAiv.MN 33336 i I CamFYTKATTlIC FACTS REPRESCNTCO ARC AN ACXXTlATr AND ^ ITAPPEARSTmS DATEONTllC KQCOROS CO H*mu I If)Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department 1 •v 3 • »M5 «, K Si- ta(99)M ■;sti " 3 ■ OAKS 5:g > 1XM % ssrATes m / Parcel Information Fareel ID 0611723410047 Nous* Number 883 Street Name PARK LA eng Oils ffluiH O^, County, tnd State ntdMhonti^tndotfmrsourrtt 7334869 ClTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 449 7 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE ^ TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.24. SUBDIVISION S(B),Metro Legal Services tnc.pn^j^Q 2S91 00X491 ' WHEREAS, Gina R. Hans^(hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at S83 Park Lane within tlu City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and legally described as follows: '^rOOTTlVc! Lot 13, Block 6, MINNETONKA SUMMIT PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.24, Subdivision S (B) to allow a side yard setback of 3' where 10’ is required to permit construction of a second story to the existing residence. WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Plarming Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 19,2000, at which time u ' persons desiring to be heard concerning this application w*ere given the opportunity to speak thereon. Mirmesota: 1. 2. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL\TD by the City Council of Orono, riNDLNGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File 1^2591. This property is located in the LR-IB Zoning District, where 1 acre or 43,560 s.f. is the minimum lot area. The property consists of approximately .219 acres or 9,500 s.f. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 19,2000 and recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 0. Page 1 of 5 6(htbit H ClTYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 Q The Planning Commission made the follomng findings of fact* * 3. The lot is extremely undersized and nairow for the LR-IB zoning district. ivlld do ST""’! u 0*1 *his property are peculiar to tirvlriLc^ ^ gcn^Ily to other property in this zoning district; ihS^granting traffic conditions, light, air. nor pose a fj hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a or diS^^ applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficuly IS necessary to presence a substantial property right of the applicant- r''?’ "PPlicalion including the findings and «te a3i4t a!Id ™ “"™«« by «ei4Se“144"‘ *' “'■"y CONCLUSIOsNS, ORDER. AND CONDITIONS sstc—.IS sss:. Page 2 of 5 H GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 9 7 Applicant is advised that if this project ultimately results in substantial remo^^l of the existing reridence due tq.unforeseen circumstances, the City Council shall have the right to reconsider this approval to determine whether the conditions of this resolution remain applicable. Authorities granted by this v-ariance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or these variances will expire on that date (July 10,2001). Violation or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any author;'; i^.'aoted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdcmeaiior. The applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this . ard on behalf of herself, her heirs, her successors and assigns, hereby ag^ bv »- to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of rhe City or Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of July. 2000. • Linda S.yee;'CityClcA Gabrie^abbour, Mayor \ Property Owner (s)Ly Page 3 of 5 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ». COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4 4 9 7 municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. MARY AN:^ JOHNSON Notary Puk&ic 7 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) M- COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On Ihi^l ■ /3t ^-----of 2000, before me a Notiiy Public wlhin ^ for said Coun^. petsonaliy appcueJ e u.’.er / .//..a <■. r “"'“»*** P«“”W describidto and 4o execuled die foregoing -to acknowledged (hat he (they) executed the aame as his (their) free act and de«l -/f]OMJi Q,}l^ otVier- —WMI UUij marya ':*ijohnson WMYPteuc -mogsoTa H raw iBiiiic,M4M.it. 1001 IJOWSON I icm««soTA I «W4M 11.1001 I Notary PubUc STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) M. COWSTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this_________day of and for said County, pemonally .nwiued - 2000. b«fore me a Notary Public within sz:.w ~ ..‘Btssss “™”'- •" Notary Public Page 4 of5 rn'f ’dSilnpiw?*’' I hMby c«1Ny ttN« Ihh mn9f *n ' undar hm wMaMalaw and that Id Ui«rI am a Uconood Land Survoyor under Uta lam of Um StoU ol UnnoMLa. T^aadara 0. Konma Mo: UconM No. 17W« L iT. iT. 03 •4f Date AppIkathM Received: 06*1 Date Applkatkm CoasMeted as Ceoiplete: 06-184O M-Day Review Period Espires: Ot-l7-OJ Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Foth, City Planner^|^ July 16.2003 #03-2915 Northern Sunrooms. Inc for Scott Udell, 2166 Shady^^-ood Rd - Variances - Public hearing Z)Riag DisIrkI: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) Lot Area: 18,843 s.f. (0.432 acre) From: Date: Subject: A/^iaUion 5ffifUNai>v The applicant. Northern Sunrooms, Inc, on behalf of the owner requests a variance to allow an 8' encroachment of the average lakeshore setback for construction of a second-story porch addition. Also a variance for a side yard encroachment of roof eaves. Tlie variances include: 1 . Encroachment of 8’ into the average lakeshore setback for a 13' x IT second- story sunroom addition over the existing kitchen. 2. Existing roof eavc 3.5’into side yard setback area. Only 1 .5’ is considered a non- encroachment therefore, the remaining 2’ is considered encroachement. Note that: ^ Lot coverage by structures to remain at existing 3466 s.f. (18.3 %) where 1 5% is allowed - Variance granted in August 1993, file # 1826. ^ Hardcover in 0-75* to remain at existing 229.5 s.f (4.7 %) where no hardcover is allowed - Variance granted in August 1993, file #1826. ^ Hardcover in 75-250' zone will remain at existing 5071 s.f. or 4 1 .9%, i.e. 600 s.f less than the 5621 sf (46.8%) approved in 1993, where 25% is allowed - Variance granted in August 1993, file #1826. Stq/f Recommendation: Staff recommends: a) Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The addition would not encroach further into the average lakeshore setback than the existing home. The addition would not affect the views of the lake from the neighboring properties, rather potentially blocks only the view of the neighboring n ards. b) Denial of the requested excess roof cave encroachment. Hardship: Staff finds that hardship exists due to the location of the residence.________ Pcriinent Zoning Ordinance Sections • Section 10.03, Subd (15)(A): Non-Encroachments: The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard requirements: (A.) Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, mechanical devices, cornices, eaves, gutters and the like, provided they do not extend more than 1-1/2 feet, off-strccl parking except as hereinafter regulated. • Section 10.22, Subd (B): Average lakeshore setback: No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lake than the /a JBljr2l.2M3 p»ft2«r5 aver^ distance from the ahoreline of existing residence buildings on adjagent lots. • Section 10.24, Subd (dXB): Lota: Minimum requiictncnt for side-yard is a 10’ setback. UstofEilUMCi A - Application E - Property Owners List B-Existing A Proposed Survey/Site Plan F-Photos C - Propo^ Plans and Elevations O - Plat Map D — Submitted Hardcover Calculations BadtfraiMd “kohore setback, lot coverage by structures, and hardcover in the 0-75’ and 75’. 250 m l 993 to allow for the current site conditions. In the granting of these variances a g^ deal <>/har(^ver m reduced and/or removed, and in fact, the existing 75’x250 ’ h^om IS 60^.f less to that approved in 1993. The applicant wishes to add a second- story addiuon above an existing kitchen within the average lakeshore setback area. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHECT LR Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre)100’ Actual 18.843 s.f. (0.432 acre)72.97* LR Required Existing Proposed Lake 75’78’+/-78’+/. Street 30 ’N/A N/A NWSidc 10 ’8’8’ SE Side 10 ’12 ’12 ’ Average Lakeshore No encroachment 8’ encroachment S encroachment aasU&dll (MU-2915 Jaly2l,20<U ratc3ors Total Lot Area Total Siniclural Coverage 18,843 s.f. (0.432 acre)Normally allowed: 2826 s.f. (15%) Allowed per prior approval: 3466 s.f. (18.3%) Proposed: 3466 s.f. (18.3%) Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 4687 s.f.Os.f (05i) 229.5 s.f.* (4.7%) 229.5 s.f. (4.7%) 75-250 11,876 s.f.2969 s.f. (25%) 5621 s.f.* (47.3%) 5621 s.f. ( 47.3%) side Yard Setback Variance The existing NW side yard setback is less than the required 10 ’. The existing roof eave overhangs into the setback area a total of 3.5’, 1.5 ’ of the cave is considered a non- encroachment [Sect 10.03, Subd (15)J which leaves a total of a 2 ’ side-yard encroachment. Average Lakesbore Setback Variance The applicant has requested a variance of the average lakcshore setback variance in the amount of 8’. The existing building is currently encroaching into the average lakcshore setback, however, the applicant wishes to add a sccond-stor>', which would increase the bulk of the encroachment. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anah’sis !m considering apfilkatkms/or variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effea of the proposed variance upon dte health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provision ^ of the Zoning Code In Instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for **undue hardship” pertinent to this application: 1.“The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” // is the opinion of Staff that the property can be put to reasonable use under the current conditions. d b MMflS Jityll.MO PifiSsrs 12. "The gnoliiigofsuchviriaiice will not mcfely serve as ■convenience to the •ppUcant. but b necessary to alleviale deraonstiable hardship or difficulty." The location cfthe home constitutes a hardship for the applicant. Issues far Caustdffatlau 1. Does Planning Commissioo agree that the average setback encroachment will have little or o impact on views of the lake enjoyed by the adfacent property owners? 2. b there any hardship demoositaied to support the encroachment of the eave **eyebronr more thm 1.5* past the 10'setback. Thb cave area b between the first and second stores and b an omamental feature of the house. Staffcannot support any caves above the second story being more than 1.5* fioin the house, but the exbting eyebrow should be addressed. 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with thb application? Stall Racamaundatian Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. The addition would not encroach further into the average lakeshore setback than the existing home. The addition would not affect the views of the lake from the neighboring properties, rather potentially blocks only the view of the neighboring yards. Staff recommends denial of the requested excess roof eave encroachment ■Wiaiii ir f r . t « A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE AVIUCATION InitUI Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance)*^ Renewal Variance Fee SI 50.00 (no change fiom original application) Variance for non-confoiming stnictures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcatloo n Date Received Amount Feld > PROPERTY INFORMATION • •w^mAiw.uwn rviunoer iP.LD.) * g I. i----7 TI . ■ • 1 (do) (do not) also own th#! ...r^ ' ' ------ (wonth/year) ware i ropery Acquired_____________________ 1^) (do not) also own the a^jac^ j^iucels of land ^1 ... VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Front __Side Hardcover _Lot Coverage .JC- O^er (specify) S|Te —; __ Average Lakeshore H^SHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual nron»r«%/ j:,: Attach additional ^cets if ^ — -fl rfo^ O' 1 O onal sheets if necessary) i§^29 o nrt/ It/it fU^UfJ XVw^ LA)^ a£.V XV’/r/* 7S* /V'«»/W</ A(rw sysr^^ a W/MJ>Kf ^^rm*r Ti r.v /•/• ^*/V/ a/tx Mr>* Jfac^ c*Mf’a rt*j^ an 1ST. r<i yuKAF Aa*Hu^ j(M^X»Cr» ELEV ftf •<•€?* L\ ;v'Sc^rr L to 3/ u //a0K5^ HARDCOVER POCULATION WORKSHEET %TthtJaLWHBL\ ,<!C»CH OWtt rCwD SUI^DUUI^IBfillEI&ElXfiUK 75.2S0*250^00*5CNIOOO' A. Hbun B. Otraf* *C* .Drtvawii^ X D. SidMk E PadoMi Lasiacapa Uod«Ub ByPla«ia OrPtf>rio ^.6 O. Olhar TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOT/1 PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -9 A — * B 4^0 xIOO MA*nc over in ZONE* K, Kousa WMk B. 0ara|8 C. Drivaway D. Sidavralk EPatloA>aek F. Ufidsm TimUnderti ByPitiilo OrPabtia O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IK ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN Z"NE A ______________ ♦ B xlOO - #2C)H 51. SI. SI. SI. SI. SI: SI. S.F. SI. 81. .SI. .SI. .51. .SI. ________.SI. .SF. SI. SI. 51. SI. .51. .S.I. S.F. 'SJ. SF. .SI..si: •U; f — 9>Searr Ookac. JL Horn « Mni. HARDCOVEKtlALCULATlQIiWORKSHEET ISO^OO' WiiSl B. Otragt Cl Orivew^r D. Sidmvalk S7.S & PatM)«dc ■A<7. ».jr ^.5 A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTALPROPERT Y AREA IN ZONE A Agay * D xIOC PROPOSED WAHnr^>VER IN ZONZ • A. K0US8 B. Otrags C. Drivewiy D. Sidewalk E. PaiioA>cck F. Laadsctpe Usderl^ ByPiutIc Or Fabric O. Other TOtAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B xlOO 41 ei) o yr lO 1 S00.100Q* .SF. .SF. .S.F. -^7 .8.F. .S.F; SJ. .S.F. .8P. SJ. .SP. .SF. SJ. S5. SP.I'SF. SJ. .SF. .SP. S.F. ‘SJ. S.F. .SI, _SP. _S.F. SP. 8P. 81. V. o HARDCOVER CALCtJLATION WORKSnEET nnACKZONXt CCmcXEONia c-ts* 7S-2S0' A. HeuM V____ X _______ SOO'IOOO’ lAfllA W«Ji SF. SS. B. 0«*|« *C' Drfvtwqr J^7 _S.F. _ty. .85. S5; D. Sidtw»Dc E PatfoOfck .85. .85. .85. .85. P. Lindieipt UtMiIn ByPliitlo _____ OrFabric .S5. .55. 85. O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A /aav - B xioo -I:?; PROPOSED HARPgQVER IN ZONE* A. Koum ■ Uttffii V/Mih 85. 85. •■S5. B. Oarase C D.'ivewiy 85. 85. D. Sidm'tUc .85. 85. E Pat;o/D«ck 8.5 85. F. U&dsetpe Uoderlabi ByPiuUc Or Fabric .85. 8.5 .8.5 O. Other TOTAL KARDCOVifR fN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ ♦ B xlOO .85. .81. r RUNUA11;;« M l7ll73iOOOM f*Or AOOR aiM StlAOYWOOO RO OWNERMAM8 ACnStlERAOEFBIIEfUll TAXEAV8R ALEXANDGIUMVtUXF1SIIEllJ]| NA;4G/AI)Olt lIMStUOYWOODROAO WAYZATAMN 15)91 M 17117234)0011 nor ADM 2IM SIIADYWOODRO OWNBRHAM8 SDAOLUDCU. TAXPAVn SCOTT D A DEAH L UDELL KAMVAOM 31 M SIIADVWOOD RD WAYZATAMN SSJ9I M I7II72342003I rROf ADM MOI TOOORO OWNERKAMQ THOMAS LSNYDER TAXFAYCR THOMAS LSNVOCR MAME/AOOR 3401 TOGO RO ORONOMN 55)91 )f I71I7234)0I)« rtOTAOM 2177 SHADYWOOORO OWNERNAME KMtlElNSAMDItEINS TAXTAYEX KENTM AMiaiCLLEDIlCINS NAMEMDM 2177 SHAD VWOOORO WAYZATAMN 55)91 31 1711723420009 7ROr ADDR 217t SIIAOYViOOD RO ow7.tr N ame c :;^sanoerson TAXrAVER CURTIS ANDERSON MAME/ADOR 3179 SlIAOYWOOn road WAYZATAMN 53391 rtOf ADOR 39 1711723430010 3172 StIAOYWOODRO OWNERNAME X)ANMARIEHOLSTEN TAXTAYER JOAN MARS HOtSTEN NAMn/AOOR 3304 DUTTERNUrOR nUORLAKEMN 55)72 39 1711723420012 FRORADDR 2142 SHAOYWOODRD OWNERNAME RCAMAMERLO TAXRAYER PAULC a MARCIA A MERLO NAME/ADOR 2I43SIUDYWOOORO WAYZATAMN 35391 31 1711723420013 PROP ADOR 2139 SHADYWOOORO OWNERNAME JEROME J UCUE A WIFE taxpayer JEROME JUGUB NAME/ADOR 3131 SHADY WOOD RO WAYZATAMN 55391 Ji 1711723420022 PROP ADDR 2171 SHADYWOOORD OWNERNAME JACQUELYN A ROOERTSON TAXPAYER JACQUELYN A ROOERt NAME/AODR 2171 SHAOYWOOO RO WAYZATAMN 55391 39 I7II733430I3S PROP ADOR 2193 SHAOYWOODRD OWNERNAME JOHNHANDERSON taxpayer JOHN.’ xNOERSON NAME/ADOR 3l95StUOYWOOORO WAYZATAMN 53391 39 1711723430137 PROP ADOR 2199 SHAOYWOODRD OWNERNAME THOMAS LARSON . TAXPAYER THOMAS LARSON NAME/ADOR 2199SKAOYWOODRO WAYZATAMN 33391 PACE:! % 5? m I CERTIFY THATTHO FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND DATB<^*^:^ "i?i. O »> '-'Wt j f n f 1^'4Y3 ’W, ssyjt ti A 1 5 » f?3- Sg5*»^ir ■= ^iE£i;;.:::& tli..--.. ]iO r-^\ •':■ :■ •■•' r":.'B '•■? '-V, ^/\/^ATft£Y?Al Jii/\//22>»($ l^cc^C^ ^ sc^so isau //W£ \/ J-V f‘J .r*:j i?i 5? I '^riT^i'' :|:fl- <i j. ( .^- •v ... “ .►v''• « t'j ..- -;• •i ZIteC;. Ud,^ ( S>/t5v.< F«.h,ib**+ ^ Hfruit-pui ?i‘ ■ • • - •-•* ; r r Hennepin Coiiri^-pim^i® wore m.ersNAVJVuteADoti OfPMTOfOLfV£AVloruseeBKtjTui.cocwrvsuevEvoef .^iJ^arcel Information •iL ^alrcel ID 1711723420011 House Number 2166 street Name 8HADYWOOD RO' Date AppHcaltea Rcedvrdt 6-II-03 Date AppUcaiten CoasMcrad a> Compkie: 7*94)3 60*Day Rcvkw Period Eipirtt: 9-7-93 /J From: Dale: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moone, City Administrator Mike GafTron, Planning Director July 16.2003 ' 1)03-2916 Phillip Smith. 2600 West Lafayette Road - Variances • Public Hearing Zoutog DIsIrkt: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshorc Residential. I-acre min. I.ol Area: 0.71 acre (30.720 s.f.) AppUcatioM Summary: Applicant requests a lakeshore setback variance to construct a second story addition partially within 75* of the shoreline, and hardcover variances for an attached garage and a porch addition. Staff Recommen4atiou: Staff recommends approval of the upper level additions in the 0-75' zone, finding that the visual impact of those additions is decreased by constructing them in a '/a-story configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75* zone is the hardship. S:.iff recommends that a hardcover variance be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals of hardcover in a ratio of at least 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement & Addenda C - Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D - Proposed Plans & Elevations Pertiucnl Code Seclious E • Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Property Owners List G - Plat map H - Topography Map I - Pho’os 1. Sections 10.22, Subd. 2,10.55 Subd. 8 & 10.56 Subd. I6(L): Hardcover a) 0% Hardcover allowed in 0-75' zone, proposed is 2,561 s.f or 21.3% (same as existing). b) 25% Hardcover limit in 75-250' zone, proposed is increase 601 s.f. from 3,829 s.f (20.5%) to 4,430 s.f {2^1%). The issue is that the site in total already exceeds its allotted hardcover allowance of 4,670 s.f (25% of 75-250' zone) by 1720 s.f Applicant proposes a 300 s.f of removals in the 0-75' zone to compensate for the 601 s.f increase in the 75-250* zone 2. Sections 10.22, Subd. 1, 10.55 Subd. 8 and 10.56 Subd. 16C: Lakeshorc Setback. No structure is allowed within 75* of the OHWL of Lake Miruietonka. The proposed second story addition over the existing house is partially within the 0-75' zone, at the nearest point U 59'from the OHWL. •03-2916 Jaly 16.2003 r«i*2 Background Applicant proposes a number of additions to the existing residence, including: - Attached 16* x 22 ’ screen porch at south end of the house, constituting new hardcover in the 75-250* zone; - Attached garage addition with bonus room above, mostly over the existing driveway in the 75-250* zone; • Second story addition over north end of house, located partially within the 0-75’ zone; The additions meet all pertinent street and side setbacks, and the additions all meet the average setback as indicated on the attached airphoto (part of applicant ’s attachments) and the topogra|rfiy map. Sl<?ry.EncrMChnicnt of 0-?5' Zpnc- The proposed encroachment of the 0-75’ zone is caused by raising the roof over the northerly 1/3 of the existing garago'lst story by approximately 5* to accommodate vaulted space within the roof and new dormers. The new rooflinc will match the existing roof over the southerly 2/3 of the house, and meets all hciglit limitations. The visual impact of the higher roof line is minimal, and this will still by definitio:. probably only be a 1-1/2 story home when the additions are completed. The increases in the bulk of structure within 75* of the lake is minimized by constructing a half-story rather than a full second story. Hardcover Increases - The hardcover allotment for the properly is 25% of the 75-250 ’ zone or 4 670 s.f. Total existing hardcover is 6,390 s.f . and proposed is 6,991 s.f Hardcover is not proposed to increase in the 0-75’ zone; however, applicants arc suggesting they would remove existing 0-75' hardcover in a l-for-2 ratio (i.e. about 3C0 s.f.) to allow the additional 601 s.f of hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone. This is not rcHccted in the hardcover calculations submitted, but is offered by applicant as a method to reduce the hardcover impact on the site. Because the proposed additions are rnostly over existing hardcover, only the proposed sideu alks or the proposed porch could be reduced in size to significantlyrcducc the hardcover increases The total propoiol hardcover increase in the 75-250- rone is 601 s.f. including the porch Kidilion. small portions of the garage addition, and sidew alks eiiher side of the garage. Existing 0-7J ’ hi-dcover ass«i.ted»rth the shed uid patio totals 1775 s.f A I:2rcmovahvouldresullinaieductionof0.75' hardcover of s.f or from 2561 s.f (21.3%) to 2261 s.f (18 8%). Stafl suggests that a 1:1 removal ratio (601 a,f ) ssould be more consistent ssith past Cily approvals, rc.uliing in no net !h"p^Vrstjji!rfiw ■" •“rdcover could be achieved by reducing 11 should be noted that the runoff from the west half of the house, i.e. most of the zone nosvs svestsvard to a low west of the main driveway serving the immediate neighborhood, rathe^ than (lowing directly to the lake. Ifgutters which currently discharge about half of the roof drainage to the east, could be redirected to the w est, this w ould reduce the impact of existing 0-7y hardcover. The above ealculations and references exclude existing fabric or plasuc lined landscape beds. All such beds must have Ihc fabnc or plastic removed as part of any variance approval. MJ-29K J«lyl«,2M3 P«|c2 Applicant notes that the 300 s.f of 0-75’ hardcover he u-ould remove is the 100 s.f. shed and 200 $.f. of the 1300 s.f. patio. He would prefer to not remove additional areas of patio, but also notes that driveway reductions are the only likely other area of removals, and because the road in front of the house is a private easement driveway, parking on it is problematic. He would prefer to not have to remove driveway areas. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET IdKAmfWMtli: LR.IB Lot Area LotWMlh Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre)140' Actual 30.720 s.f. (0.705 acre)160* Setbacks: LR.IB Required Eiistiag Proposed Front (Lakeshore)75*47* Existing Den 59’ Upper Story Same Same (VAR) Rear (Street)30*80’63* LcA(N)Side 10*15.2*II.O’ Right Side 10*57’37.5* Average Lakeshore (No Encroichmcni)(No Encroachment)(No Encroachment) StnictHral Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 30,720 s.f. (0.705 ac.)Allowed: 4608 s.f. (I5.0^'o) Existing: 2454 s.f. (8.0%) Proposed: 3336 s.f. (10.9%) Hardcover Calculattoas: | Hardcover Zone Total Area la Zone Allowed Hardcover 1 Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75*12,040 s.f.0s.f. (0%) 2.561 s.f.* (21.3%) 2.260 s.f. (18.8%) 75-250*18,680 s f.4.670 S.C (25%) 3.829 s.f (20.5 %) 4.430 s.f. (23.7%) Total Site 4.670 s.f.6,390 s.f.6.690 s.f. L •03-2fU July l«. 2003 rage 4 Haitblllp Slalenml Applicant has prondal a hardship siatemenl in Exhibit B, and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Aaalysb !m fmitdeHmg appUemhrns/Itr vmrimttct, the fUmning Commbiiom shmll C0msUer the fffea mftkt pt9pnt4 YmtUmetmpM tkekt^bk, wHfmrteftkeeommmmlty. txluimg •mdmnHdpMtd traffic eemdirhmTjigkl mmdmir, dmagtr^firt, risk to tkepmklic softty, oni ike effect oh tmlmes of property Im tke smrroundiHg oreo. Tke noHHlmg CommitstoH skmlt consider recommending mpprovol for voriances from tke litcrol provisions of tke Zoning Code in inUonces wkeretkeir Urict enforcement wouldconse undue kordsktp becouse ofcircumstonces unique to tke individuol property under consideration, and skat! recommend approval only wken It Is demonstrated tkal suck actions will be In keeping witk tke spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship- pertinent to this application: 1. The properly in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the offic'al controls.” The property is currently being put to a reasonable use. but approximately half of the existing house is less than 75 ’from the shoreline The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowoer.” The existing house was constructed at this location in the early 1950 ’s prior to adoption of the code requirement for o 75 ’ sctHck. This condition was not created by the current landowner, but is not necessarily unique in the LR-IB zone ‘The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The proposed additions will have little impact on the essential character of the locality. -Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for Ihc property exists under the tenns of the Zoning Chapter.” Economics have not been suggested by the applicant as a hamahip. Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy s>’slems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section I I6J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter ” (h’ot Applicable) ^ •The Board of Appeals and A Jjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use !a^*‘* under this Chapter for property in the zone w here the aficcted person's (Sot Applicable) r « M3-2916 July li. 2003 PuftS 8. 11. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.'* (Sot Applicable) “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The condition of having the existing house located too clore to the lake is not uncommon in the LR-IB zone, although it is becoming less common as new homes are constructed in a conforming location to replace older nonconforming structures The existing excess hardcover situation tx similarly not peculiar to this property, but occurs on a significant number ofLR-lB properties. “The conditions do not applygencrallytoother land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The hardcoxer and house location standards apply to all residential homes in the LR-IB district. “The granting of the application is necc sarj' for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting ofthe variances it not necessary in order for applicant to enjoy the property as-is. “The granting of the proposed variance w ill not in any way impair heailii, .»:afcty, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of llic Zoning Code." The intent of the zoning code is to eventually have all structures located outside the 0-75' zone and limit hardcover to 2S%ofthe 75-2 W zone. The proposed additions will have some impact in terms ofprolonging the existence of the portions of home in the 0- 7S' zone Due to the location of the house near the lakx the drivew ay areas needed to serxv the home are substantial. The existing patio comprises substantial non-conjorming hardcoxer near the lake and its reduction would be in keeping with the intent of the Code. *■ The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The setback variance for the upper story addition u supported by the hardship of the existing house location The lot shape. 160' wide by an average of 192’ deep, is not a substantial hardship ex-en though the 0-7S’ zone is 39H of the lot A substantial house meeting all City requirements could be constructed on the property ifthe existing house was proposed to be removed The inability to park vis.ting xeliicles in thepnxate easement road suggests that the driveway cannot be substantially reduced Issues for Consideration 1.Docs the existing house location act as a hardship in support of the 0-75' upper level additions? 2.Do the proposed l-for-2 reductions in the O-T'i* hardcover mitigate the excesss hardcover proposed? Should the reductions be increased to l-for-1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site, given the excessive patio hardcover? M3-2fU Jidyl«.2M3 ragc« 3. Would re^irecUon of roof runoff to the street yard from the entire house be a way of mtigaling the excess hardcover on the site, given that such runoff would travel further and Uve more potential for absorption and filtration before it reaches the lake? Slaffhas not looked at the impact of this on neighboring properties... 4. Are t^re any signiHcanl visual impacts imposed by the upper level additions in the 0-75 ’ zone that need to be mitigated? 5. Does Planning Commission have any additional concerns about this proposal? Stair Rreommeodatioa Staff recoi^ends approv^ of the upper level additions in the 0-75* zone. Hnding that the visual ofjor ..fin the 0-75' .one to compensate for 601 .;fof added hardcover In the 75-25(7 z^. This propoMi has merit; however. Planning Commission £ov.l?o7hi^rov'ilr « ril mW Hardcover remov|rf. in a ratio greater than I; I would create a belter long-lenn silualion. given the exc^ of overall h^com on the property. However, driveway hardcover removals in the 75- ?„ ?hl7.? r''??oftoofninotfshould be considered, since in this unique situation discharge to the street side of the lot yields a potentially greater infiltration ■r-rn-------- A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 AOer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application #03 ) (p Date Received ^ ^ AiBQunI Paid ^ ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_____ ___ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) A II i~7 ^ IX I deoik Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prppyty Acquired________«o i______________________ I (do)(fio nbt2)also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present^se of proper^, residential____^olbcr (specify) Zoning District;__________4.R -IB______________________ _(monlh.'year) APPLICANT Name Address: l>v- Phone (home) fXX- XS“_ _____Phone (work) City: o.-4>fca__________Zip: rrj2t OWNER (if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ Name fii>.VyXw..H »«»>//«’/> Phone (work)_ Address: ______________________ City:_______________ DESCRIPTION OF REODE5JT Estimated Construction Cost S /To. eop - Describe request in detail: t-c **»«</» /________________ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ Hardcover Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Lot Coverage Rear Average Lakeshorc Other (specify)____j iV> - ow4 r IIARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: _________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) Oj f-'-:-. Tt JL vQ> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stnKmires $250.00 Afler-tbe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U 03 *2^ ) U Date Received ^ - ^ Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_____^C>0O L- t "//y * t/t Properly Identiflcatioo Number (P.I.D.)_HO iSi. ItfeoX Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Prop ffty Acquired________9/^ao /__________________________ I (do)(^o^»ot^also own the adjacent parcels of land _(nionih'ycar) PresenTuse"o! property: residential ____pother (specify)_ Zoning District:__________LR -IB______________________ APPLICANT Name ?L(r.s^.-n Address: Uy. jttt Phone (home) fjTX-Xf _____ Phone (work) City: QrtfI.B____________Zip:' rrj2/ 0\VNERj[if different than applicant) Phone (home)_ rr«» n.'A/- k- C*«. 'K Phone (work) ____ City:___________IAddress: DESCRimON OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S /re. - Describe request in detail: t_______________________ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Setback: __ ✓ Other (specify) (attach additional sheets if necessary) ^ Hardcover Rear ____Lot Width Front Side .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore jfc*Y *** O — Of Oxr Q/r^«».j IIARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Desenbe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: i<c _________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 41 -'trr O REQUIRED SUBMOTALS JPpHy^tfgn dfdlinc datyjgjtfdtf 1. 2. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of o^^Tiers within 150’. labels and plat map (you must obtam^this ““P Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-60J, Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/*" x II" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addiuon, provide one (1) copy 8‘/," x II" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x II"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owncr(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff Applicant and Property Owner luu.st sign Uiis appUcation. Please remember that yojqr "“'lance aDDlication is no! comnlrtc If the ahnvt* Infnrmnfinr. has not been lnc|ui|c«|, APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all uiformation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (stiff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or coruullant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certific.s that the inforuialion supplied IS true and correct to the best of his/her knowj^ge. Applicant's Signature /V —T'/- OWTSTR'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further aulhorucs reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposcs^f investigation and ^fication of Jhr^cquesL Owner's Sign.iturc/^^" ^ Hf -c} Applicant must have all subm:iU»/in!o the City officMTTdays before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month Applicants must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make anangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting ifr r B-l ‘'uggsstfiSLElSQ Our suggestion is as follows: 1) The second story be allow-ed 2) The increase in hardcover be allowed, subject to the following: a) For every two sq. ft. of additional hardcover in the 75 to 250* area, one sq. ft. of existing hardcover (patio and shed) would be permanently removed from the 0 to 75* area. We believe this v^ance request is consistent with City policy to reduce hardcover in the 0 to 75 ’ area and is a reasonable use for the property gisxn its particular circumstances. !;■ <■ } Q ./'I i-O 2^^ <»■ I v»n W. '4 lAw .■*4*Z.<W IXUWM^9»-Ct< fr%L’,' w l\ I Attachment to Variance Annlicalion 2600 W Lafavette Road Orono.NfN 55331 Phillip Smith and Jennifer Pastrick-Smith Hardshlp^escription of Unusual PronerU' Conditions We are requesting two variances for our remodcling'addition project. 1. Hardcover 2. To allow a partial second level above the existing house which is within the 75’ setback from Lake Minnetonka. Backgrou nd The lot was platted in 1 952 and the house built shortly thereafter. The house footprint is original and no known additions have been added since its original construction. 1 he house structure is as close as 48’ to the lake; the stone patio is as close as 37’ to the lake. Ihe 7.5’ setback line is approximately the fall line for drainage. That is. the 75’ elosest to the hike drains to the cast towards the lake and the portion beyond the 75’ setback line flows to the west to a wetland'drainagc pond in the neighl>orhood. Approximately 50"/o of the hou.se structure lies within 75’ of the lake. Hardship for Variances The lot is veiy wide with 160 feet of lake frontage and an average depth of approximately 1 90 feet. Different from when tlie house was built, the current zoning code disallows the 0-75’ zone from the calculation of hardcover. In this instance, approximately 39% of the total land area is excluded from the calculation of hardcover. The w ide shape of the lot is a hardship due to the fact that 39®/i of the land area is excluded from the hardcover calculation. This condition more severely impacts t’nis lot versus a regular lot with deeper proportions. As t’.e hardship relates to the second story addition, the location of the existing structure is a h.Trdship. Zoning allows for two stor>* structures, except for the fact that the existing house is within the 0 to 75’ setback. In the early 1950’s, law allowed the location of the house. Additionally, the proposed second story addition (i e.: a shed dormer on the back of the house) repeats the architecture of the existing house and will not alter the views of my neighbors. Furthermore, the entire house structure, existing and planned, is behind the average setback as determined by the two neighboring houses. ••' C - ^ c • tap (Dm - UlUJ Th»i Koi ^ Omtiml 9*4nilmt4 day e( iwjewm •H-23WV.M/ Scots In Fe«t OCaCMFTKM TrocU B. 0. 1X4 C. RLS No. 131. Hmoykt Cowil]i. UfexoMto QCNDUU. NOTta B«Na of Boorinsa hr IMa ai^wy oora oaMnod ftanalanaFh Too oul of hy«art at twrV\mmH eomar «( M. «a Nioon. OoMlian a B3Ji42 (SCVD 29) TKio ouray *00 pra|Mro4 oWhiuI (n# b«tam •r o Utio IrtoLrvtco podcy. DOaTWO HAROCOVUI Pored Aroo to «29.« eontoun Sa730 S% H. (aTO scaoo) BklsdnoK Sloro FffUot C«ncr«*a Ik*: Conerota OrKoc B-tbirktouK A/C Un»(« 2.45* 1.313 297 2.072 242 12 5<» n. Sd n 54 7L 54- Ft 54 Ft 54 Ft Tcld C«N1k«« HordoMV. 4.M0 S4 Ft P«c«'t C>Nta«9 Mgdccaor 2021 PNoaoao NAnDoovui Pored Aroo to 929 * contna: 3a720 S4 ft (ttTO oow) BuldnoK Slono PoUoc Concrota Me CoAoralo 0H«« Bitomt«euo: A/C Unit* 3L33* 1J76 449 1,676 242 54 Ft 54 Ft 54 Ft 54 Ft 54 Ft 12 $4 Ft Told Pnsnaa * Mordeoror. 6,991 S4 Ft PortoM PrnBaoad Hxdconr. 22M TRIlLfQCND Nianbor folio«9»9 d)brx«elien da^elao aaUmda* tfkmatar fet Indioo. Ih/ao faat i»o«« grauno la>d. T>a aocond nvmbor (if on|) danotao V>o nunbor ol trvxta at that location. Donotao dadd/oua boo. -j^ D«r>eUo oxHarowo boo. - DMtotoo bon monomant I«x4 - Dwiataa UU ty Pda. - 0«>oiaa Warhdo. - 0«Mlaa U9bl Pda . D««alaa Concrata Surfaeo. _ Oxtolaa Lordacepa Rack - Oortotoa Slona Ratio - oanolaa Bittxitnoua Surfoca Oviataa 929 4 Coilour. ’Jp - Oopotoa Preoeoad Hard Cooar Afooa to bo Ramoood BOOR: S93 PACE: 20 (ttS/79) CO Q CQ »1t BY I REVISIONS I bvaby corllfy tool (Mo KTNy «oa ffp»^ txtor my abparoWon and tool I dw-d^cawaad Land Stov«,«r imdw no loi Stata of d^aa uU. ^ Onto R. Mtfbbtm ' Oot^sJaM Rl.aaaSlJemo No 1IBB3 CUENT: PHILUP SMITH L0CATK3N: ORONO. MINNESOTA <Mi Btoitrmift »SVft w : 0 V ce*AT.QeciT.r Vi ttz'c** __r T <?*-f— •**jm 1 w ^ ^■..' :i attinmw^Kmtmtnttemfjaiwa I t I Iu itg*T ELEvA* cx ------?1| i~ 1 || If H tl |T il l| li »t I! tl n 'I H ^ly‘ "^1 i) <1 I I-" I 'j l ! it ll I 'I ' 11 ; M II U u .SCXTm S5.SvA*'CN ________________ ■ ft« lOMS < / / ■ ’:r.f r J I ' i> »v •K- I »-.AN c**n • «r^av« t. •••o li* D-/ ill' S’’‘ * i !ilt! J ZoKo Q. Z »- 2(0 »a- s - J I .ct so jSJi^ W£I *.0 A1 — 0 «~-ee< —.AN Lx • .• •. • • \ 'f ,• , ' ‘ • % V *. I r* *! -i a •<T/: # # K .. • • A • ’ * • • *• I-. 1 A* 7^I* ^.a ---------------^ * •:..J !BEB iHl it I I /r:: ^ — ------------7F Li ei>ttf«rigM-------- <W.«» t! . AMiUfr • i ' ''I.—.— Lw (.1 - • # •. LJ ; ? • *I: ill rl‘ : **. J \J. ^ /Uf ii-L^-^j-j. • •• ' ■■•' '•■■s},; i^.i-^ j -• — .................'........... — • *- ScSiS^*— iiJK. Ji ozs8 u t-s (0 I W» e30*Zl '• : tr ~WPiy->con>»ij _ _. ty^ryj tunmngtf _-2 _i i>-C» *•**•»• -I*-, i' .ri u Q0 S iUtc 1 'z H i »CtT»«. A6n • II' f or__Ivcra . / OlSflXi / SETBACK 2X)NE: (CIRCLE ONE) * yyisTiNf: WARDCQVER IN ZONE HARDCO^SfLTALCULATION WORKSHEET 75-250* A. House B. Gtiey C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pado/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By PUsdc G. Other A A If ^ UnrJ>VVUih IZ.3 250-500* SOO-1000* ZO^ sf.6) S.F. & _____________SF. SF. fe.B TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 7.^^/ + B tZ.o4o - B _ _ _ _ _ X 100 X 100 PROPOSPn HARDCO\TR IN ZONE A. House s.kc.d B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other 14.7 Lcflfth \A.t Wldlh /2*3 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 73 fCfZ. \Z.oAO 2.1.3* 4h O QTf ^o SE S.F. S.F. SE s s.f: SE S.F. S.F. 040 •21/. 3 %s(^ SE A S.F. B % S.F.<^ SF, SE SF. S.F, SF. SE 12 73 s.f4^ SF. S.F. SE SF. A SF. B % IIUN0ATF.:« 'J 3t 2III7332IOOOI PHOTADDR 2606 WEST UFAYETTnnO OWNER NAME PRALCEKI40LM TAXPAYER PAULREKIIOLM NAME/ADDR 2606 WEST UFAYE1TE RO EXCELSIOR MN SSI3I IICKNEl'lN COUNTY PROF ' INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0\ ,<SLlSr PACE: I 31 2111723210002 PROP ADDR 3600 WEST UFAYETTE RO OWNER NAME PHILLIP J SMITH ET AL TAXPAYER PHILLIP 3 SMITH NAML/AOOR 2600 WEST UFAYETTE RD EXCELSK)RMN 5S33I 31 2111723210001 PROP ADDR 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE RO OWNER NAME D J OLSON A D J DOWERS TAXPAYER DOUGLAS J OLSON NAMDAOOR 7601 WEST UFAYETTE RO EXCELSIOR MN 53331 3t 21I1723210007 PROPAOOR 2603 WEST UFAYETTE RD OWNER NAME DLADM DUNKENSHIP TAXPAYER BRAOPORO A DEORA BLANKENSIUP NAME/ADDR 7603 WEST UFAYETTE RD EXCELSIOR MN 53331 3S 21I1723240043 PROP ADDR 2610 WEST UFAYETTE RO OWNER NAME CYNTHIA N ENGQUIST TAXPAYER CYNTHIA N ENGQUIST NAME/AOOR 3610 UFAYETTE RD W EXCELSIOR MN 33331 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTMS DATEONTHE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DePARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. date6^^7-^3 by MENT.TOTHEBEST • VC .’ ■, •• > ••' ■ .:.. ^ ^; vv.>'.:• ■ •.: - .i-V ^ 1': k - -m ^■ik m m^m v» 1 ’iM' ^T/JI ■'*•, V|,v.», 1 M mm 'K \ ^ V'J ^ ti 'V-.<v; •■ i?»i.' Av ■'■• L*r--j-i" I I :'---?:5ii^|g^^^fi^paiipaipi /Vr i^'•^ ‘^•'/••vV;t: V;.>. .w. «=.sj 5/^ ff i'y/'nT /CjAii. -vCCr* V (v NcinhhortuKKl Recommendation To: Orono Plan Commission From: Neighbors of Phil & Jennifer Smith Date: Jul> 19.2003 Subject: Variance Request »03-2916.2600 West Lafayette Road Members of the Planning Commission: We. the neighbors of Phil and Jennifer Smith. >«ould like to support the Smiths in their variance application. We Understand: 1. Phil and Jennifer Smith have made application for a variance \o allow them to build: a. a screen porch. b. an addition to the front of the existing garage, and e. a partial second storv (which is within the 75 ’ setback) 2. The Smith's proposed to add 601 sq. IL of hardemer in the 75-250* /one and reduce 300 sq. IL of existing hardcover in the 0-75’ /one (a I for 2 ratio) 3. City stall' has a'commended approval of the variance application, with the condition that hardcover be reduced I for I. W'e have been pros ided w ith a copy of the Planning Director ’s memo dated July 16,2003. Our Recommendation: Given the special issues in this neighborhood, we recommend that the Plan Commission grant the variances as requested by the Smiths, specilically the proposal to reducing I sq. IL of hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area for eveiy 2 new sq. IT in the 75 to 250’ area. Name Address Siunature Date ^dc/cj / / . . H ' ; j I (we) ___Ad|mt Properly Owoer*’ Acknowtedpemeit Form r^i ^ fatioLUN of Ur/^i-rn: ^ • (prim iumic(s)l [print address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the pro^rty located at ZUSG IjQ referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not a-sked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requi^-CoTOK^pap^Wj^ ■ii- Property Owner Date Tpiint nam^s))(print address] have reviqwed the plans for the proposed unprovement or proposed use of the propi^y located at ^also referred to as Land Use Application C I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Property Owner If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building dt Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Adjacent Property Owners' AcknowfledRemcnt Form I (we) (prim namets)] O-U on U3 (pnni addrvss] ^ have reviewed (he plans fur the propiiscd improvement or pruptiscd use ut' the prupert) IiKated at ____________________also referred to as Land Use Application No. _________. I (we) understand that in executing (his acknowiedgemenu I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm lor the ( ity Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that (he proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval Property Ow ner ~3 I Jj0\O^ Dale Property OwAer 1 I o Dale I (we)O C-1 CO L. Co [print namc*(s)](prim address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property liK'aled at ____________________also referred to as Land Use Application No. _________. I (we) understand (hat in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (arc) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Properly Ow ner Src5u>JUI^ Date Property Owner Ad «■ 11^(^. Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land l.'sc Applica'ion. plea.se submit your comments to the Building 8c Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting dale. A4|Mtal Pravcity Ow«n' AckM«fcdt<Mt F»m ---------------Lo,M 'lprS*niiiie($)l ta« iwicwrf Ihe plm> ibe pi«|»Bl topfiwcnient or pnvo«J « f-jyTf' ii •>“ » •• Lml U* App*»=^ No. I r«e> ■ IM in enecoiin* chit •daowMpnol. I (««) ■» (m) ^ ^ CodadJi LlLri Of diwovil of Che pnpefty or i« l»it loefc^ CO MQto ta ■htf 1 (ff^aMm) oww of the umnoymeot pins ond cha iho prapond ooghbof’i project or me requires Cotunl approval. Property Owner (Ji Pretty Owner (J | I (we) »**••***•*••**«** of Date' ' fjznit.tf Dole iprint Dame(a)] Ipn”* have reviewed the plan for the proposed unprovement or propo^ ^ of the property located at ________also fcfencd to as Land Use AppUcaUoo No.------------- that 1 (w^^^are) aw« of the imptovemenl plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or me requires Council approval Property Owner Property Owner ^£1 if. to the scheduled meeting dale. ■AdJhi Dale Applicallon Received: 6-18-03 Dale AppIlealJon Considered as Complete: 6-I8^)3 60-Day Review PeHod Expires: 8-17-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike GafTron, Planning Director July 17.2003 #03-2919 Kevin & Deborah Thompson, 90 Myrtlcwood Road •Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: l.ot Area: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acrc min. 1.729 acres (75,299 s.f.) gross; approx. 1.55 acres (67.000 s 0 net dr>' Application Summary: Applicant requests a side street setback variance to construct a 996 s.f. detached garage. A second variance is request.-d to allow the new garage to be attached to an existing 848 s.f detached garage via a 11' x _(?)_’ greenhouse (dimension undetermined). The variances include: 1. Side street setback of 23.1* where a 50* side street setback is required. 2. 0\ ersizc accessor>- structure variance (no accessory building larger than 1000 s.f is allowed on a lot of 0-1.99 acres in area). (Note: Applicants had indicated they also want to add a pool requiring a side street setback variance, but have not provided the requested locatioa'size detail for that pool, so the pool request is not under consideration as part of this application) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage. b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure. c) Consider whether screening should be required. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Letter of Request/Hardship Statement C - Surv ’ey/Sitc Plan D - Proposed Plans & Elevations E - Property Owmers List F - Plat map G - Topography map H - Photo Pertinent Code Sections 1. 10.03 Subd. 9(C)(2) “2. Oversized Accessory Structures arc regulated by the following table: Maximum Individual Maximum Allowed Total of All Accesiory Lot Area Accessory Structure Structure Footprint Areas* Footprint Area 0-1.99 acre 2.00- 3.00 acre 3.01- 3.50 acre etc. 1,000 s.f 1.200 s.f 1.400 s.f etc. on a Front rtv 2,000 s.f 2.400 s.f 2,800 s.f etc. • Excluding non-roofed termis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas «r03-29l9 July 17.2003 Pi|c2 Bockgrouod Applicants propose to «nstmct a 996 s.f. detached garage I r southeasterly from their eaisting 848 "'“i *“*' **s™"' «<le lot hne which du^ot:;jr^;» ueatment mound, the proposed location is the only area where they can accommodate thefr storaL /nle!^^ AtfCS?o,Y 5ln,ctt|re Variance. The Council adopted the O^ersirc Accessory Stmeture w^aion rcTnU ' f' r°»f'"‘'‘'■''“••I»^--css,v ^uiUmgl« r„« . « y “““OO-buildings that eould be located on a property F« lot.s smaller th.m 2 acres, n was concluded that no oversize accessory structure 0,nnM Z ^u' i and any smicturc oyer 1000 s.f. would be considered as oyersired.^he concern » as (l!^ mairand bulk of structures on propcnies, with an intent to limit the visual density and retain open space. The visual impacts of the combined siruciurc arc potcnliallv sienificant dux » i attaclmjcnt lo the existing garaige. rcsultir.g in a rear s. 'uthwcsi-facing facade nearly 70* long \vhich will be visible to anyone entenng Orono on Highway 12 The Citvhas a 10 ‘ hniidmc i k m M3-2919 lulyl7.2MJ Page 3 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot AreaAVidth : RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)251* Actual 75,299 s.f. gross (i.73 acre) 67,000± s.f. net dry (1.55 ac) 200* Setbacks to Proposed Garage; RR-IB Required Proposed Front (East)50’160 ’ Rear (West)15* (750-1000 s.f.)107* Lefi Side Street (Wa>7. Blvd)50*23.1* Right Side 10*174’ Structural Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 67,000 s.f. (1.55 ac.)Allowed; 10,050 s.f (15 %) Proposed; 4,300 s.f (6.4 %) Hardship Statement Applicants have provided a Icr.er of request including a hardship statement in Exhibit B, and should be asked for their additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis In considering applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the comm unit}-, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety', and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship becau se of circumstances unlgue to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. M3-2919 July 17,2003 Page 4 2. «con«.,c„dations in «gards .o .he criteria for -undue harfship- * by^hc controls ^ “ reasonable use i fused under conditions allowed The property is being put to a reasonable use under the official controls. il^uSdolliicI'landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not erm,' jy ne araimstances unique to the property include a someyvhat substandanl A >r - • rH th • RR^IB 2-acre zone, topography and uetlands ^J,ich limit the potential locu.,n \ or structures, and the comer location kIucIi requires greater setbacks. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality ’’ Granting o/the OAS variance to allow a 1900-2000 s.f. building with a 70> facade facine Applicant has not suggested that cco«owi/c5 are a consideration. in h WMia Slalules, Seclion 1 16J.06. Subd. 2, when in harmony wid. this Chapter." 8."The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” ^ (ir03-2919 July 17,2003 PigcS 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and cnjoNincnt of a substantial properly right of the applicant.” Granting of the variances is not necessary to allow the applicant continued residential use of the property. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code .” Granting of the OAS swiancepotentially nillhaie visual impacts that the code was Intended to avoid. 12. ‘The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTiculty." The setback variance may be supported by hardships: ho\%v\er. staff does not believe the OAS variance is supported by a hardship. Issues for Consideration 1. How will the proposed structure be used? Is there any intent to use it for a home occupation or other commercial uses? 2. If the setback variance is granted, but the ability to attach the two structures with a greenhouse t>pe building is denied, will the close proximity of the two structures (I I' apart) have the same visual impacts as if they were attached? 3. 4. In cither case, should the building be screened from view from Highway 12? Docs Plaiuting Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends: a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage, based on the need for more storage and the limitations for other suitable locations imposed by the lot size, required setbacks, sewage s>-stem location, wetlands and topography. b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure, finding that approval would be in conflict with the intent of the OAS ordinance. c) Planning Commission should determine whether any vegetative screening should be required to mitigate the visual impacts of allowing the structure in a location nearer the side sUcct lot line thart would normally be allowed. CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures S2SO.OO After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFOI^ATION Site Address fO //l^fHCuXx.'cA /€cy. Application « Date Received (p»lR.r)3> Amount Paid Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 7. S/vUc / ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______/99a^________________________________(month/ycar) IV pa1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacenv parcels of land. Present use of property: _X_r«si<lcnlial ___pother (specify)_ Zoning District:_________________________________ APPLICANT Phone (home) 7^S-OK.yC Name j"7>icn^Si£\\ Phone ^vork)~^/.j ) jyfe-6^6 o Address: <yo /hy\/^/cuJu^>J City: _________Zip: ONWER (if different than applicant) Name_______________________ Address:City;. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Comtniction Cost S_________ Describe request in detail: /fiaa) Atm /^oa / (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area _ )( Setback: ___Lot Width Front Y Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ___Other (specify) Stde. k OiJejst7fcC Q. c^OOo HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:,_____________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary)Jl. fe ;Rn-•"> VNfrtl.'.- 1 >5-.^ REQUIR£D*SUBIvilTTALS *• ^ Completed Application Form " ^ ......... Com Center. 348-5910) department of Finance. A-603. reproducion. ’ <» 8H“ x ir for ^ "i*“ •'«»* .i.«i» ™ (,r.;7?s":,-,List of the legal names (include marital stauisrof «ii ^ property. This would include name(s) of a^ol^tro T ^ As an addendum lo this application, pLc aUach a^s™r^^^^^ |u7of 'you wish notified of this application. separate list of any other persons — Additional items as may be requested by City staff. variaii?e^pp|l,p^lo/[:"n^^^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE by the zoning consultant expenses incurred in review of tte ™ „c“ ir?„^^ supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her biowledge ^ ‘^'^t the information Appiicanfs Signature _^lU>nzU. Th^.^. Dale, (>/,Cyc-, OWNER’S SIG.NATURE Jnt^r; thTpfop “^;;rCi“ ',Vnt "’‘’"'*'7 »“"■'-*« '-P-blc members forpurposes of investigation'vi» .if.catio'n oTthiw^uTs!!^^ ””.7lim^_________e.„ Sir Tis ?rs“' stt'rs I's t/s- Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetlnss of Council. If an applicant is unable to allend a sctd"ed ^..1^^^^ Commission and'i'"“I- .scs-rzs." 5. 6. 8. O 1 1..V \Kevin Thompson 80 Mjrrtcwoed Road Ofooo. UN 55391 »>»>o«a (95?) 745-0165 faa (95?)476.9C67 June 5,2003 CityofOrono Planning & Zoning 2750Ke«eyPtfkway Oono,MN 55356 RE: Gafage/Poolh(Xiseff>ool Variance Request Dear Sir or Madam motair^ talere Ths area wxks wan lor al as n is not saen from or tm<s iha mS'Z i«!d„,sandwoUd Sincerely. Kevin Thompson #29^ BiiaitfanU.. . N 14*47'00" E 215.00 W- ^ C at 0 1'%'!#]f r< %:. % V*. —l!Ll \ \ MFW m •* %'v ll ■? A1 9 ❖ /#1 ^ y> 9 L ‘■"4 • ;•■!v-.l ^^J$^ TO-jT E* if / / S 14*37' 00" W 251.20V T? nr T IP lAr /^ /^ r\ o W 2519n _ myrtlewood road C-5 r CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KEVIN L. THOMPSON OF LOT 7, BLOCK 1. MYRTLEWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY. MT^NESOTA ^-3 1 § -ji ^ • " M Boo '•s. ccv^iPticp. c» xtuists 1*1 7. eicc« 1. inUTklViCO • tt'alct ir*A mD'kt' e«S'ini« »»»^ «r« Ktpon O' eitjmo eotirn T».t Ik'*** iMtnOi le i'e« IKt tSw«>4a'to( of |)>t 09««t aoitritt totet'C' o' on ttittipt rcuto o'4 {O'Ojt t'O'OOn. II ceoi nel f^rpo' sw«>4a'to« of int 09««a a«itritt< prepo'l*. I»t eo'e«*. one int afceaita laoailon o> o o'opotta 'I to a-4« O"/ oli»af lrpra<r»Mf or oneroocrritfltt no sisa tat «>0»|yjnU ^ -*-G GROJfBEECiASSOaiTE^DfC =Miic couA u« Mc^ n luan Ml « OUCO M l»C UWO. M lUM ■ ««rr Oar •KJK •M rMMS tr l« MMBIM ■on ■! ■Ml ■ m * Ml nail >araaoM -m »-u* \a ( ' \ i I p- 'b-z —30-0'- Z^.T’ joxaca'? ‘ »- \ \>». \ %8 13 -7-, RidgeHt=8‘.7’ 5^' s<* 1V9‘^'1V JO'-O*- J 1 »— ------------Jl'-S*- _>'3>- @> !? II o> -24'-0'- 14 ‘1V .V 13'-7*. RidgeHt^8-7' ■ p. //'•S'/4'-//‘ -I trs’-................. #2919 : \ C>-^ t t fe'2! 35' lAJeir ■.^ »^.-' n. ^ivV^J-V - m^rn mM t ID.'-\ I 1^' I ‘v/lD. P,t.k JilfO It) /OspUlt S*J mP^U'- Cti^CU u;vjv,\ s.A't^-' \ O 0^ ;‘ S f 7 V ^ ^';^j <0. /Q."x /h, ^lah.r - --r*. V-, i>C, >'^'* vL.'- I •.1 ik II ^jl.tss N'ictorian GrccnhouMrs and greenhouse kiis Pjgc I of; 1>7 .-1 .. 10 V -* - ng ^(«RW«k « /ark Partsi. Free Shipping (inciuding Aiaska and Canada charges apply in Hawaii) ♦ North America s only Lifetime Warranty • Free Solar Powered Vent Openers • Free Base You ve droarnod of it beforo, and now y,^u can have it. Imagine having your very own free standing glass greenhouse in your very own backyarcl' Enjoy your hobby year round, whether it be Slartino Olanls frnm nm, yiju' nuuuy year rouno. wneth be starting plants from seed, growing tropicals, annuals, perennials, fruits and vegetables. The greenhouse creates a warm, friendly and quiet escape for you to enjoy gardening to the fullest, no matter what the climate is outside. Easy to assemble »► Constructed of aluminum and 3mm tempered glass • exceptional quality *» Greenhouse accessories available ** Solar powered roof vents »» Mill Finish or White Enamel ►► Extremely affordable »» Shipped anywhere in North America -ooo r www.grccnhousekiLcom'eardenph htm Construction Photos . . n Harnngton ME My greenhouse is fantastic' My whole experience frorn getting initial information from you all, to the ordering, to delivery was great' I had absolutely no problems Thank you' The putting togelher of the greenhouse was a little more challenging than I thought it would be but i| also was completed without too much ha r be-r g pulled out I needed to put some insulation at the base but I have been able to keep the temperature between BO degrees w th tne use of a small space heater We have had a lot of snow and some pretty cold temperatures •1 .r 'vW J V, e,// I haven I had any problems since receiving my greenhouse so I can't tell you hov/ it is to deal with your .w; •V-.i SM;' fe»mm:m f'- ' ■ ^ . ■■" ' IT- i!^;|<» -Mi -L : - •!■;..-:. ■A* I ^ ~ * • . . ‘ I V ‘ • ‘^^-v .^V- , ’ -yti ’■^•• *':/^ ‘ :.‘ • V ,- .'-• . .'• • . .• T‘-;J.;-... - • •■,, ^i;:.••■-•1:';^^!•«■‘:"V' ‘ ■ T . / • - 'T;-/.-.T-/ ■ . : •■ • • •• V .. - ■ . ;-• ■ - ^ -.:;-5-:'..-..x.- ;.!• * ; •. -i >s-. •»:•'•' • . •" .;.-_________ --------» ^ . - * • .. .. ' .. ■. ;-■-■■.'•■ - ■■ '.-,i■::■■■ • * ■•--■ . 'X---•••’.^^ ■■ > •tT.N ' ** - V t ^ «...k** • * *• ' . ‘ *. ^ *** ^ •*' ••v ...k .;' ■/'! >V;V. ^ <x:-. TT^'?iS 2r^«;U iF c : ' • • - V,'- :>%|^r... -.VlT'ASflWg^SlfeilvA ’ >;t^- ',: '.r ;■ .^i'-*r H.- ^ £ ^ 5r^aL)e;V ^..- .T'^. »=v'. Zfr' ^ ;^li i BtiL., fc ^ ’ t ' '*1; A'«. ‘..*<^ ^_J -V.X > -. ■****^ ■^» .. /-srri'4 . .■ j.‘ ' :'.y^.. '^^vsL^.il’JZ^.j:.-.'^ .«• .- - • ‘ty*.-__.;ai '• - ' 'i ’*‘** >. ;r^ •* »\ ^ I'O k e GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Iddreu: 2750 Kelley Par1i«i/ Onw. MN 55356 Mi«a|«Mret& P. 0 8oi 66 CijiUi Bai. KN 55323 CC66 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION June 26,2003 Kevin & Deborah Thompson 90 M>itlcwood Road Wa>Yata, MN 55391 SUBJECT: Zoning Application 7^03-2919 The City of Orono is required to notify >ou within ten (10) business da>-s as to the status of your application for a vanance for property located a» 9.'. h!>nlewood Road. Below is a li.M of items the City of Orono is requesting to complete our review: o Please provide an accurate, to-scale depiction on the surv ey of the proposed pool location and design, including any proposed pool decks or other features The information provided is insufTicicnl for review of the pool element of your application. Application ^03-2919 is partially incomplete. If >>ou wish to proceed with the pool aspect of wur application please submit the items requested above by Wednesday, Julv 9. 2003 to have the pool Sincerely, Michael P. Gaffron Plaxuiing Director Triepbonc (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616 wvn«xLoronojnn.as Daic AppHcalloii Received: 6-IM3 Dale AppUcation Considered as Complete: 6-1S43 M-Daj Hevkw Period Eiplrcs: ft-17-«3 Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike GafTron, Planning Director Jul> 17.2003 #03-2920 St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church, 8' 5 North Fcmdalc Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acre min. 4.28 acres (186,348 s.f.) AppUcation Summary: The church structure was destroyed by fire in April, 2002. The foundation remains, and it is proposed to be re-used. During review of City files, staff found that no conditional use permit had ever been issued for church use, hence re-use of the site for church use will require a CUP approval. This review will also include a brief site plan review, although most aspects of the site arc not changing. Staff Rccommeuilation: Staff rccon;mcnds approval of a Conditional Use Permit for continued church use of the property at 865 North Fcmdalc Road. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Letter of Request and Description of Use C - Existing & Proposed Surv’cy/Sitc Plan D - Proposed Plans & Elevations E - Property Owners List F -Plat map G - Photos Pertinent Code Sections 1.Section 10.28, Subd. 3 / 10.20 Subd. 3(B): Churches arc a conditional use in the RR-IB District, subject to the following standards: “B. Churches. Churches including those related structures located on the same site which arc an integral part of the church proper, convents or homes’ for persons related to a religious function on the same site provided no building other than a residence shall be located within fifiy feet of any lot line of an abutting lot in an *’R" District.” 2. Section 10.61, Parking and Signage Provisions l #03-2920 July 17« 2003 Page 2 Background St. Edwards was originally granted Council approval for a building permit for a church in 1966, but the record indicates no formal CUP was ever granted for the church use. The church building was destro>-cd by fire in April 2002. and the congregation has decided to rebuild in the same location using the existing foundation. They have chosen JIGA as the architect for the project, and preliminary building plans arc included in the packet. The church was granted a CU1» to permit the use of a day carc'prc-school in July 19S7. making use of lower level spaces in the chuich building. That use was most a-cenily operated by a Montessori group, although the church apparently has not set determined how that space will be used in the The church use is a permitted conditional use in the RR-IB district, and is regulated by certain defined performance standards in the code, i.e. a minimum building setback of 50’ from lot lines; minimum parking standards; signage standards; access location standards; etc. cxisting/proposed building location is centered on this 4+ acre properlv. more than meeting the buildiiig setback requirements. The building location is more than 26’ from delineated w etlands in the NH and N\V comers of the site. Eafe. Parking for the church use is regulated in terms of minimum number of spaces and location. 1 he number of stalls is detemiincd by the seating capacity of the main assembly room, at a rate of 1 stall per 4 seals. The mam worship area ho. eating designated for 143 persons, with an overflow area for an additional 40, totaling I S3 persons; Main Assembly Room Seating Capacity: 183 Required Parking Stalls per Scat: 0.2.‘» Required Parking Stalls; 40 Proposed Parking. 59 sian, Note that the current parking lot has approximately 80 stalls, but the westerly parking wing is proposed to be converted to a bituminous turnaround and a meditation garden Staff has not heard of any past parking issues with St. Edwards, and we have no problem with the reduction in paikitig. The location of parkin j stalls for the church use in an “R" district is defined by Section 10.61. Subd. 5(A), requiring that “open parking spaces on lots must have a location other than a required yard except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to within ten feet of an interior side lot line and to within ten feet of a rear lot line." The existing parking lot ranges from 10* to 15* from the southerly lot line. W hile technically the south lot line is a side lot line and not a rear lot line parking IS not proposed to be relocated and we are aware of no past issues with the parking on this site. Staff commends approval of the continued use of this existing parking area with the revisions noted #03-2920 July 17.2003 rage 3 Siaoagfi. No new signage has been proposed. Pholos of ihe existing signage for the church is attached in Exhibit G The primar>- sign is located in the NE comer of the site, meeting the 10' property line setback requirement and posing no problems for afTic. In “R” Districts, one nameplate sign for each use permitted by CUP is allowed with no more than 12 s f per surface. The c.xjsting permanent sign is approximately 50 s.f. in area of each side (staff has not measured its dimensions so this is an approximation) and would require a variance if it v, ere to be replaced. A second, smaller sign is along North Femdale at the driveway entrance, being a hanging banner t\pc sign perhaps 2 ’ x 4* or smaller per side, no more than 10-15 s f total of both sides." Because this is existing signage, staff recommends that continued use of the existing signs be approved. Any new signs would need to be submitted for review prior to issuance of a permit. AgiL??? LpyiMlPn The existing church driveway accesses North Femdale Road approximately 220 south of the Femdale-'Co. Rd. 6 intersection. This access point is appropriate and poses no problems for sight distance. GradiP&I>r?inagg. Re-use of the existing foundation and conversion of portions of the westerly parking lot will have little if any impact on the drainage of the site. No grade changes are proposed. New arncnitic' to the site will include a bituminous walkway leading from the parking lot to the lower level, presumably for handicap access, and a new stairway adjacent to the east wall of the buiiuir.g is proposed. A 24' x 40' bituminous or concrete 'patio' apron is proposed at the walkout level, meeting the 16' wetland setback. j'^4J:9n^?<;'aping- No lighting plan has been indicated on the submitted plans. City ordinances require that light sources not be visible at the lot lines. Uli ’.IY& Pbilding Co<>ciSIM5. The site is serv ed with sew er from Plymouth, but has its own well Because the new church building will be required to be fitted vsith a fro suppression spnnl:lcr system, the church is advised to work with the City of Plymouth to obtain municipal water supply. Jt-aildingJkighl The proposed building has a peak height of 47' above the high side grade adjacent to the building City code establishes by definition that height is measured to "the average height of the highest gaole of a pitched or hipped roof. The defined height of the proposed bui’ ling using the main roof gable mnning from end to end of the building is 28.F'. meeting the required 30^’ limit. Impact^ lo Prgpcniy?. The only potentially affected properties arc two homes located approximately 200' south of the site, which arc significantly separated from the parking lot so as to minimize any real impacts; and a home to the west with significant separation and screening from Ihe church buildings and parking areas Staff has not received any comments from neighboring property ow ners. #03-2920 Jul> 17,2003 Page 4 LOT ANAL\ SIS WORKSHEET Lot ArtaAVIdth: RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)200' Actual 186.348 s.f. (4.28 acres)331' Building Setbacks: RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front Street (East)5(y 179'179’ Rear (West)50'172’172’ Lcfl Side (South)50’126 ’126 ’ Rigid Side Street (North)50’168’168’ CUP Standards ^/following recommend and the Council may gram a conditional use permit if nat the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord uiih the ohjeettves of the Zonine Chapter and the purposes of the dis^^^^^^ ^^hich the site is heated and Comprehensive Municipal The proposed conditional use is in accordance xvith the Municipal Code as churches arc listed as a conditional use m the “R Districts. The proposed use is historical on the property and would be connned to the new structure that replaces the pre-existing structure. 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed conditions under » hich it Mould be operated or maintained Mould not be detrimental to the public health, safety or m el fare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity and. The proi^sed conditional use would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. The da>care^sinw 198^ ^*"*^*’ was constructed in 1966. and additionally for com/mo/w/ use M ill comply M ith each of the applicable provisions of the The use will not conflict xviih otl r provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Replacement of existing re^Iacernem'"® #03-2920 July 17.2003 P«(cS Issues for Considerallon 1. The church use will continue as it has for the past 30-plus years at this location. 2. Only minor site plan changes arc proposed. Only minimal grade changes arc proposed. The footprint of the church will remain as before. The existing parking and hardsurfacc areas will remain at the same square footage or be slightly reduced overall. There is no apparent specific need for new stormwater management facilities. 3. The church should be advised to contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to determine if an erosion control permit will be required. 4. Signage is not proposed to change at this time. 5. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for continued church use of the site at 865 North Fcmdale Road. Planning Commission should provide direction on any issues which should be addressed relative to the use and the site plan. UiWa‘2:01 12:4T p« Ffot-CITY C’ c»y>3 «t:z24mii T-543 F 032/C3J MU AjipUcatiottiH 3 9 Dale Received -<3^ Amount Paid *«o CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION , , . Site Address ^Cy5~ f\Jor''i f-} (Z.a Oi^onc) Type of Application to .be Filed Con^j I I . I— Tiopeny Idcniification Number »r2 5 -V ^ AFPLICANPUCi^^ j ^ _ Phone (home) Namcj^j- nd n^c gp//Phnnf> ^ork)~un^ - OVV'NER (if differem than applicant) 2 P. 6 2. { Name__ Address Phone (home)_ Phone (work)^ Date l^erty^Acquiicd tjun ^ f. I (do) ^ no^^also own the adjacent parcels of land. -----2iP- (nonth/year) PEES - COr.DITIONAL USE PERMITS - --------S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application - S250.00 Residential Accessory Use _____S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$250.0) Guest House/Guest Apartments _____S250.C0 Duplex Crcdit/Bldg — $325.00 Commercial/Industrial Use — $250.00 Land Alteration ------- Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ------ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakeshore - PRD.T1D - see Fee Schedule --------$ 150.01) Renewal Fee (no change from original application) --------AAcr-Uie Fact fee - Double Curr-n: Ap licaiion Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS --------$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (4- consultant fees) -■ 5300 CO Vacation -■ S250.0<) Easement Vacation _____ 510000 Easemsm V'acation With Subdivision --------$350.0t) Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) -------- 5375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ■ 5100.00 Appeals ___ Other - sec Fee Schedule #2920 MirZMaOl I2:47pa Fror<ITV 04 ORM)*l52»Slllt r-si] r 063/03S mis REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Cbmplcied Application Foot. ------- I>eseribc request in detsIL Cenifi^ Property Owners List of owners Hjihlo 350* iah , must obleio this list. UbeU and from H 5. 6. 8. 9. Certifi^ Property Owners List of owners wlihlo 350* lArU . a i jss;,- handout for surveyinronnation. ' ' nanuoui _kC Attach legal dewription to appUeaiion if not included on . _ T^inpUe >umy (exbdng ul p„po,«l T*?'- • changes in elevation (grades). ^ ■Itcrauons uvolve List of tlic legal names (include maritel status) of all cennn. * proptity Thi« mulil include nme(s) of .ppuLlW *" _ ^nsttucIlM phn, if .ppiicbie («. SUIT (b?i.,utom».T — As an addendum to this application, please attach a ci>fisrmf r r persons you wish notified of this application. *ep»rate list of anany other Use Appliemt nd Fropcity Ouner mull sign this npplictUon Pin.. v . •pplicaiion U not complete if the ebove infom^n h« Mt^ yo" ■----------------- Dat e _____ APPLICANTS SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide aU iafonnaUon reotiiwi! Aitamistrator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time no?^ered w and/or wmsual expenses incurred in review of this application, end Payment) supplied IS true and eoireci to the best of his/her Jcnowledic. ^ ^ »he miormaUon Appl:c«-s rigMIur. rT.^ . ^ ^/i’A? oi\tvt :r 's signature ^ memben for putpose. of investigotlon md verificeiion of tbit Owner's signature ***f* •'•'M «a Ae ihiid Moaiay of r<rb TTwniti*^Cem^ioa Nfccdag' Coasmiuioo ai^ Council ** »*««“ « -’It.htduled necdog, pleu* nuke anangraenti to kjvc miitSnriwji ** ** applicwa (s usable to aneed a 4k ZerJo, OOk, of dui clu,?e P»«ce «u! **- --------- ■ w His meezBig. ov^. # O Cl o tf>n '4J/ Please also notify: Rev. Judy Hoover, Rector, St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church, 125 E Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata, MN SS391. Lynne Whitacre, Senior Warden, 420 Vine^vood Lane N., Plymouth, MN 55441 a.-I APPLICATION FOR REBUILDING OF ST. EDWARD THE CONFESOR EPISCOPAL CHURCH The congregation of St. Edward's Episcopal Church has decided to rebuild our church on our existing site. The previous building was destroyed by fire on April 14,2002. It has been determined that the existing foundation, including the basement (undercroft) is usable. We have insurance money and not much more, therefore we anticipate rebuilding using the existing footprint. The architect we liavc chosen is HGA of Minneapolis, and the contractor will be Langcr Construction of St. Paul. The new building will have some similarities to the old, but will not be A frame. Using a more standard roofiine allows us to make more u.'C of the entire footprint on the upper (main) level. Dark wood will be replaced by light, and many more w indows will exist for natural light. The old building had only narthex (foyer), nave or sanctuary (room with the pews) and sacristy (preparation room) on the main level. The new configuration will allow for offices near the front door as well as restrooms and a coffee bar. Deficiencies in the old building will be addressed; The main floor will have more than one egress. Lower level doors will open out, not in. Handicapped ramp will be added, of course, along with handicapped restrooms on both levels and an elevator. If it is determined that we want a full kitchen, stainless steel appliances will be purch;:scd according tv» current health codes. Adequate ligliting and electrical service wili be available tliroughout. We arc investigating the possibility of geothermal heating, although this has to be researched more thoroughly due to cost and whether it will work on our lot. \Vc anticipate a simple, but attractive and functional buildi:ig which will meet our needs more fully than the old and allow, also, more room to host community needs such as Hoy Scouts, counseling groups, exercise class, etc. We rented to a numK'r of pre or after school groups in the p ist. Most recently was a Montessori preschool. We have not detcimined, yet, who or whit will fit our new space on an cverv day basis. I lovvevcr. wc will be looking for c tenant. We have a congregation of about 150 (including children). A.nd while ou; space in Wayzata Community Church is wonderful, and they have been very accommodating, we arc sure it is time to once again be in our own home. # ®LK S:e Plan St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church >; ■ <2,/ ;■ w o'! £W @Lf J.L Q Q Mao L»v«^PLm OtaQrant ^ St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church >• ica — |w/C T1 If-1i ■»•>——r—I■■L □ojn h3p Jw/C “•■V □ 0 ^ Q hL ■ Vostinn/ Conjy Char 261 &l SSSrSTi-------■4 ; -?o -i^rhsr:!; VV Kilchon 463 si MuitiPufpoa# Room 1560 s! i;iAJflAj*. .* @LM_f #0)0) CA Lowf f L»v»< PUn DggfaTi m j Qbm*^ jt. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church m. \o • , ..i% /55W ©Lrt Cxlciior Clovn»9n St. Edward the Confessor Episcop j^oGiOf) ■;^g. r S.5 o ex? c\i ®LM_J C*t«w>cw Clcvjlo-i jt. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church 1^. r CO = I /•* r. >^^y>amn\ !,L.>•»» ,vw*»-* - ®LH ..«f€»OO0 QtwVir Elovaton St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church I fO. ‘■v~. 1 Hl^!^ • -S'-/ y\n ;j) ■•••) • • -- ®Ln_J Exlanor Elovalon St. Edward the Confessor EpisMnnl Church r i cO ©LrLJ O.J;V»s Socfion B-B St. Edward the Confessor Eoiscooal Chi irrh If -Vo - ■.©> ■./ y /./.'Vv /*»-»i;S^i'V '-' •-0*' ''r‘s:r-‘i,-r*^•«»* •«|*»| , . .1 • >«MM s.v-r.ir?^t, _ *<c^. • • • 1'mmwi®i«*rs;:;: '^i»y y'''''’yr:^?: ___________ i -A': !. vv? r ! )*e » I ..». 'i’lii i.vsn r.vvrvi; r '. u tIflIES: // I mo *111 o^tmuoot wt Mcvers »ea Mt «*4f (Mt lUMt mt «ot fuwcat to »4« *u Mtivckn » mccm I IK 0*«(»«f luriMC IK KOKJin W ■< Kll CMSIUt M MORftKil CtfM* » M KMCt Mc»wr< ft MdUt l» IK *:«-hKti Mert*ncuiKa<wn MiMMAianriui X ■00««Mi W Ki xmMit. « COM* cun i« • M« itMWMi *0 iuw> <011 *1 »t« M or« sr nKOtiM « IM» V MOK*rT • i^rjii M M oa IM «CMt *a mo>t ef •*•% IMM M «l W •» *CKt IKUCM KXt OT Mf1 X ui«i«ii M« «»«at iKKi Oi mM leoiis t>»o Mnvcju* o> •* tooiAO m «*«t ca noo ncKn bt tK u«<ail COBKa tu:( M c«u ■>* Cvr'K'to rK« « •< ■»•*« 0 1K &*Kt Bui KM MJK0<k,ait MB «>\iKt 0 ' < so Kl atW0« 10 a ae'irc>B0i 0 a omt immc naa oovcm •€ umtm b4t m •<oku <i m io bk ua 0 ttvo^ oi as a kui 0 Mam - - AM ~ ~ ' ~ tAA«« M AAW CMM* «YA » rA< ■ ■■ AMWWiI At Ati.AAA AM^A * ‘Mi,:. — __ • LtCLUD lM<t« 0te«HM ^ •MOS MM« SM«tt aoa* N 0MB1 cat! mm mmtmnf H •MBI KK aavtan ■«■ X wKXjirw;.^- •M^i tmkm mi •— «w *M ^ iiwm$ |iW *«• U*9* tM Mia^t w« •M«t »i*m» tm mi^ 9hm%% «•« •«4 •«« uro •twmi M «»* MM 11 i*«aj4 MM*n mU aMviw «u i4M«it *44 MMtt IMMi MMttrM M«*4« M Mn* MM^« WW CUM MM<t« %*.««%■ mmt% Wacc MM* MM4t #w» *W AI mMB •CMM ««• M«44t Vh »U»« m MMM t4M4«0 la .MC MM<lt imC»MM ClItlMC tl«C^ MM M«8*U MM «M ftfCt mM4| ••««Mf (MCMifn UTVTf (i«U4C PMC/tt i t» tl* M 1 vr. 9mn*»* U*«a 1 ____1ItM- «* r*>-Mi iMi B^B -—.tn#' M4-4M B^BB«B« jxatMHtt «4»*aM {Mi*^«»-4*4 StM'U* 4»l IgCAL DLiCP’PTIQN (Mff4CO •* a4«») iNAf e# C6<INM0»I lOI 1 «C^ (tH TCMtV*^ CM IM4m CO**ll« (4*1] Hf¥.T4NMl (IJV MU^ M * lM QI%C9M3 #t ic»MMC 4> »< VX-WMIM 2M4* Of U« tM •<>» «r% A er / rn? *M*^t unictMC to M *^t A r 0*4 c»at« Mioi nm tMO*t m*) * >v»mu to •«7f I Oft. ftoa ww«4U^%f ro 144 0.«4 4 frttAMa 9 03 m*. MC«U Mr.lCMM »e *4 art nM 4 r je 0^4 n*4 4mu «• m ftin * mtmo UMDtt *0 14C M« f4«<4«t 4M1 ftin * mtmo cr tni m* »<«ct MM444l*Ul» " i4t*-OnCMO 0*4 4 Mti fM«Ct *0 M att 4 1)4 0*4 CMa** MC4i MV 44« txx«* $■)• rfin >3 -a MTirilCfO* utt CM or %*• MCtlC4 li 4M tV< - - ' 1.^ •C tm oct^t M«t 44«l *4M9 iMV Mlt M 4 144 OUcn lK*«w M«M'0<I14JI 10 1M lOlat^ U4 9 lA* CA4*M4»t i^ot ) noi 4 494* tK>49» O) f||t i4tf c» *4 10**4411 CtMC* or M C044«*4«i« I3t X 4 fff*C—C T3 *4 Ul C*4MMfllf V.44* *4Mor. MuM 44? ra* c* ^sciroi 9 4^* l*<4f r 04 Mil* lOMvt to X40 Mfwvi HMtarX VK440 04 »0 M «4C4tl9 0*4Ct I) |4Ut4>iT tvlM rc* CO i« X 4J lit rc**H M4t4 xic m iijcin x j4)ij44 GRAPHIC SCALE CH ST. EDWARD THE CONFESSOR EPISCOPAL CHURCH «5Fin«MU RD H CMOKX MN mm * B«Bffr» ««4 ^ 0 .• «C*v* wm% ^ ^ • •*:€• •• **t'• mm- a aw • »A* ____ ««s«A • i ll /; PI ••«««* G M vin u 11 cit: M ce!»»««•«• ««• n-M .«• 4^«** > A> Cr «44 al A im C4*| ft.41.11 '•Si IMMitt rU VMHVlM BOUNDARY/ TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY 200301&2 't>-l D-Z A. Main Level Plan Diagram 0 4 8 KU MC • »ia 00100 • M»ojiM fc4 • ju. VI an Floor Plan Diagrams St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church U ac-a-: • .*• JJ rnuy VS^ P-3 44ro* 4a . »f' I tTifl ’OtO* 447--0 ’ 3PM ^ A BimaiMBqiKcaii!!■■■ esaBlirfli «■■■ lilBI BBfialBBBB BBSB ■■n ana sKs:s::iss» rfr'??'| I5||lEiiiiiseelaM A/ / CD CD A. East Elevation B. South Elevation Material Keynotes: (T) Vertical wood Board and Batten Siding ^2) Asphalt Shingles ([T^ Glass/Windows ®’'®l'^*^asonry 0 4 8 16 vJ U'l---i Building Elevations St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church if ytr.,,-; •; sc • MM X'00 • AOCn SC4 • AIL> 2. KCJ r' Main 4a-0 • i ■I5i5ili55;{g555l tsi OH CCilB ccncB ttrsD LyuD hlihgS ♦4ro* . c « A <D liitf aaat I Wm i jL■■■■■■■■■■HI■■■■ -CD n I I I' M Vt ■■■■ EifiEBJjfTTnt- <D *.• I «- * k:<D <D A. West ElevatioTi B. North Elevation Material Keynotes: CT) Vertical Wood Board and Batten Siding Asphalt Shingles (T) Glass/Windows (T) Brick/Masonry Building Elevations St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church it. p-s' ♦4r-o* A ♦47'-0* f.'aln Level ♦a-0* A. Building Section A-A B. Building Section B-B 0 4 8r-~: -U '^•2U$00*0a ‘KKae.p^9C*’ML^J,XO) Building Sections St. Edward the Confessor Episcopal Church r: Im 3S Ullt234IOOOI PtOPAOOH MOStXniAVEN OWNEXHAME DOUGLAS DAYTON ETAL TAXrAYEK DOUGLAS J DAYTON NAME/ADOR 300CORDN06 WAYZAFAMN 55391 31 UIII234400II ntOPAOOIl 305 HOLLANDER RO OWNERNAMS D A BURNS A C M BURNS TAXPAYER DAVID A BURNS NAME/AODR 305 HOLLANDER RD WAYZATAMN 55391 IILNULPIN COUNTY PHOrr PROI’LKI VOA Hiror.ssAiiuNSYsruM ^ Lisr TACL: I 3t Ul 1133440002 PROPADDR 165 niRNDALERON OWNER NAME ST EDWARDS EPISCL Of TAXPAYER ST EDWARD THE CONTESSOR NAMIMDDR CPKCOPOL CHURCH I63FERNDALE RDN WAYZATAMN 55391 31 2511523440013 PROPADDR 99SIXTHAVEN OWNER NAME D L BRISCOE A PLBRBCOE TAXPAYER DLBRISCOE A PLBRBCOE NAME/ADOR 99 6TH AVE N WAYZATAMN 55391 3S 35llt3U40003 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSKMEO OWNER NAME DOUGLAS I DAYTON TAXPAYER DOUGLAS J DAYTON NAME/ADDR 300 CORD MO 6 WAYZATAMN 35391 3t 3511123440013 PROPADDR 315 HOLLANDER RD OWNERNAME WBMCKEEVER AM IIMCKEEVER TAXPAYER WAYNE B A MARY H MCKEEVER NAME/ADDR 215 HOLLANDER RD WAYZATAMN 55391 40 3011522330007 PROPADDR 19030 CORDN06 OWNERNAME MBSTIMPSON 1903TRETAL TAXPAYER C MIR 1953 TRUST NAME/ADOR CA) WAYCROSS INC ponox 5625 MPLSMN 55440 40 3111532230041 PROP ADDR 1350 FERNDALE RD OWNERNAME M J EDWARDS A D L EDWARDS TAXPAYER MATTHEW J EDWARDS NAME/ADOR FERNDALE RD PLYMOUniMN 55447 40 3011522330005 PROP ADDR 40 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAME RUniOELWFLL TAXPAYER RUTHOELWELL NAMI7ADDR 5365 ASHCROFT RD MINNETONKA MN 55345 40 3111532230042 PROPADDR 1360 FERNDALE RD OWNERNAME H J A 0 M LAZNIARZ Taxpayer henry j a cina m lazniarz Kami MDJR lOIII cedar lake RD I204 MINNETONKA MN 55305 40 3111522230005 PROP ADDR 1200 FERNDALE RD OWNERNAME BRFITGALBERAX3RRAGAtBER TAXPAYER BRETT G ALDER NAME/'ADDR 1300 FERNDALE RD PLYMOUTH MN 55447 40 3111522220043 PROP ADDR 1370 FERNDALE RD OWNERNAME MATniEW J A USA R STEFFEN TAXPAYER MATTHEW! A USA R STEFFEN NAME/ADOR 1370 FERNDALE RD PLYMOUniMN 55447 40 3111522220044 PROP ADDR 1350 FERNDALE RD OWNERNAME IIJ A G M LAZNIARZ TAXPAYER henry IA GINA M LAZNUR2 NAME/ADOR 10411 CEDAR UKE RD 5304 MINNETONKA MN 55305 35 36II533IIOOI3 PROPADDR 751 FERNDALE RON OWNERNAME KEVIN A SHARON TAPANI TAXPAYER KEVIN A SI I ARON TAPANI Na MF/ADOR 751 FERNDALE RO ORONOMN 55391 35 3611533110014 PROPADDR 765 FERNDALE RDN OWNERNAME URSULAEGALANOS TAXPAYER URSULA E CALANOS NAME/ADOR 765 FERNDALE RO N WAYZATAMN 55391 35 3611533110026 PROP ADDR 763 FERNDALE RD N OWNERNAME SDW1ELERDLWIELE TAXPAYER SCOTT DROEOORRALWTELE .«Ob«E/ADOR 763 FERNDALE RON WAYZATAMN 55391 35 3611523110027 PROPADDR sot FERNDALE RDN OWNERNAME GARDLNELSON TAXPAYER GREG A A DUNE L NELSON NAME/ADOR 101 FERNDALE RDN WAYZATAMN 55391 9.0 35 3611523110025 PROPADDR 755 FERNDALE RON OWNERNAME lEANNEM MITHUN TAXPAYER JEANNE MnMUN NAME/ADOR 755 FERNDALE RD N ’V*YZATAMN 55391 K S’;-'-: • -^i- tjftir'- - •■><>. ■ • .^- . •' ^4*SE3^ tK-' %r'. ■- ...-cn- '• ,i'. ,'. ;-.,-«E^ii'-'>V ir^; 'S m: u ui • v> ■ J^^-y-; ,j- . -.C'|1 Ml '/ism^v ktXiA ' » .flibrlkJ . . ■■. ■ . v* . V ■ f /. • / * >-: . y • .;• :.: • .V *i-’X. ^-i*.^*!’• . ‘..1. iSM;.*':/ M3-2922 July 21.2003 PagclorS Date Applkalloii Received: 6-18-03 Dale ApplicatloB Coniidercd as Complete: 7-9-03 60-Day Review Ferlod Eipires: 9-7-03 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Janice Waataja. City Planner Date: July 17.2003 Subject: 03-2922, Mike Cashman, 1 655/1685 Fox Street, - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre min.) Lot Area: 1655 Fox Street: 12.153 acres (529,379 s.f.) 1685 Fox Street: 10.1 acres (439,957 s.f.) 1695 Fox Street: 7.463 acres (325,067 s.O Outlot A. Hanser Addition: .215 acres (9,346 s.f.) Application Sununary: Applicant requests a wetland setback variance to allow the placement of address monuments. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: I. Denial of tne wetland setback variance due to a lack of a viable hardship. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.55.8: Development Restricted; Prohibition. **Except as hcrcinaOcr specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporar}' or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be allowed within the Flood Plan and Wetlands Conservation Area; nor on any lands wiilun 26 feet thereof...” List of Exhibits A - Application B - Hardship Statement C - Survey D - Sketch of Proposal E - Monument Design F - Photographs G - Property Owners List H - Plat Map Background The following properties consist of the same parent parcel. 1685 Fox Street: ~ April 1992: Preliminary approval of a 5 lot subdivision (expired, never final platted) • September 1992: CUP approval for a guest house <*03-2922 Juty2l.2003 - Fcbruar>’ 1993: CUP approval to allow additional excavation of ponding area 1695 Fox Street: - September i992: CUP approval for a guest house Wetland Setback Variance .............................. applicanl has expressed a need for a more deHning address marker. Currcnlly a ^all address sign s.ls very low lo the ground on the side of the private drive Ihe “'back variance to allow the placement of two stone address monuments, one on each comer of the private drive. TT^e existing sniit all fcnee s^uld be removed. Wetlands exist on each side of the private drive applicants have submitted a survey showing property lines, easements and the proposed nation of the stone monuments. The wetland boundaries shmsti on the surv ey ar^not the result of a w etland deltncation but rather the wetland boundaries that were recoenired when the properiy vvas platted. After a site visit, staff has concluded that X vvXd teundanes depicted on the siuwey arc not accurate. The wetlands appeared to have gotten larger (es^-cially on the westem side of the drive) and staff Mieves both stone monuments would actually be closer to the wetland than what the survey is showing (15' There also is an extensive line of vegetation along the road. The monuments ate being pEt exhinVttIt"'' “<■«>• Hardship Statement Hardship Analysis____________ ^^eT^anc<, the Planning Commhshn shaft consider the effect ofthr iuch address rnonurnenrm •'"dueto'irfxtmi^^^^^^^ M5-2922 Jaly 21.2003 Pagf 3ef5 wetlands and associated vegetation extend almost to the pavement of the private drive. Should address monuments be placed approximately 15’ front the roadway and private drive they would be almost in the wetland possibly affecting the structural integrity of the monuments over time, niercfore. staff feels that a wetland setback variance should not be granted based on sight visibility issues and alternatives should be examined. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Should a variance be denied, the property can still he put to a reasonable use due to the existing nature of the property. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The vegetation and wetland located at the entrance to the property are unique circumstances Should the Planning Commission determine that there is a hardship, the wetlands should be delineated to confirm the magnitude of the variance. 3. " ITic variance, if granted, will not alter llic essential character of the locality." Address monuments e.xisl in other areas of the city and would not alter the essential character of the locality 4. "Economic considerations alone shall rtot constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the temis of the Zoning Chapter." Xot applicable 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direet sunlight for so! ir energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter." Xot applicable 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is no! permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." Not applicable •03-2922 July 21.2003 Pagc4orS 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporar>- use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.’ Not applicable 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property o. immediately adjoining property/ H'etland exists alou^ this section of Fox Street. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.* nere are wetlands located along this section of Fox Street causing the adjacent properties' homes to be setback substantially and served with private drives 10. - nic granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and cnjovmcnt of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting or not granting of the variance will not impair the applicant s right of preservation and enjoyment of their property ^ 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safetv. Code be contrary to the intent of the Zoning * The proposed variance, whether granted or not. mav affect the safety of the private drive entrance The Plawiing Commission should decide uhether the 7hep^ improve safety entering ande.xiting 12. -The granting of such variance will not merel> serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." The Planning Commission should decide if the proposed monuments would serve as a convenience and whether they would alleviate sight visibility issues Issues for Considemlion 1. Should a stone address monument be allowed within the wetland setback? 2. Should the sight visibility triangle be obstructed? 3. Due 10 Ihc lopographv and tree line, xvould Ihe address n.onumcms improve the Visibility of the drive entrance, or does the split rail fence suffice? 4. Will the structural integrity of the monument be compromised due to the w et soils? 5. If the IcKation of the w etlands and vegetation constitute a hardship, and approval of the variance is bcir- considered, should a wetland delineation be conducted to confirm the magnitude of the variance? 6. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? MU-2922 jMly2l.200J PagtScfS Staff RccommeodatioD Staff recommends denial of the wetland setback variance because the applicant has not demonstrated that sight visibility issues would improve with the placement of address monuments in place of the existing split rail fence. L Application ft 3^2^ Date Received /p» I ?'0% Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARI^KCE APPLICATION Initial Application FeeCs250 0d^ ($50.00 per each addiUonaTvariance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address \L<^ ir iLff Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) ^3- li-»» "2.‘b*4*4 oee/ > qj 33 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propfitiy Acquired__________________________________________(month/ycar) I (do) fdon^ alM o\n7i th^djacent parcels of land. Present uSfm property: yx residential ___mother (specify),_______________________ Zoning District:______________^ _____________________________ APPLICANT Name Address wA 1»**^ (r Phone (home),_________________ Phone (work) 7<,h-y/r- ✓/J i Zip:City: OWTs'ER (if difTerent than applicant) Name Address: fT>x City:. Phone (home) ^ ^ f?' 7^C Phone (work) Q^cwo _________Zip: S-fS9t DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S _________ Describe request in detail: lAJe_ 4p haj.k Va*ti.* yg>i>%e<AV qdirest 2^* ^ Olta.^ gV (attach additional sheets if necessar>) af oddres VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area__ ___Lot Wid:h jK Setback: __Front ___Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage ___ Average Lakeshore ____Other (specify) ('1/ _____________ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITidNS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:^______________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary*) jr ■ required submittals ^ of lilt following lnfnr.„B|ron m,,,, h. . .. Is a Ywr TPHiic/tioV t. h <’’<• npnllraiioi. ^rtr In |.| p,, ’• Completed Appliction Fomi / Govt Center, 348-S9I0). department of Finiee, A ---- of Survey fsiened hv a r 1- z must A-603, 8. aibgtt »BPllf.tlnn*’hC^.„^™,"^7f remember that jaur . APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE £Sfl-0dyiltjt Adm,nuLtor!a'^MVfay“ddhio^^^^^^^^ required or requested by the Zoning eupphed IS true and coireet to the best of hisdie^owledge. ^ *' '■"formation Applicant’s Signature_____ ^ ---------------------------- -- tpaic OLIVER’S signature / entiy onto the propel5^°by'a“ “all! «rsuhami‘ agf i"'r" ""'•'oriMs A4*j 5'"’ «rifieat ’ion oVtl,is“;°" “ j<l*^^v\'ner’s Signature reasonable and Council /! A-ibb-y -------------------------- DateS” "zs:’ jTsr sx“rs s r •><■>• '■ ■“““■»■ ««'5»c»'S5^3 e:Si£ ''V ’I JUN-17-2003 11«52 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 952 476 7991 P.ei/Ql% \ \ for VQVir appHcatiOII to be conitdered romnUf* Ilf J5L.PrBfr\ c ** L __ Coayplrted Ajjplicanon Fonn *■ ---- I5C. Iibdi ind put nap (you must 3. _ Create of S«v^(rig,^ (,y , ^ ' ^re<So ** ^ KWiUon. provide one (1) copy 8»’ x U" for ^•//-a^4. __ Topoitiptoiurvey(^tin*ainpropoieJele>^tioiu)ifaiiychas*ajinexUdnng^ rn6 — “”?*?*««»'^‘(provide one (1) copy l!4«x inCl 6. — Un «lie 1^ new Onelude mental ttatua) oi aU penont with an interest fa the 7 o«ne(t) of ap?Ucnnt(t) if not ennent oimei(s). ». ---- Additioiul items as may be requested by City staff. g;,, '17. - APPUfCANT'S SIG.VATURE suppUed is true and conect to the best ofJps/herKX’ «ifoniiiQoa Applicant’s Signaiure Date * p OWNER'S SICaNAlutu. menoets fcrpuipoie. of faveiti.ai^„dverifialiJofi^^""'’“, --------- nuw ¥C4iuca< Owner's Sipatore At/^^ / V'' '' .-J '-5 /) •- ' 06.14.03 CHyor Orono R*: Hardship for 1655 and 1685 Fox Street Address pillars are allowed by the city of Orono. The 26* set^ The reduced setback will not Interfere with the wetland nor the Integrity of the land. #2922rr 6182 OlMK MenMri*t Highmy. Golden Velley, MN 55«22 Phone 763 5454123 Fax 7635454266 r CO /’•* i • « ^ rJ'J •" ii L I. ff. "Foy: sres-E-r ^J<^■ Tz> scMje toK view Entrance Monuments/Markers • Qty: 1 of each Similar to San Francisco Cobblestone*, with caps similar to Buckskin Cap* Panel Is Inset within stone (approx. 3**) and has a concealed reveal on top, providing an area for illumination. Panel has attached 3/8** thick aluminum dimensional letters. 23/4" 8-X16 __ «n • •« y a. y •. -'P - N.' -i ■ ,.r, ■::; . r:- '■ '> ■ ^ . ■« ‘ • S' ^s>r^r:' ■..&-• -■ •*. • . 'i' /> . ■'*'• « . V • ' •' . ^A *** • ^ -w,’ *V^1 ................. *•:. - -. t . . ••. •. -\ * V . •: • s- I ' \ ♦•* ■I - ! m ue?''Iwb S»' .. - -J.v«' »-*'.'-k -r V. . .-ryii . /• -iu.-! -r *^- ../ay#h I ■ .'■:'I:. ' Is&w--- V -, ■1*4 . ‘—< r.-’'' ' CaP^iSWi Immtm immmA- ; •^5^'.r«ikss)fc£»i^^ i'l-'f'.. *, 1-•. ^ »K3:;t:A ■ -f . * a i T' '' Nj-.-,* ip. Vlfi.ll RUN0A11:«/I 31 0211733330003 niOPADM IS40POXST OWNCXNAME JANOCANA3ANOLAN TAXFAYEJt X3IIN A NOLAN A JOAN A NOLAN NAME/AOOR 1540 fox ST WAYZATAMN 55391 3t 0311723330010 PROfAOOft 1410 SHORELINE DR OWNER NAME A HARRBON A I L HARRISON TAXPAYER ALFRED A INGRID L HARRISON NAME/AOOR 1410 SHORELINE DR WAYZATAMN 55391 lICNNLPIN COUNTY PROPP. (NTORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNuRS LIST PAGE I 31 0211733330001 PROPADDR ia5r0XST OWNIRNAME WMIENNEMANAABHENNB4AN TAXPAYER W f HENNEMAN A A I) I lENNFMAM NAML/ADDR l4t5POXST WAYZATAMN 5530J 31 0311723330014 PROPADDR 1655 FOX ST OWNER NAME RIMK jUOR)A3LMIGLX)R] TAXPAYER RICHARD 3 A JOAN L MIGUOR] NAME/ADDR 1655 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0311733330092 PROPAOr*R U65R3XST OWNER NAME K A niRKFLANDC A DIRKELAND Taxpayer kaare a cynthia oirkeland NAMTMUUR 1465 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0311733410009 PROP ADOR 3* AOORF-SS UNASSKNF.D OWNER NAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH TAXPAYER lIFNNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH NAME/ADDR 4I7 3THSTN»330 MINNEiAPOUS MN SS40I 3t 0311733410004 PROPADDR I630 K3XST OWNER NAME THE WAKEFIELD ORONO P7NRSHP TAXPAYER THE WAKHTELD ORONO P7NRSHP NAME/AOOR CK) ROBERT J THEILER PODOX563t MPLSMN 55440 31 0311723440005 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNFO CWNERNAME M WCASIMAN A J LCASHMAN TAXPAYER MICHAEL W/IENNIFER L CASt 1MAM NAME/ADDR 1615 POX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0311733440003 PROPADDR 1695 FOX ST OWNER NAME RJ AKSCAT1ICART TAXPAYER RXniARD A KATHLEEN CAT1ICART NAME/ADDR 1695 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 3t 10117231lOOOl PROP ADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME SUAOIlAZIURI TAXPAYER SUADHAZIIARI NAME/ADDR 1745 POX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0311723440004 PROPADDR 1695 FOX ST OWNER NAME M W CASHMAN A J L CASHMAN TAXPAYER MiaiAEL W/IENNIFER L CASHMAN NAME/AOOR 1615 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 36 1011733110003 PROP ADOR 3f ADDRESS UNASSIGNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH NAME/ADDR 417 JTH ST N tJTO MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 3t III 1723320009 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUDI TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUDI NAME/ADDR 417 5DI ST N *320 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 Cl' 3t 02II7233400I4 PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUDI TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH NAME/ADDR 417 5THSTN 4330 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS TT APPEARS TIES DATEONTHE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMI OFMVKNOWUDCEANDBEUEF. Is: DATE' I 4 J'' Dale Application Rccthed: ^2>43 Dale Application Contldcrcd at Complete: 7-16*03 60-Day Retiew Period Eipiret: 9-15-03 From: Date: Subject: Chair Smilh and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike GalTron, Planning Director July 16,2003 #i03-2924 Todd Smilh on behalf of Jim & Julie llarstad, 4550 Wolverton Place Variance • Public Hearing 17 Zoning District: RR-IA Single Family Rural Residential, 5-acre min. Lot Area: 10.1 acres (439,869 s.f) Application Summary: Applicant requests an aAer-lhe-fact variance to construct an accessory' gazebo/shed structure nearer to the street lot line than the existing residence. The gazebo structure is approximately 245 feet from the private road, whereas the house is approximately 300 feet from the road. The gazebo is located 27.6' from the side lot line, meeting the 10’ minimum side setback for a 200 s.f detached accessory structure. Stajf Recommendation: Staff recommends approval, subject to applicant obtaining an aAer- thc-fac! building pcmiit fur the structure. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Sur\ cy/Sile Plan Pcrlioent Code Section C - Proposed Plans & Ele\ alions D - Property Owners List E - Plat map 10.03, Subd. 9(D) "l.ocatton. So detached garagi’s or other accessory building shall be heated nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot except on lots which have frontage on a lake and rear yard adjacent to a street, accessory buildings heated within the street or rear yards of such lots arc Mtbjcct to the setback requirements of Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (Bj, Section 10.2-1,Subdivision 5 (B) and Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B) e.xcept that detached garages may be located 10 feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and a turn-around is provided on site. This section shall not apply to lake shore lots divided by roadways or corner lots. ” Background Applicants commenced construction of this building without obtaining the necessary building permit. WTien the work as stopped by the B iilding Inspector, tl was determined that due to the location of the house near the rear of the property, the accessory ’ structure w as in a location nearer the street than the house, out of compliance with the Code. L #02.2924 July 16.2003 Page 3 SufT would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship- pertinent to this application: 1. ‘The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the oflTicial controls." The property is being put to a reasonable use as a single family duelling site. 3. 4. **The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The placement ofthe house by the original owners is a circumstance unique to this property and not in the applicant ‘s control. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." This criterion is met. in staff's opinion. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The applicants have not suggested that economics are a factor in this request "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate ac :ess to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd 2, when in harmony with this Chapter." Not applicable. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone w here the affected person's land is located. Not applicable. ‘The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dw elling as a tw'o-family dwelling." Not Applicable. 8. ‘The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The code sections apply ing to this site are applicable to all adjoining properties. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The code requirements apply gentrally to all properties located in the lUt-tA District. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preser\’ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." If the wriance is not granted, an accessory^ structure could be located on only a relatively small portion of this 10-acre parcel. f02<2924 J«l3rU,2M3 raft 4 11. *TTic granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” This criterion is met. in staff's opinion. 12. **Thc granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The location ef the existing house appears to be a substantial hardship that supports granting of the variance. luues for Couidcratlon 1. Will the location of the gazebo have any negative impacts on the neighborhood? Does Planning Commission agree that the location of the house has made it difficult for the property owner to use the 10-acre property in a reasonable rural residential manner with regards to locating accessory buildings? b there any reason to provide screening for this structure, or is it a visual amenity to the neighborhood? 4. Docs Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RecommeadalloB Staff recommends approval, subject to applicant obtaining the appropriate aAcr-the-fact building permit for the accessory structure. ■* I w CITYorORONO Munldpd Offices StmtMirttt; 2750 KHIti Pvfcwiy OnHN, MN 55356 HalifMirtss: P.O. Btti 66 CfflU\ Bar. im 55323 0066 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION June 30,2003 Jim & Julie Harstad 4550 Wolverton Place Orono, MN 55359 SUBJECT: Zoning Application ^03-2924 The City of Orono is required to notify you ^^ithln ten (10) business days as to the status of >-our application for a variance for property located at 4550 Wolverton Place. Below is a list of items the City of Orono is requesting to complete our review: o Certificate of Survey for the property certifying location of the proposed gazebo structure. Application #03-2924 is incomplete. If >-ou wish to proceed with your application please submit the items requested above by Wednesday, July 9, 2003 to remain on the July 21. 2003 Planning Commission agenda. Please call me at (952) 249-4600 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Michael P. Gaflron Platuiing Director cc: Todd Smith Tdeplumc (952) 24M600 • Fai (952) 249^16 wwwxl.onNioJnn.iu CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SS0.(K) per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning stnictures S2S0.00 Afref>the>Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application » Date Received Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address i//:pT7^aJ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.)_______________________ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Dale Property Acquired__________________ I (do) (do not) also own tlw adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential _(montlv'ycar) Zoning District:_ other (spccify)_ APPLICANT Name /ehh rrJV Address:/3?3 So-City:. Phone (home) . Phone (work) OWNER (if different than applicant) Name LiK Address: VSSZ> fjJoctj£tt72iAJ ________ Phone (homc)_ _____ Phone (work)_ City: Qi^AJo g«-^7?-7</7y DESCRIPTION or REQUEST Describe request in detail:______________________ _ ^AT’ Jif/Zs. Estimated Construction Cost S (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area / Setback: ___Other (specify) ___Lot Width yt Front __Side Hardcover .Lot Coverage ----_____________ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets if necessary) i^9.Q9.4 Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form [prim namc(s)] [print address) reviewed Jio plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at V«SS?^. ^P^__referred to as Land Use Application No.____________. L I (we) understand that In executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. fin C>3 Date Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ----------------------------also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand tlut m executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I roquh^CoI^dT'^pr^v^^^ improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use Property Owner Date Property Owner : *a'c If you have any infonnalion that may assist the Oty in the review of this Und Use •8y-r /£o " **• ■ .. ? 1. C/Vbc. ;io('x ;c/ ^'voall »Ift.\2 .' ■ . ! • nJ-^- ir.Ba »<X wN u _ 0^ C^P^ZCi^ r--l »' i 10* 14' pcM r\.r, N> ■*‘*^*-^*** 14 -.1 i ♦ ► i.. I--. W ------- .1 Li I r -i !- ' I iXt $moOtl) Feed Sheets^ 38 31-118-23 23 0009 Robert St Rachaelle Bnidv Jr. ^'''Deborah Drive . > Plain, MN 55359 38 31-118-23 31 0005 James L. Harstad 4550Wolvcrton PI. Maple Plain, MN 55359 38 31-118-23 31 0008 Gregory & Kathy Kirkpatrick 4515 Wolvcrton PI. Maple Plain, MN 55359 38 31-118-23 24 0003 Timothy W. & Anna M. Ottcn 425 Tumham Rd. Maple Plain, MN 55359 38 31-118-23 31 0006 Charles E. & Jennifer C. Phelps 385 Tumham Rd. Maple Plain, MN 55359 38 31-118-23 31 0009 David P. & Karen L. Grandstrand 4435 Wolverton PI. Maple Plain, MN 55359 Use template for 5160® 38 31-118-23 24 0007 Tom A Hallquist 415 Deborah Dr. Nfaplc Plain, MN 55359 38 31-118-23 31 0007 Joel N. Johnson 4575 Wolverton PI. Maple Plain, MN 55359 b ^AVERV Address Ubels laser 5160® in (>., ii«/.,' 1^ fiTiit) !<J3> -in. c ii: •- «C Mi *•* a (•> 'i "V.-S' ; 1 ; i:m O'. cs> 1 Ikf.ll «l •• @ f i-n • / ^ w <s> ...^ in / / / (§) SIC.6,T.117,R.23 LIUHD-i*| ‘*1**1 -a£ 11 • K -.A*. V- ^ •JtJ > Dale Application Received: 6-27-03 Dale Application Coniidcrcii at Complete: 6-27-03 60*Day Review Teriod Eipires: 8-26-03 Chair Smith and F'lanning Commissioners Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director, July 15,2003 t#03-2926 Walter M. Ringer, Jr., 2165 North Shore Drive - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: IR-IA Sinflc Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. Lot Area: 13 Acres + Application Summary: This is a sketch plan for a 5-lot residential plat of property abutting the Dakota Rail Corridor and Lake Minnetonka. The proposal includes development of a private cul-dc-sac road plus an outlol driveway serv ing one “back lot”. The property is ir. the Metropolitan Urban Serv ice Aren but docs not abut any existing municipal sewer lines. The sitcU wooded and contains an existing single family residence constructed in the 1920’s. Staff Recommeiulation: While no fonnal action is required, this memo will provide a number of issues for discussion or to be addressed when the formal application is submitted. ListofFxhibits A - Application B - Sketch Plan Drawing SKK rCH PLAN RKVIEW C - Plat map D - Area Sewer Layout F. - Staff sketch 1. Conformity with 2000-2020 Urono Community Mnnagi inent Plan (CMP) 1 he property is guided for single family residential use at a density of I unit per 2 acres The proposed plat confomis to this use. The property is located within the MUSA and is intended to be developed using municipal sewer and pnvatc wells. The proposed use appears to be in conformitv with the ( .MP. 2. Relationship to Surrounding Devvlopmciit The property’ is abutted on the ca.st by the Dakota Rail property \\ hich is slated to become a recional trail in the foreseeable future. Across the tracks is the llartwood subdivision of 2-acrc rcsid^cntial lakeshore lots. To the southwest, the property abuts a na\ igable circular inlet of Lake Minnetonka, lo the west and north, the property abuts the Kingsley Murphy property, approximately 50 acres of wooded and open land containing a primary homestead and a caretaker residence structure. SlafI has within the past 6 months had discussions with the probable future owmer of the Murpbv property, and we have informally reviewed a deveLpment scheme which would appear to provide a potential toad coimection to the Ringer property. In general, the proposed plat is consistent with surrounding development. •01-2909 July 15,2003 P«fe2 ») 3. Conformlt)* uith Zoning District Lot Requirements uL^'ui'.h Rwidcniial District, which allow s for single family residen lal use. with a minimum lot size of two dr>' buildablc acres Each nrooosed lot to^cre«f^buildaSl7a^^ "7«srr4sr^.r ““:;'.ss™ 4. Lot Layout and Lot Standards OHW L, Lot I nisiy or may not meet this requirement. Lot 2. as a lakcshorc hack lot. must also meet the w idth requirement at the re,ir of the required front >ard. The required front yard by definition (II 10 Siibd SfOnuMi rt . n is the yard abutting the boundary hne betwe J Lots . ^d 2 Lot 2 a^pea™ fi e 2W The rear yard of Lot 2 is the line abutting the RR right-of-way and requites a 75' setback. 2w„."^ rather than JO' as ^ ttai! !"V r" '“"''*'''1" '“tr" because they abut an Outlot driveway serv ing a irso SubdNIrwIri*’ h ® requirement from the Outlot [per iieoml^. “">“k »" 'he proposed pj TO TOtZmther S:': tic'so'S^ " '''»"-e *e Ctlll^ ^ ““O “rt-aek requirements d) c) M3-2909 July 15,2003 Pages 5. Road Layout and Standards The proposed road conidor is 50* in width as required by the Subdivision Code ai.d CMP for a local private road. The standard paved width for this road would be 28*. *rhc use of the fronil)ack lot configuration as oppo.sed to continuing the cul-de-sac to Lot 2. is worthy of discussion. The subdivision ordinance regarding applicable uses of the back lot (11.30 Subd. 5(C)(1) stales; I ront/back lot divisions may be used w hen existing property dimensions are narrow and deep, such that lot width docs not allow for a side-by-side lot split, but acreage is adequate lo pros ide a **from lot** and a buJ. lot w ithoul requinng an area variance w hen the area of the ouliot access corridor is excluded. Front back lot divisions maybe used for individual **lot splits**, but may not be used when subdividing a large parcel into numerous lots if creation of a back lot is merely a convenience to the dev eloper rather than supported by unique site factors. A frontback lot division shall not be allowed when any existing residence on a neighboring property abutting the proposed access outlot is located nearer its alTccled side lot line than a distance equivalent lo the zoning district reiiuired front yard depth.” The key issue is, per b. above, whelher the use of the frontback !o* configuration for Lot 2 is appropriate, i.c. based on unique site charactenstics. As currently depicted, the cul-de-sac circle is on the slope of a small deep depression on the site, and has an existing elevation difference of 22* across a span of 80*, with the driveway outlot tlien traversing 30* in elevation back out of the depression in a sp.ice of about 80*. Clearly, the developer might as well just fill the depression since the existing grades are unworkable for a cul-de-sac. A better plan would be to skirt the depression and build a cul-de-sac on the flat knob northeast of the house, abutting and serving each oil ols 1.2 and 3. This would avoid the frontback lot standards issues and reduce the number of variances needed 1 he dow nsidc lor the ow ncr is that the cul-dc-sae will be closer to the existing house, and there is a potential that one less lot might be feasible However, staff secs the cuiient configuration as merely a convenience to the applicant. There are n»r apparent physical banters such as wetlands that m.ike the extension of the road and cul-de-sac unfeasible. \\ hile the driveway outlot may create a more private setting with longnanow driv eways that intrude less than a cul-de-sac on the existing home, the front back configuration is not supported by unique site fcaluies and should be av oided, in the opinion of staff 1 he impact of the proposed road on future dev dopment of the Murphy property must be considered. Will the road, at the edge of the Ringer plat, scrv e lots vv ithin the .Murphv plat? Or will it create the likelihood ofihrough lots, which should be avoided...? And. how will the road connect up with the Murphy road sv-stem? This plat must be considered in conjunction with the future planing of the Murphy property. #01.2909 July 15,2003 Page 4 6. Parkn'rail Easemeols or Dedication Needed The City has no current plans for trails or parks that require dedication of land from this property I lowevcr. the southerly point of the property brings the shore of Lake Minnetonka nearly to the baie of the railroad grade, which is a unique configuration that should be looked at by the Park Commission to determine whether the dedication of land could result in regional trail access to the lakeshore. \S hilc this might not be \vithin the property owners* expectations for the property, the City does have an 8% Park Dcdicatmn requirement and the public benefits of such an access must at least be considered... Absent needs for dedication of land, the Park Dedication Fee would be expected to be the maximum fee which by ordinance is capped a' S5.550 per new lot (excluding the existing residence lot) assuming the lots arc valued at S69.375 per lot or greater (S5550 / OOS =$69,375) 7. Road Improvements and/or Eascnicnfs Needed The City will require a Road, Drainage and Utilities nasement over the private road, which should be platted as an outlet. Further, this plat should not go forward except in conjunction with an upgrade to City pnvatc road standards of the private road within the Murphy property. The applicant s property docs not abut a public road but is about 800 feet south of North Shore Drive property ^ ^ ** landlocked except for existing driveway easements through the Murphy 8. Stormwater and Drainage Impruvemeuts and/or Eascnicnis Needed Development of the property will hkely require creation ol stormwater management facilities which may include stoiro sewers, sxvales and runoff rate quality control ponding within the site. Arain. coordination with the development of the Muiphy property may be beneficial from a feasibility and 9. Utility Locations and Availability The property «vould be senri by private wcllsand in,inicipal sewer. Municipal scivcr will, capacity 0° NortVshore^Driv"^^ proposed is available in IbeCrystal Bay neijlborhoo.! just Northof North Shore Drive. 10. Ulilitx Assessments or Connection Fees ^----- «0J-2909 July 15, 2003 Page 5 11. Lakesbore Proximity and Conformih* iviib Shorcland Regulations Lots 1 and 2 arc the only lots which will abut the lakcshorc, and the only lots which will have riparian rights. The applicant is not currently proposing any lake access for the non-riparian lots. The length of the shoreline would appear to be slightly in excess of700 feel, which would per 10.56 Subd. 16(B) meet the density requirement for 3 riparian lots, but per 16(B)(4) no access outlet could be allowed except if an existing public or private road separated the new lots from the lakcshorc, which is clearly not the case. 12. Wetlands On Site and/or Impacted The only apparent wetlands on the site arc those abutting the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. How ever, the preliminary plat application should include a completed w clland delineation report to verify that no other wetlands arc present. The depression discussed above in relation to the cul-de- sac is a potential wetland that should be reviewed. The City will require a Flowagc and Conservation Easement over all wetlands designated on the site. The applicant is advised to avoid any impacts to wetlands which can be avoided by proper site layout. The Minnehaha Creek \V atershed District (MCWD) is the City’s l.GU for administration of the Wetland Conscrv ation Act rules. 13. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts The site is heavily wooded w ith a variety of tree species. Orono does not have a tree preservation ordiiiance other than within the 0-75' lakcshorc setback zone, w here clearcutting and removal of trees 6" or greater in diameter is prohibited. 1 he developer may be required to provide boulevard trees along the private road at appropriate locations. The developer is encouraged to preserve as many trees as possible to retain the wooded character of the property. 13. Archaeological '^llc Provimity or Study Needed Given the unique nature of the site in its proximity to Lake Mirncionka, the developer is advised to contact the State historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether an archaeological study is warranted. 14. Bluff Impacts The existing residence on proposed Lot 1 sits on a bluff, the slope rising 46' in a distance of 1 10' for an average slope of 42“/i. This slope meets all criteria to be defined as a bluff, and is subject to bluff impact zone protection standards as well as structural setback requirements. The existing house is just outside the bluff impact zone (the bluff and the first 20' above the lop of bluff) but appears to not meet th** 30* required setback from the top of bluff. The bluff extends into Lot 2, and further limits potential house sites within Lot 2, which is severely restricted by the back lot setback standards... WJ.2909 July IS. 2003 Pages Summary ssisSStlS Commission. Planning Commission should review eaeh mol^ WemT^"1!""“ developershouldpayspecialatiention. ' "'"''■<V"'y'«ucsiowhichthe Application # 03-30^ ft Dale Received Amount Paid % PO CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddress 2165 North Shore Drive PropertyIdenlificationNumber(PID) 15-1 17-23 22 0001 Piease check one - Property ____abstract or torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLICANT Namc Walter H. Ringer. Jr./Contact: John Ringer (son) - 952-47 5-9140 Address 2165 North Shore Drive___________Phonefhome)952-473-8186 City Crystal Bay__________________ Zip MN Phone(work)952-595-0901 0^^7S’ER (if different than applicant) Name Address City___; (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels De\ elopment Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District _Phone (home). Phone (work). Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units__ Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL Number of Building Sites Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites . Existing Units .New Units . Total Units ■» Units per ____Adfes . Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land .Residential , Other (specify)_________ O O'C® iij w LAKE PROPOSED SKETCH PLAN FOR WALTER M. RINGER JR. IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4, A: IN GOV'T LOT 4 OF SECTION 10-117-23 & GOV’T LOT 1 OF SECTION 15-117-23 HENNEPIN CCJNTY. MINNESOTA ucALCLscmtm^s All ihji pft oftlv Soa^li*c.i I'* ol South\*cti 1/4 *.'J ofCowiwntL«4of Section 10 jnJ ol L« I of S«tjen >5 a.t To^iishif 111. Rjb |* tf. ^(Wr.bk'J li i3.'< «^r. j M • pOu-i «s C-.C South |JW «f U i 10 icari 919 4 Usi ti* of tht Sou:h'»'.*»« comer rl uJ Sctt«n tO. Ok.tc * E*iS *3cist l!* Sou.h l.r< «1 u J Sktion 10 a i tu.n oft:! 9 f.-ct. thence Sorthe rsef If deflcMif* 6) c'.srcer )4 .n uici w l!»: Wll tu-n Li.t JcKfibeJ Ire a ditta.'xe of fOf ’ feel.thence I pafill.-l |!k- South luw 11 lu J Section 10 l d.«a«we of J7J feci ta U* Weuctly I -« of t‘-- t.iht cf -ar of lU- Cf .ut Northern Ra.l ij Corrpany. iKnce SoaSwrortiy a ani tf< V-rttetly lu-c of w : >i r j!-. of t.a. 47) 6 Cett to th. SoUh lowof ««l S«\iwa,i^vrK^ i Sj- ‘'•***-'t*/ iSc Uevet./ lir.4 of la -Jii ♦ 1 f ca. m 'c.tKjn I) a J.Uoncr o! I?9: li f.vt. ihcnct f.ortli 72 (ie(rcfa4} 1C ir-tuse» Vte'fl )411 feci. lUnec South 70 drufeci tk'eK 200 feet, thence Souh 56 dcjrcM JO niinuici WcM 99 feci more Of W»i to the ».hefe of Lake Minnetonka; thence in a tereral N j.rthcfl) dacviujo aVang uS: iho/e of ktuMake to the i«ef*ccuoa of ta^ thore Lne *i»h a hnc d.a»n SovtU ly tro-n t! < po m of U-grf'atmg if J paraljel »eli the Wett t-ne of %s4 S.-etMa 15 •i«.»wci«a {vmi it the Noetlrfsly of 2 »uch eeettcctico pcxti). I? vtKC North along w«J r--'o!'J lun.- lo the pood of hcginr*rg. tojeliiei ~«h a‘: r -oron ligf.u. a..rci»>n» anj rci..iioni th.-rvto Note lojwgtaphy »ho<.n u iromC*) cfOiotw Mapi ifcIP Sl-.T 0 i II S .'V .j-jM ipii WMl mMimm ;^-iJiUv::i;*4t4,.i. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16.2003 6 00 o ’clock p.m. («3 «03*2904 RICHARD S. BROWN. Contintted) and portions arc outside of the property boundaries and potentially encroach on required w etland setbacks. Gaffron pointed out that the applicant has proposed certain hardcover removals to reduce hardcover from the existing 50.8*o down to 45 6“o. where onl> 35*’o is allowed The onginal hardcover submittal proposed hardcover at exactly 35^i, which was accepted by the City and under which a building permit was issued in October 1998 Tliis property had been the subject ofa variance for lot area and width as well as from side rear setbacks, but no hardcoxer xariance had been granted. With regard to retaining walls, wetland and nghl-of-way encroachments. Gaffron noted that the site contains many boulder and keystone retaining walls which add to the hardcover and support the many and varied garages and entry points to the house, or provide for flat rather than sloped yard areas. The previous owner/builder did not obtain pemiits nor disclose his intent to the City- prior to constructing the walls, as few arc shown on plans submitted to the City before or during construction. In addition to constituting hardcover, certain walls along the east and south lot lines arc in City right-of-w ay and or appear to encroach w ithin 26* of w etlands. The w etland to the east w as preliminarily delineated m December according to the survey, the City has no knowledge of a final delineation It is possible that the w alls encroach into defined wetland areas protected by the City and other agencies. Gaffron shared additional issues fur consideration: 1. The hardcover on the site far c.xcccds that allowcd by City Codes. 2. The applicant knew w hen he purchased the property that hardcover was excessive and he agreed to bring it into compliance in order to obtain a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. 3. Once the applicant became aw arc of the magnitude of hardcover excess, he chose to request an after-the-fact variance rather than bring the property into compf ’ance. 4. Certain improvements to the property were constructed in City right-of-way^ without prior authori/ation. and some of the improvements potentially encroach within the boundaries of or within the required setbacks of a protected wetland; the degree of such encroachment is yet unknown. 5. The applicant proposes certain removals which reduce the excess hardcover by I /3. but which still leave hardcover at a level of 45.9*.i or 2.122 s.f in excess of the 35% limit. Should the applicant be required to reduce the hardcover to meet the 35% limit? 6. Docs Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Page 2 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. June 16.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#3 #03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN. Continued) Chair Smith questioned when the applicant was informed that the issues involved more than retaining walls and hardcover would call for after the fact variance approval. Gaffron noted that the final inspection issues arose during the November 8, 2002 final Inspection. Brown indicated that he had attended the final inspection, and at no lime during that inspection did he believe the issues were more serious than the retaining walls. He maintained that nothing, w as mentioned about hardcover at that time. Chair Smith asked Gaffron for the building inspector’s comments. Gaffron stated that he had spoken to ‘Bruce*, the inspector, that day, who indicated that both hardcover and retaining walls were noted on the inspection for further review. He added that no inspection had been performed on the home in over a srar as construction was ongoing. Gaffron e.xplained that the City Attorney contacted the applicant as soon as hardcover was found to be an issue and an agreement was written and is enforceable. Rahn questioned how the City could make sure things arc taken of once a temporary Certificate of Occupancy is granted in the future. He asked if the temporary certificate constitutes a handshake, or an understanding, that things w ill be done, and questioned if an escrow of funds might be a better way of ensuring things are completed. Gaffron indicated that the temporary certificate is an agreement alone, w ithout an escrow, and follow-up needs to be done. Chair Smith inquired whether there were any communications available that could help to establish a timeline of communication. Ralin pointed out that, typically, the building inspector performs an inspection for the cunent ow ner, or former in this case, and unfortunately, the p< rential buyer might not be aware of the discrepancies. Gaffron pointed out that, it was not until, they compared the as-built sur\ cy.«; to the approved builders' submittals that the true discrepancies became apparent. Mr. Cooper, the subsequent builder to Bob Howard, questioned how the retaining walls, which w ere built in 1999. were allowed to remain for three years before any inspectors questioned their presence. Cooper too. indicated that he w as made aw are of the retaining wall issues but not the hardcover issues until days before closing. P«te4of22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (1^3 M03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN, Continued) Hawn further suggested they consider removals including the gravel on the other side of the house, blacktop, and pavers. She believed there were many areas to make further reductions and encouraged Brow n to work w ith the planning department to uncover them. Gaffron pointed out that, typically, the planning department would have worked with the applicant to determine the removals prior to this phase. Mabuslh questioned whether the Commission would allow the encroachment into the unimproved right of way and wetland setback, and suggested the applicant work with staff to make things work. Rahn fell there were many areas for renun als and expressed his desire to see the home get closer to what was approved originally. The Commission agreed that the wetland delineation would need to be performed in order to ensure the applicant meets the 26’ setback; however, the Commission could accept the applicants not necessarily being 5’ from the property line. Brown questioned if the walls were loo high as noted on the inspection. Gaffron staled that the engineer would need to grant approval if the walls were to exceed 4 ’ high. Brown staled that he now felt belter about working with staff to determine the changes needed Cooper reiterated his question as to why it look three years to recognize the various issues. Chair Smith stated that the construction itself exceeded three years and the City did not have ihe opportunity to catch the changes. .Mabusth moved, Hawn seconded, to table Application W03-2904, Richard Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive, for the purpose of hardcover removals adding that the Commission recommends wall height be subject to Engineer approval, and the retaining wall be moved out of the right-of-w ay and meet the wetland setback requirements. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0* (tM) ti03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, 995 WII.DHl RST TRAH., \ ARIANCES 7:03-7;22 P.M. Heidi Nagel, the applicant, w,ts present. Page 6 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6;00 o'clock p.m. («4 M03-2905 IIKIDI B. NACF.I., Continued) GafTron pointed out that the applicant has requested a number of variances to enclose a portion of a second story deck, expand a deck, extend roof over existing front porch, and construct an attached 2-staII garage to the existing residence. The variances include: 1. Additional 75-250 ’ hardcover in excess of 25% with concurrent removals to result in no increase or a slight decrease. 2. Average setback encroachment by decks and screen porch. 3. Street setback variance of 1.5' for attached garage. 4. Lot eoverage variance to increase from 14.02 % to 16.79 %. As proposed. GafTron noted that the applicant proposes 3 additions to the existing residence: 1) Enclose a scrc*cn porch ox er a portion of the existing 1st story deck, requinng an average setback wiriance. 2) Add a 68 s.f. portion of deck requiring an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance. 3) Add an attached 24*x24 ’ 2-stall garage requiring a street setback variance of 1.5* which results in a lot coverage excess. 4) Extend roof to cover entire front porch. GafTron noted that this property has been the subject oT variance applications in the past to allow the decks on the lake side as well as the txvo-.‘.tall attached garage at the cast end. The most recent hardcover approval allow ed 4,910 s.f in the 75-250* /one. Existing hardcover in 200.1 is 5238 s.f, i.c. an excess of 328 s.f. It is apparent by comparing the 1995 approval and the current survey that this is almost entirely due to overages in the driveway and front xvalkw ay. GafTron shared 5 issuer for consideration and indicated that; 1. Staff recommends approval of the enclosure of the screen porch as proposed over the portion of existing 1** story deck. 2. Staff recommends approval of the extension of roof to cover the entire front porch. 3. Staff rc'commcnds that the applicants determine where hardcover w ill be removed to bring the property into conformance with the 4.910 s.f limit imposed by Resolution No. 3578. Then Planning Commission should consider whether further hardcover removals can be completed to offset the proposed new deck hardcover addition. 4. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage and setback variances for the attached garage, finding that neither is supported by hardship. As such, GafTron noted that the Planning Commission could cither send this forward to Council with conditions, or tabic for applicant to revise plans (provide clear direction to applicant as to which projects are feasible and which should not be pursued). Pijc7of22 r L. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. #03>290S HEIDI B. NAGEL, Continued) There were no public commcnls. While the total lot area indicates the Nagel’s have 23,210 s.f., Ms. Nagel pointed out that, in reality, they have 1 .6 acres, as a portion of their property is across the chaimJ. She questioned whether they could include this square footage in their lot calculation. Gaffron noted that, over the past 2-3 >'ears, the City has not considered severed property in the lot calculation, and he believed including it would be a totally new way of looking at these tvpes of properties. He indicated that, in addition, it would rci)uire a great deal of sur\ ey woric and. potentially, be precedent setting. Nagel asked if they could back the garage up I 1/2’ to alleviate the street setback variance. Hawn indicated that the structural cover and hardcover variance requirements were different. She stated that the applicants would need to hold to the I5*.i structural coverage limitation; however, by sliding back the garage the hardcover v ariance request would be eliminated. Gaffron pointed out that the proposed bump-out would be acceptable if the garage addition was left out. Zugschwert, Rahn. and Bremer all concurred with staffs recommendation. Hawn felt the applicants were close and could meet staffs recommendations with a few more modifications. UTiile all could support sliding back the garage and maintaining Uie 15*. structural cover. Chair Smith asked for opinions on the hardcover. Mabusth indicated that she could support approving all but the garage addition. Since it would be staff s recommendation to gel back to the 1999 approvals. Gaffron indicated that blacktop would need to be removed and. since 1% is equal to 232 s.f., virtually, the entire garage addition would need to be w iped out. Nagel agreed to table the application in order to work w ith staff on specific goals of the plan. She asked whether the Commission or staff felt the w etland surv ey should be pursued. Gaffron could not comment whether the City Council or Commission would wish to use wetland or separated land as part of lot area calculations. Since th.* entire code would need to be reconsidered, which staff would not support, he didn’t believe it was worth pursuing. Par 8 of22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16, 2003 6;00 o'clock p.m. (ff4 W03.2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, Conlinucd) Hawn moved. Chair Smith seconded, to table Application #03-2905, Heidi Nagel, 995 Wildhurst Trail, for the purpose of review. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#5) #03-2906 RICHARD ROBERTS, 1937 EAGERNESS POINT ROAD, AFTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES, 7:22-7:49 I'M. Richard Roberts, the applicant, was present. GafTron c.xplaincd that the applicant was requesting aner-thc*racl approv al for construction of a retaining wall and stairway s>i!tem in the 0-75* setback /one, constituting hardcover and structure where none is normally allowed. Staff recommends partial approval only, to allow for a 4* wide stairw ay but deny the retaining w alls on the lake side of the road; and denial or request funher design detail for a retaining wall w ithin the property on the north (house) side of the road. The current owner was granted a v ariance in I99I to construct a new home on the property to replace an old cabin. That approval required that a cribbed sand vollevball court underlain by plastic sheeting on the lake side of the road be made non-h.irdcover. The sand area w as eventually removed but the cribbing remained in place for a time. This spring applicant was found to he constructing new retaining walls in the 0-75' /one between the road and the lake, and the job was slopped by the building inspector (sec letter of 4-15-03). GafTron noted that the applicant indicated he intended to make the access to the dock safer by adding a stairway. This area where w alls are proposed had a slope of approximately 1:6 or 1 for a lO-15* distance, easily maintainable and not requiring letaining walls for support. This area was not hardcover in 1991 and has never been approved lor hardcover. Parking boats or vehicles on it would create hardcover by default. It is vtafl's conclusion that applicant is attempting to create a new Hat storage or parking area in the 0-75' /one, as ev ident from the current storage of a boat trailer noted on 6-11-03 Gaffron conlinucd, staling that staff has also advised applicant about apparent illegal boat slip rental at the site, os 2 of 3 boats stored at his dock are not registerci' to this pn'perty. In addition, GafTron stated that along the house side of the street, applicant states he wishes to replace an old retaining wall that is now gone, to hold up the bank and make this area easier to maintain. Replacement of that wall in the nghl-of-way is not something staff would support If it is replaced within the property boundaries, this will potentially create a parking area along the street. This is a narrow street, and applicant’s driveway already has capacity for storing at least 4 vehicles. If this wall is allowed to be replaced, staff would recommend that the area outside of the 3’ gravel shoulder be maintained in grass rather than be graveled or paved for parking area. AHcr reviewing 5 issues for consideration. Gaffron restated the staff recommendation that the retaining w all system on the lake side of the road be denied, and the applicant directed to remove Page 9 of22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o'clock p m. («5 #03-2906 RICHARD ROBERTS, Continued) the ofTcnding ualls and apply for a building permit to construct a short 5’ stairw ay if pedestrian access is nccessar>’. Furthermore, staff recommends that design detail be provided by the applicant regarding the proposed w all on the house side of the street. If this wall is approved, it should be located within the property, not on the right-of-way, and screened w ith vegetation to soften its visual impact from the lake. The area between the wall and the road should not be paved, graveled or otherwise allowed to become a parking area, except for a 3* gravel shoulder adjacent to the existing pavement John Thimmesh, 1945 Eagerness Point Road, voiced his support of the project. Mr. Roberts stated that it w as never his intent to create a gravel parking area in the 0-75’ /one, in fact, he maintained that this was the only parking that accompanied the home when they first bought it. He added that he would prefer it not be there at all. Roberts explained that, last year, they obtained a pcmiit to run water under the road to their lakcshore. at that time, the retaining wall near the home was damaged by trucks, and now he w as merely tr>mg to repair the wall not realizing he needed permission to do so. In addition, he had removed some oily old timbers frorr. below the roadway, and replaced them w ith new near the lakcshore to provide them with safer easier access to the lakcshore Chair Smith explained that the City is particularly sensitive to lake yard and access work in the 0-75’ setback zone and indicated that the lake side retaining wall would need to be renu ved. Roberts stated that he had completed the retaining w all on either side of the steps at the lake and removed the old lies. GalTron stated that they would recommend that the w all s\ stem be removed and the steps onl> allowed to remain. He believed the slopes could be maintainable and did not constitute a dangerous slope which required retaining walls. Roberts nuintaincd that the ground at lakeside was eroding and the timbers helped to give them a stable base to w alk on. Hawn recommended the applicant restore the >ard to the onginal grade or slope. Bremer questioned the presence of the house side retaining wall. Roberts indicated that he had spoken to Lyle Oman about placing a 4* high wall there since he would, ideally, like to round the comer and taper it down. Mabusth staled that she believed the retaining wall was necessary' based on the topography there. Page to of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16. 2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. («5 W03-2906 RICHARD ROBERTS, Conllnuid) Gaffron questioned whether, if the w all were allowed, the Commission would like to see screening placed in front of it. Roberts pointed out that there was a huge tree on the west comer aho\e the retaining wall which would affect its position. He suggested constructing a two tiered retaining wall w ith \egetation between tlic layers. The Commission agreed w ith this suggestion. Mabusih moved, Hawn seconded, recommending approval of Application #03'2906, Richard Roberts, 1937 Eagerness Point Road, granting after'thc'fact variance approsal to construct a two tiered retaining wall ssstem on the house side of the road screened with natural vegetation, accompanied by no wider than a 3* gravel shoulder on the north side of Fagerness Point Road; the Commission recommends denial of the retaining ssall ssstem on the lake (south) side of the road, ssith the exception of a boxed stairssay 5* long and 4' sside. and regrading ssith up to 10 yards of dirt. X'OTK: Ayes 6. Nays 0. («6) 1*03-2907 JE:EE AND CAR.\ /JKBARIH, 720 NORTH ARM DRIVE, \ ARI AN( ES. 7:49 - 8:20 P.M. Cara Zicbarth. the applicant, was ptcscnl Gafiron reporte*! that the applicant requests a number of variances to construct a second story addition and attached garage to the existing residence. The variances include 1. Additional structure within a bluff impact /one. 2. Second story structure encroaching w ithin 0-75’ setback /one. 65' from shoreline 3. Second sloiy structure encroaching 4.3 feet from left side lot line. 4. Second stors structure encroaching 2 4 feet from right side lot line 5. Attached garage addition and grading 4 ti feet from let) side lot line 0. Continue existing deck in 0-75’ /one (42’ from shoreline) slightly smaller (dimensions not defined by applicant) but probably still encroaching average setback line 7. Encroachment w ithin 10’ of City sewer line (City will not vary from the 10’ requirement) 8. Lot coverage by stmclures to remain at existing 1870 s.f (23.5“i») where 1500 s f is allowed 9. Hardcover in 0-‘’5‘ rc lucti.ms proposed from I05S s.f(20.4“o) to 800 sf (22.4’^o) where no hardcover i» allowed, by redu ag deck and concrete slab areas. 10. Hardcover in 75-250’ /one wil! be reduced from 2257 sf (51.9‘?o) to 1879 sf (43.2%) Gafiron slated that it would be stall ’s recommendation: a) Denial of the side setback vananccs for the garage, as it can be shiAed to meet a 10* setback w ith some interior design changes. Page n of 22 MlNUTtS OFTHt ORONO PlJVNNINCi COMMISSION MELTING Monday, June 16, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (<<6 «03-2907 JEFF AND CARA /JKBAKTII, Continued) b) Denial of the second sior>' additions within the side setbacks, because they will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, lead to issues over future mainicnance. and will probably not be able to have windows on the sides due to building code restrictions based on the substandard setbacks. c) Denial of garage less than 10* from sew cr line The required set 1 O' setback w ill result in a garage only 14'deep, i.c. non-functional. d) The application should be tabled to allow applicants to re-design Gaflron explained that the applicants purchast*d the property in May 2003 and requested a number of variances to construct a second story addition and an attached garage. The lot is \ery small at just under 8.000 s.f Lot coverage by simetures is over the 1500 sf limit, and applicants apparently will slightly reduce this by reducing decks by 120 sf while the attached garage will be about the same si?c as the detached garage it replaces. As many issues exist. Gaflron identified 7 primary concerns: a) The second story addition is partly in the 0-75’ /one, and adds additional bulk of structure nearer tl .• lake than normally allow cd. b) The second story addition is proposed to continue the existing extremely substandard side setbacks of 4’-5’ on the leO side and 2.5-3.9' on the right side. I hese setbacks arc so substandard that ,hc building olTicial has advised that it is likely no windows can be allowed in these side w alls per building codes. c) The attachc-d garage is proposed to be 4' from the side lot line and extend an alreadv substandard setback an additional 20* for a total substandard setback extent of 55* along the nonhwest boundary. d) Drainage is a serious concern, as all overland drainage from the rear half of this site flows tow ard the neighbor to the north... c) Hardcover on the property is very excessive and the proposed! rev isions vv ill result in minor reductions while yielding what will be a substantially new house 0 The existing City sewer is shown on the surv ey as 4* from the proposed garage. The City normally requires on casement area 10' either side of sew er lines. Whether or not a formal casement exists for this line, the City will not allow structure to encroach w ithin lu'of the sewer, leav ing the proposed garage too short to be functional, g) There is no pcmiit of record for the deck on the lake side of the house. The assessor's records indicate it appeared in the mid-l9S0’s This may be a non-issuc if it remains as- is, but if It is rcmovcxl or leplace it should be brciught into greater conformity... Gaffron pointed out that both adjacent neighbors have wiitten letters in opposition to the variances, in addition, a third letter was received by mail that day Chair Smith read the opposition letter from Florence llagbcrg, 740 North Arm Drive, into the rc*cord Page 12 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. June 16.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (ff6 #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA /JEDAKTH. Continued) Kirk Otteson. 710 North Arm Drive, slated that he had sent a letter opposing the variances and would remain for comment. Chair Smith acknowledged that the application had some significant rc*conimcndalions for dcni.)1. Ms. Ziebarth distributed a revised set of plans for consideration. She explained that they had been misled to believe that the lot was 27*/o larger than it actually was. based on significant erosion to the lot. She stated that it would not be a spec home as many neiglibors have staled, but their own lake home. Ms. Zirbarth believed their hardship stemmed from the fact that the lot was substantially smaller than Miiai they bdicxed they had bought and that the lot would virtually be unbuildabic if the footprint w as held to 720’. She shared plans to remo\ .* their portion of the shared driveway to reduce hardcover and a new ’ garage placement which would assist in the proposed drainage plan. By removing a portion of the deck, she slated they would also fall below the ISUO s.f structural coverage. She asked which was most important to the Commission, structural coverage or hardcover. The Commission indicated that both req lircmcnts must be met. Although she believed there to be significant revisions. Chair Smith staled that the Commission could not act on something staff has not been given the opportunity to review and that they had only seen for the first time moments ago. She suggested the application be tabled and that the applicants continue to w ork with staff on revisions. She indicated that she w ould like to see further reductions in the ~5-250 ’ setback /one Mabusth indicated that she had difficulty accepting the extremely sub standard side yard setbacks, and belies ed the applicants would have to step back the second story addition. Rahn agreed, stating that he would not support making the setbacks any more substandard in any direction than they were currently. Since staff had w orked on similar application in the past. Bremer suggested the applicants work w iih the planning staff to come to an acceptable compromise She stated that, in her opinion, the 0-75’ setback was more important than a side yard setback variance. Ziebarth pointed out that the neighbor ’s peak was 43 ’ tall and towered above their home. Gaffron indicated that. I>pically. the City docs not grant side yard setback variances less than 5- 10’. Page 13 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2(X)3 6:00 o’clock p.ni. (#6 W03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTII, Continued) Mr. Oticson staled that the height of his peak falls within the 75-250’ zone and that their home also is 20-30’ from either side lot line. He pointed out that they had to go to great lengths to work with staff to meet the setback requirements and slafl’recommendations. Chair Smith indicated that it would be in the applicants best interest to ha\c the Commission table their application in order to allow them time to work with staff to review the revised design. Zuguhwert moved, .Mabusih seconded, lo table Application it03-2907, Jeff and Cara Ziebarth, 720 North Arm Drive, to allow for review of the new designs. VOTE: Aves 6, NaysO. («7) M3-2908 NED AND I.ORNA BlTTERnELD. 3745 WATERTOWN ROAD, VARIANCES, 8:2C - 8:40 P.M. Terri Clark and Todd Bultcrncld. the applicant’s children, were present. Caffron reported that the applicant has requested lot area and lot width ^ariances lo allow an existing residence lo be moved onto the property, w hich consists of 4.84 acres where 5.0 acres is required and 185* in defined width where a lot width of 300’ is required. He noted that staff recommends approval of the area and w idth variances, subject to pn>of that a suitable septic system and alternate site can be provided for the proposed residence. Gaffron explained that the applicants’ home was destroyed by fire earlier this year, and that the applicants w ish to replace it w ith an existing home lo be moved onto the property. The home that was dcstro)cd was nonconfonning in location and the new residence is proposed to meet all required setbacks of the 5-acrc /one. This property had historically been the site of a mixed use: a residential homestead with a commercial greenhouse operation involving a number of buildings. This use w as issued a •’Nonconfomiing Use CUP” in l%8, w hich w as limited in scope in 1985 by conditions of a CUP for an additional greenhouse. That 1985 CUP eliminated any retail sales of flowers from the property. Gaffron pointed out that in 1996 the greenhouses and auxiliary buildings were removed from the site, and in 1997 a land alteration CUP was granted to allow up to 2,000 cubic yards of fill to be placed in the excavation from the greenhouses, and to prepare for a future residence on the site. While no commercial greenhouse operation has existed on this site since 1996. w ithin the last year Mr. Butterfield has constructed a small (approximately 30 x 50) frame greenhouse near the center of the site in which he grows flowers for his contract gardening work. The site appears to have intemiittent vehicle storage activity to the rear which sUlThas not fullv investigated at this lime. Page 14 of 22 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16, 2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. {m M03-2908 NED AND I.ORNA BUTTERHELD, Continued) It should be noted that Commercial Greenhouses are a conditional use in the RR-IA district, and as a result of inactivity for a period of 6 years, a new commercial greenhouse use on the site would need a new CL^P. Additional review of the current use is necessary to determine whether it rises to the level of a conditional use. or it may merely be a home occupation (w ithout a home at the moment) and may or may not require a license. Since the house w as destro>xd, the applicants arc attempting to finalize purchase of one of the Silver Meadow Drive homes that has been acquired by MnDOT for the new Highway 12. Gaffron noted that the applicants indicate they have a short w indow of opportunity to get the house moved and would like to store it on the Watertown Road property temporarily while a foundation is constructed. With regard to the Septic System, Gaffron staled that the house that w as destroyed by fire had been served w ith a new mound septic system in 1999, w ith capacity for a 3-bedroom home. Applicants plan to re-connect the new home to that system. Staff will have to confirm that this system has capacity for the new home, and applicants w ill have to show that there is an ultcmaic septic site on the property. .‘\ficr sharing four issues for consideration, Gaffron stated that staff recommends approval of the lot area and w idth variances, subject to: a) Proof of adequate septic system capacity and alternate site. b) All other slanUanls of the RR-1A zone shall be met by the new residence. c) Elimination of non-rcsidential uses on tlie property such as commercial storage, etc. unless such uses are allowed by CLT or license, in which case the proper approvals shall be obtained if applicant wishes to continue those uses. d) Elimination of clutter and debris to match the character of this rural residential neighborhood. WTiilc there was no public comment. Chair Smith read an anonymous letter of concern, dated June 13,2003, into the record. Ms. Clark stated that her father has oficn allowed too many people to store too many things on his property. Todd Butterfield stated that he had removed all but the snowmobile trailer from the properly and has encouraged his father to say no to additional storage. He indicated that neither he, nor members of their family, w ere pleased w ith w hat w as being kept there. PaselSof22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. {m W03-2908 NED AND LORNA BUTTERFIELD, Continued) Buiterndd questioned why neighbors were concerned wfith the proximity of the home to the road, since the home would be placed 300* from the road. He also noted that the perk test had been performed and he would give that to staff regarding the alternate septic site. Gaffron asked that the applicant obtain a permit for the grading and submit a plan for what’s being done and where the house will be Hr x^ked when the home would be moved. Butterfield indicated that he did not have an exact date, but he did need to supply MnDOT w ith a confirmation that they can move forward. Linda Cook, 3765 Watertow n Road, inquired as to tlie status of the greenhouses. Gaffron stated that, if commercial sales w as happening on the site, the applicanis would need to file for a CUP to start up, since the CUP had expired 6 years ago. Butterfield suted that the hoop house is still there. Gaffron indicated that home occupation is allowed in an accessory structure and that consideration would be needed to dctcmiinc what’s happening in this 5 acre district to sec if it’s an allowed home occupation or CUP. Raho moved, Bremer sreonded, to recommend approval of Application W3-2908, Ned and Lorna Butterfield, 3745 Watertown Road, granting area and width variances to allow an existing residence to be moved onto the property, subject to the proof of an adequate septic system capacity and alternate site. Hawn questioned the timeline to place the home, since the neighbors would appreeiatc a timely placement of the home. Butterfield stated that he had been told that the home would be placed in its desired Kxalion and the basement dug out from below. taking a matter of 6-8 w eeks. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#8) #03 2909 PLEKKENPOI. BITI.DERS INC. ON BEHALF OF TO.M MCGLVNN. 3980 DAHL ROAD. AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES, 8:40 - 9:35 P.M. Tom McGI>iin. the applicant, and Bruce Boeder, his attorney, were present. Gaffron reported that the applicant requests after-the-fact variances for reconstruction of an acccssoiy structure within the 0-75’ lakeshorc setback zone where no such structures are normally allowed Gaffron staled that staff recommends denial of the variances. Page 16 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. June 16, 2003 6:00 o’clock p.ni. («8 #03-2909 PLF.KKKNPOL Bl'ILDF.RS INC. ON BFJIAI.F OF TOM MCCLYNN, Continued) GafTron shared the background related to the application, stating that the existing house on this property was constructed in 1987, replacing an older home which had been located in the 0-75’ zone. An old boathouse had existed on the property for many years prior to their purchase (a structure, perhaps not this boathouse, appears in the City’s 1955 airphotos at this exact location) and that boathouse was shown on the surxey when the new home was built. GafTron explained that the applicants in 2002 determined to restore remodel the boathouse and their builder applied for a permit to do so in March 2003. City staff reviewed the plans and determined that the extensive work proposed was in some respects cosmetic or merely maintenance, in a few respects structural, and some of the work was considered to be expansion The Building OfTicial clearly marked the plans to indicate w hich items of work could be approved and which were not allowable, lie also met w ith the builder to explain in detail the extent of w ork w hich w as allow ed. The value of the w ork w as estimated bv the builder at S20.000. GafTron stated that the City assumed that the building would remain in place during the restoratioa'remodel. as any work to repair the foundation would be considered as structural, would not be allowed, and would far exceed ’SWo of the structure’s value at the time it became non-conforming’ xvhich the City had long established as January 1. 1975 w hen the 75’ setback ordinance w as adopted. The value at that time was likely less than S.5fH). although it does not appear as a separate entry on assessor’s records. Gaffron maintainc*d that it has been the City policy and code intent to eventually have all such lakcshore structures disappear by attrition; the Code docs not allow the construction of new accessory strtK lures w ithin 75’ of the shoreline, and clearly intends to limit the ability to make major structural repairs to such structures AHer issuance of the pennit. it was discovered that the builder had temporarily moved the structure off its foundation . id set it up on cribbing approximately 50* to the south, where it was being renovated. It was also found that they had replaced the entire foundation of the structure, w hich consisted of massixe posts sunk into the ground w ith massive beams upon which the structure sits. They were advised to stop work. GafTron reported that staff contacted the City attorney and conferred as to w hether the structure had lost a y ‘legal non-confonning' status it may have had prior to the move. The conclusion was that if it was placed back on the onginal foundation (which w as now laying in pieces on the ground) it would likely retain its grandfathered status, but the new foundation clearly would be ‘structural alteration’ and undoubtedly exceed 50*o of the value of the structure in 1975. Gaflron explained that the applicants were advised of their options and chose to apply for an aAcr-thc-fact vanance to allow them to replace the structure on its new foundation in the 0-75’ zone. GafTron noted that visual observation at the site suggests that the structure was likely within the floodplain and subject to lioodplain regulations. Page 1 7 of 22 r- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#8 803-2909 PLEKKENPOL BUILDERS INC. ON BEHALF OF TOM MCGLYNN, Continued) Boeder explained that the survey reflected the post dimensions and that the rvvo northerly posts were pulled out entirely, and the building would be cantilevered out. Bremer maintained that, if the City Attorney has made the statement that it is okay to put the boathouse back on its original foundation and maintain its grandfathered status, and Lyle Oman has said it is the original foundation, then the point is moot and she w ould be in support of this application. Boeder repeated that the posts and beams arc original, and that he w ent to great lengths to confirm this with the builder and the workers to ensure he would have people to testify to this. Rahn questioned w hy the patio doors exist at the end of the building with no w here to go. McGlynn stated that they were included in the original plans and oflen times they fish or sw im from these doors. Gaffron read the ordinance and acknowledged the need to determine the difference between structural change and cosmetic or maintenance needs. He noted that the ordinance does address the value of the improvement being less than 50?i of the entire value of the structure. He indicated that both would be difficult to determine. Bremer stated that it made little sense why the work w as halted, since the applicants had the right to do w hat was approved. If the Commission follow s the City Attorney reading of the application and the material is old material, Bremer reiterated that the applicants request should be supported. She recognized the need to revisit the ordinance and consider a code change. Gaffron indicated that, upon his initial visit, his conclusion was that the foundation was new material, thus, the reason for it being on the agenda Since that time, the foundation has been found to be old material. Boeder indicated that, prior to restoration, Oman had said the structure was in fairly good shape and w ould be there for aw hile even w ithout repair. He agreed that, if the intent of the City is to do aw ay w ith all of these structure by the w ater, the code does not say that. Mabusth asked if the Attorney had submitted any ruling in w riting to this application. Gaffron stated that he had merely verbal ruling and would need to obtain a written ruling on the matter. He reiterated that the City Attorney had said that, if the boathouse were to be plaeed on a new foundation, it would lose its grandfathered status. In Gaffron’s opinion; however, the restoration had gone further than cosmetic or maintenance requirements. Page 19 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. («8 #03>2909 PLEKKENPOL BUII.DERS INC. ON BEIIAI.FOFTOM MCCLYNN, Conlinucd) Rahn stated that the pictures submitted by the applicant do support that the foundation is the original foundation. Given the wish of people to maintain these structures. Gaffron staled that the City needs to take a closer look at the ordinance. Chair Smith asked if the existing documentation supports what the applicant has done and w hat distinguishes it from other applications. GafTron felt this to be a tough question, in the applicants favor, Gaffron acknowledged that they have the documentation to support the work being done to the building. Until that meeting. Gaffron was convinced that this was new construction, and had since been proven untrue He questioned the value of the labor to do the w ork. Hawn stated that it seemed there was no variance necessary for the application if the Commission supports the original approval. She believed the application would be far cleaner if they did not make it a variance application. Gaffron agreed, slating that if the Commission believ ed the work w as not structural in nature, they did have the City Attorney’s support. Hawn stated that they are bound by the City Attorney’s comment and should support what’s been done. Rahn pointed out that less than 50% of the piers w ere straightened, merely two were removed Mabusth questioned whether this would be consistent with past applications. She felt that once the structure was moved from its foundation, it could be considered new construction. She believed the City should revise the current codes. Rahn stated that the code would need to be made more specific and that discussion should Uke place in a work session. He reiterated that the work that was performed to the structure was permitted, the building is being put back on the original foundation, with merely 25% pier improvement. Gaffron reminded the Commission that the regulatory flood protection elevation is 932.5’. Rahn stated that once it is put back on the piers, with the floors, the boathouse would likely be above floodplain. Page 20 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («« #03-2909 PLEKKENPOL BUILDERS INC. ON BEHALF OF TOM MCGLYNN. Conllnued) Bremer reiterated that the Attorney stated that we are not changing the structure by putting it back on the original foundation. Hawn argued that no variance was necessary. Hawn mo% rd, Zagschwrrt seconded, to recommend that the variance application Is not necessary and that the City Attorney should provide a written ruling whether the application should go forward to the City Council. \'OTE: Ayes 4. Nays 2, Mabusth and Chair Smith dissenting. Mabusth and Chair Smith, having difTiculty deciding u hcihcr to abstain, support, or dissent, dissented stating that they felt such action to be inconsistent vs ith previous applications and actions of the City. Bremer reiterated that the City Attorney made a ruling, the permits had already been approved, and the structure was placed back on its original foundation which allowed it to keep its legal nonconforming status according to the City Attorney. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#9) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF MAY 27 AND JUNE 9.2003 Haw n reported that the Planning items of May 27 w ere on the City Council’s consent agenda WTiilc most of the applications were on consent. Mabusth reported that the Council denied the Toth application and approved the Bastiean application. (#10) OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION There were no other issues. (#11) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MAY 16. 2003 Hawn moved, Zugtehwcrl seconded, approving the Minutes of the April 21,2003, Planning Commission Meeting as presented. \'OTE: Ayes 6, Navs 0. (#12) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JUNE 23,2003 AND JULY 14,2003. June 23 - Rahn July 14 - Zugschwert (Bremer back-up) Pase2lor22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. June 16.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Hawn nM»vcd» Mabusth iccondciL lo adjourn the Planning Commitsioa meeting at 9:48 P.IVL VOTE: Ayes 6, Naya 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 9:48 A.M. Sandra Sndth, Chair P«|e 22 of 22 L,.