The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-17-1996 Planning PacketPLANNING COMIVOSSION MEETING MONDAY, JUNT 17, 1996, 7:00 P.M. 2780 KELLEY PARKWAY - COUNCIL CHAMBERS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE - Gabriel Jabbour ATTENDANCE Applicants presenting proposals before the Commission are asked to moTe 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. #2139 Thomas Betz, 300 Crestview Avenue - Vacation of Unimproved Public Right-of-Way ACTION ITEMS - Review of these items will commence prior lo or between scheduled public hearings. 2. #2134 Rob Albrecht, 1810 Shadywood Road - After-the-Fact Variances - Revised Plan - Referral from Council 3. #2137 W'Vuam Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane - Variances - Continuation of Public Hearing 4. #2138 Joan and William Wroblewski, 630 Park Lane - Variances - Public Hearing 5. #2140 Troy Anderson, 1490 Long Lake Boulevard - Variances - Public Hearmg 6. #2141 Roberta J. Roth, 1251 Briar Street - Variances - Public Hearing 7. #2142 Angela Woodhouse, 2625 North Shore Drive - Variances - Public Hearing 8. #2143 Diane Perez, 3465 Eastlake Street - Variances - Public Hearing 9. #2144 Arthur and Terry Jewett, 3546 Ivy Place - Variances - Public Hearing 10. #2145 Donald and Robin Helgager, 3265 Sixth Avenue North - Variances - Public Hearing 11. #2146 Douglas J. Olson, 2601 West Lafayette Road - Variances - Public Hearing - Application has been withdrawn i I % Public A ttendance Meeting Date ,XiiJe Council M Planning Commission □ Park Commission Please inx out the information REQLTSTED BELOW FOR OUR CITY RECORDS. □ Other NAME (please print)ADDRESS PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME OR NUMBER 1 8 9 ■3o\h\ Leluvieue*' • 52o T 6ei"2-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0 d’ Q)Et7^3cc 'U^UL^' SH^MvooC n</T U/:/lo^/^/ fe I a J L ClAtj LulU- K(v/c-l . -^MOinCSo^\S1 I/Z6'/ 6uaz • , flPy/fU^a—^'1H *> A V j?___: W^r 2s I^y^jCn «?//y i. _____________________________________________________________________________________________—-------------------------------------------------------------------------- mjHA L ftll nn III! S3 5««s?s 4^ t-A K a 2 § 2. wI S w 3 Cl. » Oa* S!2. Ira* (ramj-i K>o\ vyt CO R- a gr» tzo & < 5* g Ui ?2 O* £ nrc: 0) g. Hn o s:op Ul LA 4^ Ot *TJ I'0 «/> 1 o* s § 4^ OJ a 5 ‘ 3r» S’ 73N OJ 4^ O Lft mu>iAS*?r f> s- R2 I ? iI 4^K> OQ2. p* 50 o ? 3? ^ 50o S-3" O22 K>a\ K> Lrt tz 0 §• CO 3* O a 2.<*rt 1 5= S' 3 ?2 o* s 2 !• > 3 CL Cl on O 3 « I CD 2.E' § <n S' R2 1 o* ffi 2 5 ‘ OQ (ra n CDoc o<M < (U 2. 3n f»on • ?2 n‘ Xr» 5*(ra ca(» «-4o 3 »> g g i:5* ?r <>» UJ0 T3 9C 1 ? 2 O* E! I’ Ui u> Ut ?g E! =.I'I 0 «;< to O VO S 5a C R 1 2= i’ncn I n0 3. 1 3-o'D O ••• 2 2 p—• X S g -i'So D. C g Ch«o Ui Kt •O o 5 &> Ul 4^ 50 50 V 8 •a 3 S O re re JO O Efl K Ifire o fT o* 2 & » 50 3%> *tJsr i S S'3 • « 2?s? 8 <o S n 3 ? ? « 3 O Q. c/j “ go. o S- 2re PM« re UJ VO ?5l - § (ra' CD o(/) si ’ 2." & 3re *5 O 2 2 K. S' ■3 a Wo FT< ■ 2= E‘ 3n 0 (/I 1 n03 1 3 • 3 O 'II 50 0 (u O. 1 >? Mt 4i&>o < 2. (j Ra(/> f* CL *D § no n Rr* •o 2.o o-1 K?r»re3</>o3*re CL reO. *3Co* cr re 6 F n (/) ? > S 3 Cre < o 3 3 o o re CL scn ?01 § a TJe PI > H O (ja- 2.re^ crcroc •1 5- to oj i,n,r 2 rsi| •fl > 5 fc.-<o K ia oS|9 ► 9 ^ S I '<4 ^ n-MiSgSo n ^po^ ^ ® S D ra Hn CD PI % % <> Ik Pertinent Ordinnnee Section 10.12 - Vacation of public stfect/road. Application: The implication involves a request to vacate 36* of unimproved right-of-way of Hill Street originally dedicated in the Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka plat. The southern 4' of the right-of-way has already been vacated. List of Exhibits / ■* - B - C - D - E - F - Application Plat Map Property Owners ’ List Map Locating Proposed and Already Vacated Areas of Hill Street Applicant's Plan to Divide Vacated Right-of-Way Letter from Douglas Nash Approving Proposed Vacation Review of Application The applicant proposes the vacation of 125+' of the most eastern portion of the unimproved dedicated right-of-way of Hill Street, originally dedicated in the plat of Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka in 1912. The southern 4’ of the original 40’ dedicated right-of-way has already been vacated. There is no record of a document number so staff has been unable to determine the year of the vacation. The legal description for 300 Crestview Avenue provides no references to the earlier vacation. The Public Works Director has been asked to review’ the proposed vacation and has advised applicant to proceed with the vacation finding no current or fuUire public use for the 36’ right- of-way. Municipal sewer lines are not located within the unimproved right-of-way. The applicant's surveyor is reviewing the proposed vacation with various utility companies to determine the need for utility easements. The Public Works Director w’ill ask for the dedication of a drainage and utility easement in exchange for the vacation. Property owners on either side shall determine the appropriate location for the drainage and utility easement. Zoning FUe #2139 June 7, 1996 Page 2 Review Exhibit E, once the vacation is completed applicant will proceed with a lot line rearrangement proposing a new division line within the vacated right-of-way to be located 8 ’ from the southern lot ime of 290 Hill Street. Tom Betz, the owner of 300 Crestview, will gain a total of 32' of the vacated right-of-way (4* from earlier vacation plus 28' current). Both property owners shall be asked to execute the Drainage and Utility Easement. Please review Exhibits B and F. The property ’ to the immediate east of the vacated right-of- way achieves access via Lot 6, Block 1 to the north and notes no objection to the City vacating this portion of Hill Street. Staff Rccommcndatioii 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 Cresniew 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 benefiting property owners. The vacation petition will be presented to the City Council as soon as City staff receives confirmation from applicant ’s surveyor regarding location of any existing utilities within unimproved right-of-way. 1006 4^0 -n 0 1t * .i f •) \ .:f^, * »'. *./< .‘•=^ V^~-CL_i. ‘ / Application # ^ ^3 9 Bhatc Received S' n~ /■T Amount Paid *30 0. cq CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION ^ ^ Site Addresf /1a»'C^4 xP _______________ _______ v Type of Application to be Filed V Property Icpntification Number (P.I.D.) ^0^3 ~ r,no>\*^ ertv Ici-ntification Number (P.I.D.) OS^-//7-<^o»yj itncAAJ i>t>3oc.c«ioeu.-u;, X/urf S« TKiWoc-Jei^v/eHi -^Ke. -AN-^. 'phonefhnmA^ ?>-‘^9VfAPPLICANT^j A Phone (home) 3^ /-^Z Name ^f\Cy>Q^ PSTt 2-»______________ Phone (\^‘ork) ^^*Tyyj-€Z Zip OWNER (if different than applicant) Name________ Address____________________City Phone (homeX Phone (work)_ Zip. Date Property Acquired CCC/v*---^ I (do)^o n^ also own thef^ adjacentadjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERiVHTS - _____$ 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application _____$175.00 Residential Accessory Use _____$250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) _____$225.00 Guest House/Guest 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 PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change fi-om original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS _____$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) y $300.00 Vacation _____$200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision ______$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 ------ Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. g. 9. Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. Certified Property Owners List of owners within 350', labels and plat map (you must obtain thi.«; list, labels and map firam Hennepin Count>* Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348 3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surv-eyor) - refer to handout for survey information. Attach 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 property. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owner(s). Construction plcn, 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. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO SLTPLY 30 COPIES OF LARGE DOCUMENTS OR COPY FOR REPRODUCTION (11" X 17" OR SMALLER) FOR ALL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. (Staff will require to scale drawings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applicant and Propertj ’ Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:___________________________Date------------------- 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 unusual expenses incurred in review of this application, and certifies that the infoimation supplied is tiy^^d correct to ^e best of his/her knowledge. Applicant's signature Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorized reasonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council .members h^purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Owner's signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City ofTicStzS 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 advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior tc the meeting. --------- ; ' / 'i—> *,3, , ' -» .n.: ^ ^ " (23 ;gi .4 3 ,N f! S 5:(‘50) 1 B:__1 3 ! "si '' ^j N 7 1 (28^ b • 6 1 r>^------------------ i\ ' M29)k 4 ^ •'w! ^ (30)1 1 i ^ 1 — ?n0OK ■}T r i i, !25.^-5 S . !6 i5 i,! -:5.:5 40a| (gg 1 *' *1 -r&=—r ( !c) !s^(29)1-^ ' 1. I J 1—^^ S‘ 14 ■ _<^i E p I- (zV;^1 I S 4 (2 i) "b'1 “ I 55)i B ^ ]? / r-p-) 5 U2)5 lI ______1 •• ' 1! b! ^ i-----------------------p-(23) —!i ^ » (g) («) *^uip ' i'e) ?■ Q ( 26) ^ w ® V 25'! j,r <C ' !25.25 p=!2f-.2b “ ., 125. .*5 ^lfTfl'25.25 : iS - l« b I \ tj \ 1 12^’ •25.25', i h- ------ » '* y;i5^ , - ''• yj! i'V.'(a:) ®i^(3o; ®!^r — — I L4,j ~ i?16 y-ip , V ■' I rijr^n * ____i (40; (31) ^ ^ V“'' t( -rp > ^ i 5 ^ \------ W !^5 -5 ^ C 1 r— ■ J ■■ u i'l:': !b : . B !\ i (50)1 B sB 5t',t- f1L_ nr' I - ^6 t' 5 4C ^j ' <e^^0uTL0T B ( 46) EAST __?0C X iX 13 B,• P B r- iH.25,'' d ifV ^ / (Oil (33) r ^ 125.25 i 1 1j ^ ;'57)B 11 * — 00 ^ :'2.5. .25 ■j •-.» 36) n5};(32) 1 50 >1 Vb’J/ v\^\ ,'bV cd ; If V' •|25:.G V 257.8 ). 26 \ 308.9" r4e5'42'1.5-Vk '22) \ '' 'O-' \'i^.STFf^fl ^>r,Wl/TN / ----/ V ‘ 1 V :r .-O r^rs It / A-^-“ iuL P-[I'/1 * RUN DATE 05/lA/n . \O »MTCH 509 HENNEPIN COUNTY PIK^ERTY IHF&mknm SYSTEH PROPERTY CRtlERS LIST REPORT NO. PX455A01 PAOi 25 PROP AODR OltCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 56 05-117-25 13 0028 00295 TONKA AVE MIR SCHNXTZ HENRY I ROSIE SCHHITZ 295 TONKA AVE L0N6 LAKE HN 55SS5 56 05-117-25 15 0029 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ESTHER N AOOISON ESTHER H AOOISON 5582 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 55556 56 05-117-25 15 0050 05600 BAYSIOE RD 0 4 S ESTERS DANIEL 4 SANDRA ESTERS 5400 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE m 55554 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TA>0>AYER NAME/ADDR PROP AOOR 0!1NER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 56 05-117-25 14 0005 05260 BAYSIDE RO 0 J NYHAlfCR 4 S 6 OLSEN DALE J 4 SUSAN 0 NYHAMMER 5260 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 55554 56 05-117-25 14 0010 00056 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED DOUGLAS L NASH ET AL DOUGLAS 4 SHIRLEY NASH 270 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-25 14 0006 05510 BAYSIDE RO J N NOJCIK 4 K L HOJCIK JOHN H NOJCIK 4 KIT L HOJCIK 5510 BAYSIDE RD LAKE LAKE MN 55554 38 05-117-25 14 0011 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO DOUGLAS L NASH ET AL DOUGLAS 4 SHIRLEY NASH 270 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 56 05-117-25 14 0009 00270 CRESTVIEN AVE DOUGLAS L NASH ET AL DOUGLAS 4 SHIRLEY NASH 270 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55554 56 05-117-25 14 0017 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO DOUGLAS L NASH ET AL DOUGLAS 4 SHIRLEY NASH 270 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55554 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR (BtlER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR 56 05-117-25 14 001^ 00290 CRESTVIEM Al*!. PATTY L CLAPP PATTY L CLAPP 290 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55556 56 05-117-25 14 0021 00255 CRESTVIEN AVE MICHAEL L MCCALL MICHAEL L MCCALL 5544 PIPER RD ORONO MN 55556 56 05-117-25 14 0024 00265 CRESTVIEN AVE C MOSLEY JR 4 S M MOSLEY CURTIS JR 4 SHANNON MOSLEY 285 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-25 14 0019 00255 CRESTVIEN AVE S T ANDERSON 4 C ANDERSON S T ANDERSON 4 C ANDERSON 255 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55556 56 05-117-25 14 0022 00265 CRESTVIEN AVE L E BARFKNECHT 4 j C MORGAN L E BARFKNECHT 4 J C MORGAN 265 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55556 56 05-117-23 14 0025 G0265 CRESTVIEN AVE C MOSLEY JR 4 S M MOSLEY CURTIS JR 4 SHATtK3N MOSLEY 285 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-25 14 0020 00245 CRESTVIEN AVE GARY F GOLL II GARY F GOLL II 245 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-25 14 0025 00275 CRESTVIEN AVE HAROLD R HANSON ETAL HAROLD R HANSON 275 CRESTVIEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55556 58 05-117-25 14 0C26 00280 TONKA AVE P 4 K SK006 PHILIP A 4 KAREN S SKOOG 280 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55554 V/ .V vj, •k.z.y V • • • ' '\ i'' 'I /■"» “v laJN DATE 0&a«/9i BATCH 509 HE^•4EP1N COUNTY PROPERTY INFO«ttTXCM SYSTEH PROPERTY OMCRS LISTPROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADDR OI-MER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP ADDR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR 0»tCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR PROP AOOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 05-117-23 lA 0027 00280 TONKA AVE PAR SK006 PHILIP A A KAREN S SROOG 280 TONKA AVE LONS LAKE MN 55358 SB 05-117-25 lA 0030 00315 CRESTVIEH AVE 0 S A J N PLAISTEO DAVIO S A JOY H PLAISTEO 315 CRESTVIEH AVE LONG LAKE S535A SB 05-117-23 lA 003A 0003B AOORESS UNASSIGNEO ESTHER M ADCISON MRS A L AOOISON 5382 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 55358 SB 05-117-23 lA 0039 OOSAO TONKA AVE BRAD 0 PETERSON BRAD 0 PETERSON 3A0 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55358 38 05-117-2S lA 00A2 00300 TONKA AVE P A SKOOG AON CHRISTENSEN PHILIP A SKOOG 280 TONKA AVE ORONO MN 55358 3B 05-117-23 lA 00A8 033AB BAYSIOE RO HARRIET HEHL HARRIET A HEHL 33AB BAYSIOE RO ROUTE 1 LONG LAKE MN 55358 38 05-117-23 lA 002B 00250 TONKA AVE GERALO L BRIGGS GERALD L BRIGGS 250 TONKA AV LONG LAKE MN 55358 38 05-117-23 lA 0031 00325 CRESTVIEH AVE NILLIAM L SULLIVAN HILLIAM SULLIVAN 3128 BOTH ST E 810 MPLS MN 55A17 38 05-117-23 lA 0035 03382 BAYSIOE RO A L AOOISON ETAL MRS A L AOOISON 3382 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 55358 38 05-117-23 lA OOAO 00330 TONKA AVE L L Af«>ERSON ASA ANDERSON OAVIO CHRISTENSEN 330 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE m 55358 38 05-117-23 lA 00A3 00300 CRESTVIEH AVE THOMAS R BETZ THOMAS R BETZ 300 CRESTVIEH AVE LONG LAKE m 55358 38 05-117-23 lA 00A9 00330 TONKA AVE STATE OF MINN STATE OF MINN lONR) I LUCE LINE TRAIL) REPORT NO. P1A35A01 PAGE 2738 05-117-23 lA 002900230 TONKA AVE S A OLSON AKA OLSON STEVEN A A KELLY A OLSON 230 TOMCA AVE LONG LAKE N4 55358 58 05-117-23 lA 0033 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO BERT L AOOISON ETAL HRS A L AOOISON 3382 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 55358 38 05-117-23 lA 0036 00038 ADDRESS UNASSIGNEO ESTHER M AOOISON MRS A L AOOISON 3382 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 55358 -.Cn p 38 05-117-23 lA OOAl 00320 TONKA AVE L L ANDERSON ASA ANDERSON DAVID CHRISTENSEN 330 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55358 I •K - • •Iu 05-117-21 14 0047 03332 BAYSIOE RD HARRIET A HEHL HARRIET A HEHL 3348 BAYSIOE ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55354 V I; * • - 1* 36 05-117-23 lA 0052 03390 BAYSIOE RD BARBARA JOAtME HUBER BARBARA JOANNE HUBER 3390 BAYSIOE RO LONG LAKE MN 55358 r 18*.»T.I. jei , RUN DATE 05/1A/9A HLWEPIM COUNTY PROPERTY Xf^ORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY DNhERS LISTBATCH 509 PROP ADDR ONNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADDR Sa 05-117*23 1^ 0055 002A0 CRESTVIEH AVE JEFFREY S MELBY ^FFREY S MELBY CRESTVIEH AVE LONG LAKE MN 55355 PROP ADOR OHNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 38 05-117-23 15 0058 03300 BAYSIDE RO 0 S A J T HUMPHREY DOUGLAS S A JAN T HUMPHREY 3300 BAYSIDE RO LONG LAKE MN 55355 REPORT NO. PI535501 PAGE 2838 05-117-23 15 0055 00320 CRESTVIEH AVE JOHN F LEHMEYER JOHN F LEHMEYER 320 CRESTVIEH AVE LONG LAKE MN 55355 38 05-117-23 15 0057 00350 CRESTVIEH AVE ROSE M MADDEN ROSE H MADDEN 350 CRESTVIEH AVE LONG LAKE Hi 55356 38 05-117-23 15 0059 Oi?375 LEAF ST EL1.TASETH P VOGT ELUil^«TM P VOGT 375 fAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55355 TOTAL BATCH 509 00051 1 n ■fV./ "'J - }4^" 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 TAXATION» TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF.. . .* t 'V • DATI Vi *• f • ' . Y\ i ■}, li 3 __ 3Tp-‘l 4 * ^(23/«! i 3 i' ^S S'(K) ■5i '' 6 'j. ': (25)i S ’; B 1 .!. 5>c .... snooK fr^H7T“ j I ^ . !6 .5 = :£5T!^ x:) C|^ ! No' -r^>—r r.t^X D *V • P*'o foScO 're <1^ o /r f^a-caY'^o ^i// vSTT* Is- l« sI (?:) H !-?^ * ' m iP {z»c c: w. w •-S ^ m '^3 1 i£ i'i A . • 1 55) • 1-^ j \ «• S\ :i tr ?. ta. ^ !q ;'Z4) ^-Lu!^'f X V »8) • Q(t6)? yl ® (35.1 vi‘‘<C t e -i c t 1 r e I125.25 if?=»l2: 25^ ‘^i I125 ^5 i;C! k_ * ^ • V-./f£ll!l< Lnb^%(29) « llr7il’:5. 25 1^ . '9 # * i5 ; ^ •v 1 •?' V*t 3 ^ i^2) ^'Sno/ i'^ o ?:e ■ j'25.35 : *— I i' i' > N.-^7, 4 • . p= ; d5b ^ 'i^ «ajp 5 .1 i: ^ ^ ^ 2 N —< • '->V<?* ' ' \\ <i,\X <5"^ V •- /5^'OL'T l O' b (46) i ^ P fS-J^ \r. 3ot-< T(35) ■ 125. 25 a 97-. 'i/ V'^134) -.' / EAST 200 CO -•4 50 36) ! 44 ; 5C- I.ii Vn5):(32) V\ V^(45),<-,^ ' . \ \ to XA \i^\-' ^'^'' '60 V 40 or 1 o ;oi 1 1'c- '■• 'i'_5__.?. 1 1 '6 1 .h57) i 1 VJ Oc : I 125.25 |co ■ .J a8 . <i3 / •4; I 1 / y^r L-"r^'2 to ,■'40'.. |v •»»> > ^5.25 ) / ^in1 y.... 1 1 1---^ [ 1 1 OF « ' LOT (5) j !6 [ 1 1•i 1 i 67... 1 ._75._J. 11 j 11 1 •125:.6 *P.............r-.C ^ * . O ::,A v.c i. 25 ro fO ijrrLTLT n p TTrt V s^’v,' l^p. * hla TTDnrj Kl 3C5.97 .ve?"42' 15" A CO y! 601. .''j \ CZ2) STlii^f! y» i vO /n).7V’» /T'\Jyn o 267.29 o.u 243 05 fu > 1 i J_PLst of Survey for AlMrt T, Kuro of Lot 1, f. Pcytl-?, Addition LnVe yir.n«t.-nka H^nne-^in Co -nty. Minnerot* • i>eMO '^ot Pr<yci^J CITY OF ORONO r • il —s r ii;-' ?• 3t‘ 4 0’^‘ '*X90 C.>r^srt~[J tc.u^ \ tj <d*ioJ^(xo^ hi Cxf/i-TKYl^ M A'or^r! iv^sr W ( TT-( ^ aJ UAj-e> C*rtirictto of Survey; Block o* Buyside Addition tr* L«ke .Mlnn*i*.2nlc«*’, H'^cori^n-’ to th»> »n<! ill vlalbl.. ^rrir,«rh-r>nti.. If «r.y, fror or on 5i.1q lor.5. reel*: 1» ss 30* Date : 2-2-77 o } Iron !ncrk«r Gordon R, Coffin Reef Ko. 60.-4 Und Surroyor and Planner Long Leke, Mlnnoaota To ii u r» ‘ r.-it . •' ■/ €3i%%»• ^ I i r.*•- ^ * » .O .* fJ f". '7)^0^CG)\/CSLnyyi ~ oa MxA /)» Oufi. o-v^ CSU^-fif /J-/L.U ibb Aft tn MAY ?. 3 I98G 2 . TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Park Commission Ron Moose, City Administrator FROM Michael P. Gaffiron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator DATE June 12,1996 SUBJECT: #2134 Robert and Tara Allxecht, 1810 Shady ’wood RoadI > Variance (After-the-Fact) • Revised Proposal - Referral from Council Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshorc Residential, V2 acre Application: Request for afrer-the-fact hardcover variance for construction of new deck on lake side of residence. Note: Applicants have revised their proposal and Council has referred the revision back to Planning Commission for consideration. List of Exhibits A - Applicants' Revised Letter of Submittal/New Data/Exhibits B - Referral from Council C - Planning Commission Action Notice 5/28/96 D - 5/16/96 Memo and Selected Exhibits Summary of Revisions 1. Additional detail provided regarding use and function of driveway, and the 255 s.f area proposed for removal. 2. Front entryway sidewalk area revised to result in no hardcover increase. 3. 4. Landscape paving blocks along north side of house to be omitted. Net result is 205 s.f decrease in hardcover in 75-250' zone, as compared to 35 s.f decrease with original proposal. 5.Staff will accept the 75-250' zone area calculated by the surveyor at 11,590 s.f rather than 11,100 s.f This has the impact of slightly reducing the hardcover percentages, although hardcover square footages are not aficcted. Issues for Consideration 1.Is the revised proposal, with a greater net hardcover decrease, more acceptable than the initial proposal? J Idr Zoning File #2134 June 12,1996 Page 2 2. Have applicants provided sufficient additional information to show that a hardship exists? Staff ReeeBBendatioB If Planning Commission determine that the revised proposal yielding a greater hardcover decrease, in combination with the additional hardships suggested by the applicants is sufficient to justify the requested variance, then a recommendation for approval would be i^ypropriate. Whether or not a recommendation for approval is forthcoming. Planning Co mmission should address the need for an after-the-fact permit for the lake^re stairway. Optkms for ActioB 1.Recommend approval of aftcr-the-facl variances under the revised proposal, including payment of aftCT-the-fact variance and permit fees, and addressing lake stairway. 2.Recommend approval of the revised plan as noted above, with specific additional conditions, and addressing lake stairway. 3. Table for further information/further discussion. 4.Recommend denial, give specific reasons, and address after-the-fact permit for the lakeshore stairway. 5.Other. A Robert and Tara Albrecht 1810 Shadywood Road Wayzata, MN 55391 June 10,1996 Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Oystal Bay, MN 55323 Ladies and Gentlemen: We are requesting that the Plar.ning Commission reevaluate our variance application based on the file and the attachments to this letter (multiple copies). Best regards, Rob and Tara Albrecht 471-8708 cc: Mike Gaffron EB01:883677 t m.*.210^SAMLiII TlWaiiii iiM I IIImraran^-nc /-tut:«-.-ic. ju^.- Jt:r:fnKAm~r:TxrcT.'^i'cmLi. :.,y 45^ • -4-2- New Data Albrecht Variance Application 1810 Shadywood Road Application No. 2134 June 10, 1996 1. Original Exhibit shows that our driveway varies in width from 20' to 22’ and covers 2,810 square feet of area. In addition, there is a 2<ar parking areaAurnaround near Shadywood Road. This size driveway is quite large for a house and lot of this small size made necessary by (a) the relatively long distance from the house to Shadywood Road, (b) the need fw on-site parking and (c) the need for a turnaround on the property because it is safer to turn around in our driveway than to back out onto Shadywood Road. Also note that there is 'no parking' allowed on Shadywood Road in this area, and therefore we and our guests must park in our driveway and our driveway turnaround. This too necessitates a larger than normal drivew'ay. If we reduce the width of our long driveway by only a few feet we can reduce the driveway hardcover by 255 square feel. The driveway will still be plenty wide for two cars, we will have maintained our parking spaces on our property, the turnaround won't be changed at all, and so the situation will result in a reduction in hardcover of 255 square feet with no disadvantage to anyone. See new Exhibit 1 (revised original Exhibit]) by Otten Bros. Since our driveway is used only by ourselves, the slight reduction in lane width of the two lanes in our driveway will not matter, as there is still plenty of room for two cars side by side. EB0I:883680 1 i 4 ■i • rarnm MUjQjy pnpr k* ^ ■if-, r 2. Please note that only the cxig'nal house encroached within the 0'-75’ lake setback zone. No portion of the 1985 addition and no portion of our proposed deck intrudes into the 0’*75' lake setback zone. See original Exhibits ‘H-2" and *F*. 3. The new deck does not encroach in the average lake setbacks of the homes nearby. See original Exhibit "N*. 4. Note that our neighbors most impacted by the deck has given their approval by original Exhibit and new Exhibit 2. 5. Our hardcover area and percentage are being reduced. See new Exhibit 3 and new Exhibit 4. Note that new Exhibit 2 is the Sathre-Bergquist survey revised as of 3-21- 91 and is similar to the cit/s original Exhibit •'E* except that the lot area within the 75’-250' zone of 11,590 square feet depicted on Exhibit 3 (top of page) was inexplicably deleted in original Exhibit *E*. We cannot explain ail of the different hardcover numbers in old City records. But we do know that the numbers we are presenting you with this revised application are accurate. There is a net decrease of hardcover of 205 square feet and, given the small size of the lot, it is a significant number of square feet. It is a 1.8% decrease. Also, the square footage reduction is in the 75'-250’ zone, the zone which is overburdened by your standards. 6. We do not think that our hardcover total based on our total lot area, including both the 0'-75' zone and the 75’-250’ zone, is out of the ordinary for the houses along Shadywood. Therefore, we think we are being asked only to be treated similar to the way others have been treated. £601:883680 I 7. We have children ages 3 H yeirs and 2 weeks old. If we put the children in the lakeside yard, then there is danger of the lake and they are aawling around in the grass and they are bitten by lots of bugs. If we can just get the children a little bit higher off the grass, then the bug bites are significantly reduced and of course we can make a safely enclosure on f'.e deck so that the children cannot get to the lake. Finally, the children on the deck can be clearly seen from inside the house, which would not be the case if we had a lower play area on our lawn. 8- Our whole problem with our house and lot starts with the fact that we have a sharply angled shoreline from northwest to southeast. This causes the original house to be partly within the 0'-75' zone. If the shoreline were more straight, we believe we would have a less serious problem in that we would be able to have the entire house outside of the 75 ’ zone and we could make a much easier layout of driveway, house, deck, front lawn and lake. Second, our lot size is small and there is no way around that. The hardcover percentage limitations you used are easy to work with when you have a 2-acre Orono lot. On a small lot, the percentages are overly burdensome. Third, because of the safety problem backing out onto Shadywood Road and the no parking on Shadywood Road, we need a larger driveway, parking area and turnaround than would normally be the case on a lot our size. Finally, our neighborhood is all existing houses and is now fully developed. There is no other land for us to acquire and there are no other houses to be built nearby that we know of. EB01:M3680 1 1 4 9. For the foregoing reasons, we think that there is a substanliat hardship to us if you do not allow us to build the new deck which is only 165 square feet in size. because the existing steps are 42 square feet, for a total new deck area of 207 square feet. No one else is being harmed if you grant this variance. We think ouf situation is unique and unusual. The reasons we need the deck space for our children are very important as a matter of safety. EBOI:88360O 1 tMAl letr»i •' -j*’’ *f •I.IMlit>11 fwt n* •#• IH l.tll >•%»!I»ltt O- \ \ \»r«Ut«r«l ikanp4f4 IttJWMt* UcwM Mb. till 3 S •J *• *•*.r^ «■: V. •» I V\ A Vy i)|ff Q s: u. ^•. *.^a;4 tisc' H2.y- Tf y/cxCi /"-rii^' • •%•••■•••• Uz D O o til ►- M s *»5 ooti « 3 <• (n H h* UJmm ►I Ul > rt M S >- O H *il UJ 5 >UJ X> H «» (O m/ I X ma nr •••• # ♦ L.-.:; !!•. Jir Jff L.vw^ar..‘,>-■: x^i-a —r»#i< c.-r-.-. m*w —nnaao UMOLMLiaiUaM mcM Ml (fa)«?>rm Moaer . VBi^ecHT Fe-ux^HcE, .... ---- (Wf s3/H^ kmm . y .^.4 1. A b'uJ 03>]in0 ‘i^ 17 — H SNQO 'sScvyfi *£;i\inj^-iCiiVAVDvTa s w o i>^ f n 0 3 u 5QNJ j 1S'm 'S 3 jOHS3>l^n :. v' ^ f 5 •;.• ^ •: •» ^ mm m \ - r*r.- ♦• • '•J — .. X. ! V*. ■ V • 1 '•if ^w.v * /; , m' %*i •.\ -4V Cc^ •r =^fc »'• I E <WLc--'< ^ •• I : .^{ m m• •• Ol.^ *S Svx 6 \AA.«-miCs '-^ V' . AJ Ml . sertjriic. L-n-1L ■i a ,0.'.J .••. f .V^ ' .<■ ,;• “A - 2.c> -^Ja • A ^ • :’ 5 tXX/ . /> ~S :r^ ^ o __ aiOL-w.vjc<: C^s-erts-^ 0-3T \ ^ O O *■ <^ ■ i ^ —4J .\J _^>—«i —j_?<_ .^, g t, —^ Vv_*sr5.»<^ p-=^-V_V^ . Douglas R. SeaOolt 1800 Shadywood Rd. Ofono. MN 55391 1 * s »mjma^ieK *9m> -m - . » June 10,1996 HE'D EXHIBIT X ^ 'll ~'^C» To whom it may concern. We are Mr. Albrecht's neighbors at 1820 Shadywood Rd. Mr. Albrecht has made available for our inspection his plans for improving his property with landscaping and increase in deck size. We feel the addition will improve his property- and beautify our neighborhood. Sincerely, 7 Hardcover Calculations New Ejdvbit 4i rvl i *2 ;k Zone:75^250’ Existing Hardcover in Zone A. Hd^w/garage 1653 s.f. B. Driveway 2810 s.f. C. Front steps and sidewalk 124 &f. D. Entryway dedc 155s.f. E. Preexisting rear deck and steps 144 s.f. F. Landscaping at front entry 115 s.f. G. Landscape timbers around sandbox __30aL TOTAL 5037 s.f.i Total hardcover in zone 5037 s.f. * total property in zone 11.590 s.f.2 = 43.5% hardcover Proposed Hardcover In Zone A. House w/garage B. Driveway C. Front steps and sidewalk D. Entryway ded( E. Proposed rear deck and steps(144 s.f. oid/165 s.f. new) G. Landscape timbers around sandbox TOTAL 1653s.f. 2555 s.f. 124s.f. 155 s.f. 309 s.f. 4832 s.f. Total hardcover in zone 4,832 s.f. 4- total property in zone 11,590 s.f. = 41.7% hardcover Net decrease in Hardcover 205 s.f. (248 s.f. less then the 1991 approved amount - file no. 2134, resolution no. 2955) 1 Orono 5/16/96 report page 2 2 New Exhibit 3 t-1d a, • II I • j rifi8? Sf5! |i 1^* I r •• 5m 4.*- VtL ' 5« Vf 4 V 41^XJ HOUSE, DHIveWAY. & LAKESHORE LOCATION LOT 22, SHADYWOOD prepared for: gTFVE TIBBETTS —^ry [! * I 5i i ! g {I3 f » -ft K / *N.lo tr Z CD $ m X •cr w» • u> SATHRE • BERGQUIST, INC. IM iOUlM •AOAOVAt • «»*f2Al* MM llJVt • 4MMOO REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 5, 1996 ITEM NO.: DepartmeBt Approval: NaaM Michael P. GafhtMi Title Asst. Planning Si Zoning Administrator Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Zoning Item Description: #2134 Robert Albrecht, 1810 Shad>-wwKl Road - Variance (Afler-the-Fact) Request for Referral to June 17th Planning Commission (Revised Proposal) Lbt of Exhibits A - Applicant's Letter of Request B - Notice of Planning Commission Action Sn.%/96 C - Staff Memo of 5/16/% This item was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their May 20th meeting, which resulted m a 5-0 vote for recommending denial. Since then, the applicant has revised his proposal and is requesting further review at the Planning Commission's June 17th meeting prior to Council action, which likely will be scheduled for Council's June 24th meeting. Options for Action 1 , Refer back to Planning Commission. 2. Deny referral to Planning Commission, direct staff to schedule the item for Council's June 24th meeting. 3.Other. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends this item be referred to the Planning Commission for review at their June 17th meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Refer this item back to the Planning Commission for review of the revised proposal on June 17th. Proposed Motion: Moved by , seconded by , to refer the revised proposal of Zoning File #2134 to the Planning Commission for review on June 17th. Vote: _ ayes, (O nays. y 1 -.V' 4 0%k- Robert & Tara AR^recht 1810 Shadywood Rd. Wayzata, MN 55391 6/5/96 To: CityofOrofKJ P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 City of Orono. We are requestiriQ a Planning Commission revaluation of our variance appilcation based on new data acquired and a resubmittai of plans. Best Regards, Rob & Tara Aibredit 471-8708 i •..I ■miaiMUiiiaiieau V L . C CTTYOFORONO P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE #2134 NOTICE OF PLAiNNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: Niay 28, 1996 TO: Robert Albrecht 1810 Shady wood Road Wayzata,MN 55391 COPIES TO: TYPE OF APPUCATION:V^ariance (After-the-Fact) DATE OF MEETING: 5'20/96 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commbsioii recommends the following: £)enial for reasons noted below. NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Denial recommendation was based on; - Excessive hardcover given the history of hardcover increases on this property. Prev ious approval resolution indicating no further encroachments should occur in the lakeshore yard. Previous approval resolution finding that existing driveway is appropriate. This item must be placed on the City Council's June 10 agenda. However, per our conversation, staff will recommend that Council refer it back to the Planning Commission's June 17 agenda for review of your revised proposal (this will be a "consent agenda" item on June 10, you don't need to be present). 1.Additional infomation, including your revised proposal and written materials, should be submitted by M'ednesday, June 5 if possible in order for the Council to refer it back to Planning Commission. Please let staff know if this isn't possible. 2.If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. 1 ■; P TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator c. fHOM: DATE: Michel P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator May 16,1996 SUBJECT: #2134 Robert Albrecht, 1810 Shad>^x»od Road - Variance (After-the-Fact) - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IC, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1/2 acre. Application: Request for after-the-fact hardcover variance for construction of new 207 s.f. deck on lake side of residence. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property 0\vners List D - Letter from Neighbor E -1991 Sur\ey F - Enlarged Su. 'ey wth Sketch of New Deck G - Deck Plan by Applicant H - Submitted Hardcover Calculations 1-1991 Hardcover Calculations J - Submitted Landscaping Plan K - Photos L - Resolution #2955 M - Selected Exhibits From Prior Variance Applications N - Topographic Map Pertinent Code Sections 1. Sect: jr. 1 0.22, Subd. 2/Section 10.56, Subd. 1 6(L) - 75-250' hardcover limited to 25%. b^mmary Applicant began constructing a deck addition to the lake side of his existing residence this spring without a building permit. The inspections department discovered this, stopped the work, and advised the property owner that a hardcover variance is required. The deck meets all setback requirements. Zoning File #2134 May 16, 1996 age 2 The deck constitutes 207 s.f. of hardcover, of which 165 s.f. is new hardcover and 42 s.f. is over the pre-existing steps. Applicant also proposes sidewalk and landscaping revisions resulting in a net increase of 54 s.f. hardcover. Applicant proposes the removal of portions of the existing driveway, to result in a ne: 75-250’ hardcover decrease of 35 s.f Hardcover Historv In 1984 this property contained a small residence, and was owned in common with the (then vacant) lot to the north which contained a detached garage serv ing this hw The owner at that time, Mrs. Johnstone, was successful in gaining City approval to allow the two lots to be sold as two separa e building sites. Resolution #1718-B required that maximum hardcover allowed on the 1810 Shadywood property shall be 2,775 s.f, i.e. 25% of the 75-250' zone. A permit was issued in 1985 for additions to the residence subject to the use of "grass pavers" for the driveway, with a stated hardcover proposal of 19%, meeting the 25% limit. In 1991 it was found that the then owner, Steven Tibb -ts, had paved the driveway with asphalt, and further had constructed decks on the property without tf.e appropriate approvals. Tibbcts ultimately was granted variance approval via Resolution #2955, which allowed hardcover on the property to increase to a *- el of i pproximately 5,080 s.f For some reason, the area of the 75-250' zone was at that time determined to be 13,500 s.f rather than the 11,100 s.f used in 1984, hence the hardcover level was approved at 5,080 s.f/13,500 s.f or 37.6%. Hardcover on the property currently includes the following items: (Area of Lot = 17,545 s.f based on 60.5’ lot width x average depth 290' per 1991 survey) (Area of 0-75' zone = 6,445 s.f) (Area of 75-250' zone = 11,100 s.f) Hardcover Item 0-75' zone 75-250' zone Stairs at lake (3xl9)+(6xl3) Portion of house (19xl9)/2 Remainder of house w/garage (49.7x22.4)+(8.5xl0.4)+(28.6x22.1)-180 Entryway deck (7x22.1) Front steps and sidewalk (Nom.) Driveway (Nom.) Pre-existing rear deck and steps (12x12) Landscape area at front entry (Nom.) Landscape timbers around sandbox (0.5x72) 135 s.f 180 s.f 1653 s.f 155 s.f 124 s.f 2810 s.f 144 s.f 115 s.f 36 s.f Totals 315 s.f (4.9%) 503 / s.f (45.4%) Zoning File #2134 May 16, 1996 Page 3 Total hardcover original!) approved, 1 ‘'84: 2775 s.f. Total hardcover approved, 1991; 5080 s.f. Total hardcover as of May 1996, excluding proposed partially built deck: 5352 s.f Proposed deck, net hardcover: Proposed sidewalk/'landscape revisions, net hardcover: Proposed drivevvay hardcover reduction: Net proposed hardcover changes; + 165 s.f + 54 s.f • 254 s.f. . 35s.f Proposed Final Hardcover: 0-75': 75-250’; 315 s.f ( 4.9®/o) 5002 s.f (45.1%) Planning Commission may wish to review the 1991 approval resolution. It raises two specific important points; 1. In Finding No. 3(e), Planning Commission found that the existing driveway (as it exists today) provides the necessary safety level for vehicular use on a busy County Road. For that reason. Planning Commission felt it was not appropriate or necessary to reduce the size of the driveway , '• 'lich reduction is currently proposed. 2. Condition No. 2 stated that "The City will approve no further encroachment of the principal structure (this includes decks) within the lakeshore yard. " The meaning of this condition is unclear, however, the Planning Commission Minutes of April 15, 1991 suggest that no additional hardcover should be approved for the property April 22, 1991 Council Minutes do not shed any more light on this. Lakeshore Stairway The 1991 staff memo noted that the lakeshore stairw ay was in disrepair and would have to meet current standards of maximum 4’ width, maximum 4’x4 ’ landings. That stairway has since been rebuilt without a permit, at a width of 3' on the 19* long stairway portion with a 6'xl3' landing along the shoreline. That stairway/landing system is technically not in compliance with code, comprising 135 s.f of hardcover where a compliant stairway would be approximately 90-100 s.f in area. Average Lakeshore Setback After further review (see topographic map. Exhibit N) it has been determined that the proposed deck will not encroach on the average lakeshore setback as defined by the neighboring adjacent residences. Zoning File #2134 May 16.1996 Page 4 Issues for Considentioo 1.Given the ever increasing hardcover on this propeit>-, which now comprises more than 30% of the entire lot area (compared to the DNR's 25% standard) what is the justification for allowing additional hardcover near the 75' setback line in exchange for reductions in the driveway fat from the lakeshore? 2.Does the 1991 Planning Commission comment that the driveway is appropriate "as is" suggest that its partial removal is not a reasonable trade-off today? 3. 4. Is there a hardship that justifies the proposed hardcover trade-offs? Is the non-compliant lakeshore stairway and landing so far out of compliance that it should be rebuilt, or should applicant merely be required to obtain an after-the-fact permit for it, leaving it as is? 5.Since . pplicanl did not pay an after-the-fact variance application fee is there any reason he sh: rot be lequired to pay that fee? If the variance request is denied, should the after-the- fact variance fee be required? Staff Utco^^-ftdation In order to u».oimnend approval of this variance request, Planning Commission must be con^iiccd that a hardship exists, and that the proposed trade-offs, or additional required trade-offs, will justify granting of the variances. The history of this prop>erty clear!) suggests that it currently contains extreme excesses of hardcover, virtually all of which have been created in "after-the-fact" circumstances. If Planning Commission recommends approval, staff would recommend the payment of the after-the- fact variance fee, and whether or not the deck variance is approved, applicant should be required to obtain an after-the-fact permit for the lakeshore stairway system. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval of after-the-fact variances, payment of after-the-fact variance and permit fees. 2. Recommend approval as above, with specific additional conditions (addxessing deck as well as lake stairway). 3. Table for further information/further discussion. i Application #i.l3^ Date Received V- Amount Paid ^ ^ cC CITY OF ORONO - VAglAfiiCJ^PPLICATION Initial Application F«S220^ A (S50.00 per each additional v^ance) ^ rIar^Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) C*r 'X V Variance for non-conforming structures SS^O.OO After- he-Fact Fees (Double application fee) * •* • .. K9m .n PROPERT\^ nVFOR>LATION , Site Address 5h»d 1W.*^D -----tM Proper!)' Identification Number rP.I.D.) 3il OC'XT— Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date PropcrjjAcquired MAH R<=U ____________________(month/year) I (do) fio n<^ also ovsti the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: X residential Zoning District: other (specify). V i Phone (liome)applicant /> t {_ Name ^r,k»lL4- AW^fUrKr , Phone (work) Hlj-SlOS----- Address: t^lO H JU:>HV\/DO D Ul) City:_Qfi^.»J Q___________Zip:_£illi OWNER (if different than applicant) - Name *Rahea.4 C.. /u/i ^IkftecU.** Address: li'jo SriAO( U;oo0 RO- Cit>':__j|^R^^:^ Phone (home ) ^ 71 * 0^ Phone (work) ^T1 Zip:_55!i3_L Estimated Construction CostDESCRIPTION OF REQUEST -------- --------^ - ----------------------- Describe request in detail: ^ p<5P>^-Tov C.T QgaveMlA:;^—AN A IAftki5CApj. ^ ev Cr’AQ rUetV;. (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 difficult)' or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements:______________________________________ 4.^ LnLiP aa /A N\eiLQu>/ U-V Hnj ^4 bAcX q-^ uy<V-j ■V-AKt»stjp /\aj uvuSoA, AMa\jj4 ar^ InAAd •iW/ r«^-tli<r w'Afk of" 4wn CAg-*^jWe. Anv wrlliWr. >v*.gAnu/ 1.1— * (atickrVi chMtQ if necessarv^ ^(attach additional sheets if necessary) 7 REQUIRED SUB:.. .TTALS All of the follnwin^ informarion must be submitted bv the application dcidline date in order for vour application to be considered compiete:. 1. 2. J. 4. 5. 6. > 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property Owr.ers List of ov^Tiers within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Countv- Department of Finance, A-603, Govi Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8‘/»" x II" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor &. elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8‘/»" x II"). 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 yauc variance application ii 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 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 mvestigation and verific^n of this request. Owner's Signature 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 aU 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 B.f AJtJVO 70I 6P '-/2. if. li ^ » - TO: FROM: DATE: Chair Peterson and Orono Park Commission Ron Moose, City Administrator Michael P. Gaf&on, Asst Planning & Zoning Administrator June 12,1996 SUBJECT: #2137 William and Susan Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane • Variance Continuation of Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR*1B, Single Family Residential, 1 acre sewered. Application: Request for average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, 0-75* hardcover and lot coverage varianres to allow conversion of existing deck at southeast end of residence to a room kidition. Note; this item was tabled at your May meeting to give the applicants an opportunity to redesign the addition in order to decrease the visual impact (i.e. lower the room, or move it to a location on the face of the house opposite the lake) or consider relocating the spa into the basement. Applicants have submitted a revised plan for your consideration. List of Exhibits A - Existing/Original Proposal/Revised Proposal Elevation Views B - Proposed Cross Section/Floor Plan/End Elevation C - Notice of Planning Commission Action 5/28/96 D - Neighbor Acknowledgments Submitted 5/16/96 E - Memo and Exhibits of 5/15/96 Revised Plan Applicants' designer, Carl Smith, has revised the proposed addition to lower it slightly and incorporate a shed roof rather than an extension of the main roof of the house. The revised plan is 272 s.f as compared to the original proposal of 271 s.f, as compared to the existing deck at 295 s.f. The 10' side setback will not be encroached. As noted in the May 15th memo, the proposal results in a slight hardcover decrease in the 0-75' zone, and will still constitute an encroachment of the average lakeshore setback, an increase in lot coverage by structures from 15.6% to 16.7%, and constitute added structure less than 75' from the lake. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the proposed revision address Planning Commission's concerns? Zoning File #2137 June 12,1996 Page 2 2.Arc there any specific measures Planning Commission would recommend to mitigate the impacts of the additional structure if it is approved? 3. Although hardcover will decrease approximately 23 s.f. from the existing, are there further hardcover reductions that might be i^ropriate? Staff RccommeBdation In order to recommend approval. Planning Commission should establish that there are sufficient hardships to the property that support and justify the request. Planning Commission should consider if there are further *^)propriate hardcover removals, or other conditions, which would help to minimize the impact of the addition as revised. Options for Action I. Recommend approval of the revised plan without further conditions. 2. Recommend approval of the rev ised plan with specific conditions. 3. Table for further discussion, further revisions, or additional information. 4. Recortunend denial, stating specific reasons. 5.Other. iM. A-l •. — i: » 1 • 1} 1 _ ^iUrrriiixI • '•:v- r'— p- .i f '* 1 j r* \ ^“T • Czr\ JSe-V'SEnc:) PI2opos.ct:> pTZoPostrT;;^ A -2. •i tiCSABaUMUb feL^VA*Tl0^4 •S'^'i' ute -» »iSO c\^> HtT. V 1 1 »• no ,' ■W' (vi>^oou.‘. StlCT' o e/U. e z ^ t & ’•'it* "ZS O j ■'31 ■pUDOlS- PLA v4 // / // \\Ss" p l/i/ EUBVATI oM c C^Z -vl- CITY OF ORONO F.O. Boi 66 Crystal Bay, M.N 55323 473-7357 ZONING FILE «2137 NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE OF NOTICE: Mav 28, 1996 TO: William & Susan Dunklev 2709 W’alters Port Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 COPIES TO:Dale Gustafson 1845 Wisconsin Ave. N. Golden Valiev, MN 55427w ' Carl Smith 610 Pleasant Vieu Rd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 TYT iu OF APPLICATION:Variance DATE OF MEETING: 5/20/96 VOTE:5 FOR 0 AGAINST Planning Commission recommends the following: Tabled for reasons noted below NOTES AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS: Motion to approve as proposed failed on a vote of 2-3. Application was tabled to give applicant an opportunity to re-design to decrease the visual impact (lower the room, or move it to a location on the face of the house opposite the lake) qj: consider relocating into the basement. Applicant’s next scheduled meeting is dependent upon receipt of additional infor mation. Deadline for the June 17th meeting is June 10th. If you desire certified copies of the official Planning Commission minutes, they are available from the City Recorder after review and approval by the Planning Commission. fiK !f K anjKm M OmTi 2*^19 K m fiui I «i fM tia^ • rw Lm 1,1^^ ii • .Off tf •§ mw IMI »wr «K« »f «M Mki| •• mpM I«4 ilt tHi «■• •■ Off Ami «■ MfMi li aM • mtm ^wii WtiM W%m4 %m40t 10mm. m' mitm ifito □ K«Mi««nk IQ «f Wt ftfliSlI fUMu^aiiMi tai iPfllit ^ ^^ ^ ^ ‘* ^ ^ fKattuaKr ------ ----- U7f~ ^ viu> in'M r^^-lS-K liO i« 23 »I?4 h CS:K^ ZK.ym m «.f.Cl/« •'ir l| Mlf t. 19W Mr HuNrtltMi 2?07 WaK«s K a U m EjucHior.MN SSlll 111 Hillua mi %mm OmUtf • 119$ Walim Fort U m DorHidMrt Fnrioiai m • «f]r of Umm mmmm ymkmftM »Mb »t »vt ^wtiof oa n^re «4 Mdiiioai ID our homo At lot tat «m Ot^ inmi our fo^uMi lo Md • acroto oorcft Wt tat m MOtaod al Mrloo^ 2jr *t dr irt ta lOiMM ^ m4 *t «t nquoMiv (ta «o WlOtaoi 10 arttaour WfioiUirmm Jtcfc to iMiicaoboiuoimbo U OBoroao$p% Wt irote «oofioiofWtplaotfbr*tpropoMidtcli F!omd tait« *«o fliot m4 iio oodoMd oofy of A m lota, iodicofeat Athtr four agrooatBi mit oor plaoi. or fotf OMd for fWWor ifilbrmaioa TMok fou m M.toct for jow ooop«otioiit X a^tt iMfUiiood unprovtmtim will cnhaiMt foo ooifMorlood «d 4 dwoforo Mto 00 taauoa □ lAroooMii *0 planood iiofro^ cfotnts wi« BUI and Sut Duiklof Naa^aMcooiaod rrjjf ±ZLrt'0^L Sificorolf, Sut Dundty SDaa Eoclofuroa -n*; « » ick lO Xk CWLJMI K. ra"«tii &fJ V> 2- MorA II iW WQ taloMlr rt3 mmmn Hn Um flrdM.W 5S311 Ciitf W.ftita wmoa ioA; • ra fm um liiflpwoi ii a oapf of Wo Mr ta M « fK Iliit Mm «o tafo «or^ io f^iin Bil dtaMta fMMWWidf Wt||i^ » omMomt mmi %otao« M ao Mi m oao Mm a «u8 mmmm kfWo ipt Wt voMo ^aoA, or four ootO for n b«*w« ta* <f M ftaa for foo pMpwM 4aM taofKa tai O Waa oood 10 foiOM foo ■ wail M aod Sut DoMior riir-t!-K k£: 18 24 ncu iOli:C}i C m;L0CM| m NC. I12!7?S2«I P Ck/OI Mtf 1. li Sortratt HaUidAf 32*5 Cwaao load tudiwf. I>€4 SSnt II; WilHaoi tod SiHo«DuoWtf.r*t9Walltn Port Uoo Dow Sorwao Bocioaod m a ooff of foo Iota wo aoMio fou tw fiar wMo wo wtrt woitiai ^ mftin aad oddMooiwourMta AidMMoWoCMdotadtafifniitiaiiiHraooforolL WaMvf a»w rtaovod all Mrdoovor «asopi If M dmw aad roMioi wdla lod wo VO fOfuaiWif *01 wo M ollowod 10 todoto our curraoi badroow doak ao foal il coo hoM a wnoU oaorolao kfdro tfo (ficiwt of If a ooeioatd) Wt art alao tixloaiai oopioi of fot plaoa for foo profoiod dock *U m roviow focac pitoa and foto itfA and mum foo oocloaod copf of foia lota. lodicaiaBi oifoar four agrttrotri wtfo our piwu. or four iiood fiw forfoor loformtoow Tkaok you to advaoco foi four coopaauoof P a l/wt afioo tbo flaflAod Maprovooina wiU 00 WMMa. foo oaiihkoilood aod fooroforo Mio l»t atod 10 diioiM fot plaoaod Mpro^taitatt wifoBill and Suo DooUoy Niao^iddraaa and phootiuafoor **I KlCUibdflya cotaaii mo# Sicctrtlf. Svii (Xuikity »0m Bocloluri uiaii CxU.j^ ~/z -‘/C> To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, City Administrator From: Date: Subject: Michael P. Gaffron, Assistant Planning & Zoning Administrator May 15, 1996 <>2137 William and Susan Dunlclej, 2709 Walters Port Lane - Variance - Public Heiutng Zooing Dbtrkt: LR*IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential, 1 Acre, Sewered Application: Request for average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback, 0-75' hardcover and lot coverage variaiKes to allow conversion of existing deck at southeast end of resideiKc to a room addition. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B C D E F G H I J K L Letter of Request from Landscape Designer Plat Map Property Owners List Sketch of Proposed Room Addition Survey Site Plan-Existing/Undcrway Site Plan Including Roof Overhangs and Proposed Conversion Area Letter from Neighboring Property Owner Resolution No. 3619 Overall Landscaping Plan Hardcover Review Pertinent Code Sections 1. Section 10.22, Subd. 2/10.55, Subd. 8/10.56, Subd. 16 (L) - No hp-dcover allowed in 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - No encroacliment of average lakeshore setback is allowed. 3. Section 10.03, Subd. 14 (C) - Lot coverage by structures limited to 15% of lot area. 4. Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - 75’ lake setback required for all structures. Zoning File #2137 May 15, 1996 Page 2 Pertiiieiit Facts I.In October 1995, applicants were granted a vj^iance to add an entry way and replace retaining walls. A proposed 10’ x 33' enclosed porch and 10’ x 16' open deck on the lakeside of the existing house were specifically denied in that application. Approval was conditioned on significant removals of hardcover. Most of the work, incliKling hardcoNer removals, is underway or has been completed. Applicants now propose to convert the existing deck at the southeast end of the house to an enclosed room for a swim spa. The rwm will be of a slightly different configuration than the deck, and slightly smaller in footprint area. The proposed addition will meet the required 10' side setback, but requires the following variances: Additional structure less than 75' from the lake. Change in character of hardcover in 0*75' zone (chajiging from deck to enclosed structure, net result is hardcover decrease of 24 s.f.) Increase in lot coverage by structures from 15.6% to 16,7%. Additional structure encroaching average setback line. Discussion Please review the letter from Dale Gustafson of Gustafson Design, who is representing the Dunkieys, and the letter from the neighboring property owner, Douglas Bell. The applicants’ need for the spa is related to a health condition, and apparently the spa cannot be incorporated into the existing house. Planning Commission may wish to have applicant address whether there are other possible locations on the site that might accommodate this addition. Applicants have completed significant hardcover removals per the previous approval conditions, including the removal of extensive (and what turned out to be very deep) rock beds. Permits for the entrywa> and retaining wall work were issued after applicants' surveyor had provided detailed hardcover calculations, indicating a final hardcover (consider this as "current hardcover"^ of 35.4% in the 0-75' zone and 49.0% in the 75-250' zone. Recall that these were reduced from 49.6% and 74.2% respectively. The current proposal results in a net decrease in the 0-75' zone of 24 s.f. of hardcover, reducing that to 35.2%. The average lakeshore setback encroachment includes virtually the entire house, since this property sits on a point, more or less, when the lagoon is taken into account. The proposed spa room location is such that no significant views of the lake enjoyed by neighboring property owners will be affected. t . Zoning File #2137 May 15. 19% Page 3 The slight increase in lot coverage by structures, and the provimity to the lake horc of the proposed spa (^)proKimately 40' at the closest point) are some\vhat related in that they address the bulk of structure on the property, and in this case, its visual impact from the lake. Although the proposed addition meets the required 10' side setback, it will to some degree reduce the perception of open space on the pn^rty. Vegetative screening such as some shrubs and small trees, might help reduce any negative visual impact os viewed from the lake. Issues ftor ConsideratkHi I. Is there sufficient hardship demonstrated to supp<>n the proposed variances? 2. What specific measures might be appropriate to mitigate the im^jaeis of the ttlditional structure if it is approved? 3. Are there any other locations on the property where this addition might be more appropriate? 4.Although hardcover is proposed to further decrease as a result of this addition, are there further hardcover reductions that might be appropriate? Staff Recommendation In order to recommend approval. Planning Commission should establish that there are sufficient hardships to the property that suppor* and justify the request. Planning Commission should consider if there are further appropriate hardcover removals, or other conditions, which would help to minimize the impact of the addition. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval without conditions. Recommend approval with specific conditions. Table for further discussion or additional information. 2. 3. I f 4. 5. Isv Recommend denial, .stating specific reasons. Other. W-j n Aca-v.\ ; .K ■ • V '/ < • > Application # 3^^f '/ Date Received r Amount Paid r! 3d- ** A 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) ? .• V'anance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-F;K:t Fees (Double application fee) PROPER Site Address TY INFORMATION , hit dress f/^ »* **) /t^v » \iliUL Property Identification Number fP.l.D.) tl I 2 ^ ------------------ Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propert>- Acquired.___________________________(month'year) I (do not) also o>vn the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propeirv; residential ___other (specify) Zoning District: C j ^ ________________________ APPLICAOT —pv. / / Name /t( .7//^.. ’i Address: "y 7r^ />V. /< /rH/p City: PhcMic ("home). Phone (utwk)_ Zip: / OWNER (if different than applicant) Name ‘_____________________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Citv:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTi,ov.rv*« . __-<_____ Construction Cost $ Cf Describe request in detail: /~\rl\"<rf"y vp\.ff t f r\ C-. <,r: ruVT--------- ' (attach additio^ sheets if necessary) 'j.r\ v^\L V VARIANCES REQUIRED X. Lot .Xrea __ Setback: ___Lot Width Front Side Hardcover Lot Coverage Rear >C 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:_____________^^-------------------------- i v>Tf \ LicV> w ^ ^ \ rt *1 Ac* c c ncK r.c------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) r-itf ■ ■r VI ,ur^r_ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information muit be submitted bv the dttt .jP ordtr for vour application to lx coBsIdgred coroplcttl 1. ^ 2- ^ 3. JL 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Propertv- 0%Miers List of o\«iers within 150 ’, labels and plat map (jou must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin Counts' Department of Finance. A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271). Cemficate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcov'cr calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/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 8 ‘/i" x 11" 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 ovvner(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 yflllt variance application i< not complete if the above information has not bttll inclttdtdi APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE ^ u u ^ The applicant herebv agrees to provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Administrator, agrees to additional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) and'or consultant expend incurred ) in revievy of ,this application, and certifies^ that the information supplied iy true :md his/her knowledg^ ^ Applicant's Signanire(;[^|^^f /' V t J OWNER’S SIGNATURE ^ ui rhe owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authonzes 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 Signamre 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 cf each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i 8 •justafson Design Inc. ^ :tK'544DD:«.Hpr .v“Hi Ptre::p.o:B gustafson design, inc. Apii26.1996 Ms. Jeanne A. Mabustti Building and Zoning Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN S5323 0066 - ^ a Dear Ms. Mabusth Attached is the application for the Ounkley residence for a vanance of the 75 foot setback rule, and hardcover rulings The owners are requesting variances to allow for the conversion of the existing deck into a spa deck for the installation of a swim spa for medical reasons. The inclusion of this feature will change the structure from a deck to an enclosed structure attachod to the house. The current plan allows for a very slight increase in the hard cover. In light of the large amount of hard cover that has been removed to date, the increase of 2.6 square feet seems reasonable. Please advise me if there are other considerations that need to be considered. Thank you very much. 1845 Wisconsin Ave. No. Golden Valley, MN 55427 tel (612) 544-4215 mil DAT! 0%/ri/fAHATCH 502 €NNrn mm TAXHAYfll NAME/AOra PMP AOM ONNCH NAME TAXPAYER NAHE/AOOfl PROP AOOR OmCR NAf« TAXPAYER MAHE/AOOR SS 20*117-23 14 0007 02AW REUY AVE SAM KAPLAN CARY OIRNRAUH 249S REUY AVE EXCELSIOR m 55331 30 21-117-23 23 0045 02704 HALTERS PORT U H M i S R OUNKLEY HILLIAM H i SUSAN R DUMCLEY 2704 MLTERS PORT LANE EWELSIOR m 55331 30 21-117-23 23 0044 00030 ADDRESS UNASSICNEO DAL UPHOFF DARYL L I LUCY S UPHOFF 2444 KELLY AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331 I^NNEPIN COUNTY PfKJPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OMNERS LIST38 21-117-23 23 0043 C2 705 HAUERS PORT LA tOUULAS J DELL DOUGLAS J BELL 2705 HALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR HN 55331 30 21-117-23 23 0044 02/10 PENCE LA DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PENCE LANE E>XELSIOR m 5S331 36 21-117-23 23 OOSl 02710 PENCE LA DEAN E TERRY DEAN E TERRY 2710 PENCE LANE EXCELSIOR m 55331 REPORT NO* PI435401 PAGE 436 21-117-23 23 0044 02707 NAITERS PORT LA H 0 BLUNT AON BLUNT TRSTES HUBERT D BLUNT 270^ HALTERS PORT LN EXCELSIOR m 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0048 00038 ADDRESS UNASSl^D ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING INC ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNIIA3 INC 4530 IDS CENTER MPLS HN 55402 TOTAL BATCH 502 00008 % 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 TAXATION* TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLEDGE AND BELIEF ft) MIaA) 04-26-1996 OeUTfili FRLT C. A. Smith. Inc.5448065; P.0^ f N T I M V4 O O V e <r\ OWCMAJJQi OtVVTlKlGi oecic- utKie f vJr- I - C--' I • o" Pk>M^»4C> tarrjd 2«!S. i{i XT I ♦ ./• ! • i 1 •' TOTfiL P.02 i •t;.* ( »•/.. L \ \ H' Concrete Steppers oooo^^ Propsed Walls / n[ INKl EY RESIDENCE Gustafson Design, Inc. Dale; 10/27/95 Scale; 1* = 30 ’-0* 8 s- i ?: r • •1^• • X L? uc I—I c CP o l/> A r- • / New Vot uoverage / Lot Aiaa 31,146 49 sqtt I SlMCt U44 7$»qil I / «Ued slroctA23 1 ’8 sq ft 4 1 parcenta^covdMC » 22.67 gustafson design, inc.Dunkley Residence \ ns Wit««s Fon Ur»4| r «his4.« vn M^29. IMS«UcaMniAyt.M» GoMm v*y. MN S$427 TtlepluMt: (S12) SW • 1219 DOUGLAS J. BELL 2705 WALTERS PORT LANE EXCELSIOR, MN 553JI 612-471-8070 Jeanne A. Mabusth Building & Zoning Administrator City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway, P O Box 66 Crystal Bay. MN 55323 WM 1 Dear Ms Mabusth, Thank you for the recent Planning Commission notice sent to my attention regarding the upcoming May 20, 1996 planning commission meeting In particular, 1 would like to direct my comments to Item #5 entitled '*#2137 William and Susan Dunklev - 2709 Walters Port Lane". This past summer, 1995, the EXmkley's had the unenviable task of rebuilding the SW comer of there home because of some structural problems that had occurred due to settlement. In a very open and transparent manner they informed their neighbors of their problems and solicited our comments regarding the repairs necessary to correct this problem In addition, they asked for any other comments that we might have regarding overall improvements to their home Due to the extensive amount of *ork that needed to be done to complete the repairs it was necessary that they rebuild a rock retaining wall and small patio adjacent to the structural damage of their home. It was at this point that the Dunkley's engaged the services of costly professionals to assist them with the structural engineering, soils testing, architectural design, and landscaping design to bring together a well thought-out plan for the overall improvement of their propeny. During the course of this design pr~^icular emphasis was given to the stringent requirements of the City regarding setbacks, and hardcover issues They have reduced their overall hardcover and have taken every step possible to add additional landscaping and green area to the lot area. The design also took into account the upgrading that was necessary to take care of outdated and obsolete functional design and uses. In other words, they attempted and I believe succeeded in bringing the home from the 1960's in appearance into the 1990's while still attempting to meet the "spirit" of the zoning ordinances that apply to residences such as theirs and mine in this area. X As a neighbor, two homes away, I believe that the Dunkley's have attempted to satisfy all the city requirements within reason, that any owner of a 1960's built house on an irregular shaped lot being repaired and upgraded to 1990's design and functional use can possibly do i This overall project and the room addition, are a credit to our small neighborlKX)d, and to the City of Orono also. The City of Orono needs to encourage people to take the time and effort to make the kind of design and improvements that the Dunkley's have made and the improvements they are asking approval for 1 1 would like to respectfully ask that the Planning Commission give favorable approval to the Dunkley's for this variance to the City of Orono land use laws. If you have any questions please feel free to cail me. Thank you. Sincerely yours, Douelas V. Bell \tcj\ A T GITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ^619_____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MU’NTCIPAL ZONTNG CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1, SECTION 10.55, SL^DHTSION 8 ANT) SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (C) ANT) (L), AND GRANTING A CONT)mONAL USE PER.MIT PER SECTION 10.03, SLIBDIVISION 19 FILE .NO. 2073 WTIEREAS, William Dunkley and Susan Dunkley (hereinafter the "applicants") are the owners of the property at 2709 Walters Port Lane located within the City of Orono (hereinafter "Cit> ") and legally described as follows: Lot 4. Block 3, Walters Pon, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "propert>'"); and V\TIEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1, 10.55. Subdivision 8 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) and (L) to permit the construction of an entryway addition constituting structure and hardcover in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone where no strucmral hardcover are normally allowed, and requesting similar variances for an enclosed porch and open deck located within 75’ of lakeshore where no structure or hardcover is normally allowed, and for a conditional use pernut per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 for the reconstruction of retaining walls within the 0-75’ zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Mirmesota; FINT)INGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2073. 2. The propert>’ is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Page 1 of 8 CITY off ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.se 19 3.The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on September 18. 1995 and recommended approval of certain of the requested variances and conditional use permit and recommended denial of certain variances per the followmg findings: A.Planning Commission recommended approval oi the necessao' hardcover variance aiKl conditional use permit for replacement of existing retauun. walls finding that such walls are necessary to the integrity of e property, and that such walls should be constructed per the recommendations of the City Engineer regarding removal of the existmg wood walls prior to construction of new walls. B.Planning Commission recommended approval for repair of the driveway’, replacement of a retaining wall along the north side of the drivew^, and replacement of a front walkway from the stoop to the driveway, that such improvements are necessary to protect the driveway and the neighboring propert>> and provide access from the driveway to the house. C.Planning Commission recommended approval of an approximately IW s.f. front entry- addition to the house to alleviate a water problem due to topography and roof pitch at that location. D. in excess ofl6% where only 15® lot coverage by structures is and which additions would add to the bulk of the structure as viewed from the lake, and which additions would encroach into the average lakeshore setback. Planning Commission further recommended that substantial amounts of landscape hardcover on the property- be eliminated, given that existin^ hardcover in the 0-75’ zone is 49.6% where no hardcover is normally Paee 2 of 8 CITYofORONO RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL NO.9 allowed, and given that hardcover in the 75-250’ lakeshore setback zone is 74.2% where only 25% hardcover is normally allowed. Planning Commission finds that the hardcover areas recommended for removal are not necessary to support the integrity of the property, and there is no hardship to justify the continued existence of said hardcover in light of the current hardcover variance request. 4.The City Council has considered this application including the fmdings and reco mmendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the communitv. 5.The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property' in this zoning district; that granting the variances and conditional use permit would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property'; would not merely serv’e as a convenience to the applicants, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserv'e a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and variances to Sections 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2, Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (C) and (L) to allow certain structure and hardcover and retaining walls in the 0-75’ lakeshore setback zone where no strucmre or hardcover is normally allowed, as follows and per the following conditions: Page 3 of 8 i L... O.K O 1. 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. Approval of the replacement of existing wood retaining walls with modular block walls per the site plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. Existing wood walls adjacent to new block walls must be removed rather than buried, except in the locations shown on Exhibit A. Approval of the 100 s.f. front entr>'way addition as proposed, per the construction plans submitted with the application. This approval is subject to specific hardcover removals as shown on the "removals’* site plan. Exhibit A, and subject to the final site hardcover allowance shown on the "final" site plan attached as Exhibit B. The property owners are advised that all hardcover required to be removed shall be removed prior to footing inspection for die proposed entry addition. Applicants or their contractors shall obtain the appropriate permits for construction of the proposed entry addition and construction of the retaining walls. Further, prior to issuance of such permits, applicants shall provide a "proposed hardcover" survey correctly depicting the new driveway, indicating all proposed retaining walls, sidewalks, stairs, entry addition, etc. and all other proposed hardcover, including a 'proposed* itemized hardcover calculation by applicant's surveyor confirming the proposed final hardcover percentages in the 0-75 ’ and 75-250 ’ zones. The proposed 10*x33’ enclosed porch and 10 ’xl6 ’ open deck are specifically denied, and shall not be constructed. Any future hardcover placed or constructed on the property of other than the nature, location and area of that hardcover shown on the final approved site plan. Exhibit B, shall first require approval of the City Council, and likely will not be approved without substantial removals of pre-existing hardcover resulting in no net increase or a net decrease in hardcover on llie property. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (October 9, 1996). Page 4 of 8 I CITYofORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 8 1 Q_____ 8.Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of th<=! Zoning Code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 9.The undersigned applicants has read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of October, 1995 AT tST Prdpert>’ Owner(s)d STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 9th day of October, 1995, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. L.I. c 'tS Notary’ Public 4 ... « HENNEPIN COUNTY 8 ly Conmiiaion Eiplrg ,toi 31.2000 Page 5 of 8 I i ii raff / ✓ ✓ y y y ^ ^ ^ <1<1 •r^ctrc4ii 1^13 i: :^i !•(• 'I iM|llv< • || V I- 4tU<}n. Inc mo WiKonun Ate rto r.oJ<t«ri Vetnet. HN leleprtooc: [ril?l *j44 • 4?ib Dunkley Residence 2/09 Wdllcr» Piwi I arm ticelflior. MN » men - H I ^ X IUaIc AfiTkt^’O l*KWi Dunkley - Hardcover Sc Lot Coverage Summary I. Hardcover;0-75’Zone 07.290 s.f.) Existing 8-21-95 8577 s.f. (49.6%) Proposed/Approved per ResoI.#3619 6114 s.f. (35.4%) Current Proposal 6090 s.f. (35.2%) 2. Lot Coverage (15% allowed): (Lot area = 24,205 s.f.) Existing 8-21-95 3664 s.f. (15.1%) Approved per ResoI.#3619 75^0’Zone (6,915 s.f.) 5133 s.f.(74.2%) 3386 s.f. (49.0%) 3386 s.f. (49.0%) 3764 s.f. (15.6%) Added 100 s.f. entry Current Proposal 4035 s.f. (16.7%) Add 271 s.f. spa room i [ t i. # « f m I I- r f • • • Ki’Z4^^ W.^>a^i^c.L€;y ^ HARDCOVERjCMCULATlON vvORjvant.t i ‘ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) C^7SQ 75-250’ 25-500’ 500-1000’ EXISTING HARDCQVER IN ZONE A. House ____________ Un|6 Widih X X X B. Gtfey 8" 4^30 C. Driveway 5ngWBC5 X X D. Sidewalk /53 \tCoO ^ ________ c#* X • t E. P^Deck PATfO ZO.&X X 74,2 F.Landscape i Underlain _____ By Plastic. _______ Or Fabric • X X X / • G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A 6037, + B .. PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ Lcnguh Wulih Ti»^£eAS B. 0«Mg« 6*' X X ■ x- — * 4" X jr 6f 30 C. Driveway srippet,s X X D. Sidewalk /63 * 7C tU X X E. Patio/Deck X X X 100 • • • • *S-.. •«« • • F. Landscape f'V46L Underlain ** By Plastic Or Fabric X X X Bsr Z G. Other total hardcover in zone total PROFEn-n^ in zone ^ ,00 • • w • • » • 3664-S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Z4S - S.F. ^ c? •• S7S S F. 7 S.F. 7t^S.F. no •S.F. Z4! "S F. 103&S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 6031 S.F; S.F. 3^.09 f. 4757 • • S.F. • S.F. s;f. S.F. . 2ZS 46 S.F. /o 3T^ _S.F. S4 S.F. • S.F. S.F. • 2<7/S.F. /a3S S.F. 44 S.F. z.S.F. • » *S.F. 1• S.F. 6H4 -----. S.F. , , . • a B aB • • SETBACK ZONE: hardcover CALCULATlOilVVOKK^titti (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* (^-250^ 25-500’ 43^J Mfcrz^ 500-1000* •• EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE ft • S.F.•▲ Home % ^* • • Lcnrh X Widdt S.P. •# • t A X •S.F. ?..J X m S.F. I•# B X • S.F. C. Dnvc^vay X • 3^7^S.F. f X iM'S.F. • • • *••••«.- • • • •. . ^ « •. D. Sidewalk X ^S.F. j' X m S.F. • ^ • • E. Patlo/Dcck • X _ ft : • ftwm ►# •S.F. X S.F. i « • F Landscaoc • X ft • • ‘ ft •• «S.F. ai'Undcrlsin X .■■S.F. 1 By Plastic X -. * • .S.F. r Or Fabric •■ ft • • r. Other X T «SS .S.F. .TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE "fnTAf PROPPRTY AREA IN ZONE m 3/33 S.F. A• ••S.F. B •A 3/3-3 + B X 100 »4^i>3/% #PROPOSED hardcover IN ZONE ft •• i •••ft • ’ ^ • • % • A House X •m . .S.F. Length X Wkith S.F. X * • • • •■ •S.F. • X w S.F. • •WAO^€J„ IZ"X z/^ /s u/ /S'S.F. C* Drivcwav X • 3C7^S.F. • X • • • •‘M •S.F. r> Sidewalk 4' • ^ • • X • • • S.P. ‘ S.F.X m' • F Patio/Deck X ft m S.F. A A aakSWv • ••X ■■. .S.F. • F I andscaoe X . m * •S.F. *C* C t Tnderlain X * S.F. • , W liVAWAAtAAAa X . m S.F. oy ridauw Or Fabric G. Other X • ft 0 ft S.P. total H^IRDCOVER IN ZONE • • total B, - ..iAie. -»loa A :__ S.F. % • *•. 14 . /• •• B 1 ^‘2/-is ^ ^3 y/tn i. ri<*> ^ HARDCOV^ER CALCL'LA11U;N \VUKJv5Hl:.fc.j ' SETBACK ZONT: (CIRCLE ONE) (0-7^ 75-25Q’ 25-SOO’5QO-IOOO' EXISTING HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House S.F •i . X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. 3. i ** 69 So Z4-e " / ^ S.F. C. Drivc'.vav X X 3B9 S.F. S.F. D. Sidewaik /^3 lo U06C Srgf>^ ^ianc /^C m MJL • S’ f <9.S * -/o /z Cf S.F S.F E. Pasio/Deck V€c^ X X IS.Z Z9J S.F S F F. Lirdscspe U.^idcriai-T Bv Plastic ^06<t # mmmamm Or Fabric • X X X S63R S.F S F S.f G. Other S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A ssr7 ^ B nZ9o S67^S.F. S.F. X 100 4^.^/fm PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House _____________ *S.F. Lcngih WUIA X X X b: m S.F. S.F. S.F. 8. Garage S.F. C. Driveway X X S.F. S.F. D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. E. Patio/Dcck X X m ss S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other total hardcover in zone total property area in zone A -----------—-------- + B X 100 - S.F. S.F. % • • A B A B NV 4 .'ft ■ -rtAmS A =r~.. ai rl^ ..it ^ . Oaz/CuS / HANGOVER SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) f-Kii', ff.ft ^ ’^'oa.T^CALCIj LA11U> VVUl<Jv::)MlLiij 0-75 • EXISTING VLKRDCOVER IN ZONE A. House Len|:^i X X X B. Garage C. Dr:ve*.vav X X D. Sidewalk X X £. Paiio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabnc • X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A SlSB * B PROPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONT A. House X Length X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Pacto/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain • By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A f B 75-250 25-500 ’SOO-IQQQ 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 S.F. S/33 49/G 4^9/G X 100 S.F S.F 74‘.t3 %fQ 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. X 100 - S.F. S.F. % ' 14 A 3 A B J i. / TO;Chair Peterson and Orono Park Commission Ron Moose, Citv Administrator PH FROM:Michael P. GafTron, Asst. Planning St Zoning Administrator DATE:June 12, 19% SUBJECT: #2138 Joan and William W'roblewski, 630 Park Lane - V'ariances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IB, Single Family Lakeshore Residential. 1 acre, sewered. AppUcation: Request for hardcover, front setback and lot coverage variances for enclosing existing concrete slab porch. Lbt of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Propert) Owners List D - Survey E - Construction Plans F - Hardcover Calculations G - Resolution #2811 H - Selected Exhibits from 1990 Approv’al Pertinent Code Sections 1. Sections 10.22, Subd. 2/10.56, Subd. 16(L): Hardcover in 75-250’ zone limited to 25%. 2. Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C): Lot coverage limited to 15% of lot area. 3. Section 10.24, Subd. 5(B): 35’ front street setback required. Discussion In 1990 the Wroblewskis were granted a hardcover variance to construct a 4'x23’ concrete and block expansion of the 6'x23’ porch area at the front of the house. At that time, applicants did not plan to construct a roof, walls or railing for the expansion area and due to the lack of walls or roof it was considered as not encroaching the required front yard setback of 35', even though it is approximately 33' from the street lot line. Applicants are now proposing to enclose the porch and expansion area by extending the roof line and adding screen walls. This work does require a street setback variance, and constitutes a change in Zoning File #2138 June 12. 1996 Page 2 the nature of hardcov er, requiring a variance. Further, the new enclosure adds to the percentage of lot covered by structures. The lot is only 0.23 acres, hence both lot co\*erage and hardcover percentages are in excess of the limits. Note that current hardcover is actually slightly less than that af^woved in 1990. because s^licants have removed more plastic from rockbeds than was required in the prior approval. Pertinent Facts Lot area: Front setback: 37.2' 75-250’ EXISTING 10,001 s.f. (0.23 ac.) PROPOSED Same REQUIRED STANDARD 43,560 s.f. (l.OtK.) VARIANCE (E.xisting) 37.2'33.2’35'1.8’ 4,437 s.f. (44.4%) 4,437 s.f. (44.4%) 2,500 s.f. (25%) 1,937 s.f. (19.4%) 2,679 s.f. (26.8%) 2,771 s.f. (27.7%) 1,500 s.f. (15%) 1,271 s.f. (12.7%) Issues for Consideration 1.Applicants have provided no hardship statement, perhaps because the CUP form submitted did not request one. Applicants should be asked what hardships exist to justify the variances. 2.Please review the staff memos of May 15 and May 22, 1990. The slab porch approved in 1990 required neither a street setback variance nor lot coverage variance because it did not extend above the main floor level of the house. The Planning Commission in 1990 neither approved nor closed the door on future enclosure of the slab porch, but noted that a future variance application would be necessary to do so. Applicants were advised of such a requirement as Condition 2 of Resolution #2811. Therefore, Planning Commission should feel no obligation to approve or disapprove the current request based on any past action. 3.The property owners have removed most of the extraneous hardcover on the property. The proposed plans show a doorway and sqjparent use of the rock and plastic area along the front of the house as a walkway, which would possibly preclude the removal of that hardcover surface. That 6'x32' area is the one remaining landscape area which could feasibly be made nonhardcover. Will Planning Commission require any hardcover removals if the current request is approved? 1 Zoning File #2138 June 12, 19% Page 3 4. 5. Given the nature of the neighborhood, with a narrow street and some houses set near the road, is the proposed front setback variance appropriate? Because the lot is extremely substandard in area, existing lot coverage is excessive. This lot would normally be allotted 1,500 s.f of lot coverage by structures including house and garage. The additional 92 s.f of structure is a 0.9% increase to 27.7%. Is the fact that neighboring houses on the east side of the street are quite distant, a justification for allowing additional bulk of structure on applicants' property? Recall that the lot coverage by structures ordinance was adopted to address the visual density of structures in a neighborhood. It docs not appear there is any existing structure that could easily be removed to offset the addition. Staff Recommendation Planning Commission should determine whether there are specific hardships that support the variance requests. Planning Commission should also determine whether the proposed addition will have any negative visual impact on the neighborhood. If Planning Commission concludes the lot coverage, hardcover and street setback variances are Justified, you should also determine whether any specific conditions of approval arc necessary to minimize any negative impacts created. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as proposed. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Table for further information (specify). 4. Recommend denial (state reasons). 5.Other. m f. ft • . % •vu.i .'*■ Application # ^ / 3 ^ Date Received ^ - 9 - 9Cr > Amount Paid # Z2-g?2£. 4 CITY OF ORONO - GENERAL LAND USE APPLICATION PROPERTY LOCATION Site Address _____Pr}^2^c Laics’ iNpe of Application to be Filed Propert>' Identification Number (P.I.D.) d? ^ // V ~ 2.^ W ~ / V APPLICANT Name it LOjlIxi^ C(//‘c>l)lfLU'£M.t _____ ferfeL City OrcAo Phone (home) Phone (uork)_ ^01 3/^Z. Address Zip SS^SL OWTSER (if different than applicant) Name_______________________ Phone (home) Phone (vvork)_ Address Cir.'Zip. Date Property Acquired L /«^^V /^9 I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. (month/year) FEES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS - ik ^3,0 S 75.00 For each variance request with CUP application \IARiAh<:<='s fesue^TSb ^ R<2.CJ u 4 \1$175.00 Residential Accessory Use $250.00 Institutional (church, school, etc.) ^ <loo^r \)arvc\Y\c $225.00 Guest House/Guest Apartments . $200.00 Duplex Creditmidg 3^ STru.g.TM.re Cou^r<»^t $300.00 Commercial/Industrial Use feiTto S250.00 Land Alwraiion pCc^aaf-r, 6<j.4<aT«,, ____ Grading and filling - designated wetland or floodplain Grading and filling - 101 cu. yd. or more Grading, seawall, retaining walls within 75' of lakeshore PRD/PID - see Fee Schedule $150.00 Renewal Fee (no change from original application) After-the-Fact Fee - Double Current Application Fee OTHER APPLICATIONS ______$250.00 Commercial Site Plan Review (+ consultant fees) _____$300.00 Vacation $200.00 Easement Vacation $100.00 Easement Vacation With Subdivision $350.00 Rezoning (PUD - refer to fee schedule) ______$350.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment _____$100.00 Appeals Other - see Fee Schedule PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY Present Zoning District___________ . Present Use of Property Residential Other (specify). J V J »• % i .i » • K>- 2. j. dtREQUIRED SUBMITTALS 1. _____ Completed Application Form. Describe request in detail. ji /. Cenified Propem* Owners List of owners within 350, labels and plat map f>ou must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance, A-603, Government Center, 348-.>271). , . r Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) - refer to handout for survey information. . . . , • j Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Topographic survey (existing and proposed contours) if land alterations involve changes in elevation (pi-ades). 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). 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. D. 6. 7. 8. 9. SuLmm (S«ff wll rcqui« to scale dra^sings of all documents, plans, etc. to be submitted.) The Applic«.t and Property Ouner must sign this application. Please remember that your application is not complete if the above information has not been included. Certification by Clerical Department that Land Use Application is complete. Initials of Clerical Staff:^--------------------------------------------------------------- ThiftiS^ Lfeb^-^agretfm provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Id^frSs^mr a^^es to pay addhional fees (staff time not covered by original fee payment) Lurred in review of -Ws application and certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s signature Date----- ThTl^^e^rliere^y to this application and further authonzed entrv Lo the property by City staff, consultants, agents, commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and venfication of t^s request. Planning Commission Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a arumgemenu ro have an audrorizad agan. anend in your place and advise .he Building & Zoning Office of this change pnor to the meeting. I MaMOMliliti ' r* lui t IM4 OATI OA/17/99 NEMCAIN COUNTY MO»Hmr lNr0Rm*10N SVSTIN psononr CMCRS list MfCM 010 0«Ci M*»c TAXOAViO NAIC/AOOO TAXOAVfO NAIC/AIHMI moo AODO QlOCt NAHC TAXOAVCO NM«/AOOO MOO AOOt OMCR MMC TAXOAYiO MMC/AOOO 10 04-117-M 41 0001 00010 AOOOtSS WUSSIOCO STANICV M OUOO CfAL STAMicv N mum 401 OARK LANI LOIC LA»;C rt4 SSSS4 n 04-117*21 41 004t 0040S OAAK LA CNAOLfS A SCHALL A Hiri CNARLCS A SCHALL AOS OARK LA»C LONB LAKE m SSSS4 10 Ob-llT-rS 41 003'» 035*^ TARK la MEWuu um • Hire lAUC HCOtUM OA"K IA»S LOC IU£ K4 S1SS4 •, 04-117-21 44 0004 00*S4 H1WJET0*^A N6L0 LA MCNAHO SOEETEO UCNARO N SOEEIER 4S4 NlltCTOO;A NICNLANO LONB LAKE ttl SSSSa RtraiT n. 0I41S«01 race S2 la 04-117-21 41 00«7 OOSOS OARK LA IHOMAS C JimR e>.flA ItWHAS C-^TZEO SOI PARK lAfC lOriC LAKE Kl S11S4 ^ • r' 10 04-117-21 41 eoso 00407 RANK LA ■ OUOO A R OUDO RICNAHO A KATHLEEN RUDO 407 RARK LA LOIA; lake Itl 5S1S4 :o 06-ii7-rs 4) ooA«> 03104 RA»». LA STATE LAUD DEPT CUV or oRan STREET A ORAItaa • S/2S/04 SO 144101 50 04-117-21 44 0014 00410 RARK LA H E A J H NROOLEHSKI HILIIAH E A JOAIi HROOLEICKI 410 RARK LA Lore LAKE MM SS1S4 10 04-117-21 41 00401 RARK LA STANLEY N RUOO ETAL STANLEY N R liQO 401 RARK LAIS L9C LATE TV4 SSSS4 10 04-11 00050 A01 KAREN rUUEl KAREN rULLEJ 1477 Lore ^AKE' NCM ORICN]Sill? 58 04-117-25 44 0005 0C44R mtaftToroA mclo la JAUES~R HEIttlliaER ETAL . ■ JAMES K-HfrKI|»r.{R 44* HliOSTOTO A NCLieS <-c’**<*^*’ Lon LAr.c m SSSS4 50 04-117-25 44 OOlS 00050 AMRESS UNASSIONEO C I riEHINB JR 0 I 0 ELENINB C E riENlIC JR A L 0 flENlNB 400 HIMSTOTOU M16MLAND U Lore LAKE m SS1S4 OMSR NANI TAMOAVtR NAIC/AOeR i TOTAL OATCM 010 00012 *n y*'% f ^ >• .•#• »y .f -» . *' • • a. . • »«.. ^ ••- .\ ♦•- ‘ '' ••• V* ^ tf/vr, “3..- ■I *.V . • 'V %’vM V *.i( •ai ^ *■ ^ ‘ ' S ‘ • . .»< -•/- >'v ?^ '•’ f■ ■ -Wp r,.-M- *-r-V-r f ‘ h ec.^cri' } • r ^ V ^ ^ CVIPi I OUTLOr/ i >i‘. # * I i.. I *M I f. I {. V V i' { I• V i f .»• •/, I Pi^03 '■LI ^ \ ftL€ ' copy 6? So Uf*r*J^L i . ./ t * O /1» J W '~'. #%3«- £ftj<C£tr •■.- - „ .n Vc—.j^* ^ . • •-•4 --Tji-CS iStil*,«3H yir-.»»tnnka. r.^*-••—• — » f 'u*rj*.oso^Home sin Counw.., ------- .4, >-rt=43 UJ? I’i-r-e em corr :«ml./ __I^ri^^/tii^^-oowmftrios o:*! ^.^j.;. vi.-r.lr. —4* '_ of Coverr.=^r.i -c' rAr.ije ti;o jth ?rir.ci;al .^.orlci^in oci-*, ir.••3—b® *-• -___at i OCl"- -.........................*----_ ' t-f&9 rol'Lcui: Co-----------j; 4- -'-ir.’-.etonka, Sur:.— -.., o.- ?»r« iv=r.^. “ ......:rc= tl:r.r ■'----- ° ■ .,„4- Qj -'eat Sou'.neas-o--.’I ... -:^a £0U'.n-3t rorr.ar o: •--<--on, wnlch point is TAr.«c by & judicial *'-e 'nast line of on a li^-« „Z^-vcac sv •iudiclal lane-Low I to i point r::£i.«c . g *‘-f. South at rirnt anc;i« 1.1-.9 .««t r=ar.<, >...c..-« <u'^*c'al Iar.cr*.r£;“ 4 rdi=--».-.=. of ^-ss thence -a-ked bv <udiri?l Inncrjirlc; feet to a polr- J^0^3. 4 tv-e-ce deflacUnt: to whe .t«e..ce point in the distance 04 9c taet ■ ^ster-/ ^. ..^ - lencrnr’ic; thanra ce- la 78030* alon? the Easterly flactlns to -he .-K-t /c .. of 101 f««t to t..e 1 < na of said ?ar’< A.ver»ue a '*T^» 4, -rjjricftd by *udicia,i. Lar.cirjirk; Mint of beiTinnlni;, '-hic.n potnv --_ ..4 .vj^nds Estates, lying p»r-. of outlet 3. "L"~^rt of Cov.rr_-«r.t Lot 1. / T* • 7* ;7 . .-.r *•? I'l s 10' i-lC-76 I:^r. rtr'icer Judicial Is.ncm'* I ,&a°^ur-/eyor a.nd rlanr.er iani.ta’xe, Mlnr.eaoca 'BJi / • ! HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET >£TBACK ZONE: (ClRCl E ONE) 0-75 ’75-250 ’250-i SOO-li Exisnyc HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House V5*X X X ITitt iS_ fOiX r S.F. I ^ S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Ganse C. Drivewav 33 D. Sidewalk s /*/ E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Uoderlaio By Plastic Or Fabric ^2- G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER LN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA LV ZONE A + B io^co\ jPROPOSED HARJX^VER tN ZONE A. House Length Wkim X X X B. Garage C. Driveway '^htA.E X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio//Dec ^•23 F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric ■^c<cXi ----7 “527“ X X V X X X G. Other propertxarea S.F. •> ' \ 1 /I \ F. V / .(155 S.F S.F. S.F S.F. €5^ S.F. S.F. • •; .^*^1 X 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. d S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTYAREA IN ZONE A ^ B /C^.C^f X 100 S.F. S.F. /G.CrC> / S.F. A B X vy. 7 1 I I •» Cl City of OROIVO 6 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. h RESOLOTIOM GRAMTIHG A VARIAVCB TO HONICIPAL ZOm«G CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 PILE #1525 WHEREAS, William and Joan Wroblewski (hereinafter "the applicants") are owners of the property located at 630 Park Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows I Exhibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City for a variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 to permit the construction of a grade level concrete porch which constitutes additional hardcover in the 75-250' hardcover zone where existing hardcover already exceeds the 25% allowable hardcover. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, FINDINGS nJL •This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1525. 2. The property is located in the LR-IB Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on May 21, 1990, and recommended approval of the proposed variance based upon the following findings: a) Existing hardcover on the property is 49%, all of which is in the 75-250' zone. The applicant proposes to, in conjunction with the porch construction, remove an area of landscape rock and plastic within the property boundaries, resulting in a net reduction of hardcover from 49% to 45.6% on the property. Page 1 of 4 mss City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2811 b) The proposed grade level concrete patio is considered a non-encroachment in the front yard, and is not required to meet the normal 35* setback from the street. No structure above the concrete patio is proposed. c) Total lot area is 10,001 s.f., or 0.23 acres. The majority of the hard surface on the property including house, garage, driveway, and sidewalks, are all generally necessary for usage of the property, hence the opportunity for further hardcover reductions is limited. 4. The City Council has considered this applicata.on including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to the Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision I to permit the construction of a grade level concrete patio of dimension; 3.5' X 23' which constitutes additional structural hardcover in the 75-250 zone where existing hardcover already exceeds the 25% allowed hardcover subject to the following conditions: 1. Hardcover on the property shall not exceed 4561 s.f. or 45.6% Allowed hardcover shall be as shown in the site plan and calculatioi attached as Exhibit B. Applicants are advised that any futur* proposal to increase hardcover on the property will not be approved but might be approved only in conjunction with concurrent removals oi existing hardcover, resulting in no net increase of hardcover on th« property. Page 2 of 4 City of OROIVO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2811 2. Applicants are advised that any future proposal to roof or enclose the porch area in question will require a separate variance application because such an enclosure would be less than the required 35' from the front lot line. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 29, 1991). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 29th day of May, allin, City-Cler)c - Property Owner(s) James R. Grabe)c>^Mayor Page 3 of •. '*/« mm\rna *« ■ • ..1 Hr * .. ■ - V ‘Vv City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2811 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) /3*t day of 3T7-o>t 1991^On this _ _ _ _- - - - - - - -- -.i -- _ - _ before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeaired // o ^ Jr<rc /7n . LC)r"r\ !C± „ )cnown to me to ba the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. THtaitA L. HAAS MOTAIW njWJO - MMNiaOTA MENNIFIN COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this _________________ day of ____________________» a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appears ____________________________known to roe to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument. and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES i i Page 4 of 4 .■’ C '5'*'**'N Su?«^C Jittr friltr X.V£jt^;lotTT, HlRi»*t#»nV« HicM r4 <pS« PM> iiMJCHlc^-l«r.ds Sstatca U«nMOlA Co\ofit7, H*.rjr^totAlards laUt«s/ That part /17 North, / V n, de:erll«9 ^C*rtlflr«t« of Sunrar:I hxrabjr eartlf)* that VMs is a tnio and eorr*<“t rapraaanUtloM of a survay of Um bouncarlos of:U liiat part of Cutlet 3, Hirjietftn;^ Highlands -aUtos Ijrinc vlthlB tha followlnc-<laarrlb«d tract •f CevomBant Let 1, Soetion 4, Township 117 Maai{« V 'itott of U»o 5th hriaeipal Narldlan,fallaaoi CoaMknciac at a pelat Ir. th* I»starl - Ua» af Rirlt iv«aua aa pLattau In -hirnatoniia Su=.-J.t .Vi ■ Park* distant 43 foot Southoastorlyi aaasured alcrx hat^ eald Uaa, froa ths SouthtMot rorr^r of Lot l“,,^IIa«k f» said AdditloQf^uliieh palat la aarcad lir a jvdlcial laadaarki thaaco Seat S9.7 f%ot aa a Um at rl^t anclaa with the £aat lino of aal4 Ut 1 U a polaVaarliad'lqr'Jtttflelol land- I^V V aarkt thaaea South at rli^t aacUa U2.9 foot :ta a palat aarM her jadlelal laadmrk; 1*5✓ % ;> Sri thaaea South ?a*32' Haat a dlstaaeo of A.fS \^ faat ta a pr»lat aarhad hr Jvdlrisl Undaark: fl ■ - thaaea dafloctlae ta the'rlfht 44*43* U Vi LOT / i . I •Udlatanea of 9f foot ta a patat la the taatarVr Uaa of sold atrooti whirh polat la aarhsd hgr Judicial landsark: thonc« ds> floetlaa to tho rinht 7C«30* slenc the Esstsrly Um of aald Park Avoeua a dlstanc* of ICl foot to th« polat af bo/lanlai;, «dilch point is Mrlmd b/ Judicial landMrk; s/ That part of Outlet 3, PinMtonkii Hi^oLinds SLiUtos, lyinf vlthla tho felliwlnt dtaertbad tract: That part of Covomaant Let X, SoctloB 4, Tuunahia 117, Saaco 7?, cascrilMd as cosmnciag ot o polat on tho Bast Ilaa of sold Coaomasat Lot 1, distant 1317 faot South froa tha Korthoast eonwr of sold Goaamaaat Let It thonco Viast, ot ri;;ht anglaa to said Baat Xiao, 4X1 fo«t to tha Boat- orl7 Xiao of l^rk Aawnuo, as said avenue la shown on tha pXat of "Mlnaotonka Suaait Aaric*t thonco Southuostarly olene tha Saaturl/ lir.u of sold Hrk Aaonua a dlsUaea of 43 foot ta tha actUkX point of bocinnisw, which ooint la oorkMi hr o Judicial Laadaarh aot pursuant to Terrona fast )t». X197?t thanca Ssat aXenr a Xlna parptndieuXar to tho last Xlaa of said Cewumaant Let X a dittaneu of S?.7 fast, which peiat it aarhad^h>* a JhilciaX tandaark sat puruuant te Terrans Caaa 'ic, 119771 thanca Barth at a right‘aafXa 10 fa#t{ thaaea Woat ot o richt angle to tha Eaata Um of said Park Awontii} thonco SaatbwoaUrX/ oXeng noid BoatorXa lino te th« point of bofinniac* And tho Xerotloa of aXX oxistinc buildings thereon. It dees Mt purport te show srthfP li^woaaato or sncreschasnts. t X” • 40* Opte I t-XC.74 a I Xr*>n aorkor A I Judicial landasrk X/i-i Leroen h. forfla Nst^'^Ko, 4064 Land OuMoror end Plannar Long ^kO| Ninnasoto /cdLAc i^s;<’ie*^TfeAJ /0rsoM«T»rAi AM ■ yVO)/V W 0^ ^ W — ^So Z^iMT n^^T\t^€ yn-n TT*«cD* C#«rfct#fyo*^ m^/BOQi,%{, 0lO9rH»U //Smaco^i - /^0tf . /7» I c /*^/jL 0 ^ Mum Stoss' y/vr fiuM.*fiAgnc. /y^i^y ^irSO t r # « r t » 7<>r i> o 12. •« ,jT- *>. ’V’- ^ |> v'.C. V - /'ss' (6 /BO <3> /oy 5> I> VO (2> 3oa 4 ‘V'yit-V':^ ' y»^7 v.if 23 •/. owr«. cx«r/Ma& /tc* 33C» s^. Aeit.«»«fVKm • r ■c r un- Mwi-r • iei7'«<. • ‘fsyt,S.., ,Vs:c % •A •; Vr ., • - • •• «» •»» M To;M^yo: Grabok & Cror.r* Gounc* 1 Mrrrbf*rs City Administrate: I'ernbardson FroD:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst Planninq fc r.onina Administrarcr Date:May 22, 19«0 Subject: *1525 William <imi Jean Kroblewski - 630 Tark I.ane Variance - Resolution Zoning District - LR-IB, Single family lakeshorc residential, 1 acre, sewered Application - Request for hardcover variance to construct concrete slab porch 1* above qrade Sfist of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Notice of Planninq Commission Action 5/22/90 Proposed Resolution Memo and Exhibits of S/15/90 Discussion Please review the memo and exhibits of 5/15/90, Briefly, the applicants propose to construct a qrade level concrete patio extension to their existina open front porch. This concrete will be considered as a non-encroachment because it does not need railings nor extend above the main floor level of the house, hence it does not need to meet the normal setback. However, it does constitute a change in the nature of hardcover on the property, which required the variance. The Planninq Commission at their May 2lst meeting recommended approval on a vote of 5 to 1. The appl i cant s propose to remove an area of rock and plastic near the garage, which will result in a total reduction of hardcover on the property from 49% down to 45.6%. Planning Commissioner Cohen did not give any specific reason for his denial vote. The other Planninq Commissioners generally felt that the proposal was an improvement to the property# but noted that any future enclosure of this porch slab would require a separate variance application for encroachment into the required 35' street setback. Staff Recoawendation - Staff recommends approva 1 as submitted with the proposed hardcover reduction, per the Planninq Commission recommendation. A resolution for approval is attached tor your review. Isv I 1 i • OROfiO FLANNlftG COMMISSION MEETING HCI.0 MAY 21, 1990 ZONING FILE 11524-TRINITY PRE-SCliOOL CONTINUED -- tr.e procrar. voro offered ar loss three hours. aon—-1- “n- by Hanson, co reconunend Tnnrty Lutheran 1* arv»*star: rccorrutencations 1 on.. >iOtion, Ayes-o, Nays-0. .Votion passed. 11525 WILLIA.M $ JOAN WROOLCWSKI 630 PARK LANE VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:06 P.M, TO 9:10 P.M. Joan Wrobicwsfcx was present for this -atter. duly = Certificate of Mailinc were Hay ^ntained in .-.is oeno dated Kelley asked Ns. porch area.Wroblewski wny she needed the additional able trsrron't.?e\coL-.;'"'" =° and t?l“”bur.n«%rnT-rc:is:d:-^-‘’ Kanson asked whether it would no .»#f:r:e for the UDoiicants .o p*ace a roof over the poren v. .i.hoct obtaininc ‘var approval.lance Gaffron stated that ‘■'Jturc variance would be roquirod Sa.nc»- whe roor wouia constitute an encroacr.ncnt of the 35* street setback, -.t was moved by Johnson, sccor.dcd bv Ncos, to recommend approva* of the hardcover variance to construct a concrete addition to the porch slab. Hardcover in the 75-250* cone shall be reduced to 45.6». Motion, Ayes-5. Cohen, Nay. .Motion passed. 11527 LYNDON S. (BILL) STUBBS 2555 FOX STREET VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING 9:11 P.N. TO 9:30 P.M. .Mr. Stubbs was present. Mabusth reviewed the information included in her memo dated May 17, 1S?0. Kanson asked, taking into considoration the drainaceway that 'i \ Tos Pi^nnira Cctnyission Ch.Tirn).in Kollrv Orono Planning Con-:ri s*;irr. Mcml rrp City Adminir.tratoi Pcrnha!clson H ProBs Kicharl r. Caffrcn, Apst Planning i Toninq Administrator Date:Kay 15, 1990 Subjects #1525 William and Joan Wroblewski - 630 Park Lane Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District *- LR**1B, Single family lakesAore residential, 1 acre, sewered Application ** Request for harclco%’er variance to construct concrete slab porch 1* above grade List of Exhibits Exhibit A Exhibit B Exhibit C Exhibit 0 Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I Exhibit J Application Plat Map Property Owners List Survey Letter of Bequest Construction Plans Photographs Hardship/Unusual Property Conditions Applicants Hardcover Calculation Staff Hardcover Calculation and Sketch Pertinent Farts - 1.Hardcover is as follows: (All 75-250* Zone) Existing: <897 s.f. (49%) Proposed: 4561 s.f. (45.6%) Allowed: 2500 s.f. (25%) 2. The proposed grade level concrete pati' i- .onsidered a non-encroachment in the front yard, and dots not need to meet the normal 35* setback for the LP-IB Zone. The applicants indicate that there will be no structure above the concrete slab. No railing is proposed. 3. The proposed slab is above an area of existing rock ttnd plastic hardcover and existing sidewalk, hence the porch slab will not increase hardcover on the property, although it is a change in nature of hardcover on the property. Note that the applicant proposes to remove 336 s.f. of hardcover west of the oarage, resulting in a net decrease of hardcover on the property. t.(>. '• _ _ /• /v A- . __ ^ ( ".oninq Flic- #1525 •v.iy js, 19 50 Faqe 2 of 4k, Discussion Plear.c review the applicanrs chotoe.raphs and statement of hardsMp and unusual property conditions. This is an extremely small lot. The proposed porch slab in conjunction with removal of other hardcover on the property, would appear to yield a positive result and a decrease in hardcover on the property. It would seem possible that there are other areas of rock and plastic that could similarily be removed. Other than the rock and plastic areas, the only other areas of hardcover which could be removed fairly easily are the brick sidewalks. However, the sidewalks appear to be necessary and would not reduce hardcover siqnificantly if they were narrowed from 4* to 3*. Staff Recosuaendation If Planning Commission feds that the proposed hardcover reduction and the small size of the lot justify the hardcover variance to allow 3ddition of a permanent concrete slab porch, then a recommendation for approval would be eppropriate. Isv J-Ltr • 4 f < /•% w r’t /Wc ' i-C4^ LaI^€, ^ PXD cG-//7-e3 Crci»c "X>gaer>y4o»« feyg<»it 7)t^ Ca^t f)'u lat»/teai^ €xi*Jh Kt50*f MUl fS 3y^f+*23-M-. - ifcs^e to add a Cr<i<v?tc ‘•’ f * . f I ji %i (^tlf ♦ 4^^ fC^!o£M(D SiWfitf ■" ■ ■' ■I^.v ■•' i; S^. Sti <^ «>«l ,>ot<.4 r.1 -ti -tw ^oecU ^\cnor tc nd^n fu. d^r. ju ponsA co lt iwf r«cM Ovj/ .s. a^e-^ (XJ*« 3ro^ -fe moU -H^* 7U.cc^o..ll r^f -Cs 0v«4i to^ s' ttoiopj. X/^ aod^hv ,-le.e ■fit l'<va ««/- Oreo. <^ 336 af "tl a. r(ct>Jer- / c/r\- (Lt / U. Cc^+ ^ C^tA^lcfi tOe s; lesi. fJw>« ^cicc K<v€ ridtt^f-d I'toc^ • # / /? / '* TO:Chair Peterson aiKl Orono Plasning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Jeanne A. Mabusth^ Building A, Zoning Administrator June 10,1996 SUBJECT: #2140 Troy Anderson, 1490 Long Lake Blvd - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning Dbtrict: LR>IA Lot area ** 32,400 s.f Application: Applicant seeks approval of street setbt»:k variances for a single story family room action to the west side of residence and entry addition to south side. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review; 1.Section 10.23, Subd. 6(B) - Strect/front setback. Required * 50’ Proposed family room addition = 30’ (existing porch Variance = 20’ or 20% Proposed roofed entry = 42’ Variance = 8’ or 16% 35.1’) ■m 2.Section 10.03, Subd. 14(C) - Review of structural coverage. Total area = 32,400 s.f Allowed = 4,860 s.f or 15% Existing = 1,753.3 s.f or 5.4% Proposed * 2,144.9 s.f or 6.6% #■3 At J 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 75-250' setback area = 10,450 s.f Allowed = 2,612.5 s.f or 25% Existing = 1,670 s.f or 16% Proposed = 1,900.8 s.f or 18.1% B 250-500’ setback area = 21,950 s.f Allowed = 6,585 s.f or 30% Existing = 3,700 s.f or 16% Proposed = 4,290.8 s.f or 19.5% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Property Owners List C - Plat Map r Zoning FUe#2I40 June 10,1996 Page 2 D - Existing Surv e>- E - Septic Map F - Proposed Site Plan Gl-2 - Hardcover Inventory HI-3 - Ele\ations 1 - Floor Plan Review of Appfication Applicant seeks approval of street setback variances to permit construction of a 1 8'x23' family room to the west side of tl« existing residence located 30’ from the street lot line adjacent to Long Lake Blvd. Part of the family room acklition includes a new rear entry to resideiKe and family room. Note the rear roofed entry meets the required 50’ setback from the rear lot line (review Exhibits F and H1). The second phase of tlw improvement project involves the Installation of a 6’x6.8’ roofed entry at the front or street side off the two story residence to be located 42’ from the street lot line (review Exhibits F and H2). In 1993 applicant filed two variance applications. The first involved setback variances to permit a second story addition to the existing 1 1/2 story residence and later in 1993 applicant filed for setbcKk variances to permit construction of a 26’x26' garage addition to the rear or north side of the residence. In 1993 applicant was also required to install a new conforming septic system in their northwest yard. Statement of Hardships Please review Exhibit A, applicant notes the following: A. Existing structure was placed on property prior to the current 2 acre zoning standards. B. C. The shape of lot and location of residence on property. Applicant installed a new mound septic system in 1993. The proposed improvement will not have an impact on the existing septic system. D.The City has received no negative comments from adjacent neighbors notified of the current proposed improvement. 1 r (> ■■ Zoning File #2140 June 10,1996 Page 3 lifUCi for Consideration 1. Can the family room addition to the west side be designed so as to not > ncroach any closer Application #'’/VO Date ReceiTedl 9L, Amount Paid _£oaq i' CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) . Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) t S Variance for non-conforming structures S220.00 Afrer-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) I I • t PROPERTY INTORMATION l?j\ VCSite Address /^90 Z-C Hc. /_ o L-_________________________ Property Identification Number TP.I.D.) y/?-«33 - 33 - OOQ^ Attach legal description to application if not included on required surv'ey. Date Property Acquired________/ Q jQ D.____________________________^(month/ycar) I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property-: JkT residential ___pother (specify). Zoning District: / n - /A_____________________ APPLICANT^ A » Phone (home) Name /irTw Rione(wtaic) 7~ Address: Lc^c. LnU City: O?-Zip: S5TSSU OWNER (if different than applicant) Name __________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address;City:.Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Describe request in detail: V Vh.. . Oc^ fcVvaa.v'^ Estimated Construction Cost S QQ (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 preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: Wov^-g. Pr»o<^ -Wa_________ h»c.\c . a/^ _________ • >3J ______________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) f •# ♦ I REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information muat be submitted bv the application dtadli order for vour application to be considered compktei 1. 7 J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property QvvTiers List of owners wthin 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 surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as ^cqui^ed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8*/i" x 11” for reproduction. Topographic survev (existing and proposed elevations) it any changes in existing grade are proposed, In iiddition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" tor reproduction. Sketches or plans or tloor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/j" x 11"). List of the legal nam 's (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would inc/'j«k 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 retiuesited by City staff. The Applicant and Property' Owner must sign tliis application. Please remember that XJUiE 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 fe**s (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 twe and cor^t 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 nf investiMtion ^d verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date < Applicant must have all submittals into the City’ offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Plaiming 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 arraneements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 A# Ml^ d i lUI OATC 01/20/n. aATCN OM Ptm AOOR OMCl NAME TA)<PAVEII NUC/AODR Cill \\ u z»-iia-z3 IS 0001 014M LONB LAKE BLVO J N CARONER t A L 6AR0NER ANITA L 6AR0NER 1AM LONB LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE HN 55554 HETMEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM PROPERTY OM«RS LISTSB 24-11S-25 55 0002 01490 LONB LAKE BLVO T 0 ANDERSON A C A ANDERSON TROY A CATHERIK ANDERSON 1490 LONG LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE IM 55354 report no. PI455401 PACE 754 24-11B-2S 51 0004 01514 LONB LAKE BLVO CINDY J FREDRICKSON CINDY FREDRICKSON CA> STATE BAfK OF LONG LAKE BOX 454 LONG LAKE m 55554 O OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR SB 24-11B-25 35 0005 01520 LONG LAKE BLVO D-J SMXTM A3.S JONOALL 0 J SMITH I K S JONDALL 1520 LONG LAKE BLVO LONB LAKE 104 55554 54 24>11B>25 55 0004 01530 LONG LAKE BLVO GRANT 0 EGGENBERG OIANT 0 E6GE1BERG 1550 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE m 55354 58 24-114-25 35 0014 01555 LONG LAKE BLVO BERNICE ZUMBUSCN BERNICE ZUMBUSCN 1535 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE MN 55554 ^4 » *B. . 0 C- / MOP Aeon OMNER NAIIi TAXPAYER NAME/AODR PROP ADOR OIMR KANE TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/ADOR 54 24-114-23 35 0020 006M DAKOTA AVE J H BENHAY A K J GASNER JANET H BENHAY B44 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE »t4 55354 5B 24-116-23 33 0029 014B5 SIXTH AVE N HILLXAH R A BARBARA A PEARCE NILLXAM A BARBARA PEARCE PO BOX 9500 MPLS N4 55440 5B 35-11B-23 22 0003 01509 LONG LAKE BLVO JAMES-B^ LUPLIN I rloyi r*^ 1509 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE m 55354 5B 24-114-23 33 0021 00B4B DAKOTA AVE 0 A C HOOOHARO DAVID A CYNTHIA HOOOHARO 444 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55354 34 35-114-23 22 0001 01445 LONG LAKE BLVO KURTIS A GREENLEY A HIFE KURTIS A GREENLEY 1445 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE MN 55554 54 35-114-23 22 0004 01505 LONG LAKE BLVO JAMES 0 NEYME ETAL JAMES 0 »«YHE 1505 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE ft* 55311 34 24-114-23 33 0027 01460 LONG LAKE BLVO ANITA A KEITH VANOER BRANDEN K R VAI0EN BRANOEN 1440 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE MN 55554 34 55-114-23 22 0002 01525 LONG LAKE BLVO L H CAPRON ETAL H/L EST L N CAPRON 17505 OLD ROCKFORD RO PLYMOUTH N4 55444 34 35-114-25 22 0005 01445 LONG LAKE BLVO DONALD H LUND ETAL DONALD H LUND 1445 LONG LAKE BLVO LONG LAKE MN 55354 I • >4 % 9 I* r • • * y_ * A w W e PROP AOOR OMCR NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR TOTAL BATCH 004 00015 €• e o •441Tl Certificate of Survey for Troy Anderson ^of Lots 3 & 4, Albee’s Long Lake Addition and in Gov’t. Lot Section 26-11 P-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota Tflxist-jnq LeqaT Description Lots 3 and 4, Alhee's Long Lake Addition, Hennepin County^ and T*. at part of Government Lot 1, Section 26, Township 11B, Range 23, lyinq East of a line drawn parallel to and 67S feet East of, measured at right angles to, the West line of said Section 26 and West of the extension south of the most Westerly line of Lot 1, "Auditor’s Subdivision Number 291, Hennepin County, Minnesota." This survey shows the location of an existing house and a driveway serving a parcel to the north of the above described property. Tt does not purport to show c«ny other im provements or encroachments. o : Iron marker Bearings shown are based on an assumed d<itur. . CITY OF OnONO SITE PLAN __ Gr -'DlNG PLAN Pf^PPnOVED n APPnovEo wm-i i .ohs □ DISAIT;^^ DATE,______ Coffin & Gronberg, Inc. ^*'2 r.Tm.UiKk'XuntH' * LonukiU', MN 1 hereby cerlify Ih.il Ibis survey was prepared by me or viiuler my direcl super vision, and lhal I am a dui / registered Civil l-.nginccr and l.and Surveyor utuler Ine laws of the Stale of MiiToesola DATli 1 - 9 - •l Aii: ‘VO foil NO. ^ E - 544Mark S. Gronberg Minne.ut.i License Number 1275S X /n,H 5’^ O/f siv S^'O 653 56'6 62-^ iS'O 7XZ 72'6 20'3 I J •401Ff A Certificate of Survey for Troy Anderson ^^of Lots 3 & 4, Albee's Long Lake Addition and in Gov't, Lot 1, Section 26-118-23 Hennepin County, Minnesota f \ f Existing Legal Dnscription Lots 3 and 4, Albee's Long Lake Addition, Hennepin County^and That part of Government Lot 1, Section 26, Township IIB, Range 23, lying East of a line drawn parallel to and 67S feet East of, measured at right angles to, the West line of said Section 26 and West of the extension south of the most Westerly line of Lot 1, "Auditor's Subdivision Number 291, Hennepin County, Minnesota," This survey shows the location of an existing house and a driveway serving a parcel to the north of the above described property. It does not purport to show any other im_ _ provements or encroachments. o : Iron marker Hearings shown are based on an assumed datum. . CITY OF ORONO f SITE PLAN __ GriADiNG PLAN Approved □ APPROVED wiTii r.;'.:r;.'0NS □ DISAPP^^ BY _____ DATE__y.tid^^ Coffin & Gronberg , Inc . f hlf'.l I r*. J'jMir, I, *^^2 r.mvu.KVAu mu’ • Lod>» UU*. M\ ( hereby cerlify Ihnl Ihis surx ’oy wns prepared by me or under my direct super vision. and that 1 am n duly registered Civil I-nginccr and Lmd *iurveyur under the laws of the Stale of Minncsola. Mark S. Gronberg Minncsola License Number 12755 I >ATO I • 9 - 3 i M Ai.n t ”- A-0 )OIJ NO. 9 2. &44 1 SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75* HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET 250-500’ BXISTINC hardcover IN ZONE A. HottS* 500-11 V:7 %% % WMl (A_ B. Ganfs C. Etowsray II ’ X X do. D. Skkwilk X X E. Pttio/Dcck X X .’'•ri* -F. Lud! llDdefUia By PlMtic X X X G. (^r TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE tfe~70 + B /OV^Q pcnPOSED HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House 21 X Length X X X Width B. Garage C. Dnveway X \ do. so 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 -i- B [OlSO f ^ 'S^ y*70 V''/0 X 100 /to SJ. SF. S.F. S.F. 1 } \ I S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. f % I "Ti. S.F. S.F. % A B S.F. X 100 hardcover calcuxatiqn worksheet o setback ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) B-TS*75-250* E. Pitio/Declc X X F. I awiicapc Uodertain By Plastic X X X TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ‘T-7/00 - B ^/y5g. PROPOSED hardcover IN ZCMStE House :2u tji «• rv ^A-.' o X X X Width 12_ B. Garage C. Driveway SO D. Sidewalk S« S_ X X l( X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X X G. Other 50-sor, A ^__:iM— Itnvh — X _5lB------------ widei iW.flo 7 X It m ■/ <¥ ........................X 9 ------“ &■ B Qar2£7 Si _2fe------- iUx« %# ■ C. Driveway ^ «pir *To s ______________ s —ii---------- S'*/ ^ .. D. Sidewalk ^>-S__s X 100 - TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE - B s>/f£g.X 100 J V (5o.e ssV CJBo> /7a " Stxi- </yQ> gyp L S.F. S.F. S F. x>w.. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. . .1 ■ 'i S.F. S.F.-4. S.F. * S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. % A B S.F. /yA ■ _• 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. nZLEl __ S.F. dC» S.F. __ S.F. % A B • ;I ‘.I .k. ■■■■— - ----------avt*?* ■AaiM ~lucanrzTfrrKfVAB'a .•h<#uw^«'i>viri.>i*. t\nn& .■«• ib nPl nil ii Tiiiiirxi ~ TTTTin^ii r u il a aiiaa >iliii-iBi IIII mldi* l tar ^.la.Uai i I y, ■ •>1 m‘^1 'n ^£4ki 'V N»w AddMon ✓I N#>v Cov«r«d Ent7 ExMing Front Elevation 1/8" = r*0" Of Rear Ele^tirin 1/0" = l’-0' IT- jr //////////. Un excavated b Id To:Chaif Peterson ami Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorsc, City Administrator From: Bate: Jeanne A. Mabusth. Building St Zoning Administrator June 7, 19% Subject:S2I4I Roberta A. Roth, 1251 Briar Street - Variance - Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB - Refer to Exhibits H and I. The property is located within a shoreland area af^jroximately 5(XH-’ from a rumiral environment lake, French Lake. Lot area * 10,500 s.f. The property is served by municipal sewer. Application: Applicant seeks approval of a side street setback variance to permit construction of a 16’ X 20’ detached garage within the west rear yard of property. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: i.Section 10.03, Subdivision 6 (D) - Allowed setbacks for gauges with doors facing away from street. Allowed = 10’ Exi:>,liig * 1.8* Proposed = 2’ Variance * 9' or 80% Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) - Review of sPuctural coverage. Total area = 10,500 s.f Allowed = 1,575 s.f or 15% Existing = 1,153.2 s.f or 10.9% Proposed = 1,389.2 s.f or 13.2% No variance required. Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (L) - setback area). Allowed = 3,675 s.f or 35% Existing = 1,778.2 s.f or 16.9%* ‘ Proposed = 2,349.2 s.f or 22.3%*'^ No variance required. Review of hardcover (500-1,000' *■' Existing hardcover: residence = 1,069.2 s.f, shed = 84 s.f, gravel parking area = 495 s.f, gravel drive to shed = 130 s.f Proposed hardcover: residence = 1,069.2 s.f, garage = 320 s.f, gravel parking/drive = 960 s.f 4 i Zoning File #2131 June 7, 199€ Page 2 List of Exhibits Application Plat Map • Property 0^^■ne^s' List ■ Existing Hardcover Improvements • Proposed Hardcover Improvements F-1-2 Elevations G - Floor Plan H - Location of Ordinary High Water Le\el of French Lake (Application #2042) I - Lakeshore Setback Map A B C D E Review of Application The j^plicant proposes the remo\-al of the 10’ x 8.4' shed to the rear yard of the property and replacing shed with a 16’ x 20’ single stall detached garage. The existing shed is approximately 1.8’ from the unimproved extension of Minnetonka Avenue. The proposed garage is to be located 2' from the lot line. The right-of-way itself is unimproved and consists of grass and light gravel. The two abutting property owners use portions of the access for parking of vehicles and as a shared driveway. The applicant seeks approval of the variance because to move structure an additional 8’ with an expanded driveway would result in the loss of mature trees within their limited rear yard. The only setback sought by applicant for the improvement is the setback to the unimproved street right-of-way. Hardcover is proposed at 22.3% where 35% would be allowed and structural coverage is at 13,2% where 15% would be allowed. Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibit A, applicant notes the road right-of-way is a dead end unimproved road not maintained by City and ser\es as a shared drive for the two adjacent properties and is, for the most part, grassed over. To place the structure and access drive further south in rear yard would result in the loss of mature trees and, as applicant notes, it is their desire to preserve as much of their limited grassed yard as possible. Staff would add that the structure will have no visual impact upon the surrounding properties. Upon your inspection, note the existing vegetation and high berm to the west. Properties in French Creel: will not receive any visual impact from the single story garage. The residence to the south is located 60'+ from proposed garage It is staffs understanding that the neighbor to the immediate north will also be asking for setback variances to install a similar garage in their side street >aid. The property is not currently served by a garage. --— Zoning File #2131 June 7, 1996 Page 3 Issues for Consideration 1.The existing shed serves as additional much-needed storage area for the small lot. WTiere will the items stored in shed now be maintained on property? Is garage large enough to also maintain car and storage items? 2. 3. Is additional screening necessary or is existing vegetation adequate? Other issues raised by Planning Commission. Options of Action To approve as proposed or amended. ••*.1 - f - CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee $220.00 ($50.00 per each additional variance) jj Renewal Variance Fee $120.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures $2?0.‘00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) Application 0 ^ I f Date ^jx'hj Amount Pmd » - V 11 PROPERTY INFOR>UTION Site Address 3^/^F\ ___________35—,--------y —3-------—yj Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) /0 ‘//^ * Attach leeal description to application if not included or^required survey. Date Propertv' Acquired Nt H -_________________ ____________________________________ I (do) (do not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property" V residential ___other (specify ) Zoning District: ^ -------------- (month/year) applicant ^ y -n Name I Address: iDcT/yT City:^ Phone (homej VT^ Phone (work) ^73 “ __Zip: ? 2-^^ OWNER (if different than applicant) Nante_______---------------------- Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:City:Zip: DESCRIPTION OF REQUESJ Describe request ION OF REQUEST . Estimated Construction Cost $___1 equest in detail: U,‘ / in' } d J -----L— (attach additional sheets if necessary)(attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width /Setback:Front Hardcover Rear Lot Coverage Average Lakeshore _ Other (specify) f- hardship /dfscription of unusu .al property conditions 'h> ^ 'X . ILI ^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) ruy//c. nvrru ---(v j. hadib G\JD anj¥6 ^ ii?rjJ/h F ’T- - 3/^ 00^^ rP 10 - ,n -2^ ■*' ' CO HI REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the followiny informarion must bg submitted bv th* app lication deadline date in order for your application to be considered complete: 3. Ly 4. bmpletcd Application Form Certified Propertj' 0^^^lers List of ouners 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 surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required In addition, provide one (I) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any chances in existing grade are proposed In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reptoduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy SYz' x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This w'ould 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 mav be requested bv City staff. —- upia The Applicant and Property OwT.er must sign this application. Please remember that yoHr varinnee anpHcation is not complete if the above information has not been includcdt 5. 6. % 7. 8. 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 ^ J.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. Owner's Signature f jP'liC Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on tlie third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. I S WN DATE 0%/ES/9«NE»#€PIN COUKTY PEODfETY INTOIEUTION STSTEff PEOPEETY 0»«€ES LISTDATCN 511 raOP AOOE «NCE NEHi TAXPAYEE NAME/ADDE Sa 10-117-23 23 000% 00030 AODEES UHASSIGNED NXtLXAM DONALD LAESON ET At NXUXAN DONALD UESQN 1205 FEENCM CEEEK DE NAYZATA m 55351 PEOP ADDE CEMEE NAME TAXPAYEE NAHE/AODE 31 ST 30 10-117-23 01270 BEXAE JOHN C EANGE JOHN C EANGE 1270 DEIAE ST NAYZATA MN 55391 0030 PEOP ADDE (EtCE NAME TAXPAYEE NAME/AOOE 30 10-11' 23 31 00%1 01251 DElAE ST EOOEETA JEAN EOTH EOBEETA J EOTH 1251 BEXAE ST CEYSTAL BAY MN 55391 PEOP AOOE ONNEE NAME TAXPAYEE NAME/AODE 30 10-117-23 31 0073 012%5 AEBOE ST RAEEN E BJEEKENG KAEEN E BJEEKEN6 1245 AEBOE ST NAYZATA m 55391 PEOP ADDE ONNEE NAME TAXPAYEE NAME/AOOE 30 10-117-23 32 0005 02235 FEENCN CEEEK CIE EOBEET C A NANCY N LUX EOBEET A NANCY LUX 2235 FEENCH CEEEK CXE NAYZATA m 55391 EEPOET NO. PI435401 PAGE 2730 10-117-23 31 0034 02140 CEYSTAL AVE H A J BLUE MAECUS J A JUDY A BLUE BOX 42 CEYSTAL BAY m 55323 30 10-117-23 31 0037 01290 BEIAE ST FAYE M HAETEANFT FAYE H HAETEANFT 1290 BEIAE ST NAYZATA MN 55391 30 10-117-23 31 0039 01250 BEIAE ST EAMQNA M CESAEE EAMONA M CESAEE 1250 BEIAE ST NAYZATA MN 55391 30 10-117-23 31 0040 01251 BEIAE ST EOBEETA JEAN EOTH EOBEETA JEAN EOTH 1251 BEIAE ST NAYZATA MN 55391 30 10-117-23 31 0042 01261 BEIAE ST GIL PEINTUP CAEY M PEINTUP P 0 BOX 104 1241 BEIAE CEYSTAL BAY MN 55323 004330 10-117-23 31 01291 BEIAE ST K CUELEY A N KELUTT KEVIN CUELEY 1291 BEIAE ST S PU BOX 41 CEYSTAL BAY MN 55323 30 10-117-23 31 0093 02170 MIltCTONKA AVE M A J HC CLELLANO MICHAEL P HC '. .LLANO 2170 MINr4ET0»#^ AVE N P 0 BOX 45 CEYSTAL BAY MN 30 10-117-23 32 0004 02220 FEENCH CEEEK CIE A M AYEES A E AYEES A MEEEILL AYEf» 2220 FEENCH CEEEK CIE NAYZATA MN 55391 • • 55S23 r i' ■ .* • *«r • *■%* TOTAL BATCH 511 0601S f ■’i IRM OATt 04/23/M ■ATCM 511 fiENNEnN COUNTY PKOPERTY INFORHATION SYSTEM PROPERTY CMNERS LIST REPORT no: PZA35A01 PAGE Z$ ,r ,p, « ■ * 1 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 TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNONLECGE AND BELIEF. DATE (i •• !» y% r : \ i '■ mst •• £SlSl * J % a HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA f- V4- */ % v% I '^«M> • 4 • • *• . . •• *• • A-*.- ‘ • • •• • m •' • .. • • ; . • % • • • (;* f-s- If* ■• //V. J (' .*) V ' • '/'■I * » • Tonka _A a ^* 26,'30rE 1^.0 Avenue 8K A K %z m I Vt>l>|(M< i4*i fX/fr/Me J-ttfS 0.*A*'**# ■O.fff' r» ■ n*ft.4iOL- ^ Exisf ir^ House •iXS - o 8! 8 }c a.4i a ^ r*.-.N85®2?3 o’T7 •• /•••M H<^.0 *■ i fs § w) Of ::>I pj •* 0>' ■glc») irn/ii nr'"rr'T** *r\M nc onruTcrc. 1 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA % 5>M • \ ♦ I f ^’ r Tonka Avenue *•«»«i_SB9*26'3CT£/ ( *'0 .1 • • • viV ■ !i 1 • ••» ' • ?f * f iz4 y i ^ Existing'^ r&f 2*‘r ^se "i !, • »i.4 - • o.v' ( • •. • 13 __ 1 i % ^ \ > 8 }C po V) Q; I T‘ oy' • • •• *’ •m* ■21 I FCAi r>F«;rDTPTTOM nc DPTMTccc. ' .i • ■ ymCAL W6HT 9IPC CLCVATWH - fKUO lU LENGTH FOR LONGER, OPTIONS AT BREAK LINES — GRADE SCALE: 1/4* - r-0* A4X OBPTH OPTIONS 1/12 HOOP PITCH hlTH OPTIONAL PERSOMCL DOOR OPTIONAL WINDOW — GRADE TYPICAL LIFT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4“ « r-0* ALL DEPTH OPTIONS VI2 ROOF PITCH 2*8 RIDGE WITH OPTIONAL KINDOW 2X6 RARERS 9 16* O.C. ^ REFER TO DETAIL I oo ADD 2x4*3’-0 SPLICE BLOCK BETWEEN rafter ties AND HANGER PRECUT STUDS 92.5/ar /' r 1x6 FASCIA 3/8 ’ PLYWO SOFFIT / REFER TO DETAIL SECTION A-A V. _ / SCALE: 1/4" = V-O* l6'-0" WIDE ALL DEPTH OPTIONS 4/12 ROOF PITCH GRADE 4- i u 1 L .'-i J* •! - ■« •4' LEFT SIDE FRAMINS l6*-0’ FADE 4/12 ROOF PITCH I ft t <M 1 1 1 1 1 o 1 !--------------------——d I ‘H ■ill I mmrn f5) \ • m • «^SS' " ni|l|l !f i’irr 1 • ^ • >* oz I'1 1 • I V w'V f u ^ liM 1 rc 5?! .' ?^ (3!' J4A 0.1 ?. e n. ^ X. (6) O 7 CD; ■ vf or 5? 5 •# ^^i4- 'i'' ---^i;65 r/z?M\ iiila! K X a ^ "^1 ,v.' 3 '*»-' ^'(42) 7. . ■; S' H!•1211 6 \1 1 14 (39) • A\ J ''•0 i 50?,t(?‘pAfi 1 , a, ^ IJ ^ l] aIL -\ I >. .'’c3. 35 V f :5:>. I 3 \A0 2-17.6 2/'ci3y » o' XJ6) ^ i-:r' ' 140 6 l-iO L_n 1.51.86 . rl-U 55143.62 135. 33 >, IJJS' . i27_.I4 4:>X- \/ \ O'iTLOr I • (35) ,40^1 50 «■ CRYSTAL AVE : 12^90 1 - :r*>1» 1 — f 1 v/ i '8.5 • <6. 5 (If).' ( 17) t '6)S ( 100)itDl /( ^03 C'O S3 ir> ‘O 474. ,6 V/EST 7775 56); I ( 57)^ CC PROSPECT AVF 1 175 (51) 60 1 1.^I \ 5a .V '75 1 1 \ w u. 175 ! \co • • 1 ~~L ( 161) 1 ®r,2 1 (54)§ D> it \» § 1 175 3 155 «'»C i To:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator From: Date: Subject: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 10. 1996 #2142 Angela Woodhouse, 2625 North Shore Drive - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning District: LR-IA Lot area = 21,960 s.f. or 2.11 acres Application: Applicant seeks approx al of average lakeshore setback, lakeshore setback and hardcover variances within the 0-75' setback area to permit a single stor>’ bay addition to the lakeside of the residence and an {^proximate 6' x 23’ addition to the west side of the residence involving a second story expansion over the new addition and west wing of the residence (above garage). The im^Vement results in 193.8 s.f. or 0.9% increase in hardcover in the 0-75’ setback area. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (A) - Lakeshore setback variance, Allowed » 75’ Existing = 21 ’ Proposed west addition = 42’ Lakeside bay addition = 39.6' Variance = 35.4' or 47.2% 2.Section 10.22, Subd. 1 (B) - Average lakeshore setback. Bay addition encroaches 23’. West side addition encroaches 21'. 3. A. Section 10.22, Suoi. 2 - Hardcover variance within the 0-75’ setback area. 0-75’ setback area Area = 19,800 s.f Allowed = 0 s.f Existing = 4,010 s.f or 20.25% Proposed = 4,203.8%* or 21.2% Hardcover increase = 193.8 s.f or 0.90% -'ul * Hardcover to be removed: Existing entry structure = 52.2 s.f. Steps and paving = 50 s.f Existing bay = 17.5 s.f Total = 119.7 s.f 1 ,1 ,r-r ‘ rtfWTT ' TVT* I . . .. laai'i ■ A .mTi — ~ . ,, 711 < lihA.ijrr-iaiAl «« . M Zoning File #2142 June 10. 1996 Page 2 New proposed hardcover improvements; New bay » 87.5 s.f. Stoop = 19.5 s.f. Side entry » 24.5 s.f. West side addition = 132 s.f New pavement » 50 s.f Total * 313.5 s.f B.75>250' setback area Area =* 42,800 s.f Existing = 9,687.9 s.f or 22.64% C.250-500’ setback area Area = 29.460 s.f Existing = 650 s.f or 2.21% 4.Section 10.03. Subd. 14 (C) - Structural coverage. The property is not subject to structural coverage standards as area of property is 2.11 acres. List of Exhibits A B C D E F Application Plat Map Propert>' Owners' List Existing Survey 0-75' Reduced Lot Survey Proposed Survey 0-75' G - Hardcover Inventory 0-75' Setback Area H-1-3 Existing Elevations 1-1-2 Floor Plans J-1-3 Proposed Elevations Review of Application Applicant proposes additions to existing residence completely located within the 0-75' setback area. The improvement involves a single story bay addition at the lakeside of the residence providing for an expanded dining area within kitchen. The 87.5 s.f larger bay will replace a 17.5 s.f bay window. The bay addition will be located 39.6' from the shoreline. The major portion of the improvement involves an approximate 6' x 23' two story addition to the west side of the residence. The second floor addition will extend over the west wing above Zoning File #2142 Jmc iO, 1996 Page 3 the lower level garage and first floor (refer to Exhibits F, 1 and J). There will be a new entr> addition with stoop to the immediate west of the two story addition. The existing pa\'ed access will be realigned to conform with relocated entry. Staff has adjusted the hardcover facts to reflect remo\‘als and additions of hardcover. Staff has determined an increase of 193.8 s.f., not 56 s.f. as noted by applicant's consultant. The improvements to the wvat side of the residence will have little impact on the views of the adjacent residences based on the topography, existing vegetation and location of house in the middle of the 280' wide lot. lssu» for Consideration 1.Should additional hardcover removals be requested to offset increase of 0.90% of hardcover within the 0-75 ’ setback area? 89.9 s.f. of boathouse and deck structure would result in a 0.4% decrease. Should structural improvements be reduced? The proposed 6 ’ x 23' addition will be placed over existing structure, paving and entrance steps. Refer to Exhibit B and hardcover facts in staff memo. 3. Other issues raised by Planning Commission. 2. 3. Statement of Hardship Please refer to Exhibit A, they are reviewed as follows: 1. The entire house is located within the 0-75' setback area. The home was constructed prior to current standards for lakeshore construction. The addition on west side will ha\ e no impact on the lake views of the adjacent residences due to the 280-some' width of the property, location of vegetation and topography. Major portions of the new improvements will be located over existing hardcover improvement. Total hardcover on the 2.11 acre property is 14,347.9 s.f or 15.5% and is proposed at 14,541.7 s.f or 15.7%. 4. 5. Options of Action To approve as proposed or amended. Any recommendation of approval must include the condition that if additional hardcover improvements are to be removed, that they be completed at the time of the footing inspection for the new construction. Isv i Application # f U ‘9 — Date Received r ~ - 9Ca A, Amount Paid 3 j~c . CO h CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 ($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) * it/ltRAMO C. LooDHouJ'P •* AM(i-ElA E ucx)i>Houif r # s -A 1' w *1 • • .1 PROPERTY INTORMATION ! ^ Site Address Z S' AJC/IFH SHCKf jJk « Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 36CTK.N *7 ~ ^ 17 ~ ^ /-----C qIa — .> * I 1 1 — ^ ^ ^ .AAA • •Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propcrt>' Acquired____________^ ^ ^(month'year) - (30^) Present use of propert\': ^ residential ___other (specif>0. Zoning District: Q^NO applican Name Tahifyik AddressT" (i) Phone (\voric) Phone (home) City: \jOCtJL{lJlt^Zip: 1q^^^ / OWNER (if different than applicant) Name_______. I________ Phone (home). Phone (work)_ Address:Cirv:Zip:, DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $. Describe request in detail: t.rm£fJ jJ/TlHN 75 ’ QFCAU -. -------- Lnpr / (attach iulditional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front __Side Other (specify)_________________ X Hardcover ___Lot Coverage ■ ■■ "N «A-P—— __Rear X Average Lakeshore HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual property conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: ALt^C^^ .11— (Cji ATT^O unn) hi IS' /A/c/^ ^A MO^PT- lfrCUl^^iEXPAK\r/0Al _LAjn!iMf~L y /C|() /uf;i^v//rrLr) /4AF.D Coueri Xl>^CZtASf ( ^6, ----------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must be submitted bv the applicaHon deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete; 1. 2. X \ 3. t 4. 5. 6.7 % 7 7 X 8. Completed Application Form Certified Property' O'Miers List of ovMiers within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603. Gom Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcov-er calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy S'/i" for reproduction. tflLt t'w Irv^ Topographic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j " .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) of all persons with an interest in the propertv'. 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 yiuir variance application is not complete if the above information has not been imludtd» 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^.;pd correc^o the^)cst of Jffis/her knowledge. Applicant’s Signature X 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 i^estigati^ and verifk^ion of this request. Owner’s Signature K Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City' offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 1 RUN DATE 0S/2U/H IIENNCPIM COWITV PBORERTY IiaromUTIOII SYSTEM property OtTIERS LIST REPORT NO. PI%55401PAGE 18 RATCH 50* PROP AODH OH«R NAME TAXPAYER HAME/ADDR S8 OT-117'2S lA 0007 OllSf OLD CRYSTAL BAY RO S TtlOnAS G A PHYLLIS 0 COLISLL TintAS G A PHYLLIS D COLMELL C/O COLMELL INDUSTRIES lEC IAS 3RO ST N MPLS 55401 58 09-117-25 A1 0004 025AS NORTH SHORE OR JEFFREY L MARTIIKAU JEFFREY L MARFltJLAU 2565 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55391 58 09-117-25 41 0009 00058 ADDRESS UNASSIG7KD CHARLES A BIRGITTA SCMOCN CHARLES A BIRGITTA SCMOEN 2450 NORTH SHORE DR HAYZATA ill 55591 PROP AOOR OA«R NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AOOR 58 09-117-25 42 0002 02605 NORTH SHORE OR J D JEROIK ASK JEROIK JONH 0 A SANDRA K JEROtC 2605 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55591 58 09-117-25 42 0005 0262S NORTH SHORE DR KlRTLAin C HOOOHUUSE ET AL KIHTLANO C HOOOHOUSE 2625 NORTH SHORE OR HAYZATA MN 55591 .t •».. I certify that the facts represented are an accurate and true representation of information as it appears this date on the records of .the Henhepin County Department of Property TaxatiohV'-tQ^ the best of my knowledge and belief. f - ••k,rr - -lOO VI »t -- H« ' ««r ;• ^ • V'- : ::_ '^m asJ ,4n Sr * ^ 4 ^ N'l! '' •4 k5»2 fr.^ '•41 rTT yZ^ •. f N AW . u.l • ^>-* ^y>y/y///^ • *14 1 # A I S Ta—k C?-Ti«i,02L4^^fMU I ^ ” r - £ .**»«NETONlO^ 4 4 95•V ------------------- \M 4.) u»Cp 4- > .od r 1 • I*’ -Q r_2. •' nrvv.v 7\v iR«a I • k ;^4, ^ 'h^\-' -,| Li^jra » i'' ■:vX -•“ .<.X' I > UX\- ^ - .V M AfliWW 495.mm o fe 0.16 .. p\' - / 'f S i» r <?.« t V. ; ■ 4 & - — fs4 2 ^ 3 (» E ; HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) , 0-75*7^250•250-500* EXISTING hardcover IN ZONE A. House ______________ 500-1000 ’ —• ..-j ' S.F. Length Width I J X X X ' ^ X S.F. S.F. S.F.Hi B. C. idwage Driveway «i . .. A •S.F. X tse ----- N S.F. X «S.F. D.Sidewalk X /l- r S.F. X =S.F. E.Patio/Deck - - 'C,as tK0 \^ *=>S.F. - - V X S.F. F.Landscape Underlain X S S.F. X :=S.F. By Plastic Other X S S.F. G.X S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN TOTAL PROPERTY ARE/ ZONE -j ';>S.F. L IN ZONE, B •f j ■->S.F. A X 100 =70. z 5"% DD/M>r^cirn ff ARnTTIVFR IN ZONE — X->:>Tt^)Cr } A.House 9^ X 7 k - '7.?S.F. Length X WidiH —■f*;' :>S.F. i T —: V X =/■r? . •r'S.F. ' V ’ * V__ ' 1 =■/ ^ V S.F. S.f. S.F./.I.■* s .........- -_______________________________— »< . • -\f'5B. C. jQttSgt Driveway X no.o S.F. X *S.F. n ' ' ' Sidewalk - rr S.F. L-e . X =S.F. E.Patio/Deck T ■='C 1C X -6r.o S.F. 0 X =U) ^ ^S.F. F.Landscape Underlain By Plastic Other X S3 S.F. X rs S.F. X =S.F. G.X S.F. (r' TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE . ?/0O -i- B 6 ^ TTf S.F. S.F./-,7^ 1 4 r 'I-'i. w. 8*^ A B A B X 100 T O. ^3 % 4^'' .. y . /> . ; •./ .A- ... . .^y . , ^ •• i i 1 • ■ j .. i » ., C: j ' ’ I : i-. ? I O'- * ‘ > -S .(, J i . ■’ •“S' , V rjr K ff O' ’5 ^l , STh 1^' ~aL» I'uir K \ / : : •• i :.!.l 11 c? Ito = iO. 'la 2T U 2L :t: '•A ♦ > I'I 1 . N C r 0 T 0 cirn 8 c 1 >2: O' U| 8 \7 t •r O' S' TO: FROM: DATE Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Membere Ron Moorse, City Administrator Michael P. Gafliron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator June 10,1996 SUBJECT: #2 143 Diam Perez, 3465 Eastlake Street - Variance - Public Hearing Zoniag District: LR-1 A, Single Family Lokeshore Residential, 2 acres, se^^*e^ed. AppUcation: Hardcover/setback \’ariances for reconstruction of roof o\er portion of existing house. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property 0^^ners List D - Surveym E - Hardcover Calculations F - Before/After Elevation View G - Neighbor Acknowledgments Pertinent Code Sections 1. 2. Section 10.22, Subd. 2; Section 10.55, Subd. 8; and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(L) - No hardcover allowed in 0-75' zone. Section 10.22, Subd. 1; Section 10.55, Subd. 8; and Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C) - 75' lakeshore setback required. Dbcussion Applicant proposes to rebuild and reorient the roof on an 8'x9' portion of the existing residence. This is a one story room with a shed-type roof. The roof will change to a pitched roof more in keeping with the existing house. The entire lot is within 75 ’ of the lake. The existing 0-75’ hardcover is approximately 1,952 s.f. or 17.7%. The proposed roof revision will not increase or decrease hardcover on the property. 'There is virtually no extraneous hardcover on the property which can be easily removed. The revised roof line will enhance the integrity of the structure and will help it meet minimum energy code requirements. k. Zoning File #2143 June 10, 19% Page 2 Staff Recommendation If Planning Commission finds that hardship exists to the property based on the entire property* being in the 0-75' zone, and finds no impact on neighboring properties, and finds that the proposed change neither increases hardcover nor has a significant impact in increasing the bulk of structure in the 0- 75' zone, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate. Options for Action 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommend i^proval as submitted. Recommend iq)proval with conditions. Table for further information (sp>ecify). Recommend denial (state reasons). Other. k W.J vr.- Application # _ Date Received Amount Paid / / - .2 v' - 9 Q S.oc u <• t .•i CIT\' OF ORONO - variance APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal V'^ariance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) ( i Variance for non-conforming structures $220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double applicatiori fee) PROPERTY INFORNLATION Site Address ' Sr/rjrr_______ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.) 2.3 ll 0O37 * f 1- ' -1 ^ fT-V3:;i3 Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired__________________________________________(month'year) I (do) pp not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of propertv: X. residential ___other (s^cify)--------------- ---------------- Zoning District; L/2 \A Z S/AjcCe applicant Name h t* /nc- Phone (home) Address: c'cV.of _____ Wx)ne(work) ______ Citv: Hu^.-urni^rm______Zip: ONSTSER (if different than applicant) Name P>'aa*» ‘Pt,~cc2________ Phone (home) */ 7c» - A3 VV Phone (work)____________ Address: .^Vw'3 ’Srntn-f City:_0£i±^Zip: Estimated Construction Cost $ g "Tv f /c y; __________ (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED ____Lot Ar\a ___Lot Width ___Setback: ___Front ___Side Hardcover Rear Loi 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: iJi JJ 'ro faftachich additional sheets if necessary) REQUIRED SUBMITTALS A., .f .1.. fMlowiPT m... hf Vlhmintj ^ thf jtllllliDC iM k nrdgr for vnur aDDlicaHon t<* he considfrtd CgWPltttl 1. 2. Completed Application Form J. .^ip—Tr Finance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-3271)- V3-' , h»rHcover Certificate of Sur^■ey (signed by a licensed surveyor and include ^dcoter ca'lculations as reqidred. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8-/.- x 11" for reproduction. ^OjJu 4.V/ 5. 6. 7. 8. Sketches or plans of floor & el vation views (provide one (1) copy 8/i x 11 ). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons wth an interest in the property. This would include name(s) of apphcant(s) if not current o%vner(s). AS m addendum to this application, please attacly a^aratej^of an.v other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by Cit>^ staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please rememl^r that Xfifll anniicftinn is not comnifte if ihTitbovf itiformation has not btm iinlmlaL ThTtJplkmT provide all information required or requested by the Zoning Idm^nU m” agrees to pav add^nal fees (staff time not covered by onginal fee payment) e.xpens'ls incurred in review of this application, and cettifies that die information supplied W" Applicanfs Signature ( Date . -.2 ^------- The owner herebv acknowledaes and agrees to this application and further authonzes retBona e entrv onto the property by City staff, consultants, agents. Commission members, and Coon members for purposes of investigaiionand verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date y (t- AnoUcant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Pl^g roLnission Meeting Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of eac ^onth ADplicantf must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Plannmg ^’-^ion^and Council If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, ple^e ^Bent attend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. i I 8 ^ y r—^ 55-117-23-'-3 4? 'S (3C ' ■ 25' ^«^'5v ' .. ^•■^nX '-i 6. C4 ' 4#'OUT lOT i? ^ f.r^(Xo; EAST X'G I x: ••••■■ ■ •'■■ ::V;-'^: 106 i.... 50 : % ; 50 :;;(39)i(38)!(4(y (36) l(35)i(32:^ I 44 I ?>:■ ' (5)261. 5' (£) 3 UH OATE IISn%/U ■ATCti 504 NCWCPLN COffnf ^HOKRTY INTOimATION SYSTEM ntORCRTY OMERS LIST •fPORT NO. RI4SS441 RAS •RROR ASMOMNiR Nile TANRAVER NAME/AOOR St 05>U7-tS IS 0054 0340R CASTLAKE ST A j scnultz aha SCNULTZ ANORCM SCNULTZ SA49 CASTLAKE ST lONO LAKE MN 55354 It 05-I17-2S 15 0037 05445 CASTLAKE ST OIANC H RCREZ DIANE H RCREZ 5445 CASTLAKE ST LONG LAKE NN 555S4> It 05-117-n IS oast 034CS CASTLAKE ST HARILYN LARAE tARTZ OLSON CARL A JARNIO Z400 INTERLACNCN RO SRRIN6 PARK NN 55304 RROP AOOR ONNER NANI TA)9AYCR NANL^AOOR AOOR ONNER NANI TANRAYER NAHE/AOOR 30 05-117-Z5 13 0039 05455 CASTLAKE ST CHARLES 0AL6AAR0 CHARLES OAL6AARO 541 NCSTLAKC ST LONG LAKE IM 55554 St 05-117-25 15 0044 05424 CASTLAKE ST T C RAOKC AHA RAOKC THQHAS E A HAR6ARET A RAOKC 3424 'TLAKE ST LOK. >AKC NN 55354 5S 05-117-25 15 0040 05415 CASTLAKE ST TOOO N MUCRTZ TOOD N NUERTZ 5079 OARTLETT OLVO HOUND NN 55344 50 05-117-25 41 0022 00405 OXFORD RO F OCrMISON SHAN JR CTAL F DENNISON JR A JANET SHAH 405 OXFORD ROAD LONG LAKE NN 55554 50 05-117-25 15 0045 05444 CASTLAKE ST 0 A NONCE ANA NONCE DEAN A A NANCY A HONGC 5444 CAST LAKE ST S LONO LAKE NN 55554 ■4 fOTAL BATCH 504 OOOQO .1 I •* .'V «4 4 >• . J v'l -mi 't-R I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AND TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS OAFE ON THE RECORDS OP THE HENNEPIN COUNTY DEPARTHENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MV KNONLEOGE AND BELIEF. DATE 1 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DIANE PEREZ IN LOT 2. BLOCK 8, BAYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA .(931.2) That part of Lot 2, Block 8, Boyside Addition to Lake Minnetonka, lying West of the East 200.00 feet. o : denotes iron marker (931.9) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level dotum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed dotum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house and yard barn thereon. It does not purport to show any othef improvements or encroachments. V/ ■■■ Coil IN & Ghonberc , Inc . • . . ■ I^ V 1 • ■> ,'| fl.l'l*.. ■ ' J"l HU 1 hereby certify that this sur\’ey was prepared by mo t»r under my direct super vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number (2755 DATE S-2-96 SCALE |'*s30* jOBNo. 96-\47 »-/47 HARDCOVE SCTIACKZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) rXICTINC HARI>rO\JR IN ZONE <S5 CULATION WORKSHEET 75-250*250-S0Q* /vr B. Garage C. Driveway 3y "3n D. Sidewalk E. Patio^Deck; F. LandKapc Underlain By P lastic Or Fabric y t r • ^G. Other * %•75^S.F. ^ Widlli / %9.V m 2^1___S F. ' M m S.F. '* t m SF. X ■2S.S- « * -« m /' S.F. \ X m «^aw ^9^0 F. __ X m ■SJ..n \. X m 2 O ''... SF. X m S.F. X m SF. : X m S.F. X • m • • • SF. j X m S F. - • X m .s.f. X .r.loo S.F. 1 I 1 i i •• I A i • * TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A - B } /4t c/c> t X 100 - pnoposm hardcover IN ZONE A. House . __________* //. c//a t S.F. B >7. n V* « S.F. Length Width X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. B. Garage C. Driveway S.F. • X X __S.F. . S.F..t ; • i* • V D. Sidewalk X X S.F. S.F. ■ E. Patio/Deck X X S.F. S.F. F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic Or Fabric. X X X S.F. S.F. S.F. O. Other S.P. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A _____________B XlOO - S.F. S.P: % A B • I* fjeuj v7t' ■ f » \I- f ’ I n--I(W«)}Aofi&C^344^(phoi addrevl m^vrmnt of popoied m S^9km rrfefred to m Lmi Vm AppUcMs No K^)to oocubfic in tokoo^oiiit—wi. 1 (tot) as (ait) ooi aM to Otd of dto pnpirrj or ok koi to coolWoi far fat City te 1 (too) KB (Kt) OtKK of fat MpKK or 000pH^fi^or OK Cooocii appotto. ltjO/i>tA- 71i(HU/2- « iPOtoPropirty Owner ■ Propoity Omm If yoolKOB Kiy priK to fat tchtfaiW -TCiiTMliiii nay mift iht City im te ctvkw of (tiii Land Uw ID (he Bvildiiig it Zatimg OOee at lean 10 day* • » * ./ / n O -"I /) // V •/ ' • «» AdJoctoC Pm par ty Owtcra* AckoowMgeoitot Ftno * (we) skaLT* of J3M9 I Lfttf * [print haaic(s))[print address] km Kvitwcd fat phna forte propoied tmprovefnefit or proposed use of the property located S’, fy jho referred lo ai Land Use Application No._________. 1 (tot) tinderstond diK ia executing this acknowkdfeiiient, I (wt) am («e) not asked to dadaro approval or disapproval of te propeity or loc but merely to coofim for the City Cdoocil that I (wc) am (are) aware of fat improvement plant and that te proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Yvi:,<i sIl Pfapeity Owner Date Property Owner Date f—V (priK iiamf(s)l (pnac address) have levi mJi^ASL. id te plaM tete ^poted i^iot dao rtfeTTtd to ai Land U k AppItcaDo a No. I (wt) ondtrsiKd faK ia txocuiifii das ackaowiad gttoa K> I (wt) am (arc) Ufa ited to dKtn« ifp- *r inppnwl rf (te pwpwty «f «• b« nwtly «• CMlIm hr Ciqr CowKil (te I {»<•) *1 (w) «( ptvftcx or uw luquim CouKil *ppf0»il. 1]{ . Property Owner Properry Owner If yM hav* wy infin—(Inl (nay «iia At Oil; ta (tw rcvww of hi* Lwd Uw Appiicten. picoM wbmit your conwwn n (ho Inidiac A Zoaii« Offiw « Iwh 10 4*]r< pnor «o dN iciwdulcd ommiic d*t. 0 ’ Ji' I (*«) T>gki>4>g: AA/AkkV!>>J of [pnm namc(s)| (pnni address) have reviewed te pUns for te proposed improvemeK or proposed um of te property loca tod to ^ LA>kr rikhn referred to as Land U k Ai^icacioo No._________. I (we) undersland that in executing this acknowledgemeot, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of te property or uk but merely to confirm for te City Council Ite I (we) am (are) aware of the improve ment ptans and that the propoa ed neighbor's project or mo requires Council approval. Property Owner Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Uso Application, pleaK submit your commcnls to the Building fa Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. * . r*'.* •ii 4 «• ‘I TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Park Commission Ron Moose, City Administrator FROM: DATE: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator June 12, 1996 SUBJECT: #2144 Arthur and Terry Jewett, 3546 Ivy Place - Variances - Public Hearing Zoning Dbirict: LR-IC Approximate lot area = 23,200 s.f. Application: The applicants seek approval of variances that would permit expansion and realigruiicnt of a section of roof located in front of the average lakeshore setback line, within the lakeshore protected area and where structure exists at 200 s.f. of hardcover w ithin the 0-75' setback. Other phases of the improvement involve 7x10* entry addition to the street side of the residence along with a 6'x24' expansion addition of the garage also at the street side. To support the variances for the improvement in the lakeshore protected area and to insure hardcover in the 75-250' setback area does not exceed 25%, applicants propose major reduclions in hardcover within the 75-250' setback area. The following ordinances are pertinent for this review: 1 Section 10.22, Subd. 1(A) - Structure improvements proposed for structure located within 0-75' setback area. Required = 75' Existing structure = 63' No further expansion into lakeshore yard is proposed. Section 10.22, Subd. 1(B) - Average lakeshore setback variance required for proposed expansion of building envelope that encroaches average lakeshore setback line. The existing structure extends 22.6' in front of the average lakeshore setback line. 3.Section 10.22, Subd. 2 - Review of hardcover. A. 0-75' setback area = 7,500 s.f. Allowed = 0 Existing = 514 s.f.* Proposed = 514 s.f. Variance = 514 s.f. or 6.8% *House = 200 s.f. Deck = 314 s.f. Zoning File #2144 June 12, 1996 Page 2 B.75-250’ setback area = 15,700 s.f. Allowed = 3,925 s.f. or 25% Existing = 4,000 s.f. or 25.4% Proposed by ^plicants = 3.5% s.f. or 22.9% Staff proposed = 3,684 s.f. or 23.4% No variance required. C.Total hardcover on property Total area = 23,200 s.f. ± Proposed * 4,198 s.f. or 18% List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Neighbor's Acknow ledgment Form El-2 - Hardcov'er Statement F - Hardcover In^•ento^y G - Survey H - West/Street Elevation I - East/Lake Elevation Review of Application Applicants propose the realignment of a section of roof at the lake side of the residence. The reconstruction will also result in an expansion of the roof or building envelope of structure located within the 0-75' setback requiring approvals of setback and hardcover variances within the lakeshore protected area. All other additions proposed at the street side of the residence meet the required setback. Excessive hardcover exists within the 75-250' setback area at 25.4%. Applicants have proposed major reductions in hardcover specifically by reducing area of driveway. Staff would strongly recommend against reduc ing area of driveway as proposed by applicants with a 4'x 16' apron extending from new garage addition with the remainder ot drive at an 8' width. Staff recommends a minimum backout pad at 20'xl0’ width and would strongly encourage a small apron to allow for turn around because of the length of the drive. This can be achieved without exceed allowed 25%. Applicants do not propose additional hardcover in the 0-75' setback where 6.8% exists. The only improvement in the 0-75' involves the expanded roof for the living room addition. • •• BLm Zoning File #2144 June 12, 1996 Page 3 Issues for Considenitioii A 10’xl2’ deck had existed at the northeast comer of residence. Applicants have trimmed the deck back to a 12’x4’. Will Planning Commission members require any other reductions in hardcover in the 0-75* setback area? 2. Do members concur with staffs recommendation concerning a need to expand on driveway proposal of the applicants? 3. Other issues raised by Planning Commission members. Statement of Hardship Please review Exhibit E1 &2. Options of Action To approve as proposed or amended if applicants’ driveway is to be expanded from current proposal. Revised plans should be submitted to the City before the application can be scheduled before the Council for final action. In no case shall hardcover within the 75-250* setback exceed the allowed 25%. 4 // Applicatioii # 2^ I r Date Received < - Xh- f 6 Amount Paid X ■ 0 C> CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) r- Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming stmctures S220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) r - :'f :• ■ ■ *• • t •• ; • : y : PROPERTY INFORiVUTION . •>. Site Address rj Cl CC^ Property Identification Number (P.I.D.). Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Propcny^cquired_____?- H 3_______________________________(month/'year) I (do) not) also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of property: ^ residential Zoning District:____rf Svdtt) h Cv| other (specify) APPLICANT , , Name A- 14. . \ F ____ Address: - -1 v ct . U u * V ' PhcMie (Ixxne) ^'i L ^ _____ Phone (work ) M M City: U)ayVfitn Zip: ^ ’.ONS'NtR (if different than applicant) Name i J ~t^ ■_ bt ^V. Address:__\4 •Citv: Phone {home). Phone (work)_ f > • /’ r ^ .Zip? -T ‘-2 3 '? ^ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ I I CPO Describe request in detail: Sc.C. t) f -L --------------------------- (attach additional sheets if necessary) VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area ___Lot Width Setback:Front Side ^ Hardcover ___Lot Coverage __Rear ^ Average Lakeshore Other (specify) HARDSHIP/DESCRIPTION OF UNUSUAL PROPERTY CONDITIONS Describe undue hardship or practical difficulty or unusual properfy- conditions preventing compliance with Zoning Code requirements: H Hc(C hi)')6^>1'^ (attach additional sheets if necessary) 1'^ I I I ............. !■ wmnfi *« k W1 Vta-Y-tMnaaa wa REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the following information must submitted bv the application deadline date in order for vour application to be considered complete: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Completed Application Form Certified Propern Owners List of owners nithin ISO’, labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin County Department of Finance. A-603, Gou Center, 348-3271). Certificate of Suney (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculation^? as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8!4" x 11" for reproducti-i' Topograpnic sur%ey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor &, elevation vieN^^s (provide one (1) copy S'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons wi*h an interest in the propert>’. This would include name(s) of applicant(s) if not current owTier(s). .As an addendum to this application, please attach a separate list of any other persons you wish notified of this application. Additional items as may be requested by City staff. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that your variance anplicafion 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 9/’' / 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, Commiss'on members, and Council members for purposes of iruestigation and verification of this request. Owner's Signature Date Applicant must have all submittals into the City offices 25 days before the Planning Commission Meeting. Planning Commission Meetings are held on the third Monday of each month. Applicants must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Building & Zoning Office of this change prior to the meeting. \ 8 mJN DAT! 02/U/fA BATCH BOi m» ANi TAXPAYiH MMC/AOOfl 3$ 20-117-21 A2 QQU 01S50 m PL Itl i J BAMPI2A mUIAM S DAMPXril 1550 IVY PLACf MAYZATA »04 551fl COUNTY WOPCRTY INfOltmTlQN SYSTEM POOPCOrY 0HN2AS LISTla 20-117*2S A2 0017 01540 IVY PL CAS PYLE CHAPLES 0 PYLE 1540 IVY PLACE MAYZATA m 551fI REPORT NO.PAGE P141S4012010 20-117-21 42 0010 01544 IVY PL A H JEHETT ETAL ARTNUR H JEHETT 1544 IVY PI HAYZATA HN 55191 PROP ADOR CMAER NAf€ TA)9AYER NAHE/AOOR PROP AOOR OMNER HAHE TAXPAYER NAHE/AiU^R 10 20-117-21 42 0019 01514 IVY PL FRANK J OUYSSi FRANK J OUYSSE 1514 IVY PLACE MAYZATA MN 55191 10 20-117-21 42 0011 01512 IVY PL G L MRI6HT A N L HRIGHT GILBERT L A NANCEE L NRIGHT 1512 IVY PL MAYZATA HN 55191 IB 20-117-21 42 0027 01540 IVY PL G A CHRISTENSEN ET At GARY A i LYf#l A CHRISTL>^N 1540 IVY PL HAYZATA HN 55191 IS 20-117-21 42 0014 01545 IVY PL JEFFREY A DEORA DANOERRY JEFFREY A DEORA 0A»«ERRY 1545 IVY PL MAYZATA m 55191 10 20-117-21 42 0019 01525 IVY PL 0 L CUNNINGS A H H CUNNINGS OANIEL L A NARTNA N CUNNlNQSi 1525 IVY PL MAYZATA NN 55191 50 20-117-21 42 0015 01515 IVY PL Di NARQUIS NALLS JR OE NARQUIS NALLS JR :i555 IVY PL HAYZATA NN 55191 I A*,. •‘k H I * ' i’ «>. -! t.^ PROP ADOR CKRCR NANE TAXPAYER NAHE/ADDR TQTAJ. BATCH 504 00009 » . u - .. 4,, 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 TAXATION, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOHLiOCE AND BELIEF. 'Z'2(>'S(c BYCATE \ <r .• 1 «*• : — 4 • Vi ♦ 4 r «1 1 Adjacent Property Ofiners* Ackno»»ledgemeot Form I (we) f^Cx r i r, r ^V.CM ^ ^ [print namel[s)l 7 of ) ^"L.c. -C. [print address]' ■At*. have reviewKl the plans for tte proposed in-.provement or proposed use of the property located at SX ^ ^^1 ■ 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. f- Property' Ovhie J i Date PropCTty' Owner /» ><f . v c: , >V /Date * I (wc)i’hii.'lK ^uliL of 53 A [print name(s)j [print address] I'^J HacC have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as I.and Use Application No.________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (wc) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but rae.ely 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 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. .ft/.‘r »t -^1, . li« #’>?-■ ,-f i ~ ■ — ■ ■ mu r jn i wpiiuMi' ytAmior «t • f 7UlU'r* rt« ATTACHMENT I // " i ATTACHMENT II Variance I Our remodeling project is pnmanly a reorganization cf irtertor spaces The dining room addition, which fills in a low area adjacent to basement windows, will alleviate the constant water damage problems to our basement By diverting the rain water to the street, we feel we can effectively maintain a dry basen>ent. Because of this relocation of the dif)ing room, the entry must be moved to a new location. Minnesota weather dictates that a covered entry be built, thus additional hardcover is requested for this area. The garage addition will cover, for the most part, existing hardcover and win only slightly increase our hardcover count Due to the and narrow shape of our bt, a long driveway to reach the garage requires a great deal of our hardcover square footage. We have attempted to comply with Orono hardcover ordinances by removirtg a dog kennel and side door cement slab. The front sidewalk was removed, a lakeside deck and the driveway were reduced in size. We feel our property to be more in compliance with Orono building variances than other neighboring properties Variance 11 We are requesting this variance to allow for the change of our roof line. The living room roof sheds water directly to the lake. By changing the pilch to the sides, rain water will be diverted to the ground to allow for absorption before running into the lake. The room volume will increase slightly, i.)ut the hardcover square footage will not increase. By changing the roof s pitch, we will also be able to increase the room ’s insulation value. The Pyle’s residence, on the north, will not be affected by this change, as their sight line is obstructed by mature trees. The Buysse residence, on the south, will not experienoe any sight line obstruction due to the roof ^ange. ' i 0^-2S-l95t. 12:0 j RI nsi^M THE t«^,E£EP. -:0 TO SFTBa CK ZONE: (CIRCLE 0N'£) 0-75’ X X K B. Garagr C. Dnv»ay I »<t I JZJO X X D. Siiltwalk r X a E. F«io/Dcck W J % X F. Lmlscape Underlain! By Plastk Or Fabnc X X X OiLer I 0 TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE t/1/ ^ a ^OPOSEO hardcover in zonf. A. House \JA per.i.'rO Lei5g!h / 0 / O X X X B. Garage C. Driveway fL X X D Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Deck X X F. Landscape Undcrlam By Plastic Or Fabric X X X G. O^hcr 75-25<>’250 500* 4730T10 P.Ol ' ✓ 500-imM)* . ' WUrf! ( - * S.F. - ^ ^ S F. a _______________S.F. - S F.*1 • .A** ^ i 4 S.F €10 S.F. 5* c S.F. iZ /'I ^ ^ Vi- / ■5T / 0 B /> Widdi —Le- S C? I ^ 0" . -I S.F. - S F. SF •t t0 If / C 0 S.F. i X 100 « -*fTT;0 s.r. S F. A B - S.F. ^6 ^TO SF S F. /V^ / S.F. iVtS A/ h -f S.F. In S.F/ fC ^ , vV-S F. . -I S.F. '• S F./ ^ s.FX 6-7* S.F. S.F. S.F. lyo S.F. TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE - 3' TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE A •-/ //O -!■ B /^. VO 0 .X 100 = S.F. A B . /"T To TOThL P.Ol J m ^ P In 2 tn ^ zn ^ CD rra rrvs::: .1 ? -5 ^ ^r t' :I *2 1* *i\ , JlOO < mfM —, °x[fl a P S ^ ► - o • § In-?-! a 3rj ^ 9*W !»•* ^> d fl ? ^ B 12 S, IpB J«! c 9 % & <1 m >inH Im < > z! O i? na m n !: --j. T'v /,.b \ f II) TO:Chair Peterson and Orono Planning Commission Members Ron Moorse, Citv Administrator FROM: DATE: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning & Zoning Administrator June 11. 1V96 SUBJECT: #2145 Donald and Robin Helgager, 3265 Sixth Avenue North - Variances Public Hearing Zoning District: RR-IB, Single Family Rural Residential, 2 acre, unsewered. Application: Request for street, side, lakeshore and average lakeshore setback variances for additions to the east and south (or lake) side of the residence. The improvements will consist of a two stall garage, workshop and three season porch. The e.xisting detached garage structure will be removed. List of Exhibits A - Application B - Plat Map C - Property Owners List D - Sur\ ey E - Site Plans, Existing and Proposed F - Elevation Views G - Floor Plans H - Hardcover Calculations I “ Topographic Map/Average Setback Review J - Bluff Analy sis Pertment Code Sections 1. Section 10.28, Subd. 5(B): RR-1B required street setback = 50', required side setback = 30'. 2. Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C): 150* setback required for structures on a Natural Environment Lake. 3. Section 10.22, Subd. 1; Section 10.56, Subd. 16(C-6): No encroachment of average lakeshore setback allowed. ! Zoning File #2145 June 11, l‘?96 Page 2 Pertinent Facts HEM REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED STANDARD I. Lake Setback: Existing House Existing Det. Gar. Proposed Addition isr 123’ I5I’ (Remove) 140’ 150’ 150’ 150' 2. E Side Setback: Existing House Existing Det. Gar, Proposed Addition 27.3’ 6.8*(Remove) 5' 30’ 10’ 30' 3. Street Setback: Existing House Proposed Audition 45.3’45.3’ 53’ 50’ 50’ 4. Average Setback Encroachment (per line B-B of Exh. I): Existing House 75’ 75’ Existing Det. Gar. 90’ (Remove) Proposed Addition - 75’ O' 0’ O' Summary of Request VARIANCE 10’ 75’ Applicants propose to construct a garage and room addition to the east side of the existing house, which already encroaches ^proximately 3’ inu the required 30' side setback. The proposed addition w ill be 5’ from the east side lot line, requiring a 25’ variance. It appears from the information provided that all of the additions and revisions outside the envelope of the existing house will occur more than 50’ from the street lot line, hence fltf, StfWt setback variance appears necessary. The proposed addition will encroach 10’ into the required 150’ setback from Lake Classen. The existing house is 151’ from the lake. It might be argued that because the existing detached garage 123’ from the lake will be removed, the proposed encroachment by the addition results in a better setback situation than currently exists. The average lakeshore setback encroachment has been defined m this application based only on the Zoning File #2145 June 11, 1996 Page 3 adjacent home to the east, which sits further back from the lake than applicants' residence. It is likely howe\ er, that the removal of the existing garage and construction of an addition further from the lake, will result in no loss of lake views by the neighboring propertv owner, and ma\ result in some additional views being provided. Discussion Please review’ Exhibit I, the topographic map. Note that this site ic not a blulT (see Exliibit J). Although the site cont-'ins steep slopes, the proposed additions will be in a terraced area and should have little or no impact on the slope stability . Due to the severe slopes south and west of the house, the least difficulty for constructing additions is clearly to the east side near the lot line. An addition directly w est of the house w ould start to encroach into the street setback. Additions to the southwest or south side of the house would eat up the limited tlat yard area above the steep slopes. Given the close proximity to County Road 6, it may be appropriate to allow the property owners to maintain a useable flat vard on the lake side of the house. Also, additions to the southwest or south side of the house would likely result in a significantly greater encroachment of ♦he 150' lake setback than the proposed addition. If the most appropriate location for the addition is to the cast side of the house, how w ill the impact of a 5’ setback be mitig .ed? Note that drainage is toward applicants' property rather than to tlie neighboring property, hence drainage is an issue to be dealt with by the applicants, not by the neighbor. A concern, however, is that t'ne existing pine trees along the lot line (possibly on the neighbor ’s property) might be negatively impacted. If they disappear as a result of this project, is there a need for screening between the two homes to mitigate the impact of such a minimal setback? Issues for Discussion 1.Given tlie limited buildable area of the property due to setbacks, topography and the location of existing structures, :s the p roposed location for the addition appropriate? 2.If the location is appropriate, is the magnitude of the addition appropriate? Is a 5' setback from the east lot line acceptable? Is it possible to reduce the width of the addition to maximize the resulting setback from the side lot line? 3.1 . jide setback variance is allowed, what measures, if any, are necessary to mitigate the impact of the side setback encroachment? 4. Is the average lakeshore setback encroachment of concern to the Planning Commission? r Zoning File #2145 June 11,1996 Page 4 5.Is the new encroachment of the 150' lakeshore setback by the addition sufficiently better than the existing situation to justify approval? Staff Recommendation If Plann-' j Commission feels that the proposed variances are justified by adequate hardships, then a recommendation for approval would be appropriate, with any conditions Planning Commission feels are necessary to mitigate the impacts, especially of the side setback variance. Options for Action 1. Recommend approval as proposed. 2. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. Table for further information (specify). 4. Recommend d‘*"ial or partial denial (state reasons). 5.Other. 1 Application # -:rC ’ j/3 Date Received > Amount Paid /• cc .» «• CITY OF ORONO - VARIANCE APPLICATION Initial Application Fee S220.00 (S50.00 per each additional variance) Renewal Variance Fee SI20.00 (no change from original application) Variance for non-conforming structures S220.00 After-the-Fact Fees (Double application fee) >•; i * •• * i ,* •X 3 PROPERTY INFOR.YUTION ^ , ?siteAddress ^.Oiunv4~W KC<XO (t Prof)erty TH<»ntifir.irinn Number rP.I.d.) V LcI, Sc^ 1^ * ____________ ,39-//g Attach legal description to application if not included on required survey. Date Property Acquired // / ^6 (month/year) I (do) (do^^p also own the adjacent parcels of land. Present use of pioperty: )f residential ___pother (specify'). Zoning District: /I ~ L/^--------------------------------— applicant ^ |-T€-t-A4 6&^------------ Address: Co. *1^. Co _________ City._ Phone rhome Wn5-;ojl2i, Phone (woric) ^4 • O S 5^ i - OWNER (if different than applicant) Name______ ^ — Phone (home)_ Phone (work)_ Address:City:.Zip:. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Estimated Construction Cost $ ^,poP —-------— Describe request in detail: 'fa do<oc-Te.u.eir a <o Arriftcttw 'Two —sj*it—... —------------- f —---------WT ---------------=-----■------ ■ ■ ■ . t To Afecar - 'To /^JO^PC 'TH£ jicit/toWattach additiorfel sheets if necessary) •7b f^oci-ntrc a^oJ VARIANCES REQUIRED Lot Area _Lot Width Hardcover Lot Coverage y Setback: _X -X- Side Rear X 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: A 7vig ■ Z.. > 77/iF % /ia^ ^a,rj£s T^Atr wouc^ (ItudLii iJ e ''vHx/iJ’ .LLif ^ CA't (A, r^/ht ft»,^attach additional sheets if necessary) esc/sm*^ e^/iA6c_ ; REQUIRED SUBMITTALS All of the foiinwiny infnrm3rioti must bt subiuingd the Mint Jn order fcr vour applicarion to he considered coiPPlgttl 1. X 2. j. 4. 5. 6. id 7. 8. Completed Application Fonn Certified Property Ovvners List of owners within 150', labels and plat map (you must obtain this list, labels and map from Hennepin CounW Department of F'nance, A-603, Govt Center, 348-j 271). Certificate of Survey (signed by a licensed surveyor) and include hardcover calculations as required. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/j x 11 for reproduction. ... Topo-n-aphic survey (existing and proposed elevations) if any changes in existing grade are proposed. In addition, provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11" for reproduction. Sketches or plans of floor & elevation views (provide one (1) copy 8'/i" x 11"). List of the legal names (include marital status) of all persons with an interest in the property. This would include tiame(s) of applicant(s) if not current owneKs). 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 Cit>- staft. The Applicant and Property Owner must sign this application. Please remember that ysuiT variance anqirntinn is not complete if the above information HOt been jntlwdtiL APPLICANT’S SIGNATURE The applicant herebv 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 t e information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. Applicant’s Date OWNER’S SIGNATURE The owner herebv acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authonzes retaonable entry onto the property by City staff, consultants, apnts. Commission members, and Council members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. Signature Date make anangements to have an authorized agent attend in your place and to advise the Buildmg & Zomng Office of this change prior to the meeting. 8 mm DATE oB/a/uMTCN MS HDHEPJH COUNTY mOPEIITY XHTORMATION SYS1XN PIIOPCRTY QNNERS LIST REPORT NO. PI45M01 PAGE ;PROP AMR QHNER NAHE TA)9AYER KAHE/AOOR S6 f9-lia-ES A1 00050S2M SIXTH AVE N RAP ALLISON RENNETM A PHV*.Li:; 41.LIS0N S240 ATM ^.V€ N LONG LAr.C m 55354 Sa 2Y-110-2S 42 0004 03440 SIXTH AVI N HEffCPIN CO PARR DIST HENN CO PARR RESERVE ATTN CHUCR BELLINGHAH SaOO CO RO NO 24 MAPLE PLAIN MN 5535Y 36 24-110-2S 44 000103225 SIXTH AVE N N C HEUPEL ADR HEUPEL NEIL C A DENISE R HEVA^EL 5225 SIXTH AVE N LONG LARE HN 55554 PROP AOOR OMNER NAME TAXPAYER NAME/AODR 56 24-118-25 44 0002 05245 SIXTH AVE N 0 R A R A HELGAGER DONALD R HALGAGER 5245 4TH AVE N LONG LARE MN 55354 36 24-116-25 44 0005 00036 ADDRESS UNASSIOCO P R A M M CRAOOOCR THOMAS A NANCY SAHYER 3405 4TN AVE N LONG LARE MN 55354 TOTAL 6ATCM 505 00005 •^4 ii I CERTIFY THAT THE FACTS REPRESENTED ARE AN ACCURATE AW) TRUE REPRESENTATION OF INFORMATION AS IT APPEARS THIS DATE ON THE RECORDS OF THE HEFMEPIN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TA)aTION> TO.THE BEST OF HY KN0NLE06E AND BELIEF, - * 'V ; ‘ ' sh DATE it ; CERTIlFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DONALD AND ROBIN HELGAGER IN GOVEmMENT LOT 1. SEC. 29-118-23 . J ^ ^ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Sinn lEGAl DtSCWIPTlOW OF PBtMtSES SUHVtrgP: rne Men 327 ftct of the Ceii 5«2 feel of ihei p«ri of Covcrnaenl lot I, lyln^ South of the roed. Section 29, Township 110 North. Renge 23 West of the Slh Princioei Meridian. , •*. denotes Irun Marker found Bearings shown ere based upon an assumed datum. This Survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described properly, and the location of an ealsting house, garage, shed and all ealsting -hardcover" thereon. It does not purport to show any other Improvements or encroachments. r’-so tlVTA*.Dais PtscionAVv Coffin & Gronberg, Inc.I hrtrK rrrfU* Ihal lh4'» «wnri jv pfr|VtfrJ bv n«e ut wivirt n»» Jiretl lupri- vnwwt and ilut I tm a Jul> Cnil and Lind Swrvvyw undet thr bwt .4 thr Suir oi Mtnnmita Milk S Lrtwds-fn MjtutrsuU Lacam Numhrf I27SJ SCAU r«jo ’ UATIe-s*w> KMNn I II £iuf AW4. 6H'f L0t I, s*6 l^ n$ tj ^ - Li/tt pvmtiil u^/fK the f«s e.-’''ot &C0’t L«tt, Set Zf'U$ c part of :tion 29. Principal the above described se. garage, shed, and purport to show doy 1 fTl 1 0^ f p ^ r i • HARDCOVER CALCULATION WOrfkSHEET:-. *■ If- .i« * > ..aiiil f ^ SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75'75-250'250-500'500-1000' rxiSTINC. HARDCOVER IN ZONE A. House ______________ ^ «SB3Aj 8^&, JaJC- Length Width X X X B. Garage C. Driveway X X D. Sidewalk X X E. Patio/Decfc X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic X X % G. Other TOTAL HARDCOVER IN ZONE TOTAL PROPERTY AREA IN ZONE ______ •!- n 'I ,Zi? ~ PROPOSED hardcove r IN ZONE A. House ______________ * -..c V, ^ Length < -3 / X X X B. J Garage ^ Z C. Driveway .'=7 X X D. Sidewalk 6 X X E. Patio/Dcck X X F. Landscape Underlain By Plastic 4 X X X G. Other 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. ^2^_ S.F. _ S.F. _________% g| ro Z s S.F. Width -s S.F. f /S=l !/0 S.F. S3 S.F. ‘S'7 isii •j16 S.F. 3Z,inti^S.F. «S.F. [i-ss //?.S.F. 8 S.F. 8 S.F. 8 S.F. It? n 8 S.F. {&8 11 S.F. —8 fU S.F. 8 S.F. IE S.F. ZONE ai izo *S.F. X 100 =% A B n J A p i y •• ' .W: V' •; 'if'ifr *^ *'•’ %v - • f ••. .U*^ ... •# - - • • -; f.f*(. i.*’ ■ • > 'i /i -1^ ?f *i - • eiSM&i HAKOCOVEK CALCULATION HORKSH SETBACK ZONE: (CIRCLE ONE) 0-75' •» Existing Hardcover in Zone . I 4.V •l^N .* « « #• ... •• t . ■: • 1' • • •Ai ' H ouse . i * »T*f:LENGTH , _ -t* ' ’ .Vi'% - k*.’’ •’*" • • Q^y ::!l ':i ’ii. ■ I. * * _8 /i»H> 'H.'' '• • il. *.“ytteo . 12. t X• > ; .. 'r V • •' jL-a ' • • • • B. Garage X•/J ,*^ , w • • • • • ■c. D riveway • X A # Cowd So«»0 . r •0.. Sidewalk ••.;’;s' ’I t? ■ • 'ff. ;7. . I .•••* ‘* *» * j .1 ■• V ■‘y ;.»■'• ^•; • . E. Patio / D eck l± F. Landscape AREAS UNOERUIN BY , . PLASTIC SHEETING A#* • • * •• • # ‘» -»*:. f- CoNC, ____ ft^o wne ^mjL G. Other ^ X X X X X X WIDTH S3 hr Total H ardcover in Zone• ^ « 4 Total Property Area in Zone 0 ❖HI. t« ^<v'r Lot L Sfii: * I 250-500' 500-1000' J25-2. S6 UO BIS . 2139 14-/ 35- /S’ tl6 84- Z76 24- 65 S.F. S.F. S.F. . S.F. _ S.F. V. S'. F.Ke»’.ov’'-^ S.F..• . .• S.F.? f f^^ aVI ') (s> j,p, S'e^icv • S.F. S.F. ?.F. S.F. F f 9* '-^** *^ S.F. S • FI SsF. K f #»l©vi 'i 5 • r • % ^28 m BUZOt M.,. [I] - 15.55 ^••••* »m X 100 * L • . • • • . A '■A •• •• •1 V • •. ^ •1 s.• *• • • a; •• 1.€ • ■ • i . ♦*< y y •V f •rntno »• .• • r.- « r- • * ‘ ‘ f' • •• i *ig f • T K** V l # • h •3 • •;« -{. t 'I*• * . *• K '*M.. *» *V I *•• • • y-v t - *• =r*:. r. ■-. f*. y.M :•* ,/ *• i'-.I.:'! ■< r I • • 4 •• *•. » ■if 11 •:% • .t V.* M'* * » • % . « T > ' » . X, HetA^e<2.ifj ^r lor t, HARDCOVER CALCULATIO H HORKSHEET aiftcLt oiik)^^ 75.250» 250-500* 500-1000* ExiSTiHfl llAnOCOVER IN ZoNE A. * House B« Garage c. Driveway 0. Sidewalk E. Patio/ Deck F.LandscapeAREAS UNDERUIN BY . .FUSTIC SHEETING 6. Other - X ^ - X __ . X . X X X . X . - X unsth hibth •• --------------------X • ••^ * --------------------- X • I J •■ X —— s • -------------------X •-------------— S • --------------------X . ------S ——----s, 3«P s.p. S.F. S.F SI F» :_L i.F. ‘ —_ StFt — S.P.’ S.F S.F. S.F. S.F. _ S.F. - S.F. 9 Total Hardcover in Zone - Total Property Area in. Zone iP. _ S.F, _ S.F. -t.'f. [a] m ZZ33e>i.._ [2 OX 100 -% wissmi / riN Mftf' "iiy / / /y -N V • / / / • •^:~jV ( ^ »^s « .m v' ^1 ;i •' / A ! # ^ / \.- ilQ,-’ '-7 r'T~^ ,J^..Am. . ^«00?.} ,'\BS1f - / V •/ »" 1V • •' ';L f/^‘•^'ir i' .v*' • / f < •? ^ ^ ■7- ••••* • M ) •t« »m. nO /f/0.m0 » AM' - O'.i'i-' • • /•/, / r- f y ^‘ / * ■ ’ * - - ' *— C 1^-^" ' //'."*'■ / - •. X 972.4 Mon 5^ ^ I ! ! • I t ! 'll! i #r» lH9«rLM^; ’ , / ^ ( 2-S O'* '*"»>•'. •>'< >.<.r;«', '^‘ ti., ;i\rV>X I %L^i^f ‘y(MM~'lU^ ~ t^o-r^ f^i^lPF I! * t 1 * !1 I • •*••1 • 1 •1 •1 t •i :1 ». .1 •H"1 i «1 t •1 1 1 ; ••1• .♦•j »• i t 1 »••1 •( .1 J 1 1 •« «1 1 i •t t i 1 •i •i , ••i : '•I 1 f •!1 I !1 ••1 1 I ! ROLL The Orono Planning Commission mol on =:ir;^rcoo^-^^^ r^nirc:....ch.^ Peterson called the meeting to order at OC' p m p„,.0„ .elcomed Bill S.oddard ,o .he Planning Commission S.oddard .as recemly appointed to the Commission by the Council v«m MD Fi.n<' 1,ISI0S®F««1.IC ■NFO.MSTIOS «mrw ,.„ »«™ »"•» ««ST- preliminary subdivision - 7:02-. .40 P.M. The Affidavi, of Publication and Certificate of Mailing .ere noted ,im Pfennig and Laurie Lundeen svere present along .i.h surseyor. Mark Gronberg Mabusth reported that the JJcer.m!d theSS^^ of presiding an at the March. 1W6, meetmg^ ^ t n-I^ooomaphv location of .etlands, narrowness of internal road to serve all six lots ‘’“-‘^"^^f'Vhe „-ad as prop"sod -vine lots 1, 3, and 4 would preserve the as it is unsafe and encroaches propertyf to ,he south of the property needs to b' ^ ,i„es of lots 5 and 6 A new south, A new access would be ^ imersection of Co Rds 84 and 19, The "" . . • _ _______^«a.rt\r There VUUWiJi ------------------- ■ Mabusth continued by whkVme not'’to^^ wetlands under designated wetlands and type 1 a - • laws. The applicants will ^SS^ated wetlands and type 1 slnTlaws, The applicants will ^ istsr.t.h'ru:::!'’;^^^ <>" o'' contain these type 1 or 2 wetland'contain these ty'pe 1 or 2 wetlands In reviewing the hardships for"" forThe septic w“«.the 6% sllpe and location of wetlands vvere note ^ 1 h . „ „ad requirement is also a concern The m ernai r outlo. extension to serve property to the east wne MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 19% (^I - #2136 Grccnlicld Corporation - Continued) Mabusth reported that all 12 septic sites tested tvill require mound systems The existing residenlMl septic system is failing on lot 6 and primary’ and alternate sites were testetl Eleven of the sites meet the 6® o slope requirement The alternate site for lot 6 is at an slope, which uas approved by Weckman The proposed priman' site does not meet the 75* separation from the well, but would meet the State setback The applicant could be kcd to relocate the welluStN Mabusth described the variances required w ith the proposal Three of the lots served at the cul-de-sac do not meet the width requirement Applicant’s survevor noted lot 1 is surrounded by County road at the north and west, and lot 4 by the ftiture road on that along the east Lot width variances have been granted by the City in the past for the lots adjacent to the cul-dc-sac Mabusth noted that lots 2, 3, and 4 arc long and narrow. Mabusth asked the Commission how they would physically define the rear lot lines of the 3 parcels and protected septic sites from uses of future property owners Peterson a.sked how that could be accomplished and still protect the septic sites’’ Mabusth said signs or plantings are possibilities, but snow fencing was not acceptable as it could be easily removed Mabusth said it shall be the responsibility of all three ow ners to know the boundaries Lindquist asked if this notation could be placed on the deeds, but Mabusth said property owners are not always aware of what is recorded on the chain of title Mabusth infnrme<l Peterson that there are no plans for sewering the area in the near futuie Mark Gronberg noted if lot I was built on, a mound system would be used, and would define the svstem Smith noted the difficulty in defining the septic sites for lots 2, 3, and 4, especially with the need to go through a septic site area to gel to the lots She suggested the establishment of a corridor to notate where the septic sites w ould go Mabusth asked if this would be a natural barrier? Smith said it could be delineated across the two property lines Peterson commented on the question of balance in developing the property and possible need to eliminate a lot, which was noted during the sketch plan re'.aew He noted that if a lot was eliminated, it would solve the width and septic problems Peterson said the applicant, beyond this issue, has responded well, noting the issues were contingent on the i 1i 14 recommendations made bv Staffi MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#1 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Jim Pfennig ot Greentleld Corporation asked to respond. He noted that the property to the east, which is proposed to have road access from Outlot B, has an outlot access located more to the east Regarding the septic site discussion. Pfennig said the subdivision would have an architectural review committee and covenants. He thought the first owners would have knowledge of the septic sites but did not know if that would continue with subsequent owners Pfennig remarked concerning lot I and the 200' frontage on the County roads He noted if Outlot A was extended to the west, there could be more frontage, but he did not believe it would make sense to blacktop in order to gain the 200' width He also noted that the type I and 2 wetlands go up to 16’ in elevation, which is unusual Gronberg added that alot of the area will not be landscaped He envisioned lawn for the areas adjacent to building sites and road but then leav ing the remainder natural Pfennig said the initial plans were to plant in alfalfa. Gronberg commented that there is a loss of 70' with Outlot B and the 50* road setback rather than a 30’ side setback at east lot line Outlot B will not benefit this development. Gronberg said he saw the development as similar to a PUD with clustering to the north, but saw no problem with the septic sites being close together as it does not interfere with the wells Peterson asked about easements Mabusth said the City will asking for a bike easement along North Shore Drive and Bayside Road The County has recently shown a comprehensive bike trail plan along North Shore Drive on the east side The Park Commission asked for a bike trail within the drainaue and utilitv easement Mabusth said W ^ there is an issue with lots 5 and 6 regarding additional right-of-way There will be a 10' easement Mabusth said Weekman informed her the bike trail easement of 10’ will not impact lots 5 and 6 The County’s comprehensive plan calls for 46 ’ of additional right-of- way and trail easement The City will ask for only 10’ of bike trail easement and no additional right-of-way adjacent to lots 5 and 6. There were no public comments Lindquist asked w hat different would occur regarding width if outlot B was eliminated. Gronberg said lot 3 and 4 ’s lot widths would be expanded Lot lines would be moved with lot 4 to the east and lot 3 would be alittle laraer. 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#1 - *f21.‘?6 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Mabusth reported that the developer is being asked to grade the road bed in outlet B for future use for the property to the east It is Staffs understanding that the ouner of property to east does not plan to develop at this time but plans only to construct his own residence and driveway. The road bed will be seeded and grassed Pfennig said he met with the owner and discussed th*» plans. He added that care would be needed in dealing with the wetlands Gronberg informed Mabusth that he has submitted an application to the MCVVD but no action has been taken Mabusth said the sediment detention pond may have an impact on lot 4 Gronberg said this would come into play when the road was paved Mabusth noted the occurrence of runoff from proposed drainagew ay along west side of Outlot B Pfennig said he was willing to dig the pond at this time The pond would be partially located in lot Mabusth clarified that there would be a drainage pond in the northeast corner. A drainageway easement would extend from Outlot A to the pond at northwest corner Gronberg said there are two drainage divides with drainage running to a culvert under Co Rd 19, north under Co Rd 19, and northwest through ditches to the lake The southern drainage runs tow ard Lakeview Golf Course Gronberg noted most houses will be to the north, which is the reason the pond leads to CoRd 19 so as not to increase the runoff. He added that when the blacktop is done, there will be some additional runoff to the south. Peterson asked if the Engineer agreed with the grading plan'’ He suggested the sediment pond be established right away. Smith asked if there w ere other developments w ith similar situations regarding the house, septic, and wetlands, especially noting lot 4 Mabusth noted similarities with the lots in the Farm at Long Lake approved in 1978 Lindquist said that property has worked out well. Gaffron noted the lack of flexibility for the buyer of lot 4 Smith said the potential problem should be made aware to any buyers Mabusth said the covenants will expose the problems, especially with the drainage easement over detention ponds, and protective covenants dealing with wetlands and septic Smith said her main concern was that no future problems be created for the City and noted that the land being developed was marginal >1. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (^1 - #2136 Greenfield Corporation - Continued) Stoddard asked Mabusth about the City's positionrev iew regarding the lot width variance. Mabusth said the width w as tight with the location of the road and the more restrictive road setback at east lot line of lot 4 She commented that this occurs often adjacent to cul-de-sacs It was noted that lot 1 is surrounded b\ County roads Lot 4 is adjacent to a future road Mabusth advised lot width is measured from access road Mabusth said Staff IS concerned with lot 4 Pfennig interjected that lot 4 is the best lot Mabusth agreed that the development has kept the vistas open Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve Application #2136 with Staft' recommendations as listed and the inclusion in the grading plan of a pond area within lot 4 and the extension of outlot A to the east Lot width variances are recommended for approval. The covenants will delineate the septic sites along with the wetland delineation. The site plan locating access drive to ser\e existing residence on lot 6 must meet the 26' separation from the designated wetlands and be 20' from any septic sites The 17 of additional right-of-way along the west boundaries of lots I and 2 w ill be for North Shore Drive only, not Bayside. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ACTION ITEMS (#2) #2112 RICHARD PUTNAM, 2765 CASCO POINT ROAD - AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE - PUBLIC HEARING 7:40-7:48 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present Gaffron reported that the application was for an after-the-fact variance for hardcover in the replacement of an existing deck in-kind, which was built before treated wood was available. The proposal replaces hardcover when the property is already over the 25% allowable; thus, the need for the variance Gaffron noted a resolution for a remodel from five years ago, which included an addition as well as a garage addition. It was approved as an attached garage In reviewing the hardcover for this application, it was found that the hardcover changed from 40.2% to 44 45% The new survey results in an additional 400 s f of hardcover The lot area on this new survey is less resulting in an increase in the hardcover calculations Gaffron said the hardcover dift'erences are likely due to the differing surveys and interpretations of rock walls He noted that the patio blocks and walkway areas are necessary to this property and are as intended in the 1987 application Gaffron therefore, recommends approval of the application noting the applicant has paid the after-the-fact fee and the necessity of the deck replacement. I MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION’ MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (^2 - #2112 Richard Putnam - Continued) Putnam added that the deck uas falling dox^n, and he could not wait for variance approval to receive the permit before reconstructing the deck There were no public comments Smith commented that if the deck had not already been replaced, the Plannimz Commission would livik for additional areas for reduction of hardcover GatTron said it might be argued that the de^’c replacement is a continuation of work that was authorized in 1987 He noted the pavers and rock walls were appropriate, and the width of the driveway was necessary Smith askto if the replacement was part of the past resolution h was not, but it could be argued that it possibly was based on the wordinu Hawn moved. Lindquist seconded, to recommend approval of Application #2112 per the Staffs recommendation Vote AvesNavsO Putnam asked to comment on the Casco Point area bringing the Commissioners attention to the plat map in Exhibit B He note-J that although the area was zoned foi L2 acre lots. 100' min.mum width, and related setbacks, only 5 or 6 of the lots on the plat meet the 100' width Putnam said most of the lots do not meet the existing zonim t codes, and he sees no merit to the codes as they exist He does not understand the need for applicants to request variances when the ordinances do not work for the properties on Casco Point. Putnam noted that the homes in the area are not tear downs He said Casco Point was a diverse area, unique, and he is irritated by the social engineering caused by the bureaucracy, and the waste of time and mone> spent in gaining approval for such projects as his deck replacement. Putnam said others were not coming in to the City for review of projects but doing work without permits, adding that the process was not working Smith commented about requesting reductions in hardcover and justitlcation of existing hardcover. Putnam said the taxes were outrageous for the area and felt people were treated poorly. He saw the issue as being a double slandaid between lakeshore and non-lakeshore properties. Putnam asked that the Staff be allowed more flexibility in situations such as what exists on Casco Point Peterson said he understood the frustration He noted the problem with property owners building more than what is allowed for the lot sizes Putnam asked that the City tell the County to put a "throttle" on taxes He acknowledged the job well-done by Staff in his dealings w ith the City in his remodeling, and asked the Commis'.on to address these issues as soon as possible. \fINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1096 The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant, Karla Spooner, was present. Mabusth reponed that the application is for hardcover and lakeshore setback variances for improvements to a lakeside deck The e.xisting deck consisting of 650 s f of hardcover would be removed, along with 37 s f of connecting brick walkway, and replaced with a grade level granite patio I’x?' step will extend from both sides, and l'x24’ step will extend at the lakeside The existing hardcover of 4,140 s f is proposed at 3,851 s f, for a reduction of 298 s f in the 0-75’ setback Mabusth noted that the property is I 2 acres of which half is located in the 0-75 setback. A 4x6' cement pad is proposed being located 50' from the lake at the base of the stairs for use of outdoor cooking The deck is 26’ from the lake The proposed patio would be 40’ from the lake The proposal would result in an overall improvement in reduction of hardcov er The applicant said they were willing to give back in hardcover to replace with what is suitable for the property Peterson said he saw the proposal as an improvement to the existing conditions and to the lakeshore itself There were no public comments. Lindquist voiced his approv al of the proposal. Mabusth informed Smith that the shoreland regulations allow for stairs and pad Spooner said the steps are not an access to lake but to replaceloose stone steps adjacent to the house. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to approve Application #2133 as recommended. Vote; Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#4) #2134 ROBERT CHARLES ALBRECHT, 1810 SHADYVVOOD ROAD VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:04-8:26 P.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Cert'ficate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was present MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#4 - #2134 Robert Charles Albrecht - Continued) Gaffron reported that the after-the-fact ret^uest for hardcover variance was due to the construction of a 207 s.f deck to the lakeside of the residence GafTi on said the property was originally in ownership wah an adjacent lot, which was subsequently sold Each lot now has a house with amenities A resolution in 1984 allowed for 2775 s f of hardcover, or 25? o of the 75'-250’ zone A permit w as issued in 1985 for additions to the residence subject to the use of grass pavers for the driveway resulting in a hardcover proposal of 19*0 It was found in 1991 that the driveway had been paved with asphalt and had constructed decks without approval resulting in 5080 s f of hardcover The 19' driveway with backup apron was approved in 1991 to eliminate the need to back up onto Co Rd 19. Work in progress was recently stopped when it was found that another deck was being constructed Also seen was a hot tub. which is to be placed on the deck This deck, along with different interpretations of calculations, result in 5352 s f ofliaidcovei. 270 s f nioic than what was approved in 1991 Including the area outside of the 75', there is a net increase in hardcover of 165 s f Landscaping proposal by Otten Bros of landscape patio blocks result in a net increase of 54 s f of hardcover The proposal is to reduce the driveway to a narrower width and leave the backup apron, resulting in a net reduction of 35 s f in the 75-250' zone. The lakeshore stairway, shown on the landscape plan, was rebuilt since 1991 This additional hardcover was addressed in 1991, and the owner was informed that a permit would be required The City also made an elTort at that time to ensure that a new owner would be aware of these restrictions The stairway is 3'xl9' long with a 6'xl3' landing, where 4'x4' is allowed GatTron said the square footage of the structure is not much more than code would allow, but since it is aftei-lhe-fact, it is necessaiy to review the stiuctuic. Gaffron noted that the present owner has owned the property since 1991. The applicant. Albrecht, disputed the calculations of the hardcov er It was noted that the hardcover calculation in 19% included the entire properly, while only the 75'-250' ^onc was included in the calculation in 1991 GatTron explained it was a matter of differing interpretations Smith said the existing driveway was necessary for safety reasons No further encroachments or hardcover were said to be allowed in the future by the Planning Commission in 1991 Smith said this was an opportunity to honor what a past Planning Commission had recommended Lindquist commented that this application was a good example of why covenants are necessary for properties Hawn agreed with Lindquist and Smith that no additional hardcover should be allowed. They, along with Peterson, agreed that the backup apron was necessaiy foi safely. 4 i MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 (#4 - #2154 Robert Charles .Albrecht - Continued) >\lbrechl responded that, although he has owned the property since 1991, he was not aware of haidcover variances He also noted that the proposal results in a net decrease in hardcover of 78 s f Peterson commented that the applicant knew that a building permit would be required to construct the deck Lindquist said he would not ha\ e agreed to a new deck Peterson noted that the deck is not in the 0-75' setback Albrecht informed the Planning C ommissioners that the 1991 approv al of hardcov er in the 75-250' zone of 34% was comparable to other homes in the neighborhood Lindquist responded that there was a discrepancy in the hardcover calculation Gaftron said the current calculation by StatT should be considered as accurate Smith said there were no opportunities for exchanges in order to further reduce hardcover Gaffron agreed that the stairway to the lake was necessary'. Peterson reiterated that the 1991 resolution implied no more hardcover would be allowed and reconstruction of a deck would have to meet City codes Albrecht responded that he was informed that if he replaced the stairway and deck, board by board, he w ould not need a variance Stoddard commented that a neighbor had complained that the lakeshore stair encroached on their dock Peterson said he personally had no problem with the stairs Hawn said approv al of the deck would render the process meaningless She did comment on the attractiveness of the deck Albrecht asked, if he would reduce the size of the drivew ay, if the Commission would approve the deck He was informed that the issue was the approval in 1991 Albrecht said owners should be made aw are of variances Lindquist informed him that this would have been done if/Vlbrecht had follow ed the procedure of seeking a building permit Smith followed this comment with noting that building permits are a trigger mechanism for discovery of necessary information. Gaffron asked the Planning Commissioners to read the notation on the inspection notice from 1991 on the building permit that the "resolution provided to new owner". It was further noted that there is no policy requiring the City to relay this information to new buyers. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLAN?s.T\G COXfMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20 lv% Smith moved. Lindquist seconded, to deny approval of the after-the-fact deck The stair landing \\z% apprnvetl with the comlition that the applicant work with .Start'to meet the 90-100 s f compliance for «air landing <ii7e \'ote Aye^ ^ Nays 0 The applicant was inlormed that the application would go to the second Council meeting in June !t was noted for the record that the Planning Commission was not concerned with the stainvay to the lake but would like to see the City work with the applicant in meeting si/e requirements. {f*S) #2135 PAUL AND SUE HEDLUND. 1575 LONG LAKE BLVD. - VARIANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 8:2S-9:12 P .M. The Affidavit ot Publication and Certificate of Mailinu were noted. The .Applicants was present. Gaffron reported that the property in question was a .V4 acre lot. the bulk of which is locatetl in the 0-7S' setback, with 17,600 s f in the 0-7S’ setback and 11,000 s f in the 75- 250' setback The house on the property is small and mostly located within the '' 75' setback The single car garage encroaches into the right-of-way GatTron said the proposal to purchase the property is conti.ngent on appros al of the additions .An addition is proposed to the rear, non-lakcsidc of the house, but still partially in the 0-75’ setback, A second stoty is also planjted. The garage will be remo\ ed and replaced by a 2-car attached earaqe Gaftron 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’. Gaftron said Staft' recommends a 10’ setback to the street lot line T he normal setback for a detached earage, when doors are to the side, is 10', which Gaft'ron said should be strived for Gaffron reported that the average depth of the lot is such that there is no buildable envelope The existing house does not meet setbacks Any upward changes results in visual impacts Gaft'ron said it should be noted that the height of the stmctiire he limited to 2 stories If this limit w as not placed in the resolution, the structure could be built to 2- 1./2 stories .'\ny more 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 Gaft'ron said there could be ramifications to changing the garage to the other end of the house. i A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 “ ^^l.>5 P<iui djiti Sue HciliuiKi - CoiiUriueU) The hardcover in the 0-75' setback exists at 1200 s f and 900 s f in the 75-250' zone The proposal would increase these calailafi<ins hy 85 % f in the 0-75’ ami to 17Rt « f the 75.250' 7one The overall allowed hardcover of 250j. i, 2724 s f and is proposed 3‘363 s f, an increase of appro>amate!y 300 s.f over the allowable mt nt Galfron cominued that this is also a bhiff situation The addition to the bulk of the structure would have an impact. Grading ivould also be required within the bluff im.pacl zone for the drivewav Gaffron said the bluff impact is minor, however, when compared to other issues involved A main concern is with the septic system for the property The current septic system is non-conlbrming aiul requires replacement, for which 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 unresolved issue Gaffron questioned whether the house should be expanded to 3 bedrooms without an alternate site or withhold final approval until the sewer issue is determined Applicant, Paul Hedlund, said the property was very unusual. It is their intent to keep the home 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 deserx es to have a home 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 elev ations, but asked the applicant if he would consider moving the garage to the west Sue HeJIuiul said the west side of the lot was steep and questioned the encroachment of the bluff area Paul Hedlund also noted that the well w as located on the w est side of the property During public comments, Charles Truman, who lives across the street from this property, voiced his approval of the proposal He said it would cause no hardship to the neighborhood MINXfTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMNflS^^ION NfEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 (^5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued) Peterson noted the concern from a neighbo' regarding the side setback He aureed that the concept uas u<wkI in general hut was concerned with the major issue of sewering Peterson said the application should be tabled until a solution is determined Peterson saw' the need to provide a septic s>stem for a 3 bedroom house or wait until the sewer issue is resolved Hedlund said he would prefer sewering and would not want to in\ est in a new septic system if sTwcring was m the near future Lindquist said w-ith the need for MUSA amendment appro\al. planning, and review, it could be at least another year until any decisions would be m.ade Hedlund said he could wait a year hiu woidd need 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 his opinion tliat 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 Albee family estate He acknow ledged the problems with septic but noted that this was not the only site in the area with no alternate site 1 le asked the Planning Commission to consider alternate solutions Nlartineau noted the uniqueness of the property and said a SOO s.f.rr>lI, home was not consistent w ith hom.es 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 what would be allowed for the property He agreed w/jth Lindquist on what could be done with the property as a fact of reality, rather than one of markettibility 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 sy stem which meets zoning requirements Peterson noted that olhei aiiencies aie involved Martineau said he w as in attendance not as an agent but to represent what was good for the homeowner He said he sees the propo.sal as a reasonable u.se 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 bluft'and the one septic site Hawn felt it w ould be irresponsible to take this substandard lot and increase the building size. She noted this property w as an example of w hy there w ere building codes. rr- i^ntar-Mr- r NIINLrrES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20. 1996 {US - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued) Susan .Albee said she saw the Hedlund's plan as being quite conserv ative She noted that there were no homes on the north side of the lake with alternate sites Albee said the proposed septic system for the property has a 25 year guarantee She did not believe the applicant was asking for ansthing unreasonable with the addition of one more bedroom and an attached 2-car garage .Albee said there was only a 10*o building envelope on the property, and her parents have lived there for 60 years Smith said she had no problem with the house increasing in height but with covering more of the lot witli structure. The main issue with Smith was the sewering Stoddard noted the sew er issue along with the height of the addition and encroachment into the 0-75’ setback He said there was still the issue of being 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 complaint 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 Gaffron said the City is working with I .ong I .ake to determine capat ity availability and make changes downstream as necessitry Once that is worked out. the Met Council will probably approve the application. GatFron said sew ering was a matter of timi.ng and cited e.xamples of what might occur He said he was concerned with the proposed improv ements if the septic system fa;!iS 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 Commission if the blurt'was a major concern. Peterson said it was the least concern of all the issues inv olved Peterson moved, Lindquist seconded, to table Application #2135 for redesign of location of garage and arcbatectural 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 Long Lake Callahan said he vvas in favor of the tabling He said the issue was similar to that of the ice arena proposal w ith aw aiting resolution of the sew ering 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. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#5 - #2135 Paul and Sue Hedlund - Continued I Vote: Aves 5. Navs 0. (#6) #2137 \\ ILIJAM and SUSAN DUN'KLFY, 2709 WAITERS PORT LANE VARLANCES - PUBLIC HEARING 9:13-9:38 P.M. The AffidaMt of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted The Applicant was represented bv Carl Smith Gaffron re\ iewed the proposals and improvements to the Dunkley property .An addition to the house, revamping of a garage wall, replacement of retaining walls, and a new entry’ w ay w as approved in 1995 w ith revision to hardcover with removal of retaining walls that were replaced with plantings The current proposal is to change a deck on the south side of the residence and replace it with a room with a pool spa This addition would meet the 10' side setback but is located within the 0-75’ setback Chanuinu the deck to the W W proposed enclosed structure would decrease the hardcover by 24 s f but would increase the lot coverage by structure from 15 6® o to 16 The additional structure also encroaches the average setback line Gaffron noted that the homes to the nonh and southeast are set far back on the properties The visual impact of the Dunkley property, with its bulk in the 0-75' setback, would not affect the view s of the other properties Gaffron said there may be opportunities for hardcover reduction hut the intensive review- of the hardcover was done with the earlier application Gaffron 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 walls and redoing the landscaping He noted their compliance with the requests of the City Letters have also been received from the neighbors approving what has already been done on ihe j)roperly 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 ’ Craffron 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 I lawn 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 was 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 f MIWIES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (#6 - #2137 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) When asked about hardships. Exhibit A was noted, which lists the reasons for the spa. but Gaffron said mi harckhip statement was incliuled Exhibit R rites medical reasons for the Spa Peterson said he did not see the a\ erage lakeshore setback as a problem with this proposal Gaffron suggested a possible mitigation with screening of trees or landscaping. Carl Smith showed an visual representation of the deck along with a representation of the spa room addition He noted that the addition was an improvement to the visual impact Hawn inquired what was being placed under the spa room. Carl Smith said this was undecided Lindquist questioned whether this addition was too much for the property. Peterson noted that the deck does need to be replaced Smith questioned why it was not included in original proposal Hawn noted that the Commission denied a screen porch and could not see any difference between a porch and this addition Gaffron remarked that the spa room w as brought up at the Council meeting at the end of the process w ith the last application but was reipiested to be submitted as a separate project He added that Dale Gustafson had suggested that more of the walkway pavers could be removed Gaffron noted that the drivew ay is located out of the 0-75' setback The retaining walls are necessary' due to the slope of the land Gaffron added that it could be argued that hardcover is hardcover Smith commented, if the screened porch was denied, and there were no other areas w here hardcover could be reduced, the limit in lot coverage may already have been reached There were no public comments. Lindquist moved, Peterson seconded, to approve Application #2137. Vote; Ayes 2, Lindquist, Peterson, Nays 3, Stoddard, Smith, Hawn Motion failed. Gaffron asked for either another motion or reasons for denial. Stoddard noted the view. Carl Smith said he was flexible in the design and changes could be made. Peterson said the Commission would need to table the application if a redesign was done. Carl Smith asked if the height was an issue Smith said in terms of hardcover, she could not see where reductions could occur. Smith said she was be more inclined to support the spa room if the visual impact was minimized by low ering it or mov ing it forward I lawn suggested exploring the idea of using the lower level room and eliminate the visual impact from the lake view. Carl Smith was informed if tabled, the application could come back before the Planning Commission on June 17, w'ith Council review on June 24. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON MAY 20, 1996 (W) - #2137 William and Susan Dunkley - Continued) Smith moved, Stoddard seconded, to table Application #2137 to work with landscaper in mmimi/inij the visual impacr and take the above ideas into consideration Vote Aves S NaysO ^ ' • PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS (#7) OTHER ISSl ES FOR DISCI SSION Hawn suggested the possibility of a Consent Agenda for the Planning Commission Meeting Smith asked that Staff request applicants to post application notices near driveways of the residences for easier identification. ADDITIONAL ITEMS (#«) PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MLWTES OF THE APRIL 15, 1996 MEETING Lindquist moved. Smith seconded, to approve the Minutes of the April 15, 1996 Meeting of the Planning Commission Vote Ayes 5, Nays 0 (#9) PLANNING COMMISSION TO SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND THE JUNE 10, 1996 MEETING OF THE COUNCIL Lindquist will attend the June 10, 1996 meeting of the Council. ADJOURNMENT Lindquist moved, Hawn seconded, to adjourn at 9:45 p m. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Stephen Peterson, Chair Person i i To:Planning Commission From:Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning^ Zoning Administrator Date:June 12, 1996 Subject: Planning Application Review Process The attached memo was briefly reviewed by the Council at their June 10 meeting, and likely will be discussed further at a future joint work session (To Be Announced). 1 t ’ I J J.usl REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE; May 21, 1996 ITEM NO: ' ' ’ Department Approval: Name Title Item Description: Administrator Reviewed:Agenda Section: Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process The Council has requested staff to provide a report regarding how best to address citizen needs in terras of the planning application review process. Staff has reviewed this issue from both a customer service perspective and land use policy perspective. The following memo identifies a set of customer service elements, current obstacles to meeting customer needs, and options for addressing those obstacles. The memo also suggests the development and/or clarification of policy guidelines for the most common ty'pes of planning applications, and changes in the review process for certain categories of applications. I. Improvements to Current Planning Application Review Process. Customer Service Elements 1. 2. Ease and clarity of planning application form. Ease and clarity of planning application review process. This includes the necessity of going through a full public hearing process at the planning commission. 3. 4. Clarity of ordinances, regulations and requirements. Duration of the process. 5. 6. Perception regarding fairness and reasonableness of the city’s action. Perception regarding being treated with respect and helpfulness by the staff. Planning Commission and Council . a.This includes staff willingness to assist with items required for the application or to help to clarify the information in the application to the PlarLoing Commission and the Council. Request for Council Action continued Page 2 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process 7. Perception by the applicant that staff is. or should be, an advocate for the applicant, which is not the case. 8. Costs incurred by the applicant to provide complete information. Nfaior Obstacles to Accomplishing the Customer Service Elements 1.Length of the planning application review process (applicants believe the shoner the process the better.) 2.The high number of applications generally overloads both staff and the Planning Commission. 3.Lack of policy guidelines makes it difficult for staff to play a role in expediting the application review process. C. Causes of an Extended Planning Application Review Process 1.Delay between discovery that an application is needed and the next application deadline. This occurs when a property owner reque?^% a buiUj.iig permit for a project and is advised that a planning *»n*h as a variance, is required. 2.The need for thorough application review by staff (including city engineer when applicable.) 3. Requests for additional information by staff. a. To make the application complete. b. To clarify information regarding the proposal. c. d. To resolve questions. To resolve issues regarding feasibility. I ■ Request for Council Action continued Page 3 of 8 May 21. 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process 4. Staff ensure a complete application prior to moving to next step in the review process. (Items 1 through 3 can add one day to two weeks to the application process.) 5. Continuation of the application by the Planning Commission. (This adds four weeks to the application review process.) D. Causes of Continuation bv the Planning Commission The major potential cause of delay in the planning application review process is continuation of the application by the Planning Commission. The main causes of continuation of a planning application by the Planning Commission are as follows: 1. Incomplete information regarding the application. 2. Significant issues regarding the application and proposal remaining unresolved. 3. New questions needing to be answered. New information requested. 5.Planning Commission requests the applicant to revise the proposal to address concerns. E. Current Time Frame/Chronoloev of the Planning Application Review Process 1.The minimum time period from the receipt of the pla nning application to the Planning Commission meeting is 22 calendar days. The hearing notices are faxed to the city’s official newspaper on the Tuesday following the Friday application deadline. For those applications received on the deadline day, staff has two working days to review the application for the following: 1.) To ensure the application is complete. 2.) To ensure the applicant is requesting the proper planning action. i L > I ■ilTffV'^tTirii —Mn urmi i 11 i tn if~r i ■ ■I I ~ I TriiMi ii IT ill I (t Request for Council Action continued Page 4 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process 3.) To determine whether the proposed development meets the city’s codes and is feasible. Generally staff does meet w ith applicants to review their proposal prior to submittal of the application, although this is not always the case. In many cases, the applicant has already filed a building permit application, and his/her first contact with staff was a call from the Building Inspector informing them that their project requires a variance. Potential Conflict Between Expedited Staff Review and E.xpeditious Plannini? Commission Review The current planning application review schedule and process often places pressure on staft to conduct the staff review of the application very quickly in order to place it onto an upcoming Planning Commission agenda. It is important the staff review is a thorough one so that the proposal is clear and the implications of the proposal in relation to the city’s zoning codes are clear, and so that all significant issues related to the application are identified and addressed. This may not be possible within a very short time frame. However, if an application is expedited to the Planning Commission too quickly, the probability that the Planning Commission may continue an application for additional information or questions is increased. If staff takes several days to a week or even two weeks to ensure a thorough review, this is a good trade-off versus extending the application review period by four weeks due to a continuation by the Planning Commission. Potential Solutions 1.Require an applicant to meet at least once with staff prior to submittal of the planning application. 2.Require a minimum of 10 days for staff review of the application prior to placing the application on the Planning Commission agenda and including the application in the published notice. 3.Change to an official newspaper with a publication schedule that better fits the city’s meeting schedule, or change Planning Commission meetings to Wednesdays, which would match the current official newspaper’s publication schedule. Request for Council Action continued Page 5 of 8 May 21. 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process 4.Develop policy guidelines to serve as an initial guide to applicants regarding what is acceptable, in terms of parameters to guide the magnitude of variances, for instance, and to serve as a guide to staff in working with an applicant to discourage applications outside of these guidelines, or to move an application closer to the guidelines. 5.Determine if there are certain categories of variances falling within specific parameters that could be handled on a staff level with the final decision by the City Council, rather than the full Plarming Commission review. If the number of applications in any month is very high, schedule a second meeting of the Planning Commission. (This becomes more feasible in conjunction with the expanded deadlines suggested in #2 above.) Alternative Application Review Time Line/Process i. Applicant meet with staff at least once prior to application submittal. a.) To explain the proposed project. b.) To determine if the project is do-able. 1. ) Practical and feasible 2. ) Complies with ordinances and policies c.) To determine the proper planning action required. d.) To explain and clarify the application form and requirements. e. ) f. ) g) To explain the application review process. To explain the city’s ordinances and policies as they relate to the proposal To provide some level of guidance to assist the applicant in submitting a proposal that comes as close as possible to meeting the city’s policies as they relate to Ae proposal"Or to advise the applicant that the proposal is something that is outside of the limits of acceptability in terms of the city’s codes and policies. 2.The application is submitted a minimum of ten days prior to the deadline for submitting legal notices to the official newspaper. Request for Council Action continued Page 6 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process 3. During the 10 day period, staff review the application to ensure it is complete-that ail necessary’ information is provided. 4.If the application is not complete the applicant is required to provide necessary information during the 10 day period, or to provide assurance of timely submittal for complete staff review, or the application is delayed to the next month’s Planning Commission meeting. 5.If the application is complete, or staff is confident of timely submittal of necessary information, the application is included in the legal notice. 6. 7. Staff prepares the repon to the Planning Commission. The application is reviewed by the Planning Commission and a recommendation is provided to the City Council. 8. The City Council reviews and tak-.s action on the application. Without any other changes to the application review process, the process outlined above would increase the application review time from a minimum of 22 days to a minimum of 34 days. However, it would also substantially reduce the probability of the application being continued at the Planning Commission or City Council level. In addition, there are other changes in the application review process schedule that could bring the application review timeline back closer to the 22 day period. Three calendars showing the current application review timeline and two alternate timelines are attached. U. Development/Clarification of Policy Guidelines. A. A Major Cause of a High Number of Planning Applications is for Variances Related to Existing Non-Conformities Because Orono’s historical development is much different than Orono’s current development standards, Orono has many non*conforming properties. This leads to many variance applications—both by non-conforming properties and by conforming properties that want to develop in a way similar to the non- conforming properties. The purpose of Orono’s current development standards, including the zoning code, is to enable the city, over a long period of time, to move currently non-conforming properties closer to or into conformity with the current development standards. In addition to increasing the number of planning applications, the effort to L_„ Request for Council Action continued Page 7 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process improve nonconforming properties involves a significant amount of discretion in the decision process, i.e. in terms of determining exactly what level of conformit}’ or non-conformit>' is acceptable for each individual application. Although these decisions tend to generally involve a certain amount of discretion, it is important that Council, Planning Commission and staff have a policy framework to provide parameters within which the discretion can be exercised. Without this framework, problems can result at both the staff level and the Planning Commission level. Without policy guidelines, it is difficult for staff to provide guidance to applicants in terms of the level of conformity necessary in their ptoposal. This sometimes results in the Planning Commission sending an applicant back to the drawing board to increase the conformity of the proposal. This can result in customer relations problems for two reasons: First, the process gets extended significantly. Second, although staff have not provided any encouragement to an applicant regarding the probability of a successful application, simply being involved in the process leads to an expectation of approval. When the applicant is sent back to the drawing board after waiting for a month to get to the Planning Commission, the applicant has a negative view of the process. B. Development of a Set of Policy Guidelines A partial solution is to develop a set of policy guidelines that provide guidance to applicants, staff. Planning Commission and Council Members for planning application review. The city needs to be clear on its overall goal or vision in relation to land use issues, for instance, on lakeshore development or redevelopment; so that the city moves toward that vision continuously as properties develop or redevelop. The decisions on individual applications need to be made within that overall framework to ensure that over time the totality of the decisions on individual applications result in the city achieving its overall vision. This may be happening currently because the current City Council and Planning Commission are in sync in relation to their land use goals or perspectives. However, currently there are no specific policy guidelines, other than the broad guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, that explain the general thinking, philosophy, and policy that undergird the decisions the Counci’, akes regarding each specific application. This potentially could result in iia 'dual decisions beginning to move inadvertently in a different direction, or nev cji*. .1 members moving decisions in a new direction, because there are no explicit written policy guidelines to keep things moving in the current direction. i 1. r. H'' k Request for Council Action continued Page 8 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process A further benefit of having a clear set of policy guidelines in place is that staff could ensure that these were made clear to all applicants in an effon to assist the applicants in bringing proposals to the Planning Commission and Council that arc within the guidelines. Once a set of policy guidelines is in place it may be possible to identify a category of applications that, if within certain parameters, could be leviewed at the staff level and brought directly to the Council rather than going through the full Planning Commission hearing process. This could reduce the size of the Planning Commission agenda and free up the Planning Commission to address more significant planning issues, rather than negotiating set backs and hard cover vanances. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. Direct Zoning staff to propose specific changes in the application review process. 2.Direct City Clerk to investigate and report on options for using a different official newspaper with a more beneficial deadline. 3.Direct staff to investigate whether Wednesday Planning Commission meetings would be feasible for current members. 4.Direct staff to analyze past variances and propose policy guidelines or code changes for categories of applications to result in abbreviated variance review. r « |-l4 A’CCAJ PirTkJCi'ricK C0s*r;»rF DtAPrS .•Ccrnc^^ <R> P U ^ ii» • _/6^6j DATTJ i'F P.'&JC' 6 >IT7CAJ i (l^(K>(j1)ClD _iK ’ /C - D.'tVS PCLif,^:. 1 i 9'C>AryS :■ Cn) f.HC/5. (Jt> 6- f.'iJC.S- d^i> r*i)^)’i c2S^ P/L4cr^ (k'i> r<i4cA- <25 jj&^r » <53). /-cyw p<ejciQ- (S>Cz^-(S5 © C MTT» cS^ctD (R>(5$c^T) <SI>(S> ■(fiS)(fiT)C<n)(vX> •f • 1 i 1r : STApf^ /+ftS ,4 /i/H-X/AlU*vv Tr> /f^/^i^CAr?70AJS t>f2A'F7" l^ttrV'^-O S ^ ^s*rtl. L _ u*eD i; iTy C- b!KW 5 pruc-^. (S?' 52. THU APfU GK- - to(TH TO r^\\€v^ <^o,pij?Trtvils5»^c’-c-^ :TAf=fp IDCAfTS K-ncG^ li; f-tsUSJliA'W. DC/ftsC/ZUt- IZ >y-« “7'CVWJ- f r-tf .2- z; i 0\"C^ CF ' r«*6-^C«r3ts 6'b&vs |/0-bAV!k 9-t>4yj , PiliOtZ, C^)ks^ 1 r-cyws 1 y • b^YS 1 5 liMi 1 jz-IiAYj 1 p.Zte,Z^1 f4fc^ 1 1 pV^CiC.1 @>1 CSj II1 6P (5S) (^5 I .. pi^cesz Pl-us StsT -r7^/2^T7C4c. /IAcKjSPAPct?.