Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-18-2003 Planning PacketORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Mondiy August 18, 2003 6:00PM 2750 Kelley Parkway - Couacil Chambers AGLNDA C'ouacU Represeatative: Bob Sansevere AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please siga la for the public record at the Croat podium if you wish to address the Planaiog CommlssioB. Applkaals will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair anaouaces the application. The Plaanlng Commission is an advisory body to the C'ity Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for llu* September 8,2003 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSIiNT I. #03-2927 James aiul I.iiula M.tiimson. 1435 Park Drive, Variance (StalT: Melanie I'oth) 2 #03-2929 JciT Maxlineau, 2565 North Shore Drive, Conditional I 'sc Pcmiil (Request to Table) (SlafT; Mike GafTron) 3. #03-2931 Timothy and Knsii (Jsterberg. 1045 l.uma l.inda Avenue, Variance (StaiT; Janice Waalaja) 4 #03-2932 Michael llayes ofMichael Hayes Homes on behalf of Albert Trapenese, 3220 Bohns Point l.ane. Variances (Staff: Melanie Toth) OLD BUSINESS 5 #03-2905 Heidi B. Nagel. 995 ildburst Trail, Variance (StalT Mike (iaITronI 6 #03-2919 Kevin and DelHWali nuimpson. 90 Myrtle wood Road, Variances (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 7 #03-2922 Imaginahly mi behalf of Mike ('ashman, 1655 and 1685 Foi Street, V'ariance (Staff: Janice Waalaja) NEW BUSINESS 8 #03-2917 Winfield and Nancy Stephens. 350 Crcvtvlew Avenue, V'uri.inccs (Staff: Janice Waalaja) 9 #03-2928 Michael R Mischke. 1972 Sbadywood Road, Variance (Staff; Mike Gaffron) 10. #03-29.10 Streeter & Associates on behalf of Richard and Dcloris Little, 2775 Shadywood Road, Variance (Staff: Melanie Foth) 1 1 . nOi-mi Gary Nccc on bchairofRobcn and Brenda MacDonald. 2480 Old Beaefe Road, Conditional Use Pctmil (SlafT' Janice Waalaja) 12. 803-293S Scott and Krr ' button, 1835 Shad>’wood Road, Variance (SlafT: Melanie Foth) 13. 803-2936 Bruce Mcese and Maureen .Murphy, 3135 Casco Circle, VariaiKc (SlafT: Janice Waataja) SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING 8:00PM 14. 803-2937 Rob Morlock, 980 Noiih Shore Drive, Preliminary Subdivision. (StafT: Janice Waauja) PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS 1 5. Report of Planning Commission rcprcscnlalivcs attending Council meetings July 28, 200.1 and August 1 1,2003. 16. Other issues for discussion. 1 7. Planning Commission approval of minutes for July 21 .2003. 1 8. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on AuguM 25. 2003 and September 8. 2003. ADJOURNMENT Public A ttendance MlCTIVCDMt \ - •* □ C ouncil b' Planning C ommission □ Park C ommission □ Other ___________ NAME (please priat) Please fill out the in form atio > requested BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER I. . C_l W-<J l^C ;c J ;?i 2.4 r 77*',.M-'ft V ■V A c-c^-J^'/c 7l V i ) d. c ». 11 c»- L f ‘A j 0^ ir^I\\ ^ \ s. / u TTi IJ (>:, j .x,______ 6. , /1?S *-^Y u>rfcftf // OKONO PLANMNC; COMMISSION .Mooday Aagatl If. 200) 6:00P.M 2750 KrUr> Parkway - Coaaril Chambm AC'.CNOA C'saacit Rrprrtralall«r: Dob Santotre Al DirNCE MF-MnnW: Plrair %lgn la (or Ibr pablic rrrord at Ibc front podium If you wiih to adtlrr^i ibf Plaaalng Commlitioa. Appllraatt will be naked to more lo the front table to aaawer qneationt when tke C hair annooncet the appUeatio*. The fiaanteg Commhtto* b an adahory body lo the City Council. If action b taken on any ileim on Ihb agenda, they will be achedoled for the September S, 2001 City Council roeetlag nolett ntherwlac noted by the Chair. 1 •Ol'lMT iamnand LindiMarlmion. I43S Park Drbr. Variance (Staff Melanie Foth) Slap 07 2 imV3'0<) Jeff Mart neau. 2565 .North Shore llriae. Corditiocial Cie Pcmiil IReqarti lo TableMSufi M'ie diflti’n) Map 17 t »0.1-29JI Tim. fh> ar.l Kn»:t Oatcrberg. 1045 l.oma l.iada Atenne. Variance (Stall Jamcc Waaujj) MapC6 4 ao).;o.12 MickaclllayetofMichaclilayrillomesonbehalfofAlbertTrapenete. .1220 Dobnt Point l.aae. Vanareei (Staff Melanie Foth) .Map 07 f)iinii;siNi.ss 5 MI-2905 llcidiB Nagel. 995 M'iMbnral Trail. Variance (Stair Mike GafTron) MapAb 6 aOl-2919 Ke\in and Deborah Tbiinipvan. 90 Myrtlewood Road. Variance* (Stair MikeCialfrorii Map K3 7 MI-2922 Imagmal.ty onbehalfofMikeCaeh.’na.n. 165:'tad 1655 Fo* .Street. Vaiian.e (Staff Jamce Waafaja) Map IS Nl:W BL'SINI SS g MI-2917 Win field and Nancy Stcpbcns. 350 Creth lew a* enne. Variance* (Stair ianice Waataj.'i) Map D4 9 M3-292I Michael R MiKhkc. 1972 Shadywood Road. Variance (SiafT MilcCaffron) .MapCt 10 M3-2910 Streeter A Attcciate* on behalf of Richard and Delont I.iitle, 2775 Shadywood Road. Variance (Staff Melanie Foth) Map ElO 11 M3-2933 Gary Nece or. behalf of Robert and Brenda MacDonald. 2410 OM Bench Road, Conditional L'*c Pemiit (Suff iaracc Waataja) Map ElO 12 a03-293S Scott and Kara Hutton. It35 Sbadywood Read, Variance (Stair MelaneFoth) MapCt 13 M3-2936 Bruce Meete and Maureen Murphy. 3135 Cate* Circle. Variance (Starr Jamce Waataja) Map Dll SaiEDULED PCBI 1C HEARING tiOOP.M 14 M3-2937 Rob Moilock. 910 North Shore Drbr. PtcliRunary Subdttitioa, (Staff ianice Waataja) Slap A6 PlwANNINt; COMMISSION CUMMIMS ** 2W ar^^A*^”*Tfl^”w'^" tepreaentatuc* attending Council meeting* July 2i. 16- Other iuuet for diicutsion. 17. Planning Commiiiion approval of minutes for iuly 21.2003 15 Selection of representatives foe City Council meeting* on August 25. 2W3 and September 8.2003 ADJOURNMENT •03«2? Au9utl 13 2003 Pagetol4 Dale AppUcalMfi Kceritcd; 07-29-OJ l>alr AppIkalkNi Coathferrd as Conpktr: 0S-O7-OJ 60-Day Review Period Kapircs: KHI7-0J Chair Smith and iManning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Melanie FoCh. Citv Planner CONSI.NT ACFNDA August 13. 2003 Frooi: Date: NubjccI:03*2927, James & l.inda Martinson. 1435 Park Drive. - I-oi Width & Area Variances • public hearing /siting Dislrlel: LR*IB, Single Family l.akcshore Residential, I-acre I,of Area: 0.75 acre (32.2K4 s f) Application Summary: Applicants request lot width and area variances in order to construct a new single family residence llic application includes. I The property is 100’ wide and 0 75 acre where the lot width and area mmimums ______are 140' and I acre respectively. _____ _ _ Staff Recommendation: Siafl' recommendations: Approval of the variances as requested due to the follow ing 1 ITic home will meet all of the required setbacks 2 The properly will meet the allowed 25% ma.ximiini hardcover in the 75**250' zone at 24.9% 3 The structural coverage will be below the limit ol 15 ’!i at 12% 4. There will be no hardcover within the 0-75’ /.one Hardship Substandard hit area and width, lot createdpnor to current zuninti. no additional land available Pertincnl Zoning Ordinance Sections 10.24.5(1)) l.ot width and area requirements I0.03.6(A)( I) “R” Distnet of one acre or less and with public sanitary sewrr. If lot meets 80% of minimum requirements for area and width it may be utilized for a single family detached dwelling purposes witliout Council approval. Ust of Fihibits A. Application I). iixisting & Proposed Survey/Sitc Plan C. Photos n Proposed Plans and Elevations Iv Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. I.etlers from Neighboring Owners G. Property Owners List ii. Plat Map ■03»?y August 13 2003 P*g«2o<4 BackKrouiid Ilic applicants arc proposing to remove the existing home from the property and construct a new residence meeting all Zoning Ordinaitce requirements including sethacks, lot coverage by structures, and hardcover requirements. Additionally, the applicants will be filing for vacation of I'orest Boulevard which would add 0.08 acre to the property increasing the si/c to 0.82 acre LOT ANALYSIS WORSlIKKT Lot Arca/WhHIi; LRIB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43.560 s.f ( 1 acre) 140* Actual 32.284 s f. (0.75 acre)*95’ at shoreline 100 ’ at 75 ’ setback •per I0.03.6(AK I) An existing sewered lot of record can be buildable without a variance if it meets 80% of lot area and width requirements. Selbacks: LR-IB Required Proposed l^cshorc 75 ’1445’ Rear 30 ’79.8* West Side 10*10* Last Side 10 ’ir Strucluml <*ovcnigc; Total l.ot Area Total Structural Coverage 32.284 s f (0.82 acre)Allowed: 4842 6s f (15%) Proposed: 4011 s f (12%) Hardcover Calculatioas; Hardcover Z4>ne Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 3690 sf.Osf (0%) 0 s f • (0%) Osf (0%) #03 tHJt August 13 ^3 P#g#4ol4 sunlight for solar energy systems Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section I I6J.06. Suhd. 2. when in harmony with this C'haptcr " S/A "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 /one where the affected person ’s land is located." S/A "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-rarmly dwelling." S/A The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such properly or immediately adjoining properly." The special commons apply to many other lots in the immediate area In the opinion of staff this criterion is met “Ihc conditions do not apply generally to other laiul or structures in the district in which said land is located " The conditions apply to many other lakeshore lots in I.R-llt In the opinion o/ staff this criterion is met The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and eiijoN iiient of a substantial property right ol the applicant " In the opinion of staff this criterion is met "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in anv other respect be contrary to the intent of the /oning Code." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met "The granting of such variance \sill not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, hut is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or diHlculty " In the opinion of staff this criterion is met Issues for Considcralion Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? .Sltfr RecoaMeadalion Apiiroval of the variaiKcs as requested subject to the lot meeting setback, lot coverage by structures and hardcover requirements CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 AAcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application U Dale Received Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address /V2r farimm a ,a r — t--------- __mn J J ^ C Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) 01 !i i^ jlqo ql ^_____ Attach legal description to application if not included on reouired survey. uaic t^ropcHT^cquircd rhiu ?ty ________ I (do) (4oji^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of properly: .^residential ___other (specify) (monlh/>’car) Zoning District;__ APPLICANT Name f't tnfor\ Address: QSSi. C>r' / \ f-P 5 !l£.-(Xnfi\»n-f /f)*f /ift fort Phone (home) 7/ _____ Phone (work) Jt , 6 ^ City: PfiQj <»__Zip:_Jj7j?j7 >- OWNER (i? diiierent inan applicant) Phone (home) ’ Name ^ Phone (work)' Address: ' '___City:.Zip:„ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail* Estimated Construction Cost S__ (attach additional sheets if necessary) V/UUANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area ^ Lot Width ___Setback: Front Side Hardcover Rear _Ix)t Coverage Average Lakeshorc Other (specify).Q.f[ -fr. /-o c a IIARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Desenbe undue hardship or practical difTiculiy or unusual properly conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: /(oh$< ^.c/, ^// __Ho — (attach additional sheets if necessary) #23: REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. All of the followipg information must be submitted hv fhf application deadline dale In ordfr for vour ipplicalion io be considered complglc: Complclcd Application Form __ Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv’cyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/r x II" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8‘/i" x II"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the properly. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City .si.iff 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application Please remember that your sadlLnciLjjpJicatipn b If the above Information has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and'or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her Imowlcdge Applicant's Signature ( (TreOWNER'S SIGNATl , _ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request Owner's Signature ^'/C Date / Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Conunission Meetings arc held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If ati applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Ofl.ce of this change prior to the meeting « 7' /' . V __^ 1 .1 V f r '• ^ .r- "^■•\ . .;.*V-; ; :.. • ^ T“- ■ ‘' '. - ^ ^Xf^l&IT C- r:I " :;:^f^N:" ssMI "M aSs^UU. Smnmmnm '5' 5- 'O -------VV rvN % V? a -----" -.=IV- ,/f: o 0> o vSV I ■,‘r r firn ■ t '-ZZ, I, 111 'l iilki ■—**W |-r ;------^!!.yic,11 ^ PaH>ATCH mjkM ■— — »■ mmm»* -o /I/33 Sfcfrif/i r-€-o3 0?wie.iT B UAlU)COVEUi:ALCULATION WORKSUEET SETDACK ZOiVE: (CIRCLE ONE)7S.250*250.500’500.1000* EXISTING HARDCOVER IN 7.QNT. A House L«n|Ui B Oirage C. Dn\e«ay D Sidewalk E Paiio/Deck F Landscape • Underlain By Plaiuc Or Fabric G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZON'E TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZC-.T - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House B Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Pai:o0eck F LandKapc Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A_ _ _ _ _ _ _- B X 100 - WtCJl 7S?0 \ 100 SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF. % SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SFsr. ’ H ExH«e>ir e SETBACK ZOr^: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER i:; /ONt: A House UAILDCOVER CALCULATIOtN WORKSHEET 0-75* L«i|ih B. Ov<|« C Drixewsy D. Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F LandKape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0 Other - B PROPOSED HARDCQVrU IN ZONE A House LfnfUi B Caraie C. Driveway 0 Sidewslk E Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0 Other TOTAL HARDCON'ER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPER! Y AREA IN ZOhTJ A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B 2S0.S00’SOOIOOO' W)«h total hakjkover fh*/.o* m TCTAI- PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE \ 100 1^2 80€ SF SF. SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF -**ovie SF-5T07P SF sr.-poocH SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF $"040 2^.17 0 vlOO - SF SF. H _m-i- ^ M ' 9 UAlU)COVEU CALCULA 1 loat WORKSUEET SETBACK ZO.NE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER )N 70N»- A H oum 0-75*75-25M' Unph B Oartge C Dnvewty D Sidewalk E Patio/Deck F Landicape Underlain ByTlasue OfFabnc C Other TOTAL HARDCOV'TR IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House Lrnfth D Garage C Driveway 0 Sidewalk E Paiio/Deck F LcndKape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc C Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B (250.5^500-1000' w«eji SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF K 100 ZO^ 170 SF SF V. SF SF. SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF xlOO 7V5 SF SF V. SF JUL*ai-2«S3 10:S5A FROn:BEUTLER GROLF 952-400-8786 10:92494616 P:2'2 Adjacent Properly Owners' Acknowledgcoirnl Form 1 (we) f/" vllVtiyv HiK>tU/s of /Or • (print name(s)) (print oddress] **** proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at nJjT Pr^i< (V also referred to as Land Use Applicadoo No ________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, T (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 (are) aware of ihc improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. m^erty Owner Date Date 7//?>3 I (we) (print name(s)] or ml 0^ (print address] ha>^ r^itn^ the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ______also refeiTcd to as Land Use Application No._________. I (we) understand that In executing this acknowledgement, 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. 1 h- Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist iho City in the review of this Land Use commentt lo the gilding ft Zoning Office at leM 10 day. prior I s£ RUNDATt 7/IVMU )• 0711723430014 PROf ADDR 1442 PARK OR OWNER NAME 0 L SCHULTZ ETAL TAXPAYER GEORGE L SOIULTZ NAME/AOOR 1442 PARK DR MOUND MN S33M HENSLPIN COLN"n' rROPERTY INI ORMAIION SYSTEM PROPERTY OVV%ERS LIST 31 071 1723420015 PROP ADDR 1402 PARK DR OWNER NAME LUCUi^OKUT/ TAXPAYER LUCILLE O KUTZ NAME/ADOR 1462 PARK DR MOUND MN 33364 3* c';:7;342foi7 PROP ADDR 1413 PAKKDR OWNER SAMI; JDSIUCHUDAN ASILLERIJO TAXPAYER JONATHAN D A NORA A SlU.ERUD NAMI^AODR 1413 PARK DR MOUND MN S!5« PAGE I 31 071172343001a PROP ADDR 1413 PARK DR OWNERNAME J DSILLERUDANASILLERUD Taxpayer Jonathan o a nora a soxerud NAME/ADOR 1413 PARK DR MOUND MN S3364 31 071 1723420021 PROP ADDR 1447 PARK DR OWNERNAME PiSCHLENDERAMRPALM Taxpayer p j scnlender a m r palm NAME/ADOR 1447 PARK DR MOUND MN 33304 31 0711723430013 PROP ADDR I4M PARK DR OWNERNAME P J HARDIN Ul AC A HAROM TAXPAYER PJ HARDIN Ul AC A HARDIN NAME/ADDR I4M PARK DR MOUND MN 33304 4B V 31 0711723420010 PROP ADDR 1423 PARK DR OWNERNAME R L HOWELLS A J M HOWELLS TA3CPAYER ROBERT L A JEAN M HOWELLS NAMLADDR 1423 PARK OR MOUND MN 353<<4 38 071 1723420022 PROP ADOR 1453 PARK DR OWNERNAME TIMOTHY RJ\’U:RE TAXPAYER TIMOTHY RJ\'IERI. NAML ADDR 1453 PARK DR MOUND MN 33304 31 0711723430027 PROP ADDR 1441 park OR OWNERNAME D B ERICKSON A L 0 ERICKSON Taxpayer OAVtn n a laurel b erickson NAME/ADDR 1448 PARK DR MOUND MN 33304 3» 0711723420020 PROP ADDR 1435 PARK DR OWNLRNAML JAMLS A MARTINSON TAXPAYER JAMES A MARTINSON NAMLADDR >433 PARK OR MOUND MN 33364 38 0711723420023 PROP ADDR 4300 NORTH SHORE DR OWNIR name S R PAIOOSH a . P PAIOOSH TAXPAYER STEPHEN R/JLNNIFER P PAIOOSH NAMLADDR 4300 NORni SHORE DR MOUND MN 35304 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCLRATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BBUEF. date by rQ o:) % Dite AppTIcitioa Rccdvcd: 7>22*0 Date AppHratioa Coatidrrrd at Complete: 7-22-03 M-Day Review Period Eipires: 9-20-0J Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Dale: Subject: Mike GafTron, Planning Dirccto August 12.2003 #03-2929 JefT Martincau. 2565 North Shore Drive - CUP - V'ariancc • Public Hearing REQUEST TO TABLE Zoning District: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2-acre min. Lot Area: Gross: 64,250 s.f. (1.47 acres) Wetland: 33,000 s.f. + Net Dr>* Buildable: 37,250 s f + Application Summary: Applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for plur.ibing in an accessory structure, to allow installation of a half bath (toilet, sink and shower) in a proposed detached garage with upper level exercise and sitiing room. The proposed plaru include a kitchenette with range, sink and refrigerator, and could easily function as a small guest house as dcsigi.ed. However, the properly does not contain adequate acreage for a guest house CUP (would need 4 acres in this 2-acre /one). Additionally, the proposed structure and its associated driveway increase hardcover bc)t)nd the the hardcover allotment for the properly, and a hardcos er variaiKC is required After meeting with staff on August 12, applicant requests tabling to the September meeting to allow him time to establish a proposal for concurrent hardcover reductions. Proposed Motion: Moved by,_, seconded by, the September meeting at the request of the applicant. to table application #03-2929 to *03-2931 Au{uil 11.2003 P«l« I ofS Date Application Received: 7-22-03 Dale Appiicalion Coniidcrcd ai Compicte: 7-22-03 60-Day Review Period Etpires; 9-20-03 To; Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Janice Waataja, City Planner5>«'^ Dale: August 13.2003 Subject: <<03-2931, Timothy & Kristi Osterberg. 1045 I.oma I.inJ.i Avenue - Variances • Public Hearing Zoning Districl: LR - IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (I acre min.) Lot Area: .446 acres (19,429 s.f.) Application Suntmary: Applicant rcqnrcts the following variances to replace an existing attached garage in approximately the current location: 1. Front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 28’ \ hen 35 ’ is required. Staff Recomnte$tdation: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of the front yard setback variance due to limited alternative locations due to the configuration and topographical constraints of the lot. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.24, Subdivision 5 (b): Lots. “The following minimum requirements shall be observed...(front xurd setback of 35*1." List of Exhibits A - Application F - Submitted Hardcover Calculations B - Sur\ ey G - Photographs C - Existing & Proposed Surv ey/Site Plan H - List of Property Owners D - Proposed Plans I - Plat Map E - Topogruphv Map Background Ihc house was constructed in 1940. prior to the City’s current requirements, with a forward facing garage setback 28.2 feet from the front property line. The house sits elevated on the lot with the interior side yard sloping downward. MJ-2931 Asfatl 1 1.3003 PagclofS LOT ANALYSIS WORSIIKLT Lol ArcaAVidth; LR-IB Lot Area Lol Width Required 53,560 s.f. (1 acre)140 ’ Actual 19,429 s.f. (.446 acres)132 ’ Setbacks; Structural Coverage; Hardcover Calculations; LR-IB Required Existing Proposed Front 35’28.2’28.2’ Rear 30’62’62’ Left Side 10 ’58.3’58.3’ Right Side 35’29.1 ’(house) 51 ’ (garage) 29.1 ’ (house) 47 ’ (garage) Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 19.429 s f. (.446 acres)Allowed: 2.914.35 s.f. (I55i) Propo.seJ: 1,921 .s.f (9.9%) Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Exialing llardcos'cr Proposed Hardcover 250-500 19,429 s.f.5,828.7 s.f. (30%) 3,001 s.f* (15.4%) 3,132 s.f (16.1%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Front Yard Setback Variance The applicants wish to replace their existing, dilapidating tv\o-car garage. They will be essentially rebuilding it in the s.ime location, although two feet further to the south to accommodate an existing tree. The two foot shift of the garage doesn’t afreet the side >ard setbacks, as there is substantial space between the garage and side property lines. The existing garage is 22 ’ x 24 ’ and the applicant has proposed a garage size of24 ’ x 24 ’ M03-293I AugvM 11,2003 Page3»rS (standard two-car). The added two feel of w idth will not put the garage closer to the street as the current front yard sethack, 28.2 feet, will be maintained. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysb /« comlJering applicallont for variance, the Planning Commlulon 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 offire, risk to the public safety, and the (tffect 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 because of circumstances unique t» the Individual property under consideration, and shatt recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that suck actions will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. SUiff finds that the front >ard setback variance request is reasonable bc.*ause of the topographical constraints of the property. If the g>iragc were placed in the side yard adjacent to the street the side yard setback could not be met. Another possible alternate location could be in the rear yard although the drawback would be that it’s detached and woul J have to be ser\cd by a long drive and would be in close proximity to the house. Also, an attached garage could be placed on the south side of the home, although the } foperty slopes dowTiward significantly and fill would ha\e to be K'.ight in so the garage tould be at the same elevation as the existing home, dra.stically changing the character of the lot. Therefore, staff finds that the current 28.2 ’ front yard setback is the most feasible. Staff would make the follow ing recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship ” pertinent to this application: 1."The properly in ouestion cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." The applicants ha\e statal that the current garage is rotleilunJfalling down Short of the owners not rebuilding a garage, a variance would be requiredfor the property to have a garage. "The plight of the lar.dow ner is due *0 circum.stanccs unique to his property not created by the landowner." The topographical constraints of the property are unique and not created by the landowner "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Should a vari,jtce be granted or not the property- will exist as it exists today M3-293I Augittt II.200J PagtSorS The proposal Is not contrary’ to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. The property will exist in the manner that it exists today. 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 granting of the variance will alleviate hardships inherent to the property. Issues for CoBsIderatloii 1. Should the garage be moved to a location that meets ordinance even thought that location isn't the most feasible and would change the character of the lot? 2. Does the shilling of the garage two feet to the south create any problems? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Stair RccommcDdation Approv'ol of the fiont >'ard setback variance to allow a front >110! setback of 28.2’ when 35* is normally requir^ due to the topographical and setback constraints inherent to the property. A Application ff 0*V a ^ ?i | Date Received 7-f^^-03 Amount Paid _j9SO . CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 Afier-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address \nLVr> I ___________________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 1\~1 Attach ]er;al description to application if not included on required survey. Date Pr^erty Acquired I (do) (^oji^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property. V residential ___other (specify) _(month'ycar) Zoning District:______\ fS APPLICANT Name Phone (home)__1^73 Address: L/Ttw:. _____ Phone (work) City;__CVDv\o __ Zio: OW’NER (if different than applicant) Name _______________________ Phone (homc)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ^ Estimated Construction Cost S 3n,rypt^ Describe request in detail: dgV^^l\4^^Ty^ VP> f rSP ----------(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ____Lot Width X Setback: Front ___Side __Other (specify)____________________ Hardcover Rear _Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusu^ property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: \< 4p iMOiXi 4^ AM “hfiLC. (attach additional sheets if necessary) J^jL C% c:'”^ O J)■ 0^e>iT & CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY nt KKISTl OSTEKBERG r lagpiM II p If /^V5^T O /f^ ; / ■ 3t‘>»v 0<r lte< 1 ^ aT ' fs^tSir Co/K» Cof^ hU " — I ^^kS IfodTJ^ t SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEEZ 75-250* EXISTIXn HARDCOVER IN TUSK KStlEEX^ ^sosooy 9/^wm p 50(hl000 ’ A. Houst- 1^1 RX A3 Lmtdt B. C. Garage Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F S.F. O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - 70r.lL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _3+cx21_ ♦ B rsfifix ,100 -3.C01 S.F. S.F. ’ % PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN7.0SF A. House f=H Ai AXA3 Lentth\o Uuth Wc?-Garage Drive^tiy e c. v..> Sidewalk ^ ’i Patio/Deck Landscape vO Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric JP^2 l_ z!B-S.F S.F S.F h3%S.F S.F. S.F SF. \^C? S.F S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. C. Other <uriVdu.r«^ TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B xlOO - A S.F. % •03 793J August 14. 7003 Page i o<S Dale Application Received: 07>29>0J Dale Application Contidered ai Complete: IM 05-03 60-Da> Review Period F.ipires: 10-08-03 1 o: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Mo<irsc. C’ily Administrator From: Melanie Folh, City Planner CONSENT ACiKNUA Date: August 14,2003 Subject: #03-2932, Michael Hayes on behalf of Albert I rapancse. 3220Rohn ’sPoinlRd' - CUP & Variance - public hearing Zoning District: Single Family l^kcsbore Residential, l-acre Lot Area: 1.44 acre (62,835 s f) Application Summary: Applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct a detached accessory structure on a through lot. and a side setback variance lo place a 25’x35‘ garage 20 ’ from a street side yard setback where 35’ is required. An accessory building on a through lot requires a conditional use permit. The purpose of the conditional use permit in this instance is to assure minimal visual impact on neighboring properties and views from the road. I. The proposed acccs.vory structure would meet all other standards for this district Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the reque.sted v ariance and condition i) use permit provided the following conditions are met: I. Vegetative screen and privacy fence along Bohn's Point Rd arc to be maintained. 2 Density of the vegetation on the lot ’ •. kept such that the visual impact from County Rd SI be minimized 3 No access to Bolui’s Poi^nt Rd for proposed garage___________________ Pcrlincnt Zoning Ordinance Sections 1003.10 Conditional Use Permit Required. All accessory buildings on through lots located in “R" Districts shall require a conditional use permit. ^ 10 03 9(D) Accessory Building Location: No detached garage or accessory building shall be located nearei the front or street lot line than the principal structure. 10.03.9(E) Accessory' Building Setbacks Accessory structures in excess of 750 s.f. footprint area shall be located at least 15' from any lot line. ^ 10 03.12 Crowding Principal Building; No accessory structure may be located w ithin 10 ’ of the principal building !0.09.6(AX3) Granting of a cup live proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. ^ 10.24.5(B) Lot Requirements; Side yard setback adjacent to street shalj be 35’. •03-7937 Augvtt 14 2003 P*g*3o«S SlrMClur«l Coverage; Total Lot Area Total .Structural Coverage 62.815 s.f (1.44 acre)Allowed. 9425 25 s f (15%) Existing 1508 s.f (5.5%) Proposed: 4141sf(7%) Hardcover CalcutalioBi; 1 his property is within the S00**l000’ of Lake Minnetonka I he proposed hardcover will ^ below the maximum coverage percent by 20®.o Hardcover Zone 500 1000 Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover 62.815 s.f.21.992.25 s.f (15%) Kaistiiig Ha^cuver 9198 s.f * " ___ Proposed Hardcover 10.211 s.f • AOer exclusion of fabric or plaslic-lincd landscape beds Side Yard Setback Variance 1 his property is a corner, through lot. which requires a 15* setback on 1 sides of the property. A 15’ separation is proposed between the exi>liiig home and the proposed garage, where only a 10’ setback from the principal structure is required (10.01.12). I.ven in meeting the setback from the principal struclute. the side .setback would not K* met. However, the vegetation and privacy fence screen the proposed building from Hohn's Point Road on the cast, and the building wtuild meet the re.st of the setbacks and roquirements for the District. Additionally, this detached garage meets the 15' setback ret|uired in 10 01 9(H) Hardship Statement Applicant h.is provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Analysis til iiunitlering appikafioni for variance, the Ptanning Commiwhtn %hall contider the effect of the proposed variance upon the hea 1i, tafety and welfare of the community, exhting and anticipated traffic conditions, tight and air, danger offre, risk to the puMic safety, and the effect on s-aiues of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in Inuancet where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual proparty under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when kit demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. fo evaluate the visual impact of the proposed garage an on-site inspection was conducted by staff which revealed unique circumstance of dense tree and vegetation coverage. Staff finds that the maintenance of large trees and additional vegetation on site, the natural location for the proposed garage, along with the homeowner ’s desire to minimize hardcover by utilizing the existing driveway would constitute a hardship in this tasc. At 15 ’ from the principal structure the proposed garage meets the 10’ setback required by I Augu«t 14 2003 P*0t4of 3 code. If ihe slructurc \%'crc moved 5’ closer to ihc principal slructurc a side street variance would still be required. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. 8 “The property in question cannot be pul to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls ’ In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met “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 •Hconomic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.* The applicant has not indicated economic consideration as a hardship In the opinion of staff this criterion is met "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 Minnc.sota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd 2, when in harmony with this Chapter " N/A "The Board of Appeals and Adjusuitents or the CouiKil 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 ’ In the opinion of staff this criterion is met "llic Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling os a two-family dwelling." N/A "llic special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The property is a through lot. vshich also happens to be a corner lot. thus has S s ide yards \t hich are adjacent to streets The side yard street setback is more restrictive than a s>de yard adiacent to another lot This property has sufficient area and screening to allow for minimal impact from each of the adjacent streets In the opinion nf staff this criterion is met •03^2932 AuguM 14 2003 PagtSo<S *The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.' M corner through lot is not a common situation in any district In the opinion oj staff this criterion is met 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met "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 /lining Codc." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. "The granting of such variance will not merely .serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is ncces- ary' to alleviate demonstrable hardship or diflkulty." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met Issues for Consideration 1. Arc the vegetative screen and the fence significant enough to mininii/c the impai i of the reduced setback? 2. Would granting the setback variance contradict the conditional use permit requirement that the accessory structure on the through lot meet all code requirements? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application'^ StafT Recommendation Plaruiing Department Staff recommend approval of the requested variance and conditional use permit contingent on the following: I Vegetative screen and privacy fence must be maintained along Bohn's Point Road. 2. Sufllcicnt vegetation and trees must be maintained to provide screening from County Rd 51. 3 No access to Bohn's Point Road to the proposed garage Ml innaiiniriSiail g^cHiK.ir A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (S30.00 per each additional variance) Ren< wal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non<onfonning structures S2S0.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application Dale Received V-2JZ.^ 03 Amount Paid ^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 333d /^nL Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) Qy. 7/7- ^7- W- OOC^c______ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired__________________________________(month\car^ 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propertysv X residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:______1______________________________ APPLICANT _________________ rnone (worK Address: City: Phone (home) 9^2‘<=f7v-<:nc*^ Phone (work)_________________ Zip:_^JUY. OVTS’ER (if different than applicant) Name ftlftf? \ sjc Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work) DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: Ci.l.-Y 9 <rl r. (attach additional sheets if nccessar>’) VAKl/kNCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ^ Other (specify) IIARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practic?’ difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: 1(attach additional sheets if necessary) \LL O. O O I r REQUIRED SUBMITTAI^ All flf Ibt fftllQwfng inforynjiCion must be submitted hv the annitcatlod deadline dati> In for vo ur application to be considered complete; !• __ Completed Application Form 2. — Certified Property Owners List of owners within ISO*, labels and plat map (^u must Go^^C^t *'*348^59^1^** Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, ---- Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8*/i" x 11" for reproduction. 4. — Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in e.visiing grade arc proposed. In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/," x 11" for reproduction. — Sketches or plans of fioor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy R'/j" x 11"). 6. — 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). 7. — As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons >-ou wish notified of this application. __ Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Ott’ner roust sign this application. Please temcrohci that your varJapyy BPplic.ltioiLjlJLOiJ^pmpl^^ above information hnc ............. “ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURi: T^e applicant heteby agrees to provide all infottnalion required or requested by Uie Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (stafTtime not covered by original fee payroent) and/or eonsuliant expenses incuncd in review of this application, and eertifies that the information supplied IS true and correct to tlic best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature OWNER’S SIGNATURE Date The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authoriaes reasonable entiy onto the property by City staff, consulianis. agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature _Date i£=.=|S“£r3ES--S M. afi-U: . rt »\ r--. s S Atft/ 'w' FRcn :FflK NO. : VUtllHIII Oct. 31 2002 05:13PM P2 W!1 Mll/lJI MfJ A4JMC0I FHpfity Owacrs' Ackaowladgcacat Form I (we) _LPP. (UpblT' __of Bnl^ Pf ir\i {print nMM(t)][print additaij ^ « oC file propeiw loc«o^ ** fVili li fif^*** ifftuod to n Land Use Applkttioft No. ^ .iDcbo'' Frepcftjr OwMT Pippeity Oomgr •seMasfssetaaSMavSAesMaSaaaMtA******.* I (w) [prifit Bamc(s)][print addieu] hfvo Ririfo^ 6c pins fir 6c proposed inpravcaeni or proposed use of the property locotod » ■— «Iio leftned to as Land Ulc AppUetta No._______ I (tM) mdauMBd that in akacodai this agkanwit^y*tw4>^ j m qqi ^drmA dcdaio approval or diaappraval of the property or use but mcroly to eonfirn* for foe City CouncO foar I fwe) cb (aro) aacBC of foe hupiovaiae&t pleas and font foe proposed oei^hbai'a prqiect or use roquiraa Council approval. Property Oaaisr Date Ptopci^ Owner If you have any bfonutfoo that auy assist foe City in foe review of this T«Hf Um p^?te ^ ^ Buildiag * Zoning OfOce ai IcMt 10 d«yi rrai ;FW K?. :Oct. 25 2BB2 04:32Pn P2 2Umiog Application (IHI3-2932 3220 Bohn*t Point Road Detailed Haitlsliip Statement Ibt proposed garage iocaUon is requested for the following ressoru 1) To miiBrniic the impact of hardcover 2) On the set back to Bohn’a Point Road there is a 6 foot high fence with growihonit. Thus decreasing the set back for the garage wiU be barely visible from Bohn’s Point Road. 3) The only to tvoWdeaeMing the « tack would be to ptace the propoied (iragefimherbackaattaloi. However, then ate two lerge trees thet would htve to be removed to accommodate (hit. ^ The proposed plecement leaves a 15* separation from bouse to proposed garage The minimum s^ration by code is 10*. but even if wc moved it within 10’ it stUl would not be within the Bohn’s Point Road setback.. The proposed 15’ separation would improve the appearance of the property to summary, aince the variance thm we are reqesting wotdd not negatively impact the ajqwaraoce fim Bohn’s Point Road due to the existing fence, and ainoe the proposed piacemert win save 2 large trees, nriniiniac the impact of hardcover, and provide an V* **** we fed that it would be a hardship to deny this MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 1 2003 6:00 o'clock: .Tin. (M #03-2905 HEIDI B. NAGEL, Continued) Hann 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 FAGERNESS POINT ROAD, AfTER-THE- FACT VARIANCES, 7:22-7:49 PM. Richard Roberts, the applicant, was present. Gaffron explained that the applicant was requesting after-the-fact approval for construction of a retaining wall and stairway s>'stem in the 0-75' setback zone, constituting hardcover and structure where none is normally allowed. Staff recommends partial approval only, to allow for a 4' wide stairway but deny the retaining wails on the lake side of the road; and denial or request further design detail for a retaining wall within the property on the north (house) side of the road. The current owner was granted a variance in 1991 to construct a new home on the property to replace an old cabin. That approval required that a cribbed sand volleyball court underlain by plastic sheeting on the lake side of the road be made non-hardcover. The sand area w as eventually removed but the cribbing remained in place for a time. This spring applicant was found to be constructing new retaining w alls in the 0-75* zone between the road and the lake, and tiie job was stopped by the building inspector (see letter of 4-15-03). Gaffron noted that the applicant indicated he intended to make the access to the dock safer by adding a stairway. This area w here walls arc propo.scd had a slope of approximately 1:6 or 17% for a 10-15* distance, easily maintainable and not requiring retaining w alls for support. This area was not hardcover in 1991 and has never been approved for hardcover. Parking boats or vehicles on it would create hardcover by default. It is staff s conclusion that applicant is attempting to create a new flat storage or parking area in the 0-75* zone, as evident from the current storage of a boat trailer noted on 6-11-03. Gaffron continued, stating that staffhas also advised applicant about apparent illegal boat slip rental at the site, as 2 of 3 boats stored at his dock are not registered to this property. In addition, Gaffron 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 right-of-way is not sometliing staff w ould support. If it is replaced w ithin 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 allow ed to be replaced, staff w ould recommend that the area outside of the 3' gravel shoulder be maintained in grass rather than be graveled or paved for parking area. After reviewing 5 issijcs for consideration, Gaffron restated the staff recommendation that the retaining wall system on the lake side of the road be denied, and the applicant directed to remove Page9of22 minutes of the ORONO pl«^g commission meetino Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o'clock pjn. HEIDI B. NACrI, ComioiKdT "niere were no public conunents. renlily. they have l^ci^ «rponion o*f AA d pointed out Hut, in whether they could include this square footage in 5hSt“caTcXiM. Of properties. He indicate! th.» way of lookina at the*., iv^.of properties. He indicated that, in addition it Znld r^!,- «these l>pes potentially, be precedent setting. ’ *^«iuire a great deal of survey work and. N.gc,„hedir.heycou,dhachthegar,geupn.g..„.„,,,,,,,„,„^„,,^^^ "quircnicnts were different. She by shdtng bsek the garage the hardcover variance request wouTbe'Seur*'"”"’ Caf^npointcd out tiuttheproposcdbuntp-out would be acccptableifthegaragc addition Zugschwert. ROm. and Bremer all concurred wid, stafTs reeomntendation. •PP'''““ "oro close and couldmodifications.meet stafTs recommendations with a few more Smith «krtfeopK/onr^ "“‘■"btming the 15*/, structural cover. Chair Mabusth indicated that shecouidsupportapproving an «sked whether or “^'^'icnd M pTIT^f 1^^ would wish to use wetland t~ons,dered.whichstaawou,dnotsuppori.rdS„Tl«tr^^^^^ F»|e8of22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 16,2003 6:00 o'clock p.nL (#4 W)^290S HEIDI B. NAGEL, ConUoued) attached 2-stalI garage to the existing residence. The variances include. 1. Additional 75*250' hardcover in excess of 25% wih concuncnt removals to result m 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 Loj coverage variance to increase from 14.02 % to 16.79 %. As proposed, Gaflron noted that the applicant proposes 3 additions to the existing residence: 1) Enclose a screen porch over a portion of the existing 1st story deck, requinng an average setback variance. 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 vanance of 1.5 which results in a lot coverage excess. 4) Extend roof to cover entire front porch. Gaffron noted that this prope.^ty has been the subject of variance applications in the past to allow the decks on the lake side as well as the two-stall attached garage at the cast end. The most recent hardcover approval allowed 4,910 s.f in tiic 75-250'zone. Exist.nghardcovcr m 2003 is 5238 s.f, i.e. 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 walkway. Gaffron shared 5 issues for consideration and indicated that: 1. Staff recommends approval of the enclosure of the screen porch as proposed over the por.ion of existing 1“ story deck. 2. Staff recommends approval of the extension of roof to cover the entire front porch. 3 Staff recommends that the applicants determine where hardcover will be removed to bring the property into conformance with the 4,910 s.f. limit imposed by Resolution No. 3578. Then Planning Commission 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, Gaffron noted that the Planning Commission could either send this forward to Council with conditions; or table for applicant to revise plans (provide clear direction to applicant as to which projects arc feasible and w hich should not be pursued). Pass 7 of 22 minutes OFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. June 16,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (« M3-J9M KICIiAKU S. BROWTi, Co.liaued)--------------------------------------------- «ocou«*«l B»*n to work wiU. the phuoting depmolZ^oIrthm'^""" not necessarily being 5‘ fioin the property line. “ Commission could accept the applicants Bro»m questioned if the walls were loo high as noted on the inspection. Gairron stated that the engineer would need to grm« approval if the walls were to exceed 4’ high. Browm stated that he now felt better 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. “u"“ reafeS ‘«''f exceeded three years and Ute City did not have the st^reS'Brown. UOO recommends svaU height be subject t^nnlneer ■dding that the Commlsslou cut Of ,b. right-of-way ..4 .h. setbrr^^'uh^' IIEID, B. NAGEL.99S WILDHURST TRAIL. VARIANCES 7:03-7:22 Heidi Nagel, ihc applicant, was present P«|e6or22 l:> CITY OF ORONO 27S0 KcUcy Fvkway P.O. Box 66 Co^UlBay, MN SS323 (9S2) 249-4600 ZONING HLE #03-2905 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: June 24, 2003 TO: Heidi Nagel 995 Wildhursl Trail Mound, MN 55364 COPIES: 1YPE OF APPLICATION: Variance DATE OF MEETING: June 16. 2003 PUnolng Commission recommended as follows: Table to allow applicant to work with staff to determine areas of hardcover to be removed to get back to 1995 approved levels. VOTE: 6 FOR 0 AGAf\ST Although not pari of the motion. Planning Commission indicated lot coverage by structures in excess of 15% would likely not be approved. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as: Planning Commission - Monday, July 21, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. 6(^Day Review Period Extension. State law provides that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests w ithin 60 daj's from the date of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application was deemed complete on May 23, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on July 22, 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 da\-s to September 20. 200^ If >t)u desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. If >ou have questions, please call Plaiming Director Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4600. Date ApflteatiM Rccctet^: 5-21-«3 Date AppMcaHaa Coatedwad as Coaiptete: S-l^SS M-Day iUvkw farted Eiplm: 7-22-A3 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Mike Gaflron, Planning Director Date: June 13,2003 Subject: #03-2905 Heidi Nagel. 995 Wildhurst Trail • Variances - Public Hearing 1 3*i^-o2 Zoning District: LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 -acre min. Lot Area: 0.53 acre (23,210 s.f.) Apf^icathn Stsmmary' Applicant requests a number of variances to enclose a portit'n of a second story deck, expand a deck, extend roof over existing front porch, and construct an attached 2-stall garage to the existing residence. The variances include: 1. Additional 75-250' hardcover in excess of 25% with conci rent 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 coverage variance to increase from 14.02 % to 16.79 %. Staff RecammendatUm: Staff recommends only partial approval subject to specific conditions. List of Exhibits A - Application D - F.xisting & Proposed Sur\ey/Site Plan C • Proposed Plans & Elevations f E - Resolution 3578 (7-10-95) ^ F - Letters from Neighbors G - Property Owners List H -Plat map I - Site Photos Dackgiruund Applicant proposes 3 additions to the existing residence: 1) Enclose a screen porch over a portion of the existing 1st story deck, requiring an average setback variance. 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 covar entire front porch. This propeity has been the subfcct of variance appiicatioos in the past to allow the decks on the lake side as well as the two-stall attariied garage ai ^ east end. The most recent hardcover approval allowed 4,910 s.f in the 75-250* zone. Existing hardcover in 2003 is 5238 sT. i.e. an excess of 328 M3-2MS I3.2M3 Pac*2 s.f. It is apfMreiil by comparing the 1995 appro\*al and the current survey that this is almost entirely due to overages in the driveway and fiont w’alkway. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lol Af«aA»'idihi LR-IB Ixit Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f, (1.0 acre)140’ Actual 23,210 s.f (0.53 acre)126* LR-Required Existing Proposed Rear (Street)30*51.9*28.5* VAR Front NA NA NA UR Side 10*15*No change Right Side 10*5*Garage 15* Porch 20* Lakeshore 75*76*76* Average Lakeshore (No EncroadmcRt Alkmcd)6*T Stnictural Coveraget Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 23,210 s.f (0.53 ac.)Allowed: 3,482 s.f (15%) Exisring: 3,254 s.f (14.02%) Proposed: 3,898 s.f (16.79%) Hardcover Calculationii Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75*9,375 s.f 0s.f 0s.f 0s.f (0%)(0%)(0%) 75-250*13,835 s.f 3.459 s.f 5,238 s.f 5,306 s.f (25%)(37.9%)(38.4%) mytm j«M ii.2et3 PiftJ Hardship Stateaieat Applicants have provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for their additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anal)sb Im eomsUerlmt •ppliewtUms for rarlmmee, the Piuming CommbsUm »hmtl comUer the effect of the propneJi MHemce upon the hemith, utfe^ and negate of the eomnumltx, exhting and anticipated traffic condMoni, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safefy, and the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commbston 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 ofeircum t tanees 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 \\t>uld 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 ofTicial controls.” The property as it exists is being put to a reasonable use. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The plight of the landowner in regard to the average setback encroachments Is a result of the locations of adjoining homes, which applicant cannot control. In regards to the lot coverage excesses and setback for garage, these arc a direct result of ouver's desire for more home and space. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The garage addition extending forward of the home may be somewhat out of character with the neughborhood: the deck and porch additions will not alter the character of ihe neighborlKtod. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Economics hose not been discussed by applicant as 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." 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 where the affected person's land is located.” Not applicable. 'm___ I f------------ M3-2MS JaMl3.2M3 Pagc4 **The Board or CouncU may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” Sot Applicable 8.“The special conditions applying to the stnKture or land in question arc peculiar to such property or intmediately adjoining property.” The conditions apply to all other lakeshore properties in the 1 acre zone. ”Thc conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The conditions apply to all other lakeshore lots in the LR-IB District. “The granting of the application is necessary for the prcser\’ation and enjo>'mcnt of a substantial property right of the applicant” yariances are not necessary for this applicant to continue the current enjoyment of property rights by applicant. 11.“The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” The planting of a lot coverage variance will be contrary' to the intent of the lot coverage ordinance by adding t e.xcessive bulk and mass of structure in the neighborhood and add to visual density in the neighborhood “The granting of such variance will not merely scia c as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” So hardship has been demonstrated that supports the e.xcessive lot coverage by structures The average setback variances are. however, supportedbythefact that no neighbor 's vie\*s of the lake will be decreased by the proposed deck and screen porch. Issues for Consideration 1. 2. The current c.xccssivc hardcover must be resolved prior to issuance of any new permits for this property. After the property is brought in to conformity with the prior approval, it will have to be determined whether hardcover associated with the proposed additional deck at the NW comer of the house can be mitigated by further removal of driveway or other pavement. Is there any Justification to allow an increase in lot coverage above the 15% limit applicable to all lots of this size? Note that the screen porch over existing deck will not increase stnictural coverage. The extension of roof ow the front porch and the new deck at hie NW comer will add about 130 s.f of lot cos'crage or bring it up to 14.6%. The new garage will bring it wiell over the limit. The average setback variance should not cause any problems because neither adjacent neighbor's views will be impacted. 5. Does Planning Coounission have any other issues or concerns with this application? •0-2MS Jaat 13.2M3 Stair R«c«datioa I.Stair recommends approval of the enclosure of the scieen porch as proposed over the portion of existing 1“ story deck. 2. 3. Staff recommends approval of the extension of roof to cover the entire front porch. Staff recommends that the applicants determine \%here hardcover will be removed to bring the property into conformance with the 4,910 s.f. limit imposed by Resolution No. 3578. Then Planning Commission should consider whether further hardcover removals can be completed to offset the proposed new deck hardcover addition. Staff recommends denial of the lot coverage and setback variances for the attached garage, finding that neither is stqyported by hardship. Planning Commission eould either send this forward to Council with conditions; or table for applicant to revise plans (provide clear direction to applicant as to which projects are feasible and which should not be pursued). CITV OF ORONO - VARIANCE 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 S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # 63 Date Received"^ Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address__3|5£—iJ/lldlAtlK-f "fVa* ‘ OrhYin Property Identification Number (P.l.D.) Q~7 tl“l Attach legal description to application if not included on required sun-ey. Date P^ertv Acquired_____Ju kir- I (do) (3qjid^ also own the ^jacent parcels of land. \>^esidential _(month/ycar) Present use of property Zoning District:____1.R.1 & other (specify)^ APPLICAiV Name _ A(ldress:^(^(C I Phone (home) ^^2- *17Z _ Phone (work) 6>I2. 'Z2o laT't City:Zip: £r$36y OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback:Front Lot Width __Side Hardcover _Lot Coverage __Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue ^hip or pncticet diffic^iy or unusuil property conditions preventint at sheets if necessary) 1. 2. 5. 6. 8. required submittals ---- Completed Application Form obtain this lii!, hbds M^map fom Hcmepin'c ' nGotl Center, 348-59101. ^ t^P'" Count>- Deeam!^.q.(Xiamcc. A-603, - ■■>'' -ludc hardcover - ...........z ,.rcr"n property. This would include namefsl of anr.r ^ mtercst in the _ As an addendum to this app^cat^n ^ you wish notified of Ws^Sok ---- Additional items as may be requested by City staff. Mrianw .ppIic„.i,.J*?!’'!f.7c^nlrteTr !!. P'"’“5' remember that ifinr^ ---S^^-iBIgEination has not been included, APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE l"d'm^&;a^;:^v?;r:i >’>■ consultant expenses inemt^ in review of this annlir. ^ supplied is true and conect/to the best of his/her knowiedge ’ *"** '"lu-'niaiion Applicants SignatuCJ^i^k=.___ Pa-e OWNER S SIGNATURil entry onto tt"pmpel^j ‘’b/city sta^Cnsuhal!'.!’ Igems'cor^'’- members for purpLes of mvestigation a^ verifreat’ion of this r^esr" Owner’s Sign^ re Meeting. Planllin^^i^bi^eetTngs^'^e" heT^^ on ‘‘the S'm' a f® CoJncll. If ^T,ppS7sm^k^^^ rsehed"e'd'‘mfer ‘ CommIssIoTa"id have an authorized agent attend in your place and to art!? please make arrangements to change prior to the meeting. ^ ^^Iding & Zoning Office of this jXi, •: •, j a jJ L \ \ - - - ^ ■^. ' pi-cTr — ''. ' I Mi 5 V ri!<r<^« ’’'. f- -^:-: < »34<-' WILDHURSr .TRAIL : PH1 iMfe. MM« > MM “F&) ^ IWtni ■ MM M>«MI m PropoMtf Pin • Mltn Um ,tc. r*'. " • — /i’ K^' • -yj/#2905 ' f ! !l< r-noi t ISUCE lUStSM PK>C »Cl : 763 323 9936 Hi^ 20 2083 luaefiti n #2905 & * i«uce ivBsm V ML : 763 323 9936 Ma^ 20 2003 iHOTf^ P3 <T'2- ««• 1/20^9 02 ^non : MCE iseem PHOrC NCX : 763 323 993G rutf. 20 2023 ti:07nn P6 IL,#2905 !2f 1 iiIfIllJIs ijjlH led a < ul|io5 rf z SI titta 0/2WQ3 03 noi : MXE iUGRSaN NO. t 763 323 993S .IU„. 2B 2003 rfy C-H M o a; r \V.. d s §120101 rwrivort 04 noi ! mvoE lu oisai Proposed Plan - Main Leve M 7/' CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 S 7 8 A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 FILE NO. 2030 3VHEREAS, Richard LaVcrc (Itereinaficr "ihe applicam") is ihc owner of ihc property located at 995 Wildhursl Trail within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: The east 111* of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 7. Township 117, Range 23 (hcrelnancr "the property"); nnd WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B) and 2 to pennit construction of a lakeside deck totaling approximately 523.6 s.f. of new structural hardcover where 4,991 s.f. or 36.1 Si exists and where 4,910 s.f. or 35.4% is proposed and where 25% is allowed; and an encroachment of the average lakeshore setback of 6’ where no encroachment is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. 1. 2, FINDINGS lliis application was reviewed as Zoning Pile #2030. The I roperty is located in tiic LR-ID Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring one acre in area. The properly consists of 23,210 s.f. or .53 acres. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 19, 1995 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon Ihc following findings: In 1992, the City approved a hardcover variance within the 75*250 ‘ setback area at 5,082.58 s.f. or 36.7%. Page 1 of 5 D. C. GITY«rORONO resolution of the city council NO. > g 7 p .T »«• «« or mnturc trees Ss4rr«srssvi'r. “ '■ '■ 2£?s„*;iC’„‘;'3£::.“„r“ “ ”• '■ JSi'ii'sS'rs s rs'“ " “'■ « Ji^ilt '*'“'"8 o" «"s P™(X=«y a« P«uliarttmi I* ti generally to other property in this zoning district* tliat 2^ni„;^c':e’^/r:;'S:i.«^^ P.a ’„"^;rS "* "«■ •'■' 5. nie City Council lus considered this application including tlie findines and l^otnmcndattons of the Planning Commission, reports by City suff cZ«n» rseS »" ■'« •>“'■'•: »fcty and CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS grant, varianc^Mr^^^^g^'^t^o'^t ” «»cot«™ctio„of.l.hesidSdeehor.*p"r,!m^“^^^^^^^^^^ P»gc2of5 > .• I X CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 8 57 8 1.Hardcover is approved at 4,910 s.f. or 35.4%. Both existing improvements to remain and proposed improvements are shown on Page 3 of this resolution. Applicant shall maintain improvements as designated on this plan. Authorities granted by this variance nin 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 (July 10, 19SI6). Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of July. 1995. EdwaM J. CalUh^, Jr., Mayor Page 3 of 5 aiM/k GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 578 ) SS. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Dy Mward J. Callahan. Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the Citv of Orono. I Muuiesoca municipil coipontion and said insuumem was exKuied on iLSilf o?the LINDAS. VE£ MINITniRJC4MCS0U w ^JSSSSSS^.«»Nowiry Public ’ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) anH ^Lir/y---------------- 19^ bcforc me a Notary Public withinand for said county, personally appeifcd ^ knowTi JO to be the person(s) descried in and who exeJcutcd the foregoino instrument and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. LINDA S.VEE NOTMrmeuc-iaNKsou NENNCnN COUNTY MyCowimilonli^jmi.aiOO STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ]NOTARY PUBUC )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) anH f ^”.**'** -^2^ 0^—V------------------. 199before me a Notary Public withinand forsaidcounty. personally appeared, /C. r/,r,r^ ,nr. a^kn?w!LT^?h« ‘o ^^ho exiilS'the fomgoi^^^ instnirnent.andacknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. J. ________ n 6tARY PUBUC ;----------------- Page 4 of 5 » .1. •n ■ < ’•.V ■ ’ 22 -yr s-t--'45)!\ \ ••7*1. vr .'»* ? »Vi■»«4, -* r Tvsf. s</ 5- 'f^O vN 0‘*.t*l t' f'H i/ r.A K. _ \ r%*r^ f*■ —• f » T j V '^*1 * r'i: »« I • • -h=i .4 . p'>-r.!i ^ ^ •Vy.; »1«t1 x4j. 'W,'Sj® K \-. ■ ^’*s;. |':*n., V, 'V. .j \ P'‘fj‘^‘ iSI 'f ■V ^ ' ■" \ .1! . i U. \' '“•n- j f 0 • \ ///.ao -\ -lilii. V-----r^ ,- j / ' J' ■’ .1 ^,i5^.-,^ V ,|i, May 19,2003 City ofOrono: In reference to the variance application made by Mr. & Mrs. Scott Nagel for the property located at 995 Wildhurst Trail pin number 071172321000003 we as their neighbors at 997 Wildhurst Trail have no objection to their application. This is no way will impact our property or line of sight. Sincerely, Charles E. Boehm hSyAhn C. Boehm .i! A. Adjiceit Property Owncn* AcIcBowledgement Form >(«)(l\xx£JI/of fjujclluti-rl'iy' (prinl name(s)] [print address] proposed use of the property located at Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or duapproval 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 requtret Council approval Property Owner Dale Property Owner Date ^ proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at \jl/r .Vf WlUiuirif Tr» ^ 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. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you hive iny infonnilion Hut miy «,«, ft. City in the review of this Lind Uie Apphcilion pl^ ni^l your commenu to the Building & Zoning OOice it leiM 10 diys prior to the scheduled meeting date. #2905 r -- -r- ^ RUMMli::V IICNNCPIN COUNTY PROPI INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY 0% sSLIST PAGE: I M 07II723I10002 PMPAODR 975 WtLOHURSTTR OWNERNAM6 ANTHONYRSODOUNAN TAXPAYER ANTHONY RSOOCRMAN NAM&AOOR 97SWIUWURSTTR MOUNOMN 553M 51 07II7UI20005 PROPAODR 995 WILOHURSTIR OWNER NAME JANET LCILUJUIST TAXPAYER JANET L CILLOUIST NAME/ADOR 995 WILOIIURST TR MOUNOMN 35564 51 0711725130009 PROP AOOR 105 FOREST ARMS LA OWNER NAME ALCURALmiKR VGURALN1X TAXPAYER ALOERT A VALERIE CURALNOC name/addr aos forest arms u MOUNOMN 33564 5t 0711725150316 PRUPAOOR 9M WILOHURSTTR OWNERNAMB RITA JANE ZEBECX TAXPAYER RITA JANE ZEBECK NAME/AOOR 991 WILOHURSTTR MOUNOMN S3564 51 0711735150317 PROPADOR 1000 WtLOHURSTTR OWNER NAME OAVlDATlMPAMiaiELLETlMP TAXPAYER DAVtOATMP NAME/AOOR 1000 WILOHURST TR MOUNOMN 35564 59 0711735210005 PROPADOR 993 V'tLDIIURSTTR OWNER NAME S J ELRII NAGEL taxpayer SCOTT J NAGEL NAME/ADDR 993 WILOHURST TR MOUNOMN S3564 5t 0711725210004 PROPADOR 997 WILOHURSTTR OWMIRNAME CEBOEHM4M ACBOEHM TAXPAYER CHARLES 4 MARY ANN OOEHM NAME/AOOR 997 WILOHURST TRAIL MOUNOMN 35564 59 07II7252IOOQS PROPADOR 999 WILOHURSTTR OWNFJINAME MW4NCNIMERFR0II TAXPAYER MARTIN W 4 NAN C NIMERFROH NAME/AOOR 999 WILOHURSTTR MOUNOMN 33564 51 0711725210006 PROP ADDR 51 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME HARRIET J MORCART TAXPAYER HARRIET J MOROART NAME/ADDR 1005 WILOHURST TR MOUNOMN 33564 . ■ 5t 07II7252I0013 PROPAODR 4433 WEST BRANDI RO OWNERNAME JANEEKUNE TAXPAYER JANE E KLINE NAME/AOOR 4433 WEST BRANDI RO MOUNOMN 33564 39 0711723240043 PROPADOR 1006 WILOHURSTTR OWNERNAME FGJORGENSEN4RMASHER TAXPAYER FGJORCENSEN4R MASHER NAMIVAUOR 1006 WILOHURST TR MOUNOMN 33564 'ife 1031TIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESEFTTEO ARE AN ACOJRATTi AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTWS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. DATE 3 : :// %r ^ W'C J*K- K'T\ *••5'' VfW.^ 'ihl^ti. r % 5..* f* »i S f^y p ■'■ fg^rMT-- i^^>,- -yp- iWif?^ ... 4. "f " ik- • /.•<> , .*^; ir »»y ^ . ^ %.. . '.asJ^ ,: 8 .( ! y , . *'' •' f IS mi' 'fe : ^tT) \ l’Kv;.‘ y- /- Dalt AppHcadM RtctivH: Kate ApfMcatioaCMHMmdMCaiapIctc: C-1S-C3 laMal M-Day Ravkw Hrtni Eip4r«: l-17-a3 M-Day Review farioi EittadM on 7-3A43 to: 10-16-f3 From: Dale: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike Gafiron, Planning Director August 12.2003 tK)3-2919 Kevin & Deborah Thompson. 90 Myrtlewood Road - Variances & CUP • Public Hearing Zoaiog District: RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential. 2-acrc min. Lot Area: 1.729 acres (75.299 s.f.) gross; appro.x. 1.55 acres (67.000 s.O net dry 4^/oiltoii Smmmmiy: This item w as tabled at >-our July meeting to allow the applicant to provide additional detail regaMing the application. Applicant requests the following: 1. Setback variance to construct a 996 s.f. detached garage/pool house/storage building, 23.1' from the side street lot line where a 50' side street setback is required. 2. Oversize accessory .•.'.ructure (0.\S) variance to allow the new building to be attached to the e.xisting 848 s.f. detached garage via an 11* x 15 ’ (165 s.f) greenhouse, for a final accessory structure size of 2009 s.f(no accessory building larger than 1000 s.f is allowed on a lot of 0-1.99 acres in area). 3. Setback variance to construct a 20' x 45' (900 s.f) swimming pool 10’ from the side street lot line where a 50 ’ side street setback is nomially required. 4. CUP for plumbing in an accessory building. Staff RecommeMdatioH: Staff recommends: a) Approval of the side street * :tback variance for the 996 s.f accessory building. b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure. c) Denial of the side street setback variance for the pool at lO* from the lot line; a 15 ’ side street setback might be justified, however, based on the size of the pool at 900 s.f, and the lack of impacu on nei^bors by a pool at this location. d) Consider whether screening should be required if any or all of the variances are granted. e) Approval of the request for plumbing in an accessory structure, subject to the standard conditions. LblefExIilbiU A - Revised plans and elevations D - Code Sections 10.03 Subd. 9F and B • Revised site plan w ith pool location options 1 o.20 Subd. 3Q. C - Letter ftom s4|o>ninf property owners E - Memo and Exhibits of July 17 M3-2fl9 AmcwI12,2M3 Patt2 PmiBMt Code SectkMs 1. 10.03 Subd. 9(CK2) “2. Oversized Accessory Smiclurcs arc regulated by the follouing table: Mailmnm Alimved 0-1.99 acre 2.00- 3.00 acre 3.01- 3.50 acre etc. Footprim Ar»« Masioittiii l.di«idual Toltl of AH Acmsory Acmtory Structure Structure Footprint Arret* ----9ti e Properttr _ 2.000 s.f. 2,400 s.f. 2.800 s.f. 1,000 s.f. 1,200 s.f. 1.400 s.f. etc. • Excluding non-roofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks.arenas 3. Section 10.03 Subd. 9F - Plumbing in Acccoiy Buildings 4. Section 10.20 Subd. 3Q - CUP for Plumbing in Accessory Buildings Baclcgrouid M3-3919 Angmt 12.2903 ragc3 The \isual impacts of the combined stnicture are potentially significant due to the proposed attachment to the existing garage via a 15*x 11'peenhousc structure. The at attachment w ill be offset 5‘ from either end of the garages, so its \isual impact will potentially be reduced by breaking up the length of w hat would otherwise be 70* long rear southw*est-facing facade, w hich will be visible to anyone entering Orono on Highw*ay 12. The City has a 10* building-to^building separation requirement not only to address fire safety issues but to aid in the goal of limiting visual density and building massing. Staff finds that the need for a second building for storage is not unreasonable, and the potential locations for such structure arc limited because this is a wooded comer lot with hills and wetlands to contend with. The ^vo accessory buildings plus the greenhouse structure attaching them w ill total 2009 s.f The property is allow ed up to 2000 s.f. of accessory structures in total, but no indi\ iduai accessory structure over 1000 s.f. Coruiecting them with the proposed greenhouse structure would not strictly be in keeping with the intent of the O.AS ordinance, and would potentially have the negative impacts that the ordinance intends to avoid. pool Setback Variance. The proposed pool in either of the two configurations provided is about 900 s.f. of surface area, requiring a minimum setback of 15* from a side or rear lot line, but rcquirci! to meet a 50* setback from a side street lot line and 10* from other buildings. The pool w ill be in- ground, which will have limited visual impacts that could be r.duced by privacy fencing or vegetativ e screening depending on how much ofapool surround is pr«.;iosed within the 10* requested setback area. It should also be noted that the neighborhood noise impacts associated with the pool are minimal at this location far from any neighbors. It is unknown how MnDOT may use the adjoining right-of-way during the Highway 12 construction over the next 4 years, but that may Impact how close applicants want to be to the riglit-of-w ay. Staff feels a minimum of 15* setback should be required for the pool. CUP for Plumbine in Accessory Structure. The proposed garage will include a toilclsink'shower. and therefore requires a conditional use permit. Planning Commission should ascertain that the apparent multi-purpose functions of this building do not include use as a guest house. If that is the case, approval for a CUP for plumbing in an accessory structure would be appropriate if these findings can be made: 1.That the proposed use ofthe accessory structure with plumbing w ill not be detrimental to the residential character of the ncighboihood. That the plumbing fixtures proposed arc in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. 3. 4. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger (it is not; it less than 2 acres in area). The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height (it won ’t be - variances arc requested). iOJ.2flf Autwt I2.2M3 P«ft4 J. ^e|m>p«iyo»-™„gre«tothc niingofacovcnaainlhetitleofthepropenyproviding '■ P-idcdfcusc REVISED LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET I L RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)251* Actual 75,399 s.f. gross (1 .73 acre) 67,000±s.r nctdr>' (1.55 ac) 200' klhJCki to ProDoy^ C^pragr? Rear (West) Left Side Street (W»yz. BI\-d.) RR-Ill Required Proposed Front (East)50'160 Rear (West)15* (750-1000 s.f.) 50* (if attached to create an OAS) 1C7 Left Side Street (^VaJx Blvd) Right Side 50‘231* pibacks lo ProDosed Pnnjj 10 (30 If attached as an OAS)I74 ‘ Front (East)50*115* 50* 130* Total Lot Area 67,000 s.f. (IJ5ac.)Allowed: 10.050 s.f (15%) ’ Proposed; 4,300 s.f (6.4 %> ___________ r -I I •U-2919 Angtttt 12,2M3 Hardskip Slatemeal Sk Aaal>*tb Applicants have provided a letter of request including a hardship statement in Exhibit B of the July 17 memo, and should be asked for their additional testimony regarding the application. See the July 17 memo to re\’ie\v the hardship analysis. Issues for CoasMeraliofl 1.How will the proposed slniclurc be used? Is there any intent to use it for a home occupation or other commercial uses? 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 oflhe tw o structures (11* apart) have the same visual impacts as if the>' were attached? Does the offset of the greenh adequately adu/-ss the potential visual impacts of the west facade? ousc 3. 4. In cither case, 'jctuuid the building be screened from view from Highway 12? What har^.-/,':kf.s sy pport the ideation of the pool 10’ from the lot lint? What could be done to mitigate ari .saiive impacts of the pool location? How docs the substandard lot area affect your position on the plumbing in accessory building CUP? The code requires that buildings receiving such a CUP be conforming in size and location... 6. Docs Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccommendatioo Staff recommends: a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage, based on the need for more storai c and the limitations for other suitable locations imposed by the lot size, required setbacks, sewage system 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) Denial of the pool setback at 10', but approval for a setback of 15*. Planning Commission should determine whether any vegetative screening or fencing should be required to mitigate the visual impacts of allowing the accessory building and'or the pool in a location nearer the side street lot line than would r rmally be allowed. d) Approval of the plunbing in accessory building CUP subject to the standard conditions. • t A-l ku^£l4i|BL/-^' ti r 1?‘ *•^----------------------j2-f--------- StHAsR^ >VuJV •• •. \ ^7 ft -■ J: ^ O i i ■■ •-‘•'*^-^>^-^"--. "*^T - • \v'•'*•■■ :r. '"• ^ \ c^f Pat & Karen Proft •01 Oram^MN OSStl c{H0>4«4i7S July 15.2003 CKyofOrono Planning & Zoning 2750 Kelloy Parkway Onono. MN 55391 RE: Propoaad Varianca at 90 Myrtlewood Road for Garage/Poolhouse/Pool To Whom It May Concern: Wa have reviewed the propoaad changes and fael the location & building style submitted to the city is the best for all interested parties. Any other location may alter the privacy and aesthetics we have come to enjoy from Sincerely, Pat & Karen Prod , • C-2 Adjaceat Property Owner** Acknowledgement Form [print address][print name(s)] iMve ^icwed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ■bL5 also referred to as Land Use Application No. ______ 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project requires Council approval.or use Date Date I (vve) [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 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 Date Property Owner Date If >x>u have any infonnaiion 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. /tf.OS S*^6 IP ^ § 10.03 2. Variance From Lakeshore Setback. Any application for a variance from Ibe requirements of Item 1 abo\*e shall be referred to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District I for its approval before final action by the Council. p / Source: Ordinance No. ISS \/\'^ Effective Dale: 2-14-74 C\ \ E Setbacks. Accessory stnictures in excess of 750 square feet footprint area but not exceeding 1,000 square feet footprint area shall be located at least 15 feet from any lot line. Source: Ordinance 72.2nd Scries Adopted: g-14-«0 F. Plumbing. Because the provision of plumbing fixtures and wastewater plumbing in accessory buildings has the potential to allow such buildings to be used as dwelliitg units, and because it is the policy of the City to limit residential development density to the allowed densities within the respective zoning districts, plumbing in accessory buildings shall be regulated as follows: 1. The provision of outside sillcocks and indoor water supply shall be allowed in any accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height. 2. Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that does not include a toilet, shower or bathtub shall be allowed in any accessory' building that is conforming in location, size and height with, subject to provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from such fixtures, and subject to the property owner executing a covenant providing that: a. Accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by City or if allow*ed by City code. b. Accessory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. c. Accessory building will not be rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. 3. Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a toilet, shower or bathmb shall be allowed only in an accessory building that IS conforming in location, size and height, wliich meets one of the following criteria: a. The accessory building has been approved for a 'Guest House* conditional use permit; or b. The accessory building has been approved for a 'Plum'uing in Accessory Building* conditional use pcimiL Source: Ordinance No. 179,2nd Series Adopted: 10-12-9S • ORONOCC 255-2 (4-1-84) ♦ § 10.20 __«-» ■ .. .-^Jino Cttm,miii. 0„g indeptm!em aaiuma juuctuje with amemia ot «n Wf Mint 1.1 Bri eiuMiiiuiilj u.ufaal iheitio diui n nnt .iULliia lu uneUiw »mmun piu.iJcil Sowec! OiJinanecNo. 177- Effective Dale! C S-7r> Source: Deleted %ia Ordinance 161.2nd Scries Effective Date: 5-27-97 keeping wi«.a.e intends. u«^„Vu!^Lcr,;\'’“ •“ ” 3. The property is 2.0 acres in area or larger. 4. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. ofthe propeny providing tf,a>’’ I occupation unless specifically approv^* cjSr'^fanorved‘^^ a guest house CUP is obtained. I* >«<l “«<l»elling unless ,' othe,.ssep«videdroruseas.d.eUtag™L‘:^’”:ru,S,“^^^^^^ " Source: Ordinance No. 179,2nd Series Adopted: 10-12-98 ORONOCC 280-3 (4-1-84) CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kdiey Pirkway P.O. Box 66 Costal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 ZONING RLE ^03-2919 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACI ION- DATE OF NOTICE: July 30, 2003 TO: Kevin & Deborah -Thompson SK) M>Ttlewood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 COPIES: TYPE OF APPLICATION: Variances DATE OF MEETING: July 21. 2003 Planaing Commission recommended as follows: Tabled to allow applicant to meet with staff to review plans in detail, provide dimensions for the greenhouse addition and pool if that is to be part of the mix, and bring back to Planning Commission a revised plan that eliminates the need for an oversize accessory structure, since such a variance appears unlikely. VOTE: 7 for 0 AGAINST Please contact Nlikc Gaffron at 952-249*4600 to set up a time to meet to discuss vour application. Applicant's next scheduled meeting is confirmed as; Planning Commission - Monday, August 18, 2003; meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. 60-Day Review Period Extension. Stale law provide-* that Cities shall make decisions on zoning requests within 60 days from the dale of application, and that this review period may be extended by notification to the applicant. Your application (absent the pool element) was deemed as complete on June 18, 2003 and the 60-day review period would end on August 17, 2003. However, because your application was tabled by the Planning Commission to the August 18. 2003 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 October 16, 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. Datt Application Rec«i«^: 6-ltmj Date Application Considered ai Complete: 6-1S4U 60-Day Rctiew Period Eipires: S-17-03 e-2. Chair Smith and Planning ('ummissloners Ron Moorse, Ci»y Administrator From: 0ale: Sybject: Mike GafTron, Planning Director July 17,2003 #03-2919 Kevin & Deborah Thompson, 90 Myitlewood Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: l<ot Aren: RR-IB Single Family Rural Residential, 2-acrc min. 1.729 acres (75,299 s.i.) gross; approx. 1.55 acres (67,000 s.Q net dry Apptlcc 'on Summary: Applicant requests s side street setback variance to construct a 996 s.f. detached garage. A second variance is requested to allow the new* garage to be attached to an existing 848 s.f. detached garage v:-» ? 1T x _(?)_’ greenhouse (dimension undetermined). The variances include: 1. Side street setback of 23.1' where a 50* side street setback is required, 2. 0\ ersize accessory 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 varii ncc, but have not provided the requested location/size detail for that pool, so the pool request is not under consideration as part of this application) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: r) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage. b) Denial of the -riance 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 - Survey/Site Plan D - Proposed Plans & Elevations E - Property Owners List F - Plat .nap G - Topography map H - Photo Pertinent Code Sections 1. 10.03 Subd. 9(C)(2) •*2. Oversized Accessory Structures are regulated by the following table: Masimum Allowed Maximum Individual Accessory Structure _LotArea __ rootprint Area 0-1.99 acre 2.00-3.00 acre 3.'Jl-3.50 acre etc. 1,000 s.f 1,200 s.f 1.400 $.f etc. Total of All Accessory Structure Footprint Areas* on a Property 2,000 s.f 2,400 s.f 2,800 s.f etc. * Excluding non-roofed tennis courts, pools, paddocks, arenas •03.2919 Jul2l7,20tJ Page 2 “‘““ly'<> »>«« setback is iO- for principal and Background S]deStrgrt5^y|^ack Variants. Thercauesifo Ireat^eT*'*'’^^’."'"'”*'of «islin*^“e W'^nls note tha (OASro'rd1nanc«7nftelaT^^^ Oversire Accessoty Stmcture and any stniclurc over 1000 s. f. would be considerc J [T stmciurcs should be a^wed ■“«■■< *.».1. .TOM denstty and building massing, ' >° »id in the goal of limiting vS t'rcoijTn^'t'rTr''^^^^ WS il"woJ^eT! “"‘I «>« potential •03-2919 July 17.2003 Past 3 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot ArgaAVidih! RR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres)25T Actual 75,299 s.f. gross (1.73 acre) 67,00(Hs.f.nctdry (1.55 ac) 200* Setbacks to Pronotod Caragg! RR’3 Required Proposed Front (East)50*160* Rear (West)15* (750-1000 s.f.)lor LeA Side Street (Wayz. Blvd)50*23.1* Right Side 10'174’ Structural Coverage! Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 67.000 8.f. (1.55 ac.)Allowed: 10.050 s.f. (15 %) Proposed: 4,300 s.f. (6.4 %) Hardship Stateroeot Applicants have provided a letter of request including a hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for their additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /« ccnslderhg •ppUeationt for vaHance, the Planning Commlstlon shall consider the effect of the proposed upon the heaUh safety and Helfare of the community, existing and anticipated tr^W^ l»^»lr<langerof/Ire.rlsktothepubllcsafet)‘.andthee/rectonvaluesofproperolnthesurroundingarea.The PJetping Commiision shail consider recommendUig approval for variances from the literal provisions of the 2onittgCodelnlnmnceswherethcirstrlaenforcementH^uidcauseunduehardshlpbecauseofclrcumstances unique to the Individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when It Is demonstrated that such actions wlllbein keeping with the spirit and Intent of the O-Zo Zoning Code. r CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confomiing structures S250.00 * After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFOI^TION Site Address yO /^O^. Application '# 0^-^A\Q Date Received fp -IR-O ^ Amount Paid Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /Lor 7. BioOc / . /7\t^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired______/ 9 7 **» mfoaI (do) (do not) also own the adjacenf parcels of land. Present use of property: k. residential ____pother (specily). Zoning District:___________________________ _(month'ycar) APPLICANT Name f .Address: /)u^\AlttaoodiC.<P. City:, 0>VN*ER (if different than applicant) me________________________________ Phone (home) (95-^') C Phone (work) j j69 o Zip: Address:City: Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S_______________ Describe request in detail: /o/z ^/.ooo / (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARl/VNCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area Setback: ____Lot Width Front y Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore ____Other (specify) 5/V^ Sfvfg.4- Se^L^ r Q. ^ O O o ^ g. ■f’4- HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:_______________________________________ REQUIRED’siiilviirrALS S&."S_-7 ‘^■sssxz. r«pJSS “ «"i*n!‘p“vUe‘"o “*1““' ^ Topographic survey (.xi„;„,„, » »■“ for ^ S-Hs-SpS£7H”7F-^^ iir - Ult 8nd Pmn^rf« r\.___ 5. 6. 7. 8.persons by City staff. .ha, ^ ^Pwe^-s signature ^ Applicanl’s Signalure jdJt^.-^ . 7^_ mvvo„.o,--------<^^lo,cu=------------------------------ D„. 0>W. Signature J^X<Tre,> 7^,.^ ^“"' Applicant must have all s„l,™;.,.r~^ " ~pilIrE3 “S; ~"S s ‘t i - P- c-.,.. Council. If,„ .pp„^„, is unJ^e .^.t '«'■ '"<>"«'• have an authotued agent attend in vxm “ “'•'aduled meeting d I.**”” ”f Commission and change prior to the meeting. * ^ '» advise the M M -I O kjBanRifhi*- . >'-■• ;'<V^ • ' \ '-v.- - ^ ■ amw.lM W»1 PkMK(9Sa)74»«t« rac<H2)47»«0«7 jurw 5^2003 ClyofOreno Plannino&Zoning 2750KrttyP«fcM^ Oronok MN 65366 Ov’^ICifPootnuMiPDoi VMtanoe RaquaM 0«tr Sir or Madam: jnowb^aqM^ »^«SjJetoblM Sinoatal/, Kevin Thompson ‘.i. : * . •> '•,^ynt«-»■ VJH*D y-s. .fc-H* -, ^ J^. •>-»■■- r ^ ^u^-, 1,— ;- ^ .^:^ i^. .^ f ^'3 CERTnCATE Of SURVEY FOR KEVIN L. THOMPSON OF LOT 7. BLOCK I. MYRTLEWOOO HEWEPW COUNTY. MMNESOTA s m 1 • ! iF*» »M-R aF* Mita ba«A «A aiitTva aas^i. ■•••It iMOM. it €Mi r.t i.Vf <«, •iSii HT>i..^tr>* •••1 N CROSB£SG*lSSOaiTBlKC “1 « auc* K IM U«. M tUM M mp M •* ^ I r i A r-.-.? \ \ /■•*•. V' . \-.i i > y !n i. f 'b-2. 39.7" JOjCOt, - 39 .<19S£1 .pj.jlil __ <E^ •# O C) Oi.b» r • -‘.!r •,^/;• vVi/V: 35' UJcir -#• ,-■ • ‘ ^ -- .„.'..o Mo'<; .X u. k ..m’f^.. . ri. ...•''; 1).( :iM 21 I 3^' / 3M. R<)«'C Prtck ^*'|o Ik. /)spU|t S*)m‘p^U‘ «P oi^c<w U\'vkj\ S%A\V\. [)\ocr\iyi^r^ S*^fCV7 V * OC. /3. X 10-** *r<?rttiV7v*. 1" >1^^= !\" ,•• ^T~ v-V' w 4* '\ •••. . -.:• { -•-» I. <Q‘ 'I *.• iicn GI.IVS Victorian Greenhouses and greenhouse kits iJl''j tri'JUili'.J-r.'VM Hobby Greenhouie Kll« trom Ihe Amctican Creenhouto Kit Company Page 1 0 • ? . 'i t, 10 ***»«<».*N t- *» e*k Pansi. ,st:3 r..:^. r*rri(5« onm ;vtf f Lij*a»3: y.,: i’-lrjior A|; Hom« '.A. B Contact <-b -------------------- iVt iliiiSii Free Shipping (including Alaska and Canada • charge s apply in Hawaii) • North America's only Lifetime V;arrjnty • Free Solar Powered Vent Openers • Free Base You ve dreamed of it before, and now you can have It. Imagine having your very ov/n fr^e standing glass greenhouse in your very own hf whether Itbe starting plants f'om seed gmw:rg 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 ci»mate 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 anyv/here In North America —ooo ConsIruQtion Photos i * ■■■ » mm ''»n»Av.firccnhousekit.com'pardcnph.hiin ;V»Q _£l J Help Desk R. Harrington ME f.'OMj Phorcs V. My greenhouse is fantastic! My whole experience from getting imt>al information horn you all. to the ordering, to delivery was great! I had absolutely no problems. Thank you' The putting together of the greenhouse was a lirJe more Challsng rg than I thought It would be but It also was completed without tco muen hair be-ng pulled Out I needed to put some insulation at the base but I ha ye been able to keep the temperature between 5C-80 degrees with the use of a small space heater. V/e have had a lot of snow and some p^edy cold temperatures. I haven't had any problems since receiving my greenhouse so I can't felt you hovr it is to deal with your \ A a: 'if5 ltU<UAIl.;t 1 31 3Sttl2344«XM MOf AOOR 150 WAYZATA OtVD W OWNER HAMG CONERSTONE NEW TESTAMENT OI TAXPAYER C0NERST0N8 NEW TESTAMENT Gl NAMEMOOR IMOSimiAVEN PLYMOUrilMN 5M4T 3t 30MI233300I3 PMPAOOR IS MYRTLEWOOORO OWNBRNAME DARRELTHIGL TAXPAYER OARRELTinSL NAMGfAOOR I5MYXTLGWOOORO WA YZATA MN 33391 31 3«I1123330017 PROPAOCM 3t AOCMESSUNASSICNEO OWNBRNAME NTJOHNSONTRETAL TAXPAYER MT JOHNSON INC NAMC/AOOR 11313 WPARKRJOOE OR MINNETONKA MN 33303 ijL4»..U‘i.; C ounty i-rop PROrLKlYOV 99 3311123440001 PROPAODR 300 WA YZATA DLVDW OWNLRNAME CmrOFWAYZATA TAXPAYER CnYOFWAYZATA NAMt/ADOR 310 WA YZATA ULVOW WA YZATA MN 33391 3t 301II233300I4 PROP ADDR 23 MYRILEWOOO RO OWNER NAME SOOTTR A SARAH R LOSE TAJCPAYER SCOTT R A SARAH REUSE NAMC/AOOR 23 MYRTLEWOOORO WAYZATAMN 35391 3S 3011123330011 PROP AOOR 70 MYRTIEWOODRO OWNLRNAME PWPROFTAKJPROFT TAXPAYER PATTUCKWAKARENiPROFT NAME/AODR 60 MYRTLEWOOD RO WAYZATAMN 3S39I irronMAr.ON :;ysilm JkUST PAGE; I 31 36II8JJ3300I2 PROPAODR 90 MYRTLEWOOD RO OWNER NAME KEVIN LTTIOMPSON TAXPAYER KEVIN L THOMPSON NaMC/ADDR 90 MYRTLEWOOORO WAYZATAMN 33391 31 30IIS233300I6 PROPAODR 31 ADDRESS UNASSlCNCD OWNER NAME HENNEPIN FORFEITEO LAND TAXPAYER C1TYOFORONO NAME/AOOR PO 00X66 CRYSTAL OAVMN 33323 31 3611123330020 PROP AOOR 60 MYRTLEWOOD RO OWNERNAMO PWrROFTSRAKJPROFT TAXPAYER KAREN A PATRICK PROFT SR NAME/AOOR 60 MYRTLEWOOORO WAYZATAMN 33391 ”1'> • ' : 25V ij’ dferfe .■• 4. i i ■MiM ;$i ^ ■ {I •; >f? \ , -•r' * '-w.- W-4«ica^i^S .-. " Vi •*'.'^ 7T^ >>:c-=^‘.^^ .0mm y^:x <ym& m^- ClTYofORONO Municipal Oflkcs SlrattMdrttt: 2750 IWky farUay OwNi MN 55356 Malllni Iddriu: P.O Bo( 65 Bay. I«l 55323 CC€5 REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION June 26,2003 Kevin & Deborah Thompson 90 M>TtIewood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 SUBJECT: Zoning Application #03-2919 The Ci^ of Otono is reqi^ to notify you »ilhin ten (10) business days as to the status of your o Please provide an accurate, to scale depiction on the sur\ ey of the proposed pool location and desi^ including any proposed pool decks or other feanires. The applSon" insufficient for review of the pool clement of >-our Application ^3-2919 is partially incomplete. Ifyou xWsh to proceed with the pool aspect of >x)ur application please submit the items requested above by Wednesday, July 9,2003 to have the pool considered along with your other requests at the July 21. 2003 Planning Commission meeting. Please call me at (952) 249-4600 should )*ou have any questions. Sincerely, c Michael P. Gaf^n Planning Director TU«pboac(952)24MM0 • Fax (9S2) 34M41C ll'WWCUlWOAD.ttS L M3-2922 AugutI It, 2003 rage I of3 7 Date Applkatton Received: 6-lt-OJ Dale Application Considered as Complete: 7-9-tJ 60-Da> Roiew Period Espires: 9-7-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Dale: Janice Waataja, City Planner August 13,2003 Subject:03-2922. Imaginality on behalfofMike Cashman, 1655'I685 Fox Street, - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: KK-IU, One i-'amily Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) 1655 Fox Street; 12.153 acres (529.379 s.f.) 1685 Fo.\ Street: 10.1 acres (439.957 s f.) 1695 Fox Street; 7.463 acres (325,067 s.O Outlot A, lianser Addition: .215 acres (9,346 s.f.) Application Summar}-: Applicant requests the following variances to allow placement of address monuments: 1. A wetland setback variance to allow a wetland setback of 5* on th<^ cast side of the private drive when a 26’setback is normally required 2. A wetland setback variance to allow a wetland setback of 12’ on the west side of the private drive when a 26* .setback is normally required. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations; 1. Approval of the wetland setback variances due to inherent hardships which consist of e.visting vegetation and wetlands at tlie driveway entrance which moke is practically difllcult to solve the driveway identification problem. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.55.8: Development Restricted; Prohibition. “Except as hereinafter 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 Consersation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof..." Lbl of Ethibiti Exhibit A - Wetland Delineation (report to come later) Exhibit D - Diagram showing site triangle, delineated wetland edge, monument location and proposed setbacks. Exhibit C- Updated hardship statement . , Exhibit D - Report from the 7-21-03 PC meeting and associated exhibits. Au2u%t IS. 2003 Pace 2 of3 Background This proposa’ was originally heard at the July 21“ Planning Commission meeting. At that time the applicants were instructed to work with staff on a redesign and conduct a wetland delineation if appropriate. The applicants have conducted a w etland delineation but ha\c proposed the same monuments that were originally proposed Wetland Setback Variance Staff has met with the applicant and has concluded that whether identifying the proj.^rly is accomplished with an address monument or standard 6" x 6" postTianging sign, the effects that they would ha\ e on the wetlands arc minimal. Staff has rev iewed the wetland delineation report and sight visihility triangle in relation to the location of the monuments. Because the monuments will be outside both the wetland boundary and sight visibility triangle, staff is allowing the applicants to proceed with the monument design. A 12’ setback is proposed on the west side of the drive and a 5’ setKick is proposed on the cast side of the drive. Two separate w etland selb.u k v ariances are required; one for each monument. Hardship Statement Applicant has prov ided a brief h.ird>hip statement in Exhibit C. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anaivsis /« conUdering appHcathn% for varlancf. the Planning Commhxhn thall comlder the effect of the propped i-arlance 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 snlues 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 became of circumstances unhjue t»the Individual property und. r consideration, and shall recommend approsal onlv when it Is demonstrated that such aalont will be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. The recom.mendations in regards to the hardship criteria are the same as those in the prev ious planning report and should be referenced in Exhibit D. Staff would also add that some type of identification is needed for safety purposes and that the wetland locations and vegetation along the roadway and in the nghi-of-vvay are hardships inherent to the property preventing the address markers which normally can be installed without City approval Issues for Consideration 1. Should a stone address monument be allowed within the wetland setback? 2. W ill the structural integrity of the monument be compromised due to the wet soils? Should the applicants be required to submit plans to verify footing design? 3. Should the applicants be required to dedicate equal area of lost wetland buffer? It is i MU-»22 A«tnitll.2<N)3 Pagt3«f3 only about 8 s.f. total impact as compared to a total un-impacted wetland buffer area of many thousands of s.f. 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccommeBdatioB Suff recommends approval of both wetland setback x ’ariances with the stipulation that fooling designs be submitted to the building ofTicial to verify structural integrity. •8/K/2663 16:26 7635454266 nm : imaginalitv ecJffW'A « AMOCimES pm NO. t «» 473 4435 Auf. W 2B03 «i:40Pn P2 HENNEPIN CUUNI Y, MINNt^UlM__________ FOX STREET PROPOSED ENTRY MONUMENT DETAIL FOR JOAN L. MIGLIORI IN OUTLOT A, HANSER ADDITION _____HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA FOX STREET City of Orono Hardship Statement for wetland sefoack variance on address pillars We are requesting a variance setback of the address pillars (hard-surface coverage) to WTtland from 26’ to 10 ’. In additions the standard site triangle is 30' - we are requesting a reduction to 26' in order to be in front of the existing trees and not remove them. The need (request) is to have the drive entry / address to 3 homes clearly identified at the street. These pillars with address plaques are commonplace in Orono. Wa>’zata and neighboring areas and would be totally permissible under normal circumstances. The wetland being too close has created the tmdship. Placing them an>*where else but within the setback wt)uld make them useless and ineffective. There is a safety concern for emergency vehicles to locate the property quickly as needed. Identifying this property by short temporary panels or split rail fencing is not adequate. Much of the Fox Street area is cot ere J w ith w etlands - roadways are placed on Wetland. The 2* X 2' footprint of each of these pillars w ould In no way be detrimental to the wetland. The applicant would be willing to mitigate the 8 square feet ot hard surface elsewhere on the property if absolutely necessary. The footings will be formulated the conditions and the applicant will maintain the pillars as needed. A wetland delineation plan is provided, as well os a current landscape survey. 1 . This property is unique in that the entry is saturated with vegetation and wetlands close to Fox Street and the homes are set back substantially that both the homes and the entry is hidden from drive by view. 2. In order to place the address entrance pillars the required distance from the wetland - they would serve no purpose to drive by traffic. 3. The allowance of these pillars does not establish a precedent, as the circumstance is unique. AnirkjJt..■K*' lifci myim Julyll.ltOJ Past 1 ors Date Applicatlmi Received: d-lt^ Date AppIkalioB CMtldcred as Coaplete: 7-94i3 60-Day Review Period Expires: 9-7-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: DaU: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner^ July 17,2003 03-2922, Mike Cashman, 1655/1685 Fox Street, - Variance • Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre min.) 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-0 Outlet A, Hanser Addition: .215 acres (9,346 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests a u-etland setback variance to allow the placement of address monuments. Stqff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Denial of the wetland setback variance due to a lack of a viable hardship. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.55.8: Development Restricted; Prohibition. “Except os hereinafter specifically permitted, no filling, grading, dredging, excavation, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures, obstructions, septic systems, well or other construction shall be alIou*ed within the Flood Plan and Wetlanth Conservation Area; nor on any lands within 26 feet thereof...” ListofExhibiU 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. J 685 Fox Street: - April 1992: Preliminary approval of a 5 lot subdivision (expired, never final planed) • September 1992: CUP approval for a guest bouse V rrt» fr -mtimSniiiilfiii •OJ-2922 My 21.2003 P)i|*2«f5 •Febnmy 1993: CUP.pp«.vaI,oallow«lditionaI««v.«o„ofpondi,«:«. 1695 Fox Street: Wetland Setback Variance ........................................................................................ rail fence would be removed. Wetlands exist on applicants have submitted a survey showinc ^ location of the stone monuments. The wetland proposed Hardship Statement Hardship Analysis en/oreemetu would cause undue hardship because o/clrcu j^t properly under consideration, and shall recommend aLZTi ,*' In keeping with a,e spirit and Intent such that border the comers are more defmina staff feels that the split rail fences feut •03-2f22 jHly21.200J r«e>3«rs wetlands and associated \egetation extend almost to die pavement of the private drive. Should address monuments be placed approximately IS* from the roadway and private drive they would be almost in the wetland possibly affecting the structural integrity of the monuments over lime. Therefore, 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 stili be put to a reasonable use due to the existing nature of the property. 2. "The pli^t of the landowner is due to circumstances uiuque 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. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Address monuments exist in other areas of the city and would not alter the essential character of the locality. *Econ:>mic considerations alone shall not constitu'.e 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 ht gr;inted 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 where the affected person's land is located." Not eq>plicable •03^2922 Joly2l,2b<i) Paft 4 of S 8. tVetland exists along this section of Fox Street of ■ sSSLitfal’p!S^Srflh^ “<* enjo)mem ^HHSSSSS, « o«o luues for Coosideration J: SSSnS”££SS “*"”"'““*"’■ s»er^ri;:x‘Kxn= 6. Are there any other iaauet or conceim mth thu appUcaUon? mymi July 31.3003 r«its«fs Staff RtcomMBdftlioo Staff recommetids denial of the wednd seliMck vuiance becntse 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. # • * « • .i. Appllcatioii It Date Hecelvcd /g» / f-03> Anount Paid APPLICATIONITY OF ORONO - Vi^L^KCE A Initial Application FeeC^250.00^ ($50.00 per each additionaTvidance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change fmm original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address \L<'^ iLfS'-FdX ^4vTe»a't” Property IdentiGcation Number (P.T.D.) 03- U-»« 23W j/n as —ty Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv ey. Date ProoaJy Acquired______________________________________ fmonth/\xar^ I (do) ^ n^ also own tb^d Piesentiisrof property. An Ijacent parcels of land, residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: APPLICANT Name Tm Address: G Itl City. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ xIa I(€^__Zip:. r- v/3,3 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: IU ft S' frvX .SfViftg.-V City. Phone (home) ~ c? ff* 7MC Phone (work ) 9^2 • dycrto_________Zip: r-fJf/ DESCRlPnON OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: lAJei ot- aAlvetl Estimated Construction Cost S__/j}r-u uJcHtni/ (atuch additional sheets if nccessatj) 0^ adAftts VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage jX Setback: __Front Side __Rear Average Lakcshorc Other (specify) iV HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITK Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary') o o'ir"\yy REQUUiCDStlBKnTTALS 7/ Cerf'fi To ^wucauon Forai '*-------' calculations as required in arWifr surveyor) and include ha ^ reproduction. ^ Provide one (i) c^y Topographic auTvev . t'J on x u for 5. 6. 7. 8. ;p)roduction. one (f) persons ' 'i‘‘«icu oy Uity staff. APPLIC^T ’S signature inroriTifliiap |||(,lniF,d •The aonlicant ----------M me ■Dovy ' signature --sex" ■^r,“ - -» ^ •-- .i strx? isxsK Applicant’s Signature OWTS^ER'S SIGNATURE ^ The owner hereby acknowledges entry onto the property bv Pt>v Date »'■ .’•'■ . ^ }rX-^1 JUN-17-2B03 11152 PRU 952 47*. "991 ^ P.0l^ \ \ KEQVnXD SVBMflTALS Cdpft»C *• __ Con^leted AppUcaxfan Form ' ------ "''“T, ~ 7 would Include niine(s) of »j>plieint(») if not ciurcnt OTOOrfj). «. — Additiontl items u ouy be requested by Ci^ sUfE APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Wjplied fa true cod corrott to fc. b« “‘®“ ““' “* Applicant's Signanire OWNXR'S SIGNA' Date ^ p SICrfATWlE mc^bc fc, p»s.o?r,f‘^v^s»r'.^rv^c"«,r“k^^^^^ Ownef, iie^. y^L^Ouiy. /- n.,. /^//-7/n=? w d> 2 2 £«hib)t 6 06.14.03 Cityor Orono R«; Hardship for 16S5 and 1685 Fox 8bMt Wa or« roqimting lha tattwck from wotlands bo raduoed por the apDlicaUoa ^ a®®'* fw addrott pinart to ba instanad at lha ourt> and driveway per eito map. pi^ are allowad by the City of Orono. The 26- eelbeck from ^ opportunity to properly MentHy the hidden driveway. The pmar win help prevent a safety probiem of sodden stops on the main road. Tha laduoed setback will not Interfere with the wetland nor the integrity of the land. 6182 Olson Memorial Highway. Golden Valley. MN 55422 Phone 7634M54123 Pax 763-5454266 Fnhibif* 6 •• t'-v .• '-cc mmm r.-i:;. i'^f.v><. ...!,;'•- - ■as .aL'" '' -i«• .k . • ^_l_JL .- .'«r''-'^' 'S'- - VI *3sy** ^— . . ;-K,.vr;*R'';^ *vr*-r»i,->.'^- ‘ . ■ • ' - —7- . . -*W^2.Wa5J5f^‘V*r*7i\‘v^‘* * *• ' -■' ■~*ila •' " -t T-• . ' 1^- ■/ f >« Lv:. SSKiO ’ ^n- -^- ■ - '-^^s^aSSSH g ■ ‘i. - /. t<- ?•; At- !f^~- V ■.V^ ' • • '•, *,“" ■■.•••.-• .« I•^' .. '•*»!•■■: '• ^ • >yvv- • v.\*..V .*• . RUNUAT£:Vt 3S nilTZUMOO) PMPADOfl IS40 roXST OWNERNAMB J A NOUN * J A NOUN TAXTAVBR XM IN A NOUN A JOAN A NOUN WAM«»BCR IS40roXST WAYZATAMN 53391 3t 0311723330010 MOr AOOR 1410 SNOneUNE DR 0WNIRNAM6 AHARRXSONAILIiARRRON TA3CPAVBR ALFRED A INGRID LI tARRJSON NAMfiMOOR 1410 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 31 03II7334I0004 FROPADOR 1630 FOX ST OWNER NAME THE WAKEFIELD ORONO F7NRSHF TAXPAYER THE WAKEFIELD ORONOPTNRSIIP NAME/AOOR CK> ROBERT JTIIEILfiR PO BOX 5631 MPLSMN 55440 31 0311733440005 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASStONED OWNERNAI4E M WCASIIMANAJLCASIIMAN TA3CPAYER MICHAEL W/IENNIFER L CAStIMAN NAMC/ADOR 1613 pox ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 111173)330009 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OfWNERNAME IIENNEPMCO REGIONALRR AIHII TA3CPAVER HSNNBPM CO REGIONAL RR AUni NAMVADOR 4l7SniSTNf330 * MMNEAFOUSMN 55401 L___ •T-r ■ neiNEPIN COUNTY PROPR fNTORMATION SYSTEM PROPCJirv owNuts Lisr PACE: I 31 0211733330001 PROPADDR 1415 POX ST OWNER y. • MB W P HENNEMAN A A B KENNEMAN TAJCPAYER W P MENNEMAN a a 0 llENN! :4AN namuadur 1413 pox ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 0311723)30002 PROPADDR 1465 FOX ST OWNER NAME K A DIRKELANDJC A DIRJCSIAND TAXPAYER KAARE A CYNTHIA DIRJCELAND N aMC/AOOR 1465 pox ST WAYZATAMN 35391 31 0311723330014 PROPADDR 1655 POX ST OWNER NAME RJMIGtJORlA JLMIQIJOR) TAXPAYER RJCHAROJAJOANLMICLIORI NAME/ADDR 1655 POX ST WAYZATAMN 53391 31 0311723410009 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNER NAME HENNEPIN 00 RHRONAL RR AUHl TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO RBaONALRRAUTN NAME/ADDR 417 STHSTN1J20 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 31 0311723440003 PROPADDR 1695 POX ST OWNERNAMB R3AKSCAT7ICART TAXPAYER RICHARD A KATIILEENCATIICART NAMIMDDR 1695 FOX ST ORONOMN 35391 31 0311723440004 PROPADDR 1615 FOX ST OWNERNAME MWCASHMANAJLCASHMAN TAXPAYER MCHAaW/IENNVERLCASHMAN NAME/ADDR 1613 POX ST WAYZATAMN 35391 31 IOII723IIOOOI PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNERNAMB SUADIIAZHARI TAXPAYER SUAD H AZHARI NAME/ADDR 1745 FOX ST WAYZATAMN 55391 31 1011723110003 PROPADDR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIONCO OWNERNAME HENNEPIN00RfiGIONALRRAUTN TAXPAYER HENNEPIN 00 REGIONAL RRAUTH NAME/ADDR 417 5TH STN»)20 MMNCAPOUSMN 55401 31 0211733340014 PROP AODR 31 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNERNAME HENNEPIN GO REGIONAL RRAUTH TAXPAYER HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RRAUTH NAME/ADDR 4l7STHSTNn30 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 I CERTIFY THATTHE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUEREPRESanATlONOFM'ORMA'nONAS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OFTHB HEWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPAJ OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DBUEF. o I MU-2«I7 Am|u*IIS. 200J Paft 1 ofT Daft AppUcafiea Received: d-lt^ Date AppNcalioa Coaaidered as Complete: S-5^ 60-Day Review Period Espires: 10-4-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Fr»n: Date: Sdbjcet: Janice Waataja, City Planncr|^ August 14,2003 #03-2917, Winfield A Nancy Stephens, 350 Crests iew Avenue - Variances • Public Hearing Zonhig Dbtrict: Lot Area: LR - I A, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (2 acre min.) .455 acres (19,817 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a new residence on a lot subject to a 75' creek setback: 1. Lot area variance to allow a residence reconstruction on a .455 acre lot when 2 acres is normally required. 2. Front yard setback variance to allow a front yard setback of 30 ’ when 50 ’ is normally required. 3. Side yard setback variance to allow a side yard setback of 10 ’ when 30 ’ is normally required. 4. Rear yard setback variance to allow a rear yard setback of 28’ when 50 ’ is normally required. 5. Creek setback variance to allow structure to be setback 68 ’ from the creek when 75’ is normally required. 6. Hardcover variance to allow 2.7% hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone when 0*’/o is normally allowed and to allow 43.75*/o hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 25% is normally allowed. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendations: 1. Appro\ al of the lot area variance to allow a rebuild of a .455 acre lot in a 2 acre zoning district. 2. Approval of front, side and rear yard setback variances due to the .455 acre lot size located in a 2 acre zoning district. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance request to allow 2.7% hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone to be consistent in requiring 10054 removal of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone with all rebuilds and lack of a valid hardship. 4. Denial of the creek setback to be consistent with not allowing structure in the 0-75 ’ setback zone. 5. Approval of the hardcover variance request to allow 43.75% hardcover in the 75-250* zone due to the limited buildable area in the zone. ..»• u Aiitntlt.MOJ Page 2 of 7 PcrtUicat ZoBUig Ordhtaacc Scctioas Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B): Lots. The follo\%ing minimum requirements shall be observed: Lot Area = 2 acres. Front Yard = 50 feel. Side Yard » 30 feet. Rear Yard 50 feel. Section 10.56, Subdivision I6.C.I: Structure and on-site sewage system setbacks (in feet) from Ordinar>’ High Water Level. TribuUtry “ 75 feet. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2: Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(1): Hardcover Limitations. List of EihibHs A - Application Including Hardship Statement 13 - Adjacent Property Owners ’ Acknowledgement Form C - Survey of Existing Conditions D - Survey Depicting Proposal E - Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans (rough; does not entirely match proposed house footprint) F - Hardcover Calculations G - Buildable Area Implementing 2-Acre Setback Requirements H - Buildable Area Implementing '/j Acre Setback Requirements 1 - City Topography Map J • Photographs K - Property Owners List L - Plat Map Background The applicant originally submitted a variance application which requested front and side yard setback variances to ccnstruct a very substantial addition incorporating the existing houses footprint including a second-story addition to the existing home. The applicant at that point had not had the 75’ creek setback line drawn on a survey or calculated any hardcover. Staff directed the applicant to have the creek setback line depicted on a * surv ey and to also include hardcover calculations. The applicant completed these requirements and submitted a somewhat revised house footprint and hardcover calculations which are both included herein. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidUi: LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.120 s.f (2 acres)200’ Actual 19,817 s.f. (.455 acres)202.90’ A«gu«l IS, 200J Page J *17 S«bt<kis <12Required Eabtiug Proposed Front 50’39.6’29.6’ Rear 50’36.5’ (house) 27.7 (garage)27.7 ’ Left Side 30’10.6 (garage) 31.5’ (house)10.6’ Right Side 30’n/a n/a Creek 75’68.5’68.5’ Structural Covfnigc; Total Lot Area Total Stnictaral Coverage 19.817 s.f. (.455 acres)Allowed: 2,972.55 s.f. (15»/b) Proposed: 2.734 425 s.f. (13.8 %) Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 12,000 s.f.Os.f (05i) 325 s.f • (2.7 V.) 325 s.f (2.7%) 75-250 6,580 s.f.1,645 s.f (2S%) i,713s.f (26.03?b) 2,879 s.f (43.75?b) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Area Variance The applicant is proposing major reni>vations which amount to a rebuild. In doing so the applicant must receive a lot area variance to be compliant with current Zoning Ordinance standards. The property was legally formed in 1920 and therefore is a lot of record. For this pr. .lerty to be redeveloped, approval of a lot area variance is a formality. The propet ty is provided with munici^ sewer. Front/Side/Rear Yard Setback Vat ianccs As mentioned above, this property was developed in 1920 prior to the current Zoning Ordinance standards which now result in non conforming setbacks in the front, side, and rear yards. The property is .455 acres located in a 2 acre zoning district. Many of the lots in this neighborhood are substantially smaller than the required 2 acres. It has been staff policy to review these properties against the setback requirements of the Vi acre ^ning *03.2917 Aagatt Ift. 200) r*f*4of7 disiricl, which is a 30’ front and rear yard setback and 10’ interior side yard setback. The applicant is proposing 29.6’ front >-ard setback. 10 6’ side yard setback, and a 27.7 ’ rear yard setback. Creek Setback Variance The Zoning Ordinance requires a 75 ’ setback from a designated creek to all structures. The applicants property is adjacent to Siubb.s Bay Creek and is therefore located uithin the 0*75 setback /one. The applicant’s current home maintains a 68 ’ creek setback. With the applicant’s proposal, a second story is proposed for the section of the structure that IS within the 0-75 ’ setback zone. Even though the creek setback isn’t changing, structure massing is and a creek setback variance is required for the second stor\ Hardcover Vari.incc Due to structure existing within the 0-75 ’ creek setback, a hardcover variance is required as well. Currently 325 s.f of structure exists in the 0-75 ’ zone. The applicant is proposing to add a second stor>- which doesn’t Increase the hardcoxer but adds mass to the 0-75 zone ^d re.sults in a variance. Because the applicant is doing substantial renovations which amount to a rebuild, stafl' would recommend that all structure uithin the 0-75 ’ /one be eliminated. The applicant is also requesting a hardcover variance to allow 43.75®/o hardcover in the 75-250’ zone when 25“/o is normally required. This is due to the configuration of the lot and the majonty of the area being within the 0-75 ’ creek setback /one Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anahsis S^lT finds that due to the limited buildabic area outside the 75 ’ creek setback (609.5 s.f.), a hardship exists which would support variance approval. Should the Planning (Tommission consider this, a front and rear yard setback of 30’ when 50’ is required and a side yard setback of 10 when 30’ is required, following •/, acre setbacks, would be rearonable (*« attached E^ibits G and H) The existing proposal is requesting a rear yard setback of 27.7 feet. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the 27.7 ’ setback IS appropriate or if a 30’ setback should be required. Suffdoesn-I find a valid hardship which would justify granting a creek s.tback variance ' r I iiTii ihfa .J MU-2917 Avgmt II. 2003 rafcSof? or a O-TS* zone hardcover variance. The applicant has submitted plans that show a rebuild and consistently stafTand Planning Commission have required full removals in the 0-75’ zone. The area of structure in the 0-75’ /one amounts to 325 s.f. in relation to the 2,734.425 s.f. house that is being proposed. Removal of structure in the 0-75’ zone would only amount to 11 .8Ve of the entire proposed home. The applicant has additional area outside the 75’ setback zone to compensate for this lost structure. Therefore, staff doesn't find any hardships which would constitute approval of the creek setback or hardcover variance in the 0-75’ zone. Staff finds that due to the limited buildable area outside the 75’ creek setback, a hardship exists which is inherent to the property. The property consists of 12.000 s.f. in the 0-75’ zone and only 6,580 s.f. in the 75-250 ’ zone (refer to Exhibits G and H). StafT would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship ” pertinent to this application; 1. 4. "The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.” If the property owner wanted to rebuild, any reasonable sired home would require several variance approvals due to the limited buildable area The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." The creek adjacent to the ap;'!icant ‘s property is a circumstance that is unique to the property and not a condition created by the landowner. “Tlic variance, if granted, will not alter the essential cluiractcr of the locality." Many of the homes on Crestview Avenue rr-e smaller homes on smaller lots, yar lances allowing less restrictive setbacLs will not alter the character of the locality. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Hot 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." Hot qjplicable 1 II. iU-2917 Aagmlil.M03 ri«c««r7 “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 alTected person's land is located.” The uses proposed are uses allowed in the LR-JA zoning district “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." A'or applicable "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question ore peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The conditions of non-conforming setbacks apply to the properties in the general neighborhood, especially on Crestvie\% Avenue The creek being adjacent to the property and the setback zone being entirely within the applicent 's property is a condition peculiar to the property. •The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The conditions of smaller lots with non-conforming setbacks do not apply generally in the LR - 1C zoning district but rather the immediately adjoining neighborhood "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial properly right of the applicant." The granting of the setback variances and allowing additional hardcover in the 75-250 zone is necessary for the applicant's to construct a reasonable sized house. Allowing structure to encroach in the 75' creek setback, including hardcover. Is not necessary when other options arc avadable. Hith this request, without allowing structure in the 0-75 ‘ zone a rcitsonably sized home can stdl be constructed. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, cojjfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning The granting of the lot area, and setback variances, consistent with '/: acre setbacks, will not impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or the intent of the Zoning Code since the characteristics of the area are that of Vi acre lots. Aufutl II, 2003 P«Kc7of7 A ftowing hardcover in the 0-75 ‘ xone would be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code This is became consistently staff and Planning Commission have required 100% removals in the 0-75' setback zone with rebuilds and massing of structure in this zone is discouraged 12. "The granling of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience lo the applicant, but is nccessarv’ to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." Granting lot area and setback variances would alleviate the hardship of limited area available to build using the zoning district's standards Allowing structure and hardcover to within 75 ’ of the creek, in instances of rebuilds, would serve as a convenience to the applicant. If the applicant is going through major renovations or rebuilds, non conformities should he reduced and'or remow d. not maintained Granting of a hardcover variance in the 75-230' zone would he necessary to alleviate the hardship of limited buildahle area m the zone (609 s j) Issues for Consideration 1. Is it appropriate to implement setbacks of the '/i roning district for a property in a 2 acre zoning district when the property in question and most of the de\ eloped lots in the immediate neichborhood arc closer to a Vi acre? 2. Because this is essentially a rebuild, should the applicant he required to remove the 325 s.f, of structure in the 0-75* creek setback zone even though it is part of the principle structure? 3. «ll.v limited of buildahle area in the 75-250* zone a \a!:J hardship to g;ant a hardcover variance of 43.75^'o when 25®'o is normally allowed? 4. Should the applicant revise his current house plan to meet a 30* rear yard setback when 30 ’ is deemed appropriate for the purposes of granting a rear yard setback variance? 5. Arc there any other issues or concerns with this application? Maff Kcconimcndalion Approval of the lot aiea variance beciv.se the property was constructed prior to current Zoning Ordinance requirements, and in rebuild sitnalion this variance is a formality with legal lots record Approval of a front and rear yard setback of 30* w hen SO* is required and approval of a side yard setback of 10 ’ when 30 ’ feel is required. This is due lo the subject property’s area, .455 acres, e.xisiing within a 2 acre zoning district. Denial of the creek setback variance to allow structure w ithin 75’ of the creek and subsequent hardcover in the 0*75 ’ zone. Because the applicant’s project amounts to major renovations and essentially a rebuild, staff and Planning Commission should be consistent with requiring 100% removal in the 0-75 ’ setback zone. r"exhibit a CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SS0.(K) per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Appliartioa» DaieRccdycd Amount PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address_____.^S~0 Utaiu /A Propeity Identif.cation Number (PJ.D.) Ojr - // v 3 - /u -o«a<cv- Attach legal description to application if not included on required sur\*ey. Date Property Acquired O ^ 2-, 2.op f I (do) (<^0 not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V residential ___other (specify)_ Zoning District: /o- i-.JL -/A- ____________ _(n'.onth/ycar) APPLICANT Name »\S Address: Bet- Phone (home) T.g'.a ____ Phone (work) 6/a. City: ______Zip: OWTS’ER (if different than applicant) Name__________ Phone (home)_ __Phone (vvoric)_ Address:City:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Consmiction Cost $ (attach additional sheets if necessary ) VARIANCES REQUIRED i'' Lot Area *** Lot Width Hardcover _Lol Coverage Setback:Front Side Other (specify) _______ __ Rear __Average Lakesbore IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY' CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: • < r i C»-^ k Kq t^.«i _____ L. tA.4 yv «/. ■1v. 1/..-^ fX** oo-To^ ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ©.<% f>i»—— —O'*#2 7i ^ •• ••. . % required sub.\uttals All gf the Miming iaformitlQn tnun hy the -nniictu- ^ aider for vour «DDHc«tfa». ««^ wnnHcition dfidlinf ditf \n *• — Completed Application Form Finance, A-603. Govt Center. 348-5910)^ »cnnepm County Department of P«>rtin<<af* C.._____ /_?___. .1 .g. --------^ j<»aoyiu;.• - Ss'- *' ---- Additional iter'? ai> may be requested by City staff. APPLICANT'S SICNATUIt^ and/o. consul'JS expend in“„" f f” information supplied is .are ^ cor.ee. ,o .he be,, of hUef Applicant ’s Signature ^L-1^^.___________ ^__________ OWTVER'S SIGNATURE rn;°r;ir.^^o " »“«-0H-s reasonable nrembers for purposes of invel,igatio'n and veTifi^alTo'f to Oumer-s Signalure/jJUr/^l.^. , Da.e c[^ Applicant must have all submittals into the Citv nm.... j Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meiaiino ^ t Planning month. Applicantf -usH" prS"^ «>f “ch Co»o.is.i,.'’.nd CuncIL If'a^^p'l*lt' ? .T. T"*'";**.»'Commissto and C.:.ciL If’^T’a^li:;™ aTe'T j' <r^ i 3 •• ■■>. J7 1 I^EESEi^ Q WiHFiiito ^repKBss UL ©(ttldlT P HAIUJCOVEU CALCULATlOiN WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ L«nfl^ <25I> B. Oirage C Driiwsy D. Sidewtlk E P«tio/Deck F. LandKspe Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________ - B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A House _____________ L«nfOt E Oarage C. Driveway D. Side\vaDe E Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • B 75-25U*2S0-S00*soo.iooo* SF w.*j. 12,000 X ICO -2.71 xlOO - SF. SF. SF SF. .SF SF .SF SF .SF SF SF, SF. SF SF. % SF. SF SF. SF. .ST SF. !sf. SF. SF SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. Winfielo S»repncM< ~pT SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONT A. House uaudcoveu calculaxiq ^vorksheet 0-75' -AXlQilW 7S.25<rj 2S0-S00*S00.1000‘ SF w«*j« B. Otrage C Oriiewaj ZO.^12.7 nio D. Sidewalk E Paiio/Deck F. LandKipe Underlain ByPlasuc Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HA.RDCOVER INZO.NE total property area in 20.‘.‘E A _____________ * * B 1713 xlOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN 7QVr A House ^ Un(Oi I4E( W4W B. Oarage C. feSveway 47$“ O. Sidewalk E PatioOeck F. LancUcape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - B UIX xlOO SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF. SF .SF. SF SF SF Pe^p:^u:Q 5 F - AOOmO^ SF SF. SF. SF.!sf. SF SF SF SF SF SF. SF SF. SF. H /--------------------------------------5 ¥ s 1 BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY " GARAGE ao» . O O o 3 O (/> BWltDAbuE >a<!6A .yS/iJd, 2-/>d?e KUftUaklL.WV M OSimjl4000l ntOTADOR 3310 BAYSIDCRO OWNCRNAMB JWWOJC1KAKLWOJCIK TAXP a YCR X)IINWWOX:nCAKlTLWUJaK NAM6M0M 3310 DAVSIOC RD LAKELAJCEMN SS3M iiLSf.Li’is cOl'NTV prr»r» • pRoruuvuA •v;or ;. A.,o;. i Lu;r PAUL;I 31 05II72JI400I0 PROPAOOR 3S AODRmUNASSICNEO OWNrRNAME aiARULSMAUMiaitVETAL taxpayer charlesacaruealoiucii NAML/ADUR J70 CRESTVinW AVC LONG LAKE MN )S3M 31 0311733140011 PROPAODR 3t ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME OIARLES ALDRICH IV ETAU TAXPAYER aiARLESACARLIEALDlUai NAMC/ADDR 270 CRESTVtEW AVE tjONCLAKEMN 55356 31 0511723140030 PW3PADOR 313 CRESTVIEWAVE OWNER NAME R A EDOmOTONTTi EOOtNGTON TAXPAYER ROBERT R TAMARA EDDINGTON NAME/AOOR 315 CRESTVIEWAVE LX)NGtAKEMN 55356 3t 05II723I4003I PROPAODR 325 CRESTVIEWAVE OWNLRNAME WXUAM L SULLIVAN TAXPAYER WILLIAM SULUVAN NAMI/ADOR S4I7 RECENT AVE N 4105 BROOKLYN PARK MN 55443 31 05II723I40033 PROP AODR 31 ADDRESS UNASSICNED OWNER NAME BERT L ADOBON ETAL TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAME/ADDR 3312 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 0511723140034 IROPADOR 31 ADDRESS UNASSX94ED OWNER HAMS ESTHER M ADDISON TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAMC/AOOR 3302 BAYStOE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 3t 0511723140035 PROPAOOR 33S2 BAYStOE RD OWNER NAME ALAL ..JONETAL TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAMEIAOOR 33*2 BAYSXTE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 0511723140036 PROPAOOR 3S ADDRESSUNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME ESTHER M ADDISON TAXPAYER MRS A L ADDISON NAME/ADDR 33*2 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 3* 0511723140037 PROPAOOR 30 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO OWNER NAME ESTHER M ADOISCM TAXPAYER MRS A L ADOBON NAME/ADOR 33UBAYSIOERD LONG LAKE MN 55356 3t Q5II723I40Q52 PROPAODR 3370 BAYSIDE RD OWNER NAME BARBARA X3ANNE HUBER TAXPAYER Barbara joanne iiuder NAME/ADOR 33W BAYSIDE RD LONOLAKEMN 55356 36 0(51172314005* PROPAODR 3300 BAYSRIfiRD OWNBRNAME SUBPWHTmEY TAXPAYBl SOB P WNHWEY NAME/ADOR 3300 BAYSIDE RD LONOLAKEMN S5356 3* 0511723140047 PROPAODR 3332 BAYSIDE RD OWNER NAME HARRIET AIIEHL TAXPAYER HARRIET A HEHL NAMIVADDR 334*BAYSR)EROAD LONG LAKE MN <5356 3* 0511723140056 PROPAODR 320 CRESTVIEWAVE OWNER NAME J F LEHMEYER R T L LEHMEYER TAXPAYER X3HN * TRUDY LEHMEYER NAMfc/ADOR 320 CRESTVIEWAVE LONOLAKEMN 55356 3* OSI172314004* PROPAODR 3)41 BAYSIDE RD OWNER NAME HARRIET HEHL TAXPAYER HARRIET A HBIL NAME/ADOR 3341 BAYSIDE RD ROUTE I LONOLAKEMN 35356 3* OSII723I40057 PROPAOOR 350 CRESTVIEWAVE OWNER NAME WR STEPHENS IB ETAL TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR WINFIELD R STEPHENS m 3770BAYSI0CRD LONOLAKEMN 35356 /// (ffX- *wv v< r 2 A tUNDATErVMOeD) HtNNU-LN SYSTO. fACE 2 orMVK«,w.oo....o.UBr. DATE ’ U y ’ ■ •>. ^-^S.01’ .tM DBicAppIkailMlItMivttf: 7-1M3 Date ApfUcaltMi CMMMcrtd M CMoplctt: 7-lt43 M-Dajr Review Pcrtod Eipirca: From: Dale: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse, City Administrator Mike GafTron. Planning Director August 11,2003 #03 2928 Michael Mischke, 1972 Shadywood Road - Variances • Public Hearing au>ning District: LR-1C Single Family Lakeshore Residential. I /2-acrc min. Lot Area: 0.16 acre (6,915 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests a number of variances to constnici an attached garage and second-story addition to the existing residence. The variances include: 1. Second stoiy structure encroaching u iihin 0-75* setback zone, 46* from shoreline. 3. Second story addition encroaching 2.9 feet from left side lot line. 4. Two story garage structure encroaching 6.9 feet from right side lot line. 5. Two story garage structure encroaching 12..' ^ ot from street lot line. 6. Hardcover in 0-75* reductions proposed from lo30 s.f(31.6%) to 1000 sf (19.4*I.) where no hardcover is allowed, by removing existing detached garage and gravel areas. 7. Hardcover in 75-250 ’ zone will be reduced from 12 16 sf (69.5%) tc 952 sf (54.4"/o). Additional factors: - Lot coverage by structure increases from 1333 s.f. to 1500 s.f. (1500 s.f allowed). - Adjoining residence to the immediate north is 4-5* away liom this residence (separation between fireplace chases is 1.7*). Staff Recommendathm: Staff recommends: a) Approval of the side and street setback variances for the garage addition (see hardship discussion). b) ' onditional approval of the side setback and lakeshore setback for the second story additions - to be somew hat consistent w ith recent approvals of similar situations, should at least be offset to maintain 10* separation from neighboring residence structure (i.e. only a 1-2* encroachment of side yard); however, denial would not be inconsistent with recent approvals, primarily to maintain at least a bit of visual openness, but also to avoid future maintenance issues... c) .Approval of hardcover proposal. Lht of Exhibits A • Application B • Hardship Statement C - Existing & Proposed SuA’ey/Site Plan D • Proposed Plans & Elevations E • Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Photos G - Properly Owners List H - Plat map •2921.1972 ShadywMd A«tmtll.2M3 F*|e2 BackgrcNiMl This property is the second lot south of Coffee Channel, so is subject to 75 ’ setbacks from hvo sides Applicant pro^ to remove the existing one-stall detached garage, located entirely within the side Tbe property is very small, and is impacted not onlyby its proximityto the lake.bulbvthcproximity of neighboring structures. The house to the north is only 1 *.2' from the side lot line, and the existing separati^ between applicants house and the neighboring house is 4 ’.5* (their chimne>3 arc only 1 .7* The house to the Muth meets required setbacks, but its detached garage is only 4 ‘ from the lot line; applicant’s attached garage addition will be 1 1* from that garage. Smtt mral Cpvcraw-structural coverage on the property will increase from H33 s.f. toexactly 1500 s.f. as allowed by code. The result is that 22% of the lot w ill be covered by structure. UadCfiysr Hardcover on the property in both 0-75 ‘ and 75-250* zones is proposed to be reduced subst^tially. primarily by eliminating areas of gravel driveway. The detached garage moves out of the (^75 zone, but is replaced with a larger garage in the 75-250* zone. This rc.sults in less open poking area on the property, but still >iclds a parking area on the lot with depth from 12* to 21* allowing for one larger vehicle and one subcompact car in the drivew ay. imin enliy lo the residence svill be the door on the lobe side, with a secondary access tinough e ganp. Applicant proposes to add non hardcover walknayi and non-lincd landscape beds to m'^im^rhaiSovCT“ non-haldeover The garage addition is the smallest fiinctional footprint (20rx2(r) and is located so as to be out of the . ?* '!?„!' ‘ f lo be nearer thes reet than the r^uired 30 setback, but as a trade-off it minimires hardcover. The street righl-of-tvay tel K«Ts“a'shi^ drivw" y"^ xxl ibc street area in front of the hh"'*'ulH*'-a"""»• “ric'ly meet the proposed definition of «292t-1972SlMiywood AMgMt 11.2MI3 rafts LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot AreaAVidth! LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre)100* Actual 6,915 s.r. (0.16 acre)50' defined width 48' average functional width Sfibi£ki2 LR-IC Required Existiug Proposed Lakeshore (East)75’46 ’46* Lakeshore (North)75'59'59' Rear (Street)30*36* (house)12.5' (att. gar.) Un Side 10 ’2.9* 1.7' (chimney) 2.9’ I.T (chimney) Right Side lO*19.9* (house)6.9* (att. gar.) Average Lakeshore (No Encroacbmeot Allowed)No encroachment No encroachment Stractaral Coverage; Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 6,915 s.f. (0.16 ac.)Allowed: 1500s.f. Proposed: 1500 s.f. (22%) Hardcover Calculattoai: Hardcover Zoae ToUl Area la Zoae Allowed Hardcover ExUliag Hardcover Proposed Haidcover 0-75'5165 s.f.0s.f. (0%) 1630 s.f. (31.6%) 1000 t.f. (19.4%) 75-250*1750 s.f.438 s.f (25%) 1216 s.f. (69.5%) 952 s.f. (54.4%) •292t.I972Ska4rwMd Aagiial 11,2M3 Pigc4 Hardship Statemcat Applicim has provided a brief hardship suictncnl in Eshibil A. and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Aaalysis tke fUm^ing C^mmiuhm ikmU c^mtUUr th* e/ffct ^tke proposed **^1**^'/*“^? **^a^*7 txiitimg •H^antUlpateJtrtfflc conditicns, tight ^rtbent'to th ’**'^ recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" I. ‘The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the oflicial controls.” The property is Ifeing put to a r.jsunMc use us 1/ esuts tojjy. jjHic pHght of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by There are a number of circumstances unique to the properts \shich Mere not created by the iandowner. such as lot size, existing house location, neighboring house locations, etc 3. 4. The variance, if granted, will .wt alter the essential character of the locality ” Certain \ariances. tfgranted, may add la the xisual density in the ncighborhiHul “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” The applicant ha* not suggestca that economics are a hardship Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy s^tems. Vari^ccs shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minn^ta Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.” Qnnting of variances might have a negatixe impact on the adjoining property s access to *|^e Bo^ ofi^p^ md Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use (Sot Applicable) j L tmt -1972 SkMdfwU A«g«tll,2M3 Pa|tS "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a bvo-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 pn^ferty is subject to the same ordinance requirements as other properties in the Immediate neighborhood, although few others ha\e 0- 75 ’ zones on two sides. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The ordinance applies equally to all properties in the LR- IC district. 10."The granting of the application is necessary for the preser\ ation and enjo>‘mcnt of a substantial property right of the applicant" 77ie property can continue to be used for residential purposes if the variances are not granted. 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 ofthe lariances will re.ful: in certain areas of increased conformity and others of decreased conformity. 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 variances are in some respecu supported by hardship and practical dijftculties inherent to this specific property. Issues for Consideration 1.Docs the relocation of the garage out of the 0-75' zone offset the added structural hardcover associated with the new garage? The garage attachment has been configured to minimize driveway hardcover while attempting to retain an adequate parking depth outside the 0-75' zone... a side loading garage in the 0-75’ zone might provide more off-street parking at the c.xpense of greater hardcover... It would be consistent to deny a second story above a substandard side setback, especially when less than 5' from the lot line and given the proximity of the neighboring house to the north. No new windows are proposed on that side of the upper story... Does the second story above the garage add to the visual massing of the neighborhood when located only 1 2’ from the road? i2f2S.I972Shady«Mi Aa|Mlll.2M3 The prop^ non-hardcover walkways and landscape areas need special consideration in terms of documenting their non-hardcover status for the future... 6. 7. Are there any issues related to the fact that the main entry is at the far side of the house? The houscdoes not have a full basement. Applicant should be asked to address the structural mtegnty of the foundation to support a second story... although the first story is intended to reirai^ if it is removed, this project would become a total rebuild, which would allow for setbacks more appropnate to the site and the neighborhood... 8.Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation follow^^ ^ ^ nght-of-way. and the proximity of adjoining homes, staff recommends as a) b) Approval of the right side and street setback variances for the garage addition. - the second story should be setback 8-9* from the lot line to maintain a 10’ ^aration ^jweOT the two homes (i.e. only a 1-2* encroachment of side yard); however, purring a full 1^ side setback would not be Inconsistent with recent approvals, primarily to maintain visual openness, but also to avoid future maintenance issues . apphcarit to confirm the structural ability of the existing foundation to support a ate __ AppiiciUoD #j22:^22^ Date Received -7-lf^-O^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change fix)m original application) Variance for non-conforming atructurcs $250.00 Afler-the-Fact Fees (Dotiile application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^-yi, . Qcovxft rvio Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) t>M 14 - cm Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired 101. | lcXX3> I (do) also own the adjacent parcels of land. ' “_(montli/ycar) Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: _oUier (specify)_ Address., !*!*;!. City; ________Zip: __ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constnictlon Cost S ’’lOfiOO Describe request in detail: ;U d..,., r'Ar -------- r-V. gu.ii-t-|..e IrifUUt-TT^V>v. ■ /-.r 0 (attach additional sheets if necessary) o VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area Lot Width ^ Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback: Front Other (speciQr)______ .X.Sidc JL Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS f„rjt^' “"ii: 0^ — P?P'«y P««ntinscompliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^ .1,.^^ (attach additional rOO r 5. 6. 7. 8. required submittals fcJLL^_apXarl^^ bTconilH^'^^py^ "PMcalLon^cMi^ 1. ^ Completed Application Form obtain this wTri^p from *50*. labels and plat map (you must Govt Center, 348-5910). Department of Finance, A-603, rcproducUon. ^ <» «P>’ 8«- * ll" fo, property. This would include nan.e(s) of aTOll^M^? T “__ As an addendum to this aDDlVat.nn «i * Wl‘cmt(s) if not current ou-ncr(s). you wish notified of this application*^ * separate list of any other persons — Additional items as may be requested by City staff. ailMce%Bp||c2n'*hC'ro'?;i^|f LTo!^^^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infnm..iu ■ . Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees ( raff ,re ^come^^^^^^^^consultant expenses incurred in review of this 3^1 supplied is inie and coirect to the best of hisSicr rowledge. “ Applicant’s OW’NER’S SIG.NATURE enlo- onto the'p?opelv'’by'a” smV^rsuhams* r" reasonable members for punroses of investigation’and veriHcaiion o"f Uiiw^^sr" Owner’s s•-^/-f/? Meeting. Planning cl^Sn Meei?ngs^‘L*'*heM on ""rtT '’vm” *’'""‘"8 Commission Applicants must be present at all schedulL review meeHn Monday of each month. Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a schedld mf.i *^",*'^‘‘““*“8 Commission and Iwvc an authorized agent attend in your place and to advi<rir arrangements to change prior to the meeting. ^ Building & Zoning Office of this • 4 M. o O <Q fr - ’ -' ■ r AU6.11. 2003 10:47AM JENSEN HOMES INC NO. 0817 P. 2 B-!hOZ My 16,2003 Q^ofOnno VttUDMApplicatioii Land Use Pinning Harddup^esoription of Unuiual Ptqpoty Condition: Due to tha sin and location of my lot located at 1972 ShadywoodRoad, the cuircm Zoning Code Requirements prohibit any binlding on my property. As a result, this does ootaU^ my property to have the same or similar amenities as the surrounding properties. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MICHAEL MISCHKE OF LOT 37, SHADYWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I C-l tm CONTOUI L«C LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY o : denotes iron marker Beorings shown ore bosed upon on assvmed dotim. This survey intends to show the boundorles of the obeve described property, the locotion of on tiistinq house ond ooroqe. ond the locotion of oM visible "hordcover'* thereon. It does not purport to sho« ony other irrprovements or encrcoctinents. NOTE 7 Boundories shown ore f rom ei i st inq monifrvnt s found ond o survey by Schoell Jc Modson doted 2-18-02. ond moy ifot oqree with lines os shown on the plot of Shodyvood os meotured titm the section line by the North end of the plot. GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. coKsaTwc CNcecEHS. land subvcyors . art pla »*crs 44S NCRIM autw Cftvt. UMG LAME. Mi UlM tS2-47A-4HI • •€M»^ Cfvret TH*t twt K m*. MCTT*toi ew xecni •u Mteues er M on wc«> wT oetcf sm*vBo> «• nut • • OMir ictMO meritsoui. ctocu «• uvo sMoei een te uei v tun v unuu A/KS 04-OI-4U 0)-10« ^ fPi O • * .' . y •••* I • J Minnesota ®S»54 ’<s»Wistng H ouse fe/Removed ) / */</ \ / / garage § *««s«rA '(’o Bc KatovaJ •» st>2i-:::' ,/ / ioo- - ^ ' ■ ■sMiw e ^ LISTING ~ ~ ■■—* n H ouse ^26.89 \ ^ *7 3oa ,« |raVEwSv'''*'"'EL REMOVED)......... ........... I ------^ 75- setback --'' . . SfCPs tr 77*1 SURVEYline 86»S3'00« N > ^V ^ ^ ^ V- V T"T IflBlIMMMftinirf I ^^isting house 0( STEPS 6-2- I»' t ^ fI '10 '®29-+ CONI O qo OpO\ °oW 201 o- / tQ. >5ft v\ C ^ : 123.95 1illi II II '* 1 p MJ^m wm- i \iCoT«^Sw <D so m I I I wjiiM tuna r acccn I I I. l™^ f\ “•9H ” a ^ ■■“-'ar ;| ;I! d T-I*4i HMMN «CO« 1!T& M1Mto M rtc mm3i • sm »T 0*Tf I I I P?!^pgondn (mui/> * . I < - i “ ■ 4 ‘- . .! ■ V •/ - . f ■ ■'Ml UARDCOVEl SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Houie ______________ A^IC|4A£U MiSCMKC ^'^'03 ^ 7~f9'03 ALCUL.ATIO»N WOllKSUEETCAL caz£> Ua|).H B. Oars|c C Drii-evirty D. Sidevrtlk E PtUo/Deck F. Ltndscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ______________ * B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House LmfJi B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B 75-25II ’2S0-S00' OP Lot 37 U'tAh X100 - WrfJ, xlOO SOO-1000* SF-f40tKP SF SF. SF SF SF SF - AT SHOCC . S F -v/o?0 ET£f>S f^n6-SHO^K SF SF SF - tiOCiZ AfitA SF SF UlO 51/1 *T STEPS OH ^ SF-W;/T*» Side. OF- Stf SF A SF B V. SF - Cro^Tint^ sr SF SF S F -P«2R5EX>sr If SF SF SF. SF. SF. w ’iz SF -Vfe^ SHtNlL- SF A SF. B H f^^SCMiCS •m. 4 / SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) existing hardcover in ZONg A. House Q-4-03 ^ 7-/r o3 CALCULA'i;ii2N WORKSHEET0.75*250-S00* U'i«h ^ Lot 31 SHf«Ov'\Na?D ^'2-500.1000* ______ 2.01___s F - HOifiE, ill • ;K /f •' ,. .ij iT’w “ <«>.• '■dg^ : ■ ■• . ',-- ■ " • * . • " ■■ r •i^hi - r - • \*t-m' •*4^'- - - ■! '.' I I i > t f . V . ---------------------’ \ ''^•* ~!^-~.itmkS. ■ -.. *. ' 4. -i i Mf?i ij - . - --es* ^ mi • ’.'.V ■J i-tg.3i 4. .___ ■mm. *• ■ --------■■ ' . I'^l i 6 ; il' ^ r*.."r*rtt'' ' ^ ’V' “. •'■^'* " ■ • • " ■—** -'=•*■'' ■ *■ iV/; ■; 3.*^ ^ mil-- .-..v^T :»• SBT^SIB;/•* *. Hi : ■ :. 'r S. :. :... ■ • .i, , , >? . . »;■ . A ....... . : S I'feii m '•4>. 'SW ^.;v -rri'-r X r '* V V. ^ fj^ , r- i .V .;' i?-4 -I- '1. . V.. ..f •’• »• A- V. I- . .• • Su.vi ^-- • r it ■j!ir.^.'l ^ fSOCvct _ ’ rrrr?L!^» - ivi _ -.1-1 .-•■• * 7 •.K--4-T 'si^s * ^-T mt 33S2»V-S5,i» > • f fKV V mi t:‘f V*• t •car. mmmvm '* • *5:?' *■ ■* ' '- V~‘* i'^ '-i rip F<i;'L?'’S^K; -■— -•■>•• • - -^ '■« -0 .»i«a*r» 7.? --' '-i ■ :»j2!5S s*SSsK r >!%..^ t t» ■M lu :ih "'' "iifffTOi ^ > ,-" >y** »;. * '^^■- :■ ^ l iyixi/ ir ^', f /7/, :■: l£-a ~ [V .' \ \ * ■ ri- a\ -gBfflgag''' V '?'X 3^3-•?-.W fcuNLMti..^^iau IIUNNlil‘1.,' cni JNn* PROPriRTV rWORMA 1 ION SVSTLM PROI'liRTYOWNERS LIST * ^ M I7II73}}400U PROfAOOR IMO SHAOYWOOORO OWNERNAMS MRMAOCHARLESATMACCHARLES TAxrAvnt malocxjwvirgmuiiaccharles NAMWAOOR IMO SHAOYWOOORO WAVZATAMN S5)fl 3t I7II72J240024 PROPAOOR IM« SlUOYWOODRO OWNERNAMS iRRCEWBLANO TAXPAYER JOHN R A CAROL EWEILANO NAME/AOOR 1966 SHAOYWOOO RO WAYZATAMN 5i»l 3t 171172)240025 PROPAOOR 1972 SHAOYWOOORO OWNER NAML MATTHEW A KREBS ETAL taxpayer MATTHEW A KREBS NAME/AOOR 1*72 SHAOYWOOORO WAYZATAMN 55391 M 171172X260026 nOPAOOR 1*71 SHAOYWOOORO OWNERNAME R P MACK A A M MACK TAXPAYER ROBERTA AROEaMACK NAME/AOOR 1*71 SHAOYWOOO RO WAYZATAMN S539I 31 I7II723240Q27 PROPAODR 1990 SHAOYWOOORO OWNERNAME RPMACKA AM MACK TAXPAYER ROBERT P MACK NAMP/ADOR 1650 NORTH FARM RD ORONOMN 55356 31 1711723240021 PROPAODR 1996 SHAOYWOOORO OWNERNAME JANETESOLTAUTRUSTEE TAXPAYER JANET E SOLTAU NAMC/ADDR 1996 SlUOYWOODRO WAYZATAMN 55391 represented ap £ an accurate and Jnformation as n appears this date on the rkords DATE^C^£:f-^ by PACE: I CM 0^ 01 % 1 J, Adjacent Properf>- Owners* Acknowledgement Form I O Mw^____________of fU(> sUaJuu^.,.^ Of. [print name(s)] [print addre^j have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at --------------------------also referred to as Land Use Application No.________ t^t in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare — Owner Date (/7- U-dHProperty Owner Date I (we) _of [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improv'cment or proposed use of the property located at I (wc) understand that in execuUnj this attaiowledgement. 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use hut merely to confirm for the City Council that I J^ilirTcticriwrova! Property Owner ’Date Property Owner Date QfC J •02-2930 August 14. 2003 Page l of 6 /c Date Application Received: 07-29-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: OS-04-03 dO-Dav Review Period Expires: 10-04-03 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Melanie Folh, City Planner Date: August 14,2003 Subject: #03-2930, Streeter & Assoc on behalf of Richard & Delores I.lltle, 2775 Shad)'\vood Rd - Variance - Public hearing Zoning DbtricI: LR-IB, One Family Lakesbore Residential, 1 Acre Lot Area: 0.70 acre (30,556 s.f.) Application Summar}': Applicant requests a hardcover variance in order to con.struct a 72''i 25’ garage over existing drivcw'ay hardcover. Tlie variance includes: 1. Hardcover variances for the 0-75 ’ and 75 ’-250’ zones. Hardcover in the 75 ’-250’ zone is currently at 60.5% (10.753 s.f.) and in the 0-75 ’ zone is at 4.91% (378 s.f.). The nature of the hardcover is changing in both zones resulting in a full hardcov er review. Stajf Recommendation: Stafl'recommendation: Approval of the hardcover variances with the following stipulations: 1. Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting beds. 2. Removal of 314 s.f. of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone, allowing 64 s.f. of retaining wall and pavers to remain (0.8%). 3. Removal of additional hardcover added since the 1995 variance approval w hich will result in a total hardcover of 6,979 s.f. (39ro) to remain within the 75 ’-250’ zone, Ihmhhip: Stafffinds no hardship to alloM the current levels ofhankow'r to remain Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections ^ 1<\22.2 Hardcover Regulations: 0-75 ’=0®/b, 75 ’-250’=25% ^ 10.03.15(G)(2)(c) Fences: I'ences shall not be constructed within the defined lakcshorc yard of a lakcshorc lot, i c. shall not be located w ithin 75 ’of the shoreline of a General Development Lake. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application F - Property Owners List B - Hardship Statement G - Plat Map C - Existing d: Proposed Survey/Sitc Plan H - Resolution #2115 D - Proposed Plans and Elevations I - Resolution U 3610 E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations J-Photos * W2-2930 August 14 2003 Psge 2 of 6 Background fnT 7V hardcover amounts approved were 0.16% in ihe 0.75* zone and 37.6% in the 75 -250 zone. For details please sec Resolution #2115 attached. n !«nlcover in the 75-.250' zone in c.xcess oflhc 25% kS to 0 2?tidlheSv"? h^cow varianee approval in the 0-75' zone «as It I’ “"'«as limited to 5,777 s.f. (31.7?4). The additional "O* 'i8“r«l into the hardcover w ithin that zone,"'ll Ihcrefore, perResolmion «6I0(5.777 75- IM- IL *•'• '<"*1 li»«lcover »» approved in the attoii ” 36??at::::]::d"■” ■" I!bttorS™y‘“'’ • 22-x 25- 2-stall attached garage on LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET ......................................................................... Lot ArcaAVidih; LR Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560s.f. n.Oacre)140’ Actual 30.556 s.f. (0.70 acre)^01.24 ’ Setbacks! LK Required Eiisting Proposed Lake 75’80'No change Rear 30’28’No change UftSide 10’15.8’No change Right Side 10’15’No change Average Lakeshore 80’80’No change , •02 2930 Augtrtt 14 2003 PaS«3o»6 Strattiirtt Cwwngc! Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 30,556 s.f (0.7 acre)Allowed: 4583 s.f (15 “.i) Proposed; 3849s f (12 5%) Hardcover Calculation*; Hardcover Zone 0-75 75-250 250 - 500 Total Area In Zone 7684 s.f. 17.756 s.f. 51l6s.r Allowed Hardcover Osf (0*/b) 4439 s.f. (25%) 1534 8 s.f. (30%)___ Eilsting Hardcover 378 s.f (4.91 %) 64 s f • (0.8%) 7422 s.f (41.7%) Including landscape; 10,753 s.f (60.5%) 264 s.f (5 %) Proposed Hardcover 378 s.f (4.91 %) Staff Recommends: 64 s f (08«/i)_________ 7422 s f• (41 7^i) Including landscape: 10.753 s.f (60.5%) Staff Recommends 6979 s.f (39%)__________ 26 1 s f (5%) * After c.xclusion of fabric or pia.stic*lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance llie applicant is requesting a variance to chance from non-structural hardcover to structural !»ardci'\cr. The property currently has hardcover in the 0-75 ’ 7 nc (4.91%). where onlv 0.2*» hardcover was allowed in the previous variance approval, and is therefore over on hardcover aniouns i*' the 75 ’*250 ’ zone by 2.983 s.f, not including the 3.331 s f of landscape underlain with plastic ond'or fabric A hardcover variance was approved in 1995 to allow 7.295 s.f harticover within the 75 ’-250 ‘ zone. Since that time 314 s.f of hardcover was added to the 0-75' zone and 3,458 of hardcover has been added to the 75 ‘-250' zone. Those additions take into account the return of landscape fabric and'or plastic, decks, additional square footage added to home (bump-out on new ad.Iition) and the addition of pavers. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony reg^ing the application. •02W30 Augutl 14. 2003 Page 4 of 6 Hardship Anahifa in comUtfing npplIcnHont/or variance, the Manning Conuntsslon shall consider the effect of the proposed the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic condittons. light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safely, and the effect vn values of enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual aalons win be In keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that while the proposed garage addition will not increase the hardcover on the proiwty, the sir.ictural coverage will increase and the nature of the har Jeover uill change. In addition there is 378 s.f. of hardcover within the 0-75’ /one where hardco\er is nontially not allowed. 1 he hardcover within the 0-75’ zone consists of landscaping and a portion of paved patio, stairs and landing for the 2"^ story deck. Additionallv. a fence along the east property line that extends into the 0-75’ /one where a fence is nor^allv not allowed There IS no hardship to allow this 378 s.f of hardcover to remain. ^dilionally, the hardcover in the 75’-250’ zone has been increased since the 1995 approval, ^e increases are due to fabric and/or plastic being re-installed mder the landscape beds, and the addition of deck, pavers and walkways. There is n «hardship to allow the additional 3,774 s.f to remain. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship pertinent to this application: 1. "^c pro^-rty in question cannot be pul to a reasonable use if u.sed under conditic . allowed by t!ie ofticial controls.” In the opinio,, of stuff this criterion is not met. 2. -The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his propertv not created by the landowner.” » t . 3. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is not met. -The variance, if granted, wif not alter the essential character of the locality * In the opinion of steff this criterion is met L •02-2930 Augutl 14 2C03 PageSofe "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 define^! in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, Nvhen in harmony with this Chapter." m "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 /one where the affected person’s 1^ is located."m 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." S/A "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met "The granting of the application is ncccssar>' for the presen ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met II."The granting of the proposed variance w ill not in any way Impair health, safely, 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. "The granting of such variance will not merely ser\c as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessar)- to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the cxi.sting non-conforming fence within the 0-75’ zone be removed? 2. Docs the Planning Commission agree that the property should be restored to the levels prcx iously approved in 1995? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? .i- mm •02-2930 August 14.2003 Scair RccoBUBcadatioa Ptanni^ DepMtment SufT recommends an approval of the hardcover variances per the following: I. The fabric aad/or plastic aader fauidscapiag beds be removed as well as additioaal bai^cover added since Ibe IW5 variance approval which results in a ^ is 378 s.f. of hardcover within the 0*75 nne where hardcover is normally not allowed. Hardcover in this zone consists of landscaping and a portion of paved patio, stairs and landing for the 2nd slor> deck. iir*****" *®“* *** removed to bring the total hardcover I* tone to 6,979 s.f. (39%). Plastic and/or fabric has been added to the land^mg beds since the 1995 variance where the fabric and'or plastic was required to be removed. Additionally, since that lime paver walkwa>a. deck and home bump- outs have been added causing the hardcover to increase be>ond the 1995 approv ed levels This 3,774 s.f. to be removed should include 3,331 s.f of plasUc andW fabric from landscye beds and 443 s.f. of deck, pavers and etc. t s- gX+W&ir/r CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stnicturcs $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) AppUcatton #__02*2330 Date Received Amount Paid 2.50. OO PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 2775 Profcrty Identification Number (P.I.D.) • UT->2^ ^2M-aocA Attach Icr al description to application if not included on required sim cv. Dale Pry^ Acquired _____.^gs»T 2^1______________' I (do) (^S^TOjpalso own the adjacent parcels of land. _(monlh>rar) Present use of propcrt>*: Zoning District; ’^residential _othcr (specify)_ AP. LICAKT^ .. Phone (home) 4 Phone (work) Address: tft3lZ ti Cit^•:Zip: 5339/ OWNER (if different than applicant) |lAa.rr*t<fi Name ^ LrCtU. Address: ’imS' /gfvqn City:, Phone (home ) %Tz - V?/• Phone (work)^__ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: ATTa^^ Zip: ,5303 i (attach aJdiiional sheets if necessary) VARL4NCES REQUIRED __ Lot Area ____ Lot Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify)___________________ X Hardcover __Rear _Lot Coverage ___ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTi' CONDITIONS Describe undue hwdship or pruticel difHcnlty or unususl property* condiuons preventing comphance with Zomng Code requirements: /fee ^ __________ (anach additional sheets if necessary) biiii.1 required SWBlvinTALS appHratin^adllne daf# In Completed Application Fomi obtain this SbdTMTmap (yo“ must Govt Center, 348-5910) ««mepm County Department of Finance, A-603. -rufrnsinclude hardcover w reproducUon. 0) copy g.,r x ir for 5- J£f Sketches or pl«« of n«r 'T »«Pr«luclion. 6. _kr Lis. of Ute 4, n^fsZctuSw ^ ““ <’> * ' '"J- / propen>-. This would include namefsl of oml! ^ir I "■= 7. t\^ As an addendum to this appUcsUon^pLase anich “ r you wish notified of this appUcatiM*^ " ^ s'Parate list of any other persons 8. ^ AddiUonai items as may ho requested by City staff. c-./>/e.A The Applicant and Property Owner must siem n,:. ,• . Lfiiafifc appIlfMion Is not romnUtr If APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Administrator. »S«esV^y addhS^f4'(!ta'tn^^^^^ " >>>• 'h' Zoning consultant expenses incurred in review of this -nnii • ^ P^>’n’cnO and 'or supplied is tme and correct to the best of his/her Iwowledge’ certifies that the infonnation Applicant ’s Signature Date _ OWNER'S SIGNATURE";•= irx“i; rrs“•—■■■ ar puiposcs of investigation and verificat ’ion of this ^ reasonable and Councilntemhersforputpo^^ofiUV^^^^^^^^^^^ Oa.er's Signamre Date (^^U. e,, hfeeting. Planlung' ContTsshn Mee^n^'^'L" held ” '’ih^ Applicants must be present at all sehedulS review meTtl ^'“"'**7 ®f «'>'Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a soi'.~i..i.a ’"S« of the Planning Commission and have an authorized agent attend in your nlace and '"S. please make arrangements to change prior to the meering. ^ Building & Zoning Office of this _(7 ^ 1^°^.d). o r, rr t;^' x V i Phone 952.449.944S Strek ASSOCIATES. I.\C Description of Request 7-22-03 I •4s M Za VIs -1ii i To whom it may Concern; We arc requesting a variance for the property at 2775 Shadywood Road, for the enclosed a .hilectural plans. Respectfully Submitted by; /i^L. Jeff Ripley #2930 J AitdUMctml Or«(fii Ciute« Homm • *♦ fUnoraden I herrty cerlify Ihol this survey wos prepored under my supervision ono thol I om Q duly Licensed Lend Surveyor under ihe lows of the Stole of Minnesoto. J CONCRETE SURFACE Originol signolure: July 18. 2003. Dele of survey; July 17. 2003. Ooniel G. Nickols Minnesoto License No. 19839 NOTES; SCALE • OENOTt rou^ 1. The orientotion of this beoring system is bosed on the norlheosterly i.ne of Troct G which is ossumed to hove o beoring of South 70 degrees 02 minutes 23 seconds Eost. 2. No title work wos furnished for the preporolion of this survey to verify the existence of ony eosemenls or encumbronces y> 3. The totd oreo of the property described hereon is 30.556 squore feet or 0.7015 ocres. ^.0 EXCEPTION _northeasterly uneOf TRACT c • -Jat ; • i/4"=i'-a exHiBfT L>\ -• •, - , • r X ' /V* •. a K’. . + North I Partial + EastE .4W ^y\ i-1”?.,*: t;i •• V* ^.* . V > ’ \ r » *V ;2775 5n ./-OR. • % ■*; • ■'.' AiroA 4-•< c*<i c±±rr y i $! ELEVATION 6"cH(&rr D2- HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SCTIACXZONE: (OIICLCaNE) 75-250*250-500* 500-)M0* Exisrmc HARPCOVKR m TONE A. H oum _____________ B. Q«nft C Drivtway O. SidcwaTk CMWCA) E PaUoODtdc F. LandK«p« Uadcrlala ByPiMtk O. OtficriwALi,} TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 31B ________ A _____________ PROPOSED HAUnCOVER IN ZONE A Hous* ______________ B. Canft C DHvciwf D. Sidewalk E Patie.’Dcck F. Lafticeape Underlain fiyPlaitic ~7«>S*4 xlOO xIOO 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A B xIOO •7^4 A. 9 1 V.VTTt£ liiiiikL...^_________ S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. ,S.F. SF. SF. S.F. A S F. B S.F. S.F. SF. SF. S.F SF. S.F. SF. SF. SJ. SF. SE S.F. A S.F. B % I RARDCX>VER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SrriACKZOtiZ: (CmCtXONE) E3tHl^rr 2SO<SOO' S0&-IOOO* EXfSnWC IfARDCOVTJt IW tOME A Houw ____t,5“79 B. Garage C Driveway 0. Sidewalk f l.iU40IN6 E. PSKMMi F. Landscape Dbdcrlaia By Plastic C. Odicr CPAvek; TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A I0.U3 A nnsi^xioo xioo PROPOSED HARBCOVER IN TOST A. House LrnaUi W.*h B. Cange C Driveway D. Sidewalis E PMio/Dcdc F. Lin:£seipe L'nderlaifl By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A xlQO ,S.F. S.F. S.F. 5,-7S3 .ST. SF. .ST. ST. ST. S.F. S«S3I .ST S.F. SF. see I0,-T33 .0 ST. A ___________^ST. B __?44*0.3 S.F. SF. ST. S.F. !st. .S.F. S.F. SF. ST. .ST. ST. S.F. S.F. A .S.F. B S vcV. U*TR£ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S* 75*250'^50-S00!)£00-1000' A House CHARI WMii B. Ooroge C. Drfvcw^ D. Sidewttk E HMDtdt F. LvtdKip* Uetferiala ByFloade G. Oiber TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A EUH_______ A _______ * B ♦ B Sitl0 XIOQ xiOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House WiC.1 B. Garage C Driveway D. SFdewalk E PeUo/Dedc F. LaAdscape Un^aia By Plastic C. OdMT TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZOhT A _ _ _ _- B xlOO hnio S.lkf L 1> »ck. Li-mA S.F.sr. S.F. S.F. "S.F. S.F. SJ. S.F. .S,F. S.F. SJ. S.F. SI. A S F. B U S.F. SF. SF. SI, SI. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A S-F. B •/. *‘.v r PROPERTY OWNERS LIST .ticAt MCt:l M 2lll723IMn3 PIIOPADOR 2m SHAOYWOOOIID OWNOINAME RSEVERMSOIVEFSEVEIUNSON TAXPAYER KOWETII* EILEEN FSEVEUNSON NAMIYAOOR MOSliAOYWOOORD EXCELSIORMN SS3JI II 2III72J2400«0 PMPADOR 21MSNAOYWOOORD OWWERNAMB CSUNOLEYAJOLMOtEY TAXPAVa CSLMOLEYRJDLNXXY NAMEMDM mO SHAOYWOOO RD EXCELHORMN SSUI M 2III7212400S9 raOPAOOR 2771 SHAiTYWOOORO OWNERNAME RORMJOOLB TAXPAYER RICHARD G A MARLYSJ OGLE NAME/AOC« 277IIHAOYWOOORD EXCELSIOR MW 5S331 M 2iiini24om PROPAOOR 2773 SHAOYWOODRO OWNERNAME RLLfTTLEADALnTLE TAXPAYER RXrHARO L LTITU: NAME/AOOR 2775SIIADYWOODRD EXCELSIOR MN S333I r«or ADOR » 2III72224001S 3» ADDRESS UNASSICNEO OWNERNAME SRAPAOECK TAXPAYER SI EVEN R A PLGGY A DECK NAM E/ADDR 27’lS SI lADYWOOD RD EXCELSIOR MN 55J3I M 2III72J24004I PROPAOOR 2710 SIIADYWOOORD OWNERNAME WRWITTMaASKWITTMER TAXPAYER WRWrrmERASKWnTMER NAMDADOR 2710 SIIADYWOOORD EXCELSIOR MN SS33I 31 2III72324O0S4 PROP ADOR 27SS SliAOYWOOO RO OWNERNAME TI CASEY A S D CASEY TAXPAYER THOMAS J CASEY NAME/ADOR 27 <3 SHADY WOOD RO EXCELSIOR MN 33331 •• •• CO 0:1e<! 31 2111723240060 PROP ADOR 2763 SHAOYWOOD RD OWNERNAME TMRANDOAAROMIOARRETTTR TAXPAYER THOMAS M RANOGAARO NAME/AOOR 1710 KENWOOD PKWY MINNEAPOLBMN 33403 31 2111723310002 IROP ADOR 2793 SHAOYWOOD RO OWNERNAME SRAPAOECK TAXPAYER STLVtNRAPCOCYADECK NAME/ADOR 2793 Si 'AOYWDOO RO EXCELSIORMN 33131 I CERTIFY THATTIE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON TI IE RECORDS OFTHE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OFMY KNOWLEDGE AND DCUEF. DATE /- 5 by WENT. TO THE BEST vz ■ W«.W.f4Ct I TRi^MgA'^<■■ II mill irMrtiriti ••• f . ‘s: 4^v>- v:■•-'■••-Hennepin County.. - •^-Ttapw Depe«^^^ J(. 7 Q O Pmi^ infdmation Parcel ID 211■b7?A^40009 Hoiisa Number 27 f9 •V;’H •tanMC Nam* 8HAOVWOOO RO TMi Imore epeir >eoordW«epL e^ledMi Ave O^. Ceune> enra Hmpmmnu • rtwyiAeion cflntanmtohi.^ f iota rn0tofm»9nd atm touffml ©tHiBiT ft- m ■ *1 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL "HAS BKH mOFILMED A RB80L0TI0N GRANTIIIG A VARIAMCB TO mmiCIPAL SONIIIG CODE 8BCTI0ES 10.22, 80B0IVI81ON 1 t 2 AND 10.55, 80BDIV18IOM 8 FILE flOSO is «ih» Pleischhacker (hereinafter "the applicant") thor^Sf ^ ^ ^ except the Northeasterly 7 feet Titl^R Z"** Survey No. 358, Piles of Registrar of and^ ' ” County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); WHEREA8, the applicant has applied to the Citv for » aSdHec^io^n To"Vs Subdivision^! and 2 SJairwav withlS fhl n Permit the construction of a h^dcotL 0 ^«’'«®^»o^e^yard, constituting structure and is noraallt a AowJd ^ structure and hardcover18 noraally allowed, and to permit construction of a dec)c in the 75- ““.shore «tb.*ck ,*o *?"' herdcovrr In the 75-2sVallowed. ‘'‘back zone in excess of the 25% hardcover normally Minnesota;WOW, TBBRBFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, PIMDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning Pile 11060. h;.lJe"n\l"a?"2rii:,^Si.\?lVtr Aiou^t® Commission reviewed this application on t!l??.*nc.V. “«ndfnV“thrt.“' -PP-val of L 2ilck.K hardship la thatithere la no 2lthou! n O..J li’’* J*?'*' **'• “PP** ot the house rich^n ’*'• •thirway propeaad provldea Sictu« JindJla blocking tha vlewa frea axlatlng '.i: F«m 1 of 4 I City off OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2115 iTs IW «B m MKMFHMn B) The concrete patio existing under the deck and stairway area Is proposed to be removed except for a walkway* The applicant proposes to use very narrow spacing between the deck boards for safety purposes. The deck and stairway are at a second-story level. The deck and stairway should be considered as hardcover. deck and stairway will be partially screened from the lake by existing shrubbery. reviewed the application on November 10, 1986 and tabled the application requesting applicant to reduce the extent of variances needed. ?• submitted the proposal attached as 1 xhibit A to this resolution. The Council finds that the variances requ®sted in order to construct the deck and stairway per Exhibit A are justified per the findings of the Planning Commission as noted herein. Council has considered this application including the findings and recoumenuations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect oi the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 7. 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 soning 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 aplicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the /.onii.g Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 to permit the n ® ^®®^ stairway constituting 0.16% hardcover in lakeshore setback zone, constituting 37.6% hardcover in the 75-250 lakeshore setback zone, constituting a 3* structural encroach- ment into the 0-75' lakeshore setback requirement, subject to the following conditional Page 2 of 4 City of OROIVO .;<= : u U:.^ ^i‘i..;2 Mb resolution OFTHEC.TVCO|j|J^gpH^JQ NO.2115 —ixinium A X XowGd hdirdcovf*^ r\« *follows* naracover on th« property shall be as 0-75* Setback Zone: 12 s.f. (0.16%) (consisting of deck and stairway) 75-250* Setback Zone: 6.177 s f M7 consisting of the following, 2,080 s.f. 120 s.f. 2.797 s.f. 758 s.f. 422 s.f. House Sidewalk Blacktop Driveway Rock Beds w/Plastic Deck and Stairway 6,177 s.f. an ln?rVa^se^of*ha^rdc*over^tlU^^ resulting inapproved only with connnv«-An«.^ approved, and might bei. i:. ;.*? f”"".;'.';; :: not wiVlf thVVppllMnt,*’bu\'’^a\e*M^ T“"exercised by application for a only and must be tho d.t. of cIjnciraMrovai th«t date (Fobruary s/isss). ’ variance vill expire on conditions of\his °variance°shal ViV* «nd zoning code, shall auto»«1n!^, “ violation of the herein, and shall be punishable L V"i8*d‘e*e*an«?'''’°''“'' agrees \o"t1>VUrms’*of'’thVs'^resolttion*frd“"'’*if*x*°w‘' herebyhis heirs, successors and asi^lo^ w-k * ‘’“•'•If of himself, of this resolution in the chaiS of «"lt^*/"hVprop«ty?""^‘"’ L i?*.' H- ' City of OROrVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL . :a tifU-mmmuNO. 2115 STATE OP MINNESOTA ) ) 88. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On thl8 _ _ _ _ _ day of fibruCiru_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 19b7 before me a Notary Public within and for saiu county, personally appeared f (/./Tl- f^/eiscAhxct'fr^ AusIjOlucI ^ uJ/J^knovn to me to be the personTsT described in and who executed the foregoing instrument* and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY CO^LMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )S8. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) On this _ _ _ _day of _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _» 198 , before me a Notary Public within and for said County* personafly appeared _ _ _ _*_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ known to me to be the person (s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument* and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC NY COMMISSION EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 • *» f emiBrr r CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 BIO _____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIMSION 2 AND 10.56, SUBDIMSION 16 (L) niEi?2044 WHEREAS, George Olson and Bennie Olson (heieinafter "the applicants") arc owners of the property located at 2775 Shadywood Road within the Cit>* of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tracts E and F and G. except the northeasterly 7' thereof. Registered Land Survey No. 358, Files of the Registrar of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hcrciaafic: L'lc property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant have applied to tlic Cit}' for a vari.mce to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22. Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the constrnciion of a two stor' addition to the existing residence, such addition constituting hardcover in the 75-250’ lakcshore setback zone in c.xccss of the 25 fa hardcover nonnally allowed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2044. The property is located in the LR-IB, Single Family Lakcshore Residential 2toning District. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18. 1995 and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: Minnesota: 1. 2. Page 1 of 6 r GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. __Si ^ « O A. Existing hardcover in the 0-75’ zone is 306 s.f. or 4.1 fc. Existing hardcover in the 75*250’ zone is 8,011 s.f. or 44^. Applicants propose to remove all landscape beds lined with plastic or fabric on the property, resulting in 0*75* hardcover of 12 s.f. or 0.25e where no lurdcover is allowed, and 5,777 s.f. or 31.75i in the 75-250’ zone where only 25^ hardcover is normally ailoued. B. Planning Commission fmds that the removal of landscape bed hardcover is a significant reduction and brings the propeny closer to conformit} with the Cit> codes. C. The proposed addition meets ilie requi-ed side and lakcshorc setbacks and does not wiiwroach paai the average lakcshorc setback. D. Proposed lot coverage by structures will be 11.15c, significantly less thati the 15 % strucmral coverage allowed by the zoning code. E. An enclosed screen porch constructed ever the existing deck without a permit should be subject to an after-the-fact building permit and review of the construction by the inspection depanment to ensure code compliance. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, repons by Cit>- staff, comments by the applicants and the cficci of the proposed variance on the health, safet>' and welfare of the communin ’. The City Council finds that tlie conditions existing oti iliis propeny arc peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other propeny in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affcwt traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propeny; would not merely sers’c as a convenience to the applicants, but is ne.essarv* to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficult)-; is necessar)’ to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the Cit>*. Page 2 of 6 .•* CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 5 f> 1 0 1. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER ANT) CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of ihc above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grams a varianre to Municipal Zoning Cod: Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) to permit the construction of a two stor>* addition consiiiuimg additional hardcover in the 75-250’ zone in excess of the 25 So hardcover normally allowed, subject to the following conditions: Prior to fooling inspection for the addition, applicants shall remove landscape bed hardcover as shown on the sketch and li.st attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Hardcover in the 0-75’ zone shall be limited to 12 s.f. or 0.25e, and in the 75-250’ zone shall be limited to 5.770 s.f. or 31.751. Applicants are advised that any future proposals to add hardcover on the property will require a variance application and might be approved only in conjunction with removal of equivalent amounts of pre-e.xisting hardcover. The appUcant shall obtain an after-the-fact building permit for the screen porch, and a construction inspection shall be conducted by the inspection deparuncut. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date oi Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (October 9. 1996). 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 heus, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. 2. 3. 4. 5. Page 3 of 6 il GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 6 10 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9ih day of October. 1995. Edward J Lard J. C^^an.TrT, Mayor^ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged me on this 9th day of October. 1995. by Edward J. Callalian. Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor 6i City Clerk of the ClTYofOKONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. » 6 1 0 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of O lH ______. 199^ before me a Notar> ^Public within and for said county, personally appeared A/ruiJu! K- 5JLu;n _ /^;77y ^ ^ pu known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument.and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. LINDA S.VEE HOWWniBlC-UlNNESOtt HINNtPW COUNTY V/ CoiiiBiiUitnbP^J*^31.?000 NO>T^Y PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 _before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing insirument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 • •• o 2M2-30 A ‘f ■ IL I ‘i •»• ■ ^ *t ' ‘>^ '~ . ■ '*1 iV-^' • •■ ^." ■• ^)cHi2>tr J*! F^M LAi^ V. ^ . W; -------- ‘4 I- SiVx EJcwiferr J2. ptilM s L •0J-293J August II. 2003 Page 1019 Date Application Received: 7-13-03 Date Application Cootidered at Cumplete: t-I-03 60-Day Review Period Evpires: 9-J0-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Dale: Subject: Janice Waalaja, City Planner^ August 14,2003 <i03-2933, Gary Necc on behalf of Robert &. Brenda MacDonald. 2480 Old Beach Road • Conditional Use Permits. Variances • Public Ilearirg Zaaing District: l-ot Area: I.R - IB, One Family Lakeshore Residential District (1 acre min.) 2.356 acre (102,624 s.f.) Application Suimnary: Applicant requests the following to allow the construction a three car accessory buildiiig with attached entertainment and toilet rooms and to remodel the e.sisting guest .suite above the existing attached g^uage 1 . A conditional use pertnit to allow plunbing in an accessory building for the new detached garage'enlertainment nnim. 2. A conditional use permit to allow a non-renl.il guest apartment alxrve the existing attached garage. 3. A variance to allow a separate water meter for the new plumbing in the new detached garage/entertainment room and the new plumbing above the existing attached garage. 4. Hardcover variance to allow 35*o hardcover in the 75*250* zone to continue with the additional hardcover being added in the 250-500* zone.__________________________ Staff Recommendation: Stafl' recommendations; 1. Approval of the conditional use p>.miit to allow plumbing in an accessory building for a toili'i uHvm in the new detached ’’arage entertainment room 2. Approval of the conditional use permit to allow a non-rental guest apartment above the existing garage. 3. Approval of a variance to «llow a separate water meter Ivecausc the conditions of the e.xisting water services would require the house to be torn down to be able to add tlie proposed plumbing using the e.xisting ntetcr. 4. Approx al of a hardcover variance for the 75-250 ’ zone subsequent to hardcover removals which amount to the area of hardcover being added (either in the 250-500* zone or the 75-250* zone or a combination thereof). Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.20, S' bdivision 3.G.2: Non-Rental Guest Apartments Section 10.20, Subdivision 3.Q: Plumbing in Accessory Building WJ-29J3 A«|otl 11, 2003 P»fe 2 of 9 !n Land AUcraUon Regulations.Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (1): Hardcover Limitations. ListofEihibito A - Application B - Hardship Statements C - Sur\ey Depicting Existing Conditions D - Survey Depicting Proposed Improvements E - Propo^ Elevalwm Md Flror Plain for Dclachcd Oaragc/Entcrtainmcnl Room F - Elevations and Floor Plans for Improvements on Attached Garage G - Site Plan Showing Reductions in Hardcover H - Hardcover Calculations I - Potential Removals - Looped Driveway i “ Photographs K - Property Owners List L - Plat Map Background r,lL°i’n 'PnMracl an accessory garapc/cnlctlainmcnl room in the 250-500 zone, a conditional use permit to allow plumbing in an accessory butldtng. and a variance to the conditional use pem.il to allow separate utility meters for .ft nnsnm Earagc.ciiicnaini.icni room and the non-rentalgutst apartment above the existing garage. MT‘'k ■'dalctmined by staff that a conditional use peTOit would also^ required for the non-rental guest apartment above the existing Se^^^rSles ' “P'ovcmcnis include separate bathroom and Funherreview revealed that the property is currently over In hardcoscr in the 75-250- hv".L •’’'“of " • n * '<> 'h' 250-500- zone within the limits allowed by the Zoning Ordinance Because hardcover is being added to the property, the whole properly comes into play for hardcover review. y ^ J LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET...................................................................................... Lot ArcnAVidihi LR-IB Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (I acre)140 ’ Actual 102,624 s.f. (2.356 acres)190' (shoreline) 210* (75 ’ setback) Setlmcks! LR-IB Front Left Side Right Side Required 35* Existing i62’ (house) 12 r (detached garage) 60’ (pool) 59.5 ’ 46.7’ (house) 8.4 ’ (detached garjge) •03-29M AucuO 11,2003 Page 3 of9 Proposed 162’(house) 109‘ (proposed garage) 60’ (pool) 59.5 ’ 46.7 (house) 15’ (garage) Lakeshore 75 ’132’132* Average Lakeshore 132’ Structural Coveniee; This lot is not subject to the 15^o structural coverage requitements because it is in excess t fl.99acres. Hardcover Calculations; Ilanlcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 26.023 s f.Os.f (0«'o) 0 s r*os.r. (0?o) 75 - 250 38.982 s.f.9.74^5 s f (25%) 13.255 s.f (34%) 13.255 s.f. ( 34%) 250-500 37,619 s.f.1 1,285.7 s.f. (30%) 9,439 s.f (25Vo) IU.301 s.f. ( 27.4%) * After e.\clusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Conditional Use Permits The applicants are proposing to construct a detached three car garage with an attached entertainment room. Toilet rooms are proposed for this structure This requires a conditional use permit for plumbing in an accessory building so it can be re\ iewcJ against the following conditions listed in the Zoning Ordinance: 1. The Council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with plumbing will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. r «0)-29JJ Auguil II. 200J Pafc4or9rage 4 of The primary use of the plumbing and entertainment facility u ill be in conjunction with u^e of the pool The characteristics of the neighborhood will not change by allowing plumbing in the applicant's proposed garage ft ntertainment room because many of the homes on Old Beach Road currently ha\e pools 2- The Council finds that ihe plumbing fixtures proposed arc in keeping with the intended use of the accessors building. The only fixtures proposed are toilet rooms to he used in conjunction with the pool. One of the intended uses of plumbing in an accessory building is for pool houses which is what the applicant s arc essentially proposing 3. The proi>erty is 2 0 acres in area or larger. The applicant ‘s property is 23^6 acres, in excess of Zoning O-dinancc requirements 4. The accessor) building is conforming in location, si/c and height. The acces.sory building sx ill conform to ail location, sire and height requirements The acce.ssory building will be .setback 13 from the side property line and 107' pvm the rear/slreet side when lO'feei iv rt,^ l . " ...........•.............* /.> jrom me siaeproperts line ar from the rear/street .side u hen 10 feet is ra/utred The building xrUt he appro.ximately 990 sf in sire, w ell w>diin the 1.200 s f maximum, and the building will be approximately 1 7' in height 5. The proixTty ovvnei agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the propertv providing that: * a. Tie accessory building will not be used for a home occupation unless specifically approxed by the City or if all nxed by City Code. b. 1 he acce.ssory building will not be used as a dwelling unless a guest house CUP is obtained. c. The accessory building will not be rented, leaded or otherss ise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. The applicant has indicated that they sx iU not use the building for a home occup.ition or guest house and that it will not be rented, leased or othersx ise used as a dwelling but merely for use in conjunction with the pool The proposal meets all of the above requirements; therefore staff is recommending approval of a conditional use peimit to allow plumbing in the proposed detached garage'entertainmrnt room. The applicant is al^ proposing to remodel the e.\isting guest suite above the existing attached garage. This incli des adding a toilet room, closets, and kitchen facilities. Th.s also requires a conditional use permit for a non-rental guest apartment due to its abil»r. to be used as a full time apartment. The Zoning Ordinance requires the following i »»03.293J Aueuti 11.2003 Pace 5 of9 conditions to be met: 1. The apartment is for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or non-paying guests. The applicant has indicated that only family and non-pay inn guests i. ill use the apartment during overnight or extended stays 2. Tlicre is one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure and such door shall be the primary access to the apartment. The primary and only access door to the apartment is though the mudroom of the primary residence Direct access cannot he gained through the outside of the home 3. Con. .-rns of parking, sewage treatment, entr)^^^)-. and interior access methods shall all be disclosed. As shown on the sursey. 5,250 sf of driveway exists in the 75-250 * :one and SJT" sf of driveway exists in the 230-500'zone, therefore providimi adeijuare parking for the non-rental apartment The applicants have spoken f."» City staff and have addressed 3t*u age treatment for the non-rental apartment l/owcser. city staff directed the applicants to provide the utilities for the apartment t. ahout going outside the boundaries of the property lines The only feasible wav to do this is by having separate meters, contrary to what the Ordinance normallv requires This issue will be discussed in the Variance sectinr. of the report. The entryway has been disclosed and dt.\eussed above and rneei^ the CL P requirements. 4. Such apartment shall not have utilities metered separately from the principal residence utilities and shall not have a separate street address. The applicants are requesting a variance to this condition per City staff direction This uill be discussed in the Variame .\eetion of this report The applicants meet ail conditions set forth by the Ordinance for non-rental apartments, with the exception of the variance needed for ^4 which staff will recommend approval for. fherefi re. staff i: recommending approval of this conditional use permit to allow a non-rental guc.^i apartment to be constructed above the existing attached garage. Water Meter Variance In conjunction with the above mentioned conditional use permits, a variance is required because one of the conditions listed under the CUP in the Zoning Ordinance camiot be met. I he Ordinance requires that utilities for non-rental guest apartments not be metered separaicl) which is whal the applicant is proposing. However, city staff directed the applicants to design the utilities where they would be contained within the property •OJ-2933 Auguft 11,2003 Page 6 of 0 boundaries. To do ibis, without tewing the entire hou>c down, a separate meter must be installed. The intent of this condition is to not have a separate address paving for the separate meter. The applicants have indicated they will not he using the apartment as a means for income but rather for convenience for their guests and therefore meet the inient of the condition set forth in the conditional use permit uquirements Hardcover Variance The applicants arc proposing a larger acvcssory building thai» the two car garage that currently exists. 1 hcrefore, hardc<j»cr is ultimately being added to the properly. The new building will be located in the .750-500* /one and w ill meet the 30% hardcover for this zone. I lowever. the 75-250* /one is currently over on hardcover and because additional hardcover is being added to he property, this extra hardcover is up for discussion. All work is being conducted in the 250-500* /one. I he applicants are adding a larger garage and a new patio connecting the pv>ol and entertainment room. In addition, they arc proposing a net loss in driveway (combinaticn of new pavement in the 2^0-''00* zone and reducing pavement in the 75-250* zone by 239 s f) 1 his brings the total added hardcovt- ilie 250-500* zone to 860 s.f. Potential removals at a I :I ratio of added hardcover would be consistent with what has been approved previously. 1 his would amount to a reduction of 860 s.f. hardcover within cither the 75-250* or 250-500* zones or combination t*'ereof Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in l-xhibit B. .and should be asked f.r additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Anaivsis /« conuJ^rinj: «w/. ar/..«s/.»r . arian^e. the Ptanninft Commiuhn shall contU,-r thf <fjM of the proposed variance upon the heaUh. safety and welfare of the conununlti-, eilstlng and anticipated traffic conditions, li,;ht and air, dinger of fire, risk to the public safety, end the effect on values of property In the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variancesfrom t',e literal pros Mans 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 u ill be In keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Staff finds that a hardship exists to all w a \ .iri.mce for the separate water meter. Further, the City advised the applicants that they needed to keep utilities within the property boundaries creating their hardship. Therefore, because thev applicants vvill not be billing the water meters separately and confonn to all other conditions of the CUP. staff recommends approval of this variance request. Staff does not find a hardship that w ould constitute adding hardcover to a property that is currently over. Staff would favor a -trading** of hardcover from zone to zone where the net hardcover would not Increase, however the applicants have not agreed to do this Hardcover is over ir the 75-250* zone by 9«/i which amounts to 1.193 s.f. Hardcover in An«l H.2OT3 the 250*500* zone is under by 2.6% or 268 s.f. iryou "trade** the square footage of hardcover that is under to the square footage that is over you still get a net overage of 925 s.f These numbers include the 860 s.f of hardcover proposed with the new building (refer to Exhibit G and I for clarification). The Planning Commission should discuss whether the applicant should be required to remove amounts of hardcover equal to what is being proposed, 860 s.f. or if the applicant siiould remove the amount of hardcover that would [k necessar>’ for the property to be in compliance, 925 s.f. (assuming trading from the 75-250 ’ and 250-500 ’ zones is allowed). 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 could exist in the manner it exists today If the variances uere denied ”The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." In regards to the variance for the water meter, the circumstance is unique to the property Staff directed them to keep utilities w ithin the property boundaries, and due to design constraints, a separate water meter is the only option. In regards to hardcover, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances of which were created by the landowner. The property is large enough in area to be held to the hardcover requirements: how ever, improvements have been made to the property causing an overage of hardcover. •The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Should a variance to allow the separate w ater meter be approved, the essential character of the locality will not change because the apartment would be non- rental and not occupied as septu ate living quarters Hardcover variances will alter the essential character of the neighborhood because these are hoge houses on large lots One‘s hardcover is limited by the size of your lot. A 2.336 acre lot is adequate area to accommodate reasonable amounts of hardcover. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Kot applicable 8. MJ-293J Augnti II. 2003 fage I of 9 Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy s>-stcms. 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." Not applicable The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a vanance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the /one where the affected person's land is located.* The taes proposed are allowed tises in the LR~ IB zoning district “The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a twx>-family dwelling." Not applicable “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The circumstance which requires a separate water meter is peculiar to the property. The design of the utilitUs would require the house to be torn down to maintain one meter. There are not special conditions applying to the land nr structures that are I^culiar to such property or immediately joining property’ AH lots on Old Beach Road are large lots which accommodate large homes There has to be a hardcover limit at some point or another. •^ conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the disuict in Winch said land is located." The water meter variance is unique in and of itself All of the lots on Old Beach Rondure reasonably sized to accommodate reasonable amounts of hardcover gnuiting of the application is necessary for the prescr\'ation and enjoyment o! a substantial property right of the applicant." The Ordinance allows pliunbing in accessory buildings and non-rental apartments and therefore the applicants should be able to utilize these uses The variance for the separate water meter is necessary for the applicants to use their property’ in a manner allowed by ordinance. t r AuguM 11.200J Page 9 of9 The overage of hardcover goes beyond a suhstanliat right 11. "The granting of the proposed variance v%ill not in any way impair health, safely, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code- Granting a variance for the separate uater meter yvili stay»»ithin the intent of the Zoning Code Consistently when hardcover is being proposed on a lot that is over, all add to remove ratio has been enforced Should this not be enforced the intent of the Code would not be 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 difllculty." The variance to allow a separate water meter is necessary to alleviate the hardship which would otherwise require the house to be torn down. Allowing hardcover beyond a 1:1 trade would serve as a convenience to the applicant because no hardship has been presented, other than economic reasons which are not valid. Itsurs for Consideration 1. B.cause hardcover is only being added to the 250-500 ’ /one and within the limits allowed by Zoning Ordinance, should the 75-250 ’ zone be subject to removals? 2. Have the applicants demonstrated a valid hardship to not require a 1:1 removal for added hardcov er? 3. Sho-.Id the applicant be required to remove hardcover equal t-i what is being proposed, 860 s.r, or should the appl icant be required to remove amounts of hardcov er necessary to bring the property into compliance. 925 s.f? 3. Is the Intent of the hardcov er ordinances to not only regulate hardcov er in specified zones, but also on the property as a whole? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccunmcailatioa Approv al of both conditional use permits to allow a non-rental guest apartment above the existing attached garage and plumbing in the proposed accessory building. Approval of a Variance to allow the utilities for the non-rental guest apartment and the plumbing in the accessory building to be metered separately. Approval to allow hardcover to be added to the property, which doesn’t meet hardcover requirements of the 75-250 ’ zone, subject to equal amounts of remov al cither in the 75- 250 ’ zone or 250-500 ’ zone, or a combination thereof This would consist of 860 s.f removal of hardcover. EXttieiTA AppltaiMoo * _02:^a333 Date Received^ “7-3^ 3-^3 Amount Paid fv. OQ CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION.^ Site Address 6>lA Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ ^ ^ y PLICANT^ ^ ^ A ; j-/’ ^ P*>one (homrt '^7- /y/J. Nam e Is>/\KY N ________ Phone (»-orU 'yL'K- SJT 7^ ^3 ->^ AMtus/y/^S t34» A>^ A> City fiiYjnoi/.T// Zip OW’NER , - Phone (horned ^c^C?> Vy/- ^ Nam e /dO/^%.l^OAtslJr Phone (work)__________________ Addre.s:aVJO e>LA ig<r^e-j^ciiv~ O^Aeua Zip ."<-39/ /??AAc^ ~ J99S- ?Date Property Acquired__ 1 (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS (monlh/ycar) S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application 5250.00 Residential Accessory Use 5250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ^250.00 (juest House/Guest Apartments 5250.00 Duple.x Credit/Bldg $325.00 Commercial/lnduslrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. ycL or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75* of lakcshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Aftcr-i'..e-Facl Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ______$300.00 Vacation . • ______$250.00 Easement Vacation ______$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ______$100.00 Appeals » * ______Other - see Fee Schedule C* ^ ^ n i?W \ Vc- J required submittals *• Completed ApplicaU'on Fonn r* —^ ■ Describe request in detail 3* ■/ -__A_. rcqucsi in Cetail - A-603. Government Center! mImT i ......'"““"‘y *>^"«nient of Finaiice. ■ * “'«>»«<• .-e>or) . refer to h„dout for .ort ey ~ =SS“:r-“ '" “•• »• fiCA. «,.,d<|en<lum lo thisTnni„? „!“''“'“''^'"“)- P«»nj you«ishnotinedofS!saiplicati2'n “' “ "P"“« °f *ny other CTIw™irTO”sM?LLrR*‘^'^ DOCU.MENTS OR COPY .pplicehon ^ntember that ,pur------------ „„ „ot been included. S“f c".el?^;i!?’ ^ Application is comp,etc. ---------------------------------- Date APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE AdmWst'S! IddSaffcJI (?uT,!mT suonf «'*«• of this J,oTe.r "T'' '■«supplied IS true and cotrect^e best of hisdier knwWge Applicants signature ^ i>tl -t -, ------^ ^ f iCg|^—•_ Date O 3 OWNER’S SIGNATURE ~ Sera'f "" “«^*^ihmts ?gemf ««onablemember, for purposes o^estigation and verineatbn of th,'. Council Budd.. * ^ V- 0:0 ^WtblAif wr.- ; mh- •■ C h CLJiJ I ^ ‘ ; T - ~ «S--------------- EXTCVOR sjEVATma A5.0 “ft ©^W^’AfiS, IN PROGRESS 7/23/03 m BULDWO aecToe A6.0 •tjc- .7^ -^-yu wm- .wi t' r" • Flan r<«/H5 of o^iffonoil KUr^covtr -JWttttv^ €«irt^- wmooc/ K «»q.nsF »Tvivtviwiy = iartAJt' ®f ribSF -P*oUP*H®- M«* <* 5^1 SP =~-^-----»' 8REPUN LAVOUr A1.0-REV HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET ISTBACKlONEi (CIRCLE ONE) O-TS* Tft4S«* ‘SOO-IGOO' EEttSBSlLRSlfi£fillRJDlljQSi£ A ItoMC B. C Quifi OiiviMgr E HiMDwk t. By riMic a oiMT TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property area in zone ^7^ “ B X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN’ 7nST A Hovm Wi4ih B. Om§« C Drivfiay D. Sidewalk E PaUo/Dcck Uadvtein By Plaaiic a OdMT TOTAL Hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONT X 100 'SZjSS L7. iL $F. SF SJ. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF SF S S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF SF SF. S.F. SF. SF S.F. S.F SJ. Ji HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET •mACXlONEt (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S*7S-1M*2SI-SOO’S00.1000* B. 0«w C Orivf«v E PMio^DKk By nMde a OtfHr ifAo! — A _ total hardcover w zone total property area in zone - B RROROSFP MAPlv*ftvgB ZON'K A Koum LnfA % 100 Witftli B. OMf* C Dtivtway D. SMn«lk E P«tio/D(ck F. Ludicipt Uadnlain ByPtasiic a Odm SF. SF. SF. SF _ S F. _ S F. — SJ. J22£i_sF. ___________SF. SF. SF. SF. :22c S f A _ SF B SF SF S.F SF. SF total hardcover in zone total property area in zone ------------------------------ B _ SF. SF SF. SF. SF SF. X 100 SF a SF B p HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 8ET1ACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 7S.2S0’ ISO-MO*SOO-IOOO* pgSTINC MAttnrnyFi^ A Houst _____________ B. 0«i*|t C Drivtivty D. Sldnolk E Patio^Dcck F. Undsctpc Uodcrtain By Plastic a Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ ♦ B JS/2.^X 100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE; A House B. Oatifo C Driveway D. SMemOc E Paiio/Deck F. LsndKspe UaderUin By Plutic a OdMT WMm TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - - -- - - - - B X 100 SF. S.F. S.F. SF. .ST. ST. .ST. ST. .ST. .ST. ST. .SF. ST. ST. SF. V. S.F. ST. SF. S.F. .SF. .ST. SF. .ST. ST. .ST. ST. SF. SF. ST. ST. _ _ _SF. r e>cAvs. ["^zo CCMCnSTE ITANINa WALLS BUSTMa DWvE(MsnrvT/tJa ■*ApRa,wws^y^ . . HAAotwKRAi'S ItUNUAIk P* '%} Jf 1111723210004 PROrAOM 200S MAFLEIIIOGEU OWNBtMAME CIISMoormiACASMOOT TAXPAVCR aCIUAA:ilAltUiSP SMOOT m MAMB/AOM 200SMAPLEMDCEU EXCBLSOHMN 33331 HENNEPIN COUNTY PPOP* PROPER IVO V INFORMA i.O.> JVoiLM AS LIS T PACE: I 30 21 1 1723220002 PROP AOOR 2420 OLD UEAOIRO OR-NERNAMC WAOROIIMANN TAXPAYER WAtTERAADETTYTROllMANN NAME/ADUR 3420 OLD DEAGI ROAD WAYZATAMN 33391 30 2111721220003 PROP ADOR 2440 OLD UEAGIKO OWNER NAME L A OAROCrTA A J K DAROCrTA TAXPAYER LAWRENG: AIIAROETTA NAME/AUOK 2440 OLD DEAGI RO WAYZAIAMN SS39I 30 2111723220004 fROPADOl 2400 OLD DI AGIRO OWNDlNAMe ROWRTWMAGXmALD TA3VAYBR ROBERT W MAOXWALD name /aoor 3400 old BEAGIRD WAYZATAMN 33391 30 2111723220003 PROP AOOR 2490 OLD DEAGI RD OWNERNAME RALUZAIGIA0 LLUZAIGI TAXPAYER RKntAROAAGAILLLUZAIGI NAME/ADOR 2490 OLD DEAGI PI WAYZATAMN 33391 30 21 I1723220000 PROP AOOR 2490 OLD DEAGI RD OWNERNAME G K CARLSON A D M CARLSON TAXPAYER GLRALOK A DUNE CARLSON NAME/AOOR 2490 OLD DEAGI RD WAYZATAMN 33391 30 2III723220009 PROP AOOR 2340 OLD BE/niRO OWNBRNAOOB DMSGINEtOERAMIILEAF TAXPAYER DMSGlTKtOCRAMIILEAF NAME/AOOR 2340 OLD DEAGI RO WAYZATAMN 35391 30 2111723230017 P'>(Of AOOR 2433 010 BEAGIRO OWNFRNAMB LLUNDQUBTAOLUNDQUBT TAXPAYER LARRY A DONNA MAE LUNOQUBT NAME/AOOR 3433 OLD DFACHRO WAYZATAMN 53391 30 21 I1723220030 PROP AOOR 2315 OLD DEAGI RO OWNER NAME ALBTAIR 0 JACQUES TAXPAYER NA04E/AOOR ALISTAIR 0 JACQUES 2303 OLD BEAGIRO WAYZATAMN 35391 30 2III7232200I0 PROP ADDR 2360 OLD DEAGI RO OWNERNAME JAMESRKREY TAXPAYER JAMES RKREY NAME/AOOR 2360 OLO DEAGI RO WAYZATAMN 53391 30 2111733220011 PROP AH' 2303 OLO DEAGI RO OWNER, »M0 KO SHERMAN A JOSIIERMAN TAXPAYER KJRKO/JACQUEUNBOSHERMAN NAME/AOOR 2305 OLO DEAGI RO WAYZATAMN 55391 30 21 1 172332001* PROP AOOR 2423 OLO DliAGI RO OWNFJLNAME ECWALGIERASCWALGinR TAXPAYFR ERICCWALGIER NAME/AINJK 3435 CLO DEAGI RO WAYZATAMN 33391 31 21 1 1723220019 PROP AOOR 2535 OLO DEAGI RO OWNERNAME TMAAACOOUTE TAXPAYER THOMASMAAIXIAACODUTE NAME/AOOR 3333 OLO DEACHRO WAYZATAMN 33391 I CERTIFY THATTHC FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OP tPFORMATON AS IT APPEARSTHIS DATEONTHE RECORDS OF THE HEPMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE BEST OFMY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEP. DATE 7-f6n0^ BY ■ ; • > :r-w 3 mm Hffii ii pin Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Departnrtiftl x j: ^ Parcel Information 10 2111723220004 House Niiiiib«r 2480 Stroot Name OLD BEACH BO l^nconMmap.ltnpn$»itt»a)ni)Mallonefki^____ »nd data from Oty, Countjf.tndStafnmSmjIhorIbnandolfmiourfM. 003^7935 August 14 7003 Pm lot3 I3i Date AffimiMi IUccivt4: Dale Ap^athM CoBsidcrcd M CoMplelr: 07.29-OJ «*-Da)r Rrvtow Perlatf Eapircs: Chair Smith and Planning Commissiun Members Ron Moorse. City Administraior Melanie Folh, City Planner jyil^ August 14.2003 401-2935, Scott & Kara Hutton. 1835 Shadywood Rd - Variance • Public hearing Z4Niiag l>blrkl: LR-IC, One Family l^kcshore Krsidrnlial, O.SAcrr UlArca: 0 55 acre (24.252 sf) Fram: Date: SnbJccC Appiicmtiem Smmmmry: Applicants request aRcr-thc-iact hardcover variances and an aftcr the-fact lakeshorc setback variance in order allow a 10* x 12* shed within the 0-75' zone and aOer-the-fact hardcover in excess of 25% within the 75 ’-250’ w>nc. Additionally, the applicants are requesting to add a staircase to their existing deck thus increasing the structural hardcover by 42 s.f. The variance includes: I Hardcover in the 75 ’-250* zone of 11.9 when is allowed and hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone at 1.7 % when (f 'm is allowed 2. Accessory structure within the 0-75 ’ setback where none arc allowed Staff Kecot iaiion: Staff rccomnicndations: ^ Denial of the aAer-the-fact variance to encroach into the 75 ’ lakeshorc setback. Approval of the aner-the-fact hardcover variance with the following stipulations: 1 Removal of all plastic or fabric landscape liner in planting beds. 2 Removal of all hardcover in the 0-75 ’ zone amounting to 1.7 %. 3. Removal of the shed in the 0-75 ’ zoinc. 4. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve 27% coverage (total allowed to remain 4.464 s.f.. Hardship' Staff does not find a viable hardship to allow the hardcover to exceed 27% in the 75 '.250 ’ zone Pcriiarni Zoning Ordinance Scctioni ^ 10.22.1(B) 75 ’ setback from the OWIIL for all structures 10.22.2 Hardcover Regulations UstoTEildbilt A - Application B - liardship Statement C - Existing Survey/Site Plan D - Photos E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F - Property Owners List 0 - Plat Map II - Memorandum from City Engineer 1 - Letter dated April 2003 from Building Official k •03 ?93S Augint 14 ?003 P««t?o(5 BackgrMad This properly is situated adjacent to wetland within Lake Minnetonka Although the property (kra’t have actual navigable lakeshorc. the property is within 75' of the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka, therefore requiring the 75' setback. In 2000 the applicaiMs applied for a building pemiit to constitjct an attached 2-stall garage and 2** story addition. At that time staff not^ that the property exceeded the 25% hardcover for the 75’-250 ’ zone from the OHWL. The applicants worked with staff and reduced the hardcover to that which is allowed by code, as a condition of the building permit issuance. In April 2003, it was noted that the driveway hardcover that was required to he removed had returned and a lO’xIi'kiieJ ^vas added to the properly approxinalely 35' from the OHWL (within the 0-75' zone). Lake Yard Setback Variance Ihe property is within 75’ if the OIIWL of Lake Minnetonka. However, the property docs not have actual lake frontage, rather it fronts a wetland. The applicants are requesting an after-the-fact variance for their 10* x 12' .shed to remain 35* from the OHWL within the 0-75* zone. Additionally. 14 s.f. of retaining wall exists within the 0- 75’ zone. The applicants are requesting 134 s.f of hardcover to remain where normally none is allowed Hardcover Variance Currently the property is over on hardcover in both the 0-75 ’. and 75’-250 ’ /ones • 0-75 ’ “ 1.7*/4 (134 s.O where none is allowed • 75’-250* » 3 1.9% (5272 s.f) where 25% is allowed The applicants arc proposing to further increase their hardcover by 42 s.f for a staircase addition to their existing deck, and arc requesting for the hardcover to remain over the maximum with a total of 5314 s.f within the 75’-250 ’ (32.2%). LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LnlArcaAVMth: LR-IC Lot Aren Ul Width Required 21.780 s.f (O S acre)100* Actual 24.252 s.f (0.55 acre)100' I lute •03 7939 AuquV 14 7003 PageSolft LR-IC Rcqpircd ExiitiM Proposed Lakeshore 75*35* No change Staff RecommenJatum ■ 75* North Side Y«d 10*10*No change StnKfrilO Total Lai Area Total Strwclttral Coverage 24,252 s.f. (0.55 acre)Allowed: 3,637.8 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,306 s.f. (9.5 % ) Hardcover Calcutotiom^ r Hardcover Zmm Total Area in Zone Alimved Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 1 i 134 s f 0 75 7726 s.f.Ost (0%) 134 s.f ( 1.7%) (1.7%) Stujf RecommendatHtn 0% 5314 s.f. 75 250 16526 sf 4131.5 s.f (25%) 5272 s r* (31.9%) (32 2%) Stuff Recommendtirion 4464 s f (27%) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds HardslUp SlalcaKat Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit D, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analyiis #a amsMffiMg fmr Modsarr. Ac McmMnrna effect of At pnpne4 Ae heam,%rnfetf m4 wHfte ef At K tr^gkcomitiomi^ U^ttmtlalr, iam§etoffkt. HA A At fmktkvaimtt af fta^tttfAAtimnammAmgmiea. Tht fUmmiat Ctmmhttam $kaH ramt Ute rteammt tnAat t^gravA fat tartameti fiaat At Aerai ftathiamt ef At lamimg Ca4t A Itutameti mkttt Atk itrict ttffaeetmtmt watM eaaat mm4at ItatAklf beeamtt ^dtaumtaaea mmigmt A At AAvAua! frapttt) mmtitr ea midtrwlAii. amiakaMrtcoamatiAa^^eaaatatHy wktm Mia AtmamtAaA^ Aat tuck aelAmwMkeAktapAg wtA AttftHtamd Attmtaf At Ora mal a mAg Cade. _____ t0}-?93!> A119M1 14 7003 *>•••4015 by Ihe Zoning Ordinance. With ihc addition in 2000 the af>plican(s were required to remove hardcover to remain writhin the allowed 25% in Ihc 75’*250’ zone. City stafT required 808 s.f. lo be removed in order to remain writhin the ap|>roved levels as part of Ihe building permit application. Upon final inspection for the addition project staff noted that Ihc hardMver required to be removed had been pul hack in The applicants put the driveway hardcover back as a result of flooding writhin their home and garage. During an August 12,2003 meeting with the City Engineer. Tom Kellogg, options were discussed with Ihc applicant regarding alternatives to {laving for drainage control. Kellogg’s letter is attached as Exhibit If. It was determined that construction of a vegetative swale would better convey the drainage from the drivew’ay to the rear of the home than Ihc existing hardcover Staff would make the following recommendations in regards lo Ihc cnicria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application: I."Ihc property in question cannot he put to a rCii.sonahlc use if used under conditions allowed by the ofTicial controls." tn the opinion of staff this entenon is not met "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not creat^ by the landowner." /n the opinion of staff this criterion is not met 3. 4. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of Ihc ItK'ality." hi the opinion of staff this criterion is met "EcoiKNnic considerations alone shall not constitute on undue liardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” The appUcants have not indicate J ecoruimic reasons for their request "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access lo direct sunlight for solar energy systems Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section I I6J.06. Subd. 2, when in harmony writh this Chapter.” N/A "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 " N/A 7. TheBoardorCouncilmay permit as a variance the lempoiary use ofa one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” N/A ] J •03?«3^ AugwU 14 no) Pag* Sol S “ I'hc special conditions applying lo the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoinmg property * The wetland nature of the .xhoreltne visually a 26' wetland \ethaek would apply, hut in fact thi% is lakeshore hy definition. \o the 75 ’ sethaek applies In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met "The conditions do not apply generally to other land nr structures in the district in which said land is located." The lakeshore setback and hardcover requirements apply to all lakeshore lots In the opinion of naff this criterion is not met "The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant" In the opinion of stiff this criterion is not met "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other rospect be contrary to the intent of the /aining Code " Structure and hardcowr within the 0- 75 ‘ zone is contrary to the intent of the ctuie In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met "The granting of such variance will not merely serve os a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary’ to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difllculty " There are reasonable options that m ould eliminate the need for variances In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met ItSMt for ConsidrralkHi I Should the OIIWI. setback be applied in this situation? Wetlands immediately lakcward of the 929.4 elevation aa* a characteristic typical of a adalively small portion of Orono’s Iudic Minnetonka shoreline. 2. Have the applicants provided any supportive information that justifies the variances? 3 Arc there any other issues or contems with this application'* .Staff Kecoameodalioo I Approval of the additional structural coverage to accommodate the deck staircase. 2. Removal of all plastic or fabric land.scape liner in planting beds. 3. Removal of all hardcover in tlic 0-75’ zone (1.7 % or 13 1 s.f. to be removed which includes the shed and retaining walls). 4. Removal of the shed in the 0-75’ zone. 5. Removal of additional hardcover to achieve the approved level of 4,464 s f. per prior approval. This coastitutes the drive«vay that was supposed lo be removed per the building permit approval r ^ ■ riTY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee S1$0.00 (no change from original application) Variance for rmn-confonniiig sliuctures S250.00 After>the*Fact Fees (DooMe application fee) AppUcatioa Date Received Ainonnt Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address SridrfuUlOtJflL Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) driuUlOOCL >er fl».I.D.) tt 7~QH poop• ^ ------------------------------ ■■ f- na.-i cm Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired_____m3i_______________________ I (do) (do not) also own the aiiya^ parcels of 1«mL Jmonth/year) Present use of property: y residential Zoning District:__________________ _other (specify). APPLICAOT II Name S(C(| ftfuV Address: OWNER (if diffemt than applicant) Name A/7.^ City. QinOiv) Phone (home) V?/- Phone (work ) (qs3) ^ 'u/f Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail, 0XOQ<^ -res. ^yij tjg * (attach additional sheeu if necessary) variances required ___Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front __Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage __ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDinONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing coi^liance with Zoning Code requirementt: S>gfcr ry (attach additioiul sheets if necessary) #2 r ) 3 1 . \* * I*.»:•; • *. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS Pf-Ac fellqwiiE iifoniiMioa rows! be iwbmHtcd bv the ■ppHcitlon deidtfag date in or«l#r for >our ■ppllcatioa lo be coniidcrcd gomplelg; I. 2 ____ Completed Application Fonn ^ CertiHed Propeily Owners Ust of owners within ISO*, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and m^) from Henoepin Co«aty Department of Finance, A-603 Govt Center. 348 5910). — Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy SVi" x 11" for 5 6. 8. jk reproduction. ^^IHopographic survey (existing and proposed elevatioas) if any changes in existing grade proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8V'i" x 11" for reproduction Sketches or plans of floor Sc elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8^*" x 11"). 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 owner(s) As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. __ Additioruil items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your >'8ritBCt HWlkathMi h aot complete If the above informathiu has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Admimstrator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and corrgjftqjV^ best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date *7^ /O OWIMER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and fiirthcr authorizes reasonable entry onto the properiy^A City staff, consultants, agents. Cbmmission members, and Council members for purposeyjtftjW^ and verification of this request. O.suer's Signature "7- iH- OS Applicant iiMst have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission nnd Connea If an applicant is unable to attend a Kheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. Ot 'H?•.»•i r- EXrtiftir B lo; Orono CHy Planning Commission Prom Scoii ft Kara llullon 1835 Shadywood Road Orono MN5S39I 952.471.9549 Re: Rofucst for Hardship Variance to mir Hardcover exposure We wished lo apply for a variance to our hardcover exposure fhis was brought lo our atleniion when we received nolificalion that we were in violation of the city wlinance building code, when we had a shed moved to our property. And although Inis has nm been the most limely icsponae and inquiry we do wish lo be good cili/ens of Ihc city of Orono Kara and I have been blessed with a little giri however the road lo child rearing docs posseM ils hills and valleys. Kara was on bed rest for 2 months and now with Alana ’s amval ^ has colic. This has been the reason for our tardiness with this request; please do not perceive this as a lack ofdcsire lo address this compliance issue. Our desire to remodel our home and enhance the livability and value started when we explored our options to inciea.se our single car garage into a 2 cat garage We had purchased tlic properly in 1992 and decided that nnancially wc cimld accept the additional cost associated with tlie remodeling project Wc at first had hoped to have a 2 car detached garage m front ol our home it would allow us to have iiKrcased our square footage in tlic home add a bedroom, remove our driveway, and have additional storage in our garage I his was our initial request to city planning and wc were told that we would not be able to build a detached ^rage in from of the house. Our primary reason that wc preferred this scenario was that It accomplished several other goals. Address the elevation issue. When we purchased the property, we underestimated Uic issues regarding our properly elevation and slope. During winter melting and summer showers wc had water entering into the front of our garage and into our living area in the basement. This was not disclosed in our purcliase agreement but liad to have been noticed. Crate a rnorc natural landscape Since our house is set back much farther from the road, we would eliminate the need for a long driveway It would also allow us to landscape, with wild flowers gardens. Sound Damping. The garage would also act as a sound barrier to the traffic on Shadywood Road. Perhaps had we known; we may have reouested a variance to the gilding code, but that is history. I might add though many citixns are unaware of how to properly approach local governments regarding issues of this matter, this includes myself ^r .scenarioi^ our current design of our home. A modified rambler with a 2 car tuck under garage. This scenario was much more costly and did not address all of our storage issues. However we believe it to be aesthetically pleasing and very ; , ■: . • ; < J *•. y functkNul. We wcfc made aware of uur hardcover i»ue upon applying for the building permit, and it was requested that we eliminate a percentage of driveway. With is done we were in compliance, however wc once again started to have drainage issues and our new garage was being flooded. This is when we brought in the black top driveway, created a swale and have no longer had ANY water in any part of our basement and garage. So this t believe was a success. Please note attached Wc can be assured that our property as well as future residents will never have a water issue regarding the sl^ and devatkm. That is as long as we can keep the drive as it is, anything lets and this may not be a certain statement. This brings us to the primary issues; this issue regarding the Permit of the Shed and updatirtg of the deck. It is our request that a hardship circuimtance be issued for us regarding our shed. This shed was needed to store the lawn cate equipmetU, snowblower, children’s toys, ladders and other miscellaneous items. The shed is completely full, and where to store the items should it be mandated to be removed is unktwwn at this time. It was built off site and moved onto the property. It is not on a permanent foundation, water run off can even occur beneath it I was misinformed thm a building permit vmuld not be requited for this structure, not by the city of Orono, but by another source. The shed itself is in an inconspicuous location and does not detract from our property appearance. Our neighbon all have sheds and like ourselves prefer not to have clutter strewn in the yards. They do not mind the location or appearance of the shed and they have sigitod the documentation indicating so. My last request is to update our deck on back of our house. We are hoping to remove the old lumber and up^hrte the deck with a stair case added, the building specs and estunale is included. It is not teal ufe in its current condition and would much more functional with stairs. This should be incotporMed into ypur evaluation Regards, Scon A Kara Hutton 952.471.9549 b 952.541.8264 w fL cy. . 'U • . r mgmrnniH o' 199.91 C 1 5 C // S 7r09 ‘ 30“ n 249 84 «.w«* 250 00 »•*«iM • ^ :--i. >v.. / {•vHifea \'\ .rr..> i. A •• iteff'T F. f -:, •♦? ra. f .>4. av. -.v;B5 I; r?.. . "'t. •^. ~ . ■?"* ‘ v; yi' r' ■: -» mm iK.f • D2- ■ H| I it-' JV ; . .'i •'■■ft •... •1/ ■‘MTsCl .. iL 15'y IB fsr f. t 7 JH 9M?/‘ V P; ■ ■ • . || I ''A f ^'*'V •/»• I. •.* •:' P-$ r e AtAli F LmdKape Underlain Bv Plastic OfFabnc 13^4- SF SF SF SF -i-233 ______ SF SF-«*^C. APm* SF SF S F JHTrf of SF SF SF G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN /.ONE TOTAL PROPhR r Y AREA IN /ONE A ______ B mo PROPOSED HARDCQVr.R fN ZONF. A House i«n(th _SF A Sfln~SF B ..Z%37_ _H SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF 1 SF A SF B H 2>ii- B Otfaje C Dn%«way D SuJtwalk E Ptho/Dccic E LandKapc Underlti; BirPUjiie Of Fabnc 50 SOO* ^•17-fj SM-INO* .SF .SF SF _SF SF SF irT^ 1^0 .SF .SF ____SF ____SF ____SF G Othtff C^lL 1 y —---------------- ii B Garage C Oiiveway D Sidewalk t Paho4)eck F Landscape Underlain By PliMic Of FabTK G Other a « X % \ X X X X 0i\7___ .SF A .SF B H .SF .SF SF .SF SF _SF .SF .SF SF SF .SF .SF ------------------------- - B SF SF H #:v'l <J ef--e KXlSUrffiHARDCQVKB IMISHE A l4ou$c ______ IMU'IUUII <33^.. sf SF il SF B Garage C Dn\eway 22^3 SF SF'^MC. AF*>. D Sidewalk E Palio/Deck SF -Ce«£. SF / k S F P%7it SF F Landieapc Underlain Bv Plastic OrFabnc SF SF SF G Other TOTAI. MAROCOVliK IN /ONI! TOTAL PROPERTY AR1:a IN /.ONE A_________ il . IIVI ___SF A ,l5,SLaGIsF n ^11.37 _ ^ PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONK A Mouse W.AS SF SF SF H (iarage C Driveway SF SF O Sidewalk E Patio/Deck SF SF SF SF F Landscape Underlain By PIamic OrFabrK SF SF SF G Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONi: total property area in zone A _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - B too SF SF H 0 ias^ •• ' r RLXCUTl vjymti M mi72J2IOOOt ORAOO* 1793 SHAOVWOOOKD vnername mrsunnarkmoaaakiusen XRAVER MICHAEL SUNN a RBOIIO .ME/AOM ALICIA KJUSEN I79S SHADYWOODRO wayzatamh SS)«I It I7II7232J000I or ADM II ADDRESS UNASSICNEO AIERNAME HENNIMNFOlireiTEOLAND RR a YER HENNinNEORFEITEOUND ME/ADM not for SALE/YV a TER fROHT II I7II72J240007 or ADM IIS5 SHAOY\AOODRD >%ERNAME IOHNOMOTZKO XrAVE* iOHNOMOTZKO .ME a DDR 1155 SHa DYWOOD RD >*AV2ATAMS 55)91 >• 171172)240011 or adm m address unassici «d VHERHAME mjkosekagfinkkosek .XrAYER MARKKOSEKAGINAnMCKOSEK J4E/ADM II7S SHADYWOOD RO WAYZATAMN 53)91 )l 171172)240017 OTADDR IDO SHADYWOOD RO wername madseifertir XFAYER MILTON H SEIFERT JR ME/ADM IDO SHADYWOOD RO WAYZATAMN 55)91 HENSEFIS COLNTY rROPERD information SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST face I )• 171172)210020 PROP AOM 1000 SHADYWOOD RO OWNER name DOUGLAS R SEABOLT TAJCFAYER DOUGLAS R SEABOLT NAME/ADM IROOSHAOYWtX)ORO WAVZAT a MS 55)91 )• 171172)210027 FRORADM 1110 SHADYWOOD RO OWNER name M W KROLL A L C KROLL TRSTES TAXPAYER mark W A LORJC KROLL NAMLAOOR 49) SINALOA RO StMl valley CA 9)005 )l 171172)240001 PROTADM ID5 SHADYWOOD RO OWNER name R a RUUD as L RUUD TAXPAYER RONALD A A SABRINA L Rt'UO NAML a OM 1125 SHADYWOOD RD W*YZa Ta MN 55j«t )• 171172)240000 PROF adm IDS SHADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME S WARM HUTTON TAXFAYE R SCOTT W HUTTON name ADDR 11)5 SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55)91 PROF ADOR )l I’ •'2)240009 )l ADDRESS UNASSK jNED OWNER name MJKOSEKAGFINKKOSEK Taxpayer NAME/ADOR Mark kosek a cina fink kosek I|7S SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN ?5)9I )• 171172)240010 PROF ADDR )■ address UN a SSIONED OWNER name M J kosek a G fink kosek Taxpayer mark kosek a cina ftnk kosek name ADDR l|7) SHADYWOOD RD WAYZATAMN 55)9! •J )• 171172)24001) PROP AOM 1120 SHADYWOOD RD OWNER NAME BASKJERPINGALSCAIN taxpayer BRUCE A SK2ERPING NAME/ADM IDO SHADYWOOD RO WAYZATAMN J))9! Jl 171172)240016 PROP ADDR 1140 SHAOYWX)OORO OWNER name BRADLEY T boston TAXPAYER BRADLEY T BOSTON NAME/AOOR 1140 SHADYWOOD RO WAYZATAMN JJ)9l ) Cv- )• 171172)240029 PROP ADDR l|75 SHADYWOOD RO OWNER NAME Ml KOSEK AG fink KOSEK TAXPAYER mark I KOSEK NAME ADDR GINA FINK KOSEK 117) SHADYWOOD RO W’AYZATAMN 55)91 I I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCLRA71 AND TRUE MPRESENTATIONOF INFOR.MAT10N AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE FCNNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMI OF MY KNOWIEDCE AND BEUEF DATE SERVICES DEPARTME?^ TO THE BEST by \i Bonestroo 2 Rosene m-jS AnderUk& || Associates Efigiinccrt A ArchMecU A«gwtl2.2003 Mi. Melaaie Foih ■•••<•• An^fM an* A mmijoi me •• an Arf«aM*i«a AtiMA/lAiMi TTpaa-tu-ity la^tafat aw# ffMAlaiwa OwnA# 0»»« C BonawfM H • aaarM *»«»r * •aMi*an a* • Mart A wawtoA a| t torvAa at • CMwn • C«aa af • aaAafi b W*■ at ai Aitaciaaa atMw«aa»t A oa»#wi at •A«'*ar« f •auOKanw ai . b«i af . a «hA«wion at 11 • AfaatM aa«f Ml A <»ae.t Maian# ai . Man# «a»iM« at . i af lNO«»at A f|r*M af . W«A b " I «a at •««Aa»«i K aam af . w«anM fba«wt caA1«M»« C mmmH aau ■obart « Aaiawa at • »a>rtt • a«rNt>ta af . ■«»<#>« «r foMa* ai . Oa.^ O imkata at . k Af • »*art t at • Oavi# A aanaMroa MSA < > AaanM at • fhomai W i 'fatten at . I 0««al t lAfrttan af . i.t««ai Matiatai at • ' Ota*a at . laiaatMA A am A a af . Aabati i Oraaty af Offkat U aaxl St Owi# ■wnattat an# wmmm MN • - --t Vi • Owayo A VMM# t»<a<ab#naMtooce«i exH-ifr/r HChyorOioQO Pdsi Office B m 66 Cryiul Bay. MN 5S323 Re: Henoa Reskleace File No. 139-03-000 Flat Na 03-2933 Dear Melanie- We completed a site inspection of the Hutton property located at 1835 Shadywood Road this morning I he purpose of the inspection was to review the necessity of the existing paving al^ the north side of the hiwnc as h retaies to drainage. The homeowner was present and indicated the pavmg was installed to consey storm water flows from the driveway to the rev (H west side of the home. Based on our observations a vegetated rtraioage swak could be cotutrocted in place of the pavement along the north side of Ihe home to provide an equal or better drainage ctMveyance system to the rev of the home. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Youn very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE. ANDERLIK A ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg ^ Cc; Greg Gappa. City of Oiono 233S «%st Ktgfiway 36 • St. Paul. MN SSItJ • 6SI-6J6-4600 • Fan; AsVbJb-IJII GITYoTORONO MMkifMl OUlMi tkwIMIrHie 2750 IWhy failMMf OnMi MN 55350 P3).ImI0 OVM Ml. MM 553230000 Scott Hutton 1835 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Shed Dear Mr. Hutton. As may recall you and I met at your property to discuss hardcover issues prior to issuing the Building Permit for your Garage addition. You agreed to remove portions ofdriveway to bring ^ur property into compliance and allow for the addition. Since the project had a final inspection and was closed out the driveway was replaced and the shed was added. Therefore the City must require you to remove hardcover again to 25% or less in the 75* to 250’ zone. If you cm reduce the pmentage to 25 or less with the shed the City will be able to issue a Building Permit for it. If not, it will be required to be removed from the property along with hardcover in excess of 25%. Please contact me within the next 2 weeks to discuss how you would like to proceed. Failure to bring the property into compliance will result in legal action. Sincerely, Lyle OmM Building Official L07dml Enclosure TWtphm(fS2)MMiH . Ru(9S2)MM«u 1 MJ.2936 It. 2003 r«t>i«ft Dale Applkatioo Rtcdvtd: 7-23-03 Dale ApplkalhM CoasMcrtd as Coaipictc: 0-4-03 60-Da) Rnkw Period Eipircs: 10-3-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Tnm: Date: Subject: Janice Waataja. City Planner^ August 13. 2003 #03-2936, Bruce Mcese & Maureen Murphy, 3135 Casco Circle - Variances (lot area, lot width, hardcover in 0-75* and 250-500’ zones) - Public Hearing Zoniaf Dbtrict: Lot Area: LR - 1C, One Fami’y Lakeshore Residential District ('/i acre min.) .49 acres (21,392 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a new- home: 1. Lot area variance to allow reconstruction of a home on a .49 acre lot w hen .5 acres is required. 2. Lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home where the width at the shoreline and 75 ’ setback is 60’ when 100’ is normally required. 3. Hardcover variance to allow 65e hardcover in the 0-75’ zone when 05* is allowed and to allow 37% hardcover in the 250-500* zone when 30% is allowed Staff Recommendation: Suiff recommendations: 1 . Approval of the lot area variance to allow reconstruction of a home. 2. Approval of the lot width variance to allow reconstruction of a home. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow 6*p hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone when 0*/« is required to be consistent with what has been approved on rebuild lots. 4. Approval of the hardcover \-ariancc to allow 37^ o hardcover in the 250-500’ zone w-hen 3f ' o is required due to the minimal area allotted in this zone and sight visibility triangles which result in a larger driveway. ___ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (b): *‘Lot. The following minimum requirements shall be obscrNcd...lLot Area « Vi acre. Lot Width “ 100 feeir. Section 10.22, Subdivision 2: Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(1): Hardcos'er Limitation' LUt ofExhibiU A - Application B - Adjacent Propcity Ov^ners Acknowledgment Form C - Hardship Statement L •U-MM A«t«t It. 2003 rit*2«ri D - Existing Survey E - Proposed Survey F - Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans G - Submined Hardcover Calculations H - Letter dated August 12.2003 from City Engineer. Tom Kellogg 1 - Photogra|dis J - Property Ownos list K-Plat Map Backfrouad The applicant originally applied for a variance to remodel the existing home and allow an existing, non-confonning 8’ setback in the southwestern comer of the home to remain to try and save an existing large maple tree. After reviewing the plans and conversations with the architect it became apparent that the majority of the existing home was to be demolished to accommodate the renovations, and if the true intention was to save the tree the home should be shifted north. Because of this staff directed the applicant that the project would be reviewed as a rebuild and that the home should be shifted to meet the 10* setback requirement. The applicant agreed to this and submitted new plans applying for a lot area and lot width variaiKe. Upon further examination of the plans it was diKovered that the new home would meet the hardcover requirements in the 75-250 ’ rone but the 0-75 ’and 250-500 ’ zones, as they currenUy exist, are over on hardcover. Due to the rebuild, the whole lot is reviewed for hardcover compliance and has required the applicant to no .v apply for hardcover variances. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot Araa/Widih; 1 R-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. C/i acre)100’ Actual 21,392 s.f. (.49 acres)60 ’ Setbacks; LR-IC Required Eiistteg Proposed Front 30’n/a n/a Rear 30*51 ’(garage) 120’ (house) 31’(garage) 94 ’(house) M3-29M AMgutI IS. 2003 Pafciftfl UfiSide 10’8’10’ Right Side 10’14.5’10’ Lakeshore 75’139’138’ Average Lakeshore 136.5’139’138’ StnicturmI Covcraw; Total Lot Arc') 21,392 s.f. (.49 acres) Total Structural Coverage Allowed: 3.208.8 s.f. (15%) Proposed: 2,861 s.f. (13.3"/b) Hardcover Calculatlom; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 4,514 s.f.Os.f 634 25 s.f.*279.25 s.f. 0-75 (0«i)(14»,i)(6.0%) 75-250 10,573 s.f.2.643.25 s.f. (25Vo) 2.233 s.f.* (21.1%) 2.369 sf. (22.4%) 250-500 6.305 s.f.1.891.5 s.f. (30%) 2.194.5 s.f.* (34.8'ii) 2,332 5 s.f. (37%) After e.\clusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Lot Arca/Lot Width Variance The property dates back to 1955, prior to our current Zoning Ordinance requirements and thus creates a hardship. The lot is a legal lot of record and therefore is buildable. Because the house is being rebuilt aiKl not renovated a lot area and lot width variance must be reviewed as a formality. The lot is approximately 2 1,392 s.f. or .49 acres in area, just short of the 22.000 s.f (.50 acre) requirement. The property measures 60’ in w idth at the shoreline as well as at the 75' setback line. 40* short of the 100’ w idth requirement. This is generally the characteristics of lots in this neighborhood. Hardcover Variance The applicants bought the property this past winter. In doing so, they’ve decided to rebuild. The new plans meet the hardcover requirements for the 75-250* zone. Because the house is being rebuilt the entire lot is reviewed for hardcover compliance. Both the 0- 75’ and 250-500’ zones arc non-compliant as they currently exist. In the 0-75 ’ zone there is approximately 14% of hordcov’er. This iiKludes a circular concrete patio, fire-pit, stairway, boulder retaining walls, and deck. The applicants have agreed to remove the circular concrete patio and fire-pit which results in 355 s.f or 7.4% r •03-29J6 AMtMtt It. 2003 ragt4*fS of the hardcover in the zone. There also are retaining ualls consisting of 53 s.f. or 1.2% hardcover in the zone. The applicants have not mentioned removing these and the slope leading to the lake is steep and highly vegetated. Thus, the walls arc probably being used to control drainage and protect the deck. There is also a 226 26 s.f. lakeside deck which results in 5.0% of the hardcover. The applicants did minor lepairs to the deck and would like to keep it. Lastly, the stairway is an allowed asc on the 0-75* /one and was not counted in the 14% hardcover figure and can remain. To be consistent in reviewing rebuilds, staff would recommend that the lakeside deck be removed. This would limit the hardcover in the 0-75’ /.one to retaining walls (53 s.f.) and the allowed stairsvay. If the deck were removed, hardcover in the 0-75’ zone would be 53 s.f. or 1.2% when 0% is normally required. In the 250-300'zone there is appro.ximately 2.194.5 s.f. or 34.8*/o hardcover. Thi.s includes the existing garage which has non-conforming setbacks, a concrete patio, and a conservative drive .vay. The applicants would like to tear dowTi the existing ga. • and rebuild a three car garage meeting setback requirements. The concrete patio wou.a be removed. The driveway would remain conservative and include a turn-around for safety purposes. The proposed hardcover, taking into account the new garage and revised driveway, would bring the hardcover to 2.332.5 s.f. or 37%. Staff has found Uiat the new garage and revised driveway are reasonable and that attempts have been made to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements. Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and sliould be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Anaivsis iji eomtdgrtug tpp/lemthns/or variance, the Pianning Conuntuhn thall conxlder the ej/ect of the propoud variance upon the health, utjetp and welfare of the community, exbtlng and anticipated traffic condition t, light and air, danger offire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Pianning Commission shall consUer recommending opproxa! for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because efclrcumuances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approxal only when it h demonstrMed that such actions wUl be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. In the 0-75’ zone, hardcover will be going from I4®,o to 6%, a greater than 50®.i reduci on. However, .staff finds that no hardship exists to allow the lakeside deck to remain.^ The Plaiming Commission should decide whether the applicants have made a good faith effort in removing existing hardcover (fire-pit and concrete patio). The Planning Commission should also decide whether a hardship exists in the fact that the applicants bought the hous. with the deck and since have made minor repairs to improve it. In spite of this, to be consistent with prior rebuild applications, staff would recommend that it be removed due to a lack of a convincing hardship. Should the Planning Commission decide to require removal of the deck, the retaining walls, accounting for 53 s.f., could also be removed as they are controlling drainage to protect M3-29M Augutt It. 20tJ ratcs*rt the deck. Staff does find a hardship in allowing 37% hardcover in the 2SO-SOO’ zone. The orientation of the property results in very little area in the zone (6.30S s.f.). Because of the narrowness of the lot, to meet the hardcover restrictions in the 75-250* zone, the garage is forced to be towards the street end of the property. The applicants have made a good faith effort in ir>iii4: to meet Zoning Ordinance requirements by mo\ ing the garage to meet setbacks. Also, a three car garage is not unch.^racteristic with rebuilds. The proposed driveway, with turn-around, is not unreasonable due to safety concerns on Casco Circle. Therefore, staff would recommend approval of the hardcover variance in the 250-500* zone allowing 37% hardcover when 30^o is normally allowed due to the narrowness of the lot, limited area in the zone, and the sight visibility issues on Casco Circle requiring a turn-around. Staff would make the follow ing recommendations in regards to the criteria fur “undue hardship** pertinent to this application: I."The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." Tht property can remain in its current stiue should the variances he denied. Any rebuild or remodel \% hich resulted in added hardcover w ould reipdre hardcover variances because the lot is currently over in the 0~75' zone and the 250-500' zone. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not creat^ by the landowner." The lot area and width hardships and the hardcover hardship in the 250-500' zone result from the long and narrow orientation of the lot which is unique to the property, not circumstances created by the landowner. However, there are no unique circumstances within the 0-75' zone, unique to the property, w ' ch create a hardship not created by the landowner. The Planning Commission should discuss whether a hardship exists in the fact that the current owners didn V construct the deck but inherited it w ith the property. 3. "The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality.' Should the lot area, lot w idth, and hardcover variances be granted, the essential character of the locality would not be compromised \fany of the lots in the neighborhood have similar non-conformities. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.* A r L 8. Ha»-2936 A«tMt It. 200J PafctafS Not applicable "Undue hardship also includes, bul 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 I I6J.06, Subd. 2. when in harmony \%ith this Chapter." Not applicable "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not pennitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” The uses proposed are allowed mes in the l.R - IC district "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Not applicable "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately rdjoin»ng property." Many of the prom'rtics along the lake in this genera ’ locality have long and narrow conditions provuling hardships for lot area and lot width variances However, because this is a rebuild there are not special conditions peculiar to this property which might h ad to allowing the lakeside deck and/or possibly the tltree car garage. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the lakeside deck should be allowed because the property was purchased with the deck and the current property owner isn 7 responsible for creating the non-conformity, and also whether the limited area in the 250-500' zone provides special conditions which could justi^> allow ing tnree car garage "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” The unique conditions resulting in lot area and lot width variances do not generally apply to the entire LR - IC district but rather to a handful of the surrounding neighborhood ’s lake shore lots "The granting of the application is necessarv* for the preserx-ation and cnjo>-mcnl of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting ofthe lot area and width variances is necessary for the preservation and etyoyment ofa substantial property right of the applicant. These variatwes are S. ___— •03-2936 Augtttt IS. 2003 Page^ofS required to simply develop the lot. The hardcover variance requests should be reviem'd individuaUy to determine If the uses full into a substantial right. Again, u hat is reasonable line to proven hardships found to be inherent to the property 1 1. "The granting of the proposed variance uill not ir. any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be conlraiy to the intent of the Zoning Code." The granting of the lot area and lot width variances w ill not impair the intent of the Zoning Code because the property is a lot of record and is legidly a buildahle piece of property The granting of the propr\cd hardcover variances may affect the intent of the Zoning Code especially in the 0- 73 ’ zone This is due to the rebuild status of the property and what has consistently been approxed and found to be reasonable The Planning Commission should discuss whether the la'<eside ileck and three car garage are reasonable and whether they meet the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely scia c as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessar>' to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." The lot area and lot w idth variances w ould be necessary to alleviate harilships inherent in rebuilding the lot The Planning Commission should discuss the lakeside deck and three car garage and whether allowing them w oidd alleviate hardship or serve as a convenience. Stafffinds that approval of the lakeside deck would merely be a convenience and the three car garage alleviates the hardship of the limited area present to accommodate a reasonably sized garage and associated parking. Issues for CoDsidrmtion 1. Have the applicants shown a g *od faith clTort to reduce hardco\cr? 2. Is inheritance of a non-conformity a valid hardship for current property owners? 3. Would allowing the lakeside deck serve as a convenience or alleviate a hardsl.ip? 4. Hoes the limited area in the 250-500 ’ zone alone justify allowing a three car garage which has become the standard with rebuilds, even when a standard two car parage would still result in hardcover beyond what is allowed? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Suff Rccommcodation Approval of the lot area and lot width variances which arc formalities with all rebuilds on Icgrl lots of record that were created prior to adoption of the current Zoning Code. Denial of the hardcover variance in the 0-75 ’ zone to ''.How a lakeside deck. Consistently staff has required full compliance in the 0-7S' zone with rebuilds. No convincing hardship has been presented which constitutes variance appro\’al. «t3-29J« A«ru1 IS. 20SJ raps*ri Approval of the hardcover variance in the 250-500* zone due to the limited area existing in the zone and the hardships which result from sight visibility pr' »ems on Casco Circle. The applicants have shown a food faith effort in meeting Zoning Ordinance standards by moving the garage to meet setback and what has been proposed is not unreasonable. In conjunction with building permit review and at the request of the City Engineer (see Exhibit G), the applicant mu.st submit final plans which include existing and proposed contours extending at least 50* beyond the subject property lot lines. The proposed pades should include drainage swales along the east and west lot lines. *. ...J exwftif A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change irom original application) Variance for non-conforming structures ^250.0^ Aftcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fre) Applicalioo # 03-^93Cig Date Received ^ Amount Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address e ^07/Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ o - j/'?^ ^3 - V3 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. D«e Property Acquired _____________________(monlh/year) I (do) n^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: V residential___other (specify) Zoning District:_________________________ " APPLICANT Phone (home) 9C3 - Name —/^«y *VPhone ^vork) Address:.3;/3^ C.fr</x.________City: Zip: O^^T'TR Name Address nr differMt than applicant) Phone (home) 7?:) 4^/7/ /D’7£ f Phone (work) s C//r/^ ' (^itv: _______Zip: ^ 7 3 V/ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: __ Estimated Construction Cost S goo. oo« (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area _X- I-ot Width Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback:Front _X S’**® __Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) II.\RDSHIP/DESCRIPT10N OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difTiculiy or unusual pippertyv conditions preventing coraphanc'! with Zoning Code requirements: ( )_______________ (attach additional sheets if necessary*) c# s. •V 3 A • ■• REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. IPDiication to be coiiild»r»^ complffy. - *^ Completed Application Form__ \»ompietea Application Form “ ESr“-=^“-i^'-=r.sr 5. 6. 8. ^ Govt Center, 348-5910). r <» T ^ 'lews (provide one (1) copy 8'/," x 1 n List of the Itgal names (include marital status) of all persons with an Interest in rhi. - would include name(s) of appiicant(s) i^nTc^l ~ >t w-“« of o«,cr penons ^ Addiuonal items as may be requested by City staff. APPLICA.NT'S SIGNATURi: consultant e.xpenses incurred in review of this application ^ paN-menl) and/or .applied is uu. «d concaj^, or UsA^^ Zt^Tc. Applicant ’s Signature ^ — * --------PCT----------------Q-, _________ Date '7- //• d) S 0>WXR ’S SIGNATURE JnVr; s"afrTn.uU.'„« r ,e«onablc members for purposes ofm^ation'and veririca;ioifTtWsrqu«r" f^O“"«" Date 7- ^/-0 3 Owner’s Signature ~P >VLa Meelinr Ttoin'g Co^Tuim MeetTiigf'L” held on‘u>^ m*°d'M'd “™’f* *^0™"!“!“" r>W,Qr, .A-* - 'W f swvef t&li fTKHlWf t PROPOSED BUILDING NORTH OFT ATT TUnvpOLE \ JVDEtECTRIC¥lflRE EL0HONEBOX I hereby certify that this plan or specification was prepared by me or under my direct lupervision and that I am a duty lioensed land surveyor under ttw laws of Ihe State of Mirmesola. Dated Ms Sdi day of August. 2003. SATHRE-BEROQUfST. IrIC. ETnONMONUMBir OUNDNONMONUMBIT .V.— ‘• -AT”*'’ ©• MUKpHT ME£CS pcc4oeu:e ?* 4^^^C/>-<*.>CaL 3, Kist •r- • - ^ 1 (5^ 1 r 1S)—D •M KltcKov Maurttvi Murphj/j flvtd Bruce Mcese Rt^Uitviu 313S Casco Circle Om^o, MN x/r-ro'M. r Maurctvi Murphy flrvd *&ruce Mcesc Residence 3135^Ca&co Circle Oror^, MN t/r - re* ■-nh —,j-7" - 3135 CAiCO CtreU Oro»vo, MN 1/2* ■■ X* O* rfhMfuni i HARDCOVE$S:^CULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CtRCLEONE) (^7^ 75-250 ’ 250-500' EXISTING HAMDCnVER tN ZONK 500-5000' A. House-X £m|A X X X B. Caraie X ■ X X mWAll^ 57. Sidemia X m X E. Patio/Dedt X m X m F. Landscape X Underlain X R» Plastic X Or Ferric a. Mm X 154 T'OI TOTAL HARDCO\TRtS ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . ^ 2.^ + fl V, S' ' / jr 500 •• 5.F. PROPOSED IIARDCOVER IN ZONE A, House _____________ Lentth V^ubh B. Caraje C. IW*<**mr rHB.tni*vr 1 D. Sideintilk £. AAtIDeck Lib'Ll F. Lendscoft Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric O. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER M ZONE • TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A i^%vb + B S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ZZtrZ^ 5F. S.F. SF S.F. S.F. A S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F.xloo - un % p*»76*^»Alg C£m8ViaU^.= •■ /.ol @ijbwnat'p<k!i= i^s-f- 1 *0 (t<nvu^ = Wb Z6 A-Bu,to,A r- »o !<'A);at^o iAi>r. ; TO W REMOVE T0«__ ftEMOVgp V4*0P£3^ r=io' SETBACK ZONE: (aUCLE ONE) HARDCOy'ER CALCa^LAfiSaWC A. House-X X KM X X m B. fforoie X C. DrivewcQt X X D, SUewaBt X X E. Pado.Dedt X m X F. Landscape X Underlain X By nastlc X as Or Fabric O. Other X soa-iooo’ &10 S.E S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. - Sy iUu //f S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . ~ ^ 2.3^ + B /O^Cy2k xJOO ■ S.F. A JO. ^-73 5.F. % HARDCOVER iN ZONE A. House ____ KM* 5.F. 5.F. FF. B. Carase C. Driveway S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck //r S.F. S.F. 3ze>S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric S.F. S.F. S.F. C. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - TOTAL PROPfRIYAREA IN ZONE ^ + B /ar?t xlOO - S.F. ’ % •.U SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) F.nSTING NAmPCOVER IN ZONE HARDCOVER CALCULATION 0-7S' 7S-25i RKSHEEIL^ 500-IO00’ A. House X Lmg*MM - S.F. X - S.F. X - S.F. X - S.F. B. Gantte 'LO x - S.F. C. Driveway x - S.F. X - S.F. D. Sidewalk x - S.F. X - S.F. E. Patio/Deck x SF. X - S.F. F. Landscape x » S.F. Underlain Jt - S.F. Bv Plastic X » S.F. Or Fabric G. Other X « SF. TOTAL HARDCOVER INTONE • 6&e ^j(2Vf^Y'S.F. A ' ^.“506 S.F.TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . A + B le.?)OS xlOO - % PROPOSED HARDCO\m IN ZONE A. House X - S.F. Length X - S.F. X - S.F. X - S.F.vz - 'll A 5.F.a. Cerate TS x IT- C. Driveway H • x 15- Ar>«* ^•S2*^s.f. -IPy.c; X - 5.F. 7.^2^> D. Sidewalk x - SF. X - 5.F. E. Patio/Deck x « SF. X m SF. F. Landseaue . X « 5F. Underlain x - S.F. BvPUsslie X - S.F. Or Fabric n Other X - S.F. B total HARDCOVER IN ZONE • TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONEA nn^p-ris^ + B tny>r> xm - ^^2. C S,F. A S.F. B ____% ifi iiiiiaT Bonestroo MM Rosene Anderlik& Associates Engineers & Architects August 12.2003 Ms. Janice Waaiaja Planner City of Orono Post Office Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 Re: 3135 Casco Circle File No. 139*03*000 Plat No. 03-2936 ■ontilfoo. ITatm*. Andcflik *ntf Inc li an AMicmalio* Acfion/t^wji OppecluMtjr Iinploprr •ntf Implojr** OainaA Pfincipait. Otto C •onaitrco M • Maf»m l M • 0<«nn t Cook « • »o6c<t C »«nur em. • Jt’fi A AocaPon. P| • Wa>k A Hanion. ft itntot Con>Hllani|: PoM't Ar Poiana W • iotapn C An<jr»i*« fl • t.<na»d I Tu*na-. ft • Sutan V tb^-hn c AA AitociataPtincipalt ka>tnA Go'Con. Al • Aoban » Alf*»r«ir At • t<na»a *'toitef At • Da»d O leoota A| • M>(na«t I Ajwimjrtn at • *rd * t'«'8 At • «cnn*tn A Andafian Af • Mart ■ Aoi»i At • Oa»d A lonaitroo ktp A ■ iontf A *'.r-,ami»n PI IJ • A^l M MiA » A»«n A.ck Icivn-J!. At . tnomai * Apst'tan At • A Vaurd ft • kAtei ■ imipx At • I Ar.»p G»a<*' Ml At • Oan.»i J tdfr-ian At . Iv-ari M*>;n»r At • tnomac A J/»«o At • tnaiOon J • Off A OfSrr ft • tnon-ai A ■suina# At . teor'i J Cr,t’f ft Oflicat. it Ajia it Cloud tocrAitAi and W.amar MN • Manaukre «i • Civcago A VL<tOtiir <a«»ooncu'aoco>n Dear Janice: We have reviewed the survey for the existing and proposed home construction at 31 35 Casco Circle JTtc plans propose to remove the existing home and construct a new home that conforms to side yard setback requirements. We have the following comments with regards to engineering matters: • The new home location will provide adequate room, particularly along the west side, to construct drain-’se swales to convey storm water southerly to the lake. The maple tree shown along the west sid.- of the home ntay need to be removed to facilitate the swale construction The existing grades shown suggest that the tree is cunently helping to divert some storm water westerly onto the neigh or s propertv. Swale construction will help in containing the storm water on the subject pioperly. • If the property owners desire is to save the ucc, the proposed home could be located further north so the swale could be constructed between the new heme and the tree. • Final plans should include existing and proposed contours extending at least 50-feet beyond the subject property lot lines. Proposed grades should include drainage swales along the cast and west lot • *^sion control measures should be installed, inspected and approved by the city prior to any work on site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 60-I-4S63. Yours very truly. BONESTROO. ROSENE ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 23JS West Highway 36 • St. Paul, MN 5SII3 • 651-636-4600 • Fax: 6SI-636-I3H ri'. -4 r-mm wm%r, *-d6miM EPIl ipis^TCT ,fvA msmm^sf\ i'^^ri fiii jr^l >>a"4;4 Tjp» *>-r5: •■ -.T*'.— ' 1^:^! ^"Te'.**-; r' r» -T- ■ ^ ♦> < ■fc’’-T* y.^-::::P Wf N ]w J.fen< > ' i? .w '” . -X.<r^' I |rl^....;vrtv.,;.,c- Z- f- ' - -ii :-5' ? .i {.-• ,-o* *. %ly {; •• V-V \ I AvC V/Cvl fits /ipA &KiJ< liirtiiiff • . .* ...V:.- :ju^:.-X*‘.‘‘.. •.*< *' '■ ''v'-'^ Ltu- 'J;. . ■ •• ' itiiffiS feMHi "v» '* mUwM S., V^c^ui^ ; . !^i \'^- 'i-; t I. »i* ■ ■> •;• :i « » .. • •. *• . ' . • ' *•• \ A > . , ;, ■-. 'V •. • ■■ . , V ••:.‘;>«0 - T’^'V>r ■ c-w . ••.' ;..v// •'■ • '■• ••• • • *■' ■••.>••• ■ ■ -V.V-.t.: » • v^^ ' ,;,i-.v-T-' \ ' r ‘.'->■ ;;v-^'': • -^ -v-V'- r \ ■ ' "-V : : ;•. ■ ■„. • .,1; air onw '■ •'. 'fe.' It.:'-*. C ■ ^ >„•; l£:> M\- '•^■'t. '-:^ I %-#. t(. t-i'* {" ■ >^‘- ' -'\ •* i: ' '*t 'if ': '4 #' V> • i l!^i9P-^>m i m. ■?. .. ^ Ym: ■' f^.- - . '• .’t.'i- •' •'.» ??>:'■% •• • •< ;• •: *: .‘rt: i\Mm <sfe y'T'iV u<ff itfvrs.1 -l-’v “If ■ ■■ »» r.*v^- *ir*»A.. gi»^”’''‘^aw*jsf:ir r^ ■ ^-ik' fe 11im I ^ ^ ■“ . ■ \a fcb' XT’. >v.m .-, ?J„-.. HbW 'j.-"* iK^AV- >*•> tmi J i|. 1 <^v'i ';:/-^' ■S|U;ss^^ ».#« rite ”r ^'‘ - ’V . ■ -t '■Bi ■•A . • .../I; '• ' w- * V i •V .r^X,^:'-- VX^WwM ■X'.-i ■ .. »,* T\'=' ^ 'i '■ • * - . • .>■-■ '! X: >* ‘ V -; > ■ ' ■' . /^ •/:V» • 1 • VVm -iiJ:' ^r, m.J® ■- ' &V:; ; GEi 4? v y < “s, , ■ ■ -'m-a® ■•^Hfe-;; ■■, - ■ * . 'i^'» • ,V •?.. • ■■ . .. ;/•!. >•.<..■ ^ -V. .S. . . : . r, •^•f i ir - A # (/“•/‘P Z^vVi^* ^ V* m' 0 ertf. r RUNIMTEzTV IILNNU'U cO» IY rriOPt ini *>UM a I ion SYSTtM I'lturUUYOW. -JiLIST PAUL: I M »II72JM0007 ntOPAOOR 3I}I CASCOHR OWNERNAME J P SUMNER A E K SUMNER TAXPAYER iOlIN P SUMNER NAME/ADDR ER2A0E1IIK SUMNER 31)1 CASCO cm WAYZATAMN 53391 31 7011773340001 PROfADDR 3l79CASCOnR OWNER name JOANNE DX)NnS TAXPAYER X)ANNLDX)NES NAMI7AUUR SlOOFRANa AVEStIM IDISAMN 35410 39 7011773340077 pROPAnrm 3177 cAxcoaR OWNER NAME K E AAKRE A J AAKRC TAXPAYER K I AAXKI R 3 A.\KRE NAMF/AUOR 3l77CASCOaR WAV/XlAMN 35391 31 7011773430027 PROPAOOR 3ISS CASCO OR OWNER NAME IIEN3AMIN F ROOERTACCK) ET AL TAXPAYER 0 PR M K RODERTACCK3 NAMC/AOOR 3133 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 35391 31 70117734'0071 PROPAOOR 3145 CASCO HR OWNERNAME OC DOWNEY A 0 A DOWNEY TAXPAYER nCOOWNEYADADOWNEY NAME/ADDR 3145 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 31 7011773430079 PROPADDR 3135 CASCO CIR OWNI R NAME 0 I MEESli A M E ML'RPIIY TAXPAVr R MAUREEN MURPHY NAMI7ADDR 3135 CASCO CIR WAYZATAMN 55391 31 7011773430030 PROPAOOR 3133 CASCO CIR OWNERNAME GC DECKERZTI MARCIIESSAU1.T TAXPAYER G C DITKERn^ IMARCMESSAUET NAMC/AOOR 3I33CASCOOR ORONOMN 35391 31 2011723430031 PROP ADDR 31 ADDRESS L'NASSIGNED OWNERNAME THE CASCO Ct) TAXPAYER CITY OI ORONO PARKS NAME/AOUR POUOX66 CRYSTAL UAYMN 55373 I CERTIFY TliATTir. FACTS RCPRESENTEO ARE AN ACailATE AND TRUE REIKI^EKTATIONOF NFORMATION AS IT APPEARSTIflS DATEONTIIE RECORDS OFTIIT lOINNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTWEKATOTUEOEST OrMVK,SOWUDO.ANDOtUEF. DATE IIEDIf^ (\Ti ir CA O I IL •OJ-2937 Auguit IS. 2003 Page 1 of J Date Application Received: 7-23-03 Date Application Considered as Complete: 8-6-OJ 120-Day Review Period Espires: 12-4-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Dale: Subject: Janice Waataja, City Planner August 13,2003 <103-2937, Bob Morlock. 980 North Shore Drive, - 2-Lot Preliminary Plat - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: RR-ID, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) 4.067 acres (177,171 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests prcliminar>- plat approval for a 2-lot subdivision to be knou-n as Englund Third Addition located at 980 North Shore Drive. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval based on the following conditions; 1. Submission and approval of a final plat. 2. Implementation of the recommendations of Hennepin County. 3. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. 4. Subject to standard fees and easements. 4. The existing house and associated sheds be removed prior to issuance of building permits for either lot.___________________________________________________ Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 10.28, Subdivision 5: Area, Height, Lot Width and Yard Requirements. B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be obseiv cd: Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street Rear Yard 2 acres 200 feet 50 feet 30 feet 50 feet 50 feet List of Exhibits A - Application B - Preliminary Plat C - Letter from County (if received) D - Letter from City Engineer E - Septic Review Memorandum F - Property Owners List G - Plat Map » • • « ammiih MU-2937 A»g«>l IS. 2003 fait 2 *13 latrodMclioB Bob Morlock is rcqucsling prcliminar>' pLi approx'al for a two lot subdi\-ision of his property located at 980 North Shore Dri\x (Co. Rd. 19) just north of Tonkaview Lane. The property is zoned RR-IB, One Family Rural Residential District which requires 2 acre minimum lot sizes. The property is a 4 acre parcel to be divided into 2,2 acre lots. The existing home on the property will be removed (note that as proposed, the existing house would be too close to the side lot line). The proposed legal descriptions for the non-lakeshore lots are as follows: Lot 1, Block I, Lnglund Third Addition Lot 2. Block 1, Englund Third Addition Both lots conSi jt of 2 acres of dry contiguous land. The property is not located within 1,000’ of lakcshore and is therefore not subject to hardcover requirements. I'rcliminary Plat Analysis The property meets all of the following minimum lot size and setback requirements: RR-IB Required Existing Proposed Loti Proposed Lot 2 Lot Area 2 acres 4 acres 2 acres 2 acres Lot Width 200*476.25’238’ 1 238.25’ Front ^'ard Setback 50*194*247’153* Side Yard Setback (north)30*260*36’125* Side Yard Setback (south)30* 146’ (house) 17*(shed) 44.4*(shed) 160’72’ Rear Yard Setback 50* 69.5* (house) 10.3*(shed) 45.2’ (shed) 174*80* All proposed setbacks are taken from proposed 40* x 40* house pads as shown on the preliminary’ plat. The proposed lots have enough buildable area to accommodate a house much larger than the proposed 40* x 40* pads. Access: The property abuts Count) Road 19. Hennepin County has Jurisdiction om access and has reviewed the preliminary plat and their comments will be forssarded the night of Planning Commission consideration. The applicant has indicated that the existing drive access will be utilized for Lot 2 and that a new drive access from Co *'.d. 19 will be established for Lot I. The City Engineer has recommended a shared driveway agreement to minimize curb cuts on Co. Rd. 19. The issue of a private drive or additional Co. Rd. 19 access should be discussed. Planning Department staff wt>uld recomipend that i ! L m-y»M AmguU II. 200J Patc3of3 ihe City follow the recommendations of the County on this issue. Storm Water, Drainage, and Erosion Control: 10* drainage and utility casements arc proposed around all perimeter property boundaries and 5* on either side of the shared boundao io conformance with City requirements. Private driveway casements shall be dedicated for a shared driveway access arrangement should a shared driveway be required. Prior to approval of the final plat, plans should be submitted showing how the private drive could ser\c both lots. Most of the drainag ; flow’s north-northwest on both proposed lots. The City Engineer recommends than some t>pe of “no-grading** zone be established along the north property lines of both lots due to steep grades. This could be done in the form of consciA ation easements. This would prcNcnt future owners from total clear-cutting for lawn and therefore, slow storm water run-off rates from the site. Erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the course of development. *rhc City will inspect the lot prior to any grading to ensure erosion control measures arc installed. The entire 4 acrca will be subject to the standard storm water and drainage trunk fees. Septic Analysis: Copies of tl.c proposed septic plans were submitted with the preliminary plat. Septic inspector Matt Boltcrman has done a review of the proposed scpac plans and his comments can be found in the attached memorandum dated, August 11,2003. He is recommending approval of the proposed septic systems. Issues for Consideration 1. Should a “no-grading** /one be required along the northern property lines of both lots? 2. Should a shared driveway be established or is an additional access acceptable? 3. This proposal will be review by the Park Commission for a recommendation regarding park dedication. 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recommendation Approval of the preliminary’ plat is recommended subject to the following stipulations: 1. Submission and approval of a final plat. 2. A conscr% ation easement shall be submitted to control drainage and be included for final plat approval. 3. Implementation of the recommendations of Hennepin County. 4. Implementation of the recommendations of the City Engineer. 5. Subject to standard fees and easements. 6. The existing house and associated sheds be removed prior to issuance of building permits for either lot. EXHI&irA Application# A3 - St <?3f Date Received *7 - ^3 ~ Amount Paid OO CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site address ____98'c .<La^ rv-t- Property Identification NuinberCPlD) //’? CCJj/ Please check one - Property____abstract or yc torrens? Attach legal description to application. APPLIC.VNT Name /Rot. /7i,^/c^< c?€^ /1//V. Address City_ <7". /Y\ ;A . Phone (home) '7^3-0.^ y S'JSt Phone (work) - 0 ^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name___________J*?c\A7g Address City___; (attach list if more than one) EXISTING LAND USE . Number of Tax Parcels / Development Size y Present use (check) X[ Present Zoning District .Phone (home) _ _ Phone (work). Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units tX Other (specify)_________ PROPOSAL _________ Division for Tax Purposes _________ Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new buildling sites) X Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _________Existing Units _________New Units _________Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) 1 ____Units per ^ Acres _____Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land ^ Residential Other (specify). #2PS7 ^2. Completed application form. V^. Preliminary plat information on Certi ficate of Survey ^ *^1’!^“.'^“’' •*““ >®“ "Uti* ippliMlioa \/\. Payment of fees (refer to Preliminary Subdivision Approval 3 Tifir^pSo*^*^*'* *®™“' p***- 4. Easements, coxxnants, etc. 5. Developers Ajreemeni and Letter of Credit. Zoning Official's Signature P*»k fees if applicable). '■ " W „ cb.ck IX] .UA Sketch rian Review (CIms I, IIA III)S275.00 Subdivision of a Lot Line Reanangement S350.00 Subdivision Aoolication fna<« I Jb m t.inn nn -------- subdivision of a Lot Line Reanangement 5350 00 _____ Plat Applicatioo (Class III) $250.00 ^ & all oon-residential) ------Legal Review and Filing: . Subdivision only S100.00 Totals nn _____Subdivuion only S100.00 - . Subdivision w/easements and covenants min. S200 00 Park Fees (to be determin .d per Section 11.62) Legal and Engineering Review Fees (as inclined) Pt 'posed Private Roadt $6sn no .*< <L. — oi rinai Class B. Special Improsement Fees: -------- Pi posed Private Roads 5650.00 ♦ S.Sttlineal ft • -------- Proposed Public Roads 5950.00 ♦ 5.501ineal ft.;’^ Ita ft. X .50 - $ . Un. ft. X .50 -Proposed Public Roads 5950.00 ♦ 5.501ineal ft.; -------im « Request for City to Accept Existing Private Road 5950 CO Proposed Sanitary Sewer Main Extension 5275.00 ♦ 525/stub — Prrposed Watemuin Extension 5275.00 ♦ 525/stub TT (excluding culveru) $250 00 S60 CKX'per lot x_____new lou C. Flexible Application I'ees/Misr. Fees -------- Vanance 5250.00 (550.00 per each additional variance) Subdivision $100 00 PRD Application with Subdivision SdS.OODwelling Unit /XO. 00 VC Bonestroo Rosene AncSerlic6i Associates Engineers 4 Architects 31. 2003 Janice Waaiaja Planner Cuy of Orono Post OfTtce Box 66 Crystal Bay. NIN 55323 England Third Addition RleNn 139-0^-000 Plat No. 03*2937 ■••MW. AM mM «W AMMtMtt. In* M Mi Afrumatiiw Oppoflt0mf MW Owfwt ■rlnc^r Oit* a ■Mwn'oa M IwwU. N •OWwiB C om. PI •■MMtO ScAwwn(.P( . M*tf A ■•wdon. Pf • Mj>* a Hsntcti. Pt uw«» C»W«WIMIU toOMt W toiMW PI • JaMM«C AiWtWA.Pt •■»cfiM«l lymM.Pf • SuunM IOmMi CPA A iimim* PrOwMMt »r«H A Cewen. PI . OMmi ■ Pttfftwt pf . W !•«»». Pt • 0»wd O P| • MffwM T •JWMMM Pf • ltd I IwW PI • IMOMA P Arwroon Pf • Mjrt ■ Po«l Pt • OMrW A aMvitw* Mi A VMwy p WMjmMiv Pt.li • Agnrt M Mi A • AAjnPM kiwWI P| • Tiwowi Mr PrttMe<\ Pt • iMWt • MAjrw PI . iMrt ■ iwnMi. Pt • I Ptw» ■ Pf . 0»W» J l«9Mton PI • tvivwi Mortal PI . nwMM A t^rw Pf . W«oon i XAnun . OjW A Gr*.* »I • Trwwtt A iewiPM Pf • »oM*t i Orw-, PI ortM**. u PjiA tt cmw. tsowuM mw «pm«m un • •••**>••. »i • CPwoiA a •MMA mtMienpM'MCOM "flftVo Dear Janke: We have levievied the pceliminary p* a for proposed subdivision in the England Third Addition. The plat proposes to subdivide the existing 4-acre lot into tw ^ 2-acte lots. The site is located along the east side of C R. 19 in the northwest quarter of Section 7. We have the following comments w ith regards to engineering maners- • The perimeter drainage and utility easements shown are appropriate. • The existing driveway should remain in its existing location and be configured to serve Loi> I and 2. No additional drivewu) cuts should be permitted onto C.R 10. • The applicant should provide some type of perimeter buffer strips to enhance water quality and slow storm w ater runoff rates from the site. • Plans should be submitted to Hennepin County for their review and comment. • Erosion control measures should be installed, inspected and approved by the city prior to any w ork on site. If you have any questions please call me at (651) 604-4863. Yours very truly. BON'CSTROO. ROSETTE. AN*DEKL1K i ASSCCiATES. INC. Tom Kellogg Cc: Greg Gappa. City of Orono 23 J5 West Highway 36 ■ St. Paul, MN 5SII3 ■ 6SI-636-4600 ■ Fax: 6SI-636-IJI1 CnToTOIIONO Mnkipal Offlcis SkMtMdrm: 2750 mu Paihny OroM. MN S53S6 IMtaf IMrm: P.O. Boi 66 Oystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 TO:Janice Waataja FROM:Matt Bolterman, On-Site Systems Manager DATE:August 11, 2003 SUBJECT:Septic Review for Dob Morlock 2-iot Subdivision The property at 980 North Shore Dr W. has two approved sites for mound septic systems on each MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Sandra Smith, Commissioners David Rahn, J. Mark Fritzicr, late arrival Liz Hawn, Jeanne Mabusth, Cynthia Bremer, and alternate Jan Berg. Representing staff were Planning Director Mike Gaffron, Planners Melanie Foth and Janice Waataja, Recorder Kristi Anderson, and Council Representatives Jim Murphy/Jim White. Commissioner Zugschwert was absent. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (#1) #02-2809A RICK STERLING, 1300 VINE PLACE, VARIANCE AMENDMENT Chair Smith inosed, hlabasih seconded, to recommend approval of Application A02-2809, Rick Sterling, 1300 Vine Piace, granting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct a 32*XI2.S* deck addition. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#2) #03>29ll PETER AND LISA RYSKAMP, 1080 WILDilURST TR.\II., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Chair Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application M13-2911, Peter and LUa Ryskamp, 1080 Wildhurst Trail, granting approval of the conditional use permit for replacement of a permanent dock subject to staff conditions. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#3) #03-2912 MARVIN AND MAY SMITH, 1940 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING Cbaii Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Applicalion #03-2912, Marvin and Mary Smith, 1940 Country* Club Road, front and side yard setback variances to allow the construction of a second story addition to the existing home. VOTE: .Ayes 6, Nays 0. (#4) #03-2918 BRUCE SINGER, 330 TONKA AVENUE > VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING Chair Smith moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2918 Bruce Singer, 330 Tonka Avenue, variances to permit construction of a new residence on a lot with area of 18,750 s.f. (.43 acre) and width of ISO* where the required lot area and width arc 2. acres and 200* respectively. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nay*t 0. PAGE 1 of 37 minutes of the ORONO PI.A\\ING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. H. mono WCM PERMIT-PUBLIC HEARING " ‘ ®**^”^**® S - CONDITIONAL ISL M«cI>o..ld of Appllcilon #03-2921, Orebard Road S., for a conditional nse permit **' 485 Orono 6.Na>^0. OLD BUSINESS Jolm Bid Robciu IlCTrich. Ihc vplicanis. wn, present, new house'’OT"lht 'XpMr’’Thrip!l!i7r '’"'""S fionsc and consini ntceting; Wanning ^oSon v^edMtT:^' P'-^nn^rcrSin average setback and accessory structure »Xu“Tnn" "T'”' for lot width of Ihc deck in kind —^ *'■* S,“ Bn<« Vu, w Jo i« . 2V eastward relocation of the drive^^ ay access nn^ ?" «wove. The new site plan results in a PAGE 2 of 37 h ‘ II mu MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#6 W)3-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICII, Coatfnucd) and house, and retaining usable parking area. As noted in May. GafTron staled that the house footprint uill increase from 1219 to 1635 s.f. Structural coverage including the garage, house ana shed will only be 8.3 ”o where 15”« is allowed. In addition, the re\ ised site plan has an alternate version that moves the house about 4* closer to the lake than proposed in May. Tliis proposal would allow for additional green space beUveen the house and the driveway. However, this also results in a 4 ’ eneroachment of the 30’ bluff setback, as the existing house is at a 32' bluff setback and the initial proposal just met the 30' requirement. Gaffron reported that the proposed hardcover in the 75*250' /one has been significantly reduced from the existing level of 6,180 s.f. or 37.1 •/, to 4,630 s.f. or 27.8 “/•. (28.2”/o if the bluff setback is not allowed, as deck will then not be reduced). The applicant included in his initial letter ol request a number of factors which he believes are hardships that support the variance request. These factors included the ability to park numerous vehicles off of Highwood Road which is very nanow and has only minimal ability for on-street p.irking. 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 w ill remain on the site. Chair Smith thanked the applicants for their efforts to revise the plans and reduce hardcover dramatically. Mr. Henrich indicated how pleased and surprised he was that they were able to reduce the hardcover numbers so significantly. Although the hardships stilt exist and warrant the need for variances, the steepness of the slope, the existing structures, etc., he believed they had found mutually acceptable solutions. Chair Smith asked Gaffron whether the narrowness of Highwood Road could also be viewed as a hardship. Gaffron stated that Highwood is a substandard size road w hich allows for little, if any, street side parking. He indicated that it might be considered as having hardship characteristics for the whole neighborhood, whereas, the steepness does require e\ cr>lhing to be pushed back 30' from the top of the bluff. Chair Smith asked how the Cemmis'^ion might further reduce the hardcover to even closer to 25”/«. and suggested the deck size be reduced While he had no problem with the house, Rahn questioned whether they could lose hardco%’er from the 480 s.f. deck and 160 s.f. patio, and require the shed be removed. PAGE 3 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PUWNTNG COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. #03-2993 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH, CoaUavcd) Mobusth maintained that, not only could the deck size be reduced, but it could be pulled further out of the bluff setback as well. Mr. Henrich argued that the mosquito population is a nuisance and the deck raises them out of the grass. In addition, he pointed out that the deck was granted approval in 1990 and should be allowed to remain, licnrich added that neither the deck, nor shed, are noticeable from the lake. He maintained that, theirs was a definite hardship property. Rahn questioned if this were ne^v construction, whether the deck would be allowed to stay and the hardcover meet 25%. Hawn arrived at 6:20 P.M. Chair Smith suggested they remove the shed. Berg asked what the shed was used fur and noted that without it, the ow ners w ould need to house everything uphill. Henrich pointed out that, due to the extremely steep slope, the shed houses their pump, diKk supplies, etc. R-ihn stated that they have required others to lose their shed in lieu of a lockbox and asked how much space w ould be gained. GafTron stated that the ohed and steps constituted approximately 112 s.f. Rahn indicated that he liked the changes the applicant had made and stated that he would be willing to support the application as recommended by staff; however, he would require the removal of the shed and their going to a lockbox. Hawn stated that she viewed the application as new construction and found difficulty with the proposal. Henrich stated that, if he were able to rebuild, he would do so. Since his garage and deck have already been redone; however, it is only the house that remains and it does not meet code. Mrs. Henrich pointed out that they had already removed the top portion of the deck and maintained that if thc>’ were forced to remove much more of the deck, it would be unusable as a deck on top of the bluff. Mabusth suggested the Commission require the applicants to cut back the deck to meet a 10* bluff setback. She indicated that she could accept the 28% hardcover, recognizing they had come PAGE 4 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Me iday, July 21,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#6 #03-2893 JOHN AND ROBERTA HENRICH. Continued) a long way to do so. Mr. Henrich asked if they could redesign the deck to meet the 10’ bluff setback and still maintain the 600 sT. size deck they currently have, or maintain the 28"« hardcover figure. Mabusth agreed, stating that this solution would be consistent. Chair Smith indicated that if the applicants could compromise their design to meet these suggestions, the Commission could support the 28"o due to the steep slope and narrowness of Highwood Road. "There w ere no public comments. hlabustb moved, Fritzler seconded, to recomnwnd approval of Application #03-2893, John and Roberta Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road, approving the average setback variance for the revised location, approving the revised hardcover plan for 28% hardcover in the 75- 250* zone due to the steep slope and narrowness of Highwood Road, require that the deck be pulled out to meet a 10* top of bluff setback, and the shed be converted to a lockbox. Gaffron questioned whether the Commission would approve the small 4 ’ encroachment of the house into the 30 ’ bluff setback. Mabusth amended her motion, addin;; that while the deck needs to be reconfigured in order to be pulled 15* from the lop of bluff setback, the honse could remain encroaching by 4* into the 30* btaff setback. Hawn moved that the prior motion be withdrawn, Bremer seconded, VOTE: Ayes 7, Navs 0. Bremer moved, Mabusth seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2893, John and Ruiierla Henrich, 4125 Highwood Road, approving the average lakeshore setback variance for the revised location; approving the revised hardcover plan for 28% hardcover in the 75-250* zone due to the sleep slope and narrowness of Highwood Road; approving a 4* encroachment of the bouse into the 30* blaff setback; however, the Commissioo would require that the deck not encroach more than 15* from the lop of the Muff and the removal of the shed in lieu of a lockbox. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#7) #03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN, 1300 SHORELINE DRIVE, AfTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES, 6:34 - 6:48 P.M. Scott Cooper, the builder representing the applicant, was present. PAGE 5 of 37 dfilih MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21 ,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#7 #03-2904 RICHARDS. BROWN, Coatteacd) GalTron explained thal the applicant requested an afler-the-ract 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 ways to reduce the excess hardcover. Allowed = 35% = 6.785.6 s.f. Existing » 50.8% = 9.860 s.f. Initial Proposal = 45.9*/. - 8.908 s.f. Robed Proposal ■ 39.7% - 7,693 s,f. The applicant 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. GafTron staled that if the Planning Commission determines thal the unique circumstances regarding the history of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the after-the-fact variances w ould be in order As this item w as 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 working w ith a landscape arc’‘ ect, the applicant determined that removal of the circular drive could result in a positive imp...t to the property and result in a hardcover reduction of 2.167 s.f.. viclding a final 500-1000* hardcover of 7,693 s.f. or 39.7%. Gaffron noted that, while additional items of hardcover could be removed, they represent amenities that applicant feels arc 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). Imhcs for CoBskIrratioB 1. The applicant proposes a revised plan such that the hardcover will be reduced to a level of 2,167 s.f less than the existing but still exceeding that allowed by City Cedes by 908 s.f. 2. The applicant's acqui ition of the property was finalized before he knew the magnitude of the hardcover excesses. 3. Retaining walls that encroach past the lot line or arc less than 26* from w etlands should be relocated to be within the property and meet wetland setbacks. While the City has minimal use of the adjacent right-of-wa>-s and they appear to a casual observ er as part of this property, the City has no intent to vacate those right-of-ways, hence applicant cannot make the property larger 10 reduce the hardcover percenuge. Gaffron indicated that ^taff would make the following recommendations: 1 . If Planning Commission determines that the unique circumstances regarding the history PAGE 6 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (»7 «03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN. ConUnncd) of this property can be deemed as a hardship, then a recommendation for approval of the aAcr- the-facl variances per the revised removal plan would be in order. 2. Existing encroachments of wetland or required w clland setbacks by retaining w alls, fill or paved surfaces should be removed. 3. Retaining walls should be removed wherever they extend outside the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within S' of the lot lines should be reviewed by staff to determine whether they are needed to support steep slopes or w hether they are purely aesthetic in nature, and those not necessary to support the topography of the site should be removed. 4. All landscape bed lined w ith fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. Chair Smith questioned whether the unique cirL umsianccs surrounding this application could be ermsidered hardships. Gaffron stated that, while the applicant should have done some further investigation before purchasing the property, there is some debate over w hose fault the overages of hardcover could be blamed. Although certainly unique. GafDron acknowledged he did not know if they constitute hardships by definition. Chair Smith poir>*ed out that the original sqiprovals allowed 30*/o hardcover. During the last meeting the Commission asked the applicant to get as close to 35°/o hardcover as possible. She questioned whether further removals could be made to reach 35%. Cooper commented that construction occurred over a four >trar penod and that the current applicant has gone to great lengths to reduce hardcover substantially and still have good access to the proi>eity. Hawn asked how the retaining walls w ould be changed. Cooper stated that the walls would be pulled onto the properly; howev ’er. as allowed at the last meeting, they would not meet a 5* setback. Gaffron stated that minimal reductions would be gained with these removals and that the remaining pavement is necessary to ensure adequate turning radius and maneuverability. He pointed out that the applicant would like to keep the patios. Hawn and Bremer felt the applicant had done a good job faced with a difficult situation. Fritzler stated that he would insist the removals go further to meet the 35% as originally directed at the last meeting. Chair Smith concurred, stating that she saw no hardship to support the need for two driveways. PAGE 7 of 37 --- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («7 #03-2904 RICHARD S. BROWN. Coattoacd) ~ Gaffron pointed out that the two driveways access two difTcrent levels of garages. There were no public comments. Cooper reiterated that they had taken out the circuit, driveway, for a decrease of some 2 000 s f and all that remains was a sidewalk aceessing the front door. Bremer moved. Haws sccoodcd. to recommead approval of Applkallon #03-2904, Richard Brown, 1300 Shoreline Drive, after-lhe-ract variances per the rev ised removal plan, subject to staff condMons inclndiog; the removal of retaiaiag walls, fill, or paved surfaces within the eiisting encroachments of wetland or wetland setbacks; removal of retaining walls where they estend over the property boundaries, and any walls to remain within 5* of the toltaes should be reviewed by staff to determiae whether they are needed to support steep slopm or aesthetic in uature, and those uancccssary to support topography of the site should be removed, la addition, all landKjpe bed lined with fabric or plastic shall have such liner removed. VOTE; Ayes 5, Nays 2. Chair Smith and Fritzler beiieved the rrmovab shonM meet 33%. (#«) #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTII, 720 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARUNCES 6:48-7:19 P.M. ............. Jefl and Cara Ziebarth, the applicants, were present. Gaffron stated that the applicants at the June meeting provided a new plan which reduced the number and ma^itude of variances needed to construct a second story addition and attached garage to the existing residence. A slightly further reduced plan was submitted on Julv 14. The vananccs required by the most recent revised plan include: 2. 3. 4. Second story structure encroaching w ithin 0-75’ setback zone. 65’ from shoreline Second story structure encroaching 4.3 feet from IcO side lot line. Second story structure encroaching 2.4 feet from right side lot line. Attached garage addition and grading 6 feet from left side lot line (rather than 4') and moved back tow ard existing house footprint to avoid encroaching sewer 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«i) 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(5l.9*/o) to 1961.38 sf (45.1 •/») where 255i is normally allowed. Changes not requiring variances include: PAGE 8 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#8 #03-2907 JEFF AND CARA 7JEBARTH. Conlinyrd) > Lot coverage by structures reduced from 1870 s.f. (23.5%) to exactly 1500 s.f. uhere 1500 s.r. is allowed (no variance required). > Total hardcover as a percent of 75-250' zone w ill reduce from the existing 3315 s.f. (76.3%) to 2496 s.f. (57%). Gaffron indicated that staff would recommend the following: 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 sccon J story additions within the side setbacks, because they w ill tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to issues over future maintenance. c) Approval of the second story addition encroachment of the 75' lakeshorc setback. d) Approval of the hardcover variaiKcs 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 property. e) Require that a suitable drainage plan be developed prior to review by the Council. At the June Planning Commission the Planning Commission tabled the request for further review and analysis by staff. The applicants have made a number of revisions since the June meeting, the changes needing variance approval arc summarized above. Gaffron explained that the characteristics of the most recent plan include: - Deck removal and replacement with a small (95 s.f.) deck in 0-75' zone to ' tit structurai 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 story additions directly above the existing house footprint remain, so the side setback and lakeshorc setback variances are still requested; • The drivew ’ay is minimized to a width of I O', w idening near the garage; the existing detached garage by the road will be removed. Gaffron continued, pointing out the primary issues with the current proposal including: 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 left side and 2.5-3.9* on the right side. The Building Ofllcial has determined that window s can be allowed wherever the walls are 3' or more from side lot lines, w hich leaves only a short length of the south side w all as ineligible for windows. c) The attached garage is proposed to be 6' from the side lot line, w hich is better than the original propoul but still constitutes new structure in a substandard setback.* PAGE 9 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. («W «W3-2907 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, CoatlaHcd) d) Drainage it still a concern, although from staffs perspective the most recent plan will actually reduce the magnitude 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 incorporating sw ales and roof gutters can be devised to reduce any current drainage problems. When designing his proposal. Mr. Ziebarth stated that he believed hardcover to be the most important element of the design, as opposed to setbacks. He indicated that the biggest ehallenge he faced was the sewer easement, and the struggle to meet several requirements, and stilt gel what they need for livable space. Ziebarth contended that, under the allowable calculations, he would only be allowed a 500 s.f. second story if he were required to meet 10’ side yard setbacks. He indicated that he had assumed they would be allowed to construct a second story above the existing first story. Chair Smith stated that the revised drainage plan seems doable and that the second story could encroach into the 0-75’ setback; howes'er. the side yart setbacks remain the issue. She stated that feedback from the neighbors at the last Commission meeting and letters in the packet still contend this to be an issue. Ziebarth staled that, in his opinion, his home has been overshadowed by neighboring properties, and that a precedent has already been set to the south allowing the second story, albeit further from the lot line. Kirk Otteson, 710 North Arm Drive, the neighbor to the south, indicated that his home is compliant 23’ from the property line. He stated that, as proposed, this home would be larger than his home on a smaller piece of property. He maintained that if the home were located just 2* from his property line, and still two stories tall, the impact would be 10 times worse than his, which is compliant. Otteson stated that he was not allowed a walkout design; therefore, went with the two story plan. He objected to a two story home located 2’ from his property line. Chy^Smith asked for the ^licant to comment on staffs recommendation that the garage be Ziebarth stated that moving the existing structure would compromise the layout of the house. He maintained that the design tnd look of the house would be substantially changed and that shifting the garage over would drastically block the house and any sunlight ftom iu southwest comer. Chair Smith asked for Ziebarth to comment on the second story recommendation. Ziebarth stated that a 490 s.f. second story would look odd sitting atop the home. Chair Smith stated that the Commission could vote on whst was in front of them or table the PAGE 10 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (M HI03-2M7 JEFF AND CARA ZIEDARTH, Coaliaucd) application for redesign. Ziebanh staled that he had looked at other designs and believed that hardcover was more important than setback; therefore, they chose this layout. He stated that being given the 0-7S’ setback zone grace was insignificant, since the average lakcshorc setback protrudes further than their home. Chair Smith indicated that the Commission had allowed limited side yard setbacks in the past Gaffron stated that the Commission has gone so far as to approve S’ side yard setbacks, but no less on both sides of a tiny lot. Ziebarth maintained that he could rebuild a new 720 s.f. footprint home meeting all of the setbacks and questioned why he could not do this which was a smaller design. Hawn reiterated that the home would be loo close to the side yard setbacks and too close to the neighbors. Fritzler commented, small lot. small house. Rahn agreed w ith staff recommendations. M^busth suggested the ^licant reconsider the detached garage in order to allow them additional living space. Ziebarth repeated that he felt the detached garage would have a negative impact on the design and increase their hardcover. Chair Smith asked the applicant whether the Commission should table or vote on the application. Ziebarth asked what other options there mi^t be. Hawn stated that they had given the applicants direction. The Commission w'ould consider something less than a 10’ side yard setbKk, but no less than S’, more like 7.S ’ and encouraged him to consider this. In addition. GaHron stated that, if the ^plicant chose new' construction, he would be required to meet 25% har Icover. versus the rebuild design which enow's him 45%. In reality. Gaffron indicated that new construction would most likely be identical to the hardcover of the rebuild. Ziebarth asked for further second story suggestions. PAGE 11 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#S m-29t7 JEFF AND CARA ZIEBARTH, CoaliaMcd) Rahn slated that he was not in favor of the plan. Though he refused to redesign the home for the applicant, Rahn suggested the applicant meet second story setbacks, stepped in with a sloping roof and no further encroachments. Ziebarth asked the Commission to vole on what was before them. Mabaslh noved, Berg secomlcd, to rtcoMmcBd AppUcathNi #05-2907, Jeff and Cara ZictanB, 720 North Arm Drive, as proposed, Deaial of the 4* side setback variaaces for the garafc, as H caa be still shifted to awet a 10* setback with mom interior design changes; Denial of the second story addHioos within the side setbacks, becanse they will tend to overshadow adjoining properties, and lead to hsnes over fvture maiatenaBce; Approve the second story addition encroachment of the 75* lakeshore setback; Approve the hardcover variances as propetsed, nnlqne to the sabmittal, as thb plan reflects what appears to staff to be the minlmam hardcover necessary to snpport a reasonable residence on the propertv-; and Rcqnire that a snltable draiaage plaa be developed prior to rev iew by the ConneU. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS (#9) #03-2893 GARY GERMUNDSEN. 4101 IIIGIIWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:19 - 7:40 P.M. Gary Germundsen, the applicant, was present Waataja reported that the applicant has requested the follow ing variances to construct a I2'XI2* deck on the lakeside of the new residence. 50.S*/o hardcover in the 75-250' /one (46.8% currently exists) where 40% is allow ed Per Resolution #4645 Approved in April 2001 and 1,708 s.f. of structural coverage (1,528 currently exists) where 1,500 s.f. is allowed. Waataja stated that staff would recommend denial of the request based on Resolution #4o45 which approved renewal variances allowing construction of the existing house, limiting the applicant to 4CPi hardcover and 1500 s.f. of structural coverage. Furthermore, denial of the request would be recommended since, as it currently exists, the home is over on the hardcover allowance and the lot coverage by structures allowance which was qjprovcd with the renewal variances in April 2001. ^\'bcn reviewing hardcover calculations, Waataja pointed out that retaining walls were added at the time of construction to ensure proper drainage and were not proposed with the initial renew’al variance review process. The driveway also appears larger than what was depicted on the original survey. Currently, the home is in excess of the lot coverage by structures by 28 s.f., at 1,528 s.f. This w as PAGE 12 of 37 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETD^G Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (N9 M3-2895 GARY GERI^IUNDSEN. CoatiBacd) a result of modiricalions to the plan upon construction of the home. Waataja stated that the modifications include the l.S'X12' two story bump-out on the east side of the home. The applicant is proposing a 12*XI2* second story deck and stairway (180 s.f.) off the lakeside of the bom greater than 6' off grade; therefore, it would be included in the lot coverage by structures figure. The propos ed lot coverage by structures would be ! 708 s.f. Due to a lack of viable hardship, and the stipulation set forth in Resolution #4645 which set limits for the property, staff would recommend denial of both variance requests. Germundsen stated that sightlincs for his neighbors are not a concern and referred to letters from neighbors submitted to Planner Boltenberg. He indicated that both neighbors on either side of his home have decks that extend further than his home. He stated that, originally, he undcfcstimated how bad parking on Highwood Road was, and that drainage would be as significant an issue as it lua proven to be. Germundsen stated that, currently, all of the ^ ater ruiming down Hi^w*ood runs between him arxl his neighbor's property; therefore, warranting the need for the retaining walls. He maintained that the driveway does exceed what was approved, but believed miscalculations must exist. He slated that he had no other outside structures on the property to remove in order to gain room to allow- for the deck. Chair Smith stated that no letters accompanied the packets. Germundsen pointed out that letters from neighbors on both sides of his home were submitted with the original packet. He indicated that he would supply staff with new- copies of those letters, as provided to the previous planner. Berg questioned the bump-out on the lakeside, as it did not exist on origirud plans. Geimundsen staled that he purchased the house w ith the plans and that a w indow was present on the plans. Waataja indicated that the bump-out was not approved; whereas, a window was granted approval. Rahn questioned whether driveway removals could be made to allow for the d«k. Germundsen stated that he could reach 40% with driveway removals. While staff could live with the fact that the retaining walls w-ere necessary to control drainage and that the second story bump-out appeared during construction, Gaffron stated that staff could not support the addition of a 12’X12' deck above the other approvals. Frilzler stated that the lot. in his opinion, had been maxed out. PAGE 13 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#9 M3-2t9S GARY GERMUNDSEN, Coallaiied) Chair Smith was hesitant to endorse further driveway removals given the safety needed to maneuver onto Highwood Road. Hawn felt granting approval for the application would set a poor precedent going against the 2001 Resolution. There were no public comments. Chair Smith asked the applicant whether he wished the Commission to table or vote on the application. Germundsen asked whether the impact on his sightlincs caused by the iiciglibors justified his request. Berg stated that the sightlines had nothing to do with his structural coverage excess. Germundsen could see no where to pull additional hardcover from the properly and asked the Commission to vote on the ^rplication. Frilxler moved, Rahn seconded, lo recommend denial of Application #03-2995, Gar>* Germnndsen, 4101 Higliwood Road, due to lack of viable hardship and the stipulation of Rcsointioo #4645 which set limlu to the propertv*. \’OTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#10) #03-2910 WAYNE AND ANNE JOHNSON, 1225 LAKEVIEW AVENUE, VARIANCE, 7:40 - 7:44 P.M. \Va>Tic and Anne Johnson, the applicants, w ere present. Foth explained that the applicants request a side >*ard variance in order to encroach 15* into the side yard setback. The applicants arc requesting a variance to place their proposed porch at 15 ’ from the side lot line where a 30* setback is required. Based on the hardship of the Small lot si/c (0.47 acre) in a 2-acrc zoning district, and location of the existing house and well, Foth indicated that the staff would recommend approval of the side yard variance for 15 ’ encroachment into the 30’ setback. Foth suted that the application is lo rebuild a porch addition which will be slightly larger than the existing porch and will have an attached deck. The new porch is proposed to be 15 ’ from the side lot line at its closest point for a toul increase in square footage of the deck and porch to be 24.5 s.f. greater than the existing porch. The lot size in this situation is 0.47 acre, typical of lots in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The proposed setback of 15' would be conforming if this arra w as zoned for acre lots. PAGE 14 of 37 r L.. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21 ,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#10 #03-2910 WAYNE AND ANNE JOHNSON, Coiliaiicii) Fritzler belic\'cd the location of the well to be adequate hardship. Gaffron pointed out that the neighbors detached garage is also an issue. There were no public comments. Mabmlli laovcd, Hawn seconded, to recommend approval of Application #€3-2910, Wayne and Anne Johnson, 1229 Lakeslew Avenue, approving a side \ard setback variance for a 15* encroachment into tbe 30* setback. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (Recess was taken from 7:44 - 7:54 P..M.) (#11) #03-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN, 583 PARK LANE, VARIANCE, 7:44 - 8:28 P.M. Gina Hansen, the applicant, was present. 3. 4. Foth reported that the 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 Uic required 10 ’ setback. Hardcover in 0-75* to remain at existing I0.3*i where no hardcover is allowed. Decrease hardcover in the 75-250' /one. w ill be reduced from .3641.16 sf(63.3‘Ji) to 3503.16(60.9';.). In summary. Foth staled that staff w ould recommend: a) Denial of setback variance of 5* from side yard as it w ill limit light and air for neighboring property, and w ill adi! to the crowding in the neighborhood. Approval of change in structural coverage amounts (net decrease). 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 arc looking for aesthetic change to facade rather than added space. b) c) Foth provided background, staling that the applicants wish to add a 6’x 20* covered porch on the street side entrance to their home where previously a 6* x 6* platform existed. This porch w ould be located 5* from the side properly line. This proposed encroachment is les» severe than that of the existing home. The home is located 3* from the NW side yard, where a 10* setback is required. With the proposed reductions to existing stairs, and lakeside deck, the proposed porch addition will decrease the structural coverage totals for this property. In addition, the applicants have proposed a 67.5 s.f reduction in their driveway hardcover. PAGE 15 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. («11 M3-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN. CoiiliMMcd) In July 2000, the applicants received a 7'side >’ard variance to allow house additions 3' from the side lot line where a 10* setback is required, in order to construct a 22S square foot second story addition over the back portion of the residence and enclose a 4’ x 18’ deck into living space. Foth expanded on the staff recommendation as follows: a) Staff recommends denial of setback variance of S’ from side yard as it w ill limit light and air for neighboring property, and will add to the crowding in the neighborhood. However, staff w ould approve a proposed porch meeting the 10’ side >'ard 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 of 356 s.f of plastic fabric lined lam’scape beds in the 75’-250* zone. If these arc removed (staff recommends removal), final 75’*250’ hardcover will be (3503.16-356)^3147.16 s.f or 54.7^i. Chair Smith questioned the revised hardcover calculations based on fabric or plastic lined landsc^ bed removals, as they arc not considered hardcover removals for the purpose of trading hardcover. Mrs. Hansen stated that they were striving to reduce hardcover and the massi\ cncss of the newly constructed wall which was granted approval for a 6’.X6’ deck. She indicated that they were going to great lengths to move the lakeside stairs to within the deck itself and removing space from that deck altogether, along with 2’ from the driveway for plantings. She stated that they would remove plastic from the keystone wall beds. She questioned how moving the covered entry deck w all over in front of the w indow would impact the addition. Chair Smith asked if the w’all could be move I closer to the door to avoid the w indow altogether. Hansen suted that was how the original 6’X6’ deck was before. GafTron stated that by placing the wall to the north side of the w indow ycwould have a 5 ’ setback, if it were placed the other direction there would be a 10’ setback and the well and pressure tank would be obstructed. Chair Smith questioned whether the applicant was trying to obtain more usable space or improving aesthetics. Hansen stated that she was trying to make the porch more appealing and give the plan more character. PAGE 16 of 37 Mutm i I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. m 1 ^03-2913 STEWART AND GINA HANSEN. Conliavcd) Shannon Burger, architect and neighbor at S94 Park Lane, stated that the porch succeeds in breaking up the expanse of wall and provides a needed covered entry from the detached garage. Paul Duenow. 577 Park Lane, stated that, aesthetically, he agreed this would improve the look for the neighborhood. As the adjacent neighbor, he did not feel the addition to be an imposition and believed it to bo a functionally better design. He maintained that the lakeside removals were a reasonable accommodation to the request. Kris Rudd, 601 Park Lane, concurred, stating that she. too. supponed the request and did not view’ air circulation as a problem. As inside access was available. Mabustli questioned whether outside access to the pressure tank was neccssar>'. Rahn stated that the applicants already far exceeded their hardcover and structural coverage limits. Bremer slated that she would prefer to see the removals made from the lakeside of the home to allow for this addition and agreed that, aesthetically, the design was better. She felt, given the small lot, improvements by decreasing the structural coverage were desirable. Chair Smith questioned w hether trading off the side yard encroachment w as acceptable. Hansen stated that the home itself protrudes further into the side >’ard than the proposed deck. Duenow felt that, in reality, the zoning was the issue. Although she recognized the intense use on the street side. Hawn stated that she would prefer it there, and to lose the intensity on the lakeside. Fritzicr concurred w ith Hawn. GafTron stated that the old survey failed to properly reflect existing decks and the concrete slab below. He noted that the applicant could remove the deck and slab of concrete below which would equate to more structural cover than being proposed for the strcctsidc. Hansen added that the shilling of the lakeside stairs and removal of the deck would also allow for a better opening accessing the lakeside yard. Rahn indicated that he would support the staff recommendation, since he believed the need for the covered porch should have planned for in the original submittal p.'ocess. PAGE 17 of 37 L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#12 ^ NORTHERN SUNROOMS, INC. ON BEHALF OF SCOTT UDELL, CoBdaMd) only (he view of the neighboring yards, b) Denial of (lie requested excess roof eave encroachment. While the existing roof eave encroaches 3.S' into the 10* side yard setback, only l.S* of the eave is considered a non-encroachment. Applicant wishes to keep the existing eave. Udell maintained that they would confine the construction to building on (op of existing structure. Rahn questioned where overhangs exist elsewhere on the home and whether the e>*cbrow would be flat or raised. Gaffron pointed out that the 3* overhang runs the entire length of the other side of the home. Chair Smith asked if the work could be done without the excess eave. Deah Udell stated that (hey needed the ca\ c to reduce w ater and drainage problems. Mr. Lucas stated that, aesthetically, the applicant would wish to keep the existing overhang which matches the overhangs across the entire home. Mr. Udell suted that the inset eyebrow and 1-2" inset gutter would assist them in eliminating the flat rubber roof and water problems they face currently Hawn asked if the applicants could make the design work with no further overhang than currently exists. Chair Smith questioned why staff had recommended denial for the overhang. While, aesthetically, the overhang should be there. Gaffron staled that it encroaches and there is no hardship to support its approval. Udell maintained that w ilhout the overhang w ater pools at the comers and they need to be able to channel the water to the outside edges. There w ere no public comments. Hawi noved, Berg sccoadcd, to rccommeod approsal of Appikaltoo #03-2915, Norther* SaarooMS, lac.for Scott Udell, 2166 Shadywood Road, grantiag the average lakeshorc setb,<cfc variaace aad eiccsi roof eave eacraaefcaMat VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 19 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21.2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. I#I3) W3-2916 PHILLIP SMITH, 2600 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD, VARIANCES, 8:4S -9:11 P.M. Phillip Smith, the applicant, was present. GafTron explained that the applicant requests a lakeshorc setback variance to construct a sccc.nd story addition partially within 75' of the shoreline, and hardcover \ariances for an attached garage and a porch addition. 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 '/i-stor>' configuration, and noting that the existing home being partially in the 0-75' zone is the hardship. GafTron reported that staff recommends that a hardcover %ariance 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 Because the proposed additions arc mostly over existing hardcover, only the proposed sidewalks or the proposed porch could be reduced in size to significantly reduce the hardcover increases. Tlic total proposed hardcover increase in ti.c 75-250' zone is 601 s.f including the porch addition, small portio s of the garage addition, and sidewalks either side of the garage Existing 0-75' hardcover associated w ith the shed and patio totals 1375 s.f. A 1:2 removal would result in a reduction of 0-75’ hardcover of 300 s.f or from 2561 s.f (21.3%) to 22< 1 s.f (18 8"Ji) Staff suggests that a 1:1 removal ratio (601 s.f) would be more consistent with past City approvals, resulting in no net increase in hardcover on the propeny. A net decrease in hardcover could be achieved by reducing the patio even further. Gaffron suggested the Plannin^ Commission consider whether it would be more consistent with past practice to require concurrent removals of hardcover in an overall ratio of 1:1 to result in no net hardcover increase on the site. Hardcover removals in a ratio greater than 1:1 would create a belter long-tcnn situation, given the excesses of overall hardcover on the property. However, driveway hardcover removals in the 75-250’ zone may result in parking problems Gaffron stated that it should be noted that the runoff from the west half of the house, i.e. most of the 75-250’ zone, flows westward to a low area west of the main driveway serving the immediate neighborhood, rather than flow ing directly to the lake. If gutters which currently discharge about half of the roof drainage to the cast, could be redirected to the w est, this w ouid reduce the impact of existing 0-75’ hardcover. Applicant notes that the 300 s.f of 0-75’ hardcover he would remove is the 100 s.f shed and 200 s.f of the 1300 $.f patio. He w ould 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 net have to remove driveway areas. PAGE 20 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock pjn. («H3 «03-2916 PHILLIP SMITH, CMtteacd) Mr. Smith submitted a neighborhood recommendation from four neighbors stq>pofting his position to reduce I s.f of hardcover in the 0-75 ’ setback area for e\ cry 2 new s.f. in the 75-250’ setback area. Mr. Smith explained that his home is oriented to the lake and has four doors \^hich exit to the lakeside. In an effort to maintain the character of his home, he suggested that he remove 300 s.f from the 0-75 ’. He expressed his hesitation to remove additional pavement from the driveway, since the road is a private driveway with no where to park. As proposed. Smith stated that they would build over the I Vi car garage. With regard to the stormwater diversion. Smith indicated that he could divert all but one of the gutters away from the lakeside. There w ere no public comments. Hawn stated that she had a problem supporting the 1:2 removal ratio. She added that the shed was currently too close to the property line and would need to be relocated or removed. In addition, she felt further removals than the estimated 300 s.f. offered would be required. Mabusth questioned whether the Commission could support a redesign of the drainage flow , if their interest did not support the 1:2 removals. Rahn concurred w ith the staff recommended 1:1 remov al ratio. Mabusth stated that she did not wish to sec further driveway reductions, and believed the removals would need to come from the patio. Smith p«>inted out tliat he had tried to save tlie patio and create something that would reduce runoff into the lake. He maintained that this vvas not a large lot, that most of the home falls vv ithin the 0-75 ’ setback /one. and 40% of the property is not counted in hardcover calculations. While he was willing to move the shed, he encouraged the Commission to review this application in the variance process based on its own merits and not the cookie cutter standards often mandated across the board. Chair Smith indicated that the Commission would be inclined to support the staff recommendation, along w ith removals of landscape fabric, and asked the applicant whether he would prefer the Commission vote on or table the application. Smith asked if the Commission could vote on the portions of the application independently and provide him the opportunity to present his 1:2 remo\*al ratio recommendation to the City Council, along with his plan to redirect runoff away from the lakeside of the residence. PAGE 21 of 37 L_ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CX)MMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (»I3 M03-2916 PHILLIP SMITH. CoatiMcd) Chair Smith moved, Raha Mcoadcd, to rccommead approval of Applicathm #03<29I6. PhilHp Smith, 2600 West LaFaycitc Road, sraattaK approval of the apper Ic^ el sccoad »tor>’ additioB la the 0>75* setback rone; and hardcover variaaccs be appro%*ed to allow addHhms to the porch aad garage sabjeci to staffs recommeadatioa that the hardcover addhioas be coacarreat to reamvab of hardcover ia a ratio of at least 1:1 with ao act hardcover iacreasc oa the site; farther reqairiag, that the shed be relocated on the property if reawvab from the 0-75' are required; and that all landscape plastic be removed. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#14) #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, 90 MYRTLEWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, 9:11 - 9:49 P.M. Deborah Thompson, the applicant, was present. GafTron reported that the applicant requests a side street setback variance to construct a 996 s f detached garage. A second variance is requested 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' w here a 50' side street setback is required. 2. Oversi/e accessory' 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 location'si/e detail for that pool, so the pool request is not under consideration as part of this application) GafTron indicated that staff recommends: a) Approval of the side street setback variance for the 996 s.f garage. b) Denial of the variance te create an oversi/e accessory’ structure. c) Consider whether screening should be required. GafTron explained that the applicants propose to construct a 9% s.f detached garage IT southeasterly from their existing 848 s f detached garage. The new garage will be located 23.1 feet from the south side lot line, which is by definition a side street lot line. It abuts the dedicated right-of-way of old Highway 12 or Wayzata Boulevard. While the portion of Way'zata Boulevard imm« ately adjacent to the property has not been used for road purposes since the extension of 1-394/US 12 in the I970's. it is still MnDOT right-of-way and must be treated as a street for zoning purposes. With regard to the Oversize Accessory Structure Variance. GafTron stated that the Council adopted the Ov ersize Accessory Structure (OAS) ordinances in the late l98(Ts to place limits on the size of indiv'idual accessory buildings as well as on the toul square footage of accessory buildiitgs that could be located on a property. For lots smaller than 2 acres, it was concluded that PAGE 22 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#14 #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Continvcd) no oversize accessory structures should be allowed, and any structure over 1000 s.f. would be considered as oversized. The concern was the mass and bulk of structures on propcnics, with an intent to limit the visual density and retain open space. The visual impacts of the combined structure arc potentially significant due to the proposed attachment to the existing garage, resulting in a rear southwest-facing facade nearly 70' long, which will be visible to an>-onc entering Orono on Highway 12. The City has a 10' building-to- building separation requirement not only to address fire safety issues but to aid in the goal of limiting visual density and building massing. While staff finds that the need for a second building for storage is not unreasonable, and tl«c potential locations for such structure are Fruited because this is a wooded comer lot with hills and wetlands to contend with. The two accessory’ buildings total 1844 s.f The property is allowed up to 2(XX) s.f. of accessory’ stmcturcs in total, but no individual accessory stmeture over 1000 s.f. Connecting them with an 11* x (8710712*?) greenhouse-style structure would not be in keeping with the intent of the OAS ordinance, and would potentially have the negative impacts that the ordinance intends to avoid. GafTron reviewed the staff recommendations for; 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 sy’stem location, wetlands and topography. b) Denial of the variance to create an oversize accessory structure, finding that approval would be in conflict w ith the intent of the OAS ordinance. c) Planning Commission should dctemiine whether any vegetative screening should be required to mitigate the visual impacts of allow ing the stmeture in a location nearer the side street lot line than would nomially be allowed. Ms. Thoripson slated that, since beginning their plans for a garage, the setbacks have changed from 20'-50'. She indicated that they proposed to constmet a greenhouse between the existing and new garage in an eflbrt to enhance and maintain the area between the two buildings. With regard to screening. Thompson stated that there are pine trees to the side of the property. Although she and her husband w ished to submit plans for the entire proposal, including the pool, she felt as though she had not been given clear direction from staff as to w hat w as required. Chair Smith noted that the pool was not part of this formal application. Hawn suggested the Commission table the application in order to give the applicants lime to meet with stalT and add the pool request to the submittal. GafTron stated that the City sent a letter to the applicants on June 26 requesting more information PAGE 23 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#14 #03-2919 KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOI^IPSON. CoBtlnacd) if Ihey wished to include the pool as part of the application. He encouraged the Commission to give the applicant direction with rcganl to the oversize accessory structure created by combining the two buildings and greenhouse. Rahn stated that it appeared the applicants would exceed the 2.000 s.f. accessory* limit, as ucll as the 1,000 s.f. accessory size per building limit by attaching the greenhouse between the two. GafTron pointed out that there was no information pertaining to the dimensions of the proposed greenhouse. He stated that, if the greenhouse were a small structure, the totals might fall under 2,000 s.f.; however, it may still exceed the 1.000 individual limit when combined with one of the other structures. Thompson stated that, es’cntually, they would like to use a portion of the new garage as a pool house. While swimming pools are not considered part of the accessory structures, GafTron pointed out that they must still meet setbacks. Thompson asked if variances were given for pool setbacks. Hawn believed a converted pool house with plumbing brings new issues to li^t, as docs the need for a conditional use permit. She maintained that more information w*as necessary in order for the Commission to vote on this application. Although the garage would eventually be converted to a pool house, Thompson indicated that their current use would be for storage. Berg reiterated that, since the Commission lacks the necessary^ information to attain a clear understanding of what the applicant wants, the Commission could not vote on the application this evening. GafTron suggested the Commission provide the applicant w ith further direction of w nat is needed for application prior to the next meeting with regard to plumbing, pool location and size, and whether the Commission could be persuaded to grant a side yard setback. Derg added that dimensions for the greenhouse were necessary as well. Fritzler pointed out that accessory structures arc required to be 10’ apart if not attached, and if attached, they cannot exceed the oversize classification. Thompson stated that she believed they were below the 2,000 s.f limit with the buildings attached. PAGE 24 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (»14 «03-291f KEVIN AND DEBORAH THOMPSON, Coadiiied) Frilzler reminded the applicant that she would exceed the individual 1,000 sT. limit. Berg moved to table Application 1103-2919, Kevin and Deborah Thompson, 90 Myrtlewood Rond. Hawn repeated that plans and dimensions would be necessary to proceed. She believed the Commission could support the side street setback variance. Gaflron stated that the side street lot line to the Highway 12 right-of-w'ay had alwa)^ been there as a grassed over area. Chair Smith questioned whether there were alternate sites for the garage. Thompson indicated that the only alternate site would eliminate an alternate site for the mound system. Chair Smith indicated that she could support the side street setback variance with additional screening. Rahn stated that he concurred with staff recommendations and that he believed the Commission would not support the oversize accessory structure. He suggested, once again, that the applicant provide staff with detailed dimensions and a pictorial drawing of the plans. Gaffron agreed that it would be unusual for the Commission to grant a variance to oversize structures on a 1 acre lot. Thompson asked if they could construct the greenhouse on the other side of the existing garage. The Commission supported this suggestion provided the individual building and attached greenhouse do not exceed 1,000 s.f. There were no public comments. Mabnsth seconded Berg*s motion to table the application for purposes of redesign. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ((H5) «03-2920 ST. EDWARD THE CONFESSOR EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 865 FERNDALE ROAD NORTH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 9:49 -10:00 P.M. Allen and Judy Staricey, Judy Hoover, and Chuck Whittaker, representatives of St. Edward Episcopal Church, were present. PAGE 25 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. («1S M3-2920 ST. EDWARD THE CONFESSOR EPISCOPAL CHURCH. Cwnteacd) GalTron explained that 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, suff found that no conditional use permit had ever been issued for church use. hence rc-use of the site for church use will require a CUP approval. This review w ill also include a brief site plan review , although most aspects of the site are not changing GafTron provided background, explaining that St. Edwards was originally granted Council approval for a building permit for a church in 1966, but the record indicates no formal CUP w as ever granted for the church use. The church building was destroyed by fire in April 2002, and the congregation has decided to rebuild in the same location using the existing foundation. They have chosen HGA as the architect for the project, and preliminary building plans are included in the packet. 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. With regard to setbacks, GafTron pointed out that the existing/proposed building location is centered on this 4-t- acre property, more than meeting the building setback requirements. While the building location is more than 26' from delineated wetlands in the NE and NW comers of the site GafTron suggested the applicants contact MCWD to obtain any necessary permits. While parking for the church use is regulated in terms of minimum number of spaces and location. The number of stalls is determined by the seating capacity of the main assembly room, at a rate of 1 stall per 4 seats. The main worship area has seating designated for 143 persons, with an overflow area for an additional 40, totaling 183 persons: N’ain Assembly Room Seating Capacity: 1 83 Required Parking Stalls per Scat: 0.25 Required Parking Stalls: 46 Proposed Parking; 59 StaUs GafTron noted 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. StafThas not hea^ of any past parking issues with St. Edwards, and we have no problem with the reduction in paricing. GafTron staled that no new signage has been proposed. The existing permanent sign is approximately 50 s.f in area of each side (staff has not measured its dimetttions so this is an approximation) and would require a variance if h were to be replaced. 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 GafTron indicated that the existing chiuch driveway offof North Femdale Road approximately PAGE 26 of 37 \ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. («IS M3-2920 ST. EDWARD THE CONFESSOR EPISCOPAI. CTIURCII. Conliattcd) 220 soulh of the Fcmdalc/Co. Rd. 6 interscclion. is appropriate and poses no problems for sight distance. Once again, no lighting plan has been indicated on the submitted plans. City ordinances require that light sources not be visible at the lot lines. Gaflron slated that stafT recommends approval of a conditional use permit for continued church use of the site at 86S Noilh Femdale Road. Planning Commission should provide direction on any issues which should be addressed relative to the use and the site plan. Judy Starkey staled that they were not sure whether they would be vacating the westerly parking wing for the meditation garden at this time. Pastor Judy Hoover stated that, based on informal contact she made w iih surrounding neighbors, they’ve expressed their support for the Church to rebuild on this site. Allen Starkey indicated that they wished to construct a small shed to house the lawn maintenance equipment near the end of the parking lot. Gaffron stated that the location must meet a SO’ lot line setback. He indicated that it would not be a problem to add a 12 ’X12* shed to the application. Mabusth questioned whether the Daycare or Monlcs.sori would need to file a new CUP. Gaffron explained that the existing CUP is current, even though the building burned down, the CUP accompanies the property. He stated that any new da>‘carc provider would merely need to meet the conditions set forth in the original CUP. Hawu nM\«d. Chair Snllh sccoadcd, to rccomncad approval of AppllcatloB MI3>2920. St. Edward the Coafrssor Episcopal Church, 865 No^ Fcradalr Road, accept lug the CoodMooal Use Permit for coaliooed charch use of the propertx, w ith the addition of a 200 s.f. shed to be placed la a coaforodag locatioa. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#16) #03-2922 IMAGINAILITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASI13IAN, 1685 AND 1655 FOX STREET, VARIANCE, 10:00 -10:35 P.NI. M>Tna Omstein, of Imaginality, and Mark Gronberg, of Gronberg and Associates, were present on behalf of the iqtplicant. Waalaja reported that the applicant requests a wetland setback variance to allow the placement of address monuments. The applicant has expressed a need for a more defining address marker. Currently, a small address sign sits very low to the ground on the side of the private drive. The applicant has stated that the hidden drive results in cars passing, stopping and having to turn around. PAGE 27 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21.2003 6:00 o ’clock p.m. (#16 W)3-2922 IMAGINAILITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASIIMAN, Complied) Thus, the applicant is requesting a wetland setback variance to allow the placement of two stone address monuments, one on each comer of the private drive. The existing split rail fence would be removed. Wetlands exist on each side of the private drive. Waataja stated that the applicants have submitted a survey showing property lines, easements and the proposed location of the stone monuments. The wetland boundaries shown on the survey are not the result of a w etland delineation but rather the wetland boundaries that w ere recognized w hen the property w as platted. AAer a site visit, staff has concluded that the wetland boundaries depicted on the surv ey are not accurate. The wetlands appeared to have gotten larger (especially on the western side of the drive) and staff believes both stone monuments w ould actually be closer to the w etland than what the survey is showing (15* and 17’). Waataja identified sev eral key issues for Consideration; 1 . Should a stone address monument be allowed within the wetland setback? 2. Should the sight visibility triangle be obstructed? 3. Due to the topography arid tree line, would the address monuments improve the visibility of the drive entrance, or does the split rail fence sufHcc? 4. Will the structural integrity of the monument be compromised due to the wet soils? 5. If the location of the w etlands and vegetation constitute a liardship, and approval of the variance is being considered, should a wetland delineation be conducted to confirm the magnitude of the variance? Based on these issues, Waataja indicated that staff recommends denial of the wetland setback variance because the applicant has not demonstrated that sight visibility issues would improve w ith the r lacement of address monuments in place of the existing split rail fence Omsicin stated that the current location of the address plaques makes it difficult to read them in the winter months. She stated that they often are knocked over and it is critical for emergency vehicles to be able to identify the addresses in the event of an emergency. She pointed out that most of Fox Street is lined with split rail fence and that there is little to distinguish this entrance Since entrance markers are allowed in the City Code. Omstein indicated that they would be open to follow ing staff rccommeitdations regarding the type of monument and footings to ensure their stability. She stated that she had visited the site and that the 1992 survey shows the monument would fit in the 30’ sight triangle. Chair Smith asked how the monument could be moved outside the w etiand setback zone. Gaffron indicated that it appears that the wetland has grown since the 1992 survey was performed. Mark Gronberg. Gronberg and Associates, indicated that they had identified a partially blocked culvert under the railroad tracks 10 years ago and suggested the City unclog the culvert since A could be some of the cause behind the backup issues faced by Fox Street. He questioned whether PAGE 28 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock pm (»16 M3-2f22 I^UGINAILITY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN. Contfaiacd) this clogged culvert could ha>*e itudvenently inHated the water level of the wetland along Fox Street. GafTron felt the MCWD would need to reexamine where the wetland exists today, even with the clogged culvert issue. He believed staff had tried to locate the culvert once before to no avail. In addition. Gaflron pointed out that the vegetation and trees lining the property might be an c\cn larger issue than the wetland. Chair Smith asked what other methods could be used to mark the access. Gaffron felt other methods or different size markers than monument markers were available. Omstein stated that Uiey created the original design based on City Codes, not realizing a wetland existed, and now the presence of the w etiand has caused issue. While sympathetic to the need to mark the entrance with the addresses, Chair Smith suggested a smaller scale or size be considered. Gaffron pointed out that a sign post would be the bare minimum for this t>pc of marker situation; however, the City had not been faced with this issue before. Chair Smith commented that something more permanent than a signpost would be necessary in this case. Hawn asked Gaffron if someone from the City could go out to Fox Street, locate the culvert, and hopefully, unclog the culvert. Gronberg indicated that his staff could take representatives from the City to the site and check it out. Gaffron did not feel it was realistic to expect that, if the City found the culvert and cleaned it out. the wetland or water level situation would improve along Fox Street. Hawn questioned w*hy the City had instituted the groundwater management plan and fund, if not to solve some of these problems like those found on Fox Street. Bittner concurred that it was rather swampy along Fox Street and that something should he done. Despite the conditions along Fox Street, Rahn maintained that the wetland would need to be delineated. PAGE 29 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o'clock p.ni. («I6 m-2922 IMAGINAIUTY ON BEHALF OF MIKE CASHMAN, Co«lhi«ed> Waataja stated that a wetland is defined by plants and soil l>‘pcs and water alone docs not constitute a wetland. Chair Smith inquired whether the property owners would be interested in performing a delineation to find out where the wetlands arc. Omstein indicated that she had been given the impression that the owners would be willing to take the next step by identifying the wetland and refining the monument design accordingly. Chair Smith suggested the Commission table the application to allow Omstein the opportunity to conduct the delineation. Waataja asked the Commission if they felt a hardship existed, whether it be the wetland, vegetation or location of the drive. If they felt there was a hardship and would consider a wetland setback variance, then a delineation should be conducted. If they didn't feel there w as a hardship, there would be no sense in requiring a wetland delineation. Chair Smith believed that, while the markers could be revised, they arc necessary’. She indicated that not all members of the Commission would support overturning staffs recommendation to put up the monument in the wetland. Omstein asked for direction. GafTron encouraged the applicant to design a street sign, on a 4X4 post with hanging address plates. He notol that the c^c allows 2 s.f. per address. Berg questioned whether the monument could be moved up to replace the currem split rail fence GafTron stated that the sight triangle would be negatively impacted by mo\ ing the monument in place of the fence. He indicated that many possibilities exist and should be discussed in further detail, especially, since the vegetation and trees themselves also obstruct the sightline. Berg moved. Mabusib seconded, to table Application «03-2922. Imaginality on behalf of Mike Cashman. for the purpose of redesign and wetland delineation. VOTE: Aves 7. Navs 0. (#17) WI3.2924 TODD SMITH ON BEHALF OF JIM AND JULIE IIARSTAD, 4550 WOLVERTON. VARIANCE. 10:35-10:30 P.M. Todd Smith, on behalf of Jim and Julie Harstad, was present Chair Smith stepped out of the Chambers briefly, horn 10J510 J7 P.M. PAGE 30 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m (#17 M3-2924 TODD SMITH ON DKIIALFOF JI'.» iM> JtT.IE IIARSTAD. CoallBued) GafTron explained lhat the applieani requests an after-the-fact variance to construct an accessory gazebo/shed structure nearer to the street lot line than the existing res ikc. The ga/ebo structure is approximately 245 feet from the private road, whereas the house is approximately 300 feet from the road. The ga/ebo is located 27.6' from the side lot line, meeting the 10' minimum side setback for a 200 s.f. detached accessory structure GafTron stated that the applicants commciKcd construction of this building w ithout obtaining the necessary* building permit. When the work was stopped by the Building Inspector, it was determined that due to the location of the house near the rear of the property, the accessory- structure was in a location nearer the street than the house, out of compliance w ith the Code. GafTron indicated that staff recommends approval, subject to applicant obtaining the appropriate after-the-fact building permit for the. cessory structure. There were no public comments. Mabusih moved, Bremer seconded, to recommend approval of Application #03-2924. Todd Smith on behalf of Jim and Julie llarstad, 4550 \\’olverton Place, granting an afler-the-faci variance to construct an accessory- gazebo/shed structure nearer to the street lot line than the existing residence, subject to the applicant obtaining after-the-fact building permits for the structure. VOTF.: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Abstain 1, Chair Smith abstained having missed the discussion. SKETCH PLAN (#18) #«3-2926 \VAi.TER RINGER JR., 2165 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, St'BDIMSION, IO:38-ll;tinr.M. John Ringer, son of applicant, and Mark Grot *>crg. of Cronberg and Associates, w ere present. GafTron reviewed the sketch plan for a S-lot residential plat of property abutting the Dakota Rail Corridor and Lake Minnetonka. The proposal includes development of a private cul-de-sac road plus : outlet driveway serving one "back lot" The property is in the Meiropohtan Urban Service Area but does not abut any cvisiing municipal sewer lines. Tiie site is wooded and contains an existing single family residence constructed in the 1920’s. With regard to the sketch plan review , GafTron expanded on its characteristics as follows: 1. Cuaformity with 20UB-202<' Oroao Commuaity Maaagemeot Plaa (CMP) 'Htc properly is guided for single family residential use at a density of I unit per 2 acres. The p.oposed plat conforms to this use. The property is located within the MUSA and is intended to PAGE 31 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MELTING Monday. July 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («18 1^03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR.« CoatlnHcd) the OHWL, Lot 1 may or may not meet this requirement. c) Lot 2, as a lakeshore back lot. must also meet the width requirement at the rear of the required front yard. The required front yard by definition (11.30 Subd. S(CM2Kb)] of Lot 2 is the yard abutting the boundary line between Lots 1 and 2. Lot 2 appears to meet the 200* width as measured along the rear of the front yard; however, the lino depicting the front yard is shown with a 30* setback rather than the 75* setback required, because the back lot yard requirements are 1 S0*/o of the district standard requirements. d) The rear yard of Lot 2 is the line abutting the RR right-of-way and requires a 75' setback, c) The line between Lots 2 and 3 is a side lot line, requiring a 45* setback rather than 30' as shown. I) Lots 1 and 3 aie considered as "front lots" because they abut an Outlot driveway >erv ing a back lot. As front lots, they are subject to a Sfy setback requirerrent from the Outlot (per 11.30 Subd. S(CK3)] which is shown as only a 30* setback on the proposed plat. This becomes critical if the e.xisting house is intended to remain, because it is only 40* from the Outlot rather than the 50* required. 5. Road Layout aad Slaadards The proposed road corridor is 50* in width as required by the Subdivision Code and CMP for a local private road. Tbc standard paved w idth for this road would be 2?'. The use of the front/back lot configuration as opposed 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. S(CK I) states: 6. Parfc/Trail Easemeats or Drdkalton Needed The City has no current plans for trails or parks that require dedication of land from this property. However, the southerly point of the property brings the shore of Lake Minnetonka nearly to the base of the railroad gr^e. w hich is a unique configuration that should be looked at by the Park Conunission to determine w hether the dedication of land could result in regional trail access to the lakcshore. 7. Road Improvcflicats aad/or EaseoMats Needed The City will require a Road. Drainage and Utilities Easement over the private road, which should he platted as an outlot. Further, this plat should not go forward except in conjunction w ith an upgrade to City private road standards of the private road w ithin the Murphy property. The applicant's property does not abut a public road but is about 800 feet south of North Shore PAGE 33 of 37 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#18 #03-2926 WALTER RINGER JR.. Coatiaacd) Drive (Co. Rd. 51). This land is landlocked except for existing driveway easements through the Murphy property. t. StOTMwater lad Drateage laiprovcmcals aad/ar Easewcats Needed Development of the property will likely require creation of stormwater management facili*ics which may include storm sewers, swales and runoff rate/quality control ponding within the site Again, coordination with the develoomcnt of the Murphy property may be bcncnoial from a feasibility and cost-saving standpoint. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. established currently at S2700 per acre for the 2-acre /one. 9. Utllily* Lacalioas and Availability The property would be served by private wells and municipal sewer. Municipal sewer with capacity to serve the small number of units proposed is available in the Crystal B;t, neighborhood just North of North Shore Drive. 10. Utility Assessments or Conaectloa Fees Whether a sewer unit connection charge for use of the existing sew er sv siem w ould be re<|uircd of this new development, has >*ct to be determined. The developer w ill be responsible for all costs associated with bringing sewer laterals to serve the proposed new lots, as well as for obuining appropriate easements through the Murphy property for the sew er. 11. Lakeshore Proximity and Conformity with Shoreland Regulations Lou 1 and 2 are the only lots which will abut the lakeshore. and the only lots which will have riparian rights. The applicant is not currently proposing any lake access for the non-riparian lots. 12. Wetlands On Site and/or Impacted The only apparent wetlands on the site arc those abutting the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. However, the preliminary plat application should include a completed wetland delineation report to verify that no other wetlands arc present. 13. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts Tlic site is heavily wooded with a variety of tree species. Orono does not have a tree preservation ordinance other than within the 0-;5’ lakeshore setback /one. where cicarcutting and removal of trees 6" or greater in diameter is prohibited. The developer is encouraged to preserv e as many trees as possible to retain the w ooded character of the property. PAGE 34 of 37 L. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, July 21.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. («18 MI3-2926 WALTER RINGER JR^ Coaliaved) Gronbcrg pointed out that it could be rather onerous for the owners to pay connection fees now for future development. Gaffron agreed, staling that the connection fees could be delayed to a future time frame. He noted that if the parcel was subdivided into 2 lots, once the road was ready, the rest of the developments could be ‘phased in’ similar to a subilivision or deselopment. Although a unique situation, Gaffron praised the City and applicant for trying to the right thing now by planning for the future and not missing out on any opportunities it might hold. Hawn questioned the idea that the park dedication come directly out of the lakcshorc. acknowledging that this would be a bit egregious to expect a piece of the most xaluable ponion of the property. While Gaffron understood her position, he noted that it was necessary to at least broach the subject. Noting that the sketch plan was well laid out. Chair Smith complimented the applicant and Gronbcrg for an attractive proposal. With regard to the future roadway, Gronbcrg stated that they would suggest a bigger loop that comes back upon itself in order to preserx e the treed area on the property. He questioned how the backlot ordinance might impact their plans. Ringer stated that the title states that if the lot casement from Kingsley/Murphy is unavailable, this property would be given an easement directly parallel to the railroad tracks on the property. Ringer asked the Commission if they felt the proposal was feasible for them, the Ringers, to pursue before they commit to any further great e.xpense to file an application. Chair Snhth slated that ihe sketch plan seemed more than feasible. Gaffron suggested they design a 4-5 lot plat, starling with the initial 2 properties now as the preliminary plat and outlolting the second phase of 3-5 properties. As the City has done oullois for developers w i;h additional phases of completion, Gaffron believed this to be and acceptable solution. He indicated that the City would need to obtain some kind of commitment from Ihe Murphy's as to where the proposed roadway would run. Chair Smith thanked Ringer arul Gronbcrg for tlicir presentation and indicated that the Commission had no further issues. PLANNING COMMISSION CO.MMENTS PAGE 36 of 37 f ■ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. July 21.2003 6:00 o ’clock p jn. <«!*) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JUNE 23 AND JULY 14.2003 Rahn reported that, during the June 23^ Council Meeting, the Gumnit application, as well as were the Planning Commission rKommendations and justification for approval of the Killian and Denali applications. Hawn stated that many of the applications for the July 14* Council meeting were on the consent agenda, other than the McGlynn application. The Council spent a great deal of time discussing the boathouse restoration and, ultimately, found that no variance was necessary and that they wished to see the stnjcture remain. (02$) OTHER ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron stated that a Work Session will be held on August 6, at 5:30 P.M. to discuss remodel versus rebuild and the idea of quantifying variance requests. («2I) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 16.2M3 Mabuslli moved. Hawa sccoadcd. approving the Minutes of the June 16. 2003. Planning Commbsion Meeting as presented. \'OTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0, Abstain 1, Berg abstained. (1122) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON JULY 2S. 2003 AND AUGUST 11.2003. June 28 - Fritzler (Bremer back-up) ADJOURNMENT August 1 1 - Chair Smith Bremer moved. Fritaler seconded, to adjonm tbe Planning Conunbsion meeting at 11:10 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 7. Nayi 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M. Sandra Smith, Chair PAGE 37 of 37