The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-15-1996 Planning PacketPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MO?0)AY, JULY 15, 1996, 7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Charles Kelley ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Conunission are asked to move to the table at the front of the Chambers when their application is announced by the Chairman. SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS 1.7:00 p.m. #2152 Hans T. Hagen, 4760 West Branch Road - Preliminary Subdivision -Application has been Withdrawn by Applicant ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior to or between scheduled public hearings. 't #213i Lany Karkela, 4149 Highwood Road - After-lhe-Fact Variances - Public Hearing ' 3.#2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund/Edna Albee Estate, 1575 Long Lake Boulevard - Variances -Continuation of Public Hearing 1-.^ '• 4. 5 A (i 'i ' ■ 8. #2148 Wayne M. Holmes and Jackie Dahl, 1390 Park Drive - Variance - Public Hearing #2149 Theresa Norsted, 2811 Casco Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing #2150 Kent and Susan Swanson, 3229B Casco Circle - Variances - Public Hearing #2151 John and Janice Hurd, 2795 Casco Point Road - Variances - Public Hearing #2153 Ben Young, 3106 Sixth Avenue North - Variance - Public Hearing Sketch Plan Review 9.#2154 John O’Sullivan/Erwin Smith, 2380 Shadywood Road - Proposed Rezoning/ Commercial Site Plan Planning Commission Comments 10.Report of Planning Commission representative attending Council meeting of July 8, 1996. 11.Other issues for discussion. Adjournment A n k ' Cl pyfTM'Xr 11. ' ^■l■ll■llPl PUBLIC A ttendance iO« Meeting Date C ouncil Planning C ommission Park Commission Other Please fill out the information REQUESTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. :2«;, NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1.1^1- ys jAJ A vn ^ y\/ .vv^ k___________ 2. 3. 4. 5.. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 09D95.4 I k I iimF HI3 ll'lit !► nn sS ss iS-S _ *t3 r i; r r o m V X -: d vj^ > rt fc.xS ??8 n-r|Digs v; P S ^= IO '1 To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date:July 9, 1996 Subject:#2131 Larry Karkela, 4149 Highwood Road - After-the-Fact Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB Total lot area = 10,374 s.f. Application: Applicant has filed an afler-the-fact variance application involving an average lakeshore setback, structural coverage and hardcover variance within the 75-250* setback area to permit completing construction of an upper level deck at the lakeside of the residence. Staff discovered the deck being constructed in the fall of 1993. The deck has yet to be completed as staff issued a Stop Work Order until the appropriate variances were approved. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review” I.Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Structural coverage variance. (Note: All deck areas located 6* above grade with a railing are included in structural coverage inventory.) Totfil lot area = 10,374 s.f. Allowed = 1,556 s.f. or 15% Existing = 2,123 s.f. or 20.46% Proposed = 2,188.5 s.f. or 21.09% Structural coverage increase = 65.5 s.f or 0.63% 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance. Allowed = 0 s.f Existing lower level deck is located 31.6’ beyond the average lakeshore setback line. Proposed upper level deck encroaches average lakeshore setback line by ^ 1 ’ 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover variance within the 75-250’ setback area. Total area = 6,924 s.f Allowed = 1,731 s.f or 25% Existing = 2,882.8 s.f or 41.6% Proposed = 2,894.3 s.f or 41.8% Hardcover increase =11.5 s.f or 0.16% A' Zoning #2131 July 9, 1996 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propert}' Ch\Tiers' List D - Neighbors' Acknowledgement Form E-1-2 Adjacent Neighbors' Approval Letters F - Floor Plan-Location of Additional Hardcover from Upper Level Deck Floor Plan-'Upper Level Deck Survey • Hardcover Inventory 75-250' Setback Area • Average Lakeshore Setback Site Plan G H I J K-1-4 Staff Letters to Applicant Description of Request Applicant seeks approval of vaiiances tliat would allow an upper level deck at 65.5 s.f. installed at the lakeside of the residence. The majority of the structure is located over a lower level deck. Refer to Exhibits F, G and H, the improvement results in an 11.5 s.f. increase of hardcover where excesses of hardco\er exist within the 75-250' setback area. The entire upper level deck area is credited as structural coverage against the property. Review Exhibit J, the proposed deck will be located 21' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The existing lower level deck e..-roaches the setback line by 31.6'. The upper level deck appears to have little impact upon the lakeshore views of the adjacent residents. Review Exhibits D and E, the neighbors are aware of the proposed improvement and have submitted letters of approval. Review Exhibit F, applicant offers removal of existing hardcover improvements to offset the 11.5 s.f. increase. He proposes reduction in gravel drive/parking area or comers of lower deck. In 1984, applicant received variance approval for construction of the new two story garage and decks at lakeside of residence. Applicant applied for building permits for all improvements. Review Exhibits K-1-4, applicant was first advised of the violation in October of 1993. The after-the-fact variance application was filed in April of 1996. The survey submitted with the application was found to be inadequate. Applicant was required to provide an updated survey and hardcover inventory for the variance review. 4 Zoning #2131 July 9, 1996 Page 3 Statement of Hardships Refer to Exhibit A, applicant notes lower level deck is not useable ... the upper level 4* wide walkwtiy deck, originally approved in 1984, connected the patio doors from the kitchen/dining area to upper deck. Applicant notes the inability to have a table for informal dining immediately adjacent to upper level kitchen. Applicant's immediate neighbors note no problem with the proposed deck and recommended that the City approve the variances as proposed. Issues for Consideration 1.Applicant has agreed to remove 11.5 s.f. of existing hardcover to offset increase from upper level deck. NMiat of 65.5 s.f. of additional structural coverage improvements? Should 65.5 s.f. of structural improvements also be removed to offset the stnctural coverage increase? 2.What does applicant mean by lower level deck not being useable? Should lower level deck be reduced in area to minimize hardcover and reduce average lakeshore setback encroachment? 3. Other issues raised by Planning Commission members. Options of Action To either deny, approve or approve as amended. If application is denied, Planning Commission must recommend a deadline dale for the removal of the upper level deck. If approved, the following conditions should be included: 1.Applicant to obtain a penalty building permit. Applicant to contact Building Official to determine what type of information will be needed to complete the filing of the building permit application. 2. All required hardcover, structural and/or non-structural removals to be completed prior to the framing inspection by Building Inspector. cmr OF ORONO - variance application Initial Application Fee 5200.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $100.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $200.00 / f After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) // ’ PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address \-V\CrW^oQ^ II MAR 2 5 1996 r-L> .V •• .^•1 • 4 1 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) O'l- \ n vp- o<^\8'_____ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired____^ ________________(month/year) I (do)^do not^also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential ___other (specify)_____________________ Zoning District:______________________________________________________— APPLICANT Phone (home) Name VjJ \<A>2.vc^u.A Phone(work)_ Address: o, \A \^City: 'I Z.Z. - Zip:3t>*4' OWNER (if different than applicant) Name _______ Phone(home) Phone (work) Address:City:Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Co:>iiruction Cost $ ---- Describe request in detail: TnE > s»t F i-'ig w.Tw A y u>~ At)p«noo> Aww B>v-«-r \s AgoUx P^c (attach additional sheets if necessary) /^r wA w<-o- ' t VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HAPDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty_or unusu^ property conditions prev^tmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ’ rvg- 1 ^ IVHCS. » wss> A 'c. cii.^t-*t i—^ 1 J C- ^ \'Z- -S (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following inforft*ation must be submitted bv the appUcation deadUne date ’m prder fnr vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. Completed Application Form Cenified Property Owners List of owners within 150’ (you must obtain this list from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Plat Map (obtained with property owners list). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8 Vi" x 11" for reproduction. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. rcprouucuuii. • • • j Topographic surv’ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in exis^g grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8Vi" x 11" for reproduction.^ X Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8Vi x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of 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 ysUT variance applieatinn is not complete if th e above information has got been includ e APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ w t. r. The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Admiiiisuator. agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE ^ . .. The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, apnts. Commission members, and Councu members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner’s Signature Date hi AppUcant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Co^ssion Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. AppUcLits must be present at aU scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please m^e arra^OTen to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zomng Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 L__ I I RUN DATE 0S/08/9ADATCN 504DROP AOOR QNCR NAHE TAXPAYER NRHE/AOM PROP AOOt ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NANE/ADOR PROP ADDR CRMER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PRO;^ ADOR OHHER NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR Sa 07-117-2S 44 0015 04109 HI6HNOOO RO GEORGE H APPLEOAUN KORGE APPLEOAUN 4109 HIGNNOOO RO HOUND m 553M SO 07-117-23 44 0020 04147 HIGNNOOO RO HERLXN L HALVERSON HERLXN L HALVERSaJ 4175 HXGHNOOO RD HOUND m 55364 30 07-117-23 44 0027 04166 HXGHNOOO RO HAL DEVAAN HERBERT A LORETTA OEVAAN 17605 SUSAN DR HXNNETONKA HN 55345 30 07-117-23 44 0030 04140 HXGHNOOO RD J 0 CUSACK A C H GRACE C GRACE A J CUSACK 4140 HIGHNOOD RD HOUND HN 55364 0007 RO 30 07-117-23 44 04116 HXGHNOOO PMXLLXP H OTTO PHXLLXP OTTO 19050 STRATFORD RO 0209 HINNETOTKA HN 55345 HErt4EPXN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT HO. PX435401 PAGE 1330 07-117-23 44 001004149 HXGHNOOO RO LARRY N KARKELA LARRY N KARKELA 4149 HXGHNOOO RO HOUND m 55364 30 07-117-23 44 0019 04156 HXGHNOOO RO FRANCES N NILSON JOHN F TESAR 4156 HXGHNOOO RD R 1 HOUND MN 55364 30 07-117-23 44 0021 04175 HXGHNOOO RO HERLXN L HALVERSON HERLXN L HALVERSON 4175 HXGHNOOO RO HOUND Hi 55364 30 07-117-23 44 0022 04195 HXGHNOOO RD H A FINNEY A S J FirtlEY HARK A SARA FINNEY 4195 HXGHNOOO RO HOUND Hi 55364 # s li 30 07-117-23 44 0020 04150 HXGHNOOO RO TONI B GRANDSTRANO TONX B GRANDSTRANO 4150 HXGHNOOO RO ORQNO HN 55364 30 07-117-23 44 0029 04140 HXGMKXX) RO JANET L EIDE JANET L EXDE 4140 HXGHNOOO RD HOUND MN 55364 i". ft li 30 07-117-23 44 0031 04132 HXGHNOOO RD SCOTT G A CAIHLRINE ANDERSON SCOTT 6 A CATHERINE ANDERSON 4132 HXGHNOOO ROAD MOUND MN 55364 30 07-117-23 44 04125 HXGIPIOOD JOHN N A ROBERTA JOHN N A ROBERTA 4125 HXGHNOOO RO ORQNO MN 55364 0004 RD J HENRXCH J HENRXCH DJ 23^ TOTAL BATCH 50. 00015 i RUN DATE RATCN 504 HENNERXN COUNTY RROPCRTY INFORNATION SYSTEH PUDPEfiJY OHNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI4S5401 PAGE 14 / / -<a: X CERTXnr THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF NY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE f V t r* I f '% •C i ' \ * ir Adjacent Property 0\«iiers’ Acknowledgement Foiin' • r f 1* -=--•« I (we)U/: [print name(s)] » of H!7>S [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ____also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confinn for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. VTopifty Owner Date Property Owner Date ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*******'**********^************************************ I (we) P - ______Ot [print namets)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. • I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for die City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor ’s project or use requires Council approval. }^ J J Property Owner Date o 0 Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & 2^ning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. I / f; March 22.19%t;"/# i'.: • --1 I ♦ • • ’% •• To: Members of the Orono City Council and Staff Re: Variance Application of Larry Karkela, 4149 Highwood Rd. We the under«gned are neighbors on either side of the subject property and wish to show our support for the approval of the above variance application to allow the expansion of the deck at 1st floor level. We recommend that the variance application be approved, as it does not adversely affect our properties Address Address 1 * Ox.t i|ii» • ti March 22,1996 / V To: Members of the Orono City Council and Staff Re: Variance Application of Lary Karketa, 4149 Highwood Rd. We the undersigned are neighbors on either side of the subject property and wish to show our support for the approval of the above variance application to allow the expansion of the deck at 1st floor level We recommend that the variance application be approved, as it does not adversely affect our properties. Address Address ----------------- \\ \>\0. \ N \ JAiT'wlTTAa V3ES N^VO hX>pi'r\^^A^— 33[F„:ca^^n^M^ttT':: ?A«K*^s " * OF Jr-PVJ«R. pec^ JFA-iM tl7TSCEftMl^”£rfcjlZY^A I ______ »» •Si-l -4* . 20- _ ^ ^ ___1 Vrthvjc.. •I ip- 6.n^sT^o^- Tt-cyeyr*. OScjs. '.' f^cPA->As. £)r4i^y -/- «i5- H*|^| tea*’♦U .'ll?'-' I li ✓**•. &j| |?.«.—^.JL i,.^ •-'UvSQ’t' ^ \tf WlbMuSwi 7'— 1 I *5* SS^o/'o/*^ ■^O.V.. ^/meroAi^A CERTIFICATE OP SURVEY: for Larry Rarlcela 4149 Highwood Road, OroHO^ Minnesota, Scale 1 Lot area = 10,449.4 Sq. Ft. or 0.24 Acres • : Denotes Iron marker found Bearings shown are to an assumed datum. I hereby certify that this survey . was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 9(o Barton G. Ahrens Minnesota T.icense Number 19162 Existing Legal Description Lot 22, "Highwood, Lake Minnetonka". Hennepin County, Minnesota. This survey shows the location of all existing buildings and visible "hard cover" in relation to the boundaries of the above described property. It docs not purport to show any other improve ments or encroachments. •-} Survt^ Sjf: Ph^i2€-3S79 Sort flhrens SS Quo// St Ma/fton7c<//, /W SS//S f^or: Larr^ -y/y9 /?</. Orono I La ^ M»nn c Co. f MN Sheti /of/ JSoo/C /ZP4 30 L HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S’75-250’ V 25-500’500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ^1.9 '1.1 • 2> Leofth Widdi X X X B. Garage '2. (r • C. Driveway ^ ** -7 C X X 7 D. Sidewalk 0 . t X X ^•7 . !»» f E. Patio/Deck / V. i, r: 'j a_ K X ^ 7 F. Landscape Underlain Bv Plastic ^^ 0. 7 X X X / • p G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ‘ ^ ^ Bi ^ <? i y X100 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONK A. House __________ * Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Drivcwav X X D. Sidewalk X X cs E. Patio/Dcdt 0 -X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE t 7V. ^-r- B X 100 /6Z0.^ S.F. S F. S.F. S.F. S.F. y/6^ S.F. ■2. 0 Z S.F. i^cJ ZO. 0 S.F. 3 ..3 S.F. ?7.9 ------- S.F.?^/ V 7(/ 7 S.F. 1 C> O . __ S.F.7. 5 S.F. S.F. S.F. .. or ?, V S.F. y/.4i ys-'/ S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. /(. ^S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ill^I_S.F. S.F. %WT A B A B •4 Oc/ ■</0.V .. CERTIFICATE OP SURVEY for Larry Karkela 4149 Righwood Road» OroJiO/ Minnesota^ £X»ST\UG ViOVJSE 2^ Lot area = 10,449.4 Sq. Ft. or 0.24 Acres • : Denotes Iron marker found Bearings shown are to nn assumed datum. I hereby certify that this survey •. was prepared by me or under my direct super vision, and that I am a duly registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Oarton G. Ahrens Minnesota bicenso Number 191G2 I^^xistinq Legal Description Lot 22, "Righwood, Lake Minnetonka". Hennepin County, Minnesota. This survey shows the location of all existing buildings and visible "hard cover" in relation to the boundaries of the above described property. It docs not purport to show any other improve ments or encroachments. Sury/t;^Por: /,o/ 22^ "m<ih\AJoQ6 MinnctonHa, w Borf flhrens SS Qua// Lorr^ /(ar/^^la /W S^//sr Orono , a/a'Hcnne.pin Co. ^ MN Shet^ un JSooM /I 30 /9?i I \ /b O 'A f> !‘-1 4"-' CrrYoT ORONO Maaktad Oflko StTMt AMrtti- 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Malilfli Addras& P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323-0066 February 23, 1996 Mr. Larry Karkela 4149 Highwood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re; Deck Construction Dear Mr. Karkela: On December 15, 1993 this office notified you of the requirement for a building permit for a deck you were constructing on your property. On December 20, 1993 you submitted an after the tact permit application. A review was completed and the proposed deck addition was found to be encroaching the average lakeshore setback. A letter was sent to you on March 1,1994 notifying you of this problem. Work on the deck was halted and it remained unfinished until recently when it was completed. Enclosed is Citation #3960486011 citing you for working w ithout a permit. Tlie City must now require you to remove the deck or if you feel you have a hardship, apply for an after the fact variance to see if the City Council could allow it to remain. A deadline of March 11, 1995 has been established for removal or application submittal. If this deadline is not met, the City will forward the matter to the City Attorney for further legal action. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official Enc. cc:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 4734)510 i 1/I ^ GITYofORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Maitini Address: P 0 Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 0066 Mr. Larry Karkela 4149 Highwood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Deck Construction Dear Mr. Karkela: The City has received and reviewed your application for a building permit for the deck alteration you ’ve begun on your property. In looking at surveys of properties on either side of yours, it is clear that your deck addition is encroaching the average lakeshore setback. Although it is above an existing deck, it is required to meet setbacks. You can remove the deck or if you feel you can demonstrate a hardship, you may ask City Council for a variance to the code. Please advise the City of your decision by March 8, 1994. If you have any questions or if I can assist you in anyway, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, O — Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch cc;Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Adm. Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 Municipal Omces Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 Maifing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 0066 December 15, 1993 Mr. Larry Karkela 4149 Highwood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Work without Building Permit Dear Mr. Karkela: On October 13, 1993 this office informed you that a building permit was required for a deck you are constructing on your property at 4149 Highwood Road. As of this date, the deck has not been removed and a building permit has not been issued. This letter is to require you to remove the deck or apply for a building permit to complete work before December 29, 1993. If this deadline is not met, the City will issue citations and refer the matter to the City Attorney for further legal action. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 ■ -m . ^ r - GITYof ORONO Municipal Offices Street Address: 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN 55356 MaUing Address: P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-C066 M <\' i October 13, 1993 Mr. Larry Karkela 4149 Highwood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Work without Permit Dear Mr. Karkela: It has come to die attention of this department that you are in the process of constructing a deck on your property at 4149 Highwood Road. As you know, permits are required for deck construction in the City of Orono. This letter is to require you to stop work on the deck immediately and to remove the structure or apply for a building permit before October 25, 1993. If this deadline is not met, the City may issue citations. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my office. Sincerely, Lyle Oman Building Official LO/ch cc: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Bruce L. Vang, Field Inspector i N i Telephone (612) 473-7357 • FAX 473-0510 5 To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator July 11, 1996 Subject:#2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund/Edna Albee Estate, 1575 Long Lake Boulevard - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Application: Revised proposal requesting lake setback, average lakeshore setback, street setback, 0-75’ hardcover and bluff impact zone variances for construction of additions to existing residence. Lbt of Exhibits A - Revised Site Plan Proposal B - Revised Floor Plans C - Revised Elevation Views D - Letter from Nancy Gawxon, Estate of Edna Albee E - Revised Hardcover Worksheets F - Letter from Jeff Martineau RE: Septic/Sewer Considerations G - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5/28/% H - Planning Commission Minutes 5/20/96 - Memo and Exhibits of 5/7/96I Summary This item was tabled at Planning Commission’s May 20 meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to redesign, with the following general guidelines; Reduce hardcover. - Move garage further from street and out of side yard. Discuss sewer options, perhaps propose a covenant to be filed on title regarding sewer/septic e.xpectations and limitations for the site. Since the May meeting, the representatives of the estate have taken over the application absent further input from the Hedlunds who were initially interested in purchasing the property. The estate representatives have been working with realtor Jeff Martineau and have submitted revised plans addressing the stated concerns of the Planning Commission: 1.0-75’ hardcover is now proposed to decrease from 1,195 s.f. to 1,185 s.f, rather than the earlier proposal to increase to 1,280 s.f Zoning File #2135 July 11. 1996 Page 2 2. 3. 4. 5. 75-250' hardcover is proposed to increase from 887 s.f. to 1.467 s.f. rather than to 1,783 s.f. as originally proposed. The net hardcover result is an increase from 2,082 s.f. total to 2,652 s.f., rather than the 3,063 s.f originally proposed. The revised proposal meets the criteria suggested by staff for allowing 2,724 s.f of hardcover based on that being 25% of the 75-250' zone area. Revised proposal eliminates the need for a side setback for the garage. The garage is now proposed at appro.ximately 34' from the side lot line. The revised proposal moves the garage to a location 8' from the street propert>' line rather than being only 1' as originally proposed. Septic/Sewer Proposal The property owners propose a rmlti-faceted approach to dealing wiih the septic sysiem issue. The letter of July 9 from Jeff Martineau proposes: that the property be rehabed at this time with no more than two bedrooms. - that the c.xisting septic tanks be disconnected from the drainfield if one exists, that the owner will supply the City with a fully executed pumping contract from a licensed contractor. that the owner will draft and record a restrictive covenant on the property that will not allow the projjerty to become a three bedroom home until City sewer has been approved and been installed to the property. The applicants discussed with staff the fact that the proposed first floor bedroom adjacent to the garage foundation could be designated as a 'den' rather than a bedroom. Staff would consider this acceptable if the closet was omitted from that room (this closet would be the area under the stairway), which would force a remodeling and trigger the need for a permit at some future time that it is converted to a bedroom. Of course, there is no guarantee that a future owner would apply for a permit for this future minor remodeling to create a closet and convert the den to a bedroom; but the covenants would presumably be adhered to under the risk of violating them; therefore the covenants must be drafted in such a manner that they are enforceable by the City. The proposal to eliminate the use of any existing drainfield and convert the existing septic tanks to holding tanks with regular contracted pump out until sewer arrives, would eliminate the need to install a new septic system if deemed acceptable by the City. The property owners are; of course, aware of the risk that sewer is likely at least one year and perhaps a number I Zoning File #2135 July 11, 1996 Page 3 of years in the future, hence they are balancing the cost of pump out vs. the cost of replacing the system. Staff finds this part of the proposal reasonable from the standpoint that vk aC5 concerned that the existing system likely would be contributing to the degradation of Long Lake should it again be subjected to full family usage. Conversion of the existing septic tanks to a suitable holding tank system may be as simple as plugging the outlet, or in fact may require replacement with a sealed tank in order to ensure its viability. The cost of the former action is probably less than $100; tank replacement would likely be a $2,000 project. Items for Discussion 1.Is construction of a second stor>- above the existing one story residence, located 49' from the shoreline \^ere a 100' setback is normally required, acceptable to the Planning Commission? 2.Is the proposed 8' street setback for the attached garage acceptable as compared to the 0.5' street encroachment of the existing detached garage? 3.Is there justification for granting an intensification of the 32' existing/proposed average lakeshore setback encroachment by adding a second story? 4.Does the applicant's hardcover proposal for 1,185 s.f (6.73%) in the 0-75' zone, and 1,467 s.f (13.46%) in the 75-250' zone, meet Planning Commission's hardcover goals for this property? 5.Does Planning Commission have specific concerns regarding the additional structure or fill that will be needed within the bluff impact zone in order to accommodate the proposed construction? 6.Does Planning Commission accept applicant's proposal for conversion to a holding tank and placement of covenants regarding the number of bedrooms, as sufficient to keep this property from becoming a potential burden to the City and to this neighborhood via future septic system concerns? Staff Recommendation A recommendation for approval, partial approval or conditional approval should clearly define the hardships and justification for each of the variances (see Nancy Gawron's letter. Exhibit D). I ' \ k. Zoning FUe #2135 July 11, 1996 Page 4 Options for Action I. 5. Isv Recommend approval per the revised proposal, defining the hardships that suppofl the request. 2. Recommend approval per revised proposal with additional spcdfic revisions or conditions. 3. Table for further revisions. 4. Recommend denial. Other. a ii i-I r 1? I ffi I / / / / / ;;' ' / ^ ['.If' ^/ V I )»° j ! ' ^f\ HS / / .' //A , ■'>• ^ V / / /7'V / I / / ^ ^ / /I / • / ' // / ^ / /r»/ / ' ' / . 'yil f ' /A / '' f , ''//// ./ W ■ ' f ' ' €0 I Pk ' § ' ^ r •r V C7PIU6- B»sm«Y r<svJC>crB ec>o^A U£?CA-TVC>rvl -r. l'- (^7^ U/>N^:v &UVIP PdDcrnA;^ ; IMTfcl2UPfi.(F^><3TPT*.MT} CKnr^ ^>t3 s*7^ ^ • ■•lOtNTiAi. 9|».c>N ^ a«k5 »kkU»r«ATiOf« A z uivie 7' e> M<5>I>IFAc>4T1<:5NJ^ ^7^ 9^'^tP MiWM, s J <y % N Pl^F'fP^feP* 4=-l^^r PLAKi ■ 4 .«. • ^ \9~91 mt f ?55f^FORTH CHTTECTS /I' • • / / / / • • f I \ ^1 :':•>> ... '»i,<^^i < V*.. ^ ***i ■».••• .1 •V/2.. •!r <=>ifc. • ^ • *i • .%S *^^»rj4<; rccotL.T><-^ :nblo^^Xin |6>7^ u>}^U^y^ a-z-vcp MM ‘:ir . l-A k S- EbWD t^<#?p-TH ^u&’A~r' ^TUfY 7- e •‘7^ .♦ a :. \0 Mi. • ffciCJtNTlAU Ot*'»N ^AN9 ikkw*raAtiOM &L-VIP, V A “T • ^*7VDy/^''=r'^" -I I ■ lft>Cf*«TiAi. CfftiAN ANO IkkUSTftA %«? N .V I ^“7^ U-AHSB e>L\/£p; ^ t—^N/An"7e> UAi^e- .^A^T AH“l^“TUC^Y -w I ' \ ^ i\i. 7'• • ••5i»*TlAL •'^AWO IW t M • ▼ ®A TiO Nl 83^- ^ Orono Planning Commission 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono. MN. 55356 -1/ ' 16 July 8.1996 Dear Commissioners; On May 20, 1996 Orono Planning Commission chose to table a request for 5 variances concerning the Edna Albee Estate at 1575 Long Lake Blvd. This letter intends to show hardship for those 5 variances. The purpose of a variance is a means for improving older properties so people can continue to live there. When rules change variances are meant to allow improvement and modernization to property rather than force people from the property. At 820 square feet of living area and constructed in 1938. my mother ’s house does not meet many of today ’s criteria for modern-day living. We are proposing a modest addition to this house in order to bring it closer to today ’s standards. All of this proposed addition would be done between the house and garage minimizing excavation and any impact on the lake or nearby wetlands. We believe aesthetically it is the best approach to expansion on this house and also is consistent with other homes on the lake in this area. Sioe lot setback - 30 ’. The original house needs to be preserved as much as possible due to the fine hand- cut limestone work on both ends of the house and a fireplace of the same material. The garage needs to be offset from the front of the house more to provide an aesthetically pleasing front entry from the road. Leaving the garage w here it is blocks the w hole front of the proposed entry rendering it unsightly and perhaps unfunctional. Moving the garage to the west and detaching it would involve monumental dirt work j, ^ . , on such a slope, require a 12-15 ft. retaining wall (unsightly from the lake) and totally block the view of the V , - ^ lake from the neighbors and road. Also, many mature trees would need to be removed further causing ' ’ ' |V f - erosion problems and more unsightliness. In order to attach a garage we will need a few feet in the 30 ’ side lot setback. We have moved the garage as much possible to the west and away from the road. Mr. Bigham to the east has taken exception to this variance but we propose his view would not be altered much as he is looking at the back of the existing garage and we have a line of mature arborvitae planted near the east lot line to ease his view. ,•» Road setback - 50 ’. As my mother ’s house sits 32’ from the road on a 30% slope there is no way we can comply with ordinance on this. The existing garage is 2 inches into the road now. We feel we h? 'e adjusted the garage as best we can to get it further from the road. Septic System. We have permission for a state approved gravel-less trench system for this site for a 3+ bedroom house already worked out with Orono. This site was approved before state regulations of March 31, 1996 requiring an alternate site for a septic system went into effect. We do not wish to install a septic system nor do we wish to incur costs for land:>caping restoration as city sewer has been proposed for this area within a year. Rather could a covenant be added promising to hook up to city sewer and a pumping agreement be reached to fill the gap before the city sewer arrives? Lakeshore - 75 ’ and Bluff Zone. Most of the existing house sits within the lakeshore setback and the bluff zone. Adding a second story and building toward the road encroaches the least on this lake setback and bluff zone. Hardcover Our plans has reduced hardcover to within cceptable parameters for this property In closing, our mother passed away in April of 1995. She lived here for 57 years and developed this landscaping for her property over many of those years. It is aesthetically pleasing and drainage for this slope is well considered. Her heart and soul went into her home on Long Lake. This property has been on the market for one year, 't has been sold twice and each time the City of Orono ’s demands have caused our r buyers to back out. It has caused our family an unbelievable amount of trauma in selling the place where we were raised. Not being able to do so in an expedient fashion has furthered our anguish. We can’t fully get bey ond the death of our mother when w*e still have to maintain and worry ov er her vacant home. This property cannot be improved without variances. We feel this is a modest plan with the least amount of impact on the environment. This plan also brings this property up-to-date and is consistent with the better upgrades in the neighborhood. We've had verbal approval from Charles Truman at the May Planning Comjnission meeting. He is the neighbor immediately across the sn^eet and whose site line is affected most. It appears to us that the neighbors have been given greater leeway on variances in the recent past and been allowed to do so on less acreage. We encourage you to view our property^ on Lo«g Lake. We feel a look is worth a thousand words. Feel free to call me at 473-2474 if you wxnild like to view the inside of the house or to answer any questions. I am usually home by 4:00 p.m. Along with my sisters I am. —/}Q- Nancy A. Gawron as personal representative to the Estate of Edna H. Albce rr-jt.. ,r.-* . k.- • • 75-250 ’ _ i • • HAROCOVERXALCULATIUM VVUi<lvattl:,t.i ’ SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) (j^ 75-250 ’ 25-500 ’ EXISTING A. House ______________ 500-1000 ’ &^ - Length X X .X ! f •«*X 1t *1 B. Garage C. Dnveway • • • • -m*X •i «X %*r.■ • Xr 1? V . \\1 D. Sidewalk 4- / 5 •X r’ •••5.9 X m • fe •• • % E. Patio/Deek • • •X h ..•X < '•*» 11 F. I^dscape 9 X •Bt ABF .By Plq^ic. 7 c-» X f X f Or FaoKc• • s •^ I S.F. Widdt ' l ■i •S.F. •••,S.F. S.F. 1 C/1»•• ••• • •* • *« 9 S.F. S.F. . 6 ZA tf 7.3 /8l-^S.F. •3^.0 S.F. • •*• S.F. » _ . •/OS.7 S.F. •/2.a S.F. ___^2<y-• |;L•' " it a S.F. * • • • • • • • S.F. G. Other Z$,t S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE Total property area .in zone A //^63 B X 100 - y/yg.:? S.F. S.F. ^.79 - % A B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE (7-/^^9C) A. House _____________ * ---- Length Width •t B. Garage C. Driveway % X • X X X X • • • • • * t i. • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk CS^oo^) -I S.F.- - *• > *^25(7 S.F. S.F. /frxffi/f tia B* r/^fu^AL k A^^OU( Sffi( IxAtLK E. Patio/Deck _____________ * ------- PJT'O /ilOCBJ X _____ Afi TiMOfA^ F. Landscape_____________^ ------- Underlain ______________^ ' — By Plastic • _________ • * ------- Or Fabric i- 2sJ S.F. - S.F. • t 1 1 S.F. G. Other S.F. • ’ • total hardcover in zone total property area -in zone - • A //IfS----- * “ .«•••* *• 14 • % A B *• • * • A * ;• < *» • % • 1* V % Pi I /hardcover CALCULATU^VOl<K5W±;t, j * SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75*25-500‘ EXTSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House '________- * Length Width X X I X ** h' fit. Garage • ' C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk 2J. X X t.6 41 * Z E. PatioXOfk ____ > jgtflTiia t V X X F. Landscape ___ Underlain • ___ By Plastic. sr&^ Or Fabric • 894 X X X G. 144 x 7.f • «te m •* •'* TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE . . r TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ftS y B /OS45 x'lOO PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE C 7-/d>- A. House _____________ X J_________1 Length Width ------- X- — X #1 •• B. Garage Cr Driveway X X X X jr^^oP D. Sidewalk X X X X E. F. landscape A A Underlain AfAiFi/f- /xr/# By Plastic ____________ • x . Or Fabric % G. Other > X total HARDCOVER IN-ZONE • • " WTAU PROEERT^ m ZOJ.E ^ . „„ .*•••» to • • 14 • e » • i & • iMi •mm I 500-1000’ • • ^ S.P. ^S.F. _S.F. S.F. S.F. ZBO S.F. S.F. !$3 S.F. S.F. /G Z> Z7- 5"S.F. ‘S.F. ________S.F. S.F. gg.g S.F. •7.<? ^'3 Hl.Z___S.F. /OB4^ ___S.F. ■ . S.F. 9.14 % A B S.F. S.P. * I t 4 « /V€7- S.F. ->/ S.P. AB y V. yg.% i #r ll^iET JEFK MARTINEAU REAI 10R.G.R.1.. CRS 13 Mil 1 ION DOLLAR PRODUCER Bus <».1 2) 473-3000 Dir;rM:»4 ‘^6-3659 Fax «<. 476-5421 Wdy^ata Off:w ' I*' I .is! \Wv/i»ia MN SS3^l • II ••^-^000 1--% til. 473-3^3: e>a(. F If ‘?C July 9. 1996 :iTY OF ORONO Wf MiKeGaffron Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear MtKe, The proposal enclosed on the property located at 1575 Long Lake Blvd. is for a two bedroom home It is proposed that the property be "rehabed" at this time with no more than two bedrooms The existing tanks will be blocked off from any drainfie'd The owner will supply the City with a fully executed pumping contract from a licensed contractor and tha owner will draft and record restrictive covenant on the property thot will net allow the property to be a three bedroom home until the City sewer has been approved and been installed to this property. Any further questions, please feel free to contact me at 476-3659. Sincerely. (■w. Jeff Martmeau. for the Estate of Edna Albee (Nancy Gauron. Personal Representative) Q XsJ S Cl •2.o:sT riHX -sii —TX—“inr CITY OF ORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, \IN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2135 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: May 28, 1996 TO:Paul & Sue Hedlund 1202 W. 22nd St. MpIs.,MN 55405 COPIES TO:Nancy A. GavNTon 920 Dakota Ave. Long Lake, MN 55356 TYPE OF APPLICATION:Variances DATE OF M E ETING: 5/20/96 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Tabled to allow applicant an opportunity to redesign, with the following general guidelines: Reduce hardcover. Move garage further from street and out of side yard. Discuss sewer options, perhaps propose a cohvenant to be filed in title regarding sewer/septic expectations and limitations for the site ... Applicant's next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional information. Deadline for the June 17th meeting is June 10th (or July 8th for the July 15th meeting). If the applicant has trouble obtaining additional information, please contact the Zoning Department (473-7357). If you desire certified copies of the official Plaiming Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. r MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN’NTNG COMNnSSION MEETIN u held on NLAY 20. 1996 &H- (H - ;^2134 RoueirTGktiJcs AJurcthl - Conlinued) Smith moved. Lindquist secondeds^o deny appro\^ir^thc after-the-fact deck The stair landing was approved with the condirh^thmi>!^pnlicant work with .Staffto meet fhc 90-100 s f compliance for stair landing sJ><\'ote Aves 5 Navs 0 The applicant was informedj^arffie application to the second Council meeting in June It was noted foprite record that the Planning CcStwtijsion was not concerned with the stairway to^He lake but would like to see the City woriTwth the applicant in m.eeting size requirements («) #2135 PAUL AND SUE HEDLUND, 1575 LONG LAKE BLVD. - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARLNG 8:28-9:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicants was present. Gaffron reported that the property in question was a 3./4 acre lot. the bulk of which is located in the 0-7.S' setback, with 17.600 s f in the 0-7.S’ setback and 11,000 s f in the 7.S- 250' setback The house on the property is small and mostly located within the 0-7.5’ setback. The single car garage encroaches into the right-of-way. Gaffron said the proposal to purchase the prope.'ty is conti.ngent on approval of the additions. An addition IS proposed to the » ^C4I , I -lakeside ofr*uA K t r A , but still partially in the 0-75’ setback. A second story is also planned. The garage will be remov ed and replaced by a 2-car attached garage. Gaffron informed the Planning Commission that the variances required for this proposal are for hardcover, side setback to the east, proposed at 18' where 30 ’ is required, and street setback. The attached garage requires a 50’ street setback and is proposed at 1'. Gaffron said Staff recommends a 10’ setback to the street lot line. The normal setback for a detached garage, when doors are to the side, is 10'. which Gaffron said should be strived for Gaffron reported that the average depth of the lot is such that there is no buildable envelope The evicting hou<se does not meet setbacks Any upward change.s results in visual im.nacts Gaffron said it should he noted that the height of the stnicture be limited to 2 stories. If this limit was not placed in the resolution, the structure could be built tc 1; 1/2 stories. .Ar.y m.ore than 2 stories would not fit the neighborhood and would be disproportionate from the street view. A letter from the neighbor to the east stated his opposition to allowing a side setback less than the 30' requirement. Gaffron said there could be ramifications to changing the garage to the other end of the house. NflNlTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON NLAY 20, 1996 (.^5 - -^2135 Paul aii«J Sue Kciiiuiid - Conlinueu) hardcover in the 0-75’ setback exists at 1200 s f and 900 s f in the 75-250' zone. . «ncre;i^e the^e CJiIcuIations by R5 s f in the 0-75' and to 17S1 s f in the 7.v^.,0 zone The ovemH allowed hardcover of 2.5% is 2724 s f and is nronosed at 306-' s f. an mcrease ot appro.ximately 300 s.f. over the a!!ow=>We Gaffron continued that this is also a bluff situation The addition to the bulk of the structure would have an impact. Grading would also be required within the bluffimmact zone for the driveway Gafiron said the bluff impact is minor, however, when compared to other issues involved. A mam concern is with the septic system for the propenv. The current septic system is non-coaforrning and requires replacement, for wliich a site exists There is. however no available alternate site on the property for the proposed 3-bedroom house ’ The neighborhood is proposed for sewering but this is an unj-esolved issue. Gaffron questioned whether the house should be expanded to 3 bedrooms without an alternate site or withohold final approval until the sewer issue is determined Applicant, Paul Hedlund, said the property was very unusual. It is their intent to keep the ttwi>>e intact and build onto it as opposed to tearing it down and starting over with new' construction. Peterson commented on the large number of variances for the application He noted that, although the property deserv es to have a hom.e on it, the applicant needs to work with Staff to make it a viable proposal. Hedlund said he sees the plan as the best for the property and reiterated the purchase was contingent on City approval. Stoddard acknowledged the good design and elevations, but asked the applicant if he would consider moving tlie garage to the west Sue Hedlund said the west side of the lot was steep and questioned the encroachment of the bluff area Paul Hedlund also noted that the well was located on the west side of the property. During public comments, Charles Truman, w'ho lives across the street from this property, voiced his approval of the proposal. He said it would cause no hardship to the neighborhood. frr~iiiiint rrr'.. T- • MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 (#5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued) Peterson noted the concern from a neighbor regarding the side setback. He aareed that the concent was good in general but was concerned vvith the major issue of sewering Peterson sasd the application should be tabled until a solution is determined Peterson saw the need to proMde a septic system tor a j bedroom house or w ait until the sewer issue is resolved I ledlund said he would prefer sewering and w ould not w ant to invest in a new septic system if sewering was in the near furure Lindquist said vvith the need for MUSA amendment approv al, planning, and review, it could be at least another year until any decisions would be made Hedlund said he could wait a year but would ne«»d to receive approval of the improvements for a future time Lindquist informed Hedlund that he saw the property as it now is, a 2 bedroom, 800 s f home Lindquist said it was liis opinion that tliis was all the land could handle Lindquist said he would not want the applicant to wait for septic approval and then find that the improvements could not be made. JefFMartineau, a Realtor with Burnet Realty, said he was representing the .\lbee family estate He acknowledged the problems with septic but noted that tbJs was not the only site in the area with no alternate site. He asked the Planning Commission to consider alternate solutions Martineau noted the uniqueness of the property and said a 800 s f. home w as not consistent with homes of the '90's. He felt the design, location, and size of the property was consistent with the neighborhood Peterson informed Martineau that the Commission was in the planning process of w hat would be allowed for the property. He agreed with Lindquist on what could be done with the property as a fact of reality, rather than one of marketability Peterson said the main issue was the sewer He said the application could not move forward without an alternate site, which is a recent regulation, and a system which meets zoning requirements. Peterson noted that other auencies are involved Martineau said he was in attendance not as an agent but to represent what was good for the homeowner He said he see.s the propo.sal as a reasonable use of the property Hawn said she saw the proposal and issues as very troubling. Hawn noted that the property was in the 2 acre zoning and was only 1/4 size of the requirement She noted the fragility of the area with the bluff and the one septic site Hawn felt it would be irres’^onsib!* to t^ko this substHndErd !^t End inersEse the buiidin^ ^izc. ^he noted this property was an example of why there were building codes. i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING CONLMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued) Susan Albee said she saw the Hedlund's plan as being quite conservative She noted that there were no homes on the north side of the lake with alternate sites Alhee said the proposed septic system for the property ’ has a 25 year guarantee She did not believe the applicant was asking for anjtbjng unreasonable with the addition of one more bedroom, and an attached 2-car garage Albee said there was only a lO'/o building envelope on the property, and her parents have !i . ed there for 60 years. Smith said she had no problem with the house increasing in height hut with covering more of the lot with structure. The main issue with Smith was the sewerinc. Stoddard noted the sewer issue along with the height of the addition and encroachment uilo the 0-75’ setback. He said there was still the issue ofbei.ig 300 s f over the hardcover limit He asked if there could be design changes to include movement of the garage to decrease the footprint especially in light of a com.piaint from a neighbor. It was also noted that there was no guarantee when sewering would come to the neighborhood. GafFron was asked about the status of the .MUS.A application. Gaftron said the City is working with Long Lake to determine capacity availability and make change.s downstream as necessary' Once that is worked out, the Met Council w.ll probably approve the application. Gaffron said sewering was a matter of timing and cited examples of what might occur. He said he was concerned with the proposed improvements if the septic djdLWIlt LUiiO. Stoddard said he saw the footprint as a problem. Peterson said he had a problem with the garage. He did not wish to set any precedent by allowing a garage that near to the lot line. Sue Hedlund asked the Co.mmission if the bluff w as a major concern. Peterson said it was the least concern of all the issues involved Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2135 for redes gn of location of garage and architectural redesign for fit on the property, along with a solution on how to handle possible future failure of the septic system. Peterson noted the possibility of holding tanks if necessary. He brought the applicant's attention to the clean up being conducted of Lone Lake. Callahan said he was in favor of the tabling He said the issue was similar to that of the ice arena proposal with aw'aiting resolution of the sew't ring issue. Callahan said he saw' the issue as political and was not clear whether it would be resolved favorably or in the near future. Callahan also noted the need for an agreement to be reached with both Long Lake and Medina on sewering issues iVtTNXTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNOSSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#5 - #21 j 5 Paul and Sue Hedlund * Continued) Vote; Ayes 5. Nays 0. (#6) #2137 WILLLAM AND Sl’SAN DTNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13-9:38 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was represented by Carl Smith. Gaffion reviewed the proposals and improvements to the Dunkley property An addition to the house, revamping of a garage waH, replacement of retaining w alls, and a new entry way w as approved in 1995 with revision to hardcover with removal of retaining w alls that were replaced with plantings. The current proposal is to change a deck on the south side of the residence and replace it w ith a room with a pool spa This addition would meet the 10' side setback but is located within the 0-75' setback Changing the deck to the proposed enclosed structure would decrease the hardcover by 24 s.f but would increase the lot coverage by stnjcture from l5.6°o to !6 The additional structure also encroaches the average setback line Gaffion noted that the homes to the north and southeast are set far back on the properties The visual impact of the Dunkley property, with its bulk in the 0-75' setback, w ould not affect the view s of the other properties. Gaffion said there may be opportunities for hardcover reduction but the intensive review of the hardcover was done with the earlier application Gaffion added that the driveway is very' large and could be an option for hardcover reduction. Peterson commented that the applicants have done a fantastic job on replacing the retaining w'alls and redoing the landscaping. He noted their compliance w'ith the requests of the City. Letters have also been received from the neighbors approving what has already been done on the property. Peterson noted the limitations to the property but agreed that the deck needs to be removed or replaced He asked if the deck could be moved forward'^ Gaffion agreed that this could be an option and asked how it would affect the side setback variance? Carl Smith responded that the location of the spa room was best suited to the location with the patio door on the left side Hawn was informed that the spa was a therapeutic need for the applicant. Hawn asked why the hot tub room located beneath the area in question could not be used for the spa. Carl Smith said that hot tub w'as not in good condition, and the spa was probably too large for that particular room Gaffron questioned whether there was any logic to placing the spa at the other end of the home? This would be a location near the master bedroom. I &M- 'T ' To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator May 7. 1996 Subject:#2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund/Edna Albee Estate, 1575 Long Lake Boulevard Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA, Single Family Lakcshore Residential, 2 Acre, Unsewered Application: Request for lake setback, average lakeshore setback, street setback, side setback, 0-75’ hardcover and bluff impact zone variances for construction of additions to existing residence. List of Exhibits A - Application/Letter of Request/Photos B - Plat Map C - Prop)erty Owners List D - Neighbor Comments (Bigham) E - Survey-Existing F - Survey-Proposed Site Plan G - Topography H - Hardcover Calculations - Existing/Proposed Elevation Views - Existing/Proposed Floor Plans K - Septic Report Excerpts L - Bluff Analysis by Staff I J Pertinent Code Sections A.Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) - Required lake setback = 100’ (Recreational Development Lake, unsewered); existing and proposed = 49’. B.Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B) - Required street setback = 50’; existing house = 32', existing detached garage = O' (10’ minimum allowed on lakeshore lots); proposed house including attached garage = I’ approximately. C.Section 10.23, Subd. 6 (B) - Required side setback = 30’, proposed = 18' for attached garage. D.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B)/10.56, Subd. 16 (C) - No encroachment of average setback allowed; 32’ encroachment existing/proposed. I Zoning File #2135 May 7, 1996 Page 2 F.Section 10.22, Subd. 2/10.55. Subd. 8/10.52, Subd. 16 (L) - No hardcover allowed in 0-75' zone; proposal is to increase 0-75* hardcover from 6.79% to 7.27%; area of structural hardcover increases. G.Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (C) - No structures allowed in bluff impact zone (bluff and 20' from top of blufO; proposal includes additional structure within bluff. Section 10.56, Subd. 16 (J) (5) (h) - No fill or excavated material may be placed in bluff impact zone. Summai7 of Issues This 0.65 acre lot currently contains a one-story, 820 s.f. residence and 240 s.f. detached garage. The entire house is less than the required 100' setback from Long Lake, the closest point being 49' from the lake. The applicant proposes to purchase the property and construct major additions, including: increase the footprint of the house by 4(X) s.f. add a second stor>' above the entire house, including a third bedroom. remove the existing detached garage and add an attached 475 s.f. garage. The property is extremely substandard in a number of respects: and the proposal requires many variances; Average depth of the lot fi the street to the lake is 110', making it impossible to meet the required 100 ‘ lake setback and 50' street setback. This lot has no buildable envelope. The existing house does not meet the required lakeshore or street setbacks, but does meet the required side setback. The proposed house will be even nearer to the road. The existing detached garage is a few inches into the Long Lake Boulevard right-of-way, and less than 20' from the pavement. The proposed attached garage wilt be only 1' from the street lot line. The existing septic system is non-conforming, and the property contains only one possible drainfield site that can support a system for a three-bedroom home (ihis an area that is proposed for municipal sewer within the next year or two). mI ii i Zoning File #2135 May 7, 1996 Page 3 The west end of the cxisting/proposed construction is in a defined bluff urea, where no construction, filling or excavating would normally be allowed. Setbacks The setback to the lake is not proposed to change. However, a second story will be constructed above the existing house, adding to the visual bulk of structure near the lake. Ba.sed on the elevation views su^ - itted with the application, only two stories will be visible from the lake. This is not a basement walkout situation. No height variance is required, and the stn .,ure as proposed is not as towering as the Code might allow. Given the nearness to the lake, does Planning Commission wish to consider limiting the height to two stories as proposed, not the 2‘/i stories the Code would allow? The new house additions will be approximately 30’ from the street right-of-way, which is not out of character with other homes in the neighbo.hixxi. However, the proposed attached garage will be only 1' from the street lot line, and the attached nature of that structure may have a visual impact of the entire structure being "right up against the road". While the proposed garage is not large by today's standards, its location does not even meet the 10’ minimum setback that would be required on a lakeshore lot for a detached garage. Further, the proposed garage location encroaches the required 30" side setback, and the neighbor to that side has indicated an objection to such a setback. Can the proposed attached garage be relocated further west on the property to meet a minimum 10" street setback and avoid encroaching the 30" side setback? Is there any justification to allow the variances as proposed? Assuming the garage can be relocated, is there a hardship? Hardcover Hardcover is proposed to increase slightly in the 0-75’ zone. Certain areas will be converted from non-structural to structural hardcover, including the entire addition on the north side of the house, as well as a deck over the existins 4" x 10’ sidewalk at the south side of the house. Existing and proposed hardcover is as follows: Area 0-75’ = 17,600 s.f Area 75-250’ = 10,895 s.f Allowed hardcover = .25 x 10,895 s.f = 2,724 s.f Existing:0-75’ = 1.195 s.f 75-250' = 887 s.f Proposed: 2,082 s.f 0-75’ = 1,280 s.f 75-250’ = 1.783 s.f 3,063 s.f Zoning File #2135 May 7.1996 Page 4 Is there any hardship or justification to allow the proposed hardcover increase in the 0-75' zone? Is there any hardship or justification to allow hardcover on the property to exceed the 2,724 s.f. that this property would normally be allotted? Would it be appropriate to limit 0-75' hardcover to the exiling 1,195 s.f., and limit total hardcover on the property to 2.724 s.f.? Average Setback Both the existing house and proposed addit' ns encroach the average lakeshore setback by approximately 32'. The average setback line is drawn from the adjacent residence at 1545 Long Lake Boulevard to 'he residence to the west which accesses from North Farm Road. Neither of the adjacent residences will have significant lake views impacted by the proposed construction. Bhiff Impacts Per Exhibit L, just the westerly end of the cxisting/proposed house is situated on a Dlutf by definition. The midpoint of the property meets the 30% slope/25’ rise criteria for a bluff, but the east and west ends of the property have an average slope less than 30%. The impacts of the new construction are mainly visual impacts as viewed from the lake, and there is little existing vegetation on the lakeside of the house to soften the visual impacts. Further, because the yard quickly drops away from the house on the lakeside, it may be difficult to establish the degree of vegetative screening which could help reduce the impact of the additional facade created by the second story. The project as proposed will involve additional fill within th** h'uff impact zone in order to accommodate the new driveway. A detailed grading plan wouI l dc required prior to issuance of any building permits for this property, and erosion controls would be needed during construction. Septic System Requirements Applica'its have provided a septic system design sufficient for one system for a three-bedroom home. However, no alternate drainfield site exists on the property. This property is within the "North Long Lake" area proposed for construction of municipal sewer in the near future, perhaps as early as 1997. If sewer was not on the horizon, staff could not support the expansion of this house from two bedrooms to thiee bedrooms absent an alternate site. An option for Planning Commission to consider is that such expansion not be allowed unless/until municipal sewer becomes available. i Zoning File #2135 May 7, 1996 Page 5 Foundation The Inspections Apartment has inspected the existing basement and finds that it is 8" block. This will require an engineered design to support the additional story, but will not require replacement of the existing foundation. Summary of Issues for Consideration 1.Addition of structure less than 100’ from lake. 2. Attached garage only 1' from street lot line, 18' from side lot line; house only 30' from street lot line. 3. Proposed hardcover increases in 0-75' and 75-250' zones. 4. Average setback encroachment. 5. Structure and land alterations in bluff impact zone. 6. Septic system limilations/future municipal sewer. Staff Recommendation Any recommendation for approval, partial approval or conditional approval should clearly define the hardships and justification for each of the variances. Planning Commission should consider whether the proposal can be revised to eliminate the side setback variance, increase the street setback to a minimum of 10’, eliminate any hardcover increases in the 0-75' zone, and limit total hardcover to a level equivalent to 25% of the 75-250' zone (2,724 s.f.). Finally, Planning Commission may wish to delay approval of the expansion from two to three bedrooms, until a final decision to construct city sewer is reached. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend approval as proposed. Recommend approval with specific revisions/conditions. Table for revisions/furthei information. Recommend denial. Other. Application # > Date Received V -•■4, Amount Paid *.2 .a ' CITY OF ORONO - VARUNCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance F'-e SI20.00 ^ (no change fron. riginal application) Variance for non-conforming structures $22^00 f *■# > !■* After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) 1 '•1 •** PROPERTY INFORMATION SiteAddress IS")T LOOP- L_A-<L.<L Propertv Identification Number (P.I.D.) 2t->-HV~2-3 ^ 00» I Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv'ey. Date Propertv* Acquired ___________ I (do) (do not) also own the^jacent parcels of land. Present use of propertv-; v^residential ___other (specify)_________ Zoning District:_________________________________________ (month/year) applicant -^ j. / j Phone (home) Name /Sog neQoj^Phone(\vt3rk) ^ Address: u-) l^'2- ^i~____ Citv’:__f]Q_R-^_________Zip:— V i|-OWNER (if different than apolicant) Name(/. r^-> ____ Address: Citv: Phone (home) - ^29^7 'Z Phone (work) F- ^ ^ Zip: 5*A'3 s~W Axl DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail; ___ Z'/ Ct^i {^ rvf ^ Estimated Construction Cost $ | CO, cx?o -1 TO, OOo etc He* _AtllA (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Setback: / F ront Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Side ear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual propertv- conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements;_______________________________________— (attach additional sheets if necessary) I N REQUIRED SUBMITTALS I of the following information must b< submitted bv the applicati' Aer for vour aDplication to be considered complete; 1. 2. J.y 4. 5. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of o\Mi;rs within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Count>- Depanment of Finance. A-603, Govi Center. 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed suneyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8*/j x 11 for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8/2" x 11"). ^'C; ^^ist of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in 0 tY 7. 8. the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). ^ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Propert>’ Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yftiu: variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's Signature Date OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes^ of investigation and verification of this request. ^ ^ z) 4, Owner's Signature -H. 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, ple^e 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. ^ • ( •- •» #. Description of Request From the Cit\j of Orono We are requesting permission from the Citij of Orono to approve the required variances dlovrir^ proposed improvements to be made on the attached propert\j. We make this request ar>d need the variance approval in order to create a dwelling more representative of today's housing market and to provide appropriate living space for our current and future fvnily needs. Proposed sHxwHu^: m 3 - Becfrooms • Q. - Full Bath • 1 - Half Bath Harddiip/Desf^iption of Unusual Property Conditions One needs to look at the eurv^ to see a a ruimb^ of unusual prop«^ cornfitions at 1575 Lor^ Lake Blvd. The unusual cor>ditions are as fd!ows: • Lot Sze - 28,495 square T<tet (.82 acres) • 0'-75' Hard Cover Zone - i% • Rear Bet Back - Oarage OtrucK re located on lot line • Lake Miore 8et Back - Majority of house structure inside the 76 ’ setback • House 8ize - 750 square feet. 2 bedrooms. 1 Fufl Bath The question is. wt*at improvements can be made to this property givm these preerdsting conditions and what would be considered reasonable when considering the variances required to make those improvemerds? Given tNs scenario, we feel our proposed plan provides a balance between the need for structure improvements and viable living space while incurring nominal changes in the existing property conditions. We thank you for your consideration, C; 8ue and Paul Hedlund *UN DATI 04/2S/9*batch SM HEI#«P1N COUfTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMCRS LIST REPORT NO. PI435A01 PAC8 IS iPROP AfiM <MCR NAfC TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 2A-110-2S 55 0007 01540 LONB LAKE OLVD ROBIN C CRANFORD robin E CRA»^0R0 1540 LONB LAKE OLVD LONB LAKE m 55554 SO 24-116-25 55 0000 01570 LONB LAKE OLVD C E TRUMAN ETAL CHARLES E TRUMAN 1570 LONB LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE m 55554 SO 24-118-25 55 0011 01575 LONB LAKE OLVD EONA N ALBEE ESTATE OF EONA N ALBEE NANCY A 6ANR0N P R 420 DAKOTA AVE LONB LAKE MN 55554 PROP AOOR OlOCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SO 24-116-21 51 0012 01545 LONB LAKE BLVO J E BXGHAM A C A BI6MAM JAMES 4 CYNTHIA BI6HAM 1545 LONB LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE MN 55554 SO 24-118-25 55 0050 01584 LONS LAKE BLVO ARMS J SEVERTSON ARMS J SEVERTSON 1564 LONB LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE MN 55554 S8 24-118-25 51 0051 01580 LONB LAKE BLVO JOEL S BOVEE JOEL S BOVEE 1580 LONB LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE m 55554 PROP AOOR 04MER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 27-118-25 44 0008 01444 NORTH FAm RO JOSEPH H OFFERMAN JOSEPH H OFFERMAN 1444 N FARM RO LONB LAKE MN 55554 TOTAL BATCH 504 00007 -i ‘isA ' ' f RE wSS^AHW 0F^Nf5SA?!S"S'l"AJJfA{? m^^Jm^ON TH^RECOROS .V -’ • • • • . DATE I (we) Adjacent Propert}' Owne:^' Acknowledgement Form e ^cn ■'(f &Ll/^ print have reviewed'the plans^for the proposed improvem^t or proposed<^e of the pro^rty 1( at i ‘)7^ U vx^LjhcQ (^Li/d also referred to as Land Use Application No. Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor': .................................‘ ' ^ I (we) understand that in execaiing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to^ declare approval or disapproval of the propert>- or use but merely to confirm for the City Jie proposed neighbors / Property Owner feperty 0>yier Date ****************************** *************************** I (we) print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for tl.e proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at __also referred to as Land Use Application No,_________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, 1 (we) am (are) not asked to decla'-e approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owp^’Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building^ Zoning Offi^at least 10 day^ prior to the scheduled meeting date. tO(Ly J i II 1 eyU- F-t \ cr^TAii £■ ’ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE)75-250’25-500’ FVTgTTNG hardcover IN ZONE A. House ______________ * Lenjth Wid-J> t • . •• X X X %' * «; B. Garage X • X-•• •• • X X 6 73 X . \ X X X Bt4 z a ^ ^.3 tffe TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B n^oo X 100 f ROPQSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ Lengih Width ‘ X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X -srs(^ 52 ~ ^ D. Sidewalk ^X X (a ^ E. Patio/Deck JS X X ,8 F. Landscape ____ Underlain ____ By Plastic ____ Or fabric G. -©Aer____ X X X A u>a^r^l.*s TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total property arba -in zone A —--------- ® •••« •§ • • • X.lOO - • •• •14 • •• • t •• ' • • * ^ mm 500-1000’ M 8o2.<^S.F. • S.F. lii S.F. St.S.F. S.F. SB m S.F. SB _____S.F. 'm t/ tsz.^S.F. m 3^.0 S.F. 9 •%S.F. «s‘ ■ •/OS-1 S.F. /2.0 S.F. it-0 S.F. ss S.F. • • •* ^ mm ^o ^ .1 S.F. }!<iS3 S.F. S.F. a 79 % •ioosM • 1 S.F. Sj .S.F. a S.F. a S.F. •S.F. • S.F. a S.F. zH*®^ itC7,0 S.F. a S.F. • • * « J • ■ \2J^,o • • S.F. a S.F. ••S F. a S.F. a S.F. • • 1 • • ' ! Ifc.?> * 1* S.F. ^ • •17 bj2^ t S.F. _ S^F. # §m^0 • • *• • • • • • • • • • • •• 1 • • % * • • • A B A B 4 I # •• I•*/ I »% t I' ;■ • .• • I *• \L . ( . ^ •" V, ^ • /f£,0££ ^sr^ra HARDCOVER CALCULATIOM VN UKivbrttt t SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-7S’C^S-2S00 25-500* /o-£/ 7^ 500-1000* ENTSTINC HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ________ LergA V.'mJA X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X <*'7 • ■£ fa» E. Patio Z. X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic. jvtPS Or Fabric • bbo. X X X G. Other14^ i-fi x 7.f TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE ... • TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ft e ? B /cff95 xlOO - PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X Length WUi:h X X X •••• • • • •> •• •« • « Wm9mtm • B. Garage C. * Driveway ■ZTLJi ^ U. X X D. Sidewalk '-ct 'fe-33 X X <5. < E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X -4 Or Fabric G. Other 1(1*-'^ x p.,*—- —jk'j.*- TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE » + B .6 X 100 • S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.r. S.F. S.F. S..= * /<0 -4>. Z7. »’*S.F. S.F. AS.o S.F. S.F. S.F. '7.9 •- 3 //<?.Z S F. BH7 S.F. S.F. 9.14-fc # • '7.\Z.^ SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. & S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. A B « I- • S.F. ,0 S.F. "S.F. s.p. ir«J A B »- • «•• • • • • *• i • I 1 ..__a _____a. FORTHARCHITECTS w 4 1 I ttirfitiit icMTH tLe\i^riotl £-i FORTHARCHITECTS \i BAvr ELe/*wr»<^] r • Mi«ri4 I >. :• 1*»4’ I K I i « 4 ti % ri' HEDLUND RESIDENCE i ••n vt i.a <£ FORTHARCHITECrS <€ce4l>I HEDLUND RESIDENCE i m.K CITY OF ORONO SEPTIC SYSTEM APPROVAL CITYof ORONO Mantripal OCB cb Office Bm 66 Co«6 Bay, MinacMU SS323-0066 LOCATION: 1575 Long Lake Blvd. OWNER:Edna Albee GENERAL CONTRACTOR:_________________ SITE EVALUATOR: Testing repqrj DATE: 2, 1996 SEPTIC CONTRACTOR:. The City of Orono has_____Approved your on-sile system design as of January 5, 1996 (approved-disapproved) (dale) The site is limited due to steep slopes, mottled soils at 39^48", and fill wiQi the following comments: soils at approx. 40 ”. Jim Anderson (u of mn ) . Rnh Koch (Koch's Soil Testing), and Duanne Ritter (Ritter Exc.) believe that a gravelless system will function adequately under these conditions. The City approves this design based on their recommendation and a variance is gjranted to allow the septic tanks 50' from the lakf> a..; nn ot-h^r or^Mnnc exist. No alternate site is available, but sewer may be available in the THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a design approval form which must accompany the site plan. A permit must uturc be issued to a licensed septic contractor prior to installation. A list of currently licensed septic contractors is enclosed. NOTICE TO INSTALLERS: Any changes to the approved plans and specs must have prior approval of the Inspector (473-7357). Call for inspections 24 hours in advance. ALL DRAINFIELD AREAS MUST BE FENCED OFF prior to building site excavation and fencing must remain in place until final site grading. Approval to pour footings will not be granted until tlie Inspections Department has verified that primary and alternate sites are adequately protected. NO VEHICULAR TRAFHC OF ANY KIND (cars, trucks, earth moving equipment, etc.) is allowed within 20* of tested drainfield sites either before or after system construction. Compaction of these areas could render them unusable prohibiting the timely completion and or limiting the long term use of the property. A site copy will be available at the City Offices for the septic contractor. CITY OF ORONO By.^ Stephen On-site Systems Manager TCLEniONE-473-7357 • FAX-4734510 KOCH’S SOIL TESTING P.O.BOX 81 LORETTO.MN 55357 TEL; (612) 479-2637 1/2/96 Edna Albce Estate Job Site: 1575 Long Lake Blvd., Orono, Mn. Percolation tests and soil borings were done on the above lot on 11/7/95 to what type of drainfield could be installed to replace the current system whtch Te^a^Jll'ge pcicllion rate was 19.9 min./in. and the depth to mottled soil was at 39^48 ‘"see the enclosed soil bormgs and percolation tests for the details. Note: the perc. test tor th. propeny due to the monied soil level Ritter Excavating. Rockford, Mn.) and Robert Koch (Koch Soil Testing. 42 inches to 48 inches. It was agreed that the gravelless ttench system would be of topsoil will be done will be up to the contractor/mstaller as proper dram g the system should be increased by 20% or to a size of 900 sq. ft. Overall drainfield size: 900 sq. ft. j j mn ftr——:r..■«« iTyears. This practice will enhance the life of the system. MPCA Certified Robert Koch Vv IAh /V c (C'5E3;,S^3^ o <«S»CCT 7> CSTV &» ©«&«•*mHLDil»Q. TOfeMn^m,Attf nEMta» /“SzS. APPROV'tO AS SUBMITTED 1 APPROVED WITH CORRECTIONS AS NOTED ^ NOT APPWVED — CORRECT & RESUBMIT nm coififntntt if tor your Information. Ail work itMli Oa to # fai cowipiianca jwHh oN appUcaWo buddilti & toning aSHi # r waoMitt Inducting Itams not apadhcaity notad id gOi <?E> THIS ftAN SET ON SIFE AT ALL 5 t Ssi j)uci§^ ? -T. L • N rfv . yj5C- fo" O O P’il 'T^. o (ly.t^Ot.'KSi^ % " r' ^ \9 h -i 5^*fe Jj- . • ^ ”T, Loke %Bouhnrd G> (t)—______-- (>o/<75.>____ S«rT€At*i ' 7S” /A)c€Vicfc^ *. /ro ^>,frvMSlS Ar^-v'i: (r I iI • / / I / ^ H. i t 3. ^ ‘ I ^opyrt^ I I » i • II• I I i ! I ' I ! ! » t Ii ii iI i M ! !I i III iJ ‘I I ' I *I II 1 ! f ♦I I i ♦ ! i ^Ljo^ '+1 oiH^U c>i«>«3| '-roc' -TO A eoirtr 1 I /lU-fiJL. i ^ _ I ! ! i « • I ♦ ♦ I . » i ! /5^;7£T 41. ^I' R/1/^ •“ / . ' ’ , \ \k III i! Ii M ! I M 1'^ ti^iy.nr ig • i 1 I I ! iI ; r-«y«ef ,TU A eoirrr i ' ' I ; op Mot^ icycotu: a.t^ Poimt B,"^; i ' * * * ' * I ^ ' ‘ I ' ‘ I ’ ' j bef. \fo< 'roP of A a^6v^ ' • i ' > ' ' I ‘ ■ * ■ I , ' . t I f i < ( i ‘ ‘ I I ! I -i ^ijoT h VOk'^lf^o-] I I i I - ,Si iMt-fT's. lOcfT. 7=r,/i. Vof f?p cuurF ! I ! ’ I ‘ 1 . ' I f I I I I ^!/ I 1 •WAl U>,CArXi^ I • I• Ii iI I I ‘ i i.i i I I I! I I !• i • I »* I •. i ! • > •I«:I ! I •! ! I• > 1' i I' I ! : . I (D ! e.cwo ohw ^u / 3.! V<2a/^5{ Jfj*?Tve. W i po^'j-reEf T^l /», fo/N,r ,2Xi»« ' ‘ '- oe: > ! I I I ! ! t II ! I ^ • I I I I » I I I I I ! i t ^I I I 5 ; I I» ! I I •! i,hI *. i' 1 i I I ; ; , ; i. 1 i . I I i, I AT, ^ PbiMT* TIMM 6>6><t^ <97»^^6, ^ j >i/w4<«' |3,0/Cj **<-'J { 7., <.LOfF 2J^'’*’ Arfin^€3TTDuJA/Ut* {/It<rnr(^ Bo\>y /S7£T / .L. -I.”.''— - r/Sfu^etjr / IS ^"- i.1!H • i > I/'. -1 N. fv V » CJ 'Vrr\ . f ’' ) > * S - - « 1* ^ T:. i! pkh r-;j - A, •■y^‘ • ■ > ^ -‘ijt ’*?.•' ' ij 'imypi' 1W'-t!'Pa an ifMWii'*f'hiVkl;1f •!' / / ' .Vb. A \ V -j Jill, f# y Iw ' V ; A- .■• If, ..,, ■>. i. •V « r -:1 ^nnnni > IliLitarl um^Li O'r'^ o A > OA i'w '^■* *■' ■ * -• ' ■ i I5S5 .4* u ' V ? ^ ,•;? ! !J?-' ♦ ^ -M ‘<','iilkjiu.Hi4is. 'V. ri jj'f 1 »I rif/^ 'i I'5' •A r _ A. tnwa.is ''0P >'*SUS(mM&i "v '" ' . S 'i .*11 >■ -'.fi^. ^i'3a » *. • J;':..x P ■ ,.i »i i'l - feiS '■ '■■^S ' r' ^ i : *' j • / / if 'fi • :'. ?% "'I A^'^’ r-'AMr .’V./'-V H'^J' 1jT /A / ,/j • \i, j' 'jgnkVf,'' ■'. . \'{' h OI^RC <v:>> :AfA V A V A, ' i,,m% V. 1. ^1 A»-i5 * ■ *1 i ■a : )^mm 7m i£" ^ ig&y: '| ' JiKil ; ■ •HA?iWm S>hiCiiYf IPI".. m--' .,.• .'’“-A--^ pr|v^"’s*»S »p . , •.. .M .• ,’ • » V - » ' .1 . ".’ .’''• • -9r?i', 9ia>i rTmmt^ A‘ rV -1 a 11 m r.0: - ___Z •> \A -\ 'lA d fn X-> • 'i •. - ? : I P‘;%WmIM ii«: <; «r^ O- -1' r\ w*- M.5r>L ■>f5 >:;A;lii'>.^iitt^ v,i '»V^->.• ••... •’ ‘iPPfll r-t. b!' m oBjoa I J’lKJSL :vMmi ''JO mm 'Ji mAX ‘ '•.'^^mP'.'i ' - hM-»:!} < ..._____L. V • JS,a si- ^ '• 'aar V ' ' ■ '. •i' 5 '■ jr- '1 (/r\ o M£ y 1 f'Hm -J89r\ / ^ ’> ijf §: h. m: •,p‘ ir V-^ ;■'^1 PP ^mxmi-* ( • 'b ■"■if. :'. \\.- r-^3 •V K .J y'^'^rrjet r*’ rV J IA O' 3 7? p/* 1^ 4-r.^ •.: " . ^Av-v• • ■'i'.‘t?-y' ■■ ■'.' .y* ,'■ i^iy'''*'.'.i.fij S'l^r* ■•‘A-'^iiiM':. .. ... ... ,,c -v.^.;-:Aj2y TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:July 10,1996 SUBJECT: #2148 Wayne M. Holmes'Jackie Dahl, 1390 Park Drive - Variance Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-ID Lot area = 17,700 s.f. Application: Applicants plan to raise the existing structure and install a new residence that will meet all required setbacks of the LR-1B zoning district. If applicants arc to rebuild a new structure on site, a lot area va riance is required per code. The following ordinance is ^>ertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B) - Lot area variance. Required = 43,560 s.f Existing = 17,700 s.f. or .4+ acres Variance = 25,860 s.f or .59 acres. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat C - Property Owners List Dl-3 - Neighbors Acknowledgment Forms E - Survey F - Hardcover Inventories 500-1,000' Setback Area G - Elevations HI-3 - Floor Plan Description of Request Applicants propose the razing of existing residence and construction of a new residence that will meet all required setbacks of the LR-1 B zoning district. With the removal of the existing residence, the property is considered undeveloped and as required by code, lot standards must be reviewed. The property meets the required lot width of 140’ at 35' front/street setback line. The property does not meet the required 1 acre area. Lot area variance must be granted before a building permit can be issued for new' construction. The property is partially located within the Shoreland area. The first 100-150' of the property is located within the 500-1,000' setback zone. Review Exhibit F, the property would be allowed 35% hardcover improvements and is proposed at 20%. I f ’ i, Zoning File #2148 July 10, 1996 Page 2 As the existing residence will be razed, applicants have made temporaiy living arrangements but ask that the application be scheduled before the Council meeting of July 22nd so that construction can begin as soon as possible. Hardship Statement Please review Exhibit A. Applicants note the residence has existed on the property for over thirty years. The area of tl.e propert>- is consistent with the pattern of development in the surrounding neighborhood. A residence can be constructed on the property and meet the required LR-IB zoning setback standards. Issues for Consideration 1 . Any issues raised by the Planning Commission. Options of Action To deny, approve or approve as amended. Any recommendation of approval must include the cond:’. n that applicants' contractor obtain a demolition permit for the removal of the existing resid ..e prior to its demolition. I p Application # y l^S' Date Received /• ^ / v^~ <7 Amount Paid 0 • c~o /■h CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) •• PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address \ (^> "Pck r V\ ^ ''V '^c-i i ^ r C' Ki v' ■ ^ Property Identification Number rP.I.D.) 0~?— 11 ~7 -'Z-^ 7^^---------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired / [^ ~] Cc________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also o\mi the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: .^residential ___other (specify) Zoning District:_____________________________________ APPLICANT Phone fhome ) Name v C am a c TA U,-. \ .r-. ^ s x K' e He,'--‘ Phone (work) p fi _ Address: r~'v City: r- rl-----------Zip:-------^j 7Z-c 'y OM'NER (if different than applicant) Name ___________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip:. Estimated Construction Cost $ ((7 ( * . C C.CXDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST ^ Describe request in detail: .o ^o« ^n *^^^4 tov~^ \A (cO-4r- rr.Mr___^I \ . (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Hardcover 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 preventmg compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ^ r V % CUiiipiiOllWV* wiia* .w-i--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- V l- ’n r\ I 1 ^ ---------------------------——— '.j?.- J Cg r /t rY i--V .V.c b4,1J A- f0 ^ ^ C- ( Vk^rexi. f'r. r, u cA i /t-tn k) 00_ Pf.rb. X >•>----^ * w'' c4 *^1 6CC.A. c ^ « » - » > ^ ' ii -I..* \ L ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ItA JAcO •'-'C'- 7 I' ‘ fl.U •-V I - 1 \* J REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the applicarion deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. -> 3. / / 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 Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govi Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed urveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (e.xisting and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/z" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/z" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property ’. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please anach 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 XflHT variance application is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLlCAiNT ’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best ot his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Si2nature Date I ^-------- OWNER'S SIGNATURE AVI ^ The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City ’ staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Vre V ^ /oj \ /yj M ^ K Date Applicant must'4iave all submittals into the City ’ offices 25 days before the Planning Contmission 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. 8 I RUN DATE 0A/10/9A BATCH 502PROP AOOR ONNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR »tCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAHE taxpayer NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR 0»MER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR SO 07-117-25 A1 0005 00050 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO CITY or OROIX)CITY OF ORONO BOX 6« CRYSTAL BAY ORONO HT4 55325 IB 07-117-25 A1 0070 01576 PARK OR 0 F LARSON A T K LARSON DAYTON F A TERESA K LARSON 1576 PARK OR hound m S5566 58 07-117-25 41 0074 01400 PARK OR ROHAN OLXYNYK ROHAN OLXYNYK 1400 PARK DR hound HN 55564 58 07-117-25 41 0080 01565 PARK OR J K YOUNG A T L YOUNG JOHN A TERRY YOU»« 1565 PARK DR hound HN 55564 MErMEPXN COIMTY PROPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEH PROPERTY OHNERS LIST58 07-117-23 41 006601361 NORTH ARH OR S H HALCHON A N NALCHQN SCOTT H A NANCY HALCHON 1561 NORTH ARH OR HOUNO m 55364 58 07-117-25 41 0071 01360 PARK OR HAG RASMUS HAG RASMUS 1588 PARK DR HOUrO HN 55564 58 07-117-23 41 0075 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED JAMES LANG A AP.DIS NIEMAfM AROIS H NIEMANN NOONAN 564 N OKASSO BLVO ST PAUL W 55126 38 07-117-25 4J 0040 01555 NORTH ARH DM C TULLY A E CHAL6REN C TULLY A E CKAL6REN 1355 NORTH ARM OR HOUrO MN 55364 REPORT NO. PX4S5401 PACE 958 07-117-25 41 006400058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO DAYTON F A TERESA K LARSON DAYTON F A TERESA K LARSON 1576 PARK DRIVE ORONO m 55364 38 07-117-23 41 0072 01390 PARK OR HAYNE H HOLMES NAYNE M HOLMES 1390 PARK OR hound MN 55364 38 07-117-25 41 0079 01375 PARK OR KATHLEEN A MURPHY KATHLEEN A NURPHY 1375 PARK DR hound MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0038 01379 PARK DR K S NASSAUER A K NASSAIXR KERRY S A KIANN NASSAUER 1379 PARK OR ORONO Iff! 55364 '0 e U !• PROP AOOR OMCR NAHE TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 07-117-23 44 0074 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO VIL OF ORONO CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY HN 55359 TOTAL BATCH 502 00015 RUN DATE. OA/lQ/96 BATCH 502 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTOWttTIOM SYSTEM PROPERTY Q»tlERS LIST REPORT NO. PIASSAOl PAGE 10 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY OEPARTFeNT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF HY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. OA'.y '#/ J# /■/ V I \t/trvuJi a <: • ‘ '1 tr A N I(wc) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form . •ft.SKTUi S _ of nam^s)^[print address] have reviewed the plans for the propdsed-iinprovement or proposed use of the propert>' locatedrcvicwca me plans lor me propu5co-uupiu>cuitiit «v , !<ff 6 fh/l^ Dt ’ also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. \jLjDAjqr/Xj. Property h/y>iijUA raer V \(!A{C (d 199 ^ Date 7 Property Owner Date ^^^^000**********************************^************"** *'*'**'***************** 1 (we) IA; of 1^7^ t>g-. — ^ ^ ^[print name(s)j [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at \ ^Ar) \f also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for ‘h® Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. \fQ kaj^OMJU^ Property Owner Date (o Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. i 1 I(WC) Adjacent Property Owuers' Acknowledgement Form 1^- b U/ __ [fJrini name(s)] 11^\ [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the propert>* located 01 'v also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------.. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project or use requires Council approval. Pro^rty Owrier 3 im Date Property Owner Date ♦♦*****#**************“****************1,Hi1i*ii******>****************** ********* I (we) [pri it name(s)] of 1^71> ATC. [print address] have reviewed the plans fo- the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located ^ ic, also referred to as Land Use Application No.------------- I (we) understand tha in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (ate) not declare approval or disaporoval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project or use requires Council approval. ■ Orjj-r^ Property Owner kh/f u Date Property Owner Date If YOU have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zomng Office at least ays prior to the scheduled meeting date. i f \4 - - % «- .• I (we) Adjacent Property Owners' Acknowledgement Form .Y _01 n^vx> (h [print nami<s)r address] N - have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located jjt _____also referred to as Land Use Application No.--------------. I (vve) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for Ac City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor s project or use requires Council approval. |i y/vvU'M Property Owner 0^:- oi?' Date Property Owner Date *♦♦♦*♦.**••***♦*****•***•***♦************************************************* I (wc) ----------of ([print namel[s)l (1 [pnnt address] have reviewed t^ plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located aj WviK also referred to as Land Use Applicauon No.-------------• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (we) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project or use requires Council approval. Mhji^4- “ Property Owner Date I Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zomng Office at least ays prior to the scheduled meeting date. HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75’75-250*250-500*500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House M ■ V X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway A 7. 94 s X \D%3. D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ? M ?• - B I ~7 70 n PROPOSED HARDCOVTR LN ZONE A. House X "Zui Length ICl—X X X WiJth ICa B. Garage C. Driveway A *4 4*? X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B n.iQQ X luo B SS SB S X 1CX3 = S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Con'x. S.F. /oU. I?A S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. _3_2JL2i^S.F. HT>C£l S.F. la % S.F. \hC^S.F. S.F. S.F. G*7P- S.F. '^LyWriO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. |-/,7CO-S.f. 1 i /T. * V\ ^ • 4V % \ i A B A B J U M — I 3S —T M U 9 : S 5 I OL B C4 i I d w r-R . la 2 f1 i ^ !Vt-t «■', car k.-r*-* • mt 3o i; IAI [I* :*.n .*>■ • ._•-r» ^ •.. /* * .^ ''Jc/ J' r—--. “t —-ly ^ , ♦ 31^ *• ^-T***w ag<-Mt't ’•““111 iitoMi I I «. -T .. 1*^ 4. ,r Jt . t^m‘• ■ . ' •• » m~ -, -^****j***“'7^ . '.[ f—U-.VMVOV 1-T- r—- •■ .—.r .•■•• . .T^ . . .•it jk .«-/*■» I'-o' V. . -XtA^ • l>f **#•» • —• 4l‘»t ••••* 0 ti^f •«• fi-‘‘V n'»I ?p 9. 0mm, wW * • ' iM I I ■ I ■ I I ■! ~ I ■ I II - -| .«- . • ••• , . » j- . ................... ’^Ar®!VP‘* ’•**-4kCU^ilW4 •«•«•«^ur '*y U it, i j.i •w-/:{ .JUH — AS —THU 9 : 3 i6 F* I a Bc■-■* - ‘! P * TL ' •‘Tj*. , t^"»:s5L V S*» i It.'^l/uiJUui ^4\i LwtKV4 Kp^irt -jsp^ - -1—I •"R^'ra4.-. /, I ^ft4V «w^ p^ f»V #*•••* «•••• ^w.aOT».»> 9 • •. .nfiKi: .'i! /S-5|li • / \ S ■' ^-K- i _____I ^ » I < • « m,> : FpJ ..to «■ « ..♦ .. Fpi# >•<•-:«.:.........Jl-f 4 ••4 F* r» i\ V •» • y '.■••wif ^Tig,'/ ^ |h "Is ■ 'i!/s*'5 1* * ' V I» ;. f \‘ 1 F /' 1 \ Received Tiae Jun. 13. 11 :08AM j u M — 1 as —T M U 9 s F*td<ii Bwl Idvr^m •I .' •« .• ■ kMJ'.'ii ..^r-* V; • »• «» •'1^ *.• % ', t|« A i Wii*. .•M, V *• • > • M' *t V % ^ •. *VI. :.eceived me Jun. 13. 11:08AM N€J ilLbS. n»*# lT7^*\*r^ e%vn««w 5v*I !«%«%» ^ U N — X » —T M Ui 9:37 F I OL i I ci w r* A./ ■i-M 3T vr ■f •V'lri !• , ••• I. •• » • < - Cfau.M, U.A )iai*±i--------------^ <|f »u» ^0m»* H <<»»i V-jh^JlnCynA yMk.Uik. aSSrSTJ^^iJ <iM €*#fiftir 4i«b i8 CAwt* • » • • M •nt •.• Received Time Jun. 13. ll:08AM r 1 TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Admim. trator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:July 9, 1996 SUBJECT: #2149 Theresa Worsted, 2811 Casco Point Road - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning ' district: LR-IC Lot area = 13,747.5 s.f. Application: Applicant proposes construction of a screen porch at the lake side of the residence and a second level deck over major portions of the screen porch. The structure will be located 1T in front of the average lakeshore setback line where no such encroachment is allowed by code. No other variances are required. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review; 1.Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Review of structural coverage. Total lot area = 13,747.5 s.f. Allowed = 2,062.2 s.f or 15% Existing = 1,488.9 ' f. or 10.8% Proposed = 1,852.5 s.f or 13.4%. 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) - Average lakeshore setback varance, Allowed = 0 Proposed = 11’ 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 0-75' setback area = 5,437.5 s.f Allowed = 0 Existing = 380 s.f or 6.9% No changes are proposed within the 0-75' setback area. B.75-250' setback area = 8,310 s.f Allowed = 2,077.5 s.f or 25% Existing = 1,448.9 s.f or 17.4% Proposed = 1,784.6 s.f or 21.4% (363.6 s.f of screen porch minus 27.9 s.f of stooped area) No variance required. Zoning File «2149 July 10, 1996 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Applicant's Addendum Received 7/8/96 C - Plat Map D - Property Owners List E - Survey/Average Lakeshore Setback Line F - Staff Sketch Location of Improvements G - HardcoN er Plan HI-2 - Hardcover Inventory I - Staff Sketch of Building Envelopes for Detached Garage w ithin Street Yard J - Picture of Interior Screen Porch Kl-2 - Surveys of 2813 Casco Point Road L - Survey of 2807 Casco Point Road M - First Floor Plan N - Second Floor Plan 01-15 - Letter/Photos from Adjacent Property Owner (2813 Casco Pt. Rd.) Description of Request Review Exhibit E, applicant proposes a first level screen porch at the lake side of the residence that will ex'.end along the full 26.3’ and wrap around at a 4' width to the existing bay addition. Refer to Exhibit F, a second stoiy deck is profiosed over major portions of the first level screen porch. The structure w ill be located 11' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The application involves no other variances. The neighbor to the immedut east at 2813 Casco Point Road has voiced concern with the placement of the structure claiming it will impact his views from both side and lake side windows of residence. Mr. Stem has submitted a letter with exhibits (Exhibit O) for the Planning Commission's consideration voicing objection to the proposed improvement. Review Exhibit B, since submitting the application for the screen porch, applicant has been advised of existing and allowed hardcover. Ms. Norsted is concerned that she will not have enough hardcover remaining io allow construction of a detached garage within her street yard. The property does not have a garage. Applicant's addendum notes the following issues: 1.In response to issue 1, what is a reasonable encroachment of the average lakeshore setback for this property? Is there a view impact on the residence located at 2813 Casco Point Road? WTiat view s of lakeshore does the code protect? The views from the lake side windows? Side windows or peripheral views? The code does not specify. W9iat is the intent of ordinance? 2. In answer to issue 2, if applicant receives approval of the variance application as Zoning File #2149 July 10,1996 Page 3 proposed or amended, there will be approximately 292.9 s.f. for garage and driveway. A modest two stall garage at 20'x22' affords 440 s.f. of new hardcover. If garage is approved with a 1 O' street setback (doors facing aw ay from street), dri\ e w ill create some 200 s.f± additional hardcover and require the granting of an excessive side setback variance due to the narrowness of lot at street side (42'). Review Exhibits K- 2 and L, note locations of garages at 2807 and 2813. 3.In response to issues 3 and 4, staff has reviewed the files for both 2807 and 2813 Casco Point Road. The.”e is no record of variances or permits being issued for the detached garages nor is there any record of a permit being issued for the play structure located less than 10' from side lot line (2813 Casco Point Road). Review Exhibit K1,2813 was granted a side setback variance of 6 inches for a major addition at applicant's east side lot line. Applicant may be best advised to table the current applicant and to weigh options and preferences in regard to new improvements. Is a detached garage more important than a screen porch? Can members provide guidelines to applicant in preparing an amended plan of improvement as follows: A.Review Exhibits K2. L and O, will members grant a side setback variance where garages are located l'± from the side lot line? At the 10' setback garage doors must face away from street and a backout apron provided on side. At a 30' setback a garage would meet tlic required side and street setbacks but hardcover variances within the 75-250' setback area would be require'? '440 s.f ^arage minimum and 350 s.f for driveway at a 30' setback, total harder ,.f). What would Planning Commission members prefer? Side setback va,ttuive with garage at 10' setback or hardcover variance where structure would meet all required setbacks? What is the impact on applicant's street yard (screen porch at rear). B.Will members allow any further encroachment of average lakeshore setback line for a reduced screen pwreh? - - An open deck with no upper level deck? C.\Miat is Planning Commission's position on upper level deck where we are dealing with an average lakeshore setback variance. Planning Commission Action If applicant wishes to proceed with application as proposed and as set forth in the legal notice, Plaruiing Commission members may act on plan as proposed or amended by Planning Commission. If applicant wishes to amend the application to include a detached garage, staff must ask that the current application be tabled and a new legal notice published with written notice to neighbors. Applicant to provide amended site plan and hardcover facts. I Application # , vW ' Date Received Amount Paid ^ v’ %V I SJ. f CITY OF ORONO - VARL\>CE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal V'ariance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) * “ s. Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-ihe-Fact Fees (Double application fee) ■ I .A V I \ L . t* ^ V PROPERTY INFOR>L\TION _ H C r\ SiteAddress ^ZZ/ KCttA UC2 Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ ^^—00.i. Attach legal description to application if not included on required suK'cy. Dale Property Acquired /0/^3 (month/ycar) 1 (do) (do^notj^so own the^jacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___other (specify). Zoning District;___________________________________ APPLICAI^ ^ . Name ^ThO/'l£i^ 11/61 A ■ Address: Phone (home ) ¥7/ 90 7 3 _____ Phone (work) 37/ O City: r)nj^,0 Zip: ^^3 9/ OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Ad: ess;Cin^Zip; DESCRIPTION OF REQUES Describe request in detail; \ I'i /V/A Estimated Construction Cost - ^ /V / UYY</A J. ' ^?{ /?/V A . * ! . , . .attach additional sheets if necessary)^^, /XCiCCyi VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage Setback;Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify') --L HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS ^ —;u.. horrtchin nr nrj^rtical difficultv or unusual propertv conditi I ffl^L ;» T ttac/^dditionafsheets if n^ss^) I :r L - REQUIRED SUBMITT.\LS All of the following information must be submitted bv the aDpUcatlon deadline d»tC III order for vour application to b€ considered complete: 1. 7" 3.z 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Fonn Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Surv'ey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11" for reproduction. > - - Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i x 11 tor reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) ot all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that jiiiu: viirinnce anplication is not cnmnlete if the above information has BPt been IPtimiSiL APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zomng Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/Tier knowledge. Applicant’s Signature ^^^------ OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes ot investigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature d'I'Amm / y Date ar 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. 8 i r s July 5, 1996 JUL e jnr>f^r %* I'* Dear Jean: I hope your 4th of July weekend was very enjoyable! There are a couple of things I wanted to mention before the planning commision viewed my property and made a decision regarding my proposed addition. i 1) I have requested permission to build a screen porch that would extend 12 feet from my existing structure with an open walk-out terrace above. If 12 feet is not a permissable number, what would be (for example 11 feet, 10 feet, 9 feet, etc.)? 2) If I were to build a standard size 2 car garage, would there be enough percentage of hardcover remaining to build the above mentioned porch/terrace? If so, how much? 3) Both neighbors on either side of my property have existing garages positioned directly on the property lines. If I were to build a garage, how close to the property line would I be allowed to build? 4) Is the play house/tree house next to John Sterne's garage and adjacent to my property built and positioned according to current ordinances and setbacks? My neighbor, John Sterne, is very concerned with everything I have considered doing w V' respect to my home and property since before I even moved in. He was quite t ' -py with a row of trees I planted between our properties (for privacy) and is concerned they will interfere with his view through my property if I do not keep them trimmed as they mature. Naturally, he has expressed his opposition to my proposed screen porch. I believe John Sterne should have purchased they property I now own when it was for sale last fall if the view across and through my property is of such great importance to him and to the perceived value of his own home and his view of the lake. He may still have the opportunity! Once again, thank you Jean. You have been a pleasure to work with. Please feel free to call me at home or at work. 2811 Casco Point Road Orono, MN 55391 371-1400 Business 471-9073 Home /tn r M ..-1 .‘H 'Ti > • \' « • ■ ■ . !-• :.//4‘- mvinrir-lt* •' ~*-if • • *•*'■♦*1 .A'''OU&LZ'. ^ 14 -•-J RUN DATE OA/ia/M MTCH 501 PROP Ann 0M«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AODR 0«CR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOM PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 20-117-21 S2 0010 02017 CASCO POINT RO NESLEY C OYRNE NESLEY C OYRNE 2017 CASCO POINT 00 HAYZATA MN 55391 SO 20-117-23 32 0013 02011 CASCO POINT RO THERESA A NORSTEO THERESA A NORSTEO 2011 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA 55391 SO 20-117-2S 32 OOIA 02000 CASCO POINT RO THOMAS 0 KINQ THOMAS 0 KING 2000 CASCO POINT ROAO NAYZATA HN 55391 SO 20-117-2S 32 0020 02799 CASCO POINT RO TOOO J THEILMANN TOOO J THEILMANN 2799 CASCO POINT RD NAYZATA MN 55391 IttNNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OFMERS LIST REPORT NO. PI935901 PAGE 1 30 20-117-23 32 0011 02015 CASCO POINT RO 6 A C SCANLON GENE A CATHERINE SCANLON 2015 CASCO POINT ROAO HAYZATA MN 55391 SO 20-117-23 32 0012 02013 CASCO POINT RO J L STERN J L STERN 2013 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA rt< 55391 ■»- SO 20-117-23 52 0019 02007 CASCO POINT RO J M A P S OAILEY JOHN M A PATRICIA S OAILEY 2007 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 SO 20-117-23 32 0015 02005 CASCO POINT RD ROGER H FROFtCLT A NIFE ROGER H FROMMELT 2005 CASCO PT RO NAYZATA m 55391 SO 20-117-23 32 0017 02010 CASCO POINT RO TAFttY L NOOOIS tammy L NOOOIS 2010 CASCO POINT ROAO NAYZATA m 55391 30 20-117-2S S2 0019 02001 CASCO POINT RO P J HAUSER A R MASON HAUSER P J HAUSER A R MASON HAUSER 2001 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA MN 55391 ‘ -?] TOTAL BATCH 501 00010 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS DATE 6/9'36 J^RTY T^ FRANK R. CAROARELLE (612)941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Ctrtititau At Auttxv Book Pago File ?01l Ct^sico Point Rond Oronoe Nn. n o H £oijtir^poAt>46 • Scaletl”- 30* Q Penotea Iron Non. Found Total Lot Aroni 11#747.5 po.ft. Hoeae & Stoopns arr.ft. BeT. Drivoi 170 an.ft. 7{/yy . /.V >•/ Lot in 75 ft- aotbnctsS,417.5 no-ft. •oat Mouaei 160 poeft. MK0 Housos 75 pn.ft. Stepe 4 Wnlt to Laknx 195 po.fte/» >• ; / N, If .If" </>• ' • * /7 rt • ^ K/ /" # /.A K r. /^/ .V/V'/: 7V a; /<'A SuISTSc? to 70 Toot Ttond ” Lot 177 A Vncnt-d Lnka S>iorf» AvA.Sorlno Park —da, 11th _tlewwealnCiiwUr. MmeerteewdPieWifiiie eThitieiAVm >>»reei^<ien>1 /?«V. - 7>- 7 r y<X |TaaHat«n0«, VenyoneiMlaM Frank R'. Cardarollo Slato Reg. No. 6508 mm¥- K'v.’ilL;.-: FRANK R. CARDARELLi: (612)941-3031 E(ten PrNria, MN 55344 <^cvti{uatc Bt Th«*rf»^a Nor ftt«d Book Pigo Fite ?811 Ciisco Point fload Orono, Mn• •H O H F Roij^r,JPaAD U'a* V4- ,‘*’t»2.ai ScMleil"^ 10* O OonotOB Iron Hon* Found // f f.A S . / ** Av-a*. o(- vSo ’•Vfj I /ooR Wl\ P\\ea c f *9 + nm ‘CTt“ *< • ,• f •. * .V 1 =fr: l>5 i•V- CO VAC^TfO Omv£ tn ______m^niUlfir----------j.-.-i*——NMH—•*- SubjSct to 20 foot Road nanemnnt;^ AAKC Lot 122 Vacated Luke Shore MfoT^pring Paf iOmi%.I ' ' "iFrji** R. Cardarrtlo State Reg. No. 6508 M .' ? a- .-''l.JiSrJ • C€U D4G PA.'CARD hPELLE FRANK R. CARDARELLE (ei2) 941-3031 Fax i 941-7070 Jun 14 ’90. 07:7? Fi?4 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 ertiticate l&uvtxv 8urv#y For Book 2811 Casco Wotnt. Koad Orono, Mn• Page,File ty Scale t i 10 * O Denotes Iron Hon* Found To^el Xao^ Areat 11,747.5 House ^ Scoops: 1,3 20.9 no. ft;* BeT. Drives 120 ao.f^. XaO^ in 7S f ^ • se^l?acki5, 437.5 so.ft. Boat: Mouses 160 so .ft:. f Pump Mouses 25 art. ft:. f ^ 8^epa B Ka IK Ito ILaKes 195 sct*f^e/* ^ _ 14 . r _ils* I /r? ^43L-* ^ K r*t 9^ f. .g Z.AKE Sf E. T4f>M kT 1 aerator ••'••y oo»»e«» re>ere«erHa«Qn of a eurvey ef we totoi^«€nto« #fSuDjac^ t:o 20 foot: Roac3 aas< Lot: 122 L Vaeatied LaHe Sbpre Ave.Spring Park men^ •wrvtoytoto toy m» «f« w« ibfe eA4r••«^mtm•. /f IWy #P ftoP# > Frank RrCardaralla State Reg. No. 6508 tej PA/Ci^XihRELLE ORONO HARDCOVER^ SETBACK ZONE; (CHICLE ONE) (T t Q Fox • 941~i>0i'0 ^ 612A730510 Jun 14 *96 07:37 F02 Ofe/Ut^VO lU’.JC u- HARDCOVE^.CALCllLATIOiN WORKSHEET B Q«ra|e C. DHve««y O. C- Pitio'Deek F. Landicipe Undtrliin By PSutic Ot F«bnc X X X K X X X X X X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IS ZONE total fropertv area in zone ^---------------- B bioposed HARDCnvyg A. House Unfih fi. Oxrxfe C. Drivewxy D. Sidewalk €■ Patio/Deck F. Lendscspe Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X X X 0. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE total PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ■+• R 75-2 JO’25CLSOO*SOO-I wtfei S F. S F S F. S F. S F .SP .SF. S.F S F S.F. S F. $F X I(X) > 5-4-?7,r S.F % widoi S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. ,5.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. X too • S.F. S.P. S.F. A B A B i h-. l£J Bfs FA/C hFI^^PELLE ORONO Fc' : ^ 61 d** f I ^ HAROCOVXR CALCtX SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) O-Tf’ Jun U ''k* 07:?7 Fi.13 VNT» ^ * V • _ ^ £: A «House ORKSHEET 2SOSOO’S00*li 1* V* L#rfth WMd) ^ I.^AA-1 s.F X X X $F $F. SF B G«rx|e C. Oriveuey X X SF S.F D. Siv'eu'iliE X X E. Pxtio/Deck S.F. S F. X X F. Lxndfcxpc Underltia By Piisiic Or Fabric $F. SF. x X X SF SF, SF O. Oibtr TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ B ^1/0 X 100 - S.F. AiiZX_S F. - /7>^ % A. House Ijtng^WidA S.F I X X i. Oirige C. Driveway S.F. S.F. SF. SP. X X D. Sidewalk SF. S.F. X X S.F S.F C. Pxtio/Deck X X S.F. SF. F. LxndKipe Underlain By Plait ic Ox Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S F. O. Other S.F, TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____________ + B A B X 100 « S.F. A S.F. 5 % (612) 941-3031 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Certificate ©f ^urt)ev Survey Fo r Worsted Book Page. ?0n Cnsco Point Road Orono, Mi». O ti O Denote« Iron Mon. Found Subject to 20 foot Road easenienty^^^..^^,^, leleMevef e««i«rte» •». Lot 122 & Vacated Lake Shore A/tfeV^pring Pari r«iv«iMMtwA nth May ...^rir>K R. Cardarello State Reg. No. 6500 ^^ase >!tl !!, !( /'>hnul (.<■)! -4 s v ii. Htr.» d, ■ ■. •} t M. ^ L i /rt 'Tr SCX~>r’ :/ r, ^ . ('^'^ *jL^rt ji H. 'I' /"'i .»»' i*; «IJ<VA J W? xs <. ‘ ,* » «» '■n' .CaV . r \. V ••. m; }.M. * ‘ .;• ' k- 1. I \ • •« .•'>1 • ‘V :”. :<. 1: ;'•. :v. ‘ j • • ^ > . • » .. . I «V . •: ' ; ‘ ;■' ■• > •t : » ' • I' ‘1 .Ti •' ' : , t '■ J* ‘ 1 ' ' I Iv'f ' *! f' '! .t I K I V: * . .«. V* f. • • • | ‘ i‘ ' '•’ • • ‘ ^ ' '' ' '' . f .1 '.I • i '..I' ' .' •*' 'U ‘I* ,t' ’. • s: f ; ,. I ..'■• ! ^ : I i! •. • j V.«!! I N* M . H j* ^ ^ ^ .n ' .ir..» • ruriiilurc* T«» (to Tt»d.i> ? f •• V : •.‘: I. j 1^ . • : . i;;v i'M\ ;.uk,i.‘'-’' :'•>'. t< • l.iki. h-m:k i<.»I..‘, IiI •\ . I- It ‘ •» r. ^ ;• > ^ • r • ■ ■ *’ • ^•r V C* •» « v: .V .'ilv-'- ^ ^•>, > v'* '^ . • . >. ' • ^V,A. r lr>‘y- r • V ' WC*^- ^ ' \ S:~'. ft K' i !: I' f I I f €• dCfl’ » • • • - »-« * •• •.» .t^ •! ' ••* ■ «»• •> # j ^ • ‘ H • •%- • ' -> •»*• • • • • i Z * *-'• * «•• • « . ••. ;‘J ‘-'•f • ». - .' , ., ^ ' ■'•^.»*« .'f t>» I»e. r t,,,. ■-:. '* *r *t t r •• r « —•V. * • •• t%-f :f». 1^ i\ • ; :•- .S-; ::i.s:-."j ■ ^^ - - .* • t w •• *. ■;, .tW<vt y *-« :* ti'-y ■' ■' J : • • ] > I ■' < \L o C/J lu o Q Mn M > O W □ d □ (A O 9 CT 3* P T -• II X" Ul P • £r *1 O vO •-■) CO o ^ p n m O 3 3 OQ W H* STS X- 3 p to P 2 3 H" a 3 O o 3 Q. O 3 ro 50 p p ex (X =5 ^ O O O' M O -I CT' Oi XT VJl Oo 50s oo •Tl *3M O O M Z 1 4 P 3 P 3 O O cf M* 3o n P co 3 3- TJ 9 O O 3 O *3 3 P H- M rr O O' C to H- 3^ Q. M- 3o exrr to 3* P *i- 3 3- P H* 3 g p•o 3o < p 9 p 3 rr CL to O P o to 3 M rr O P P o. to 3 p 3u. •3 O 3 to p M-a ooc 3rr »< 3 P O O 3a H* M- 3 3 oq oo 3a rr cr 3* O P rr O 3- *3 P *3 H« TJ O P P O ►3 rr 3* P » P P3 ex a H- to O rr *3 P 3 rr 3- O P *3 O 3 M O O 0 r3 1 O 3 *3 H- M P O M *3 O CT toP -•H* ro a -• M o o *3 rr 00 •D *0 3 3o »-* Ch 3 p ex orr »Tj P P a 3 X- rr - O P 3a ct 3 P to H*a p M M* 3 P to O P CT ►3 M O I-- Cr* p X" p 3 rr a 3 P P 3 !-*• C/> C P 3 3 to O "O 3 O P P rr > rr n 3 -*a • H* 3 P3 erp a*o a 3 rr H. >-•3 3 * 3 P 3 3. P X* too rr P ?? 3 3 rr r* >- P *3 O H* 3 O p p 3 rr a p 3J O • *3 o p rr 3 3 a P o-n O o o If^lp ijuT r::5> '-Cl qiniuom 8339 § % V JOB NO. 95220 » • #» 55 ■: .1; ■ t a 1 *. v\ » .', * - »• ’, ' ' ' * ’ * * * V & ** &1 . '•iV ;>. ' ■ • V A •J"* ’ < ^ » • • * • m •►V t. , 1- !f t («S?V%i »• f 1 f'A-— - 1 • I :• '• ■■ ■ *,< • ,*.'••■ J ..•! .- ■ . & '.'• f ■ •-• . ..« • * r ’ . •1 1 i’ ‘ ’ X<1 ' 4r^v^-' -?Hi(. •' :v ^‘.' • -HS' •■ ■ ■ ‘ '■ • •■■ • 15 rfa ^ • -Ia • f "StS V, V Xvn.^|f.: ‘ 'vlfc ' ■ '^ -:v;viW:S-.f v:: ■tl ^ ac-.'VS/ij tiJ-« ’ -'■• • • - K^ 7^'i:a*’5l a-4'^ iT ■ V‘ » i■iliMl?4-"'-?' i■|■.lJ flj'S--' ^ 'S-4 ■':p' ■'■ ■ '^i-- ! •• , / • .• ■ ■• 4;: .■•'^ :.!f - ' - mi “ • •*. %■ ;-;'v :■ » '■ r\i • ' ... ■’ • It . ^ • ’ ■ «• I r. V, * .• I'. V i i k .i 1 I:' V ,IV / ■/. t<J \’* » / ; -r /if 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 15, 1996 AGENDA ITEM #2149 - TERESA NORSTED HOMEOWNER AT 2811 CASCO POINT ROAD TO: Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P. O. Cc>'. 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 FROM: Jon Stern 2813 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Residence: 471-0854 Office: 926-7586 !i.ti e .inr According to Section 10.56, Subdivision 6. which defines the "Average lakeshore setback." "No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classifed lakes, and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting ll\e most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots." and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1. D. "No principal or accessory structure shall be located within 75 feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots (refer to Orono Manual of Design Standards and Specifications) except that this does not apply to structure allowed in subsection A above. As shown on the applicants certificate of survey (Exhibit A) the end of the lake side concrete stairs at the entrance to the current three season porch exclosure encroaches the "average lakeshore setback" line as defined in Section 10.56, Subdivision 6. and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1. B. by approximately two (2) feet on the lake side and is approximately 4.5 feet wide. The entire prop sed structure would add an additional 10 feet for a total encroachment of approximately 12 feet on the lake side and approximately 30 feet in width as shown on the applicants certificate of survey (Exhibit B) and redefined on the architectural d“awings. I feel that the foundation and purpose of Section 10.56, Subdivision 6. and Section 10.22, Subdivision 1. B. of the Orono City code is to protect and preserve the natural contour of the lake setting and the lake views for all adjoining residents, including both views straight out from the residence and peripheral views, which the "average lakeshore setback" ordinances are specifically intended to protect. 1 As shown by the attached photos I currently have a very direct view of the lake through the proposed encroachment area from several vantage points. This view is further enhanced during the late fall, winter and early spring with the absense of foliage. Also attached you will find a west elevation of my residence. I currently have a very direct view of the lake from every window on this elevation. I took some photos from inside my house looking out at the lake. The photos are numbered according to the window they were taken out of. As you can see, the views from the lower level dinette windows (#1-3) and the kitchen window (#4) will be completely blocked by the lower portion of the enclosure. (The view from kitchen window (#4) as with the rest of these views is more pronounced with the absense of foilage). My residence will be available for viewing after July 8,1996.! would strongly encourage any members of the planning board to tour the inside of my residence. If I am not home, please go next door to 2815 Casco Point Read and see Gene Scanlon for access. riew of the lake points. This view is th the absense of ence. I currently ‘levation. I took photos are ^ou can see, the hen window (#4) I. (The view from nounced with the ►uld strongly of my residence. If 1 see bkeshorc lots mcluding 2S13 C.lsco Point Rood ond 2S07 Casco Point Road In addition to potentially redeliniiig average lakeshore setbacks to the cast and west of t t (The red pole m tlu> pictures was placed exactly 12' straight out from the southeast corner ot ^vSl 1 Casco Point Koad and is intended to represent the southeast corner ot the proposed structure) / \ r < » • . 4 ' I •• * \ dijllXm t' ^ V r4 t — 7 \ ,\ V • / f- ' '-res.'- -.V ' s /'VC jA' \ ' ’a' V' • : 4‘Xr >x'Air ic' ^."\' X X •" " - - :-v XT'tNcV' ^^hjt ^ •>>•'> ,: — •. - ik'4'iMl■d ^ ibPo. c : w ^ <r • ‘ f:. . 'V - My residence, lies on Lc>t 121 where the shoreline basically runs east/west. At Lot 123/124 the shoreline turns to a north/south direction. I therefore have lake views from both the main and upper levels to the south and west. As shown on the photos below, mv residence was intentionally turned in a southeasterly direction on tlie lot so as to maximize the view looking out the west windows and deck at the lake. Ik ' •y • '• V. ■ ->-'i .'-Tty.rV'Tac • - V -VVv-c?:*^ !s<:. ■ ^ V' \ • (•»- w- - a: t • ''5. I - W I tr I 4 \ f I pityttt nl^r ^ ykMff r"S,rA?T^*!rE2T"ro!.°^^^ MORE IS PROViOEO IW UPPER PORTION OF ROOF AND REM/«N3ER IS PROVIDED IN SOFFIT VENTS, IT MAV d€ REDUCED 10 1/3G0TK ATTIC AREA. t~T r~l >F!fflfflWP.r inigryni ■Min Z HT. Above Highest Point w/in 10’ Radiu / l/<4 !*• ] 1 i t i-j-I 11—i 2W CttL^<rP FU(»e ( bh»#iA«i2 □ «1 1 ii n 1 1 Hr-iil 1 ' e• • 1 j; i i !1 I VBB19 t r - »i^.- § fOrtb^er # tV«£ 4*4 ligR Iffliiil UVlNAAMeS 2i>^ KSBISI)lllinl!ia AH Qfrtirfiirai Mpmhpr^J\^^^^tAnnrn\ \ II W I ROM niM TTI WINDOW #1 .111 i'* ,r. .■< S i.:^. ■ i% % * J r :. Wm ri>: ^ *1:^ •'-.•*l-r , .• • V ■ ‘-r y VfJTf«^--.". fv- ^i ■ , • •■ y ;. ^.^ • • !t'-. .•'X::' " ^ : •■■r3^.: .:• - - ■ .. . ■ ;v ,X:- W:Ite' Sx it;. : ^ ■ • ' "V'. -,. ^■:■■ :x.; .:.!■ ■.:Xs:;mw.>:-.^^^^^: ';x:- - X 'X .:' ^ ^■:.•■x >*• ’. -XX^ -, ':,; :"Xv:;;x^x,'■-> X ■ - . ■?•; '"•■•v.'.. 'X\.-.:'X ■ ■ X -. I 'X X ;V -:X . x.v.. •' ’ X ' #' ':' r'iX /■ ;Xx^.■X';Xv^x;^ ...._.' vX-• "X-X^.V;'- . -. , ♦ XxXX:XX,-< .-X :-x: .;X;-4 ;'/,iV; ., <*• i- ^ ': , . XxxXx-XXX.,tXX^^::Xxv ‘i. X.:. . ■■ ■ ...-“ x^ xf •rV^"':x : ■• '^S '*' 4' '#• :"1 ^ I-' ^ ! ^ , 'm r I X - -X/ ; >->yi • •■'f f *h l^.x. ^ -J^-xV^'- '••• .4iimai ‘X'l XX;. ‘.XX ^■i ! '•»- "■ V Jvt >r - -V.^♦>A (X: ,/ r- •,>* . r’ /< w.yyyy^iil'-''..... xx’ -i-xf ■■iHC. ■ ■• .-X V ^;Vc>- 4i . . • ucr'. i- '■■ . X.XXii' x ■ . X" ■ . ■': x'• V- x/-xx-.;x- ..,-■ •:■ ■:^:xx.;(..VAx. i•xx-.r^l■vx'^7>y^;^.;;.xv .y:':*• ,. ‘X. • -.' •■ ': -■ l••x•^' x:|=- X :::.^X"X' X •■•••' :; ’ .x?»/■ x..x:x'?^;;'X-x.Xx X •■‘iiiiX %"X; 5% . Xx;i« Pi-exxr ;:\o^^^-xxxx;-x: x«Xx;xxx^xx':.;;;.x:xx-x -. -ry-c- ty- • .'•. •V x-r.. . .• >•-1 ; '^■:' ' V X-vyx«,y.r..e^x^iai^ VILW FROM IMNETTE WINDOW #2 Note red pole which represents southeast corner of proposed structure. ■■• . • .-V.’ .... _^,fc % 7^.•"•C=vC • ••v'-'V- . -. . ^ ■■•'.' ; • ; - •. v;V ■•' ■ ■ •'■'■'■■-7-.- '--t. ■■ =.!►.;i..;.; ••• ■ \-yy ^y*-'^A jp- 3 , m- I .4A;^r' • ;/■•; :-p A;^■ y !- ::■».,1 ■ A.' ■ ■ ■ ■■ ;'A^ •..-A. » *--.^ • *% y-/y ■■••;: ^ .........................................■■•-:i/ •. ■ .*• *• • •••. ■\A A-. ,•. 4'%V. •-.■..•■ •' . :•■: ■ :J Top of over-hang reprc'sents roof/floor of structure. *1 •: ■; ' -V i vT-‘d a" t<.. * '» ^' :«l •;VA.-W •:a»sv . e*;'. ■' 4.- -m.^- »^ . L ^ ' - * '' m--y ••. \\ ■H ■»• - * !■ i.3Sl • ^r, at^''4 • f r--r .•V "• ■ A -'V ■^':v.^..vA^- . ,■ > •••A-•.. •; VILW FROM DINETTE WINDOW #3 ■ ■ * .■-J' ■ ;■■ X t'- ..ff''■: .1: J • . '■' SI^ -r - » J» .Vv\i /•rS:.•••■'*■ . • •••"%?* - - :-:V .:.:,Z^y \. ' ' ■;S- '■■ ■■■••^.•"•. ■ V-- :S V, a- ■:«* ■f\r- -a-. ♦ - V . „■:*= V: ^ V ■;. " '-Vi;: , ' ' m^ .*7^ wm-i’Ur . f .. . : ij^ •V/^. . • • • i «r* ^4M: v'if ■ ■^u., y '■■^^ -S ./.:•’ S '■■ _*' l l ^ \ "* A* *” S" 5^t ■^N/. T> • . ,.;• . icvS;-:-.X;:- ^ .«VV :-.v ■■■■.• ■^' ■ -•■ ■ --:--^v '; 1 fe;'.-' ■ *I---; -.,t V 'F-.-iO:. .. J * -1 ■S#8i|'- . "VTlt W T' ^ S;;^. -‘ymMi \m.^ ' s., •oV. ', -: . . ■ .V:- m^'m- ! :=:■■•■ >.N'v, v; ; •'•/": . ^ u ' ' s; V, ^ •■: •/ * 1 ■• *•. ■•- ^- _____________ ”;-Si2 VILW I ROM KITCMLN WINDOW #4 ' ip^ • vr.r".Hl.. ru VIEW FROM UPPER LEVEL WINDOW #5 (Note red pole in low left of picture again represents southeast corner of structure. The proposed deck on top of enclosure will extend out at the approximate level of existing gutter and will require guardrails 36" minimum height with 6" maximum openings whi.h will obscure view on second level as well.) »■ * .»•'. ir*'**; ■■■■■ (:9 The construction of the proposed structure would drastically obscure my lake side view, thereby having a significant adverse effect on the resale and personal intrinsic value of my properly. I therefore most respectfully request that the "average lakeshore setback" currently defined by the "residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots" to 2811 Casco Point Road be maintained, and the application for approval of an average lakeshore setbeck variance that would permit construction of the proposed structure at the lakeside of the subject residence be denied. Sincerely, Q ^ i Jon Stern 2813 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN 55391 la ---------------- — - - - CEV E>« PC*/CARD»VELLE FRANK R. CARDARELLE (612) 941-3031 Fix : 941-3030 Juji 14, *'36 07:77 ■ oLttnd Survsypr^ Cdon Rralii6» MN 55344 Survey For ertUitatc Ibwlxi? Book Flip 2S11 Casco Poln^ Poad Orono# Mn. a ar# -fds^a._jE^lutz. Eoa a Soalotl*** 30* O Oano%«a Xron Men. Found To««I Kreat 11,747.5 ao.rt. Houaa <• S^oopas 1,3 28.9 ao.ft:. B.T. Drives 120 ma.ft. Xto^ In 75 £1:. ae«:toiic1ct5,4 37.5 a«r.^«. ■oa« Kouaes 150 a<x.£^. / ^ Pump Houaa t 25 arr. . I XU ^ 8«.epa 8 Walk. t:o t>a1cas 19S so.ft:.^* *v 2LAK£ 7^.Z ■ j ---i-=:Cfe A^/Ay>ViE ^ A ££i^i 4^ **-> •* 1 8MBF aTfT>|- •• 6 tw# 8A4 IS^aMt f4|prt«8i««8|«R 8 •MfM8V 6» •»# B6WR#M6* 6< Sub/act: t:o 20 foo^ Road mmmmmmnt. ___ x.ofc 122 A Vacated Dnke 3 Ava.Sprlno Fa •miv***« »r •• M *v*.nth________***y >?ev. .4.-/^T^rmnkR^^^Cmrdiri^ State Reo- No. 6506 ExW.b-.+ ft Scale:!-* ‘^0* O Denotes Iron Mon. Pound tM if:•/ ( / • i ' ..o iio!hi r, iPoA D It */4* \Z ■ o % 6i Vos' I 5 Sv. * /if*' Jr^w Ale/tii^ew I tn ^!«»*Ke.:r* ‘ ___^r'r '■"' /.AK^ A^//VA/£ £)<W.b ‘+ o Subject to 20 foot Road eeseraent jyg„^,^,n<»> May Lot 122 L Vacated Lake Shore jy^eTsprlng Par Si^vtyad toy me «n Mt. 11th ■Tfnn R. Cardarello State Reg. No. 6500 r S 10.56 i b. ^Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory strucWr^sha 11 be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots, except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, and lockboxes. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line snaxx be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of tne residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. D. Minimum Lowest Floor Elevations. structures located within the Shore land Overlay subject to the flood plain regulations of Section 10.55 of tnis elevation shall be established as set forth i” .Section 10.55, Sut>d. 7 of this code. All structures constructed within the Shoreiana Overlay District shall have their lowest floor, including placed at an elevation no lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. Where the regulatory ^t,Mch the cannot reasonably be determined, the minim^ lowest floor, including basement, may be placed shall be determined as follows: 1. For lakes, by placing the low- it floor at a level at least 3 feet above the highest known water level, or 3 feet above the Ordinary High Water Level, whichever i^r higher. 2. For rivers and streams, b> placing the lowest floor at least 3 feet above the flood of record. E. Water-oriented Accessory Structures. The water-oriented accessory structure allowed to be located Ordinary High Water Level than the normal structure seth&cK as specified in this section shall be a lock box no greater ^ . square feet in area and no higher than 48 inches in height. Such structure requires a building permit from the City. F Stairways, Lifts and Landings. Stairways v..rs;:;OT ”.K;; design requirements: in width. 1, Stairways and lifts must not exceed 4 feet 2. Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. 3, Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. ORONO CC 376-12 (2-24-92) S 10.21 Subd. 5. Area. Height. Lot Width and Yard Requirements. A. Height. No structure or building shall exceed 2~l/2 stories or thirty feet in height except as provided in Section 10,75, be observedt B. Lots. The following minimum requirements shall Lot Area Lot Width Front Yard Side Yard Side Yard Adjacent to Street 1/2 acre 100 feet 30 feet 10 feet 15 feet Rear Yard 3TTeet SBC. 10.22. RBGULATIOHS FOR "LR-lA*, "LR-lA-l*. ■LR-lB*. •LR-IC* AMD •LR-lC-1* 0MB FAMILY LAKBSHORB RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. Within any "LR-IA", "LR-lA-1", "LR-IB", "LR-lC", or "LR-lC-l" One Family Lakeshore Residential District the following regulations shall apply: Subd. 1. Lakeshore Set Back Regulations. The setback from the shoreline for lakeshore lots: A, Shall be 75 feet for all structures except that on lakeshore lots divided by a major thoroughfare, a lock box not in excess of 20 square feet in area and 48 inches in height is allowed on the lakeshore portion of the lot and requires a building permit from the City. . 5 B, iNo principal or accessory structure shall be located within^>fr- feet of the lakeshore nor closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots (refer to Orono Manual of Design Standards and Specifications) except that this does not apply to structure allowed in subsection A above. Subd. 2. Lakeshore Hardcover and Land Alteration Regulations. Within 75 feet of shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hardcover, temporary or permanent structures except as permitted under Subdivision 1 of this section. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 25% hardcover. Within 250 feet to 500 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 30% hardcover. Within 500 feet to 1.000 feet of the shoreline there shall be no greater than 35% hardcover. ORONO CC 283 (4-1-84) /A TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse. Citv Administrator FROM;Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:July 11, 1996 SUBJECT: #2150 Kent and Susan Swanson, 3229B Casco Circle - Variances Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC Lot area = 33,801 s.f. Application: Applicants proposed two small additions to the lake side of the residence each totalling 27 s.f. One addition will be located within the 0 75’ setback and the other within the 75- 250’ setback area. Improvements involve a lakeshore setback, average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Review of structural coverage. Total area = 33,801 s.f. Allowed = 5,070 s.f. or 15 Existing = 3,681 s.f. or 10.9% Proposed = 3,632 s.f. or 10.7% (Removal of 103 s.f. of upper level deck and the addition of 54 s.f of principal structure additions) Structural coverage reduction of 49 s.f or 0.2%. 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A) - Lakeshore setback variance for single story main level bay addition. Allowed = 0 Existing = 58.5’ (Existing upper level deck to be replaced by Bay addition, refer to Exhibit F) Proposed = 65’ Variance = 10’ or 13.3% (Existing variance = 16.5’ or 22%) 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) - Average lakeshore setback variance for dining addition that will encroach 49’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. The kitchen addition will encroach 33’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. 4.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover variances. A. 0-75’ setback area = 17,537 s.f Allowed = 0 Existing = 514 s.f or 2.9% ’I rii Zoning File #2150 July II, 1996 Page 2 Proposed = 514 s.f. or 2.9% (No reduction of hardcover reflected as 76 s.f. of deck to be removed is installed over an existing 76 s f walkway) B. 75-250' setback area = 16,264 s.f Allowed = 4,066 s.f or 25% E.\isting = 7,517 s.f or 46.2% Proposed = 7,517 s.f or 46.2% (27 s.f of upper level deck to be replaced by 27 s.f. of kitchen addition) No change in hardcover. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Applicants Addendum E - Hardship Statement F - Survey/Average Lakeshore Setback Gl-4 - Hardcover Inventory H - Kitchen Addition/Floor Plan I - Dining Bay Addition Floor Plan J - Elevation Bay Addition K - Resolution #3282 Approved 5/10/93 L - Resolution #1357 Approved 1/25/82 Description of Request review Exhibit D, applicants ’ extended family creates new space needs within their 25 year old residence. In early discussions with applicants, it was planned to present both improvements as options but in ater discussions it was decided that they would ask for both additions allowing them greater flexibility in planning a final construction plan. ^e house w^ coi^tructed 25 ypn ago prior to current Shoreland standards. The legal setback was 50. Review Exhibit F, the majority of the residence is lo^'ated within the 75-250' setback area. It is alM ^e the majority of the residence is located in front of an average lakeshore setback because o* the location of the house on the peninsula. Review previous resolutions (Exhibits K and L) approval for this property in 1982 and 1993. The applicants cannot expand or alter the building envelope that encroaches the average lakeshore setback line or where excesses of hardcover exist without variance approvals. Zoning File #2150 July 11,1996 Page 3 The bay addition will result in a 49 s f reduction in structural coverage although not in a hardcover reduction as the 3' wide deck is located over an existing 3' walkway. The existing deck is located 58.5' from the shoreline. The proposed single stor>’ bay addition will be located 65' from the shoreline. The 27 s.f. kitchen expansion addition will replace an upper level deck. The upper level deck is included within structural coverage inventory and will not result in a reduction of structural coverage nor will there be a change in hardcover as hardcover improvements exist beneath the proposed deck or ad Jition. The proposed additions will have no visual impact upon the lake views of the adjacent residents. Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibits B, K and L, the hardships are best summarized on Page 2 of Resolution #3282, Exhibit K. Issues for Consideration 1. The improvements will result in a structural coverage decrease of 49 s.f. Should applicants be asked to consider additional hardcover removals? Note 3,500 s.f. of the hardcover within the 75-250' setback area is shared drive that serves 3229A and C Casco Circle. 2. Other issues raised by Planning Commission members. Options of Action To deny, approve as proposed or approve as amended. ( Application ^ Date ReceiTed Amount Paid /f V-- V XC_e_0 (j J>e CITY OF ORONO - VARLANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) . A V.Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00*' J After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) f y -^1 VA PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ^ ProjDcrty Identification Number (P.I.D.) ^ -------------— Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. -T / I *7-1 <3 _________________________________(month/year)Date Property Acquired I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: ^ ^__________________________— APPLICANT Name ^v^ArJSOr-J ________ Address:City: Phone (home ) AH \ -~T i Phone (work)____________ Zip: t t-OhJ S OVWER^(if different than applicant) Name KaAg4g-» 3 fcT_____ Address: ST. Phone (home )-4 "7^ - <*'6 *2.% _____ Phone (work) 4*7 4r - i _ Citv: Zip: v DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ Describe request in detail; -n..fe- le^g^e-s-r ■> to -TO tv>^ p.Kj|>4to /i^s ife-x:is~rn-i e? ----------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage uX 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 conrpiiance sritb zoning -TMg. OP-nor>l 1$ TV Ol ^-11 Ai**i ) S~Tl>-lg— ^ ^ a syl ) $-r t »-lCJ> .________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be coinidertd complete; 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Fonn Certified Propert>' Owners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Count>- Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center,c348-327JiZ^ Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed sur\eyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x II" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/j" x H" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & 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 property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that vour variance application is not complete if the above informarion has not been included. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and'or consultant expenses incurred irt review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied i|ltrue ai^ i'Corrwt|w theWst of his/her knowledge. . Applicant's Signature OWNER'S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entr>' onto the property by City^stafiLxonaultants, agents. Commission members, and Council icT verimembers for purposes of irtvwtigatilUSOwner's Signature ana verification of this request. Hu4a . 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 8c Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 1 I RUN DATE 0A/21/9$ DATCH 502 WENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFCWUTION SYSTEM PROPERTY ONNERS LIST REPORT NO. PX4S5A01 PAGE A PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 20-117-23 A3 0002 03229 CASCO CIR 0 P PARUPSKY I J A CARLSON DAVID PARUPSKY 3229 CASCO CIR MAYZATA m 55391 36 20-117-23 43 0003 03229 CASCO CIR MARY SUSAN SNANSON MARY SUSAN SNANSON 3229 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 43 0004 03229 CASCO CIR G R TRIPP ASK TRIPP GREGORY R A SNARON K TRIPP 3229 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 i*' PROP ADOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 36 20-117-23 43 0005 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO MARY SUSAN SNANSON MARY SUSAN SNANSON 3229 CASCO CIR HAYZATA MN 55391 36 20-117-23 43 0015 03233 CASCO CIR 0 M SPILSETH A P 0 SPILSETN DAVID N SPILSETH 3233 CASCO CIRCLE NAYZATA HN 55391 36 20-117-23 43 0014 03231 CASCO CIR J E COOPER A J E COOPER J E COOPER A J E COOPER 3231 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 ■ V£, PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 36 20-117-23 43 0017 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO 0 C PLAIN A P L PUIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 i i' 36 20-117-23 43 0018 03227 CASCO CIR 0 C PLAIN A P L PLAIN 0 CHARLES PLAIN 3227 CASCO CIR NAYZATA MN 55391 TOTAL OATCN 502 00006 y I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXAUPNt TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. ^ o«Tt \ 3229-B Casco Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Ms Jeanne Mabusth Orono Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Jeanne, Once again we Swansons are contemplating a remodeling project. “Once again," because we have found that over our 25-years in this house, the way we use and live in it changes -- and where our friends and neighbors decide to move at those points in their lives, we remain committed to spending our whole lives in this one home. Our 25-year old appliances are beginning to die. and our kitchen is showing its age. We are faced with the opportunity to better those things about the cooking and dining areas of our home which need improvement. We have decided not to simply put new appliances in the old spaces As you know, we have begun the planning with our architect. Mr. Mark Nesset. Mark informs us that you need to know which of the alternatives we are working with we intend to use. Designs “X" and “Y ” require modification to the exterior of the house on its north side; the "Dine-Bridge" design requires modification to the exterior of the house on its east side at the southern end of the house. We have not yet decided which design to pursue based on two factors; cost and city permission. We do not wish to unnecessarily develop two costly sets of plans. We would be comfortable with the Commission’s acceptance of “If X’ or ‘Y“ then not ’bridge ." or; “If ‘bridge’ then not X’ or Y’.” Or, perhaps the Planning Commission will accept both alternatives Our starting point is the Orono planning commission We have found this to be a valuable and important protocol in the past, and I think we have developed a nice working relationship. It is worth noting here. I believe, that when we built our house in 1971, the lake side set-back was 50-feet and our building was carefully in compliance. One of the present alternatives, the "dining bridge,” will actually remove decking which is considered “hard cover" within the now 75-foot set-back zone. Additionally, since the “X" and “Y" alternatives would extend ‘oetween present deck and roof overhangs, none of the alternatives that the Commission is considering will add to the total hard-cover. Thank you for your consideration and your help. We look forward to working with you again. Kent and Suzy Swanson ;j 1 i i I . C: t I t. HARDSHIP/ DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS (corn ) As can be seen on the survey, much of this property is included in the 0-7S* setback which has caused the owner to request minor variances in the past. The variances were requested in order to update the property and the last area of the residence to be updated is in die de»gn stage at present. Only one of the options would be implemented The dining room addition would result in an overall decrease in hardcover and the design would keep the hardcover the same by turning deck,under an overhang, into kitchen dining area. No new foundation would be built in either case. This request is certainly caused by the unique features of this property and is a logical conclusion to the projects allowed by previous variances. Furthermore, in the dining addition scheme, we are requesting a change which allows the property to more closely meet the code and in design “Y” it would not change compliance. •I 1 t HAKIK'OVrR SURVtV I !j f , »KENT E SWANSON 11 “x ..» • :i (• • : ^r.C 20. T 117 H 2 » cur or oRoso lir.'kM'IN «W\TY W«ur^. imv^. f«r. 'nrr*'* APPrnohU MAIUILliVUKj^A^'ULAIiafN WURKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (OBCLEONE) TS<250*-i< MS HABDCOVEK IN ZONE A. Home _____ B. Oarage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Paiio/Deck F Landacape Underlain By Plaatic Or Fabric a a a a A S dg X X X a X a a a a -4^ •7U G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A + B 51-4 a 100 n,5A7 PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE fS«gfa« At?PmOt4 A. House ______a ________________ Leiiaei wiad) a a a B. Garage C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Patio/Deck F. LandKape Underlain By Plastic Or PiAtric a a a a a a a a a -4^ S.F. SF. S.F. SF. S.F. $.F. SF. S.F. SF. SF. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ___S.F. ___S.F. ix3_ S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. .."6^ S.F. ________S.F. S.F. G. Other S.F TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____ B _ A fe>g 17.5 ^7 a 100 - __S.F. __S.F. 'i.n % A B A B % M iwi pg ** Y ** HAKUCii^KKjLA^'ULA'UUN WURKSKEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIKCLEONE) TS-ISO* SSO-SOO* Exisnwc hardcover IN ZONE A. Howe______■_ ® ______________ • 50B>1«n B. Oange C. Driv«w«y D. Sidewalk E. Ptt*o/Deck F. Lendicepf Uadertain By Plaatic Or Fabric X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ____________® . PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. Houie _________s Lei)|A B. Girige C. Driveway D. Sidewalk E. Pitlo/Deck F. Landicape Underlain By Plaatic Or FiA>rlc X X X 0. Ollier TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A____________B ^ 4^ 3^ 5l4 X lOO W\dt> X 100 » S.F. SF. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ___S.F. ___S.F. _______% S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B A B \ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) ®-75' ^ >5-230^ 2S0-SOO-li £i A O HARDCOVER IN ZONE House _______ Length WuMi X X X B. C- Cange (Driveway Cfosift) X X D. Sidewilk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other ' CA-C*. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ^ B _____X 100 l» . a» PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE (^Of^ At?t?iTtoM •*<* A. House ______________ X ______________ Length Width X X X B. Girtge C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Uoderlain By Plastic X X X WftCC) G. Other j1 CA^ 5tA#r TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE + B X 100 - a502- I I 5* lA 15 1 I e> 7^91 1 tk>.04>4‘f Ab-2- J[^_LL2 514 7^1"! ST. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. • V « • S.F. % S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ___S.F. S.F. Afa.2. ' # A B i f PfLC>?C>5titJC> HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET i.' SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) O-TS* ^ 7S-2S0>^ 250-500'500-i EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House S.F. Length Wklih X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. G&rage (mua^ C. Driveway Lfcat) S.F. X X 2.SC32- I I S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X ^ 14 S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Deck X X 15 >S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other '^2,___S.F. CA.c.. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A -i* B ____________ X 100 i t> T,gi n • F. ___S.F. A-b.i___% PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ X Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Paiio/Deck X X I F. Landsedpe Underlain By Plastic X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. G. Other total hardcover in zone TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE B X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B t u . . / / »v> •■ \ *A*rv. '•; •’' •••! i. 3 T ^ VO Q 5 t rH-- U < 0 o 0 \; i \ \ > TT w . I A.. 6i m -* »>< VO \ > / H t=m ■i r » 4 H i^. rv t Lb % \0 ^ L tC____i>ii1|(511'^'^'ft % p 1?|' ^WASl^OH CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY' COUNCIL o o T: O NO. ■ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 (B) and 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 FILE #1816 WHEREAS Kent E. Swanson and Susan S. Swanson (hereinafter the applicants-) arc owners of ie property located at 3229B Casco Circle within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: Tract B, Registered Land Sursey No. 1333, as filed_ with the Registrar of Titles. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter ”thc propert>' ); and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Munici^ Zoning Code Sections 10.22. Subdivision 1 (B) to permit the construction of a 6>A x 12 en^ addition to the street side of the residence and a 24 ’ x 24 ’ second story den =".tJon abo« attached earage and a 5’ x 3’ landing and spiral staircase at the lakeside of the residence. Poniom of thfs construction shall be located in front of the average lakeshore no such encroachment is allowed and per Section 10.22. Subd.vtston 2_ APpl cants seek anoroval of hardcover variances within the 0-75’ setback area, existing at 578 s.f. ot3.2% and ;?o7oIe?522 s f or 2.9% where none is allowed and in the 75-250’ -tback area h^ exists at 7,515 s.f. or 46.2% and is proposed at 7,517 s.f. or 46.2% where only , 25% is allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City CouncU of Orono, findings 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1816. Page 1 of 5 1 th CITY of ORONO RESOLimON OF THE CITT COUNCa NO. 1 ^ 2. 3. The property is located in the LR-IC Zoning District requiring a ‘A acre or 21,780 s.f. per residential unit. The property consists of 33,801 s.f. or .77 acres. The Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 19, 1993 and recommended approval of the proposed variances based upon the followmg findings and hardships; A. The property meets the area and lot width standards of the LR-IC Zoning District. B The existing house was placed on the property prior to the 75 ’ lakeshore setback requirement; the existing house met the original 50 ’ lakeshore setback standards at the lime the home was constructed. C. The pie shaped lot has placed severe restrictions on the building envelope. D. Over 50% of the lot area is located within the 0-75 ’ setback area. E. 3.500 s.f. of the hardcover within the 75-250 ’ ptback consists of a shared drive that serves 3229A and 3229C, Casco Circle. F There is little impact on the lakeshore views of the adjacent homes. The homes are located on a curved peninsula with view windows facmg lake. G. Staff has received no negative comments from the adjacent neighbors who have been notified of the proposed improvement. The City Council has considered this application including the fmdings and J^co —ioos of the Planning Commission, repom by C W co« by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the heaith, safety and welfare of the community. Page 2 of 5 1^. CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this propert>’ are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning distnct; that erantina the variance 'vould not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessar>' to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary’ to preserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spint and mtent of thv Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONXLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above fmdings, the Otono “ m n/™h grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdms.ons 1 (B) arrf * to pemil fhe construction of a two story entry addition, a second story den addition InVr totallation of a 5’ x 3' landing and spiral staircase at the lakeside of the residence, subject to the following conditions; 1.Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but atr^r^Tssive onlv and must be exercised by application for a buildmg poJr^t wS one year' of the date of Council approval, or this variance wiU expire on that date (May 10, 1994). 2.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and of ^ resolution shall constitute a violation of the zomng code, shall automatical!) [eminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 3.The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree terms I^SiTstsolmion and on behalf of themselves, their hereby agree to the recording of this resolution m the cham of title property. Page 3 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCO. NO.O .‘w* Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 10th day of May. 1993 Dperty Owner(s STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on tWs 10th day of May 1993. by Edward J. Callahan. Jr. & Dorothy M. Halim. Mayor & City Orono. a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was execu City. CAROLE A. HASEMAN NOTANV nj|ue-UtME30TA HENNEPIN COUNTY ITT oayMSsa« evdcs rotary Public My Commission Expires Page 4 of 5 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO- ______________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of /U^♦ 1993 before me a Notary Public within and for said county , personaUy appeared > . ;r J ^ ^ known to me to be the person(s) described m and who cxecmed ”^^^^S?^i^i^^K^dIcknowlcdged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. JAMIE L. BOSMA NOTARY PUeUC-MINNCSCnA HENNB1N COUNTY M)r Comm. E;oires 12-1S-97 o T'f-^ notary public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of , 199 before me a Notary Public withinand for said county , p.„oc(s) described in and who exccu^ the foregoing insirumcni. andTcknowlcdgcd that be (they) executed the same as hts (theu) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 5 iii Too Hi!S BtEti 'f / resolution of the city council NO. J-357 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANiZF application for KENT SWANSON FOR LAKESHORE SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3229-B CASCO CIRCLE organised and seq. the Citj"SuAcil‘orthe''citJ^of Oro^o'^h® for the protection of the Public\ealth?"safe?y%"°a°11n«a1"2eu!rerand* zoning Cod^Kfn^sL“n"oTSas^^^e Orono hardcover standards for lakesho?e setback and his existing residence on a property leaallv addition to and hereinafter referred to as the property; and City stafff^writterco^^’enL°of^tL^nei^ Planning Conunissionc-nynents of the applicant ? neighbors, written and oral hereby makes the following finding^''of^fact: ^ architect, the City Council i^ocate^wU^L°the'’ER-^c"’tonf^ 30,000 sf and district thrai • LR-IC zoning district, a 20n “g®di«rict®® the LR-IC placed on the property prior existino .^®heshore setback requirement; the seJL‘crs«ndLSI?‘" 1-heshore on^h^bui^d^ng^en^XE^-“he'!a^^ ove- SEe-^IE? o? J^;“l^%-a--^iE;i?d-Ele" 5) The location of the house on the oroperrv .n,; .u fSlflb?" deEeES:rEhronJy" Kent Swanson Page 2 , i’rs.; , . '■•••’ nth: /<.?? f - - - i V. \.\r - I .-(S City of OROINO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1357NO. ‘ V- *' SNfti 5) 3,500 sf of the 7,167.5 sf of e.xisting hardcover on the property is the shared driveway for abutting properties. 7) The neighbors on the abutting properties have written to the City affirming their approval of the proposed improvements by the applicant finding there would be no detrimental effects to their property. 8) Council approved the following improvements on the property: a) A 472 sf lakeside addition requiring a structural setback encroachment into lakeshore setback area of 2.5' finding the integrity of the interior design would be maintained and a decrease in the impact on the 0-75' protected area by removing 2 3 sf of hardcover w’ith the removal of the brick patio. b) The roofing and screen siding of the existing 9.8' X 16.1' deck finding no further structural encroachment into the lakeshore setback area and no additional hardcover because of the existing patio area under the subject deck. c) A 3' X 20' second story walkway along the lakeside of the house finding the lakeshore setback encroachment to be only .5' because of the existing 2.5' overhang and no increase in the hardcover because of the existing 3' walkway under the proposed walkway. d) A 400 sf patio area within the 75' - 250' setback area finding this would replace the patio area within the 0-75' setback area in addition to the applicant being advised to employ environmental selection in the design of the patio. 9) The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately surrounding property and do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. 10) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. 11) The granting of the proposed variance will not in any v/ay impair the public health, safety, comfort, morals or general welfare. Kent. ^Dwanson Page 3 * A r iv %j ■ ■ ■ •. City of OROrvb •». .- ’ -w' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO _______1357 I 12) The granting of the proposed v'ariance will not be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan or the Zoning Code. 13) The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrated hardships or difficulties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the lakeshore setback and hardcover variance application of Kent Swanson to permit the construction of a lakeside addition and the additional improvements noted above based on one or more of the foregoing findings and subject to the following conditions: 1) The non conforming 9.8' x 16.1' deck located within the 0-75' setback area may never be enclosed as part of the principal structure but is to remain as approved by Council in this resolution a screened deck with roo f. The building permit written to cover all proposed improvements must include the removal of the 6' X 9' roofed deck and the remov'al of the bricked patio area within the 0-75' setback area. This variance application will expire on January 25, 1983, if a building permit for the proposed improve ments on the property has not been issued. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held January 25_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, 1982. ATTEST: Alberta M. Strom, City Clerx To; From: Date: Subject: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator July 10, 1996 #2151 John and Janice Hurd. 2795 Casco Point Road - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District:LR-IC Lot area = 33,127.5 s.f. Application: Applicants have proposed the razing of the existing residence and detached gar. le and constructing a new residence with attached garage. The property meci.o the LR-IC lot standards but proposed improvements will be located in front of the average lakeshore setback line and result in hardcover variances within the 75-250’ and 250-500' setback areas. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1. 2. 3. Section 10.25, Subd. 6 (B) - Review of lots standards. A. Area Required = 21,780 s.f. Existing = 33,127.5 s.f. B. Lot width Required = 100' At shoreline = 109.87 At 75’ setb;.'k = 107" Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review- of structural coverage. Total lot area = 33,127.5 s.f Allowed = 4,969 s.f or 15% Proposed = 3, 487.7 s.f or 10.5% (includes area of boathouse, does not include grade level patio nor a second level deck shown on certain elevations, but not on survey or floor plans) Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback variance. Allowed = O' Proposed = 24 ’ for principal structure addition (existing = 20, walkout addition with upper level deck) Proposed upper level screen porch = 25’ Zoning File #2151 July 10, 1996 Page 2 4.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Hardcover variances. 0-75' setback area = 8,227.5 s.f. Allowed = 0 s.f. Existing = 400 s.f 75-250' setback area = 15,750 s.f Allowed = 3,937.5 s.f or 25% Proposed = 3,943.285 s.f or 25.0367% Variance = 5.785 s.f or 0.04% 250-500' setback area = 9,1^0 s.f Allowed = 2,745 s.f or 30% Proposed = 3,414 s.f or 37.3114% Variance = 669 s.f or 7.3% List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E-1-2 F - G - H - 1-1-3 J-l-3 K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S Application Plat Map Property Owners' List Hardship Statement Neighbors' Acknowledgement Fonns Grundeen Letter, 2797 Casco Point Road Existing Survey Proposed^xisting Sur\ey/Over!ny Elevations Floor Plans Existing To-Scale Survey, 1"=40' Existing To-Scale Survey, 1"=20' Sketch of Views from Adjacent Homes Sketch of Views from Adjacent Homes Hardcover Map Hardcover Inventory Proposed Surv’ey/Location of Average Lakeshore Setback Line Elaine Erickson Letter Received 7/11/96 Todd Theilmann Letter Received 7/11/96 i Zoning File #2151 July 10, 1996 Page 3 Description of Request AR)licant seeks approval of an average lakeshore setback and hardcover variances to construct a new residence on a lot that meets all required lot standards of the LR-IC zoning district. Review Exhibits K. L and Q, 1978 survey, site plan and applicant's current sur\ey/site plan provide information on proposed improvements. The existing residence is shown 20’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line. On your inspection note the extension of the walkout with upper lev'el decks above walkout addition. Note in Exhibit Q the pointed principal structure addition e.xtends 24' in front of the average lakeshore setback line and the enclosed porch at the northwest comer will be 25’. The existing structure on Exhibit Q appears to be 15’ in front of the setback line and on the 1978 survey and site plan the existing structure is almost equal to the proposed structure. The issue only becomes of issue if applicants are advised to maintain new construction line at the existing encroachment line. Review Exhibit F, the neighbor to the immediate south is concerned with the proposed improvement plan. He notes that the structure will now be of a greater mass and will encroach further beyond the average lakeshore setback line than the existing structure. Note the existing stmeture is located closer to the north lot line and will now extend closer to the south lot line. The structure will meet all required side setbacks. There is an existing approximate 10’ x 10’ grade level wooden patio in front of the existing residence that has not been located on the current ' ..vev. Grade level patios are not subject to the average lakeshore setback code requirenK***.^ Hardcover excesses in the 75-250 ’ setback area result from some 900+ s.t. of landscape area underlain with plastic. Applicant’s architect feels that the improvement plan should reflect what will obviously take place on the property once the residence is constructed. Hardcover excesses in the 250-500’ setback area result from the driveway with tum'«round improvement plus additional hardcover with plastic underliner within a limited setback area (250-500’) of 3,414 s.f Upon visiting the site and reviewing the surv'ey showing existing improvements, staff would estimate that there are no excesses of hardcover that exist within the 75-250 ’ and 250-500’ setback areas. Hardship Statement Please refer to Exhibit D, hardships are reviewed as follows: 1. Desire to minimize disturbance of site during construction by using existing footprint of residence. f:r Zoning File #2151 July 10, 1996 Page 4 2. Angling of residence to minimize impact of lake views of adjacent residences, 3. Need to have a driveway with a turnaround so as to discourage backing out onto busv Casco Point Road. 4.Limited area within 250-500' setback area. 5. Property meets required lot standards of the LR-IC zoning district. 6. Applicant states large grassed lakeshore yard will help absorb runoff from additional hardcover. Issues for Consideration 1.Applicant should clarify if there is an upper level deck at the southwest comer of stmeture. There is a conflict with the floor plans and elevations. Exhibits 1-1-2 show a lakeside deck and floor plans of main level do not reveal the deck, neither do the liardcovcr facts within the 75-250' setback area - applicant should clarify. 2.^Tiat is the Planning Commission's response to architect's position regarding landsc£q)ed areas underlain with plastic? Must landscape areas be underlain with plastic? (983.5 s.f. or 6.2% in 75-250' setback area, 132.5 s.f. or 1.4% in 250-500' setback area) 3.How do we respond to Mr. Grundeen ’s concerns (Exhibit F) who asks that all new construction meet the average lakeshore setback? He notes potential impact upon lakeshore setbacks for his property and the property to the south of the Grundeen property should future additions be proposed to the lakeside of their residences. 4.Will Planning Commission members recommend approval of variances for new construction? Do the hardships support request to encroach average lakeshore setback line and install hardcover excesses? Planning Commission options are as follows: A.New constmetion to meet average lakeshore setback line, this would exclude grade level patios. B.All new constmetion shall not extend beyond setback line of existing residence. Applicant's architect must provide survey locating existing structures in order to establish footprint of new stmeture. i Zoning File #2151 July 10, 1996 Page 5 C. Approval of an encroachment of the average lakeshore setback line not to exceed — 15’ — 10' — 5’ — encroachment. D. U111 members approve hardcover variance within the 250-500' setback area? Can driveway and backout apron be reduced and still meet safety standards desired by applicants? Options of Action To deny as proposed, approve as proposed or approve as amended. Any Planning Commission recommendation of approval must include the following conditions: 1. Applicant's contractor to obtain demolition permits for the razing of structures. 2. Prior to scheduling application before the Council, applicant ’s architect shall provide amended plans and hardcover facts reflecting directives of the Planning Commission recommendation with limits on hardcover improvements and approved setback at or beyond average lakeshore setback line. Please review' Exhibits R and S, letters from other residents, reflecting the same concerns of Ron and Joy Grundeen. Application # ^ '______ r Date Received - Z/ 9<L -> Amount Paid A 7^ . rjC> CITY OF ORONO - V^ARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) m b ^ Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 ^ (no change from original application) ^ Variance for non-conforming structures $k /00 Aftcr-thc-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address C cl ^<-6 ----------------- ------------------------ Propcrt>' Identification Number (P.I.D.) ,^0 ~ 11 H * 2. j— t t I I_________________nn rpniiirpH <;iirvev. I'* rropcnj lUClllHlV.aniuFii I^uunv/^I v* /;------—------------ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired S / 9 / I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: u^^’sidential ___other (specify) Zoning District:^_____________________________________ (month/year) Phone thome)^37 -*^o ‘y7 Phonefwork ) ”137- •a'os'o -APPLICANT 0^ Cr>N^ Name ^\cn *avu :>—^c.-------^------ ---------^ . ir<Li|^ N^xaaT^ City._^^>«2>-a •P’_ijL3AL OWNER (if different than applicant) Name7ToUf\ 4- TTo-v^'tce., H LLCd Address: ^3,*^ Q ^ p a HPF. _____ City:_^)Ja^ Phone (home) ^ 7 / • 9 7 2. ^ Phone fwork) 4/^ 9* ^3^^ Zip: 55 3*7 / DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail: r\e\M ---------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:--------------------------------------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the fnllnwing information must be submitted by tht agplitatiPn order for ynur anniication to he considered COmPkttI 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. a. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owners List of owners within 150’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A" x 11" for reproduction. ... Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of tloor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy VA" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified ot this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that yauT variance applifation is not complete if the above information has not been inclMdsdi APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE . u v The applicant hereby agrees to provide all infonnation 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 ot this application, and certifies that t e information supplied is tr^and correct to/^| his/her knowledge. J ___Date __I2_1_L l 24Applicant's Signature OWNER'S SIGNATUK p , . . The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes rei^onable entry onto the property by City staff, consult^ts, ag^tb, Commission members, and Councileniry umu me » ----------^ members for purposes of investigation and vinfi Owner's Lt n lo( thi^ request. Date ADDlicant must^ave all submittals intdyhe cJt>'offices 25 days before the Plying CoLiission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Mon^lay 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, p ease 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. 8 RUN DATE 04/aVfi» MTCN 511 0, !/HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTOIWATION STSTTK PROPERTY OltCRS LIST PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR M 20-117*15 25 0007 02755 CASCO POINT RO 0 S i J MEITNER OAVIO S A JANA MEITNER 2755 CASCO PT RO HAYZATA m 55591 PROP ADOR OtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR M 20-117-25 25 0011 00056 AOORESS UNASSimEO HE»tlEPIN rORFEITED LAND CITY Of ORONO PARR A/15/79 ST OEEO 1S475A PROP AOOR CHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 36 20-117-25 25 0017 02795 CASCO POINT RO J 0 NURO/J L ZENRIN6ER-HUR0 J 0 HURO/J L ZEHRIN6ER-HURD 2795 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55591 PROP AOOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 36 20-117-25 52 0016 02600 CASCO POINT RO THOHAS B KING THOHAS B KING * 2600 CASCO POINT ROAD HAYZATA HN 55591 PROP ADOR OHNER NAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOR 36 20-117-25 52 0020 02799 CASCO POINT RO TOOO J THEILNANN TOOO J THEILNANN 2799 CASCO POINT RD HAYZATA NN 55591 REPORT NO. PI455401 PAGE 3236 20-117-25 25 0009 00056 AOORESS UNASSIGNED HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/15/79 ST DEED 154754 36 20-117-25 25 0010 00056 AOORESS UNASSIGNEO HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND CITY OF ORONO PARK 4/15/79 ST MED 154754 56 20-117-25 25 0012 02774 CASCO POINT RD KELLE H DOHCY ET AL 6 C DONNEY t K H OOlt^Y 2774 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55591 36 20-117-25 25 0014 02797 CASCO POINT RO R J GRUNDEEN A J A GmJNDEEH RONALD J GRUNDEEN 2797 CASCO PT RO HAYZATA HN 55591 56 20-117-25 25 0016 02775 CASCO POINT RO ELAINE E OLSON ELAINE ELLEN ERICKSON 2775 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA MN 55591 36 20-117-25 25 0019 02745 CASCO POINT RO RAJ PUTNAH RICHARD A PirTNAN 2765 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA HN 55591 ^ ■■ ■■■ SS 20-U7-2S 32 0016 0279« CASCO POINT RO LAURIE F quim UURIE QUINN 2794 CASCO POINT RO NAYZATA m 55391 36 20-117-23 32 0019 02601 CASCO POINT RO P J HAUSER A R MASON HAUSER P J HAUSER A R MASON HAUSER 2601 CASCO POINT RO HAYZATA rt4 55391 V / I ^ • •• TOTAL 6ATCH 511 00013 mm MTC 04/1 BATCH 511 ^ -H \ I * "> i ’ • w.. ■* HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY XNFOIHUTIQN SYSTEH PROPERTY 0»PCRS LIST REPORT NO. PI4554Q1 PACE 31 m •«v +. 1 CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HENTCPIN COUITY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF HY KN0NLED6E AND BELIEF. DATE ^*2^*%>BY (7 (7 Application # Date Received Amount Paid In CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.(^y_- , Afler-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) J j PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address ___________ \ a -a-V «* Property Identification Number (P I D ) -----------------^--------------------------------- Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired ___________________________________________^(monlWyear) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property! ___residential ___^other (specify)--------------------------------- Zoning District:__________________________________________________________ APPLICANT Name Phone (horneX Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip: OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________________ Phone (home) Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ iSO.ooo~l Describe request in detail: e::.owaia-ra.oc.T>o-o of -_ <!LsiAvQCi>aco _________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Aiea ___Lot Width ‘■^^lardcover Lot Coverage Setback:Front Side Rear Average Lakeshore Other (specify) IIARDSIIIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: -ro -rur^ ---- U0CA.TMJ!^ -TV4g, >.aXL.sM \Ap/jS!i. -n4SL .A>»>«STto<; TV*^ V4C//S^ TO Ot5 *T*iiil ~TO ~rU\? SOvd~T\A AS "—1^2— -TTJ y.4U-».v v?oACW 3' r>ACT \?-y. Kt IO C. (attach additional sheets if necessary) WA>L$L6U00J^ . Auso tvk ^ o ^ So Ai -^0-r "ro 7 A Sco TX4v3i “TMvU VVAtoC-Ovi\J^ vyAiflLi A'*-3CvL.3 0/< 2L0k^^ . TH nZ, S\Z-vL OF TUlS SHOUL-O (.VMITH AMOvi^T OF iOO ) "tO bUOW *TH\L, OFF T-H^ “rvj$vlo AiLoowjv^*.. •f 1 I (WC) Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form aJ^Jo q{%^7*7 d irint name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at^7»'5~<?A^Cc^'^- also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Date Date ***** ^ r r I ‘ IJ u * •f Adjacent Property' Owners ’ Acknowledgement Form I (we) A/. [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.-------------. 1 (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project or use requires Council approval. V—< V*Aw ■\—^o _ Property Owner Date^/ Property Owner ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦*♦**♦♦♦*♦***♦♦*♦♦♦***************************************************** PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 15,1996 AGENDA ITEM #2151 JOHN AND JANICE HURD. THE OWNERS OF 2795 CASCO POINT ROAD. TO; Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono POBox66 Crysul Bay, MN. ?5323 Tel. (612) 473-7357 FROM; Ronaldand Joy Gnmdeen 2797 Casco Point Road Wayzata, MN. 55391 Tel (612)471-9133 SUBJECT; Average lakeshore setback variance. CONCERNS; The existing structure has an encroachment of approximately 15 feet on the lake side and is approximately 26.5 feet in uidth. The depth of the house is approximately 38.7 feet on the South side facing 2797 Casco Point Road. The new structure would add to the encroachment, making it 24 feet on the lake side and with additional decking and a width of approximately 52.5 feet and extend toward the road on the South side, facing 2797 Casco Point Road, approximately 76 feet. REQUEST:Maintain the required setback that would apply to any new structure to preserve the view for all the adjoining residents and preserve the natural contour of the lake setting. 1 also feel that the proposed plan would diminish my lakeside view considerably, and affect the resale value of my property. Approval of this lakeshore setback variance would allow a future owner of my property to build closer to the lake and affect the adjoining property to the South at 2799 Casco Point Road. Sincerely^ ZLl Ron & Jov Gnmdeen HOUSE LOCATION SURVEY n» MR. JOHN A. SWANSON #377THSimittMtCROFlUiO VILLAGE OF OAONQ E«i$Timc ‘-CX/5C SCALE l''•40■ «DENOTES IRON MARKER 1^0 ?«•... ' legal , description i'" « lot I?9 and that part of Lot 130 ly»ny SoutiterU of a lint tfra-n awdian dtfiLd'i! “oi"**" vacated avenue and the inert of Late Hinnetonta, at detlqnated and tmiA A initrieient of dedication on the plat of Sprmq Parc, lyinq oetMten the wtiterlv eai#n<lnii «f laid .^dian line and the -eiterly e.tension of the Southerly ’-me of ia?2 lot l?5. aTl^n WInJ Jirk taiterllTliV'of'lot "’i!!***!*" ’r* '***" **"*^'' to be a line drawn fron the midwint Of thelasieriy iir.e of lot 130 to the Midpoint of the Wetierly line of iaid lot 130 w i u i c I hie^kiv CIMliFT »NAl This flan SuNVfV CN RCFOAT WAS FRIP a REO iv M| QR l^n CCR MV OIRCCT SUFfRViSiON AND THAT I AM A OULV RfCifTfMfO LAND SURVIVOR UNOfR THf LAWS OF tMA Sf ATI OF MINNISOTA Cx^L UAIt 6*20“78 MlvaiStH A t ICN so 50^4 o«*MP*e AC CMtCH DR AuflvAV •V RIEKE • CARROLL • MULLER ASSOCIATES INC ANCHiTtCTt • iNGiNifRt • SURVIVORS 0«vMr« FMPMiAni tl. CIrm R MankM* S»«i faa «a ?mo9i pap» t?' * m ?. ■.• •# r s /<? .*■V-V, • ‘ f '^Li-d . AjSSf 4 *'.T \r?\ -V\ f II 'IT'-i'_ B 1 1 i *• • J—L ■■■T m 1 p“ r ± TA^*#*-2»~r gjtug.>/*<T «0«0 1 U • I ^rt. • ^ f ' -M Jk -_r±^r: r ^•’W- « ♦ • •jr:-* • U ■ —J -;i- j- ^1immfni'.ivw ^ i» ■ i rrlnr □IZDCj 1 JU-43dT3l"LI L i hH I no B 1 ■ ''i^* >i >•- *'- *■ :.*> *'-/. ti'T^r^'^ -mtm ^rrjTT^I HH' _^™1‘ ^ S', . .^... ■ s I ■; 'i ’:■ I** ' f > \ 00:< i, r I ' L' r '^rKV-%L Ov.»“T e ^«rf€.yr tr^ iiiiimiiimiim ??! • tmon o 0 ‘^TirrrT^7y<y\*A ^-•#•■^ •311t O'a 1 i* »'______a>ii V » oH*t %/••««- «0*4- »i'UM %Jk't «4-^ %A-4aI 4 ' K 4*®V ft - !*«•«'I «S • •*Ay \f « m*A t4S4 %A/ X * •’mr ooK I ii*)‘S ii: ii#^Ly H-" -V O’,.'yvr j?♦ L ^ ^ ^ » •' ■"■ i - •-*» \ * t 1 ““"■***“ H l)t;:- (' 3 % t ..:r/' • I ^ ©«•A*..«- iimiiiiiiiiiiim 0) Iroa> •>1 I'GD I Im C in -1 X P ■H c c O fg D to wi C 0 a< < < n O X -n ^ ^ o a > O s2 a*I O X 1 n• 3a *n* 3 o 2 • i? C D ?o m - 5 Xcn P X O X m o H U) • m 2 O zm m Xin m:km m 7) -<r r ^ i S - 515 n -T| */» Q.cv o Of n> u> *n c ♦ O) T C , j < ’Jo CO rt> V* rD Oo CL rx rb CL CL = —» 3“rx 3rx -*• rt 3 r- 3- Q» 4/1 O -*• 3 r» r» U» CL C ►- r»- 3 uj c 3 rx o T < r* <0 C 3 c* f-f 3- U> .X CL O•-*> CL 0> 3C O lO<-» O 3 ' Q. 3 CLVi; — o a. 3 rx Oi o O X r-» O CL rn- —. rx O 3 0/33 <-► 3 U>o 0 —03 3 3 «-♦ O O 3 3- -h rx ro 3 0» «-♦ T3 x: I/* 3 —rx rx o/ i/» O' r* r-r fX UO rx rx o O 3 3 C -f»— <-» •< Q/ 3 <✓> U> IX "O — t/» 3 § •< 3* n> rx u3 Q. — O -*• -O -tl r» 3 CL O rxCO X* CL O' O «-*• rx CL — CL to r~ Of-*. O — —. 3 r» -*• CL cO 3 — rx r— CT cj o rx O CL «-r (-♦ • 3 Z cj *—• rx S r o rx 3^3 -n T Q/ 3o — rx ” n r» rx 3 3 CO rX <~t tn rx 3-0-4 -*• 3 — CL —^< ■O 3 O lO rx X 3 TJ rr rr CL rx 3O X- CO O r*- 3 3rx o CL s: X o CL < t c 3 CO 0 rx -*» f~* 3 — 1 r rx o J o rx ^ CL O r-r . *n i-» O CL 3 3 o rx to r* -4 O *< 3 -X CL — —' 3 O CL CL r» 3 U> CL tn O CL O' C CL rx r-f <—*. »♦ 3 CL £ rx o rx *4 IX rx — 3 3 CO —/ CL O — 3 CL rx r- CO o < !-► CL O n ^ O/ r\} to co rx CL O -*• CL CL 3 CL CL < r- rX O <-» 3 r-f 3 C CL rx *—• «-r u> CL 0-0 3 • CL CL -4 r* r* r* O 3tO Orx rx -*i rf to 3 r* 3 rx o O -4 rr rx £ ►- -j. u> O <-»■ o ' -n 3 r- rr CL 3 CL 3 rx «-t tO 3-0 on CL o 3 -4 c 3 r* rr O 3 rr O rx O -n -4 CL CL - X" O rx -r, CL to V» 3 CL Q CL -4 — rx rx -r* to 3 — j» rx to < 3 IX CL 3 rr C rx rx O.< CL Cl/ 3 3 n rx CL O/ CL rr ->• rx (L CL 3 1 “m Q. -4 CL 3 SI o 50 to H (/) 0(/) 2c;d <m -< s i Sag ®BW • C/> o m > o ^ -f — m = (/) " 5oz > m:d T1 Oc 2 O r* > CJ3m O “n O :o O S«i) CvD In;^] / r ■ L^ih /'* •1 ^.’tr.‘v/<^4'>V : . ',eOT^SN^^^B s««Sp|^ HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE; (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _______________ ^ Length ® 250-500’ Width (3) (Stx Zt>) -i- \ ( la K A\) X _________________ _____________\______________________________________ (s5 ss rs B. Garage '/ifZTtih) -v ( Sxt'j x C. Driveway X X E. F (3) ® Sidewalk xft) -v (4 X<q ) * @ K 3g~) NVv^t, X 0 (3^ Patio/Dcck (».g x <o^ •»•(«»< 5".s) + 2. < VtLAilz) '4 (S’. sjJL_ xs rs VXJMO & ' >b< >».)•»• *4. ^ 8) *'J (5) © Underlain O'her ^ ^ ^ 0 (ID Landscape-.C _____iin^C^2Ji.il±llli‘^) ® * -'■ '4 ( &)» -»-^ibx3) By Plastic 4 0«a 15 ^ -»(3 3 x 3 ) x 00^ @ TOTAL HARIX'OVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ags -'■ B l■5•,’~7SO,oo x 100 PHnmSKI) HARDCOVER IN ZONE ( ^So’- SOO' ) = 3 o;j A. House ______________ ^ --------------------- Length Width X X w &© B. Garage ’/i ( ga < ^ » x) x (ZA © _ ® C. Driveway (ofal ^C'SKasr) x -v C '3.S )■»•(■ X xtj) 2. CL^o^%lS<2^S X ________________— (^P ^ D. Sidewalk (4 ^ 3 00 ® ( 3 K ^S) X X E. Patio/Dcck F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic G. Other (S5 ® ( IS- KA)^ ( ^ X X X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ^ 3 414.0oo B I^OtOc^O X 100 500-1000* r^ i y S.F. ISB^ • ^60 S.F. 7,Ay . <?oo S.F. S.F. 3S*7 000 S.F. - o — S.F. -0- S.F. 13^ 000 S.F 2ss.ooo S.F. »b3. US' S.F, ZZA. ooo S.F. 21 A.OOq S.F, 368-000 S.F, t.SoO S.F r ' *L # s ' / 4 4 S.F, T^_43^^S.F S.F, A B 7g- OTfeT % - o~ — 0 — - o — - 0 - S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. T39.000 S.F. Z116S00 S.F. ^S-OPO S.F. tOA .00 S.F. i3S OO S.F. — 0— S.F. -0— S F. «3Z SOO S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. ZA\A.ooo S.F. S.F. A B ZI.ZWA no tfM © -<5lO ^ _ E ; *0 ^ j/S'-j'C'ir':Jg VTVI FV^ -tr v<i% 1 .k\^w % /: = r* A K r~ i~oi^^^Q<OM ^"773 C2 <*-■«.-»-• A^.ELA NE ERICKSON s^“3^/ ^ « V"Ai' jot 11 1''' Jl « p/-. /2.<a. ^ ^ ------------------------------- t/ ^ ^ ^2? ^7 ^5-(3- c^- ,*-.«_-^dlA_i«----^ i-c— _____i?ri^on^7=’^<^ 2773 Casco Pt. Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 (612) 471-7882 - ir.. - T July 8,1996 .5 Jeanne Mabusth Building and Zoning Ad.-nin»strator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 RE:Land Use Application #2153 John and Janice Hurd 2795 Casco Point Rd. Variance Request I strongly oppose the above-captioned variance request of John and Janice Hurd scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 15, 1996 for the following reasons: 1. The Lakeshore View Line and the 75-250’ setback area was established tor a specific purpose - to protect all lakeshore land owners, to preserve their rightful enjoyment of viewing the lake and the natural contour of the lake setting. I will not approve of any request that would be to the detriment of existing land owners. 2. The variance request is not an add-on to an existing home, but rather a brand new construction in which the present land owners have specifically designed their new home for their own personal satisfaction with no regard for the setback requirements, or the boomerang effect it could have on the entire neighborhood. 3. The request for variance would add approximately 24’ to the encroachment, thus greatly reducing the view angles of homes located at 2797 Casco Point Road and 2799 Casco Point Road. 4. If the variance request is granted, what is to stop new and/or abutting land owners to continue to build new and larger dwellings closer and closer to the lakeshore and continue the neglect of the view line and the 75-250’ setback area. I request that the City of Orono enforce the existing View Line and the 75 - 250’ setback area. I request that any existing dwellings that are being replaced by new construction be contained within the existing View Lines and the 75 - 250’ setback area guidelines. I request that the City of Orono uphold its strong policy of protecting the natural contour of the lake setting along Casco Point and continue to bring new construction within the current lakeshore setback guidelines. Respectfully submitted. Todd Theilmann 2799 Casco Point Road Orono. MN 55391 Tel: (612) 471-1125 Dear City of Orono, We feel we have a beautiful lot and have lived in the existing home for over 5 years. We love the area and neighborhood. We have had many people out to address the many problems with the existing home. All of whom have advised us that new construction is the most cost effective way to address the problems of 3 different foundations and 6 poorly constructed additions. Our request for variances on the average lake shore setbacks are as follov\/s: We wish to put the new home in basically the same position as the old one in order to take advantage of the beautiful view we have without disturbing any trees and to use the natural hill creating a walkout entry on the lowest level which our existing house now has. We have put much thought into what would look good on our lot and take advantage of views, angling the new house on the lot in order to keep views of the neighbors. Because of the configuration of the point and the angle of the shoreline our house is set back farther from the shoreline than the neighboring houses. We have worked with different builders and architects and finally came up with our dream home that we plan to spend the rest of our lives in. We feel that what we are asking for Is reasonable and that the plan fits our property wonderfully and will look great from both the street and the lake. Hard cover: our existing hard cover parking/play area is located on the west side of Casco Pt. Rd. This Is a very busy and often difficult road to back onto, and it is hazardous to place a play area so close to the street. We request additional hard cover for a turn around for our cars witch will double as a play area away from the street, this improvement would make It safer for us to get cars out and create a much safer place for our and neighborhood children who play here. It would also improve the aesthetics of the property and provide a more pleasant atmosphere In the neighborhood. Respectively, V, . TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator FROM:Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator DATE:July 10,1996 SUBJECT : #2153 Ben Young, 3105 6th Avenue North - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB (Review Exhibit B, portions of property located within Shoreland area of Classen Lake, 500-1,000’). Total lot area = 3.92 acres Application: Applicant proposes construction of an oversized accessoiy^ structure to be located 15' in front of the front line of the principal structure. The following ordinances are pertinent to this review: 1. 2. 3. 4. Section 10.03, Subd. 9(C-2) A. Maximum allowed individual oversized accessory structure for 3.51 to 4 acres property. Allowed = 16,000 s.f. Proposed = 1,260 s.f. No variance required. B.Total of all accessory' structures allowed on property for 3.51 to 4 acres property. Allowed = 3,200 s.f. Proposed = 1,740 s.f (1,260+480) No variance required. Section 10.03, Subd. 9(C-3) - Required setbacks for all oversized accessory structures. The RR-IB zoning district requires a 50’ front and rear and 30' side. Proposed structure meets all principal structure setbacks. Section 10.03. Subd. 9(D) - Setback variance required for accessory structure placed in front of front line of principal structure. Allowed = 0 Proposed = 15’. Section 10.22, Subd. 2 Area 500-1,000' = 170,360 s.f Allowed = 59,626 s.f or 35% Hardcover is not of issue nor is structural coverage as lot exceeds 1.99 acres. i Zoning File #2153 July 10,1996 Page 2 List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Neighbors Acknowledgment Form E - Survey F - Topograpl ic Map G - Elevation/Floor Plan H - Septic Map Description of Request Applicant seeks approval of a setback variance to construct an oversized accessory structure and place it 15' in front of the front line of the principal structure. Structure does not exceed the maximum allowed area for an individual oversized accessory structure on the 3.9 acre lot. Structure will meet all required principal structure setbacks for the RR-IB zoning district. Review Exhibit G, the accessory structure will be at a maximum height of 14 1/2' and w ill not exceed the height of the principal structure nor exceed the maximum allowed height of 30'. The City has received no negative comments from the neighbors notified of applicant's variance application (review Exhibit D). Statement of Hardship Review Exhibit A, hardships are reviewed as follows; 1.Applicant notes structure will be placed in a area where elevations are flat as topography begins to drop off to the east and south of the site. Review Exhibit F, note elevations drop towards drainageway that drains from north side of County 6 south through the property. The drainagew'ay flows southward eventually to Classen Lake. 2. Minimize impact on property by utilizing drive that currently serves residence, 3. Location of landscape areas in west and north yards as house is oriented to west, north and south views. 4.Location of septic system in south yard and need to preser\ e gentle slope areas for future septic needs. Zoning File #2153 July 10,1996 Page 3 Issues for Consideration 1. Can structure be relocated on property and meet required setback? 2. Will structure have a negative impact on the pattern of development along 6th Avenue North? 3.How shall impact of oversized accessory structure be softened or minim ized? A. Color of structure? B. Need for landscaping? C. Other? Options of Action To deny, approve as proposed or approve as amended. Applicant to be advised that upon application for a building permit, applicant shall be required to provide an updated surv ’ey locating accessory structure on property and stnicture shall be staked by surveyor before building permit can be issued. The building official has advised that as structure exceeds 1,000 s f and cannot be placed on a floating slab that footings will be required to penetrate fill in order to reach virgin soil strata. t Application # Date Received • » t ^ -* ' ^ ^ w • Amount Paid u L^hl ^ CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) PROPERTY INFORMATION Site Address r Zti Property Identification Number (T.I.D.) aT-//5 3^3 3^ cqo7 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey, Date Propert>’ Acquired {0 “ _____________________________(month/year) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ___presidential ___^other (specify) Zoning District:_______________________________________ APPLICANT Name n 9 Address: Ay Phone (home) _____ Phone (work)_____V>/ - “St 7^ City: levf Zip:__££i51fe. OWTS'ER (if different than applicant) Name __________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ .Address:City:Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: 50/^0 ^ c Estimated Construction Cost %_SA —L •?f ' y t-.- (attach additional sheets if necessar\') VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width / X Setback: X Front Side Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe' undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: -tAc___________c£——tttnd--------- 0 Oc A W rA ^pi11 f ^ A |4rt f ’ ^ ^------c---------- •• (attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 I ' \ \ir- REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the appHcaHon deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. 3. 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 Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy %Vi" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'A” x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/2" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Propertv- Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ypm variance aoplicatfnn is not complete if the above information has not been included. APPLICA.NT’S SIGNATURE The applicant hereby agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to pay additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by Citv' staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. iJ\urCL Date lomitt;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, ple^e 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. 8 MJN DATE 0A/24/H BATCH 509 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAHL./AODR s i3d 26-lld-2S %Z 0006 03185 SIXTH AVE N HENRY B SRANTINOHAM ET AL HENRY I NANCY BRANTIN6HAH 31S5 CO RD NO 6 LONG LAKE HN 55356 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INTORHATIQN SYSTEM PROPERTY QNNERS LIST38 28-116-23 32 0007 03105 SIXTH AVE N BAD YOUNG BENEDICT E A DENISE E YOUNG 3105 6TH AVE NO LONG LAKE MN 55356 REPORT NO. PIA35AQ1 PAGE 2738 28-118-23 32 0008 03045 SIXTH AVE N JAB RYDER JOHN 0 A BARBARA Y RYBER 3045 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE m 55356 . -r PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP AOOR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 38 28-116-23 32 0013 03180 SIXTH AVE N HENN CO PARK RESERVE OIST HENN CO PARK RESERVE DIST 3800 CO RO NO 24 MAPLE PLAIN HN 55359 38 28-118-23 33 0009 00038 ADDRESS UTUSSICNFO JAMES R 6RABER ET AL JAMES R GRABEK 3050 JAMESTONN RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 0015 03050 SIXTH AVE N M L KEZAR AHA MCDONALD MITCHELL L KEZAR 3050 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0014 03175 JAMESTONN RO MICHAEL AMES A LAUREL AI^S MICHAEL A LAUHLL AHES 3175 JAMESTONN ROAD ORONO MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0008 03065 JAMESTOm RD J P A S K KOOB JOm P A SUSANNE K KOOB 3065 JAMESTONN RO LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 3! 0015 03050 JAMESTONN RD J R GRABEK A P J GRABEK JAMES R A PENELOPE J GRABEK ^050 JAMESTONN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 TOTAL BATCH 509 00009 I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AN^^ )RUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE C. i THE RECORDS OF THE HErtlEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION^ TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE T>, I (we) Adjacent Property Owners* Acknowledgement Form ^ of 3oCo G 4tHteClOU»i) 0or#O [print name(s)][print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 310^ AmP. iJ . also referred to as Land Use Application No.________• I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City- Council that 1 (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Pro VAuAV2(3yJLuJL, ijAty Own«Date Property Owner Date ^^^^00m**** ******* ********00 ********************************* ********** I (we K'JDiX, [print name(s)] of 3D^r [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Date operty Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ( i r --- ru / To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator Julv 12, 1996 Subject: #2154 John O'Sullivan, 2380 Shad>-\vood Road - Sketch Plan Review: Proposed Rezoning from LR-IC to B-5 Vacation of Navarre Lane Commercial Site Plan Summary of Proposed Development Af^licant proposes to construct a light retaiPoffice building on the property currently occupied by the vacant Grace Baptist Church, requiring a rezoning from LR-IC to B-5. The proposed building includes a bank, drive-up auto tellers, and a two story retail/office building. The proposal includes parking areas, a stormwater holding pond and a request for vacation of a portion of Navarre Lane. It is anticipated that a number of variances may be requested. List of Exhibits A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - 1" = 100' Plat Map Phase 1/11 Proposed Site Plan Elevation Views Phase 1 & 11 Development Narratives Proposed Site Plan/Topography (Applicants Submittals) Navarre Area - "Before" & "After" (Staff Sketches) Navarre Area Current Zoning Map Sketch Plan Application & Legal description 7/2/96 Letter from Property Owner (North Central CBA) 7/2/96 Letter of Request for Expedited Review Mabusth Memo 6/20/96 Orono Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Zoning Code Sections B-1, B-3, B-4, B-5 Zoning Code Section 10.10 - General Requirements (Rezoning) General Issues for Discussion I.Should the property be rezoned from residential to commercial? Does the proposed rezoning fit with Orono's Comprehensive Plan for the Navarre business district? July 12, 1996 July 12, 1996 Page 2 #2154 John O’Sullivan, 2380 Shad>-\vood Road - Sketch Plan Review If not, should the City consider a rezoning request absent a comprehensive zoning 'needs’ review of the Navarre area'? Are the proposed uses appropriate for this location, adjacent to an existing single family neighborhood? Is B-5 the appropriate district for the proposed uses? II.Should portions of Navarre Lane b«» vacated? - ^Tiat existing or future uses does the City or the public have for these portions of Navarre Lane? - ^V’hat is the impact on the applicant's request if it is not vacated? ill.If rezoning to B-5 is appropriate, does the proposal meet the minimum performance standards of the B-5 zoning district? - ^V^lat elements of the site plan may need revision in order to be in compliance? - What variances are required? Is there sufficient justification to grant them? I. Rezoning Considerations Background The last rezoning in the Navarre commercial area occurred in 1983, when the Keaveny parcels (Orono Liquor Store, Keaveny Drugs, etc.) were rezoned from B-3 to B-1. In 1989, the City undertook a planning study of the Navarre commercial area using Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc. as consultants. That study resulted in no conclusions about redevelopment of Navarre, and no rezonlng occurred at that time. In 1995, the City considered two proposals in Navarre which contemplated the possibility of rezoning: Ron Rantz proposal to rezone the rear of his property from LR-IB to B-4. City considered options for allowing a domestic abuse shelter on the Grace Baptist Church site, either by amending the LR-IC conditional use section or creating a conditional use under B-4 with a rezoning from LR-IC to B-4. Neither of these recent requests took the form of a formal application for rezoning. However, during the Rantz discussions, some members of Council indicated a reluctance to consider any rezonings in Navarre on a parcel-by-parcel basis, preferring to review the zoning in Navarre on a comprehensive basis. The City has not undertaken a comprehensive review of the Navarre commercial area zoning. Nevertheless, pursuant to this sketch plan review, staff is advised that Mr. O’Sullivan will be immediately proposing a formal rezoning request. The City Council has been advised of this sketch plan review, and directed staff to process the request through normal channels, including this sketch plan review as an initial phase of the process. July 12, 1996 Page 3 #2154 John O'Sullivan, 2380 Shadywood Road - Sketch Plan Review Site Location and Zoning The site is located between County Road 19 (Shadywood Road) and Olive Avenue, just north of a portion of Navarre Lane which is not open to trafTic. The site is approximately 1.7 acres in area, and is currently zoned LR*1C. Single Family Lakeshore Residential, Vi acre minimum lot size, as is the residential neighborhood to the north (sec Exhibit G). The church use which previously existed on the site was permitted as a conditional use in the LR-IC residen’uil zone. Existing Uses A Zoning of Adjacent & Nearby Properties The residential neighborhood (Zoned LR-IC) abutting the subject property consists of single family homes on small lots generally gaining access from Olive Avenue, and those further north from Bayvicw Place. Directly to the east of the site, the wetland outlot (Zoned LR-IB) is not a buildable parcel, and the Lafayette Ridge neighborhood is some 600’ distant. The adjacent parcel directly to the southeast is zoned B-1, Retail Sales Business District and will be the site of a restaurant/convenience store/gas station/car wash complex. To the immediate south of County Road 15 is an existing convenience store operation, zoned B-1. Southwest of the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19 is Rick’s Super Vatu, which is zoned B-3, Shopping Center Business District. Directly across Shadywood Road from the site, in the northwest quadrant of Co. Rds. 15/19, is an Amoco service station as well as a professional office building and a single family residence, all zoned B-1. Just to the north of Lyric Avenue on the west side of 19 is a City playground. Potential Uses of Site Under Current LR-IC Zoning The site has contained a vacant church building for a number of years, and the current owmers, the North Central Conser\ative Baptist Association, have been attempting to sell the property for some time. Under the I.R-IC zoning, single family residential development is the primary permitted use. Because the property is within 200 ’ of a commercial district, it would qualify for duplex use, and with 1.7 acres in a half-acre zone, might accomodate as many as 6 dwelling units in three duplex structures. The other permitted LR-IC uses are ’public owned parks and playgrounds', and ’municipal buildings’. The City has a park on the west side of Shadywood Road near the property, and the City has no plans at this time to expand or relocate that park. Further, the City has no plan or intent to locate new' municipal buildings in Navarre. A number of additional uses could be allowed on this site by conditional use permit, including ’schools’, ’churches’, ’clubs & camps, etc.’, ’public service structures’, and ’greenhouse’, among others. L.. _ July 12, 1996 Page 4 #2154 John O’Sullivan, 2380 Shadywood Road - Sketch Plan Review The location so near one of Lake Minnetonka’s busiest intersections makes the southerly portions of the site less than ideal for single family development. Multiple family uses which might be allowed if the site was rezoned to LR-lC-1, might be a more attractive residential option than single family. Planning Commission should keep in mind that the Navarre area is home to a significant portion of Orono’s limited existing 'affordable housing’, and rezoning this site to commercial may eliminate an opportunity for developing additional affordable housing. Proposed Rezoning to B-5 Applicants are proposing a rezoning of the site to B-5, finding that the B-5 district provides the best "fit" for their proposed uses. Both ’banks' and 'offices’ are permitted uses in the B-5 zone as well as certain types of retail businesses, although some retail uses would require a conditional use permit. Related to other zoning districts: The B-1 Retail Sales Business District would permit the bank and retail uses but would require a conditional use permit for office. - The B-3 Shopping Center Business District would similarly require a conditional use permit for office, but also requires a minimum lot size of two acres which the property doesn’t meet. - The B-4 Office and Professional Business District would permit bank and office uses but would not allow the retail uses contemplated b> applicant. Staff agrees that for the uses proposed by the applicant, the B-5 district is the best zoning "fit". Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission should consider more than merely whether the B-5 rezoning meets the applicants needs, but whether it meets the needs and goals of the City for development of Navarre. The Comprehensive Plan says very little about long-term plans for Navarre, although it does include a list of 13 'Urban Land Use Policies' (Exhibit L) of which a number have direct relation to commercial development: "2. Limited Commercial Areas Will Be Provided for Neighborhood Service Businesses. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which arc directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents..." "4.The City Will Encourage Private Unification and Coordination of the Existing Commercial Areas. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged." i i "6. Commercial and Industrial Development Will Not Be Permitted to Adversely July 12, 1996 Page 5 #2154 John O'Sullivan, 2380 Shadvwood Road - Sketch Plan Review Affect Neighboring Residential Property . The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses." "11. A Significant Amount of Natural Woodlands and Open Space Will Be Retained on Each Property . Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban proprerty." On page CMP 4-26 of the Land Use Plan, it is indicated that the Navarre area "will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses, plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory functions such as offices and owner-occupied living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area." Map 7 of the Orono Comprehensive Plan is a depiction of the Land Use Plan. It defines the Navarre area as commercial in nature, but the scale of the map was not intended to identify whether individual properties are included or excluded from the commercial area. Therefore, it may be arguable whether the site of the proposed rezoning is 'planned' for commercial use. Staff Recommendation 1 . It would be most appropriate from a long-range planning perspective to comprehensively study zoning and land use in the Navarre area, before arbitrarily rezoning a parcel at the request of a developer. Analysis of the current situation and future needs of this part of Orono could then result in a more informed decision on whether zoning changes are prudent and desirable. 2. Since such a study has not been initiated by Council, and given the applicants intent to move quickly forward with a formal rezoning application. Planning Commission should provide staff and applicant your thoughts as to whether the requested rezoning is appropriate, or if not, then under what circumstances or conditions it might be appropriate, if any. 3. Consideration should be given to whether there is a need for additional commercial land in Navarre, as well as the impacts of commercial expansion on the adjacent neighborhood. II. Navarre Lane Vacation Applicants propose a vacation of portions of Navarre Lane between Co. Rd. 19 and Olive Avenue. A partial vacation was approved by the Council via application #2126 in May, 1996, but at that time Council rejected the idea of a full vacation, based on a desire to maintain pedestrian access via the remaining unimproved/unused right-of-way. Council indicated that July 12, 1996 Page 6 #2154 John O'Sullivan. 2380 Shadvwood Road - Sketch Plan Review the right-of-way should be retained for possible future pedestrian or bike trail needs. Applicant has provided the City with the necessary drainage and utility easements over the portion of R.O.W. that has been vacated. If the City agrees to vacating the remainder, the City will require applicant to provide not only drainage and utility easements over the remainder, but also a trail easement somewhere on applicants propterty, of a width and Iccaiion acceptable to the City. If the City does not agree to vacate the remaining R.O.W., the City will grant easements to the applicant for drainage and access purposes in relation to the stormwater pond located on the church parcel and serving the restaurant'car-wash/'convenience store parcel. Impact of Vacation vs No Vacation If the R.O.W. remainder is vacated, applicant will gain ownership of the land. The proposed site plan indicates an intent to connect the parking lot for the bank building to the restaurant parking lot, providing for a continuous traffic flow between the two sites. City Engineer Shawn Gustafson has been asked to analyze and comment as to whether this connection is appropriate. An additional item to be addressed is whether the intent is to provide joint parking (in which case legal agreements between the two properties are required), and how will the issue of lot-line setbacks for parking be resolved, since the code does not provide for adjacent continuous parking on separate lots. If the vacation is not approved, the parking lots must remain separated. Also, the proposed lot coverage percentage will increase from 20% to 23% due to the smaller defined lot area. The stormwater pond required for the restaurant site use was originally proposed partially on the Navarre Lane R.O.W. Applicant has been advised to revise those plans to avoid use of Navarre Lane due to conflicts with existing utilities and potential future City uses of the R.O.W. Staff Recommendation 1. The City and other agencies have utilities within the remaining Navarre Lane R.O.W., hence any vacation must include appropriate easements for the protection and maintenance of thn<;e iitilitie*; 2. Since the City has no anticipated need to re-open Navarre Lane for vehicular traffic, but does anticipate the need for bike trails and pedestrian pathways, the applicants must provide a suitable alternate location for such uses if the vacation is approved. 3. Planning Commission should provide applicant some direction regarding whether you will support a vacation of the remaining R.O.W., as that will impact his site planning. July 12,1996 Page 7 #2154 John O'Sullivan. 2380 Shadywood Road - Sketch Plan Review 111. Commercial Site Plan - Preliminary (Conceptual) Review This conceptual review is intended to perform two functions: A. Raise potential concerns and issues with the site plan submitted by the applicant in the context of B-5 zoning. Assist applicant in understanding the variety of information necessar>' in proceeding with a formal rezoning/vacation/commercial site plan review' application. B. 1. B-5 Performance Standards . - Lot Area. Width : Upon legal combination, the property will meet the required 20,000 s.f. area and 100' width standards of the B-5 zone. Building Setbacks: Required building setbacks are 15' from a side lot line, and 35' from front, rear, side street and 'R' District lot lines. The proposed setback from Olive Avenue to the Office building scales out at approximately 13' where a 35 ’ setback is required. If the vacation of Navarre Lane does not occur, the Bank will also have to be relocated to meet a 35' side street setback. - Yard Requirements : Required yards ore 20' front, 30' rear, 15' side yard adjacent to 'R' District, 10' side yard adjacent to street. The primary impact is that off-street parking is not allowed within the required front yard, but is allowed to within 10' of a side lot line abutting an 'R' District and within 10' of a rear lot line abutting an 'R' District. A 10' front yard variance is required under the current parking proposal. "Through-Lot" Status: This property is considered a 'through' lot by definition (Section 10.02. Def 42) and has two front lot lines for applying the zoning chapter; this has an impact in the parking setback requirement, in that off street parking will not be allowed within the 20' of the Olive Avenue right-of-way (Proposed plan meets this requirement). Fencing : Code requires a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than 6 feet in height along the lot lines abutting an 'R' District, except within the required front yard. Question: Given the definition of the Olive Avenue frontage as a front lot line, will the City require screening along that lot line? The site plan submitted for the formal application should include a landscaping and screening plan. Building Design and Construction : Exterior wall finish requirements of Section 10.44 Subd. 6(G) must be met (Requires face brick, natural stone, textured precast concrete or equivalent). - Drainage : The site plan incorporates use of a stormwater pond used jointly with the restaurant parcel, located on the church site. Applicants are currently July 12, 1996 Page 8 #2154 John O’Sullivan. 2380 Shadvwood Road - Sketch Plan Review finalizing design details on the stormwater pond. The formal application must provide proper pond sizing and design parameters to meet City standards. Note that the site plans submitted show a conflict between the pond and the proposed auto teller functions, which will be resolved. (Sec site grading comments below). Height: Building height is limited to 30' as measured per code. Information as to defined height of the building has not been required for purposes of this conceptual review. 2.General Performance Standards - Parking: Bank and professional office uses require one parking space per each 200 s.f of floor area, retail uses require one space per each 150 s.f net area. As presented, the office/retail side of the building is 2 floors 9,750 s.f and the bank is 1 floor ,x 4,300 s.f, resulting in an estimated 23.800 gross square footage. For the sake of discussion, assuming 85% of this is definable as net floor eirea (i.e. not including hallways, utility space and storage areas), .85,x23,800 = 20.230/200 = 101.15, or potentially requiring in the range of 100-110 parking stalls. Only 68 stalls are provided on the plan. Although the restaunuit and bank parking lots are joined under the submitted plan, Orono Code Section 10.61 Subd. 6 disallows the use of 'double credit ’ for joint parking uses. The current plan would appear, absent more detailed information, to have inadequate parking for the size of buildings shown. Parking and access layout are being reviewed by the City Engineer and his preliminary comments are expected to be available for the July 15 meeting. Parking design is subject to the requirements of Section 10.61, Subd. 4 thru 10. Access locations arc subject to the approval of Hennepin County Public Works Dept. Hardcover : The northerly 1/3 of the parcel and the southwesterly side of the parcel are located within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka and are subject to a maximum of 35% hardcover per the Shoreland Ordinance. Absent formal hardcover calculations, it appears that both these areas are proposed to be significantly in excess of the hardcover standards. Is there any justification for the applicant to request hardcover variances? Signage: Shall be subject to the requirements of Section 10.61, Subd. 1 and 3. Staff will recommend that no front footage credit be given for the Olive Avenue frontage in calculating signage allowance. - Lighting: Fomial application submittal should include a lighting plan for the site. - Lot Coverage bv Structures: All properties in the City are subject to a 15% limit on lot coverage by structures. The site is approximately 75,000 s.f without the vacated Navarre Lane, 85,000 s.f with the vacation. Bank i July 12,1996 Page 9 #2154 John O’Sullivan, 2380 Shadywood Road • Sketch Plan Review building footprint is 4,300 s.f.. Office building footprint is 9750 s.f. and the AutoTeller canopy footprint is approx. 3300 s.f. for a total lot coverage of 17,350 s.f. or 23% w/o vacation, 20% with vacation. Is there any justification for applicant to request a lot coverage variance? Site Grading/Filling: The topography of the site is rather severe, and might be more suitable for a rear walkout situation rather than the single level buildings depicted in the elevation views. Perhaps the one item of most concern to staff is the apparent need for an extensive retaining wall between the stormwater pond and the buildings. The site plan presented does not get into site gradingTilling needs, but it appears that much filling would be necessarv' at the center of the site to accomodate the proposed buildings. The formal commeercial site plan application submittals should include a detailed site grading/filling plan in addition to grading plans, and show details of all necessarv retaining walls. 3. Miscellaneous Legal Combination Required: Since the property currently exists as 4 separate tax parcels, legal combination will be required prior to issuance of any building permits. - 'Sinele Building' Status: Oror Code Section 10.03 Subd. 7 allows only one principal building on a property. Staffs initial reaction to the proposed plan was that it shows two distinct buildings. However, we are advised by the Building Official that from a Building Code standpoint the roof connection between the two buildings over the AutoTellers makes them a single building Absent this attachment, they would be considered as two principal buildings, would have to be on two separate lots, and would be subject to separate setback standards, etc. PUD Not An Alternative: An alternative not available to the developer at this time would be to develop the site as a PUD; this would potentially make development of the site a bit more flexible. However, the Zoning Code does not allow commercial PUD development e.xcept within the Highway 12 Corridor. Location of Proposed Sidewalk/Bike Path : a. Along Shadywood Road; The City has no plans at this time to extend the existing sidewalks northward along Shadywood into the residential area. The sidewalk currently ends at the north end of the site. b. Connection to Olive Avenue; The proposal includes a new bike & walking path along the north boundary of the property adjacent to July 12,1996 Page 10 #2154 John O'Sullivan, 2380 Shady wood Road - Sketch Plan Review the lot line, providing a pedestrian connection between OliNe A\enue and ShadjAvood Road. This location may be appropriate from a topographic standpoint, maintaining a rather level route between the two streets. Howev’er, a drawback of this location is that it not only places the path against the side lot line of a residential lot, but it may hinder the placement of any vegetative screening that might be necessary to separate the commercial uses from the adjacent residential area. Staff Recommendation 1. Planning Commission should give applicant general direction as to whether the variances noted have any support. 2. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to review each of the items addressed in the conceptual site plan review with the applicant, to assist him in preparing a complete and comprehensive formal application. ForniJil Application Review Process 1. It is anticipated that the applicant will file a fonnal application for Rezoning by the Friday July 26 (noon) deadline for review by Planning Commission at your August 19th meeting. Staff also has been advised that applicant wants to concurrently file a formal Vacation application and a formal Commercial Site Plan Review/Variance application by the same deadline, although this leaves the applicant only 10 days between your July 15 Sketch Plan Review and the application deadline to complete the detailed survey, site, grading and drainage plans required for such application and which respond to any direction you provide him. Once the sketch plan review has been completed, staff will meet with the applicant to review the necessary submittals for the formal applications. 2. Applicant has requested by letter (Exhibit J) that the application be then forwarded directly to Council's August 26 meeting for final action on the rezoning and site plan approval. Frankly, this expedited process can only occur if applicant provides all required information in a timely manner. i I (2) '4- 12.3 4 9 / ■^^(67)/3 ^ "^(66)/ 7 (64 )/ 6 & ' 2S 35 c^. %(731#,6 /O.\ V N' ( 29^ 26 '(30),29^w/ V 2C .‘^ 32), '(96) / / N7 // 84),^ (33) xlfe. • o 79 y V .<•'^■-'>■7(76), .\ ! J=r. \\ \ a 27> )(e la T) \ I ®4? ^(7) ^9. V V A ------2 <\3>* \ • \6o (•V 5(78)V /. • • • LOT ^Cffl^SlT ."<0! • •• .J*- . / \ V a /'(5 ■>t» 9' ( 100) I04. 5 V \ f% (65) 5^14708 /p^7> 50.7.’\ M5,■J: \A V ni.3' ; 50J _ :9_i. o^_ '• ^V L 77 20.4 2 \ CGC NO 2005 '•C9 # \ ■\ ‘^ v 1000 TO UA!<€ ■ J '*r-loo 2^1 1 !:/ ^-■li h\V V -Jh «, ^ 4 *♦ V I "■ ^ ‘ ‘-ch. • ,.' ' *^«»* V* .’ i --fj- > ■ ' • i . » # » * \v^ ft. ^ *, ____.- ‘ r L ojs ij ’ j -3jv.t i - ■':- ^ . ^Vi- *-Y .; Sul lyi .! : -“ i Ifci": < . • • * * «b. « • n\ • 1 ■ ♦ • •• i .« \ • ■* ’ -vVi .»■ V .i • 1 ] : * i .V. t , .'f -iSa, •.vV^--.v :--5;.i»-- —• f.i -n^ A •■ i \ % V 3,Z^O Proposed Development at -340 Shoreline Drive, Navarre The purpose of this project is to build a sit down, family restaurant. 4300 square feet, with drive-thru food service. The fresh food and custard menu fits somewhere between a McDonald/Burger King concept and a Perkins/Baker's Square restaurant. The customer will order the food at one of the register order points. The food will be delivered by staff to the table where the customer is seated. The restaurant will contain seating for 99 customers. We are going to combine this concept in the same building with an O'Sullivan C-Store. The restaurant and C-Store will utilize the same utility/restroom core of the building. Eight fueling points will be available under a full canopy. The brand of gasoline will be the same as the present O’Sullivans across the street. The store will offer a normal C-Store selection of products including coffee, cold drinks, bakery, roller grill products and cold sandwiches. A mini-tunnel service car wash will be built on the site. The equipment will include a conveyor system to pull the car through the ninety (90) foot car wash. Most of the equipment will be touchless spray applicators with a "shaker- curtain" and quarter panel scft cloth rollers This development exceeds the vehicle parking requirements for the proposed used. The development is Phase \ of a two stage development. We will follow this request very shortly with a plan to develop the property to the adjacent north with a retail and office development. 0-2. Proposed Development of 2380 Shadywood Rd., Orono, MN We propose building a Light Retail/Office Building on the subject site. The primary tenant would be a full service bank, with drive-up auto tellers. This will be a single story building with a roof over the auto tellers. The other part of the building will be two story construction with permitted retail allowed under B-5 zoning. A walk/bike path will be constructed around the north perimeter of the property. A storm-water holding pond is being constructed as a part of the O'Sullivan C- Store/Restaurant Development Ran and is designed to incorporate the run-off from this development. Run-off from Olive Avenue has also been included in this design at the request of the City of Orono. We are requesting that the City of Orono vacate the north thirty three (33) feet of Navarre Lane. We will grant utility easements as required. A copy of the development proposal for O'Sullivan's C-Store/Restaurant is attached. We stated at that time we would be submitting this Retail/Office Development proposal. I m if" ■■ - XT - 'CS^'' )c/*^i’ /f^7i'v d 'A 9\ 2,7fX'/')CJZy S<^ firs' ? I S- \-In V Application » 2.1 SH Date Received l fl9^L Amount Paid 2.^~^ ^i CITV OF ORONO - GENER.AL LAND USE APPLICATION a ■ exft PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address ______ Type of Application to be Filed Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) Filed k^\)lhin . APPLICANT Name 0'£f^iil Phone (home) Phone (work)_V7/- CH2.S Address :24:2n S'^AC'J C City , .^W._ Zip.r* c'r' - OWTVER (if different than applicant) Name ______________ Phone (home) Phone (uork)_ Address City _Zip. Date Property Acquired cPnt>>^(month/year) I (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application $175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ______$225.00 Guest House/Guesl Apartments ______$200.00 Duplex Credit/Bldg ______$300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use $250.00 Land Alteration Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain _____ Grading and filling • 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore W * PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original appl After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS N $250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) ___$300.00 Vacation ^__$200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision "X $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) $350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment ___$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District M ~________ Present Use of Propert>’______Residential City of Orono &^tal"BSy, m S5323 (6l^)47^7S7 07/01/% IStSlA? UN) USE mUORTIOi 1 1 2S0.00 250.00 •2154 0*SULLIV»6 1 • 0.00 0.00 SUBTOTAL 250.00 TM 0.00 TOTAL SALE 250.00 AECEIte 250.00 CHPNEE o.a CLEAKI03 TRANS! 1664 y Other REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. ' Cenified Propem Owners List of owners within 350*. labels and plat map (you ■ must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Government Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Anach legal description to application if not included on required survey. ~ Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (grades). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in " the propertv . ^This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plan, if applicable (see staff for requirements). ■ As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to e submitted.) The Applicant and Property Ocmet must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been mcluaed. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff;__________________________----------------------- information supplied is tme and cotiect to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date lldi Owner's signature Date u II ckmirtnU into the Citv officcs 25 davs before the Planning Commission Meeting. p,'’'’‘'""rc^mmUsioVNL MLs are held on the‘third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at review mee.,r«°<.f the Plsnnirg Commission and Cooneil. if an applicant “ ^ “ «hrdoFedlctme. please m'ake anangements .0 have an auUionzed agent attend m your place and advise die Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. •i « I i-r » €-nif-r m>'T44|fW Hr.-vr* ' ir '3//'»7y L' '-'V /J ./V4 /; EXHIBIT A Lots 19-20-21-22, Wiley's - Navaae Addition, Lake Minnetonka; and all that part of Lot 5, Block 3, townsite of Langdon Park described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly comer of said Lot 5, thence Northwesterly along the Northerly line of said Lot 5 to the Northeasterly line of the Public Highway running across said Lot 5, and known as Minnetonka Lake Park and Maple Plain Road (now County Road No. 19) thence Southeasterly along the Northeasterly line of said road to the Easterly line of Lot 5, thence Northerly along the Easterly line of said Lot 5 to the point of beginning. All located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. / 4? ■* u 1 DAN CLAUSEN Regional Exi c tirive Director Pht>ne 612-571-7933 Fax6l2-57l-S017 h 7260 L'nivcrsiw Avenue NE Suite 110 Fridley. MN 55432 c-mail nccKi^^aol.com eA/4, X North Central CBA •JUL 0 I99n July 2, 1996 Mike GafTron City of Orono P O Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 Dear Mr. GafTron: I am writing to inform you that we are joining with John O’Sullivan as applicants in the petition to rezone our property at 2380 Shadywood Road (Grace Church). If you have any questions, please feel free to call my office at 571-7933. Sincerely, 0Uu d^aufog. Rev. Dan Clausen Regional Executive Director North Central Conservative Baptist Association DC:rt cc: John O’Sullivan Providing resources for church growth and church planting. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 20, 1996 ITEM NO.: Department Approval: Name Jeanne A. Mabustb Title Building & Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: Referral of Development Proposal to the Planning Commission for Sketch Plan Review For Property Located at 2380 Shadywood Road (former Grace Baptist Church Site) Involving a Rezoning of Residential Propert>- to Commercial Lbt of Exhibits A - Site Plan B - Comprehensive Plan C - Street Elevation John O’Sullivan and Erwin Smith propose the submittal of conceptual plans for the commercial development of residential property to the immediate nonh of the former Martin Service Station property. The proposal consists of two structures, single story bank v^th roofed drive-in teller facilities and tw'o stor>' office building. Review Exhibit C, the applicants propose a mixed office use with limited retail outlets or store fronts at the lower level. They have suggested retail uses such as a pharmacy, floral shop, card or specialty shops. The only district that lists office uses with retail is the B-5 but the purpose of the B-5 zoning district is to provide businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The code notes the district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The code goes on to note that because of the location of the B-5 district only found in Navarre, the uses are limited in order to minimize hardcover and the generation of traffic because of historic traffic problems in Navarre. The proposed intensity of uses may pose a conflict with the B-5 zoning district. Also, the proposal involves two principal structures on one parcel. This requires a plaiuied unit development (P.U.D.) The City code does not include the P.U.D. option for the Navarre area. Applicants have also been advised that the comprehensive vacation of Navarre Lane was not approved by the Council and they advised that they would once again seek to vacate the remainder of Navarre Lane as originally proposed and that they would be willing to grant a bike trail/pedestrian walkway easement through the propert>'. In fact they noted that the walkway or bike trail could be located within the landscaped pond area and outlet at the north of the property rather than at the busy intersection. i Request for Council Action continued page 2 of 2 June 20, 1996 Referral of Development Proposal During the review of their previous application (Application #2107), the applicants ^^‘ere advised that any rezoning of areas wthin Navarre would be done on a comprehensive scale or study. It is the intention of the applicants to move ahead with a rezoning application specific to the parcel at 2380 Shad>'wood Road. The applicants plan to proceed with informational meetings for surrounding neighbors within 600’ of the property. The meetings are scheduled the last week of June to be held on two nights specifically a Tuesday and Wednesday of that week. It was my understanding that Council members as well as Planning Commission members will receive invitations to the informational meetings. Staff has also been advised that the applicants have the support of many of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to approve/deny the referral of the preliminary development proposal for property at 2380 Shady-wood Road to the Planning Commission for a sketch plan review'. i 1 ll ». LAND USE JUNE, 1980 If the individual development's density increase or impact irrelatively small, or the layout is not conducivVto public land dedication^'then in lieu of lands \he developer may be required to contribute fund\ for the municipal purchase of such lands or th^ l®PJ^°vemen t of s^h facilities proportionate to c^ie cumulative e^ect of such density increase from multiple ^all developments. 17. NO LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED UNLESS IT’S LOCATION AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ARE SUITA^E FOR THE PROPOSED USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS PLAN. Land t^^e developed must be of such size, character an^\ocation that it can be safely used for the i^tenc^d purpose without danger to health, wi/chout pXxil from fire, flood or other occurrence^ and with^t undue impact upon neighboring pro^p^rties. No land will be permitted to be ^ibdivided or built upon which iy held unsuitable by ^e City for the proposed use because of flood hazax^He, inadequate drainage, /soil formations with severevlimitations for development, severe erosion poten^al, unfavorable topogra/^hy, inadequate water supply or sewage dispo^l capabilities, or any other feature likely to be'harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. URBAN LAND USE PQLTCIFS y 1. THE MAJORITY OF ORONO’S URBAN AREA WILL BE RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. Orono's urban residential neighborhoods will provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density rescrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Low-density multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. CMP 4-16 LAND USE JUNE, 1980 1 1 I 1 I I 2. LIMITED COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR IIEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE BUSINESSES. The primary function of Crono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono’s urban and rural resident.s. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urba'j services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature which would duplicate existing services in the neighboring town centers will be discouraged. 3. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND LIMITED LAKE-USER SERVICES. Orono's residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public's general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer, and adequate transportation are available. 4. THE CITY WILL ENCOURAGE PRIVATE UNIFICATION AND COORDINATION OF THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL AREAS. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. 5. FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE LIMITED TO THE AREA OF THE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL PARK. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake's neighboring industrial development. CMP 4-17 I j ] LAND USE JJNE, 1980 6. 7. 8. 9. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE PER.MITTED TO ADVERSELY AFFECT NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. The location and scale of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, r uial land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses. PUBLIC URBAN SERVICES MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL FUTURE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND URBAN-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Commercial, industrial and urban-densitv residential uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate transportation, police and fire protection services are available. In addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a municipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection. URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL UTILIZE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. New Land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing capacities of water, sewer, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. THE EXIS'^TMG URBAN AREA WILL NOT BE EXPANDED. Orono'o Community ‘anagement Plan is not a staged growth plan. The urb service area will not be expanded into the rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. THE DESIGN AND DENSITY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED TO ASSURE PROTECTION OF LIGHT, AIR AND SOLAR ACCESS FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. Requirements for minimum lou size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. 4 1 CMP 4-18 I I 2 J i i j i 1 J 3 I 1 1 I i I 1 I LAND USE JUNE, 1980 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 1 12. LAND USE STANDARDS WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OP URBAN ENCROACHMENT ON LAKE MINNETONKA. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while ir./:reasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. RURAL LAND USE PfiiLIClES 1.ORONO'S RURAL SERVICE AREA WILL BE RESE RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. Orono’s rollin is not suitable for co^erciai agri Likewise, the delicate baJance of^torm water nutrient loading vs marshl^^^ aXsi®ilative capacity preclude expansion of the urh^n service area without major environmental problem^ t^s»x Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land/use fOTt that portion of Orono located outside the UrbanS^ervice Area (MUSA) is the pianned/iow-density ri^Eal residential land use. Commerci-^ and industrial ubes will not be permitted in FOR PERMANENT LOW-DENSITY area CMP 4-19 LAND USE . L- JUNE, 1980 URBAN COMMERCIAL LAND USE Urban commercial development is limited to two areas which are provided with all the necessary urban services and facilities. The major cormercial center of Orono will continue to be the crossroads center of Navarre. This area will provide sufficient opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses, plus adequate professional offices, to serve the needs of most Orono residents. Accessory functions -uch as offices and owner~ occupied living units or limited multi-family v.evelopments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. tn additional limited commercial area is designated on Highway 12 adjacent to similar land uses in the City of Long Lake. This area has utilities the City of Long Lake and will provide neighborhood services complimentary to those available in that City. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL LAND USE Lake access and laJOe user service businesses are appropriate for a lakeside community ai^d require a lakeshore locat.^n. Special performance standards are necessary to assure protection of/rhe lake environment and protection of neighboring properties. The primary purpose is tov^ermit those functions that are directly necessary to support norma\ lake-use activities such as boat launching, boat service, boat repairs Md fishing sujoplies. Lakeshore commercial ereas are not intended for tj^ical retail activities, including boat sales, which could be accomplished awa^from the lake. Accessory functions such as parking, winter sta^age and caretaker facilities will be appropriate in the lakeshoi \omgrercial areas. One lakeshore commercial area isylAdicated on the Land Use Plan along Naxwell Bay where resorts and m^ixinc^ have historically existed. Sanitary sewer is available for boat sa/(itati\n pirposes. Expansion of the existing facilities is limited however/by surrounding residential neighborhoods, lack of public transportation, and environmental constraints including a crowded bay. Therefore, oOly the one c^tiguous area is considered appropriate for dedication' to this use. Additional lakerhore con4>ercial facilities >io exist along County Road 15 north of Tanager Lake fridge. This area hasXfewer transportation and environmental problems' than Maxwell Bay, but \t is not designated in this Plan for commercial Use because municipal sewe\ and other urban services are not available. This area would be considered for future lakeshore commercial designation should sanitary sewer become available as proiected in the CSPP Facilities Plan. CMP 4-26 m (Jr^) r/: r-\i> i ) /£. >#■ >>vX;!;Xv>X.;>X;‘;>>Xv;v>!v>!y!yXvX • * • • ♦ • •***« 4 • **«*«*♦ •*♦ * •***•.?*•*• •*• ••• *.1 «••••■« •*« •*«***»*4*« 4*4*«*4 •*• •** ^.** » ♦*•** •*•*» • •** ♦ •*% » 4 • *\ • •.•*• • •*•*• » i******'»*•*•** 4 •*• •*•*♦*•*4 •*•*« • • •*•%^4*»***4 • *.*I •*4*» *4*«*** *•**•".*.***«* •*****4^**'**I***«*«**^*’****** •.****• **•••*• X 1.^. fy w r IT-' SBC. 10.40. B-1 RETAIL SALES BUSINESS DISTRICT.3 S 10.40 Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-1" Retail Sales Business is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which "nre subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Ccmmlssion for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-1" Retail Sales Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. Retail and Service Businesses. The following neighborhood retail sales and service businesses supplying commodities or performing a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Arts and school supplies store. Banks and insurance companies. Barber and beauty shops. Bicycle sales and repair. Books, magazines, record shop. Drugs, candy, ice cream, soft drinks, cosmetics and other usual drug store merchandise. 7. Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up stations including incidental pressing and repair. 8. Garden supplies, florist shop. Gift or antique shops. Hardware store, paint store. Hobby shops, camera and photographic supply 9. 10. 11. stores. 12. 13. 14. 15. repair stores. Jewelry shops and repair. Laundromats. Locksmith. Music, radio, TV, appliance sales and furniture. 18. 19. 20. carpet store. 16. Newsstands. 17. Office supply store, office machine store. Pet shop. Pipe and tobacco shops. Plumbing, electrical, heating, housewares. ORONO CC 332 (4-1^84) B-f j i S 10.40 21. 22. 23. Postal substation. Real estate sales. Retail food of all varieties and home supplies. 24. 25. 26. 27. Sewing center and yardgoods. Sporting goods store. Tailor shops. Temporary sales such as Christmas tree lots. 28. 29. 30. 31. Travel bureau. Variety store. Wearing apparel store» shoe store. Off-sale Liquor Store Source: Ordinance 29, 2nd Series Adopted: 2-23-87 B. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-1" Retail Sales Business District no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Garages. For the servicing and repair of automobiles provided repair functions are totally enclosed in a building. . . B. Motor Fuel Stations. Subject to the provisions set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 18. C. Restaurants (Class I). Food is served to customer while seated at counter or table. Cafeteria - Food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for consumption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in Restaurants (Class I.) Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series Adopted: 5-8-89 D. Restaurants (Class II). Fast Food, Convenience, Drive-in, and Liquor Store Restaurants. A restaurant where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served, or restaurants which serve intoxicating liquor or have live entertainment. E. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and such other conditions as found necessary by the Council. ORONO CC 333 (4-1-84) S 10.40 F. Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tr.nks, lift stations and electric power substations . ORONO CC 333-1 (4-1-84) ifi r!' r $ 10.40i G. Nurseries. Day nurseries provided not less than 50 square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. H. Offices. Professional office and offices of a general nature. Source; Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date; 1-1-75 I. Antenna Structure. One independent antenna structure, with antenna or combination of antenna attached thereto, subordinate to and servicing the principal use or structure on che same lot and customarily incidental thereto that is not attached to another structure provided the height of the antenna structure does not exceed 65 feet and the antenna structure is set back from any lot line a distance at least equal to the total height of the antenna structure. Source; Ordinance No. 177 Effective Date; 6-5-75 Subd. 5. Business District, uses: Accessory Uses. Within any "3-1" Retail Sales the following uses shall be permitted accessory A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscape features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. Public Telephone Booths. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date; 1-1-75 H. Antenna. Any antenna or combination of antenna rigidly attached to the principal or accessory structure provided that none of the foregoing exceeds the total height allowed in Section 10.75. Source: Ordinance No. 17? Effective Date: 6-5-75 ORONO CC 334 (4-1-84) 15 ' I 4 -i -i 3P S 10.40 Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. square feet. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. feet. C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet; side yard adjacent to "R" District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R“ District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-1" Retail Sales Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be: (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, (c) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been* integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or. (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. ORONO CC 335 (4-1-84) ^ - S 10.40 building or structure of a temporary during the construction of permanent buildings. ^ «5haii ho land shall be developed and no use before submission to the Planning Commission and Wroval. Such runoff may be required to be properly othe^ water course, ponding area, storm drain or facilities. Any change in grade affecting water adjacent property or otherwise must be in with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consKtent with other applicable regulations or City Code subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. . . 1* Height. No structure or building shall exceed Sec Hon 10 *^75^ thirty feet in height except as provided in SEC. 10.41. B-2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT. ^ ' O \ nfo^r^ - SubdX 1. Purpose. The "B-2" Lakeshore^-Commercial District was or^inally intended to provide areas .. wKere limited commercial busine^^s could be located to service‘'boats used for recreational purpos^a^ on Lake Minnetonka. However, many of the operators of the lakes>iore commercial businesses have stripped the trees and vegetation from the shorelands and have expanded the Lakeshore Commercial Districts adversely affect the lake quality and the real estace values of adjoining properties. The Wpose of this Chapter is to provide tor additional reasonable r^oulations that require partial restoration of the shoreland v^ge>iation, that will serve to avoid pollution of the lake water and tdvinsure protection of adjacent residential properties wh>'ch have previously suffered from the unregulated expansion of commercial activities. . Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a buildina permit in any "B-2" Lakeshore Commercial Diitrict shall be reviewed by the Council and.^may be referred to the Panning Commission for review. X Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within the\^-2" Lakeshore Business District, no land or structure shall be u^ed except for one or more of the following uses: ^ A. B. Repairs. Repair and servicing of boats. Storage. Winter storage of boats. ORONO CC 336 (4-1-84) s 10.42 SEC. 10.42. B-3 SHOPPING CENTER BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-3" Shopping Center Business District is intended to establish provisions for the designating of a district where a multiple building retail sales and service facility with integrated design and a coordinated physical plan, appropriately located, may be erected. Such district shall be developed as a unit according to an approved plan as provided below. The district snail have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. The owner or owners of any tract of land in the "B-3" Shopping Center Business District may submit to the Council a plan for the use and development of all of such tract for the purposes of and meeting the requirements set forth in this Section. The proposed plan shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study and report. The Planning Commission shall transmit to the Council their findings and recommendation for consideration and action. Subd. 3. Single Control. In order that the purpose of this district may be realized, the land and buildings and appurtenant facilities shall be in single ownership or under management or supervision of a central authority. Subd. 4. Permitted Uses. Within the "B-3" Shopping Center Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the uses permitted in the "B-1" District. Subd. 5. Conditional Uses. Within any "B-3" Shopping Center Business District, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Uses. One or more of the conditional uses as permitted and regulated in the "B-1" District, except for "Restaurants (Class II)". B. Shopping Center Identification Sign. Subd. 6. Accessory U.es. Within any "B-3" Shopping Center Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: District. A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "B-1" Subd. 7. Area, Height, Yard, Setback and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be two acres. B. Floor Area Ratio. A 28 FAR will be required so that the gross leasable area shall not exceed 28% of the total land area available. ORONO CC 343 (4-1-84) TS-3 i S 10.42 C. Open Spaces. The physical design may include nore than one building; however, should such building provide an open space between two buildings, said space shall be not less than one-half the sum of the heights of the two buildings. feet. D. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. E. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 F. Side Yards. The minimum side yard shall be five feet. Side yard adjacent to "R” District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 20 feet. G. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 60 feet to any lot line; except when abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 100 feet from such lot line. landscaped, treated as in stages, undertaken A minimum space . H. Landscaping. The entire area shall be occupied by buildings or structures or parking areas so to control dust. Should the development be undertaken all of the area required to conform to that portion shall be developed to meet the preceding requirements, of 12% of the entire area shall be devoted to green I. Drives. The design shall include adequate internal circulation trives not less than 22 feet in width which are exclusive of the required parking area. J. Curb Cuts. The driveway curb cuts to the development shall not exceed 26 feet in width, 5 feet return curb radii, and be located not less than 60 feet from all intersecting streets. K. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly c'' ’^neled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or ouicr public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations and City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. ORONO CC 344 (4-1-84) i S 10.42 L. Fencing. Wherever a "B-3" Shopping Center Business District abuts or is across the street from an "R” District, an adequate fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected. When adjacent to a street, it shall not be less than three feet nor more than four feet in height. M. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G. N. 2-1/2 stories or Section 10.75. Height. No structure or building shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in SEC. 10.43. B-4 OFFICE AND PROI’ESSIONAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-4" Office and Professional Business is intended to provide a district which is related to and may adjoin residential districts or other business districts for the location of administrative office buildings and related offices. The office uses allowed in this district are those in which there is limited contact with the public and no exterior display or selling of merchandise to the general public. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any "B-4" Office and Professional District shall be reviewed by the Council and may be referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-4" Office and Professional Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: A. Municipal Buildings. Municipal buildings where the use conducted is customarily considered to be an office use. B. Offices. Professional offices and offices of the general nature. C. Clinics. Clinics for human care on an out patient basis only. D. Banks and Insurance Offices. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses. Within the "B-4" Office and Professional Business District no structure or land shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: A. Nursing Homes, Hospitals. Nursing homes, hospitals, rest homes or retirement homes, provided the site shall contain not less than 600 square feet of lot area for each person to be accommodated and that no building be located less than 35 feet from the side lot line. ORONO CC 345 (4-1-84) B'3M S 10.43 E. Libraries. F. Museums. G. Galleries, Etc. Historical buildings, museums, art institutes, galleries and playhouses. H. Restaurants (Class I). Restaurants which are located within and mainly servicing an office building providing there is no outside display or advertising of the restaurant use. T. Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the ”B" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.61, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. J. Public Services. Public service structures, including, but not limited to, electrical transmission lines and buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any ''B-4" Office and Professional Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: District. A. Any accessory use as regulated in the "3-1” Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Yard, Setback ?nd Design Requirements. square feet. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 feet. B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be 100 feet. C. Front Yards. The minimum front yard shall be 20 D. Rear Yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet and unless the rear yard has access from a public street or alley, a side driveway of 12 feet shall be provided to assure access. ORONO CC 346 (4-1-84) B. Schools. Private academies, schools, trade schools, colleges and universities for teaching. C. Research Centers. D. Veterinary Clinics or Kennels. Animal hospitals, clinic or kennels. 1 i S 10.43 E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet to any rear lot line, 15 feet to any side lot line, 35 feet to any sid.> lot line adjacent to street; except when abutting or across the street from an "R" District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. F. Fencing. Wherever a "3-4” Office and Professional Business District abuts an "R" District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge not less than 50% ooaque nor less than six feet in height (no less than three feet nor higher than four feet adjacent to street) shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. See Section 10.40, Subdivision 6, Subparagraph G. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjacent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code orovisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. I. 2-1/2 stories or Section 10.75. Height. No structure or building shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in SEC. 10.44. B-5 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. Subd. 1. Purpose. The "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide a district for businesses that supply commodities or perform a service primarily for residents in the surrounding neighborhood, which businesses are not high traffic generators and do not necessitate an inordinate amount of hardcover. The district may adjoin residential districts or other business districts which are subject to more restrictive controls. The district shall have immediate access to adequate highways and public sanitary sewer. Because of the location of the "B-5" District as contemplated in the area known as Navarre in the City, the uses are limited in order to limit the hardcover in that area and to limit the future generation of traffic for that property in t.iat use district since there is already a traffic problem in Navarre. ORONO CC 347 (4-1-84) S 10.44 Subd, 2. Application. All applications for a building permit in any ''3-5 ” Limited Neighborhood Business District shall be reviewed by the Council and referred to the Planning Commission for review. Subd. 3. Permitted Uses. Within any "B-5" Business District, no structure or land shall be used except for one of the following uses or uses deemed similar by the Council: A. B. C. D. E. F. Municipal buildings. Offices. Clinics. Art ?.nd school supply store. Bcok and magazine store. Office supply store. estate office. G. Banks, loan company, insurance company, real H. I. J. K. L. Barbership, beauty shop. Camera and photograph supply store. Locksmith. Hobby shop. Gift store. M. N. O. P. Q. R. Glassware and pottery. Antique store. Jewelry store. Watch repair. Library. Museum. S. T. U. V. W. Record shop. Music store. Tobacco shop. Galleries. Pet shop. Subd. 4. Conditional Use. A. within any "B-5" Limited Business District, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses except by conditional use permit: 1. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nuts, frozen desserts, soft drink store. 2. Drycleaning store. Tailor shop. Pressing and shoe shine shop. Laundry and cleaning pick-up stations. Home and garden equipment rental. Veterinary clinic. Kennels. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ORONO CC 348 (4-1-84) 5'S i * • § 10.44 B. Off-Street Parking. Off-street parking when the principal site of the off-street parking abuts on a lot which is in another "B" or "I" District and is in the same ownership as the land in the "B" or "I" District and subject to those conditions as set forth in Section 10.62, Subdivision 4 and other such conditions as found necessary by the Council. C. Public Service Structures. Including, but not limited to, electric transmission lines in buildings such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electric power substations. Subd. 5. Accessory Uses. Within any ”B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory uses: A. Garages, Etc. Private garages, off-street parking and loading spaces, as regulated in this Chapter. B. Signs. Signs, as regulated in this Chapter. C. Temporary Buildings. Buildings temporarily located for purposes of construction on the premises for a period of not to exceed time necessary to complete said construction. D. Landscaping. Decorative landscaping features. E. Fences. Fences, as regulated in this Chapter. F. Incidentals. Any incidental repair or processing necessary to conduct a permitted principal use, provided that the incidental use shall not exceed 30% of the floor space of the principal building. G. P blic Telephone Booths. Subd. 6. Area, Height, Lot Width, Setback Requirements and Design Requirements. A. Area. The minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet. A.Area. The feet. B.Lot Width. feet. C.Front Yards. D.Rear Yards. feet; side yard adjacent to "R" District shall be 15 feet; side yard adjacent to street shall be 10 feet. E. Setback Requirements. No building shall be nearer than 35 feet to any front lot line, 35 feet from any rear lot line, 15 feet from any side lot line, 35 feet to side lot line adjacent to street; except abutting or across the street from an "R” District, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. ORONO CC 349 (4-1-84) S 10.44 F. Fencing. Wherever a "B-5" Limited Neighborhood Business District abuts an "R" District, along the side or rear lot line, a fence or compact evergreen hedge no less than 50% opaque nor less than six feet in height shall be erected along the abutting lines except within the required front yard. G. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the district shall meet the following standards: shall be: 1. All exterior wall finishes on any building (a) Face brick, or, (b) Natural stone, or, (c) Specially designed precase concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied decorative material or texture, or. (d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials be of any of those noted in Items (a), (b) and (c) above, or glass. (e) Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations of such materials shall be permitted. 2. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural design and general appearance. 3. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement, tent or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and during the construction of permanent buildings. H. Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion, or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the Council and those plans shall be reviewed by the City Engineer before submission to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural water course, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff whether onto adjaf'ent property or otherwise must be in compliance with the Surface Water Management Plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or City Code provisions and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. Source: Ordinance No. 172 Effective Date: 1-1-75 ORONC CC 350 (4-1-84) ^ V' -L jL'rw' S 10.44 I. 2-1/2 stories or Section 10.75. Height. No structure or building shall exceed thirty feet in height except as provided in Source: Ordinance No. 188 Effective Date; 11-22-76 (Sections 10.45 through 10.49# inclusive# reserved for future expansion.) ORONO CC 351 (4-1-84) S- (*6«rAieiAt- SEC. 10.10. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the City, the Planning Commission, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the Council with its recommendations for adoption. Subject to the requirements of this Chapter, the Council may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all its members. *^/S" VOT^'> Subd. 1. Public Hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by tie Planning Commission or by the Council. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment includes changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made. Subd. 2. Initiation of Amendments to the Zoning Chapter. An amendment to the Zoning Chapter may be initiated by: (1) action of the Council; (2) a recommendation of the Planning Commission; (3) by petition of the owner(s) of their or adjoining property, the zoning of which is proposed to be changed. An amendment not Initiated by the Planning Commission shall be referred to the Planning Commission for study and report and may not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission on the proposed amendment or until sixty days have elapsed from the date of reference of the amendment without a report by the Planning Commission. Subd. 3. Denial of Applications. Rezoning applications may be denied by motion of the Council and such motion shall constitute a finding and determination that the proposed rezoning is not in the best interest for the physical development of the City. No application which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six (6) months from the date of said order of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of change of conditions found to be valid by the Planning Commission. Source: Ordinance No. 170 Effective Date: 10-10-74 To: From: Date: Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Michael P. GafTron. Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator July 12, 1996 Subject;ADDENDUM , #2154 - O'Sullivan Proposal This morning during a discussion with Mr. O’Sullivan it became apparent that he w ill be making a formal application for the August meeting only for the rezoning, as part of his purchase option with the church. The need for immediate detailed site plans is alleviated, and Planning Commission should concentrate this sketch plan review primarily on the rezoning issues and not on the site plan details. 1 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 17, I996 ROLL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above date with the following members present Chair Stephen Peterson, Charles Schroeder, Sandra Smith, Dale Lindquist, Janice Berg, Elizabeth Hawn, and William Stoddard. The following represented the City Staff Building and Zoning Administrator Jeanne Mabusth, Assistant Planning and Zoning Administrator Michael Gaffiron, and Recorder Sherry Frost Council members Jabbour and Goetten, along wfith Mayor Callahan, were present. Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p m SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS/PUBLIC INFORMATION REVIEWS (#1) #2139 THOMAS BETZ, 300 CRESTVIEW AVENUE - VACATION OF UNIMPROVED PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY - 7:00-7:12 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present Mabusth reported that the applicant proposes to vacate 36’ of the remaining portion of unimproved Hill Street. The southern 4 ’ has already been vacated The applicant will come back at a later date with a lot line rearrangement application The future subdivision would propose leaving 8* to the property to the north and 28’ to the applicant. Mabusth reported that there may have been an issue with a need to maintain access to the Nash property to the immediate east The applicant was asked to notify Nash. Nash reported that access to his property is gained from lot 6. Drainage concerns were raised by se\ eral neighboring property owners Mabusth located the catch basin on the plan located in the southeast corner of the applicant's property. The catch basin was installed as part of the Stubbs Bay sewer project The road was installed higher than originally built resulting in lots being lower at the road with drainage collecting at the edge of the road The drainage now runs along the road to a culvert that drains under road to west Mabusth said the applicant's driveway is located within the Hill Street right-of-way. The culvert in this area drains under Crestview. The tile taking the runoff to culvert is being inundated with runoff It is the general feeling of the neighbors that the runoff has been increasing. The Betz home had severe flooding problems in the lower level, which were corrected with drain tiling, which has resulted in additional runoff. The neighbors state that the accumulation of runoff is not necessarily only during rainy periods. Mabusth said the neighbors need assurance of correction of drainage problems. Staff recommends asking for a drainage easement within the right-of-way to be vacated NflNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 (#1 - #2139 Thomas Betz - Continued) Peterson clarified that the neighbors are in favor of the v acation but ask the City to address the drainage concerns witliin the opportunity presented. The neighbors also want to be assured that the City retain the easement. Betz said it is his attempt to improve the lot as the driveway is now rocky. Betz said he has never seen the culvert underwater noting the water is traveling the same way as it did before the drain tiling was done. Betz said he understood the condition for the easement. There were no public comments. Peterson noted that the City Engineer would review the drainage concern Smith asked what would occur if the Engineer sees a problem with the drainage issue. Mabusth said if the Engineer sees any problem or a need to retain the right-of-way, the application would come back before the Planning Commission. Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve the vacation petition of Thomas Betz for the vacation of a portion of unimproved Hill Street located adjacent to properties located at 290 and 300 Crestview Avenue Approval of the vacation petition is subject to property owners granting a 10' drainage and utility easement within the vacated right-of- way. The location of the easement is to be determined by benefi. ing property owners and City Engineer The vacation petition w ill be presented to Council as soon as Staff receives confirmation from applicant's surveyor regarding location of any existing utilities within unimproved right-of-way. Schroeder asked if 10 ’ for drainage easement was enough. Mabusth said the Engineer would make that determination Lindquist amended his motion to grant an appropriate drainage easement, deleting the 10'amount. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#2) #2134 ROB ALBRECHT, 1810 SHADYWOOD ROAD - AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES - REVISED PLAN - REFERRAL FROM COUNCIL - 7:12-7:41 P.M. The Applicant was present, along with attorney. Bob Mitchell. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 (#2 - #2134 Rob Albrecht - Continued) Gafiron reported that the application was reviewed at the last Planning Commission meeting where it was recommended for denial The Council referred the application back to the Planning Commission for llirther review with changes made by the applicant The original proposal was for an after-the-fact hardcover variance for a deck located in the lakeshore yard outside of the 0-75’. Hardcover is excessive on this property, and the applicant has suggested a number of areas where hardcover can be removed to reduce the impact. Suggestion has been made for removal of 255 s f of driveway, revision to the front entry sidewalk, which would have no affect on the hardcover, and omission of landscape paving blocks on the north side. This would result in a net decrease of 205 s f of hardcover in the 75-250’ zone originally proposed at a 35 s f reduction Gaffron noted that the applicant has submitted a different lot area calculation in the 75-250' zone of J t 590 s.f, which Gaffron said was satisfactory to Staff. Peterson clarified that the hardcover is over the 25% allowable The new exhibit 4 shows the new calculations of 43.5% of hardcover, originally proposed at 41.7%, for an additional 1.8% decrease Albrecht's attome>’. Bob Mitchell, commented on the additional data provided to the Commission He noted that the site is complicated and pre-dates the applicant. The lot was said to be long and skinny. Mitchell said there is no parking on the street which results in the need for less removal of driveway than the applicant wouid perhaps suggest. Mitchell said the lakeshore angles at this location. He added that the applicant was not fiilly aware of the previous review of the property. Mitchell noted that the improvement is out of the 0-75', and the after-the-fact deck improves the front yard situation for the applicant allowing them to see where their children are playing. The yard drops off towards the shoreline and limits the amount of yard space on the lakeshore side. Peterson questioned the situation with the dock located near the lakeshore He noted that the Commissioners were in favor of reducing that dock to the required 90-100 s.f, instead of the present 135 s f Mitchell said the applicant was in favor of that resolution. Mitchell also commented that the applicant thought he was able to rebuild that dock on a board-to- board basis Gaffron said the parameters allow for a 4' stairway with a platform area. He noted this particular dock increases to 6' "*ue to the centering of the dock on the property. Peterson said, at the time of the original denial of the application, this particular dock was not a large issue. The dock and deck were after-the-fact, and the applicant purchased the home without checking on the current codes. Albrecht said he though* '< v'as okay to replace the dock, as it stood. Gaffron said Staff did not inspect the ref •?cement since no permit was issued. Mitchell said it was not the applicant's fauK that no original permit was taken out, but the applicant did rebuild it board-for-board. He asked the Commission to accept the explanation as an honest one. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 (#2 - #2134 Rob Albrecht - Continued) Smith commented on a driveway reduction It was her understanding that the Commission was of a consensus that no reduction be done in the driveway area due to safety concerns. Smith said she was not convinced that the information presented is enough to recommend approval Mitchell responded that the previous survey was inadequate He asked if the issue was if the driveway reduction deemed it unsafe noting its adequate width Smith said Staff recommended against it. Gafffon clarified that the driveway was a point of findings in the 1991 review, and the Planning Commission at that time recommended it would be best to leave the driveway as it is Mitchell remarked that there is no more land available and the applicant can only do so much and requests approval of the small amenity located outside of the critical 0-75' zone. Smith said it was a matter of adhering to the 1991 Planning Commission review. At that time, the property owner was informed that no more improvements would be allowed. Mitchell noted the number of substandard lots in the neighborhood He said if the area was looked at in its entirety, there is alot of green space with no stormwater problem, and the application was not a matter of correcting deficiencies Mitchell cited an example in Medina of where improvements originally denied were later deemed a necessity Lindquist responded that this properly already has a deck. Mitchell noted its different location and the need to recreate. Peterson said the enjotional ties have been established with the deck already being in place. Mitchell asked for reconsideration noting the double fees paid by applicant and expressed an apology. Hawn expressed her concern for setting a precedent questioning at w hat point a Planning Commission recommendation is taken seriously. Mitchell responded that the hardcover is in the 75-250' zone and a net decrease in hardcover w as the result of the application Peterson inquired about the average lakeshore setback. Gafffon said it is not an issue and does not require a variance. Mitchell noted the house sits back on the property, and the applicant was doing what he could to create a less non-conforming situation. Peterson said he now was considering approval of the application When asked why by Smith, Peterson said the main issue is to reduce hardcover in the 75-250' zone, which is being done, conditioning Hs approval on the driveway safety issue being satisfactory. Smith voiced concern that over time, the driveway would reappiear as it now stands. Schroeder asked about reducing the dock down to 4'. Hawn asked if the neighbors were concerned with the 6' shoreline dock. Albrecht said his neighbors were in favor of it noting a letter of approval from the neighbors. i i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNT 17, 1996 {U2 - #2134 Rob Albrecht - Continued) Peterson commented that a tradeoff of driv eway for a deck is considered for recommendations He noted changes in the application as now presented, and the goal of a net decrease in hardcover. Hawn said the property, and its improvements, are anractive but had a problem with setting a precedence Peterson said that the applicant is staying within the precedent as he is staging within the hardcover amount by showing a reduction Hawn questioned the structural versus non-structural hardcover removal Schroeder moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve the after-the-fact variance for the new deck subject to the completion of removal of hardcover in the drivew ay and reduction in size of the lower dock to conform to the existing code of 4' plus landing. Vote: Ayes 3, Stoddard, Peterson, Schroeder, Nays 4, Lindquist, Berg, Smith, Hawn Those recommending denial agreed that the previous Planning Commissioi’’s directive was clear to no further principal structure being placed in the lakeshore yard. Motion failed. No further motions were offered (#3) #2137 WIIXIAM DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE - VARIANCES CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - 7:41-7:58 P.M. The applicant was represented by Dale Gustafson and Carl Smith. Gafffon reported that the application was previously tabled to allow a revision to the proposal for construction of an addition to the south end of the house The Planning Commission had suggested another location or lowering of the addition to reduce the visual impact from the lake. At present, there exists a deck with a screen wall The original proposal was for an addition with a spa with a continuation of the roof line. The revised proposal is for a shed-type roof which would low er the height of the addition along with steps The revision results in 1 s.f reduction than previous plan with a different shape and a smaller pool. Gustafson said other areas were explored in which to locate the pool. He noted the existing large overhang on the house. Gustafson said all attached areas are within the 0- 75', and the decision was made to take advantage of the eave by placing the addition under it. Smith asked if the floor of the addition was lowered. Carl Smith said it was lowered 28 and is practically at grade level. C. Smith said there a design difficulty with the door located in the comer of the lower level Smith noted that this revision was less intensive. J MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 19% (#3 - #2137 William Dunkley - Continued) Peterson commented on the encroachment into the 10' side setback in the previous proposal, which is now eliminated Gaffron said the variance was for additional structure within the 0-75’ He noted the net decrease of 25 s f of hardcov er. The lot coverage originally proposed at 15.6% is now proposed at 16 7“/o, where 15% is allowed. The average lakcshore setback variance is necessary due to the location of the property on the point. Peterson said he saw the addition as a mute point with the size of the existing overhang and the deck Hawn asked if there was a demonstration of hardsWp for health reasons Gustafson said the applicant’s doctor recommended the pool as a point of health Hawn said she was concerned with the extensiveness of the house which is located in the 0-75’ zone. Gustafson remarked that the proposal was changing the nature of a structure already in place. Stoddard was informed that a precedent has already been set with changing a deck to a structure. There were no public comments. Gustafson reminded the Commission of the extensive removal of hjwdcover which already was done by the applicant. Schroeder asked if it was possible to reduce the size of the driveway. Gustalson said it was possible, but it has not been discussed with the applicant adding that any changes would be exnensive Lindquist noted that there was no other parking. Smith asked if other locations were reviewed such as the use of the lower level walkout area Peterson noted that the deck would not disappear if that was accomplished. Gustafson said there was a space concern with the lower level. Carl Smith said the original proposal was for a swim and spa and is now for a swim area only. Peterson said the applicant is asking for a 1% increase in structure. He saw it as only adding sides to an existing deck located under large eaves. Lindquist moved, Stoddard seconded, to approve Application #2137 according to the revised plan. Vote; Ayes 6, Nays 1, Schroeder. Schroeder said more reduction in hardcover could be accomplished. 4 IVIINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMXDSSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 (#4) #2138 JOAN AND WILLIAM WROBLEWSKI^ 630 PARK LANE - VARIAxVCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 7:58-8:03 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present Gaffion reported that the application was for a request for hardcover, front setback, and lot coverage variances to enclose an existing concrete slab porch, which was originally approv ed and constructed in 1990. No roof or walls were planned for at that time. The proposed enclosure will include extending the roof The lot coverage allowed at 15% is currently at 26 8%. The lot is small, and lot coverage would increase with this proposal to 27.7^0 The front setback is currently at 37. The proposal is for a 33 2* setback, which would result in a 18' variance from the 35' standard There is no change in the hardcover percentage at 44 45^o. The change is in the nature of the hardcover with the proposed structure above the slab. Hawn said she saw the screening as reasonable, noting there was no outdoor seating area available. The applicant had no comments There were no public comments Hawn moved, Lindquist seconded, to approv e the enclosure of the existing concrete sl^ with screening Vote. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#5) #2140 TROY ANDERSON* 1490 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD - VARIANCES - PUBUC HEARING - 8:03-8:08 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing w ere noted The Applicant was present Mabusth reported that the applicant previously received a v'ariance for a second story addition from the 50' street setback and a side variance for an attached garage. The applicant now proposes a family room addition to the west side of the residence and entry additions to the north and south sides. The street setback currently exists at 35.1 % and is proposed at 30' The covered entry is proposed 42' from the street A new rear entry would meet the required 50' setback from the rear lot line. The structures meet the hardcover requirements. Mabusth noted that a new ’ septic was installed in 1993. Lindquist commented that the property is attractive. t- I if r ^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 (#5 - /<2140 Troy Anderson - Continued) Smith said the setback mus appropriate to the neighborhood Mabusth added that it was also located on hitther elevations. There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve the two street setback variances with the condition that the applicant be responsible for providing an updated survey locating approved family room addition upon application for a building permit. Peterson asked to include that the addition would be the limit for additional structure on the property agreeing that the setback was appropriate to the neighborhood Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Mabusth said the applicant has asked the application to be presented at the June 24 Council meeting (#6) #2141 ROBERTA J. ROTH, 1251 BRIAR STREET - VARUNCES • PUBLIC HEARING - 8:08-8:15 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present Mabusth reported that the property is located in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The application involves a setback variance for a proposed detached garage. The garage would be single stall at 16'x20' and a back-out apron to be located 2' from unimproved Minnetonka Avenue If the garage were to be located 8' into the yard with gravel drive, it would result in the loss of trees. Stoddard asked if it was the City's intent to make any improvements to Minnetonka Avenue. Mabusth reported that at the time of the French Creek subdivision, the posibility of a through road was considered but neighbors objecteo Response times for emergency vehicles were found to be adequate using existing county roads Mabusth said there was no intention of the City to extend the roadway noting the 20' commons outlot. Mabusth said the French Creek Homeowners Association has installed high berms with landscaping, and the City has received no negative comments from the property owners notified. Mabusth reported that the shoreline of French Lake was located in an earlier application and that property is located within 500-1000' of French Lake. 35% hardcover is allowed, and the applicant’s property is well below that amount. There are no structural coverage issues. 8 i bat. V » I n»Pi^ MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflSSION MEETING HELD ON JUN-E 17. 1996 (#6 - #2141 Roberta Roth - Continued) Smith asked if the shed was to be removed. The applicant said it would be UTien asked where the items in the shed would go, the applicant said there was 9' of storage on one side of the proposed garage and 5' on the front. The applicant said one car w ould be sitting outside. There were no public comments. Smith moved, Lindquist seconded, to approve the side street setback variance for the 16'x20’ garage and removal of the shed Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0 (#7) #2142 ANGELA WOODHOUSE, 2625 NORTH SHORE DRIVE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:15-S:28 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present along with Scott Gikling Mabusth reported that the property is located on North Shore Drive, and the majority of the residence is within the 0-75' setback The proposed improvement requires lakeshore setback, average lakeshore, and hardcover variances The improvements include a two story addition at 6'x23’ to the west side of the 2 story home, a new side entry with stoop, a realigned stairway, and a bay addition at lakeshore The upper level would allow an additional bedroom A 17.S s f bay currently exists and a 52 s f bay addition is proposed Elevations were shown Both structures encroach the average lakeshore with the west addition 21' in front of the average lakeshore setback and 42' from the lakeshore. The bay is located 23' in front of the average lakeshore setback and 39-1/2' from the lakeshore. The existing structure is 21' from the shoreline. The improvements would increase the hardcover in the 0-75' setback bv 193.8 s.f or 0.905^. Peterson commented that the variance is a result of the entire home being located in the 0- 75' setback. Mabusth said the increases are a result of the new entry and stoop and would be considered minor if the home was not in the 0-75' setback. She added that the house was centrally located on the 280’ wide lot, and there was no visual impact on the lake view of the adjacent residences. Lindquist asked if the 193 s f w as all in the 0-75' setback. Mabusth said it was and recommended removal of a boat house with deck Lindquist said any hardcover increase would require a decrease in the 0-75' setback MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 (#7 - #2142 Angela VVoodhouse - Continued) Mabusth asked the contractor for a clarification on the size of the bay window She said she had used a figure of 87 s.f Gikling noted that the bay window is 52 s f Mabusth said the ifKrease would be less than noted in the menx) Stoddard asked the applicant if the sidewalk and entry were more necessar> than the boathouse The applicant said the boathouse is only used to house skis and the sprinkler system pump Peterson said a pump box is allowed in the code for covering such a pump. Mabusth informed Peterson that the survey was completed in 1991. Mabusth said the increase as amended would result in hardcover at 45-50 s.f. Lindquist s^d he would have a problem with any additional hardcover in the 0-75' and asked that it remain at the existing level Gikling said there was miscellaneous hardcover that could be removed and would identify it by the Council meeting. Peterson clarified that the proposal is to have no net gain of hardcover There were no public comments The applicant had no additional comments Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2042 with no additional hardcover in the 0-75' setback. The boathouse and deck is to be removed. Only a pump house cover will be allowed at the lakeshore Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#8) #2143 DUNE PEREZ, 3465 EASTLAKE STREET - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:15-8:28 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by Joe Stepniak Gaffron reported that the application is for hardcover and setback variances for the reconstruction of the roof over a portion of the existing house. The shed-type roof would be replaced with a pitched roof The proposal requires a variance as it is located in the 0- 75' setback There are no additional changes and no changes in hardcover or setback. Smith asked the reason for the change. Stepniak said the applicant can increase a window size and eliminate a doorway by this change in order to gain more light into the house. He added that steps would also be removed. .1 TTWC ^ ' I'V*- *•'' ■ NffNUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17. 1996 (#8 - #2143 Diane Perez - Continued) Hawn asked how entry is gained into the house. Stepniak said there is a front doorway leading into the garage with steps into the house. There is also a back slider-type doorway and a 3* door where the steps are, which will be removed. Stoddard added that the change will assist the drainage There were no additional applicant comments and no | .blic comments Smith moved, Hawn seconded, to approve the hardcover/setback variances for reconstruction of roof over portion of existing house. The steps will be removed at the time of the roof construction Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. The application will be presented at the June 24 Council meeting. (#9) #2144 ARTHUR AND TERRY JEWETT, 3546 IVY PLACE - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - 8:32-8:42 P.M. The Affidav it of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicants were present Mabusth reported that the request is for setback and hardcover variances for a proposed roof expansion and realignment in the 0-75' setback to allow for better drainage. The drainage would disburse to the sides rather than toward the lakeshore with this change. The improvements also involve a new entry and expansion of garage. The average lakeshore setback is encroached with the structure 22 6’ in front of the average lakeshore setback line.. Existing hardcover has been removed and will be below the 25% allowable in the 75-250' zone Mabusth said there is a long driveway and recommended increasing the area adjacent to garage by 8' and to allow for backing out apron. The original 10'xl2' deck has been reduced to 4'xl 2' in the 0-75' zone. Hawn asked for clarification of runoff. It was determined that the runoff travels westward through neighbors yards on to a nearby lagoon. Mabusth said with the decrease in hardcov er, although the runoff w ill be traveling toward the neighbors, less would go in that direction. There were no public comments. Hawn moved. Smith seconded, to recommend approval for average lakeshore setback and hardcover variance in the 0-75' setback with improvements to the drainage. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON AWE 17, 1996 (#9 - #2144 Arthur and Terry Jewett - Continued) Mabusth noted that the applicant has asked that the application be presented at the June 24 Council meeting (#10) #2145 DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER, 3265 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING - «:42-S;53 P.M. The Affidav it of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was present Gaflron reported that the request is for street, side, lakeshore. and average lakeshore setback variances for additions to the property, which abuts Lake Classen located on CoRd 6. The existing house side setback is 27’, which will drop to 5’ with the removal of a detached garage (now located at a 6.8' setback) and addition of a new attached garage. With the location of the residence on Lake Classen, which is a natural environment lake, a 150' setback is required, 50' from the street, and 30' from the side Gaffron showed a sketch of the property with required setbacks, noting that the house is located w here it should be on the property, which is about 2 acres in size. A side garage addition Is proposed resulting in a 5' side setback The addition to the rear would be located at a 140' setback from the lake The additions would meet the front or street setback requirement Although an average lakeshore setback variance is required, there is an outlot located between this property and nearby residence to tiie west Gaffiron said the improvements may actually improve the visual impact for the neighbor to the east. Gaflron said the main issue would be with the side setback. Gaffron noted that the topography rises toward the adjacent property and is lined with pine trees. Peterson asked if the improvements were a problem for the neighbor. The neighbor was in attendance and said he had no problem with the proposal Gaffron said he discussed with Robin Helgager the possibility of adding a small retaining wall to flatten out the area where the topography rises in order to allow it to be mowed easily, (jaffron said the wall would be 2-3' in height. Helgager said the current garage is unusable with only 1 side door and a shed-type roof He said it is difficult to drive a vehicle into the garage and spacing is tight. Helgager said he has responded to any hardcover issue with his proposal to remove a cement slab located near the road. Gaffron said the hardcover is within the allowable amount. Peterson asked how many homes were affected by natural environment lakes Gaffron said there were probably 30-40 homes affected in Orono. ( MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 (#10 - #2145 Donald and Robin Helgager - Continued) Hawn said the proposal would immensely improve the propert>'. The neighbor added that the existing driveway and garage currently gets flooded after rain, and the proposal would improve that situation. Smith asked what the workshop would be used for. Helgager said it would be used for storage. There were no additional public comments Lindquist moved, Berg seconded, to approve application #2145. Vote. Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#11) #2146 DOUGLAS J. OLSON, 2601 WEST LAFAYETTE ROAD - VARUNCES - PUBLIC HEARING The application was withdrawn by the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#12) REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDING COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 13, 1996 No report was given (#13) OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION No other issues were discussed during the meeting. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#14) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 20, 1996 MEETING Schroeder moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of May 20. 1996. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. (#15) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JUNE 24, 1996 AND JULY 8,1996 Smith will attend the June 24, 1996 Council meeting. Peterson will attend the July 8, 1996 Council meeting. i 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 17, 1996 ADJOURNMENT Schrocder moved, Lindquist seconded, to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. Vote: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person L