The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-19-2001 Planning PacketMINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21,2001 without the ability to vie\v oncoming vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed attached garage would allow the vehicles to back out into the yard and approach tlic street at an angle, which would improve the views to tlic street os \.-cll as allowing vehicles traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vehicles from the Applicant's property. Staff is recommending that the proposed gara;.e be made smaller due to the amount of lot coverage being proposed on this site and located no closer tlran five feel from the lot line. Suff would be in favor of allowing the garage to be relocated to provide for improved site lines. Staff suggests a small area be provided as a turn-around. Staff would support equal replacement of tire structural coverage to the amount which currently c.xists before remodeling. Hcdblom, 2601 Casco Point Road, stated he is aware of the Applicants’ plans to make these modifications on their propctt>’, and in his view all the neighbors in the immediate area are in support of lire project, licdblom conunented in his opinion the changes being recommended by Staff would be acceptable to the Applicants. Hcdblom noted the improvements being proposed only mininully impact his property. Hcdblom stated if possible, the Applicants would like to keep the size of the garage at what was originally proposed, but would be w ilhng to reduce the size of the garage if nccessar>‘. WTielan, Contractor, stated the>' arc proposing to construct the garage more in front of the house in an effort to Umil tire amount of vehicle noise currently being experienced from Casco Point Rood. There were no public comments regarding this application. Hawti coriuncmcd any construction in the area of the property line would negatively Impact the pine trees in that area ind may need to be removed Hcdblom staled they ate going to check into whether the pine trees would need to be removed as a result of this project. Hcdblom stated they are not opposed to removal of the trees and would be willing to plant new trees follow ing construction Hcdblom conunented one of the trees has alt^dy PAGE 3 r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21,2001 experienced storm damage and is not in very good shape. Kluth indicated he would be reluctant to grant any increase to hardcover on this lot. Kluth inquired whether the Applicants discussed Uic hardcover issue with City Staff Kluth indicated the Planning Commission lias been very reluctant to grant any increases to hardcover in the past. Hedblom noted the deck would be removed as part of this project. Hedblom stated tlic situation with the garage in its present location is very dangerous and needs to be addressed. Hedblom noted the present driveway is very short and relocation of the ga'agc would allow safer access into the property. Kluth stated the issue he has with the garage is the proposed size due to tlic amount ofliardcover and structural coverage presently on the lot. Hedblom commented in his view the Applicants would be willing to reduce the size of the garage. 1 lawn pointed out the Planning Commission has taken a very strict policy on increasing structural co\‘cragc, and if approval is granted on the current proposal, a precedent would be set. Hawn noted the amount of structural coverage already existing on the lot is in excess of tlic allowable amount. Gaffron staled in order to meet the amount of existing structural coverage on the lot, the garage would need to be reduced to 24’ by 26*. Mabusth inquired w hether the Applicants have given any consideration to removal of the boat house. Hedblom stated the Applicants would like to keep the boathouse since it provides storage for their dock materials and serves a useful purpose. Hawn stated she would be in support of doing some improvements to the driveway. Hawn stated tlic current proposal docs not really allow for a turnaround and in her view should be modified somewhat. Hawn inquired what hardcover would result if a turnaround were added. GafTroc stated if the garage were reduced, the amount of driveway would also be reduced PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21.2001 somewhat. Gaflron stated the Applicants arc also proposing to remove some landscape p!a:>tic and rock as part of tlus project. OalTron stated the amount of hardcover resulting from the turnaround would probably be between SO to 100 square feet. Hawn suggested that perhaps by moving the garage forward somewhaL the amount of driveway could be reduced slightly. Gaffron stated moving the garage forward would possibly result in a reduction of 50 to 100 square feet of hardcover. Klutli indicated he would be like to sec a revised plan sliowing tltc proposed changes prior to voting on this application. GafTron stated the Planning Commission could review the revised plan at their March meetiiig. Hcdblom stated they would like to go before the City Council at their March meeting if possible. Hawn coiiuncntcd the Applicants will need to submit a revised plan depicting the smaller sized garage in its new location with a turnaround added so the Planning Commission will know exactly the amount of hardcover and structural coverage being proposed. Hawn commented for safety reasons she would be in support of some improvements being done to the garage and driveway situation I lawn indicated the Applicants w ill need to limit structural coverage to the amount currently existing, which is 17 percent. Kluth stated he is opposed to tlie plan being presented tonight since it exceeds the existing structural coverage. Gaffron noted the Applicants would be required to extend the review period for this application since the 120 days expire the 16*“ of March. Gaffron stated tlic City has a standard form tlut tlic Applicants will need to sign extending the review period Hawn moved. Kluth seconded, to table Application M2644, Gary and Joan Marquardt, 2617 Casco Point Road, to allow the Applicants time to submit a revised plan. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21,2001 VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. J) <12654 THE LION CROUP, ON BEHALF OF JAMES BULL, 1330 CHERRY PL^, VARIANCE, 6;58 p.m. - 7:06 p.m. James Buk Applicant, was present. The CertifieJ^f Mailing and Affidavit of Publication were noted. Gaffron stated th^^plicants are requesting variances to lot area to allow for the redevelopment of this property wliich is^ted in Uic LR-IB District. The request U to permit the lot as a buUdable record lot for a period of on^ear. Currently the property has an existing residence located on it and is a lakeshore lot. Oaflron noted this lot consists of .6^re. with the LR-IB District requiring a minimum of one acre. Orono ’s Zoning Ordinance allows^^ to be considered record lots when they meet 80 percent of the zoning requirements for lot area, whiclNbis lot does not meet and requires a lot area variance. The property exceeds the required lot requirements of 140 feet by having a defined lot width of 145 feet at the 75 foot lakeshore s^ack. Gaffron indicated tlicre is a house to the south of this propcK|^witli a 50 foot right-of->vay to the north of the site. Gaffron stated a new residence can be Autructed meeting the City’s other requirements. Gaf&on noted the Applicants will need to meetOtf 25 percent hardcover limit. Gaffron indicated there are other loU in the area which are below dlv acre. Dull had nothing further to add to City Staff s report. There were no public comments. Hawn indicated she does not have a problem w ith this application. Mabusth inquired whether the existing detached garage will remain. PAGE 6 Application Date: 11/15/00 Deadline Date: 3/16AH TO: Chair 1 lawn and Orono IManning Commission Members Roti Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/lManner DATE: February 15,2001 SUB.IF.CT; 02644 Gary and Joan Marquardt 2617 Casco Point Road Variances •• Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: List of Exhibits LR-IC One Family Ukeshore Residential District (1/2 acre) 17,467 s.f.(.40 acre) A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Applicant ’s Summary of Permit Request D Plat Map E Survey F Survey/Site Plan G Hardcover Calculation Worksheets H Lakeside Elevation View I Side Elevation View J Lower Floor Plan K Upper Floor Plan L Site Photos M Property Owners Notification List Application Summary Tlic applicants arc requesting a two part application to 1) permit a second story addition above the existing single stoiy house within a required side yard, and 2) addition of a 30' X 30' attached garage 2 85' from the side property line where 10* is required and 21.76' from the front property line where 30' is required A 20' X 22' two stall detached garage, located 18' from the front property line would be removed as well as a 751 s.f. deck on the lakeside of the residence. The site alteration would include an increase in structure on the property. Currently, the propertv is developed over the 25% allowed hardcover in the 75-250' setback.______________________ •:M4 Gar> arxl ioan Mar4iur<lt 2617 CaKO Puini RoaJ - MIk IkKMIg Page I 0/5 PcHincni Code Scciions I.Section 10.22, Subtlivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I.) (2): To permit an alteration to c.xisting hardcover over the allowed 25%. Lot Area 75-250* Allowed Hardcover E.xisting Hardcover Proposed I lardcovcr I2,727s.r. 3,181 s.f.(25%) 3,710 s.f. (29% of which 220 sf or 11V» is rock/plasiic) (27.3 /o) 4,902 s.f. (38%) (rock/plastic removed) 2. Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): To permit greater than 15% lot coverage by structures. Lot Area Allowed Coverage Existing Coverage I’roposcd Co\ erage 17,467 s.f. 2,620 s.f. (15%) 2,970 s.f. (17%) 3.237 .s.f. (18.5%) 267 s.f. increase in lot coverage Section 10.25, Subdiv ision 6 (13): To permit an encroachment into the .side .setback 2.85* from the side property line for construction of a 30* X 30* attached garage, where a 10* .side setback is required anJ to permit the g.iragc adilition 21.76* frotn the front propertv’ line where a 30* setback is requited. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (U): To permit an encroachment into the side setback 2.64 ’ from the side property line to permit the addition of a second story above the existing residence within the required 10' side setback Required Sctbaj^s JJijr Front V'ard = 30' Side Yard “ 10* Discussion: Applicants have addressed the issue of egress and ingress to the property with the existing garage location. The existing garage is located only 18* from Casco Point Road and frees the road creating a potentially hazardous situation with vehicles backing out to the road w ithout tlie ability to view on coming vehicles and pedestrians. Several obstacles including a neighKning fence, tree and telephone pole block much of the view to the street. The attached garage allow s the \ chicles to back out into the yard and approach the sUeet at an angle improving views to the street as well as allowing vehicles traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily siew entering vehicles from tlic applicant’s property. In the applicant’s letter of request they have stated there have been dozens of brake screeching ne.u misses while backing out. The concern is the loeation of the proposed attached garage that would be located only 2.85* from the side lot line where a 10* setback is required. Construction of the house w^s before the adoption of the current zoning standards. The site plan show^ the location of the house in relation to the property line. The garage would not encroach any closer to the side property' line than the house. •2644 G«0 2617 CaKO Poini Roja Variance* •• Public Hewing Pi«<2ef) 1 The second story addition is within the 10’ side setback. Adding a second story would place a full two stor>’ structure only 2.64’ from the side lot line. The adjacent house is more than 20’ away allowing for adequate separation between the existing buildings. However, redevelopment or additions to the adjacent house could eliminate some of the separation between the buildings. Hcvletv of ilardshin 1. The total hardcover on the property would be increased primarily due to the longer driveway required to .safely access the house. Several obstacles including a neighboring fence, tree and telephone pole block much of the view to the street to the existing garage entrance. The attached garage allows the vehicles to back out into the yard (but a paved backup apron would make more .sense) and approach the street at an angle improving views to the street ns well as allowing vehicles and pedestrians traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vehicles from the applicant ’s property. 2. TItc property as developed c.xcecds the allowed hardcover. A large 750 s.f. lakeside deck along the lakeside of the house would being removed to reduce some hardcover closest to the lake. A 14’ X 14’ four season porch would be constructed in its place. The four scasoO porch would be located 105 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Miiuietonka. 3. 'Ihe property was developed prior to tlw adoption of the zoning ordinance. TIte house is approximately 10’ from the side lot line at the lakeside and is angled to a poitit where the house is only 2.85 ’ from the property hire. A second story addition has been dedgned to leave the front '/j (lakeside) of the existing house to t»ne story. Only the back '/; (street side) would have a second story ’. This concentrates the massing of the stiucture further from the lakeshorc. and cases the burden of the \ iew s from adjacent residences ti>w ards the lake.shorc. 4. I he overall lot c(»verage by structures increases by 267 s.f Most of the ma.ssing has been relocated from the lakeside of the residence to the street side to allow for the larger garage. 1 or a lot cov erage variance to l>e approved an actual hardship must be demonstrated to allow the increase in structure. The Council has in many situations allowed a property to replace the total existing structure when remodeling, but it is uncommon to allow a net increase when already exceeding 15%. .Staff Rfcommcnd alloti Staff can support the project to allow the garage to be relocated and provide for improved site lines without the property ow’ners having to request trees be removed to open site lines. Staff also supports eqinl replacement of the structural coverage to the amount existing before remodeling. Under that scenario the applicants could replace structure not to exceed 2,970 s.f. on the lot. The reduction in t« • d structural coverage would allow, at a minimum, a 24’ X 26’ two stall garage and not require an> other stnrctural changes to the plan. Staff also suggests that the proposed driv eway be reshaped to allow a functional back up apron. The result is a net 75-250 ’ hardcover increase from 3.490 s.f. (27.3%) to approximately 4,650 s.f. (36.5%), the majority of which is a result of added driveway. The stated hardship for the increase is primarily safety of access to this busy portion of Casco point Road. Also. StalTsuggests that the new attached garage be offset to maintain at least a 5 ’ setback to the lot line. •2S44 Gao 26l7Caico Poml Roail Vwianert •• P«iW*c Hcanog Pa|« 3 or 5 y*giiincnt Code Sections 1.Seclion 10.22, Subdivision 2 and Scclion 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2): To permit an alteration to c.xisting hardcover over the allowed 25%. I.ot Area 75-250’ 12,727 s.f. ____ Allowed Hardcover 3,181 s.f. (25%)^X’ n ^4-^ HxistingHardcover 3,710s.f.(29%) o^r ^ ^ A Proposed Hardcover 4,902 s.f. (38%) IS t C^vMy.') IP Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): To permit greater than 15% lot coverage by structures. Lot Area Allowed Coverage Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 17,467 s.f. (15%)P 2,620 s.f. (17%) O 2,970 s.f. (18.5%) 3.237 s.f. 267 s.f. increase in lot coverage Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (D); To permit an encroachment into the side setback 2.85' from the side proper!) line for construction of a 30' X 30’ attached g.irage, where a 10’ side setback is required and to permit the garage addition 21.76’ from the front property line where a 30’ setback is required. Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (13): To pemiit an encroachment into the side setback 2.64’ from the side property line to pemtit the addition of a second .stor>- above the existing residence within the required 10’ side setback. hequired Scthacks,L,RJ_C Front Yard » 30’ Side Yard » 10’ Discussion: Applicants luivc addressed the issue of egress and ingress to the property with the existing garage location. 1 he existing garage is located only 18' from Casco Point Road and faces the road creating a potentially hazardous situation with vehicles backing out to the road without the ability to view on coming vehicles and pedestrians. Several obstacles including a neighboring fence, tree and telephone pole block much of the view to the street. I'he attached garage allows the vehicles to back out into the yard and approach the street at an angle improving views to the suect as well as allowing vehicles traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vcliiclcs from the applicant’s property. In the applicant’s letter of request Uiey liave stated there have been dozens of broke screeching near misses while backing out. The concern is the location of the proposed attached garage that w ould be located only 2.85’ from the side lot line w here a 10’ setback is required. Con."'*: action of the house w as before the adoption of the current zoning standards. The site plan shows the location of the house in relation to the property line. The garage would not encroach any closer to the side property line than the house. f 2frt4 Gif> and Joan Starquardl 2617 Caico Pomi Road VwiwMt - PitbU Hcafiag Pa|< 2 of 5 The second story addition is within the 10’ side setback. Adding a second story would place a full two story structure only* 2.64’ from the side lot line. The adjacent house is more than 20' away- allowing for adequate separation between the existing buildings. However, redevelopment or additions to the adjacent house could eliminate some of the separation between the buildings. 1. The total hardcover on Uic property would be increased primarily due to the longer driveway required to safely access the house. Several obslacles including a neighboring fence, tree and telephone pole block much of the view to the street to the existing garage entrance. The attached garage allows the vehicles to back out into the yard (but a paved backup apron would make more sense) and approach the street at an angle improving view-s to the street as well as allow ing • hides and pedestrians traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vehicles from the applicant’s property. 2. The property as developed exceeds the allowed hardcover. A large 750 s.f iakeside deck along the lakeside of the house would being removed to reduce some hardcover closest to the lake. A 14* X 14' four season porch would be constructed in its place. The four season porch would be located 105 ’ from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. 3. The property was developed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. The house is approximately 10’ from the side lot line at the lakeside and is angled to a point where the house is only 2.85 ’ from the property line. A second story ’ addition has been designed to leave the front */j (lakeside) of the existing house to one story. Only the back '/j (suect side) would have a second story. 1 his concentrates the massing of the structure further from the lakcshore, and eases the burden of the views from adjacent residences tow ards the lakcshore 4. The overall lot coverage by structures increases by 267 s.f Most of the mussing h.»s been relocated from the lakeside of the residence to the street side to allow for the larger garage. For a lot coverage variance to be approved an actual hardship must be demonstrated to allow the increase in structure. The Council has in many situations allowed a property to replace the total existing structure when remodeling, but it is uncommon to allow a net increase when already e.xeceding 15®/o. ^taff Recommendation Staff can support the project to allow the garage to be relocated and provide for improved site lines without the property owners having to reque.st trees be removed to open site lines. Staff also supports equal replacement of the structural coverage to the amount existing before remodeling. Linder that scenario the applicants could replace structure not to exceed 2,970 s.f on the lot. The reduction in total structural coverage would allow, at a minimum, a 24' X 26’ two stall garage and not require any other structural changes to the plan. Staff also suggests that the proposed drivew-ay be reshaped to allow a functional back up apron. Also, Staff suggests that the new attached garage be offset to maintain at least a 5 ’ setback to the lot line. •2644 Cvy and Joan Maf^uardt 2617 CaKO Point Rood Vwiancca - PvWk Hcahn| P^tJofS 1 Option! tor Action; 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, staling reasons. 3. Table for additional information or plan revisions. 4. Other action. •2644 Gvy Md low Mar^Mi* 2617 Casco Podu Road Vananct* - fobtic Hariog Fate 4 or 3 EXHIBIT A ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Area; LR-IB Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f.d acre) Actual 17,467 s.f. (.40 acre) Structural Coverage: Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 17,467 s.f.Allowed: 2,620 s.f. Existing: 2,970 s.f. Proposed: 3,237 s.f. Hardcover C alculation!: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75*4,740 s.f.Os.f.411 s.f. (8%) No Change 75-250’12,727 s.f.3,181 s.f. (25%) 3,710 s.f. , > (29%) 4,902 s.f. (38%) 12644 Qmy and Joan Mar^Mr* 2ol7 CiKO PoMi Road VariKK-et - Public Hcarinf P^tofS ApplicadoQ U____ - Date Received tiffs’ Amount Paid CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from origbal application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 Aftcr-lhe-Fact Fees G^ouble application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION , J Property IdcntificaUon Number (P.I.D.). T *» 7 “ ^ A Uoni f!»»«;crintloii to aoDlication if not included on required surv y. .<3SC> Date Property Acquired________--------------------------------------------- 1 (do) (don^ also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: presidential -----mother (specify). Zoning District; --------- (month/year) -------- applicant Name /C a A^ AA^^eKf^r-U:i’7 CAsOO Ad Phone (home).f? / Phone (wik)_4IZ::iiie:^l^'^p City: roiC, o ^ K/ A/* Zip:Ji_5_2.^!l/_ OWTsER (if different than applicant) Name Address;.Cit>:. Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Zip:. description of REQUEST Describe request in detail; ____ Estimated Construction Cost.S —/ .... r. Mf fi.fTt.tkrJ Z^L-LfitLX /oD ^ (anach nddiuonal sheets if necessary) P^UU> OA^ t A CQ VARIANCES REQUIRED ___Lot Area Setback:Front Lot Width ^Sidc j/ Hardcover _Lot Coverage Rear __ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION of unusual BtevenOng Describe undue hardship or practical ^ compliance with Zoning Code requirements: —•_-------------- fitiAft Ur< sr B<«(i/d ‘oAv ---------------------------------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) ] Marquardt November 200U Background Affidavit For Building Permit Gary and Joan Marquardt 2617 Casco Point Road Orono MN 55391 612-720-6916 W 953-471-0476 H.K ..fj) p •jJ fH r - • rs-ii. My wife and 1 have lived at 2617 Casco Point Road since November 1905. We raised our children here and have been contributing members of our community. We have done little to our house since purchasing it. In the storms of May a year-and-a-half ago, we sustained serious roof damage and serious deck damage from our neighbor's 250-year-oid oak tree falling across our house and deck. We began then planning our remodeling project with these needed repairs as a beginning point. We enjoy our neighborhood, our community and our location and as we approach retirement we have decided to live in this house through our retirement years. In order to be safe and comfortable our project planning addressed the following Issues: 1. Garage...The entrance to the garage has been a dangerous feature since we moved in. a. Our garage door is only 18.4 feet from the road making ingress and egress a very dicey maneuver. b. We have had Itterally dozens of brake screeching near misses backing out. c. The garage is very small, barely v;ide enough for two cars and too short for my car. It will not accommodate our two cars, much less a lawnmower and snow blower, thus we always have at least one car parked on the road. 2. Entry to our house...The entrance of the house Is on the very East end of the house and is difficult to negotiate vrith grocery bags etc. and poorly placed. With the entrance trapped in a corner of one end of the house the middle of the house has very little natural light. 3. The deck...Our deck wras damaged, and it is weakened by the storm damage in 1993. and it is old and rotten and at the least needs replacing. We have In our proposal the removal of the deck to help with our hardcover situation with a proposed on-ground patio near the proposed new entrance. 4. Road noise...Our house Is very close to the road with the master bedroom on the very East end adjacent to the existing main entrance. We have an impossible lime sleeping past 6:00 in the morning due to road noise. 5. Roof... The existing roof was wind damaged and damaged by trees falling. It needs to be replaced and some of the underlying sheathing and underlay needs repair or replacement This repair Is best done when we add the second story. The sight lines and the height of the house Is not an Issue with any of the neighbors. ] ] ] Marquardt Novombor 2000 Planning and Preparation We have a rather extensive plan to remodel our house and remedy the five problems that we have stated above as well as adding needed living space on the proposed new second story on iiie East half of the house. Other than tfie proposed new attached garage, the footprint of the existing house does not change. There are setback issues and hardcover issues that are ever-present on Casco Point with the pre-existing pie shaped lots that will have to be dealt with. We had a survey and hardcover calculation done through Danburry last spring. We were not finished with our planning when Danburry went to the city and have opted for different contractors for this project. We have talked with all our neighbors and shown them our plans. We have been especially detailed in cur meetings with both the Hedbloms (North of us) and the Stinsons (South of us) and have letters from them stating that they have no objections to our proposed remodel plan. Our hardship case is based on the Issue of safe access is the existing garage and our need to move the entrance and the master bedroom to have a living condition where we can sleep without being awakened by road noise. Planned Remodeling We propose to raise and remove the existing garage Including the driveway and concrete pad. The part of this space not needed for the proposed new driveway will become lawn and garden space. We propose to build a new attached garage situated on the East end of the house running along the lot line. The existing garage and slab will be removed. The existing master bedroom will be converted to storage area where It attaches to the proposed new garage. We propose an earthen berm along Casco Point Road around which the proposed new driveway would go. This would help reduce noise and water runoff from the road toward the lake. The roof must be replaced due to storm damage no matter what. With this in mind, on the existing footprint of the house, wo propose to add a second story on the East half of the house to allow for a master bedroom, a master bath, an additional bedroom and walk-in closet. Having the bedroom upstairs will further abate the noise problem from Casco Point Road. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21.2001 without the ability to view oncoming vehicles and pedestrians. The proposed attached garage would allow the vehicles to back out into the yard and appioach the street at an angle, wrhich would improve the views to the street os x.-ell as allowing vehicles travc'mg on Casco Point Road to more easily viexv entering vehicles from the Applicant's property. Staff is recommending that the proposed gara;,c be made smaller due to the amount of lot coverage being proposed on tlus site and located no closer than five feet from the lot line. Staff would be in favor of allowing tlic garage to be relocated to provide for improved site lines. Staff suggests a small area be provided as a tum-around. Staff would support equal replacement of the structural coverage to the amount which currently c.xists before remodeling. Hcdblom, 2601 Casco Point Road, suted he is awore of the Applicants’ plans to make these modifications on their property, and in his view all the neighbors in the immediate area are in support of the project. Hcdblom commented in his opinion the changes being recommended by Staff would be acceptable to *he Applicants. Hcdblom noted the improvements being proposed only minimally impact his property. Hcdblom slated if possible, the Applicants would like to keep the size of the garage at what was onginally proposed, but would be willing to reduce the size of the garage if necessary. WTielan, Contractor, stated they arc proposing to construct the garage more in front of the house in an effort to limit the amount of vctiiclc noise currently being experienced from Casco Point Road. There w ere no public comments regarding this application. Hawn conuncmed any construction in the area of the property line would negatively impact the pine trees in that area and may need to be removed Hcdblom ..tated they are going to check into whrthcr the pine trees would need to be removed as a result of this project. Hcdblom stated they arc not opposed to removal of the trees and would be willing to plant new trees following construction Hcdblom conunented one of the trees has already PAGE 3 i- MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21,2001 experienced storm damage and is not in very good shape. Kiuth indicated he vs'ould be reluctant to grant any increase to hardcover on this lot. Kluth inquired whether the Applicants discussed lire hardcover issue with City Staff. Kluth indicated the Planning Commission Iras been very reluctant to grant any increases to hardcover in the past. Hedblom noted the deck would be removed as part of this project. Hedblom stated the situation with the garage in its present location is very dangerous and needs to be addressed. Hedblom noted the present driveway is very short and relocation of the ga'age would allow safer access into the property. Kluth stated the issue he has with the garage is the proposed size due to the amount of hardcover and structural coverage presently on the lot. Hedblom commented in his view the Applicants would be willing to reduce the size of the garage. Hawn pointed out the Planning Commission has taken a veiy strict policy on increasing structural coverage, and if approval is granted on the current proposal, a precedent would be set Hawn noted the amount of structural coverage already existing on the lot is in excess of tlie allowable amount Gaffron stated in order to meet the amount of existing structural coverage on the lot, the garage would need to be reduced to 24’ by 26*. Mabusth inquired whether the Applicants have given any consideration to rcmosnl of the boat house. Hedblom stated the Applicants would like to keep the boathouse since it provides storage for their dock materials and serves a useful purpose. 1 lawn stated she would be in support of doing some improvements to the driveway. Hawn staled the current proposal does not really allow for a turnaround and in her view should be modified somewhat. Hawn inquired what hardcover would result if a turnaround were added. Gaffron stated if the garage were reduced, the amount of driveway would also be reduced PAGE 4 MINUTES OF THE OUONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 2I» 2001 somewhat. GafTron stated the Applicants arc also proposing to remove some landscape plaatic and rock as part of tills project. Oaflton stated the amount of hardcover resulting from the turnaround would probably be between SO to 100 square feet. Ibwn suggested that perhaps by moving the garage foroard somewhat, the amount of driveway could be reduced slightly. GafTron stated moving the garage forward would possibly result in a reduction of 50 to 100 square feet of hardcover. Klutli indicated he would be like to see a revised plan showing the proposed clianges prior to voting on this application. GafTron stated the Planning Commission could review the revised plan at their March meeting Hcdblom stated they would like to go before the Cit>- Council at their March meeting if possible. Hawn coii.mentcd the Applicants will need to submit a revised plan depicting the smaller sized garage in its new location with a turnaround added so tlie Planning Commission will know exactly the amount of liardcovcr and structural coverage being proposed. Hawn commented for safety reasons she would be in support of some improvements being done to the garage and driveway situation 1 lawn indicated the Applicants w ill need to limit structural coverage to the amount currently e.\isting, which is 17 percent. Kluth stated he is opposed to lire plan being presented tonight since it exceeds the e.xisting structural coverage. GafTron noted the Applicants would be required to extend the review period for this application since the 120 days expire the 16'" of March. GafTron stated lire City has a standard form tliat the Applicants will need to sign extending the review period Hawn moved, Kluth seconded, to table Application M2644, Gary and Joan Marquardt, 2617 Casco Point Road, to allow the Applicants time to submit a revised plan. PAGES MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 21,2001 VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. J) «654 THE LION GROUP, ON BEHALF OF JAMES BULL, 1330 CHERRY PL^^, VARIANCE, 6:58 p.m. - 7:06 p.m. James BiH^Applicant, was present. The Certificali^f Mailing and AfTidavil of Publication were noted Gaffron stated th^^plicants arc requesting variances to lot area to allow for the redevelopment of this property wliich is l^tcd in the LR-IB District. The request is to permit the lot as a buildablc record lot for a period of o^ear. Cuncntly the property has an existing residence located on it and is a lakesbore lot. Oaffron noted this lot consists of .6^re. with the LR-IB District requiriag a minimum of one acre Orono’s Zoning Ordinance allowsX^ to be considered record lots when they meet 80 percent of the zoning requirements for lot area, whiclSjm lot docs not meet and requires a lot area variance. The property exceeds the required lot \Wl(lh requirements of 140 feet by having a defined lot width of 145 feet at the 75 foot lakcshorc s^ack. Gaffron indicated there is a house *o the south of this propeV with a 50 fool right-of-way to the north of tire site. Gaflron slated a new residence can be c^slructed meeting the City’s other requirements. Gafhon noted the Applicaitts will need to meet^c 25 percent hardcoser limit. Gaffron indicated there are other lots in the area which arc below Dull had nothing further to add to City StafTs report. There were no public comments. Hawn indicated she docs not have a problem w ith this application. Mabusth inquired whether the existing detached garage will remain. ;acre PAGE 6 Application Date: 11/15/DO Dradlint Dale: 3/16/01 TO: Chair I lawn and Urono Planning Commission Members Ron Moor.se, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: February 15,2001 SUlUF.CT: #2644 Gary and Joan Marquardt 2617 Casco Point Road VariatKCS •• Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lbt of Exhibits FR-IC One Family Lakcshorc Residential District (1/2 acre) 17,467 s.f. (.40 acre) A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Applicant's Summary of Permit Request D Plat Map E Survey F Sur>ey/Site Plan G 1 lordcovcr Calculation Worksheets H Lakeside Elevation View I Side Elevation View J Lower Floor Plan K Upper Floor Plan L Site Photos M Property Owirers Notification List Application Suminar)’ Tlie applicants arc requesting a two part application to 1) permit a second stoty addition above the existing single stor>’ house within a required side yard, and 2) addition of a 30’ X 30' attached garage 2.85' from the side property line where 10' is required and 21.76' from the front propcrt>’ line where 30' is required. A 20' X 22' two stall detached garage, located 18' from tlic front property line would be removed as well as a 751 s.f. deck on the lakeside of the residence. The site alteration would include an increase in structure on the property. Currently, the property is developed over the 25®/o allowed hardcover in the 75*250’ setback. _____ >2644 Gaf> mJ Join 26l7CaKoPoimRoaa Viruncn •• PuMic Mcaiing Pi«(lor5 Pcrlliicnt C<nle Svclioin 1.Section 10.22, SuWivislon 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2): To permit an alteration to c.xisling luirdeover over the allowed 25%. Lot Area 75-250^ Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed 1 lardcovcr 12,727 s.f. 3,181 s.f. (2.**%) 3,710 s.f. (29% of which 220 sf or 1.7% is rock/ptoslic) “ (27.3%) 4,902 s.f. (38%) (rock/plastic removed) Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): To permit greater than 15% lot coverage by structures. Lot Area Allowed Coverage Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 17,467 s.f. 2,620 s.f. (15%) 2,970 s.f. (17%) 3.237 s.f. f 18.5%) 267 s.f. increase In lot coverage 3. Section 10.25, Subdi\ ision 6 (H): To permit an encroachment into the .side setback 2.85* from, llie side property line for conslructitm ofa 30* X 30’ attached garage, where a 10* side setback is required and to permit the garage addition 21.76* from the front property line where a 30* selluck is reijuiied. 4. Section 10.25, Subdiv ision 6 (B): 'l o permit an encroachment into the side setback 2.64' from the side property line to permit the addition ofa second story above the existing residence within the required 10* side setback Required SctlTncks I.R-IC I^ont Yard = 30* Side Yard '= 10* Discussion: Applicants have addressed the issue of egress and ingress to the property with the existing garage location. The existing garage is located only 18* from Casco Point Road and faces the road creating a potentially hazardous situation with vehicles backing out to the road without tire ability to view on coming vehicles and pedestrians. Several obstacles including a neighboring fence, tree and telephone pole block much of the view to the sucet. 1 he attached garage allow s the \ chicles to back out into the yard and approach the street at an angle improving views to the street as well us allowing vehicles traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vehicles from the applicant’s property. In the applicant’s letter of request they have stated there have been dozens of brake screeching ne.ir misses while backing out. *rhe concent is the location of the proposed attached garage that w ould be located only 2.85* from the side lot line where a 10* setback is required. Construction of the house was before the adoption of the current zoning standards. The site plan shows the Ioc.ation of the house in relation to the property line. The garage would not encroach any closer to the side property line than the house. •2M4 Gary anJ loan Maaquaidl 2617 C bko Point Roai) Vafiaace* -PuMicMcanag Page 2 of S •1 ^trtincnl Code Sections 1.Section 10.22, SuMivision 2 and Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) (2): To permit an alteration to c.xisliiig hardcover over the allowed 25%. I.ot Area 75-250*12,727 s.f. Allowed 1 lardcovcr 3,181 s.f.(25%)^.^f i- nxisting Hardcover 3,710 s.f. {29%)<^ ^ 2,2.0 -.f. A ) ' - Proposed Hardcover 4,902 s.f. (38%) t IP 6^ -TO Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C): To pennit greater than 15% lot coverage by structures. Lot Area Allowed Coverage Existing Coverage Proposed Coverage 17,467 s.f. (15%) P 2,620 s.f. (17%) 2,970 s.f. (18.5%) 3.237 s.f. ^ 267 s.f. increase in lot coverage Section 10.25, Subdivision 6 (B): To permit an encroachment into the side setback 2.85* from the side property line for construction of a 30* X 30 ’ attached garage, where a 10’ side setback is required and to permit the garage addition 21.76* from the front property line where a 30 ’ setback is required. Section 10.25, .Subdivision 6 (B): To peimit an cncro.ichmcnt into the side setback 2.64' from the side property line to pennit the addition of a second story above the existing residence within the required 10’ side setback hequired Setbacks l.R-IC Front Yard = 30' Side Yard - 10’ Discussion: Applicants have addressed the issue of egress and ingress to the property with the existing garage location. 1 he existing garage is located only 18’ from Casco Point Road and faces the road creating a potentially hazardous situation with vehicles backing out to the road without the ability to view on coming vehicles and pedestrians. Several obstacles including a neighboring fence, tree and telephone pole block much of the view to the street. The attached garage allows the vehicles to back out into the yard and approach the street at an angle improving views to the street as well as allowing vehicles traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vcliicles from the applicant’s property. In the applicant's letter of request Uiey have stated there have been dozens of brake screeching near misses while backing out. The concern is the location of the proposed attached garage that would be located only 2.85' from the side lot line where a 10’ setback is required. Con,«*:>iction of the house w as before the adoption of the current zoning standards, fhe site plan shows the location of the house in relation to the property line. The garage would not encroach any closer to the side property line than the house. •2M4 G«> and loan Msqiurtfl 2617 Cisco Point Ro<a VariMcos ~ Publsc Hcinag Pi|c2orS The second stoiy addition is within the 10’ side setback. Adding a second story would place a full two story structure onl/ 2.64* from the side lot liiie. Hie adjacent house is more than 20’ a\\ay allowing for adequate separation between the existing buildings. However, redevelopment or additions to the adjacent house could eliminate some of the separation between the buildings. Review of Hardship 1. 3. The total hardcover on tlie property would be increased primarily due to the longer driveway required to safely access the house. Several obstacles including a neighboring fence, tree and telephone pole block much of the view to the street to the existing garage entrance. The attached garage allows the vehicles to back out into the yard (but a paved backup apron would make more sense) and approach the street at an angle improving views to the street as well as allowing • hides and pedestrians traveling on Casco Point Road to more easily view entering vehicles from the applicant’s property. The property as developed exceeds the allowed hardcover. A large 750 s.f. lakeside deck along the lakeside of the house would being removed to reduce some hardcover closest to the lake. A 14* X 14 ’ four season porch would be constructed in its place. The four season porch would be located 105 ’ from tlic OHWL of Lake Miimctonka. The property was developed prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. 1 he house is approximately 10’ from the side lot line at the lakeside and is angled to a point where the house is only 2.85’ from the property line. A second story addition has been designed to leave the front '/j (lakeside) of the existing house to one story. Only the back '/a (street side) would have a second story. This concentrates the massing of the structure further from the lakeshore, and eases the burden of the views from adjacent residences tow ards the lakeshore 4. Tlie overall lot coverage by structures increases by 267 s.f. Most of the massing h.ts been relocated from the lakeside of the residence to the street side to allow for the larger garage. For a lot coverage variance to be approved an actual hiudship must be demonstrated to allow the increase in structure. Tlie Council has in many situations allowed a property to replace tlie total existing structure when remodeling, but it is uncommon to allow a net increase when already exceeding l5®o. Staff Recommendation Staff can support the pri>jecl to allow the garage to be relocated and provide for improved site lines without the property owners having to request trees be removed to open site lines. Staff also supports equal replacement of the structural coverage to the amount existing before remodeling, linder that scenario the applicants could replace structure not to exceed 2,970 s.f. on the lot. The reduction in total structural coverage would allow, at a minimum, a 24’ X 26’ two stall garage and not require any other structural changes to the plan. Staff also suggests that the proposed drivew-ay be reshaped to allow a functional back up apron. Also, Staff suggests that the new attached garage be offset to maintain at least a 5 ’ setback to the lot line. •:644 Otfjr and loan Ntarquaidi 26l7CaKohMHRoail Vviancct > hMk Hcaniif Pi«(3orS K Option! tor Action : 1. Recommend approval of variances. 2. Recommend denial of variances, staling reasons. 3. Table for additional information or plan revisions. 4. Other action. •2M4 Gvy tod low 2617 Casco Poim Road V«i»m - P«Uk tfcariat Pagc4or5 EXHIBIT A analysis worksheet Lot Area: LR-IB Lot Area Required 21,780 s.f.(l acre) Actual 17,467 s.f. (.40 acre) ,StrMctural Coverage ; Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 17,467 s.f.Allowed: 2,620 s.f. Existing: 2,970 s.f. Proposed: 3,237 s.f. Hardcover Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75*4,740 s.f.Os.f.411 s.f. (8%) No Change 75-250 ’12,727 s.f.3,18ls.f. (25%) 3,710 s.f. , p, (29%) 4.902 s.f. (38%) •2644 Gary and Joan MarquaiA 26l7CaKoPouuRoad Vviancet - R u Mk Hesmg Pa|c ) of S Application Date Received __ Amount Paid ^ 3S h/t^ /Oi‘B CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S250.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $250.00 After-lhc-Facl Fees (Double application fee) property INFORMATION , / plopfi^McntificaUpn Nuniber 7 - ^ ^ ^_£±LS1 --------------- Attach legal (lescription to appUcation if not includ^ ,„onth/year) Date Pronerty Acquired________0^ £ P.STL.----------—^ I (do) (Bo also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specuy)^-------------------— Zoning District:,_________________________ applicant Name /C akl V AHftrgss! CAbOc Or- 0^\'NER (if different than applicant) Name --------------------— — Zip'0L5-L21/— >5 =£0Phone (home). Phon^ (work)_ Address:___________________________ --------------------------^ n:“T ;:.uTar-7 .</ ir7777^ ADD STIC. ^Vt'c h (attach additional sheets if necessary) n ^ /kP^Ul£* VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) hardship /description of ONUSUAL Bteventlng ftkAD |Jr< SC 7 -------------------------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) ] Marquardt November 2000 Affidavit For Building Permit Gary and Joan Marquardt 2617 Casco Point Road Orono MN 55391 612-720-6916 W 653-471-0476 H /?£»lir - .. » «•packaround My wife and i have iived at 2617 Casco Point Road since November 1985. We raised our children here and have been contributing members of our community. We have done tittle to our house since purchasing It. In the storms of May a year-and-a-half ago. we sustained serious roof damage and serious deck damage from our neighbor's 250-year-old oak tree falling across our house and deck. We began then planning our remodeling project with these needed repairs as a beginning point. We enjoy our neighborhood, our community and our location and as we approach retirement we have decided to live in this house through our retirement years. In order to bo safe and comfortable our project planning addressed the following Issues: 1 . Garage...The entrance to the garage has been a dangerous feature since we moved In. a. Our garage door Is only 18.4 feet from the road making ingress and egress a very dicey maneuver. b. We have had literally dozens of brake screeching near misses backing out. c. The garage is very small, barely v/ide enough for two cars and too short for my car. It will not accommodate our two cars, much less a lawnmower and snov/ blower, thus we always have at least one car parked on the road. 2. Entry to our house...The entrance of the house is on the very East end of the house and is difficult to negotiate with grocery bags etc. and poorly placed. With the entrance trapped In a corner of one end of the house the middle of the house has very little natural light. 3. The deck...Our deck was damaged, and it is weakened by the storm damage In 1993, and It Is old and rotten and at the least needs replacing. We have In our proposal the removal of ttie deck to help with our hardcover situation with a proposed on-ground patio near the proposed new entrance. 4. Road noise...Our house Is very close to the road with the master bedroom on the very East end adjacent to the existing main entrance. We have an impossible time sleeping past 6:00 in the morning due to road noise. 5. Roof... The existing roof was wind damaged and damaged by trees falling. It needs to be replaced and some of the underlying sheathing and underlay needs repair or replacement. This repair is best done when we add the second story. The sight lines and the height of the house is not an Issue with any of the neighbors. MarquardI November 2000 Planning and Preparation We have a rather extensive plan to remodel our house and remedy the five problems that we have stated above as v/ell as adding needed living space on the proposed new second story on the East half of the house. Other than the proposed new attached garage, the footprint of the existing house does not change. There are setback issues and hardcover issues that are ever-present on Casco Point with the pre-existing pie shaped lots that will have to be dealt with. We had a sun/ey and hardcover calculation done through Danburry last spring. We were not finished with our planning when Danburry went to the city and have opted for different contractors for this project. We have talked with all our neighbors and shown them our plans. We have been especially detailed In cur meetings with both the Hedbloms (North of us) and the Stinsons (South of us) and have letters from them stating that they have no objections to our proposed remodel plan. Our hardship case Is based on the Issue of safe access Is the existing garage and our need to move the entrance and the master bedroom to have a living condition where we can sleep v^lhout being awakened by road noise. Planned Remodeling We propose to raise and remove the existing garage Including the driveway and concrete pad. The part of this space not needed for the proposed new driveway will become lawn and garden space. We propose to build a new attached garage situated on the East end of the house running along the lot line. The existing garage and slab will be removed. The existing master bedroom will be converted to storage area where It attaches to the proposed new garage. We propose an earthen berm along Casco Point Road around which the proposed new driveway would go. This would help reduce noise and water runoff from the road toward the lake. The roof must be replaced due to storm damage no matter what. With this in mind, on the existing footprint of tho house, we propose to add a second story on the East half of the house to allow for a master bedroom, a master bath, an additional bedroom and walk-in closet. Having the bedroom upstairs will further abate the noise problem from Casco Point Road. ] Marquardt November 2000 Planning and Preparation We have a rather extensive plan to remodel our house and remedy the five problems that we have stated above as well as adding needed living space on the proposed new second story on liie East half of the house. Other than the proposed new attached garage, the footprint of the existing house does not change. There are setback issues and hardcover issues that are ever-present on Casco Point with the pre-existing pie shaped lots that will have to be dealt with. We had a survey and hardcover calculation done through Danburry last spring. We were not finished with our planning when Danburry went to the city and have opted for different contractors for this project. We have talked with all our neighbors and shown them our plans. We have been especially detailed In cur meetings with both the Hedbloms (North of us) and the Stinsons (South of us) and have letters from them stating that they have no objections to our proposed remodel plan. Our hardship case Is based on the Issue of safe access is the existing garage and our need to move the entrance and the master bedroom lo have a living condition where we can sleep v/ithout being awakened by road noise. planned Remodelinq We propose to raise and remove the existing garage including the driveway and concrete pad. The part of this space not needed for the proposed new driveway will become lawn and garden space. We propose to build a now attached garage situated on the East end of the house running along the lot line. The existing garage and slab will be removed. The existing master bedroom will be converted to storage area where It attaches to the proposed new garage. We propose an earthen berm along Casco Point Road around which the proposed new driveway would go. This would help reduce noise and water runoff from the road toward the lake. The roof must be replaced due to storm damage no matter v^hat. With this in mind, on the existing footprint of the house, we propose to add a second story on the East half of the house to allow for a master bedroom, a master bath, an additional bedroom and walk-ln closet. Having the bedroom upstairs will further abate the noise problem from Casco Point Road. 1 Marquardt Novombof 2000 We propose making changes to the firs! floor to move the main entrance of the house to near the middle of the house on the South side. This will provide a more central entrance, better natural light penetration Into the house as well as some ma)or room re-arrangement beneath the proposed new upper level. Contractors have told us that removing the existing roof and trying to construct a second floor over the existing walls Is fraught with problems and it would be advisable to tear down the above ground structure to the first floor deck and rebuild the walls of the first floor beneath the proposed new second floor. The West half of the house \would be re-roofed but otherwise remain in tact. We wish to remove and not replace the existing deck that covers the entire West side of the house and part of the South side. This deck would be removed to make some progress with the hardcover situation that Is difficult In all of the pre-existing pie-shaped lots on Casco Point road. We propose to backfill along the South side of the house and Install an on-ground stone patio extending from the proposed new entry toward the lake near the West end of the house. This will provide less outside patio space than the existing plan but from a landscaping point of view and a hard-cover perspective Is a big improvement. We propose to add a three-season sunroom on the Southwest corner of the house just off the existing dining area. This would be a three-season porch on the upper level and a screenea porch on the lower level. We feel that we can accomplish all of this without losing any significant trees and with little disruption to the neighborhood. We have provided dra^rgs. hard-cover calculations, photos, dimensions, and drawings. Variances and other issues. There are several issues tiiat we wish to address in order to get this plan approved. Setback: Our house is less than 3 feet from the lot line on the North side, and is not parallel to the lot lino on the North side. We understand that the setback recommendation Is ten feet. It Is presumed tnat this Is a fire issue for separation between buildings. We have had extensive discussions with the Hedbloms who live just North ot us. There is more than the prescribed 20 feel between the Hedblom garage and our house. The oblique angle between our existing house and the lot line is an issue that must be looked at. however we feef that maintaining the North wall ot the proposed new garage at the existing setback from the fence would be sufficient given that the Hodblom ’s garage is the adjacent structure and ALL of the proposed new garage would abut their driveway which is not suitable for structure building In the future. Hardcover. We believe that our hardcover calculation is better than many with lots of Ihi., configuration. We feel that it is likely that we can remove the existing garage, solving a very unsafa situation, add the berm, a curved driveway with a turn-around and the new ga'dye and at the very least make the hard-cover situation no worse and perhaps Improve It slichtly. J Marquardt SsGond Story November 2000 Lake setback. ''’® “o*'"' I'e and they Conclusion. opportunity to explain our project and work with the city authorittes to see it through. Sincerely, Gary and Joan Marquardt uL (1) 5 2w* smy ^ooinoM W-yOJ j 9^29 fo % TOTAL H.\RDCOVER [N ZONE TOTAL PROPERr/ AREA IN ZONE - B X ICO S.F. S.7. n .LAKESIDE ELEVATION II.. . ".... ~ iuiita I lakeside elevation FowA $f ASo«a \ PoAc^ 2^•9 STOAV ADtttTlOM /^SJlWfeC aLJI—ILJLJl^^m— J 3 SEC SCAU nnmMfinrihitf II nm I,- t-»_ • i •• • ■'x; E.fl»4E^fel'* \ i: ) MABOUARDT^ HOUSfei: T-m w ra^CKON-Trwps)^^ ‘ jl4W»mgyER IM^yEMENT -tr ^. /' n , ‘—•"I . ,»rw,-vak». «M LOOKlNaNORTHWESt f. / . Ir- t I • • 't ^•-if* V* 1EA0BL0P IOU8E' nt< ■' _ ■- —-'»OU5 MARQUARDT --» ji 24^0- BETWEEN BtiMUBINQS ...|^ -^- “ '"'\A fpEC'KTb'BE REMO.^O:.rj^-^’*^ ' l^gWS^^ fcpOVER IMPROVEMENT > -;j(iEs!H8l8 I ^^mm la m *< • • ^1 ‘ LOO K1NG '' V.,. ■ •^^,;»' • ;)^• ■ I ................. ••■ ' • 'Ai- _________________ ^ \ l ii^ji7rt?: ''', , A r' .•. ; J |'.„: , . > - -~:-.!v '4.... .' V :• ' -, m iii r :v% I^m U; r j*t' ♦s mmi; ■ ^ ff ■' •i'*t - & .i=£j» ^ t •■^•' V. «,- , V . -‘4 h‘-. C' “V;. »« f •T; ^ #fT> • !•r^i£ .M19] ». _ :V•N. .>• , h ui tile^ r r I Ci^ T WENT i r 1 t ■'m . — . -X '• *■»-»«A • t- 1 i\.':'C'JSl^ I.' ^2^:;xjii«i!! z-y-^r' . " • V f'., * . •• ■ r^-r--’ i ' 'i^'; I •w X ■-/;••• :.•■ v*v.v ^*1 v-,V' !L_J I ■ i ■ • f>t 5?^''' ■■' ■ •:< ..I ■Si^')i •i’'^S' M-^- '!-^ _ Wm. ■«-•,• - "■‘T«s*5e2r *1. ■” ^■’*" ^;f| MAhOuW ^ A PHOPERJrY. •.v-Ju:-.‘-•/ . . • _x> 5. ■ .«y ,;-^f -'Vrl-'-n * ?;:-,1:. 'i:'vv 3 -&l!?fg i^&aaM4yc^ •' - ^ ^ ' .'V-; V ■ wSm:: RUN DATC RX/tr/M BATCH SOS HCNNCrXN COUNTY RROfCRTV INromUTION SVSTDf PROPCRTV ONNCRS LIST RCPORT NO. PXASB40X PACf 17 PROP AOIM OMNCB NANC TANPAVfR MANC/AOOR SB 20-XX7-7S 21 0051 02SAS OUNMOOOV AV2 N L BIILKC • C N BICLKC MAMIN L/CHRISTINI N BICLKE 2S4S DUNWOOOY AVt MAVZATA NN SSSOX Sa 20-XX7-25 21 0032 02SOS OUNMOOOV AVI SYtVIA U BLANCHARD SYLVIA L BLANCiURD 2SaS DUNMOODY AVI MAVZATA NN S510X 58 20-117-2S 21 005S 02SOB CASCO POINT RO P D I P Z riTZCERALD PATRICK riTZCCRALO 2508 CASCO POINT RO WAYZATA NN SS501 PROP AOOR ONNCR NANC TAXPAVCR NANC/AOOR 58 20-117*2S 28 0050 02MS CASCO POINT RO N J CRICNC OAK CRCCNC NORMA ORCCNC 8 ALAN GREENE 2MS CASCO POINT ROAD MAVZATA m 5SS01 58 20-117*25 28 0051 02855 CASCO POINT RO MARILYN B TNORNE ET AL MARILYN B THORNE 2855 CASCO POINT RO MAVZATA m 55501 58 20-117-25 28 0052 02825 CASCO POINT RO J 8 N SHNSON JANES L 8 NAOMI L STIMSOII 2825 CASCO PCINT RB MAVZATA NN 55501 •J PROP AOOR OMNCR NAME TAXPAYER NANC/AOOR 58 20-117-25 28 0055 02817 CASCO POINT RO 0 L NAROUAROT/J H MARWUAROT GARY L 8 JOAN N NAROUAROT 2817 CASCO POINT RO MAVZATA NN 55501 38 20-117-23 28 0058 02801 CASCO POINT RO BRUCC J HEOBLOM ET AL BRUCE J NEOBLOM AND CAROL J CLINE-NEDBLON 2801 CASCO POINT RO MAVZATA NN 55501 58 20-117-25 28 0058 02818 CASCO POINT RO JOYCE A TMCDT JOYCE A TMEOT 2818 CASCO POINT RO MAVZATA NN 55501 PROP AOOR OMNCR NANC TAXPAVCR NANC/AOOR 58 20-117-25 28 0050 02888 CASCO POINT RO J M 8 B J ESSEN JCPPRCY 8 BARBARA ESSEN 2888 CASCO PT RO MAVZATA m 55501 38 20-117-25 28 0082 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO PAUL J 8 NARY E RASTER PAUL J RASTER 2800 CASCO POINT RO MAVZATA NN 55501 TOTAL BATCH IIS BIBII 1 CERTIPY THAT THE PACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OP INPORNATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATC ON THE RECORDS OP TNC NENNCPXN COUNTY DCPARTMCNT OP PROPERTY TAXATION, TO TNC REST OP NY RNOMLCDCC AND BCLXEP. DATE P. ^ M t ■ /ivi. ytj (•.•.S'- , t 0 A TOi Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Conunission Members Ron Moofse, City Administrator FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: March 16. 2001 SUBJECT: «26S4 James Bull 1330 Cherry Place Variance - Public Hearing The applicant has requested additional time to amend the application. Final plans have not been made available as or the date of this memo. Please review the minutes from the February 21, 2001 Planning Commissioa meeting for background discussion. Stair Rect JO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: Wendy Dottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner DATE: March 15,2001 SUBJECT: #01*2665 Y + A Architects for Glen and Marilyn Nelson SOO Tonkawa Road Variance *• Public Hearing Zoning Dlitrict: LR-IB One Family Lakcshorc Residential District (I acre) EotArca: 164,546 s.f. (3.77 acre) List of Exhibits A Analysis Worksheet B Application C Site Plan'Sursey (Existing and Proposed) D Elevations/Floor Plans E Average Lakeshore Setback Survey F Hardship/Description Attachment G Zone Hierarchy Sheet H Hardcover Calculations I Photos of Property J Location Map K Property Map L Permit Record M Property Owner’s List Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.22, Subd. I (B) and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C)(6): Average Lakcshorc: The average lakcshorc setback line shall be a straight line connecting llie most lakcward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjaceiu lakeshore lots. To permit a variance to encroach 20' into the average lakcshorc setback. Application Sumnian': The applicants arc proposing to construct an addition to the north side of the residence. The proposed addition is approximately 1600 square feet. It will include a basement, two stories plus an attic. The basement level will be used as a storage ,irea. The first story level will contain garage stalls. The garage stalls will be at the same clev ation of the luck under garages that currently exist on the residence. The main level (second story) will consist of living space with a master bedroorn/master baih'closci suite. This w ill be a continuation of the main floor of tlic existing house. The attic will be used for additional storage space. A small portion of the existing residence and approximately half of the new addition is located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line as drawn between the two adjacent residences. (Exhibit E). 90!'2665 y* A Archlfects for CUn and Marily n Setson 300 Tonkawa Road Variance 3/15/2001 Page! The adjacent residence to the north is on higher ground, and may currently enjoy minimal views over the existing residence, which may be reduced by the second story addition. However, the main views of the lake for that house are to the east and are not affected. Existing mature vegetation and the change in grade already act to limit the neighbors ’ views hrnce it is unlikely that average lakeshore setback is a significant issue for this property. No neighbors have indicated a problem to staff as of this writing. A hardcover variance is not required for the addition which lies in the 250-500' setback zone. Even though the proposed hardcover in the 250-500 ’ setback zone is 25,586 s.f. (34.3%) over the allowed 22,314 s.f. (30%), the applicant has not used all of the 13,573 s.f. (25%) in the 75-250' setback zone. The City docs allow credit for unused hardcover allotment to be transferred to zones further from the lake. This is referred to as transfer of hardcover allotments from zone to zone. (See Exhibit G). Therefore, a hardcover variance in the 250-500* setback zone is not required. This lot is a lakeshore lot and is sewered. The sewer line is located on the lakeside of the rcjidence and is not an issue with this application. (See Exhibit E). This property has made improvements since 1970. A variance was granted in 1986 for construction of a non-rental guest apartment that is attached to the residence. Another variance and conditional use permit were granted in 1986 for average lakeshore setback to construct a gazebo, tennis court and associated fences. The conditional use permit was for grading work and retaining walls constructed customar>- to tennis court construction (in excess of 100 cubic yards). Statement of Hardship ; Tl)e applicants have included their statement of hardship in Exhibit F. The applicants should also be asked for their testimony regarding this issue. Issues for Consideration ; 1. Arc any neighbors ’ views of the lake negatively impacted by construction of the second story. 2. The residence was built in the early 1970's in its present location, prior to current zoning ordinances but genet ally in compliance w ith all current codes. 3. Structural lot coverage is not an issue w ith the property consisting of over 3 acres. 4. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends approval of the requested variance for average lakeshore seiHack. MOI-7665 Y* A Architects for Cten and Marilyn Seison 500 Tonkawa Road Variance S/15'2001 Page 2 Lot Area ; ANALYSIS WORKSHEET LR-IB Lot Area Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) Actual 164,546 s.f. (3.777 acre) Hardcovgr Calculations: Distance from shoreline Total area in setback Allowed hardcover Existing hardcover Proposed hardcover 0-75'22.409 s.f.Os.f. (0%) 25 s.f (O.II-/0) Os.f (0%) Reduction 75-250*54,293 s.f.13,573 s.f (25%) 6,774 s.f (12.47%) 6.774 s.f (12.47%) No Change 250-500’74,379 s.f 22,314 s.f (30-/.) 27,112 s.f (36.4-/.) 25.586 s.f (34.3»/o) Reduction 500-1000’lUl8s.f.4,031 s.f (35-/o) 1,516 s.f (13.16«/o) 1.326 sf (11.5%) Reduction Structural Coverage! Total Lot Size Total Structural Coverage 164,546 s.f (3.777 acres)Structural coverage is limited to 15% for lots of 0-1.99 acre in total area. -''0 /•/ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S2S0.00 (SSO.OO per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI50.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S250.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address 500 Tonkovn Road____________ Appikatioa U O/- Date Reedved Amount Paid 3 O O Property Identification Number fP.I.D.l ns-l 17-21 nnm Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired nocomber 31. 1Q70 ________________________^(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land.(sec attached sheet #1) _other (spccify)_Present use of property: j__residential Zoning District: LRIB (for 500 Tonkawa Road from City of Qrono) APPLICANT Name Todd Hanson Y + A Archi.tect^una Address: 240 North Ninth Avenue OWTSER (if different than applicant) Name Dr. Glen and Marilyn C, Address: 500 Tonkawa Road_____ Phone flK)mel(612) 827-0119 Phone(workl (61?^ 171-qiqs City: Minneapolis Zip: 55401 Phone (liomeV952) 473-0333 Nelson Phone (\vorkl(763) 505-3144 ____ City: Ornno______________ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost S 600,000.00 Describe request in detail: To allow addition to north side of 500 Tonkawa Road residence (see attached sheet #2) (attach additional sheets if neccssar>) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Area ___Lot Width JC _Hardcom _Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear 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: Please see attached sheet 12_____ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of th* following information must be submiticti bv the application deadline date in order for your nppliention to be coniidercd complete: 1. 2. / 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. •/ Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Heruicpin County Department of Finance. A-603. Govt Center, 348-5910). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11" for reproduction. Topographic sur\cy (existing and proposed elevations) if ruty changes in e.xistlng grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j" X 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor A elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the proper!)'. Tliis would include namc(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. / The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yojir varlancg application is not complete If the above information has not been Included. APPLICANT S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infomiation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is trup-«H4 correct toytlic best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date 2,/ZC> O! OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owticr hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and fxirther authorizes reasonable entry onto the property bv City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purpose-^f in/estigation ajjd verification of this request. Owner's Signature ion ana veri %L Date 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 attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I A i .<3 o T ■ ft ftrch)lectu(F m I. • s)( k TH (v /iM'i a %lZvJo\ X>M-r“ #p,^ / ' D '5=>^b a • .1 1 1® ;i;'!(i IB P!}up ■—— •*■ l^T'-■u^c iAijra^a <«»■--■ ./■-». rz^-^ —*----^Tlj rv^flf"Mlj iiii;iiii; 1 1 L'.J ;'T"' r‘-r-m'r run rnnitiiij ;iio '»!g:' LJ hl"»t^T>4 E Ur v!4T»Pk»WtST “TJoit p.ipc.r ^inwAfv »>/»f'r T*4*<0 /V-Ttuk- T& p^^M/ivca ^-ll/Al, »*.» c U B. O . y ' A Airtiiteclure Ncl-^kI ;>lo|t.TH Mkjc:, -<^HeAA£ A 1/^“^ I V*;;^ /. ■■''. ■" h4eLS><nJ Kjfyyrn A - 'Tol^aloo 'oZsj^tL FVaaJ L> . .* v-^ •-•■ 1 e hleL5c-}si Wi»4£« - *><:hcm© ^ <P* >APO!*nf/y r !■ • IT 7 !'ir .: /«• • f •• 11 / / >/*L* »•> 7f ^ - / ». fsjeu^<»rv/ hJo|t-TU lA^tsJg<- ^&crT\V*>J l/tZ/ot /*-- l^cT" <* «' ' __# trjr-S'f i- ii ¥♦« Arcmtsclurf Fm Dati Febniaty?I.200I PraiMt Nelson Noith Wing Addition Zol2 The Owner also has a history of managing this property in wa?) which minimiee erosion and surface runoff and has taken previous measures to reduce runoff to Stubb s Bay irKluding Building a clay tennis court with raised wood paths, which alkm t(K more percolation of rain water than typical construction, Elimination of over 1000' si of plaslic lined, rock filled planting beds that formerly line the drive way in the 500-1000' lone. and Planting in eicess ol 100 large trees after the big storm a couple years ago We would appreciate if you would be able to take this histo^ ol positive engagement with this property into consideration as well as you consider granting this variance h) Average Adjacent Structure Laketbore Setback. The proposed project would extend approximately 20' beyond a straight line drawn between the point closet to the lake ol the two adjKent houses. Moving this addition further to the west to avoid crossing this line would create an undue prKtical dilficutty in several ways. Access to the existing lower level garage and autocourt would be eliminated, and more significantly, the drive down from the circle would need to be moved to the west as well, necessitating major excavation and retaining walls which would add to rather than reduce the hardcover for the project Our understanding ol this Zoning ordinance is that is meant to preserve the borrowed view to the lake across adjKent properties without having a neighbors house block any sigmlicant portion of this borrowed view. In this case we believe that no views over adjacent property are compromised by this proposed Variance For the house to the south ol 500 Tonkawa. the orientation and location of this house places the proposed addition well to tiv. rear ol any likely Views to the lake For the house to the north ol 500 Tonkawa, the orientation once again piKes the proposed addition only at the extreme periphery ol the view and the other factor is that there is mature landscaping and a significant grade change between this house and the proposed addition, which prevent a clear view across this area of 500 Tonkawa property already. Lastly, the size of alt 3 of these properties would appear to ma'<ie the euct location ol the adjacent houses significantly less important than would be the case with lots with narrower lot* WUMnimm MtaacapaUinSMOl M ntinim lax 112 in fin •nai IstMyaardkca'n —jaartlaw # O ^ rr ’ •• rr o /"’■'t) V-..> Y«-A Arcbnictiiri Date Prolact February 21.2001 Nelson North Wmg Addition I of 2 i. VARIANCE APPUCATIONAOOITIONAL SHEETS #2. 1. Description of Request a) We resp^lully request that a VariatKe be granted in the Hardcover Ordinance in the Setback Zone between 2S0'-5O0 ‘ (eel from the shoreline ol Stubb s Bay. The eiisting Hardcover is 36 4 X in the nne allowing 30% and we arc proposing to reduce the hardcover to a total of 34.3X in order to be able to be allowed to exchange 1600 square (eel o( surface hardcover for building (octt.rint. b) We also respeutlully request a Variance in the Average lakeshore Adjacent Structure Setback The propo^ structure extends at one point a;proiimate(y 20 leet past the line between (urthest points of adjacent proxies. 2. Hartfsbip/Desertption of Unosual Property condMows •) Hardcover: This property was originally developed in 1970. Because of the narro/rness ol the lot relative to its length, once the current Hardcover Ordinance was adopted in I97S. the property has ended up being 6 4X over the allowable 30% hardcover in the rone between 2SO -5O0' from lakeshore. The property is welt urder the allowable X hardcover in the 2 adiacent rones (approximately 12 SX). This eiisting non conforming condition currently prevents the Owner frem adding to his hojseas proposed The Owner proposes to reduce the total hardcover on the property to from 36.4X 34.3% in order to be able to exchange an area of existing surface hardcover equal to the footprint of the proposed building While still being over the currently allowable 30%, the property would be significantly improved in total hardcover area Another factor which significantly affects the surface runoff in the 2S0 -9OO ’ tone on this property is the fact that over 7000 sf ol hardcover in this tsne do not drain toward the shoreline of Sti-bb’s Bay but rather drain to the southwest into a wetland which is partially owned by the Owner. (See blue dashed line on hardcover calculation sheet) We understand that the hardcover cr jmaiKe is wntten to control total development as well as control surface .unsif. but we believe that the fact that a large area ol hardcover does not dram into Srubb's Bay should be taken into ccnsideration If the Hardcover is calculated for this /one with only t' e areas which (low towards Stubb s Bay included, the percentage hard cover would be only 27X. 3X under the allowable 30%. lU I yaONerttfOiAinM ltoMapei>x.MII&y91 w III in HIS (0 III 171 fin •cad iiUktyunhoM wwwoMnlueai B. Zone Hierarchy : Zone-lo-Zone Credit Transfer The transfer of allotments from 7one lo rnni; inrr<»n<#>g tTio complexity of adminisuation but is often appropriate under specific circumstances: a. The City has generally allowed credit for umred hardcover allotment to be transferred to zones fiiiilKr from the lake. For instance, a property that would normally be "Motted, say, 5000 s.f. of hardcover m the 75-250' zone but is only using 3000 s.f in that zone, can credit the remaining 2000 s.f. for use in the 250-500* zone. Conceivably, the 250-500' zone could then have more than its 30% allotment, but would not need a variance. A record of this transfer must be kept so that it will be noted for the future that Uie 75-250* zone hardcover can no longer be increased to its 25% limit. tlie lake. b. Unused hardcover carmot be transferred to a zone closer lo c. E.xccssive Wdeover should be (but perhaps in practice Is not always) debited against the allotment for the next zone further from the lake. For instance, if the 75'-250' zone has 1000 s.f more hardcover than its allotmer.r and the 250’-500' zone would normally be allotted 5000 s.f, then the 250-500' zone should be allowed no more than 4000 s.f. of hardcover nXANpLE 1. An existing house is mostly in the 0-75' zone, but its 75-250' zone has only 15% hardcover. Should the property owner be allowed to increase hardcover in the 75-250* zone to the 25% limit? No. Tha-. .vould make the propert>- even less conforming. Variance required. EX.*\MV^ • 2. Same scenario as Example 1. Should the property owner be allowed to increase 75-250* hardcover (without a variance) only up to a level equal to his 25% allotment mmiiS (he existing no n-cor^forminf squarf fpotnyp in the 0-757 Usually not. The property is in violation already, and any increases should be considered in the context of a variance request which provides the opport’mity fo' possible removals or mitigations. ^X.\MPLE 3. Hardcover in tlie 0 /5' and 75-250* zones IS CO .niung, but the 250-500* zone is very small . ^d already has much more than its 30% allolr.ent. Should a permit be issued for work in the 75-250 zone that doesn't result In 75- 25C excesses? Perhaps...:* ihe 250-500* excessc. L .!nde only reasonable' items such as a standard width dii--w'ay or sidewalk... 2. Proper administration of the hardcover 'zones' concept relies on the premise that hardcover zones are not mutually exclusive but must always be considered together. It Is not reasonable to allow the 75-2S0' zone to increase to its 25% limit when there is hardcover in the 0-75' zone, or when a part of its allotment has been transferred to the 250- 500' zone. G 3. The code does not currently address whether hardcover excesses in one zone should preclude work in other zones that do not have excesses. The above guidelines and policies allow staff to determine when a hardcover variance should be required. •. -.n V HARDCOVERXALCULATION worksheet SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 75-250* 250-500* BVISTINn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ___________ Leafth - wM! B. Ginge C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/De^ F. Laodicape Uoderiain By PUstic G. Other WMih TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _________ ♦ B ♦ B___________ X 100 X 100 PROPOSED HARnrOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ B. Oarage C Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other WMdi TOTAL HARDCOVER iN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE _______C? * B X 100 500-1000* O o. II SF. SF. SF. SF. SF. S.F. (P SF. S.F. , S.F. SJ. S.F. ST. ST. ST. ST. % ST. SF. ST S.F. ST. ST. ST. (/LtD^ceo) ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. ST. S HARDCOVER CALCULATOttUf SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* WORKSHEET 2SO-SOO pyiCTlWC HAanCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ * I B. Gance C Driveway C c D. Sidewalk E. Pario/De^ G F. Landscape Undcriain By PUstk O. Odier a :-hb- A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE 4 nnct * B • B _______ X 100 X 100 PPOPOSPn HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Lenglh WMdi B. Oafage C Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Dedc F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic O. Other "7aa /A/;s * TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE X 100 S93-1000* n S.F. SF. SF. S.F. o SF. n SF. SF. o SF. SF. S.F.© SF. o S.F. S.F. SF SF® 477 V S.F. A V *7 SF. B ’ % % O SF. SF. SF. SF. o S.F. o SF. SF. o S.F. SF. sf Y2 SF O SF. SF. S.F. ^po<:SF-d Cii^SF. A SF. B % I ■) SETBACK ZONE: (CDRCLB ONE) 0-75 PViyriNf; HAWDCOVER IN ZONE A. Houie MA ik) x |jCflgt2l ___________________ X X B. Ginge C. Drivewxy HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORIgSHEFT 75-250* £30-1000* 5’7<23^ ST.@ WMih D. Sidewalk E. Ptlio/De^k Pt>ok./i t4t*itkX^Ur F. Landscape Underlain By PUstic G. Other A A - NoM.TV{ oP foeu ^ PATHS rs^ A*rfoi^ '77-A/A/fS ^OU/lT X __________ FAVi% CotfKT TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . n-2- ♦ B 7^ -S7«f B X 100 X too WMdi PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House MAIM Ho0f>& x Length p/>/fcL. V- X _______________ _______________ X _______________ APPfriO/0 X_____________ B. o«.t< __________ c. w*e«y hn?' - jo-iop-n-l-n ‘1') D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck ^t/TW AieAfW F. Landscape Underlain By PUstk G. Other A 4.A*tK lUZ if I IH6 l-bo I m c. ^5 t.PATKV Sa7fc»>*n '/i S.F.([j) S.F. SF. 5'7<7 S.F.(f) IfL^ I'3^S ‘ n SJF.{ S.F. S.F.(S) S.F.@ S.F.® S.F.I S.F. S.F. S.F. !*Uo S’VV A7^l 17-S.F. A S.F. B % .^21^ S.F. © 1^*1 S.F. ® S.F. \jLOO S F.(Q) ff^foUO S f.Q) fUDve^O Ltcrb %:i(^MOOc*o SF. 7?^ / ^ *,1 z / iii?r e S.F SF. SF. O© SF. SF. S.F. / 7 / O S F TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ♦ B 7</j‘57*y X 100 H6 7*^5f iHf l*iX •7*y, '^77 SF. A SF. B S 10 CO V. » ; HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CTOCLE ONE) 0-75* 75.250' 25tt-500* gyignwc HAM>C!OVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ X _____________ ■ B. Oanfe C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. ParioA)e^ F. Landscape Uuderialfl By PUstic G. Other A A TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE I<IL pprtPASBn wAmicovEn in zone A. House B. Oanfe C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. Landscape _____________ Underlain _____________ By Plastic _____________ O. Other A C- //^ </fg X too X 100 WMdi TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE / ♦ B //, 6T/g X too (sowoo^ O____SJ S.F. ST. S.F. /23a.S.F.< S.F. S.F. S,F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. SF. "77 . /A S.F. A S.F. B % S.F. S.F. SF. /2V^ S.F./^ fUDUCS, S.F. ST. S.F. ST. S.F. SF. ST. 11 /32A It K ST. A SF. B % .1 ‘V ia / Vpp I c^'^‘ 3.(0 (ro ^XX?' 'Ttn">l'SVLCn"TVo^ i : V.—_ iiiV .^iiMfe,r. a. *•»« _ii. If .•i M yjX Jj^ ^\\ m wJ. 'U •i‘ ff V .» • ■< --■ - T i-ii f»- ^-' P‘-^ 7. .* •* is--'"% ; .. ' .•. • •'•*'' ’ 75^ 1 •#•iii gi V- . ..im- Ik-I W: 1 si ‘ ■■?Bsmbe >v. ■ ... ;v: T /Vppl +<-OI- -DlrlrS if tOMCRSn ^ *•••••*••••• 1,1m ° Une^ mm I o MI ; _ /•wo ^ , 0\b1^ ■]a ••- ,U 2 V J600V ORONO^s Arm / . V S’G .LAND ^ Fagerntss Point •aoTWiui h-v , !•«««■ ivf r-^::^er V^r!s.3a:Tj 400 S u NoeYcnlxrg ^;C*fden ‘: • /\ vr V* •-•1* \ ..*SxF*rkv>T Aify A0;/v.Bav ly-• ^ ^ Bay fotm'5.1* i» flsV- - s' Crystal ;,'^chn^pci'„i Crystal Bay ‘ Lafayet .Country ( 17^J\ V •■ IHOKLIMf o iw *^i~\ 11 v'on g*^?WNNETONKA 4^ Hennepin <^nty T^piyer Services jj.n) o> # »•' Parcel Informaaon f723320003 ‘ Number SOO ■. lame TONKAWA RD ... I.. ■ - it-. Permit No, A55a 3i ‘ls' Ajn '?57/> 9 5??9V U“-ILrl Ln^^i Ic-J-I 9f?^ I ^W3 %77 fy yy PERMIT RECORD Date V-76 .?W*7C> /O 7-7f» fl'S'lO AUXzJbti- /■> o .V.-2' ^’7 i’V y.?'j9-9'/ L h- y.v' 7- 5 s'9 c. {-ii-cn <7.V ■/;)■'> 7 7/'/a-9 7 ll-.ii-eti /-J-9f / • /3'<i ? ^-3-ft It. n $-cQ ^Jo" kauJo. f^ocijct. I L. Type of Permit SE^nc Si/S77S*^ uJS/ic. < /I f JS c~C*4JK /iCVIC.i'.!: Z- fLtt.^L,4 hjUftuydjL^^ 10. Id M kKa^M^lHc. lO-^iY k*m 0 • .^4______jt\tS C. „ l/f-; . ‘i(J-'£Jk_. 'TU-.cJ, IA AAA Ae /2e-3V T^^i> Ptr^ /^g>>i U'C^ l^pt- Peralt Wo, ___ /OCSTi^ /0hlt3 1135:5 Po^Mofe PERMIT RECORD Date 3>- ? ■> C. '>W 4/a>ly? fi.9-oo . m - — ■ •» , r- • . - - — -__* • . ...................... V - rfy • —> 'T^ofvAttuM^ Type of Permit 'P~>(AAArJy\/y<^ <y jnul- PI umbinC|: Mtfcv jaiot RUN DATE 02/12/Pl BATCH 507 IIENHEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INfORttATlOH SYSTEM PROPERTY OWNERS LIST REPORT NO. PIASSAOl PACE 25 PROP ADOR OWNER NAHC TAXPAYER NANC/AOOt SS 0S-117>2S 32 0002 0O4AO TONRAWA RO COWIN C CAOE ETAL EDWIN C 0 BARBARA C CACC A*0 TONKAWA RO LONG LAKE KN 5SS5A SB 05*117-2S 32 0003 B0500 TONKAWA RO GLEN 0 NELSON ETAL DR CLEN 0 NELSON 500 TONKAWA RO LONG LAKE NN 5535« 3B 05-117-23 32 0004 005S0 TONKAWA RO A n CARLSON ET AL TRUSTEES n C NELSON BBC CAGE C/0 TONKAWA INC P 0 BOX SY15Y NPLS NN 55450 PROP ADOR OWNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHC/AJWR SB 05-117-23 32 0005 00520 TONKAWA RD NO AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORP NO AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORP 2 CARLSON PKWY X47S PLYMOUTH MN SS447 SO 05-117-25 32 0004 OOOSB ADDRESS UNASSICNED A N CARLSON ET AL TRUSTEES M C NELSON BBC CAGE C/0 TONKAWA INC P 0 BOX 54154 MPLS MN 55454 TOTAL BATCH 507 00005 CP CO 1 aXTlFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE NCIMCPIN COUNTY DCPARTNCNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OP NY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE 2 5 TO:Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Wendy Bottenberg, Zoning Administrator/Planner March 1 5.2001 SUBJECT: #01-2664 Mitch and Kim Olson 3265 Carman Road Variances The applicants have been working with City staff to redesign their proposal to conform more to city zoning ordinances regarding hardcover and structural lot coverage. They wish to have their application tabled and be on the April 16,2001 agendo. The original 60 day review period was April 3,2001 and has been extended to June 4.2001 ’ raOM: DATE: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner March 13.2001 SUBJECT: </01 *2663 Craig Alshouse 4100 Watertown Road Preliminary Plat - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Lbt of Exhibits: RR-IA One Family Rural ResWential (5 Acre minimum lot si«) Approximately 37 Acres A Application D Site Location Map C Plat Map D Site Topography E Resolution No. 1894 F Wetland Inventory G Preliminary’ Plat Lot Layout H Road and Grading Plans I Wetland Identification J Site Photos K City’ Engineer Comments The applicant has requested a Class 111 subdivision of property located at 4100 Watertown Road. The property consists of appro.ximately 37 acres of which approximately 2 acres is classified as Orono Wetlands and appear on llic City Welland Maps. Proposed is a 6 lot residential development. 4 lots would be served by a private road shown on the prelir inary plat as Outlot A. Proposed Lot 5 is shown at 8.4 acres and contains a house, horse barn and riding arena and has direct acces* *o Watertown Road. Proposed Lot 6 has a hou;e located on the front property line and has access to Orchard Park Road. There has been no d'*cisio.. made on the future of the house on Lot 6. Lot History In December of 1985 the City Council adofu -' f rsolution No. 1894 for variances and a Conditional Use Pemiit to allow the keeping of domesiK animals for commercial purposes and to allow the continued use of the property ’ for a public riding stable based on conditions that the total employees hired by the applicants to assist in the commercial horse operation shall not exceed five full and part time employ ees, except for special events to be approved by the Co ’incil. The riding lessons are to be provided by members of the applicant's family. One additional important condition was the City shall review the Conditional Use Permit annually, however annual reviews had not been necessary. The approvals granted by the CUP shall be released fiom the title as the use docs not carry to the new properties. There are two residences on the properly one primary residence and a second residence that is located at 505 Orchard Park. The lot was purchased and combined in 1996. Several variances and conditional use permits have been granted to permit additions to the residence on proposed Lr>t 5. Said variances shall be released from the entire property to not appear on titles of an>’ newly created lots.__________ Lot Width 1900‘ ±200* (width variance required) ±330* ±900* ±700* ±331' Proposed Lot Layout PropcHy * Lot Area Lot 1 5.0 acres Lot 2 5.6 acres Lot 3 5.2 acres Lot 4 5.1 acres Lot 5 8.4 acres Lot 6 5.0 acres Outlet A (Private Koad) 1.2 acres R-O-W Dedication l.S acres Total Area 37.0 acres * Lot area does not indicate the total land area dedicated to wetlands Lot 6 has 5 acres of total area but less than 5 acres is dry buUdable. Under this lot arrangement a variance to lot area b required. The applicant w ill consider a possible lot line arrangement to increase the lot area to 5 acres. The applicant has made an honest effort to create conforming lots. Slaffb bringing the application forw ard for Planning Commission for review for tw o reasons. First a public hearing has been scheduled and all property osvners w ithin 350' have been nolified, and second, Staff did not specincally inform the applicant that protected wetlands are nol considered as part of lot area to constitute the 5 acre minimum lot si/e. The applicant has not, as of the date of this memo, submitted a revision to the plan. Options ss ill be discussed at the meeting on Monday. In Staffs opinion, granting a variance to the dry buildable lot area requirement b not an option, and to do so as part of a standard plat would be precedent setting. Surrounding Properties The property is located in the RR-1A (5 acre zoning district). The Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code intent for properties in the zoning district is to provide a combination of low density residential development and limited agricultural activity. The lot is surrounded by properties tliat ore developed as low density residential developments and small horse farms. 01066) Cn>t Althovw 4100 WKctlowniUMil frtlimiMry PU* Pafc2er6 Primary luues: ^ (Oversized Accessory Huildings Tnno oversized accessory buildings arc located on the property. The Zoning Code contains the following regulations for allowed oversized accessory buildings in the City: In all "R" Districts no accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area except that acccssor>’ structures in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions. 1. Not more than one Oversized Accessor)' Structure (OAS) shall be permitted on any property. An "Oversized Accessory Structure" is deilncd as an accessory structure of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet 2. Oversized Accessory Structures arc regulated by the following table: Maximum Allowed Maximum Individual Total of All Accessory Accessory Stmeture Structure Footprint Areas' I.ot Area Footnrint Area nn a Prooertv 0-1.99 acre 1,000 s.f.2,000 s.f. 2.00-3.00 acre 1,200 s.f.2,400 s.f. 3.01-3.50 acre 1,400 s.f.2.800 s.f. 3.51-4.00 acre 1,600 s.f.3,200 s.f. 4.01-4.50 acre 1,800 s.f.3,600 s.f. 4.51-5.00 acre 2,000 s.f.4,000 s.f. 5.01-6.00 acre 2,200 s.f.4,400 s.f 6.01-7.00 acre 2.400 s.f.4,800 s.f 7.01-8.00 acre 2,600 s.f.5,200 s.f 8.01-9.00 acre 2,800 $.f.5,600 s.f 9.01 acre or more 3,000 %.t 6,000 i.f The property contains two oversized accessory structures. Pole Shed (Arena) Bam Total 10,267 s.f. 4.230 s.f. 14.497 i.f. R. Variances required If the property does receive subdivision approval the following variances would be required. 1. To permit two oversized accessory buildings on one lot where one is allow-cd. 2. To permit two oversized accessory buildings larger than the 3,000 s.f. maximum allowed for oversized accessory structures. 01 *2663 Crsig Alihoute 4100 WaiMU«n Road Frctimmary Plat Paga 3 or« To permit 14,497 s.f. for all occcssoiy buildings where 6,000 s.f. is allowed. There are numerous accessory buildings located on the property that would be removed to ucconunodatc the road and building sites. Under a standard plat Lot 2 requires a variance to lot w idlh. The lot is at the end of a cul-dc- sac arid is 200' wide at the slniclure setback. A 300’ w idlh is required. Council has routinely approved variances for lot w idth f'r lots fronting on a cul-de-sac that demonstrate a suitable building site and a lot similar in dimension to lots surrounding the property. Lot 6 is 5 acres, but approximately '/j acre of the site is designated as a wetland and was identified on the 1974 protected wetland inventory. Therefore the wetland area is not considered as part of the lot area. Orono Wetland Policies and Standards City protected wetlands were those identified by tbe City in 1974 and appear on the City’s Wetland Inventory Overlay Maps and arc subject to the provisions in Section 10.55, in addition to WCA regulations. The protected wetlands arc protected at the time of subdivision by the developer by granting of a “Conservation and Flowage Hasement’’ and further arc identified as “Drainage Basements on the official plat mylars. Section 10.55, Subdivision 15 defines the minimum lot area requirements sliall be interpreted to not allow protected areas as part of tliat lot area. City protected wetland areas within the regulatory boundary shall not be credited toward dry buiklable area for zoning purposes. Welland basins not identified in the Wetland Inventory Overlay Map.s but which arc delineated under WCA methods aiul'or appear on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) are subject to WCA regulation, which falls under the Jurisdiction of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Those areiLs are not subject to the 26’ setback or required for protection by a Conservation and Flowage l■asement. and are allowed as credit towards dry buildable area for zoning purposes. The City will require a protective cov enant filed in the chain of title of the affected property, as an advisory to properly owners that a wetland subject to WCA regulations exists. Stables and Barm The keeping of domestic animals for non-commercial purposes is a permitted use including horses for the use of the occupants of the premises A minimum of one acre in aggregate, exclusive of one acre for the principal bui Iding, must be available for each animal unit, except os hereinafier set forth. A minimum of two acres of open pasture must be available for a single horse and one additional acre must be available for each additional horse. When the horses arc kept stabled and do not require pasture for feed purposes, the minimum pasture requirement may be adjusted at the discretion of the Council. Such minimum pasture acreage shall not include low lying lands unusable for pasture or grazing. Any person keeping such animals must comply with the provisions of the City Code. The use of an accessory building for keeping animals for non-commercial purposes is a permitted use provided it is for the non-commercial use of the property owner or resident and meets the 01-266) Craig Alihotue 4100 WMcnown Road Prriiminai) Plat Pagc4or6 available area standards oulllncd in the paragraph above (Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (M). Fuller, no such structure shall be located less than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and no closer than 75 feet from the nearest lot line. The use of accessory buildings or land for the storage or rearing of animals not o\«icd by the property owner or resident requires a conditional use permit. Further, no such slrucUire shall M located less than 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Applicants should be asked to identify their intended uses for the buildings on Lot 5. Right-Of-Way Dedication Watertown Road is a City owned right-of-way. The property was platted to the center of^e strwt. Subdivision Code requires the land shown as Watertown Road shall be dedicated to the City. 1 ne portion of the propcrt>* dedicated is not considered as lot area. The easterly 33’ of the property shall be dedicated for right-of-wny purposes for Orchard Park Road. City Engineer Comments Attached Exhibit K Issues for Discussion 1. Lot 5 contains the two oversized accessory structures requiring variances to permit two oversized accessory buildings on one lot, to permit two oversized accessory buildings larger than the 3.000 sf. and to permit 14,497 s.f. for all accessory buildings where 6.000 s f. is allowed. Is it the position of the Planning Commission the arena and bam are compatible with the use on the property and warrant variances on a smaller lot, where they currently exist on a 37 acre site? The bam has been on the property for many years. The riding arena was constmcled in the early 1970s. At the time of the arena constmetion the lot was about 7-8 acres in size. Over the past 3 decades property owners have been purchasing adjacent land and combining to this property. 2. If future property owners wish to use the property for commercial purposes it appears the Conditional Use Permit, adopted by Resolution No. 1894, w ould no longer be valid since the property will be reduced in size. 3. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the rural character of the land in the 5 acre district. Losing horse farais has contributed to a change to character of this part of the City. Docs allowing one smaller lot to contain these individual buildings maintain some of that character? 0I-2M3 CratfAlstoMC 4100 WMciiOMn Road PwliwiMn put PagaSofO Staff Recommendation: StafTcan recommend conceptual approval of the plan subject to each lot must meet the minimum standards for lot area, most noUtbly proposed Lot 6, and subject to the following conditions: 1. 2. 7. 8. The proposed lot layout would not change significantly from the layout dated 2/13/01. The ponding, grading, and drainage calculations submitted shall be conceptually approved by the City Engineer prior to City Council review. Standard Drainage and Utility Easements shall be dedicated on the final plat 5' along interior property lines and 10* along exterior property lines. Wetland and stormwater management areas shall be dedicated on the final plat as “drainage easements ”. A homeowners association shall be created for the maintenance of the private road located within Outlot A. The road shall be constructed to Uie standards as established in Section 11.33 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Required road width 24' with a platted right of way of 50*. Trees shall be planted along the right of way per subdivision ordinance requirements. Variances shall be approved for the structures located on proposed Lots 5 and 6 to permit the existing houses, bam, shed and riding arena. Final septic design shall be approved by the On-Site Systems Manager prior to City Council review. Any other conditions the Plaiming Commission, Staff and Council determine are necessary to ensure the proposed development will not be consistent with other properties in the RR- lA district. 01-266.1 Cni| AlilKNHC 4100 Waufio»n XmS Prtlirmft*> PlU p^6prs Application # OI ~ Z li>*^ Date Received ij Amount Paid ^ txzs CITY OF ORONO - SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ Site address ^/oo wah/hi^m u>fc.«A»a^ C ot* Property Identification Number (PID) 3/- //d - Please check one - Property ^ abstract or____torrens? Attach legal description to application. applicant Name ^c««.5eA Is i\t.___ Addre ^ 1300 \/viUotAii>rBek. City, 7b0 ________Phone (home) /lf^¥73'^Sy Zio jyJ?/ Phone fwork)70 > ¥?3 OWNER (if different than applicant) Name Sk^ll CcL/.PrTiiit Address City V/oo ^arsr^ui^ QatJ* ________Oto«ip____ (attach list if more than one) Phone (home) . Ziojy^J^ Phone (work) EXISTING LAND USE Number of Tax Parcels Development Size Present use (check) Present Zoning District g^/A Acres Dry Land Acres Wet Land Acres Total, all parcels Residential; no. of units _±_____ Other (specify) Xo»ae Ok. OfcJi»t^ PROPOSAL Division for Tax Purposes Lot Line Rearrangement Only (no new building sites) Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites / Existing Units 5" New Units Cm Total Units f Proposed Gross Density Minimum Lot Size Proposed Use (check) Units per^»^7 Acres Sq. Ft. Dry Buildable Land , Residential , Other (specify)_________ :9 oO:' ii O! T NaiS^J RED OAXl ••^.iV; ,. ,V;?.*r v WEST BRA.NCHRD '■ . ^- © <v^V BATS . iRcd'., ’ 'OakV I . teojfsV AVI „i^anreaam» er moKo AS rr/wm inm4 m mm ** ^ f*—r iTIrLr^ ■*»•-•.*>•»*♦ •'*•**-*» •—^ »• ^ ^ ow«v •/ »• •»• V* w •>• m0mrnmt •/ «•oCiSS. w •>*• »»f •# •»• »^ ^ rTf^rTT* ^Ti!r IW« •/ •*• cw»»*w •# •• •*' **^ *r*r *• JT^'L^ZJtJT^ss M -^»- w am •* •*• O-^ •# •*• «»i*-if =r: ^ ~ ~ s^rs ttr *"**" ^rTur -r~——r •• »• **^ *•*• •* / / /Asrjjrjis^ iiilA.C^j. XVELOPER: me CRAIG COUPANY CRAIG ALSHOUSE 1300 WILLOWBROOK DRIVE WAYZATA. UN 55391 763-473-6414 M—#«■ Om>U rinra * "ITT --^V r.rr-ir —^ -*' «•*•«*• »• «• ■*»•»• ttw'lW to « mW ^ —1*^ lAmc M $OtOO 0mt to to* toW •• »■!*■*» •e«»^ »• *»• ***^ *• ^i«i< to »!«>■■»* ................ toxto. X «totototo M* ••«*• »A *—*, r. r-" r'*'.» ^ Z!SLT u^c1a^ o^ to., —# f-« »to I. totoi ^to^«to« gi iM rt I to »to lto»W *tofto »■*»—»» •*»•/ •*< •* J -H _J_j U. f--L_ z:!.. . _ 1 r------------------* •* _ M toia« • «/>MiS SSSSTT-i/^ AMlM A/MH« SoU)^ lino front - too’ Itoor - too _______ omtolot common tIdhfAAVtg trot--------------- i *.L%" 0 ^too pooovo hcom kKoiicn ^-^iL j Omoloo pomtU prtmory ooptie oilo 1 Oonoioo nmhto ottometo topUc oHo H Concept Plan I •-4km I /--: F,u-w;MFy»i 4^ j •Mt,MtWntm WiilTW —^<-'/nru zomiC: m tA kONUAM LOT 9ZE • 3 AC mmtw LOT mm - Joo* mmiM LOT mONTAGC • too' NOTE: AREAS SHOWN DO HOT tNCLUDC ROAD RtGHT-Or-WAY « '^1 TT=. p n •b' ll|ig''l]ij'----------in'! St-% 0 *MlW #MM» fi« ZOMNG: ftft tA kmmjy lot sz £ • 5 ac. larnuu LOT MOTH • JOO* mtmM LOT ntONTACC • 100' NOTT: AFCA5 SHOWN QQ.hQT MLUOC ROAD RICHT’-Or-WAY ------------- Am»tm tuMtf Wt0 frvnt - lOO* ----------------tmmm M pT^ Amttm fmWN imm WettWn j » ] AmHm HWmy 9^ W!m t I Hntm pcmWN rntmaou mt* WU N01CS: I) WSJIANO DOJNEATID BY KJ0LHAU6 ENWtONNENTAL SERVICES 2) TOFOGRAPHK BiFORUATiON PTOMOCD BY THE OTY OF ORONO 3) FOR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SEE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY OTTO ASSOC JOB ML 99S39. DATED 12/6/99 o sasttkrc.fJjtf • tmWkm Ml • MMtH MinilMa« tMl Mi Cone^t Plan on poroW in U»a L 1/2 of tna N.L 1/4 of Soe. 31. T. HR. R. 2R aiy of Orono. Honnoph Count/. Mnnnota "" The Craig Company do Craig Aishouse m mt MM • Ml IllH II l-> m/m IM a »•'TTO Br,•uu r^ioo*,»n *■ vu%1004 Wl' lr-5^ m'^'io fv>^:T> I'-^b'' ~1 ' I 111) MU ®i(Vr i!l 11 I ^ M\S\\l ZONING: RR lANmiuy Lor size • 5 ac wmuu LOT mom • joo* umnAt LOT ntONTAGC - w — ••— AmIM AtMv SMMP* «w f/w»» - uxr SMi - JO' Mmt - IW RSSVIPW ."ill£WL<^ I ?G5; 'viV •l>' !) ko/Mk*.* Irtit 9' ''■' 'TJij Q ^wm/m ponMt aokm «sccttn ___ 4wtw l»m»k primary m^ NN I MtriMM f^t« «ff* Monrsr WTIANO DBJNCATeD Bf KJOLHAUG ODARONUO/TAL S&?kfCTS ^ /wvBjez? by th£ are of orono 3) FOR PROPCRTY OCSCttPTJQIV SET CERnnCATE OF SURVEY OTTO ASSOa JOB NO 99539. DATED I2/S/99 t»un4 sessk.ti’axf • «M«M Hi • Jmta* »w1«ll uw «M( M* Conetpl Plan on parcN M tha L 1/2 of (A* N.C 1/4 of Soe. 31. r. Ita, R. 23 CRy of Omo. Monnoph County Ninnoooto The Craig Company _____c/o Craig Alshouse ris,xiss£?J7 'no uocurci (MaflOiMM Mm 1*1 tutl >utU4Ui (MiMWMIMfAMKM M vH f/ afe ?A' -;t liMEv'vnW fesHMsfcji ISl'mi' .-'I fe‘y?i;f#i : . :ar, 1 iH r^V w tS:‘-v3S^P ;’i';?4* ♦S' J ^ ‘ v-- u ipi te — ■ T.Tif.r JCTr^ i-> -m ittsMbiiifc mm WM mm i«hi Tit;? ,■ !,i ' iSr'i- .•'••^* ■'V- PMm BS^s>4|( KAjm i£;£^s i/..-Kiagw ^f^rsr fa esmi«-'y e W mm\ >».* mm .m. ^■?:| m ' ki -»«?-.asMM■ammsi m^’m. ms.im fetf*!te jiSi ?Ai. -A feplW Qlyp !«&:♦* m 9.VM WM Bs pv!!wMilii 4} ?■ Pi1 m ni» m m^M ll"ldriv«. . > vA pp"' # ■m^ ;<i^;\ • •/’ n 5i... ^:mm '•, •vV'-. .»f iCW^ il:'| Wm ;i® E:-'jfc-J a II rti X*- W^-'’ J-7- fi^'cwcK I pt^ |:Pm.'-P'':1 W'^Sk 4 if ‘X mm. iLl 'sx ;Vl!v!^; 'i^m ■iMMMk m m M Pt.l Lmb^-HS€a£BBi< '! WM M r*> mi '•->«rl ■|;K' J-3 /) f c b u I Ic/i K V;-' -iW'W II I#1;*^ . •' '* ‘-'v* . ^v^K■'" 505" OrcUcvreJ Vc. ^oo.c$ V\oosc. J v” msn 1 f/^',ixZ-'\ j.;'V' t^y.^iP'' ■ • ,V( Klyi4‘" ^0 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERL1K3 l/|lBonestroo M^Rosene Andefttk& |\]| Associates Engineers & ArcHIteeli Maahl5.2lX)l Foul Weinberger Zuninf AdininUirWor/PUnncr Ciiy of Orunn Post Ciffitc n«»» 66 Crysial Day. MN 55323 S 6516361311 03/16/01 08:37 S *.01/02 NO:AW ---- ss===='.“::"::r;,^.. IWMI U !©»«•". tf * ^ * rr,,tnn Pt • • AimUM ftiMioM: A tWy* rt.«»» ^ AiA . mrnk K H * BKn»d w n • 0-^ O- ^*‘**li - rt, ■ Anctfipf^ rj. • »*•'» • ••‘T*- rf * ^ Olt.»«l...-Ull Cl... mMttm •«wtt€«*it»oe»»- Knkcsil Farm SubdiviMiW Pile No. 139-2663 coinmcnu In rcgaidi m engineering tnalicrs. ;rtrir.rr!:rir,ra::««; Minwihing more than U*» Although lO-^ r» “'**'■bel^con Lou 3 nnd 4 If is unclear what icaomubic compromise. The plan, coruam u no,^ Z etc.-PK developer should provnlc lypc of tmil i> proposed. i, Msunw^^hai the acLia to Lot 5 wtU remain in ihc e.i.ting ‘ HE==S=i^^Si^ adJiiioii..l runoff. We rccinmneod the ^ will be route! wc.tcriy through a culvert to the nonJing area at about station 3^50 fhe coocem I <,f ^le propo-sed diichcv along erndf will cause much of the stomt water to hyposi t cnntrol desigo for the read dilchc as Ouiloi A IS also a concern. The developer should pros » ^howi a proposed (MCWD) for their review and approval. 4. K««H»IK Riulpl»«i"8U>dlKlc33 |M>b« Road. Drainage and utility eoiemanu ocro« all drainage ways ono pooum* I i: ■i f. i BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK3 V 6516361311 03/16/01 08:37 0:02/02 NC^46p required for ill* p»opo«ul uaU. Plea« funiaci me al 651 604^863 if you have any quartkiw re(anlia| tWa toMKt. BONUSTROO, ROSDNE. ANDRRLIK & ASSOQATES, INC. /07*1 Turn Kelloiicgnar AunchmcnK Ct: ClTcgCam»^CUyi>fOr«au I “V ' i i .* I I ii ii CltyotOROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.1894 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VhRlhUCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE - SECTION 10.27f SUBDIVISION 4 (A) AND A CONDITIONAL USB PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20r SfflaUISaSION 3 (F) FILE(j994j) WHEREAS, Frank Kokesh (hereinafter owner of the property located at 4100 Watertown Road of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The West 316.50 feet of the South 1088;1 of \he the south 27.50 acres of the West 1/2 of ,/iL Lr^^ Northeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 118, (of tL center line) of the Minneapolis and Watertown Road, (hereinafter "property"): and WHEREAS, the applicant has oses^oer ro-^sr/enrA^V'rhl.rsVs riTin, o, horses per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (F). Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File S994. 2. The property is located in the RR-IA Rural Residential Zoning District. 3.The property contains approximately 35 acres in area 4. The Orono Planning C°""i®®i°"*rioo?ovaV of‘’the “propped November 18, 1985, and recommended approval of th^^^ variance to allow the keeping of 4 (*), and purposes per Zoning Code Section 10 27 subcivi^ recommended approval of a conditional stable continued use of applicant's property for public ricing use based on the following findings: A) Applicant's principal residence is located on a 35 acre site. B) Ho other variances are f®_P?|g°^"'of*Vome^ Section 10.27, Subdivision 4 (A) keeping animals. City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1894__________ C) The proposed level of use is compatible with surrounding 5 acre "hobby farm" neighborhood. D) The property has been used as proposed in this review for over 15 years and has not resulted in any harm to the publics' safety or welfare. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district! that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; 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 appli cant; 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 a public riding stable will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not ad versely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighborii.y piopcrties, 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 AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.27, Subdivision 4 (A) to allow the keeping of domestic animals for commercial purposes and per Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (F) grants conditional use permit to permit the continued use of applicant s property for public riding stable use subject to the following conditions: 1. The total number of full and part time employees hired by the applicants to assist in the commercial horse operation shall not exceed the level of 5 employees except for special events at which large assembly permitting process shall establish level of temporary employees. 2. Riding lessons arc to be provided by members of applicant's family. 3. Horses maintained on property shall not exceed the number allowed per Section 10.27 Subdivision 4 (A). 4. Applicant shall renew conditional use permit annually until Council specifies otherwise. Page 2 of 4 f *. /' • City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. _1S24. 5. Authorities greeted by thethe property not with the owner and are permissive only 6. Violation of or nsUtute^a^viola^ the ^rntig^-def ter^ hweiS. end shall be punishable as a nlsde»eanor. 7. The undersigned of ” himself^ agrees to the terms of ®°g hereby agrees to the recordingS'.sn'v.sz ’r. •£. ■.sir.’, sav./... December) Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of 1985. Ity Clerk Mary cT Mayor > '(^jJXprbilerty owner Page 3 of 4 n NNESOTA COUNTY OP HENNEPIN On this City of OROISO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL m. 1B94_________ day of /4i/4^517" before me a Notary Public within and for said countyt personally appeared _ _ _ _ _ _ known to mo to be the person(B) described in and who executed th^ foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OP MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OP HENNEPIN ) i/0On this / ft V»WJ V/*. _> f A n Notary Public within and for said County, p^sdnally appeared U^U-^SrU ____ known to me to be the personT^ des^ib^ in and who executed the foregoing instrum^t, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. day of {Ayx^4^'T~1^*57 before me sc^ally NOTARY PUBLIC ^ MY COMMIS.'ICrt EXPIRES Page 4 of 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wcdncsdny, Jnminry 17,2001 (W2657 Clirrord Otten, Continued) Otten indicated he is in agreement with tlie easement \acation Kluth moved, Bellows seconded, to recomnend Approval of Appliention W2657, Clifford Otten, 2350 \Ya>'zata Boulevard, granting of an easement vacation subject to the granting of a replacement easement as shown in Exhibit B-3 contained in the January' 11, 2001 Planner’s Report. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REMEW (i»17) #2653 CRAIG ALHOUSE, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD, SKETCH PLAN REMEW Cmig Alshouse, Applicant, was present Weinberger staled the Applicant is requesting a sketch plan icsicw for a Class III subdivision for llic propcrlv located at 4100 Watertown Road Tlic propcity consists of approvimatcly 37 acres of which approximaielv two acres is classified as Orono Wetlands and appear on the City Welland Maps The property is located in tlie RR-LA. One Family Rural Residential, which his a five acre minn urn lot si/e Weinberger stated the Applicants luivc two proposals to consider, with the primary difference between the two proposals being the size of Lot 5. Because Lot 5 contains a large bam and indoor riding arena, the second option would be to create a larger parcel of land to create an individual lot with more pasture land Proposal one is for a six lot standard plat and proposal two is for a five lot standard plat City Staff has had seicral discussions with the .Applicant about the future use of the property as a community horse farm Proposal number one would have a private road with access directly off of Watertown Road serving the western four lots. Lots 1 through 4. Lot 5, which is an existing developed site, would continue its access off of Watertown Road The sixth lot wo.ild have access off of Orono Orchard Lot 6 has been leg.illy combined with the property in 1996, and does have an existing house on the propertv along with a guest house The intent as part of this particular application tliat the house and the other structures on the lot will be removed Weinberger stated all of the lots meet the five acre standard, with the road arrangement into the development well suited for this particular area llie surrounding area has been prinurily developed as residential, with a large wetland area to the north side The primary issue for consideration bv the Plamiing Commission is the future use of two oversized accessory buildings, a 10,000 square foot indoor riding arena and a horse bam approximately 4,000 square feet Cunentiv Orono*s Ordinances onl> allow accessory buildings to luve a maximum of 3,000 square feet The proposed development docs change the character and use of tlicsc accessory buildings. Weinberger indicated in the discuss.ons with the Applicant, they luve attempted to review PAGE 28 J MINUTES OF THE OUONO PLANNING COMMISSION \Ycdnesday, January 17,2001 (N26S7 ClifTord Otirn, Continued) Otten indicated he is in agreement with the casement vacation Kluth moved, Bellows seconded, to recommend approval of Application H16ST, Clifford Otten, 2350 Wayzata Boulevard, granting of an easement vacation subject to the granting of a replacement casement ns shown in Exhibit B-3 contained in the January II, 2001 Planner's Report. VOTE; Ayes 4, Nays 0. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (»17) M26S3 CRAIG ALHOUSE, 4100 WATERTOWN ROAD, SKETCH PLAN REN1EW Craig Alshousc. Applicant, was present Weinberger staled the Applicant is requesting a skctcli plan ic\icw for a Class III subdivision for the property located at 4100 Watertown Road The property consists of approximately 37 acres of which approximately two acres is classified as Orono Wetlands and appear on the City Wetland Maps The property is located in the RR-LA. One Family Rural Residential, which his a five acre mini, urn lot size Weinberger stated the Applicants base two proposals to consider, with the prmury dinfercnce between the two proposals being the size of Lot 5. Because Lot 5 contains a large bam and indoor riding arena, the second option would be to create a larger parcel of land to create an individual lot with more pasture land Proposal one is for a six lot standard plat and proposal two is for a five lot standard plat City StafTIus had several discussions with the .Applicant about the future use of the property OS a community horse farm Proposal number one would have a private road with access directly off of Watertown Rood serving the western four lots. Lots 1 through 4. Lot S, which is on existing developed site, would continue its access off of Watertown Road Tlie sixth lot wo.ild have access off of Orono Orchard Lot 6 has been legally combined with the property in 1996, and docs have an existing house on the property along with a guest house The intent as part of this particular application tliat the house and the other structures on the lot will be removed Weinberger stated all of the lots meet the five acre standard, with the road arrangement into the dev elopment well suited for this particular area 1bc surrounding area has been primarily developed as residential, with a large wetland area to the north side The primary issue for consideration by the Plamiing Commission is the luturc use of two oversized accessory buildings, a 10,000 square foot indoor riding arena and a horse bam approximately 4,000 square feet Cunently Orono's Ordinances only allow .irccssory buildings to luve a maximum of 3,000 square feet. The proposed development does change the character and use of these accessory buildings. Weinberger indicated in the discussions with the Applicant, they have anempted to review PAGE 28 MINUTES OF THE OKONO PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 17, 2001 (K2653 Crnig Alshouse, Continued) their options on how to best maintain the rural character of this area, maintain the accessory buddings, and be compatible with the surrounding residcntnl areas Staff had discussed the possibility of using the pro|>cn> as a community horse farm, which the Applicant has determined would not be successful Alshousc stated he is interested in de\eloping n desclopmcrit that w ill work well with the site and the surrounding area Alshousc stated the previous owner of the property purchased it in 1971, and erected the lO.COO square foot arena at that time on seven acres of land for the purpose of boarding horses Presentiv there is a commercial license under a conditional use permit for the purpose of boarding horses for the public Alshousc commented there have been a number of problems experienced with this operation such as parking along Watertown Road Alshousc stated the lot to the nordi was subsequently combined with the seven acre lot, with the existing residence being rented out at tins time. Alshousc stated the goal of this project is to create five or six lots over the 36 acres in order to help maintain the rural chracter of the area An interior private road would be created on die lower area to access this development, with some consideration being given to shortening the length of the cul-de-s.ac Alshousc stated ihcv will be eliminating a number of the other outbuildings on the property, and are contemplating clustering the residences towards the top of the ridge Alshousc stated in his opinion the development the> arc proposing is in keeping with the cluractcr of the ronmg ordinances aiul the neighborhood Derg inquired whether the developer prefers Option I or Option 2 Alshousc Slated he piefers Option I due to marketing Alshousc staled if he goes with Option 2, he would be forced to increase the price of the houses due to the snullcr number of lots that would be for sale Gaffron staled he likes the concept plan, but in his opinion the future use of the accessory* building should be limited Mabusth suggested the future owner of ilut lot be told tlic bam is non-conforming Bellows stated she prefers Option 2 over Option I because it prefers a hnie bit more of the larger lot and provides more land for the indoor iiding arena Bellows stated the City needs to be careful about preserving this area, but the Ciiv needs to be careful about placing too nunv restrictions on the future use of the structure Alshousc stated he will be rc-appearing before the Planning Commission in March with a prclinuiurv plat and that he is looking for some direction from the Planning Commission on whether the accessory buildings can remain ij the basic layout of the development Kluth stated personally he does not see any major problems with the proposal Bellows stated the City may be limited in the type of restrictions it can place on this property and the accessor;, building since it was originally constructed on a seven acre piece of land PAGE 29 \ TO: FKOM: UATK: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. City Administrator Wendy Uottenberg. Zoning Adniinblrator/IMaimcr March 15.2001 SUBJECT:#01-2666 2800 Country side Drive W. CUP - Public Hearing Zoning District: Lot Area: Ri .-IB One Pamily Rural Residential District (2 acre) 107,119 s.f. (2. .59 acre) List ofEshibiU A Application Site l'lan/Sur\cy Elevations Septic Location Ntap Photo of Property l.tKation Map Property Map Permit Record Property Owner’s List Pertinent Code Section: I. Section 10.03. Subdivision 10; Conditional Use Permit • Accesion- Building; All accessory buildings on through lots located in “R" Districts sliall require a conditional use permit. Application Summary: The applicants aie proposing to construct an accessory storage building 14' X 20* (280 s.f.) behind their residence Ilie applicants arc proposing to locate the accessory building approximately 15’ from the side property line as indicated on Exhibit B. A conditional use pemtit is required because this lot is considered a “through” lot. By Zoning Code definitii*n a “through” lot is a lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting two substantially parallel streets, and wliich is not a comer lot. On a through lot. both street lines shall be front lines for applying the Zoning Chapter. The lot abuts streets on three sides; Country side Drive W.. Old Cry st^ Bay Road and Watertown Road. Although the Zoning Code definition of “through lot” appears to exclude comer lots this lot is both a comer lot and a through lot. and a conditional use permit is required. The intent of the ordinance is to have control over the placement of accessory structures within street yards. 1 he property contains a private sewugc treatment sy stem. The proposed accessory structure will not interfere with the primary or alternate septic sites. *01-2666 Greg anJJo*el ViliU 2800 Countryside Drive It' CUP SI 5/200 1 Pag* I ANALYSIS The Planning commission may recommend and the Council may grant a conditional use permit if the following findings arc made: 1. That the propt^sed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Chapter and the purposes of the district in which the site is located and Comprehensive Municipal Plan; The proposed conditional use is in accordance with the Municipal Code because an accessory structure on a through lot located in a "R" District is listed as a conditional use. 2. That the propijsed location of the conditional use and the proposed condition under which it would he operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed conditional use would not be dctriincnlal to public health, safety or welfare. The proposed accessory building is !4* x 20’ or 280 s.f. An accessory structure of this size is to be located at least 10' from the side property line. The accessory structure is proposed to be located 15* from the property line as shovNm on the sur\ey (Exhibit B). It meets setbacks an.l docs not exceed the height of the principal building, therefore is considered as conforming. Further, it will be located at least 100' from the nearest roadway and will not appear as an encroachment of any required street yard. 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Zoning Chapter. The use will not conflict with other provisions of the Zoning Chapter. Issues for Considemtion ; 1. Docs Planning Commission find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood'.’ 2. Ihe accessory ’ building meets setbacks from both Countryside Drive W. and Watertown Road. 3. Does the Planning Commission wish to consider amending this ordinance in the future to not require a conditional use permit for applications such as this one? (Perhaps establishing standards for required setbacks, size of accessory ’ structure, being adjacent to neighbor's rear yard, etc.) 4. Should the definition of “through lorinclude comer lots such as this one, w ith street frontage on 3 sides? tlOI-2666 Greg andJewel Titas 2800 Cotuarystde Drive W. CUP 3/1X2001 Page 2 5. Other issues raised by the Planning Commission. Slaif RceoBimtadatlon : Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit to construct an accessory building on the property as proposed, meeting all required setbacks. MI-2666 Greg andJewel yuas 2800 Countrysuk Drtvt W. CUP J/IS/2001 Page} a-n ..i Application Date Recehcd t/>u/ot AmonntPald CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION , i tn , . Site Address trJgOO CxXorTKpC^ l D(W_i Tvnc of Amdication to be Filed ___Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) QgGiCl flrrf’vvrC APPLICANT, Name_Q£cl ‘^ Address y/X> ^ Avci V«V a i\j^d OWNER (if difTcrent than applicant) S:.. ftv WtoiF \lML\A. Cit>' PhoneOiomc)*^SZ Phone (work)____________ nr^oX^O ' Zip Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Dote Property Acquired 1^^ odjai (raonlh/>'car) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each \oriuncc request with CUP application 5175.00 Residential Accessor) Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) 5225.00 Guest Housc/Gucst .\partments 5200.00 Duple.x Cieditllldg 5325.00 Commercianiuluslrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain ____ Grading and filling • 501 cu. yd. or more ____ Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRDTID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) Aftcr-thc-Facl Fee • Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$275.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation _____$100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision _____$350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) _____$375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 4 5. 6. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Ou-ners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Count)’ Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center,' 59 / 0 Certificate of Surv'cy (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey infomution. Attach legal description to application if not included on required surs’ey. Topographic survey (c.\isting and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons witli an interest in the property. This would include nanie(s) of applicanl(s) if not current o\\ncr(s). Construction plan, if applicable (sec staff for requirements). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Stafl' will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical StalT:___________________________Date_________________________ APPLICANT'S SIGN.VTIRE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all iafoimation required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and'or unusual expenses ip^prred in rcs iew of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and corn’d to the be^t of hislier knowledge. Applicant’s signature ises m^prred ci^’cl to tl Date jo I OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property;*)) City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purpo^of investigation*t nd verification of this request. Owner’s signature ^Date Applicant must have all subminals into the City oft ’ices 25 davs 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 arrangemenu to have an authorized agent attend in >our place and advise the Building A Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting C' < o 0_ < h- to (x: O o o , tvta ♦-! l*'L#rr •.1 V itr.-^.xmc' Vitas Bam Project Site Map 6 Vitas Bam-style Storage Shed Project c. Structure: The framing for the structure is basic two by four, sixteen inch on centers stick construction. The gambrel roof provides attic storage. Windows ■>RIGHT ELEVATION -—> LEFT EfLEVATlON •r-il- Pag* 3 of 3 by 0—> L Bwnaon Pag* 4 of 4 Vitas Bam-style Storage Shed Project FRONT ELEVATION brOwL C Vitas Bam-style Storage Shed Project PiMSofS bvOMnLSwmon £ f ’curv+i^srfe/ ]>. lO ■« m .siy J ' M V#; G-- ' [r addresb ^^^ PERMIT RECORD Permit Wor Pata Type off Permit 1^11'+ 1/>Q / 4 W lonjiq / 7 - W ' , u UlLX /•J0-9.S' /i-2i-<^i-PMc, In ^V'3 uJ stJ 7633 ar>n 7 '^7'*?^CO. .di ^-L------------------- 1 S' .* •^:»‘' ------------------------------------- .7-7-7t QsiU fo-ia<i7 c7 _ /O 9^J //-.3-7«' //O^D /.a-AP/' ///^g-z /j-/. mjN DATE 02/24/01 BATCH SOS HENNEPIN COUNTY POOPERTV INFOOHATION SYSTFH PROfERTY OWNERS LIST PROP ADPR OWNER NAHE TAMPAVCR NAHE/AOM SO 04*117-?S 12 0000 02000 COUNTRYSIDE OR H 0 J 0 J A VITAS GREGORY J ■ JEWEL A VITAS 2000 COUNTRYSIDE OR U LONG LAKE MH SSSS4 PROP AOOR OWNER NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 04-117-2S 12 0012 02700 COUNTRYSIDE OR W S L I P T DENNETT SCOTT L 0 PAHCLA T BENNETT 2700 COUNTRYSIDE OR W LONG LAKE HN SS3S4 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR iO 04-117-2S 12 0020 ODOSO ADDRESS PENOINO CITY or ORONO CITY or ORONO PO BOX 44 CRYSTAL BAY HN 5SS2S PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO SS-11B-2S S4 0004 02400 WATERTOWN RO SHARON RAE GUIHONO SHARON RAE GUIHONO 2400 WATERTOWN RO LONG LAKE HN SSSS4 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SB 3S-11S-2S 4S 0011 OOOSS GOLDEN VIEW OR V 0 0 N L ERICKSON VAN D ■ NANCY L ERICKSON 55 GOLDEN VIEW OR LONG LAKE HN 553^4 PROP AOOR OWNER NAHE TAXPAYER NA. IE/AOOR SB SS-11B-2S 4S 0020 02740 WATERTOWN RO 0 C I B J WULr GENE C B BARBARA J MULF 2740 WATERTOWN RO LCNO LAKE HN S5SS4 REPORT NO. PIBSSAH PAGE 9 SB 0H-117-2S 12 0010 027B0 COUNTRYSIDE DR W L J A 0 T SEWARD JR LISA J t DWIGHT T SENARO JR 2700 COUNTRYSIDE OR W LONU LAKE HN 55S54 SB 04*117-2S 12 OQll 02740 COUNTRYSIDE OR W R S t L A STOOOART RICHARD t LEE LNNE STOOOART 2740 COUNTr .E DR W LONG LAKE HK S53S4 SB C4-117-2S 12 0014 027.5 COUNTRYSIDE DR M r 0 BURKE I R H BURKE FORREST I RENEE BURKE 2775 COUNTRYSIDE DR W LONG LAKE HN SSSS4 SB 04-1I7-2S 12 0917 02755 COUNTRYSIDE DR W R E TUNKEIH OKA TUNHEIH R E TUNHCIN OKA TUNHEIH 2755 COUNTRYSIDE CR W LONS LAKE HN 55S54 SB 04-117-2S 21 OOeS 02845 WATERTOWN RD S W KNAPPCNBCRCEK IT AL S W • 0 N RNAPPCNBCRGER 2B4S WATERTOWN RO LONG LAKE HN SSS54 SB 04-117-2S 21 0004 00085 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S iSCOTT R HILLER SCOTT R HlLLErf SS OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO B LONG LAKE HN 55S54 SB SS-118-2S S4 0004 02845 WEAR CIR S J YOUNG A H S YOUNG HONICA B SCOTT YOUNO 2B45 WEAR CIR LONG LAKE HN S5S54 SB SS-118-2S 4S 0010 OOOSS GOLDEN VIEW DR H J ANDERSON ARK ANDERSON N J ANDERSON ARK ANDERSON SS CrtOEN VIEW OR LONG LAKE HN 55SS4 SB SS-118-2S 4S 0018 024B5 COPPER VIEW DR J N A P H TURKBAS JAY N TURKBAS 2485 COPPER VIEW OR LONG LAKE HN 55S54 SB SS-11B-2S 4S 0014 P2755 COPPER VIEW DR J E A H C P VOGT JOHN E A HAUREEN C P VOGT 2755 COPPER VIEW DR LONG LAKE HN S5S54 V \ » TOTAL BATCH SOS 00614 O'f-M V <U tt H