Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-20-2003 Planning Packet
X. ORONO PLANNING COlU.MISSION Monday Octol»rr 20.2003 6:00P.M 2750 KHley Pirfcwny - Coanrfl Chambers AGENDA Connell Rcprcscnlalive: JimMuiphy AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Please sign in for the public record at the front podium if you wish to address the Planning Commission. Applicants will be asked to move to the front table to answer questions when the Chair announces the application. The Planning Commission b an advisory body* to the City Council. If action b taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for the November 10,2003 City Council meeting unless otherwise noted by the Chair. CONSENT 1. M3-294I Paul Cady. 465 Turnham Road, Conditional Use Pcnnii (Staff: Janice Waataja) 2. #03-2952 Greg Trpp. 3229C Casco Circle, Vanance (Staff: Melanie Foth) 3. #03-2955 Michael Palm, 710 Big Island, Variance (Staff: Janice Waataja) 4. #03-2956 Hossnpat Construction. 849 Brown Road N, Variance (Staff: Janice Waataja) NEW BUSINESS 5. #02-2858 6. #03-2923 7. #03-2934 Scott Standa. 2659 Casco Point Road. Variance (Staff: Mike Gaffron) Stevan Wagner. 3607 Shoreline Drive. Variance (Staff: .Melanie Foth) Jason Bliss. 3445 Cry stal Bay Road. \’ariance (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 8. #03-2951 Judith and James Picrpont, 1849 West Farm Road, Lot Line Rearrangement (Staff: Mike Gaffron) 9. #03-2953 Ravmond and Nylenc Newkirk. 1489 Shoreline Drive, Variance (Staff: Melanie Foth) 10. #03-2954 Howard R. Alton. 111. 1635 Concordia Street, Variance (Staff: Janice Waataja) 11. #03-2957 Joseph Thics. 1180 Willow Drive N, Variance (Staff: Janice Waataja) 12. #03-2958 Judson Dayion. 2885 Little Orchard Way, Variance (Suff: Janice Waataja) Public A ttendance Meeting Date 10 !? i~ Ji ■<. *-S □ Council Planning Commission □ Park Commission □ Other Please eillouttiie infor ^iation requested ■ELOW FOR our CUT RECORDS. PRESENT FOR (rrom ■xenda) NAME (please prial)ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. 'Mfi'CiCcAC'^'JCI SHD u 1 lAi' Al.i' M ir L •r. > n .T.__Jt T t- -/NC i J t ^ . / t z. cA Vp \Vfc. ^ *T>*w A PAY ’A\u 1' tL-A .^Vkv r^l ^-f •^'.>-'■1 1 7. V.'H -----■ “ ^ > «--------i------- t------------ >^V5 2Cii^L^x^ i':*7 R. h ^ tvi eY .E .( 10.. 11.. 12.- 13.. 14. _ 15. _ ORONO PLANNING CO^L^nSSION MMday October 20.2003 «:00PM 2780 KHter Poffcwoy - Cwca Cbiwbm AGEM>A •m Caoacfl RcprtMotaHvc: Jim Nluipby AUDIENCE MEMBERS: n«tM tifo ia for ibt public recorO »i tbe frout podium if you «Ub to oddrm the PUuuIo} — Commiuioa. Applicoau wOl be asked to aiove to the froat table to aaiwer quMtioas wbet 1^, Cbair anaouaccs tbe appMc adoa. Tbe Ptaaaiat Commbtioa b aa adrbory body to tbi • City CouaciL If actioa b ttkea oo aay llcms aa thb ateada. they wiO be scheduled for Iht Nosember 10,2003 City CoaacU aicctiat ualess othenobe aoted by the Chair. CONSENT i. *03-2041 Paul Cady. 468 Tarmham Road,CooditiotuI Use Petnit (Staff: Jaake Waauja) 2. *03-2082 3. *03-2088 Greg Tripp. 3229C Casco Circle, Variance (Suff: Melanie Folh) Michael Palm. 710 Big Island. Variance (Suff; Janice Waauja) 4. *03-2086 Hosinpat Constmetioo. 149 Bro«*a Road N. Variance (Staff: Janice Waauja) Scon Sunda, 2689 Casco Polol Road. Variance (Suff: Mike Gaf&on) - e Slesan Wagner. 3607 SkorcUac Drive. Variance (Staff: Melanie Folh) Jason Bliss. 3448 Crystal Bay Road, Variance (Suff Mike Gaffron) 8. *03-2981 Judith and James Pierpont. 1849 West Farm Road, Lot Line Rearrangement (Suff Mike Gaffron) 9. *03-2083 Raymond and Nyiene Ne>*kjxk. 1480 Shoreline Drive, Variance (Suff Melanie Foth) 10. *03-2984 Ho«ard It Alton, ni. 1638 Coacordia Street, Variance (Suff: Janice Waat^a) 11. *03-2987 Joseph Thies. 1180 \VUlo%« Drhc N. Vana.nce (Staff: Janice Waauja) 12. *03-2988 Judson Dayton. 2888 Little Orchard Way, Variance (Suff Janice Waauja) PLANNING CO.kDaSSlON CO.SDIENTS 13. Report of Planning Commission representatives Mending Council meetings September 22.2003 and October 13.2003. 14. Other issues for diKussion. 15. Planning Commisston approval of minutes for September 18.2003. 16. Selection of representatives for City Council meetings on October 27,2003 and November 10. 2003 ADJOURNMENT i M0J-2MI October M. MU DMi AppBwlMa lUctfvtd: t-19« Out AppMcilMa CoasMcrcd m Coapkte: t-IM) M-D«y Rtvlcw rwM Eipim: Chair Smith and Planning Commiuion Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator fron: Dmic: Subject: Janice Waataja. City Planner October 16,2003 03-2941. Paul Cady. 46S Tumham Road - Conditional Use Permit - Public Hearing ZonlBg District: Lot Area: Lot Wkilb: RR - 1 A. One Family Rural Residential District (S*acre minimum) 5.948 acres (259.1 lls.f.) 424 18 feet Ap/^ic^tkm Summary’ Applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct a bam on a *nhrough ” lot. St^ff Recommandation: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval subject to the bam location indicated on the submitted plans. Pertineat 2U»Biag Ordinaace Sections Section 10.03, Subdivision 10: Conditional Use Permit Required. All accessory buildings on through lots located in “R" Districts shall require a conditional use permit. List ofEahibils Exhibit A Exhibit D Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Application Existing Survey Proposed Survey/Site Plan Floor Plan Elevations Property Owners List Plat Map Backgrooad The applicant submitted plans showing a bam to be located on his property which is considered a ‘‘through lot". At this time planning department staff inform^ the applicant that the plans submitted for the bam do not meet the 75 foot setback required by Zoning Ordinance. At that time the ^rplicant staled that he will be submitting plans at a later date showing a revised location for the bam. A pool was approved at the September 22. 2003 Planning Conunission meeting. 1 M03-294I Oct»bw20.2Ml rift2«r3 Since the September 22,2003 Planning Commission meeting the applicant has revised his plans by removing the stalls on the outside of the bam and revising the door p’ln of the barn to only show three stalls, which is the number of horses allowed on this property. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LcLAnaAVidth: RR-IA Lot Area LotWUth Required 217.800 s.f. (5 acres)300’ Actual 259.1 lls f. (5.948 acres)424.18- Sttbaehi! The setbacks indicated below for the bam are approximates, except for the setback to the adjacent neighbor to the south (75*). The lot is almost six acres and all other setbacks are easily met RR-IA Required Existfaig Proposed House / Bam Front 100*100-100*/228- Rear 100*552-552*/520- Leftside 50*9825*98.25 ’/75‘ Right Side 100*\22:-227-/200- Stinetural Coveraae: Tto pcopetty is noi subject to smicniral covetsge lequiiemeats because it is in excess of 1*99 icm. Hardcover Caleulaihwi! '• "i'hin 1000- feet CoadMoaal Use Permit Aoalytb J iU-2Ml Omh*rXO.MU PatiJcTJ nquM to matalaiii a 75* setback, iwhich the plans hi\v depicted. The bam will be locased S3* from the home and be visible from McCuUey Road. Renderings have been included in the exhibits to illustrate how the bam will appear. This proposal meets all conditional use permit standards. Isanes gsr CsaitiinHisa 1. Will die bam negatively impact the adjacent neighbor? 2. Are there any other issues or coiKems with this applicttion? Approval of the conditional use permit to allow a bam to be constructed on a through lot sul^ect to it meeting a 75' setback. Applfcatioo# Date Rccdvtd R-iQ -O*^ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ^rLea Type of Application to be Filed ____________________ Property Identiflcation Number (P.I.D.) ’31- 11^ —Qp Address >44.^ TLkf2<0\:^lf\JUy City OPofOO Phone (home) ______ Phone (work) OWNXR (if ditTercfU than applicant) Name____________________ Address. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Date Property Acquired I (do) Property , also owp the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS • _____S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application S2S0.00 Residailial Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$250.00 Guest Housc/Guest Apartments _____$250.00 Duple.x Credit/Bldg _____$325.00 Commercial/lndustzial Use _____$250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling • 501 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' oflakeshore PRD^TID • see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) ARer-lhe-Fact 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 VacaUon With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Compreheuive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other • see Fee Schedule #2941 required submittals -------Completed Applicition Fonn. “• ------Deecribe request in deUil. * c-- j q; -1 • ■ — £Sr'"^>00 - «l .0 h„dou, f„, changes in elevation (grades). Mntouts) if land alterations involve '^ilh an interest in the list 6f my otherIWsoni you wish noUHed of this appliMtii^ submitted.) ^ ”'*«>ngs of all documents, plans, etc. to be •PplicaUonunoicomple ’tehrtSXvrtafo^io^'L ’^j”^^^ remember that >our. as.» „oi oeen included. « complet. ---------------------------Date AFPLICA^T•S SIG.NATURE The applicmt hereby ^mis'trato^; unusual expenses mcuned in revieu- of thii application'r^ *"*“*’ payment) applied IS tnie and coneci to the best of hislier ImotWedge^ ^ “fonnalic- Applicmt’s signature_________________ OLIVER’S SIGNATURE A? ^7Owner's signature muu have all subminali into ib/ciiy ofBc« .. ’ ' ------------ 'yn . Date it « is usable to anrod a advise the *^e 1 I C.dv.r»n.m:SM.PI.n ■’■ f «ia \ \ \ iM vlV m - - yri?,.. . x. \ . V3i;U) ®l) '^Rv■^ CD| ___________^ •• -viY.fe^T-;•A.r—rr- Cady Property: Barn Plan Cady Property: Barn Klevalion RUNOAlt;V“ M iiiitunom niur AfXM 4M TURMIAM KO OWNCRNAMG LGnilRCAKMUriKO TAXTAYCft UiONAROAIlATIItJiENMOEKO NAMGfAOOR AMTURMIAM RD MATtEPLAMMN SS)» I II.NNrnN COUNTY MtOT« I'KtJIM KI VO’ * INI ()KM.\liiJt4 bYSII M I.IS'I rAiic I )R JMIUmooO) mOF AOIW 4)«S WAIGMTUWN RD OWNER NAMI: IKINALn K I'l.AHSON A Wtl I: TAXFAVrR nONALOKFCARSON NAfttE/AOOR 4)45 WATERTOWN ROAD MAFtXFtJUNMN 55)54 » )lll»)l)OOI) FROFAINW 4)00 WAtt RIOWNRO OWNI K NAMI JAMES JAY JOHNSON A Will: TAXrAVI.K JAMES JAY JOIINSON NAME/ADDR 4)00 WATER10WN RD MAFLEFLAINMN 55)54 U )IIIU324000) FROr ADOR 425 TURNIIAM RD OWNERNAMB T WOTTGN A AMOTTEN TAXPAYER TMOniYWAANNAMOTTEN NAMC/AOO t 423 TURMlAJM RO MAflEFLAMMN S5)3« M 311112)340004 PROP ADDH 4545 WATERTOWN RU OWNER NAME J L A M R OROU TAXPAYER JEFFDROa NAME/AOOR 4545 WATERTOWN Rt) ORONOMN 55354 31 )l1 1*2)240007 PKOFADDR 415 IMUORAIIDR OWNER NAMI! T A IIAU QUIST/W A IIAUAJUKT TAXFAYI R TOM A IMUgOtST NAMiyAINJR 4l5DfJ)ORAIIDR MAFLEFLAINMN 55354 31 3111*23240012 PROP ADOR 525 MCCULLEY RD OWNER NAME STEPHAN lUME CONSTRUTION INC TAXPAYER STEPHAN IKIME CONSTRUTX)N INC NAAIE/AOOR 3775 CO RD42 MAPLE PLAIN MN SS3S4 31 3111(23)10004 PROP ADOR )S3 TURNIIAM RO OWNERNAMB CE PHELPS A JC PHELPS TAXPAYER CHARLES E/JENNIFER C PHELPS NAME/ADOR )■) TURNIIAM RO ORONOMN S5)5>) PROP ADOR 31 311142)310005 4)50 IVOi.VLRTON PL OWNI K NAMI Jl IIARSIAOA JRHARSTAD TAXPAYER NAMt/ADOR JAMLSLIIAR.NTAD 4550WOIVLRrONPL ORONOMN 55)54 31 3llia232400l3 PROP ADOR 465 TURNIIAM RO OWNER NAME PAUL CADY TAXPAYCR PAUL CADY NAMFVADOR 2400T)K)MASAVI; S«24I2 MPLSMN 55416 3* 3III*2J42000I PROP ADOR MO TLIRNHAM RO OWNERNAMB OEADFMER/ TAXPAYER DOUGLAS E A DIANi; I MI R/ NAMEMDOR 3*0 TURNIIAM RD MAPI I. FI AIN MN 55)5'> I CERTIFY TIlATTHt FACTT* KEPRnSTKnTD ARC AN ACTURATE AND TRUE REPRESEhTTATIONOF INFORMATION AS IT AJ>PEARS FIBS DATE ON TIE RECORDS OFTIE lENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYCR SCRVICES DEPARTMENT. TO TTIE BEST OF MY KNOWLCDCn AND DEIJGF. - DATE UY Q Ga Cvlj* 4 . *T, FILEM3-29U October 10 2003 PagviofS Dalt AfflksllM Rtcti«c4: •9-I7-43 PH >lppllwrtoB CwiKirH M CoeplHt: t»-29-«9 M-Day lUvItw P«rM Eip4r«: I1-294J From: Date: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Melanie Foth. City Planner yjjjl October 10.2003 Sabject: 03-2952. Greg Tripp. 3229-C Casco Circle. Variance public hearing ZMiag Dbtrict: LR-IC, Slagle Faail) L4Utcskore Resideatial (!4 acre aiin) Lot Area: 0.46 acre (20.186 s.f.) AppUcalkm Summofy: Applicant requests the following; 1. An average lakeshore setback variance in order to change the roof line and pitch of the roof, improve the design aesthetically, and add dormers. 2. Lake setback variance in order to change the roof line and add a dormer to the portion of the home within 75* of the lake. 3. Hardcover variance in order to reduce the amount of hardcover within the 75‘- ______250* zone._____________________________________________________ St^RtC0mmetUUtti9m: Planning department staff recommends the follow ing 1. Approv*al of the average lakeshore setback variance. 2. Approval of the lake setback variance as requested. 3. Approval of the hardcover variance. 4. Removal of all plastic and fabric landscape liner in planting beds. Hardship: This home and most of the property is located entirely nithin the average lakeshore setback The existing home is located approximately I foot within *5 * of the OWHL ___________ PcrthicBl Zoniag Ordlaaiicc Sections Sec. 78-281. Setback regnlalHHu (b) No principal or accessory* structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore thw the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots (refer to Orono Manual of Design Standards and Specifications), except that this does not apply to structures allowed in subsection (a) of this section. 78-350(b Lots The following min mum requirements shaV oe observed: Lot Area (acre) Lot Widlh(rcet)Front Yard (feet)Side Yard!reel)Rear Yard (feet)Side Yard Adjxeni to SlreetireeO OS 100 30 1 10 30 IS FUMM982 OctataMO.2003Pi0t3ors 7S-1279(4) Aptrwgt Ukakmtteik^ No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, ^wdings and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback sh^l apply only to classified lakn and shall not qiply to tributaries. The a\-erage lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting die most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Sec. Hard cover Umilatioos. (a) No hard cover or impervious surface shall be placed, located or constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high uaier level of any lake or tributary , except for Stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes as regulated elsewhere in this Code. (b) Between 75 feet and 250 feet of the OHW'L, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. E. Property Owners List F. Aerial photo illustrating the average lakeshore setback G. Plat Map H. Photo Lbl of Exhibits A. Application B. Existing ft Proposed Surv ey 'Site Plan C. Proposed Plans and Elevations D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Backgronad The home was constructed so that currently it is situated entirely within the average lakeshore setback. Therefore any additions or alterations to the existing building require avariance. ‘Hie applicant is proposing, by their design, to reduce the bulk and mass of their home. The pitch of the roof will be lowered and the peak will remain at the existing height. The change in the roof line will improve the visual crowding from the lake. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LoLArca/Width: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 2l,7g0s.f. f0.5acre)100* Actual 20,186 s.f (0.46 acre)110’ LR-IC Required Exluhig Proposed Lake 75’75’75’ flLE«U-2M2 OctoMf 10 2003 Pa0t3ofS Rear (street)30*12*ir North Side 10*10 ’10 ’ South Side 10*5’5* Average Lakeshore The entire home is currently located within the av erage lakeshore setback. StmgtTol Cifo fMc; Total Lot Area Total Strncmral Covcrafc 20.1S6s.f. (0.46 acre)Allowed 3027 s.f. (15%) Proposed; 2728 s.f. (13.5 %) HarJcosarCalcabtioai; Hardcover Zone Total Area io Zone Allowed Hardcover E listing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 9,856 s.f.Os.f 55 s.f.*55 s.f.0-75 (0%)lO 6% *4)(0 6 5i) 75-250 10.330 s.f.2582.5 s.f. (25%) 6059 s.f* 158.6 54) 5633 s.f. (54.5 %) After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Laka Yard Setback Variance One square fool of the home exists vsithin the 75* required setback from the OHWI. of Lake Minnetonka. In order to change the roof line in this area and lake yard setback variance is required. The sariance requested Mill lessen the bulk and mass of the home as the roof peak will remain the same and the pitch w ill increase, thus losing bulk. Hardcover Setback Variance Hardcover levels on this property are above that which is allowed by Code. Within the 0- 75’ zone 0.6V# hardcover exists which accounts for 55 s f. including a portion of the home, a portion of the deck and paved patio. The 75*-250* zone currently has 6059 s.f. of haid surface, the ^plicant has proposed a 426 s.f. reduction in the driveway area to lessen the hardcover. The hardcover for the 75’-250* zone will be reduced from 58.655* to 54.5% not including landscape beds with plastic or fabric. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance The entire structure of the home is within the average lakeshore setback. Due to the nature of the property and its relationship between the properties on the point the entire property is essentially within the average lakeshore setback. No neighboring views of the lake will be impacted by the changes. r FILCM3-2M2 aabvlO.2003 Hardship SlaleMcat Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship AaaKiis tm comUdtrimi appUcmlotu for rorioHct, tte Ptmmmlmt Commbshm tkttt comUer tk* offtet tfkke •r^comdkhm,lltlHomdolt.domtet^Jlro,rhkiotko,mkikt^.omdtkeoffectoHr0km^ prtptr^knktsmrrommdlotorom. Tko HmmmMrg CnmUiitm tkoBeomUer rtcommunmg ^froroi for mrtooctt from iko tkerotprovbioms of iko Zomkrt Codt ki kutamcn ttkrre kotr strict 00WMWM »omM coou mmdoe kordtkip becotue ofcircmmstonces moiqmt to tkt ktdiridMol property onitr comidcraxion, mod skaU recommend apprpvai omfy wkm it is demomitroted tkot smek •ctlemtrttike In keeping wkktke spirit OHjkuent of tke Orono ZomtHg Code, Staff w-ould m^e the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for **undue hardship** pertinent to this application; I. "Tbe property in question canroi be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.' Over of the property is located ahead of the tnerage lakeshore setback. In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is me:. 2. '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. 3. "The variance, if granted, will r.oi alter the essential character of the localit\*' The proposed changes will lessen the bulk ami mass of the home, thus will imiiroxr the character of the locality In the opinion of staff this criterion is met 4. "Economic considerations alocc shall not constiniie an undue hardship if reas^le use for the propeny exists under the terms of the Zomng Chapter." The applicant has not indicated economic consideration for this proiect In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. A or applicable A'or explicable 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporao use of a 1 S.J ------ editor 10.2003 FifiSafS ooc-family dwelling u a two-finily dwelling.* Not appiicabU. I. *T1ie special cooditkms applying 10 the strucnire or land in questioo are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” /n the (pinion of staff this criterion b met. 9. "Theconditionsdonolapply generally toother land or structures ID die di^ct in which said land is located.” In the opinion of staff thb criterion b met. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” In the opinion of stiff thb criterion b met. II. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” In the t^rinion of stiff thb criterion b met. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenierKe to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.* In the (pinion ofstaff thb criterion b met. banes ffMT CansMeratian Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RccotonradatkMi Planning Department Staff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance. 2. Approval of the lake setback variance as requested. 3. Approval of the hardcover variance. 4. Rmoval of all plastic and fabric landscape liner in planting berb. EXHIBITA AppikstiM» Dale Ractivcd I7»Q^ Amouat PaM it^^TP.OD CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance Ibr non-confbnning structures $250.00 Aftcr-lhe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORNUTION Site Address CH'sCO - OgoisJg) MtJ # Property Identification Number (P LD.) U-frT* * t>0Di4 Attach legal deroription to ^plication if not included on required survey. Date Pranatv Aequired______«4- __________________________(month/year) I (do) ^ nc^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Presenroarw property: ^^residential ___pother (specify)^ Zoning District: - i ” APPLICANT ___ Phone (home) ^1\-\\<1 Name /<3rt?g7jr _______________ Phone (work) Cgl2." Address: "^nJZPi^c^ City. _____Zip:_________ OWNER (if different than ^>plicant) Name ______________ Address:City.. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: \/>^AOcig: Uo^Pea -ygtjgybga VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width yC. Hardcover .Lot Coverage Setback: Front Other (specify)_____ ^ Side __Rear ___ Average Lakeshore hardship /description of unusual PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requtremenu: t -pj , 'crjcr^ '2a c:f |t> (attach additional sheett if necessary) .3T to S mM MIIM WIIMt IMPr. OMO APVANCB SVMVSrtNG A ENCINEEUNC Ca rnmm^mum /^(unutstu ■nnm CUG TtUPF P>8epex;gO cxi nssTsss 1 •trtiiiipMi ....... Ul *nm MMmtCmms t.tn H n tMt u nJM H rt lit H PI UM •• Pi pj«i»n MtMH ri 3 (5ce&aJ TRACT 8 ffisr' .*«k«HA]0>C0VER CALCULimOfiUyORESHEET SETB4CKZONE: (CIRCIXOND MS* ISMOO* A. Hoom 1. ’Otn|« ’ C. Dilvvwv D. StdMraOc E. VmoMe F. Landtc^t UodMtaIn ByPlMde OrFSbde tf/o. 0*« nwQHAMCOmiwgQME .*••• TOTAL HAlU)OOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPWTY AREA IN ZONE ^ • A + B X100 ? HAiy ZONE ' A. KottM____________» B. Oirait C. Drtvtwiy p. SUcwdk E. MorDkA F; landscape Uadcdiln ByPUttle OrFiBfk Z*® //• ,.0. Other X X X X X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ‘ TOTAL PROPERTV AREA DC ZONE* A ♦ bI2^2. EXHIBIT D SOO-1000* r\iA SJ. S.F. • SF. S.F. S.F. ihH'-S.F. lUI S.F. •S.F. •S.F. liO S.F. SF. nni SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % ZTZT SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. 'L'l.ni S.F. S.F. ; u 1 S.F. •■ S.F. . ..SF. S.F. ;s.F. S.F. ‘S.F. 'S.F. hljO^ I xlOO » S.F. S.F. ■ % lltNNtflNOKINTV I'KOPUTTV INFOHMATION SYSTEM miPliK lY UWNIKS UST rMiL: I • {•••rAini M 3»ll72MJm> im CASCUCM O r M«umv * J A CAMJON TAWAVn OAnaUMKYAIACAMJOM NAMiyAom snvcASCorM WAV/ATAMN N JtllTlMWOt) fMOrAOm M ADOAMAUMAlMONEn ammntjm mnwjuMmMmm TAXTAVn IIA«YiU»ANfWAIMN NAMF/AOfM jnfBrA«x>rw WAY/AIAMN M 2OII72J4J0IKM rMOTAIXMl MIYCASCOCM OWNMINAMli MA«VHAANSWAMKIN TAXTAVCM MA«yt»*AN*WAI«ON NAMC/AOnH M»D CASCO cm WAY/AIAMN M 2BII7234JWI4 rwirAiMJM ms cascocm OWiaNAMIl IDMUSAECMJUt TAXPAVUt I1WMEH«UAAELA«taLl» NAMr/AOim 3JJSrASCOCW WAY/AIAMN ^^VII n MII72UMW4 moPAmw 32JY cAKX)nii OWMANAMC (JAUJOAYMJMUITIMPP TAXTAVEll OaCOOKY B08EAT TlUrP NAMI7A00II Un CASCO OR WAY/AIAMN n 2011723430013 PftOrADOR J23J CASCO CM OWNERNAMF 7>MmUETItAPDtflLiETH TA3(PAVUt UAVR3MSPRJSFTM NAMI/AINNt 32J3CASlX3n«Oi; WAV/A IA MN S'til V. M miTiMsmis PMPAOni nil CABOOOR OWIIIMIM JUOnNEOOOPCR PATIPAVER iECOaPERAIECOQPER NASMi/AtlOR J23ICAMXHTR WAY/ATAMN 5'3*l JO 20II72J4N0I7 PWOPADOR Jl ACXMESSUNASSnNEO OWNER NAME PAMEiALPtAW TAXPAYER PAMPJALPIAIN NAMI/AINIR 3227CASIOOR WAY/AIAMN SSWI JS 20II72J4J00II PROPAOOR S227 CAaCOOR OW14ERNAME PAMELALPIAM TAXPAYER PAMtlAL PLAIN NAMI7AINM 3227 CAM O UK WAY/AIAMN S5WI I CERTIFY TIIATTIC FACTS REPRESENTEO ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUEREPRESENTAT10N0F U4X3RMA110N AS IT APPEARSTIIS DATE ON TIC RECORDS OFTHE HEM4EP1N OOUKTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMEKT. TO THE BESTUV* I rVt I • ^ i l-R IVC0 l1« i\/ 1 rib ir R a R ■ ^ OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND DEUEF. ^ -----^ DATE by CT>“ C- (A % ••p 17 01 lOilla Kathtf Rl«x«nd»r 951-473-8222 P.2 Adjtceat Property Owatn* AelaowkdffBcit Form' I(wc)3AliAM of [print ume(i)] [^ idmj ^ J^lir<SScS*S^ »»prov«,«u pl«„ .nd lh« the propo.«l «ei,Sd»rt pn,j««or use /oX_-)g=t^ ) ^UajPM^a*ty Owner I (we) [print name<s)][print address] SSTcSaTIX^rTr" '"““»••■ »i*w. „.«»or uu Date 3-lcfd^ Property Owner Date If you have any infonnatioo that may assist the Citv tv. .^ • ^ i.- » ^ 11 r->r- , f- ■ Infommtton -',’ •;. \i; - ■ '-l4«^IO201iri343Q0iit^» Houf MuwhfMIt' ■- ■'VV.. stTMt nmm cmoo cm >•; > ^ itwmigy • ni»li»n WlAwrtiw-I; exhibit H t ^ I vi II'i’ 8^**S?S<o^ I I m-im Oct*bw 20.2MJ Paft I «rs Dolt AppHcolioo lUctWH: 9-17-OJ Dolt AypHcortoa CooiMtrti oi CooiplHt; 0-17-A3 M>0o7 Rcvirt Ptried EspirtK 11-1043 To: Chair Smith and Planjiing Comnuiiion Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Froa: Janice Waat^a. City Planner^ Dolt: October 13.2003 Sobjcct: 03-2955. Michael Palm. 710 Big Island • Average Lakeshore Setback Variance - Public Hearing ZoBlag District: Lot Area: RS. Seasonal Recreation 2.889 acres (125.845 s.f.) AppUemtioH Summary: Applicant requests the following variances to construct a 3* season cabin: 1. Average lakeshore setback variance to construct a home on a property \%hich sits entirely in front of the aserage lakeshore setback line. 2. Lot area variance to allow a cabin to be constructed on a lot on Big Island where the lot is only 2.889 acres in size and 5 acres is normally required. Sutff HecotumemdatUm: Staff recommendations: 1. Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to allow a 3-season cabin to be constructed on a property w hich sits entirely in front of the average lakeshore setback line. 2. Approval of the lot area variance as the property is a legal lot a record and no structure could be built on the property without a lot area variance. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 78-1279: Placement of structures on lots. Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; except that this docs not apply to stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward prolrtisions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Section 78-568: Lot area requirements. >Vithin any RS seasonal recreational district, no new lot or parcel shall be created less than 5.0 acres in dry-buildable lot area exclusive of designated wetlands... MS-2M8 OcMbtr 2«, 2«tJ Pa|t2«rs LbtafEiUbto Exhibit A; Apf^cation Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: Exhibit F: Survey/Site Plan TopopaphyMap Elevation of Proposed Structure Aerial Pbotogra^ Photographs Exhibit G: Plat Map Exhibit H: Property Owners List LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET All setbacks are approximates. A current survey uill be required in cot\iunction with the building permit application and all required setbacks must be met The applicant is proposing to mirror the structure that exis«d in i;-5. which is the structure shown on the suboutted survey. The setbacks and lot informatica below was taken from the submined survey, dated September 9,1935, and arc subject ic change slightly but in no circumstance will variances be granted to these rcc iiremcnts. The applicant has proposed a cabin of the same footprint indicated c: the submitted sur%ey (approximately I fOWJ Lot Afea/Wmfc» RS Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f (Sacr»i 50 ’ Actual 2.889 s.f. (125.849 acres)539 ’ RS Required Eshriag Proposed Front n/a n^a n/a Rear n/a n/a n/a UftSide 50’n/a -100 ’ Right Side 50’n/a -250 ’ Lakeshore 75 ’n/a -75 ’ Average Lakeshore 385 ’ua -90 ’ M5-299S Ociolwr 20.2003 p«t«3«rs Stinctnrml C ovctmo : The property is not subject to structural coverage requirements as it is over 1.99 acres, in accordance with Section 78*1403. HardcifT CaldtlaHaaf ! No hardcover currently exists on the property ’ other than the old foundation from the prev-ious cabin. The applicant has indicated that he will build around this foundation but follow the same footprint as the old cabin indicated on the submitted survey from 1935. From the submitted survey it appears that the cabin is located exclusively in the 75*250* zone and no structure or hardcover exists in the 0-75* zone. The building footpnni on the submitted survey meets ail hardcover requirements for the 75-250' zone. The second residence located on the southern property boundary and the ice house (shown on the 1935 survey) no longer exists on the property and the applicant has indicated that he will only be constructing the cabin. Under no circumstances will hardcover variances be permitted and the applicant must submit hardcover calculations with the building permit application. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance The property is located on a point on the north western side of Big Island. The configuration of the property and location of the homes to the east and w est of the subject property put the subject's property entirely within the average lakeshore setback as shown in Exhibit C. The applicant would not be allowed to construct any structure on the property if an average lakeshore setback variance wasn't granted. The proposed struenue would encroach approximately 150 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Lot Area Variance Currently, no structures exist on site. Because the applicant is proposing to build a cabin and the property is under the 5.0 acre minimum a variance is required to build. The lot is a legal lot of record and therefore buildable. Further, it was granted buildable status as part of the creation of the RS District in 1983 (Section 78*568 (b). Record Lot No. 13). Hardship Statement Applicant has prov ided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analyib ________________________________ /« eomUering tppUc*tlon%/or variance, the Ptannhig Cammiuhn ihatl eomuier the effect of the propoted varhtHce upon the keatth. $afety and welfare af the cotnmunliy, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger offlrt, risk to thepmNic safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Hanning Commission thatt consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their urict enforcement would cause undue hardsh^ because of drcurrsttances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shatt recommend approval ont) when it is demonstrated that suck actions will be In beepint wUi the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. MI3-29S9 OcMbtr2t,2tl3 rafi4«rs Stiff finds that a hardship exists merely in the configuration of the applicant’s property and the property to the east The applicant’s property is located on a point putting the entire property in the average lakeshore setback. Also, the property to the east is very large (17.5 acres) t%iih the home having over a 500* setback. Staff also fiixls that a hardship exists for approval of the lot area variance This variance is routine when properties are rebuilt This approval would be subject to the proposed structure meeting all other setback and hardcover regulations. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship” pertinent to this application; 1. "The propertv in question cannot be put to a reasonable use i f used under conditions allowed by the of^cial controls.* A structure could not be built on this property' withoi^ the requested variances. The lot is a legal lot of record and therefore the applicant should be able to build on the lot. Also, a structure could not be built emyuhere on the lot without approval of an average lakeshore setback 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.* The configuration of the property and the surrounding properties, and that the property is located onapotn: creates unique hardship not created b\ the landowner. 3. -The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality * A variance will not alter the essential character of the locality The applicant is proposing a 3 season cabin fer summer use only which is the usual use on Big Island. Also, the applicant is proposing the mirror the cabin that existed in the 1930 's falling within the character of Big Island 4. -Economic consideraUons alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if hT **** ^ of the Zoning Chapter.* 5. -Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunhghi for solar ciKrg> $>«ea«. VariarKOs shall bo granted for canh sheltered conslnictton as defined m Mi.-_iesou Sianitcs. Section II6J 06 Subd. ■> when in harmony with this Chapter.* AiO/ applicable S. -The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a A residential structure/cabin is permitted in the RS Zoning District. IM3-29S OctoWr 2t,2MJ ratts«rs "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." S^ot explicable "The special conditions appl>ing to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining propert> ." .•1 special condition applying to the land is that the property exists on a point and the configurations of the property to the east cause a very restrictive tnerage takeshore setback The special condition applying to the lot area variance is that a structure currently doesn t exist on the lot but has in the past "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." This proposal does not txply generally to other land or structures on Big Island but is common vsith properties that exist on points "The granting of the application is necessary for the prescr\ alien and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The granting of the average lakeshore setback and lot area variances are requiredfor the applicant to use his property in an allowed manner. II."The granting of the proposed varance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be conirars to the intent of the Zoning Code." The granting of the proposed variances will not in any way be detrimental to the public or intent of the Zoning Ordinance “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstra^’-. hardship or difficulty." The granting of the variance is necessary for the ap,:licanl to build on his property and alleviate demonstrable hardships Isaacs for Considenitioa 1. Is the unique aspect of this propertv being located on a point enough to justify variance approval? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Stair RccoouBcadaCioa Approval of the average lakeshore sctbac!: variance and the lot area v^ariances subject to the following; 1 . The structure shall be constructed in accordance with the footprint shown on the surv ey dated September 9.2003. 2. A current survey md proposed hardcov er calculations be submitted with the building permit application. 3. No other setback or hardcover variances be required. mm ^OincCj*^EXmBITA PLICATIONCITY OF ORONO - Vi Initial Application F( (S50.00 per each i Renewal Variance Fee sBli.OtT (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures S250.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # ^3 Date Received Amount Paid *2.5D^ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address____________ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 7JL^\V1 - T.3- ZA Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Acquired,1Xl'too'z._(nc.:th/ycar)Date Proi I (do)also ox%*n the adjacent parcels of land. Present usTof property: ___gsidential V other (specify) vg/ Zoning District:_____SgA^ajoAi WKT^c.r* APPLICANT Name f^\c Address:?Lao ^City:. 0>VNER (if different than applicant) Name_____________________ Phone (homdfjSz\^ZL-^4-?j'^ Phone (workl^rt 7'\ - O^OC^ Ehavi/.. ^ -j Phone (home). Phone (work) Address:h. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST^ Estim Describe request in detail: ifer^^vTv^ on Cost S kX>iOOC> o>J xS f V. (attach additional sheets if necessar>) 2/ variances required Lot Area X Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage! Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:__Leg" lc> |<4 • (yf' Hryv\c Soe.v»*t Uamor4p< exhibit B I A ■3'7*!-y.v.»r4., -ir.',—-***■* 'T—.-. _____ I . ■! ■ r/i^VI „ r-Tj ji V l--rj I I M'f-k- M-mk Ji L^' ■ V / ; . V>ff/OJ.7MNUV rf: I ,V' ■ : ■ :<mr. •V2J ■ /v v. v^. ^ .nv •:. ..f *.♦.:* ’Vv/X r’ . : •• * 5‘i'.,, ‘’'V . :i P‘, > ♦ . '^.' • ■ • Si. •.'■*•-* V, • I -7 ■ c-'' ; ^ .,. .. S SL rm .'T >■ ■•■''"S'. '-^, V *^4^S*r^^ y V -1 ,-.;v^< .-» 'i >5 - r» , -. £^:'A ^ . • 4»;' V iis.' iJM ,.w,‘ ? ■xIEMf. ’•'•* jf '/ ^ , a^iai» i ■ ’.-:r:^\ - ■ ‘ V . 5r Jrv t s>S* - ■i';?!.' • -..it"'' ''V-i'' • ■' ’ • -B'’ ‘ » 'l''; V- '■ '' ■• ‘ Sa T.I ! ‘ r ; > ' * . i... ^ * B V«|i ifii k' ^Jti »iite ■V ; t^viv; 'Au qt ::^tij ^ m «fc^>«it® iiv f ii?||®' f-"';.;-?5i'X-M ,H; mi i^ii^ . / • .f» s/nv.in wt. T^. ''^If .-:S« ■“ •'*^; - ’r’- ■■^*’^ * '**»• l©‘ J v “ Z —:v- i-i': : iK * K iilhnu -in coun rv mnr nturiMi Yu\* tNl • NtMM HJN .>VS ILM UkLISI M UIITlUMil MOTAOM 7» MQBtAND awMnMMM aauaDAnucKKMJReTAL TAWAVM NOUOAV COHirAII»S mmtMOOk miwmnm MTUMN SMJ7 M UII7aU40iM mor AOCM M Aomcss unauionfj ) OWMEANAMB HeCKEATnNKMMTLLC TAWAVU RfiCKEAHONroMTUX: NAME/AOm )72tKACMMAMB HHXNIXAZ BJOM SI 22II72S2400M morADOR 700 BnOLAKn OWNER NAME RBCREATVSN KNNT LLC TAXEAYER RECREATION rOINT LUC NAM&ADDR )72l KAOBNA OR E nioEmxAZ ISOM MOrAOOR om M UliniMIBI 710 no BLAIR) lIMMi MOUBLJWBMR TAXMVW MCNAeUWtMBI MSIESROST CODVWY fMI4 I CERTIFY TIUTTIli FACTS REPRESENri-O ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUBREFRESEKTAllONOFIhFORMAIIONAS IT AFPEARSTNIS DATE ONTHE RECORDS OFTIC HEDNEHN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEFARTMENT. TOTIIE BEST OFMYKNOWU:DGI'ANI>IU:iJi:K ^ _ DATE by M v-^ ■03-299* October 20,2003 P«|f I of 9 Dot* ApfNcolioo Rrethred: *-r<03 DU ApyMcotioo CotHi<er«4 an Coiplrte: f-r-«3 ««-Doy Period Ctpim: To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator From: Janice Waaiaja. City Planner Date: October 16.2003 Subject: 03-2956. Hossnpat Constrxiction, P.l I). 27-118-23-34-0003 - Average Lakeshore Setback Variance - Public Hearing Dbtrief: RR - IB. One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) Lot Area: 4.37 acres (190.364 s.f) Ap^kation Summary: Applicant ^quests the tulUnsing variance to allow the construction of a new home: 1. 68’ encroachment on the average lakeshore setback. Staff Mecommeudatiom: Stall recommendations: 1. Approval subject to the home being placed in the location slu»wn on Uie submitted plans .‘\ hardship e.xists in that there is no other suitable liKatii>n h>r a home on the propenx where all required setbacks could be met Pertiaent Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 78-1279; Placement of structures on loLs. .Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to t.he lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of e.xisting residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stainvavs. lifts, landings and Kvekboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply onlv to classificM lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakevvard protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. List of Exhibits Exhibit A: Application wTlardship Statement Adjacent Properly Owners* .Acknowledgement Form Existing and Propt^sed Survey Exhibit D: Aerial Photograph Exhibit E: Proposed Elevations Proposed Floor Plans Property Owners List Plat Map Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: M3-29M Octobtr 2t. 2MJ Pat*2«rS Backfr»«ad This property is a lof which was created from a subdivision of S49 Brown Road North and a lot re-arrangement in October of 2000. The lot re-arrangcmcnt established a less than two acre lot as a legal lot of record w hen two acres is required and a conforming lot back lot, being the applicant's property. An address was never a igned to the applicant's property because it has remain^ vacant for some time. The applicant llossnpat Construction, applied for a building permit to construct a home on the lot. The configuration of the back lot in relation to the adjacent lakeshore lots creates a situation where an average lakeshore setback variance is required for placement of the home. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lot AreaAVidtli: RR-IB 1 Lot Area 1 LolWhIth Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres)200* Actual 190.364 s.f. (4.37 acres)335 ’ RR-IB Required Eiisttog Proposed Front 50-n/a n'a Rear 50'n/a 52' Left Side 30'n/a 31* Right Side 30*n/a 97' Lakeshore 150* (Natural Environment Lake)n'a 275’ Average Lakeshore 340’n^a 272' Stmctaral Coveraae; This lot is not subject to structural coverage requirements as it is over 1.99 acres, in accordance with Section 78-1403. Hardcover Calcalattoai; The applicant did not submit hardcov cr calculations hov rver. it appears that the proposal meets the City's requirements. The footprint of the home falls partially within the 75- 250’ zone and the 250-500' zone. The house is approximately 3,400 square feet. The r Ortcbcr 10 MOJ P«|c3of5 applicant will be required to submit hardcover calculations with the building permit applration and appr . . ol me average lakeshore setback variance would stipulate that no ether variances be required, including hardcover. As f rage Lakeshore Setback Variance The applicants have proposed an approximate 3.400 s.f. house to be constructed in the location shown on Exhibit C. The subject propert>’ is a back lot which doesn’t allow the applicants to move the house to meet the average lakeshore setback while still meeting the lot setback requirements. .Aho. the topograph) of the applicant’s lot and the adjacent neighbor’s lot creates a lavout where views of the lake are not obstructed Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit A, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis /n coHsli/eriitg mpplktlons Jot wiirtce. tht Ptanniitf Commtulon shoU comlJtr Ote tjjttt oftht proposed variance upon ihe health, safety and welfare of the community, etiuing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air. danger of fire, rbk to the public safety, and the effect oit values of property in the surrounJing area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for %-orionces from the literal pravbions of the Zoning Code in Instances where their urict enfarcement would cause undue hardship because of citcumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it Is demonstrated Aat such actions wilt he in beeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Sta:T finds that due to :he co»ifiguration of the lot. its status as a back l<'t the location of the existing adjacent houses, and the topography of the immediate area, a house could not be constructed w ithout an average lakeshore setback variance. These circumstances create an undi. hardship unique to the property Staff would make the follow ing rccorr.mcndations 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 ortlcial controls." A rcasomthly sizeJ home could not be consinicied on the lot meeting the tnerage lakeshore seihjck in adJiiion the lot setback requirements "The plight of the landowner is due lo circumstances unique to h*s property not created by the landowner.* The lot being a back lol ful the topography of the adjacent area not affeuing ^ ie^^s are ciruimsianccs uniq:.e to the properly and not created by the landov^er 3."The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality .* The essential character of the localtty uill not change Dickey Lake is a Satural Environment lake u hich requ:*"es a 150 ’ setback The proposed house meets this requirement k O____ m-im Octobtr 2t. 2«S ract4«rs 8. 11. ‘Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the tenns of the Zoning Chapter" Sol applicable "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for. .ar 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." Sot 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." The proposed use is an allow ed use it Hhin the RR- IB Zotung District "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporars- use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling " Sot applicable -The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The circumstances of the back lot designation and the to;yographv not affecting adjacent homes' views are special conditions applying to the land -The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." These conditions are unique to this property and do not apply generally to land located in the RR - IB Zoning District The granting of the application is necessorv' for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant" ’ ^granlmg of this appUcaiwn is necossaryfot ihe appileam's right to he ohU to buMa Itome an this lot II Moot an merage lakrshore setback variance a house could not he constructed meeting the lot setback requirements •The graining of ihe proposed variance nill not in any nay impair healUi. safety, effort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning ‘ •The gnntmg of such variance uiM not merely serve as a convenience to Ihe ' applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or diflicullv • Ort«ktr2t.2«3 risers liMMt for CoMidcralton 1. Does the foct that the lot uas created uithout consideration of the average lakeshore setback constitute means for approving the variance? 2. Does the bock lot designation and the topography which doesn’t obstruct others* view of the lake provide enough valid hardship for approving the variance. 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccoameadatlofl Approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to allow the proposed house to encroach approximately 6S* into the required setback. r EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Rene^k’al Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stnictures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received Amount Paid rO.cro PROPERTY' INFOR>U110N Site Address_>“^ o wU. .38 OOCXSSkAE^ Property Identification Number (P I D.),^ Attach legal description to application if rot included on required survey. Date Property Acquired Apg^il _______________ I (do not) also own the adjacent parcelrof land. Present use of property; _>/residential ___other (specify)_________ Zoning District: ____________________________ _(month/'year) PPL1CA.NT Phone (home) l9r?Q^ Nantc__Hp^&rvpoA C Vjr\<^ucAiQ>rN Phone (work)__________________ Address: (<Z\DS 31^ CUx:mxj^L> City Plu^rirri^-^ Zin: <^UCn SS-v ER (if different than Mplicant) Phone (home) Hd7% - V ffPrin _____ Phone (work) ______ Address: \^10^ (1 nii L5 Cirv:'Pltjwv _____Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in detail: O u/v».gv<^s>^Le.ie.«4W-« S^t- (WVt. gt>o».«-sAtV*. 4.1* 'tk^.Sgf a^>c.c<vt»_______ (attach additional shee*^ if necessar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___uot Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify)______________ Hardcover Rear _Lot Coverage 5^ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY' CO.NDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propert>’ conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: TTw . «» .3.W.US tw &.a* cr^ -tv, PV«XV. <1^ «exck. t>S«.<r . (Wf O.^ lo*-I required SUBMITTAI.S .wHc,.t.n ,lr.m.nf ,t.,r In .r^rr Completed Application Form - Si^in “■* p>« -p Govi Center. 348-59I0). ^ •‘nnepm County Department of Finance, A-60:*. reproduction ‘^‘>P>' SVi" x IP fcr 2 ,.r.5".t;-““n 3. 7. 3. propeny. This would include name/«t v * Persons with an interest L- the — As an addendum to L .ipIicaZ^pl^VaS!:^^^ r“'"'r' you wish notified of this application.^ ' '** ---- Additional items as may be requested by Cit> staff. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Applicant's Signature V — Liaie 1 — f y ^ O #2956 ^•linkA«te«Mng r«i^47>i799 EXHIBIT B &«ri603 ri237PU 212 siSr<£2,rs^twqpOrm CouacO ^jprovaL Date Ownar t>^ *************************************************«**«*»**M»*«****»*«*»*^ * 1 tw«) Jia Am a ‘tixM Lane. ,r c\\^ ij fera^^g^L, I tpnat iKBM(i}l IpiiM adte] — iSiHSsSrH! Propo^ O^er piopSty JlC^ Owner If you hav* any infixmitiaa that may auiii ilw aty la the mltw of lUa u,j A|ipgcat|on.|^nu^>nur«ooiai«alaiotficBiaMina*Zoiiiii,offle«»t|MBlO<a»»i<riorto lh0 fCBMulad iHWfnin date. J.l 7:. ■■■ . " ^ O .1 'I ^ KMIIHn 1): •> v'.I m tw ■«w m^r “i /* /<c~-7 fV // n 0 U j?} a«• 1 2 •UNUAIL;' « M iTimniMiuM r«Or AI10R 1M DK-KCV lAKL M OWMCKMAME MAMANMI»YT TAXrAVrJI MARIAN M IRIVt NAMr/AINNI 716 OICItl!V LARI- DR LONULARLMN SSm iir.NNi riNcoiiNry hrcn I'RCR-LKIYO V INI ORMA11UN SYStl M MS LIST M >IIIR2miMl2| mof ADDR IM) Wll l ow DR N nWNI R NAMli T O r ARIJCON A J A CARLSON fAXrAYIH IIRIMANDAIANI Al Akl.MIN NAMIMINIR t)0 WIIIOW DR N LONUIAKI XIN IR RROf AINm 61J IIROWN RD N OWNI R NAMt TIRIMAS W I ANi A WU I lAXfAVIR IIKIMASWIANI NAMIMDDR 915 MROWN RIINO lONlilAM MN 55JS6 rAlfl » ITIIUJMOOOJ fROTAOM M ADOAESS UNAXSICNLO OWNER name IRTSSMTATCYMSfRIXTIONMC TAXRAVER HOSSNTAT CONSTRUrriON INC NAME/AODR 1110) )IST AVE N PLV6IOU1IIMN 35447 PROTAODR >1 27IIU1MOOOA tot IIROWN RON OWNERNAStE LESIiC N IIARRY . C" TAXf AVI R I Ml M; N IIAIIN NAMiyAINMI aot IIROWN RUN iONGIAKI MN 35)56 M IIIIDMKXU) fROrADOR too BROWN RUN OWNER NAME M A M ROOtllNS lAXrAVI R mark W A MARIA ROIIIIINS NAM .'AIRW WRIHHOWNRIIN lONIiLAKI 6«N S5i5A 31 27IIR)J540004 EROf ADDR |7t IIROWN RO N OWNER NAME lOSSNEAT CONS I RIX*TRH4 INC taxpayer IIOSSNPAT construction INC NAMf7AUI)R 11105 )IST AVt N PLVMOmilX. I 55447 31 27II»34)IV)|J PROP ADOR |t*5 WIST FARM R|> OWNER NAME R L PARRISH A C J PARRISH TAXPAVIR RR'IIAHIII |•AKNISil NAMI7ADDR I6V5 W| SI FARM Rll lONUlARF SIN 33)56 )> 771137)4)00)4 PROP ADOR 31 AIMIRISSIINASSHMIU OWNER NAML THE I ARXI A T LONCi lAKE TAXI'AYIR IIU IARM AI lOMil AKI PINMII* NAMI/AIRIR 4 At IIMOMIV ADAMS 1110 WIST FARM road lONIilAKI MN 55)56 )l 771117)34000) PROPADOR lltllROWNRON OWNER NAME F A ItVNI IV A K N FEVNE TAXPAYI R I RAN/ A il.VNI IV NAXIE/ADOR lltllROWNRON LONUIAKLMN 5)336 PROPADOR 31 771117)4)0077 ItW WI5T FARM RD OWN! R N a MI a a M IIRa CIIMAN lAXPAVI R ARMANDI A MARY A IIRAI OMAN NAMI/AUDR lYtO WEST FARM RD inNCIAKfMN 55)56 31 34III7)77(XX>4 PROP AIMM 7)0 D4CKLV |a KE OR OWNIRNAMF JDRR-RAIHRHK lAXPAYIR RINAIIIANDRH K NAStl/AIRW 7)0DRKFVIAKI DN lONOIAKLStN 55)56 m KEHY THAT HR TAnS KITKI.M lYTli) ARI. AN ACtlJRATi: ANt) DATC f i d Y // CO LQ lo Date Application Recrivcd: 12-I9-02 Date Application Considered ■« Complete: S>2643 60-Day l^view Period Lipires: 10-2fr-03 From: Dale: Subject: Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorsc. Cily Administrator Mike GafTron. Planning Director October 17.2U03 <102-2858 Scott Standa. 2659 Casco Point Road • Variance (Aftcr-the-Fact) • Public Hearing ZoninK District: Lot Area: LR-IC Single Family Lakcshorc Residential, I '2-acrc min. 0.29 acre (12.815 s.f.) £T. Application Summary: Applicant requests aAer-the-fact hardcov er and setback variances to allow the reconstruction ofa deck located at the shoreline attached to an existing accessory building. Variances required include: 1. Structure within 0-75* setback zone, extending out over the shoreline (cantilev ered 2-3* past theOHWL). 2. Structure encroaching within I foot of side lot line. 3. Hardcover in 0-75’ zone of l6.24"o (no changes proposed). 4. Encroachment of average lakeshore setback Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial. If this reconstruction had been applied for before-the-fact, the encroachment over the shoreline and w ithin I foot of the side lot line would likely not have been approved, in stalTs opinion. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Letter of Request 11/4 02 C - Existing & Proposed Suney/Sitc Plan D • Submitted Deck Plans E - Submitted Hardcover Calculations F • Correspondence 2001-2003 G - Photos H • Properly Owners List I - Neighbor Acknowledgement Form J - Plat map Background In June 2001 Building Inspector Marc Davis found that the deck adjacent to the lakeshore accessory building had been replaced, and he advised the owner that a permit was needed for such work. In July 2001 the owner applied for building pennit and w as advised that because the work was within 75* of the shoreline a permit could not be issued and it would have to be removed or a vanance application would have to be filed to see if Council would allow it to remain On August 14. 2001 the owner filed an incomplete vanance application, lackir.g most of the necessary information to process it. This maner remained as an open violation file and the next communication between applicant and City was in October 2002, w hich resulted in a new v ariance application being filed in December 2002, but still lacking an up-to-date survey. Afier a flurry of discussion betw een City and applicant in May June 2003, a surv ey w as submitted and the application considered as cor «'!ete in late A igust 2003. M2-2IS8 - 2*59 CaKo Foiol Road October 17.2M3 Fate 2 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET l.ot ArtaAVIdth: LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f.(0 5acre)100* Actual 12.815 s.f. (0.29 acre)60* Peck Setbacki; LR-IC Required Exisliog Proposed Lakeshore ly O’O’ Rear (Street)NA NA NA North Side 10‘<r <r Right Side 10'48’48* Average Lakeshore (No Encroachment Allowed)approx. 75’approx. 75’ Stmcforal Covcingc: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 12,815 s.f. (0.29 ac.)Allowed: 1,922 s.f (15%) FxislingProposed; 2,743 s.f (21.4 ‘!i)* •Deck in queviion docs not constitute lot coscra(C as it IS not 6' abos e grade liardcovcr Calculalioni: Hardcover Zone Total Aren in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75*4,580 s.f 0 s.f (0 %) 744 s.f (16 24%) 744 s.f (16.24%) 75-250’ * A Ck_________1.._____i 8,235 s f 2,056 sf (25 "/o) 3,466 s.f (42.1 %) 3,466 s.f (42 1 %) #t2-2asa . 2*59 Ca«c« Patel Itead October 17.2MJ Pa|c3 Deck NMcoBformitics The deck liuti was replaced is attached to a 12'x22' accessor>' building located 5 ’ from the shoreline and nearly abutting the side lot line. The accessor> building has been there for many >rars and has apparently been maintained in relatively good condition The deck extending from the end of the building towards the shore was replaced by the applicant in Apnl 2001. per applicant's statemer'. because the old deck was rotting away. The City has no record of the preexisting deck, cither on old surx c>s or in the assessors records. The January 1992 photo submitted by the applicant shows a deck at this location, although the deck in that picture appears to be not as deep as the new deck, and is perhaps 6’ x 12' rather than S’ x 12*. The old deck had posts at the perimeter, the new deck is cantilex ered 2* past the posts, and extends over the w ater. The deck is located less than one foot from the side lot line. City code would generally not allow an accessory deck w ith a railing to be less than 10’ from a side lot line The neighbors ha\ e indicated they are aware of the construction. The deck as it exists today comprises approximately 100 s.f. of hardcover including the steps to it. Part of this hardcov cr is o\ cr the lake City code allow s no hardcover or structures w ithin 75 ’ of the shoreline, except for one 4’ w ide stains ay; a lifl; landings of no greater than 32 s.f.; and lock boxes. Total existing hardcover in the applicants 0-75* /one is 16 24“o. consisting of: Accessory Building 22.1* x 12.1* Concrete slab adjacent to building (Approx I2\IS) Retaining Walls Stone walkw ay and landing Deck at shore inci steps (portion over land) Slone & w ood borders 267 s f. 208 s f 87 s.f 71 $ f 84 s f 27 s r 749 s.f / 4580 1624% Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in his Idler of request (Exhibit B), and should be asked for his additional testimony regarding the application. Hardship Analysis tm e»midertmg applkmhmi /#r witmet, the ntmtung Cemmiuum shall caasUer the effeet afthe proposed rariamee mpam the health, safety and welfare afthe caatmamify. existing amd anticipated traffic canditianu tight and air. danger afflre. risk ta thepnbUc safety, and the effect an taJuet afpraperty in the turrannding area. The Planning CamasissUn shall cansider recammending appravat far variances fram the Uteta! previsions afthe laming Cade in Inuanees where their strict enfareememt wamtd cense mndme hardship becanse afeirenm sxamees mnlgne ta the Individmat praperty mnder eansideratian, and shall recammend approval amJy when h b demanstrated that smek aellant wOtbeln keeping wHh the tplrU and intent afthe Orane Zanlng Cade. M2-2a5l - 2*59 Ca«c« Poial Road October 17.2003 Page4 Staff uould make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" perlineni to this application: 1. “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allow ed by the official controls.*’ The property can he used reasonably if the variances are denied. 2. “The plight of the landow ner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landow ner.” The only unique circumstance is that a nonconforming deck was replaced without the proper prior appros-als 3. “The variance, if granted, w ill not alter the essential character of the locality." The xariance Hill have little impact on the charM ur of the liKality. but will not he in keeping with City goals for lakeshore properties 4. “Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." n7ii7i' economics have not been cited by applicant as a hardship, applicant has expressed to staff his frustration nith the approval process costing more than the project itself 5. “Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight :br solar energy s>stems. N'anances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony w ith this Chapter." Sot applicable 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the rone where the affected person’s land is located." Sot applicable 7. “The Board or Council may permit as a v ariance the temporary use of a one-family dw elling as a two-family dwelling." Sot .Applicable 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." Ths zoning cthle limiting the use of lakeshore property applies to neighboring properties. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in w hich said land is located." The zoning code limitations apply to all properties within the Shoreland Oxvrlay District. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservauon and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The property owTter does not have an inherent right to replace in kind a nonconforming structure when it has reached the end of its useful life. il2-2iSt - 2*W C «»co Polflt Ro»d Oct«^ 17.2M3 PaicS 11. “The granting of the proposed varii-.cc will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." Graniing of the i-urunces \*i uld he in conflict utth the intent of the Zoning Code, the intent of u hich is that no nc.% structures be u//mm ed within "S' of the s horehne. and that existing non conforming strut :ure% escntually are removed by attrition 12. “The granting of such variance will rot merely sen e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.*' it is staff's opinion that granting of the after-the-fact variances moutd merely serve as a convenience to the applicant Issues for Cousideralioo 1. Would the Planning Commission hj\c recommended approval for the replacement of this deck had the application been made before the tact? 2. Does Planning Commission agree u iih staff that the 1992 photo provided by applicant casts doubt as to whether this deck was S' deep prior to its replacement? 3. The property has excessixe hardcover in both the 0-75* and 75-250* zones. Is there any hardcover on the site that should be considered for remoxal if the application is approved? The surveyor has identified 235 s f of landscape areas lined w ith plastic or fabric that arc not included in the hardcover calculations on p. 2 and would be subject to renioxal if the application is approved... 4. Applicant paid the after-the-fact fee for the variance application. If the variance is approved, should an after-the-fact building permit fee be paid? Applicant claims he was unaware that he needed a permit to replace an existing deck on the property... 5. Docs Planning Commission have ar.;. other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Rccor.imendalion Staff recommends denial of the application If this reconstruction had been applied for before-the- fact. the encroachment over the shoreline a.-.d within I foot of the side lot line would have been questioned and likely not approved, in staffs opinion The apparent expansion of the deck from a depth of 6* to 8* would certainly not have been approved. The faet that the approval process has cost the property owner more than the project is unfortunate, but should not be a factor in determining whether the approval is granted after-the-fact. Maintenance and or replacement of existing decks and lakeshore accessory* strueturcs is an ongoing issue along Orono’s 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline. The Planning Commission may wish to consider w hether the current policies and codes are appropriate, or w hether they need to berela.\ed or strengthened. If approval is granted. Planning Commission should address the excessive hardcox er on the property and make a recommendation as to removals An after the fact permit should be applied for so the building inspector can confirm the construction meets pertinent building codes. AppIkltiOD U O:^ Dale Rccchcd i;^ - in-QJ3 Amount CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2S0.0) After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address C ustQ Ft PJ liipwloio 5~S~J^ I______ Property Identification NumbCT(P.l.D.) »//7-? •00 2 2. Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propadac^cquired_______^ \ RT' ______________________^(month/y«r) I (do) (to nqt^so own the adjacent parcels of land. Pi^nt use of property: _i^^esidential ___^oiher (specil>)_ Zoning District: ________________ APPLICANT Name Address: 26JT ft. OWNER (if different than applicant) Name________________________ Phone (home) vTZ-V7/-/y7 7 _____ Phone (work) City: ______Zip: Address:City:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S 90<f» ee Describe requestjn detail: rlr^k: n^. (attach additional sheets if necessar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Cov'crage __Rear ___ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) g/ HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: /? <» y r/e.£~4L /t _r z O!, o/tJ , 0/J / (attach additional sheets if necessary) 4t^Q> iS’O 7T O ti C * required sub .ndttals All gf the follQwin2 informitiQii must be submitted hv tht ■ppltr«rton dfJlin# dmfm onier for vour ■pplication to bt con<idcrgd cnmpletf; 1. 2. Completed Application Form Certified Property 0\\T\en List of owners within I50\ labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Derartmenl 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 (I) copy 8'/," x IP for 5, 6. 8. reproduction. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/:" x 1 P for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (I) copy 8 ‘/i" x IP). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance application is not complete if the above information hn< not hpgn 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 incuned in review of this applicatio.n. and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of hi&hcr knowledge. Applicant's Signature V ______Date /O /jL 7 /d A OWNER S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and fimher authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date /t/7T hLL' Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and CounciL If an applicant is unable to anend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent anend in your place a.".d to advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. ....a -...» -.-A-.*- 8 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR SCOTT S.ano IRENE S. STANDA OF LOT 137. SPRING PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LAKE MINNETONKA SPRING PARK BAY m« CXMTOUI LfC LEGAL DCSCWiPnON Of PROitSCS Lot 137. SPRING PARK o denote* iron mortier Bearing* *ho«n are bo«ed upon on o*sut«j dotten Thi* survey intend* to %hom the bounderic* ot the above described properly, the locolion of three eiisling building*, and the location of all vmble "hordcover tnereon. It does not purpor t lo shoe ony other inprovsnents or encrooctn«nts TTSF 03-302 e GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. CONSUtMO ENOtCERS. LAND SURVEYORS. SITE PLAMCXS 4*S NORTH HIXOV ORVt. LONG LAKE. Ml SS3M •32-473-4141 c-l I n«e*T Cterrr tiai nei net vscecAiot w «raii M rVMD *T 1C 0* u«))« V. opicr ewt I <« « out? uenou rexivAm. (memib mo luo keen* MB M uei V ic titc V mwi* . o*TC Ml tom i* /I 7rr e*n 7-17-03 03-303 /jrs. IS-MRllilltriiiiiTnri n " OF LOT 137, SPRING PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA C-2. r^oT I p ^ X *1/ tv >5 ^ I Uij olc-c^lc, r-c^ "i Wc d KfO - Ic , *TVc. cJf I rn C *M*/ID C #C. -AU a J^»>y\C.. C# ^ »v W Ct K lv\qp t L SopTT ^ Sr/vr-c;/T 7-IS-03 Lot \yi Pa,?i<- SETBACK ZONE; (CUICLE ONE) existing HARnrovrit in zom UARDCOVtKOM.Cl l.A I ION UOKKSULLICE2> A House ^2.1 B G)^. C. Dnvewjy D Sidewalk E Pau&'Deck F Ltrdscape Undcrlam By Plastic Or Fabric C Other ~ - Ai^hM6 PROPOSED Ma UDCOVFU IN yONE A House ______________ B Garage C Dnveway D Sidewalk E Pauo.Deck F. LandKape Underlain By Plastic OrFabnc O Other TOTAL K'RLi. . cR.T^Z '‘'c TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN 20NE A ______________ - B 50-500'5uO-IOOO’ 'At SAT^fr. sf ~5P NfnT rv "SF 2C^ TOTAL HARDCO'.'ER IN ZOl.-E total proper: y area in zone A _________ - B U 14 SF “ WALL$ SF SF ,.5. STbNiL “u.a.wsr*oiNf, SF -0ECtd(2Wo= SF iHdl. Si SF SF Sr Sit)vr F iFi. ti - ft5.<C»i25 SI- S! SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF ..hiteka 5o3TT f Sta ^cm HAIUJCOVER CALCULATION NVORKSIIEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* 250.^00* EXISTING H vUhrm KR i\ 7nyf] A IlouiC a 7-ZJ‘OS Lrsi«i 12.1 Z.C A./ Lot IB7^-2 Spring soa-ioco' __\5 lZ^_S? -HOO^E ■2 5* 0 Gara(;c C. Otive«*3y tz.%Z0.3 D. Stdc^aU E PdUuDccE F. LanJi:^pc Und«(Lam Oy Pla*!.c Of Fabnc .SF-Sm£D SF -Xi/Z :sf-v<^u.c SF -e^RAzid __2^2_ _ SF - t)iAZifTt;/3 ^9 __^sr ^TiJ«C UMU4 gr SI (>i^cuvA,w) S F -ctfifcyociac•».«- noep 42S sr -ofcrff STc^ ______________ SF 0 Mf,ts=^a‘ ,Q_ F«^T/<i0li -------- -Jg______S F - of- OfZ 4 —2 ---------S F - 5*^44^ 6<?io< : 7 4^ 1 n ! al hardcover in zone total Pi pektv area in zone ^____________- B ____S F I?;? -rtiii liliicic XlCU PKQPO^f») KAUHf^OVf p |\ /OS'K A. HouiC L<^4 4l D. Oarage C. DmcMsy D. Sidewalk E PauoDeck F. Laadtcape URJerlam By PLitic Or Fabric SF. SF SF SF SF SF SF SF SF .SF SF SF 0. Other total hardcover in zone total prop =KTV area iN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _- B \IC0 sr SF «vAtr. Scair f Sta^qm 7-ZS-03 • SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE O.NE) EXISTING H vHD^nvKu i\ y.nsF^ A Houm HARDCOVER CALCULATION UORKSHEET ir'i r £\%sr>\ a0-75 12.1 JLSl WmI'.I A,/ ‘Z.5’ D Giraijt C. Omenay IZ.l D. Sidewalk E- Palia>0<;ck F. Landscape Undalam By PUst.c Or Fabric G Other WTiESr^^o'Bfftoc : 7 iniAl HARDCOVER IN ZONE total Pi ?£RTV AREA IN ZONE _____________- B xlCQ FRQPO^iTI) MAUtirm I f! |v A. Hoiue Lr-. j B. Garage C Dm essay D. Sidewalk E. Patio Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plaitic Or Fabric G. Other total HARDCOVER IN ZONE total I'KOPERl V AREA IN ZONE ''______________- B MCO Ut IB7 4T-2 SpRiN^r Rtkil-c' 250-500’ 500-1000’ - \5Z^ sF -h^£ ,SF -5«£D SF -A/Z ;SF-t0^-LjO SF 11 1 ____SF - fJtAZJ<T6*/3 ^9 ' S r - OMJC . AtV-1 J ^roMi isMue g!T s F (>y*cu'/A,w) SF-fcgtafy(^»o< i»*a- HOOP ___425 SF-DgCaefSTc^ — _______ SF m paeNT/s.oi . S F - rt7b^fe . S F - reMTM ffP OfZ C , SF - SF ___SF .SF SF SF SF .ST ST .SF. SF SF .SF SF. F' CITY OPORONO INSPECTION NOTICE PERMIT NO________ DATE TtMC ADDRESS OWNER_____________ CALlEOtN SCMEOlAEO COVPiETEO /t Vy^ CONTR. TELEPHONE NO.. DESCRIPTION «ti 0* FOOTSO u It VECHA.MCALM If EtCAvORAOtfiGPiLLiNa 2 02 FRAMNG IS mechamca .. FMAL 19 LAKESMOBE.VFETLAN05 ^ OJ INSULA'CN 24TS AOODBURNEaF PEPLACE M TREE REMOVAL § 04 wAaSD 12 wateamx Sk UP IF Site i’iSPECTiCn ^ OS Final M SEWER hook UP 06 PROGRESS S OF DCM3 . SITE 2F SEPTIC MAiNT 21 COMPlANT ^ OF DCMC -FNAl l> SEPTIC iNStAa 22 FOLLOW UP ^ W PLUMeNGA ?J SEPTCFiNAL 9S HARO COiER RCU3VAL *0 PLi.Ma-VSF*»Ai.X FOuNCA'iQF* removal OWNIKiCONtNACTON 10 MCH »OU __VCt___NO ITS:______________o6mk ^i 775^ C(P/iJ^c(r ^ (p^Wce^ ^ ^ W~ L WOAKSAtisrACIont pnocito COAAECT WO«K A PROCEED y^OMAECT MANX.CALL rOM PEIS&PtCTlON E^CEOAECOVER iNO U COAAECr UNSAFE CONOlllON within _____HOUHS INSPECTOR Will fUTUHN STOPOPOERPOSTED CALL INSPECTOR r. INSPECTION REQLARCD CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS PROJECT complete iSSUt certificate OP OCCUPANCV ________TEWPOPURF _______permanent a photo taken OTATlON ISSUED Call lor the iMxl inspection 24 hours In advanco. (952) 249'4600 OwmeriContractor on tile: Inspector A clor^PiN CaiiAff C«py/SN« Nolle* GITYoTORONO MuaklH Olllm towtiiirtu. 2750 untt Htkmn Orem. MN SS3S6 ro taM Cmstal Uj, m 55323 0C66 Scon Sc. Irene Standa 2659 Casco Point Road Wayzata,MN 55391 Re: Boathouse Deck at 2659 Casco Point Road Dear Mr. St Mrs. Standa: The City has received your after the fact application for a Deck replacement on your property. Unfortunately the Deck is uithin 75 feet of the lake \%here no structures are allowed. Therefore the City must require removal of the Deck or submission of a variance application to see if the City Council will allovv it to remain. Please review the enclosed variance application and contact the Zoning Department to discuss submittals. If the deck is not removed or if a complete variance application is not received by 08/1801. legal action will be started If you have any questions feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, 0 L>k Oman Building Official Enc. Variance Application LO/mj lUephoM(«52)a4MM0 • Fox (952) 249-44K cm Ini Va Af t-H AppIicatioD U U- Date Rccched • *^-l -Of Amount Paid_________ r.2cz;v2D Ay] 1 4 2Q0I CITY Or OnO,\0 PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address eS.CS~9 ^J. Property Identification Number (P.I D.)_ Attach legal description to application if not ir.c.cded on required surveyf Date Propert><Acquired_______9 / ______________________' 1 (do) ^ojjotpalso own the adjacent px'cels o: land. Present use of propcrt>-: ✓^residential ___ouher (srecift) Zoning District:________________________ .(montlv'year) APPLICAN Name ANLp r Address: 7,4/v. £J OW^VER (if different than applicant) Name___________ Address: Phone (home) 9/~ O^l') ____ Phone (^ork) 9rZ- /JlL C;t>:_ C r0**p ______Zip: Phone (home). Phone (work)„ Cv. DI^CRIPTION OF REQUEST EstLmatei Construction Cos: S Q6D. &n Describe request in detail: ^ 7___Qc (attach additional sheets if necessary) WiPii iii/T* VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hcrdcover .Lot Coverage ✓^ther (specify ) (dt. ^ i __Rear Average Lakeshore c rirok- 'Qx Vk ) w ♦ RARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAI PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hacdship or pracical diff.cuitjo: unusual p,oper;> condiUons prever.ring com£liancc utih Zoning Code requirements: TA:, y)mpiiA ___.------------------—---^ e. I ^ Lty n t/____c/d___^ ^ rt #2^ (anach additional sheets if necessary ) ty ^ r ! 1 .-1, *- “r. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETIACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' 75-2SO’ 2SO-500' Einymic hardcover in zonh A Home ______ X ■ 500-1000* WMk B. G«a(e C. Driveway fiff!X A/or X D. Sidewalk V ^ Oh E. PaciovDcck F. Laadfcape Uodcrlaln oi/<• r- ^ fmy ST. S.F. S.F. ST. ST. ST. ST. S.F. ST. S.F. ByFla«ic^^.^^^. O. Oiber _________ (a^ A*t J ix tL TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ________ST. _______ST. S.F. HAR SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONt) OVEir^<CULATION WORKS ET 75-250* 250-500*SOO-IOOO* U A. STIMC f iw ynvT H oum _____________ B. C Ooragc £3dvtwiy a SMtwolk E Pitto^k F. UndKipe Underlain By Plastic O. Oibar TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _________________ ♦ B _____ _________________ ♦ B X too X 100 fpOROSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lcfi|th B. Carafe C Driveway a Sidewalk E. P^io/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ♦ B X 100 'V .*:a SF. S.F. SF. SJ. S.F. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. S.F. ST. H "h ST. S.F. ST. ST. ST. S.F. ST. ST. S.F. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. A ST. B 3 \y - -fil A*n c: 3.«?i LLm\*^ u:j S F-1 GITYorORONO MMkipy Offica SftMtAMrm: 2750 IWkv P«hMy 0mm. M SS3S« P 0 K Crystal lay. MN SS323{I0M Scott & Irene Sunda 2659 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: Boathoasc Deck at 2659 Casco Poiat Road Dear Mr. & Mrs. Stands: On 7/18/02 this ofTice reviewed your after the fact permit application for replacement of a deck on your property. You were notified at that time that the deck replacement was in violation of the City Ordinances. The City required removal of the deck or submission of a \'ariance application to seek City Council approval. As of this date the issue remains unresolved. Therefore the City must again require you to remove the deck or to submit a variance application. A dcadliac of 11/01/02 has been established. If this deadline is not met the City will initiate legal aclioiL A court appearance will be required. If you have any questions feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official 'lO . o\ F-ii %MiJ CITYoT ORONO Muoklpd Ofllcts Sirwt M<wii. ?7M M«iky ^arinny Orono. MN S53S6 ■aCiiMIrm PO Boi(6 Cmstal Bay. MN 5S323W6 REQUEST FOR FURTHER I^T0R^UT10N December 19» 2002 Mr. Scott Standa 26S9 Casco Point Road Wayzala, MN 55391 SUBJECT; Zoning Application #02-2858 The City of Orono is required to notify you within ten (10) business da>'s as to the status of your application for an aher the fact variance for property located at 2659 Casco Point Road. Below is a list of items the City of Orono is requesting to complete our review: o 2 original surveys, (certificate of sur\cy, signed by licensed sur\ cyor) of an updated survey indicating the location of the lakeside deck on the property. o All existing and proposed hardcover shall be calculated on the hardcover worksheets that are enclosed. The hardcover calculations must be completed by your suiveyor ^ A certified property owners list, mailing labels, and plat map of all property owners within 150’ of your property. You can request these items from the Hennepin County Department of Finance at 612-348-5910. Application #02-2858 is incomplete. If you w ish to proceed with your application please submit the items requested above by Tuesday January 8. 2003 to remain on the January 22, 2003 Planning Commission agenda. Please call me at (952) 249-4600 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Wendy Bottenberg Zoning Administrator/Plarmer lUcphoiM (952) 249-44M • Fax (952) 249-4614 www.cLonNMJBB.as CITYof ORONO . Ma^palOfllnt SirMlAiiratt 2750 mtt Orono. MN 55356 IHriii P O Bm 66 CiysUl B<y. MN 55323<K)66 May 2.2003 Scott & Irene Standa 26S9 Casco Point Road Wayzata.MN 55391 RE; Boathouse Deck at 2659 Casco Point Road Dear Mr. and Mrs. Standa; On 7/18/02 this office reviewed your after the fact permit application for replacement of a deck on your property. You were notiHed at that time that the deck replacement was in violation of the City Ordinances. The City required removal of the deck or submission of a variance application to seek city Council approval. As of this date the issue remains unresolved. Therefore the City must again require you to remove the deck or to submit a variance applicadon. A deadline of 5/21/03 has been established. If this deadline is not met the city will initiate legal action. A court appearance will be required. If you have any questions feel free to contact roe at my office. Sincerely, /J/lJ' / Michael P. Gaf^n Planning Director iMlliii IWfpiNwt (9S2) 249.46I0 • Fax (fS2) 24M<Ii wwwxUraiMJBajtt 7:. 15, GlTYoT ORONO MunkiH Offlra Strati Mims: ?750 Kelley Pi'kiuy Orano. Mfl S53S6 itlliiV Mirttt: PO BoiM CrystiiBar. Ml 55323 K6S September 26,2003 Scott Standa 2659 Casco Point Road Wayzata, NIN 55391 SUBJECT: 2^ning Application ^02-2858 Dear Mr. Standa: This Idler is to notify >t)u as to the status of your application for an ancr-the-faci variance for deck replacement on your property located at 2659 Casco Point Road. Our preliminary rev icw indicates that your application is considered complete now that the survey and hardcover calculations have been submitted. Your application is scheduled to appear before the Planning Commission on Monday, October 20, 2003. The meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. Please make sure that vou or \x>ur representative is available to attend the meeting. You will be mailed a staff report regarding >t>ur application prior to the meeting dale. Please call me or one of the City Planners at (952) 249-4600 if ><00 have any questions. Sincerely, Michael P. GaHiron Planning Director cc: Melanie Foth. City Planner Janice Waataja, City Planner TkkplMM(9S2)249.MW • Fax (f52) 249-I6U wwxi.orBiMUBa.as ▲ 1^ ; .|IM.ILU I. LLi\ . •4• • * . l:- ^^^J. 'fNVDT-n A^/^Ut CAKrT" r MM MTI I2/2X/I2 MTCN S91 iriM cowrrv fflorcvrv iMroMurtoN svsteh PtOPCtTV OMNECS ilST HMMIT NO. flOSMOl rACC 1 OMNM NMC TAXfAVtl HMC/ABM M 2t>nr>2s » ttii •2MS CASCO roXNT 00 8 J COICKSON • S r EOlCKSON CERALO J A SANMA F ERICKSON FO ROI SOA MAVZATA m SSSAt SO Et-117>2S 2S OOZO 02477 CASCO fOlNT OR A 0 RLUIS t S V RLUXS A 0 RLUIS t S V KLUIS 2477 CASCO rOINT OS MAVZATA tM SSSOl SO 20-117-2S 2S 0021 0244S CASCO POXNT RO C R 8NUTTS SNR SNUTTS CARL R I NMTXLVN R SNUTTS 244S CASCO POXNT RO oatzata m sssoi PROP ABOR OMNER NANI TAKPAYER HANE/ABOO SO 20-117-2S 2S 0022 02450 CASCO POINT 00 S S STANOA S X S STANOA S S STANOA I X S STANOA 24S0 CASCO POXNT RO MAVZATA NN 5SS01 SO 20-II7-2S 24 0002 02440 CASCO POINT RO F L NAXR 0 0 E NAIR CO-TRST FLOVO I NAIR I OXANE E NAXR 2440 CASCO POINT RO MAVZATA m SSSOI SO 20-I1/-2S 24 OOOS 02404 CASCO POXNT RO 0 L RUNRIE ELF RUNRLE DAVXO L RUNRLE 2404 CASCO POINT RO MAVZATA IM SSSOI PROP AOOR OMNER NANI TAKPAYER NAME/AflOO SO 20-117-2S 24 0020 02440 CASCO POINT RO JULXAMM H SCNERVEN JULIAIMf H SCNERVEN * 2440 CASCO POINT RO MAVZATA NN SSSOI SO 20-II7-2S 24 OOSO 0244S CASCO POINT RO N J GREENE AAR CREENE NONNA GREENE t ALAN GREENE 244S CASCO POINT ROAO MAVZATA TM SSSOI SO 20-117-2S 24 OOSl 024SS CASCO POINT RO MARILYN 0 TNONNE NA*TLVN B THORNE ;.iS CASCO POINT RO MAVZATA NN SSSOI (,) ) PROP AOMI OMNER Nam TAKPAYER NMC/ABON SO 20-117*2S 24 ORSO ■2440 CASCO POINT RO J M ■ 0 J ESSEN JEFFREY 0 BARBARA ESSEN 2440 CASCO PT RO MAVZATA NN SSSOI TOTAL BATCH Sil ■•111 GO I CERTirV THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AM ACCURATE AMO TRUE REP^NTATION OF XTMONHATXON AS IT APPEARS THIS BATE OH THE RECOROS OF TNE NEIWCPIN COIMTV DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TARATXON, TO THE BEST CQ OF NV RNOMLEOOF AND BELIEF. DATE Adjaecm Properly Ooocrs* Acknowlcdccment Form w/i«/., A t JtJ I (we) / ^csL.,»Jk___________of___^cy [print name(s)][print address] have rc\*iewed the plans for Uic proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located •t r..^f Pi eJ also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disappnnal 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 CXuJL' \0 <a9 03- Date Property Owner Date ••••• I (we) [print name(s)] C,^ PJ [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at tCT*r Ct*f, / Pr XV also referred to as Land Use Application No.________ I (we) unde'Stand that in e.xecuting this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the propertv or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) w’ are of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor’s project or use requires Counc approval. /C - ~^n - ci Propert>' Owner Date Propert> Owner fr * > Date If you have any information that may assist tlie City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to :he Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting dale. ■fJ-O': i r FlLE«03-2t» Octotwr 9 2003 P*9«loli DMt AppttcMkM lUccivttf: M-19^ Dolt A^pIkathnCouMcrtdasCMifltlc: 10-07-A3 M^Dty Rcvtew FtHod Cipira: 12>r<«J Froa: Date: Svbjcct: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Melanie Foth, City Ptanner^^J^J^ October 9.2003 03*2923, Stevan Wagner. 3607 & 3609 Shoreline Drive, > Commercial Site Plan Review for building addition and Variances • public bearing ZoBing District: B-1, Rclall Sales Bnstaicst District, Lot Area: 0.4S acre miaimoBi (20,000 s.f.) U63 acre (50.682 s.f.) AppUemtiom Summary^ The applicant has submitted an application for a building expansion and remodel in the B*l Zoning District. As per Cit> Code Section 78*642 any application for a commercial building permit prompts a site review by the Planning Commission and Citv' Council. The applicant has requested the following; 1) Commercial site plan review in order to obtain a building permit to remodel and expand an existing 2310 s.f concrete block building on the property to a 4080 s.f. building, a 1.770 s.f. total expansion. 2) A setback variance in order to re*use the existing sign pole which is setback 8* from the front property line where 10' is required. The signage itself will extend an additional 4* into the setback area for a sign setback of 4* when 10’ is required.* 3) Hanlcover variance to allow existing driveway hardcover to become structural hardcover.* •Each of these items will be reviewed in part with the overall commercial site review. List of Exhibits A. Application B. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan C. Proposed Plans and Elevations D. Sign Information E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Property Owners List G. Pertinent Zoning Ordinance Sections H. Photos I. Aerial photo Background The property located at 3607 Shoreline Drive has historically served as an equipment rental business. Lawn and garden equipment rental is a permitted use in the district; how ever, there is a great deal of outdoor storage associated with this business. Outdoor storage is a conditiortal use in the Industrial district only. There are no provisions within FN^V2«23 OcMMft 2003 Pact 3 of 8 Fnmt Yard Setback Variance for Siga Replaccaseal The existing sign is located 8* from the front property line, where a 10* setback is required. The applicant is proposing to re-use this sign in part including the non conforming setback. He will \k re-painting the pole and hanging new signage from it however the new signage will extend an additional 4’ into the 10' setback Thus, the applicant is requesting a 4' sign setback variance where 10' is required by City Code Hardcover Variance This property is almost entirely within the 500’-1000’ hardcover zone. Currently, there is 35,030 s.f. of hardcover constituting 72.75 %. Most of this hardcover is gravel and paved parking areas with buildings consisting of only 6.132.75 s.f. or 1/6 of the 72.75%. 'This proposal will increase structural coverage, staying within the 15% allowance, but will not significantly reduce hardcover. Site Characteriitics/B-I conformih; Site Area Defined Lot Width Building Setbacks Front Lot Line Rear Lot Line Side Yard Adjacent to “R” District Required/Allowed 20,000 s.f (0 46 acre) 100’ 35’ 35’ 35’ Proposed/Existing 50.682 s.f (1.163 acres) 250 ’ 49.5 ’ 120’ 75’ Propt>scJ 90’ Existing 4.5’ Existing ProposedSide Yard Adjacent to **B" District 15’ Building Height 30' (2'/3 stories) Signage 191 s.f 150 s.f * I s f. per each front foot occupied b> building, plus I s f. for ejch front foot not occupied b> building [cite City Code 7R.|468( I)] Additional standards required for the B-1 zoning district appear in Chapter 78 Article IV Division 12. Those standards are attached as Exhibit H. Parking Requiremeuts A. Location. Parking spaces and'or garages shall be located in areas other than a required yard; except that parking may be located in a rear yard to within three feet of the rear or side lot line unless the rear or side lot line is in common with an R district, in which case the setback distance shall be 35’. 'The applicant’s property is irregularly shaped and surrounded at the rear and on the west side by residential property. The eastern side lot line abuts another B-1 district. B. Number of parking stalls. Required - I per 500 s.f of floor area in excess of (he I** 500 sX (Net - 5829 s.f. > 500 -5329 s.f/500 - 10.65 stalls required) Total stalk required - 11 Total stalk exkting - 18 riLE«C3-2«23 CosberS 3003 Pag«4ore Scciion 78-1 516 of the Zoning Ordrjince states that where the principal use of the structure served is a furniture store, appliance store, warehouse under IS.OOO square feet of floor area, auto sales, grainhousc5. kennels and studios, the minimum parking facilities (open or enclosed) shall be at least cr.e for each 500 square feet in excess of the first 500 square feet of floor area in the princiral strucnire The combined floor area of the proposed principal building including the two accessory buildings totals 5829 s f therefore, the applicant meets all parving requirement. Surface Water p|»n A grading and drainage plan should be submitted with t\so-foot contour intersal or spot elevations on a 100-foot grid if the TAo-foot contours are over 100 feet apart. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted b> ahe applicant in such detail as required b> the council, and those plans shall be rev .ivved by the city engineer before submisk'^n to the Planning Commission and the Council for approval No use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing flood, erosion or deposits on adjacent properties. Such runoff may be required to be properly cha.nniled into a natural watercourse, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff, whether onto adjacent property or otherwise, mur. be in compliance with the surface water management plan and shall be consir.ent with other applicable regulations or City Code prov isions and subject to the approve of c±er agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainagc.fCite: City Code Section 78-646(h») A drainage and surface water management plan should be submitted to the City for Engineer rev iew prior to final approval. The drainage and surface w ater management plan shall address the above listed issues of section 78-646<h) Road and Pedestrian Access uccess This property bos 2 accesses to Shoreline Driv e. a onc-wav in and a two-way out in a horseshoe shape. T-tf easternmost access is the primary entrance and exit. Customers who are renting a larger L-ailer or driving a larger vehicle, which makes backing out difficult, exit using the western access by using the drive-ihroiich to the gravel trailer storage lot. Cdiifrianpfffss Sidewalks curreriv exist along the front of the prorertv providing connections to the properties cast ar.i west. The nature of this business do^s not cater to pedestnan traffic as most of the equirment av ailable for rent is difficult to transport without a vehicle However, pedestr-.is do use the sidewalk to access the commercial area of Navarre. Sigaggs The subject property is allowed 250 s f. of signage, based on Citv Code standards- -Agjregait Huare foougc of s^n s,-;.c lot shall noi excodW of ow squaso fool for each from foot of building, g. j or e square foot for each front fool of lot not r FILEil»-2Kn Octt6w9.3003 6. Is the vertical vm>d siding as propoied in appropriate exterior \hall finish for a commercial building? 7. Should the pole sign be relocated to a conforming location? t. Will there be tenants in the other building on the propert>? How will that use impact the site? 9. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff Recaaameadarioai 1. Planning Department stafT recommends approval of the sign variance. 2. Planning Commission should advise staff and the applicant regarding issues which the ^iplicant should address legaiding die commercial site. Applicadoa i_ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2SO.OO (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning atructures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double ^jplication fee) Date Received i Amonnt Paid exhibit A PROPERTY INFORMATION cT Site Address _________3>6d "7 Property Identification N u ^>ct (P.LD.) ^-(7" /> 7^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Dale Pfopqty Acquired_____Xoo^__________________ I (do) (fldn^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ___presidential ___other (specify)^ Zoning District:___________________________________' _(month/year) APPLICANT . Name (/J /hevA) Address: lA !» •/« o'llUT Phone (home ) 9^ *(7v 7S>Q ____ Phone (work) V? i 1 7 ♦ o City AiO M o MUZin: / iTTfeV OWNER (if different than ^plicant) Name_____________________ Address:City:. Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST. Estimated Construction Cost S____ Describe request in detail: (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: Other (specify) ___Lot Width Front __Side 3 ViN) Hardcover Rear ___Lot Coverage __ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance wih Zoning Code requironents:__________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #29 23 required SUBi>UTTALS ^ YW^DDHMt"o^^ «PPlkatf>?n ^cadHng fn ^rifrr 2* — Completed Application Form obtain this list. Hemroto^om^ Govt Center, 348-5910). ^ County Department of Finance, A-603, r^troduclion. ^ ■" O copy S‘/r , tr hr ptop«1>-. This would include naine(s) of applicants •" ** 7- — As an addendum to this application nlease a^lcK ^ you wish notified of this application. ‘ *cp»rate list of any other persons ». ----- Additional items as may be requested by City staff. APPLIC^T S SIC.V4TURE Admiitistrator.agrees^to^yndditioMlf«*(«,'ff^fiTO .requested by the Zonins consultimt expenses incu^d in review of this Zlica'ion ^ supplied IS true Bid co^o Uie^t of hisfiier ^^^0! "" App..cantsSigna.u,e^^,^w______ OWTVER S SIGNAThUE ' the property by c1^ WfT^whall’u! agen^'Coi^^- ‘‘“''•“rizes or puTTOses^investig^on and verification of to " entry onto reasonable and CouncilZmK r ^ consultants, aVen*^ Com,.- • members for purposes^tWstig^on and verification of to __________ Date _4-/P. d ^ Meeting. PlanJing' Co'rl?ssio!^ Mulhs^VMi H ^c a''' Commission Applleanu must be present at all sebeduUd review lei of each month. 1 Planning Commission Meetings are held on Commission Applleaou must be present at all scbedul review le,iny„rtK"’.'^’‘’"‘’*>’ »f ">o«h. Counell. If an applicant is unable to abend a scheduled ml"^ Commission nnd have Bt authortzrf agent attend in your place and to adviV the casements to change pnor to the meeting. ®“*'ding & Zoning Office of this ;7 BU AppUcadoa # 5 Date Received Amount Paid Qcnn^ ~ Crj CITY OF ORONO - CENER.AL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Stic Address 3 7 f iV/C l3i2- Type of Application to be Filed Property Idcnlificalion Number (P.I.D.) yg. ^i-< APPLICANT Nam e ^-rgjg. T Address ^rWo City Phone (home) *???• Y7v 73 lo _ Phone (work) _Mv%4,jo Hp* Zip V7t * 7750 rri4i( OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address Phone (home)_ Phone (woric)_ Date Property Acquired ______________ 1 (do) (do not) also outi the adjacent parcels of land.(month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ______5 75.(X) For each variance request with CTUP application ______S250.00 Residential Accessory Use ______S250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) $250.00 Guest Housc'Guest Apartracr.' • ______$250.00 Duplex Credil'Bldg ___ $325.00 Commercial^dustrial Use ______$250.00 Land Alteration -------Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling - 501 cu. yd. or more ------- Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75’ of lakcshorc ______PRD/TID • see Fee Schedule ---------$150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) ______After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTH» 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 ______SI00.00 Appeals ______Other - see Fee Schedule 1REQtIKED SUBMITTALS I-------Completed Applicition Form. ------. DesCTbe request in detail. must obtain iKsU^'S wd * A-603. Covcmmcni Center. 34S-3270. Department of Finince. Survey (signed by a licensed survesor) - 5. 6. 8. 9. d-v-wj. uovemmeni Center, 34S-327I). ^ ^^<mmcni oi Finance. S“ne>«r) - refer to handout for s-rtey changes in elevation (grades). P P contours) if land alterations involve prapmy. “** " 'Pt: 2rs£ peraons you wish notified of Ws applicaii^r* ®*« SVB\ documents or copy •» 'f l.iTofumti': Z"Tl\ W.icatt'Tno"l'J;Ttr?ftS^Xe"i^^^^ remember that yo.- Initials of Clerical Sia/L •*“' *^'•‘1 Cse Application i- complete. ------ -------------Date_ APPLICANT'S SIGNATITIE ----------------- The applicant hercbv aerccs to orovide nil i^r Ad^slrator agrees lo' pay addilional fe« "ufTfime" ** Zomr.i supplied IS true and c^uo th^„ of hisher 1010X4^ Applicant's signature y- ------------------- V-n - OWNER’S SIG.N.ATURE ' ------------- -''.“.ss 7„»rr members for puTop^Hvcsijg-L^ verification oriis”"™“‘” "<1 Ccuncil Owner’s signature ______________ f I / icheJJcd meetz*. pleue make * C®“«UM:oa «od Cousd. i/. be present tt a:: BuiMin. A L.4oT/.rt •• 9-n r CITYof ORONO Munich Officw SlTNtlMrm 27SO Kdlcy fukmtj Orooe. MM 5S3S6 M«IH»| Uinm p.O 6a (S Coitjl Bjy. MR S5323 00£6 , DATA PRIVACY A^>\-]cnpv <hp«1nitiiu m«y r«,u.re you to fiimtsh cnt«n prfv,t. or confidonti.l Wbnn«ion. You are notified that: Civ dony 0.. coou.. .uo,»,pp,.„ “ '■’““"“S P**'> “ P"'«‘ Your tiill name is requir*) to process this application or pcnniL __cJ idi^ ' ^-----------7TZ-------------------------- 2. 3. First Middle ____^Wo ii:^ . c-T' Address ~ t ------------— /'-U'A4 «sj tQ City Lw> 5~<r?<.v 9s'v <f7t.’^?i'> State Zip Phone Signature ;ipts as stated above. TshflHM WMMP^.fei 0S2) MMMt CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR A-1 MINNETONKA RENTA IN LOT 7, BLOCK 7. TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA SHORELINE DRIVE COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 IN LOT 77 BLOCK tT fOWNSITE OF LANGDON PAKN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA_ _ _ _ _ _ SHORELINE DRIVE COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : The West 250.00 feet of the East 350.00 feet of Lot 7, Block 7, Towns!te of Longdon Park. denotes ironmfirker €> I ■0 0 fm > • /T\UPPD< lbvb. plan ®------ rn *r- I Pi!>^fl'! £>E H05•CCac■aooi i! t" <^5Sgg z ± lU'M z ih " A3 L — ----- WEST ELEVATION •BM* tor> it PegfltC«■BOOB I zi.» ----- 7N NOUTM ELEVATION MM*© ♦ --- -feWNF*^ EAST gLgVATION MM* f-0 r I^A'iMiNNBfONKA Rental Inc. 3607 Shoreline Dr. Wayzata. Mn. SS39I 952-471 *9700 WB BBNT AMmame ^ ALMOST EXHIBIT D £)( iST/iu (.S'/ j/J H}£t^ |Z'i6/T *|-we i^At-1 U T9f IT- n 3L ° Ql*v 1.- ° O 9^7C(L /'TO 8* T 18- , • ^. .. Cv%-. ••-• ,/g^z?^trj7irg|\>. ■ji umt: r i ». :■ I "i MINNETONKA RENTAL God Bless AmpHra Budget fSi'S* Tru:'v Rental J GRAND jt [1REN'lAl 1 STATION 1 y Noll PP&PtJS^ TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE = 1®' ?3 ' TOTAL HEIGHT =4» Z1 ' .* . „ KHIBITE /vliHNErpNKA io5’\1151{ksueet _____ 75-250' I50-S00 ‘ ^^OOJOOOp RCVI5i^O U a IU)COVEH CA SETBACK ZONE. ■CmCLEOVi) C’S' EXISTING H \nnco\ ru in 7qne A H^c ______________ ' Ej(iST|m6 .... Bum .O«m£5 _____________ \ 7^ 8urt.< 7 ”T^n$iT£ 0t^ LA h 6^C^ |Z.S“ CVriu.. B Carijt C D^\e^v|; Of (1^ D Sidewalk E Pal:»Dcck F V^iKi/s 0/Fa\ic 0 Ou'.er -1 --------6«*-A at v>» 5*^7 TO: Ai ha .idco’.£i1 :n zone TOTAL PRO.’iill fY AK£A IN ZONT: A ____________ - a PROPOSED HAnncovnt in /one A. House __________ K %I00 B Cars. C Dr.vcway D Sidewalk E Pauc/T)t:k F Li-di::?.* JneerUu-J B> Plasii: Of Fabr.i 0 0*«r TOT.AL HAJw LOVLR IN ZONE 15^010 •» ZI5 TOTAL H.TO.’E.RTY AC:A IN ZONT A _____________ - B ___________ «IC0 IhOl 2Ti4- I7 77A two 4. 46? 4 76 -562 JL2L .-r 0;/>uOio6 ,SF-g4ST QuO<=^ . S F (|6N < p - 9tA04TtfP ■ 5 p .C^MCRfTE 0wA4KTPP/dirvr. Sf - ’SF s p -taid f sTt cr .Ca^NCL ■5- ’SF .A;C'Tii^.At BiOlu/CU y.r 090 41 }"lSo .SF - ;F SF COnCRCTC W/IU.S A B PCPPOED. n£t -11 aa .4 5P .^n-*n'0wzi L cvKCrfkTr 5 p NET 6A1N sr J: SF ;sF SF ;sF SF SF SF • EBAv El REmP/EC 3?. 00? ISO SF SF >« exhibit c PcrtiBeBt Zoaiag Ordioaacc Sections S«c. 7S>442. Pcrail application. All ^)plicauons for a building permit in any B-I retail sales business district shall be revieiwed by the council and may be referred to the planning commission for rc\icw. (Code 1984. § 10.40(2)) Sec. 78-646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (a) Area In any B-1 district the minimum lot size shall be 20.000 square feet. (b) Lof HiJ/h The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. (c) From yards The minimum front >ard shall be 20 feet. (d) Rear yards The minimum rear >ard shall be ?0 feci a side yard adjacent to any R district shall be 15 feet, and a side yard adjacent to a street shall be ten feet (e) Setback requirements No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line. 35 feel from any rear lot line. 15 feet from any side lot line, or 35 feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street, e.xcept abutting or across the street from an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. (0 Fencing Wherever a B-I retail sales business district abuts an R district, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or .impact evergreen hedge no less than 50 percent opaque nor less than si.x feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. (g) Building design and construction In addition to other restrictions of this chapter, the use. construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: (1) All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: a. Face brick; b. Natural stone; c. Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture. d. Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials are of any of those noted in subsections (gH I )a- •c of this section, or c. Other materials as may be approved by the council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. (2) All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed afrer the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to Jiose used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance (3) No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings (h) Drainage No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion or deposits on adjacent properties Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the council, and those plans shall be reviewed by the city engineer before submission to the planning commission and council tor approval. Such runofT may be required to be properly channeled into a natural uatercourse, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting v\ater rxmoff. whether onto adjacent property or otherwise, must br in compliance with the surface water management plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or provisions of this Code and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected b> the drainage. (i) Height No structure or building shall exceed 2 1 2 stories or 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (Code 1984. § 10.40(6)) See. 78-1468. Signs in B and I districts. Within the B and I districts, nameplate signs and business signs are permitted subject to the following regulations; (1 ) B-/. B-2 and B-4: size Within the B-1 . B-2 arui B-4 districts, the aggregate square footage of sign space per lot shall not exceed the sum of one square foot for each front foot of building, plus one square foot for each front foot of lot not occupied by a building No individual sign shall exceed 50 square feet. (4) B-/. B~2 and B-4 height ithin the B-l. B-2 and B-4 districts, no sign shall extend in height more than tw o feet above the highest outside w all or parapet of any principal building, nor shall any sign be located closer than ten feet from any property line; except that any sign over ten square feet may project two feet into any required yard area from the principal building. Sec. 78-1516. Required off-streel parking. WTiere the pnncipal use of the structure serv ed is as listed, the minimum parking facilities (open or enclosed) shall be os shown. (17) Furniture store, appliance stare, warehouse under 1 5.000 square feet of floor area, auto sales, grainhouscs. kennels and studios, at least one for each 500 square feet in excess of the first 500 square feet of floor area in the principal structure Sec. 78-1573. Glare or heat. Any use requiring an operation producing an intense heat or light transmission shall be performed with the necessary shielding to prevent such heat or light from being deteclaolc at the lot line of the site on which the use is located Light.ng in all instances shall be diffused or directed away from R districts and public streets (Code 1984. § 10.60(8)) Sec. 78-1575. Screening. (a) Screening shall be required in residential zones where; (1) Any off-sueet parking area which contains more than four parking spaces and is within 30 feet of an adjoining residential lot line, and (2) Where the drivevtwy to » parking area of more than six parking spaces is within IS feet of an adjoining residential lot line. (b) The screening required in this section shall consist of a solid fence or wall at least SO percent open, not less than four feet nor more than five feet in height, but shall not extend within IS feet of any street or driveway opening onto a street The screening «h«ll be placed along the property lines or in case of screening along a street, 1S feet from the street right-of*way with land^ping (trees, shrubs, grass and other planting) between the screening and the pavement. A louvered fence shall be considered solid if it blocks direct vision. Planting of a type approved by the planning commission may also be required in addition to or in lieu of fetKing (Code 1984, § 10.60(10). (II)) H-'2- ^ . TMm Sh-£.3MM:"mmm ^Sk^'r-^: • V, -, \.-I;;*:*' I-::o-, .•»»;.'• -.. . ;‘i: • '> •• Al-S^ * ^ 1'^: H T— - ■ » * (/Vt<.r PA-fiKiKf^ LOT File 03-2923 3607 & 3609 Shoreline Dr Commercial Site Review FMIMUl I <3 File 03-2923 3607 & 3609 Shoreline Dr Commercial Site Review fAiinu f I <3 i^Vyi I M I I rr Date AppIkadM RtccKH: 7.23-413 Date ApplicaHan Coa«idcrfd u Caaipktc: 9-1M3 M-Dajr Rcvtew Period Eipirn: ll-IS-OS Chair Smith and Planning Commissioners Ron Moorse. City Administrator Mike GafTron, Planning Dircctori^JJ''^^ October 16.2003 <403-2934 Jason Bliss. 3445 Cr>stal Bay Roail - Variances • Public Hearing Zoniig Dislricl: LR-IC Single Family Lakeshore Residential Lot Arca/\VMlh: Required = 0.50 acre (21.780 s.f.) min. area, lOO* min uidth Existing = 0.15 acre (6.494 s.f.) 50* width Anffication Summary: Applicant requests a number of variances to construct a new residence on the propeny. The variances include: 1. Lot area and w idth 2. Side street setback (required 15* proposed = 1 r-12.5'). 3. 75-250* Hardcover (existing - 1.985 s.f - 30.6%; allowed = 1.623 s.f » 25%; proposed = 1.66S s.f ^ 25.7’’q; adding AC pad. minimal sidewalk and probable future 8x12 deck yields 1824 s.f=28.1%) Other items of note: • Lot coverage by structures proposed at 1420 s.f including entry portico (1500 s.f allowed). • All existing structures to be remoNcd. - Garage wil! have doors 14’ from right-of-way, 37* from tra\eled roadway. - This property docs Qoi have lakeshore. and average setback is not applicable. Staff Recommeudation: Staff recommends; a) Approval of lot area and w idth variances. b) Denial of side street setback varian<.e. c) Approval of the degree of hardcover variance necessary ’ to accommodate a house (and its essential amenities) that is conforming in terms of setbacks and lot coverage. List of Exhibits A • Application & Hardship Statement B - Proposed Surxey Site Plan C > Existing Conditions Survey D - Proposed Plans & Elevations E - Hardcover Calculations F - Photos G - Property 0\%-ncrs List H - Plat map I • Background re: Lake Access Issue pertinent Code Sections 1. 78-350: Area, height, lot width and yard requirements for the LR-IC District 2. 78-282 Si. 78-1288: Hardcover limitations for LR districts and Shoreland Dislricl M3-29M Oclobtrl(.IMJ rift2 Background This extremely small property has contained a small home and single-stall detached garace for many years. The existing residence and garage arc in poor condition and are in nonconforming locations. The applicant recently purchased the property v, ith the intent of removing the existing structures and constructing a new 2-U2 story residence with tuck-under garage. The property is ser\ed with municipal sew er and w ater. Note that this is not a lakeshorc lot; the City was deeded the separate tax parcel abutting the shoreline north of the Old County Road in the 1930‘s. Average lakeshore setback is technically not a factor in this application. Lfll Ar?i> & Width V'ariangg The lot size is a factor not controllable by the applicant, and no additional land is available for acquisition. The exclusion from the lot area of the 60’ dedicated right-of-way for the “Old County Road" is consistent with City code and policy, althouch the paved traveled roadway is distant 36 ‘ to as much as 63* from the north lot line. The potential mav exist for a partial vacation of that roadw ay, but such an application is not before the City at this time, and would necessarily involve the three additional affected properties to the east. The lot size and relation to surrounding roadways yields a somewhat rectangular buildable envelope 25 ‘-30* in width and 58‘-66 ‘ in length, or about 1650 s.f. The site would be allowed 1500 s.f. of structural lot coverage as it is a lot of less than 10.000 s.f. total area. Applicant proposes a house with portico entrance that totals 1420 s f structural coverage SglbatKVanantC-Rcgardingtherequestedsidestrcetsetbackvariance.notethatthcproposedhouse l^alion is fijrther from the lake than the existing residence structure, but closer to the side street The buildable envelope tapers to the front; at the front of the proposed house the lot width is 50* which would allow a conforming house width of 25 ‘; at the rear the lot is 55* wide allowing a conforming house width of 30*. Applicant is requesting a house w idth of27.67*-28* which requires Applicam also prop<^ a covered ponico entrance ir from the side street lot line, requiring a4' vanance. Again, the house could be designed to not require such a variance. HydWVtfVitniintc. The applicwt s hardcover proposal is for :5.7*i »here only 2S‘. is allowd. The proposal does not acv, ^ for the following potential hardcover needs: I) sidewalk 6om dnveway to mam enttx.ce, 50 s f needed; 2) probable air conditioner pad. 10 s f. needed and 31 potential (utme deck on lake side of home (nominal Sx 12' for discussion puiposcs) S^«nsideis Proposed hardcover including the three items noted above would be: (1668 + 50 10 + 96) = 1824 s.f / 6494 s.f. - 2B.I •/• f M3-2934 October I*. Mt) Po|c3 From sUfTf perspective, there is no hardship to support approval of an>thing more than the degree of hardcover variance necessarv’ to accommodate a house (and its essential amenities) that is confonning in terms of setbacks and lot coverage. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Af—/Width! LR-IC Lot Area Dellocd Lot W fdth Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre)lOO* Actual 6.494 s.f. (0.15 acre)50* Sctilifikll LR-IC Required Existiug Proposed Front (North)30’(to be removed)38.9- Rear (South)30*(to be removed)30* Side Street (West)15'(to be removed)12.5' (house) 1 r (portico) Right Side (East)10*(to be removed)10’ Lakeshore NA NA NA Average Lakeshore NA NA NA Stnictural C( Total Lot Area Total Stnictural Coverage 6,494 s.r (0.15 ac.)Allowed: 1500s.f. (23%) Proposed: 1420 s.f. (22 %) Hardcover Calculations; Hardcover Zone Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 75-250T 6,494 s.f 1,624 s.f. (25 %) NA 1,668 s.f (25.7%) 1,824 s.f (with 3 added items) (28.1%) ,L^ M3-2934 Ocicber It, 2003 Pagt4 Hardship SCaltiDeal uTapX'atiOT*”' nalemcnl. and should also be asked for his lesiUnony regaiding Hardship Analysis wiMrr. tht Pltmnirng C0mmi»%i0m sUB etmiUtr the effect efthe prcpeteB tkeheeM.MfetyMdwHftreefthe eommumity, aiuieg andemridpeieBirefflc ceedUioet, light ^'•^effiee.fi^tothep^^fe^.eedtheeffecteneeleesefp^^ far teHeecesfrem the titeeel protiLet efthe mmigee te the ^tidmel preperty mmder eemtUeretiem. mmd theB recee,mem4 eppreem! enlr whee It it ^emareteithettmeh ecHemt he !m heeplmg whh the ipteh emi Uuemt ef the Oreme Zemimg Cede. ^rtTncnUo recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" 1.•The pro^rty in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls." “"ioac » his property not crested by “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality " I'"'""'*’><ouse nUtm,after ,he Applicant has not suggested that economics are a factor. “Undue hardship also iiKludes. but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for Sot applicable. L m-2f34 Octabtrl(,20«3 fans “The Board or Council may pcnnil as a variance !he temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.** Sot Applicable **The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property*.** The lot size and location is unique in the neighborhood “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.** The lot size is unusually small for the LR-1C District “The granting of the application is necessary for the preserv ation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting of area and width xariances is necessary to allow continued use for residential purposes. Hardcover and setback variances are not strictly necessary, howeser. since a residence meeting the hardcover and setback requirements could be developed on the property. 11. “The granting of the proposed v*ariance will not in any w ay impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code." Granting of the area and width variances to allow a new house on the site will not be contrary to the intent of the Code: but lariances to allow an excessive size house too close to lot lines would have negative neighborhood impacts in terms of maintaining open space in neighborhoods. “The granting of such va.iance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary* to alleviate demonstrable hardship or dilTiculty.*' Granting of the lot area and width variances is supported by hardship, but variances to allow an excesshe size house or to allow it to be located too close to lot lines would be merely a convenience to the applicant Issues for Consldcratlou 1.Does Planning Commission concur w ith staff that the lot is buildabic, given its history of residential use and connections to municipal utilities? What hardship if any has been presented that supports the request for side street setback variances for the house and portico? Since a slightly smaller house could be constructed meeting the 25% hardcover limit, what if any hardships have been presented that support the hardcover variance for a rebuild on the lot? Docs the size of the lot itself constitute a hardship in this case? Should the proposed house be redesigned to reduce or eliminate the degree of hardcover and setback variances? ft3-2fM OcMkirlft,2M3 fteii Does PlaimingCoaimitsioo have any problem with the fact that the grage as proposed will have only a 14 depth of puking area within the property? Would Planning Commission allow extra hardcover to allow for a gar«ge that does not Ike the street? 6. Does Planning Commission have any other issues or concerns vrith L‘iis application? Staff Rccoouncadalioo Staff itoocninends as follows: 1. Approval of lot area and width variances. Denial of side street setback variances, and require thu the house and portico be redesigned to eliminate the proposed encroachments. Approval of Ik degree of hardcover variance necessary to accommctfate a house (and its essential amenities) that is conforming in terms of setbacks and lot co\ rage; i.c.. allow only the amount of hardcover necessary to functionally accommodue the house, driveway, necessary sidewalks, AC pad, arxl perhaps a limited front deck (because the tendency is that one may eventually appear anyhow if not addressed now). An option is to address the deck issue by formally directing that under the approved plan, no deck shall be allowed. (Applicants have indicated they will be presenting a slightly rc\ised plan show ine sidew alk, AC pad and deck for Monday’s meeting) The resolution should include language regarding the fact that this property docs not abut the lake and does not currently have the right to a dock, as a warning to f.nire buvers. r A-l CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPUCATlON InitUI Application Fee S2SO.OO (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $130.00 (no change from original plication) Variance for non-confonning ftructures $250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double ^>plication fee) Application » Date Received~7-^3~03 Amonnt Paid PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address C.rK/^-h^l £qu __________ Property Identification Number (P.LD.) ll t-r / Attach legal description to appUcation if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired tah I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: _J^rcsidential ___^other (specify) Zoning District: Z.R • / O______________ Jmonth^ear) APPUCANT_ Name 3>?is.s Phone (home) ^ ^ .------------------ (work) 7^7- 79 Address: Cx.fi 4,/ lic,y City- Zip:sS-V»/ 0\\*NER (if different than applicant) Name 1744e^ Addrcss:_vr^_50—-u /7^\vr. Zip: ?3lt O Phone (home) 6o«=;. 7oo "l> Phone (work)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in deuil; __ Estimated Construction Cost $ U ook (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover X» Setback: __Front ^ Side ___Rear ^ Other (specify) .Lot Coverage _ Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Detcribe undue hirdjtup or pnetid dilliculiy or unusui) property condilioni prevenling compliance with Zomng Code requirements: _______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) M9 ^\ c required sub ^ottals ^ thg ^PPUttffqn df dllne dMto IB *• —^ Completed Application Form '“'• “■* <»»“ ®“! Govt Center, 343-5910). H««epin Couav- Depatmen: of Fitunce. A-603. — ^*rt‘ficate of Survey (signed bv a ^ i^^sed. In*»d*ti'oirp^//oM’o)'Mw^ >■ ^ 5*““*'®* “'■pI»“of Door & ele^'-’on *' j * ” for t«?roductioD. <• _ List of the legal „a„e. (inci^^rr'a?,.! “* <'> "P>' * > H- property. This would include ni—(a) of “ ** ^■ — As an addendum to this applicatio- pleue «arh“.' ^ ‘ you \%*ish notified of this ipplicatiri*^ * separate list o: wy other persons 8. ---- Additional items as may be reques'i-d by City suf. The Applicant and Properly 0>vner must sicr thit «n«r • lariiDCC nPDiication ii not iromplet# If >1., aVov^inrffsIl^^tr^" a ^ «n:fmber that vouriBlOrmaffon ha^ bg^n APPI.If'AVX'C AT*tmrv ■iiai-ittMi iufi Dcen ineit^qyj^ APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE ^unisiraTOr. agrees to pay additional fees fsta*^ilm^n«» f^quesiec oy the Zoning consultant expenses incurred in re\ie\^« of th^s* aonli J and/or supplied is true and correct toj^ie best of his/her information Applicant's Signaure / --------------------- OWTVER'S SIGNATL W: entry onto the"proJl!5J°by'c1^ «aff!1^uTta.“ »e«»naMe members for purposes of invesiigatjoa and verifi:atio.n of this members, and Council Owner's Signature ^ ^ •-j ^ . j;T --------------------------------- _______ Moling. pTanStag' Cc^s'Zn MZhpVhM on Conunission ApplicaDts must be present at all scbedulS reWew Monday cf each month. change prior to the meeting. Buj.uag it Zoaizz Office of this r:^ ?!rv», . . «r •-rv»* *• X- *. ^ •» r r'vr\r r\r r\r>/-\\ir\ Oacbrr**. Jason Bliss applictfion i44a Ci>stai Bay Koad Orono, MN SS391 Rc: Documented hardship for variances. To Whom it m^ conoem. I. The house at the abose address has reached the end of its useful life, without extensive 2. The road is planed much wider in the direct area than it will ever he used. 3. The property is on a comer 4. The property is m « neighborhood of substandard lots 5. The new house will be more conforming to the setbacks than the existing house. 6. Reptacement of the existing bouse will be a much needed improvement to the west end of Ciyattl Bay Road. 7. The proposed house will be snuUler than recently built homes in the direct naghborbood on visualiy smaller Iocs. 8. Odiers have been gmted variances recently in the direct neighbothood for umilar reasons. Sincerely. Jason Bliss OK SUKVLY hUK < palm K 1. WILEY'S PARK JNTY, MINNESOTA LAKt MtfCTONK/ CRYSTAL BAY t2t.4 CONTOUR U I. Wil«y*a Pork. Lok« y of o lint fromn« of ooid Lot 4 dittoot •« Southwest corner of it on the eosterIjr • *ne eot northerly of the .ot 4. olevotion. ipon on oistJTied dotim m the boundories of ty. the locotion of ige. ond the location • thereon, it does :her innprovwnents O ««• «tl«> *• 1. . * cr 0 » r • •». • <37 O X«».vr yit*«r.»>(? !• fNA o Ir / ^ vt-liiCLL ONt) 0-75IXISTiNr; HAitnrit\ »;u rv vnw' A. Houu f-ALCW-Aiu^^ V vrvvt- ^^5-230^ 2S0-S00' L. B. G«nf« C. Driveway D. Sidewalk & Patio/Dcck F. Laodacape Uaderbin By Pbaue Of Fabric 0. Other ^ - a PRQPOSgP tf AtinrAvt ,y ynv.- A. House ---- ^ ' L."., - B. Oarage C Driveway D. Sidewalk £. Pado/Dtfck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric 0. 0'»-er A /€6R i". 250-500* SOO-1000’ WiCdi xIOO wica TT^oA SF. .SF. .S.F. S.F. -S.F. SF. -SJf. .S.F. SF. .SF. SF. .SF. .SF. .SF. A B ^?95 S F S.F. .S.F. .SF. .S-F. ^V7 .SF. .S.F. .SF. .SF. .S.F. .S.F. .S.F. SF. B a 100 -£££fl_SF. A tfVBV ST B ..H /■ ! mi. ■' ' I^B y "J W: ■rm-:M^-^r. lit*' »^wl4f •« ' . • * r-MMr. t • / r •tMOAifc.ir n> M mmsMuou raor AOOIt M AOIMESSUNAtSMjraiD OWNERNAME IKMNimCOREOKMALMlAUT1I TAXTAYBI HBRMJil CO RBOPWAL RR AOTU MAME/AOOR AnSTIISTNfUO MWNEATOUIMN S540I M I7II7X34J0II7 rROfADOR 3« AOORESSUNASSK3NEO OWNERHAMB TOWNOFORONO lAXPAVER CmrOFORONO WAMfi/ADOR ronoxM CRYSTAL DAY MN SS»3 M I7II72MMI10 raORAIlOR 34JS CRYSTALlUYRD OWNERNAME SCOTTADROWN TAXPAYER aCOTTA BROWN NARIE/AOOR CRYSTAL HAY RD WAY2ATAMN SSJ9I M I7II723410I2J PNOPADOR Jl AOORESS UNASSKNEO OWNER NAME TOWNOFORONO TAXPAYER CfTYOFUNONO NAME7AOOR POHOXM CRYSTAL RAY MN SS12J M I7II72MMI4* PROPAOOR M ADORESSUNASnONEO OWNER NAME IIENNBW CO REGIONAL RR AUT1I TAXPAYBt HENNm CO REGIONAL RRAUni NAMG7AOOR 417 STIISTNflM MINNEArOLISMN M40I IIL.«i.lPin COUNTY PROP* PKOrLKIYO ' INPORMAT10N SYSTEM IS LIST PAGE:I )• 17117234)01IS PROP AOOR n ADORESS UNASSKiNEO OWNERNAME 10WNOFORONO TAXPAYER CTTYOfORONO NAME/AOOR POHOXM CRYSTAL DAY MN SS)2) )■ I7II72)4]0IIA PROP AOOR M07 CNYS1AL lUY RO OWNFRNAML RSA ECNK:1R)LS TAXPAYER ROUERTSAEUNrECNiniOIS NAMUAOOR M07 CRYSTAL HAY RO WAYXATAMN $))9| M ril72)4Mni PROP AOOR MIS CRYSTAL HAY RO OWNER NAME K J ELSIIAZLY A YI ELSIIA7J.Y TAXPAYIR K I ELSIIAZLY A Y I F.I.SIIA/LY NAME/AOOR MISITIYSTALIMY RD WAYZATAMN SSJN )t I7II72MMII9 PROPAOOR )■ AOORESS t/NASSKMEO OWNFRNAME TOWNOFORONO Taxpayer cieyoiorono NAMI/AOOR POHOXM CRYSTAL BAY MN SSJ2) • L r M 171172)4)0121 PROP AOOR )44S CRYSTAL HAY RO OWNER NAME OIICAOO TITUi MSURANCE I'D TAXPAYER nnCAGOTITIE INSURANCE CO NAM E/AOOR ATTN ASSirr MANAOEMI NT 40)0 CAUJiREAl. 4120 SANTA BAIUIARACA 9JII0 )■ I7II72MJOI22 PROP ADOR M47 CRYSTAL lUY RO OWNERNAME TOOOCMARTV4 TAXPAYI R TOOO C MARTIN NAMF/ADOR MIT CRYSTAL HAY RD WAYZATAMN ))>q| )■ I7II72M)0I24 PROPAOOR 2264 SIMOYWUOORO OWNERNAME EVELYNSTKUTNAUTRUST1E TAXPAYI IIVI I.YN S TMl I INAl) NAMIZAIXNI I Ml MOU-lIU OR IK)NOLUl.UltA 4MII M I7II72MMI2) PROPAOOR 22)6 SIIADYWIKN)Rl) OWNER NAME W II MEY JR A J R MEY TAXPAYER WltJJAMIIMliYJM NAMI/AINIR UMSIUDYWniNIRO WAYZATAMN SSJSI ( • .'J• vnir,j. I CERTIFY TIIATTIf- FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESnsTTATIONOF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS TIBS DATE ON TIB: RECORDS OFTJ« IIETWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTMENT. TO THE UEST OFHYKNOWLEDGEANDDEUEF. . . DATE 03 BY L..... Hennepin County Taxpayer Services Department Backgrouad: Cit>*-Owned Lakcsbore Lots oa Cr>stal Bay Road 10/16/03 Update Sanmary ofluacs: The City has owned 4 lakeshorc tax parcels on Crysul Bay Road since they were quit-claim deeded to Orono Township and accepted by the Town Board on December 1,1934. These parcels arc on the lakeshore side of Crystal Bay Road In total they include approximately 180 lineal feet of shoreline. The distance from the edge of the traveled road to the shore (929 4 contour) ranges from just a few feet to as much as 20 feet For many years, apparently, the 4 property ow ners across Crystal Bay Road from these parcels have erected seasonal docks extending from the City parrels. Current staff has been aware of this since the mid- 1990's. Due to a complexity of factors that will b described below, until recently staffhad not taken formal action to have the docks eliminated. However, two circumstances in the spring of 2002 prompted staff to order removal of the dock and boat at the most w esterly ofthe parcels, across from 3445 Crystal Bay Road. Th-%c circumstances w ere 1) submittal of a variance application survey by the then owner of 3445 (Palm) that incorrectly included the City parcel across from it; and 2) complaints by neighboring property owners about rental of slips at the 'illegal' dock recently erected across from 3445. The issues presented to the City Council for consideration at a July 30.2002 w ork session included: 1) whether Council supports staff taking appropriate action, including litigation if necessary, to have the offending uses and docks removed from the City parcels; and 2) determination of the City's ultimate intent for these 4 parcels. Hbtorical Background t907 • trUeys Park planed. The City parcels are parts of 4 lots originally created by the plat of Wiley's Park in 1907. That plat dedicated a 66' wide right-of-way for the old County Road that follow ed the route of w hat is today Crystal Bay Road. Those 4 lots w ere bisected by the 66' right-of- way, leaving a small strip along the shoreline side of the right-of-w ay (Sec Attachment A). 1911 deed - created •^bathing and boating rights ". In 1911. a number of lots in the neighboring plat of Navarre were transferred from one owner to the next, via a deed that also granted to those Navarre lots "a perpetual right to use for bathing and boating purposes" the portions of Lots 1-4. Block I. Wiley ’s Park lying betw een the north line of the County Road and the shoreline. This right of use was also reserved for other lots within the plats of Wiley ’s Park, Navarre Heights, Navarre, and Block lOofLangdon Park. Undercurrent ownership patterns, this could mean that as many as 100- 150 properties in the Navarre area might have “bathing and boating" rights over what eventually became the City parcels. Crjnt^ B«gt M0md Lmm lp4a$t P^2 City ownership came about in 1933-34 via two quit-claim deeds in favor of Orono Tow nship, which were ofTicially accepted by the Township Board of Supcr>isors on December I. 1934. We have found no records which indicate why the parcels were de^ed to the City. Hov^ ever, w e must assume the Towiiship Board knew of the potential “bathing and boating** rights which afTcctcJ the parceU. Perhaps the Township was viewed as the logical overseer of property that could potentially be used by many members of the public. Jl/qps mn4 Surveys. The earliest survey we have showing the relationship of the traveled road and the platted right-oi-w ay dues to 1945. Other surveys and Ccanty plat maps since then have not been consistent in recognizing the traveled road or the platted right-of way. However. Counlv plat maps for at least the last 40 yoars have shown the City parcels as separately owned from'the inland portions of the 4 original lots. interpreting ^hothingondbooting rights^. During the l970*s.S0*sand into the early 9u’s a number of properties m the Navarre area were sold w ith the right for “bathing and boating ’* on the City parcels appeanng in the deeds. As lake access became dearer, the City more and more often was quened by new Navarre area owners as to “where can I put my dock, mv deed sav s I hav e bathing and boating rights...**. By the mid 1990 s the City had firmly established Via ordirunce tested in the courts that only propcnies with principal structures could have docks. Our standard response to inquines became “ you can swim or fish or launch a canoe at the City parcels but vou can ’t have a dock**. tW Rtstarch. In 1995 the City Anoiticy was asked to review whether or to what extent the olT- lake owners in the Navarre area actually have rights to use the 4 Citv patceU. It was determined that in general, the dozens of inland properties that might claim the easement right are subiect to the M^etahle Title Act which would generally bar any claims by the inland lot owners for private bathing and boating nghls. unless a claim on behalf of an inland property attempting to preserve the casement nghts had been filed w ithin 40 years of the original 1911 deed. This likely reduces the a^l num^r of legiiii^tc easment holders, and we are so far unaware of anv such notice having ^ filed Ilovvever. the City has not fully researched the titles to all the properties involved to delemune whether such claims have been filed in the past. ■^e second question uked was whether the 4 adjacent landowncrson Crvstal Bav Road would have the *ility to establish a prewripiive easemeni over the City parcels by viituc of iheir continued use of the parcels It was concluded that in general, land owned by the City cannot be acquired by an occupant merely by reason of occupation pet Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 54 1.01 The onlv exceotion might be if the City has uken an affirmative action to abandon its interesri V-o^ However, we are unawme of any such alTitmative action, and the fact that the Citv prior to ’002 has not attempted to have the seasonal docks removed would not constitute an abandonment action. In a 1996 followup letter fom the City Attorney's ofTice. it was noted substantial title review of the 4 City parcels as w ell as all the potentially benefined lots would be needed in order to determine to what extent easement nghts are in effect Even if title work concluded that rights have bL lerminalri. it would likely require a quiet title or registration aclior. to adjudicate sme This could prove to be an expensive process. It should be noted that 3415 Crystal Bav Road, one of the 41^ ftom the dock lots, was sold in 1999 with the -bathing and boating " riXappeanng on^ Crymi K0^ Lm% VpUu Pages Rcceal Statui of Cil>' Parctls As of July 1,2002 each of ihc 4 City parcels had a priv-ate seasonal dock, presumably erected by the o^»>7lers of the properties directly across the road. Two of the four docks had one or more boats that were known to be not titled to property owners in the general area, and were eonsidered as illegal dip rental situations. The property at 344S, purchased in 2001 or 2002 by Larry Palm, was the subject of a spring 2002 variance request for construction of a new residence to replace the existing c^in. Upon receipt of that application, staff determined that the surv ey w as incorrect because it did not show the dedicated County Road or the City ’ parcel as separate from the homestead parcel. After receiving two neighborhood complaints about rental use of the dock at 3445, staffmet w it!) Mr. Palm and advised him to remove the boats and the docks, which he did later that summer Palm also was adamant that if his parcel is subject to this action, that the 3 adjoining owners also be mode to remove their docks, and that the properly ow ner at 2264 Shad>*w ood be required to remove his trailer from the City right of w ay adjacent to the 4 lots. As of summer 2003, the dock at 3445 had been removed, but docks were again installed for the 2003 boating season by the homeowners opposite the other three parcels. Tax \‘alaatioB Histoiy' A question that arises from the use of the City ’s dock lots by the property owners across the street is that since those owners appear to be receiving a special benefit not available to other owners of non-lakeshore lots, is whether they somehow arc pa>ing for that benefit. The answ cr is js5. in terms of property valuation for tax purposes. The January 2. 2001 land valuation for tax purposes for taxes pasxble 2002 for the four adjacent residential lots (3407,3415,3535 and 3445) is equivalent to that for similarly sized lots on Crystal Bay Road which have legitimate lakeshorc rights (See Attachments C & D). In order to determine whether this has been the case for some time, staff compared the tax valuation history back to 1980 for the land portion of these 4 lots vs. 4 similar sized lots on Crystal Bay Road (3369,3375,3385 and 3393). It becomes clear that since 1980 or earlier, the 4 residential lots have been valued as lakeshore lots. There is no significant difference betw een the valuations of these 4 residential lots and other legitimate lakeshore lots, and the ow ners of Lots 1 >4 have been paying full lakeshorc ta.\es. It is unknown whether this has an impact on any prescriptive casement claim that might arise from the 4 ow-ners. Issues for Future Conslderatiou Slip Rental. Although it appears two of the four existing docks are being rented out by the off-loke property owners, staff view s that as a separate issue from the docks being on City property. The ordinances that in combmation act to prohibit dock slip rental have a few loopholes that should be closed if Council concludes that the City should lx more pro-active in pursuing slip rental complaints. Cryuai Bmy Mtmi L*t% lint/93 Vp4mt Hge4 for f untfc Uk gf Four City Utt A variety of possible options should be coondeiwl Ux ultmute disposiuon or public use of the four tax parcels. Location facton that make these lots unique and add to the potential for possible enhanced public uses include adjacency to the shoreline - adjacency to a 66 ’ City road right-of-way that extends to the lake SSl^^dw* right-of-way that connects to the Dakota Rail future regional location in the Navarre area with many non-lakcshore homes within walking distance • only 3 blocks to the Navarre Park Other unique aspects of these parcels include: of the 4 P~fj;ti«^ the road are underutilized in terms of residential use. with gliding valuw of «8.000 or less; the pnmary value of those lots has been in their proximity to the lake, and wittout Inkwhore nghts, their market values may be significantlv reduced; - •«'vm^dKMtoUm;ilineI«dlongb«nc«uingancighta f« thcM 10U.11 It oullened in ihdr back y»ds md did noi have , ipecified chi.iel lo the lake. Thu drainage nlualion «n improved via a City project wiUun the last year 4. Ua« the individud lou to the reipeetive four oaner. for unlimited lakeibore acceu. Pit AypMnUtoB Bfcctvi; Pn CiMHtw< m Ciaplrti; 91X7/93 •M>«7 Rc«ft« PwM Eipira: 11/1««) Chair Smith and Planning Commfasionere Ron Moorse« City Administrator Wnm Date: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director October 16.2003 Sabjcct:M03-2951 James & Judith Pieipont. 1801 -1849 West Farm Road - Subdisitioa of a Lot Line Rearrangement • Vacalion/Rededication of Drainage ft Utility Easement • Public Hearing Zoaiag District: LR-1A Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2-acre min. (87.120 s.f.) Lai Area: Existing Lot IS ft part of 16 (1801 West Farm Road): 3.70 ac. Lot 14 (1849 West Farm Road): 2J1 ac. Proposed 4.01 ac. (3 ac. dry. 1 ac. wetland) 2.00 ac. (all dry) AppUcati»m Smmummry: Applicants request approval for a lot line rearrangement between thm two residential lots, teth of which they have owned for many years. The westerly lot. 1849 West Farm, remains vacant. The easterh lot. 1801 West Farm, contains a principal residence and a guest house approved via CUP Resolution No.28S4. Applicants' intent is to >ield two lots that are conforming for the intended uses. The proposal accomplishes this in terms of gross area for 1 801 and its guest house, but only if the w etland area is attributable for the 4-acre guest house requirement Rcrtiiieat Code SectloBs: 1.Section 78-30S: LR-1 A Minimum lot area required ■ 2.0 acres dry buildable Minimum lot width required « 200* Section 78-303(8Ka): Guest House CLT standards Conditions of Resolution No. 2854. LbtafCahibits A - Application B - Plat map C • Sun cy - Existing ft Proposed Lot Lines D - City topogrq>hic map showing approximate wetland boundary E - Hardcover Calculation Worksheets F - Buildable Envelope for Lot 14 G - Property Owners List H-Photos I - Resolution No. 2854 ft Pertinent Documents dihi.d L MJ-lfSl Oc tit»r 14.1—3 r«r2 Backgrevid AppU^ts propose to relocate the common boundary between Lots 14 and 15. Faim at Long Ltdce. Cuneatly. Lot 14 is a vacant 2.31 acre k>L Lot 15 has been combined with a pan of Lot 16 Md contains the existing residence plus a guest house on 3.7 acres. Inl990 the »|ipliciiitswo»innted.CUPvitR«oliitioii No. 2854 to convettideuchtd stable md «i^uitoijueithoii$eiie«ttieiioith»«tconierofUl 15. Atlhatimeibeptopeit) wasdepicted **^UtIJ.*3?**‘‘**tL^''* *• Let 14, Mack I, The Farm at Laag Lake ^ Fehraary H, I9»l. Appikaats are hereby advteed legal ranAlaadaaliaai reallaedhy the spedlleddeadllae date, aUresWeatialna required to .2^ the alter^ai to the gaest hoase stractare so that U may ao loaier be used for habitatioa. AppUcaati shad ablala the required baUdlagperadt la complete the aheratlans.** GmsI Uoimc Siaiidards Guest House conditiona) use standards appear in Section 78-303(8Xt) and read as fo’lous: Of land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: (8) Guest Houses & Non-rental Guest Apartments. (a) Cutnt Houses A separae dwelling constructed on an exining ondisided lot including their domestic ti^ jSoJi?"" ‘h*" h* -net by where a guest house w as allow ed w hen a portion of the required 4 acita w as Ut 15/16; this was reviewed •1 Octatarl«.XW3 rifij StpHc Systm CipaMUt}; Sewer Pcadiet Applicants have provided septic testing indicating that Lot 14 after the rearrangement will have two approved sites for a S-bedro^ mound system as required by City code. Lot 1 S/16 has also been confimed to have a site for construction of a 5-bedmm mound system should the need arise to replace die existing system serving the house and guest house. How*ever. the City Council has received and acted on a petition by this neighborhood for mtmicipal sewer, and it is anticipated that Lot 14 and Lot 13/16 will be served by municipal sewer in the relatively near future. At the time of attributing sewer uniu to the various properties to be serv ed. the guest house on Lot 15/16 will have to be considered under the City’s assessment policies. Lot Standards liftl Aflif ^ Width Lot 14 will contain the required 2.0 acres of dry buildable land after the reairangement. Lot 13/16 will contain 4.01 gross acres, ofwhich approximately 3 acres is dry buildable. meeting the minimum standards for a single family residence. Setbacks Lot 14 will have a substantial buildable envelope remaining after the rearrangement (shaded area of Exhibit F). Note that Lot 14 is by definition a *nhrough” lot, hence any accessory buildings will require a CUP under current codes. The setbacks to existing structures on Lot 15/16 will not be impacted by this rearrangement; in all cases, the existing structure setbacks from the conunon boundary will be increased. Lot 15'16also has ftontage on both West Farm Road and the **Homestead” pri\ ate road, and could also be considered as a through lot. Hardcover Lot 14 has some land within KHK)* ol Long Lake, but appears to be all outside the 3(X)‘ shoreland hardcover limit of the tributary creek between Dickey Lake and Long Lake. Lot 13/16 has land within each of the four hardcover zones. Hardcover calculations hav e been provided, show ing that existing hardcover is well below the established limits, and should not be a factor in future development of the property. Note that based on the county plat maps. Lot 13/16 does not abut the shoreline of Long Lake and therefore is not considered as a lakeshore lot. WrtUndg Based on a review of the City wetland maps, and those of the MC>\'D and Hennepin Conservation District, there are no wetland on Lot 14. Orti>ir U. im Patt4 Draisagcud UtUily Emcmi "* ‘“™" «Kt«eeii Loi 14 md lot IM * ”‘*?*^ • "*T. S™"'"* i" i“ p'*« Wor 10 finil approval of thelot Im reafTangemmt. theperu^ utility companies will be requested to confinn whether they have any objections to the vacation'dedicatioo; no objections are wiicipated. Lac Standards Table: ISIS West Farm (Lot 14)1101 West Farm (Lot lS/14) Slaatfard RcqoircdM- AMo««a Eiittiog PropoMd Etisrioi Proposed Lac Area 2.0 acres 2.31 acres 2.0 acres 3.70 acres 4.01 acres Ul Hidth 200'mui.430*;400* i 70*1 120'± Hardcover 0-7S OS \A NA 0%0*/. 75-250 25%NA NA (Wi 0% 250-500 30*/,NA NA 0%0»i 500-1000 35%8%^7.7%18..3%16.6% issues for Cooslderadoa tek 0 Lot 14 and to the south, but that has since bra*bI^kH*off TfSu ^ house^eease? With renrovaUofceit^fUtum and/or any existingguest house may qualiiy for an "accessoo' structure plumbV CW alSlrthr^iT„rru:;:“fr;:s:rr^ regarding this^lS*rn^^^!JJlIjJ,J^^V^ Planning Commission have any concerns •04MI Stair racommeodf ipprova! of the lot line rearrangement, to tfie fbUowing: t. ApplkaoU to grant a 20* drainage & utility easement (10* either side of new lot line) to replace the rairmcnti being vacated. 2. Applicants to provide tide opinion to confirm ownership of each property. 3. Planning Commission should address whether the Guest House use should continue to be allowed based on 3 acres dry/1 acre wet Ifnot, then applicants should be directed to proceed with removal of its plumbi^ or make an appUcation to convert it to an **accessory building with plumbing** and remove any existing kitchen facilities. 4. Planning CommUsion should determine what the intended use is for the driveway in Lot 14 connecting to Lot 15/16; then determine whether any special conditions should be considered for continued use of that secondary access if Lot 14 is sold separately from Lot lS/16. k AnpIkafioM# 0‘V3Q5l Pate Received Q.ii Amount Paid Mio- CITY OF ORONO - SUBDPISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Siteaddfcsi 7/ff ZJfjr XD ProoqtvIdcntifica tionNumberfPID)^^ >//f v. Please check one - Property____abstract or X lorfcns? (3M0^0 ///// ^fir P0ltlt9 ^ /jLf -nr -± 3 iUtach legal description to application. APPUCANT Name_JmDiT/4 •* pen 7 “ Address J9a» City T7eA D Phone (home) Pf2>^<¥PJr~ f/fS Zmsnid, Phone(work)^/^j/ ft V OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ________________ Address City___ (attach list if more than one) , Phone (home), _ Phone (vvork). EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres TouL all parcels Residential; no. of units / Acute ^ Other (specify). PROPOSAL ________ Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no ne>%- buildling sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites _=jgJL . Existing Units . New Units Total Units Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) y V/^ Units per___Acres ZMft’ Sq. Ft. Diy Buildable Land ✓ Residential _______Other (specify)________ 9 #2951 *»UCATION 4. Etsenmi, covuuuu, tic 1 ICATION IparkfewiftppIidWe). ~7~ HT^r '•"*"» “«o®—!^4;is^5cr?^^aggg) ---------Subdivision only SlOOO?5" ^ ___ StdxllViliAft M ---------auiKJmsiononlySlOOOOj * r ---------^a^Eagineeniii Review Fw(«,acuf^ ------Rtnml of cSt 'iTpitteSii^IsSdJSlon ''“•' *“'" ""W*! «I>plit«tioii) ■ r .wH«»«i duuury sewer Main Exiensioa S27< nn 1 tJbIt Application Fcc«/Mise. Fm.C. n«lbl.AppllcaS^n^*.a^r^'°“ — *•«»«) pw. APP--^” * ss::tr,f?S's:TCu2 itherebyasreestoBraviV4««ii»r ____ . . ------ ---------""•“'^*«~*'^«oo»J3.oaDweIlimUnit ------- ............. ^ = AppiKMf.siro«C2 ^ ^ X— 7) _• y ^umooi ft« wottahfj i, Oooer’i Sipmufol^^y*^^ #app^i J Pltrpont 31247S0301 P*1 JudiihPivpool laoi Wot F«m Road Omo,MiMeaouSS3S6 Scplaniberl7.2003 Mr.MikcGamon CkyorOrono 27S0ICdicyPMkway Oram, Mnmeaota SS3S6 Dear Mike: TWi is jMlaBM to GOfdinn that ote docameais are bciofi siibaittUcd today to siippon oio raqym to icanmiB the casern boundary Kne of lot M « 1149 Wert Farm Road. Wc wwilo move the fine wcHward such that lot 14 becomes exactly two acres and kit 15 ^ increasinc total acreage of combined k>u 15/16 at ^<><fccrMPCCtoofthtproDCftics remain il»xamga«th<»y hH ofiginaliy been oonffguied. Mark Gronberg b supplying the survey related doamKms and ferwardim the septic relalcd doonaenta provided by Steve Schirmeni. Under separate cover, 1 sent to yoi» attention the evicted and signed application and cenified lim of resideiSs within 350 fiwt as weU as the required mailing labels for notifying those resideau. llie septic liekb have been identified per your instnictioos. Our anticipoiion. however, is thto sewer wfll he brought into the area so such that lot 14 wiU have a capped access and tlwcocnbinedbts/lS/16vriU be connected. As you know, the leuuesl for that service b in proce» vrith the City of Orom. Thank you for your help in assuring that we pul forward the information occessvy to lacflkaie our inquest for the property line rearrangemcat. Please let n« know if 1 nmy provide additional brlpftil informatfoa r PROPOSED LOT DIVISION POR JAMES k JUDITH PIERPONT IN LOT 14. 15 tc 16. BLOCK 1. THE FARM AT LONG LAKE HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA * ^ % • \_ _----- .s,/ ^ ................................................... '•'•t ¥'IVv.vife:^0-)ihi «----N^.I HUHJ SCALE FEET tuoM. maurriMi DltTIMO ICODi aOOIIPrtSi: 1) Ul l< MM 1. VM rtm AT IM UH8 a) Ul It. ti*cA 1. ttc rum at um uw A. Ttal tmrt •( Ul I*. tiMt T. «C fMl A ^«A IlM ml •« • !!•• M.wImI «m AA«lt l«. MAATAlltl ■tUl tUaWl MA ATIABUK il «T. At • rl|^tilarlv liaa •! ml4 lAt^. ss.s'i.'i.K'j: .rsji ts'i.srct&inus: m—AMU I«IA« AAAlAAfly Al «AA AATIA ttl.TI fAAt mt AA#IAA»lr A* «A a M lAAtA« 5':.isi:^ gs,ysrg {a.r^ grcrciffjsna- . -?*SAACa^A7Al7AS ASlOTpTtair US a IiJa ^ lAALu*MNUM!*lt*AAAA AA« tA»tAT« Ia /K fiJtjj I a:‘uT* ' y* SnUACKZONE: (ClKCLt ONE) /• lXISTlNCHAKPCO\TtM\ nvP / A. N ouM ______ •TW^r ^»€n^oAyr B. Oange f C. Drivt«ay ____ D. Sidtwalk E. Paiio/Dcck F. LaadKapc Undtfbui By FUitic Or Fabric Width ^0-100^ ^J/7 S.F. I CAA^^Y m J[££r_<f4u4 - SJ. SF. _ia SF. J^o€S SJ. "Ff^ZTFhtt^AT Q. OdMT total ll Ail'JCOVE?. IN ZONE TOTAL HKCPi:; •• IN ZONE ^ ----------- - B xlOO rao^iiPHAnPfovi i,|.r>7N>- I * — m _/tf X. / a/a S.F. /g. /.9 %4 W:C-Ji .S.F. S.F. B. Oarage C Drivtway 4/4/f yg» . ------------------------ X __________________ , D. Sidawalk ____________ . .S.F. S.F. ±5:€0 SF. S.F. E Fatio^'k .SF. .SX.5 F. Landscape UoderUin ByFlasiic Or Fabric .SX. SF. .SF. SF.•# a odMt total H.A!U>C0 ve .^ in zone TOTAL PROrE.lTY .AR£a L\ 20.NE ^ ------------------- - B # xlCO 'Sti _/9. c/g SF. V/#. SF. _ y. A B - .i^ J r ?'X*----...__ \ \iy^ r-'^-r-\ '. V\W\\ \\)('’'\\K''f S. ' ' ' 2ri ' ' ' \' '* I ' \^i:\v^i! MMIIAIk.' U ____ n rmnMJt»i4 r«orAnMi ms wcstfasmuo OWNMNAMR OURUSLSOMOfOCllET AL TAXPAVn CHAMJSLSCHMXOCR MAlkWAOOII rAMaAnUBIAMBCHMlCOrR t«2S WEST FARM RD LONOLAKEMN SSJS* M I7IIUMJMI7 m»A»m IIM WEST FARM RO OVNHINAAM TMOT1 IT ADAMS TAXTAYTR TSMOTIIV ADAMS MAME/AIMM (■IR WES1 FARM RIMU LONOLAKEMN S53S* JR J7IIRIMMnj4 rWOrAflOR Ji AOORnSUNASStONFD OWWRNAMI' TIWMRMATIIMIIIAKE lAXTAYMI 1111! I'ARM At IJJNII liUCE MNMir NAMFMimR rm TRMDTIIV AIFAMS Ilia WIST FARM RflAII LUN(il>KkMN SSm JR 2TllR]l4«Rni rnurAlMIR IMr* MWIIIFARMRIt CWNOINAME lOSFnillOFFFRMAN TAXRAVER JOSEPH IIOEFERMAN NAMiVADOR IMA N FARM RD IjOMIIAKEMN S5JS6 M 1TIII2J4400II PROPAOOR 1721 NORTH FARM RD OWNERNAME BRKRSFRiLD TAXPAYER BETUAMINRAREnRTASFIELO NAMWADOR 1729 NORTH FARM RD LONOLAKEMN SSJS* M J4III2JIIOOOJ PROPAOOR M AOORE5SUNASSIONEO OWNERNAME lOSTAVKJKPMSTAVH) TAXPAYER JOHN A PHOEBE STAVK} NAMW a OOR 7WBIIOWNRON LONOLAKEMN S93M IILNNtPIN COtffm- PROP * INTOKMA I ION h VS 11 M PRCSM RTYOv MS LIST PAUL I M 2TIIUJ4JOOIS PROPAOOR I m WEST FARM RO OWNER NAMf BII WHITTEN A P t HART TAXPAYER BIIWIRTTENAPEHART NAME/AOUR 109 WEST FARM RO tONGIAKEMN SS3M M 2TIIUJ4M»ia PROP AINM IMA WIST FARM RD OWNERNAME LSIRXJ.AI:YM0RK60N TAXPAYIM IAIIRII-.SHUII. NAMI/AIMM IIVAIU 111 Y MORRMIN IMOWFSTFARMRD LONO LAKE MN SSJSA JR 27IIHn«4i*«H. PROPAININ 1709 NUR1IIFARM Rll (IWNI R NAMI- I A N Rf ISI NlWI N lAXPAYl R KANDY V MISI NHRI N NAMIJAINM ITMMNmilARMRD MMilAICI MN V03*. la jniaii4«aiifc rRcrAIRIR IBUI WIM lAKMKH OWNFKNAME J W A | A PIERPONT TAXPAYLR JAMFSWAJUDITHAPtlJlfONI NAMFyAODR 1101 Wm FARM HI) lONULAKFMN SSJS* JI J4IIUJIIOOOI PROPAOOR 77* iiaoWN«l)N OWNERNAME RDBfNSONABALUBCENS TAXPAYER BARBARA A LUBIENS NAME/AOOR RICIURO B BEIOON 77* BROWN RON IONHIAKI MN J)I$* 31 3411123110006 PROPAOOR JI AIRIRESSUNASSK;NII) OWNERNAME MARYLSTEH.ETAL TAXPAYER MARYLSTEILETAL NAME/AOOR 744 BROWNRDN LONOLAKEMN 3333* JI 27tll2MJOII« PROP AIRIR IM* WFST FARM RO OWNERNAME J W PWRPONT AI A PIERPONT TAXPAVI R JAMES W A JUDITH A PIERPONT NAMtyAOOR 1101 WEST FARM RD ORONOMN 3333* JI 37III2J4300M PROP AOm 1910 WIST FARM RD (JWNliRNAMI: D A ASMUSSEN A K A ASMUSSt N TAXPAVIR iXINAIDAAKIII.YAASMtJVMN NAMUAIRIR I9M) WIST FARM RD LONOLAKEMN SSJ3* 3a 2nia2M4uuu7 PROP AlWIR 1*99 NORTH FARM RD IIWNIKNAMI RRHARDWFIRKINS IRmiFP lAXPAVI K HR HARD W FI RKINS NAMI/AINIR 1*99 NORTH I ARM RD IflNlilAKt MN VVIU PRir AIRM OWNI R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AIX)R 3a JMlajuviaiiT 1770 W1M lAMMRD WM A M IIRAt. Kl N WILLIAM M BRACKEN I770WIAHMKD lONOLAKI MN S33S* 31 J4III23II00U2 PROPADDR TMUROWNRDN OWNERNAME J DSTAVtOAPM STAVIO TAXPAYER JOHN A PHOEBE STAVK3 NAME/ADDR 710 BROWN RO N LONOLAKEMN 3333* 31 341112)110007 PRUPAUOR lOOBAOWNRON OWNERNAME VADSTEM TAXPAYER VICTOR N STEBJ NAME/AOOR 100BROWN RON LONOLAKEMN SSJS* m CQ »*.• M MIIUJIMMS MOTAOm 744 B«OWNRON OWNIKNAMi TUSCHULIZBAMLITEa. TAVAm MLtTOLATIIICMULTZB WdHyUDW VMMOWNRON UMOLMtIMN SS3M M MllUllMRM ntOTAOM TTORIIOWNRON OWNER NAME HAIHUTTER TAXPAVn HUNKPHUrm namc /aocm m north mown road LONG LAKE MN SSJM M MllUlinooT PROP AtMlR MO BROWN RO N OWNERNAME ERICJLARSON TAXPAYER ERICJLARION NAME/AOCm MBMOWNRON UMQLAKEMN SSJM ICERTIFY TIMTTIC FACTS REFRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND . PACE 1 ) :) (■■) C\) iilrTitWirtlitiiiniiiiiri laAMwai i* 3f , -i. ;--{; Jj.i-v\ > ' ,.v £? '>; \\C’t iji. -".TT-Ti / ,- £l' y ,?L b.- - - Cityof OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2854 A RESOLOTIOM GRAMTX«6 A CONDITIONAL 08B PERMIT AND VAEIAMCBE TO NONZCXPAL 80NXN0 CODE 8BCTX0H 10.as, 8UB0XVX8X0N 3(A) PILE tlSOi 58 W' NIBEBAB, Jam«s and Judith Plarpont (herainaftar *tha applicants*) ara tha ownars of tha proparty locatad at 1801 Hast Farm Road within tha City of Orono (hareinaftar "City") and lagally daacribad as followst Raviaw Exhibit A Attachad (harainaftar 'proparty*)} and NBBRBA8. par Saction 10.28, Subdivision 3 (A), tha applicant has mada application to tha City of Orono to parmit tha convartion of - ^0tachad stabla and garaga into a guast housa that will ba locatad 1*0* from tha north sida lot lina instaad of tha raquirad 30'and that said structura will ba locatad 49* from the street lot lina instaad of raquirad 50' and that said structure will be located 58' from tha existing principal structura instaad of tha required 60'. HOW# THBRBPORB# BE XT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesotat PXNDXNG8 1, This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1568. 2. Tha property is locatad in the LR-IA Lakashore Residential Zoning District requiring 2 dry contiguous acres in area for each residential unit. 4. Tha property is approximately 5+ dry contiguous acres in area. 5. Tl a Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on July 16, 1990, and recommended approval of tha conditional use permit and variances as proposed based on tha following findings} a. Tha property consists of 5* acres in area. b. Tha property owner to tha immediate north that receives tha moat visual impact from tha intensification of the structura has submitted written approval of the project. Page 1 of 5 1 1 ''I QHON‘J CltyofOROlVO AtSOLUTION OF THE CITY CCUNCIL 2854 Th« property owner's house is located ISO***' furth^ east of the subject structure. e. The existing structures and foundations are in good condition and will be able to sustain the proposed renovations and improvements for residential habitation. d. There is adequate and suitable area for on-site septic development to support the second residential unit with one bedroom. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning districti that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions» light# air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring propertiesi would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant# but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the conversion of the stable into a guest house unit will not be detrimental to the health# safety or general welfare of the public# would not adversely affect light# air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties# nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS# ORDER AMD CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings# the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit and variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.28# Subdivision 3 (A)# subject to the following conditions; 1. Applicant shall make payment of an additional $50.00 for the variance portion of the land use application. Page 2 of 5 1 I o, , I 13H(JN«) I Cityof OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2. Th« applicants have agreed to legally ccsbine Lot 14, Bloclc 1, The Farm at Long Lake with the adjacent hcnestead property by February 28, 1991. Applicants are hereby advised that if the legal coadsination is not realized by the specified deadline date, all residential use of the subject structure shall cease iausediately and applicants shall be required to cake the necessary alterations to the guest house structure so that it cay no longer be used for habitation. Applica.nts shall obtain the required building permit to complete the required alterations. 3. Upon application for a building permit, the applica.tt shall provide the necessary septic testing and docucentation tc confirm suitable area for on-site sewage treatment facilities for both principal and guest house structures. r.tis chtll include evidence of suitable area for alternate on-site sewage tr>:atment facilities. Applicant is placed on notice that at sere future date if Lot 14, Block 1, The Farm at Long Lake, is to be divided from the homestead property, the guest house structure must be converted to an approved accessory structure that does not contain an independent dwelling unit. 4. All portions of improved structure located less tha.t 5’ from north side lot line shall meet all pertinent fire code standards. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (August 13, 1991). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violaticn of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate a.ny authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and cn behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby asrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Fage 3 of 5 Cltyof ORONO 1I OHONO nfSOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _______________ Au Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of 1990,u«ist» ..rnsTi j]fGi£yi^. a/oja:. ^/l»rothy^ Hallin, City Ci p^ty/DwndT (s) Clerk Froj STATE OP MINNESOTA COONTY OP HENNEPIN ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before ne on this 13th day of August, 1990, by Janes R. Grabek ( Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor k City Clerk of the City of Oror.o, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was ^e^nited cn behalf of the City* «i**« M4I NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) ss. ) On this ____1_______ day of ^ 199 o before ne a Notary Public within a.'^.d for'said county, personally appeared ^ ^ • x-» vvwwvvw^" ^TpSwntsT^des^iifieJ^i^ an^^CTej neht, and acknowledged that he (th«v ict acd I known to me to be yw p«<rson\»i aescrioeo in ana wfjo executed the NOTARY PUBLICV 7 Page 4 of 5 J I I I (JHUN'l I Cityof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2854 •% V* STATB OF MZHNESOTA ) )«s. COUHTY OP BSmCPXM ) On thin t day of . 199£_, bafora ma a Notary Public within and TFr /aid County* parsonally appaarad I n«raon(s) oeacribad in and/wl mmtn$ and acknowladgad that ha (tl- ba tha inatru Cthair) fraa act and deed. A,>^V'.VAV.....V.NVW/VVrt»VVVVVVVVB • :*■ . ■ 'rctor; ; i vc.-'w'ai.:! z;x, n. ino: vwC^__________ known to ma to who axacutad ^tha foragoing (thay) executed tha same as his BLIC Page 5 of 5 1 '* 1I ORONOJ Cityof OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO _____2854 . • i - •. -V..* 'V-- EXHIBIT A LKGAI. ngRTPruTiniJ Lot 15, Block 1. THE FARM AT LC'flG LA-E ALSO ”** That part of Lot 16, Block 1, THE FA“‘l AT triMr* t •••r corded plat thereof on file and of r«-ordcorder, Hennepin County, Minne-ot* ^ office of County Re- West line of eeld Lot 16. 101 fie? thence South 67 deiireee%7 mlAu*.. ^7 1 Point oi bsflnnlng: thenoe North 84 d3^«« 53 3l33-'.! IVr'"''.'" '*•••'•• J PO'nt on the nor?he33t;^3‘ur:! o7 ^2“-. « |>ervlelon end tLt''l^i^’i^Sl^RLTst-r.m'TiT'l 6"^ “’P '>*Pe‘-- ‘the State of Minneoata. «iat.r«n l.and ociveyor under the lav/o c: r CXTT or OltOW) r.O. Bex €4 Crystal Bay, HU 473-7357 553:2 ArrUCATZON so. 15CB MOTZCB or COCVCXl. ACTION Data of Notlco: f/23/70 Mr. « Mrs. Jares Fiarpcr.t 1801 Wast Fara Sraf Lon? Laka. ys 55258 coriBSt nn or atplicatiom : DATC or MBBTlNCt Au?uat 13. 1990 Var.a-ca Caniitienal l*$a Parrit VOTBt 4 For 5 Agai-a*. CODMCZL ACTION - NOTICX: To accapt »•.£ adept tha approval rasolution suy-ittai by «t«ff and to condition approval on roth applicant and staff adsptir.g an itraaaant in a forp accaptabla to staff and attornay to assura tha final lot cenbination of Lots 14, 15 and part of 19. As discussed at the Council, tnis can be achiavad in the fcllc’-ir.? ways; Buyout ccntrirt te allow ccs^biration. b. Agraasant of faa ntldar to allow ecnbiraticn. Upon rasolva of tya aeraafrent and lagal copbinattcn of tr.a parcala, applicant is asked to coppl*ta the execution of the 3 criginal copies of the resclution at the Teputy Clerk’s desk at the City offices. Variance approval is li'-itad te the extent shewn on approved p.'an and as noted in the atoroval resolution. Changes in aperovai plans jre s-:>'act to further review by the City. Variance approval expires one year wtar data of approval. A S.ildir? Parnit application oust be submitted no later than August 13. 1371. As with the varia-ce etoroval, conditional use approval it subject to the conditions of the approval resolution. In the case ef orojacts * building per”it or other work perrit. such per-i** »uj t be 1?^V*9lfVr't^ha'**" y«*r of the date of ecnditicnal use approval (August Please be advised that the City cannot issue a building per-it for the guest house conversion, until the leeal co.nbinat ion ef the pro; erty la rcaolved and the subjeot resolution excouteJ for filing. OiOHO *EGULA* CCl’NCIl KErTlNC Hn3 AUGUST 13, 1990 XORIIIG FILE I1S66-IIECN:EE CtSTIMUEU #«y«-0. Motion. • 1567 ROaeilT I LOUANN FCKE^:. 2916 CASCO FOXTT ROAD VARIAMCB RESOLUTION I2BS3 Mr. Powtli was prcttr.t. City Adr.inistrJtrr e#r-.-.*rij;* pr:vii*d « brief lurrtry of .Micbael Caffrsr.'s Ai;.ft ", 15?: -i-s. It w«* raved by Mayor Cra:t<. teronded by Council~e“ber Calla.'ian. to adopt 7etcl.tion *;3S;. approving the average setback and hardcover var.ar.ces t: ct-*trjct a deck on the lake side of tne residence at :?13 Cai:: F:-.-.t ?cad. .Motion. Ayes-4, Says-3, Mcticn passed. •1568 JANES • JUDITH PIERPCNT 1801 WEST FAAN ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/VARl.i.SCE RESOLUTION 2854 Sernnardscn crest-.tei rcu-.ci. wit- a brief reviev cf this application. .=e r.atei fat staff -.as recently learned tnat Lot 14 .nas the principal and alter-in septic sites to serve the structures on lat 1*. Ser-nardsc- stitti tnat the Pierports are purchasing Let 14 under a " year Icntract fer Deed, which will preclude a legal lot c:“si*aticn fr:-. cccurring at this tire. He sad, 'This wc.ld pose a prccle- i*:uld fe terrs of the Contract fer Deed be terrir.ited.* .Mrs. Pierccnt said. T-ere if *c r.esticn that we intend to ccroine the prcperties -net we art able to ic to. Ke would like to put the acceis driveway cn Lot 1^." MaOusth c.esticnei wretner tne ntv Attor-ey could recs-rend a rethod to provide t*e City with issira-re fat the lots cannot be separated in tne f.t.re until a .trsl lot co.-iOmat. occur.can Sarrett stat’d f»t it vculd :e -eresiar- to navt tne 'ee owner of Lot H e; rut# w.natfver a:ree-e-t is .sed. Councilre-cer Cal.fa- asked -:w t*e septic system ci-e to ee located cn Lot li rat-er tni* tre Let with tne principal struct re, r »• * Caffron replied. "Tne subdiv.iir- i-volvi-g thia p-oec'tv Sertir Cede we*t i-tc effect in 1978^ Prior to i9/8. a review cf septic s/ite-. Ircatior.s in relation to property *lnes was not incl.ded in t-e s.rdivision process.' - 12 - i if: 1% M OltONO lECOLA* COUMCXL WEmilC HEU) ACCCST 13, 1990 SOmNC rZLE IISES-PIEIPONT COffTZKOEO CAllantR nctfd that Mafcuith'i ra?to states that t.-.'- 5^est housa/stable structure would have to be removed if Lot !•; tt r.st corsHned with Lot 15. He said. "In light of infcmtir-. we received pertaining to another application this evening. : do not believe we can require removal of tne structure.* Barrett said. "The City could grant a perm* based on tne existence of certain health and safety structures, such as aoress to the septic system." Callahan acreed that Barrett's ccm-cnts would held true for new. He said.'-If in the future, the property owners wish to subdivide and sell Lot 14. the structure we are disc.ssi-g t‘is evening should be removed." Bellows said. "If the property owners reg-est a subdivision of the property, the guest house structure and septic need* • - - - - be addressed under the subdivision regulatiens.’ Bernnardson suggested t bling this ratter to all:. ti“v' far staff to explore available options. >*a/er Craren as^ed Mrs. rierpont if taoli-g this ~atter for two weeiis would pose any problems. Mrs. Pierpont replied. "There is a timing prohler. -..-e wish to complete tne guest nouse so tnat we may reside in it wm.e we remodel our house. I have a contractor ready to start on Monday." Bellows as<ed whet.ner staff has explored the cpticn cf locating an additional sept..c site cn Lot 15. Caffron stated that staff has not locked at that cption. Out based on topography, would probably be difficult. Mayor Grabeti asxed whether there are any other unrcscived issues invclved witn this application. Mabusth replied. "There are none. In fact staff -as determined that footings do in fact exist under the stacle. Prior to the Planning Commissicn meeting, staff had been advite.d that the footings did not exist. Tne Planning Cc--is*icn recommendation was based on that incorrect information.* ayor Crabc< suggested that staff be allowed to atto-ot to resolve the lot ccmoinaticn issue without tne need to br.ng tne matter bac< to Council. He said. "If there is a satisiartcry solution, you may proceed witn construction. However, snc.ld difficulties arise, the matter will have to come back to Tcunril ir two wee<s." - 12 - 5P'- ORONO RSCOLAR CC'JSCIL -tETINC HELD AJGUST 13, 1990 ZCIIXNG FILE IlSSa-PIERPOWT CCNTim, EO Mr*. Pi«rror.t *t*t«i tM-. «r. Ti- Ai*-i xt the fc* e.-*r of t..» property. S!*.* *«i4, -Mr. A-«r» -as ztt-. v«ry «u?portxv« of t^.x* project *".d want* to *«« it proc#«i." It was .-rved by Mavor Sratcic. serr-isd by Counci Pe.srsc-.. to a-opt Rssolutic- *2954. yrartin? a conditioral us* .**^*^***®” /•-- satfcack, and str««tvar.ar.res, sjbject t: a satialactrry resolve of t*e lot combination issue between all parties ir.vtl’ved. If t.*»e parties are unable to reach a nj-ual *r:«em«r.t. t.he application rust coo* tack to the A-.-pust 27th Council Meetinj. Action, Ayes-4. r.ays-0. Motion passed. CounciImemter Coetter. as<ed that staff infosa Council of any decision that ;s made. flSC9 SA.M nCCLCOO 4280 BAYSIOE R3AO VARIANCE RESOLUTION 926SS Mr. McCltud was net prese*t. Mab.st.h stated that it was her I*understanding that Neal t.-« atclicant's intended to be present, but mi not yet arc-ved.Arc-itert. -a-usJl-r^^U* ■ s=^'-4ln«d in :-an.nerSS £ 5S-i£~ He sai-. An eignt bedroc- structure will cnlv requ.re one principa. and cne alternate septic site." Callahan asked .ow access t: this sreterty i* achieved. parc.l1r;i\:r;d-Jcenr;;rc;:.J ***• •"" ^ !"aved by Council-enber Ctetter, seconded bv ^>avor Cra.ea. to a_cct Pesclutior «:!55. atprcving the front* s -ee*- se.rac< variarce to construct a re*iie-.ce at 4232 Bayside P-ad* Motion. Ayes-4. .\*y*-o. Motic- passed. «>■»=* P-aa. PUBLIC FACILITIES - OlRECTIOSS FOR ZONING Bernhardicn said. -This i* a ftllc.- discussion* reparding public dacilities and facilities. Vy re-0 outlines .arious iss.es .coating oth-r gcvern-ertal .-.ts wit-in t.n* tentati.-ely sc-ed.led a recti*; for A.rust 22 C-.ce . nave ccnfir-ec tnat date a*d ti-e wa/cata. I will provide writte* notice to you. up to our earlier the zoning of auch that Bay ate- fron com-unity. 1 have • 1993 at 4;C: p.a. with the Cl t v of Courcilme-cer Callahan su;;eated tsclirg tni* matter. It was roved by Mayor Gr*re<. sect-fed ry Councilae*ber - 14 - Memorandum From: Dale: Chair Smiih and Planning Conunis&ion Members. Ron Moorsc. Cil> Adminisiraior Melanie Foih. City Planner October 20.2003 Subicct:Item ! 03-2053. Ra>TTH>nd &. N>lenc Ne\vkirk The staff memo for agenda item contains errors; please replace the existing memo with the attached nr\i.sed memo. Please keep tlw existing exhibits. Note the following corrections: Page I: LR-I A. Single Family Lakeshore Residential. I-acre minimum ^ should read: LR*I A. Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 2-acrc minimum \xiAppikaH0m summary. #1. minimum lot area is 1-ocn; should read lol area is 2-acrcs. Pagg.3. Required lot area: 43.560 s.f (I-acre)' should read 87,120 s.f. (2-acres) In addition, on Page 4 an area was obscured by a “text box". Ilie area has been corrected to read: In amiUfHHg iwiancr. Ae naamtag ru Nu fcUiNi owii Mt Ou tfftti of the proftneJ \<aHmce apm Ote ktahh, x^fety mtd we^tre of the comfmtmOy. exhihig omd omkipoiea aoffk tottOOioin. hght ami at, amger of fire, rbk to OtegiMk tafe^. amd Ote effeet om vahiei ofpropenx m the utrnmadmg oreo. The Pkarnttg Comm Osxkm ikoU comider m iwwNWNdin opgeovot fitr \mrtatti e% ftom Ote Umat ptmitiom of dte Zeahti Code kt huameti where diet urkt emforttment would came aadae hardxhtp hexamc of ctemmatmeet amqae to die hidMdaal property tutdee ceinideradoa, and thad tecommemd approxat amfy whom h h dmmmaaattd dial utch acdom wm be in keeptig wth the %ptd and haem if du Onma Zotdni Cade. Hardship Anal) ab Although the applicants ha\e included detailed hardship statements in support of tlK'ir request staff finds that a hardship does not exist to support granting the side > ard setback \ oriances or the hardco\er \-ariance as this project is a complete re-build. Re-build situations are an opportunity to evaluate the property and assure cimformity and compliance with the zom ’ng requirements. However, the lot area and lot width variances are a formalitv ’ in this situation and staff supports granting these variances. rilE« 0^2953 Octoc*' 20 2003 Pag* 1 o«e IM»Ap^atkmllccttvc4: •••r-03 Dl* ApyMcHtoa C«Mwt<m4 a» ComfkU: M-3t4U Ptriod Eipim: 12-J»« To: Chair Smith and Planning: Commission Members Ron Moorsc. City Administrator Froai: Melanie Foth. Cit> Planner Dale: October 20.2003 Sakjcct: 03-2^53. Rasmond & Nylene Ncukirk. 1489 Shoreline Drive. - Variance • public hearing Zoateg Dbtrkt: LR-I A« Siagk Faaiih Lakctliorc Rciideatial, 2-acre miaiM UM Lol.Area: 0.71 acre (31.118 s.f.) £ ^ AppUcslkm Summary: Applicants request sidc->ard setback, lot width and lot area variances in order to construct a new home on a substandard lot in a one-acre zone. They arc also requesting a conditional use permit for minor re-grading within their lakeshore yard. The application consists of 1. Lot area and lot width variances for a home on a lot where the minimum lot area is 2- acres and the minimum lot width i.> 200 feet and the existing urea and width arc 0.71 acre and I .^2 feet rospectively. 2. Side yard setback x ariances to allow setbacks of 20 3 feet on the ni'rth and 15 feet on the south where a 30* side setback is required 3. Hardcover variance to allow 34.1“o hordcoxer within the 75‘-250 ‘ zone where 25*o is required. 4. Conditional use permit in order to K*-grade the 0-75' lakeshore yard to create a natural slope where a failing 6 ’ retaining wall c.xists cunenlly. and to improxe drainage axx ay from the house.___________ Staff Recommendt. lion: Planning Department staff recommends the folloxxing; 1. Approxal of the lot area and lot xxidth x ariances in order to construct a nexx residence on a substandard sized lot. 2. Denial of the side setback variaiKCS. 3. Denial of the hardcover variance to alloxx hardcox er in e.xcess of 25*/* within the 75'- 250 ’ zone. 4. Approval of the conditional use permit in order to remoxe a failing retaining wall and re-grade as proposed. 5. Removal of all fabric and plastic liners from planting beds Hardship Stafffinds hardship to approve the lot area and lot w idth varianees a\ requested However, staff is does not find a hardship to allow hardcover in e.xcess of 25% within the 75 '-250' zone or the maintenance of a substandard setback w ith the new- home construction FItE# 03-2953 Oct0«Mf20 2003 P«g«2ol6 PcrtiMat ZMUSf OnliMMc ScctiMn Sec. 7S-282. Laknkorc kard c«5cr sad laad aheratiM rrgalatioaft. In any LR-I A. LR-IB. LR-IC or LR-lC-1 district, within 75 !cct of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-281. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall he no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 feet to 1.000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover (Code 1984. $ 10.22(2)) Sectioa 7»-305(b) Miai^aai ioi reqaireaicati;______ Lot Area (acre) Loi Width (feet) From Yard (feel) Side Yard (feet) Side Yard Adjacent 10 Sireei (feet i Rear Yard (fceil :oo See. 7S-I247. Laad aMcratioa and buildisK perauts reqaired. permit is required for the construction of buildings. huilJing addition>. related work such as construction of dc*cks and signs, installation or alteration of sewage tre.itinent svstems. grading and filling activ ities, and other activities as regulated elsewhere in this Code LifI of Exhibits A. Application B. Ha^ship Statement C. Existing & Proposed Suncy Site Plan O. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. l.etters from Neighboring Owners Cl. Propertv Owuers I ist II. Photos' I. Plat .Map J. Conditional Use Permit Cirading Application BackgroiiMl In the planning of the reconstruction of their home, the applicants* intent was to have their proposed home comply with all zoning requirements. However, the applicants inadvertently applied the ' j acre standards to their lot. Upon meeting with Stafl on site they were made aware of the nc*ed for variances. The applicant.s have been planning the details of their home for over one year and in applying the ' j acre standards used the existing side yard setbacks of their current home. The applicants have also applied for a conditional u.se permit for land alteration in the 0- 75’ zone, to re-grade the slope where a failing 6* retaining wall currently exist*. and to grad the lakeshorc yard to improve drainage away from the house. FILE* 0II-29S3 OcXOM« 20 2003 Pc9*3al6 LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET Lt Ar«a/WidA; LR-IA Lot Area Lot Width Required 87.120 s.f. i2acre)200* Actual 31.188 s.f. (0.71 Kre)132* St^acki! LR-IA Rcqaired 1 Existing i Proposed j Lake 75*j 53.5 ’75 ’ Rear (street)50 ’! 91.5*89’ South Side 30*1 i4.r 15.0 ’ North Side 30*: 19.9’ 1 20.3 ’ Average Lakeshore The existing and proposed homes both meet the a\ erage lakeshore setback. StTMrtiiral Covenigr: Total Lot Area Total Stmctural Coverage 31.188 s.f. (0.71 acre)1 Alkmed: 4678 s.f (15"o) I Proposed- t478 s f. (l4.4*o) Hardcavr Calcuhtio^i: Hardcover Zone Total Area in | Allowed Zone [ Hardcover Exbting Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 9997 ..f,775 s.f (12.8%) Osf. (0 %) 75-2.SO 21.1,1 sf.9241 s.f.* (43.6 *b) 7222 s.f. (34.1 %) After exclusion of fabric or plasliC'lined landscape beds Side Yard Setback Variaace The applicants arc requesting variances from the require J TO* side yard setback on both side ya^ of their proposed home. They do not wish to encroach further than their existing home, rather have proposed to encroach less than existing by I to 2 feet on each FiLEi 03-2953 OctOt)*'20 2003 Pa«t4o>6 Hardcover Setback \’ariaac« The applicants arc proposing to reduce the amount of hardcover on their property in rebuilding their home. The current hardcover amount in the 0-75* /one is 8.9*o including the lakeside deck and stair The applicants have proposed reductions to reach 0 •• hardcover within this zone. The existing stair to navigate their steep slope will be modified slightly from the existing and a 32 s.f. platform are located within the 0-75 ’ zone but are not counted toward hardcov er as they arc cxclud' J bv the Zoning Ordinance. The 75*-250* zone currently has 43.6 “o hard* ner -•nd the propt>saI will reduce hardcover by 9.5*o with a total percentage i*l Hardcover in this /one at 34 where 25*o is permitted Hardship Statement Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit U. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding Uk application. /« cmnUttiHg applkMkmt for vmriamet, tht Mutatef CommhtloH %k*tt comlJfr lAe tJTfct of Ike fropoie^ rorloHce upon Ike keokk, to/eiy ooi welfare of ike commooil)'. exbtimg omt tinkipoied irmffic emuHriomt, tigki and air. dmmier offire, rhk to Ike public %«/et}, and dte effeci on xotnea of property In Ike imrraimdlmg mrem. The hottmimg CommhiioH iholt comtider recommemdimg approval for varimmeex from die literal provbioax of ike lomtmg Code la biuomcet wkere tkeir Uriel enforcemem would camte amdae kordiklp became of clrcumuamcei amigme lo ike ladMdmal properly mmder coaUderadom, and ikoU recommend approval oafy wkem It b demomuraied ik-ti uii k actlom will be In keeping wkk ike iplrk and Inieni of ike Orono Xoning Code. Hardship Analysb Although the applicants have included detailed hardship statement:, in support of their request. stafT finds that a hardship docs not exist to support granting the side yard setback variances or the hardcover variance as this project is a complete re-build. Re-build situations arc an opportunity to evalu.itc the property and assure conformity and compliance with the zoning requiiemcnts However, the lot area and lot width variarKcs are a formality in this situation and staff supports granting these variance's. StafT would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “undue hardship** pertinent to this application: 1 . “The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.* The property is 0 “I acre and a reasonuhle home can be constrncieJ on this site In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property rtot created by the landowner." The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the entire home, thus requiring more strict standards than that ojf a remodel The property, excepting the lot width and lot area variance, must have a full review and be brought into compliance in the circumstance FILE* 03 7953 OcloMrTO 2003 PagaSoie of a re-build 3. ‘The variance, if granted, uill not alter the essential character of the locality.” The existing home currently encroaches further into the side set hat k jurther In the (pinion of staff this criterion is met 4. ‘Economic consideration.s alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists uiKler the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” The apfdicaras have not indicated economic considerations as their hardship In the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered consmiction as defined in Minnesota Statutes. Section I I6J.06. Subd. 2. uh*?n in harmony uith this Chapter." i\ot applicable 6. ‘The Board o'* \ppeals and .Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for pn>peny m the zone where the affected person's land is located * Sot applicable 7. ‘The Board or CourKil may permit as a variance the temfHirary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling" Sot applicable 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property ." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met 9. ‘ I he conditions do iwt 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. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met 1 1 . * I'he granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safely, comfort, morals, or in anv other respect be contrarv to the intent of the Zoning Code." In the opinion of staff this criterion is met 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serv e as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difTiculty." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met J FILES 03-2M3 OctotMT 20 2003 PagcOofe IfMKtlWCMttklcnitiMi 1. Does the fact that the immediately adjacent neighboring homes arc each located approximately 75* or more from the proposed residence justify the reduction in side yard setback for this application? 2. Ate there any other issues or concerns with this application? Stair RccMiaMidatiM Planning Department staiT recommends the following; 1. Approval of the lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new residence on a substandard sized lot. 2. Denial of the side setback variances. Denial of the hardcover variance to allow hardcover in excess of 25"'o within the 75*- 250* zone. Approval of the conditional use permit in order to remove a failing retaining wall and re>grade the lakeshore yard as proposed maintaining a 3; 1 or less side slope where the retaining walls will be eliminated. Removal of all fabric and plastic liners from planting beds. 3. Should the Planning Commission approve the request as proposed Planning Staff recommends submittal of a more detailed drainage and grading plan indicating one-fixit contours and drainage arrow? in order for Engineer review. rilE« :3-7953 Cctce«' 9 20C3 P*g«l af« Dale AfpScaliMRccthtd: 09-17-0J Date AppNcaiioa Coasidcrcit as Compktc: 09-30-03 60-Da> Review Period Etpircs: 12-30-03 Chair Smith and Planning Conuniision Members Ron Moorsc. Cil> AdminisL-uior From: Dale: Subject; Melanie Foth Oct^'ber 9.2003 . Cit> Planncr^^^Jtj-’ 03-2953. Rasniori S, Nslcce Newkirk. I4S9 Shoreline Dn\c. - Variance - public hearing Zoninf Dtilrkt: LR-IA, Single Famih Lakeshore Residential, l-acre minimum Lot Area: 0.71 acre (31.118 s.f i A/^iication Summary: .Applica.-.'.i request side->arJ setback, lot wiJ'-h and lot area j variar.es in order to construct a new home on a substandard lot in a or.e-acre zone They arc also requesting a conditional u>e perm:: for rr.i.nor re-grading with:.", their Iaxe^ho^e yard. The application consists of 1. Lot area and lot width variances for a home on a lot where the mir.mum lot area is I- acrc and the minimum lot width is 200 feet ar.d the existing area a.-.d width arc 0 71 acre and 132 feet respective!). 2. Side >ard setback xanances to allow setback,- <^f 20.3 feet on the north and 15 feet on the south where a .^O’ side setback is required. 3. Hardcoxer variance to alloxx 34.l®o hardcoxer within the 75'-250 ‘ zone xxhere 25®o is required. 4. Conditional use permit in order to rc-graJe the 0-75' lakeshore xard to create a natural slope xxhere a failing 6' retaining xxall exists currently, and to improxc drainage axx^v from the house Staff Recommfndation: Planning Department suiY recommends the fo I loxxtng: 1 . Approval of the lot area and lot xxidth xa.har.ces in order to construct a nexx residence on a substandard si/cd lot. 2. Denial of the side setback xariinccs. 3. Denial of tlie hardcoxer varii-.ce to allo.x hardcoxer in excess of 25*» xx-i-dtin the 75*- 250* zone. 4. Approval of the conditional use permit n order to remove a failing retaining xxall and re-grade as proposed. 5. Removal of all fabric and ploftic liners from planting beds. Heurdihip Staff finds hardship to approu ’ liui lot area and lot uidth variances as requested Ho\\ ever, staff is does not find a hard.<hp to allow hardco\er in excess of 25% within the ~5 -250'zone or the mainier.ani\' of a suhstandard setback with the new home construction riLE* zzmy CctcM' 9 20C3 PagttolS Date AppOcallM RMcKcd: 9«-l74U Date Applkaikta Coasidered at Cooiplcic: 09-3O-0J 60-Da} Review Period Eipiret: 12-30-03 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc. Cit> Administrator From: Date: Ntelanie Foth. Cil> Plannc:5^^^ October 9.2003 Subject:03-2953. RasmorJ &. N>IcneNc%skirk. 1489 Shoreline Drive. - Variance - public hearing Zoning District: Lot .\ren: LR-IA, Single Famih Lakeshore Residential. 1-acre minimum 0.71 acre (31.118 sfi Apg^ication Summary: Applicar.:s request side->ard setback, lot uidih and lot area variances in order to construct a r.ew home on a substandard lot in a or.e-acre zone. They are also requesting a conditional use perm:: for minor re-grading uiihi.n their lakeshore yard. The application consists of 1. Lot area and lot width variances for a home on a lot where the mu-..-mum lot area is I - acre and the minimum lot widuh is 200 feet ar.d the existing area a.“:d width arc 0.71 acre and 132 feet respcctivcl}. Side \ard setback variances to allow scfrack-- rvf 20.3 feet on the north a:.J 15 feet on the south where a 30* side setback is required. Hardcover variance to allow 34.1"o harucoxer within the 75‘-250* zone where 25% is required. Conditional use permit in order to rc-graie the 0-75‘ lakeshore vard to create a natural slope where a failing 6' retaining wall e\is»s cuaentiv. aru! to improve drainage awav from the house. 2. 3. St^(f Recommendation: Planning Department suff recommends the following: 1. Approval of the lot area and lot width \a.-iances in order to construe a new residence on a substandard sized Int. 2. Denial of the side setback variances 3. Denial of the hardcover varia.tcc to allow hardcover in excess of 25% wiuhin the 75’- 250* zone. 4. Approval of the conditional 'tie permit b order to remove a failing retaining wall and re-grade as proposed. 5. Removal of all fabric and plaitic liners from planting beds. Hardship Stajf finds hardship to approve the lot area and lot width variances as requested How ever, staff is does not find a hardship to allow hardeo\er m excess of 25% within the 5 -230 zone or the momtenance of a sur's^nuLnd setback w::h the new home construction. FILES 03-2953 OcScMr 9 2003 P*g« 2 0f 6 PcrtiBCBl ZoBiBg OrdiBaocc SectioBs Sec. 7S>2S2. Lmkcshorc hard cover aod bod alteratloB refubtioBi. In any LR-IA. LR-IB. LR-IC or LR-IC-I district within 75 feet of shoreline, there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under section 78-28 1. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. WiL-.in 500 feet to 1.000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover (Code 1984. § 10.22(2)) ScetioB 7§»305(b) MinimuBi lot reqairrmcBts: Lo( Area (acre) Lot Width (feet) Front Yard (fect» Side Yard I feet I Side Yard ■Adjacent to Street (feet i Rear Yard (feet) 200 Sec. 78*1247. Land alteration and building permits required. A permit is required for the construction of buildi.-.js. building additions, related work such as construction of deck* -od signs, installaticn or alteration of sewage treatment systems, grading and filling auivities. and other activities as regulated elsewhere in this Code. List or Exhibits A. Application B. Hardship Statement C. Existing & Proposed Sur\ev/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elev ations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Letters from Neighboring Owners G Property Owners l ist H Photos 1. Plat .Map J Conditional Use Permit Grading Application Background In the planning of the reconstruction of their home, the applicants* intent was to have their proposed home comply with all zoning requirements. However, the applicants inadv ertently applied the Vi acre standards to their lot. Upon meeting with Staff on site they vvere made aware of the need for v ariances. The applicants have been planning the details of their home for over one year and in applying the Vi acre standards used the existing side yard setbacks of their current home. The applicants have also applied for a conditional use permit for land alteration i:. the 0- 75’ zone, to re-grade the slope where a failing 6’ retaining wall currently exists, and to grad the lakeshore yard to improv c drainage away from the house. LOT analysis WORSHEET ...................................................................* L«t ArttAVidlh: FILE* 03-M*3 OctoMrQ 2003 Pagt4ef6 rebuilding ihcir home. The cunent hardcover amount in the 0-75’ rone is 8.9*/« including the lakeside deck and stair. The applicants have proposed reductions to reach 0 % hardcover within this zone. The existing stair to navigate their steep slope will be modified slightly from the existing and a 32 s.f. platform a*e located within the 0-75’ zone but arc not counted toward hardcover as they are excluded by the Zoning Ordinance. The 75’-250* zone currently has 43 6*', hardcover and the proposal will reduce hardcover by 9.5*/« with a total percentage of hardcover in this /one at 34. l»/o where 25% is permitted. Hardship Slalcracnl Applicant has provided a hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Analvsis /« coniUertng mppUcttUmtfor vmrtMHct, tke PtamUig C0$mmiithm ikatt coniUtr the effect of the propote^ voriomce mpom the health, i^etf mmi weffte of the eommmmty. txbtUtg and anticipated trhffk eomdltlom, light amd air, danger of fire, ritk to *e pmhUe »^e^. and the effect on walnet of property bt the uirronnding area. The Planning Commhtlon shall contlder recommentOng approval for variances from the literal provtlams of the Zoning Code In bistencet where iheir Uriel enforcement would cause undue hardship because of elrcumstanees unigue to the Individual P^^P**ly under consideration, and shall recommend approve only when tt Is demonstrated that such actions Witt be in keeping with the spirit and Intent of the Orono Zoning Code. are a lormality m this sihiation and stall supports granting these vanx ’*.ces. Staff w ould make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for “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." The property is 0 7/ acre and a reasonable home can be constructed on this site in the opinion of staff this criterion is not met. 2. "The plight of the landownci is due to circumstances unique to his propertv not created by the landowner." The applicant has proposed to reconstruct the entire home, thus requiring more strict standards than that of a remodel The property, excepting the lot u idth and lot area variance, must have a full review and be brought into compliance in the circumstance of a re-build 3. "The variance. If granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The existing home currently encroaches further into the side setback furtherln the opinion of staff this criterion is met 4. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." The applicants have not indicated economic considerations as their hardship In the opinion ofstaff this criterion is met FtCE«03-2«S3 Ocl0Mf9 2003 Pag«5oK6 5. "Undue hardship also includes, but is not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunli^t for solar energ>' s>'stems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06. Subd. 2. when in harmony with this Chapter.* Sot applicable. 6. “The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person’s land is located." Sol explicable. 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one«family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Sol applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question arc peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." 7fi the opinion of staff this criterion is not met 9. "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 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 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will 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 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty." In the opinion of staff this criterion is not met Issues for Consideration 1. Docs the fact that the immediately adjacent neighboring homes are each located approximately 75* or more from the proposed residence justify the reduction in side yard setback for this application? 2. Are Aere any other issues or concerns with this application? ^ Staff Rceonnicndaiion Planning Department staff recommends the follow ing: 1. Approval of the lot area and lot width variances in order to construct a new restdence 1 FCf«0M*89 Ocaotort 2003 PaoaSore on a sulMtandard sized kx. 2. Denial ofthe side setback variances. ofthe hardcover variance to allow hardco\ er in excess of 25% within the 75 ’- 250 zone. 4. Approva l of the conditional use pennit in order lo renMn’e a failing retaining w all and regrade m lakcahore yard a« proposed, maintaining a 3:1 or less side slope where the retaining walls will be eliminated. 5. Removal of all fabric and plastic liners from planting beds. the Commission approve the request as proposed Planning Staff recommends ^nal of a more detailed drainage and grading plan indicating one-foot contours and urauiage arrows in order for Engineer re\iew. iTLa'fWt ^«A. cm* or ORONO. variance application Initial Application Fee $250.00 (SSO.OO per each additional \ariance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Aftcr-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPCRTV INTORMATION , Site Address Vy ^ t j) r •________ Propeft> Identification Number (PIP.) g og9 exhibit A Appikalion tt 2.^^ Dale Received"''-'h Amonat Paid S oO Attach legal description to application if not included on required survev. Date ^pertv Acquired______^ 1 (do)^^ nou hlso own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propem- \ rMidential Zoning District: JL §C f f\________ _(mcT-Jivear) .other (specif))_ APPLICANT Name _ Address: Phone (home) Phone (work)/5-/> V. 7yd c /.Vv< iOt*, OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Address: 7 Phone (home)_ Phone (work) Zip: S'S’If/ Cii>:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S Describe request in deuil: a7T^9L iJ (attach additional sheets if nccessarv) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Setback: __Front Other (specif))_____ __Side ___ Hardcover Rear .Lot Coverage __ Average La'xeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (attach additional sheets If necessar>) # C'l-< Q 1. 2. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS ^ Bf Iht follQHiM iBfgnrfatiffli mwt b» nhmintd i>% tk* dat> i, tor %OUr IPDlicatton to hg gnatid#r*H fn^plf; —wiwitiH* !■ WtMSJ Completed Application Form List of oisners within I5IT. labels and plat map (>ou must Go^rCMter^8^910r Count> Department of Finance. A^3. Certificate of Sur\e> (signed b> a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (I) copv 8'i" \ ||" for reproduction. To^graphic sur«> (exisiing a„j propo«d elnuioas) if any clungn in existing f n **ll'T »'i’ x ll-forrepnxluctiooSkeuhes or plans of Hoor & elevation views (provide one (I) copv 8'j" x 11") narnesdelude mariul status) of all persons with an interest in the of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Additional items as may be requested by City staff. TIk Applicant and Propeny Onner must sign this appikalion. Please remember that yosir tiritntt ippiititipn h ppt wniBictf tf tiie ab.„ i.fnia.m. n,. APPLICANT S SIGNATUREsirs: ~ ,ss Pate J- 5. 6. 7. 8. Applicant's Signature^ 0\\7>iER S SIGNATl Rb IlZ,o IrrpL,«!Tb!*"c^ “«*>«"«« “““O'*C't) «aff. consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpo^of investigation and veriHpation of this request Date 3Owner's Signature^ Applicant must have all subminals into the Citv offices 25 davs before ih# Pi,nn «« r' ■ • Meeting Planning Commission Meetings ire held on die 7 .0; ‘' ■-••O '1 cr—n4« J* £ J •.^_y ) ATTACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION OF RAY AND NYLENE NEWXIRK 1489 SHORELINE DRI\ E A. The Proposal The Ne\%1tirks propose to demolish the home at 1489 Shoreline Dr. the} ha\e lived in since 1999 and build a new home on the site. As they considered the ahemaUves of a major renovation of the home on its present foundation, or. building a new home with basically the some footprint, they of course considered the economics of each alternative. The decision was tipped by an outside factor, the noise from Shoreline Drive County Road 15. With new construction they could most effectively create barriers to the noise; thicker, bener insulated walls, brick and other reflective finishes, special sound dampening windows and glass, and most imporunlly, they could use the design of the home to mitigate the noise from the roadway. The interior plan of the home could be changed to use the garage to buffer the master bedroom and cluster the most active areas of the home in the inner most parts of the home. The new home is larger than the Newkirk’s present home, but is not atypical or unanticipated for its lakefront location. And. as the Newkirks made their choices about the new home, they held a priority for maintaining the existing relationship of the present home with their neighbors in the new home. As a new home rather than a renovation, the Newkirks have the responsibility to comply with the present regulations on this previously developed site. To allow their new home to be constructed they will require three variances. B. The Requested Variances The requested variances are: 1. To reduce the required LR-1 .A lot area from 87.120 sf to 3 1.118 sf and lot width from 200 fl to 132 ti to recognize this existing, but non conforming homesitc. 2. To reduce the required side yard setbacks 30 1: to 21 ft on the nonh and to 15 ft on the south to generally recognize and maintain the existing, though non conforming, side yards and relationship of the present and new home and the homes of the neighbors. 3. To increase the allowed percentage of imperv ious surface in the 75 to 250 ft area from 255o to 34.l^o. a reduction from the present 43.6*o cov erage in that area. The e.xact dimensions of these requested variances and the comparison of the present and. proposed homes follow as Table A. C. Hardships and Unique or Mitigating Conditions 1. Lot Width and Area The Newkirks propose to use their present lot, the lot they ha\ e occupied since 1999, and has been the site of the present house since 1964. for their new home. This homesite, containing two pUtted lots, cannot be expanded to the west due to the Hw> 15 right of wtiv or to the east into the Lake. Table B describes the adjacent lots between the fanager Lake Bridge and Bracketts Point. TABLE B ADJACE.NT LOTS A.ND LR-IA LOT STANDARDS Area / sq ft >k idth Required 87.120 200 ft 1475 Shoreline 46,529 1487 Shoreline 28.317 1489 Shoreline 32.329 1491 Shoreline 48.170 1200 Brackets Pt 40.293 195.638 4.5 ac 125 ft 132 ft 190 ft Source. Hennepin County Combining the Newkirk's non conforming present parcel with just the parcel to the north, 1487 Shoreline Dr. (also non conforming), or just the parcel to the south. 1491 Shoreline Dr. (also non conforming), would provide the required lot width but would not provide enough additional lot area to create a conforming lot. To create a conforming lot the Newkirks would have to acquire both 1487 and 1491 Shoreline Dr., demolish the homes on those lots, and combine the lots into a single new parcel. It would be a practical if not impossible hardship to require the Newkirks to create a conforming LR-IA lot for their home. The result of granting the variance w ould be to simply recognize the existing an J compatible condition. The continued use of the lot for a newly constructed single family home would not introduce or create any new impacts or conflicts at the site nor alter the essential character of the area. The 15*^ 0 lot coverage standard is met by the proposed home on the present lot. and the e.xisting relationship of the homes w ould be maintained. Absent the requested variances to permit rebuilding the home, the 0 to 75 ft coverage will not not be reduced by 519 sf and I00“/o, and the 75 to 250 ft lot coverage will not be reduced by 2019 sf. and 22 %. 2. Side Yards On a lot assumed by the Code and the regulations for the district to be of over 2 acres in area and having a minimum width of200, the LR-IA requirement of a total of 60 ft of side yard, 30% of the lot. is compatible and reasonable. If the lot is in an area of nvo acre lots, each at least 200 ft wide, this requirement is probably essential to the maintaining the character of that district This same standard requires almost half of the uidth of the Newkirk’s 132 ft wide lot to be resewed for side yard. It is not as reasonable, and creates a hardship, especially in an area or district where no lot is two acres in area and only one lot is over 200 ft in width. Strict application of the assumed character of development in the LR-1A district, and the ^vo acre standard artd the required combined 60 ft of side yard on this side of Shoreline eliminates the oppoctunity for ty pical or anticipated development of this lake front site. This standard makes sense across Shoreline Dr., where the assumed artd the experienced character are the same, but twt on this side of Shoreline, where they significantly dilTer. The Newkirk’s condition ca.nnot be overcome or addressed by purchasing additional lot width from our neighbors. Add:nonal lot width cannot be purchased from the neighbors as their lots are also non conforming due to area and any deduction from their lots would Increase their non conformity , and therefore would not be permitted by the City. Both neighboring homeowners have reviewed the building plan and the request for variances and have no objection to their being granted. The existing plantings and landscaping between the homes (see photos) provide a transition and buffer between the homes well in excess of that provided by merely distance. Granting the variance would simply maintain the established the existing relationship with the adjacent homes and not alter the essential character of the area. The 15% hardcover standard is met by the proposed new home that is the subject of the requested VTiriances. The change in grade dowTi from the Newkirk’s home to both the home cn the north and the home on the south prov ides a tr^ition and buffer between the homes well in excess of that provided by merely distance. The visual space between the closest comers of the new and comers of each neighbor ’s home. 77 ft to the north. 85 ft to the south, exceeds the 60 ft distance of the combined side yard requirement. The intrusions into the required side yards are not consistent, and the plan reduces the non conforming building area in the required north sideyard from I17sf to 104 sf. The proposed plan places the most passiv e uses, the garage, closets and master bath, on the south side of the home, where greatest area of new side yard intrusion, 736 sf vs 451 sf, is located. Absent the requested variances to permit rebuilding the home, the 0 to 75 ft cov erage will not not be reduced by 519 sf and I00«,i. and the 75 to 250 ft lot coverage will not be reduced bv ->0I9 sf, and 22 Vo. 3. Impervious Surface, 75 to 250 ft. As you kno» by now. «c don't think the site esn be enlarged to create additional impersious ^ace to offset or provide a greater reduction in the necessary . typical and anticipated mimmum impervious surface aasociaied wiih a home on n site like this. In addition, the present shared driveway airangement. that cannot be practically alteied due to the engineering standards of Hennepin County, severely reduces our opportunity to further reduce a major impervious sur^ component at our ute. No parking, even temporarily, will ever be permitted on Shoreline Dr. adjacent to this site. Therefore, a reasonable area to accommodate guest parkins must be provided on the site. * Granting the variance will allow consiniction of a new plan which will reduce the 0 to 75 impervious surface ftom 519 sf toO sf and the 75 to 250 ft impervious suriace from 9241 sf to 4 hr—rill r Lii. -. jL 7222 If. TWi provides n additiooal 2521 sfofabsocptive sur&ce oa the site, an improvement of 1 % overall, and 100% in the unportaot 0 to 75 ft area. Grantiog the variance skill imptemenf the new plan reducing the existing bituminous driveikay area Hy one half, and concrete pavers, which while still impervious, when compared to bituminous, disperse and slows the rate of nmoff, for this reduced, but still significant, component of the impervious surface on the site. The Newkirk's proposed home and impervious support areas are not excessiv e, but typical and anbcipmed development of this lake from site, and grantisg the variance will provide sigmficaiit new absorptive surface, improving the qualiQr of the direct runoff to the I ake while not altering the essential character of the vicinit>'. lUv ■fmaii ■ I I, exhibits SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS RAY AND NYLENE NE>\XIRK 1489 SHORELINE DRIVT A. Lot Width and Area Hardship 1. The site cannot be extended to acquire additional lot area to the west due to the Shoreline Drive right of uay. or to the east due to Lake Minnetonka. 2. Due to the present area of the Newkirk's parcel, and the area of the adjacent lots, both 1487 Shoreline Dr. and 1491 Shoreline Dr. would have to be acquired by the Newkirks, the homes demolished, and the lots combined w iih the Newkirk’s lot to create a new single lot that is conforming in area to the LR-1.\ standard. Unique or Mitigating Conditions 1. The variance would simply recognizes the existing condition, a single lot created by two planed lots. 2. The continued use of the lot for a new ly constructed single family would not inuoduce or create any new impacts or conflicts at this site nor alter the essential character of the area. 3. The 15®/o hardcover standard is met by the proposed new home that is the subject of the requested. 4. Absent the requested variances to permit rebuilding the home, the 0 to 75 ft coverage will not be reduced by 519 sf and 100®i. and the 75 to 250 ft lot coverage will not be reduced by 2019 sf. and 22 •i. 5. The existing relationship with the adjacent homes will not be change nor will the essential character of the area be changed. B. Side Yards Hardship 1. Additional lot width cannot be purchased from the neighbors as ihe’ir lots arc also non conforming due to area and any deduction from their lots would increase their non conformitv and therefore would not be permitted bv the Citv. 2. Requiring almost half, rather than the assumed 30^o. of the width of this 132 ft wide lot to be reserved for side yard eliminates the opportunitv for ty pical or anticipated development of this lake front site. Unique or Mitigating Conditions 1. Granting the variance w ould simply maintain the established the existing relationship with the adjacent homes and not alter the essential character of the area. 2. Both neighboring homeowners have reviewed the building plan and the requests for variances and have no objection to their being granted. 3. The c.xisung plantings and landscaping between the homes provide a Tr transition and buffer bemeen the homes well in excess of that provided by merely distance. 4. The change in grade down from the Newkirk’s home to both the home on the iwnh and the home on the south provides a transition and buffer between the homes well in excess of that pros ided by merely distance. 5. The visud space between the closej: comers of the new and comers of each neighbor s home exceeds the 60 ft disunce of the combined side vard requirement. 6. ^e intrusions into the requu-ed side > ards are not consistent, and the plan induces the building area in the required norJi side yard from 117 sf to 104 sf . The proposed plan places the most passive uses in the home, the garage, closets Md master bath, on the south side of the home, where greatest al-ea of new side yard intrusion. 736 sf vs 451 sf is located. 8. The 15V. bedcover standard is me; by the proposed new home that is the subject of the requested variances. 9. Absent the requested va.nar.ces to pennit rebuilding the home, the 0 to 75 ft coverage will not be reduced by 519 sf and 10(y*o. and the 75 to '*50 ft lot coverage will not be reduced bv 2019 sf. and '*'* »• C. Imperv ious Surface. 75 to 250 ft Hardship 1. The site cannot be pr.iciicaUv enlarged. 2. pte present shared drivewav arrangement, that cannot be practicallv altered due to the eng.neer.ng sia.niords of Hennepi.n County , severelv reduces our op^rtun.ty to fu.n.-.er reduce a major impervious surface component at our sue. be provided on the site. Unique or Mitigating Conditions in ft “<■ '»°’- 2. Citing Ihe variance uill impitman: the ne« plan replacing the existing btii^inous dnve«a> at the site «ith a drive of concrete pavers, which vvhile 9 * - »oo r ~7~ I I — ■v'. « 09*''CouMrriio* MN ■ --mot— ; .»«*• %rr mm ■ SS'04'74* wt *•• . ! mmMiK 10 V wim ^ # ' ’‘jiiiiiiiiiiii - difnfii ••■►'■■ I in I Hu,11 f f \‘i‘ / ©1'tvi ‘t'iii I''-' ,. 7 V Mm I HIM/.'^miS' I 1 !w t J S? I* >1 ■■■ I's § T !?■ r * wg S5 n I Q t flP SX Ui Hotiomimmremcemrmcnai |1I I' !(if ,IU II __Q-. !? “ !! " •! L’ Cift — — —■- m PL4N» Amfommo om.t. NOT TO B6 (MID 90m CCmiWOW i^.th V? revomu.^ HXRBCOVtR CALCULATION WORXSfiSZT ftllACIC ZOpeZ: (CXXCU ONI) t-TT PEBTPIC gAiagovra nr tow ZS9-SSV «oo.:ccr ^3//75 !<0 5ti* A ReuM 3 Gnp C Ditvr»^ a SdmSc E. Pad^Tck ItadiKtiia •yPtiRk i-.: TOTAL KAlOCOVn IN ZONE TOTAL PIOPCITY AXSA IN ZONS ______ ♦ I n«! >I lOQ ^ 11 q I rfS a- • ■aiWMixp HABnrovra m gowg A H ohm _____________ X 3 C«i{t C Drtnway D. Sdtwa E. r. Lga>esr» Uodeish Brrin^ G. Ote TOTAL KAIDCCVSl IN ZONE TOTAL ?EOFSX7Y AUA IN ZONE s ICO VZZ'l Xi l*» I I s». .5^* SJ. ,S^. s». . s-’* .iE. SJ. iF. SJP- ,S^- .5^- .iF- % SF. ,SJ. SJ^. AF- >F* IF. ,SF. .SJ* SF. .S-F- SF. SF. :sF. .SF. A B A 1 exhibit F JantiBfid RichanIKritr 14t1 Shoniint Drtv Orono, MKiuiMOta 9S391 M2478 3B53 Septomb«r22.2003 Ray and Nylene Nvwkirk ladBShoralinaDrivt Orono. MN 55391 RE: Sida Yard VariarKx Dear Ray arKJ Nylene; RECEIVED SEP ^ 3 20Q3 CfTYOFUnOMo H/^e, r/T U"*y /Itc e OU/\ . hf Luo.Z k^J^OciU . / kfy Altnc* 7^*—^ />« <\ 4^ to't't-iv Thank you for sharir^g your new home plan with Jan and I. It is certainly going to be a beautiful home. I have attached a copy of the form that we sent to the City. Given the plans that we saw with the roof sloping sway from the side lot line and the distance between our home and yours, we would support your application for a varlartoe to the side yard from the required 30 feet to a^out 15 feet. We have two corKems that we expressed to you and your wife last week. Our first concern is that part of the grading on the southeast side of the proposed home and the removal of the existing retaining wall and subsequent grading will have a detrimental effect on the large 52 caliber inch Maple located in our yard. Both the retaining wall and this large Maple are m the area between the Lake arKi 75 feel from the Lake As you indicated, you thought that this could be worked out. We would be glade to work with you to determine if a solution can be agreed upon. We are certain that you can understand our concern for the protection of this large beautiful tree. Our second concern is the lot grading. It appears that by raising the elevation of the lot it is possible that more storm water drainage would drain to our larxl Although, as we discussed, this may not be the case, a site grading plan would be hel^ to insure that storm water drainage works well in the future and the additior>al fill does rx>l contribute to storm water rurviing across our property. We appreciate your willingness to work with us on these concerns and we are looking forward to hearir>g from you soon. Sinodl^ Richard Krier Sipli^23.2003 ImcndRkMKiter 1491 SboraiMiMvt Orano^Mn. 53391 lU: Largs Mi^ItTrif Dstr Jaocc Hd Richard: Thank you fcr yosr hnar rsgaidiQg tha taffc Mapla tisc on the lot ina. Wt are squally ooocaniad about tha laftty of that traa. It providaa a vary flios buffer batwaan the two hooMS as waO aa yrovidhtg a graat deal of ihada to our hoaa in the aummcr heat. The laodscapa oootiacior is providing a drawim ahowhv the atada davatioo at that locatkHL Ha b also vary coooamad hbout protacthig that tree from any potaoital damage. Wa are trying to ooaipfy with the city zoning of 0 hard cover in the 75 foot act back. Thb b the only raasoo fcr rsmoving the retaining waR 1 wil laviaw the proposal from the landscapa contractor with you u aooo u I get a copy. Ragaidiog the water dninaga bsua. ha U abo aware of that and mw no reason w^ the drainage would not stay much thaiama. The next tima you sea drawings you wiD note the br condilioncrs have abo bean moved as you raquaatad. Nylaoa and I appracaata your coocaras regarding our new home and want to make Mta it has a positiva impact on our naighborteod. Thinks again, D ^ EldfkiM r—* AJI mc M frtptfly Ommtn’ Ads RCeOVID SEP I« an n»«>da<fteD tJ*icr)ct('ae^ mr i4‘il iHteeU^ .ng- cnYOFonoNo ipiitii funxEsO irnm atMicisl have reviewed plans Tor lb« propoMil improvcfnat mr pevposed use of tbe !ucj!cd alt (*^f^ also rcfctfcd lo as Land Use Aprlicatioa No.________ I (w«) wntrmaml dys in exccntlrn; tfds ncfawMrfcJ^vmcm. I (we) am iare> nol asked la dsebra appfonil ar tSnpproval of fha or osa biN awdy to conGrai for in City Ccoicil that I iurUM (sr ) aware af the improtentern plans and lhai ihe propaud neighbor's proicei or are ModiRsCUKiI Date 9J/Z 6B I (wa) ‘^Awe (’I of ^%\ 0 Arru^ Ipiim tu:!icl!0{IpriRT jJdio>! hjv< r^iaiwd^^r^^re the propoaed iaipnxvcmasl or popore d ore of the popeity lorrcv! at I rwe) uRdessund iluf in executing this acknowledgeinmi. I fwe) am farel nut asied la declare approfval ar disapproval of the property or ore bol merely 10 confine for the City Ccuml diat I fwrr an fare) aware of the improvcwenl plans and that the proposed neighKe^ project or •re icqniret Council appmwL Pnewriy Owner Dole lYopcm Owner Date If you have any informaiion that iiuy assist the City in the review of ihU Land Use Application, pkare si*mit yov cohmu -u Is 10 the Duilding it Zoning Office at Iwret 10 «b>s prior M the schaduted meetiiip dale. #2'V .. j ^ \ L AtfMcot rkvptfijr OwMft* Fi Ifw) Iptint lumciti]lrrini.aJ«l:cv«! have i«%icucJ Ac for tfw prupuMrJ unprvnciml «r rnri^w*! we of Ae pwipitty tocared at ---------------------------Jlio refitted K> UftU U*e Appliiiliun Ko,________ * mnicimyj that in cucuiii^ this ackno«rlcJt\’incnt I foe) am tare) not a>ked to declare apfrwii or dnffroval oi the property or uw bw merely lo confinn for the Ciiv Coimctl ttM t (ue) an (are) awve of die imprmentcnt plans and ihai the ptoponJ aci^hbisrli ptoiccl or use m|«im Conncil approvoL riopeny Owner Date Properly Owner Dote UVli/i;hjJ. - '' ptioi nanM<s)| of Jlrj^ r ^ V" . Ipfint oddtc%«! *T«*'** **» PWPO«l b9«v«men or prapoaed wc of Jk prupoty located aC <4gq QkiAdliAti J)|l^rel<wed lo as Land Use Aprlieulioo Vo,_______. I (we) unJertfand dul in e\au!i-.p this KkAowIcdinrmau. I me) am (are) nut asked lo declare approial oe dkapprova! of the propetiy or gae Hot aercly lo confirm for the I dy Council ihal I fore) an (are) aware of die impnnemen plans and dm the proposed aci-hKe's oroiect oe oac leqvinea Citindl approsnL ' /dM. .. Iha m.y »Uii Uie CU) « ibc micir of ikU Uii U« Aj’plhJ'K-a. i^NiBuxs u ilw DoiOair« 2,<r.«,f Ofl!« « k«j m d«>, prfo. M MII72J2J0002 nurAim mts ummclmedr OWMMIUMi iLLStAaCNMOT TAXMVM aUMAKMMnT NAaiVAOM MTSSHOUCLMeOR WAY2ATAMN SS3«I M IIII72MJ»I« rMTAIM MI7 niOMLWIiM OWMRNMIt ■MWAUIRALLWAUJil TAlVAm MIANMAUnLWAUJA NAMHAINM l«7 5UIINIIliN| |« WAY/A IA MN 57JVI ®5*J} II » >:• ?■ S.) lICNNEMN CCHJNTY FHOWiimr INFOIIMATION SYSTLM PRatiRTY OWNERS LIST rA(i»:: I Jl IIII72J2J00M mOTAOIM l«YIMKM£UNCM OWNEKNAMC lANETCKUNAN TAXPAYER MNETCUUER NAME7AIMJR l««l SIKMEUNn DR WAYMTAMN SSJ9I Jl lin72J230009 PRUPAOOR 14ft SHORtLDO-DR OWNERNAME RKNfiWKJRK 4NJNEWURR TAXPAYER RKNfiWKRIKRNJNEWURK NAME/ADDR I4I« SIRNU-LINE DR WAYXATAMN 35J9I Jl llll72I2Mllk PROP AOOR 1410 GR^iN TKIiLS RU OWNERNAME CRtPLATOU TAXPAYER CARt. 4 SUSAN 71ATOU NAMI/AIHM l4aniXIIIN tMIISNII WAY/AIAMN S5J4I Jl iili72J2Jaoii PHOPAOOR Jl AMJRmUNASSKiNliU OWNERNAME GREENTREESHOMEOWNERSAStOC TAXPAYER GRF.EN TREES UOMrUWNERS ASSOC NAMI/AINNt t AIJAIRII VllSI IMYliMIIN IMMNRII HAY/A IA MN SJJYI ICERTUY TM4TTNE PACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACXUIATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF IMtMMATION AS TT APPEARS TIES DATE ON THE RGCOROS OFTME HEPMEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPARTWENT. TO THE BEST v OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BEUEF. ------X mTi£~/v/-<.S UY I .1 i •. ). !-♦ #». I tXHlBH H- -.S' ./ri:-';5 • T * ‘^f ’T-» i. , '-• 3; t ^f- v^.',' I' ■'^.£1 . ■' iTf ‘pOUTH Pj^Peicry cik Hc ^ prr^iN^ '.lov Ft^M LAl^e- ^ IVAU- ,si&.1^ \*. ' A • • •%'f=?*s*'’« •;)£X) r^^,^ cAKt exhibit H-X nVf* '"-f V ■ '■ ■ V. '■>■ ..V £5? fjp^TM Fi^Pct-TV L IfJc (il»eyA«>) TpvV/HJ^) UAltg 1 v ' '^\''*''•■' lii W^^-r ^ •. ;■■ ■“%? :. -X» ' .j S^J-m u>^ C?(T5e-»/t/)\ I10U Tt^VA^^i> Ultfgr I V. C;•• • -• 'Vi. . >^v>' ^aaai^gfeSfr' // V^' i,,- ^fliP i 1 * • • M I ' '•* iiiiiini iTiiiiii i2^r »* ^^111NM I ftn xw If SSSSmHtSrea^ umn, E3tHIBlT3 I ir »cvY_>ga «^ LJI—b ia.* —fcv l-Su^4«W WAyLA., l*lf^ g-^ 1 ^4j,^S&cJlpge,^»*g.« I r M3-29S4 OcMterM.2MJ Pit*l««S DMtAppKttllMlItctivttf: 9-17^ DMt ApfHcattMCMuMcrttf asConplMt: 9-l7-t) lUvir* Ptriod Eipirtt: 11-1943 Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator From: Date: Sabicct: Janice Waataja, City Planner October 16.2003 03-2954, Houard R. &. Lisa Alton. 1635 Concordia Street • Hardcover Variance • Public Hearing Zaaiaf Dittrkt: LR - 1C. One Family Lakeshore Residential District ('/j acre min.) Loi Area: 3.943 acres (171.772 s.f.) Apptie&hom Sumnutry: Applicant requests the following variance to construct a patio on the lake side of the home; 1. Hardcover variance to allow 26.9% hardco> er in the 75-250* zone when 25% is required and 24.5% currently exists. St^Mecomummdatiom: Staff recommendations: 1. Denial of the request due to a lack of a viable hardship. PertiaeBt Zoahig OrdlBaacc ScclioBs LbtafEihibits Exhibit A E.xhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit D Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I: Exhibit J: Application Ha^hip Statement Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Forms E.xisting and Proposed Survey Hardcover Calculations 2002 Building Permit Comments 2002 Building Permit Hardcover Calculations Photographs Property Owners List Plat Map BackgroBBd The applicant received a building permit to construct a large addition to his home in November of 2002. This building permit consisted of a number of removals to meet hardcover requirements. These hadcover calculations are attached as Exhibit F. These MS-29M Oc««tarM.2tU ra|t2«fS calculadofis show that in conjunction nvith the addition the applicant was required to remove 476 square feet of patio in addition to removals of drivew-ay and sidew-alk together totaling 866 square feet With the 2.940 square foot addition these removals wieie required for the property to mainuin a hardcover of 24.9^'« when 25% is required. The applicant is nowr requesting a variance to allow 1.000 square feet of new patio resuhii^ in a hardcover variance to allow 26.9% when 25% is required. LOT ANALYSIS WORSHEET LR-IC Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (Viacre)100 ’ Actual 171.772 s.f. (3.943 acres)249 ’ SUbiikii LR-IC Required Eaisthif Propoaed Front n/a n/a na Rear 30’340’340’ Leftside 10 ’40.5’40.5 Right Side 10 ’10 ’10' Lakeshore 75’73’ (house) 87’ (existing patio) 73' (house) 76' (proposed patio) Average Lakeshore 65' (at closest comer) 73' (house) 87’ (existing patio) 73' (house) 76' (proposed patio) This propeity is not subject to structural coverage requirements as it is greater than 1.99 acres, in accordance with Section 78-1403. Hardcover Cakulations: Hardcover Zone Total Area ia ZOM Allowed Hardcover Exisliag Hardcover Proposed Hardcover 0-75 18.556 t.f 0s.f (0%) 0s.f.^ (0%) Os.f. (O^i) T I 75-250 41,920 s.f.10.480 sf. (25%) 10.309 $f.« I (24.5%) a03-:«5« October 20.200J Pac«3olS I 11.309 S.f 1(26.9%)______ 250-500 111.199 s.f.33.359 s.f. (30«.) 4.381 5 f (3.9«oi 4.381 s.f (39*.) * After exclusion of fabric or plastic-lined landscape beds Hardcover Variance The applicant is proposing to construct approximatcK 1.0(X) square feet of patio on the lake si^ of the home. The survey for the addition depicted 168 squire feel of patio However, currently only 8 square feel of patio exists The proposed patio would be located in the 75-250 ’ zone where the hardcover percentage is currently at 24.5^o. The Zoning Ordinance allows 25% hardcover in the 75-250 ’ zone howe\ er with the proposed 1.000 square fool patio the hardcov er would rise to 26.9?'», resulting in the need for a hardcover variance. The propen> is conforming wi;h respect to hardcover in the 0-75* and 250-500' zones. Upon a site inspection, staff discovered that landscape fabric is currer/Jy being installed. The building permit for the addition indicates that all landscape fabric must be removed. The applicant has not disclosed this fabric, nor included it in the hardcover calculations as it isn’t allowed regardless. The Planning Commission should ques'don the applicant on this matter and make a determination on whether the fabric is acccpu ’rlc or not Hardship Slalencnt Applicant has provided a brief hardship statement in Exhibit B. and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application Hardship Analysis _______________ /a cotukkrUtg appIkmUomsfor vmriance, the nantibig Commitsion ^katl consUer the tffect of the ^npou^ vmrkutct upon ike heatih. tafety and welfare of ihe commaak, existing and aailcipateJ mffk camdMem, t^kt and air, danger of fire, risk la tke public s^ety. and the effect on rabies of proper^ in tke smrrommding area. Tke Planning Commitsion skatl consider recommending approxat foe taelmicea from tke ikeralprorbions of ib« Zoning Code in inuances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unhiue to the individual pnperty under consIderalioH, and shall recommend appro > al only when bis demonstrated that such acth>ns will be In keeping mbh bte spirit and Intent of tke Orono Zoning Code. Staff does not find a viable hardship to grant approval of the hardcov er variance request. The applicant removed patio hardcover in 2002 in order to construct addition to the home. The applicant at that lime could have adjusted hardcov er amou.nts to allow for the proposed patio but chose to accept a 168 foot patio as indicated in Exhibit D (with .!*/• hardcover to spare). Should the applicant wish to construct additional patio. .5% could be constructed amounting to a total patio increase of 171 square feet for a total patio area of 179 square feel (including the 8 s.f which already exists). This would put the property at 25^ p hiudeov er and not require a v ariance. Staff would make the following recommendations in regards to the criteria for "undue hardship" pertinent to this application: 1. mym* Octokw2t.2ttS raft4*rs The property in questicm cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allo>%ed by the official controls.” The property can continue to be used in its current manner which consists of an B square foot patio The appliccmts have the means to construct an additional 17/ square feet without a variance. Constructing a patio u hich constitutes excess hardcover is not reasonable. The plight of the landouner is due to circumstances unique to his property not creat^ by the landov^ner.” The circumstance which limits the amount of additional patio to 171 square feet instead of l.WO square feet is a situation the landowner created when the 2.9-40 square/^t addition was constructed in 2002. not a circumstance unique to the property The property is 3.94 acres in a Vi zone. "The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." The eqtplicants' lot is substantially larger than the other lots located on Concordia Street Because of this, it is very easy for the applicant to meet hardcover requirements Should a variance be granted for hardcover on this lot the character of the neighborhood could be altered "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property e.xists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." Sot 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.” Sot applicable "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a stance any use that is not permitted under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” The proposed use is permitted in the LR - IC zoning district "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." Sol applicable "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." Staff does not find any special conditions applying to the structure or land in ’ question that would justify variance approval. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in 8. • » M3-29S4 Oc1»ter]«.2MJ which said land is located.* Sufi dots not find any unique conditions with this tot or structure to recommend variance approval •The granting of the application is necessary for the pceser\ ation and enjoyment of a substantial propeity right of the applicant.” The a/^lcant still has to ability to construct 171 square feet of patio 11.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.” Granting of this varUmce would be contrary to the Intent of the Zoning Code. ”The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.” The granting of this variance would serve as a convenience to the applicant since no demonstrable hardship or difficulty has been shown. The cqsplicant has the ability to construct 171 square feet of additional patio Inncs farConsideffaHea 1. Should the applicant be held to the hardcover calculations which allowed the addition in 2002? 2. Is there a hardship that constitutes granting a variance to allow 1,000 square feet patio when the applicant has the ability to construct 1 71 square feet without a variance? 3. Should the applicant be required to removed all fabric that has since be installed? 4. Axe there any other issues or concerns with this application? Staff RecoBncBdallMi rynial of the hardcover variance to allow 1.000 square feet of patio in the 7S-2S0' zone resulting in a hardcover percentage of 26.9% when 2S*/« is required. iw. r j EXHIBIT A CITY or ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $250.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $150.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-confonning structures $250.00 After-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application # Date Received Amount Paid ISO.^ PROPERTY INFOR^UTION Site Address 1635 Concordia Street Property Identification Number (P.l D.) 17.117-31.?? Attach legal description to application if not included on ^uired survey. Date Property Acquired laoa I (do) IdMHi) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: x residential other (spec! A) Zoning District:___________________________ _(month/>ear> APPLICANT Name P. ai»nn. TTT Address: 1635 Concordia Street £>11 J (612) 670 1C80 Phone (hcne)_4.g^2) 471. SO80 _____ Phone (work) -^40 gfiofi City. Wavzata________Zip: 55391 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name / <.tS» AHo^ Address:____________________________City Phone (hoae)_ Phone (wo:k)_ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Constniction Cost S 10»000.00_______ Describe request in detail: Conatruct an Ji»tachgd j>nd eolorad gorcre- patio in front of the house. (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area ___Ut Width Setback: __Front ___Side Other (specify)___________________ X Hardcover Lot Coveraje __Rear Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CO.NDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual preperty conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: attaches______ (attach additional sheets if necessary) #2954 1. 2. X > 5. 6. 7. 8. HA HA required SUBiMITTALS s »■ ««i. Completed Application Forai » »- .r ik» « ii'.’Eii.’J ,S2 «““n-, Lul of the legal names (include mariul S--J1 o'all • *11). property. This would include namcTs) ""‘7V "" As an addendum to tins applicaUon, p ease -ic^ iL^ie 1 7*f you wsh noticed of this vpKcation.^ * -nc- a separate list of any other persons Additional items as may be requested by C.r/ s'^. The AppUcant and Property Owner must sign this p1 m« , u u yi rippw nppiitpiip, hgpnipim If ;i,r .hove ^ APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all irformatir- ^ Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time r-~ by the Zoning consultant expenses incurred in review of to applic- supplied is inie and conect to the best of his/her luiow’iige. ^ ">« information Applicant's Signalu,^.,;:;::^;:^.^::^^^;;^;^^^ p.,, OWTS'ER’S SIGNATURE enliy onto the property by*a" suff ^MsuTtaliu age- j' a-^is''^''" f»“°"able members for purposes of investigation and vcriCcal'ion efiis re^rs!'”" EXHIBIT fi Howird IL aims. Ill 1635 Coocof^ia Simt WafUM. MN 5S39I September 16.2003 PUnnliig Commission and City Council Members Re: Variance Application for Patio 1635 Concordia Street, Wa>7ata Howard Alton Ladles and Gentlemen: I am requesting a variance to replatc> a patio that was removed in construction of my house addition. The new patio will be finpcd differently and slightly larger than the previous patio. The variance is for the 75* - 2*4 sctbaJi rone. The present hardcover in this zone t.. .Is 24.5%. With the proposed patio the hardcover would be 26.9%. The hardcover on the ei.oie property would be less than lO^'o, which is one of the lowest hardcover totals on all of Lake Minnetonka. 1 suffer two hardships in that 1 wiu . arced to give up property that my neighbor built over, so that I could get clear title to my property. That additional property would allow for more hardcover in the 75* to 250* setback. Furthermore, I have allowed the Citv- and others to use my property for a cul-de-sac and even allowed paving of it, which increases my total hardcover. The ordinance which limits hardcover near the lake was written to ensure rainfall absorption into the ground rather than run-off into the lake. The topic property is very level, sandy soil, it is veiy unlikely that any additional rainwater would run off into the lake due to the addition of the propos^ patio. Furthermore, the cunent ordinance would allow for the construction of a 30,000 square foot patio or thirtv times larger outside the 250* setback, which I state only to illustrate there is ample green space for rainw ater absorption on this property in keeping with the spirit of the City ordiiunce. Thaitk you for your consideration. Sincerely. Howard R. Alton, III #2S54 EXHIBIT C Adjicnt Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form I (we) dthn4f^h 6e^r/fic of ^ forinl namc(s)l [pn^j address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property locat; j at IL"%5 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 ti a: I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project o: use requires Council approval. Date Property Owner Date el ^/ma! P __________of print name(s)](print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property locale' at /43S ^> also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. 1 (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 0\s-ncr Date If >t>u have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit >our commeius to the Building A Zoning Office at least 10 days phar to the scheduled meeting date. IIT :: \/I AdjKCBt Property Owoert’ Ackoowlcdgemeot Fom I (we) [print name(s)l of \^7S^ [print address] iMve reviewed die plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the prererty located a: CjAco/JLk U.also referred to as Land Use Application No.______1- I (we) understand that in executing thU acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the Cin Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Property Ov^ner I (we)T^^ of ■Vv'. (prim name(s)J print •J<W)(print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the prorerty located a: COACofJU also referred to as Land Use Application No._______ I (we) undentand 1^ in executing this ectaowledgement. I (we) w, (•«) not etied lo declare ippiovel or disapprovil of the property or use but merely to conTinn for the Ciri Council that I (we) era (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighboi's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date/ Property Owner Date If y»“ '“V' *7 infotmation that may aasist the City in the review of Jtis Land Use 5 C t*8.M 1, i ir ^5^4 Adjaceat Property Owiers* AckoowkdyMcot Form I of 3^^^ N. [print lume^[print address] have reviewed the plans for die *'*oposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at i6W V. 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 confinn for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner * * Property Owner Date I (we) [print name(s)]f-rinl 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 you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comroenu to the Building & Zoning OlEce ax least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. r r V * -I ■ •a’trZm ,^:.l SrrBACKZONZ: (CIRCLE gmarmc ha RDCOVE A. Houm HARDCO^iiTo^ ICLI oau i-78‘ y R IN ZO^fe exhibit E CULATION WORKSHEET TS-250*250-S0O'so(Moo<r O sj B. G««ft C Dmcway D. Sidtwalk E. Ptfi«/Dcck F. Imadatapt UadKlaia By PiMtic a Otfwr A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _______________ ♦ B ____ B MAancOVER IN ZONE A. Homm B. Gante C. Driveway D. Sidew^k E. Ptiio/Dcck F. Landscape Undertain By Plastic le SSt? a too a 100 G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ B _ _a 100 SJ. S.F SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. % SF. SF. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. A B SF. A S.F. B H #2954 y-rT' lO * ^ HARDCO\*ER CALCULATION W( SETBACK ZOiNI: (CfRCLI Om) 0-75* 75-150* gytyypffS HAKDC0\*E» in zone A. Howe C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E Patio/Dcck F. Laadsc^ Underlain By Plaatic Q. Other TOTAL H.OIDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL FROPEBTY AREA IN ZONE ___________ ♦ B _____% too 12-/- ’‘7‘‘ X .ZST. B. Oange X n __ST. X iz ■J LO E ST. X m — ST. D. SidcwODc X m O ST. X ■-ST. E PMioA>eck X m O SF. X m -ST. F. Landscape X m 0 ST. UadccMn X m ST. By Flaatk X m -ST. G. Other X m 2C>t3 -ST. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE •ST. TOTAL PROFERTT AREA IN ZONE •III /47 ST. A B . X 100 -% A V3?l + B ////7‘). X 100 -3.'/ NA.nrovn IN MINK K. House X m _S.F. Lmgi WiCik X m ST. X m S.F, X m - S F. B. CataBS X •_ ST. 500-1000* SF. ST. SF. ST. ST. ST. SF. ST. ST. ST. S.F. SF. % —* its . •• .''’,y<Afc* r r . ■ v-a ii -• ’.' •.'..-V- ■ ^.^■ yj. . V » m ;■?: V- Vy • J - ^ ■ ■ ' t*. . rr V- •>•r ^ •■■;J f.:-^ _^:c; -5’?5-‘Sv, - -V;. ■■.■■•- >: r r • • • xi^ ''A ■ sM-rn. iisa . ^ iS Br^’ I(J:'- s^' -Jrtrtr^r'iA#> . •' . A' -.y^p':-- •::^->~r '^r ■>'*■' ■•' .. ‘^^ . * !l ^ 'I f4c^iSr^; ■ /• V- w* Wm1'^ «<*?mm fmmwmM mnS'.i ■M" ^'^■t ?i4 * Vm' r~ iktt 'if M • '^^■ — •' r tuNOMn.vnan HEwwEHwcownr pnoranv iMFOUMATiONSYsmi mOPERTY OWNERS LIST I CERTIFY TIIATTIC FACTS REfRESENTEO ARC AN ACCIJRATI AND IRUEREPReSENTAHONOFINFORMATXMAS irAFfeARSHiSDATEONTICReOOIIOS OFTIBIBXMEIIN OOUN1Y TAXPAYER SERVICES DEPArmENT. TDT1IE BEST OF MY KNOWLCOCEANOBEUEF. DATE by P«OT:I f:0 G3 CQ =lfc cxHnrrj H«nnepln County Taxpayer Services Department ■f. - -------neRn —* I ■ - - fM*| RLS rsB—-----------------E_L nMCT4 m * i’pr * A‘3 1 i % mtero _________...r N0 1628 11!irii t W------i i fyyji f22)t i1—anr—m « J!.2j 1 V ..t 1 1 1 1 1 t ------------ » 1 —^'r CW MAP OS > I2'< g 7 Ll 441 ^ ! -J i a * Q -l!• a-*y 6 r7^ i •rt ^ 4/A'r^r^ 1 “1*. . X ^ !‘l^ M ms N012IS Pw9l Information r , <* 10 1711723220040 Hmim NMMbw 1030 atfMt Nan* CONCOaOIA ST • *^2?**^"**^ •'Wonii a coee>*i»oo9ndd$tj b-ynOty. Ooiwiy. andStatoroodauthoritioa nntothor nourcoa. /• H 1-^ r EXHIBIT E Ft-AM Unatitf M o*s ?> X Mowui4y5*«iv\ r.*J «fh4 T<WK$ filVOL ---------- 8M?WiaKilf5 ^kZ«’ I jr ■ 0^ O^ <V»«- »««n ^ t'P^- <0Wi1KUHl«7U. QB -* M ■■1 _ BPmtMesoii e« OBanch Note: Thil Iht V Cha( Check r B(M Lidiilfli VUjt\ ...wftllhK 4 . a ' -at VV- Vv^« -n? I I i i -^#1 ^ M m,. A - 0> 4 Si' '>,1, ,j/fx ^ /<• '. . MIN DATE: vnnai n 27iinj»o«* mu* ADM IMSCOXTIt wANBIIMMI MVBTOtCHMBI Taa ^^VW MWMTOICHMIII Mi^'.-fc'AOM «W COX T« lONQLAKEMN S3JM llbNNtPINCOUNTY PROPI RTV INFORMATION SYSILM ntCPERTY OWNCRS LIST PAUt: I W 27IIU)3]fOU ntor AOOH 2300 SIX III AVIi N OWNCRNAME HAR01M3URKE TAXPAYER RARRYAROMNOIIOURKE NAME/AOM 2300 61 IIAVE N U3NGLAKEMN SS3M 31 2im2332<noi PROP ADUK IIM) WIUUW UK N OWNER NAMI: XISEPIIC TIIIES TAXPAYER X3SEP1IC HUES NAMI7AUUK I IM) WILLOW UK N LUNG LAKE MN 33336 3t 27IIU33200M PROPAOOR IMt W11X3W0RN OWICRNAMI CUPTOHOALfREOMUSmOM TAXPAYHI CUmjRDAMltUTROM NAME/AOM IIM WILLOW MN IjOMIIAKI.MN 33336 10 2011123140002 PROPAUliN 1233 WRLOWM OWNERNAME FIIEINUCKiKEUERMETAL TAXPAYER ANNE H KELLER NAME/AOOR 1233 WU LOW M lONG IAKi: MN 3333(> 31 2BIII234I0002 PROP ADM 1 123 WIU OW M N OWNERNAME WLLESKMCNAOMLESKJNCN TAXPAYER WLADMLESKiNLN NAMIMOUR 1 123 WU LOW URN lONlilAKI MN 33336 . 4 '. I COrriFY TIIATTIE FACT!! KEPKGSBr^EO ARE AN ACTURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APf'EARSTIIIS DATE ONTIK KCCOROS OFTie IICPWEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYER StRVIClS OtPARTMliNT. TO TlIC ULST ^ OFMYKNOWU-DCEANDIIIUUK _ ______ _ ^ DATE />» a-Ji \ A I C-2 Mj-2«sa Octobtr 20.2003 Fagt I tfJ Date Applkslioa lUceWed: 9-29-413 Dale Appikalloa Coafidertd as Compute: 9-29-03 M-Day Resriew Period EipUcs: II-2S-03 To: Chair Smith and Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Janice Waataja. City Planncr^v) Date: October 16. 2003 Subject: 03-2958. Judson Daylon. 2885 Little Orchard Way Renewal Variance Public Hearing Zoaing DbtricI: RR - IB. One Family Rural Residential District (2 acre minimum) Lot Area: 2.0 acres (87,120 s.f.) Application Summary: Applicant requests a renewal variance to allow the existing oversi2ed accessory structure to remain on the lot and for it to be relocated to a conforming location in the rear of the lot. Stqff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request because the existing conditions are not representative of the conditions that existed under the original variance approx al Perlincnl Zoning Ordinance Sections Section 78-1432. l ime of Construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Section 78-1434-3a. Area Restrictions. Any oversize accessory structure shall be subject to the following conditions; No such accessory structure shall be located within a required yard area (principal structure setbacks must be met). Further, no such suucture shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal rc:>idence on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located less than 30 feet from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure setbacks apply. Section 78-1435. Location No detached garages or other accessory building shall be located nearer the front or street lot line than the principal building on that lot. Lbl of Exhibits Exhibit A; Application E.xhibit B; Resolution c4297 Oranf.ng Original Approval Exhibit C; Covenant for 0*. ersi/ed .Accessory Structure M0J-29SI October 20. 20t3 r«te2#rj Exhibit D: Site Plan Exhibit E: Minutes from May 17. 1999 PC Granting Original Appro\-al Exhibit F: Letters from Adjacent Property 0\%Tier Exhibit G: Photographs E.xhibit H; Plat Map Exhibit I: Property Ow-ners List Backgrovod The previous owners ofthis lot received a \ariance which allowed the bam to exist on the lot absent the principal building. The developer of the subdivision acted on behalf of the owners in the variance request in an effort to lemporarilv allow the building while the property was being marketed. The variance allowed the building to be oversized and conditioned that the building be moved to the rear of the lot where it would be conforming once a principal structure was constructed. The building was ne\cr moxed to this location and therefore the variance became null and void. The lot was ne\cr developed and the current applicant, who is a new owner and who resides on the adjacent property to the immediate west, is now requesting that the \ ariance be renewed so he can move the building as noted on the site plan and resolution #4297. Analysis Th«e are several issues Ural reUte lo the oriinal approval and vvhelher a renewal should be approved. The issues are os follows: 1. The original v-^ance was granted lo the previous owners. Variances run w ith the property not the applicant However, the approval was based entirelv on the fact that a pnncipal structure would be constructed on the lot in the near future. The resoluUon even re-defined what lot lines were considered side. rear, and front lo clear up any confusion for when a prmcipal building would be constructed. 2. Staffbelieves the current owner has no intention of selling the lot for development in the near future. The applicant has expressed his desire to keep the lot se^te from his and no plans ha .e been expressed that the lot is intended to be sold. 3. ;^e bam. if moved to the IwaUon indicated on the site plan, would be conforming if the appliCMt coi^ined the lot which contains his residence with the lot which contains the bam. The applicant has stated he does not want to combine the two lots. Conclusion Option 1: Because the ordinal variance approval was based on a dwelling being constructed and that is not the applicant’s current intention, if the applicant wishes to keep the bam. require that the lots be combined and the b^ be M3-2WI Octobtr 2«. 2«tJ ra|tJ«r3 moved to the location indicated on the site plan because its cunent location is non<conforming with respect to setbacks. Oplk»2: If the applicant does not want to combine the lots, then require that the bam be removed and the lot remains vacam until it is sold for development. Option 3:Allow renewal of the original variance allowing the accessory structure to remain on a lot which has no principal structure and still require it to be moved to the location indicat^ on the site plan, but not address whether a principal structure would ever be constructed. Option 4:Grant a new variance allowing the bam to remain absent a principal structure still sttpulaling that it be moved to a conforming location. The new resolution could include language specifying a time limit by which a dwielling treeds to be cortstructed or the accessor>- structure must be remove and the variance would become null and void. Neii^bor ComaMats Please review the comments provided by the neighboring property owner (Exhibit F)* Stair Recommendation Require removal of the bam if the applicant doesn't wish to combine the parcels, or. if the applicant agrm to combine the parcels require the building to be moved to the coofonning location noted on the site plan. EXHIBITA Ai»iknio««0^-jqsg Date Rccch-cd -07 Amonnt Paid / fD. tro CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SISO.OO (no change from oripnal application) Variance for non-conforming structures S2S0.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address C/TTtBA-iAV Property Identification Number (PJ.D.) « g/« Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. LOT 3 fUfiC/z f LiTJlS Dale Property Acquired JlWg. A / I^^(do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. PtSent use of property: AT residential ___other (specify). Zoning District:^_______________ jrr.onih/year) ATTjyyt^ 7^ APPLICANT A^9>tyPhone (home) <f 7.3 ~ 3^-i? Name Phone (\\oik) Address: fA^779L My City: Zip: <TSzrf/ OMTSTR (if different than applicant) - Name tn. tr, Address:________________________ City:. Phone (home). Phone (work) Zip:. Estimated Construction Cost SDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST _______________________________ Describe request in detail: 7D Sn&utTl'^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot W’idih Setback: __Front ___Side Hardcover Lot Coverage _ Rear __ Average Lakeshore y Other (specify) <>>OCC , * HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION of unusual PROPERTY' CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditior.s preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: \M/4i)C£ iSfe /gv^ 6^R>4£ /yp sm COT rSJT^tt.W^£ - SrffUtsV^M. /f, ot= uA£ajh ^ f/A^j4A/c£. A14^ ic 7r> ict^ #2 (anach additional sheets if necessary) 77} d.OCSFTtp»j fRB\/lOO\Li £ w REQUIRED SUB>UTTALS ^BPlfcirion dMilffpe date In ^ Completed Application Form obtain this »‘s^^b^MTmap “** P*^‘ mus: - Govt Center, 348-5910). ^ »«wep«n County Department of Finance, A-603. calculations as hardcover 6/ ^ *^Tspu^ilL iumy (existing ^ P^std clcv^iitnsUf^^^ ^ property. This would include namefs^ of^r ® *" interest in the ^ H nof mr applicants SICNATLRE The tpplicam hereby egreei to provide j"l inn.». .■ Admiiustralor, etrees lo payiddiUoiuI fees (suff t^7eIT'“Iirl >')' •*>« Zonint consulunt expenses incurred in review o'this ' P0>™«"0 "id'or supplied is true wd correct to the best of iisSler tao« “d»^ "’' ‘"'■“'mati:.-, Applicanfa Sigiulure ^ ^ OWNER'S SIGNATURE Date vppfitna aiiPi^ATURE ‘ OwTier's Signature / / —------------------- --- _ Meeting Planning cl>JJ!^7n Mwto'gs'^held on ft’e A w'm' <^onimission cSLu. r«rjdidrtt?i*''''*”*"“^* corn't^asioTrod have an authorized agent attend in >our place and tn please make arrangements to change prior to the oteeting. * "•*•>•' B-iMing 4 Zoning Offi« 7f““ ( #___V F. exhibit b CITYof ORONO BESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 9 (A) AMENDING THE ESTABLISHED YARD DESIGNATION WITHIN THE LITTLE ORCHARD SUBDIVISION FILE F2494 WHEREAS, Danid Andersen (hereiiuifter "ihe applicant") has an interest in the propeity hscated at 2S85 Little Orchard Way and Scott Jagodzinski and Jackie Jaaodzinski are owntfs of the propeity located at 2885 Little Orchard Way uithin the City of Orono (hereinalief "City") and l^y described as follows Lot 3, Block I, Little Orchard, Hennepin County, Nfinnesota (hereinafter "the propeny"), and WHEREAS, after due published notice and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City of Orono Zoning and Planning Codes, the Orono Planning Cbmnussion held a public hearing on May 17, 1999, at which times all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon, and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 9 (A) to permit an oversized accessory building to be relocated on the propery absent of a prindpal structure Minnesou: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, 1. 2. FINDINGS This application was reviewed as Zoning File IH2494. The property is located in the RR-IB, Zoning District, where 2 acres or 87,120 s.f is the minimum lot area The property consists of 2.0 acres. Page 1 of 5 *•, •• 'nr GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION Of THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A g Q 7 The PUni^ Conunmios reviewed this ipplicetion on Nfay 17, 1999 uri reconunendcd approval on a vote of 4 to 0. ’ The Planning Conunisslon nade the foDowing findings of fa«; final subdivision approval for Linie Orchard designated front, side and w yarf propery boundaries for each lot within Little Orchard. Let I * “ Orchard Way which ends in a cul-de-sac The lot was deterring to have two rear yard property lines, howeve.'. the south propert) Ime wfli serve as the font yard when the lot is developed The west property line was established as a rear yard requinng a 5(7 setback, however, it win fimetion as a side yard once the B. C. The front yard shall be extended to include the entire south properly line tccesioiy muctute r«,umng , ,«rictive covenant to be recorded on the chain of title. The stable is existing within the side >vd setback retiuirement of 3(r. O" fliii propetty are peculisr to it »nd do not apply generally to other propetty In thia*^ ao.ning diatitaMha- granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic eonditionjf lighl. ik nor' Page 2 ofS 1 . ^ .....Wta.: vf'< *n GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 429 7NO. pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property. u*culd not merely serve as a convenience to the property owners, but is necessary to aheviate a demonstrable hardship or diScuIty. is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the property owners; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the PlanrJng Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the eSfect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AM) CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City CouncO berrty grants a variance to Klunicipal Zoning Code Section 10 03, Subdivision 9 (A) to permit an oversized accessory building to be relocated on the property absent of a principal structure Approval was subject to the following conditions; 1.Property owners to file a restrictive co\*enant on the property notifj-ing future property owners of the oversized accessory building The residence shall be construaed on the lot (hat will not orient a back yard to the west property line and the front yard classification be e.xtended to include the entire southern property lire Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the property owners, but are permissive only and must be exercis^ by application fisr a buildirig permit within or^e year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 24, 2000) 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 property owners have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 3 of5 L 1 GITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 42 Q 7 Adopted fy the Orooo City Council on thU 24ih day of May, 1999 !if J //. c. \ . Unda % )Sb, City Clerk Property Gabriel Jabbour, May^ \ STATE OF MEWESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) •999. b,. G.bn^ ^ ^ Minnesou nuinicip.1 c<«por«ion ud uU in«mn,.ot wm e««Sed o^b^Lf IJr ft. ST*' ‘ ---- ; A liVfV»t»VC* ’ » .• .J M1tfJ:CCw!TT • ' . y f ;C‘^9 ‘»tcnl : mJ:* Notary Public EXHIBIT C ORONO COVESANT FOR OVERSIZED ACCESSORY STRUCTITO Ci.y Of Oroco,'^. xri^ day of WITNESSETH: L« 3. Block I. Liwe Orclwd. Kcnnepb Counly. Minresou (hereinafter refexied to as -Subject Pro;e::y-); azd the structure requested «’Snned^^n^'ect^c^ Municipal Code as an Oversized Accestc.7 Stn;cL ^^---— 9 (CX3X0. for relocation of the subject'OAs'ccnihik-rf''*'**''^*'°" ^ allows issuance of a permit in AppUc^trs chain of “ ««“'»“ "f *is Covenant and J^Zg property, the Ap^^w r^,SS'to'Vr^*dt:fii5-^^^ “ ** p-tie. wiU. «, interest in -uTpropcrty's^l^ All FOLLOmwi ™E •’ARTIES TO THIS COVENANT AGREE TO THE 1. Ihe Applicants. ' execution of this Covenant by the City and The folio™* condition, shall consol the existence of Ihe OAS: ols'^i?^”“o7rt Page I of 3 alA.dA..«J^lttna r Aimlha mi wbh to wbdivide the Subject Propeity. the OAS n^v lenain ™»oul • prineqMl gtruetuic for a period to be detennioed by the Oim City Coyncfl. If BO priadpal structure is fully constructed and completed qq the pt0P®rty by the cod of the detemiiiied period, the OAS must be remo\'cd. Should AppUcints subdivide the Subject Propeity, the OAS and the principal •tnioure shall be lorated within the ta me lot, vdiich meets the mtnimnwi |ot requirement based upon the size of the accessory building, which lot area wquirem^ is detailed in Section 10.03. Subdivision 9 (CX2) of the Orooo Code. Setback requirements as defined in Sectioo 10.03, Subdivision 9 (CXa) shall also apply. ^ ^ O'*®"* of Subject Ptoperty. andshall be filed within the chain of title of the Subject Property. Page 2 of 3 .acj it S' . y A /-V . I'________ EXH1BITD CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY \ MEWTvtaavncK Ut 3. Hock I. UTTU OROORS, l M«rj>wh CmaIi; Wlrai«MU I K«sr«nt U n<f4 pi«t »«»«TMf m/tJL ij .0 * i •: •tr Z aSBsSSw ss^ssi--- ^ l«4«S Ljji riTLI-l-1 ‘■Ji j*«*«»**^*^ kre#«M4 cantMT ^ Omit* caltt^Kf conUwr *“*'*** OanatM fewItfVtf Mtt«ck fi«« “"*•••• OarwU* A uUU/ Mtamant 0 ^ r ■' A‘; ■pj3!3r r U EXHIBIT E ORONO PLANNING C0M>nSS10N MEETLNG MINUTES FORMAT 17.1999 •2493 KATHERINE TAYLOR HOMES. CONTINUED Hugh eommtnttd that aha has raducad lha siza of lha drtvaway. Hugh axpressad fivstralton that lha haidoovar nmlt promotas outside storage of vehicles and other Rems. Lindquist stated that unfortunately hardcover needs to te DmRcd somehow. Lindquist commented that a hardship needs to be imposed by the land, noting that a steep slope does exist. Hugh Inqtdred whether she would be permitted to add 15S square feet of hardcover. Stoddard stated she would be allowed to add 156 square feet in stnjctural coverage. Hugh Inquired whether wood chips were okay. Hawn stated that wood chips are fine but that rock and plastic ur.derlaymenl are considered hardcover. There were no public comments. Lindquist stated he would be In favor of the deck but not the garage. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of the portion of Application i2493. 692 Tonkawa Road, to permit the construction of a deck above the attached garage over the existing hardcover, with an attached spiral staircase, and to grant a variance to the hardcover in the 75-2S6* lakeshore setback. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Hawn moved, Berg seconded, to recommend denial of the portion of Application #2493, 692 Tonkawa Road, to permit the construction of a two stall detached garage 30 feet from the right-of-way and 10 feet from the side lot line due to the siructural coverage being in excess of 18 percent VOTE: Ayes 4. Nays 0. (#10) #2494 DAN ANDERSEN, 2665 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY - VARIANCES, 6:46 pja - 6:69 p.m. The Certifleate of Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Dan Andersen was present Lee Statman was present Weinberger stated the Applicant is requesting a variance for an ur.devatoped lot within the recently approved Litile Orchard Addition. When the subdivision was approved, a stable remained on the lot tocaled near the front yard setback line end encroaching into L*:e required 30 foot side yard setback. It was the subdividar'a intent that the building be removed; however, the Applicant has raquastad the stable be moved to a conforming location on the l:L The building would be relocated to the rear of the lot matting alt required yard setbacks. Weinberger stated a restrictive covenant would need to be placed over the lot for an oversized accessory building because K exceeds 1.000 square feet. The Applicant is also requesting that the City allow the west propc.ly line to be idenlined as a side Page 13 •**. L ORONO FLANTONG COM>aSSION MEETING minutes for hiAY 17,1999 #2494 DAN ANDERSEN. CONTINUED ismiiifss regarding ihls and Mr. A*ders«n would..-.»rrca^K3S".«sssi;fr.r.f"-““ 1!.. si„ra^3,!;v.^r"‘"“"*““ •«•■ ^.szzss;s‘X^zs,xs-sss: “" “ There were no public commenU. ^=i=s==s=: \ ;/ SUW^R^oV-nd?*** building Ulih the conditions noted in thYMi^lV'1999* O' ">• '•0U..I to .m.nd UtS LlW. orthlrt pit I* southern property line. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (Recess taken at 8:88 p.m. -9:01 p.rn.) •.D I V* •;<. mi 02411OREGO KLOHN. 4455 NORTH SHORE DRIVE -VARtAtJCES. f ;02 pj„.. The Certiheil* of Mjlllng and A.5davit olPuMeiScn were noted. Gregg Klohn was present. Page 14 286S Link Orchard Way Orooo, Mianesott SS39I EXHIBIT F Stevlnj B. Hont October to. 2003 Phone: 612.803.2988 Fa*: 952.249.0962 Email: shoyt9rciTplus.com CityofOrono Ann: Janice Waataja, City Planner P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Planning Commission Members; We live at 2865 Little Orchard Way. and wish to advise you that u e oppose the Vanance requested by Mr. and Mrs. Judson Dayton for Lot 3. Block 1. Little Orchard. Our reasons arc as follows: 1. The Variance was actually granted to the Developer of the seven (7) lots on the former Carpenter estate. The Devclopere* suted intention was to tcmroranlv move the “bam** to the rear of the site w hile he marketed the property . Mr. Anderson did market a pr<>p>>sed home on Loi 2 or 3 which contemplated making the “bam** an integral part of a large* »*t.;.ie Neither the Developer nor the City ever contemplated that the bam would remain permanently on the site in its present form as a nomrestdential stracture 2. The Petitioners have no intention of using the bam for a residential dwelling In fact, they have no intention of improving the Property at all. They purchased the property simply to Elfivgfli development of a home on Lot 3. w hich is adjacent to their 30 acre estate. 3. The bam is an eyesore which negatively impacts the aesthetic beauty of a special neighborhood. The owners of homes on Linle Orchard Way do nut appreciate this dilapidated, neglected fire hazard on the block 4. The original Vanance was granted to Mr. Anderson, the Dev eloper He sold the property to another party, who in turn sold to the Dayions The first tw o 121 ow ner» of the lot did intend to build a new home on the property. The Dayions do not, and are using the Vanance to subvert the onginal intent of the City and the original development If, by some chance, this Vanance is granted, the Petitioners should be required at a minimum to renovate and restore the bam. and fully screen the bam from the street w nh landscaping 1 am enclosing photographs w hich illustrate the condition of the bam. Respectfully submitted.i\npceiruiiy surminco. < Steven and Michelle Hoyt SBHmp Steven B. Hoyt 2163 Little (MiinlWty Orotto. Uwmnmt SS39I Phone: 612.803.298S Fee: 992.249.0962 Ettiiil: ihoyt9iciqplas.com ^S^tember 3,2003 Mr. & Mrs. Judd Dayton 825 Old Crystal Bay Road Orono. MN 55391 Dear Judd & Lisa: On behalf of the Caipenlers', Bohls*, Fleischakers’ and Meahans*, could 1 ask you to do something with the old bam on the vacant lot next to us? My understanding was that it would be removed by the Developer, but the property has changed haiids twice and I'm not clear what your plans are. The stnicture is not allow ed by City ordinance unless you intend to use it as a dwelling. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, I /6 Steven B. Hoyt SBH.mp VI MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. September IS. 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL The Commission met on the above mentioned date with the follow ing members present: Chair Sandra Smith. Commissioners David Rahn, J. Mark Fntzler. Jeanne Mabusth. Cynthia Bicmer. Liz Haw n, and Stephanie Zugschw ert. Representing staff w ere Planning Director Mike Gaflron. Planners Melanie Foth and Janice Waauja. Recorder Kristi Anderson and City Council liaison Jim Wltitc. Chair Smith called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA (»l) #03-2935 SCOTT AND KARA HLTTON, 1135 SH.\DY1^'OOD ROAD. VARIANCE Ma bUli Mved, Hawn seconded. In table ApfHcatloo #03-2935, Scott and Kara Notion, 1S35 Shadywood Road, to the October meeting at the rcqnest of staff. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#2) #03-2939 PETE AND MAXINE THORKELSON, 440 BIG ISLAND, CONDITION AL USE PERMIT Mabnstb moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend Approval of AppNcalion #03-2939, Pete and Maiine Tborkeboo, 440 Big Island, a reqnest for a Conditional Use Permil to allow septic system improvements in street right of way provided the following conditions arc met: The applicant acknowledges that placement of septic sys.cm connection pipes within the right-of-way b at their own rbk and the appikaat shall, prior to plaMmcnl of improvemenb whhln the right-of-way, esccnic a hold harmless agreement which releases, lademnHIes and holds harmless the CHy and the pnblic from any and all claims or eanses of action arising ont of the nsc or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant and their Invitees. \'OTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#3) #03-2949 DOUG OLSON AND BARB BOWERS, 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD, VARIANCE hlabnsth moved, Hawn seconded, to recommend Approval of Application #03-2949, Dong Oboo and Barb Bowers, 2601 West Lafayette Road, granting an average lakcshore setback variance for constmetioB of a 2*^ story addition above exbting living space on a borne sitnated approihnatdv 90* into the average lakcshore setback. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nay^ 0. PAGE I of 25 MLNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 15,2003 b:00 o'clock p.m. (»6 #03-2929 JEFF MARTINEAt, CMttaMd) Brener nove<L Rah* iccMded. lo recomnead Appro%al of AppUcatioa #03-292a, Jeff Martiaeoa, 296S Nortk Shore Drive, granliog a Cooditiooal Lse Permit for plvnblag in aa accctMr>' sinictare for a % bath, incladlag slum er/itool/sink« (excladlBg a kitebeaefte) sobjecl lo coacarreal reawvab of excess hardcover to resall la a flaal hardcover aot excccdiag the site's hardcover allolracat of 7530 s.f. for the area betweea 0-290* aad code restrictiooi oa ate of that structare includiag that it: - caaaol be ated for a hoaie occopalioa aaless allowed by home occapatioo ordiaaaces - caaaoC be ased as a dwelliag aail aaless Guest house CL P b obtained - caaaoC be realcd, leased, or otherwise provided for use as dwelliag. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 NEW BUSINESS (#7) #03-2930 SANDRA S. LARSON, 540 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOI TH, \ ARI.ANCES, 7:24 - 7:44 P.M. Kelly Perry, daughter and representative for the Applicants, was present Foth explained that the applicants request side yard and street sctbaci v ariances in order to constnict a 10' x 28' addition lo the north side of the existing home. The proposed addition would not encroach further into the street setback than that of the existing l"»mc, however, would make a confomting side yard setback non-conforming. The proposed addition would encroach 10* into the cunently conforming side yard setback, while there b ample area on the west side of the home to add 282 s.f of additional living space. Since the property is split down the middle by a public alley right of way, this tcsulls in the necessity for a rear yard setback in the center of the property. A fence exists on the alley right-of-way approximately 20' north of the property line between 540 and 5501 property lo the south). The alley has historically served only the 540 and 500 Orono Orchard Road properties; however, a recent home addition and garage reorientation at the 500 address has changed the use of the alley. In summary the alley now serves 540 Orono Orchard Road exclusively. While the Planning Department Staff recommends the follow ing: 1. Approval of the street setback variance, since staff finds that a hardship exists to allow- the decreased setback to the rear yard due to platted right of way which splits the property in half 2. Denial of the side yard setback variance, since staff docs not find a hardship to support the side yard encroachment thus making a currently conforming setback non-conforming PAGE 9 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINO Monday. SqMember IS, 2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (07 003-293$ SANDRA S. LARSON, CoBtinncd) Lissa Harvey. 1199 Elmwood Avenue, complimented the Commission for considering the character of the neighborhood as relevant to the diKussion. She was pleased that they viewed the aesthetics and floorplan as an important element of the proposal. Perry staled that her parents had no plans to build up or further out, since they wished to avoid stairs if possible. Hawn questioned whether the City had granted other similar variances in the neighborhood which would not make this precedent setting. Gaflron stated that, the fact is, other variances in the neighborhood had been granted, including the adjoining neighbor’s property. Zugschwert asked how the other neighbors felt. Perry stated that they were in support of the proposal and had signed off on that regard. BreaMT Moved, Zugschwert seconded, to recoouneod approval of Applkalioo #03* 293S, Kent and Sandra Larson, 540 Orooo Orchard Road, granting street setback and side yard setback variances in order to construct a 10'X2S* addition to the north side of the existing home based on the finding that the hardship b ia keeping with the character of the neighborhood, environmental concern over the loss of 5 large pine trees, and that b b consbtent to what has been done In the past ia that neighborhood. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 2, Chair Smith and Fritxler dissenting. Fritzler recommended denial based on his earlier comments, and Chair Smith felt the approval went too far over the edge, setting a precedent. (ad) M3-2940 SCOT AND LISSA HARVEY, 1 199 ELMU OOD AVENUE, VARIANCES, 7:44 > 8:13 P,M. Scot and Lissa Harvey, the Applicants, were present. Waataja explained that the applicants request the following variances to reconstruct a deck on the lakeside of the home: 1. Hardcover variance for the 0-75’ zone to allow 4.56*/'o hardcover when O’/* is normally allowed and 4.S6/« currently exists. 2. Hardcover variance for the 7.*-250’ zone to allow 38.6% hardcover when 25% is nonnaliy allowed and 38.2% currently exists. 3. Lake setback variance to allow the south west comer of the deck to encroach 3* into the 75’ setback. PAGE 11 of 25 MINUTESOFTHE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, Sq>tember 15.2003 6:00 o'clock p.ni. i*m »t3-2940 SCOT AND LISSA HARVEY, CoatkiMd) WaaUya stated that the applicants have submitted plans to reconstruct a deck that is currently rotted; however, the configuration of the proposed deck is slightly different than the deck that currently exists. Currently, the staircase for the deck extends tow aids the lake off the end of the deck creating safety problems when exiting the house onto the deck. *rhe applicants are proposing to construct decking in the comer to fill in where the stairs currently exist so there is more space on the deck when exiting the home, and relocating the stairs to the front of the deck facing south so as not to encroach into the 75* setback. This resulu in a 33 square foot increase in hardcover in the 75-250’ zone. Staff recommendations: 1. Denial of the hardcover variance for the 0-75’ zone to allow 15 square feel of the deck to encroach into the 0-75’ zone. 2. Approval of the hardcover variance for the 75-250’ zone allowing 38.6*/« hardcover when 38.2% currently exisU and 25% is normally allowed. This includes approval to allow the deck to increase in size in the north west comer by 33 square feet w kich consists of enclosing the comer where the stairway currently exists and moving the stairw ay to the front. 3. Denial of the lake setback variance to allow the south w est comer of the deck to continue to encroach 3’ into the 75 ’ setback. Oiair Smith asked why the applicants should be given the additional 33* of decking. Waataja indicated that if the applicants redesigned their current deck to remove it from the 0-75’ setback, staff felt the additional 33 s.f. was warranted. Hawn agreed that the stairs current location w as dangerous and that they should be moved. Waataja noted that additional issue of the nonconforming shed. Mr. Har\ cy asked why and when the shed became nonconforming and why it should be removed as part of this application. Ms. Har\ ey indicated her astonishment by all the problems that face them in an attempt to merely rebuild the rotting deck. She indicated that they w ere w tiling to move the steps in an effort to make the situation more safe; however, might be forced to leave them in their existing unsafe position to merely get what they had all along. She was hesitant to cut off or step in the deck as suff suggested, since it currently sits over cement and landscaping, and would look absurd. With regard to the shed, she stated that the shed is not noticeable w here it currently si^ and if they w ere forced to move it, the shed would be an eyesore relocated next to their patio, as well as their neighbor’s patio/deck. She noted that the deck sits up off the ground, allowing for drainage, and could not be moved to the other side of the house due to the steep slope. PAGE 12 of 25 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. ScpCembcr 15,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («S #03-2940 SCOT AND LISSA HARVEY, CoaliMcd) Chair Smith stated that difTerent zoning requirements apply to dirfercnt things. Rahn staled that, typically, the Commission has approved reconstruction of c.xisting decks in like size and kind. While he understood the additional 33* deck plan, he suggested the deck be slid dotsn 2'-3* to make the door more accessible. He felt comfortable aIlov\ing the applicants to redesign the deck to fall within the same square footage as the original deck, acknowledging that the building code will mandate a landing at the top of the stairs. Ms. Haney indicated that it would be their desire to replace the deck in kind, in order to cause the least amount of disturbance, if they w ere not going to be granted their requesL The applicants felt the deck could not be slid down far enough to offset the effect of both sets of doors. Hawn indicated that she would like the applicants to be allowed to redesign the current deck square footage to irKorporate an interior stairway and safer access situation. Chair Smith summarized by stating that the applicanu may replace their existing deck w ith a deck of no more square footage than currently exists. Mr. Harvey indicated that they would make an attempt to slide the deck over I* to I I ?*. Mabusth asked how the Commission felt about the shed. Gaffron suggested that the applicants be allowed to keep their shed in its current location, no closer to the road than the current home, in a location that has sen ed them w ell, until such time that it should need to be replaced. Will Piper, resident, commented that moving or sliding the deck over can impact the integrity of the current slab and footings below. Hawn recapped, noting that w hile the hardcover cannot increase, neither can the deck encroach any further into the 0-75* setback than it currently docs. Hawn moved, hlabaslb seconded, to recommend approval of Applicalioa #03-2940, Scot and Lbsa Harvey, 1199 Elmwood Aveaae, graallag the applicaaU the abilitv to replace the cxbtiag deck with a deck of equal square footage, resulting in no hardcover Increase or additional encroachment into the 0-7S* setback, in addition, aMowiag the applicants to keep their shed in its enrreat locatioo until which point it should need to be replaced and a variance application Hied at that lime. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. PAGE 13 of 25 MIN UTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, SqKember 15.2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. m M3-2M2 GEORGE AND MARILYN MILELSNIC, 3243 CASCO CIRCLE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, t:l3 -1:36 P.M. George and Marilyn Mileusnic. the Applicants, and Jim Smith of Concept Landscaping, were present. Foth reported that the applicants request a conditional use permit to construct a 4* retaining t^all wUch will be situated between 6* to 12* from the OHWL, within the 0-75’ rone. The applicants are also proposing to repair a landslide where a failed 8’ retaining wall existed approximately 16’ to 20' from the OHWL and to stabilize a 2:1 slope with an erosion control blanket and plant material. Foth explained that the applicants have applied for a conditional use permit in order to continue with their plan to repair a lakeshore hillside and failed retaining wall. Upon removing an existing ronen wooden stair s>’stem a hillside landslide w as uncovered beneath overgrown grapevines. The existing 8’ retaining wall had partially collapsed and the applicant has proposed to construct a retaining wall 4 ’ in height and import approximately 25 cubic yards of till to maintain a 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope. The applicant proposes to stabilize the slope with an erosion control blanket, mulch and dogwnod plantings. The proposed wall will be constructed further lakeward than the failed 8’ wall. A permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has been obtained for the installation of 60’ of rip-rap and a 6’ x 10’ sand blanket City Engineer, Tom Kellogg, has review ed the site and provided staff w ith a recommendation, w hich Foth summarized as follow s: • The landscape plans should show a proposed slope not to exceed 2: /. • The proposed wall should not e xceed 4 ‘ in height • Installation and maintenance of a silt fence throughout the duration of the project and vegetation he established. Foth indicated that the Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. Retaining wall must not to e.xceed 4 ’ in height and the hillside must be maintained at a slope no greater than 2:1. 2. Plant material must be installed lakew ard of the retaining wall to screen view s of the wall from the lake. While the Applicants knew (here were problems after purchasing the property this spring, they had not known to what extent the erosion has occurred and belies e this to be a great improvement. Smith, of Concept Landscaping, shared photos of the hillside, failed retaining walk and landslide area after removal of the grapevine cover. He indicated (hat the new stairway system also matched a 2:1 slope, and (hat it was his intent to restore the hillside, wiped out PAGE 14 of 25 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. September IS. 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (»9 M3-2M2 GEORGE AND MARILYN MILELSNIC, CaatteMd) aAer the mudslide, with vegetation and establishing a new root system as soon as possible. Smith explained that he would be building a rock retaining wall in an arc shape, maintaining a 2:1 slope on the hillside using a P300 filter system to cover the new soils, deter eroakm, and aikm grov^ih of new vegetation. Hawn asked if the filter fabric would degrade. Smith stated that, eventually, the fabric would virtually disappear, how ever, in the meantime, the fabric would help to establish root growth and preserve new soil. He maintained the inqwrtancc of preserving the new soil and planting dogwoods in the mulch area as soon as possible to encourage root growth. Chair Smith questioned if dogwoods would be used to fill in the entire hillside with groundcover or w hether a variety of natural planu might be used. As th^ fill in and spread. Smith stated that the mass planting of dogwoods provides the best hillside ground cover there is. While he felt there was no problem w ith the proposal, GafTron offered the Commission the opportunity to comment on the plant variety. He questioned whether the Commission might prefer a tree to break up the expanse of the hillside in meeting w ith the intent of the comp plan goal to maintain a natural shoreline. Smith indicated that they would be planting a maple tree at the lakeshore, acknowledging that the dogwoods grow to 4-5’ tall as well. While attractive. Hawn questioned whether the proposal was ‘natural* lakeshore vegetation. Chair Smith agreed, stating that she w ould prefer to see a bit of variety planted amongst the hillside. Ms. Mileusnic questioned how multiple groupings would look on the hillside and whether they would fUlfill the mission of restoring and preventing additional erosion. She felt the do^'oods would pro\ide a more natural hillside than an expanse of lawn iq> the hillside. She pointed out that they also have tw o large trees at the top of the hillside. Zugschweit stated that she believed the dogwoods would provide a natural landscape plan when they fill in. She had no problem with the proposal. Rahn concurred. PAGE 15 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CX)MMlSSION MEETING Monday, Sqxember IS, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (»9 #03-2942 GEORGE AND MARILYN MILEISNIC, CMttoMd) Mabusth questioned whether a tree planted on the hillside might, in fact, cause additional erosion control problems. >MuIe he was intent on establishing a root structure on the hillside. Smith indicated that sumacs or trees inhibit undergrowth by shadowing the undergrowth from taking root. Fritzler stated that he belie\*ed they had presented the best option for what they face. Chair Smith asked for more than one tree. ■mwr aovcd, Hawn seconded, lo rccoMnend Approval of Applicallon #03-2942, 3243 Casco Circle, Jin Snllli of Concept Landscaping on behalf of George and MnrRyn Mllensnic, granting a Conditional Use Pemit lo repair a landslide, constmetion of a 4* retaining waflsilnaled 6* to 12* Don the OHWL, within the 0-7S* setback tone, and maintenance of a slope no greater than 2:1, subject to a mlaimnn of one maple tree planted lakeward of the rctaiaiag walk VOTE: Am 7, Nays 0. Ms. Mileusnic complimented Foth for her assistance and w illingness to work with them. (Rcccas was lahea from 0:36-0:41 P.M.) (#10) #03-2943 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT, 3202 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE, 0:41 - 9:00 P.3I. Robert and Janet Labalt. the Applicants, w ere present. Waataja reported that the applicanu request the following variance to construct an addition, approximately SIS s.f., to the existing home. 1 . Hardcover variance for the 7S-250* zone to allow 37.6®/o hardcover when 25% is normally allowed and S0.S% currently exists. 2. Hardcover variance for the 2SO-500' zone to allow 42.7% hordcovet when 30*/'o is normally allowed and 55% currently exists. 3. Side yard setback variance to allow a setback of 2.8 feet when 10* is required and 2.8* currently exists. 4. Strucmral coverage variance to allow 19.4% when IS*/o is required Waauja explained that the applicants are proposing to buil«: addition to the existing home over existing driveway hardcover and to add a two-si*»> adjoining the proposed addition to the existing home. The applicant is pr - .m additional 1 S square feet ofhardcover for the living addition and an additional 81 s,(uare feet for the deck with significant driveway removals. The nature of this lot requires a shared driveway for the lakeshore lot to the north. Currently, the applicant is not using the shared driveway and is PAGE 16 of 25 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. September IS. 2003 6:00 o'clock pjn. («lf M9-2M3 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT,CMttaMtf) accessing the propaly from the adjacent marina. This lot is currently substandard with respect to har^ver and side yard setback. Waalaja staled that, in fact, when calculating hardcover percentages for the 75-250' zone the area within the shared drivew ay easement (490 s.f) w as taken out of the lot area so as not to either help ot hinder the har^ver percentages. This is because this portion of the shared drive doa not benefit the applicant. The area of the shared driveway within the 250-500' zone was added into the calculations for hardcover because the applicant benefits from this portion of the drive. The dramatic decreases in hardcover amounts for the propo^ are the results of the applicant eliminating the drive access through the marina and utilizing the existing shared drive. This includes a net decrease of approximately 413 square feet of hardcover or 13% in the 75-250' zone. In the 250-500' zone there would be a decrease of approximately 754 square feet or 12%. Although Planning Department staff is encouraged by the proposed decreases in hardcover and the existing drive through the marina being eliminated. Waatrya staled that the overall proposal doesn't fit within requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, because the proposal puU the property over on structural coverage. Staff does not find a hardship w hich w ould allow the applicant to increase their structural coverage from a percentage w hich meets the Zoning Ordinance to a percentage which w ould become non-conforming. 14.9 to 19.4 percent. Allowing this increase in structural coverage would also not fall w ithin what has consistently been approved by the Planning Commission as structural coverage requirements are strictly followed. Waataja also stated the current side yard setback in this location is 2.8'. and although the applicant isn't proposing to get closer to the property line, the deck would extend diagonally from the 2.8' setback to an 11 ‘ setback where it attaches to the proposed addition. Waat^a reported that staff w ould reconunend: 1. Denial of the proposal due to the increases in structural coverage beyond w hat is allowed by Ordinance. No unique hardship has been presented which would justify expanding the current home's footprint, given alternatives for an addition exist. Chair Smith asked the ^iplicants what they w ished to accomplish with the additioa Mr. Labalt explained that they have a pretty small home and small lot and would like more room to accommodate their family. He noted that hardcover is the level it has atw'ays been and be was attempting to decrease the amount of hardcover on the site. Hawn indicated that the issue she found most difficult was that of structural coverage. PAGE 17 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. SqMonber IS, 2003 6:00 o’clock pm (#10 #03.2M3 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT.ConttaMcd) GalTxon stated that the substandard lot allows l.S00s.f. of cover, whereas, the applicants have proposed 1,083 s.f., which is over by about 383 s.f. He suggested that one option might be for the applicants to create a design that would incorporate a tuck under garage or second story on the home. Ms. Labalt feh a tw'o story home would be out of character and stick out like a sore thumb, versus adding out which would be more attractive. Rahn stated that the lot is allowed 1 .500 s.f of structural cover, w hich is virtually where it stands currently, and encouraged the applicants to reconfigure the home to maintain l,5(X) s.f. Mr. Labalt asked if the si/e of the home was about as big as it could get. Mabusih suggested they consider a second story addition and/or tuck under garage for their design and work with sufT to achieve their goals. Chav Smith indicated that they could table for redesign or vote for denial and send them to Council. Mr. Labalt asked that they be sent forw ard to City Council w ith a recommendation. Mark Finney, 3210 North Shore Drive, who shares the driveway access with the Labaltt, stated that he would like his 10' driveway easement back. He maintained that the Labalts had placed stakes along the drivew ay narrow ing up his access and making almost impassable for delivery trucks etc. Mr. Ubalt stated that he placed the stakes along his property line in an effort to reclaim his property that has been overdriven for j^ars. He suted that the neighbor has been encroaching further and further onto his property and the only way for him to reclaim what is rightfully his was to place the stakes on the property line. Gaffron asked if the residents held surveys of their property rights and suggested they contact their own prospective law yers to determine the property line. Labalt stated that he had a recent survey in his possession that backed up his claim. Finney stated that he did not have a sur\ ey. however, stated that the trees prohibit him oh one side from driving further over. He asked if the gravel driveway was grandfathered in one way or another w ith or without a sur\ ey. PAGE 18 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. September IS. 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#10 #03-2943 ROBERT AND JANET LABALT.ConHnned) GalTron stated that the stakes appear to be on the easement line and property disputes canoot be detennined by the City. Mabwatb moved. Chair SMilh secoaded,lo rccomnead dralalof ApplieatiM #03- 2943, Robert aad JaaM Labah, 3202 North Shore Drh e. deayteg the proposal dae to the iacreases la straclaral coverage bevoad what b allowed by Ordlaaace. %’OTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. («l 1) #03-2944 JONATHON MENTH, 2930 CASCO POINT ROAD. VARIANCES, 9:00 - 9:26 P.M. Jonathon Menth, the Applicant, was present. WaaUya reported that the applicant requests the following variance to reconstruct a 26 x 10' deck on a property that is currently over the allowable hardcover amounts. I. Hardcover variance to allow 48** hardcover in the 75-250' zone when 25*« is normally required and 48.5% currently exists. The applicant submitted plans to rebuild an existing deck; however, prior to submitting plans for a variance the existing deck w as removed. Waalaja stated that there was no building permit for the deck and therefore staff is unable to confirm the decks size. The survey submitted shows a proposed 26 x 10 foot deck. The latest assessor's records show a 26 X 6 foot deck. The applicant has stated that he will be replacing the deck that was tom down and the new deck will be the exact size and shape as the old deck with the exception of a staircase that will be moved w ithin the footprint of the deck to reduce hardcover. Because the deck is being replaced over existing patio staff will assume the applicant is merely replacing the 26 x 10 foot deck, not an>ihing larger. *fhe applicants are required to apply for a hardcover variance because the existing property is over on hardcover. A patio currently exists under w here the deck is proposed and therefore hardcover amounts will not change on the property. The deck that was there prior to demolition included a staircase that extended towards the side property line. The new plans for the deck replacement show the stairs moved w ithin the footprint of the deck. Because the previous staircase was not over the patio, hardcover is being reduced by 40 square feet with the relocation of this staircase. Waataja indicated that staff recommends: 1. Approval based on the condition that the deck is replaced in the exact location of the previous deck (26' x 10'). with the c.xception that the staircase be moved within the footprint of the deck and not extend towards the southwestern property boundary* and the patio existing beyond the footprint of the deck be removed. PAGE 19 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORO> T PLANTING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September IS. 2003 6:00 o'clock pjn. (•I I M3-2944 JONATHON MENTH. CoatteMd) Menth stated that his parents bought the home in 1991 and that he belie\’ed the original deck, as built in 1967 ^-as 6'X26'. however had been enlarged over the >tars. He acknowledged that the deck he removed w as in poor condition, rotting, and unsafe, while the patio below was a poured slab and footings in fine shape. He stated that it would be his desire to replace the deck he tore off and keep the lower patio as is, since he was unsure whether removal of the footings around the edge of the patio might jeopardize the integrity of the whole slab. Zugschwert inquired what size the deck w as that the applicant tore off. Menth staled that it was probably closer to 8*X26' than his proposed I0'X26'. At the tinte he removed the deck. Menth pointed out that he also had removed railw ay tics in the 0-75’ setback zone in an effort to r^uce hardcover and clean up the shoreline. Rahn stated that he was confiised by the size of the lower patio, as well as, the upper deck. Menth stated that the lower patio was surrounded by a pea gravel type rock which made the edge somew hat uodefmed. Rahn quesUoned whether the deck and patio should be reduced to the original 8'X26*. Bremer empathized with the applicants concern that if the slab patio w as cut back and the footings removed, it might jeopardize the integrity of the whole patio. Upon doing some soil correction himself. Menth made note that the perimeter of the patio slab seemed to have a foundation of sorts under it. Hawn too. believ ed the patio should be cut back unless it compromised the integrity of the slab and questioned how they would determine this. Bremer stated that she could support the proposed 10’X26’ deck. Hawn asked where the 10'X26' proposal came from. Mabusth pointed out that the proposed 10*X26’ deck docs not cause any encroachment problems, or increase hardcover; how ever, there is already excessive hardcover Gaffron suggested they cut off the slab, if the integrity of the slab is in tact, to equal the amount or size of the above deck. Hawn suggested they table the application to answer the integrity question. PAGE 20 of 25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 15,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. («l 1 #03-2944 JONATHON MENTH, CMtiaaed) Menth indicated that he would prefer to move forward this e\*ening in an effort to complete his project before winter. Bremer reiterated that she w ould support the staff recommendation. Mabusth agreed, reminding the Commission that the applicant does not exceed his structural coverage allow’ance. e\ en thou^ his hardcover might be excessive. Chair Smith stated that whatever the dimensions of the deck, the patio must be cut back to be in line with the deck. Bremer and Zugschwert felt I0'X26’ was accepuble, while Rahn. Chair Smith, and Hawn felt 8*X26' was more acceptable. Frilzler recommended a 6*X26* deck based on assessor's records. Mabusth reiterated that the application was not a strtictural question; therefore, there should be little to deter approval of the I0'X26' deck, and r^uction in kind to the patio below. She questioned what other hardcover cuuii tK- •(.:>ivivcd, since the applicant had already removed railroad tics in the 0-75'. There were no public comments. hlabusih aunred, Breaier sceoaded, lo rccoaiaMad Approv al of AppHcattoa #03-2944, Joaalhoa Mealh, 2930 Casco Point Road, graaliag approv al of a I0'X26* deck based OB the nadiBg that the appUcaal had removed SI 2 s.f. of railroad lies from the 0-7S\ tabjcct lo the patio bcaeatb heiag reamved lo be ia Uac wRb ibe acw deck, thus resahiag ia a hardcover redactloB, per staff recomaieadalioBS. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Frhaler dbseatlBg. Fritzler referred lo his earlier comments for denial. (#12) #03-2946 CLIFFORD L. OTTLN, 23SO WEST WAYZATA BOtLEVARO, CONDITIONAL USE PERhllT, 9:26 - 9:30 P.M. John O'Rath and Will Piper, representatives for the Applicant, were present. Gaffron explained that the applicant has requested an amendment to PUD-1 commercial site plan approval to allow construction of a greenhouse roof system over a small portion of the property between the existing principal structure and the greenhouse roof system approved in 1998. PAGE21of25 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. September IS, 2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. ((112 #03-2946 CLIFFORD L. OTTEN, CoattaMd) Planned Unit Development No. I (PUD No. I) was approve in 1990 for Onen Brothers Nursery and Landscaping for a commercial development at this site and the property was subsequently so developed. In 1998 the City adopted Amendment No. 1 to PUD-1 to allow a gre^ouse roof system to be constructed over a 19,000 s.f area Just east of the main building. This construction left a 20* x 92* (1840 s.f) open corridor between the greenhouse and the main building, which the applicant now w ishes to cover w ith greenhouse roofing in a similar manner. Building Oflicial Lyle Oman has noted that the existing greenhouse has a fire sprinkler system w hich w ould be extended to iiKlude the new roof area. The additional greenhouse roof w ill have no impact on tralfic circulation for the site. While the enclosure of the current space w ith a greenhouse is not intended by the applicant to change the use of that space, it is meant to provide it with climate control that allows its use to be extended in the spring and fall. Gaflron reported that staff recommends approval of an amendment to the PUD-1 Agreement to allow construction of the greenhouse roof addition as proposed. There were no public comments. Hiwb moved. Mabusth secoaded. to rccommead Approval of AppUcalhw #2946. Ofteo Brothers .Xurserv. 2350 West WavaaU Boulevard - Amend Coauncrcial Site Plan (PUD-1) to allow construction of the greenhouse roof addition as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 7. Nays 0. (#13) #03-2948 WJ.M PROPERTIES. LLC. 2605 WEST WAYEATA BOULEVARD, CONDITIONAL USE PER3UT EXTENSION. 9:30 - 9:40 P.M. Peter Johnson. Applicant's representative, was present. Gaffron reported that WJM Properties requests a 16-month extension of the approvals granted in Resolution No. 484S. The applicant also requests that a S' fence no less than SWi opaque, be substituted for the screening berm and plantings required at the north and northeast end of the east parking lot. To recap, Gaffron staled that, in August 2002 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 4845 granting Industrial Site Plan Approval and a CUP per Zoning Code Section 10.50 Subd. 3(A) to permit use of the propeny for a w holesale distribution facility, repair, paru warehouse, and fleet sales and leasing lot. Due to delays caused primarily by conditions imposed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District related to weilaix) buffer and easement requirements, WJ.M Properties has now applied for an extension of the approvals granted in Resolution No. 4845 to December 31.2004, or an extension of 16 months. PAGE 22 of 25 II I iitUti MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. September 15,2003 6:00 o’clock p.m. (#13 #03-294« WJM PROPERTIES. LLC. Coatlaacd) Staff finds no apfurent issues with an extension of the prior approval, noting that Monies has been making revisions to the interior and exterior of the building and has complied to date with the conditions of the Resolution. ^\’h^lc staffbclicvcs the fence should be allowed. Gaffron indicated they believe it should only be an interim screening solution, and that a condition be established that the berm and plantings shall be required at such time that the applicants’ issues with the MCWD arc resolved. It should be noted that all improvements resulting in the creation of additional impervious surface have been put on hold. These include the new display lot at the north end of the building, the driveway . long the west side, and the new parking areas south of the building. However, use of the existing cast parking lot w ill eventually commence, and its screening is necessary regardless whether the remaining elements arc constructed. Staff recommends approval of extension of the timeframe for applicant to meet the conditions of approval of Resolution No. 4845 to December 31.2004; and recommends approval of an amendment of the existing CUP to allow for interim use of fencing in lieu of berms and vegetation along the north and northeast sides of the parking lot. per applicants stated amendment language subject to the following condition: 1.The iK-nn and plantings shall be required at such lime that the applicants* issues with the MCWD arc resolved. Johnson explained that the site was ar environmental contamination site, w hich Monies had no connection with, but might be forced to mediate. Since the lime of the original approvals. MCWD has identified 5 new wetlands on the south side which were original drainage ditches and must be mediated. NMule Momes had hoped they would not have to excavate and disturb the contaminatic.n site, they plan to work with the MCWD to resohe the issues and complete their site plan work w iihin the next 16 mo:Uhs as originally envisioned. Hawn asked if the proposal would be revised to include the berms at tha* time. Johnson stated that they had hoped that, if they followed the letter of the couc by installing the opaque fencing, they ..light be relieved from the requirement to install the berms. Chair Smith asked what the timeline for completion might be. Johnson su.ed that it was their intention to pull permit.x by December 31.2004. Gaffron stated that, as part of the CUT. the City gave Monies permission to put in lots in particular places if they put in the landscape berms and screening. While he agreed that the fencing offered an interim solution. Gaflron suggested that the applicants be required to PAGE 23 of 25 I L MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monda>. September 15,2003 6;00 o'clock p.m. (#13 #0: WJM PROPERTIES. LLC, Crattaved) construct the berms once they have uorked out their problems with the especially since the Planning Commission had gene to great lengths to screen the site in the original applicatioN. Rahn agreed, stating that screening a critical piece of the proposal. There were no public comments. Hawn Mosed, Mabastli sccoMicd, lo recommend Approval of Application #03-2948, WJM Properties, LLC, 2005 West ayzala Boulevard, graating a ConditioBal Lise Permit Eileasioa of the Umeframe for appUcaat lo meet the coadilioas of approval of ResolulkHi No. 4845 lo December 31.2004; aud rccomoieads approval of an ameudmeat of the eiistiag CUP lo allow for lalerim use of feaclag la lieu of berms and vegetalioo aloag the aortb aad northeast tides of the parking lot, per appMcaats staled ameadoMBl language subjecl to Ihe conditioa Ibal the berm and plaaliags shall be required al such time that the appUcanU* issues with Ihe .MCWD are rcsohed. VOTE: Ayes 7, NaytO. PLANNING COM.MISSION CO.MMENTS (#14) REPORT OF PLANNI.NG COM3IISSION REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETI.NGS OF AUGUST 25, AND SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 GolTron reported that, during the August 25-*' Council meeting. John Jones, of North Shore Drive, spoke during public comments u ith regard to his application and the lack of a half story ordinance. City Council directed suilT to work w ith Mr. Jones to come lo a reasonable conclusion on his application; how ever. Gaffron stated that they have been unable to w ork out agreeable terms to date. Zugschw ert indicated that the only item on the Council agenda for September 8*^ w as the Thompson application request for oversize accessory space, which the Council denied by unanimously supporting the Planning Commission recommendation. (#15) OTHER ISSUF.S FOR DISCUSSION Gaffron reported that, as of last Saturda>. the new Code was codified and adopted. Rahn suggested that, in the future, when the Commission discusses an item on the agenda and feels the need to ‘tweak* the language in the code, if this could be done in a Planning Commission rather than holding an additional work session on the item. P.\GE 24 of 25 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING Monday. September 15,2003 6.-00 o'clock p.m. («1S OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION. CaalteMd) Gallon stated that, in the past, the Planning Commission has chosen to schedule a work scsskm to allow them to discuss and adjust the appropriate language for the code. He agreed that the Commission could use a regular meeting to suggest that new language be added to the code on a specific item, allow Gaffron the time to collect and review the suggestion, and present it at a work session. (#16) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST It. 2003 Hawn BMved. Frilxler seconded, approving the Minutes of the July 21,2003. PInnning Coaindssion Meeting as presented, VOTE: Ayes S, Nays 0. (#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF .MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 3.2003 WORK SESSION (#lt) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL .MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 22, AND OCTOBER 13.2003. September 22 - Bremer w ith Frit/ler as back-up ADJOURNMENT October 13 -Mabusth Hawn nM»vcd. Chair Sndlh seconded, to adjonm the Planning Commission nweting at 9:51 P.M. VOTE: Ayes 7. Nays 0. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting w as adjourned at 9:40 P.M. Saadra Smith. Chair MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday. September IS. 2003 ^rOO o’clock pjn. (IMS OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION, CMtiaacd) Gaflioa staled that, in the past, the Planning Commission has chosen to schedule a work session to allow them to discuss and adjust the appropriate language for the code. He agreed that the Commission could use a regular meeting to suggest that new language be added to the code on a specific item, allow Gaflhm the time to collect and review the suggestion, and piesem it at a work session. («I6) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST It, 2003 Hawn movetf, Fritdcr sccaadcd, approving the Minutes of the July 21,2003, PteaBiag Commissloa Mcettog as prcscatcd. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nay^ 0. (#17) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEhlBER 3,2003 WORK SESSION (#10) SELECTION OF REPRESENTATIVES FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON SEPTEMBER 22, AND OCTOBER 13,2003. September 22 - Bremer with Fril/ter as back-up ADJOURNMENT October 13 -Mabusth Hawa BMved, Chair Smith seconded, to adjourn 9:S1 PJH, VOTE: Ayes 7, Naya 0. ’lanaiag Commtesloa aKctiag at _ _ . _ .-r'J